inspiration, while the researches of antiquarians are daily verifying historical statements of the Bible that formerly were disputed. Indeed, there is a wide-spread conviction, which is ever deepening, that the "higher critics" have been too much in haste while announcing conflicts between the Bible and the facts of science and history; and that after the philosophies and the sciences have run their small or mighty rounds of investigation, and after men of the broadest culture have returned from their most daring explorations in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, and after the remaining hidden treasures of Bible lands are brought to light, even then the Sacred Book will be found by curious hints or by explicit statements to have anticipated, or at least to be in harmony with, the grandest discoveries that shall be made.* Nor will it be surprising if the very high critics belonging to the Free Religious Association, when compiling their Bible for humanity, shall be compelled to select their account of the origin of life from Moses, their psalms and songs of praise from David, their sublimest epic from the Book of Job, their most beautiful ones from the Books of Esther and Ruth; and their most startling prophecies from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and John. What more inspiring epistles could they select than those of Paul, and where else, in the whole world's literature, except in the gospels, could they find their portraiture of the ideal man? In a word, when these Bible-makers come to us bringing the results of their most careful searchings, is it not possible that they will have in their hands nothing except the Old and New Testament Scriptures?

With regard to the authorship of the books of the New Testament we need not hesitate to say that

now, after years of adverse criticism, the trend of the best scholarship, as in

that these fourteen books lack the majesty of inspired Scripture, and that there is in them a variety of things wicked, false, and disagreeing with the oracles of God." As to the New Testament Apocrypha, we are sure all "higher critics" will accept the statement of Ernest Renan. "It will be remarked," he says, "that I have made no use of the apocryphal gospels. These compositions can in no wise be put upon the same footing as the canonical gospels. They are flat and puerile amplifications, based upon the canonical gospels, and adding to them nothing of value."

*We would enlarge on these matters had the ground not been canvassed in The Bible and the Nineteenth Century."

the case of the Old Testament, is decidedly toward the traditional view.*

We must now take up the historic thread that was broken off in order to give place to a review of the foregoing "illadvised statements" regarding the genesis and composition of the New Testament.

The rapid spread of Christianity during the apostolic age, and in the years immediately following, called for many manuscript copies of the writings of the apostles; but these original documents were in process of time worn out, and of necessity gave place to copies that were fresher and in consequence more desirable. Still, there are in existence a few manuscripts of very early date. There is no reason for doubting that the old Syriac version was made either during the first century or, at the latest, in the first of the second. Two other Syrian versions were made, the one as early as the fourth, the other in the tenth, century. The different Egyptian versions were made in the second and third centuries. The various Arabic versions or translations are properly assigned to the seventh and eleventh centuries, inclusive. The Ethiopic version is no doubt correctly referred to the first half of the second century.

There are other important extant versions belonging to the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth centuries.

Portions of the New Testament were also translated into the Saxon tongue as early as 706. The first English version was made in 1290. Wiclif's translation was completed in 1380, and Tyndale's printed edition of the New Testament was published in 1526. At that time also began an enthusiasm among the people for Bible-reading such as never before had been known. As a result several other editions followed in rapid

*This is especially true of the younger professors in the German universities, and they are the men who soon will be taking the places of the destructive critics. It is gratifying, also, that some of our American "higher critics" are "traditional " with regard to John's gospel, notwithstanding the many doubts that have been expressed as to its genuineness. Professor Ladd speaks of "our unshaken confidence that the fourth gospel is by the hand of the apostle John." For myself, I firmly believe," says Professor Thayer, "that the fourth gospel, in spite of all counter-indications from within and without, will yet vindicate itself as the work of the apostle John." These are only the beginning of concessions yet to be made. See Schürer's article on the Fourth Gospel, in Contemporary Review for September, 1891.

succession, all paving the way for the so-called English version. of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which was completed in the seventeenth century.

During the years that witnessed this evolution of the English Bible there had been from time to time certain perils that threatened its integrity. That is, after Romanism had taken the place of Christianity the Scriptures for a time fell into disuse; the edicts of popes and of councils came to be regarded as of greater authority even than the revelations of the Bible. The Council of Toulouse (1229) positively forbade the general reading of the Bible. Said the Romish priests to Tyndale, "We would better be without God's laws than the Pope's bulls." The Council of Trent decided that the traditions of the Church ought to be added to the Holy Scriptures in order to supply their defects, and that those traditions should be regarded as of equal authority with that of the Scriptures. This council also accepted the apocryphal books as authoritative, and ordered their enrollment in the sacred canon. In various ways and at various times papal ecclesiastics attempted the corruption of the text of the Latin Bibles held in their possession, and several manuscript copies were altered to suit church interpretations. In some instances the original text of valuable Bible manuscripts was washed out and the legends of monks were inscribed in its place.

Not only were there these papal attempts, but other profane hands sought to corrupt the text. In the reign of Charles I. there arose a general traffic in Bibles. They were made for sale, and made to gratify the gross notions of the people. The Stationers' Company printed an edition that would answer the desires of modern New Lights, in which the "not" was omitted from several of the commandments. "Thou shalt steal" and "thou shalt commit adultery" was the reading. In this edition the mistranslations, interpolations, and omissions were astounding! The danger was that these changes would be handed on, and that the reading public could not distinguish, except with great difficulty, if at all, among the several English Bibles, the spurious from the genuine.

Did we say there was danger of this? We should not have said so, for, according to our working hypothesis, the Bible is a God-made and not exclusively a man-made book, and we now

add, a God-protected book; therefore emergencies and contingencies have been provided for.

It is not uncommon to trace the hand of Providence in the great historic events of this world. In our own national history the dullest student has not failed to see the leadings of the Infinite One. Take a single case that happened during the war of the rebellion. For months the Confederates had been at work preparing something named the Merrimac, with which to sink Northern shipping. With no special design of preparing to meet it a something had been constructed, by whose direction or authority it is now impossible to tell, named the Monitor; just in the nick of time it appeared and wrought its victory. Men who had not believed in Providence up to that day then believed! But the evidence of divine interposition is far less conclusive in this case of the Monitor than in the case of the provisions which have been made for protecting the Bible against any essential change or corruption of its text, and against the possibility of its destruction.

This conclusion calls for a moment's attention. The care with which the early Jewish scribes guarded the integrity of the Old Testament has been often remarked. At the time when the New Testament was finished and added to the Old, the great thoroughfares of Rome were in readiness on which to carry it to nations near and remote. There was at that time universal armistice between the Roman empire and all nations of the earth, of longer duration than ever before or ever afterward. It was likewise the age of Rome's political supremacy. Beginning with Spain, and passing through Gaul, Germany, Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Carthage, round to the Pillars of Hercules, we find that those countries were then subject to the same central power. At that time to be a Roman citizen secured a passport anywhere in the civilized world. It was an age, too, when the same language prevailed in all countries bordering on the Mediterranean Sea-a language which scholars have decided to be remarkable in its strength and flexibility, and adapted in a special degree for enshrining and transmitting ordinary facts and spiritual truths.

Was it not a marvelous accident, if accident it were, that brought the completed Bible onto the stage at that epoch, arranging that this remarkable language, with local modifica

tions modifying its elegance but not its power of accurate delineation, should be the vehicle of intercommunication, and that the words and life of Jesus, humanity's Redeemer, should be held in its deep, rich, and versatile embrace?

By various agencies the Holy Scriptures had been circulated to such extent, during the early years of their history, that neither the papal nor any other power could harm them.

Aside from versions written in the Latin and English tongues there were a score of other versions which dangerous ecclesiastics and the Stationers' Company could not touch; there were, too, the Talmudic commentaries, the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and other translations which were held by Eastern Churches that had never submitted to Roman Catholic supremacy. The most ancient manuscripts we now have were never touched by Roman Catholic hands, and were never seen by Roman Catholic eyes, until after they had been committed to Protestant Christianity.

In a word, no sooner had the Holy Scriptures been enlarged so as to comprise both the Old and New Testaments than they passed from the guardianship of Jewish scribes, who, owing to certain revelations adverse to Jewish thought, were tempted to meddle with them, and were committed to the Christian Church; and before that Church became corrupt the Old and New Testaments had been translated and scattered in various antipopish countries, while some of the Romish copies passed into the hands of pious monks who would not corrupt them nor allow them to be corrupted. The solid and gloomy walls of monasteries during those ages when Europe was deluged in blood guarded the sacred volume from fire, sword, and pillage.

At length only scholars could understand the Hebrew and the New Testament Greek tongues, and, with few exceptions, the priests were too ignorant to read the mysterious volume which was chained to the walls of their cells.

The Roman empire gained ascendency. The Latin tongue struggled for universal conquest, but broke in pieces, forming the various languages of modern Europe. Latin remained the language of the Church, and the Vulgate version was alone consulted by the clergy. Thus the Hellenistic Greek, in which the New Testament was originally written, became in Church and State, like the Hebrew, a dead language.