Skip to main content

Full text of "The Bibliotheca sacra"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 










A Religious and Sociological Qwtrterly 


















FBincKTon', new tebsbt. 













Wbat iB a DemocracyT E. C. Oordon 119 

The Theory of a. Finite and Developing Deity. 

Frank Rugb Foster and L. Franklin Qmber 125 


Oardner's Psychologr and Preaching, 133; Thomaa'a 
Religion, 136; Cope'B Religions Education In the 
Church, 137; Crooker'a The Winning of Rellgloni 
Liberty, 137; Barton's The Christian Approach to 
Islam, 139; Monday Club's Sermons on the Inter- 
national Sunday-School Lessons for 1919, 139; At- 
kins's The Qodward Side of Life, 140; Shannon'a 
The Breath In the Winds, 110; Wltli Ood in the 
War, 140; The Pulpit In War Time, 141; Enelow's 
The War apd the Bible, 141; Anste/s The BlUe 
Viev of the World, 141; Wilson's America — Here 
and Over There, 141; Merrill's Christian Intema- 
tlonallBm, 141; Drovn's God's Responsibility for 
the War, 141; Bailey's The Outdoor Story Book, 





insB ouTK M. wmoHEsntB, kampa, ii»aho. 












The Hun and the Imprecatorr Paalms. W. A. Jure). 228 
The Text of Numbera xil. 14 f.— Exodua iv. 18, Har- 
old M. Wiener 232 

Navllle OD the CompoeltloD and Sources ot GeneslB. 

John Roaf Wlghtman 231 

" The Studenf a Theodore." T. Gola 243 


HopklQS'a The History of Rellglona, 250; MUIs'a Pre- 
historic R^lglon, 2G2; Swete'a Baa&ya on the Early 
History of the Church and the Mlnlatry, 2G3; Knud- 
Bon'B Tha Rellgloua Teaching of the Old Teeta- 
ment, 267; Morgan'a The Religion and Theology 
of Paul, 261; Snowden'a The Coming of the Lord, 
262; Camphell's The Second Coming ot Chriat, 
262; Hastlnga'a Dictionary of the Apostolic Churdi, 
283; Anthony's The Conscience and Concessions, 
26S; Schenck'B The Apostles' Creed in Uie Tven- 
tletb Century, 266; Super's Pan-Prussianlsm, 286. 



TOBomo, oRTAam. 


Contettts y 



raonsMffi ium> a. kooixkabah, pjt., 

pnfBBDBak, pnriTBTLVAinA. 





The CnUclsm of tlie Gaal Narrative (Jud. tx. 26-^1). 

Harold M. Wiener SS9 

A£ter the War— What* 861 


Smith's The Book of Deuteronomy, 363; Whlttaker'a 
The Neo-PlatanlBU, 376; Pullerton's Prophecy and 
Authority, 377; Moore'a History of Religions, 382; 
Keyser's A Syetem of Genera] Ethics, 383; WUkln- 
aon'fl Concemlng Jesui Christ, 3S6: Phelps's Read- 
ing the Bible, 3S6: Lewis's How the Bible Grew, 
387; Mackenna'B The Adventure of Life, 3S7; Rob- 
ertson's The New Citizenship, 3S8; Boreham'a The 
Luggage of Life, The Silver Shadow, The Golden 
Milestone, Faees lu the Fire, Mushrooms on the 
Moor. Mountains In the Mist, 3SS; Papazlaa's The 
Tragedr of Armenia, 389; Rankin's Prayers and 
ThanksglTlngs for a Christian, 389; Swing's The 
Sunday-School Century; 389; More from the Hunt- 
ington Palimpsest, 390. 





pBonasoB DAVID fosteb istes, d.d., 








vi Contents 


Tbe Bxodni and the Conqueet of the Negeh — Notes 
on the Bzodui— Tbe Text ot Exodua zvUl. 10 f. 
Harold M. Wiener 468 


cut's The Empire of the Amorltee, 485; Eeleer'B 
Selected Temple Documenta of the Ur Dynasty, 
4S7: Qrtce'B Records from Ur and I^rsa Dated in 
the Larsa Dmaaty, 487; Grlce's Chronology of the 
Larsa Dynasty, 489; Reiser's Patesls of the Ur 
Dynaat^r, 489; Best's The Blind, 490: Sanders's 
The WashlQKton Manuscript of the Epistles of 
Paul, 492; Hayes's Tbe Synoptic Gospels and 
the Book of Acts, 493: Monday Club's Sermons 
on the International Uniform Sunday-School Les- 
sons for 1920. 494; Erdman's The Acts, an Ex- 
poslUon, 494; Hill's The PropheU in the Light of 
To-day, 494; QUUes's The IndlTtduallBtlc Gospel, 
496; Reu'B Catechetlcs, 498; Jobnaon'a George Wash- 
ington the ChrlBtlan, 496; Rhodes's Our Immortal- 
ity, 497; Palmer's Altruism, 497; Batten's Good 
and EtII, 498: Quayle'a The Dynamite of God, 
498; Carey's The Kingdom that Must be Built, 
499; Thwlng's College Gateway, 499; Pentecost's 
Fitting for Palth, 499; Robertaon's Studies in 
Mark's Gospel, 600; Zimmerman's The Person of 
Christ and His Presence in the Lord's Supper, 600; 
Dorcheater'a Bolshevism and Social Revolt, 501; 
Books Received, 601. 





Eighty-Ninth Yea 








" Die HEnJODTiosBEWKOUNG " ... Benfaniin B. Warfield 1 
The Obxek Gencsis, the QaAr-WBLLHATTsEn Theory, ahd the Conserva- 

TivK Posmou Earold M. Wiener 41 

Thk " Split Inrininvic " aitd Otheb Idious . Herbert William Magoun 61 

Gerkak Mobal Abnobiiauty . W. H. Orifflth Thomat 84 

CuRiBTiAir MoRASTiciBH AND ITS Pucc IN HISTORY Ian 0. Hannah 105 
Ceitical Notbs — 

What Is a Democracy? E. O. QorOon 119 

The Theory of a FHnlte and Developing Deit]' 

F. H. Foster and L. F. Oruter 126 

NoncKs OF Rbceht Pubucatiohs 133 



EuBOFEAiT Aqents, Charles Hioham & Soh 
2Ta Faningdon Street, London, E. C 


St tlie Post OfDce In Oberlio, Ohio, as Seeond-claM Matter 



A Religious and Sociological Quarterly 

EatabUsbed In 1S44 

January, 1918 
The Befonnatiou. 1517-1917. Preserved Smith 
The Square Deal — or the Oblong. William I. Fletcher 
A New Solution of the Peutateuchal Problem (I,), Melvin Grove Kyle 
German Critics and the Hebrew Bible. T. H. IVeir 
Contributions to a New Theory of the Composition of the Penta- 

tench (I.). Harold M. Wiener 
The Story of Gezer. Wallace N. Steams 
The Religious Philosophy of Pascal. James Lindsay 
A Worlcl-Uuity C'oi»ferenfe, Kajiuoml L. Bridgmau 
Critical Notes and Notices of Recent Publications 

April, 1918 
The Christian Attitude toward War. John EUiott Wishart 
A New Solution of the Pentatenchal Problem {II.). Melvin Grove Kyle 
The Bible and Literature. Tiiomaa Edward Barr 

Contributions to a New Theory of the Composition of the Penta- 
teuch (II.). Harold M. Wiener 
The Unity of Isaiah. J. J. Lias 
Critical Notes and Notices of Recent Publications 

July, 1918 
The Place of Force in Social IJevelopment. Philip Stafford Moxom 
Is the Sermon on the Mount Homiletically Defensible? Edward Nor- 
man Harris 
Pan-Germanism ; Its Methods and Fruits. Charles W. Super 
The Divine Immanence. David Poster Estes , 

The Apocalypse a Drama. George F. Herrick i 

Catholic and Scientific. John Felix I 

Critical Notes and Notices of Recent Publications 

October, 1918 
The Theory of a Finite and Developing Deity Examined. L. Prank 

The Lord's Prayer in a Dozen Langna^^. Donald B. MacLane 
The Exodus in the Light of Archffiolojry. A. E. Whathara 
" The Exodus in the Light of Archajology." Harold M. Wiener 
A Theological Reminiscence 
Basic Pacts for Sociologists 
Critical Notes, Notices of Recent Publications, and Index 

Any Two of the Above Tfumberg to New Subscribers Bending 
$3.00 for 1919 

Bift^liotheca Sacra Company 






A OBiAT religiooB movement has been going on in Get^ 
man; during the last half-centnry, to which the attention 
of the oatside world has been far too little directed.' It is 
commonly spoken of as "The Fellowship Movement"; and 
the complex of phenomena which have resulted from its 
activitieB is Bommed up briefly as " Fellowship Christian- 
ity." * I'aul Drews, in a few words of detailed description, 
written a decade ago, brings it rather clearly before ns in 
its external manifestations. He says: — ' 

" The so-called ' Fellowship-Movement.' which has ex- 
isted now about a generation, is a religious lay-movement, 
and that of a power and extension such as the Evangelical 
Church has not seen since the Reformation. There is no 
German-Evangelical National church into which it has not 
penetrated. It has thrust its plow-share even into the hard 
soil of the Mecklenburg Church, which is not so easy 
to break up. . . . Its adherents are gathered by the Fellow- 
ship from the circles of the so-called ' humble people,' * — 
artisans, craftsmen, tradesmen, railway and postal em- 
ployees, waiters, servant-girls, here and there (as for ex- 
ample in Hesse) even peasants, and also teachers. Added 
to these there are — as will not surprise those who are ac- 
quainted with Church History — the nobility and that the- 
high nobility. The academically educated and the indus- 
trial workers alone are wanting. Of course not altogether;: 
but they form exceptions in these ranks, and do not af- 
fect the character of the whole. . . . The Fellowship is ex- 
traordinarily thoroughly and compactly oi^nized. The 
particular local Fellowships are united in Provincial asso- 
ciations, at the head of which stand ' Councils of Brothers * 
(BrilderrateU Over these associations there stands the 
' German Association for Evangelical Fellowship-work and 
Vol. LXXVl. No. SOL 1 


2 Bibliotkeca Sacra [Jan. 

EvangelizatioD." There exist, howerer, Pellowship-cirdes 
which have not connected themselves with this central Asso- 
ciation. The individual associations not seldom possess their 
own EBsembly-houses which are sometimes so constmcted 
that strangers attending the meetings can find lodging or 
entertainment in them. The asBOciations employ also their 
own Professlonal-Workera," Bible-missionaries, colporteurs, 
and pay them. . . . The Professional- Workers who lead the 
meetings hare either received no special training or have 
attended one of the educational institutions which are sup- 
ported by the ' Fellowship ' and in its spirit. Older in- 
stances are the Ohrischona (near Basel) and Johauneum 
(first at Bonn, now at Barmen) institutions ; latterly 
there have been fonnded the Alliance Bible-School in Ber- 
lin (founded in 1905) and Pastor Jeliinghaus's Bible-school 
Seminary at Lichtenrade, near Berlin. The Institutional 
foundations are in general extraordinarily developed. The 
Institutions serve the ends partly of foreign, partly of do- 
mestic missions. We find hospitals, inebriate-cures, orphan- 
asylums, rescue-homes, sister- [that is, deaconess-] houses 
and the like. They have Pensions and Hotels of their own, 
carried on in the spirit of the Fellowship Christianity, and, 
as it seems, with good results. Regular annual conferences 
(at Onadau, Blankenburg in Thuringla, Frankfurt on the 
Main, and elsewhere) draw thousands of visitors. There is 
added a well-supported press serving, in part general, in 
part local needs (e.g, the Allianzhlatt, Auf der Warte, Sab- 
hatklange, Philadelphia, Die Wacht, Das Reich Christi and 
others). Bookstores of their own distribute literature which 
is read in their circles, among which there are many trans- 
lations from the English, of course exclusively of an edi- 
fying character. The net proceeds are devoted to ' the 
Kingdom of Ood,' that is to say to the labors and pursuits 
of the Fellowship Movement. Surveying all this, — this 
strong organization, this reaching out on all sides — we 
receive an impression of the power and extension of this 
movement. It is of special importance that property, laud, 
buildings, are held. Fixed possessions always give strength, 
guaranty of permanence; are the back-bone of existence. 
If our national churches should suddenly disappear from 
the map, the world, to its astonishment, would become all 
at once aware that behind the protecting walls and be- 
neath the protecting roof of our national cbnrchea, a new 
lay-church of a kind of its own has grown up which is well 


1919] " Die Heiligungslfewegung " 3 

able to depend on its own walls and to defy the etorms of 
the times." ^ 

"What we are looking upon in the Fellowship Moreme&t 
is the formation within the National Churches of Oermany, 
bnt not of them, of a great Oermau free church. We speak 
of it as a church, because it is a church in everything bnt 
the name; oi^anized under a strong and effective govern- 
ment, equipped with aU the instrumentalities required for 
the prosecatioD of the work of a church, and zealously 
prosecuting every variety of Christian labor throughout the 
whole land. ^Nevertheless, it vigorously asserts and Jeal- 
ously maintains its right of existence within the National 
Church, or rather within the 8evei;^l National Churches of 
the Empire. All the members of the several constituent 
Fellowships are members of the National Churches of their 
several localities, (ulfllling all their duties and claiming all 
their rights as such. They pay all their dues as membere 
of the National Churches; they are baptized, confirmed, 
married, bnried by the pastors of the National Churches; 
thc^ in general are faithful attendants on the stated ser- 
vices of the National Churches — they are careful not to 
hold any of their own special meetings during the hours 
of the regular Sunday-morning services — and they are 
ordinarily among the most earnest supporters of all the. 
religious activities of the National Churches. The several 
Fellowships are organized as associations of members of 
the National Churches and hold their property under laws 
which give them this ri^t as such. The adherents of the 
Fellowship Movement, in a word, wish to be understood 
to be just members of the National Churches who have or- 
ganized themselves into an Association for prosecuting, 
under the laws of their country, ends of their own — just 
as other members of the National Churches organize them- 
selves under the laws of the land for prosecuting ends of 
their own, it may be a banking business or the manufacture 
of potash. Only, the particular end which their Fellowship 
has in view is the prosecution of specifically religious work; 


4 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

and the particular religious work which they have under- 
taken to prosecute is just the whole work which is proper 
to a church. In other words, precisely what the Fellowship 
Movement has undertaken to do is to create a new church 
Within the old National Churches, a veritable ecclesia in 
wcleaia, or to put it sharply from its own point of view, 
a true and living Church o* God within the dead and dry 
Bhell, the necessarily dead and dry shell, of the National 
Churches of the several Qerman states. 

Wliat the Fellowship Movement is in its essence, there- 
fore, is a revolt from the very idea of a state church, 
and an attempt to create a free church within the pro- 
tecting sheath of the . National CbnrcheB of Germany. 
Martin Schian very properly sums up its relation to the 
existing churches, accordingly, in the formula : " External 
continuance in the National Church; internal rejection 
of State-churchism." ' The internal rejection of state- 
churchism is complete.' To the adherents of this move- 
ment it seems unendurable that the Kingdom of God, which, 
ite Founder declared, is not of this world, should be under 
the dominion of the secular state, and should be exploited 
in its interests. The very constitutive principle of a na- 
tional church is abhorrent to them — that the church should 
Include in its ample embrace the whole body of the people 
as such, that every citizen of the state by virtue of that fact 
should be a member of the church, with a right to all its 
ordinances and participating in all its privileges. They 
are reproached, therefore, with having no understanding 
of the value of a truly national church, of the service it 
can render and must render to the community, of the bless- 
ing that is in it for the social organism. And when they 
declare that the church is an affair of religion and its or- 
ganiftc principle must be religion and nothing but religion, 
tbey are twitted with the impossibility of running a sharp 
line ot demarcation between tlie religions and the irre> 
ligious. Just because religion is a matter of the inner life, 
the line that divides the two classes Is an Invisible one, and 


1010] " Die Heiligungsbewegung " 5 

there can be no external aeparatioD of the one from the 
other; nay, "the line of division l>etween God and the 
world mns through every Christian's own sonl." How can 
the " real believers," " the truly converted," be distin- 
guished that they may be united in a veritable congregatio 
smtctorumt Undeterred by such criticisms the Fellowship 
people have gone straight on organising tbemselves into 
their eccleeia in eoclegia, on the sole principle of their 
" decisive Christianity,'' and, doing so, have become a great 
religious power in the land. 

They draw their justification for doing so partly from 
the peremptory demands of their Christian life, partly from 
the precepts and example of the heroes of the faith. " Th^ 
appeal to Bengel, Bpener, Luther himself. In his " Ger- 
man Mass," Luther has laid on the consciences of his foI> 
lowers precisely the course which they are now pursuing. 
He had bad bis experiences and was under no illusions as 
to the religious condition of the people at large. He would 
have the gospel preached to them all, of course; but he 
would not have " those Christians who are serious in their 
profession " content tbemselves with so sadly mixed a fel- 
lowship. " Let those who earnestly wish to be Christiana 
and confess the Gospel with band and lips," he said, " en- 
roll tbemselves by name and gather together by tbemselvea 
somewhere or other in a house, to pray, read, baptize, re> 
ceive the sacraments and to perform other Christian da- 
ties." " Even were such sanction lacking, however, some 
such procedure were inevitable. Companionship is a hu- 
man need, and birds of a feather naturally flock together. 
Certainly men who have In common the ineffable experience 
of redemption through the blood of Christ are drawn inev- 
itably together by the irresistible force of mutual sympathy 
and love. They belong together and cannot keep apart. 
We may press, without any fear whatever of going beyond 
the mark, every possible Implication of Paul's great declar- 
ation that what Ood " acquired with His own blood " was 
nothing less than a " church." There is imperious church* 


6 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

building power in the blood of Christ, experienced as re- 
demption. Even tbe flne words of Bobert Ellbel '* seem 
weak here — that " a converted man has an imperative need 
of communion with hiB fellows, that is with people who 
have passed through or are passing through a similar inner 
moral and religious process, a communion with brethren 
and sisters who sustain, cherish, protect, guard, encourage 
and gladden him." The converted man has not only the 
need of sncb communion ; he is driven by the Spirit into 
seeking and Anding it. We cannot think then tbe move- 
ment towards a Fellowship Christianity other than both 
natural and necessary, nor can we fail to greet it as a man- 
ifestation of life and health in the Christianity of Germany. 
Accustomed as we are to churcbes organized on the prin- 
ciple of personal confession of faith, it presents to out 
observation nothing which seems strange except its anom- 
alous relation to the National Churches, the nearest anal- 
ogy to which in our Anglo-Saxon experience is probably 
the position of the early Wesleyan Societies in the Church 
of England." Theodor Jellinghaus, having in mind our 
British and American Churches organized on the basis 
of " a public confession of faith and of participation in the 
redemption of Christ," explains the situation very simply ; 
" In a State Church," says be," " in which all are already 
fully legitimated meml)er8, subject to all the dues, such a 
practice is of course impossible. Bat ... it is possible that 
within the congregation circles should be formed who know 
that for positive [entschieden^a) Christianity a public con- 
fession of personal acceptance of the grace of Christ is 
necessary, and who seek to put this knowledge into prac- 
tice." That, in one word, is the sufflcient justiflcation of 
Fellowship Christianity in principle. 

The justification of the Fellowship Movement which is 
now so widely spread over Glermany, with its de6nite his- 
torical origin and the distinctive character impressed upon 
it by this historical origin, is naturally not so easily man- 
aged. This movement had a very special historical origin 


1919] "Die HeUigtu^abewegung " 7 

by which a peculiar character has been givea it vhich 
gravely modifies the welcome we would naturally accord 
it as a highly snccessfnl effort to draw together the decid- 
edly Christian elements in the German churches, in order 
that, the coals being brought Into contact, the fire may 
bum. The story is already partly told when we say simply 
that it is the German parallel to what we know as " the 
Keswick Movement " in English-speaking lands. That it 
may be completely told, it needs to be added that it has 
not been able to maintain in its development the modera- 
tion which has characterized the Keswick Movement: that 
It has been torn with factions, invaded by fads, and now 
and again shaken by outbreaks of fanatical extravagances. 
Like the Keswick Movement, it derives its origin from im- 
pulses received directly from Robert PearsaU Smith in " the 
whirlwind campaign " which he carried on in 1874-75 in 
the interest of what we know as " the Higher Christian 
Life." The Fellowship Movement has therefore from the 
beginning been also a Holiness Movement, or, as they call 
it in Germany, a " Banctiflcation Movement " ; ^' and a 
Holiness Movement which has run on the lines of the teach- 
ing of PearsaU Smith. The platform on which was set up 
its great representative Conference — " the Gnadau Con- 
ference," founded in 1888 and remaining until to-day 
the center of its public life — embraced just these two 
principles: (1) "Stronger emphasis on the doctrine of 
Sanctiflcation '' ; (2) "Cooperation of the laity in fellow- 
ship-work and evangelization." " What the Fellowship 
Movement has been chiefiy interested in, in other words, 
is just these two things — " holiness immediately through 
faith," and lay-activity in the whole sphere of Christian 
work, here distributed into its two divisions of the work 
of the Fellowship, which includes broadly the fostering of 
the Christian life among professed Christians, and evangel- 
ization. When G. F. Arnold wishes to sum up in a few 
words the sources of its success, he naturally, therefore, 
phrases it thus : " " Much zeal, much labor, much money 


8 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

bare been expended on the Fellowship Morement. What 
makes it. Btrong is, formally, tbe voluDtarist principle and 
the activity of the laity; materially, the idea of sanctifi- 
cation by faith as a complement to jnstification by faith." 

Naturally, Pearsall Smith did not create this movement 
out of nothing. He had material to work upon. And the 
material he worked upon was provided by the Pietistic 
Fellowships which go back ultimately to the ecclesiola in 
ecclesia established by 8pener in Frankfort, with the pur- 
pose of introducing new life into the congregations. These 
Fellowships, working in more or less complete inde- 
pendence of their national church -organizations, had in 
some places, as for example in Wflrttemberg and Minden- 
Eavensburg, maintained an unbroken existence from the 
period of Pietistic ascendency. Some of them, especially 
in the South and Southwest, had preserved, moreover, tbeir 
peculiar Pietistic cliaracter; others were more "confes- 
flional " ; while others still, especially on the lower Rhine 
and in the valley of the Wupper, already exhibited tenden- 
cies which we associate with the Plymouth Brethren.'* 
They had experienced a revival of religious activi^ in the 
twenties and thirties, but this had now died out. Quick- 
ened into new life by the impulse received from Pearsall 
Smith, they supplied tbe mold into which the movement 
Inaugurated by him ran. This was their contribution to 
tbe movement They gave it its formal character, as Ar- 
nold would put it: they determined that it should be a 
Fellowship Movement. Its material character was im- 
pressed upon it by Pearsall Smith in the very same act 
by which he called it into existence. Under the impulse 
received from him the sense of uui^ of spirit among 
the decided Pietists was greatly str^igtfaened, a zeal for 
evangelisation was awakened in them, and a new doctrine 
of sanctification was imprinted upon them — the doctrine 
of immediate sanctification through faith alone." 

Of course it was no accident that it was precisely on the 
Pietistic circles that Pearsall Smith's propaganda took 


1919] " Die Heiligungsbewegttng " 9 

effect; nor did the wbole effect wrought by it proceed from 
biB own personal impulBe. There was an inner affinity be- 
tween tbe ends of the Pietistic circles and those that Pear- 
saU Smith had in view, which laid those circles pecnliarly 
open to his appeal. It was the cultivation of Internal piety 
to which they addressed themselves; they had associated 
themselves in Pellowshipa for no other purpose than tbe 
qaickening and deepening of the spiritnal life of men al- 
ready believers. It was precisely to this, their own chosen 
task, that Pearsall Smith summoned them, only pointing 
out to them what he conceived to be a Iretter way and prom- 
ising them, walking in it, higher achievements. He did not 
address himself to unbelievers, seeking to bring them to 
Christ, but to believers, calling tbem to a fuller salvation 
than they had hitherto enjoyed, or rather, to an immediate 
"full salvation." Tbe element of evangelisation which en- 
tered into the movement from tbe first, but was, naturally 
in the circumstances, only gradually given full validity, 
was contributed to it neither by the Fellowshipa •• nor by 
Pearsall Smith.** It came from without; but it came after 
a fashion which made it a preparation for Smith's propa- 
ganda and contributed very largely to its success. Smith's 
remarkable agitation in the interest of " the Higher Life " 
in 1874-76 in England was embroidered on the surface, so 
to speak, of Moody and Sankey's great revival movement, 
and owed not a little of its immense effect to the waves of 
religions awakening set in motion by this greater and 
stronger movement. Those waves were already breaking 
on the Oerman strand when Smith arrived there in the 
spring of 1875 with his message of sanctificatlon at once 
by faith alone, and it was as borne upon them that bis 
mission there was accomplished." The somewhat odd re- 
sult foUowed that he inaugurated a great evangelisation 
movement without really intending to do bo: be had it In 
mind only to bring those already Christians to tbe fuU en- 
joyment of their salvation. In another respect, also, the 
effect of his propaganda failed to correspond precisely with 


10 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

his intention. He came proclaiming himself even ostenta- 
tioQBly the member of no church, the servant of all; and 
desiring to bring the blessing he felt himself ciiai^ed with 
the dnty of communicating, to Ghrtetians of all names and 
connections alike.** The movement which resulted from 
his impulse has been rigidly confined to adherents of the 
National Churches and jealously keeps itself " within the 
Church." The Methodists, for example, who were at first 
inclined to claim him as their own," — as they had consid- 
erable color of right to do — have been effectually repelled 
and have learned to speak of the movement which has 
grown out of his propaganda with complete aloofness, and 
even a certain contempt*' If, however, in view of these 
circumstances, we are tempted to donbt whether Smith 
contributed to the movement anything more than his doc- 
trine of immediate sanctiflcation by faith, we should cor- 
rect ourselves at once by recalling the main fact, that he 
contributed the movement itself. Precisely what he did was 
to launch in the German churches a great " Higher Life " 
movement. It belongs to the accidents of the situation that 
this Higher Life movement took form as a great Fellow- 
ship movement, only one of the features of which was its 
Higher Life teaching — a teaching which has, after a half- 
centnry of saddening experience, happily been permitted, 
it appears, to fall into the background. 

There are few more dramatic pages in the history of 
modem Christianity than those which record the story of 
the prodigious agitation in the interest of " the Higher 
Life" conducted by Pearsall Smith in 1874-75. The re- 
markable series of English meetings ran op with the most 
striking effect first to a preliminary and then to a final 
climax in the two great " international conventions," at 
Oxford in the first week of September, 1874, and at Brigh- 
ton in the first week of June, 1875. Their permanent 
English monument is what we know as "the Keswick Move> 
ment" But Smith's ambition extended far beyond the 
conquest of England, as the " international character " 


1919] ' "Die Heitigungabewegung " 11 

which he gave to bis principal meetinga testifies.*" He mis- 
calculated here as little as elsewhere. The CootineDtal 
gnestB whom he invited to Oxford and Brixton carried the 
agitation promptly over the narrow seas. There bad been 
no more acceptable speaker at Oxford and Brighton than 
Theodore Monod, whose American training and experience 
qualified him to address an English-speaking audience with 
ease and force; and on his return to France, he diligently 
exercised his office of Evangelist, to which he had l>eea 
lately ordained, by holding meetings in th6 interest of 
the new doctrine of immediate sanctiflcation by faith at 
Paris, Nimes, Montmeyran, Montauban, Marseilles, and 
elsewhere.*' Lion Cachet " became the Apostle of the move- 
ment for the Low Countries, though Holland manifested 
little of the desired sympathy with it. Theodor Jellinghaua 
carried the good news from the Oxford meeting hack to 
Germany, and a year or so later Qustav Wameck added to 
the favorable impression already made by his moving let- 
ters on the Brighton Conference.** " The hymns used at 
Oxford were translated into German and French, and also 
the books on the Life of Faith. In Paris the monthly 
periodical, La Liberateur,'" and another at Basel, De» 
Christen Olaubenaiceg, were at once commenced, and de- 
voted specially, like the Christian's Pathway of Power 
[Smith's own journal], to teaching the privileges of con- 
secration and the life of trust." *' 

In the midst of this diligently conducted general cam- 
paign. Smith himself appeared in Germany, and that with 
an even more dramatic effect and with even more astonish- 
ing results than he had achieved in England. He was not 
fetched over by his followers to clinch their initial suc- 
ce«6es and advance further the cause for which they had 
already opened the way.*' He was invited to Berlin by men 
of the highest authority, through the intervention of Court 
Preacher Baur, " and be held his meetings there so far 
under imperial sanction that the Emperor placed the old 
Qarrison Charch at his disposal. He was in Berlin but a 


12 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

few days (from March 31 to April 5, 1875), in Qermany at 
large less than two months. He could speak no German, 
and addressed hia audiences, therefore, only through an in- 
terpreter. And yet he ronaed something like enthusiasm, 
and left behind him a movement stamped with hia spiritual 
phyaiognomy which has not yet spent its strength. Jo- 
hannes Jilngst suma up the astonishing facts for us In a 
few straightforward words." 

''His appearance filled the hall of the Clubhouse (Vereins- 
haut) as it never was filled before. Hundreds were tnmed 
away for lack of room. He spoke to the ministers ; he spoke 
to the laity. Then he visited other cities, where his appear- 
ance was desired, and held similar meetings, especially at 
Basel, Stuttgart, Frankfurt and Elberf eld-Barmen. There 
scarcely ever streamed such masses of people to religiona 
meetings in Germany as to his. Even the somewhat dia* 
turbing circumstance that he speaks nothing but English 
and makes use of an Interpreter aeemed to act rather as an 
attraction than repellently." 

And Hermann Benser draws for us this vignette, that we 
may look intimately into Smith's mode of working in Ger- 
many : — " 

"At the hoar of the evening service on the first day of 
April of the year 1875 a singular man stood in the pulpit 
of the Qarriaon Church in Berlin, Robert Pearaall Smith, 
He was preaching. — But his manner of speaking was wholly 
different from what men were accustomed to hear. He 
spoke urgently as if he wished to clutch his hearers 
and obtain a decision from them at once, in an instant. By 
hia side in the pulpit there stood or sat men who inter- 
rupted the discourse with prayers and songs. Suddenly 
Smith cried out in the Assembly, ' Bejoice, rejoice at once! ' 
On Sunday, the fourth of April, he gave voice to the entbn- 
siastic aspiration : ' My brethren, I expect this evening great 
things from the Lord.' He longed for the return of the Apos- 
tolic age. As the disciples of Jesua had been baptised with 
the Holy Spirit ten days after the Ascension, so he looked 
for the Baptism of the Spirit on the tenth day. In the meet- 
ings everyone who felt inwardly moved to it, led in prayer. 
Even women were permitted to do ao, since they were all 
brothers and sisters with eqnal rights before the Lord.— 


1919] " Die Heiligunffabewegung " 1$ 

Had the golden Apostolic age of epiritual pover and broth- 
erly love retarned in Smith ? Many entertained this hope. 
This makes it intelligible that a court-preacher gave Smith 
his welcome at the first meeting, and many pastors spoke 
enraptured words as if under the compulnion of a mighty 
Spirit, Only a few stood aloof in donbt and warned against 
desertion of the firm gronnd of Beformation doctrine." 

Smith's departure did not allay the excitement which 
had been awakened. JQngst describes what was going on 
nnder his eyes : — *• 

" The number of Sanctificatiou meetings in Germany in- 
creases from week to week. We cannot describe all of even 
the greater ones, and mention only those in Bern under 
Inspector Raypard of the Cbriscbona, in Strassburg nnder 
Pastor Haas, in Geneva, Freiburg, Basel. . . . How great 
the movement already is we see not only from the publica- 
tion by the ecclesiastical journals of extra sheets on the 
phenomenon, but from the establishment by the friends of 
the movement of a special journal for advancing the work 
— Des Christen, Olaubensweg (Basel, Spittler)" — which is 
already at hand in the second impression." 
All Germany seemed to be arouted, and Smith had done 
what he set out to do. He went to Germany under thC' 
determination to conquer it to the Higher Life doctrine 
which he had made it his life-work to propagate; and he 
had set forces at work which seemed to him to bear in them 
the promise and potency of victory. The spirit in which 
he went to Germany is made clear to us in an incident the 
memory of which Jfingst has preserved for us : — •' 

" Before Smith went to Germany he was again for a 
while in America. There he visited the leading personali- 
ties of the Albrecbt-brethren in Cleveland and described to- 
them especially the progress of the movement in Germany 
{Chriatl. Botachafter, 1875. No. 7). He told them of his 
purpose to go to Berlin before Easter on the invitation of 
inpOTtant ministers and laymen, and said, among other 
tiiiiigs, ' If the Lord will give the people of Berlin into my 
hand, as he did at Oxford ' — but corrected himself at once: 
* But in the business of my God I no longer know any if — 
the Lord does it according to His word.* The Botschafter 
ftdds: ' He believes and doubts not. With remarkable quiet- 


14 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

ness bat equally decisively and confidently he Bpeaks of the 
success still to be secured.' " 

The state of mind in which he returned from Qermany is 
startlingly revealed by his sudden cry one day on the plat- 
form at Brighton, "All Europe is at iny feet!" The ex- 
citement which he had aroused in Oermany he himself evi- 
dently shared. 

Fortunately the movement Inaugurated in this atmos- 
phere of excitement fell at ouce into good hands. Men of 
combined zeal and moderation, of wide experience and 
trained discretion, like Theodor Ghnstlieb, Jasper von 
Oertzen, Theodor Jellingbaus, took charge of it. The Amer- 
ican Methodist Evangelist Fritz von SchlQmbach was em- 
ployed by Chrlstlieb in pushing the work of evangelization 
in northern and eastern Germany, and then by Adolf 
StOcker in the slums of Berlin. The organization of the 
movement was soon taken diligently in hand. The " Ger- 
man Evangelization Association " was formed in 1884. The 
Gnadau Conference was establisbed in 1888, and out of it 
came in 1890 the "German Committee for Evangelical 
FellowBhip-work," enlarged in its scope in 1894 into " The 
German Committee for Evangelical Fellowship-work and 
Evangelization," and transformed for legal reasons in 1901 
into " The German Philadelphia Association." Under the 
leadership first of von Oertzen, then of PQckler, then of 
Michielis, thirty years passed by in fruitful development.** 
A sister alliance had in the meanwhile grown up by its side 
(from 1886) — of eitremer tendencies and more deeply 
stained with Darbyite conceptions — holding its great con- 
ference at Blankenbui^ in Thuringia." Between it and 
Gnadau varying relations obtained from year to year. The 
formation of a third nnion was attempted in 1901-02 by 
Dr. Lepsins, the brilliant son of the distinguished Egyptol- 
ogist, when rebuked by the Blankeubnrg Alliance, of which 
he was a member, for some foolish dealings with the Old 
Testament text; but that soon became only an annual con- 
vention of positive theologians. Meanwhile the Onadan 


1919] " Die HeiligungaJtewegung " IB 

ot^anization flourished. Very direrae elements were em- 
braced in its conatitDency ; from the soft Pietism of the 
South and Southwest to the hareh fanaticism which ruled 
the temper of North and East. Occasions for friction were 
frequent. Nevertheless, in the absorption of the Associa- 
elation in the pressing tasks of its extension and organiza- 
tion, the peace was fairly well kept until the end of the 
century. With the opening of the twentieth century, how- 
ever, a period of turmoil and inward conflict set in which 
has shaken the movement to its foundations and out of 
which it has found its way only as through blood. 

The susceptibility of the Fellowship Movement to the 
worst of the evils which have torn it has been due to the 
circumstances of its ori^ and the general character then 
impressed upon it. It was the product of an impulse re- 
ceived from without, a prolongation into Germany of a 
movement originating in conditions prevalent in America 
after the Civil War, and reaching German; as the exten- 
sion to the Continent of a very extravagant English 
upheaval. A character both foreign — it itself would 
donbtless prefer that we should say, international — and 
enthusiastic, in the worser sense of that term, was im- 
printed upon it by that circumstance from which it has 
never escaped, unless indeed it has at the end escaped from 
it after experiences the most humiliating. It has been 
always conscious of standing in close connection with the 
religious forces operating in Anglo-Saxon Christendom, 
and has steadily sought to reproduce them in the conditions 
of German life. Priding itself upon this connection and 
seeking constantly to commend its teachings and methods 
on the ground that they were teachings and methods which 
had already approved themselves in Enf^and and America, 
it has had no just ground to complain of the reproach of 
" Englanderei " and " Methodtamua " *' which it has had to 
bear. Under the broad term " Methodistical " there has 
been included a multitude of sins, the worst to be said of 
which is that the Fellowship Movement has reaUy been 


16 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

guilty of them all. For unfortunately it has ehovn itself 
particularly sensitive to the repeated waves of religioas 
excitement which have Bwejit over Anglo-Saxon Christen- 
dom and has reproduced them with at least equal extrava- 
gance. There is scarcely any fanatical tendency which baM 
troubled Anglo-Saxon Christendom during the last half- 
century of which the German Fellowships have not been 
the prey. 

The movement from its very inception was a Higher Life 
moTNuent. It was as such that PearsaU Smith launched 
it: and it has made its assault as such on the German 
Churches, seelcing with constant zeal to transform their 
type of doctrine to this model. Fortunately the molding 
of the doctrinal teaching of the Fellowships fell from the 
first into moderate hands. Theodor Jellinghaus became 
their acknowledged theologian, and he gave to the Higher 
Life doctrine aa discreet a statemeut as, possibly, it has 
ever received or is capable of receiving while remaining a 
Higher Life doctrine. But the seeds of a more consequent 
Perfectionism were always lying just under the surface 
ready to spring up and bear their unhappy harvest in aHy 
favorable season. PearsaU Smith bad himself sown them. 
Did he not tell the people at Brighton that W. E. Board- 
man bad " never broken the Sabbath of bis soul " through 
thirty years, and did he not permit an aged minister by 
his side to assert roundly that he had lived for thirty- 
five years as purely as JesusT ** The seeds of a consequent 
Perfectionism are sown, indeed, wherever the Higher Life 
doctrine is preached, and must produce their harvest when- 
ever the artificial restraints of the Higher Life discreet- 
ness are relaxed. The harvest was reaped in the Fellow- 
ship Movement at the opening of the twentieth century, 
when " Pastor " Paul, one of the leaders of the more ex- 
travagant dements of It, came out on the platform of the 
Onadau Conference itself with a full-orbed assertion of hU 
complete holiness.** 

The Fellowship bad never constituted a homogeneous 


191!)] '■ Die Heiligungsbewegung " 17 

body. There bad always been eztraTagant elementB em- 
braced in the movement. In particular the vagaries of 
Plymouth Brethrenism were rife in large sections of it. 
"Sot only has the great Blankenburg Alliance-Conference 
been from the flret deeply imbned with this tendency, but 
also large sections of the constituency of the Qnadau Con- 
ference itself. The chillasm which is prevalent throagh the 
whole movement takes in these circles an extreme form, and 
a fanatical temper is engendered by it which seems capable 
of everything -except sobriety. Smith himself spoke of the 
possibility of the restoration of the Spiritoal Gifts of the 
Apostolic age; even Jelliughaus was not free from this de- 
lusion; it was from the beginning an dement in the move- 
ment. The Fellowships had not recovered from the turmoil 
roused by the outbreak of consequent Perfectionism when 
they received a staggering blow from the importation in 
the spring of 1905 of the Welsh Revival with more than the 
Welsh excesses. That was as nothing, however, to what 
befell them in the summer of 1907, when the so-called Pen- 
tecost Movement — the Los Angeles Revival ** — shook them 
with its full force. " Pastor " Paul of course was found 
in the thick of it. He " spoke with tongues " more than all 
others; he even sang "in tongnes" — translating favorite 
hymns into the supernatural speech ; nay, he even sub- 
jected " the tongues " to philological analysis and framed 
a sort of syllabary of them.*' 

The hnniiliatlng performances at the " Pentecost " meet- 
ings did at least this service — they provoked a reaction. 
The reaction was slow in coming: it was not until 1910 — 
after three years of these disgraceful proceedings — that 
the Gnadau people found strength and courage to repudiate 
them. There had been polemicizing all along; but the 
polemics were weak and ineffectual because conducted from 
a standpoint not essentially different from that of the 
fanatics : the whole Fellowship Movement was possessed by 
the convictions and hopes of which the excesses of the Pen- 
tecost Movement were only the legitimate expression. Time 
Vo!. LXXVI. No. 801. 2 


18 BibHotheca 8acra [Jan. 

was required for the revolution of conceptioD which could 
alone bring a remedy. It was a blessing that time enough 
was taken for the revolution to become radical. HermaoD 
Benser gives us a very fair account of what happened. 
With an nnnecessary bat not unintelligible intrusion of 
German self-consciousness, confusing the just with the 
German and the bizarre with the English, he tells as that 
it had always been the desire of the men of the Gnadau 
Conference to keep their " Philadelphia Movement " truly 
German and not to permit it to become English — when he 
ought to have said that they wished it to remain soberly 
Christian and not to become {or remain) fanatically vis- 
ionary. " But," he continues,** 

" they did not immediately recognize the perils of the re- 
vivals and above all of the Pentecost Movement. For there 
bnmed in their hearts too a longing for the charismata of 
the Apostolic age, and the anticipation that Qod would per- 
haps grant them now to men. Only when the devastating 
effects of the Pentecost Movement — the extravagance of 
individuals and the disruption of the Fellowship circles — 
became palpable, did the men of Gnadau obtain clearness 
and power to separate themselves sharply from this kind 
of thing. At the Gnadau Conference at Wernigerode of 
this year [1910] the directory of the ' German Association 
for Fellowship Work and Evangelization' unanimously re- 
pelled the Pentecost Movement. It was even declared that 
it was inconsistent with standing in the Association to 
have any fellowship in work with the Pentecost brethren. 
This declaration is a courageous act of great importance 
• for the sound development of Fellowship Christianity. For 
it certainly has not been an easy thing for these men to 
renounce brethren with whom they have stood in close re- 
lations of love and esteem. But it became their conscien- 
tious duty to place walking iu the fear of the Lord and 
bnilrling up the congregations in peace above consideration 
for these brethren." 

By this action of the Gnadau Conference of 1010 the Pen- 
tecost Movement was not suppressed. It continued to ex- 
ist ; but now as a distinct movement of its own, standing 
apart from the general Fellowship Movement and forming 


1919] "Die HeUigungsbewegung " 19 

a separate sect of fanatical character/^ But the import- 
ance to ttie Onadau Movement itself of its act of excision 
was not orerestimated bj Benser, writing immediately after 
the event In it, it apparently meant definitively to turn 
its back not only on the Pentecost Movement and its hor- 
rible excesses, but on all in its own history which, as it now 
saw, led up to such things and was distinguished from them 
only in degree. In effect this was to cease to be distinct- 
ivel; a Higher Life Movement and to place itself on the 
basis of Beformation Christianity. Its action of 1910 was 
followed up on January 24, 1911, by a renewed action of 
the directory, confirming it and even sharpening its terms: 
and joining with it at the same time an authoritative re- 
jection of " Pastor " Paul's crass Perfectionism, which had 
already met with the disapproval of the leaders of the con- 
ference when he had aired it at the meeting of 1904. This 
crass I'erfectionism had now become only an element in 
the syntem of fanaticism which was t>eing exploited by the 
Pentecost Movement. The singling of it out for special 
condemnation In 1911 has significance, therefore, only for 
the direction in which the minds of the Onadau brethren 
were moving. The two things were already conjoined In 
some most significant remarks by Elias Schrenck on the 
Gnadan platform of 1910. "The children of God of to- 
day," he said, " do not have to expect a Pentecost ; we have 
the Holy Spirit." 

" Signs and wonders are not in and of themselves a proof 
of the Pentecost endowment; only such fruits of the Spirit 
as, according to Gal. v. 22, manifest themselves in the daily 
life and especially in our sufferings are evidence of the holy 
life of the Spirit. . . . The doctrines of the ' pure heart,' of 
sinlessness, have come to us from America and England, 
and have obscured the Biblical doctrines of sin and of 
jnstiflcatiob by faith alone, in the case of many. We have 
need to abase onrselves deeply before the Lord because of 
the errors of our teaching heretofore, for which we all bear 
the guilt. We must cease to offer salvation to our people - 
in three distinct stages, (1) Forgiveness of sins, (2) Sanc- 
tification, (3) the Baptism of the Spirit" 


20 Bibliotheoa Sacra [Jan. 

— this being the fonn in which the developed Perfectionist 
doctrine of " Pastor " Paul and hia coadjutors was pre- 
sented.*' " This trichotomy is thoroughly un-Biblical, and, 
praise God, also thoroughly uu-German." There is a healthy 
movement of repentance manifested here, and it did not 
cease until, as we have already hinted, the whole Higher 
Life element in the teaching of the Fellowship Movement 
apparently was recanted, — a recantation in which Jel- 
linghaos himself, who had devoted hia life to its propaga- 
tion, took part/* To this element in the story we must 
return, however, more fully later. What it is important 
at the moment to make plain is only that at this point in 
its development the Fellowship Movement has apparently 
made a complete volte face. So clear is this that Theodor 
Sippell, writing in 1914,'° is inclined to look at its whole 
history theretofore as only its " chaotic beginnings," from 
which no safe conclusions can be drawn as to its future. 
" It cannot be denied," he says, " that a provisional stop- 
ping-point has been reached in the internal development of 
this movement. The new-Darbyism and fanatical currents 
which have exerted temporarily a prodigious influence have 
led in the Pentecost Movement to such deplorable aberra- 
tions, that by far the greater number of the German Fel- 
lowships have renounced them with disgust." Horrified by 
the realization thus forced upon them of what they have 
been in principle involved in, tliey are raising the cry with 
ever greater earnestness, says Sippell, that " only a return 
to Luther and the heritage of the Reformation can -save 
the German Fellowship Movement from internal and ex- 
ternal collapse." 

It will no donbt be interesting to look a little more in 
detail at the Perfectionist teaching of " Pastor " Paul, that 
we may observe somewhat more closely the end-point of 
the development of the Higher Life doctrine of the Fellow- 
ships. The discreet Perfectionism of Pearsall Smith, and 
of Jellinghaus, who followed even Smith at a little dis- 
tance, of course could not achieve stabilil?. In the nature 


1919] "Die He&igungabeicegung" 21 

of the case it passed necessarily by its own intrinsic logic 
into conseqaent Perfectiouism whenever it met with a tem- 
per accustomed not to count costs but to reason straight 
onward without reserves. We are not surprised to find from 
a hint dropped here and there, therefore, that consequent 
Perfectionism was early present in Fellowship circles. On 
one occasion, for example, Jellinghaua, speaking of the 
fortunes, in Germany, of the Higher Life Movement, to the 
propagation of which he had given his life, feels constrained 
to interject a warning against what he looks apon as a 
danger threatening it. " Unfortunately," he says,'^ — he 
is writing in 1898— 

"false anti-natural asceticism has been showing itself for 
a few years back in certain very small circles, and in oth- 
ers an un-Biblical exaggeration of language about sancti- 
fication, connected with a distressing censoriousness. . . . 
After having for twenty-three years taught and defended 
the Biblically circumspect Salvationist doctrine of sancti- 
fication, along with my beloved friend and brother Otto 
Stockmayer in Switzerland, for long as its only literary 
advocate in Germany, I can do no less than warn in the 
most earnest and serious way against exaggerated expres- 
sions concerning the stage of sanctification attained, which 
afterwards cannot be confirmed and ratified by an actually 
sanctified life." 

We do not know that " Pastor " Paul was in Jellinghaus's 
mind when be wrote these words. But he was just the sort 
of man of whom what Jellinghans says would be tme,*' and 
we are told that he had been speaking freely in this sense 
for some time before he dramatically cast the matter into 
the arena of public debate among the Fellowship people 
by his astonishing utterances in 1904.'* 

The essential elements of the doctrine which Paul pro- 
claimed in these utterances do not differ from those of the 
ordinary Wesleyan doctrine. Like the Wesleyans, he sep- 
arated sharply between sanctification and justification, and, 
like them, he taught an immediate sanctification on faith, 
an immediate sanctification by which our sinful nature 
itself is eradicated.** According to his own account he 


^ BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

Tentured one day just to take Jesus Christ for his sancti- 
flcatioD, and he at once received it — in its fullness. Thig 
is the way he describes his experience in his journal — 
Beiligung — for April, 1904 : — *' 

"All my previous coDceptions were all at once cast into 
ruins by it ; for immediately on this faith in my new Adam, 
I saw and felt myself delivered from every propensity 
(hang) to Bin. Day and night passed ; days and nights 
passed ; and it was and remained in me all new. All kinds of 
trials constantly came upon me, but I lived in blessed new- 
ness of life. It was with me as if none of these tilings con- 
cerned me. What always happened to me was that I lived by 
the two words and the truth enclosed in them, ' Jesus only * 
{Jesus icird). The Savior became to me in a much deeper 
way than ever before ' actual ' and ' present.' The close- 
ness of the Father filled my horizon ; and all this has re- 
mained since that time uninterruptedly my salvation. No 
defilement, whether through thoughts, or through ebulli- 
tion of temperament, has taken place with me since then ; 
no disturbing thing has come either by night or day be- 
tween the Lord and me. I live in the blessed fact that 
Jesus is mv new Adam from whom I expect and may ex- 
pect everything. O what blessedness lies in that! I was 
already happy in my Jesus. Now my happiness is bound- 
less." ■• 

The theme upon which Paul addressed the Gnadau Con- 
ference at its meeting at the ensuing Whitsuntide was the 
appropriate one of " Our Task in the Kingdom of Christ 
is Faith." What he meant by this was to assert that faith 
and faith alone is our whole part in salvation : Christ does 
all the rest. We have only to believe; nothing else is asked 
of us. And we receive whatever we have faith for : accord- 
ing to our faith it is done unto us. Testimony to the power 
of faith is always grateful to Christians. The energy with 
which Paul testified to the power of faith met of course, 
as it always does, with a hearty response. But when he 
Ulustrated his meaning by declaring that from those who 
entrust themselves to Jesus for full redemption He takes 
away at once all indwelling sin, the sinful nature itself; the 
greater part, led by Director Dietrich, Inspector Haarbeck, 


1019] " Die EeUigungsbetoegung " 23 

and the PreBldent of the Conference, drew back. In his 
testimony to his personal »perience he abated nothing of 
what he had already declared in his jonrnal. He had taken 
Jesos at His word. Like other believers, he liad received 
from Him through faith the forgiveness of sins; he had 
day by day been cleansed in the measure in which he had 
trusted; at last, because he had now trusted for this, he 
had been delivered from sin itself — all its allurements and 
impulses were gone and the promise of Rom. vi. 6 had 
been fulfilled to him, and from that hour, now some years 
back, he had seen nothing of his old Adam — to which In- 
spector Haarbeck somewhat drjly rejoined that it would 
perhaps be more to the purpose to inquire whether other 
people had seen nothing of him ! " All this Paul testified 
had been wrought by simple faith. He had not sought to 
sanctify himself, but merely to let himself be sanctified. 
He had turned wholly from himself and only believed that 
the Lord had delivered him wholly and from all. At once 
bis Ego and his old man had fallen entirely away, and sin 
now no longer dwells in him," 

It will be seen that Paul leaves nothing unsaid which 
would make the completeness of his deliverance from sin 
dear.'" He argues that if Qod's seed is in the sanctified, 
if they are made by the Spirit partakers in the divine na- 
ture, then they no longer have the nature of sin, they are 
in this supereminent sense freed from sin. It cannot be 
said, indeed, he explains, that sin no longer exists for 
them ; for, though it no longer exists in them, it exists 
about them. They are, then^ subject to temptation ; but this 
temptation does not arise from within them but is due 
solely to solicitations from without.*" If a regenerate man 
had to carry his inherited evil nature about with him he 
would not be really free; he would be impelled to sin by 
his sinful nature. And if sin remains entrenched in the 
nature-ground of the saints np to the grave, then it is not 
Christ bat death who is the complete deliverer; and if sin 
is wholly destroyed in ns only at the resurrection — that 


24 Bihliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

iSj at Christ's Becond coming — then, in spite of Bev. xix. 
7; 1 These, v. 23; and Eph. v. 27, the soul most meet its 
bridegroom still in sin.'^ 

Nevertheless, in defending his doctrine, Paul exhibits the 
usual chariuess in the employment of the term "sinless- 
ness " *' to describe it. He wishes to distinguish between 
the n^ative idea of freedom from sin and the positire idea 
of incapacity to sin, and to affirm only the former. He 
thinks it enough to saj that we do not have our freedom 
from indwelling sin from ourselres, but only from Christ. 
The regenerate man has all that he has only because he 
abides in Jesus and Jesus abides in him ; the ground of his 
freedom from sin is in Jesus and not in himself — it is all 
of grace and uot of nature or of merit"* We could talk 
of " Blulessness," he says, only if we were by virtue of our 
own nature free from indwelling sin — as Christ was, and 
as Adam was before the fall. It cannot be said that this 
rejection of the term " sinlessness " or the explanation by 
which it is justified, makes a good impression. The amount 
of it seems to be that Paul wishes to leave open the possi- 
bility of bis wholly sanctified Christians sinning again, and, 
in order to do so, plays fast and loose with the eradication 
of their sinful natures. If their sinful natures are erad- 
icated they no longer have them, and if they no longer have 
them — how do they differ radically from Adam before the 
fall? It would be possible, of course, to say that the erad- 
ication of their sinful natures does not infuse into them , 
holy natures; tbey have lost the propensity to sin, bnt have 
not gained a propensity to good. But that does not seem 
to be Paul's meaning: he claims for himself apparently a 
holy nature: the eradication of his sinful nature is not 
conceived In this sense wholly negatively — it is equivalent 
to the infusion of a holy nature, even Christ himself. Genn- 
rich, therefore, very properly remarks, "* that " if by the 
not-sinning [the n^ative idea] of the r^enerate man there 
is meant that he has no further connection with sin, be- 
cause sinning is for him something contrary to his nature 


1019] " Die Seiligungabewegung " 25 

[as regenerate], and is therefore no longer cODceivable in 
his case, — vby, then, precisely what is afiBrmed of him is 
sinlessness [in the positive sense]." What Paul has really 
arrived at, he goes on to say, is just the Wesleyan doctrine 
of Perfection, vhich is repudiated by the Sanctification 
Movement ; and, indeed, Paul himself allows " that for him, 
as for Wesley, the real point is, negatively, purification 
from all indwelling sin and, positively, complete living to 
God (perfect love) . Nor does Paul escape his diflScnlties 
by transferring the ground of our freedom from sin from 
ourselves to Christ. This is to confuse the cause with the 
effect. Our freedom from sin, says Paul, follows on faith 
and depends on abiding in Christ. Let it be granted. What 
foUowR on faith and depends on abiding in Christ is our 
own personal freedom from sin, from indwelling sin, — the 
eradication of the sinful nature. It is easy to understand 
that Paul should wish to validate even here the familiar 
" moment by moment deliverance " which he had learned 
from the Higher Life preachers. But Oennrich very prop- 
erly asks, Can he? If onr sinful nature bae been eradi- 
cated, it LB no longer there. And the reasoning becomes 
irresistible : " If it belongs to the nature of the regenerate no 
more to sin, because be is freed even from the last remnant 
of original sin, — why, then, as Heinatsch rightly remarks, 
there is no need for the r^enerate to have progressive puri- 
fication through Christ's blood in ever renewed surrender 
to Him, the 'moment by moment deliverance.' He needs 
at the most a preservation in this condition, attained once 
for all by complete purification, to (all out of which would 
be possible only by a fall as radical and fundamental as 
that of the first Adam." •• We do not say that the " mo- 
ment by moment deliverance," dependent on a " moment by 
moment surrender," is tenable even for the perfectionism 
of mere conduct which atone the Higher Lite people wish to 
validate^ For how is a lapse in faith possible to one whose 
sinleeeness in act is guaranteed by the Christ who has be- 
come the source of all his life-activities? But it becomes 


26 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

doubly absurd vben the perfectionism of conduct has be- 
come a perfectionism of nature. The plain fact is that we 
cannot suspend a supernatural salvation on natural activi- 
ties whether our salvation is wrought in us all at once in 
its completeness or in a long process ripening to the end, 
— if it is wrought by Christ, it cannot be dependent on our 
" moment by moment " faith, but our " moment by mo- 
ment" faith must be dependent on it. We cannot teach 
both a supernatural and a natural salvation. 

As was natural, a large part of the debate called out by 
"Pastor" Paul's consequent Perfectionism connects itself 
with its relation to the inconsequent Perfectionism of mere 
conduct, which was the official doctrine of the Fellowship 
Movement. It was contended on the one side, as for ex- 
ample by Heinatsch,"^ tbat it is an illegitimate eztensioD 
of tbe idea embodied in the old Sancti&cation Movement. 
On Paul's part, on the other hand, it was vigorously as- 
serted that it is only the old Sanctiflcation Movement made 
explicit in its necessary contents. In this debate we must 
pronounce Paul right. Gennrich is quite correct when he 
declares " that " in point of fact the doctrines of deliver- 
ance from indwelling sin and of the baptism of the Spirit," 
as taught by " Pastor " Paul, " are the logical extension 
of the ofBcial doctrine of sanctification of the Fellow- 
ship Movement, — as the advocates of them ri^tly con- 
tended at the Gnadftu Conference. ... In them, for the first 
time, Jellinghaus' two requirements — deeper sanctifica- 
tion, greater gifts of grace — are really met for lielievera 
thirsting after the sensible actuality of salvation." These 
words remind us, ho'wever, that the debate was not left to 
run its course on the simple issue of consequent or incon- 
sequent Perfectionism. The question of the " gifts of grace " 
was soon complicated with it — provided for, as we have 
already had occasion to note incidentally, by a third stage 
in the saving process as conceived by Paul — the " Bap- 
tism of the Bpirit," as the culminating step following on 
complete justification and complete sanctification. The 


1919] "Die HeiUgungsiewegung " 27 

Pentecost MoTCment broke over Germany in 1907. " Pas- 
tor" Paul, who was already addressing the Gnadau Con- 
ference in 1902 on Faith Healing, became at once one of 
its most active promoters. The upas tree was now in full 
fruit. It is not strange that men began to examine with 
new anxiety into its rooting. We have already seen the 
issue. At the Gnadau Conference of 1910 the Pentecost 
Movement was definitely repelled and all aBaociation with 
it was forbidden to the constituency of the Qnadau Confer- 
ence. With it much of the consequent Perfectionism which 
had been troubling the Fellowships since 1904 was ex- 
claded. But the officials in their formal action of January 
24, 1911, went a step further, and conjoined a defluite con- 
demnation of consequent Perfectionism with tbeir condem- 
nation of the Pentecost Movement, — declaring formally 
against " the doctrine that by faith in Christ the abolition 
of the sinful nature is secured or that the believer can 
attain a condition on earth in which he no longer needs 
justifying grace." •* 

The end was, however, not even yet reached. Could the 
fruit be discarded and the root remain in honor? It had 
become ever increasingly plain to ever increasing numbers 
that the " clean heart " of the consequent Perfectionists 
could not be separated from the " clean life " of the Sanc- 
tiflcation Movement, and the one rejected and the other 
kept. Among others it had become plain to Jellinghaus 
himself, who had now for a whole generation been the 
tmRted, almost the oEQcial, expounder of the doctrine of 
the "clean life" for the Fellowship circles. Perhaps we 
may say that this change of heart had long been preparing 
for him. He had felt himself reborn to a new life through 
the blessing which he had received at the great Oxford 
Meeting in 1875, and had given himself at once to the en- 
thusiastic advocacy of the " Salvationist System " which 
was preached by Pearsall Smith. Already in 1880 he pub- 
lished his bulky book — " The Complete, Present Salvation 
through Christ,"" — which became at once the standard 


28 Bibtiotheca 8acra [Jan. 

Dogmatics of the Fellowship Christianity. But he did not 
reproduce even in it Smith's systein without modification ; 
and the modification was in the direction of mitigation. 
Aa edition followed edition, — in 1886, 1890, 1898, 1903, — 
he was found moying ever, slightly but steadily, in the direc- 
tion of further mitigation. Now, however, came the dduge. 
At one stroke he demolished the work of his life and de- 
clared himself to have been running on a wrong scent." 
With deep pain he sees now in " the Keswick Movement," 
80 long advocated by him, the Eonrce of all the evUa which 
had lately befallen Fellowship Christianity and feels him- 
self, because of his advocacy of " the Keswick Movement," 
personally sharer in the grave responsibility for these evils. 
A certain levity lies at the heart of " the Keswick Move- 
ment " ; its zeal is to assure ourselves that we are actually 
and fully saved, rather than to give ourselves to the re- 
pentance which is due to our sins, to the working out of 
salvation with fear and trembling, to heavenly mindeduess, 
and a life of prayer and a walk in love. It imagines that 
there can be faltb without repentance and conquest of sin 
without moral stmg^e. The law, sin itself as evil desire 
iu the regenerate, the determined fulfillment of the will of 
God in vital endeavor, are pushed into the background. It 
seeks, in a word, peace Instead of righteouBness, and the 
trail of a spiritual euthymia lies over it.^* 

But Jellinghaus did not spare himself: he even calls his 
book, which appeared in 1912, by the directly descriptive 
title of "Avowals about My Doctrinal Errors." ^* The book 
naturally created a sensation, but it did not at once com- 
pose the controvert- Many, of course, followed Jelling- 
haus's guidance here too, as they had followed it heretofore; 
and the cry arose, " Back to the Reformation." Among 
these were the chief leaders of the Onadan Conference. 
Others, however, entered the lists to defend Jdlingfaaos 
against Jellinghaus, and only sought to work ont from the 
standpoint of the Reformation a Justification for the doc- 
trine of full presoit sanctification by faith alone.^* What 


1919} " Die Heiligungsbewegung " 29 

ifi most noticeable, wbat is most hopeful, in the debates is 
that there is a retnm on all handR to the Beformation. As 
the curtain of the Great War drops on QermaDy and shuts 
off from us further knowledge of the development of the 
Fellowship Movement, we are cheered to see the promise 
that, in its Onadan branch at least, it may have definitely 
tamed its back on its past as a distinctively Higher Life 
Movement and grounded its future ou the Beformation 
doctrine of salvation, a complete and full salvation, through 
faith alone. It will be a great thing for the future of Qer- 
man Fellowship Christianity if, in the welter of unwhole- 
some tendencies, acting and reacting upon one another — 
the semi-rationalism of Eisenach, the Darbyite and Chil- 
iastic extravagance of Blankenbnrg, the wild fanaticism 
of the Pentecost people, — there shall be one center of 
healthy granulation at Gnadau. 


' Paul Flelsta baa gathered the material from the sources, sjtd 
written the hlstoiy of the movement, very sympathetically. In bis 
Die modeme Gemelnschaftsbewegung In Deutschland, Ist ed. 1903, 
pp. 169; 2d ed. 1906; 3d ed. 1912, pp. 60S. published as Brster 
Band: Die Oeechtchte der Deutacben Qemelnscbartsbeweguiig bis 
zum Auftreten des Zungeuredens (1ST6-1907). The second volume 
bas not yet come to our notice. See also his Die gegenw&rtlge Kri- 
slfl In der modeme Qemelnscbaftsbewegung (1906, pp. 48), and bis 
Die Innere Entwlcfeelung der Deutsche Qemelnscbaftsbewegung In 
der Jabren 1906, 1907 (1908). Also his Zur Oescblcbte der Hellt- 
gungBbewegung. Erster Heft: Die HelUgungsbewegung von Wesley 
bis Boardman (1910, pp. 134). Tbls last book also does not seem 
to have been as yet completed. It Is a meritorious work, but does 
not rest on such first-hand Information as do the others. On 
Flelsb's standing as tbe fundamental historian of the movement, 
see Gelshorn (Die (nirlstllche Welt, 1906, col. 864) and Theodor 
SIppell (/bid., 1914, col. 235). Tor the underBtanding of tbe Pel- 
lowsbips In general and their Influence on tbe Church life of 
Oermany, consult the section on " Die Entfaltung der evangel- 
iscben FrOmmlgkett im rellglSsen Gemeinscbaftsleben," In O. 
Ecke's Die evangeliscben Landeaklrcben Deutscblands Im neun- 
zebnten Jabrbundert (1904), pp. 297-346. 


30 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

*Wltb some hesitation we employ the word "Fellowship" to 
repreMQt the Qerman aemeimOuift*' In the compoundB O^mein- 
achafttbeweffung, -cltrittenthum, -kreite, -Jeute, -pflege, and the like; 
and that carries with It the use of " Fellowship " to represent the 
simple noun Oemeintchaft. Kerr Duncan Macmlllan, In his excel- 
lent brief account of the moTement (Protestantism In Oermanr 
[1917], pp. 24211., 270), uses the term "Commuslt; MoTement" 
Pranklln Johnson, deBcrlblng It from the report in the Klrchllcbes 
Jahrbuch for 1907 ("The New Evangelical Movement In the Ger- 
man Church," In The Kerlew and Expositor, 1910, pp. 34S-3G6), 
calls It the "Aaaoclatlons-Movement." Both of these seem awkward; 
and " Conventicle Movement," which of course inevltahly anggeets 
Itself, also appears unacceptable. We need a word which, like tb« 
German OemelnKliaft, Is " both a concrete collective and a (ab- 
stract) term of relation" (C. F. Arnold, Gcmelnschaft der Hell- 
Isen und HelltgungB-OemelnBchaften [1909], p. 4), and which Is free 
from Inappropriate associations In English. We are encouraged to 
adopt "Fellowship" by Its employment by the competent writer 
of the " Foreign Outlook " tn the Methodist Review (1911, pp. 477- 
479: "The ' Fellowship Movement* In German Protestantism"). 

' Die Chrlstllche Welt, 1908, coll. 244-246. 

*Eleine Leute. 

•Der Deuttche TerJ>and far EvangetUche Oemelnichafttptteoe 
und Evangelisation. 

' BemfiaTbeiter. 

' Cf. the vivid account of how much in evidence the Fellowship 
Movement Is In Germany which Is given by Blartln Schlan In the 
opening pages of bis Die modeme Oemelnschaftsbewegung (1909). 
In almost every considerable town In Germany we see houses of 
importance bearing the Inscription " Fellowship House " or " Chris- 
tian Fellowship within the National Church." Thousands of Fel- 
lowship Christians gather every summer at the Conferences. Great 
tents are set up In the summer on vacant lots In cities and towns, 
whither every evening through four weeks hundreds — on Sundays 
thousands — flock for popular services. Every conceivable kind 
of subsidiary organization Is employed to advance the cause. "It 
is no longer," he says. " a thing in a comer." 

*0p. cit.. p. 22; cf. also his article In Die ChrlsOlche Welt, 1908, 
coll. 953 ft., and the remarks of Arthur Bonus, coll. 1064 tf. 

'What Is said In this paragraph is said by Paul Drews and Ar^ 
tbur Bonus In the articles already cited. 

"Of., for this paragraph, H. Jarck, art " Gemelnschaftsbewe- 
gung," In Herzog-Hauck, Protest Realencydopaedie, vol. xxllt. 
(1913) p. 529. 


1919] "Die Heiligungaheweffung " 31 

"Luther's Werke tOr das Cbristllche Haus (ed. br Buchwald 
et aL), vol. Til. p. 160; cf. K. D. Macmlllan, op. ctt.. p. SO. 

"Quoted b7 Jarck (loc cit.) from Kllhn, Dm ChrlBtllche Qemeln- 
schsftswefien (1897), p. IE. 

" The term Oemeintchaft, la its technical use to describe the local 
Fellowship, la defined by Paul Fleish, the chief historian of the 
Movement (Die modeme Oemelnscbaftsbewegung In Deutschland 
[2d ed.], p. Z), as a "voluntary association of Christians In a 
given locality for regular meetings for the purpose of mutual edi- 
fication, apart from controlling connection with the ecclesiastical 
authorities and govemment." That would do fairly well as a 
deOnltlon of the early Wesleyan Socletlea Sippell (.loc cit., col. 
102} points to the practice of the Puritans of about 1600 aa an 
earlier example. Having spoken of the Separatists, he continues: 
"Those Puritans who remained In the church gave out the watch- 
word — ' Not separation from the State Church but union of the 
earnest Christians and organization of them Into local fellowships 
within' the external frame of the State Church.' These were fun- 
damentally local FellowBhl[is Independent of one another and 
■crlptnrally organized, which were looked upon as the true Church 
of Christ This new Ideal of organization, maintaining externally 
connection with the State Church, was later transplanted by Ame- 
alus to Holland and thence deeply Influenced the young Pietism." 
On this showing, the modem German Fellowships derive straight 
from the English Puritans through the Intermediate steps of the 
Reformed Churches of the Continent and the Pietists. 

"Das vSlllge, gegenw&rtige Hell durcb Christum (4th ed. 1898), 
p. 260. 

■* Die HeiUgungibewegunff. 

"Hermann Benser, Das modeme GemeinshaftBchristentum (1910), 
p. 10, and art " Oemelnscbaftschrlstentum," In Schiele und Zschar- 
nack. Die Religion, usw., vol. II. col. 1263; also The Hetbodlst Re- 
view, 1911, p. 477. 

" Op. cit., p. 33. 

" Cf. Jarck, toe. cit., p. 530. 

"Benser (op. cit., p. S): "The movement proceeding from Smltli 
brought three results. It strengtb^ied among the decided Pietists 
nnlty in tbe Spirit: It pointed to evangelization as succor for tins 
unchurched masses; and It raised the banner of sanctlflcatlon by 
faith alone." So also In Schiele und Zscbamack, op. cit., col. 1263. 

'Jarck (loc. cit., p. E29, bottom) can speak, for example, of 
" Eivangellzatloa of tbe unconverted masses," " In contrast with tbe 
Fellowships which bring the converted together." 

"Schlan (op. eft, p. S) accordingly contrasts Smith with Finney 


32 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

and Moody by the clrcumatance that " hla metbod was cbaracter- 
Ized partially by bis baring In view less tbe awakening ot tbe 
unconverted than the saacUflcatlon of the already converted." Jo- 
hannes JQngst (Amerlcanlscher Hetbodlsmus, usw. [1876J, p. S4) 
telle UB that he often began hie addresBes by explaining that he 
" had two meBSRses, the one for the imconTerted, the other for the 
children of Ood." " Nevertheless," be adds, " the awakening Influ- 
ence on the unconverted retired somewhat before a kind of Inner 
mission for believing Christians, whom he wished to urge onward." 

"Cf. P. Kablenbeck, Herzog-Hauck, loc. cit„ vol. v. p. 66S, top: 
" In tbe years 1873 to 187E the American evangelist. Moody, and 
his assistant, Sankey, preached in Great Britain and Ireland In 
surprisingly successful Revival Meetings. About the same time 
with the news of thetr results there came another revivalist- 
preacher across the ocean to Germany, Pearsall Smith, who ad- 
dressed himself, however, more to those who were already believers, 
seeking to lead them to complete consecration to the Lord, and 
thus to BlnleseneBB." 

" JQngst, In a valuable account of Smith's work In Germany, 
which Is the more Instructive because absolutely contemporaneous, 
puts on Smith's lips the following explanation of his relations to 
the churches (op. cit., p. 87): "I belong to no church at all. I 
wish to serve all Churches, to call In all of them the unrepentant 
to conversion, the converted to sanctlflcatlon, not to loosen but to 
strengthen the bond between the members and the ministers In 
the several Churches; I work for Christ only and His kingdom, 
and am far removed from working for an Individual denomina- 
tion, and must wonder that people In Germany will not at once 
und^stand my complete ecclesiastical Impartiality." Hemarkfng 
on an earlier page (p. 54) that "the Methodists are obviously 
making Smith's aDalr their own," JUngst recognizes that tbe an- 
swer may be made to blm: " But Smith does not make their affair 
his, and that makes a great difference. Ecclesiastically, he stands 
In absolute objectivity. He carries this so far in Germany that he 
never lodges with the members of any particular church fellowship, 
but in the hotel. In order to give offence to none, whether they 
belong to tbe Evangelical Church, to the free congregations, or to 
the Methodists." Jdngst adds that this behavior Is well advised, " If 
the movement is Intended to hold open the hope of a wide exten- 
sion In all Christian circles." He permits himself to pass Into 
conjectures as to Its possible outcome, which are very interesting 
in view of tbe actual event Just as Methodism ultimately crye- 
talizcd Into a new denomination (pp. S8f.), "the possibility Is by 
no means excluded that the Oxford movement too may be segre- 


1919] " Die HeiUgungsiewegung " 33 

gated and conaolldated by an energetic and conBtructlve hand Into 
a new ecelefilaBtlcal communion, fflnce, bowever, Smith expreaflly 
oapbaBlxea his unvllllngneBB to eeire taiy existing Church, or to 
form a new commnnlon, the more probable result will be that la 
addition to a rerival and wanning up of the several churCheB, the 
real Ikults of the movsnent will be garnered by that communion 
which iB most cIobgIt related to the methods and the teaching of 
Smith. This Is, howerer, the Hethodlste, who haTe greeted and 
accompanied hla appearance with loud acclamatiocB. Their doe- 
trine, in eaaence defended -by Smith, could In 0«rmanr emergd 
from the small Methodlstlc circles and make «li Impression on 
Bvangellcol congTegatlons on a large scale, only If on the one 
side It were advocated by a personality as consecrated and wens 
presented in a clothing, ecclesiastically speaking, as colorless, as 
tn Smith's Instance Is the case." 

"JOngst lop. eit.) gives abundant proof of this. 

"Observe the objectivity with which It ts spoken of, for example, 
la The Methodist Review, 1911, p. 477: "If Oermaa churchmen 
took with some misgivings on Methodism and other ' sects ' In the 
Fatherland, they show a far deeper anxiety concerning the influ- 
ence of the Fellowship Movement (Oemeinwtuifttbewegung). For 
ais movement alms to transform the type of doctrine and of life 
within the church Itself. And withal it Is characterized, at least 
tn some places, by great extravagances and generally by a very 
narrow outlook." The statements In this extract are perfectly true. 

"Already, at the Oxford Meeting, public Intimation was given 
by him of his purpose to " carry on Ood's work on the Continent" 
(Account, etc.. p. 281.) 

"Be published In 1874 his book on the new doctrine, De Quol 
11 s-agltT 

*Cf. his book. Hen dagen te Brighton (187G). 

' Briefe Qber die Tersammlung In Brighton (1876). For esU- 
n&tes of this book, cf. JelUn^aus, op. cit., p. 722, and Fr. Wlnck- 
ler, Roberi Pearsall Smith and der Perfectlonlsmus <191S), p. 17. 
Cf. R«lS-Hette, Die Oxford Bewegung und Ihre Bedeutung fflr 
Bnsere Zelt (1876). 

■Bdlted by Theodore Monod. It lived only from 1876 to 1879.. 
when It was absorbed Into the Bulletin de la mission Int^rienre. 

"Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scripturat 
Htrilness held at Oxford, August 29 to Sept 7, 1S74, p. 338. 

" Jeltlnghans, In the Preface to the first edition of his Das vOl- 

Uge, UKw. (18S0), says explicitly: "Against our expecutlon and 

without oar seeking, the dear R. P. Smith was Invited to Berlin^ 

and (although be spoke through an Interpreter and Is In any evoit 

Vol LXXn. No. 301. 8 


34 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

a mftn of no epectal oratorical gUt) made, by tbe power of the 
Holr Spirit, a deep impreulon on many bundreda of eoula audi 
as I suppose no one ever dtd before In so few weeks." 

" Scbion (op. cit, p. 6) puta tbe striking paradox of tfainsa tbna: 
"He who would reckon blmaelf to none of the existing cburcbea 
was Invited and toasted by tbe strictest ecclesiastics of tbe Oer- 
man Churcb " — and tbe moTement be founded was a strictly ua- 
eccleslastlcal one. 

" Op. at., p. S2. 

" Op. cit., p. 3. 

" Op. ctt., pp. 66, 67. 

" JelllngbauB, writing In 1880, says its circulation was then atraut 

" Op. cit., pp. 84, 86. 

" C. F. Arnold's ctaaracterliatlon, from tbe extremely churchly stand- 
point, runs as foUowB {op. cit., p. SZ): "In the Qnadau branch the 
Darbylte undercurrent was held down for a long time by the Wflrt- 
tembergers, and up to von Oertzen's death (18S4) moderation ruled. 
After that, however, Graf POckler, supporied by Oraf Bemstorf and 
Pastor Paul, Introduced a driving propaganda. . . . Therefore tbe 
Oerman Committee for BvangellcBl Fellowship-work and Elrangel- 
isatlon was formed In 1894. In 1901 Graf PQckler sou^t a greater 
independence for the Fellowship. . . . Since 1902 a centrifugal 
movement bas no doubt made Itself noticeable; but an orgsslzb- 
tion bas been created which stretchea from Bast Prussia to West- 
phalia and from Schleewlg-Eolsteln to Nassau." 

"C. F. Arnold (op. cit., p. 31) describee the characteristics of 
the Blankenburg branch of the Fellowship Movement Anarchistic 
Darbylte tendencies rule. Tbe last of the nine articles of tbe 
Brangellcal Alliance wblcb declares tbe preaching office, baptism, 
and tbe Lord's Supper permanent eletUMits In tbe Church, Is re- 
jected. The State Church Is asserted to give to the Bmperor what 
belongs to Ood. Luther sowed to the flesh when be founded a 
State-Church. All theology Is worthless. The fondamental doo- 
trine Is that of the collection of the Brlde<%urcb, that la, extreme 
Cblllasm. llie leaders are von Knobelsdorf, von Tlebohn, Stock- 
mayer, KOhn, Rutianowltscb. 

"As tbe term MetlujMtmiu hss been flung at the Fellowship 
Christianity as a term of reproach. It bas naturally been repelled, 
and thus a debate bas grown up as to Its applicability. Jellln^aufl 
(op. cit., pp. 78 0.) protests against the use of the term and de- 
clares that there is nothing, strictly speaking, MethodlsUc about 
the movement and tbe term as employed of it Is only a cloak of 
Ignorance. In England, be says, tbe movement Is called " the Ee^ 


1919] "Die HeiUgungsbewegung " 

wick Morement "; but, as that term would conTer no t 
Gemum ears, be propoaes to call It "the SalT«tlonlat IhetUttiuA) 
HoTement," because wtaat the moTement proclaims la aalTaUoa — 
the poaa«8sloa ot salTBtlon, the assurance of salvation, the presoiC 
enjorment of salvation — through JoTful acceptance of the Saviour, 
and of free, complete, and presmt salvation. Jelllnghaus's critics 
content themselves with CTTlag out upon the linguistic enormity 
of the term heilittUcJi. He, however, having the courage of his 
convictions, goes on to coin a corresponding substantive and calls 
the movement (p. 1T6) "our new Biblical SalvaUonism IHeiliM- 
miM)." Frledrich Simon (Die ChrlsUiche Welt, 1908. col. IIU), 
white denying any historical ground tor calling the Fellowship 
Movement " Hethodlstic," yet wishes to Uke the sting out of the 
term by declaring that what la called " Methodlstic " In the Fel- 
lowship Movement was already recognized by Sctaleiermacher a« 
natural and right, and that whoever would deny a right In the 
National Church to " Methodlstlcally colored piety," In even the 
narrow sense, forgets the historical nexus between Luther and 
Spener and Zinzendorf and Wesley, and must logically turn hia 
back on "missions," which have their roots In Pietism and Morav* 
ianlsm. and strike out of the Hymn Book and Liturgy no Incon- 
Blderable amount of ' their contents. — In point of fact, of eourse, 
"Methodism," In its narrow sense as the designation ot the move- 
ment inaugurated by Wesley, does tie in the background Of the 
mtlre movsnent Smith's doctrine of the Higher Lite la histor- 
ically only a modification of the Wesleyan doctrine of "Christian 
Perfection," and the Eivangellstic methods employed by him and 
conveyed by him to the Fellowship Movement were historically 
derived jfrom Methodist practice. Earl Sell (Zeltschrift ffir Theo- 
logle und Elrche [1906], vol. xrl. p. 375) la not far from putting 
his finger on the exact point of Importance when he soya that the 
great matter In which Methodlam dltfera from the Pletiam of 
which the Fellowship Hovonent Is a modification under the Im- 
pulse ot the Bvangellzation Movement, lies precisely in " Metho- 
dlam'a ardor for saving souls, and that quickly. In: a moment" The 
reality and the strength ot the Methodist spirit in the Fellowship 
Movement Is manifested In Ite participation In this Methodist 
" suddenness " — &ntth'B famons fetzt — " Jeaua aavea me now." The 
two most outstanding features ot the movement are its twin insist' 
ence on sudden conversion and sudden sanctlflcaUon. What It has 
stood for In the Christian life of Qermany is salvation at once on 
Eolth; complete salvation at once on faith; complete salvation at 
tmee without any delay for pr^aratlon for It and without any de- 
lay for woiUng It out Ereryt>ody can accept salvation at once, 


86 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

aad <it once on accepting It can poBseM all that Ii contained In It. 
This la reall7 the underlying Idea that gives their form to both 
WeBleyanlBm and the Fellowship MoTement — although both the 
one and the other brolce Its force by separating JustlBcatlon and 
sanctlflcatlon from one another. The? wished to apply the epi- 
thets tnstantanea, perfecta, plena, certa, which the Old Protestant- 
ism employed of the supeirentlon of }UBtIflcatfon on fafth, to 
sanctlflcatlon also. But they did not quite like to take the whole 
plunge and make every Christian absolutely perfect from the mo- 
ment of believing. They both, therefore, were driven Into Inconse- 
quent dealings with the relation of Banctlflcatlon to Justification, 
and with the contents of the idea of sanctlBcatlon Itself — deslgneit 
to mltlgute the extremity of the fundamental principle In Its appli- 
cation. Meanwhile It Is clear that the Fellowship Movement Is 
not only historically, through Smith, a daughter of Methodism In 
the narrow sense of the wwd; but that it shares the moat fun- 
damental conceptions of Methodism, and from them gains Its own 

"So JOngst (op. eft., p. 79) tells us. 

" " Pastor " Paul was eariler pastor at RavoiBtetn In Pomeranlo, 
and then, as a leader In the Gnadan Conference, organized the 
Fellowship Movement In Pomeranio. He was very prominent In 
the Pentecost Movement (1907); and making Steglltz, near Berlin, 
his home, w«nt out thence as an apostle of the Pentecost Move- 
ment, bearing up and down Germany In his own person the gifts 
of grace. 

"This is not the place to describe this movement In detail. It 
Is treated more or less fully, of course. In all accounts of the Fel- 
.lowshlp Movement See especially Paul Flelsh, Die Innero Ent- 
wickelung, ubw. See also E. Bdel, Die Pflngatbewegung Im Uchte 
der klrchllche Qeschichte (Brieg, B. Captuller [1910] pp. 122); 
B. Kdhn, Die Pflngstbewegung Im Llcbte der Belllgen Schrltt und 
Ihrer elgnen Oeschlchte (Ootha, Olt [1913?] pp. 106). The matter 
Is excellently treated by Paul Drews In Die Chrlstllcbe Welt, 1908, 
eolL 2710., 290 S., who cites the most Important primary German 
Uteratun; B. Buchner's article In Die ChrlsUlche Welt (1911. coll. 
29 ft.) gives personal experiences with the German phenomena. 
F. G. Henke (The American Journal of Theology, 1909, pp. 193 ft.) 
gives some account of the non-German history, with references to 
ttie primary Uteratun. See also the literature mentioned In H. 
Bavlnck, Oereformeerde Dogmatiek (id ed.), voL III. p. 668, note. 

"Scblan (op. cit., p. 16) relates what "Pastor" Paul did with 
" the tongues." "A special curlosltr In the region of speaking with 
tongues Is described by Pastor Paul, who has In his own UUI» 


1919] " Die Heiligungsbetcegung " 37 

monthly masaxlne rsiKirted with stenoBraphlc exactneM big ex- 
perlencM In this Hold. He hu not only Bi>okai with tonKuea, but 
Klao — think of It! In meaningless ayllables which he could not 
blmself Interpret! ~ bas snng tbem hours at a time. Afterwards 
be himself subjected bis own tongues ipeeehes to careful InvesU- 
gatlon, and sought to translate them, and then endearored even to 
sing some well^nown rdldous strngB 'In tongues.' 'Every song, 
whose melody vaa wdl enoo^ known to me, I coitld sing In 
tongues, and all of tbem eTsry time rhymed wonderfully.' When 
they rhymed thus: 'ea tscbn ra ta— u ra torida^tschu rl kanka — 
oil tanka,' be rejoiced. "There Is more rhyme In it than in the 
Oenuan words,' be said." 

"Op. tit., pp. 13, 14. 

« Cf. The Methodist Rerlew, ISll, p. 478. 

"Cf. SlppeU (IOC. df., col. 178), who, pointing out that Hetho- 
dlam has always been liable to fanaticism, adds: "A sad instance 
•f this is our prea«>t-day Praitecoat Movement, which, earrying 
the doctrine of Weeley further, dlstlnsulshes between the complete 
purification from sin and a later-oecarrlng Baptism of the Spirit, 
with reception of special gifts of grace, — speaking with tongues, 
healing the sick and the like." Only, this development did not 
need to wait for the German Pentecost people to make It 

"Cf. bla booklet, BrkUtrongen tlber mefne Ldirlrrungen (1912). 

"hoc. dt., eol. 23fi. 

" Op. ott.. p. 4S7. 

"Benser (op. <At., p. 41) assigns him bis place thus: "DUTer- 
enccs In types of piety are produeed by national ctaaiactn, by 
Individual dispositions, often not spiritually purified, or by an 
especially stnmg development of a sln^e trait of piety. The na- 
tlcnal character aaserts ItaeU espedslly in WOrttAmberg and In 
the Bast-Oerman provlnoea. The Swabtan diaracter tends to make 
VUlowshlp Christians who build up a sterling piety with Innv 
sensibility and prefer to remain In retlremettt rather than to vh 
pear In public. On the other band the Bast-Oerman character, 
which tends In other matters also to extrone conceptions, works 
tn the Fellowshtp Qirlstlanlty also towards affording glad hos- 
pitality to all sensational, out-oMhe-common notleos. Indlridiul 
traits of character have made Pastor Paul a lanaUaal Christian, 
with asptratlons stretching beyond aD earthly Umlta." "Pastor" 
Paul belongs to tbe BaatGerman stodL 

"Ailegnoetne Brsng.-Luth. Klrchenzeltnng, 1904, p. MM. JeV 
llnihsM ml^t very well, pnbaps. have bad Otto Stoekmayer him- 
self In view, had ka atteaded dosely to what he already had salt 
la his aMreas to the Onadaa Confsrsnu of 1876 n " Die Christ- 


38 BihUotheca 8aora [Jan. 

llehe Tollkommenbelt," whlcli JelUngbaufl <d. T06, note) pralsea 
u not only admlr&ble, but thorougbly Biblical. In that address 
(p. 27 ot tbe reprint) be declares that tbe consciousness that God 
intends to bring us into likeness to the Lamb will sare us trora 
being satisDed with any half-way perfection: " I can be a membo' 
of the Bride only with a holiness which can abide the eye of God, 
the angels and the devils," because what comes from Qod can 
stand in tbe sight of Qod, He afterwards became notorious as 
tbe advocate of the possibility and duty of attaining this perfect 
holiness on eartb. "His farorlte Idea," says a writer In Die 
CbrtsUlcbe Welt (1906. col. 877, note), "is tbe establishment of a 
small congregation of the elect. In whom sanetlScation takes place 
even unto victory over death, and makes the coming of Christ 
possible." Cf. Tb. Hardeland, ffeue klrchllche Zeltscbrift, 1898, 
p. 69. 

"Cf. OelBhom, Utc. cit., col. 89S: "On tbe subject of sanctlflca* 
tlon conceptions within the rellowsblp Movement diOer, It must 
be confessed, very widely, and It is Jelllnghaus who shows here 
to advantage — because of his moderation and prudence. While 
others, such as POckler, Brockes and Paul sharply distlngulsti 
sanetlScation. in point of time, from Justification, and expect It 
from a special baptism of the Spirit subsequently to an already 
accomplished JuBtification, thinking of It therefore more In the 
form of a sudden violent Irruption IDureMnich) while the man 
remains completely passive; according to Jelllngtiaus the begin- 
nlng of sanctlQcatlon comes witb justlflcatlon, and the filling with 
the Holy Qhost is a matter indnslve of tbe voluntary element of 
faithfulness and advance In personal surrender to Christ more and 
more to completion. Accordingly, also, Jellingbaus holds himself 
far from the folly of Perfectionism which In Paul has Its kemeet 
advocate, — Paul who in public meetlngB has declared that he no 
mora commits any sin. According to Jellin^ftus the actual holi- 
ness of every converted man consists in his holding himself free 
from every contdotu or intentional transgression of the divine 

*We are quoting It from the Allgemelne ESrang.-Luth. Klrchen- 
seitnng, 1S04, p. 632. 

"The Allgemelne Bvang.-Luth. Kirch enzeltung quotes, along with 
this report of " Pastor " Paul's description of his experiences, a warn- 
ing commoit printed by Adolf StOcker In tbe pages of the Journal, 
Reformation: "Of course," he says, " I do not doubt the veracity of 
Brother Paul in a single word. But I am full of doubt whether It 
is wholesome to describe in detail and Justify such experiences. As 
personal experiences they stand far above the self-Judgment of the 


1919] "Die Beiligungsbewegung" 39 

greatest moi of laith In Holr Writ David confesses In Pa. xlx. U, 
' Who can discern bla eirora? Cleanse Thou me from hidden faults.' 
And Paul denies of himself that he la already perfect Pastor Paul, 
if he feels himself freed from all propensity to sin. Is perfect We 
have to do, therefore. In bis case with a super-Blblleal standpoint 
Bren John In the third chapter of his Epistle does not go so tar. 
. . . Ih&t tho-e lies In Pastor Paul's self-declaration a great dan- 
ger for himself and for the readers of his Journal is certain. I 
recall with great sorrow Pearsall Smith, Idel, and Fries, and many 
others who spoke precisely like Brother Paul, and afterwards made 
shipwreck. Ood preserve Eyangellcal Christianity from such self- 
deceptions and breakdowns! " 

"Cf. the report of the meeting of the Conference In the Allge- 
melne Brang.-Luth. Klrchenxeltimg, 1904, col. 676; also Herzog- 
Hauck, loc. dt., p. 636; Benser, op. cit., p. 86; P. Qennrich, Wleder- 
geburt und HeillKung (1908), pp. 50 ft. 

" The language Is here derived from Paul's explanation In Hell- 
Igung, Feb. 1906, pp. 12-14, as cited by P. Qennrich. 

* In this discussion we are dependent on Qennrich, op. cit. 

"Paul, Reich Chrlsti (1906), pp. 136 f., 144; HeUlgung, Feb. 1906, 
p. 14. 

"Reich Chrlsti (1905), pp. 130 f. 

' Svndenlotigkeit. 

"Heich Chrtetl (1906), pp. 140, 143, 

" Op, cit., p. B. 

■Reich ChrisU, p. 130. 

■ Op. cit., p. 62. 

** Reich Cbrlstl, p. 367, cited by Qennrich, op. cit., pp. 44, 45. 

" Op. cit., pp. 44, 46. 

•J&rck, loc. cit., p. 642. 

"Das TOlllge, gegemriUtige Bell durch Christum, 1880, 1886, IS90, 
1898. 1908. 

"Cf. the accounts of Jarck, loc cit., pp. 580-531, and Slppell, loc. 
cit.. coll. 100 f. 

" Jelllngbans had never been blind to this aspect of the move- 
ment: only, he had treated It heretofore as an accident and not its 
essence. In the height of his advocacy of the movement he could 
write as follows (op. cit., p. 43G): "Although R. P. Smith de- 
clared often: 'I desire communion In the sufferings of Christ 
rather than In the Joys of C9irlst' yet the Biblical verities of pain- 
ful coauffering with Christ of the sufferings of prleatly-mlnded 
Christians (such as Paul describes 2 Cor. 111. B.; Rom. vlll.; Phil. 
111.: CoL 1. 24) — espedaUy of the life of persecution of the mem- 
bers of Christ, and of their strlTlnga unto blood under affliction. 


10 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

•oom and Inward mortlflcatlon, retired too mucb Into tbe back- 
ground. Uany spoke as U men were already llTlng Id the mUlen- 
nlum, and very Inadequately recognized the mighty power of 
Antl-ChrlBtianltf and therefore Insufficiently alM> the Uruggla 
against It ae a prleeUy taak of the aalnU (Heb. zlL 4)." In the 
preceding pag«a (pp. 433 (.) he makes some criticisms also of 
Smlth'B methods. 

" E^'klHrungen dber melne Iiebrirrungeo (1912. Terlag of Prack 
ft Co., LIchtenrade, pp. 61), 

" Among these should be especially- mentioned Emat Helnatoeh, 
Die ErlBla der HellfgungBbegrlSes In der Oemelnschaftsbewegung 
der Oegenvart (1913). While stlU defwdlng JelUngbaus's former 
teaching, Hematsch seeks to separate It from Its Inseparable Wes- 
leyan content and tmm Its logical Issue In the Perfectionism of 
" FaatOT " Paul. An earlier book from outside the Fellowoblp df- 
elee, Ernat Rtetschel'a LutberlBche Reehttertlgungaldire Oder mod- 
erne HelllgungsMireT (1909). should be read In this eonneetten. 
Rletsctael argues that Jelllngbans has taken the wrong way tg 
correct the later Lutheran dogmatldana: we must not borrow 
tram tbe Wetleyana but retnm to Luther. 






In The American Journal of Semitic Languagea and Lt^ 
eraturea for April, 1918, there is an important and aignift- 
cant article on " The Greek Genesis " by Professor A. T. 
Olmstead. A farther contribution is promiBed, and will not 
improbably have been published before the present paper 
appears; bnt in these days I cannot rely on seeing the 
sequel by any given date, and there is too much in the 
first contribution that calls for early notice to render any 
postponement of the discussion wise. Indeed, an oppor- 
tnnity has now occurred where further debate seems likely 
to be exceptionally helpful. Unfortunately it is not pos- 
sible for me, in the odds and ends of time which alone are 
at my disposal, to consider carefully every point that has 
been raised, and some of them must be left until a resump- 
tion of normal conditions makes it possible (or me to 
tackle them in the ordinary course of my studies, but 
enough remains for fruitful discussion. 

There are six main observations to be made on Olm- 
Btead's paper, and I will begin by stating them, because, 
in dealing with his views, I shall have to quote passages 
which illnstrate more than one at a time. The Importance 
of the paper is due to the first three. 1. It is enormously 
significant and entirely unprecedented that any higher 
critical organ in the English-speaking world should spon- 
taneonsly publish a paper that so severely criticiEefl the 
treatment of the versions by the documentary theorists and 
concedes so much of the conservative case. 2. On a nnm< 
ber of points Olmstead, working independently, has reached 
conclusions that closely resemble eontentions that have 
been put forward in these pages. 3. On several other 


42 BibHotkeca Sacra [Jan. 

points the differences are of sach a cliaracter that farther 
study and debate woold probably remove, or at any rate 
reduce, them. i. On the other hand, there has been an un- 
fortunate delay In publication ; and Olmstead, in order the 
better to show the independent resemblances between us^ 
has intentionally refrained from bringing his article up 
to date. 5. He is under a misconception as to the stand- 
point of, I believe, many conserratires, certain^ includ- 
ing myself. 6. He ignores the fact that the main attack 
on the Oraf-WeUhausen theory has nothing whatever to 
do with the textual questions. To avoid any possibility 
of misconception, let me say at once that I do not believe 
that, if he had so much as hinted at the real state of af- 
faire, The American Journal of Semitic Languages would 
have published him at all. Thus while I regard his atti- 
tude as unfortunate from one point of view, there is another 
standpoint from which it is wise and diplomatic. Better 
half a loaf than no bread. Better that Olmstead should 
sncceed in printing some tmth in The American Journal 
of Semitic Languages than that he should be excluded 
altogether because he wanted to tell too much. 

The two following passages illustrate more than one of 
the foregoing comments: — 

" The present paper was began in 1914 and virtually 
completed in the summer of 1915. Numerous passages 
have been deliberately left nnchanged in order that they 
might be compared with the results of Wiener, whose con- 
clusions, published in tbe Bibliotheca Sacra in recent 
years, as well as in Essays in PentateucJial Criticism, Pen- 
tateuchal Studies, and Origin of the Pentateuch, have, in 
spite of tbeir tot^y different purpose and their apologetic 
point of view, been remarkably like those which the writer 
has discovered, working in almost complete independence 
and OD the basis of the work done on Kings " (p. 148, foot- 
note 1). 

" The discussion which follows was already written down 
when there came to hand the study of this passage by 
Wiener, Bihl. Sacra, LXXIII, 140 ff. It has been left un- 
changed in order that the striking coincidences in results 


1»1»] The Greek Geneaia 43 

obtained from sach different atandpointa may be the more 
clearly shown" (p. 156, footnote 2i.' 

Both paBsages rest upon a complete misunderstanding 
of my standpoint, which is called " apologetic " — what- 
ever that may mean. The difference between Olmatead and 
myself is mach less than he sapposee. Both of us are 
seeking to follow the truth whithersoerer it may lead; 
both of us started with a classical training. But here 
comes the distinction. He came to these studies as part 
of his historical work, and in the course of it has become 
dubious about the documentary theory : I came to them at 
a time when I bad not studied the higher criticism or re> 
fleeted on its implications, as the result of work on com- 
parative historical jurisprudence which enabled me to see 
at a glance that the evolutionary hypothesis — the Oraf- 
Wellhaosen theory proper, not necessarily the division 
into documents — was utterly false, whatever might be 
true.* If the legislation (subject only to textual criticism) 
■This quotation refers to Oen. xzxi. Parenthetlcall; 1 may 
not« an unrortunats result of Olmstead's method. I have not 
been able to discover how near he thinks we can get to the orlg- 
Ina] form of this passage. Apparently he believes that the Greek 
Klves us an " Elohfstlc " text with c^taln very late Interpolations, 
rather than two separate E and J documents. It would have been 
better if, after reading my paper, he had appended a note saylDg 
exactly where he agreed and differed. 

' Perhaps I may take this opportunity of correcting a story that 
seems to have gained cuireDcy In America. It Is said that Dean 
Wace In converBatlon with a Jewish scholar about the higher crlt- 
tdsm asked what the Jews were doing, and that my first book was 
the reply. The eonveraatlon Is, 1 believe, authentic, but It had 
notbtsK to do with my coming to the Biblical field, and I heard 
of It (or the first time after the publication of Studies In Biblical 
tMvr. It was a study of Sir Henry Maine's writings, unaided by 
any other external infiuence whatever, that led me to take up this 
work. On the other hand, It was an article by Dean Wace that 
Introduced me to the London Churchman, to which I contributed 
tor some years. The Blbllotheca Sacra I discovered through look- 
ing up an article of Kyle's on Egypt and the sacrlflclil system, the 
title of which occurred In the bibliography of the Hieologlsche 


4A Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

was to be oBBigned to Moses on hifrtorico-l^al gronnds, the 
cnirent theory could not stand. Of coarse the discovery of 
the actual truth and of just where the critics had gone off 
the rails waa quite a different matter, and for years it nev^ 
eroD occurred to me to suspect that the entire phUological 
and theological professoriate of the leading countries of 
the world had simply ignored the overwhelming maaa of 
the textual evidaice. They always professed to qnote the 
versioDB, and an examination of the extant readings was 
sncb an obvious and indispensable preliminary to the tot- 
mation of any theory of origin that I naturally supposed 
that their citations from the versions represented the max- 
imum of what could profitably be gleaned from them. That 
they knew nothing whatever about law was obvious at the 
first glance, but th^ did pretend to know something about 
textual criticism: 

The standpoint of the ordinary conservative is, I think, 
somewhat different from that of either Olmstead or my- 
self. In studying the higher criticism he finds two main 
views: viz. (1) that the Old Testament is a fraud with 
which God had nothing to do; and (2) that the Old Testa- 
ment is a fraud to which God was a party. If, for any 
reason, he is Jed to believe that there is a righteous Qod 
Who had something to do with the Old Testament, be ia 
precluded from accepting either of the hi^er critical 
views. Hence his opposition. On the other hand, he can 
have no possible objection to the view of textual critics 
that, in the course of transmisaion by human brangs oa 
perishable materials, the text has suifered deterioration; 
and, believing his God to be the God of truth, he is ready 
to sympathiEe with investigations which have no other ob- 
ject than to recover as much truth as possible. 

I now pass to the eTOluti<niary question, on which Olm- 
stead has said nothing. He has used language which rather 
seems to imply that the documentary theory and the Graf- 
Wellliausen hypothesis are identical. That is not so. In 
the abstract it is possible tliat a documentary theory might 


1919] The Greek Genesis 45 

be tme, and that, neverthelesB, the view of the history and 
of the development of the law might be false. If no doca- 
mentary theory be tme, then of course all hypotheses 
that aim at dating the anppoaititions docnments are also 
untme; but the work that hae been done for the demoli- 
tion of the documentary theory should not be allowed to 
obscure the fact that the current views of the history rest 
on blunders so colossal as to be barely credible, so shame- 
ful that nobody who is committed to the theory dare eveu 
mention the facts and arguments by which they have beeo 
revealed. Unlike the proverbial worm, the Wellhausen 
critics cannot even risk indulging in the luxury of tuming- 
wfaen trodden under foot. It is true that, in the matter of 
the versions and their testimony to the worthlessness of 
Astruc's clue and many others, the higher critics have done 
tiieir best to maintain silence as long as possible; bnt their 
treatment of this matter has been clamorous advertise- 
ment in comparison with their refnaal to discuss the evo- 
lutionary hypothesiB. So far as I am aware, there Ib one 
reference to one little point in one footnote of one book of 
the Wellhausen school, viz. KCnig's " Die Modeme Pen- 
tateuch Ejritik and ihre neueste BekHmpfung." In a note- 
on pages 97 f. he goes so far as to mention with a bewil- 
dered air that I have pointed out that an altar of the kind 
contemplated by Ex. xi. 24-26 could have no horns, in 
view of the prohibition to work the stone employed in it» 
construction. That is all. No article discuBBing the fun- 
damental errors of the theory is ever admitted to a pub- 
lication controlled by the WellhauBen critics.' I speak 
with knowledge, because at one time or another I have 
tried most of them myself. On the other hand, outside of 
the Wellbansen circle it is different. Eerdmans did not 
' How tar tbla 1b carried maj appear from a alngle Instance. On 
one occasion I reBolved to try ta get a short article on a minor 
contention of the Wellhaus^i critics Into one ot their periodicals. 
I knew my argument to be unanswerable, because I had laid it 
before a leading Continental professor, wlio was quite unable U> 
Mjr a word in favor of the tiTpothesis to which he was talmseir 


46 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

hesitate to print a paper on the subject in the Theologisch 
Tijdschrift for 1913,* although m; facts were equally de- 
structive of some of the theories of his own recently-issned 
rolnme on Leviticus. He wrote me that be did not object to 
publishing views that did not quite agree with his own. I 
have always thought that this attitude did immense credit 
to bis scholarly spirit. Incidentally it clearly reveals one 
of the causes of the extraordinary inferiority of the Anglo- 
American critics. Od the continent of Europe men seek 
to arrive at truth: in the universities and learned publi- 
cations under the control of English and American critics 
no effort is spared to suppress it. Thus it comes about that 
no notice whatever is taken either of my publicationB on 
the subject or of Beeve'a article on "Sacrifice (OT)" in 
the "International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia"; and 
men who lack alike the power to defend the Wellbausen 
theory and the courage to break with it continue to prop- 
agate what has clearly been proved to be indefensible. 

Wellhansen'a own account of his position may be fonnd 
on page 368 of the English translation of bis " Prol^o- 
mena " : "1 differ from Oraf chiefly in this, that I always 
go back to the centralisation of the cnltos, and deduce from 
it the particular divergences. My whole position is con- 
tained in my first chapter." Here are a few of the points : — 

1. Wellhansen holds that all slaughter of domestic ani- 
mals for food was sacrificial till the time of Joslah, i.e. the 
centraliMtion of the cultus. This is rebutted by the fol- 
lowing passages: Gen. xviii. 7; xxvii. 9-14; xliii. 16; E3i. 
ixi. 3T (EV xxii. 1), (the catUe thief); Judges yi. 19; 
1 Sam. viii. 13 ; xxv. 11 ; zxviii. 24 ; 1 Kings zix. 21. Either 

committed. Accordingly I applied to Dr. Orr, who was confident 
tbat lie could get a. note Into the periodical in question- I wrote 
m? paper, Dr. Orr eent It In, and It was accepted, but never pub- 
llabed. After waiting for two years I wrote a mild letter of la- 
qnlnr. Six weeks later my article waa returned. The point In quee- 
tlon has never been noticed In any higher critical book. 
'"Ib the Graf-Wellhauien HypotheafB Tenable," pp. 19B-207. 


1919] The Greek Oenesia 47 

hu followers can answer this or they cannot. Hitherto 
thej bare mvariably ignored it. 

2. The law and the history alike contemplate two en- 
tirely different kinds of altars, both of which were in use 
concurrently. Here I wonld press my readers to torn to 
my Ulastrated article "Altar " in the " International 
Standard Bible Encyclopaedia." From the first two flgnres 
they will see how impossible it was for any contemporary 
to confnse the two. The one was a cairn of earth or on- 
hewn stones, or a single large stone, necessarily varying 
in size and appearance with the materials of which it was 
composed. It was on the level, and, as appears from the 
reason given for the prohibition of steps, used by laymen, 
not by priests (who wore breeches). It could not possibly 
have horns. On the other hand, there was a homed altar 
of bronze (or wood) of prescribed size and dimensions. It 
was raised, so that one " went up " on it, and served by 
priests. The horns were an essential feature. Both these 
altars appear side by side in the early history long before 
the date to which Deuteronomy (let alone the Priestly 
Code) is assigned (contrast 1 Kings i. 50 f.; ii. 28 ff.; 
Amos iii. li with the sacrifices of Saul, Adonijah, Manoah, 
etc.). They served different purposes, just as individual 
and famUy prayer coexist at the present day with congre- 
gational worship in public structures. Wellhausen and bis 
■chool have hopelessly confused these two kinds of altar. 

3. WbOe Wellhauaen postulates a period during'which 
a plurality of " sanctuaries " was permissible, followed by 
a centralization, the truth is that the whole theory rests 
on the mental confusion imparted by the use of the term 
" sanctuary " and Wellbausen's failure to collect all the 
passages that bear on the question. An altar of earth or 
stones was not a "sanctuary" in any true sense. The 
Honse of the Lord with its homed altar was. Both are 
found side by aide in the l^slation and history that 
Wellhansen considers early; but, in addition to nefj^ecting 
the evidence of the passages from Kings and Amos cited 


48 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

above, he has miBsed Ex. xxiii, 19; xzxiv. 26; Josh. ix. 23, 
27; Dcut. xvi. 21 (lay altars in Deuteronomy). His whole 
case rests on these omisBions and his inability to distin- 
guish between a house and a cairn once he has applied 
the fuddling label " sanctuaiy " to these entirely different 

4. So far does this go that many of his followers have 
pinned the ear of the slave of Bx. xxi. 6 to the door or door^ 
post of a cairn which they had previously called a " sanc- 
tuary " and then mistaken for a house. I cannot put the 
matter more clearly than I have done in a note on page 
187 of " Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism " : "I have re- 
peatedly pointed out that the confusion engendered by the 
word ' sanctuary ' reaches its climax in the writings of 
such authors as Driver and Robertson Smith. The lat- 
ter writes : ' The local sanctuaries were the seat of Judg- 
ment, and so in the language of S [so he designates this 
** source "] to bring a man before the magistrates is to 
bring him " to God " (Exod. xii. 6; ixii. 8, 9, Heb.).' (Ad- 
ditional Answer to the Libel, p. 74.) It is well known that 
' the seat of judgment ' was the gate of the city, not a lay 
altar : and it is tolerably obvious that the door or doorpost 
presupposed by Exodus xxi. is lacking to a stone or mound, 
albeit present in a gate. The stoutest opponents of the 
hi^er critics would have thought it impossible that they 
should be so hopelessly incompetent as to be nnable to 
distinguish between a mound and a house, and that merely 
because they had called both these objects ' sanctuaries ' ; 
but, unfortunately, the facts admit of no doubt. It is 
never wise in matters l^al or historical to call a spade a 
sanctified excavatory implement." 

5. Wellhausen's ignorance of the distinction between 
substantive law and procedure and his consequent failure 
to observe it in his treatment of the sacrificial law is re- 
sponsible for much that he has written.* 

These points, and many others, will be found elab- 
' See EPC, pp. £08 ft. 


1919] The Greek Oene»i« 49 

orated in the articles "Altar," "Aaylom," " Sacrifice," 
"Sanctaary," in the "International Standard Bible En- 
cyclopaedia," the sixth chapter of " EsBays in Pentatenchal 
Criticism," and other passages of my writings. Together 
they constitute the true answer to the Wellhansen hypoth- 
esis. It is fatile to ask Olmstead to examine them, be- 
cause he would never be allowed to publish his results in 
The Americ^m Journal of Semitic Languages or any other 
organ noder critical control. 

The questions relating to the sanctuary and sacrifice are, 
however, of great importance in dealing with the versions. 
As I hare come to know more of the text, I have seen rea- 
son to believe that there has been heavy temple glossing; 
and this is a very material point in considering the rela- 
tionship of the Samaritan, the Vnlgate, and the LXX to 
the Massoretic text.' Moreover, I have been led to think 
that, while Wellhansen's main blunders are patent enon^, 
the existing Hebrew text probably presents difficulties 
which were absent in earlier times.' I believe that the 
help we may expect from this source in studying the his- 
tory of the sacrificial system is not yet exhausted, and 
that the tntnre may yet have many surprises in store 
for OS. 

Olmstead's own general attitude appears from the fol- 
lowing ] 

" The independent scholar, who is not wedded to the cur- 
rent theory, cannot but admit that there seems consider- 
able need of the restatement of the versions' importance. 
The new attack has forced the higher criticism to recon- 
sider the basis of positions which were fast becoming a. 
new and rather hide-bound orthodoxy, it has demand^ a: 
more radical criticism of the Massoretic Text, it has shown 
a surprisingly large amount of editorial redaction of a. 
surprisingly late date. How needed was this attack can 
be realized when we find the leader of the now conservative 
critics asserting that ' while the LXX contains partic- 
ular readings which are shown by internal evidence to be 

'See BS, Jan. 1916. pp. 721t,110f. 

■ See BS, Oct 1916, pp. 609-619. 
Vol. UtXVI. No. 301. 4 


50 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

stiperior to the Hebrew, j-et an examination of its general 
text proves that on the whole it ia inferior to the Masso- 
retic Hebrew. I do not think that this will be disputed by 
any competent Old Testament scholar. The MT is often 
emended from the liXX, but practically never except for 
some superiority, real or supposed, attaching to the read- 
ing presupposed by. JjXX. in particular cases' (Skinner, 
Divine Names, 166). 

" ' If therefore, a textual critic gives the preference to 
UKX readings, as such, he must be prepared to maintain 
the general superiority of its tewt. . . . But if he essays this, 
he will speedily land himself in a reductio ad ahaurdum 
of the critical axiom with which he starts. It Is notorious 
that the JJXX contains many readings which presuppose a 
Hebrew text, not only inferior to the MT, but absolutely 
inadmissible; i.e., one which no commentator with a re- 
gard for the meaning of the passage could possibly accept ' 
(/fttd., 168flf.). 

"After such a confession of faith, or rather lack of faith, 
it is not surprising to find that his elaborate commentary 
on Genesis has no section on the versions, and that when 
he quotes them he is far from accurate" (p. 146 f.). 
And again: — 

"A renewed study of the problem is therefore not out of 
place, specially by one who, because of his position as a 
teacher of history, must necessarily take a somewhat neu- 
tral point of view, who has never been committed to any 
one school, and who is inclined to find much of good in 
' conservative ' and ' critic ' alike. The purpose of the 
paper is not, to be sure, the reconstruction of the original 
text of Genesis, nor is it primarily intended to test the 
higher criticism or the results of the new school. Bather 
it is the much legs ambitious one of discovering the in- 
stances where the study of the Greek translation assists 
the historian in the problem of the sources, and other 
qnestions are only incidentally touched " (p. 148) . 

His exclusion is also worthy of careful attention. His 
study of Astruc's cine has unfortunately been marred by 
bis decision to leave standing what he had written in 
lfil4r-15, without reference to later work. Thus his dis- 
cussion is meager and unsatisfactory, and very different 
from what might be expected if he now examined care- 


1919] The Oreek Otneaia 51 

folly all tliat has been written on the conservatlTe side. 
Bat even so the result is noteworthy: 

"Now jnat what does this all mean? In a few cases 
Astmc's clue is certainly misleading, in a few other cases 
that possibility mast be left an open question. On the 
whole the manuscripts and versions we woold nse with the 
utmost confidence agree essentially with the Massoretic 
Text in their readings of the divine names. If the current 
theory is incorrect, that must be proved on other grounds. 

"Without the later paper it is obviously impossible to 
mm up all the evidence for and against the theory. Id cer- 
tain cases we have seen the theory corrected, and other 
examples will be given in a later paper. The corrections 
may considerably modify the' details ; as to the theory as 
a whole once more we must give a non liquet. 

" The exact situation is not, after all, quite correctly 
expressed in the last sentence. The higher critic has sinned 
in not devoting more attention to the evidence of the lower, 
and in some cases this has unfavorably affected his results. 
He has also made a strategic error in not utilizing to the 
full the evidence which so regularly proves, and proves in 
later times than he had assumed, the processes which the 
critical theory considers basal. In Genesis we do not have 
editorial redaction to the same extent as in Kings, for ex- 
ample, but we have enough for proof, and it is the more 
emphatic in that it is found in tiie Law. If the Law, the 
most sacred of the Hebrew writings, was not free from 
editorial redaction until long after the date of the Greek 
translation^ a fortiori we may expect more elaborate edit- 
ing in the less sacred. Certainly, to the student who has 
familiarized himself with the editorial activities indicated 
l^ the versions, there is nothing strange in the similar 
activities postulated by the Oraf-Euenen-Wellhausen the- 
ory" (pp. 168-169). 

So before the appearance of the work of 1915 and mib- 
sequent years, Olmstead had already been driven to a posi- 
tion so far from that of the documentary tiieorists. How 
remote it is from their conclusions he does not seem to 
realise. The "editorial activitieii" are not merely later 
than anything postulated by the documentary theorists; 
fhey are destructive of the theory. A concrete instance 
will best show this. Take the passage in Gen. xzxi. to 


62 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

which be devotes attention. According to the docnmen- 
taiy theorists this has been brought into existence through 
the interlacing (circa 650 b.c.) of two documents — J 
{circa 860 B.c.) and E (circa 760 b.c.). According to 01m- 
stead there is only a single Elohistic document, no J at all, 
and additions after 250 s.c. One document instead of two, 
Astmc'B clue "misleading," and a difference of six cen- 
turies in date! That in his view proves "the processes 
which the critical theory considers basal." I should have 
thought that if there was any process which could be so 
described, it was the compilation from two or more inde- 
pendent documents, and that if Olmstead's view be right 
at all it absolutely disproves this " basal " process. 

I desire to repeat and indorse what Olmstead says of 
the- Hebrew MSB.:— 

" While the additions by this means cannot be expected to 
be large or important, yet it is perfectly clear that the 
scholar who will nndertake the laborious task of recollat- 
ing and studying from the genealogical point of view the 
various extant Hebrew manuscripts will have made a dis- 
tinct contribution to the final reconstruction of the text, 
and it is not impossible that startling agreements with 
the versions may be found" (pp. 148-149). 
Is it too much to hope that some wealthy American Uni- 
versity may see its way to undertaking this enterpriseT 
What with the larger Cambridge LXX, the Benedictine 
work on the Vulgate, Von Gall's edition of the Samaritan, 
and the textual labors of the German universities, it may 
reasonably be thought that this field should be appro- 
priated by the United States before other nations inter- 

Before we turn to Olmstead's remarks as to the Samar- 
itan, his view of Gen. ziv. must be considered. 
**At the first glance we observe that the Greek itself is 
somewhat strange, ^paye^poo; «^1^o?=;Bn^^! ir</30T7?="iOT- 
The last two are unique, the other unique for the Penta- 
teuch, A subject for thought is that Aquila has ■tr€p»tT*yi, 
virtually the same reading. We at once begin to suspect 


1919] The Greek Genesis 53 

that the passage may be a late Insertion in the Greek and 
80 in the Hebrew original " (p. 165) . 

Now before arguing that different tPanslationB of He- 
brew words betray a different and later rendering of the 
chapter as a icJtole, we most see whether these words are 
consistently represented throughout the chapter by the 
expressions to which Olmstead draws attention. The 
facts are as follows: jx>v occurs five times (ver. 3, 8, 10, 
17 bis). The second passage in verse 17, "the same is the 
king's vale," is an obvious gloss omitted by the Qreek MS. 
L, rightly followed by Olmstead. The other Greek MSS. 
have ircStoi', not iftapay^. In three of the other four pas- 
sages they all have xotXat. Thns the word on which Olm- 
stead relies is not habitually nsed by the translator of this 
chapter. It occurs only in verse 3, where g has ffaXaatrav. 
How it came into the test I do not at present see. It may 
be the rendering of another translator which has here 
ousted the original Greek word, or it may point to a dif- 
ferent Hebrew. In any case it does nothing to establish 
a different translator for the whole chapter, seeing that 
it occurs only in one passage out of an original four. 

eoi, which, be it noted, is spelt defectively throughout the 
chapter, occurs five times (ver. 11, 12, 16 bis, 21). In the 
second occurrence in verse 16 it is omitted by the Ethiopic, 
bw, m, o, r, c,. The other MBS. read t» tnrapxovra. I think 
the Ethiopic is right, but neither text helps Olmstead's 
theory. In verse 12 our Greek authorities have ti/*" amo-ccvqv, 
which is a perfectly good rendering of the Hebrew and 
does not confirm Olmstead. On the other hand, tira-of, 
which occurs in the other three places, is not merely 
unique as a translation of the Massoretic word; it is im- 
possible. The Greek is here quite obviously following a 
test which bad 3Ti, chariots, a reading which differs only 
in a single letter. It is very surprising that the LXX 
should have found this, and very important from the his- 
torical point of view, but the fact seems indubitable. 


6i Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

Olmstead'B third word ie a gloss omitted by d and the 
pre-Hexaplar Ethiopic, as I had pointed oat on page 470 
of the BiBUOTHBCA Sacra for July, 1916. I think, how- 
ever, that Olmstead's obserratiou about Aqnila shows ns 
the origin of the expression. The earlier Greek text has 
here been patched from that translator to bring it into 
agreement with the later Hebrew. 

The facts, therefore, are totally unfavorable to the sus- 
picion that the whole of Gen. xir. is a late insertion in the 
Greek, and so in the Hebrew. But they reveal some minor 
glossing and one very important variant. Olmatead then 
proceeds : — 

" This would well agree with the ' significant fact that the 
Maccabees were called apxifpm ^tov v^wrov (Jos. Ant. 
zvi. 163; Ass. Hosts 6) . . . the frequent occurrence of t'Tf 
as a divine name in late Pss., the name Balem in one such 
Ps., and Melk in (probably) another' suggesting 'that the 
Helk legend was much in vogue about the time of the Mac- 
cabees ' (Skinner, Qenesis, 270 f.)." 

I think that there will be general agreement that the 
exact probative force of this, from the point of view of the 
attack on Gen. xiv., is nil. Certainly Olmstead himself 
seems to feel this, for he proceeds: "In all this uncer- 
tainty one thing is sure." Then comes his trump card : — 
" The story was known to Eupolemus in 142-141 b.c., but 
It was not in this form. According to him the enemy came 
from Armenia, and it was to this enemy and not to the 
king of Sodom that he freely remitted the captives. F^llI^ 
thermore, the sacrifice is placed at the hieron of the city 
of Argarizin, 'which is, being interpreted, the mountain 
of the Most High' {Frag. Hist. Oraec, III, 212). Argar- 
isin is without doubt Mount Gerizim. This identification 
could be explained as due to Samaritan infiuence, and it 
ia tme that Jos^hus makes him a Gentile {Contr. Ap., i. 
2S). Thus we might save the Massoretic Text, but if we 
do so, then ve also condemn the Samaritan Pentateuch 
of having been conformed to the Jewish after this date " 
(pp. 165-166). 

As a matter of fact Josepbns {loe. dt.) expressly says 


1919] The Greek OenetU 66 

that Eupolemus could not read the Hebrev writings. There- 
fore there -are only three altemattTes : either he followed a 
test of the LXX, or a Greek tranelation of the Bamarttan, 
or no text at all. In the third case he will hare been 
dependent on what he learnt orallj. Now when we ex- 
amine the context of these statementa, I do not think that 
an; doubt can be felt as to the relation or lack of rela- 
tion of his narrative to the Biblical text He telle oa 
tliat Abraham discovered astronomy and astrology, went to 
Phcenicia and dwelt there, and by teaching the Phoeni- 
cians certain astronomical facts won the favor of the king. 
Then comes the incident of the Armenian war against the 
Phoenicians. To my mind there never was a Biblical text, 
Jewish or Bamaritan, Hebrew or Qreefc, that related any- 
thing like this. Eupolemus is, reproducing a mixture of 
fact and legendary interpretation based on our Pentateuch 
that l>ear8 much the same relation to history as the Charle- 
magne of l^end does to the emperor. The mention of 
Uonnt Gerizim shows that this came through a Samaritan 
source. The altematiTe is to assume the existence of a 
Samaritan Greek Pentateuch which subsequently to 140 
Bx. disappeared without trace, or to suppose that the 
Samaritan Hebrew original was deliberately discarded in 
favor of a later Jewish text which did not support the 
Samaritan colt on Mount Gerizim. Such a theory based 
on the authority of such a tale as this seems to me quits 

The attack on Gen. xiv., therefore, breaks down com* 
pletely. With regard to the Samaritan Pentateuch ths 
view Jost discussed is the " other evidence " pieutioned in 
the following extracts, which are from Olmstead's remarks 
on the Book of Jubilees and its textual importance: — 
*'A Jew of the most undoobted orthodoxy, a stout defender 
of the most legalistic faith, one in close sympathy with th* 
Maccabean royal house, had before him a text which was 
very much farther away from our present Hebrew than Is 
that which is today found among the Samaritans! Swii 
a fact, for fact it undoubtedly la, (AiaUengeB e^dasfltiim. 


66 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

The most obrioas reply is that, in its passage through the 
Greek, Latin, or Ethiopic translation, it was corrected to 
the Greek or to its versions, but the most snperficial study 
of the agreements, especially in its combinations, will show 
this view to be untenable. That the Massoretic Text was 
revised to the Samaritan is unthinkable, scarcely less so 
is the converse, yet this last seems the only hypothesis, and 
there is other evidence which fits with it " (p. 161). 

Earlier (p. 149) he had written: "The essential agree- 
ment between the Samaritan and the standard Hebrew has 
been much adduced for apologetic porposes, but the evi- 
dence is rapidly increasing to prove that its text is late 
{AJSL, XXXI, 206; cf. N. Bchmidt, Jour. Bibl. Lit. 
XXXIII, 31 ff.; Wiener, Bill. Sacra, LXXII, 83 ff.)-" 

It is to be observed that the view advocated in Volume 
XXXI. is different from his present contention. There he 
argued (on evidence that to my mind was inconclusive) 
that the adoption of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans 
was late. Here he apparently abandons the hypothesis of 
late adoption for one of late revision. The remarks of 
Bchmidt are very gnarded. He concludes (at p. 33 of his 
article) that " it is impossible to prove that the Samaritan 
Pentateuch has remained the same since it was brought to 
Shechem, or that it represents an earlier type than that 
used by G[reek] in the third century b.c." With regard 
to my own attitude it surely differs from Olmstead's. I 
had written : — 

"Against these views I set the foUowing conception of 
the history of the text as being in accordance with the 
known facts. Hebrew and Samaritan alike are descended 
from the recension that was in use in the second Temple. 
This represented a text with very numerous comments, 
ritual and other. But before the Samaritan schism there 
had already come into existence numerous copies of the 
Hebrew, which in many cases antedated the Temple com- 
ments and alterations. Of these the most important for 
our purposes were the ancestor or ancestors of the Egyp- 
tian texts, the first of which presumably dates from tite 


1919] The Greek Genesis 57 

time of Jeremiah, and the ancestor of Jerome's text, which 
belongs to the Babylonian-Palestinian famDy, but is in 
many respects purer than the M.T., though it contains 
some coiTuptioDS from which the latter is free. At the 
same time, thronghout the earlier period there was a 
greater tendency for MSS. of the same family to vary, and 
hence later authorities have often preserved better read- 
ings where earlier witnesses had been affected many coi- 
tnries previously by some corruption that ultimatdy be- 
came widespread. Thus it is that we may see the Vulgate, 
the ' Hebrew,' or any other of the later versiona stepping 
forward from time to time with an original reading that 
has disappeared from M.T. and LXX. 

"After the Samaritan schism the Temple text continued 
to deteriorate. Nevertheless it was the central text of Ja- 
daism, thon^ formed and maintained on non-critical prin> 
ciples, and there was a tendency to bring all other Jevrish 
-texts more or less into conformity with it This operated 
partly by sporadic changes and partly by systematic at- 
tempts, such as fixing of the text by the school of Aqiba, 
the elaborate changes of the scribes affecting certain pas- 
sages, and the fresh renderings into Oreefa and other lan- 

"At some period in the history of this text (which was 
formed on principles of which we are totally ignorant) , a 
single MS. mnst have acquired a dominant authority — 
otherwise how explain snch a reading as that of onr 
Hebrew in Genesis Iv. 8? Bat the task of bringing all 
existing copies of the Bible throughout the wide Jewish 
diaspora into complete accord with a single type of text 
was impossible of rapid accomplishment when printing 
was an unknown art. It took centuries, and minor varia- 
tions were inevitably made in the official text during the 
process. Fortunately for na there still survive MSS. (of 
which we must hope to have good modem coUations some 
day) which contain lai^ numbers of variants. StiU more 
fortunately Jerome woi^ed on a Hebrew original which 


68 BiifUctheca Sacra [Jan. 

had often escaped the glosses of the standard test with 
the result that bis rersioD is frequently a most valuable 
guide. Further, as the process of assimilating our wit- 
nesses to a single type was uecessarUy gradual and un- 
equal, it repeatedly happens that in many places one witness 
will preserve an earlier reading against all others. The 
last massacre of variants only came with the final triumph 
of the Massoretes. At no period in the long history of the 
transmission of the text were the principles applied such 
as would commend themselves to a scientiflc textual critic. 
This outline of the history can be filled in by further re- 
search which will be able to trace the stages better by the 
examination of innumerable agreements and differences 
between the various authorities. The natural course of 
textual transmission was modified from time to time by 
theological and other theories which swept across Jewry 
and left their marks on the Biblical texts. 

" If we could assign a date to the breaking off of the Ba> 
maritan Pentateuch it would lend precision to our views, 
but unfortunately that is impossible. The arguments for 
c»rco 330 are stated by Skinner (Divine Names, pp. 11&- 
121), those for 432 by KOnig (p. 18). The weight of 
historical documents appears to me to be on KOnig's side, 
for the Elephantine papyri confirm the approximate date 
of Sanballat that may be deduced from Nehemiab ziii., but 
the materials are too conflicting and nacertain for any 
definite concluBions" (BS, Jan. 1915, pp. 123-125). 

I think that in this and other portions of his article 01m- 
stead too readily attributes to time what might more justly 
be ascribed to place. For instance, the Nash papyrus in 
Egypt, some three or four centuries after the L XX , has 
readings that differ remarkably: from the Hebrew and Ba- 
maritan. It does not follow that the Samaritan text was 
adopted or recast aft«r the papyrus was written. Or take 
Jerome's remarkable reading in Gen. xxxi. 24, to which I 
drew attention on pages 140 f. of the Bibuothka Bacea 
(or January, 1916, " and be saw Ood," for the Maasoretic 


1919] The Greek Genetta B0 

"and God cam« to Laban the BTrian." Unqaeetioiiably 
tfae Vulgate has here preeerred an earlier tTpe of reading 
than the Maeaoretic text, the Samaritan, or the IjXX ; bat 
nobody would dream of inferring that the SaraaritanB 
adopted or rerised the Pentateuch for the Hebrew in or 
after the fifth centory of the Christian era. I would ask 
Olmstead to examine the variants from Hebrew HSB. and 
the Vulgate that I have been quoting for the last few years 
in the Bibuothbca Sacra (notably Oct. 1914 and Jan. 
1915), and Bay whether they do not rather confirm my view 
that the nniversal conformation of the Hebrew texts to a 
single type was a late result ensued only by the labor of 
centuries. Similarly I cannot agree that the Vnlgate is 
hardly more than a MS. of the current Hebrew ; and, while 
I believe that many of its variations are due to " retention 
of the Old Latin text," yet there seem to me to be others 
which should be attributed to a different Hebrew original. 

la conduBion I would notice one other point on which 
I cannot accept Olmstead's views. In dlBcussing Gen. xxxi. 
he quotes JnbUees: "Jacob made a feast for Laban and 
for all who came with him, and Jacob sware to Laban that 
day and Labaa also to Jacob that neither should cross the 
mountain of Oilead to the other with evil purpose. And he 
made a heap there for witness, wherefore the name of that 
place is called (The Heap of Witness) after the heap." 
His comment is as follows: "From this we cannot dis- 
cover the exact text which lay behind it, but evidently the 
story was briefer and more cooBistent than the one in our 
present Oreek. One point at least seems clear, tiiat there was 
no pillar in the original story " (p. 158). I agree that we 
cannot discover what text the author of Jubilees was fol- 
lowing, but the omission of the pillar appears to me to be 
due to a very different cause from that assigned by Olm- 
stead; viz. the influence of Deut. xvi. 22, "Neither shalt 
thou set thee up a pillar which the Lord thy God hateth." 
Later Judaism generally and the writer of JubUeea in par- 


60 BibUotheoa Sacra 

ticular always tended to read back current interpretations 
of the texts of the Law and to make the earlier history con- 
form to them, and we may be sure that such an author 
would hare omitted the pillar for that reason. Indeed, its 
mention in the Biblical narrative may liave led him to re- 
gard the whole Btory as somewhat unedifying and prompted 
its compression. 




AuiBicA is sometimes called a coontry of tada. There 
is a certain amount of tmth in the allegation ; for we do 
take kindly to innoTetions, even when they are not only 
no improvement on but also when they are positively in- 
ferior to what we already have. We are unduly food of 
change and variety. It eeema to be in the blood. Further- 
more, we are not always as particular as we might be with 
regard to the method of obtaining it. If it is new or " up 
to date " or " the latest," that suffices. We most have it. 
We wish to be known as persons who are not " behind the 
times." Correctness and accuracy are not as important 
in our eyes as being right up to the minute in the newest 
ideas. We do not question those ideas as closely as we 
ought, and we are therefore credited, on the part of our 
European critics, with a degree of gullibility that is by no 
means flattering. In part we deserve it. 

One of our recrait ideas, stoutly maintained by Andrew 
Lang, is the notion, falsely credited with the support of 
Thomas K. Lounsbury, that the infinitive is never to be 
" split," meaning thereby that its " to " is never to be sep- 
arated from it by . an adverb. How much mischief this 
mistaken doctrine has created, was not brought to my at- 
tentioD, until a recent graduate of a country high school 
threw up her hands in holy horror over such an infinitive 
and decided that its perpetrator must be an ignoramus. 
Bhe could hardly have been convinced tliat the actual 
ignoramus was the man who was responsible for her views. 
In reality, she belonged in the same narrow-minded class 
as a worthy Southern gentleman named Dixon, who said, 
late in life, that he had many sins to answer for, but he 
did thank the good Lord that he had never sunk so low a» 


62 Bibliotheoa Sacra [Jan. 

to vote the Republican ticket! Comment is hardl; necea- 

While this incident was etill fresh in m; mind, the editor 
of The Boston Transcript drew a vigorouB protest from 
Hon. John D. Long by condemning such inflnitlTea in an 
editorial. The protest was never answered, so far as I am 
aware. This Is what he said: — ■ 

" Will you tell me why in your editorial you say that 
the split infinitive is a ' grammatical abomination '7 Is the 
outcry against it anything more than a fad — a conven* 
tional way of sug^eting that the would-be critic is up in 
his English? Why not split the infinitive as well as the 
indicative, which everybody does, as, for instance, Hacau- 
lay writes 'Berlin was again occupied by the enemy'? 
Would it have been any less elegant or clear to say ' the 
eneniy were able to again occupy Berlin,' so far as the 
split in&nitive is concerned? 

" Can you give me the reason for your objection? I can 
find none in the grammars or books on rhetoric. It is true 
that it is suggested there that the split infinitive is not 
used by the best writers but in the same connection it is 
admitted that it is used by many of them and that this ose 
is steadily iucreasiug. Also it is said that it is a clumsy 
form of expression, but I fail to see why ' To serve nobly ' 
is a neater term than ' to nobly serve.' Often in verse the 
accent can be made to fall properly only by putting the 
adverb between the two words of the infinitive. 

" Then there are many cases in which one must use the 
split infinitive. A frigid su^eets the phrase 'I wish to 
more than thank yon.' In that phrase where else can one 
put the 'more than'? The London Times is pretty good 
anthority — good as the Transcript — and its editorials 
over and over again split the infinitive. Here is one of its 
sentences. ' N^otiations are proceeding to further cement 
trade relations.' Where else can you put ' further ' ? If 
before ' to,' the reader is uncertain whether it does not 
modify 'proceeding'; if after 'cement,' whether it does 
not modify ' trade.' At least one example of the split in- 
finitive is found in Macaulay, in De Qoincey and in Dr. 
Johnson, though its use by them is rare, as it is with all 
writers, it being more natural for everybody to keep the 
infinitive together than to divide it 

" To be sure, in some languages, like the Latin, the in- 


1M9] The " Split In)hiitive " 63 

finitive is od« voM that cannot be divided, as amare, to 
love ; and it may be claimed that the English infinitive is 
real]; one word, though made of two words, and therefore 
cannot be split. But the same is true of the Latin in- 
dicative, as amavi, have loved. One of our dictionaries 
says that the preposition ' to ' is a part of the infinitive. 
But in this connection ' to ' is not a preposition ; it it 
rather an auxiliary, just as ' have * la an auxiliary in the 
perfect indicative ; and ' have ' is there Just as much a part 
of the perfect iodicative as ' to ' is of the infinitive. 

" There is nothing in the objection that the use of the 
split infinitive may lead to careless or confused English. 
No good writer will ever use it unless it fits in readily or 
effectively, and a bad writer will misuse any of the forms 
of syntax. 

" For myself, I split and justify others in splitting the 
infinitive wherever it seems more apt to do so, or whenever 
better emphasis can be given by so doing. 

" I suggest that the ^^>gresslve8 in their next platform 
put in a plank in behalf of the much abused split infini- 
tive" (Boston Transcript, Feb. 4, 1913). 
Mr. Long's main position is unquestionably correct. " To " 
is no more a part of the infinitive than " have " is a part 
of the " perfect tense," and herein lies all the trouble Beal- 
izing that fact, men are acting accordingly. 

Englisb has but two tenses. Oothic had bnt two, — the 
present and the preterit or past. That limitation accounts 
for the development in Anglo-Saxon and in Oerman of the 
modal phrases that now serve for modes and tenses in Oer- 
man and English. English, however, has broken away from 
the ancient idiom, and " leveling by analogy " has been the 
most potent factor in the process. AU our other so-called 
tenses, then, are merely substitutes that answer the pur- 
pose. They are makeshifts that have usurped the function 
of tmse* in one way or another. Some of them are legiti- 
mate and some of them are not. " Have written " is Inti- 
mate ; bnt " have lost " and " have gone " are monstrosities. 
They become even worse when cmnblned with shall or will. 
The purists swallow them, however, with never so mnch 
as the qnlver of an eyelash and then balk at " had rather 


61 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

be " and " had better go," insisting that " have lost " and 
" have gone " are " perfect tenses " and that there can be 
no parallel in the premises. It is a good way to advertise 
their limitations. 

The original idiom came from the Latin. A fev verbs^ 
especially habeo and teneo, were employed in a sort of cir- 
cumlocution to express fixedness of condition or finality of 
purpose. Thus, bellum habuit indictum, " war he had, a 
declared (one)." So, excuaatum Jtabeas me rogo, " excused 
have me, I beg." Likewise, duces comprehenaos tenetis, 
" the leaders, arrested, you have-in-your-power." The verb 
governed the object, and the participle limited and agreed 
with that object, as the examples indicate. At times the 
fact might be obscured. Thus, habeo statutum, with a 
clause covering the thing resolved upon, might seem like 
an ordinary English " perfect," becanse that clause might 
not be recognised as a neuter substantive limited by statu- 
tum. Snch, however, it would be, and the idiom would 
remain unctianged. An in&ected tongue makes for sta- 
bility of that sort. English is not inflected, and therein 
lies the difference. 

Epistolam habeo acriptam, " a letter have I, a written 
{one)," was stable enough in Latin, but in English it easily 
passed into " I have written a letter," with the relationship 
of the parts so befogged that " have written " came to be 
taken as a tense. It expressed the same general idea as a 
perfect and came to be regarded as one. A true tense, how- 
ever, is always a single form, not a phrase, and, for that rea- 
son, we have but two tenses in EDglish. On the basis of its 
origin, then, " have lost " involves a Jlat contradiction 
(/ poaaeaa the thing that ia lost), while "have gone" con- 
tains an intransitive perfect participle (7 poaaesa a gone 
self) in an idiom that really demands a transitive one 
(/ posseas a having been made to go self). 

German and Anglo-Saxon are more logical. The former 
has Ich bin gegangen and the latter, Ic eom geg&n, " I am 
having-gone." The relationship of the parts is strictly 


1919] The " Split Infinitive " 65 

correct, the participle limiting the subject, and the idiom 
is therefore sound. The English one is anything but 
sound. Leveling by analogy has foisted a transitive con- 
stmction onto aU intransitive verbs; but most persons, not 
knowing this fact, are better satisfied with their English 
idiom than they are with the German one. The sensible 
thing to do, then, is to let well-enough alone. Indeed, if 
a serious attempt should ever be made to eradicate anom- 
alies of that sort from the English tongue, it would soon 
appear that the language itself cannot continue to exist 
without them. It is practically made up of such things. 

Did you ever analyze a compound tense to see what an 
auxiliary verb really is ? "I will go " means, in the last 
analysis, / will a frotnj/ of some sort. In other words, 
" will " is the verb, and " go " is an infinitive used as its 
object. " I can do " is somewhat simUar, although the 
situation is made more complicated by ■ the nature of 
" can." It is an old preterit employed as a present. That 
Is why it makes no infinitive " to can." It originally sig- 
nified to "know," hence (after getting the required knowl- 
edge) to "be able." Instead of saying "I have acquired 
the necessary knowledge as to the doing of something," 
we simply say " I can do it." The " do " is still an infini- 
tive ; but its relation to the " can " is rather that of an 
adverbial accusative than that of a tme objective, if we 
adhere to etymological considerations as seems necessary 
in the premises. 

There are other preterit-presents in English, as may^ 
shall, and must. New preterits have been developed, giv- 
ing us forms like "could," "should," and "might," all of 
which are noteworthy. Thus, " could " not only has the 
" ablaut " of a strong verb and the -d of a weak one but also 
an inserted I on the analogy of should and would. Ablaut 
is a variation in the root vowel, as in " sing, sang, sung," 
or " sink, sank, sunk." It is common in Anglo-Saxon and 
German. Where the same result is obtained by the use of 
-ed or -t, the verb is a weak one, technically speaking. Stem 
Vol LXXVl. No. 301. 6 


66 BibUQiheoa Sacra [Jan. 

variation is a Semitic characteristic. In tlie Aryan tongues 
tlie tendency is to eliminate it, Hebrew fairly revels in it. 
In reality, it is an indication tliat the two families of lan- 
guages were once related, a fact no longer denied, since it 
may be regarded as already established by the labors of 
Dr. Drake, an American, and Professor M&ller, a Dane. 

In a single instance a tendency toward stem variation 
has come nnder my notice. On the analogy of " throw, 
threw, thrown," a form " shew " was developed in the State 
of Maine and was in common use in my boyhood. As that 
was the original form of the present, it was very properly 
condemned by lingaists. Where e and o are found in 
such connections, e is a " middle " form and o a " strong " 
one. The " weak " form omits the vowel altogether, as in 
yLyv.oftai. A similar phenomenon is found in noun stems 
of the Aryan tongues, as will appear below. Other combi- 
nations of vowels are employed for the same purpose and 
in the same way. 

Coming back now to our auxiliary verbs, so-caUed, it will 
be seen that they are actually verbs whose true sense and 
ofBce have been either obscured or forgotten. They have 
thus become parts of verbal phrases which serve the pur- 
pose of modes and tenses. If we choose to call them so, it 
is really misleading, and yet no philologian will be likely 
to attwnpt to force an exact usage down the throats of the 
partly educated, because no good purpose will be served 
thereby and more barm than good might result. The pur- 
ists have furnished the philologians with so striking an 
object lesson along these lines that they are not inclined 
to incnr a similar liability. 

In the light of the above facts, the fight against " had 
rather " and " had better " seems puerile. Both are idioms 
with more to Justify them than there is to justify variooa 
other things that pass without question. They happen to 
be somewhat singular, and the true character of the other 
idioms is not known. As a result, purists Insist that you 
cannot pane " had . be," while " have lost " and " have 


1919] The "Split Infinitive" 67 

gone " are " tenses." You cannot parse them, however, cm 
the basis employed with "had . be," and, although it la 
not necessary, there ia no more reason, intrinsically, why 
" had . be " should not be given a place as a tense than 
there is why " haTC gone " or " have lost " should be, ex- 
cept that of insufBcient knowledge concerning the latter, 
which is no reason at all. 

The real question is one of serrice. Do expressions like 
" had rather be " and " had better go " fill a place in Eng- 
lish that it is desirable to have filled? "Had rather be" 
can be analysed and parsed. It means would hold it pref- 
erable to be, which equals "would prefer to be." The 
"had" is accordingly a Babjauctive (or "potential"), 
as appears in " Had I known that, I had done differently." 
The " be " is therefore an inflnitiTe depending on " had " 
precisely as " be " is an iuOuitive depending on " will " in 
" will be." The remaining word, " rather," is an adjective. 
The corresponding idiom, " would rather be," makes it an 
adverb, and " had rather " has accordingly acquired a 
value resembling that of the " break in npon " discussed 
below. It has a forcefulness that is lacking in " would 
rather " and is therefore Justified. 

When it comes to " had better go," we have no real al- 
ternative ; for " would better go " — even if it does have 
l>ack of it the authority of Walter Savage Landor — is 
altf^ther abominable and without excuse, in spite of the 
fact that it does satisfy the purists by coming within the 
bonnds of their parsing knowledge. " Had better " means 
should hold it better to, the " bad " retaining its snbjunc- 
tive ("potential") character. It implies that there is a 
need or duty which it will be well to meet. Eivery speaker 
of English feels the force of it "Would better" utterly 
fails to measure np to the requirements of the situatitm; 
for it has no snch content, and it is not likely to have. So 
long as English continues to owe much of its richness and 
flexibility to such idioms as these — that it does so now Is 
a matter concerning which there is no room for a difference 


88 Bibliotkeca Sacra [Jan. 

of opinion — it will be well not to meddle nndul; with 
what is, or has been, accepted usage in the classicB of Eng- 
lish literatnre.^ 

It is BBtoniBhing how narrow the viewpoint really is 
of some of oar woold-be leaders in English. The use of 
" don't " in the third singnlar, while not strictly correct, 
Is jnatifled by the fact that it is a development along lines 
that are coextensive with tlie whole history of the Aryan 
tongues. The entire Indo-Oermanic family of languages, 
to which English belongs, is simply studded with similar 
levelings by analogy. In Latin we have pSa, pedis, bat in 
Greek vovr, vaSJ^, indicating that the parent language prob- 
ably had po8, ped, pd, in use — an Avestan compound shows 
the last — as the strong, middle, and weak stem forms, 
although a somewhat different explanation has been sag- 
gested. Sanskrit usage supports the explanation here 
giv^, and so do the English words, foot, feet. The leveling 
by analogy is admitted without question. 

That sort of thing is encountered everywhere. The use 
of " you " for " ye " and, especially, for " thou " is a case 
in point. " Them will go " would horri^ us all, but the 
time was when " you will go " was quite as bad, and the 
two are actually parallel forms of expression. The use of 
8ie in Oerman is similar but worse, if anything, although 
it is an established idiom. Leveling by analogy accounts 
for both anomalous forms, and " tinkering " will not help 
matters. It may make them worse. The purists have sev- 
eral " successes " of that kind to their credit ; but thc^ are 
bardly things to be proud of. 

Take the modem (New York) expression, "Ave cents 
the copy." It su^ests a high hat, a long coat, and a thim- 
bleful of brains. " Five {cents a copy " was a perfectly 

■ That Bucb Is tb« case wlt^ both of these Idioms hu been duir 
Bbown. See American Journal ot Pbllologr, vol. il. pp. 281-323, 
" On the OrlKln of ' Had rather Qo ' and Analogous or Appareiitl7 
Analogous Locutions," by Fltzedward Hall, or. if that Is not avail- 
able, chapter iz. of ProfesBor Lounsbury's book entitled "The 
Standard of Usage in English." 


1919] The " Split Infinitive " 69 

good idiom, and it was correct. It meaoB five cents for one 
(each) copy, and it applies to all copies of the iaaue. 
" The " necessarily discriminates. It is a definite article, 
and in all lan^ages that have snch a word it is a weak 
demonstrative (this or that) . " Five cents the copy " may 
accordingly refer to the copy that bears the words, with 
the possible intimation that no other copy will have the 
same price. If the next should happen to read " six cents 
the copy" no incongruity wonld be involved, and each 
might vary the price without doing violence to the lingnia- 
tic requirements of the situation. Moreover, " five cents 
the copy" may mean five cents for the'copy (some partic- 
ular reproduction) of this one, with no reference to the 
one 80 marked or to the issue as a whole. 

Verily, " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That 
is the trouble with most purists. Tbey accordiogly wish 
either to divorce English entirely from its historical con- 
nections and make it a law unto itself or else to force it 
to conform to some etymological limitation that it has long 
outgrown. Ifone of their schemes are really feasible. If 
they were, the result mig^t be altogether mischievous. A 
good physician hardly feels competent to prescribe for a 
patient nntil he has acquired a knowledge of the family 
history of the sufferer with relation to the diseased condi- 
tions. The purists would " doctor " English without any 
such knowledge and without attempting to obtain it before 
proceeding to business. That is why th^ are purists. 

They are useful — in a way. A certain amount of prun- 
ing is desirable, if the fruitful branches are only let alone. 
" Snckers " need to be removed, and language develops 
that sort of thing in the form of slang. The trouble witii 
them is this. Th^ will not restrict their efforts to Inti- 
mate lines but must needs undertake to remodel the tree 
itself. " Dooming " an aged apple tree is sometimes ad- 
visable. It is not advisable to attempt to d^om a lan- 
guage, which is about what the purists would ultimately 
do if they were allowed to have their own way. The result 


TO BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

uroald hardly be ornamental or attractive. There is a liinit 
to such activities. 

For that reason, it ia time to revolt when they attempt to 
rob us of the " split infinitive" It has its place. " So to 
spealt " is an idiom that is often used. It serves a useful 
purpose. It does not mean to apeak m such a monner, 
although " to BO speak " does mean jnst that. A care- 
ful discriminatioD is made possible by the two arrange- 
ments. " So much as to sug^iest " is not the same in mean- 
iDg as " to so much as suggest," and the elimination of 
second forms of ttiat kind destroys one of the strong points 
in English diction. That we can do things like that is one 
of the beauties of our mother tongue. The fight against it 
is already working destructively in other directions, as will 
appear shortly. It is a perfectly good construction, and a 
literary one. 

Hr. Long mentions " to more than thank." To it has 
been added " to more than double." In (^position, It has 
been urged that you cannot parse "more" singly in this 
pbrase, any more tlian you can " to," and that each word 
is a part of the verb, which is a compound like " pussy* 
foot" or "double-cross." This has but one weak spot — 
it is not true. The two compounds are genuine; for each 
expresses a simple idea. " More than double " is complex, 
and it is ellipticaL It means to do »om*thing in ewces$ of 
■what one uioidd have done if he had doubled the originaL 
"So comparison is tber^re possible in the premises. It is 
true that no *'do" is now felt in the phrase ; but neither 
is " house " felt in the sentence, " I am going down to 
faHier's for the summer." In each case Hie missing word 
b necessary before any parsing can be done. Prepositions 
do not govern the possessive case in English. They do 
govern the corresponding genitive case in German, Oree^ 
and Sanskrit, so far as Sanskrit can be said to have such 
a construction; but their adverbial origin still Aines 
Urougfa in places, especially in SaDskrit English now 
Includes several participles (excepting, notwithatanding, 


1919] The "8pUt Infinitive" 71 

eoQcerning, r^arding, respecting, earing), eome impera- 
tivea (except, Bave), and an adjective (like) among its pre- 
positioDB ; bnt we may easily go too far in sacti matters. 

Ab to tlie " to," let tills l>e remembered. It belongs to 
no true in&nitlTe, bnt is a corruption taken from the 
gerund, which was used as the object of the preposition. 
It has retained its prepositional force in countlesB in- 
stances, as paraphrasing will show. " House to let " 
means a house for letting, and the " to let " parallels tbe 
other phrase in " house for sale." Similarly " good to 
eat " means good for eating, and tbe illustrations might 
be mnltiplied indefinitely. If tbe " to " in the " more 
than doable" phrase Indicates purpose, it is a genuine 
preposition still; for it means in order to and can be 
paraphrased with " for " (for tbe purpose of more than 
doubling). That the "for" idiom is not in use makes no 
difference. The only requirement is that the construction 
shall make sense. In case the " to " has lost its preposi- 
tional force (is merely a corruption from the gerund), it 
is to be parsed as the " rhematic sign." It has practically 
dropped out of use after various verbs once followed by it, 
such as bid, help, and make. 

If " more than " is to be dealt with without supplying 
the suppressed " do " after the " to," it must be taken as 
an adverbial element modifying " double." That it changes 
the meaning of tie verb does not matter. We do that sort 
of thing often In English. " I broke in upon his medita- 
tion " becomes in tbe passive " his meditation was broken 
in upon by me." Until such combinations are regarded as 
compounds, it is certainly out of tbe question to treat 
- more than double " as one. " In upon " is a part of tlie 
verbal idea, an integral part of it, and the words are " post- 
positions " — I have been calling them such for about forty 
years, beginning in my Junior year in college while teach- 
ing Whitney's " Essentials of Ehiglish Grammar," the best 
book of the sort ever written even If it was too deep for 
ordinary teachers of that grade, — which are as much a 


72 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

part of the verb as the Beparable prefixes are in. Qerman 
after they have been relegated to the end of the sentence. 
" To b^in " is anfangen, to " lay hold on." In the infini- 
tive we have anfangen or anssufangen. The participle cor- 
responds. In other constructionH, unless the inverted order 
is required, the " on " goes to the end, as in Ich fing dieaen 
Morgen sehr friih zu schreiben an, where my early morn- 
ing writing is expressed with all the words save one be- 
tween the two parts of the verb. The arrangement is com- 
mon and familiar. 

We are unduly superficial in our parsing. " He made 
note of the fact " would be analyzed as, — a pronoun, fol- 
lowed by a finite verb, which is in tnm followed by an 
object limited by a prepositional phrase. We fot^t the 
passive, " the fact was made note of by him." We can 
paraphrase the verbal idea by " was noted," and " note " 
therefore becomes a complementary accusative followed by 
an adverbial particle, if we insist upon an exact analysis. 
The idiom is justified by its emphasis of the idea of noting, 
and it is liliely to be regarded as perfectly good English 
until some purist gets tangled up in the parsing. " Made 
note of " is a verbal phrase which performs the same func- 
tion as " noted." That, however, does not prevent as from 
saying " made careful note of," with an adjective in be- 
tween the parts. 

The troth is this. No verbal phrase that happens to do 
duty as a mode or a tense is so much of a unit that it can- 
not be separated when clarity is promoted thereby. Ex- 
actness often demands just such a separation ; and yet the 
agitation against the " split infinitive " is reacting against 
" split " teaues, so that they too are beginning to be 
avoided. The results are already deplorable; for the ex- 
ample of the newspapers is being copied elsewhere. Note 
these specimens: — 

"He warned registration officials that favoritism easUy 
could be detected " (Boston Jonmal, Hay 11, 1917, p. 1, 
near end). 


1919] The " Split Infinitive " 73 

" Some influential meo of thie group even have suggested 
that Germany go so far," etc, {Ibid., May 21, 1917, p. 7, 
col. 8). 

" He asserted that the invention soon will be demon- 
strated bv the government, which already had been advised 
of the details" (lb., May 23, 1917, p. 1, col. 6). 

" The sitnation aa indicated in the registration returns 
only can result in most careful action on the part of ex- 
emption boards " {lb., June 8, 1917, p. 1, col. 1). 

" How much of the burden of Russia's needs will be as- 
sumed by this country yet is to be determined " (Boston 
Transcript, May 24, 1917, p. 4, col. 5). 

" More than 10,000 mUes of wire already has been with- 
drawn from commercial service" {lb., May 25, 1917, p. 4, 
col. 4). 

" Numbers of prisoners are reported already to be reach- 
ing the collecting Stations " (lb., June 7, 1917, p. 3, col. 2). 

" He expressed the conviction that . . . the fr^om which 
has been achieved stilt will be cherished" {lb., Julv 14, 
1917. Part III., p. 6, col. 4). 

"Yes, the world is coming back to Ood and it also is 
«oming bact to Jesus " (L. c, col. 1, quoted from the Con- 

" The talis he recently has given at forums . . . have 
deeply stirred ... his hearers" (Orinnell Review, May, 
1917, p. 153, col. 2, quoted). 

" Grandsons, sons, and husbands already have been sac- 
rificed on the firing line" (G^graphical Magazine, April, 
1917, p. 322). 

" We ask how a textual critic . . . can dare go to garble 
this text" (Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1918, p. 286). 
Most of these specimens were picked up in a few days at 
random as they thrust themselves upon my notice. Then 
t began to invert the order as I read. 

That the " split infinitive " was not always observed and 
duly eliminated was proved by an occasional example, 
such as, — 

" His successor would not delay the solemn confirmation 
by the country of the decision not to in any way divide the 
activities and efforts of the world democracies" (Boston 
Journal, May 18, 1917, p. 2, col. 7) . 
Even the Boston Transcript nodded now and then as is 


74 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

shown by a " to So Assist " in a sabheading of the issue 
of May 17, 1917 (p. 1, col. 5). How much of a pain was 
caused I cannot say. 

Kot content with such achievements, this linguistic 
octopus is now encouraging the habit of avoiding the in- 
sertion of any adverb after the preposition "to." Witness 
the following: — 

"It develops upon the government to find ont just to 
what extent the party local is allowing itself to be used 
as a point of vantage for the German spy service" (Bos- 
ton Transcript, June 11, 1917, p. 10, col. 3). 

" In this situation the Western Allies can look forward 
only to one possible solution — to the prosecution of the 
war," etc. (Review of Reviews, March, 1918, p. 271, coL 2). 

AU italics are mine. It Is hardly necessary to call at- 
tention to the fact — it is painfully evident — that " sqnint- 
ing constructions " are here encouraged. 

This is leveling by analogy at its worst. The starting 
point is to be found in the habit of placing the adverb 
before the " to " of an ipflnitive. Any " to " is now likely 
to be similarly affected regardless of the effect produced. 
Moreover, the adverb is constantly placed before an aux- 
iliary verb instead of with the word it modifies. Hr. 
Long's sug^iiestion is therefore being taken seriously but 
in the wrong way. If the examples were confined to the 
newspapers, it would matter little. Unfortunately, they 
are rapidly creeping into other publications, and I cannot 
help wondering what the end will be. 

English has been extremely flexible, capable of fine dis- 
tinctions, and remarkably expressive. The tendencies here 
noted may ultimately result in making it stilted, inac- 
curate, and stupid. Possibly some of us, just by way of 
a eonnta- irritant, ought to conscientiously " split " every 
tnftnitive that we conveniently can. In order to help in 
overcoming tfaia inane and misdirected effort. In the en- 
deavor to write elegant English — by avoiding " split in- 
finitive* " — these good people, whose seal far exceeds their 


1919] The " Split Infinitive " 75 

knowledge, are foifiting upon ua Bnglish that i« oot merelf 
iael^aot but actaally hideoos. 

When Latin became eet in form it died. In its place 
arose Freocti and Portuguese and Spanish and Italian and 
Provencal. When the purists finally succeed in getting 
English into a set form it too witl die. What will take its 
place? The patois of the street and the slang of the col- 
lege " dorm." When the effort to keep our music " class- 
ical " had made it artificial and evidently " manufactured," 
the inevitable reaction took place and " rag time " came 
into its own. It did not confine itself to the circles of tbe 
uneducated but grasped college men and college women 
likewise. Wanting something real, the; took that. It was 
more genuine than the music made by rule. It had the 
virtue of spontaneity, and they liked it for that reason. 
The " split infinitive " has that same virtue. To avoid it 
is to be artificial. Making language by rule is like putting 
a strait- jacket on a sane person, — it serves do useful 

As a written tongue Latin survived for centuries, though 
it had ceased to be spoken except in monasteries and sim- 
ilar places. A similar fate may overtake English, if it 
becomes sufficiently stilted. Nature will attend to that. 
Tendenciee in these directions are even now manifest; for 
cdloquial English and literary Ehiglish are already dif- 
ferent things, and the breach is widening. Why should 
we help it by eepouslng a fad? 

Every teacher of English seems to have some pet notion 
or some pet aversion. One professor in a well-known in- 
stitution insists npon having a noun after all demonstra- 
tives. What becomes of their pronominal character on 
such a basis ? He likewise has a holy horror of a sentence 
banning with ^And." What would be do with the Eng- 
lish Bible? Another cannot abide "at all." It is doubt- 
less overworked; but it does serve a useful purpose at 
times. Why not let it alone? Professor Lonnsbury ap- 
poreatly disliked a "split infinitive"; but be d^ends it 


76 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

in the eighth chapter of hia " Standard Usage in English." 
Borne of the rest of us dislike the unintentional and wholly 
unexpected results of bis antipathy. 

Beyond a peradventare he was an admirable teacher, 
and his book deserves the indorsement of scholars and 
laymen alike. And yet, aa a popular American philoso- 
pher, under the sobriquet, Josh Billings, reminds us, 
*' Every man's gut sometbin' to him that Bpilee him." We 
need to remember that. Professor Lonnsbury set an on- 
fortunate example. He was innocent enough, and his 
teachings were sound ; but he wrote ou page 39, " he was 
almost invariably wrong whenever it was possible so to 
be," which means torong to be. He undoubtedly copied the 
Anglo-Saxon idiom ; for inverting the order did not elimi* 
nate a monosyllabic ending, and obscuring the character 
of the ending by not allowing "so" to be final, would 
have been mere camouflage. The inverted order evidently 
pleased hia fancy; for we find on page 60, " if so we choose 
to call them," with no r^ard whatever for the idiomatic 
use of " if so " in other connections,' 

Perhaps I ought to say that I am not a teacher of Eng- 
lish and have not been for some decades. I did teach it 
incidentally for aix years before going to the Johns Hop- 
kins University for my postgraduate work. Since then 
my teaching has included Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, witii 
a brief substitution in German; but English has been a 
means, not an end. That may not have been a detriment ; 

■ Two other Items may be mentioned Incidentally. On page 1S9 
a rooBt curlouB slip In the use of "would" and "should" — Bocta 
thlagB are common — occura, the two being Interchaoged, and on 
page 142 a prominent writer Is taken to task for using the expres- 
sion " setting ben." As the ben incuhates the eggs and hatches 
chickens, the tpradtgefUl of the tanner Is sound, the Century Dic- 
tionary to the contrary notwithstanding; for the Intransitive verb 
"Bit" Is quite Inadequate to express what the ben actually does. 
She Is not "sitting" In any true sense of that word: sbe Is hatcJi- 
ing chickent, and " setting " Is employed to indicate that fact. Tha 
expression "sitting ben" la really too pedantic for a red-blooded 
person to tolerate. 


1919] The " Split Infinitive " IT 

for those vbo go to Europe to learn French (or Qerman) 
do not leam it, while those who go there to leam eome- 
thing else always do. They are compelled to. PosBibly 
it may bare been something of that sort which made Pro- 
fessor Gildersleeve snch a master of the English tougne. 
I have never met his equal and do not expect to. He had 
already become one of the world's great scholars in Greek 
and had been recognized as snch when 1 became his sta- 
dent. It puzzled me then that a man of his acumen and 
infallible judgment should never have a good word for a 
purist. I understand it now. 

Language is not a thing to be shaped as a carpenter 
shapes wood with his tools. It is rather a growth, to be- 
pmned where necessary, to be cultivated, and to be allowed 
a fair chance to be a normal product of nature. When a 
useful purpose is served by some innovation — I notice 
that the expression " where he is at " is gaining a foothold 
in colloquial speech, — it should be given a chance. If it 
serves no useful purpose and ultimately involves a posi- 
tive detrimait, as the agitation against " split infinitives " 
has plainly done, it cannot be repudiated with too great 
haste or ^nphasis. 

The fact that German eu always immediately precedes 
its infinitive should have no infiaeuce in English. Their- 
curious inverted way of putting things favors snch an 
arrangement in German. In both languages the force of 
the " to " is more or less obscure, because it was not orig- 
inally a part of the infinitive, having been borrowed from 
the gerund. Both constmctions were employed in Anglo- 
Saxon to express purpose. Thus, we find gritan e6de, " to 
greet went," with an infinitive, but Ht eCde ae aadere t6 
t&weime, "out went the sower to sow" (Mark iv. 3), with 
the gerund.' English now uses " to " or " in order to " in 
snch connections, while German employs vm su. The lat- 

'Tlie limltatlonB of iii[>den) fonts sometlmea prevent dlBtlnctions 
from belns observed, and the tieiere therefore lacks Its caret over 
the diphthong. It should be long. 


78 Bibtiotheca Sacra [Jan. 

ter oloaely parallels our obsolete " for to " (ancieotlf some- 
timea spelled "(orto"); bat the conBtrnction was not 
limited to expressions of purpose in En^ish. 

The natural place for " to " or any other prepoaition is 
immediately before its sabstantive, whether that sabstan- 
tive is a noun or an infinitive; and yet, provided the re- 
strictions of Mandarin English do not constrain as tq 
employ the word "attaid," we are liable at any time to 
say snch thingB as, " did he come to your brother's recent 
birthday party?" In German we find an idiom that is 
even more remarkable ; for the prepositions um, ohne, and 
atatt {anatatt) may be widely separated from the infini- 
tives — the zu is retained — which they govern. Whitney 
furnishes this illustration, anatatt aber die hiedurch er- 
zeugte giinatige Btimmwig xu henuteen, ' instead, however, 
of improving the favorable state of mind thus brought 
abont.' Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the rules 
governing the Qerman and English conetmctiona in this 
example can no more be interchanged than can the order 
of the words, even if Whitney has labded forma such 
as " improving " is in this connection " participial infini- 
tives " or infinitives in -ing. He avoided calling them 
gerunds — that is what they are — lest the term be found 
forbidding and unnecessary. 

The " split infinitive " is comparatively rare for the 
same reason that these other constmctions are compara- 
tively rare; namely, the need does not often occur. Wh^ 
it does occur, there should be no hesitation about using It. 
Clarity is of the first importance. To make an artificial 
rule excluding such infinitives altogether because they 
happen to be rare is like promulgating a law that all or- 
chids shoold be exterminated because there are but tew of 
them. If one procedure runs counter to the dictates of 
common sense, the other ia no better. 

The power and beatity of a language do not dqiend on 
its observance of a set list of rules, precisely as the beauty 
and attractiveness of a musical composition do not depend 


1919] The " Split Infinitwe " 79 

OD a Blavish observance of the laws of conuterpomt. As 
a matter of fact all great composers break thoee laws at 
one time or another, and their power depends in part upon 
their occasional transgressions. A timid sool would not 
dare tranegresB, and his mnaic is artificial and stilted in 
consequence. A similar fate overtakes the timid soul who 
dares not " split " an infinitive, because it has been declared 
that it is not " good form " to do so. If the resulting 0c- 
pedients are not " bad form," it is dHBcnlt to classify them. 

English " to " is really under no more obligation to im- 
mediately precede its infinitive than is Greek dw-~aa 
nntranslatable word indicating contingency — under obli- 
gation to always precede its verbal form. With the Sub- 
junctive it is regularly joined to, or compounded with, 
the introductory relative or particle, with the Optative it 
is more or less mobile, with the Indicative (secondary 
tenses and future) it is likewise mobile; but with the in- 
finitive and participle it usually, not always, precedes or 
follows itB word. Clearness of meaning settles that point. 
Language is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Isoc- 
rates made it an end, and no one pays any attention to 
what he said. They are too busy noticing how he said it. 
Thucydides is read for what he has to say; for he says it 
with telling effect even if he does shock the grammatical 
idealist in almost every line. Purists are apt to be dis- 
ciples of Isocrates. They lack breadth of vision and sound- 
ness of practical judgment. 

Fortunately this matter has been carefully threshed out 
by Fitzedvard Hall in The American Journal of Philology, 
vol. iii. pp. 17-24, " On the Separation, by a Word or Words, 
of To and the Infinitive Mood." Professor Lounsbury in 
bis eighth chapter adds still more material. It is thus 
brought to light that such authors as Henry More, Sir 
Thomas Browne, Samuel Pepys, Bichard Bentley, Detoe, 
Franklin, Edmund Bnrke, Dr. Johnson, Madame D'Arblay, 
Bobert Bums, Souths, Keats, Ooleridge, Lord Byron, 
Charlea Lamb, William Taylor, Wordsworth, Lord Ma- 


80 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

caulay, De Qoincey, Herbert Spencer, Matthew Arnold, 
John Buskin, Charles Beade, and Robert Brovning have 
made nee of the conetrnction from one to many times, and 
the idiom has been traced back as far as Wydif in the 
fourteenth century. The most remarkable cases are very 
old. Some of them have as many as five words between 
the " to " and the infinitive proper. 

Kow, it happens that the Gothic potisessed and used a 
true infinitive, while Anglo-Saxon sometimes sabstituted 
for such an infinitive a gerund with t6. The difTerence 
between the forms came to be overlooked, although the 
gerund was properly a dative, the infinitive being prevail- 
ingly an accusative. At times it borrowed the t6 and be- 
came, in effect, itself a dative; for its construction here, 
as elsewhere, was that of a neuter nonn. It naturally 
showed the inverted order, as that was common in the lan- 
guage. " To do well " might be an infinitive {wel ddn) or 
a gerund {wel id d6nne), the latter being found in Mat- 
thew zii. 12, where the whole phrase becomes the subject 
of a verb and therefore to all intents and purposes a nom- 
inative. With nouns and adjectives, the gerund was the 
proper form to use ; but in English all |Such distinctions 
have disappeared along with the inverted order. Why 
attempt to restore the latter, when to do so is simply to 
lend confusion to forms of expression that would other- 
wise be clear and devoid of any possible " squint." 

It is a question of the greater outweighing the less'. On 
that basis, the anomalous English " tenses " can be justi- 
fied. They are needed. So can the " had rather " of Shake- 
speare and the English Bible — see Psalms Ixxxiv, 10 and 
1 Cor. xiv. 19 (any version) — be justified, along with the 
" had better " that parallels it but la less common. No one 
seems to have assailed " had to go " as yet, but it is slated 
for attack as soon as some purist discovers its limitations. 
It resembles " had better " in a way ; for each implies an 
owing (ought), and the "had" Is therefore peculiar and 
not to be confounded with an ordinary auxiliary verb. 


1910] The " Split Infinitive " 81 

Each ie as different from an ordinary " liad " as the second 
" do " is different Irom the first in " how do joti do? " 

Any pectiliarity of usage is an idiom, vhich amounts to 
saying that it is a construction that is more or less idiotic 
— the two words go back to the same Greek basic .form, 
which in turn reverts to the idea of individual idiosyncrasy 
or individual possession, i.e., it applies to something that 
is " private " or " personal " in character, — and if the 
construction is a trifle more idiotic in some instances, 
utility may serve aa a Intimate excuse for its retention. 
On this basis, " have lost " becomes secure, 

Scholars who know the weaknesses of English best, have 
most patience with those of -ite idioms that are anathema 
to the purists. They cannot see that the pot has any par- 
ticular advantage over the kettle in the matter of black- 
ness. If " had better " is idiotic, then " would better " is 
more idiotic, and we had better let well-enough alone. 
Even the double negative has some justidcatio? ; for it is 
the proper construction in Greek, and such forms are there- 
fore germane to the Aryan family of languages. They have 
not been stamped out of colloquial English and probably 
never can be. We try to get rid of them on the basis of 
logic; but l<^c and grammar have never been on good 
terms. When a man buys a yoke of oxen, he buys, logi- 
cally, the oxen. Grammatically, he buys the yoke. It may- 
be well not to mix things that differ. 

" Had as lief " may occur to some. It means tcould hoW 
it aa good to; for the " had " is of the same sort as the oth- 
ers. " Had to go " may mean held it best to go; but its. 
genesis is not so clear as might be desirable. The genesis 
of some other things is clear enough; for the restoration 
of the inverted order is eliminating a legitimate arrange- 
ment with the adverb after the infinitive. The Review of 
Reviews for April, 1918 (p. 374, end), illustrates the point 
with, " this leaves the French with more than two-thirds 
of the line still to look out for." Does Mr. Simonds mean 
" leaves still " or " look out for still " ? The supposition 
Tol. LXXVI. Mo. 301. 6 


82 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

18 that he means the latter. Why not say it and avoid the 

One other point might be made; for if it is sensible to 
insist that no adverb shall be allowed to come between a 
"to" and its infinitive — it always belongs to the infini- 
tive and never to the " to," as even the dalleat must appre- 
hend, — then it is also sensible to insist that no adverb 
shall be allowed to come between a subject and its verb, 
since the two are inseparably connected in thought and 
ought not to have such an element between them. On soch 
a basis, forms like those cited above, in which the so-called 
tenses are kept intact, at once become inadmissible, and 
the restriction is certainly more desirable than the present 
avoidance of " splitting tenses " ever can be, with its 
"sqnintinf^ constructions" and other abominations. As 
a matter of fact, either restriction merely registers a bit 
of stupidity, and it should therefore be avoided. As a role, 
it is well to keep adverbs in the latter part of the sentence 
and not allow them to come between the verb and its sub- 
ject; but there are times and places in which linguistic 
exigencies completely nullify any such limitation. Com- 
mon sense should make that evident. Unfortunately, our 
educators have not yet perfected a method for developing 
that most desirable faculty. 

The logic of the situation is this. The " split infinitive " 
has been in good and regular standing in English for at 
least five hundred years and probably much longer than 
that, its most remarkable examples being very old. It is 
therefore a perfectly sound and legitimate construction 
whenever and wherever clarity is to be gained by its use. 
The opposition to it is based on ignorance of the origin of 
the idiom and a false notion that " to " is an integral part 
of the infinitive, which is clearly absurd ; for it is the re- 
sult of a corruption, and the language contains countless 
other infinitives without any " to," in its " tenses," and 
likewise many forms in which the " to " retains its full 
force as a preposition. Such forms are properly gemnda; 


1019] The "Split Jnfinitipe" 83 

but Ehiglish grammar does not recognize the fact, and the 
purists do not know it. This much may be regarded as set- 
tled b; the historical data in our possession. 

For the rest, let this snfBce. I^ajiguage is a tool, or iu- 
stroment, for the transmission of thought. It is not an 
end in itself, and men were not made to be its servants. 
Exactness and clarity in the expression of an idea is the 
supreme consideration, and where th^ can be obtained 
best by " splitting " the infinitive it shoold be " split " re- 
gardless of the protests of purists. Like the impecunious, 
they are always with us and sometimes become a bar- 
den to the community. Furthermore, compound " tenses " 
should be " split," in the same fashion, as often as may be 
desirable; and the adverb should be placed with the verb 
to which it really belongs, not thrust in before an auxil- 
iary, to which it does not and cannot belong, under the 
mistaken notion ttiat the said auxiliary is an inseparable 
part of a verbal tense. If a person is ignorant of the his- 
tory and genius of our mother tongue, it may be just as 
well not to advertise the fact with undue prominence. 




During the last four years it has been impoBsible to 
avoid noticing many surprising ntterances, and many Btill 
more anrpriBing deeds, which have emanated from German 
sonrces. Quite apart from what may be perhaps regarded 
as political and patriotic prejudices, these words and 
actions inevitably demand an explanation. We have been 
accustomed to thinlc of Germany as thorougtily educated 
and civilized, possessing a respect for the ordinary moral 
code of humanity, but in the face of many patrait viola- 
tions of civilized ethics an inquiry into the cause of this 
aberration is at once natnral and esseotial. In this article, 
care will be taken to limit attention to utterances and 
acts of the truth of which there is no serious question. 
They are all based on authority which ia sufficient, even 
if not absolutely undoubted. The words and deeds of 
military authorities will come first, and then it will be 
necessary to proceed to the consideration of expressions 
of opinion by German preachers and teachers. The war 
has compelled the world to face a moral abnormality 
which imperatively needs explanation.^ 

The general mOitary policy of Germany calls for atten- 
tion first of all. This may be summed up by saying it has 
included the outrage and murder of women and children, 
not as the excesses of an army which has become undis- 
ciplined, but as part of a definite scheme laid down by the 
higher command of that army. Then, too, there has been 
' This Inquli? lias a practical bearing on certain aspects of 
teaching which are prevalent to-da)'. The dlscusBion Is therefore 
unaffected by the recent events which have brought about so wel- 
come a cessation of hostilities. The problem la still of pressing 
and. Indeed, of permanent Interest and Importance. 


Oerman Moral Abnormality 85 

the destruction of merchant sbipping without discrimina- 
tion; the creation of a nev law of the sea in which there 
is no indication or even profession of equity and justice; 
the slavery of unoffending civilians in occupied territory; 
the poisoning of wells ; the devaBtation of evacuated terri- 
tory without military justification; the torpedoing of 
hospital ships, notwithstanding moral pledges to regard 
them as inviolate; the destruction of monuments of great 
value; and the holding of treaties and promises in su- 
preme contempt. These and other things have been part 
of the Prussian military policy during this war. An Officer 
who has had personal experience has su^ested that a 
complete exhibition of the German war-outfit should oc- 
cupy one of the anterooms of the hall in which the peace 
negotiations are held. This is how be describes what be 
has seen and known : — 

" It would begin with the oil-sprayers and incendiary 
tabloids which proved so useful in the organized burning 
out of the Belgian towns, and end with the flammenwerfer, 
which is designed to spray burning oil into the eyes, and 
the 'lachrymatory Hhells ' which are mostly used on the 
Tillages in the rear of the fighting line, and therefore find 
most of their victims among the civil population. The 
flammenwerfer is designed to spray the face of the soldier 
with burning oil. But its intention is far more devilish 
than its performance. Protection against it is a very sim- 
ple matter; for the spray of the burning oil cannot be got 
to describe a curve downwards as a jet of water does ; the 
spray curves upward, and, if you ' lay low ' like Brer Rab- 
bit, it passes harmlessly overhead. The poison gas clouds 
are dischan^ from cylindera when the wind is favorable, 
with the idea of polsooing the combatants on the other 
side. The Oerman used at first chlorine; then a variety of 
gases, such as Phosgene. He is very cunning in mixing 
bin eases. With poison gan he will send out a stink gas 
which is harmless though unpleasant. It goes through the 
helmet, and brings Germany right home to the nostrils, 
and, if you have not been fore-warned, makes you think 
that your gas helmet ia leaking. Take it off, though, and 
you are the next on the casualty list, for the poison gas 


86 BibUotheoa Sacra [Jan. 

geta to the lungs. Stiak gaa the soldier must learn to put 
np with." 

Another Ulostration of the same general attitude ma; 
be seen from the article published in the Berlin Tageszei- 
tung in reference to the confiscation of German ships in 
Allied ports. The writer said : — 

" If we are in a position to destroy the whole of London 
it would be moro humane to do so than to allow one mora 
German to bleed to death on the battlefield. To hesitate 
or to surrender ourselves to feelings of pity would be on- 
pardonable. More than 400 merchant ships hare been 
stolen from us by Great Britain. Onr answer should be 
that for every German ship at least one English town 
should be reduced to mins by our airmen. Far better 
were it for ns.that Great Britain, France and the United 
States should call ns barbarians tiian that they should be- 
stow on ns their pity when we aro beaten. Softness and 
sentimentality are stupid in wartime." 

Acts of cruelty which have been abundantly evident all 
through the four years of war constitute another moral 
problem. Lord Bryce's reports on Belgium and Armenia 
bear their own sad and impresBive testimony, and the de- 
plorable treatment meted out to prisoners, especially Brit- 
ish and Bnssian, is beyond doubt or even question. But it 
will be better tor our present purpose to limit attention to 
specific acts. Harry Lauder, the well-known singer, who 
has lost a son in the war, says that he heard and saw many 
examples of German brutality, bnt he calls special atten- 
tion to two. The first one .refers to sixty Highlanders of 
the Black Watch Regiment. They were captured by the 
Gtermans one night, and neither expected mercy nor wanted 
it, thon^ to their great surprise, instead of being killed, 
they were ordered by the Germans to take off every bit of 
clothing from their bodies. Then the men were left all 
night shivering, naked, and up to their waist in the mud 
of the trenches. Towards morning an Officer approached 
the Highlanders and told them they might go back to their 


1919] Qerman Moral Abnormality 87 

tr^iches. Tbe men could not believe the words they beard j 
but, overjoyed at their unexpected freedom, they started 
forth across No Mrd's Land, remarking to one another that 
after all they must have misjadged the Germans. But un- 
fortunately they had not. For when the Highlanders had 
gone about fifty yards they heard the Germans laughing 
and jeering, and the next moment a machine gun was 
turned on them, mowing them down instantly, to the great 
enjoyment of the German soldiers in the trenches. Only 
one man was not killed outright, and when he was brought 
in by an anbulance he told the Officers what bad happoied. 

The other incident mentioned by Lauder is of a British 
soldier who noticed a fountain pen lying in a trench which 
he and the others had taken. Thinking that the pen would 
be handy for the purpose of writing home to his wife, he 
picked it up, and the next tiling he knew was that he was 
in a hospital with half of his face off. The Germans had 
put dynamite in the pen before leaving the trench, and 
Lauder found the poor fellow in such a state, with one eye 
and half bis face blown away, that it was sickening to 
gaze at him. 

Bir Arthur Yapp told an audience in Toronto, some 
weeks ago, of similar instances of Gterman cruelty. When 
the British soldiers had taken Peronne a piano was found 
in one of the houses, and a soldier who could play went 
forward to enjoy a tune. An Officer close by warned bim 
to look into the piano before he attempted to play, and on 
doing so a bomb was found inside, arranged to explode 
when the piano was played. On another occasion, when 
the Germans had evacuated a town and the British en- 
tered it, a live kitten was found on a door, nailed to the 
woodwork by its forepaws, and crying piteously in its pain. 
It was only a matter of a moment for a British soldier 
to rush to its release, but in pulling the nails out of the 
kitten's paws an engine of destruction behind the door was 
loosed, and man and kitten were at once blown across the 
road in atoms. It is difficult, if not impossible, to under- 


88 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

stand the state of mind that wonld at once cause pain to 
a dumb animal, and make this in turn the meaus of human 

Lieutenant Coningsby Dawson, who has just returned 
home to recover from a wound, told a oorreapondent of the 
New York Times two instances from his own experience. 
This is one of them; — 

" During a drive of one of the CanadiaD divisions to 
which I was attached, a young officer in command of a 
tank was very keen to go ahead. When the enemy coun- 
terattacked, he was left high and dry. Afterward, when 
our division again drove the Huns back, we found that he 
and the crew of the tank had been taken out, stripped, 
lashed to the tank and then bombed to death." 

Here is the other : — 

" Rome Australians who were in the same show with us 
at the end of August saw a dead Gterman officer on a 
stretcher which had been left behind. When some of the 
soldiers went to lift the stretcher with the intention of 
giving him a decent burial, it exploded a small mine under- 
neath and all of them were killed. It was a booby-trap set 
by the Huns, knowing full well that the Allies were too 
decent to pass the body of an enemy by." 

It is not surprising that Lieutenant Dawson remarks 
that the Oermans " trade on the decent feelings of Allies 
in every way in order to take a mean advantage of them." 
But again, there is the problem of the cause of this fiend- 
ish barbarity in a people presumably civilized. 

Actions arising out of the war call for attention. Mr. 
Kellogg, who was the chief assistant of Mr. Hoover in Bel- 
gium, told an incident in The Atlantic Monthly which has 
a definite bearing on onr problem. In October, 1917, 680 
Belgian children, their ages from four to twelve, were at 
Evian les Bains on one train, and the poor little creatures 
were emaciated, sickly, and absolutely alone, without the 
loving care of mothers and elder sisters. They had been 


1919] Oerman Moral Abnormality 89 

sent oat of Belgium, and had actually been taken down to 
Bwitzerland so that they might enter France, through 
Switzerland, to be cared for. Two thirds of the chUdren 
belonged to parents whose fathers would not work for the 
Oerman army and were being starved into submiaaion, and 
the mothers were willing to let their little ones go rather 
than see them also starred. As Mr. Kello^ remarks, we 
have only to think of that line of weak, little motherless 
things, climbing down from the train and marcbing along 
the platform as bravely as they conld, into the hands of 
kindly but unknown foster-mothers and foster-sisters. 
Nothing conld be sadder or more poignant than this epi- 
sode. It might have been thought that humanity alone 
would have prevented the Germans from venting on these 
poor innocent children such unnecessary cruelty. 

In a recent number of The Outlook Dr. Joseph H. Odell 
wrote of his visit to Chateau Thierry, where the Americans 
won their first victory. Dr. Odell's words speak for them- 
selves : — 

"Why do Americans persist in differentiating between 
the German military caste and the German people? They 
were ordinary Boche regiments which held Ch&tean Thierry, 
and when their evacuation of the place became obviously 
necessary they set afoont to destroy and pollute everything 
within reach. Remember, this is not hearsay; I went into 
Chftteau Thierry on the heels of the American advance and 
saw things with my own eyes. Every vandalistic, Hun- 
nish, fiendish, filthy thing l^at men conld do these Huns 
did in Ch&teau Thierry just before they left. The streets 
were littered with the private possessions of the citizens 
thrown through the windows; every bureau and chiffonier 
drawer was rifled and its contents destroyed ; in the better- 
class houses the paintings were ripped and the china and 
porcelain smashed; furniture was broken or hacked; mir- 
rors were shivered into a thousand fragments; mattresses 
and npholstery were slashed ; richly bound books were 
ripped; in fact, there was hardly a thing in the city left 
intact. The houses of the poor, in which the German pri- 
vates had been billeted, were just as badly pillaged and 
devastated as the homes of the well-to-do. The church, 


90 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

grand enough for a cathedral, had not been spared. Its 
paintings and altars and crucifixes and stations of the 
cross had been ruthlessly battered and defiled. Yet even 
this does not tell the story — a story wbicb cannot be told 
to people who respect decency — for the Germans left 
tokenn of physical and mental obscenity in every house I 
visited, and I entered scorea. If all hell had been let loose in 
a choice suburban town for half a day it could not have 
put itB obscene and diabolical mark on a place more un- 
mistakably than the Germans put theirs on Cbfttean 
Thierry. I stood amazed that there could be so much un- 
relieved vileness, such organized beastliness, in the world." 

Mr. Walter Dnranty, one of the correspondents of the 
New York Times, telegraphing to that paper on September 
12, speaks of his experience of the evacuation of the city of 
Ham, and says that for pure wantonness of destruction it 
offers an example that even the Qermans will find it hard 
to beat. The place was swept with fire, though the town 
was practically uninjured by shell fire of friend and foe. 
The German incendiarism was carried out with deliberate 
thoroughness, notwithstanding the fact that the position 
of the place, on what was virtually an island, made it un- 
available for military purposes when once the bridges were 
destroyed. Here, again, the action, which is no mere im- 
pulse of a few undisciplined individuals but part of a 
carefully arranged plan, caUs for a thorough explanation 
on moral grounds. 

It is impossible to do more than give brief notice to the 
various political efforts put forth by Germany in connec- 
tion with the war. One of the worst acts is the tampering 
with the honor and loyalty of prisoners of war, of which 
there is ample documentary evidence, A Swiss paper pub- 
lishes a I>ook of documents, obtained direct from Berlin, 
under the title of " Documents of Disgrace. The German 
Qovemment Incites Men to Turn Traitors." It is impos- 
sible to go into detail In regard to these efforts, which in- 
clude the endeavor to seduce Irish, North-African Arab, 


1919] Oerman Moral Abnormality 91 

Indian, and Ukranian prisoners. In reference to Arabs 
one military atitliority eaya tliat tliere mast be " no thought 
of treating them kindly or mildly ... if kindness be shown 
to sach people without a canse they scent weakness and 
are never satisfied." A secret order shows that some of 
the Officers in propaganda camps dared to feel that their 
work was " incompatible with the sense of duty and honor 
of a German soldier," but their Commander made short 
work of such scruples and, as the Swiss paper remarks: 
" that I'ruBsian Officers should consider the daties assigned 
to them by the War Office and Foreign Office incompatible 
with their honor is a criticism of the political morality of 
these functionaries in the empire which speaks volumes." 

A pamphlet has been issued dealing with German in- 
trigues in Persia, giving the diary of a Oerman agent 
who went through Persia to Afghanistan during the early 
months of the war. Wherever a strong state could be ham- 
pered, or a weak state conld be exploited, there German 
agents made their way and spread intrigues. The diary 
is published in extenso and records eleven months of das- 
tardly work. It is a satisfaction to know that the expedi- 
tion was an utter failure, but the diary is full of significant 
interest as a revelation of German methods and of Ger- 
man temper. 

Perhaps, however, the most remarkable illustration of 
German political effort was given by Dr. Zwemer in his 
addresses at various places last summer on Pau-Islaraiam 
and the War. He based what he said on documents which 
are absolutely convincing, and told the story of " a Protest- 
ant nation trampling on her own conceptions of world 
righteousness and turning the Near East into a shambles, 
or trying to turn it iuto a shambles, by proclaiming a Holy 
War." The whole of it can be read in Ambassador Mor- 
genthan's articles in The World's Work, soon to appear 
in book form. It was a Pan-Islamic movement against 
Christian brethren and, as Dr. Zwemer says, it was " char- 
acterized by a deep knowledge of the undercurrents of rest- 


*d2 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

lessuess and diBsatisfaction, political, social, intellectaal, 
religious, all over the world." After preparing the ground 
for the sowing of this awful seed of intrigue, the work be- 
gan by press propaganda which took every imaginable 
form. Huge sums of money were spent and the work was 
carried on in many different languages. " The centres for 
mailing this inflammable literature were chosen with con- 
summate cunning. The three centres from which it was 
sent to avoid the press censorship and to enter without the 
knowledge of the postal officials, were Barcelona, Spain, 
San Francisco, California, and Bangkok, Biam. When the 
time was ripe and Turkey was restless, a Holy War was 
. proclaimed by the leaders of the Mohammedan faith." 
This is how Dr. Zwemer sums up the project : — 

" Can you conceive of any plan, to put it in sober tan- 
kage, can you conceive of any plan that was more devil- 
ish in its conception and proposed execution than to set 
«n flame the passions of men from Morocco to Calcntta by 
such a document? Can you think what would have hap- 
pened to the million Copts of Egypt had the ten million 
Mohammedans obeyed that proclamation? Can yon im- 
agine what would have happened to the little handfuls of 
Christiana in Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, in ^Northern Persia, 
in Sonthem Persia — aye — what would have happened 
again in India compared with the days of the Mutiny, if this 
programme had unrolle*! from the borders of Afghanis- 
tan, down the valleys of the Punjab into Bengal; and India 
with sixty-seven million Mohammedans, would have had 
a Holy War on her hands, in these days of universal unrest, 
in these days when men's hearts long for democracy and 
thirst with a passion for nationalism? And yet that was 
Germany's deliberate programme." 


A more personal question, and yet one that is equally 
a revelation of morality, concerns the matter of grati- 
tude, and on this some words of Dr. Newell Dwight Hillis 
in the New York Evening Bun, of May 18, 1918, may be 
adduced. He gives notes of a conversation with an Amer- 
ican ambulance driver, who was on duty at Verdun dnring 



Oerman Moral Abnormality 

most of that great battle. Among other thingB this man 
saya that on one momiiig as he was driving along the road 
he foxind himBelf side by aide with two Frenchmen, carry- 
ing a German OflBcer lying wounded upon the stretcher^ 
Suddenly a shot rang out, and the Frenchman at the head 
of the stretcher pitched forward and when the cot fell tbe- 
German OflScer rolled out of it. He had a revolver in his 
right hand, and whUe lying on the stretcher he shot in the 
back the French friend who was carrying him to a place 
of safety. It is impossible to avoid feeling sympathy, if 
not gratification, with the sequel. A French OflScer who. 
saw the whole event put bis revolver against the forehead 
of the Oerman Officer who had just murdered his friend,, 
and blew the German's brains out. 

In the same article by Dr. Hillis, another incident is- 
told by the ambulance driver. One day a Oerman Captain 
was found lying in No Man's I«nd. A cartridge had cut 
an artery in bis arm, and with one hand he was trying to- 
stop the bleeding. At the risk of their lives the French 
stretcher bearers went in and carried the man back to- 
their dressing station. In ten days he was nearly well. 
Among other kindnesses the Frenchmen shared their lunch- 
eon with him, and indeed they may be said to literally 
have saved his life. One day a French General and his 
Staff drew up just behind the ambulance car. Evidently 
the Oerman airmen had been following the General's car^ 
for they dropped a bomb shell that killed three of the men 
on the General's Staff. Pieces of their clothing were blown 
literally against this German Captain's arm. The ambu- 
lance driver asks how would a gentleman have felt, and 
remarks that the way the German Captain felt towards 
his own deliverance was seen in the fact that he flung 
np his hand and shouted his delight, " Good, good, good."^ 
It is probably an exaggeration, but it is easy to under- 
stand the American ambulance driver's opinion that he 
"never once met a German Officer who was a gentleman. 
. . . They are bom cads, they live cads, and cads they will: 


04 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

die . . . anj kindness shown them they interpret as weak- 

As another Ulastratlon of the same lack of genuine mo- 
ralitj, the case may be mentioned of a (German Lieutenant, 
who commanded the ship which landed Sir Roger Case- 
ment in Ireland, and was captured. The Lieutenant gave 
up twenty dollars, when taken prisoner, saying it was all 
he had. When his captor asked " On your honor," the man 
replied, " No, no more." A search revealed twenty-one 
English bank notes, amounting to over five hundred dol- 
lars, concealed in bis clothing. The Attomey-Oeneral 
asked him, " Do you think, under the circumstancea, you 
were entitled to give an nntrnthfol answer?" The Lien- 
tenant replied, " There may be different points of view — ■ 
the point of view of an English Officer, and the point of 
view of a German Officer." The difference in the English 
treatment of even anprinripled enemies is indicated by the 
decision in this case. The Prize Coort adjudged the Lien- 
tenant's concealed money forfeited to the Crown, but it 
granted him out of it a full month's pay (fl30), and re- 
turned in full to two other Officers of the ship the money 
which they had surrendered, because they trathfnUy stated 
the amount ther i 

It is now time to turn to the religious leaders of Ger- 
many, and the first example is that of Dr. von Diyander, 
the well-known Court Preacher, and the Kaiser's confiden- 
tial spiritual adviser. In a recent sermon in the Berlin 
Cathedral he said : — 

"As I look back into history and regard the attitude of 
nations passing through the fires of affliction I see no ex- 
amples of fortitude, lofty and enduring courage, and firm 
reliance on the Divine Will fit to be compared with ours. 
When I think of it — and when am I not tiiinking of it? — 
I am profoundly touched, and the tears fill my eyes, tears 
of gratitude to the Almighty that He has created me a 
German and called me into the fellowship of a nation sn- 


1919] €ferman Moral Abnormality 95 

preme above all others in evety quality and endowm^it of 
the Christian life. Although we are snrronnded by a world 
of eoemieR, tUthoueh we are the objects of the most cmel 
calnninies, although our noblest qualities are revUed and 
our simplest words distorted, we bear oar burden with the 
fortitude of Christian knights, and in our inmost hearts 
the nation says, Father, forgive them, for they know not 
what they do." 

In Tiew of the preacher's knowledge of the character of 
the British, French, and American people, it is almost in- 
credible that he should suppose bis fellow countrymen are 
snpreme in every element of Christian character. 

Another well-known preacher in Berlin, also one of the 
Kaiser's chaplains, is Dr. Conrad, and among other utter- 
ances is the following: — 

" When, under the hammer blows of Hindenburg, the 
audacious spirit of our enemies has been smashed, when 
their eyes have been opened to see the wrong they are do- 
ing to God and man, when they come to us beseeching for- 
giveness and pardon, we shall not refuse forgiveness, just 
as we ourselves are thrown on God for His grace. The 
peace must make an end to all war and all rage. We 
would plough a new furrow." 

At a recent gathering of representatives of all the Ger- 
man missionary societies, several speakers denounced the 
iniquitous policy which, it was alleged, England was pur- 
suing towards Foreign Missions. Speaker after speaker 
told of the brutal conduct of the British Government, who, 
it was actually said, employed Missionaries in India and 
Africa to do recruiting work, to stir up the natives of 
these countries to enlist against Germany. At a Confer- 
ence held at Upsala, German speakers repeatedly con- 
demned the conduct of England towards German and 
Swiss missionaries, and one German speaker concluded 
with these words : — 

" We know all about British zeal for foreign missions. 
Our people have had their eyes opened. A nation of huck- 
sters opposes a nation of heroes, and what can you expect 


W BibHotheca Sacra [Jan. 

bat brutality, vulgarity and cruelty? Where is religion in 
all that British Empire? I ask where? I get no answer." 
Pastor Falck, of Berlin, preaching on " The Power of 
GhriBtianity," gave expression to this opinion : — 

" The great military achievements of the German empire 
are really the achievements of the Christianity indwelling 
in the German nation. The intellectual sense of the Ger- 
mans, hitherto sun-dried and averse from the world, has 
built the slender airship with which the old dream of man- 
kind has been fnlfilled. The Gterman has created the won- 
derfnl submarine which bids defiance to the foe, and day 
by dftT crumbles oS one piece after another of England's 
sea-power. He places his fabulous guns in position and 
sends his gigantic shells into the ethereal regions of the 
air, bringing destruction in their train from a distance of 
more tban sixty miles. The German spirit of action brings 
order in regions where the misdirected desire for a so-called 
liberty has beaten into ruins every vestige of law. And 
it is this German spirit of action which is destined to 
bring blessing to other nations, not last those nations who 
are now at war with us." 

In the light of the history of the past four years it is diffi- 
cult to understand the state of mind that could utter these 
words, unless, of course, the German action in Belgium, 
Poland, Serbia, and Armenia has been entirely hidden 
from the preacher. 

Lest it should be thought that these are exceptional 
ntterances, and do not represent the average, ordinary 
German preaching, reference may be made to a book with 
the curious titie, " Hurrah and Hallelujah," which consists 
of an elaborate examination by a Danish theologian. Pro- 
fessor Bang, of a large number of ordinary pulpit utter- 
ances during the war, abont which there is no question. 
The titie of the book is borrowed from one of the Pastor- 
poets of the Fatherland. One writer maintains that the 
Germans are fighting " for the cause of Jesus within man- 
kind," and that Christianity is revealed in the subma- 
rines: — 

" When our submarine, in spite of an almost overwhelm- 


1919] Qerman Mord Abnormality 97 

ing superiority of force, in the coarse of sixty minutes 
sends three Enitlish crnisers to the bottom, without suf- 
fering any hurt itself, this heroic deed, unparalleled in 
naval history, is for Christian people a testimony from the 
Lord on high, ' I am with you ! Do ye see it ?' " 

Another Clergyman opens a prayer with this invocation : 
" Thou who dwellest high above cherubim, seraphim, and 
Zeppelins." And a Qerman religions paper thus explains 
(with curious logic) the duty of bombing London, which, 
of course, was only put in a state of self-defense by the 
coming of the Zeppelins: — 

" liOndon is no longer by any means an unfortified city. 
It is armed with such quantities of anti-aircraft guns and 
aeroplanes, that the Zeppelins, as is well known, only ren- 
ture to attack the city hy night. . . . Tx)ndon is the heart 
and the hearth of this terrible world-war, there sit the min- 
isters who have precipitated Enrope into misery, there is 
the witch's cauldron, in which fresh misery is ever brew- 
ing for the peoples of Europe, already bleeding from a 
thousand wounds. To attack I^udon is to attack the den 
of murderers." 

Perhaps, however, the strangest utterance is the " war- 
time paraphrase " of the Lord's Prayer by a Clergyman : — 

" Though the warrior's bread be scanty, do Thou work 
daily death anri tenfold woe nnto the enemy. Forgive in 
merciful long-suffering each bullet and each blow which 
misses its mark! Lead us not into the temptation of let- 
ting our wrath be too tame in carrying out Thy divine 
judgment! Deliver us and our Ally from the infernal 
Enemy and his servants on earth. Thine is the kingdom, 
the German land ; may we, by aid of Thy steel-clad hand^ 
achieve the power and the glory." 

From preachers we turn to professors, and among those- 
best known in England is Professor Herrmann, of Mar- 
burg, whose book, " Communion with God," is one of the 
most famUiar and spiritual of German works translated 
into English, even though it does not measure up to the 
New Testament idea of our Lord. Herrmann set himself 
to justify Germany, from a religions point of view, in 
allying herself with the Turks. This was pretty awkward 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 301. 7 


98 BibUotheca Sacra [Jan. 

because Gtermany has been in the babit of deDouncing the 
Allies for bringing heathen into the field ot battle : — 

" It is true that the Mohammedans do not know the Old 
or the New Testament, and Mohammed did not understand 
Jesus. Yet they are in some respects superior to us. It is 
a stupendous feat that this religion should in so short a 
time hare spread from India to Granada. Another point 
is that the Turks have been unified by their religion ; the 
Germans have not. The main thing, however, is this, that 
the faith of the Turks assures them that God ordains ever}'- 
thing, and is the realitj' in everything. The word Islam 
means exactly the same as the Biblical word faith, that is, 
complete self-surrender. As Goethe said, when this be- 
came clear to him : ' Then we are all of us, in reality, be- 
lievers in Islam ! ' But Mohammed also maintains that we 
are free and responsible for what we do, wherefore God 
will judge us all; and in this, too, we agree with him. On 
no account must one suppose that the Mohammedan belief 
in God is only a belief in an inflexible fate. No, it is also 
a belief in God's wisdom and goodness. There is certainly 
this difference, that only by looking to Jesus can we Chris- 
tians find courage to hold such a faith. Nevertheless, we 
must maintain that we stand near to the Turks in our faith 
— only they have not recognized the right foundation of 
the faith they bold. But we Germans can help them to 

One of the German Professors most truly honored be- 
fore the war was Dr. Deissmann, of Berlin, whose work in 
connection with the papyri is well known and greatly val- 
ued, as is seen in several of his books. For some time 
daring the war. Professor Deissmann wrote a " Weekly 
Protestant Letter" to neutral countries, and through the 
kindness of an American friend, I have obtained an almost 
complete set of these communications. The n^ve way in 
which Dr. Deissmann records everything against the Brit- 
ish soldiers and in favor of the Germans without any 
question, still lees examination, is rwnarkable in view of 
the Professor's well-known Christian attitude before the 
war. But it would seem as if his national prejudices had 
almost entirely blinded hia Christian judgment, for even 


1919] German Moral Abnormality 99 

wheD he leamt of the dastardly torpedoing of the vessel 
in which his personal and close friend, Dr. J. H. Monlton, 
was traveling from India, Deissmann did not express the 
slightest regret for the cause which led to Moulton's un- 
timely death. About two years ago Deissmann alluded to 
the war in the following words: — 

" Germany's sons, both at the front and at home^ are 
doing deeds which entitle them to canonization. They are 
the same stoclt as that which has produced the noblest 
saints of all time! Our great reformers of the sixteenth 
century, our wonderful hymn-writers, our gentle priests, 
our profound divines have not a higher title to our re- 
ligions veneration than those magnificent sods of ours 
who, with unparalleled valour, are defending the Father- 
land against the base and greedy attacks of rapacious 
and dishonorable adversaria. We are profoundly grate- 
ful to these men of God in our trenches, men of God be- 
cause they are doing God's work, and I have no hesita- 
tion in proclaiming here openly that when I think of their 
work, of their sublime self-sacrifice, I am engaged in re- 
ligious contemplation. These men of ours, these great 
German men, are the best examples of modern Saints of 

Even before these words were uttered there had been 
ample evidence of action in Belgium that might have been 
expected to prevent anyone raising the German soldiers in 
the trenches to the position of Saints. 

As a contrast to these academic utterances from Berlin, 
it may l>e useful to turn to a village in Swabia, in south- 
em Germany, where the people are shepherded by a Ro- 
man Catholic, named Lilienthal. This is how the village 
preacher teaches the Swabian peasants. After showing 
that to stand in the trenches and shoot the enemies of 
Germany is iu itself a religious action, and that death 
met while a German soldier is so engaged, entitles the 
soul of the departed into immediate entrance into Para- 
dise, the sermon proceeds thus; — 

" But you may ask me what about the enemy's soldiers 
in the trenches? Are they not also doing the work of God 
in defending their country? Is tlieir death under similar 


100 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

circumstances not to be rewarded? Beloved, to allow such 
thoughts even to enter your minds is to be guilty of sin. 
Bear in mind in the first place that the enemy soldiers are 
not defending their country, but attacking ours. They are 
the aggressorsj they are transgressors of the law of God. 
Their death is only the precursor of condign punishment 
in the next world. None of them can escape the wrath of 
God. How many of you have heard those perfectly well 
authenticated stories of visions seen by our brave Swa- 
bians? Do you remember the vision of Sebastian Bauer, 
of Dillingen? He saw hosts in shining raiment hovering 
over our armies on the Somme, angels with solemn and 
beautiful faces waiting to bear the souls of the German 
dead into the loved presence of their Maker. And away 
beyond, on the other side, hovering over the British, were 
the dark and sinister forms of demons bearing in their 
wake the smoke and fire of hetl, waiting for the souls of 
the base English who had forgotten God in their rapacity 
and lust for power. Beloved, in this war there are not two 
sides to any question. We are on God's side and God ia 
on ours. Our Kaiser, our King, our armies, are all instru- 
ments of the Divine vengeance on a world corrupted by 
sin. We Germans are the chosen flail with which the chaff 
is to be divided from tbe wheat, the husbandman who is 
to gather up the tares for eternal punishment, the shep- 
herd who is to separate the sheep from the goats." 

Very much more could be adduced from preachers and 
professors in support of the contentions now made, but 
these will suffice to emphasize the theme of this article, 
the explanation of all these marvelous aberrations from 
simple Christian ethics. 

It is thought by many that this is due to the insistence 
on which the power of the State is emphasized throughout 
Germany. One professor says in plainest language that 
between States there is only one force of right, the right 
of the strongest, and that it is impossible for a State to 
commit a crime. !Not all the treaties in tbe world, he 
wrote, can alter the fact that the weak is always the prey 
of the stronger, and as soon as States are considered as 
intelligent entities diSQculties between them are only capa- 
ble of solution by force. If these are the doctrines on 


1919] German Moral Abnormality 101 

which Qerman; has been fed it la not aarpriaing that 
the leaders ahonld regard treaties as " scraps of paper." 
But it ia atUl necessary to get behind thia doctrine of the 
8tate and try to discover why sach teaching is regarded 
as right and jaatifiable. 

On the question of indlTidnal action as distinct from 
academic theory, the American ambulance driver, referred 
to above, says that after months of observatioD be has 
come to the conclusion that " between the degenerate Oer- 
man and the civilized man of England, France and Amer- 
ica, there is a gulf of thonsands of years." He also remarks 
that aa there is a musical sense, and a color sense, there is 
also the instinct of the gentleman, who is kind and would 
rather die than do anything dishonorable; but the aver- 
age German Officer and soldier, he maintains, are illus- 
trations of an over-developed intellect with the rest of the 
sool shriveled. One of the Germans themselves, writing 
from Switzerland, during this war, baa frankly aaid that 
his countrymen are still " barbarians." On any showing, 
these exhibitions of savagery in word and deed demand a 
thorough explanation, especially aa coming from a country 
like Germany which the modem world has regarded as in 
the van of culture and progress. 

In the face of all these {let us put it mildly) aberra- 
tions from ordinary ethical standards, not mnch need be 
added by way of application, bnt this at least must be 
said. Germany is the nation which, before the war, was 
r^arded as the source of the latest, truest, and best Bib- 
lical scholarship. Yet if " By their fruits ye shall know 
them " expresses a true principle, then those who refused 
to bow down to Gterman scholarship have been abundantly 
vindicated by the events of the past four years. The one 
thing that is needed beyond all else, for a thorough and 
proper knowledge of the Bible, is spiritual insight, and 
thia is just the featnre most wofuUy lacking in German 


102 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

tbongbt and life. It is not too much to demand that those 
who taught onr young men and women to turn to Ger- 
many for the most ecbolarly and reliable information about 
the Bible, and who scouted and scorned those who opp(»ed 
this policy, Bhould at least acknowledge their error and 
Inaugurate a new method among students, teaching them 
to refuse to accept truth on the authority of Germany or 
any other country, and to insist upon the thorough con- 
sideration of every available source of information before 
arriving at conclusions. Already Dr. Shailer Mathews is 
quoted (let us hope truly) as admitting tbat the Univer- 
sity of Chicago had been far too much " Germanized " be- 
fore the war. It is time for otbera to say the same thing, 
and henceforward to take a very different line. Those who 
have read the striking articles in The Sunday School 
Times on the Paganism of certain modem Universities 
know that much of this attitude is due to Germany. What 
is still more serious is that the German spirit has domi- 
nated our theological seminaries, and bas affected, or, 
rather, infected, very much of our pulpit life and work, 
with the result that there is abundant spiritual powerleas- 
ness in many Churches, by the absence of conversions and 
the lack of spiritual teaching for Christians. Whatever 
may be said about conservative scholarship and attitude, . 
it is impossible to question its evangelistic power, as may 
be seen from the fact that all the great Evangelists of the 
past and the present are to a man opposed to Qerman Bib- 
lical criticism. As the President of the British Wesleyan 
Methodist Conference for this year said once, " German 
theology is not much use in a revival." Dr. Orr wrote 
these solemn words some years ago, and they have been 
amply confirmed and vindicated by the revelations of the 
past four years : — 

" I dare to say with a full sense of responsibility that if 
many of the things which are found in our approved text 
books were openly or undisguisedly preached in our pul- 
pits next Lord's Day throughout the land, there would 


1919] Oerman Moral Abnormality 103 

be nothing less than a revolution in our Cbnrches. Chris- 
tian people simply wonld not stand it." 

It is well known that there is not a single critical posi- 
tion adopted by British, American, and Canadian scholars 
which did not emanate from Qermany. English-speaking 
scholars have only been able to adopt and adapt German 
ideas, the general trend of which, for nearly a centnry, 
has been to deny the snpematnral element, first in the Old 
Testament, then in the New Testament, and now, moat 
serioas of all, in the Person of Christ Himself. If British 
and American scholarship is not so logical as German, it 
is becanse many of the men still adhere to a belief in the 
Divine incarnation of Christ. Bnt, as Dr. Orr pointed 
OQt, it is impossible to fit the supernatural into a frame- 
work of rationalism. It lb probably too mnch to expect 
that men who have been brought up on German scholar- 
ship should abandon it and confess themselves in the 
wrong. But at least they should, in the light of our pres- 
ent experiences, keep qniet, and snggest to the younger 
generation the need of a more thorough independence of 
outlook and the widest possible indnction. 

I cannot better close this article, and thereby still fur- 
ther point the moral, than by qnoting some words from 
an American preacher which appeared two years ago iu 
the Boston Congregationalist: — ■ 

" It is rather the fashion in America just now to think 
of Germany as a horrible example of militarism, but let 
us not forget that before the outbreak which is shaking 
the 01(1 World it was quite the fashion to go to Germany 
for an up-to-date theology, for the latest conclusions of 
scholarship and all that; and let us also not forget the 
numerous accumulations and aceretions which had gath- 
ered over this theology, the elaborate and learned criti- 
cisms, the substitution of alleged historic values for actual 
facts, the cnrious and desperate exegesis which resolved 
solid old texts into mists of meaningless nothings, and the 
volumes of philosophical stuff which smothered simple be- 
lief. The Allies have not yet declared German theology 
.contraband, for they know that a ton of it if loaded into 


104 BibUotbeoa Sacra 

a cannon wonld not kill a robin, bnt tbere would be no kick 
coming if thej did declare it contraband. Tbe Germana 
now know as well as the rest of ns that the only thing 
which has historic value ia the real atuff. And they also 
know that biatory ia not made ont of philosophical theory 
set up in a modem study, but out of guns and battalions. 
The man who thought two years ago that some things 
could not have happened in the past now knows that much 
worse things can happen and are happening at present. 
The war bes jarred the world back to a sense of reality. 
We feel compelled to cut our way through a tangle of 
theories, speculations and philosophies and sophistries and 
get down to simpler belief. 

" I am not advising any minister to lay off his frock 
coat, for I know how dear it may be to him and that it 
may be a support to bis sense of responsibility, but I am 
advising him to lay away tbe things which have made some 
preachers look like a baby buried in pillows and cushions, 
and to cultivate the direct, manly appeal which goes where 
men actually live. Tbe dreadful convulsion of the Old 
World may not have made the task of the preacher and 
moral teacher easier, but it has made the way plainer and 




Vebt many and very varied were the influences that 
helped to mold the infant ehnrch of Chriet. The deeply 
religious trend of ancient Jewry, the noble philosophy of 
cheerful Greece, the ideals of the sorrow-loving East, the 
imperial spirit of mighty Rome, — all had tbelr share. 

While Greece found God in everythuig, and deified the 
lovely earth she knew, Asia had long ago come to the con- 
clusion that matter is essentially evU, that flesh ia very 
vile, and therefore the world ia to be fled, five hundred 
years earlier than the days of Christ such conceptions had 
inspired Gautama Buddha to give a rule to monks and 
nuns, but that was very far from being the first institu- 
tion of monasticism. Christ eating and drinking amidst 
the busy haunts of men had been accepted as a far nobler 
figure than John the Baptist fasting in the wilda. Ascet- 
icism was largely foreign to the early spirit of the church, 
thou^ the ideal may find much support in the New 
Testament itself, particularly in such passages as the sev- 
enth chapter of First Corinthians. But after three eea- 
tnries, or less, had passed since the birth of Christ, when 
pagan monks, apparently in Egypt first, had seen the light, 
the ideal spread through Christendom with great rapidity, 
from end to end. Very shortly we find Christian monks 
pursuing their most varied avocations amidst the dense 
forests of northern Europe, on the hot sands of Sahara, 
mnd by the treeless rocks beside the Nile; under the tower- 
ing mountains of far Armenia and in the lonely rock 
Islands of the Atlantic off the remotest Irish shores. 

It ie one of the most striking paradoxes of all time that 
this Bastem system, aiming only at the highest conceiva- 
ble religion, did far less for personal holiness than (or re- 
constmcting the civilization of the earth. Those who fled 


106 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

the world in deepair became its rulers. Tbe spiritnal de- 
sceDdauts of thoee who spurned tbe eartb's noblest culture 
became tbe chief agents in laying the foundations of our 
yet more material civilisation. The monk as civilizer is a 
far more obvions flgnre in history then the monk as saint. 
Modem Europe is a monuuient of the cloister. 

In surveying the long story of Christian monasticism, 
at least four great periods may be descried. The first is 
connected with such great names as those of Basil. and 
Jerome ; interest is centered chiefly in tbe countries washed 
by the eastern Mediterranean. Gradually the ascetics got 
complete control of the church. This was against their 
earliest ideal. The first monks were laymen, and Cassian* 
declares that their desire for holy orders sometimes pro- 
ceeds from vainglory. It was St. Augustine of Hippo who 
first instituted a rule of priests living together under vows, 
such as in later years would be called regular canons. In 
the Orthodox Church to-day all the higher ecclesiastics are 
invariably and necessarily monks. Some of these soli- 
taries carried the gospel to the remotest bounds of earth, 
particularly those who are formally ranked heretics. Thna 
the Nestorians preached with great snccess in China, and 
thence bronght the silkworm to Constantinople as early as 
the sixth century. But within the Empire itself the ob- 
ject of the monk was purely self -centered : by withdrawing 
from a world that was utterly lost he hoped to save bis 
soul. That can hardly be deemed a very useful monasti- 
cism which counted as its very noblest .fruit tbe hermit 
St. Simon Stylites, dwelling on the top of his column, for- 
ever bending bis forehead to his feet and holding out his 
arms crosswise in prayer, but making not the slimiest 
effort to support a falling state and refusing even an im- 
perial request that he would mediate In the miserable 
squabbles that were tearing the very vitals of the church. 
The morose Jerome, writing in 414 to congratulate a Ro- 
man girl, named Demetries, who has taken a vow of vir- 
' Institutes, book zl. chap. xlv. 


1919] Christian Monasticism 107 

ginity, exclaims: "Good Jesas! What exultation there 
was. . . . M; words are too weak. Every church in Africa 
danced for joy. . . . Italy put off her mourning and the 
ruined walls of Bome resumed in part their olden splendor. 
. . . You would fancy the Ooths had been annihilated." * 
Vet, despite this somewhat unpatriotic view of the loss to 
civilization by Alaric's sack of Rome, Jerome in his cell 
at Bethlehem was doing noble service to mankind by trans- 
lating the whole of the Scriptures into the vnlgar tongue 
of the West. That in other ways as well the monks did 
noble things for knowledge is evident from the enormous 
mass of M8S. that tbeir libraries have shielded from de- 
struction. This development of a taste for learning was 
undoubtedly a later phase; St. Anthony, the chief father 
of christian monks, had stoutly declared that " he whose 
mind is in health has no need of letters." The disgraceful 
lawlessness that so frequently marked the early councils 
of the church must also be credited chiefly to the wild tur- 
bulence of unlettered monks, frequently more willing to 
anathematize than to bless ; so much more ready to strike 
than to reason, that, as Milman says,' their bravery often 
shamed the languid patriotism of the imperial troops. Nor 
can it reasonably be doubted that the decline and fall of 
the Empire was largely promoted by the monasteries. By 
dissuading so many of the noblest and the best from mar- 

'One Hundred Thirtieth Letter of Jerome, sect 6: In Nlcene and 
Post-Nlcene Fathers, vol. vl. p. 263. 

' Latin CbrlBtUnltr. vol. 1. p. 344. Ot all our great church hlBto- 
rlane, MUman seems to be the fairest to the monks, with Owatklu 
at the opposite extreme. Pew really great works on the history 
of monaatlclsm as a whole have been written. Hontalembert's 
splendid book. The Honks ot tbe West, stands nearly alone. Har- 
nack'B Das Mdnchthum Is the least satisfactory of all his works. 
On the other hand, much has been written about particular phase:] 
of the subject by members ot different orders themselves, partic- 
ularly Cardinal GasqueL Some excellent English antiquaries and 
historians are devoting themselves very largely to monaatlclsm to- 
day, partlcularljr Sir WlDlam St. John Hope, Hamilton Thompson, 
0. O. Coulton, and D. H. S. Cranage. 


108 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jaa. 

riage, they difiaatrouBly affected the population.' Tcrtul- 
lian seems to have this at the back of his mind when he 
asserts,' " Our numbers are burdensome to the world, 
which can hardly supply us from its natural etemeuts," 
though the context is the question of transmigration. Am- 
brose makes an extremely carious and interesting defense, 
— which does not sound very plausible, — but we have no 
means of verifying his facts ; ' If any one imagines that 
by the existence of nuns the human race is diminished in 
number, let him refiect that where there are few nuns 
there are still fewer men; where vows of virginity are 
more common, tbere the population is larger. Tell me, 
how many nuns are professed in Alexandria and all the 
East each year? Here in the West we have fewer births 
than they there receive vows of vii^nity ! ' * 

Except by such as regard asceticism as something noble 
in itself, this earliest period of monasticism must be counted 
a failure on the whole. It has hardly even yet been super- 
seded in the East. Few impartial students of the Ortho- 
dox Church can doubt that its vast hordes of ascetics have 
done at least as much to destroy as to build it up. 

But a very different judgment indeed is demanded by 
the SECOND, or early medlsval, period, when even the stern- 
est critic of their ideal must pay a tribute of admiration 
to the chief rebuilders of the world.* During the sixth 
century a new and most noble figure comes upon the mo- 
nastic stage, and quite unknowingly onto the broad arena 
of the whole history of man, — Benedict of Nursia (b. 480, 
(1. 54.^). Bis famous rule is in form merely an effort so to 
regulate the life of monasteries as to secure to their in- 
mates that peace which the world cannot give. But in the 

■The prooto tbat dwindling of population wu a large factor la 
the decay of the Empire are given In Seeler'a Roman Imperialism. 

* De Anima, chap. xxx. 

■Mllmao, Htstorr of ChrlBtlanlty. vol. HI. p. 219: he quotes the 
passage In the original Latin, but does not supply the reference. 

■As Charles Klngsley, In his <diapter on "The Honk a CIvHIzer," 
In The Roman and the Teuton. 


1919] Christian Monaatidsm 109 

rebuilding of civilization, which was the glorious task of 
Christianity after the hopeless rain of the Ehnpire of the 
West, these monks took a mighty pari:, remained perhaps 
the chief driving force in life till the Middle Ages had 
almost mn their course. Now has the monk become the 
chief actor in the history of the world, the most prominent 
worker in well-nigh all the varied acta of man. A some- 
what misleading impression of the monk is apt to be car- 
ried away from the ordinary histories of medieeval times. 
Too much tribute is apt to be paid to his piety; to his 
learning, at least all that it deserves ; but of his noble work 
as the practical man of affairs, raising up the fabric of our 
Western culture, the half is seldom told. 

It is obvious enough that, in so brief a paper as the 
present, an epitome of mediaeval history would be wholly 
out of place; rather let the monk be surveyed in the midst 
of his innumerable activities, carrying out works dreamed 
of by St. Benedict himself about as much as the present 
importance of this land was conceived by those who first 
laid down the feeble foundations of little cities by the grey 
Atlantic shore. 

And first of the monk as educator. No one can doubt 
that it was chiefly by the recluses that some spark of 
learning was kept alight during the long and dreary years 
after the Western Empire fell, and before some measure 
of new flame was kindled at the brilliant court of Charles. 
That revival itself was lai^ly monastic, and many of 
the great Emperor's advisers were monke, particularly 
Alcnin of England, whom he made a sort of minister of 
education and also abbot of Tours. Alcnin had been one 
of the products of a most brilliant local revival during the 
seventh and eighth centuries in the Northumbrian convents, 
a time of British glory that centers around the deathless 
name of Venerable Bede, the first great English scholar, 
the ODly real historian that Saxon England knew. This 
noble culture in its turn was inspired chiefly by the mis- 
sionary zeal of those great Irish ascetics whose restless 


110 Bibliotheca Sacra [JaD. 

energy carried them over the sea far out into tlie Atlantic 
and to the lonely volcanic rocks of Iceland^ which they 
vere probably the first of men to see; over the land through 
the fair plains of France to the mountain valleys of Italy 
and Switzerland. Such was their contribution to learning 
that in the dark ages it was said no man in western Eu- 
rope could speak Greek who was uot Irish-bom or at least 
Irish-taught. Musing to-day amid the severely impressive 
ruins of Clonmacuoise on the lonesome peat bogs by the 
Shannon, where the wide plain of rich red browns rolls 
away unbroken to the distant hills, where the grey chapels 
and crosses are unshaded save by a single ash with hardly 
any leaves, emphasizing the treeless desolation of the land, 
or in the peaceful Wicklow valley with green fields and 
forests sloping to a chattering brook, where the tall round 
tower and roofless churches of Qlendalough still stand by 
the two lakes whose still waters mirror the rock-strewn 
mountain sides, it is inspiring to refiect that Greek liter- 
ature and the learning of the past were here preserved in 
the darkest days that Europe ever knew since history be- 
gan, and that students from all Christendom were reading 
in these monastic schools, on the very conflues of the world, 
as profitably as others amid all the glittering splendor of 
the best seats of Arab learning in Mesopotamia and Egypt 
and Spain. Of these black ages it is not too much to say, 
Had monks perished, then learning bad gone too. 

Arthur Leach* maintains that, at any rate after the 
eleventh century, the monasteries were not special homes 
of scholarship; by that time, it was rather secular than 
regular clerks who did what was done for letters. In the 
universities ascetics did not bear much part until the rise 
of the friars, though a few monks were constantly in resi- 
dence. At Oxford the Benedictine Order maintained Glou- 
cester-Hall, whose buUdings are now incorporated into 
Worcester College. In the great abbeys whose lovdy 
ruins are even now one of Europe's greatest glories, there 
> History of Winchester Colleca. 


1919] Christian Monagticism 111 

was as a rule but scant provision for books. The auperb 
House of Fountains, vtiose chnrch, chapter house, and 
other buildings are as noble monuments as Gothic archi- 
tecture can boast, possessed no other library than a couple 
of little closets at either side of the chapter door. On the 
other hand, copying MS8. was a moat important part of 
tbe duties of the monks, and at Chester may be seen the 
cells in which they sat wbUe thus engaged, along two clois- 
ter walks. And in the customs of the college at Oxford 
and Cambridge, t>esides other ancient European seats of 
learning, many relics of monastic life are preserved to this 
very hour. Still, on the whole, the impression received 
from Chaucer's Prologue, that in his time both in learning 
and in devotion to duty the secular clerks were better than 
the regular, is confirmed by visitations and other mediaeval 
records as to the condition of the religious houses. 

As chroniclers of contemporary events, providing much 
of the material for the past story of our race, monks were 
exceedingly prominent. FacUitiee for such work were 
probably better in a large abbey than in any other place. 
And, as we should expect, it was in such great houses as 
Westminster and St. Albans that the most interesting rec- 
ords were written. Tlieir guest houses would seldom be 
empty. In the rule of St. Benedict it is hospitably or- 
dained : "All guests who come shall be entertained as 
though they were Christ." And so in the actual course of 
their duties some of the monks would hear what was going 
on, wherever Christians went and came, from those who 
had themselves borne part. The chronicles of the monks 
are not written, as a rule, from any narrow point of view; 
a man like Matthew Paris nTote history with no small 

It is perhaps in the capacity of statesman that the monk 
has least received his due. It was not logical that the 
world should be ruled by those who had left it in disgust, 
and who, in the Jndgment of their greatest lawgiver, ought 
never to stray beyond tbe pale of the house in which they 


112 Bmiotheca Sacra [Jan. 

had taken their vows. They never sought worldly power, 
at least in earliest times. On the contrary, many of them 
strenuously resisted when it was forced into their hands. 
But when (in 587) Gregory the Great was compelled to sit 
in the papal chair in very lawless days, a monk became 
the ruler of the whole Western Church, and for all prac- 
tical purposes king of Italy too. He dealt with his new 
duties with such transcendent skill that a great tradition 
was established in the world. Monks were proved to be 
capable of handling the great problems of that day bettra 
often than any one else. The cloister had evolved an eflB- 
ciency that the world without did not know. Bo in later 
years it did not seem in the least unfitting that twenty- 
nine English abbots had seats in the House of Lords. They 
were sometimes more numerous than the lay peers, and 
always exceeded the bishops in number; legislation was 
largely in their hands when that famous upper house was 
more democratically constituted than it is to-day, and 
hereditary peers were in the minority. In those days the 
cloister was by far the most obvious ladder by which a 
boy brought up in the humblest home might rise to be one 
of the most prominent in Europe. For within the cloister 
ability was far more valued than birth, and the abbot of 
a great house ranked with the proudest nobles in the land. 
Magna Carta was written in the Abbey of St. Edmunds- 
bury. The self-government of the monks in their chapter 
contributed very largely indeed to the development of the 
free institutions of England. The abbot of Westminster 
was wont to invite his fellow members of Parliament to 
adjourn from the king's palace of St. Stephen to the chap- 
ter house of the great abbey hard by. A most interesting 
description of the government of a large bouse is given in 
the " Clironicle of Jocelin of Brakelond," ' a monk of Bury 
St. Edmunds ; and there is no doubt that the procedure of 
Parliament was largely patterned on the custom of the 
< Carlyte'a antborltir for Past and PreMnt 


1919] Christian Monasticism 113 

chapter house of an abbey. Monasticism made a splendid 
contribution to the development of democratic liberty. 

The fact that they had taken special vowa did not neces- 
sarily exempt the monks from the sternest duties of the 
world. In 1118 a few poor knights in Jerusalan solemnly 
swore to protect the newly won Christian state. Largely 
under the inspiration of St. Bernard of Glairvanz (1090- 
1153),' at the Council of Troyes, they adopted the Cister- 
cian nile. The houses of the Knights Templars (as they 
were called from their dwelling in the Holy City) were 
barracks and convents in one; Jacques de Vitry describes 
them as " rough knights on the battle field, pious monks in 
the chapel; formidable to tlie enemies of Christ, gentle- 
ness itself to his friends." The suppreBsion of this noble 
order in 1312 is one of the most mysterious tragedies of 
medieval days. But other soldier monks had come upon 
the stage. Perhaps the most brilliant feat of arms that 
any of them performed was the heroic defense of Malta by 
the Hospitalers of Bt. John of Jerusalem, when in 1565, 
tinder their gallant master, La Valette, they defied the 
whole force of the Turks when their power was at the full, 
and did much to make the Mediterranean safe for the ship- 
ping of Christian men. This order still exists and is 
Protestant in part; as in the case of the ambulance work 
of St. John. And at Borne it yet maintains a little dilap- 
idated church, and a garden with clipped box hedges, high 
np on the Aventiue Hill. Another of these great military- 
orders was to do less noble work. The Teutonic Order, so- 
called from the nationality of most of its knights, nnder- 

'Tbls remarkable man, " last of tlie Pathers." was a great leader 
in organlzlns tlie ClBt«rclan Order as a protest agatnet the laxity 
of the Benedictines. He greatly rejoiced to find some practical and 
very necessary work that the monks could do. sucb aa guarding: 
the sepulcher of Christ. Id this he was following the example of 
St Bernard of Menthon, who Id 962 built a hospice amid the Al- 
pine snows for the protection of pilgrims and other traTelers. Keep- 
ing open communications was a work In which monks took a noblei 

Vol. LXXVI. No. 801. 8 1 

D.qit.zeaOv GoOt^ I.C 

114 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

took to guard the frontier of Christendom against pagan 
Lithuanian and Slav hordes. In course of time it devel- 
oped the strongest standing army in Europe, and with the 
Hanseatic League it Germanized wide lands along the 
Baltic shore. At the time of the Reformation its grand 
master was a member of the Hohenzollem hoase; he be> 
came a Protestant, secularized the order, and practically 
put l*russia on the map. Thus the military tradition of 
that state, and much of its spirit too, — for the order de- 
veloped a most ruthless code, — is directly to be traced to 
monasticism. Verily it is not wholly as saint that tfie 
monk has written himself so large across the record of 
mankind ! 

The rule of St. Benedict provides that if possible a mill, 
a garden, and a bakery shall exist within the precincts of 
every monastery, that the brethren may not need to wan- 
der out into the world. In devoting themselves with en> 
ergy to agriculture the monks were carrying out both in 
spirit and letter the ideal: Laborare est orare. The cul- 
tivable area of Europe was very largely extended by the 
work of the solitaries. The food supply of England during 
the war has benefited by the way in which large parts of 
the dreary swamps of Norfolk were converted into fertile 
fields by the monks of the great abbey of St. Benet, Holm. 
The cooperative farming of the monks was a great improve- 
ment on the crude strip-cultivation of the feudal manor, 
and there was hardly a convent in the open country that 
did not benefit the agriculture of its district. When the 
estates of the monasteries were rented they were generally 
good landlords. Ko serious disputes disturbed the good 
relations between the monks and their peasant neighbors. 
Monks were generally popular in the country, however dif- 
ferent was the case in towns,' 

'Where constant disputes as to Jurfsdlctlon imd prlvHegeB caused 
almost endless bickerings. At places like Norwich and Staerbum, 
town- and cowl-riots were sometlmeB exceedingly serious. At Bury 
St Edmunds may be seen to this day tbe monastic gateway wltb 


1919] Christian MonasticUm 115 

Possesfliiig wide lands, especially among the beautiful 
Yorkshire dales, the Cistercians became great traders in 
wool, the chief commerce of medieeval England, whose im- 
portance is attested to this very day by the Lord Chancel- 
lor's woolsack seat. It was sent for manufacture to the 
cities of Flanders, where its profits helped to raise those 
glorious structures so wantonly destroyed in the war. That 
the Cistercians were keen men of business there can be no 
doubt at all. When Fulk of Neuilly reproached Bicbarcl 
Lionheart with having three daughters whose names were 
Luxury, Oreed, and Pride, for whom husbands should be 
found, the King retorted on the priest that the spouse of 
Luxury should be the prelates of holy church ; of Pride, the 
Knights Templars; and Greed should most appropriately 
be wedded to the monks of the Cistercian Order !^ There 
was a tinge of ingratitude in the last reference, seeing that, 
only three years before, the Cistercians had had to con- 
tribute a whole year's wool toward the ransom of the 

Excellent use was made of the vast wealth of the mon- 
asteries in erecting those glorious churches that are the 
greatest legacy we hare received from medieval years. Id 
England half the cathedrals were, the work of monastic 
hands, but those of the Continent were raised by the laity. 
Still everywhere church architecture was influenced chiefly 
by the lavish examples set by the monks. 

All this world activity of the ascetics was in the interest 
of European civilization*; but beyond any peradventure 
loopbolee bdlnd tbe statues, eo that when the town attacked, the 
saints could be pushed down onto the beads ' ot the assailants with 
fllsbta of arrows to follow! 

'Flores HlBtorlarum, 1197 a.d. (Rolls Series), vol. IL pp. 116-11? 
(from Hoveden). 

'Hattbew Paris, Chronica Malora (Rolls Series), rot. 11. p. 399. 

* It 1b remarkable that, during tbe middle ages of Japan, monks 
took a ratber similar part as chroniclers, fanners, artists, traders, 
Midlers, and sometimes politicians. Tbere Is also, at any rate, a 
superficial resemblance In tbe planning of monastic buildings round 
cloister courts. 


116 Bihliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

it was utterly destructive of the type of character that 
Benedict desired. Long before the Reformation was in 
eight, the monk was apt to be far less a saint than a prac- 
tical man of affairs living in a pleasant cluh. For archte- 
ological evidence is conclusive that the dwellings of monks 
were more comfortable, on the whole, than the contem- 
porary homes of the laity. No thirtewith- or fonrteentfa- 
century castle can compare, in the convenience of its 
internal arrangements, with the domestic buildings at 
Fountains or Fumess. This so preyed on the mind of 
the noble St. Francis of Assisi that he was led to the 
founding of an ascetic order of a different type, thus all 
unconsciously starting the third period in the history of 
Christian monasticism, that of the friars. St. Benedict's 
stem prohibition of monks owning anything at all had 
been rendered farcical by the fact that the orders possessed 
a quarter of the soil of western Europe. So the friars were 
to be. so poor that they should need to beg their bread; 
their orders should give them nothing, not even homes. 
Scorning merely to save their souls and leave the world 
apart, the friars were to minister to the outcast and beg- 
gars, to seek out the classes that the parish clergy hardly 
touched. Success was immediate and very great. The 
cheerful barefooted Franciscans were everywhere enthusi- 
astically received. Within a few years of 1208, about which 
time their order began, three others sprang op with much 
the same plans and ideals. The Order of St. Dominic 
dates from 1216; the Austin Friars (to whose ranks Lu- 
ther belonged) claimed the great name of St. Augustine 
of Hippo, and the Carmelites, not to be outdone, asserted 
they were founded by Elijah, who seems to be the only 
Old Testament character to be reckoned a Christian saint.* 
The first generations of friars insisted upon worshiping in 
wooden huts; they were everywhere immensely respected. 
But success brought its well-nigh inevitable result. Within 
' Ab patron of the Flying Coitb of the onny of the late Rnaatan 
Empire, he aeema to hare b«en a varr qualified ancceaa. 


191!>] Christian Monasticism 117 

a century they were celebrating in maguiflceot minsters 
and charging large sams to laity who wished to be bnried 
in their holy soil. The old prohibition of their orders own- 
ing property did somethiDg for the English law of trusts! 
The fact that, unlike the monks, they were able to perform 
paiMjchial duties and to receive fees that should hare gone 
to others, made them loathed of the parish priests. But 
gradually the distinction between friar and monk became 
attended to less and iess; by the time of the Reformation 
it was almost entirely lost. 

What may be called the fourth period in the long story 
of Christian monasticiam was inaugurated when, on the 
Feast of the Assumption in 1534, Ignatius Loyola and his 
little band knelt together in the chapel on Montmartre, 
and constituted the Society of Jesus. The Middle Ages 
had run their course. The Beformation was sweeping the 
world. A new era had begun, and neither monk nor friar 
was very well equipped for the new battle with Protestant- 
ism. The old democracy was cast aside, a military organ- 
ization was adopted. No Jesuit convent ever possessed a 
chapter house. The members of the new order were not to 
deliberate, but simply to .obey. At one time or another 
they have ruled great kingdoms, particularly in Austria 
and Poland, where our present problems are to some de- 
gree the legacy of what they did. One of their original 
members, Francis Xavier, realized nearly four hundred 
years ago the latent powers of Japan. Their paternal 
work among the Indians of Paraguay is one of the few 
bright chapters in the story of Latin intercourse with the 
aborigines of America. Their scientific and educational 
works are known throughout the earth. Their artistic 
taste carried the barocco style to nearly every conntry of 
Europe. The great men of the earlier orders were often 
apt to place the world above the church ' ; much of their 

'The great ehancetlor, Tbomaa Wolser, cardinal and arebblsbop 
as well as Benedictine abbot, waa of a very Becular spirit, almost 
anti-«lerica] at times. No tendency of the kind ever showed itself 
among the Jesuits. 


118 Bibliotheca Sacra 

work would have been strongly reprobated hj tboee whose 
rules they were supposed to obey. But, in striking con- 
trast, perhaps no institution of the earth has ever quite 
so exactly (ulfiUed its founder's desires as the much- 
diacnssed Society of Jesus. Many other orders have been 
founded in the Church of Borne and during the Laudian 
rerival and later in the Church of England too, but their 
history hardly forms a iiart of the record of the world at 
large. The days when the earth could be ruled by monks 
have forever passed away. 



According to a prominent daily newspaper in the Mid- 
dle West, a reverend professor, in a college under Chris- 
tian auspices, has gravely and publicly proposed to amend 
the Lord's Prayer by substituting for " thy kingdoia come " 
the words " thy democracy come." Devout Christians will 
probably resent this proposal to transform the Lord's King- 
dom and to mutilate the Lord's Prayer. Instead of giv- 
ing tongue to this resentment, it may be worth while for 
Christians to consider what is involved in tlie proposed 
transformation. If accomplished, would it involve any 
fundamental change in our Lord's kingdom? Is this pro- 
posal only a bit of popular clap-trap? In order intelli- 
gently and correctly to answer these questions, we must 
determine what a democracy is; and in what respects it 
differs from a kingdom. 

The oft-qnoted saying of President Lincoln at Gettys- 
burg by many is regarded as a brief, but well-nigh perfect, 
definition of democracy. It is a government of the people, 
for the people, by the people. This definition needs to be 
defined. The phrase " government of the people " is am- 
biguous. It may mean a government over the people. It 
may mean government on the part of the people. This 
second possible meaning is substantially that of the phrase 
" government by the people." We may, therefore, accept 
the former of the two meaniugn as the correct one, and de- 
scribe a democracy as a government over all the people, 
for the benefit of all the people, by the people themselves. 
The word "all" is purposely left out. of the last clause be- 
cause a government by all the people in any extensive and 
complex community is impracticable if not absurd. "The 
people" regarded as rulers must be limited. Immature 
children, mental and moral imbeciles, criminals, tramps, 
persistent idlers of every class, must be excluded from 
the exercise of governmental functions. The people who 
really exercise these functions must be limited to the in- 
telligent, industrious, and moral men; and, if any one 
chooses so to believe and say, to women who possess these 

Let us, then, admit that the only practicable democracy 
is a government in which the ruling functions are exer- 


120 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

cinetl by intelligent, moral, and iadustrious men and women 
who contribute by their mental and manual labor, and by 
their accumulated wealth, to tbe good order of society and 
to the welfare of all the people. Theee constitute the only 
rational detnos, to whom alone can authority to rule be 
Bafely and wisely committed. 

It is also evident that even in such a democracy all the 
functions of government cannot be exercised by all the 
individuals who comitose the demos. These functions must 
be distributed : to a few more, to the many less. If the 
demos were on an island, separated from the rest of the 
world; if it were composed of a few men and women of 
about the same measure of intelligence, experience, moral- 
ity, industry, and physical strength, it might be practicable 
to confer on each and all, all ruling functions. Even under 
these very exceptional conditions, such an attempt to se- 
cure a pure democracy might be found by no means to be 
the best government which the islanders could devise. Ex- 
pand this demos to any considerable extent; bring in oth- 
ers less developed in physical, mental, and moral powers, 
and the exercise of all governmental functions by all the 
individuals of the demos would be impracticable; or, if 
for a time found to be practicable, would be unjust: un- 
just, because of the unequal abilities of the individuals; 
impracticable, because of the numbers involved, and be- 
cause of the number and diversity of the governmental 
functions to be performed. It may be admitted that the 
primary power of government, expressed in voting, may 
be placed, in these usually expanded conditions, in the 
hands of the demos, each individual having one vote. But 
the secondary powers or functions must be exercised by 
comparatively a few, who derive their just authority to 
act as rulers from the many. TIius democracy becomes 
necessarily a combination of democracy and oligarchy. 

For an extended discussion of this subject, reference is 
here made to an English book on this subject by W. H. 
Malloek, entitled "Limits of Pure Democracy" (1918), 
to which the present writer acknowledges his great in- 

In actual practice it makes little difference how this 
combination of democracy and oligarchy is developed or 
proportioned. It began in the family. The father was an 
autocrat ruling, according to his own will, his wife and 
children. It may be admitted that the wife, even from 


1»1»] CHtical Notes 121 

the beginning, influenced her husband's opinions and to 
some extent determined his conduct. As eoon as the sons 
became men the father's autocracy became an oligarchy. 
Clans and tribes emerged from families. The chief of the 
tribe derived his riglit to the ezen^ise of goTemmental 
functions over all from his own inherited and acquired 
mental and physical power, and from the consent of the 
heads of families who constituted in those times and com- 
munities the real demos. Contiguous tribes were merged 
into a nation or state usually by conquest; or, at times, by 
the agreement of the tribal chiefs. In the former case we 
have what may be regarded or called an autocratic king 
or emperor ; in the latter, a constitutional ruler. Id either 
case there is an oligarchy sustained by a demos; because 
no single ruler, autocratic or constitutional, can impose 
his will, and exercise the functions of government, unless 
his decrees are sustained by the demos, and executed by 
subordinates appointed either by the people or by himself. 

The development of modem democracies, so called, con- 
sists lai^ly in the enlargement of the demos by extending 
to more of the people the right to vote ; and by the trans- 
fer of autocratic powers from a single person to a num- 
ber of persona, who really constitute an oligarchy. Thus, 
in great states, the real distinction between a constitu- 
tional empire, a kingdom, a republic, or a democracy, dis- 
appears. The so-called British Empire, the Kingdom of 
Great Britain, the French Republic, and the United States 
of North America are all based on the consent of the 
demon. They are all ruled by comparatively a few men. 
They are all expressions of democracies combined with 
oligarchies. Even the Beferendum and the Initiative are 
only devices to enlai^ somewhat the legislative functions 
of the demos. Most of the legislative functions, and all of 
the judicial and executive functions of government, must 
continue to be exercised by the few. 

We find the same mixture of democracy and oligarchy 
when the theories of the socialists, even on a small scale, 
are reduced to practice. The socialists tell us that a de- 
mocracy is a government in which every man shall have 
an eqnal voice in the afTairs of his country in virtue of his 
manhood alone. If this doctrine were effectively applied, 
the government so constituted would he determined and 
controlled by the abilities and votes of men and women 
below the average man or woman. This conclusion is re- 


122 Bibliotheca Bacra [Jan. 

pndiated b; many socialists who would ezclade from the 
demos citizens very low in the scale of morals and intel- 
ligence. The socialists claim that these are few in num- 
bers and are negligible in practice. Eren if this claim is 
admitted ; if an average somewhat higher than the ability 
of the lower section could be reached ; if this higher aver- 
age could attain to the intelligence of the average man and 
woman of the demos taken in its entirety as defined by the 
socialists, a government thus constituted would not be a 
sane or safe democracy, pure and simple. The reason is 
apparent. Either the votes of any number of average men, 
or of men below the average, would counteract the votes 
of any smaller number of superior, wiser, and better men, 
which would not be good for all the people of the country; 
or the smaller number of superior men would effectively 
control the votes of the larger numl)er of their inferiors. 

An illustration of this second alternative, indeed of both, 
may be found in our own country during what is called 
the Iteconstruction Period. In the Southern States the 
demos was increased by the introduction of all grown 
negro men. For a time, in r^ons not governed by the 
Federal army, there was more or less anarchy. Bnt soon 
an oligarchy of white men was formed, resulting in the 
exclusion, or the control, of many negro votes. This oli- 
garchy preferred to be governed by bayonets in the hands 
of intelligent white men rather thau by ballots in the hands 
of ignorant negroes. A more recent illustration is afforded 
on a more extended scale in Russia. The revolution which 
overthrew the Czar and his Bureaucracy did not at first 
cause a complete break-up of the governmental organiza- 
tion. The Duma was in session. The heads of the great de- 
partments of the government were in office. The army was 
organized and fairly well disciplined. Unfortunately there 
was at Petrograd a socialistic organization, dominated by 
a few men, at heart oligarchs, who were in sympathy with 
the extreme forms of German and other socialisms. These 
Russian socialists, thus animated, organized a second re- 
volt both among citizens and soldiers. They proposed a 
democracy pure and simple. The outcome has been an 
autocratic oligarchy. So far it has issued in anarchy, ex- 
cept as it has been controlled by the German Government. 
The real Russian demos has had neither the opportunity 
nor the ability to manifest its power. 

When the smaller socialistic bodies are examined. Trade 


1919] CHtical Xotes 123 

CniooB and the like, we find a Bimilar set of conditions. 
While, nominally, these organizations are pare democra- 
cies, in fact the power of the many, with at least their im- 
plied consent, is exercised b; the few. The few influence 
and ofteu control the rotes of the many. Sometimes the - 
oligarchy thus emerging becomes an oligarch who plays 
the part of an autocratic king. His will is law. His fel- 
low democrats accept it as such. 

We may now consider the proposed substitution of a 
divine democracy for a divine kingdom. The important 
questions are: What aubstantial change would be effected? 
What gain would be secured by the substitution if it conld 
be effected? 

It must be understood that the present discussion pro- 
ceeds from a standpoint presumably very different from 
that of the reverend professor who has lioldly and publicly 
advocated the substitution. He would most probably rule 
out the use of the word " divine." * He would probably 
assert that Jesus was only a man, though a very great and 
a very good man; that his kingdom, or God's kingdom on 
earth, when it came, would be a human kingdom, his de- 
mocrac}- only a human democracy. Be this as it may, the pres- 
ent writer regards God's government on earth, over which 
his Only Begotten and Well Beloved Bon is directly the 
Bupreme Ruler, as a divine government, whether called an 
empire, a kingdom, or a democracy; and it is now proposed 
to show that, like all other governments known to men, it 
is a combination of democracy and oligarchy. 

It would, indeed, be most presumptaons for any man 
to predict what are to be the details of Christ's Kingdom 
when it is established in its final and glorious condition 
on earth. All intelligent and devout Christians believe 
that then, as now, and as it ever has been since God's peo- 
ple on earth were organized into an outward and visible 
body, Christ will be its autocratic King, save as his autoc- 
racy is derived from his Father, the Eternal and Infinite 
God. This delegated autocracy he claimed. All power in 
heaven and on earth is his by divine right. We may 
reasonably infer from the history of the past that many 
governmental functions will be committed to subordinate 
officers; that his final and glorious Kingdom will be a com- 
bination of oligarchy and democracy. As intimated above, 
there is no disposition on the part of the present writer 
to dogmatize as to this. The records of the past at least 
t it. 


124 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

Certainly from the days of Abraham, all down the a^ies, 
the Lord hits been the autocratic King of His People, 
whether called out, from among the Qentiles or descended 
from the Father of the Faithful. Yet from the l>eginning, 
heads of families, elders, judges, priests, and kings, ac- 
cording to the Lord's appointment and with the consent 
of the people, exercised governmental functions. When 
the bounds of Judaism were enlarged ; when the Congrega- 
tion of the Lord, which nnder the New Testament we 
call the Church, started on its world-wide, Christ-given, 
mission ; amid all its vicissitudes and corruptions, as well 
as when purest and most faithful, the same combination 
of oligarchy and democracy appears. Christ still roles 
over the Congregation of the Lord, the Church. His re- 
vealed will is its law. Yet he rules on earth by means of 
subordinates whose authoritj- is, indeed, derived from him; 
but which is and must be fustained, under present condi- 
tions, by the Christian drmns or people who elect them, 
and who regard them as divinely appointed. 

The Roman Church, among all the Churches, most re- 
sembles an empire. In its government the democratic ele- 
ment is apparently insignificant; yet the presence and 
power of this element are essential to its existence as an 
empire. The oligarchic element is more conspicuous. The 
Pope, though regarded as the vicegerent of the Lord, would 
be impotent without his subordinate officers, appointed di- 
rectly or indirectly by himself. 

Evidently the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches are 
both democratic and oligarchic in their respective forms of 
government. This is true in the case of the C/Ongrega- 
tioual churches, supposed by many to be pure democra- 
cies. Their congregational assemblies, in which every 
communicant in good and regular standing has one vote 
and so appears to have equal power with each of his 
brethren, are to a considerable extent controlled by their 
elders and deacons, to say nothing of other members of 
unusual ability and wealth whose influence controls the 
votes of many. It is of course inevitable that the general 
policies of the Congregational churches are determined by 
delegated bodies. 

It thus appears that church government takes on the 
various forms in which civil government appears. All of 
these forms are combinations of democracy and oligarchy 
in varying proportions. As democracies, the power of gov- 


1919] Critical Notes 12K 

emment inheres primarily in a demos, compoeed of men 
and women who make an intelligent and credible confee- 
sion of faith in JeauB, the Christ, as Saviour and Lord^ 
and who by their service and money agree to execute his 
Great Commission. Ah oligarchies, certain of these con- 
fessors, delegated directly or indirectly by the demos, in 
some churches few in number, direct the work committed 
to his people by Christ their King. 

We may therefore conclude that the reverend professoHa 
proposal to transform the Lord's Kingdom into a democ- 
racy pure and simple, is a silly attempt to rob our Baviour 
of his divine right to be the Ood-appointed King of his peo- 
ple, having authority to announce to them facte which are 
real, to give them doctrines which they must believe, laws 
which they must obey, ordinances which they must observe, 
and a glorious destiny which they are to enjoy. If such a 
proposal could be realized, it would turn the church into 
a mere human, volnntary, go-as-you-please society, having 
the right to believe, to confess, and to do what it pleased. 
It would compel in every case a minority, however large 
and intelligent, to submit to a majority, however small, 
unintelligent, and disloyal. The only alternative left to 
the minority would be to secede and to form anotber so- 
called church ; which, in turn, as a pure democracy, would 
run a similar course. The final outcome would be neither 
a kingdom, nor a democracy, nor an oligarchy. Bather it 
would be, as civil government now is in Russia, a rdigious 
anafchy, having Despair as its god; rather than a divine 
government over a free and consenting people, sustained 
amid all the vicissitudes of earthly life by a great and 
blessed Hope. 

E. C. CklBDON 

8t. Louis, Missouri 


Thb object of my article in the April number of The 
American Journal of Theology, 1918, was to elicit discus- 
sion among theologians of Bergson's proposal (if he did 
propose it) that Ood by nature is a Becoming. Of course, 
I should not have discussed the subject at all if the pro- 
posal had not attracted me, but I am far from supposing 
that it has been thoroughly explored or is in a condition 
to be definitely accepted or rejected. And, however flat- 


126 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan, 

tering it may be, I am not at all inclined to accept Dr. 
Gruber's opinion (in the article to whicli I wish to call 
a moment's attention) that "from the viewpoint of such 
as may accept unchallenged its [the proposal's] nnderly- 
ing premises, it would seem that its conclusions should 
leave the matter of God's supposedly necessary limitations 
no longer an open question." 

The article under review is that written by the Rev, L. 
F. Gruber, D.l)., of St. Paul, and published in the Bib- 
LiOTUECA Sacra for October, 1918, under the title, "The 
Theory of a Finite and Developing Deity Examined." 
Dr. Gruber is quite right in saying that " it is precisely 
in the premises that we must differ from its [the theory's] 
advocates." He should therefore have devoted his atten- 
tion to those premises ; but this he does not do at all. His 
final outcome is merely this, that upon his premises, the 
premises of an a priori philosophy, and by the methods of 
deductive logic, the theory in question must be rejected, 
and the static view of God maintained. We admit this 
without question, and so would all others who may advo- 
cate the new theory. Our principal objection is to that 
very philosophy and to its premises. It is of such things 
that .Tames is writing, in the passage I quoted from him, 
when he says : " What is deduction of these metaphysical 
attributes but a shuffling and matching of pedantic diction- 
ary adjectives, aloof from morals, aloof from human needs, 
something that might be worked out from the mere word 
' Ood ' by one of those logical machines of wood and brass 
which recent ingenuity has contrived, as well as by a man 
of flesh and blood? They have the trail of the serpent over 
them." Orthodox theologians should take this sentence to 
heart and open their eyes to the fact that the revolt against 
their theology is not against trifles or details, but against 
the very substance of it. 

To cite a single example, out of many possible ones, 
we read (p. 490) r "somewhere there must also be an 
unchanginn," a statement fop which no proof is offeretl 
save a parenthetical clause on the following page, " as in- 
deed the very word change would seem to imply." Tbea, 
of course, our contention falls, for we have suggeateii that 
perhaps God Himself, the Ultimate, is constantly in pro- 
cess of development. But are we to be refuted, after all 
the study and discussion of such a volume as the " Crea- 
tive Evolution," by a sentence which without argument 


1919] Critical Notes 127 

assumes the point tbe vriter wiehes to prove? That word 
assume, Dr. Oruber does not seem to understand, for he 
charges modem science, after all the labor which has 
led to the organization of the generalization of energy and 
tbe unity of force, with assuming " a unified force as the 
impelling cause" of the world (p. 480) ! The experiential 
philosophy assumes nothing except the possibility of man's 
arriving at truth. 

I am not snre but that Dr. Qruber may be right in 
limiting Wundt's principle of tbe increase of spiritual 
strength to finite spiritual energy, though be does not cite 
anything from Wundt upon the point, but brings in one of 
his own principles to justify himself, " surely an infinite 
spiritual entity could not become more infinite" (p. 490). 
But the suggestion is no less worth thinking of, that, as 
man's spiritual energy evidently tends to increase, so it 
may he with all spiritual energy. That point deserves at- 

I am snrprised that Dr. Qruber did not make more out 
of the diflSculty I myself raised, that a developing Gtod must 
have once been notbing. To be snre, that is tbe Hegelian 
position, which makes " pure being " equal to " nothing." 
Hegel gets the phenomenal world out of that starting 
point, but 1 confess, esperientialists cannot. Whether my 
answers to the difficulty amount to anything or not, I 
should be glad to have them discussed, particularly my 
8U(^:e9tion that we may rest satisfied with the proposition 
"that God exists and is progressing" (p. 290). 

Let me not fail, in closing, to recognize the ability and 
thoroughness, after its own method, of Dr. Qruber's arti- 
cle. It has reminded me of Jonathan EMwards. 

Prank Hdgh Fosraa 

Oberlin, Ohio 

The object of the writer's article in the October number 
of the BiBLioTHBCA Sacra wbs not 30 much to answer Dr. 
Foster, or any other individual exponent of the theory of 
a finite and developing Deity, as it was to discuss that the- 
ory itself and to show that it is philosophically untenable. 
Hence the article's form and method of treatment. To this 
fact, therefore, must he attributed the several misunder- 
standings and misapplications on the part of Dr. Foster. 
However, in setting forth that theory, as was only proper, 


128 BibUotheoa Sacra [Jed. 

in tenoB naed b; its exponents, Dr. Foster's illuminating 
article demanded special attention. And, indeed, wliile my 
comment (p. 490, and quoted by Dr. Foster) on the defense 
of the theory by its exponents, from their own viewpoint 
was meant to apply to the accumulated defense, it would 
surely not apply less to Dr. Foster's .excellent article than 
to any other. 

It is tme that my article does not specifically take np, 
one by one, the expressed and implied premises, upon whidi 
the theory of a finite and developing Deity is based. But 
this is because such treatment would have taken ns too 
far afield, for one article, upon the debatable ground that 
separates the two great schools of the a priori and the 
a posteriori philosophy. And yet those premises are in the 
main probably none the less covered by my argument, 
which was meaut to be positive and constructive rather 
than negative and controversial. In the search after truth 
a proper combination and use must be made of both the 
a priori and the a posteriori. That the arguments of my 
article are valid even in the estimation of Dr. Foster, may 
be gathered from the fact that he does not answer any one 
of them ; nor does he even set aside the premises as invalid 
for the arguments. He even admits that, upon the pre- 
mises, " the theory in question must be rejected, and the 
static view of God maintained." Then why not show that 
my premises are false? I must therefore leave to the 
reader the consideration of the validity of those premises. 
He will, of course, readily see that the experiential philos- 
ophy can have little value in such a transcettdental prob- 
lem, for human experience could not measure Deity nor 
otherwise resolve the questions as to His attributes or 

As to the implied charge that I have no right to say that 
mwlem science " assumes a unified force as the impelling 
cause " of the universe, I would say that I did not say 
this of modem science, but of the Bergsonian philosophy 
of creative evolution as applied to the theory under con- 
sideration. Moreover, Dr. Foster also erroneously inter- 
prets my statement as referring to the law of conservation 
of energj", by identifying the "unified force" as cause 
with that great generalization of modem science as to the 
aggregate effect. However, even upon the basis of Dr. 
Foster's misinterpretation of my words, his objection is 


1919] CHtical Notes 129 

gronndlesB. If the law of conservation were really estab- 
lished ait absolute, the word assume would, of course, not 
apply. But if that law is not fiUly established, then it is not 
improper to say that modern science " assumes " as a great 
working hypothesis that there is sucli conservation, and 
therefore such a law. But Dr. Poster must know that that 
supposedly absolute law has not yet been fully establishfttl. 
Indeeil, some of the world's ablest physicists afe among the 
most modest in their claims (or that law. And, for that 
matter, the latest investigations into the nature of matter 
and energy no longer permit us to accept unchallenged 
that great law. If the mass and inertia of the constitutive 
electrons of so-called matter vary with velocity, as has 
apparently been established, and if mass is essentially elec- 
trical, or nothing but energy (a theory which even Berg- 
son apparently incorporates into bis philosophy), then 
both matter and energy (or better, matter or energy as 
ultimately identical) are variables. Hence it should fol- 
low, upon Dr. Foster's own dictum (" the experiential 
philosophy assumes nothing"), that experiential philos- 
ophy could not yet own the law (or theory) of conserva- 
tion. At any rate, it must be a strange contradiction on 
the part of an exponent of the theory of a finite and devel- 
oping Deity also to accept the law of conservation. For, 
if that law were absolute, then the aggregate of energy in 
the universe would be a fixed or constant quantity. Hence, 
upon the basis of this theory of Deity as the " Vital Im- 
pulse " conterminous or identical with the universe aa 
energy, God could in no sense ultimately be a developing 
Being, even though He were finite. On the other hand, the 
doctrine of a static transcendent God, however immanent 
He may be in nature, is not in the least affected by the 
statns of the law of conservation. 

In such a transcendental' problem, reasoning upon ac- 
cepted fundamentals or ultimates as premises virtually 
makes impossible any answer that is based upon anything 
less than fundamentals or ultimates. And, of course, as 
we have shown in the article {pp. 513, 516), it is impossi- 
ble to rise above, and even intelligibly to discuss or define^ 
ultimates. Indeed, in establishing a point, or drawing a 
conclusion, from snch an argument, especially a conclusion 
also generally accepted, the burden of proof is shifted npon 
those who would give currency to a theory which rests 
upon premises of a necessarily limited empiricism. To 
Vol. LZXVI. No. 801. 9 


130 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

deny that there are principles and laws of thought that are 
fundamental in human reasoning, is to do so in the face 
of the deliverances of universal human consciousness, as 
well as all ratiocinative experience. Indeed, it is in effect 
to knock the very pillars from under the temple of hnmau 
knowledge and to make the same collapse into a heap of 
ruins of a universal agnosticism. Dr. Foster's suggestive 
quotation from James affords us a hint in that direction, 
along which instead one mieht profess to see the trail of 
the serpent. But as we are not answering James, further 
comment is unnecessary. 

From a simple deliverance of consciousness Descartes 
could prove personal existence: cogito, ergo sum. Bat 
the validity of even this proof has supposedly been set 
aside by shutting up consciousness itself within the term 
epiphenomenalism. But such philosophy is really self- 
destrnctive. If the truth of the above demonstration of 
personal existence rested upon a mere epiph^iomenon or 
epipbenomena, then this theory of epiphenomenalism itself 
must also rest upon mere epipbenomena. Hence the proof 
above has at least as much validity as the theory that would 
explain it away. Or, in terms of a mechanistic philosophy, 
if the proof of personal existence is merdy the result of 
molecular, or perhaps electrical, brain processes, then this 
theory of mind or consciousness as the result of such brain 
processes, must itself be the result of these hypothetical 
brain processes. Or, by the result of some mysterious 
brain processes the individual personality has come to the 
conclusion that mind or consciousness is but an epipbe- 
nomenon of such brain processes and that at least as a 
ps>'chical entity he does not exist. A non-existent person- 
ality reasoning out its own non-existence! And in a similar 
manner even as a physical corporeity the individual can 
prove himself to be a non-reality! In some such reductio 
ad nhnurdum is apt to end nil hnnnnn ratiocination that 
rejects fundamental deliverances of conscioosness and the 
resultant principles and laws of thought. 

That there must necessarily be some infinite aelf-existent 
and eternal entity, no exponent of the theory of a finite 
and developing Deity can disprove or even seriously deny. 
Its existence is as certain, and even as evident, as that of 
my own finite dependent being. To answer this by labeling 
it a priori, will not disprove the apparently incontrovert- 
ible and indeed manifestly necessary fact or in any other 


1919] Critical Notes 131 

way invalidate the argument; nor will it eatablisli the op- 
posite poBition or contention. Tiiis fact of the existence 
of Bome necessarily infinite, and of course eternal and self- 
existent entity, is set forth at some length in the article 
(pp. 491 ff.). 

An infinite entity must necessarily also be unchanging. 
As to Dr. Foster's contention that I did not prove the ex- 
istence of an ancbanging, I would say that apparently 
enough is said in my article to shift the burden of proof 
upon those who hold that even God changes. But surely, 
not only does the word change imply an unchanging, but 
the ultimate necessarily infinite, whether consider^ as 
Ood or not, must, as a totality at least, also necesearUy 
be unchanging, a fact which underlies a large part of my 
argument. That an infinite cannot develop or be devel- 
oped should need no further proof than that given on 
pages 49Sff. Surely nothing external to it could afford a 
condition for such development, nor could anything in- 
herent in it be a potentiality to make it become more in- 

The above points bring us to a determination whether 
Ood is that infinite and unchanging entity. Of course, as 
we clearly showed, God confined within or somehow iden- 
tical with the physical cosmos as His manifestation, would 
necessarily be a finite Being; and as a finite entity He 
would be capable of development. Indeed, such a finite 
God would undoubtedly have to be a developing Being, or a 
Becoming. But He could surely not be an eternal Becom- 
ing, unless, as we have shown, that Becoming would end 
in an absolutely infinite. But this would in the nature of 
the case be impossible, as that would be a displacing of 
the necessarily preexisting infinite, as there could be but 
one infinite of the same kind. Indeed, such a finite God 
as a Becoming could not be a self-existent and eternal Be- 
ing, as we have shown (p. 492). And as He must therefore 
have the ground of His Being elsewhere, where else could 
He have it than in the necessarily infinite, and therefore 
eternal entity above noted, either directly or indirectly 
through some other dependent finite entity? Such a finite 
and temporal God would thus have to be conceived of as 
dependent upon some infinite and necessarily self-existent 
and eternal entity aa his supergod, which would be equiv- 
alent to saying, the ultimate real God. Hence, the error 
lies in identifying Bergson's finite " Vital Impulse " with 


132 Bibliotheca Sacra 

God instead of regarding it as an hypothetical agent or 
InBtrument in the Deity's modus operandi, according to 
thJB philosophy (pp. 493, 499 ff.). 

And that Relf-exlstent eternal and infinite Deity thus 
arrived at, must necessarily be an omnipotent and omnis- 
cient spiritual PeraotiaUty. Surely, such alone could be an 
adequate Ground of the universe, which must necessarily 
be His creation (pp. 492, 504 ff., 524-525; and developed at 
some length in Creation Ex Nihilo, chaps, iii. and viil.). 
Further development would not he possible here. 

The insurmountable difficulty involved in a retroactive 
application of thi? theory to Ood and nature in the past 
we believe has been amply pointed out on pages 487-488. 
Indeed, as such application would end us where there 
could iiave tieen neither God nor universe, the nntenability 
of the theory so applied should need no further demonstra- 
tion. From such an "Hegelism," as the student of Eegel 
will admit, even Hegel himself could not deliver us any 
more than he could deliver from nothing and bring into 
being the universe with its God, as Dr. Foster also ac- 

It must not he foi^otteii that the Bergsonian theory of 
creative evolution is itself only a good working hypothe- 
sis, and that Bergson himself has not yet identified his 
hypothetical " Vital Impulse " with Deity. Hence the ex- 
ponent of the theory of a finite and developing Deity can- 
not safely intrench himself behind that philosopher's great 
work as an impr^nable bulwark for that theory. 

L. Franklin Geubbib 

8t. Paul, Mitmeaota 



ParcHoLOOY and pRBACBiNg, By Chablus S. Qardnkb, 
ProfeB»or of Homiletics and Sociology in the Sonthem 
Baptist Tbeological Seminary. 8vo. Pp. xii, 389. New 
York: The Macmillan Company. 1918. |2.00, net. 
This is more than an ordinary book on Homiletics. The 
author breaks entirely new ground. Instead of the com- 
monplaces which have always been thrown out before the 
tbeological student about the form of the sermon, the 
method of presentation, and many other obvious standards, 
which become perfectly evident the moment the average 
man of good ability begins to preach, Dr. Gardner gets 
down to fundamentals, and reveals those secret springs of 
power and influence which lie basic in the will and the 
emotions of preachers and hearers. 

In the very first chapter he starts out to erplore the 
depths of conduct. Conduct he finds is not always ra- 
tional. The rational has imposed upon it at the beginning 
certain reflexes produced by outward stimuli upon tiie ner- 
vous organization. These reflexes gradually shade into in- 
stincts, and an instinct is nothing more than a correlation 
and adaptation of a number of reflexes. Then there are 
the native dispositions derived sometimes by heredity and 
often by environment. Then comes consciousness, " the 
inward light wliich falls upon the stream of experience," 
naturally developing habits, which is represented as or- 
ganized consciousness. 

Mental images follow. A mental image is a " conscious 
copy of an experience." The value and the danger of these 
mental images in ' the preacher's art become very evident 
when Dr. Gardner recalls the criticisms sometimes made 
of preachers because of false and exaggerated statement. 
There are psychological explanations for the ministerial 
defects in this regard, and it will be very helpful to the 
student to have these facts befoi-e him. 

The next step in the mental progress is the building up 
of a mental system. This mental system results from 
bringing in the mental images of past experience to bear 
upon the situation before the thinker at a given moment. 
A mental system is the marshaling of all our mental im- 
ages into concepts; it is a unification of our knowledge. 


184 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

Dr. Qarrlner diatinguisheB between the man who thus 
coordinates his knowledge for theoretical and the man 
who eoftrdinates it for practical ends. For the preacher 
must recognize these types in applying his message. Occu- 
pations and interests in life determine the character of 
the average man. It is therefore necessary that the preacher 
should not only know theology, but " more and more he 
needs to study the daily life of the people as well," for, as 
Dr. Gardner very truly says, it is mnch easier to unite 
people on a thing to do than on a system to be believed, 

The chapter on feelings is a discriminating discossion 
of a subject which has been treated all too superficially. 
He recognizes the part which the feelings play, but he 
shows how these stormy demonstrations aroused by a 
strong appeal to the emotions are simply reflexive mus- 
cular reactions and do not grip the central personality of 
the hearer. The religious revival is not condemned, but the 
superficial appeal to the emotions is most dangerous be- 
cause it always involves a mental reaction. 

Just as mental images are oi^nized Into a system of 
thought, BO the feelings are organized into sentiments and 
ideals. Sentiments are made up of the primary emotions, 
and cluster about the thought of home, of mother, of in- 
stitutions like the church or the state of which we are a 
part. Now when any one of these sentiments becomes 
dominant and monopolizes the personality it excludes all 
other sentiments, and rises to the dignity of an ideal which 
sways the whole life desire and activity. 

The discussion on the excitation of the feelings and emo- 
tions is not only valuable from the standpoint of theoret- 
ical knowledge, but for the preacher is of a great practical 
worth. Finely does Dr. Gardner show that the impression 
upon an audience is rather in inverse ratio to the amount 
of action on the part of the speaker, since great heat and 
intensity on the part of the speaker has a tendency to les- 
sen the internal tension of the hearer. The personality of 
the hearer is most receptive when it holds itself consciously 
to the theme presented. 

The attitude of mind toward belief and doubt in this 
discussion is so very suggestive and helpful that the author 
himself must be permitted to speak to the reader. The 
various descriptions of the open, the wavering, the vacant, 
and the closed mind should be of great help to the preacher 
in adapting his message to various classes of hearers. In 


1911)] Noticeg of Recent Publxcations 135 

a Bimilar way, the arreeting of the attention of the hearer, 
80 that it shall be spontaneous and not forced, and lead to 
action which is voluntary and positive, are matters of im- 
perative neceBBity if the speaker is to accomplish bis 
purpose with his hearer. 

In these days when we hear a great deal about sugges- 
tion, Dr. Gardner soondfi a strong note against any form 
of suggestion that makes for an uncritical acceptance of 
the ideas of the preacher. The acceptance of any truth ia 
useless unless it Is voluntary and leads to a rational con- 
trol of conduct. Too many, Dr. Gardner asserts, have been 
compromised all through life by the oncritical acceptance 
of Christian truth. It accounts for a brave show of nu- 
merical strength by the church with a strange lack of power 
in organized Christianity. 

'With these foundations deeply laid for the preacher's 
guidance, Dr. Gardner proceeds to study the character of 
assemblies, of mental epidemics, of occupational types and 
the mo<lem mind. Fortunate are the students who have 
listened to these fine expositions, tor they lie so funda- 
mentally, and yet so clearly, at the root of all practical 
and effective preaching, that an understanding of them is 
vitally necessary to the preacher's success. 

This book marks an epoch in homiletic literature. It is 
the first book that treats scientifically the secrets of strong 
and effective preaching. It does for the preacher what the 
work of psychologists like Professor James of Harvard has 
done for the teacher. It opens up the secrets of personality, 
and reveals the hidden springs of conduct, and the true 
and the false methods by which the conduct of men and of 
society have been aud may yet be shaped. If not to actu- 
ally replace, it surely shonld supplement in the preacher's 
library, all the homiletic literature of the last fifty yeara. 
N. Van dbr Pyl 

Sbliqion : Its Prophets and False Prophets. By Jambs 
Bishop Tbohas, Professor of Systematic Theology in 
the University of the Bouth, Sewanee, Tenn, 8vo. Pp. 
xxvii, 256. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1918. 
$1.50, net. 

An interesting experience gave birth to this book. Pro- 
fessor Thomas had gone to Germany to study the social 
implications of the gospel of Jesus under the leadership of 
men who had taken advanced ground in the application of 


136 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

the principles of Jesus to the life and problems of to-day. 
But while in Germany, he found a gradual tendency to 
move away from that position, and to accept the imperial- 
istic ideals which since have plunged the world into the 
Great War. This apostasy on the part' of German theo- 
logians served to strengthen his own views of the social 
meaning of the gospel, and the result is this book. 

The object of the book is to study the two types of relig- 
ion which he characterizes as the prophetic and the ex- 
ploiting, the question of supreme importance being to place 
Jesus in relation to the prophetic type. 

Professor Thomas begins his study with the history of 
the rise of Jewish ecclesiasticism and prophetism with their 
theolopy and ethic, leading to the monopoly of religion 
finally by the priest by the falsiflcation of the religions 
baelcground of history. It was this monopoly of religion 
by the priestly class which Jesus encountered during his 
earthly career, and against which he hurled the burden of 
his great message of the kingdom. Then followed again 
the pTOWth of a priestly class, hardening into the ecclesi- 
asticism of the Roman Church. From time to time insur- 
gent prophets like 8t, Francis, Arnold of Brescia, Dante, 
Wycliffe, Savonarola, raised their voices against this on- 
socializing of religion, of making it a thing of abstraction 
rather than a vital factor in human life and society. The 
" Reformation so-called " of Luther and Calvin and the 
period of Henry VIII, were simply transfers of the system 
from one exploiting class to another, which, he maintains, 
is now being adjusted by those who have caught the social 
implications of the gospel in recent days. 

This age is beginning more an<\ more to understand the 
significance of this message which Professor Thomas puts 
before us in this book. The religion of individualism, which 
shut out the application of the principles of the gospel to 
the whole of life, — to national institutions and society as 
a whole, as well as to the individual, — has gone to seed 
in the present state of Germany, and a gracious Providence 
is bringing this emasculated Christianity to the judgment 
at this very time. There is always the danger, however, of 
carrying the point too far the other way, and making the 
individual only an insignificant atom in the great lamp 
of fiocietj'. This Professor Thomas happily avoids, and it 
is this fact that gives the book its worth. In these days 
when social movements are in danger of being torn from 


1919] Notices of Recent Pullicationa 137 

all syBteme of religion, a book like this is needed to show 
how vitallj the two are related. This is a safe book to 
meet the radicalism which divorces social progress from 
the goepel of JeeuB Christ, and makes it merely a quest for 
a full stomach and more bolidaTs. v. v. d. p. 

Sbligious Education in the Church. By Hknbt Pkbd- 
EBicK Copi, General Secretary of the Religious Educa- 
tion Association. 12mo. Pp. viii, 274. New York : 
Charles Scribner'e Sons. 1918. |1.25, net. 
It is an ideal church that Dr. Cope has in mind when he 
lays out a program for it. One would like to see a church 
at work which is doing all the things that Dr. Cope lays 
down for his ideal church. 

There is this to be said for Dr. Cope's program, that it 
does not limit itself to the children of the chnrch, or to 
the Sunday school. His educational scheme for the church 
coniprehendft the services of public womhip, the preaching, 
the hortatory appeals of evangelism, the social life of the 
church, society in all its phases, and even the physical up- 
bnilding of the individual. Tliat is an ambitions program, 
and it can liardly be expected to be realized in the indi- 
vidual church. 

Yet this is the church's fundamental work. Religion is 
intended for the whole man in all his varied relationships. 
And it is for the church to foster and reinforce everything 
which ministers to the whole man. Life to-day has become 
exceedingly complex, and this very complexity of life calls 
for new ways of approach to life from the church. The 
time has gone by when a preaching service, a Sunday- 
school session, and a pastoral visit now and then rep- 
resent the whole work of the church. There are social 
conditions of which the former generation knew nothing. 
Changes in community life, home life, and world aims call 
for new adaptations. And the church must adjust itself 
if it is to continue to be a shaping force in the whole life 
of the world. To meet this need on the part of the church, 
such a book as this will prove a helpful guide, n. v, d. p. 

The Winnino of Rilioious Libbrtt, By Josiph Henbt 
Cbookke, D.D., author of " Shall I Drink? " " The Church 
of To-dav," " The Church of To-morrow." 12mo. Pp. 
xiv, 269.' Boston: The Pilgrim Press. 1918. $1.50. 
Dr. Crooker has rendered very important service to the 


1^8 BibUotheea Sacra [Jan. 

reading public in this condensed, jet compreheuaive and 
clear, portraiture of the struggles through which religious 
liberty has been obtained in a portion of the world. It is 
a toilsome road over which reformers have traveled, but 
they have led us to a glorious inheritance of freedom and 
truth. It is humiliating for us to recall that religious per- 
secution was not practiced by the Inquisition alone, but 
that Protestants both in Europe and America have used 
this instrument of persuasion in its most horrible form. 
In England during the early part of the seventeenth cen- 
tury eminent scholars were burned at the stake for enter- 
taining erroneous opinions about the Trinity. In 1651 
three Baptist ministers were lodged in the Boston (Mass.) 
jail for holding a meeting at a private house, and heavily 
fined ; and because one of them did not pay his fine he was 
whipped thirty stripes, and two of his parishioners were 
sentenced ten lashes or forty shillings for shaking hands 
with him while he was going to the whipping post. Neither 
was such persecution confined to Massachusetts, but in 
New YorlE and Virginia tbe same persecuting spirit pre- 
vailed in the Dutch Reformed and Episcopal churches. 

The prevalence of toleration, which ended in the re- 
ligions liberty which is now enjoyed in all Anglo-Saxon 
countries as well as in some others, is, according to Dr. 
Crooker, the outcome of influences set in motion by Mar- 
silius of I'adua, who in 1324 wrote " Defensor Pacis," a 
most powerful treatise from which Wiclif borrowed exten- 
sively. This was translated into German in 1522 and into 
English in 1535, and issued in more than a score of edi- 
tions and translations; thus preparing the way for the 
Reformation in Germany and the establishment of liberty 
in English-speaking countries. 

But the growth of religious liberty was slow and the 
great leaders of Protestantism to a large extent failed both 
in their theory and practice. Luther advocated a State 
Church which put Catholics and Anabaptists under the 
ban. " Calvinism saved Europe," but Calvin himself justi- 
fied the execution of Servetus. Nevertheless, Dr. Crooker 
characterizes his teachings as " far broader and less hor- 
rible than those of later Calvinism." and adds that " in 
that transition time a strong man wan needed, and he 
gathered and disciplined the men who saved Protestantism 
and made Europe free" (p. 67). The third chapter of the 
volume treats of the independent congregation as it was 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 139 

developed is England, and the fourth chapter gives a clear, 
vivid, and trustworthy account of the contribution made 
to religious freedom in the American colonies, especially 
in New England. To the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth 
belongs the credit of first incorporating the principles of 
religious liberty in a civic community and religious con- 
gregation in America. " No other company in that age, 
though many times its size, held in trust such valuable 
political and spiritual treasures. . . . No other made so 
profound and creative an impression upon the course of 
human events on this continent. No other continued to 
exist until its Ideal became the working method of a great 
Nation" (p. 244). This volume should be read by all in 
anticipation of the coming of the tercentenary celebration 
of the landing of the Pilgrims. 

Thb Chbistian Appboach to Islam. By Jamks L. Barton, 
Foreign Secretary of American Boarij of Commisflioners 
for Foreign Missions ; author of " Daybreak in Turkey," 
etc. 8vo. Pp. XV, 316. Boston: The Pilgrim Press. 
1918. 12.00. 

The clearest and most comprehensive statement which 
has been made of the characteristics of Mohammedanism, 
and of its relations to the political, social, and religious 
movements of the modem world. Both the strength and 
the weakness of Mohammedanism are presented in full de- 
tail. First, the external history is given in sufficient detail 
for the average reader's understanding of the subject. With 
equal success the character of the religion is presented; 
thus leading to the most important part of the discussion, 
which the author is specially qualified to conduct, namely, 
its relation to Christianity, and the best methods of car- 
rying on missionary work among Moslem peoples. The 
timeliness of the volume is manifest at a glance. 

Bbrmons on the International Bundat-School Lessons 

FOR 1919. Bv the Monday Club, Forty-fourth Series. 

12mo. Pp. i'x, 366. Boston: The Pilgrim Press. 1918. 


For forty-four years the Monday Club have furnished 
sermons upon the Sunday-school lessons, which have met 
a permanent want, as is shown by the continued demand 
for them. Of the thirty Congregational clergyman who 
furnish the sermons in this volume, only four (one of whom 


140 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jan. 

is Prof. Wright), were original meiDt>er8 of the Club. Bat 
though tJie particlea ma; change, the stream goes on for- 
ever, and we repeat what we have said before, that the pul- 
pit furnishes the best position for the interpretation of the 
Bible. This series is fully up to the standard set in the 

Thii OonwARD Side op Lipb. By Gaius Glbnn Atkins. 

12mo. Pp. viii, 192. Boston: The Pilgrim Press. 1918. 

¥1.50, net. 

Dr. Atkins is a type of preacher who, amid the rush of 
our time, when men think little about the deep things of 
the spirit, is giving the message that man eternally needs. 
Fortunate for the city, where the rush of commercialism 
is wild for six days in the week, to have in its heart a 
chureh where such searching sermons are being preached. 

Here are fourteen sermons, every one of which gets be- 
neath the SHrface of thingn, and lays bare those godlike 
qualities and aims which man still needs to lift him to 
the Eternal. Dr. Atkins resembles Martineau in the style 
of his preaching; and reading these sermons, one finds 
that in method of treatment and type of tJiinking he 
owes something to Martineau. In fact, a few of his sub- 
jects are directly taken from the sermons of the great Eng- 
lish thinker. Yet Dr. Atkins thinks for himself, and he 
conveys his own message and not another's. 

The Brkath in the WiKna and Other Sermons. By Fkod- 
BBicK F. Shannon, Pastor of the Reformed Church-on- 
the-Heights, Brooklvu. 12mo. Pp. 173. New York: 
Fleming H. Revell Company. 1918. |1.00, net. 
Dr. Shannon has been sending forth sermons with some 
profusion. Here is an altogether different type of sermon 
fi-om that exemplified in the preaching of Dr. Atkins. 
They are referred to as brilliant; they sparkle. They are 
full of illustrative material. They are readable, and they 
must have been easy to listen to. Such varied preaching 
as that of Dr. Atkins and Dr. Shannon illustrates the 
varied needs of man's religious nature, and how varied also 
preachers should be in their methods of appeal. The ser- 
mons are all direct, pointed, and appealing. 

With God in the Wae. 16mo. Pp. ix. 116. New York: 
The Macmillan Company. 1918. 60 cents. 


1919] KoticeB of Recent Publications 141 

The Pulpit in War Timk. By Maetin D. Hardin, D.D., 
LL.D.; Charlbs F. WishabTj D.D.; Andkbw C. Zbnos, 
D.D.; John M. Van dbr Msulen, D.D.; Jambs G. K. 
McClurb, D,D., LL,D.; Williau Chalmbbs Covbrt, D.D., 
LL.D.; David Hugh Jonbs, D.D.; Edgar P. Hill, D.D., 
LL.D.; Clbland B. McAfbb, Ph.D., D.D.; John Timo- 
thy Stone, D.D., LL.r>. With ao Introduction by Ed- 
gar P. Hill, D.D., LL.D. 16mo. Pp. 173. Philadelphia : 
The Westininster Press. 1918. 75 cents, net. 

The War and the Bible. By H. O. Enblow, D.D., Temple 
Ematin-el, New York. 16nio. Pp. v, 115. The Macmil- 
lan Compaay. 1918. 60 cents. 

The Biblb View op the World: An Exposition of the 
Abiding Principles of Christian Truth, as Applied to 
the Conditions of Modem Life and the Circumstances 
of the Present Hour. By the Rev. Martin Anstby, B.D., 
M.A., author of " The Romance of Bible Chronology." 
16ino. Pp. ix, 148. London, Morgan and Scott, 

America — Herb and Ovbb Thbrb. By Lutheb B, Wilson, 
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 16mo. Pp. 
107. New York: The Abingdon Press. 1918. 75 cents, 

Christian Internationalism. By William Pibrson Mer- 
rill. 12mo. Pp. V, 193. New York: The Macmillan 
Company. 1919. |1.50. 

God's Responsibility for thb War. By Edward 8. Drown, 
D.D., I'rofessor in the Episcopal Theological School in 
Cambridge, and author of " The Apostles' Creed To-day," 
IRmo. Pp. V, 56. New York: The Macmillan Company. 
1919. 60 cents. 

Of the many volumes called into existence by the war 
from which the world has just emerged, special notice is 
called to the following : — 

J. "With God in the War." This is a miscellaneous 
collection of brief utterances, both in poetry and in prose, 
which outline the purpose, the way, and the goal. Though 
designed for use of men in the National service, it is of 
eqnal value to readers of every description. 

2. " The Pulpit in War Time," which consists of ten 
sermons by prominent Chicago Presbyterian clergymen. 
The sermons were all preached in the ordinary course of 


142 J Bibliotkeca Sacra [Jan. 

Sabbath services and were not prepared with view to pub- 
lication. They therefore give a fairly accurate idea of the 
way the putpits of America have arisen to meet the wants 
of the present occasion. 

3. " The War and the Bible," which, in nine chapters, 
treats of the varioua problems that arise connected with the 
war and Christianity, the last chapter being an inspiring 
one on " The Peace Ideals of the Bible." 

4. "The Bible View of the World." This voliime, 
though issued in the early part of tbe war, leads naturally, 
in one of the closing chapters, to a helpfnl discussion of 
Christianity and war. The book contains an outline state- 
ment of the conservative views in exposition of the abid- 
ing principles of Christian truth, and as snch is highly to 
be commended. 

5. "America — Here and Over There" contains four ad- 
dresses by the eminent author npon returning from a pro- 
longed visit to the front in Italy and France. 

6. An impassioned plea for " internationalism " as op- 
posed to " un-nationatism," which he describes as a sort of 
"free love-isni," We can be patriotic and still wort for a 
union of nations with force enough behind it to compel its 
dictates. The discussion is comprehensive and discrimi- 
natory, and deserves to be read by everyone in this crisis 
in national affairs. 

7. A complete and satisfactory answer to those who 
ai^e God's flniteness from the evils permitted in the pres- 
ent war. It is not God's power so much as his wisdom 
that is at stake in the evils permitted in the world. The 
book is preeminently one for the times. Seldom have we 
found BO much wisdom bo well expressed in small compass. 

Thk Outdooe Story Book: for Children from Four to 
Eleven. By Carolyn Sheewin Bailey. 12mo. Pp. x, 
223. Boston : The Pilgrim Press. 1918. flM, net. 
A series of fifty stories, parables of the four seasons, 
personifying the flowers, tbe birds, the trees, and the liv- 
ing world, all telling their purposes, their hopes and fears, 
to the child for whom all nature has a voice. 


The Bible Champion 

Official Organ of the Bible "League of North America 


Ad Otgtnixatioo formed to promote a true knowledge of the Bible 
sad coniequeDt faith in iti Divine Authority 

In its New Form — greatly improved and enlarged — there is do 
magazine published to-day that gives greater value for the inveatment 
made. We wieh to prove this stroug claim made for the Bible Cham- 
pion to every reader of the Bibliotheea Sacra. 

The price of the Bible Champion is ?1.50 the year; Canada, fl.65; 
Foreign, J1.75 ; Single copy, 15c. It is the policy of the Publishers not 
to send free sample copiew. BUT as an inducement to the readers of 
Bibliotheea Sacra to examine a recent number of Bible Champion we 
will promptly mail yon a January number if you will inclose Five One- 
cent stamps with your request. This offer will not be repeated ! Send 
for yours to-day! 

OK, if yon will inclose the price of a year's subscription we will 
send you a volume, cloth, of Dr. Eaenwein's " Feathers for Shafts," free, 
prepaid, as a Premium. 

OR, send ns the price of a year's subscription, and add 50c to it, 
and get any one of the cloth-bound books below, prepaid : — 

" Concessions of Liberalists to Orthodoxy " (344 pp., f 1.50) , by 
Dr. Dorchester; or, "Christianity and Positivism" (370 pp., |1.75), by 
President McCosh; or, "Footprints of Sorrow" (373 pp., ?1,50), by 
Dr. Held; or, " Voices of the Soul Answered In God " {374 pp., fl.50), 
by Dp. Reid; or, "Christ and Hie Religion" (311 pp., tl.50), by Dr. 
Reid. For f2.00 we will send yon any one of above volumes and the 
Bible Champion a year, prepaid. (Canada, $2.15; Foreign, |2.25.) 

JAY BENSON HAMILTON, D.D.. Editor. 191 South 2 Street, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 


David James Burrell, D.D., LL.D., William H. Rates, D.D., Herbert W. 

Magoun, Ph.D., Luther T. Townseiid, D.D., LL.D., 

Q. Frederick Wright, D.D., LL.D. 

Address all Orders, and mail on matters of Business, to 
, lUanaging Editor and Publisher, Reading, Pa. 


Creation Ex Nihilo 

The Physical Universe 
a Finite and Temporal Entity 

L. Frauklin Gruber 

with • foreword by 
G. Frederick Wright, D.D., F.G.S. A. 

316 pages. 12mo, doth 
$1.50 net 

"1 have becD iDfluenced by thk book 

u I have aot been inSaeDGed .by any 

offieT book within Iweotv-five yean." 

Frank, w. Gunsaulus 

Discount of 20?fc 

on ihit (or any of OUR pubticaiioai) 
to all BIbliotheca Sacra tubacriben re- 
micting direct to ui for 1919 before 
April, U919. Carriage prepaid on the 




Eighty-Ninth Year 







Thk Jisn> OF A Nbw CoitcKPnoiT or God A^dreio OilUea 143 

Sm in TKK UOBT OF To-day Olive 3f. WincHegter -163 

Thx Gebuah AiTiTtnic to the Biblb . . . . W. H. Oriffith Thomas 165 

Pkust — PsmaTHOOO William B. Bate.a ITS 

OonTBiBUTioiis TO A Nbw TsrawT OF THB Composition or thb Pewta- 

zBDOa (III.) Harold M. Wiener 193 

Ahovah Joteph D. Wil»oa 221 

Cbitioai. Notes — 

Tlie Hun and the Imprecatory pBalme . . . . W. A. Jarrel 228 

Tfae text ot Numbers xzl. 14 1 H. U. Wiener 232 

NaTille on the Composition and Sources of Oeneals 

John BoaJ WiaMman 231 

"The Student's Theodore" Y. Oola 243 

Notices of Recekt Pitbuoations 2&0 



EtntopxAiT AsBirra, CaAaLss Hiohak ft SqiR 
27a FaiTlngdon Street, London, H. C 


Katfftd at th« Post Office In Oberlln, Ohio, as S«cond<«laaa Ilattar 


Unusual Blessing 

Attended the Confereace on " World Evangelism and Vital Christianity 
After the War" held at The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, Feb- 
ruary 3-7. From Monday night, when Dr. James M. Gray gave the 
address of welcome, sounding the keynote of the Conference, which was 
to be the importance of " proclaiming the Gospel that we have always 
proclaimed, and holding up the standard of the Cross," until the last 
address by Dr. Howard Agnew Johnston on " The Atmosphere of Spirit- 
ual Power," every speaker rallied whole-heartedly to a constructive 
program of evangelism and united testimony to the fundamentals of 
the faith. 

Men from many denominations^ leaders in their circles, spoke of 
nearly every phase of work which now lies before us in preaching 
Christ and Him Crucifietl to a lost and perishing world. Amoug the 
speakers were the following : Bev. Joseph Kyle, D.D., LL.D., President 
Xenia Theological Seminary; Rev. J. C. Massee, D.D., First Baptist 
Church, Dayton, Ohio; Evangelist Henry Ostrom, Methodist; Bev. Sam- 
uel M. Zwemer, D.D., Missionary, Cairo, Egj-pt; Rev. E. M. Potent, D.D., 
ex-President Furman Baptist College; Kev, D. S. Kennedy, D.D., Ed- 
itor The Presbyterian, Philadelphia; Rev. John McNicol, B.D., Toronto 
Bible College; Rev. E. A. Wollam, Cleveland Bible Institute; Rev. W. 
Ellis, Vancouver Bible Institute; Rev. Wm. B. Riley, Northwestern 
Bible School, Minneapolis; Rev. Wm. L. Pettingill, Dean Philadelphia 
School of the Bible ; Rev. John A. Davis, Evangelist ; Bishop Joseph F. 
Berry, Methodist, Philadelphia; also Jewish Mission and Rescue Mis- 
sion representatives. 

By special arrangement THE CHRISTIAN WORKERS MAGA- 
ZINE will publish a fuU report of the important addresses in the March 
and April numbers. No extra charge will be made for this, as it will be 
sold at the regular price of a single copy of the magazine — only 15 
cents, or the two for 25 cents — but order at once if you desire a copy. 

In the April number to follow will be published a special article 
by Pastor D. M. I'anton, of Norwich, England, on " The Present Rise 
and Ultimate End of Democracy." 

at f 1.50 a year. Address 


144 Institute Place, CHICAGO, ILL. 





It is now quite generally agreed that Germany's madness 
can be traced straight back to Germany's apostasy. Put- 
ting the facta in terms of national life, it is said that Ger- 
man Kultnr, with its brood of insane and piratical acts, is 
the legitimate offspring of German Rationalism. Or, per- 
sonalizing the whole matter, it is stated that es-Emperor 
William's philosophy and conduct are alike fiendish be- 
cause bis god, with whom he seemed for so long to be on 
astonishingly familiar terms, is not the Christian Ck»d at 
all, but some barbaric deity. Here is another case of a 
man's becoming like the Being whom he worships. 

It has not yet been said that the same relation of cause 
and effect holds good in the case of the modem world's con- 
ception of God and its moral and spiritual state; and yet 
the available facts are jnst as convincing. Look at the sit- 
nation. The three things most frequently postulated con- 
cerning God are, first, that He is love; second, that He is 
onr Father; third, that He is immanent in the imiverse of 
which He is the Creator. And of the three, the most fre- 
quently affirmed and the universally accepted is that He is 
Love. Even when men think of Him as Father, it is as the 
loving Father. And even when they talk of His immanence, 
they dwell upon the fact that He is immanent in love. The 
stupendous fact that God is Love has captnred the imag- 
ination of Christendom. 

Now, rightly interpreted and viewed in its relation to 
the whole body of revealed truth, that one of the eternal 
verities is of superlative value to mankind. "When John 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 302. 1 


144 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

wrote hie copulative Beoteoce in his first epistle, he inaug- 
urated a new era in Christian nnderetanding." But right 
there lies the crux of the existing situation. This truth is 
not rightly interpreted, and it Is viewed entirely apart 
from its relation to the whole body of truth. In tliat state- 
ment I am not referring to the fact that most of our mod- 
em theology is not orthodox, bat to the obvious fact that 
the popular or prevailing idea of Ood is as far from the 
truth as is the ex-Emperor's. "We hold in our mind 
conceptions of Ood that are not much t>etter than the 
Kaiser's." In his discussion of " The Unity of God's Char- 
acter," William Newton Clarke says: — 

" We ascribe to God certain qualities of character, set 
forth in familiar terms, but when we come to define them 
we are under the influence of our own limitations, and how- 
ever large and worthy the terms that we use, our concep- 
tions are sure to become narrowed toward the dimensions 
of humanity. Naturally, if not inevitably, we bring the 
perfection of God down towards our own imperfections." 

That is exactly what has happmed in the present in- 
stance. The common man has reduced the statemeut " Ood 
is Love " to the perilous proportions of the half-truth. The 
equally momentous fact that He is holy, that " our God is 
a consuming fire," has been almost absolutely obliterated 
from his consciousness. Whether right or wrong from the 
standpoint of a strictly orthodox theology, men look upon 
Ood as their Father. They have forgotten that he is like- 
wise their Creator; tbeir Sovereign, to whom they owe 
allegiance; and their Judge, before whom they must stand 
at last and give an account of " the deeds done in the 

Furthermore, the modem idea of God errs not only in 
its isolation of the central truth of the Gospel, but In its 
distortion of that truth. The perfection of Ood has been 
brought down to onr imperfections. Or, in the blatant 
words of tbe skeptic IngersoU, " man has created Ood in 
his own image." The love of Ood has been evacuated of 
all ethical significance and all consequent spiritual com- 


1919] Need of a New Conception of Ood 145 

pulaion. It has been tranelated into terms of mawkish 
s^timentalism. In these days of a minimised parental 
authority, the average man bdieree in a Fatherhood of 
Ood devoid of all moral and spiritual exactions. He has 
not thonght the matter out calmly and thoroughly, for he 
does not do tilings that way. But " there is a logic of the 
hopes and fears that insidiously smug^es its conclusions 
into the realm of the intellect." By this devious and peril- 
ous route he has come to two more or less clearly defined 

The first is ttiat God is not very exacting with His weak 
and erring children. This kindly disposed and thoroughly 
indulgent parent not only does not hold His imperfect 
children blameworthy for their shortcomings, but He will- 
ingly accepts generosity in place of righteousness, human- 
itarian activities as a substitute for " nnspottedness from 
the world," and spasms of virtuous emotion as something 
" just as good " as the surrender of the will. 

The other conviction or vague feeling which men have 
about God to-day is that He is eternally accessible. It is 
not so much a belief that they will have in the next world a 
chance to measure up to the rigid requirements of a moral 
and morally exacting God as it is that this easy-going 
quality in the Divine character is permanent ; thus making 
the salvation of aU men, however far short they may have 
fallen of the Christian requirement, an assured fact. The 
average man, in his loose thinking, has not postulated a 
second probation. He has done away with the idea of pro- 
bation entirely. In a strikingly calm, dispassionate article 
on "Beligion in War Times," published in The Atlantic 
Monthly of September, 1918, Dr. William Ernest Hocking, 
Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, says of 
the soldier who enlisted in the Allied cause : — 

"Always there is something that sets this particular act 
of dedication [enlistment] apart in the mind of the decider. 
... It tends to put him on fnndamental good terms with 
the invisible universe as with visible society. And it is 
likely to serve as an nnuttered argument to the eftect that 


146 Bibliotkeca Sacra [April, 

Qod, if there be a Ood, will oot be too hard on him, what- 
ever happens." 

It is nnnecessary at tliis time to enlarge on the (act that 
a vast number of good people have translated that vague 
feeling into a certainty, and affirmed without hesitation 
that " going over the top " means salvation. It is quite 
essential, however, to call attention to the yet more sig- 
nificant fact that vast numbers who never saw the front- 
line trenches are obsessed with the idea that " Ood will 
not be too hard on them, whatever happens." In the three 
years just passed, especially, I have talked with all sorts 
and conditions of men, with men to each of whom it might 
truthfully be said, " Many tilings thou lackeat " ; and I 
found them all complacent and calm as regards their 
future. As one dissolute man said, " If my Father won't 
take care of me, who will?" Or, as another put it, in 
speaking of a mutual friend who had passed through a 
period of genuine conviction of sin, " That's all bosh. The 
Almighty doesn't require that of anybody." 

The prevailing opinion as to the destiny of those who 
have died, whatever their moral and spiritual state at the 
time of their exit, is plainly stated by Elizabeth Aahe in 
her story "Appraisement," also published in The Atlantic 
Monthly. The story tiegins with the announcement of 
Alan Reid's suicide, and the subsequent discovery of his 
young widow that he had been a defaulter of trust funds, 
and, at the time of his death, was living in illicit relations 
with his secretaiy. Indignant and ashamed, she went to 
call on his mother, but found her enumerating his good 
qualities as a child. Together they read his old letters, 
enlarged upon his cast-off virtues, and decided that, in 
spite of the fact that he went out of this world a thief, an 
adulterer, and a suicide, he would ultimately be all right. 
The author sums up her philosophy in a final statement 
which she puts into the mouth of the young widow : " Past 
and present are only a part of a life. There's the fntore, 
the long future to complete him. He will go on — with 
us, dear." 


1919] Need of a New Conception of Ood 147 

In Dr. Hocking's analTsia of the cousciousneeB of tbe 
soldier, and Elizabeth Ashe's doctrine of the destiny of a 
scoundrel, we have the modem idea of Ood at perigee and 
apogee. Not only tbe man who enlisted, but also the aen- 
timentaliste of all shades, the intellectaalists, and as many 
of the social idealists as believe in a future at all, have 
taken the yearning of " the larger hope," and tbe hypothe- 
sis of " the upward thrust by a Universal Spirit," and " tbe 
half truths and false psychology of popular altruism," 
and the erroneous conclusions of ChriBtian Science, and 
evolved either an indulgent Parent who is too tender- 
hearted to punish anybody or an automatic salvation in 
which aU men are included, willy-nilly. 

It is to be expected that such views of Ood and destiny 
would rob religion of its solemnity, life of its moral com- 
pulsion, and conscience of its authority. Fifty years ago, 
in bis sermon entitled " One Chance Better than Many," 
Horace Bushnell pointed out the psychological stupidity 
and moral peril of snch a flabby and unethical faith, if it 
can be called a faith. To assume for a moment that man 
can spend his whole life here consciously choosing the lower 
and inferior, letting the animal in bim dominate the spir- 
itual, substituting self-will for the will of Ood, and then, 
in the next world, by some magical power of Divine love, 
either be made selfish and blessed at the same time or 
be transformed into an angel of light, is to do violence 
to all the teachings of psychology and to corrupt human 
life at its center. " It is a very self-evident fact that if 
we had two or more trials offered us, we should be utterly 
slack and n^lectful in the flret and should bring it to its 
end almost inevitably in a condition utterly unhopeful." 
It is just as true of ideas as it is of men, that " by their 
fruits ye shall know them." To put it subjectively, and to 
use a sorely overworked and much abused Scripture say- 
ing, "as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." Experience 
proved to John Wesley that a liberal theology does not 
always connote a low moral character in the individual, 
for he found that there were heterodox saints as well as 


148 Bibliotheca Sacra [^V^> 

orthodox sinnere. But hlHtorical experience haa proved be- 
yond peradventnre that a flabby and unethical conception 
of God, comprehending a "posthumous salvation," — what". 
Bnshnell ironically calls " a basement gospel," — reacts 
disastrously upon the race as a whole. It is the merest 
commonplace that the element of reverence has gone from 
our modem religion. With the sense of Ood's holiness has ' 
gone the sense of man's sinfulness, and with the ethical 
conception of the Divine character has gone much of the 
reality from our religion. There is no use in contrasting 
the Present and the Past, in putting the worst of to-day 
beside the best of yesterday. Bat neither is anything to 
Ik gained by glossing over the facte. The triad of sins 
which curses the modem world is made up of Hypocrisy, 
Compromise, and Presumption. There are many in the 
charch who are substituting philanthropic activity for 
spiritual vitality, formal religion for a saving faith, for- 
getting God's insistent demand, " Wash you, make you 
cleau ; put away the evil of your doings from before mine 
eyes." Vain oblations have changed in outer aspect, but 
they are still offered by those who dream of a God who 
can be placated by gifts. The excuse that " a man must 
live" is offered iu exteunation for corrupt business prac- 
tices and participation in questionable enterprises. In- 
stead of a social order based upon the clear consciousness 
that " you can't compromise on the big things of life," we 
have what Howells gently designates as " that easy-going, 
not evilly-intentioned potential immorality, which regards 
common property as common prey." The universal assump- 
tion is that the exalted ethic of revealed truth must give 
way before the pressure of individual physical necessities 
and a hostile social order. The astounding thing about 
the world in general is not that moral laxity exists, but 
that in a multitude of cases it is justified by the specious 
plea of " moral freedom." And while the world war has 
modified some of these evils, it has left others untouched. 
There are not wanting those who say that all this is 
due to the lack of a " social consciousness." Unless I have 


1919] Need of a 2few Conception of Ood 149 

read both my Bible and my history upside down, it is due, 
primarily at least, to the lack of a " God consciousneeB," 
a deep and overwhelming realisation that Ood's love is 
ethical, God Himself is inexorably exacting, abd "life is 
ethical from the outBet." There is a growing " disdain for 
consequences," because there are no conseqaences serious 
enou^ to be concerned about. The occasional plea of the 
old-fashioned preacher to " flee from the wrath to come " 
is received with supercilious scorn or hilarious contempt. 
The simple and comfortable fact is that there is nothing 
to flee from. The average man has answered Joseph Cook's 
question, " Is there nothing in God to fear? " with just two 
words, — " absolutely nothing." And so he either contents 
himself with spiritual .minimums, the calm confidence that 
" God, if there be a God, will not be too hard on him, what- 
ever happens," or the satisfying hypothesis that the mys- 
terious and unknown forces of another life will effect in 
his indifferent soul the needed transformation which the 
exigencies of this life could not. 

Obviously, then, any serious attempt to make the new 
social order Christian must be accompanied by a rediscov- 
ery of the Christian God. And that means that we must 
turn from the philosophers and sentimentalists and intel- 
lectuals and social idealists, and endeavor to comprehend 
"the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," revealed 
to us not only in what Jesus said but also iu what he was 
and did. It is not within the purpoBe of this paper to at- 
tempt anything like an outline of the Christian doctrine 
of God ; but it is, to insist that any doctrine or conception 
worthy of the name Christian must emphasize the ethical 
consistency and unity of the Divine character. One thing 
that the race needs " in order to full goodneBS " is a clear 
knowledge of the elements that go to make up Perfect Per- 
sonality, " with a perception of what they mean and what 
they require." Two generations ago men needed to be told 
that " God is Love," that He is on their side. To-day they 
need to know that God'e love is moral through and through, 
that He is not on their side unless they heed His voice and 


160 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

do His will. The modern world sadly needs a re-emphasifi 
of God's holiness and of the retributive element which in- 
heres in that hoUnesfl. A legal enactment is not necessary 
in order that evil-doers be punished. The severity of the 
Heavoity Father Is as essential to His Fatherhood as Is 
His goodness. Or, putting the troth in the terms of cause 
and effect, so popular in this scientific age, the consequences 
of sin are written into the moral universe and the nature 
of man, a moral being. Furthermore, " a good God de- 
mands that His children be good," and that they be good 
here and now or suffer the consequences. To do away with 
the crucial character of man's decision as to the fulfillment 
of his obligations to God, the probationary character of 
life, and " the strict limitation of the probationary period 
to this life," is to deny the plain and explicit teachings of 
Jesus Christ. The man who insists upon the claim that 
" the redemptive purpose of God must continue forever " 
ought to be as honest as was Theodore Parker when he said, 
" I believe that Jesus Christ taught the everlasting pun- 
ishment of the wicked, but I refuse to accept it on his 
authority." He ought to go farther and admit that his 
God is not the Christian God. Soft and easy conceptions 
of God have no place in Holy Writ. In a terrific arraign- 
ment of the ex-Kaiser and a most melancholy prophecy of 
his probable destiny, Lyman Abbott says: — 

" I believe that he will pass, as we all must pass, from 
the deceptive lights and theatric shows of this world to the 
revealing lights and stem judgments of the world to come. 
There he will stand for judgment before Him who denounced 
as a generation of vipers, fit only to be cast out as the offal 
of the universe to be destroyed by the fires of Gehenna, 
those who had devoured widows' houses and made long 
prayers. ... I have no power to conceive what divine scorn 
and wrath he will confront who has spread over half a 
continent, poverty, famine, disease, slavery and death." 

Those are puissant words, and right well do they sound 
in an age of soft phrases and honied drippings. But is 
William HohenzoUem to face Almighty God in solitary 
shame and terror? Upon him alone are the scorn and 


1919] Need of a New Conception of Ood 151 

wrath of an outraged Deity to be poured out? What of 
the whited sepnlchers, b; no means all " made in Ger- 
many," who are beantiful without but within are full of 
dead men's bones and all undeanness? And the profiteers 
who, even though they buy Liberty Bonds and sing " The 
Star Spangled Banner" with tearfol eyes, justify Samuel 
Johnson's blistering affirmation that " patriotism is the 
last refuge of a scoundrel"? And the impure, who would 
insult a holy God by attempting to offer Him physical 
courage in place of a clean heart? And the apostles of 
compromise, between whose private life and business prac- 
tices is a "great gulf fixed"? And the horde of selfish 
and indiflFerent who, in the presence of the unending con- 
flict between the forces of righteousness and forces of 
evil, turn a deaf ear to the cry, " Come up to the help of 
the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty"? 
Is it true that God will not be too hard on them or that 
the upward thrust of a Universal Goodness will bring 
them at last to blessedness and perfection, while, cower- 
ing under the fui7 of an indignant Creator, William II. 
suffers the punishment he so richly deserves? 

The case may be summed up in a sentence, " When thy 
judgments are on the earth, then shall its inhabitants 
learn righteousness." The part of Dr. Abbott's philippic 
which needs to be burned into the consciousness of the 
race is " as we aU must pass." When men know clearly 
and fee] keenly that " Gk>d cannot be an enswathing kiss 
without also being a consuming fire " ; that His love is 
ethical and inexorably exacting; that His insistent demand 
is " for a careful ordering of the present life as antecedent 
to and determinant of future destiny"; then, and then 
only, shall we have a conception of the Divine character 
consistent with the inspired word of His revelation, justi- 
fied by psychology and historical erperience, and provoca- 
tive of holy living and holy dying. A Christian social 
order or a widespread spiritual quickening of the race 
without a clear, Christian conception of God is a moral 




With the progress along scientific linee, tbe developing 
of philosophical thought and speculation, and the remold- 
ing of religious beliefs and theological dogma, many of the 
doctrines of the old ecclesiasticistus have undergone ma- 
terial change. Sometimes the alteration has been quite a 
radical one; for instance, in the view of deity as imma- 
nent in contradistinctioD to the belief in the transcendence 
of the Oodhead. At other times the variation appears to 
be rather in the method of approach than in the change of 
the fundamental conception itself. This is apparent in 
the doctrine of the Incarnation. The fact of an incarna- 
tion remains the same, whether it is approached by the 
dogmatic method of the more conservative advocates or the 
philosophical method of the liberal theologians, although 
the latter view raises grave textual problems. As long 
aa the modifications in dogma vere confined to the more 
speculative issues, tbe immediate effect was not so great; 
but when these began to toucb the ethical and practical 
problems, naturally there would be certain corresponding 
results. In the consideration of the question of sin, we 
touch a decidedly ethical and practical issue. If the con- 
ception of sin is so modified that it becomes a necessary 
concomitant of man's development, — in fact, if it is no 
more than good in the making, — then, necessarily, the 
gravity and heinonsness of sin disappears; and man's re- 
sponsibility and guilt for sin is thereby lessened, if not 
eradicated altogether. Thus, in a case like this, it is the 
part of wisdom to alter fundamental conceptions with 
caution, and to look weU to the outcome of any change 
before the modification is made. 

Before turning directly to the subject, however, it is 
necessary, since the question of sin is such a ramified one, 
to institute a process of elimination, that it may be clearly 


Sin in the Light of To-day 153 

onderstood just which phase of the issue is to be treated. 
Together with sin comeB the query of origin, — both meta- 
physical and nOQ-temporal and also temporal. Then also 
theodicy would become a part of a full discusaioo of the 
subject. Moreover, the relation of sin to human destiny 
would be a consideration to be taken into accoont. But 
these will be dismissed for the time being, and simply the 
oature and essence of sin will be discnssed, together with 
some closely allied features which are sometimes confused 
with sin. 

With this view of the subject in mind, we will consider 
some of the modem definitions and analyses of sin. First, 
we shall take up the scientific exposition of natural sci- 
ence, the evolutionary solution of the problem. From the 
point of view of pan-evolution there would be no dlscoa- 
tinuity between man and the beast. Sin would be the in- 
heritance received from the animal ancestry, and all that 
it would be necessary for man to do would be to 
"Move upward, working out Uie beast, 
And let tlie ape and tiger die." 

In such a view sin is inevitable, and the responsibility en- 
tailed on man for its possesBion is reduced to the test as 
to whether he does move upward or not. If he falls to 
work out the beast that is in him, then he must needs be 
responsible. Another evolutionary view is that when man 
was. in the transitiouary stage from the non-moral to the 
moral, instead of fulfilling the ideal upon entering the 
realm of moral consciousness, he came short, he stumbled 
and fell. With this view comes a real responsibility for 
sin, and this also reveals to some extent the inherent na- 
ture; it is the falling short of the ideal of the type for man 
and the subservience to the lower instincts. 

Besides the scientific explanation of the problem of sin, 
the philosophical thinkers have also contributed a solu- 
tion. Kant maintains that there is in man a radical evil 
principle. Julius MflUer sums up the view of Hegel as 
follows: — "As to the nature of evil, Hegel makes it consist 
in abstract subjectivity, or, more exactly, in arbitrariness, 


151 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

— in makiDg seW the ruling principle, instead of uoiversal 
good, — In the subject's recognition of his individuality 
as that which determines him, so far as it asserts some 
subjective interest in opposition to moral good." In con- 
tradistinction to these subjective views, Bchopenhauer 
finds Bin in the constitution of the world, and Rotfae seeks 
the origin in matter. 

With the statements of these two great philosophers, we 
turn to the statements of modem theologians. First to be 
considered here is Schleiermacher, the father of the mod- 
em theological movement. In his conception of the hu- 
man will, he was a determinist, and attributed all cau- 
sality to God. The Divine Being, although not considered 
to be the author of sin in the same way that he was the 
author of redemption, yet was in some sense its author. 
This reasoning involves the difficulty of making God the 
author of that which was in direct contradistinction to 
his will. The solution offered was this: — 

" There are two elements combined in every act of sin, 
namely, the outgo of a sensuous impulse, and the conscious- 
ness of God. We derive both without hesitation from the 
etemal causality of God; bat both taken together do not 
in themselves constitute sin. . Sin only ensues when the 
determining power of the God-consciousness is inadequate, 
when compared with the strength of the natural impulse. 
But we must r^ard this weakness of the God-consciousness 
at any given stage of our life, as rising from the gradnal- 
ness of our spiritual development, and from the conditions 
of our present state of existence; and the original or idetd 
perfection of man is not thus done away. But sin, as such, 
thus resolves itself into a mere negation, and no mention 
can be made of a productive or generating will of God In 
connection with it." ^ 

Thus we see that Schleiermacher closely associates sin with 
the sensuous nature; it is the outgo of a sensuous impulse 
which is stronger than the God-consciousness. He also, 
whUe rejecting the orthodox doctrine of original sin, sub- 
stitutes an explanation for the phraomena. He calls it 
" the collective guUt of the race," and maintains that not 
'MttUer, Th© Chrt«Uan Doctrine of Sin. 


1919] Sin in the Light of To-day 155 

only does sin come from within man, as in the case of the 
impulse of the seasuous nature, but it also comes from 
without in this sense of collective guilt; and thereby 
arises our absolute need of redemption. 

While Schleiermacher thus associates sin with the sen- 
suous nature of man, or, rather, explains it on the basis 
of " the relative weakness of the spirit compared with the 
sense," MQller finds the principle of sin in selfishness: 
"The I, that gloomy despot, rules supreme; man stands 
alone in the world, shut op within himself, and in a chaos 
of selfish endeavours, preferences and antipathies." Man 
desires to be his own master. But this principle does not 
remain n^ative altogether; there is an outgo in it; there 
is an attachment to some worldly affection. Then direct 
acts of sin result by the working of this desire in the heart 
of man. At first the better self in man, the understanding 
and the will, is antagonistic to this dominance of the 
lower impulses, but finally even these surrender to the 
control of the lower self. All through the various manifes- 
tations of sin, this selfish tendency is evident. It is ap- 
parent in covetousneas, falsehood, pride, love of power, 
injustice, hatred, and the other forms. 

While Mflller finds sin in selfishness, Ritschl specifies 
that its source is ignorance. According to his conception, 
man ttegins as a purely natural being with self-seeking 
propensities, and with a moral will only partially devel- 
oped ; this moral will is a growing entity. Since sin thus 
has its root in ignorance, the sense of guilt is lessened, 
for man cannot be held responsible for that which he does 
not know alwut. Moreover, it would also seem that sin 
is unavoidable, for it arises through the natural tendency 
of man unde^oing development. Altogether this theory 
does not seem to give a very thoroughgoing estimate of 
the gravity of sin. As for original sin, Bitachl rejects the 
existence of this form of evil, but instead maintains the 
presence of social heredity, that is, there is an "inheri- 
tance of evU not merely by individual imitation of bad 
example," as Pelagins would teach, "but by the inbreath- 


156 Bibliotheca Sacra ['^P^ 

ing of a tainted life. Our Unite fleshly nature surrounds 
us with temptation vhile we are unformed; and social 
pressure proves IrreBiatible." ' 

In contradistinction to the foregoing, Tennant finds the 
secret of sin in the volitional powers. He defines tbus: 
" Sin will be imperfect compliance (in single volitional 
activity or in character resulting from such activities) 
with the moral ideal in bo far as this is, in the sight of 
God, capable of apprehension by an agent at the moment 
of the activity in question, both as to its content and its 
claim upon him; this imperfect compliance being conse- 
quent upon choice of ends of lower ethical worth when the 
adoption of ends of higher worth is possible, and being 
regarded in its religions aspect (which may in some cases 
be wanting)." In this way he feels that sin is differen- 
tiated from infirmity, temptation, and any element that is 
closely connected with sin. Moreover, this gives a sound 
basis for culpability ; for " volition, and volition alone, . . . 
is sinful." 

Turning from British and German theologians to Amer- 
ican thought, we find in Finney's account of sin, as given 
by Wright,* an explanation based principally upon the 
thought of human depravity. This depravity he differen- 
tiates into physical and moral. By physical depravity is 
meant, when the application is to the mind, that the men- 
tal powers are so impaired by nature that " the healthy 
action of these powers is not snstained." Then moral de- 
pravity constitutes a " choice at variance with moral right, 
and is synonymous with sin." Moreover, besides this state 
of individual depravity, there is also a condition of uni- 
versal depravity. This, however, as in the case of the in- 
dividual, is not due to any inherited evil tendency, but 
arises as soon as man comes to the age of responsibility 
or " moral agency," because of the weakness of human na- 
ture through physical depravity. Although sin lies essen- 
tially in " an act of the will," yet, owing to a " physically 

' Mackintosh, Chrlitlanltr and Sin. 

'Wright, Charlflfl OFandlson Flnner. 


1919] Sin in the Light of To-day 167 

depraved" constitution, the presence of external solicita- 
tiona will, unless inhibited by supernatural agency, result 
universally in yielding to acts of sin. Thus, in acme re- 
spects there is an agreement between Finney and Tennaot, 
in that, in both, emphasis is laid upon the will in defining 
sin ; but Finney lays more stress upon human depravity, 
which is not recognized by Tennant. 

Although many other authorities might be cited, yet 
these give at least some idea of the various interpretations 
given to sin. In summing up, we have the designation 
brute inheritance, a radical evil principle in man, arbi- 
trariness, in the constitution of the world, in matter, the 
feebleness of the Ood-conscioosness, and the consequent 
assertion of the sensuous impulses, selflsbnesa, ignorance, 
and in volition. These various theories may be classed 
first as subjective and objective, or may be defined as those 
which find sin in the inner life of man and those which find 
sin in matter. The definitions to be included under the 
latter head wonld be the location of sin in the constitu- 
tion of the world and in matter. These theories, however, 
do not play a large part in the theological conceptions, so 
may be set aside as samples of the solution offered by a 
small number to this problem. In taking up the rest, the 
question arises whether the nature of sin is not found in 
the fusion of these various thoughts rather than in the 
single idea contained in any one of them. Yet there must 
be some central thought around which the others may 
cluster. Accordingly we need to search for the underlying 
principle of sin. 

In whatever way we define the nature of sin, there is 
one fact very evident — that sin is a tragic element in the 
lives of individuals, states, and nations. This troth comes 
home with more than usual emphasis now that we are face 
to face with the greatest war that the world has ever 
known. Moreover, it is also evident that sin is so deep- 
rooted in the heart of man that culture alone does not 
necessarily abate its manifestations and maliciousness. 
This is witnessed to by the fact that Germany, the land 


158 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

where Kultur has been nourished and fostered, has shown 
herself capable of committing barbarities equal to those 
of the nncivilized nations of early days. The day has 
passed when the shallow optimism of Bousseau could find 
much acceptance. If man is to be perfected, there must 
be sometbiag deeper than education and changed social 
and political conditions. In fact, the majority of the the- 
ories stated indicate the thought that sin is deep-seated in 
the heart of man. 

With these conclusions it seems that Kant has given the 
most comprehensive and incisive interpretation of the na- 
ture of sin in its intieing in the heart of man. He says 
that it is a ' radical evil.' Along with the good in human 
nature dwells also this evil principle. 

In connection with the Kantian account of the sinfol 
nature of man, it is interesting to examine the Pauline 
hamartiology. In the seventh chapter of Romans Paul 
gives a very realistic description of his own personal ex- 
perience under the dominance of this evil principle. It is 
noticeable all ttirough this chapter that the apostle uses 
the term hamartia; never is there a transfer to the term 
hamartemas. If the two terms were synonymous, it would 
seem that, since the word is repeated frequently, the latter 
term would be substituted occasionally; but this is not so. 
In regard to the word hamartia, Thayer states that in the 
singular it is used to indicate the principle of sin, while 
the plural denotes acts of sin. This being so, we see, then, 
that Paul is speaking of an evil principle in his nature. 
Further we note some facts about this evil principle. In 
the first place, it did not become a moral factor in the life 
until it was uncovered and revealed by the law; secondly, 
it brought in bondage the will of man, so that he was un- 
able to do the things he would ; and, thirdly, it had as the 
place of its activity the flesh, which is used synonymously 
with the term " members," used in reference to the body, 
and the ego. From this last statement it has been inferred 
that Paul was teaching a metaphysical dualism, and con< 
sequently the evil nature of the fiesh ; but we feel that the 


1919] Hin in the lAght of To-day ISd 

dualism ia empirical rather tlian metapliyaical. The flesh 
was " the locus of sin'a manifestatioo," but was not inher- 
ently evil. 

With this last thoaght of the Pauline ddineatlon in 
mind, we have suggestions to help us to understand what 
Tennant terms " the material of sin." Under this desig- 
nation he places " organic craving, appetite, instinct, im- 
pulse, and desire." Then be goes on to say, " These are 
non-moral, as is also voluntary attitude towards them 
previously to acquisition of conscience; yet without them 
there could not be sin. In that pleasure is associated with 
their satisfaction, th^ supply the basic incentives to sin; 
and in that they are called into play in independence of 
moral considerations, their presence imposes on every 
moral tieing a lifelong moral conflict, failure in which, at 
any point, is sin. This is the ultimate 'explanation' of 
sin. These propensities are also neutral in respect of the 
moral value of what the will may construct out of them, 
and necessary, i.e. biologically essential and normal, and 
psycho-physically inevitable." This description also exerts 
a reflex influence and throws light upon the Pauline pas- 
sage. The term " flesh," then, is in a state of transition 
from a physical designation to an etbico-theological sense. 
The apostle is indicating certain tendencies of our phys- 
ical nature which serve as the base of activity for sin ; 
they are the weaker elements in our organism. In and 
through these elements the radical evil in man becomes 
manifest. Then it is that the ' sacredness of the person- 
ality' of man is violated, the high ideal for which man 
was constituted is blighted, and the lower nature assumes 
a dominance. 

At this point it might be objected that, inasmuch as 
these appetencies of our nature are non-moral, and in 
man there are principles of good as well as of evil, then 
the power of volition might be asserted, to prevent these 
elements becoming the avenues for the activity of sin. But 
the fact is that the will is more or less enslaved under 
this dominance of the radical evil. This is evidenced by the 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 302. 2 


160 Bibliotheca Sacra [^pril> 

Pauline statemeDts that it was not possible to do the things 
that the moral reason approved. Moreover, Schleiermacfaer 
indicates a similar thought when he speaks of the weak- 
ness of " the determining power of the Ood-conacionsness 
as compared with the strength of the natural impulse." 
Furthermore, Mflller states that finally the will, and evai 
the understanding, come under the dominance of the lower 
nature. In addition to these authorities, we cite the evi- 
dence which history and experience afford, that, apart from 
the surrender of the will in obedience to the higher Divine 
Will, there does not seem to be the power in man to resist 
the dominance of the lower nature. Man only becomes 
free in the truest sense when he yields in submission to 
Bim who can make him " free indeed." When this asser- 
tion is made, however, it is not intended that the thought 
should be conveyed that in the dominance of the lower 
nature man shows himself forth in the entirety of evil of 
which bis nature may be capable; but that, along with the 
virtues that may exist, there is also a certain enslavement, 
more evident in some natures than in others, — at times 
it is quite veOed, and again it is quite apparent. 

Having now analyzed the nature of sin in its essence, 
its place of activity, and its resultant effect on the will, 
another point is to be noted — the differentiation between 
sin in its essence and in its manifestation. The evil mt^ 
be in the nature; but when it brealts forth into an overt 
act, it is sin manifested. These overt acts are collectively 
designated sins. With the repetition of acts, habits are 
formed, and then the habits constitute a character, and 
thus we have a man whom we designate as a sinner. The 
outward manifestation of this character is manifold. At 
one time animal passions and impulses are the dominant 
traits, at another arbitrariness, and again selfishness or 
pride; but all have their root in the evil in man's nature. 
Thus we feel that the various analyses of sin are fused in 
the more comprehensive term, unless it be the Bitschlian 
finding concerning sin, that it is due to ignorance, which 
is so distinctive that it requires to be treated by itaelf. 


1919] Sin in the Light of To-4ay 161 

Before passing on, however, to the discrimination Ije- 
tweeai sis and certain closely allied elements, It vill be 
well to note the relation between the view that sin is a 
radical evil in the heart of man to the teaching of Jesos. 
The teaching of Paol is more dialectic; but, quoting Qo- 
guel, " la prediction de J68Ufl est ertr&nement simple, com- 
plStement ^trang^re k toutes les sabtilit^s de la tbtologie." * 
Accordingly the question might arise whether this des- 
ignation of a radical evil in man is simply a dialectic 
snbtlety or whether it is also foond in the more simple 
accounts of sin given by Jesus. First there comes to mind 
that passage which says, " If ye then being evil, know 
how to give good gifts unto your children," etc. Here it 
would seem that man is described as tainted by sin with 
evil inherent in his nature. Moreover, there is also the 
accotint of the source of sinful deeds. It is said that they 
come from within, out of the heart of man. If there were 
not a fountain of corruption within, there would not 
surely issue forth such turgid streams as the text goes on 
to describe (Matt. zv. 19). These references will suffice 
to show that at least the teaching of Jesus is in harmony 
with the Pauline hamartiology on this point, and conse- 
quently also in harmony with the Kantian postulate. 

Now that the relation of the teaching of Jesns to that 
of Paul and Kant has been established, there remains to 
be considered the differentiation between sin and infir- 
mity, also sin and ignorance, sin and temptation, and sin 
and guilt. There are certain infirmities which are con- 
comitant with man's present state of existence. There are 
defects in understanding, so that he cannot always fully 
grasp the content of the highest ideal for his life; there 
are defects in judgment in that he mistakes the means to 
attain this ideal ; there are defects in the imaginative pow- 
ers and moral discrimination in tliat he constructs that toi 
be a good which is not a good. Besides these, exist many 
other defects which more or less hinder the individual in 
the realization of that which Is highest and best; but these 
■Oogael, L'ApAtre Paul et J4bub Christ. 


162 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

are not sins. They cause mistakes and inrolimtary riola- 
tions of the sapreme ideal for human personality, but there 
is no volitional moral element in them. The purpose and 
motive of the heart may be sincere and upright, that is, 
the errors may arise from a pure source; there is not 
necessarily an evil in the background of their production. 
Moreover, sin is to be differentiated from ignorance. 
Here we wonld revert again to the Pauline delineation in 
Rom. vii. The first thing that we noted was that the evil 
in the heart of the apostle did not become a moral (actor 
until it was revealed by the law, that ia, knowledge had to 
enter before sin was made known, and figured as a moral 
entity. In keeping with this are statements made by 
Tennant. He says : " Mere objective incongruence of an 
act with a standard does not constitute that act immoral; 
the act may rather be simply non-moral, like the behavior 
of animals or of lifeless things. The human infant is non- 
moral relatively to all moral ideals, and the untaught 
- heathen relatively to all but the crudest. . . . Sin, then, is 
not ' tran^:re8sion of the law,' but transgression of a moral 
law by an agent who, at the time, is in a position to know 
the content of the law and that it is binding on himself. 
This time-reference is important." On the other hand, 
while there is this ignorance that is innocent, there may 
be an ignorance which is guilty; so that it would not 
necessarily follow that all ignorance is sinless. The dif- 
ference lies in the fact whether the individual or individ- 
uals have had the opportunity of knowing the moral and 
religious standard of life. Accordingly we see that when 
Bitscht grounds sin in ignorance, he reaches no serious 
view of evil, and confuses moral distinctions. 

Again, in the discriminations of moral and non-moral 
entities, a distinction should be made between sin and 
temptation. Solicitation to evil carries no moral turpi- 
tude with it. There is a vast difference between solicita- 
tion to evil and yielding to evil. Temptations constitute 
part of the common lot of mankind. Elrperience testifies 
to this. So also does the Scripture : " There hath no temp- 


1919] 8m in the Light of To-day 163 

tatioD taken jrou, bat such as is common to man " (1 Cor. 
X. 13). Moreover, an outstanding proof ttiat solicitation 
to evil is not sinful lies in tbe fact that Jesus was tempted; 
and the sinlesauess of Jesus is admitted even by those who 
would hesitate to avow bis divinity. 

Finally, a line needs to be drawn between sin and guilt. 
QuUt entails accountability ; so the question resolves itself 
into this, When is sin accountable? Overt acts of ain 
which have had the consent of the individual would always 
be accountable. But when we come to the fact of the rad- 
ical evil principle in man, the question is a more subtle 
one. It would hardly be considered that man is respon- 
sible for that which he has had no part in infusing into 
his nature; but, on the other baud, he might be responsible 
for allowing its dominance when he sees the possibility of 
a higher life through the mystical union with Christ. Thus 
while sin and guilt are very closely allied, they are not 
identical, nor does one necessarily follow from the other, 
although very frequently th^ are cocsistent 

The nature of sin in its essence having been discussed, 
and its element' set off from closely allied features, one 
more question might be considered; and that is the tur- 
pitude of ain. Since in these days there is more or less 
indifference to the heinousness of sin, it is well to consider 
whether there are not certain facts which reveal the ex- 
ceeding sinfulness of sin as well as certain tendencies that 
would obscure its tme nature. The emphasis in theology 
on the fatherhood of Ood ought to arouse in man the sense 
of his ingratitude and utter selfishness when he separates 
himself from the supreme love of the Divine Being, who 
tbns would receive him as a son. The transgression against 
the lore of a father ought to set sin in a. bolder relief than 
the transgression of law for which one must give an ac- 
count to the Righteous Judge, which was the dominating 
conception in the older theologies. Moreover, the emphasis 
in recent philosophy on personality ought again to awak^ 
the sense of. the turpitude of sin. This evaluation of per- 
sonality is in keeping with the teaching of Jesus. Fletcher 


Ifil Bibliotheca Sacra 

stateB : " We have seen how the GJoapels record that Jeaas 
treated human personality, even in the amaUest chUd or 
the moat abandoned outcast, aa of inestimable worth. He 
discerned within each human being the potentialities of 
personality. Beneath the most forbidding exterior there 
were lying latent powers of goodness and of service, only 
waiting for the regenerative influence of the Spirit to bring 
them to life." ' With a reawakening in modem times to 
the reality of personality, there should also be the desire 
to develop this personality to its highest, and the corre- 
sponding sense of failure and loss when tbis personality 
is violated in its possibilities of being renewed in the im- 
age of God. Thus we see that sin, rightly estimated, is 
still a tragic evil, written deep in the heart and life of man. 
■Fletcher, New Testament Psrcliotogy. 




No theological question has been given greater promi- 
nence through the war than that of the Bible. Before the 
war commenced in 1914, German thought and German teach- 
ing were widely accepted, especially in connection with the 
Old Testament. There is scarcely a Theological Seminary, 
a College, or a University in any Englieh-speaking conn- 
try where German teaching on the Old Testament was not 
perhaps the dominant and almost nniversaUy believed atti- 
tude. And even in connection with the New Testament, 
things were moving in the same direction. 

Of course there were some people who, long before tbe 
war, did not follow this line. They did not think that Ger- 
man teaching on the Bible was everything that was said 
about it. They were, however, r^arded as obscurantist, 
narrow, prejudiced, impossible, and guilty of that most 
terrible of modem Bins — the sin of being uuscholarly. 
And yet there is no doubt that the tendency of German 
thought in connection with the Bible for the last century, 
or thereabouts, has all been in one direction — that of 
questioning and often attacking its authority as the Word 
of God. 

Now there can be no doubt that if we take the Bible — 
to use a modem phrase — at its face value, it claims to be 
a revelation from God. Without at this moment consider- 
ing whether this claim is tme, we may just take it as it 
stands. Nobody can read, for instance, Heb. i. 1, 2, with- 
out seeing that the Bible does claim for itself that it Is a 
revelation from God. " God who at sundry times, and in 
divers manners, spake in time past unto the Fathers by 
the Prophets " — there is a claim for the Old Testament 
— " hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son." And 
so the question is just this, " Has the war done anything 
to shake our confidence in this claim?" Or, if we like to 


166 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

put it 80, " Has anything emanated from Gtermany, or 
elsewliere, dnring the last century to give us ground for 
believing that the claim of the Bible is unwarranted?" 

Let ns consider some six points on which the Bible 
stands to-day, as it ever has stood, and will continue to 


We hardly realize that the Bible is not a book, bat a 
library. It is interesting to remember that the word 
" Bible," though it is now applied to one Book, comes from 
a Greek term meaning "the books" — "to biblia." And 
when we see an edition of the Bible in various volumes, 
with one volume to Genesis, another to Exodus, and right 
on through the Bible, we begin to realize that it is a library, 
not merely one book. Yet, notwithstanding all these sixty- 
six t)ooks, differing in time, circumstances, authorship, and 
character, there is a unity running through from Genesis 
to Revelation. 

It is said on good authority that every piece of rope in 
the British Navy has a red thread running through it, so 
that if anyone helps himself to any of it, he and others 
may know that he has broken the eighth commandment. 
Wherever that rope is cut, the red thread can be seen. In the 
same way there is a red thread running through the Bible ; 
and wherever we examine it, we see indications of that thread 
— the unity running from Genesis to Revelation. Now 
there is no other book in the world of which this can be 
said. Consider that there are something like thirty-six 
hundred years between Genesis and Revelation, and at 
least thirty-six different authors; and yet from Genesis 
to Revelation there is a oneness running through all. 

It is a familiar story, but is worth repeating. Dr. A. J. 
Gordon, of Boston, on one occasion, was in his study with 
some of his chUdren, and he gave them a puzzle, one of 
those made of different-sized pieces of wood. He went out 
and came back unexpectedly, when to his surprise he found 
the puzzle completed, and he said to the children, " How 


1919] The German Attitude to the Bible 167 

is it 70a did it BO boou? " " We saw the picture of a man 
on the back, and this helped ob to knov where the pieces 
were to go." And bo, aa it haa often been pointed out, there 
is a picture of a man, the man Christ Jesus, anticipated in 
the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New, and this gives 
unity to the Book. 

Now this unity stands as one of the unique features of 
the Bible that nothing in scholarship, or war, or anything 
else can destroy. The force of it can be fittingly stated 
in the words of a great English Methodist theologian, Dr. 
W. B. Pope:— 

" The unity of Scripture is a very strong credential in 
its favor as professing to be from Qod. It is one great 
vision, and its interpretation one: beginning and ending 
with the same Paradise, with thousands of years of re- 
deeming history between. That the New Testament as 
fulfillment should so perfectly correspond with the Old 
Testament as prophecy is in itself the most wonderful 
phenomenon in literature: it is evidence as near demon- 
stration as needs be of the intervention of a Divine Hand. 
The Redeemer made manifest in the later Scripture an- 
swers face to face, and feature for feature, to the Form 
predicted in the older Scripture. One idea runs through 
the whole: the kingdom of God set up or restored in His 
Incarnate Son. To this idea authors of various ages and 
of various races contribute in a harmony which never 
could be the result of accident or mere coincidence. Only 
the Divine Power could have made so many men of differ- 
ent lands concert, yet without concerting, such a scheme 
of literature. If they had not asserted their inspiration of 
God, that hypothesis would have had to be invented to ac- 
count for the facts and phenomena of their writings. But 
they have asserted it: the claim is bound up with every 
page of the Word they have left behind them." 


The Bible was written by Jews, who were in many re- 
spects one of the most narrow of peoples. It was written in 
the East, and the East is as different from the West as 
any two parts of the human race can be. And yet it is 
equally applicable to us in the West to-day. It is for all; 
it is suited to every place. 


168 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

We are told by those who know, that one of the most 
difficult things in the world is to translate from one lan- 
guage to another. A little while ago I found a delightful 
French poem written by a Belgian French poet; and, on 
reproducing it in an article, I suggested to some English 
writers that they should translate it. They did, but they 
almost entirely lost the flavor, the aroma of that exquisite 
little poem. The same is true of renderings from English 
into other languages. It would be interesting to see what 
the Chinese would make of one of Shakespeare's plays, or 
what they would do with " To be, or not to be " or some 
other well-known passage. How much of Shakespeare 
woald be left? 

And yet the Bible is the most marvelous Book in the 
world in this respect, that it loses least of any book in 
translation. The Bible Societies have well over six hun- 
dred translations, either into languages or dialects; and, 
notwithstanding all these in different parts of the earth, 
the essential teaching of the Bible is preserved intact In 
all the renderings from the Hebrew and Oreek into other 
languages or dialects. This is the universality of the 
Bible. Here again we can only account for it by the fact 
that it is Buj>ematural, that it comes from God. 


There are many things about the Bible that prove its 
reality. For our present purpose, let us take two. Its 
reality is seen in the predictions of the Old Testament. 
Now, of course, there are a good many more things in 
prophecy than prediction, but we must never forget that 
the primary idea of prophecy in the Old Testament is 
foretelling the future. Among other things, we notice in 
Amos V. 27 a prediction that the northern kingdom of 
Israel should go into captivity. When those words were 
uttered by the prophet, there was not a hint of trouble, 
everything was prosperous, and Jeroboam II, was on the 
throne, perhaps the greatest and most powerful king of 
Israel. And yet with everything bright and materially 


1919] The German Attitude to the Bible 169 

eatisfactory, the prophet said, " You are going to be taken 
into captivity beyond Damascos "j and we know that that 
took place. Thia is a case of absolnte prediction. 

Take another case. In Isa. xzxix. 6, 7, the prophet 
Isaiah went to Hezekiah, and when he foond that the king 
had shown his treasnres to the Babylonians, he said, 
"Your people shall be taken into captivity to Babylon." 
Kow Babylon at that time, by comparison with Assyria, 
had no power; and yet it ia not to Assyria, but to Baby- 
lon, that Isaiah predicts the captivity; and we know it 
took place a hundred and fifty years after Isaiah's time. 
I have been interested to see what commentators have 
made of these worde, because here is a case of prediction ; 
and one of the best known and most important of modem 
commentators, when he tried to explain it, said it was a 
statement of " poetic truth " — whatever that means. 

For the reality of the New Testament, only one point 
can now be mentioned — the portrait of Jesns Christ. It 
is worth recalling that the great literary geniuses of the 
ages have never attempted to depict a perfect character. 
We do not find a perfect character attempted in any of 
the masterpieces from Homer downwards. Yet four men, 
called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, give us the record 
of a perfect character. They were not literary geniuses at 
all, and one or two of them were quite ordinary men ; but, 
nevertheless, for nearly two thousand years we Iiave had 
a perfect character depicted by them, which has been the 
admiration of the centuries. 

How are we to account for it? It " takes a Jesns to in- 
vent a Jesus," as someone has said ; and if these ordinary 
men invented the character of Jesus, then (to use a fa- 
miliar argument) we are in the presence of a miracle far 
greater than any our Lord ever wrought. 


In Heb. iv. 12'we read that the Word of God is living, 
and in 1 Peter i. 23 that it is a living seed. This is because 
it comes from the living Ood, and one of the most striking 


170 BibUotheca Sacra [April, 

things about the Bible is the way in which it providee for 
the living needs of living people to-day. In some respects 
this is the most satisfying evidence of Christianity — the 
way in which the Bible, as a living Book, provides for the 
needs of people who are alive. 

Some of the things told by workers during the war read 
almost like chapters from the Acts of the Apostles. There 
have been hundreds of incidents during the last four years 
— testimonies to the Bible in connection with human needs, 
and without doabt we shall find in them a fresh and force- 
ful proof of the truth of Christianity. 


By the singularity of the Bible is meant its claim to be 
the only, the exclusive way of salvation. 

For the first two or three hundred years Christianity 
suffered persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. 
This was because it claimed to dispossess every other re- 
ligions system, and to be the only religion in the world. 
If the Christian people had gone to the Emperor, and oth- 
ers in authority, and said, "This is a new religion; we 
want yoQ to allow it to come with the others and be put 
in your Pantheon," they would have been ready to allow 
Christianity to appear as one of the number. But that was 
not the way of the Gospel. It said, in effect, " No, this is 
the only religion. The others are not religions." Perscr 
cation then came upon Christianity, because it was intol- 
erant — in the right sense of the word, the only way in 
which anyone has a right to be intolerant with the intol- 
erance of truth. 

80 it is now with regard to missionary propaganda. 
When we go to the foreign field, we claim that Chris- 
tianity will do for mankind what no other religion can do. 
Tet there are people who say that one religion is as good 
as another, especially to those who are brought up in it. 
But why do they say this about religion and not about 
anything else? Is it not right for us to give people the 
very best that we have? What about medical science? 


1919] The German Attitude to the Bible 171 

Are we content to accept the science of {say) a hundred 
years ago, if we find to-day that science is better? Are 
we never to introdnce new lines of sanitation in heathen 
lands, although we have something far better and more 
likely to save life than they have or are likely to have? 
Are we not to give them the very best in any other walk 
of life? 

And therefore, with regard to Christianity, we maintain 
that it is the best of all religions. We do not for a mo- 
ment despise, so far as they are true, any other systems of 
religion ; but we say that every other system is an aspira- 
tion of man after Qod, and Christianity is a revelation of 
Ood to man. The others start with man and try to get to 
God. Christianity starts from Qod and comes ■ down to 


The Bible has now been before the world for nearly two 
thousand years in its complete form, and yet it has said 
the last word on some of the greatest things in life. We find 
in the Bible the last word about salvation from sin, the 
last word about holiness, the last word about the future 
life. And, as others have often pointed out, while we out- 
grow the teaching of other men, we never outgrow the 
teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. 

Not only so, we have had great systems of philosophy 
and morality during the last thousand or fifteen hundred 
years, great theories, great books, and great ideas; but 
there is not a single new moral fact, not a single new eth- 
ical idea, in any one of these great systems that we can- 
not find in this Book. How is it that, with all the great 
teachers of these centuries, nothing new has been pro- 
pounded beyond what is found in this Book ? 

Now these are the six things: the Unity, the Univer- 
sality, the Reality, the Vitality, the Singularity, and the 
Finality of the Bible. And the supreme point is this: the 
real question in connection with the Bible is not literary 
or even historical; it is spiritual. 


172 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

The fondamental issue is whether the Bible la a snp<er- 
oatnral Book. The tendencf in Qerman; for the laat hun- 
dred years has been to deny this. We are told again and 
again that we are to read the Bible like any other book. 
This sounds attractive, bnt it may be questioned whether 
it is correct. A truer way to put it is, that we should read 
the Bible like any other book making the same claim. The 
Bible claims to be from Qod. Let us read it like any other 
book tliat makes the same claim, and then see what the 
result will be. Or, if we prefer to state the case in this 
way, let us first read it like any other book, and then read 
it as unlike every other book ; and when we do both, there 
will be no doubt in our minds that the Bible makes a 
claim to be supernatural. 

The fact is, and this is the point to consider, there is 
something in the Bible that we cannot analyze by ordinary 
human methods. Just as we cannot analyze life, no there is 
that in the Bible which we cannot analyze. We can per- 
haps analyze it into its historical and its literary and other 
parts, bnt there is still something we cannot analyze, and 
that is the supernatural element. This is beyond anything 
we hare in the finest critical school. 

In view of aU that we know now, it is vital and import- 
ant to observe that the German intellect is not the superior 
thing which we were taught before the war. All the things 
that are important in ordinary life have been invented out- 
side of Oermaay. Steamships, railroads, the telegraph, 
electricity, the telephone, wireless telegraph, and even the 
aeroplane and the submarine — not one of these was in- 
vented in Germany. In a very interesting pamphlet " The 
History of the Submarine," it says that for three hundred 
years att^npts were made to perfect what we now know 
as the submarine. The remarkable thing is that we can- 
not trace anything worthy of the name among the Ger- 
mans in connection with this invention. Not only so, but 
when they used a model of a submarine a few years ago, 
they only adopted someone dse^s, and he was a Spaniard, 


1919] The Qtrman Attitude to the Bible 173 

a Spanish architect who had a French model. All the Ger- 
man U-boats have been built on a French model. 

This means that the German intellect is not creative, 
but adaptive. Now if this is the case in regard to ordinary 
everyday life, why should we think the German intellect 
is superior in regard to the Bible? The fact is the German 
intellect lacks insight — the very thing required for a 
proper knowledge of the Bible, See how the German in- 
tellect lacked insight in regard to the war — first of all, 
England would not fi^t; secondly, France could be de- 
feated at once, and then they coold turn to Russia ; thirdly, 
America would not come in; fourthly, America could be 
easily involved with Mexico and Japan. If this is the case 
in regard to politics, a thousandfold more is it the case in 
regard to the Bible, which needs spiritual insight as well 
as intellectual acumen. One of our British jurists, Sir 
Frederick Pollock, writing on the events of the last four 
years, uttered some words which are worthy of Iwing re- 
membered : " The Germans will go down in history as the 
people who foresaw everything except that which actually 
happened." If, therefore, these things are true in regard ' 
to earthly matters, we have no right to believe that things 
are otherwise in regard to that which is the most import- 
ant of all — the Bible. There is nothing more impressive 
daring the four years of the war than the German lack of 
insight into character. 

We are not afraid of scholarship. The only thing we 
have a right to be afraid of is that which denies Ood and 
the supernatural. There are three kinds of criticism, and 
when we get the three together there is no need to be afraid. 
There is what is called the Lower Criticism, the criticism 
of the text, Hebrew and Greek. Then comes the Higher 
Criticism, the knowledge of history and literature, and 
date and place, circumstance and character, and so on. 
And there is what has been sometimes called the Highest 
Oiticism, the criticism su^^;ested by Isa. Ixvi. 2, " To this 
man wiU I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite 
spirit, and trembleth at my word." When we get these 


174 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

together, we can " criticize " the Bible as much as we like, 
becaose, as we go on criticizing, we find that will happen 
which is written in Heb. iv. 13. In the Greek of that pas- 
sage it tells U8 the Bible is the " critic " o( us. It is the 
only place in the Bible where the word is used. And when 
the Bible criticizes us, we begin to understand the Bible 
aa never before, and perhaps we shall be led to criticize 
it less. 

It is therefore necessary to put in a plea for the great- 
est possible independence in connection with Bible study. 
Up to the time of the war, all the ideas of critical scholars 
came from Germany, some 'adopted and others adapted. 
Let ns hope that day is past. It ought to be. At any rate, 
younger men and women, as they study these subjects, 
should determine to be independent, look at these things 
(or themselves, and see that they face all the facts and 
factors and draw their conclusions only when everything 
has been considered. There need be no doubt whatever as 
to the result, if a man will look at all the elements of the 
situation and not simply those that he may have had set 
before him in a very partial way. 

A secular newspaper well said a little while ago : " For 
forty years the Germans have been reading philosophy, 
and have forgotten to read the Bible. That is a great 
blunder — the greatest blunder a nation ever made." There 
are many people who know very much about the Bible, 
but do not know the Bible itself. There are students who 
could sit for an examination and tell all about the literary 
questions connected with the Fourth Gh>spel, the external 
and the internal evidences for believing that it came from 
the Apostle John, but they could not do the same for the 
contents of the Gospel. We know a great deal about the 
Bible. Let us see that we know more of the Bible itsdf. 
Let us think our way through a book, and be able to know 
exactly where this is or where that is. Let us know what 
Mark contains, how it differs from Matthew, know what 
John contains, know what Acts contains, know what Bo- 
mans contains. not only have a few pet texts, like 


[April, The German Attitude to the Bible 175 

John iiL 16, or John v. 24, or John zir. 1, but let us also 
master John for oorseLves. Let as master Bomana, with 
its keyword "righteousneas"; and so with regard to aU 
the other books in one way or another. 

If we get to know what the books contain, then we ahaU 
have one of the greatest safeguards againat erroneona crit- 
icism and one of the greatest helps towards true criticism. 
The trouble is that, when we do not fill our minds with the 
Bible, we are liable to have them filled with other things. 
As someone said about the Oermana in connection with 
things spiritual : " The criticism of the Gospels rendered 
the Cterman mind incapable of the faith, and into the 
vacuum of a rejected Christianity there rushed this resur- 
gence of the national spirit." 

We muat therefore atudy the Bible, master its contents, 
believe it, obey it; and then we shall come to the conclu- 
sion that " Thy word is true from the b^^ning " ; " Thy 
word is very pure; therefore thy servant loveth it." 

Vol. ixxvr. No. 302. 3 




The dictionary definition of priest is " one who officiates 
at the altar, or who performs the rites of sacrifice; one 
who acte as mediator between man and the divinity or 
the gods in any form of religion." Scripture says that 
" every high priest talien from among men, is ordained for 
men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both 
gifts and sacrifices for sins" (Heb. v. 1). The same would 
be true of the lesser priests. 


Previous to the Mosaic economy, so far as the history 
appears in Scripture, there was no priestly " caste." ^ The 
patriarchs — Noah, Abraham, Jethro, etc. — offered their 
own sacrifices. The fathers were priests of their own fam- 
Uies. Priesthood was universal. 

This condition might have continued, for Qod bade 
Moses tell the children of Israel : " Now therefore, if ye 
will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, ... ye 
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation " 
(Bz. six. 5, 6). AH should have equal access to Ood, each 
one being his own priest. 


What was thus offered conditionally, was , alas, re- 
scinded, because the covenant they entered into (Ex. xix. 
8; Deut. v. 2) with Gtod they broke; they disobeyed. Some 
other plan must be devised. 

' So tai as prl«BU7 caete may be found outside, In Babylonia, 
Egypt, or elsewhere, it was manlteatl; a usurpation; for, from 
the ^t that Cain and Abel offered their own sacrifices — (pre- 
Bumably Adam, too. since It must bave been from him that his 
sons received their teaching) — It Is plain that the divine Intent 
was that priesthood should be Individualistic and not the prerog- 
ative of only a sacerdotal class ^part from other mm. 


Priest — Prieathood 177 

On account of Israel's sad failnre, God instituted the 
Aaronic or Levitical priesthood, and approach to Him 
must henceforth be through this mediating class. Bat as 
we now know, that scheme was provisional, temporary, and 
its rites were typical. In the course of time the primal 
condition was to be restored, and a universal priestly priv- 
ilege and service be again the boon of all mankind. 


In the Epistle to the Hebrews (chaps. v.-x.) Christ is 
shown to have fulfilled and accomplished all that was typ- 
ically and practically intended in the old-time priesthood, 
both that of Aaron and Melchizedek as well. He assumed 
both lines — that inside the Levitical cult and that out- 
side — into his own priestly person, becoming thus the end 
of both, and thereby opening forevermore the way of access 
to aU who would come unto Qod by him. 

There is therefore no more need or place for any human 
or priestly " class " to mediate between man and Gh>d. 
Every believer in Christ now has " an high priest over the 
house of God," and he can himself " draw near with a 
true heart in full assurance of faith " (Heb. z. 21, 22). Ac- 
cordingly St. Peter says: "Ye also as lively stones, are 
built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to off^ up 
spiritual sacrifices. ... Ye are a chosen generation, a royal 
priesthood, an holy nation" (1 Pet. ii. 5-9). 

All Christians, therefore, are priests to God now; and 
to interject the offices of any earthly ofBcial between a 
soul and its Maker is an awful sacrilege. Again priest- 
hood is universal. 


It is most noteworthy that in the founding and founda- 
tion of the Christian church, as set forth in the New Tes- 
tament, no human minister of religion is ever called a 

There were apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers (Eph. 
iv. 11), elders (Acts xiv. 23; 1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Pet. v. 1), 


178 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

overseera or bishops, deacons (1 Tim. iii. 1, 10; Phil. i. 1), 
but priests never, never! 

To import that term into the church, as a class dietinc- 
tioD, is therefore entirely unscriptural and unwarrantable, 
and to credit or invest any man, or set of men, with a 
priestly or sacerdotal function, is to dishonor the great 
High Priest of our profession, and rob each priest-believer 
of his spiritual birthright. 


It may be asked, then. Where does the Boman Catholic 
Church get ita Priesthood ? This question may be answered 
both negatively and positively. 

Neoativblt. That it has no Scripture warrant or au- 
thority has just been made to plainly appear. To be sure, 
Boman Catholics claim Bible authority for it; but their 
claim is a foisted fake pure and simple, as will be at once 
dearly shown. 

At the family worship in the home of the writer, both 
the Protestant and Catholic Bibles are used. One morning 
James v. 14 was read: " Is any sick among you? let him 
call for the elders of the church, and let them pray avee 
him," etc. But the Catholic version gives it thus: " Is any 
sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the 
church, and let them pray over him," etc. The differoice 
between these two renderings led to questionings which 
resulted in what has been presented thus far in this disqui- 
sition and in what Is further to be presented. 

The appar^it Biblical authority which the Boman Catholic 
English (Douay) version gives for "priest" is unwarrant- 
ably brought in by a mistranslation. 

In the New Testament the Greek word wptv^vrepovt 
presbuteroa, elder, occurs, substantively, 62 times. Origi- 
nally it denoted seniority in age, but afterward it became 
a term of rank or office, and now, in church usage, it is 
popularly so understood. Often " elders " are young men. 

In the Latin Vnlgate — the authoritative Bible of the 
Boman Catholic Church — the word is simply transferred 


1919] Priest — Priesthood 179 

from the Qreek^ presbuteroa, and is never translated by 
" sacerdw," the Latin word for priest. 

In the Italian version it is alvays translated by anziano, 
the officer-word, and never by " eacerdote/' the Italian 
word for priest. 

In the Spanish version it is presbiteroa, and never " sa- 

In the French version it is imciens or pasteur, and never 
** sacriflcateur " or " pretre." 

In the German version it is aeltesten, never " priester." 

In the Protestant English version it is always trans- 
lated, as it should be, elder, and never " priest." 

In the Romish English version, always, except six times, 
it is translated "ancient" (their word for dder), but in 
these sextuple instances, where for no other reason than 
to make an ecclesiastical and sectarian point for Roman- 
ism, it is rendered priest ! 

Although presbuteroa had occurred 29 times up to Acts 
xiv. 23, not until then do Romanists translate it priest: 
"Ordained to them priests in every church," instead of 
"elders in every church," as it should be. The next in- 
stance is Acts XV. 2, " apostles and priests," instead of 
" apostles and elders " as the Greek requires ; yet two 
verses farther on {ver. 4) it is not translated "priest," 
but " ancient." The other flagrant instances of like mis- 
translation are 1 Timothy v. 17, 19; Titus i. 5; and James 
V. 14. And such is Roman Catholic Biblical authority for 

Says Hastings's Bible Dictionary: — 

"'Priest' (Gr. hiereua) is employed in the New Testa- 
ment to denote anyone whose function is to offer a relig- 
ious sacrifice. . , , The New Testament never describes the 
Chriatian mintatry as a priesthood, or the individual min- 
ister as a priest, except in the general sense in which these 
terms are applied to all believers. . . . The two terms ' pres- 
byter' (presbyteroa) and 'priest' (hiereua) which came 
to be confounded by and by, were at first kept absolutely 
apart" (pp. 754, 755, one vol. ed.). 


180 Bibliotheca 8acra [April, 

The attempt to connect the Romish priesthood with the 
Jewish priesthood, and so give It semblance of Scripture 
warrant, is entirely gratuitous; for, as every one knows 
or ought to fenow, the Jewish priesthood — typical — was 
fulfilled and came to an end in Christ. There is therefore 
no sacerdotal or priestly office in the church. 

FosiTiTBLT. Says J. Gamier in the second volume of 
his " The True and the False Christ " : — 

" The priesthood of Rome claims to be the successors of 
the apostled, but they have been the chief opposers of the 
tmtb tanght by the apostles, and the chief agents in resus- 
citating the idolatry which Christ came to destroy. On the 
other hand, they have a true and just claim to be the sue- 
cegsors of the pagan priesthood. Pop not only are the title 
and office of Pontifex-Maximus, and orders, offices, sacer- 
dotal dresses, symbols, doctrines, soi-ceries and idolatries 
of Rome directly derived from the priegthood of paganism, 
but they are the rightful and direct successors of the su- 
preme pontiffs and priesthood of ancient Babylon and pa- 
gan Rome." 

Says the Roman Catholic Cardinal Newman in his booh, 
"An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine " : — 

" We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constan- 
tine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, 
transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they 
had been accustomed in their own. It Is not necessary to 
go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers 
has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and 
these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on 
occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps and can- 
dles ; votive offerings on recovery from illness ; holy water, 
asylums; holidays and seasons, use of calendars, proces- 
sions, blessings on the field; sacerdotal vestments, the ton- 
sure, the ring in marriage, turning to the east, images at 
a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Ky- 
rie elieson, are all of pagan origin." (The italics in botii 
these quotations are ours.) 

Says Pember, in his " Earth's Earliest Ages," " Popery 
is nothing but Paganism under a changed name, and cov- 
ered with a gauzy veil of Christianity" (p. 368). 

Space does not permit the overwhelming adduction of 


1919] Pries* — Priesthood 181 

proof of the allegations in the forgoing. It is said that 
the ancient pagan augurs could not meet on the streets of 
Borne without laughing each other in the face, such arrant 
hypocrites and frauds did the; knov themselves to be. 
Well may priests of Bome do the same thing. 

Let it be nnderstood, then, that the Roman Catholic 
priesthood is not of Christian origin, but is of pagan deri- 
vation. Any hierarchical claim, therefore, whose validity 
is assumed or presumed to rest on any scriptural warrant 
or authority, is utterly fraudulent and false. There is 
nothing in it. 

When the Church in England under Henry VIII. (1533) 
separated from Some and set up for itself, it was as much 
Soman Catholic in doctrine as it had been before, and it 
carried with it the unscriptural priestly cult. In the re- 
tonns that followed, it is to be regretted that the " priest " 
order was not reformed out. Its retention by the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in this country is one of the ele- 
ments that is likely to abort all its attempts at union with 
other denominations. 


It is high time that these Scriptural truths were iter- 
ated and reiterated, when an ecclesiastical hierarchy 
{hiereua, priest; arcke, rule), claiming rightful dominance 
over all mankind, is, with blatant and insolent intrusion, 
thrusting itself so unblushingly into the face and eyes of 
American Christendom, and even in Washington, the cap- 
ital of this great nation, is virtually compelling oflflcial- 
dom, in some ways, from the President down, to yield to 
its warrantless priestly pretensions. 

The truth of the common priesthood of all believers, 
now so much obscured, is no new notion. It was set forth 
by the earliest Church writers, like Justin Martyr (105- 
165), Irenteus (115-190), Tertullian (160-240), and others. 
More yet, the Soman pontiff. Pope Leo I. (440-461), called 
" Leo the Great," dwelt on the same truth. 


182 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 


But at an early date, in imitation of Old Testament usage, 
there was a beginning of calling the clergy " priests," for 
which, as we have seen, there is not a particle of Scripture 
authority. In the third century the offering of the Eucha- 
rist, which 18 a thank offering — such was the growth of 
the priestly idea — began to be regarded as made in behalf 
of the people instead of by the people. 

The countries about the Mediterranean were distributed 
for the purposes of ecclesiastical administration, into five 
patriarchates, named from their civic centers : Alex- 
andria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome. 
These were at first of equal ' and coordinate standing, 
neither one claiming any supremacy over the other. But 
about the middle of the fifth century, Leo I., mainly for 
political reasons, — such was the coalition between popes 
and emperors, — began to advance the ambitious and usurp- 
ing idea of the primacy of Rome. This idea was pushed 
until in the eleventh century (1054) there resulted the 
Oreat Schism, or separation of Christendom into two 
parts: the Roman or Western Church, and Ae GreA or 
Eastern Church. Of course the great body from which 
this cutting-off was made was no less church, qualitatively, 
than it was before, nor was that which by its excising act 
became the Roman Church any more church, either quali- 
tatively or quantitatively, than it had been hitherto. It 
may therefore be said, in passing, that there was no such 
thing as a distinctive Roman Catholic Church until after 
this wicked schismatic eleventh-century event. 

Involved in this deplorable contention was the upspring- 
ing and growth of the hierarchy (pnest rule), which be- 
came a most powerful adjuvant to pontifical pretensions 
and projects. With equal step, the concept of the Eucha- 
rist as a thank offering gave place to that of a sacrifice, 

'White, In his BIshteen Christian Centuries (chapter on the Gth 
c«ntur7). Bars: "The Roman Bishop had not yet asserted his 
supremacy over the Church. Each prelate was sovereign Pontiff 
of his own see, and bis doctrines for a long time regulated the 
doctrines of bis flock" (p. 116). 


1919] Prieat — Priesthood 183 

for which a priestly fonction waB indispensable. And, as 
" The Catholic Encyclopedia " says ; " The essential cor- 
relative of priesthood is sacrifice" (vol. zii. p. 400). The 
commoD priesthood of believers was displaced by the priest- 
hood of ao official caste. When in the thirteenth century 
the doctrine of Transnbstantiation (that is, changing the 
bread and wine of the Eucharist into the veritable body 
and blood of Christ!) was fixed, the sacrificial cliarac- 
ter of the elements, or mass, was determined by Thomas 
Aquinas (1227-74), and Albert the Great (1193-12S0) ; 
was formally adopted by the Council of Trent (1545-63) ; 
and was made the central idea of the Bomisb priest- 


The Roman Catholic teaching in regard to the iwwer of 
the priest is superabundantly set forth in their writings. 
Jnst now we are concerned with their eucharistic work, 

St. Alphonsns Liguori, whose standing, according to 
" The Catholic Encyclopedia/' " allows confessors to fol- 
low any of St. Alphonsus's own opinions without weighing 
the reasons on which they are based," in his " Dignity and 
Duties of the Priest," says: — 

" With regard to the power of priests over the real body 
of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the 
words of consecration, the Incarnate Word has obliged him- 
self to obey and to come into their hands under the sacra- 
mental species. In obedience to the words of his priests — 
Hoc est corpus meum [this ie my body] — God himself de- 
scends on the altar, comes wherever they call him, and as 
often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, 
even though they should be hie enemies. ... As in creating 
the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be 
made, and it was created, so it is sufficient for the priest 
to say, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' and behold the bread is 
no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ. ' The power 
of the priest,' says St. Bemardine of Sienna, ' is the power 
of the dirine person ; for the transubstantiation of the 
bread reqOires as mnch power as the creation of the world.' 
Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the 
creator of his Creator." 


184 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

At the opening of the Eucharistic Congress at Cincinnati, 
Ohio, September 29, 1911, Archbishop Ireland preached a 
sermon upon the Eucharist, in which he is reported to hare 
said; — 

" Priests of the Holy Catholic Church, you celebrate 
your mass. At the moment of the consecration you repeat 
the words of Jesus — ' This is my body, this is the chalice, 
the new testament in my blood' — the bread is changed 
into his body, and the wine into bis blood : Jesus is on the 
altar, fully man, fully God." 

In the Western Watchman of St. Louis, June 10, 1915, the 
Editor, " Father " Phelan, printed his sennon for the next 
Sunday, in which, with brutal frankness, he said: — 

" I never invited an angel down from heaven to hear 
mass here. The only person in heaven I ever ask to come 
down here is Jesus Christ, and him I command to come 
down. He has to come when I bid him. I took bread in 
my fingers this moroing and I said, ' This is the body and 
blood of Jesus Christ,' and he had to come down. That is 
one of the things he must do. He must come down, every 
time I say mass, at my bidding." 

Here, surely, is priesthood exemplified and the priest 
very much at work. And such a blasphemous farce, on 
Thanksgiving days beginning with 1909, at the Pan- 
American mass in St. Patrick's Church, Washington, D. 
C, have such men as Presidents Taft, Wilson, members of 
their cabinets, judges of the Supreme Court, and many 
other high public functionaries, been constrained to wit- 

In the Catechism officially prepared and enjoined by the 
Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), in answer to 
questions, we are told that " Christ gave his priests the 
power to change bread and wine into his body and blood 
when he said, 'Do this for a commemoration of me'" {Q. 
891). This claim is not true, of course, but utterly false, 
for the simple reason that Christ does not have any cler- 
ical "priests," and no person has any such power. 

Again : " The bread and wine are changed into the body 
and blood of Christ at the consecration of the mass" (Q. 


1919] Priest — Priesthood 185 

916). This is not true, but utterly false, for the simple 
reason that no such change takes place or has ever taken 
place in priestly or any other consecration. 

To the retort, " Oh, assertion " — vhich may be thrust 
equally in turn at either side — we submit that the Roman 
Catholic Chnrch should accept the oft-made challenge, 
herewith renewed, to submit any quantum they please of 
the alleged changed elements to the scientific and truthful 
determination of a competent chemical analysis, and so 
prove whether their traosubstantiation claim aBBertff what 
is a fact or is a falsehood. In the September, 1914, num- 
ber of The Protestant Magazine, published at Takoma 
Park, D. C, a challenge to such an analysis was in most 
respectful terms formally made to Mgr. W. T. Buasell, pas- 
tor of St. Patrick's, but it was not accepted. On the con- 
trary, compliments were paid to the Editor, by the Catholic 
press, tliat were not altogether gracious! Why not make 
the test? for surely it would certify if bread becomes flesh 
and wine becomes blood; and, if true, the Catholic faith 
would be incontrovertibly confirmed and the unbelief of 
the Protestant world be forever confuted. Certainly, let 
the test be made. Thus would be demonstrated either an 
article of faith or an — arrant fraud. 

Still further from the Catechism : " The mass is the un- 
bloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ" (Q. 917). 
" The mass is the same sacrifice as that on the cross " (Q. 
920). This is untrue, for these statements atrociously 
contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it tells of 
" the offering of the body of Jeans Christ once for all " 
(r. 10). "This man after be had offered one sacrifice for 
sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God " (x. 12). 
" For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that 
are sanctified" (x. 14). "This he did once for all, when 
he offered up himself" (vii. 27). "There remaineth no 
more a sacrifice for sins" (x. 26), and "apart from shed- 
ding of blood there is no remission" of sins (ix. 22). 

No wonder Cardinal Bellarmine, in his treatise on the 
Eucharist, admits that the dogma of transubstantiation 


186 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

cannot be proved from the Scriptures (bk. ill. chap. 23), 
and he quotes the assertion of John Duns Scotus, the well- 
known Boman theologian, that " before the Lateran Coun- 
cil [1215} trauBubRtantiation was not a dogma of faith." 
Without a shred of Biblical authority, it is simply a con- 
ceit of errant human concoction. And it is to be noted that 
in the Authorized Catechism^ from which these quotations 
are taken, there is not a single Scripture reference in proof 
of the statements made. And, we may ask, why should 
there be, if, as Cardinal Manning, in his book " Temporal 
Mission of the Holy Ghost," says : " We neither derive our 
religion from the Scriptures, nor does it depend upon 
them " (p. 176) ? And the editor of a leading English Ro- 
man Catholic journal says : " It is strange that any rea- 
sonable man in the present day can imagine for a moment 
that Almighty Ood intended the Bible as a text-book of 
Christian doctrine" (The Month, Dec. 1888). According 
to Romanist teaching, the Bible rests on the Roman Cath- 
olic Church, not the church on the Bible. What " the 
Church " says must therefore be true, Bible or no Bible! 

And when we are also told that " mortal sin is a griev- 
ous offense against the law of Ood" (Q. 280), and that 
" it is a mortal sin not to hear mass on Sunday or on a 
holiday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious 
reason " (Q. 1329), it does seem as if priestcraft had gone 
the limit in "teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
men " {Matt. xv. 9). 

The mass is central in the Boman Catholic system of 
worship. " The Catholic Encyclopedia " says : — 

" That the Mass ... is the central feature of the Cath- 
olic religion hardly needs to be said. During the Refor- 
mation and always the Mass has been the test. The word 
of the Reformers : ' It is the Mass that matters,' was true " 
(vol. ix. p. 800). 

It is plain to every careful student that this Church 
must stand or (all with the mass. And what is its foun- 
dation? Simply the false interpretation given the pas- 
sages oT Scripture (Matt. xxvi. 26-29; Mark xiv. 22-25; 


1919] Priest — Priesthood 187 

Lake xxii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 23-25) which recoant the in- 
stitution of the Lord's Supper, or indeed to a single text, 
the words Hoc eat meum corpus (This is in; body) which 
the priest uses in the consecration of the bread and wine. 
Before me lies a disquisition on "Tropes and Figures of 
Rhetoric." A trope is the turning of a word from its orig- 
inal and customary meaning, and a rhetorical figure is a 
mode of expression difterent from the direct and simple 
way of expressing the same sense. Thirty-five tropes or 
figures are named, among them tbe common figure called 
metonymy, which is the substitution of the name of an 
object for that of another to which it has a certain rela- 
tion, as the cause for effect; sign for the thing signified; 
container for the thing contained; material tor the thing 
made from it; property for the substance; parts of the 
body for certain affections; place for the inhabitants; etc. 
For instance, if it be said that Rome is loyally Catholic, 
the place would, by metonymy, be need for the inhabitants, 
for not Rome the material city is intended, but tbe people 
thereof. Why, we can hardly speak without using this 
figure, or some other. When Christ said, "I am the door; 
by me if any man enter " (John x. 9), he did not mean that 
he was literally a material, rectangular, paneled frame 
with hinges, knob, lock and key, but, by a metonymy, that 
he was as a door figuratively, a means, avenue, way of en- 
trance. When, speaking of the bread, he said, " This is my 
body," he conld not have meant that that broken piece of 
kneaded, baked dough had been transubstantiated into his 
literal body — else there would have been two Christs 
there, one the speaker and the other the element which he 
was handling! — but that it stood for, represented, his 
body which was to be broken in sacrifice on the cross; and 
80 the wine represented his blood which was to be shed. 
And when he said, " This cup is the new testament in my 
blood, drink all ye of it,** he did not mean that they should 
drink the literal cop, as the Roman Catholic principle of 
interpretation would require — twelve men conld hardly 
have swallowed one and the same piece of crockery or 


188 Bibtiotheca Sacra [April, 

metal ! — but, using the figure of the container for the 
thing contained, he meant that they should drink the con- 
tents of the cup. We refrain from characterizing as it 
deserves such a rhetorical crime against all interpretative 
rales of sane exegesis. Maes — metonymy: let an unim- 
peachable chemical analysis prove whether it rests upon 
fact, or only upon a figure of speech. 


At the outset we saw what the priest was and what his 
office. But the official priest proved inadequate and in- 
competent. More was needed. The priest functions, the 
rather, from man toward God. What became needful was 
one who should function from God to man. Hence the 

The common conception of a prophet as simply a fore- 
teller of future events, is true only in part. Striking 
oflf the case termination of the Greek word trpo^r.rif, 
prophSt-Ss, we have the English word prophet, and its 
derivation from ir/w', pro, for, and <fntt*ii pMmi, to speak, 
gives at once the clue to its signification. A prophet, then, 
is one who speaks for another, and in Scripture the prophet 
is one who speaks for Qod. 80 at first he is a forth-teller, 
and then, as occasion requires, a fore-teller. 

A study of priest and prophet in the tight of history — ■ 
both Biblical and otherwise — is by no means altogether 
cheerful reading. We see that marked contrasts always 
distinguished them. The world has had little, if anything, 
to hope for from the priest, everything to hope for from 
the prophet. The priest, while performing proper func- 
tions it may be, has been a dead weight on true spiritual 
ongoing, reactionary, an obstructionist; the prophet has 
been a living force, progressive, a constructionist, speak- 
ing for God, a voice crying in the world's moral and spir- 
itual desolation, " Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make 
his paths straight." 

Who was it that materialized Deity into a golden 
calf for the people to worship? It was priest Aaron (Ex. 


1919] Priest — Priesthood 189 

xxxii. 4). Who was it that literally crammed the craas 
concept down their throats in hie endeavor to lift to a 
hi^er, nobler, even a spiritual, conception of Qod? It was 
prophet Moses {Ex.. xzzii. 20). 

Who was it that led the first Jewish king from his low, 
perverted, priestly apprehensions of sacrifice up to a lofty 
and true idea of spiritual service and worship? It was 
prophet Samuel (1 Sam. xv.), the founder of the School 
of the Prophets. And it should not be foi^tten that it 
was when, through priestly decline, the Urim and Thnm- 
mim worn upon the high priest's breast ceased to be an 
oracle for revealing the Divine wiU (1 Sam. xiv. 37; xzviii. 
6), that real prophecy, real mediatorship between Jehovah 
aud his people, was set free from its connection with the 
priesthood, and Samuel instituted the discipline of the 
prophetic college. 

Who was it that stood single-handed and alone against 
a court debauched and degraded by priestcraft, home and 
foreign? It was prophet Elijah {1 Kings xviii.). 

Who was it when, by priestly ministrations, oblations 
to God had become " vain," incense an " abomination," 
appointed feasts hateful and fairly " wearying " to Him, 
sought to recover priests and people to a spiritual concep- 
tion of Deity that has been the uplift and illumination of 
the ages? It was the prophet Isaiah (see chap. 1. and all 
through bis book). 

But why go on and exhaust the catalogue of the proph- 
ets? for as to prophetic spirit they are pretty much all 

"The thing that hath been, is that which shall be; and 
that which hath been done, is that which shall be done." 
Prophets and priests are still abroad in the land. But a 
clear-cnt line of demarcation cannot be drawn, and that 
which belongs to the prophetic placed all on one side, and 
all that belongs to the priestly on the other. These func- 
tions may, and sometimes do, have overlapping. A prophet 
may have a bit of priestly infection, and it is possible for 
a priest to have something of the prophetic spirit. 


190 Btbliotheca Sacra [April, 

This much allowed, a great outstanding; fact is that 
proptietB, as sucli, belong to ProtestaDtiBm, and priests 
to Romanism. Still, it ought to be said that, save for 
the prlestliness that remains in the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, there are no " priests " in the Protestant denom- 
inations, while priests, wherever found, are so (ar Roman- 
ists. Go into a Protestant church, and always (save for 
the possible exception in the last sentence) you will find 
the pulpit — the rostrum from which the prophet speaks 
for God — physically, morally, spiritually central; go into 
a Romish church, the altar is central, and the pnlpit off 
one side. Indeed, the physical construction of their Gothic 
cathedrals shows that they were not intended for instruc- 
tion, but solely for ritual performances. The vacant space 
between the pews and the walls, usually separated by col- 
umns, was designed for the procession of priests carrying 
the " host," and the " ambulatory " waa admirably fitted 
for this purpose, and he would consider himself very for- 
tunately placed who was in a position to hear at all satis- 
factorily. The cathedral is as well-fitted for the mass as 
it is ill-fitted for the sermon, and it expresses in stone what 
the Catholic believes and what the Protestant repudiates. 
The prophet's mind is alert, his ear audient, his attitude 
that of Habakkuk, " I will watch to see what he will say 
unto me" (ii. 1), and if a true prophet he will do as did 
Jonah (ii. 2-4), preach the preaching that Ood bids him; 
the priest ministers at an altar, according to a prepared 
noD-brain-stimulating, cut-and-dried ritual, — a ceremony 
the performance of which tends to become merely mechan- 
ical, and the sermon is entirely secondary. Dean Gonlbum 
of the Church of England describes or defines the sermon 
as "A homily delivered after service." What initiative, 
what liberty of thought,^ what freedom of speech, what 
latitude for delivering a present-day message from God, 
by a ministry of which Fr. Phelan can say: "What the 
Pope says is accepted as the word of God ; what the bish- 
' Count dl Campello of Home. ex-Canon of 51 Peter's, saya' 
"Tbe only crime a prieat can commit In the eyes of hla Church 
la to tliink tor blmseU." 


1919] Priest — Priesthood 191 

ops say is accepted aa the word o( the Pope; vhat the 
priests preach is accepted as the word of the biahops " 
{Western Watchman, Aug. 1, 1912). What mental bar- 
renneae, what eztiuguiahiiig of prophetic appetency, must 
there be if it be true that " There is only one way for a 
man to be a Catholic, and that is to bend his knee in obe- 
dience to papal authority and accept nnreservedly each 
and every article of belief enjoined by the same authority " 
{" Questions and Answers," Department of Truth [R. C], 
May, 1913). And there is " Motn Proprio," with rescript 
of Pope Pius X. (1907) against modernism^ with its brain- 
benumbing, conscience-damping, soul-sbacUing oath, which, 
within six weeks, it is said, was put up to every Catholic 
priest in the world to take, or leave the Church ; and it is 
also said — a fact not reported in the secular press — that 
scores uiwn scores did leave it rather than bind themselves 
with an oath that would stultify their minds and render 
them either hypocrites or ■spiritual slaves. 

And where are the contemporary priest-preachers that 
hare won a place in the same class with Bishop Simpson, 
Spurgeon, Joseph Parker, Talmage, Henry Ward Beecher, 
Phillips Brooks, Jowett, and — "Billy" Sunday? not to 
mention a host of others. 

In more than fifty years of parish experience we have 
never found a Catholic priest who would enter into united 
work for community civic, social, or moral betterment. 
Such work has always been carried on under Protestant 
leadership. Temperance forces have long had the slogan, 
" The saloon must go," There have bewi some grand, ring- 
ing words in behalf of temperance by Catholics, — Arch- 
bishops Ireland, Eeene, and others. But really, we cannot 
help questioning how much these words mean. Lying on 
the desk where this writing is going on, is a copy of The 
Baltimore Catholic Retnew (May 23, 1914) — Cardinal 
Gibbons's organ — in which is an editorial on behalf of 
" The Saloon," having these sentences : — 

" We have no patience with the effort of those who want 
to abolish saloons without restriction and discrimination. 
. . . Human nature remains the same always ; the race will 
Vol LXXVI. No. 802. 4 


192 Bihliotheca Sacra 

get stimulants of some kind or other. . . . The majority o( 
men Deed the saloon or something like it." 
According to a press despatch in the New York Times of 
August 9, 1912, when the Convention of the Catholic Total 
Abstinence Union was in progress in Notre Dame, Indiana, 
its president, the Rev. Peter Callaghan of Chicago, an- 
nounced that he bad received a communication from the 
Pope commanding that the members of the Union have no 
connection with the Prohibition Party. A tremendous bat- 
tle is being waged for a Constitntional Amendment that 
will make the United States " dry." ' According to the 
newspapers, on February 5, 1918, Cardinal Oibbons issued 
a statement declaring himself opposed to the movement. 
" In strong and decisive language Cardinal Oibbons de- 
nounced the national prohibition amendment and declared 
that legislators of the states should not bow to the ' fanat- 
icism that seenxs to be ruling us in this respect.' " In June 
Archbishop S. G. Messmer of Wisconsin, in a pastoral let- 
ter, said : " I hereby positively forbid all pastors of par- 
ishes in this archdiocese from allowing any prohibition 
speeches to be given on any premises, be it the church, the 
school, or a haU." When the temperance forces prevailed 
in Washington to make the capital city " dry," they got 
up a great Sunday jubilee meeting in one of the tbeatera. 
Multitudinous were the Protestant ministers abetting. The 
" wets " prepared at the same time a counter meeting, and 
among the speakers was Mgr. Bussell — since made Bishop 
of Charleston — the one only clergyman to champion the 
cause of booze ! In view of the foregoing, should we say, 
but from another standpoint, " Priesthood Exemplified — 
the Priest at Work "? 

Priest — priesthood: let it be said as the final word and 
remembered forevermore, that each believer is, after 
Christ, his own priest, and that in Christ's Church there Is 
no place for any other priesthood. 

' since thiB woB written, an AmendmeDt to the Constitution of 
the United States has been adopted by sevenl more than the re- 
quired (36) number of States, making the vbole country lesaUy 
"dry" January 16, 1920. 




In the preceding articles ' we saw reaaon to believe that 
the Pentateuch had at one time consisted of a library of 
small vritingB which underwent damage and derangement 
and were subsequently incorporated in scroll form. Edi- 
torial efforts to remedy matters tended to increase the 
confusion, and, combined with glossing, longer commen- 
tary, and the natural deterioration of a US. text, helped 
to produce the state of affairs with which we are familiar. 
It was sQ^ested that one of the methods to which editors 
might have resorted was rewriting. 

In the interval which has elapsed since the publication 
of the second of these papers, a controversy has arisen 
about the date of the Exodus,* in the course of which it 
was said that the question of the itinerary of Num. xxxiii. 
would be examined after the writer's demobilization. 
That promise it is now proposed to redeem. 

The Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch throws con- 
siderable light on methods that were adopted in the edi- 
torial age; and, in considering any one of these, we tiare 
to ask ourselves, whether it was peculiar to the Samari- 
tans, or whether they merely applied a mode of procedure 
that was or had been in vogue among the Jews. We have 
had several instances in which the latter proved to be the 
case. Glossing is common to both texts, and a compar- 
ison of the two often reveals on which side the expansion 
lies. The Samaritans are famous for their additions to 

'BS for January and April, 191S. 

•See Ba, Oct 1918. 


IM Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

the teita of earlier books from Dewteronomj and parallel 
passages (as also to the text o( Denteronoiay from the 
earlier books), and we found that in Num. xzl. 33-35 the 
MasHoretic text shared their addition, which, however, was 
wanting in the Old Latin, and consequently in the Hebrew 
original of the LXX. We discovered that Ex. xix. 1-10 
was not in its proper position in our Hebrew; and, when 
we meet with it after xxvi. 35 in the Samaritan, we recog- 
nize that both recensions alike have made unsuccessful 
attempts to discover its true position. Consequently, when 
we find the Samaritans adopting a particular editorial 
method, we cannot dismiss it offhand as something pecul- 
iar to them, and rule out the possibility of its having pre- 
vailed among the Jews. We must carefully examine the 
reasons for their conduct and the marks that distinguish 
their production, and we must then see whether the Mas- 
soretic text shows any passages, distinguished by like 
marks, where similar reasons may have been in operation. 
If this should prove to be the case, we must consider 
whether they are not the products of earlier applications 
of the same editorial methods. 

Now the Samaritan Pentateuch is remarkable for (inter 
alia) the presence of a number of larger rewritings or 
supplements, and a study of some of these throws an in- 
teresting light on our problem. In Num. iii. 13 we find 
a very significant change. Here are the two texts side by 
side : — 

M. T. Sam. 

Thence thej journeyed {DB« And they Journeyed from the 

IJTDJ) and pitched, etc. brook Zered (ml ^iniD IJKn) 

and pitched, etc 

The importance of this is twofold. Slight as the dif- 
ference looks, it is one of type. The Massoretic reading 
gives the statement in a form unlike that of. the itinerary 
of Num. xxiiii., and is attributed by the documentary 
theorists to one of their early narratives (E). The Sa- 
njaritan, on the other hand, has the familiar stereo^ped 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 195 

formala of the itinerary; and, had the docomentary theo- 
rists worked on tliis text without knowledge of any of our 
other copies, they must in consistency have attributed the 
verse to their late " source " (P) . It will be recalled that 
we met with similar instances in Genesis, where Greek 
texts presented us with " JE " originals of " P " verses.' 

And this leads to the second point. Just as, in those 
verses of Genesis, we were able to see that the phenomena 
which had attracted the attention of the critical theorists 
were due to editorial causes, and not to a combination of 
preexisting documents ; so here we are enabled, by the con- 
text, to see exactly what has happened. The Samaritans 
maintained the original text of verse 12, " Thence they 
journeyed and camped at the brook Zered," because, in 
spite of its being preceded by a shori: insertion from Deu- 
teroDODiy, there was no sufficient reason to alter it. But 
at this point they added a further extract from Deut. ii. 
17-19, which was so long as to make the initial " thence " 
of verse 13 cumbrous and unintelligible. Therefore they 
resorted to the change. Thus we see that, at a point where 
a dislocation of the narrative rendered the original phrase- 
ology unsuitable, a Samaritan editor smoothed the text J>y 
an alteration which took the form of the unnecessarily 
long-winded formula ascribed by the documentary theo- 
rists to P. That, then, is the origin of the supposititious P 
in one passage. Can this be the case in others too? 

The formala is found again in Ex. xiii. 20 ; xvii. 1 ; xix. 
2; Num. xii. 10, Ha; xxii. 1, as well as in the itinerary. 
Aud here a word of caution is necessary. It is by no means 
impossible that au old writer should occasionally have 
written " and they journeyed from A and encamped in 
B," instead of " thence they journeyed to B," or " they 
journeyed from A to B," or some similar phrase (see Ex. 
xii. 37; Num. x. a3; xi. 35; xii. 16; xi. 22a). But (a) it 
is most unlikely that he should have done so continuously 
in a long passage like the itinerary; and (b) it is probable 
■ See BS. ApHl, 191S, p. 246. 


196 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

that an editor who had to trim the ragged edges of the 
narrative would have preferred this formala, which io its 
long-windedness and stressing of the obvious fact of camp- 
ing harmonized bo well with the ideals of an epoch that 
soQ^t to enlarge Torah. When we examine the other 
occnrrences we see at a glance that several of them are at 
points where there are obvioos breaks in the narrative. It 
is well known that the text of these chapters of Numtters 
is not in order.' 0r. Q, B. Qray, in commenting on zxL 
10-zziL 1, begins with the sentence " The passage contains 
the work of man; writers/' and points out numerous in- 
consistencies in its present form. With xxi. 9 the stor; 
of the brazen serpent ends, and there ia nothing to show 
what ought to follow it. When, therefore, we read : "And 
they [so Vulgate: M, T., "the children of Israel"] jour- 
neyed, and pitched In Ottoth. And they journeyed from 
Oboth, and pitched at lye-abarim," the easiest explanation 
is to regard the phraseology as the work of an editor, who, 
owing to the fragmentary and dislocated state of the nar- 
rative, found himself confronted with some such text as 
this : " when he looked unto the serpent of brafis, he lived. 
Thence to Oboth, . . . and thence to lye-abarim." In these 
circumstances he made what changes were necessary to 
render the story intelligible without introducing any ad- 
ditional information. It will be observed that be has not 
attempted to give the name of the station from which they 
went to Oboth. He has confined himself to making the 
text readable, and it is not clear that an uncritical age 
could have done anything better. 

In xxii. 1 the facts are similar. Again we have a dam- 
aged narrative. Whether we retain or remove the late 
insertion from Deuteronomy, which now immediately pre- 
cedes this verse, we find an unmistakable gap. Here, then, 
the statement " and the chUdren of Israel journeyed 
and pitched," etc. (again, be it noted, withont a termimu 
a quo), probably represents an editorial version of an 
earlier fragment. 

> See EPC, pp. 114~13S: B8, Oct 1918, pp. G7S-E80. 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 197 

In EzodQB we find xix. 2 following the misplaced chap- 
ter xviii. ; so that, wlthoat entering for the present on the 
critical questions connected with zlx. 1, we can see that 
it may probably be a rewriting of an earlier formula. In 
zvii. 1 the facts are eimUar. The matter that at present 
precedes is not the original context of the statement that 
the Israelites jonmeyed to Rephidim. 

That leaves only xiii. 20; and it is impossible to say 
whether verses 19 and 20 were originally conaecntive, or 
whether there has been some lesion to the text. 

So far, then, our investigation shows ub that, in some 
of the minor passages in which it occurs, the fonuola is 
probably due to editorial work similar to the Samaritan 
change in Num. xxi. 13, and that it may be so in all. As 
already indicated, it cannot plausibly be held to be early 
in Num. xxxiii. 

Before proceeding to the consideration of the second Sa- 
maritan alteration which illuminates the probable antece- 
dents of that passage, a word must be said about the death 
of Aaron. According to the most original texts known to 
us of Deut, X. 6 f., the Israelites were at Moserah when 
Aaron died. This conclusion can be avoided only by pos- 
tulating a lacuna in the middle of the verse, thus : — " and 
the children of Israel journeyed from Beeroth-Bene-jaa- 
kan to Moserah . . . there Aaron died," There is nothing 
to show this to be probable, and we must therefore accept 
Moserah as the scene of the encampment in this account. 
According to most texts of Num. xx. f., the Israelites were 
in Mount Hor at the time. There are, however, Greek 
variants, supported by some other evidence, which make • 
it appear that this is not original. There is, in fact, a 
formal contradiction between the statements of ix. 22, 23, 
zxi. 4a that the Israelites were on Mount Hor, and the 
command of verse 25, with its fulfillment in verse 27, to 
bring up to the mount. How could men who were already 
there be brought up to the mount? 


198 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

la verse 23 we find the foUowing readings : — 
(i) " In Hor, the mount, by the border of the land of 
Edom" {M.T. and most authorities), 
(ii) "In Hop" (m). 

(iii) "In the monnt by the border of the land of 
Edom " (Bj HP 71, 84) . 

(it) "Id Hor, the mount, by the t>order of the land of 
Moab" (Sahidic). 

Only one theory exhausts this evidence. The Hebrew 
word for " mount " is used equally for mountain country. 
The earliest reading to which the variants witneee ie " in 
the mountain country by the border of (the land of) 
Moab." A glossator then erroneously wrote in the word 
" Hor," locating the Israelites on the mountain itself, in- 
stead of in the mountain country at its foot. That may 
have given us the text of m. The other texts have arisen 
through conflation of the two readings, combined (except 
in the case of the Sahidic) with an erroneous correction 
of " Edom " into " Moab," baaed on the present contest of 
the passage.' Now we have already seen, in the longer 
discussions to which reference has been made,* that these 
passages are out of order. Verse 22a should not imme- 
diately precede the narrative of Aaron's death, nor should 
xxi, 1-3 follow it. I believe, therefore, that xx. 22b and 
xxi. 4a are erroneous editorial additions, patching up the 
fragmentary narrative in its present order; and that the 
Greek variants point to an earlier form, in which the chil- 
dren of Israel were at a place in the mountain country in 
the border of Moab at the foot of Monnt Hor, There ia no 
reason whatever to doubt that the name of the place was 
Moserah, as Deuteronomy states. 

'Se« BS. Oct. 1918, pp. 678, 679. 
■ BPC, pp. 114-188; BS. Oct 1918. 



Composition of the Pentateuch 

And 80 we come to the Samaritaa text of Dent. x. 6 1. 
set it ont with the parallel passages of the M. T. 

Deut I. 6-7 (M. T.) 
And the children 
of larael Journeyed 
from B«eroth Bene- 
jaakan to Hoserah: 
there Aaron died, 
and there he was 
burled; and Eleazar 
his son inlnletered 
Id the priest's of- 
fice In his stead. 
FVom thence they 
Journeyed unto Gud- 
godab; and from 
Qudgodab to Jotba- 
thah, a land of 
broolu of water. 

Deut X, 8-7 (Sam.) 
And tbe children 
of Israel Journeyed 
( yvDJ ) from HoBC- 
roth, and pitched Id 
Bene-Jaakan. Thence 
they Journeyed and 
pitched In Hag- 
gudgodab: thence 
they Journeyed and 
pitched In Jotba- 
thah, a land of 
Irooki of water. 
Thence they Jour- 
neyed and pitched 
In Abronab; thence 
they Journeyed and 
pitched In Ezlon- 
geber: thence they 
Journeyed and 
pitched In tbe wil- 
derness of Zln (the 
same Is Kadesh). 
Thence they Jour- 
neyed and pitched 
In Hor the moun- 
tain, and Aaron died 
there and wo* bur- 
ied there and Elea- 
sar hia son tnlnii- 
tered in the prietVt 
oUlce in hia ateaS. 

Num. mill. 31-38 
And they Journeyed 
from Uoseroth, and 
pitched iB Bene-Jaa- 
kan. And they Jour- 
neyed from Bene-Jaa- 
kan, and pitched In 
Hor-Hoggldgad. And 
ther Journeyed from 
Ror-haggldgad and 
pitched In Jotba- 
thah. And they Jour- 
neyed from Jotba- 
thah, and pitched In 
Abronah. And they 
Journeyed from Ab- 
ronah, and pitched 
In Ezlon-geber. And 
they Journeyed from 
Ezlon-geber, and 
pitched In the wll- 
demesB of Zln (tbe 
same Is Kadesh). 
And they Journeyed 
from Kadeeh, and 
pitched m Mount 
Hor, In the edge of 
the land of Edom. 
And Aaron the priest 
went up Into Mount 
Hor at tbe command- 
ment o( the Lord, 

and died there. In the fi 
come out of the land o 
of the month. 

In Num. xxxiii. 32 f., the Samaritan reads Hor Haggud- 

What has happened aDd why? The glaring contradic- 
tion between the Deuteronomy passage and the present 
texts of Num. xx. and xxxiii. attracted attention, and the 
Samaritan editors apparently judged that there must be 
a mistake and set themselves to remove it. They coined 
the form Haggudgodah (if we vocalize it thus), out of 
Oudgodah and Haggidgad, for adoption in both passages. 
For the other names they adopted the Numbers forms. 


200 BibUotheca Sacra [April, 

They then rewrote the shorter Deut x. 6-7 on the basis of 
the longer Nnm. xxxiii., which they thonght correct in fact, 
but preserved the formula of the Denteronomy original 
("thence they journeyed," etc.), to which the context 
made no difficulties. Special notice should be taken of the 
way in which they have incorporated the little additional 
touches of Deuteronomy. 

It is submitted that the present fonu of the itinerary in 
Num. xxxiii. is due to the methods we have seen at work 
in these passages of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that 
the necessity for their application art>se from the custo- 
dians of the text being confronted with some fragments of 
the original in doubtful order and in a form which made 
such editorial effort necessary if the passage was to read 
at all. It is further suggested that Dent x. 6-7 is prob- 
ably a misplaced fragment of the original itineraiy, and 
that other fragments are preserved in what is now Num. 
xzi On the other band, it is likely that some fragments 
relating to Beerotb-benejaakan, Uoserah, Qudgodab, and 
Jotbathah which originally preceded and followed the 
account of Aaron's death in Num. xx. were erroneously 
thought to belong to the itinerary, and consequently in- 
corporated in it. To make this theory clear we must look 
carefully at the phenomena of the itinerary and Num. zxi. 

A. Tlie itinerary of Num. xxxiii. cannot be in an early 
original form for the following reasons : — 

1. It does not correspond with the true original order 
of the narrative.' 

2. In the matter of Aaron's death it is, as we have seen, 
in glaring contradiction with Deut. z. 6-7, as also (in the 
location of Hor on the frontier of Edom) with the earliest 
text of Num. xx. 23. 

3. The forty stations are clearly an artificial number, 
Ezion-geber and Kadesb (ver. 36), which are given as con- 

' For tltlB, reference must be made to BPC, pp. 114-188; BS, Juty, 
1916, pp. «68 r., Oct. 1918, pp. 676-680. 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 201 

secutive, are in reality seventy milee apart, and the ronte, 
80 far as it can be traced, Ib absurd.* 

4. The intolerably tedious and repetitions form smacks 
of the editorial age. 

B. Chapter zxxiii. mentions seventeen stations that are 
not otherwise known, and also contains three statements 
(ver. 2, 4a, 38b) not based on anything extant elsewhere. 
Now two of these are in the itinerary, and give little 
touches exactly parallel to those found in Deut. x. 6-7 and 
incorporated by the Samaritans in their rewriting of that 
passage. Further, it mentions (ver. 30-34) Uoseroth, 
Bene-jaakan, Hor-haggidgad, and Jotbathah. It will be 
observed that these are fundamentally identical with the 
Beeroth Bene-jaakan, Moserah, Gudgodal^ and Jotba- 
tbah, of Deuteronomy, bnt that the order of reaching Mo- 
serah differs. This and the slight variations in the names 
forbid the assumption that our chapter is based on the 
Benteronomy passage, which is obviously a fragment of 
an itinerary : but we have seen that the original beginning 
and end of the narrative of Aaron's death in Num. xx. are 
missing. That was a tattered passage, and the conjecture 
lies near at hand that three fragments belonging to it orig- 
inally ran in something like the following form: — 

(a) Thence they journeyed to Bene-jaakan. 

(6) Thence they journeyed to Moser (the last letter not 
being written). 

(c) Thence they jonmeyed to Hor-Haggidgad, and 
thence to Jotbathah. 

These were not recognized as belonging to the larger frag- 
ment, which teUs of the death of Aaron, and were incor- 
porated in the itinerary, (a) and (b) being accidentally 
placed in the wrong order. 

C. At this point we must turn for a moment to Num. xxi. 
We have already seen that verses 33-35 are not original. 
The campaign against Sihon (ver. 21-25) is part of the 
original narrative. At the end of verse 24 we should 
read, with the LXX, " for Jaazer hir. not with M. T. W. 

* Se« Gray, Numbers, pp. 442 f. 


202 BibUotheca Sacra [-'^pi^ 

" strong," wbich is obviously the remains of a damaged 
word) is the border o( the chUdren of Ammoo." • The 
mention of Jaazer in verse 24 connects naturally with 
verse 32. The intervening verses (26-^1) are a commen- 
tator's addition, and verse 31 resumes verse 25 after the 
addition, just as in Ex. vi. verses 28-30 again take up the 
thread of the narrative where it had been interrupted in 
verse 13 by the insertion of the commentary which now 

These passages are all fragments; for, as we see from 
Deuteronomy, there are other narratives which are miss- 
ing, and possibly the clauses " for Amon is the border of 
Moab" (ver. 15), "for Jaazer is the border of the chil- 
dren of Ammou," glauce at lost Numbers equivalents of 
Deut. ii. 9, 19, the narrative in each case explaining that 
the Israelites kept outside the territory covered by these 

What preceded the relation of the war against Sihoo? 
Here geography helps us. Of Kum. xxi. 20, I>r. (now 
Sir) G. A. Smith writes:— 

" One thing is certain ; this journey, tbongh it is de- 
scribed in the Book of Numbers before the war with Sihon, 
must have come after the latter. No host, so large and 
cumbered as this, could have ventured down any of the 
glens from the Plateau to the Jordan before their own 
warriors had occupied Heshbon, for Heshbon, standing 
above them, commands these glens." * 

■ It iB conceivable that ver. 26 should run " and Israel took his 
cltl«fl," not "all these cities" (M. T.). Ab we have ae«D (BS, Jul;, 
1914, pp. 471 f.), "all" Is a very common gloBB. and le omitted la 
this paasage by K 12S and n; vhlle, tor " these," o and the Vulgate 
read " his." That would remove the dUBcuUj created bj the fact 
that the Massoretlc "all these cities" refers to nothing; In the 
present text: but It Is not easy to see how " these " came Into the 
text If that Is correct It seems more likely that " these cities " Is 
the original text, and that the reference Is to something that has 
been lost, " his cities " being an attempt to smooth over the diffi- 

'Historical Oeography of the Holy Land (7th thousand), pp. 
664 f. 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 203 

In Judges xi. 18 f. we read "... for Amou ia the border 
of Moab. 19 And Israel sent messengers." This agrees with 
the geographical position. It may therefore be coajectared 
that this is the right order; and that verses 16-20 did not 
originally stand in their present position, but belong to 
the itinerary. It fits in well with this that Num. rxxiii. 
makes no mention of any of the places to which these 
verses refer. Verses 14 f. are clearly due to an anuotator, 
who was reminded of some verses about the Amon by 
what he read here.* 

D. Returning to Num. xxxiil., we note the statement 
of Mosaic authorship in verse 2. After what we have seen 
of the way in which the editors preserved incidental touches 
and avoided adding matter of their own, the candid in- 
quirer can only admit that there is no ground whatever 
for doubting that they found this statement in their or- 
iginal materials. 

Thus we can now envisage the problems which con- 
fronted them. The original books had contained {inter 
alia) the ExoduS'Nnmbers main narrative and also an 
itinerary. Both had become tattered and disarranged. Of 
the itinerary, one little piece had lodged between two 
" books " of Deuteronomy, just as a little piece of the 
Numbers narrative had strayed in at another point of 
jnnction (iv. 41 ft.). Of the remainder, some were wrongly 
incorporated in Num. iz. ; and that left over some obvious 
fragments of itinerary, including the notices of verses 2 and 
4a, and some shreds of narrative in forms like " thence they 
journeyed to x," which, whether rightly or wrongly, were 
conceived to have belonged to the itinerary. The least 
that any editor could do in those days was to connect 
them in readable form, rewriting in bis own language 
where necessary. (That task had of course to be accom- 
plished without any geographical knowledge of the desert 
stations.) Whether the first editors did more than this 
we cannot say. There are some readings in Greek cur- 

' See Critical Note, " The Text of Numbers xxl. Ut.," BS, April, 
1919,' pp. 232-234. 


204 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

Bives which Bnggeet that in the Hebrew text known to the 
LXX the present formnla may not have occurred throngh- 
OQt. Thns, for verae 21, d has " then to Desa (Biasah) ; 
p" and s, "and they camped in I)esa" {s, "Dessa"); in 
verse 40, d and p show similar variations (see also d's 
reading in Dent. x. 6) '; and in sereral verses d has a 
shorter formula (see ver. 25, 26, 28, 30), indicating that 
its original before correction presented " from A to B " in 
more than one instance.' Consequently the uniformity of 
phrase is not necessarily due to the first editors. It may 
have resulted from Bubseqaent correction. Further, the 
number of journeys was brought up to make the obviously 
artificial number of forty intermediate stages, and the 
chapter was probably conformed to the main Numt>ers nar- 
rative (ver. 37).' We canaot tell whether these changes 
were due to the first editors or to their successors. Gloss- 
ing, and probably deterioration in some of the names, com- 
pleted the tale. 

Such a view as this appears to explain all the facts in 
the light of the other phenomena of the Pentateuch and 
the known methods of the editorial ages. 

In reference to the Exodus controversy it may now be 
said that, on farther examination, I find myself in agree- 

* On the otber hand, (irn (then) may be a scribal note adopted 
where, for some reason. It was not desired to repeat the formula, 
or perhaps as a reference to a longer correction In the margin ^ 
"then *■" i.e. "take In the Journey to x at this point" (cp. A, C. 
Clark, The Descent of Manuscripts [1918], pp. 34 f.). 

' The algnlflcance of this will be appreciated when we recall the 
tact that there Is clear evidence that the archetrpe of dpt was a 
MS. of one type which had been corrected to present readings of 
another. Its descendants sometimes fall to give the corrections, 
or give them In different places. See the readings In Deut. x. 6 1. 

' In this matter too we can parallel the action of the editors from 
the Samaritan Pentateucb. We have seen the lesson that mar be 
learnt from the change In Deut. x. 6f.; and there are other In- 
stances (see e.g. Ex. xvlU. 26, where the Samaritan substitutes a 
passage founded on Deut. I.). In these cases the editorial prin- 
ciple seems to have been to give the preference to tbe longer and 
more detailed account. 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 205 

ment with the view of those who hold the words "king 
of Arad " in Nam. xxi. 1 to be an erroneous gloss. The 
original phrase appears to bare been " the Canaanite who 
dwelt in the Kegeb heard." The glossator identified this 
Hormah with the Honnah (Zephath) of Judges i. 16 f.' 
But, apart from the other considerations (on which see 
the commentaries), Zephath appears to lie too far north 
to fit the Pentateuchal i 

Since m; work on the Pentateuch commenced, the pub- 
lication of the larger Cambridge Septuagiut has been be- 
gun. The contributions it has made to' our knowledge, and 
my increased experience of the textual history, make it 
possible to revise and supplement, and often to corrob- 
orate, m; earlier work in remarkable fashion. This is 
particularly the case with the numbers of the Israelites, 
and I am happy to be able to revert to the discussion of 
the subject on pages 155-169 of EPG. It is now possible 
to see the causes at work much more clearly than before. 

A. On page 166 of EPC, I noted that "A study of the 
variants to the census figures collected by Kennicott re- 
reals the fact that a large nnmber of readings depend npon 
the undue omission or insertion of the Hebrew word for 
thousand," and I gave illustrations. There is striking cor- 
rotK>ration from Greek MSS. The most extraordinary of these 
is famished by HP 71. Holmes notes that it is written a 
scriba imperito, qui voces et cotnmata sic omittit, ut saepe 
numero sensum ipsum confundat. He seems to have had be- 
fore bim a MS. which had been corrected, and, owing to his 
fortunate lack of skill, he often copies the corrections in 
the wrong places, thereby showing that they were correc- 
tions. This enables us to argue back to the earlier text. 
'If this !■ correct, it should be noted tli&t, as tbe phrase occurs 
in the Samaritan, that recension must have been made or revised 
after the Hebrew text had been glossed from Judges. I imagine 
that a detailed study of the texts would also show that the Sti- 
marttan is taken from a Hebrew Pentat«ucb written in the square 
character; but I have never exammed this point closely. 


206 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

In Num. i. 21-43 be regularly misplaces the word for 
thonsaDdK. Thus in verse 21 we get ;^t\ia5n wevraicoaiat 
TtiTcapaMVTa c|, which cau only mean 546,000. The most 
notable instance is the case of Judah (LXX 25=M. T. 27), 
where we actually find reaaapt^ tat ;^tXiaSc? i0&o/ti)KovTa 
i^oKOfftai, which means 670,004. In xxvi. 7, 18 (LXX=M. 
T. 22) and 31 (LXX=M. T. 47), we get similar phe- 
nomena ; and in xvi. 49 thia MS. presents hrTaKotriat 
Sacaretrffapev X*'^"^^- [»tc] =714,000. The explanation ob- 
viously is that one of the ancestors of 71 laclied the thou- 
sands altogether. A corrector inserted the words margin- 
ally, and they were frequently taken into the wrong place. 
Thus, according to the original reading of the ancestor, 
the nnmbers of the Israelites at the first census were: — 

























(presumably making a total of 6,093), and the tens and 
units have been multiplied by a thousand as the result of 
this process. There are numerous other traces in the Greelc 
MBS. of what has happened. In xxvi. 51, M has the mar- 
ginal note ev aXXoK x^XiaSa ^a^X', " in other copies thou- 
sands 600, 1, 700, 30." In i. 37 (LXX=M.T. 25), f omits 
"thousands"; in i. 31 (LXX3rM.T. 33), where K 84, 189, 
omit " thousands," d misplaces the word ; in iii. 60 b 
has 65,000 and 300, ir have 5 and 60 and 300 thoa- 
sands, w has 5 and 60 and thousands and 300, f has 65,300 
[ir<VT< KOI e^KOirra {-\-km ir w) x'^*""' (-|-«o* bw) Tp*a 
KOffiom bw fir] ; in xxvi. 27, N omits " thousands." In 
the last-named chapter, m repeatedly has thousands fol- 
lowed by a number representing all the digits of the He- 
brew {e.g. xt>JaS« ^\0') xxvi. 41 (LXX:i^M. T. 37), which 
can only mean 532,000. Taken in conjunction with the 
Hebrew variants given in EPC, these facts prove that the 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 207 

insertioB of the thonsands is later than the Greek trans- 

B. Qreat importance attaches to the readings of m in 
Num. ii. It omits verses 13, 15, 19, 21, 23, 26, 30. Through 
homceograpby it passes from 'Aarip in verse 27 to ^vXi^f 
in verse 29; so that we cannot tell whether its original 
omitted verse 28, bat we may preaome that this was so. 
In verses 4, 6, 8, 11, it has only &vvafut airov without apy 
nnmber. In verse 8 it is supported by the Old Latin.' The 
meaning of these facts is that these verses were originally 
lacking iu the Greek. In four places the initial phrase of 
these verses was copied into the ma^;in of one of m's an- 
cestors, and thence got into the text. These facts throw 
some light on the history of the chapter. 

C. In Num. xxv. 9, HP 71 reads 40 and 20 thousands. 
" Thousands " is misplaced in d and m. I venture to con- 
jecture that originally this passage had either 40, or more 
probably 20, as the total Dumber, as was so frequently the 
case in the early text of Judges. A variant, the introduc- 
tion of " thousands," and the necessary reduction of 40 to 
4 (so easy in the old system of writing) gave our present 
24,000. Similarly, in ivi. 49 (Heb. xviii. 14), for 14,000, 
N has 4,000; HP 71 reads seven hundred, ten, four thou- 
sands; and d has thousands ten, four and seven hundred. 
Here I would suggest that onr text has arisen from two 
old readings 40 and 70.* The addition of 10 and the other 
usual enlargements have given the present nnmber. 

D. On page 165 of EPC, importance was attached to 
the evidence that the " and fifty " in the number given to 
Gad in the first census was late. The phrase is omitted 
In i. 25 (LXX 37) by K 6, 107, 150, gn and the Georgian. 
It may now be added that the word " and " is lacking in 
dp and m, showing that the 50 was inserted as a correc- 
tion in ancestors of those M9S. K 200 omits the number 

' K 69 omits ver. 8, and K 199 omiU m. 28; but these omlaelons 
lack tbe systematic character ot m's readings, and may be acci- 
dental (see A. C. Clark, op. tit., pp. 4-6). 

*Cp. Num. xxxlU. 9, where, for 70 (palma), m baa 40 and nb no 
number; and, on tbe whole subject, see BS, Oct 1917, pp. 6S9 ff. 
Vol. UOCVr. No. 802. 5 


208 Bibliotheca Sacra [Aprilf 

(6) of the hundreds, E 109 adds " and fire," and E 6 haa 
the en of Vtn {"and aii") over an eraaure. From these 
facts it was concluded that six and five were alternative 
readings for the number of hundreds, and that five waa 
inserted in the margin of a copy that read six, and then 
taken into the text as 50. There are further traces of the 
process. In i. 46, bw dp omit the " and " before 50, show- 
ing these words to be a late addition to the total ; in ii. 16, 
N dpt fir e" again omit " and " ; while Boh' joins K 110, 
181, in omitting the whole phrase; in ii. 16, Bohl Eth f 
omit the whole phrase, and dp fl m and e* again lack 
"and"; and in ii. 32 the whole expression is wanting in 
E 84 and Bohl ; ^hile B F* N a, m dp f lack " and." 

There are other instances where Oreek and Hebrew au- 
thorities agree. The variations presented by the larger 
Cambridge LXX are very numerous. It is impossible to 
rely on the numbers; and, in view of the hopelessness of 
any attempt to restore the original, it seems to me use- 
less to tarry over the variations. So far as we are war- 
ranted in making a guess, we may conjecture that the 
original reading in Ex. xii. 37; Num. xi. 21 was 6,000, 

E. In Num. xxxi. the facts are similar to those in other 
passages we have considered. For instance, in verse 32 an 
Old Latin copy has 675 instead of 676,000 as the number 
of the oxen, and finds much support in the readings of 
other Septuagintal authorities. It would be as tedious as 
it is unnecessary to set out all the variationa in this chap- 
ter. Suffice it to say, that the evidence of the Insertion 
of " thousands " is overwhelming ; whUe in verse 28, for 
" one Boul in 500," Laf a> r have " one soul in 50." 

Earlier the text speaks of thousands of Israelites. I 
think that here the expression ^^K does not denote " thon- 
sand " in the numerical sense, but means a company or 
unit which was technically so-called. The same sense ap- 
pears in the phrase " captains of thousands." Similarly 
in Josh. viii. (where the Septuagintal text as a whole is 
immensely superior to the M. T.) I should read " three chil- 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 209 

iads (companies) of men," with pt,' and understand the 3 
companies of vii. 4 1., who were repulsed with the lose of 
36 killed, aa three small units in no wa; approaching a 
numerical thoasand each. 


The Samaritan Pentateuch often shows us the last stages 
of processes that have affected all our Bibles. It is apt to 
carT7 the principles which are responsible for so many of 
the phenomena of our Jewish texts just one step further. 
Readers of this Review are familiar with the conception 
that there have been editorial alterations in obedience to 
supposed Divine commands found now in one verse, now 
in another. The Samaritans treated Deut xi. 24 aa such 
a command, and in obedience to it they made two altera* 
tions. By comparing these with the Hebrew originals we 
are able to see clearly how the principle operated. The 
first passage is Gen. z. 19. 

H. T. Sam. 

And ttie border of the Caan- And the border of tbe Caan- 

anlte was from Zldon, as thou anite was from the River of 

goest towards Oerar, onto Egypt unto the great River, tbe 

Oaza; as Uiou goest towards River of Euphrates, and unto 

Sodom and Oomorrah and Ad- the hinder sea. 
mah and Zebollm, nnto Laaba. 

It is worth lingering a minute over this. We note that, 
while the original cannot have been later than the time 
of Abraham in its first comiwsition, seeing that it treats 
Sodom, etc., as still existing, the Samaritan alteration 
brings a new version into existence well over one thousand 
years later. The scholarly ideals implied are at the oppo- 
site pole from those of the modem West. We are all ani- 
mated by the historical spirit; the alteration is not merdj 
unhistorical, it is anti-historical. We regard it as our 
first duty to preserve as far as possible the ipsiasima ©erfto 
of an old author; these old editors were ruthless in de- 

■ Terse S. The pre-Hexaplar IXX. lacked the E.OOO men of the 
UasBoretlc verse 12. 


210 Bibliotheca Sacra [^pi'lt 

stroying them, caring only to obey what they cODCeived to 
be the word of God. We strive to exercise the minutest 
care in coUecting and weighing the evidence and interpret- 
ing it in the most scientific spirit: they gave no thought to 
the evidence, knew nothing of any scientific method, and 
were indifferent to all considerations except their own 
erroneous interpretation of the Law. We may weU ask 
what the docum^itary critics would have made of this 
passage, had they worked on the Samaritan with no knowl- 
edge of any other text. What would have been their infer- 
ences as to source, date, historical character, and textual 
history? Does not this verse show that the whole of their 
method is misconceived? 

The second alteration is found in Dent, xxxiv. 1 fl. : — 
H. T. Sam. 

And the Lord ataowed talm all And tl)« Lord showed him 

the land of GUead, unto Dan; all the land from the river of 
and all Naphtall, and the land EgyDt tmto the great River, 
of Bpbralm and Manasseh, and the River Euphrates, and unto 
all the land of Judah, unto the the hinder sea. 
binder sea; and the South, and 
the Plain of the valley of Jk- 
Icho the dtr of palm trees, unto 

Once more we see the total disregard for historical truth 
or physical probability. Surely we can desire no finer 
Ulustrations of the method. 

It is one of the objects of the present writer's work to 
reverse this process wherever he finds it possible. In bis 
experience the truth does not come all at once, and it is 
only gradually that he detects the mutilations and is en- 
abled to suggest the remedies. A number of changes seem 
to have been due to the use of the word " baalim " for the 
burgesses or elders of the city who sat at the gate and ad- 
ministered judgment. The indications of the change are 
slight but sufBcient, and they are assisted by the fact that 
differ^t methods were employed in altering certain verses 
of Deuteronomy and Exodus. In the first-named book the 
editors operated by excisions. This was impossible in the 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 211 

other case, and hence we have nonsensical snbstitations. 
To the gate the master brought his pjirchased Hebrew 
slave who, after six years, desired to extend his service 
ander the provisions of Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. zv. 12-18.^ 

"What happens? The slave publiclj, in the presence 
of the very judges who would have to try the question of 
fact should any dispute hereafter arise, submits to having 
an indelible mark, which will always be evidence in case 
of any dispute, made on that part of his body where it 
will do least harm. If he should hereafter say, ' True, I 
have this mark, but it was made without my consent,' the 
knowledge of the judges will decide the issue. If aU the 
judges be dead, yet, as the ceremony was public, there will 
be the maximum probabUity that some witness of it will 
survive who can prove what he saw. The cerranony may 
of course also have some archaeological or symbolical mean- 
ing, but it is iraposeible to feel any doubt as to its legal 
and practical aspects. It is in accordance with all we 
know of the ceremonies of ancient law before the intro- 
duction of the properly authenticated writing, which, in 
a more mature system, provides the necensary evidence. In 
all ancient systems of law we find the same need for 
evidence giving rise to the same publicity, (or the question 
of proof has to be faced in every age. The Pentateuch 
knows nothing of written documents properly witnessed 
and authenticated by the signatures or seals of all the 
parties to the transaction. Writing it knows — we meet 
with it in the Deuteronomic law of divorce and in some 
of the covenant ceremonies. But in those very covenant 
ceremonies it is a mere adjunct to the ceremonies that we 
see in covenants which have no writing, and in no case is 
the writing authenticated as it would be in any mature 
system of law. The Israel of the Pentateuch has yet to 
pass throu^ long ages of development before its law can 
embody the ideas which give rise to the Egyptian legal 
documents of the year 2500 b.c, the Babylonian legal tab- 
■ sir J. O. Frazer does not appear to me to bit the nail on tbe 
head In bis long and rambling dlacusalon o( tbla ceremonr (Folk- 
lore Is the Old Testament [1918], vol. 111. pp. 165-269). 


212 Bibliotheca Sacra [ApfUj 

lets, the cODvejance of the thirty-second chapter of Jere- 
miah, or the modem Eogliah deed" (SBL, pp. 26 f.). 

Unfortonately the origiDal laws spoke of the judges as 
the baalim, or possibly the baalim of the place or of the 
city. Hence, in Ex. xzi. 6, Q'ri^n Jia-elohim, the gods, was 
substitnted. Jerome still knew that the word had a plural 
meaning, for be renders dtw. In Deuteronomy, on the 
other hand, the whole phrase, " and thoa shalt bring him 
to the baalim," was simply cat out, and Terse 17 b^ins 
" and thou shalt take," etc., without any indication of the 
locwi in quo. These changes are responsible for the ab- 
surd plight of the documentary theorists who render 
" God " in Ex. xxi. 6. 

" The critics, having obtained the curious phrase ' go to 
Gtod ' — a phrase better suited to idolaters than to the God 
of the Decalogue or a law-giver who worshipped Him — 
promptly substitute ' the sanctuary ' for ' God.' But the 
change is fatal. It is true that we meet with a number of 
erections which the critics term ' sanctuaries,' but what 
were these sanctuaries? Not buildings, but altars — that is, 
structures, which, whatever their merits as places of wor- 
ship, would not possess the one essential for this ceremony, 
a door or door-post. And what a curious transaction it 
is ! A ' sanctuary ' we have, but no priest, no congregation, 
no sacriflce, no ceremony, religious or other, merely this 
pinning of the slave's ear to the imaginary door or door- 
post. Is there any parallel to this in the legislation of 
the Pentateuch? And could this extraordinary proceeding 
serve any useful purpose?" (SBL, p. 26).' 

The same substitution has been made in Ex. xxii. 7, 8 
(E-V., 8, 9) , and Jerome has ad deoa. In the last-mentioned 
verse he renders ai illi judicaverint. The Massoretic text, 
too, still retains the plural verb necessitated by baalim; 
but the Samaritan, as in other cases where there Is evi- 
dence of a damaged text, has smoothed it away.* 

1 On other equally ridiculous attempts to explain the plirase. see 
BS, Jan. 190S. pp. 108 f. 

'See e.g. the removal of the article before Hormata In Num. 
Zlv. 45. 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch . 213 

Od the other hand, Deuteronomy presents at least one 
more instance of the excision of the objectionable word. 
" If there be a controversy between men, and they come 
into judgment" (in xxr. 1), is followed by a number of 
plural verbs of which the subject is lacking. Of course 
we should read "and the baalim judge them," etc. The 
removal of the word has led to great trouble in verses 2 1. ; 
but it will be se^i that, with the restoration, B gives al> 
most the original text: — 

M. T. B 

And It shall be, U the wicked And It shaU be (" and " only 
man be worthy fa) be beaten, m, Boti, Bt^, C7r-ed) If the 
that the Jndge sball c&use htm wicked man be worthy to be 
to Ue down, and to be beaten beaten, thou thalt cauae him 
before his face, according to to lie down before them, and 
hlB wlckedncBB, by number. tHey shall give him 10 atrtpea 
Forty stripes he may give blm, by numbu", tA«v shall not ex> 
he shall not exceed: lest, If be oeed: but If tliou exceed, etc' 
should exceed, and beat him 
above tliese with many stripes, 
then thy brother should seem 
Tile unto thee. 

It is of course possible that, in other passages of Deu- 
teronomy, " elders " stand for an earlier " baalim " ; but 
I have met with no sufficient evidence of this.' 

'Incidentally we may note how the text has grown through 
glossing, " according to hie wickedness " being shown by B to be 
an interpretation and to have led to a duplication of the verb 
" beat" 

' In Deut. xxi. 20, where M. T. ha« " elders," and LXX and Sam. 
" men," there Is a curious piece of evidence to show that the com- 
plete phrases " unto tbe elders (men) of the city " are altematlre 
glosses. K 109 has^M 32. Clearly the pbraae bad been marginally 
Inserted In Its original, and the scribe began to copy i];n before 
he observed that he was to take In the additional words at this 
point. (Incidentally this throws further light on the antecedents 
and Importance of K 109. Its original lacked the thousands In 
the census lists, and It often has valuable and important readings 
[see DPC. pp. 166f.; BS, Oct. 1914, pp. 647 f.]). 

In the previous verse " to the elders of his city and to the gate 
of his place " is clearly not original. K 181 and all tbe Septuagln- 
tal authorities, except B I^t, omit "and." Doubtless we should read 


214 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

1 now come to a vitally iiiiportant matter — the light 
thrown by textual criticism oa the legal provisionB as to 
the places and kinds of sacrifice. It may be remembered 
that I dealt with this very fully in my pre-textaal days 
in the sixth chapter of EFC. The present discussion doe9 
not replace that. Nor could anybody deal adequately with 
my views unless he gave careful study to the whole of 
that chapter as well as to the present obserrations. For 
the moment I will merely recall the fact that I distiD^ish 
between three kinds of offering; those made on behalf of 
the whole nation (statutory national), those offered by 
laymen at cairn altars under the provisions of Ex. xx. 
24-26 (customary individual), and those instituted by the 
Pentateuch for individuals to bring to the House of the 
Lord (statutory individual), i.e. the "holy things and free- 
will offerings " of Deut. xii. 26.' 

As we have seen, the Samaritan Fentatench in many 
matters represents the latest stage of all in the operation 
of ideas which influenced the Jewish custodians of the 
text. An extraordinarily significant instance is presented 
by Ex. xz. 24 : "an altar of earth thou mayest make unto 
me, and thou mayest sacrifice on it thy burnt-offerings and 
thy peace-offerings." Then the texts diverge: — 
H. T. Sam. 

Dipon i>33 ^^p3 nto -[ixt ntt 'rrattt t;*k Dipon -pp^Di -[mio 
•oe- nn Tarn ick tod 'dp n« 

Thy sheep and thliie oxen In Of thj sheep and of thine 

all tbe place where I cause my oxen In (he place where I have 
name to be remembered. cauied my name to be remem- 

Then both continue, " I will come unto thee and I will 
bless thee." " Of thy flock and of thy cattle " comes from 
the present form of Deut xii. 21. 

mjrrn, aa in xzll. IG; xxr. T. It may be that tble la only the last 
stage la the blatorr ot the verse, and that originally it (and ether 
verses) presented " to the baallm gt the place to the gate ": but 
there la no evidence to support this Idea, and, as at pres^it ad- 
vised, I see no sufflclrat ground lor accepting it 

> See the tatde on p. 20ft of EIPC: Reeve's article " Sacrifice OT " 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 215 

Thaa the law of Exodus which in the Massoretic form 
permits any nnmber of lay altars in Israelite territory/ 
is changed by the Samaritans into a law that permits sac- 
riflcial worship at only one spot in the whole world. That 
change presapposes two things: (1) that non-sacrificial 
slaughter without the use of any altar at all is well es- 
tablished; and (2) that either the legislation is given for 
a comnmnity so small and concentrated that all its mem- 
bers can worship St a single spot, and so sedentary that 
they can reasonably be expected never to travel, or else 
that non-saerificial joint public worship (i.e. the insti- 
tution of the synagogue) has already been brought into 
existence, and suffices for the ordinary needs of the com- 
munity's religious life. 

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this last 
point. In days when all joint public worship was sacri- 
ficial, local concentration of sacrifice was unthinkable ex- 
cept for a community like the Israel of the desert. We are 
80 used to the joint public service of prayer that we find 
it hard to realize the conditions that preceded the inven- 
tion of the synagogue ; but, once, they are grasped, it will 
be seen that it was simply inconceivable that any relig- 
ious legislation should have attempted to abolish local sac- 
rifice, i.e. the only acts of worship ever attended by the 

■ " In oil the place," not elsewhere. Thus Bacrlficlal worship could 
only be oftered on laraelltleh soil. Hence Naaman'B request for 
"two mules' burden of earth" (2 Kings t. IT), which, by a legal 
fiction, would possess religious extraterrltorlalltr, even when phys- 
ically situate In Damascus (see especially EPC, pp. 220-226). 

The Syrlac reads " In everv place (jCDpO ^33) where tftou shalt 
cause my name to be remembered" In Ex. xz. 24. It this Is cor- 
rect, the Hebrew represents the first attempt to convert the pas- 
sage from a. law sanctioning a plurality of lay altars Into an 
enactment of an exclusive, place of Ba«rlflce. Note the textual 
impllcaUons: (1) It would strikingly confirm the view (BS, Jan. 
1915, pp. 92 tt., 123) tbat the Hebrew and Samaritan represent ths 
text of the Jerusalem Temple. (2) It would show the relative 
lateness of the alterations In the Divine appellations which appear 
to rest on the Massoretic form of the verse (cp. BS, Jan. 1916, p. 
Its, with April, 191E, pp. 324 ff.). K 199 and U£X also read "In 
every place." 


216 BibUotheca Sacra [April, 

overwhelming majority of the women and children or 
(except at the three annual pilgrimages) by the males of 
all localities except the capital. 

I am going to suggest that the Samaritan alteration of 
Ex. zx. 24-26 was preceded by a Jerasalem Temple alter- 
ation of Deut. xii., — a chapter which, in its original form, 
1 hold to have been the basis for the conduct of the prefix- 
Uic religious leaders of the people in the matter of sacri- 
fice. But 1 most first clear away minor points on other 

In Deut. xiv. 26, for " thine houBehold " (in>3) B Arm 
Sah read " thy son " jClJa)- 

In XT. 20, for " thine household," HP 71 has " thy sons " 

In xvi. 11, M. T. has " and thou shalt rejoice before the 
Lord thy Ood, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and 
thy manservant, 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 the Lord thy Ood shall choose to cause his name to 
dwell there"; but m and bw omit " in the place which the 
Lord thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell 
there," m also omitting the words " that are in the midst 
of thee." 

In xri. 15, d omits the words " seven days shalt thon 
Keep a feast onto the Lord thy God in the place which the 
Lord shall cbooBC." 

There can be no doubt that in all these cases the Mas- 
soretic text is wrong, and the variants are right ; for in the 
following verse it is expressly said : " three times in a year 
shall all thy males appear," etc. Obviously the lawgiver 
had not the faintest intention of including women and 
children in the compulsory pilgrimages. Note, too, that 
in verse 8 the remaining days of the feast are celebrated 
after the return of the pilgrims (ver. 7). So far as the 
women and children of the population residing outside the 
capital were concerned, the festivals could, in the contem- 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 217 

plation of the lawgiver, Dormall; be celebrated at borne.* 
This then bringe ub to Dent. xil. 

Two riews of that chapter are current : ( 1 ) it is 
Mosaic aa it stands, (2) it is post-Mosaic, and made dod- 
sacriflcial slaughter lawful for the first time. To these I 
oppose the view that (3) it is Mosaic, but has suffered in 
transmission. The reference to Ex. xx. 24 in Dent. xii. 21 
has been mutilated. In its original form the last-named 
verse justified the sacrifices of Saol and Samuel and all 
other customary sacrifices iu Palestine in cases where the 
central sanctuary was too distant. 

The first view suffers from this dilemma: Either Dent 
xii. contradicts Ex. xx. 24, and is in turn contradicted by 
the practices and views of an Elijah (1 Kings xviii.) and 
an Elisha (2 Kings v. 17 ff.), even after the construction 
of Bolomon's Temple, in addition to being impracticable 
and inconceivable in an age when all public worship was 
sacrificial, or else it recognizes and qnotes the earlier 
law, but in a barely intelligible form. After what we have 
learnt of the transmission of the Pentateuch, the impartial 
reader will probably agree that damage to the text is more 

On the second hypothesis the law of Deuteronomy de- 
liberately contradicts Exodus, and was unknown till the 
time of Josiah. This is impossible for these reasons : — 

(a) The words in Deut. xii. 21 ■ ■ ■ 13»«w» -ppao "nan 
TniX "itPM " and thon mayest sacrifice [or slaughter — the 
same word as in Ex. xx. 24] of thine oxen and of thy aheep 
. . . as I commanded thee " are a direct reference to the 
earlier text. The command is not to be found elsewhere. 
It is quite inconceivable that a legislator who wished to 
repeal an existing law should quote and confirm it. 

(b) As I have so often pointed out, non-sacrificial 
slaughter is common before the time of Josiab (see &g. 

' Elkanah appears to have been usually accompanied by his wives 
BM well as hlB Bona (1 Sam. 1. 4). The U. T. Introduced dau^ters 
here too, but they were unknown to B. In the case of tlie wives 
the pilgrimage waa optional (ver. 22). 


218 Bibliotheca 8acra [April, 

EPC, pp. 175-178). It may be added that Hob. ix. 4, while 
teztnally doubtful, probably Implies that mourners, i.e. 
people unclean by reason of contact with the dead, coold 
and did eat food in the manner provided by Deut. xii. 21 1 
For remember, it is a cardinal point of the Wellhansen 
theory that the unsacriflcial eating of meat was first intpo- 
dnced in Josiah's time by the then recently composed Book 
of Deuteronomy. If the facts prove that non-sacrificial 
slaughter is earlier, the whole theory falls.^ I do not know 
whether he supposed the Israelites in Egypt to have been 
vegetarians for the space of 430 years {see Gen. xliii. 16) ! 
It is certain that they did not sacrifice (Ex. viii. 22, E. 
V. 26). 

(c) Sanl clearly knew of some laws permitting the 
eating of meat killed at a cairn altar, but forbidding the 
consumption of the blood (1 Sam. xiv. 32-35). No such 
prohibition occurs in any portion of the Pentateuch as- 
signed by the documentary theorists to an earlier date 
than Deuteronomy, but it does occur in Deut. xii. 23. 

(d) As already indicated, it is quite inconceivable that 
a religions legislator who Iwd in vieio the difficultiea of 
distance (" if the place be too far for thee," ver. 21) should 
have enacted that, with the exception of the inhabitants 
of the capital, no woman or child need partake in any act 
of joint worship; and that, in practice, all men (with the 
like exception) should attend such worship only three 
tiroes in each year. 

(e) The original text of Deut. xvi. manifestly does con- 
template local rejoicings before the Lord in which women 
and others participated. 

What the first text of Dent, xvi. 21 was we cannot say. 
The Samaritan travels a stage further on the road of cor- 
ruption. It alters " shall choose " into " has chosen " in 
verses 5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26, in accordance with its usual 
method of representing Mount Gerizim as the sole place 
of lawful sacrifice enjoined by God. It also changes '* to 
■ I leave out of couBlderaUon Deut zli. 16 1, because maajr crit- 
ics plausiblr reject these verses aa a Kloseator's addition. 


1919] Composition of the Pentateuch 219 

Bet his name " («» Qic?^) in verse 21 into " to make his 
name dwell " ter n« pe6). This reading may be of Im- 
portance as illustrating the tendency to revise the text in 
the light of Jewish mystical ideas,* but does not help the 
present inquiry. 

The LXX BtUl contains a delicate indication of the point 
at which the mutilation occurred. It is noticeable that for 
the consecutive nmn we here find koi Svfftit, " and thou 
Shalt sacrifice." This is certainly not the invariable prac- 
tice of the Greek translators of the Pentateuch, where the 
perfect consecutive occurs in an apodosis.' It seems, there- 
fore, that the excision occurred just before this word, and 
that the Greek " and " was left standing.* 

The most probable view of the matter is that the apodo- 
sis contained at least the words "thou mayest offer up 
thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings," possibly also 
some such phrase as " on an altar of earth or unhewn 
stones " immediately in front of nnan. These were cut out 
in the interests of the Jerusalem temple after the service 
of the synagogue had superseded local lay sacrifice, which 
had been killed by the Exile. The language of verses 13 f. 
would help to bring about the change in an unhistorical 
age, and a polemical motive directed against other sanctu- 
aries, such as the Elephantine temple or the temple of 
Onias, may have provided the inspiration. In this connec- 
tion it must be remembered that Isa, xix. 18 " city of 
righteousness," which is preserved by the LXX, has been 
altered into " city of desolation " through hostility to the 
temple of Onias. I conjecture, therefore, that the first 
text of the passage ran somewhat as follows : — 

■ S«e BS, April, 191S, pp. 261 f. IncldenUlIr It may be noted 
tbat the Samaritana Introduced nx, wlilcta was not In the earlier 

'See tbe renderings In Oen. xll. 12; xvlU. 26; xxlr. 8, 41 (text 
of D bw, m, p. Arm, Bth, Boh: the others insert m); xxxll. ft; 
Ex. ZTlii. 16; Num. xzx. 16 (text of Arm, Eth, Lat: the others in- 
sert ««. 
■ &t ewmt for eiwui appears to be a mere copyist's error. 


^0 Bibliotheca Boon 

"It the place which the Lord thy God ehall choose to 
Bet his name there be too far for thee, thou mayest offer 
up thy bamt-offeringa aod thy peace-offerings [? on an 
altar of earth or nnhewn stones] and sacrifice [slaughter] 
of thine oxen and of thy sheep as I commanded thee, and 
eat flesh in thy gates according to all the desire of thy 

It this be the tme account of the matter, it vill be seen 
that the whole body of the historical instance of lay aac- 
riflce is as much in accordance with the original text of 
Deuteronomy as are the cases of non-sacriflcial slaughter 
with the extant copies of the book.' 

' This InTeetigatlon has now reached a point at which It becomea 
necessaiT to consider the religion of Moses. It Is hoped, therefore, 
to devote the next iirticle to a Btudy of his lalth, and to reenme 
this series UAet. 



"Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he 
interpreted to them in all the scriptares the things con- 
cerning himself (Lnke xziv. 27, B. V.)- 

Fbom the prophets our Lord could gather much concero- 
ing Himself; but bov from Hoses, i.e. the Pentateuch? 
Moses had indeed foretold, "A prophet shall the Lord your 
Ood raise up onto you like onto me." This does refer to 
the Christ, but a perverse ingenuity will have it that some 
other prophet or a line of prophets must have been de- 
signed. Nevertheless, there is abundant reference to the 
world's Bedeemer in the boobs of Moses. It is in the word 
" Jehovah." 

In John xii. 41 it is written, " These things said Isaiah, 
because he saw his [Christ's] glory ; and he spake of him." 
In Isa. vi. we have the record. It was in the temple. The 
seraphim hovered about Him and cried, " Holy, holy, holy, 
is Jehovah of hosts." The doorposts of the temple trem- 
bled. " Woe is me," said Isaiah. " I am undone ; ■ . ■ for 
mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts." Jehovah 
of the Old Testament became incarnate in Jesus of Naza- 
reth, at once human and divine. Jeremiah (xziii. S, 6) 
writes, " The days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise 
onto David a righteous Branch," — a human being, a de- 
scendant of David, — " and this is his name whereby he 
shall be called : Jehovah our righteousness." It is not prob- 
able that the prophets understood this mystery — God man- 
ifest in the flesh, suffering as a human being, and glorified. 
SI Peter refers to their eager search (1 Pet i. 10, 11) as 
If the fullness of the truth was not revealed until Christ 
came. Still, it Is written in Moses and the prophets; and 
this paper is a search for the world's Bedeemer in the Pen- 

Jehovah appears in the Old Testament as God in Be- 


222 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

demption. The name does not occur in Gen. i. There 
Elohim, the Creator and Baler ot heaven and earth, is 
mentioned. Then, there was no sin and no need of redemp- 
tion ; but as soon as the histor? of man ie taken up, the 
significant term appears. For man was a faUnre. He did 
not accomplish the design of his creation. He was made 
a little lower than God, Elohim (Ps. viii. 6). What he 
would have become had he maintained his integrity we 
can only conjecture. What he will become throagh Be- 
demption we learn through the gospel, and the gospel was 
announced at once upon the fall. Man had been the link 
between earth and heaven. The highest of created beings 
on earth, he was made in the divine image. With him there 
entered a moral kingdom. Without a moral kingdom, with 
mankind only intellectual brutes, this world were an im- 
perfect world. The crown was placed upon creation, and 
earth was lifted heavenward, when the godlike quality of 
choosing the right was introduced. It was a risk, for man 
might choose the wrong. Are we glad the risk was taken? 
With all the danger would we not say, 

"Sinless the cattle muncli tbelr eoni. 

But I would be & man. 

I serve because I will, and not 

Because I must"? 

gome would say that, man having failed, the race should 
have been extirpated and a new race started. Some of the 
rabbins conjectured that that was done, and that God's 
eternal years were marked with wrecks of races like our 
own on whom the experiment was tried. We know noth- 
ing of any such experiment ; but we do know that, with the 
lapse from innocence, came the promise. The Seed of the 
woman shall bmise the serpent's head (Gen. lit 15). 

This brings ua to the first recorded use of the word *' Je- 
hovah.'' "I have gotten a man, Jehovah" (Gen. iv. 1) — 
the word occurs in Gen. ii. and iii., but that is the work 
of the historian, Moses, — Eve utters her joyful exclama- 
tion upon the birth of Cain. What did she mean? The 
A. V. translators inferred, very properly, that Eve conld 


1919] Jehovah 223 

not have supposed she had given birth to Ood, and so 
they introduc-ed the word " from." The K. V. translators, 
knowing that there was no such word as " from," intro- 
duced "with the help of" (in italics). But neither from, 
nor tcith, nor any other preposition, is in the text. " Jeho- 
vah " is in apposition with " man." The mark before it 
is the Hebrew eth, the mark of the accusative. We see it 
in the first verse in Genesis, " In the beginning God created 
[eth] the heaven and [eth] the earth." This particle oc- 
curs forty times in the first five chapters, always with the 
same signification. It may be thought that Gen. v. 22, 
"Enoch walked with God," is an exception; but it is not. 
The English requires the preposition ; " walked with " is 
the translation of the Hebrew verb. Use another verb, and 
the preposition is not necessary ; as, for instance, " Enoch 
accompanied God." 

Now Eve did not suppose she was the mother of God. 
She requires no vindication from us by suggestions of omit- 
ted particles or errors of copyists, which theory has been 
worn very thin in recent years as to other parts of the Pen- 
tateuch. Luther in his first issue of the Bible translated 
the Hebrew, Ich habe den Mann des Berm, ' I have gotten 
a man from [or of] Jehovah ' ; but in his next issue he 
translated the words as he found them, Ich habe den Mann 
den Herm, and so they are in the German Bible to-day. 
The wealth of learning and ingenuity which has been 
expended in making sense of her words would have beeu 
saved if commentators bad sought the meaning of "Jeho- 
vah " as Hengstenberg did. The word " Jehovah " is the 
third person singular of the future tense of the verb "to 
be." It means " he wiU be " or " he who will be." Eve re- 
membered the promise that the seed of the woman would 
crush the serpent's head. She saw in her chUd the prom- 
ised deliverer. The serpent who beguiled her would be- 
guile no more. Doubtless she had looked forward to tiie 
event, and the burden of childbearing was lightened. " Pos- 
session," she called her son ; for she through whom sin had 
come into the world had brought forth the remedy. Bitter 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 802. 6 


221 BibUotheoa Sacra [^pi^> 

must hare been the remorse of onr flrst parents after their 
disobedience. But the hope of the Dellrerer comforted 
their hearts; and when her son was bom, her exclamation 
was exultant, " I have gotten a man, the Promised One." 

Eve was mistaken ; and as the child developed, and she 
saw in him a sinful being, her hope faded. Bat the hope 
was not taken from the race; and whenever a mother 
brought forth a man child, the primal hope revived, only 
to be disappointed. So the years passed and no deliverer 
appeared. Did th^ lose confidence in the promise? The 
need was as great as ever: the race increased but every 
generation was a multiplication of sinners. Peiiiaps the 
race was too corrupt to furnish a Cktnqueror of Satan. 
Why not look elsewhere? Why not appeal to heav^i itself 7 
No doubt hesitatingly at first, but more urgently as time 
went on, until, in the days of Enosh, several hundred years 
after the birth of Cain, men b^an to call npon the name 
of Jehovah the Coming One (Oen. iv. 26). 

The history of the race during that dispensation, as of 
every dispensation since, was a history of degeneracy. 
Men's imaginations were only evil continually. Still, some 
truth must have survived amid the goieral decline, for 
Noah " was a righteous man, and blameless in his genera* 
tions; Noah walked vrith Ood." We find him using the 
name "Jehovah" (Oen. ix. 26) and recognizing His di- 
vinity, " Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem." This may 
be a limitation of Jehovah as Ood of a race, but the limi- 
tation — if it be such — disappears at the next occurrence 
of the name. Melchizedek (Oen. xiv. 19-22) met Abram 
and said, " Blessed be Abram of Ood Host High [El El- 
yoni, possessor of heaven and earth." And Abram re- 
sponded, " I have lifted up mine band unto Jehovah, Ood 
Most High, possessor of heaven and earth," — the same 
terms that Melchlzedefc had used, and identifying Ood 
Most High irith Jehovah. In the mouth of Eve, the Ex- 
pected One was a human being; but now with Abraham 
He is recognized as divine. 

In the next chapter (Gen. xv. 7) God accepts the name. 


1919] Jekomk 326 

That He conld be both Qod and man was a wonder too 
great for men's intellect thenj and it is an amasing mya- 
ter; still, too great for doubting minds. Thenceforward, 
in the month of the patriarchs, Jehovah is a name exdu- 
Birelf divine. The incident at Mamre (Gen. xviii.) ma; 
indicate some bewUderment in the mind of Abraham. 
Three persons in human form appeared to him. Two of 
them, who are called angels (Qen. xiz. 1), passed on to 
the destruction of Sodom. Abraham prayed to the other, 
but did not address him as Jehovah. Was Abraham per- 
plexed by the appearance in human form? But it was Je- 
hovah (xix. 13) ; and thereafter, through all the story of 
the patriarchs, Jehovah is identified with Elohim. Did the 
promise of the Deliverer, the Seed of the woman, fade from 
the memory of men? It woold almost seem so. They used 
the name " Jehovah " as the name of Ood ; but did th^ 
appreciate its meaning? It hardly seems that they did, 
but the last words of Jacob (Oen. zlix. 18) recall the 
primal promise. He gathers bis sons together, and fore- 
tells their future one by one. He sudd^y breaks his dis- 
course by ejaculating, " I have waited for thy salvation, O 
Jehovah." What was it for which he had waited? Was it 
not the cmshing of the serpent's head ? But whether Jacob 
regarded the Deliverer as human or divine we cannot tell. 
Passing on to the time of Moses, we find in Ex. iii. 14, 
15, the solemn assumption of the name " Jehovah " by 
Elohim, the Ood of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He de- 
clares Jehovah His memorial name. There is a promise in 
it. He is not only Creator and Baler of mankind and of 
all living creatures, but One whose greatest blessing lay 
still in the future: — 

"And Qod said unto Moses, / will be that I will be. . . . 
Thus Shalt tbon say unto the children of Israel, / toill he 
bath sent me unto you. And Qod said moreover unto 
Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, He 
who icill be, the Qod of your fathers, the God of Abraham, 
the God of Isaac, and the Ood of Jacob, hath sent me unto 
yon: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial 
onto all generations" (Ex. iii, 14, 15). 


226 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

The three italicised phraaee are each one word in He- 
brew. All are in the future tense of the verb " to be," — 
the first and second in the first person, the third in the 
third person of that tense. In the mai^in of the Revised 
Version will be tonnd the correct translation, " I will be," 
and the statement that Jehovah is from the same root. As 
if to emphasize the future sis^niflcance, God uses the first 
person, " I will be," and repeats the phrase, and then de- 
clares His memorial name, " He will be," Jehovah. It is 
a prophecy of the central fact in the history of mankind, 
— the Incarnation of the Son of God. 

It is the misfortune of the human mind that it cannot 
accept God's promises in their simplicity. It argues about 
them, and changes their significance to make them more 
credible. The promise was that the work of Satan would 
be counteracted by the seed of the woman. That surely 
must be a man; hot when the Promised One delayed His 
coming, men lost their expectation of a fature deliverance. 
In Moses the promise was renewed. Jehovah was Qod, and 
was present, but was coming still. And yet a strangeness 
clung to the word. It was viewed with reverence, which 
later d^enerated into a superstitious fear of pronouncing 
it; and now our English translators avoid its meaning. 
The prophets make it clear that the Son of David is also 
the Sou of God, but Israel could not or would not accept 
the mystery. At length the Coming One appeared and an- 
nounced Himself "I Am." 

Perhaps this inquiry may throw some light upon the 
perplexing passage, Ex. vi. 23 : God said unto Moses, I am 
Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and 
unto Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shaddai] ; but by my 
name Jehovah I was not known to them." How could 
this be? The patriarchs worshiped Jehovah. How, then, 
could it be said that He was not known to them? The 
promise contained In the meaning of the name was ob- 
scured to them. It ought not to remain obscure. The 
whole Bible points to Redemption through the God Man, 
Jesus of Nazareth. Upon Him human destiny depends. 


191 S] Jehovah 227 

The union of God and mankind was broken by a sin: it 
is restored by the Christ.* 

■ThlB Interpretatloa la not new. The newness In tbis paper 
consists In limiting the Inquiry to the Pentatencb. H^igstenberg, 
Pjre Smltb, and others haTo presented the same facts. A little 
book entitled "The Memorial Name," by Professor McWhorter of 
Tale College, ably dlBcnaelng this theme, was Issued fifty or slxtr 
years ago; but }ust then the Higher Criticism, playing bavoc with 
the Old Testament and making shuttlecocks of the divine names 
with Tarious hypotheses, was on its exultant way, and had no 
sympathy with anything which recognizes the unity of the Bible, 
wblle Conserratism dreaded a disturbance of tradition. 



To economize space, but few of the Holy Scriptnres on 
which the truths of this article are based are qnoted. The 
reader, therefore, will pleaae study it with his Bible in 
hand. See Ps. zzxt. 8; It. 15; Izix, 24, 27; cix, 10, 12, 13, 
18, 19. 

1. The tender, foT^ving character of Dayid precludes 
understanding these Psalms as " mere spiteful vengeance." 
Surely, in the light of David's having twice spared the life 
of Saul, when, with the bloody spirit of the Hnn, and with- 
out any provocation or reason, he was seeking to mnrder 
him, we must interpret his writings as of anything else 
than the spirit of personal, private, "spiteful revenge" 
(1 Sam. xxiv. 1-22; xxvi. 5-21). The forgiving, noble 
spirit of the writer of these Psalms caused even as wicked 
a man as Saul to confess to him : " Thou art more right- 
eous than I : for thou bast rewarded me good, whereas I 
have rewarded thee evil" (1 Sam. zxiv. 17-19). And, on 
the second time when David bad spared the life of Saul, 
who, notwithstanding David had previously so forgivingly 
spared his life, had continued to seek to murder him, Saul 
was so impressed with the fot^vtng and noble character 
of David, that he confessed : " I have sinned : return, my 
son David; for I will no more do thee harm, because my 
soul [life] was precious in thine eyes this day; behold, I 
have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly" (1 Sam. 
xxvi. 21). This tender, forgiving character of David is 
shown so great as to be even a fault in his great life — in 
his dealings with Absalom and Shimei (1 Sam. xiii. 39; 
iviii. 33; xlx. 4-6, 21-23). 

2. The indorsement, by Jesus, of these Psalms cannot 
be harmonized with interpreting them as the " venom of 
spite." He read them, prayed them, sung them, and lived 
them (Luke X3. 42-44; ixiv. 44-46; Matt. xxvi. 30). Of 
this hymn, Adam Clarke says : " We know from universal 


CHtieal Ifotea 22Q 

coneent of Jewish antiquity that it waa composed of PBalma 
113, 114, 117, and 118." So, Bengel, G. W. Clark, « The 
ComprehenaiTe Commentary," and commentators generally. 
In part, these Psalms are imprecatory, — Pa. cziii. 18; 
adv. 1-8; cxviii. 6-13. Besides, of the two hundred and 
eighty-three New Testament quotations from the Old, one 
hundred and sixte^i are from the Psalms; and the impre- 
catoiy nature runs tbrongh them all; at least none of 
of them are free of being tinged with the spirit of impre- 
cation. Jast as the jadicial is inseparable from the ten* 
demesB, the wisdom, and the love of Ood, tbrongh both the 
books of God — the natural and the revealed revelation of 

3. In none of tbe Psalma can be found more severe 
and terrible imprecations than are in tbe words of Jesus and 
of the apostles (Matt. xxiR 13-33; zxv. 30, 41-16; Hai^ 
iii. 20; ziii. 10; Luke xvi. 23; Bom. i. 18, 32; ii. 6; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 22 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; Jude 7 ; Rev. xv. 7 ; xvi. 18, 19 ; xx. 10) . 

1. The aaints in the intermediate world, in spirit, pray 
the imprecations of the Psalms (Bev. vi. 10). 

5. From tbe foregoing, it appears that, of Irath earth 
and Paradise, the imprecatory Psalms are the nature and 
the voice of the righteons. 

6. Without exception, God commends the Psalms as a 
part of " the inspiration of God " that is profitable for re- 
proof, for " instruction in rigbteonsuess, that the man of 
God may Ire thoroughly furnished unto all good works " 
(2 Tim. iii. 16-18). The imprecatory Psalms are especially 
suited for this age of outcry against the infliction of jus- 
tice, in both this world and in that which is to come. 

7. As King, in the place of Jehovah, and, as such, exe- 
cuting the justice of the law, these Psalms were uttered. 

8. Bome of these Psalms — probably all of them — 
were the inspired voice of God, prophetically pronouncing 
Hia judgments on obdurately wicked persons. The cases 
of Abithophel and Judas especially illustrate this proposi- 
tion (2 Sam. xvi. 21; xvii. 23; Acts i 20). 

9. As a righteous man, in mind, in spirit, and identi- 


230 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

fled with Jehovah, the Psalmist uttered the imprecatory 
Psalms. Catiline said: "An identity of wishes and aver- 
sions, this alone Is true friendship." 80 the Psalmist says : 
"Do I not hate them, O Lord, that hate thee. ... I count 
them MINI enemies." Without this personal identity with 
one's family, state, church, human or divine ruler, there 
can be no loyalty to either. 

10. As every good man says, in heart, Amen to the vin- 
dication of law and government, in the execution of penal 
justice on the criminal, so do the imprecatory Psalms. 
Thus Milton prayed: — 

"Arense, O Lord, tby slaughtered saints." 
Thus the civilized world cries out for justice upon the Hun, 
while our boys have emphasized the cry with their life's 
blood. God pity the person whose soul is not imprecatory, 
as well as otiierwise. Joseph Cook says: "A renowned 
professor, who, as Germany thinks, has done more for New 
England theology than any man since Jonathan Edwards, 
was once walking in this city [Boston] with a clergyman 
of radical faith, who objected to the doctrine that the 
Bible is inspired, ... on the ground of the imprecatory 
Psalms. . . . The doubter would not be satisfied. The two 
came at last to a newspaper bulletin, on which the words 
were written, — the time was at the opening of our civil 
war, — ' Baltimore to be shelled at twelve o'clock.' * I am 
glad of it,' said the radical preacher ; ' I am glad of it' 
'And BO am I,' said his companion ; ' but I hardly dare to 
say so, for fear you will say I am uttering an imprecatory 
Psalm.' " ' President Hibben, of Princeton Universi^, 
uttered the spirit of the imprecatory Psalms in saying: 
" The test of the individual, the test of a nation, is the ca- 
pacity for righteous indignation; when we are confronted 
with great moral wrongs we must oppose them with the 
anger that is like the flaming sword of the wrath of God." 
The imprecatory Psalms, in the language of the Holy 
Scriptures, as they utter the voice of the judicial nature 
* Transcendraitalf Bin, pp. 76-77. 


1919] Critical Notes 231 

of penal lav in earthly goveminent and of the noly Scrip- 
tures, are summed up in : " Because he remembered not to 
show mercy, bat persecated the poor and needy man, that 
he might ev&i slay the broken in heart As he loved curs- 
ing, so let it come unto him ; as he delighted not in bless* 
ing, BO let it be far from him. As be clothed himself with 
cursing like as with his garment, so let it come unto his 
bowels like water, and like oil into his boues" (Ps. cix. 
16-19). "Let the sighing of the prisoner come before 
thee; according to the greatness of thy power preserve 
tboa those that are appointed to die : and render onto our 
nei^bors sevenfold into their bosom, wherewith they have 
reproached thee, O Lord" (Ps. Izxix. 11-12). "I will not 
keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into 
their bosoms your iniquities" (Isa. Ixv. 6-7). "If any 
mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for 
^e, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, burning for burning, 
wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Ex. xii. 23-24). 
(Bemember tliat this law was not given for private revenge, 
as enemies of the Bible represent, but for execution by the 
conrt of law — just as with us. As Tholuck and reliable 
interpreters agree, instead of repealing this law, Jesns 
only corrected its perversion.) Or, to sum up the impre- 
catory Psalms in the universal law of God, that no whining 
against cau gainsay : " God is not mocked ; for whatsoever 
a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. vi. 7). In 
exact line with the imprecatory Psalms is the nniversal 
demand of all right-thinking people for no peace before the 
Hun is bound up to pay — so far as possible — for his de- 
vastation of homes, property, and for his worse than cruel 
murder and unmentionable crimes. With thunder tones, 
the cry for justice, coming up from every battlefield, in 
this war, interprets and forever vindicates the impreca- 
tory Psalms. 

11. The spirit and letter of the imprecatory Psalms are 
farther vindicated in that one of the severest among them 
prays that, so far as possible, its judgments may be for the 
good of the offender — in resultant reformation : " Fill their 


232 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

(aces with shame ; that they may se^ thy name, Lord "* 
(Pb. lixxiU., especially ver. 16, 18). 

12. The Imprecatory Paalms are to be imdwBtood as 
poema in the strongly flgnratire and peculiar Oriental style. 
Bold metaphors, and especially startling hyperboles, are 
characteristics of Oriental afyle.' liax Mailer, who cannot 
be accused of " orthodoxy," one of the greatest of Oriental 
scholars, says : " The fault is oars, not theirs, if we will- 
fnlly misinterpret the language of the ancient prophets; 
if we persist in nnderstauding their words in the outward 
and material aspect only. . . . Nay, I believe it can be 
proved that more than half the difflcnlties of religious 
thoaght owe their origin to this constant misinterpreta- 
tion of ancient language by modem language, of ancimt 
thought by modem thought." ' 

The last point to this article is hardly necessary, for the 
others are sufBcient. 


Dallaa, Texas 

Thb LXX has " therefore it is said in a book wo\eftiK tov 
Kvpiou niv ZdDo/S i<p\oyi<rtv xat rovt ^«/ta/>/M>w 'Apvwv (war of 
the Lord burnt Zohob and the valleys, Amon ) ," i.e. it trans- 
lated norte as " war of," and regarded it as the subject of 
a following verb. The divergencies of consonants are prob- 
ably as follows: — ■ 

neiD am lxx 
nBiD3 am M.T. 

where the presence or absence of " in " must be due to dit- 
tography or haplography of 3 (according to which text be 
deemed the earlier) , and the verb is in the feminine, agree- 
ing with " war." For the form with o cp. Amos vi. 10. 

Most Septuaginttil texts then proceed «o* tow x^'f^'VP''^ 

KaTtvTiffffv KarotKivai'Hp. So the words HDj ^c^<. " which 

inclined," were unknown to the Greek translators. 

'See Lowtli'B Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, De Wette'B Introdtic- 

tion to the Old Testamnnt, and Dr. Conant on PBalma. 

■ Lectures on The Science of Religion, p. 26. 


1919] Critical Notes 233 

It may be Burmised that the explanation is as fol- 
lows : The clauBC begins with a word ""PW which is treated 
by modem commentators as a SQbstantive not foond else- 
where in the singular. It appears, however, to have been 
regarded (I think rightly) as a verb by the ancients, and 
the explanation no] ifk i.e. lei* means fO] (« inclined ") 
was written in the margin and taken into the test in a 
slightly corrupt form. The verb Is mascnliae, so that 
" war " cannot be its subject. Another Greek translator 
(see Field's Hexapla ad. loc.) appears to have rendered 
" therefore it is said in a list of warriors of the Lord to 
Auiiab in a whirlwind, and of the torrents to Arnon; for 
the ontponring of the torrents inclined," etc. He there- 
fore had TOJ D'i'njn new, read some other word for " war," 
and possibly found other differences; but not much can be 
made out of small points where we have to do with a 
Byriac rendering of a Qreek translation. 

This, however, does not exhaust the Greek testimony, 
for a o a, and the Ethiopic omit the second xai row ^ei/ta/>. 
pow. which may of course quite probably have come in from 
the preceding verse: d, however, omits rot/v ^<(jiMi/>pow 
only. I think this is right, and that the displacement of 
the phrase in the LXX, as compared with M.T. is due to 
its being a later insertion. "(Amon) inclineth toward 
the dwelling of Ar and leans on the borders of Moab " 
makes good enough sense, but can scarcely be combined 
with a statement that "the war of the Lord burnt Zohob 
and the valleys, Amon." 

It may be suggested that the seat of the trouble lies 
in archetypal or pre-archetypal damage to a masculine 
imperfect verb, which, after it had become illegible, was 
read niir. Amon is clearly the subject of all the verbs. The 
passage will then have run something like this : " There- 
fore it is said in the book of warriors [? war, wars] Ar- 
non [missing verb] Zohab [? Zahab, Waheb] in Suphah 
[or, if the LXX be preferred, Waheb may be a corruption 
of a word in the construct state] and the valleys, and in- 


234 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

clineth toward the dwelling of Ar and leaneth to ttte tx>r- 
dera of Moab." 

Habold M. Wiener 
London, England 


The M.T, here has the extraordinary phrase " thon 
shalt be to him for a God." I call this " extraordinary," 
because it is contrary to the whole thought of the Penta- 
teuch that Moses should be represented as standing in such 
a relation to a fellow Israelite (as contrasted with an 
Egyptian like Pharaoh). The ordinary Septuagiotal texts, 
however, read ra ir/)o? tow ©eoi*, " to Godward," as in iviii. 
19= D'n^Kn yiD for M.T. n^nhtth. It is easy to see that the 
discrepancy may have originated in damage to >io in the 
ancestor of the Palestinian text. The Old Latin has Dnm, 
Lord, for God. I think, therefore, that the earliest text had 
either the Tetragrammaton or " the Baal." I prefer not 
to choose between these till we have before us the full col- 
lections Dahse is understood to have made, and can study 
the problem of the divine appellations in the Pentateuch - 
as a whole. Damage to the '?vs in either reading would 
give our present Hebrew, for no Jew would write the Tet- 
ragrammaton after the expression " thon shalt be to him 

Habou> M. Wibnbb 

London, England 


[Revue de VHiatoire des Religions (Paris, 1918) con- 
tains an article by fidonard Naville, entitled " Xol Compo- 
sition et les Sources de la Gen^se." As it is too long (38 
8vo pages) for us to reprint a translation, we are pleased 
to give the following summary, prepared by Professor John 
Boaf Wigbtman, Ph.D., of Oberlin College. — Editor.] 

H, Navillb first recalls how in two previous works, viz. 
"Archfeology of the Old Testament" (London, 1913) and 
*' The Text of the Old Testament " (The Schweich Lectnres, 


1919] Critical Notes 235 

lioudoii, 1915), he had shown that the so-called "Books 
of Moaes " were not original works, and that they had not 
been written in Hebrew; and how, in his article entitled 
" The Two Names of Ood in Genesis," published in Revue 
de I'Sistoire dea Religions (1917), he had shown that the 
Book of Genesis conld have but one author, Moses, instead 
of six or seven, as held by Kautzsch and Socin. 

He now proposes to examine the sources from which 
Moses has drawn his material, — a task rendered the more 
easy because of the recent discoveries of Assyriologists. 
History in these early times, we know, did not exist, but 
only biography or annals. The author of Genesis, like 
those of other ancient writings, wrote with a definite end, 
to give information about persons. His first aim would 
be to write intelligibly, and hence in a language familiar 
to his readers. Now we know, from the excavations of the 
last thirty years, that this must have been the writing em- 
ployed in all western Asia, viz. the cuneiform, which was 
written by a stylus in damp clay. It was in this cunei- 
form writing, inexactly called the Babylonian, that Gene- 
sis must have been written. The writers of that time did 
not write " books," but " tablets." Now " tablets " differ 
from " books " in being independent, and sometimes form- 
ing a group upon a certain subject, the scribe showing 
their consecutive order by repeating the last words of one 
at the beginning of the next. They resemble the several 
lectures in a course. Of the vast number of Babylonian 
tablets of the time of Moses, the majority were on relig- 
ious subjects, as tbe creation of the world, and these 
formed the bases for the religions. Composed in Sume- 
rian, the legends were later rewritten and transformed 
under Semitic influence. At this early period the tablets 
were not used in commerce, but were in coUections, either 
in royal libraries or in a chest or jar, as at Tel el Amama. 
In Moses' day, more so even than to-day, a knowledge of 
writing was in the East the privilege of the few. To 
this few belonged Moses himself, who was brought up at 
Pharaoh's court and ' learned in all the wisdom of tbe 


j!S6 BibUotheca Sacra [April, 

Egyptians.' Bat his brethren, the Eebrewa, were sorely 
illiterate; or, if they had a written language, it mast hare 
been the Babylonian cnneiform, written on tablets such 
as were in use not only in Mesopotamia but in Palestine. 
As a Semite and a learned man, Moses would certainly 
know this language and writing. 

Bnt Moses was not a simple scribe. He is to be the 
founder of a new religion, to give a basis to the worship 
of Jehovah. For this, like the ancient Babylonian scribes, 
he drew up religions tablets, apon creation and the del- 
uge, and later he teUs of the lives of the ancestors of the 
Hebrews, — of Abraham, Isaac, Jacok, and Joseph. These 
tablets of the " Genesis " are anonymous ; while the later 
ones, where Moses is the l^islator, bear, as we should ex- 
pect, his name. 

Now Moses needed to reveal to his people the record of 
Oenesis, to remind them that they were a people apart, 
chosen by Jehovah ; that they must leave Egypt, not merely 
because of persecution, but to preserve Jehovah's worship. 
Moreover, as all other religions of the East, so also the 
Hebrews, mnst have docnm«it8 to tell them of their origin 
and to form the basis of their religion. The use of such 
sources, however, does not affect the book's unity or prevent 
its being the work of Moses. The theory of Astruc and 
Eichhom, on the contrary, professes to have found four 
documents, quite parallel and much alike, but distinguished 
from each other by the names — Elohim or Jehovah or Tah- 
veh — which they give to the divinity. One objection to 
tbis theory is that in the second and third chapters of 
Oenesis, where the name Yahveh first occurs, God is al- 
ways called by both names, i.e. Yaliveh Elohim. Again, the 
band of Moses, the man who knows Egypt tborougtily, is 
evident in many places. Bnt the fundamental objection 
to the Yabveb-Elohim theory is that it makes the book a 
mosaic of diflFerent fragments instead of a unit, of which 
Yahveh Elohim, the only God of man, is the cornerstone. 
The Book of Graiesis has but one aim, viz. to show that 
Israel was the chosen people, the people of God; and other 


1919] Critical Note$ 237 

erraits, however important, are omitted or tonched on but 
elightly. This one purpose of the writer of Genesis, thinks 
H. Naville, has been too much lost si^t of by critics ; and 
he proceeds to ask what were the documents extending 
from the creation of the world to the death of Joseph, i.e. 
all anterior to the time of Moses, which the latter made 
ose of. 

I. The first series of tablets, six in number, takes in 
the first eleven chapters, and leads us to Abraham. The 
prime object being to show the descent of the man who is 
to be the father of Ood's chosen people, genealogies abound 
in these tablets. Unity of plan is visible thronghout. 
From the creation of the world all leads towards Abraham. 
The descendants of Japheth and Ham are given, for com- 
pleteness, but not dwelt on, as are those of Bhem, the an- 
cestor of Abram. Chapter xi., contrary to viewe of critics, 
is a unity. Abraham (chap, xii.) had received the order 
of Yahveh to leave his coantry and his father's house and 
emigrate to the land of Canaan. It is for a religious mo- 
tive that he is to emigrate, that he may worship his 'Gh>d 
in peace, and leave idolaters. But he is to go, not alone, 
but rather as the sheik, with servants and docks. In this 
religious migration it is hi^ly probable that Abram, as 
founders of sects in our day, would take with him his sa- 
cred books, especially as these contained his genealogy, 
and, being in the form of tablets, could be easily carried. 

These tablets, then, brought by Abraham from Haran, 
contain the sources for the first eleven chapters of Genesis. 
Perhaps these tablets w1ere not all by the same author, and 
this may explain the two names for God; but we must 
hold that Moses wrote them anew, and did for Yahveh 
what Babylonian scribes did for their gods. 

The first tablet, which tells specially of the creation of 
the heavens and the earth, includes the first chapter and 
the first four verses of the second — ending with the words, 
* Such are the origins, — or, such is the history, — of the 
heavens and the earth, when they were created.' In the 
first tablet Ood is called Elohim, which is not the God of 


238 Bibliotheca Sacra [Aprils 

man, but of the whole of nature. Man is created the same 
day as the terrestrial animals, but as yet has no moral or 
spiritual element. ^Nothing is said as to how the creation 
has taken place, and the word " day " that is employed 
means merely a space of time having a beginning and an 
end. The second tablet deals with the creation of man, or 
rather of humanity, and extends to chap. t. 1, which ahonld 
read : ' This is the book of the birth of men, or of human- 
ity.' The word "Adam " here is really a collective, which 
the LXX translates by the Greek anthr6p6n. 

In the first tablet is unfolded the series of creations, 
without further explanations; in the second we are told 
how man is bom, how a companion is given him, and how 
the garden of E6eu is formed for him. Then comes the 
fall and its consequences for the family of Adam. 

There is no contradiction between the two chapters. 
The first mentions historically the creation of man, the 
second gives it in detail. Critics point out the differences 
between the accounts of the creation in the first and sec- 
ond chapters and explain them by their theory of two dif- 
ferent sources. But the opposition is really only apparent 
The difficulty is largely due to a too literal rendering of 
the ancient versions. Because there was no pluperfect 
tense in languages tike the Hebrew, one must not infer 
that the idea expressed by it was lacking. We should 
adopt the old Geneva translation, ' Now the Eternal had 
formed man from the dust of the ground . . . had planted 
a garden in Eden, . . . and had placed there the man . . . 
and the Eternal God had formed all the beasts of the 
field,' etc. This translation, M. Kaville holds, is not only 
permissible, but it avoids the many ditDculties raised by 
the authorized rendering, and perfectly reconciles the ac- 
count of creation in the first and second chapters. The 
description of the watering of the garden of Bden, viz. by 
a river, with its four great streams, is not aoch as would 
have been furnished by a writer of Palestine, but would 
be perfectly natural to one who, like Mosea, was accus- 
tomed to the fertilizing effects of the great river Nile. 


1919] Cntical Notes 239 

Another argumeDt that critics have found to prove that 
the first and second chapters are not by the same authors, 
is that they give different conceptions of the divinity. The 
first chapter tells us merely that God speaks, but in chap, 
lii. 8, " They heard the voice of the Lord walking in the 
garden." But here, as elsevhere, the translation need not 
be too literal, and may be translated merely as, ' was re- 
sounding here and there.' 

One must never forget that in ancient texts abstract 
terms are but few, and ideas must be expressed by things 
that appeal to the senses, and words are often figurative. 
So, in creation, we are not told that God vHlled or decided, 
but that God said. In the second chapter, as in the first, 
God spoke. The same word is used in both, but man, as 
an animate being, can and does reply. 

One fundamental truth is evident in the first chapters, 
as in the whole Old Testament, that man has one single 
God, Yahveh, the same as Elohim, the Creator, and that is 
why he is called only Yahveh Mobim. 

Another reason why the first two tablets, viz. the one 
that includes chaps, i.-ii. 4, and the second, which includes 
chaps, ii. 5-v. 1, are intimately connected, is the risumSs 
which determine them both. Quoting from the LXX, 
chap. ii. 4 reads, ' Such is the book of the birth of the 
heavens and the earth when it was bom,' and chap. v. I 
reads, ' Such is the book of the birth of humanity.' The 
Hebrew word tholdoth is here equivalent to the Greek 
genesis, and means birth or origin, as in Matt. i. 1, though 
in many cases it has the meaning of posterity. 

Thus the first two tablets follow each other and are 
logically connected. They were the first brought by Abra- 
ham, and were written anew by Moses, not to change the 
name of God, but to teach that Yahveh Elohim was the 
God of creation. 

Tbe third tablet begins with the same word as the sec- 
ond : ' In the day when.' Moses wishes to tell us of Abraham, 
and so in the genealogies be dwells on the posterity of 
Seth. That of Cain he does not give; though for a modem 
Vol. UCXVI. No. 302. 7 


210 Bibliotheca 8acra [April, 

historian this would have had great interest, as telling of 
the rise of agriculture and metallurgy in the persons of 
Cain and Tnbal Cain. This tablet ends with chap. ri. 9: 
" This is the origin or birth of Noah." The word " origin " 
we have here taken as a translation of the Greek plural 

The fourth tablet describes the Deluge, and has the most 
marked Babylonian characteristics. It ends with the last 
verse of chap, ix., with the death of Noah. 

The fifth tablet consists of chap. x. It begins with the 
words, ' This is the posterity of the sons of Noah ' {tholdoth 
or genesis evidently meaning posterity in this case), and 
ends with verse 32, ' 8uch are the families of the sons of 

The sixth tablet (chap, xi.) is the last. It tells first of 
the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of mankind; then, 
of the genealogies, throagh 8hem and Arphachshad, of 
Terah, the father of Abraham; and finally of Teiah's 
death, at the time of the call of Abraham. Though critics 
have tried to find three different authors of this chapter, 
it is a manifest unity. 

The six abovementioned tablets are considered by M. 
Naville as the most ancient sources of Genesis. They 
were brought by Abraham, when he left Mesopotamia, 
and were, in accordance with the usual practice at that 
time, made over again by Moses. 

II. With chap. xii. we begin the life of Abraham. Now 
Abraham was both a great chief or sbeik and also a relig- 
ious leader. Hence it was of prime importance that there 
should be written down the official events of his family, 
and especially the commissions given him by Jehovah. 
Doubtless Eliezer, or some other intendant, was given 
this high task, viz. to write cuneiform tablets which should 
record the history, i.e. the genealogy and biography, of 
Abraham and his family. Such tablets would be carefully 
preserved, as the sole basis for his religion and family 

M. Naville asserts that cuneiform tablets were the only 


1919] Critical Notes 241 

existing docomentB till after Moses' time, and that the 
Yahvist and Ellohist critics have furnished no possible 
sources for their theories. 

Chapter ixv. is an intimate family document, telling of 
the death of Abraham, and the wa; his heritage was trans- 

The following tablets, teUlng of the lives of Isaac and 
Jacob, are of tbe same character. Moses probably chose 
enough from them for his plan, which was to establish the 
election of the people of Israel and its alliance with Je- 
hovah and omitting all else. 

Tbe first series of tablets were, for the most part, of a 
general character; but the second, as we have seen, were 
family documents, or archives. Such tablets, of terra 
cotta, could easily be put in a jar, and carried from one 
place to another, as archives of the family or tribe. That 
such existed is a far more likely hypothesis, than the ez- 
iBtence of a number of authors, quite unknown, such as 
the critics suggest. And if Moses wrote this history, he 
could not have done it without some written archives, 
which doubtless would be like those of Tel el Amarna, 
written in cuneiform, and placed in a jar or chest. 

III. A last series of documents contains the history of 
Joseph (chaps. xl.-zlv.). M. IKavllle follows Astruc In 
holding to the unity of these documents, but differs from 
him in thinking the writer not Joseph himself, but some 
scribe in his employ. The story is much better written 
than the rest of Genesis, evidently the work of one who 
had lived at the court of Egypt. It is a simple heart story, 
attractive and fascinating, and with an admirable literary 
sense. Though critics have tried to dissect it into several 
docnments, it is evidently one and indivisible. The biog- 
raphy is about as long as that of Abraham, with a char- 
acter more historic. And yet the history is strictly the 
memoirs of Joseph — nothing of the events of the time, 
not even the name of the Pharaoh who is reigning. 

In having his biography written, Joseph was but fol- 
lowing the customs of the great Egyptians, who had their 


212 Bihliotheca Sacra [April, 

Ures recorded on their tombs, if not in tablets. Bnt Joseph 
remained a Hebrew and faithful to the vorBhip of Jehovah, 
and made his brethren swear: 'When God shall visit you, 
carry away from here my bones with you.' Joseph's body 
was embalmed and bis mummy preserved by his family; 
and beside it would doubtless be placed his memoirs, en- 
graven, DOt as inscriptions on his tomb, but on tablets. 
The veneration in which be was held is seen from Ex. xiii. 
19, which tells us that Moses took with him the bones of 
Joseph; and from Josb. zziv. 32, where we are told that 
Joshua buried at Shechem the bones of Joseph. The biog- 
raphy, then, of Joseph, from its intimately personal char- 
acter, and its almost total omission of outward events, 
bears every mark of having been written during his life. 
Moreover, soon after his death, a revolution banished the 
HyksoB kings — the Pharaohs of Joseph — and all traces 
of foreign influence. 

M. Naville shows hoiC' improbable are the views of the 
critics as to Oenesis. They suppose Yahvistic and Elohis- 
tic writers, the former in the ninth century, and the latter 
a century later. But as to who such authors werft, why they 
did not name themselves, by whom they were commissioned, 
why they wrote, and whence they obtained their information, 
the critics can tell uB nothing. As little can they tell ub 
about the supposed compiler, of the fourth century, who out 
of the rival Jahvistic and Elohistic writings made " Gene- 
sis." But, besides that the conception of a " compiler " is 
utterly foreign to the Ancient Orient, we note how utterly 
improbable it is that ' the fundamental chart which estab- 
lished the alliance of Jehovah with Israel and the choice 
of Israel, as an elect people, should be known by Israel, 
only at the time when, as a dying nation, it had lost its 
independence. Can it be that only then did the Hebrews 
obtain that one of their sacred books which should have 
preceded all the others?' 

M. Naville ends his carefully written and illuminating 
article by stating that the so-called " Higher Criticism " 
has too often deviated from sound principles by judging 


1919] CHtical Notes 243 

of ancient facts from the point of view of what they con- 
sider likely or possible. Thus the critical spirit is none 
other than their own personal and modem point of view, 
substituted for the real view of the past. This is partic- 
ularly true of the way the higher critics have treated the 
Book of Oenesis. In order to prove a system conceived 
according to modem ideas, which are really the personal 
ideas of those who hold it, they have supposed a nnmber 
of authors, utterly unknown, of whom no trace exists. The 
very fact that the critics differ as to the number of such 
authors, is a proof that they are giving us not history, but 
their own personal opinions. Thus these critics, instead 
of deriving their systems from the documents, first form 
their systems, and then force the documents to conform, 
correcting the texts where they are considered faulty. 

To show what a jnst criticism of ancient authors im- 
plies, M. ]VavUle quotes, in closing, the words of Fustel 
de Conlanges, in "Questions historiques" (written about 
1866) : 'The critical spirit applied to the historian, con- 
sists in laying aside absolute logic and the intellectual 
conceptions of the present; it consists in taking the texts 
such as the; have been written, in their proper and literal 
sense, interpreting them as simply as possible, without 
intermingling our own interpretation. The essence of the 
critical spirit, as applied to the history of the past, is to 
believe the ancients.' 

John Roap Wiohtman 

Oherlin, Ohio 


[The following pages, written by Professor Qola, of 
Lhasa University, form the introduction to the revised 
edition of Dr. Budna Kho's well-known work to be issued 
early in the spring of 3814. Db Wolfe Browbb.^] 

It affords me great pleasure to have the high privilege 
of supplying the foreword for the new and enlarged edi- 

'Eev, Charlee De W, Brower (Oberlln College, 1883; Yale Divin- 
ity Scbool, 1886) Is now pastor at Sanford, Florida. — Eorroa. 


244 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

tion of m; esteemed colleague's volume which now appears 
under a slightl; changed title. 

Hine years have passed since the first edition of " The 
Theodore Myth " was issued. Its reception was most grat- 
ifying. It was adopted for supplementary reading in the 
Tibetan secondary schools, and has had general circola- 
tion throughout Asia, while the demand from Africa has 
been larger even than was expected. On account of the 
results presented in the work, but also on account of the 
method of approach and treatment of the subject, it has 
fully maintained the reputation of Lhasa University, and 
fulfilled the expectation of Dr. Kho's friends. 

Meantime, the author has continued his researches, and, 
taking advantage of the liberal provision made by the Uni- 
versity for travel, has visited by air ship the regions where 
once flourished the great cities of the American eastern 
coast. By use of deep-sea diving, and investigations among 
the people who still linger among the adjacent hills, he 
has procured additional data of marked value. He has, 
besides, had the cooperation of the scholarly Professor 
Mgandu, of the Zulu Philological Society. With this ad- 
ditional preparation and assistance and in view of the 
popularity of the first work, a new edition of " Theodore," 
revised to date, was warranted ; but also, and emphatically, 
because of the attacks made in recent years, and growing 
more bold, on the very historicity of this ancient char- 
acter. Magazine articles and addresses before the learned 
societies of Asia and Africa culminated in a volume which 
has attempted to discredit the results of Dr. Elho's work. 
The revised work appears with the title " The Student's 

It remains for me to present only a few comprehensive 
statements regarding the problem to the solution of which 
my learned associate has given so much profound stud; 
for many years, with such satisfactory results. 

Accepting the historicity of the remarkable man, Theo- 
dore, who lived about two thousand years ago, as proved 
by voluminous testimony, the problem was to isolate the 


1919] Critical Notes 245 

real personality of the ancient American from the mass 
of tradition which had gathered about him; iu a word, to 
reveal reality. The peculiar difDculty of the problem is 
apparent when we consider the evident fable element and 
quantity of contradictory material in the different ac- 
counts of this startlingly influential person who had such 
a powerful effect on the life of his day. Too much credit 
can hardly be given to scholars like Chan Su, Amura, 
.Sltzer, who have skillfully untangled many knots, and 
shown what material belongs to the periods of the age to 
which Theodore belonged, say 1800 to 1950, proving that 
the so-called variations of the language must represent the 
periods, and were not contemporaneous. That the Boston- 
esque was the prevailing tongue throughout America seems 
clear, though Chan Su admits that in parts of the far West, 
and South, there were trifling variations as late as 1900. 
Much study has also been given to a strange rival of the 
Bostonesque used by an intermingling race called " Fan," 
widely distributed, the language being interwoven with 
the prevailing one. The discussions of the famous Journal 
Sporting Pages, with attempts at decipherment, can be 
found in Professor Chan Su's interesting work. 

The extreme difHculty attending the unraveling of the 
Theodore material is found principally in the fact that it 
presents this person as five distinct characters: hunter, 
statesman, warrior, author and editor, and reformer. It 
will be evident at once that it is antecedently improbable, 
even impossible, that any one person could have lived so 
many and incompatible lives, especially as the records 
present Theodore as excelling in them all. The tradition- 
mytb element is at once apparent. 

In the treatment of the material Dr. Kho has wisely 
separated the various narratives, following the plan of his 
first " life," in which the different presentations were given 
in different inks; but in this latest work he has gathered 
the substance of the material from all sources and classi- 
fied it under initials. By this simple system H represents 
the hunter narrative; S the statesman; W the warrior; M 


246 Bibliotheca Sacra [AprU, 

the author and editor, and R the reformer. It has been 
fouQd difiQcuIt, however, always to isolate the narratives 
aa clearly as could be desired. 

Dr. Kho rejects the theory of .^Itzer that there were at 
least four Theodores, holding that the one was bo influen- 
tial in one or more directions as to have, as years passed, 
other characters attributed to him. In that age it was not 
rare for men in one walk of life to be given titles as hon- 
ors or rewards without reference to the special accomplish- 
ments of the recipients in the direction indicated by the 
title. So " Colonel " was a name often borne by non- 
military men ; LL.D. or D.D., by business or simply wealthy 
mrai. Such titles, often inapplicable, would come in time 
to be accepted as indicative of reality. 

Ah i-egards the H, or hunter, narrative, which relates the 
, slaying of many wild animals, the ancient historian puts 
the story in Theodore's own mouth for the sake of vivid- 
ness. This H character can undoubtedly be traced still 
further back several thousand years to the Hercules myth 
which describes the world-wide roaming of that hero, and 
his labors in kUling many beasts of ferocious sort in dis- 
tant lands, including the Nemean lion. It would be en- 
tirely natural for the admirers of Theodore to attach every 
possible element of greatness to his life. 

Taking up the W, or warrior, narrative, we meet at 
once with many contradictions. Some of the sayings at- 
tributed to Theodore advocate peace, though not peace at 
any price, but are sufficiently strong to show that he could 
not have been the dashing fighter which many accounts 
suggest. The combination of peacemaker between nations 
and warrior in one person is, to use again an appropriate 
phrase, antecedently improbable. There is a most interest- 
ing tradition recently brought to light by Dr. Kho which 
bears on this subject, and which was found in some barely 
decipherable papers, to the effect that a battle was fought 
at a place named Armageddon. This story, which embodies 
parts of a song used by the troops, is to the effect that a 
general named Wilson routed the forces of Theodore with 
great slaughter, and that the latter soon after retired to 


1919] Critical Notes 247 

practically semi-obscurity. Tliis tradition probably was 
originated to reflect discredit on Theodore, and therefore 
would bring no support to the claim that he was a great 
warrior. Other facts emphasize how truly he was a man 
of peace; such, for example, as the beautiful sketches of 
the love borne him by children. For some long period 
favorite dolls were called " Teddies," a pet name for Theo- 
dore. These dolls were imitation bears to indicate the ex- 
pression of affection by hugging, a natural way of children 
with dolls, and an attribute accredited to bears. 

As to the .33, author and editor, narrative, while there 
is a voluminous material, it is clear that different writers 
assumed the name of Theodore either for the sake of the 
reputation attaching to it, or because the writings cover- 
ing a long period would permit of the appearance of sev- 
eral of that name. Dr. Ebo is of the opinion that the real 
Theodore did considerable writing, but as books as well as 
brief articles are ascribed to him, and often of an exceed- 
ingly variant character, — as, for example, sensational tales 
of hunting, histories, sociological essays, descriptions of 
fights, tales of the border, accurate studies of the charac- 
ter and habits of animals — much will have to be elimi- 
nated. The learned professor is now at work compiling 
the productions which a conservatively liberal point of 
view may accept as Theodore's own. The variations in 
subject, style, and language make this an easier task than 
one might think; for, given Dr. Eho's scholarship and 
a predetermined idea as to what Theodore's style, lan- 
guage, and thoughts were or ought to have been, order is 
soon resolved from the chaos. As regards the editor Theo- 
dore, a fact militating strongly against the view that such 
a position is to be attributed to him is that he is repre- 
sented as in the background, a secondary personage, asso- 
ciated with, or subordinate to, other editors. This is so 
wholly inconsistent with all that we know abont Theodore 
as to make the entire narrative untrustworthy. 

As to the E, or reformer, narrative, it is evident that 
there was abnndant reason for reform work in Theodore's 
day, and the records seem rdiable which place him at the 


248 BibUotheca Sacra [April, 

front of certain movements; as, for example, the one to 
abolisb the drinking customs of society. There is good 
ground for accepting the records of his appearance in the 
country far west of New York as an advocate of temper- 

Coming to the B, or statesman, narrative, we are on 
surer ground than is as a rule the case with the others, as 
Dr. Kho makes clear to his readers. Reference only in 
this foreword can be made to the fact that Theodore was 
at one time governor, or president, aa the chief ruler was 
called, of that part of the continent named the United 
States, and that he was an eflScient and commanding per- 
sonage, fond of rural life and table delicacies, as his fre- 
quent retirem^it to a place famous for its shellflBh would 

It only remains to refer to some facts which add com- 
plexity to the solution of the Theodore problem in general. 
One is the confusing him with a certain William who 
flourished in Europe contemporaneously with Theodore, 
and who seems to have been looked on in the light of a 
demi-god. This was not many years Iwfore the frightful 
cataclysm which, beginning on the Pacific coast of Amer- 
ica, moved eastward, carrying destruction to the vast cities 
of the central and eastern parts, and, reaching Europe, 
decimated its population ~ the beginning of that new and 
grandest civilization which has arisen in Asia. Kow the 
fact that Theodore was at one time in William's dominions, 
probably gave rise to the confusion, for the commanding 
personality of the American would make itself felt, and 
his stay, even if short, might have given rise to the tradi- 
tion regarding his rule as William, or conjointly with him, 
in William's country. 

60, too, Theodore has been confused with a king in Eng- 
land. This was previous to the invasion of that land by a 
fierce race of destroying beings called " Suffragettes." The 
claim that these were women is discredited by Dr. Kho 
because wholly contrary to the character of . the female 
sex of those centuries, since we know that the women of 


1919] Critical Jfotea 24d 

the time had degenerated physically to a wasp-like stature, 
ae shown by the colored plates representing them, and se- 
cured by deep-sea diving at the site of New York. The 
type of garments worn give substantial groonds for snp- 
posing that before the destruction of the cities the climate 
had become remarkably warm. 

All these points will be found satisfactorily covered in 
the chapters which follow. 

After a thorough sifting of all the evidence, our schol- 
arly author concludes: 1. That such a person as Theodore 
lived; 2. That he was a statesman, and for a time presi- 
dent of the United States; 3. That all the accumulations 
of myths, fables, and other accretions are simply tradi- 
tional corroborations of his forceful and wide influence 
and popularity, but that they most reverently bat posi- 
tively be laid aside. 


Lhasa University 



The History op Religions. By E. Washburn Hopkins, 
Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of .Sanskrit aiid Comparative 
Piiilology, Yale University. 8vo. Pp. 624. New York: 
MacmlUan Company. Idl8. $3.00. 
This exceedingly interesting book is the first of a series 
on the scientific study of religion which seems likely to 
be of the greatest value. Several of those to follow are 
advertised as the work of well-known ministers, and so 
they will presumably defend the orthodox view of revela- 
tion. The work before us, however, surveys the whole field 
of religious history from a purely external standpoint: 
Christianity is the Golden Bough of a great tree of devel- 
oping faith whose roots lie deep in the darkness of prime- 
val earth. " Virile as Mohammedanism, gentle as Hindu- 
ism, catholic as Greek mysticism, ethical as Hebraism ; it 
differs, shall we eay, in surpassing; or is that to prejudge 
the case?" This is the point of view. 

In e general way the work covers the same ground as 
C. P. Tiele's well-known " Outlines of the History of Re- 
ligion," but, as we should expect from Professor Hopkins, 
it makes the fullest use of more recent researches all over 
the world. It is a most scholarly and excellent piece of 
work, probably the beat book on the subject extant, within 
the limits of some six hundred pages. We begin with some 
general definitions and learn the more outstanding char- 
acteristics of primitive religion. Then we read about the 
fetishes and idols of African negroes, about the religion of 
Ainu and Mongol, and of the mana and taboo of the gentle 
races reared by the southern seas. We begin to rise above 
the ground in speaking of the rdigion of the American 
Indians ; including those who long ago on tropic highlands 
evolved a culture of such passing qnaintness. In the pri- 
meval religions of Celts, of Slavs, and of their Teutonic 
masters, we get very little up; but a big ascent is made 
in the next chapter, when the fair land of India is reached. 
Among the very best are the three chapters that trace the 
wonderful story of the ancient Hindus with their Vedas, 


Xoticcs of Recent Publicationa 251 

of the noble message of the Buddha that ech.oed as far as 
the farthest islands of Japan and the remotest highlands 
of Central Asia, bringing its rest and its peace and strong 
cirilization too, and of the vagaries of modern Hinduism. 
This is natural from the author's chair. We feel a little 
doubtful whether we are reallj climbing all the time as 
we snrrey the teachings of Lao-tse and Confucius, and all 
that China had to offer in the way of religion to the world. 
(Her real contribution was political.) After bearing of 
Shinto and of the Japanese modifications of Buddhism, 
we feel sure we are slipping a little down the tree as we 
read of ancient Egypt and Assyria, whose faiths are rightly 
represented as repellently material and perhaps a little 
coarse. But in Zoroaster's deep wisdom we feel that we 
are climbing again, and in the great things Moses taught 
we feel quite sure. As we go on to read of the fierce faith 
of Mohammed we know that we are slipping or almost 
falling down, and in the crude mythologies of Greece and 
Rome we do not feel that we are getting higher. But sud- 
denly among the branches the blue sky is seen above, and 
with very startling suddenness we are standing on the 
golden bough that crowns the tree ! 

The account of Christianity is thoroughly reverent, but 
it departs entirely from the standards usually called or- 
thodox. Christ stands forth simply as the last and the 
greatest of the moralists who have done so much to mold 
the world. If not the incarnate son of God he rises high 
alwve the other sons of men. Professor Hopkins rightly 
points out that the greatest glory of Christian history is 
the way in which this faith has again and again " through 
choking accumulations risen ever anew the water of life, 
fresh from its fountain." He ends with the noble sentence : 
" Hence the strength of Christianity. In it divinity blends 
with humanity. Moreover, two best human types, the moral 
and the spiritual, not artificially joined but fundamentally 
blended, two ideals, that of service to the State, that of 
fullest expression of the individual, have in Christianity 
been made one." i. c. h. 


262 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

Prbhistobic Bbugion : A Study in Pre-Christian An- 
tiquity. An Examination of the Beligioos Beliefs of 
the Oceanic, Central African, and Amazonian Primi- 
tives, their Development among the Later Indo-Asiatic 
and Totemic Peoples, their Interpretation by the West- 
ern-Asiatic and Caucasian Races of Neolithic Culture, 
and their Possible Connexion with the Earliest Belig- 
ion of Mankind. By Philo Laos Hills, 8.T.L. 4to. Pp. 
viii, 619. Washington: Capital Pablishers, Inc. 1918. 

As an antidote to the wild specnlations which for a half- 
century have been current respecting the capacity of prim- 
itive man, this volume is bi^y to be commended. It is 
really an exhaustive treatment of the subject, such as no 
other student has given. Every statement is accompanied 
with a reference to the authorities upon the snbject, and 
it is gratifying to note that its conclnsions accord with 
those of Paul, that " the invisible things of him [Ood] from 
the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being under- 
stood by the things that are made, even his eternal Power 
and Godhead" (Rom. i. 20). In accordance with the pre- 
vailing trend of opinion, the nearest prototypes of primi- 
tive man are to be found in the primitive tribes of Africa, 
southeastern Asia, and Australia. But even here, whm one 
penetrates beneath the sarface, it is found that there is a 
profound conception in their minds of a spiritual, eternal, 
infinite, good, wise, and holy being who is the creator of 
all things, and who is both just and merciful. This propo- 
sition is sustained by such an abundance of evidence that 
it cannot well be disputed. The authors who have attrib- 
uted these ideas to the influence of contact with Christian 
missionaries are shown to be in error. The volume is too 
large, and the evid^ce is too extended, for us to attnnpt 
a summary. But we commaid the volume to all anthro- 
pological and theological students. ' It is a volume that 
cannot be ignored. It is full of illnstrationa of great value, 
and the treatment of subsidiary questions, such as that of 
the universality of the flood, is Judicial and in the main 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 253 

Essays on the Eably History of the Church aj4d thd 

Ministry. By various writers. Edited by H. B. Swhth, . 

D.D. 8vo. Pp. XX, «6. New York: Tlie MacmUIan 

Company. 1918. ?3.00. 

The genesis of this book is decidedly interesting. In a 
sermon preached l>efore the University of Cambridge, Eng- 
land, in 1910, Dp. Wilson, Canon of Worcester, appealed 
for a fresh examination of the questions which " gather 
round the origin and early development of Episcopacy and 
the nature and degree of the sanction which it possesses." 
The real purposes intended by the preacher were to ascer- 
tain whether there is any warrant from history for regard- 
ing the Episcopal Churches as so exclusively branches of 
the Catholic Church that there can be no recognition of 
non-Epiacopal bodies as true branches, whether an Epis- 
copal communion is the only definitely commissioned fel- 
lowship, and whether all others have their ministry" and 
sacraments from human appointments. The Archbishop 
of Canterbury, influenced by this appeal, suggested that 
" it would be opportune to collect and state the latest re- 
sults of scholarly research bearing on the subject." This 
volume is the result. It contains six essays : " Conceptions 
of the Church in Early Times " by Canon Mason ; " The 
Christian Ministry in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic 
Periods " by Dr. Armitage Robinson ; "Apostolic Succes- 
sion " by Dr. C. H. Turner ; " The Cyprianic Doctrine of 
the Ministry" by Dr. J. H. Bernard, Archbishop of Dub- 
lin ; " Early Forms of Ordination " by Dr. W. H. Frere ; 
" Terms of Communion and the Ministration of the Sacra- 
ments in Early Times " by Dr. F. E. Brightman. They 
are all by one type of scholar, representing the definite 
High Church position. It is, of course, quite impossible 
to discuss the many points raised by these essays, and it 
must suffice to call attention to a few of the more import- 
ant aspects. The essay by Dr. Armitage Robinson confirms 
Lighttoofs theory as to the development of the ministry. 
This is a striking and significant result, showing that 
Lighttoofs epoch-making essay, though written so long 
ago, is still essentially true and holds the field. It will be 


251 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

remembered bow, among other tbings, that great scholar 
maititained that Christianity knows notbing of a Sacer- 
dotal system and that tbe element of Sacerdotalism came 
Into the Christian ministry through Cyprian. The longest 
and, in some retfpects, the most important essay is the one 
on "Apostolic Succession " by Dr. C. H. Tamer, and its 
great interest is that it gives apparently all that a learned 
High Church Anglican can adduce in support of the posi- 
tion. The first part deals with tbe original idea of Apostolic 
SnccessioD and shows that the emphasis was on Succession 
as a guarantee of orthodox doctrine. In opposition to the 
Gnostics, who claimed to possess an Apostolic tradition, 
Ireneeus and Tertullian maintained that only in Churches 
founded by Apostles and continued through a line of Bish- 
ops could the true teaching be found. And so, doctrine 
was Apostolic when it was in harmony with that held in 
Apostolic Sees. Tbe emphasis therefore lay on orthodoxy, 
not on the administration of sacraments, the Bisbop be- 
ing responsibic for doctrine not because be happened to 
be a Bisbop, but because he was at work in a place where 
an Apostle bad lived and taught. It will be seen that the 
question tben was not as to the validi^ of bis Orders or 
the fact of sacramental grace. This puts the discussion 
in a very different place from that in which it is found 
to-day. Later on, other questions arose, especially in con- 
nection with heretical and schismatic Baptism and Orders, 
and in regard to these matters Dr. Turner points out that 
Cyprian and Augustine took quite opposite lines, and he 
shows bow it was largely due to Augustine that the later 
doctrines of Apostolic Succession became prevalent. His 
words about tbe modem idea are particularly significant. 
He says that it " may possibly be justified as a logical re- 
sult of asserting the validity of non-Catholic Orders, but 
it was at least a novel departure and must be frankly rec- 
ognized as such. Whether it was wholly a good departure 
may be doubted : certainly the more modem view is often 
so phrased that it seems to lend color to a mechanical con- 
ception of the Sacraments, a danger from wbicb the pa- 


1919] .Notices of Recent Publications 255 

tristic view is wholly free." It is somewhat disappointiBg 
that Dr. Turner does Dot afford any distinct light on the 
bearing of the ancient view upon the modem theory, but 
it is obvious that continuity of doctrine is something alto- 
gether different from the modem theory and really tends 
to support the Protestant view that the eeaeutial fea- 
ture is the preservation of the faith "once delivered to 
the saints." Bo also in regard to his treatment of "non- 
Catholic Orders " which forms the second part of his paper. 
It would have been a genuine, help to have had from so 
able and learned a scholar an account of the definite rela- 
tion of those early days when the chief concern was for the 
parity of the faith, to the modem question of Episcopal 
versus non-Episcopal Ordination, 

It was inevitable that in a discussion of the Church and 
Ministry in the early centuries Cyprian would have a 
prominent place, but Dr. Bernard does not shake or even 
really touch Ligbtfoot's contention about the essential 
Sacerdotalism and, therefore, the essential novelty of Cyp- 
rian's view. The other essays do not call for detailed 
attention, mainly because they are technical. "WhUe the 
book is able, learned, and thorough, it must be confessed 
that Dr. Wilson's appeal is not really answered by the 
material here provided. The essayists, as they aU be- 
long to one school, assume, though without any war- 
rant, that from the outset there was a definite ideal of 
Church organization and that this organization was ab- 
solutely essential for the continuing presence of the Holy 
Spirit. But it need hardly be said that no such position 
can be proved either from the New Testament or from the 
earliest centuries. No one really doubts the fact of suc- 
cession as a mere matter of historical continuity ; but it is 
quite another thing to maintain the fundamental necessity 
of Episcopacy as though it were as important as some of the 
fundamental doctrinal realities concerning Christ. Those 
who accept Episcopacy as the best form of Church Govern- 
ment and believe it to be of the lene esse of the Church have 
ample ground for their position, but to go further and main- 
Vol. UCXVI. No. 802. 8 


256 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

tain an exclusive Episcopacy is to adopt a position which is 
neither Scriptural nor historical and certainly is entirely 
opposed to some of the plainest proofs of the Spirit's pres- 
ence and blessing in non-Episcopal Churches to-day. Just 
before this book came out, a good deal of attention was 
paid to a declaration by Dr. Sanday that tbis volume when 
it appeared would justify and practically reestablish the 
old view of Apostolic Succession. But now that the work 
is in our bauds, it is impossible to find an; traces of the 
evidence on which Dr. Sanday founded his statement. It 
this is all that the High Anglican theory can sa; for itself, 
there is far less material in history than many people have 
thought, and the view is much weaker than many have im- 
agined. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the 
writers of this book have, as it has been well said, read into 
primitive Episcopacy mncb that is of a later growth. It 
is simple truth to say that the book with all its undoubted 
ability leaves the ordinary Protestant view entirely un- 
touched, and it is impossible for the extreme High Church 
party to be satisfied with the contentions here put forth. 
One thing is perfectly certain, the book serves to empha- 
size afresh the fact that there is a fundamental difFereiA% 
between two views of Episcopacy now held in the Church of 
England. According to one. Episcopacy is necessary to the 
existence of the Church of Christ. This means that Episco- 
pacy possesses divine right and that all non-Episcopal 
organizations are outside the pale of " covenanted se- 
curity." The other view maintains that Episcopacy be- 
longs to very early times, was universally accepted from 
the second to the sixteenth century, has proved itself by 
experience to be, on the whole, the best for practical pur- 
poses and now after all these centuries constitutes a trust 
which cannot fairly he relinquished. These two theories 
obviously differ fundamentally, and until Episcopalians 
settle which of the two is correct, they must not expect 
non-Episcopalians to entertain serioosly the question of 
Beunion. The book will, of course, take its place among 
those that will need to be studied in connection with these 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 257 

great and pressing problems, for it deserves, on account 
of its authorship and merits, the most thorough and care- 
ful attention, bat it must be confessed that it does not 
really further the settlement of some of our most pressing 
modem problems. 

W. H. Griffith Thomas 
Toronto, Ontario 

The Rbligious Teachino op the Old Testament. By Al- 
bert C. Knudson, Professor in Boston University School 
of Theology. 8vo. Pp. 416. New York : The Abingdon 
Press. 1918. $2.50, net. 

A perusal of this volume ia most disappointing and de- 
pressing. From the author's references it would seem 
that he ought to have known the character of many of 
his statements, which will seriously mislead the public 
for which he writes. For the long controversy about the 
Pentateuch has now reached a stage at which it is no 
longer possible for any writer who claims to be up to date 
simply to pnt before his public the exploded conclusions 
of the Astmc-Kuenen-Wellliausen school as the last word 
of scholarship. Wellhausen himself knew that they were 
untenable before he died. So far as 1 am aware, the last 
utterance of his on the subject which he permitted to be 
published, was his statement to Dahse (Textkritische Ma- 
terialien zur Hexateuchfrage, vol. i. p. 116), that the 
latter had dealt with the sore point of the documentary 
theory; and, whatever may be the case with the lesser 
lights of the school, he, at any rate, had enough intelli- 
gence to realize that if the documents never existed, the 
dating of those documents could not possibly be correct. 
Tet Enudson writes (p. 25) : ' The assumption of the Mo- 
saic origin of the Law throws no light on the historical and 
prophetic books. " On the contrary," says Wellhausen, 
" my enjoyment of the latter was marred by the Law ; it 
did not bring them any nearer me, but intruded itself on- 
easily, like a ghost that makes a noise indeed, but is not 
visible and really effects nothing." ' If Wellhausen's opin- 
ion ia to be quoted at all, reliance should be placed on the 


258 BibHotheca Sacra [AprU, 

foUj matured view that he expressed at the end of his life, 
and not on the impressions he formed as a raw theological 
student, or in the later days when, without any adequate 
textual foundation, he bad the incredible assurance to re- 
write the history of Israel on the basis of his inability to 
discriminate between a mound and a house once he bad 
called them both sanctuaries.^ Knudson himself is still 
in this condition. He has no idea that a cairn is not a 
house and cannot be converted into one by the process of 
calling it a sanctuary; nor does he realize that the book 
of the covenant and the early history show exactly the 
same position for the House in the ritual worship as does 
Deuteronomy. Now, of course, it may be said that it is 
too much to expect of any higher critical professor that 
he should read both sides od bis subject or be capable of 
distinguishing between a mound and a house; and if that 
be Professor EJiudson's own view of his capacities, as his 
practice would certainly seem to show, there is nothing 
more to be said on that score. But with respect to the doc- 
umentary theory it is impossible to rest content with this 
view. Knudson cannot claim to have been ignorant of the 
existence of the " International Standard Bible Encyclo- 
paedia " and the work of Eerdmans, Dahee, SchlOgl, and 
the very numerous textual school, for he was actually a 
contributor to the first-named publication, and he states 
in the preface that he nsed the advance sheets of Bright- 
man's " Sources of the Hexateuch." A critical note deal- 
ing with that volume appeared in the Bibliotheca Sacra 
for October, 1918, to which the reader is referred for 
further information. Here the point is that B^nudson 
must have had a very considerable, if inadequate, idea of 
the position, and yet repeats the old J, E, P business with 
the words ' Scholars are now quite generally agreed that 
the Pentateuch ... is made up of four main documents ' 
(p. 26). The 'agreement' is now such that in two of the 
'See TbeologlBcb TlJdBchrlft, 1913, pp. 19S-S0T; International 
Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ».vv. "Altar," " Saciiflce," " Sanct- 
uary"; EBsaya In Pentateuchal CrltlclBin, chap, vl.; Pentateuchal 
Studies paitivi. 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 259 

three state uuiverBities of Holland, as well as in the Free 
CTnivereity of Amsterdam, it is taught that the Pentateuch 
is not so made up; while in the third it is treated as an 
open question. True, Holland is somewhat in advance of 
the rest of the Continent; but for years before the war 
Schldgl had been teaching in Vienna that the theory could 
not be maintained, Wellhausen had abandoned it, and vari- 
ous other German professors had felt compelled to trim 
and modify their positions (The Expositor, Dec. 1913, p. 
481). In Great Britain Professor Witton Da vies is, so far 
as I know, the only leading critic who has pubUcly re- 
nounced his earlier faith in Wellbausenism. But the em- 
phasis is on the " publicly," for my correspondence shows 
me that he does not stand alone in the Universities. Readers 
of this Review are familiar with the mediating positions 
that Professors Schmidt and Olmstead have sought to oc- 
cupy in America. 

No doubt there are students who try to persuade them- 
selves that Astruc's clue can be abandoned to some extent, 
and that the documentary theory may yet be maintained 
almost intact. This is, however, an impossible attitude 
for two reasons. As Dalise shows by five solid pages of 
quotations from Gnnkel and Skinner (op. cit., pp. 116-121), 
the analysis in Genesis very largely depends on this; in- 
deed, as Steuemagel said in 1910, it is still used as a main 
criterion. Nor has textual criticism confined itself to 
proving the futility of the clue in Genesis. It has gone 
further and shown that the word Baal was originally com- 
mon in many of the Old Testament Books, and that in the 
Divine names and other matters the Old Testament has 
been edited to accord with textual riews based on certain 
verses of Scripture and other theological conceptions.* 
Secondly, the idea that only this one criterion has been 
shown to be worthless is thoroughly false, as the readers 
of this Beview know, and they are well aware of the ina- 

' See TbeologlBcb Tljdscbrlft, 191S, pp. 164-169; Southern Metbo- 
dlflt Quarterly Review, April, 1918, pp. 179-190; Bibllotheca Sacra, 
Oct. 1914 up to and including tlie present Issue. 


260 Bibliotheca Bacra [April, 

bilit; of leading members of the school to defend an; of 
Wellhansen's positions. 

It is not necesaaiy to deal with this t)Ook in detail, for 
a writer who deliberately takes up the position that he 
cannot be expected to pay any attention to the distinction 
between a hoose and a mound, or to the influential and 
growing textual school, or even to the mature opinion of 
bia own leader, has no claim to be treated as a responsible 
scholar. But for the protection of- those who may use the 
book, one other point may be mentioned. Professor Knud- 
son's whole view of the origin of monotheism and the higher 
religions ideas of the Pentateuch is utterly unhiatorical. 
Id the near future I hope to publish in this Beriew a study 
of the religion of Moses based on a number of facts the 
very existence of which is unsuspected by our professor, 
and my readers will then be able to examine into the mat- 
ter for thems^ves. At present I pass over these questions 
because it is undesirable to quote important evidence for 
the first time in this connection at insufficient length. 

If Professor B^nudson wishes to write a good book in the 
future, it will be necessary for him to work on very differ- 
ent lines. He must submit to the mental discipline of 
thoroughly studying both sides on every question : he must 
take the trouble of mastering the distinction between a 
house and a mound in all its implications and also all the 
other elementary distinctions which Wellhausen and hia 
disciples have been too muddled to observe : he must make 
a careful firsthand collection of all the material facts from 
the Old Testament itself; and be must learn to practice 
scientific textual criticism and the comparative method. 
If he will do these things and then have the courage to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
on all the topics with which be deals, without regard to 
whether it is fashionable or the reverse in professorial cir- 
cles, be will achieve something for scholarship. He is not 
lacking in ability. 

Harold M. Wikner 

London, England 


1919] Notices of Recent FubUcatiom 261 

The Rbligion and Thisology of Paul. The Kerr Lectures 
delivered in tlie United Free Oharch College, Glasgow, 
during Session 1914-15. By W. Moboan^ D.D., Professor 
of Systematic Theology and Apologetics in Queen's The- 
ological College, Kingston, Canada. 8vo. Pp. xi, 272. 
Edinburgh; T. and T. Clark. 1917. 
This volume consists of two parts: Part I. treats of 
" The Redeemer and His Redemption," and Part II., of 
" The Life in Salvation." Throughout, the presentation is 
complete, and all the passages of Paul's writings are can- 
didly and carefully considered in their bearing both upon 
the character and work of Christ as portrayed in the four 
Gospels, and in their relation to Christian creeds. But 
the Epistle to the Ephesians was not used as an indepen- 
dent source, nor were the Pastoral Epistles. Throughout 
the work the references are chiefly to German authorities, 
who are given a weight which would not be granted them 
after the developments in connection with them r^^arding 
the world war. But in the main the author's independence 
is manifest, and orthodox interpretations characterize the 
argument. The question of Paul's acquaintance with the 
life of Christ portrayed in the Gospels is treated with great 
skill. " The solution of the problem we believe to be this, 
that he was a thousand times more indebted to the earthly 
Jesus than he knew. Directly and indirectly, through the 
tradition of Jesus' life and words and through lives that 
were epistles of Jesus, the spirit and principles of the Mas- 
ter had access to his mind and soul. Received and assim- 
ilated, they reappeared in his consciousness, altered in 
form doubtless and stamped with his own individuality, 
under the guise of divine revelations. It is no disparage- 
ment of his revelations to treat them as psychologically 
mediated, and to trace them to a source of wbich he was 
himself only half aware" (p. 39). 

The doctrine of Christ's person is very satisfactorily 
treated in the second chapter. " The introduction of Christ- 
worship and of the Kyrios-title " by Paul was not original 
with him, but was the adoption of a conception of Christ 
held by "the Church in general," in which James, Peter, 


262 Bibliotheca Socro [April, 

and Barnabas were at one vith bim. " It U abundantly 
clear that in the Epistles of Paul we are (ace to face with 
a fully developed Christ worship. Christ has gathered to 
Himself the functions of Deity and become an object of 
religious homage" (p. 15). Regarding Justification, the 
author holds that " Paul's doctrine of justification by faith 
with its correlate the doctrine of redemption from the Law 
was a creation of his own, none of his doctrines more dis- 
tinctly so " ; but " with respect to the spirit embodied in 
it, its essential religious content, it was not new, but takes 
us back to Jesus and to the Hebrew prophets and psalm- 
ists. . . . The essential import of Paul's doctrine Is all con- 
tained in the two parables of the Pharisee and the publican 
and the servant coming in from the field" (pp. 154 f.). 

The section on " The Consummation " is so indefinite that 
one cannot tell whether he is a premillenarian or not; but 
it is worthy of being studied by all parties. The closing 
chapter, on Paul and Jesus, is of special value, though it 
is doubtful if he gives to Paul's interpretations of Chris- 
tianity all the weight that belongs to them. 

Thk Coming op the Loro: Will it be Premillennial ? By 
James H. Snowden, D.D,, LL.D., Professor of System- 
atic Theology in the Western Theological Seminary, Pitts- 
burgh, Pa. ; author of " The World a Spiritual System : 
An Outline of Metaphysics," " The Basic Beliefs of 
Christianity," " The Psychology of Religion," " Can We 
Believe in Immortality?" etc. 8vo. Pp. ixi, 288. New 
York: The Macmillan Company. 1919. fl.75. 

Thb Skcond Coming op Christ : A Message for the Times. 
By Jambs M. Campbell. 16mo. Pp. 136. New York: 
The Methodist Book Concern. 1919. 60 cents, net. 
Naturally the European war, whose disastroiis effects 
the combined wisdom of the world is endeavoring to coun- 
teract, has given new vogue to the premillenarian theory 
of the coming of Christ. The rosy views of the progress of 
civilization through the spread of education, and through 
the increase of material production to satisfy the physical 
wants of mankind, have been sadly dissipated by the re- 


1919] Notices of Recent Publicatiom 263 

crudeacence of aavagery which the world has witnessed 
throiigh the last fonr years. Dr. Snowden strives hard to 
continue to cherish these anticipations, but in doing so he 
makes strong demands npon our blind faith in the power, 
wisdom, and goodness of Qod. Still this may be a virtue 
and not a vice. He makes a strong case for postmillenari- 
anism in the presentation of bis principles of Biblical in- 
terpretation, supporting what has been the prevalent view 
of the Church and of Biblical scholars. He maintains that 
his view is based on a broad interpretation of Scripture; 
that the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New; that the 
kingdom of God is essentially a spiritual kingdom sub- 
jected to gradual growth, like that of the seed or the morn- 
ing dawn ; that there are various forms of the Lord's coming 
— in judgment and Providence, in bis Spirit, and to the 
believer in death; that it is not Jndaistic, as the premil- 
lenarian view seems to be; that it is optimistic, wholesome, 
and fruitful in results, and has history and scholarship on 
its side. It is a book for the times, and deserves the atten- 
tion of those whose views it contravenes. 

Dr. Campbell's brief treatment of the subject is to the 
same effect. Specifically he maintains that Christ's second 
coming took place at the end of the Jewish economy, which 
is called the world, and which is partially signalized by 
the events on the day of Pentecost, though be would clearly 
distinguish the presence of Christ in the world from that 
of the Holy Spirit. 

Dictionary op the Apostolic Church. Edited by James 
Hastings, D.D. With the Assistance of John A. Selbii, 
D.D., and John C. Lamheet, D.D. Volume II. Mace- 
DONiA-ZioN, with Indexes. 4to. Pp. xil, 724. New York : 
Charles Scribner's Sons ; Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark. 
1918. 16.00, net. 

The favorable opinion which we expressed of the first 
volume of this Dictionary was none too strong, and is fujiy 
sustained by this, which completes the work there begun 
(see Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1916). One hundred and 
six scholars of world-wide reputation (largely English, but 


264 Bibliotheca Sacra [April, 

with a goodly number American) have contiibated to it 
Among the Americans are Professors Beckwith, of Chicago 
Theological Seminary; Case, of the Univeraity of Chicago; 
Falconer, of the University of Toronto; Gordon, of McQill 
University ; Groton, of the Divinity School of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in Philadelphia ; Hooke, of Victoria 
College, Toronto; Lake, of Harvard University; Law, of 
Knox College, Toronto; A. T. Robinson, of the Southern 
Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ey.; G. L. Rob- 
inson, of McCormich Theological Seminary, Chicago; Shaw, 
of the Presbyterian College, Halifax, N. S. ; Vos and War- 
field, of Princeton Theological Seminary. 

So elaborate are the main articles that the Dictionary 
becomes a library in itself. Thirteen double-column quarto 
pages are devoted to " Mysteries," by W. M. Groton ; eleven, 
to " Name," by P. A, Gordon Clark ; six, to " Odes of Sol- 
omon," by A. Mingana; six, to " Parousia," by S. H. Hooke; 
twenty, to " Paul," by James Stalker ; sixteen, to " Perse- 
cution," by T. Lewis ; twenty, to " Peter," and his Epistles, 
by S. J. Case ; ten, to the " Epistle to the Philippians," by 
D. Mackenzie ; seven, to " Redemption," by B. B. Warfleld ; 
thirty-six, to "Resurrection of Christ," by J, M. Shaw; 
twenty-two, to " Righteousness," by James Moffatt ; six, 
to " Roads and Travel," by A. Souter; fourteen, to " Sibyl- 
line Oracles," by James Moffatt ; ten, to " Epistles to Tim- 
othy and Titns," by R. A. Falconer; ten, to "Trade and 
Commerce," by A. Souter; and twenty-seven, to "War," by 
James Moffatt. 

In general, the articles are written from a fairly conser- 
vative point of view, much more so than were many of the 
articles in " The Dictionary of the Bible," published nearly 
twenty years ago. This is especially noticeable in the arti- 
cles on the " Resurrection of Christ " and " Scripture." 
Though, as might be expected. Professor Case rejects the 
authenticity of Second Peter, and is doubtful about that 
of First Peter, the ailments on the other side are briefly 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 265 

The Conscience and CoxcEeeiONs: How Ma; the Individ- 
ual Become Related to the Many? Bj Alfred Williams 
Anthony, D.D., LL.D., Executive Secretary of the Home 
Missions Conncil. 8vo. Pp. 270. New York: Fleming 
H. Revell Ck)mpany. 1918. fl.50, net. 
This volume is largely a collection of lectures, given in 
Montreal and in Hartford Seminary, on " The Church and 
Social Service " and " The Conscience and Federation," and 
ie replete with practical suggestions growing out of the 
author's long experience. OccasionaUy, however, the author 
slips into unguarded assertions upon doctrinal theology, 
which are to be deplored; as, for instance, in his remarks 
on inherent goodness, where he says, " We do not believe 
in the total depravity of man; we believe in his inherent 
goodness ... we call men ' liars,' when probably they teU 
the truth more than ninety times out of a hundred. ... So 
with almost any crime or sin in the entire category. Men 
are not constantly sinning, or committing crime " (pp. 
137 f.). Bat the Bible says, "The plowing of the wicked 
is Bin " (A. v.). Underneath these secondary choices, 
which may or may not be right in themselves, there is an 
ultimate choice of the will which stamps the roan as a 
saint or a sinner. This light view of the nature of sin 
vitiates most of his argumentation. 

The Aposxlbs' Creed in the Twentieth Cbntuet. By 
Ferdinand S. Schbnck, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Preach- 
ing and Sociology in the Theological Seminary at New 
Brunswick, N. J. 12nio. Pp. 212. Chicago: Fleming 
H. Revell Company. 1919. $1.25, net. 
This is a sample of preaching quite as much as a doc- 
trinal study. It is intended to show the young men pre- 
paring tor the ministry how doctrinal subjects should be 
handled in the pulpit. In a book written for that purpose, 
we need not look for original thinking, but primarily for 
method of presentation. 

This book is an admirable example of what doctrinal 
preaching should be. And yet one would like to feel that 
preaching like this might be popular. This is an intensely 
practical age, and the problems of a world which saw the 


266 BibUotheca Sacra 

development of the Apostles' Creed are so different from 
the problems of the world of to-daj, that it will require 
more cleverness than even this author possesses to make 
doctrinal preaching of interest to the crowds. 

Nevertheless, a book like this is worth while. It does 
reveal sources of Christian faith and character to which 
"the world ought never to become strange. n. t. d. p. 

Pan-Prussianism : Its Methods and Its Fruits. By Charles 
William Super, Ph.D., LL.D., Ex-President of Ohio Uni- 
versity; sometime ProfesBOr of Greek and Dean of the 
College of Liberal Arts Ibidem; translator of Weil's " Or- 
der of Words"; author of a "History of the German 
lianguage," "Between Heathenism and Christianity," 
"A Liberal Education," " German Idealism and Prussian 
Militarism," etc. 12mo. Pp. 306. New York: The Neale 
Publishing Company, 1918, fl.25, net. 
So far as we know, nothing has appeared in print which 
gives so complete and unanswerable a verdict in condem- 
nation of Prussian principles, aims, and activities as is 
done in this volume. This is more significant in that 
the author is of German descent, studied two years in a 
German university, has traveled much in Germany, and 
mainiained an intimate friendship with a large number of 
Qermau literati during his whole life. Up to 1914 Dr. 
Super was an " ardent pacifist " and coiild not believe that 
the spirit that reigned in Wilhelmstrasse was " capable of 
the perfidy that it soon came to make a part of its settled 
policy." But his Tiews rapidly changed as he watched 
" the gradual deterioration of the German people, and the 
systematic way in which it was being corrupted by pro- 
fessors and clergy" (p. 305). The volume la specially val- 
uable as dealing not with vague generalities but with spe- 
cific facts. It also gives a large amount of valuable bio- 
graphical information concerning the leaders of German 
thought The book deservTO the widest attention. 


The Bible Champion 

Official Organ of the Bible League of North America 


An Orgaaixaikui formed to promote a true knowledge ol the Bible 
•od coiuequeiil faith io il« Divine Authority 

In its New Form — greatly improved and enlarged — there is no 
magazine published to-day that gives greater value for the investment 
made. We wish to prove this strong claim made for the Bible Cham- 
pion to every reader of the Bibliotheca Sacra. 

The price of the Biblk CwAMnoN iB *1.!50 the year; Canada, |1.65; 
Foreign, |1.75; Single copy, 15c. It is the policy of the Publishers not 
to send free sample copies. BUT as an inducement to the readers of 
Bibliotheca Sacra to examine a recent number of Biblb Champion we 
will promptly mail you a January number if you will inclose Five One- 
cent stamps with your request. This offer will not be repeated! Send 
for yours to-day! 

OB, if you will inclose the price of a year's subscription we will 
send you a volume, cloth, of Dr. Esenwein's " Feathers for Shafts," free, 
prepMd, as a Premium. 

OR, send us the price of a year's subscription, and add 50c to it, 
and get any one of the cloth-bound books below, prepaid : — 

"Concessions of Liberalists to Orthodoxy" {344 pp., |1.50), by 
Dr. Dorchester; or, "Christianity and Positivism" {370 pp., ?1,75), by 
President McCosh; or, "Footprints of Sorrow" (373 pp., fl,50), by 
Dr. Reid; or, "Voices of the Soul Answered in God" {374 pp., tl.50), 
by Dr. Reid; or, "Christ and His Religion" (311 pp., $1.50), by Dr. 
Reid. For f2.00 we will send you any one of above volumes and the 
BffiLK Champion a year, prepaid. (Canada, $2.15; Foreign, $2.25.) 

JAY BENSON HAMILTON, D.D., Editor. 191 South 2 Street, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 


David James Burrell, D.D., LL.D., William H. Bates, D.D., Herbert W. 

Magoun, Ph.D., Luther T. Townsend, D.D., LL.D., 

G. Frederick Wright, D.D., LL.D. 

Address aU Orders, and mail on matters of Business, to 
Managing Bditor and Publisher, Reading, Pa. 



marking aa eiKich ta Fentateuclial 
CiitlclBm, bave nearly aU appeared 
In the BiBUOTHEOA Saora durlns 
tbe laat fifteen years. In " Esaaya In 
Pentateuchal Criticism " and " Penta- 
tenchal Studies," most of tlie articles 
before 1912 are collected. Since tben, 
no number baa been wltbout some 
contribution from bis pen. Hla con- 
structive work began In tbe January 
number, 191S, and after an Interrup- 
tion because of the war 1b continued 
In tbe present number. Owing to the 
high cost of printing it Is not expe- 
dient at present to Issue further vol- 
umes collecting these essays, but lib- 
eral terms for back ttumb«« of tbe 
BtBuoTHEGA SACK& will be made to 
the large numbw of Biblical students 
tor whom these writings are a neces- 
sity If they would keep up with the 
times. Correspondence Is solicited. 


Vol lxxvi 


Eighty-Ninth Year 


G. Frederick wright 





The Tionmous Life (I.) W. H. OriffltJt Thonuu 267 

The F*unDA>iENTAi. DirrBBBnces bbtwcut Pkb- Ami Post-uiixsinabiafs 

David A. McOlenahan 389 

The BfissioN of the Chubch Newton Wrav 312 

The Reuoion op Moseb Harold M. Wieiter 323 

Cbitioai. Notes — 

Tbe Criticism of Uie QiuU Nsrratlve (Judges It. 26-41) 

H. M. Wiener 369 

Alter the Wai^What 36J 

Notices or Rbceri Pubuoatiohb 362 



European Agxkts, Chaues Hiohax ft Son 
STa Farringdoa Street. London, B. C. 



Bntared ftt the Post Ofllce In (Mwrlln, Oblo, u 

Seennd-eUai Uattcr 


Unusual Blessing 

Attended the Conference on " World ETangelism and Vital Christianity 
After the War" held at The Moody Bible Inetitnte of Chicago, Fel>- 
ruary 3-7. From Monday night, when Dr. James M. Gray gave the 
address of welcome, sounding the keynote of the Conference, which was 
to be the importance of " proclaiming the Oospel that we have always 
proclaimed, and holding up the standard of the Cross," until the last 
address by Dr. Howard Agnew Johnston on " The Atmosphere of Spirit- 
ual Power," every speaher rallied whole-heartedly to a constructiye 
program of evangelism and united testimony to the fundamentals of 
the faith. 

Men from many denominations, leaders in their circles, spoke of 
nearly every phase of work which now lies before us in preaching 
Christ and Him Crucified to a lost and jxrishing world. Among the 
speakers were the following : Rev, Joseph Kyle, D.D., LL.D., President 
Xenia Theological Seminary; Ecv. J. C. Massee, D.D., First Baptist 
Church, Dayton, Ohio; Evangelist Henry Ostrora, Methodist; Bev. Sam- 
uel M. Zwemer, D.D., Missionary, Cairo, Egypt ; Kev. E. M. Potest, D.D., 
ex-President Furman Baptist College; Rev. D. S. Kennedy, D.D., Ed- 
itor The Presbyterian, Philadelphia; Itev, John McNicol, B.D., Toronto 
Bible College; Rev. E. A. Wollam, Cleveland Bible Institute; Rev. W. 
Bllia, Vancouver Bible Institute; Rev. Wm, B. Riley, Northwestern 
Bible School, Minneapolis; Rev. Wm. L. Pettingill, Dean Philadelphia 
School of the Bible; Rev. John A. Davis, Evangelist; Bishop Joseph F. 
Berry, Methodist, Philadelphia; also Jewish Mission and Rescue Mis- 
sion representatives. 

By special arrangement THE CHBISTIAN WORKERS MAGA- 
ZINE will publish a full report of the important addresses in the March 
and April numbers. No extra charge will be made for thi», as it will be 
sold at the regular price of a single eopy of the magazine — only 15 
cents, or the two for 25 cents — but or<iei- at once if you desire a copy. 

In the April number to follow will be published a special article 
by Pastor D. M. Panton, of Norwich, England, on " The Present Rise 
and Ultimate End of Democracy." 

at $1.50 a year. Address 


144 Institute Place, CHICAGO, ILL. 





Etubtthino that comes from Dr. Warfieid deserves the 
closest attentioQ; and as one of his very many debtors, 
who has learnt to value what he writes, even though it 
may not always be possible to accept his conclusions, I 
have naturally read with care his articles in the Princeton 
Theological Review and in the Bibliotheca Sacra on The 
Victorious Life, especially because of my connection with 
the Keswick Movement and the corresponding Movement 
in America, and also because of Dr. Warfleld's criticism 
of my own position. I hope I am ready to listen carefolVf 
to all criticism and also to correct anything wrong. Bet 
I now desire to present certain considerations suggested 
by his articles, in order to show that those who favor in 
general what is known as the Keswick Movement are not 
altogether without reasons which they regard as adequate. 
It must also be added that they do not believe Dr. War- 
fleld's interpretation of their position is always and neces- 
sarily the true one. 


It will be convenient first to comment on certain points 
raised in Dr. Warfleid's articles. No attempt will be made 
to deal with every contention, but only an effort to con- 
sider the more outstanding of his criticisms. For con- 
venience I call attention to the pages of his articles and, 
as far as possible, quote what he said. The references are 
all to the Princeton Theological Beviett}. 

P. 321, Jnly, 1918. The opening sentences seem to im- 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 808. 1 


268 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

ply that those who favor vhat is known as " The Victo- 
rious Life " " ask to be themselves made glori&ed saints in 
the twinkling of an eye." I have never heard anything of 
the kind set forth ; and, indeed, the whole argument of the 
opening page of Dr. Warfleld's first article, which sug- 
gests that men are impatient with God's slow processes 
and " demand immediate tangible results," is not tme of 
those who are the subjects of his criticism. It is said that 
SDch people "themselves cut the knot and boldly declare 
complete salvation to be within their reach at their option, 
OP already grasped and enjoyed." 1 would submit that 
Dr. War&eld is all unconsciously conveying a wrong im- 
pression, for, so far as I know, nothing like this is held 
by those against whom he writes. Everything, of course, 
depends upon the meaning of the term " complete salva- 
tion." All the books I have been able to consult on this 
subject maintain that salvation is threefold (including, 
first, deliverance from the penalty, then, from the power, 
and, last of all, from the presence of sin), and that sal- 
vation cannot possibly be " complete " until the third 
stage has been reached, which will never be experienced 
in this life. I would, therefore, urge respectfully, and yet 
strongly, that it is not fair to charge opponents with " ad- 
justing the nature of complete salvation to fit their pres- 
ent attainments." 

P. 322. More than once Dr. Warfield maintains that the 
modem view of what he calls " entire, instantaneous sanc- 
tification " is due to John Wesley, and in more than one 
place Holiness teaching is described as " Wesleyan doc- 
trine." But I do not think Dr. Warfield is either accurate 
or fair in attributing all " Holiness " teaching to the Wes- 
leyan view. While many are deeply grateful for the em- 
phasis laid on Holiness by John Wesley, John Fletcher, 
and their friends, it la well known that the Keswick Move- 
ment is absolutely separate from the Wesleyan Movement, 
and claims the right and takes the opportunity to state 
the truth of Holiness in a distinctly different way. 

P. 323. Several times in his artidea Dr. Warfield has 


1919] The Victorious Life 269 

called attention to what he believes to be an essential ele- 
ment of Holiness teaching, in the separation of juatiflca- 
tioQ and sanctification, which are said to be " divided from 
one another as two separate gifts of God." Now while it 
may be possible for Dr. Warfield to quote writers to this 
effect, I wonld like to point out that it is no essential part 
of the Holiness position. On the contrary, I have heard 
speakers at Keswick and elsewhere insist in the strongest 
way that justification and sanctification are to be regarded 
as essentially one gift, the faith which accepts justification 
as an act issuing in an attitude of faith lor sanctification. 
Again and again it has been urged that in the normal 
Christian life the soul receives at the outset a complete 
justification, together with a commencing sanctification, 
and both of these in Christ (1 Cor. i. 30). But while this 
is BO, may it not be said that a man can enter upon the 
position of justification without fully realizing what is 
involved in sanctification? Let me quote from a book by 
a Keswick leader which, so far as I can see, Dr. Warfield 
has not noticed, though it contains some of the soberest 
tuid clearest teaching. I refer to " The Law of Liberty in 
the Spiritual Life " by the Rev. Evan H. Hopkins, one of 
the earliest members, indeed one of the founders, of Kes- 
wick. Mr. Hopkins is calling attention to the exhortation 
in Kom. vi. 14 to "yield yonr members instruments of 
righteousness," and then adds: — 

" If the Apostle had felt sure that these Christians at 
Some had, immediately on their conversion, thus surren- 
dered themselves to God, would he have deemed it neces- 
sary now to press upon them so earnestly this definite act 
of consecration? The truth is, the Apostle does not as- 
sume or take for granted that all those Christian converts 
were really walking in a condition of practical consecra- 
tion to God" (p. 108). 

Does not this aspect represent a truth which is experienced 
from time to time among Christian people? 

P. 323. At this point it may be worth while to surest 
the necessity and importance of a strict definition of terms. 


270 Bibliotheca Sacra [July. 

What is to be understood by Sanctiflcation ? The New 
Testament teaches a twofold aspect of it, — the one re- 
ferring to our judicial position, and the other to our spir- 
itual condition. In Hebrews the term " sanctified " is de- 
scriptive of the whole company of believers and is almost 
equivalent to Justification in Romans. It seems important 
to recognize this primary idea of Sanctification as mean- 
ing " s^mration," for it shows that in this respect there 
is no difference between one Christian and another, the 
youngest being as truly sanctified as the oldest (Heb. x. 
10, 14). A careful study of Hebrews indicates that the 
terms " sanctified " and " perfected " describe the present 
judicial position of every believer by reason of the sacri- 
ficial work of the Lord Jeeus. Then, arising out of this, 
comes the more familiar thought of Sanctification as a 
process, the judicial position being realized in experience. 
And 80, while Justification may be considered to refer to 
a position which leads to a condition, Sanctification in- 
cludes both position and condition. Justification and 
Sanctification are, therefore, complete from Ghid's stand- 
point; but while Justification needs immediate and com- 
plete acceptance, Sanctification calls also for thorough 
recognition, followed by constant realization. 

P. 327. In the note on this page Dr. Warfield maintains 
that Scripture never connects Sanctification directly with 
Faith, not even in Acts xxvi. 18. But it may be fairly 
asked. Why may not Faith in this passage iudnde and 
cover the entire process of salvation? It does not seem 
possible, nor evoi easy, to exclude " sanctified " from it, 
especially as faith is a principle of continuance as well as 
commencement (Qal. 11. 20). The entire thought of faith 
in the great chapter, Hebrews xi., finds its emphasis on liv- 
ing, so that the Christian life from first to last is " a life 
of faith." For these reasons I would contend that Dr. 
Bartlet in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, as quoted 
by Dr. Warfield, is absolutely correct. 

P. 328. Dr. Warfield says that " the whole sixth chap- 
ter of Bomans was written for no other purpose than to 


1919] The Victorima Life 271 

assert and demonatrate that JustlflcatioD and Sanctiflca- 
Hon are indissolubly bound together; that we cannot have 
the one without baring the other." While this is, of coarse, 
true from the standpoint of Qod's purpose for the b^ever, 
it may be qoestioned whether Sanctiflcation, in the sense 
of consecration, followed by pariflcation, is always at once 
realized in peraonal experience. There is no desire at all 
to " wrest these two things apart and ma^e separate gifts 
of grace of them." All that ia intended is that there should 
tie the strongest possible emphasis on the need of oar 
experience agreeing with out acceptance. Once again, 
therefore, I desire to say that the charge of separating 
Justification and Sanctification is no essential part of the 
position criticized by Dr. Warfield. For this reason I 
would also maintain that it is not correct to speak of sep- 
arating these two aspects of faith and life and " describ- 
ing them as unrelated operations" (p. 591). I may add 
that I entirely agree, and so would all who take the same 
general view as I do, with the quotation made by Dr. War- 
field from Professor Livingston {p. 329). 

P. 329. It is difflcult for me to understand the criti- 
cism made by Dr. Warfleld of the Greek word katargeo in 
Bom. ri. 6 : " that the body of sin might be done away." 
He says : " The attempted weakening of the phrase ' that 
the body of sin might be done away ' by resurrecting the 
etymological sense of the Oreek word . . . is . . . bad." I hare 
always had the impression that there is a clear distinc- 
tion here, and elsewhere, between katargeo and apollumi, 
the former being understood to mean to " render inopera- 
tive " or " inert," as distinct from " annihilate." At any 
rate, it is used of onr Lord's dealing with Satan in Heb. 
ii. 14, where it cannot mean " annihilation." And Dr. War- 
field allows support for this view from Banday and Head- 
lam on Romans. 

P. 329. With regard to the word rendered " condemna- 
tion " in Rom. vlii. 1, whether Deissmann is right or wrong 
does not really matter; the main point is whether the idea 
of " condemnation " is to be limited to the judicial aspect, 


272 Bibtiotheca Sacra [July, 

or whether it ma; not include experimental condemoatiou 
OB well. Dr. Warfleld evidently favors the former, but I 
do not think he need dismiss as imposBible the other view, 
especially as it has the support of a well-known commen- 
tator like Lange, who remarks : — 

" The question of the reference to justification or sanc- 
tiflcation must affect the interpretation of condemnation, 
since yerse 2, b^inning with gar, seems to introduce a 
proof. The position of the chapter in the epistle, as well 
aa a fair exegesis of the verses, sustain the reference to 
eanctification. (Not to the raitire exclusion of the other, 
any more than they are sundered in Christian experience.) 
We must then take no condemnation in a wide sense." 

On this view it would be perfectly legitimate to include 
in it the thou^t of " disability " to which Dr. Warfleld 
takes such exception. Then, too, I fancy there must be 
something of emphasis in the first word of Rom. iii. 1, 
ouden. Oodet renders and expounds it in such a way as 
to imply "no sort of condemnation"; and for this reason 
some of us feel, following Lange (and Godet himself), that 
it can (and ought to) have a wider view than that of ju- 
dicial condemnation. 

P. 335. Dr. Warfield considers that " the most fatal de- 
fect " in this Holiness Movement is " the neglect to pro- 
vide any deliverance for the corruption of man's heart." 
I confess that this is surprising to me, for I have always 
thought that what is sometimes called " inborn corrup- 
tion " was specifically dealt with by Holiness teachers. 
What they say about it is that, according to St. Paul, this 
corruption of man's heart is hostile to God and is neither 
subject to God's law nor can be (Rom. viii. 7). For this rea- 
son the teaching is given that the Christian is to reckon 
himself dead to it (Rom. vi. 11), although, of course, it 
is not dead in itself, nor wDl be until the believer ia de- 
livered hereafter from the presence of sin. Mr. Hopkins, 
in the book to which I have already referred, has the sub- 
ject of Sin as his first chapter and points out various as- 
pects of it, including sin as an offense against God, as a 


1919] The Victorious Life 273 

niluig principle, as a moral defllement, as a spiritual dis- 
ease, as an acquired Iiabit, and as an indwelling tendency, 
on all of which he provides, in my judgment, clear, strong, 
balanced, and Biblical teaching. 

P. 337. Dr. Warfleld remarks that those who favor the 
Holiness Movement '* teach a purely external salvation. All 
that they provide for is the deliverance from the external 
p^alties of ein and from the necessity of actual sinning." 
T cannot think this is either true or fair, because salvation 
is decidedly internal and involves much more than " ex- 
ternal penalties." It is certainly true that there is no 
present or immediate " deliverance from cormption," and 
it is also accurate to say. that " the heart remains corrupt" 
I should have thought that this was the truth of the New 
Testament as well as that of personal experience. At any 
rale, some of us have not yet observed any essential dif- 
ference between the youngest and the oldest Christian in 
regard to remaining corruption, which, but for the pres- 
ence and power of the Holy Spirit, is as likely to start up 
in the mature saint as in the immature believer. Dr. War- 
fleld thinks that " to keep a sinner remaining a sinner free 
from actually sinning" would be but a poor salvation 
(p. 340). But it may be asked whether, in spite of the crit- 
icism, this is, after all, not " the way the Holy Spirit oper- 
ates in saving the soul." As I have already said, I do not 
think it is either Scriptural or true to experience to say 
that " He cures us precisely by curing our sinful nature." 
The common idea known as " a change of heart " does not 
seem to me to stand the test of Scripture in the light of 
such passages as John iii, 6; Rom. viii. 7. Then, too. Dr. 
Warfleld says that " to imagine we can be saved from the 
power of sin without the eradication of the corruption in 
which the power of sin has its seed is to imagine that an 
evil tree can be compelled to bring forth good fruit " {p. 
341). Here again I fail to see the support from Scripture 
for such an idea of " eradication," which is almost tanta- 
mount to the very "Methodist doctrine" which Dr. War- 
fleld so strenuously opposes. And so 1 can only repeat 


274 Bibliotheca Sacra [^^J, 

my contention, which Dr. Warfleld quotes, that in the 
present life we have deliverance from the guilt, penalty, 
and bondage of sin, and " deliverance hereafter from the 
very presence of sin" (p. 341). This, I maintain, is the 
only " eradicatioB " which can be foand in Scripture. 

P. 340. It is a great puzzle to me to read these words 
of Dr. Warfleld's : " He cures our sinning precisely by 
curing our sinfnl nature ... it is, in other words, pre- 
cisely by eradicating our sinfulneaa that He deUvers qb 
from sinning." 1 cannot see how this Is to be reconciled 
with the plain statement of the Apostle already quoted: 
" The minding of the flesh is enmity against Qod, for it is 
not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be." 
Are we to understand that the sinful nature actually be- 
comes good, and that in process of time God " cures our 
sinning by curing our sinful nature"? I have always 
thought that our nature in itself is just as sinful now and 
to the end of life as it was when we were converted, and 
that there is no eradication of it, or even improvement of 
it possible; because, if only circumstances are favorable, 
it is as likely to burst forth at the end of a long life of 
Gbrlstian service as at the beginning. 

P. 342. Dr. Warfleld is strongly opposed to my sug- 
gestion that the tme view of the relation of the believer 
to his sinful nature is neither suppression nor eradication, 
but counteraction; and although 1 have given very careful 
attention to his argument, I am afraid I still maintain the 
position that counteraction is the best way of expressing 
the truth. What I meant, and still mean, la that the coun- 
teraction of the Holy Spirit is intended to be a more 
powerful force than the downward tendoicy of sin. And 
I maintain that in proportion as we allow the Holy Spirit 
to rule in our life He does counteract the evil principle 
that remains in us. This thought of counteraction is no 
novel idea of mine, but is found in several of the Keswick 
statements; and 1 believe it represents the truth of those 
who consider that the thought of suppression does not go 
far enough, while the idea of eradication (immediate or 


1919] The Victorioua Life 275 

gradual) contradicts both Scripture and experience. Cer- 
tainly Mr. Hopkins more than once calls attention to tbis 
tmth as that which expresses what Scriptnre teaches in 
regard to the relation of the believer to his old nature. To 
use one of his illostratioDS : " When a light is introdaced 
into a dark cliaml»er the darkness instantl; disappears, 
but the tendency to darkness remains; and the room can 
on^ be maintained in a condition of illumination by the 
continnal counteraction of that tendency" (p. 29). And 
so I would say without hesitation that, U the Holy Spirit 
is permitted to " operate invariably in every action of the 
Christiao/' it would be, without doubt, impossible for the 
principle of sin to gain a victory. Dr. Warfleld main- 
tains that on this theory of counteraction I should teach 
"not that Christians need not sin, bnt that they cannot 
sin" (p. 343). But what I maintain is that, snpported by 
the illustration nsed by Ur. Hopkins, Christians need not 
sin, and if they allow the Holy Spirit to " operate invari- 
ably " they will not sin. 

P. 344. I am afraid that I cannot accept the view that 
the Holy Spirit is cleansing the foundation in the sense 
that He is attacking " directly the heart out of which the 
issues of life flow." All through this statement Dr. War- 
field seems to me to imply a gradual extirpation of the evil 
nature; and, so far as I can see, this is disproved both by 
Scripture and by experience of everyday life. 

P. 344. Dr. Warfleld maintains that this difterence of 
standpoint between him and me is doe to my mieconc^- 
tion of the seventh of Romans, which he says " depicts for 
us the process of the eradication of the old nature." I am 
afraid I cannot see this in that chapter. Here again I 
quote from Mr. Hopkins: — 

" It is worthy of note that whilst the Apostle in those 
eleven verses (Bom. vii. 14-24) refers to himself, either 
directly or indirectly, some thirty times, he does not there 
make a single reference either to Christ or the Holy Spirit. 
In reading that passage it is not necessary to suppose that 
the Apostle is speaking from the standpoint of a present 
experience, but from the standpoint of a present conric- 


276 Bibliotheoa Sacra [July, 

tjon, as to the tendencies of the two natares that were 
then and there present within him" (p. 49). 

For m; part I bare long ceased to be concerned as to 
whether this chapter refers to a believer or an unconverted 
man ; and the fact that there is much to t>e said for both 
sides seems a reason for avoiding the question altogether. 
On the one hand, it certainly is diflScuIt to think of the 
unconverted expressing his delight in God's law (ver. 22) ; 
bat, on the other hand, it is equally difBcnlt to think of 
a believer saying that he is "carnal, Bold under sin" (ver. 
14). For tliis reason I favor the view that this chapter 
is concerned with the man, whatever hia exact apiritoal 
position, who is trying to be holy by his own effort, juBt 
as in chapter iii. the man is trying to be justified by hia 
own effort. And the fact that in this chapter, as Ur. Hop- 
kins points out, there is no reference to the Holy Spirit, 
as there is in chapter viii., convinces me of the tmth of 
wliat Dr. Warfleld quotes from my book that " there is 
no Divine grace in that chapter; only man's nature strug- 
■ gling to be good and holy by law." It is a surprise to me 

■ that Dr. Warfleld can see in it " Divine grace warring 
against the natural evU of sin " (p. 345) ; for, if this were 
the case, I do not see what need there would be to go on 
to chapter viii,, wliich, according to my view, gives the nor- 
mal life of the Christian as possessed by Divine grace and 
dominated by the Holy Spirit. Dr. W. P. Mackay, a Pres- 
byterian clergyman, the author of that fine book, " Grace 
and Truth," puts the matter thus: — 

"How does the Christian grow in grace? Does his 
old heart get better? The Spirit of God in John teaches 
that in a converted man there is a new fountain. Many 
Christians seem to think that all we get at conversion is 
a divinely given filter to the old fountain, which will grad- 

■ ually increase in its power until it renders the filthy waters 
of the old fountain clean. In Gal, v. 15-26 the whole point 
is stated. Two fountaina are spoken of in the converted 
man, sending out their natural streams. The streams from 
the old fountain, the flesh, are given in the 19th verse. Are 
we anywhere taught in Scripture that this evil nature is 


1919] The Victoriom Life 277 

refined, is purified? Certainly, indeed, the man, the indi- 
ridual, is purified, is cleansed, made more holy, is morallj 
sanctified ; but it is in altogether another way than by try- 
ing to cure what is ' incurably wicked.' The streams from 
the new fountain — the Spirit — are giveu in the 22nd 
verse; and we are told that the Christian's holy life is 
walking in the Spirit, mortifying the ' members which are 
apou the earth' (Col. iii. 5), keeping them in their place 
of death, ' not fulfilling the lusts of the fiesb.' " 

P. 346. Dr. Warfield is very severe on the doctrine of 
the two natures which be associates both with " the Breth- 
ren " and with the Holiness Movement. And yet, in my 
judgment, the question is not settled by Dr. Warfield's 
criticisms, because there is much in Scripture that seems 
to indicate the presence of two elements, whether or not 
we call them " natures," in the believer. When the Apostle 
says, " If any man is in Christ he is a new creature " (2 Cor. 
r. 17) , I do not think this means the entire removal of the 
old nature from the moment of conversion. Nor do I be- 
lieve that putting away the old man and putting on the 
new (Eph. iv. 22-24) can refer to anything else than a 
twofold attitude which concerns the entire Christian life. 
At any rate, the view is not to be limited to the Holiness 
Movement, as Dr. Warfield himself admits, and there are 
also thoroughly good Presbyterians who take the same 
line; so that if the Holiness people err they err in good 
company, and they certainly find themselves supported by 
a numijer of passages which, on Dr. Warfield's view, are 
inexplicable (1 Cor. Hi. 3; Gal. iii. 3; vi. 8; Kom. viii. 4^-7). 

P. 347. Dr. Warfield contends that the teaching against 
which he writes involves the thought that the Holy Spirit 
" is only at our disposal and everything is, after all, in our 
own control." And he evidently objects to the statement 
that a Christian possessed with the indwelling Spirit of God 
may choose to walk after the fiesh. I should have thought 
this latter idea was too obvious for denial, not only in the 
light of such a passage as Rom. viii. 4-9, but also as illus- 
trated by, moat unfortunately, very many a Christian ex- 
perience. Even on Dr. Warfield's own showing this may 


278 Bibliotheca Sacra [July. 

be true, (or, according to him, a ChriBtiaiL can describe 
himself as "carnal, sold under sin" (Bom. vii. 14). But 
it is not accurate to charge the Holiness Movement with 
teaching that the Holy Spirit is " in our own controL" 
This gives an entirely wrong impression and tends to ig- 
nore the tmth that the Hoi; Spirit works in and throng 
OS, according to our faith and faithfulness. 

P. 352. Dr. Warfield criticizes Mr. TrumbuU for what 
he calls "quietism" and he also speaks of "Quietistic 
Perfectionism" (p. 353). In reply to this I should like 
to quote some words of the Bishop of Durham, Dr. Moule, 
spoken at the last Convention at Keswick: — 

" Bo the power of peace is a mighty thing in the Chris- 
tian life, and for forty-four years ' Keswick ' has consist- 
ently and with ever-renewed emphasis dwelt upon that 
side of the Christian life. ' We who have believed do enteir 
into rest,' that rest at the centre which is the very best pos- 
sible thing for action at the circumference. When a great 
wheel is well geared at the centre it can run its swiftest 

" But, when I have said this, I come back to my text and 
aak, What has labour to do with this regtf What has tak- 
ing pains to do with this peace? We sang a beautiful hymn 
at the opening of the meeting. Like many a great spiritual 
utterance, it, wisely and rightly, as oar Lord and Master 
Himself often did, lays the whole stress upon one truth, 
one side of truth, leaving the thoughtful believer to rec- 
ollect connections. That hymn seemed almost to prompt 
the question, ' What is there left for me to do bat just to 
trust in Christ?' If the truth of that hymn is taken as 
the whole truth, it is transparent that one of those critics 
of ' Keswick,' of whom Mr. Fullerton so helpfully re- 
minded us last night, might raise a valid objection to it. 
Perhaps there are some such friendly critics in this assem- 
bly, as many a one has been who has ended with thanking 
God for 'Keswick.' (So George Macgregor did. He came 
to judge us, be came to see what those good people could 
say that a well-trained young Scottish theologian did not 
know much better before. And he went away with a vision 
of God which made his life the wonderful thing it was to 
the last hoar.) But critics of 'Keswick' might easUy say, 
if we struck that note only, and touched only that string: 


1919] The Victorious Life 279 

' What ia there more for yon to do? la this life really bo 
^ortlefiB, so careless? Is it a life in which you simply get 
into a stream and swim with it, and let it take you on for 
ever? Is that aU7' No, that is much, bat it ia not all. 
Hallowing and keeping grace is indeed a stream, and the 
stream is strong, and to be in it ia blessed. Nevertheless, 
there is a large place in the true life for labour and for 
pains. How does this come in? Surely with the recollec- 
tion that we can use the trusted Chriat only when we are 
keeping aicake. And you do not keep awake by growing 
slack in your habits, in your devotions, in your thinking, 
iu your self-examining, in your serving and loving; you do 
not keep awake by indolence in any of these matters. To 
take God's means that we may keep awake needs pains." 

On pages 862 and 863, as weU as elsewhere, Dr. War- 
field reflects seriously on what he calls " the dogma of the 
inalienable ability of the human will to do at any time 
and under any cireumstancea precisely what in its un- 
motived caprice it chancea to turn to." I do not believe 
thia is a fair statement of the Holiness doctrine of free 
will. But quite apart from this, I would submit to Dr. 
Warfldd that there is more truth in the doctrine of what 
is generally called the freedom of the will than he is appar- 
ently ready to allow. 

He charges Mr. Tnunbull with a " Pelagianining doc- 
trine of the will" (p. 367; see also pp. 371, 373). Here 
again I am convinced Dr. Warfleld has tailed to recognize 
the element of truth, even in what he calls Pelagiauiam. 
While no one for an instant would wiah to aet aaide or 
nnderonphaaize grace, it is equally true, that, though 
grace cannot be commanded, it can, unfortunately, be hin- 
dered; and, so far as I can see, this solemn thought finds 
no adequate recognition at the hands of Dr. Warfleld. 

In more than one place Dr. Warfleld ia very severe on 
Uethodism. There is no need to discuss thia in detaU. 
Bat I will make bold to say (iu spite of my Anglican Au' 
guatinianiam) that no system could live which did not 
possess and emphasize some aspect of truth. In the lif^t 
of what is known of men like John Wesley, CSiarles Wesl^, 


280 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

Fletcher of Madeley, aod many more, it seema imperative 
to inquire what there was in their teaching that repre- 
sented elements of New Testament truth and how, more- 
over, it is that Methodism has become such a power at the 
present time. 

P. 364. Dr. Warfteld speaks of "our wills being the 
expression of our hearts continually more and more dying 
to sin." This expression strikes me as curious j for, so far 
as I have been able to discover, every reference to our be- 
ing " dead " or " cmcifled " is in the past tense and im- 
plies a definite and complete action, which necessarily 
rules out the idea of " more and more dying," whatever 
that may mean. I should have thought it would have be^i 
far better to say, like the Apostle Paul, " ye died . . . pat 
to death therefore" (Col. iii. 3-5). As Qodet well puts 
it, Christian Holiness is fundamentally different from all 
pagan ethics. Paganism says, " Become what you ought 
to be"; Christianity says, "Become what you are." 

There is, of course, constant danger of disproportion in 
the statement of this truth; but so there is in everything 
else. Even Predestination, as taught at Princeton, for in- 
stance, can easily be exaggerated to the virtual exclusion 
of the human element altogether. But, notwithstanding 
all such perils, the old saying is just as true as ever, that 
" abuse does not take away use." 

In regard to deliverance from the power of sin, which 
is to be sought in the death of Christ rather than in any 
process-of sanctification wrought in us by the Spirit, Dr. 
Chalmers has a word which seems to me to express essen- 
tial truth:— 

" The man who — riveting all his confidence in the death 
of Christ — has become partaker of all its immunities and 
of all its holy influences, will not only find peace from the 
guilt of sin, but protection from its tyranny. This faith 
win not only be to him a barrier from the abyss of its 
coming vengeance, but it will be to him a panoply of de- 
fence against its present ascendency over his souL The 
sure way to put Satan to flight is to resist him, steadfast 


1919] The Victorious Life 281 

in this faith, which Till be to him who exercieee it a shield 
to quench all the fiery darts of the advereary. 

" We are aware of charges of being strange, and mys- 
tical, and imaginary, to which this representation, how- 
ever scriptaral it may be, exposes us. But we ask, on the 
one band, those who have often been defeated by the power 
of temptation — whether they ever recollect, in a single 
instance, that the death of Christ, believed and regarded 
and made use of in the way now explained, was a weapon 
put forth in the contest with sin? And we ask, on the 
other hand, those who have made use of this weapon, 
whether it ever failed them in their honest and faithful 
attempts to resist tbe instigations of evil? 

" We apprehend that the testimonies of both will stamp 
an experimental as well as a Scriptaral soundness upon 
the affirmation of my text that be who by . faith in the 
death of Christ is freed from the condemnation of sin, has 
also an instrument in hie possession which has only to be 
plied and kept in habitual exercise, that he may habitually 
be free from its power" (Romans, vol. ii. pp. 90 f.). 

P. 369. In the footnote, Dr. Warfield maintains that 
Mr. Trumbull and I differ in regard to the question of 
God's grace at the time of sleep, and he characterizes this 
difference as two doctrines "which stand apart, as far 
apart as darkness and light; they are polar in their an- 
tithrais." I do not feel at aU sure of this. My own im- 
pression is that Mr. Trnmbull and I were discussing the 
question of sleep in relation to grace in two different con- 
nections, and, unless I am greatly mistaken, Mr. Trnmbull 
would not for an instant deny what Dr. Warfield quotes 
me as saying, while the essential truth of Mr. Trumbull's 
contention that " Christ forces no spiritual blessing upon 
a person " is certainly true in its proper place. 

Dr. Warfield more than once indicates his strong dis- 
approval of the distinction between conscious and nncon- 
sciouB sins. But once more I imagine there must be some 
misunderstanding of tbe position of the Holiness Move- . 
ment. When, for instance, the old Church Hymn, the " Te 
Deum," says, " Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day 
without sin," there seems to be a clear suggestion of this 


282 Bibliotheoa Sacra [July, 

distinction, for I do not suppose that tlie author, or ao- 
thore, of the " Te Deam " ever meant to imply the entire 
extirpation or eyen the gradaal eradication o( the sinful 
nature. If this is so, then the thought of deliverance from 
sinning is much earlier than the modem Holiness Move- 
ment In the same way when the English Prayer Book 
prays that "this day we fall into no sin," I cannot be- 
lieve that the Beformers had any thought of the entire 
removal of the evil principle, but only that the soul might 
be kept from .conscions wrong. Dr. Warfield well knows 
that in the Jewish economy there was a provision for sins 
of ignorance, and it has always appeared to me natural to 
suppose that there was some corresponding provision in 
the great anti-typal sacrifice of Christ for sins which Ood 
could see, though they are for a time, it may be a long 
time, hidden from the conscionsness of the believer. 

On p. 599 (October, 1918), I>r. Warfield states what wiU 
be perfectly astonishing to many who are associated with 
this Movement, that " the Christian's sinning is made 
merely auxiliary and contributory to his holiness ... in 
the most literal sense the Christian's sins become step- 
ping-stones to higher things." All that I can say is that 
there is nothing to warrant such. a surprising statement 
in any of the books on Holiness which it has been my priv- 
ilege to read. I do not think it is right to make the &!• 
tire Movement responsible for the utterances of certain 
individuals, unless it can be proved (as it cannot) that 
the leaders of the Movement, as a whole, indorse these par- 
ticular views. 

P. 89 (January, 1919), Dr. Warfield is much concerned 
about what he calls " Perfectionism," and he maintains that 
every advocate of the Holiness Movement teaches perfec- 
tionism in some form ; " the immediate attainment of sanc- 
tiflcation and perfectionism are convertible terms." Let 
na not be afraid to face this qnestion of perfectionism anu 
inquire what it really means. On this point I cannot do 
better than quote from an address at Keswick, delivered 


1919] The Victorious Life 283 

last year by the Rev. W. Y. Pnllerton, one of the Secre- 
taries of the English Baptist Missionary Society: — 

" The first thing is, that ' Keswick * stands for perfec- 
tionism. I have heard that scores of times, and so have 
you — and it does. But it does not stand for the sort of 
perfectionism that the critic has in his mind. The word per- 
fect IB a maligned word. There are two words in the Bible 
translated ' perfect,' but neither of them means sinless- 
ness. The one means equipment and adjustment, and the 
other full growth; and adjustment is in order to full 
growth. But that does not mean any sinless perfection 
in the flesh. That doctrine has nerer been taught at Kes- 
wick, and, please God, it never will be. Yet the blessing that 
comes to men and women, when fully adjusted to Jesus 
Christ, is so great and vital that it is not surprising that 
sometimes people are apt to think they have reached the 
end of their struggle with sin. But the Word of Ood does 
not teach us, and the message of ' Keswick ' is not, tbat 
we are not able to sin, but that we are able not to sin. 
Have you caught that? It is not that we are not able to 
sin, but it is that we are able not to sin, if we keep trnst- 
ing the power that is placed at our disposal." 

I am sorry to have to say it, but somehow or other many 
of the assertions made by Br. Warfleld concerning the 
Holiness Movement would not be recognized by most of 
the leading teachers. In addition to what has already been 
stated, Dr. Warfield actually makes oat a clergyman to 
mean that " nevertheless he falls whenever he wishes to 
and Christ does not keep him from doing so " (p. 59) . This 
is most unfair to the one who is thus quoted, for, so far as 
I cao see, there is nothing in the extract to warrant such 
a conclusion. Dr. Warfleld objects to the idea that when 
a man's trust fails Christ's keeping fails. But surely some 
place must be found in the believer's life for his own at- 
titude of faithfulness. And if a man fails to trust he is 
certainly liable thus far to fall, notwithstanding Christ's 
readiness and ability. It is, of course, the old question of 
^e relation of the Divine and the hmnan, and does not 
in any way involve eternal salvation, but only the keeping 
of the believer's life. It is, therefore, true to say tbat the 
Vol. LXXVl. No. 8»3. 2 


281 Bibliotheca Sacra [July> 

believer needs both Christ's keying and his own truating 
if he is to lire aright. 

There is mach more that could be said in regard to Dr. 
"Warfleld's strictures, especially the error, as it certainly 
is, of describing the Movement as involving " a fatally ex- 
ternalizing movement of thought " and " with it a ruinous 
underestimate of the baneful power of sin." In the l%ht 
of the chapter on Bin from Mr. Hopkins's book, it is diffi- 
cult to understand how such statemtoits could be made. It 
is manifestly incorrect to say that " nothing was recog- 
nized as sinning but deliberate sinning," and that " ignor- 
ance " or " inadvertence was made the matter of Holiness " 
(p. 81). It only needs to be said that such statements 
would be met by the most earnest and intense denial on 
the part of those who are moat closely associated with the 
Movement Nor is it easy to understand Dr. Warfleld'a 
contention that the " Movement natnrally fostered a thin 
religious Iif& The deep things are not for it" (p. 82). If 
he would go some time to tbe Keswick Convention, he 
would, I think, soon be disabnsed of this idea of " a thin 
religious life," for Keswick has proved again and again 
its association with " the deep thinga." 

I will only call attention to one more of Dr. Warfleld'a 
serious and, as I maintain, inaccurate contentions, when 
he speaks of a little book by Mr. McConkey as "Arminian." 
This is a book on the Holy Spirit, which has been described 
by Dr. R. E. Speer as the best he has ever read on the sub- 
ject, and many more feel the same and are deeply grateful 
to Mr. McConkey for what he has taught them on this great 
topic. Even Dr. Warfidd admits that " in spite of his 
fundamental Arminianlsm Mr. McConkey believes inT'er- 
severance." But it may be respectfully questioned whether 
Dr. Warfleld is not a little too apt to see Arminianiam and 
Pelagianism and free will (in the wrong sense) where they 
do not really exist. Truth has more sides than Dr. War- 
fleld'a articles would seem to indicate. 


1919] The Victoriotis Life 

I have now gone through the more important points on 
which, as it seems to me, Dr. Warfleld has either misTiD- 
derstood or else misstated the position of those whom he 
criticizes. It is now time to call attention to some of the 
general features connected with the Keswick Movement 
which comes under Dr. Warfield's severe condemnation. 
First of all, let me say that, while the modem Holiness 
Movement came to England very largely, if not almost en- 
tirely, through Mr. B. Pearsall Smith, yet it is inaccurate 
and unfair to charge aU the Holiness teachers with any er- 
rors or excesses which may seem to Dr. Warfield inexplica- 
bly bound up with Mr. Pearsall Smith's position. Some of 
ns know a little more than Dr. Warfield suggests, perhaps 
more than he actually knows, about the personal circum- 
stances connected with the early days of the Movement. 
There seems practically no doubt that the trouble was one 
of serious indiscretion rather than of definite wrong-doing. 
Bnt the fact that the leader was thus set aside, and that 
the Movement has gone on from strength to strength until 
the present day, ia to many of us a clear proof that it was 
not of man but of God. With r^ard to Mr. Pearsall 
Smith himself, it may perhaps be permissible to call at- 
tention to a letter which qaite recently appeared in the 
English paper, The Life of Faith : — 

" It was R. PearsaU Smith to whom, under Qod, so many 
owe a great deliverance from sin's dominion. Humanly 
speaking, but for him there would probably have been no 
Conventions, beginning with that at Oxford, extending to 
Brighton, and spreading all over the kingdom, of which 
the Conyentions at Keswick are best known, as they have 
a world-wide influence. I have lately been re-reading his 
book, ' Walk in the Light,' with mucb pleasure, and my 
feeling is that a new edition of this work should be brought 
out, as I think many would find help and profit therefrom. 
I quote a sentence from the Preface wbicb, I think, will 
prove how free Mr. Pearsall Smith really was from the 
errors attributed by some people to bim. ' Though we have 
not an absolute, unconditional sinleasneas, it is an incal- 
culable blessing and strength to the believer to have a 


286 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jul?) 

happ7 heart free from all kuovn sin; a heart bow able 
to accept the coDsciousnefis that ChriBt does indeed cleanse 
" from all " ain, and dwell In the pnrified temple of the 
being. To this faith brought us ; in this faith keeps us. A 
lapse of faith would restore oar old condition of cooscions 
inward evil and outward trespass' (p. 8). I well remem- 
ber one of his expressions, ' But the blood still cleanses, 
the bread from heaven still sustains, and the faith once 
delivered to the saints still gives victory.' I feel that many- 
thousands who have been definitely helped in the expe- 
rience of the grace of the Lord Jeans little know how mnch 
they owe to ' B. P. 8.' for the life more abundant that they 

This will show at least something of what many feel Id 
regard to indebtedness to Mr. Pearsall Smith. But leaving 
him entirely on one Fide, I should like to call attention to 
a book which Dr. Warfleld does not seem to know, though 
it i-epresents Keswick as perhaps no other volume does or 
can. It is called " The Keswick Convention : Its Message, 
Its Method, and Its Men." It was published several years 
ago and consists of about twenty chapters, contributed by 
various men of the Keswick platform ; and all who wish to 
know what the Movement means should give their careful 
attention to this book. It is only possible for me to call 
attention to some of those aspects of the Movement which 
are perhaps not well known on this side of the Atlantic. 

The fotmder of the Keswick Convention was Canon Hiir- 
ford-Batteraby, Vicar of St. John's Church, Keswick, Cum- 
berland, who received such a spiritual blessing from the 
Oxford Conference of 187'i that on his return home he 
started a Conference in his own parish which has devel- 
oped into the great world-wide Movement of to-day. Canon 
Harford-Battersby was a loyal Evangelical clergjrman be- 
fore he went to Oxford, and on his return home be was 
asked what he had learnt that was new at that gathering. 
He relied : " I learnt the difference between a struggling 
and a resting faith." 

It has been my privilege to meet at Keswick quite a 
number of Scottish Presbyterians, lihe Dr. Elder Cum- 
ming of Glasgow, Dr. John Smith and Dr. George Wilson 


1919] The Victorious Life 287 

of Edinbargh, and several more. Nothing in its way ig 
more impreesive than the experience of these Scottish 
brethren who, with their strong, intellectual, Calvinistic 
Presbyterianisro, found in the Keswick teaching jnst that 
element of spiritual glow and experience which gave force 
and freshness to their rich 'theological equipment. Those 
who knew some of these men beiore going to Keswick, and 
their life and ministry afterwards, will bear testimony to 
the reality of the change; and, as Dr. Warfleld knows, they 
were aboot as far removed from what he would call Ap- 
minianism as anyone could be. 

On one occasion Dr. Horatins Bonar was prevailed upon 
to listen to an address on Christian Holiness from the Bev. 
Evan Hopkins, to whom reference has already been made. 
It wa» known that Dr. Bonar was strongly opposed to the 
Keswick view, and after the address be said to Mr. Hop- 
kins : " I agree with all that you have said, but it is lop- 
sided truth ; what is wanted is all-round truth." To which 
Mr. Hopkins replied : " This is true, because we have to 
do with lop-sided Christians, but, when we have got them 
back into the centre, we give them all-round truth." 

Only last year a missionary from Africa, on his first 
risit to the Convention, gave this impression: — 

"Keswick makes no claims to be an end in itself; it is 
only the means by which men are helped into closer touch 
with the mighty power of God, and encouraged to claim 
that power for every need of the soul. It is the idea of 
Christ trusted fully — yea, more, used fully — that day by 
day we may be more than conquerors through Him tliat 
loved us. It is the teaching of the surrendered life, sur- 
rendered to Christ in order that Christ may empower it 
and use it more fully and fruitfully in His service; it is 
the teaching of efficiency in the higbest sense, and for the 
highest ends." 

This is how Mr! Hopkins puts the truth which is taught 
at Kesvrick: — 

" First, we would say we believe it is the distinct tes- 
timony of the Scripture that we can never in this life say 
we have no sin. 


286 Bibliotheca Sacra 

" We accept those words of 1 John i. 8 as referring to 
belierers, to Christians even in the highest stages of the 
Divine life. The Apostle, we believe, included himself in 
that statement: ' If we say we have no sin we deceive our- 

"And jet, while this is true, the Scripture teaches with 
equal clearness that we may 'walk with a conscience void 
of offence. We may know, and ought to know, what it is 
to be ' cleansed from all unrighteousness.' We may, and 
ought to be living, in the realization of that condition 
which onr Lord intended when He pronounced that Beati- 
tude, ' Blessed are the pure iu heart ; for they shall see 
God.' " 

In order to make this as clear as possible, I must again 
use Mr. Hopkins, who, in one of bis booklets, has the fol- 
lowing : — 

" Does anyone ask, ' What have you lately received 
which you did not possess before?' I answer, as to my 
standing in Christ nothing; as to doctrine nothing. But 
I have been made to see that Christ can as fully meet my 
need as to walk as He has as to standiug; that He is as 
truly my Sanctification as He is my Bighteousness." 

Another testimony to Keswick has just apeared in an 
English paper from Dr. A. T. Schofleld, a well-known Lon- 
don Doctor, who belongs to the " Brethren " : — 

"A want of balance in the spiritual mind is not unfre- 
qnently the result of a want of balance of truth or of dis- 
torted or one-sided views. Another point may be noted, 
and that is that the higher the spiritual life the more 
closely should its essential sanity and reasonableness be 
safeguarded. Otherwise, we get tiie disastrous product of 
cranks and faddists instead of spiritual Christians. Kes- 
wick, as a leading school of higher spiritual life, most for- 
tunately is keenly alive to this. Their teaching is twofold, 
and the second half preserves Christian sanity. 'First of 
all,' they say, ' we have to make natural men into spiritual; 
and then spiritual men into natural.' It is thus the bal- 
ance is maintained. No one can carefully read St. Paul's 
Epistles without being immensely struck with the Apos- 
tle's anxiety and care to maintain spiritual health in this 




What is tbe fundameDtal difference between a premil- 
lenariau and a poatmiUenariaii ? 

1. It is not that tliere is to be a second advent. Both 
premUlenarians and postmillenariana believe in a second 
advent. We differ as to tlie pnrpose of that advent, bat 
not as to the fact of it. 

2. It is not that we are to be watchfal for our Lord's 
coming. Both believe that we should be. We differ as to 
tbe meaning of watching, bnt not as to the fact of it. 

3. It is not as to whether Christ wUl have a kiogdom, 
and that the saints will share with Him in that reign. We 
both believe that. We differ as to the nature of that king- 
dom, but not as to the fact of it. 

4. It is not even that the saints are to reign with Christ 
on this earth. Many people believe that heaven is to be 
on this earth after it is rejuvenated, redeemed, and glori- 
fied, who hold nothing in common with premillenarians. 
Thousands have believed this, and thousands still believe 
this who are not premiUenarians. 

5. It is not that there is to be a period at the end 
of this world when righteousness will be absolutely tri- 
umphant Neither premillenarians nor postmillenarians 
believe this. A premillenarian believes that, even after 
Christ reigns a thousand years upon this earth, there 
will still be much evil in the world for Satan to work 
on when he is loosed by Christ, and that there will follow 
the awful period of the final apostasy. A pOBtmillenarian 
believes that the world will be Christianized by the influ- 
ences of the gospel before, the Second Advent; but that 
there will still be much evil in the world to be separated 
from the good when Christ comes. A premillenarian does 


290 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

Dot know how fnlly the world will be Christianised by the 
personal reign of Christ, although he has aU those hun- 
dreds of texts of Scripture which foretell the golden age. 
A postmUleuarian does not know how fully the world will 
be Christianized by the teaching of the gospel, althoogb 
he has all those same hundreds of texts of Scripture which 
foretell the golden age. 

6. It is not as to whether there will be one resurrection 
or two resurrections a thousand years apart, although this 
Is an important difference between the two schools of 
thought. Premilienarians base their belief In two resur- 
rections on one Scripture text, and that text found in the 
most symbolical book in the Bible, and in the most sym- 
bolical section of tbe l>ook. PostmiUenarians base their 
belief in one resurrection on scores of plain texts in all 
of which tbe resurrections of both the righteous and the 
wicked are represented as occurring at the end of the 
world and at one and the same time. 


There are two fundamental differences between premil- 
lenarianism and postmillenarianism. The one is as to the 
nature of that kingdom, whether it is carnal or whetber it 
is spiritual ; and the other is as to the power and purpose 
of the gospel in connection with that kingdom. 

1. Premilienarians believe that Christ is coming back 
to this earth to set up the old Jewish kingdom and to rule 
over it. Jerusalem is to be the capital of the world. The 
Jews are to be the foremost people in the world ; all other 
Christians are to be simply adopted citizens, and to oc- 
cupy a lower place than the Jews. The Jewish nation will 
have a priestly function not accorded to other Christian 
people; they will be the Lord's special agents in the 
evangelization of the world; they will have a preeminent 
work to do over and above the ordinary citizen ; and this 
preeminence will continue through the thousand years 
which they believe Christ will reign on the Jewish throne ; 
and the Jewish convert will hold a higher place in privi- 


1919] Pre- and Poat-mUlenariant 291 

le^ and service than the privilege and service of the 
American or European Christian who is not a descendant 
of Abraham. They believe that in this carnal Jewish state 
the old Jewish worship will be established and maintained 
under the direction of Christ the reigning king. 

In "The Prophetic Stndies of the International Pro- 
phetic Conference held in Chicago in 1886," the late Dr. 
Nathaniel West said, as recorded on pages 122 and 123: 
"First, middle, and last, 'salvation is of the Jews,' emi- 
nent in each epoch-making node of evolution in the king- 
dom of God, . . .They alone of aU nations are charged with 
this mission to the world." 

In the Premillennial Prophetic Conference held in 
Chicago in 1914, Rev. A. C. Oaebelein said, as found on 
page 187 of "The Coming and Kingdom of Christ": "All 
nations are yet to know the glory of the Lord, bnt 
world-conversion is possible only after Israel is converted. 
Through Israel all nations of the earth will be blessed." 
On page 195 he says: " There is no such thing at this pres- 
ent time as saving the masses or converting the world. The 
masses will be saved and the world converted through the 
preaching of the Jews." 

The Bev. Dr. I. M. Haldeman, a prominent writer on 
the premillennial side, says in bis book *' The Coming of 
Christ": "To them [Premillenarians] the Jews and the 
Gentiles are as far apart in the dealings of Ood and the 
blessings which sball come to each from Bim, as the throne 
of God is distant from His footstool" (p. 14). 

Poatmillenarians believe that wben Christ came the first 
time He did away with all differences between Jews and 
Gentiles. They believe that Paul was representing his 
Lord when he said : " There can be neither Jew nor Greek 
. . . for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are 
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to 

That premillenarians believe that in this Jewish state 
the old Jewish sacrifices (the burnt offeringH. peace offer- 
ings, sin offerings, etc.) will be re^tablished, and the old 


292 BUliotheca Sacra [Jiilyr 

Jewish feasts (the Passover, the Feast of Weeks, etc.), 
there can be no question. It seems scarcely believable that 
good Christian men and women will accept and hold to a 
^stem of interpretation that compels them to believe that 
the Gharch, under Christ's own leadership, will go back 
to what Paul calls the carnal ordinances of the Old Tes- 
tament dispensation ; but so it is. They base these views 
on their interpretation of such passages as Ezek. xliii.- 
xlv. and other prophecies. The Bev. Dr. G. Campbell Mor- 
gan, in his book " Ood's Metbod witb Man," has a chart in 
which he represents the sacrifices of the Old Testament 
by a red line. At the point in his chart where he repre- 
sents Christ as coming for the resurrection of the saints, 
he makes this red line reappear, and extend tbrough a pe- 
riod of a thousand years, during which be believes that 
Christ will reign on a literal throne in Jerusalem; yes, 
and to extend through both the rapture period and tbe 
final apostasy period. Dr. Uorgan then explains that this 
red line represeots the sacrifices. 

Qeorge Dickison, In his book " The Second Advent '* 
(1913), says: "Another striking feature of the miUennium, 
looked at from the point of view of this Christian dispen- 
sation, will be that of a sacrificial service and priesthood, 
which is to be established, such as was in Israelitish times. 
. . . The sacrificial system which will have to be observed 
during the millenninm (see Ezek. xlvi. 4, 15, 20) > in a mea- 
sure may take the place of the Lord's Supper as it is ob- 
served in the present dispensation" (p. 153). 

The Rev. W. B, Eiley, D.D., who read two papers be- 
fore the PremUIennial Conference held in Chicago in 1914, 
in his book " The Evolution of the Kingdom," argues for 
the reSstabliahmeot of the sacrifices. He says: "Might it 
not be, that witb the symbolic ordinances of the Old Tes- 
tament, reinstituted in the mUlennium, the Jews themselvea 
would be put in a place of peculiar power, as evangelists, 
in presenting the perfect fulfilment of tbe Old Testament 
to be found in Christ in the New? Is truth any the less 
^iritnal when it becomes incarnate?" (p. 48). 


1919] Pre- and Post-millenariant 293 

David D. Butledge, in his 800-page book, " Christ, Anti- 
christ, and BiUlenniuin," says : " We therefore infer that 
when the Jews return to Palestine and the Lord Jesus shall 
sit on the throne of David, there is no reason, as far as 
Christianity is concerned, why some at least of the more 
important Jewish feasts should not be continued. We have 
seen that the rite of circumcision certainly will be con- 
tinaed. This view receives its confirmation from the book 
of Ezekiel. ... In the forty-third chapter we have the ded- 
ication of the attar, after which memorial offerings and 
peace-offeringa shall be continued. ... In the forty-fifth 
chapter we find the passover will be continued as one of 
the feasts of the millennial period," etc. 

Such quotations could be continued. No premillenarian 
who has ever written on this point has denied that the 
refistablishment of the Old Testament sacrifices is logi- 
cally and sarely bound up with premillennial interpretation 
of prophecy. Last August <ldl8), at a Prophetic Confer- 
ence at Lake Winona, in which both sides of the millen- 
nial question were discussed for eight days, and at which 
the author of tbis paper made five addresses, Dr. James M. 
Gray, of the Moody Bible Institute, said, in answer to a 
written question, that " some of these sacrifices would be 
offered by the returned Jews, and some of them by other 
members of the kingdom during the millennium, as a kind 
of memorial." 

This is one of the fundamental differences between the 
two schools of thought. Few premillennialists ever speak 
of this phase of the question in public. They seem to be 
ashamed to own it as a part of their belief, but every 
well-informed premillenarian knows that it is bound op 
with tbeir system of interpretation of prophecy, and every 
writer who has been frank enough to discuss the point has 
declared it to be a logical part of his belief. I challenge 
any one to quote a single premillennial book-writer who 
has ever denied that it is a pari of the system. 

This point emphasizes the fact of the temporal and cai^ 
nal character of the millennia! kingdom. It is a Judaistic 


291 Bibliotheca Sacra [J<ily» 

kingdom. The Jews are to be to the front; it U the old 
Jewish kingdom that is to be set up, and the old Jewish 
eacriflces and Jewish feasts that are to prevail. As op- 
posed to this carnal view, postmillenarians believe in a 
spiritual kingdom, with Christ reigning in the hearts and 
lives of His people. This is an important difference be- 
tween premillenariana and postmillenarians : it is one of 
the two fundamental differences. 

2. Premillenarians and postmillenarians differ widely 
in their conception of the power of the gosp^ and the pur- 
pose of Ood in this dispensation. Premillenarians do not 
believe that the world will be converted by the preaching 
of the gospel. They hold that nothing but Christ's per- 
sonal presence as a reigning king in Jerusalem will save 
the world. In their view, the gospel as a world-saver is 
a failure. Even though the Holy Spirit is here to help 
on the gospel in its saving work, yet but little progress will 
be made towards saving the world. They think that the 
Church as a whole, instead of advancing, is retrograding, 
and will continue to retrograde until Christ comes again 
to stop the downward trend. Notwithstanding the preach- 
ing of thousands of clergymen and the work of millions 
of Christiana, the Church is getting worse and worse. Not- 
withstanding all the uplifting influences of Christianity, 
the world is actually going back instead of forward. 


Rev. Dr. A. J. Frost, one of the speakers at the Chicago 
Convention of 1886, used this language: — 

" Premillenarians maintain that the church and the 
world are destined to grow morally worse until the end 
of the age. . . . [We] as firmly believe that this dispensa- 
tion will end in diabolical wickedness and well-nigh uni- 
versal apostasy amid the crash of Apocalyptic thunder and 
the unparalleled judgments of God. . - . We shall endeavor 
to show that the sacred writers in the Old and New Tes- 
tament scriptures foretold this state of moral declension 
and religious apostasy. With unerring wisdom through 
divine inspirations they predicted that this dispensation, 


1919] Pre- and Post-millenariang 295 

like all that .had preceded it, would close in utter failure 
of men's hopes to redeem the world b; the preaching of 
the gospel. ... If then the condition of the church and the 
world at the close of this dispensation is to be that of well- 
nigh univerBal apostasy and judgment, does it not follow 
that the nominal church and the world are certain to grow 
worse and worse? . . . Does an; one believe that more than 
one-half the protestant members have even been bom of 
God ? ... If Christ is not to return till this world is con- 
verted by the preaching of the gospel He will never return 
until eternal ages toU away. . . . This dispensation is des- 
tined to grow worse and worse. . . . What is the moral con- 
dition of the church and the world to-day? We believe it 
to be growing worse and worse." 

In that great convention of premillenarians there was 
not one who challenged these statements. 

The Rev. Dr. Haldeman, in his book " The Coming of 
Christ," used these words: "The Postmilleunialist looks 
upon this hour as the time of victory for God. The Pre- 
mUlennialist looks upon it as the hour in which the dark- 
ness in man and the evU in Satan are holding high car- 
nival" (p. 13). "They [Premillenarians] do not expect 
the world to be converted by the gospel, and peace brought 
in through its instrumentality; on the contrary, they expect 
rather that the world will grow more and mora indifferent 
to that gospel ; that iniquity wiU abound, lawlessness pre- 
vail, and that so far from beating swords into plough- 
shares, the nations will tnm the ploughshares into swords; 
. . . that the professing Church will grow more and more 
corrupt in doctrine and worldly practice, until the Son of 
God, rejecting it as His witness on the earth, shall spew 
it from His mouth" (p. 3). 

Dr. UoTgan says : " I sigh for the coming of the angela. 
I feel increasingly that the government of men is a disas- 
trous failure, and will be to the end." 

The Bev. Dr. George S. Bishop, at the Chicago Confer- 
ence in 1886, said : " The Scriptures declare that the world, 
the natural order around us, moves on a descending scale, 
grows worse and worse. . . . Outwardly things may seem to 
improve. Foolish men and even ministers, foolish in this,. 


296 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jul;, 

however they may laugh at oar wisdom Id other depart- 
ments, may talk of progreasive perfeotioo. . . . The world 
is growing worse and worse. All the while Tubal Cain 
was hammering out his new machinery, and Jubal was 
building his big organs, the world was growing worse and 
worse, and preparing for the deluge, and so it is now. Na- 
ture grows worse and worse. The natural man grows 
worse and worse. . . . Deterioration is the rule of the times 
of the Oentiles." 

In speaking of the march of the church of Jesus Christ 
toward the millennium, Dr. Riley said: "The music of 
that march has in it a minor k^; it sonnds more like a 
fnneral dirge than a victorious blast" (p. 44). 

Dr. Morgan, in one of his latest books, " Sunrise," has 
these words : " There is a wide-spread opinion that the 
.work of the Charch is the conversion of the world. . . . Now, 
as a matter of fact, there is not a single command of Jesus 
which warrants us in believing that the responsibility of 
the Church is the conversion of the world. The Church is 
called to the work of evangelizing the world ; but not by a 
single parable of Jesus, nor by one sentence in His teach- 
ing, did He ever give us to understand that, as a result of 
the Chnrch's mission, the world would be saved" (p. 33). 
Note the difference Dr. Moi^n makes between converting 
the world and evangelizing it. 

Rev. Dr. E. M. Milligan, in his pamphlet "A Statement 
of Premillenarian Beliefs" (1917), says; "During this 
age, then, God's plan is not the conversion of the world, 
bot rather its evangelization through the efforts of those 
who are willing to be His witnesses and to endure hard- 
ness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ." Note the fact that 
Dr. Milligan makes a positive difference between evangel- 
izing the world and converting it. Again, he says : " Be- 
fore the end [of this age] cotnes, the gospel of the kingdom 
shall be preached in all the world, not with any expecta- 
tion of converting the nations, but rather as a witness 
onto them so that they shall be left without excuse " 
(p. 13). 


1919] Pre- and Poat-millenariana 297 

A premillenarian sends missionariee, not with any ex- 
pectation of converting many of the heathen, but so ttiat 
they may be left without excuBe. Dr. Miliigan Bays : " The 
Spirit's mission is not to convert the world, but rather to 
convict the world of sin and righteonaness and of judg- 
ment to come" (p. 24). 

The late beloved Rev. Dr. S. H. Kellogg made an ad- 
dress in the great New York Premillennial Conference 
on the subject "Christ's Coming: Is it Pre-millennial?" 
In commenting on Matt. zxiv. 14, he said : " ' This Qospel 
of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world,' not for 
its conversion. Why did the Lord not say so if that were 
indeed the object? — but, 'for a witness unto all nations, 
and then' — without waiting for a general conversion of 
the nations — ' then shall the end come.' All nations must 
hear, and then shall the end come. To sum up the ar- 
gument, we may safely say that in the whole Bible among 
the formal statements of the object of the preaching of the 
Gospel by Christ's ministers, there is not a single one which 
states that object to be the conversion of the world to 
God." Is not that a strange statement for a speaker to 
make in a great conference of Bible students? and is it 
not strange that, ho far as the records state, there was not 
one premillenarian present who took exception to the state- 
ment? They all seem to want to forget Matt, xxviii. 18 
and 20 : *' Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all na- 
tions, and baptize them," etc. 


Over against this minimizing of the power of the gospel, 
postmillenarians believe that the world will be saved by 
the preaching of the gospel and the uplifting influences of 
Christianity; that the Church and the world are by these 
influences getting better and better; and that under these 
influences they will continue to get better until the end. 
They believe that it is Christ's plan to save the world 
through the influence of the gospel. Here is the plan as 
He laid it down. He made atonement by His suffering and 


298 BibUotkeca, Sacra [Jaly» 

death; He ascended to heaven and took a seat at Ood'g 
right band ; from His throne in heaven He directs the work 
of the church here on earth, but always in harmony with 
man's freedom to respond or to refuse. First of all, He 
sends His ministers -with the gospel message; He sends 
the Holy Spirit in converting and assisting power to the 
Church and its members ; He Himself by His Spirit comes 
and dwells in His followers. Through the gospel and these 
powerful tnfliienrftH He planned to save the world. 

cheist'b plan 

Now what ia there to indicate that this is Christ's plan ? 
First, He said : " It is expedient for you that 1 go away ; 
for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; 
but if I go, I will send him unto you" (John xvi. 7). Did 
not Christ say that this was the better plan for them? Sec- 
ondly, He said that He would send the Holy Spirit to help 
them; and Pentecost was a demonstration that He was, 
and is, keeping His promisa Thirdly, after His crucifizion 
and resurrection He gave some final directions to his 
followers as to the work of His church. What were these 
directions? Th^ are contained in His great commission ; — 

"All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and 
on earth. Qo ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the 
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and 
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I 
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world " (Matt. 
ixviii. 18-20). 

Notice what He says in this commission : — 

1. " Go . . . and make disciples of all the nations." This 
is no mere " evangelizing," as premiUenarians use that 
term ; it is making disciples of them ; for He immediately 
adds " baptizing them into the name of Father and. of the 
Son and of the Holy Spirit." Did Christ or the apostles 
ever give direction to baptize any one until he gave evi- 
dence of conversion by the acceptance of Jesus as his Lord? 
Well, then, if the apostles were directed to baptize these 


1919] Pre- and Poat-mUlenarians 299 

people of all nations, He surely had in mind that they vere 
to be converted; they were really to accept Jesus as their 
Lord, and then to be baptized. Is there any defect in this 

2, Furthermore, after having been received into the 
church by baptism, they were to be instructed, " teaching 
tbem to observe all things whatsoever I commanded yon." 
Is not that the program of the Christian church? Preach 
the gospel, and when the people are converted receive them 
into the church by baptism, and then instruct them fnlly 
as to the doctrines of the Scriptures? 

3. The gospel was the means they were to use; they 
were to preach Jesus. 

i. He promised to be with His disciples in this work 
of converting, baptizing, and instmcting, even until the 
end of the world. "And lo, I am with you alway, even 
onto the end of the world." That is a great program : go 
and make Christians, and baptize them, and instruct them, 
and do it in the assurance tliat I am with you in the whole 
program. How could the work ultimately fail when their 
Lord had commanded them to do it, and when Christ by 
His own promise is to be with them? 

5. Lest there be doubting Thomases among them. He 
prefaced all this by a statement that should settie every 
doubt: "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven 
and on earth." T^otice the significance of that statement 
in connection with this commission for world-conversion. 
All authority " in heaven " is His. What more could He 
have than that as far as heaven is concerned? All power 
" on earth " is His. What more could He have in that 
line? Christ during this dispensation has all power both 
in heaven and on earth. If this be so, and it is, then 
there will never be a time when He will have more 
power than He has now either in heaven or on earth. This 
present dispensation is the dispensation of Christ. He 
has all power both in heaven and on earth (or this dis- 
p^isation. This is not the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, 
as some say: it is the dispensation of Christ. The Holy 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 808. 8 


300 Bibliotheca Sacra [Julyt 

Spirit never testifies of Himself, but always of Christ. This 
is our Lord's own testimony as to the mission of the Holy 
Spirit: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will 
send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of tmtb, 
which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness 
of me" {John xv. 26). The Holy Spirit does not come of 
Himself: He is sent by Christ; He is the Lord's agent. 

Paul, in all his teaching concerning the power of Christ, 
referred to his power as the power of the indwelling Christ. 
" My little children, of whom I am again in travail until 
Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv. 19). That is strong 
language; it is the figure of the unborn babe. As the babe 
is formed in the mother, and is vitally a part of herself; so 
Christ is to be formed in us, a very part of ourselves. Do 
we catch the fullness of this promise of Christ's presence 
with His church as she goes forth on her commission? " Lo, 
I am with you." Not as one beside us, but as an indwelling 
personality is Christ Jesns to be with His people in their 
worli. He is an indwelling, vitalizing, and quickening 
power within us, a very living power. That is what He 
promises to the Church. And the promise here corre- 
sponds to the command. The Lord would surely not en- 
courage His followers to fulfill His command to disciple 
all nations, by promising to be continuously ("all the 
days"), with them while time lasts ("even note the enc! 
of the world "), unless the process of discipling the nations 
here commanded was itself to continue unbrokenly to this 
end; and unless He expected its accomplishment. 

Premillenarians try to belittle the meaning of this text. 
First, they say : To make disciples of all nations does not 
mean that we are to make Christians of them : that it 
means simply to preach the gospel everywhere so as to 
give all the people a chance to be saved. The Rev. Dr. B. 
M. Russell, of the Moody Bible Institute, says: "The 
church is not charged with the responsibility for convert- 
ing the world, but must evangelize the world " (The King- 
dom View of the KDospel, p. 10). They simply mean that the 
gospel is to be preached everywhere, so that if the people 


1919] Pre- and Post-millenariana 301 

want to heap it they can. When a premUlaiariaii talks 
about "evangelizing the world," he does not mean the 
Christianizing of it Is this the full meaning of our Lord'B 
great commission? He did not say "evangelize" them, 
but " disciple " them, and then baptize them, and then in- 
struct them. Does not that indicate a continuous and per- 
sistent work for all the nations till the work is reaUy done, 
until the people are Christianized? Though the divine 
commands are not always the measure of human success, 
there are here strong indications that the stupendous work 
of discipling the world enjoined by Christ on His disciples 
was intended by Him to be accomplished. 

(a) Christ did not commission His church to preach 
the gospel as a witness sitnply; but to make disciples of 
the people, and to baptize them into the membership of the 
church, (b) In issuing this commission Christ gave no 
intimation that the effort to convert the world would be 
failure. The commission was to disciple the world, (c) In 
order to inspire confidence He pointed out the source of 
their success, — His presence and His all-power. The 
apostles would surely understand this as a commission to 
do things: they were to make disciples; they were to bap- 
tize; they were to Instruct. They were to get results in 
the way of conversions and instructed Christians. This is a 
tremendously big commission. But our premillennial breth- 
ren would take the heart out of it by saying that it does 
not mean so much as this; that it does not mean results: 
that it means only that we are to preach the gospel every- 
where, that aU may have a chance to hear and be saved. 
They make very little of this great commission. They al- 
most never quote it. They prefer to take that other text 
which says: " This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached 
in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; 
and then shall the end come" (Matt. ixiv. 14). They as- 
sume that the testimony will be imavailing. They inter- 
pret this text as if nothing more could be asked of us but 
to bear an unavailing testimony to Christ before all na- 
tions. Instead of interpreting this text by that much more 


302 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

specific and clearly meaDlngful text, the Lord's great com- 
mission, they read out of the Lord's commission all that 
specific information and obligation that is not in this more 
meager and less meaningfnl text. They interpret the 
longer, fuller, and more specific text by the shorter and 
less specific text, instead of interpreting the shorter and 
less clear text by the longer, fuller, and more specific text 
on tbe same subject. Is that a correct principle of inter- 
pretation? In any other instance they themselves would 
admit that it is not. It seems that they adopt it here be- 
cause this is the only way of getting rid of this great com- 
mission of our Lord, this text which bo interferes witb 
their theory. 

A few of them, in order to get rid of the teaching of this 
troublesome text, would have us believe that what Christ 
meant was not that all the people were to be converted, 
but that a few of them were to be called out from aU na- 
tions. In an address delivered before a Young People's 
Presbyterial Convention, the man who led in the calling 
of the 1914 Premillennial Conference in Chicago said; 
" Sometimes it is said that to evangelize the world means 
to Christianize the world. But that is not the teaching 
of the Bible. That text, ' Go ye and make disciples of all 
nations,' does not mean to Christianize all people. It means 
to make disciples from among all nations." He translated 
as if the Greek preposition eft were there; when, as a mat- 
ter of fact, it was not. "All nations " is the direct object 
of the verb; go, disciple all nations. 

Then, still further in their attempt to get rid of this 
troublesome text, they insist that " to the end of the 
world" does not mean that; but that it means "to the 
end of the age." Of this they never convince any but them- 
selves. Both the American Revised Bible and the English 
Revised Bible translate it " to the end of the world." Then, 
too, our Lord's own use of the phrase elsewhere, makes 
this translation certain. He employs the phrase in two 
other places, — in connection with the parable of the tares, 
and of the drawnet: — 


1919] Pre- and Poat-millenarians 303 

" And the enemy that sowed them is the devil : and the 
harvest is the end of the world ; and the reapers are angels. 
As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with 
fire; bo shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of 
man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out 
of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and th^n 
that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of 
fire : there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the king- 
dom of their Father" (Matt. xUi. 39-43). 

"The harvest is the end of the world"; and Jesus ex- 
plains this to mean that, as the tares are gathered up and 
burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world; the 
wicked shall be gathered up and cast into the fire. This 
cannot be the premiU^iarians' " end of the age " ; because 
the wicked, according to their own theory, are not gath- 
ered out and cast into the abyss till more than a thousand 
years after the end of their " age." This casting out of the 
wicked does not come until the end of the world, even ac- 
cording to their theory. The phrase here " the end of the 
world " is the very same as is used in Christ's great com- 
mission. He uses the same phrase in the parable of the 
drawnet : — 

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that 
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind : which, 
when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and they 
sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but the bad 
they cast away. So shall it be in the end of the world: 
the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from 
among the righteous, and shall cast them into the furnace 
of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of 
teeth" (Matt. xiii. 47-50). 

The phrase is used again by the disciples of our Lord 
when they inquired of Him : " What shall be the sign of 
thy coming, and of the end of the world? " (Matt. xxiv. 3.) 
Here the second coming of our Lord and the end of the 
world are treated as a single event. Even Alford, one of 
their own writers, explains " the end of the world " to 
mean " the completion of the state of time " after which 


304 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jvlj, 

" time shall be do more." 80 long as time eadures, so long 
this commisBion of our Lord to the Church to disciple all 
nations by baptism and instruction continnes in force. 

PremlUenarians and postmlUenarians diETer most rad- 
ically as to the power of the gospel and the purpose of Ood 
in this dispensation. The one believes the gospel to be a 
failure as far as the ChriBtianizing of the world is con- 
cerned. The other believes that the gospel is God's ap- 
pointed means for converting the world and for the gen- 
eral uplift of society. The one believes that the Church 
and the world are growing worse and worse under the 
preaching of the gospel. The other believes that the gospel 
is the power of Ood, and that the world is being gradually 
bnt effectively saved by the preaching and the uplifting 
influence of the gospel, and that eventually, substantially 
the whole world will be brought to bow at the foot of the 


As a result of these different conceptions of the power 
of the gospel and the purpose of Ood in this dispensation, 
premilleDarians and postmillenarians have before them 
different objects in foreign missions. 

Premillenarians and postmillenarians both believe in 
foreign missions ; but they believe in foreign missions from 
different standpoints. Pr^nillenarians do not believe that 
any lai^ nnmber of the heathen will be converted by 
the missionary efforts. From their viewpoint the world 
and the Church are growing worse and worse, and will 
continue to grow worse until Christ comes to Jerusalem 
and sets things right. With such a conception of the course 
of things they cannot hold that the heathen will in any 
lat^ numbers be saved by the efforts of the missionaries. 
Why then do they believe in sending missionaries? for they 
are active in missionary zeal. They seize on the word 
" testimony " in the passage, "And this gospel of the king- 
dom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony 
onto all the nations, and then shall the end come." They 


1919] Pre- and Poat-millenariant 305 

claim that the gospel is to be preached as a " witness " to 
the uatiOHB, and that this must be done before Christ can 
come again. So in order to hasten the coming of our Lord 
they believe in sending missionaries to all the people. They 
do not expect that the heathen in any large numbers vill 
respond; but all must have a chance to hear the gospel; 
so that, if they do not accept Christ, the fault will be their 

Premillenarians in their preaching and writings never 
lay stress on the great gospel commission, " Go ye and 
make disciples of all the nations." They put the emphasis 
on preaching the gospel as a " testimony," and they use 
the word as a testimony against, and not a testimony for; 
they assume that it will be an unavailing testimony. In 
their view the gospel is to be preached as a testimony prac- 
tically for condemnation; whereas Christ, in His great 
commission, put the emphasis on preaching the gospel for 
discipleship. " Disciple all the nations " is Christ's put- 
ting of it. 

Does any one think we are not fair ou this point? Here 
is a quotatioQ from the ofBcial reeolntions adopted by the 
International Prophetic Conference of PremiUenariaos 
held in Chicago, 1886:— 

" Besolution 4. The Scriptures nowhere teach that the 
whole world will be converted to God, and that there will 
be a reign of universal righteousness and peace before the 
return of the blessed Lord," etc. 

" Resolution 5. The duty of the church during the ab- 
sence of the bridegroom is to watch and pray, to work and 
wait, to go into all the world and preach the gospel to 
every creature, and thus to hasten the coming of God." 

These same resolutions were adopted by the Great Inter- 
national Prophetic Conference of Premillenarians held in 
New York City eight years earlier. The reader will note 
that these Conferences, composed as they were of the lead- 
ing premillenarians of America, and some even from En- 
rope, declare, not that the purpose of sending missionaries 
is the conversion of the heathen, but " to hasten the com- 


306 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jul;, 

ing of Ood." That ia the offlcial expression of their pur- 
pose in sending missionaries — " to hasten the coming of 
God." This, too, ia just what they all hold to-day. 

The Bev. Dr. L. W. Manhall says : But some inquire, do 
not the Scriptures teach that the world will be converted ? 
I answer, not by a single word. . . . The Word of God does 
not teach that the world will be converted. It teaches most 
emphatically that it will not be. . . . The Word nowhere by 
a single sentence, intimates that the world is to be con- 
verted " (The Coming One, p. 25). 

The Rev. B. Y. Miller says: "Israel is now like a local 
train, placed on a side track, in order to let the church, a 
through train, pass by taking on only a few passengers, 
then Israel will be switched back on the main line, stop- 
ping everywhere and taking np the world" (p. 25). His 
idea plainly is that the Ghnrch to-day is not in the busi- 
ness of saving the world, but is taking on only a few pas- 
sengers j while in the millennium, after Israel has returned 
to Palestine and has been pat in charge under the direct 
leadership of Christ, then the Church will take np the seri- 
ous work of saving the world. 

Dr. Morgan uses these words of the Church's work: 
" The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they 
shall gather out of His kingdom all that cause stumbling, 
everything that offends. This is my hope to-day. Oh, my 
hope is not in any missionary society in existence, nor in 
any evangelistic society in existence. I pray that they may 
do their duty, and preach the gospel, and hasten the com- 
ing day; but my hope is in flaming seraphs; my heart 
cries out for their coming." Dr. Uorgan wants the gos- 
pel preached to the ends of the earth, not with any expec- 
tation that many will be converted ; he does not think this 
to be the mission of the Church; the saving of the world 
will not come about till the flaming seraphs come to gather 
the people in. 

The Rev. Dr. B. A. Torrey, dean of the Bible Institute 
of Lob Angeles, California, said in his book " The Betum 
of the Lord Jesus" (1914): "The purpose of preaching 


1919] Pre- and Poat-mUlenariana 307 

the gospel of grace in this diapensation is not the toinning 
of the whole world for Christ but the gathering out of the 
world a people for Bis name. Man; people in these days 
raise the watch cry, 'America for Christ,' but those who 
know their Bibles know that we shall not see 'America for 
Christ,' nor the whole world ' for Christ ' in the presoit 
dispensation. The Qospel of grace has not failed — it is 
accomplishing just what Ood intended it should accom- 
plish, gathering out a people for His name, the church, the 
bride of Christ" (p. 120). 

It la worth while to note some things about Dr. Torrey's 
statement ; — 

1. God never intended that the preaching of the gospel 
during this dispensation should convert the whole world nor 
any large part of it. It is hard to understand how Dr. Tor- 
rey could reconcile that statement with Christ's great com- 
mission, " Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the 
aations, baptizing them," and " teaching them." 

2. Dr. Torrey has no thought of the conversion of the 
world in this dispensation. 

3. The gospel of grace is accomplishing just what Ood 
intended it should accomplish in this meager ingathering 
to which they hold. According to such a conception, one 
can hardly see that the Chnrch is to be blamed for not 
getting better results in conversions; for God never in- 
tended the Church to get better results; God never intended 
that the Church should accomplish more than she is ac- 
complishing in the way of ingathering. 

The late Dr. A. T. Pierson, who died in 1910 and who, 
during his lifetime, was one of the very foremost premil- 
lennialists in this country and the world, at the Interna- 
tional Prophetic Conference in Chicago, gave a brilliant 
address on the subject " Premillennial Motives for Evangel- 
ism." He gave six motives which should move premille- 
narians to evangelism. But the making disciples of the 
heathen was not given as one of them, — indeed, he never 
mentioned the conversion of the heathen; and Christ's 
great commission, " Go ye, therefore, and make disciples 


308 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

of all the nations," was never quoted, or even referred to, 
a^ playing any part among their missionary motives. And 
yet the snbject of that paper was " PremUlennial Motives 
for Evaogelisni." Neither is Dr. PiersoD alone in his si- 
lence on that subject. I have read every address given in 
the Intematiooal Prophetic Conferences of Premillenar- 
ians held in New York, in Chicago, in Allegheny, and in 
Chicago in 1914. I have read scores of books and pam- 
phlets written by premillenarians, and in not a single one 
of them is there any stress laid on that great commission of 
onr Jjord. If it is quoted at all, it is tucked away in a cor- 
ner and hurried away from. In aU the addresses of at 
least three of these great conveotions it was not so much 
as even quoted. When I began reading Dr. Pierson's ad- 
dress on the subject " Premillennial Motives for Evangel- 
ism," I said to myself, Surely I will find here some refer- 
ence to my Lord's great commission ; but there was not 
a word. 

Why do they ignore this great commission ? Is it because 
it so completely cuts across their theory for the kingdom? 
Dr. Morgan, in his book " God's Method with Man," after 
setting forth the course of events in this dispensation and 
how thoroughly Satan prevails, and the fewness of those 
being saved, according to premillenarian conceptions, adds: 
" Some will say then Qod is beaten, inasmuch as compar- 
atively few are being gathered into the church." " That," 
he says, " is a very short-sighted view. God has never for 
a moment been defeated in the course of human history, 
Ev^it has followed event in Qod's progressive work in re- 
demption and regeneration, alt the details of which have 
been necessary." 

Note carefully Dr. Morgan's meaning. Though few are 
being saved, and though Satan thoroughly prevails, yet 
God is not beaten, for " this is God's plan." This he and 
others say in the face of Christ's commission, " Go ye, 
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations." 

Then I ask you to note again that a premillenarian never 
talks about Christianizing the world in this generation, or 


1919] Pre- and Poat-millenariaTia 309 

in this diBpeneatlon, or even about saving the world at all. 
He never talks atraut Christianizing the world — how could 
he? — for he does not believe such to be God's plan. God'e 
plan for the kingdom is to gather out a few, and to preach 
the gospel as a witness, and then to have the real woi^ of 
saving the world done after Christ sets up His throne at 
Jemsalem. He talks about "evangelizing the world in this 
generation." But ask bim what he means by " evangeliz- 
ing." He does not mean Christianizing it; he does not 
mean saving it; he means simply that the Church shall 
send missionaries to all parts of the world, so that people 
everywhere may have a mere chance to hear the gospel. He 
does not expect many of them to respond; but the gospel 
will have been preached as a " testimony," and the fault 
will be theirs. It is submitted that this is a low ideal. 

The Bev. Dr. Minteer, a missionary of the Presbyterian 
Church to China, told the writer this incident. At the an- 
nual meeting of the missionaries in China one of the min- 
isterial members, who was a strong premillenDialist, in re- 
lating the story of his work, told about a trip he made 
through a province in which, up to that time, no mission- 
ary work had been done. He told in a most enthusiastic 
way of how he had gone to a town and preached in the 
forenoon, then to another town and preached in the after- 
noon, and to another in the evening, and how he had kept 
this itinerant work up for a month, until he had preached 
in a lai^ nnmber of towns. He was most enthusiastic 
over the work. One of his fellow workers interrupted him 
and asked how many converts he had made. " Oh," he an- 
swered, " I do not know that I made any converts, but I 
preached the gospel sufficiently to damn those people." 

That premillennialist was surely lacking in delicacy in 
his putting of the case; but, as a matter of fact, it is not 
a bad illustration of what is meant by a premillennialist 
when he talks about " evangelizing the world in this gen- 

Dr. Simpson says : " We are to preach the gospel among 
all nations, not with the expectation that they will be 


310 B^Uotheoa Sacra [July* 

converted, but as a witness and as an opportunity for 
salvation for every sinful man." That is not as blont as 
the China missiouary put it, but it means practically the 
same thing. How can an; one believe that tbis is what 
Jesus meant when He gave His great commission? 

Yes: premill^iarians are active in foreign missionary 
work. Many of them are our foremost leaders in mission- 
ary activity; and many of our foreign missionaries are 
themselves premillenarian in their beliefs. But premiUe- 
narians believe in sending missionaries, so that the second 
coming of Christ may be hastened. Incidentally, and with 
great heart-yearning, they hope that many will be con- 
verted. And their practice, too, is better than their the- 
ory; else they would keep moving on from place to place 
so as to reach as many as possible, instead of tarrying to 
.instruct and baptize. But the primary purpose in their 
sending missionaries is that they may fulfill the conditions 
for the second coming of the Lord to reign at Jerusalem. 
So they have declared in two of their great premillennial 
conferences, and so have their writers declared. 


Postmillenarians send missionaries with the primary 
purpose of converting the heathen. They take as their 
marching orders, " Qo ye, therefore, and make disciples of 
all the nations." Their program is Christ's program, — 
" make disciples." It has in it the ring of sincerity, and 
it has in it the ring of truth. "All authority is given unto 
me in heaven and on earth," — He can never have more 
power than this, " Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of 
an the nations, baptizing them . . . and teaching them," — ■ 
there can be no stronger command than that. It means 
Christianizing, not evangelizing, and it takes in the world. 
In carrying out this command, He says: "And lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world," — there 
could be no more sweeping promise as to His presence and 
help. It is for always, and it is to the end of the world. 
Why should any one minimize such a glorious and blessed 


1919] Pre- and Po8t-mAllenariana 311 

promise? That great promiee, too, is just in harmonj vitli 
BIh every ntterance an tn the future of H i f i kingdom, and 
vitlk HiB whole bearing on the aubject. Christ . gave no 
word as to how long it would take to disciple the world; 
and He certainly gave no intimation that the Church 
would have to give up this plan. And with Christ back 
of His church in this program, and in the use of His " all 
authority " she will in the end not fail. 

rostmillenariaQs send missionariea to the heathen, in 
answer to Christ's command and promise of help, for the 
purpose of making disciples of them ; and, while the work 
may be slow, they folly believe that eventually the work 
win be done, and substantially the whole world will be 
converted, and will acknowledge Christ as universal Lord. 

Premillenarians send the gospel to the heathen prima- 
rily to hasten the coming of Christ, and incidentally to 
save a few. 

I submit that there is a tremendous difference betweoi 
the two motives. Which is the more in harmony with 
Christ's great commission, and with Christ's great loving 
desire to have all saved ? * 

"The Neale Publishing Company. 440 Fourth Avenue^ New York 
City, hat Just brought out a volume of 300 pages by I>r. HcClena- 
han, enUtled " Tbe Postmlllennial View of tbe Second Coming of 
Christ." Tbls book Is a clear and comprehensive study of the Bib- 
lical arguments lor and against premlllennlallsm. Its price Is 
ll.GO. — ^Bditob. 




No question should appeal more directly to the heart 
of the true believer than this. While the cause claims bis 
love and zeal, the end sought muat react on his spiritual 
nature, and greatly affect the volitional result If one's 
ideal and aim determine the character of his activity in 
other affairs, they certainly do so in the work of the 
Church. Neither the -Church nor the individual vill show 
the best type of service under a mistaken view of the Di- 
vine calling. The goal will affect all the incentives to 

There is but one method of ascertaining this goal, BO 
far as the Church Is concerned, and placing in clear light 
her supreme obligation; and that is, searching the Scrip- 
tures with a spirit divested of every thought and desire, 
bnt to know the thought and desire of God, and to hear 
His voice speaking therein, causing them to blend in har- 
monions testimony to the truth. Such a method will es- 
tablish, I think, certain negative propositions and make 
clear a positive one. 

The first proposition is, that the Mission of the Church 
w not the Conversion of the World. This may seem strange 
to those who have been accustomed to regard the present 
dispensation as the final one, and to assert that existing 
agencies have been ordained to bring in the Millennium. 
"Is not this the dispensation of the Holy Spirit?" they 
ask, "and was He not given to convert the world?" 

The idea of universal salvation implied by such a ques- 
tion not only contradicts the teaching of Scripture, but 
sets aside the free moral agency of man, whose power to 
resist the truth is as evident as that of the Holy Spirit to 


The Mission of the Church 313 

renew those who yield to His operations. We aatarally 
Buppoee that out Lord would plainly Btate the mission of 
the Holy Spirit, in the messages He gave the disciples con- 
ceming Him. The supposition is fact Understanding by 
the world its inhabitants, who are without God and with- 
out hope, we are taught that the mission of the Holy Spirit 
with respect to the world is to convict it " of sin, and of 
righteousness, and of judgment" (John ivi. 8-11). As to 
the penitent and believing. He has another office to per- 
form, — to work in them that spiritual change which con- 
stitutes them the children of God, and then to comfort 
them, sanctify them, and endue them for the service of 
ChrUt (John i. 10-13; iii. »-6; xiv. 16-17; xvi. 13-15; Acts 
i. 8; Matt. iii. 11). So, the Saviour's prayer (John xvii.) 
is that His disciples, kept from the evil one, and sent into 
the world, may be sanctified, and unified, " that the world 
may believe that thou hast sent me " — not that the world 
may be converted. The object of this unification, which 
is the work of the Spirit {Eph. iv. 3), is to present to the 
world such ocular proof of the power of the Gospel to 
transform selfish human hearts, that people may believe 
it is supernatural and divine. This is not saving faith, but 
a preparation for it. This makes the issue with the world. 
Whether any who t>elong to the world wiil meet the issue 
and accept the Saviour thus revealed, is another matter. 

Of the same import is the sermon of Peter on the Day 
of Pentecost, in which the prophecy of Joel (then par- 
tially fulfilled) is referred to that inaugural day of our 
dispensation. The purpose of the Spirit's descent, and of 
the ministration of the Gospel, is explicitly stated to be 
that " whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall 
be saved." 

Under the illumination of the Holy Spirit the apostles 
understood, as never before, the Divine plan for the age 
so auspiciously l>^un. In one of His last interviews with 
them Jesus had " opened their mind, that they might un- 
derstand the scriptures," saying to them, " Thus it is writ- 
ten, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the 


314 Bibliotheca Sacra [Julyj 

dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of 
Bins shoold be preached in hia name onto all the natione, 
beginning from Jernsalem. Ye are witnesses of these 
things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my Fa- 
ther upon yon ; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed 
with power from on high" (Luke xxiv. 45-49). 

Here, then, were the Oonpel, and the ag^icy for its 
proclamation throughout the earth. The Holy Spirit was 
given to qualify the Church to brmg Christ to the world, 
and not to hrmg the world to Christ. The world's evangel- 
izatiou is not its conversion, but its having the Gospel 
preached to it with the Holy Spirit sent down from 
heaven, that " whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
Lord shall be saved," or, as expressed by James, " to take 
out of the Gentiles a people for his name," with the 
ultimate view of a dispensation to be inaugurated by His 
personal advent for the destruction of Anti-Christ, the 
overthrow of Gentile dominion, and the establislimeDt of a 
Kingdom so long foretold, prayed for, and expected (Acts 
IV. 14-18). 

The language of the great Commission cannot be tnmed 
into disproof of this proposition. The Commission was to 
" make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost : 
teaching them to observe aU things whatsoever I com- 
manded you" (Matt, xiviii. 19-20). That this command 
can mean 90 more than making disciples in all nations, is 
evident from the fact that no nation as a whole has ever 
been converted since the Church b^an her career, and this 
work is still going on in Dominally Christian lands, though 
they are evangelized in the Scriptural s^ise of that term. 
Only those who become disciples among the nations to 
which the Gospel is carried, are baptized, and instructed 
in the dntiee of discipleship. 

Moreover, the implication that all men in these nations 
are intended by the statement contradicts the above in- 
ference, in which the residue of men, and all the Gentiles 
(the nations) are said to seek the Lord, after Sis return. 


1919] The Mission of ffte Church 315 

With this reference agrees Faul'a argument in regard to 
the rejection of Israel and the offer of Siilvation unto the 
Oeutiles (nations) during the present dispensation, and 
the conversion of Israel, and the fullness of life to the 
nations at the coming of the Delirerer to turn away nn- 
godliness from Jacob (Bom. zi. 11-29). By no sort of 
ezegetical legerdemain can these Scriptures be confined 
to our Lord's first coming. They are inextricably bound 
up with numerous passages which forecast a more won- 
derful era at His second coming. 

The assurance with which the Commission closes inti- 
mates as much : " I am with you all the days, even to the 
end of the age" [Or. and margin, Rev. Ver.). The assur- 
ance is touching His spiritual presence which continues 
with His disciples during this age of gathering out of the 
nations the Church, at the consummation of which His 
visible presence will signalize the beginning of another age. 

So, in His answer to the question concerning the sign 
of His coming, and of the end of the age. He declares that 
" this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole 
world for a testimony nnto all the nations; and then shall 
the end come" (Matt. zxiv. 3-li Or. and margin. Rev. 
Ver.) ; and this testimony includes the making of disciples, 
teaching His commandments, and all the varied ministries 
of the Gospel until He come. 

The second proposition to be considered is, that the 
Mission of the Church is not the establishment of a king- 
dom by the Church. 

If that were the business of the Church the Master 
would have said so. On the contrary, when inquiry was 
made about the kingdom, he informed the apostles their 
work was something very different. " They therefore, when 
they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost 
thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And he 
said nnto them, It is not for yon to know times or seasons, 
which the Father hath set within hia own authority. But 
ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon 
yon, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and 
Vol LXXVt. No. 303. 4 


316 BibUotheca Sacra [Jul;, 

in all Judeea and Samaria, and unto the ottermost part 
of the earth " (Acts i. 6-8) . 

Our Lord does not deny that the hope which every pious 
Jew cherished would be realized, but intimates that the 
Father hath set the time (or this in His own authority, 
while He directs their attention to a special mission which 
came first in the Divine program, for the performance of 
which they were to receive the power of the Holy Spirit 
coming upon them. 

A little later one of the apostles, presiding over the 
Council at Jerusalem, inspired b; the Spirit, explained 
the prophecy concerning the restoration about which in- 
qniry had been made, and gave the other features of that 
program. Note well his announcement, following Peter's 
statement concerning his call to open the door of evangel- 
ization to the Oentiles, and the account b; Barnabas and 
Paul of signs and wonders God had wrought among the 
Gentiles by them. 

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, 
sayiDg, Brethren, hearken unto me. Symeon hath re- 
hearsed how first God did visit the Gentiles, to take out 
of them a people for his name. And to this agree the 
words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things 
I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of 
David, which is fallen, and I will build again the ruins 
thereof, and I will set it up. That the residue of men may 
seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my 
name is called, saith the IjOrd, who maketh these things 
known from the beginning of the world" (Acts iv. 13-18). 

Here are three distinct things covering the present age 
and the age to come: — 

1. The evangelization of the world, and the formation 
of the Church, " one new man," Jew and Gentile. 

2. The restoration of the Jewish nationality at the 
Lord's personal return (compare Matt, xxiii. 38-39) and 
the setting up of the throne of His father David, which 
He is to occupy with the Church, then glorified (compare 
Luke i. 31-33; Matt. xix. 28; Luke ixii. 29-30; Hev. iii. 
21; Zech. xii. 9-10; xiv. 1-9). 


1919] The Mission of the Church 317 

It is not possible to read James' quotation from the 
Prophet Amos without connecting it with the Lord's final 
utterance of doom to the Jewish nation: "Behold, your 
house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, He 
shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is 
he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Surely the " tab- 
ernacle of David," vhich is to be rebuilt " after his return," 
is none other than the house left unto them desolate dur- 
ing His absence. And this bouse is still desolate; it was 
not restored at Pentecost, and the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem (A.n. 70) was the completion of that desolation, which 
remains to this day. Its restoration will take place after 
His return, when the nation will recognize in Him their 
Messiah, and say, " Blessed is he that cometh in the name 
of the Lord " ! 

3. National as well as individual salration throughout 
the world — a Divine manifestation to the nations, com- 
parable only to " life from the dead," through God's bless- 
ing upon Israel (compare Bom. zl. 12-29). Only when 
" the fullness of the Gentiles be come in," and Israel is 
" grafted into their own olive tree," will that nation " blos- 
som and bad " and " fill the face of the world with fruit " 
(lea. xxvil. 6). 

To jumble into one these three parts of Ood's plan of the 
ages, and make them synonymous with the first part, is 
to make an end of sound sense in the exegesis of Scripture. 
The apostle's expression, "to this agree the^words of the 
prophets," shows that He who inspired their prophecies 
had arranged for the Church period made certain by Is- 
rael's unfaithfulness, and that only by this plan can the 
Scriptures be harmonized. The words " after these things 
I will return " are the Spirit's interpretation of the proph- 
et's expression, " in that day " ; meaning the day when 
Israel's long dispersion shaU be ended by Messiah's com- 
ing, which James places after the Church dispensation, 
and their national rehabilitation shall take place in the 
land out of which " they shall no more be plucked up, . . . 
saith the Lord thy God" (Amos ix. 11-15). 


318 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

Thie, as before stated, was and is the hope of the pious 
Jew. It was voiced in the prayer of the penitent robber 
on the cross, who was probably a Jew, acquainted with the 
beliefs of his nation. Convicted of sin by the majesty and 
grace of the Saviour in that hour of anguish and death, he 
confesses his sins, and prays, " Jesus, remember me when 
thou comest in thy kingdom." The penitent looked for- 
ward to a place in the Messiah's kingdom at His coming 
in ^ory, after a long interval in the intermediate state. 
Jesus promised him immediate blessedneBs, which of course 
included his hope. 

This coming in His kingdom was precisely what the dis- 
ciples understood by His personal coming to set up that 
kingdom. They never made the mistake of supposing the 
kingdom predicted by their prophets and made the object 
of prayer by their Master, could come without the King 
Himself. Least of all did they identify the advent of the 
Holy Spirit and institution of the Church with that com- 
ing. Their writings, long after the Day of Pentecost, teem 
with references to a kingdom in connection with the lord's 
personal advent Paul and Barnabas exhorted their con- 
verts to continue in the faith, and that through many 
tribulations they must enter into the kingdom of Ood 
(Acts liv. 22), These converts were in the Church, spirit- 
ually united to Christ, but they were not in the kingdom 
for which the apostles were told to look, when the Divine 
Nobleman would return from the " far country " with the 
Kingdom, the' time of whose inauguration the Father has 
set in His own authority. Meantime they are to " occupy " 
with the investment He has made in them, " till he comes " 
to determine their rewards in that Kingdom (Luke ziz. 

True, believers are in the Kingdom of Ood's Son in the 
sense of union with the Son, and the Kingdom, as to its 
spirituality, is in them (Col. i. 13; Bom. xiv. 17), for 
thereby are they fitted for participation in the visible, 
concrete form it assumes at His coming; and this fact of 
participatioa is emphasized in the New Testament The 


1919] The Mitaion of the Church 319 

Church, " which is hie body," will reign with the Head, at 
the appointed time. 

Bnt the apiritnal sovereignty of Jesus in the Chnrch, 
during this dispensation of cross-bearing and tribulation, 
cannot be made to synchronize with what was set before 
the Church as her hope. The realization of the principles 
of the kingdom in the heart and life of tme believers is an 
illustration in miniature of the literal fact as prevailing 
on earth during the Millennium. The principles are the 
same ; the sphere and magnitude of their application make 
the difference. 

There can be no kingdom, literally speaking, until the 
King returns to imprison Satan, abolish Qentile misrule, 
and set up a real theocracy under which governments as 
well as individuals shall reflect the will of God. 

That return, be it observed, is to be "in the glory of 
his Father," when He shall reward those who have denied 
themselves, taken up their cross, and followed Him in His 
rejection by the world. This is identified with EQs coming 
in His Kingdom : " Verily I say unto you, There be some 
of them that stand here, which shall in no wise taste of 
death, tUl they see the Son of man coming in his king- 
dom " (Matt. xvi. 28; compare ver. 24-27). Mark says, 
" Till they see the kingdom of God come with power." 
Luke abbreviates, " Till they see the kingdom of God." 

This, we are told, was a spiritual coming, at Pentecost. 
But such a coming is witnessed on every great spiritual 
awakening, and this was to be a peculiar manifestation, 
seen only by " some of them " who stood then before Him. 
The next verse shows that the manifestation was personal, 
and that it was Peter and James and John who saw it 
(Matt. zvii. 1-6). Peter identifies this scene on the Mount 
with the coming spoken of (2 Pet. i. 16-18) ; sufficient 
accompaniments are mentioned to make the identification 
clear. It was a sample of the manner of His personal 
coming. There were " the clond," " the glory," and " the 
" power " and " majesty " of His appearing. Surely power 
was evident — such power as will be manifested in the 


820 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

appeariDg of the saints in Hia likeness at their resurrec- 
tion, whicti is "the first resurrection" (Rev, xx. 4-6). 
There were also represented at that scene the three classes 
of persons that vill be present when He comes at the end 
of this age: the saints who died, as Hoses; the saints who 
will be changed without death, as Blijah; and those on 
earth who will be " sore afraid," 

I now come to the last proposition, which is that the 
goal of the Church is the visible manifestation of the Lord 
Jesus Christ with His saints to assume the temporal sov- 
ereignty of the world, to actualize on earth, in glory and 
pmcer, the principles which now find expression only in 
spiritual believers. Then will the Kingdom prevail in all 
lands nationally as well as individually, in govemmeut 
and society as well as in the hearts of saved people. Then 
will be fulfilled the sublime predictions: "All the earth 
shall be filled with the glory of the Lord " (Num. xiv. 21), 
and "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the 
glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab. ii. 
14). "Then nation shall not lift up sword against nation, 
neither shaU they learn war any more." It is the thou- 
sand years of universal righteonsness and peace, during 
which the risen and glorified saints shall judge the worid, 
and execnte the law of the Lord, for whom they have suf- 
fered in a Christ-rejecting age. " The rest of the dead 
lived not again until the thonsand years were finished." 
Satan is the god of this age (2 Cor. iv. 4 literal), charac- 
terized as "this present evil age" (Qal. i. 4; Tit. ii. 12), 
but he will not be of the age to come. 

How can the Millennial Age begin while Satan is free 
to create trouble? But his age will end with his removal 
from the earth and his confinement in " the bottomlesa 
pit," at the glorious visible appearing of Christ, who will 
then start the new age whose gloiy He will share with His 
bride (Kev. xii. 1-xx. 6). Thus the two ages are clearly 
distinguished from each other. 

I would almost be willing to stake the settlement of this 
question upon one passage which contains the whole issue 


1919] The Mission of the Church 321 

in a single brief suggestion : " To him that overcometb, 
will I grant to sit with me in m? throne, even as I also 
overcame, and am set down with m; Father in his throne " 
(Key. iii. 21, A. V.). Here are two thrones, as plain as 
language can be. What could be His throne bnt that 
which He heirs in the dynasty of David, and which He 
takes when He restores the Kingdom to Israel, as pre- 
viously set forth in this discuseion? According to the 
post-millennial view, He must now be on His throne, since 
this is the last dispensation, and the kingdom has already 
been set up, or is being set up, by the Church. But he de- 
clares He is in His Father's throne, which is undoubtedly 
the throne of mediation for His Church, the throne of His 
advocacy with the Father (Heb. vii. 25; 1 John ii. 1). 
When He comes to take His own throne, the Church — the 
overcomers — wUl sit with Him there, reigning with Him 
" a thousand years " on the earth, " Then cometh the end, 
when he shall have delivered np the kingdom to Ood, even 
the Father," having reigned till all enemies were put un- 
der His feet, including those of the post-millennial revolt ; 
till the wicked dead were judged, death itself destroyed, 
and the new heaven and new earth appeared, wherein law 
and grace shall blend in the eternal reign of God and the 
redeemed. With this interpretation agree aU the Scriff* 
tnres bearing on the subject. 

This is the goal of missions and the mission of the 
Church. The aim of the Church should be to " bring back 
the king" who is exiled from the world (2 Sam. six. 10). 
Her mission resembles, in one respect, that of John the 
Baptist, at His first advent. As His witness in the world, 
her ministry should ever declare, like that great forerun- 
ner, " There cometh one after me " ; " Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord." While this thought has a spiritual applica- 
tion, we cannot doubt its literal suggestlveness. When He 
succeeded John, one of His first acts was to scoui^ from 
the temple the trafiSckers and money-changers. Once again 
He did so, at His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which 
typifies His triumphal return to earth (Matt. ixi. 9 with 


322 BibUotheca Sacra 

xzUi. 38-^9). Who doubtB that this retarn will be eig- 
nalized by purging GhriBteDdom in like manner? 

The coming of Christ In His kingdom is a coming in 
conquest like DaTid (Dan. TiL 13-27; Eev. xix. 11-21; 
zx. 1-3), and in glory and peace like Solomon, to reign 
over the whole earth thos snbdned (Ps. Ixxii.; Ber. zz. 
4-6). Passages conld be multiplied, bat Isa. Ixr. 18-25 
and Ixvi. 8-21 contain striking declarations of that era of 
righteoosness, peace, plenty, and longerity introdaced by 
His return, the birth-pangs of Israel, and the report of 
His glory among the nations. "And the Lord shall be king 
over aU the earth ; in that day shall the Lord be one, and 
his name one" (Zech. ziv. 9). 

Such a goal invests the work of missions with tran- 
scendent interest. No unscriptural fancy, like that of con- 
verting the world, under present conditions, can gird the 
Ohurch with hope, ^igrosa her energies, and command her 
resonrces. But with eyea fixed on this goal, there is a 
prospect that intensifies the sense of responsibility, loosens 
the hold on worldly possessions, and leads to a consecra- 
tion to the cause of missions that pulsates with satisfac- 
tion. Its practical force is constantly mentioned in the 
New Testament. If ChristianB are taught " to live soberly, 
righteously, and godly in the present age," the motive is 
presented, " looking for the blessed hope and appearing of 
the glory of our great Gk>d and Saviour Jesus Christ." In 
the work of missions, how it deepens the conviction that 
the King's business requires haste! Under its influence, 
the task of evangelizing the world in a single generation 
seems practicable, and missionaries labor with an assur- 
ance of imminent triumph. 




The views entertained oo the Pentateachal question in- 
fluence, and are influenced hj, the conception held of the 
history of Monotheism in IsraeL In a paper on " Hebrew 
Monotheism " which appeared in the Bibuothbca Sacra 
for October, 1907 (voL Ixiv. pp. 609-637), I showed how 
the current ideas which derive from Eaenen are flatiy 
contradicted by the evidence and his own emphatic state- 
ments made nnder the influence of an impartial examina- 
tion of that evidence.* It is now desirable to approach the 
subject from another point of view; for, if I mistake not, 
there is Egyptian material which is not without its bear- 
ing on Old Testament criticism and the trend of Israel's 


The Ezodue from Egypt took place in the second year 
of the Pharaoh Memeptah, i.e. (on the basis of the dates 
given by Petrie and Breasted) not earlier than 1233 b.c. 
nor later than 1223 b.c. A century and a half earlier, in 
the reign of Amenhotep IV. {Akhenaten, Akhnaton, Ikhna- 
ton, Khuenaton), 1383-1365 b.c. (Petrie) or 1375-1358 B.C. 

'Soon after the appeanuice of tbat article a follower of Kue- 
nen's met me. He admitted tbat his leader had been 'a bit care- 
lesB,' but Bald he would take the matter up " tor the dead man." 
He promised an answer by letter, evincing repugnance to the sug- 
gestion that an article would be better. I waa much touched br 
the piety of his beautiful sentiments about "the dead man," but 
though His Majesty's Poetmaater-general has succeeded In securing 
the due delivery of my other correspondence during the Interven- 
ing years with tolerable regularity, no defense of the careless Kue- 
nen has reached me. 

' While the discussion that follows has benefited by the work 
of many Bcholan it owes most to Professor J, H. Breasted'a Devel- 
opment of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. 


321 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

(Breasted), there arose in Egypt a moootheUtic worship 
of the Ateu or Atoa, to which it is worth while to devote 
some attention,' 

By way of introduction a few sentences may be qnoted 
from Professor W. M. Flinders Petrie's " Beligion of An- 
cient Egypt" (1906), pages 54 f.:— 

"Aten was a conception of the sun entirely different to 
Ra. No human or animal form was ever attached to it; 
and the adoration of the physical power and action of the 
snn was the sole devotion. So far as we can trace, it was 
a worship entirely apart and different from every other 
type of religion in Egypt. . . . The Aten was the only in- 
stance of a ' jealous god ' in Egypt, and this worship was 
exclusive of all others, and claims universality. There are 
traces of it shortly before Amenhotep III. He showed 
some devotion to it, and it was his son who took the name 
of Akhenaten, the glory of the Aten,' and tried to enforce 
this as the sole worship of Egypt But it fell immediately 
after, and is lost in the next dynasty. ... In the hymn to 
the Aten the universal scope of this power is proclaimed 
as the source of all life and action, and every land and peo- 
ple are subject to it, and owe to it their existence and 
their allegiance. No such grand theology had ever ap- 
peared in the world before, so far as we know; and it is 
the forerunner of the later monotheist religions, while it 
is even more abstract and impersonal, and may well rank 
as a scientific theism." * 

' For a popular volume dealing with this mouarcb, see Mr. Ar- 
thur B. P. Weisall'B LUe and Times of A^hnaton, Pharaoh of 
Egypt (1910). This writer Bets out parallel passages of Akhna' 
ton's hymn and Psalm civ. on pp. 1561. So does J. H. Breaated 
on pp. 871 B. of his History of Egypt (2d ed. 1909), though less 

'Now rendered "Aton Is satisfied" (see Breasted, The Devel- 
opment oLReligion and Thought In Ancient Egypt [1912], p. 323). 
H. M. W. 

' In view of later work some of the views that bave been held 
about the history of the Aton worship must be modified. See 
Ludwlg Borchardt, "Aus der Arbeit an den Funden von Tell 
el-Amama, Vorliluflger Bericht" in Mitteilungen der I>eutacben 
Orient-Gesellscbaft, March, 1917 (No. 57, pp. 24 ff.). This scholar 
holds that the cult of the sun flourished under Amenopbls III., 
but not to the exclusion of the rest of the pantheon, as in the 


1M9] The Religion of Moaes 325 

Out knowledge of this religion is derived from one long 
and several shorter hymns and a few short prayers. A. 
Erman (Die ^gyptiache Religion [2d ed. 1909], p. 78) 
points oat with justice that the expression ' Light or heat ' 
which la in the solar disc ' proves learned speculation to 
have been an element in the formation of the new faith, 
and this Is confirmed by its theological conceptions.' There 
are naturally many points in connection with its lilstory 
as to which Egyptologists are not at one. Most of these 
do not concern the present inquiry. For the purposes of 
Old Testament criticism it is immaterial wiiether the per- 
sonal share of Akfaenaton was a little greater or a little 
less, or whether those scholars are right who contend " that 
the religious and poetical matter, developed in the hymns 
. . . consists of topics already familiar to everyone. The 
originality lent to the hymns is probably like new wine in 
old bottles; it expresses old beliefs in new rhythms, and 
gives a touch, as far as we can jadge, more vivid and per- 
sonal to subjects treated by older writers." * 

In the first instance the following points call for atten- 
tion: — 

I&ter years of Amenophla IV. He thinks that the later GgyptlanB 
reprobated the political sterility of the monarch much more than 
his exaggeration of the Aton worship. Priests of the solar disc 
are found under the Ramessldee. All that happened was that 
the god was reduced from the position of preeminence given him 
by Akbeoaton to his earlier position in the Egyptian pantheon. 
See also his observations on p. 18 of No. 6E (Dec. 1914). 

' N. de O. Davles, The Rock-Tombs of El-Amama, part I. (1903) 
p. 46, renders "splendour." 

*Cp. Davles, op. cit. 

■A. Moret. Kings and Qods of Egypt (1912), pp. 59ft. See also 
especially Davles, op. cit, p. 44: " So far as we can see, it does 
not greatly differ in essential doctrine from systems that existed 
In Egypt before and after it, but only in its uncompromising attl> 
tude to dissenting faiths, and the consistency with which, from 
the beginning, it accepted the positive and negative consequences 
of its doctrine. In both respects we may recognize the person- 
ality of its founder rather than the motive power of its creed." 


326 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jul?. 

1. There Existed a monotheistic belief before the time 
of Hoses. 

2. The facts that will be adduced show concliuiTely 
that Moses moat have been perfectly familiar with its ideas. 

3. Bome of the phrases and thoaghts of this belief re- 
cur in the later literature of Israel in a form so clMel? 
similar as to exclude any theory of complete independaice. 
It may be that they originated in Egypt or that both Egypt 
and Israel borrowed them from some common scarce; but 
the likeness is too great for any hypothesis of separate 

The nature of the " teaching " ^ of Akhenaton, as it waa 
always called, may bb gathered from the following quota- 
tions : — 

" Thy dawning is rery beautiful, O living Ka, etc., etc., 
the living Aten, beside whom there is no oth^, giving health 
to the eyes by his rays, he who [has made] all that is! 
Thou risest in the eastern horizon of heaven to give life to 
all that thou hast made, viz. mankind, cattle, flying and 
fluttering things, with [all kinds] of reptiles whidi are on 
the earth " (Davies, El-Amama, part i. pp. 49 f. [my ital- 
ics. H. M. W.]). 

" I have come with praises to thy rays, O living Atai, 
sole <god). Thou art eternal, Heaven is thy temple in 
which thou makest thine appearance every [day]," etc. 
{op. cit., part vi, p. SI). 

The following excerpts from the longer hymn are taken 
from Breasted's " Development of Religion and Thought in 
Ancient Egypt." Some passages of Psalm civ. are placed 
in tlie^ margin for comparison.* 

■ Cf. the Mosaic Torah and DeuL Ir. 1, «tc. 

'Pull tranelatlonB of the lonser hymn are given by N. de O. 
Davlea, El-Amaraa, part vl. (1908) pp. 29 0.; W. H. Flinders 
Petrie. HlBtory of Egypt (3d ed. 1899), vol. 11. pp. 215 ft.; A. E. P. 
Welgrall. The Life and Times of Akhnaton (191ft), pp. l&ftfC.; A. 
Heret, Kings and Gods of Egypt (1912), pp. 65 ft.; J. H. Breasted, 
History of Egypt (2d ed. 1909), pp. STltt.; Development, etc, 
pp. 324tt.; O. A. Barton, Archsology and the Bible (2d ed. 1917), 
pp. 403 ft. 



The Religion of Moaea 



Wben tliou settest In the weetem 

horlEon of tbe sky, 
The earth 1b In darkncBB like the 

They sleep In their chambers, 
Their heads are wrapped up. 
Their nofltrlU ere stopped, 
And none seeth the other. 
While all their things are stolen 
Which are under their heads. 
And they know it not. 
Every Hon cometh forth from his 

All serpents, they stlne. 
Darkness. . . . 
The vorld Is In silence. 
He that made them resteth In his 

Bright is the earth when thou 

rlseat in the horizon. 
When thou sblnest as Aton by da; 
Thou drlTeat away the darkness. 
When thou sendest forth thy rays, 
Tbe Two I^nds (Bgypt) are In 

dally fesUTlty, 
Awake and standing upon their 

When thou hast raised them up. 
Tbelr limbs bathed, they take their 

Their arms uplifted In adoration 

to thy dawning. 
(Then) in all the world they do 

their work. 
All cattle rest upon their pastur- 
The trees and the plants flourish. 
The birds flutter In their marshes. 
Their wings uplifted In adoration 

to thee. 
All the sheep dance upon their feet, 
All winged tbJngs fly. 
They live when thou hast shone 

PSALX otv 
Tbou makest darkness, and 

it is night. 
Wherein all the beasts of the 

forest do creep forth. 
The young lions roar after 

their prey. 
And seek their food from 

Qod (ver. 30-21). 

The sun ariseth, they slink 

And couch In their dens (Ter. 


Han goeth forth unto his 

And to his labour until the 

evening (ver. 23). 

Tbe trees of the Lord bare 

their flU, 
The cedars of Lebanon, which 

he hath planted; 
Wherein the birds make their 

As for the stork, the flr^trees 

are her bouse. 


BibUotheca Sacra 



Tlie barques Ball up-ntreain 
and down-stream alike. 

Bveiy highway la open be- 
cause thou dawneat 

The fish In the river leap up 
before thee. 

Thy rays are in the midst 
of the great green sea. 

How manifold aretbyworka! 
They are hidden from before 

Sole Ood, whose powers 

no other poasesaetb. 
Thou didst create the eartb 

according to thy heart' 
Wbfle thou wast alone: 

Thou haet set a Nile In the Who sendest forth springs into 

sky; the valleya. 

When It falletb for them, They run between the mountains; 

It maketb waves upon the They give drink to every beast of 

The high mountains are for the 

wild goats: 
Tlie rocks are a refuge for the 

conies (ver. 16-lS). 
Yonder sea, great and wide. 
Therein are creeping things in- 
Living creatures, both small and 

There go the ships; 
There is leviathan, whom thou baat 

formed to sport therein. 
All of them wait for tbee (ver. 

How manifold are thy works, O 

In wisdom hast thou made them 

The earth is full of thy creatures 

(ver. 2<). 

Like the great gre^i sea. 

the field. 
The wild asses Quench their ttairsL 

Watering their fields la their Who waterest the mountains from 
towns thine upper chambers (ver. 10- 


The waters stood above the moun- 
tains (ver. 6). 
Tiioa makest the seasons Who appolntedst the moon for 

In order to create all thy seasons; 

work: The sun knoweth his going down 

Winter to bring them cool- (ver. 19). 

"'Either 'pleasure' or ' nndwstasdlng ' here" (Breasted, p. 



The Religion of Moses 

AKHR axon's HTHIt 

Thou didst make the distant 

sk7 to rise therein, 
In order to behold all that 

thou hast made. 
Thou alone, Bhinlng In thy 

form as living Aton, 
Dawning, glittering, going 

afar and returning. 

Thou art in m7 heart. 
There Is no other that know- 

eth thee 
Save thr son lUmaton. 
Thou hast made him wise 
In tby designs and in th? 

The world Is In tby hand. 
Even as thou hast made 

When thou bast risen they 

When thou settest they die: 
For thou art length of life of 

Men lire through thee 

pBALif otr 
Who covereet thyself with light as 

with a garment. 
Who Btretcbest out the heavens 

like a curtain {ver. 2). 

I will sing unto the Lobd as long 

as I live; 
I will sing praise to my Ood while 

I have my being. 
Let my musing be sweet onto him; 
As for me, I will rejoice in tha 

LoBD (ver. 33 f.). 
All of them wait for thee 
Tbat thou mayest give them their 

food in due season. 
Thou glvest It unto them, they 

gather It; 
Thou openeat thy hand, they are 

Batlsfled with good. 
Thou hldest thy face, they vanish; 
Thou wlthdrawest their breath, 

they perish, 
And return to their dust 
Thou sendest forth tby spirit, they 

are created; 
And thou renewest the face of the 

Btay the glory of the Lobd endure 

forever (ver. 27-31). 
Who didst establlBb the earth upon 

its foundation (ver. B). 

Breasted (Development, etc., p. 329) thinke that the 
hymn " doabtlesa represents an excerpt, or a series of frag- 
ments excerpted, from the ritnal of Aton, as it vas cele- 
brated from day to day in the Aton temple at Amama." 

It cannot be disputed that the religion of all these ex- 
tracts is a form of pare monotheism. Bat neither can there 
be any doabt that some form of connection exists between 
portions of the great royal hymn and Psalm civ. Indeed, 


330 Bibliotkeca Sacra [Jnl;r 

when the two forms are carefully ezammed in their en- 
tirety, the impressioD left on the mind is that the Hebrew 
IB answering Akhenaton (see, for instance, rer. 33 f. with 
theparalleI),thoughhemay have bad before him a differ^t 
set of excerpts, excluding some of the matter contained in 
our hymn. Under the influence of the evolutionary theory 
the commentators on the Psalm take little notice of the 
Egyptian hymn. Duhm and Brigga ■ do not mention it. 
Kittel prints it in an appendix withont comment. And no 
other course is open to them. Tbe evolutionary school 
claimed confidently that nobody thought thus for centuries 
after David. What use, then, conld they make of historical 
material which proves the ideas to have been a century and 
a half earlier than Hoses? Tbe hymn shows irrefragably 
that some of the fundamental conceptions and phrases 
were familiar long before the Hebrew poem was com- 
posed (on any view of its authorship), whether we sup- 
pose them to have originated in Egypt or to be tak^i from 
the praises of some Syrian deity, such as the El Elyon, 
the Qod Most Hi^, possessing heaven and earth, who was 
worshiped by Melchizedek of Jerusalem.* Aye, they were 
known before Moses, and the Psalm makes it clear that 
the knowledge of them never died. Taken in conjonction 
with the facts we are now to consider, it proves up to the 
hilt that Moses was acquainted with monotheism. 

The Aton worship failed to establish itself as the ex- 
clusive religion of Egypt; but, as we have seen, it con- 
tinned to exist, and its priests are found under the Bames- 
sides. There is, moreover, a further point of great import- 
ance. While the Aton party had been worsted by the 
priests of Amon, many of the attributes of the Aton were 

'Brlggs amigns th« PBalm to tlie Oreek age'- 

■Tbe reference to ehlpa would hardly favor Jerusalem as Uio 
place of origin. Each of the two poems Is strfbtngly faithful to 
the geograph? of its own coontrr. The hymn shows the Influ- 
ence of the Egyptian bus, the Nile, and the general geographical 
and historical conditions of Akhenaton*B Egypt very clearly. The 
Psalm bears the Impress of Palestine and the worship of Israel's 


1919] The Religion of Moaes 331 

ascribed to the victorioue god. Perhaps the reasoning was 
that if Amon coald visibly worst Aton he must at least be 
entitled to all the attributes ascribed to his defeated rival. 
Breasted quotes some hymns that throw light on this 
matter. The victory of Amon is celebrated in the follow- 
ing IIdbb: — 

" Tbou flndeet him who transgreBaeB agalnBt thee; 

Woe to him who asBailB thee! 

Thy city endures; 

But he who asaalla thee falle. 

Fie upon blm who tranBgreBses agoinat thee In ever? lani. 

The BUD of him who knows thee not goes down, O Amon! 
But as for him who knows thee, he shines. 
The forecourt of htm who assailed thee is in darkneas. 
But the whole earth Is In llsht.'" 

Of another composition Breasted writes: — 
" Even the old monotheistic phrases have here and there 
enrvived, and this hymn employs them without compunc- 
tion thongh constantly referring to the gods. It eays: 
" ' Sole likeness, maker of what Is, 

Sole and only one, maker of what exists. 

From whose eyes men Issued, 

From whOBe mouth the gods came forth 

Maker of herba for the cattle. 

And the tree of life for mankind, 

Who maketh the sustenance of the flBb [In] the stream. 

And the birds that traverse the sky. 

Who giveth breath to that which le In the e^, 

And maketh to lire the son of the worm, 

Who maketh that on which the gnats live. 

The worms and the insects likewise, 

Who supplleth the needs of the mice In their btries, 

Who sustaineth alive the birds In every tree. 

Hail to thee, wbo bast made all these. 

Thou sole and only one, with many arms. 

Thou sleeper waking while all men sleep, 

Seeking good things for his cattle. 

Amon, enduring in all things, 


Praise to thee In all that they say. 

Jubilation tA thee, for thy tarrying with us, 
■Development, etc, pp. S4Gt. 

Vol LXXVL No. 303. G 


332 Bibliotheca Sacra [Joly, 

Obeieance to thee, vtao didst create us, 

"Hall to thee," aay aU cattle; 

"Jubilation to thee," s&yB evety countrr. 

To the height of heaven, to the breadth of earth. 

To the depths of the eea.'"' 

**A hymn to OsiriB of the same age," continues Breasted, 
*' says to him : ' Thou are the father and the mother of 
men, they live from thy breath.' " 

tn the light of these facts it is impossible to hold that 
an adopted son of an Egyptian princess could have been 
ignorant of monotheism. The continuing worship of the 
Aton, the influence exercised by its monotheistic teaching 
on the liturgies of other gods, the reappearance of the con- 
ceptions and phrases of Akhenatou in the Hebrew field 
some centuries later, all prove that no educated Egyptian 
of the Mosaic age could have been unacquainted with mon- 
otheistic thought. 

But there is a further question. A monotheistic religion 
arises — perhaps, as we shall see, one actually influenced 
by the worBhip of the Syrian Baal. It is overthrown by 
another Egyptian god, whose worship promptly takes over 
the monotheistic phrases connected with the defeated deity. 
When the gods of Egypt are in turn defeated by the Baal 
of Israel, Who, we must remember, was emphatically a 
jealous God, is it likely that this Deity, who was held to 
be " maker of what exists, maker of herbs for the cattle 
and the tree of life," should not have been proclaimed by 
His servant to be " the sole and only one," " beside whom 
there is no other"? The struggle in Egypt had not been 
a war between armies. It had been a contest between 
divinities, the Ood of Israel and the gods of Egypt. Could 
the Victor be regarded as something less not merely than 
the defeated deities, but than the Aton whom they had 
conquered at an earlier date? Or could the Creator be 
less the sole Ood than the sun which He had made? When 
the facts are candidly examined, is it really possible to 
hold a priori that Moses could have failed to regard his 
God as the one supreme, exclusive Kuler over all that is? 
> Op. dt., pp. 847 L 


1919] The Religion of Moses 333 

Or is it scientific to endeavor to excise from Exodus all 
moQctheistic expressions, or to argue that monotheism is 
the reBnlt of the teaching of the prophets? To the unaci- 
entific dogma of the late origin of monotheism, History 
replies in no uncertain voice, that the idea was older than 
Hosee and thoroughly familiar to him. 

Many scholars think that the name of Aton is none 
other than the Semitic word Adon, lord, and Professor 
A. H. Sayce holds that this worship came from Asia; — 

"The Qod of Kbu-n-Aten, in fact, has much in common 
with the Semitic Baal. Like Baal, he is the ' lord of lords,' 
whose visible symbol is the solar orb. Like Baal, too, he 
is a jealous god, and the father of mankind. ... On the 
other hand, between Aten and the Semitic Baal there was 
a wide and essential difference. The monotheism of Khu-n- 
Aten was pantheistic, and as a result of this the god he 
worshipped was the god of the whole universe. The char- 
acter and attributes of the Semitic Baal were clearly and 
sharply defined. He stood outside the creatures he had 
made or the chOdren of whom he was the father. His king- 
dom was strictly limited, his power itself was circumscribed. 
He was the ' lord of heaven,' separate from the world and 
from the matter of which it was composed." ' 

We shall consider some facts relating to the Baal at a 
later stage. For the present we may just recall one re- 
sult of textual criticism. In all the early books of the Old 
Testament the word " Baal " was applied freely to the God 
of the patriarchs. If to their conception of the Semitic 
Baal we add those ideas of the Aton worship which are 
shared by all the great teachers of Israel's religion and the 
Name which was revealed to Moses, what do we get? 

On turning to the patriarchal age, we are confronted 
with a new preliminary difBculty, the existence of a god 
Bethel whose divinity appears to have been recognized by 
persons to whom the Elephantine finds have introduced us. 
It happens that the correct translation of the Massoretic 
text of Gen. ixii. 13, ^KTi'a bnn '3:n. is, " I am the God, 
"The Religion of Ancient Egypt (2d ed. 1913). p. 9S. 


331 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

Bethel"; and thiB is accepted by Dp. C. F. Bnmey,' who 
thinks " we may perhaps recognize a primitiTe identifica- 
tion of the stone itself with the drfty." I do not accept 
this view; but, as the matter is one of considerable diffl- 
cnlty, it will be well to state the facte in some detail. 

The Elephantine papyri speak of a God in' (YHW), Wbo 
is undoubtedly the Ood of Israel. The communis was, 
however, very mixed, and we meet with other gods. In 
Pap. 27 (Bachau, pp. 103 ff.') we find Malkijah, son of 
Joshibjah, described as a Syrian belonging to the ' stand- 
ard * of Nebokndurri (apparently not a Jewish ' stand- 
ard ') , complaining of certain wrongs alleged to have been 
committed against him by another Syrian.' After stating 
that he has made complaint to his god (i.e. presamably a 
temple tribunal) and received his decision, be apparently 
proceeds to call upon the defendant to take an oath of 
purgation before [K*|'n^t< Wi'^onn. This seems to mean 
HRM-Bethel the god, pointing to a Syrian god of that 
name. There is also a proper name HBM-nathan = HBM 
gave. We read (Pap. 34, Sachaxi, pp. 126 f.), 'There wit- 
nesses HRM-nathan, sou of Bethelnathan, son of Teos (or 

A long list of contributions * (Pap. 18, Sacbau, pp. 72 ff.) 
is headed, " These are the names of the Kmrp lA'n (Jew- 
ish or Judaean army) who gave money Kh^m m-^ (for 
YHW the god)." In it, however, we read: — 

■"New Aramaic P^yri and Old Testament HUtorr." Church 
Quarterlr Review, vol. Ixxlv. p. 405 <No. 148, July, 1912). 

'The referencee are to E. Sachau. Aramaieche Papfrus und 
OBtraka (1911). 

'It Is, however, noteworthy that a man ia sometimes called a 
Byrian la one paasage and a Jew la another (see A. van Hooq- 
acker, One Commnnautfi Judfio-Aramfoiine [1916], pp. St.). 

'This lettw IB doubtful. 

* FNir an Bagllsh translation of the whole document, see M. 
Spreagllng, "The Aramaic Papyri of Elephantine ia BasUsh," 
Americaa Journal of Theology, vol. zxll. pp. 349 ff. (No. 3, July, 
1918). HiB diaeuMloDi show that the evidence Is quite iDBuffident 
tor any ewtala coaelnslottB «a moat of the matteni he oonalden. 


1919] The Beligion of Mosea 335 

)r6 (for YHW) 12 keresh, 6 shekels. 

^Kn*3DrM> (for Asbambethel, if that vocalisatioa is cor- 
rect) 7 keresh. 

Wi*3n»^ (for Anathbeth«l) 12 keresh. 
Apparently, therefore, Ashambetbel and Anathbethel vere 

Asbambethel as a deity derives some support from two 
proper names ^tissb'K and didick in Pap. 24 (Sachau, p. 
95), a list of names that are predominantly of Egyptian 
and Babylonian origin. Here we must compare 2 Kings 
xvii. 30, where, in the description of the conduct of the for- 
eign nationalities settled by the AsSyrians in Samaria, we 
read, "And the men of Hamath madeMD*rH (Asliima)." 
That again points to a Syrian divinity. Amos (viii. 14) 
denounces those who swear by notnt of Samaria. This is 
ordinarily rendered ' ain of Samaria ' ; but, in view of the 
Elephantine material, it has been conjectured that we 
should regard it as the proper name, A«himah or Ashmah 
of Samaria. 

As to Anathbethel, we know of a goddess Anath (see 
Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. iii. p. 43, "Anath is satis- 
fled " (reign of Seti I. ) ; vol. Hi. p. 201, "Anath is protec- 
tion" (reign of Barneses II.) ; vol. iv. p. 62, "Montu and 
Butekh are with [him (Ramses III.) in] every fray, Anath 
and Astarte are his shield"), and place-names like Beth- 
Anatfa and Anathoth tell of her worship in early times by 
some inhabitants of Canaan.' Anati {'n») occurs as a 
man's name not only in this Papyrus (Sachau, pp. 74, 79), 
but also, though the fact is generally overlooked in this 
connection, in the Araama tablets (Enudtzon, 170. 43). 
Further wms (Anath-YHW) appears in Pap. 32 (Sachau, 
pp. 118 f.). In these papyri, YHW is called the God of 
heaven, and Jer. xliv. denounces with great emphasis the 
worship of the queen of heaven by the Jews in Egypt. That 
chapter should be carefully examined in this connection. 

'In any case Uie beading of the llat does not fit in with these 

'See further De V(^6, Melanges d'Archtologle Orlentale, pp. 
41 ff., and compare Anathotbljab. 1 Chroo. vlK. 24. 


886 Bibliotheca Sacra [Julji 

It proves the worship of other gods by Jewiah colonies in 
Egypt. It seems quite likely, therefore, that Anath-YHW may 
have been a consort of the God of heaven Whom the Jews 
worshiped. If this is sound, it would point to Anathbethel'a 
having been a consort of the god Bethel. On the other 
hand, Bethel might possibly (but improbably) be taken as 
a place-name in these two words. They would then mean, 
respectively, the Anath and Asham of Bethel. 

A Phoenician god Bethel is mentioned in a treaty made 
between Bsarhaddon and Baal of Tyre. In busineea rec- 
ords of the time of Artaxerxes I. we find a personal name 
BH-ili-nftri in which Blt-ili is written with the determi- 
native of a god, and there is other evidence,^ The papyri 
contain the name Betheluathan in a passage quoted abov^ 
and also mention a Bethelnathan son of Jehonathan. Sa- 
cbau (pp. 82 1.) quotes other names compounded with Bethel. 
Lagrange has suggested with great probability that we 
should recognize the god Bethel in Jer. zlviil. 13: "And 
Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel 
was ashamed of Beth-el their confidence." 

What inferences can we draw from these facts? In the 
first instance, we must conclude that the community was 
exceedingly mixed. It may be that Van Hoonacker is 
right in holding that they were lai^ly Samaritans.*. Cer- 
tainly there is a great similarity between the facts we find 
here and the statement of 2 Kings. On the other hand, 
there is also a striking resemblance to the cults denounced 
by Amos and Hosea, and it may very well be that the Ele- 
phantine colony contained a strong admixtnre of descend- 
ants of the ten tribes. The fact to which attrition has 
been drawn above, that one and the same man is described 
sometimes as a Jew and sometimes as a Syrian, may per- 
haps also point to the presence of Jews whose ancestors 
had been settled in Syria before migrating to Egypt.* 

■Zlmmem In B. Schradefa Die KelllnBcbrltten imd das Alts 
TeBtament (2d ed. 1903), pp. 43Sf. 

'Op. cit., pp. 82 fr. 

■Ve know rrom 1 Kings xx. 34 of an Israelite commercial col- 
OD7 In Damascus. 


1919] The Religion of Moses 337 

fiimilarl; an English Jew settling in some other country 
to-day might sometimes be called the Jew and sometimes 
the Englishman. Intermarriage, which was prohibited by 
the Law only in the case of certain tribes, is presumably 
responsible in whole or in part for the great mixture of 
names. There is, moreover, reason to believe that to a 
great extent personal names had ceased to have a religions 
significance and had become labels, as with ns.^ 

On the other hand, except, to some extent, in the case 
of Anath-THW (who appears to have been invented as a 
consort for Israel's God under the influence of the cult of 
Anath), the facta aU seem to point to the inflnence of for- 
eign North Syrian divinities rather than to any native 
Jewish object of worship. HRM-Bethel appears to be Syr- 
ian. Ashima is expressly connected with Hamath; and, 
if we should read this name in Amos vlii. 14, the inference 
is that the Syrian worship had penetrated the Northern 
Kingdom as did that of the Phoenician Baal in the days of 
Abab, but without ceasing to be heretical in the eyes of 
the faithful. As Anath and Bethel were also Syrian di- 
vinities, the most natural view is that Ashambethel and 
Anathbethel, like EBM-Betbel, should be regarded in the 
same light. If they were worshiped in Israel or in Judah, 
this was a falling away, and would have been so regarded 
by the faithful in every age. A passage in 2 Ejngs (v. 
17 f.) shows us the converse process. Naaman, the Syrian, 
impressed by his miraculous experience, adopts the wor- 
ship of Israel's Ood even in Damascus. But possibly 
strict worshipers of Bimmon regarded him in much the 
same way as the prophets viewed Hebrew worshipers of 
Syrian deities. 

Thus it appears that the Elephantine material may and 
does throw considerable light on the religious circum- 
stances of the age and on some difBcnlt prophetical texts. 
It does not, however, appear to aid in the criticism of 

■See 3. Dalchea, Tbe Jews in Babylonia In the Time of Ezra 
and Nebemlah accordlns to Babylonian InBcriptlons (1910), a 
abort monoErapli wblcb ahould be read by all who bave occasion 
to deal with this period. 


388 Bibliotheca Sacra [J11I7, 

the Pentateach. Looking at the Old Testara^it history 
broadly, we may aay with confidence that there was con- 
tinuous poIytheiBm and idolatry among the people till the 
Exile and later ; ' but the particular influences and dangers 
varied to some extent in difFerent epochs. For example, 
the Phcenician Baal was particularly dangerous in the age 
of Ahab, but we should not be justified in reading this 
back to, e.g., the time of the Judges. Similarly with the 
Bethel-Ashima group. As a menace to the pure faith of 
Israel they seem to me to belong to entirely different times 
from any that fell within the purview of the Pentateuch. 
Solomon's polygamy and imperialism gave rise to one set 
of dangers for Israel's religion (1 Kings xL), Jeroboam's 
schism (1 Kings xiii. 26 ff.) to another; and it is probable 
that from that time onward anccessive wares of foreign 
influence affected the religious practices and beliefs of 

But if we are not Justified by the religious history in 
importing the god Bethel into the Book of Genesis, the 
textual facts are most unfavorable to the Massoretic read- 
ing. I agree with Dahse ' in thinking that we should read 
not ' Bethel,' but ' that appeared to thee in the place ' ; and 
I recall the fact that the Hebrew word * place,' like its 
Arabic equivalent, also has a special religious meaning. 

For these reasons I cannot accept the view that Oenesis 
recognizes a god Bethel as the object of Jacob's worship. 

'Many of the tacts are collected In an Interestlns article liy 
ProfesBor J. H. P. Smith on "Jewleh Religion in the Fifth Cen- 
tiU7 B.C.," American Jouraal of Semitic Languages, vol. xxxlU. 
Pti, 322-333 (July. 191T). It la amusing to note bis astonishment 
(p. 328) at finding a statement of Jeremiah's to be trae after all: 
"We recall with fresh underetandlng that Jeremiah declared 'ac- 
cording to the ntimber of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah' <Jer. 
zl. 13), and begin to suspect that Jeremiah meant just witat he 
aald"1 Those who are tempted to heliere in the evolutionary 
theory should contrast his picture of the religion of the Jewish 
masses at that period with the, Aton faith. 

'See his Textkritiscfae Materlalien zur Hezateuchrrage, vol. L 
(1912) pp. 5f. 


1919] The Religion of Moses 

The TetragrammatoD fiin' itflelf may or may not have 
been ased in Israel or outside before the time of Moses. 
On the face of the Massoretic text it Beeme clear that it 
had been in common use tor centaries before (see especially 
Oen. iv. 26, "Then hegan men to call upon the name of 
the Lohd"). Bat textual investigations have now proved 
that in this matter we cannot rely on the Massoretic text,' 
and when we read (zvi. 13) the impossible ' She called the 
name of the Lobd that spake onto her,' we realize that the 
Tetragrammaton has been deliberately substituted for an- 
other word or words in occurrences where some desig- 
nation of the Deity followed the word name as a genitive. 
Insight into editorial methods enables us to see that this 
is dne to the influence of Ex. iii. 15. If * this is my name 
forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations,' 
then, so ran the argument, it must necessarily be read 
wherever in any generation there is a reference to the name 
of the Deity. Consequently the argument from Oen. iv. 26, 
etc., is worthless. The only other striking passage is xxviii. 
20 ff., dealing with Bethel. But obviously if baal or some 
similar word has been removed from the text of Genesis, 
and if the editors regularly treated designations of the 
Deity as variable elements to be brought into accord with 
the principles they had deduced from Biblical verses, the 
probative value of this passage is no higher than that of 

Professor N. J. Schlflgl, as the result of an exhaustive 
examination of the textual material, cannot convince him- 
self that the Tetragrammaton is original in any passage 
before Ex. iii. 12,' and certainly the general drift of the 
revelations to Moses and the Pharaoh's ignorance of the 
Lord (Ex. t. 2) would fit in well with the view that the 
Kame was new. 

'8e* TheologlBch TlJdBChrttt, 1918, pp. 164-169; BS. Jan. 1815, 
pp. 134-153; April. 1916, pp. 308^33; ApriU 1916, p. 332, footnote; 
Oct. 1916; April. 1917, pp. 315 It.; April, 1918, pp. 339 0.; Metlio- 
dlBt Quarterly ReTlev. April, 1918, pp. 183 tt. 
'Blbllsche ZeltBchrlft. vol. xlll. (1916) p. 113. 


340 , Biiliotheca Sacra [Jnly, 

The theorj that the TetraframmatoD occurs before the 
time of Moses in cuneiform iiiBcriptiona has been conclu- 
sively disproTed by Professor D. D. LudtenbiU,* following 
earlier work of Daiches, which, however, is less convinc- 
ing. I only quote one sentence: "But so long as there 
are no other reasons for supposing that the name of the 
Hebrew deity would occur in a Babylonian {not a Bebrew) 
name five hundred years before the time of David, and 
there certainly are no such reasons, and until the determi- 
native for deity is found prefixed to such a name, we must 
look elsewhere for an explanation of the form." 

It remains to notice one other view, viz. that Moses de- 
rived his religious belief, or at any rate the Name of Qod, 
from the Midianites. That is inherently improbable, for 
there is nothing whatever to suggest that any deity bear- 
ing this name was ever worshiped in Midian. It is flatly 
contradicted by Bx. iii. and vi., and also by the whole Old 
Testament view that the Qod of Moses was the Qod of the 
patriarchs. Textual criticism now furnishes new facts. In 
Ex, xviii, 1 (" Now Jethro . , . heard of all that God had 
done for Moses, and for Israel his people," B. V.) the LXX 
reads, ' Jethro heard what xcfuo? 'lo-pat^A, had done for hia 
people.' The variants recorded in Brooke and McIiCan's 
edition are insignificant: — pr o y. idi Cyr-cod: om z: -|- 
oS^a,. Of these, j's reading is probably due to an attempt 
to make sense of the text ; but, if original, it represents a 
Hebrew ' the baal of Israel.' The general Qreek reading 
when retranslated gives YHWH Israel, which ia just as 
impossible as Thomas Israel would be in English. The or- 
iginal probably had ' the baal of Israel,' and the LXX and 
M, T, offer alternative corrections. If in the eyes of Jethro 
the Qod of Moses was the baal of Israd, it is obvious that 
the Name and worship were not derived from Midianite 
sources. That hypothesis may therefore be dismissed as 

'American Journal of Theology, vol. xxH, pp. 47-50 (No. 1, Jan. 


1919] The Religion of Moaes 

It is inanifeat that, in order to understand the religion 
of Israel, we mast get as close as posaible to the orig- 
inal text pt the Old Testament. Some work has already 
been done on Qenesis and a little on the later books, but 
even in the best part of the field ve are still far from 

The phenomena of the text of Oeneais in respect of the 
Divine appellations merely form part of a larger problem 
— that of the Divine appeUations throughout the Old Tes- 
tament — which in torn is only a section of the great text- 
ual problem of the Old Testament. The best text we can 
now hope to recover will be attainable only when the whole 
of the available material has been published and thor- 
oughly discussed, but it is necessary to go as far as we can 
towards solving provisionally the difficulties that arise on 
the facts already before us. No donbt some of the per- 
plexities are dne to glossing, mistakes in resolving real 
or supposed abbreviations, confusions between tbe Tetra- 
grammaton and Adonai, owing to the identity of pronun- 
ciation, and erroneous emendations of passages that were 
thonght to be corrupt. Bat the chief cause lay elsewhere. 
The Old Testament has been deliberately edited by men 
whose minds were dominated by Biblical texts and theo- 
logical views. In many of the books the chief stumbling- 
block was the presence of the word " Baal," to which ob- 
jection was taken later on account of the interpretation 
placed on passages like Hos. ii. 16 f.' In fairness, however, 
to the editors, we must remember that something like their 
work was absolutely necessary if monotheism was to be 

The time is now ripe for advancing further along what 
experience has shown to be the right road, and we can 

■Formerly I hcBltated In 8ome passages between Baal and 
Adon. I now think that adon was not removed, for it appears 
actually to have been iruerteA In place of older titles tbat were 
deeraed objectionable, e.g. In Deut Is. 26 (see Dabse, op. dt„ vol. 
t. p. 12, and infra) ; and tbat would not have occurred hod this 
word been obnoxfous to the editors. Compare also the use of 


342 Bibliotlieca Sacra [July, 

make some additional ase of our archaeological, religiona, 
and textual materials.^ 

The word " Baal " seems to have been extremely com- 
mon at the time of Moses. A journal of an Egyptian fron- 
tier official dated in the third year of Memeptah (i^ 
in the regnal year .immediately following that in which 
the Exodus took place) gives ns the following: — "There 
went up the servant of Baal," " The chief of Tyre, Baalat- 
Bem^," " Meth-det, son of Bhem-Baal." Yet the English 
translation of the whole journal occupies scarcely more 
than a page of Breasted's "Ancient Records" {vol. ill. pp. 
271 f.). Working back, we find that names compoonded 
with Baal, e.g. Amur-Baalu, occur in the Amama tablets, 
and the Baalat of Gnbla is often mentioned. Coming down 
to the finds at Samaria, we meet with the names Baala, 
Baalzamar, Baalisakar, Baal-Meoni, Abibaal, and Heri- 
baal on ostraca.* Bealiah occurs as a Jewish name in 
Babylonia in the time of Darius II. {42t-404 b.c.).* The 
Elephantine papyri and ostraca contain a number of names 
compounded with Baal, but Sachau (p. 77) states that none 
of them occurs in any papyrus that is certainly Jewish. 

Bo much for the additional facts revealed by archsolt^y. 
Xow who or what was baal?* 

In itself " baal " is an absolutely harmless word, mean- 

■ On some of the mattere here treated Bee now further H. Greas- 
mann, Hadad uad Baal nach den Amarnabriefen und nach ftgrPt- 
Ischen Texten In Abbandlungen zur semltlechen RellglonBkunde 
usd SpracbwtasenBcbaft Wolf Wllhelm Orafen von Baudlssln . . . 
aberrelcht [1918], pp. 191-216. Thla volume became available In 
London too late for use In the present dlacuaalon. 

'D. O. Lfon. Harvard Theological Review, vol. Iv, (1911> p. 
141; S. R. Driver, Paleettne Exploration Fund Quarterly State- 
ment (1911), pp. S2r. 

*S. Dalcfaes, op. dt., p. 17. These facts show that Professor 
L. B. Paton was unfortunate In asserting (Encyclopedia of Re- 
ligion and Ethics, vol. 11, [1909] p. 291) that "No names of this 
type are found after the time of David," and In some of the Infer- 
ences he draws. The revelations of the spade habitually damage 
the reputations of modem Orientalists. 

•At this point It Is necessary to utter a word of warning for 
English readers. The second volume of the Encyclopiedla of Re- 


1919] The Keligion of Moses 343 

ing lord, m&Bter, owner. It is commonly ased of men in 
various good eenaes^ aiich as master of a horse, owner of 
an ox, hasband of a wife, and can also express different 
kinds of relationship. Thus ' baal of dreams ' is the equiv- 
alent of the Elnglish " dreamer." The usage of the word is 
singularly flexible. It was also applied to supernatural 
llglon and Ethlca edited b7 Or. J. Haetinge, which appeared in 
1609, contAlnB a long article (pp. 283-298). by ProfeaBor Lewie 
Bayles Paton, which gives a great deal of Information and might 
naturally be consulted on tbe subject. It must, however, only be 
used with reserve, becauee of an unlucky mistake In the Hebrew 
and Old Testament field which vitiates the discussion. We read 
(p. 284a): "In Bab-Assyr. the worshlppv addresees his god as 
BtH, • my lord.' or BtUt, ' my lady *; but this is not found In the 
other dialects, except where there Is direct borrowing frnn tbe 
Babylonian. ... It is noteworthy, however, that, while the wor- 
shipper does not speak of tbe god as ' my ba'al,' he may call him- 
self ' slave of tbe ba'ai.' " Now that Is exactly what the worshiper 
did do In Hebrew. Hosea ii. 16 is perfectly explicit on tbe point: 
"And tt shall be at that d^, saith tbe Low, thiU thou shalt call 
me Ishl; and shalt call me no more Baall." That means that 
Baall, my baaJ, was commonly used in Israel (compare lea. llv. 
6; Jer. xxxl. 32). Professor Paton's attitude Is the more curious 
because later In tbe article (p. 292a) he actually refers to the 
Hosea pasBsge, and (p. 292b) even points to some of the textual 
matilaUons that were carried through In order to purge ' the Old 
Testament of this word.' This, of course, disposes of his state- 
m^it (284a) : " Corresponding to the original usage which lim- 
ited the name Ba'al to owners of things, tbe be'atim are elsewhere 
uniformly regarded as proprietors of objects and places, not as 
owners of persons. Lords of tribes or of ladtvlduals are . . . never 
bCaUm. One never meets Ba'al-Iiraet, Ba'aUMoab, Ba'al-AnMium" 
As the word has been Bystematically removed from the Old Tes- 
tament text, we cannot be sure whether it was used of Moab and 
Amnion or not It is Quite possible that It stood originally in some 
places where we now read 'abomination' or some other word 
(e.g. 1 Kings xl. 5, 7; see BS, July, 1917. pp. 479tt.). It — or 
rather the feminine Baalah— seems, however, to have been used 
of Jadah (see the names la 2 Sam. vl. 2 [Klttel, BIblla Hebralca, 
ad loc] compared with 1 CSkron. xill. 6); and In oonnection with 
Benjamin we shonld restore ' hie Baal ' In Deut. zxxili. 12 (see BS, 
April, 1918, pp. 239 If.). In Ex. xviii. 1 we have seen that the read- 
ings are explicable on the view that Baal of Israel has been de- 
liberately mutilated; and there is strong reason for holding that 
the expression Baal of Hosts was frequent. 


344 Bibliotheca Sacra [J«ly» 

beings, and bere its flexibility makes it extremely difflcolt 
always to be sare wbat is meant. Perhaps it will be saffl- 
cient to refer to three matters: — (1) All kinds of spirits 
supposed to be connected with wells, trees, etc., were called 
baals; (2) so were a nnmber of local deities, such as the 
Baals of particular towns; and (3) baal is also used for 
one deity who was Baal par excellence, Hadad, the Adda 
of the Amama letters. In 108. 9,^ we find Bib-addi of 
Gubla comparing the king to Addu and the son in the 
heaTen; in 147. 14, 149. 7, we have similar compansona 
by Abi-Milki of Tyre; and in 169. 7, by Aziru prince of 
Amurru. In 62. 4 the Pharaoh is called 'my lord (bel), 
my Addn' by Akizzi of B^tna. M. J. Lagrange (fitudes 
sur les BeligioDS S4mitiquee [2d ed. 1905], pp. 91, 93), fol- 
lowing Hommel and Knudtzon, thinks that in many cases 
where we find the name written ideographicaUy in proper 
names it was actually read as baal. Be this as it may, 
Hadad seems to have been a baal whose worship was not 
confined to any particular locality, to have been associated 
with the heavens, and to have been often called Baal Sha- 
mem, the baal of heav^i. 

For a long time the use of the word " baal " in connec- 
tion with Israel's Qod was regarded as just as natural and 
harmless as its use of any other deity. Bealiah, ' Yah is 
my Baal [Lord],' is found as a proper name (1 Chron. xii. 
6; Baiches, op. cit.), just as is Elijah, 'Yah is my El 
[God].' But later a change set in, and the word, when 
used as a designation of Qod, was sedulously removed from 
the Old Testament books. Various devices were adopted, — 
mutilation of the word itself, substitution of another ex- 
pression, and total excision of an offending phrase, all be- 
ing practiced.' Sometimes the divergences of parallel texts or 

'I cite by J. A. Knudtzon's Die El-Amarna Tafeln (1916). 

■ For instances, Bee tlie artlclea cited in footnote 1, p. 339, tupra. 
Thus Abab'B (our hundred Baal prophetB have been converted by 
editors Into prophetB at terael'fl God, thereby depriving the nar- 
rative of all sense <1 KlngB xxil.; 2 Chron. zvUl.); the men of 
Sodom have been made to sin before the Lobo, of Whom they 
knew nothing, inetead of before the Baal, etc. 


1919] The Religion of Moaea 345 

of ancient veraions show that different editors have worked 
on different principles, and enable us to go some way 
towards restoring the original. In other passages consid- 
erations of B^ise or soond come to our assistance. 

If, now, we read the patriarchal history in the knowl- 
edge that we can place no reliance on the Massoretic 
designations of the supernatural beings, we shall not come 
to the conclusion that the background is mouotheistic. 
There is undoubtedly one supernatural Being Who stands 
in a special relation to the patriarchs, and He has messen- 
gers or angels who are also supernatural; though their 
existence is, of course, entirely compatible with monothe- 
ism. But apart from the strange gods whose worship Jacob 
forbids in a particular locality (Oen. xzxr. 2), though he 
had apparently not reprobated it elsewhere, there are two 
classes of other beings. In Qen, xxxii. 24 Jacob wrestles 
with a man according to most texts, but an angel accord- 
ing to D, supported by Justin (and Theodoret). Whether 
on the textual question we regard ' man ' as original, or 
take it as a substitution for Baal made on the basis of the 
iahi (my man) of Hosea's famous text (ii. 18 f.), it is clear 
that the narrative regards Jacob's opponent as supernat- 
ural. In Gen. xvi. we again find a baal or el (BS, Jan. 1915, 
pp. 103 f.). Another class of supernatural beings is fur- 
nished by Leah's invocation of the Syrian deity Gad (Oen. 
xxxi. 11) and passages like Qen. xiv,, where we find a deity 
who in the original text was called El Eh/on. The Tetra- 
grammaton in verse 22 is a late insertion, and we may 
doubt whether in the patriarchal age this god was iden- 
tified with the God of Israel, Who, however, later absorbed 
his name 

The textual phenomena of the last four books of the 
Pentateuch res^nble those with which we meet in Genesis. 
Pending the publication of Dahse's full materials, it is un- 
necessary to deal with the bulk of the passages, but I have 
observed that in some the results that can be obtained are 
material to the present study. In Deut. vi. 4 the Hebrew 
gives : — ' Hear, Israel, the Loan our God the Loan one.' 


346 Bibliotheca Sacra [J«ly, 

To any thinking man it will seem most improbable that 
an aQtbor, of the ability of the writer of this passage, 
having an extremely important announcement to make, 
shonld formulate it in langnage that is SD8ceptibl« of four 
different meanings, none of them good. If he wished to 
say either that ' the Lord, our God, is one ' or * the Lord 
oar Qod is the only Qod,' it was open to him to do so. Bnt 
the B. V. adopts as its text " the Lord, oar God, Is one 
Lord." That makes exactly the same sort of impression 
as if one shoald say " My friend Thomas is one Thomas," 
for the Tetragrammaton is just as purely a personal name 
as is Thomas. The textual material increases our embar- 
rassments. The Nash papyrus, our most ancient Hebrew 
witness, adds Kin ■ he is,' which rules out the other trans- 
lations and leaves the meaningless B. V. in sole possession 
of the field. If the word is original, why was it dropped 
in M. T.? If it was not, how came so nonsensical an inter- 
pretation to arise? The great t>ody of Septuagintal author- 
ities support the Nash papyrus, a few Fathers have ' God ' 
for the second Lord, and n. Boh, "Eth", Fal^, with some 
patristic anthorities, read ' the Lord, our God, is one,' 
omitting the second ' Lord.' This would be excellent, but 
for the fact that it could not have given rise to the car- 
rent texts, and is therefore not original. Yet there is a 
very simple solution. ' Hear, O Israd, the Lord our God 
is one baal ' (ton irw Vn) would give a good s^ise and 
explain all the readings. The removal of the word by later 
editors gave rise to alternative mutilationB, ending in non- 
sense. In days when baal was a synonym for God, the 
original sentence meant ' The Lord our God is one God.' 

In the overwhelming majority of cases the removal of 
baal and the substitution of some other word has made no 
substantial difference. In others the clear sense of the 
passage has overcome philol<^, and most readers have 
continued to understand it in the way originally intended 
by the author, in spite of verbal changes. For instance, 
where in a law baalim was altered to Elohim, the A. V. 
ri^tly rendered " judges," for in the old days justice was 


1919] The Religion of Moaes 347 

dispensed by the Baalim {citizens, elders) of the place.* 
WheH the word was removed, Elohim was substituted, 
donbtlees under the influence of Deut. i. 17, " for judg- 
ment belongs to Blohim," but the common sense of the 
people was not led astray, and it was understood that the 
real meaning was ' judges,' not ' God.' 

In some passages, however, the change affected the sense 
in a way that could not easily be remedied. In Ex. viii. 
18 (E. V. 22), in the light of my present knowledge, I re- 
gard the Beptuagiutal texts * as being due to an original 
Hebrew, ' shall know that I, the Loed, am baal of all the 
earth.' * Such an expression is unquestionably material to 
our conception of the religion of Moses.* On the other 
hand, if baal has been altered into the Tetragramma- 
ton, much may have been ascribed to Israel's Ood that 
was not properly His. The golden calf affords a remark- 
able illustration. If Aaron said "a feast of the Lord to- 
morrow" (Ex, xxxii. 5), it was either identified or con- 
nected with Him. But if the true reading be that of the 
LXX, ' a feast of the lord [baal] to-morrow,' then the calf 
is the calf of Hadad." Again, Ex. Iv. 24-26 is clearly a 

> See BS, April, 1919, pp. 210 IT. 

'See BS. Jan. 191G, p. 136. 

■It aeems quite likely that the expresEioD "shall know that I 
am the Lobd " is never original In Exodui, where we are dealing 
with a newl7 revealed name with no assoclatiODB. 

'I am of coarse aware that the evolutionary school deliberately 
reject all these monotheistic ezpreBsions as late additions to the 
text of their earlier documents. Their action Is based on the 
a priori view that monotheism is late, which I have refuted In the 
BS for Oct. 1907 (as stated at the beginning of the present discus- 
sion). Ab we have seen, monotheism was, in fact, much older than 
Uoses (tupro, pp. 323-333). 

*UCX rovnipuu, except the Syro-Hexaplar, which renders Dom- 
ino, correctly representing M. T. I must not be understood as say- 
ing that in the best text ice can now restore of the Septuaglntal 
Pentateuch 1 nvxM with the article, as opposed to mpm without 
the article, never represents the name of Ood; but the usage with- 
out the article for this purpose Is so preponderant, that I suspect 
that originally the translators always employed It to represent tho 
Tetragrammaton. Like the Hebrew, the Qreek has been so much 
eut about to free it from what was deemed objectionable (witness 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 8«8. < 


348 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

story of some baal who differed essentially from Israel's 
God. No Hebrew historian coold possibly have repro- 
Bcnted his God as trying to kill a man and tailing in the 
attempt. This baal belongs to the same class aa Hagar's 
interlocutor and the being who wrestled with Jacob. 

In Nnm. xiv. 9 we meet the oniutelligible expression 
"their shadow (dW> has departed," etc. Most Septna- 
gintal texts have o xatpot but the Armenian read Dominut 
and NgnklPb (mg) oOT = ^B3n. * the baal.' For our pres- 
ent purpose it is worth noticing that the expression seems 
to have been ' the baal,' not ' their baal.' The narrator here 
probably adopts the term commonly used by the natives 
themselves, without thereby indicating that he necessarily 
regarded * the baal ' as identical with Israel's baal. 

Other readings throw light on our probl«n. In Nam. 
xvi. 22, M. T. has ' God, god of spirits of all flesh,' bntthe 
LXX clearly read ' and of all flesh " ( 1 for H Similarly 
in zxvii. 16 the LXX seems to have found 'Lord, God of 
spirits and of all flesh.' Those readings make the Lobd 
God of the supernatural world as well as of mankind and 
the whole animal kingdom. 

Deuteronomy ix. 26 should perhaps be placed by the 
side of these. Dahse (op. cit.) has carefully distingoished 
seven Greek readings. Three of these contain the phrase 
' king of the gods,' which is clearly the original. The He- 
brew elohim is, however, used of supernatural beings gen- 
erally ; so that king of the gods does not necessarily mean 
what it would in the mouth of an ancient Greek. It need 
not mean more than the " God of gods " of x. 17, if that 
phrase be interpreted not as a simple superlative, but in 
tbe nine readlnge In Josh. vt. IT) that It 1b not safe, to bulltl much 
on the presence or absence of the article. On the bull of Hadad, 
cp. M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 93. He holds that Hadad was Baal 
Shamem, and that his attributes were sufSclentlr like those of the 
Qod of Israel to have led to a mixture of worship and the adora- 
tion of the latter under tbe Image of a bull. That would explain 
the practice of the Northern Kingdom and Illuminate Aaron's action. 
' Divergencies In tbe readlnge of the Septuaglntal authorltlea 
that do not affect the point at issue are disregarded. 


1919] The Religion of Moses 349 

its literal sense; > bat it doee point to a belief in tlie exist- 
ence of other supernatural beings over wtiom Qod reigns 

In Deut. xxzii. S f . the LXX reproduces tlie same idea. 
Its Hebrew appears to have read; — 

8 'When Blyoa gave to the nations tbeir Inheritance, 
When He separated the children of men, 

He set tha borders of the peoples 
According to the sons [LXX angels] of EL 

9 For the portion of the Lobd 1b hla people Jacob, 
The lot of bis Inheritance is Israel.' 

Yet this was felt to be perfectly consistent with saying 
(ver. 39) : " See now that I, even I, am he, and there is 
no god with me." 

We may now attempt a synthesis of the facts bearing 
apon our problem. 

The ancestors of the Israelites dwelt of old time beyond 
the Biver and they served other gods (Josh. xxiv. 2, 14 f.). 
Abraham had communion with a God of heaven with Whom 
he felt himself to stand in a special relation. But His name 
was certainly not revealed to the patriarchs and was prob- 
ably unknown. There is no reason to suppose either that 
he believed that God to be the sole deity or that he re- 
frained from worshiping other gods. El Elyon of Jeru- 
salem (Gen. xiv.), the I>eing who appeared to Hagar (Gen. 
xvi.), El 01am (Gen. xxi, 33),' were not necessarily iden- 
tified in Abraham's mind with the Baal whom he wor- 
shiped in the 'place' of Shechem. We must regard the 
patriarclis as standing on the common Semitic level, be- 
lieving in a plurality of baals, some of whom we should 

> Cp. Josh. zxll. 22, H. T. 

'It looks as ir. In an ancestor of our present Hebrew, 'Israel' 
bad been written above the line or In the margin, and bad tb«i 
been treated as a correction ot tbe ' el ' of ver. S. 

■ ' Tbelr ' was unknown to D and Pbllo; t misplaces ' the name 
of tbe Lobd,' wblcb points to Its being an addition. It Is quite possi- 
ble that originally El Olam was a local numen. 


350 Bibliotheca Hacra [J»ily> 

term gods while others might be regarded as graiies or 
local spirits that would hardly be dignified with such a 
title. While I am seldom able to follow Eerdmans in mat> 
ters of detail, I think that he showed true insight when he 
wrote the following sentences : " The exegesis of Genesis 
teaches us in my opinion that a background of polytheistic 
traditions lies behind our text. The monotheistic sciibes 
read these traditions in a monotheistic sense, and only a 
few traces are now preserved which show us the original 
meaning of the narrative. These traditions are not the 
product of a pre-exUic or postexilic school, but old popular 
traditions " (Die Komposition der Genesis [1908], pp. 1 f.). 
Scientific textual criticism, working hand in hand with 
archaeological study and comparative religion, enables us 
to go some way towards recovering the original spirit of 
the narratives. 

As already indicated, we have no means of judging how 
far Abraham identified the Ood Who appeared to him with 
many of the local baals worshiped in Canaan, just as we 
are ignorant of how far the Amorites themselves identi- 
fied the baal of one city with the baal of the next. It is 
most probable that in those ages the bulk of the people 
would have been quite unable to give a clear, consistent 
acconut of their beliefs, and we may reasonably suppose 
that the leaders of the religious thought of the age would 
often have regarded as local cults of the same deity what 
to the majority of the populace were cults of different 
gods. One point, however, does suggest itself. The in- 
sistence upon Sbechem as the scene of a great covenant 
between Gk>d and Israel (Deut. xi. 29 f. ; iivii. 8 f. ; Josh, 
xxiv.; see BS, Oct. 1916, pp. 609 f.) and Gen. ixxiii. 20 
(Bl Elohe Israel) taken in conjunction with Gen. lii. 6f., 
make it likely that the God of Abraham was identified 
with a Baal worshiped at Shechem, while Gen. xxiv. shows 
that He was r^arded as the God of heaven. Jacob cer- 
tainly identified Him with a God Who appeared to him 
in Bethd (Gen. xxviii. 11-22, etc.), and In the expression 
" this is the gate of heaven " (xxviii 17) we should possi- 


1919] The Religion of Moses 351 

bly see forther evidence of the identification with the God 
of Heaven. Yet there is not the amalleat reason for re- 
garding this patriarch as a monotheist or even a monol- 
ater. He certainly canoot have sacrificed to the God of 
his fathers when in Laban's service; for, luUike Naaman 
at a later date (2 Kings v. 17), he did not travel with two 
mules' borden of earth, which wonld have given him the 
BoU on which alone, according to the ideas of those days, 
sacrifice could have been oEEered. The natural Impression 
made by a i^emsal of Gen. zxzL is that the vision it nar- 
rates reinaugurated a relationship which had lapsed for 
some years. Laban and his daughters were polytheiste. 
When Leah said, "With Gad" (Gen. xxx. 11), she was 
calling on a Syrian god of that name; and the story of the 
stolen teraphim (Gen. xzxi.) speaks with no uncertain 
voice. Jacob became squeamish about strange gods only 
when he approached Bethel (Gen. xxzv. 1 ff.). It has al- 
ready been indicated that some of the minor supernatural 
personages with whom we meet in the narrative, such as 
Jacob's antagonist at Penuel, should not be idoitified with 
the God of the patriarchs. 

The people who went down into Egypt, therefore, were 
polytheists and the descendants of polytheists. They stood 
on precisely the same footing as the contemporary Amor- 
ites, except that they believed that a, or more probably 
the, God of heaven, Who had been worshiped at Shechem 
and probably Bethel and other places, had appeared to 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and entered into special rela- 
tions with them. But here comes a very important point. 
Unlike all the other relationships between the human and 
the Divine with which we meet in Semitic religion outside 
Israel, this was conceived as a voluntary sworn contract, 
called a covenant, into which both parties had entered. 
The significance of this is very great indeed. It disposes 
of all theories of a natural or local relationship between 
this God and the patriarchs. " The God before whom my 
fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the Lord which hath 
fed me all my life long unto this day, the King which hath 


862 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

redeemed me from all evil" (Oen. xlriti. 15 f.), asenmed 
this positioD in the eyes of the patriarchs through revela- 
tion direct and unmistakable, taking a form which delib- 
erately shot ont all other possibilities of interpretation. 
But as yet His vorship is not exclaeive. Save within a 
very limited territory (Gten. uxv. 2 ff.), He is not a jeal- 
ons Gtod, There is no suggestion anywhere that polythe- 
ism was untme or undesirable (except as indicated in the 
last sentence). He is not yet conceived as the Qod of gods. 

With the descent into Egypt sacrificial worship of the 
Qod of the fathers necessarily ceased (Ex. viii. 22 [26]). 
The people naturally and inevitably served other gods 
(Josh. xxiv. 14; Esek. xz. 7f.). There was a memory of 
the Ood of the fathers, and in persecution an appeal to 
Him ; but that was all. The Israelites of those days were 
polytheistic and idolatrous to the core. 

The first intervention of Moses on behalf of his brethren 
was in no sense religions. His patriotism was stirred (Ex. 
ii. 11 H.), and there is as yet no hint of what he was to 
mean in the spiritual history of mankind. That first ap- 
pears in the narrative of the burning bush. He receives 
a revelation, and the Being Wbo speaks to him is not a 
god of Egypt or a god of Gaanan, not a god of Bene! or 
of Midian, but " the God of thy father, the Qod of Abra- 
ham, the Ood of Isaac, and the Ood of Jacob " (Ex. iii. 6). 
The Name is revealed to him. Philologists have debated 
as to the etymology of the word THWH, and their reeult 
has been negative. They have failed to agree. Naturally 
so. It is not put forward as something which could 
have a definite meaning ascertainable by philolt^y. It Is 
called " this glorious and fearful name" (Dent, xxviii. 58), 
and is obviously intended to transcend etymol<^, not 
limited in sense to any single aspect of the Divine nature, 
however many its phonetic analogies might suggest The 
revelation of the name had several effects, but for our pres- 
ent purpose we need consider only one. A personal name 
at once emphasized the distinctness of this Ood from all 
ottiers. Uonotheism is not yet taught, but the supreme 


1919] The Religion of Moses 353 

power over the creation of man and all hU faculties is dis- 
tinctly asserted (iv. 11). A aopernatoral being meets 
Moses at the lodging place and seeks to kill him. The at- 
tempt is, hovever, defeated by appropriate means (Ex. iv. 
24-26). Here we have a belief in a genie of low-grade 
power whom we should not term a god. Then comes the 
narrative of the happenings in Egypt. Pharaoh has never 
heard of the new name of God, and proceeds to extremi- 
ties. This is followed by the great conflict with the gods 
of Egypt in which monotheism clearly emerges for the flrat 
time in the narrative. 

That conflict shonld be studied in the light of our knowl- 
edge of Egyptian religion. We have seen that monotheism 
had sprung into being in that country some one hundred 
and fifty yeara earlier. While it had failed, the attributes 
of the Aton had to some extent been ascribed to the tri- 
umphant Amon. It was inevitable that in a struggle 
against Amon they should be assigned to the victorious 
Ood of Israel. And so we read, Ex. viu. 6 (10) , " that thou 
mayest know that there is no other save the Loan";* viii. 
18 (22) , ' that thou mayest know that I, tbe Lord, am baal 
of all the earth '; * ix. 14 ft., " that thou mayest know that 
there is none like me in all the earth ... to shew thee my 
power, and that my name may be declared throughout all 
the earth "; ix. 29, " that thou mayest know that the earth 
is the Lord's." The monotheism of Israel had been bom, 
but how could it be saved from the premature fate that had 
befallen the religion of the Aton ? How was the Torah of 
Mosee to win a brighter future than the "teaching" of 
Akhenaton ? 

To some extent the lawgiver's problem resembled the 
Pharaoh's. Both had to deal with an entirely polytheistic 
people and with the same false gods. But here the like- 
ness ceases. Neither in the nature of his deity, nor in the 
historical antecedents, nor in the circumstances of the 

* So most SeptuaglDtal texte, but It la possible tbat even this Is 
not the earliest form of the verse, though It doubtless gives the 
orlgltial sense coirectlr. 

' See tupra, p. 347, 


354 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

age, nor in tbe manifestations of Divine power, nor even 
in the absence of vested priestly interests in other gods, 
did the Egyptian enjoy the advantages of the Hebrew. 
Akhenaton taught a speculative belief of pantheistic char- 
acter in the solar disc ; Moses, on the other hand, e^ke in 
the name of a personal Qod Who lay outside creation, Who 
was known to the people in their earlier history, Who 
showed Himself easily able to worst the gods of Egypt in 
championing their cause, and Who vouchsafed miraculous 
signs and wonders and a direct revelation of His will to 
the whole nation. It would be unfair, in view of our very 
limited knowledge of the faith of the Atou, to dificnaa the 
ethical character of that deity. Bat it is pertinent to ask, 
whether anybody supposes that Akhenaton conld have en- 
acted any law forbidding worship of other gods in the 
Egypt of his day. If that question be answered in the 
negative — as it clearly most be — we can institute no 
comparison between the methods of the two men. Akhen- 
aton failed; but he failed where success was impossible; 
and even whUe we discern the flaws in his beliefs and in 
his methods, he is entitled to onr admiration and rever- 
ence for a spiritual achievemoit which was colossal in it- 
self and helped to mold the future of monotheism through- 
out the world. At the same time it is quite possible that 
Moses learnt some lessons from his failure. 

If the teaching of the Egyptian was speculative, the He- 
brew devoted more attention to conduct than to theory. 
The task of converting a polytheistic nation to monothe- 
ism is essentially practical, and the means must necessarily 
vary according to the stage of reflection and intellectual 
culture to which the people have attained. Monotheism 
in those days was contrary to substantially all human 
thought and experience. To an ordinary Israelite of the 
Mosaic age, an assertion that the gods whom the Egyp- 
tians and the Amorites worshiped simply did not exist, 
would have been incredible, if not meaningless. Accord- 
ingly we find the main efforts of the Pentateuch devoted 
rather to the enforcement of monotheistic practice than to 


1919] The Beliffion of Moses 355 

the discuBsioD of its theory. It is clearly stated that " all 
the earth ia mine " (Ex. xix. 5) ; and on that basis a core- 
Dant Ib made, placing the people in the position of a king- 
dom of priests. Yet the legislation is devoted to the prac- 
tical task of preventing the vorship of other gods. " Thou 
Shalt make no other gods before me " (Ex. xx. 3) ; " Thon 
shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor the likeness 
of any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth 
beneath, or that is in the water nnder the earth : thoa 
shalt not bow down thyself imto them, nor serve them: 
for I the Lord thy Ood am a jealous God, visiting the in- 
iquity of the fathers upon the children, 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 commandments" (ver. 4-6) ; "Ye shall not make 
with me gods of silver, or gods of gold" (ver. 23)^; "He 
that sacriflcetb unto other gods shall be devoted"' (xxii. 
19 [20] ) ; * make no mention of the name of other gods,' etc. 
(xxiii. 13) ; " Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor 
serve them, nor do after their works ; but thou shalt utterly 
overthrow them, and break in pieces their pillars. And ye 
shall serve the Lobd your God " (xxiii. 24 f ) ; " Thou shalt 
make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They 
shall not dwell in tby land, leat they make thee sin against 
me : for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare 
unto thee" (ver. 32f.). Those are among the terms of 
that first covenant.* Nothing is here predicated as to the 
nature or power of those other gods: attention is concen- 
trated on the translation into conduct. of the requirements 
of monotheism. The difference between monotheism and 
monolatry looms large in modem textbooks; but as a 
question of real life it bad no existence for the Hebrews 
of the Mosaic age. The time was not ripe for any mlssion- 
' For the test, see BS. Oct. 1914, pp. 621 f., footnote. 
*Thl8 appears to be the earliest form of the verae, which has 
Buffered In tranemlsslon. 

'It aeema unnecessary to quote further from the Pentateucbal 
leglBlatlon on this point 


356 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jnl^f 

ary effort to other peoples. The practical task was to win 
a finn hold on this people for monotheistic practice. 

Onr information snggests that even this was quite be- 
yond the religious powers of the bulk of the people. The 
episode of the golden calf illustrates this. Que law is ex- 
pressly enacted to strike at the worship of satyre (Lev. 
xrii. 7) ; another makes the candid admission that sacri- 
ficial conduct was regulated by the principle " Every man 
whatsoever is right in his own ^es " (Deut. xii. 8). Amos 
V. 26 is too difBcult a passage to be of much value as evi- 
dence; but Josh. xziv. 23 speaks of " the strange gods which 
are among yon," and Ezek. zx. is very emphatic as to the 
idolatry in the wilderness. Even the wonders of the Exo- 
dus and the wanderings, even Sinai, could not avail to 
stamp monotheism on the hearts of the common people. 

The shaping of the conduct of this polytheistic, idola- 
trous nation was the immediate problem, not the formula- 
tion of belief and thought ; yet no absolute hard-and-fast 
line could be drawn between these two tasks in any age. 
In every generation there are thoughtful minds, though 
they may be relatively few, and some provision for these 
was a necessity. There are questionings in the mind of 
every intelligent monotheist, at some period of his devel- 
opment, concerning the relations subsisting between the 
Ood of heaven to Whom belonged alt the earth and other 
supernatural beings on the one hand, and the heathen 
nations on the other. We cannot say what answer Akhen- 
aton made to them. " sole Ood whose powers no other 
possesseth." " There is no other that knoweth thee, save 
thy son Ikhnaton." Did no other supernatural beings ex- 
ist? And what of the other gods and their worshipers? 
We do not know exactly what the Pharaoh would have 
replied. The Pentateuch, however, provides answers. The 
God of Israel is not merely one baal (Deut. vi. 4). He ia 
the only Deity (Deut. iv. 35, 39; xxxii. 39). He too is God 
and king over spirits of whatever nature Just as fully as 
over flesh (Num. xvi. 22; xxvii. 16; Deut. ix. 26; mpra, pp. 
348 1.) . And whUe there is none beside Him, He has assigned 


1919] The Religion of Moses 357 

objects of worship to the heathen {I>eat. iv. 19; nxii. 8f. 
[LXX text cited supra] ; cp. ixix. 25 [26] ) . 

In these passages we hare the only possible reconcilia- 
tion between the idea of a single beneficeot God and that 
of a special revelation to a particular people; bat so far 
as the monotheistic idea is concerned they carry as no fur- 
ther than Exodas. In all alike we see One, All-powerfal 
Ood. All alike recognize the ezlateDce of other supernat- 
ural beings, but Numbers tells us explicitly the relation 
between Ood and those beings, while Deuteronomy also 
explains the position of those nations to which Ckhl has 
not revealed Himself directly. Closely regarded, the doc- 
trine of the Pentateuch is coherent and consistent. Mono- 
theism, yes; but couched in a form that strives to regulate 
the conduct of the most ignorant and least reflective while 
presenting nnobtmaively the deeper doctrine that was 
essential for thoughtful minds. And thus monotheism is 
consistently made the basis of special obligation on the 
part of the people. The religion of Moses was a religion 
of duties far more than of rights. " Ton only hare I known 
of all the families of the earth : therefore I will visit upon 
yon all yonr iniquities." The formulation is by Amos (iii. 
2), bttt the thought is that of the covenants. The Posses- 
sor of all the earth selects a kingdom of priests and a holy 
nation, and promises certain benefits; hut in return He 
impoaes, and the people accept, obligations both national 
and individual that touch human life at every point. One 
supreme God and a chosen people of revelation — chosen 
for duty and service — that is the doctrine. How different 
from the conception of Akhenaton ! 

Prom the outset it was obvious that many centuries 
of no common discipline would be necessary before these 
thoughts would really dominate the national soul, to the 
exclusion of polytheism and idolatry. To the exponents 
of the a priori method who are satisfied that Moses could 
not have been a monotheist, because, in the teetb of the 
historical evidence to the contrary, they have laid down 
the dogma that monotheism was not invented till many 


368 Bibliotheca Sacra 

centuries later, it seeme eqoall; impossible that the law- 
giver should have prophesied the ExUe. Yet this attitude 
is wholly imscientific. Bationalism masqnerading as sci- 
ence may seek to mutilate the evidence in order to force 
it into the Procmsteao bed of some evolutionary doctrine. 
But true science does not start from a priori views or as- 
sert at the outset that the religion of Israel must have 
been a religion fundamentally resembling all other relig- 
ions, nothing more or less. A science tiiat is worthy of 
the name can only set out, unhampered by any preposses- 
sion of whatever character, to weigh the evidence and then 
decide impartially whether or not the religion of Israel is 
to be differentiated from other faiths, whether or not 
Hoses was a monotheist, whether or not he prophesied the 
Exile. And when the evidence is fairly judged, the answer 
is not doubtful. The religion of Israel m different from 
all other religions, — different in its essential nature, in 
its history and effects, in its influence on the world. Mosea 
was a monotheist. He did prophesy the Exile. Only a 
very poor psychologist could take Ezekiel for a knave or 
a dupe; and his testimony is emphatic: "Moreover I lifted 
up mine hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would 
scatter them among the nations, and disperse them through 
the countries; because they had not executed my judg- 
ments, but had rejected my statutes, and had profaned 
my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols " 
(Ezek. XX. 23 f., B. V.), The passage is instructive alike 
(or its bearings upon the Pentateucbal question and be- 
cause it shows how fully the best minds in Israel realized 
from first to last the enormous diflSculty of making and 
keeping the people a nation of priests. 




The stopy of Gaal (Jud. ii. 26-41) cannot stand in its 
present position. Ab Dr. G. A. Cooke remarks on verse 42 : 
"After tlie Sliechemitea have suffered the severe defeat just 
described, and Abimelech has retired and dwelt at Am- 
mah, it is incredible that, on the next morning, the people 
should come out of the city as if nothing had happened, 
and that Abimelech should be able to surprise them by the 
same device which had proved so successful the day be- 
fore." He thinks verses 42-49 " a second account of Abim- 
elech's attack on Shechem, originally following 22-25." 
This view, ' however, only raises fresh perplexities. It is 
ditBcult to believe that the destruction of the city and its 
Bowing with salt (ver. 45) is sheer invention, for the nar- 
rative is old, and there would have been historical knowl- 
edge as to whether the city was destroyed or not. But, if 
we accept this, and regard the earlier passage as a dupli- 
cate, we cannot understand either how the Oaal story came 
to be invented or how the view that Bhechem had not been 
destroyed found acceptance. The truth is that both nar- 
ratives (ver. 26-41 and 43 ff.) have the appearance of be- 
ing strictly historical, and the difficulties arise not from 
their contents but from their present position. 

It is su^:ested that the solution should be sought in 
another direction. The Gaal narrative perhaps lacks a 
beginning, telling who Oaal was and how Abimelech ap- 
pointed Zebul as his governor of Shechon; but, subject to 
that, it looks like a thoroughly credible piece of historical 
writing. What is wrong is its position. It is earlier in time 
than the events that brought about the destruction of She- 
chem. If it be placed before verse 22 or 23, the difficulties 
disappear. It relates to the first symptoms of disaffec- 
tion in the town. These Abimelech sought to meet by less 
severe measures than ultimately proved necessary. Gaal 
and his brethren were expelled, and it was hoped that the 


360 Bibliotheca Sacra {^viy, 

evidence given of military power would prove sufficieat to 
insure loyalty. Verses 22 ff, tell of the failure of that hope. 

Verse 42 cannot stand as at present. If " the people went 
oat into the field " before Abimelech was told, it is not 
clear how they could have come forth out of the city in 
verse 43 after he had subsequently laid his 'ambush. For 
the words " on the morrow that the people vent out," n 
reads "when the men went forth"; but d and the Ethl- 
opic, which agree otherwise with M. T., omit the second 
"and" (R. V. "that"), which sug^^ts that either the 
first or the second clause of the verse is an insertion. On 
the whole, I think it most lilcely that the entire verse is 
due to editorial efforts to make the narrative read after 
the Oaal episode had been fiut where it now stands. The 
words " and they told Abimelech " resume the words " and 
it was told Abimelech " of verse 25, which now precedes 
the Oaal narrative.' Such a resumption is not uncommon 
where something is inserted in the text. A clear instance 
is found in Mum. zxi., where verse 31 resumes verse 25 
after the insertion of verses 26 ft., in which a commentator 
quotes a poem that has nothing to do with the Israelite 
conquest. Similarly, in Ex. vi., verses 28-30 resume verses 
10 ff., the narrative having been interrupted by the inser- 
tion of the earliest form of the narrative which now in- 
tervenes.^ Hence I think that the resumptive words were 
written at. the time the Oaal narrative was placed there, 
and that the reference to the morrow was subsequently 
added to smooth the difficulties created by its presence in 
the wrong place. 

The view that Jud. ix. 26-41 constitutes a misplaced nar- 
rative which has lost its introduction is strongly confirmed 
by the results of rec^it researches into the earlier form of 
the Old Testament books. Time and again we come across 
phenomena which point to their one-time transmission in 
the form of libraries of short writings, rather than of long 
rolls. Thus we read of the book of the generations of the 
>Cp. C. F. Buniey, Judges (1918), p. 268. 
■Cp. BS. April, 1919, pp. 201 1. 


1919] Critical Notes 361 

heaven and the earth {Gen. ii. 4, LXX), the book of the 
generatioas of man {v. 1), the book in which Moses was to 
write about Amalek, etc. Misplaced narratives like Gen. 
zxzvlii., Ex, xviii., xxxiii. 7-11 (which should follow xiil. 
22) point in the same direction, as do the numerous colo- 
phons of the Pentateuch and the presence of fragments of 
the historical narrative in unsuitable positions in Deuter- 
onomy (iv. 44 fl., X. 6f.).' In the Book of Joshua the evi- 
dences of this are so striking as to make anything beyond 
a hare reference superfluous, 

Hakold M. Wienbb 
London, England 

Peace is at last declared between the five great Powers. 
But fifteen or twenty of the smaller Powers are still in 
deadly conflict in an attempt to adjust their frontiers; 
and the whole world is in a state of unstable equilibrium. 
Social conditions are everywhere unsettled, putting into 
the for^round political problems that in every nation will 
test not only the skill of the leaders but the stability of 
the people as a whole. What the outcome will be is not 
within the province of human wisdom to forecast. Democ- 
racy is in a fair way to be tried ; but it is by no means 
certain that the " voice of the people " will be the " voice 
of Qod." Democracy no lees than autocracy has its perils. 
Meanwhile it will be profitable for the scholarly world to 
resume its old-time activity. One of the greatest calami- 
ties connected with the war has been its interruption of the 
work of scholars in every department except those relat- 
ing to the devising of means for promoting the destruction 
of anything that should help the enemy. Biblical criticism, 
especially, has been almost at a standstill. In the revival 
of interest that is sure to follow the advent of peace, it 
is to be hoped the field of criticism as well as of politics 
will be free from the domination of the autocratic methods 
that have prevailed. 

> See further tbe articles In BS for Jan. ana April, 1918. 



The Book of Dbutebonomt. (The Cambridge Bible for 
Sctiools asd Colleges.) Id tite Revised Version, with 
Introduction and Notes. By Sir Qborob Adam Smith^ 
Principal and Vice-Cliaucellor, University of Aberdeen. 
16mo. Pp. cxxii, 396. Cambridge: At the Universily 
Press. 191S. f2.00, net. 

This booli is a fine specimen of the art of the modem 
publisher. It is a large volume in very small compass, in 
clear type and on paper that makes reading easy, yet it 
would go into a pocket of quite moderate size. 

It seems almost superfluous to say anything of the lit- 
erary character of the book. The reputation of its dis- 
tinguished aathor ia sufficient guarantee of its high literary 
rank. But it may be added, that this work, though a crit- 
ical commentary, yet often reveals the charm of literary 
style of the author's " Historical Geography of the Holy 

The conception of the Book of Deuteronomy, as a whole, 
which the book presents, ia admirable, as brought out in 
some of the finest of the descriptive passages in which the 
book abounds. His appreciation of the literary beauties 
of Deuteronomy never flags. Of the inspirational exuber- 
ance of expression which distinguishes Deuteronomy from 
the other books of the Pentateuch, he has this: — 

"The individuality and distinction, the original force, 
buoyancy, volume and rhythm of the style of I>euteronomy 
i.-xzz. are pervasive and coospicuons throughout; and in 
particular its difference is indubitable, both in form and 
in temper, from the styles of the other constituents of the 
Pentateudi" (p. xviii). 

Of the expression of the spiritual conception of God 
which distinguished the people of Israel from those about 
them, as characteristic of all the boolu of the Bible, and 
superlatively of Deuteronomy, this long paragraph will 
convey a better idea than anything that could be written 
about it : — 


1919] Notices of Recent Publicationa 363 

" With the other documents Deuteronomy shares a very 
spiritual conception of the relations of Israel to their God. 
Though the religion of Israel, especially in the Penta- 
teuch, betrays many of the traits common to all the fam- 
ilies of the race from which Israel sprang — many forms 
of ritual and ethical tempera, many of the physical phe- 
Domena in which the Dei^ was believed to manifest Him- 
self to m^i, and especially the conception of Him as the 
God of one people through whom His Name and Nature 
were revealed — yet the origin and character of Jehovah's 
relations to Israel are not (as with those of other Semitic 
gods to their peoples) physical, growing oat of the soil 
or confined to one land, but historical and moral. Nor are 
they the reflection of the people's own character. Jehovah 
chose Israel and chose them not for their strength or vir- 
tue but out of pity when they were in weakness and afflic- 
tion, and redeemed them; and they had traditions of His 
earlier manifestations to some of their forefathers, to in- 
dividual souls of their race, always the human fountain- 
heads of spiritual religions. Jehovah's providence for the 
nation had not been only physical or political, by signs 
and great wonders and by war, but ethical, to instruct and 
discipline them, to prove and sift them ; and the religious- 
nesH of Israel was the moral response to all this, a trust 
in His faithfulness, gratitude and the endeavour to keep 
His commandments. They felt that He was unique with a 
uniqueness both of power and character among the gods of 
mankind ; and that by His influence they had a conscience 
and character and a religious wisdom of their own. So 
far all the documents of the Pentateuch are at one; th^ 
all reach this levd" (p. xxvi). 

But such passages are of very limited extent in this 
Commentary. These two quotations almost exhaust them 
in the 120 pages of Introduction, and the echoes of them 
are scant and of small extent throughout the commentary 
that follows. The book is " criticism " : it is nothing, if 
not critical. In the criticism that covers every page, there 
is displayed a wealth of leamiog — Biblical, geographical, 
arclueological, and classical. In the use of a wide and va- 
ried scholarship, few books equal it, and few, indeed, have 
ever surpassed it. One could wish it were possible to feel 
that this breadth of learning was always used conclusively. 

A very large portion of the introductory chapters and 
ToL LZZVI. No. SOS. 7 


864 Bibliotheca 8acra [July, 

of the coDnnent itself is taken np with the " difficulties " 
of Deuteronomy. It is manifestly impossible to take note 
of all tliese " difficulties." To do this would not be to re- 
view a tKH>k, bat to write a book. Only the maio points of 
attack upon the Book of Deuteronomy can be noticed. 

But before even these main points may be mentioned, the 
standpoint of the author must be clearly understood, and 
also the real significance of that standpoint in any esti- 
mate of his criticism. The standpoint throughout the book, 
upon which all its difficulties and criticisms rest, and for 
which he gives almost numberless references to all the books 
of the Law, is that Deuteronomy is later than the JE doc- 
ument of the documentary theory, representing portions 
of Exodus and Numbers, and also later than the P docu- 
ment, chiefly represented, among the Law books, in the 
Book of Leviticus. This position, taken and kept before 
the mind of the reader, is somewhat misleading, especially 
to young students of " schools and colleges," for whom it 
is prepared. 

There is no doubt in the mind of anyone that Deuter- 
onomy is later, and represents a later development of Is- 
rael's laws, than do Exodus and Numbers. Moreover, a 
long period of special instruction and discipline and devd- 
opment in the wilderness ought certainly to prepare the 
people for some progress towards higher things at the time 
of the addresses of Moses on the plains of Moab, which are 
recorded in Deuteronomy. So that all the elaborate ref- 
erences and argument to the effect that Deuteronomy is 
later and represents a later development of law than these 
other books of the Law, are entirely gratuitous and only 
becloud the issue for inexperienced students. 

The only real question at this point is, whether or not 
Deuteronomy represents a later development of law and 
life in Israel than does Leviticus, mainly referred to the P 
document. Keeping this in mind, the following may be 
noted as among the principal points made in the criticism 
of Deuteronomy by the distinguished author of this Com- 
mentary : — 


1819] Notices of Recent Publicatiom 365 

I. " Difficulties " in Deateronomy. Much ia made of the 
" distinctiveuess of style of Deuteronomy " as one of the 
things that set the book entirely apart from the other 
Books of the Law in authorship, time, and religions con- 
ceptions and expressions. Among many examples the fol- 
lowing wUl be sufficient: — 

" Even when it repeats statements or expressions found 
in JB it expands these or gives a turn to them that is all 
its own and tuned to its peculiar rhythm. Common in- 
stances are its formal and hortatory additions to some of 
the laws; bnt its narratives are full of them. In these it 
increases the adjectives or turns them into superlatives, 
replaces a plain phrase by one more concrete and vivid, 
strikes an emphasis, or lifts a simple statement of fact into 
a hyperbole" (p. xiv). 

Among striking instances of the expansion of the phrases 
of JE are 

" the turning of E's phrase great nation, Ex. xxxii. 10, into 
o nation mightier and greater than they, ii. 14, and of the 
thousands of Ex. xx. 6 into a thousand generations, vii. 9; 
or the concentration and enhancement of E's thick cloud 
and thick darkness, from separate passages, into the dark- 
ness, cloud, and thick darkness of iv. 11" (p. xvii), etc. 

These changes in the language between Exodus and Deu- 
teronomy are, of course, indisputable, but have nothing to 
do with a change of authorship : they are exactly what they 
ought to be to accord with the change in circumstances 
and in the immediate purpose of Moses. Will there not 
be just such a difference between the formulation and pro- 
mulgation of laws by a lawyer, now, and a popular speech 
before the people by the same lawyer concerning the same 
laws? In the one case he is the lawgiver; in the other, the 
statesman. In the one case there is the enactment of laws 
and the narrative of their promulgation ; in the other, a 
popular exposition and exhortation. These same remarks 
apply to many other criticisms made against Deuteronomy 
on acconnt of the manifest advance in national life and 
conceptions. Forty years of special tutelage of a people 
cut off as were these in the wilderness may do mnch for 


366 Bibliotkeca Sacra [July, 

good. See what changes for evil were made in the natiooal 
life and ideas of Qennany in fort; years. Progress here 
affords no legitimate groand for criticism; no progresa 
would furnish such ground. 

Of a number of " difSculties " about facts which trouble 
the author, we may examine the most important: — 

" But the most critical of the divergencea as to fact 
which Deuteronomy exhibits is one from both JE and F — 
that on the amount and character of the Law promulgated 
to all Israel on Sinai-Horeb. Deuteronomy states that the 
Ten Commandments, iv. 13, and the Ten Commandments 
only — he added no more, v. 22 — were the words of the 
Covenant at Horeb ; the people also were too terrified to hear 
more so the Lord delivered His further commands to Moses 
alone (t. 25-32), who did not communicate these to the 
people till the eve of crossing the Jordan and they form 
Deuteronomy's Code, chs. xii.-xxvi., the basis of the Sec- 
ond Covenant in Moab. But JE assigns to Horeb the far 
longer and more detailed Code, Ex. zz. 23-xxiii. 19, and 
states that — not the Decalogue bat — this, written out as 
the Book of the Covenant and publicly read, formed the 
basis of Israel's covenant with God at Horeb, Ei. zziv. 
3-S" (p. XX). 

The notice of three things will bring out the amazing 
character of this criticism by the author, to which be calls 
also the corroboration of the opinion of Dr. Driver. 

1. " The Ten Commandments only — he added no more, 
V. 22 — were the words of the Covenant at Horeb." Here 
is the fallacy of seeking discord. " He added no more " 
means either on that occasion, or, absolutely, at any time. 
Dr. Smith takes it to mean at any time, which produces 
the discord he seeks. But Ood had just ended the speaking 
of the Ten Commandments. " He added no more " to the 
Decalogue. He also " added no more " on that occasion on 
any subject. Still further, the voice " added no more " at 
any time on any subject. This so manifestly exhausts the 
meaning of the expression in its connection, that to stretch 
it to mean that it rules out promulgating of the " judg- 
ments" (Ex. xxi.-zxiii. 19) is an absurdity that would 


1919] Notices of Recent Publicatiom 367 

Bever occur to anyone not under the dominance of a pre- 
conception tliat required just this. 

2. " The Lord delivered His further commands to 
Moses alone (t. 25-32), who did not commnnlcate these to 
the people till the eve of crossing the Jordan and they form 
Deuteronomy's Code, chs. xll.-xxvi,, the basis of the Sec- 
ond Cov^iant in Moab. But JE assigns to Horeb the far 
longer and more detailed Code, Ex. xx, 23-sxiii. 19, and 
states that — not the Decalogue but — this, written out as 
the Book of the Covenant and publicly read, formed the 
basis of Israel's covenant with God at Horeb, Ex. zxiv. 
3-8." If anyone will take a good reference Bible and read 
the Code in Deut. xii.-xxvi., together with the constant ref- 
erences to Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, he will dis- 
cover for himself that the statement that Moses " did not 
communicate these," i.e. the laws given to him at Sinai, 
until the addresses on the plains of Moab, is amazing be- 
yond comprehoision. It is true that many of the laws 
mentioned in Deut. xii.-xxri. are to be found in Leviticns, 
which the author assigns to P at a very late date. But 
that assignment belongs to his theory, and not to the facts 
with which he must prove his theory. 

3. The other part of the statement quoted above, that 
" not the Decalogue but — this, written out as the Book 
of the Covenant and pnblicly read, formed the basis of 
Israel's covenant with God at Horeb, Ex. ixiv. 3-8," is 
equally erroneous. The statements of Ex. xxiv. 3-8 are: 
"And Moses came and told the people all the words of the 
Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered 
with one voice, and said. All the words which the Lord 
hath spoken will we do. . . . And he took the book of the 
covenant, and read in the audience of the people : and they 
said: All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and be 
obedient." The introduction to the Decalogue is, "And God 
spake all these words, saying" (Ex. xx. 1). Deuteronomy 
V. 22 says of the Decalogue, " These words the Lord spake 
unto all your assembly in the monnt out of the midst of 
the fire." Deuteronomy v. 31 says, " Stand thou here by 


368 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

me, and I will speak nuto thee all the commaDdtuents, and 
the statutes, and the judgments." Exodus xxxlv. 28 de- 
fines still more explicitly thus: "And he wrote upon the 
tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" 
(Heb. "words"). This puts beyond all question that both 
the Decalogue and the Judgments of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. 19 
were included in the Covenant read to the people at Horeb. 
Yet Smith says ; " Not the Decalogue but — this [the judg- 
ments] . . . formed the basis of Israel's covenant with God 
at Horeb." 

Another typical " difficnlty " that appears frequently in 
one fonn or another is, that, to the directions for the Tab- 
ernacle and the statutes of the Ceremonial Law (Ex. xxv.- 
xxxi.) and the Book of Leviticns, except the Holiness Code, 
" Deuteronomy makes no reference, and has very little ma- 
terial in common with it" (p. xii). 

As to the matter of fact, Deut. xxxi. 14-16 does make 
" reference " to the Tabernacle in such fashion as to as- 
sume very complete knowledge on the part of the people 
concerning the Tabernacle and the important place it held 
in Israel ; "And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thy 
days approach that thou must die; call Joshua, and pre- 
sent yourselves in the tent of meeting, that I may give him 
a charge. And Moses and. Joshua went, and presented 
themselves in the tent of meeting. And the Lord appeared 
in the Tent in a pillar of cloud : and the pillar of cloud 
stood over the door of the Tent." 

But if there was uot a word about the Tabernacle, the 
" difficulty " would need nothing more to resolve it than 
the clear apprehension of the character and parpose of 
Deuteronomy. Hoses there speaks, not as the aacerdotal- 
ist, but as the religious statesman, to the people as citizois 
of the Promised Land into which they were about to enter. 

A few of the frequent examples of " difficulties " noted 
by the author which are similar to the last may be men- 
tioned briefly: — 

" The Code of Deuteronomy, xii.-xxvi., not only (as we 
have seen) expands with its own rhetoric some of the laws 


1919] 2foticea of Recent Publications 369 

of JB; bat it extends their application, enforces them with 
fresh motives, frequently modifies them, and adds new laws 
creating new institutions — all in a way that reflects a 
more mature and complex form of society than that for 
which the codes of JE as they stand in Ex. xx. 23-xxiii. 19 
and Ex. xxxir. are designed" (p. xxii). 
Exactly so; these forty years in the wilderness were the 
formative period, distinctly so represented in the Penta- 
teuch, and Moses was still the lawgiver. 

" But nowhere else in the Pentateuch has the love of 
God to man such free course as in Deuteronomy ; and no- 
where else is man's love to God invoked, except once in 
Ex. XX. 6, and that is a deuteronomic addition to the Dec- 
alogue! [exclamation mine]. These two, God's love to man 
and man's love to God, are everywhere in Deuteronomy " 
(p. xxvi). 

All this to ai^e for a late date for Deuteronomy. 

But how much better, and how perfectly natural, this 
advance in spiritual ideas is as a mere progress of doctrine 
under the divine tutelage, and how exactly in accord with 
the facts in the case! The people must be gotten away 
from the materialism of Egypt, and little by little given 
spiritual ideas of God and of a holy life — light for dark- 
ness, love for hate. God is first revealed as the light of the 
world at the burning bush, in contrast with the Egyptian 
idea that God dwells in darkness ; then, in the plagues, God's 
attributes, one by one, are revealed — his being, his power, 
his wisdom, his goodness, and, last of all, his mercy. This is 
almost the exact order found in a very famous fo)-raula to 
which Dr. Smith is a professed adherent. " God is a spirit, 
infinite and eternal in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, 
justice, goodness, and truth." Moreover, this spirit of Deu- 
teronomy, pointed out in the words quoted above from Dr. 
Smith, are specially suited to the purpose of Deuteronomy, 
which is hortatory ; while the other books of the Law are 

" The contrast presented by P's and Deuteronomy's pic- 
tures of the worshipping congregation in the central Sanc- 
tuary is very striking: in P the awful glory of the Divine 


370 Bibliotheca Sacra [Joly, 

Presence, bells, trumpets, sweet savour of frankinccnee, 
gorgeous Testments, careful ablutions and all the people 
shouting and falling on their faces; in Deuteronomy only a 
set of happy households eating of the BacriScial meal and 
rejoicing before tJie Lord, altogether joyful" (p. xiviii). 

And why should there not be exactly this difference? Dea- 
teronomy prepares for national religious life, Leviticus de- 
scribes the worship of the Sanctuary. 

To come to that which is distinctly set forth as the great- 
est of all the " difficulties," note this : — 

" But the cardinal distinction of the Code of Deoteroo- 
omy is the law of the One Altar and Sanctuary, ch. xii. 
2-14, 17-19, 26 f., along with the necessary conseqnaices 
of this in new, or modified, laws upon the slaughter of 
beasts elsewhere than at the Altar" (p. zxiv), etc. 

Again, he speaks of the early " validity of sacrifice to Je- 
hovah at any altar where He may record Hia Name. Deu- 
teronomy forbids all altars save one, and confines sacri- 
fice to it" (p. xxv). 

The argument made for the sharp distinction between 
the expression "every place" (Ex. xx. 24) and the similar 
expression, " the place " or " a place," with definitive de- 
scription (Deut. xii. 5) has never seemed to me by any 
means conclusive. Let us consider the use of the expres- 
sion " the place," as in Deut. xii. 5. That it does at times 
mean one definite place is certain, as when it is said (Lev. 
iv. 24) : "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the 
goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offer- 
ing before the Lord: it is a sin offering." Or in 1 Kings 
xxi. 19: "And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus 
saith the Lord, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? 
and thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the 
Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth 
shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine." But, on the other 
hand, we read in Lev. siii, 19, " In the place of the boil," 
etc. Was there only one place on a man in which there 
could be a itoil in those days? In Num. ix. 17, " In the 
place where the cloud abode." Was there but one place in 


Iftlft] Notices of Recent Publicationa 371 

all the wilderness wanderings where the "cloud abode"? 
If those who set so much store by the distinction between 
" every place " and " the place " will examine the vast num- 
ber of places in the Old Testament In which these expres- 
sions are found in the Hebrew, they will see a " great 
light" that will prove somewhat blinding, indeed. 

There is also clear evidence of a c^itral place of wor^ 
ship in Palestine after the entrance into the land, and long 
before the occupation of Jerusalem and the building of the 
temple there. Of course the author, like others of his 
school, sets aside the evidence of the Tabernacle at Shiloh ; 
but he does this by Invoking his theory to supply the facta, 
Instead of finding facts to prove his theory. By rewriting 
the Pentateuch it becomes necessary to rewrite the other 
early Bible history also. What a wide conspiracy of his- 
torians there must have been across the centuries and over 
the lands so to reflect back events upon the screen of an- 
tiquity as to produce such an harmonious early picture! 
more harmonious, indeed, than the picture produced by 
the reconstructed history. For, despite all the talk about 
" historical difficulties," and the real historical difficulties 
that there certainly are, the efforts of the historical critics 
get us into more difficulties of this sort than they get us 
ont of. 

But if there be really a difference between Deuteronomy 
and the earlier legislation it is but a perfectly natural 
progress of revelation in forty years and for totally dif- 
ferent conditions of life, and Moses was still latogiver. Is 
not progress in revelation one of the cardinal doctrines of 
criticism? Then, the conditions were about to be so dif- 
ferent as to require progress in doctrine. For forty years 
the people have been moving about and carrying their place 
of worship with them. Now the people are about to enter 
the Promised Land and be given settled habitations in sev- 
eralty, and hereafter each man is to abide in his place. 
Where shall he worship? Deuteronomy meets that new 
situation explicitly; and there is clearest evidence, except 
it be set aside in favor of a theory, that there was imme- 


372 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

diate and continued compliance, in some good part, with 
that new regalation. That the full emergence of an obe- 
dient religious life, on the part of all the people, took four 
hundred rears, and more, ia in accord with the religious 
progress of other peoples; and that there should be a de- 
cline, and eventually a real apostasy and afterwards a 
reformation, has its parallel in the progress of Christian- 
ity itself. 

II. There are difficulties in Deuteronomy and in all the 
Pentateuch. There are bound to be difficulties when an Oc- 
cidental reads an Oriental book. I wonder if art Oriental 
higher critic would not find more difficulties in Smith'it 
" Deuteronomy " than Smith finds in Moses' Deuteronomy. 
What, e.g., would onr Oriental make out of the fact that 
in this book so many things are considered twice — in the 
introductory discussions and in the comment? Are these 
"doublets"? Or is it possible (dare I suggest it?) that 
the learned author has used the woi* of another? that a 
different hand is to be seen in these repetitions? Have we 
here different documents by different authors? 

Page Ixvii refers to a vast number of items from the 
body of the book, and gives this note : "All these distinc- 
tions are marked in the notes to the text, but they may be 
nsefully arranged here.*' This is, of course, just such a 
note as a redactor would have inserted to make things 
smooth, or it might be a gloss that has crept in from the 
margin (cf. p. Ixxi, top of page, with p. 224, middle of 
page). What are we to think of such manifest discrep- 
ancies, not to say contradictions, as page xviii, lines 11-13, 
" The individuality and distinction, the original force, 
buoyancy, volume and rhythm of the style of Deuteronomy 
i.-xzx. are pervasive and conspicuons throughout," com- 
pared with page Ixzi, lines 11-13, " The non-deuteronomic 
style of many of the laws indicates that these were not 
original to the author or authors of Deuteronomy but bor- 
rowed "? 

These instances of difficulties in Smith's " Deuteronomy " 
mi{|^t be multiplied, if not ad infinUum, at least ad nau- 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 373 

seam. An Oriental literary critic might find them real 

III. I tarn now with sadness to something I am very 
loath to say. As a commentai? this book is given over to 
criticism, almost wholly literary and historical criticism. 
It deals with the literary problems and with historical 
difficalties and scarcely at all with interpretation of the 
meaning of the writer. Deuteronomy is one of the most 
Inspiring of the early Old Testament books, not surpassed 
in this respect nntil we come to the Psalms and the later 
prophets. Yet, of spiritual nplift, there is almost nothing 
at all in this book. The distinguished author once wrote 
a book nnder the title " Modem Criticism and the Preach- 
ing of the Old Testament." If this commentary which he 
now puts out is an index, the second part of the title of 
the former book might be dropped — there is little or noth- 
ing to preach. Yet this is published as a part of " The 
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges." 

Is the Bible nothing more to modern criticism than an 
exercise in rhetoric? Has criticism nothing to do any 
more with interpretation? Is it wholly a cold-blooded 
work of the glittering scalpel? With literary fervor and 
glow the book is resplendent. Of spiritual fervor there is 
nothing: it is as cold as an arctic night. Spiritual life 
must certainly freeze to death in such an atmosphere. 

Let us look at a few passages of comment, selected not by 
minate search, but taken almost at random. On the sub- 
lime passage of the blessings (Deut. xxviii. 3-S), " Blessed 
Shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the 
field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit 
of thy gronnd, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of 
thy kine, and the young of tby fiock. Blessed shalt thou 
be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when 
thou goest out," we have on page 308 this comment : — 

" Six forms of blessing, each introduced by the passive 
participle of the verb to bless. They cover Israel's life: in 
town and field, in their offspring, crops and cattle, annual 
harvests and daily bread, all their movement out and in. 


874 Bibliotheca Sacra, [3aiy, 

The structure of the first two and last three is oniform : 
with three accaita. The longer third, verse 4, has bem 
expanded ; fruit of thy cattle doea not appear in the LXX 
nor in the parallel verse 18, and la probably a gloss from 
verse 11 " ! 

On Dent. viii. 3, which he translates, " That he mi^t 
make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but 
by everything that ppoceedeth out of the month of the 
LOBD doth man live," he has the following : — 

" The language — in particular, every thing — is ambig- 
uous. It is usually reed as expressing an antithesis be- 
tween bread, the natural or normal support of man and 
produced by himself, on the one hand, and on the other, 
when bread falls, the creative word of Ood with whatever 
{=every thing) it may produce (so Driver and Bertholet, 
etc., with differences) . But the antithesis is rather be- 
tween only and every thing: man lives not upon bread only, 
but upon everything (bread included) that proceedeth out 
of the mouth |0f Ood. On the word of Ood, creative and 
determining, from time to time changing what man shall 
live upon, but always the cause of this, man is utterly and 
always dependent. This is in harmony with the teaching 
of D throughout, that of all material blessings the Ood 
of Israd alone is the author. By translating every word 
tor every thing the LXX sways the meaning in another 
direction : that man lives not by material food only but 
by the spiritual guidance of Ood ; and this is the antithesis 
which Christ appears to present in Matt. iv. 4, Although 
such a higher spiritual meaning is not expressed in this 
verse. It underlies the context, which reminds Israel that 
Ood's providence of them has been not only physical, but 
moral as well" (pp. 118-119). 

One cannot help thinking it would be interesting to bear 
Christ's comment upon this criticism of his interpretation 
of Deuteronomy! 

There is just about as much spiritual uplift in this copi- 
mentary as in a commentary upon Euripides or the Twdve 
Tables of the Romans. Is this the best that modem schol- 
arship can do for the young of "schools and colleges"? 
Is criticism spiritually bankrupt? 

I know very weU the biting cold sneer with which sach 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 375 

strictnres will be received by those to whom this is all of 
criticism, and such criticism is all of Biblical scholarBhip. 
Bnt I have no thought of bitterness. Some of the men of 
huch modern views are my dear personal friends; but the 
Christian heart is wearied and chilled by a criticism that 
has forgotten ita warming and inspiring function of inter- 
pretation and is content to be nothing more than a refrig- 
erating plant 

The review of this book ma; be summed up thus, to quote 
the facetious words of Lincoln : " Those that lilie that eort 
of thing, I BuppoBe that is about the sort of thing they 
wonld like." Those who wish to know now about modem 
criticism and the preaching of the Old Testament will &ud 
out by a study of this book, and the schools and colleges 
will experience very much of the literary bent which mod- 
em criticism aims to give, but yer; little of the spiritual 
uplift which Deuteronomy was intended to give. 

Mblvin Qrotb Kyle 

Philadelphia, Pa, 

The Nbo-Platonists. By Thomas Whittakiil New E3di- 
tion. 12mo. Pp. xt, 318. 1918. Cambridge: At the 
University Preas. 128., net. 

The first edition of this work appeared in 1901, and is 
now enlarged. Plotinus is a philosopher who seems well 
in the way of coming into his own. Dr. Bigg had directed 
attention to Plotinus in 1896, I had myself done so in the 
German Archiv for philosophy in 1902, Dr. E. Caird had 
written of him in 1904, bnt only now hare we such full 
treatments as Dean Inge and Mr. Whittaker have given 
UB. Both are works of much scholarship, the religious phi- 
losophy of Plotinus receiving ampler treatment in the 
larger work by Dean Inge, bnt the metaphysical side of 
Plotinus calling for the supplementary treatment provided 
by Mr. Whittaker's work. Both these works are important, 
not only for their detailed treatment of the teachings of 
Plotinus, bnt also because of the relations or connections 
snbsiflting between Neo-Platonism and Christianity, whether 


376 Bibliotheca Sacra [July, 

we can accept the accouat of either of them — and I do not 
think we can — as quite satisfactory and final. But it is 
only the work of Mr. Whittaker with which I am now con- 

Mr. Whittaker deals very fully with PlotinuB, the great 
genius of the third century, in his historical setting, and 
also in his historic influence. Thus he opens with chap- 
ters on " Qneco-Roman CivUiaation in its Political Devel- 
opment," " The Stages of Greek Philosophy," " Beligioua 
Developments in Later 4-ntiquity," " Plotinus and his 
Nearest Predecessors"; while, after chapters that deal 
with the system of Plotinus, and its diffusion, he engages 
himself with the historic " Influence of Neo-Platouism." 
The system of Plotinus is dealt with in detailed form un- 
der separate headings of its Psychology, Metaphysics, Cos- 
mology and Theodicy, ^Esthetics, and Ethics. Later, the 
system of Proclus is also dealt with, in somewhat detaUed 
fashion likewise. These are the really valuable parts of 
the work, which is one for the pure student, not the gen- 
eral reader. It seems strange that the century-old work 
of Thomas Taylor should be acknowledged, and no men- 
tion made of the work on Proclus by Thomas M. Johnson, 
the American Platonist, issued in 1909. Professor A. B. 
Taylor's recent paper on Proclus, in the " Proceedings of 
the Aristotelian Society," was also without knowledge of 
the work of Johnson, to which I called attention in The 
Hihhert Journal within recent years. Ail the work that 
is done upon a subject should be known, and not simply 
the main authorities, or there is apt to be some loss. The 
point is worth mentioning because, after all, Mr. Whit- 
taker has given us a paraphrase, not a translation, as 
Johnson has done, even though the paraphrase be excel- 
lent, serving many of the purposes of a translation. Mr. 
Whittaker seems to be a little afraid that if the claims of 
these philosophers to be constructive thinkers or systema- 
tizing geniuses be emphasized, their claims as original and 
independent thinkers are thereby being lessened or ignored ; 
but that is just a trifle absurd, since their claims as inde- 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 37T 

pendeot thinkers have sometimes been appreciated where 
their systematiziiig skill was inadeqiiately appreciated. 
The treatment of Scholasticism is not over sympathetic, 
and the name of Albertus Magnus is not mentioned, as it 
should have been, alongside that of Roger Bacon. Besides, 
Bacon, who belonged to the great thirteenth centary, and 
whose work is said to have been " the essential thing," is 
only mentioned after Ockham, who belonged to the four- 
teenth century. But, in whole, the historical accounts are 
interesting and good. Mr. Whittaker is somewhat anti- 
theological in his prepossessions, — a circumstance which, 
in the view of many, is no advantage to his discussion, 
particularly in relation to his views on the chief infiuence 
of Neo-Platonism on Christianity, and on the exaggerated 
value put forward by him for the idealistic Ontology of 

But the work in whole is good, and the new edition is 
enriched by a lengthy appendix on Proclus, not the least 
valuable feature of the work. There is an " Index of 
Names," but it would have been a good thing if something 
of the nature of a Bibliography had been appended. 

Jambs Lindsay 

Irvine, Scotland 

Pbophecy and Authority : A Study in the History of the 
Doctrine and Interpretation of Scripture. By Kemper 
FuLLEBTON, M.A., Profcssor of Old Testament Language 
and Literature, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology. 
12mo. Pp. xxi, 214. New York: The Macmillan Com- 
pany. 1919. fl.50. 

A decided merit of this volume is the fullness and im- 
partiality with which the author sets forth the views of 
those with whom he disagrees. It is a storehouse of in- 
formation regarding the opinions of the early Church Fa- 
thers, and of Luther, Calvin, and the early representatives 
of the Reformation, concerning Messianic prophecy. The 
conclusion of the book is that " the theory of Messianic 
prophecy construed as prediction must be abandoned " 
(p. 189), and that the grammatico-historical sense of 


378 Bibliotheca Sacra [JnJj, 

prophecies exhausts their meaning. Professor Fullerton 
gives Galrin full credit for his defense of the granunatlco- 
historical interpretation, but at the same time refnseB to 
accept the Christocentric theory of the Bible, which Cal- 
vin defends and which Professor Fullerton does not fail 
to recognize. He declines, however, to accept that fuller 
meaning of prophecy which implies the truth of the gm- 
erally accepted doctrine of inspiration. 

It is not difficult to show that the early Apostolic Fa- 
thers pushed their theory of allegorical interpretation to 
extremes, basing, as they did, their defense of the New 
Testament on the literal fulfillment of prophecies relat- 
ing to unessential details j such as, that Christ shoold be 
bom in Bethlehem, and should ride into Jerusalem on the 
foal of an ass, and should be bom of a virgin, and should 
be preceded by one whose career was like that of the 
prophet Elijah, etc. The author has to confess, however, 
that these arguments were such as were needed by that 
generation, and that these minute coincidences accom- 
plished the purpose of establishing faith in Christ's Mes- 
siabship. We do not see how, as a good Calvinist, the 
author can fail to recognize that these coincidences were 
foreordained, and that the foreordination was justified by 
the results accomplished by them. It would be an ill- 
arranged providence, indeed, that did not pay attention 
to the wants of mankind in their primitive stages of de- 
velopment. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that 
the purpose of a transaction is never altogether singular, 
but is composite. It was fitting, therefore, not only that 
Christ should come in the glory of his Father, but that he 
should come in such a manner and under snch conditions 
that his own generation should recognize that he was the 
Messiah foretold by the prophets; thus establishing in 
their minds the belief in the unity of the system of divine 
revelation beginning with the Mosaic and culminating in 
the Christian dispensation. 

Much of the reasoning upon the subject rests upon the 
author's limited view of Inspiration. On his principles. 


1919] Noticeg of Recent Publications 379 

" the Prophet is not to be thought of as uttering enigmas 
whose real meaning he is unable to comprehend himself, but 
as preaching profound truths the significance of vhich he 
is intensel; aware of, and with a purpose in proclaiming 
them which is immediate and moral. . . . This centers the 
attention not upon the hidden meaning of his prophecy, 
to be revealed hundreds of years later, but upon the obvious 
meaning of the prophecy for the time in which it was de- 
livered" (pp. 192, 193). It is natural for him, therefore, 
to speak slightingly of the first chapter of Genesis, as he 
does on page 65. Now the fact is that the correspondences 
between the first chapter of Genesis and the revelations 
of modem science are so many and so minute that it is 
impossible to believe that any Jewish writer should have 
had any adequate conception of the hidden meaning in- 
volved in the successive statements in that remarkable 
piece of literature. No other cosmogony in the world be- 
gins to approach it in sublimity and in ability to endure 
as it does the criticism to which it is subjected by modem 
science. Even the agnostic Haeckel is forced to say that 
" its extraordinary success is explained not only by its 
close connection with Jewish and Christian doctrine, but 
also by the simple and natural chain of ideas which run 
through it. . . . Two great and fundamental ideas, common 
also to the non-miraculous theory of development, meet 
us in the Mosaic hypothesis of creation with surprising 
clearness and simplicity — the idea of separation or dif- 
ferentiation, and the idea of progressive development or 
perfecting. . . .In his [Hoses'] theory there lies hidden the 
ruling idea of a progressive development and a differen- 
tiation of the originally simple matter- We can therefore 
bestow our just and sincere admiration on the Jewish law- 
giver's grand insight into nature, and his simple and nat- 
ural hypothesis of creation " (Hist, of Creation, vol. i. pp. 
37-38, Eng. trans.). This looks very much like the recog- 
tion of an enigma. With such a recognition by the leading 
agnostic of the present time we are not surprised to find 
the greatest of our American geologists. Professor James 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 303 8 


380 BtftliotAeco Bacra [July, 

D. Dana, affirming that be is led " after a fair ezamina- 
tion of the narrative, and a consideration of the coinci- 
dences between its history and the history of the earth 
derived from nature, to admowledge a divine origin for 
both; and to recognize the fact that in this Introductory 
chapter its divine author gives the fullest endorsement of 
the Book vhich is so prefaced. It is his own inscription 
on the Titie Page" (Bib. Sac, vol. xliL p. 224). Thus it 
would seem that instancing the first chapter of Genesis in 
proof of his theory of inspiration is unfortunate for the 
author's argument. 

Running through the whole of Professor Fullerton's 
treatment of the subject there is apparent an inadequate 
view of what constitutes proof. It would seem tiiat he 
would demand demonstrative proof sach as we have in 
mathematics, which completely answers all objections, 
before he would accept it as the basis for belief. But it 
should ever be k^t in mind that belief is not absolute 
knowledge such as ve have in mathematics, but is based 
upon probability, which accepts a proposition when estab- 
lished beyond " reasonable doubt," such as is sufficient in 
criminal cases to condemn a man to death. Calvin's 
recognition of the difficulties in the way of accepting his 
theory of Messianic prophecy, so fully stated by the author, 
is an interesting case in hand. The theory of fulfillment 
of Messianic prophecies pervading the New Testament 
does indeed involve many difficulties hard to explain ; but 
the theory which limits the design of the prophecy to the 
knowledge of the prophet himself, and its application to 
the generation in which it was made, involves tar greater 
difficnlties. How shall we account for that growing ex- 
pectation of a world's deliverer which begins with the an- 
nouncement in Eden of the " seed of the woman " who 
should bruise the head of the old Berpent (Qen. iii. 15) ; 
of the assurance to Abraham that in his seed all nations 
should be blessed (Gen. xii. 3 and xviii. 18) ; that a prophet 
greater than Moses should be raised up (Dent, xviii. 15) ; 
that a king should arise in David's line whose throne 


191»] Noticea of Recent Publicationt 381 

Bbonld be established fopever (2 Sam. vii, 12-16) ; and, 
through a viaion given at this time to Micah, that a de- 
liverance was foretold waiting till " she who traveleth 
hath bronght forth," but coining then in glory (Micah v. 
3) ? And how is it possible to limit to the prophet's time 
the mieaion of the servant who, though a " bruised reed 
shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not 
quench," yet " he shall bring forth judgment unto truth," 
and " he shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have 
set judgment in the earth ; and the isles shall wait for 
his law" (Isa. xlii. 3, 4, A. V.)? And how is it possible 
to limit to the prophet's time the mission of the child 
to be bom to Israel of whom it is said, " Tbe government 
shall be upon bis shoulder; and his name shall be called 
Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, 
Prince of Peace " (Isa. ii. 6) ? To whom but to the Christ 
of the New Testament can we apply the touching descrip- 
tion of Isaiah liii., where, of a future deliverer, it is said, 
" He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised 
for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace was upon 
him ; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep 
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own 
way; and the Lord bath laid on him the iniquity of us 
all"? "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet 
of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, 
that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salva- 
tion ; that saith unto Zion, Thy Ood reiguetb. . . . The 
Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of aU the 
nations ; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salva- 
tion of our God" (Isa. lii. 7-10). Can it be possible to 
limit this vision of the prophet to the events of bis own 
generation? We trow not; and shall continue to hold 
with the great mass of Christian believers, that all history 
is permeated with the designs of tbe Almighty, who num- 
bers the hairs of our head, and without whose notice not 
a sparrow falls. Nothing is too small to be related to 
the accomplishment of his high purposes. With Lord 
Bacon we are constrained to regard those prophecies 


882 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jnly, 

vhich " are not fulAlled punctually at once " to " have 
springing and germinant accomplishment, though the 
height and fullness thereof may r^er to some one age." 

HisTOEY OP Religions. (International Theological Li- 
brary.) By George Foot Moore, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D., 
Professor of the History of Religion in Harvard Uni- 
versity. II. Judaism, Christianity, Uohammedanism. 
8vo. Pp. xvi, 552. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 
1919. f3.00, net. 

The story of the three monotheistic religions is told in 
this volume with remarkable completeness, considering the 
condensation, and with rare literary skill. In writing the 
history of Christianity and Mohammedanism the author 
skillfully avoids saying anything that would be unduly 
offensive to any school of critics or theologians, while at 
the same time all the main facts are brought under re- 
view. The ordinary reader, however, will be somewhat 
surprised at the statements concerning Mohammedanism, 
that " a single verse of the Koran has made the Moslem 
world a world of total abstainers has not a shadow of 
warrant in the facts" (p. 496) ; and that in Mohammedan 
countries the slaves " are treated as members of the house- 
hold and feel themselves to be such; so that the institu- 
tion is of a much milder form than slavery in the Roman 
Empire or in Christian countries like America in modem 
times" (p. 495). 

A manifest drawback to aU such condensed histories 
for popular use is the dogmatic and final character of the 
statements of facts, which are really but the subjective 
conclosions of the author, and which in a large majority 
of cases the lay reader is unable 4o verify. This exists 
with great force in respect to the portion of the volume 
which treats of Judaism, where, from beginning to end, 
the author assumes withont question the correctness of 
the WeUhaasen theory which maintains the documentary 
origin of the Pentateuch. Hence the history ia recon- 
structed throughout on the basis of that theory, with n» 


1919] Jfotices of Recent Publications 383 

intimation that anybody questionB the truth. Deuteron- 
omy is repres^ited as a forgery of the seventh century 
B.C.; and, that not being sufficient^ several portions of it 
which assert higher conceptions of monotheism than the 
author supposes to have been entertained at that time are 
said to be later additions. Throughout this portion, the 
author seems to assume that the failure of a people to live 
up to a high standard of law is proof that the law did not 
exist, — a theory which has received a serious jolt in the 
European war just concluded, in which every high stand- 
ard of morality set forth by Christianity has been violated 
by the most advanced nations. The backslidings of the 
children of Israel pale in significance before those of Ger- 
many during the last five years. This portion of the book, 
therefore, is untrustworthy from beginning to end, and its 
statements must be accepted with great caution. 

A Ststeh op Qbneral Ethics. By Lbakdiir 8. Exysbb, 
D.r>., Professor of Ethics, Theism and Christian Evi- 
dence in Wittenberg College, and of Systematic The- 
ology in Hamma Divinity School, Springfield, Ohio; au- 
thor of "A System of Natural Theism," "A System of 
Christian Ethics," " The Rational Test," " Election and 
Conversion," etc. 12mo. Pp. 286. Burlington : The Lu- 
theran Literary Board. 1918. fl.75. 
This littie volume supplies a deeply felt want of a treat- 
ise upon general ethics which is concise and comprehensive 
as well as sound ui both its general principles and its 
practical applications. It ia admirably adapted as a text- 
book in our colleges. The author rightly regards man as 
a free moral agent, responsible for his character, and he 
estimates a virtuous choice as weighing, in the scale of 
values, more than the material universe. Respecting the 
ground of right, the author, by clear and concise reason- 
ing, rejects hedonism, or the pleasure theory of life; sto- 
icism, which maintains that we are to practice " virtue 
for virtue's sake " ; divine absolutism, or the will of Ood ; 
civil authority ; altruism, or " thinking solely of others " ; 
utilitarianism ; naturalistic and theistic evolution ; and 


881 Biblictheca Sacra [July^ 

gives as the true view that " tlie ultimate ground of right 
is God, the eternal, personal, self-existent and all-perfect 
Creator and Preserver of all finite being" (p. 43). The 
author, however, in his examination of various theories, 
has strangely omitted any reference to the theory which 
has been ably advocated by a long list of New England 
divines, namely, Jonathan Edwards, Nathaniel Taylor, 
Charles G. Finney, Maii: Hopkins, and James FairchUd, 
who represent the fundamental virtue to be the " choice 
of the good of being," which' involves all being from 
God the Creator to the lowest sentient creature, and gives 
due weight to one's own value in the scale. This as we 
understand it is not utilitarianism or altruism, but is in 
effect the same as Dr. KeyseHs principle, exalting God as 
supreme and regarding the universe as his creation and 
care. In the author's reasoning upon practical ethics, tliis 
principle is consistently followed. The character of an 
action is determined by the motive. The practical judg- 
ment of what particular action is rig^t differs with the 
capacity of each individual. Each one is held responsible 
for adhering to bis ultimate choice. " If we are sincere, 
and yet fall into error, we may well believe that God will 
overrule our mistakes for our ultimate good" {p. 133). 
Many perplexing questions of casuistry arise, especially in 
regard to doubtful amusements and debatable indulgences. 
These questions should be settled not simply by asking, 
What is there wrong in them? but by the other question, 
What is good in them ? In discussing the question of false- 
hood, the author would justify the conscientious physician 
in disguising certain facts a knowledge of which would en- 
danger his patient's life; or a general in war counterfeit- 
ing certain movements to deceive the enemy; or football 
players adopting certain ruses to win the game. " It is the 
motive more than anything else that makes the lie" (p. 
138). And so one would reason that murder was not 
simply killing a man, but killing with a bad motive. But 
In all questions of casuistry " it is better to err, if err you 
must, on the side of safety — that is, on the side of strict 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 385 

veracity" (p. 138). The diBCUSSion of practical ethics 
which occnpiea the last 115 pages of the book, is both 
diBcriminating and vholesome. No youth can go astray 
through following its precepts. 

CoNCBBNiNQ Jb8U3 Chhist, the SoD of God. By William 

Cleavxb Wilkinson. 12mo. Pp. 233. Philadelphia; 

The Griffith and Rowland Press. fl.OO. 

Dr. Wilkinson, whose trenchant pen' has wrought val- 
iantly for the truth heretofore, makes with this volume 
another strong essay into the field of Apologetics. He 
speaks of it almost in the light of a final effort — praying 
for grace, " until I have shown thy strength unto this 
generation and thy power to every one that is to come." 
We trust it is not the finale, though a worthy theme for 
such, for the theological world will be much bereft with- 
out the voice of this doughty champion of orthodoxy. 

The plea here is for a fair and reasonable survey of the 
facts of Christ's life and the declarations of his lips. Such 
a common-sense study of the data at hand will bring to 
the rational mind the clear conception of a Christ who 
is both human and divine, and so equal to the mighty task 
laid upon him of redeeming a lost world to Qod. He in- 
veighs particularly against that posture of mind which 
sees Jesus shorn of miraculous power and yet assumes him 
competent to be Master and Saviour of mankind. It is the 
Eesurrection that is the Verdun of the conflict; tind here 
the author takes his stand, plants his guns, and sturdily 
says, " They shall not pass." His argument is simple and 
sensible but strongly convincing. Jesus is what he claims 
to be, and only as such is he capable of doing what he was 
sent to do. The very persistence of the religion of Jesus 
declares daily and indubitably, " Now is Christ risen 
from the dead." 

If it is Paul who lays especial emphasis upon the res- 
urrection of Christ, it is to John we must look for the con- 
vincing testimony to Christ's deity; and Dr. Wilkinson, 
in the writer's recollection, is the first one who has called 


386 BihUotheca Sacra [July, 

attention to the Tindoabted influence of Mary the mother 
of Jesus upon Joiui's remarkable portraiture of Christ's 
theanthropic personality, following the quietly spoken 
word on the cross, " Woman, behold thy son." The divol- 
gences of those days of close r^tionsfaip are reflected, it 
mast be believed, in the intimate loner story of Christ's 
transcendent life given in John's Oospel. 

J. W. WmoDrntL. 

Bbsadino thb Biblh. By Williau Lyok Fhklps, Lampsou 
Professor of English Literature at Yale. 12mo. Pp. vii, 
131. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1919. fl.25. 
It is refreshing to get the estimate of the Bible made 
by a distinguished professor of English in one of oar 
leading universities, and to find that he is emphatic in 
his opinion that the literature of the Bible as found in 
the Authorized Version surpasses in every respect every 
and all other writings which the world possesses. The 
book contains three chapters, — " Beading the Bible," " St. 
Paul as a Letter-Writer," " Short Stories in the Bible." 
Every page of the book is full of interest. The author says 
that, not being a student of theology and Biblical criti- 
cism, he hesitates to express an opinion upon any critical 
point. Nevertheless, the opinions which he does express, 
usually commend themselves for their good sense and con- 
clusiveness. To those who doubt the Pauline authorship 
of the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus we commend the 
following : — 

" Ignorant of New Testament interpretation as I am, 
it would be an impertinence for me to express an opinion 
upon this point. All I can say is, I am glad we have them, 
and I hope Paul wrote them. . . . The; differ in langoage 
from the known epistles of Paul; but it is possible that 
Paul, like some other writers, occasionally went outside 
of his customary vocabulary" (p. 88). "I confess with- 
out shame that the reason why I hope they were written 
by Paul ia not because of their admonitions but simply 
because of their personal allusions, which bring the great 
writer verj- close. . . . Paul wants his overcoat. ... He is 
not only cold, he is lonely. , . . But above all, he wants to 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 387 

see Timothj again, aad twice he implores him to hurry 
op" (pp. 89-90). 

How THE BiBLK Ghbw : The Story ae Told by the Book and 
Its Keepers. (Handbooks of Ethics and Religion.) By 
Frank Grant Lewis. 8vo. Pp. xi, 223. Chicago; The 
University of Chicago Press. 1919. fl.50, net. 
This volume is devoted from beginning to end to popu- 
larizing the documentary theories of the WeUhaasen school 
as applied to the Old Testament, and of the moderately 
radical critics of the New Testament. It gives no indication 
of the writer's familiarity with the more recent discus- 
sions relating to the authorahip of the Pentateuch or of 
the most recent conclusions concerning the date of the 
writing of the New Testament books. There is scarcely 
a single reference to a conservative author. The lay reader, 
therefore, will find it a blind guide to the real truth. 

Thb Adventueb of Lipb. By Bobbrt W. Mackbnna, M.A., 

M.D., author of " The Adventure of Death." 12mo. Pp. 

xi, 233. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1919. 

«1. 25. 

The distinguished author of this volume has conferred 
a great boon upon the mass of readers by producing a 
book which, while neither a scientific monograph nor a 
philosophical treatise, has yet made the facts of such pro- 
ductions easily comprehended by all. From beginning to 
end the book elicits the interest of all, though discussing 
the profound opinions under consideration. Written while 
engaged in the humanitarian profession at the seat of war, 
his subjects are constantly enlivened and clarified by the 
experiences of the eick and wounded soldiers that were 
brought under his care. Duly recognizing alj the scientific 
objections that have been presented, the author still 
clearly makes it an object of firm belief that life is the 
gift of an omnipotent Creator; that the intelligence of 
man sets him apart from all other animals; that freedom 
of will is among the powers bestowed upon him by his 
Creator; that the mystery of pain and suffering are re- 


388 Bibliotheca Sacra [Jolyi 

Bolved into benevolence throng^ the services whicb they 
render in directing oar activities and in ennobling than 
by making them serve hi^ parposee which greatly enlarge 
the value of life. The volume closes with a brief statement 
of the grounds of believing in immortality, though the sub- 
ject had been treated more fully in his previous work on 
" The Adventure of Death." The book merits wide reading. 

Thb Nbw Citizenship: The Christian Facing a New World 
Order. By A. T. Hobbbtson, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Bap- 
tist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. 12mo. Pp. 
157. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 1919. 
11.00, net. 

This volume is the outgrowth of " the reaction " of a 
distinguished scholar's " mind to the new situation due 
partly to a month with the Y. M. C. A. Army school for 
secretaries at Blue Ridge, North Carolina"; and as such 
it demands candid and careful attention. It brings out in 
striking relief the importance of Christian cooperation in 
the profound readjustment of society made necessary by 
the war, and the confidence which we may have in the suc- 
cessful outcome of the efforts to promote permanent peace 
and fellowship. 

The Luooaoe of Life. The Silvbb 8haik>w. Thb Oolobn 

Milestone. Faces m thb Fire. Mushroous on the 

Moor. Mountains in the Mist. By F. W. Bobbhah. 

12mo. Pp. 246, 272, 276, 272, 280, 2^. New York: The 

Abingdon Press, fl.25, net, each volume. 

The author of these books is an Australian preacher 

whose works are well known in that country. The sketches 

and essays in all these boobs are of a similar character. 

They have a fine literary flavor. They are entertaining. 

Moreover, they are instructive and inspiring. One can 

easily see why the author has become a popular preacher 

and lecturer. His wealth of illustration, his historical and 

biographical touches have a peculiar charm. These are 

books that one may pick up at odd times, open up aoy- 


1919] Notices of Recent Publications 389 

where, and find them always equally interesting. One 
would like to have heard the spoken message. But unlike 
many other similar sketches, these sketches have lost little 
in being transposed into the cold print. The variety of 
the subjects will furnish material for any mood. 

N. T. d. p. 

The Traobdy of Abmbnia : A Brief Study and Interpreta- 
tion. By Bbrtha S. Papazian. With an Introduction 
by Secretary Jaubs L. Barton, D.D., of the American 
Board. 12mo. Pp. xvi, 164. Boston: The PUgrim Press. 

1918. fl.OO. 

This book is valuable, not only for detailing the effects 
of the recent massacres, but for giving an outline of the 
history of the Armenians from their emergence from pa- 
ganism into the fellowship of Ohristian nations. It sheds 
much lights also, upon the Turkish domination and the 
whole Near Eastern question. 

Pbaybrs and Thanksgivinos foe a Christian. By Isaac 
OoDEN Rankin. 16mo. Pp. 306. Boston: Pilgrim Press. 

1919. fl.25, net. 

This is a most helpful collection of prayers for every day 
and for many different occasions. Each prayer centers 
aroand one particular thought The language is both 
beautiful and devotional. For family worship a little book 
like this will be just what many have desired. The fine 
thing about all these prayers is the loftiness of them. They 
may be heartily commended to all who are seeking a devo- 
tional expression for their individual and their family life. 

The Sunday-School Cbnturt: Containing a History of 
the Congregational Sunday-School and Publishing So- 
ciety. By Rev. William Ewing, D.D. 12mo. Pp. xvi, 
141. Boston : The Pilgrim Press. 1918. |1.50. 
The rise of Sunday schools in the United States briefly 
told, followed by a more detailed account of Sunday-school 
actirities of the Congregational Church. Emphasis is given 
to the organizations that have provided the polity, curric- 
ula, literature, and extension of school system. Those who 


S90 BibHotheca Sacra 

have superintended this work are all introdaced, togethier 
with pliotographB of seventy of them. The book is fall of 
facts and flgnres for those interested. 

Since the publication of Mr. Buchanan's article in the 
BiBLioTHBCA Sacra for January, 1917, giving lengthy por- 
tions of the Huntington palimpsest, additional portiooB 
have been published by C. F. Roworth, 88 Fetter Lane, 
London, E. C, containing extracts from the Gospel of Lake 
and from John and from the Acts of the Apostles. These 
fill from forty to fifty pages each and are marked by tbe 
same characteristics as were apparent in the portions pub- 
lished in tbe Bibliothbca Sacra. There has also been 
published by Heath, Cranton and Ousley "An Unique Gos- 
pd Text," containing thirty-one selections from the same 
palimpsest, with introduction by B. E. Scriven and J. B. 
Heath Cranton. The point of special significance is that 
in all these portions extreme emphasis is laid upon the 
work of the " Spirit." Mr. Buchanan is of the opinion 
that this palimpsest represents an early Latin text which 
was circulated in Spain; but, as we have already noted, 
Oanon Wordsworth is of the opinion that it is what he 
calls " a tai^med copy," prepared by some sect of which 
we know little or nothing. But even so it is of great in- 
terest both as illustrating the ferment produced by Chris- 
tion doctrines in the churches of western Europe in the 
early centuries, and also of value in helping to correct the 
text of disputed passages. For some reason Mr. Buchan- 
an's work upon this manuscript has been suspended. We 
trust, however, that tbe way will soon tie opened for tbe 
completion of his work, which is of great interest and 
value, whatever opinion we may have of the original char- 
acter of the palimpsest. 


The Bible Champion 

Offieial Organ of the Bible League of North America 


An Ot^aoisaiioD formed (a promoU ■ true knowledge of the Bible 
aod coiwequeni faith in ita Diviae Authority 

A magazine for the Minister, Bible Student, and the aspiring Layman. 

Iq ita New Form — greatly improved and ^larged — there is do 
magazine published to-day that gives greater value for the investment 
made. We wish to prove this strong claim made for the Biblb Ghau- 
piON to every reader of the Biiliotheca Sacra. 

Dr. Townsend's monthly contributions consist of an article on Hy- 
giene, primarily for Clergj-nien, but equally eulightening to the Laity; 
and a series of very iutereBting articles on the " Origin of Man, and its 
Bearing on the Theory of Evolution." You will do well to read these! 

The price of the Bible Chami'ion is fl.fiO the year; Canada, |1.65; 
Foreign, $1.75 ; Single copy, 15c. It is the policy of the Publishers not 
to send free sample copies. 

OR, if you will inclose the price of a year's subscription we will 
send you a volume, cloth, of Dr. Esenwein's " Feathers for Shafts," free, 
prepaid, as a Premium. 

OR, send us the price of a year's subscription, and add 50c to it, 
and get any one of the cloth bound books below, prepaid: — 

"Concessions of Liberalista to Orthodoxy" (344 pp., $1.50), by 
Dr. DorchcBter; or, "Christianity and I'oaitivism" (370 pp., fl.75), by 
President McCosh; or, "Footprints of Sorrow" (373 pp., |1.50), by 
Dr. Beld; or, "Voices of the Soul Answered in God" (374 pp., $1.50), 
by Dr. Reid: or, "Christ and His Religion" (311 pp., $1-50), by Dr. 
Reid. For |2.00 we will send you any one of above volumes and the 
Biblb Chami'ion a year, prepaid. (Canada, ¥2.15; Foreign, $2.25.) 

24 East 125th Street, New York City 


David James Burrell, D.D., LL.D., William H. Bates, D.D., Herbert W. 

Magoun, I'h.D., liiitlicr T. Townseud, D.D., LL.D., 

0. Frederick Wright, p.D., LL.D. 

Address all Orders, and mail on matters of Business, to 
Managing Editor and Publisher, Reading, Pa. 




marking an epoch In Pentateuehal 
Criticism, b&ve nearly all appeared 
in tbe BiBuaTBiio& Saoka during 
the last fifteen jeara. In " Essays In 
PentateaohB] CrlUcism " and " P«ita- 
teuehal Studies," most of the articles 
before 1912 are collected. Since then, 
no number has been without some 
contribution from bis pen. His con- 
structive work besan In the Janaary 
number, 1918, and after an Interrup- 
tion because of the war was resumed 
in the current numbers. Owing to the 
high coat of printing it is not expe- 
dient at present to issue further vol- 
umes collecting these essays, but lib- 
eral terms for back numbers of the 
BiBuoTHKCA Sacra will be made to 
the large number of Biblical etud^its 
for whom these writings are a neces- 
sity If they would keep up wltli tbe 
times. Correspondence la solicited. 

D.qit.zeaOvGoOt^lc ..' 


OCTOBER, 1919 


Eishty-Ninth Year 







Tbb Cbxativx Days ■ . L. Franklin Gruber 391 

Thb DmNB Transcerdence David Fotter Eitea 415 

Thb Philosopht of Pbohibitioh Ohartei W. Super 434 

The ViCTOBions Life (11.) W, S. OrtJl(ft Thomat 4B5 

Criticai. Notk8 — 

The Elxodus and the Conquest ot the Negeb — Not«B on the Ezodua 

—The Text of Exodus xvill. 10 f. . . , Harold M. Wiener 4GS 

Notices of Recent Pubuoatiohb 4S5 




BuiopKAH Aqchts, Ckaklbb Hiohah ft Son 
27a F^rrlngdon Street. London, B. C. 



Entered &t the Fovt Oflloe In Oborlln. Ohio, u Seeond-elaai UaXbu 






In 1813 BiBLioTHRCA Sacka was founded by Dr. Edward Robinson, 
and three numbero were iBHned in New York City. In 1844 it was re- 
moved to Andover, MaBRaclinsetts, where the publication of the present 
series began, iiuder the editorsliip of I'rofesxors Bela B. Edwards and 
Edwards A. Park, with the special cooperation of Dr. Robinson and Pro- 
fessor Moses Stuart. Professor Edwards A. Park continued as its 
principal editor until the close of its fortieth volume (1883). 8ince 
that tiine Professor G. Frederick Wright has been its leading editor, 
and with representative associate editors has continued the Quarterly 
in the line of its original projectors. Never in all its history has it had 
a wider or abler set of contributors than it has at the present tima 

Recent numbers of Bibi.jotheca I^acra Iiave contained articles by 
W. H. Bates, J. T. Bixby, Raymond Bridgman, E. S. Buchanan, J. H. 
Crooker, D- F- Estes, O. W. Firkins, J. F. Genung, Andrew Gillies, L. F. 
Gruber, F. H. Johnson, M. G. Kyle, A. H. Lybyer, D. A. MeClenahan, H. 
W. Magoun, P. S. Moxom, H. M; Ramsey, D. S. Bchaff, Preser\'ed Smith, 
C. W. Super, W. H. G. Thomas, B. B. Warfleld, J. D. Wilson, J. E. Wis- 
hart, and many other equally well-known names. 

Among European scholars may be mentioned A. Noordtzij and A. 
Troelstra, of The Netherlands; J. Dahse and E. Konig of Germany; 
W. St. Clair TisdaU, J. J. Lias, J. S. Griffiths, G. Margoliouth, J. Lind- 
say, T. H. Weir, and H. M, Wiener of Great Britain. By general ac- 
knowledgment of European seliolars the work of these men has put a- 
new phase on Old Testament Criticism." 

The January number for 1920 will have articles by F. M. Th.BOhl 
(GroniDgen), E. Konig, and H. M, Wiener. 

Single Numbers, 75 cents. Yearly Subscription, fS.W) 

Oberlin, Omo, U. S. A, 





Onb of the Btorm-centerB of the apparent conflict be- 
tween science and Revelation has for yeare been the 
opening chapter of the Book of Qenesia. With the devel- 
opment especially of modem physical science, the Hoeaic 
account of creation became the object of many attacks, as 
sapposedly antiquated or outworn and no longer intel- 
lectually tenable. Thia citadel of the Faith has thus for 
some decades been bombarded with the missiles of the 
most highly developed scientific acumen. Terms for an 
armistice have indeed been offered, and compromises look- 
ing toward concord and permanent peace have been 
snggested. But these have never been entirely satisfactory 
to either side. Meanwhile on each side there have been 
those who have opposed every compromise. They have 
remained fixed in their determination to continue the 
conflict with their original weapons, without even so much 
as a willingness to examine the weapons of the other 
party. As this is a subject of undoubted importance in 
these times of speculation and doubt, the following brief 
consideration of the Creative Hexaemeron may not be 
wholly amiss and unwelcome. 

Speculation upon this question has not been confined 
altogether to our own age. In practically every age phi- 
losophers and theologians discnssed it. In the speculative 
thought of all races the questions of the whence, how, whbn, 
and why of origin have been second only to that of the 
wMther of destiny. Thus many theories of creation have 


892 BihUotheoa Baora [Oct 

been developed. Bnt as this is a eabject that lies beyond 
the range of human coasciouaness and ezperieoce, unoi- 
lightened reason alone coold never solve these transc^i- 
dent mysteries of ori^. This would seem to be as 
impossible, without revealed facts or premises of reasoning, 
as for a man to weigh himself while holding his own scale. 
Here man's profonndest speculations fail, and unaided 
human reason must halt with bowed head and veiled face 
before the divinely imposed limitation, " 80 far shalt thoa 
go but no farther." 


Man is, however, not thus left to himself without light, 
as to these absorbing questions. As if to anticipate man's 
burning desire to know about his origin, for his " O my 
Father" of inquiry there is the long anticipated revealed 
answer, " Here, my child." 


The account of creation in G«nesis has always been re- 
garded as of divine origin. It seems to bear upon its very 
face the stamp of Divinity. And only in proportion as 
other accounts, however we may explain their origin, have 
been found to approach this one in Scripture, have they 
been r^arded as containing elements of truth. Fitting it 
is, therefore, that this record of man's and nature's origin 
forme the introduction to the revelation of his state and 
destiny. And, in the main, this account of creation was 
for centuries accepted with implicit faith as Ood's one and 
final revelation to man on this important topic. 

Many great and reverent men saw indeed some ditScol- 
ties of interpretation, such as the creative days consisting 
each of an evening and a morning, the creation of light and 
of the earth before that of the sun, the existence of plants 
before sunlight, and the fact that to God's rest-day was 
assigned no evening. But, being profoundly devout, these 
men regarded such diificulties as only philosophically 
profound and thus merely apparent. Indeed, by some men 
like Augustine ;thls whole narrative was regarded as not 


1919] The Creative Days 893 

an ordinary one, and therefore beyond any explanation 
according to ordinary canons of interpretation and in 
merely human terms and times. And in thia conclusion 
might devoutest faith veil hare rested and been satisfied. 
Han might reverently have allowed the record to stand as 
God's final inspired chronicle of His own work of creation. 
For as Ood's work most be above man's work as high as 
the heavens are above the earth, so might man well have 
regarded Ood's record of the same as being above or dif- 
ferent from merely human records. 


There is, however, another volume of truth open to man. 
In addition to the volume of Ood's Word, there is the 
volume of His completed work. Indeed, Ood's work in 
nature is the great outstanding visible fact of whose origi- 
nation the account in Genesis is apparently the divinely 
inspired record. And the record must correspond to the 
fact, or the fact to the record. If both are from God, 
they must agree ; for all divine truth, whatever its habitat, 
must be consistent with all other and related truth. Thus 
God's truth as to His creation comes to us in two volumes ; 
namely, the book of nature and the book of Revelation. 
They are complements of each other and are therefore both 
necessary to the better understanding of this great subject. 
Taken in the order of the time of interpretation rather 
than in that of their origins, there is a sense in which the 
relation of the volume of Revelation to the volume of na- 
ture is like that of prophecy to history, of the Old Testa- 
ment to the New Testament. As prophecy is to a certain 
extent intelligible without history, or the Old Testam^t 
without the New Testament, so the account in Ood's volume 
of Revelation is also somewhat intelligible without God's 
volume of nature. But as history is the key to the better 
' understanding of prophecy, or the New Testament to that 
of the Old Testament, so God's book of nature is the key 
to the better understanding of the account in Ood's book of 


394 BibUotheca Sacra [Oct. 

BevelatioQ. And as prophecy is to a certain extent also the 
key to the onderstanding of the purpose of history, bo also 
is the account in Oenesis the key to the onderstandiog of 
the purpose of nature. The failure to recognize this rela- 
tionship between nature and Genesis has been one of the 
chief causes of the conflict between science, in the wider 
sense, and religion. 


Modem science has wonderfully enlarged man's concep- 
tion of the greatness of physical creation, and therefore, to 
the devout, also of its Creator. She has compelled nature 
to yield mtiny secrets. But with her marvelous devdop- 
ment there has also been developed the feeling of her own 
sufficiency in the resolution of problems not distinctive^ 
her own. With the suggestion of the account of creation 
in Genesis, she has prondly attempted to construct one of 
her own, virtually without the factor of Deity, out of the 
apparent evidence from nature itself. But in so doing she 
has erroneonsly proceeded as if she knew all the forces 
that have been operative in the development of universal 
nature. She has indeed laid bare many of nature's mys- 
teries, but for every one laid bare she has found beneath it 
several others, and each still more mysterious, — and so on 
in a geometrical ratio. And where she has come back to 
Scripture to Illustrate her findings, it has been with the 
prepossession that her own findings must be final, and that 
where they do not agree with Scripture upon its very 
surface, there Scripture must necessarily be in error. 

On the other hand, theology has been too prone to reject 
without examination the investigations and conclusions of 
science. Assuming that a rather literal interpretation of 
O^iesis in human terms of time and sense must necessarily 
be final, she has too often closed her eyes to the light that 
nature, properly understood, may shed upon the account in 
Genesis. Finding that the testimony of science has not 
agreed with her preconceived interpretation of Scripture, 
she has been rather too ready to reject all scientlflc in- 


1919] TJie Creative Days 396 

vestigation, as well aa all philosophic inquiry, as atheistic 
and false. Id this adherence to Scripture she would 
indeed only have been consistent, bad it not been for the 
fact that she has confounded GKid's Word with her own 
interpretation of it. 8he should at least have been op&v to 
more light for her interpretation ; for, upon her own 
premise, that both are from OoA, nature and Scripture 
could not disagree. Thus, where it was a matter of inter- 
pretation alone, she should have welcomed at least the 
more settled results of science that might be harmonized 
with the account in Genesis. 

Thus science, especially in her philosophic applications, 
has been too bold in her assumptions and too settled in her 
conclusions, many of which have not at all stood the test 
of later science. And theology has been inclined to dis- 
regard or reject whatever light from nature science might 
throw upon the account of Revelation. But, as already 
intimated, since the testimony of nature and the account 
in Genesis seem to be complementary for the fuller truth 
involved in both, they should be used together, though each 
in its own way and to its own particular end, in the res- 
olution of this great problem. Therefore, science and 
theology must share each other's testimony and bear with 
each other's shortcomings. Nor must either arrogate all 
truth to herself; but each must humbly acknowledge the 
inflnality of her own immediate conclusions. And where 
the two still seem to be in conflict, let each patiently await 
more light. Meanwhile it is surely only appropriate for 
science not to assail the creative record itself, even as it 
is for theology not to assail nature itsdf. 


The theologian must ever bear in mind that the chief 
purpose of Scripture is the revelation of the way of 
salvation, and that other things, even including human 
history, like a complex scaffolding, are used in so far as 
they contribute to that great end. Therefore it is that the 
beginning of Genesis gives only in barest outline the 


396 Bibliotbeca Sacra [Oct 

account of Gfod'B work in creation, as the necessary nlti- 
mate premise to all that follows. Details of the work of 
creation and ilescriptlonB of methods of operation, not 
entering into so general a plan, are therefore omitted from 
its record. It is given to ns for its religionB value, not for 
scientific enlightenment, though surely, if of divine origin, 
in no element can it in the least be contrary to a science 
true to the facts of nature. 

Scripture here deals with simple facts as effectt, whose 
ultimate causes necessarily lie above human experience and 
beyond first-hand investigation; and it therefore does not 
pretend to assign any causes except the one great First 
Cause of all. Its pnrpose being religious, not scientific, 
secondary causes are not given because manifestly not a 
part of that purpose. But that is not saying that therefore 
no secondary causes were operative, for surely all sec- 
ondary causes are themselves effects from the great First 
Cause.' Therefore all secondary causes are of necessity 
included in the great First Cause and are apparently 
implied in that sublime account of the creation of the uni- 
verse. And, indeed, what seems to be a finished universe 
is still teeming with secondary causes, which is simply say- 
ing that the First Cause continues to sustain, and perhaps 
is still further developing, the created universe through 
the agency of secondary causes as the continued expres- 
sion of His omniflc will. 

This truth, that the great First Cause worked both 
directly and through secondary causes in the work of cre- 
ation, which should seem almost axiomatic, has been too 
much overlooked. The theologian in his interpretation of 
Genesis apparently could see only the First Cause operative 
in creation, while the scientist, in his interpretation of 
nature, could apparently see only secondary causes oper- 
ative in a supposed merely cosmic development. And in so 
doing their views have seemed mutually exclusive. But 
the scientist seems to have forgotten that all secondary 
causes necessarily imply a first cause, of which these them- 

'S«e tlie wrIUr'B Creation Ex NibDo <Bftdger, 1918), diap. It. 


1919] The Creatnie Day» 9VJ 

selves are only effects. And the theologian might have 
known that the Firet Cause naturally implies and includes 
secondary causes as in part the agencies of His operations. 


In her treatment of this subject, theology properly etarts 
from a special supernatural revelation of transcendental 
truths and facts, as premises, and therefore necessarily rea- 
sons deductively toward detailed natural phenomena and 
truths. Science, with equal propriety, starts from observed 
natural phenomena, and therefore reasons inductively 
toward ultimate facta and truths. Theology has been in- 
clined to err in the arbitrary use or application of her re- 
vealed, but not fully understood, premises. Science has 
chiefly erred in forming rather hasty generalisations, and 
drawing conclusions, from an insufScient, and oftentimes 
imperfectly understood, number of phenomena as her data 
for reasoning. There is thus a sense in which the approach 
to this sublime problem on the part of theology and that on 
the part of science, have virtually been from opposite 
sides. The theologian has approached it from the Oodward, 
or supernatural, side, the side of the ultimate Cause or 
Worker; the scientist has approached it from the manward, 
or natural, side, or the side of the cosmic effect or of the 
finished work. Hence it is, as already noted, that the one 
has seen only God, the First Cause, directly active; the 
other has seen operative only secondary causes with 
which it still teems. And, in a sense, both have .been right; 
for to the one, for his purpose, God the Creator or Worker 
is everything, while to the other, for his special purpose, 
the creation or work, with its still inhering causes or 
forces, is everything. And we believe that, like two crews 
of tunnel workers working on opposite sides of a great 
mountain, they are really necessarily approaching each 
other and must eventually meet. And that place of meet- 
ing mnst be the very center and heart of the great over- 
towering mountain of God's universal truth. 


898 Bibliotheca Sacra [Oct. 


Remembering tbe real purpose of Scripture, and partica- 
larly of this account of creation as its introduction and as 
tte basic premise or postulate to all tbat follows, let us 
not lose sight of that other equally important and associa- 
ted fact, tbat it la meant to be suited to all ages. It is to 
be Ood's revelation concerning the origin of all things to 
tbe last generation, however cultured and enlightened, just 
as much as it was to the earliest people to whom it was 
first given, however primitive and untutored. And to both 
it was meant to be equally adapted aa in outline the ulti- 
mate truth. Therefore, its presentation of truth, even its very 
language, must of necessity be of that general character 
that fits it to all ages and to every condition of man. If 
it had been presented in the scientific terminology of this 
twentieth century, and with scientific details intelligible 
to this generation, it would have been absolutely Incompre- 
hensible by the generation of the fifteenth century before 
Christ, and largely so even by every generation before the 
nineteenth century of our era. Again, if it were given in 
the scientific terminology, in the light of all the discoveries, 
of future centuries of human history, it might be unintelli- 
gible even to this twentieth century with all its boasted 
scientific attainment. Therefore, tbe use of the technical 
phraseology of any one century of enlightenment would 
hardly have fitted it for any other. 

The revelation of creation is thus given in that universal 
phenomenal language that makes it intelligible to all ages, 
and to all stages of enlightenment. Therefore, no one 
age can ever expect to exhaust its full meaning, as no one 
age has complete possession of all the arcana of nature. 
And yet, every age, however enlightened, can reverently 
approach this divine record, matchless in its outline sim- 
plicity, and not find its own real discoveries out of har- 
mony with it. There it stands unique, yet universal for all 
time, divinely matching all real discoveries of truth, as we 
believe could be shown, like the simple outline of prophecy 
matching its fulfillment in a most complex history. Nor 


1919] The Creative Days 399 

can the last word of real science ever contradict it, if of 
divine origin, or any real htiman needs outgrow it. 


Perhaps a few words In further explanation of the lan- 
guage UBed might not be out of place. We still speak of 
the sun as rising or as setting, though we know it to be so 
only in appearance and that what really happens is tbe 
earth rotating on its axis from west to east as the cause of 
this appearance. We may say, the eye sees, the mind 
forms a resultant image, and language endeavors to express 
in words what it has imaged. But the words are not the 
image, much lees tbe thing imaged. They are at best but 
a representation — and that, in its last analysis, a pictorial 
one — growing out of the phenomenon, or appearance to tbe 
eye, as imaged in tbe mind. This is tbe natural birth of 
language; and the more primitive the people are, tbe more 
phenomenal is their language. And though with the devel- 
opment of language this phenomenal nature of it is in 
many terms alt but lost, it stiU lies imbedded — as it were, 
fossilized — in the apparently meaningless combination of 
sounds or letters. 

Thus all language in its last analysis is really phenom- 
enal or metaphorical. And so moral and spiritual truth is, 
of course, necessarily revealed to us in phenomenal or met- 
aphorical language, the basis of whose metaphors is even 
itself phenomenal, — phenomenal physical nature. Thus we 
speak of sweet music, glorious truth, etc. Hence, neces- 
sarily, the many anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms 
in Scripture. Tbe things which, or whose phenomena, lie 
within tbe range of our physical senses are made the 
images to show forth the things that lie without, or the 
supersensuons ; and the language of their phenomena be- 
comes the vehicle to convey conceptions, however faintly, 
of transcendental ideas. The known becomes the imaging 
mirror for the unknown. And if the known itself is dim 
and shadowy, as it really is, even at best, bow much more 
so must be the unknown, its mirrored image! Indeed, as 


400 BibUotheca Sacra [Oct. 

the embodied soul caunot directly or immediately view or 
look out upon the environing univeree, but only indirectly 
or mediately through the several windows of the bodily 
sense-organs, aU its knowledge of external nature must, 
strictly speaking, necessarily be imperfect and incomplete. 
As its contact with and operation upon physical nature ia 
thus only through these appointed tools or means of knowl- 
edge, it can truly or literally only " know in part " even the 
things of this present physical world, not to speak of the 
origin of the cosmos and its past and future or of the 
spiritual world that transcends it and the ultimate reality 
in that infinite Being that is the Oround or Author of 
both. The ^o in the present state can thus at best see 
or know the non-ego only " in a mirror darkly." Only in 
our glorified humanity hereafter can we, by immediate 
vision, see " face to face " and " know fully." In its last 
analysis, it is this fact that lies at the basis of the perplex- 
ing problem of the " reality " of all philosophic search. 
Hence even an absolutely intelligible direct revelation of 
such transcendent facts would seem equally impossible to 
an embodied spirit. 

Surely, if God necessarily reveals himself elsewhere in 
Scripture in various anthropomorphisms and anthropo- 
pathisms, in human language based by metaphor upon the 
things of time and sense, we may reverently believe that in 
His revelation of creation, He also similarly uses hnman 
terms, with all their implied metaphors, based upon the 
phenomena of sense and time. And as in the many 
acknowledged anthropopatbisms and anthropomorphisms 
of Qod's Word we would not ascribe to Him human 
emotions, form, and action, so in His account of creation 
we must not limit Him to human methods and conditions 
of earthly times and relations. 

II. Thk Uaih Facts Set Forth 
Enough has probably now been said on the sources 
thonselves, for the better understanding of their contents. 


1919] The Creative Days 401 

We shall therefore proceed to an examioatioii of the main 
facts set forth or implied. 


The accooDt in Genesia opens with the very striking 
sentence, " In the beginning God created the heavens and 
the earth." What the true and full import of this sentence 
is, and what its relation to what follows, it is difficult 
with absolute certainty to determine. There are several 
views as to that import and relation. 

1. This opening sentence may be meant to serve merely 
as an introduction to the account itself, and would thus be 
a brief, comprehensive statement of the whole work of 
creation, which is immediately after given somewhat in 
detail. According to this view, it would practically be 
equivalent to a caption or general heading for the whole 
account, and would at once arrest the attention of the 
reader to a theme ineffably grand. This is rather the 
popular, and no doubt the prevalent, view; and upon first 
thought it seems very plausible. But this would still 
leave open the question as to the origination of the ele- 
ments, whether viewed as so-called ponderable matter or as 
ultimately nothing but energy, for the account Immediately 
proceeds, " And the earth was waste and void," etc. The 
matter or material, or the elemental energy, of unorganized 
chaos is thus referred to as already existing before this sec- 
ond verse. And if the first verse were only the general 
introduction or the comprehensive caption to the whole, 
then we should have here no revelation as to the whence of 
so-called matter. Whether it had at some previous time 
been created by Ood, not revealed here but assumed, or 
whether it had existed from eternity and was therefore 
co-eternal with God, would then surely be an open ques- 
tion, left with the reader — perhaps to try his reason, and 
perchance bis faith. 

Wh&t a plausible argument this would afford to the ex- 
ponent of the theory of the eternity of matter or the ele- 
ments, however viewed, — a theory very natural to the 


402 BibUotkeoa Sacra [Oct 

materialist, or the mechanistic ecientist, with his laws of 
the uniformity of nature and of the apparent conservation 
of energy and matter or of the all-incloBiye monistic sub- 
stance! For, recognizing only secondary caases, these laws 
to him seem absolute, not only for nature in its cosmic 
derelopment but also for that dim and mysterious period 
before the present supposedly developed cosmos. This 
would make of God — if indeed He were still regarded as 
necessary to an intelligible explanation of things — not a 
real creator, that is, a creator c» nihilo, but a great 
master-builder or fashioner of the universe, in the six crea- 
tive days, from preexisting elements at His hand. But the 
theory of the eternity of the world-stuff is untenable, not 
only in the light of Scripture with its one infinite and 
absolute Existence, Ood, but also in the light of its own 
nature and of its very necessary finiteness.^ 

Therefore, even upon the basis of this view of the import 
of the opening sentence in Genesis — according to which 
there would apparently be no revelation of the creation of 
the elements — we should eventually be forced back upon 
the only tenable conclusion, tbat the so-called world-stuff 
itself had at some previous time been created by tbat Being 
whom we call Ood, as the mind's great necessary funda- 
mental postulate. According to this view the term be- 
ginning could, therefore, not refer to any absolute begin- 
ning, such as the beginning of created being itself, or of the 
elements, or even of time, but to the beginning of the 
present cosmos, whose fashioning or construction would 
thus therein be set forth. 

2. That opening sentence may also be taken to mean 
the very thing which would otherwise be left an open 
question by the interpretation that it is merely an intro- 
duction or caption to what follows : it may mean the crea- 
tion of the world-elements themselves, and of course, 
ex nihilo. According to this view, the term beginning 
would clearly refer to the time of that primal creation, and 
would evidently mean the absolute beginning of the ex- 
> Creation Ex Nihilo, chaps, v.-vli 


1919] The Creative Dayg 4(^ 

istence of the material of chaos. And as time is ai^mrent- 
ly measareil duration, based apoD eoccefislve physical 
changes or revolutiouB in multiplications and divisionB 
with their coincident events, probably that beginning also 
marked ibe lieginning of time, as we know it. Bat whether 
it is so inclusive as to mean the beginning of all created 
being, it would be impossible to determine ; for the creation 
of angelic beings may have antedated the creation of onr 
physical cosmos aitd may prafaaps have antedated even the 
creation of its tmbatance, or its ctmstitutire elements. 

Moreover, may there not have been other creations, and 
even of other sentient beings in them, of which we have no 
revelation and of which a revelation would clearly be 
unnecessary for, and perhaps unintelligible to, this earth's 
race of men? There may even note exist other universes, 
and perhaps with rational beings, apart and independent 
from and beyond our own,— created perchance before and 
perchance after our own, but of which we have, and perhaps 
could have, no knowledge. Other universes might even 
have been created, run their appointed courses, and then 
been disint^rated or even annihilated, before ours was 
called into cosmic or even into elemental being. And our 
own might even have been fashioned or furnished from the 
disintegrated elements of an older universe. Who can say 
with certainty that this could not be possible, for who can 
limit the operations or the power of the omnipotent and 
eternal God to our own universe with its limited cycle of 
duration? And yet, in any of the above possibilities, that 
first sentence in Qenesis would not be any the less true; 
for that beginning would simply be shifted back to the 
time when the substance of present nature's primal universe 
was bom out of the womb of vacuous nothing. Bat it 
would be shifted back to that only; for the creation 
of other possible, elementally distinct, universes, created 
earlier in their elements, as well as of perhaps later ones, 
would not be included in this creative account, and the 
word beginning at its head would be altogether unaffected 
by such universe or universes, as its contents are meant to 


4M Bibliotheoa Sacra [Oct. 

be a Tevelation of the creation of our oniTerw, aod to man 
as a being related to and confined vitbin it, at least so long 
as he needs such revelation. Sncb beginning would th«i 
apparently not be identical with that spoken of in the first 
verse of 8t. John's Gospel, as before oil creation. 

Taking, tlien, that first verse in Qenesis as the crystal- 
lized account of the creation, by God's omnific power, of 
the elements, whether viewed as matter or as nothing bat 
energy, out of which the creative Word later fashioned onr 
cosmos, we might conceive of indefinite time elapsing be- 
tween what is described in it and in what follows. During 
this period, perhaps within that chaos other forces operated. 
And percfaauce the forces still active might then have 
been impressed upon it to be used during the later cosmia 
period as His secondary agencies in the unfolding process 
of the following six creative days. Of course, the time of 
the act bodied forth by the contents of that first verse 
might also be taken as having immediately preceded, as 
that act was the preparation for, the creative steps that 
followed. And surely no one can absolutely deny the pos- 
sibility of either assumption as to the time-relation of the 
primal creation of the first verse and the eitefold cosmic 
creation of the verses immediately following. Surely, time 
measured by cycles and events does not enter as a 
necessary factor into the operations of the eternal God. 


It has been observed by various writers that the record 
of creation in Genesis is a truly unique record. Even as a 
contribution to literature it is a consummate masterpiece. 
And it sets forth a series of creative acts that were unmis- 
takably according to a wonderful plan and a series of 
so-called days that must have been of an extraordinary 
character, — facts which we shall now proceed briefly to 

1. The Successive Creative Acts of the Cosmic Week. 

The accounts of the first three days tell respectively of 
the creation or manifestation of light, of the establishing 


1919] The Creative Daya 405 

of the flrmaDent together with the dividing of the waters 
below it from those above it, and of the separation of the 
waters npon the earth's surface from the land and also of 
the creation of plant life. There were thus two distinct 
creative acta on the third creative day. The accoants of 
the last three days tell respectively of the placing of lights 
or luminaries in the heavens with their appointments, of 
the calling into being of sea-animals together with winged 
creatures, and of the calling into being of land-animals 
and also of the creation of man as nature's crown and lord. 
Hence there were also two distinct creative acta on the 
sixth creative day. 

The first triad thus began with light and ended with two 
creative acts, the second one being the creation of life in 
its lowest form, in plants. The second triad began with 
organised light-dispensers and ended vrith two creative 
acts, the second one being that of the creation of the high- 
est, psychic, life in man, Ood's image. Hence both periods 
began with light, the first with light diffused and the sec- 
ond with light radiated from highly organized luminaries; 
both periods ended with life, the first with the lowest living 
oi^;anisms (plants) and the second with the highest 
organized life (man). And at least the latter of these 
creations, that of man as a living soul (i. 27; ii. 7), was a 
superadded act and manifestly a distinct and real creation 
ex niftilo, or an absolute creation, as the beginning of a new 
non-absolute entity, — as was also evidently that of living 
beings in sea and air. Hence the use of the word hara for 
these two creations {ver. 21, 27), even as for the absolute 
creation of primal matter (ver. 1). The account of the 
first triad, moreover, may be said to speak of Gtod's work 
upon crude matter as the preparation for the beginnings 
of life, with which that triad was crowned and closed ; the 
account of the second triad speaks of Ood's work upon 
matter in its higher organization and of the calling into 
being of the successive higher forms of life, crowning all 
with the life of the human soul. 

Forthermore, creation manifestly proceeded by regular 


406 BibUotheca 8acra [Oct. 

BtepB from low to high and from bi^ to higher, each step 
occupying a definite, or from another viewpoint an indef- 
inite, time-period called day (j/otn). The great acts of 
God's creative work are thus revealed as taking place in 
chronological sequence; and that revelaticm is expressed 
in terms that make the record true and relatively intel- 
ligible to every age. And yet, even the sacred chronicler 
probably did not understand the full content of the con- 
ceptions bodied forth in the terms he was moved to employ 
in this account, — which might, in a sense, well be spoken 
of as an inverse prophecy, — jjiBt as the prophets that spoke 
of the coming Messiah, or of any other future event, conld 
not fully know the future historic content of their proi^e- 
des. Nor can we even yet fully understand this meaning. 
Nay, as prophecy must first be clearly fulfilled by history 
before its fuller meaning becomes apparent, so we may be- 
lieve that not till the universe will have had its full out- 
working, and till man will have clearly read all its secret 
meanings and traced its every law and known its every 
state throughout all ages of its existence, will he be able 
fully to understand the phenomenal panoramic outlines of 
those creative records, and that is never! One thing is 
clear, however, that we have here a unique account of the 
successive acts or works of God that marked the successive 
days or time-periods. And that is the important thing, 
next to its revelation of a Creator, Ood. 

The creative acts are, moreover, described as the work of 
a God who is a free living peraotuility, and not simply a 
blind and fateful all-pervading energy. The narrative 
speaks of this creation as His own free act, uninfluenced by 
anything external to, or even by any necessity inherent in. 
Himself. It also makes it clear that the creature is 
essentially different and distinct from its Creator. Each 
separate event chronicled is represented as having had its 
8api>mataral origin external to the Creator, from His 
ouinific fiat. And we might almost see it implied in the 
very language that, after each divine fiat to inaugurate a 
particular work or a specific creation, the Creator operated 


1919] The Creative Days 407 

in further developing it tlirough secondary causes, them- 
selves the effects or imposed forces of these saccessire 
divine fiats. This appears from the expressions, " Let the 
earth brisg forth," " created and made " (ii. 3 — created to 
make), etc. Thus no event was self-originated; and where 
secondary inhering forces became operative by divine ap- 
pointment to complete or carry forward the work, these 
were themselves also God's creatures. Thas, apart from 
acts of created will, totally and absolutely all universal 
nature is alone God's created work. 

Some geologists speak of vast cataclysms, or sudden 
extraordinary leaps, in nature during the seonic history of 
our earth, in some of which they acknowledge an energy, 
or set of forces, operating that was extraordinory and 
above all explanation. With a little more faith, or scien- 
tific imagination, they might see in those very cataclysms 
the work of special divine fiats, some actually matching 
those spoken of in onr creative records. In acknowledging 
the presence of the extraordinary with the ordinary in the 
past history of our globe, they would have only one step 
to acknowledge the supernatural divine presence in direct 
operation with the operation of secondary causes. And, as 
already noted, imdoubtedly those special divine fiats, or 
immediate and supernatural creative acts, in the first chap- 
ter of Genesis, started each its distinctive work, which was 
then to be carried forward, mediately and naturally, 
through the secondary laws or forces implanted in nature 
by those same successive flats. The geologist's unex- 
plained cataclysms, followed by nature's ordinary pro- 
cesses, would thus become full of meaning. 

We have, then, in the first chapter of Genesis a super- 
naturally revealed account of a series of successive 
supernatural events, enacted by that transcendent Being, 
God, in six successive time-periods called days. 

2. The Length of the Yom, the Creative Day. 
As to the length of those days or time-periods, it might 
be asked, Who can limit them to a duration of twenty-four 
Vol. LXXVI. No. 30*. 2 


408 BtbUotheoa 8acfa [Oct. 

honn each when the Inspired narratire clearly does not 
thus limit them? Indeed, bat few thinkers of tliia gen^a- 
tion would regard thetn as ordinary days. As the account 
is one of extraordinary, or sapematnral, acts on the part 
of an infinite and absolute God, and as everything else 
connected with it ia apparaitly supematnral, so should we 
reverently consider the days spoken of to be more thorn 
ordinary daya. Indeed, the very indefiniteness and singa- 
larity of the language employed is suf^iestive of this fact, 
even as the greatness or extraordinary character of the 
work suggests extraordinary days. And as some cme sug- 
gested long ago, while the sacred writers glorify Ch>d for 
His woit of creation, nowhere do they speak of the cre- 
ative days as miraculous days of twenty-four hours for so 
great a work of creation. Horeorer, the term day is used 
in different senses in the Scriptures. We read of the day 
of visitation (Isa. x. 3), of the day of the Lord (Zech. 
xir. 1), of the day of salvation (2 Cor. vi. 2), and the like. 
So Christ said, " Abraham rejoiced to see my day " (John 
viii. 56). We need hardly say that these terms clearly do 
not i-efer to twenty-four-hour periods of time. And in the 
first two passages the word for day is, of course, the 
Hebrew yom, as in the account of creation in Qenesis. 
Furthermore, in the creative record itself the term day 
{yom) is used in different senses, as is acknowledged, aa 
follows: day of about twelve hours as distinguished from 
night (ver. 14, 16, 18), solar day of twenty-four hours 
(ver. 14, "and let thran be ... for days"), day as dis- 
tinguished from daAness after the creation of light on the 
first creative day (ver. B, "And God called the light Day ") , 
the creative days themselves (ver. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), 
and day for the whole six-day creative period (ii. 4, " in 
the day that Jehovah Ood made earih and heaven"). It 
surety must be clear to every reader that in only one of 
these cases does the word yom signify a twenty-four-hour 
day; namely, the second one (second use of it in ver. 14). 
And, of course, probably this eariih alone of all possible 
worlds has a twenty-four-hour day, whUe upon no two 


1919] The Creative Dipya 4M 

planets of our solar Bjatou are the A«y* alike, and per- 
haps upon no two other heavenly bodte« that may circle 
around their aana In the atany nnlrerse. 

These six creative time-periods are therefore designated 
days becaoBe they were sQcceasive periods analogous in 
varloos ways to the period familiar as day to man, for 
whom this account was meant to be a revelation. Elach 
was a period, however IcHig, marking its own distinct and 
completed woi^; and hence for these reasons, and not 
because of length or duration, it is in human language 
called day. Moreover, it is altogether probable that those 
six creative days were not of equal length or duration. 

But the objector will say that surely an almighty Ood 
could have created the whole universe even in a moment 
of time. And his objection might be considered as having 
some validity, provided he could claim to know the whole 
why and hov> of Ood's creation. But it is sorely not a 
question as to whether Ood could do so or not, but one as 
to whether He did so or not. And here the evidence, both 
from His inspired record and from His finished work, is 
overwhelmingly against such an instantaneous creation. 
It might be said that an age and an instant must be equal 
with Him who inhabiteth eternity and who is not limited 
by time and space relations. Thns what would seem an 
age when measured by material revolutions might be 
equivalent to a moment to an unmeasured or infinite 
Being. To Him to whom a thousand years are but as a 
day, our measured time is of little significance. But, of 
course, it must also be remembered that to Him a day is as 
a thousand years. In other words, to the eternal and 
infinite Ood there is no measured time as we know it, for 
He must necessarily be timeless in duration, even as He 
is measureless in essence. However, it is not a question as 
to the length or duration of those creative days to the 
eternal and unchangeable Creator Ood, but it is one as to 
the length or duration of them to His t^nporal and change- 
able creature man. 


410 BibUotkeca Sacra [Oct 

But the most common argument in aapposed proof of the 
theory that the creative days were twenty-fonr-botir days 
of oar earth, has t>eeii the one hased upon the Sabbath. In 
the beginning of the second chapter of Genesis it is said 
that the Lord rested on the seventh day and that He 
blessed that day and liallowed it And again in the com- 
roaodment of the Sabbath for man, he is commanded not 
to do any worlc on the Sabbath Day; and the reastm 
assigned is, that in six days the Lord made heaven and 
earth and rested on the seventh day. 

Now it is of coarse true that the Babbath which man is 
conmianded to keep, as well as each of the other six days 
of the terrestrial week, is a aoUa- day of twenty-fonr hoars. 
Bat from this the conclusion cannot be drawn that there- 
fore the days of the creative week mast have been days of 
twenty-fonr hours each. Such reasoning woald iavolve 
the assumption that the days of the creative week were the 
same as are the days of the terrestrial week. And as that 
is really the thing to be proved, it would clearly be a 
petitio principii. Indeed, as the fourth creative day so 
manifestly included ordinary terrestrial days, the latter 
cannot be the measure of the former. And this mast, of 
course, also be true of the other creative days, as belonging 
to the same class. It will also be remembered that man 
was created at the close of the sixth day and that the Sab- 
bath followed upon his creation. It would seem strange 
it six terrestrial days which man had not known except 
part of the last, would have been followed immediately by 
the terrestrial Sabbath, so that man's first full day of life 
would have been his Sabbath. It will also be observed that 
the Sabbath of the creative week is not spoken of as con- 
sisting of an evening and a morning. It is called simply 
the seventh day. Nor is Clod spoken of as resuming His 
work for another creation. Then, what of the succeeding 
weeks or ages? Would those have been weeks or ages of 
rest, without any resuming of work? And yet Jesus said, 
"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." 
The physical creation had been completed and nature's 


1919] The Creative Days 411 . 

laws had been ordained. Man as nature's crown was here 
to contemplate Ood's handiwork, and intellectually, as well 
as partly physically, to be creation's lord. God's creatiye 
Sabbath had thas be^n as man's day of intellectual un- 
folding and sovereignty. And to that day ia assigned no 
evening, probably simply because to it has not come the 
morning parallel to those of the other six days. The 
creative days of physical nature are past, and the day of 
God's rest from the work of creation (but of providence in 
created nature) and of man as the object of God's special 
concern and delight, is here. And as on the sixth creative 
day man in the image of God appeared as nature's lord, so 
on the creative Sabbath God has appeared in the likeness 
of man to redeem him and to complete his sovereignty. 

Moreover, it is expressly declared that God finished His 
work on the seventh day, not on the sixth, however we may 
explain that statement. And be it remembered that this 
declaration follows a statement that is apparently meant 
as a sort of interlude between the account of the sixth 
day and that ol^ the seventh day; namely, "And the 
heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of 
them." Thus, though the work of cosmic creation was 
completed in six days, it was not till the seventh day that 
'* God finished His work which He had made." And then 
He is said to have rested, though surely not as we speak of 
resting, bat father in cessation from physical creation and 
in contemplation and delight. And yet He still works, 
through secondary causes in physical nature, and in 
providence. We must remember that these statements 
about God are necessarily anthropomorphic and anthropo- 
pathic metaphors. 

A close examination of the account of the institution of 
the Babbath for man should thus make it clear that the 
divine week (the celestial circle) is held up as the pattern 
of the earthly human week (the terrestrial circle). The 
days or degrees are equal in number, but necessarily very 
unequal in length. As in six divine days God created, so 
in six terrestrial or human days man is to toork. And as 


412 BibUotheca Scijra [Oct 

God rested from Hia work of physical creation on tlie sev- 
enth olamio day, or Ood's Sabbath, bo is man to rest from 
bis labors on each seventh day (or on one day oat of seven) 
of the pkmet which is his abode. Bat as the nature of 
God's work and rest was different from that of man's 
work and rest, even as the natures of the workers are dif- 
ferent, BO were God's six creative days and creative Sab- 
bath different from man's days of labor and Sabbath of 
rest And this mast also be true of the Christian Lord's 
Day, of a completed redemption. And if there are ratiooal 
creatures like man on other heavenly bodies, as their 
days would not be of the same length as ours, they may 
observe one day out of seven of their own planet's rota- 
tions as their day of rest, or Lord's Day of worship. And 
thus the same commandment to observe one day out of 
seven, but of their own kind, in commemoration of a com- 
pleted creation (or of a completed redanption) would 
serve for all poeaibte worlds of rational creatures. God's 
divine creative week, with its Sabbath, would equally be 
the pattern for all worlds, however long or' short their 
days. And unless God's creative days were different from 
our solar days, snch a record of creation as that in Genesis 
could be true for our earth alone. It should therefore 
need no farther proof that Qod's creative Sabbath is 
different from man's Sabbath, for which it serves as the 
pattern. Hence, the creative days were not ordinary ter- 
restrial days of twenty-four bonrs, but extraordinary or 
olamic days. 

As already remarked, the creative days are spoken of as 
consisting each of an evening and a morning, the evening 
having been before the morning in the order of time, and 
apparently also in the order of event or condition which it 
is by analogy meant to characterize. But, surely, they 
were very different from those caused by the sun, which 
did not even appear until the fourth creative day. Nor 
would a solar day be described as consisting of an evening 
and a morning, or of an evening before a morning, althoogh 


1919] The Creative Dags 413 

perhaps from thia as a model or sagxestion the Jewish 
da; b^an in the evening. These days are spoken of as 
having began with an evening, ereh (Greek erebos), from 
arab, to mingle or blend, suggestive ot darkness. They 
are said to have ended in a morning, hoker, in the primary 
sense meaning to cleave, separate, therefore to distinguish, 
suggestive of light. Thus they began in a blending, dusk 
or darkness, and ended in a parting, dawn or light. Such ' 
is clearly the root idea conveyed by the language em- 
ployed. Thus the first day vas a period, however long, 
that commenced in darkness and ended in light as com- 
pared with its beginning, however we may explain its 
nature. And light itself was the newly created principle, 
or energy, or shall we say essence, of that first day. It 
began in unorganized chaos, upon which Ood's spirit 
moved, and ended in elementary organisation and in light, 
compared with which its beginning was night or evening. 
Similarly might we describe the other days, if that entered 
into our specific purpose. It might, however, be added 
that the morning closing one day was apparently as even- 
ing compared with, or perhaps the evening of, the succeed- 
^g day, as in an ascending series. 

We apeak equally phenomenally and even indefinitely 
when we speak of the morning of the world and of the 
dawn of history or of civilisation, as also when we speak 
ot the evening of time. We even speak of life's sunset and 
of superstition's night. And we should rather look for 
such pictorial language in a narrative that comes to us 
from that primitive age and through the medium of that 
imaginative Oriental mind. These days are therefore not 
marked in the sacred chronicle by sunrise and sunset. 
Indeed, the fact that in the great creative panorama the 
snn itself is not made to appear until the fourth day, as 
already noted, is wonderfully in accord with the most 
plausible theories of modem science, as might be shown, if 
space permitted. Of that first creative triad it could be 


411 BUHotheca 8acra 

No suiirlse, and no aunset, too, 

Marked tboBe creative days; 
No spinning worlds seemed moving tbrougb 

Vaat orbits In void space. 

What, then, was the abeolnte length of those creative 
daye, if they were not ordinary days of twenty-four hoars 
each? Ghriatian geologists and astronomers, in attempt- 
ing to reconcile the record of Qenesis with what they 

' believe they can read in the strata of the earth and in the 
heavenly bodies, have made many guesses at their probable 
length, and have even made elaborate calcalations. But 
all their calculations must fail in determining anything 
like their probable length, for they are based upon data 
that must necessarily remain uncertain as premises for 
conclusive reasoning. The so-called cataclysms, or the 
special creative acts to begin new orders of uatnre, as well 
as the forces and cooditions that were unequal in different 
ages, make all calculations very inconclusive. Moreover, 
of what avail are human calculations of the duration of 
periods that determine divine acts! In other words, here 

' we are in the region of the mysterious and uncertain. 
However, those creative days were unquestionably indef- 
inite periods of time, and no doubt equivalent to ages aa 
measured by the cycles of our sun, and probably of unequal 
length or duration, as we have suggested. And it is not 
probable that science will be able to throw much real light 
upon this subject beyond the fourth, or at best the third, 
day; and even upon tlie fifth day it can not throw a great 
deal of light. We may therefore safely accept the sacred 
account of creation in Genesis for what it is apparently 
intended to teach. 

We have thus briefly considered the matter of a proper 
approach to, and interpretation of, the sources of informa- 
tion on this subject, as also the time-element which has 
caused so much misunderstanding; and further details, 
especially as to the several creative acts or works of the 
successive days, would lie beyond the scope and purpose of 
the present article. 




[The paradoxes of science are matched by the para- 
doxes of theology. Freedom and certainty, immanence and 
transcendence, have always perplexed systematic theologi- 
ans. Their hannonizatioo seems alwnt as difflcnlt as the 
squaring of the circle. Nevertheless, there is an ultimate 

In accordance with the policy of Bibliotheca Sacra to 
present both sides of important doctrines which are in dis- 
pute (illiistrated by the articles upon Millenarianism in 
the July No.), we are glad to present the accompanying 
paper as a counterpart to the one, by the same eminent 
theologian, on Divine Immanence which we published last 
year (July, 1918, pp. 399-428). 

These two papers state both sides of the subject in a man- 
ner to merit universal attention, and should do much to 
justify faith in both aspects of God's inscrutable but inspir- 
ing attributes here brought to view. — Editor.] 

In these days it is as important to assert and to guard 
the doctrine of the Divine Transcendence as to emphasize 
the Divine Immanence. Over against the many who deny 
or ignore, the doctrine must be asserted as an important, 
an essential part of the truth of G^od; white over against 
the many who exaggerate or misapprehend, it must be 
stated with clearness and accuracy, in order that these 
errors, which presumably are as perennial as multiform, 
may yet be minimized so far as possible. In the progress 
of human thought these two ideas of immanence and tran- 
scendence have too often stood over against each other as 
if challenging the world to choose between them. In the 
Intellectual and spiritual experiences of individual think- 
ers the emphasis on the one or the other has too often led 
to what has been practically Pantheism or practically 
Deism. Those who have come to combine the two ideas 
• Copyright. 1919. D. F. Bstei. 


416 B^Uotheca Sacra [Oct 

have perhaps more often made the pilgrimage from tran- 
Bceadence to immanence J^ao from immanence to tran- 
scendence; jel Bach is tkeVogne and ascendancy of the 
idea of immanence to-day, at least in popular literature and 
common speech, that it may be better in this discnssioD to 
take the hitherto less traveled road, and, assuming the 
tact of the Divine Immanence, to consider the grounds for 
holding also to the Divine Transcendence and the signifl- 
cance and importance of this truth. 

To those who accept the truth of immanence it often 
seems in itself sufficient and satisfying. But, however 
vital monogamy may be to the welfare of society, intel- 
lectual monogamy is no virtue; and they greatly err who 
act as if the Mosaic prohibition, " Thou shalt not take a 
woman to her sister, to be a rival to her," should be ex- 
tended to the realm of ideas. Let it be assumed with all 
the positiveness yon will, that in all the phenomena, force, 
and progress of nature Ood is and acts ; that in all the uni- 
verse which we see with the eye, the telescope, the micro- 
scope, and in all its extension so far as thought can wing 
its way into space or the scientific imagination can trace 
the infinitesimal, everywhere, whatever else we find or 
miss, everywhere we may always certainly find God im- 
manent in all. But is this all? Is this truth the whole 
truth about God? Does the fact of immanence exhaust 
the Divine reality? In the minds of many, to be sure, by 
use of the mental faculties or because they are not used — 
all this matters not — immanence is the sole idea, the son of 
truth which shines so solitary and suffici^t that not even 
a moon is needed. But such narrowness of intellectaal 
processes and limitation of consequent results is baneful 
as well as unnecessary. We get on fairly well in our sys- 
tem with a single snn pins the occasional help of moon and 
stars ; we most do so, for it is all we can have. But how 
much richer, more beautiful, more efficient, must be the 
case of those who live in a system of binary stars as we 
call them, binary suns as they must see them, each sup- 
plementing and reinforcing the other! So all twin truths 


1919] The Diviue Transcendence 417 

helpfaUy aupplement and refinforce each other and marked- 
I7 the pair ot complementary troths we now note. 

Bat perhaps, in altering on this diecussioa, it shoold 
first be inquired, Wtiat is the natnre of this idea which is 
complementary to immanence? What is properly meant 
by the word " transcendence " as applied to the Deity ? Of 
the definition in the general dictionariee, certainly none 
is better than that of "The Century," which defines 
"transcendent" as "transcending the universe of matter; 
not essentially connected with the universe ; not cosmic : as, 
a transcendent deity." If this is read as complementary, 
not as alternative, to immanence, it will prove helpful and 
quite satisfactory; otherwise it will prove misleading. 
Much better is Professor Ormond's, in Baldwin's " Diction- 
ary of Philosophy," which says that transcendence is " the 
doctrine that Ood, in his proper being and essential nature, 
is prior to and above the world ; or that he hag reality in 
himself apart from his works." But even these state- 
ments are not beyond criticism ; as the ideas suggested by 
" prior," " above," and " reality " are not an essential part 
of the doctrine of transcendence, even though it may prac- 
tically be presumed that they are always found in con- 
nection with it. To the mind of the writer the primary 
idea of transcendence is, that Ood is not wholly and solely 
in the universe which he has created ; but that, on the con- 
trary, in nature, in character, and in activity, his relation 
to the nniverse does not exhaust him or, indeed, fully ex- 
press him; that (using the words in no quantitative or 
spatial sense) Ood, who is actively in the nniverse, is also 
b^ond it; that it does not measure him, but that he is 
more than can find scope and play in hia immanent relation 
to his universe.' 

■A oolleapie has ausgeated, as a possibly helpful parallel <so 
far a« Uie phTSlcal may Illustrate the spiritual), the Tarlous rela- 
tions of electricity In the houaehold. Its most commoD use la for 
light, and It la coneelvahle that some might unconsciously assume 
that the lamp exhauita the possibilities of electricity. But cer- 


418 Bibliotheca Sacra [Oct 

For the logical porpoaee of definition this may be held to 
be sufficient, bnt another element is so much a part of the 
facts iu the case, and so implied in the derivation of the 
word, that it finds a place in many definitions; and conse- 
quently it is to be presumed that it is a part of the con- 
ception of transcendence as ordinarily held. To transcend 
is frequently thought of as to be not only more but also 
superior, and so the definition in the Webster Dictionary 
includes the statement that God " is exalted above " crea- 
tion. It is this element of superiority which Dr. Clarbe, in 
his discussion of transcendence,* dwells upon to the prac- 
tical exclusion of everything else, such a sentence as this 
giving the keynote to his treatment of the subject : " The 
universe stands over against him but not as his equal : he 
stands over against the universe, but as one who surpasses 
it : and there are qualities in which we can distinctly un- 
derstand that his superiority consists." But, unless on the 
ground that common thought has permanently combined 
the ideas of more and better (or shall we rather say that 
lack of thought bas inextricably confused them?), there is 
no good reason for making the element of superiority an es- 
sential part of the definition of transcendence. Perhaps, 
however, it is actually there ; and if so it will not essential- 
ly modify the relations of the present discussion, although, 
at first at least, it will not be emphasized. 

Now on what ground may we who are believers in the 
Divine Immanence believe also in the Divine Transcend- 
ence, assert it, and, still more, rest and bnild on it? In 
considering these grounds it may be well, first, to note the 
familiar fact, that, on the whole subject of the existence, 
nature, character, and works of God, we do not have pos- 
itive and conclusive proofs.* Our faith is faith, not un- 

talnl7 moBt know that the same current can also give heat, power, 
and therapeutic eBects. No one of these, nor the sum of tbem. ex.- 
haustB the electric potency: It la more than they: so to speak. It 
transcends them all. 

'The Christian Doctrine of God. pp. 810-330. 

• The case has been well stated by Proleuor Ladd (Bib. Sac, vol. 


1919] The Dwine Tnmecendence 419 

TeaBODable, to be sure, but not based directly on logical 
demonstratioD. If it were thoa baaed, it would not be 
faith bat knowledge, and wonld wholly lack the moral 
value which we rightly attach to faith. It is often over- 
looked tbat there would be no more ethical significance in 
the acceptance of positive knowledge even as to God him- 
self than there ie in acceptance of the multiplicatioD table 
or of the annual calendar. On the other baud, it ia do 
more to be felt that Christian theism is counter to reason 
or without reasons. 

We shall not begin this discussion with what may be 
called the coemological argument, even thou^ it is to be 
acknowledged that in certain relations there is great force 
in the course of ailment which ends with the recognition 
of a mysterious power which Herbert Spencer foimd beyond 
phenomena, Piske's " infinite Power that makes for right- 
eousness." A better place to begin the present discussion, 
the first foundation stone to be laid, is a development of 
the argument from analogy by which the Divine Imma- 
nence is to the mind of the writer rendered most plausible. 
If we should think of all the energy of the universe as the 
forthputting of the power of the resident spirit, on the 
ground tbat all the force which we know is due to our own 
personal spirit, we shall be justified, is it not better to say, 
we are constrained, to carry the analogy further, and from 
our own conscious experience to infer the Divine Tran- 
scendence as mnch as the Divine Immanence. We our- 
selves act on and through matter, if not originating force, 
at any rate controlling and directing it; and, neverthe- 
less, these activities, the changed conditions, the modifica- 
tions of matter, while at their best our spirits may find 
more or less adequate expression in them, do not exhaust 
our possibilities. The man is always more than his deeds 
xzzlT. p. IS): "The concept of God, then. Is not one, the ob- 
jective vallditr of which can be tested solely by the success or 
failure of any number of arguments, coneidered merely ae argu- 
ments, along their different lines. It la rather a centre upon which 
converge many lines, not only of argument, but also of Intuition, 
feeling, and purpose." 


420 BibUotheca Sacn [Oct 

at tbeir largest; he is always more than his work in the 
world. Perhaps in no way can a man make fuller ez- 
presaion of wliat is in him tiian does the skilled violinist in 
the use ot his violin. It will qniver with his donbts and 
fears : it will wail ont hla sorrow : it wUl sing his Joy, nntfl 
we are justified in saying, as we do, that in hearing the 
tones of this marveloiis instrument we have heard the man. 
Tet in how much is he greater than the expression which he 
has found, more than his music, the man quite as much be- 
yond and above as in his violin! If any needs to leam 
the truth of transcendence, let him team from this analogy. 
The apt pupil will find in himself his first lesson. If the 
master is always more than his music, Shakespeare than 
his dramas, Michelangelo than his " Moses," the man ever 
greater than his every work and all his works, we should 
1>e dull indeed if we held that the Great Artificer had ez- 
liausted himself in the universe in which he continually 
works, and that he had no character or activity lieyond it. 

Further, conscience here reinforces consciousness. It is 
not safe to say, with Piatt, that the conception of tran- 
scendence is due to the notion that " Holiness has always 
spelled separation " ; and that " transcendence applied to 
(3od has l)ecome identical with His separation from men." ' 
Ttus is true neither of the meaning of the word nor of the 
history of the conception. But it is true that the con- 
science of man has felt a sense of responsibility to one who 
is more than the world of relation ; and thus, it may be 
repeated, conscience reCnforces consciousness. 

The view which has just been stated as a legitimate, not 
to say necessary, inference from the facts of our own con- 
sciousness, has been reached as if by intuition by count- 
less thousands of souls in every age. If it may be asserted, 
as men of late are in the habit of repeating, that " man is 
incurably religions," It may be similarly asserted that the 
object of his religion is invariably transcendent.* To be 

'Immanence and Christian Thougbt. p. 61. 

■As Wanchauer aars In his book, which waa written by one who 
emphasizes Immanence In order to guard acalnat extravagant mto- 


1919] The Divine Tranacendence 121 

Bore, it is not to be overlooked that certain rdigious sya- 
tenia are at heart pantheistie philosophiee, and so exclude 
transcendence; but at the same time it is to be ranembered 
that in all the ancient rellgicHui, wherever the religious 
element vras dominant, from the crassest animism to the 
most spiritual Judaism, transcendence was the controlling 
conception. A» Samuel Browne puts it in his remarkable 
book, " God the Known and the Unknown " : " The vast 
majority for a long time past have been possessed with aD 
idea that there is somewhere a Living Qod who is the 
Spirit and Life of all that is, and who is a tme Ferstm 
with an individuality and self-consciousness of his own. 
. . . the persistence of the main idea in spite of the inco- 
her^cy of its details, points strongly in the direction of 
believing that it rests upon a foundation in fact." * Of 
coarse the fact of the prevalence of this idea is not adduced 
as in any positive sense demonstrative, yet it should be 
carefully weighed. It may well be insisted that as the 
incurable religiousness of man, to repeat again the trite 
phrase, cannot reasonably be ignored or set aside without 
eonsideratiOD, so the conception of transcendence which 
is inextricably interwoven with the idea of a Qod to be 
worshiped gains a CCTtain degree of probability from the 
very fact of its prevalence, for, as Fiske says, " No in- 
genuity of argument can bring as to believe that the In- 
finite Sustainer of the universe will ' pat us to permanoit 
intellectual confusion.'"* 

Still another argument may be drawn, in part at least, 
from the sphere of our own conscionsneBs. In oursdves 
we find the elusive, thus far absolutely indefinable, ele- 
ment or sum of elements which 1b commonly and recog- 
nizably designated as personality. Whatever may be said 

use of that trutb: "It 1b, In short, the transcendeat God with 
whom wo are concemod tn the exercise of religion, tor as Mr. 
Chesterton puts It In hla own manner ' that Jones shall worAlp 
the god within blm turns out ultimatelr to mean that Jones shall 
worship Jones'" {Problems of Immanence, p. 29). 

> Qod the Known and the Unknowu, pp. 49, 61. 

■ The Idea of Ood, p. 138. 


422 BibUotkeca Bacra [Oct. 

about it, we know that we are persons, that is, that we are 
mora than machines however complicated and perfect, that 
we are able to aee the good and desire it, and that we are 
responsible for moral choices. Now the stream can Derer 
rise higher than the fountain, nor the result exceed the 
cause. ' It will then be absurd if we do not assert the eth- 
ical personality of God, his love of good, and his con- 
stantly free choice of this good. If so, ve must, as of 
coarse has been tUl of late the universal way of Christian 
thinkers, correspondingly assert the Divine transcendence; 
for, in bis immanent relation to the universe, personality 
finds little room for its ethical side, if indeed any at alL 
In the Quiverse as it exists, subject to its physical laws, 
there is force but not freedom : it is mighty but not in it- 
self moral. For aU spiritual and ethical ends, — for love, 
(or mercy, for justice, even for intelligence in its fullest 
sense, — we must posit the Divine Transcendence. 

Now thus far the argument has been mainly logical and 
analogical. Can we find any historical facts which to some 
extent verify, and in so far justify, the psychological analy- 
sis and logical inferences which have been su^ested? For 
other purposes an illustration has repeatedly been drawn 
from the cosmic ether, of which Fiske says : " The fath- 
omless abysses of space . . are filled with a wonderful sub- 
stance, unlike any of the forms of matter which we can 
weigh and measure. A cosmic jelly almost infinitely hard 
and elastic, it offers at the same time no appreciable re- 
sistance to the movements of the heavenly bodies," ' and 
yet, as Dr. Eells has forcibly said : " If we cannot weigh 
or test or measure this medium, how do ve know that it 
exists? What is the proof of it? ' Because things happen 
just as if there were such a medium, and there is no other 
way to account for their happening.' That is the reason 
which Science gives. Nothing more of proof than that" * 
Now what may we see which similarly demands and con- 
firms the conception of the Divine Transcendence? Of 

■The Idea of Qod, pp. 145, 146. 

■Theology at the Dawn ot the Twentieth Century, p. M. 


1919] The Dwine Tran$cendence 423 

course wliat ie seen always depends mncli on the eye. 
There are always those that seeing see and in no wise per- 
ceive, be it a sunset, a painting, a virtue, a truth. There 
are three questions which the writer often insists every 
man is bound to answer tor himself: "Why is the Bible 
unlike every other book ? " " Why was Jesus unlike every 
other man? " and " How can we explain the passing of the 
soul from sin to holiness?" Now when these three ques- 
tions are rationally answered we have found the tran- 
scendent divine activities which snfBciently betoken the 
transcendent God whom we would tain trace. Or, to in- 
dicate another sphere where we may find ground for a 
similar conclusion, we have only to dwell on the signifi- 
cance of the poet's saying that " the history of the world 
is its judgment," to which the protoundest students of the 
philosophy of history probably agree. But what must fol- 
low from that conviction? Nothing less than the further 
conviction ttiat there is One on high who in some sense and 
measure transcends his changeless immanent activities to 
bring to pass his great ends tor the race. 

As a last ground ot confidence in this truth to be ad- 
duced at the present time, it may be remembered that we 
find God or he finds us and we relate ourselves to him spir- 
itually, for, as Illingworth fairly states the case, "We do 
not start with a mere conception of God, but with what 
may practically be called a perception of him," ' and it so, 
then he must be transcendent. Nor is this an appeal to 
the mystic only. It matters not what intermediaries there 
may have been in condition fulfilled and blessing l)e- 
stowed. The extremest sacramentarian who allows only 
the most distant and indirect approach to God, the ex- 
tremest Bitachlian, to choose an example of quite another 
sort, to whose mind the divine blessings are mediated only 
through the Church, just as much as the extremest mys- 
tic, believes that there is one whose presence and power 
are not limited to the processes of the universe as a whole, 
'Divine Tnuucmdence, p. 88. 
Vol. UCXYI. No. 304. 3 


4Si BibUotheca Sacra [Oct. 

bat may be as really traced outeide them aa in them.* 
Whoever cries in faith, " Oh ! that I knew where I mi^t 
find him ! ", every believer that prayer is answered, everr 
loyal confessor of Jesus as Savioar and Lord, every one 
who repeats the turiversal Christian Credo, " I believe in 
the Holy Ghost," each one, every one, thereby acknowl- 
edges his faith, which is onr faith too, in the transcmd- 
euce of him who is also the immanent Qod. The instincts 
of the race are confirmed by the experiences of the soul ' 
as by the events of history. If we are ourselves snch believ- 
ers and confessors, we need no further confirmation, for we 
have known the fellowship of the transcendent God, " Oar 
fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesns 

There may well be noted further some of the great facta 
and truths which are made possible by the Divine Tran- 
scendence, bnt which in turn, grow dim or disappear when 

*The nature of the communion wltb Ood when attained la de- 
scribed by H. O. Wella in words that are better worth quoting 
because he falls to hold so much other truth; and thus bts tes- 
tlmoQT to this truth, if anTthlng, gains weight: "Ood comes. This 
cardtoal experience Is an undoubtlng. Immediate sense of God. It 
Is the attainment of an absolute certainty that one Is not alone In 
oneself. It Is as If one was touched at erery point by a being aUn 
to oneself, sympathetic, beyond measure wiser, steadfast and pure 
In aim. It la completer and more Intimate, but It Is like standing 
side by side with and touching some one that we love and trust 
completely" (Qod the luTlslble King, p. 29). 

"The trust worthiness of this experience is most helpfully con- 
firmed by IlUngwortb's appeal to "tbe best and noblest of our 
race, men and women, who In every age and In every rank and 
station, and endowed with every degree and kind of Intellectual 
capacity, have lived the lives of saints and heroes, or died the 
death of martyrs, and furthered by their action and passion, 
and. as they trusted, by their prayers, the material, moral, sodal, 
spiritual welfare of mankind, solely la reliance on their personal 
Intercourse with Ood, . . . strictly a multitude ' whom no man can 
number': — competent, capable, sane, of no one type or tempera- 
ment, as old as authentic history, as numerous as ever in the world 
to-day; a far more searctalngly sifted and universally extended 
body of observers than can be quoted In behalf of any sln^e sci- 
entific foct" (Personality Human and DIvme, pp. 133, 1S4). 


1919] The Divine Tramcmdence 425 

this trath ib overlooked or eet aside. For example, it is 
ODe of the commonplaces of diecuBsion in the last few yeara 
that " the modern man " has been caring little about sin, 
sin in general, hia own sin in particular. If proof is needed, 
a few possibly familiar quotations will serve. Sir Oliver 
Lodge said in 1904: "As a matter of fact, the higher man 
of to-day is not worrying about his sins at all," * while 
still earlier Oladstone is reported to have answered in re- 
ply to a question as to what he considered the greatest 
need of the age, "A sense of sin." * Principal Porsyth has 
said : " Our talk of siu is palpably ceasing to t>e the talk 
of broken and contrite men " ; and again, " Our speech of 
siu has not behind it the note of ' my sin, my sin ! ' " ■ It 
may equally be said that the appreciation of sin has passed 
out of the message of the pulpit as well as out of the study 
of the philosopher, the talk of the street and, as Forsyth 
implies, the closet of the believer. Paul told the Athenian 
sages of his time, Ood " commands men that they should 
all every where repent " ; but how widely or how loudly 
has that assertion been echoed in the last generation? It 
is scarcely necessary to add that the idea of penalty has 
gone of late even more completely than that of sin. It has 
been most interesting to note the positively hostile atti- 
tude, which has been widespread as well, toward anything 
in any degree resembling punishment. Ood cannot possi- 
bly inflict, tbe writer has often been assured, any penalty 
at all beyond the usual, not to say invariable, consequences 
of sin. 

If it were possible to argue conclusively from a single 
example, it might be worth while to attempt to settle how 
far Emerson's tendency toward pantheism occasioned or 
intensified the iudilFereuce to sin with which even Morl^ 
charged him. How could he who wrote 

" If tbe red Blayer think he Blays, . . . 
They know not well the subtle ways 
I keep," 

'Hlbbert Jonniia, 1901, p. 466. * Orchard, Modem Theories of 
Sin, p. ID. 'Person and PlMe <rf Jesus Christ, pp. SI, 62. 


426 Bibliotheoa <8acra [Oct. 

appreciate duly haman responsibility and the personal 
guilt of personal sin before a just Ood? To consider how 
far tn general, as may hare been tme in this case, a one- 
sided emphasis on the Divine Immanence has l>een respon- 
sible for the slackening of the sense of sin, lies somewhat 
OQtside the present discnssion; but it may safely be as- 
serted that it has been influential, especially when rein- 
forced by another idea, in. this case wholly false, namely, 
that we may infer from the evolutionary process that so- 
called sin is not morally evil but is merely an inevitable 
residuum inherited from our beasts of ancestors and in 
course of elimination. Another aspect of this relation 
of false theology to bad ethics was suggested during an 
interview with a justly respected Oerman Professor of 
Theology in the year 1910. Referring to the widespread 
controversy of that date as to the historicity of Jesns, he 
expressed his positive conviction that that campaign, as 
we may well call it since it corresponded closely in many 
ways to a well-foaght political campaign in this country, 
was financed by the " Monismus Bund," in order to break 
down among the people at large the sense of the sanctions 
of morality. Of course we may not tarry to investigate at 
all the influence which the monistic philosophy, with its 
denial of any Divine Transcendence, has exercised on the 
sense, and consequently on the practice, of sin. It may 
be that the conspicuous flowering and fruitage of sinful- 
ness which we liave witnessed in the war of these terrible 
years will bring back to the nations a sense of sin and of 
its exceeding sinfulness.* 

' A striking example of failure to appreciate the dlOereace be- 
tween the moral And the Immoral is found In the conclusion of 
Mr. Wells's "First and Laat Things" (p. 307): "In the last re- 
sort I do not care whether I am seated on a throne or drunk or 
dying In a kitchen. I follow my leading. In the ultimate I know, 
though I canuot prove ray knowledge In any way whatever, that 
every thing Is right and all things mine." Doubtless this view 
was Intimately related to his failure at that time to recognise the 
existence of any transcendent Ood to whom we are responsible. 
We cannot but wonder whether the author of "Mr. BritUug" and 


Idl9] The Divine Transcendence 4^ 

But for the sense of Bin to be effective, the idea of a 
transcendent Ood must again take its place in the thoughts 
of men. It immanence be the last and only word of philo- 
sophical speculation and religious convictioo, then there 
can be no real sense of sin, for there can be no moral law 
and DO personal responsibility. It cannot plausibly be 
asserted that hedonism, or even pragmatic endiemonism, 
would be a sufBcient foundation for ethics; that men would 
see advantage enough arising from doing duty to make 
them do it, however unpleasant and difficult. That we 
should then have only determinism, with utter indifference 
morally as to whether red slayer or slain, Hun and Turk 
or Belgian victim and Armenian martyr, is practically 
demonstrated by the very vogue of that notioo, at least in 
theory. But if as responsible persons we have to do with 
a God who is in the highest sense personal, beyond and 
above the phenomena which are bound fast in the net of 
antecedent and consequent, who has established right and 
is himself just and righteous to reward or punish, then 
we have what not only justifies but inexorably demands a 
sense of sin and the duty of repenting of all sin and for- 
saking it. 

This may suggest, in passing, how little the science and 
ordinary teaching of ethics have been Christianized. It is 
often asserted that we can properly have no Christian sci- 
ences. Of course sciences which deal only with phenomena 
cannot be something peculiar which we may call Christian. 
If ECaecfeel had kept his atheism out of his biology, it would 
have been the same as that of the most devout believer. 
But this is not true of ethics, for it should I>e insisted 
that ethics without the positive introduction of ideas 
which are specifically Christian is " Hamlet " with Ham- 
let left out. For example, there is needed for ethics the 
conception of a transcendent God who gave and admin- 
isters the moral law, to whom we are responsible, against 
whom and whom only we sin. And let it be added that 

"Ood the Invisible King" baa learned anytliing ret on tbe sub- 
ject of ethics and stn. 


428 BibUotheca Sacra [Oct 

we need also teaching as to the standard and the power 
and the promise of GhriBtian holinees. To the mind ot the 
writer ethical teaching which is merely philosophical and 
not also Christian, that is, including the Christian facte 
and the Christian motives, is aadlj ineffective becaase it 
tries to mount to the skies using but a single wing. 

Philosophy so far as it limits itself to the phenomena 
furnished by the natural sciences (in which is of coarse 
to be included modem psychology) may perhaps need to 
seek no further into the nature and relations of God than 
to recognize his immanence: ethics, as has been noted, 
needs to rest rather on the recognition of this transcend- 
ence, and it must now be added that religion, above all, 
Christianity, finds his transcendent activities in every spir- 
itual relation with which it deals. It is nearly exact to 
say that immanence is the philosophical conception, tran- 
scendence the religious conception.* It may be added, 
that, while without immanence philosophy is incurably 
lamed, without transcendence religion can make no prog- 
ress at all. Christianity implies the Divine Transcend- 
ence in its every demand and every promise. 

If the moral law of ethics and the correlated responsi- 
bility of the individual involve diverse activities and re- 
lations which ontmn immanence, it is still plainer that 
the religious demand for repentance and the promise of 
forgiveness on that condition necessarily imply the same. 
The universe of cause and effect knows no forgiveness, and 
some extravagant devotees of evolution and immanence 
have told us over and over that there never is or can be 

' Aubrey Moore puts tbe case Uius: " Rellgton demands as the 
very condition ot Its existence a Ood who transcends the universe; 
philosophy ss Imperiously requires his Immanence in nature. . . . 
But," he adds, "what we find 1b, that though Philosophy (mean- 
Ing by that the exercise of the speculative reason In abetractlon 
from morals and religion}, the more fully It realizes the Imroa* 
nenoe of Ood, the more It tends to deny the transcendence, religion 
not only has no quarrel with the doctrine of Immanence, but the 
bigber the religion, the more unreservedly it asserts Immanence 
as a truth dear to religion lUelf " (Lux Mundl, pp. 77, 78). 


1019] The Divine Transcendence 429 

place for repentance, that forgiveness is impossible. The; 
vould insist that every man must repeat in helplessness 
what Pilate said in wilfulneas, " What I have written, I 
have written." Lacking the determinism of Fitzgerald's 
Omar, they voald apply to every man in reference to his 
own action the declaration, 

"The Moving Finger writes; and, havtng writ, 
Movea on: nor all your piety nor wit 

SbaU lure It back to cancel bait a line, 
Nor all your tears wasb out a word of It" 

Over against this, Christianity sets the falfillment of the 
prophet's promise, " I will forgive their iniquities, and 
their sin will I remember no more." • 

Forgiveness is the mercy of one who loves; and this may 
well lead us to the broader and deeper thought of infinite 
love as the most essential attribute of the eternal Ood. To 
be sure, some have been ready to say, " Now abide love, 
justice, holiness, and the greatest of these is holiness," but 
I feel sare tbat sooner or later all will be ready for the 
Johannine judgment, " The greatest is love, God is love." 
Yet if we let slip the conception of transcendence, we ren- 
der it impossible helpfully to assert the eternal love of the 
Divine Father. Personality will have vanished, and who 
can say of one whom we do not conceive as personal, " He 
is love " ? 

When vanishes from the minds of men the transcendent 

'It Is only from Christianity tbat Mr. Wells, however uncon- 
Bclons of his debt, can have learned his present marrellouely 
evangelical message as to the value of penitence. " Ton may kill 
and bang tor It, you may rob or rape; the moment you truly re- 
pent and set yourself to such atonement and reparation as Is pos- 
sible there remains no barrier between you and Ood. ... If yon 
but lift up your bead for a moment out of a stormy Cbaos of mad- 
ness and cry to blm. Ood Is there, Ood will not fall you. A con- 
victed criminal, frankly penitent, and neither obdurate nor abject, 
whatever the evil of bis yesterdays, may still die well and bravely 
on the gallows to the glory of Ood. He may step straight from 
that death Into the Uninortal being of Ood" (Ood tbe Invisible 
King, pp. 156, 166). 


430 BibUotheca Sacra [Oct. 

personality who forgivee and erer lovee, then vanishes also 
the correlative faith and love which are of the easence of 
Christianity, bat which are imposBible save as they reach 
out to a transcendent God. We may have confldraice in 
the persistence of the processes of the universe, bnt such 
confidence is not faith, for faith Is always the reaching 
oat of personal spirit toward personal spirit, and is else 
impossible, as love is else impossible. 

One particular effect which results from the dropping 
of transcendence from the common thought is the distrust 
of providence and the consequent disase of prayer. If God 
cannot be thought of outside the chain of cause and effect, 
then there is no loving heart ; why sboald we, how can we, 
pray? What hope for the guidance and help of the Fa- 
ther's hand which used to be called Providence? If, as 
many are confident, by the distresses of these fateful, sor- 
rowful years many fearful or crushed souls, lonely in the 
great auiverse, have been driven to the prayer of faith, 
surely the intellectual lesson will follow the spiritual, and 
men will again believe in the ear that hears prayer, the 
eye that gaides bis child, the heart which ever loves the 

It has already been asserted that the facts of history 
and the phenomena of spiritual experience properly inter- 
preted verify the truth of the Divine Transcendence, Es- 
pecially the Incarnation of the Son and the indwelling of 
the Spirit, when properly interpreted, substantiate the 
great truth which we are considering. But it is saddening 
to note how far and how often these facts have been im- 
properly interpreted. In the almost passionate ^deavor 
to make immanence the master key which should turn 
every lock in the universe, the Incarnation of the Logos 
and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul 
of the believer have both been reduced to the type and 
measnre of the universal immanence of God in man.^ As 

' Even Pl&tt, who In hlB book on Immanence ahowB much of the 
boneymoon ardor of a man who baa lately wedded an Idea, Baj'i 
of CbrlBt: "He atanda In a category by Hlmaelf. Immanmce In 


1010] The Divine Trangcendence 131 

Illingworth well Bays : " The creed of the Church is utterly 
and wholly incompatible with aaj approach to the notion 
that JefiUB Christ revealed the latent divinity of man ; in 
the sense that He exhibits in Himself what men poten- 
tially are and may therefore actually become." ' It must 
be added that the parallel view as to the nature of the 
indwelling ot the Holy Spirit is equally removed from the 
consentient, essential, and vital faith of the Church Uni- 

It is not neceesary to expatiate on the serioosness of the 
consequences for theology of such views as have just been 
meotioned: theology is a science, and as such cau and 
must take care of itself, and theological error is only in- 
directly a vital matter. But it must be remarked that for 
religion the consequences of these views are serions almost 
beyond measure. It is certainly to be feared that many 
a man who claims to bring the Christian message to men, 
has of late been finding lees of God outside the meshes of 
his universe of physical law, and so less of hope and 
strength for himself and his hearers, than has Mr. Wells 
in his message of " The Invisible King," defective as we 
must recognize that that is. The message which will trans- 
form the world cannot be merely the recognition of pro- 
gressive evolution, even though we see there the constant, 
intelligent power of the immanent Deity. The theologian 
Prank built his theology largely on the experience of re- 
generation, saying, " The Christian . . . who has expe- 
rienced regeneration, and appropriated it in conversion, is 
absolutely and without exception conscious of the fact 
that it is the opposite of natural development " ' ; and on 

Him wax unlQue"; and alao Bars elaewliere: "The Immanence of 
Ood as Btated In the Christian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Is 
nnlqne" (Immanence and Christian Tbongbt, pp. 370, 4E2). It so, 
It Is certainly most unfortunate that he and so many others should 
classify these unique facts with others confessedly unlike, under 
the comjnon categorr of Immanence. 

' Divine Transcendence, p. 74. 

'System of Christian Certainty (Eng. tr.), pp. 307, 308. 


432 BibUotheioa Sacra [Oct. 

this aa a premise he builds np his argament for the tran- 
scendent and absolute Qod. The preacher mnst bring the 
same message as to forgiveness, redemption, holiness, and 
service to be onrs, the foreknowledge of the Father, tlie 
sprinkling of the blood of the Son, the sanctification of the 
Spirit. If we would measure the divine power for relig- 
ious uses, its measure will not be found in the might that 
moves the stars along, but in the working of the strength 
of his might which he wrought in Christ when he raised 
him from the dead and made him to sit at his right hand, 
in a word, when the transcendent Qod took a dead man 
and set him on the throne of the universe. If we want 
hope, we shall find it in the assurance that by the power 
of the Spirit we shall l>e conformed to the image of his 
Sod. In tbe dimming of the conception of the Divine 
Transcendence, these great conceptions, and others as well, 
have also been too much darkened: when retrimmed it 
shall again shine forth, then the; too may shine again tor 
the enlightenment of the world. 

But a single thought further will be added. Lately we 
have heard little of the " Beatific Vision " and of all that 
this phrase suggests. Men, even Christian teachers, have 
scoffed at every aspiration beyond what this world might 
be made to satisfy. Perhaps now that we have learned that 
the world is stm rety evil, even if we do not go on to add 
that " The times are waxing late," men may learn that the 
soul has aspirations and needs that even a world made 
fit for democracy cannot satisfy ; and they may think again 
the otherworldly thoughts that of late have been but a 
mocking, and will be glad again to sing^ 

"There grief is turned to plettsore — 

Sncb pleuiure as below 
No human volc« may utter. 

No human heart can know. 
And after fleehly acandal. 

And after this world's nlgjit. 
And after storm and whirlwind, 

Is Joy and calm and hgtiL" 


1919] The Divine Transcendence 133 

Tea, all this and more. Beyond every other promise and 
every otlier hope is one wtiicb we can hold only as we think 
of onr Lord as divinely transcendent; and this promise 
and this hope beyond every other is that " we shall be like 
him ; for we shall see him as he is," — and 

"Amidst the bappr chonu, 
A place, bowerer low, 
Sball sbow Him ub, and shewing 
Shall satiate evermo." 

Where in all the history of troth has there ever been a 
more perfect exemplification of the old apologue of the 
shield, on one side silver, on the other gold? Men have 
wrangled because they saw bat one side of the tmth. Qod 
is both immanent and transcendent, " One Ood and Father 
of all, who is over all, and throngh all, and in alL" 




Hb who writes a history of the clTilization of the nine- 
teenth century will hare to deal with three movements of 
primary importance. These movements are the cmsade 
against slavery, the agitation for the enfrancbisement of 
women, and the campaign in favor of total abstinence 
(usually but erroneously called temperance). The first 
was virtually brought to a close by the issuance of the 
Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, by Presi- 
dent Lincoln, although slavery was not entirely abolished 
until about the beginning of the twentieth century. The 
first Woman's Bight Convention met at Seneca Falls, New 
York, in 1848. Two years later ao organization was 
formed to promote the equality of the sexes in the right 
to vote and to hold office. The Quakers were the first to 
affirm the parity of women with men; but in matters of 
religion only. For a long time total abstinence was advo- 
cated by what may be called inhibition; but after it had 
been demonstrated that voluntary abstinence fails to pro- 
duce satisfactory results, and the total abstainers had 
become conscious of their numerical strength, tbey became 
prohibitionists. These three movements presented a 
curious commingling of appeals to the emotions, to the love 
of gain, and to the reason. At present we are, however, 
concerned with prohibition only. Althou^^ the Prohi- 
bition party has always maintained a friendly attitude 
toward woman suffrage, recent experience has proved that 
there is no " elective affinity " between the two. Entire 
states, to say nothing of municipalities, have voted dry in 
which women were without the franchise, and vice veraa. 

The Prohibition party dates its origin from a convention 
that met in Chicago in 1869, at which about five hundred 
delegates were present. This coDveotioo was followed by 


The Philosophy of Prohibition 435 

another, beld in Colombas, Obio, in 1872, where Presi- 
dential candidates were nominated. Whether we agree or 
disagree with those who attended these conventions ; 
whether we commend or condemn their motives we can 
hardly withhold oar admiration from the zeal with which 
the; pnrsned their self-appointed object. Many of them 
came long distances and at no little expense, without the 
indncements that osually bring men together to promote 
the canae of a party. It may be stated as a general fact 
tliat the devotees of prohibition have from the first been 
inspired with a spirit of self-denial which made their cause 
partake somewhat of the character of a religions crusade. 
The Prohibition party claims, that, notwithstanding its 
poor showing at the polls, it was the first to embody in its 
platform many principles that were afterwards adopted 
and put in practice by the larger parties. Among these 
were nniversal suffrage, civil service reform, direct elec- 
tions, international arbitration, an income tax. Federal 
prohibition of child labor, conservation of natural re- 
sources, and others. The fundamental principle of the 
party did not, however, find general acceptance for many 
years, and in 1907 only three States had adopted Constitu- 
tional prohibition. 

Since that time, however, it may be said to have moved 
forward with giant strides. Enthusiastic devotees of pro- 
hibition are even venturing the prediction that the time 
will come, and come at no very distant date, when men 
will look back upon the ages in which the right to drink 
was unquestioned with as much amazement as the present 
generation looks back upon the time when the right to h61d 
slaves was virtually unchallenged. Demosthenes was stig- 
matized as a " water drinker " by some of his contempo- 
raries, which may be taken as evidence that even in the 
ages long gone by there were men of prominence who prac- 
ticed total abstinence. This epithet was, of course, used 
by his enemies to disparage him. It has often be^i 
affirmed, since the time of the great Athenian, that one can- 
not be a " real good fallow " unless he drinks and treats. 


436 Baiiotheoa Sacra [Oct. 

Men still living can recall when some members of oar 
Federal Gongrefle thought they could not do their beet 
unless they bad freely imbibed a stimulant in advance, and 
had the source of their inspiration within easy reach when 
on their feet. Not only the medieval church, but Protes- 
tantism, was the enemy of drunkenness, little as the clei^ 
were able to do towards preventing it. They made the 
mistake of believing that the drinker should be competent 
to decide for himself how much he could imbibe witboat 
detriment. It has from time immemorial been a familiar 
admission that " I bad been drinking, but I was not drunk." 
During all of this time the churches, or at least the great 
majority of nominal Christians, had litUe to say against 
the unrighteousness of slavery. 

The limits of personal lil>erty cannot be marked out ac- 
cording to any rational or philosophical principles. Its 
limits are almost entirely matters of convention and com- 
promise. If we are not justifled in saying that " Whatever 
is, is right," we are not far from the tmth when we afflrm 
that Whatever is, is expedient. Albeit, where the majority 
rules, the thing that is expedient this year does not neces- 
sarily mean that it will l>e regarded as expedient next year 
or a century hence. Herbert Spencer, staunch individual- 
ist as he was, foresaw and foretold the " coming slavery " 
implicit in the constantly growing restrictions which the 
community as a whole imposes on each individual. These 
restrictions vary somewhat according to local conditions, 
but the trend is in the same direction everywhere. Com- 
paring the country with the village, the village with the 
city, the average city with the metropolis, we can observe 
in its practical workings the irresistible encroachments of 
the whole upon its parts. The dweller in the country is 
pretty much his own master. If he moves into the village, 
he finds himself restricted in some of his former activities, 
although tbey may be entirely innocuous, except in ex- 
tremely rare cases. If be transfers his residence to the 
city, he encounters still more restrictions. If a majority 
of his neighbors decide that they want " public improve- 


1919] The Philoaoiaiy of Prohibition 437 

meats," he ie compelled to contribate his share to the coat 
whether he will or no, with the alternate of forfeiting his 
property. The majority may even take hia property from 
him, paying for it, not what the owner thinks it is worth, 
hat according to the ralne which the majority pats 
npon it. 

The doctrine that the majority, however small, has the 
political right to impose its will upon the minority, how- 
ever lat^, is thoron^y sound, if the rapidly growing 
movement toward universal democracy is sound. But it 
is an absurdity when a State like Nevada, with less than 
100,000 inhabitants, has an equal vote with New York, with 
its 10,000,000. For this irrationality the framers of our 
Constitution were, as a whole, not responsible. The pigmy 
commonwealths like Rhode Island were a constant source 
of vexation, with their insistent demands to be regarded 
and treated as if they were giants. Albeit, the founders of 
our Government could not foresee in what direction and to 
what extent the Union would expand. Besides, there was 
a greater probability that Nevada would, at no very distant 
date, become one of our wealthier States, than that either 
Rhode Island or Delaware would attain such a preponder- 
ance. But even the final adjustment, which was the out- 
come of long and acrimonioos debates, has vindicated its 
wisdom and has been copied by other states. The Clerman 
system, which gave one state the preponderance, proved to 
be thoroughly bad when manipulated by an ambitious and 
unscrupulous military hierarchy, — a government virtually 
under the tutelage of a " divinely appointed autocrat." But 
there are factors in this case that make the inequality less 
in reality than appears on the surface. In some States 
women are allowed to vote, but not in others. 

Moreover, apart from this fact, the population of a State 
cannot be estimated by the size of its vote. In the Presi- 
dential election of 1916, Florida, with a male population of 
almost 400,000, cast only 81,000 votes; Louisiana, with a 
male population almost twice as large, cast only 93,000 
votes; while Mississippi, with a male population of over 


438 BibUotheca Sacra [Ctet. 

900,000, cast bnt 86,000 votes. On the other hand, New 
Hampshire, whose male population is not mach over 
200,000, cast 88,000 votes ; and Rhode Island, with a con- 
siderably greater poptilation, cast bnt 88,000 votes. Theae 
facts signify that in some of oar Btates one vote represents 
more than three times as many voters as in others. In this 
conntry, pocket boroughs differ more from each other by 
their color than by their siz«. Political divisions, except 
Then founded on race, are always more or less artificiaL 
If they were based on rational groands, many of them 
woold have to be changed every few years. A small boy 
and a large one can play on a teeter-board If the folcmm 
is placed nearer the latter. Bat the same arrangement wiU 
not answer as the latter becomes heavier. All governments 
are teeter-boards; and fortunate are those who live nnder 
them if they are endowed with sntBci^it patriotism to 
shift their positions withont bloodshed. 

The doctrine that a bare majority of voters may impose 
their will npon the minority is a coroUary of the doctrine, 
that all men, or at least all citizens, are equal before the 
law. It rests upon the absurd assumption that a majority, 
in other words a democracy, is, nnder all circumstances, 
the best judge of its own interests. The student of govern- 
ment is often impressed with the inde&niteness of political 
terms. An aristocracy ought to be the best government, 
for the reason that it is the government of the beat. As 
nobility and aristocracy are interchangeable terms, and as 
the nobility is presumably composed of noblemen, who are 
also supposed to be noble men, we arrive at the same con- 
clusion. Moreover, wtiat do men mean when they apply 
the predicate "best" to government? The Mexicans seem 
to be satisfied with their present government; at any rate, 
the majority are making very little effort to change it. 

Our entire governmental machinery is operated on the 
principle that the majority shall rale. A decision of a 
supreme court when rendered by five judges against four 
has the same validity with one that is unanimous. Most 
of our higher courts are composed of an uneven number of 


1919] The Philosophy of Prohibition 439 

JQdgee, becaase «xperieDce has BbowD that if 0DI7 anan- 
imona decisiooB were valid, the nnmber would be exceed- 
ingly emalt. Napoleon once said to a bench of judges, 
" It does not make bo much difference how yon decide as 
that you decide." The last stronghold of legal unanimity, 
the traverse jury, has been compelled to surrender to a 
majority, greater or less according to the nature of the case 
upon which they Bit. In the perennial struggle between 
the different groups constituting the Great Society, for 
what some consider their rights, but which others refuse 
to consider as euch, there is probably a slow but gradual 
improvement so long as the strife does not degenerate into 
bloodshed. But 

"moFA than common Btrengtb and aklU < 

Must j6 dlsplor " 

It 70U would give the better wlU 
It« lawful oway.** 

It IB everywhere assnmed, and has been taken for 
granted from time immemorial, that the father is the 
natural protector of his offspring. This assumption ia 
founded on the fact that he is in a more favorable position 
than anybody else to know and to do what is best, and that 
he will make a judicious use of bis knowledge. The ancient 
Soman patria poteataa was based on this idea. Albeit, the 
more civilized a people becomes, i.e. the larger the fund of 
experience it has accumulated, the less it is disposed to 
accept this postulate. The law-making power, whether the 
collective will of a people or not, no longer trusts the 
father to make use of his individual judgment in this 
matter, but decides for him, within certain limits, what 
course he shall pursue. Tbe law not only compels him to 
send his children to school, bnt even marks out a curricu- 
lum for them. If in the popular judgment either the 
father or the mother is found to be incompetent to take 
proper care of the children, they are removed and placed 
under competent tutelage. This is a far more serious in- 
fringement upon personal liberty than is the annihilation 
of the drink traffic. Even after young people have ceased 
Vol. tXXVL No. ZOi. t 


440 BiJ>liotheca Sacra [Oct 

to be children, they are anbjected to laws in the enforcement 
of which neither they nor their parents, even if living, are 
consulted. They are required to attend school, in order 
that they may acquire additional knovledge or skill tot 
future service of vhich the community is the chief bene- 
ficiary. It is almost literally true that we live amid the 
snares and pitfalls of the law, according to a dictum of 
Sir Henry Hallam. 

But the world has learned, by dearly bought experiokce, 
that it is far bett^ to be governed by laws than by decrees. 
As the laws define acts that are illegal, and therefore pun- 
ishable, those who live under them are always in position 
to know bow to regulate their conduct, in order to avoid 
its penalties. On the other hand, a mere decree may be 
made retroactive and impose a penalty on an act that was 
legal when it was done. Abstractly considered, no task 
would appear to be easier to perform than to establish a 
stable and even permanent government. As the end of all 
government is to make life and property secure, it would 
seem that a company of reasonable men could frame a con- 
stitution that would secure these ends with hardly a dis- 
senting voice. Unfortunately there are now, as there have 
always been, men who are reasonable only in their own 
estimation. Most people have heard the anecdote of the 
juryman, who, after holding out three days against the 
other eleven, thus preventing a verdict, declared that his 
associates were eleven of the stubbomest and most unrea- 
sonable men in the conntty. A not inconsiderable portion 
of the citizens of every community do not particularly care 
whether any life and property are secure except their own, 
but they want other people to pay for this security. 

An enormous amount of nonsense has been written and 
spoken in the discussion of political problems. For ex- 
ample, we read and hear a great deal about " right " and 
" rights," as if the meaning of these terms were self-evi- 
dent. In tact, they are nothing of the kind. " The right to 
cast a vote " la a great absurdity. So man has a natural 
r^t to cast a vote. What is usually spoken of as the 


1919] The PhOoaophjf of ProMhition 441 

ri^t to vote la no right at all, bat a mere privil^e accorded 
b; lav. Why U it right tor a man aged twenty-one years 
to vote, bat not if he lacks one day of having attained thiB 
age? And vhile men may agree tliat a woman has as good 
a ri^t to vote as a man lias or to participate in the govern- 
ment in any way she desires, the same government which 
grants to her these privileges may also withhold them. 
We are not here dealing with a qaestion of right and wrong 
at all, bat solely of expediency. If the woman aoffragists, 
therefore, insist that the gentler sex — tell it not in Wash- 
ington — has as mach right to cast a votte as a man has, they 
are on t)enable grounds. Bnt the case is different when 
they contend for the privilege on the assimiption of a nat- 
ural right. A good deal of breath has been expended, and 
ink wasted, to prove that yoa " can't make men moral by 
law." No man of sense afQrms that you can, nor does any- 
body advocate prohibition laws for the purpose of making 
men moral. Laws are not passed to make men moral, but 
to make them orderly. It is a question whether there is 
such a thing as a natural crime. A crime is usually defined 
as " an act or omission which the law punishes in the name 
or on behalf of the state, whether because expressly forbid- 
den or because so injurious to the public as to require pun- 
ishment on grounds of public policy." Criminality is a 
matter of law, not of nature. Hence many acts are made 
crimes under one government which are not so under 
another. On the other hand, the morality of an act de- 
pends upon the will, not on the deed. If I say that I would 
kill John Doe if it were not for the law against murder, 
although I am committing a moral wrong, I am not com- 
mitting a crime. If, on the other hand, I make threats 
against the life of John Doe, I am laying myself liable to a 
penalty and may be bound over to keep the peace. Hardly 
any one will deny a man's right to drink whatever and 
whenever he pleases, provided his beverage carries with it 
no actual or potential injury to others ; bnt when the argu- 
ment is shifted to the ground that the community may de- 
cide that it is expedient to prohibit entirely the drinking of 


412 Bibliotheoa Sacra [Oct. 

all iotoxicating liquors, it resta oo logical gronndB, the 
Bame grounds on which all pure food lavs rest. Some 
adnlterauts are admittedly harmless, yet their sale is 
almost everywhere forbidden under penalty. Constitn- 
tions, whether written or merely traditional, if they are to 
be abiding, must grow; they cannot be made to order or 
constructed according to any preconceived ideas of what 
such documents ought to be. An oyster shell is not an 
agreeable object to the eye nor pleasant to the touch ; but 
it is exactly snited to the creature that inhabits it, and is 
doubtless built in full accord with the established prin- 
ciples of oatrean esthetics. We may venture the same 
afQrmation of governments: none of those that have long 
perdured have been constructed in accordance with the 
principles laid down by the architects of Utopias. Most of 
those still in existence have been built up from within, like 
the shell of the oyster, and almoat aa uuconscioosly. It is 
a question whether an; government has been subverted by 
attacks from without. Most of those that have fallen, if 
not all, were weeikened by internal strife to such an extent 
that snccesBful resistance against foreign enemies waa im- 

The people called Methodists were the first to make 
virtual total abstinence a part of tbeir creed. About 1740, 
when John Wesley formulated a set of rules for the govern- 
ment of his members, he placed among them one in which 
he declares that it is expected of all who wish to continue 
in these societies to abstain from " drunkenness, buying 
and selling spiritnoos liquors or drinking them except in 
cases of extreme necessity." It is true he also forbade 
" slave-holding, buying or selling slaves " ; yet the Methodist 
Church, Sonth, upheld slavery, and brought about a schism 
a little more than a century after Mr. Wesley began to form 
his societies. Thia schism was mainly due to the generally 
admitted racial inferiority of the blacks, and had no in- 
fluence on the attitude of the Church toward the con- 
sumption of ardent spirits. Thia Church is recognised by 
the liquor trafSc aa its most formidable antagonist ; and its 


1919] The PhUoaophy of ProhiUtwn 443 

members have never ehown a dispositioD to deny the im- 
peachment. When it was first organized in this country, 
abont 1784, the following entry was made a part of its 
minntes : — 

" Question. Should our Friends be permitted to make 
spirituous liquors and to drink them in drams? 

" Answer. By no means." 
Since 1812 the attitude of this Church has been increas- 
ingly radical. At a meeting of the National Liquor 
Dealers' Association in 1911, one of the speakers uttered 
the bitterest denunciations against this " fanatical, aggres- 
sive, and sometimes unscrupulous force [the Methodist 
Church] which is leading the movement for political 
supremacy under the guise of temperance reform." In the 
same year the brewers, who had met in New Orleans, gave 
utterance to similar sentiments; and a few months later 
Bonfort'sWww and Spirit Circular asserted that " we must 
realize that the entire Methodist Church is a solidified, ag- 
gressive and obedient unit in this warfare on our trade." 
While it may be true that the churches classed under the 
generic name of Methodist are the most powerful enemy 
of the liquor traffic, tiecause of the number of their adher- 
ents, they are not more radical than the Presbyterians. 
We have here a typical exhibition of the fatuity that has 
for decades misled the whole opposition to the temperance 
movement. No church, certainly no Protestant church, 
has the slightrat intention of trying to gain control of the 
Oovemment. No single church in this country is strong 
enough to accomplish such an end, even if a few leaders 
desired it. Besides, the doctrine that church and state 
should be kept separate is so generally accepted in this 
country, that it cannot be uprooted within measurable 
time. This doctrine has, furthermore, been gaining ad- 
herents rapidly in all nominally Christian lands. 

The well-known, and at one time the much-read, Henry 
Thomas Buckle, seems to have foreseen, more than fifty 
years ago, the potency of the force which Mr. Wesley set in 


444 BibUotheca Sacra [Oct. 

motion. Althoogh be bad no sympathy with its under- 
lying religions motivea, he wrote : — 

" Under two of the most remarkable men of the eighteenth 
century, White&eid the first of theological orators, and 
Wesley the first of theological statesmen, there was organ- 
ised a great e^stem of religion which bore the same rela- 
tion to the Church of England that the Church of England 
bore to the Chnrch of Rome. Thus after an interval of two 
hundred years, a second spiritual reformation was effected 
in our country. In the eighteenth century the Wesleyana 
were to the bishops what, in the sixteenth century, the 
Reformers were to the Popes." 
And again: — 

" The Weeleys displayed a genius for organization so 
superior to that of their predecessors, the Puritans, that 
th^ soon became a center round which the enemies of the 
church could conveniently rally. And what is perhaps 
still more important, the order, regularity and publicity 
by which their proceedings have been marked, distingui^ 
them from all other sects, and by raising them, as it were, 
to the dignity of a rival establishment, have encouraged the 
diminution of that exclusive and superstitions respect 
which was once paid to the Anglican hierarchy." 

Whether it be true or untrue, as often charged, that Eng- 
lish bishops are the chief supporters of the liquor trade in 
Great Britain, there is no doubt that several of them are 
financially interested.' Early in the war the story was 
told, that, when at a public banquet the King turned down 
his wineglass as an example, several bishops refused to do 
likewise. This incident is instructive as showing the de- 
termination of the typical Briton to assert what he con- 
siders his right, whether royalty agrees or disagrees. 

Methodism was a revival, rather than a reformation in 
the usual acceptation of the term : at any rate, it was in 
no aeaBB a religious revolution. Its purpose was not to 
destroy anything, but to build upon foundations already 
' Not many years ago a cartoon appeared In the WeatintiiBter Qa- 
lette, representing a prince bishop supported on one side by an 
Inane-Iooblng pea- and on the other by a booEy-looUos pnbticao. 
ttndemeatli was the Inscription, "Untt«d we stand; divided we 


1919] The Phiiosoiai^ of Prohibition 445 

laid. Hence it contributted greatly toward raising the 
moral tone of the claaa that was most susceptible to per- 
snasioD. It called for no change of creed, bnt merely a 
change of condact. Stress is laid npoo this fact by all 
recent English historians. J. B. Green, in language al- 
most identical with that of Canon Farrar, writes of Wes- 
ley: " He recreated England. But for the new life created 
by the Wealeyan revival, Pitt never could have come iuto 
power, as there would have been nothing on which be could 
stand." Mr. Wesley's most ardent admirers never used 
stronger language than this. Although somewhat super- 
stltioua, he was an avowed enemy of mysticism in every 
form, and steadfastly directed his energies towards the 
attainment of practical ends. If we wish to render a 
verdict upon his mentality in its briefest form, we can 
hardly do better than to say that he was a representative 
Englishman. Perhaps for this very reason he never met 
with much success in Scotland. Goldwin Smith, in his 
" United Kingdom," writes of nonconformity in general : 
" Its annals are not poetic nor picturesque ; but for it, Eng- 
land might have been an Anglican Spain, if the Noncon- 
formist had not been there." Its strength lay in the middle 
class, whose members lacked culture because tbey were ex- 
cluded from the universities; but they were niot ignorant, 
nor devoid of a certain shrewdness and moral insight into 
the needs of the times and the necessities of supplying them 
so far as lay in their power. 

The mass movement in favor of total abstinence, which 
was later overslaughed by the demand for the total de- 
struction of the liquor traffic by law, originated among the 
Anglo-Saxons, although it has made more rapid progress 
in the former and present British possessions than in the 
homeland. This fact is not surprising when we consider 
that the liquor traffic had become so thoroughly intrenched 
on the British Isles by centuries of privilege, and so much 
money had been invested therein, that it was extremely diffi- 
cult to eradicate it It is an interesting fact, and one that 
is of far wider significance than most people suspect, that 


416 Bihliotheca Sacra [Oct. 

the opposition to the use of ardent spirits originated in the 
emotions, and not in the reason. As late as the end of the 
eighteenth centQry, no man of science donbted the efScacy 
of alcohol as a cnrative agent in disease or as a prophy- 
lactic against almost all human ills. Ardent spirits were 
freely prescribed by physicians and constantly used in the 
preparation of their medicaments. Dr. Benjamin Bush 
was the first man of eminence who dared to lay siege to 
this almost universal faith, in his book " The Effecta of Ar- 
dent Spirits on the Human Mind and Body." The work 
may almost be said to have created a sensation, and it was 
only the eminence of the author that saved it from being 
treated with ridicule. It is strange, however, that the dis- 
tinguished author does not seem to have been aware of the 
incojisistency of his position; for, while he condemned 
distilled liquors, he believed that malt liquors contain food 
qualities. The injurious element in distilled liquors is also 
present in beer, although in smaller quantities. Half a 
dozen little devils may do more harm than one big devU. 

The first total abstinence society in this country is be- 
lieved to have been organized by Dr. James Clark in 1808, 
although its members were permitted to drink on tiie ad- 
vice of a physician or at public dinners. He was probably 
influenced by Dr. Bush's book. He died at Olens Palls, 
New York, in 1867, at the age of ninety. In 1812 a tem- 
perance society was also organized in Maine. Thomas 
Jefferson was one of the early American advocates of tem- 
perance; but he also advocated the substitution of light 
liquors for ardent spirits. He wanted to tax whiskey out 
of existence. He was led to adopt this radical view by the 
trouble many of his oflSceholders gave him by their too free 
patronage of dramshops. He declared that " the habit of 
using ardent spirits by men in office has occasioned more 
injury to the public, and more vexation to me, than all other 
causes. Were I to commence my administration again, the 
only question I would ask respecting a candidate for office 
woold he, ' Does he use ardent spirits? ' " When President 
Jefferson uttered this dictum he had either forgotten or 


1919] The PhUoaophy of Prohibition 447 

ignored the fact that he was always more concerned to 
place good friends of his in office than sober men. Several 
temperance societies were organized during the following 
three or toar decades, one of these among Congressmen, of 
which Lewis Cass was the first president. About one tenth 
of the Federal body were enrolled. After the Civil War 
the Honorable H. W. Blair was the foremost champion of 
total abstinence in his day, both in the General Assembly 
of his native State and in Congress. In the latter body he 
was subjected to much ridicule, and not a little abuse, 
both by his fellow members and by the general public. 
Nevertheless, he could not be diverted from his purpose; 
and, as he is still living, he doubtless looks back with not a 
little satisfaction upon the triumph of a cause which at one 
time, and for a long time, only " cranks " advocated. He 
doubtless often thinks of the proverb " He laughs l)eet who 
laughs last." 

The indictment so often and so persistently brought by 
the liquor forces against the men who are devoting their 
whole time to the prohibition cause, that they are acting 
solely from selfish motives, is so absurd as to be positively 
funny. They would have us believe, furthermore, that the 
thousands who contribute th