erly considered, with reference to their recognition by Jew and Christian, and with regard to their authority in the Church. The writings having been determined in their limits as a canon of Holy Scripture, we are prepared for the second step, the examination of the text itself.

2. Textual Criticism considers the text of the Sacred Scriptures both as a whole and as to the several writings in detail. The Sacred Writings have shared the fate of all human productions in their transmission from hand to hand, and in the multiplication of copies. Hence, through the mistakes of copyists, the intentional corruption of the heretic, the supposed improvement of the over-anxious orthodox, and the efforts of Christian scribes to explain and to apply the sacred truth to the readers, the manuscripts which have been preserved betray differences of readings. This department has a wide field of investigation. First of all, the peculiarities of the Bible languages must be studied, and the idiomatic individualities of the respective authors. Then the age of the various manuscripts must be determined, their peculiarities and relative importance in genealogical descent. The ancient versions come into the field, especially the Septuagint, the Aramaic and Samaritan Targums, the Syriac Peshitto, and the Latin Vulgate. Each of these in turn has to go through the same sifting as to the critical value of its own text. Here, especially in the Old Testament, we go back of any surviving manuscripts and are brought face to face with differences that can be accounted for only on the supposition of originals, whose peculiarities have been lost. To these may be added the citations of the original text in the Fathers and the Talmud and in the numerous writings of Hebrew and Christian scholars. Then we have the still more difficult comparison of parallel passages, in the Sacred Scriptures themselves where differences of text show differences reaching far back of any known manuscript or version.1

Textual criticism has to meet all these

1 Comp. Ps. 14 with Ps. 53; Ps. 18 with 2 Sam. 22; and the books of Samuel and Kings, on the one hand, with the books of the Chronicler on the other, and, indeed, throughout. Compare also the canonical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel with the Apocryphal additions and supplements in the Septuagint ver

difficulties, answer all the questions which emerge, and harmonize and adjust all the differences, in order that, so far as possible, the genuine, original, pure, and uncorrupted text of the Word of God may be gained, as it proceeded directly from the original authors to the original readers. This department of study is all the more difficult for the Old Testament, that the field is so immense, the writings so numerous, various, and ancient, the languages so little understood in their historical peculiarities, and, still further, in that we have to overcome the prejudices of the Massoretic system, which, while faithful and reliable so far as the knowledge of the times of the Massoretes went, yet, as resting simply on tradition, without critical or historical investigation, and without any proper conception of the general principles of Hebrew grammar and comparative Shemitic philology, cannot be accepted as final; for the time has long since passed when the vowel points and accents of the Massoretic text can be deemed inspired. We have to go back of them, to the unpointed text, for all purposes of criticism. And the unpointed text itself needs correction in accordance with the rules of Textual Criticism.

3. The Higher Criticism is distinguished from the Lower or Textual Criticism by presupposing the text and dealing with individual writings and groups of writings. The Higher is contrasted with the Lower in this usage as the second or higher stage of a work is contrasted with the first or lower stage, or more fundamental part of a work. The parts of writings should be first investigated, the individual writings before the collected ones. With reference to each writing, or, it may be, part of a writing, we have to determine the historical origin and authorship, the original readers, the design and character

sion, and finally the citation of earlier writings in the later ones, especially in the New Testament. An interesting and delicate work of criticism is to compare in the Gospels the different versions of the original Logia of Jesus.

1 Some ignorant people in recent discussions seemed to think that Higher meant a pretentious and arrogant claim that this criticism was higher than the older traditional opinion. The newer criticism is doubtless vastly higher, nobler, and better in every way than the uncritical traditional method of handling Biblical Literature; but the term was not used historically with any such meaning and it never has had any such meaning in the m: ds of biblical scholars.

of the composition, and its relation to other writings of its group. These questions must be settled partly by external historical evidence, but chiefly by internal evidence, such as the language, style of composition, archæological and historical traces, the conceptions of the author respecting the various subjects of human thought, and the like. With reference to such questions as these, we have little help from traditional views or dogmatic opinions which originally were mere conjectures or hastily formed opinions without sufficient consideration of the laws of evidence or the matter of the evidence itself. The antiquity of such conjectures does not enhance their value any more than it does other errors and mistakes. Whatever may have been the prevailing views in the Church with reference to the Pentateuch, the Psalter, or the Gospel of John, or any other book of Holy Scripture, these will not deter the conscientious exegete from accepting and teaching the results of a critical study of the Sacred Writings themselves.

It is just here that Christian theologians have greatly injured the cause of the truth and the Bible by dogmatizing in a department where it is least of all appropriate, and, indeed, to the highest degree improper; as if our faith depended at all upon these traditional opinions respecting the Word of God. By their frequent and shameful defeats and routs traditionalists bring disgrace not only upon themselves but upon the cause they misrepresent. They alarm weak but pious souls who have taken refuge in the fortress itself, and then prejudice the sincere inquirer against the Scriptures, as if these questions of the Higher Criticism were questions upon whose decision depended orthodoxy or piety, or allegiance to the Word of God or the symbols of the Church. The Westminster standards teach that "the Word of God is the only rule of faith and obedience," and that "the authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof."2 The other Protestant symbols are in accord with them. How unorthodox it is, therefore, to set up another rule of prevalent opinion as to questions of the Higher Criti1 Larger Catechism, Quest. iii. 2 Confess. of Faith, Chap. I. 4.

cism and make it an obstacle and a stumbling-block to those who would accept the authority of the Word of God alone. So long as the Word of God is honoured, and its decisions regarded as final, what matters it if a certain book be detached from the name of one holy man and ascribed to another, or classed among those with unknown authors? Are the laws of the Pentateuch any less divine, if it should be proved that they are the product of the experience of God's people from Moses to Josiah? Is the Psalter to be esteemed any the less precious that the Psalms should be regarded as the product of many poets singing through many centuries the sacred melodies of God-fearing souls, responding from their hearts, as from a thousand-stringed lyre, to the touch of the Holy One of Israel? Is the book of Job less majestic and sublime, as it stands before us in its solitariness, the noblest monument of sacred poetry, with unknown author, unknown birthplace, and from an unknown period of history? Are the ethical teachings of the Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, any the less solemn and weighty, that they may not be the product of Solomon's wisdom, but of the reflection of many holy wise men of different epochs, gathered about Solomon as their head? Is the epistle to the Hebrews any less valuable for its clear -presentation of the fulfilment of the Old Testament priesthood and sacrifice in the work of Christ, that it must be detached from the name of Paul? Let us not be so presumptuous, so irreverent to the Word of God, so unbelieving with reference to its inherent power of convincing and assuring the seekers for the truth, as to condemn any sincere and candid inquirer as a heretic or a rationalist, because he may differ from us on such questions as these! The internal evidence must be decisive in all questions of Biblical Criticism, and the truth, whatever it may be, will be most in accordance with God's Word and for the glory of God and the interest of the Church.2

1 British and Foreign Evang. Review, July, 1868, Art. "The Progress of Old Testament Studies."

2 The whole of this paragraph was written and delivered before the outbreak of the Professor W. Robertson Smith controversy in Scotland and the discussions respecting the Higher Criticism in the United States. I see no reason to change a single word of it. Those majorities of ignorant and bigoted men who rejected

Thus Biblical Literature gives us all that can be learned respecting the canon of Holy Scripture, its text and the various writings; and presents the Sacred Scriptures as the holy Word of God, all the errors and improvements of men having been eliminated, in a text, so far as possible, as it came from holy men who "spake being moved by the Holy Spirit," 1 so that we are brought into the closest possible relations with the living God through His Word, having in our hands the very form that contains the very substance of divine revelation; so that with reverence and submission to His will we may enter upon the work of interpretation, confidently expecting to be assured of the truth in the work of Biblical Exegesis.

II. BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

First of all we have to lay down certain general principles derived from the study of the Word of God, upon which this exegesis itself is to be conducted. These principles must be in accord with the proper methods of our discipline and the nature of the work to be done. The work of establishing these principles belongs to the introductory department of Biblical Hermeneutics. The Scriptures are human productions, and yet truly divine. They must be interpreted as other human writings, and yet their peculiarities and differences from other human writings must be recognized,2 especially the supreme determining difference of their inspiration by the Spirit of God. In accordance with this principle they require not only a sympathy with the human element in the sound judgment and practical sense of the grammarian, the critical investigation of the historian, and the æsthetic taste of the man of letters; but also a sympathy with the divine element, an inquiring, reverent spirit to be enlightened by the Spirit of the Higher Criticism in the Presbyterian General Assemblies of Scotland and America, have been already overwhelmingly condemned by the subsequent action of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland; and they will speedily be put to shame by a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. These controversies emphasize the importance and the correctness of the principles then stated. We shall come upon them again in Chap. VII., which is devoted to the subject.

1 2 Pet. 121.

2 Comp. Immer, Hermeneutik der N. T. s. 9.