more human elements of the narrative where errors are to be expected and found.

The actual errors, as a matter of fact, are marvelously few, incomparably fewer, if all things be taken into consideration, than in any other book of like scope in the literature of the world. Moreover, these errors are not of a nature to vitiate in any degree the teachings of the Bible with regard to the great moral facts and truths which it was divinely designed to set forth. And what are these facts and truths? Let the Bible answer for itself. "These (things) are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:31.) "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousnesss: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16 R. V.) These are moral and spiritual ends. Would it in any way destroy their value in setting forth these ends if the results of modern science (archæology, for example,) should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the chronology of the Old Testament is quite untrustworthy, and that the figures given cannot be accurate? And would it vitiate the value of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as inspired narratives concerning the life of our Lord if, as a consequence of such reconstruction of Old Testament chronology, it should be found that the genealogical tables used by Matthew and Luke are erroneous? I confess I should hate to feel that the inspiration and divine authority of the Bible stand or fall with the brief chronology of the Old Testament or with the accuracy of the enormous figures that are given to represent the population and the army of Israel; and as the reconstruction of that chronology would invalidate to a great extent the genealogical tables named, I should hate to feel that the moral and spiritual value of Matthew and Luke as inspired documents stands or falls with the accuracy of those tables. Does the mistake which the sacred narrative represents the inspired Stephen as making (Acts 7:16) in his memorable speech before the Sanhedrin, destroy in any degree the moral and spiritual value of that speech? Surely not; and no more can it destroy the value of Scripture generally, if it be found that its inspired writers-than whom a nobler and more trustworthy succession of authors is not to be found in the literature of the

world-in like manner, through human frailty, made and recorded errors in chronology or geology or astronomy or mental philosophy or history. Literature does not furnish more trustworthy historians and teachers of ethics than the writers of the sacred books. But it must be remembered that it was not science, but moral and spiritual truth, that they were inspired to reveal and record. Herein alone are they to be appealed to as accurate and authoritative exponents of the will of God.

Modern scholarship, then, we may say, recognizes a larger human element in the Bible as a whole than traditional theology did, and in so doing has immensely increased the value of the Bible as literature. But it also recognizes "the Bible within the Bible" and "the Gospel within the Gospel," a most precious element of moral and spiritual truth, the essence of which is found in the revelation of the nature and will of God as the divine Father, and in the stimulus, guidance and help which it gives to sinful men to enable them to get rid of their sins and to become holy and useful,—in the revelation which it makes of the mind and heart of Jesus Christ and in the inspiration which it imparts to every one who receives Him to carry the gospel to those who have it not. Having once distinguished and defined the human and divine elements in the Bible, modern scholarship places an emphasis upon each in its own sphere greater and larger than that which was possible under those forms of traditional theology which so blended the two together as to make them not only inseparable, but indistinguishable. The human becomes more human and the divine more divine. If modern scholarship seems to make less of the written word, the divinehuman Book, than traditional theology did, it makes vastly more of "the Word within the Word," of the divine-human Person of Christ, and places a new and larger emphasis upon all the distinctly ethical and evangelical elements in the Bible as expressing the power and purpose of God to save sinners and evangelize the world. If modern scholarship has seemed to some to dwell needlessly upon possible errors that may be found in the Bible, it is only that it may by so doing make freer and more powerful the divine elements in the Bible, its distinctly ethical and evangelical truths, which alone are the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, and to reveal which saving truths was the one great purpose of divine inspiration.

The Task of the College in the South

BY S. C. MITCHELL,

Professor of History in Richmond College

Has the college in the South a task in any way distinctive? Growing out of its environment, is there a specific work which it is set to do? If so, is the Southern college altogether conscious of such a mission? A glance at conditions about us reveals the fact that the college has a vantage-ground of rare significance and is rendering unique services to the South in the peculiar difficulties confronting it.

In several definite ways the college is today helping the South. First, the college brought moral re-enforcement to the South in the period of disaster that followed the civil war. Its message of cheer, its serene reliance upon the healing efficacy of truth, its fervent appeal to reason and conscience in the allayment of passion, heartened our people to renewed effort in behalf of progress. Secondly, owing to party solidity in the South, there is an inevitable tendency to the repression of spontaneity in thinking and in the frank discussion of all vital issues that concern the common good. The college has checked this tendency and has, as a rule, stood stoutly for freedom of thought and utterance. Thirdly, owing to State particularism and sectionalism, the South has found difficulty in nationalizing its society and political institutions in accordance with the spirit of the age. The college, by a just interpretation of the signs of the times, has done much to promote the spirit of nationality and to adjust our people to the life of the nation as a whole. Fourthly, owing to the South's transition from strictly agricultural pursuits to industrialism, the college has been called upon to further these lines of development by offering courses in industrial chemistry, electricity, mining and engineering. Fifthly, owing to the absence for a long period of an adequate public school system, the South is now grappling with illiteracy and its resultant evils. In this struggle for universal education, the college has been a pioneer. Its teachers have stumped the State for the common school; its students have energized in behalf of education the communities

to which they have gone; its spirit has been a powerful factor in molding public opinion in the interest of popular enlightenment. Sixthly, owing to the presence of ten million negroes, the South is wrestling with a sociological problem of the most perplexing kind, to the alleviation of which the college is bringing the light of science and the charity of reason devoid of prejudice. Seventhly, owing to class distinctions in its former somewhat feudal type of society and owing to the intensity of denominationalism, the South is going through a process of social unification, in which the college is subtly quickening all the forces that make for genuine democracy. In these seven respects, the task of the college is clear and imperative.

It will be well to speak first of the duties which the college owes to the students within its walls, and afterwards of the duties which the college owes to society at large.

In view of what has been said, it is obligatory upon the college to cultivate in the students the utmost independence and individuality in thinking. No shibboleths are to hold sway. They are to be urged to the closest scrutiny of every fact, whether in nature, in society, or in the State. The college is to make known that there are no closed problems in Southern life and no skeletons in any closet; that intellectual freedom is the one condition of social progress and political sanity; that democracy is merely government by discussion; and that the efficiency of government by the people depends, accordingly, upon universal education and the frank avowal of individual conviction.

Tradition is the dead hand upon the throttle. The other day the Congressional Limited train was flying through Philadelphia at a fierce rate of speed, when the fireman, amazed at the recklessness of the engineer, started toward him, only to find that his dead hand rested upon the throttle. In this mother-age vast forces are in motion, which, unless wisely guided, may bring wreck and ruin. No dead hand must be upon the throttle, whether that dead hand be tradition in religion, party solidity in politics, unreason in the law, feudal ideals in society, or obsolete classicism in the college. The primal duty of the college is to vitalize reason and stimulate it to do its perfect work. In striving to attain this end, the college will bring science to the aid of industrialism; to the narrowing influence of partisan poli

tics it will bring the breadth of the historical spirit; and to the baffling racial conditions it will bring the guidance of sociology.

It is the high duty of the college to give to its students a just view of society as a whole. It must not confine their thought to the segment of denominationalism or of sectionalism. They must be given the conspectus of the whole circle of society, with its limitless interplay of human forces. I account this right focusing of the student's view of the world as the test of the worth of a Southern college. If the students are rightly orientated, their discernment of the real forces affecting modern life will probably be correct and their influence creative in the attainment of democratic ideals. If, on the other hand, the students are trained to regard habitually the world from the standpoint of the peculiar interests of their social class, of their church, of their State, or of their section, a fatal defect will pervade all their work. They will lack that adjustment to actual conditions which alone can insure lasting success.

The college must imbue its students with the spirit of the publicist; for it is evident from political and racial conditions in the South that we are not to trust entirely to politicians to interpret frankly all the facts in our life and, in consequence, to lead progressively public opinion. For this essential function in making up stable public opinion, we must rely more and more upon the courage and sanity of college-bred men, who, as lawyers, teachers, doctors, preachers, and industrial leaders, will give wise direction to the public mind. In a word, the college must supply in part the lack of aggressive political leadership under present stressful conditions. It is too often true that the politician in the South today has not the necessary detachment of view to attain really to a knowledge of the truth or to judge of the wisdom of courses prompted by conviction and faith. The college can implant in its students the unselfish spirit of the patriot and the judicial candor of the scientific thinker. Does any one doubt the necessity for the free play of such faculties of the mind in Southern life? The college, moreover, should be the exponent of nationality. This country is one, and it is ever to remain so. Hence the students must be taught to embrace within their affection all the interests of our common country. Prejudice, ignorance and tradition are not to be allowed to defraud them of this their birthright.