ico
THE BIBLE THE CHURCH AND THE REASON
DR. BRIGGS' WORKS.
AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM. Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Letters and Documents, many of which have recently been dis covered. Cr. bvo, with maps $3 oo
MESSIANIC PROPHECY. The Trediction of the Fulfil ment of Redemption through the Messiah. A critical study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament in the order of their development. Cr. 8\o, . $2.50
BIBLICAL STUDY. Its Principles, Methods, and Historj of its Branches. Fourth edition. Cr. Svo, . $2.50
WHITHER? A Theological Question for the Times. Third edition. Cr. Svo, $J-75
THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. An Inaugural Address. Third edition. Cr. Svo, paper, 50 cts.
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON. The Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority. Cr.
. $1.75
Bvo.
• THE BIBLE THE CHURCH AND THE REASON
THE THREE GREAT FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY
BY
CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.
EDWARD ROBINSON PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1892
COPYRIGHT, 1892, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
PRESS OF
EDWARD O. JENKINS' SON, NEW YORK.
TO CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D.,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE
UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK ;
THE SOLE SURVIVOR OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE SEMINARY ;
AND THE GENEROUS FRIEND WHO ENDOWED THE EDWARD ROBINSON CHAIR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY,
IS DEDICATED WITH REVERENCE AND LOVE.
PREFACE.
THIS book contains seven lectures. Five of these were prepared in response to requests that I should set forth more fully the views expressed in my Inaugural Address on the Authority of Holy Scripture. These lectures were given in several churches in New York and its vicinity. It was impossible to respond to the invita tions to deliver them in other cities, because of the impera tive engagements of the author in his professorial work. It was not his intention to publish these lectures; but he could not decline to comply with the many requests for their publication from all parts of the land. The lectures have been enlarged, furnished with notes, and illustrated by numerous and extensive Appendices. To these five lectures have been added a lecture on Biblical History, delivered at the opening of the term of the Union Theological Seminary, September 19, 1889, and subsequently published in pamphlet form ; and a lecture on the Messianic Ideal, prepared for Wellesley College, and subsequently delivered there, and also at Oberlin College, and before the American Institute of Sacred Literature, at Chicago. These lectures have been added
viii PREFACE.
because they have an important bearing on the ques tions in debate, and are involved in the theme of the book.
The subjects discussed in this volume are of such im portance that each one of the lectures might be regarded as a summing up of material that would require a sepa rate volume adequately to set it forth. Other lectures might have been added upon other phases of the divine Authority in the Bible, the Church, and the Reason. The author does not propose to give an exhaustive dis cussion of this theme ; but only several lectures upon the most important phases of it. He does not treat even these fully and exhaustively, but only in a general way, and in their broad outlines. The lectures are offered to the public as an introduction to a great theme and as a contribution to the solution of some of the prob lems involved in it, especially those now chiefly in de bate. These are matters which lie at the roots of our common Christianity. They are the questions which force themselves upon us in this generation of our race. It is impossible to ignore them. They cannot be pushed aside by any other interests, because they are more important than any other interests. They are not merely theoretical questions for scholarly debate ; they are practical matters upon which Christian life depends. It is useless to dogmatize about them. They cannot be determined by ecclesiastical process. They cannot be crushed by violent measures. They are questions of truth and fact, to be determined by weight of evidence
PREFACE. Jx
and by the witness of realities. They should be bravely, honestly, and intelligently faced, and determined by patient, diligent, painstaking, exhaustive, investigation of truth and fact.
The differences that prevail within the Church and without the Church as to the questions discussed in this book, are the great barriers and stumbling-blocks in the way of the peace, harmony, and unity of Christendom. To remove them even at the cost of conflict with those who insist upon their remaining, is the work of a true Christian peacemaker. The author wrote his lectures with this end in view. The peace, unity, prosperity, and glory of Christ's Church are the aim of his labor and his prayer, of his hope and his ambition ; and these he assuredly sees as the goal of prophecy and history, and as the crowning work of the reigning Redeemer.
CONTENTS.
I.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH, p. i.
The authority to define the Canon of Holy Scripture, p. 2 ; (2) The authority of interpreting Scripture, p. 8 ; (3) The Westminster doctrine of the Church, p. 13; (4) The Church is a great fountain of Divine Authority, p. 17.
II.
THE REASON AS A GREAT FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY,
p. 29.
This is shown, (i) from the Westminster doctrine, p. 30 ; (2) from Holy Scripture, p. 38 ; (3) from the condition of the world, p. 43 ; (4) from the nature of rrian, p. 48 ; (5) from Church History, p. 50; (6) from Christian experience, p. 54.
III.
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY, p. 57.
What is meant by Fountains of authority? p. 57; (2) Are the three fountains co-ordinate ? p. 63 ; (3) The Reason is not a rule of faith, p. 66; (4) The unique authority of Holy Scrip ture, p. 73; (5) The Church has divine authority in its institutions, p. 83 ; (6) The unity of the Fountains in the Messiah, p. 84.
(xi)
xii CONTENTS.
IV.
Is HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? p. 91.
The infallible rule of faith and practice, p. 92 ; (2) Kept pure in all ages, p. 95 ; (3) The Word of God contained in Holy Scripture, p. 99 ; (4) The Scriptures do not claim inerrancy, p. 107; (5) Inerrancy is not an orthodox doctrine, p. 109; (6) Inerrancy is a dangerous doctrine, p. 113.
V.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM, p. 118.
What is Higher Criticism, p. 119; (2) Problems of the Higher Criticism, p. 122; (3) Dogmatic obstacles, p. 125; (4) The evidences used by the Higher Criticism, p. 135; (5) The Higher Criticism is constructive, p. 148.
VI. BIBLICAL HISTORY, p. 152.
What is Biblical History? p. 152; (2) The four types, p. 158; (3) The theophanic presence of God, p. 161; (4) The theocratic historian, p. 165; (5) The prophetic historian, p. 167; (6) The theologian's view of history, p. 170; (7) The oriestly historian, p. 171.
VII. THE MESSIANIC IDEAL, p. 177.
The ideal of mankind, p. 182; (2) The woman's seed, p. 185; (3) The Advent of God, p. 186 ; (4) The blessing of Abraham, p. 189; (5) The Kingdom of priests, p. 192; (6) The Prophet greater than Moses, p. 194; (7) The Messianic king, p. 195 ; (8) The day of Jahveh, p. 198.
CONTENTS. Xlll
APPENDIX.
I. NEW EVIDENCES FOR THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIP TURE, p. 205.
II. A LOW-CHURCH MODIFICATION OF THE POWER OF THE
KEYS, p. 208.
III. A RECOGNITION OF THE SALVATION OF ELECT
HEATHEN, p. 208.
IV. THE SUPPOSED CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS OF
DIVINE AUTHORITY, p. 210. V. SOME OF THOSE WHO FIND ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE,
p. 215. VI. WHO ARE " THE HIGHER CRITICS " ? p. 236.
VII. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE
NAME JAHVEH, p. 248.
VIII. THE DECALOGUE OF J. AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE
OTHER CODES, p. 250.
IX. THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY, P. 273-
X. THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THEOLOGICAL
ENCYCLOPAEDIA, p. 275. XI. EICHHORN'S VIEW OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER
CRITICISM, p. 277. XII. MIRACLES AND THEOPHA.NIES, p. 279.
XIII. PROPHECY AND THEOPHANY, p. 280.
XIV. THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN, p. 281. XV. THE. POEM OF THE CREATION, p. 283.
XVI. THE MINUTE DETAILS OF PREDICTION, p. 286.
INDEX, p. 291.
I.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.
THE Church and the Bible are gifts of God for the re demption of the world. There ought to be no conflict, no rivalry, no jealousy between them ; for each has its own place and importance, each its own special work to do for God and humanity. And yet, in fact, there is now, and long has been, jealousy, rivalry, and conflict in Christendom between those who are zealous for the supremacy of the Bible, and those who are zealous for the supremacy of the Church. The discord has not yet been removed. The conflict still goes on to the detri ment of the best interests of Christ and Christianity.
The relative authority of Bible and Church was one of the great battle grounds of the Reformation. The Roman Catholic party in the Church claimed that the Church had divine authority to determine the canon of Holy Scripture, to give the official interpretation of Holy Scripture and to define all questions of doctrine and practice not defined by Scripture. The Protestant party in the Church denied the authority of the Church at these points. They asserted the independent divine authority of the Holy Scriptures ; and the independent rights of the conscience and private judgment. We re serve the consideration of the relation of the Church
2 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
to the Reason for our next lecture. We shall now con sider the authority of the Church in its relation to Holy Scripture, (i). The Authority to define the Canon of Holy Scripture.
The Roman Catholic party defined the Canon of Holy Scripture at the Council of Trent, claiming that the Church had divine authority so to do in accordance with its traditions.*
The Protestant party denied the authority of the Church in this particular, and claimed that Holy Scrip ture had sovereign independent authority in itself.
Thus Luther in his controversy with Eck said: "The Church cannot give any more authority or power than it has of itself. A council cannot make that to be of Scrip ture which is not by nature of Scripture." f Calvin says:
• " But there has very generally prevailed a most pernicious error that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is conced ed to them by the suffrages of the Church, as though the eter nal and inviolable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will of man." ....
" For as God alone is a sufficient witness of Himself in His own Word, so also the Word will never gain credit in the hearts of men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit. It is necessary, therefore, that the same Spirit who spake by the mouths of the prophets should penetrate into our hearts, to con vince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles which were divinely intrusted to them" (Institutes, I. 7).
This principle is well expressed in the second Helvetic Confession, the most honored in the Reformed Church :
* " But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition ; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid ; let him be anathema." — TJ,e Can ons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Decree IV.
t Disputatio exc. theol. Joh. Eccii et Lutheri, hist., iii., 129 seq.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.
8
"We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets to be the very true word of God, and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men" (Chap. I.). 'Therefore in controversies of religion or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge than God Himself, pronouncing by the Holy Scrip tures what is true and what is false ; what is to be followed, or what is to be avoided " (Chap. II.).
The Gallican Confession gives a similar statement :
"We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other eccle siastical books " (IV. Art.).
The Scotch Confession of 1560 maintains the position of the reformers :
" As we beleeveand confesse the Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and make the man of God perfite, so do we affirme and avow the authentic of the same to be of God, and nether to depend on men nor angelis. We affirme then therefore, that sik as allege the scripture to have na authoritie bot that quhilk it hes received from the Kirk, to be blasphemous against God, and injurious to the trew Kirk, quhilk alwaies heares and obey is the voice of her awin spouse and Pastor; bot takis not upon her to be maistres over the samen " (Art. XIX.).
This doctrine is also taught distinctly in the West minster Confession.
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church, to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture ; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine,' the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full dis covery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies and the entire perfection there of, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof,
4 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts " (I. 56).
This doctrine of the independent sovereign authority of Holy Scripture as sufficient of itself to convince, as sure and give infallible certainty to men as regards its own authority, is one of the most precious doctrines of the Reformation. The divine authority of Holy Scrip ture consists in the presence and power of God in it and with it. God Himself speaks to men through the Bible. The Church has divine authority to teach and to preach the Holy Scriptures. But the Church cannot impart any authority whatever to them. The Church recognizes in the Scriptures the same divine energy and authority which pervades and controls the Church itself. A Chris tian man knows that Holy Scripture is the Word of God. The Church as a holy organization of Christians bears united and concordant testimony to the authority of Holy Scripture. Holy Church sees in Holy Scripture an authority entirely independent of itself, to which it does obeisance and yields allegiance as holy and divine. The Roman Catholic party, as we understand it, does not dispute this fundamental position ; but it builds upon it the claim that the Church has in its possession an oral traditional Holy Word, of equal divine authority; and also a divine right of giving the sense of Scripture and tradition, to which every man must yield obedience as to the voice of God. The Church thus interposes as the mediator of the divine Word between the individual Christian and the fountain of Holy Scripture. It stands guard at the fountain and fills its ecclesiastical vessels with the waters of truth and so gives them to the Chris tian people.
A later Protestantism fell away from the genuine prin ciple of the Reformation, and sought to reintroduce the
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 5
principle of ecclesiastical authority in an indirect way apart from Roman Catholic tradition. It lost faith in the Scriptures themselves as a fountain of divine au thority, and sought to hew out dogmatic cisterns into which it might store such portions of the water of life as it might force into them through the conduits of deductive reasoning. And so they repeat the fault of the Roman Catholic party in a more aggravated form. They impair the fundamental principle of Protestantism in a still more serious way.
The Scriptures of themselves win the confidence of men by the authority of the divine truth that is in them and by the divine grace that flows forth .from them. A mere dogmatic faith may be anxious about Holy Scrip ture, and undertake to defend it with the batteries of scholastic dogma. Such a faith has more confidence in dogma than in Scripture. But a living faith uses the Scriptures themselves as the most potent weapons to overcome doubt, to confirm and fortify faith and to main tain the truth, because it is assured that they are the power of God unto salvation.
In recent times some Protestant theologians have en deavored to prop the divine authority of the Scriptures by arguments drawn from traditional sources. They have even gone so far as to rest the authority of the canon of Holy Scripture upon the probable evidence of its acceptance by the early Church. They make the canonicity of Scripture a purely historical question, and, therefore, can never go beyond the range of probability, can never reach certainty.* The same questions as to
* Dr. Francis L. Patton admits that he and his teachers have departed from the position of the Reformers in this respect, when he says : '• It does not tend in the slightest degree to reconcile us to these opinions to say that the Reformers entertained them. It would not be strange if in their opposition to the claims of
Q THE BIBLE, TE1E CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
the canonicity of certain books of Scripture which were disputed in the early Church are again raised. If canon icity be a purely historical question, scholars doubt the propriety of resting their faith upon the judgment of a majority of Christians in the second century, no wiser or better than ourselves. If canonicity be a purely histori cal question, the serious reflection presses itself upon us in our historical investigation, that we thereby gain only fallible human evidence after all, and that there is no avenue to certainty in that direction. How can we get an infallible Holy Scripture from a fallible tradition reaching back to uncertain human testimony in the early Christian Church? If we could recognize with Roman Catholics the divine authority of tradition in the Church as resting on the authority of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit no less than the written Word, then we might rest the canon of Scripture with confidence on that tra dition. But we would be obliged to include in the canon the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. But, if we deny the divine authority of the Church and the divine authority of the traditional teaching of the Church, we cannot safely build the authority of the canon upon a discredited tradition and a discredited Church. If any one should attempt by historical criti cism or by subjective tests of any kind to eliminate the apocryphal books, he would have the same right to go further, and for sufficient reasons eliminate other writings also from the canon. The canon we would have left us by such an historical sifting, would be only a selected part of a discredited tradition. This is the perilous position in which we are left by those who depart from the posi tion of the Reformers and the Westminster divines,
the Church of Rome, they went to the opposite extreme, and were in danger of falling into the errors of the mystics." — Presb. Review, IV., p. 346.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. f
and claim that canonicity is a purely historical ques tion.*
The dogmaticians have also gone so far as to identify the canonicity and divine authority of Scripture with questions of authorship and dates of Biblical books, and thus array their doctrine of the canon of Holy Scripture against the science of literary criticism. Accordingly, the question whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Isaiah wrote the whole of the prophecy that bears his name, whether Jonah is history or fiction, whether Joel was the first of the prophets or one of the latest, whether Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, and John the Apocalypse — all these and numberless other purely literary questions they have so identified with their theories of inspiration and canonicity, that they imperil their doctrine of the canon with every change that takes place in the theories and results of Biblical criticism. f
It is not surprising that many thinking men in our
* We again cite Calvin as a witness to the faith of the Reformation. " This is a principle that distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever, then, wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.
" If it be objected, ' How can this be known ? ' I answer, both to disciples and to teachers, God is made known to be the author of it by the revelation of the same Spirit. Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have re ceived from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake. The same Spirit, therefore, who made Moses and the prophets cer tain of their calling, now also testifies to our hearts, that He has employed them as His servants to instruct us. Accordingly, we need not wonder if there are many who doubt as to the Author of the Scripture ; for, although the majesty of God is displayed in it, yet none but those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit have eyes to perceive what ought, indeed, to have been visible to all, and yet is visible to the elect alone." — Calvin on 2 Tim. iii. 16.
t See " Higher Criticism," 118 seq.
8 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
time reject a Bible which has been offered to them cushioned on such authority as this, and inextricably entwined with the uncertainties and errors of traditional theology. They turn from these traditional theories to their own conscience and religious feeling. Nor is it surprising that many cultivated men, anxious for certi tude of faith, turn away from these fluctuating and un certain evidences and take refuge in the divine authority of the Church. Such theories are laboratories of Ration alists and Roman Catholics. The only way to stop the leaks of Protestantism is to discard the scholastic dog mas of later Protestantism and to reaffirm the original Protestant principles.
The Reformers and the Puritans refused to define questions of Biblical criticism or in any way to mingle questions of authorship with the authority of Holy Scripture. They assert that historical evidence is prob able ; but that the divine evidence in the Scriptures themselves gives the believer certainty, the assurance that his faith and life are founded upon the word of God, which cannot be broken, changed, or avoided.
" The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man [Moses or Paul, David or John] or church [Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, or Protestant Catholic], but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof ; and, therefore, it is to be received, because it is the word of God." *
(2). The authority of interpreting Scripture.
. The Roman Catholic party in the Church also claim that the Church has divine authority in the interpreta tion of Holy Scripture.
This doctrine is moderately expressed by the best in-
* W. C., I. 4. The words in italics are inserted as explanations.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 9
terpreter prior to the Reformation, Nicolaus de Lyra, who says :
" I protest, I intend to say nothing either in the way of asser tion or determination, except in relation to such things as have been clearly settled by Holy Scripture on the authority of the church. All besides must be taken as spoken scholastically and by way of exercise ; for which reason I submit all I have said, and aim to say, to the correction of our holy mother the church " (Postzllae, prol. II.).
So also in the Profession of the Tridentine Faith, it is said :
" I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures ; neither will I ever take and interpret them other wise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers " (III.).*
Wicklif, the morning star of the Reformation, gave expression to the doctrine of the reforming party in the Church when he said :
" The Holy Spirit teaches us the sense of Scripture as Christ opened the Scriptures to his apostles. "t
Luther said :
" It is the attribute of Holy Scripture that it interprets itself by passages and places which belong together, and can only be understood by the rule of faith." J
The Westminster Confession sets forth this doctrine of the Reformers, thus :
* " Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,— in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, — wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,— whose it is to judge of the true sense and inter pretation of the Holy Scriptures,— hath held and doth hold."— The Canons and Decrees of the Council cf Trent, Decree IV.
t Lechler, John Wiclif, Lorimer's edition, i., p. 295.
J Walch, iii., p. 2042.
10 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scrip ture itself, and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly " (I. 9).
This passage clearly teaches that Scripture is to be its own interpreter ; that the meaning of Scripture in diffi cult passages is to be determined by the meaning of places that speak more clearly on the subject, that the rule of faith is contained in the Scripture itself. To use the words of a member of the Westminster Assembly of divines:
" The analogy of faith is nothing else but the constant and perpetual sentence of Scripture in the clearest places of it." *
This doctrine is irreconcilably opposed to those in our times who interpret the Scriptures, not by its own rule of faith, " the clearest places in it," but by another rule of faith external to it, such as the " Reformed System of doctrine," or the "Calvinistic Rule of Faith," and too often also by the utterances of some favorite dogma- tician. This doctrine of the Reformation needs great emphasis at the present time, in the effort of the Church to throw off from the Scripture and modern thought the incubus of traditional dogma. Protestants did not renounce pope Leo X. in order to exalt pope Luther or pope Calvin, still less those little popes who appear in succession in the different countries and churches and who try so hard to dominate theology by the use of such ecclesiastical machinery as may happen to be with in their reach.
On Malvern hills is a holy well to which pilgrims have resorted from the most ancient times, on account of the matchless purity and tonic properties of its waters.
* Sam. Bolton, Arraignment of Err our, 1646, p. 250.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.
Some years ago an enterprising citizen gained possession of the holy well, built a bottling establishment about it, and now sells the water in bottles properly labelled and sealed. It is true a trickling stream is allowed to flow for the free use of the public, but if one desires the holy water fresh and full from the fountain, he must enter the bottling establishment or drink it from the bottles. This is the way dogmaticians and ecclesiastics have dealt with the holy water of life welling up from the Word of God. They may encourage the free circulation of the Scriptures, but if you study them you must not find anything different from the so-called orthodox in terpretation. If you would have the genuine, pure, and uncorrupted article, you must take it in that dogmatic system which has been prepared by elect hands, and which has been labelled and sealed with the well-known seal of a certain school of theology. Thus they bottle the Word of God in human dogmas and encase its holy doctrines in their speculative systems, and they discard as mystical the cardinal doctrine of the West minster Confession and all the creeds of the Reforma tion, that Scripture is its own interpreter and its own rule of faith.
If it be necessary that we should be controlled by tra ditional dogma^ in interpreting Holy Scripture, any his torical scholar would prefer ancient Catholic tradition to a tradition which goes no farther back than the Swiss and Dutch scholasticism of the i/th century, or to its ill-formed and sickly child which was born in American schools of theology not a century ago. But we are not forced into such a cruel dilemma. Genuine Protestant ism, as defined by the symbolical books of the Reforma tion, and true Puritanism as set forth in the Westminster Confession, refer us to the Scriptures themselves as the
12 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
only infallible rule of faith and life ; and to the Holy Spirit speaking in Holy Scripture as the only infallible judge in matters of religion.
The Reformers rescued the Holy Scriptures from the hands of ecclesiastics and exalted them to an independ ent, divine authority as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The Church has no authority to determine the canon of Holy Scripture, but accepts the canon as it is given by God Himself to His Church. The Church cannot interpret the Scripture with divine authority. Scripture is its own interpreter to every conscientious student. The reason, the conscience, human prudence and judgment must be freely and fully employed in searching the Scriptures, for God will fill all these facul ties of human nature with their appropriate holy contents of grace from the inexhaustible fountain of the Word of God itself.
The Westminster Confession in the first chapter gives the best statement of the doctrine of Holy Scripture which has yet been framed by man. It ought to remain untouched by revision. Biblical theology has no fault to find with this chapter. It urges that its noble doc trine should become a reality in the Christian experience of God's people. The change proposed by the Commit tee on Revision of the General Assembly of the Presby terian Church in the United States of America, is like a mud spot on a beautiful garment.*
The children of the Puritans should maintain the en tire doctrine of the Scriptures set forth in the first chap ter of their Confession, in all its sections and in all its sentences and clauses, in its unity and variety and har mony ; and they should reject every doctrine that op-
* See Appendix I,
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. ^3
poses it. Above all, they ought to trample under foot all those dogmatic conceits and traditional explanations of modern divines which make the Puritan doctrine of the Bible void and of no effect.
(3). The Westminster Doctrine of the Church.
The reforming party in the Church did not seek to de stroy the Church, but to reform it. When Reformation resulted in the breaking up of the Church in Northern and Western Europe into a number of national churches, the fathers of those churches never for a moment thought of denying the divine authority of the Church within its own sphere. They deprived the Church of its usurped authority over the Holy Scriptures and the consciences of men ; but they did not take from the Church any au thority that it rightfully possessed by divine right or historic right. When the Puritan fathers sought to re form the Church of England they repudiated the author ity of monarch and prelates over Christ's heritage, and maintained the crown rights of Jesus Christ ; but they asserted as strongly as the Anglo-Catholics the divine authority of the Church of God.
It is significant that the Westminster Confession gives seven chapters upon the doctrine of the Church and of the sacraments, doctrines as essential and necessary to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession as the doctrine of Holy Scripture contained in the first chapter.
(a). The Westminster Confession teaches clearly that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, when it says :
" The Lord Jesus as king and head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the king dom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power
14: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and censures ; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel, and by ab solution from censures, as occasion shall require" (W. C. F., xxx. i, 2).
We know that the Committee on Revision of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America weaken the force of this chap ter by inserting the qualifying clause, "ministerial and declarative," before power, but this clause will not do away with the doctrine — it simply shows that the Com mittee on Revision have, in a measure, receded from the high ground of the Confession so sturdily maintained in the i/th century.*
Unless the members of presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly have been called to their high office by the authority of Jesus Christ, speaking to them first in their own reasons in the internal call, and then through the authority of the Church in the external call of ordi nation, they are no courts of Jesus Christ, no church organization, whatever else they may be. Unless Jesus Christ has committed to them the keys of the kingdom of heaven they have no authority whatever to exercise ecclesiastical discipline ; they are usurping the crown rights of Jesus Christ, which He has given only to His Church, if with their voice they deny the divine authority of the Church, and in their acts endeavor to exercise that authority, f
*See Appendix II.
fWe give an extract from a Presbyterian authority only second to that of the Westminster Assembly itself :
" Ministers do not receive their Ministrie from the People, or Bishops, but im- mediatly from Jesus Christ : For they are Ministers and Embassadors of Christ, not of the People : Indeed they are Embassadors for the good of the People, but not Embassadors of the People : All that the people or Bishop doth, is but to choose zmd ordain a man ; but it is Christ that gives him his power and authority :
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. . ^5
(b\ The Westminster Confession further teaches that
" The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
" Unto the catholic visible church Christ hath given the minis try, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and per fecting of the saints in this life, to the end of the world, and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto " (C. F., xxv. 2-3).
This clearly teaches that according to Puritan doc trine," the visible church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ ; that he hath given the ministry, oracles, and or dinances of God unto it ; and doth by his own presence and Spirit make them effectual." If a Presbytery is not a court of the kingdom of Christ erected by divine authority, if Presbyterian ministers have not been given the ordinances by Jesus Christ to administer in His name; if Jesus Christ and His Spirit are not present in the midst of them— then they are no part of the Church of Christ at all. The only clause in this section to which modern Christians take exception is the state ment, " out of which there is no ordinary possibility of sal vation." This is no longer believed ; because it is the common opinion that millions of unbaptized children and considerable numbers of other unbaptized persons
As when a wife chooseth a husband, and a Town a Mayor ; the Town doth not give the Mayor, nor the wife the husband, the power they have ; but the Laws of God, the one ; and of Man, the other : So it is here. It is Christ that gives the Office, and the Call to the Ministry ; They are Ins Servants, and in his Name Execute their function. It is he that fits them with ability for their work."— From A Vindication of the Presbyferiall Government and Ministry, page 145. Published, by the Ministers, and Elders, met together in a Provinciall Assembly, Novenib. zd, 1649.
16 . THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
in heathen lands and also in Christian lands are to be counted among those who are in process of salvation. The statement of the Confession is in other respects a true statement. There is divine authority in the Church, it is Christ's kingdom, He reigns over it, He inhabits it by His Spirit, He makes its institutions efficacious, He grants access to Himself through His Church. Those who deny the doctrine that the Church is a great foun tain of divine authority, are guilty of transgressing essen tial and necessary articles of the Westminster Confes sion ; they take away from the Presbyterian Church the only ground for its existence.
(c). The Westminster Confession teaches that :
" The sacraments are holy signs and seals of the cove nant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him " (xxvii. i).
The sacraments are therefore divine institutions, hav ing divine authority, as holy signs and seals ; and they do in fact represent Christ and His benefits; they do in deed confirm our interest in Him.
The Confession teaches that :
" The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost " (xxviii. 6).
If the Holy Spirit does in fact confer divine grace in the right use of the sacrament of baptism, is it not a great fountain of divine grace and of divine authority? The Confession teaches that : In the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
" Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and in deed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death : the
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. ^7
body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine ; yet as really, but spirit ually, present to the faith of belivers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses " (xxix. 7).
If they spiritually receive and feed upon Christ, if the body and blood of Christ are really present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, then there is divine grace present in the Lord's Supper. Is it not then a great fountain of divine authority?
Those who deny that there is divine authority in the Church, deny the sacraments as divine institutions, rob them of the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and make them of no effect as means of grace.
Those Presbyterians who contend against the divine authority of the Church cut out seven chapters from the Westminster system of doctrine and strike at the vitals of institutional Christianity.*
(4). The Church is a great Fountain of divine
A uthority.
(i). Our Saviour said :
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatso ever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."!
* These seven chapters of the Westminster Confession have been greatly neglected by American divines. On a common factor of 1630 the Westminster Confession gives 295 to these subjects and the new articles of the Presbyterian Church of England 321, but Dr. Charles Hodge gives but 150 and Dr. Shedd but 43. It is also noteworthy that the self-styled committee of prosecution of the Presbytery of New York, in their charges and specifications where they represent that I am in error in teaching that " the Church is a great fountain of divine au thority " do not make a single citation from these seven chapters which give the Westminster doctrine of the Church. If I am in error on the doctrine of the Church, some statement in these chapters ought to show it. It would rather seem that my prosecutors do not hold the Westminster doctrine of the Church.
t Matth. xvi. 18, 19.
18 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Whatever interpretation of this passage may be prefer red, in any case, it is certain that the Church in some sense has the power of the keys by the institution of Christ.
In accord with this promise the Church was establish ed by the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven on the day of Pentecost to abide in the Church until the end of the world.
Paul teaches the Ephesfens that Christians are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord." *
Christ is the king reigning on His heavenly throne. His Church is His kingdom over which He reigns through the ministry called and endowed by Him. Christ is the head of His body, His Church. Christ is the vine stock, all His people are branches of Him. Christ is the shepherd, His Church is the flock. Christ is the husband, His Church is His bride. Christ is the corner-stone of His temple the Church. Christ is the holy place of the temple of the city of God. Those who deny that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, deny thereby this entire group of doctrines of Holy Scripture. They deny the reign of Christ over His Church. They deny the presence of Christ and His Spirit in the Church. They deny vital union and mystic communion of the Church with her Lord. They take away from the Church its divine power, its energy of grace, its effica cious Spirit, its divine Saviour, and leave it a shell empty of divine content.
(2). The condition of the world shows that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority. What shall we
* Ephesians ii. 20, 21.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. jg
do with the great majority of nominal Christians at the present time in countries where the Roman, Greek, and Oriental churches have the supremacy, where the Holy Scriptures are little known and where men are taught to find God through the Church? Who among us is ready to say, that this largest section of Christendom, em bracing churchmen of every name, who claim that they find God and divine certitude through the Church, is altogether mistaken ? The testimony is so extensive and so concordant that no one should doubt it without urgent reasons to the contrary. Will any one claim that God withholds Himself from every one who does not seek Him through His Word ? The late Cardinal Newman was a representative churchman of our days, a man of the highest culture, of deep insight into the things of God, a saintly man, a man of God, if there ever was such in the world. If it be heresy to take such a man at his word,* and say that he found divine certainty through the Church, I glory in such heresy. For it is a heresy that I share with the Reformers and the Westminster divines. It is a heresy which is regarded by the Christian world, apart from a narrow set of modern Bibliolaters, as Chris tian orthodoxy. I would rather follow Newman into the presence of my Master than risk the companionship of those uncharitable men who would exclude him from
* ;c From the time that I became a Catholic, of course I have no further history of my religious opinions to narrate. In saying this, I do not mean to say that my mind has been idle, or that I have given up thinking on theological subjects; but that I have had no changes to record, and have had no anxiety of heart what ever. I have been in perfect peace and contentment. I never have had one doubt. I was not conscious to myself, on my conversion, of any difference of thought or of temper from what I had before. I was not conscious of firmer faith in the fundamental truths of revelation or of more self-command ; I had not more fervor ; but it was like coming into port after a rough sea ; and my happiness on that score remains to this day without interruption."— Newman's AfOtOgM Pro Vita &ua, p. 204.
20 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASOil.
the kingdom of God. With the burning words of Jesus sounding in my ears:
" Woe unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites ! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men." *
I would fear lest the Master should say to such a com pany : I know you not. Ye have none of my spirit, ye are none of mine.
(3). Church history shows that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority. It is well known to all historians that, prior to the great Reformation, the Bible was not in the hands of the Christian people. Few even of the priests and prelates used it, except in those por tions which were sung in the liturgy of the Church. It was the common doctrine of Christendom that men were to seek God and find Him in and through the Church. Those, therefore, who deny that the Church has been a great fountain of divine authority, would blot out of ex istence the Church before the Reformation. They find ages of Christianity that are dark indeed, because the light of divine authority was put under the bushel and hidden away with the Bible from public use. They take the position of the radical party at the Reforma tion, that there was no true Church in all that long period. They destroy the divine continuity of the Church. They make the ministry and the sacraments altogether invalid. They make the greater part of Church history a dark tunnel, or a subterranean river, as if the true Church flowed into the tunnel away from the light of day and knowledge of men, only to emerge after thirteen or fourteen centuries as a trickling stream in the midst of a nominal Christian world. God forbid that any one should hold such a cruel doctrine.
* Matt, xxiii. 13.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHUKCH.
21
X4). Biblical history shows that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority. If we go back of Church history into Biblical history, we find that the Church antedates the Bible. If there had been no divine au thority in the Church, there would have been no divine canon of Holy Scripture. God called Abraham to found a holy family in the midst of the earth, centuries before any holy writing of our canon was composed. God es tablished by covenant the children of Israel to be a king dom of priests, a holy nation, before the proclamation of the ten words, before a single one of the statutes of the code of the covenant, or any other of the Pentateuchal codes was framed. So Jesus Christ commissioned His apostles, and the Holy Spirit planted the Church, and trained it in its earliest and most important lessons of life, institution, and doctrine, decades before a single one of the writings of the New Testament canon was writ ten. Indeed, it was necessary that the Church should be inhabited of God and His Spirit, and be filled with the divine authority of Jesus Christ, or the Holy Scrip tures could never have been written, would never have been collected, would never have been preached, and would never have exerted their divine influence upon the children of men. We do not say that the Church is superior in authority to the Scriptures ; or that the Church is co-ordinate with the Scriptures; but we do say that, in the order of time, God spake through the Church before He spake through the Bible. We do not see how it was possible for God to do otherwise, if He designed to give a holy Bible to the world. It was necessary that there should be an organized society, filled with the Holy Ghost, ere the sacred writings could be produced, codified in a canon, and proclaimed to the world as the Word of God. Those, therefore, who deny
22 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority strike at the vitals of the Bible itself, and imperil the authority of those very Scriptures which they design to exalt and to honor.
(5). Christian experience shows that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority. One of the greatest faults in modern Protestantism is its neglect of the divine authority of the Church and the efficacy of the sacraments. The Reformers and the early Puritans were mighty in the battle for Christian life and doctrine, for the reason that they were deeply sensible of the divine authority of the Church and the sacraments. When they assembled for public worship, they knew that they were worship ping a present God. When they partook of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, they were conscious of a present Christ. When they preached the gospel and contended for the faith of the saints, they experienced the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
I can understand very well that a man may become so infatuated with dogma as to think that dogma is more important than religious experience, and deliberately to choose dogma rather than Christian life. The preach ing of such dogma may be carried on in a Church all un conscious of divine authority and distinguished by the absence of God. Dead orthodoxy is an inalienable char acteristic of Pharisaism in all ages. But the Bible and the Church, Christian history and Christian experience, the Westminster Confession, and all other historic Con fessions, so far as I know, agree in teaching that our God is really present in the Church, and that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority. No dogma is Chris tian dogma unless it is alive with Christian faith and active in a fruitful life. " If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.
23
or whether I speak from myself." * Indeed, the Bible cannot exert its full power upon men unless the divine authority that is in the Church sing to the soul with responsive voice. For while we all agree that God grants His presence and the assurance of His divine authority to men in the simple, private reading of the Word, yet it is the common doctrine of all churches that it is the Word in the hands of the ministry, that is the sharp two-edged sword of the divine Spirit, flashing with the light of divine truth and flaming with the fire of divine love.
It is the public reading of the Scriptures and the pub lic preaching of the Word, or, in other words, it is the Bible in the hands of the Church, that after all is the power of God unto salvation ; for the authority of God speaking in Holy Scripture is re-echoed by the authority of God speaking through the Church, and in the blend ing of that wondrous harmony, sinners are converted and regenerated, and the people of God are edified and sanctified.
" Dogma is not a substitute for truth, but a guide to its appre hension. To accept a dogma on the Church's external author ity, is only the first step to apprehending it for ourselves. In deed, till ' dogma ' has ceased to be a mere dogma, and become part of our own spiritual apprehension, we are not developed Christians, 'spiritual men ' (i Cor. ii. 15), and private judgment is only in error where it refuses to be enlightened by the catholic judgment. Scripture, the Church's mind, our own spiritual ap prehension, are the three elements which must combine to pro duce in us the true holding of the Christian creed.
" These are the three great chords of might, And he whose ear is tuned aright Will hear no discord in the three, But the most perfect harmony." f
* John vii. 17.
t Roman Catholic Claims. By Charles Gore, M.A., pp. 68-69.
24 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Do we depreciate the Bible when we claim that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority? Nay, we exalt the Bible. For we urge that the divine author ity that speaks through the Church is the same divine authority that speaks through the Bible. God does not contradict Himself when speaking through these two different sources. The rulers of the Church may misin terpret the divine voice speaking through the Church, just as they misinterpret the divine voice speaking in Holy Scripture ; and so it is necessary to maintain the independence of the Reason as a source of divine au thority; but these misinterpretations are only temporal, local, and formal ; they never present the genuine fea tures of catholicity. And history shows that every usurper is ere long cast out from the throne of authority where God reigns alone. When the divine Spirit moves upon the great heart of the Church, and rouses it with throes of revival and reformation, the Holy Scriptures rise pre-eminent as the holy banner of light and progress. When the Messiah purifies His bride, the Church, with the waters of sanctification, and washes away every spot and wrinkle and blemish, the mirror of the Word gives back the same beautiful face and glorious form that are present to it. The divine authority speaking through the Word is re-echoed by the divine authority speaking through the Church, and they speak one and the same message of grace and salvation.
It is true that the Roman Catholics exaggerate the divine authority of the Church, so as to affirm that the pope when enthroned in the chair of St. Peter and speaking as the head of the Church, and vicar of Christ, gives infallible decisions in faith and morals. This claim of the papacy we reject when we affirm that the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and prac-
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 25
tice. But we refuse to go over into the camp of the Radicals and deny that there is any divine authority in the Church. We hold the middle ground of the Prot estant Reformation, which was maintained by the Puritan fathers and is expressed in the Westminster Confession, that the Christian ministry, the holy sacra ments, and all the other sacred historic forms of the life and experience of the Church are of divine institution and of divine authority and bear in them and with them the authority of God, the presence of Jesus Christ, and the power of the divine Spirit.
(6). Prophetically the Church is a great fountain of di vine authority. Who can read the prophetical parts of Holy Scripture without rising on the wings of hope and holy expectation toward the sublime prospects of the kingdom of God ?
" One of the earlier prophets predicted that the temple mount would be exalted above all the mountains, as the goal of the pilgrimage of the nations, the source of in struction and judgment. Jeremiah sees a new Jerusalem that will be as sacred as the ark of the covenant, that will bear the name ' Jahveh is our righteousness,' that will be rebuilt and will be holy in all its surburbs, so that there will be no places of uncleanness. A psalmist declares that Jahveh will come and dwell in Zion forever, and provide abundantly for all its inhabitants. Ezekiel names the holy city ' Jahveh is there.'
" The great unknown represents that the new temple will be the house of prayer for all nations, and that they will bring their choicest treasures thither. Jerusalem will be rebuilt of precious stones, its gates salvation, its walls praise. It will be the light and glory of the world, and bear the names ' Married,' and * My delight is in thee.' It will be the centre of a new earth and new heavens.
26 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
" Haggai predicts that the latter glory of the temple will be greater than the former. Zechariah sees that •the new Jerusalem will be inhabited by a vast multitude, and that Jahveh will be a wall of fire round about it, and a glory in its midst, and that it will be called ' the city of fidelity.' A later prophet predicts that the new Jerusalem will be so holy that the bells of the horses and the cooking utensils will bear the same inscription as the tiara of the high-priest, ' Holy to Jahveh.' " *
Peter sees Christians as living stones built upon Christ, the living corner-stone, a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.f Paul sees the Church as the body of Christ, building up and growing until we all attain unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ::): John sees the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven, adorned as a bride for her husband. Her foundations are apostles, her walls are pure and transparent dia monds of the sanctified, shining in the light of the Lord and radiant with His splendor. §
It is true that the Church is far from attaining its ideal. It has ever been a weak and unworthy minister ; and yet God's Spirit has guided it in the development of its institutions, its doctrines, and its life.
God does not employ the means of grace in any me chanical or magical way. He allows full scope for human freedom. The opportunity for loving heroic service involves the possibility of disastrous failures. There is divine authority ever in the Church, even when the ministry and people harden their hearts against its
* Briggs' Messianic PropJiecy, pp. 480 seq. f i Peter ii. 4 seg.
t Eph. iv. 13. § Rev. xx.
THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 27
call, and prefer their own way to the way of God. The people of God may decline to listen to the voice of God in the Church, as they decline to listen to Him when He speaks in the Holy Scriptures, but their failures do not make the presence and authority of God of no effect, for He persists and eventually overcomes all human weak ness and folly and failure.
The Church has a higher calling and a wider ministry in every succeeding age. She has never failed to fulfil in a measure her high calling. There have been ecclesi astics who have used the treasures of grace for their own advancement. There have been scholastics who have hardened the religion of Christ into cold, barren dogmas. But there have never failed self-sacrificing heroic men who have followed their Master in faithful ministry even unto death. The Church has harder tasks now than ever before in her history. She is not only called to evangelize the world, but the entire world is open, be seeching her ministry. She is called to evangelize the great cities, and solve all the intricate problems of social life. She is called to reconstruct her doctrine so as to embrace the vast horizon of modern learning. She is called to adapt her worship to the manifold tastes of modern society. She is called to improve her adminis tration in accordance with the principles of the law and government of modern nations. She is called to enlarge her methods of work, so as to cope with the circum stances of the new age. It is not strange that the Church seems slow in so extensive a transformation. The Church is changing her battle array. She is cloth ing herself with new armor. She is equipping her host with new weapons. She is learning new tactics. She is crippled and distracted by old, worn-out controversies. She encounters manifold traditional difficulties. All her
28 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
efforts at revival, reformation, and reconstruction in volve conflict with conservatives who insist upon the old methods and the old paths. But the divine Spirit is present in the Church with more potent energies and more comprehensive agencies than ever before. The breath of the Spirit fans the flames of holy zeal, to rouse the Church from her lethargy and compel her to action, even at the cost of internal controversies. She will rise to all her grand opportunities. She will clothe herself with fresh zeal and courage. She will consolidate her forces. She will lay aside every impediment and hin drance. The Holy Spirit is enflaming her with holy love to Christ and inspiring her with a love for humanity that will ere long eliminate all dirt and dross, and fuse the now heterogeneous Christian masses into one fiery or ganism of redemption, and the world will be aflame with the love of God. We shall have a new theology, that will declare in its entirety the doctrine of the divine Word, and the responsive echo of the human mind and heart ; a new church government that will absorb all that is valuable in historic Christianity, in the experience of the successive generations of mankind ; a new wor ship that will give appropriate and harmonious expres sion in art and music and liturgy to the devotions of all souls; and a new and holy Christ-like life that will transform the society of our cities from cellar to garret ; solve all social, national, and racial problems, and bring about the peace, harmony, and holiness of the world.
II.
THE REASON AS A GREAT FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY.
THE Westminster Confession sets forth the great dis tinguishing doctrine of the Reformed churches, that the divine grace is not confined to the means of grace, but may use other channels and media in communicating itself to men ; that while the Holy Spirit ordinarily uses Bible, Church, and Sacrament, He sometimes works apart from them and without them. It is on this ground that the Westminster Confession bases its doctrine of the salvation of elect infants and elect incapables, who from their age and constitutional defects are " incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."* Such are " saved by Christ through the Spirit, who work- eth when, and where, and how he pleaseth."f
This doctrine of the freedom of the divine grace, and the power of the divine Spirit to work anywhere, and in any place, and how He pleaseth, opens a gate upon a wide territory which the Westminster divines themselves did not explore; but which they left for us to explore as a region of liberty and extra-confessional doctrine. The Westminster divines did not themselves go any further than elect infants and elect incapables, but the heirs of Puritanism have with unanimity extended their doctrine of elect infants and incapables to all infants and all
* *• 3- t x. 3.
(29)
30 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
incapablcs ; and have also added the class of elect heathen.* If any class of persons can be saved by the divine Spirit apart from Church and sacraments, how else can they be saved except by the direct contact of the divine Spirit with their souls in the forms of the Reason ? It is one of the special merits of the Westminster Confes sion that it opens the gate into this territory of divine grace imparted apart from Bible and Church through the Reason ; who then shall venture to close it ?
(i). The Westminster doctrine of the Reason, (a). Some may imagine that the introductory sentence of the Westminster Confession of Faith is against this doctrine when it says :
" Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable ; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation " (I. i).
But this statement of the Confession has nothing what ever to do with the doctrine that the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The light of nature is one thing, the light of grace is another thing. The light that shines from universal nature setting forth the being and attributes of God, and declaring the glory of the Creator and Sovereign of the universe, is a blessed light that convicts man of sin for failure to unite in the choral of praise that pervades the universe of God. But the light of the eternal Logos is a still more blessed light ; for it is the light of the Son of God, the Saviour of men. The world came into existence through Him. He was ever in the world, even when the world knew Him not. He was ever coming into the world in the
See Appendix III.
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 3}
progress of divine revelation until theophany and proph ecy, historic guidance and ideal aim were realized in the incarnate Redeemer.
It is true that the Westminster divines did not catch a glimpse of this light of the Logos. Their Christology was defective at this point, as well as at other points. They did not give expression to this doctrine. It is significant that in the proof-texts of the Confession they do not cite from the prologue of John's gospel, with the exception of verses I and 14 to prove the incarnation of the Logos. They made no use of verses 2-13, which set forth the doctrine of the light of the pre-existent Logos. But they did not exclude the doctrine of the light of the world, even if they neglected it. It is the merit of the Friends, or Quakers, that they discerned this doctrine in the prologue of John's gospel, and held it up before the modern world until it became one of the most characteristic doctrines of modern times.* This noble band of pioneers for truth accomplished their mission of establishing the doctrines of the Light of the eternal Logos, and of the universal working of the divine Spirit, in such a firm position in the modern Christian world that they can never be displaced.
(b). Furthermore, the vast strides made in Christian phi losophy, led on by the Cambridge Platonists, have given the human Reason, including the conscience, the relig ious feeling, and the metaphysical categories, a place in Christian theology that it could not have had in the time of the Westminster Assembly. All historical schol ars know that the psychology and metaphysics of the Westminster divines were sadly defective. They could not possibly give the human Reason that place and im-
* See How shall we Revise ? p. 98 seq. Charles Scribner's Sons.
32 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
portance in the system of doctrine which every scholar must give it at the present time. It is sufficient that they have nowhere made any statement that bars the way to the doctrinal expression of the great truths and facts of modern philosophy. We agree with the West minster Confession in all its essential and necessary arti cles, but we claim the right of going beyond it into fields unexplored and undefined by it. We agree with it in maintaining that the light of nature is insufficient for salvation ; but we advance beyond it into the field of ex tra-confessional doctrine, where the Westminster divines made no definitions whatever, when we say that the light of redemption shines from Jesus Christ, the eter nal Word of God, the incarnate Redeemer, not exclu sively through Church and Bible, but also through the Reason. We push its doctrine a little further when we maintain that the same divine Spirit who works effect ually through Church and Bible for some, also works effectually through the Reason for others, and that the sa.me God and Father of all, does not confine His au thority and the certitude of it to the Bible and the Church ; but in His sovereign grace, in the free play of His omnipotent love, also uses the human Reason as a channel of grace, a source of authority, a throne-room of certainty and assurance of salvation.
The. Westminster Confession opens the gates to this doctrine when it represents that the divine Spirit works " TV/ten, and ivhcrc, and how he plcascth" and it does not exclude the light of the Logos by its denial of the suf ficiency of " the light of nature." The authority of the " light of nature " is one thing, the authority of the light of grace is another thing. The authority of the natural reason is one thing, the authority of the Reason as in formed by the divine Spirit is another thing. The suf-
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 33
fiency of the Tight of nature is a doctrinal error, but the sufficiency of the light that shines forth from the divine countenance in the presence-chamber of the Reason, through the religious feeling and the conscience, is one of the grandest doctrines of the Bible, of History, and of human experience.
(c). The Westminster Confession gives the Reason a very important place in matters of religion. This results from a further unfolding of the doctrines of the right of private judgment, of the universal priesthood of believers, and of the immediate access of the individual Christian to God and his Saviour, which had been so grandly set forth at the Reformation. The Roman Catholic party in the Church claim that the Church has divine author ity to determine all matters of doctrine and life not de fined in the Word of God. The Reformers denied that claim. The conflict between the authority of the Church and the rights of conscience was carried a stage further in the so-called second Reformation, or Puritan revival in Great Britain. The Anglo-Catholic party claimed that the Church had authority to impose upon the min istry and the people certain doctrines, institutions, and ceremonies that were regarded by the Puritans as intrud ing upon the conscience and the right of private judg ment. This brought on the great religious wars which established our political and religious freedom in Great Britain and America.
Three parties arose on this question — first, the church- ly party insisting on the authority of the Church in these matters; second, the radical party, denying that the Church had any authority whatever in matters not de fined by Scripture; and third, the intermediate party, who were called Puritans, who insisted upon reforming the Church after the model of the holy discipline, the holy
34 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
doctrine, and the holy life set forth in Scripture, the only infallible rule of faith and life ; but allowing, according to the Westminster Confession, " that there are some cir cumstances concerning the worship of God, and govern ment of the Church, common to human actions and so cieties, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed." *
This passage is against the doctrine of the Radicals, that nothing whatever ought to be believed or practiced that is not expressly taught by holy Scripture. The Confession teaches that there is a range of matters, es pecially in connection with the government and worship of the Church, where the Scriptures make no decisions, and that in this field the Church should appeal to Chris tian prudence, and the light of nature. What is this but an appeal to the human Reason ? The human Reason is to decide, therefore, in questions of religion where the Scriptures do not decide. The human Reason is not excluded from authority by the authority of the Scrip tures. It has a place and an importance in matters of religion.
But the Puritans also had a quarrel with the church men. This they set forth in the Westminster Confes sion (chap, xx.), which states what may be regarded as one of the great principles of Puritanism, namely, Chris tian liberty, and liberty of conscience, as follows :
" God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith or wor ship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such com mandments out of conscience is to betray true liberty of con science ; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute
*I. 6.
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 35
and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and rea son also " (xx. 2).
The conscience and the reason are definitely recog nized as free, and not to be reduced to bondage. Such liberty is inconsistent with a required faith, and an abso lute and blind obedience. The reason and the conscience respond to the teachings of God's Word and bow to its divine authority ; but nothing should be imposed upon the reason and the conscience by the Church that is con trary to that Word, or beside it and not determined by it. The reason and the conscience are authoritative in all matters of faith and worship not defined by Scripture. Holy Scripture has left ample room for the free exercise of the reason, the conscience, and the religious feeling, and it is usurpation for the Church to claim divine au thority in this sphere.
This chapter was designed to reject the doctrine that any Church, or any theologians, or any ecclesiastics, or any body of men whatever, could have authority to force their doctrines and practices upon other men.
(d). Theie are several important statements in con nection with the doctrine of Holy Scripture which set forth the rights of the Reason in relation to the Scrip tures themselves. Thus the Confession says :
" The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof" (I. 4).
"Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts " (I. 5).
The objective authority of Holy Scripture is incom plete. It has subjective authority also, in that the divine Spirit enters the soul of the man to convince his reason, sway his conscience, and assure his religious feeling that
36 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
God is indeed speaking to him. Unless the Holy Spirit bear witness in our heart, we can never be assured of the divine authority of Holy Scripture ; unless the Holy Spirit enters the reason and conscience, and speaks with the same voice there as in Holy Scripture, there can be no rational faith or conscientious obedience to the Word of God. God exacts no blind obedience, He requires no irrational faith in His Word, but a reasonable faith and an honest, hearty, loving obedience. Those, there fore, who deny that God speaks to men through the Reason, destroy the Puritan doctrine of Holy Scrip ture.
(e). It is the doctrine of the 1 8th chapter of the West minster Confession, that assurance of grace and salvation
" Is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope ; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God " (xviii. 2).
The office of the Word of God is here distinctly recog nized ; but the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit is represented as necessary in order to impart this assur ance. If this certainty of salvation can be imparted only by the direct contact of the divine Spirit with the human spirit in the forms of the Reason ; and this gives an infal lible assurance of faith ; then those who teach that the Reason is not a great fountain of divine authority are in irreconcilable conflict with the cardinal doctrine of the Westminster Confession as to the assurance of grace and salvation. How can there be assurance of grace without the assurance of the reason by the authority of God ?
(/). Furthermore, this doctrine of the authority of God in the forms of the Reason is essential to the integ-
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 37
rity of several other important doctrines. The West minster Confession states that
"Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh ; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good " (x. i).
" The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts" (xiv. i).
" Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces which they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure" (xvi. 3).
There can be no such thing as effectual calling, no such thing as saving faith, and no such thing as good works acceptable to God in Jesus Christ without the direct in fluence of the divine Spirit upon the hearts of men; what is this but divine authority in the forms of the Reason ? To deny that the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, to undermine and destroy the work of grace within the soul of man. It is necessary to affirm that the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority in the interests of a whole group of cardinal doctrines of our Confession, and of Holy Scripture.
It is evident that the Westminster Confession, as the great symbol of the second Reformation, teaches that the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority; that the Holy Spirit carries on the work of redemption by direct influence upon the hearts and consciences of men. It is expressly taught that the Holy Spirit, in the effect ual calling of elect infants and incapables, works apart from Scripture and Church. Why, then, should there
38 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
be any impediment to extend this effectual calling to elect heathen and elect rationalists? The divine Spirit worketh " when, and where, and how He pleaseth." Who, then, will venture to exclude Him from the hearts and consciences of those persons who for exceptional reasons cannot or do not use the means of grace? Who dare limit the work of God's Spirit ?
(2). Holy Scripture teaches that the Reason is a great
Fountain of divine Authority.
(a). It is evident that the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament, embracing such writings as Job and Proverbs, ignores the institutions and sacred writings of Israel. No one could know from them that there was any such thing as Church or Bible. They appeal throughout to the human Reason. " The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord."* "It is an understanding mind the simple need/'f Men are to gain the heavenly wisdom by the reverential fear of God, which is the begin ning and ever remains the radical principle of wisdom. They enter the school of divine discipline in personal union and communion with Wisdom herself, and she pours out upon them the divine Spirit, and gives them freely her possession of knowledge.:}: The Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament is sealed to those who do not understand the use of the Reason as a means of access to God.
The same is true of the wisdom of the New Testa ment, embracing the epistle to the Hebrews, the writ ings of John, and in a measure the epistle to the Colos- sians. The Christian knowledge so grandly set forth in these writings, is a knowledge that the soul gains through the witness of the divine Spirit within the forms
* Pr. xx. 27. t Pr. viii. 5. J Pr. i. 7, 20-23.
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 39
of the Reason. Our Saviour tells us: " And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only true God, and Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." *
The beloved apostle re-echoes it when he says: " Hereby we know that He abideth in us, by the Spirit which He gives us." f
Those who deny that God grants certitude of divine authority through the forms of the Reason, would rob the divine Spirit of His chief glories. The Holy Spirit is the divine agent in the regeneration and in the renova tion of men. He convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment. He is the Paraclete who gives holy comfort and guidance into all truth. He enables us to pray, and bears us on pinions of light and peace to the throne of grace. He gives the assurance of the forgiveness of sin, the answer to prayer, the certitude of sonship and eternal salvation. The activity of the divine Spirit is essentially through His personal approach and influence upon the human spirit. The means of grace derive their only efficacy from His presence and energy. Or dinarily the Spirit uses the means of grace, Bible, Church, and Sacraments ; but whether He use them or not, His presence, power, and authority are the principal thing, and unless He so uses them as to enter through them into the forms of the Reason they cannot be effi cacious in the transformation of men.
(£). Biblical history shows that the Reason has been "a great fountain of divine authority." Unless God approaches men through the forms of the Reason, the whole human race prior to the advent of Christ, except the little nation of Israel and the pious handful in Judah, are lost forever in the depths of Sheol.
John xvii. 3. f i John iii. 24.
40 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
This may be the teaching of some dogmaticians, but the Old Testament teaches no such doctrine. It repre sents God appearing to monarchs of Egypt, Philistia, and Babylon in dreams.* If in dreams, how else save in the forms of the Reason ? Melchizcdek was recog nized by Abraham, and Jethro by Moses as priest- kings ;f but where do we find that they had any Church or Bible, or enjoyed any other communion with God than through the forms of the Reason ? When " the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia,":): it was his spirit, the inner man, in the forms of the Reason, without any mediation of Church or Bible. And who shall say that God may not have spoken with divine authority to Socrates and Plato, and other Grecian sages through the forms of the Reason, and thus prepared the Greek and Roman world for the advent of Christ, in a lesser degree, yet no less truly, than He prepared the chosen people of Israel ? That was the opinion of Clement of Alexandria and of others of the most distin guished Christian fathers. It may be against the preju dices of certain schools of theology of the present time, but there is nothing in Holy Scripture that stands in the way of such a comfortable hope.
What man can look with complacency upon the damnation of the ancient world, all save a handful of Hebrews, when they were kept by the providence of God apart from the means of grace so richly enjoyed by Israel ? Can we think that our own Aryan ancestors of several hundred generations were all reprobated, or passed by, by the God of all grace in those millenniums when they were permitted to exist on this earth under the light of nature, but without the light of law and gospel,
* Gen. xx. 3, xli.; Dan. ii. t Gen. xiv. 18; Ex. ii. 16.
t Ezr. i. i.
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 4^
of old covenant or new covenant ? Nay, we thank God that we have more comfort than the divines of the i;th century, in that we grasp the significance of the light of the Logos shining in all the earth as universal as the light of dawn ; and of the activity of the divine Spirit, which is as free and full and omnipresent as the atmos phere of heaven.
(c). We cannot explain the origin and the historical development of the Old Testament religion unless we recognize that God spake to the patriarchs and prophets through the forms of the Reason. As the Church was constituted before the Bible was given, so still farther back the Reason antedates them both. Abel and Enoch and Noah walked with God before there was any such thing as Church or Bible, and how else could they have communed with God except through the forms of the Reason, even if they were favored at times with the- ophanies ?
When God appeared unto Abraham, called him, and gave him the covenant which established the holy seed, he spake with divine authority in the forms of his Rea son. When Moses was called to his high position as the founder of Mosaism, he was granted a theophany, but no Church or sacred writing mediated that call. God appealed to his conscience, his religious feeling, the forms of his Reason ; and gave him divine authority in a commission and a covenant, which he first grasped in conception before he gave utterance to it in speech.
It is of the very essence of prophecy that it springs from a man in union and communion with God. The prophet differs from the priest or churchman, and the scribe or interpreter of the written word, by his inde pendence of Church or writing. God speaks to him directly either in dream, or in vision, or in the normal
42 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
self-conscious condition, but in any case in the forms of the Reason, so that he is enabled to conceive of the new truth from God, to know that he has received it from God, and that it is his calling to proclaim it as divine truth, and to execute his commission in word and deed.* No holy prophet could ever have spoken, no sacred penman could ever have written, no covenant of God could ever have been established, no Israel of God would ever have come into existence, if it had not been that God from time to time spake unto the fathers by the prophets, in the forms of their Reason. Those who deny that the Reason is a great fountain of divine au thority, undermine the foundations of the Church and the Bible, and give us over to the dreary ruins of Agnos ticism.
The New Testament religion could never have been established unless God spake to man through the forms of the Reason. The Old Testament Church and sacred writings could never of themselves have produced by nat ural development the New Testament Church and canon. Jesus Christ came from heaven into the world, fresh from the bosom of the Father. Jesus called every one of His apostles by a personal call before He organized His Church. Saul, the Pharisee, was not changed into Paul the Christian by the Church, for he thought he was doing God service in persecuting the Church ; or by sacred writings, for nothing of the New Testament had yet been composed, and his study of the Old Testament writings had made him a Pharisee of the Pharisees. It was the light of the enthroned Saviour striking through into the conscience, the religious nature and the reason of that man which gave birth to Paul and Paulinism. In
* See Briggs' Messianic Prophecy^ Chap. I. Charles Scribner's Sons.
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITT. 4.3
the reason of Paul, divine authority uttered its voice before Paul could become a Christian, a churchman, and a writer of New Testament writings. So it was the love of Jesus in the heart of John, that made him the apostle of love, the revealer of the Father's heart, and of a re ligion which consists essentially in union and communion with the Triune God. Deny that the Reason is a foun tain of divine authority, and you thereby deny that the Church and the Bible are fountains of divine authority, for there never could have been any such thing as Bible and Church without the Reason.
(3). The condition of the world shows that the Reason is a great Fountain of divine A uthority.
Let us consider for a moment the condition of our earth at the present time. After nearly nineteen cen turies of Christian effort, notwithstanding the wondrous progress of the Church and its grand march forward through the centuries, there still remain more than three times as many followers of the Light of Asia as Roman Catholic followers of the Light of the world ; many mill ions more who adhere to the Koran than Protestants, who love the Holy Scriptures ; and a vastly greater body of heathen in the mone degraded forms of religion than there are Greek and Oriental Christians. We cannot for a moment think that the God of infinite love repro bates or passes by at the present time a thousand mill ions of our race, or that He reprobates all the men and women and saves only the babes.
The salvation or damnation of the heathen world is the most serious problem of modern theology. This world was little known in the seventeenth century. The great theologians of that age had but a faint conception even of the skirts of America. The merest fringe of
44 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Africa was accessible to commerce and missions ; Asia, with its teeming millions, and the islands of the Pacific, were outside the estimation of the theological systems and plans of Christian work. The great explorers and modern commerce have changed the face of the world. The circumnavigation of the globe not only disclosed the limited extent of our earth, but also the limited conceptions of the older systems of theology. These systems must expand to the size of the world or burst.
Have you seen the ancient map of the world in the ca thedral of Hereford ? It was prepared by a monk in the thirteenth century. It represents the earth as a flat sur face, encompassed by water. Jerusalem is the centre of the world. The Mediterranean bears the world's com merce. The map is spread all over with classic legends and myths, and with a wealth of Biblical stories, showing the knowledge of that age. To us it is a monument of ignorance, superstition, and grotesque fancy. The the ology of that age is, in some respects, as grotesque as its geography. The discovery of America and the invention of printing had a great deal to do with the Protestant Reformation. Growth in theology did not stop with the Reformation any more than progress in discovery and commerce stopped at that time. The advance went on beyond the seventeenth century, beyond the eighteenth century, and the twentieth century will advance beyond the nineteenth. Those who endeavor to limit their con ceptions of theology to the range of the seventeenth century, and yet would appropriate the science and philosophy of our age, either drown their theology in the ocean of modern learning, or spend their lives in a ruinous warfare against its advancing billows. We can not now ignore the thousand millions of our race in heathen lands. We cannot shut our eyes to their re-
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 4.5
ligions. We cannot disregard their history, their civiliza tion, their part in the world's life and development, and their destiny.
How can any one in our times really think that the reigning Christ, whose heart is full of pity and tenderness, will suffer all of these vast multitudes to descend to per dition, without some opportunity of redemption?
Unless some one can point to a direct affirmation of Holy Scripture, we refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit " who worketh when, and where, and how He p lease th " will refuse His guidance to pious Mohammedan, or Buddh ist, or worshipper of the sacred fire, who, destitute of Bible and Church, may be earnestly seeking after God in the only way open to him, through the forms of the Rea son. There is no statement of Holy Scripture that for bids this comfortable hope. The prejudices derived from systems of dogma as antiquated as the map of Hereford, and the bigotry born of a pharisaic contempt of the low er religions of mankind, are unworthy of our age.*
But some will say, you are robbing us of the great mo tive for Foreign Missions. To this we reply, that we are exposing the weakness of a motive which has thus far been sadly ineffective. We are calling you back to the true Christian motive. As I have elsewhere said :
" The present century brought the Church of Christ face to face with the heathen world. Hundreds of mill ions of heathen stand over against nominal Christians half their number. The latter must be reduced by mul titudes who are inhabitants of Christian lands, but who do not profess the faith of Christ. It is safe to say that there are not one hundred millions on the earth to-day who comply with the methods of salvation taught in
* See pp. 71 seq.
4(5 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Christian Churches. The damnation of all these millions of heathen, who have never heard of Christ, and millions of nominal Christians who do not use the means of grace offered them by the Church, is an awful fact for the Church to confront after nearly two thousand years of Christianity on the earth. The ministry and the people do not really believe that these multitudes will all be damned. The matter is eased a little by the theory that the dying infants of the heathen are saved, and that some of the best of heathen adults may attain redemption ; but the great mass of the adult population of Asia and Africa — yes, of Europe and America also — are doomed to hell- fire according to the popular theology. The ministers preach it and the people listen to this doctrine as they do to many others, but they are not moved by it. They accept it as orthodox doctrine without understanding it; but they do not really believe it in their hearts. If they did they would be more worthy of damnation than the heathen themselves. If a single man were in danger of physical death, the whole community would be aroused to save him. No price would be too great. Men and women would cheerfully risk their lives to save him. Those who would not do this would be regarded as base cowards. But here, according to the average missionary sermon, are untold millions of heathen all perishing with out the Gospel, and at death going into everlasting fire. Vast multitudes of unevangelized persons in our cities and towns and villages are confronting the same cruel des tiny.
" If the ministry and the people really believed it they would pour out their wealth like water ; they would rush in masses to the heathen world with the gospel of re demption. There would be a new crusade that would put the old crusades to shame. Those who have the Gos-
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 47
pel, and will not give it to others who know it not, may incur a worse doom in the day of judgment than the ig norant. Those who knew the Lord's will and did it not will be beaten with many stripes; those who knew not and did things worthy of stripes with few stripes." *
Christians do not now believe this dogma of the uni versal damnation of the heathen, because the reason, the conscience, and the religious feeling in our times shrink back from it with horror. A re-examination of the Scriptures does not find it therein. It is not real catho lic dogma. It is an error into which Christians have stumbled from lack of knowledge. The grace of God through the universal working of the divine Spirit and the omnipresence of the eternal Logos is operative to save in all the earth. But this salvation is only of the most elementary kind, such as that enjoyed in the earli est times by the chosen people of God, before the gos pel, before the prophets, before the Mosaic covenant, and even before the call of Abraham. If Israel needed the salvation of Jesus Christ even if they were not lost before His advent, so the heathen need Him all the more in order that their salvation may rise through all those stages of development that are represented by the history of Israel and the Christian Church. The commission of Christ to preach the Gospel to the world is the great legacy of our Saviour. Loyalty to Christ, — that is the one great motive for Foreign Missions which should ab sorb and crown all others. The love of God to the world as expressed in the incarnation, death, resurrection, reign, and second advent of the Messiah is the most potent im pulse to declare the love of God to the world until the
* Luke xii. 48. Briggs' Redemption After Deatht in the Magazine of Chris tian Literature, Dec., 1889, pp. 109, no.
48 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
whole world knows His love and rejoices in loving and serving Him.
(4). The nature of man shows that the Reason is a great Fountain of divine A utJiority.
Unless conscience speaks with divine authority where is your basis for morality ? The universal existence of that moral sense which we call conscience, and its voice which speaks in every language under heaven, distinguish ing between good and evil, makes man a moral being, and opens a possibility of his training in virtue.
Dr. Robert Flint, one of the chief theologians of Scot land at the present time, says :
" Conscience claims to rule my will in virtue of a law which cannot be the expression of my will, and which cannot be any thing else than the expression of another will ; one often in an tagonism to mine — one always better than mine — one which demands from me an unvarying and complete obedience. It comes to me and speaks to me in defiance of my will ; when my will is set against hearing it, and still more against obeying it ; when my will is bent on stifling and drowning its voice. It warns, threatens, condemns, and punishes me, against my will, and with a voice of authority as the delegate or deputy of a per fectly good and holy will which has an absolute right to rule over me, to control and sway all my faculties ; which searches me and knows me; which besets me behind and before. Whose is this perfect, authoritative, supreme will, to which all con sciences, even the most erring, point back ? Whose, if not God's?"*
Cardinal Gibbons, the ornament of the American Ro man Catholic Church, teaches the same in simple and beautiful language :
" This moral governor of whom I am speaking, demands that his jurisdiction over us be absolute and supreme, and that
* Theism^ p. 219, 3d edition, 1880.
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 49
we render to him entire obedience. He is imperious in his dic tates. He admits no rival or associate judge. His decision is to us final and irrevocable. There is no appeal from it. Neither Pope nor Bishop can dispense from it. And it is this same voice that will judge us on the last day. The Gentiles, who have not the [Mosaic] law, do by nature the things that are of the law . . . who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their con science bearing witness to them, the thoughts mutually accusing, or even defending one another on the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.
" Now, who is this judge ? It is conscience. Conscience is the practical judgment we form upon the moral rectitude or deprav ity of our acts. It is the expression of that Divine Justice by which society is upheld and bound together. It is the living witness and interpreter of that natural ' law written in our hearts ' which is the basis of all human legislation. It is the echo of the voice of God."*
The categorical imperative of the conscience, what is it, if not the voice of God speaking with divine author ity to the children of men ? Without the religious feel ing, the only organ of vital union with God, religion it self is impossible in any form.f The universality of the religious instinct, the great variety of religions found in all parts of the earth, make it evident that man is a be ing whose nature demands union and communion with God.
The great missionary and traveller, David Livingstone, standing on the shores of one of the central African lakes, Bangweolo, which he had just discovered, when asked why he had come so far, said to his inquirer, who had never before seen a Christian : " We are all children of one Father, and I am anxious that we should know each other better.''^ In these words Livingstone showed a pro-
* Our Christian Heritage, pp. 52-53. t See Smythe, The Religious Feeling. % Last Journals, p. 250.
50 T1IE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
found sense of the brotherhood of man, the Fatherhood of God, and the world-wide reign of the religion of grace that is rare and Christlike. If the Church had been in fluenced by such a spirit, the world would have been Christian long ago. A Gideon's band of such mission aries is worth more than a host of weaklings, who think only of rescuing a few of the heathen from the great masses doomed to everlasting damnation. We cannot explain the centuries during which the mass of mankind have been excluded from Christianity; we cannot ex plain the religions of the world, unless, in a measure, we acknowledge that in some way the divine Spirit has been guiding the founders and the reformers of those religions, in that historical development which is the di vine training of mankind.
(5). Church History shows that the Reason is a great Fountain of divine AutJiority.
The Church could have made no progress but for the apostles and prophets, the fathers and theologians, the reformers and the evangelists, called by God and en dowed by the divine Spirit for their work. The divine Spirit, ever at work guiding the Church in its training in quest of all truth, uses Bible and Church, and inter prets them in the forms of the Reason. Unless the divine Spirit had worked in the forms of the Reason, there could have been no church organization, no litur gies, no creeds and confessions, no Christian writings. What are these but products of the human mind guided by the divine Spirit in the forms of the Reason ? It is quite true that the Mediaeval Church was chiefly absorbed in the Church as a means of grace, as the divinely ap pointed channel for union and communion with God ; but the greatest leaders of the Church show by their
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 5^
lives and writings, that they have also enjoyed imme diate union and communion with God, in the forms of their Reason.
It was the work of the divine Spirit in the hearts of the Reformers which enabled them to maintain the right of private judgment, the universal priesthood of believ ers, and the immediate access of men to God through the Spirit. They did not remove the stumbling-blocks that the Church had put in the way of immediate access to God, in order to set up other stumbling-blocks in their stead.
The Reformers rescued Holy Scripture from the dom ination of the Church and they maintained the right of the Reason. The second, or Puritan Reformation, made a still further advance in the maintenance of the inde pendence of Bible and Reason. But these times of reformation and revival were succeeded by reactionary times when men lost confidence in the Reason and the Scriptures and again reduced them to bondage, chained to the traditional dogmas of Protestant scholasticism.
The scholastic divines of Protestantism erected a series of barriers about the Bible no less serious as obstacles to communion with God and stumbling-blocks to faith, than the Roman Catholics had erected about the Church. Rationalism is historically the reaffirmation of the inde pendence of the conscience and the reason, and of im mediate communion with God. If Rationalists do not seek God through the Church, may not the ecclesiastics who have governed the Church be somewhat to blame? For they have too often, in a Sadducean spirit, shut them out from the kingdom of God. If Rationalists do not seek God through the Bible, may not Protestant scholas tics be somewhat to blame ? For, to use the language of our Confession, they have too often required an implicit
52 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
faith and an absolute and blind obedience to scholastic dogmas about the Bible, " that destroy liberty of con science and reason also." What have such earnest, God fearing men done, when shut off by ecclesiastics from the Church, and by scholastics from the Bible ? What else could they do but seek God through the forms of the Reason? And our heavenly Father, who in infinite mercy and love judges righteous judgment, when He estimates them may take into account those who have discredited the Church and the Bible by obstructing the work of the divine Spirit through these means of grace. He who welcomed publicans and sinners into His king dom rather than Pharisees and Sadducees, may in our times give a welcome even to the Rationalist and the Heathen. It may be that in the case of Martineau and other Rationalists God has granted union and commun ion with Himself in the forms of the Reason, higher and richer and grander than that enjoyed by some of their critics, who, having the means of grace in their hands and such blessed opportunities within their grasp, are con tent with the external forms, neglecting to rise through them and upon them to the high privilege of communion with God in the Spirit, through the forms of the Reason. If Martineau claims to have found divine certitude through the Reason, why should we doubt it ? * Shall
* " I am prepared to hear that, after dispensing with miracles and infallible per sons, I have no right to speak of • authority ' at all, the intuitional assurance which I substitute for it being nothing but confidence in my own reason. If to rest on authority is to mean an acceptance of what, as foreign to my faculty, I cannot know, in mere reliance on the testimony of one who can and does, I cer tainly find no such basis for religion ; inasmuch as second-hand belief, assented to at the dictation of an initiated expert, without personal response of thought and reverence in myself, has no more tincture of religion in it than any other les son learned by rote. The mere resort to testimony for information beyond our province does not fill the meaning of ' authority'; which we never acknowledge till that which speaks to us from another and a higher strikes home and wakes
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 53
we venture to limit the grace of God to the orthodox? May not God's Spirit work in the reason of a Rational ist ? Why not take such an honest, straightforward, truth- seeking scholar as Martineau at his word, when he says that he could not find divine authority in the Church or the Bible, but did find God enthroned in his own soul? Such an admission does not make the Reason an infalli ble rule of faith and practice, or in any way recognize that the Reason maybe a substitute for Holy Scripture. It simply recognizes that God may grant divine certi tude to such men as Martineau through the Reason, even though they may be guilty of sin against the Bible and the Church. God has not left Himself without a witness in Reason, when Scripture and Church, for one cause or another, do not accomplish the work of grace. It was because the Reason was insufficient by itself that God established His Church, and it was because the Reason and the Church were insufficient when combined, that God gave the Holy Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. But the Church does not do away with the Reason ; and the Scriptures do not do away with the Church. These are three divinely chosen media which, when properly used, will always speak the same divine message and lead to the same throne of the divine grace. When men are cut off from any one, or any two of them, they may use the third, and it will give them divine testimony.
the echoes in ourselves, and is thereby instantly transferred from external attesta tion to self-evidence. And this response it is which makes the moral intuitions, started by outward appeal, reflected back by inward veneration, more than ego istic phenomena, and turning them into correspondency between the universal and the individual mind, invests them with true ' authority.' We trust in them, not with any rationalist arrogance because they are our own, but precisely be cause they are not our own, with awe and aspiration. The consciousness of authority is doubtless human ; but conditional on the source being divine,"— Stat of Authority, Pref., p. vi.-vii.
5J. THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
(6). Christian experience shows that the Reason is a great Fountain of divine Authority.
This doctrine is a very practical doctrine. Upon it is founded the doctrine of prayer, as a means of grace ; and that private meditation upon God and holy things, which is so very important in religious experience. It is no depreciation of the Bible to say we cannot always have the Bible with us. It is no depreciation of the Church to say, that there are times when we are beyond the reach of the visible Church. Is our Christian relig ion confined to the use of Bible and Church ? Is there no religion for Christians when Bible and Church are absent? The religion of Jesus Christ is a universal re ligion. Our Saviour taught that God is spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Such worship is not confined to any place, or time, or form. It is as universal and eternal as the rela tion of the divine Spirit to the human spirit and the forms of the Reason. It is through prayer that the hu man Reason rises to the throne of grace ; and it is in the time of prayer that the divine Spirit ordinarily enters the throne-room of the Reason to make the human body a temple of the Holy Spirit.
The doctrines of the indwelling Spirit, of the present reigning Christ, and of the immanence of God, all these precious doctrines insist that God speaks with divine au thority in the forms of the Reason. Hereby the believer knows that his prayers are answered ; that his praises are accepted and re-echoed in blessings ; that his consecra tion of himself and his offerings are sweet incense to God, and are themselves a reinvigo ration from the Holy Spirit ; that while he is laboring with all his might to do the will of God, God within him is working all His gra-
THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 55
cious pleasure. It is by the divine authority in the forms of the Reason that the believer is assured of the pardon of sin, of his personal acceptance with God, of his son- ship and heirship in the kingdom of heaven, of the assur ance of grace and salvation. The Bible and the Church are the arms of the ladder up which we climb to God on the rounds of the Reason. It is only through immediate communion with God, in forms of the Reason, that the higher Christian life is possible. How can the believer be made to sit with Christ in the heavenly places ; * how can he seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God ;f how can we have our access in one Spirit unto the Father; J how can we draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace ; § how can our fellowship be with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, || except through the forms of the Reason ; through the religious feeling that has become a vital tie, a blood union with Christ ; through a conscience that is purified and enlightened by the divine Spirit ; and through facul ties of cognition, conception, and imagination, immedi ately informed by the Father of spirits Himself ?f
* EPh- »• 6- t Col. iii. i. j Eph. ii. 18.
§ Heb. iv. 16. | x john i. 3.
II " This consciousness of God growing forth from the divine communion of love becomes in the regenerate thinker a source of theological knowledge. The theo logian himself becomes a fountain, a secondary fountain, from which the knowl edge of things spiritual and heavenly may be developed. Says our Lord : ' I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness; but shall have the light of life.' The obedience of faith in Christ is the new life. His followers live this life : they live it by following the light. Possessing the life, they have the living light, or the light of life-communion with Him. They have the light because they have the life. The life is a shining light. Accordingly our Lord says : « Ye are the light of the world.' Not only that His disciples are prominent objects which all men see, but also that they are like a burning focus whence divine radiance is shed forth into the world. Hence it is added : « Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.' The pri mordial light kindles in the believing soul a lesser light which illumines Christian
56 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
The religion of the Church and the Bible must become the religion of the Reason, in order that it may become the master principle of the man, and rule him from the centre to the circumference of his being.
It is through this divine consciousness, in the forms of the Reason, a consciousness of God as our immanent Father, of Christ as the ever present sovereign of our hearts, and of the divine Spirit as the indwelling energy of a spiritual and a holy life, that man becomes not only a believer, a babe in Christ, but a child of God indeed, a matured Christian, assured of his sonship, and living a conscious heavenly life even in this world. Such a man, and such a man only, assured of the presence and the in dwelling of the immanent God, can sing with the Psalm ist from his inmost heart :
" Whither shall I go from Thy spirit ? Or whither shall I flee from Thy presence ? If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there ; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; Even there shall Thy hand lead me, And Thy right hand shall hold me. Have I said surely the darkness shall overwhelm me, And night, the light that is round about me ; Even the darkness hideth not from Thee, But the night shineth as the day : The darkness and the light are both alike to Thee." *
reason and guides, more or less completely, the processes of thought on theologi cal issues."— Gerhart's Institutes of the Christian Religion^ pp. 51-52. * Ps. cxxxix. 7-12.
III.
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY.
IT ought to be a commonplace that " there are his torically three great fountains of divine authority — the Bible, the Church, and the Reason "; * and yet this state ment has been questioned by some and controverted by others ; and many who have recognized its essential truthfulness have objected to the terms in which the truth is expressed.
(i). What is meant by Fountains of Authority ?
All language is more or less symbolical, and it is im possible to state any profound truth or fact in terms which all will accept or which every one will understand without reflection. It is possible that some may prefer the synonymous expressions, " seat of authority," source of authority, or " medium of authority." Any one of these phrases sets forth the true doctrine only in part, and any one of them may be pressed to logical inferences that would be repudiated. If any one has a better ex pression we will gladly accept it. But if we could combine all the above with any others which any one might con ceive to be more suitable for the purpose in a higher unity of conception and expression, they would still set forth only some phases of a truth and a fact which tran scends human powers of comprehension and expression. At best we can only catch glimpses of the sublime truth
* Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture^ 3d edition, p. 24.
(57)
58 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
and fact of the authority of God and express it in lan guage that seems most appropriate for the conception that may be granted to us by God. Let us consider several of these synonymous terms.
"Seat of authority in religion" is a phrase used by Martineau and others. The seat of divine authority is that seat upon which God enthrones Himself when He speaks with divine authority to men. The seat of au thority is not the authority itself, any more than the throne is the monarch seated on the throne. God Him self is the only divine authority. But in order to make divine authority known to men, it is necessary that God should enter the forms of the Reason, either immedi ately by the direct contact of the divine Spirit with the human spirit, or mediately through the divine institutions of Church and Bible. When God enters the forms of the Reason He enthrones Himself there as sovereign and judge, in order to speak through the conscience and the religious feeling a divine decision which cannot be ques tioned and give a divine guidance in truth and right.
When it is said that the Church is a great." source of divine authority," it is not taught that the Church is the original source of divine authority apart from and independent of God. Source may be used for the first cause, the original source; but the primitive meaning of the word source is, that from which anything rises or springs ; and the common meaning of the word, as in the sources of a river, the sources of history, and the like, justify one in speaking of the Church as a source out of which, as out of a fountain-head, or as out of an original document, comes the divine authority that we need. The source does not constitute the authority, but transmits it; the authority creates and uses the source, as the channel through which it pours its divine
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 59
influences. When it is said that the Church is a source of divine authority, we mean that the divine Messiah, enthroned on the right hand of the Father as the king and head of His Church, communicates His divine pres ence and authority to the Church in the world, through the divine Spirit who pervades and controls the institu tions of the Church and fills them with the divine pres ence, giving the certitude of it to the faithful. And so the Church becomes a source through which the divine au thority flows to men in a river of grace.
The term, " fountain of divine authority," ought not to be obscure, for no one can reasonably confuse the fountain with the living water that flows through it, or the power back of the fountain that forces the water forth. Holy Scripture justifies the use of the term foun tain of authority. Jeremiah rebukes Israel for forsaking " God, the fountain of living waters." * Our Saviour said: "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."f Hebrew Wisdom tells us :
" Understanding is a well-spring of life unto him that hath it." $
"The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life."§ " The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life." | Moses says : " Not by bread alone doth man live, but by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of Jahveh,"^f and this is re-echoed by Hezekiah when he says:
" O Lord, by these things men live, and wholly there in is the life of my spirit." ** The prophet predicts :
* Jer. ii. 13, xvii. 13. t John vii. 37, 38. I Prov. xvi. 22.
§ Pr. x. ii. \ Pr. xiii. 14. 1J Dt. viii. 3. ** Is. xxxviii. 16.
60 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
:< Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation." *
" And thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not." f
A psalmist says :
" How precious is Thy loving-kindness, O God ! And the children of men take refuge under the shadow of Thy
wings.
They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of Thy house, And Thou shalt make them drink of the river of Thy pleasures, For with Thee is the fountain of life." J
Jesus tells the Samaritan woman :
" Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life." §
And the enthroned Saviour says in the great prophecy of the New Testament :
" I will give unto him who is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." ||
These passages of Holy Scripture not only teach that God Himself and the Messiah are fountains of divine authority, but that the Reason, when rilled by the divine Wisdom with holy understanding and instruction, be comes a fountain of divine authority to the man himself, and also to those whom he teaches ; that the word of God, either in the form of oral instruction or written teaching, becomes a fountain of divine authority ; and that Israel and the Church become fountains of divine authority and salvation ; or to use more technical lan guage, that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason are great fountains of divine authority.
* Is- xii- 3- t Is. Iviii. ii. J Ps. xxxvi. 7-9.
§ John iv. 14. | Rev. Xxi. 6.
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. (ft
This use of the word fountain of authority, is also justified by historic usage. Thus the Council of Trent, in its decree concerning the canonical Scriptures, says :
"Which [Gospel], before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as \hzfountam of all, both saving truth and moral discipline, and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmit ted as it were from hand to hand."
Luther agrees in using the term " fountain," when he says that Holy Scripture is " sola omnis sapientice fons est."* Van Oosterzee represents that Holy Scripture is the fons primarius of truth, the confessional writings of the Church the fons secimdarius, and the Christian con sciousness \hefons internus.\ He then goes on to say : " This is quite in the spirit of the apostles and of the re formers, not only of Calvin, concerning the doctrine of the witness of the Holy Spirit, but also of Luther.
" We might preach the law forever to a beast, and yet it will not enter into the heart. But man, as soon as the law is pro claimed to him, at once exclaims, ' Yes, it is so ; I cannot deny it.' We could not convince him of this if it were not beforehand written in his heart. But since it is so, however dim arid faded, it is again quickened with the word, so that the heart must con fess that it is indeed as the commandments ordain." \
Principal A. M. Fairbairn has recently said :
" Dr. Martineau speaks of the ' seat of authority,' but the posi tion which he maintains, the arguments he uses to support it,
* Op. exeg., iv., 328. t Christian Dogmatics, i., p. 23.
\ VValch, Werke, iii., p. 1575.
62 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
and the terms he employs, show that he does not mean abode or home, but medium or vehicle of authority. The ultimate or fontal authority is God. The medium through which His mind and will are made known is conscience ; it is the seat of authority in an altogether secondary sense, as the bench is the seat of law. God is the source of the authority which sits in conscience, as in England, Parliament and the crown are the sources of the au thority that resides in the bench. Dr. Briggs again, in a more scientific and comprehensive spirit, has spoken of three sources of authority: Reason, the Church, and the Scriptures, and by 'source ' he seems to mean something rather different from what Dr. Martineau means by 'seat.' 'Seat ' expresses more the idea of authority possessed and exercised by inherent or delegated right ;•' source ' expresses more the idea of channel or medium, as a spring, though termed the source, does not originate the water which it discharges, but is simply the mouth or opening through which it flows to greet the earth. ' Seat ' thus more emphasizes the place where authority resides, ' source ' more the vehicle through which it comes — the point, as it were, from which it breaks that it may find us. But now it is evident that, whether, with greater regard to the organ, we speak of 'seat,' or, with more reference to mediate origin, we speak of ' source,' what we really mean is that authority, fontally and ultimately, resides in God, but that God uses as media or vehicles for the manifestation of His authority, either exclusively the conscience, or, more comprehensively, Reason, Church, and Scriptures."*
Whatever defect there may be in any one or all of the terms used to set forth this doctrine, the doctrine itself ought to be plain enough. God Himself speaks with divine authority to men, and gives them certainty of that authority, sometimes through the forms of the Reason, sometimes through the Church, sometimes through Holy Scripture ; and then again in any two of them, or in all three of them.
* The Christian Union, August, 1891.
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 53
(2). Are the three Fountains co-ordinate?
When we say that there are historically three great fountains of divine authority, we do not in the statement either co-ordinate these fountains or subordinate them, or in any way define the relation between them. We state a fundamental fact upon which Christianity as a whole is agreed. If there be a seeming discord, it is due to ignorance, misconception, or misrepresentation. It is conceivable that the three fountains might be regarded as co-ordinate. If any one holds such an opinion, we do not.
The Christian world is divided into three great parties. The Churchmen have exalted the Church above the Bible and the Reason. The Rationalists have exalted the Reason above the Bible and the Church. The Evangelical party have exalted the Bible above the Church and the Reason ; but no party, so far as we know, has made Bible, Church, and Reason co-ordinate, that is, on the same level, in the same order, of equal, independent authority.*
The Roman Catholic does not deny that God speaks to men through the Reason and the Bible ; but he sub ordinates the Bible and the Reason to the authority of the Church. Evangelicals do not deny that there is divine authority in the Church and the Reason, but they subordinate Church and Reason to the Bible. A Ration alist may deny that there is divine authority in the Bible or the Church, but all that is essential to Rationalism is the maintenance of the supreme authority of the Reason.
The relation of Bible, Church, and Reason as seats, sources, fountains, media, channels of divine authority, is one of the most difficult of questions ; but that each
* See Appendix IV.
(54: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
one of them is in some measure such a seat, source, and fountain, is not an open question in any of the historic churches in Christendom. The concord of Christendom is that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason are the three great fountains of divine authority. The discord of Christendom is as to their relative place and value. It should be the aim of all earnest men to diminish the discord so far as possible by avoiding extreme state ments, and by determining carefully how far the three fountains share alike in divine authority and how far each one has certain features which discriminate it from the others.*
The Bible, the Church, and the Reason are the three great fountains of divine authority, and yet we claim that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith and practice ; the conscience alone speaks the categorical imperative within the man ; the Church alone adminis ters sacramental grace. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason are all alike dependent upon the real presence of God in them and with them. God is the only divine authority. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason have divine authority only as the instruments of His sovereign will and as the channels of His gracious pleasure, each having its own special place and importance in the work of grace.
In the preceding lectures we have endeavored to show
* " To take a wider view : it should be the work of this age, with all its ques tionings of fundamental principles, to advance that branch of religious philos ophy, which may be described as the Logic of Belief, the theory of the methods for attaining religious truth, and of the just grounds of religious conviction. The true place of authority is an important department of this subject. And it is my own conviction that a fuller perception of the true bearings of this ques tion would prove a very powerful agent in the reconciliation of differences among Christians and in a general advance in spiritual knowledge and life." — V. H. Stanton, The Place of Authority in Religious Belief ^ p. 12,
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. (55
that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason, each in its own place, is a great fountain of divine authority. We shall now endeavor to consider the relation between them. This has not been solved by the Church. The discord of Christendom is a sufficient evidence of that. There are many questions that have not been satisfac torily determined. We have to consider what is the consensus of Christendom and so essential to orthodoxy ; what is essential to Protestantism and so binding upon Protestants ; and what is within the range of Christian liberty — the open field of public discussion.
We adhere to the Catholic doctrine that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason are the three great fountains of divine authority. And we hold to the Protestant position as to their relative place and value, namely, that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We maintain it over against Roman Catholicism, which exalts tradition to an equal place with Holy Scripture and makes the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, as the supreme head of the Church, the supreme judge in all controversies of religion. We maintain it over against Rationalism, which makes the Reason the ultimate test by which to determine the validity of all statements of Holy Scripture and Holy Church. We also maintain it over against Protestant scholasticism and Anglo-Catholi cism, both of which seek to establish a rule of faith exte rior to the Bible, the one in dogmatic systems, the other in Catholic traditions. We maintain that the only infalli ble rule of faith and practice is Holy Scripture itself— and that the supreme judge in all religious controver sies can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the plain statements of Holy Scripture.
66 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
(3). The Reason is not a ride of faith.
The Reason gives no rule of faith. It gives deter mination of specific questions submitted to it. The Conscience and the Religious Feeling speak with divine authority that cannot be questioned. The fundamental laws of thought demand implicit obedience. The meta physical categories are the limitations of our intellectual powers which can no more be transcended than we can pass out beyond the horizon of our earth. So even Holy Scripture and Holy Church must enter into the holy of holies of the human reason ere they can exert any influence whatever upon men. The Church and the Bible have no divine authority to violate the autonomy of the Reason. The Reason will not bend the knee to any statements which conflict with the fundamental laws of thought, which are contrary to the metaphysical cate gories, which outrage the conscience and offend the re ligious feeling. Ecclesiastics and dogmaticians may try to compel the Reason to accept their decisions. But Holy Scripture and Holy Church gain the consent of the Reason by being true and right. This is recognized by Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics, as well as Prot estants.
" But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind ; and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false."*
* Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Chapter IV,
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. $7
^ Anglo-Catholic position is stated by Charles
Gore :
" We make a great mistake about the essence of faith if we imagine that faith is merely the surrendering of our reason and the passive acceptance of an unmistakable voice of external au thority. Faith, in the Bible, is opposed not to reason, but to sight. It was not Christ's will to reveal Himself beyond all pos sibility of doubt. He did not utter a dogma about Himself and bid men bow down to it. The faith which could accept Him had to see through a veil. When men complained that He kept their souls in uncertainty, when they importunately asked to be 'told plainly,' He made no response to their complaint, except to at tribute their unbelief to their not being « His sheep.' Faith is an inner sense which faithfully and perseveringly apprehends God in spite of difficulties and through the veil."*
There is no difference of opinion in the Church at this point among intelligent persons. The difference ap pears when we come to apply the principle of the di vine authority of the Reason. What shall be your po sition when there is seeming conflict? Which one of the three fountains of divine authority will you then follow? The Roman Catholic says in such a case that the Church must decide. But the Protestant says that when the Church rises up in antagonism to the Reason, we may be sure it is not acting by divine authority, but under the influence of ecclesiasticism ; whenever Holy Scripture seems to do this, we may conclude that its meaning has been perverted by dogmatism. Thus the Reformers appealed to the Reason against the dogma of transubstantiation. It was a violation of the Reason to say that the bread and the wine had been transformed into the real body and blood of our Lord and at the same time remained bread and wine to the human
* Roman Catholic Claims, p. 50.
68 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
senses. So Zwingli appealed to the Reason against Lu ther, who insisted upon " This is my body" and he claimed that these words of Jesus must be interpreted in such a way as not to violate the Reason. The real pres ence in the sacrament of the table is a mystery that transcends human conception and imagination, but it should be so expressed in dogma as not to be unthinka ble and unreal. So the conscience and religious feeling of modern evangelical Christians revolt against the doc trine of the damnation of unbaptized children, and the assertion of traditional dogma that the whole heathen Avorld is lost forever in eternal punishment. No doctrine can ever maintain its ground when it is condemned by conscience, or the religious feeling, or any of the forms of the human Reason. When the Reason resists the dogma, it is necessary to re-examine it in order to deter mine whether it is truly catholic and truly biblical. It is also necessary to re-examine the grounds of resistance in order to determine whether human reasoning and hu man prejudices may not have obtruded themselves upon the Reason. But if the Reason persists in opposition, refuses to recognize the truth and right of the dog ma, and shrinks from it as false and wrong ; we may be sure that the Reason is giving a divine decision, so far, at least, as that phase of the dogma which has been pre sented to it. Experience shows that the voice of God speaking in the Reason is invariably right, and that the decisions of the Reason eventually are shown to agree with Scripture against tradition. It was this divine energy within the Reason of man that enabled Luther to stand firm against pope and emperor, and strength ened Athanasius "contra mundum" '
* " It is indeed impossible, as will soon appear on a nearer investigation, that Reason can say to Belief, or Belief to Reason, • I have no need of thee.' Such a
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. (59
We should take great pains lest these decisions of the Reason be confounded with human reasoning, human conception, or human imagination. These operations of the mind are merely human, they have nothing certain in them, they are often extremely fallible.
We are not urging that divine revelation or the teach ing of the Church must confine themselves to those things which men may apprehend by perception and compre hend in conception and clothe in the forms of the human understanding and the colors of the human imagination and fancy. Many things in Holy Scripture are tran- scendently above the comprehension of the Church of our times as they have been above the understanding of the men of ancient times. Later ages may extend their powers of conception and imagination to greater lengths and breadths and heights and depths, and yet Holy Scripture will probably be higher and deeper and longer and wider still. It is one of the most striking features of Holy Scripture that it transcends the grasp of our
separation is in the highest degree unpsychological ; as it partly presupposes, partly establishes, an inner dualism, which may be conceivable as a transition, but cannot possibly continue as the normal condition. That separation is alike irreligious and unchristian ; God cannot be glorified by the rejection of one of His two most glorious gifts, Reason and Faith ; and the Lord nowhere disa vowed in His contemporaries either the right of reason or the voice of natural feeling. He constantly appealed to both, and His apostles followed His exam ple. Lastly, this separation of belief and knowledge is unprotestant and spe cially unreformed. The well-known declaration of Luther at Worms, that he would not yield his consent unless he were convinced by Holy Scripture or by 'clear reasoning,' is in this respect symbolical, and it is universally known how little hostile the supporters of a healthy orthodoxy during the best period of our Church have shown themselves to philosophy. Their motto was rather, ' True philosophy, though it may differ greatly from the doctrines of the Church, yet neither fights with it, nor is a lie, as are the false doctrines of other sects, but is truth, even a spark of God's own wisdom kindled in the creation in the human mind. (Ursinus, Opp., torn, i., p. 48.)" — Christian Dogmatics, by J. J. Van Oosterzee (Vol. I., p. 161-2).
YO THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
minds and hearts as the heavens transcend the earth. Henry B. Smith rightly says:
" Human reason may indeed inquire whether the voice which speaks be delusive or divine ; it may test the truth of revelation on historical grounds; it may ask whether its doctrines be in harmony with, or contradictory to moral truth, to our essential ideas and necessary convictions ; it may inquire whether the problems it proposes to solve be real or only imaginary ; but hav ing answered such preliminary inquiries, it has no shadow of a right to go to this revelation and dictate to it what it shall tell us of God's nature, or what shall be the method of the revelation or of the redemption, any more than it has a right to go to that other reality, nature, and prescribe its laws and limit its elements. In both cases man is to study and to learn. Viewless as the life of nature, Christianity, like that life, is a diffusive, penetrating, and shaping agency : it moves majestically according to its divine laws, and knows not the control of human reason. It is simple as is light to the eye of the child, it is profound as is light to the eye of the sage, it is blessed as is light to all, it is darkness only to those who see not the light." *
With this explanation, and within this province, we assert that the Reason, embracing the conscience, with
* Faith and Philosophy, p. 231.
" If we ask what rights and duties must be conceded to Reason in its relation to the Revelation of Salvation, the answer is already determined in principle by what has been said. Reason may and must submit the grounds for the reality of this revelation to a close and accurate test ; compare its contents with that which general revelation proclaims, and reject what appears to be in irreconcila ble conflict therewith ; it must seek to distinguish the unchangeable essence of this revelation from the temporary form in which it is now given, and try to pene trate more deeply into its internal coherence, its value, and Divine dignity ; and attempt by its light to raise itself to the height of a really Christian notion of tke world — believing, but also reasonable in the very highest sense of the word. In some degree — it is a comparison drawn irom Liebnitz — in some degree Revela tion, as contrasted with Reason, fulfils the task of an Extraordinary Royal Com missioner before a lawful assembly, to which he first of all delivers his creden tials ; but when these credentials have once been properly examined and approved, he now takes the place of President, communicating his deecrees and commands, which were unknown before, and by the right of these rules all further delibera tion (§xvi. '$)"—Uiristian Dogmatics, by J. J. Van Oosterzee (Vol. I., p. 163).
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. fl
its categorical imperative, the re-ligious feeling, the metaphysical categories, and the fundamental laws of thought, has a divine authority which is not alien to the authority of Bible and Church, but which is so necessary that without it they could not accomplish their divine purpose.
We have thus far considered the relation of the Rea son to the Scripture ; we shall now consider the relation of the Scripture to the Reason. The Reason does not give a revelation from God in the form of a rule, whether in concrete or abstract forms, whether written or unwritten.
The memory of the individual may retain the deci sions of the Reason, and these may be formulated by the intellectual powers into a rule of faith and life. So great minds may collect comprehensive rules of faith and life from the consensus of human experience. But these rules, whether framed by the individual for himself, or collected from the experience of the generations for the guidance of mankind, cannot claim divine authority, can not assert infallibility unless it can be shown that divine authority has been imparted to the authors of these rules in their collection and composition. This is not claimed by Rationalists, for such rules, whether made in our day or in the days of old. Rationalists contend rather that the rules of Holy Scripture and the rules of Holy Church were made up in essentially the same way as the rules of other religions and civilizations and of modern scholars.
In the sacred books of the ethnic religions and in the various systems of religious philosophy we have religi ous writings which are the product of the human con ception and imagination under the guidance of God speaking to man through the Reason. It is claimed for the prophets of some of these religions as well as for the
^2 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
prophets of Isr-ael that they had something more than this, namely, that they were not only guided through their reasons as were other men, but that they had a special divine guidance which made them the teachers of mankind ; and that therefore not only in their reasons but also in their conceptions and in their imaginations; in their speaking and writing as religious teachers, they were divinely guided ; and that their words and writings have divine authority.
We are not prepared to deny that there were such prophets among other people than Israel, and that there may be such divine instruction in some of the sacred books of the East as well as in Holy Scripture. We can only test these claims by the Reason on the one side and by the methods of historical criticism on the other. Such a testing shows that some of these sacred books are of great religious excellence. We acknowledge frankly that they have been unfairly dealt with by many Christian Apologists, who have pointed to their errors in science and philosophy as evidence that they were not infallible — who have depreciated their religious con tents, and who have endeavored to derive the residuum of good from the influence of the Jewish or Christian religion.
We recognize that there are errors in Holy Scripture, in science, in geography, and in history, as well as in the sacred books of the East.* We admit that there are crude conceptions and gross immoralities recorded in the lower stages of divine revelation in the Old Testament. We acknowledge that the writers of Holy Scripture were in a measure influenced by the religious ideas of the re ligions with which they were brought in contact. If
* See pp. 91 seg.
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. f3
these admissions destroy the value of the Bible to any one, it is not from any defect in the Bible ; it is due to unfortunate traditional methods of thinking about the Bible. If in these respects our Holy Scriptures show in a measure the defects of the sacred books of the East, we should cease our polemic against these books, lest the same unreasonable polemic should be made against Holy Scripture by the adherents of these other relig ions. We should also cease involving the divine author ity of Holy Scripture in such external and circumstantial questions as these. The value of the sacred books of the world depends upon their religious contents, upon the ethical ideals they present for the pursuit of man. These ideals in all the sacred books are vastly higher than the actual attainments of the adherents of these books. But when we compare these ideals with those presented to us in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, even the most extreme rationalist ad mits that we are rising to infinite heights of transcend ing excellence. In the study of the sacred books of the great religions of the world, presenting the highest religious attainments of mankind, we have been groping in caverns with the faint and flickering light of torches, in order at last to come forth into the full blaze of the noontide sun shining through the Holy Scriptures from the Light of the world, the eternal Logos.
(4). The Unique Authority of Holy Scripture.
The Holy Scriptures of the Church have thus a unique place in the literature of the world. They present a rule of faith and life which is of such a holy and heavenly character that they reflect the holiness and heavenliness of the Messiah Himself, and gain our credence that they are the Word of God.
74: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
" The heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discov ery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be ' the word of God ' " (Westminster Confession of Faith, i. 5).
Such evidence is the highest evidence which can be produced until the divine Spirit Himself, who guided the writers of Holy Scripture, also speaks in our hearts, in the forms of the Reason, the confirming word, for " Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." *
The Holy Spirit must convince the Reason of man that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, ere he can know with a certainty that they have divine authority in them.f The authority of God speaking through the Scriptures then coincides with the authority of God speaking through the Reason.
This divine evidence convinced Israel of the divine authority of the sacred writings of the Old Testament ; and then convinced the Church of the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, and so these have remained through all the centuries of Church history the divine word to the Church. It is true that the Church has ever been divided in opinion as to the recognition of the Apocryphal books of the Old Testa ment, and there are several writings of the Old Testa ment and the New whose authority has not been recognized with such universal consent; but with these minor exceptions the Holy Scriptures have been recog-
*West. C. F., i.5. t See p. 35.
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 75
nized as the divine Word, everywhere, at all times, and by every one in the Church who recognized any divine revelation at all. With reference to these exceptions we must say that the Holy Spirit has not granted such uni versal conviction of their authority as He has in the case of the Holy Scriptures as a whole.
But in what sense is Holy Scripture a rule of faith? It gives no creed, no liturgy, no canon law for the Church. It has the same wonderful variety that we find everywhere in nature — its revelations are in the concrete forms of simplicity and beauty for the instruction and comfort of the people of God. In the Bible, as in na ture, the man and the child, the sage and the peasant, the master and the slave, the Aryan and the African and the Shemite may all find exactly what they need. The rule of faith and practice may be formulated by a study of the Scriptures — but this external rule is not the in ternal rule of the Scriptures themselves. The Scripture rule is in the passages which speak plainly and unmis takably the lessons of life and salvation.* These les sons of Holy Scripture were not only divine when given to the prophets in the forms of their reason, but they remained divine when constructed by these proph ets under the guidance of the divine Spirit into those marvellous forms of literary expression which we find in our Bible. The divine instruction remains the same in whatever language or literary expression it may be sub sequently translated. We deny that it was necessary that infallibility should extend to the words or the liter ary expressions, or to the circumstantial details and historic occasions, f but we claim that the rule of faith and life itself as written was, and ever remains, the infallible divine guidance.
* See p. 9 seq. t See p. 107 seg.
76 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Thus Protestants rightly claim that Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule. The traditions of the Church which are included with Holy Scripture in the Roman Catholic rule of faith, are recognized by Protestants as having historical value as the expressions of the pious opinion of the leaders of the Church in ancient times; but we deny that they are any part of the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We recognize that there was a certain amount of unwritten divine teaching of Jesus and His apostles which has been treasured in the mem ory of the Church and transmitted from age to age in regular succession of pious teachers and disciples, yet the form in which this tradition has been transmitted, taking new shape from age to age as it passed through so many different minds and tongues and pens, has been so modi fied that it can no longer claim such infallibility as be longs to that part of the teaching which has remained unchanged in sacred writings from the apostolic times. Those who recognize tradition as having an equal place with Holy Scripture, in fact give it a higher place : be cause, being largely in the nature of comment upon Holy Scripture and being so much greater in bulk than Holy Scripture, it eventually becomes the interpreter and sub stitute for Holy Scripture. As the Old Testament was encased in the successive layers of the Talmuds, so the New Testament has been encased in the successive layers of ecclesiastical tradition.
As Protestants reject the apocryphal books of the Old Testament because they do not have the same holy and heavenly character as the books of the Protestant canon of Holy Scripture and because they have not conveyed the divine testimony to the minds and hearts of Protest ants; so they reject this ecclesiastical tradition because it does not sustain the test of the Reason as enlightened
THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 77
by the Spirit of God, it does not commend itself to the Christian consciousness as holy, heavenly, and divine.
Tradition is indeed nothing more than Christian ex perience in its historical evolution. We recognize that the Church has been divinely guided. We rejoice in the Holy Spirit who, in fulfilment of the promise of the Mes siah, has been and is now guiding Christians into all the truth. But the Spirit's guidance has not yet reached its goal, and it is nowhere promised that the Spirit of God would guide the Church in the transmission of ecclesias tical tradition, so as to make it infallible, or would in spire Christian scholars or Christian councils in the com position of creeds, confessions of faith, liturgies, and can ons of ecclesiastical law. It was nowhere promised that the Holy Spirit would continue such divine inspiration in the Church as to add to the number of the writings of Holy Scripture in every successive age, and so substitute for the rule of faith in Holy Scripture other rules of faith and practice expressing the divine authority and infalli ble guidance of the later generations. The Church had no authority to add to the writings of Holy Scripture. It is true that the Church has never claimed this right. But it has virtually exercised this authority by giving tradi tion explicitly an equal rank with Scripture and implicit ly a greater rank than Scripture as an essential part of the rule of faith, and as an essential part, a traditional interpretation of the written Scripture. And in reality the infallible authority of the Church to decide every in terpretation of Scripture and tradition, and to determine all questions extra-scriptural, as claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, places the infallible authority of the Church above the infallible authority of Holy Scripture.
Charles Gore states the Anglo-Catholic position in a very clear, historical, and attractive form, when he says :
78 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
" I say that the Bible does not stand alone in giving the Christian rule of faith, but the Bible interpreted by the Church. The Spirit in the society interprets the Spirit in the books." * But we cannot accept even this position. The Church is indeed divinely guided as the interpreter of Scripture, but the interpretation of the Church is not and cannot be infallible; it cannot therefore in any way, directly or indirectly, with propriety mingle its opinion in the Christian rule of faith, which must ever remain the Scriptures alone. We claim with our Puritan fathers that the Bible does stand alone as giving the Christian rule of faith. Reducing the prophetic gift in the Church, as Gore does, to the interpretation of Scripture ; and re ducing this, as he does, to teaching which conforms to the ancient catholic consensus as defined by the princi ples of Vincent of Lerins, he yet does not convince us that we can safely add even such catholic teaching to the rule of faith and life contained in Holy Scripture. When Gore comes to define the Catholic faith, he includes in it doctrines which are now and ever have been rejected by the great mass of Protestant Christians and which cannot be found in the consensus of the earliest Christians. If the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all the truth, are we to suppose that the primitive Christains attained that maximum of guidance which is to measure the faith of all times? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that each successive age has under the guidance of the Holy Spirit advanced nearer and nearer to the goal ? We cannot be bound to the attainments in faith and life of any age of the Church. We must ever press onward in quest of all the truth. We cannot be restrained by the faith and life of the less favored parts of Christendom. We must
* Roman Catholic Claims, p. 57.
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 79
aim to transcend the faith and life of the most favored parts. We cannot remain upon the low levels of the common faith, for he who follows his Master most closely, who listens most intently for the teaching of the Holy Spirit, will rise above his fellows to an unique knowledge of his Lord. Only in this way, through such heroes, does Christianity advance in the world and go on to greater victories of faith and more magnificent triumphs in holy living and doing. The rule of Vincent of Lerins may be a satisfactory test of catholicity, may give the minimum of faith, may assign the limits of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, but it is a very weak and inferior rule when compared with the rule set before us in Holy Scripture. Such a rule minimizes the rule of ecclesiastical tradition, but it is exposed to essentially the same objections. It substi tutes for the heterogeneous mass of tradition interpreted by an infallible living Church, a meagre body of tradition to be derived by historical criticism from the teachings of the most ancient fathers, in which so soon as he be gins to state them, Gore stands out in his individuality as a Christian teacher of the igth century, before the background of the ancient Catholic Church.
We trust no teacher to define the Catholic faith. We accept no rule of faith from any other hands save Christ and His apostles. We say with Whichcote : " The sense of the Church is not a rule, but a thing ruled. The Church is bound unto Reason and Scripture, and gov erned by them, as much as any particular person."* The divine Spirit speaking in Holy Scripture is the only infallible judge in religious- controversies. The rule of faith is in the plain and unmistakable lessons of
* Benj. Whichcote's Aphorisms, Aphorism 921. London, 1753.
80 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Holy Scripture. There is but one only infallible rule of faith and practice, the divine written Word.
If now we compare Holy Scripture with the best pro ductions of Christian thought, its pre-eminence is evi dent. Compare Holy Scripture with the creeds and confessions, the liturgies and the canons of the Chris tian Church. The best minds in the Christian centuries have constructed them. They are the best fruits of the experience of the Church in its progress during nineteen centuries. But the Bible surpasses them in every way. In each successive age a fresh study of the Bible proves their insufficiency, and then comes the ever-renewed struggle of Bible with dogma and ecclesiasticism. They say that the Bible is under fire. But it is not the Bible, but the dogmas about the Bible which are under fire. We have learned to distinguish between the Bible, the creed, and the dogmatic system. The Bible is on fire. That fire was not kindled by Rationalists, but by the divine Spirit, who is in the Bible, and who wraps it in the flames of His presence as did the angel of the covenant the acacia bush of Sinai. The Bible is on fire as never before. It is covered with a halo of glory — it shines with gracious guidance. It kindles the enthusiasm of multitudes of students. It is a fire which will consume every false dogma and false practice. It will light up the realm of universal truth, it will command the Chris tian world with its rule of faith as the sun is the ruler of nature.
Compare the Bible with the best systems of doctrine. They are all inadequate. The dogma of the theolo gian is to the student of Biblical Theology a very small affair. The Bible stretches out in all directions and en velopes it as the heavens the earth. If you are troubled with any dogma taught you, go to the Bible yourself and
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. gl
you may not find it there ; or if you do find it, it will be in such a form that its meaning will be transformed to you. Compare the Bible with systems of morals. The morals of Jesus and the morals of Paul transcend the best ethical attainments. The words of Jesus are like diamonds clustered in a diadem of infinite purity and beauty. They are like magnifying-glasses bestow ing visions of the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the universal reach of redemption. They are like a mountain brook, clear and bright, whose waters ex tend to invisible depths only because of the deficiency of human vision. They are like mountains of God, whose massive rocks tower to infinite heights of snowy majesty and dazzling splendor. The ethics of Jesus are simple, beautiful, and touching as the innocence of a babe ; they are as majestic and unapproachable as the living God. The words of Jesus are spirit and life. The Church is far from their comprehension in faith, still far ther from their attainment in practice.
Compare the Bible with the masterpieces of piety. Augustine's Confessions are too much under the influ ence of an exaggerated conception of original sin. Thomas a Kempis' " Imitation of Christ" is too ascetic. Bunyan's "Pilgrim" and Taylor's "Holy Living" ex hibit some of the worst as well the best features of Pu ritanism and Anglicanism. They cannot approach the piety of James and Peter, not to speak of Paul and John, and of our Supreme Master. The Holy Scripture gives us types of piety which are suitable to every race, condition, sex, class, age, land, and epoch of the world. The Holy Scripture is the perennial fountain of piety, which assumes newer and holier forms as the Church advances in its religious nurture.
Holy Scripture, the one only sovereign rule of faith
82 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
and life, is simpler and grander, more comprehensive and more inspiring than any other rule which man can frame. Any other infallible rule is an impertinence. Any addi tion to that rule is a profanation. Any substitution for that rule is a sin against the divine majesty.
There is a wonderful unity in the Bible. The essen tials of our religion have ever been plain enough. They are few and simple. The great fault of Christian teach ers has been in multiplying the essentials. The Old Testament finds its unity in Jahveh, the one everlasting hope of Israel, the New Testament in Jesus Christ the Saviour, and it is the Messianic ideal of the Christ that binds the books together.* The one thing needful is to know God and Jesus Christ our Saviour as He is evi dently set forth in Holy Scripture. Jesus Christ is the Master of the Bible. All its avenues lead to the Messiah and His kingdom. Men may halt on the way, but if they pursue any one of the ways to its end, they will find Christ. The Bible is a book, not God ; it leads to Christ, is not Christ. It is a means of grace. This is vastly more important to know than its inspiration. A man may believe in its inspiration, and never use it as a means of grace. But if a man use it as a means of grace, it is of small importance what he may think of its inspira tion. If it bring him to the presence of the living God and give him a personal acquaintance with Jesus Christ, that is its main purpose. This, after all, is the greatest evidence of the authority of Holy Scripture that it does accomplish this. This has been the experience of multitudes in all ages. It is the experience of many now living. It may be the experience of every one who will put himself under its influence. It satisfies the
See VII., p. 177-
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. g3
Reason — it appeases the conscience — it gives joy to the religious feeling, and thereby we know that it is the rule and guide of our faith and life.
(5). The Church has divine Authority in its insti tutions.
The Church, as a divine institution, bears in it and with it the presence of God. Holy Scripture is a col lection of sacred writings, not an organization of sacred institutions. The Church has a ministry instituted by Christ. This ministry is ordained to govern the Church, administer the sacraments, and to teach and disciple the nations, conduct holy worship, and lead in Christian charities. The divine authority that is in the Church works through these institutions. Holy Scripture does not make the ministry of none effect. Holy Scripture does not make the sacraments unnecessary. In holy baptism, in the holy supper of our Lord, and in the holy ministry of the Church, divine authority works through institutions, as in Holy Scripture it works through writ ings. Holy Scripture does not intrude upon the insti tutions of the Church. The Church ought not to in trude upon Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture does not make the Church. The Church does not make Holy Scripture. Both alike are original and independent fountains of grace. The Church is not founded on Holy Scripture, but upon Christ and His apostles. The Holy Scripture is not the gift of the Church, but of Christ through holy men inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is a common error of Romanism to make the Church the mas ter of Scripture. It is a not uncommon error of Protest antism to make Holy Scripture the master of the Church. Christ is the one master of them both. Each of these divine means of grace has its own independent place and
84: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
importance under the Messiah. And yet they were created not to act apart — they were made as helpmeets. Holy Scripture is the magna charta of the Church — and the Church should be the mirror of Holy Scripture. The one cannot get on without the other. The problem is to recognize them as independent and marriageable, and then to marry them in indissoluble bonds of holy love and communion.
The Church has divine authority to ordain in per petual succession a holy ministry. The Church has divine authority to administer the Holy Sacraments. The Church has divine authority to use the power of the keys — to admit into the visible kingdom of Christ and to discipline and cast out the unworthy. These powers the Church received by the institution of Christ before the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were given. All this divine authority is original to the Church, and would have remained in the Church even if no Holy Scriptures had been written. So the Church had a divine calling to preach the Gospel to every creature, and this calling was prior to the composition of the earliest of the New Testament writings. It is nowhere said, how ever, that, in any of these institutions, the Church will be infallible. God retains His own freedom to bestow His Spirit and make the means of grace, wrapt up in the in stitutions of the Church, effective or not. The Church is a teacher, and an interpreter of Holy Scripture ; but the Scripture alone is an infallible guide. God's Spirit reserves to Himself the supreme decision of all ques tions of religion, faith, and morals.
(6). The Unity of the Bible, the Church, and the Reason,
in the Messiah.
The Bible, the Church, and the Reason find their unity and harmony in Christ, the everlasting Logos. It
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. $5
was the pre-existent Logos who enlightened the Reason of men before His visible advent in the world. He was in the world by spiritual presence from the beginning and abode in the world even until the incarnation, when His presence became visible in the man Christ Jesus. After His ascension to His heavenly throne, He granted His invisible presence to His Church and continues this invisible presence during the entire period between the advents, preparing for His second visible advent. Christ reigns over the Church as His own kingdom. Christ gave the Church its Holy Scriptures. In the historic Christ Holy Scripture has its centre of light and glory. In the reigning Christ the institutions of the Church find their centre of grace and source of life. In the liv ing Christ, the Saviour and ultimate Judge who rights all wrongs and clears all mysteries, the human Reason finds its centre and ideal. As Christ stands forth from Holy Scripture, and is mirrored in baptism, in the Lord's sup per, in the holy ministry, and in the holy worship and chanties of the Church— the Reason recognizes Him as its satisfaction, its comfort, its joy and everlasting bless edness.
If it is true that there are three ways of access to God, three great fountains of divine authority, what is it that determines which one of these ways men shall use, and which one of the means God shall use in speak ing with divine authority to men ?
We answer that " men are influenced by their tempera ments and environments which of the three ways of ac cess to God they shall pursue." * This does not mean that men are determined by their temperaments and en vironments, still less that their temperaments and en-
* Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture^ p. 28.
86 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
vironments determine them in their quest, for it is God Himself who alone determines whether men find Him or not ; and it is the divine Spirit who alone determines whether men shall be made certain of divine authority in the one way or the other, or in them all. If there are three ways, certainly the temperaments of men and their environments must have some influence upon them in their choice, even if the three ways are alike open, free, and unobstructed. How much more must this be the case, if by certain environments, men are shut off from one or more of these three ways and shut up to a third.
We know that the Greek, Roman, and Oriental churches and the entire Mediaeval world, together with large numbers of Anglicans and Lutherans, claim to find God through the Church. These constitute the majority in Christendom at the present time ; yes, one may say, were the whole of Christendom for centuries. Are not these Christians influenced by their environments to seek access to God through the Church ? Is it not evident that a man born in the Middle Ages, or in the midst of Latin Christianity at the present time, would be urged byshis entire environment to seek God through the Churcn ? We also know that the great majority of Protestants are taught to seek access to God through the Bible. Do not their environments influence them to seek God through the Bible ? Futhermore, it is evident that if there is any such thing as union and communion with God out side of the visible Church, and the theocracy of ancient Israel, the environment of the heathen world makes it necessary that there at least God should be sought through the forms of the Reason.
In some countries of modern Europe and in the United States of America, there is a mingling of re-
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 37
ligions and of denominations of Christians. There are represented the three great parties in Christendom, Churchman, Evangelical, and Rationalist. Which way of access to God will a man pursue under these circum stances ? Certainly the environment of home, school, and society will continue to influence the great multi tudes in their quest after God. But there are some stronger natures who rise above their environments ow ing to the strength of their temperaments, and so there are transitions from the one to the other of these three religious parties. Some men are of such a temperament that the Church and the Sacraments as external means of grace, as divine institutions, seem the most appropri ate avenues to God. Institutional Christianity is to their taste. Others are attracted by irresistible impulse to the Word of God. The religion of a book to which they can always resort for guidance seems to be the most appropriate religion for them. But there are others in whom the conscience, the religious feeling, and the ration al powers are highly developed, who are impatient of every kind of external religion and seek by every means for a religion of the conscience and the Reason.
To state these things is not to state theories, but to state facts for which we must account in some way or other.
But this fact that men are influenced by their tem peraments and environments which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue, does not make it indiffer ent which way a man may pursue. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason are three different means of ac cess to God. In the order of historical development we rise from the Reason to the Church, and from the Church to the Bible. All should agree that none of the sources should be neglected. We hold the Protestant
88 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
position that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. But whether Protestant or Catholic, we ought all to be willing to agree that no man can attain the heights of religious development until he has used the three fountains in harmony. The three great parties into which Christians are divided at the present time, should cease to exaggerate one of these sources of di vine authority at the cost of the other two. It is improb able that any one of the three parties has made full use of the fountain of divine authority in its own possession. The Bible is higher than Protestantism, the Church is higher than Romanism, the Reason is higher than Ra tionalism, and God is supreme over all. Each party should remove the obstructions that it has thrown up in the path of others. When we undertake to remove the stumbling-blocks cast up by modern dogmaticians in front of the Bible, we are simply doing our duty as Prot estants and as devout students of the Bible. We are clearing the Protestant principle of the Scriptures from all the errors that have gathered about it. We are not depreciating the Bible when we cast down the barriers that obstruct its influence upon men ; we are enthroning the Bible, by lifting it above false human dogmas and by pointing to its own essential contents, shining as the sun, with irresistible conviction upon all who look at them.
We could easily show that the divine authority of the Church has been obstructed by the folly of ecclesiasti- cism. We could easily show that the divine authority of the Reason has been obstructed by the conceits of philosophers and the fancies of Rationalists. But we sum up all in saying : " Removing these human conceits and follies, and these obstructions erected by well-mean ing but misguided men, from the Bible, the Church, and
THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 39
the Reason, it will be manifest that they are, they always have been, and they always will be harmonious." *
From the most ancient times a tradition has -come down the centuries and millenniums of human history that the river Nile has its origin in three great fountains in the heart of Africa. The problem o'f the Nile has ever been one of the most important questions of geog raphy and science. Recent explorations have probably discovered these fountains ; but they have not yet been given their exact geographical location and their relative part in the Nile system. So the greater Nile of human experience has ever had its origin in the three great fountains, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason ; how ever little men have known about them, and notwith standing no one has been able to give them precise definition and explain their interrelation. The river of divine grace has ever been fed by these fountains, and ever continues to flow with its life-giving energies.
Have any of you thought what might be the result if all parties would rise above their prejudices and seek God and divine certitude in the three ways which God has appointed ? If we would cease saying, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas ; if Evangelicals would cease depreciating the Reason and the Church in order to exalt the Bible ; if Rationalists would cease depreciating the -Church and the Bible in order to exalt the Reason ; and if Churchmen would cease depreciating the Bible and the Reason, in order to exalt the Church, and instead of this, all would exalt the three ways without depreciating any of them, determined to use them all to the uttermost, in order to union and com munion with the living God and the certitude of the.
* Brings, Authority of Holy Scripture, p. 64.
90 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
divine presence and guidance ; then we would speedily realize the most ardent hopes of the Christian world. All parties would rise above their environments to such heights of attainment in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that the fences and barriers which have so long divided Christendom would be reduced to faint lines, serving a useful purpose of definition and discrimination, in order to a better comprehension of the whole field of truth ; but no longer distracting and confusing and demoraliz ing the Church of the living God. It has been the will of God that these parties should exist side by side for centuries. We may be sure that no one will conquer the others ; but that each has its own work to do for God and Christ, and that in the end there will be frater nal recognition and co-operation ; and it will become manifest that the variations of Christendom are as con sistent with the unity of Christ's Church as the colors of the rainbow are consistent with the pure bright light of the sun that gives them birth.
IV.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT?
EVERY minister, elder, and deacon in the Presbyterian Church at his ordination subscribes to the following statement : " I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only in fallible rule of faith and practice." What did we sub scribe to when we made this statement, brethren of the ministry, of the eldership, and of the deaconry? Did we subscribe to the modern dogma of the inerrancy of the original autographs of Holy Scripture? This is a practical question for every one of us, for an effort is now being made to force that interpretation upon us. Doubtless the most of us, if not all of us, honestly sub scribed to the face meaning of these words without sup posing that there was any implicit and latent meaning in the mind of the Church which was not in our minds. We then supposed that the language was sufficiently definite. We then subscribed to the natural, the gram matical, and the historical meaning of the terms which any plain man may see to be involved in them. We do not subscribe to the statement that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of everything in science or philoso phy, in history or in art, in grammar or in literature ; but specifically, the " infallible rule of faith and practice." If one should find errors of chronology and geography, of historical statement and description of events, of ge ology and astronomy, of natural history and of archaeol-
(91)
92 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
ogy, errors in any one or all of these departments, whether few or many, he would not be in contraven tion of the statement that " the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice." The position that I have ever held, and which I now maintain, is that there are errors in Holy Scripture ; but " these errors are all in the circumstantials, and not in the essentials ; they are in the human setting, not in the precious jewel it self." " If we should limit divine inspiration and au thority to the essential contents of the Bible, to its re ligion, faith, and morals, we would still have ample room to seek divine authority where alone it is essential, or even important, in the teaching that guides our devo tions, our thinking, and our conduct." *
" The doctrine of inspiration, as stated in the symbols of faith, will maintain its integrity in spite of any cir cumstantial errors that may be admitted or proved in the Scriptures, so long as these errors do not directly or indirectly disturb the infallibility of its matters of faith, or of the historic events and institutions with which they are inseparably united." f Our ordination statement binds us to the infallibility of Holy Scripture in all mat ters of faith and practice. There we stand firm and im pregnable. But it does not bind us to the infallibility of any statement of Holy Scripture that is outside the range of faith and practice. In those other fields we may find errors in Holy Scripture without violation of our statement at ordination.
(i). The Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice. The Biblical student is often met with the objection, " Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." But this ancient
* Authority of Holy Scripture, pp. 35, 36. t Biblical Study, p. 242.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ? 93
proverb has no manner of application to the matter in hand. It does not refer to errors of ignorance or inad vertence, but to errors of deceit and falsehood. If it could be shown that the writings of the Old Testament, any of them, were written with the intent of deceiv ing and misleading men, then we could not trust them as infallible in matters of faith and practice. But the errors that have been found in the Bible are not errors of deceit but of inadvertence, not of falsehood but of lack of knowledge. A witness in a court of justice is not rejected because he betrays ignorance and slips into errors of detail, which may have resulted from careless ness and inattention. His evidence is all the stronger for these marks of simplicity and the faults of common people. A witness who makes no mistakes is open to suspicion, lest his testimony may have been prepared for the occasion by his advocate or himself. Historical documents are not cast aside as worthless because they contain errors. No historic document can be found that is altogether infallible. Even the pope of Rome does not claim infallibility in all things, in his utterances at the table and on the street, in his conversation with his friends about literature, art, science, or philosophy, war or finance, but only when sitting in the chair of St. Peter he speaks, ex cathedra, as the vicar of Christ, in his offi cial position as the supreme head of the Church in mat ters of faith and morals.
When we assert that the Scriptures are " the only in fallible rule of faith and practice," we affirm that they are infallible in all matters of divine revelation, in all things where men need infallible guidance from God. We do not thereby claim that a writer dwelling in Pales tine had an infallible knowledge of countries he had never visited, of dates of events beyond his own experi-
94 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
ence where he had to rely upon tradition or doubtful or imperfect human records. We do not affirm that he gave an exact and infallible report of words spoken cen turies before, which had never been previously recorded ; or an infallible description of events that happened in distant lands and ages ; removing from the traditional report every excess of color and every variation in de tail. We do not thereby claim that the writer of the poem of the creation knew geology and astronomy, and natural history better than the experts of modern^ sci ence. The divine revelation was not made to teach us all the arts and sciences, but to teach us the science of God and redemption, and the art of living holy, godlike lives. The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. If any one claims that it is an infallible rule of everything else, he goes beyond our term of subscrip tion, and takes a position with regard to the Bible which he may maintain if he can, and take upon himself the consequences of his mistakes and follies ; but if he attempt thereby to compromise the Bible and the Church, he is guilty of a sin that cannot be too severely censured. If the Presbyterian Church should put itself in the position of claiming that the Bible is the only infallible rule of ge ology, of astronomy, of natural history, no man of sci ence who is worthy of the name could ever thereafter become a Presbyterian. If the Presbyterian Church should ever decide that the Bible is the only infallible rule of history, chronology, and geography, no true his torian could ever be a Presbyterian. If the Presby terian Church should decide that the Bible is the only infallible rule of literature and art, of taste and of cul ture, the whole class of literary men and artists must leave the Presbyterian Church. Those who would urge the Church to such a position are blind guides
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 95
—they would lead the Presbyterian Church into a ditch.
(2). Kept pure in all ages.
It is claimed that to recognize errors in the Bible is to impair the doctrine of the Bible, set forth in the first chapter of the Westminster Confession. The Confession teaches that : " The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical ; so as in all contro versies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."* There are three affirmations here: (i). That the original texts were immediately inspired by God. (2). That they have been kept pure in all ages, and are therefore authentical. (3). They are the final appeal in all controversies of religion. The third statement gives the scope of the others. The Scriptures are the final appeal in religious controversies ; matters of faith and practice, not in questions of science. Those who have resorted to the Bible to prove that the sun moved round the earth, that the earth could not be circumnavigated, that the universe was created in six days of twenty-four hours, and the like, have surely gone beyond the range of the Westminster Confession, which specifies contro versies of religion. Those zealous defenders of the infal libility of the Scriptures in other like matters of detail outside of the range of religions controversies, apart from matters of faith and practice, will ere long be con victed of similar error. The Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament have been kept pure in all ages by the singular care and providence of God, and are authentical. They are authentic for their purpose as the
. *I. 8.
96 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
only infallible rule of faith and practice, to determine controversies of religion. They have been kept pure by divine providence in all ages for this purpose. Those who use this passage in order to prove the inerrancy of Scripture in every particular make several inferences which are not justified. They have no right to infer that the adjective "pure" means inerrant in every par ticular. Pure, yes, for '*ts purpose of grace and salvation. Pure, yes, to determine infallibly controversies of religion. Pure, yes, to give the infallible rule of faith and practice, and to determine every question of religion, doctrine, and morals. Pure, yes, so that these great purposes of the grace of God shall in no wise be contaminated, or colored, or warped, or changed in the slightest particular ; but not pure in the sense that every sentence, word, and letter of our present Greek and Hebrew text is absolutely errorless and inerrant. The Westminster divines knew as well as we do that the accents and vowel-points of the Hebrew text then in their possession did not come down from the original autographs, pure and unchanged. They were not in the original autographs at all. Levita, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, and the great array of Biblical critics in the i6th and i;th centuries had set tled that. They knew, as well as we know, that there were variations of reading and -uncertainties and errors in the Greek and Hebrew texts in their hands. The great Polyglotts had settled that. They knew that there were errors of citation and of chronology and of geo graphical statement in the text of Scripture. Luther and Calvin, Walton and Lightfoot, Baxter and Ruther ford, and a great company of Biblical scholars recognized them, and found no difficulty with them.
The language of the Confession does not, in itself, teach that the Holy Scriptures are altogether without
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 97
error ; and it is extremely improbable from the historic situation of the Westminster divines in the development of Biblical scholarship, that they ever designed to make any such statement. But even if they had intended to make such a statement, and did actually make it^im- plicitly if not explicitly, in the clause, " kept pure in all ages," it is the unanimous testimony of modern Biblical scholarship that there are errors in the Hebrew and Greek texts now in our hands, errors that meet us in textual criticism, in literary criticism, and in historical criticism, that no one has been able to deny or to ex plain away. Modern Biblical scholarship has forced the advocates of inerrancy to fall back from the texts in our hands, and grant that there are errors in them ; in order to rally about the modern dogma of the inerrancy of the original autographs.
The attentive reader of the Westminster Confession will note that it states with regard to the original auto graphs, that: (i). The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek were immediately inspired by God ; and (2). That they, " by His singular care and providence, have been kept pure in all ages." The first statement that the original autographs were immediately inspired by God, is not in debate in the Presbyterian Church. All parties agree to that. The second state ment affirms nothing more as regards the original auto graphs, than it affirms of the Hebrew and Greek texts in our hands. "Kept pure" means that the text we have is as pure as the original text was, no more, no less. Those modern scholastics who have generated this dogma of the inerrancy of the original autographs, seem alto gether unconscious of the fact that they have trans gressed the Confessional statement when they claim that the original autographs were so pure as to be iner-
98 rJ'HE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
rant, and then admit that they have not been kept suffi ciently pure in all ages as to be inerrant at the present time. The Confessional doctrine is, "kept pure in all ages." This we firmly believe. The texts are as pure to-day to determine religious controversies, as they ever were. They are as pure, as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, as when they first issued by immedi ate divine inspiration from the hands and the brains of those who wrote them and uttered them. Our oppo nents deny the Confessional statement when they assert that the original autographs were purer than the Biblical texts are now. They deny the Confession which states that they have been "kept pure in all ages" They make the synagogue and the Church the scapegoats and throw upon them the blame for the errors in the present texts of Scripture. Doubtless many errors have arisen in the course of transmission through the mistakes of copyists. But these may, for the most part, be traced out and ex plained according to the principles of Textual Criticism. These errors are chiefly errors of inadvertence, although some have arisen from dogmatic efforts to harmonize variant passages and to correct supposed errors in the older texts. It discredits the scientific work of textual criticism to make conjectures as to an original text dif ferent from the best one we can find after we have ex hausted the resources of criticism. Conjectures in the interests of skepticism are quite as easy as conjectures in the interests of orthodoxy. Those who by pure conject ure invent an inerrant original autograph that has never been in the possession of the synagogue or the Church, so far as we can trace the historic records, deny that God has kept the Holy Scriptures pure in that period of their history concerning which we are left in darkness. It is quite easy to imagine anything in the dark.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ?
99
The Confession does not present any obstacle what ever to Biblical scholarship at this point. The Confes sion says, " kept pure in all ages" This is in accord with Biblical scholarship. It is well known to those who have pursued the study of Biblical Criticism, that text ual criticism, while it advances steadily toward the orig inal autographs, finds the number of errors increasing as well as diminishing. As it works its arduous way backward, some errors are removed, but others of equal difficulty are disclosed. The Higher Criticism in its quest after the exact literary forms of the original Scrip, tures also finds an increasing number of errors. Histor ical Criticism in its comparison of Bible with monument and the parallel lines of history, clears up many difficul ties, but also adds to the number of errors of names, dates, geography, and incident. Biblical scholarship could have no objection to the statement of the West minster Confession, "kept pure in all ages"; for criti cism shows that the present text is as pure and free from errors of truth and fact as any earlier text accessible to us. Indeed, the study of the errors of Holy Scripture is one of the strongest evidences of the credibility of Scripture. It shows clearly that the text has in all ages been kept pure for its purposes of grace and salvation. All the errors that have yet been discovered are but as moles upon a beautiful face, or those discolorations of a cathedral which come in part from the wear and tear of ages, and in part from minor defects in the marbles themselves, but which enhance the beauty and majesty of the structure, witnessing to its antiquity, strength, and grandeur.
(3). The Word of God contained in Holy Scripture. In order not to overlook any statement of the Westminster Confession that might seem to be in con-
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
flict with errors in the Scriptures, let us consider the statement of the Larger Catechism : " The Holy Scrip tures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience."- This should be placed alongside of the second question of the Shorter Catechism : " The word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa ments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him."
It is a shibboleth of some modern writers that the Scriptures " are the word of God," and that it is a dan gerous error to say they contain the word of God. These polemic theologians take their stand at the wa ters of life and demand of every one who would partake of them, " Say the Bible is the word of God, or depart from the Bible and the Church." You will observe that the Larger Catechism states the one phrase, " arc the word of God "; the Shorter Catechism, which was a compendium of the Larger, states the other phrase, "the word of God which is contained in the Scriptures." The antithesis designed by the dogmaticians is plain. They mean to exclude from orthodoxy all who say " contains the word of God." But it is also evident that the Short er Catechism did not mean to controvert the Larger Catechism, when it used " contained in the Scriptures," instead of " are the word of God." It used an expres sion that was not at all inconsistent with " arc the word of God," but rather parallel with it. How shall we deal with this apparent inconsistency, not seen by the West minster divines ; but brought into prominence by later scholastic distinctions and controversies ? It has been proposed to interpret the word "contained" to mean
•A.J.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 1Q1
" is the word of God," and then to reject the doctrine that " the Scriptures contain the word of God," as an error. An interpreter who really desires to know what a document means, is in the habit of interpreting a nar rower term by the broader, especially if the broader be a later usage of the same author. The apparent inconsist ency can be removed by the comprehension of the nar rowed term in the broader term. It is a happy circum stance that we have an interpretation of their meaning by a number of the Westminster divines themselves. The very man who had a chief hand in the construction of the Shorter Catechism, the great mathematician, Wal- lis, the intimate friend of Herbert Palmer, the principal author of the Larger Catechism, gives us a plain state ment when he says :
" The Scriptures in themselves are a Lanthorn rather than a light ; they shine, indeed, but it is alieno lumine ; it is not their own, but a borrowed light. It is God which is the true light that shines to us in the Scriptures ; and they have no other light in them, but as they represent to us somewhat of God, and as they exhibit and hold forth God to us, who is the true light that ' enlighteneth every man that comes into the world.' It is a light, then, as it represents God to us, who is the original light. It transmits some rays ; some beams of the divine nature ; but they are refracted, or else we should not be able to behold them. They lose much of their original lustre by passing through this medium, and appear not so glorious to us as they are in themselves. They represent God's simplicity obliquated and refracted by reason of many inadequate conceptions ; God con descending to the weakness of our capacity to speak to us in our own dialect."*
This is a simple and beautiful distinction between the light of the divine word itself and the case, or external letters, words, and sentences, which enclose it. It rep-
* Sermons^ London, 1791, pp. 127-8.
102 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
resents how inadequate even Holy Scripture is, at its best, to set forth the essential glory of divine truth. Human conceptions, even when enlarged and informed by the divine Spirit, cannot altogether grasp the infi nite truth of God. Human language, even when the speaker or writer is guided by the indwelling Spirit, can not give complete and faultless expression to the heavenly message. This is one of the reasons why the truth of God is given in such a great variety of forms in Holy Scripture. Error in theology commonly springs from the undue emphasis of a few favorite texts. The divine way of preventing and overcoming error is by a comprehensive view of truth through a great variety of Biblical authors, and many varying methods of presenta tion, the one supplementing the other, and correcting those misinterpretations that may arise in connection with any language, written or spoken.
Another Westminster divine says: " For the Scripture stands not in cortice verborum, but in medulla sensus, it's the same wine in this vessel which was drawn out of that." *
This symbol of the wine and the vessel is also appropri ate and beautiful. The same wine of divine truth makes glad the heart of man in the vessel of the English lan guage as in the vessel of the Greek, in the Chinese as in the Hebrew.
One of the best of the early Puritans says :
" All language or writing is but the vessel, the symbol or dec laration of the rule, not the rule itself. It is a certain form or means by which the divine truth cometh unto us, as things are contained in words, and because the doctrine and matter of the text is not made unto one but by words and a language which I understand ; therefore, I say, the Scripture in English is the rule
* Vines, Common'' s Sermon, 1646, p. 68.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 1Q3
and ground of my faith, and whereupon I relying have not a human, but a divine authority for my faith." *
This author represents that the divine authority of Holy Scripture is not confined to the Hebrew or the Greek, or to the original autographs of these, but speaks to man in every language into which the Holy Scriptures may be translated. As another says : " For it is not the shell of the words, but the kernel of the matter which commends itself to the consciences of men, and that is the same in all languages."!
According to this author, the external Bible, its letters and sentences are only a shell — we must break through them in order to get at the rich nut of the truth itself. Another distinguished Puritan says :
" The testimonie of the Spirit doth not teach or assure us of the letters, syllables, or severall words of holy Scripture, which are onely as a vessell, to carry and convey that heavenly light unto us, but it doth seal in our heart the saving truth contained in those sacred writings into what language soever they be trans lated." t
These several writers of the seventeenth century show us clearly that they distinguished between the form and substance of Scripture, and that the Westminster Shorter Catechism used " contained " advisedly, in order to distin guish between the letter of Scripture as the shell, the case, the wine-glass, the instrument ; and the essential contents of the divine word respecting faith and practice, what we are to believe, and what to do in the Christian life.
When the Westminster divines say " are the word of
*Lyford, Plain Man's Sense Exercised, etc., p. 49. t Poole, Blow at the Root, Lond., 1679, p. 234.
t Ball's Short Treatise, containing all the Principall Grounds of Christian Religion, pp. 30-31, 1637.
104: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
God," they do not mean by " are " what the modern scholastics mean by their " is "; otherwise they would be inconsistent with their own term " contained." Still less do they mean by " contained" what a modern Rationalist means when he would exclude from Holy Scripture all that does not commend itself to his judgment, else they would not say " are ." It is the doctrine of the West minster Confession that the Scriptures " are the word of God written" they contain the word of God in the writ ings, and they are the word in that they do thus contain it ; and they " principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man/' The doctrine of the scholastic divines that the Bible is the word of God, and, that as to form and content it is the word of God in every letter and syllable and sen tence and utterance in the original autographs, is a very different doctrine from that taught in the Westminster Confession. With such a doctrine you could not say " contains the word of God." Any errors whatever would be incompatible with it. But errors that do not disturb the infallibility of Holy Scripture in faith and practice are not inconsistent with the Westminster state ment ; for they are in the lanthorn case, and not in the light ; they are in the wine-glass, not in the wine ; they are in the shell, not in the kernel ; they are in the ves sel, not in its contents. The wine of redemption is just as fresh and strong and pure to us in our English Bibles and in our present Greek and Hebrew texts as when first it was poured out for prophets and apostles. The light of divine grace is just as bright and clear and pure to us shining from our own English Bibles as when it first shone from the lamp-stands of the primitive church, and in ancient Jerusalem.
When dogmatists say, " A proved error in Scripture
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 1Q5
contradicts not only our doctrine but the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspiration in making those claims," * they substitute modern speculative dogma for the doctrine of Holy Scripture itself. Holy Scripture is built on the impregnable rock of divine authority. It is a sin against the divine majesty for men to hide this divine authority beneath the scaffolding of human au thority. The Konigstein crowns a mass of native rock, the citadel of Saxony. The shrub which derives a scant maintenance from the soil in its crevices may think that it is doing a very important work in sustaining this mass ive structure. If it do so it is guilty of no greater folly than the man who thinks he can enhance the authority of Holy Scripture by the authority of his school of the ology, or his own great name.
This doctrine of the inerrancy of the original auto graphs of Holy Scripture stands like a wall of rock in the path of the scientific study of the Bible. It is impos sible for any one who holds it to do any thorough Bibli cal work. In every department of Biblical study we come upon errors. If we shut our eyes to the errors we cannot see the truth with which they are connected. We may- turn away from the real Bible and use an ex purgated Bible in the form of a dogmatic system. We may bury the Bible in the tomb of the dogma, and give up the study of Biblical criticism for fear of the errors ; but the inevitable penalty of such a course is un reality in Christian experience and uncertainty at the foundations of our faith. The vice of the older Bibli cal study was just this, that it made Holy Scripture the slave of dogma. The Bible might be studied, but ever with the torch of the dogmatic rule of faith in hand.
* Presbyterian Review, ii. 245.
106 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
" Our doctrine " of some school of theology, or famous theologian, must be the judge in all matters of contro versy. The Westminster Confession teaches that : " The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." " In all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." But this doctrine has been made of no effect by traditional opinions. The dogmatic system of their school of theology, the traditions of their party have been the ultimate appeal during the reign of denominationalism, and have become, in fact, the only infallible rule of faith and practice to large numbers of Christians; and so a dead orthodoxy has assumed the place of a living faith. It is the " our doctrine" and not the Westminster Confession. It is the "our doctrine" and not Holy Scripture, which has been raised up as a barrier to bar the way of the critical study of the Bible and the scholarly appropria tion of all its infinite treasures. Biblical scholars in our day find errors in the Scriptures because they are search ing the Scriptures more thoroughly than have any previ ous generation of men. They are using microscopic criti cism. They are searching the Scriptures through and through. They are looking at them from every differ ent point of view, and in every variation of light and shadow. But errors are not the only things they find. They discern truths and facts of exceeding worth, of ines timable value, unknown to former ages, and neglected by the older divines ; and these are the very truths and facts we need in this generation to give new life and vigor to our religion, to reconstruct our doctrines, and to reform our lives. The traditional dogma of the schools is fall ing into the background, cast into the shadow of that grand system of Biblical and historical theology which
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT?
is rising into the very heavens instinct with the life of God, expanding so as to comprehend every utterance of Holy Scripture, every genuine experience of the historic Church, every normal expression of the Christian con sciousness, and reaching forth for higher divine guid ance through Bible, Church, and Reason in all the mani fold duties of the present age, in order that the Church may become at once a holy temple of the divine Spirit, the real body of Jesus Christ, and the kingdom of re demption to the world.
(4). The Scriptures do not claim inerrancy.
The Scriptures nowhere claim to be free from errors. From Genesis to Revelation no such claim can be found in any sentence or in any word. They claim to be the word of God ; they claim to be inspired by God; they claim to be sufficient to enlighten and save mankind ; they claim to be infallible in religion, faith, and morals ; but they do not claim that minute accuracy which distinguishes exact scholarship and the highest professional skill, much less do they claim the infinite perfection of God. Doubtless God might have sent an inerrant Bible into the world. It might have been pre pared by angel hands. A heavenly pen might have traced heavenly letters, words, and sentences. An arch angel might have given it once for all to father Adam. But God did not choose this way. If He had, an inter preter would have been needed to translate the heavenly language. And how could the translation be inerrant? The Scriptures were not written by dictation. The holy penmen were not copyists or stenographers. God did not inspire their fingers or their tongues; He inspired their hearts, informing their reason, quickening their conscience and religious feeling, and setting on fire their
108 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
entire intellectual, moral, and religious nature. The holy men of the Bible were men, not machines. Doubt less the Apollo Belvidere is more perfect in form than any existing man, but he cannot think, he cannot speak, he cannot worship God. God made all His theophanies to culminate in the man Christ Jesus. So He gave all His revelations through human minds, lips, and hands. Their human nature, character, and training appear in their writings as the human setting of the divine ideas. These human features of the Bible render it improbable that the Bible should be free from errors in its human setting. The psychology may be crude, the methods of reasoning sometimes inexact, the rhetoric occa sionally extravagant, the language of some of the writers rude, their conceptions provincial, their knowl edge of the earth defective. But how could it be other wise if the divine revelation was to co-me through such men as the ancient times were capable of producing? Holy Scripture does not claim inerrancy in its human setting, and it does not in fact possess it. It is sufficient if the divine ideals that come from revelation are error less, so that the Bible can be followed with implicit con fidence in all matters of faith and practice. The sacred writings are able "to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Jesus Christ." " Every Scripture in spired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, furnished com pletely unto every good work." * No error has ever been found in the Holy Scriptures which in the slightest degree impairs this precious doctrine.
* 2 Tim. iii. 15-17.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 109
(5). Inerrancy is not an orthodox doctrine.
The Christian Church has nowhere at any time decided that the Scriptures are free from errors. There have been those at different times who have held this opinion ; but it has been private opinion, not the official and orthodox judgment of the Church. If the Presbyterian Church should make such a decision in a judicial case, it would separate itself thereby from the Christian world and mark itself off as a partisan sect.
(a). For many years I have been contending that the doctrine of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture is an un safe doctrine, and that we must recognize errors in the Scriptures ; but, in fact, the only errors referred to in my writings are two errors of citation in the Gospels. In Matthew xxvii. 9, the following citation is made :
" Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jere miah, the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price."
But this passage is not found in Jeremiah. It is really from Zechariah xi. 12-13.
In Mark i. 2, we find these words :
" Even as it is written in Isaiah, the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight."
The evangelist seems to have overlooked the fact that one of these passages is from Malachi iii. I. Here are two slips of memory on the part of the evangelists, such as any writer is liable to make. Various efforts have been made to explain these errors, and to show that they were not in the original autographs, but none of these
110 THE BIBLE, THE CIIURCEI, AND THE REASON.
can be said to be successful. Calvin says with reference to Matthew xxvii. 9: "How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess I know not, nor am I seriously troubled about it. That the name of Jeremiah has been put for Zechariah by an error, the fact itsetf shows, because there is no such statement in Jeremiah."
Calvin was the greatest exegete of the Reformation. If the great reformer was not seriously troubled about such an error, why should we be troubled about it, or think our Bible imperilled by it?
(£). Prof. L. J. Evans, of Lane Theological Seminary, recently said :
" If Stephen transposes certain Old Testament incidents, or con fuses certain names, does that affect the convicting power of his terrific arraignment of an apostate Israel ? Was not the power of the Holy Ghost in every word that he spoke, even when least accurate ? Suppose that one of his hearers had undertaken to reply to him, saying: 'You have said that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father Terah ; whereas, if you study the figures in Genesis, you will find that Terah must have lived fifty years or more in Haran after Abraham left. You were mistaken, also, in saying that Abraham bought the sepulchre of the sons of Hamor in Shechem. If you look into the matter a little more closely you will find that that was Jacob, and that Abraham bought his purchase at Hebron of Ephron the Hittite.' But would that have silenced Stephen ? Such a criticism on such a speech would have been like flinging a feather in the teeth of a cyclone."*
Possibly some of you may think that Prof. Evans is indiscreet. But what will you say of Calvin when he writes : " It is evident that he (Stephen) made a mis take in the name of Abraham, since Abraham bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, for the interment of his wife: but Joseph was buried elsewhere, viz., in the
* Inspiration and Inerrancy \ pp. 165-167.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? m
field which his father Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor for an hundred lambs. Wherefore this passage is to be corrected."
Calvin was not disturbed by this historic mistake of Stephen ; why should we be disturbed by it or by any other historic mistake in the Bible?
(<:). Prof. Henry P. Smith, of Lane Theological Semi nary, has called attention to the errors which appear when we compare the books of Kings with the books of Chronicles. Take, for instance, I Kings xv. 14, and 2 Chron. xiv. 2-5.
i KINGS xv. 14. 2 CHRON. xiv. 1-5.
"But the high places were "And Asa did that which was
not taken away ; nevertheless good and right in the eyes of
the heart of Asa was perfect Jahveh his God : for he took
with Jahveh all his days." away the strange altars, and
the high places, and brake down the pillars and hewed down the Asherim ; and commanded Ju- dah to seek Jahveh, the God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment. Also he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the sun images : and the kingdom was quiet before him."
As Prof. Smith says, " These certainly look on their face like direct contradictions,"* and they represent dif ferences of point of view which prevail through these parallel writings written at widely different periods of history. One of these writers must be in error, for Asa either removed the high places or he did not. But whether he removed them or did not remove them does
Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration, p. 104.
112 TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
not in the slightest degree disturb any matter of doctrine or duty.
(d). The New Testament writers in their logic and their rhetoric follow the methods of the men of their times. Paul was trained in the Jewish schools, and it was natural for him to use the rabbinical methods of argu mentation. He uses the allegorical method in Gal. iv. 24, where Hagar and Sara are taken to represent the Pharisee and the Christian. To us this seems invalid and without force. Luther said bluntly : " It is weak and not to the point." But why should we expect that Paul would rise above his time in logic and rhetoric? He was obliged to argue with the men of his times and con vince them by their methods. As Bishop Lightfoot well says:
"We need not fear to allow that St. Paul's mode of teaching here is colored by his early education in the rabbinical schools. It were as unreasonable to stake the apostle's inspiration on the turn of a metaphor or the character of an illustration or the form of an argument, as on purity of diction. No one now thinks of maintaining that the language of the inspired writers reaches the classical standard of correctness and elegance, though at one time it was held almost a heresy to deny this. ' A treas ure contained in earthen vessels '; ' strength made perfect in weakness'; 'rudeness in speech, yet not in knowledge,' such is the far nobler conception of inspired teaching, which we may gather from the apostle's own language. And this language we should do well to bear in mind. But, on the other hand, it were sheer dogmatism to set up the intellectual standard of our own age or country as an infallible rule." *
It is well known that Calvin and Luther and other reformers recognized errors in the Scriptures; that Baxter, Rutherford, and other Puritans of the second reformation were not disturbed by them; and that the choicest spirits
* Epistle to the Galatians, note xiii.
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT?
of modern Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, such as Van Oosterzee, Tholuck, Neander, Stier, Lange, Dorner, Delitzsch, and Godet, have not hesitated to point out numerous errors in Holy Scripture. This view is main tained by Sanday, Driver, Cheyne, Davidson, Beet, Bruce, Gore, Fairbairn, Dods, and numerous others in Great Britain ; Fisher, Thayer, Grant, Smythe, Evans, Brown, H. P. Smith, Gould, W. R. Harper, and hosts of others in this country.*
If such men, the leading Biblical scholars of our time, can maintain their faith in the Bible, while they frankly recognize errors in the Scriptures wherever they occur, why should any be disturbed by errors they may find? When such critics, with a full knowledge of all the facts, are exalting the Bible to the supremacy over all the doc trines of men, you need not be alarmed by the outcries of partisans who are anxious about their system of dog ma which they have identified with the Bible itself. All that we need to know, is that the Scriptures " are the only infallible rule of faith and practice."
(6). Inerrancy is a dangerous doctrine.
The dogma of the inerrancy of the original auto graphs of Scripture is one that has no practical advan tage, but it may be very pernicious in effect. It is recog nized that all modern versions of the Bible contain er rors. King James' version and the Revised Version alike have them. You cannot escape them in the use of the Scriptures in church, in Sunday-school, in prayer- meeting, and in the home. The people are exposed to their influence, they cannot avoid them. Our opponents say that these errors were not in the original autographs.
* See Appendix V.
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND TlIE REASON.
What comfort does this offer to the people of the Church who never can see the original autographs and could not read them if they saw them ? What possible advantage is there in making statements as to documents to which no man has any access at the present time, or has had access for centuries ? Such a pure speculation which is beyond any possibility of verification cannot be promul gated as a dogma of the Church ; for no dogma has any binding force that cannot be proved by clear, definite, and decisive evidence and be verified by criticism. The peo ple who use the English Bible have no use for such a dogma. They desire to use their Bibles with profit and to know the grounds of their faith. If the dogmatician should say to these English readers of the Bible, who have found errors that they cannot explain, "A proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspiration in mak ing those claims," some would doubtless respond : Then I must give up my Bible, for I cannot deny the errors. If the dogmatician replies, Oh, but these errors were not in the original autographs; the inquirer asks, But how do you know that ? Have you ever seen these original autographs? Has any divine for a thousand years or more seen them? The dogmatician can only answer, No, and reaffirm his theory that Holy Scriptures must have been inerrant, for God could not give a revelation that would not be inerrant. And thus they reproach the real Bible in which errors are found, in order to exalt an imaginary Bible which neither they nor any one else has ever discovered. We are not surprised that such argu ments excite grave doubts in many minds in our times, whether the Bible is inspired at all.*
* Let Samuel Rutherford rebuke them :
" If God will have us to try and examine all Spirits, all Doctrines, by the
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ?
Biblical scholars pursue a very different course. They say, Yes, there are errors. There is no doubt about that. These errors are also in the original texts. There is no fault of translation. They are in the best manuscripts we have. It is altogether probable that they were also in the original autographs. But we have not the origi nal autographs and we refuse to dogmatize about errors in them. But what do these errors amount to, after all? They are only in minor matters, in things which lie en tirely beyond the range of faith and practice. They have nothing to do with your religion, your faith in God and His Christ, your salvation, your life and conduct. They are but as motes in the sunbeam. They are the imperfections of the human medium through which the divine revelation has come. Men at the best are and must be earthen vessels, in their preaching and writing unto you. Take the word of God that is in these writ ings, its message of grace and salvation, its lessons of life, its holy guidance, its precious comfort. These will attest themselves as the word of God to you and yours as they have to others in all ages.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were immediately inspired by God, but that inspiration did not make them inerrant in matters of science. They
Scriptures written, then are we certainly assured, that the books we now have, of the Old and New Testament, are the very word of God, though we cannot, by any possibility, have the first and originall authentick copies of Moses and the Prophets and Apostles ; Because i. God would not bid us try, and then leave us no rule to try withall, but our owne naturall light, which must lead us into dark- nesse. 2. The visible Church should not be guilty of unbeleefe, if the written word were not among us, or then Christ and his Apostles speaking to us, as is cleare, Joh. xv. 22 ; Rom. x. 14, 15 ; Matth. xi. 21, 22. The assumption is cleare by the commended practise of the Bereans, who tryed Paul's doctrine, by the Scriptures, Act xvii. See Rivctus, Whitaker, Calvin. 3. By the command c£ God, i Thess. v. 2 ; i Joh. iv. i. Try all things, try the Spirits" — A Free Dis putation against pretended Liberty of Conscience, Sam. Rutherford, Lond., 1649, p. 368.
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
have been kept pure in all ages, so far as their purpose of grace, their message of salvation, their rule of faith and practice is concerned ; but they are not inerrant now, and it is not probable that they ever were iner rant in matters of chronology. They are sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His will which is nec essary unto salvation ; but they are not sufficient to give the knowledge of astronomy and botany. They are the only infallible rule of faith and practice; but they are not the only infallible rule of agriculture and naviga tion, of commerce and trade, of war and finance. The Scriptures are pure, holy, errorless, so far as their own purpose of grace is concerned, as the only infallible rule of the holy religion, the holy doctrine, and the holy life. They are altogether perfect in those divine things that come from heaven to constitute the divine kingdom on earth, which, with patient, quiet, peaceful, but irresist ible might, goes forth from the holy centre through all the radii of the circle of human affairs and persists until it transforms the earth and man.
The Bible is the infallible rule of faith and practice. It is such, and no one can make it otherwise. It claims to be such, and it vindicates its own claim. The reader of the Bible will find this out for himself. The author ity of God will grasp his heart and conscience with irre sistible power. The preaching of the Word accompanied by the divine Spirit will ever continue its blessed work of convicting and converting men, of sanctifying them and redeeming them. The Bible will ever be the counsellor and guide of our race, until the second advent of our Lord. From the Bible new truth will break forth for every generation, to lift men higher and urge them on ward in the paths of sanctification. The Bible is the master, the infallible rule, and it will ever continue to
IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ?
break in pieces every other rule of faith and life that men may put in its way. It will ever continue to give new theology, new religious forces, and new, fresher, and grander guidance in holy life and conduct to all the suc cessive generations of mankind.
There are errors in the Bible as there are spots upon the sun. The sun-spots do not disturb the light and heat and chemical action of the great luminary or check his reign over our solar system. They suggest that there are greater mysteries of glorious light and reign beyond our vision. So the errors in Holy Scripture do not in the slightest degree impair the divine authority that shines through it or the reign of grace that is carried on in this world by means of it. They inti mate, however, that the authority of God and His gra cious discipline transcend the highest possibilities of human speech or human writing ; and that the religion of Jesus Christ is not only the religion of the Bible, but the religion of personal union and communion with the living God.
V.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
CRITICISM is a method of knowledge ; it is a testing of its certainty, the method of its verification. In all departments of human knowledge criticism is necessary in order that we may know whether the opinions and practices that have come down by tradition from former generations, and those that have originated in our own times, are true opinions and right practices. We can not be certain about them until we have tested them ourselves or have seen them verified by others. Criticism is, therefore, as comprehensive as human knowledge and human practice. Wherever the human mind has pur sued its investigations in the world of man or the uni verse of God, there criticism reviews those investiga tions, with the utmost care and the most painstaking accuracy, in order to verify them, correct the mistakes, remove the errors, strengthen the weak places in the argument, and fortify the results.*
Criticism has no other aim than truth and fact. Whatever will not stand the test of criticism is false. Whatever shrinks from criticism excites doubt and sus picions. Truth and fact are indestructible. You may shut your eyes to the truth, you may hide it behind the walls of error, you may imprison it in the cells of super stition ; but sooner or later its own intrinsic light will shine through all obstacles. It is as indestructible as
* Briggs, Biblical Study, p. 78 seq. Charles Scribner's Sons. (118)
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the light of the sun. You may bury fact under a mountain of false theories, but the false theories will ere long crumble by their own inconsistency ; they will de cay from their own weakness. No human force or in genuity can destroy facts. You may cut truth and fact into ten thousand fragments, but the fragments return each to its own place. Your warfare has been as vain as beating the air or cutting the waves of the sea. Let us rejoice in an age of criticism, for it is an age which will doubtless excite anxiety in the minds of the weak and the timid, but it is an age which is laying the foundations of a magnificent future, when men will be certain of what they believe, and will stand firm on solid and indisputable facts. Truth is God's daughter, and woe to the man who dishonors her. Facts are the sons of divine providence ; cursed be the man who bears false witness against them.
(i). What is Higher Criticism ?
Biblical Criticism is only one of the departments of criticism. Every branch of human knowledge or pur suit has its own branch of criticism ; for criticism searches all things. But the general aims, principles, and methods are the same. Some, possibly, may think that the Bible should be exempt from criticism, because it is the word of God, the foundation of our faith and hopes of eternal life. But a little reflection shows this is impossible. It is necessary for us to know whether the Bible is indeed the word of God, and whether we can safely build our faith and life upon it. You may be willing to take it on the authority of your pastor, or your parents, or your friends, or the Christian Church. But there are multi tudes who cannot do this. They want to know by what authority the Church claims that the Bible is the word
120 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
of God. The Church has committed so many sins against truth and fact that it is necessary for us to know whether the Church is in error about the Bible also, or whether it is right. How can we know this except by criticism ?
1. So soon as you open your Bible, you see that there are four gospels giving parallel narratives of the life and teachings of Jesus. When you compare these narratives you find various statements relating to the same events. The same discourses of Jesus are given in -different forms and under different circumstances. The compari son of the four gospels in the effort to learn the whole truth about Jesus and His gospel is Historical Criticism. In the Old Testament we have parallel narratives in the books of Samuel and Kings on the one side, and the books of Chronicles on the other, with numerous varia tions which are perplexing to the student. If we study these with the effort to understand them and get at the exact truth, we are engaged in Historical Criticism. These narratives come into contact with the history that is recorded on the monuments of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and it is necessary for us to make the com parison if we would know the truth and the facts of the case. Historical Criticism of the Bible is necessary to any thorough study of Biblical History.
2. We have a collection of writings separated from all the other writings in the world, which we call the Holy Bible, or the canon of Holy Scripture. As soon as we come in contact with Roman Catholics we learn that they include in the canon of Holy Scripture the apoc ryphal books which Protestants reject from their Bible. The extent of the canon cannot be regarded as certain when the Christian world is divided on the subject. Furthermore, there have been from the most ancient
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
times doubts among the learned as to certain books contained in the Protestant Bible, such as the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. If we would know the truth and -the facts of the case, it is necessary that we should investigate the canon. This requires criticism of the canon of Holy Scripture.
3. The Bible we use in our churches and homes is an English Bible. This translation is the result of a number of previous translations made from the original Hebrew and Greek Bibles, with a study of the Latin Bible and the German and Swiss Bibles. The Bible was written originally in three different languages — the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek. We have many manuscripts of these. The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament are from the fourth century. The earliest manuscript of the Hebrew text is a codex containing the prophets only, dated 916, and a codex of the entire Old Testament, 1009. The best of these manuscripts were not used by the authors of our Eng lish version of the Bible. A study of the manuscripts shows an enormous number of variations due to copy ists' mistakes and improvements ; not throwing any doubt upon any rule of faith and practice contained in Holy Scripture ; but of great importance in the correct interpretation of large numbers of passages. It is nec essary, therefore, to study all these manuscripts and ver sions. This study is the science of the Lower Criticism, or Textual criticism.
4. There still remain a large number of important ques tions relating to Holy Scripture which are not deter mined by a criticism of the history, or the canon, or the text. We have still to study the Bible as a collection of literature. The criticism of the literature of the Bible is called Higher Criticism in order to distinguish it from
122 TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
the criticism of the text, which is called Lower Crit icism.
The term Higher Criticism was adopted for the criti cism of the classic literature of Greece and Rome, and of the ecclesiastical writers of the Christian Church long be fore it was applied to the Bible. Eichhorn, the father of the Higher Criticism of the Bible, published his Introduction to the Old Testament in 1780. But in 1699, Richard Bentley, one of the greatest Greek scholars of his age, published his criticism of the epistles of Phalaris and used all the principles and methods of the Higher Criti cism in proving that the epistles of Phalaris were for geries, with such success that no one has since questioned his results. In 1694 the learned Roman Catholic French man, Du Pin, in his " New History of Ecclesiastical Writers," stated the principles and methods of the High er Criticism of ecclesiastical writers, in such a clear and comprehensive manner, that all critics would acquiesce in them at the present time. The science of the Higher Criticism had thus been firmly established in the study of the literature of Greece and Rome, and of the Chris tian Church long before any one proposed to apply it to Holy Scripture.
(2). Problems of the Higher Criticism.
The Higher Criticism has four questions to determine : I. The integrity of a writing. Is the writing the work of a single author, or is it a collection of writings of dif ferent authors ? Is it in its original condition, or has it been edited or interpolated by later writers? e. g. The traditional opinion is that Solomon wrote the book of Proverbs. But modern critics claim that it is a collec tion of writings of different authors and editors : (i), a collection called the Proverbs of Solomon, x.-xxii. 16 ;
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
123
(2), another collection of Proverbs of Solomon, which it is said the men of Hezekiah copied out, xxv.-xxix. ; (3), the words of Agur, xxx. 1-14; (4), of Aluqa, xxx. r5-33 5 (5)>°f Lemuel, xxxi. 1-9. Two little collections of "words of the wise" were inserted: (i), xxii. 17- xxiv. 22 ; (2), xxiv. 23-34 ; and then the Praise of Wis dom, i. 8-ix. was prefixed, and the alphabetical praise of a talented wife appended, chap. xxxi. 10-31. This is an answer of the Higher Criticism to the question of the Integrity of Proverbs.*
2. The authenticity of a writing. Is the writing an onymous, pseudonymous, or does it bear the author's name? If the author's name is given, is the title origi nal, or the conjecture of an editor?— e.g., the book of Ecclesiastes is ascribed to Solomon by tradition ; but modern critics think that the Hebrew name Koh£leth is a pseudonym, and that the book was written long after the return from exile. The book of Lamentations is ascribed to Jeremiah by tradition ; but it has no title and is really anonymous. The titles of the Psalms were all prefixed by later editors, and are no part of the origi nals, f Thus these questions of authenticity are an swered by the Higher Criticism.
3. What is the style of the author? Does he write in poetry or prose ? Is he a historian or a writer of fiction ? What is his method of composition ? Upon the deter mination of these questions our interpretation of a book often depends. Bishop Lowth, in 1753, first published his discovery of the principles of Hebrew poetry. The poetry of the Bible had been obscured by neglect. Its principles and arrangements into lines and strophes had been lost. The poetry of the Bible had all to be re-
* See Delitzsch, Com. on Proverbs.
t Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 2d edition.
124: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
covered by criticism. The anti-critics have resisted every advance in our knowledge of Hebrew poetry. Even the revisers of the Old Testament were, with few exceptions, representatives of an antiquated Biblical scholarship. They did not venture to give the Old Tes tament prophets in the forms of poetry, although the New Testament revisers often g.'ve the citations from the Old Testament prophets in the parallel lines of poetry. Thus there is a glaring inconsistency between the two versions. Furthermore, the large number of beautiful poetic extracts in the historical books of the Old Testament and the New Testament, with few ex ceptions, were entirely neglected. For this and similar reasons of reactionary scholarship in other directions, the Revised Version of the Old Testament is already stranded and left behind by the advancing tide of Bibli cal study. It makes an immense difference in our inter pretation of the early chapters of Genesis whether we interpret them as poetry or prose. One who has learned the dramatic character of Job, and the Song of Songs, will have a new conception of their meaning. It makes an immense difference whether we accept the traditional theory that Esther and Jonah are histories, or the views of the critics that they are inspired works of the imagination.
4. The final question of the Higher Criticism is as to the credibility of the writings. Is the writing reliable ? Do its statements accord with the truth, or are they col ored and warped by prejudice, superstition, or reliance upon insufficient or unworthy testimony? The tradi tional theory is that the books of Chronicles were writ ten by Ezra, and the books of Kings by Jeremiah. These books are really anonymous. Modern critics hold that Chronicles was written long after Ezra, by a priest
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
who had no interest in the northern kingdom or the prophets ; but who proposed to give an ecclesiastical chronicle of Jerusalem. How far did his late date, his devotion to the priest's code, and priestly ideals, influence him in his report of the early history ? Some critics think that the chronicler was so warped by his position and circumstances that he is not so reliable as the author of the book of Kings. Others think that he gives a true view, but one-sided, and that happily we may supple ment him by the prophetic histories. Criticism must answer such a question which forces itself upon our at tention in the Biblical books.
These four questions of the Higher Criticism confront every student who ventures a little below the surface in his study of Holy Scripture. How shall we answer them and gain a reasonable degree of accurate knowl edge respecting them ? Is there any better way than to pursue the methods of Higher Criticism ? Is there any other way? These methods have been used for cen turies as safe and reliable in the study of Greek and Roman literature, in the criticism of the ecclesiastical writers, in the criticism of Shakespeare and Bacon ; why then should they not be used in the study of the liter ary features of the writings of Holy Scripture ?
(3). Dogmatic Obstacles.
But the Higher Criticism of the Scriptures is con fronted on the threshold of its work by a number of obstacles which are not very important in themselves, but which gain an extrinsic value because they are urged as the orthodox opinion of the Church.
I. A tradition has floated down the centuries giving authors to all the books of the Bible. Such traditions are not confined to Biblical literature. It is the natural
126 TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
desire of a reader to know the author of the writing he is reading, and it is the tendency in all literature to con jecture the authors of anonymous and pseudonymous writings. There are dictionaries of modern anonymes and pseudonymes which exhaust all the resources of his torical and literary criticism to learn the names of these authors. The difference between these modern diction aries and the traditional ascription of authors to Biblical books is, that the dictionaries are scientific, they do not neglect to give reasons, they do not hesitate to express ignorance and doubt where it is proper; but the tradi tional theories which have clustered about Biblical litera ture give the names of authors without reasons, without discrimination and without exception. Can we rely upon these traditions? No scholar would rely upon tradition of such a character in the study of any other group of writings ; why should tradition be so indis putable when it gathers about the Biblical writings? It should be mentioned that the Christian Church has never given its sanction to these traditions. In no creed, confession, or catechism of any Christian Church is there any official determination of these questions. An official decision of the Christian Church would be entitled to respect, although no Protestant could ac cept it as infallible. But when mere tradition parades in the livery of orthodoxy, and with pious ignorance and self-assuming zeal attempts to be the porter of the Word of God, we pass it by without being disturbed by its mightiness, and enter upon our study of the Bible without waiting for its permission.
2. It is claimed that Jesus and His apostles have al ready decided these questions for us, and therefore we cannot pursue the Higher Criticism of the Old Testa ment without dishonoring our Lord. This is the opinion
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 127
of some of the opponents of Criticism. They interpret the words of Jesus and His apostles as teaching that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah wrote all the book that bears his name. But other and better scholars interpret the words of Jesus and His apostles in a very different way. When scholars differ in their interpretations, and the Church has not decided the question, it is presumption for either side to claim that they alone are orthodox in their interpretation. Biblical critics have not neglected to consider this objection, and they have found it to be invalid.
(a). It is the custom in literature to name anonymous writings after the name of the chief character in it, or the theme of it, and then in that case it is quite common to personify the book and represent it as saying or teach ing this or that. When Jesus uses Moses as another name for the Law or Pentateuch, and when He repre sents that Isaiah prophesied, it is by no means certain that Jesus meant to say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or Isaiah wrote the prophecy referred to.* e.g. The book of Esther is named Esther not because any one ever sup posed that she wrote it, but because she is the heroine, the theme of the book ; and when I say, as I often have said, Esther never uses the name of God, or teaches any doctrine of faith, you will understand me as using Esther for the book of Esther.
No one ever supposed that Ruth wrote the book of Ruth, or would suppose that I regarded her as its author if I should say, as I have often said, Ruth teaches a doc trine different from Deuteronony and Ezra in represent ing that even a Moabitish woman may enter the king-
*See Francis Brown, The New Testament Witness to the Authorship of Old Testament Books, in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis. 1882, p. 95 seq. Briggs, Biblical Study, p. 187 seq.
128 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
dom of God. The usage of the New Testament is also sufficiently clear at these points. Thus the epistle to the Hebrews, iv. 7, uses David as a name of the Psalter. It was the common opinion until the i8th century that David wrote all the Psalms; but no Biblical scholar at present, so far as I know, thinks that the epistle to the Hebrews forces him to hold that David is the author of the entire Psalter. Why, then, should any one insist that when the name Moses is given to the Pentateuch, and Isaiah to the book of Isaiah, that it im plies that Moses and Isaiah wrote all those writings at tributed to them by tradition?
In Acts iii. 24 it is said ; " All the prophets, from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of those days." But Samuel uttered no Messianic prophecy in the book of Samuel. The name Samuel is used as the name of the book, and the name of the book is personified and represented as speaking the prophecy which in the book is attributed to the prophet Nathan. If, now, Samuel as the name of the book may be represented by the apostle Peter as speaking the prophecy of Nathan, why may not Isaiah as the name of the book of Isaiah be represented as prophesying the prophecy of an unknown prophet con tained in the book which bears his name ? It is quite true that an ancient Jewish tradition in the Talmud rep resents that Samuel wrote his book ; but a later writer in the Talmud itself comments on the statement that Samuel wrote his book, thus : " But it is written there : and Samuel died, and they buried him in Rama. Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet finished it." In other words, the book was begun by Samuel and completed by Nathan and Gad. It may be that there are some persons at the present time who would accept this Tal-
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 129
mudic comment on the older Talmudic tradition ; but certainly no one believes that Samuel recorded Nathan's prophecy delivered long after Samuel's death, and this is just the prophecy that Peter represents Samuel as speak ing.
(b). But some will say, " Was it not the common opin ion in the days of our Lord that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name ? " We answer, that so far as we know, it was the common opinion that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name-. But it was also the common opinion that David wrote the Psalter. As to the Pentateuch, opinion was divided whether it was lost when the temple was destroyed by the king of Babylon, and restored or recast by Ezra, or not. If you insist upon interpreting the New Testament by the opinion of the Jews of the time as regards Isaiah and the Pentateuch, you must follow it also as regards the Psalter. But why should we interpret Jesus and His apostles by the opinions of the Jews of His time ? Why should we suppose that He shared with them in all the errors He did not op pose and refute ? Jesus either knew whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or He did not know. («). If we said that Jesus did not know whether Moses wrote the Penta teuch or not, we would not go beyond His own saying that He knew not the time of His own advent. Those who understand the doctrine of the humiliation of Christ and the incarnation of Christ find no more diffi culty in supposing that Jesus did not know the author of the Pentateuch than that He did not know the day of His own advent. As Charles Gore says :
"When He speaks of the 'sunrising' He is using ordinary language. He shows no signs at all of transcending the science of His age. Equally He shows no signs of transcending the his-
130 TilE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
tory of His age The utterances of Christ about the Old
Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or clear enough to allow of our supposing that in this case He is departing from the general method of the incarnation, by bringing to bear the un veiled omniscience of the Godhead to anticipate or foreclose a development of natural knowledge."*
(j9). If on the other hand any one should say Jesus must have known all these things, and He ought not to have used language that might deceive men ; we respond, that His language does not deceive men. We have shown from literary usage in all ages and in the Bible itself that it is equally true and good language for the critics as for the anti-critics. The question is, shall we interpret the words of Jesus by the opinions of His con temporaries? This we deny. Jesus was not obliged to correct all the errors of His contemporaries. He did not correct their false views of science. He was the great physician, but He did not teach medicine. He was greater than Solomon and yet He declined to de cide questions of civil law and politics. He never re buked slavery. Is He responsible for slavery on that account ? The Southern slaveholders used to say so ; but even they are now convinced of their error. The signs of the times indicate that in a few years the anti- critics will disappear as completely as slaveholders.
The attempt to bar the way of the Higher Criticism of the Old Testament by interposing the authority of the New Testament is an unworthy effort to make our Lord and His apostles responsible for those conceits and errors of ancient tradition which modern American traditional dogma with great unwisdom has accepted and endorsed.
3. The real obstacle to the Higher Criticism of the
Lux Mundi, p. 360.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
131
Scriptures is the error into which some of our American dogmaticians have fallen. The majority of the ministry now in the field have been taught the doctrine that the inspiration of the Scriptures depends upon the inspira tion of human authors, known as prophets and apostles, or of those of their associates who can be proved to have written under their influence. It has recently been said : " If, as one asserts, ' the great mass of the Old Testa ment was written by authors whose names are lost in oblivion,' it was written by uninspired men." "This would be the inspiration of indefinite persons like Tom, Dick, and Harry, whom nobody knows, and not of definite historical persons like Moses and David, Mat thew and John, chosen by God by name and known to men."*
This error of hitching the doctrine of the authority of the Holy Scriptures to floating traditions respecting their authors, is the real occasion of all the alarm and excite ment throughout the American churches. These dog maticians take the position that so soon as Higher Crit icism detaches a sacred writing or any part of it from a well-known prophet or apostle, it destroys its inspira tion. But this theory of the traditionalists is a modern error. It cannot claim orthodoxy, for it has never re ceived recognition in any official document of the Church. On the contrary, it is a heterodox doctrine, when tested by the standards of orthodoxy. The West minster Confession states that : " The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man."f These dogmaticians make the authority of Holy Scripture depend upon the testimony of the men
* W. G. T. Shedd, N. Y. Observer, April 16, 1891. t Westminster Confession, i. 4.
TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
whc in their opinion wrote it. In the evidences for the authority of Holy Scripture given in the Confession, one nowhere finds any reference to human authors. Dr. A. F. Mitchell, of St. Andrew's, the best authority on the Westminster Confession, says:
" If any chapter in the Confession was more carefully framed than another, it was this, ' of the Holy Scripture.' It formed the subject of repeated and earnest debate in the House of Com mons as well as in the Assembly; and I think that it requires only to be fairly examined to make it appear that its framers were so far from desiring to go beyond their predecessors in rigour, that they were at more special pains than the authors of any other Confession: i. To avoid mixing up the question of the canon- icity of particular books with the question of their authorship, where any doubt at all existed on the latter point ; 2. To leave open all reasonable questions as to the mode and degree of in spiration which could consistently be left open by those who accepted the Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith and duty."
What the Westminster divines were at special pains not to do— that very thing modern dogmaticians have taken special pains to do. And so they have involved us in the present crisis.
Luther once said : " What matters it if Moses should not himself have written the Pentateuch?" But an American opponent of Biblical Criticism tells us: " If Moses is the author of those books which bear his name, their historic truth is placed beyond controversy— we have the highest possible voucher of the truth and cer tainty of the whole." . ..." We have abundant and decisive evidence of the inspiration of Moses, of J, E, D, and P we know nothing whatever, and of their inspira tion we have no proof." '
Thus he gives up their inspiration, if not written by
* Dr. W. H. Green in the Independent, Jan. 28, 1892.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
133
Moses. And yet a score of professors of Hebrew in the United States, and two score and more in Europe, deny the Mosaic authorship, and still 'hold to the inspiration of the Pentateuch.* They think that J, E, D, and P, that is, the Jehovist or Judaic writer, the Elohistic or Ephraim- itic writer, the Deuteronomist, and the priestly writer, were inspired because of the evidences of inspiration which are in the writings themselves. And this is the only way in which -we can prove the inspiration of any Biblical author. Calvin regarded Malachi as a pseudo nym for Ezra. The anti-critics think that a pseudonym is nothing better than a forgery, and that it cannot' be inspired. Calvin and Luther both denied that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. A recent writer claims that " if it were not written by Paul, it was at least written by Apollos, or Barnabas, members of the apos tolic circle." But how do we know that? The debate as to its authorship from the earliest times shows that there is no certainty in the Church on this subject, and there never has been concord about it. We have no sure evidence that it was written by Paul, Apollos, or Barnabas, or any one in the apostolic circle. It differs in its character and style and doctrine from every other book in the New Testament. If the divine authority of Holy Scripture depends upon our knowing the human author, no man can be asked to accept a book as of divine authority when the human author is so uncertain. It is the inevitable result of this theory that the epistle to the Hebrews is uninspired. But this modern dog matic theory of basing canonicity on authenticity is without foundation in history or in fact. It is a modern assumption. It is a recent speculation. It can no more
See Appendix VI.
134: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
stay the progress of Biblical criticism than Chinese gongs can stay the advance of an army.
These obstacles to the Higher criticism of the Holy Scriptures are no more than thin streams of tradition that any critic will ford without risk to life or limb, or rather bubbles of speculation expanding in pride and arrogance as they are blown up by the breath of dogma tism, only to burst by their own strainings.
They say that criticism is anti-Biblical. We say that criticism is Biblical, but anti-traditional. They say, " You are destroying the Bible"; we say, "We are using the Bible to destroy your false theories." My friends, consider for a moment which of us is destroying the Bible ? The critic who says, " Textual criticism shows that the Bible is not verbally inspired, but is truly inspired in its concept, in its thought, in its emotions, in its ideals"; or the dogmatist who says, " There can be no inspiration without verbal inspiration"? Who is destroying the Bible, the critic who says, " Historical criticism shows that there are errors in the Bible, but these do not impair its author ity as the only infallible rule of faith and practice," or the dogmatist who says, "One proved error destroys the in spiration of the Scriptures"? Who is destroying the Bible, the critic who says that " the Higher criticism shows that several books of the New Testament and the major ity of the books of the Old Testament are anonymous and yet truly and divinely inspired," or the dogmatist who says, " Remove the name of Moses from the Pentateuch and Isaiah from Isaiah xl.-lxvi., and you destroy their inspiration" ? The critic who accepts all the results of criticism and yet regards the Bible as the only infalli ble rule of faith and practice, does not discredit the Bible. But the dogmatician is discrediting the Bible when he risks its authority on the truthfulness of his
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
135
theories or the mere chance of a victory of dogmatism over criticism in the last ditch of Traditionalism where three or four American professors of Hebrew and those who blindly follow their leadership are contending.
There is no barrier to the Higher Criticism either in the creeds of the Church, or the Scriptures themselves, or in any sound and accredited doctrine of Christianity. As Bishop Westcott says :
"The subject is one of great obscurity and difficulty where the sources of information are scanty. Perhaps the result of the most careful inquiry will be to bring the conviction that many problems of the highest interest as to the origin and relation of the constituent Books are insoluble. But the student, in any case, must not approach the inquiry with the assumption — sanc tioned though it may have been by traditional use— that God must have taught His people, and us through His people, in one particular way. He must not presumptuously stake the inspira tion and the divine authority of the Old Testament on any fore gone conclusion as to the method and shape in which the records have come down to us. We have made many grievous mistakes in the past as to the character and teaching of the Bible. The experience may stand us in good stead now. The Bible is the record, the inspired, authoritative record, of the divine education of the world. The Old Testament, as we re ceive it, is the record of the way in which God trained a people for the Christ in many parts and in many modes, the record which the Christ Himself and His apostles received and sanctioned. How the record was brought together, out of what materials, at what times, under what conditions, are questions of secondary importance.*
(3). The evidences used by the Higher Criticism.
Brushing aside tradition and dogmatism, let us inquire how the Higher Criticism proposes to answer the ques tions within its own sphere. There are two lines of
The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 493.
136 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
external evidence and four lines of internal evidence upon which the Higher Criticism relies to answer its questions. The lines of external evidence are: I. Tes timony. 2. Silence.
I. The argument from testimony is a simple one. There is no reliable testimony respecting the questions of the Higher Criticism of the Old Testament books apart from the Old Testament books themselves. Twenty-two of the thirty-nine books, as we count them, are anonymous ; that is, they do not give the auth6rs' names in titles ; all the historical books, seventeen in number, Job, Psalms, Daniel, Jonah, Lamentations. They do not themselves mention the names of their authors. And there is no di rect testimony assigning them authors in the Old Testa, ment. Ecclesiastes and Malachi seem to have titles, but it is not certain whether these are pseudonyms or whether they propose to give the name of the author. The books with titles are the three great prophets, ten of the minor prophets, Proverbs and the Song of Songs. But it remains to be determined with reference to these whether the titles came from authors or editors, and whether the titles cover the writings in their present form, or whether additions have been made since the titles were prefixed. It is evident, therefore, that the argument from testimony leaves much the greater part of the Old Testament anonymous.
But is there not some testimony as to authorship in the Biblical books apart from titles? Yes, a little. (a). In the Hexateuch, Num. xxi. 14 cites a poetic extract from the book of the wars of Jahveh. Jos. x. 12-13 c^tes a section of an ode of the battle of Beth Horon from the book of Jasher. The book of Jasher is also cited in 2 Sam. i. 1 8, \vhere a dirge of David is given. It is also cited in the LXX. version of I Kings viii. 12, with a
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
poetic extract from Solomon.* The book of Jasher con taining poems of David and Solomon could not have been written before Solomon. The writing which cites the book of Jasher must have been written after the book of Jasher. If now, as modern critics unanimously hold, the book of Joshua and the Pentateuch belong together as a Hexateuch, then it is the testimony of the Hexateuch itself that it could not have been written in its present form before the time of David or Solomon.
(&). The Hexateuch refers to several writings of Mo ses, several songs, the Ten Commandments, the book of the covenant in two forms, a list of the journeys, and a book of law; also to a book of God in which Joshua wrote. A writing which uses sources which it ascribes to Moses and Joshua, testifies thereby that the writing using them was not written by Moses or Joshua. Thus the testimony of the Hexateuch itself is that Moses did not write it, but only certain documents which were used as sources by the authors of the Hexateuch. 2. The argument from silence is used in this way: (a). There is no reference in the literature of the Hebrews prior to the reign of Josiah, to any written Mosaic code of law, or any Mosaic writing. At that time a law code was discovered in the temple that was attributed to Moses. The references to this law code in the text f are cov-
* These additions in the LXX. of an initial line to the poem to which the first line preserved by the Massoretic text, is in antithesis, and of the statement that the poem was derived from the book of Jasher, are altogether probable, and they are recognized by the best modern critics as belonging to the original text, which then would read :
" The sun is known in the heavens, But Jahveh said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built up a house of habitation for thee, A place for thee to dwell in forever. Lo, is it not written in the book of Jasher ? " f 2 K. xxii. ; 2 C. xxxiv.
138 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
ered by the book of the law referred to in Deuteronomy, and give no evidence of the existence of any other Mo saic writing. They do not show a knowledge of the Pen tateuch in its present form. What does this silence and this subsequent discovery mean? Criticism tries to an swer this question, which is not raised by Criticism, but by the writers of Kings and Chronicles and by the si lence of the prophets, that is, by Holy Scripture itself.
(fr). Another interesting example of the argument from silence is the following: The plagues of Egypt as re corded in Ex. iv.-xii. are in a composite narrative made up by the editorial use of the three original documents, E, J, and P. The analysis of these chapters is difficult in some respects, but in the main is clear. The analysis assigns seven plagues to the Judaic narrative. Turning now to Psalm Ixxviii., we find these seven plagues of the Judaic narrative J, and no others. The plagues pecul iar to the documents E and P are not given. What is the meaning of this silence? In other parts of this Psalm there are traces of a knowledge of the Ephraim- itic document, but no trace whatever of the priestly document. Shall we say the writer knew nothing of P because it was not yet composed ? Shall we say that the documents E and J were known to the author of this Psalm, but that they had not yet been compacted into J E? What other explanation will you give of this silence ? Possibly some one may thoughtlessly say that the analysis was made to suit the Psalm. But this would not be true. The analysis was first made. And it was a critical surprise that the seven plagues of the Psalm followed so closely the seven plagues of the Judaic document.
(c). We shall present one more example of the argu ment from silence. The sin-offering and the trespass-
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 139
offering do not appear in the pre-exilic literature, unless the priestly document of the Hexateuch be pre-exilic. The sin-offering is mentioned in 2 Chron. xxix. 20-24, as offered in the reign of Hezekiah, but no one supposes that the author of the book of Chronicles wrote before the time of Ezra; and the description of this sin-offering does not correspond with the ritual of the sin-offering in P. In Psalm xl. 6, 7, Jlt^n is rendered sin-offering in our version, but with doubtful propriety, because there is no other example of this rendering of the word, and the technical term for sin-offering is nj$ton> an inten sive noun. Furthermore, this Psalm at the earliest is exilic. The only example of the dtB^ victim is in Is. liii. 10, where the suffering servant offers Himself. But this is in the exilic Isaiah. There are examples of an dt2J& of golden mice and tumours in I Sam. vi. 17 and of money in 2 Kings xii. 16, but no dtEfc* victim in the pre-exilic literature. If now the sin-offering and the trespass-offering were essential parts of the ritual on the holy days and for individuals who had committed sins, according to the priest's code, from Moses until the exile, according to the traditional theory, how will you explain this silence in the literature at such essential points in the Old Testament religion ?
These are examples of large numbers of questions which are forced upon the Biblical student by the silences of Holy Scripture.
The chief resources of the Higher criticism are, how ever, the internal evidence. There are four lines of in ternal evidence. Before taking up these, let us for a moment consider what internal evidence means. It is simply and only evidence derived from the study of the contents of the Old Testament itself. What better way can any one propose to determine questions relating to
140 T11E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
the Holy Scriptures than by studying the Scriptures themselves? In this way we honor the Scriptures far more than do those who decline to study them by scien tific methods, lest in some way they should come in con flict with traditional dogma or popular prejudice.
3. The first line of the internal evidence is that a writing must be in accord with its historic position.
(a). Moses on the east of the Jordan could not have written in the title of Deuteronomy, "These are the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan in the wilderness." Beyond Jordan is on the east of the Jordan. These words imply an author on the west of the Jordan. But Moses never crossed the Jordan. He could not have written it.
(b). The statement, Deut. xxxiv. 10, " There arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses," could not have been written by Moses, for it implies other prophets after Moses who were his inferiors.
(c). In I Sam. ix. 9, it is said : " Beforetime in Israel when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said, Come and let us go to the seer ; for he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer." This is an his torical note by the editor of Samuel, stating that the fcS'OS of his time was anciently called a H&O. This pas sage is an explanation of the fact that in this document, Samuel was called a seer. The most natural interpreta tion of it is that prior to the time of Samuel and for some time afterwards, fcOiD was not used. How then shall we explain the usage of fcfc^D with reference to Abraham and Moses in the Hexateuch?* Are we jus tified in supposing that the writers of these documents
* Gen. xx. 7 ; Ex. xv. 20 ; Num. xii. 6 ; Deut. xxxiv. 10 (E); Num. xi. 29 (J); Deut. xiii. 1-5 ; xviii. 15-22 (D).
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
who use this term in the Hexateuch, wrote subsequent to Samuel and after the term fcO^5 had supplanted fl&O ?
(d). On the principle that the writing must be in ac cord with its own historic framework the magnificent prophecy Is. xl.-lxvi. was written during the exile. The scenery of the piece is the period of the exile, the time of the supremacy of Babylon, and the impending con quest of Cyrus ; the author is looking forward for a res toration to the Holy Land.* There is nothing in the piece that in any way reflects the Assyrian period or the reign of Hezekiah in which Isaiah lived. From the crit ical point of view the prophecy becomes full of new and rich meaning. The historic theatre of the prophecy hav ing been restored by criticism many obscurities are re moved, and the gems of poetic thought sparkle with new brilliancy and power. The prophecy loses nothing but the name of Isaiah ; and it gains vastly in depth of meaning, in appropriateness and in grandeur. Taking our stand with the great unknown prophet in the exile, we look forward through his vision to the restoration which is to find its fulfilment in a return higher and grander than that led by Zerubbabel to the land of Pal estine.
4. The second line of the internal evidence is that differences of style imply difference of author. When we compare the books of Chronicles with the books of Kings, any one can see the differences in style because they glare upon one from the surface of different books. When we study the Chronicler more closely, we see that he uses sources that are similar to our books of Samuel and of Kings, and we must distinguish the style of the Chronicler from the style of his sources. Looking into the books of
* Is. xliv. 28 ; xlv. i ; xlvi. 1-2 ; xlvii.
142 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Samuel and Kings we see a writer who uses two sets of sources, one written in the Northern Kingdom, interested in the stories of Samuel and Saul, Elijah and Elisha — the other chiefly interested in David and the royal line of Ju- dah. By style, that is difference in uses of words, different phrases, different methods of composition, different in terests, we detect the different authors. Going back in to the Hexateuch, modern criticism has found four dif ferent writings each with its law code, each marked by differences in style. These four writers of the Hexateuch resemble the writers whom we have found in the prophetic historians and the Chronicler. And thus all the histori cal books of the Old Testament appear to have been composed in the same way by the editing and the re- editing of older documents. The names of these histo rians have not been preserved to us, but we learn how careful and conscientious they were in their work. The credibility of the narratives increases as we see that they used with fidelity ancient sources. And the strength of the evidence increases as the four documents entwine in a fourfold cord that cannot be broken. The foundations of the New Testament rest upon a fourfold gospel. The foundations of the Old Testament rest upon a fourfold narrative. The different documents in the Hexateuch were discovered by a French Roman Catholic physician, Astruc, in 1753, who first saw the striking difference in the use of the divine names Elohim and Jahveh in the book of Genesis. Since his date, that line of argument has been thoroughly worked. out. I have myself exam ined every use of the divine names throughout the whole Hebrew Bible, in the preparation of the new Hebrew Lexicon, edited by Dr. Brown with the co-operation of Canon Driver and myself, and have given a fresh and ex haustive investigation of the whole subject. In Ex. vi.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 14.3
2-3, it is written : "And Elohim spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am Jahveh : and I appeared unto Abra ham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob as El Shadday ; but by my name Jahveh I was not known to them." Turning now to Genesis we find El Shadday used in connection with the covenants made with Abraham and Jacob ; but we also find that the divine name Jahveh is placed in the mouth of the antediluvians and patriarchs from Genesis ii. onward. Here is a glaring inconsistency not invented by critics, but on the surface of Genesis itself. The dis covery of Astruc that this was a usage of different docu ments removed the difficulty. Criticism has found that the priestly writer who wrote Ex. vi., never uses the di vine name Jahveh in his document prior to Ex. vi., when he states that it was revealed to Moses for the first time. The use of the divine Jahveh in Genesis is in the Judaic document, which nowhere mentions or seems to know anything about the revelation of the name Jahveh to Moses. He uses it as the name of God from the begin ning. The early analysts were confronted with the diffi culty that there was a very singular and apparently capri cious use of the divine name left in the Judaic document. This led to a more thorough study of that document, which resulted in the discovery that it had been closely connected with another document which uses the divine name Elohim. Looking now at Ex. iii., we observe that it tells of a revelation of the divine name Jahveh to Moses, at Horeb. This is a parallel narrative to chapter vi., and is now recognized by criticism as from the Ephraimitic author. Thus the whole difficulty of the use of the di vine names is solved. The critics did not make the dif ficulty. They have removed the difficulty by the science of criticism. This Ephraimitic author not only uses the divine name Elohim, but it is his style to use it with the
144 THE BIBLE> THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
definite article, and it is also his style to use it by prefer ence even after the divine name Jahveh was revealed; whereas the priestly writer seldom uses Elohim after he tells of the revelation of Jahveh to Moses. In the book of Deuteronomy we find a fourth document which also extends through Joshua and appears occasionally in the earlier narratives. It is the style of this writer to use the terms Jahveh thy God, or Jahveh your God. He uses Jahveh thy God 239 times. It is used elsewhere in the Hexateuch, 5 times in the Ten Words, 3 times in the an cient law of worship in the covenant codes, and in two pas sages, Gen. xxvii. 20, Ex. xv. 26, in verses which present other reasons of editorial seams. I shall not take your time to refer to the numberless evidences under the head of style. The critics have gathered long lists of such differences and the number is increasing with every fresh investigation.*
5. The third line of the internal evidence is that dif ference of opinion and conception imply difference of author.
(a). There are in the Pentateuch two versions of the Ten Commandments, the one Exodus xx., the other Deuteronomy v., differing in some of the specifications and reasons attached to several of the Commandments. Is it likely that Moses would have given these two ver sions of the fundamental law? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the ten words have been given by two different writers, each one appending the reasons and specifications that are peculiar to his document? It is the common critical opinion at the present time that the original words written on the tables of stone were all brief sentences without any reasons or specifications.
* See Appendix VII. for a few illustrations.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
(b). We also find in the Pentateuch five distinct codes of law. One of these, the sanctity code in the middle chapters of Leviticus, has been embodied in the priest code, which embraces besides Leviticus the closing chap ters of Exodus and the earlier chapters of Numbers. The Deuteronomic code stands by itself in the m-idst of the book of Deuteronomy. The covenant code is given in the Judaic document, Exodus xxxiv., in a brief deca logue of worship. In the Ephraimitic document, Ex. xx.-xxiii., is a group of decalogues and pentades. Modern critics find that each of the four documents has its own code of law, and that the same fundamental legislation lies at the basis of them all. They cover in some respects the same ground, and yet each one is of increasing bulk and developing in intension as well as in extension as we rise in the constant order from the little book of the covenant through the greater book of the covenant and the Deuteronomic code to the priest code.* The traditional opinion is that Moses gave all these codes of law to the same people within the lifetime of the same generation, and all before they entered into the Holy Land, and that there was no constitutional de velopment in Israel through all that long period from the conquest of the Holy Land by Joshua until the close of the Old Testament history. Modern criticism, while it recognizes the fundamental Mosaic legislation, sees in the codes successive stages of codification as the original code of the covenant was enlarged by the experience of the nation in their long history in the Holy Land. These codes do not merely contain minor differences, but differences all along the line of the most essential things in the religious, civil, and social life of the people,
* See Appendix VIII.
14G TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
such as the altars, the kinds of sacrifice, the modes of purification, the orders of priesthood, and the names and number of the feasts.
There are also similar differences in matters of religion and of doctrine. (V). The Ephraimitic writer reports a large number of dreams. These are unknown to the other writers, (d). This same writer reports the rod of Moses as the great instrument of miracle-working; the priestly narrator occasionally mentions the rod of Aaron, but neither he nor the Judaic nor the Deuteronomic writer know anything of the rod of Moses. The mira cles of the Judaic writer were all wrought by God with out any instrument of miracle-working whatever, (e). When God reveals Himself in the Ephraimitic docu ments, He speaks to Moses face to face, and Moses sees the form of God in the pillar of cloud standing at the door of his tent. In the great theophany granted to Moses in the Judaic document, Ex. xxxiii. 20-23, Moses is per mitted only to see the departing form of God, and it is represented that it would be death to see God's face. In Deuteronomy it is said that the voice of God was heard but His form was not seen. In the priestly document it is the light and fire of the glory of God which always constitutes the theophany.* How was it possible for the same author to give four such different accounts of the methods of God's appearance to Moses and the people?
(/). The doctrine of creation taught in the priestly document of Genesis i. is altogether different from that taught in Genesis ii. In the one, God creates by speak ing, by word of command to His creatures, His host; and they spring forth when God speaks, in an instant on the mornings of six successive days. The divine
* See Appendix IX.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 147
Spirit is also active in this creation, personified as a bird hovering over the original abyss. The second narrative of creation represents God creating by means of His own hands, forming man and animals out of the soil of the earth, planting trees, and building the form of Eve from a piece of the body of man. In place of the bird- like Spirit of God of Genesis i., the breath of God's nostrils imparts the breath of life to man and animals. The order of creation is different. In the first chapter it is vegetation, animals, man. In the second chapter it is man, trees, animals, Eve. How could the same writer give two such variant accounts of the creation of the world ? Modern criticism ascribes them to two different and independent writers. It is my opinion that they are two poems, giving poetic pictures of the creation.* We make a great mistake if we force their poetic images into hard and fast statements of dogma. These, again, are only specimens of large numbers of facts extending all along the range of religion, doctrine, and morals. These differences of opinion and representation show difference of authorship.
6. The fourth line of internal evidence is citation. It will be sufficient to refer to the prophecy of the ex altation of the temple mount in Micah iv. and Isaiah ii. These are two different versions of the same prophecy. The general opinion of modern critics is that they are both cited from an older and unknown prophet.
We have thus gone over the principles and methods of the Higher Criticism as applied to the Old Testa ment. We have seen some of its results. I shall not deny that they are revolutionary. They cut up the tra ditional theories by the roots. They destroy the scho-
* See Appendix XIV. and XV.
148 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
lastic dogmas of verbal inspiration, of the inerrancy of Scripture, and of the evidence of inspiration from the authorship by well-known apostles and prophets. But these dogmas have no claim whatever to be regarded as orthodox. They have never been recognized by any official decision of the Christian Church. They are not even ancient traditions. Some of them are not a century old. It will be an enormous gain when they are blotted out of the land of the living. Biblical Criticism brings them to the test of Scripture and so destroys them. No compromise is possible here. Criticism and dog matism are wrestling in a life-and-death struggle. It is the Reformation over again. The Bible in the hands of the critics is in mortal conflict with Tradition in the hands of ecclesiastics.
(4). The Higher Criticism is constructive.
Criticism is destructive of traditional dogma, but it is constructive of Biblical doctrine. Criticism from its na ture cannot destroy anything but error. It searches for truth. It gives vastly more than it takes away.
i. Criticism is nothing more than a scientific, exact, ex haustive study of the Bible itself. It makes the Bible more real, more historic, more pregnant with holy mean ing than ever before, simply because it studies the Bible more extensively and more profoundly. Criticism has made the Bible a new book, because exhaustive study has found numberless new things in it, unknown to students who neglected to study it. In the times of the supremacy of the* traditional dogma it was studied only on the surface and for dogmatic or practical purposes. It was merely a treasury out of which there might be a capricious selection of texts to prove statements of dog ma which were already constructed by deductive reason--
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
ing. It was a thesaurus of texts for pulpit discourse from which one might start an evangelical sermon. But now the Bible is studied ardently from cover to cover, by large numbers of enthusiastic students the world over, who are bringing forth treasures new and old to enrich the Church of God. Think not the critics are destroying the Bible which they study with so much enthusiasm and love. They have enthroned the Bible in a higher position than it has ever held before in the estimation of the world. They have restored the Bible to its place as the queen of the literature of the world, as the holy book for the man of science, the student of literature and art, the historian and philosopher. Criti cism has created several new theological disciplines, such as the Contemporary History of Israel and of Christ and His apostles, Biblical Literature, and Biblical Theology, and these are furnishing the divine material for a nobler theology and a nobler Christian life.
2. The traditional view of the Biblical books attached all the law to Moses, all the psalms to David, all the wisdom to Solomon. The prophets and histories were the only books which were left as guides to the develop ment of the religion of Israel. There was a gap of cen turies between the Old and the New Testaments. This view of the history has changed. The gap between the books has been filled up by modern criticism. God did not leave Israel without guidance when she needed It most, under the Persian and Greek yoke, when exposed to the distracting influence of other religions and civil izations. God's Spirit abode with His people after the theophanic presence had departed, and holy men of God spake under His influence in sacred song and wisdom, in historic composition and prophecy through all that long period of waiting for the Messiah. There is an un-
150 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
broken continuity in divine revelation until divine revela tion reached its summit in Jesus Christ and His apostles. If Criticism had done nothing else than fill up this sup posed chasm in divine revelation, it would have con ferred a boon of greater value to the world than all the theories and traditions it has destroyed.
3. Another great result of Criticism is the destruc tion of the pessimistic theory that the history of Israel was a history of backslidings. Modern Criticism finds a legislation given by Moses, but unfolding in a series of codes until Ezra, the second Moses, laid its capstone. Criticism finds Israel from David onward until the Mac- cabean age, singing and praying, in ever increasing wealth of devotion, sacred psalms, responding from the heart of the people to the teachings of God's law. Criticism finds a succession of sages from Solomon to the latest times preparing the way by their sentences of wisdom for the jewelled sentences of the Messiah in His training of the twelve. Israel did not go on declin ing through the centuries. Israel went on steadily ad vancing through the centuries in religion, in doctrine and in morals, in wisdom, in law, in psalmody, and in prophecy, undergoing that divine training which pre pared her to welcome the Messiah and furnish Him with the apostles and prophets of the new dispensation. What has Criticism destroyed that can compare with this immense gain?
(4). Criticism has shown a wonderful variety as well as unity in the Scriptures. Criticism has called attention to the marvellous beauty of Biblical literature. It has shown that there are works of the imagination in the Old Testament in prose and poetry, preparing the way for those visions of truth contained in the parables of our Lord. It has disclosed wondrous specimens of
THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
151
gnomic, lyric, and dramatic poetry. It has discovered forms of the poet's art which approximate to the classic epic poetry. It has disclosed four distinct varieties of historic composition, and detected in their sources an cient poems and legends which the older Biblical scholars never dreamed of. It has more than doubled the num ber of Hebrew prophets. It has increased the inspired penmen to a much larger and richer company. The old choirmasters of the inspired congregation remain. Moses and David, Solomon and Isaiah, and every one of the ancient worthies retains his historic place. But we now see that they were not merely soloists appearing at great intervals in the progress of divine revelation, alone, without masters, without disciples and without associates, but that they were leaders of choirs of law givers, historians, prophets, poets, and sages who make the entire history of Israel a grand oratorio of redemp tion.
VI.
BIBLICAL HISTORY.
BIBLICAL HISTORY is the History contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. It is nec essary to distinguish it from the History of Israel on the one hand, and from the recent theological discipline called " Contemporary History of the Old and New Tes taments " on the other. I do not undervalue either of these two important branches of History when I urge that Biblical History is a separate branch. I rather aim to put these three branches of history, that deal more or less with the same themes, in their true rela tions.
(i). The Contemporary History of the Old Testament aims to study the history of the nations that influenced Israel. It studies the monuments of Babylon, Egypt, Phoenicia, Assyria, and the lesser nations that encom passed Israel or were entwined with him in his develop ment. It studies the history of Persia, Greece, and Rome, — the ancient masters of the world that held Israel in subjection.
These cast a flood of light upon the history recorded in the Bible and give us invaluable information with re gard to the external influences working upon Israel and co-operating with the internal influences to produce his historical training. Great attention has been paid to this method of study in recent times, and it has in many
(152)
BIBLICAL HISTORY. 153
minds overwhelmed and absorbed the study of Biblical History itself.
Biblical History moves on its way in the narratives of the Bible, touching the great nations of the Old World at various points in its advancement, giving and receiv ing influences of various kinds, but pervaded with a sense of an overpowering force that has determined not only the History of Israel, but of all nations of the world. Israel has been a football of the nations, trod den under foot and tossed hither and thither by those mightier than he, but he has been a ball of light and fire that no violence could quench ; for a divine blessing was in him for all mankind. God cast Israel into the fiery furnace that his dross might be consumed and the pure gold shine in its glorious lustre. The nations were his hammers, to beat him into the holy image God had designed for him from the beginning.
The earlier Isaiah warns the proud Assyrian :
" Wherefore it shall come to pass, that, when Adonay hath per formed his whole work qji Mount Zion and on Jerusalem,
" I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of As syria and the glory of his high looks."
" Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith ? Or, shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it ? " (Isaiah x. 12, 15).
And the later Isaiah encourages Israel : "And now, thus saith Jahveh, Thy creator, O Jacob, and thy former, O Israel, Fear not, for I have redeemed thee. I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine ; When thou passeth through the waters, I will be with thee ; And in the rivers, they shall not o'erflow thee : When thou walkest in the fire, thou shalt not be burned, Neither shall the flame consume thee. For I, Jahveh, am thy God, The Holy One of Israel is thy Saviour " (Isaiah xliii. 1-3).
154 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
The Hebrew Prophets see that Jahveh, the God of Israel, shaped all the migrations of the nations, all the movements of mankind, all the revolutions of history, for the training of His own well-beloved people.
" When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples, According to the number of the children of Israel ; For Jahveh 's portion is his people. Jacob is the lot of his inheritance " (Deut. xxxii. 8-9).
And yet Israel was not for himself alone. The Biblical historians do not encourage any neglect of the other nations of the world. They represent that all are to share in the blessings of Abraham ; they see them all ultimately before the judgment-seat of God ; they look forward to their ultimate incorporation in the kingdom under the Messianic King. The prophet rebukes Israel for supposing that he alone was the people of God, and that all the other nations were neglected by the God of all the earth.
" Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel, saith Jahveh, Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, And the Philistines from Caphtor,and the Syrians from Kir?" (Amos ix. 7).
God watched over the other nations of the world, guided their history, and will bring them also to sal vation and judgment. No one can altogether under stand Biblical History until he has placed it in the light of its Contemporary History, and yet he would make a vast mistake who would suppose that this Contemporary History is the key to Biblical History. The Biblical History is the centre of this circumference of nations. It is the Sun in the midst of the world in whose risine
BIBLICAL HISTORY. 155
all mankind are to rejoice (Is. lx.). It is the light stream- ing forth from Biblical History that illuminates the Con temporary History. Contemporary History reflects the rays of that light. The study of the one ought not to conflict with the study of the other.
It is also necessary to distinguish Biblical History from the History of Israel. The history of Israel is a part of the history of the world. It is a section of the discipline of Universal History. It should be studied with a purely scientific interest. It uses Biblical His tory as one of its sources ; it uses Contemporary History as another; it arranges all its material in a scientific manner, in accordance with the principles of historic de velopment. It is on the one side more extensive than Biblical History. It fills up the numerous blanks that are left therein from other sources of information.
The period between Nehemiah and John the Baptist is of no importance to Biblical History; but it is of vast importance to the History of Israel. The historian will lay much more stress upon it than upon many earlier periods where the Biblical writers dwell at length. On the other hand the History of Israel is less extensive than Biblical History. It does not enter into the prov ince of the supernatural, that most characteristic feature of Biblical History. It stumbles at theophanies, mir acles, and prophecies. It finds it difficult to adjust these supernatural features to the principles of scientific study. The purely personal relations of Jahveh to his people are matters into which the scientific historian does not venture.
The scientific study of the History of Israel is of vast importance. No one can understand altogether the His tory of Israel, unless Israel's true place and importance in universal history have been determined. Each one of
156 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
the great nations of the old world has contributed its own best achievements for the weal of humanity. No one can understand the workings of God in History who does not estimate, to some extent at least, the work of Egypt and Assyria, of Phoenicia and Persia, of Greece and Rome, in the advancement of mankind. The his tory of the world is, as Lessing grandly shows, the divine education of our race ; and every nation has its share in that instruction, and contributes its quota of ex perience to the successive generations. The nations of the modern world have all come into line with their inter play of forces, making the problem more complex and wonderful. The old nations of the Orient — China, In dia, and Japan — with Africa and the islands of the sea, share in that education and service. The world is one in origin, in training, and in destiny. There is force in Kenan's remark:
"Jewish History that would have the monopoly of the mir acle is not a bit more extraordinary than Greek History. If the supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the one, the supernatural intervention is also necessary to explain the other." *
I do not agree with his use of the term supernat ural. But I do agree with him in the opinion that the hand of God alone can explain the history of Greece and the blessings it contained for mankind. The school of Clement of Alexandria were correct in the opinion that the philosophy of Greece was a divinely ordered prepa ration for the gospel, as were the law and the prophets of Israel. The Biblical historians were the first to see this fact, and to set it forth in the horizon of their nar ratives. They see that the God of Israel is the God seated upon the circle of the heavens, turning the hearts
* Histoire cfu Peuple d' Israel, I., p. v.
BIBLICAL HISTORY. 157
of kings and nations ; they know that the Messiah of Israel is the universal King ; they see all the forces of history converging toward His universal sway. It is a Hebrew poet who describes the New Jerusalem as the city of the regeneration of the nations :
" Glorious things are being spoken in thee, city of God ! I mention Rahab and Babel as belonging to those who know
me;
Lo, Philistia and Tyre with Cush : ' This one was born there,' • And as belonging to Zion, it is said, — ' This one and that one
were born in her,'
And Elyon, Jahveh — he establisheth her, He counteth in writing up the peoples, — ' This one was born
there,' Yea, they are singing as well as dancing, all those who dwell
in thee."*
We do not by any means undervalue the scientific study of the History of Israel and the origins of Chris tianity. We do not depreciate the importance of the Contemporary History of the Old and the New Testa ments, when we insist that Biblical History has its own place and importance as the lamp of the nations and the key for the development of mankind.f
Biblical History is confined to the history recorded in the canonical writings of the Scriptures. Here is a group of sacred histories that are of unique import ance. They cover a wide range in time, an immense mass of detail ; they were written by different writers, in three different languages, and yet they have common features that distinguish them from all other histories, and entitle them to be bound together in one book as Biblical History.
This history extends over a vast period of time : it be-
* Ps. Ixxxvii. See Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, p. 227. f See Appendix X.
158 TfIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
gins with the creation of the world, it closes with the erection of the banner of the Messiah in Rome, the capital of the world. It is narrower in its geographical range. Its centre is Palestine, a little land that has al ways been and always must be, for geographical rea sons, the centre of the world. But it radiates from this centre into all the territories of the great nations of the Old World. It deals with a little nation and very often with single persons, but that nation was the people of God, the bearer of the greatest religions of the world, Judaism and Christianity, which have determined the entire development of mankind ; and these individuals were the prophets of God : Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra — names that outshine the brightest stars of other nations in moral worth, and all of whom point, as watchers of the night, to the dawn of the sun of the world, Jesus Christ, the greatest of men, the Son of God, and Saviour of man. Such a history that discloses to us the religious heroes of mankind, the banner-bearers of God ; and that culminates in the glories of God manifest in the flesh, has a unique place and importance in the development of the world.
(2). Biblical History is wonderful in its variety. Four different types of writers give us four different points of view, of the most important and fundamental characters and events. There are four Gospels, that combine to give us a comprehensive view of Jesus Christ, our Sav iour. Any one of them is easily worth all other books written by men. We have also four narratives of the establishment of the Old Covenant.
Higher Criticism has traced these four narratives in the Hexateuch, and has for the most part separated them so that we can place them in parallelism, just as we do
BIBLICAL HISTORY. 15 9
the gospels in our Harmonies. A postexilic editor com pacted them together, just as Tatian did the gospels in the second Christian century. Dogmatists and Tradi tionalists have gone on " snorting " against the Higher Criticism since the days of Eichhorn, its father — but they have long since been silenced on the Continent of Europe ; they speak with timidity in Great Britain. It is only in ultra-conservative America that they still go on battling for traditional theories and clamoring against the truth of God.* Any one can see that four gospels are better than one ; four narratives of the story of the founding of the Old Covenant are also better than one. Even if we have to give up the Mosaic au thorship of the Pentateuch, we gain four writers in the place of Moses ; and the history of Moses and the estab lishment of his covenant, gains vastly in strength by the testimony of four witnesses instead of one.
In the history of the kingdom from its establishment to the exile, we have two parallel narratives in the books of Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and the Chroni cler on the other; but Higher Criticism finds in the narratives of Samuel and Kings three original writers, similar to three of the writers of the Hexateuch.
These four kinds of writers of Biblical History that we find in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, are not without significance, for they correspond with four types that run through the entire literature of the Bible. James, Peter, Paul, and John represent four dif ferent points of view in the New Testament epistles. Each of these types has its corresponding gospel. In the Old Testament we distinguish the writers of the wisdom literature from the writers of the lyric poetry,
* See Appendix XI.
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
and both of these from the prophetic and the priestly writers. Are not these the same types that we find *'a the New Testament, and ought we not to expect to find these same types, that are in the New Testament, repre. sented in the older histories ? These are not fanciful combinations of theorists and speculators, but are the interesting product of the scientific study of the Bible itself. When we compare these four types of Biblical writers with the results of the scientific study of other religions and races, we find that they correspond with the four great temperaments of mankind, and the four great types of character that reappear throughout human history.
It is one of the wonderful results of the Higher Criti cism of the Bible that all the important events and doctrines rest upon a fourfold foundation, and a compre hension of the four great ways of looking at things that are possible to the human mind. There is danger in our study of the Bible on this very account. Few minds are sufficiently comprehensive to grasp the entire repre sentation of these Biblical writers. Each man will natu rally look at any subject through the eyes and the rep resentations of the author of kindred temperament and type. The analysis of the Hexateuch has brought to light a large number of apparent inconsistencies. This was what ought to have been expected. They are no more, however, than those that still trouble scholars in the Harmony of the Gospels after all these centuries of study. On the other hand, many old difficulties have been removed. Many statements that were inconsist ent and even contradictory in the same author, are com plementary and supplementary in different authors ; and so we gain a higher unity of representations, which is all the grander for the fourfold variety out of which it
BIBLICAL HISTORY.
161
springs. The history has not the unity of a straight line, a series of points, but the unity of a cube— the unity such as we see in the cubical structure of the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle, and the temple. The new Jeru salem of the Apocalypse is four-square. The army of the living God marches in four solid divisions. The cherubic chariot of its King faces the four quarters of the earth. The four cherubic faces represent not only the four gospels, but also the four types that are in the epistles of the New Testament, and the histories and writings of the Old Testament.
(3). Biblical History has certain features that distinguish it from all other history. The most important of these is the theophanic presence of God.
There are some who would point to miracles and prophecy as the great supernatural features of the Bible, that prove its uniqueness and its divine origin. But any intelligent person will admit that it is just these super natural features of miracles and prophecies that, in our day, constitute the chief obstacles to faith in the Bible for scientific and literary scholars. Biblical History is not unique in this regard. The ancient histories of other nations claim miracles and divine prophecy for the lead ers of their religion. The scientific historian is tempted to treat the miracles and prophecies of Biblical History in the same way in which he treats them in the history of Egypt, Assyria, Greece, and the Roman Church. He is bound so to do, unless something of a distinguishing character is found in these supernatural features of the Bible. It also is noteworthy that Moses and Jesus rec ognize the supernatural in miracle-working and prophecy beyond the range of prophetic-working and outside the kingdom of God. There must be something in the character of the supernatural in Biblical History that
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
will vindicate its reality and power, or it cannot be saved from the tomb into which modern Historical Criticism has cast the supernatural in all other history.
It has long been clear to me that the Bible does not magnify the supernatural in miracle-working and proph ecy to the same extent as is common in modern treatises on the evidences of Christianity and Apolo getics.
It is my opinion that undue stress upon these things has called attention away from still more important fea tures in Biblical History. The miracles of Biblical His tory were not wrought in order to give modern divines evidences of the truth and reality of the Biblical re ligion. The prophets did not aim to give apologists proofs for the inspiration of the Scriptures. The miracles were wrought as acts of divine judgment and redemp tion. Prophecy was given to instruct men in the religion of God, in order to their salvation and moral growth. The miracles were not designed to show that God was able to violate the laws of nature, to overrule or suspend them at His will. The miracles of the Bible rather show that God Himself was present in Nature, directing His own laws in deeds of redemption, and of judgment. The miracles are divine acts in nature. Prophecy was not designed to show that God can overrule the laws of the human mind, suspend them, or act instead of them, using man as a mere speaking-tube to convey heavenly messages to this world. Prophecy rather discloses the presence of God in man, stimulating him to use all the powers of his intellectual and moral nature in the instruc tion of the people of God. Miracles and prophecy in Biblical History are the signs of the presence of God in that History. He has not left that History to itself. He has not lett the laws of nature and of mind to theii
BIBLICAL HISTOEY.
ordinary development, but He has taken His place at the head of affairs as the monarch of nature and the king of men to give His personal presence and superintendence to a history which is central and dominant of the history of the world.
Now this is the conception of the supernatural, that we find in Biblical History. Miracles were chiefly at the Exodus from Egypt, and the entrance into Palestine. Here they are associated with the theophanic presence of God. They reappear in the age of Elijah and Elisha, a period marked by theophanies. Then again they were wrought by Jesus, the God-man, and by His apostles, in connection with theophanies of the divine Spirit. The Theophany, the Christophany, and the Pneumatophany are the sources of the miracles of the Bible. When God is really present in Nature, in the forms of time and space and circumstance, then miracles are the most natu ral things in the world.*
The Prophecy of the Old Testament also springs from theophanies. The great master-spirits of prophecy were called by theophanies. The apostles were com- missioned by Christophanies and Pneumatophanics. God entered into the human mind, into its perception, con ception, and imagination, and guided these to give utter ance to the wonderful things of God.f I do not presume to say that every miracle and every prophetic discourse may be traced directly to theophanic influence, yet I do venture to say that the most of them can be traced to such origination, and that the others may likewise be re ferred to a more secret divine presence jn nature and in man, even if that presence was not always disclosed in some external manner.
See APP61"11* XII« t See Appendix XIII.
T[IE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
It is necessary, however, to go much farther, in order to realize the importance of the theophany in Biblical History. It is the representation of the Patriarchal History that God was constantly manifesting Himself to the antediluvians and patriarchs in various theophanic forms, to guide them in all the important affairs of their lives. The four narratives of the Exodus tell us that God assumed the form of an angel and then of a pillar of cloud and fire, and remained with His people in a per manent form of theophany from the Exodus from Egypt until the entrance in the Holy Land. God's theophanic presence remained with His people until the exile. The ark was His throne, the tabernacle His abode, the tem ple His palace. The sacred writers of the Old Testa ment knew that God was reigning in Jerusalem as the real King of Israel and the nations, by personal theo phanic presence.
The theophanic presence was withdrawn from the na tion during the exile and only granted to a few proph ets ; but on the return to Canaan, God again appeared in wondrous theophanies. These are not recorded in the cold, dry narrative of the chronicler, but they appear in the psalms and prophets of the period. The theo phanic presence of God was not granted to the second temple. God withdrew Himself from His people for several centuries in order to prepare mankind for the grandest of all theophanies — the Incarnation of the Son of God. The Incarnation was God manifest in the flesh, an abiding presence of God, no longer in the Holy of Holies, but in familiar intercourse with men until His death on the cross and ascension to the heavenly throne. Then a few days of divine absence, and the theophany of the divine Spirit came at Pentecost.
Pneumatophany and Christophany now abound in the
BIBLICAL HISTORY.
period of planting the Church in the world. The last is the wonderful one in Patmos. And here Biblical His tory comes to an end, with a prophetic picture of the final scenes of all history. From this survey, it is clear that the most distinguishing feature of Biblical History is the theophanic presence of God. The narratives of the Biblical writers treat of the times of that presence. When the theophany is absent, the Biblical narrative is absent also. When the theophany is absent, the Bibli cal historian sees nothing to narrate ; his Lord is not there. History is to him a blank. When the theoph any is withdrawn and the enthroned Saviour governs His kingdom without theophanic manifestations, Bibli cal History passes over into Church History. From this point of view, Biblical History is the History of the theophanic presence of God in His kingdom of grace.
This central feature of Biblical History determines all others.
(4). The Ephraimitic historian begins his narrative with the story of theophanic manifestations to the patriarchs, taking a special interest in Israel, the father of the na tion. This writer is graphic, plastic, and realistic. God appears in dreams : He comes in forms of man and angel. He lets Himself be seen and touched. He even conde scends to wrestle with Jacob. He appears to Moses in the burning bush as the angel of the presence. He assumes human form and lets Moses see Him and com mune with Him in His tent. He manifests Himself to the elders of Israel, enthroned on a glorious throne, and lets them eat the covenant sacrifice in His presence. God is to this narrator ever present to guide the nation as their King.
" Thy right hand, Jahveh, is glorious in power, Thy right hand, Jahveh, dasheth in pieces the enemy.
1(56 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Thou sendest forth thy wrath, it consumeth them as stubble, And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were piled up, The floods stood upright as an heap, The deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea. Thou, in thy mercy, hast led the people which thou dost re deem,
Thou hast guided them in thy strength to thy holy habitation. Jahveh reigns forever and ever." (Ex. xv. 6-19).
The same spirit guides the Ephraimitic narrator who tells the story of the later history. He is very zealous for his own God, and scorns the gods of the nations. Elijah condenses this feeling in his bitter irony to the prophets of Baal :
" Cry aloud : for he is a god ; either he is musing or he is gone aside, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked." (i Kings xviii. 27).
The calm, serene confidence of the prophet is justified by the theophanic interposition and the cry of the peo- pie: " Jahveh, He is God ! Jahveh, He is God ! " (i Kings xviii. 39).
The gospel of Mark writes in a similar spirit in the New Testament. Mark has no interest in introductory matters or even results. He is absorbed in the Christ of history, in His life and deeds. His plastic style gives us Jesus as He manifested Himself. He tells his story in such a realistic and powerful manner that we bow be fore the Christ as the King of nature and of men, with out waiting for solicitation or argument.
Other histories give us evidences of the presence and power of God. Mythological conceptions lie at the ba sis of the histories of other ancient nations. There the gods descend to earth and clothe themselves in forms of nature and man ; but they thereby assume the parts and passions of man and share in all his weaknesses, sins, and
BIBLICAL HISTORY.
corruptions ; or they become merely forces and forms of physical nature. But the theophanies of these Biblical historians never confound God with man, with angels, or with nature; and the form assumed is merely for manifestation to holy men ; and it is a thin veil through which as much of the glory of deity shines as the holy man or prophet was able to bear. And whereas these mythological conceptions are only at the mythical roots of other ancient Histories ; the theophanies pervade and control Biblical History from the beginning to the end. There is no other history in which God is manifest in such a simple, natural, and yet kingly way, where men see Him, know Him, and obey Him as their own Prince and King.
(5). The Judaic historian begins his story with an epic poem, disclosing, on the one side, the origin and devel opment of human sin and the divine wrath, and on the other the grace of God in the progress of redemption. The great theme of his history is redemption from sin. He and other Biblical historians of the same type, give us the development of the Kingdom of Redemption. The great Hebrew epic that constitutes the preface of this history is the most wonderful of stories.* The history of mankind begins with Adam, sculptured by the hands of God and quickened by the breath of God. He is placed in a paradise planted by the hands of God, and has charge of animals formed, like himself, by the hands of God. He receives his wife from the hands of God, built out of a portion of his own body. He is trained in conception and speech by the voice of God. All things in him and about him exhibit the marks of God's personal presence and contact ; and yet Adam sinned
* See Appendix XIV.
1(58 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
against his creator and benefactor, and brought an entail of woe upon our race. The epic describes, in a series of pictures, the successive catastrophes of mankind, the Fall, the Fratricide, the Deluge, and the Dispersion, events that lie at the foundations of human history. Faint reflections of these events are found in the legends and myths of other ancient nations, but nowhere do we see such a beautiful, simple, touching, and profound story. It is an artist's masterpiece, whether we regard it as prose or poetry, whether it be legend or narrative. I think that it is poetry in form as well as substance — an epic poem of the highest order. Here the imagina tion and fancy are supreme, and yet there is nothing of those grotesque mythological forms, and those extrava gant legendary scenes that constitute the staple of all efforts to depict the origin of things among other an cient nations. The poem is so simple, so chaste, so real istic, so artless, that it has been mistaken by most stu dents for prose. Such poetry must have been inspired by a divine art ; such imagination and fancy must have been inflamed and at the same time tempered and sub dued by a divine breath.
The poem describes the origin and development of sin in the family of Adam, in the descendants of Cain, in the human race, in the family of Noah, in the build ers of Babel. The wrath of God comes upon sin in several catastrophes of judgment. But redemption is never absent. The promise to the woman's seed opens up the path of Messianic prophecy, which the prophet traces in its stages of divine revelation, so that human sin is overwhelmed and destroyed in the progress of redemption. Sin and Redemption are the master words of his entire history. We see them unfolding in the patriarchal story, in the exodus, and the wanderings,
BIBLICAL HISTORY. 169
and the conquest. Jahveh, the personal God and Sav iour, is ever with His people to guide and to bless. This prophet is the brightest and best narrator in the Bible. His stories never tire us, for they ever touch the secret springs of our heart's emotions.
A writer of a similar spirit tells the story of David, of his sins and sorrows and restoration, and traces the his tory of the kingdom of redemption in his seed until the Exile.
Matthew is an evangelist of a similar spirit — the favor ite among the gospels. He is the evangelist of the Mes sianic promise, of the kingdom of redemption, and of the conflict of sin and grace.
The history of sin and of redemption in these Biblical historians is unique. Sin, indeed, is everywhere in the world. Other histories cover it over. These histories expose it. And yet Israel was not the greatest sinner among the nations. If his sins are more patent, are more in the light of history, it is because he has ever been a penitent sinner. Deceitful Abraham, crafty Jacob, choleric Moses, wilful Saul, passionate David, voluptuous Solomon, hasty Peter, doubting Thomas, heresy-hunting Paul — these are not the chief of sinners. Their counterparts are to be found in all ages and all over the world. We see them every day in our streets. They are not distinguished above other men as sinners ; but they are distinguished as repenting sinners, the dis coverers of the divine forgiveness of sin, the banner- bearers of redemption, the trophies of divine grace. No other history but Biblical History gives us such a history of redemption, an unfolding of the grace of God, from the first promise of the ancient epic, through all the intricate variety of Messianic prophecy and fulfilment, until we see the Redeemer ascend to heaven, the son of woman,
170 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
the second Adam, the serpent-bruiser, victor over sin and death, to reign on a throne of grace as the world's Redeemer.
(6). The fifth book of the Hexateuch is called Deuteron omy, on the ancient theory that it was a repetition of the law. Its legislation is represented in the narratives of the book of Kings, rather, as the Instruction or the Covenant. This legislation is embedded in narratives that assume the oratorical form. They have a character of their own ; they are of a distinct type from the nar ratives thus far considered. The same writer is chiefly responsible for the history of the Conquest. A writer of the same type has touched up the history of the Kings. This writer has the conception of the Father hood of God, and from this point of view he estimates the history of God's people. The whole history is a discipline, a training of the child Israel by his father God. The love of the Father and His tender compas sion are grandly conceived, and the sin of the nation is a violation of the parental relation. The ideal life of God's people is a life of love to the heavenly Father. Man shall not "live by bread alone, but by the word that issues from the mouth of God. The divine instruction, the holy guidance is what the child needs for life, growth, and prosperity. All blessedness is summed up in loving God and serving Him with the whole heart. All curses will come upon those who forsake Him and refuse His instruction and guidance. God is Judge as well as Father, and this discipline is to end in an ultimate judgment that will award the blessings and curses that have been earned. The Deuteronomist judges the whole history of Israel from this point of view, and regards it as determined by the disciplining love of God.
The Gospel of John is of the same type, in the New
BIBLICAL HISTORY.
Testament. It is the gospel of light, and life, and love. The love of God, displayed throughout Biblical History, reaches its climax in that love which gave the only be gotten Son for the salvation of the world. The life that was in the words of the Old Covenant was intensified in the words of Jesus, which are spirit and life ; it entered the world and dwelt among us as the Incarnate Word, the light of the world, and the true life for mankind. The Biblical History is thus a history of the fatherly love of God. We shall not deny that other histories display the love of God, and that all mankind share in the heavenly discipline. But it was left for the Biblical histories to discern that love, and to describe it as the quickening breath of History.
(7). The priestly historian takes the most comprehensive view of Biblical History. He begins with an ancient poem describing the creation of the world. This stately lyric, in six pentameter strophes, paints the wondrous drama of the six days' work in which the Sovereign of the universe, by word of command, summons His host into being, and out of primitive chaos organizes a beau tiful and orderly whole. The sovereignty of God and the supremacy of law and order are the most striking features of this story of creation.*
I doubt if there is any other passage of the Bible that has attracted such universal attention and been the cen tre of such world-wide contest from the earliest times. Here Biblical History comes into contact with Physical Science in all its sections, with Philosophy, with the his tory of ancient nations, as well as with theology. I shall not attempt to discuss the numberless questions that spring into our minds in connection with the first chap ter of Genesis. I will only remark that if one takes it
* See Appendix XV.
172 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
as a lyric poem, and interprets it in the same way as we are accustomed to interpret the psalms of creation and the poetic descriptions of the creation in Hebrew Prophecy and Hebrew Wisdom, the most of the difficulties will pass away ; and the greater part of the contest with Sci ence, Philosophy, and Archaeology will cease.
It is plain to me that the poem does not teach crea tion out of nothing, but its scope is to describe the bringing of beauty and order and organism out of primi tive chaos. It is clear to me that the poem makes the word and spirit of God the agents of creation, and these are just as suitable to the conception of develop ment in six stages as to the conception of an indefinite number of distinct originations out of nothing.
I am not troubled with the order of creation, for the poet is giving us six scenes in the Act of Creation, six pictures of the general order of the development of nature. I think it is not necessary to suppose that there was a wide gap between these pictures, and that there is no overlapping. When God said, " Let light come into being," He did not continue saying these words for twenty-four hours, or a century or more. Divine speech is instantaneous. The effect of His saying may go on forever, but His word is a flash of light. I think that God did no more speaking on the second day than on the first, no more on the sixth than on the third. The poet certainly does not tell us that God spake a creative word for every object of creation, or even for every species or genus. He, who in His divine conception is above the limits of time and space and circumstance, who grasps in one conception the whole frame of uni versal nature, with one word, or one breath, or a thought, might have called the universe into being. The poem of the Creation conceives God as speaking six creative
BIBLICAL HISTORY. 173
words, in order thus to paint the six pictures of creation in an orderly manner. The poet does not propose to comprehend in his representation all the forces and forms and methods of the work of God.
Take it as it is, it is a lyric poem of wonderful power and beauty. Science has not yet reached a point when it can tell the story of creation so well. The story of creation is set forth in the legends and myths of many nations. The Babylonian poem gives us the best ethnic representation. But all these ethnic conceptions are discolored by mythological fancies and grotesque spec ulations. Compared with the best of them, the Biblical Poem is pure and simple and grand. A divine touch is in its sketchings. A divine spirit hovered over the mind of the poet to bring order and beauty out of his crude and tossing speculations, no less than He did over the primitive chaos of the world itself.
The priestly historian gives another ancient Poem of the Deluge, which also is marked by the same general characteristics of the sovereignty of God and the suprem acy of law, that we have seen in the poem of the Crea tion. He connects these and his other histories by a well-arranged table of genealogies, giving us the line of mankind from Adam through the centuries of the holy race. He conceives of God as a holy God, and of man as created in the image of the holy God, with sovereignty over the earth. It is sin against the divine majesty that involves the catastrophe of the deluge. This his torian traces the history of Israel in a series of divine covenants with Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. These involve the government of God and the service of a holy people. The constitution of a holy law and holy institutions is his highest delight. God's people must be a holy people, as God their Lord is holy, and
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
all their approaches to Him must be in well-ordered forms of sanctity. The entire history of the Exodus and the conquest is conceived from this point of view.
The chronicler is an author of kindred spirit. He describes the history of the kingdom until the exile, and judges of it from the point of view of the holy law of God. He also gives us an account of the Restoration and establishment of the holy people in the holy land, under the priestly rule and the holy law. And here he brings his history to an end.
A writer of similar spirit in the New Testament is Luke. He also begins his genealogy with Adam. He also gives a later unfolding of the history in the story of the planting of Christianity among Jews and Gen tiles. He also has a profound sense of the sovereignty of God, the work of the divine Spirit, and the ideal of holiness.
When now we compare these Biblical historians with other ancient historians, we observe that the Egyptians come nearest to the Hebrews in their conception of sanctity, but the Hebrews transcend them in making holiness the norm of History. The ideal of the image of the Holy God in man, is the ideal that these Biblical writers held in mind, as the goal of history. Whence could they have derived this ideal if not from the mind of God?
I shall not attempt to enter into any details in expo sition of the History contained in the Bible. It is suffi cient to say that the History is determined in its divis ions by its great principles. The History is divided into two parts, not only by the blank of several hundred years that separates the Old Testament History from the New Testament ; but still more, by the fact that the history of the Old Testament is guided by Theophanies, the his-
BIBLICAL HISTORY.
tory of the New Testament by Christophanies, and it is just the unfolding of these Theophanies and Christoph anies that marks the subordinate periods.
You have doubtless noted that I have had nothing to say about inspiration, and that I have taken little ac count of some things that are usually magnified by those who are over-anxious about the evidences of our religion, and seem to consider a system of Apologetics the chief end of the Bible and Theology. I have called your at tention to other things that seem to me of much greater importance. I have shown you the great principles of Biblical History as they appear in the Biblical his torians. We have seen that the Presence of God in na ture and man is the greatest feature of Biblical History, and that this presence is sometimes conceived as a royal personal presence, as friend and guide, sometimes as the Saviour guiding the history of redemption, sometimes as the Father disciplining His people in love, and some times as a holy God governing His people with a holy law in view of an ideal of holiness. These principles are the dominant principles of Biblical History. These attributes of Biblical History distinguish it from all other History. The Biblical writers have a divine way of historical composition. They bring God near to us, encompass us with heavenly influence, and make us sensible of the touch of God. If this is not Inspiration it is fully as good as Inspiration. It is better than many conceptions of Inspiration. It assures us that the books are books of God, the words of life and redemption. If such features and attributes do not convince men of the divine authority of the Scriptures, I doubt whether you can convince them in any other way.*
* See IV., p. 91.
176 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Biblical History lies in the midst of Ancient History as its centre of light and life. Biblical History lies at the basis of Church History as its root and spring. Once a grain of mustard-seed in Palestine, the people of God have produced a wondrous plant in Christendom. Planted as a cedar twig on the mountains of Israel, they have become a giant of Lebanon, overshadowing the earth (Matth. xiii. 31, 32; Ezck. xvii. 22-24). A long period of eighteen centuries lies between us and the His tory recorded in the Bible, and yet that History still re mains a well-spring of life to mankind. A period of sev eral centuries separated the Old Testament theophanies from the Incarnation of the Son of God. They were cen turies of preparation for the first Advent. So these eight een centuries of Christianity are centuries of preparation for the second advent of Jesus Christ ; an advent that will transcend all theophanies, and be the culmination of all Christophanies. For this, Millenniums of preparation may well be necessary. But then we may anticipate that Biblical History will once more be told by holy men of God, who will be stirred to narrate those trans cendent events in which the kingdom of grace will reach its fruition. Themes worthy of holy penmen will again appear, when Prophecy shall be transformed into His tory in the Advent of our Lord. Sacred historians will tell the story for eternity, of that last combat with evil, the resurrection of the dead, the day of 'doom, the New Jerusalem, the New Heaven and the New Earth, and the Messiah's presentation of the kingdom of the redeemed in all its sanctity and glory, as His own best gift of love to the Father.
VII.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
PROPHECY is religious instruction. It meets us in all the religions of the world. The belief in supernatural forces, whether good or evil, whether many or few, ex cites the desire to know what their dispositions are with reference to mankind, what their intentions may be with regard to communities and persons, and what may be learned from them for guidance in human life and con duct. Among primitive peoples all nature is mysteri ous, and it is conceived that the divine powers are in some way manifesting themselves in the rocks and streams, in the lofty trees and fountains, in the flight of birds and the movements of animals. Those are the primitive prophets who are the interpreters of nature and who are able to gain from nature lessons for the guid ance of their fellow-men. Such primitive forms of prophecy meet us in the Bible in the hydromantic of Joseph, who divined by observing the movements of liquids in his cup,* in divination by the king of Bab ylon shooting arrows and noting their flight,f in the as trologers of Babylon who watched the movements of the stars4 Among other nations some observe the rustling of leaves in the sacred trees, the movements of sacred animals, and the lines in the palms of the hands. The Greeks and Romans sought divine guidance in the en-
* Gen. xliv. 5. f Ezek. xxi. 21-23. j is. xlvii. 13.
(177)
178 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
trails of sacred animals. These are crude ways of seek ing the divine will, and yet I am not prepared to say that the God of all grace withheld religious guidance from earnest seekers, even in these strange ways. He who suffered His people to use the sacred lot and to de termine His will by the casting of a sacred stone, may have suffered those who were feeling after God, if haply they might find Him, to determine His purpose in the flight of birds, the rustling of leaves, the movement of liquids, and other such changes in nature.
Among the oldest forms of prophecy is necromancy- consulting the departed for counsel for the living. Such necromancy we see in the Bible in the case of the so- called witch of Endor and Samuel the prophet. In this case God graciously granted the necromancer success, and Samuel came forth from the abode of the dead to give prediction and warning to the wicked and trembling Saul. God had forbidden such necromancy under pen alty of death, and yet He granted it success in this case. If in this case, who shall say He may not have granted it success in other cases, among the heathen who relied upon this method for divine guidance? The prophet Isaiah, however, warns God's people against such necro mancy :
" When they say unto you, Seek unto the necromancers and unto the wizards ;
Ye chirpers and mutterers, should not a people seek unto their God?
On behalf of the living will they seek unto the dead for instruc tion and for testimony." *
He who has the higher revelation degrades himself by using lower means.
* Is. viii. 19.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL. ] 79
The form of prophecy that is regarded as legitimate in the earliest writings of the Old Testament is the dream and its interpretations. The dream has some thing mysterious about it, from whatever cause it may originate. It was easy for the ancients to suppose that a supernatural power had produced those scenes which pass before the mind in the dream. The dream was used by God in the Old Testament and in the New Tes tament to guide His servants. Jacob and Joseph in the patriarchal narrative, Daniel during the exile,* and Jo seph and the wise men in the narrative of the infancy of our Lord, were all guided by dreams and the interpreta tion of dreams. These dreams were not only given to the heroes of faith, but also to Laban and to Abimelek, to Pharaoh and to Nebuchadnezzar, and to the wise men of the East. Who shall say that God has not used the dream to guide other heathen princes and sages in other parts of the earth for the weal of mankind ?
A higher stage of divine revelation is in the ecstatic state. The ecstatic state is an abnormal condition of the human body, in which it has lost consciousness in whole or in part to the conditions and circumstances of the external world, the inner spiritual nature is intensi fied in activity and heightened in emotion, so that the imagination becomes more active and its constructions more vivid and real. It is supposed that in the ecstatic state man is under the influence of the supernatural. Among ruder nations epileptics and deranged persons are regarded as possessed by evil spirits or a divine spirit. Among the ethnic religions it is the custom for prophets of this class to cast themselves into the ecstatic state. The Grecian prophetesses were filled with the prophetic
* In the Ephraimitic document of the Hexateuch and Daniel.
180 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
ecstasy by the foul gases arising from clefts in the rocks. The dervishes of the Mohametans cast themselves into the ecstatic state by whirling in the sacred dance or by long-continued howling. Indian fakirs cut themselves with knives. The Shamans of Eastern Asia use stim ulants and music. So the prophets of Baal " called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, O Baal, answer us. And they leaped about the altar which was made ; And they cried with a loud voice and cut themselves after their manner with swords and lances until the blood gushed out."J
Balaam is described with closed eyes prostrate on the ground, seeing the vision and hearing the words he was to utter to Balak. So in early times in Israel the prophet was called a seer,f because the ecstatic state and its vision were the characteristic features of his prophecy.
Such prophets are described as prophesying with psal tery and timbrel, with pipe and harp and sacred songs. Under the influence of the prophetic mania Saul stripped himself of his clothes, and fell down upon the ground in a state of unconsciousness all day and all night.J
This is the lower form of prophecy which is recognized as legitimate in the Old Testament, and also in the New Testament, for Paul tells us of such ecstatic visions,§ and John describes them to us in his Apocalypse.
But this is not the highest form of prophecy. Moses is contrasted with prophets of the lower grade.
" If one is to be your prophet.
I, Jahveh, in the vision make myself known to him. In a dream I speak unto him. Not so my servant Moses
* i Kings xviii. 26 seq. t
\ i Samuel x. 5 seq.\ xix. 23 seq, § 2 Cor. xii. 2 seq.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
With all my house he is entrusted, Mouth to mouth I speak with him, In an appearance without riddle ; And the form of Jahveh he beholds." *
It is personal contact with God in theophany and with Christ in Christophany that marks the highest order of prophecy in the Scriptures. It is the divine Spirit who came upon men, entered into them and guided them in their self-conscious condition, enabling them to use all the endowments of their nature in the conception and then in the expression of the truth of God. Such per sonal contact with God is described in the Old Testa ment in the history of Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, and in the New Testament in the history of the twelve apostles and of Paul. Such guid ance by the Holy Spirit pervades the Biblical books in varied forms. The prophet of God is assured by the personal presence of God in Theophany or by the con scious presence of the divine Spirit within him, that he is commissioned to declare the truth of God which he sees and conceives.
The greater portion of the prophecy of the Bible is religious instruction in general. Each prophet in turn is the instructor of his own people and of his own genera tion. So far as he gives them the truth of God that is appropriate to all times and peoples, so far is he our re ligious teacher likewise. But the prophet also has an office with reference to the future. He bears a commis sion from God who sees the end from the beginning, and who gives instruction in every period with a view to train those who receive it for the ultimate end to which He is leading all the generations of mankind. Lessing's
Num. xii. 6-8.
132 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
thought that human history is the divine education of our race, is also the doctrine of the prophets ; only they set a time, the day of Jahveh, when that education will be completed. They look forward to a Messiah who will establish a kingdom of glory, in which all human history will reach its fruition. Messianic Prophecy is therefore the crown of all its religious instruction.
The older writers took too narrow a view of Old Tes tament Prophecy, and a still narrower view of Messianic Prophecy. They were looking for the fulfilment of mi nute details.* They did not comprehend its broad and massive sweep. They did not see it swelling in the heavier tide of New Testament Prophecy. They studied it too much to find minute fulfilment in the historic Christ of the Gospels, and they neglected our Saviour's prediction of His kingdom and second Advent.
I propose to set before you an outline of the Messianic Idea of Holy Scripture.
(i). The ideal of mankind at the creation.
The Messianic Idea grasps humanity. Man was created as the lord of nature to reign over nature. This is in some respects the most comprehensive Messianic ideal. It in volved the possession of the divine image, the retention of the divine image in its integrity, and growth in the likeness and communion of God. The Messianic ideal of mankind involves the perfection of man and nature. This ideal was forfeited by sin. It is to be regained by grace. This involves the conflict with nature and the subjugation of nature. The prophets predict the accom plishment of this ideal. The Psalmists see the ideal man exalted to dominion over all creatures,f superior to perils,
See Appendix XVI. t Ps. viii.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
183
sustained by angels and lord of animals,* victor over death, and enjoying communion with God after death.f Isaiah describes the universal peace when the little boy is shepherd of lions, and the babe sports with the ser pent.;): Hosea sees all nature in grand oratorio, where responsive choruses of earth and heaven, of corn and wine and oil, welcome restored Israel at the marriage festival with Jahveh.§ Ezekiel predicts a paradise with a river of life and trees of life.|| The great prophet of the exile sees the world transformed into a garden and a park. New heavens and earth take the place of the old.T The uninspired Apocalypses are full of glowing descrip tions of this new world, where there are rivers of wine and milk, honey drops from the skies, the air is filled with delicious odors, and mankind live without sin, sorrow, or death.
In the New Testament our Lord comes as the Son of man, the second Adam, the sinless and perfect, the model of all perfection, the only one of our race ever recognized by a divine voice from heaven as well-pleasing to God, the only conqueror of death ; who rose triumphant to heaven ; the enthroned sovereign of nature and man. New Testament Prophecy looks forward to His rule and His second Advent to accomplish the ideal of our race. He reigns to restore mankind to his ideal perfection ; to make him pure and holy; to transform him into His own holy image and likeness; to make His bride spotless and perfect ; to give the race, as such, victory over death, and to raise men from the dead to dwell in a renovated world. Peter predicts the time of the restoration of all things, the regeneration of the world, the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.**
*Ps.xci. tPs.xvi. {si. §ii>l8>
|| xxxvi. 35. 1 li. 3 ; Iv. 12-13 5 Ixv. 1?- ** Acts in. 21 ; 2 Peter iii. 13.
184 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Paul tells us that the whole creation groaneth and tra- vaileth in pain together until now, in the blessed hope that it will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.*
The history of the world is moving on toward the realization of this great ideal. In the present century man has for the first time grasped the problem of the subjugation of nature. Now we know the entire extent of our globe. Now we know what humanity is. Now we know something of the position of our world in the universe of God. This century has given man wonder ful triumphs over nature on the surface of the earth. Light, heat, sound, and electricity have all been taken captives. The forces and motions of nature are to a great degree subject to man. There are strong proba bilities that man's triumphs will increase in wonders. The world and the race are no more to the men of our times than the land of Palestine was to the ancient Jews. The ethical and religious development of mankind has not been so rapid in recent times as in the sphere of Natural Science. But it has ever been the case in the history of the world that the external conditions and circumstances must precede the internal movements of the human spirit. We may expect that ere long a won derful advance will take place in morals and in religion and that Christian sanctification may be the dominant doctrine, and the holy image of Christ, the world-wide ideal of our race. For this has been the will of God from the beginning, even our sanctification. For " whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren." f
Rom. viii. 22 seg. t Rom. viii. 29.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
(2). The woman s seed.
The Messianic idea is ordinarily conceived as begin ning with the promise of victory to the woman's seed over the seed of the serpent. Here is a world-wide and a world-long conflict between good and evil. These forces are now conceived as scattered in a numerous seed — then, again, as united in single contending heads. Victory by suffering is here the prescribed lot of our race. Herein is a miniature of human history. With the development of mankind the forces of good and evil unfold into mighty congregations. It often seems that the good is outnumbered and almost over whelmed by the evil ; but the combat goes on through the centuries until the advent of our Lord. The history of redemption is the history of the elimination of a chosen seed from the masses in which it is enveloped. It is not the teaching of the Old Testament that there were no gracious influences for those passed by in the elections of grace. The true conception is rather this, that, as redemption unfolds to higher stages, it nar rows its circles of influence. Those in the earlier stages are left in possession of the measure of grace and good that seemed best for them. The victory by suffering, in its highest sense, was not a victory to be gained by masses in conflict, but by the hero of humanity alone by himself. Thus, in the election of grace, Shem is separated, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then the kingdom of Judah, at last a pious remnant that the great prophet of the exile sees culminating in a unique servant, a second Israel, who suffers for the sins of all, and achieves redemption for all. Such a suffering victor does not meet us in the uninspired prophecy of the Jews. The Jews in the time of our Lord were not pre-
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
pared for such a Messiah. And yet, this was just the kind of victory that Jesus was to win. Accordingly, as second Adam, He enters into conflict with Satan in the wilderness and overcomes him. He carries on a life-and- death struggle with him during His ministry, until He sees him falling like lightning from heaven. He is mor tally wounded by him in His death on the cross, but He rises from the dead and tramples the old serpent under foot as He ascended to heaven in the clouds. Having overcome the prince of evil, He enables His people, His Church, to overcome all the lesser forces of evil. The Church goes on conquering and to conquer, subduing the world, overcoming evil in its multitudinous forms, until the end is reached and the Church shall share in the triumph of the Lord.
Paul told the Romans that " the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." * John describes the last great combat of the world and as the result of it, " The devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet ; and they shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever." f
(3). The Advent of God.
Noah starts a fresh line of Messianic promise. He sees in his dying vision the races of his descendants in their struggles and victories throughout the history of the world, and finds the blessing in the advent of God to dwell in the tents of Shem. The curse of Canaan is the doom of the ancient world. History discloses the ancient populations of Babylon, of Egypt, of Canaan, of Phoenicia, and of Carthage, all going down under the
* xvi. 20. f Rev. xx. 10.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
187
victorious onset of Semitic and Japhetic hosts. The expansion of Japhet tells of the wonderful empires of Persia, Greece, and Rome— the migrations of Scythian and of German — looks the world of our day in the face and sees the Japhetic races belting the globe. But the unholy ambitions of Ham and the heroic endeavors of Japhet, the failure of the one and the successes of the other are the framework of the story of blessedness that is involved in the advent of God to the tents of Shem. Shem is the bearer of the true religion. Shem is the high-priest of mankind. God dwells with him and makes him the prophet of the race. The history of redemption is the unfolding of this promise. The presence and blessing of God are the source of every religious move ment. The covenants with Abraham and with Israel, with David and with Jesus, are blessings from the hands of God dwelling in the tents of Shem. The Theophanies to the Patriarchs granted at certain times and in certain places, pass over into a permanent Theophany in the glory of the Shekinah of the tabernacle and the temple. Canaan becomes the land of God, Jerusalem the city of God, the temple the palace of God. The old temple is abandoned by God because of the sins of the people. But a new and greater temple is to take its place, so holy and so magnificent that the temple will be all the holy of holies— the new Jerusalem will be the temple, yes, the whole city will be as sacred as the ancient ark and the cherubic throne;* and every cooking utensil and even the bells of the horses will be as sacred as the tiara of the high-priest.f The residence of God will be built of precious stones and nothing impure will enter it.J Micah sees the temple mount ascending until it
* Jer. iii. 17. f Zech. xiv. 20-21. J Is. liv, 12,
188 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
overtops the highest mountains and becomes the beacon for the pilgrimage of all nations;* the temple is to be come the house of prayer for all mankind. f This new temple and city were not built by Zerubbabel or Herod. The pseudepigraphical apocalypses recognize that they are reserved in heaven for the Messianic age.
When our Saviour came to Jerusalem He saw the temple erected by Herod, the court of Pharisees and a den of thieves. That was not His Father's temple, the residence of God, the house of prayer for all nations. He cleansed this poor structure of its traders and Phari sees for a brief moment in His Messianic wrath, and He told them that that temple was soon to be destroyed, and that He would raise up for them a new temple in three days. That temple was the body of our Lord. The Messiah was the temple of God, God incarnate. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth, in glory as of the only begotten of the Father. In this incarnation the Messianic prediction of Noah's blessing finds its realization. That temple rose from the ruins into which it was cast by the rulers of the nation, who rejected this corner-stone of the king dom of God and ascended to the height of heaven. Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. Jesus Christ is God dwelling with man. Jesus Christ is the temple and the holy of holies of the temple, the corner-stone and the cope-stone, because He is a living temple. Those who worship God in Him are united to Him as living stones and so become themselves parts of the temple and city. Thus Paul sees all Christians built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom
* Mic. jy, i, f Is. Ivi. 7.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.* And John sees the New Jerusalem descending from heaven, ready as a bride for her husband, whose foundations are apostles and whose walls are the pure and transparent diamonds of the sanctified, shining in the light of the Lamb and radiant with the splendor of the glory of the Lord. For the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Him self shall be with them, and be their God.f
(4). The blessing of Abraham.
The blessing of Abraham opens up three distinct lines of Messianic prophecy, the land of blessing, the seed of blessing, and the blessing to the nations. It presents the high calling of the people of God in the midst of the earth. There is a holy land, but it is in the temple of humanity; there is a holy seed, but it is in the prophet of humanity. There is a blessing going forth from the centre, but it is a blessing that is for the hu man race. This lesson has been very hard to learn. The universality of the true religion has ever been limited by human particularism. Jewish and Pharisaic particularism is no worse than Roman Catholic or Cal- vinistic particularism. If Jew and Christian have been chosen by God to be the recipients of special blessings, they have corresponding duties to those left on the lower stage. The Jew ought to have been a blessing to the Gentiles, the Christian ought to be a blessing to Jew and Gentile. The Protestant ought to be a blessing to the less privileged Christian world, and if a Presbyterian has been elected to special privileges in
* Eph. ii. 20-23. f Rev. xxi.
190 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
doctrine, and an Episcopalian has special privileges in apostolic succession, the Baptist has the true baptism, the Lutheran the true table of the Lord, the Unitarian the true ethical sense, and the Methodist the true religious experience — these highly favored ones owe correspond ing duties to the less favored of mankind.
The holy land of the promise was framed within the limits of the land of Canaan and set between the Euphra tes and the Nile, the desert and the sea. In its unfolding the land becomes the holy city, and the earthly Jerusa lem the heavenly Jerusalem ; for as the epistle to the Hebrews tells us, the essential contents of the promise were the city which hath the foundations whose builder and maker is God ; a better country than Canaan, a heavenly country.*
The holy seed of the promise rises in its development like a pyramid of grace. Ismael and Esau are elimi nated from the holy seed. Judah rises as the lionlike tribe that will gain the victory and take possession of the holy land by divine right. The holy remnant is eliminated from the wicked in Judah. The true Israel is at last found in a prophet, who is the gentle preacher and saviour, who is the covenant for the people and the light of the Gentiles. The seed of Abraham reaches its apex in Jesus Christ, the only one who fulfils its condi tions of sanctity and blessing. Those who claim carnal descent from Abraham have been eliminated in this progression of grace, not that the divine grace has passed them by, but that they have been passed by in this spe cial grace of being the medium of the Abrahamic bless ing. As John the Baptist warned the Jews: " Say not within yourselves, ' We have Abraham to our fatheY ' :
* Heb. xi. 10, 16.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." * And as Paul tells us , " Know, therefore, that they which be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham." f The Gentiles have been grafted on to the true olive-tree after that it had been reduced to a stump by cutting off its unprofitable branches.^ Jesus Christ is the one seed, the one true vine of Israel, and the true children of Abraham are all united to Him. The children of Abraham after the flesh are not altogether passed by. They retain all their ancient privileges. But they did not rise to the height of their privileges as a nation. They did not as a race fulfil their Messianic calling. This calling was fulfilled alone by the Messiah and those remnants of Israel and the Gentiles who attached themselves to Him. Accord ingly the Church of Christ is the Israel of God, the holy seed, the bearers of redemption to mankind. The bless ing for the world wrapt up in the Abrahamic covenant is in the hands of the Church. The great missionary enterprises of our century are carrying this blessing to the Gentiles and to the Jews and to the entire world. The world is now for the first time in history open for the blessing, waiting for it and stretching forth its hands to receive it. The most pressing question of our times is how shall we do this great work and accomplish this great mission to the world. The sublime vision of our Lord stirs us :
" Many shall come from the East and the West, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven " ; § and in the visions of the Apocalypse, we see upon the heavenly Zion a great
Matth. iii. 9. f Gal. iii. 7.
Rom. xi. 17-25. § Matth. viii. n.
192 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
multitude which no man could number, out of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, stand ing before the throne and before the Lamb.*
(5). The Kingdom of Priests.
The covenant at Horeb constituted Israel a king dom of priests, a holy nation in the midst of the world. God was their king, and they were a kingdom. They were called to march into battle with all hostile forces, and to gain the victory over every foe — for the king dom of God is the empire of the world. This king dom was also a priestly kingdom. Its chief aim was not the ruin of the nations, but the salvation of men. Israel had a priesthood for mankind as the mediators of re demption. This high calling was fulfilled in a measure in the Old Covenant, but the measure was small. The relation between Israel and the nations was chiefly a hostile relation. This ideal of ministry was held up by a few Psalmists and singers, but is not a frequent one or familiar one in prophecy. The prophets and Psalmists rather unfold the doctrine of the triumphs of the king dom of God and the reign of Jahveh Sabaoth, the king of glory. It was just this triumphant kingdom of God that filled the minds of the Jews in the centuries prior to the advent of our Lord. They were longing for the advent of God in Theophany to save His people, and make Israel the mistress of the world. They saw the great world powers, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, one after the other, rising up and pushing Israel to and fro. They longed for the time when the lion should come forth from the forest and devour the eagle, when the little stone from the mountain would
* Rev. vii. 9.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
crush the great image, when the Son of man in the clouds would cast the beasts into the fire. It was the kingdom of God that the Jews expected in the time of our Lord. It was one of the most difficult tasks our Lord had to do to give them a true conception of the kingdom of God. He taught them that the kingdom of grace must precede the kingdom of glory. He called their attention to the priestly kingdom of the Sinaitic covenant.
There are splendid elaborations of the priestly minis try of Israel in the Old Testament. Isaiah sees Egypt and Assyria united with Israel as the people of God, sharing equally the covenant names and privileges.* A Psalmist f sings of the adoption of the nations into the city of God, and their enrolment as citizens of Zion. The great prophet of the exile describes eunuchs and foreigners worshipping in the house of prayer for all nations, and the peoples of the world bringing their choicest treasures to Zion,J the light of the world. Zech- ariah describes the nations as encouraging one another to seek Jahveh, and catching hold of the skirts of the Jew to secure his guidance to the holy place.§ He pre dicts a feast of tabernacles celebrated by all nations. |
But it was hard for Israel to learn this lesson and do this work. It was hard for Israel, suffering in bondage, to look with complacency upon the redemption of their oppressors. The author of Jonah represents Jonah waiting outside the city for the grand sight of its de struction, in accordance with his prediction — but sad at heart and ready to die with mortification when he learned that God had graciously spared the repenting city.! Jonah represented only too well the way in
* Is. xix. 16-25. t Ps. Ixxxvii. J Is. Ivi. 7 ; Ix.
§ Zech. viii. 22-23. I Zech. xiv. 16-17. II Jon. iv.
194 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
which ancient Israel refused his high calling, looked for the destruction of the nations by the kingdom of God, and neglected to minister unto them the means of grace for their salvation. The Messiah, when He came, rebuked the Pharisees, as God had rebuked Jonah. He taught the men of His time that those who would reign in His kingdom must first serve — that their prior calling was a ministry of self-sacrifice, cross-bearing, and mediatorial service in the kingdom of grace ; and that only in this way could the kingdom of glory be prepared. The kingdom of glory was postponed till His second advent, but the kingdom of grace the Messiah set up among them. Into this kingdom entered, not the rich and the great and the strong, not the Pharisees and Sadducees, not the ecclesiastics and dogmaticians of the time, but the poor, the suffering, the children, the publicans and the sinners who were ready to repent and have faith in the Saviour of sinners.
Accordingly, the apostle Peter sees the Sinaitic call ing in the ministry of the Christian Church. He tells his readers, " Ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvellous light." * And John sings the Christian choral : " Unto Him that loved us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood : and He made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto His God and Father: to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever " f
(6). The Prophet greater than Moses. Moses predicts a prophet greater than himself who will complete the divine revelation. Prophets are raised
* i Peter ii. 9 seq. t Rev. i. 6.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
up from time to time in the history of Israel bearing on ward the standard of divine revelation. But none arose to be compared with Moses. The prophets were not welcomed by the people. They were a succession of sufferers and martyrs of whom the world was not worthy. The suffering prophet finds his depth of humiliation in the person of Jeremiah. The experience of Jeremiah is the basis of the suffering servant of the Psalms and Prophecies of the Exile. The time of the Restoration passes and no such prophet appears. Centuries roll on and prophets seem to have abandoned the people of God. At last in the wilderness of Judea a prophet arises in the spirit and power of Elijah, and he points to the greater prophet who was at hand. At last the prophet like Moses appeared in Jesus of Nazareth, and He realized in His experience in life and in death the anticipations of the prophet of the exile. He accom plished the martyrdom of that prophet, and He com pleted the Mosaic revelation. He was the prophet in the wondrous words of religious instruction preserved in the Gospels. He was a prophet in the predictions that He gave respecting His own life, death, and resurrection, and respecting the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. He was a prophet also in a newer and higher sense, in that He not only bore with Him the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, but He bestowed that Spirit upon His apostles, and made His Church prophetic.
(7). The Messianic king.
The prophet Nathan begins the prediction of the Messi anic king who will erect the house of Jahveh, be the Son of God upon an everlasting throne, bear the stripes of punishment, and be the bearer of the divine grace. This Messianic king now becomes the favorite theme of psalm-
196
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
ist and prophet. Now He is the chosen and beloved Son of God, sitting in peace and righteousness upon His throne of glory.* Then He is a conquering king, riding into the battle at the head of a priestly army springing forth like dew-drops from the womb of the morning.f Then, again, He is a bridegroom, the fairest, the bravest, the noblest, a-nd the most Godlike-J He is a king reigning by divine right. He is a king who knows no defeat. He is a king who gives peace, righteousness, and joy to the world. These grand ideals that were built out of the experience of the reigns of David and Solomon were soon seen to rise high above historical reality. The monarchs of the Davidic dynasty did not rise to it, but receded from it. Hezekiah and Josiah revived the hope of the faithful and encouraged the prophets and psalmists of their time to fill up the outlines of the Messianic kings. But the exile blasted every hope. There wrere certain definite predictions that must be realized in any one who would claim to be the Messiah. He must be a son of David ; he must be born in Bethlehem ; he must come forth from obscurity ; he must be endowed with all the gifts and graces. He must be a great warrior. He must con quer all nations and achieve universal peace. The Psalter of Solomon and other kindred writings of the Jews in the time of our Lord kept this Messianic king before the ' minds of the people.
Jesus was recognized by His disciples and the common people as the Messiah, the son of David. He was born of the line of David ; He was born in the city of David ; He came forth from the obscurity of Nazareth ; He was endowed with every gift and grace ; He had authority over man and nature. He soake and the demons obeyed
* Ps. ii. t Ps. ex. t Ps. xlv.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
Him ; He spake and the winds became calm ; He spake and every disease fled from its victim ; He spake and the dead came forth from their tombs ; His word gave men the assurance that their sins were forgiven, and that they were called of God to His service. And yet Jesus declined to organize armies; He declined to be made king. He testified before the sanhedrim under oath put to Him by the high-priest, that He was the Messiah. He testified before Pilate that He was the Messiah, but told him that His kingdom was not of this world. His throne was not to be set up in Jerusalem. His empire was not to be accomplished by the shock of armies. Legions of angels would soon put to flight the legions of Rome should He give the command. The throne of the Mes siah was the throne of the world ; what earthly capitol was suited to such an empire? The kingdom of the Messiah embraced the living and the dead; only a heavenly throne could be the seat of such a dominion. When Jesus lived in this world He was the king's son, entitled to reign, but not reigning. He had a battle to fight that the Jews knew not of. He battled with Satan and the princes of darkness, and overthrew them. He battled with temptation and sin and evil and stripped them of their power. He battled with death and tram pled it under foot. When He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven He sat down on His throne of dominion. He is reigning over a kingdom of grace; He is preparing by conquests of redemption for the kingdom of glory. For He must reign until all things are put under His feet ; until He has sanctified and delivered from death every one of His people. Then when the sanctified rise, some of them from their graves and others ascend from earth into the air to be glorified together, then will the kingdom of glory be established and the
198 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
Messiah will deliver over His perfect work in joy and triumph to God even the Father.*
(8). The day of Jahveh.
The prophets introduce the Messianic idea of the day of Jahveh. This is a day of grace in the outpour ing of the divine Spirit with manifold gifts of prophecy on all flesh. It is also a day of judgment for the last great decision of the world. This day of Jahveh is ever represented as near. It is a day of divine advent, when sun, moon, and stars will put on mourning; when the heavens will be rolled together as a scroll, and stars will fall like ripe figs from a tree.f The earth will quake, the mountains totter from their foundations, the valleys will spring into the air, the deep recesses of the earth will be exposed, the seas will be dried up, and the rivers be changed into blood ; all nations will tremble in terror, the universe will blaze with the fires of divine wrath, will flame with the glories of the divine presence. When God appears on the great white throne earth and heaven flee away and find no place, and all nature and all men are naked and open to the eyes that search them through and through.
This day is a day of wrath and a day of redemption. As a day of wrath it closes the age of the world, it is at the very end, the last of the times of human history, the closing act of the tragedy, whose first act began in Para dise. The judgment is described by a heaping up of fig ures of speech that are not always congruous, and which when taken together and regarded as realistic are gro tesque and extravagantly impossible, but which all the more set forth that dies irac that transcends human con-
i Cor. xv. 24. t Joel iv. 18-21 ; Is. xiii. 10 ; xxiv. i, 19; xxxiv. 4.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.
ception and imagination. Fire is one of the means of divine judgment. Sometimes fire and brimstone are rained upon the wicked.* Then there is a furnace of fire.f Daniel tells us of a river of fire.J The Apocalypse of a lake of fire.§ But the fire is not so common in the judg ment scenes of the Bible as other representations ; and Christian theologians and preachers have laid too much stress upon the fires of judgment. More frequently the judgment is a battle where the Messiah leads the army of the redeemed into the last great struggle with Satan and the forces of evil. Joel describes the judgment as a conflict with multitudes of warriors in the valley of de- cision.|| Isaiah describes the battle in which the car casses of the slain defile the very heavens with their blood and pestilential odors-t Ezekiel tells of the battle with Gog and Magog when the holy land is covered with the slain.* Zechariah sees Jahveh standing on the Mount of Olives fighting against the nations and smiting them with a leprosy which consumes them on their feet. ft The Apocalypse gives us a battle scene in which the Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords, with his priestly army clad in white and on white horses, overthrows the enemies, and the vultures are summoned from all parts to devour the carcasses of the slain.JJ
Another common feature of the judgment is the har vest—sometimes a wheat harvest where the sickle does the work and cuts down the ripe grain, gathering the wheat into the barn and casting the tares and the chaff into the fire.§§ At other times it is the harvest of grapes, and the wine-press of the wrath of God is trodden and
* Ez. xxxvi.i. 22. f Matth. xiii. 42. j Dan. vii. 9-12
§ Rev. xx. 10. | Joel iv. xS-aa. «fl Is. xxxiv. 3.
- Lz. xxxviii.-ix. ft Zech. xii. i^ ; xiv. 1-21. « Rev. xix. 14 seq. §§ Matth. xiii. 30.
200
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.
the blood of the grapes pressed out * Thus Isaiah describes the Lord in glorious apparel stained red from the blood of His enemies whose vital juice has sprinkled His garments, strutting in the pride of victory. The Apocalypse describes the wine-press trodden without the city and blood issuing from it in a great flood, f
These representations of the wrath of God of a more violent kind must be set alongside of that judicial exam ination of the books of record and the judgment in ac cordance with those records— all alike symbols of that dies irac in which in some way or other those who have rejected the divine grace and committed the unpardona ble sin of casting away redemption, are doomed to perdi tion.
But the day of Jahveh is also and chiefly a day of grace and redemption. And from this point of view it embraces the whole Messianic age. It began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; it continues through the centuries of Christian history until the Church has become sanctified ; it is completed in that day of the Messiah, when for the first time the redemption of Christ is accomplished, when His work of grace is finished in the glorification of all His redeemed, and in the marriage forever of His espoused people. The Church has looked sufficiently perhaps at the ad vent day as a day of doom ; it is important that it should look forward to it more as to a day of redemption and glorification.
These are the chief Messianic ideals of the Scriptures. They are apart in the Old Testament. Many of them converge toward the Messiah at His first Advent. All of
Joel iv. 13 ; Rev. xiv. 17-20. t Is. Wit x-6 ; Rev. xiv. 18-20.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL. 201
them centre in the Messiah at His second Advent, which is the great hope of the Church and of the world. All prophecy points to this goal. All history unfolds toward this climax. All nature yearns for this realization. Our salvation is not all faith, we are saved also by hope, and we are saved also by love. Faith begets hope, and hope becomes mature in love. A Christian looks backward and sees all history preparing the way of the Messiah and then opening up the path for the advance of the Church in the conquest of the world. A Christian looks forward and sees all history marching to its goal in the second Advent. But the Christian also looks upward and sees the Messiah enthroned at the right hand of the Father, the head of the Church, the sovereign of the world, the Saviour of His people and the director of the destinies of mankind. The Messiah is the centre of the Bible. The Messiah is the centre of history. The Mes siah is the Lord of Nature. The Messiah is the Saviour of the world. The Messiah is our own Redeemer, our hope and joy, our crown and our everlasting life.
APPENDIX.
I. NEW EVIDENCES FOR THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIP TURE, p. 205.
II. A LOW-CHURCH MODIFICATION OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS, p. 208.
III. A RECOGNITION OF THE SALVATION OF ELECT
HEATHEN, p. 208.
IV. THE SUPPOSED CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS OF
DIVINE AUTHORITY, p. 210. V. SOME OF THOSE WHO FIND ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE,
p. 215. VI. WHO ARE "THE HIGHER CRITICS"? p. 236.
VII. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE
NAME JAHVEH, p. 248.
VIII. THE DECALOGUE OF J. AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE
OTHER CODES, p. 250.
IX. THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY, P- 273.
X. THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THEOLOGICAL
ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 275. XI. EICHHORN'S VIEW OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER
CRITICISM, p. 277. XII. MIRACLES AND THEOPHANIES, p. 279.
XIII. PROPHECY AND THEOPHANY, p. 280.
XIV. THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN, p. 281. XV. THE POEM OF THE CREATION, p. 283.
XVI. THE MINUTE DETAILS OF PREDICTION, p. 286.
(203)
I.
NEW EVIDENCES FOR THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
The Committee of the General Assembly on revision of the Westminster Confession recommend the insertion of the section in italics, in Chapter I. Of the Holy Scripture, as follows :
" 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ; and the truthfulness of the history, the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle, the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God ; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine au thority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."
This proposed revision does not set forth the doctrine of the "truthfulness of the history " or "the faithful witness of proph ecy and miracle " ; these doctrines we recognize and affirm equally with the committee who propose this revision. But the proposed revision puts the "truthfulness of the history," and "the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle " in the same line of evidence as the internal evidences ; " the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, the full discov ery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof "; and makes these external evidences equally with the internal evidences, "arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God."
(205)
206 APPENDIX.
The Westminster divines understood their Bible so well that they could not insert " the truthfulness of the history " and " the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle " among the arguments which " abundantly evidence " the Bible " to be the word of God "; and Christian apologists, who know what they are about, agree with them.
Truthfulness of the history is no evidence at all that the his tory is a part of the Word of God. There are many histories which are as truthful as the histories given in the Bible. There are many ancient histories, not in our Bible, which compare favor ably with the Chronicler. And if Esther be history, there are many histories which give less perplexity to the historical student. It is not the truthfulness of the history that is an evidence of its inspiration, any more than the truthfulness of the doctrine. But it is the " heavenliness " of the history, " the scope of the whole " of the history, " the full discovery " that the history " makes of the only way of man's salvation "; "and the many other incom- paraole excellencies thereof "; which are "arguments whereby" the nistory "doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of Goa. ' The separation of the history from these attributes which really prove its divine authority and the assigning another attribute : namely, " truthfulness," and resting the whole evi dence for the divine authority of the history upon this attribute, is like lifting a house from a rock foundation and setting it upon rotten piles.
Miracles may have been in a measure evidences of the divine ministry of Moses and Elijah and Jesus ; but it is plain that they made little use of them for this purpose. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle presented to us as an evidence of the inspiration or the divine authority of a writing. On the other hand, Moses warns Israel against false prophets who would work miracles and utter proph ecies (Deut. xiii. 1-5 ; xviii. 20-22). Jesus also warns against false Messiahs who would deceive even the elect (Matt. xxiv. 23-24; Rev. xiii. 11-18).
The evidence in the miracles of Scripture for us, and even for the majority of those who saw them, is not in the miracles as miracles. For it is recognized in Scripture that miracles may be wrought by evil spirits and false prophets. It is the heavenly character of the miracles as deeds of grace and mercy, as ex-
NEW EVIDENCES. 207
pressions of a divine power to judge and to save. As Jesus said to the messengers of John the Baptist : " Go your way and tell John the things which ye do hear and see : the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall find none occasion of stumbling in me " (Matt. xi. 4-6).
Jesus refused to work miracles to please His apostles (Luke ix. 54, 55), or the devil (Matt. iv. 3-7), to convince the multitude (John vi. 30), or the Pharisees (Matt. xii. 38-39). He wrought miracles on behalf of His poor and suffering people, not to gain the cre dence of men.
So of His ministry at Nazareth it is said : "He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief " (Matt. xiii. 58). If the miracles were not used by Jesus for the purpose of evidence for Himself, it is unlikely that they are evidence for the writings which record them. If the General Assembly's committee of Re vision be correct in their opinion, Jesus ought to have done all the more mighty works there in order to overcome their unbelief* We prefer to recognize that our Lord was sound in the faith and that this committee is in error.
It is not the faithful witness of prophecy that is an evidence of inspiration, it is a^ain the " heavenliness " of the prophecy, the " efficacy of the doctrine " of the prophecy, the " majesty of the style " of the prophets, " the consent of all the parts " of the prophets, as so many links in a chain, as so many parts of the sublime whole of the Messianic ideal of Holy Scripture, "the scope of the whole," embracing in the ideal of God, the ever lasting and complete salvation of man, "the entire perfection," therefore transcending in incomparable excellence all other writ ings — these are abundant evidences of its divine authority.
Prophecy is religious instruction — it is a false conception of Biblical prophecy to think of it chiefly as a faithful witness. This exaggerates the predictive element, and then again ex aggerates the minute details of prediction which belong to the form of prophecy and not to its substance, many of which have not been fulfilled, and never can be fulfilled, and it neglects the ideal contents, the substance, the great comprehensive and sublime Messianic plan of redemption (see VII., p. 177, and Ap pendix XVI).
208
APPENDIX.
If the American Presbyterian Church should adopt thio pro posed revision, they would teach unscriptural doctrine, they would depart from the historic faith of the Church, they would fly in the face of modern Apologetics, they would introduce new dogma into -the already too cumbrous system, and they would add another barrier to separate Presbyterianism from the his toric churches of Christendom.
II.
A LOW CHURCH MODIFICATION OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS.
The revision of Chapter XXX., as proposed, is the insertion of the clause in italics, as follows :
" 2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have ministerial and declara tive power respectively to retain and remit sins, by shutting that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and by cen sures, and by opening it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require."
This insertion is ill advised, for it defines the power of the keys more precisely, and, therefore, makes the passage more difficult to subscribe not only by those who think that the power of the keys is something more than this ; but also by those who can see no Scriptural authority for such limitations. The Low Church party in Presbyterianism are here putting into the Confession a statement which represents their party ; but which can hardly be acceptable to a High Churchman who follows the Westminster divines, or a Broad Churchman, who wishes no definitions which cannot be proven by clear and indubitable evidence.
III.
A RECOGNITION OF THE SALVATION OF ELECT HEATHEN.
This is recognized by the proposed revision of the Westminster Confession, as follows :
' Infants, dying in infancy, and all other persons not guilty of actual transgression, are included in the election of grace, and
ELECT HEATHEN. 209
are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who vvorketh when and where and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are not outwardly called by the Word " (xii. 3).
Here are the three classes— infants, incapables, and others not outwardly called. The phrase " not guilty of actual transgres sion " is unfortunate, for it makes a qualification which is not only unnecessary in itself, but which raises the question whether idiots and maniacs who have become such after actual trans gression, are to be excluded from the election of grace. It is also not altogether clear from the connection of this clause with the previous clause, whether there may not be young children dying after actual transgression who may be excluded from the elect. Furthermore, it makes the doctrine of the universal sal vation of infants and incapables, which did not gain recognition until the present century, into an article of faith, and thus ex cludes from orthodoxy the entire body of Westminster divines and the universal Church before the Reformation. We doubt the propriety of making such an article of faith, all the more that we have no authority in Holy Scripture for the doctrine, and it has not gained any firm position in the system of Christian doc trine. It is a revolutionary doctrine which must transform many other doctrines of the Westminster Confession before it can rightly claim a place in the system. If this be made an article of faith, those who hold to the traditional opinion of the Church are shut out from the Presbyterian Church. I hold the new doctrine myself as a precious hope and as a lawful theory, but I deny that it is an article of faith.
The revisers also recognize the universal working of the Holy Spirit.
"The Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, is everywhere present among men, confirming the teachings of nature and the law of God written in the heart, restraining from evil, inciting to good, and preparing the way for the gospel " (ix. 3).
It is true that it is not stated here that the Holy Spirit regen erates and saves in this preparatory work. But this is distinctly stated in the clause of Chap. XII.
" So also are [regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit] all other elect persons who are not outwardly called by the word."
210 APPENDIX.
The doctrine is expressed in a clumsy and diffuse style in these new revisions, but it is there.
IV.
THE SUPPOSED CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY.
The only persons, so far as I know, who have ever thought of co-ordinating the Bible, the Church, and the Reason as fountains of divine authority, are some recent controversialists who im pute to others their own misconceptions, or who, after the man ner of scholastic logicians, invent imaginary opponents in order to show their dialectic skill in destroying them.
Dr. Shedd, after the delivery of my Inaugural Address on the Authority of Holy Scripture, asserted that I had co-ordinated the Bible, the Church, and the Reason. In the appendix to the second edition of the address I replied : •« I did not say, and I did not give any one the right to infer from anything whatever in the Inaugural Address, or in any of my writings, that I co-ordi nated the Bible, the Church, and the Reason " (p. 84). Again, when called upon to respond to the charges and specifications made against me before the Presbytery of New York, as to their form and legal effect, although restricted by the limitations of my plea in law, I was yet able, while pointing out the invalid in ferences of the prosecution, to say : " • Reason is a great fountain of divine authority,' and yet not 'an infallible rule of faith and practice.' The Church is a 'great fountain of divine authority/ and yet not an ' infallible rule of faith and practice.' The Bible is a 'great fountain of divine authority,' and it is also the • only infallible rule of faith and practice.' Here are two different statements of truths that may be embraced under a more general truth, but to affirm the one, as to Bible, Church, and Reason, that ' they are great fountains of divine authority,' is not to deny that the Bible is the only one of which the other can be affirmed, namely, that ' the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.' When God speaks through the conscience, He speaks with divine authority, and the conscience becomes ' a great fountain of divine authority '; but the conscience does not
CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS. 211
become thereby an 'infallible rule of faith and practice.' God speaks through the holy sacrament with divine authority, and the sacrament of the Church is then a 'great fountain of divine authority '; but it does not become thereby an ' infallible rule of faith and practice.' I affirm that I have never anywhere, or at any -time, made any statements or taught any doctrines that in the slightest degree impair what I ever have regarded as a cardi nal doctrine, that ' the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice ' " (p. 146).
Nothwithstanding these statements of my position, Dr. Shedd persists in affirming that I co-ordinate the Bible, the Church, and the Reason, and endeavors to prove his position in a labored argument in the N. Y. Observer of Jan. 2ist, as follows :
" i. We begin, in the first place, with Dr. Briggs' well-known view of the Bi ble, the Church, and the Reason. In the discourse these are denominated ' three great fountains of divine authority.' In the response, the author endeavors to show that this proposition does not place all three upon an equality, by claiming that while it asserts that all three of them are divine, it asserts that only one of them is infallible. He explains as follows : ' The Bible is a great fountain of divine authority, and also an infallible rule of faith and practice ; the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority, and yet not an infallible rule of faith and practice ; and the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, and yet not an infallible rule of faith and practice' (p. 20). He contends that the discourse, when correctly understood, attributes divinity to all three of the sources of divine authority but infallibility to only one of them, and denies, as he did in his answer to the first of the Directors' questions, that it teaches that all three are co-ordi nate and co-equal. Whether this is the fact or not, depends upon the author's use of the term 'divine' in this leading proposition of his discourse. Any author ity that is divine in the absolute and strict sense as opposed to human, is un questionably infallible. But in his discourse, Dr. Briggs denominates the Bible, the Church, and the Reason 'three great fountains of divine authority' in the strict sense of the word as the opposite of human. The proof of this is plain and indisputable, as we shall show.
" In the opening of the discourse the author makes the common discrimination between human authority and divine. ' If,' says he, ' we search the forms of au thority that exist about us, they all alike disclose themselves as human and im perfect. The earnest spirit presses back of all these human authorities in quest of an infallible guide and an immutable certainty. Divine authority is the only authority to which man can yield implicit obedience, on which he can rest in loving certainty and build with joyous confidence' (pp. 23, 24). Now, immedi ately after this careful distinction between human and divine authority, he lays down his fundamental proposition : ' There are three great fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason.' He applies the epithet divine as opposed to human, and as implying infallibility, in identically the same way
212 APPENDIX.
to all three sources. Not the slightest discrimination is made by the author re specting the nature of the divinity attributed to the three fountains of authority. In this proposition the Church and the Reason have divine authority ascribed to them in precisely the same sense that the Bible has. This takes the Church and the Reason along with the Bible out of the category of the human and fallible, and places all three of them in that of the divine and infallible. And if there are three fountains of authority that are alike divine in the strict sense of the term, they are certainly co-ordinate, that is, they belong to the same order or rank ; and they are certainly co-equal, for things that are equal to the same thing, namely, ' divinity,' are equal to each other. And, accordingly, throughout the discourse, the Church and the Reason are described as furnishing man a ground of certainty and confidence in matters of religion such as he cannot find in what the author denominates ' the human and imperfect forms of authority that exist about us.' — a class of authorities from which, along with the Bible, he excludes the Church and the Reason.
"Still further proof that the 'three fountains of divine authority ' are represented as co-ordinate and co-equal, notwithstanding the author's disclaimer and denial, is found in his declaration that they are ' complementary ' to each other. ' If God,' he says (p. 64), 'really speaks to men in these three centres, there ought to be no contradiction between them. They ought to be complementary, and they should combine in a higher unity for the guidance and comfort of men.' That is ' complementary,' say all the dictionaries, which supplies a deficiency. For example the quantity required to make up any angle to 90 degrees, or the quar ter of a circle, is its complement. When, therefore, two or more things are com plementary to each other, neither of them is sufficient of itself alone. They are mutually dependent upon each other. Each needs the other or others to fill out (complere) something wanting in itself. If, therefore, the Bible has the Church and the Reason as its complements, it must be because it is of itself inadequate in some particulars to meet all the religious necessities of mankind. It must be helped out by them. And so the author teaches. The Bible, he says, could not do for Newman all that he needed, and the Church was its complement. It made up the deficiency. The Bible and the Church could not do for Martineau all that he needed in matters of religion, and the Reason was their complement. It filled up the lack (pp. 25-28). Consequently, in representing the ' three great fountains of divine authority ' as ' complementary ' to each other, he makes them inter-dependent, and all on the common level of divinity as co-ordinates and co- equals. No one is sufficient of itself alone, and no one is supreme over the oth ers in respect to the characteristic of strict and absolute divinity which belongs to all alike."
Dr. Shedd's argumentation is based on invalid premises which he assumes, but which we do not grant, (i). He assumes that "any authority that is divine in the absolute and strict sense as opposed to human, is unquestionably infallible."
But Dr. Shedd seems to have forgotten his own deliberate teaching as set forth in his Dogmatic Theology :
CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS. 213
" Human knowledge, then, considered from this point of view, is an unwrit ten revelation because it is not aboriginal and self-subsistent, but derived. It issues ultimately from a higher source than the finite intelligence. Human rea son has the ground of its authority in the Supreme Reason. This is seen particu larly in that form of reason which Kant denominates ' practical ' and whose judgments are given in conscience. This faculty has an authority for man that cannot be accounted for, except by its being the voice of God. If conscience were entirely isolated from the Deity, and were independent of Him, it could not make the solemn and sometimes terrible impression it does. No man would be afraid of himself, if the self were not connected with a higher Being than self. Of the judgments of conscience, it may be said literally that God reveals His own holy judgment through them. l Whence comes the restraint of conscience ? ' asks Selden (Table-Talk}. 'From a higher power; nothing else can bind. 'l cannot bind myself, for I may untie myself again ; an equal cannot bind me, for we may untie one another. It must be a superior Power, even God Almighty.' .... General or unwritten revelation, though trustworthy, is not infallible. This differentiates it from the special or written revelation.
"i. In the first place, the ethical and religious teaching of God through the
structure of the human mind is vitiated more or less by human depravity
2. Secondly, infallibility cannot be attributed to the unwritten revelation, because of the limitations of the finite mind."
Dr. Shedd here represents that God speaks to men through the reason and grants an "unwritten revelation," which though "trustworty,"is not infallible, because "it is vitiated more or less by human depravity " and " the limitations of the finite mind." Dr. Shedd and I are agreed at this point. I appeal from Dr. Shedd, the ex-professor and polemic divine, to Dr. Shedd, the professor and teacher of dogmatic theology.
Dr. Shedd further states that : " In representing the three great fountains of divine authority as ' complementary ' to each other, Dr. Briggs makes them interdependent and all on the common level of divinity as co-ordinates and co-equals." This statement is reached by assuming a suppressed premise to this " Two or more things that are complementary to each other are co-ordinate and co-equal." But this premise is untrue To use Dr. Shedd's illustration: "The quantity required to make up any angle to 90 degrees, or the quarter of a circle, is its complement." But the complement of an angle of 90 degrees might be less than one-hundredth part of a degree, it would not then be equal to 89.99 of a degree. The complement of a thing may be equal, or may be lesser or greater in the same order, or it may belong to a different order, higher or lower. Thus, when
214
APPENDIX.
Paul says, " Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up in my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church " (Col. i. 24), he does not mean to co-ordinate himself with Christ, or to co-ordinate his sufferings with the atoning sufferings of his Saviour. When Christ fills up the full complement of divine revelation He does not co-ordinate Himself with the Old Testa ment prophets, or represent that His revelation was only adding another link to theirs in the chain. of prophecy. So is it with the three fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason, when I say : " They ought to be complementary and they should combine in a higher unity for the guidance and comfort of men," I do not thereby make these fountains co ordinate, that is in the same order. I do not make them co equal. I do not state what is their relative importance or what is their relative rank. And when I say, " The Bible needs the Church and the Reason ere it can exert its full power upon the life of men " (p. 64), I say that each one of these fountains has its own place and importance, that they were designed to work together in harmony for a common end. God, man and nature work together to accomplish the divine purpose, and in a sense the work of any one of these three, God, man, and nature, com plements the work of the other two; but man is high above nature and God is infinitely above them both.
Dr. Shedd's arguments rest upon premises which he has as sumed without reflection. In fact Dr. Shedd shows that he is not at home in this department of theology. If one examines Dr. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology he will find no discussion what ever of the sources of divine authority. There is a long discus sion upon the authenticity, credibility, and canonicity of the Scriptures, topics which belong to the department of Exegetical Theology, but he neglects the discussion of the authority of the Reason and th.e Church which belong to Dogmatic Theology. Dr. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology has chapters upon rationalism, mysticism, and the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Rule of Faith, in which he discusses the sources of divine authority.
Dr. Henry B. Smith gives careful consideration to the sources of Christian theology, discussing Christian experience, confes sions of faith and systems, philosophy and nature in their places,
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.
215
as well as revelation in Holy Scripture. But Dr. Shedd ap parently has not considered these topics of systematic theology as worthy of a place in his system.
Calvin divides his system of doctrine into four books, giving the last book to a full discussion of the doctrine of the Church. All that Dr. Shedd has to say about the Church is in less than two pages of his system. A theologian who thus ignores the doctrine of the Church and the divine authority of the Church, is so far separated from genuine Calvinism and historic Puritanism that no zeal for Reprobation or the inerrancy of the original au tographs of Scripture could have saved him from a condemna tion for heresy if his Dogmatic Theology had appeared in Lon don in the middle of the i/th century.
V.
SOME OF THOSE WHO FIND ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.
Inasmuch as the question of errors in Holy Scripture has become such a matter of heated controversy, it has seemed best to give extracts from the Fathers, Reformers, and leading Anglo- Saxon divines who teach that there are errors in the Bible, and who show that these errors do not disturb its divine au thority. With the single exception of Van Oosterzee, we have refrained from quoting scholars from the continent of Europe, for it is well known that they are practically unanimous on the same side. To these here cited may be added all those who hold the modern critical views of the Old Testament given in Appendix VI., for no one can be a true Biblical scholar and main tain the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.
(i). O rig en.
" Quin si de aliis compluribus diligenter quis exquisierit Evan- gelia de dissonantia secundum historiam, quam singulatim tenta- bimus pro virili ob oculos ponere, vertigine affectus, vel renuet confirmare Evangelia tanquam vera, et judicio suo sibi eligens quod voluerit, alicui ipsorum Evangeliorum adhaerebit, non audens funditus infirmare de Domino nostro fidem ; vel admit- tens quatuor esse Evangelia, veritatem ipsorum non in formis et
210 APPENDIX.
characteribus corporalibus esse adjunget " (Com. in Joan. Tomus x. 2. Mtgne, Patrologta, Greek, Tom. xiv., Ortgen, Tom. iv. 311).
(2). Jerome.
"Hoc Testimonium in Jeremia non invenitur. In Zacharia vero, qui pene ultimus est duodecim prophetarum, quaedam similitude fertur (Zach. xi.) : et quamquam sensus non multum discrepet ; tamen et ordo et verba diversa sunt. Legi nuper in quodam Hebraico volumine, quod Nazaraenae sectae mihi He- braeus obtulit; Jeremiae apocryphum, in quo haec ad verbum scripta reperi. Sed tamen mihi videtur magis de Zacharia sump- turn testimonium : Evangel istarum et Apostolorum more vulgato, qui verborum ordine praetermisso, sensus tantum de veteri Testa- mento proferunt in exemplum"(Matth. xxvii. <$)*MignetPatr.xxvi.
(3). Augustine.
" 30. How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by suppos ing that this has been done in accordance with the more secret counsel of that providence of God by which the minds of the evangelists were governed ? For it may have been the case, that when Matthew was engaged in composing his Gospel, the word Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in accordance with a familiar ex perience, instead of Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy, however, he would most undoubtedly have corrected (having his attention called to it, as surely would have been the case, by some who might have read it while he was still alive in the flesh), had he not reflected that (perhaps) it was not without a purpose that the name of the one prophet had been suggested instead of the other in the process of recalling the circumstances (which process of recollection was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and that this might not have occurred to him had it not been the Lord's pur pose to have it so written. If it is asked, however, why the Lord should have so determined it, there is this first and most service able reason, which deserves our most immediate consideration, namely, that some idea was thus conveyed of the marvellous man ner in which all the holy prophets, speaking in one spirit, con tinued in perfect unison with each other in their utterances, — a circumstance certainly much more calculated to impress the mind than would have been the case had all the words of all these prophets been spoken by the mouth of a single individual.
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 21 T
The same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given ex pression to through the agency of these prophets, and of looking upon their individual communications as also those of the whole body, and on their collective communications as also those of each separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are really as much Jeremiah's as they are Zechariah's, what necessity was there for Matthew to correct his text when he read over what he had written, and found that the one name had occurred to him instead of the other ? Was it not rather the proper course for him to bow to the authority of the Holy Spirit, under whose guidance he certainly felt his mind to be placed in a more decided sense than is the case with us, and consequently to leave un touched what he had thus written, in accordance with the Lord's counsel and appointment, with the intent to give us to under stand that the prophets maintained so complete a harmony with each other in the matter of their utterances that it becomes nothing absurd, but, in fact, a most consistent thing for us to credit Jeremiah with a sentence originally spoken by Zechariah ? " {Harmony of the Gospels, III., 7, 30, in Select Library of the Ntcene and Post- Nicene Fathers, Augustine's Works, VI., pp. 191-2).
(4). Luther.
" In diesem Kapitel ist beschrieben der Ausgang und das Ende beider Reiche, des Judenthums und auch derganzen Welt. Aber die zween Evangelisten, Matthaus und Marcus, werfen die beide in einander, halten nicht die Ordnung, die Lucas gehalten hat; denn sie nicht weiter sehen, denn dass die Worte Christi geben und erzahlen, bekfimmern sich nicht damit, was vor oder nach geredet sei ; Lucas aber befleissiget sich, es kliirlicher und ordent- licher zu schreiben, und erziihlet diese Rede zweimal ; eines kiirz- lich am "neunzehnten Kapitel, da er von Zerstorung der Juden zu Jerusalem saget; darnach am ein und zwangigsten von diesen
beiden nach einander So ferae hat nun Christus von den
Juden geredt. Nun hab ich zuvor gesagt, dass Matthaus und Marcus die zwei Ende in einander mengen ; daraus es hier schwer ist zu unterscheiden und miissen es doch unterscheiden. Darum merke, dass, was bisher geredt ist, alles dorthin auf die Juden
218 APPENDIX.
gehet; aber hier flichtet er nun beides in einander, bricht aber kurz ab, fraget nicht viel nach der Ordnung, wie die Spriiche, so Christus gesagt hat, auf und nach einander gehen, sondern lasset es dem Evangelisten Lucas befohlen sein, will aber sosagen, dass es vor dem jiingsten Tage auch so gehen werde " (Luther's Werke, Erlangen edition, Vierzehnter Band, pp. 319, 324).
"Von diesen dreien Verlaugnen Petri haben wiroben gehfiret. Die anderen Evangelisten beschreibens also, als sind sie gesche- hen in dem Hause Caipha : Johannes aber beschreibts, als sei die erste Verlaugnung geschehen in dem Hause Hanna, wie seine Wort lauten : Hannas sandte Jesum gebunden zu dem Hohen-priester Caiphas. Dieser Text lautet gleich als sei die erste Verlaugnung in dem Hause Hanna geschehen. Solches zu vereinigen befehle ich den Scharfsinnigen, wie ich oben auch gesagt habc. Es kann auch wohl sein, dass Johannes nicht also gnau und eben gehalten habe die Ordnung im Reden ; doch davon itzt nicht weiter." (Luther's Werke, Fitnfzigster Band, p.
325-)
" Aber die fragts sichs, erstlich, wie sich die zweene Evangel isten, Matthaus und Joannes, zusammen reimen. Den Matthiius schreibet, es sei geschehen am Palmentage, da der Herr zu Jeru salem ist eingeritten : hie lautets im Joanne also, als sei es bald umb die Ostern nach der Taufe Christi geschehen ; wie denn das Mirakel, dass Christus Wasser zu Wein gemacht hat, auch umb die Ostern geschehen ist, und ist darnach gen Kaupernaum gezogcn. Denn umb der dreier Kc3nige Tage ist er getauft, und hater leichtlich ein kleine Zeit verharren kdnnen zu Kapernaum bis auf Ostern, und da angefangen zu predigen, und das gethan auf Ostern, davon Joannes hie redet.
" Aber es sind Fragen und bleiben Fragen, die ich nicht will auflosen ; es liegt auch nicht viel dran, ohne dass viel Leute sind, die so spitzig und scharfsinnig sind, und allerlei Fragen auf- bringen, und davon gnau Rede und Antwort haben wollen. Aber wenn wir den rechten Verstand der Schrift und die rechten Artikel unsers Glaubens haben, dass Jesus Christus, Gottes Sohn, fiir uns gestorben und gelitten hab, so hats nicht grossen Mangel, ob wir gleich auf Alles, so sonst gefragt wird, nicht antworten konnen. Die Evangelisten halten nicht einerlei Ordnung : was einer vornen setzet, dass setzet der ander bisweilen hinten ; wie auch Markus von dicser Gcschicht schreibet, sie sei am andern
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 219
Tage nach dem Palmtage geschehen. Es kann auch wohl sein, dass der Herr Solchs mehr denn einmal gethan hat, und dass Joannes das erste Mai, Matthaus das ander Mai beschreibet. Ihm sei nu wie ihm wolle, es sei zuvor oder hernach, eins oder zwier geschehen, so brichts uns an unserm Glauben Nichts ab " (Luther's Werke, Seeks und vierzigster Band, pp. 173-4).
" Proinde tecum non possum sentire, quod 3 Reg. VI. sit in- telligendus numerus pro bonis tantum judicibus. Sed potius Actor. XIII. putabo depravatum 400 pro 300, ut in meo Chronico signavi. Quandoquidem et Stephani narratio Act. VII. cedere debet Mosi Chronico, ut ibidem ostendi. Igitur aliam afferto conciliationem Pauli Actor. XIII. cum 3 Reg. VI. Tua ista mihi non satisfacit " (De Wette's Luther's Brief e, Fiinfter Theil, p. 489).
(5). Calvin.
" Stephen saith, that the patriarchs were carried into the land of Canaan after they were dead. But Moses maketh mention only of the bones of Joseph (Gen. 13). And Joshua xxiv. (32) it is reported, that the bones of Joseph were buried, without making any mention of the rest. Some answer, that Moses speaketh of Joseph for honour's sake, because he had given ex press commandment concerning his bones, which we cannot read to have been done of the rest. And, surely, when Jerome, in the pilgrimage of Paula, saith, that she came by Shechem, he saith that she saw there the sepulchres of the twelve patriarchs ; but in another place he maketh mention of Joseph's grave only. And it may be that there were empty tombs erected to the rest. I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses as accord ing to the old fame ; as the Jews had many things in times past from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to hand. And whereas he saith afterward, they were laid in the sepulchre which Abraham had bought of the sons of Hemor, it is manifest that there is a fault (mistake) in the word Abraham. For Abraham had bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, (Gen. xxiii. 9), to bury his wife Sarah in ; but Joseph was buried in another place, to wit, in the field which his father Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor for an hundred lambs. Wherefore
220 APPENDIX.
this place must be amended " (Calvin's Commentary on Acts vii. 16).
"Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend? etc. Moses men tions heaven and the sea, as places remote and difficult of access to men. But Paul, as though there was some spiritual mystery concealed under these words, applies them to the death and resurrection of Christ. If any one thinks that this interpreta tion is too strained and too refined, let him understand that it was not the object of the Apostle strictly to explain this passage, but to apply it to the explanation of his present subject. He does not, therefore, repeat verbally what Moses has said, but makes alterations, by which he accommodates more suitably to his own purpose the testimony of Moses. He spoke of inac cessible places ; Paul refers to those, which are indeed hid from the sight of us all, and may yet be seen by our faith. If, then, you take these things as spoken for illustration, or by way of im provement, you cannot say that Paul has violently or inaptly changed the words of Moses ; but you will, on the contrary, al low, that without loss of meaning, he has, in a striking manner, alluded to the words heaven and the sea." (Calvin's Commentary on Romans x. 6).
" And worshipped on the top, etc. This is one of those places from which we may conclude that the points were not formerly used by the Hebrews ; for the Greek translators could not have made such a mistake as to put staff here for a bed, if the mode of writing was then the same as now. No doubt Moses spoke of the head of his couch, when he said, nBBn LMX1 ^y ; but the Greek
translators rendered the words, ' on the top of his staff,' as though the last word was written HDEin. The Apostle hesitated not to ap ply to his purpose what was commonly received : he was in deed writing to the Jews; but they who were dispersed into various countries had changed their own language for the Greek. And we know that the Apostles were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the un learned, who had as yet need of milk ; and in this there is no danger, provided readers are ever brought back to the pure and original text of Scripture. But, in reality, the difference is but little ; for the main thing was, that Jacob worshipped, which was an evidence of his gratitude. He was therefore led by faith to
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.
submit himself to his son " (Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews xi. 21).
(6). Baxter.
" And here I must tell you a great and needful truth, which .... Christians fearing to confess, by overdoing tempt men to Infidelity. The Scripture is like a man's body, where some parts are but for the preservation of the rest, and may be maimed without death : The sense is the soul of the Scripture ; and the letters but the body, or vehicle. The doctrine of the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, is the vital part, and Christianity itself. The Old Testament letter (written as we have it about Ezra's time) is that vehicle which is as imperfect as the Revelation of these times was : But as after Christ's incarnation and ascension, the Spirit was more abundantly given, and the Revelation more perfect and sealed, so the doctrine is more full and the vehicle or body, that is, the words are less imperfect and more sure to us; so that he that doubteth of the truth of some words in the Old Testa ment, or of some circumstances in the New, hath no reason therefore to doubt of the Christian religion, of which these writ ings are but the vehicle or body, sufficient to ascertain us of the truth of the History and Doctrine " (The Catechising of Families, 1683, p. 36).
(7). Rutherford.
" Mr. John Goodwin will allow us no foundation of faith, but such as is made of grammers and Characters, and if the Scrip ture be wrong pointed, or the Printer drunke, or if the transla tion slip, then our faith is gone : Whereas the meanes of con veying the things beleeved may be fallible, as writing, printing, translating, speaking, are all fallible meanes of conveying the truth of Old and New Testament to us, and yet the Word of God in that which is delivered to us is infallible, i. For let the Printer be fallible ; 2. The translation fallible ; 3. The Grammer fallible; 4. The man that readeth the word or publisheth it fallible, yet this hindreth not but the truth itself contained in the written word of God is infallible Now, in the carry ing of the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles to our knowl edge, through Printers, translators, grammer, pens, and tongues
222 APPENDIX.
of men from so many ages, all which are fallible, we are to look to an unerring and undeclinable providence, conveying the Testament of Christ, which in itself is infallible and begs no truth, no authoritie either from the Church as Papists dreame, or from Grammer, Characters, Printer, or translator, all these being adventitious and yesterday accidents to the nature of the word of God, and when Mr. Goodwin resolves all our faith into a foundation of Christian Religion (if I may call it Religion) made of the credit, learning and authority of men, he would have men's learning and authoritie either the word of God, or the essence and nature thereof, which is as good as to include the garments and cloathes of man, in the nature and definition of a man, and build our faith upon a paper foundation, but our faith is not bottomed or resolved upon these fallible meanes ; . . . . and though there be errours of number, genealogies, &c., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith, and necessary truths, we are certaine with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same speciall operations of enlightning the eyes, converting the soule, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity, life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdome, certainty, &c., which the Prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had " (A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, Sam. Rutherford, London, 1649, PP- 3^2~ 363. 366).
" May not reading, interpunction, a parenthesis, a letter, an ac cent, alter the sense of all fundamentalls in the Decalogue ? of the principles of the Gospel ? and turne the Scripture in all points (which Mr. Doctour restricts to some few darker places, whose senses are off the way to heaven, and lesse necessary) in a field of Problemes, and turn all beleeving into digladiations of wits? all our comforts of the Scriptures into the reelings of a Wind-mill, and phancies of seven Moons at once in the firma ment ? this is to put our faith and the first fruits of the Spirit, and Heaven and Hell to the Presse. But though Printers and Pens of men may erre, it followeth not that heresies should be tol erated, except we say, i. That our faith is ultimately resolved upon characters, and the faith of Printers. 2. We must say, we have not the cleare and infallible word of God, because the Scrip-
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 223
ture comes to our hand, by fallible means, which is a great in consequence, for though Scribes, Translatours, Grammarians, Printers, may all erre, it followeth not that an erring providence of him that hath seven eyes, hath not delivered to the Church, the Scriptures containing the infallible truth of God. Say the Baruch might erre in writing the Prophesie of Jeremiah, it follow eth not that the Prophesie of Jeremiah, which we have, is not the infallible word of God; if all Translators and Printers did their alone watch over the Church, it were something, and if there were not one with seven eyes to care for the Scripture. But for Tradition, Councells, Popes, Fathers, they are all fallible means, and so far forth to be beleeved, as they bring Scripture with them" (A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, London, 1649, PP- 37°> 37 O-
(8). Van Oosterzee.
" Errors and inaccuracies, in matters of subordinate import ance, are, as we have already seen, undoubtedly to be found in the Bible. A Luther, a Calvin, a Cocceius, among the older Theologians ; a Tholuck, a Neander, a Lange, a Stier, among the more modern ones, have admitted this without hesitation. But this proves absolutely nothing against the truth and authority of the Word, where it is speaking of the Way of Salvation " (Chris tian Dogmatics, Van Oosterzee, p. 205).
(9). Marcus Dods, Professor of New Testament £xe- gesi's, New College (Presbyterian), Edinburgh.
" In Scripture we have the infallible truth about God and His salvation. This position is the mean between two equally un tenable positions ; it is, on the one hand, impossible to maintain the infallibility of Scripture on the ground of its literal accuracy; and, on the other hand, it is impossible to maintain that the Bi ble is not infallible because there maybe found in it inaccuracies. Its infallibility attaches to its main substance and central mes sage. It infallibly achieves the object for which it was designed " (Magazine of Christian Literature, Feb., 1892, p. 396).
224: APPENDIX.
(10). William Sanday, Dean Ireland Professor of Exe gesis, Oxford.
"History is strewn with warnings as to the mistakes in which we are involved the moment we begin to lay down what an In spired Book ought to be and what it ought not to be. I spoke of some of these mistakes last time. They are all so many ap plications of the assumption that an Inspired Book must be in fallible, not merely as a Revelation, but as a Book. Is there any better reason for this than there was for those other assumptions which Bishop Butler showed to be so untenable — that a revela tion from God must be universal, that it could not be confined to an obscure and insignificant people ; that a revelation from God must be clear — that it could not be wrapt up in difficul ties of interpretation ; that its evidence must be certain and such as should leave no room for doubt ? All these criteria had been actually put forward ; the Christian revelation had been tried by them and found wanting. No one would think of putting forward any such criteria now. Yet there is no essential differ, ence between the claim which was then made for the Revelation itself, and the claim which is still made fpr the Book in which that Revelation is embodied. Such a Book, it is urged, must at the least be infallible. If that were so, we should find it hard to con tend with the facts; for the sphere of its infallibility has been steadily narrowed. Its text is not infallible ; its grammar is not infallible; its science is not infallible; and there is grave ques tion whether its history is altogether infallible. But to argue thus is to take up a false position from the outset. It is far bet ter not to ask at all what an Inspired Book ought to be, but to content ourselves with the enquiry what this Book, which comes to us as inspired, in fact and reality is. It will not refuse to an swer our questions " ( The Oracles of God, pp. 35-36).
(n). Alexander B. Bruce, Prof, of Apologetics in the Free Church College (Presbyterian}, Glasgow.
"In conclusion, let us say that men create for themselves a great many difficulties in connection with Scripture by thinking of God too literally as an Author. Viewing the matter abstract ly, it is difficult to understand how, if God be really the Author of the Bible, in the sense in which Milton was the author of
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 225
Paradise Lost, He should not write in perfect style, and with perfect accuracy in all statements of fact, and in perfect accord ance with the ideal standard in morals and religion. He is surely the most consummate Artist ; He knows everything ; He is absolutely holy. How can He possibly embody His thought in inferior Greek? How can He possibly make a mistake? How can He have anything to do with crude morality or a de fective religious tone ? To questions of this sort more might be added, such as that one asked by the free-thinker Reimarus, How could God, the Holy One, employ as His agents in revela tion men with glaring moral infirmities? There are several ways of dealing with these questions. One is to deny the facts on which they are based : to allege boldly that the Greek is fault less ; that there are no mistakes in point of fact, no crude moral ities, no religious shortcomings ; that all the men of revelation were faultless, saintly, perfectly exemplary persons. Another way is to admit the facts and draw from them the sweeping con clusion, There was no revelation, the Bible is in no sense an ex ceptional Book. The best way is to admit the facts, and try to discover a way of reconciling them with the reality of revelation and inspiration. This can be done partly by conceiving of God's relation to the Bible as less immediate than was formerly sup posed, and partly, and very specially, by giving large prominence to the gracious condescension of God in the whole matter of revelation. Think of God's authorship as spiritual, not literary; and remember that in giving to the world a Bible, through the agency of the best minds in Israel, He was greatly more con cerned about showing His grace than about keeping aloof from every form of human imperfection " (Inspiration and Inerrancy. Introduction, pp. 34-35).
(12). Joseph A. Beet, Prof, of Systematic Theology in the Wesleyan Theological College, Richmond, England.
" Against the foregoing historical arguments, the cursory al lusion in Gal. iii. 17 has no weight. About trifling discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek texts, Paul probably neither knew nor cared. And they have no bearing whatever upon the all-important matter he has here in hand. He adopted the chron ology of the LXX., with which alone his readers were familiar;
226 APPENDIX.
knowing, possibly, that if incorrect it was only an understatement of the case.
" The above discussion warns us not to try to settle questions of Old Testament historical criticism by casual allusions in the New Testament. All such attempts are unworthy of scientific Biblical scholarship. By inweaving His words to man in historic fact, God appealed to the ordinary laws of human credibility. These laws attest, with absolute certainty, the great facts of Christianity. And upon these great facts, and on these only, rest both our faith in the Gospel and in God and the authority of the Sacred Book. Consequently, as I have endeavored to show in my Romans, Diss. i. and iii., our faith does not require the ab solute accuracy of every historical detail in the Bible, and is not disturbed by any error in detail which may be detected in its pages. At the same time, our study of the Bible reveals there an historical accuracy which will make us very slow to condemn as erroneous even unimportant statements of Holy Scripture. And, in spite of any possible errors in small details or allusions, the Book itself remains to us as, in a unique and infinitely glori ous sense, a literary embodiment of the Voice and Word of God " (St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, p. 90).
(13). A. H. Charteris, Prof, of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edinburgh.
" Errors, as a matter of fact, are admitted by good men on all sides to exist in the books as we now have them, due in most cases to the slips of copyists, but yet such that we have no means of removing them. The fact that good men on both sides admit the existence of such errors, and yet maintain the supreme au thority of Scripture, may warn us to beware of dogmatism on either side. It may teach us to shrink from the fierce consis tency of the advocates of verbal dictation, without driving us to manifest the arrogance of those who cut and carve in Holy Writ as they think fit,— as though their own minds were the highest of all revelation,— as though they were sure of this one thing only, that there is neither miracle nor marvel in the collection of docu ments which have 'turned the world upside down " (The Chris tian Scriptures, pp. 45, 46).
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.
227
(14). Alfred Plummer, Master of University College, Durham.
" The difference, if there be any, between the duration of the drought, as stated here and by St. Luke (iv. 25), and as stated in the Book of the Kings, will not be a stumbling-block to any who recognize that inspiration does not necessarily make a man infallible in chronology. Three and a half years (=42 months= 1,260 days) was the traditional duration of times of great calamity (Dan. vii. 25; xii. 7; Rev. xi. 2, 3; xii. 6, 14; xiii. 5).
.... "Have we any right to assume that there was this special Divine care to produce a particular wording, when it is quite manifest that there has not been special Divine care to pre serve a particular wording?
" The theory of verbal inspiration imports unnecessary and in superable difficulties into the already sufficiently difficult prob lem as to the properties of inspired writings. It maintains that ' the line can never rationally be drawn between the thoughts and words of Scripture'; which means that the only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew and Greek wording, which was used by the authors of the different books in the Bible. Consequently all who cannot read these are cut off from the in spired Word ; for the inspired thoughts are, according to this theory, inseparably bound up with the original form of words. But if it is the thought, and not the wording, that is inspired, then the inspired thought may be as adequately expressed in English or German as in Hebrew or Greek. It is the inspired thought, no matter in what language expressed, which comes home to the hearts and consciences of men, and convinces them that what is thus brought to them by a human instrument is in deed in its origin and in its power Divine. ' Never man thus spake ' was said, not of the choice language that was used, but of the meaning which the language conveyed.
.... "St. Jude probably believed the story about the dispute between Michael and Satan to be true ; but even if he knew it to be a myth, he might nevertheless readily use it as an illustrative argument, seeing that it was so familiar to his readers. If an in spired writer were living now, would it be -quite incredible that he should make use of Dante's Purgatory or Shakespeare's King Lear ? Inspiration certainly does not preserve those who pos-
228
APPENDIX.
sess it from imperfect grammar, and we cannot be certain that it preserves them from other imperfections which have nothing to do with the truth that saves souls. Besides which, it may be merely our prejudices which lead us to regard the use of legend ary material as an imperfection. Let us reverently examine the features which inspired writings actually present to us, not hastily determine beforehand what properties they ought to possess. We not unnaturally fancy that when the Holy Spirit inspires a person to write for the spiritual instruction of men throughout all ages, He also preserves him from making mis takes as to the authenticity of writings of which he makes use, or at least would preserve him from misleading others on such points ; but it does not follow that this natural expectation of ours corresponds with the actual manner of the Spirit's working. ' We follow a very unsafe method if we begin by deciding in what way it seems to us most fitting that God should guide His Church, and then try to wrest facts into conformity with our pre conceptions ' (Salmon, Introduction to the N. T.t 4th ed., Murray, [1889], p. 528 ").— St. James and St. Jude, pp. 344, 405-6. 424~5-
(15). Charles Gore, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford. " Here then is one great question. Inspiration certainly means the illumination of the judgment of the recorder. ' By the con tact of the Holy Spirit,' says Origen, ' they became clearer in their mental perceptions, and their souls were filled with a brighter light.' But have we any reason to believe that it means, over and above this, the miraculous communication of facts not otherwise to be known, a miraculous communication such as would make the recorder independent of the ordinary processes of historical tradition? Certainly neither S. Luke's preface to his Gospel, nor the evidence of any inspired record, justifies us in this assumption. Nor would it appear that spirit ual illumination, even in the highest degree, has any tendency to lift men out of the natural conditions of knowledge which be long to their time. Certainly in the similar case of exegesis, it would appear that S. Paul is left to the method of his time, though he uses it with inspired insight into the function and meaning of law and of prophecy as a whole. Thus, without pronouncing an opinion, where we have no right to do so, on the critical questions at present under discussion, we may main-
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 229
tain with considerable assurance that there is nothing in the doctrine of inspiration to prevent our recognizing a considerable idealizing element in the Old Testament history " (Lux Mundi,
P- 354).
" The Church is not restrained, in the first place, by having committed herself to any dogmatic definitions of the meaning of inspiration. It is remarkable indeed that Origen's almost reckless mysticism, and his accompanying repudiation of the historical character of large parts of the narrative of the Old Testament, and of some parts of the New, though it did not gain acceptance, and indeed had no right to it (for it had no sound basis), on the other hand never roused the Church to contrary definitions. Nor is it only Origen who disputed the historical character of parts of the narrative of Holy Scripture. Clement, before him in Alexandria, and the mediaeval Anselm in the West, treat the seven days' creation as allegory arid not history. Athanasius speaks of paradise as a ' figure.' A mediaeval Greek writer, who had more of Irenaeus than remains to us, declared that 'he did not know how those who kept to the letter and took the account ot the temptation historically rather than alle- gorically, could meet the arguments of Irenaeus against them.' Further than this, it cannot be denied that the mystical method, as a whole, tended to the depreciation of the historical sense, in comparison with the spiritual teaching which it conveyed. In a different line, Chrysostom, of the literal school of inter preters, explains quite in the tone of a modern apologist, how the discrepancies in detail between the different Gospels, assure us of the independence of the witnesses, and do not touch the facts of importance, in which all agree.
" The Church is not tied then by any existing definitions. We cannot make any exact claim upon any one's belief in regard to inspiration, simply because we have no authoritative definition to bring to bear upon him " (Lux Mundt, pp. 357-8).
(16). Alfred Cave, Principal of Hackney College, London.
"So long as the Bible convinces the practical man, to say nothing of the diligent student of its pages, of its unique divine origin, its unique prophecy, its unique apostolic teaching, its unique Gospel, what matters it whether the Bible is wholly iner- rant or not ? Absolute inerrancy, in such a case, is really a some-
230 APPENDIX.
what scholastic and indifferent matter. He who has used as the messengers of His grace so many generations of preachers (who certainly have not been wholly perfect), may surely if He will reveal Himself to men by many generations of writers (who, although specially selected and adapted for their purpose, may yet be not wholly inerrant). Does not the supreme authority of the Bible lie in the revelations recorded rather than in the in spiration which rendered the record possible? And if the reve lations are accurate enough for all practical purposes, what mat ters it whether they are absolutely inerrant ?
" Indeed, I cannot help thinking that this doctrine of absolute inerrancy, like the doctrine of papal infallibility, is an outcome of faithlessness, and even of want of courage. We^ must, we think, put our human defences around the ark of God, or we would make the pursuit of truth easy. But God wills, it would seem, that the path to truth should not be easy, and should be a constant exercise of faith, and God wills, apparently, to demon strate the reliableness of His Word, in His own way, by the testi- monium Spiritus Sanctt" ( The Homiletic Review, Feb., 1892, p. 105).
(17). James Iverach, Prof, of Apologetics, Free College (Presbyterian}, Aberdeen.
«« Even when we grant the results, or all the legitimate results of the critical movement, give to criticism all the rights it can claim, we have still all the mighty resources of arguments of the kind we have outlined, wherewith to vindicate the Divine au thority and inspiration of the Scriptures, and their claim to be the Word of God and to be the guide and inspirer of men. But this is an argument which can scarcely be used by men who tie us to the formal discussion of a theme which limits itself to the question : Are there or are there not errors in the Scriptures ?
" When we have so many claims to make on behalf of the Word of God, claims which can neither be weakened nor de nied, why should we put in the forefront of the battle a claim to errorless perfection, which can only be made good at the cost of endless argumentation, often of the kind which is only special pleading at the best?" (The Thinker, Jan., 1892, pp. 27-8).
ERRORS IN HOLT SCRIPTURE.
(18). Joseph Henry Thayer, Prof, of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
"The view of the Scriptures here urged I have called a 'change.' But let me remind you again that it is such only in reference to current and local and comparatively recent views. Of the great mass of Christian believers down through the cen turies it is doubtful whether more than a small fraction have held the hard and fast theory currently advocated among us to day. They may be said to have been unanimous and emphatic from the first in asserting the inspiration of the written word ; but as to the degree and nature of this inspiration there has been great diversity, or at least indefiniteness, among leading Christian thinkers all along. It was not before the polemic spirit became rife in the controversies which followed the Reformation that the fundamental distinction between the 'Word of God' and the record of that word became obliterated, and the pestilent tenet gained currency that the Bible is absolutely free from every error of every sort " ( The Change of Attitude Towards the Bible, pp. 62-3).
(19). W. R. Huntington, Rector of Grace Church, N. Y.
" The advantage gained by shifting the burden of argument from inspiration to revelation is further evident when we con sider that inspiration is a thing of degrees, a matter of more and less, whereas, with respect to revelation all we have to ask is, Has it or has it not occurred ? There is a sense of the word in which inspiration is credited to all men who accomplish more than the common. Bezaleel is said in the Book of Exodus, to have been filled with the Spirit of -God 'to work in gold and in silver and in brass, and in cutting of stones to set them, and in carving of timber.' This is a definition of inspiration large enough to cover the case of Leonardo da Vinci, the Bezaleel of the Renaissance. So then, if Christians confine themselves to a claim of ' inspiration ' for the authors of Scripture, they may find men putting the Bible on the same shelf with other sacred books, wedging it in between Plato and Confucius, and quite content to claim for Isaiah and St. Paul only such a measure of the Spirit as they are willing to concede to Dante, Bunyan, and a-Kempis. A revelation, on the other hand, does not admit of degrees.
232 APPENDIX.
Either it has been made or it has not been made ; either the heavens have been opened and God has showed us the truth, or they are brass over our head for ever.
" To a mind studying the Bible from the point of approach now indicated, many of the so-called difficulties of faith shrink into insignificance. The intimation, for example, of little inaccura cies in the record, whether of an historical, a geographical, or a scientific sort, cease to alarm. Are the great structural lines of the whole fabric right and true ? is the real question. Because I accept the erratum of some chronologist who has discovered a wrong date in the Book of Chronicles, it does not follow that I am logically bound to welcome with open arms a whole troop of interpreters who are bent on writing the Resurrection down a myth, and distilling the personality of God into a figure of speech.
. . . . " The simple fact of the matter is this : modern research is modifying, — some say revolutionizing, but it is more accurate to say modifying, old opinions as to the process by which the vari ous books of the Bible were brought into their present combina tion, and made into the volume as we have it now. Modern re search, be it also observed, is doing what it is doing after a fash ion not unlike that in which Sedgwick, Murchison, and Lyell changed our old conceptions of the manner in which the globe was brought to be what to-day it is. But the earth itself is pre cisely what it was before the geologists began to investigate, and the book we know as the Bible is precisely what it was before the critics began to criticise. And just as there are those of us who while thankfully accepting all that Geology can really prove with respect to the formation of the earth's crust, nevertheless hold fast the old-fashioned faith which expresses itself in the words, 'I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker'; so there are those of us, and their number is reckoned by tens of thou sands, who while ready cheerfully to concede whatever the best critical scholarship may be able to establish regarding the forma tion of the Scriptures as an historical process, are not at all shaken in their confidence that as the record of God's revelation of Him self, the Bible, substantially as we have it now, will stand to the end of time" (The Peace of the Church, pp. 82-85).
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 933
(20). Thomas G. Apple, Professor of Church History in the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, Lancaster, Pa.
" We feel at once that the Ten Commandments and the Ser mon on the Mount are the Word of God in a sense that cannot be claimed for certain other portions of the Scripture. St. Paul might be mistaken in his chronology, counting 430 years from the promise made to Abraham to the giving of the law, and yet this would not affect the inspiration of his teaching in the doctrines of the Christian faith.
" ' But where will you draw the line ? ' it is said, if you begin to make such distinctions. In answer, we reply, we have seen that in some cases such distinction most assuredly must be made, and all that is required is that common sense and intelligence must be used in interpreting the Scripture. In making a revelation God assumes that it is made to intelligent creatures, and, there fore, He does not reveal science, chronology, etc., subjects that man can acquire a knowledge of by his own research, except in cidentally, but confines His revelation to supernatural truth which man could not know of himself.
"It is the province of the Higher Criticism to determine such questions as the authorship and age of the different portions of Scripture and the relative importance and authority of the differ ent sections, just as the lower criticism has to do mainly with the purification of the text. Great fears were entertained when Bengel and others began the study of the text by comparing the different MSS., and when first the thousands of various readings were brought out, many people feared that it would destroy all proper faith in the Bible as the Word of God, but we know now that the result has been healthful. This faith has in nowise been lessened, but it has become more intelligent. And so the Higher Criticism must produce equally good results. What though rationalists use it against the Bible ? So did Strauss and Bauer try to invalidate the truth of the New Testament, but their at tack only served to bring out a better and stronger defence of the gospel of our Lord. Much yet remains to be learned in reference to the Bible, and the more we learn of it the more im pregnable will its position become in the faith of believers in Christianity" (The Reformed Quarterly Review, Jan., 1892, pp. 16-17).
234 APPENDIX.
(21). George P. Fisher, Professor of Ecclesiastical His tory in Yale University.
" What a stupendous miracle would be involved in imparting this impeccable character to so large a body of historical writ ings as the Bible contains, — writings which run through so many ages ! Of what avail would it be, unless not only the original writers, but also amanuenses and transcribers, were all to be equally guarded to the end of time ? Exaggerated statements on this subject are the occasion, at present, of two great evils. One mischievous consequence of them is that the truth and di vine origin of Christianity are staked on the literal correctness of even the minutest particulars in the copious narratives of Scripture. The conscientious student, seeing that such views are untenable in the light of fair historical criticism, is virtually bidden to draw the inference that the foundations of the Chris tian faith are gone. Moreover, some of the most impressive arguments in defence of historical Christianity, which depend on the presence of unessential discrepancies, showing the absence of collusion, and in various other ways confirming the truthful ness of the main features of the narrative, are precluded from being used whenever the obsolescent theory that the biblical narratives are drawn up with the pedantic accuracy of a notary public is still insisted on. It is a conception of inspiration, it may be added, which the sacred historians themselves do not allege " (Nature and Method of Revelation, pp. 41, 42).
(22). Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of Sacred Litera ture, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
" We must construct our formula of inspiration (if we deem it wise to attempt that task at all) from an actual and not from an imaginary Bible. All that we can do is to study our Hebrew and Greek Bibles in the best texts which critical scholarship can give us, and to see for ourselves whether the contents are liter ally accurate and consistent in date, quotation, and other detail. If, on such examination, we find errors or discrepancies, exegesis compels us to abandon, not the/tfc/ of inspiration, but that par ticular theory of inspiration, and to seek for another which will agree with the facts."
ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 235
. ..." It is difficult to avoid severe expressions concerning the attempts of certain divines, and writers in the religious journals, to stigmatize as unorthodox those who deny the verbal infallibility of Scripture, and to represent them as drawing their arguments from sceptical sources. The question of Christian courtesy, charity, and candor entirely apart, such utterances be tray an ignorance which is unpardonable in men who assume to shape and direct public opinion. Tt ought not to be necessary to inform such that the denial of verbal infallibility is not only no new thing, but that it has been asserted by a host of Christian scholars, of the first rank, since the days of Jerome, not to go farther back " (Exegesis, An Address, pp. 1 1, 40).
(23). /. H. Fairchild, ex-President of Oberlin College, Ohio.
" It is impossible to prove absolute inspiration in the sense claimed. The Scriptures do not affirm it, and no other proof is possible. No human wisdom is competent to search it out in the Scriptures, and establish it, in reference to every affirmation. It might be safely claimed that there is marvelous accuracy, even in the geographical and historical statements, and marvelous wisdom in reference to all matters of science — such wisdom as seems to imply divine guidance ; securing the use of popular ex pressions such as are always appropriate, and the avoidance of all technical terms which imply a scientific theory. This claim might be reasonably maintained. But to go farther, and claim the absolute accuracy of all minute statements of fact, or the ab solute harmony of all these statements with one another— this is a task which the broadest and most thorough scholarship in Scriptural learning would not undertake. Indeed, such scholars suppose they find minute statements, in the Scriptures, which they cannot reconcile with each other, or with the facts. The advocate of absolute inspiration disposes of these cases by as suming that, if we knew the facts perfectly, the difficulty would disappear. But this is not proved, and cannot be ; and absolute inspiration, to avail us as such, must be absolutely proved " (In spiration of the Scriptures, Bibliothcca Sacra, Jan., 1892, p. 20).
230 APPENDIX.
VI.
WHO ARE "THE HIGHER CRITICS"?
THE following is a list of the chief modern authorities who hold the modern critical views. Some of these are rationalists, but the majority of them are evangelical Christians. All of them, so far as I know, are honest, faithful, and truth-seeking scholars. They all recognize the composite character of the Hexateuch and Isaiah, though they differ as to the date of the documents and as to the extent and thoroughness with which they make the analysis of the documents. But however much they differ in de tails, they stand in solid phalanx against the traditional theory that Moses is responsible for our Pentateuch in its present form and that Isaiah wrote the whole of the book which bears his name.
The list is limited to those who have lived during the past 25 years, since 1866, when the writer began his studies in the Uni versity of Berlin. Those who have died are marked with a t. We do not propose to give all writers or all the writings of the authors cited ; but only the chief writings, and a sufficient num ber to indicate their critical opinions.
I. Germany.
(i) University of Berlin.
Prof. AUGUST DILLMANN. Die Genesis. $te Aufl. 1886; Exodus und Leviticus. 2te Aufl. 1 880 ; Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua. 2teAufl. 1886; Der Prophet Jesaia. $te Aufl. 1890.
Prof. PAUL KLEINERT. Hertwig's Tabellen zur Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Backer des Alt en Tes taments. 2te Aufl. 1 869 ; Das Deuteronomium und der Deu- teronomiker. 1872.
Prof. EBERHARD SCHRADER. De Wette's Einleitung in die ka nonischen und apokryphischen Biicher des Alien Testaments. SteAufl. 1869.
Prof. HERMANN L. STRACK. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, in ZOckler's Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften. 3te Aufl. 1889.
tWiLHELM VATKE. Religion des Alien Testaments. 1835; His- torisch-kritische Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 1886.
"THE HIGHER CRITICS." 937
(2) University of Breslau.
Prof. RUDOLPH KITTEL. Geschichte der Hebrder in the Hand- biicher der alien Geschichte. 1888.
tH. GRATZ. Geschichte der Juden. 1864-70.
(3) University of Haile.
Prof. EMIL KAUTZSCH. Die Genesis mit dusserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften, with the co-operation of Socin. 2te Aufl. 1891 ; Die Heilige Schrift des Alien Testaments iiber- setzt und herausgegeben. 1-5 Lieferung. 1890-92.
Prof. EDWARD MEYER. Geschichte des Alter t hums. 1884; Kritik der Bericht uber die Erobcrung Palestinas. Z. A. W. 1881 ; Die Krieg gegen Sichon. Z. A. W. 1885.
tHERMANN HUPFELD. Die Quellen der Genesis. 1853.
tD. KONSTANTIN SCHLOTTMANN. Kompendium der Biblischen Theologie. 1889.
tEDUARD RIEHM. Alttestamentliche Theologie. 1889; Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 1889-1 890.
(4) University of Strassburg.
Prof. THEODOR NOLDEKE. Die Altestamentliche Literatur. 1866 ; Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alien Testaments. 1869.
Prof. KARL BUDDE. DieBiblische Urgeschichte. 1883; Die Biicher Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau. 1890 ; Die Gesetzgebung der mittleren Biicher des Pentateuchs. Z. A. W. 1891 (2).
Prof. WlLHELM NOWACK. Der Prophet Hosea. 1880.
tEDUARD REUSS. Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alien Testaments. 2te Auf. 1890; La Bible. Vol.1. 1879.
f AUGUST KAYSER. Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine Erweiterungen. 1 874.
(5) University of Marburg.
Prof. W. W. BAUDISSIN. Die Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Priesterthums. 1889.
Prof. JULIUS WELLHAUSEN. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Is raels. 3te Ausg. 1886 ; Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Biicher des Alt en 7esi 'amenta '2te Druck mit Nachtrdgen. 1885 ; Bleek's Einlcitung in das Alte Testament 4te Aufl. 1878 ; Sketch of the History of Israel. Third Edi tion. 1891.
Prof. ADOLPH JULICHER. Die Quellen von Exodus VII.-XXIV inj. P. T. 1882.
238 APPENDIX.
(6) University of Giessen.
Prof. BERNHARD STADE. Geschichte des Volkes Israels. 1881-88; Hebrdisches Worterbuch zum Alien Testaments, with Sieg fried, ite Abtheil. 1892.
(7) University of Rostock.
Prof. EDUARD KONIG. Der OJfenbarungsbegriff des Altcn Tes taments. 1882; The Religious History of Israel. 1885.
(8) University of Greifswald.
Prof. FRIEDRICH W. BATHGEN. Beitrdge zur Semitischen Re- ligionsgeschichte. 1888.
Prof. FRIEDRICH GIESEBRECHT. Der Sprachgebrauch des Hexa- teuchischcn Elohistcn in Z. A. W. 1881 (2) ; Beitrdge zur Jesaiakritik. \ 890.
(9) University of Gottingen.
Prof. HERMANN SCHULTZ. Alttestamcntliche Theologie. 4te Aufl. 1885.
Prof. RUDOLPH SMEND. Der Prophet Ezechiel. 1880.
IHEINRICH EVVALD. Die Prophetcn des Alien Bundes. 2te Ausg. 1867-8; Commentary on the Prophets. 1875-81; Die Lchre der Bibel von Gott otter Theologie des Alien und Neuen Bundes. 1871 ; Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 3te Ausg. 1 864-8 ; History of Israel. 1 869-7 1 .
I-ERNST BERTHEAU. Das Buch der Richter und Ruth. 2te Aufl. 1883; Die sicben Gruppen Mosdischer Gesetze in den drei mittleren Biichern des Pentateuchs. 1 840.
tPAUL A. DE LAGARDE. Or:'entalta,l. 1879; Symmicta, I. 1877; Mitthcilungen, I. 1884.
(10) University of Leipzig.
Prof. ALBERT SociN. Die Genesis mit ausscrer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften, with Kautzsch. 2te Aufl. 1891.
Prof. HERMANN GUTHE. Die Zukunftsbild des Jesaias. 1885. Prof. FRIEDRICH DELITZSCH. Wo lag das Paradies? 1881. Prof. FRANTS BUHL. Kanonund TeztdesAlten Testaments. 1891.
fFRANZ DELITZSCH. Zwolf Pentateuch-kritische Studicn, Z. K. W. 1 880 ; Neuer Comment ar uber die Genesis. 1 887 ; Com ment ar iiber das Buch Jesaia. 4te Aufl. 1889; Messianic Prophecy. 1891.
(n) University of Heidelberg.
Prof. ADALBERT MERX. Nachwort in Tuch's Commentar uber des Genesis. 2te Aufl. 1871.
" THE HIGHER CRITICS." 239
Prof. LUDWIG LEMME. Die religionsgeschichtliche Bedentung des Decalogs. 1 880.
tFERDlNAND HlTZiG. Der Prophet Jesaja. 1833 5 Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 1 869 ; Vorlesungen iiber Biblische Theologie. 1880.
(12) University of Konigsberg.
Prof. CARL H. CORNILL. Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel. 1886 ; Einleitung in das Alte Testament in the Grundriss der Theolo- gischen Wissenschaften. 1891.
(13) University of Kiel.
Prof. EMIL SCHURER. Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes. 2te Aufl. 1886-89.
Prof. AUGUST KLOSTERMANN. Die Heiligkeitsgesetz in Luther- ischer Zeitschrift. 1877 ; Beitrdge zur Entstehungsgesc hie lite des Pentateuchs. N. K. Z., 9, 10.
Prof. CONRAD BREDENKAMP. Gesetz und Propheten. 1881 ; Der Prophet Jesaia erldutert. 1886-87.
(14) University of Bonn.
Prof. ADOLPH KAMPHAUSEN. Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 2te Aufl. 1865 ; Das Lied Moses. 1862.
(15) University of Tubingen.
Prof. JULIUS GRILL. Die Erzvater der Menscheit. 1875; Der achtundsechzigster Psalm. 1883.
(16) University of Erlangen.
Prof. AUGUST K5HLER. Lehrbuch der Biblischen Geschichte. 1889-90.
(17) University of Munich.
Prof. FRITZ HOMMEL. Die Semitischen Volker und Sprachen, I. Bd. 1883.
(18) University of Jena.
Prof. CARL SIEGFRIED. Hebratiches Worterbuch zum Alien Tes- tamente, with Stade, ist Abtheil. 1892.
Prof. JOHANN G. STICKEL. Das Hohelied. 1888.
fProf. LUDWIG DIESTEL. Geschichte des Alt en Testament es in der Christ lie hen Kirche. 1869. Der Prophet Jesaia. Ate Aufl. 1872.
(19) Other Scholars.
JOHN HOLLENBERG. Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des B. Joshua in the Stud, und Krit. 1874.
240 APPENDIX.
GEORGE EBERS. Egypt en und die Bucher Moses. 1868. GUSTAV KARPELES. Geschichte der Judischen Literaiur. 1886. JULIUS LIPPERT. Allgemcine Geschichte des Priesterthums. 1883. MAX DUNCKER. The History of Antiquity. 1877.
S. MAYBAUM. Die Entwickelung des altisraelitischen Priester thums. 1880.
JULIUS POPPER. Der Ursprung des Monotheismus. 1879.
tKARL HEINRICH GRAF. Der Prophet Jeremia. 1862. Die geschichtliche Bucher des Alten Testaments in Merx Archiv. '1866-68.
tL. HERZFELD. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 1847-57.
These are chiefly the professors in the Old Testament depart ment in the German universities who have expressed themselves in favor of modern critical views of the Hexateuch and Isaiah. If there is any professor in the Old Testament department of any German university who holds the traditional theory of the Hexa teuch and the book of Isaiah we do not know his name. He has not spoken his opinion. In 1866 the writer was a student of Hengstenberg, who was a great and influential man, having taught several thousand students in his class-rooms. Hengs tenberg was supported by Hfivernick and Keil. Not one of his students now represents his views in any university in Germany. The writer was convinced by Hengstenberg's methods in his class room that he was wrong. We know of others who went through the same experience. What Hengstenberg could not accom plish, it is vain to think that any American or English Old Tes tament professor can do.
We shall now give the names of authorities in
II. Other Countries of the Continent of Europe.
(i) Switzerland.
(a) University of Basle.
Prof. KONRAD VON ORELLI. Die Alttestamentliche Weissagungen von der Vollendung des Gottesrciches. 1882. Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God's Kingdom. 1885. Die Propheten Jesaia und Jeremiah. 1886. The Prophecies of Isaiah. 1889. Das Bitch Esechiel und die zwolf klcinen Propheten. 1888. Theologie des Alten Testaments in Zock- ler's Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften. 1 889.
Prof. BERNHARD DUHM. Die Theologie der Propheten. 1875.
Prof. KARL MARTI. Die Spuren der sogenannten Grundschrift des Hexateuchs in der vorexilischen Propheten. J. P. T. 1880. Der Prophet Jeremia. 1889.
11 THE HIGHER CRITICS." 241
(b) University of Bern.
Prof. SAMUEL OETTLI. Die geschichtlichen Hagiographen und das Buck Daniel. 1889.
(c) University of Zurich.
Prof. VICTOR RYSSEL. De Elohistae Pentateuchi Sermone. 1878. Untersuchungen iiber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha. 1887.
(d) University of Geneva.
Prof. EDOURD MONTET. Essai sur les origines des partis Sadu- cien et Pharisien. 1883. Reviews of Reuss, Vernes, and others, in R. H. R., xv. xxi. xxii.
(e) University of Lausanne.
Prof. H. VUILLEUMIER. Articles in the Revue de Thcologie et de Philosophic. 1882-1883.
(f ) Free Church College, Lausanne.
Prof. LUCIEN GAUTIER. Le Mission du Prophete Eztchiel. 1891.
(2) University of Dorpat, Russia.
Prof. WILHELM VOLCK. Die Biblische Hermeneutik, in ZOckler's Handbuch der Theologischen Wissenschaften, 3te Aufl. 1889.
(3) France.
(a) The Theological Faculty at Montaubon.
Prof. CHARLES BRUSTON. Histoire critique de la literature prophctique des Hebreux depuis les origines jusqu'a la mort d'Isaie. 1881 ; Les quatre sources des lois de I' Ex ode. 1883; Les deux Jchovistcs. R. T. P. 1885 ; La mort et la sepulture de Jacob. Z. A. T.
Prof. FERDINAND MONTET. Le Deuttronome et la question de VHcxateuque. 1891.
(b) College of France, Paris.
Prof. ALBERT REVILLE. Review of Kuenen in R. H. R. xxii. Prof. ERNEST RENAN. Histoire du Peuple d' Israel. 1887-91.
(c) The High School in the Sorbonne.
Prof. A. CARRIERE. Review of Kttenen's Hexateuch in R. H. R. xiii. 206.
Prof. MAURICE VERNES. Article, Pentateuque, in Lichtenberger's Encyclopedia, x., p. 447. Une nouvelle hypothese sur la Com position du Deuteronome. 1887. Preces d' Histoire Juive. 1 889. Essais bibliques. 1 89 1 .
Prof. JAMES DARMSTETTER. Die Philosophic der Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes. 1884. Les prophetcs d' Israel in R. D. M. 1891.
242 APPENDIX.
(d) Other Scholars.
GUSTAVE D' EIGHTH AL. Melanges de critique Biblique. 1886. F. H. KRUGER. Essai sur la thtologie d'Esaie, xl.-lxvi. 1881.
CHARLES PIEPENBRING. Histoire des lieux de culte et du sacer- doce en Israel. R. H. R. xxiv. i, 2. Thtologie de I'Ancien Testament. 1886.
ALEXANDRE WESTPHAL. Les sources du Pentateuque. 1888-92.
L. HORST. Etudes sur le Deutfronome. R. H. R. 1887, 1888, 1891. Leviticus X VII. -XX VI. und Hesekiel. 1 88 1 .
ISIDORE LOEB. La littcrature des pauvrcs dans la Bible. R. E. J.
xxiii. t FRANCOIS LENORMANT. The Beginnings of History, edited by
Francis Brown. 1882.
(4) Italy. Institute of Florence.
Prof. DAVID CASTELLI. La Profezia nclla Bibbia. 1882. Storia degT Israelite. 1887. La Legge del Popolo Ebreo net suo svolgimento storico. 1884.
(5) Holland.
(a) UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN.
Prof. CORNELIS PETRUS TIELE. Vergctijkende Geschicdcnis der Egypt ische en Mcsopotamische Godsdicnsten. 1869-72. Out lines of the History of Religion to the spread of the Universal Religions. 4th edition. 1884.
Prof. HENRICUS OORT. The Bible for Learners. 1878-9.
fABRAHAM KUENEN. The Religion of Israel. 1874-5; The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. 1877. Hist.-crit. Ondersoek naar het Ontstaan en de Verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Ver -bonds. 2de uitgave. 1885-1889; The Hexateuch. 1886.
(b) UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT.
Prof. J. J. P. V ALSTON. Jesaja volgens zijne algemeen als echt erkende Schriften. 1871. Beteckemis en gebrink van het word Thord in het Oude Testament in the Theologische Studien. 1891.
(c) UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN.
Prof. G. WILDEBOER. Het Ontstaan van den Kanon des Ouden Verbonds. 1889. De Pentateuch-Kritik en het Mozaische Strafrecht in Tigdschrift von Strafrecht. 1890-1.
(d) UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM.
Prof. CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE. Lchrbuch der Rcligions- gcschichte. 2 Bde. 1887-89.
Prof. J. KNAPPERT. The Religion of Israel. 1878.
THE HIGHER CRITICS."
243
(6) Austria.
Prof. WALTER LOTZ (Evangelical Faculty at Vienna). Quaes- tiones de Historia Sabbati. 1883.
VICTOR FLOIGL. Geschichte des Scmitischen Alter turns. 1882.
III. Great Britain.
The chief British scholars who have expressed modern critical views are :
(1) University of Oxford.
Prof. THOMAS K. CHEYNE. The Prophecies of Isatah. 3d edition. 1884; Jeremiah, his life and times. 1888; The Origin and Religious contents of the Psalter. 1891.
Prof. SAMUEL R. DRIVER. Critical Notes on the International Sun day-School Lessons from the Pentateuch, 1887 ; Isaiah, his life and times. 1888. Introduction to the Literature of' the Old Testament in the International Theological Library. 2d edition. 1892.
(2) University of Cambridge.
Prof. ALEXANDER T. KIRKPATRICK. The Divine Library of the
Old Testament. 1891. Prof. W. ROBERTSON SMITH. The Old Testament in the Jewish
Church. 2d edition. 1892; The Prophets of Israel and
their place in History. 1882 ; Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites. 1889.
Prof. HERBERT E. RYLE. The Canon of the Old Testament. 1892.
Prof. VINCENT H. STANTON. The Jewish and the Christian Messiah. 1886.
(3) Manchester New College.
Prof. JAMES DRUMMOND. The Jewish Messiah. 1877.
Prof. J. E. CARPENTER. The Book of Deuteronomy, in the Modern Review. 1883.
(4) Wesleyan College, Richmond.
Prof. W. T. DAVISON. Inspiration and Biblical Criticism. A Paper read at the London Wesleyan ministers' meeting, March 16, 1891.
(5) Countess of Huntingdon's College, Cheshunt.
Prof. OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. Franz Delitzsch and Aug. Dill- mann on the Pentateuch. Expositor, Feb., 1888. Review of Cheynes Origin and Religious Contents of the Psalter in Criti cal Review, Jan., 1892.
(6) United College (Independent), Yorkshire.
Prof. ARCHIBALD DUFF, Jr. Old Testament Theology. 1892.
244
APPENDIX.
(7) Free College (Presbyterian), Edinburgh.
Prof. ANDREW B. DAVIDSON. Articles on Isaiah, xl.-lxvi., in the Expositor. 1883, 1884.
(8) Other Scholars.
SAMUEL DAVIDSON. Introduction to the Old Testament. 1862-3.
Bishop J. J. STEWART PEROWNE. The Age of the Pentateuch. Contemporary Review, 1888, Jan. and Feb.
G. J. SPURRELL. Notes on the Hebrew Text of Genesis. 1887.
C. H. H. WRIGHT. Introduction to the Old Testament. Third Edition. 1891.
ROBERT F. HORTON. Inspiration and the Bible. Third Edition. 1891.
H. A. GILES. Hebrew and Christian Records. 1877.
C. G. MONTEFIORE. Recent Criticism upon Moses and the Penta teuch in the 'Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan., 1891. Some Notes on the Effects of Biblical Criticism upon the Jewish Religion. Ibid. Jan., 1892.
F. W. FARRAR. The Minor Prophets. 1890. C. J. BALL. The Prophecies of Jeremiah. 1891. P. RAY HUNTER. After the Exile. 1890. GEORGE A. SMITH. The Book of Isaiah. 1890. BUCHAN BLAKE. How to Read Isaiah. 1891.
W. E. ADDIS. The Documents of the Hexateuch translated and arranged in Chronological order, with Introduction and Notes. 1892.
JOSEPH JACOBS. Recent Researches in Biblical Archceology ; Are there Totem-clans in the Old Testament. Archceological Re view, 1889.
tM. KALISCH. Historical and Critical Commentary on Genesis, 1858. Exodus, 1855. Leviticus, 1867, 1872.
"THE HIGHER CRITICS." 245
tM ATTHEW ARNOLD. The great prophecy of Israel 's Restoration. Fourth Edition. 1875.
tSAMUEL SHARP. History of the Hebrew Nation. Fourth Edi tion. 1882.
tARTHUR P. STANLEY. The Jewish Church. Seventh Edition. 1877.
tJOHN WILLIAM COLENSO. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. 1862-79.
IV. America.
(r) Harvard University.
Prof. CRAWFORD H. TOY. Judaism and Christianity. 1890. History of the Religion of Israel. Third Edition. 1884.
Prof. DAVID G. LYON. Results of Modern Biblical Criticism O. T. S. 1883.
(2) Yale University.
Prof. GEORGE T. LADD. The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture. 1883.
(3) University of Pennsylvania.
Prof. JOHN P. PETERS. The Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian. 1886. Jacob's Blessing. J. B. L. 1886. The Bate of Leviti cus. J. B. L. 1888.
Prof. MORRIS JASTROW, Jr. The Bible in the light of Modern Criticism, in the American Hebrew. 1886.
(4) University of Chicago.
Pres. WILLIAM R. HARPER. The Pentateuchal Question, He- braica. 1888-1890.
Prof. EMIL G. HIRSCH. Modern Views of the Bible. A memorial discourse on Professor Kuenen. Reform Advocate, Jan., 1892.
(5) Johns Hopkins University.
Prof PAUL HAUPT. The Cuneiform Account of the Deluge.
\J. 1. o. 1004.
(6) Andover Theological Seminary.
Prof. GEORGE F. MOORE. Tartan's Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch. J. B. L, ix. 1889.
246
APPENDIX.
(7) Chicago Theological Seminary.
Prof. SAMUEL IVES CURTISS. The Higher Criticism : Some of its Results. Independent, July 30, 1891.
(8) Lancaster Theological Seminary.
Prof. FREDERICK A. GAST. Pentateuch Criticism: Its History and Present State. Reformed Quarterly Review, April and July, 1882.
(9) Victoria University, Coburg, Canada.
Prof. GEORGE C. WORKMAN. The Text of Jeremiah. 1889. Messianic Prophecy, in the Canadian Methodist Quarterly. 1890 (2).
(10) Lane Theological Seminary.
Prof. HENRY P. SMITH. The Critical Theories of Julius Well- hausen, in the Presbyterian Review, III. 2. Biblical Scholar ship and Inspiration. 1891.
(n) P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.
Dean E. T. BARTLETT. The Scriptures: Hebrew and Christian. 1886.
Prof. L. W. BATTEN. The Historical Movement traceable in Isaiah xl.-lxvi., in the Andovcr Review, Aug., 1891.
(12) Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge.
Prof. M. L. KELLNER. The Deluge in the Izdubar Epic and the Old Testament. American Church Review. 1889.
(13) Union Theological Seminary, N. Y.
Prof. CHARLES A. BRIGGS. Biblical Study. Fourth Edition. 1891. Messianic Prophecy. 1888. Whither? Third Edition. 1890. Biblical History. 1889. The Authority of Holy Scripture. Third Edition. 1891.
Prof. FRANCIS BROWN. The New Testament Witness to Old Testament Books. J. S. B. L. Is the Higher Criticism Scien tific? Homiletic Review, April, 1892. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Part I., 1892. With the co operation of S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs.
" THE HIGHER CRITICS." 247
(14) Other American Scholars.
R. HEBER NEWTON. The right and wrong uses of the Bible. 1883. The Book of the Beginnings. 1884.
WASHINGTON GLADDEN. Who Wrote the Bible? 1891. BENJAMIN WISNER BACON. The Genesis of Genesis. 1892. JOHN W. CHAD WICK. The Bible of To-day. 1879.
ADOLPH MOSES. Nadab und Abihu oder der Untergang der Sauliden. 1 890.
tMiCHAEL HEILPRIN. The Historical Poetry of the Ancient He brews. 1879.
The list of British and American scholars who hold to the documentary theory of the composition of the Hexateuch and Isaiah is quite incomplete, because a large number of Professors who hold these views have not written upon the subject. The number of Professors in the Old Testament department who hold to the traditional theory may be counted on one's fingers. Under these circumstances it ought to be plain to every intelli gent person, that the traditionalists are in such a hopeless minority that it is extremely improbable that they will ever be able to over come the weight of scholarship throughout the world which is so overwhelmingly on the critical side. And even if any one should suppose that there are perils in the methods and results of the Higher Criticism, it is, to say the least, unwise, in view of the enormous literature on the critical side and its influence ex tending so widely and so rapidly, to risk the authority of the Bible upon the maintenance of the traditional theory, and to assert, as some foolish people do, that the scores of evangelical critics are destroying the Bible.
The great majority of the writings mentioned above have been examined by the author. But for a number of them he has re lied upon the testimony of his friends, Profs. Toy, Moore, Henry P. Smith, Peters, and Adler, who have kindly given him their assistance.
248
APPENDIX.
VII.
THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE NAME JAHVEH.
Ex. Hi. 12-15 (E).
And he said, Verily I shall be with thee ("joy rpriN) and this shall be the sign to thee that I 03JK) have sent thee : when thou hast brought forth the people from Egypt, ye shall serve God (D'r6«n) upon this mountain. And Moses said unto God (D*p6«n), Behold I 032K) am going to come unto the children of Israel and say to them, the God of your fa thers hath sent me unto you. If they say to me, what is his name, what shall I say unto them ? And God said (Dvfal) unto Moses, / shall be the one who will be (e. g. with thee flYiN "IB»N nviN). And he said, Thus shaltthou say to the chil dren of Israel, / shall be (e. g. with thee iTTIK) hath sent me unto you. And God (Dv6tt) said again unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel Jahveh (mrp He who will be with thee), the God of your fathers, the God of Abra ham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial to all generations.
These parallel passages not
Ex. vi. 2-7 (/>).
And God (D'r6«) spake unto Moses and said unto him, / am Jahveh (niJT ':«). I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob as 'El Shadday, but as to my name Jahveh I was not known to them. And I have also established my cove nant WanN TIOpH) with them to give to them the land of Canaan, the land of their so- journings (D.T"OE), in which they sojourned. And I OJKJ have also heard the groaning (np8W) of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage and have remembered my covenant (mn "OT). Where fore say to the children of Is rael, / am Jahveh (mrp r«), and I will bring you out from under the, burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage and redeem you with a stretched-out arm and with great judgments ; and take you to me for a people and be to you for a God (&rkvh D3^ .Til), and ye shall know that I am ! Jahveh your God (":« O DnjTP i DDTI^K miT), who bringeth you forth from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
only give different accounts of
THE REVELATION OF THE NAME JAHVEH. 249
the same revelation of the divine name, Jahveh, but they also ex hibit the differences in style between E and P. I shall not men tion all of these differences, but only some of the more striking ones.
(i). establish a covenant JV"U D^pn is used by P 8 times, and in Ez. xvi. 60, 62, in this sense ; but by Lev. xxvi. 9 (H the Holiness code of P) and Deut. viii. 18 (D) in the sense con firm a covenant. It is not used elsewhere.
(2). remember a covenant mi -OT is used by P 4 times and by H in Lev. xxvi. 42, 45 ; elsewhere, Ez. xvi. 60, i C. xvi. 15, Ps. cv. 8, cvi. 45, cxi. 5 ; Am. i 9. It is not used in J E D. (3). I am Jahveh (m,T \)K) is used by J, Gen. xv. 7, xxviii. 13 ; Ex. vii. 17, viii. i8,x. 2;andxv. 26 (R) ; elsewhere in the Hex- ateuch in P 35 times and H 40 times, often in the emphatic sense I Jahveh. It is never used by E or D. (4). "OK is always used by P (130 times) for /, except possibly Gen. xxiii. 4 ; whereas 'mx, the longer form, is commonly used in E and D. The usage in J varies.
(5). DTI^Kn is used as subject or object 33 times in E, and
as an absolute defining a preceding construct 12 times
in E. It is used by P only Gen. xvii. 18, Jos. xxii. 34 (?),
and in his sources Gen. v. 22, 24, vi. 9, n.
(6). God of the fathers ni3N TI^K is a phrase used 12 times by
E and 8 times in D ; by J thrice, but never by P. (7). EPr6ft6n*fl is used 10 times by P, 6 times by Jeremiah, 6 times by Ezekiel, by D in Deut. xxvi. 17, xxix. 12; else where in 2 Sam. vii. 24, i C. xvii. 22, Zech. viii. 8, and in Gen. xxviii. 21, which is a redactor's insertion in the docu ment E.
(8). lUD is used by P 7 times ; elsewhere Job xviii. 19, Ez. xx. 38, Ps. Iv. 1 6, cxix. 54, never in the other documents of the Hexateuch. (9). npfrO is used by P here and Ex. ii. 24 ; elsewhere Judges
ii. 1 8, Ez. xxx. 24.
(10). ^W ^N is used in the blessing of Jacob, Gen. xlix. 25, ac cording to LXX. Sam., Syriac, Arabic versions, and some Massoretic MSS. On this basis it is used by P 5 times and by the Redactor in Gen. xliii. 14, not elsewhere in the Hexa teuch.
250
APPENDIX.
(n). The style ot P in using suffixes with the sign of the defi nite accusative rather than with the verb appears 6 times in this passage, but not at all in the parallel passage of E.
(12). Notice also " And God spake unto Moses and said," the style of P, as compared with " And God said " of E.
VIII.
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE OTHER
CODES.
The book which Moses was commanded to write as the basis of the Covenant according to J (Ex. xxxiv. 27), is called the little book of the Covenant, to distinguish it from the book which Moses wrote according to E as the basis of the Covenant at Horeb (Ex. xxiv. 4) which is called the greater book of the Covenant, on account of its much greater extent. The latter embraces the section Ex. xx. 22-xxiii., the former the section Ex. xxxiv. 11-26. This little book of the Covenant is scarcely larger than the tables of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 1-17). Indeed it is now the opinion of many critics that we have here another decalogue. It is true the critics differ in their arrangement of these commands, but as there have always been differences in the synagogue and the church as to the arrangement of the "Ten Commandments of the Tables," such differences of opinion as to the arrangement of this decalogue cannot destroy the consen sus as to their number in either case. There are some critics who hold that this decalogue was written upon the Tables (Ex. xxxiv. 28), on account of "the words of the covenant," which seem to go back upon " write thou these words, for upon the basis of these words do I conclude a covenant with thee and with Israel " (v. 27) ; and also on account of the verb HnDs1 which has no subject expressed and where the most natural interpreta tion finds the subject in Moses, the subject of the verbs which immediately precede. This would then be the execution of the command given in v. 27 ; and would force to the conclusion that these tables contained the decalogue of vs. 11-26, and not the decalogue of Ex. xx. 2-17. If the section Ex. xxxiv. 11-28 stood by itself we could not escape this conclusion; but if we go back to Ex. xxxiv. I we find the promise that Jahveh will write upon
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 25 1
these tables the same commands that were upon the former tables destroyed by Moses, and these were certainly the ten words of Ex. xx. 2-17. This forces us to supply the subject Jahveh to iro^l in thought or to take the verb as having an indefinite subject and then render it as a passive. " The words of the covenant, ten words were written upon the tables." This certainly was the opinion of the Redactor.
In the code of E we may find six complete decalogues, (i) xxi. 2- 1 1, of Hebrew slaves ; (2) xxi. 12-25, of deeds of violence ; (3) xxi. 26-37, of lesser injuries; (4) xxii. 6-16, of breaches of trust; (5) xxiii. 1-3, 6-9, of justice ; (6) xxiii. 10-19, of feasts and offerings. We may also find four separate pentades, (i) xx. 23-26, of worship ; (2) xxii. 1-5, of theft and damages ; (3) xxii. 20-26, of treatment of poor and weak ; (4) xxii. 27-29, of rever ence and first fruits. There also seem to be several remnants of pentades and decalogues. We apparently have fragments of three decalogues, (i) of Magic and Idolatry, in two pentades, xxii. 17 and 19; (2) of sexual laws, xxii. 18; (3) of laws of purity, xxii. 30 ; and two pentades, (i) of kindness, xxiii. 4-5, and (2) curs ing of parents, xxi. 17. In all we probably have nine decalogues and six pentades. If the pentades could be combined in deca logues we would have twelve decalogues. If this could be ac complished we might conclude that these were written upon the twelve nuafO which Moses built in connection with the altar (Ex. xxiv. 4), for which we can find no use in the historical nar rative. If this were so, we would have an analogy with the case of the Deuteronomic code which was written upon stones in connection with the altar erected on Ebal, after the entrance into the holy land, Deut. xxvii. 8 ; Josh. viii. 30, sq. In both cases the code would then have been written on 'stones as well as in books.
We shall take the decalogue of J as a basis for our comparison : We shall compare these laws of J and E with corresponding laws in the Deuteronomic code (D), the code of Holiness (H), and the Priest's code (P). We shall also bring into comparison the Ten Words of the Tables. There are two versions of these, the one in Ex. xx. (T a), the other in Deuteronomy v. (T b}. The version in Ex. xx. embraces material from P, and, accord ingly, has embedded in it the Tables of E and J. The Tables in D are called "Tables of the Covenant," Deut. ix. 9; in P
252 APPENDIX.
" Tables of the testimony," Ex. xxxi. i&z ; in E " Tables of stone," Ex. xxxi. i8£; in J "Tables of stones," Ex. xxxiv. i, 4.
/. Command.
J. — " Surely yc shall not worship another God " (Ex. xxxiv. 14 a). E. — " Ye shall not make with me gods of silver " (Ex. xx. 23 a). T. — " Thou shalt have no other gods before me " (Ex. xx. 3). D. — " If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, .... say ing, Let us go after other gods .... and let us serve, them," thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet" (Dt. xiii. 2).
H. — " Turn ye not unto worthless gods " (Lev. xix. 4). This is the same command in five different codes (a) "other gods " (T and D), = " another god " (J), = " gods of silver " (E), = " worthless gods " (H) ; (b) " have " (T), = " go after and serve " (D), = "make"(E), = "turn unto " (H), = " worship " (J) ; (c) "with meM (E), = "before me " (T).
//. Command.
J. — " Molten gods thou shalt not make thee" (Ex. xxxiv. 17).
E. — " And gods of gold ye shall not make you " (Ex. xx. 23 £).
T. — " Thou shalt not make thee any graven image" (Ex. xx. 4).
H. — " Molten gods ye shall not make you" (Lev. xix. 4).
D. — " Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image " (Dt. xxvii. 15).
" Molten gods " (J and H), = " gods of gold " (E), = "graven image " (T), = " graven or molten image " (D).
It is probable that the reasons attached to these commands were not original. In J the reasons are appended to the first command.
' For Jahveh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He. (Take heed) lest thou conclude a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they go whoring after their gods and sacrifice unto their gods, they invite thee and thou eat of their peace offerings, and then take some of their daughters for thy sons, and when their daughters go whoring after their gods they make thy sons go whoring after their gods " (Ex. xxxiv 14 b, 16). These verses simply unfold the meaning of N3p. As Jahveh is the husband of Israel he demands the exclusive allegiance of his people. Any worship of other gods is as the neglect of her
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 253
husband by a wife and her going after other lovers. Any par ticipation in the sacrificial meals of these gods is committing whoredom with them. In both versions of the Tables a corre sponding reason is appended to the second command.
" ( nor T a) any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor be led to serve them : for I Jahveh thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children (and T b} upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my command ments " (Ex. xx. 4-6 ; Dt. v. 8-10).
(a). This enlargement of the command has its parallel in Dt. iv. 15-19.
" Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that Jahveh spake unto you in Ho- reb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth : and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn away and worship them and serve them."
It is evident that this is an expansion by D of the lesser specifi cation given in connection with the Tables. The specification in the Tables is earlier than D, and not derived from D.
(0). The first part of the reason of the 2d command of the Ta bles is the same essentially as the first part of the reason of the decalogue of J.
J. — " For Jahveh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He " (Ex. xxxiv. 14 b).
T. — " For I, Jahveh, thy God, am a jealous God " (Ex. xx. 5).
This we may also compare with
D.— " For Jahveh, thy God, is a consuming fire, a jealous God " (Dt. iv. 24).
(r). The second part of the reason of the 2d command of the decalogue of the Tables we find in essentially the same form in the revelation of the divine grace by the theophanic voice, "Jah-
254: APPENDIX.
veh, Jahveh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to an ger, and plenteous in mercy and faithfulness : keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin : and that will by no means acquit ; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation " (Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7). This passage certainly belongs to J. It is probable, therefore, that the whole of the specification and reasons appended to the 2d command of the Tables belongs to the document J.
(a). The larger portion of the reason attached to the first com mand of the decalogue of worship in J is not found in T. We find this prohibition of making a covenant with the Canaanites in D.
" Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them : neither shalt thou make marriages with them ; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods ; so will the anger of Jahveh be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quick ly " (Dt. vii. 2-4).
The conception of " whoring after other gods " is found in the Hexateuch elsewhere in Deut. xxxi. 16 (J) ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; xx. 5-6 (H), and Num. xiv. 33 (J ?) ; xv. 39 (P). There seems to be little doubt that this conception also is original to J.
///. Command.
J. — Six days shalt thou labor, but on the seventh day thou shalt
rest (Ex. xxxiv. 21).. E. — Six days shalt thou do thy work, but on the seventh day thou
shalt rest (Ex. xxiii. 12).
T a. — Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it (Ex. xx. 8). T b. — Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it (Dt. v. 12). H. — Ye shall observe my Sabbaths (Lev. xix. 3, 30; xxvi. 2). P. — Verily ye shall observe my Sabbaths (Ex. xxxi. 13).
In the decalogue of J the feast of unleavened bread precedes the Sabbath, but in the parallel passage in E, and in the cata logues of holy days in P, the Sabbath comes first. The reason for this strange transposition it is difficult to see.
J mentions the six days as days in which to "labor" — "do
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS.
255
thy work" (E). The seventh 'day is for "rest," rat? (J E). In the Tables " the seventh day " gives place to " the Sabbath," rot?. This is to be " sanctified," j»np. It is to be " remembered " (T a) ; but observed (T bt H, P). The Sabbath becomes Sab baths in H, P.
J. gives an additional specification.
E. — " In ploughing and reaping thou shalt rest " (Ex. xxxiv. 21), that is, in the busiest seasons of the year, when the temptation to labor would be strongest.
The Tables also give specifications.
T a.— " Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates" (Ex. xx. 9, 10).
T b.— " As Jahveh thy God commanded thee,— Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stran ger that is within thy gates " (Dt. v. 12-14).
The Priest code contains two sets of specifications from differ ent sources.
P a.— " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for it is holy unto you : every one that profaneth it shall be put to a violent death : for whosoever doth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done ; but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jahveh : whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall be put to a violent death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for an everlasting cove nant" (Ex. xxxi. 14-16).
Compare also in the catalogue of DHJflO of P.
P t>- — "Six days shall work be done : but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, an holy convocation ; ye
256 APPENDIX.
shall do no manner of work : it is a sabbath unto Jah- veh in all your dwellings " (Lev. xxiii. 3).
Compare also the catalogue of ritual offerings, Num. xxviii. 9-10, where the offerings for the Sabbath are presented.
The specifications are two-fold : (a} as to the method of ob serving the day, and (b) as to those who are to observe it.
(a). The first object is abstinence from labor, n3&6» ^3 HC*yn vh T a and b. This takes the place of f K'Vtt ntryn of E. The second object is rest To this fundamental conception contained in the J"QE> of J we have the rw\ rest, t?Q3\ take breath, of E. The third object in view, religious observance, is peculiar to P in his phrases prOC? rQt? ,rQ!? i"CT and ynp NIpD.
(b). Those who are to observe it are in J " thou," in E ox and ass, the son of the maidservant, and stranger ; in T a, son, daugh ter, manservant, maidservant, cattle, and stranger; T b, ox and ass are added to those of T a ; in P, it is every soul, or person, un der penalty of a violent death.
(c). The reasons of the command are still more varied than the specifications. There are none in J.
E. — " that thine ox and thine ass may rest and that the son of thy maidservant and the stranger may take breath " (Ex. xxiii. 12).
T b. — " in order that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jahveh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm ; therefore Jahveh thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day " (Dt. v. 14-15). T a. — " For in six days Jahveh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; where fore Jahveh blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it " (Ex.
XX. II).
P. — " For it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations : that ye may know that I am Jahveh which sanc tify you it is a sign between me and the children of
Israel for ever : for in six days Jahveh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed " (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17.)
It is evident that the reason given in T b is only a Deutero- nomic enlargement of E fortified by the reference to the deliver-
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 25*7
ance from Egypt which is the Deuteronomic underlying motive of gratitude to keep all the commands. This reason is omitted in T a, and was without doubt absent from the Tables as given in the Versions of J and E. It is not difficult to trace the origin of the reason given in T a. We find it essentially in the appendix to the Poem of the Creation : " And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it ; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made " (Gen. ii. 2-3). It is a characteristic of the priestly document.
It is also characteristic of P that he represents the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant, just as he has given the sign of the Abra- hamic covenant, circumcision (Gen. xvii.), and the sign of the covenant with Noah, the rainbow (Gen. ix. 13 seq.), these three signs being peculiar to his document.
The three commands thus far given have their parallels in the Tables ; the seven now to be considered have nothing to corre spond with them in the Tables.
IV. Command.
]• — The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt observe (Ex.
xxxiv. 1 80). E. — The feast of unleavened broad thou shalt observe (Ex. xxiii.
15*). D. — Observe the month Abib and keep Passover to Jahveh thy
God (Dt. xvi. \d).
P. — In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month, be tween the evenings, is passover to Jahveh. And on the fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened bread to Jahveh (bev. xxiii. 5-6).
In the ritual of the holy days, Num. xxviii. 16-17, (P b), we have a section identical with Lev. xxiii. 5-6, save that " Mazzoth to Jah veh " has fallen out after "feast," probably by an ancient copy ist's mistake, and " between the evenings " is omitted. H prob ably had a similar brief law, but it was left off when his law was appended to P in Lev. xxiii. The comparison of these parallel laws in the four codes shows that the feast of unleavened bread was the great feast of J E. There is no reference to the Passover in E. In J it is mentioned in his 8th command, Passover has
258 APPENDIX.
become a proper name in D and has risen above the feast of un leavened bread. So also in P, the Passover comes first in im portance. The simple command for the observance of the feast of unleavened bread is enlarged in all the laws. In D and P it is appended to the Passover. We shall reserve the Passover for dis cussion under the 8th Command of J and limit ourselves here to the feast of unleavened bread.
J. — "Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread according as I have commanded thee, at the season of the month Abib. For in the month Abib thou didst go out from Egypt " (Ex. xxxiv. 1 8).
E. — " Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread according as I have commanded thee, at the season of the month Abib. For in it thou didst go forth from Egypt " (Ex. xxiii. 15).
D.— " Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction ; for thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste : that thou mayest remem ber the day when thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. And there shall be no leaven seen with thee in all thy borders seven days. .... Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread : and on the seventh day shall be a Azereth to Jahveh thy God ; thou shalt do no work " (Dt. xvi. 3-4, 8).
P (a). — " Seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation : ye shall do no servile work. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire to Jahveh seven days: on the seventh day is an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work " (Lev. xxiii. 6-8).
(£).— " Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. In the first day shall be an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work ; but ye shall offer an offering made by fire, etc." (Num. xxviii. 17-25).
The month Abib is the time of J E D, but P in accordance with his usage mentions the number of the month. The simple rule of J E as regards eating unleavened bread, in D is paraphrased and intensified, and the last day is made into a special day called
rroy,
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS.
259
In P the feast opens and concludes with great Sabbaths of holy convocation, and an elaborate scheme of sacrifices was prepared. Attached to the feast of unleavened bread in J is the law of firstlings.
J- — " A11 firstlings of the womb are mine, and all male cattle, the firstlings of the ox and sheep. And the firstlings of the ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep. And if thou canst not redeem it thou shalt break its neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem " (Ex. xxxiv. 19-20).
E.— "The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give me. So shalt thou do to thy oxen, to thy sheep ; seven days shall it be with its mother, on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me " (Ex. xxii. 28-29).
D.— " All the firstling males that are born of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox, nor shear the firstling of thy flock. Thou shalt eat it before Jah- vah thy God year by year in the place which Jahveh shall choose, thou and thy household. And if it have any blemish (as if it be), lame or blind, any ill blemish whatsoever, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto Jahveh thy God. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates : the unclean and the clean (shall eat it) alike, as the gazelle, and as the hart " (Dt. xv. 19-22).
H. — " Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling to Jahveh, no man shall sanctify it ; whether it be ox or sheep. It is Jahveh's. And if it be an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to thine estimation, and shall add unto it the fifth part thereof : or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thine estimation " (Lev. xxvii. 26-27).
P.—" Every thing that openeth the womb, of all flesh which they offer unto Jahveh, both of man and beast, shall be thine : nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou re deem. And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine esti mation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs). But
APPENDIX.
the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem : they are holy : thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire for a sweet sa vour unto Jahveh. And the flesh of them shall be thine" (e. g. the priests), (Num. xviii. 15-18). The law of the firstborn is associated with the feast of unleav ened bread in the narrative of J, and there is a remarkable verbal correspondence between the law of J and the narrative of J. In the narrative we find the following :
" Thou shalt cause to pass over to Jahveh all that openeth the womb, and every firstling which thou hast that cometh of a beast : the males shall be Jahveh's. And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep ; and if thou canst not re deem it thou shalt break its neck : and all the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem " (Ex. xiii. 12-13). The law of E is not in the decalogue of worship, but in a pen- tade (Ex. xxii. 28). In D nothing is said of redemption. Only the animals without blemish could go to the sacrifice. The others could be eaten at home. The firstborn suitable for sacrifice were to be eaten in the communion meal of the peace-offering in the central sanctuary of D. In H the beasts were to be ransomed ac cording to an estimation and a fifth part added to their value. In P the firstborn of men and unclean beasts were to be redeemed. The ~\\& is common to the five codes ; but there is a differ ence between the codes as to the terms for the animals of the flock. J and H agree in giving ntr, a term compre hending sheep and goat. E and D use |N¥, sheep. P uses the two words COD, sheep, and TV, goat. The estimation of the re demption price was five shekels of the sanctuary. The firstlings unredeemed went to the priests as well as the redemption money of the redeemed. The stages of legal development are clearly marked in these successive codes.
Attached to the law of the feast of the unleavened bread in J is the command. J.— " And thou shalt not appear in my presence empty" (Ex.
xxxiv. 20).
E.— " And they shall not appear in my presence empty " (Ex. xxiii. 15).
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS.
D.— "And they shall not appear before Jahveh empty" (Dt. xvi. 16).
In J E this is attached to the feast of unleavened bread. In D it is extended to the three great feasts, and the command is enlarged, "every man according to the gift of his hand, accord ing to the blessing of Jahveh thy God which he hath given thee " (Dt. xvi. 17). In H and P these become prescribed offerings of an elaborate ritual (Lev. xxiii.; Num. xxviii., xxix.).
V. Command. J.—" And the feast of weeks thou shalt keep at the first fruits of
the wheat harvest " (Ex. xxxiv. 220).
E.—«And the feast of harvest (thou shalt observe) the first fruits of thy work which thou shalt sow in the field " (Ex. xxiii. 16).
D.— " Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee : from the time thou beginnest to put the sickle to the standing grain shalt thou begin to number seven weeks. And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto Jahveh thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give, according as Jahveh thy God blesseth thee : and thou shalt rejoice before Jahveh thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manser vant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are in the midst of thee, in the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt ; and thou shalt observe and do these statutes" (Dt. xvi. 9-12).
H.— " And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering ; seven sabbaths shall there be complete : even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days ; and ye shall off er a new minchah unto Jahveh. Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth parts (of an ephah) : they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baken with leaven, for first fruits unto Jahveh. And ye shall pre sent with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the
262 APPENDIX.
first year, and one young bullock, and two rams : they shall be a burnt offering unto Jahveh, with their minchah and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour, unto Jahveh. And ye shall offer one he-goat for a sin-offering, and two he-lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first-fruits for a wave offering before Jahveh, with the two lambs : they shall be holy to Jahveh for the priest. And ye shall make proclamation on the self-same day ; there shall be an holy convocation unto you : ye shall do no servile work: it is a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations " (Lev. xxiii. 15-21). P.—" Also in the day of the first-fruits, when ye offer a new minchah unto Jahveh in your weeks, ye shall have an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work, but ye shall offer a burnt offering for a sweet savour unto Jah veh ; two young bullocks, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year; and their minchah, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for each bullock, two tenth parts for the one ram, a several tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs ; one he-goat, to make atone ment for you. Beside the continual burnt offering, and the minchah thereof, ye shall offer them (they shall be unto you without blemish), and their drink offerings" (Num. xxviii. 26-31).
The name of this feast in J and D is feast of weeks, in E the feast of harvest, in P the day of the first-fruits. The time of ob servance of J is at the first-fruits of the wheat harvest, more general-the first-fruits of thy sowing. D counts seven weeks from the time of the first putting the sickle to the stand ing grain H counts seven Sabbaths from the day of the omer offering, on the morrow after the Sabbath of the feast of un leavened bread. According to D it was a joyful family feast, in which freewill offerings were offered at the central sanctuary According to H, it was the time for the offering of the two fr loaves of the new harvest, prior to which no portion of the har vest could be eaten by the people. It was also a great Sabbath with a ritual sin offering and peace offerings, burnt offerings and minchoth. P gives explicit directions as to these offerings.
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 263
VI. Command.
J. — " And the feast of the ingathering (thou shall observe) at the circuit of the year " (Ex. xxxiv. 22^).
E- — " And the feast of the ingathering (thou shalt observe) in the going forth of the year when thou gatherest in thy work from the field " (Ex. xxiii. i6£).
D« — " Thou shalt keep the feast of booths seven days, after that thou hast gathered in from thy threshing-floor and from thy winepress : and thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manser vant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates. Seven days shalt thou keep a feast unto Jahveh thy God in the place which Jahveh shall choose : because Jahveh thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the work of thine hands, and thou shalt be altogether joyful " (Dt. xvi. 13-15).
H. — " And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook ; and ye shall rejoice before Jahveh your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast unto Jahveh seven days in the year : it is a statute forever in your generations : ye shall keep it in the seventh month. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days ; all that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in booths : that your generations may know that I made the chil dren of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt : I am Jahveh your God " (Lev. xxiii. 40-44).
P (#).— " Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, On the fif teenth day of this seventh month is the feast of booths for seven days unto Jahveh. On the first day shall be an holy convocation : ye shall do no servile work. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jah veh : on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you, and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jahveh : it is a closing festival ; ye shall do no servile work " (Lev. xxiii. 34-36). (£). — " And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall
204 APPENDIX.
have an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto Jahveh seven days : and ye shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Jahveh ; thirteen young bul locks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish : and their minchah, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for every bullock of the thirteen bullocks, two tenth parts for each ram of the two rams, and a several tenth part for every lamb of the fourteen lambs : and one he-goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, the minchah thereof, and the drink offering thereof. And on the second day (ye shall offer) twelve young bul locks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish : and their minchah and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance: and one he-goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and the minchah thereof, and their drink offerings " .... (Each of the intervening days has its ritual).
" On the eighth day ye shall have a closing festival : ye shall do no servile work : but ye shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord : one bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year without blemish : their minchah and their drink offerings for the bullock, for the ram, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the ordinance: and one he-goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and the minchah thereof, and the drink offering thereof" (Num. xxix. 12-19, 35-38).
The third annual feast is called "the feast of the ingathering" spDK in J E = feast of booths rOD in D and P, observed by dwelling in booths in H. The time in J is "at the circuit of the* year," rUBTl DDIpfl = in the going forth of the year rum nx¥3 E. In E the additional statement is made, " when thou gather- est in thy work from the field, "=" after thou hast gathered in from thy threshing floor and from thy winepress," D. H puts the feast in the seventh month, and P on the fifteenth day of the
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 265
seventh month. From J E we would suppose the feast was for a single day. But D H P mention seven days of observance. P mentions an mvy on the eighth day, the seventh great Sab bath of the year. In D it is a joyful harvest feast at the central sanctuary. In H it is a celebration of their dwelling in booths when they came forth from Egypt. In P it is a feast in which the ritual prescribes a greater amount of whole burnt offerings expressing worship than at any other feast. It is the culmina tion of the worship of the year.
Appended to this command in J is the command, " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord Jah- veh, the God of Israel. For I will dispossess nations from thy presence, and I will make thy boundary broad in order that no one may desire thy land when thou goest up to appear before Jahveh thy God three times in the year " (Ex. xxxiv. 23, 24).
In the other codes we find similar prescriptions :
E a.—" Three times shalt thou keep feast to me in the year " (Ex. xxiii. 14).
E b. — " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord Jahveh " (Ex. xxiii. 17).
D.— " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before Jahveh thy God in the place which he shall choose " (Dt. xvi. 1 6).
Instead of the three times of J E D, we have the three harvest feasts of H, the offering of the first ripe sheaf, the offering of the first loaves of the harvest, and the dwelling in booths after all the harvests had been gathered in (Lev. xxiii.). P gives the rit ual of the seven great Sabbaths of the year in Num. xxviii.-xxix.
D appends his law of the one central sanctuary as is usual with him. E gives the command as an introduction to the three feasts as well as a conclusion. But these differ in language to such an extent that one of them must have been taken from an other source. It seems probable that E b, as less original, is a later addition. E a uses D^>n for D'DJJa in E b. J D ; and Jjn for " appear before " of E b. J D. Ed uses f>K for n« of J and D. The encouragement of J is peculiar to him.
VII. Command.
J.— " Thou shalt not offer the blood of my zcbach with leavened bread" (Ex. xxxiv. 25 a).
266
APPENDIX.
E. — " Thou shalt not offer the blood of my zebach with leavened bread" (Ex. xxiii. 18 a).
p at — " He shall bring with the zebach of the thank-offering per forated cakes, unleavened, mingled with oil and wafers unleavened, anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, soaked. With perforated cakes of leavened bread he may offer his oblation with the ze bach of his peace-offering for thank-offering " (Lev. vii. 12, 13).
p £. — " No minchah which ye bring to Jahveh shall be offered leavened" (Lev. ii. 11).
J E and P b use |*Dn, leavened. P a uses ni¥E, unleavened, as well as pn. J uses for offer I3n%^ = POT E = 3*1 pn P a, b. J E use H3T = D'D^irn PQT Pa. P allows the use of leavened bread in the case specified to be eaten at the common meal of the peace- offering, and H mentions the offering of the two leavened loaves at the harvest feast (Lev. xxiii. 17).
VIII. Command.
J. — " And the zebach of the feast of the Passover shall not be left unto the morning " (Ex. xxxiv. 25 b).
E. — " And the fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning" (Ex. xxiii. 18 b}.
D.— " And thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jahveh thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which Jahveh shall choose to cause his name to dwell there." ....
"Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning. Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which Jahveh thy God giveth thee : but at the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell in, there thou shait sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou earnest forth out of Egypt. And thou shalt roast and eat it m the place which Jah veh thy God shall choose : and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents" (Deut. xvi. 2,
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 267
P (a). — " They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone thereof: according to all the statute of the passover, they shall keep it" (Num. ix. 12).
P(£). — "And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, is Jahveh's passover" (Num. xxviii. 16).
The fuller law of the passover is given in connection with the mingled history of J and P in Ex. xii.
P. — "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth (day) of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for an household : and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next unto his house take one according to the number of the souls ; according to every man's eating, ye shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year : ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats : and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month : and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at even. And they shall take of the blood, and put it on the two side posts and on the lintel, upon the houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleav ened bread ; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it rfl w, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire ; its head with its legs and with the inwards there of. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morn ing ; but that which remaineth of it until the morn ing, ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it ; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand : and ye shall eat it m haste : it is Jahveh's passover." ....
" And Jahveh said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover : there shall no alien e?,t thereof : but every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A sojourner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten ; thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house ; nei-
208 APPENDIX.
ther shall ye break a bone thereof" (Ex. xii. 3-1 1 ;
43-46).
J. — "Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out, and take you lambs according to your families, and kill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the basin ; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. For Jahveh will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, Jahveh will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which Jahveh will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service ? that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of Jahveh *s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses" (Ex. xii. 21-27).
The passover feast of the eighth command of J, which is here incidentally referred to under the offering peculiar to the feast, is more fully mentioned in the narrative of J. The passover sacrifice is indeed a special kind of the zebach, or peace-offering, noan in POT = HOD POT of Ex. xii. 27. E gives the command a more general reference to all the feasts. D uses the phrase "sacrifice the passover," nD3Pl rQT = noan tanz? of J. In the narrative of J the victim is |N¥, a lamb ; in P, a nt?, embracing BO3, lamb, and TV, kid. There is no specification in the codes of E and J. In J the zebach shall not be left until the morning,
ipn^ [^ «i> = -ipa iy r^ &6 of E = -iprineon p r^ vb of D =
1p3 ny Wmn vb of P (narrative) = 1p3 IV VPNC* «!> of P a. D emphasizes the celebration of the feast at the central sanc tuary. P a gives the additional rule, " nor break a bone thereof," both in his code and in his narrative. If we had space we could point to a large number of features which distinguish the docu-
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 269
ments here and elsewhere, as illustrated by these extensive pas sages. Any one of our readers may do it for himself.
IX. Command.
J._« The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to the house of Jahveh thy God" (Ex. xxxiv. 26 a).
E. — *' The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to the hoiise of Jahveh thy God" (Ex. xxiii. 19).
Dt — " That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which thou shalt bring in from thy land that Jahveh thy God giveth thee ; and thou shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go unto the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there. And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him, I profess this day unto Jahveh thy God, that I am come unto the land which Jahveh sware unto our fathers for to give us. And the priest shall take the basket out of thine hand, and set it down before the altar of Jahveh thy God. And thou shalt answer and say before Jahveh thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number ; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and popu lous : and the Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage : and we cried unto Jahveh the God of our fathers, and Jahveh heard our voice and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our op pression : and Jahveh brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders : and he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground, which thou, Jahveh, hast given me. And thou shalt set it down before Jahveh thy God, and worship before Jahveh thy God : and thou shalt re joice in all the good which Jahveh thy God hath given unto thee, and unto thine house, thou, and the Levite, and the stranger that is in the midst of thee " (Deut. xxvi. 2-1 1).
270 APPENDIX.
H. — "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before Jahveh to be accepted for you : on the morrow after the sab bath the priest shall wave it. And in the day when ye wave the sheaf, ye shall offer a he-lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto Jahveh. And the minchah thereof shall be two tenth parts (of an ephah) of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto Jahveh for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this self-same day, until ye have brought the oblation of your God. It is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwell ings " (Lev. xxiii. 10-14).
P. — " All the best of the oil, and all the best of the vintage, and of the corn, the first-fruits of them which they give unto Jahveh, to thee have I given them. The first ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring unto Jahveh, shall be thine ; every one that is clean in thy house shall eat thereof " (Num. xviii. 12-13). The phrase of J E is yi»-JK ni33 IT^'JO =
>a rvtrao of D =
p JVC'NI of H =
ni?n io of p.
The house of Jahveh seems to imply a temple. It may have been a change by insertion from an original command to bring the first fruits to Jahveh. In D it is brought to the priest of Jahveh. In H it is the offering of the first ripe sheaf. In P it is generalized so as to include oil and wine and grain, and these are to be given to the priests for food.
X. Command. J. — " Thou shalt not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother s
milk " (Ex. xxxiv. 26^). E. — " Thou shalt not s:eihc a /-/./(which is still) ivi'Ji its mother s
milk " (Ex. xxiii. 19),
THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 271
D. — " Thou shalt not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother's milk" (Dt. xiv. 21).
This command is identical in these three codes. It is not clear in itself, and probably remained as an enigma after the law and usage had changed. The older Protestant interpreters. Luther, Calvin, Piscator, ct al., thought of a limitation of the age of the animal for purposes of sacrifice. This is most suited to the context, for we have had three laws of offerings prior to it. But the Rabbinical interpretation that it is a dietary law against eating a kid in the milk of its mother has been followed by most moderns. The Deuteronomic code (xiv. 21) is thought to favor the latter view from the fact that it is there preceded by the command not to eat anything that dies of itself. But on the other hand, it is followed by the laws of tithes and first-fruits, and it may rather go with these laws there, as it is associated with the law of first-fruits here. We do not hesitate to follow the former interpretation and class this law with the three preceding ones as laws of offerings. i>BO is used for cooking the portions of the animal victim that were eaten by the offerers in the communion meal of the POT (Ex. xxix. 31). This then would forbid the sacri fice of suckling animals. It is true that in the larger book of the Covenant (Ex. xxii. 29) first born of animals were to be given to Jahveh on the eighth day, notwithstanding the law in Ex. xxiii. 19, corresponding exactly with ours. It is also true that in Lev. xxii. 27, we have the more explicit statement, " From the eighth day and upward it shall be accepted for a qorban an offering by fire unto Jahveh," but notwithstanding the consensus of Rabbin ical interpretation we are not sure that this amounts to any more than that as the male child was circumcised on the eighth day, so the animal on the eighth day was taken from its mother to the divine presence. It may then have been kept in the flocks and herds of the altar for subsequent use at the proper age. In deed the "and upward," favors our view. But even if the ordi nary view is taken as to the age of animals suitable for offerings, we have still to bear in mind that the various codes differ not in frequently in their prescriptions. The offerings are generally of animals a year old or more, in the specifiations of age that are not infrequently made.
We have gone over this decalogue of worship given in the nar rative of J, and have compared its ten laws with similar laws in
272 APPENDIX.
the other codes. We have found that the same fundamental commands underlie the several forms in which they appear in the different codes. These fundamental commands we may re gard as Mosaic; but how is it possible to explain the variations in the codes on the traditional theory that all these variations were given by Moses to the same people before their entrance into the Holy Land, and ere it was possible to fulfil any of them in action ? They appear in the codes in several stages of devel opment representing different stages of codification, as changes were rendered necessary in the experience of God's people in the Holy Land. If any one can propose any more reasonable ex planation, or one more in accord with the traditional theory that will take the facts of the case into account, we shall gladly follow him.
If we should take the seven words of the Tables not included in our study, and the other decalogues and pentades of the greater book of the covenant, we would find the same kind of develop ment as we passed from code to code. The specimens we have given are simply specimens of thoroughgoing differences through out the whole legislation of the Hexateuch.
We shall mention but one instance to illustrate the differences in other parts of the legislation. This law shows such a simple and evident series of changes that it ought to convince every one that the codes represent different stages of codification.
E. — " And ye shall be holy men unto me : therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field ; ye shall cast it to the dogs " (Ex. xx'ri. 31).
D.— "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it ; or thou mayest sell it unto a for eigner : for thou art an holy people unto Jahveh thy God " (Dt. xiv. 21).
H. — " And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even : then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity " (Lev. xvii. 15, 16).
P. — " And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die ; he that
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY.
273
toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even. And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even : he also that beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even " (Lev. xi. 39, 40).
In E the carcass of the animal found dead in the fields was to cast to the dogs. In D it might be given to the stranger to eat and sold to the foreigner. In H it could not be eaten by home- born or stranger. In P the distinction between stranger and home-born has passed away and the prohibition is a universal one. One generation is insufficient to account for these four stages of change in the law.
IX.
THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY.
We shall simply place four accounts of theophanies to Mo ses, side by side, and then two accounts of theophanies to representatives of the people and to the people. The differences are evident. In E Moses sees God's face and form habitually. In J he is not permitted to see God's face, but only His back parts, and that as the greatest privilege of his life. In D the prohibition of making images is based on the fact that the peo ple had seen no form of God in the theophany, but only heard His voice ; whereas in E, the elders see God standing on a plat form, and eat and drink in His presence. In P the glory of the theophanies lights up the face of Moses every time he enters into the presence of the glory. Nothing of the kind appears in any of the other narratives. These representations are suffi ciently difficult to harmonize in different documents of later writers depending on different sources of information. How could Moses give such various accounts of what he himself had seen and heard ?
E.
" Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it without the camp, afar off from the camp ; and call it, The tent of
J-
" And he said, Shew me, I pray thee, thy glory : And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and proclaim
APPENDIX.
meeting. And it used to be, that every one who sought Jahveh went out unto the tent of meeting, which was without the camp. And it used to be, when Moses went out unto the Tent, that all the people rose up, and stood, every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the Tent. And it used to be, when Mo ses entered into the Tent, the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door of the Tent : and spake with Moses. And all the people used to see the pil lar of cloud standing at the door of the Tent : and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man at his tent door. And Jahveh used to speak unto Mo ses face unto face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he used to turn again into the camp: but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the Tent " (Ex. xxxiii. 7-11).
E.
" If one is to be your prophet, I, Jahveh, in the vision make myself known to him ; in a dream I speak with him. Not so my servant Moses, with all my house he is entrusted, mouth to mouth I speak with him, in an appearance without riddles ; and the form of Jahveh he be holds. Why then do ye not
the name of Jahveh before thee ; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will be ' compassionate to whom I will i be compassionate. And he said. , Thou canst not see my face : for mankind shall not see me and live. And Jahveh said, Be hold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock : and it shall come to pass, while I my glory passeth by, that I will | put thee in a cleft of the rock, j and will cover thee with my hand until I have passed by : and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back : but my face shall not be seen " (Ex. xxxiii. 18-23).
P.
" And when Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. And when Moses went in before Jahveh to speak with him, he used to take the veil off, until he came out ; and he used to come out, and speck unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded ; and the children of Israel used to see
THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY.
275
fear to speak against my ser vant Moses?" (Num.xii. 6-8).
E.
" Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel : and they saw the God of Israel ; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand : and they beheld God, and did eat and drink " (Ex. xxiv. 9-11).
the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone : and Moses used to put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him " (Ex. xxxiv. 33-35).
D.
" And Jahveh spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of words, but ye saw no form ; only (ye heard} a voice. And he de clared unto you his covenant, which hecommanded you to per form, even the ten command ments Take ye therefore
good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that Jahveh spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye cor rupt yourselves, and make you a graven image in the form of any figure (etc.)" (Deut. iv. 12-16).
X.
THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLO PAEDIA.
Hagenbach* treats Biblical History as a section of Historical Theology, dividing it into the History of the People of Israel, the Contemporary History of the New Testament, the Life of Jesus, and the Life of the Apostles and Founding of the Church. He regards Biblical History as the transition from Exegetical to Historical Theology. On the other hand, he makes Biblical Archaeology, including Biblical Geography and Natural History, a section of Exegetical Theology.f This distribution of the
* Encyklopadie, nth Aufl. 1884, p. 219, seq.
t/. c.t p.
APPENDIX.
material seems to be unfortunate and without sufficient reasons. The line separating Exegetical Theology from Historical The ology is not a line that divides between History and Exegesis. On this theory Exegetical Theology has to do with the exegesis of the sources of Biblical History and Theology; the results of that exegesis in History and Theology going to the Historical department. To carry out such a distinction, we would have to distinguish between the exegesis of the sources of Church His tory and Church History itself. Christian Archaeology, Patris- tics, Diplomatics, and the like, would come under the head of Exegetical Theology. Exegetical Theology is really a section of Historical Theology, as most recent writers on Encyclopaedia have shown. The chief reasons for making Exegetical Theology a separate division are : (i) its essential material is derived from divine revelation ; and (2) the department is so vast that it de mands separate treatment. A more logical division would be to take Historical Theology as a general term, embracing (i) Ex egetical Theology— the Theology of the Old and New Testa ments ; (2) Ethnic Theology— the Theology of the other relig ions of the world; and (3) Christian Theology- the Historical Theology of the Christian Church.
Principal Cave* has recently made a similar arrangement of material, only making six divisions. He includes Biblical His tory under his third division, which he terms Biblical Theology ; and Church History under his fourth division, which he names Ecclesiastical Theology.
Exegetical Theology should include Biblical History, Biblical Theology, Biblical Archaeology, Biblical Geography, and Biblical Chronology, as well as Biblical Exegesis and Biblical Literature — just as Historical Theology should include Patristics, Monu mental Theology, Diplomatics, and Christian Epigraphy.
Biblical History will include Archaeology, Geography, and Chronology. It is limited, however, to the Biblical sources, and therefore must be distinguished from the History of Israel, which is a part of Universal History, and the Contemporary History, which looks at the Biblical History from the point of view of the surrounding nations.
*An Introduction to Theology, Edin., T. & T. Clark; N. Y., Scribner, Welford & Co,
THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
The older writers on Biblical History treated it in a devotional or homiletical interest. In more recent times Biblical History has been neglected, while scholars have devoted themselves to the History of Israel and the Contemporary History.
XI.
EICHHORN'S VIEW OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
" Eichhorn separates the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents in Genesis with great pains, and with such success that his an alysis has been the basis of all critical investigation since his day. Its great advantages are admirably stated :
' ' For this discovery of the internal condition of the first books of Moses, party spirit will, perhaps, for a pair of decennials, snort at the Higher Criticism, instead of rewarding it with the full thanks that are due it, for (i), the credibility of the book gains by such a use of more ancient documents; (2) the harmony of the two narratives, at the same time with their slight deviations, proves their independence and mutual reliability ; (3) interpre ters will be relieved of difficulty by this Higher Criticism, which separates document from document; (4) finally, the gain of Criti cism is also great. If the Higher Criticism has now for the first distinguished author from author, and in general characterized each according to his own ways, diction/ favorite expressions and other peculiarities, then her lower sister, who busies herself only with words and spies out false readings, has rules and prin ciples by which she must test particular readings.'*
"Eichhorn carried his methods of higher criticism into the entire Old Testament with the hand of a master, and laid the foundation of views that have been maintained ever since with increasing determination. He did not always grasp the truth He sometimes chased shadows and framed visionary theories both in relation to the Old and New Testaments, like others who have preceded him and followed him. He could not trans cend the limits of his age and adapt himself to future discov-
*Eichhorn's Einleitung ins Alt Test., 1780, ii., p. 329.
278
APPENDIX.
cries. The labors of a large number of scholars and the work of a century and more were still needed, as Eichhorn modestly an ticipated " (Extract from Briggs' Biblical Study, 3d edition, Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 205, 206).
The analysis of the Hexateuch into four writings, is an achieve ment of the Higher Criticism that has won the consent of the vast majority of professional students of the Old Testament throughout the world. I doubt whether there is any subject of importance in which professional scholars are so well agreed. The Biblical scholarship of the continent of Europe may be said to be unanimous on this subject. The Professors of Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh are united in their support of the four documents. There is not an Old Testament Professor of standing in Great Britain who takes any other view, except the venerable Principal Douglas, of Glasgow, who has recently re signed his chair. The majority of Old Testament Professors in America are of the same opinion. The notable exceptions are : Professors W. H. Green, Howard Osgood, and E. C. Bissell. They use the tools of criticism, so far as possible, as apologists. It is hardly likely that they will long be able to resist the Bibli cal Scholarship of the rest of the world. It is extremely im probable that the more than one hundred specialists in the Old Testament, who have given their lives to its study, should all be wrong, and that these three Americans should have the right of it. The Higher Criticism has advanced steadily since the time of Astruc and Eichhorn. It has made no retreats. Its career has been a series of victories for more than a century. These three Americans have not yet won a single scholarly victory or checked for an instant the advance of Criticism in America. The contest ought to be a scholarly contest between critics who adhere to the traditional theory, and critics who have abandoned the traditional theory for the results of a more scientific study of the Scriptures. The chief difficulty in the situation is that some ministers and editors, who are not critics and who are ignorant of the history and terminology of criticism, endeavor to excite the public mind against Higher Criticism by appeals to prejudice and brutal methods. Our Saviour represents such enemies of the truth as hissing serpents (Matt, xxiii. 33) ; Paul writes of them as dogs (Phil. iii. 2). It is in accordance with §uch precedents that Eichhorn uses the term snort. This term
MIRACLES AND THEOPHANIES.
279
has been regarded by Biblical scholars for a century as a graphic description of a kind of opposition they have had to contend with.
XII.
MIRACLES AND THEOPHANIES.
" There can be no doubt that recent criticisms have consider ably weakened the evidences from miracles and predictive prophecy. To many minds it would be easier to believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ, if there were no such things as Miracles and Prediction in the sacred Scriptures. The older apologetic made too much of the external marvels of miracle-working, and sought to find in history the ful filment of the minute details of prediction. But it has been found easier to prove the divinity of Christ without miracles. Belief in miracles needs to be sustained by faith in Jesus Christ. It is necessary to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the prod uct of the spirit of prophecy, before we can advance with profit into the special field of prediction. Even the Scriptures them selves recognize miracle-working and prediction in false prophets, and teach us to distinguish the true miracle and the true predic tion from the false by their internal character and their con formity to truth and fact. Recent criticisms have brought these lines of evidences into better accord with the representations of the Bible itself.
"The Old Testament is full of Theophanies; and in the New Testament there are many Christophanies and Pneumatophanies. These manifestations of God in the forms of space and time and n the sphere of physical nature, are of vast importance in the unfolding of divine revelation. These are the centres from which miracles and prophecies flow. If there were such theophanies or divine manifestations in the successive stages of divine revela tion, then we should expect miracles in the physical world and prophecy in the world of man. If Jesus Christ is God manifest
the flesh, then prophecy and miracles are exactly what we should expect so long as He abode in this world in the flesh. If the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles on the day of Pente cost, and He was present with the churches of the apostles in the
2go APPENDIX.
peculiar manner of external manifestations of pneumatophany such as are described in the New Testament, we are not surprised at the occurrence of miracle-working and prophecy during that period ; and it seems to he the most natural thing in the world that, when these divine manifestations ceased, miracle-working and prophecy ceased with them. If, then, on the one side, re cent criticisms have weakened the independent value of the evi dences from miracles and prediction, they have, on the other side, given something vastly better in their place. They have called the attention to the presence of God with His people in external manifestations of theophany, to guide the advancing stages of the history of redemption. Here is the citadel of our religion, to which all its lines of evidence converge, the centre of the en tire revelation and religion from which prophecy and miracle- working issue in all their variety of form. The evidences from miracles and prophecy gain in strength when they are placed in their true relations to the theophany in which the unity of the evidence is found " (Extract from Briggs' Whither f 1889, Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 279- 280).
XIII.
PROPHECY AND THEOPHANY.
"The Hebrew religion is a religion of union and communion with God, a living, growing, everlasting religion. The Hebrew prophets present us with an immortal religion. They derive it by direct communication with the ever-living God. It is the theophanic manifestation of God in the forms of time and space and sphere of physical nature, to call and endow the master spirits of Hebrew prophecy, that constitute one of its most dis tinctive features. Hebrew prophecy, as Hebrew miracle-work ing, springs from theophanies. These were the sources of every new advance. They constitute a series leading on to the incar nation as their culmination. They were the divine seals to the roll of Hebrew prophecy, sealing every new page with an object ive divine verification and authentication. They bind the proph ets into an organic whole. They come in the great crisis of the development of prophecy, and shed their glorious light over the
THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN. 281
prophecies that precede and those that follow. We have not only therefore the calling and endowment of particular prophets by these theophanies, but the calling and endowment of prophetic chiefs to originate and perpetuate a succession of prophets with an organic system of prophecy.
" We do not find these theophanies in connection with every prophet, but only with the greatest prophets, the reformers of their age. It is possible that other prophets were also called by theophanies which they have not described to us. But this is improbable. It was, indeed, unnecessary. Theophanies are to initiate religious movements and mark the stages of their de velopment, but are not the constant feature of prophecy. Ordi narily Hebrew prophecy comes from prophets who have the internal subjective assurance of the truth of God and their com mission to declare it. But in all cases of objective, as well as subjective assurance, the prophet's powers are taxed to the utmost to give expression, in the human forms of his own nature and surroundings, to the divine ideas that have taken possession of him " (Extract from Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, Charles Scrib- ner's Sons, pp. 20-21).
XIV.
THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN.
" The earlier chapters of Genesis contain a series of brief, sim ple, and charming stories of the origin and early history of man kind, that bear the traces of great antiquity. They were doubt less handed down for many generations as unwritten tradition ere they were committed to writing by the sacred writers. They passed through a series of editions, until at last they were com pacted in that unique collection of inspired Scripture which we call the book of Genesis. The literary beauties of these stories have been recognized since Herder, by those who have studied the Scriptures with their aesthetic taste. Poetic features have been noticed by a number of scholars, but, so far as we know, no one has previously observed that they are a series of real poems. It was the good fortune of the author to make this discovery. Annual work upon these passages with his classes led him grad ually towards it. He first noted a number of striking instances of
232 APPENDIX.
parallelism of lines here and there, and thus detected snatches of poetry in several passages. These continued to enlarge from year to year, until he was constrained to ask the question, how much real poetry there was in these ancient stories, and to apply the tests of poetic composition to the entire series. The first pas sage to disclose itself as poetry was the Elohistic narrative of the creation. This proved to be a poem of six strophes, with re frains. The lines are pentameters, measured by five beats of the word accent, with the caesura dividing the lines into two sec tions
" All the characteristic features of Hebrew poetry are clearly
manifested in the poem This led us to examine the Elohistic
narrative of the flood, and it proved to be a poem of the same essential structure as the Elohistic story of the creation.
" We next examined the Jehovistic narrative of the temptation and fall, and found it to be a poem of an entirely different struct ure from the poems of the Elohist. The lines of this poem are trimeters, and the strophes are regularly composed of fourteen lines each. We then examined the Jehovistic story of the flood, and found that it was a poem of the same structure as the Jeho vistic poem of the fall. The stories of Cain and Abel, and the dispersion of the nations from Babel, resolved themselves into the same poetical structure. And thus it has become manifest that the earlier chapters of Genesis are a series of real poems, which have passed through the hands of several editors in the earlier collections of the Elohist and Jehovist, until at last they were compacted by the redactor of the Hexateuch into their present form.
" If it be thought surprising that the poetical structure of these poems has so long been hidden from Hebrew scholars, it is suffi cient to mention that Bishop Lowth, in the middle of the last century, was the first to discover and to unfold the essential principle of Hebrew poetry, namely, the parallelism of lines, and to show that the prophecies of the book of Isaiah were chiefly poetry. From time to time, during the past century, a large number of poetical extracts have been discovered in the historical books, as well as in the prophetical literature. The great ma jority of scholars have studied the Old Testament in the interests of dogma, or else of grammatical, historical, or practical exegesis. Very few have studied the literary features of the Old Testa-
THE POEM OF THE CREATION. 283
ment. The structure of the Hebrew strophe and the measure ment of the lines of Hebrew poetry are known to comparatively few Hebrew scholars
" The poem of the Fall of Man exhibits the several features of Hebrew poetry.
" (i). The lines show all the various features of parallelism that are found in other Hebrew poetry, synonymous, antitheti cal, and progressive, and the several varieties of these
(See Briggs' Biblical Study, p. 264, seq.}
" (2). The lines are trimeters, with the exception of a very few broken lines, which are shortened in order to a pause in the thought, in accordance with the frequent usage of all Hebrew poetry of this measurement. The trimeters of Hebrew poetry are composed of three beats of the word accent. The Hebrew poet has the power of combining two or more short words by a makkeph under one word accent. (See Briggs' Biblical Study, p. 279, s<y.)
" (3). The poem has strophical organization. It is composed of ten strophes of fourteen lines each. These are arranged in two groups. The first group is composed of four strophes, ar ranged on the principle of strophe and anti-strophe. The second is composed of two sets of three strophes each. The second set is balanced against the first set. The ten strophes are equal in the number of the lines. There are fourteen lines to each strophe. These strophes are always divided into two parts, but there is a considerable variety in the inter-relation of these parts
" (4). There are a considerable number of archaic words which belong to the language of Hebrew poetry." (Extract from article on The Poem of the Fall of Man, in the Reformed Quarterly Review, April, 1886. See also Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, p. 74.)
XV.
THE POEM OF THE CREATION.
" The first chapter of the Bible gives a representation of the creation of the world. This has been studied fur ages by all classes and conditions of men. It has been justly admired for its simplicity, picturesqueness, and sublimity of style. It is a
284 APPENDIX.
masterpiece of literature as well as of religious conception. In our century it has been the chief battle-ground between science and religion. Theologians have sought in it the mysteries of the origin of the universe, and the order and time of the work of creation. Men of science have sought in it a reflection of the facts that have been discovered in the history of the rocks and the stars. The strife of theologians and scientists has made this chapter — which is one of the most precious gems of Biblical literature — a crux interpretum, that is a means of torture to the Biblical scholar who is forced to reconcile the claims of dogma with the claims of science, and yet maintain his integrity as an interpreter of Scripture.
" So far as the questions between science and dogma are con cerned, the candid scholar should admit that the contest is un decided. The interpreter of Scripture, who is neither a scientist nor a dogmatist, ought to see in this first chapter of Genesis a magnificent piece of literature, the grandest representation of the most important of all events, the origin of the world and man, which these combatants are doing their best to tear in pieces and patch together in their dogmatic theories and their scientific conjectures. The chief error in the use that is ordi narily made of the first chapter of Genesis is a mistake as to the point of view and scope of the representation, together with a neglect of its literary form. It has been generally held that the author designs to give us the doctrine of the creation of the uni verse in a simple prose narrative, stating the creations as they occurred day after day in their orderly succession until the whole universe was completed with all its contents in six days. Science has determined the great outlines of the history of the heavens and the earth, in the study of the stars and the rocks and the forces of nature. The problem has been to compare these two representations and see how far there is agreement, and how far there may be difference and disagreement.
" But the author of the first chapter of Genesis does not propose to give us a history of the creation of the universe out of nothing. He represents in a few graphic touches the origination of the beautiful organism of our earth and heaven out of a primeval chaos. He does not propose to give us a narrative of the method of the origination of all things, but to describe the appearance of certain great classes of objects in their appointed place in this
THE POEM OF THE CREATION. 285
beautiful organism. He does not give us a prose history or a prose treatise of creation, but he presents us with a poem of the creation, a graphic and popular delineation of the genesis of the most excellent organism of our earth and heaven, with their con tents ; as each order steps forth in obedience to the command of the Almighty Chief ; and takes its place in its appointed ranks in the host of God. Our Poem of the Creation rises above the strifes of theologians and men of science, and appeals to the aesthetic taste and imagination of the people of God in all lands and in all times.
" The Poem of the Creation has all of the characteristic fea tures of Hebrew poetry, (i). Tht feature of parallelism which Hebrew poetry shares with the Assyrian and ancient Akkadian, is characteristic of our poem in its varied forms of synonym, an tithesis, and synthesis
" (2). The measurement of lines by words or word accents is as even and regular in our poem as in the best specimens of Hebrew poetry. It has five poetic accents with the caesura-like pause between the three and the two, or the two and the three, which is characteristic of all poems of this number of ac cents
" (3). It has considerable number of archaic words, such as we find elsewhere only in poetry
" (4). It has strophical organization. It is composed of six strophes or stanzas, which are indicated by the refrain, 'And evening came and morning came,' varying only in the number of the day. These strophes, while they do not have exactly the same number of lines, vary within definite limits, e.g., strophes Land II. have seven lines each and the refrain; strophes III., IV., and V. have ten lines each and a refrain. The last strophe, the VT., has twenty lines and a refrain — or, in other words, is a strophe with a double refrain — such as we find, for example, in the allegory of the vine in the LXXX. Psalm.*
" (5). There are certain catch-words, or secondary refrains, also characteristic of Hebrew poetry, especially in the Song of Songs and Hosea, e.g.: (i) And God said, which begins each item of Creation in its turn. (2) And it became so. (3) And God saw that it was excellent.
* See Briggs' Biblical Study, p. 277.
286 APPENDIX.
" (6). Our Poem employs poetic license in the use of archaic endings of suffixes and cases to soften the transition from word to word and make the movement more flowing. This is also to be noted in the order of the arrangement of the words in the lines
"(7). The language and style are simple, graphic, and ornate, such as we find everywhere in poetry, but are regarded as unu sual and especially rhetorical in prose.
" (8). There is a simple and beautiful order of thought which harmonizes in the several strophes : God speaks, the creature comes forth in obedience, the Creator expresses his delight in his creature. The Creator then works with the creature and assigns its place and functions. The day's work closes with its evening; and the break of the morning prepares for another day's work. All this gives a monotonous character to the story if it be regarded as prose, but it is in exact correspondence with the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew poetry, which extends not only to the lines of the strophe, but also to the correspond ence of strophe with strophe in the greater and grander harmo nies of the poem as a whole. These eight characteristics of the first chapter of Genesis are all poetical characteristics, and we make bold to say that there is no piece of poetry in the Bible which can make greater claims than this to be regarded as Po etry" (Extract from article on the Hebrew Poem of the Creation, in the Old Testament Student, April, 1884. See also Briggs' Mes sianic Prophecy, p. 68.)
XVI.
THE DETAILS OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY.
I said in my Inaugural Address on the Authority of Holy Scripture, that " If we insist upon the fulfilment of the details of the predictive prophecy of the Old Testament, many of these predictions have been reversed by history." I have been aston ished at the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of that sen tence. I was simply quoting from my Messianic Prophecy, pub lished in 1886, from the chapter on predictive prophecy, in which I show that : " Kuenen has the right of it over against the scho lastic apologists when he says : ' When they assert that the proph-
THE DETAILS OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY. 287
ecies have been fulfilled exactly and literally, and thence de duce far-reaching consequences, we cannot rest satisfied with the general agreement between the prediction and the historical fact, but must note also along with that the deviation in details, as often as such a deviation is actually apparent.' But Kuenen and the Scholastics are here alike in error, for the prophecies are predictive only as to the essential and the ideal elements. The purely formal elements belong to the point of view and coloring of the individual prophets. We are not to find exact and literal fulfilments in detail or in general, but the fulfilment is limited to the essential ideal contents of the prophecy."
" Thus the poet uses a gigantic vine to illustrate the marvellous growth of the kingdom of God. It was transplanted from Egypt to Canaan, covered the whole land, reached with its branches from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, cast the cedars of Le banon in the shade of its gigantic boughs. Thus Daniel uses the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, growing to become a vast mountain filling the whole earth. The mountain of the house of Jahveh rises above the highest mountains. Ezekiel represents the New Jerusalem and the holy land in impossible proportions and situations. Some of these cases are so grotesque and extravagant that no one could for a moment think of an ex act and literal fulfilment. And yet there are a large number of predictions which, in their proper interpretation, are no less im possible. These have been so interpreted by Scholastics as to find exact fulfilment, and by Rationalists as to show that they have not been fulfilled. A striking example of this is the new temple and holy land and institutions of Ezekiel, and under this head may be brought all that large class relating to Israel's future, which Kuenen argues to be unfulfilled, and to be impossible of fulfilment. He classifies them thus : (i) the return of Israel out of captivity ; (2) the reunion of Ephraim and Judah ; (3) the supremacy of the house of David ; (4) the spiritual and material welfare of the restored Israel ; (5) the relation between Israel and the Gentiles; (6) Israel's undisturbed continuance in the land of their habitation.
" If exact and literal fulfilment of these prophecies was designed in the predictions, then we must agree with Kuenen that they have been disproved by history ; but it is against the laws of pre dictive prophecy so to interpret them. These predictions are
288 APPENDIX.
not only impossible now, but in form many of them always were impossible. Israel in predictive prophecy is not Israel after the flesh, but Israel after the spirit, as the Apostle Paul explains. The true children of Abraham are the faithful. The Christian Church is the legitimate successor of the Israel of old and the heir of its promises. The essential contents of these predictions when eliminated from their formal elements are spiritual and not carnal " (pp. 50-51).
The view that I have presented takes a middle course between the scholastic dogma of the fulfilment of the details of Biblical prophecy and the Rationalistic position that predictive prophecy is nothing more than the foresight and the forecast of men of genius, some of which has been fulfilled, but the greater part of which has been disproved by history.
The Westminster Confession of Faith nowhere states that the details of Biblical prophecy have all been fulfilled, or will all be fulfilled in the future. The passages cited from the Confession of Faith and the Catechism, in the charges made against me, do not mention the words predictive prophecy. They have nothing what ever to do with prophecy or the details of prophecy. The verses of Holy Scripture cited by the prosecution in proof of this specifi cation, number thirty-two. Twenty-three of these are not used in the Confession of Faith at all ; six of the remainder are used under other chapters than the first chapter, to prove other doc trines than the doctrine of Holy Scripture. Only three are used under the first chapter, and these have no manner of relevancy with the question of the fulfilment of the details of predictive prophecy. This is a question entirely beyond the range of its definitions. It is difficult to see how any one by any process of inference can bring the details of predictive prophecy under these statements.
There is not a word of Holy Scripture that teaches directly or indirectly the fulfilment of the details of predictive prophecy. The passages adduced by the prosecutors have all been consid ered by me many times and used in my lectures and writings in their Biblical meaning. They do not teach the fulfilment of all the details of predictive prophecy ; but either the fulfilment of predictive prophecy in general, or some particular predictive prophecy.
THE DETAILS OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY. 289
The passage Matthew v. 17-18, may seem on the surface to be an exception, but it is not such in reality.
" Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets : I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be fulfilled." Our Saviour here teaches that He and His gospel are not in con flict with the Old Testament Scripture, but rather their complete and entire fulfilment. This wonderful passage opens up the whole doctrine of the relation of the two dispensations. The jot and the tittle doubtless indicate the most minute details. But details of what ? of every statement, sentence and letter and va riation of letter in the Old Testament Scripture ? Our Saviour's own discussions show such an interpretation to be impossible. He himself changed the law of divorce. The greater part of the legislation of the Mosaic codes was superseded once and for all by Jesus. The Westminster Confession teaches that, all the ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament, and that the judicial laws expired together with the state of the Jewish people, not obliging any other now, further than the gen eral equity thereof may require (xix. 3, 4).
If then we cannot interpret Jesus' words, " one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law," with such preci sion as to infer the eternal validity of every minute detail of the Pentateuchal legislation ; still less can we do so with reference to the fulfilment of the Prophets, about which it is not expressly said that, " one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the prophets till all be fulfilled."
The doctrine of Jesus is perfectly true in the sense in which He clearly meant it. All that was really predicted in the prophets has been or will hereafter be fulfilled to the jot and tittle ; but the details of the predictive prophecy of the Old Testa ment are not in fact predicted. They belong to the symbolic form, the typical frame, the clothing, the setting of the predic tion and not to the prediction itself. The predictions must first be interpreted, before we can raise the question of their fulfil ment. The difference between the scholastics and myself is, as regards the interpretation of predictive prophecy. I have care fully studied all these prophecies and in my volume entitled Mes sianic Prophecy have carefully set forth the principle for their
290 APPENDIX.
interpretation, and these principles expressly exclude the details as not designed in the prediction and therefore not to be looked for in the fulfilment. It is not a priori reasoning or inference that leads to. this result, but the inductive study of all the pre dictive prophecies of Holy Scripture.
INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS.
ADVENT of God 186 seg.
Advent, Second, the goal of Mes sianic Prophecy 201
Anselm 229
Apple, Thomas G 233
Assurance of grace 36
Astruc 142, 143, 278
Athanasius 68, 229
Augustine 81, 216
Authority, divine, fountain of, 59 seg. ; seat of, 58 seg. ; source of 58 seg.
BALL, JOHN 103
Baur, Ferd 233
Baxter, Richard 96, 112, 221
Beet, Joseph A 113, 225
Bengel, J. A 233
Bentley, Richard 122
Beza, Theodore 96
Bible and Church I seg.
Biblical History, 152 seg. ; variety in, 158 seg. \ theophanic pres ence of God in, 161 seg. ; Eph- raimitic writer of, 165 seg. ; Ju daic writer of, 167 seg. ; Deuter- onomic writer of, 170 seg. ; priestly writer of, 171 seg. ; its
place in theology 275 seg.
Bissell, E. C 278
Blessing of Abraham 189 seg.
Bolton, Sam 10
Brown, Francis 113, 127, 142
Bruce, Alexander B 113, 224
Bunyan, John 231
Butler, Bishop 224
CALVIN, JOHN, 2, 7, 10, 61, 96, no, in, ii2, 115, 133, 215, 219,
22O, 221, 223, 271
Canon of Holy Scripture, author ity to define 2 seg.
Cave, Alfred 229, 276
C h^rteris, A. H 226
Cheyne, T. K 113
Chrysostom, J 229
Church, a great fountain of divine authority, 17 seg.] divine author ity in its institution, 83 seq.\ Scriptural doctrine of, 25 seq.\
Westminster doctrine of 13 seg.
Clement of Alexandria . . 40, 156, 229 Code, covenant, 250^^.; priest, 250.^.
Confucius 231
Contemporary History of the Old
and New Testaments 152 seg.
Council of Trent, canons and de crees of, 2, 9, 61 ; profession of
the Tridentine faith 9
Covenant, little book of, 250;
greater book of 250, 271
Creation, doctrine of, 146 ; poem of,
283 seg.
Criticism, 118 ; Higher, what is it ? 119, 121 ; problems of, 122 seg. ; real obstacles to, 130 seg. ; evi dences used by, 135 seg. ; con structive, 148 seg. ; Eichhorn's view of the opponents of, 277 seg. ; Historical, 97, 120 ; Lower, 121 ; of Canon of Holy Scrip ture, 120 ; results of, 148 seg.,
160 ; Textual 97
(291)
292
INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS.
DAVIDSON, A. B ................ 113
Day of Jahveh .............. 198 seg.
Decalogue of J .............. 250 seq.
Delitzsch, Franz ............ H3» I23
Dods, Marcus ............. «3i 223
Dorner, Isaac A ................. «3
Douglas, Geo .................. 278
Driver, S. R ....... ... «3, 123, 142
Du Pin, L. E ................... 122
ECK,J ......................... 2
Eichhorn, J. G ____ 122, 159, 277, 278
Evans, L. J ................ no, 113
Evidences, external, 136 seg. ; in ternal ................ i3
FAIRBAIRN, A. M ........... 61, 113
Fairchild, J. H .................. 235
Fall of man, epic of ......... 281 seg.
First-fruits ...................... 269
Fisher, Geo. P ............ 113, 234
Flint, Robert ................... 48
Fountains of divine authority, 57
seg. seg. seg.
are they co-ordinate ? 63 unity in the Messiah, 84 supposed co-ordination of,
210 seg.
Feast of unleavened bread, 257 ; of harvest, 261 ; of ingathering, 263 ; of passover 266
GALLICAN Confession 3
Gerhart, E.V 56
Gibbons, Cardinal 48
Godet, F 113
Goodwin, John 221, 222
Gore, Charles 23, 67, 77, 79,
113, 129, 228
Gould, E. P . . 113
Grant, Geo. M 113
Green, W. H 132, 278
HAGENBACH, K. C 275
Harper, W. R 113
Heathen, recognition of salvation
of elect 208 seg.
Helvetic Confession, second 2
Hodge, Charles 17, 214
Huntington, W. R 231
IDEAL of mankind 182 seg.
Idolatry 252
Image making. 252
Inerrancy, Scriptures do not claim, lojseg. ; notan orthodox doctrine, 109 seg. ; an unsafe doctrine, 109 seg. ; a dangerous doctrine, 113 seg.\ those who teach. . 215 seg.
Irenaeus - . ... 229
Iverach, James 230
JAHVEH, name of 248 seg.
Jerome 216, 219
KANT, Immanuel 213
Kid with its mother's milk 270
Kingdom of Priests 192 seg.
Kuenen, A 286,287
LANGE, J. P 113,223
Leo X., Pope 10
Lessing. 156, 181
Levita 96
Liberty of conscience 34. S3
Liebnitz 70
Light of nature 30 seg.
Lightfoot, John 96, na
Livingstone, David 49
Low Church modification of the
power of the keys 208 seg.
Lowth, Bishop 123, 282
Luther, Martin, 2, 9, 10, 61, 68, 69, 96,
112, 132, 133, 217, 218, 219, 223, 271
Lyford, William 103
Lyra, Nicolaus de 9
MARTINEAU, JAMES, 52, 53, 58,
61, 62, 212
Messiah 195 seg.
Miracles, 206 seg., and theoph-
anies 279 seg.
Missions, Foreign 45 seg.
Mitchell, A. F 132
INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS.
293
NEANDER, A 113, 223
Newman, Cardinal 19, 212
ORIGEN 215, 228, 229
Osgood, Howard 278
PALMER, HERBERT 101
Patton, Francis L 5
Phalaris, epistles of. 122
Piscator, J 271
Plato 40, 231
Plummer, Alfred 227
Poole, Matthew 103
Prophecy, lower forms of, i^seg. ; highest order of, 181 set?., and theophany, 280^^.; predictive,
details of 286 seq.
Prophet greater than Moses . . 194 seq.
REASON, a great fountain of di vine authority, 29 seq. ; human, 31, 41 ; rights of, 35 ; West minster doctrine of, 36 seq. ; Scriptural doctrine of, 38 seq. ;
not a rule of faith 66 seq.
Reimarus 225
Renan, Ernst 156
Revision, Committee of, 12, 14,
205, 207, 209
Rivetus, Andrew 115
Rule of Faith, Calvinistic 10
Rutherford, Sam, 96, 112, 114,
115, 221, 222
SABBATH . 254
Sacraments 16
Sanday, William 113^ 224
Scotch Confession 3
Scripture, Holy, authority of in terpreting, 8 ; unique authority of, 73; infallible rule of faith and practice, 92 ; kept pure in all ages, 95 seq. ; final appeal in con troversies of religion, 95 ; im mediately inspired by God, 95, 97 ; word of God contained in, 99; errors recognized in, 112; new evidences for 205
Sedgwick, Obadiah 232
Selden, J 2I3
Shedd, W. G. T 17, 131, 210 seq.
Silence, 136 ; argument from. 137 seq.
Smith, H. B 7o, 214
Smith, H. P in, u3
Smythe, Newman 49, 113
Socrates 40
Stanton, V. H 64
Stier, R II3j 223
Strauss, David 233
TATIAN I59
Testimony, 136; argument from,
136 seq.
Thayer, Joseph H 113, 231
Theophany, several representa tions of 273 seq.
Tholuck, A u3) 223
VAN OOSTERZEE, J. J., 61, 69,
70, 113, 215, 223
Vatican Council 66
Vincent, Marvin R 234
Vincent of Lerins 78, 79
Vines, Richard JO2
WALLIS, JOHN i0i
Walton, Brian 96
Westcott, Bishop I35
Westminster Assembly, 10, 14, 31 ; Catechism, Larger, ico, 101; Shorter, 100, 101, 103 ; Confes sion, 3, 8, 9, 10, u, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 5*, 74, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104, 106, 131, 132, 205, 208, 209, 288, 289 ; Divines, 6, *9> 29, 3i, 32, 96, 97, ioo, 101, 103, 132, 206, 208, 209 ; doc trine of the Church, 13, 17 seq.\
doctrine of the Reason 30 seq.
Whichcote, Benj 7g
Whitaker, Jeremiah n^
Wicklif, John 9
Wisdom literature 38 seq.
Woman's seed j85 seq.
ZWINGLI, ULRICH 68, 96
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
GENESIS.
i 146, 14?
ii 143. i46. J47
ii.2,3 257
V. 22, 24 249
vi. 9, ii 249
ix. 13 seq 257
xiii 219
xiv. 18 40
xv. 7 249
xvii 257
xvii. 18 249
xx. 3 40
xx. 7 140
xxiii. 4 249
xxiii. 9 219
xxvii. 20 144
xxviii. 13, 21 249
xli 40
xliii. 14 249
xliv. 5 177
xlix. 25 249
EXODUS.
ii.i6 40
ii. 24 249
iii 143
iii. 12-15 248
iv.-xii 138
vi 143
vi. 2, 3 142
vi. 2-7 248
vii. 17 249
viii. 18 249
X. 2 249
xii 267
(294)
EXODUS.
xii. 3-n, 21-27, 43-46 268
xiii. 12, 13 260
xv. 6-19 166
xv. 20 140
xv. 26 144, 249
xx 144, 251
xx. -xxiii 145
xx. 1-17 250, 251
=c. 3, 4 253
xx. 4-6 253
«. 5 253
xx. 8 254
xx. 9, 10 255
xx. ii 256
xx. 22-xxiii 250
xx. 23 252
xx. 23-26 251
xxi. 2-n 251
xxi. 12-25 251
xxi. 17 251
xxi. 26-37 25i
xxii. 1-5 251
xxii. 6-16 251
xxii. 17, 18, 19 251
xxii. 20-26 251
xxii. 27-29 251
xxii. 28 260
xxii. 28, 29 259
xxii. 29 271
xxii. 30 251
xxii. 31 272
xxiii. 1-3, 4, 5, 6-9 251
xxiii. 10-19 251
xxiii. 12 254, 256
xxiii. 14 265
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
295
EXODUS.
xxiii. 15 257, 258, 260
xxiii. 16 261, 263
xxiii. 17 265
xxiii. 18 266
xxiii. 19 269,270,271
xxiv. 4 250, 251
xxiv. 9-11 275
xxix. 31 271
xxxi. 13 254
xxxi. 13 256
xxxi. 14-16 255
xxxi. 17 256
xxxi. 18 252
xxxiii. 7-11, 18-23 274
xxxiii. 20-23 146
xxxiv 145
xxxiv. i 250
xxxiv. i, 4, 14 252
xxxiv. 6, 7 254
xxxiv. 11-26 250
xxxiv. 11-28 250
xxxiv. 14 252, 253
xxxiv. 16 252
xxxiv. 17 252
xxxiv. 18 257, 258
xxxiv. 19-20 259
xxxiv. 20 260
xxxiv. 21 254,255
XXXiv. 22 26l, 263
xxxiv. 23, 24 265
xxxiv. 25 265, 266
xxxiv. 26 269, 270
xxxiv. 27 250
xxxiv. 28 250
xxxiv. 33-35 275
LEVITICUS.
H. ii 266
vii. 12, 13 266
xi. 39, 40 273
xvii. 7 254
xvii. 15, 16 272
xix. 3 254
xix. 4 252
xix. 30 254
xx. 5, 6 254
LEVITICUS.
xxii. 27 271
xxiii 261, 265
xxiii. 3 256
xxiii. 5, 6 257
xxiii. 6-8 258
xxiii. 10-14 270
xxiii. 15-21 262
xxiii. 17 266
xxiii. 34-36 263
xxiii. 40-44 263
xxvi. 2 254
xxvi. 9 249
xxvi. 42, 45 249
xxvii. 26, 27 259
NUMBERS.
ix. 12 267
xi. 29 140
xii. 6-8 181,275
xii. 6 140
xiv. 33 254
xv. 39 254
xviii. 12, 13 270
xviii. 15-18 260
xxi. 14 136
xxviii.-xxix 261, 265
xxviii. 9, 10 256
xxviii. 16, 17 257
xxviii. 16 267
xxviii. 17-25 258
xxviii. 26-31 262
xxix. 12-19, 35-38 264
DEUTERONOMY.
i. i 140
iv. 12-16 275
iv- J5-i9 253
iv- 24 253
144, 251
253
254
v
v. 8-io..
V. 12
v. 12-14. v. 14, 15 vii. 2-4.
255 256 254
™i-3 59
viii. 18 249
296
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
DEUTERONOMY.
ix. 9 251
xhi. 1-5 140, 206
xiii. 2 252
xiv. 21 271, 272
xv. 19-22 259
xvi. i 257
xvi. 2-n 269
xvi. 2, 4-7 266
xvi. 3-4, 8 258
xvi. 9-12 261
xvi. 13-15 263
xvi. 16 261, 265
xvi. 17 261
xviii. 15-22 140
xviii. 20-22 206
xxvi. 17 249
xxvii. 8 251
xxvii. 15 252
xxix. 12 249
xxxi. 16 254
xxxii.8, 9 154
xxxiv. 10 140
JOSHUA.
viii. 30 seq 251
x. 12, 13 136
xxii. 34 249
xxiv. 32 219
JUDGES.
ii. 18 249
I. SAMUEL.
vi. 17 139
ix. 9 140
x. 5 seq 180
xix. 23 seq 180
II. SAMUEL.
i. 18
vii. 24
I. KINGS.
vi 219
viii. 12 136
xv. 14 in
xviii. 26 seq 180
xviii. 27 166
xviii. 39 166
136
249
II. KINGS. xii. 16. . . xxii. ..
139 137
I. CHRONICLES.
xvi. 15 249
xvii. 22 249
II. CHRONICLES.
xii. 2 seq 180
xiv. 2-5 in
xxix. 20-24 *39
xxxiv 137
EZRA. i. i.
40
JOB. xviii. 19 249
PSALMS.
ii 196
viii 182
xvi 183
xxxvi . 7-9 60
xl. 6, 7 139
xiv 196
Iv. 16 249
Ixxviii 138
Ixxx 285
Ixxxvii 193
Ixxxvii. 3-7 157
xci 183
cv. 8 249
cvi. 45 249
ex 196
cxi- 5 249
cxix. 54 249
cxxxix. 7-12 56
PROVERBS.
i. 7, 20-23 38
i. 8-ix 123
viii. 5 38
*• TI 59
x.-xxii. 16 122
xiii- M 59
59
38
123
XVI. 22
xx. 27
xxii. i7-xxiv. 22.,
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
297
PROVERBS.
xxiv. 23-34 123
xxv.-xxix 123
xxx. 1-14 123
xxx. 15-33 123
xxxi. 1-9 123
xxxi. 10-31 123
ISAIAH.
ii. . .
viii. 19.. . x. 12, 15. xi..,
147
178
i83
xii. 3 60
xiii. 10 198
xix. 16-25 193
xxiv. i, 19 198
xxxiv. 3 199
xxxiv. 4 198
xxxviii. 16 59
xl.-lxvi 134, 141
xliii- i-3 153
xliv. 28 141
xlv. i 141
xlvi. i, 2 i^i
xlvii 141
xlvii. 13 i77
li- 3 183
liii. 10 139
liv. 12 !87
Iv. 12, 13 183
Ivi. 7 188, 193
Iviii. ii 60
lx 155, 193
Ixiii. 1-6 200
Ixv. 17 183
JEREMIAH.
"•'3 59
iii. 17 187
xvii. 13 59
EZEKIEL.
xvi. 60, 62 249
xvii. 22-24 176
xx- 38 249
xxi. 21-23 177
xxx. 24 249
xxxvi.35 183
EZEKIEL.
xxxviii. 22 199
xxxviii.-ix 199
DANIEL.
ii 40
vii. 9-12 199
vii. 25 227
xii. 7 227
HOSEA.
ii. 18 183
JOEL.
iv. 13 2oo
iv. 18-21 198
iv. 18-22 199
AMOS.
'•9 249
ix-7 154
JONAH.
iv 193
MlCAH.
iv. i 188
iv 147
ZECHARIAH.
viii. 8 249
viii. 22, 23 193
xi. 12, 13 I09
xii. 1-9 199
XIV. I-21 199
xiv. 16, 17 193
Xiv. 20, 21 187
MALACHI.
iii. i 109
MATTHEW.
iii. 9 • 191
iv. 3-7 207
v. 17, 18 289
viii. ii IQI
xi. 4-6 207
Xi. 21, 22 115
xii. 38, 39 207
xiii. 30 199
xiii 31, 32 176
xiii. 42 199
xiii. 58 207
298
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
MATTHEW.
xvi. 18, 19.... J7
xxiii. 13 20
xxiii. 33 278
xxiv. 23, 24 206
xxvii. 9 109, no, 216
MARK. i 2 109
LUKE.
iv. 25 227
ix. 54, 55 2°7
xii. 48 47
xix 217
xxi 217
JOHN.
i. i, 14 3i
i. 2-13. 31
iv. 14 60
vi. 30 207
vii. 17 23
vii. 37,38 59
XV. 22 115
xvii. 3 39
ACTS.
iii.2i 183
iii. 24 128
vii „ 219
vii. 16 220
xiii 219
xvii 115
ROMANS.
viii. 22 seq 184
viii. 29 184
x. 6 220
x. 14, 15 "5
xi. 17-25 191
Xi. 21 221
xvi. 20 186
I. CORINTHIANS.
ii. 15 23
xv. 24 198
II. CORINTHIANS.
xii. 2 seq 180
GALATIANS. iii. 7 191
GALATIANS.
iii. 17 225
iv. 24 us
EPHESIANS.
ii.6 55
ii. 18 55
ii. 20, 21 18
ii. 20-22 189
iv. 13 26
PHILIPPIANS.
iii. 2 278
COLOSSIANS.
i. 24 214
iii. i 55
I. THESSALONIANS.
v. 2 115
II. TIMOTHY.
iii. 15-17 108
iii. 1 6 7
HEBREWS.
iv. 7 128
iv. 16 55
xi.io, 16 190
Xi. 21 221
I. PETER.
ii. 4 seq 26
ii. 9 seq 194
II. PETER.
iii. 13 l83
I. JOHN.
i-3 55
iii. 24 39
iv. i 115
REVELATION.
i.6 194
vii. 9 192
xi. 2, 3 227
xii. 6, 14 227
xiii. 5 227
xiii. 11-18 206
xiv. 17-20 200
xix. 14 seq 199
xx 26
xx. 10 186, 199
xxi. 2 seq 189
xxi. 6. . . .60
Biblical Study.
Its Principles, Methods, and History of its Branches, together with a Catalogue of Books of Reference. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages in Union Theological Seminary, New York. Third Edition. One volume, crown 8vo, $2.50.
" A choice book, for which we wish wide circulation and deep influence in its own land and also recognition among us. The author maintains his position with so much spirit and in such beautiful language that his book makes delightful reading, and it is particularly instructive for Germans on account of the very characteristic extracts from the writings of English theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Moreover, he is unusually familiar with German literature of recent date as well as with that of the earlier period.11— Zarncke's Literaturisches Centralblatt filr Deutsch- land.
'-Here is a theological writer, thoroughly scientific in his methods, and yet not ashamed to call himself evangelical. One great merit of this handbook is the light which it throws on the genesis of modern criticism and exegesis. Those who use it will escape the crudities of many English advocates of half-understood theories. Not the least of its merits ia the well-selected catalogue of books of reference— English, French, and German. We are sure that no student will regret sending for the book." — The Academy, London.
" Dr. Briggs begins with a chapter upon the advantages of Biblical study, and the subjects of the following chapters are : Exegetical Theology, the Languages of the Bible, the Bible and Criticism, the Canon and Text of the Bible, Higher Criticism, Literary Study of the Bible, Hebrew Poetry, Interpretation of Scripture, Biblical Theology, and the Scriptures as a Means of Grace. It will be seen that the subjects occupy a wide range, and, ably treated as they are. the volume becomes one of real value and utility. Appended to the work is a valuable catalogue of books of reference in biblical studies, and three indexes— of Scriptures, of topics, and of books and authors. The publishers have done honor to the work, and it deserved it."— The Churchnian.
" The minister who thoroughly masters this volume will find himself mentally in vigorated, as well as broadened in his scope of thought ; will almost certainly be able to better satisfy himself in his understanding of what the truth is which from the Bible he ought to preach to men ; and so will speak from his pulpit with new force, and find his words mightier, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds."— Boston- Congregationalist. "After all that we have heard of the higher criticism, it is refreshing to find so
scholarly and trenchant defences of the old paths His historical account of the
movement and developement among the English-speaking scholars is very valuable. This, and the chapter on the ' Literary Study of the Bible,1 are among the best in this excellent book."— New York Christian Advocate (Methodist).
14 We are constrained to rank this book as one of the signs of the times in the Amer ican church. It marks the rising tide of Biblical scholarship, Christian liberty of thought and evangelical interpretation of the Scriptures."— Christian Union.
" There are many grounds on which the work may be earnestly commended. Large reading in German and English, quick apprehension of the salient points of opposing theories, an unflagging earnestness of purpose, and very positive belief in his positions conspire to make the work instructive and attractive. But above all these excellences there shines out the author's deep reverence for the whole Bible."— The Examiner (Baptist, N. Y.)
Messianic Prophecy.
The Prediction of the fulfilment of Redemption through the Messiah. A critical study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament in the order of their development. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and the Cognate Langu ages in Union Theological Seminary, New York. One volume, crown octavo, $2.50.
" Messianic Prophecy is a subject of no common interest, and this book ie no ordin ary book. It is, on the contrary, a work of the very first order, the ripe product of years of study upon the highest themes. It is exegesis in master-hand, about its
noblest business It has been worth while to commend this book at some
length to the attention of Bible students, because both the subject and the treatment entitle it to rank among the very foremost works of the generation in the department of Exegetical Theology. Union Seminary is to be congratulated that it is one of her Professors who, in a noble line of succession has produced it. The American Church is to be congratulated that the author is ;m American, and Presbyterians that he is a Presbyterian. A Church that can yield such books has large possibilities."— New York Evangelist.
"It is second in importance to no theological work which has appeared in this country during the present century."— The Critic.
"His arduous labor has been well expended, for he has finally produced a book which will give great pleasure to Christians of all denominations The pro found learning displayed in the book commends it to the purchase of all clergymen who wish for the most critical and exact exposition of a difficult theme ; while its earnestness and eloquence will win for it a place in the library of every devout lay man."— N. Y. Journal of Commerce.
"It is rich with the fruits of years of zealous and unwearied study, and of an ample learning. In it we have the first English work on Messianic Prophecy which stands on the level of modern Biblical studies, It is one of the most important and valuable contributions of American scholarships to those studies. It is always more than in structive : it is spiritually helpful. We commend the work not only to ministers, but to intelligent laymen.11— The Independent.
"On the pervading and multiform character of this promise, see a recent, as well as valuable authority, in the volume of Dr. Briggs, of the New York Theological Seminary, on 'Messianic Prophecy.'" — W. E. GLADSTONE.
" Prof. Briggs' Messianic Prophecy is a most excellent book, in which I greatly rejoice.''' — Prof. FRANZ DKLITZSCH.
" All scholars will join in recognizing its singular usefulness as a text-book. It has been much wanted."— Rev. CANON CHEYNE.
"It is a book that will be consulted and prized by the learned, and that will add to the author's deservedly high reputation for scholarship. Evidences of the ability, learning and patient research of the author are apparent from the beginning to the end of the volume, while the style is remarkably fine."— Phila. I^resbytenan.
" His new book on Messianic Phrophecy is a worthy companion to his indispens able text-book on Biblical study .... What is most of all required to insure the future of Old Testament studies in this country is that those who teach should satisfy their students of their historic connection with the religion and theology of the past. Prof. Briggs has the consciousness of such a connection in a very full degree, and yet he combines this with a frank and unreserved adhesion to the principles of modern
criticisms He has produced the first English text-book on the subject of
Messianic Prophecy which a modern teacher can use." — The London Academy.
American Presbyterianism :
Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Letters and Documents, many of which have recently been discovered. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and the Cog nate Languages in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, i volume, crown 8vo, with Maps. $3.00.
"Tl.e Presbyterian Church owes a debt of gratitude to the enthusiasm and antiquar ian research of Professor Briggs. He seems to have seized the foremost place among them, and his vigorous, skilful, and comprehensive researches put all Protestant Christians, and especially Congregationalists, under obligation to him.1'— Boston Congregationalist.
"This is an admirable and exhaustive work, full of vigorous thinking, clear and careful statement, incisive and judicious criticism, minute yet comprehensive research. It is such a book as only a man with a gift for historical inquiry and an enthusiasm for the history and principles of his Church could have produced. It represents an amazing amount of labor. Dr. Briggs seems to have searched every available source, British and American, for printed or written documents bearing on his subjects, and he has met with wonderful success. He has made many important discoveries, illus trative of the Puritan men and period, useful to himself, but certain also to be helpful to all future inquiries in this field.1'— British Quarterly Review.
" The work before us bears evidence of a research which is as gratifying as it is un usual. We allude particularly to the examination of MSS. in England and Scotland, as well as in this country ; and to the very thorough and careful collation of author ities on the whole subject. The author has been for years securing the writings of Westminster divines, and the light which these books now cast on the inception of the Presbyterian Church in America is not only new, but invaluable.1'— The Christian Union. •
" The volume is a substantial addition to the literature of the subject. It is good in itself, and, besides, must exert a powerful influence in leading others to examine the sources of knowledge here brought to notice, and give the Church the benefit of re newed investigation. The author deserves the warm thanks of all the Reformed who hold the Presbyterian system." — N. Y. Observer.
"The original investigations of the author have put him in possession of much material hitherto unused It ought to be added that the volume touches so con stantly upon the early history of New England as to be indispensable to the student of American Congregationalism, while all lovers of antiquarian research will find much in it to interest them."— Sunday-School Times.
"This book accomplished what it professedly aimed at It is really wonder ful how much valuable knowledge Dr. Briggs has been able to press into the volume. We commend the work to our Presbyterian readers. It wiil give them a reason for the faith that is in them, and it will make them proud of the history of the denomin ation to which they belong. "— The Scotsman.
"It will be of priceless value to the future historian, and Dr. Briggs deserves the thanks of the whole Church for his laborious researches, and for his success in rescu ing from oblivion so many significant facts.'11— Chicago Interior.
" Professor Briggs has written the history of American Presbyterianism in a manner which exhibits it as an essential part of the Christianity of the country, and makes every reader whose range is large enough for such views, feel a personal pride in it as a history in which he himself has an interest and a share."— Jf. Y. Independent.
Whither?
A Theological Question for the Times. By CHARLES AUGUSTUS BHIGGS, D.D., Edward Kobinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological {Seminary, New York. One volume, crown 8vo, $1.75.
« TTO *>,rm-* that zenuine Christianity has nothing to lose, but much to gain, by un- fPtrJJid t h< .<- ami the ripest modern scholarship ; that the doctrines which pro- rr K, f 'v threatens areiio essential part of the historic faith, but raiher out-
I^Smen^o^ with warp and woof oftadiuon and speculation; that being ln?n" mHlhe noble form of Christianity, have obscured its real proportions and mt"' e i S' T i.'is.u ' of which tim.d and unscholarly souls are so much afraid, il really making the Bible more inan.feslly the,- book of God, by relieving it from the false interpretations of men."— The frets, Philadelphia.
" Tho hook is a stroii" one. It is packed with weighty matter. Its reach is larger than any o the £,!& other works, though its compass is smaller It contamsonly 300 oage^ vet it is a critical treatise on Westminster and modern theology and a so mrch Me and Christian unity. It is written in nervous, virile English that holds h »n si, i "rip and force. The title and the chapter headmgs sug- 'Whither?' 'Drifting/ 'Orthodoxy,' 'Changes,1 'Shifting,1
attention. _.
tion
Cn(i>:, New York.
"At the same time it is irenic both in tone and tendency. It is noble from beginning to end, though the author may possibly nlace unnecessary cmp ia»i|» ot tl.e or-amc unity of the different denominations of Christendom as the co ml ition precedent for a frue catholic unity. There is not a touch or smell of rationalwi or
preceent or a rue caoc u.
rationalistic speculation in the book, and freely aa the author deals with ncnts, it is an honest freedom, which will promote good feeling even amid .
The ludeiwndent.
" The literary quality of the book is very much superior to anything else we have seen of its author's. It is written, as the Germans say, mis etnem Gvu. It also puts the orthodoxy of its author in a stronger light than we had «P***th^J{L .line titiulc toward other denominations it occupies an irenic posit ion, which l*9Q«« with the general tendency of American Christendom. *-Tlie, American, Fi
" The professor has written a revolutionary and at the same time an irenic book Its temper is judicious, its tone courteous toward opponents, >** "P1"1 T,,^' m seeks peace, not strife. Instead of desiring to cast out those who think difl ^tly from himself, he would grant to every sincere Christian unhindered frV-d<>™ °.r tho.mhl and expression, and would open the doors of the church wide enough to wel come all who love the Lord Jesus Christ. "—Bofton Advertiser.
" It is a thesaurus of important historical matter, and the brilliancy »*J*J*2 Us style make it attractive even to those who have comparatively little interest main subject of its discussion."— The Sunday -Sclwoi Times.
" There is much both of historical and of dogmatic interest in this volume. Its author works in the spirit of his two greatest teachers— ROdiger and J Academy, London.
" Interesting as a novel, almost elegant in its language, clear in its express ion, ma
llous in showing research, the book will pay largely for its reading. Though the re
ust come a doubt of Dr. Briggs1 orthodoxy, yet there will abo c
ve
must come a doubt of Dr. Brggs
in his honesty."— The Christian Inqvirer.
.
While it is loyal to Presbyterianism, it is also grandly catholic. Thanril laro-e book, only 300 paces, yet it furnishes abundant food for thought, it was in vigoratin as the best of tonics, and is as optimistic as Christian hope it
vg
New York Evangelist.
.
" To sum up our notice of this book, there remains only to say that we I book will be widely read by churchmen and by all who are desirous for the rest of Christian unity. It will indicate to the members of everv division of Wjlcrenu* principles upon which the return of unity must eome."— 2& New lork Chur
This book is for sale by all booksellers, or will to sent, post-paid, on receipt of price, by
CHARLES SCEIBNEK'S SONS, Publishers,
743 and 745 Broadway, New York.
BRIGGS, CHARLES A.
(CHARLES AUGUSTUS),
THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH
AND THE REASON
BCA-7043 (MCAB
'