This enlarged scope of redemption and its method Dr. Delitzsch finds more plainly taught in the well-known passages in the first Epistle of Peter. Christ preached the gospel in Hades, so he interprets, to those who before had been disobedient. After protracted discussion, and the use anew of all available means of information, the language used by the Apostle, he tells us, seems to him capable of no other interpretation. We cannot follow his careful philological and grammatical examination; but one suggestion that he offers of another sort is within our space, and has not, so far as we have observed, been presented elsewhere. The interpretation, he says, that the preaching to which the Apostle refers was by Christ through Noah runs counter to the current of Messianic history. Christ is preexistent in the Old Testament economy only in Jehovah, the God revealed in a history of redemption whose goal is the Incarnation, or in the Angel of Jehovah, who, as a manifestation of Jehovah, is a prefiguration of the Incarnation. This being recognized, the supposition that the preaching referred to by the Apostle is that of Christ through Noah is seen in several ways to be unsuitable. First, it supposes a preaching, of which Christ is the subject, that warned of imminent judgment, yet stands in no relation to the expectation of a deliverer, Jehovah, which is fulfilled in Christ. Again, the narrative in Genesis affords no point of attachment for the Christological thought of the Apostle, such as we find elsewhere whenever Old Testament facts and expressions are referred to Christ. No descent of Jehovah is mentioned which can lend support to the word opeυbeis (“he went and preached "). Thirdly, we should expect that the human medium of this preaching would be stated, but Noah, as if in disdain of this interpretation, is only incidentally named. Finally, though Old Testament prophetic preaching may be spoken of as a testimony of the spirit of Christ, it is wholly inconceivable why the Apostle should go so far as to regard just this preaching of Noah as a personal act of Christ in the spirit.

The connection of thought in the Apostle's teaching is thus traced. He is urging Christians to witness a good confession, and to willingness to suffer. He points to Christ, the great example of both. He suffered, the righteous for the unrighteous. He did not fail to bear witness, to manifest himself, even to those who had been violent in their disobedience. And after He has thus suffered death and entered the world of the dead, He has risen again, and "is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him.", The Apostle runs through all the phases of Christ's redemptive work from the passion to the throne.

Near the close of the correspondence, Dr. Delitzsch touches upon an objection which he seems to fear would destroy the influence of the most careful and decisive investigation into the meaning of the Apostle's words, namely, that from the "analogy of faith." He protests against such a misuse of this rule as would exclude an interpretation required by

...

the Apostle's words. He denies that Hebrews ix. 27, or any other Biblical passage, contradicts this meaning. And adds: "In any event the Lord has descended into Hades as certainly as He has died. Can it be, then, that from Him who had poured out his life-blood for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant,' no waitedfor and healing influence should proceed upon those who were under the first covenant, and especially upon those who died before his Advent? And can, indeed, a transaction which was recognized by the early church as a fact, which was understood by numberless believers to be the meaning of the article of their creed, descendit ad inferos, . . . and of which the writings of all the Greek Fathers are full, stand in such glaring contradiction to the rest of the Biblical teaching? I hold it to be from first to last morally impossible. For we have to do not with a legend of later origin, but, as the Gospel of Nicodemus, which is of historical value, shows, with a representation which reaches back into the faith of the primitive church.”

Our notice of these recent testimonies from conservative members of different branches of the Christian Church, whose scholarship and character lend weight to their utterances, imperfect as it is, has justified, we believe, our opening remark as to a certain inevitableness in the expansion of modern Christian thought with reference to the universality of Christianity and to the method by which that universality may be secured. If all discussion of the subject could proceed with the frankness and Christian friendliness shown by Dr. Delitzsch and his opponent, and in the spirit of reverence and candor evinced by Dr. Luckock, and with the earnestness and courage of Dr. Liddon, the result could not fail to be quickening and salutary.

PROFESSOR BRIGGS'S INAUGURAL.

On the twentieth of January Professor C. A. Briggs was publicly inducted into the chair of Biblical Theology recently founded in Union Theological Seminary. The exercises of inauguration were elaborate and impressive; evidently made so in order to express the belief of the trustees and faculty of the Seminary that the occasion was one of unusual imporDr. Briggs's inaugural had as its theme "The Authority of the Bible," and was delivered (the editorial report of "The Evangelist" is our authority here)" with great freedom and magnetic power."

tance.

The occasion deserved all the emphasis which impressive exercises could give it. It was an important event; perhaps, as "The Evangelist" thinks, "the most notable event that has recently occurred in the theological world." Professor Briggs has been for years the most conspicuous champion among our evangelical scholars of the methods of modern Biblical research and criticism. He has not tried to conceal the fact that the employment of those methods is not consistent with believing in all

points as the representatives of what he calls "orthodoxism" believe about the Bible. On the contrary, he has insisted on the divergence in emphatic and incisive language. This has naturally caused the representatives of" orthodoxism" to look upon his teaching with disfavor, and to be unwilling that it should be given in one of the most influential seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. If their wishes (which, so far as we know, have never found formal expression) had prevailed, and if Professor Briggs had been removed from his position, the other Presbyterian Biblical teachers of his way of teaching would probably have shared his fate.

"Si Pergama dextra

Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent."

It was, therefore, a great day for those who believe that evangelical Biblical scholarship should and must faithfully employ historical criticism. when Union Seminary appointed Dr. Briggs to a new chair, one requir ing work especially congenial to his ideas. They are delighted to recognize in the specially impressive services of inauguration, and in the fearless tone of the inaugural address, the distinct avowal of the Seminary that it is to stand for the liberty in Biblical scholarship which Professor Briggs defends and represents.

Several religious newspapers have, we regret to see, sharply criticised the address as saying some things about the Scriptures inconsistent with the Protestant belief that they contain the standard of religious faith. This criticism, we are sure, does great injustice to Professor Briggs's attitude toward the Bible, and to the drift and purpose of this address. Careful study of his books has made us believe that Dr. Briggs is distinguished among contemporaneous scholars by a passionate desire that the Bible should have the place in the faith and life of the church which the Reformers assigned to it. This desire, we believe, burns in the address. It glows in these sentences:

"In all

“The Bible rises high above the faults of modern theology." departments of Biblical theology there is new life, and new doctrine, and new morals for the Church of God. More light is about to break forth from the Scriptures upon the Christian world.”

And in the polemic utterances of the address we find the same passionate conviction that the Bible is the fullest, deepest, and most authoritative of God's utterances to man. His contention with those who, as he says, build "barriers" between the Bible and the world is that they (unwittingly, of course) keep the revelation of God's love which lives in it from the human heart.

Yet the misunderstanding of Professor Briggs's address which has occasioned these criticisms is not inexplicable. The address contained much controversial matter (perhaps too much for an inaugural), and was in its polemic parts pitched in a rather high key. This would inevitably put some minds into an unsympathetic attitude, and prevent their appre

ciation of that in the address with which they were in agreement. Then the authorized syllabus given to the newspapers necessarily lacked the fullness of statement and the perspective necessary for a full comprehension of Dr. Briggs's thought.

The writer heard the address when repeated in Boston, and felt that its affirmative and constructive elements had received scanty justice in the syllabus. Indeed, the feeling shown by the speaker respecting the Bible was so reverential, the conviction with which he holds it as the Word of God so ardent, his belief that the church will find new life by devoutly studying it so intense, as to make the suggestion that he holds an unbelieving attitude toward it seem utterly preposterous. The union of the critical with the religious spirit for which he is distinguished among Biblical scholars appeared more plainly even than in his books.

The representative position held by Dr. Briggs makes it important that his thought about the Bible and its authority should not be misapprehended. We will therefore give reasons for thinking that the passages in his inaugural which have been supposed to imply that the Scriptures are not "the supreme rule of faith," do not carry this meaning.

It is said in the opening of the address that "there are historically three fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the church, and the reason." By this is meant that God, the source of all authority, reveals himself through these three channels. For the speaker goes on to say: "The majority of Christians from the Apostolic age have found God through the church." And again: "Another means used by God to make himself known is the forms of reason," etc. The statement thus interpreted is manifestly true. God does show himself to men through the church. The sacraments reveal his grace. The word of preaching makes Him manifest. Dr. Briggs is probably right in saying that "the majority of Christians from the Apostolic age have found God through the church." The church was established to show God to men, and to show Him as the ground of true belief and right living.

And the reason (giving the word as Dr. Briggs does its large meaning) is another means used by God to make "himself known." The moral law within us suggests a lawgiver. Our consciousness of obligation is when fullest and most imperative a consciousness of obligation to a person. What Christian will say that Dr. Martineau, whose name was cited in this connection, is mistaken in believing that God's voice speaks through his conscience? Whether these means of divine revelation do their work independently of each other or not, Dr. Briggs does not say. In saying that the rationalist may find God, he only asserts that the revelation given by the reason does not imply the conscious use of Scripture, or intentional dependence upon the church. He does not say nor suggest that ideas unconsciously derived from church or Bible, or both, may not enter into it as essential elements. In holding that a man may find God who does not use the Bible, he may or may not be right; but

he holds nothing inconsistent with the belief that the Bible contains the supreme revelation and the ultimate test of truth.

The comparative rank of the three means of revealing God and the final test of religious opinion are subjects not discussed in the address. One might properly take for granted, therefore, that its author holds about them the belief expressed in the Westminster symbol, to which he subscribed before delivering his inaugural. Those who have read Dr. Briggs's "Whither?" published in 1889, and have found him saying in it (p. 295), “ All Christians hold to the sacred Scriptures as the inspired word of God to guide the church in religion, doctrine, and morals," and again (p. 64), " The late Dr. A. A. Hodge stated that the Presbyterian Church, in unison with all evangelical Christians, teaches that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by the immediate and plenary inspiration of God, are both in meaning and verbal expression the word of God to man.' This statement is correct except in the phrase and verbal expression,' which is entirely false," are sure that he holds this belief. For they cannot believe that he has silently changed his mind upon this vital point within two years. The inaugural gives conclusive evidence that he has not changed it.

The religious newspaper which in its comment on the address said, "If we do not mistake the workings of his (Dr. Briggs's) mind, he regards the reason' as the fixed point, the solid rock of truth to which the Bible' must be adjusted at all hazards and by all necessary modifications of faith," has therefore expressed a hasty and mistaken judgment.

The address says, indeed, that the Bible has neither inerrancy nor verbal inspiration. Those who suppose that the Bible is only a "rule of faith" because verbally inspired and inerrant naturally think that this statement virtually denies its authority. But are they right in supposing so? Certainly a multitude of Christian people do not agree with them here, but hold that inspiration need not extend to language, and that the vehicle of a divine revelation may show fallibility in respect to historical detail. They may be wrong, but their error must be proved before it is shown that they do not really hold to the authority of Scripture.

Dr. Briggs has shown in his "Biblical Study" that the great Reformers believed that there are errors in Scripture. To assume that he does not hold to the authority of the Bible because he believes thus, is to assume that Luther and Calvin did not hold to it. It is in the interest of the authority of the Scriptures that he declines to attribute verbal inspiration and inerrancy to them. The theory of verbal inspiration," he says (Whither?" p. 65), "cannot admit inspired thoughts in other than inspired words. It therefore results in the denial that there are inspired thoughts in the English Bible. It cuts off the Christian people from the real Word of God and gives them a human substitute." "What a peril to precious souls there is in the terse, pointed sentence, 'A proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine but the Scripture claims,