has been appointed, two of whom are chosen by the members of the University Council from their own body. Thus the provincial University and the Agricultural College are kept in close touch with each other. Four of the directors are chosen by Farmers' Institutes, the rest by the provincial government. A farm suitable in extent and quality has been selected near Winnipeg. Plans for buildings are being prepared, and it is expected that by this time next year the new college will be in full operation. By means of all these institutions it is hoped that we shall weld together all the heterogeneous elements of our population into one homogeneous whole, intelligent and patriotic, loyal to Canada and our great empire, and to all that makes for righteousness in the nation.

Manitoba College, Winnipeg.

THOMAS HART,

ETHICS OF RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY.

HE Church History of the future, if it is to present a truth

ful record of religious thought as well as ecclesiastical action, must find space for due notice of the progress of Biblical study, in its ethical aspects as well as its philological or exegetical results. Hunt's "History of Religious Thought in England," of which the fourth and concluding volume appeared in 1896, is one of the few works in which this has been attempted. And yet in his survey of the 18th Century, he makes no mention of the distinctly epoch making controversy concerning the famous text of the "Heavenly witnesses" associated with the names of Gibbon, Porson and Archdeacon Travis. He takes up the subject with "Essays and Reviews" (1860), and the issue of Bishop Colenso's Book on the Pentateuch (1862). It is much to be regretted that Porson's essay is not reprinted. Like Bentley's more celebrated work on Phalaris, it is a masterpiece of acute criticism, and brilliant argument. And Archdeacon Travis should receive his due meed of praise, surely, for he took the stand of conservative resistance with no small ability as well as courage. He was a fair scholar and had been senior Chancellor's Medallist at Cambridge in 1765. In him the two motives of resistance were fully and candidly presented: first, complete ignorance of critical method and the value of manuscript authorities: secondly, the sincere dread that the loss of of the disputed verse would imperil the doctrine of the Trinity. The same motives inspired the Late Dean Burgon a century later, in his attacks upon the Revised Version; and continue to inspire the more recent defenders of traditional theories concerning the Bible.

It is the purpose of this article not to discuss critical methods, nor the value of the results which are claimed for them, but rather to consider certain fallacies of argument and demeanour possibly on both sides, which are opposed alike to Christian charity and to reason, and which are the most serious obstacles at the present day to the right study of this most important question.

To commence with writers at the critical school, it may be firstly remarked that a tone of scornful reference to those who defend tradition, is rarely (if ever) to be met with among English and American Scholars. Some German writers have offended in this respect, but the German Language and (it might be added) the German nature, lend themselves with dangerous facility to a certain roughness which does not derive its source from undue brevity. We must lay down as an axiom that calmness and decent courtesy are specially iucumbent upon those who endeavor to prove novel positions, and who inevitably disturb prepossessions entitled to sympathetic respect. Porson was guilty of this fault when he poured his irony upon Archdeacon Travis, entirely as posterity agrees with his argument. It is the case, in fact, where on one side "to speak the truth in love" is obligatory, while on the other side, much tolerance is due to those who are learning that they have yet much to learn. More repulsive to the defenders than bitterness is the tone of light hearted or merely artistic consideration, as in some French writers, preeminently in Renan. Far more acute repulsion was excited by his patronizing word painting in the Vie de Jesus and 'Les Apôtres', than by the more ruthless conclusions of his contemporary D. F. Strauss, simply because the latter seemed to be, and doubtless was, more earnest in his beliefs and had more gravity in his style. Yet it surely is dangerous to use words like "assailing the Bible" unless there is patent evidence to that effect, as in Voltaire's frankly scandalous Life of David (in the Dictionnaire Philosophique) or in similar publications which have disgraced the Secularist Press in more recent times. It surely should not be hard to credit those from whom we seriously differ with pure motives and devout purpose. There are no large profits to be made by abstruse works dealing with the scientific study of the Bible. A mere intellectual middle-man, like Canon Henson, may earn easy gain by essays in the fashionable reviews. But books of solid calibre are as slow to sell as to write and only deep conviction can explain the purpose which inclines the retired scholar

"To scorn delights and live laborious days."

Turning now to the methods of the defenders of traditional views, while we have admitted some palliation for warmth, it is

surely advisable that on this side also the strictest logic should be employed, and the rules of Christian courtesy observed. And yet it must be sorrowfully remarked that every trick of advocacy, every calm assumption, every disagreeable inuendo, is frequently met with in the writings of those who profess to defend the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture.

It is not necessary to refer to the cheap rhetoric of the popular preacher, astounding with dramatic gesture and skilful tricks of voice, a synodical audience, mainly as ignorant of the real subject as the preacher himself. We do not refer to the polemical correspondents of the press, who glibly recite the names of critics or apologists of which they have barely a thirdhand acquaintance. We do not refer to the amateur theologian, the retired tradesman or banker, who laudably devotes his leisure to the study of the Bible, but less laudably publishes his hasty conclusions, rushing in with slap-dash decisions upon difficulties in which devout scholars fear to tread, and not seldom preparing to decide them with aid of a crude and audacious rationalism, the outcome of that common ignorance which he is pleased to call his "common sense."

We turn, by preference, to the writings of those apologists who combine real scholarly knowledge with an equally strong adherence to traditional theories. Bishop Moule, of Durham, the worthy successor of Westcott in that famous diocese, stands above criticism and above presumptuous praise. His gentle wisdom, as much as his ripe scholarship, would preserve him from the spiteful inuendo and from the Pharisaic sneer. Dean Wace, a man greatly beloved and respected, and one who has outgrown certain narrower tendencies of earlier days, worthily represented the older Biblical scholarship at the recent English Church Congress. Without bating a jot of stalwart defence, or of courtesy to opponents, he showed how a great Christian scholar demeans himself, when in company with those who, like the rising teacher, Kersopp Lake (whom Oxford has sent to Leyden), represent aspects of truth far removed from his own inherited and acquired conclusions.

Lastly, we would quote a Canadian theologian, whose excellent little monograph upon "The Higher Criticism" compresses into a very brief compass an exceedingly able presenta

tion of the criticisms which the so-called "Higher Critics" are bound to face and to answer. Principal Sheraton holds a somewhat unique place among theologians, in that the sum of his published writings bears so small a proportion to his wellearned reputation. His "living epistle" is the increasing army of devout and energetic ministers, who are to be found from Cape Breton to Vancouver, illustrating the excellent traditions of Wycliffe College. Dr. Sheraton is frankly and fully a champion of traditional theories of the Bible, and a critic of the critics. On the merits of his argument against the Wellhausen (or more truly, as he rightly says, the Vatke-Graf) theories, we do not purpose to dwell. If we notice a few inaccuracies in some of his statements, it is because one so intelligent and charitable will gladly welcome any contribution, however slight, to his own professed aim of doing justice to both sides.

In his excellent little monograph we find no trace of those "dyslogistic" turns of phrase, like "even Dr. Cheyne admits," so common with the ordinary advocate. As for any indulgence in the style of bludgeon-like invective, in the style of Dr. Pusey in his Daniel commentary, it would be as foreign to his temperament as to his intelligence. We may note as a slip, to be corrected doubtless in another edition, a rather inadequate notice of the origin of Biblical criticism. It is hardly fair to connect the doubts of Celsus, rather than the devout labours of Origen and Jerome, with the beginnings of the work. Both Origen and Jerome suffered for their opposition to traditional opinions. Jerome was reviled as a "falsarius, sacrilegus, corruptor sanctarum literarum," and the like flowers of devout eloquence by the Burgons and Carmichaels of the 5th century,abuse which the Saint acknowledged by calling his opponents "aselli bipedes,—a candour which we are glad to see is not imitated by the liberal theologians of to-day.

Dr. Sheraton has overlooked among the restorers of critical study, the learned Jew, Kalonymus who lived in the 13th century. He wrote to a friend these very remarkable words, which entirely disprove any suggestion of sceptical impiety in

*The Higher Criticism, by Rev. Principal Sheraton, D.D., of Wycliffe College, Toronto, 1904.