verted. It takes some time to make them realize everything. The Gospel period is that of the teaching concerning the second Person of the Trinity. But already the promise is given of the revelation of the Spirit. It is in this way that most of the references to the Spirit came in the Gospels. Then came the Resurrection, and faith, largely shattered by the terrors of the Crucifixion, is renewed and strengthened. Then come the gift of the Spirit and the immediate outbreak of religious life, followed by the gradual but complete realization of the meaning of the Gospel revelation. The whole narrative is self-consistent, and gives an adequate account of a stupendous revolution in human thought.

Here we may stop. Subsequent history is to us the strong corroboration of the reality of the Resurrection and the miracle of Pentecost. There may be differences or discrepancies in detail in the narrative, as there are in the details of many historical events in secular history; but we need not be troubled by them, and may discuss them as we would other details; and if the great miracles happened, there is no a priori reason against other miracles having happened. We do not mean to imply that there are no difficulties in detail, either in the narrative or in the character of many of the lesser miracles, but that the fact of their miraculous character is not in itself a difficulty. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ in the Gospels, and of God through the Spirit in the Apostolic age, was marked by a real and undoubted heightening of spiritual force in the world, and by the visible power of the Spirit over matter. If that is recognized, then we are willing to admit that each narrative may in itself demand careful examination, just as each narrative which is not miraculous demands it.

We have said that there may have been mistakes or exaggerations, and if the narrative itself contains difficulties, these difficulties must be examined, but we do not think that the method adopted by Dr. Chase is at all sound. He suggests semi-rationalistic explanations of phenomena which seem to be miraculous. Here he is substituting what is quite uncertain for what is rather uncertain. The events may have happened as recorded. Some points may suggest

that they happened in rather a different way. We have not two accounts controlling one another, and we may not be certain of the actual way in which they occurred. But to imagine something wholly different from what is narrated as an explanation is nothing else than bad criticism. We may not be quite certain that events happened as St. Luke describes, but we are quite certain that his narrative is nearer the truth than Dr. Chase's poetical fancies.

'May not He who by what we call natural means shrouded the cross of the Son of God in darkness have ordained that, at the moment when the illuminating Spirit was poured upon the Church, the sunlight of a new day smote upon the Apostles? And if so, was it unnatural that Christians should see a deeper meaning in the sun's rays streaming through the colonnades and the arches of the Temple and resting upon the Apostles, and, connecting the sight with the wonders of Apostolic utterance which ensued, should play upon a not uncommon use of the word "tongue," and speak of "tongues like as of fire" resting on the Apostles?'

This is to us purely fanciful. Our conclusion, then, is, that the miraculous character of the Acts does not diminish our belief in the trustworthiness of the author; that there is no a priori reason against the truth of the narrative; that for the great miracles there is the strong confirmation of the whole history of the Apostolic period, which would be inexplicable without them; that about the details of events we cannot always be certain, or about the way in which particular things may have happened, but that that is true also of some of the narratives of unmiraculous events. It is better, therefore, to avoid being too anxious to find explanations, and to be content with a certain amount of suspension of judgment. As Dr. Sanday said at the Church Congress :

'Of course, any such explanation can be only partial. The lower cannot supply an adequate measure of the higher. And, by the hypothesis, we are dealing with causes which stretch away beyond our ken. We should, therefore, be prepared to exercise much caution and reserve in judging. It is natural and right that we should dwell most upon those instances which are to us most "intelligible," and from which we can draw the most instruction. It is also natural and right that we should read the Gospels critically

—that is, with attention to the different degrees of evidence in different parts. But it would be wrong to leap hastily to the conclusion that whatever we fail to understand did not therefore happen. It is probable that our successors will be better equipped and more finely trained than we are; and just as in the world of Nature many things that once seemed incredible are now seen to be both credible and true, so also it may be in the sphere of revelation.'

It has, of course, been quite impossible for us to deal with the subject at all adequately within the limits assigned to us. The conclusions which we have arrived at we can only shortly sum up. All the evidence appears to us to point to St. Luke as the author, and to bear witness to his trustworthy character as an historian. He had very good sources of information from personal contact with the leaders of the early Church. This he was probably able to supplement, to an extent which we cannot at present determine, by a written source for the earlier period; but he uses his material so skilfully that it does not seem possible to separate the source from the later additions. He arranges his material with great skill, so as to exhibit the natural process of development in the Apostolic period. He sketches the steps, so far as he has been able to trace them, by which Christianity had spread through the world, from Jerusalem as the centre. He enables us to see how the Apostles gradually learned to realize the full meaning of the universality of the Gospel. He is interested in many points of secular and ecclesiastical customs, has skill in observation, and generally supplies us with the correct technical terms. His cast of mind is Greek, not Hebrew; Christianity is to him an institution as well as a system of teaching-an institution for spreading the knowledge of Christ and faith in Him, and the discipline of Christian life throughout the world.

ART. VIII. THE STUDY OF GREEK.

1. The Times, November 17 and 18, 1902.

2. The Cambridge Modern History. Vol. i. Chapter xvi. : The Classical Renaissance.' By Sir RICHARD C.

JEBB, M.P., Regius Professor of Greek.

ON November 18 last the question of the retention of Greek as a compulsory subject in Responsions was debated in Congregation at Oxford, and those who were in favour of allowing a modern language to be substituted for it were defeated by a very narrow majority. It is needless to remark that a letter from one of the leading opponents of Greek appeared in the Times the next day, suggesting that the result was misleading and the issue was confused. Anyone at all well acquainted with the Progressive party at Oxford is aware that they can very rarely be made to recognize that the reason that they are defeated is that the majority disagree with them. But in any case we must be prepared for the subject being again introduced, probably in a more insidious form; and if the motion is carried in Congregation the question will be brought before Convocation, and an appeal will be made to the educated opinion of the country at large. Cambridge spoke some years ago with no uncertain voice, and it may be necessary for the non-resident members of the University of Oxford to assert their continued belief in the value of a liberal education.

We should be surprised-if we did not bear in mind the memorable words of the youthful orator in the College Debating Society: 'Sir, I have lived long enough to be surprised at nothing'-at the clamour we so often hear against the study of Greek. Truly, as Sancho Panza has taught us, 'There are many odd things in the world.' Now more than ever science, whether about things mental or material, needs the fineness of touch, which no other language has in the same degree, for her multifarious work of defining, sorting, analyzing. Now, more than even in the century of the Renaissance, the culture in which ancient Greece still stands

unrivalled is almost deified. Now the specialty of our studies is to exhume the records of the past. Now the attention of religious people is turned, as in the days of Casaubon, to the investigation of old manuscripts. And yet now is the time chosen for a vehement assault on the study of the language, history, literature of the Hellenic race. It might be added, that the disparagement of Greek is all the more strange at a time when the athletics, in which Hellas has excelled all nations, are exalted in England to the dignity of an art, a science, almost a religion.

Several causes concur. In the march onward of humanity there is a law at work, from which there is no escape, that the fashions of one period must be reversed by the period which comes next, and that the pendulum must swing so far in the new direction as it has swung in the old. Also, the study of 'dead' languages—if anything so instinct with the vitality of thought and emotion can be so styled-is crowded out by other studies for want of room. Above all, the world is in a hurry; there is too much pushing through the crowd to snatch unripe fruit, too little patience, too little of that best quality in a racer-the power to stay. Accordingly, a study which men of art, of science, of literature, historians, theologians, &c., all know to be inestimable, will be lost unless timely consideration may avert such a catastrophe.

The question is too large to be settled from a merely professional standpoint. Eminent scholars, such as Professor Robinson Ellis, or the late Mr. Shilleto, can, of course, testify with special force to the value of what they can appreciate so well. But a question like this needs a very wide horizon, and must be looked at from many sides. It will be best to regard the various aspects of it severally, dwelling especially on those which are less obvious than others.

The place of ancient Greece in the history of the world is unique. Half a century ago Lord Sherbrooke, more famous as Robert Lowe, in one of his vigorous speeches 1 denounced what he called the lamentable waste of time in the study of Greek. Standing on the Acropolis, and looking down on

1 See Quarterly Journal of Education, February 1868.