If another says, "I feel only the power of God's Word coming to me in unique fashion in Scripture; I need no hypotheses as to whether this effect is to be explained by special inspiration or not," are we to force such hypotheses on him? About the idea "inspiration" there is no dispute, for no evangelical theologian denies that Holy Scripture is thoroughly penetrated by God's Spirit as no other book is; only the moderns deny the old inspiration view, which made the holding of a certain theory of the origin of the Bible a condition of Christian faith; but Kübel, Schlatter, and other advocates of Bible truth do the same.

...

No criticism in the world is able to discredit the position, "The Bible is God's Word," just because it has nothing to do with the religious judgment, but only with the matter of fact relevant to science. On the Word of God, as such, no criticism can be exercised, but only on its human form; the Divine character of the Bible, seated in its inner power, is not touched by critical inquiry. And whoever understands the case knows that the unwearied, penetrating criticism of our scholars, so far from disparaging Scripture, on the contrary brings out its true inner glory all the more fully; nay, that all the critical labour on the Bible, such as is devoted to no other book in the world, is one of the most victorious testimonies to the dignity and Divinity of Holy Scripture.

If, then, theology is to remain Protestant, it must advance in the path of historical Scripture study. But the Church cannot keep step with science in this vital matter. Theologians and students must pay more regard to this inability than is often done. The publications of critical theology, especially, should not seem to justify the widespread opinion that their chief delight is in denying and upsetting the venerable and sacred, instead of theoretical, investigation of the problem, how the authority of Scripture is to be retained despite the results of criticism. They should give practical proof that delight in the Bible can only gain by the research of the day. Nothing but such practical proof of the Christian spirit of scientific research will overcome the deep-rooted distrust of the Church of all criticism—a distrust from which even the work of the theological faculties which aim at serving the Church, must suffer.

CURRENT FRENCH

THOUGHT.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS. By EUG. BERNARD (Revue de Théologie).—In the last number of this review M. Bernard gives an elaborate analysis of the monumental work by Professor Bovon, entitled, "A Study of the Work of Redemption," which has lately appeared. From it we extract the section which deals with the teaching of Jesus.

:

M. Bovon distinguishes the teaching of Jesus, as given in the synoptic Gospels, from that contained in the Fourth Gospel in the former Jesus lays especial stress upon His work; in the latter, upon His Person; and thus the one supplements the other.

The work of Christ is summed up in one word—the kingdom of God; and it is round this central idea that M. Bovon groups the whole teaching of the first Three Gospels. Jesus begins by proclaiming the approach of that kingdom, and thus repeats the message of John the Baptist, the last representative of the old covenant. On comparing one passage with another, we find the synoptical writers using the phrase, "kingdom of God," in three different senses: first, it denotes the company of those who profess to serve God; then that of those who truly serve Him; and finally

it describes the spiritual blessings, present or to come, which belong to those who are redeemed. The Head of this kingdom is the Father, whose special love for His faithful children may be guessed from the blessings which He bestows even upon the evil and unthankful.

The great quality of the kingdom of God is the righteousness which those who enter it must exemplify. The parable of the Pharisee and the publican shows that Jesus condemns the ideal of righteousness held by the rabbis of His day. But did He limit Himself to a rejection of the traditions of the scribes, and go back to the rites and precepts of the Old Testament? Some passages in the Gospels seem to answer this question in the affirmative, others in the negative. In truth Jesus followed a slow and gradual method of evolution-He laid down principles, and disseminated ideas, and left them to develop and to clothe themselves in new forms.

Certain theologians affirm that the doctrine of the mediation of the Son, which is developed by St. Paul and St. John, is unknown to the synoptical writers; according to them, man gains true righteousness simply by his own exertions. Still, it must be noticed that in them Jesus calls Himself the Son of man, a synonym for the Messiah and for the representative of humanity; that He allows His apostles to call Him the Son of God, and calls God His Father in a special sense. Further, He speaks of accomplishing the Law, and of salvation being given only to those whom He has "known." He pardons sin and gives His life a ransom for many. It is only fair to add that other passages seem to teach that the sinner can go to God of himself. These two theories, equally authentic, are found alternately in the synoptic Gospels, and are reconciled in the teaching of the Fourth Gospel.

Who are the members of the kingdom thus founded? The natural man cannot enter it. According to Jesus, all men are sinners, and when He speaks of "righteous He is ironical. The author of sin is a wicked and treacherous being, who takes advantage of evil desires in the heart of man to lead him into sin. A complete change is needed in the case of every one who desires to become "a son of the kingdom;" for this to be brought about, God must pardon, and man must know and accept the Divine Word. The gospel of the kingdom is the royal proclamation of Divine forgiveness. But there are among men many inattentive or prejudiced hearers. As to the sinner who hears the message, he returns to himself, realizes his wretchedness, goes to the Father in penitence and faith, and is reconciled with Him. Each one should undergo this transformation; and those who have undergone it are associated together, and form the Church, which is charged with the duty of extending the kingdom of God, until it is consummated by the return of the Lord.

The eschatology of the synoptic Gospels is not altogether clear. That which is certain is that the righteous will rise again and will enjoy everlasting happiness, and that the unfaithful members of the kingdom, and the enemies of God, will be delivered over to perdition. Nothing is said of the state of the soul between death and the last judgment. The synoptic Gospels speak only of the resurrection of the just, and yet the scene described in Matt. xxv. seems to imply a general resurrection. The parables of the tares and of the net restrict judgment to the professed members of the kingdom, while in Matt. xxv. it is extended to all nations. Neither the angels nor the Son Himself knows the day of judgment. The practical character of the Saviour's teaching is very apparent in connexion with this subject: "Since ye know neither the day nor the hour of the coming of the Son of man, watch."

The Fourth Gospel lays stress upon the Person of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. M. Bovon maintains the close correspondence on all essential points between the Fourth Gospel and the first three. "Far from contradiction of each

other, they lend each other mutual help: the synoptic Gospels are crowned and completed by the Fourth Gospel, and the Fourth Gospel rests upon the synoptical narrative, without which it would be a building without a foundation."

The distinctive characteristic of the God of the Fourth Gospel, according to our author, consists in the mysterious relation between the Father and the Son. This relation is unique and special. Christ represents God, and manifests Him. He receives life and communicates it to man. Some passages seem to imply His equality with God, while His title of Son marks His subordination. The doctrine of a Mediator, of which the synoptical Gospels give a vague sketch, is here affirmed openly and developed with precision. The statements of Jesus as to His pre-existence are thus explained by M. Bovon: "At the culminating point of His personal activity Christ feels Himself carried away by such a current of life, that for Him, the Representative upon earth of the God of heaven, time and space cease to exist, and without losing His individuality He then identifies Himself with the Sovereign Being. In other words, just as other men have behind them a line of ancestors to whom they owe their temperaments and dispositions, so He, the only begotten Son, draws from God alone His strength and His life."

In spite of differences of form and modes of thought, the narratives of the synoptic Gospels and that of St. John are essentially in harmony. "We can describe the diversity of the two, and their relations to each other, by saying that if in the one we find statements concerning the work of Christ, and in the other statements concerning His Person, both Person and work remain for ever inseparable, since the foundation of the kingdom of God is only possible by the Divine and miraculous intervention of the Saviour. In order to free fallen humanity from sin, it was necessary for Christ to have standing-ground outside it; in order to effect union between God and man, it was necessary that He should be in a unique sense the God-Man. Thus are explained the apparent contradictions of these narratives; and as for divergences of detail, they only serve to show the incomparable riches of that Gospel which, coming down from heaven to earth as the message of God, answers truly to all the needs of man, because it is intelligible to all, and touches the hearts of all."

THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF CERTAIN PARTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By L. FAVEZ (Revue de Théologie).—The question as to what use can be made in religious teaching of the early narratives in the Book of Genesis, was raised some time ago in this review. These narratives, as was then said, contain pure and elevated teaching for believers. Yet, on the other hand, as they must have been transmitted orally from generation to generation long before they were committed to writing, they cannot be considered as exact statements of historical facts. How can we avoid disturbing the confidence of young minds in the Divine revelation, without doing violence to the rights of truth?

Many will say that the difficulty here pointed out does not necessarily arise in teaching children Biblical knowledge. It is sufficient to tell the narrative as it stands, and to point out the inferences which may be drawn from it, without raising the question of its authenticity, or speaking of "popular traditions, myths, or legends," or without attempting to give a naturalistic explanation of a miracle recorded. Our pupils, they say, do not start questions of this kind; they do not see the difficulties, they believe in miracles; and therefore to broach to them the questions raised by criticism would be to overthrow their faith, sow unbelief in their minds, and merely perplex them. Such discussions are quite above their understanding. It is evident that this method of simply telling the stories should be employed in the case of young

children; the incident elaborated in all its details will impress upon them the lesson which it is intended to convey; thus the story of the chastisements inflicted on Pharaoh, the passage of the Red Sea, the water flowing from the smitten rock, will convince them of the severity and the power and the goodness of God, and that is sufficient.

But is it not necessary to go a step further in the case of those who are a little older? Are we sure that further explanations are unnecessary? May not a doubt spring up in their minds as to whether such and such an extraordinary event happened exactly as described? Or are not such doubts sure to be suggested to them by others? If they hear ridicule cast upon certain events recorded in the Bible, would it not be well if they were in a position to reply to scoffers, and to save themselves from overthrow?

How, then, shall we begin? It would be easy to set out from the fact that revelation has a religious purpose-that its object is to bring man to God, to enlighten, change, and save him, and not to teach him truths which he can discover by the use of observation and reason. Consequently, we are not to expect to find the sacred writers infallible in matters belonging to this latter class. Their knowledge of natural science, astronomy, and geography is simply in accordance with that of their contemporaries ; their accuracy in chronology and history, especially in events long previous to their own time, is dependent on the sources from which they draw. Their purpose being to impart religious and moral teaching, fictitious narratives may be utilized, as Jesus made use of parables, as well as duly accredited history.

These principles being laid down, suitable examples may be chosen of narratives which teach religious truth, but are not to be taken literally. Thus the wrestling of Jacob with God, which is related in Genesis as an actual struggle, cannot be interpreted literally. God is a Spirit, and not flesh and blood. The allusion to the incident by Hosea gives the true interpretation of it. Jacob overcomes by his prayers and tears. (Hos. xii. 4, 5). In like manner, the answer to the request of Moses to see God's glory (Exod. xxxiii. 17–23) is an allegorical statement of the fact that man cannot see God Himself, but knows Him only in an indirect manner by His works, the manifestations of His power and goodness. The narrative of the opening of the eyes of Elisha's servant, and his seeing chariots and horses of fire round about his master (2 Kings vi. 14–17), is a myth or legend illustrating in a concrete fashion the idea that God, though invisible, is ever near His servants to protect them.

In the case of the early chapters in Genesis, and especially of the story of creation, the above principles are applicable. Many attempts have been made to reconcile the first chapter of the Bible with the results of modern scientific research. But all have been in vain; the sacred text has been tortured and made to say the opposite of what it actually does say, and through all the forced reconciliation discord breaks out again. But why need we concern ourselves, one might say to his pupil, with the harmony or discord of the two, since the Bible is not a handbook of geology, but is given to lead us to God, and to create in our hearts love to Him-since, as Cardinal Baronius said, its purpose is not to teach us how the heavens are constructed, but how to go to heaven? What matter if it speaks of six days of creation where scientists demand millions of years, or if in other parts it is not in harmony with the teaching of science? -the essential lessons which the narrative of the Creation contains are not affected thereby; it still teaches that there is but one God, that He is Sovereign Ruler, and that He is distinct from His work, which He called into existence by an act of His free-will, and for a purpose of love.

The narratives of Paradise and the Fall are so evidently allegorical in their

character, that there is little danger of injury being done to the faith, even of the young, by pointing out the fact. In like manner, with regard to the Flood, we may say-It is impossible to get at the primitive fact; stories of sudden inundations of the kind are common in the early traditions of other nations than the Hebrew; but the Biblical narrative differs from others of the kind by revealing to us a holy God, who chastises and creates anew a world sunk in corruption.

In short, our purpose in teaching the young the narratives in the Old Testament should be to impress upon them the moral and religious lessons which the writers desired to convey. Men taught of God wrote these narratives, and, whether allegorical or more or less historical, they are none the less fitted to teach, to reprove, and to correct, so that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto every good work.

CURRENT SCANDINAVIAN THOUGHT.

WHAT POSITION SHOULD WE CHRISTIANS TAKE UP WITH REFERENCE TO THE MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT? By Bishop H. V. STHYR (Danish Theologisk Tidsskrift, Bd. x. Hefte 2).—" If our choice lies between the Word of the Lord and the utterances of the newer criticism, which are we to believe and follow?" Such is the question put by Otto J. C. Ottesen, parish priest of Jungshoved, at the close of an address on our Lord's references to the Old Testament, and especially to the Pentateuch. The address is essentially conservative in tendency, and I know that it will find an echo among a large portion of the clergy. I therefore deem it to be my duty to make my own position clear with regard to this question. And first of all, I would say that if the matter really stood as Hr. Ottesen puts it, there could be no doubt as to what the choice would be. But to my thinking, the question is not correctly stated, because the irreconcilable opposition in which he places the utterances of the Lord to critical inquiry simply results from the fact that he reads more into the Lord's words than they really contain. Such a direct antithesis could only be established if it were proved that the Lord had said that the Books of Moses, in the form in which they lay before Him, and now lie before us, were written by Moses, and were preserved unaltered down through the ages; and if He had expressed Himself in a similar manner with regard to our other Old Testament writings. But the Lord never expressed Himself in such a manner. Just as little as our Lord had it in mind to be our Teacher in history, geography, or natural science, just as little would He in any other department of knowledge give utterance to categorical judgments which, with the authority of revelation, should settle questions that in the nature of things must be subjects of scientific investigation. And this holds equally good of the science of Old Testament introduction. It is quite true that the Lord on various occasions uttered words which for all His followers must have significance, even with respect to the solution of divers critical questions; but He never uttered a word as to when the Old Testament writings assumed the form in which they lay before Him.

To make my meaning clearer, I will say that when the Lord, in Matt. xxii. 43, expressly quotes the first verse of Ps. cx. as a word of David, for me it is a settled matter that we are indebted to David for that verse of the psalm, and no matter what strong reasons were advanced by criticism to prove the contrary, I would continue to be convinced that it was wrong. But from this to draw the conclusion that David is the author of all the psalms that go under his name would be a hasty judgment. I might, however, conceive it to be possible to adduce reasons which might make it a