preconceived ideas as to how things ought to have been. And here is one of his norms of criticism: "It makes for the historicity of the saying that the idea it embodies is ethical, not theological" (p. 203). He seems to think that our Saviour could teach the disciples ethics, but not theology ;—that the theological statements must be relegated to a later day, when the disciples began to try to explain the significance of events and things.

The influence of the Spirit on the writers of the Gospels is ignored, and all is placed on a naturalistic basis. For instance, in reference to the "Sermon on the Mount," Dr. Bruce asks (p. 125): "Why has Mark not reported any of that memorable Preaching?" and answers :

"Possibly because he was not able. Such a body of deep thought could not be treasured up for long years in the memory of any disciple, however attentive or intelligent; therefore Peter, Mark's apostolic source, could not repeat it from memory in his preaching."

Again he says (p. 105):

"How was it possible for Matthew, years after the Master left the world, to compile that book of Logia, i. e., Oracles of the Lord? Did he draw simply on a retentive memory? Is it not more likely that he had at command memoranda written in bygone disciples' days?"

We prefer the explanation to be found in the words of our Lord (John 14:26): "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." This explains how it was possible for Matthew to write the words of the Lord years after he heard them, and Jesus could not have said that the Holy Spirit shall "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you," if at that very moment Matthew had memoranda of the Lord's sayings on which he would afterwards depend.

Dr. Bruce charges Luke with a religious bias or reverential attitude which made him leave out or tone down whatever related to the human weakness of Jesus. He claims that Luke wrote under the influence of a prudent reserve, not telling all that he knew about Jesus, lest it should shake the faith of his readers. He says (p. 114):

"It is the way of this Evangelist to exercise editorial discretion in reference to whatever affects the character of the Lord Jesus and his apostles, omitting, pruning, strongly stating, as the case might require.”

He says that Luke keeps out of view the anger, indignation and passionate abhorrence of evil, which Jesus manifested on some occasions, as depicted by Mark (pp. 54, 60), and asserts Luke's "inability to do justice to the tragic element in our Lord's character and experience" (p. 114). And he says further as to Luke's bias:

"The holiness of Jesus is so zealously guarded that he appears, not only without sin, but even free from all that bears the most remote resemblance to moral infirmity in temper, word and action. The result is that the natural individuality of Jesus, so conspicuous in Mark, is seen in Luke only in faded outline. Luke's picture of Jesus is one-sided” (p. 59).

We think it is not Luke's but Dr. Bruce's picture of Jesus that is one-sided. He tells us in his sub-title that his book is: Jesus as Mirrored in the Synoptic Gospels, and we would not expect him to give us a one-sided picture But the fact is that he magnifies out of proper proportion everything in the history that seems to suggest human weakness in Jesus, passionate utterances and actions, disappointments, real fear and soul distress;—all that bears any resemblance to moral infirmity in temper, word and action.

The one-sidedness of his picture is illustrated by the stress he lays on the fact that Jesus was a "carpenter." He says it is of more importance to the permanent significance of Christianity that Jesus was a Carpenter than that he was the Son of David (p. 23), and in this he shows how far he differs from the Evangelists, for they lay much stress on his being the Son of David, giving the genealogy and stating the fact time and again, while the information that he was a Carpenter is given incidentally merely in a question by his enemies: "Is not this the Carpenter ?" (Mark 6:3). That he was the Son of David is vital to his Messianic claims, as we read the Scriptures (though Dr. Bruce does not think so); while his being a Carpenter was not vital to his official work, and is not emphasized in the Scriptures. This shows how Dr. Bruce cuts loose from the historical foundation laid in the Old Testament. He says (p. 24):

"Our faith that Jesus is the Christ does not depend on our being certain that he was physically descended from David.”

We conceive that "the Christ" has no meaning when separated from the historic foundation laid in the Old Testament, the prophetic antecedents that went before defining the term and the office. And if Jesus does not fulfil those prophecies, if he be not the Son of David,—he may be never so good and great,—still he would not be “the Christ." Dr. Bruce says (p. 15):

"If Jesus can be the spiritual physician and moral guide of mankind, he is what the people of Israel meant by a Christ, one who satisfies the deepest needs and highest hopes of men."

And again :

"We may satisfy ourselves on independent grounds that he meets all our spiritual needs, and therefore is a true Christ for humanity."

In order to determine whether Jesus is the Christ, the question to be settled is not: Does Jesus meet any spiritual needs, I being the judge? I am a very poor judge. Men have often been satisfied with religious leaders as meeting all their spiritual needs,—some, for instance, with Buddha, others with Confucius, others with Mohammed. The question to be settled is: Does Jesus meet God's ideal? Is he the LORD'S Annointed? And this cannot be fully and satisfactorily answered independently of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Dr. Bruce dwells much upon the disappointments of Jesus. "That the Great Master had already found his own ministry disappointing is beyond doubt," he says (p. 114); and he thinks Luke is wrong in making the report of the seventy as to the success of their work move him to ecstatic joy. He says that in the Lord's parables (like the sower), there is a tone of disap

pointment audible; that they grew out of the Master's preaching experience,— he was dissatisfied (p. 128). He says that in Matt. xi. Jesus appears as a disappointed Teacher, and that in the gracious invitation, Matt. xi. 28-30, he expresses disappointment with the kind of disciples he had already gathered,—the “babes," and sighs for more apt disciples. We can see no evidence of disappointment. Jesus was human and was undoubtedly saddened by opposition, neglect and unbelief, as he was gladdened by success (for we accept Luke's statement, 10:21, though Dr. Bruce does not). But he believed too strongly in the sovereignty of God to be disappointed, being satisfied that all whom the Father gave to him would come to him, and that the unbelief of the Jews did not frustrate the Divine purposes (see John vi. 37 and Matt. xv. 13). And every impartial reader of the Gospels must see that he knew from the beginning of his ministry what the outcome would be, and there was no room for disappointment.

Dr. Bruce's picture of Jesus is one-sided not only in his magnifying unduly these traits of character which approach human frailty, but also in his saying nothing at all about the infinite greatness of Jesus. This side of Jesus' character is not omitted by the Synoptists, and should not be omitted by Dr. Bruce when he is presenting Jesus as mirrored in the Synoptic Gospels. Matt. xi. 19, 20 is a very interesting and important passage, but Dr. Bruce slurs over it without bringing out its meaning. In it our Lord testifies to his unlimited power, infinite knowledge, Divine Sonship, and the inscruta ble depths of his being, that could be fathomed by no creature, but by the Father only. And though Dr. Bruce is handling this passage, he passes over it without one word as to our Lord's infinite greatness. He dwells upon and magnifies his human weaknesses on every opportunity, but not one word about his Divine greatness, even when passages treating it are right in his way.

Dr. Bruce is right in saying that trust and moral admiration for Jesus can be produced only by letting men see for themselves the qualities in him that inspire trust and admiration. "Orders to trust are futile, injunctions under pains and penalties to admire, vain."

"The best thing," he says, "one can do for his fellow-men is to let the object of faith and reverence speak for himself. Hold up the picture and let men look at it. Set it in a good light, hang it well on the wall, remove from the canvas obscuring dust and cobwebs, if such there be; then stand aside and let men gaze till the Friend of Sinners, the Man of Sorrows, the great Teacher, begins to reveal himself to their souls" (p. 16).

Yes, we answer, let men see Jesus, bnt present him fully and faithfully, not partially. Why present him simply as the Friend of sinners, the Man of sorrows, the great Teacher, and not also as the Divine Son, the Atoning Sacrifice? Does Dr. Bruce consider these last features, which he has omitted, dust and cobwebs to be brushed aside?

At the end of his book he adds a chapter, "The Christian Primer," a catechism for children, in which his aim is to show to the children the Jesus of the Gospels "with open face," and not "through the somewhat opaque veil of theology," as he says existing catechisms do. It begins:

"Who was Jesus? He was the Son of Mary of Nazareth, in Galilee, whose husband Joseph was a carpenter."

Not one word about his pre-existence or incarnation. The catechism closes (after referring to the death of Jesus) thus:

"Q. 123. Where is Jesus now? He is in the house of his Father in heaven, where he is preparing a place for all who bear his name and walk in his footsteps."

Not one word about his having risen from the dead. The primer presents Jesus as a meek, humane, wise and good man, and a great Teacher, and gives his ethical teachings admirably; but the impression left on the child's mind would be that he was simply a man, that he died and went to heaven as other good men do. This is the way the moderns get rid of theology.

It is men with such views as these who are laying claim to all the scholarship of the day. They are the ones who, in their own estimation, are brushing aside the dust and cobwebs, and getting down to the "historicity of the evangelistic tradition." They write our commentaries, lexicons and textbooks, which are to be used by the next generation (and even write new catechisms for the children), and thus poison knowledge at the very fountain. Shall we, who bow reverently to the authority of the Scriptures, let them monopolize learning?

There is not much in Dr. Bruce's book that has not appeared in rationalistic works before. The novelty of it is that such views are taught by a Professor in a Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Scotland. Young men not only get their system of thought from their teachers, but also unconsciously imbibe their moral attitude. If their teacher reads his Bible in the class "with a shake of the head and a shrug of the shoulders," the students will catch the contagion and go forth with the disease developed in probably a more malignant form. And with such religious guides, shaking the faith of men in the only rule of religion and morality, whither will we drift?

What the world needs to-day to counteract religious indifference is preachers of deep and profound faith in the authority of the Scriptures. As one of the greatest philosophers and theologians of our day has expressed it: "We need an era of conviction. We need the outbreak of an epidemic of faith." This is to be brought about not by having in theological chairs men who spend their time in applying self-formed criteria to determine the historocity of the statements of the Bible, but by having men there who bow to the authority of God's Word.

It is possible that some may be found who will take Dr. Bruce as an authority in preference to the Evangelists. For our part, we prefer the picture of Jesus given us by the writers of the Gospels, and think they were in a better position to determine "historicity" than Dr. Bruce is.

Berkeley Springs, W. Va.

J. W. LAFFERTY.

RAMSAY'S CHURCH IN THE ROMAN EMPire Before 170.

THE CHURCH IN THE ROMan Empire BEFORE 170. By W. M. Ramsay, M. A., Professor of Humanity in the University of Aberdeen; formerly Professor of Classical Archæology, and Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford; Author of "The Historical Geography of Asia Minor,” etc. With maps and illustrations. New York, London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, Knickerboker Press.

This book is by an author whose exceptionable qualifications for the work none can doubt. He is, perhaps, the very foremost authority on the geography and archæology of Asia Minor. He is a classical scholar of wide attainments. He is thoroughly conversant with the methods of historical criticism. He possesses great skill in research, indefatigable industry, candor, and courage in the exposition of his real conclusions.

The work before us is of great value: 1st. Because of its incidental criticisms of the results of German scholarship in the effort to reconstruct the history of the early church. The author says:

"The books of the New Testament are treated here simply as authorities for history; and their credit is estimated on the same principles as that of other historical documents. If I reach conclusions very different from those of the school of criticism whose originators and chief exponents are German, it is not that I differ from their method. I fully accept their principle, that the sense of these documents can be ascertained only by resolute criticism; but I think that they have often carried out their principle badly, and that their criticism often offends against critical method. True criticism must be sympathetic; but in investigations into religion, Greek, Roman, and Christian alike, there appears to me, if I may venture to say so, to be in many German scholars (the greatest excepted) a lack of that instinctive sympathy with the life and nature of a people which is essential to the right use of critical processes. For years, with much interest and zeal, but with little knowledge, I followed the critics and accepted their results. In recent years, as I came to understand Roman history better, I have realized that, in the case of almost all the books of the New Testament, it is as gross an outrage on criticism to hold them for second century forgeries as it would be to class the works of Horace and Virgil as forgeries of the time of Nero." P. 8.

He says again :

"The vice of many modern German discussions of the early history of Christianity-viz., falseness to the facts of contemporary life and the general history of the period-is becoming stereotyped and intensified by long repetition in the most recent commentators, and some criticism and protest against their treatment of the subject is required." Pp. 5, 6.

Nothing is more remarkable in modern history than the manner in which German scholars who are supposed to trust not in man, to accept nothing without sufficient grounds, acquiesce in their "hereditary circle of knowledge or error." Tradition is as powerful with them as anywhere in the world, provided only it be connected with the name of a great modern German scholar. But no one of the great German scholars has been infallible. They have, indeed, numbered among them men who by their research and productions have bought the world into their debt. But the labors and achieve