ing the text of the New Testament, including such scholars as Tischendorf and Tregelles, have held very high views concerning the inerrancy of the original text. Indeed, it has been these views which have emphasized to them the necessity of their work, and which have stimulated them in their arduous efforts to restore the text of the autographs.

The only advantage, in point of authority, which can be claimed by the advocates of the inerrancy of the autographs is that it may be easier to detect the mistakes of scribes than it is to determine the limit of error in any theory of accommodation. But really this contention would seem to relate to a very small difference over a matter which is far more theoretical than practical; for there are all grades of opinion in the world as to the uncertainty of the text both of the Old Testament and of the New; as there are all grades of belief concerning the extent to which, for rhetorical purposes, the truth respecting minor things may with propriety be disregarded in the statement and enforcement of the main point of a discourse. In both cases the extremists are readily recognized, while the main body of well-balanced and broadly educated people who are seriously struggling with the inherent difficulties, are really not far apart. One says there remains in the text a modicum of error which cannot be eliminated, and the other says there was an inconsiderable amount of error in the original documents, respecting subsidiary facts. But nearly all say that the great body both of the text and of the original statements are correct as we have them and that their true interpretation is determined "beyond a reasonable doubt"—a legal phrase with which we cannot conveniently dispense.

2dly. Some Theory of Accommodation is held by All Interpreters. Supposing the text to be established for the most part "beyond reasonable doubt," and for the rest" upon a preponderance of evidence," it remains to determine what is the natural and intended sense, that is, what truth God

meant the words used to convey. And here, again, we shall find that many of the differences are greatly magnified by an undue rigidity of meaning imposed upon certain words by one party or the other. The theory which excites most alarm among many conservatives is that of "accommodation." And yet it is not difficult to see that, in order to defend the doctrine of inerrancy, conservative scholars themselves have to make large use of this very principle. The only legitimate claim which they can make to superiority in this respect is that they use the principle within more reasonable limits than others do, recognizing that, like a sharp tool, its very value is indicated in the fact that it must be used carefully. A few instances in which this principle is employed by both parties with satisfactory results will suffice.

In Matt. xiii. 32 Christ is made to say that the mustard seed is the least of all seeds. Now, if this is interpreted from a scientific point of view, as it would have to be if it occurred in a scientific book, it is a mistake, and so some would regard it, adducing it as evidence of the limitation of Christ's knowledge while on the earth. But, interpreted from a literary point of view, it is called a figure of speech, in which the superlative is used for the comparative,—a common rhetorical way of enforcing the main idea being to disregard the minute elements in a statement, so that attention shall not be distracted from the main point. In this view such an expression as "the least of all seeds" is in this connection a breviloquence, meaning, the least of all known seeds, or the least of all seeds with which we have anything to do or with which we are familiar. In catching the main idea, the mind has no time to pause and weigh the infinitesimal elements in the form of statement. In such a case it would be a serious rhetorical mistake to burden the sentence with the minutiae of exact scientific statement. Such a rhetorical mistake would be the worst kind of error, since it would obscure the main thought. · The figure of speech is essential to the proper enforcement of

the divine thought through human language. The enforcement of the main point was what God intended to accomplish, and not our enlightenment as to a scientific fact.

The same principle is illustrated when Moses says that the coney does not part the hoof but chews the cud, which, if taken scientifically and literally, is an error, for the animal is not a ruminant, but belongs to a class (Hyracide) whose teeth, like those of the rodents, have to be worn down and sharpened by constant friction. Otherwise they would grow to such length as to be uncomfortable. In accomplishing this necessary result, the coney moves his jaws as ruminants do in chewing the cud. As the manifest object of the passage is to designate the signs by which the cleanness or uncleanness of the animals is to be determined, nothing but what appears to the eye needs to be stated. Therefore, as, to the ordinary observer, the coney goes through all the motions of chewing the cud, the phrase "chewing the cud" means, in the connection in which Moses uses it, no more than going through the motions of chewing the cud; just as, to the astronomer, the phrase "the sun rises" means only that the sun appears to rise. In both cases there is a popular use of language which concerns itself merely with the appearance, and does not touch the question of the ultimate explanation of the phenomena.

Truth or

There is here no chance for exact definition. error in the application of the principle is a question of more or less. The final appeal is to the common experience of men in the use of language where, as all must admit, the individual judgment has to be used. If the interests dependent upon determination of the exact meaning are of grave importance, the court would insist that the point must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; while, if the interests dependent upon it are evidently of comparatively small account, a preponderance of evidence is all that is necessary.

In this connection it is important frequently to note the

extent to which we all assume the principle that the meaning of words is largely determined by the known nature of the subject. A familiar example appears in the word "bring." To bring a book implies the movement of it by physical force. To bring the prisoner implies, in most cases, only the application of the motives of fear. While to bring a friend to dinner implies the absence of both force and fear. In every case where the command is given, the one who executes the order obtains the true import of the command by reading between the lines. And yet every one sees that there is a “reasonable" limit to the application of this principle, and that great mistakes are frequently made by assuming that more is known about the subject than really is known. Indeed the difficulties of agreement as to the meaning of terms largely arise out. of different assumptions as to our amount of present knowledge concerning the subject under discussion.

Due attention to these considerations will also show how it is that different views have arisen concerning the morality of certain things endorsed by inspiration in the Old Testament. In most cases the disputants have different definitions of right and wrong, and different standards for measuring external morality. Was it right for the children of Israel to exterminate the Canaanites? Those who say it was, do not mean thereby to imply that the extermination of rival nations. is always proper, but they accept the command of God as an absolute indication of what it is right to do in a particular case where our wisdom is limited and his is infinite. Infinite wisdom is permitted to command us to depart from the ordinary rules of outward morality where finite wisdom would not be. All would unite in saying that various things commanded and permitted in the Old Testament are not the standard of action in a more enlightened age or in cases where man is left to determine his action from the limited range of his own foresight.

The same line of remark is proper concerning the differ

ent views maintained respecting the imprecatory psalms. One party declares that the imprecations are wrong, and that the writers sinned in giving utterance to such sentiments as are there expressed. This view of the case, however, proceeds upon an interpretation which assumes that the imprecations. were uttered in the low plane of personal spite and animosity, which everybody would call wicked. But those who defend the imprecations as worthy of an inspired writer do so from a higher plane of interpretation and from a broader field of ethical judgment. As a representative man whose success or failure is identified with that of the success or failure of the kingdom of God, the Psalmist's enemies are God's enemies, and no language or rhetoric is too strong to express the desire for their discomfiture. We too often obscure the fact that opposition to the kingdom of God is always made by individual men, and is directed against individual representatives of the truth who are fighting its battles. When treason is striking down those who uphold a nation's flag, the discomfiture of the traitors is likely to involve their death and to render their wives widows, and their children fatherless. From this there is no escape: the triumph of one army involves the defeat of the other. It is from this high plane of thought that the conservative party would interpret the imprecatory psalms, and they would maintain that from this point of view the natural and intended meaning is entirely worthy of the occasion. Nor is this view one which can be lightly passed by. It is one with which every broad-minded interpreter is compelled to reckon.

It would, however, be hardly fair to say that, because the principle of accommodation is acknowledged and used by all, therefore there is no reasonable limit to its use. Because there is difficulty in telling exactly when the day ends, and the night begins, it does not follow that we do not know the difference between day and night for all practical purposes. It is evident that this is clearly maintained by most of the