reth" and St. Stephen was not based upon the common beliefs of the people, simple or learned, of that day. The synagogue of Alexandria, Cyrene, Cilicia, Ephesus, and the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem alike misunderstood it even while they condemned it with the utmost abhorrence. If St. Stephen fairly represented it (and the whole of the New Testament bears emphatic witness that he did), then it was the revelation of a mystery known only by the Nous Christou, the expanded intelligence of Christ. No such intelligence, or interpretation, can be found outside the circle of the immediate followers of the LORD.

Secondly, the whole of the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets were accepted by the Lord and St. Stephen from the first letter to the last. There is no such

mass of Old Testament language to be found anywhere in the New Testament as is found in St. Stephen's speech. On that point at least St. Stephen and his judges are at one. They accept the Scrip

tures as he cites them from the Greek vernacular as the living oracles of God. To deny their authority would be blasphemy, as they and he allowed.

Thirdly, the argument between St. Stephen and his opponents bears ample testimony to the fact that they received the Law as they had it as Divine. They say, It is blasphemy to "change the customs which Moses delivered us," or even to propose to do so. He says, not that they received their law from Moses, but "by the disposition of angels," or more plainly, that even Moses himself was not its first author. And from the Law and the Prophets whom he quotes St. Stephen makes good the charge that they had not kept it.

Can anything be clearer than the fact that St. Stephen, the nearest of all exponents of the relation between Christianity and Judaism to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, differed from the Jews in one point only, and that the point was this: Who was the Lord Jesus, and by

what authority was His teaching upon Moses and the Prophets to be received? His expository teaching, I mean. For as to the letter of the Law and the Prophets, or rather of the Law, for Law and Prophets and Psalms were all one Law to Him, there was no dispute between Him and the rulers of Israel, except that He knew the meaning of the Scriptures (which they and He accepted in every jot and tittle), and they did not. He knew their origin also. And if He who gave a new sense to every line of them had had anything new to declare concerning their authority, would He have been afraid to speak it out? The idea that things are known to Professor Driver and George Adam Smith which were unknown to the LORD and His Apostles and these things in the department of "the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms" which He "came to fulfil," and further, that they were unknown to the Holy Ghost also, and to that "mind of JHVH” (Isaiah xl. 13), which is also "the Mind of Christ" (1 Cor. ii. 16)—whence

is it, or what shall we say to it? Or what shall be the judgment on it when, like Moses, we come to see, not "in dark speeches," and "by means of a mirror," but "face to face," and recognising those who see us from the invisible, as we have been seen all the while ourselves?

ALLEGATION VII

Professor Driver rejects the whole Foundation of the Authority of Holy Scripture as laid down by the Book of Deuteronomy, and provides nothing substantial in its place.

[It is as though the tops and pinnacles of the Royal Palace stood up in the winter sunshine and all below was shrouded in a winter Fog. Professor Driver in effect asserts that, "The Fog is the Foundation."]

I HAVE now to prove that Professor Driver's view of the authorship of "the Law given from God by Moses' overthrows the whole foundation of the authority of Holy Scripture as stated by the Scripture itself.

This brings me to the Book of Deuteronomy. There is no one book in the Bible which distinctly states the Law of the Bible, except the Book of Deuteronomy. This book is the work of the first author of Holy Scripture. It declares the autho