stance belonged to the language? If the divine authority is not in the text, the words or the style, how can Dr. Briggs consistently speak of transferring the divine power into any language? The denial, in this way, of the inspiration verbally of the original text, renders it impossible to introduce divine authority into any subsequent set of words employed to set forth the concept or thought. But we merely note this in passing.

In the second place, it is difficult to understand clearly what Dr. Briggs means by the "concept" in which the divine authority resides, and whether he means the same thing by divine authority as is usually denoted by inspiration. The second passage quoted above indirectly defines the "concept" to be "the inner substance of the thought." Speaking in plain terms, we may suppose that Dr. Briggs simply means that the thoughts, not the words, are inspired. But even here we cannot help asking again: Whose concept or thought is meant? Is it God's or man's? If it be God's, how can we be sure that we have that concept correctly before us, unless the words used to convey it be also divine? If it be merely man's concept, gathered from language devoid of divine authority, then it can have no authority at all. It is likely the former that Dr. Briggs means, and if so he must show how it comes to pass that we can be sure of grasping that concept in which alone the divine element is to be found.

In the third place, Dr. Briggs must refute a very influential school of philologists who hold that the connection between thought and language is not arbitrary, but definite. Müller may be taken as a leading representative of this theory. In a treatise published a few years ago he argued strongly for this opinion, and in another issued only last year on "Natual Religion," he further fortifies his position. In Lecture XIV. he says that "we think in words," and that "a concept cannot exist without a word." We do not assert that Müller is right, but we say that Dr. Briggs must refute the learned philologist before his way is clear for a complete rejection of verbal inspiration. If the concept carries the word with it, then the inspiration of the concept also involves the inspiration of the word. So, too, when we have the word we can be so much more sure of the concept when both are bound together; and if there be a divine element in the word, any translation which truly reproduces the word carries the concept with it, and gives at least a secondary divine authority to a reliable translation. All of this Dr. Briggs must clear away, else his theory is wrecked.

In the fourth place, Dr. Briggs is not only in conflict with the concensus of leading Presbyterian theologians, but he has broken with the traditions of even Union Seminary on this question. Dr. Briggs is well aware that all the leading theologians of the Presbyterian Church, both North and South, hold in its general outlines the theory of verbal inspiration; and all the great treatises from their pens set forth this opinion. But Dr. Briggs thinks that these theologians, especially the "Princeton divines" and the "Southern scholastics," have been erecting barriers about the Bible, and that his mission in the chair of Biblical Theology is to break these barriers down, so that men may easily find a God, now half-hidden from view by verbal inspiration and other obstacles. It is of more significance to note that Dr. Briggs has broken with the traditions of Union Seminary by his views on inspiration. The devout and philosophic H. B. Smith will be taken by most of the friends of Union Seminary to be a noble representative man. Of him the late Dr. Hitchcock, of the same seminary, once said, that "he was alike conservative and progressive in his theology. Let us hear what he has to say in his Introduction to Christian Theology: "Inspiration is the divine influence upon the word and utterance of man, through which the revelation from God is presented to men." And again: "Inspiration is that divine influence by virtue of which the truths and facts given by revelation, as well as other truths and facts pertaining to God's kingdom, are spoken or written in a truthful and authoritative manner." (P. 204.) In regard to verbal inspiration, he adds: "Inspiration gives us a book properly called the Word of God, inspired in all its parts. The inspiration is plenary in the sense of extending to all the parts, and of extending also to the words." (P. 209.) With the views of Dr. Shedd, till last year Professor of Dogmatic Theology in Union Seminary, most of our readers are familiar. He adopts the verbal theory in such terms as these: "The suggestion of ideas inevitably involves the suggestion of words.” "Verbal inspiration is the truth, if thought is prior to and suggests language." (Dogmatic Theology, pp. 89, 90.) He then argues at length to show that words are not arbitrary signs of ideas, and so confirms his views of verbal inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture. It is painfully manifest that Dr. Briggs has broken with the traditions of his own seminary, and it is to be feared that the friends of the institution are, in great numbers, drifting from their old moorings, and we can only ask Whither?

But the limits of this note are more than exceeded, so that we must

forbear saying some things we had intended concerning the contents of the Biblical Theology indicated in the syllabus. We had intended to show that it is defective, not so much by what it says. as by what it leaves unsaid, but it is enough to remark that unless he gives more prominence to the objective redemptive facts which the Scriptures record, especially in regard to vicarious sacrifice in his teaching than is indicated in the syllabus, his system will be very incomplete. Biblical Theology has a place and important work, but it must be biblical in the strict sense, and not merely rational and ethical.

The views contained in the syllabus concerning "miracles" and "prophecy" may be understood when it is merely stated that the ordinary doctrines regarding them are considered "Barriers to the Bible" by Dr. Briggs. To speak of "mercy as the favorite divine attribute" is surely to forget that infinite perfection pertains alike to all the attributes of Deity. He asserts that progressive sanctification after death is the doctrine of the Bible, but he utterly fails to explain whether this shall consist in the removal of some remains of sin, or simply in growth in divine life. If the latter, few will deny it; but if the former, he is hard by the door of purgatory. Election is merely "the election of men to salvation by the touch of divine love." What he means by this sentence is more than we can understand: "The Bible does not teach universal salvation, but it does teach the salvation of the world, of the race of man; and that cannot be accomplished by the selection of a limited number from the mass." And how all this can be harmonized with the doctrinal standards of the Presbyterian Church is a question which Dr. Briggs must answer.

Attention has been called by several journals to the fact that the General Assembly must pass upon the election and installation of Dr. Briggs, and that the Board of Union Seminary has forestalled the Assembly by settling Dr. Briggs in his chair. The Independent and the Presbyterian both allude to this fact. From "Moore's Digest" (p. 390), and from Minutes of Assembly for 1870 (p. 148), it is clear that the Assembly has veto power in the case of Dr. Briggs.' This at once raises and forces on the Assembly a distinct issue. If the Assembly next May in Detroit should pronounce its veto, what will Union Semi

1 Since this was written it has been claimed in certain quarters that the Assembly cannot exercise its veto power in the case of Dr. Briggs, since he is merely transferred from one chair to another, not elected for the first time. Should Union Seminary not report the election to the Assembly for action, it remains to be seen what the Assembly will do in the premises.

nary do? But if the Assembly takes no notice of the matter, then it will be admitted that a man may hold the views of Dr. Briggs, and teach them in a high position and yet be in good standing in the Presbyterian Church. Our brethren at the North cannot avoid the issue thus raised, which in its practical results may be far more important than the report of the Revision Committee.

We conclude this already too long note with a quotation from The Independent, which cannot be regarded as an extreme or harsh critic: "What we have said has been said in sorrow, and with much regret, and from a simple sense of duty. We do not think the address fitted to the theme or the occasion, or adapted to do good service in the interests of Biblical Theology, and have felt constrained to put on record our objections thereto. That sort of higher criticism which accepts as true what it finds in the Bible, not because it finds it there, but because it is true, and hence rejects what in its judgment is not true, even if there found, logically undermines the very foundations of a supernatural revelation from God, such as the Bible purports to be, and as we believe it to be. We believe the Bible to be 'the word of God' in the sense of a supernatural inspiration, and hence believe that when the meaning of its language is ascertained, the absolute law of faith is supplied touching all matters therein embraced. If this be 'Bibliolatry,' then so be it. It is just the kind of 'Bibliolatry' which Christ and his disciples clearly had in respect to the Old Testament Scriptures." FRANCIS R. BEATTIE.

Columbia, S. C.

VIII. CRITICISMS AND REVIEWS.

GLADSTONE'S "IMPREGNABLE ROCK OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.”

THE IMPREGNABLE ROCK OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. By the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gludstone, M. P. Revised and enlarged from The Sunday-School Times. 12mo; pp. 358. Philadelphia: John D. Wattles. 1891.

This work is Mr. Gladstone's latest contribution to the Christian literature of our day. Its author has passed the ordinary limit of active life, "fourscore years," yet the work before us shows no marks of failing intellectual vigor; but, on the contrary, will add to the reputation of the great English statesman and scholar with all thoughtful men.

Twenty-five years ago M. Guizot, the great French statesman and historian, published his Meditations on Christianity, a work of the same general character as this of Mr. Gladstone. At that time M. Guizot was seventy-nine years old; very nearly the age of Mr. Gladstone. In this work M. Guizot writes: "For myself, arrived at the term of a long life, one of labor, of reflection, and of trials-of trials in thought as well as in action-I am convinced that the Christian dogmas are the legitimate and satisfactory solutions of those religious problems which, as I have said, nature suggests and man carries in his own breast, and from which he cannot escape." The dogmas of "Creation, Providence, Original Sin, the Incarnation and Redemption," he adds, "constitute the essence of the Christian religion, and all who believe in them I hold to be Christians." Of these he writes:

"One leading and common characteristic in these dogmas strikes me at the outset; they deal frankly with the religious problems natural to and inherent in man, and offer at once the solution. The dogma of Creation attests the existence

of God, as creator and legislator, and it attests also the link which unites man to God. The dogma of Providence explains and justifies prayer, that instinctive recourse of man to the living God, to that supreme power which is ever present with him in life, and which influences his destiny. The dogma of Original Sin accounts for the presence of evil and disorder in mankind and in the world. The dogmas of the Incarnation and Redemption rescue man from the consequences of evil, and open to him a prospect in another life of the reëstablishment of order. Unquestionably the system is grand, complete, well-connected, and forcible; it answers to the requirements of the human soul, removes the burden which oppresses it, imparts the strength which it needs, and the satisfaction to which it aspires. Has it a rightful claim to all this power? Is its influence legitimate, as well as efficacious?" (Pp. 40, 41.)

Mr. Gladstone, in speaking of the title chosen for his book,-"The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture,"-writes:

"The words sound like a challenge, And they are a challenge to some extent, but not in the sense that might be supposed. They are a challenge to accept the Scriptures on the moral and spiritual and historic grounds of their character in themselves, and of the work which they, and the agencies associated with them,