of the theory of the universe that may be extracted from these facts, pantheism, materialism, deism, modern speculative theism, and agnosticism are all passed in review, and are found wanting. Into the details of the criticism of each of them it is impossible here to enter. In dealing with agnosticism, the author well remarks that "not that God is, but what God is, is to be insisted on"; and yet he fails in his treatment of the theistic proofs in showing how the evidences of the existence of God and the conception of the nature of God mutually imply each other, the proofs being moments in the immanent development of the notion of God (compare Dorner's System of Christian Doctrine, vol. i.). A more definite philosophical position on the part of the author would, we feel convinced, have made this part of the work more satisfactory to some of his readers.

In the second book, dealing with the Historical Preparation for Christianity, we meet with what may be surely pronounced an unexpected feature in apologetic literature-the candid and cordial acceptance of critical results. Are we wrong in supposing that the author's decided preference, often expressed very vigorously for the ethical as contrasted with the ritual elements of religion, has led him so readily to acquiesce in the order "Prophets and Law," instead of "Law and Prophets?" Of the apologetic value of this new view, Dr. Bruce's treatment of the history gives satisfactory evidence. Noteworthy features of this treatment are the view held of Israel's election as an instance of "God's care for the interests of the true religion, not for a pet people," and so implying function rather than privilege; the assertion of the ethical monotheism of the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries; the defence of the Decalogue as "the great Mosaic institution"; the thoroughly modern estimate of the ethical rather than the evidential value of Hebrew prophecy; the frank acknowledgment of the injurious aspects of Judaism; the severe condemnation of later legalism; and the very courageous statement of "the defects of the Old Testament Religion and its Literature." On many minor points Old Testament scholars will differ from the author, yet this cannot be put down as a fault, for critics differ from one another. (This is not said to disparage criticism, but to emphasise the difficulties which the apologist who accepts critical results must meet

with in determining his own position.) Many readers who are not informed nor interested in such details will be grateful to the author for the aid to faith afforded by his view of the Old Testament, yet there are some questions not fully answered that may very properly be asked. How far will the new apologetic defend prediction as a necessary element in Hebrew prophecy? What value must be set on the Old Testament evidence of the miraculous, and what is the relation of the ethical to the supernatural in these records? While it is doubtless an important part of the apologist's task to exhibit the moral and religious value of the Old Testament, yet the objections brought forward against the position regarding prophecy and miracles hitherto held by apologetics demand more attention than is here given them. The author sometimes seems content to dismiss some feature of fact or truth as inexplicable, when some of his readers will be inclined to think that the bounds of the intelligible might have been safely pushed further back.

In the third book, on the Origins of Christianity, the author very prudently transfers the normative authority from John's Gospel and Paul's Epistles to the Synoptic Gospels, the historicity of which he maintains as giving us a vivid and distinct portrait of Jesus. Regarding John's Gospel, he admits the subjective influence as regards order, form, matter, and is content with maintaining simply the possibility of its Johannean origin. Avoiding, on the one hand, the unwarranted disparagement of Paul, and, on the other, the exaggerated exaltation of him, both of which extremes we find in modern times, the author acknowledges his limitations, yet while deriving his teaching from, and subordinating it to the teaching of Jesus, he defends its leading features as a legitimate and in certain types of character as a necessary development of the Christian principle. Of the character of Primitive Christianity the view held is substantially that of Weizsäcker, that the universalism for which Paul contended was intended by Jesus, maintained, though not consistently nor vigorously, by the other apostles. This brief summary of the conclusions reached on these important questions must suffice; but, in closing, attention must be called to the five chapters in which the central fact and the supreme truth of the Christian faith-the person of the Lord Jesus Christ—is sketched with reverent affection. The charm and the claim of this

personality is clearly to the writer the most satisfying evidence that Christianity is "the power and the wisdom of God," and he will commend his view to many of his readers. The treatment is that of a biblical rather than of a constructive theologian. "The physical resurrection remains, but a mystery" "Jesus has for the Christian consciousness the religious value of God." These may be the last words that can now be said on the Resurrection

and the Divinity of our Lord, and it may be that it is the apologist's duty and wisdom to emphasise the historical and neglect the metaphysical aspects of Christianity, to urge its practical rather than its speculative claims; yet we may hope that the day will dawn when Christian Apologetics will be constructive as well as defensive; yet till then this work, which we most heartily commend to all, will hold a unique place, and render an inestimable service.

You have published an abundance of opinions on the alleged failure of the Revised Version, and I am only induced to trouble you with mine by my Archdeacon,-your correspondent, Ven. H. E. Cooper of Hamilton,-who assures me you would like to have it.

As he mentioned in a letter printed in your August number, I took the step, last March, of publicly "advising" (as carefully distinguished from "ordering ") the use of the Revised Version in reading Lessons, in this diocese; and the Diocesan Assembly unanimously passed a responsive resolution, expressing satisfaction at learning "that the Lessons may be read in Church from the Revised Version."

Since then fourteen or more of our sixty parishes have adopted it, and others will soon do so.

In advising as I did, I acted alone. Indeed, my next neighbour, the Bishop of Melbourne, has since given publicly the opposite advice, arguing that the Original Text was still uncertain, and that the Bible Society, which fairly represented English Christianity, had not accepted, nor the Church of England formally endorsed, the Revision.

Having previously weighed these considerations without being convinced by them, and perceiving that things were ripe for some diocese to essay the change, I felt impelled (being now the oldest in the See of the Australian Bishops) to do so myself. Nearly ten years of study of my "parallel Bible" having forced on me the conviction that the Unrevised Authorised Version is so full of small mistakes, and so discreditably wrong in some important details, that it is contrary to duty to

encourage its use, where a corrected (albeit not perfect) form of it is available.

As a matter of conscience, I now never buy,read in public (except as prescribed in the PrayerBook), or help in circulating, the Unrevised English Scriptures.

That the Revised Version is the less rhythmical of the two versions, in not a few passages, all agree; but rhythm is valueless where purchasedas often in the Authorised Version-at the expense of fidelity. And the complaint as regards many passages is fanciful, or born of the indolent Toryism of habit. "Use and wont," as one of your correspondents suggests, will soon reveal to the ear a rhythm of its own in the new version. Another of your correspondents points to the improved rhythm, in its corrected form, of Rev. vii. 9 sqq. in the New Testament; I venture to instance the same in Job xxii. 15 sqq. in the Old Testament.

That the Revised Version is the less idiomatic in some passages is also true; in a few, it seems forgotten that, after all, aorists are made for man, and not vice versa. But I have been struck with the failure of most fault-finders to suggest real amendments where they point out deficiencies; and I gravely doubt whether most of them could improve, on the whole, the Revision they disparage.

Criticisms of the Revised Version on either ground are often met by the marginal reading, which, it is believed, commonly represents the mind of the best Revisers, though it may not have commanded a numerical sufficiency of votes to be admitted into the Text.

After all, is English style a vitally important

that 2+2 should now and again equal three, as that TVεûμa, in New Testament Scripture, when unqualified, should ever mean "wind." If words have a meaning, they should be made to say what they mean.

3. The translation of the A.V. forces those who adopt it to make remarkable admissions. Godet recognises nothing strange or startling in saying, "The application of the comparison in the second part of the verse is not quite accurately expressed. It would have been necessary to saythus take place the changes in every one who is born. But it is not in the genius of the Greek language to square the comparison and its application so symmetrically" (!). If our Lord had intended to say, "thus take place the changes in every one who is born," no doubt "the genius of the Greek language" would have proved sufficiently flexible, to allow such symmetry of application. A translation which requires to minimise the genius of the most expressive of languages, cannot surely be "quite accurately expressed." The explanation is fatal to it.

But every

4. It is now almost certain that the conversation between our Lord and Nicodemus was carried on in Aramaic. The retention of the word "Rabbi" in the record, is regarded as a confirmation of this opinion. If so, the Greek of our gospel is a translation of the original Aramaic. translation is at the same time an interpretation. And therefore we are at liberty to conclude, that by using veμa instead of aveμos, the evangelist indicates, that he understood the Lord to refer to "Spirit" and not to "wind." In this we have a first-hand interpretation of the passage.

In view of these considerations, nothing but the absolute impossibility of interpreting the literal translation, can justify the liberty which has been taken with veîua. It can, however, be shown that there is no impossibility, and not even much difficulty, in the interpretation of Tvedμa as "Spirit." The supposed difficulty has arisen from a misconception of the truth to be expressed. The majority of commentators regard the verse as giving an illustration of the manner in which the new birth is brought about, e.g. Godet: "Thus take place the changes in every man who is born." The reference to the wind is supposed to make the new birth more easily understood. But the

fact is, that all it does illustrate, when so taken, is its mystery. It illustrates nothing but that.

But the language employed by the evangelist, distinctly excludes a reference, in this verse, to the manner in which the new birth is brought about. The perfect participle phrase yeyevvyμévos can o only mean the product of the birth, the man after he has been born of the Spirit. If the reference had been to the act of birth, with the intention of describing its manner or source, the tense would have been the aorist-ò yevvýlets. Cf. John i. 13, οἶ . . . ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν, “who were born of God”; John viii. 41, ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐκ ἐγεν výnμev (Westcott and Hort's reading), "we were not born of fornication"; John ix. 34, év áμapríais où éyevvýons, “thou wert born in sin.” The exact use of the tenses is a distinctive feature of the Johannine Writings. The contrast between the aorist and perfect is very clearly seen in 1 John v. I: "And every one that loveth Him that begat (Tòv yevvýσavтa) loveth also Him that is begotten of Him (τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ ἀυτοί). The manner of the new birth is described in ver. 5, "Except a man be born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." There the aorist (yevvýon) is rightly used. But by using the perfect instead of the aorist here, the evangelist indicates a comparison between the Holy Spirit and the Spiritborn. Qualities or attributes of the Spirit are to reappear in every one "who has been born of the Spirit." The law of generation holds good in the kingdom of God, "that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." "Like begets like." Bengel, in a clear-cut phrase, gives the true interpretation, "sic est ut hic."

When taken in this way, the difficulty of interpretation disappears, and a fresh idea is brought out regarding those who are Spirit-born. They are (ours) like the Spirit. All are familiar with the idea of the Christian life as one of Christlikeness. Here the impressive thought is expressed, that it is also one of Holy Spirit-likeness. The particular points of likeness are stated-(1) "The Spirit breathes where He wills." expresses the attribute or quality of freedom. The Spirit does not act from compulsion or caprice. His movements are in accordance with His will. In the largest and fullest sense the Holy Spirit is free. "So is every one who has been born of the Spirit." The life of the Spirit-born is marked by this characteristic. Spiritual freedom is his

This

birthright. The Christian alone is free. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2) "Thou hearest His voice." This expresses the attribute or power of spiritual influence or communication. It also suggests, that the method is one which, like the voice, appeals to the intelligence, the heart, and the conscience. The voice of the Spirit is heard in the suggestions which quicken right thoughts, pure feelings, and holy inspirations. And the man who has been born of the Spirit, is endowed with a spiritual voice. "A holy life is a voice," says James Hinton. Such a life is instinct with spiritual influence. It appeals to other lives. It quickens in them such thoughts and emotions as are quickened by the Holy Spirit. (3) "Thou knowest not whence He comes, and whither He goes." The movements of the Spirit are hidden. We cannot trace His outgoing or mark His incoming. Mystery broods over His ways. And the spiritual life of the believer is likewise hidden. No one sees its beginning or knows its process of growth. Its fellowship with God, in ways the feet have never trod; its walk with Christ in the Word and in the world; its hopes and struggles, are all within the veil of spirit, hid with Christ in God. Even to the Spiritborn his life is largely a hidden thing. As Amriel says, "What is most precious in us never shows itself; only part of it reaches our consciousness. We ourselves, when all is said, remain outside our own mystery." The presence of these qualities in Jesus Christ, the first-born of the Spirit, bears out their application to the life of those who are to be Christlike. In Him we see the best example of freedom, the strongest power of spiritual influence, and the greatest depths of mystery. His life is still a secret, whose veil no man hath lifted.

There is only one point in this interpretation which needs further explanation, viz. the difficult phrase, τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, “Thou hearest His voice." How, it is asked, can we hear the voice of the Spirit, when pový means articulate voice? We might retort by asking, "How can we hear the voice of the wind, since pwvý means articulate voice? The difficulty really springs from supposing that the voice here spoken of, must be audible to the sense of hearing. It may be so, as when our Lord spoke to Nicodemus; but the Spirit speaks in many ways and tones. He quickens not simply vague, indefinite feelings, but distinct, articulated desires and thoughts. The porn of the Spirit

expresses the word of thought (Aóyos), not the word of speech (nua). No one finds difficulty in the phrase, "The Holy Spirit said," or "Hear what the Spirit saith." These are interpreted in the line of spiritual analogy, and when that is done in the case before us, the difficulty vanishes.

As the majority of commentators are against the translation here advocated, it may be well to say, that it appears on the margin of the R.V., and is supported by Origen, Augustine, Wiclif, Bengel, Maurice, Vaughan, and Watkins.

This verse then gives us, not a description of the manner or the mystery, in which the new birth is brought about, but an impressive description of the spiritual life-the life of the kingdom of God, which follows the new birth. In addition, this translation provides an additional statement to that in 1 Cor. xii. 11 (кaßws Boúλerai) of the muchneeded truth of the WILL OF THE SPIRIT. To liken His movements to those of the wind, no doubt expresses the fact that they are beyond our control. But that is brought out more strongly and intelligently, without the suggestion of caprice, of which "wind" is the fitting symbol, in the words "He breathes where He wills." Spiritual life depends on His action, but no one need lose heart, as one might easily do if His action were as uncertain as the wind. His movements are not arbitrary. The character of God the Spirit, is behind His will. Therefore the highest wisdom and the widest mercy guide its action. The sphere and time and means of His "breathing," are confined by no limit, but that of His own glorious and gracious will. And that will of His is as essentially a will to save, as is that of the Father or the Son. This revelation of the will of the Spirit, is part of the good news of the gospel. It opens wide the door of hope, and fills the soul with joy unspeakable.

The mistranslation of veμa not only hides this truth from the anxious, but it even misleads the wise. For instance, Dr. Monro Gibson says: "Little as we know of the motions of the wind, and impossible as we find it to control its currents, we know for certain that wherever we make space for it, in it will come." 1 But he fails to notice that that is to make the wind blow where we list. "Is it not," he also says, "a good thing, after all, that the wind bloweth where it listeth?" Rather let us say, is it not best of all, that the Spirit breathes where He wills, and that His actions do not wait on ours? Of him

1 Christianity according to Christ, p. 134.