THE SCRIPTURES A REVELATION FROM GOD.

CHAPTER 1.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

I. REASONS A PRIORI FOR EXPECTING A REVELATION FROM GOD.

1. Needs of man’s nature. Man’s intellectual and moral nature requires, in order to preserve it from constant deterioration, and to ensure its moral growth and progress, an authoritative and helpful revelation of religious truth, of a higher and completer sort than any to which, in its present state of sin, it can attain by the use of its unaided powers. The proof of this proposition is partly psychological, and partly historical A. Psychological proof. — (a) Neither reason nor intuition throws light upon certain questions whose solution is of the utmost importance to us; for example, Trinity, atonement, pardon, method of worship, personal existence after death. (b) Even the truth to which we arrive by our natural powers needs divine confirmation and authority when it addresses minds and wills perverted by sin. (c) To break this power of sin, and to furnish encouragement to moral effort, we need a special revelation of the merciful and helpful aspect of the divine nature. (a) Bremen Lectures, 72, 73; Plato, Second Alcibiades, 22, 23; Phædo, — lo>gou qei>ou tino>v , Iamblicus, peri> tou~ Puqagorikou~ bi>ou , chap. 28.Æschylus, in his Agamemnon, shows how completely reason and intuition failed to supply the knowledge of God which man needs: “Renown is loud,” he says, “and not to lose one’s senses is God’s greatest gift...The being praised outrageously Is grave; for at the eyes of such a one Is launched, from Zeus, the thunder-stone. Therefore do I decide for so much and no more prosperity than of his envy passes unespied.”

Though the gods might have favorites, they did not love men as men, but rather, envied and hated them. William James, Is Life Worth Living?

Internat. Jour. Ethics, Oct. 1895:10 — “All we know of good and beauty proceeds from nature, but none the less all we know of evil...To such a harlot we owe no moral allegiance...If there be a divine Spirit of the universe, nature, such as we know her, cannot possibly be its ultimate word to man. Either there is no Spirit revealed in nature, or else it is inadequately revealed there; and, as all the higher religions have assumed, what we call visible nature, or this world, must be but a veil and surface show whose full meaning resides in a supplementary unseen or other world.” (b) Versus Socrates: Men will do right, if they only know the right.

Pfleiderer Philos. Relig., 1:219 — “In opposition to the opinion of Socrates that badness rests upon ignorance, Aristotle already called the fact to mind that the doing of the good is not always combined with the knowing of it, seeing that it depends also on the passions. If badness consisted only in the want of knowledge, then those who are theoretically most cultivated must also be morally the best, which no one will venture to assert.” W.S. Lilly, On Shibboleths: “Ignorance is often held to be the root of all evil. But mere knowledge cannot transform character. It cannot minister to a mind diseased. It cannot convert the will from bad to good. It may turn crime into different channels, and render it less easy to detect. It does not change man’s natural propensities or his disposition to gratify them at the expense of others. Knowledge makes the good man more powerful for good, the bad man more powerful for evil. And that is all it can do.” Gore, Incarnation, 174 — “We must not depreciate the method of argument, for Jesus and Paul occasionally used it in a Socratic fashion, but we must recognize that it is not the basis of the Christian system nor the primary method of Christianity.” Martineau, in Nineteenth Century, 1:331, 531, and Types, 1:112 — “Plato dissolved the idea of the right into that of the good, and this again was indistinguishably mingled with that of the true and the beautiful.” See also Flint, Theism, 305. (c) Versus Thomas Paine: “Natural religion teaches us, without the possibility of being mistaken, all that is necessary or proper to be known.”

Plato, Laws, 9:854, c, for substance: “Be good; but, if you cannot, then kill yourself.” Farrar, Darkness and Dawn,75 — “Plato says that man will never know God until God has revealed himself in the guise of suffering man, and that, when all is on the verge of destruction, God sees the distress of the universe, and, placing himself at the rudder, restores it to order.” Prometheus, the type of humanity, can never be delivered “until some god descends for him into the black depths of Tartarus.” Seneca in like manner teaches that man cannot save himself. He says: “Do you wonder that men go to the gods? God comes to men, yes, into men.” We are sinful, and God’s thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways. Therefore he must make known his thoughts to us, teach us what we are, what true love is, and what will please him. Shaler.

Interpretation of Nature, 227 — “The inculcation of moral truths can be successfully effected only in the personal way; ...it demands the influence of personality...the weight of the impression depends upon the voice and the eye of a teacher.” In other words, we need not only the exercise of authority, but also the manifestation of love.

B. Historical proof. — (a) The knowledge of moral and religious truth possessed by nations and ages in which special revelation is unknown is grossly and increasingly imperfect. (b) Man’s actual condition in anti-Christian times, and in modern heathen lands, is that of extreme moral depravity. (c) With this depravity is found a general conviction of helplessness, and on the part of some nobler natures, a longing after, and hope of, aid from above.

Pythagoras: “It is not easy to know [duties], except men were taught them by God himself, or by some person who had received them from God, or obtained the knowledge of them through some divine means.” Socrates: “Wait with patience, till we know with certainty how we ought to behave ourselves toward God and man.” Plato: “We will wait for one, be he a God or an inspired man, to instruct us in our duties and to take away the darkness from our eyes.” Disciple of Plato: “Make probability our raft, while we sail through life, unless we could have a more sure and safe conveyance, such as some divine communication would be.” Plato thanked God for three things: first that he was born a rational soul; secondly, that he was born a Greek; and, thirdly, that he lived in the days of Socrates. Yet, with all these advantages, he had only probability for a raft on which to navigate strange seas of thought far beyond his depth, and he longed for “a more sure word of prophecy” ( 1 Peter 1:19). See references and (quotations in Peabody, Christianity the Religion of Nature,35, and in Luthardt, Fundamental Truths, 156-172, 335-338; Farrar, Seekers after God; Garbett, Dogmatic Faith, 187. 2. Presumption of supply. What we know of God, by nature, affords ground for hope that these wants of our intellectual and moral being will be met by a corresponding supply, in the shape of a special divine revelation.

We argue this: (a) From our necessary conviction of God’s wisdom. Having made man a spiritual being, for spiritual ends, it may be hoped that he will furnish the means needed to secure these ends. (b) From the actual, though incomplete, revelation already given in nature.

Since God has actually undertaken to make himself known to men, we may hope that he will finish the work he has begun. (c) From the general connection of want and supply. The higher our needs, the more intricate and ingenious are, in general, the contrivances for meeting them. We may therefore hope that the highest want will be all the more surely met. (d) From analogies of nature and history. Signs of reparative goodness in nature and of forbearance in providential dealings lead us to hope that, while justice is executed, God may still make known some way of restoration for sinners. (a) There were two stages in Dr. John Duncan’s escape from pantheism: 1. When he came first to believe in the existence of God, and “danced for joy upon the brig o’ Dee”; and 2. When, under Malan’s influence, he came also to believe that “God meant that we should know him.” In the story in the old Village Reader, the mother broke completely down when she found that her son was likely to grow up stupid, but her tears conquered him and made him intelligent. Laura Bridgman was blind, deaf and dumb, and had but small sense of taste or smell. When her mother, after long separation, went to her in Boston, the mother’s heart was in distress lest the daughter should not recognize her. When at last, by some peculiar mother’s sign, she pierced the veil of insensibility; it was a glad time for both. So God, our Father, tries to reveal himself to our blind, deaf and dumb souls. The agony of the Cross is the sign of God’s distress over the insensibility of humanity which sin has caused. If he is the Maker of man’s being, he will surely seek to fit it for that communion with himself for which it was designed. (b) Gore, Incarnation,52,53 — “Nature is a first volume, in itself incomplete, and demanding a second volume, which is Christ.” (c) R.T. Smith, Man’s Knowledge of Man and of God, 238 — “Mendicants do not ply their calling for years in a desert where there are no givers. Enough of supply has been received to keep the sense of want alive.” (d) In the natural arrangements for the healing of bruises in plants and for the mending of broken bones in the animal creation, in the provision of remedial agents for the cure of human diseases, and especially in the delay to inflict punishment upon the transgressor and the space given him for repentance, we have some indications, which, if uncontradicted by other evidence, might lead us to regard the God of nature as a God of forbearance and mercy. Plutarch’s treatise “De Sera Numinis Vindicta “is proof that this thought had occurred to the heathen. It may be doubted, indeed, whether a heathen religion could even continue to exist, without embracing in it some element of hope. Yet this very delay in the execution of the divine judgments gave its own occasion for doubting the existence of a God who was both good and just. “Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,” is a scandal to the divine government, which only the sacrifice of Christ can fully remove.

The problem presents itself also in the Old Testament. In Job 21, and in Psalm 1; 37, 49, 73, there are partial answers; see Job 21:7 — “Wherefore do the wicked live, Become old, yea, wax mighty in power?” 24:1 — “Why are not judgment times determined by the Almighty? And they that know him, why see they not his days?” The New ‘Testament intimates the existence of a witness to God’s goodness among the heathen, while at the same the it declares that the full knowledge of forgiveness and salvation is brought only by Christ. Compare Acts 14:17 — “And yet he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness” 17:25-27 — “he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and he made, of one every nation of men...that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him”; Romans 2:4 — “the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance”; 3: 25 — “the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God”; Ephesians 3:9 — “to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God”; 2 Timothy 1:10 — “our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel.” See Hackett’s edition of the treatise of Plutarch, as also Bowen, Metaph. and Ethics, 462-487; Diman, Theistic Argument, 371.

We conclude this section upon the reasons a priori for expecting a revelation from God with the acknowledgment that the facts warrant that degree of expectation, which we call hope, rather than that larger degree of expectation which we call assurance: and this, for the reason that, while conscience gives proof that God is a God of holiness, we have not, from the light of nature, equal evidence that God is a God of love. Reason teaches man that, as a sinner, he merits condemnation; but he cannot, from reason alone, know that God will have mercy upon him and provide salvation. His doubts can be removed only by God’s own voice, assuring him of “redemption...the forgiveness of... trespasses” ( Ephesians 1:7) and revealing to him the way in which that forgiveness has been rendered possible.

Conscience knows no pardon, and no Savior. Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 9, seems to us to go too far when he says, “Even natural affection and conscience afford some clue to the goodness and holiness of God, though much more is needed by one who undertakes the study of Christian theology.” We grant that natural affection gives some clue to God’s goodness, but we regard conscience as reflecting only God’s holiness and his hatred of sin. We agree with Alexander McLaren: “Does God’s love need to be proved? Yes, as all paganism shows. Gods vicious, gods careless, gods cruel, gods beautiful, there are in abundance; but where is there a god who loves?”

II. MARKS OF THE REVELATION MAN MAY EXPECT.

1. As to its substance. We may expect this later revelation not to contradict, but to confirm and enlarge, the knowledge of God, which we derive from nature, while it remedies the defects of natural religion and throws light upon its problems.

Isaiah’s appeal is to God’s previous communications of truth: Isaiah 8:20 — “To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.” And Malachi follows the example of Isaiah; Malachi 4:4 — “Remember ye the Law of Moses my servant.” Our Lord himself based his claims upon the former utterances of God: Luke 24:27 — beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” 2. As to its method. We may expect it to follow God’s methods of procedure in other communications of truth.

Bishop Butler (Analogy, part ii, chap. iii) has denied that there is any possibility of judging a priori how a divine revelation will be given. “We are in no sort judges beforehand,” he says, “by what methods, or in what proportion, it were to be expected that this supernatural light and instruction would be afforded us.” But Bishop Butler somewhat later in his great work (part ii, chap. iv) shows that God’s progressive plan in revelation has its analogy in the slow, successive steps by which God accomplishes his ends in nature. We maintain that the revelation in nature affords certain presumptions with regard to the revelation of grace, such for example as those mentioned below.

Leslie Stephen, in Nineteenth Century, Feb. 1891:180 — “Butler answered the argument of the deists, that the God of Christianity was unjust, by arguing that the God of nature was equally unjust. James Mill, admitting the analogy, refused to believe in either God. Dr. Martineau has said, for similar reasons, that Butler ‘wrote one of the most terrible persuasives to atheism ever produced.’ So J.H. Newman’s ‘kill or cure’ argument is essentially that God has either revealed nothing, or has made revelations in some other places than in the Bible. His argument, like Butler’s, may be as good a persuasive to skepticism as to belief.” To this indictment by Leslie Stephen we reply that it has cogency only so long as we ignore the fact of human sin. Granting this fact, our world becomes a world of discipline, probation and redemption, and both the God of nature and the God of Christianity are cleared from all suspicion of injustice.

The analogy between God’s methods in the Christian system and his methods in nature becomes an argument in favor of the former. (a) That of continuous historical development, — that it will be given in germ to early ages, and will be more fully unfolded as the race is prepared to receive it.

Instances of continuous development in God’s impartations are found in geological history; in the growth of the sciences; in the progressive education of the individual and of the race. No other religion but Christianity shows “a steady historical progress of the vision of one infinite Character unfolding itself to man through a period of many centuries.” See sermon by Dr. Temple, on the Education of the World, in Essays and Reviews; Rogers, Superhuman Origin of the Bible, 374-381; Walker, Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation. On the gradualness of revelation, see Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 46-86; Arthur H. Hallam, in John Brown’s Rab and his Friends, 282 — “Revelation is a gradual approximation of the infinite Being to the ways and thoughts of finite humanity.” A little fire can kindle a city or a world; but ten times the heat of that little fire, if widely diffused, would not kindle anything. (6) That of original delivery to a single nation, and to single persons in that nation, that it may through them be communicated to mankind.

Each nation represents an idea. As the Greek had a genius for liberty and beauty, and the Roman a genius for organization and law, so the Hebrew nation had a “genius for religion” (Renan); this last, however, would have been useless without special divine aid and superintendence, as witness other productions of this same Semitic race, such as Bel and the Dragon, in the Old Testament Apocrypha; the gospels of the Apocryphal New Testament; and later still, the Talmud and the Koran.

The O.T. Apocrypha relates that, when Daniel was thrown a second the into the lions’ den, an angel seized Habbakuk in Judea by the hair of his head and carried him with a bowl of pottage to give to Daniel for his dinner. There were seven lions, and Daniel was among them seven days and nights. Tobias starts from his father’s house to secure his inheritance, and his little dog goes with him. On the banks of the great river a great fish threatens to devour him, but he captures and despoils the fish. He finally returns successful to his father’s house, and his little dog goes in with him. In the Apocryphal Gospels, Jesus carries water in his mantle when his pitcher is broken; makes clay birds on the Sabbath, and, when rebuked, causes them to fly’; strikes a youthful companion with death, and then curses his accusers with blindness; mocks his teachers, and resents control. Later Moslem legends declare that Mohammed caused darkness at noon; whereupon the moon flew to him, went seven times around the Ka„ba, bowed, entered his right sleeve, split into two halves after slipping out at the left, and the two halves, after retiring to the extreme east and west, were reunited. These products of the Semitic race show that neither the influence of environment nor a native genius for religion furnishes an adequate explanation of our Scriptures. As the flame on Elijah’s altar was caused, not by the dead sticks, but by the fire from heaven, so only the inspiration of the Almighty can explain the unique revelation of the Old and New Testaments.

The Hebrews saw God in conscience. For the most genuine expression of their life we “must look beneath the surface, in the soul, where worship and aspiration and prophetic faith come face to face with God” (Genung, Epic of the Inner Life,28). But the Hebrew religion needed to be supplemented by the sight of God in reason, and in the beauty of the world. The Greeks had the love of knowledge, and the æsthetic sense.

Butcher, Aspects of the Greek Genius, 34 — “The Phúnicians taught the Greeks how to write, but it was the Greeks who wrote.” Aristotle was the beginner of science and outside the Aryan race none but the Saracens ever felt the scientific impulse. But the Greek made his problem clear by striking all the unknown quantities out of it. Greek thought would never have gained universal currency and permanence if it had not been for Roman jurisprudence and imperialism. England has contributed her constitutional government and America her manhood suffrage and her religious freedom. So a definite thought of God is incorporated in each nation, and each nation has a message to every other. Acts 17:26 — God “made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation”; Romans 3:12 — “What advantage then hath the Jew? ...First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” God’s choice of the Hebrew nation, as the repository and communicator of religious truth is analogous to his choice of other nations; it’s the repositories and communicators of æsthetic, scientific, governmental truth.

Hegel: “No nation that has played a weighty and active part in the world’s history has ever issued from the simple development of a single race along the unmodified lines of blood-relationship. There must be differences, conflicts, a composition of opposed forces.” The conscience of the Hebrew, the thought of the Greek, the organization of the Latin, the personal loyalty of the Teuton, must all be united to form a perfect whole. “While the Greek Church was orthodox the Latin Church was Catholic: while the Greek treated of the two wills in Christ, the Latin treated of the harmony of our wills with God; while the Latin saved through a corporation, the Teuton saved through personal faith.” Brereton, in Educational Review, Nov. 1901:339 — “The problem of France is that of the religious orders; that of Germany, the construction of society; that of America, capital and labor.” Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:183, 184 — “Great ideas never come from the masses, but from marked individuals.

These ideas, when propounded, however, awaken an echo in the masses, which shows that the ideas had been slumbering unconsciously in the souls of others.” The hour strikes, and a Newton appears, who interprets God’s will in nature. So the hour strikes, and a Moses or a Paul appears, who interprets God’s will in morals and religion. The few grains of wheat found in the clasped hand of the Egyptian mummy would have been utterly lost if one grain had been sown in Europe, a second in Asia, a third in Africa, and a fourth in America; all being planted together in a flowerpot, and their product in a garden bed, and the still later fruit in a farmer’s field, there came at last to be a sufficient crop of new Mediterranean wheat to distribute to all the world. So God followed his ordinary method in giving religious truth first to a single nation and to chosen individuals in that nation, that through them it might be given to all mankind. See British Quarterly, Jan. 1874: art.; Inductive Theology. (c) That of preservation in written and accessible documents, handed down from those to whom the revelation is first communicated.

Alphabets, writing, books, are our chief dependence for the history of the past; all the great religions of the world are book religions; the Karens expected their teachers in the new religion to bring to them a book. But notice that false religions have scriptures, but not Scripture; their sacred books lack the principle of unity which is furnished by divine inspiration.

H.P. Smith, Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration,68 — “Mohammed discovered that the Scriptures of the Jews were the source of their religion. He called them a ‘book people,’ and endeavored to construct a similar God for his disciples. In it God is the only speaker; all its contents are made known to the prophet by direct revelation; its Arabic style is perfect; its text is incorruptible; it is absolute authority in law, science and history.” The Koran is a grotesque human parody of the Bible; its exaggerated pretensions of divinity, indeed, are the best proof that it is of purely human origin. Scripture, on the other hand, makes no such claims for itself, but points to Christ as the sole and final authority. In this sense we may say with Clarke, Christian Theology, 20 — “Christianity is not a book religion, but a life religion. The Bible does not give us Christ, but Christ gives us the Bible.” Still it is true that for our knowledge of Christ we are almost wholly dependent upon Scripture. In giving his revelation to the world, God has followed his ordinary method of communicating and preserving truth by means of written documents. Recent investigations, however, now render it probable that the Karen expectation of a book was the survival of the teaching of the Nestorian missionaries, who as early as the eighth century penetrated the remotest parts of Asia, and left in the wall of the city of Singwadu in Northwestern China a tablet as a monument of their labors. On book revelation, see Rogers, Eclipse of Faith, 73-96, 281-304. 3. As to its attestation. We may expect that this revelation will be accompanied by evidence that its author is the same being whom we have previously recognized as God of nature. This evidence must constitute (a) a manifestation of God himself; (b) in the outward as well as the inward world; (c) such as only God’s power or knowledge can make; and (d) such as cannot be counterfeited by the evil, or mistaken by the candid, soul.

In short, we may expect God to attest by miracles and by prophecy, the divine mission and authority of those to whom he communicates a revelation. Some such outward sign would seem to be necessary, not only to assure the original recipient that the supposed revelation is not a vagary of his own imagination, but also to render the revelation received by a single individual authoritative to all (compare Judges 6:17, 36-40 — Gideon asks a sign. for himself: 1 Kings 18:36-38 — Elijah asks a sign for others).

But in order that our positive proof of a divine revelation may not be embarrassed by the suspicion that the miraculous and prophetic elements in the Scripture history create a presumption against its credibility, it will be desirable to take up at this point the general subject of miracles and prophecy.

III. MIRACLES, AS ATTESTING A DIVINE REVELATION.

1. Definition of Miracle.

A. Preliminary Definition. — A miracle is an event palpable to the senses, produced for a religious purpose by the immediate agency of God; an event therefore which, though not contravening any law of nature, the laws of nature, if fully known, would not without this agency of God be competent to explain.

This definition corrects several erroneous conceptions of the miracle: — (a) A miracle is not a suspension or violation of natural law; since natural law is in operation at the time of the miracle just as much as before. (b) A miracle is not a sudden product of natural agencies — a product merely foreseen, by him who appears to work it; it is the effect of a will outside of nature. (c) A miracle is not an event without a cause since it has for its cause a direct volition of God. (d) A miracle is not an irrational or capricious act of God; but an act of wisdom, performed in accordance with the immutable laws of his being, so that in the same circumstances the same course would be again pursued. (e) A miracle is not contrary to experience since it is not contrary to experience for a new cause to be followed by a new effect. (f) A miracle is not a matter of internal experience, like regeneration or illumination; but is an event palpable to the senses, which may serve as an objective proof to all that the worker of it is divinely commissioned as a religious teacher.

For various definitions of miracles, see Alexander, Christ and Christianity, 302. On the whole subject; see Mozley, Miracles; Christlieb, Mod. Doubt and Christ. Belief, 285-339; Fisher, in Princeton Rev., Nov. 1880, and Jan. 1881; A.H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 129-147, and in Baptist Review, April, 1879. The definition given above is intended simply as a definition of the miracles of the Bible, or, in other words, of the events which profess to attest a divine revelation in the Scriptures. The New Testament designates these events in a two-fold way, viewing them either subjectively, as producing effects upon men, or objectively, as revealing the power and wisdom of God. In the former aspect they are called te>rata, ‘wonders,’ and shmei~a ‘signs,’ ( John 4:48; Acts 2:22). In the latter aspect they are called duna>meiv, ‘powers,’ and e]rga, ‘works,’ ( Matthew 7:22; John 14:11). See H.B. Smith, Lect. on Apologetics, 90-116, esp. 94 — shmei~on, sign , marking the purpose or object, the moral end, placing the event in connection with revelation.”

The Bible Union Version uniformly and properly renders te>rav by ‘wonder,’ duna>miv by ‘miracle,’ e]rgon by ‘work,’ and shmei~on by ‘sign.’ Goethe, Faust: “Alles Vergangliche ist nur ein Gleichniss: Das Unzulangliche wird hier Ereigniss” — “Everything transitory is but a parable; The unattainable appears as solid fact.” So the miracles of the New Testament are acted parables, — Christ opens the eyes of the blind to show that he is the Light of the world, multiplies the loaves to show that he is the Bread of Life, and raises the dead to show that he lifts men up from the death of trespasses and sins. See Broadus on Matthew, 175.

A modification of this definition of the miracle, however, is demanded by a large class of Christian physicists, in the supposed interest of natural law. Babbage proposes such a modification. in the Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, chap. viii. Babbage illustrates the miracle by the action of his calculating machine, which would present to the observer in regular succession the series of units from one to ten million, but which would then make a leap and show, not ten million and one, but a hundred million; Ephraim Peabody illustrates the miracle from the cathedral clock, which strikes only once in a hundred years; yet both these results are due simply to the original construction of the respective machines. Bonnet held this view; see Dorner, Glaubenslehre 1:591, 592; Eng. translation, 2:155, 156; so Matthew Arnold, quoted in Bruce, Miraculous Element in Gospels, 52; see also A.H. Strong. Philosophy and Religion, 129-147.

Babbage and Peabody would deny that the miracle is due to the direct and immediate agency of God, and would regard it as belonging to a higher order of nature. God is the author of the miracle only in the sense that he instituted the laws of nature at the beginning and provided that at the appropriate time miracle should be their outcome. In favor of this view it has been claimed that it does not dispense with the divine working, but only puts it further back at the origination of the system, while it still holds God’s work to be essential, not only to the upholding of the system, but also to the inspiring of the religious teacher or leader with the knowledge needed to predict the unusual working of the system. The wonder is confined to the prophecy, which may equally attest a divine revelation. See Matheson, in Christianity and Evolution, 1-26.

But it is plain that a miracle of this sort lacks to a large degree the element of ‘signality’, which is needed, if it is to accomplish its purpose. It surrenders the great advantage which miracle, as first defined, possessed over special providence, as an attestation of revelation — the advantage, namely, that while special providence affords some warrant that this revelation comes from God, miracle gives full warrant that it comes from God. Since man may by natural means possess himself of the knowledge of physical laws, the true miracle which God works, and the pretended miracle which only man works, are upon this theory far less easy to distinguish from each other: Cortez, for example, could deceive Montezuma by predicting an eclipse of the sun. Certain typical miracles, like the resurrection of Lazarus, refuse to be classed as events within the realm of nature, in the sense in which the term nature is ordinarily used.

Our Lord, moreover, seems clearly to exclude such a theory as this, when he says: “If I by the finger of God cast out demons” ( Luke 11:20); Mark 1:41 — “I will; be thou made clean.” The view of Babbage is inadequate, not only because it fails to recognize any immediate exercise of will in the miracle, but also because it regards nature as a mere machine which can operate apart from God — a purely deistic method of conception. On this view, many of the products of mere natural law might be called miracles. The miracle would be only the occasional manifestation of a higher order of nature, like the comet occasionally invading the solar system. William Elder, ldeas from Nature: “The century plant which we have seen growing from our childhood may not unfold its blossoms until our old age comes upon us, but the sudden wonder is natural notwithstanding.” If, however, we interpret nature dynamically, rather than mechanically, and regard it as the regular working of the divine will instead of the automatic operation of a machine, there is much in this view which we may adopt. Miracle may be both natural and supernatural. We may hold, with Babbage, that it has natural antecedents, while at the same time we hold that it is produced by the immediate agency of God. We proceed therefore to an alternative and preferable definition, which in our judgment combines the merits of both that have been mentioned. On miracles as already defined, see Mozley, Miracles, preface, ix — xxvi, 7, 143-160; Bushnell. Nature and Supernatural, 338-3 A; Smith’s and Hastings’ Diet, of Bible, art.; Miracles; Abp. Temple, Bampton Lectures for 1884:193-221; Shedd, Dogm. Theology. 1:541, 542.

B. Alternative and Preferable Definition. — A miracle is an event in nature, so extraordinary in itself and so coinciding with the prophecy or command of’ a religions teacher or leader, as fully to warrant the conviction, on the part of those who witness it, that God has wrought it with the design of certifying that this teacher or leader has been commissioned by him.

This definition has certain marked advantages as compared with the preliminary definition given above: (a) It recognizes the immanence of God and his immediate agency in nature, instead of assuming an antithesis between the laws of nature and the will of God. (b) It regards the miracle as simply an extraordinary act of that same God who is already present in all-natural operations and who in them is revealing his general plan. (c) It holds that natural law, as the method of God’s regular activity, in no way precludes unique exertions of his power when these will best secure his purpose in creation. (d) It leaves it possible that all miracles may have their natural explanations and may hereafter be traced to natural causes, while both miracles and their natural causes may be only names for the one and selfsame will of God. (e) It reconciles the claims of both science and religion: of science, by permitting any possible or probable physical antecedents of the miracle; of religion, by maintaining that these very antecedents together with the miracle itself are to be interpreted as signs of God’s special commission to him under whose teaching or leadership the miracle is wrought.

Augustine, who declares that “Dei voluntas rerum natura est,” defines the miracle in De Civitate Dei, 2:8 — “Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura.” He says also that a birth is more miraculous than a resurrection because it is more wonderful that something that never was should begin to be, than that something that was and ceased to be should begin again. E.G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 104 — “The natural is God’s work. He originated it. There is no separation between the natural and the supernatural. The natural is Supernatural. God works on everything. Every end, even though attained by mechanical means, is God’s end as truly as if he wrought by miracle.”

Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 141, regards miracle as something exceptional, yet under the control of natural law; the latent in nature suddenly manifesting itself; the revolution resulting from the slow accumulation of natural forces. In the Windsor Hotel fire, the heated and charred woodwork suddenly burst into flame. Flame is very different from mere heat, but it may be the result of a regularly rising temperature.

Nature may be God’s regular action, miracle its unique result. God’s regular action may be entirely free, and yet its extraordinary result may be entirely natural. With these qualifications and explanations, we may adopt the statement of Biedermann, Dogmatik, 581-591 — “Everything is miracle, — therefore faith sees God everywhere; Nothing is miracle, — therefore science sees God nowhere.”

Miracles are never considered by the Scripture writers as infractions of law. Bp. Southampton, Place of Miracles,18 — “The Hebrew historian or prophet regarded miracles as only the emergence into sensible experience of that divine force which was all along, though invisibly, controlling the course of nature.” Hastings, Bible Pictionar; 4:117 — “The force of a miracle to us, arising from our notion of law, would not be felt by a Hebrew, because he had no notion of natural law.” Psalm 77:19,20 — “Thy way was in the sea, And thy paths in the great waters, And thy footsteps were not known” = They knew not, and we know not, by what precise means the deliverance was wrought, or by what precise track the passage through the Red Sea was effected; all we know is that “Thou leddest thy people like a flock, By the hand of Moses and Aaron.”

J.M. Whiton, Miracles and Supernatural Religion; “The supernatural is in nature itself, at its very heart, at its very life...not an outside power interfering within the course of nature, but an inside power vitalizing nature and operating through it.” Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ,35 — “Miracle, instead of spelling ‘monster’, as Emerson said, simply bears witness to some otherwise unknown or unrecognized aspect of the divine character.” Shedd, Dogmn. Theol., 1:533 — “To cause the sun to rise and to cause Lazarus to rise, both demand omnipotence; but the manner in which omnipotence works in one instance is unlike the manner in the other.”

Miracle is an immediate operation of God; but, since all natural processes are also immediate operations of God, we do not need to deny the use of these natural processes, so far as they will go, in miracle. Such wonders of the Old Testament as the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, the partings of the Red Sea and of the Jordan, the calling down of fire from heaven by Elijah and the destruction of the army of Sennacherib, are none the less works of God when regarded as wrought by the use of natural means. In the New Testament Christ took water to make wine, and took the five loaves to make bread, just as in ten thousand vineyards to-day he is turning the moisture of the earth into the juice of the grape, and in ten thousand fields is turning carbon into corn. The virgin birth of Christ may be an extreme instance of parthenogenesis which Professor Loeb of Chicago has just demonstrated to take place in other than the lowest forms of life and which he believes to be possible in all. Christ’s resurrection may be an illustration of the power of the normal and perfect human spirit to take to itself a proper body, and so may be the type and prophecy of that great change when we too shall lay down our life and take it again.

The scientist may yet find that his disbelief is not only disbelief in Christ, but also disbelief in science. All miracle may have its natural side, though we now are not able to discern it; and, if this were true, the Christian argument would not one whit be weakened, for still miracle would evidence the extraordinary working of the immanent God, and the impartation of his knowledge to the prophet or apostle who was his instrument.

This view of the miracle renders entirely unnecessary and irrational the treatment accorded to the Scripture narratives by some modern theologians. There is a credulity of skepticism, which minimizes the miraculous element in the Bible and treats it as mythical or legendary, in spite of clear evidence that it belongs to the realm of actual history.

Pfleiderer, Philos. Relig.,1:295 — “Miraculous legends arise in two ways, partly out of the idealizing of the real, and partly out of the realizing of the ideal. ...Every occurrence may obtain for the religious judgment the significance of a sign as proof of the world-governing power, wisdom, justice or goodness of God...Miraculous histories are a poetic realizing of religious ideas.” Pfleiderer quotes Goethe’s apothegm: “Miracle is faith’s dearest child.” Foster, Finality of the Christian Religion, 128-138 — We most honor biblical miraculous narratives when we seek to understand them as poesies.” Ritschl defines miracles as “those striking natural occurrences with which the experience of God’s special help is connected.” He leaves doubtful the bodily resurrection of Christ, and many of his school deny it; see Mead, Ritschl’s Place in the History of Doctrine,11. We do not need to interpret Christ’s resurrection as a mere appearance of his spirit to the disciples. Gladden, Seven Puzzling Books, 202 — “In the hands of perfect and spiritual man, the forces of nature are pliant and tractable as they are not in ours. The resurrection of Christ is only a sign of the superiority of the life of the perfect spirit over external conditions. It may be perfectly in accordance with nature.” Myers, Human Personality, 2:288 — “I predict that, in consequence of the new evidence, all reasonable men, a century hence, will believe the resurrection of Christ.”

We may add that Jesus himself intimates that the working of miracles is hereafter to be a common and natural manifestation of the new life which he imparts: John 14:12 — “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the Father.”

We append a number of opinions, ancient and modern, with regard to miracles, all tending to show the need of so defining them as not to conflict with the just claims of science. Aristotle: “Nature is not full of episodes, like a bad tragedy.” Shakespeare, All’s Well that Ends Well, 2:3:1 — “They say miracles are past; and we have out philosophical persons to make modern and familiar things supernatural and causeless.

Hence it is that we make trifles of terrors, ensconsing ourselves into seeming knowledge, when we should submit ourselves to an unknown fear.” Keats, Lamia: “There was an awful rainbow once in heaven; We know her woof, her texture: she is given in the dull catalogue of common things.” Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 334 — “Biological and psychological science unite in affirming that every event, organic or psychic, is to be explained in the terms of its immediate antecedents, and that it can be so explained. There is therefore no necessity; theme is even no room, for interference. If the existence of a Deity depends upon the evidence of intervention and supernatural agency, faith in the divine seems to be destroyed in the scientific mind.” Theodore Parker: “No whim in God, — therefore no miracle in nature.” Armour, Atonement and Law, 15-33 — “The miracle of redemption, like all miracles, is by intervention of adequate power, not by suspension of law. Redemption is not ‘the great exception.’ It is the fullest revelation and vindication of law.” Gore, in Lux Mundi, 320 — “Redemption is not natural but supernatural — supernatural, that is, in view of the false nature which man made for himself by excluding God. Otherwise, the work of redemption is only the reconstitution of the nature which God had designed.” Abp. Trench: “The world of nature is throughout a witness for the world of spirit, proceeding from the same hand, growing out of the same root, and being constituted for this very end. The characters of nature which everywhere meet the eye are not a common but a sacred writing, — they are the hieroglyphics of God.” Pascal: “Nature is the image of grace.” President Mark Hopkins: “Christianity and perfect Reason are identical.” See Mend, Supernatural Revelation, 97-123; art.; Miracle, by Bernard, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. The modern and improved view of the miracle is perhaps best presented by T.H. Wright, The Finger of God; and by W.N. Rice, Christian Faith in an Age of Science, 336. 2. Possibility of Miracle.

An event in nature may be caused by an agent in nature yet above nature.

This is evident from the following considerations: (a) Lower forces and laws in nature are frequently counteracted and transcended by the higher (as mechanical forces and laws by chemical, and chemical by vital), while yet the lower forces and laws are not suspended or annihilated, but are merged in the higher, and made to assist in accomplishing purposes to which they are altogether unequal when left to themselves.

By nature we mean nature in the proper sense — not ‘everything that is not God,’ but everything that is not God or made in the image of God’; see Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 258, 259. Man’s will does not belong to nature, but is above nature. On the transcending of lower forces by higher, see Murphy, Habit and Intelligence, 1:88. James Robertson, Early Religion, of Israel,23 — “Is it impossible that there should be unique things in the world? Is it scientific to assert that there are not?” Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 406 — “Why does not the projecting part of the coping-stone fall, in obedience to the law of gravitation, from the top of yonder building? Because, as physics declares, the forces of cohesion, acting under quite different laws, thwart and oppose for the time being the law of gravitation...But now, after a frosty night, the coping-stone actually breaks off and tumbles to the ground; for that unique law which makes water forcibly expand at 32deg Fahrenheit has contradicted the laws of cohesion and has restored to the law of gravitation its temporarily suspended rights over this mass of matter.” Come, Incarnation,48 — “Evolution views nature as a progressive order in which there are new departures, fresh levels won, phenomena unknown before. When organic life appeared, the future did not resemble the past. So when man came.

Christ is a new nature — the creative Word made flesh. It is to be expected that, as new nature, he will exhibit new phenomena. New vital energy will radiate from him, controlling the material forces. Miracles are the proper accompaniments of his person.” We may add that, as Christ is the immanent God, be is present in nature while at the same the he is above nature, and he whose steady will is the essence of all natural law can transcend all past exertions of that will. The infinite One is not a being of endless monotony. William Elder, Ideas from Nature, 156 — “God is not bound hopelessly to his process, like Ixion to his wheel.” (b) The human will acts upon its physical organism, and so upon nature, and produces results which nature left to herself never could accomplish, while yet no law of nature is suspended or violated. Gravitation still operates upon the axe, even while man holds it at the surface of the water — for the axe still has weight (cf. 2Kings 6:5-7). Versus Flume, Philos. Works, 4:130 — “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.” Christian apologists have too often needlessly embarrassed their argument by accepting Hume’s definition. The stigma is entirely undeserved. If man can support the axe at the surface of the water while gravitation still acts upon it, God can certainly, at the prophet’s word, make the iron to swim, while gravitation still acts upon it.

But this last is miracle. See Mansel, Essay on Miracles, in Aids to Faith,26,27: After the greatest wave of the season has landed its pebble high up on the beach, I can move the pebble a foot further without altering the force of wind or wave or climate in a distant continent. Fisher, Supernat.

Origin of Christianity, 471; Hamilton, Autology, 685-690; Bowen, Metaph. and Ethics, 445; Row, Bampton Lectures on Christian Evidences, 54-74; A. A. Hodge: Pulling out a new stop of the organ does not suspend the working or destroy the harmony of the other stops. The pump does not suspend the law of gravitation, nor does our throwing a ball into the air. If gravitation did not act, the upward velocity of the ball would not diminish and the ball would never return.

Gravitation draws iron down. But the magnet overcomes that attraction and draws the iron up. Yet here is no suspension or violation of law, but rather a harmonious working of two laws, each in its sphere. Death and not life is the order of nature. But men live notwithstanding.

Life is supernatural. Only as a force additional to mere nature works against nature does life exist. So spiritual life uses and transcends the laws of nature” (Sunday school Times). Gladden, What Is Left? 60 — “Wherever you find thought, choice, love, you find something that is not under the dominion of fixed law. These are the attributes of a free personality.” William James: “We need to substitute the personal view of life for the impersonal and mechanical view. Mechanical rationalism is narrowness and partial induction of facts, — it is not science.” (c) In all free causation, there is an acting without means. Man acts upon external nature through his physical organism, but, in moving his physical organism, he acts directly upon matter. In other words, the human will can cause use means, only because it has the power of acting initially without means.

See Hopkins, on Prayer-gauge, 10, and in Princeton Review, Sept. 1882:188. A. J. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 311 — “Not Divinity alone intervenes in the world of things. Each living soul, in its measure and degree, does the same.” Each soul that acts in any way on its surroundings does so on the principle of the miracle. Phillips Brooks, Life, 2:350 — “The making of all events miraculous is no more an abolition of miracle than the flooding of the world with sunshine is an extinction of the sun.” George Adam Smith, on Isaiah 33:14 — “devouring fire everlasting burnings”: “If we look at a conflagration through smoked glass, we see buildings collapsing, but we see no fire. So science sees results, but not the power which produces them; sees cause and effect, but does not see God.” P. S. Henson: “The current in an electric wire is invisible so long as it circulates uniformly. But cut the wire and insert pieces of carbon between the two broken ends, and at once you have an arc light that drives away the darkness. So miracle is only the momentary interruption in the operation of uniform laws, which thus gives light to the ages,” — or, let us say rather, the momentary change on the method of their operation whereby the will of God takes a new form of manifestation. Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 100 — “Spinoza leugnete ihre metaphysiche Moglichkeit, Hume ihre geschichtliche Erkennbarkeit, Kant ihre practische Brauchbarkeit, Schleiermacher ihre religiose Bedeutsamkeit, Hegel ihre geistige Beweiskraft, Fichte ihre wahre Christlichkeit, und die kritische Theologie ihre wahre Geschichtlichkeit” (d) What the human will, considered as a supernatural force, and what the chemical and vital forces of nature itself, are demonstrably able to accomplish, cannot be regarded as beyond the power of God, so long as God dwells in and controls the universe. If man’s will can act directly upon matter in his own physical organism, God’s will can work immediately upon the system which he has created and which he sustains. In other words, if there be a God, and if he be a personal being, miracles are possible. The impossibility of miracles can be maintained only upon principles of atheism or pantheism.

See Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, 19; Cox, Miracles, an Argument and a Challenge: “Anthropomorphism is preferable to hylomorphism.” Newman Smyth, Old Faiths in a New Light, ch. 1 — “A miracle is not a sudden blow struck in the face of nature, but a use of nature, according to its inherent capacities, by higher powers.” See also Gloatz, Wunder und Naturgesetz, in Studien und Kritiken, 1886:403-546; Gunsaulus, Transfiguration of Christ,18,19,26; Andover Review, on “Robert Elsmere,” 1888:303; W.E. Gladstone, in Nineteenth Century, 1888:766-788; Dubois, on Science and Miracle, in New Englander, July, 1889:1-32 — Three postulates: (1) Every particle attracts every other in the universe; (2) Man’s will is free; (2) Every volition is accompanied by corresponding brain action. Hence every volition of ours causes changes throughout the whole universe; also, in Century Magazine, Dec. 1894: — Conditions are never twice the same in nature; all things are the results of will, since we know that the least thought of ours shakes the universe; miracle is simply the action of will in unique conditions; the beginning of life, the origin of consciousness, these are miracles, yet they are strictly natural; prayer and the mind that frames it are conditions which the Mind in nature cannot ignore. Cf . Ps 115:3 — “Our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever he pleased’ = his almighty power and freedom do away with all a priori objections to miracles. If God is not a mere force, but a person, then miracles are possible. (e) This possibility of miracles becomes doubly sure to those who see in Christ none other than the immanent God manifested to creatures. The Logos or divine Reason who is the principle of all growth and evolution can make God known only by means of successive new impartations of his energy. Since all progress implies increment, and Christ is the only source of life, the whole history of creation is a witness to the possibility of miracle.

See A.H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-166 — “This conception of evolution is that of Lotze. That great philosopher, whose influence is more potent than any other in present thought, does not regard the universe as a plenum to which nothing can be added in the way of force. He looks upon the universe rather as a plastic organism to which new impulses can be imparted from him of whose thought and will it is an expression. These impulses, once imparted, abide in the organism and are thereafter subject to its law. Though these impulses come from within, they come not from that finite mechanism but from the immanent God. Robert Browning’s phrase, ‘All’s love but all’s law,’ must be interpreted as meaning that the very movements of the planets and all the operations of nature are revelations of a personal and present God, but it must not be interpreted as meaning that God runs in a rut, that he is confined to mechanism, that he is incapable of unique and startling manifestations of power. “The idea that gives to evolution its hold upon thinking minds is the idea of continuity. But absolute continuity is inconsistent with progress. If the future is not simply a reproduction of the past, there must be some new cause of change. In order to progress there must be either a new force, or a new combination of forces, and only some new force that causes the combination can explain the new combination of forces. This new force, moreover, must be intelligent force, if the evolution is to be toward the better instead of toward the worse. The continuity must be continuity not of forces but of plan. The forces may increase, nay; they must increase, unless the new is to be a mere repetition of the old. There must be additional energy imparted, the new combination brought about, and all this implies purpose and will. But through all there runs one continuous plan, and upon this plan the rationality of evolution depends. “A man builds a house. In laying the foundation he uses stone and mortar, but he makes the walls of wood and the roof of tin. In the superstructure he brings into play different laws from those which apply to the foundation. There is continuity, not of material, but of plan. Progress from cellar to garret requires breaks here and there, and the bringing in of new forces; in fact, without the bringing in of these new forces the evolution of the house would be impossible. Now substitute for the foundation and superstructure living things like the chrysalis and the butterfly; imagine the power to work from within and not from without; and you see that true continuity does not exclude but involves new beginnings. “Evolution, then, depends on increments of force plus continuity of plan.

New creations are possible because the immanent God has not exhausted himself. Miracle is possible because God is not far away, but is at hand to do whatever the needs of his moral universe may require. Regeneration and answers to prayer are possible for the very reason that these are the objects for which the universe was built, if we were deists, believing in a distant God and a mechanical universe, evolution and Christianity would be irreconcilable. But since we believe in a dynamical universe, of which the personal and living God is the inner source of energy, evolution is but the basis, foundation and background of Christianity, the silent and regular working of him who, in the fullness of time, utters his voice in Christ and the Cross.”

Lotze’s own statement of his position may be found in his Microcosmos, 2:479 sq. Professor James Ten Broeke has interpreted him as follows: “He makes the possibility of the miracle depend upon the close and intimate action and reaction between the world and the personal Absolute, in consequence of which the movements of the natural world are carried on only through the Absolute, with the possibility of a variation in the general course of things, according to existing facts and the purpose of the divine Governor.” 3. Probability of Miracles.

A. We acknowledge that, so long as we confine our attention to nature, there is a presumption against miracles. Experience testifies to the uniformity of natural law. A general uniformity is needful, in order to make possible a rational calculation of the future, and a proper ordering of life.

See Butler, Analogy, part ii, chap. ii; F. W. Farrar, Witness of History to Christ, 3-45; Modern Skepticism, 1:179-227; Chalmers, Christian Revelation, 1:47. G. D. B. Pepper: “Where there is no law, no settled order, there can be no miracle. The miracle presupposes the law, and the importance assigned to miracles is the recognition of the reign of law. But the making and launching of a ship may be governed bylaw, no less than the sailing of the ship after it is launched. So the introduction of a higher spiritual order into a merely natural order constitutes a new and unique event.” Some Christian apologists have erred in affirming that the miracle was antecedently as probable as any other event, whereas only its antecedent improbability gives it value as a proof of revelation. Horace: “Nec deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus Inciderit.”

B. But we deny that this uniformity of nature is absolute and universal. (a) It is not a truth of reason that can have no exceptions, like the axiom that a whole is greater than its parts. (b) Experience could not warrant a belief in absolute and universal uniformity, unless experience was identical with absolute and universal knowledge. (c) We know, on the contrary, from geology, that there have been breaks in this uniformity, such as the introduction of vegetable, animal and human life, which cannot be accounted for, except by the manifestation in nature of a supernatural power. (a) Compare the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow morning with the certainty that two and two make four. Huxley, Lay Sermons, 158, indignantly denies that there is any ‘must’ about the uniformity of nature: “No one is entitled to say a priori that any given so called miraculous event is impossible.” Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 1:84 — “There is no evidence for the statement that the mass of the universe is a definite and unchangeable quantity”; 108, 109 — “Why so confidently assume that a rigid and monotonous uniformity — is the only, or the highest, indication of order, the order of an ever living Spirit, above all? How is it that we depreciate machine made articles, and prefer those in which the artistic impulse, or the fitness of the individual case, is free to shape and to make what is literally manufactured, handmade?

Dangerous as teleological arguments in general may be, we may at least safely say the world was not designed to make science easy...To call the verses of a poet, the politics of a statesman, or the award of a judge mechanical, implies, as Lotze has pointed out, marked disparagement, although it implies, too, precisely those characteristics — exactness and invariability — in which Maxwell would have us see a token of the divine.” Surely then we must not insist that divine wisdom must always run in a rut, must never repeat itself, must never exhibit itself in unique acts like incarnation and resurrection. See Edward Hitchcock, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 20:489-561, on “The Law of Nature’s Constancy Subordinate to the Higher Law of Change”; Jevons, Principles of Science, 2:430-438; Mozley, Miracles,26. (b) S.T. Coleridge, Table Talk, 18 December, 1831 — “The light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern of the ship, which shines only on the waves behind us.” Hobbes: “Experience concludeth nothing universally.” Brooks, Foundations of Zoology, 131 — “Evidence can tell us only what has happened, and it can never assure us that the future must be like the past; 132 — Proof that all nature is mechanical would not be inconsistent with the belief that everything in nature is immediately sustained by Providence, and that my volition counts for something in determining the course of events.” Royce, World and Individual, 2:264 — “Uniformity is not absolute. Nature is a vaster realm of life and meaning, of which we men form a part, and of which the final unity is in God’s life.

The rhythm of the heartbeat has its normal regularity yet its limited persistence. Nature may be merely the habits of free will. Every region of this universally conscious world may be a center whence issues new conscious life for communication to all the worlds.” Principal Fairbairn: “Nature is Spirit.” We prefer to say: “Nature is the manifestation of spirit, the regularities of freedom.” (c) Other breaks in the uniformity of nature are the coming of Christ and the regeneration of a human soul. Harnack, What is Christianity, 18, holds that though there are no interruptions to the working of natural law, natural law is not yet fully known. While there are no miracles, there is plenty of the miraculous. The power of mind over matter is beyond our present conceptions. Bowne, Philosophy of Theism, 210 — The effects are no more consequences of the laws than the laws are consequences of the effects = both laws and effects are exercises of divine will. King, Reconstruction in Theology, 56 — We must hold, not to the uniformity of law, but to the universality of law; for evolution has successive stages with new laws coming in and becoming dominant that had not before appeared. The new and higher stage is practically a miracle from the point of view of the lower. See British Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881:154; Martineau, Study, 2:200, 203, 209.

C. Since the in-working of the moral law into the constitution and course of nature shows that nature exists, not for itself, but for the contemplation and use of moral beings, it is probable that the God of nature will produce effects aside from those of natural law, whenever there are sufficiently important moral ends to be served thereby.

Beneath the expectation of uniformity is the intuition of final cause; the former may therefore give way to the latter. See Porter, Human Intellect, 592-615 — Efficient causes and final causes may conflict, and then the efficient give place to the final. This is miracle. See Hutton, in Nineteenth Century, Aug. 1883, and Channing, Evidences of Revealed Religion, quoted in Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 1:534, 535 — “The order of the universe is a means, not an end, and like all other means must give way when the end can be best promoted without it. It is the mark of a weak mind to make an idol of order and method; to cling to established forms of business when they clog instead of advancing it.” Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 357 — “The stability of the heavens is in the sight of God of less importance than the moral growth of the human spirit.” This is proved by the Incarnation. The Christian sees in this little earth the scene of Gods greatest revelation. The superiority of the spiritual to the physical helps us to see our true dignity in the creation, to rule our bodies, to overcome our sins. Christ’s suffering shows us that God is no indifferent spectator of human pain. He subjects himself to our conditions, or rather in this subjection reveals to us God’s own eternal suffering for sin. The atonement enables us to solve the problem of sin.

D. The existence of moral disorder consequent upon the free acts of man’s will, therefore, changes the presumption against miracles into a presumption in their favor. The nonappearance of miracles, in this case, would be the greatest of wonders.

Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 331-4335 — So a man’s personal consciousness of sin and above all his personal experience of regenerating grace, will constitute the best preparation for the study of miracles. “Christianity cannot be proved except to a bad conscience.” The dying Vinet said well: “The greatest miracle that I know of is that of my conversion. I was dead, and I live; I was blind, and I see; I was a slave, and l am free: I was an enemy of God, and I love him; prayer, the Bible, the society of Christians, these were to me a source of profound ennui; whilst now it is the pleasures of the world that are wearisome to me, and piety is the source of all my joy. Behold the miracle! And if God has been able to work that one, there are none of which he is not capable.”

Yet the physical and the moral are not “sundered as with an axe.” Nature is but the lower stage or imperfect form of the revelation of God’s truth and holiness and love. It prepares the way for the miracle by suggesting, though more dimly, the same essential characteristics of the divine nature.

Ignorance and sin necessitate a larger disclosure. G.S. Lee, The Shadow Christ, 84 — “The pillar of cloud was the dim night lamp that Jehovah kept burning over his infant children, to show them that he was there.

They did not know that the night itself was God.” Why do we have Christmas presents in Christian homes? Because the parents do not love their children at other times?

No, but because the mind becomes sluggish in the presence of merely regular kindness, and special gifts are needed to wake it to gratitude. So our sluggish and unloving minds need special testimonies of the divine mercy. Shall God alone be shut up to dull uniformities of action? Shall the heavenly Father alone be unable to make special communications of love?

Why then are not miracles and revivals of religion constant and uniform?

Because uniform blessings would be regarded simply as workings of a machine. See Mozley, Miracles, preface, xxiv; Turner, Wish and Will, 291-315; N. W. Taylor, Moral Government, 2:388-423.

E. As belief in the possibility of miracles rests upon our belief in the existence of a personal God, so belief in the probability of miracles rests upon our belief that God is a moral and benevolent being. He who has no God but a God of physical order will regard miracles as an impertinent intrusion upon that order. But he, who yields to the testimony of conscience and regards God as a God of holiness, will see that man’s unholiness renders God’s miraculous interposition most necessary to man and most becoming to God. Our view of miracles will therefore be determined by our belief in a moral, or in a non-moral, God.

Philo, in his Life of Moses, 1:88, speaking of the miracles of the quails and of the water from the rock, says, “all these unexpected and extraordinary things are amusements or playthings of God.” He believes that there is room for arbitrariness in the divine procedure. Scripture however represents miracle as an extraordinary, rather than as an arbitrary, act. It is “his work, his strange work ...his act, his strange act” ( Isaiah 28:21). God’s ordinary method is that of regular growth and development. Chadwick, Unitarianism, 72 — “Nature is economical. If she wants an apple, she develops a leaf; if she wants a brain, she develops a vertebra. We always thought well of backbone; and, if Goethe’s was a sound suggestion, we think better of it now.”

It is commonly, but very erroneously, taken for granted that miracle requires a greater exercise of power than does God’s upholding of the ordinary processes of nature. But to an omnipotent Being our measures of power have no application. The question is not a question of power, but of rationality and love. Miracle implies self-restraint, as well as selfunfolding, on the part of him who works it. It is therefore not God’s common method of action; it is adopted only when regular methods will not suffice; it often seems accompanied by a sacrifice of feeling on the part of Christ ( Matthew 17:17 — “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you?

Bring him hither to me”; Mark 7:34 — “looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened”; cf. Matthew 12:39 — “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.”

F. From the point of view of ethical monism the probability of miracle becomes even greater. Since God is not merely the intellectual but the moral Reason of the world, the disturbances of the world order which are due to sin are the matters which most deeply affect him. Christ, the life of the whole system and of humanity as well, must suffer; and, since we have evidence that he is merciful as well as just, it is probable that he will rectify the evil by extraordinary means, when merely ordinary means do not avail.

Like creation and providence, like inspiration and regeneration, miracle is a work in which God limits himself, by a new and peculiar exercise of his power, — limits himself as part of a process of condescending love and as a means of teaching sense-environed and sin burdened humanity what it would not learn in any other way. Self limitation, however, is the very perfection mind glory of God, for without it no self sacrificing love would be possible (see page 9. F.). The probability of miracles is therefore argued not only from God’s holiness but also from his love. His desire to save men from their sins must be as infinite as his nature. The incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, when once made known to us, commend themselves, not only as satisfying our human needs, but also as worthy of a God of moral perfection.

An argument for the probability of the miracle might be drawn from the concessions of one of its chief modern opponents. Thomas H. Huxley. He tells us in different places that the object of science is “the discovery of the rational order that pervades the universe,” which in spite of his professed agnosticism is an unconscious testimony to Reason and Will at the basis of all things. He tells us again that there is no necessity in the uniformity of nature: “When we change ‘will’ into ‘must,’ we introduce an idea of necessity which has no warrant in the observed facts, and has no warranty that I can discover elsewhere.” He speaks of “the infinite wickedness that has attended the course of human history.” Yet he has no hope in man’s power to save himself: “I would as soon adore a wilderness of apes,” as the Pantheist’s rationalized conception of humanity. He grants that Jesus Christ is “the noblest ideal of humanity which mankind has yet worshiped.” Why should he not go further and concede that Jesus Christ most truly represents the infinite Reason at the heart of things, and that his purity and love, demonstrated by suffering and death, make it probable that God will use extraordinary means for man’s deliverance? It is doubtful whether Huxley recognized his own personal sinfulness as fully as he recognized the sinfulness of humanity in general. If he had done so, he would have been willing to accept miracle upon even a slight preponderance of historical proof. As a matter of fact, he rejected miracle upon the grounds assigned by Hume, which we now proceed to mention. 4. The amount of testimony necessary to prove a miracle is no greater than that which is requisite to prove the occurrence of any other unusual but confessedly possible event.

Hume, indeed, argued that a miracle is so contradictory of all human experience that it is more reasonable to believe any amount of testimony false than to believe a miracle to be true.

The original form of the argument can be found in Hume’s Philosophical Works, 4:124-150. See also Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1887:615. For the most recent and plausible statement of it, see Supernatural Religion, 1:55- 94, The argument maintains for substance that things are impossible because improbable. It ridicules the credulity of those who “thrust their fists against the posts, And still insist they see the ghosts,” and holds with the German philosopher who declared that he would not believe in a miracle, even it he saw one with his own eyes. Christianity is so miraculous that it takes a miracle to make one believe it.

The argument is fallacious, because (a) It is chargeable with a petitio prineip ii, in making our own personal experience the measure of all human experience. The same principle would make the proof of any absolutely mew fact impossible. Even though God should work a miracle, he could never prove it. (b) It involves a self-contradiction, since it seeks to overthrow our faith in human testimony by adducing to the contrary the general experience of men, of which we know only from testimony. This general experience, moreover, is merely negative, and cannot neutralize that, which is positive, except upon principles which would invalidate all testimony whatever. (c) It requires belief in a greater wonder than those that it would escape do. That multitudes of intelligent and honest men should against all their interests unite in deliberate and persistent falsehood, under the circumstances narrated in the New Testament record, involves a change in the sequences of nature far more incredible than the miracles of Christ and his apostles. (a) John Stuart Mill, Essays on Theism, 216-241, grants that, even if a miracle were wrought, it would be impossible to prove it. In this he only echoes Hume, Miracles, 112 — “The ultimate standard by which we determine all disputes that may arise is always derived from experience and observation.” But here our own personal experience is made the standard by which to judge all human experience. Whately, Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte, shows that the same rule would require us to deny the existence of the great Frenchman, since Napoleon’s conquests were contrary to all experience, and civilized nations had never before been so subdued. The London Times for June 18, 1888, for the first time in at least a hundred years or in 31,200 issues, was misdated, and certain pages read June 17, although June 17 was Sunday. Yet the paper would have been admitted in a court of justice as evidence of a marriage. The real wonder is not the break in experience, but the continuity without the break. (b) Lyman Abbott: “If the Old Testament told the story of a naval engagement between the Jewish people and a pagan people, in which all the ships of the pagan people were absolutely destroyed and not a single man was killed among the Jews, all the skeptics would have scorned the narrative. Every one now believes it, except those who live in Spain.”

There are people who in a similar way refuse to investigate the phenomena of hypnotism, second sight, clairvoyance, and telepathy, declaring a priori that all these things are impossible. Prophecy, in the sense of prediction, is discredited. Upon the same principle wireless telegraphy might be denounced as an imposture. The son of Erin charged with murder defended himself by saying: “Your honor, I can bring fifty people who did not see me do it.” Our faith in testimony cannot be due to experience. (c) On this point, see Chalmers, Christian Revelation, 3:70; Starkie on Evidence, 739; De Quincey, Theological Essays, 1:162-188; Thornton, Old Fashioned Ethics, 143-153; Campbell on Miracles. South’s sermon on The Certainty of our Savior’s Resurrection had stated and answered this objection long before Hume propounded it. 5. Evidential force of Miracles. (a) Miracles are the natural accompaniments and attestations of new communications front God. The great epochs of miracles — represented by Moses, the prophets, the first and second comings of Christ — are coincident with the great epochs of revelation. Miracles serve to draw attention to new truth, and cease when this truth has gained currency and foothold.

Miracles are not scattered evenly over the whole course of history. Few miracles are recorded during the 2500 years from Adam to Moses. When the N.T. Canon is completed and the internal evidence of Scripture has attained its greatest strength, the external attestations by miracle are either wholly withdrawn or begin to disappear. The spiritual wonders of regeneration remain, and for these the way has been prepared by the long progress from the miracles of power wrought by Moses to the miracles of grace wrought by Christ. Miracles disappeared because newer and higher proofs rendered them unnecessary. Better things than these are now in evidence. Thomas Fuller: “Miracles are the swaddling clothes of the infant church.” John Foster: “Miracles are the great bell of the universe, which draws men to God’s sermon.” Henry Ward Beecher: “Miracles are the midwives of great moral truths; candles lit before the dawn but put out after the sun has risen.” Illingworth, in Lux Mundi, 210 — “When we are told that miracles contradict experience, we point to the daily occurrence of the spiritual miracle of regeneration and ask: ‘Which is easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise and walk?’ ( Matthew 9:5).”

Miracles and inspiration go together; if the former remain in the church, the latter should remain also; see Marsh, in Bap. Quar. Rev., 1887:225- 242. On the cessation of miracles in the early church, see Henderson, Inspiration, 443-490; Buckmann, in Zeitsch. f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1878:216. On miracles in the second century, see Barnard. Literature of the Second Century, 139-180. A.J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 167 — “The apostles were commissioned to speak for Christ till the N.T.

Scriptures, his authoritative voice, were completed. In the apostolate we have a provisional inspiration; in the N.T. a stereotyped inspiration; the first being endowed with authority ad interim to forgive sins, and the second having this authority in perpetuo.” Dr. Gordon draws an analogy between coal, which is fossil sunlight, and the New Testament, which is fossil inspiration. Sabatier, Philos. Religion,74 — “The Bible is very free from the senseless prodigies of oriental mythology. The great prophets, Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, work no miracles.

Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness is a victory of the moral consciousness over the religion of mere physical prodigy.” Trench says that miracles cluster about the foundation of the theocratic kingdom under Moses and Joshua, and about the restoration of that kingdom under Elijah and Elisha. In the O.T., miracles confute the gods of Egypt under Moses, the Phoenician Baal under Elijah and Elisha, and the gods of Babylon under Daniel. See Diman, Theistic Argument, 376, and art.; Miracle, by Bernard, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. (b) Miracles generally certify to the truth of doctrine, not directly, but indirectly; otherwise a new miracle must needs accompany each new doctrine taught. Miracles primarily and directly certify to the divine commission and authority of a religious teacher, and therefore warrant acceptance of his doctrines and obedience to his commands as the doctrines and commands of God, whether these be communicated at intervals or all together, orally or in written documents.

The exceptions to the above statement are very few, and are found only in cases where the whole commission and authority of Christ, and not some fragmentary doctrine are involved. Jesus appeals to his miracles as proof of the truth of his teaching in Matthew 9:5,6 — “Which is easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise and walk? But that we may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy house” 12:28 — “if I by the spirit of God cast out demons, then is the Kingdom of God come upon you.” So Paul in Romans 1:4, says that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God with power...by the resurrection from the dead.” Mair, Christian Evidences, 223, quotes from Natural Religion, 181 — “It is said that the Theo-philanthropist Larevellier- Lepeaux once confided to Talleyrand his disappointment at the ill success of his attempt to bring into vogue a sort of improved Christianity, a sort of benevolent rationalism which he had invented to meet the wants of a benevolent age. ‘His propaganda made no way.’ he said. ‘What was he to do?’ he asked. The ex-bishop Talleyrand politely condoled with him, feared it was a difficult task to found a new religion, more difficult than he had imagined, so difficult that he hardly knew what to advise. ‘Still,’ — so he went on after a moment’s reflection, — ‘there is one plan which you might at least try: I should recommend you to he crucified, and to rise again the third day.” Sec also Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 147- 167; Farrar, Life of Christ, 1:168-172. (c) Miracles, therefore, do not stand alone as evidences. Power alone cannot prove a divine commission. Purity of life and doctrine must go with the miracles to assure us that a religious teacher has come from God. The miracles and the doctrine in this manner mutually support each other, and form parts of one whole. The internal evidence for the Christian system may have greater power over certain minds and over certain ages than the external evidence.

Pascal’s aphorism that “doctrines must be judged by miracles, miracles by doctrine,” needs to be supplemented by Mozley’s statement that “a supernatural fact is the proper proof of a supernatural doctrine, while a supernatural doctrine is not the proper proof of a supernatural fact.” E.G.

Robinson, Christian Theology, 107, would “defend miracles, but would not buttress up Christianity by them...No amount of miracles could convince a good man of the divine commission of a known bad man; nor, on the other hand, could any degree of miraculous power suffice to silence the doubts of an evil minded man...The miracle is a certification only to him who can perceive its significance...The Christian church has the resurrection written all over it. Its very existence is proof of the resurrection. Twelve men could never have founded the church, if Christ had remained in the tomb. The living church is the burning bush that is not consumed.” Gore, Incarnation,57 — “Jesus did not appear after his resurrection to unbelievers, but to believers only, — which means that this crowning miracle was meant to confirm an existing faith, not to create one where it did not exist.”

Christian Union, July 11, 1891 — “If the anticipated resurrection of Joseph Smith were to take place, it would add nothing whatever to the authority of the Mormon religion.” Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion,57 — “Miracles are merely the bells to call primitive peoples to church.

Sweet as the music they once made, modern ears find them jangling and out of tune, and their dissonant notes scare away pious souls who would fain enter the temple of worship.” A new definition of miracle which recognizes their possible classification as extraordinary occurrences in nature, yet sees in all nature the working of the living God, may do much to remove this prejudice. Bishop of Southampton, Place of Miracle,53 — “Miracles alone could not produce conviction. The Pharisees ascribed them to Beelzebub. Though Jesus had done so many signs, yet they believed not...Though miracles were frequently wrought, they were rarely appealed to as evidence of the truth of the gospel. They are simply signs of God’s presence in his world. By itself a miracle had no evidential force.

The only test for distinguishing divine from Satanic miracles is that of the moral character and purpose of the worker; and therefore miracles depend for all their force upon a previous appreciation of the character and personality of Christ (79). The earliest apologists make no use of miracles. They are of no value except in connection with prophecy.

Miracles are the revelation of God, not the proof of revelation.” Versus Supernatural Religion, 1:23, and Stearns, in New Englander, Jan. 1882:80. See Mozley, Miracles,15; Nicoll, Life of Jesus Christ, 133; Mill, Logic, 374-382; H.B. Smith. Int. to Christ. Theology, 167-169; Fisher, in Journ. Christ. Philos., April, 1863:270-283. (d) Yet the Christian miracles do not lose their value as evidence in the process of ages. The loftier the structure of Christian life and doctrine the greater need that its foundation be secure. The authority of Christ as a teacher of supernatural truth rests upon his miracles, and especially upon the miracle of his resurrection. That one miracle to which the church looks back as the source of her life carries with it irresistibly all the other miracles of the Scripture record; upon it alone we may safely rest the proof that the Scriptures are an authoritative revelation from God.

The miracles of Christ are simple correlates of the Incarnation — proper insignia of his royalty and divinity. By mere external evidence however we can more easily prove the resurrection than the incarnation. In our arguments with skeptics, we should not begin with the ass that spoke to Balaam, or the fish that swallowed Jonah, but with the resurrection of Christ; that conceded, all other Biblical miracles will seem only natural preparations, accompaniments, or consequences. G.F. Wright, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1889:707 — “The difficulties created by the miraculous character of Christianity may be compared to those assumed by a builder when great permanence is desired in the structure erected. It is easier to lay the foundation of a temporary structure than of one which is to endure for the ages.” Pressense: “The empty tomb of Christ has been the cradle of the church, and if in this foundation of her faith the church has been mistaken, she must needs lay herself down by the side of the mortal remains, I say, not of a man, but of a religion.”

President Schurman believes the resurrection of Christ to be “an obsolete picture of an eternal truth — the fact of a continued life with God.”

Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums, 102, thinks no consistent union of the gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection can be attained; apparently doubts a literal and bodily rising; yet traces Christianity back to an invincible faith in Christ’s conquering of death and his continued life. But why believe the gospels when they speak of the sympathy of Christ, yet disbelieve them when they speak of his miraculous power? We have no right to trust the narrative when it gives us Christ’s words “Weep not” to the widow of Nain, ( Luke 7:13), and then to distrust it when it tells us of his raising the widow’s son. The words “Jesus wept” belong inseparably to a story of which “Lazarus, come forth!” forms a part ( John 11:35,43). It is improbable that the disciples should have believed so stupendous a miracle as Christ’s resurrection, if they had not previously seen other manifestations of miraculous power on the part of Christ. Christ himself is the great miracle. The conception of him as the risen and glorified Savior can be explained only by the fact that he did so rise. E.G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 109 — “The Church attests the fact of the resurrection quite as much as the resurrection attests the divine origin of the church. Resurrection, as an evidence, depends on the existence of the church which proclaims it.” (e) The resurrection of our Lord. Jesus Christ — by which we mean his coming forth from the sepulchre in body as well as in spirit — is demonstrated by evidence as varied and as conclusive as that, which proves to us any single fact of ancient history. Without it Christianity itself is inexplicable, as is shown by the failure of all modern rationalistic theories to account for its rise and progress.

In discussing the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, we are confronted with three main rationalistic theories:

I. The Swoon theory of Strauss. This holds that Jesus did not really die. The cold and the spices of the sepulchre revived him. We reply that the blood and water, and the testimony of the centurion ( Mark 15:45), proved actual death (see Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1839:228; Forrest, Christ of History and Experience. 137-170). The rolling away of the stone, and Jesus’ power immediately after, are inconsistent with immediately preceding swoon and suspended animation. How was his life preserved? Where did he go? When did he die? His not dying implies deceit on his own part or on that of his disciples.

II. The Spirit theory of Keim. Jesus really died, but only his spirit appeared.

The spirit of Jesus gave the disciples a sign of his continued life, a telegram from heaven. But we reply that the telegram was untrue, for it asserted that his body had risen from the tomb. The tomb was empty and the linen cloths showed an orderly departure. Jesus himself denied that he was a bodiless spirit: “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me having” ( Luke 24:39). Did “his flesh see corruption” ( Acts 2:31)? Was the penitent thief raised from the dead as much as he? Godet, Lectures in Defense of the Christian Faith, lect. i: A dilemma for those who deny the fact of Christ’s resurrection: Either his body remained in the hands of his disciples, or it was given up to the Jews. If the disciples retained it, they were impostors but, this is not maintained by modern rationalists. If the Jews retained it, why did they not produce it as conclusive evidence against the disciples?

III. The Vision theory of Renan. Jesus died, and there was no objective appearance even of his spirit. Mary Magdalene was the victim of subjective hallucination, and her hallucination became contagious. This was natural because the Jews expected that the Messiah would work miracles and would rise from the dead. We reply that the disciples did not expect Jesus’ resurrection. The women went to the sepulchre, not to see a risen Redeemer, but to embalm a dead body. Thomas and those at Emmaus had given up all hope. Four hundred years had passed since the days of miracles; John the Baptist did no miracle” ( John 10:41); the Sadducees said, “there is no resurrection” ( Matthew 22:23). There were thirteen different appearances, to: 1. the Magdalen; 2. other women; 3. Peter; 4. Emmaus; 5. the Twelve; 6. the Twelve after eight days; 7. Galilee seashore; 8. Galilee mountain; 9. Galilee five hundred; 10. James; 11 . ascension at Bethany; 12. Stephen; 13. Paul on way to Damascus.

Paul describes Christ’s appearance to him as something objective, and he implies that Christ’s previous appearances to others were objective also: “last of all [these bodily appearances]...he appeared to me also” ( 1 Corinthians 15:8). Bruce, Apologetics, 396 — “Paul’s interest and intention in classing the two together was to level his own vision [of Christ] up to the objectivity of the early Christophanies. He believed that the eleven, that Peter in particular, had seen the risen Christ with the eye of the body, and he meant to claim for himself a vision of the same kind.” Paul’s was a sane, strong nature.

Subjective visions do not transform human lives; the resurrection molded the apostles; they did not create the resurrection (see Gore, Incarnation,76).

These appearances soon ceased, unlike the law of hallucinations, which increase in frequency and intensity. It is impossible to explain the ordinances, the Lord’s day, or Christianity itself, if Jesus did not rise from the dead.

The resurrection of our Lord teaches three important lessons: (1) It showed that his work of atonement was completed and was stamped with the divine approval; (2) It showed him to be Lord of all and gave the one sufficient external proof of Christianity; (3) It furnished the ground and pledge of our own resurrection, and thus “brought life and immortality to light” ( 2 Timothy 1:10). It must be remembered that the resurrection was the one sign upon which Jesus himself staked his claims — “the sign of Jonah” ( Luke 11:29); and that the resurrection is proof, not simply of God’s power, but of Christ’s own power: John 10:18 — “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again”; 2:19 — “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”...21 — “he spake of the temple of his body.” See Alexander, Christ and Christianity, 9, 158-224, 302; Mill, Theism, 216; Auberlen, Div. Revelation, 56; Boston Lectures, 203-239; Christlieb. Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, 448-503; Row, Bampton Lectures, 1887:358-423; Hutton, Essays, 1:119; Schaff, in Princeton Rev., May, 1880; 411-419 Fisher, Christian Evidences, 41-46, 82-85; West, in Defense and Conf. of Faith, 80-129; also special works on the Resurrection of our Lord, by Milligan, Morrison.

Kennedy, J. Baldwin Brown. 6. Counterfeit Miracles.

Since only an act directly wrought by God can properly be called a miracle, it follows that surprising events brought about by evil spirits or by men, through the use of natural agencies beyond our knowledge, are not entitled to this appellation. The Scriptures recognize the existence of such, but denominate them “lying wonders” ( 2 Thessalonians 2:9).

These counterfeit miracles in various ages argue that the belief in miracles is natural to the race, and that somewhere there must exist the true. They serve to show that not all supernatural occurrences are divine, and to impress upon us the necessity of careful examination before we accept them as divine.

False miracles may commonly be distinguished from the true by (a) theft accompaniments of immoral conduct or of doctrine contradictory to truth already revealed — as in modern spiritualism; (b) their internal characteristics of inanity and extravagance — as in the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius, or the miracles of the Apocryphal New Testament; (c) the insufficiency of the object which they are designed to further — as in the case of Apollonius of Tyana, or of the miracles said to accompany the publication of the doctrines of the immaculate conception and of the papal infallibility; (d) their lack of substantiating evidence — as in medieval miracles, so seldom attested by contemporary and disinterested witnesses; (e) their denial or undervaluing of God’s previous revelation of himself in nature — as shown by the neglect of ordinary means, in the cases of Faith cure and of so called Christian Science.

Only what is valuable is counterfeited. False miracles presuppose the true.

Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 283 — “The miracles of Jesus originated faith in him, while medieval miracles follow established faith.

The testimony of the apostles was given in the face of incredulous Sadducees. They were ridiculed and maltreated on account of it. It was no the for devout dreams and the invention of romances.” The blood of St. Januarius at Naples is said to be contained in a vial, one side of which is of thick glass, while the other side is of thin. A similar miracle was wrought at Hales in Gloucestershire. St. Alban, the first martyr of Britain, after his head is cut off, carries it about in his hand. In Ireland the place is shown where St. Patrick in the fifth century drove all the toads and snakes over a precipice into the nether regions. The legend however did not become current until some hundreds of years after the saint’s bones had crumbled to dust at Saul, near Downpatrick (see Hemphill, Literature of the Second Century, 180-182). Compare the story of the book of Tobit (6- 8), which relates the expulsion of a demon by smoke from the burning heart and liver of a fish caught in the Tigris, and the story of the Apocryphal New Testament (I, Infancy), which tells of the expulsion of Satan in the form of a mad dog from Judas by the child Jesus. On counterfeit miracles in general, see Mozley, Miracles,15, 161; F. W.

Farrar, Witness of History to Christ,72; A.S. Farrar, Science and Theology, 208; Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften, 1:27; Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:630; Presb. Rev., 1881:687-719.

Some modern writers have maintained that the gift of miracles still remains in the church. Bengel: “The reason why many miracles are not now wrought is not so much because faith is established, as because unbelief reigns.” Christlieb: “It is the want of faith in our age which is the greatest hindrance to the stronger and more marked appearance of that miraculous power which is working here and there in quiet concealment.

Unbelief is the final and most important reason for the retrogression of miracles.” Edward Irving, Works, 5:464 — “Sickness is sin apparent in the body, the presentiment of death, the forerunner of corruption. Now, as Christ came to destroy death, and will yet redeem the body from the bondage of corruption, if the church is to have a first fruits or earnest of this power, it must be by receiving power over diseases that are the first fruits and earnest of death.” Dr. A.T. Gordon, in his Ministry of Healing, held to this view. See also Boys, Proofs of the Miraculous in the Experience of the Church; Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 446- 492; Review of Gordon, by Vincent, in Presb. Rev., 1883:473-502; Review of Vincent, in Presb. Rev., 1884:49-79.

In reply to the advocates of faith cure in general, we would grant that nature is plastic in God’s hand; that he can work miracle when and where it pleases him; and that he has given promises which, with certain Scriptural and rational limitations encourage believing prayer for healing in cases of sickness. But we incline to the belief that in these later ages God answers such prayer, not by miracle, but by special providence, and by gifts of courage, faith and will, thus acting by his Spirit directly upon the soul and only indirectly upon the body. The laws of nature are generic volition of God, and to ignore them and disuse means is presumption and disrespect to God himself. The Scripture promise to faith is always expressly or impliedly conditioned upon our use of means: we are to work omit our own salvation, for the very reason that it is God who works in us: it is vain for the drowning man to pray, so long as he refuses to lay hold of the rope that is thrown to him. Medicines and physicians are the rope thrown to us by God; we cannot expect miraculous help, while we neglect the help God has already given us; to refuse this help is practically to deny Christ’s revelation in nature. Why not live without eating, as well as recover from sickness without medicine? Faith feeding is quite as rational as faith healing. To except cases of disease from this general rule as to the use of means has no warrant either in reason or in Scripture. The atonement has purchased complete salvation, and some day salvation shall be ours. But death and depravity still remain, not as penalty, but as chastisement. So disease remains also. Hospitals for Incurables, and the deaths even of advocates of faith cure, show that they too are compelled to recognize some limit to the application of the New Testament promise.

In view of the preceding discussion we must regard the so-called Christian Science as neither Christian nor scientific. Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy denies the authority of all that part of revelation which God has made to man in nature, and holds that the laws of nature may be disregarded with impunity by those who have proper faith; see U.F. Wright, in Bibliotheca Sacra April, 1899:375. Bishop Lawrence of Massachusetts: “One of the errors of Christian Science is its neglect of accumulated knowledge, of the fund of information stored up for these Christian centuries. That knowledge is just as much God’s gift as is the knowledge obtained from direct revelation. In rejecting accumulated knowledge and professional skill, Christian Science rejects the gift of God.” Most of the professed cures of Christian Science are explicable by the influence of the mind upon the body, through hypnosis or suggestion; (see A. A. Bennett, in Watchman, Feb. 13, 1903). Mental disturbance may make the mother’s milk a poison to the child; mental excitement is a common cause of indigestion; mental depression induces bowel disorders; depressed mental and moral conditions render a person more susceptible to grippe, pneumonia, typhoid fever. Reading the account of an accident in which the body is torn or maimed, we ourselves feel pain in the same spot; when the child’s hand is crushed, the mother’s hand, though at a distance, becomes swollen the medieval stigmata probably resulted from continuous brooding upon the sufferings of Christ (see Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 676-690).

But mental states may help as well as harm the body. Mental expectancy facilitates cure in cases of sickness. The physician helps the patient by inspiring hope and courage. Imagination works wonders, especially in the case of nervous disorders. The diseases said to be cured by Christian Science are commonly of this sort. In every age fakirs, mesmerists, and quacks have availed themselves of these underlying mental forces. By inducing expectancy, imparting courage, rousing the paralyzed will, they have indirectly caused bodily changes, which have been mistaken for miracle. Tacitus tells us of the healing of a blind man by the Emperor Vespasian. Undoubted cures have been wrought by the royal touch in England. Since such wonders have been performed by Indian medicine men, we cannot regard them as having any specific Christian character, and when, as in the present case, we find them used to aid in the spread of false doctrine with regard to sin Christ, atonement, and the church, we must class them with the “lying wonders” of which we are warned in 2Thess. 2:9. See Harris, Philosophical Basis of Theism, 381-386; Buckley, Faith Healing, and in Century Magazine, June, 1886:221-236; Bruce, Miraculous Element in Gospels, lecture 8; Andover Review, 1887:249-264.

IV. PROPHECY AS ATTESTING A DIVINE REVELATION.

We here consider prophecy in its narrow sense of mere prediction, reserving to a subsequent chapter the consideration of prophecy, as interpretation of the divine will in general. 1. Definition. Prophecy is the foretelling of future events by virtue of direct communication from God — a foretelling, therefore, which, though not contravening any laws of the human mind, those laws, if fully known, would not, without this agency of God, be sufficient to explain.

In discussing the subject of prophecy, we are met at the outset by the contention that there is not, and never has been, any real foretelling of future events beyond that which is possible to natural prescience. This is the view of Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. Pfleiderer, Philos.

Relig., 2:42, denies any direct prediction. Prophecy in Israel, he intimates, was simply the consciousness of God’s righteousness, proclaiming its ideals of the future, and declaring that the will of God is the moral ideal of the good and the law of the world’s history, so that the fates of nations are conditioned by their bearing toward this moral purpose of God: “The fundamental error of the vulgar apologetics is that it confounds prophecy with heathen soothsaying — national salvation without character.” W.

Robertson Smith, in Encyc. Britannica, 19:821, tells us that “detailed prediction occupies a very secondary place in the writings of the prophets; or rather indeed what seem to be predictions in detail are usually only free poetical illustrations of historical principles, which neither received nor demanded exact fulfillment.”

As in the case of miracles, our faith in an immanent God, who is none other than the Logos or larger Christ, gives us a point of view from which we may reconcile the contentions of the naturalists and super-naturalists.

Prophecy is an immediate act of God; but since all natural genius is also due to God’s energizing, we do not need to deny the employment of man’s natural gifts in prophecy. The instances of telepathy, presentiment, and second sight which the Society for Psychical Research has demonstrated to be facts show that prediction, in the history of divine revelation, may be only an intensification, under the extraordinary impulse of the divine Spirit, of a power that is in some degree latent in all men. The author of every great work of creative imagination knows that a higher power than his own has possessed him. In all human reason there is a natural activity of the divine Reason or Logos, and he is “the light which lighteth every man” ( John 1:9). So there is a natural activity of the Holy Spirit, and he who completes the circle of the divine consciousness completes also the circle of human consciousness gives selfhood to every soul, makes available to man the natural as well as the spiritual gifts of Christ; cf . John 16:14 — “he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you” The same Spirit who in the beginning “brooded over the face of the waters” ( Genesis 1:2) also broods over humanity, and it is he who, according to Christ’s promise, was to “declare unto you the things that are to come” ( John 16:13). The gift of prophecy may have its natural side like the gift of miracles, yet may be finally explicable only as the result of an extraordinary working of that Spirit of Christ who to some degree manifests himself in the reason and conscience of every man; cf. 1 Peter 1:11 — “searching what time or what manner of the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them.” See Myers, Human Personality, 2:262-292.

A.B. Davidson, in his article on Prophecy and Prophets, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 4:120, 121, gives little weight to this view that prophecy is based on a natural power of the human mind: “The arguments by which Giesebrecht, Berufsgabung, 13 ff., supports the theory of a ‘faculty of presentiment’ have little cogency. This faculty is supposed to reveal itself particularly on the approach of death (Gen. 28 and 49). The contemporaries of most great religious personages have attributed to them a prophetic gift. The answer of John Knox to those who credited him with such a gift is worth reading: ‘My assurances are not marvels of Merlin, nor yet the dark sentences of profane prophecy. But first, the plain truth of God’s word; second, the invincible justice of the everlasting God; and third, the ordinary course of his punishments and plagues from the beginning, are my assurances and grounds.’” While Davidson grants the fulfillment of certain specific predictions of Scripture, to be hereafter mentioned, he holds that “such presentiments as we can observe to be authentic are chiefly products of the conscience or moral reason. True prophecy is based on moral rounds. Everywhere the menacing future is connected with the evil past by ‘therefore’ ( Micah 3:12; Isaiah 5:13; Amos 1:2).” We hold with Davidson to the moral element in prophecy, but we also recognize a power in normal humanity, which he would minimize or deny. We claim that the human mind even in its ordinary and secular working gives occasional signs of transcending the limitations of the present. Believing in the continual activity of the divine Reason in the reason of man, we have no need to doubt the possibility of an extraordinary insight into the future, and such insight is needed at the great epochs of religious history. Expositor’s Gk. Test., 2:34 — “Savonarola foretold as early as 1496 the capture of Rome, which happened in 1527, and he did this not only in general terms but in detail; his words were realized to the letter when the sacred churches of St. Peter and St. Paul became, as the prophet foretold, stables for the conquerors’ horses.” On the general subject, see Payne-Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for Christ; Alexander, Christ and Christianity; Farrar, Science and Theology, 106; Newton on Prophecy; Fairbairn on Prophecy. 2. Relation of Prophecy to Miracles. Miracles are attestations of revelation proceeding from divine power; prophecy is an attestation of revelation proceeding from divine knowledge. Only God can know the contingencies of the future. The possibility and probability of prophecy may be argued upon the same grounds upon which we argue the possibility and probability of miracles. As an evidence of divine revelation, however, prophecy possesses two advantages over miracles, namely: (a) The proof, in the case of prophecy, is not derived from ancient testimony, but is under our eyes. (b) The evidence of miracles cannot become stronger, whereas every new fulfillment adds to the argument from prophecy. 3. Requirements in Prophecy, considered as an Evidence of Revelation) (a) The utterance must be distant from the event (b) Nothing must exist to suggest the event to merely natural prescience. (c) The utterance must be free from ambiguity. (d) Yet it must not be so precise as to secure its own fulfillment. (e) It must be followed in due the by the event predicted.

Hume: “All prophecies are real miracles, and only as such can be admitted as proof of any revelation.” See Wardlaw, Systematic Theology, 1:347. (a) Hundreds of years intervened between certain of the O.T. predictions and their fulfillment. (b) Stanley instances the natural sagacity of Burke, which enabled him to predict the French Revolution. But Burke also predicted in 1793 that France would be partitioned like Poland among a confederacy of hostile powers.

Canning predicted that South American colonies would grow up as the United States had grown. D’Israeli predicted that our Southern Confederacy would become an independent nation. Ingersoll predicted that within ten years there would be two theaters for one church. (c) Illustrate ambiguous prophecies by the Delphic oracle to Crúsus: “Crossing the river, thou destroyest a great nation” — whether his own or his enemy’s the oracle left undetermined. “Ibis et redibis nunquam peribis in bello.” (d) Strauss held that O.T. prophecy itself determined either the events or the narratives of the gospels. See Greg, Creed of Christendom, chap. 4. (e) Cardan, the Italian mathematician, predicted the day and hour of his own death, and committed suicide at the proper time to prove the prediction true.

Jehovah makes the fulfillment of his predictions the proof of his deity in the controversy with false gods: Isaiah 41:23 — “ Declare the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods”; 42:9 — “Behold, the former things are come to pass and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.” 4. General Features of Prophecy in the Scriptures. (a) Its large amount — occupying a great portion of the Bible, and extending over many hundred years. (b) Its ethical and religious nature — the events of the future being regarded as outgrowths and results of men’s present attitude toward God. (c) Its unity in diversity — finding its central points in Christ the true servant of God and deliverer of his people. (d) Its actual fulfillment as regards many of its predictions — while seeming non-fulfillment is explicable from its figurative and conditional nature.

A.B. Davidson, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 4:125, has suggested reasons for the apparent non-fulfillment of certain predictions. Prophecy is poetical and figurative; its details are not to be pressed: they are only draperies, needed for the expression of the idea. In Isaiah 13:16 — “Their infants shall be dashed in pieces... and their wives ravished” — the prophet gives an ideal picture of the sack of a city; these things did not actually happen, but Cyrus entered Babylon “in peace.” Yet the essential truth remained that the city fell into the enemy’s hands. The prediction of Ezekiel with regard to Tyre, Ecclesiastes 26:7-14, is recognized in Ezekiel 29:17-20 as having been fulfilled not in its details but in its essence — the actual event having been the breaking of the power of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah 17: — “Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap” — must be interpreted ‘as predicting the blotting out of its dominion, since Damascus has probably never ceased to be a city. The conditional nature of prophecy explains other seeming non-fulfillment.

Predictions were often threats, which might be revoked upon repentance. Jeremiah 26:13 — “amend your ways...and the Lord will repent him of the evil which he hath pronounced against you. Jonah 3:4 — “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown...10 — “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and. God repented of the evil, which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not”; cf . Jeremiah 18:8; 26:19.

Instances of actual fulfillment of prophecy are found, according to Davidson, in Samuel’s prediction of some things that would happen to Saul, which the history declares did happen (1 Samuel 1 and 10).

Jeremiah predicted the death of Hannah within the year, which took place (Jeremiah 28). Micaiah predicted the defeat and death of Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22). Isaiah predicted the failure of the northern coalition to subdue Jerusalem (Isaiah 7): the overthrow in two or three years of Damascus and Northern Israel before the Assyrians (Isaiah 8 and 17); the failure of Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem, and the melting away of his army ( Isaiah 37:34-37). “And in general, apart from details, the main predictions of the prophets regarding Israel and the nations were verified in history, for example, Amos 1 and 2. The chief predictions of the prophets relate to the imminent downfall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah; to what lies beyond this, namely, the restoration of t h e kingdom of God; and to the state of the people in their condition of final felicity.” For predictions of the exile and the return of Israel, see especially Amos 9:9 — “For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all the nations, like as grain is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least kernel fall upon the earth...14 — And I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them.” Even if we accept the theory of composite authorship of the book of Isaiah, we still have a foretelling of the sending back of the Jews from Babylon, and a designation of Cyrus as God’s agent, in Isaiah 44:28 — “that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying of Jerusalem She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall he laid”; see George Adam Smith, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 2:493. Frederick the Great said to his chaplain: “Give me in one word a proof of the divine origin of the Bible”; and the chaplain well replied: “The Jews, your Majesty.” In the case of the Jews we have even now the unique phenomena of a people without a land, and a land without a people, — yet both these were predicted centuries before the event. 5. Messianic Prophecy in general. (a) Direct predictions of events — as in Old Testament prophecies of Christ’s birth, suffering and subsequent glory. (b) General prophecy of the Kingdom in the Old Testament, and of its gradual triumph. (c) Historical types in a nation and in individuals — as Jonah and David. (d) Prefigurations of the future in rites and ordinances — as in sacrifice, circumcision, and the Passover. 6. Special Prophecies uttered by Christ. (a) As to his own death and resurrection. (b) As to events occurring between his death and the destruction of Jerusalem (multitudes of impostors; wars and rumors of wars; famine and pestilence). (c) As to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity (Jerusalem compassed with armies; abomination of desolation in the holy place; flight of Christians; misery; massacre; dispersion). (d) As to the worldwide diffusion of his gospel (the Bible already the most widely circulated book in the world).

The most important feature in prophecy is its Messianic element; see Luke 24:7 — “Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”; Acts 10:43 — “to him bear all the prophets witness”; Revelation 19:10 — “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Types are intended resemblances, designed prefigurations: for example, Israel is a type of the Christian church; outside nations are types of the hostile world; Jonah and David are types of Christ. The typical nature of Israel rests upon the deeper fact of the community of life. As the life of God the Logos lies at the basis of universal humanity and interpenetrates it in every part, so out of this universal humanity grows Israel in general; out of Israel as a nation springs the spiritual Israel, and out of spiritual Israel Christ according to the flesh, — the upward rising pyramid finds its apex and culmination in him. Hence the predictions with regard to “the servant of Jehovah” ( Isaiah 42:1-7), and “the Messiah” ( Isaiah 61:1; John 1:41), have partial fulfillment in Israel, but perfect fulfillment only in Christ; so Delitzsch, Oehler, and Cheyne on Isaiah, 2:253.

Sabatier, Philos. Religion,59 — “If humanity were not potentially and in some degree Emmanuel, God with us, there would never have issued from its bosom he who bore and revealed this blessed name.” Gardiner, O.T. and N.T. in their Mutual Relations, 170-194.

In the O.T., Jehovah is the Redeemer of his people. He works through judges, prophets, kings, but he himself remains the Savior; “it is only the Divine in them that saves”; “Salvation is of Jehovah” ( Jonah 2:9).

Jehovah is manifested in the Davidic King under the monarchy; in Israel, the Servant of the Lord, during the exile; and in the Messiah, or Anointed One, in the post-exillian period. Because of its conscious identification with Jehovah, Israel is always a forward looking people. Each new judge, king, prophet is regarded as heralding the coming reign of righteousness and peace. These earthly deliverers are saluted with rapturous expectation; the prophets express this expectation in terms that transcend the possibilities of the present; and, when this expectation fails to be fully realized, the Messianic hope is simply transferred to a larger future. Each separate prophecy has its drapery furnished by the prophet’s immediate surroundings, and finds its occasion in some event of contemporaneous history. But by degrees it becomes evident that only an ideal and perfect King and Savior can fill out the requirements of prophecy. Only when Christ appears, does the real meaning of the various Old Testament predictions become manifest. Only then mere men able to combine the seemingly inconsistent prophecies of a priest who is also a king (Psalm 110), and of a royal but at the same the a suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53). It is not enough for us to ask what the prophet himself meant, or what his earliest hearers understood, by his prophecy. This is to regard prophecy as having only a single, and that a human, author. With the spirit of man cooperated the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit ( 1 Peter 1:11 — “the Spirit of Christ which was in them”; 1 Peter 1:21 — “no prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit”). All prophecy has a twofold authorship, human and divine; the same Christ who spoke through the prophets brought about the fulfillment of their words.

It is no wonder that he who through the prophets uttered predictions with regard to himself should, when he became incarnate, be the prophet par excellence ( Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:22 — “Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up from among your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken”). In the predictions of Jesus we find the proper key to the interpretation of prophecy in general, and the evidence that while no one of the three theories — the preterist, the continuist, the futurist — furnishes an exhaustive explanation, each one of these has its element of truth. Our Lord made the fulfillment of the prediction of his own resurrection a test of his divine commission: it was “the sign of Jonah the prophet” ( Matthew 12:39). He promised that his disciples should have prophetic gifts: John 15:15 — No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father I have made known unto you”; 16:13 — “the Spirit of truth...he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.” Agabus predicted the famine and Paul’s imprisonment ( Acts 11:28; 21:10); Paul predicted heresies ( Acts 20:29,30), shipwreck ( Acts 27:10, 21-26), “the man of sin ( Thessalonians 2:3), Christ’s Second Coming, and the resurrection of the saints ( 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). 7. On the double sense of Prophecy. (a) Certain prophecies apparently contain a fullness of meaning, which is not exhausted by the event to which they most obviously and literally refer.

A prophecy, which had a partial fulfillment at a time not remote from its utterance, may find its chief fulfillment in an event far distant. Since the principles of God’s administration find ever recurring and ever enlarging illustration in history, prophecies that have already had a partial fulfillment may have whole cycles of fulfillment yet before them.

In prophecy there is an absence of perspective; as in Japanese pictures the near and the far appear equally distant; as in dissolving views, the immediate future melts into a future immeasurably far away. The candle that shines through a narrow aperture sends out its light through an ever increasing area; sections of the triangle correspond to each other, but the more distant are far greater than the near. The chalet on the mountainside may turn out to be only a black cat on the woodpile, or a speck upon the windowpane. “A hill which appears to rise close behind another is found on nearer approach to have receded a great way from it.” The painter, by foreshortening, brings together things or parts that are relatively distant from each other. The prophet is a painter whose fore shortenings are supernatural; he seems freed from the law of space and time, and, rapt into the timelessness of God, he views the events of history “sub specie eternitatis.” Prophecy was the sketching of an outline map. Even the prophet could not fill up the outline. The absence of perspective in prophecy may account for Paul’s being misunderstood by the Thessalonians, and for the necessity of his explanations in <530201> Thessalonians 2:1, 2. In Isaiah 10 and 11, the fall of Lebanon (the Assyrian) is immediately connected with the rise of the Branch (Christ); in Jeremiah 51:41, the first capture and the complete destruction of Babylon are connected with each other, without notice of the interval of a thousand years between them. Instances of the double sense of prophecy may be found in Isaiah 7:14-16; 9:6, 7 — “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son...unto us a son is given” — compared with Matthew 1:22,23, where the prophecy is applied to Christ (see Meyer, in loco ); Hosea 11:1 — “I...called my son out of Egypt” — refering originally to the calling of the nation out of Egypt — is in Matthew 2:15 referred to Christ, who embodied and consummated the mission of Israel; <19B822> Psalm 118:22,23 — “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner” — which primarily referred to the Jewish nation, conquered, carried away, and flung aside as of no use, but divinely destined to a future of importance and grandeur, is in Matthew 21:42 referred by Jesus to himself, as the true embodiment of Israel. William Arnold Stevens, on The Man of Sin, in Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1889:328- 360 — As in Daniel 11:36, the great enemy of the faith, who “shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,” is the Syrian King, Antiochus Epiphanes, so “the man of lawlessness” described by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is the corrupt and impious Judaism of the apostolic age. This had its seat in the temple of God, but was doomed to destruction when the Lord should come at the fall of Jerusalem. But even this second fulfillment of the prophecy does not preclude a future and final fulfillment. Broadus on Matthew, page 480 — In Isaiah 41:8 to chapter 53, the predictions with regard to “the servant of Jehovah” make a gradual transition from Israel to the Messiah, the former alone being seen in 41:8, the Messiah also appearing in 42:1 sq ., and Israel quite sinking out of sight in chapter 53.

The most marked illustration of the double sense of prophecy however is to be found in Matthew 24 and 25, especially 24:34 and 25:31, where Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem passes into a prophecy of the end of the world. Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 183 — “To him history was the robe of God, and therefore a constant repetition of positions really similar, kaleidoscopic combining of a few truths, as the facts varied in which they were to be embodied.” A.J. Gordon: “Prophecy has no sooner become history, than history in turn becomes prophecy.”

Lord Bacon: “Divine prophecies have springing and germinate accomplishment through many ages, though the height or fullness of them may refer to some one age.” In a similar manner there is a manifoldness of meaning in Dante’s Divine Comedy. C. E. Norton, Inferno, xvi — “The narrative of the poet’s spiritual journey is so vivid and consistent that it has all the reality of an account of an actual experience; but within and beneath runs a stream of allegory not less consistent and hardly less continuous than the narrative itself.” A.H. Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology. 116 — “Dante himself has told us that there are four separate senses which he intends his story to convey. There are the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. In <19B401> Psalm 114:1 we have the words, ‘When Israel went forth out of Egypt.’ This, says the poet, may be taken literally, of the actual deliverance of God’s ancient people; or allegorically, of the redemption of the world through Christ; or morally, of the rescue of the sinner from the bondage of his sin; or anagogically, of the passage of both soul and body from the lower life of earth to the higher life of heaven. So from Scripture Dante illustrates the method of his poem.” See further our treatment of Eschatology. See also Dr. Arnold of Rugby, Sermons on the Interpretation of Scripture, Appendix A, pages 441-454; Aids to Faith, 449-462; Smith’s Bible Dict., 4:2727. Per contra, see Elliott, Hoær Apocalypticæ, 4:662. Gardiner. O.T. and N.T., 262-274, deny double sense, but affirms manifold applications of a single sense. Broadus, on Matthew 24:1, denies double sense, but affirms the use of types. (b) The prophet was not always aware of the meaning of his own prophecies ( 1 Peter 1:11). It is enough to constitute his prophecies a proof of divine revelation, if it can be shown that the correspondences between them and the actual events are such as to indicate divine wisdom and purpose in the giving of them — in other words, it is enough if the inspiring Spirit knew their meaning, even though the inspired prophet did not It is not inconsistent with this view, but rather confirms it, that the near event, and not the distant fulfillment, was often chiefly, if not exclusively, in the mind of the prophet when he wrote. Scripture declares that the prophets did not always understand their own predictions: 1 Peter 1:11 — “searching what time or what manner of the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.” Emerson: “Himself from God he could not free; he builded better than he knew.” Keble: “As little children lisp and tell of heaven, So thoughts beyond their thoughts to those high bards were given.” Westcott: Preface to Com. on Hebrews, vi — “No one would limit the teaching of a poet’s words to that which was definitely present to his mind. Still less can we suppose that he who is inspired to give a message of God to all ages sees himself the completeness of the truth which all life serves to illuminate.” Alexander McLaren: “Peter teaches that Jewish prophets foretold the events of Christ’s life and especially his sufferings; that they did so as organs of God’s Spirit; that they were so completely organs of a higher voice that they did not understand the significance of their own words, but were wiser than they knew and had to search what were the date and the characteristics of the strange things which they foretold; and that by further revelation they learned that ‘the vision is yet for many days ( Isaiah 24:22; Daniel 10:14). If Peter was right in his conception of the nature of Messianic prophecy, a good many learned men of today are wrong.” Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma: “Might not the prophetic ideals be poetic dreams, and the correspondence between them and the life of Jesus, so far as real, only a curious historical phenomenon?” Bruce, Apologetics, 359, replies: “Such skepticism is possible only to those who have no faith in a living God who works out purposes in history.” It is comparable only to the unbelief of the materialist who regards the physical constitution of the universe as explicable by the fortuitous concourse of atoms. 8. Purpose of Prophecy — so far as it is yet unfulfilled. (a) Not to enable us to map out the details of the future; but rather (b) To give general assurance of God’s power and foreseeing wisdom, and of the certainty of his triumph; and (c) To furnish, after fulfillment, the proof that God saw the end from the beginning. Daniel 12:8,9 — “And I heard, but I understood not; then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the issue of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the of the end”; 1 Peter 1:19 — prophecy is “a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn” not until day dawns can distant objects be seen; 20 — “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation” only God, by the event, can interpret it. Sir Isaac Newton: “God gave the prophecies, not to gratify men’s curiosity by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreter’s, be thereby manifested to the world.”

Alexander McLaren: “Great tracts of Scripture are dark to us till life explains them, and then they come on us with the force of a new revelation, like the messages which of old were sent by a strip of parchment coiled upon a b‚ton and then written upon, and which were unintelligible unless the receiver had a corresponding b‚ton to wrap them round.” A.H. Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology, 23 — “Archilochus, a poet of about 700 B. C., speaks of ‘a grievous scytale — the scytail being the staff on which a strip of leather for writing purposes was rolled slantwise, so that the message inscribed upon the strip could not be read until the leather was rolled again upon another staff of the same size; since only the writer and the receiver possessed staves of the proper size, the scytale answered all the ends of a message in cipher.”

Prophecy is like the German sentence, — it can be understood only when we have read its last word. A.J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 48 — “God’s providence is like the Hebrew Bible; we must begin at the end and read backward, in order to understand it.” Yet Dr. Gordon seems to assert that such understanding is possible even before fulfillment: “Christ did not know the day of the end when here in his state of humiliation; but he does know now. He has shown his knowledge in the Apocalypse, and we have received ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass’ ( Revelation 1:1).” A study however of the multitudinous and conflicting views of the so called interpreters of prophecy leads us to prefer to Dr. Gordon’s view that of Briggs, Messianic Prophecies,49 — “The first advent is the resolver of all Old Testament prophecy...the second advent will give the key to New Testament prophecy. It is ‘the Lamb that hath been slain’ ( Revelation 5:12)...who alone opens the sealed book, solves the riddles of time, and resolves the symbols of prophecy.”

Nitzsch: “It is the essential condition of prophecy that it should not disturb man’s relation to history.” In so far as this is forgotten, and it is falsely assumed that the purpose of prophecy is to enable us to map out the precise events of the future before they occur, the study of prophecy ministers to a diseased imagination and diverts attention from practical Christian duty. Calvin: “Aut insanum inveniet aut faciet”; or, as Lord Brougham translated it: “The study of prophecy either finds a man crazy, or it leaves him so.” Second Adventists do not often seek conversions. Dr. Cumming warned the women of his flock that they must not study prophecy so much as to neglect their household duties. Paul has such in mind in 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 — “touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ... that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind...as that the day of the Lord is just at hand; 3:11 — “For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly.” 9. Evidential force of Prophecy — so far as it is fulfilled. Prophecy, like miracles, does not stand alone as evidence of the divine commission of the Scripture writers and teachers. It is simply a corroborative attestation, which unites with miracles to prove that a religious teacher has come from God and speaks with divine authority. We cannot, however, dispense with this portion of the evidences, — for unless the death and resurrection of Christ are events foreknown and foretold by himself, as well as by the ancient prophets, we lose one main proof of his authority as a teacher sent front God.

Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 338 — “The Christian’s own life is the progressive fulfillment of the prophecy that whoever accepts Christ’s grace shall be born again, sanctified, and saved. Hence the Christian can believe in God’s power to predict, and in God’s actual predictions.” See Stanley Leathes, O.T. Prophecy, xvii — “Unless we have access to the supernatural, we have no access to God.” In our discussions of prophecy, we are to remember that before making the truth of Christianity stand or fall with any particular passage that has been regarded as prediction, we must be certain that the passage is meant as prediction, and not as merely figurative description. Gladden, Seven Puzzling Bible Books, 195 — “The book of Daniel is not a prophecy, — it is an apocalypse...The author [of such books] puts his words into the mouth of some historical or traditional writer of eminence. Such are the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, Baruch,1 and 2 Esdras, and the Sibylline Oracles. Enigmatic form indicates persons without naming them, and historic events as animal forms or as operations of nature...The book of Daniel is not intended to teach us history. It does not look forward from the sixth century before Christ, but backward from the second century before Christ. It is a kind of story which the Jews called Haggada.

It is aimed at Antiochus Epimanes, who from his occasional fits of melancholy, was called Epimanes, or Antiochus the Mad.”

Whatever may be our conclusion as to the authorship of the book of Daniel, we must recognize in it an element of prediction, which has been actually fulfilled. The most radical interpreters do not place its date later than 163 B. C. Our Lord sees in the book clear reference to himself ( Matthew 26:64 — “the Son of man, sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven”; cf. Daniel 7:13); and he repeats with emphasis certain predictions of the prophet which were yet unfulfilled ( Matthew 24:15 — “When ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet”; cf. Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The book of Daniel must therefore be counted profitable not only for its moral and spiritual lessons, but also for its actual predictions of Christ and of the universal triumph of his kingdom ( Daniel 2:45 — “a stone cut out of the mountain without hands”). See on Daniel, Hastings’ Bible Dictionary; Farrar, in Expositor’s Bible. On the general subject see Annotated Paragraph Bible, Introduction to Prophetical Books; Cairns, on Present State of Christian Argument from Prophecy, in Present Day Tracts, 5: no. 27; Edersheim, Prophecy and History; Briggs, Messianic Prophecy; Redford, Prophecy, its Nature and Evidence; Willis J. Beecher, the Prophet and the Promise; Orr, Problem of the O.T., 455-465.

Having thus removed the presumption originally existing against miracles and prophecy, we may now consider the ordinary laws of evidence and determine the rules to be followed in estimating the weight of the Scripture testimony.

V. PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO THE PROOF OF A DIVINE REVELATION

(mainly derived from Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists, and from Starkie on Evidence). 1. As to documentary evidence. (a) Documents apparently ancient, not bearing upon their face the marks of forgery, and found in proper custody, are presumed to be genuine until sufficient evidence is brought to the contrary. The New Testament documents, since they are found in the custody of the church, their natural and legitimate depository, must by this rule are presumed to be genuine.

The Christian documents were not found, like the Book of Mormon, in a cave, or in the custody of angels. Martineau, Seat of Authority, 322 — “The Mormon prophet, who cannot tell God from devil close at hand, is well up with the history of both worlds, and commissioned to get ready the second promised land.” Washington Gladden, Who wrote the Bible? — “An angel appeared to Smith and told him where he would find this book; he went to the spot designated and found in a stone box a volume six inches thick, composed of thin gold plates, eight inches by seven, held together by three gold rings; these plates were covered with writing, in the ‘Reformed Egyptian tongue’; with this book were the ‘Urim and Thummim, a pair of supernatural spectacles, by means of which he was able to read and translate this ‘Reformed Egyptian language.” Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, 113 — “If the ledger of a business firm has always been received and regarded as a ledger, its value is not at all impeached if it is impossible to tell which particular clerk kept this ledger...The epistle to the Hebrews would be no less valuable as evidence, if shown not to have been written by Paul.” See Starkie on Evidence, 480 sq.; Chalmers, Christian Revelation, in Works, 3:147-171. (b) Copies of ancient documents, made by those most interested in their faithfulness, are presumed to correspond with the originals, even although those originals no longer exist. Since it was the church’s interest to have faithful copies, the burden of proof rests upon the objector to the Christian documents.

Upon the evidence of a copy of its own records, the originals having been lost, the House of Lords decided a claim to the peerage; see Starkie on Evidence, 51. There is no manuscript of Sophocles earlier than the tenth century, while at least two manuscripts of the N.T. go back to the fourth century. Frederick George Kenyon, Handbook to Textual Criticism of N.T.: “We owe our knowledge of most of the great works of Greek and Latin literature — Æschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Horace, Lucretius, Tacitus, and many more — to manuscripts written from 900 to years after their authors’ deaths; while of the N.T. we have two excellent and approximately complete copies at an interval of only 250 years.

Again, of the classical God writers we have as a rule only a few score of copies (often less), of which one or two stand out ‘is decisively superior to all the rest; but of the N.T. we have more than 3000 copies (besides a very large number of versions), and many of these have distinct and independent value.” The mother of Tischendorf named him Lobgott, because her fear that her babe would be born blind had not come true. No man ever had keener sight than he did. He spent his life in deciphering old manuscripts, which other eyes could not read. The Sinaitic manuscript which he discovered takes us back within three centuries of the of the apostles. (c) In determining matters of fact, after the lapse of considerable the, documentary evidence is to be allowed greater weight than oral testimony.

Neither memory nor tradition can long be trusted to give absolutely correct accounts of particular facts. The New Testament documents, therefore, are of greater weight in evidence than tradition would be, even if only thirty years had elapsed since the death of the actors in the scenes they relate.

See Starkie on Evidence, 51, 730. The Roman Catholic Church, in its legends of the saints, shows how quickly mere tradition can become corrupt. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, yet sermons preached today on the anniversary of his birth make him out to be Unitarian, Universalist, or Orthodox, according as the preacher himself believes. 2. As to testimony in general. (a) In questions as to matters of fact, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true. It is unfair, therefore, to allow our examination of the Scripture witnesses to be prejudiced by suspicion, merely because their story is a sacred one.

There must be no prejudice against, there must be open-mindedness to, truth; there must be a normal aspiration after the signs of communication from God. Telepathy, forty days fasting, parthenogenesis, all these might once have seemed antecedently incredible. Now we see that it would have been more rational to admit their existence on presentation of appropriate evidence. (b) A proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. By satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Scripture facts are therefore proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence, which would, in the affairs of ordinary life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. When we have this kind and degree of evidence it is unreasonable to require more.

In matters of morals and religion competent evidence need not be mathematical or even logical. The majority of cases in criminal courts are decided upon evidence that is circumstantial. We do not determine our choice of friends or of partners in life by strict processes of reasoning.

The heart as well as the head must be permitted a voice, And competent evidence includes considerations arising from the moral needs of the soul.

The evidence, moreover, does not require to be demonstrative. Even a slight balance of probability, when nothing more certain is attainable, may suffice to constitute rational proof and to bind our moral action. (c) In the absence of circumstances, which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his testimony lying upon the objector. The principle, which leads men to give true witness to facts, is stronger than that which leads them to give false witness. It is therefore unjust to compel the Christian to establish the credibility of his witnesses before proceeding to adduce their testimony, and it is equally unjust to allow the uncorroborated testimony of a profane writer to outweigh that of a Christian writer. Christian witnesses should not be considered interested, and therefore untrustworthy for they became Christians against their worldly interests, and because they could not resist the force of testimony. Varying accounts among them should be estimated as we estimate the varying accounts of profane writers.

John’s account of Jesus differs from that of the synoptic gospels; but in a very similar manner, and probably for a very similar reason, Plato’s account of Socrates differs from that of Xenophon. Each saw and described that side of his subject which he was by nature best fitted to comprehend, — compare the Venice of Canaletto with the Venice of Turner, the former the picture of an expert draughtsman, the latter the vision of a poet who sees the palaces of the Doges glorified by air and mist and distance. In Christ there was a “hiding of his power” ( Habakkuk 3:4); “how small a whisper do we hear of him!” ( Job 26:14); he, rather than Shakespeare, is “the myriad minded”; no one evangelist can be expected to know or describe him except “in part” ( Corinthians 13:12). Frances Power Cobbe, Life, 2:405 — “All of us human beings resemble diamonds, in having several distinct facets to our characters; and, as we always turn one of those to one person and another to another, there is generally some fresh side to be seen in a particularly brilliant gem.” E. P. Tenet, Coronation, 45 — “The secret and powerful life he [the hero of the story] was leading was like certain solitary streams, deep, wide, and swift, which run unseen through vast and unfrequented forests. So wide and varied was this man’s nature, that whole courses of life might thrive in its secret places, — and his neighbors might touch him and know him only on that side on which he was like them.” (d) A slight amount of positive testimony, so long as it is uncontradicted, outweighs a very great amount of testimony that is merely negative. The silence of a second witness, or his testimony that he did not see a certain alleged occurrence, cannot counterbalance the positive testimony of a first witness that he did see it. We should therefore estimate the silence of profane writers with regard to facts narrated in Scripture precisely as we should estimate it if the facts about which they are silent were narrated by other profane writers, instead of being narrated by the writers of Scripture.

Egyptian monuments make no mention of the destruction of Pharaoh and his army: but then, Napoleon’s dispatches also make no mention of his defeat at Trafalgar. At the tomb of Napoleon in the Invalides of Paris, the walls are inscribed with names of a multitude of places where his battles were fought, but Waterloo, the scene of his great defeat, is not recorded there. So Sennacherib, in all his monuments, does not refer to the destruction of his army in the time of Hezekiah. Napoleon gathered 450,000 men at Dresden to invade Russia. At Moscow the soft falling snow conquered him. In one night 20,000 horses perished with cold. Not without reason at Moscow, on the anniversary of the retreat of the French, the exaltation of the prophet over the fall of Sennacherib is read in the churches. James Robertson, Early History of Israel, 395, note — “Whately, in his Historic Doubts, draws attention to the fact that the principal Parisian journal in 1814, on the very day on which the allied armies entered Paris as conquerors, makes no mention of any such event.

The battle of Poictiers in 732, which effectually checked the spread of Mohammedanism across Europe, is not once referred to in the monastic annals of the period. Sir Thomas Browne lived through the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth, yet there is no syllable in his writings with regard to them. Sale says that circumcision is regarded by Mohammedans as an ancient divine institution, the rite having been in use many years before Mohammed yet it is not so much as once mentioned in the Koran.”

Even though we should grant that Josephus does not mention Jesus, we should have a parallel in Thucydides, who never once mentions Socrates, the most important character of the twenty years embraced in his history.

Wieseler, however, in Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 23:98, maintains the essential genuineness of the commonly rejected passage with regard to Jesus in Josephus, Antiq., 18:3:3, omitting, however, as interpolations, the phrases: “if it be right to call him man”; “this was the Christ”; “he appeared alive the third day according to prophecy “; for these, if genuine, would prove Josephus a Christian, which he, by all ancient accounts, was not. Josephus lived from A. D. 34 to possibly 114. He does elsewhere speak of Christ; for he records (20:9:1) that Albinus “assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...and delivered them to be stoned.” See Niese’s new edition of Josephus: also a monograph on the subject by Gustav Adolph Muller, published at Innsbruck, 1890. Rush Rhees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth,22 — “To mention Jesus more fully would have required some approval of his life and teaching. This would have been a condemnation of his own people whom he desired to commend to Gentile regard, and he seems to have taken the cowardly course of silence concerning a matter more noteworthy, for that generation, than much else of which line writes very fully.” (e) ‘The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon: first, their ability; secondly, their honesty; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.” We confidently submit the New Testament witnesses to each and all of these tests.

See Starkie on Evidence, 726.

CHAPTER 2. POSITIVE PROOFS THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE A DIVINE REVELATION.

I. THE GENUINENESS OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS,

or proof that the books of the Old and New Testaments were written at the age to which they are assigned and by the men or class of men to whom they are ascribed.

Our present discussion comprises the first part and only the first part, of the doctrine of the Canon (kanw>n, a measuring reed; hence, a rule, a standard). It is important to observe that the determination of the Canon, or list of the books of sacred Scripture, is not the work of the church as an organized body. We do not receive these books upon the authority of Fathers or Councils. We receive them, only as the Fathers and Councils received them, because we have evidence that they are the writings of the men, or class of men, whose names they bear, and that they are also credible and inspired. If the previous epistle alluded to in Corinthians 5:9 should be discovered and be universally judged authentic, it could be placed with Paul’s other letters and could form part of the Canon, even though it has been lost for 1800 years. Bruce, Apologetics, 321 — “Abstractly the Canon is an open question. It can never be anything else on the principles of Protestantism, which forbid us to accept the decisions of church councils, whether ancient or modern, as final. But practically the question of the Canon is closed.” The Westminster Confession says that the authority of the word of God “does not rest upon historic evidence; it does not rest upon the authority of Councils; it does not rest upon the consent of the past or the excellence of the matter; but it rests upon the Spirit of God bearing witness to our hearts concerning its divine authority.” Clarke, Christian Theology, 24 — “The value of the Scriptures to us does not depend upon our knowing who wrote them. In the O.T. half its pages are of uncertain authorship. New dates mean new authorship. Criticism is a duty, for dates of authorship give means of interpretation. The Scriptures have power because God is in them, and because they describe the entrance of God into the life of man.”

Saintine, Picciola, 782 — “Has not a feeble reed provided man with his first arrow, his first pen, his first instrument of music?” Hugh Macmillan: “The idea of stringed instruments was first derived from the twang of the well strung bow, as the archer shot his arrows; the lyre and the harp which discourse the sweetest music of peace were invented by those who first heard this inspiring sound in the excitement of battle. And so there is no music so delightful amid the jarring discord of the world, turning everything to music and harmonizing earth and heaven, as when the heart rises out of the gloom of anger and revenge, and converts its bow into a harp, and sings to it the Lord’s song of infinite forgiveness.” George Adam Smith, Mod. Criticism and Preaching of O.T., 5 — “The church has never renounced her liberty to revise the Canon. The liberty at the beginning cannot be more than the liberty thereafter. The Holy Spirit has not forsaken the leaders of the church. Apostolic writers nowhere define the limits of the Canon, any more than Jesus did. Indeed, they employed extra-canonical writings. Christ and the apostles nowhere bound the church to believe all the teachings of the O.T. Christ discriminates, and forbids the literal interpretation of its contents. Many of the apostolic interpretations challenge our sense of truth. Much of their exegesis was temporary and false. Their judgment was that much in the O.T. was rudimentary. This opens the question of development in revelation, and justifies the attempt to fix the historic order. The N.T. criticism of the O.T. gives the liberty of criticism, and the need, and the obligation of it.

O.T. criticism is not, like Baur’s of the N.T., the result of a Priori Hegelian reasoning. From the time of Samuel we have real history. The prophets do not appeal to miracles. There is more gospel in the book of Jonah, when it is treated as a parable. The O.T. is a gradual ethical revelation of God. Few realize that the church of Christ has a higher warrant for her Canon of the O.T. than she has for her Canon of the N.T.

The O.T. was the result of criticism in the widest sense of that word. But what the church thus once achieved, the church may at any the revise.”

We reserve to a point somewhat later the proof of the credibility and the inspiration of the Scriptures. We now show their genuineness, as we would show the genuineness of other religious books, like the Koran, or of secular documents, like Cicero’s Orations against Catiline. Genuineness, in the sense in which we use the term, does not necessarily imply authenticity (i.e., truthfulness and authority); see Blunt, Dict. Doct. and Hist. Theol., art.: Authenticity. Documents may be genuine which persons other than they whose names they bear, provided these persons belong to the same class write in whole or in part. The Epistle to the Hebrews, though not written by Paul, is genuine, because it proceeds from one of the apostolic class. The addition of Deuteronomy 34, after Moses’ death, does not invalidate the genuineness of the Pentateuch; nor would the theory of a later Isaiah, even if it were established, disprove the genuineness of that prophecy; provided, in both cases, that the additions were made by men of the prophetic class. On the general subject of the genuineness of the Scripture documents, see Alexander, McIlvaine, Chalmers, Dodge, and Peabody, on the Evidences of Christianity; also Archibald, The Bible Verified. 1. Genuineness of the Books of the New Testament.

We do not need to adduce proof of the existence of the books of the New Testament as far back as the third century, for we possess manuscripts of them which are at least fourteen hundred years old, and, since the third century, references to them have been in-woven into all history and literature. We begin our proof, therefore, by showing that these documents not only existed, but also were generally accepted as genuine, before the close of the second century.

Origen was born as early as 186 A. D.; yet Tregelles tells us that Origen’s works contain citations embracing two-thirds of the New Testament.

Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 12 — “The early years of Christianity were in some respects like the early years of our lives...Those early years are the most important in our education. We learn then, we hardly know how, through effort and struggle and innocent mistakes, to use our eyes and ears, to measure distance and direction, by a process which ascends by unconscious steps to the certainty which we feel in our maturity...It was in some such unconscious way that the Christian thought of the early centuries gradually acquired the form which we find when it emerges as it were into the developed manhood of the fourth century.”

A. All the books of the New Testament, with the single exception of Peter, were not only received as genuine, but were used in more or less collected form, in the latter half of the second century. These collections of writings, so slowly transcribed and distributed, imply the long continued previous existence of the separate books, and forbid us to fix their origin later than the first half of the second century. (a) Tertullian (160-230) appeals to the ‘New Testament’ as made up of the ‘Gospels’ and ‘Apostles.’ He vouches for the genuineness of the four gospels, the Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, thirteen epistles of Paul, and the Apocalypse, in short, to twenty-one of the twenty-seven books of our Canon.

Sanday, Bampton Lectures for 1893, is confident that the first three gospels took their present shape before the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet he thinks the first and third gospels of composite origin, and probably the second. Not later than 125 A. D. the four gospels of our Canon had gained a recognized and exceptional authority. Andover Professors, Divinity of Jesus Christ,40 — “The oldest of our gospels was written about the year 70. The earlier one, now lost, a great part of which is preserved in Luke and Matthew, was probably written a few years earlier. (b) The Muratorian Canon in the West and the Peshito Version in the East (having a common date of about 160) in their catalogues of the New Testament writings mutually complement each other’s slight deficiencies, and together witness to the fact that at that time every book of our present New Testament, with the exception of 2 Peter, was received as genuine.

Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 50 — “The fragment on the Canon, discovered by Muratori in 1738, was probably written about A. D., in Greek. It begins with the last words of a sentence, which must have referred to the Gospel of Mark, and proceeds to speak of the Third Gospel as written by Luke the physician, who did not see the Lord, and then of the Fourth Gospel as written by John, a disciple of the Lord, at the request of his fellow disciples and his elders.” Bacon, N.T. Introduction, 50, gives the Muratorian Canon in full; 30 — “Theophilus of Antioch (181-190) is the first to cite a gospel by name, quoting John 1:1 as from ‘John, one of those who were vessels of the Spirit.” On the Muratorian Canon, see Tregelles, Muratorian Canon. On the Peshito Version, see Schaff, Introduction to Rev. Gk.-Eng. N.T., xxxvii; Smith’s Bible Dict., pp. 3388, 3389. (c) The Canon of Marcion (140), though rejecting all the gospels but that of Luke, and all the epistles but ten of Paul’s, shows, nevertheless, that at that early day “apostolic writings were regarded as a complete original rule of doctrine.” Even Marcion, moreover, does not deny the genuineness of those writings, which for doctrinal reasons he rejects.

Marcion, the Gnostic, was the enemy of all Judaism, and regarded the God of the O.T. as a restricted divinity, entirely different from the God of the N.T. Marcion was “ipso Paulo paulinior” — “plus loyal que le roi.”

He held that Christianity was something entirely new, and that it stood in opposition to all that went before it. His Canon consisted of two parts: the “Gospel” (Luke, with its text curtailed by omission of the Hebraistic elements) and the Apostolicon (the epistles of Paul). The epistle to Diognetus by an unknown author, and the epistle of Barnabas, shared the view of Marcion. The name of the Deity was changed from Jehovah to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If Marcion’s view had prevailed, the Old Testament would have been lost to the Christian Church. God’s revelation would have been deprived of its proof from prophecy. Development from the past, and divine conduct of Jewish history would have been denied.

But without the Old Testament, as H. W. Beecher maintained, the New Testament would lack background; our chief source of knowledge with regard to God’s natural attributes of power, wisdom, and truth would be removed: the love and mercy revealed in the New Testament would seem characteristics of a weak being, who could not enforce law or inspire respect. A tree has as much breadth below ground as there is above; so the O.T. roots of God’s revelation are as extensive and necessary as are its N.T. trunk and branches and leaves. See Allen, Religious Progress, 81; Westcott Hist. N.T. Canon, and art.; Canon, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

Also Reuss, History of Canon; Mitchell, Critical Handbook, part I.

B. The Christian and Apostolic Fathers who lived in the first half of the second century not only quote from these books and allude to them, but testify that they were written by the apostles themselves. We are therefore compelled to refer their origin still further back, namely, to the first century, when the apostles lived. (a) Irenæus (120-200) mentions and quotes the four gospels by name, and among them the gospel according to John: “Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, he likewise published a gospel, while he dwelt in Ephesus in Asia.” And Irenæus was the disciple and friend of Polycarp (80-166), who was himself a personal acquaintance of the Apostle John. The testimony of Irenæus is virtually the evidence of Polycarp, the contemporary and friend of the Apostle, that each of the gospels was written by the person whose name it bears/ To this testimony it is objected that Irenæus says there are four gospels because there are four quarters of the world and four living creatures in the cherubim. But we reply that Irenæus is here stating, not his own reason for accepting four and only four gospels, but what he conceives to be God’s reason for ordaining that there should be four. We are not warranted in supposing that he accepted the four gospels on any other ground than that of testimony that they were the productions of apostolic men.

Chrysostom, in a similar manner, compares the four gospels to a chariot and four: When the King of Glory rides forth in it, he shall receive the triumphal acclamations of all peoples. So Jerome: God rides upon the cherubim, and since there are four cherubim there must be four gospels.

All this however is an early attempt at the philosophy of religion, and not an attempt to demonstrate historical fact. L. L Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, 319-367, presents the radical view of the authorship of the fourth gospel. He holds that John the apostle died A. D. 70, or soon after, and that Irenæus confounded the two Johns whom Papias so clearly distinguished — John the Apostle and John the Elder. With Harnack, Paine supposes the gospel to have been written by John the Elder, a contemporary of Papias. But we reply that the testimony of Irenæus implies a long continued previous tradition. H. W. Dale. Living Christ and Four Gospels, 145 — “Religious veneration such as that with which Irenæus regarded these books is of slow growth. They must have held a great place in the Church as far back as the memory of living men extended.” See Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 2:695. (b) Justin Martyr (died 148) speaks of ‘memoirs ajpomnhmoneu>mata of Jesus Christ’ and his quotations, though sometimes made from memory are evidently cited from our gospels.

To this testimony it is objected: (1) that Justin Martyr uses the term ‘memoirs’ instead of gospels.’ We reply that he elsewhere uses the term ‘gospels’ and identifies the ‘memoirs’ with them: Apol., 1:66 — “The apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels,” i.e., not memoirs, but gospels, was the proper title of his written records. In writing his Apology to the heathen Emperors, Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Antoninus, he chooses the term ‘memoirs’, or ‘memorabilia’, which Xenophon had used as the title of his account of Socrates, simply in order that he may avoid ecclesiastical expressions unfamiliar to his readers and may commend his writing to lovers of classical literature. Notice that Matthew must be added to John, to justify Justin’s repeated statement that there were “memoirs” of our Lord “written by apostles,” and that Mark and Luke must be added to justify his further statement that these memoirs were compiled by “his apostles and those who followed them.” Analogous to Justin’s use of the word ‘memoirs’ is his use of the term ‘Sunday’, instead of Sabbath: Apol. 1:67 — “On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read.” Here is the use of our gospels in public worship, as of equal authority with the O.T.

Scriptures; in fact, Justin constantly quotes the words and acts of Jesus’ life from a written source, using the word ge>graptai. See Morison, Com. on Matthew, ix; Hemphill, Literature of Second Century, 234.

To Justin’s testimony it is objected: (2) That in quoting the words spoken from heaven at the Savior’s baptism, he makes them to be: “My son, this day have I begotten thee,” so quoting Psalm 2:7, and showing that he was ignorant of our present gospel, Matthew 3:17. We reply that this was probably a slip of the memory, quite natural in a day when the gospels existed only in the cumbrous form of manuscript rolls. Justin also refers to the Pentateuch for two facts, which it does not contain; but we should not argue from this that he did not possess our present Pentateuch. The plays of Terence are quoted by Cicero and Horace, and we require neither more nor earlier witnesses to their genuineness, — yet Cicero and Horace wrote a hundred years after Terence. It is unfair to refuse similar evidence to the gospels. Justin had a way of combining into one the sayings of the different evangelists — a hint which Tatian, his pupil, probably followed out in composing his Diatessaron. On Justin Martyr’s testimony, see Ezra Abbot, Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel,49, note. B. W. Bacon, Introduction to N.T., speaks of Justin as “writing circa 155 A. D.” (c) Papias (80-164), whom Irenæus calls a ‘hearer of John,’ testifies that Matthew “wrote in the Hebrew dialect the sacred oracles ta loga> ,” and that “Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote after Peter, uJsteron Petrw| [or under Peter’s direction], an unsystematic account ouj ta>xei ” of the same events and discourses.

To this testimony it is objected: (1) That Papias could not have had our gospel of Matthew, for the reason that this is Greek. We reply, either with Bleek, that Papias erroneously supposed a Hebrew translation of Matthew, which he possessed, to be the original; or with Weiss, that the original Matthew was in Hebrew, while our present Matthew is an enlarged version of the same. Palestine, like modern Wales, was bilingual: Matthew, like James, might write both Hebrew and Greek.

While B.W. Bacon gives to the writing of Papias a date so late as 145-160 A.D., Lightfoot gives that of 130 A.D. At this latter date Papias could easily remember stories told him so far back as 80 A.D., by men who were youths at the time when our Lord lived, died, rose and ascended. The work of Papias had for its title Logi>wn kuriakw~n ejxh>ghsiv — “ Exposition of Oracles relating to the Lord” Commentaries on the Gospels. Two of these gospels were Matthew and Mark. The view of Weiss mentioned above has been criticized upon the ground that the quotations from the O.T. in Jesus’ discourses in Matthew are all taken from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew. Westcott answers this criticism by suggesting that, in translating his Hebrew gospel into Greek, Matthew substituted for his own oral version of Christ’s discourses the version of these already existing in the oral common gospel. There was a common oral basis of true teaching, the “deposit” — paraqh>khn — committed to Timothy ( 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:12,14), the same story told many times and getting to be told in the same way. The narratives of Matthew, Mark and Luke are independent versions of this apostolic testimony. First came belief; secondly, oral teaching; thirdly, written gospels. That the original gospel was in Aramaic seems probable from the fact that the Oriental name for ‘tares” zawan, ( Matthew 13:25) has been transliterated into Greek, ziza>nia . Morison, Com. on Matthew, thinks that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew a collection of Sayings of Jesus Christ, which the Nazarenes and Ebionites added to, partly from tradition, and partly from translating his full gospel, till the result was the so called Gospel of the Hebrews; but that Matthew wrote his own gospel in Greek after he had written the Sayings in Hebrew, Professor W. A. Stevens thinks that Papias probably alluded to the original autograph which Matthew wrote in Aramaic, but which he afterwards enlarged and translated into Greek. See Hemphill, Literature of the Second Century, 267.

To the testimony of Papias it is also objected: (2) that Mark is the most systematic of all evangelists, presenting events as a true annalist, in chronological order. We reply that while, so far as chronological order is concerned, Mark is systematic, so fain as logical order is concerned he is the most unsystematic of the evangelists, showing little of the power of historical grouping which is so discernible in Matthew. Matthew aimed to portray a life, rather than to record a chronology. He groups Jesus’ teachings in chapters 5, 6, and 7; his miracles in chapters 8 and 9; his directions to the apostles in chapter 10; chapters 11 and 12 describe the growing opposition; chapter 13 meets this opposition with his parables; the remainder of the gospel describes our Lord’s preparation for his death, his progress to Jerusalem, the consummation of his work in the Cross and in the resurrection. Here is true system, a philosophical arrangement of material, compared with which the method of Mark is eminently unsystematic. Mark is a Froissart, while Matthew has the spirit of J. R. Green. See Bleek, Introduction to N.T., 1:108, 126; Weiss, Life of Jesus, I:27-39. (d) The Apostolic Fathers, — Clement of Rome (died 101), Ignatius of Antioch (martyred 115), and Polycarp (80-166), — companions and friends of the apostles, have left us in their writings over one hundred quotations from or allusions to the New Testament writings, and among these every book, except four minor epistles (2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John) is represented.

Although these are single testimonies, we must remember that they are the testimonies of the chief men of the churches of their day, and that they express the opinion of the churches themselves. “Like banners of a hidden army, or peaks of a distant mountain range, they represent and are sustained by compact, continuous bodies below.” In an article by P. W.

Calkins, McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopædia, 1:315-317, quotations from the Apostolic Fathers in great numbers are put side by side with the New Testament passages from which they quote or to which they allude.

An examination of these quotations and allusions convinces us that these Fathers were in possession of all the principal books of our New Testament. See Ante-Nicene Library of T. and T. Clark; Thayer, in Boston Lectures for 1871:324; Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 11 — “Ignatius says to Polycarp: ‘The times call for thee, as the winds call for the pilot.’ So do the times call for reverent, fearless scholarship in the church.” Such scholarship, we are persuaded, has already demonstrated the genuineness of the N.T. documents. (e) In the synoptic gospels, the omission of all mention of the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecies with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem is evidence that these gospels were written before the occurrence of that event. In the Acts of the Apostles, universally attributed to Luke, we have an allusion to ‘the former treatise’, or the gospel by the same author, which must, therefore, have been written before the end of Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome, and probably with the help and sanction of that apostle. Acts 1:1 — “The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.” If the Acts was written A. D. 63, two years after Paul’s arrival at Rome, then “the former treatise,” the gospel according to Luke, can hardly be dated later than 60; and since the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 70, Matthew and Mark must have published their gospels at least as early as the year 68, when multitudes of men were still living who had been eye-witnesses of the events of Jesus’ life. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 180 — “At any considerably later date [than the capture of Jerusalem] the apparent conjunction of the fall of the city and the temple with the Parousia would have been avoided or explained...Matthew, in its present form, appeared after the beginning of the mortal struggle of the Romans with the Jews, or between 65 and 70. Mark’s gospel was still earlier. The language of the passages relative to the Parousia, in Luke, is consistent with the supposition that he wrote after the fall of Jerusalem, but not with the supposition that it was long after.” See Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels; Alford, Greek Testament, Prolegomena, 30, 31, 36, 45-47.

C. It is to be presumed that this acceptance of the New Testament documents as genuine, on the part of the Fathers of the churches, was for good and sufficient reasons, both internal and external, and this presumption is corroborated by the following considerations: (a) There is evidence that the early churches took every care to assure themselves of the genuineness of these writings before they accepted them.

Evidences of care are the following: — Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, urged the churches to use care, “to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us” 1 Corinthians 5:9 — “I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators”; Colossians: 16 — “when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.” Melito (169), Bishop of Sardis, who wrote a treatise on the Revelation of John, went as far as Palestine to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to the Canon of the O.T., and as a result of his investigations excluded the Apocrypha. Ryle, Canon of O.T., 203 — “Melito, the Bishop of Sardis, sent to a friend a list of the O.T. Scriptures which he professed to have obtained from accurate inquiry, while traveling in the East, in Syria. Its contents agree with those of the Hebrew Canon, save in the omission of Esther.” Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (191-213, Abbot), says: “We receive Peter and other apostles as Christ, but as skillful men we reject those writings which are falsely ascribed to them.” Geo. H. Ferris, Baptist Congress, 1899:94 — “Serapion, after permitting the reading of the Gospel of Peter in public services, finally decided against it, not because he thought there could be no fifth gospel, but because he thought it was not written by Peter.” Tertullian (160-230) gives an example of the deposition of a presbyter in Asia Minor for publishing a pretended work of Paul; see Tertullian, De Baptismo, referred to by Godet on John, Introduction; Lardner, Works, 2:304, 305; McIlvaine, Evidences. 92. (b) The style of the New Testament writings, and their complete correspondence with all we know of the lands and times in which they profess to have been written, affords convincing proof that they belong to the apostolic age.

Notice the mingling of Latin and Greek, as in spekoula>twr ( Mark 6:27) and kenturi>wn ( Mark 15:39); of Greek and Aramæan, as in prasiai< prasiai> ( Mark 6:40) and ejrhmw>sewv ( Matthew 24:15); this could hardly have occurred after the first century. Compare the anachronisms of style and description in Thackeray’s “Henry Esmond,” which, in spite of the author’s special studies and his determination to exclude all words and phrases that had originated in his own century, was marred by historical errors that Macaulay, in his most remiss moments, would hardly have made. James Russell Lowell told Thackeray that “different to” was not a century old. “Hang it, no!” replied Thackeray. In view of this failure, on the part of an author of great literary skill, to construct a story purporting to be written a century before his time and that could stand the test of historical criticism, we may well regard the success of our gospels in standing such tests as a practical demonstration that they were written in, and not after, the apostolic age.

See Alexander, Christ and Christianity, 27-37; Blunt, Scriptural Coincidences, 244-354. (c) The genuineness of the fourth gospel is confirmed by the fact that Tatian (155-170), the Assyrian, a disciple of Justin, repeatedly quoted it without naming the author, and composed a Harmony of our four gospels which he named the Diatessaron; while Basilides (130) and Valentinus (150), the Gnostics, both quote from it.

The skeptical work entitled “Supernatural Religion” said in 1874: “No one seems to have seen Tatian’s Harmony, probably for the very simple reason that there was no such work” and “There is no evidence whatever connecting Tatian’s Gospel with those of our Canon.” In 1876, however, there was published in a Latin form in Venice the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on Tatian, and the commencement of it was: “In the beginning was the Word” ( John 1:1). In 1888, the Diatessaron itself was published in Rome in the form of an Arabic translation made in the eleventh century from the Syriac. J. Rendel Harris. in Contemp. Rev., 1893:800 sq., says that the recovery of Tatian’s Diatessaron has indefinitely postponed the literary funeral of St. John. Advanced critics, he intimates, are so called, because they run ahead of the facts they discuss.

The gospels must have been well established in the Christian church when Tatian undertook to combine them. Mrs. A.S. Lewis, in SS Times, Jan. 23, 1904 — “The gospels were translated into Syriac before AD 160. It follows that the Greek document from which they were translated was older still, and since the one includes the gospel of St. John, so did the other.” Hemphill, Literature of the Second Century, 183-231, gives the birth of Tatian about 120, and the date of his Diatessaron as 172 AD The difference in style between the Revelation and the gospel of John is due to the fact that the Revelation was written during John’s exile in Patmos, under Nero, in 67 or 68, soon after John had left Palestine and had taken up his residence at Ephesus. He had hitherto spoken Aramæan, and Greek was comparatively unfamiliar to him. The gospel was written thirty years after, probably about 97, when Greek had become to him like a mother tongue. See Lightfoot on Galatians, 343, 347; per contra, see Milligan, Revelation of St. John. Phrases and ideas, which indicate a common authorship of the Revelation and the gospel, are the following: “the Lamb of God.” “the Word of God,” “the True” as an epithet applied to Christ, “the Jews” as enemies of God, “manna,” “him whom they pierced” see Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, 1:4,5. In the fourth gospel we have ajmno>v , in Apoc. ajrni>on, perhaps better to distinguish “the Lamb” from the diminutive to< qhri>on, “the best.” Common to both Gospel and Revelations are poiei~n , “to do” [the truth]; peripatei~n, of moral conduct; ajlhqino>v, “genuine”; diya~|n peina~|n, of the higher wants of the soul; skhnou~n ejn poimai>nein oJdhgei~n ; also ‘overcome,’ ‘testimony,’ ‘Bridegroom,’ ‘Shepherd,’ ‘Water of Life.’ In the Revelation there are grammatical solecisms: nominative for genitive, 1:4 — ajpov ; accusative for nominative, 20:2 — tokonta oJ o]fiv . Similarly, we have in Romans 12:5 — to< de< kaq ei]v instead of to< de< kaq e]na, where kata< has lost its regimen — a frequent solecism in later Greek writers; see Godet on John, 1:269, 270. Emerson reminded Jones Very that the Holy Ghost surely writes good grammar. The Apocalypse seems to show that Emerson was wrong.

The author of the fourth gospel speaks of John in the third person, “and scorned to blot it with a name.” But so does Caesar speak of himself in his Commentaries.

Harnack regards both the fourth gospel and the Revelation as the work of John the Presbyter or Elder, the former written not later than about AD; the latter from 93 to 96, but being a revision of one or more underlying Jewish apocalypses. Vischer has expounded this view of the Revelation; and Porter holds substantially the same, in his article on the Book of Revelation in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 4:239-266. “It is the obvious advantage of the Vischer — Harnack hypothesis that it places the original work under Nero and its revised and Christianized edition under Dalmatian.” (Sanday, Inspiration, 371, 372, nevertheless dismisses this hypothesis as raising worse difficulties than it removes. He dates the Apocalypse between the death of Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.) Martineau, Seat of Authority, 227, presents the moral objections to the apostolic authorship, and regards the Revelation, from chapter 4:1 to 22:5, as a purely Jewish document of the date 66-70, supplemented and revised by a Christian, and issued not earlier than 136: “How strange that we should ever have thought it possible for a personal attendant upon the ministry of Jesus to write or edit a book mixing up fierce Messianic conflicts, in which, with the sword, the gory garment, the blasting flame, the rod of iron, as his emblems, he leads the war march, and treads the winepress of the wrath of God until the deluge of blood rises to the horses’ bits, with the speculative Christology of the second century, without a memory of his life, a feature of his look, a word from his voice, or a glance back at the hillsides of Galilee, the courts of Jerusalem, the road to Bethany, on which his image must be forever seen.

The force of this statement, however, is greatly broken if we consider that the apostle John, in his earlier days, was one of the “Boanerges, which is Sons of thunder” ( Mark 3:17), but became in his later years the apostle of love: 1 John 4:7 — “Beloved, let us love one another for love is of God.” The likeness of the fourth gospel to the epistle, which latter was undoubtedly the work of John the apostle, indicates the same authorship for the gospel. Thayer remarks that “the discovery of the gospel according to Peter sweeps away half a century of discussion. Brief as is the recovered fragment, it attests indubitably all four of our canonical books.’’ Riddle, in Popular Com., 1:25 — “If a forger wrote the fourth gospel, then Beelzebub has been casting out devils for these eighteen hundred years.” (in the genuineness of the fourth gospel, see Bleek, Introduction to New Testament, 1:250; Fisher, Essays on Supernat. Origin of Christianity, 33, also Beginnings of Christianity, 320- 362, and Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, 245-309; Sanday, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Gospels in the Second Century and Criticism of the Fourth Gospel; Ezra Abbott, Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel,52, 80-87; Row, Bampton Lectures on Christian Evidences, 249- 287; British Quarterly, Oct. 1872:216; Godet, in Present Day Tracts, 5: no. 25; Westcott, in Bib. Com, on John’s Gospel, Introduction xxviii — xxxii; Watkins, Bampton Lectures for 1890; W.L. Ferguson, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1896:1-27. (d) The epistle to the Hebrews appears to have been accepted during the first century after it was written (so Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and the Peshito Version witness). Then for two centuries, especially in the Roman and North African churches, and probably because its internal characteristics were inconsistent with the tradition of a Pauline authorship, its genuineness was doubted (so Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenæus, Muratorian Canon). At the end of the fourth century, Jerome examined the evidence and decided in its favor; Augustine did the same; the third Council of Carthage formally recognized it (397); from that time the Latin churches united with the East in receiving it, and thus the doubt was finally and forever removed.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, the style of which is so unlike that of the Apostle Paul, was possibly written by Apollos, who was an Alexandrian Jew, “a learned man” and “mighty in the Scriptures’ ( Acts 18:24); but it may notwithstanding have been written at the suggestion and under the direction of Paul, and so be essentially Pauline. A. C. Kendrick, in American Commentary on Hebrews, points out that while the style of Paul is prevailingly dialectic, and only in rapt moments becomes rhetorical or poetic, the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews is prevailingly rhetorical, is free from anacoloutha, and is always dominated by emotion, he holds that these characteristics point to Apollos as its author. Contrast also Paul’s method of quoting the Old Testament: “it is written” ( Romans 11:8; 1 Corinthians 1:31; Galatians 3:10) with that of the Hebrews: “he saith” (8:5, 13), “he hath said” (4:4).

Paul quotes the Old Testament fifty or sixty times, but never in this latter way. Hebrews 2:3 — “which having at the first been spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard” — shows that the writer did not receive the gospel at first hand. Luther and Calvin rightly saw in this a decisive proof that Paul was not the author, for he always insisted on the primary and independent character of his gospel. Harnack formerly thought the epistle written by Barnabas to Christians at Rome, AD 8-96.

More recently however he attributes it to Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, or to their joint authorship. The majesty of its diction, however, seems unfavorable to this view. William T.C. Hanna: “The words of the author… are marshaled grandly, and move with the tread of an army, or with the swell of a tidal wave”; see Franklin Johnson, Quotations in New Testament from Old Testament, xii. Plumptre, Introduction to New Testament, 37, and in Expositor, Vol. I, regards the author of this epistle as the same with that of the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, the latter being composed before, the former after the writer’s conversion to Christianity. Perhaps our safest conclusion is that of Origen: “God only knows who wrote it.” Harnack however remarks: “The time in which our ancient Christian literature, the New Testament included, was considered as a web of delusions and falsifications is past. The oldest literature of the church is, in its main points, and in most of its details, true and trustworthy.” See articles on Hebrews in Smith’s and in Hastings’ Bible Dictionaries, (e) As to 2 Peter, Jude, and 2 and 3 John, the epistles most frequently held to be spurious, we may say that although we have no conclusive external evidence earlier than AD 160, and in the case of 2 Peter none earlier than AD 230-250, we may fairly urge in favor of their genuineness not only their internal characteristics of literary style and moral value, but also the general acceptance of them all since the third century as the actual productions of the men or class of men whose names they bear.

Firmilianus (250), Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, is the first clear witness to 2 Peter. Origen (230) names it, but in naming it, admits that its genuineness is questioned. The Council of Laodicea (372) first received it into the Canon. With this very gradual recognition and acceptance of Peter, compare the loss of the later works of Aristotle for a hundred and fifty years after his death, and their recognition as genuine so soon as they were recovered from the cellar of the family of Neleus in Asia; DeWette’s first publication of certain letters of Luther after the lapse of three hundred years, yet without occasioning doubt as to their genuineness, or the concealment of Milton’s Treatise on Christian Doctrine, among the lumber of the State Paper Office in London, from 1677 to 1823; see Mair, Christian Evidences, 95. Sir William Hamilton complained that there were treatises of Cudworth, Berkeley and Collier, still lying unpublished and even unknown to their editors, biographer’s and fellow metaphysicians, but yet of the highest interest and importance; see Mansel, Letters, Lectures and Reviews. 381; Archibald, The Bible Verified, 27. 2 Peter was probably sent from the East shortly before Peter’s martyrdom; distance and persecution may have prevented its rapid circulation in other countries. Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, 114 — “A ledger may have been lost, or its authenticity for a long time doubted, but when once it is discovered and proved, it is as trustworthy as any other part of the res gestú .” See Plumptre, Epistles of Peter. Introduction, 73-81; Alford on Peter, 4: Prolegomena, l57; Westcott, on Canon, in Smith’s Bib.

Dictionary, 1:370, 373; Blunt, Dictionary Doct. and Hist. Theol., art.:

Canon.

Those who doubt the genuineness of 2 Peter that the epistle speaks of “your apostles” urge it (3:2), just as Jude 17 speaks of “the apostles,” as if the writer did not number himself among them. But 2 Peter begins with “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,’’ and Jude, “brother of James” (verse 1) was a brother of our Lord, but not an apostle. Hovey, Introduction to New Testament, xxxi — “The earliest passage manifestly based upon 2 Peter appears to be in the so-called Second Epistle of the Roman Clement, 16:3, which however is now understood to be a Christian homily from the middle of the second century.” Origen (born 186) testifies that Peter left one epistle, “amid perhaps a second, for that is disputed.” he also says: “John wrote the Apocalypse, and an epistle of very few lines; and, it may be, a second and a third; since all do not admit them to be genuine.” He quotes also from James and from Jude, adding that their canonicity was doubted.

Harnack regards 1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, and Jude, as written respectively about 160, 170, 130, and 130, but not by the men to whom they are ascribed — the ascriptions to these authors being later additions. Hort remarks: “If I were asked, I should say that the balance of the argument was against 2 Peter, but the moment I had done so I should begin to think I might be in the wrong.” Sanday, Oracles of God,73 note, considers the arguments in favor of 2 Peter unconvincing, but also the arguments against. He cannot get beyond a non liquet. He refers to Salmon, Introduction to New Testament, 529-559, ed. 4, as expressing his own view. But the later conclusions of Sanday are more radical. In his Bampton Lectures on Inspiration, 348, 399, he says: 2 Peter “is probably at least to this extent a counterfeit that it appears under a name, which is not that of its true author.”

Chase, in Hastings’ Bib. Dictionary, 3:806-817, says that “the first piece of certain evidence as to 2 Peter is the passage from Origen quoted by Eusebius, though it hardly admits of doubt that the Epistle was known to Clement of Alexandria… We find no trace of the epistle in the period when the tradition of apostolic days was still living… It was not the work of the apostle but of the second century… put forward without any sinister motive… the personation of the apostle an obvious literary device rather than a religious or controversial fraud. The adoption of such a verdict can cause perplexity only when the Lord’s promise of guidance to his Church is regarded as a charter of infallibility.” Against this verdict we would urge the dignity and spiritual value of 2 Peter — internal evidence which in our judgment causes the balance to incline in favor of its apostolic authorship. (f) Upon no other hypothesis than that of their genuineness can the general acceptance of these four minor epistles since the third century and of all the other books of the New Testament since the middle of the second century, be satisfactorily accounted for. If they had been mere collections of floating legends, they could not have secured wide circulation as sacred books for which Christians must answer with their blood. If they had been forgeries, the churches at large could neither have been deceived as to their previous nonexistence, nor have been induced unanimously to pretend that they were ancient and genuine. Inasmuch, however, as other accounts of their origin, inconsistent with their genuineness, are now current, we proceed to examine more at length the most important of these opposing views.

The genuineness of the New Testament as a whole would still be demonstrable, even if doubt should still attach to one or two of its books.

It does not matter that Plato, or Pericles did not write 2nd Alcibiades by Shakespeare. The Council of Carthage in 397 gave a place in the Canon to the Old Testament Apocrypha but the Reformers tore it out. Zwingli said of the Revelation: “It is not a Biblical book,” and Luther spoke slightingly of the Epistle of James. The judgment of Christendom at large is trustworthier than the private impressions of any single Christian scholar. To hold the books of the New Testament to be written in the second century by other than those whose names they bear is to hold, not simply to forgery, but to a conspiracy of forgery. There must have been several forgers at work and since their writings wonderfully agree, there must have been collusion among them. Yet these able men have been forgotten, while the names of far feebler writers of the second century have been preserved.

G.F. Wright, Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences, 343 — “In civil law there are ‘statutes of limitations’ which provide that the general acknowledgment of a purported fact for a certain period shall be considered as conclusive evidence of it. If, for example, a man has remained in undisturbed possession of land for a certain number of years, it is presumed that he has a valid claim to it, and no one is allowed to dispute his claim.” Mair, Evidences, 99 — “We probably have not a tenth part of the evidence upon which the early churches accepted the New Testament books as the genuine productions of their authors. We have only their verdict” Wynne, in Literature of the Second Century, 58 — “Those who gave up the Scriptures were looked on by their fellow Christians as ‘traditores,’ traitors, who had basely yielded up what they ought to have treasured as dearer than life. But all their books were not equally sacred.

Some were essential, and some were nonessential to the faith. Hence arose the distinction between canonical and non-canonical. The general consciousness of Christians grew into a distinct registration.” Such registration is entitled to the highest respect, and lays the burden of proof upon the objector. See Alexander, Christ and Christianity, introduction; Hovey, General Introduction to American Commentary on New Testament.

D. Rationalistic Theories as to the origin of the gospels. These are attempts to eliminate the miraculous element from the New Testament records, and to reconstruct the sacred history upon principles of naturalism.

Against them we urge the general objection that they are unscientific in their principle and method. To set out in an examination of the New Testament documents with the assumption that all history is a mere natural development, and that miracles are therefore impossible, is to make history a matter, not of testimony, but of a priori speculation. It indeed renders any history of Christ and his apostles impossible, since the witnesses whose testimony with regard to miracles is discredited can no longer be considered worthy of credence in their account of Christ’s life or doctrine.

In Germany, half a century ago, “a man was famous according as he had lifted up axes upon the thick trees” ( Psalm 74:5, A.V.), just as among the American Indians he was not counted a man who could not show his scalps. The critics fortunately scalped each other; see Tyler, Theology of Greek Poets, 79 — on Homer. Nicoll, The Church’s One Foundation, — “Like the mummers of old, skeptical critics send one before them with a broom to sweep the stage clear of everything for their drama. If we assume at the threshold of the gospel study that everything of the nature of miracle is impossible, then the specific questions are decided before the criticism begins to operate in earnest.” Matthew Arnold: “Our popular religion at present conceives the birth, ministry and death of Christ as altogether steeped in prodigy, brimful of miracle, — and miracles do not happen.” This presupposition influences the investigations of Kuenen, and of A. E. Abbott, in his article on the Gospels in the Encyclopedia Britannica. We give special attention to four of the theories based upon this assumption. 1st . The Myth-theory of Strauss (1808-1874).

According to this view, the gospels are crystallization into story of messianic ideas, which had for several generations filled the minds of imaginative men in Palestine. The myth is a narrative in which such ideas are unconsciously clothed, and from which the element of intentional and deliberate deception is absent.

This early view of Strauss, which has become identified with his name, was exchanged in late years for a more advanced view which extended the meaning of the word ‘myths’ so as to include all narratives that spring out of a theological idea, and it admitted the existence of ‘pious frauds’ in the gospels. Baur, he says, first convinced him that the author of the fourth gospel had “not infrequently composed mere fables, knowing them to be mere fictions.” The animating spirit of both the old view and the new is the same. Strauss says: “We know with certainty what Jesus was not and what he has not done, namely, nothing superhuman and supernatural.” “No gospel can claim that degree of historic credibility that would be required in order to make us debase our reason to the point of believing in miracles.” He calls the resurrection of Christ “ein weltgeschichtlicher Humbug .” “If the gospels are really historical documents, we cannot exclude miracle from the life story of Jesus; “see Strauss, Life of Jesus,17; New Life of Jesus,1: preface, xii. Vatke, Einleitung in A.T., 210, 211, distinguishes the myth from the saga or legend: The criterion of the pure myth is that the experience is impossible, while the saga is a tradition of remote antiquity; the myth has in it the element only of belief, the saga has in it an element of history. Sabatier, Philos. Religion,37 — “A myth is false in appearance only. The divine Spirit can avail himself of the fictions of poetry as well as of logical reasoning. When the heart was pure, the veils of fable always allowed the face of truth to shine through and does not childhood run on into maturity and old age?”

It is very certain that childlike love of truth was not the animating spirit of Strauss. On the contrary, his spirit was that of remorseless criticism and of uncompromising hostility to the supernatural. It has been well said that he gathered up all the previous objections of skeptics to the gospel narrative and hurled them in one mass, just as if some Sadducee at the time of Jesus’ trial had put all the taunts and gibes, all the buffetings and insults, all the shame and spitting, into one blow delivered straight into the face of the Redeemer. An octogenarian and saintly German lady said unsuspectingly that “somehow she never could get interested” in Strauss’s Leben Jesu, which her skeptical son had given her for religious reading.

The work was almost altogether destructive, only the last chapter suggesting Strauss’s own view of what Jesus was.

If Luther’s dictum is true that “the heart is the best theologian,” Strauss must be regarded as destitute of the main qualification for his task.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 592 — “Strauss’s mind was almost exclusively analytical and critical, without depth of religious feeling, or philosophical penetration, or historical sympathy. His work was rarely constructive and, save when he was dealing with a kindred spirit, he failed as a historian, biographer, and critic, strikingly illustrating Goethe’s profoundly true principle that loving sympathy is essential for productive criticism.” Pfleiderer, Strauss’s Life of Jesus, xix — “Strauss showed that the church formed the mythical traditions about Jesus out of its faith in him as the Messiah; but he did not show how the church came by the faith that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.” See Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 362; Grote, Plato, 1:249.

We object to the Myth theory of Strauss, that (a) The time between the death of Christ and the publication of the gospels was far too short for the growth and consolidation of such mythical histories. Myths, on the contrary, as the Indian, Greek, Roman and Scandinavian instances bear witness, are the slow growth of centuries. (b) The first century was not a century when such formation of myths was possible. Instead of being a credulous and imaginative age, it was an age of historical inquiry and of Sadduceeism in matters of religion.

Horace, in Odes 1:34 and 3:6, denounces the neglect and squalor of the heathen temples, and Juvenal, Satire 2:150, says that “Esse aliquid manes et subterranea regna Nec pueri credunt .” Arnold of Rugby: “The idea of men writing mythic histories between the times of Livy and of Tacitus, and of St. Paul mistaking them for realities!” Pilate’s skeptical inquiry, “What is truth?” ( John 18:38), better represented the age. “The mythical age is past when an idea is presented abstractly — apart from narrative.” The Jewish sect of the Sadducees shows that the rationalistic spirit was not confined to Greeks or Romans. The question of John the Baptist, Matthew 11:3 — “Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?” and our Lord’s answered, Matthew 11:4,5 — “Go and tell John the thing which ye hear and see: the blind receive their sight… the dead are raised up.” show that the Jews expected miracles to be wrought by the Messiah; yet John 10:41 — “John indeed did no sign” shows also no irresistible inclination to invest popular teachers with miraculous powers; see B.G. Robinson, Christian Evidences, 22; Westcott, Com. on John 10:41; Rogers, Superhuman Origin of the Bible,61; Cox, Miracles,50. (c) The gospels cannot be a mythical outgrowth of Jewish ideas and expectations, because, in their main features, they run directly counter to these ideas and expectations. The sullen and exclusive nationalism of the Jews could not have given rise to a gospel for all nations, nor could their expectations of a temporal monarch have led to the story of a suffering Messiah.

The Old Testament Apocrypha shows how narrow was the outlook of the Jews. 2 Esdras 6:55, 56 says the Almighty has made the world “for our sakes”; other peoples, though they “also come from Adam,” to the Eternal “are nothing, but be like unto spittle.” The whole multitude of them are only, before him, “like a single foul drop that oozes out of a cask” (C.

Geikie, in S. S. Times). Christ’s kingdom differed from that which the Jews expected, both in its spirituality and its universality (Bruce, Apologetics, 8). There was no missionary impulse in the heathen world; on the other hand, it was blasphemy for an ancient tribesman to make known his god to an outsider (Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 106). The Apocryphal gospels show what sort of myths the New Testament age would have elaborated: Out of a demoniac young woman Satan is said to depart in the form of a young man (Bernard, in Literature of the Second Century, 99-136). (d) The belief and propagation of such myths are inconsistent with what we know of the sober characters and self-sacrificing lives of the apostles. (e) The mythical theory cannot account for the acceptance of the gospels among the Gentiles, who had none of the Jewish ideas and expectations. (f) It cannot explain Christianity itself, with its belief in Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, and the ordinances, which commemorate these facts. (d) Witness Thomas’s doubting, and Paul’s shipwrecks and scourgings. Cf . 1 Peter 1:16 — ouj ganoiv mu>qoiv ejxakolouqh>santev = “we have not been on the false track of myths artificially elaborated.” See F. W. Farrar, Witness of History to Christ, 49-88. (e) See the two books entitled: If the Gospel Narratives are Mythical, — What Then? and But How? — if the Gospels are Historic? (f) As the existence of the American Republic is proof that there was once a Revolutionary War, so the existence of Christianity is proof of the death of Christ. The change from the seventh day to the first, in Sabbath observance, could never have come about in a nation so Sabbatarian. had not the first day been the celebration of an actual resurrection. Like the Jewish Passover and our own Independence Day, Baptism and the Lords Supper cannot be accounted for, except as monuments and remembrances of historical facts at the beginning of the Christian church. See Muir, on the Lord’s Supper an abiding Witness to the Death of Christ, in Present Day Tracts, 6: no. 36. On Strauss and his theory, see Hackett, in Christian Rev., 48; Weiss, Life of Jesus, 155-163; Christlieb, Mod. Doubt and Christ. Belief, 379-425; Maclear, in Strivings for the Faith, 1-136; H. B. Smith, In Faith and Philosophy, 442- 468; Bayne, Review of Strauss’s New Life, in Theol. Eclectic, 4:74; Row, in Lectures on Modern Skepticism, 305-360; Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1871: art, by Prof. W.A. Stevens; Burgess, Antiquity and Unity of Man, 263, 264; Curtis on Inspiration, 62-67; Alexander, Christ and Christianity, 92-126; A.P.

Peabody, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 2:954-958. 2nd . The Tendency theory of Baur (1792-1860).

This maintains that the gospels originated in the middle of the second century, and were written under assumed names as a means of reconciling opposing Jewish and Gentile tendencies in the church. “These great national tendencies find their satisfaction, not in events corresponding to them, but in the elaboration of conscious fictions.”

Baur dates the fourth gospel at 160-170 AD; Matthew at 130; Luke at 150; Mark at 150-160. Baur never inquires who Christ was. He turns his attention from the facts to the documents. If the documents be proved unhistorical, there is no need of examining the facts, for there are no facts to examine. He indicates the presupposition of his investigations, when he says: “The principal argument for the later origin of the gospels must forever remain this, that separately, and still more when taken together, they give an account of the life of Jesus which involves impossibilities” — i.e., miracles. He would therefore remove their authorship far enough from Jesus’ time to permit regarding the miracles as inventions. Baur holds that in Christ were united the universalistic spirit of the new religion, and the particularistic form of the Jewish Messianic idea; some of his disciples laid emphasis on the one, some on the other; hence first conflict, but finally reconciliation; see statement of the Tubingen theory and of the way in which Baur was led to it, in Bruce, Apologetics, 360.

E.G. Robinson interprets Baur as follows: “Paul = Protestant; Peter = sacramentarian; James = ethical; Paul + Peter + James = Christianity.

Protestant preaching should dwell more on the ethical — cases of conscience — and less on mere doctrine, such as regeneration and justification.”

Baur was a stranger to the needs of his own soul, and so to the real character of the gospel. One of his friends and advisers wrote, after his death, in terms that were meant to be laudatory: “His was a completely objective nature. No trace of personal needs or struggles is discernible in connection with his investigations of Christianity.” The estimate of posterity is probably expressed in the judgment with regard to the Tubing en school by Harnack: “The possible picture it sketched was not the real, and the key with which it attempted to solve all problems did not suffice for the most simple….The Tubingen views have indeed been compelled to undergo very large modifications. As regards the development of the church in the second century, it may safely be said that the hypotheses of the Tubingen School have proved themselves everywhere inadequate, very erroneous, and are today held by only a very few scholars.” See Baur, Die kanonischen Evangelien; Canonical Gospels (Eng. transl.), 530; Supernatural Religion, 1:212-444 and vol. 2: Pfleiderer, Hibbert Lectures for 1885. For accounts of Baur’s position, see Herzog, Encyclopædie. art.: Baur; Clarke’s translation of Hase’s Life of Jesus, 34-36; Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought, 227, 228.

We object to the Tendency theory of Baur, that (a) The destructive criticism to which it subjects the gospels, if applied to secular documents, would deprive us of any certain knowledge of the past, and render all history impossible.

The assumption of artifice is itself unfavorable to a candid examination of the documents. A perverse acuteness can descry evidences of a hidden animus in the most simple and ingenuous literary productions. Instance the philosophical interpretation of “Jack and Jill.” (b) The antagonistic doctrinal tendencies, which it professes to find in the several gospels, are more satisfactorily explained as varied but consistent aspects of the one system of truth held by all the apostles.

Baur exaggerates the doctrinal and official differences between the leading apostles. Peter was not simply a Judaizing Christian, but was the first preacher to the Gentiles. and his doctrine appears to have been subsequently influenced to a considerable extent by Paul’s (see Plumptre on 1 Pet., 68-60). Paul was not an exclusively Hellenizing Christian, but invariably addressed the gospel to the Jews before he turned to the Gentiles. The evangelists give pictures of Jesus from different points of view. As the Parisian sculptor constructs his bust with the aid of a dozen photographs of his subject, all taken from different points of view, so from the four portraits furnished us by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John we are to construct the solid and symmetrical life of Christ. The deeper reality, which makes reconciliation of the different views possible, is the actual historical Christ. Marcus Dods, Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:675 — “They are not two Christs, but one, which the four Gospels depict: diverse as the profile and front face, but one another’s complement rather than contradiction.”

Godet, Introduction to Gospel Collection, 272 — Matthew shows time greatness of Jesus — his full-length portrait; Mark his indefatigable activity; Luke his beneficent compassion; John his essential divinity.

Matthew first wrote Aramæn Logia. This was translated into Greek and completed by a narrative of the ministry of Jesus for the Greek churches founded by Paul. This translation was not made by Matthew and did not make use of Mark (217-224). E.D. Burton: Matthew = fulfillment of past prophecy; Mark = manifestation of present power. Matthew is argument from prophecy; Mark is argument from miracle. Matthew, as prophecy, made most impression on Jewish readers; Mark, as power, was best adapted to Gentiles. Prof. Burton holds Mark to be based upon oral tradition alone; Matthew upon his Logia (his real earlier Gospel) and other fragmentary notes; while Luke has a fuller origin in manuscripts and in Mark. See Aids to the Study of German Theology, 148-155; F. W.

Farrar, Witness of History to Christ,61. (c) It is incredible that productions of such literary power and lofty religious teaching as the gospels should have sprung up in the middle of the second century, or that, so springing up, they should have been published under assumed names and for covert ends.

The general character of the literature of the second century is illustrated by Ignatius’s fanatical desire for martyrdom, the value ascribed by Hermas to ascetic rigor, the insipid allegories of Barnabas, Clement of Rome’s belief in the phúnix, and the absurdities of the Apocryphal Gospels. The author of the fourth gospel among the writers of the second century would have been a mountain among molehills. Wynne, Literature of the Second Century, 60 — “The apostolic and the subapostolic writers differ from each other as a nugget of pure gold differs from a block of quartz with vein of the precious metal gleaming through it.” Dorner, Hist.

Doct. Person Christ, 1:1:92 — “Instead of the writers of the second century marking an advance on the apostolic age, or developing the germ given them by the apostles, the second century shows great retrogression — its writers were not able to retain or comprehend all that had been given them.” Martineau, Seat of Authority, 291 — “Writers not only barbarous in speech and rude in art, but too often puerile in conception, passionate in temper, and credulous in belief. The legends of Papias, the visions of Hermas, the imbecility of Irenæus, the fury of Tertullian, the rancor and indelicacy of Jerome, the stormy intolerance of Augustine, cannot fail to startle and repel the student; and, if he turns to the milder Hippolytus, he is introduced to a brood of thirty heresies which sadly dissipate his dream of the unity of the church.” We can apply to the writers of the second century the question of R.G. Ingersoll in the Shakespeare-Bacon controversy: “Is it possible that Bacon left the best children of his brain on Shakespeare’s doorstep, and kept only the deformed ones at home? “On the Apocryphal Gospels, see Cowper, in Strivings for the Faith, 73-108. (d) The theory requires us to believe in a moral anomaly, namely, that a faithful disciple of Christ in the second century could be guilty of fabricating a life of his master, and of claiming authority for it on the ground that the author had been a companion of Christ or his apostles. “A genial set of Jesuitical religionists” — with mind and heart enough to write the gospel according to John, and who at the same time have coldblooded sagacity enough to keep out of their writings every trace of the developments of church authority belonging to the second century. The newly discovered “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” if dating from the early part of that century, shows that such a combination is impossible.

The critical theories assume that one who knew Christ as a man could not possibly also regard him as God. Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 12 — “If St. John wrote, it is not possible to say that the genius of St. Paul foisted upon the church a conception which was strange to the original apostles.”

Fairbairn has well shown that if Christianity had been simply the ethical teaching of the human Jesus, it would have vanished from the earth like the sects of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees; if on the other hand it had been simply the Logos doctrine, the doctrine of a divine Christ, it would have passed away like the speculations of Plato or Aristotle; because Christianity unites the idea of the eternal Son of God with that of the incarnate Son of man, it is fitted to be and it has become an universal religion; see Fairbairn, Philosophy of the Christian Religion,4,15 — “Without the personal charm of the historical Jesus, the ecumenical creeds would never have been either formulated or tolerated, and without the metaphysical conception of Christ the Christian religion would long ago have ceased to live… It is not Jesus of Nazareth who has so powerfully entered into history; it is the deified Christ who has been believed, loved and obeyed as the Savior of the world… The two parts of Christian doctrine are combined in the one name ‘Jesus Christ.’” (e) This theory cannot account for the universal acceptance of the gospels at the end of the second century, among widely separated communities where reverence for writings of the apostles was a mark of orthodoxy, and where the Gnostic heresies would have made new documents instantly liable to suspicion and searching examination.

Abbot, Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, 52, 80, 88, 89. The Johannine doctrine of the Logos, if first propounded in the middle of the second century, would have ensured the instant rejection of that gospel by the Gnostics, who ascribed creation, not to the Logos, but to successive “Æons.” How did the Gnostics, without “peep or mutter,” come to accept as genuine what had only in their own time been first sprung upon the churches? While Basilides (130) and Valentinus (150), the Gnostics, both quote from the fourth gospel, they do not dispute its genuineness or suggest that it was of recent origin. Bruce, in his Apologetics, says of Baur “He believed in the all sufficiency of The Hegelian theory of development through antagonism. He saw tendency everywhere. Anything additional, putting more contents into the person and teaching of Jesus than suits the initial stage of development, must be reckoned spurious. If we find Jesus in any of the gospels claiming to be a supernatural being, such texts can with the utmost confidence be set aside as spurious, for such a thought could not belong to the initial stage of Christianity.” But such a conception certainly existed in the second century, and it directly antagonized the speculations of the Gnostics. F.V. Farrar, on Hebrews 1:2 — “The word úon was used by the later Gnostics to describe he various emanations by which they tried at once to widen and to bridge over the gulf between the human and the divine. Over that imaginary chasm John threw the arch of the Incarnation, when he wrote: ‘The Word became flesh’ John 1:14).” A document which so contradicted the Gnostic teachings could not in the second century have been noted by the Gnostics themselves without dispute as to its genuineness, if it had not been long recognized in the churches as a work of the apostle John. (f) The acknowledgment by Baur that the epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Corinthians were written by Paul in the first century is fatal to his theory, since these epistles testify not only to miracles at the period at which they were written, but to the main events of Jesus’ life and to the miracle of his resurrection, as facts already long acknowledged in the Christian church.

Baur, Paulus der Apostel, 276 — “There never has been the slightest suspicion of authenticity cast on these epistles (Galatians 1 and 2, Corinthians, Romans), and they bear so incontestably the character of Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable ground for the assertion of critical doubts in their case.” Baur, in discussing the appearance of Christ to Paul on the way to Damascus, explains the outward from the inward:

Paul translated in tense and sudden conviction of the truth of the Christian religion into an outward scene. But this cannot explain the hearing of the outward sound by Paul’s companions. On the evidential value of the epistles here mentioned, see Lorimer, in Strivings for the Faith, 109-144; Howson, in Present Day Tracts, 4: no. 24; Row, Bampton Lectures for 1877:289-356. On Baur and his theory in general, see Weiss, Life of Jesus, 1:157 sq .; Christlieb, Mod. Doubt and Christ. Belief, 504-549; Hutton, Essays, 1:176-215; Theol. Eclectic, 5:1-42; Auberlen, Div.

Revelation; Bibliotheca Sacra, 19:75; Answers Supernatural Religion, in Westcott, Mist. New Testament Canon, 4th ed., Introduction; Lightfoot, in Contemporary Rev., Dec. 1874, and Jan. 1875; Salmon, Introduction to New Testament, 6-31; A. B. Bruce, in Present Day Tracts, 7: no. 38. 3d . The Romance theory of Renan (1823-1892).

This theory admits a basis of truth in the gospels and holds that they all belong to the century following Jesus’ death. “According to” Matthew, Mark, etc., however, means only that Matthew, Mark, etc., wrote these gospels in substance. Renan claims that the facts of Jesus’ life were so sublimated by enthusiasm, and so overlaid with pious fraud, that the gospels in their present form cannot be accepted as genuine — in short, the gospels are to be regarded as historical romances which have only a foundation in fact.

The animus of this theory is plainly shown in Renan’s Life of Jesus, preface to 13th ed. — “If miracles and the inspiration of certain books are realities, my method is testable. If miracles and the inspiration of books are beliefs without reality, my method is a good one. But the question of the supernatural is decided for us with perfect certainty by the single consideration that there is no room for believing in a thing which the world offers no experimental trace.” “On the whole,” says Renan, “1 admit as authentic the four canonical gospels. All, in my opinion, date from the first century, and the authors are, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed.” He regards Galatians 1,2 Corinthians and Romans as “indisputable and undisputed.” He speaks of them as “being texts of an absolute authenticity, of complete sincerity, and without legends” (Les Ap‚tres, xxix; Les …vangiles, xi). Yet he denies to Jesus “sincerity with himself”; attributes to him “innocent artifice” and the toleration of pious fraud, as for example in the case of the stories of Lazarus and of his own resurrection. “To conceive the good is not sufficient; it must be made to succeed; to accomplish this, less pure paths must be followed… Not by any fault of his own, his conscience lost somewhat of its original purity, — his mission overwhelmed him… Did he regret his too lofty nature, and, victim of his own greatness, mourn that he had not remained a simple artisan?” So Renan “pictures Christ’s later life as a misery and a lie, yet he requests us to bow before this sinner and before his superior, Sakya-Mouni, as demigods” (see Nicoll, The Church’s One Foundation,62,63). Of the highly wrought imagination of Mary Magdalene, he says: “O divine power of love! Sacred moments, in which the passion of one whose senses were deceived gives us a resuscitated God!” See Renan, Life of Jesus,21.

To this Romance-theory of Renan, we object that (a) It involves an arbitrary and partial treatment of the Christian documents. The claim that one writer not only borrowed from others, but also interpolated ad libitum, is contradicted by the essential agreement of the manuscripts as quoted by the Fathers, and as now extant.

Renan, according to Mair, Christian Evidences, 153, dates Matthew at AD; Mark at 76; Luke at 94; John at 125. These dates mark a considerable retreat from the advanced positions taken by Baur. Mair, in his chapter on Recent Reverses in Negative Criticism, attributes this result to the late discoveries with regard to the Epistle of Barnabas, Hippolytus’s Refutation of all Heresies, the Clementine Homilies, and Tatian’s Diatessaron: “According to Baur and his immediate followers, we have less than one quarter of the New Testament belonging to the first century. According to Hilgenfeld, the present head of the Baur School, we have somewhat less than three-quarters belonging to the first century do, while substantially the same thing may be said with regard to Holzmann.

According to Renan, we have distinctly more than three-quarters of the New Testament falling within the first century, and therefore within the apostolic age. This surely indicates a very decided and extraordinary retreat since the time of Baur’s grand assault, that is, within the last fifty years.” We may add that the concession of authorship within the apostolic age renders nugatory Renan’s hypothesis that the New Testament documents have been so enlarged by pious fraud that they cannot be accepted as trustworthy accounts of such events as miracles. The oral tradition itself had attained so fixed a form that the many manuscripts used by the Fathers were in substantial agreement in respect to these very events, and oral tradition in the East hands down without serious alteration much longer narratives than those of our gospels. The Pundita Ramabai can repeat, after the lapse of twenty years, portions of the Hindu sacred books exceeding in amount the whole contents of our Old Testament. Many cultivated men in Athens knew by heart all the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer. Memory and reverence alike kept the gospel narratives free from the corruption, which Renan supposes. (b) It attributes to Christ and to the apostles an alternate fervor of romantic enthusiasm and a false pretense of miraculous power which are utterly irreconcilable with the manifest sobriety and holiness of their lives and teachings. If Jesus did not work miracles, he was an impostor.

On Ernest Renan, His Life and the Life of Jesus, see A.H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 332363, especially 356 — “Renan attributes the origin of Christianity to the predominance in Palestine of a constitutional susceptibility to mystic excitements. Christ is to him the incarnation of sympathy and tears, a being of tender impulses and passionate ardor, whose native genius it was to play upon the hearts of men. Truth or falsehood made little difference to him; anything that would comfort the poor, or touch the finer feelings of humanity, he availed himself of; ecstasies, visions, melting moods, these were the secrets of his power.

Religion was a beneficent superstition, a sweet delusion — excellent as a balm and solace for the ignorant crowd, who never could be philosophers if they tried. And so the gospel river, as one has said, is traced back to a fountain of weeping men and women whose brains had oozed out at their eyes, and the perfection of spirituality is made to be a sort of maudlin monasticism… How different from the strong and holy love of Christ, which would save men only by bringing them to the truth, and which claims men’s imitation only because, without hove for God and for the soul, a man is without truth. How inexplicable from this view the fact that a pure Christianity has everywhere quickened the intellect of the nations, and that every revival of it, as at the Reformation, has been followed by mighty forward leaps of civilization. Was Paul a man carried away by mystic dreams and irrational enthusiasms? Let the keen dialectic skill of his epistles and his profound grasp of the great matters of revelation answer. Has the Christian church been a company of puling sentimentalists? Let the heroic deaths for the truth suffered by the martyr’s witness. Nay, he must have a low idea of his kind, and a yet lower idea of the God who made them, who can believe that the noblest spirits of the race have risen to greatness by abnegating will and reason, and have gained influence over all ages by resigning themselves to semiidiocy.” (c) It fails to account for the power and progress of the gospel, as a system directly opposed to men’s natural tastes and prepossessions — a system which substitutes truth for romance and law for impulse.

A.H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 353 — “And if the later triumphs of Christianity are inexplicable upon the theory of Renan, how can we explain its founding? The sweet swain of Galilee, beloved by women for his beauty, fascinating the unlettered crowd by his gentle speech and his poetic ideals, giving comfort to the sorrowing and hope to the poor, credited with supernatural power which at first he thinks it not worth while to deny and finally gratifies the multitude by pretending to exercise, roused by opposition to polemics and invective until the delightful young rabbi becomes a gloomy giant, an intractable fanatic, a fierce revolutionist, whose denunciation of the powers that be brings him to the Cross, — what is there in him to account for the moral wonder which we call Christianity and the beginnings of its empire in the world? Neither delicious pastorals like those of Jesus’ first period, nor apocalyptic fevers like those of his second period, according to Renan’s gospel, furnish any rational explanation of that mighty movement which has swept through the earth and has revolutionized the faith of mankind.”

Berdoe, Browning, 47 — “If Christ were not God, his life at that stage of the world’s history could by no possibility have had the vitalizing force and love compelling power that Renan’s pages everywhere disclose.

Renan has strengthened faith in Christ’s deity while laboring to destroy it.”

Renan, in discussing Christ’s appearance to Paul on the way to Damascus, explains the inward from the outward, thus precisely reversing the conclusion of Baur. A sudden storm, a flash of lightning, a sudden attack of ophthalmic fever, Paul took as an appearance from heaven. But we reply that so keen an observer and reasoner could not have been thus deceived. Nothing could have made him the apostle to the Gentiles but a sight of the glorified Christ and the accompanying revelation of the holiness of God, his own sin, the sacrifice of the Son of God, its universal efficacy, the obligation laid upon him to proclaim it to the ends of the earth. For reviews of Renan, see Hutton, Essays, 261-281, and Contemp.

Thought and Thinkers, 1:227-234; H. B. Smith, Faith and Philosophy, 401-441: Christlieb, Mod. Doubt, 425-447; Pressense, in Theol. Eclectic. 1:199; Uhlhorn, Mod. Representations of Life of Jesus, 1-33; Bibliotheca Sacra, 22:207; 23:353-529; Present Day Tracts, 3: no. 16, and 4: no. 21; E.G. Robinson, Christian Evidences 43-48; A.H. Strong, Sermon before Baptist World Congress, 1905. 4th . The Development theory of Harnack (born 1851).

This holds Christianity to be a historical development from germs, which were devoid of both dogma and miracle. Jesus was a teacher of ethics, and the original gospel is most clearly represented by the Sermon on the Mount. Greek influence, and especially that of the Alexandrian philosophy, added to this gospel a theological and supernatural element, and so changed Christianity from a life into a doctrine.

Harnack dates Matthew at 70-75; Mark at 65-70: Luke at 78-93; the fourth gospel as 50-110. He regards both the fourth gospel and the book of Revelation as the works not of John the Apostle, but of John the Presbyter. He separates the prologue of the fourth gospel from the gospel itself, and considers the prologue as a preface added after its original composition in order to enable the Hellenistic reader to understand it. “The gospel itself,” says Harnack, “contains no Logos idea; it did not develop out of a Logos idea, such as flourished at Alexandria; it only connects itself with such an idea. The gospel itself is based upon the historic Christ; he is the subject of all its statements. This historical trait can in no way be dissolved by any kind of speculation. The memory of what was actually historical was still too powerful to admit at this point any Gnostic influences. The Logos idea of the prologue is the Logos of Alexandrine Judaism, the Logos of Philo, and it is derived ultimately from the ‘Son of man’ in the book of Daniel… The fourth gospel, which does not proceed from the Apostle John and does not so claim, cannot be used as a historical source in the ordinary sense of that word… The author has managed with sovereign freedom; has transposed occurrences and has put them in a light that is foreign to them; has of his own accord composed the discourses, and has illustrated lofty thoughts by inventing situations for them. Difficult as it is to recognize, an actual tradition in his work is not wholly lacking. For the history of Jesus, however, it can hardly anywhere be taken into account; only little can he taken from it, and that with caution… On the other hand, it is a source of the first rank for the answer of the question what living views of the person of Jesus, what light and what warmth, the gospel has brought into being.” See Harnack’s article in Zeitschrift fur Theol. u. Kirche, 2:189-231, and his Wesen des Christenthums 13. Kaftan also, who belongs to the same Ritschlian school with Harnack, tells us in his Truth of the Christian Religion, 1:97, that as the result of the Logos speculation the center of gravity, instead of being placed in the historical Christ who founded the kingdom of God, is placed in the Christ who as eternal Logos of God was the mediator in the creation of the world.” This view is elaborated by Hatch in his Hibbert Lectures for 1888, on the Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church.

We object to the Development theory of Harnack, that (a) The Sermon on the Mount is not the sum of the gospel, nor its original form. Mark is the most original of the gospels, yet Mark omits the Sermon on the Mount, and Mark is preeminently the gospel of the miracle worker. (b) All four gospels lay the emphasis, not on Jesus’ life and ethical teaching, but on his death and resurrection. Matthew implies Christ’s deity when it asserts his absolute knowledge of the Father (11:27), his universal judgeship (25:32), his supreme authority (28:18), and his omnipresence (28:20), while the phrase “Son of man” implies that he is also “Son of God.” Matthew 11:27 — “All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father: neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him”; 25:32 — “and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats”:28:18 — “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth”; 28:20 — “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” These sayings of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel show that the conception of Christ’s greatness was not peculiar to John: “I am” transcends time; “with you” transcends space. Jesus speaks “sub specie eternitatis”; his utterance is equivalent to that of John 8:58 — “Before Abraham was born, I am,” and to that of Hebrews 13:8 — “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and forever.” He is, as Paul declares in Ephesians 1:23, one “that filleth all in all,” that is, who is omnipresent.

A.H. Strong, Philos. and Religion, 206 — The phrase “Son of man” intimates that Christ was more than man: “Suppose I were to go about proclaiming myself ‘Son or man.’ Who does not see that it would be mere impertinence, unless I claimed to be something more. ‘Son of Man? But what of that? Cannot every human being call himself the same?’” When one takes the title ‘Son of man’ for his characteristic designation, as Jesus did, he implies that there is something strange in his being Son of man; that this is not his original condition and dignity; that it is condescension on his part to be Son of man. In short, when Christ calls himself Son of man, it implies that he has come from a higher level of being to inhabit this low earth of ours. And so, when we are asked “What think ye of the Christ? Whose son is He?” we must answer, not simply, He is Son of man, but also, He is Son of God.” On Son of man, see Driver, On Son of God; see Sanday, both in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. Sanday, “The Son is so called primarily as incarnate. But that which is the essence of the Incarnation must needs be also larger than the Incarnation. It must needs have its roots in the eternity of the Godhead.” Gore, Incarnation,65,73 — “Christ, the final Judge, of the synoptic, is not dissociable from the divine, eternal Being, of the fourth gospel.” (c) The preexistence and atonement of Christ cannot be regarded as accretions upon the original gospel, since these find expression in Paul who wrote before any of our evangelists, and in his epistles anticipated the Logos doctrine of John. (d) We may grant that Greek influence, through the Alexandrian philosophy, helped the New Testament writers to discern what was already present in the life and work and teaching of Jesus; but, like the microscope which discovers but does not create, it added nothing to the substance of the faith.

Gore, Incarnation,62 — “The divinity, incarnation, resurrection of Christ were not an accretion upon the original belief of the apostles and their first disciples, for these are all recognized as uncontroverted matters of faith in the four great epistles of Paul, written at a date when the greater part of those who had seen the risen Christ were still alive.” The Alexandrian philosophy was not the source of apostolic doctrine, but only the form in which that doctrine was cast, the light thrown upon it which brought out its meaning. A.H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 146 — “When we come to John’s gospel, therefore, we find in it the mere unfolding of truth that for substance had been in the world for at least sixty years… If the Platonizing philosophy of Alexandria assisted in this genuine development of Christian doctrine, then the Alexandrian philosophy was a providential help to inspiration. The microscope does not invent; it only discovers. Paul and John did not add to the truth of Christ; their philosophical equipment was only a microscope which brought into clear view the truth that was there already.”

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:126 — “The metaphysical conception of the Logos, as immanent in the world and ordering it according to law, was filled with religious and moral contents. In Jesus the cosmical principle of nature became a religious principle of salvation” See Kilpatrick’s article on Philosophy, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. Kilpatrick holds that Harnack ignores the self-consciousness of Jesus; does not fairly interpret the Acts in its mention of the early worship of Jesus by the church before Greek philosophy had influenced it; refers to the intellectual peculiarities of the New Testament writers conceptions which Paul insists are simply the faith of all Christian people as such; forgets that the Christian idea of union with God secured through the atoning and reconciling work of a personal Redeemer utterly transcended Greek thought, and furnished the solution of the problem after which Greek philosophy was vainly groping. (e) Though Mark says nothing of the virgin birth because his story is limited to what the apostles had witnessed of Jesus’ deeds, Matthew apparently gives us Joseph’s story and Luke gives Mary’s story — both stories naturally published only after Jesus’ resurrection. (f) The larger understanding of doctrine after Jesus’ death was itself predicted by our Lord ( John 16:12). The Holy Spirit was to bring his teachings to remembrance, and to guide into all the truth (16:13), and the apostles were to continue the work of teaching which he had begun ( Acts 1:1). John 16:12,13 — “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth”; Acts 1:1 — “The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began to do and to teach.”

A.H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 140 — “That the beloved disciple, after a half century of meditation upon what he had seen and heard of God manifest in the flesh, should have penetrated more deeply into the meaning of that wonderful revelation is not only not surprising, — it is precisely what Jesus himself foretold.

Our Lord had many things to say to his disciples, but then they could not bear them. He promised that the Holy Spirit should bring to their remembrance both himself and his words, and should lead them into all the truth. And this is the whole secret of what are called accretions to original Christianity. So far as they are contained in Scripture, they are inspired discoveries and unfoldings, not mere speculations and inventions.

They are not additions, but elucidations, not vain imaginings, but correct interpretations… When the later theology, then, throws out the supernatural and dogmatic, as coming not from Jesus but from Paul’s epistles and from the fourth gospel, our claim is that Paul and John are only inspired and authoritative interpreters of Jesus, seeing themselves and making us see the fullness of the Godhead that dwelt in him.”

While Harnack, in our judgment, errs in his view that Paul contributed to the gospel elements which it did not originally possess, he shows us very clearly many of the elements in that gospel which he was the first to recognize. In his Wesen des Christenthums, 111, he tells us that a few years ago a celebrated Protestant theologian declared that Paul, with his Rabbinical theology, was the destroyer of the Christian religion. Others have regarded him as the founder of that religion. But the majority has seen in him the apostle who best understood his Lord and did the most to continue his work. Paul, as Harnack maintains, first comprehended the gospel definitely: (1) as an accomplished redemption and a present salvation — the crucified and risen Christ as giving access to God and righteousness and peace therewith; (2) as something new, which does away with the religion of the law; (3) as meant for all, and therefore for Gentiles also, indeed, as superseding Judaism; (4) as expressed in terms which are not simply Greek but also human, — Paul made the gospel comprehensible to the world. Islam, rising in Arabia, is an Arabian religion still. Buddhism remains an Indian religion. Christianity is at home in all lands. Paul put new life into the Roman Empire, and inaugurated the Christian culture of the West. He turned a local into a universal religion.

His influence however, according to Harnack, tended to the undue exaltation of organization and dogma and Old Testament inspiration — points in which, in our judgment, Paul took sober middle ground and saved Christian truth for the world. 2. Genuineness of the Books of the Old Testament Since nearly one half of the Old Testament is of anonymous authorship and certain of its books may be attributed to definite historic characters only by way of convenient classification or of literary personification, we here mean by genuine honesty of purpose and freedom from anything counterfeit or intentionally deceptive so far as respects the age or the authorship of the documents.

We show the genuineness of the Old Testament books: (a) From the witness of the New Testament, in which all but six books of the Old Testament are either quoted or alluded to as genuine.

The New Testament shows coincidences of language with the Old Testament Apocryphal books, but it contains only one direct quotation from them; while, with the exception of Judges, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah, every book in the Hebrew canon is used either for illustration or proof. The single apocryphal quotation is found in Jude 14 and is in all probability taken from the book of Enoch. Although Volkmar puts the date of this book at 132 AD, and although some critics hold that Jude quoted only the same primitive tradition of which the author of the book of Enoch afterwards made use, the weight of modern scholarship inclines to the opinion that the book itself was written as early as 170-70 BC, and that Jude quoted from it; see Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, Book of Enoch; Sanday, Bampton Lect. on Inspiration, 95, “If Paul could quote from Gentile poets ( Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), it is hard to understand why Jude could not cite a work which was certainly in high standing among the faithful”; see Schodde, Book of Enoch,41, with the Introduction by Ezra Abbot. While Jude 14 gives us the only direct and express quotation from an Apocryphal book, Jude and 9 contain allusions to the Book of Enoch and to the Assumption of Moses; see Charles, Assumption of Moses,62. In Hebrews 1:3, we have words taken from Wisdom 7:26; and Hebrews 11:34-38 is a reminiscence of 1 Maccabees. (b) From the testimony of Jewish authorities, ancient and modern, who declare the same books to be sacred, and only the same books that are now comprised in our Old Testament Scriptures.

Josephus enumerates twenty-two of these books “which are justly accredited” (qei~a — Niese, and Hastings’ Dictionary, 3:607). Our present Hebrew Bible makes twenty four, by separating Ruth from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah; See Josephus, Against Apion, 1:8; Smith’s Bible Dictionary, article on the Canon, 1:359, 360. Philo (born 20 BC) never quotes an Apocryphal book, although he does quote from nearly all the books of the Old Testament; see Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture. George Adam Smith, Modern Criticism amid Preaching,7 — “The theory which ascribed the Canon of the Old Testament to a single decision of the Jewish church in the days of its inspiration is not a theory supported by facts. The growth of the Old Testament Canon was very gradual. Virtually it began in 621 BC, with the acceptance by all Judah of Deuteronomy, and the adoption of the whole Law, or first five books of the Old Testament under Nehemiah in 445 BC Then came the prophets before 200 BC, and the Hagiographa from a century to two centuries later. The strict definition of the last division was not complete by the time of Christ. Christ seems to testify to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalm s; yet neither Christ nor his apostles make any quotation from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Canticles, or Ecclesiastes, the last of which books were not yet recognized by all the Jewish schools. But while Christ is the chief authority for the Old Testament, he was also its first critic. He rejected some parts of the Law and was indifferent to many others. He enlarged the sixth and seventh commandments, and reversed the eye for an eye, and the permission of divorce: touched the leper, and reckoned all foods lawful; broke away from literal observance of the Sabbath day; left no commands about sacrifice, temple worship, circumcision, but, by institution of the New Covenant, abrogated these sacraments of the Old.

The apostles appealed to extra-canonical writings.” Gladden, Seven Puzzling Bible Books, 68-96 — “Doubts were entertained in our Lord’s day as to the canonically of several parts of the Old Testament, especially Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther.” (c) From the testimony of the Septuagint translation, dating from the first half of the third century, or from 280 to 180 BC MSS.

of the Septuagint contain, indeed, the Old Testament Apocrypha, but the writers of the latter do not recognize their own work as on a level with the canonical Scriptures, which they regard as distinct from all other books (Ecclesiasticus, prologue, and 48:24; also 24:23-27; 1 Mac. 12:9; Maccabbees 6:23; 1 Esdras1:28; 6:1; Baruch 2:21). So both ancient and modern Jews. See Bissell, in Lange’s Commentary on the Apocrypha, Introduction, 44. In the prologue to the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, we read of “the Law and the Prophets and the rest of the books,” which shows that as early as 130 BC, the probable date of Ecclesiasticus, a threefold division of the Jewish sacred books was recognized. That the author, however, did not conceive of these books as constituting a completed canon seems evident from his assertion in this connection that his grandfather Jesus also wrote. 1 Mac. 12:9 (80-90 BC) speaks of “the sacred books which are now in our hands.” Hastings, Bible Dictionary, 3:611 — “The Old Testament was the result of a gradual process which began with the sanction of the Hexateuch by Ezra and Nehemiah, and practically closed with the decisions of the Council of Jamnia” — Jamnia is the ancient Jabneh, 7 miles south by west of Tiberias, where met a council of rabbins at some time between 90 to 118 AD This Council decided in favor of Canticles and Ecclesiastes and closed the Old Testament Canon.

The Greek version of the Pentateuch which forms a part of the Septuagint is said by Josephus to have been made in the reign and by the order of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about 270 or 280 BC “The legend is that it was made by seventy two persons in seventy two days. It is supposed, however, by modern critics that this version of the several books is the work not only of different hands but of separate times. It is probable that at first only the Pentateuch was translated, and the remaining books gradually; but the translation is believed to have been completed by the second century BC” (Century Dictionary, in voce). It therefore furnishes an important witness to the genuineness of our Old Testament documents. Driver, Introduction to Old Testament Lit., xxxi — “For the opinion, often met with in modern books, that the Canon of the Old Testament was closed by Ezra, or in Ezra’s time, there is no foundation in antiquity whatever… All that can reasonably be treated as historical in the accounts of Ezra’s literary labors is limited to the Law,” (d) From indications that soon after the exile, and so early as the times of Ezra and Nehemiah ( 500-450 BC), the Pentateuch together with the book of Joshua was not only in existence but was regarded as authoritative. 2 Mac. 2:13-15 intimates that Nehemiah founded a library, and there is a tradition that a “Great Synagogue” was gathered in his time to determine the Canon. But Hastings’ Dictionary, 4:644, asserts that “the Great Synagogue was originally a meeting, and not an institution. It met once for all, and all that is told about it, except what we read in Nehemiah, is pure fable of the later Jews.” In like manner no dependence is to be placed upon the tradition that Ezra miraculously restored the ancient Scriptures that had been lost during the exile. Clement of Alexandria says: “Since the Scriptures perished in the Captivity of Nebuchadnezzar, Esdras (the Greek form of Ezra) the Levite, the priest, in the time of Artaxerxes, King of the Persians, having become inspired in the exercise of prophecy, restored again the whole of the ancient Scriptures.” But the work now divided into I and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, mentions Darius Codomannus (Neh.12:22), whose date is 336 BC The utmost the tradition proves is that about 300 BC the Pentateuch was in some sense attributed to Moses; see Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 35; Bibliotheca Sacra, 1863:381, 660, 799; Smith, Bible Dictionary, art., Pentateuch; Theological Eclectic, 6:215; Bissell, Hist. Origin of the Bible, 398-403.

On the Men of the Great Synagogue, see Wright, Ecclesiastes, 5-12, 475- 477. (e) From the testimony of the Samaritan Pentateuch, dating from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (500-450 BC).

The Samaritans had been brought by the king of Assyria from “Babylon, and from Cuthah and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim” ( 2 Kings 17:6,24,26), to take the place of the people of Israel whom the king had carried away captive to his own land. The colonists had brought their heathen gods with them, and the incursions of wild beasts, which the intermission of tillage occasioned gave rise to the belief that the God of Israel was against them. One of the captive Jewish priests was therefore sent to teach them “the law of the god of the land” and he “taught them how they should fear Jehovah” ( 2 Kings 17:27,28). The result was that they adopted the Jewish ritual, but combined the worship of Jehovah with that of their graven images (verse 33). When the Jews returned from Babylon and began to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, the Samaritans offered their aid, but this aid was indignantly refused (Ezra and Nehemiah 4). Hostility arose between Jews and Samaritans — a hostility which continued not only to the time of Christ ( John 4:9), but even to the present day. Since the Samaritan Pentateuch substantially coincides with the Hebrew Pentateuch, it furnishes us with a definite past date at which it certainly existed in nearly its present form. It witnesses to the existence of our Pentateuch in essentially its present form as far back as the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Green, Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,44,45 — “After being repulsed by the Jews, the Samaritans, to substantiate their claim of being sprung from ancient Israel, eagerly accepted the Pentateuch which was brought them by a renegade priest.” W. Robertson Smith, in Encyclopedia Brit., 21:244 — “The priestly law, which is throughout based on the practice of the priests of Jerusalem before the captivity, was reduced to form after the exile, and was first published by Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The Samaritans must therefore have derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after Ezra’s reforms, i.e. , after 444 BC Before that time Samaritanism cannot have existed in a form at all similar to that which we know; but there must have been a community ready to accept the Pentateuch.” See Smith’s Bible Dictionary, art., Samaritan Pentateuch; Hastings, Bible Dictionary, art., Samaria; Stanley Leathes, Structure of the Old Testament, 1-41. (f) From the finding of “the book of the law” in the temple, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, or in 621 BC 2 Kings 22:8 — “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah.” 23:2 — “The book of the covenant” was read before the people by the king and proclaimed to be the law of the land. Curtis, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 3:596 — “The earliest written law or book of divine instruction of whose introduction or enactment an authentic account is given, was Deuteronomy or its main portion, represented as found in the temple in the 18th year of King Josiah (BC 621) and proclaimed by the king as the law of the land. From that time forward Israel had a written law which the pious believer was commanded to ponder day and night ( Joshua 1:8; Psalm I:2); and thus the Torah, as sacred literature, formally commenced in Israel. This law aimed at a right application of Mosaic principles.” Ryle, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 1:602 — “The law of Deuteronomy represents an expansion and development of the ancient code contained in Exodus 20-23, and precedes the final formulation of the priestly ritual, which only received its ultimate form in the last period of revising the structure of the Pentateuch.”

Andrew Harper, on Deuteronomy, in Expositor’s Bible: “Deuteronomy does not claim to have been written by Moses. He is spoken of in the third person in the introduction and historical framework, while the speeches of Moses are in the first person. In portions where the author speaks for himself, the phrase ‘beyond Jordan’ means east of Jordan; in the speeches of Moses the phrase ‘beyond Jordan’ means west of Jordan; and the only exception is Deuteronomy 3:8, which cannot originally have been part of the speech of Moses. But the style of both parts is the same, and if the 3rd person parts are by a later author, the 1st person parts are by a later author also. Both differ from other speeches of Moses in the Pentateuch.

Can the author be a contemporary writer who gives Moses’ words, as John gave the words of Jesus? No, for Deuteronomy covers only the book of the Covenant, Exodus 20-23. It uses JE but not P, with which JE is interwoven. But JE appears in Joshua and contributes to it an account of Joshua’s death. JE speaks of kings in Israel ( Genesis 36:31-39).

Deuteronomy plainly belongs to the early centuries of the Kingdom, or to the middle of it.”

Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 43-40 — “The Deuteronomic law was so short that Shaphan could read it aloud before the king ( 2 Kings 22:10) and the king could read “the whole of it” before the people (23:2); compare the reading of the Pentateuch for a whole week ( Job 8:2-18).

It was in the form of a covenant; it was distinguished by curses; it was an expansion and modification, fully within the legitimate province of the prophet, of a Torah of Moses codified from the traditional form of at least a century before. Such a Torah existed, was attributed to Moses, and is now incorporated as ‘the book of the covenant in Exodus 20 to 24. The year 620 is therefore the terminus a quo of Deuteronomy. The date of the priestly code is 444 BC” Sanday, Bampton Lectures for 1893, grants “ (1) the presence in the Pentateuch of a considerable element which in its present shape is held by many to be not earlier than the captivity; (2) the composition of the book of Deuteronomy, not long, or at least not very long, before its promulgation by King Josiah in the year 621, which thus becomes a pivot date in the history of Hebrew literature.” (g) From references in the prophets Hosea (BC 743-737) and Amos (759- 745) to a course of divine teaching and revelation extending far back of their day. Hosea 8:12 — “I wrote for him the ten thousand things of my law”; here is asserted the existence prior to the time of the prophet, not only of a law, but of a written law. All critics admit the book of Hosea to be a genuine production of the prophet, dating from the eighth century BC; see Green, in Presb. Rev., 1886:585- 608. Amos 2:4 — “they have rejected the law of Jehovah, and have not kept his statutes”; here is proof that, more than a century before the finding of Deuteronomy in the temple, Israel was acquainted with God’s law. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 26, 27 — “The lofty plane reached by the prophets was not reached at a single bound… There must have been a taproot extending far down into the earth.” Kurtz remarks that “the later books of the Old Testament would be a tree without roots, if the composition of the Pentateuch were transferred to a later period of Hebrew history.” If we substitute for the word ‘Pentateuch’ the words ‘Book of the covenant,’ we may assent to this dictum of Kurtz. There is sufficient evidence that, before the times of Hosea and Amos, Israel possessed a written law — the law embraced in Exodus 20-24 — but the Pentateuch as we now have it, including Leviticus, seems to date no further back than the time of Jeremiah, 445 BC The Levitical law however was only the codification of statutes and customs whose origin lay far back in the past and which were believed to be only the natural expansion of the principles of Mosaic legislation.

Leathes, Structure of Old Testament, 54 — “Zeal for the restoration of the temple after the exile implied that it had long before been the center of the national polity, that there had been a ritual and a law before the exile.”

Present Day Tracts, 3:52 — Levitical institutions could not have been first established by David. It is inconceivable that he “could have taken a whole tribe, and no trace remain of so revolutionary a measure as the dispossessing them of their property to make them ministers of religion.”

James Robertson, Early History of Israel: “The varied literature of 850- 750 BC implies the existence of reading and writing for some time before.

Amos and Hosea hold, for the period succeeding Moses, the same scheme of history which modern critics pronounce late and unhistorical. The eighth century BC was a time of broad historic day, when Israel had a definite account to give of itself and of its history. The critics appeal to the prophets, but they reject the prophets when these tell us that other teachers taught the same truth before them, and when they declare that their nation had been taught a better religion and had declined from it, in other words, that there had been law long before their day. The kings did not give law. The priests presupposed it. There must have been a formal system of law much earlier than the critics admit, and also an earlier reference in their worship to the great events which made them a separate people.” And Dillman goes yet further back and declares that the entire work of Moses presupposes “a preparatory stage of higher religion in Abraham.” (h) From the repeated assertions of Scripture that Moses himself wrote a law for his people, confirmed as these are by evidence of literary and legislative activity in other nations far antedating his time. Exodus 24:4 — “And Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah”; 34:27 — “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel”; Numbers 33:2 — “And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah”; Deuteronomy 31:9 — “And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bare the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, and unto all the elders of Israel” 22 — “So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel”; 24-26 — “And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, that bare the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” The law here mentioned may possibly be only ‘the book of the covenant (Exodus 20-24), and the speeches of Moses in Deuteronomy may have been orally handed down. But the fact that Moses was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” ( Acts 7:22), together with the fact that the art of writing was known in Egypt for many hundred years before his time, make it more probable that a larger portion of the Pentateuch was of his own composition.

Kenyon, in Hastings’ Dictionary, art., Writing, dates the Proverbs of Ptah-hotep, the first recorded literary composition in Egypt, at 3580-3536 BC, and asserts the free use of writing among the Sumerian inhabitants of Babylonia as early as 4000 BC The statutes of Hammurabi king of Babylon compare for extent with those of Leviticus, yet they date back to the time of Abraham, 2200 BC, — indeed Hammurabi is now regarded by many as the Amraphel of Genesis 14:1. Yet these statutes antedate Moses by 700 years. It is interesting to observe that Hammurabi professes to have received his statutes directly from the Sun god of Sippar, his capital city. See translation by Winckler, in Der alte Orient, 97; Johns, The Oldest Code of Laws; Kelso, in Princeton Theol. Rev., July, 1905:399-412 — Facts “authenticate the traditional date of the Book of the Covenant, overthrow the formula Prophets and Law, restore the old order Law and Prophets, and put into historical perspective the tradition that Moses was the author of the Sinaitic legislation.”

As the controversy with regard to the genuineness of the Old Testament books has turned of late upon the claims of the Higher Criticism in general, and upon the claims of the Pentateuch in particular, we subjoin separate notes upon these subjects. The Higher Criticism in general. Higher Criticism does not mean criticism in any invidious sense, any more than Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was an unfavorable or destructive examination. It is merely a dispassionate investigation of the authorship, date and purpose of Scripture books, in the light of their composition, style and internal characteristics. As the Lower Criticism is a text critique, the Higher Criticism is a structure critique. A bright Frenchman described a literary critic as one who rips open the doll to get at the sawdust there is in it. This can be done with a skeptical and hostile spirit, and there can be little doubt that some of the higher critics of the Old Testament have begun their studies with prepossessions against the super-natural, which have vitiated all their conclusions. These presuppositions are often unconscious, but none the less influential. When Bishop Colenso examined the Pentateuch and Joshua, he disclaimed any intention of assailing the miraculous narrative as such; as if he had said: “My dear little fish, you need not fear me; I do not wish to catch you; I only intend to drain the pond in which you live.” To many scholars the waters at present seem very low in the Hexateuch and indeed throughout the whole Old Testament.

Shakespeare made over and incorporated many old Chronicles of Plutarch and Holinshed, and many Italian tales and early tragedies of other writers; but Pericles and Titus Andronicus still pass current under the name of Shakespeare. We speak even now of “Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar,” although of its twenty seven editions the last fourteen have been published since his death, and more of it has been written by other editors than Gesenius ever wrote himself. We speak of “Webster’s Dictionary,” though there are in the “Unabridged” thousands of words and definitions that Webster never saw. Francis Brown: “A modern writer masters older records and writes a wholly new book. Not so with eastern historians. The latest comer, as Renan says, ‘absorbs his predecessors without assimilating them, so that the most recent has in its belly the fragments of the previous works in a raw state.’ The Diatessaron of Tatian is a parallel to the composite structure of the Old Testament books. One passage yields the following: Matthew 21:12a; John 2:14a; Matthew 21:12b: John 2:14b, 15; Matthew 21:12c, 13; John 2:16; Mark 11:16; John 2:17-22; all succeeding each other without a break.” Gore, Lux Mundi, 853 — “There is nothing materially untruthful, though there is something uncritical, in attributing the whole legislation to Moses acting under the divine command. It would be only of a piece with the attribution of the collection of Psalm s to David, and of Proverbs to Solomon.”

The opponents of the Higher Criticism have much to say in reply. Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews, holds that the early chapters of Genesis were copied from Babylonian sources, but he insists upon a Mosaic or pre-Mosaic date for the copying. Hilprecht however declares that the monotheistic faith of Israel could never have proceeded “from the Babylonian Mountain of gods — that charnel house full of corruption and dead men’s bones.” Bissell, Genesis Printed in Colors, Introduction, iv — “It is improbable that so many documentary histories existed so early, or if existing that the compiler should have attempted to combine them.

Strange that the earlier should be J and should use the word ‘Jehovah,’ while the later P should use the word ‘Elohim’, when ‘Jehovah’ would have far better suited the Priests’ Code… xiii — The Babylonian tablets contain in a continuous narrative the more prominent facts of both the alleged Elohistic and Jehovistic sections of Genesis, and present them mainly in the Biblical order. Several hundred years before Moses what the critics call two were already one . It is absurd to say that the unity was due to a redactor at the period of the exile, 444 BC He who believes that God revealed himself to primitive man as one God, will see in the Akkadian story a polytheistic corruption of the original monotheistic account.” We must not estimate the antiquity of a pair of boots by the last patch, which the cobbler has added; nor must we estimate the antiquity of a Scripture book by the glosses and explanations added by later editors. As the London Spectator remarks on the Homeric problem: “It is as impossible that a first-rate poem or work of art should be produced without a great mastermind which first conceives the whole, as that a fine living bull should be developed out of beef sausages.” As we shall proceed to show, however, these utterances overstate the unity of the Pentateuch and ignore some striking evidences of its gradual growth and composite structure. The Authorship of the Pentateuch in particular. Recent critics, especially Kuenen and Robertson Smith, have maintained that the Pentateuch is Mosaic only in the sense of being a gradually growing body of traditional law, which was codified as late as the time of Ezekiel, and, as the development of the spirit and teachings of the great lawgiver, was called by a legal fiction after the name of Moses and was attributed to him. The actual order of composition is therefore: (1) Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20-23); (2) Deuteronomy; (3) Leviticus. Among the reasons assigned for this view are the facts (a) that Deuteronomy ends with an account of Moses’ death, and therefore could not have been written by Moses; (b) that in Leviticus Levites are mere servants to the priests, while in Deuteronomy the priests are officiating Levites, or, in other words, all the Levites are priests; (c) that the books of Judges and of I Samuel, with their record of sacrifices offered in many places, give no evidence that either Samuel or the nation of Israel had any knowledge of a law confining worship to a local sanctuary. See Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel; Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, Band 1; and art.; Israel, in Encyclopedia Brit., 1:1:398, 399, 415; W.

Robertson Smith, Old Testament in Jewish Church, 306, 386, and Prophets of Israel; Hastings, Bible Dictionary, arts.; Deuteronomy, Hexateuch, and Canon of the Old Testament It has been urged in reply, (1) that Moses may have written, not autographically, but through a scribe (perhaps Joshua), and that this scribe may have completed the history in Deuteronomy with the account of Moses’ death; (2) that Ezra or subsequent prophets may have subjected the whole Pentateuch to recension, and may have added explanatory notes; (3) that documents of previous ages may have been incorporated, in course of its composition by Moses, or subsequently by his successors; (4) that the apparent lack of distinction between the different classes of Levites in Deuteronomy may be explained by the fact that, while Leviticus was written with exact detail for the priests, Deuteronomy is the record of a brief general and oral summary of the law, addressed to the people at large and therefore naturally mentioning the clergy as a whole; (5) that the silence of the book of Judges as to the Mosaic ritual may be explained by the design of the book to describe only general history, and by the probability that at the tabernacle a ritual was observed of which the people in general were ignorant. Sacrifices in other places only accompanied special divine manifestations, which made the recipient temporarily a priest. Even if it were proved that the law</