prosecuted thoroughly and in a candid and truth-loving spirit. Neither does it justify one in disregarding the canons of historical judgment, for the reason that particular features of a narrative are miraculous, and that miracles are possible, and have actually taken place at points along the line of divine revelation. An historical religion must verify itself, not only in general and as a whole, but also in its various parts, to the historical inquirer. That is to say, from the general truth, when once established, of the supernatural origin of the religion of the Bible, the strict verity of all the facts recorded in it, whether natural or supernatural, cannot at once be logically concluded. The tests of historical criticism must be applied as well to details as to the system as a whole.

Does it comport with the essentials of Christian belief to hold that deception may, in any instances, have been used in connection with the authorship of books of Sacred Scripture? For example, can it be admitted that what is known in ecclesiastical history as "pious fraud” had a part in the framing of scriptural books? For instance, is it consistent to allow that an author may have palmed off a book, historical or didactic, as the production of an honored man of an earlier time? In answer to these questions, it is to be said at the outset, that the supposition of an intended deception ought not to be allowed without satisfactory proof. It cannot be safely asserted that the author or authors of the apocryphal book of Enoch, which is referred to in Jude (ver. 14), and no part of which goes back farther than the age of the Maccabees, meant that readers should believe Enoch, "the seventh from Adam," to have been the writer. It may be in this, as no doubt it was in other cases, a mode of giving dignity and weight

to lessons which the real author thought would be less efficacious if put forth in his own name, but which he cast into this form with no intent to have them believed to be productions of the elder time. At the same time, we should be cautious about assuming that a refinement of ethical feeling equal to that which Christianity develops and demands, existed at all periods under the ancient dispensation. If there was, in general, an inferior stage in the development of conscience, it is not incredible, that, even in holy men, there was a less deli cate sense of truth and a less sensitive observance of the obligation of strict veracity. How far it may have pleased the Divine Being to allow this lack of moral discernment to affect the literary activity, as we know that it affected in other provinces the personal conduct and judgment, of holy and inspired men, we cannot a priori- at least, not with absolute confidencedetermine. Every thing must yield at last to the fair verdicts of a searching but reverent scholarship, which explores the field with the free and assured step of a Christian believer.

This brings us to the further remark, that the authority of Christ and of the apostles, once established by convincing proofs, is decisive. Nothing that clashes with that authority, when it is rightly understood and defined, can stand. The evidence against any critical theory, which, if admitted, would be in collision with the authority of Jesus and of the apostles, would tell with equal force against the fundamental faith of a Christian. While this is to be borne in mind, it is equally necessary to avoid erroneous interpretations of their teaching, as far as it bears on literary and critical questions in connection with the Scriptures, their authorship and contents. A dogmatic utterance on such

points, on the part of the Saviour or of the apostles, is not to be hastily inferred from references and citations which may not have been intended to carry this consequence. Not less essential is it to avoid an incautious, unverifiable extension of the teaching function which was claimed by Jesus for himself, and was conveyed by him to the apostles. The incarnation, in the deeper apprehension of it which enters into the evangelical theology of the present time, is perceived to involve limitations of the Saviour himself in statu humiliationis, which were formerly ignored. A stricter exegesis does not tolerate the artificial exposition, which was once in vogue, of passages which assert or indicate such a restriction, voluntary in its origin, during the period when the Lord was a man among men. It must be made clear that the Lord intended to declare himself on points like those to which we have adverted, and that, directly or by implication, he included them within that province which he knew to belong to him as a religious and ethical teacher, and in which he spoke as one having authority."

66

If so much must be admitted by the most reverent disciple respecting the Great Teacher himself, surely not less must be said of the apostles. How far peculiarities of education, traditional and current impressions respecting the topics involved in biblical criticism, were left untouched, but continued to influence them, not only while they were with Jesus, but also when the Spirit of inspiration qualified them to go forth as heralds in his service, can be settled by no a priori dictum, but only through processes of careful study. The sooner the wise words of Bishop Butler are laid to heart by Christian people, the better will it be for their own peace of min1, and for the cause of Christianity in

its relation to doubters and in its conflict with foes. "The only question," says Butler, "concerning the truth of Christianity, is whether it be a real revelation, not whether it be attended with every circumstance which we should have looked for; and, concerning the authority of Scripture, whether it be what it claims to be, not whether it be a book of such sort, and so promulged, as weak men are apt to fancy a book contain. ing a divine revelation should be."1

The apostles were empowered to understand and to expound the gospel. The real purport and end of the mission, the death, the resurrection, of Jesus, were opened up to their vision. His words, brought back to their remembrance, unfolded the hidden meaning with which they were laden. The relation of the anterior dispensation to the new era, the one being anticipatory of the other, they, if not instantly, at least gradually, saw into. Thus were they qualified to lead, and not to mislead, to teach and to guide the Church. But not only were they men of like passions with ourselves, but in knowledge they had no part in omniscience. That which inspiration made clear to them was not made clear instantly and all at once. He who was not behind the chief of the apostles placed himself among those who now "see through a glass, darkly," and waited for the full disclosure of truth which should supersede his dim and fragmentary perceptions.

There is an order of things to be believed. Before the scriptures of the New Testament, Christ was preached and believed in: so now, prior to minute inquiries, and the exact formulation of doctrines, about the canon and inspiration, Christ is offered to faith. The grand outlines of the gospel, both on the side of

1 See also the context, Analogy, p. ii. c. iii.

fact and of doctrine, stand out in bold relief. They are attested by historical proof. They are verified by evidences which are irrespective of many of the topics. of theological debate and of biblical criticism. The recognition of Christ in his character as the Son of God and Saviour of men, is the prerequisite for engaging successfully in more remote and difficult inquiries respecting the literature and the history of revealed religion.