Full text of "The Presbyterian and Reformed Review"

See other formats

LIBRARY OP PRINCETON

APR 2 6 2000

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2016 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library

https://archive.org/details/presbyterianrefo4131warf

nce.'f'oi IherlrpiC 'y ^ i\e. V I ^ //

The Presbyterian

and Reformed

Review.

EDITORS:

Benjamin B. Warfield,
William G. T. Shedd,
Willis G. Craig,
William H. Jeffers,

S. M. WOODBRIDGE,
William Cayen,

D. H. Mac Vicar,

James I. Good,

1ST. M. Steffens,

Alex. McKnight,

David Van Horne,

Talbot W. Chambers,
John DeWitt,

Willis J. Beecher,
Edward D. Morris,
William Alexander,
W. W. Harsha,
Donald Boss,

Adam McClelland,
Samuel A. Martin,
Charles E. Knox,
John M. King.

VOLUME IV.

1893.

^3t)ilaXielpibia :

Published, for the Presb’n and Eefd Review Association, by

MacCALLA & 00., 237-9 DOCK STREET.

ilacCalla <£- Company, Printers,
237-9 Dock St., Phila.

CONTENTS.

PAGE.

Apostles’ Creed, The Conflict in Germany over. Adolf Zahn ,

D.D 267

Assembly, The General, of the Presbyterian Church in the

United States of America. John DeWitt , D.D. , LL.D 470

Assembly, The General, of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

William Caven, D.D. , LL.D 666

Baptized for the Dead; 1 Cor. xv. 29. Talbot W. Chambers ,

D.D., LL.D 457

Boniface VIII, Causes of the Failure of the Papal Assumptions

of. Alan D. Campbell 429

Briggs’, Dr., Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. William

Henry Green, D.D., LL.D 529

Burney, Dr., on Free Agency. Edward J. Hamilton , D.D 116

Calvin’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Dunlop Moore , D.D 49

Church, The, and the Masses. R. V. Hunter , D.D 78

Control of the Theological Seminaries, Methods of. William

Henry Roberts, D.D., LL.D 94

Control, Dr. Roberts’ Article on Seminary. John DeWitt, D.D.,

Council, The Toronto. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D 125

Critical Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch. W. Scott Watson,

M.A 656

Defects in the Preaching of the Gospel, A Review of Some

Prevalent. J. P. Lilley, M.A 222

Dogmatic Thought in Scandinavia. Conrad Emil Lindberg.. . . 562
Epistles of the New Testament, A Noteworthy Difference be-
tween the. Dunlop Moore, D.D 662

Fatherhood of God, Homiletical Aspects of the. Charles A.

Salmond, M.A 418

Free Agency, Dr. Burney on. Edward J. Hamilton, D.D 116

French Protestants in 1892, Theological Thought Among. A.

Gretillat 390

Germany, The Conflict in, over the Apostles’ Creed. Adolf

Zahn, D.D 267

Gospels, How Were the Four Composed? William G. T.

Shedd, D.D. , LL.D 461

Hexateuch, Dr. Briggs’ Higher Criticism of. William Henry

Green, D.D., LL.D 529

H3’po-Evangelism : A Review of Some Prevalent Defects in the

Preaching of the Gospel. J. P. Lilley, M.A 222

Inspiration, Luther’s Doctrine of. Francis Pieper 249

Inspiration, St. Paul and. George T. Purves, D.D 1

Inspiration, The Real Problem of. Benjamin B. Warfield,

D.D., LL.D 177

KA9HMEN02 in Matt. iv. 16. Robert Dick Wilson, Ph.D 663

Lowell, James Russell, as a Prose Writer. Theodore W. Hunt,

Ph.D., Lit.D 275

Luther’s Doctrine of Inspiration. Francis Pieper 249

Masses, The Church and the. R. V. Hunter, D.D 78

Matthew iv. 16, On xabj/ievo? in. Robert Dick Wilson, Ph.D . . . . 663
Metres, Are There, in Old Testament Poetry ? Edwin Cone

Bissell, D.D., LL.D 440

Contents.

PAGE.

Old Testament, Are There Metres in the Poetry of. Edwin

Cone Bissell, D.D. , LL.D _ 440

Papal Assumptions of Boniface VIII, Causes of the Failure of.

Alan D. Campbell , A.M. 429

Paul and Inspiration. George T. Purves , D.D 1

Paul’s Writings and Seneca’s, External Evidence as to. C. M.

Mead , D.D 289

Poetry, Are There Metres in the Old Testament? Edwin Cone

Bissell, D.D. , LL.D 440

Presbyterian Church in Canada, The General Assembly of.

William Caven, D.D. , LL.D 666

Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, General

Assembly of. John DeWitt, D.D. , LL.D 470

Problem of Inspiration, The Real. Benjamin B. Warfield, D.D. ,

LL.D 177

Public and Private Epistles of the New Testament, A Note-
worthy Difference between. Dunlop Moore, D.D 662

Recent Dogmatic Thought in Scandinavia. Conrad Emil Lind-

berg 562

Recent Theological Literature, Reviews of 141, 306, 477, 676

Reformed Church in America, General Synod of. Talbot W.

Chambers, D.D. , LL.D 670

Reformed Church in the United States, General Synod of.

James I. Good, D.D 672

Reviews of Recent Theological Literature 141, 306, 477, 676

Samaritan Pentateuch, A Critical MS. of. W. Scott Watson,

M.A 656

Scandinavia, Recent Dogmatic Thought in. Conrad Emil

Lindberg 562

Scripture, Calvin’s Doctrine of. Dunlop Moore, D.D 49

Scripture, The Westminster Doctrine of. Benjamin B. Warfield,

D.D., LL.D 582

Scotland, Present Theological Drifts in. Norman L. Walker,

D.D 25

Seminaries, Methods of Control of the. William Henry Rob-
erts, D.D. , LL.D 94

Seminary Control, Dr. Roberts’ Article on. John DeWitt, D.D. ,

LL.D 134

Seneca’s Writings and Paul’s, External Evidence as to. C. M.

Mead. D.D 289

Servetus, The Trial of. Charles W. Shields, D.D., LL.D 353

Synod, The General, of the Reformed Church in America. Tal-
bot W. Chambers, D.D. , LL.D 670

Synod, The General, of the Reformed Church in the United

States. James I. Good, D.D 672

Tennyson, Alfred. Ethelbert D. Warfield, LL.D 112

Theological Drifts in Scotland, Recent. Norman L. Walker,

D.D 25

Theological Literature, Reviews of Recent 141, 306, 477, 676

Theological Thought Among the French Protestants in 1892. A.

Gretillat 390

Toronto Council, The. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D 125

Trusting in the Dark. H. C. G. Moule, M.A 71

Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture, The. Benjamin B.

Warfield, D.D. , LL.D 582

Whittier, John Greenleaf. James 0. Murray , D.D., LL.D 450

*** For Index of Books Reviewed, See the End of the Volume.

THE PRESBYTERIAN
AND REFORMED REVIEW

No. 13 — January, 1893.

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.*

WHEN looking at the New Testament collection, we find
ourselves confronted by one personality in particular who,
next to Christ Himself, is impressed most largely and weightily
both upon the New Testament and upon historic Christianity. I
refer, of course, to the apostle of the Gentiles. Of him the student
of the New Testament must take particular account. He is the
author certainly of thirteen, and perhaps of fourteen, of the twenty -
seven books. His epistles constitute that part of the New Testament
which gives to it articulated theological structure. He was the man
who opened the door by which the world entered into the fold of
Christ. His mission made the gospel of Jesus a universal religion.
And yet he is one whose right to the place traditionally assigned
him has, in various ways in different ages, been hotly contested.
His own epistles show that in his lifetime itself his apostleship was
denied and his mission violently opposed by many who claimed to
be followers of Jesus. In the succeeding age we not only find the
extreme section of Jewish Christians continuing to deny his apos-
tleship ; but we find the singular and significant fact that, while the
orthodox Church acknowledged and honored him, used his epistles
as Scripture and reaped the benefit of his mission to the Gentiles,
yet it apparently did not grasp his real teaching, and, if its extant
literature may be trusted as evidence, rejected some of his funda-
mental theological principles. Later on, his distinctive theological

* [This paper contains the substance of the address delivered by Dr. Purves
at his inauguration as Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in
Princeton Theological Seminary. — Editors.]

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

ideas were for centuries rejected by the larger part of Christendom,
even after they had been successfully defended by Augustine and
formally acknowledged by the Church ; while modern “ liberalism ”
is as loud as the ancient Judaizers were in its rejection of Paul’s
interpretation of the gospel, and seeks to save itself from utter irre-
ligion by endeavoring to prove that this apostle clothed the ethical
teaching of Jesus in the sombre and alien garb of rabbinical theology.
Considered, moreover, from the point of view of New Testament
literature, the personality and career of Paul are confessedly singu-
lar and demand critical study. He appears on the field, suddenly
intruding into the circle of original apostles, and mastering it by
the success of his work and the force of his credentials. On any
view of the origin of Christianity his influence appears gigantic.
Baur called him the creator of historical Christianity. The very
language of the Church was molded by his vigorous mind, for, as
Reuss says,* “ It was Paul who imprinted on the Hellenistic idiom
its peculiarly Christian character, and he was thus in a manner the
creator of the theological language of the Church.” The student of
the New Testament may feel Paul’s influence in the third gospel
and in the epistles of Peter, even as the student of the Christian
origins finds in him a potent factor in the history. Altogether, he
must be particularly investigated. The question of his authority
as an apostle of Jesus Christ is a crucial one. Its reality, its extent,
its inspired quality — these are matters which fundamentally affect
our conception alike of early Christian history, and of present
Christian doctrine, and of the Bible itself. It may be truly said
that our apprehension of Christianity depends upon our apprehen-
sion of Paul. I have, of course, no intention of exalting him above
the other apostles or of forgetting their part in the formation of the
New Testament, of the Church, or of Christian doctrine. But his
exceptional history, his peculiar work, his dominating influence,
together with the particular distinctness of his teaching and its
intimate relation to the fundamental ideas which we are to form of
the religion of Christ, make the question of his authority and
inspiration worthy of separate discussion.

I propose, therefore, to consider the testimony which Paul him-
self gave to his consciousness of apostolic office, his right to the
place assigned him in our New Testament, and then to indicate the
consequences which follow from this as concerns our conception of
the New Testament itself.

I. First, then, as students of the New Testament, seeking simply
to know what it actually contains, let us interrogate Paul himself
with reference to his claims of authority and inspiration.

* Hist, of Christ. Theol. in Apost. Age, Yol. ii, p. 9.

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

; ‘i

nationalistic critics are, of course, under the necessity of reducing
the consciousness of St. Paul to a natural growth. They cannot
admit the supernatural, in any real, objective sense, to have entered
into his experience. His teaching and his activity must be
explained as in some way the product of more or less rational pro-
cesses. He must, in short, be represented as at once the victim of
hallucination about himself and the herald of world-changing truth.
It is a striking fact that, according to the rationalistic explanation
of sacred history, the greatest spiritual gains to humanity have
always been the outgrowth of illusion and mistake. For the New
Testament student is confronted, first of all, by Paul’s unequivocal
testimony to his infallible authority as a teacher of faith and duty,
and to his special inspiration by God. This testimony, moreover,
is particularly borne in those great doctrinal epistles, written during
the middle part of his missionary activity, the genuineness of which
even inveterate doubters do not deny — for the recent denials of
their genuineness by a few eccentric scholars chiefly of the Dutch
school, are based on too exclusively a priori reasoning to be worthy
of serious consideration. It will, therefore, not be necessary for me
to discuss the genuineness of his later epistles ; since no essential
point of his self-testimony is involved in them.

Permit me rapidly to summarize his statements upon this subject.

1. We have from him in the first place repeated and positive
testimony that the objectively supernatural played a large part and
the decisive part in his Christian experience. He explicitly attrib-
utes, not only his personal salvation to the mighty power and
wondrous grace of God, but his cardinal religious- ideas to revela-
tions directly made to him. The pivotal fact of his career was, he
tells us, the glorious appearance of Christ to him when on the way
to Damascus, and there can be no question that he regarded that
appearance as objectively real. In connection with that event he
claimed to have received explicit directions for his work and apos-
tolic authority in it. He was “ an apostle not from men, neither
through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father ” (Gal.
i. 1). Hence he describes himself as “ called to be an apostle ”
(Rom. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 1); “an apostle by the will of God” (1 Cor.
i. 1 ; 2 Cor. ii. 1; Eph. i. 1; Col. i. 1; 2 Tim. i. 1); an apostle
“by the commandment of God ” (1 Tim. i. 1), “ separated unto the
gospel of God” (Rom. i. 1). But this pivotal fact was by no
means the only supernatural experience to which he laid claim.
Not to mention the miraculous gifts which he possessed in common
with other Christians of the apostolic age (1 Cor. xiv. 18), he
asserts that his religious doctrines had been immediately revealed
to him. “ The gospel which was preached by me is not after man.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it ; but it
came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ ” (Gal. i. 11, 12. So
cf. 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 33, xvi. 25 ; Eph. iii. 3). Visions, he tells
us, were granted unto him (2 Cor. xi. 16, xii. 1-4), and future
events had in some particulars been disclosed (1 Thess. iv. 15 ; 2
Thess. ii. 3 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51). All this culminates in the general
declaration “that by revelation was made known unto me . . . .
the mystery of Christ ; which in other generations was not made
known unto the sons of men as it is now made known unto his holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. iii. 3, 5). Thus a
special “ grace ” had been bestowed upon him, the grace of apostle-
ship with all the endowments, spiritual and supernatural, necessary
to fit him for the office (Gal. ii. 9 ; Rom. i. 5, xv. 15 ; Eph. iii. 3,
7 ; 2 Cor. iii. 5); and on the basis of this immediate divine gift he
emphatically declares his independence, so far as the ground of his
right to be obeyed was concerned, of any man, even though it were
one of the original apostles (Gal. i. 6, 11). With them he claimed
to stand on terms of entire equality (2 Cor. xi. 5 ; xii, 11), both,
they and he having been directly invested with authority by the
same Lord (1 Cor. ix. 1).

It is manifest that Paul was very far from regarding either the
change in his personal attitude to Jesus or his new religious ideas as
the result ofrational processes of his own mind. Not indeed that
his intellectual activity was in abeyance. Far from it. On the
truth once revealed he keenly and intensely thought, though, as we
shall see, believing himself even in that thought not to be unaided
from on high. But his testimony to objective revelations, actually
and frequently received, is unequivocal. It is noteworthy also
that these consisted not of visions of the other world, of which he
has given no description ; and very little of hitherto unrevealed
future events; but supremely and constantly of those religious
truths which men now call theological, but which he called sum-
marily “his gospel.” This, he said, was what had been “ entrusted
to him ” (1 Thess. ii. 4 ; Gal. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; ix, 17 ; 2 Cor. v.
18 ; Rom. i. 14 ; Col. i. 25 ; 1 Tim. i. 11 ; 2 Tim. i. 11). To use
one of his own expressive phrases, “ the word of reconciliation had
been placed in him ” (2 Cor. v. 19). This is not the usual way of
mystics or enthusiasts, and it remains for those who deny Paul’s
self-testimony on this point to explain the psychological enigma
which their denial creates.

2. But, still further, Paul claimed not only objective revelation,
but a special subjective illumination of his mind by the divine Spirit,
so that he was enabled correctly to teach the Word of God. True,
he recognizes that all Christians are “ taught of God to love one

S7. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

another ” (1 Thess. iv. 9), and we find him, with beautiful wisdom
and courtesy, seeking rather to urge his readers to a full under-
standing by themselves of what was involved in the truth they had
received, than, as he himself puts it, “ to lord it over their faith ”
(2 Cor. i. 24), for he adds, “ by faith ye stand.” But he plainly
claims for the apostles, and in particular for himself as one of them,
a special divine illumination, different both from the objective reve-
lations they had received and from the Spirit’s teaching granted to
all believers, on the ground of which the apostle’s instructions
were to be received as final because divine. He does this most
explicitly in his epistles to the Corinthians: Speaking of the
“ hidden mystery ” — by which he meant the things of our salvation —
he says emphatically, “ Unto us God revealed them by His Spirit”
(1 Cor. ii. 10). The context shows that by “ us ” he meant himself
and other apostles ; and the subsequent verses show that this revela-
tion included more than the objective communication of truth. For
he continues: “ Who among men knoweth the things of a man, save
the spirit of the man, which is in him ? Even so the things of God
none knoweth save the Spirit of God. But we received not the
spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might
know the things that are freely given to us of God.” That is, the
apostolic teacher was enabled by the Holy Spirit rightly to apprehend
the revelation given to him. Hence he could say without audacity,
“We have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. ii. 16). Hence also in the
second epistle, speaking of his apostolic authority and defending
himself against detractors, he could write, “We preach Christ Jesus
as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake — seeing it is
God that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our
hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. iv. 6). Though these words may be
properly applied to all believers, the reader cannot fail to see that
Paul applied them in a special sense to himself as a divinely
enlightened teacher, as one in whose mind the Almighty Creator of
all light had shined for the express purpose of making the knowl-
edge of His glory in the face of Christ known to other men ; and
this was to such an extent true that he could also write, “ If any
man thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take
knowledge of the things that I write unto you, that they are the
commandments of the Lord ” (1 Cor. xiv. 85).

Moreover we find him, in 1 Cor. vii, where he deals with the
subject of marriage, carefully distinguishing between the known
command of Christ about divorce, his own command on the sub-
ject which he makes as obligatory as the Lord’s, and his advice to
certain of them in view of “ the present distress.” Even his advice

6 TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

was inspired, for, after giving it, he adds with a touch of irony, “ I
think that I also have the Spirit of God.” Nevertheless it was ad-
vice, not command : and the ability to discriminate thus between
what was obligatory and what was advisable indicates a perfectly
clear perception of what, apart from specific revelations, he was
authorized by God to require of them and what not.

So far, then, as his own testimony goes, Paul asserted not only
a divine commission and divine revelations, but such an illumina-
tion by the Holy Spirit that he could say, “ God doth beseech you
by us” (2 Cor. v. 20), and “ Christ speaketh in me ” (2 Cor. xiii. 8).

3. It is little to 5 observe after this that the apostle claimed
authority over the faith and conduct of Christians. Though he asso-
ciates other brethren with him in his epistles, he always puts
himself above them (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Col.
i. 1). Though both Apollos and he were ministers of Christ, he
and not Apollos was a founder of the Church ; and his language
conveys the idea that not merely because he was in Corinth before
Apollos, but because he held a different office, was he the founder
of that Church (1 Cor. iii. 10-14). He habitually speaks of “ his
gospel” in terms applicable to nothing less than the full manifesta-
tion of divine, saving truth (1 Thess. i. 5 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Cor.
iv. 3, 4 ; Rom. ii. 16, xv. 25 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8). In fact, he identifies it
with “ the word of the Lord ” (1 Thess. i. 8, ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1),
declaring in one place (1 Thess. ii. 13), “ We thank God that
when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word
of God, ye accepted it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth
the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.” He
warns against any who taught contrary to what they had received
from him, yea, though the teacher were an angel from heaven or
the apostle himself (2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Gal. i. 8, 9). Alike in matters
of faith and conduct does he speak in an unfaltering tone of abso-
lute command.

4. It is more important to observe that he attached the same
authority to his letters as to his oral teaching, and to the verbal
form in which his teaching was expressed no less than to the truth
itself. Besides directing the reading and circulation of his epistles
(1 Thess. iv. 27 ; Col. iv. 16, 17), he says expressly (2 Thess. ii. 15),
“ Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught,
whether by word or by epistle of ours.” As to the verbal form of
his teaching, his language is likewise unmistakable (1 Cor. ii. 13):

“ Which things also” — i. e., the knowledge given to the apostles by
the Spirit — “ we speak not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth,
but which the Spirit teacheth ; combining spiritual things with
spiritual.” That this statement is to be interpreted in any such

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

way as to make the apostle represent himself as a mechanical, un-
thinking agent of the Spirit is both disproved by all the phenomena
of his writings, and is positively forbidden by the phrase itself,
“ words which the Spirit teacheth ,” for a machine cannot be taught,
it can be only used. But it is equally plain that Paul felt even the
verbal forms, in which, with the full use of his own intellect and
heart, and often in most characteristic and peculiar style, he uttered
the message that God had given him, to have been also determined
for him by the Spirit. He represented his whole communication to
men as “pneumatic ” — as the Spirit’s work throughout; and there-
fore in all its elements the communication to men not of Paul’s
thought — that was only the medium — but the communication of
the mind and will of God. As certainly as the phrase, “ words
which man’s wisdom teacheth,” describes , the rhetorical dress and
mode of argument and literary style which Hellenic culture would
have suggested, so certainly does he mean, in the corresponding
phrase, “ words which the Spirit teacheth,” to say that the rhetoric
and the argument and the style which he did employ were, in some
way which he does not explain, suggested, indicated, brought to his
mind by the Holy Spirit.

5. At the same time, be it noted, there never was a more living
writer than Paul, and his testimony is equally clear that, with all
the authority and divine guidance which he claimed, he was always
himself. His self-consciousness, in fact, is very marked, since he
regarded himself as a typical example of grace, and since he was
compelled to defend his character and his claims. His personality
was intense. The “ I, Paul, say unto you,” is very frequent. He
testifies to nothing mechanical in the operations of divine power
within his mind, but quite to the contrary. His writings them-
selves bear sufficient witness to his intellectual activity, his strong
and sensitive emotions, his quickness to discern the practical rela-
tions of his teaching. His testimony to the living reality of his
experience under grace and while the subject of revealing and in-
spiring power, is as clear as is his testimony to that power itself.
And to this should be added the remark that he recognized the
limitations of his knowledge. The Spirit did not always quicken
his memory, for he writes of his life in Corinth : “ I baptized also
the household of Stephanas : besides, I know not whether I bap-
tized any other ” (1 Cor. i. 16). Neither did he claim perfect com-
prehension of the truth, for he could say, “ Now I know in part ;
but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Cor. xiii. 11).
But this confession of limits to knowledge only makes the more
significant his assertions of clear and authoritative knowledge as to
what had been given him to affirm and teach. It indicates a calm

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

and sober appreciation of just what God authorized him to say and
what He did not, which is at the farthest possible remove from
either a machine or an enthusiast. “ This treasure,” he says, speak-
ing of the divine light which God had made to shine within his
mind, “ we have in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the
power may be of God and not of us ” (2 Cor. iv. 7). By the “ earthen
vessel” he did not mean, as he has sometimes been interpreted, the
human element in his writings, their words and arguments. These,
as we have seen, he regarded as part of the treasure itself. But, as
the context shows, he meant by “ the earthen vessel ” the external
trials and the personal misfortunes of his life — for he was “ always,”
he added, “ bearing about in his body the dying of the Lord Jesus,
that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.”
To the Jews a renegade, to the Athenians a babbler, “ the offscouring
of the earth ” in the eyes of the busy, fighting, cultured, careless
Roman world — Paul claimed that he possessed a gift from Almighty
God which made him a true prophet of Israel, an unerring teacher
of the wise, and an authoritative expounder of the only way of
salvation for mankind.

Such I believe to be a fair statement of Paul’s apostolic conscious-
ness as exegesis gives it to us. Thus he appears on the field of New
Testament literature. This is the only Paul of which we know. It
may be conceivable that he was an utterly mistaken man, but he
cannot be treated as pretending to be different from what we have
described.

II. Can, then, these claims be justified to us so that, as students
of New Testament literature, we may accept Paul’s epistles as a
constituent part of the sacred Scriptures, and Paul himself as the
authorized exponent of genuine Christianity which he claimed to be?

We do not hesitate to say that the objections brought by avowed
naturalism are to be immediately set aside. We come to the exam-
ination of New Testament literature believing in the possibility of
miracles, and even, under certain circumstances, in their probability.
Above all, we come as convinced believers in an historical incarna-
tion and resurrection. Our belief in this may be defended quite
independently of Paul’s claims to authority and inspiration. He
may be regarded as mistaken in these and yet may constitute one
of the many witnesses to the original belief of the primitive Church,
and, as such, one of many facts which only an actual incarnation
and resurrection can explain. Fairness does not require us, there-
fore, to profess want of conviction upon these points. For belief in
the incarnation and resurrection does not necessarily carry with it
the admission of Paul’s specific claims, while unbelief does carry
with it the denial of them.

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

In the hands of naturalism, moreover, not only must Paul appear
a singularly deluded man and his conversion remain an unexplained
enigma, but he can scarcely be made to justify the place he has oc-
cupied among the leaders of mankind. When Prof. Pfleiderer
concludes that “ the specially Christian and permanent element of
Paulinism ” was the fact “ that it was an influence bringing freedom
and inward depth to the religious life, delivering men from all exter-
nalities and uniting them directly with God ;* when Mr. Arnold, try-
ing to show why Protestantism should still uphold the honor of its
favorite apostle, makes Paul’s essential merit to have been that he was
possessed with a zeal for righteousness ;f we instinctively ask why,
of all the advocates of religious liberty and righteousness, this man
should occupy a unique position in history. Manifestly such praise
is but the cloak which conceals the hand of the assassin. Not by
these qualities alone has Paul actually exerted his decisive influence
on mankind.

The New Testament student, therefore, is not to approach the
subject without faith in an historical revelation of God through
Jesus Christ. He is rather to inquire whether, assuming the fact of
a supernatural revelation, the extraordinary and specific claims of
this intruder into the original circle of disciples ought to be ac-
knowledged.

Without attempting to do more than give an outline of the argu-
ment, the following reasons appear to us conclusive.

The particular credentials by which Paul himself appealed to his
own converts are either beyond our power of testing or are not suf-
ficiently explicit for our present purpose. They consisted in the
miraculous powers with which he was endowed, and, above all, in
the Holy Spirit accompanying his ministry and sealing his words
to the hearts of God’s elect (1 Cor. xii. 12 ; 1 Thess. i. 5 ; 1 Cor. ii.
4,5). The former we cannot directly verify. The witness of the
Spirit to his teaching we must certainly, if Christian men, feel. It
has been largely because the experience of Christian life bears so
much testimony to the essential truth of his doctrine that the
Church, even when willing, has not been able to deny it. Never-
theless, the Spirit’s testimony is only explicit with reference to
Paul’s fundamental doctrines. On the basis of that we might
indeed infer the validity of all his claims. But as a matter of fact,
the form in which he couched his teaching has been impugned even
by those who profess to acknowledge the latter, and the dimness of
the Christian consciousness is such that it is easy even for Christian
men to question the full validity and reality of all that Paul asserts
about himself. But the student of New Testament literature may,

* Hibbert Lectures, 1885, p. 287.

f St. Paul and Protestantism, passim.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

we think, conclusively furnish two other lines of proof : first, the
fact of Paul’s recognition as an apostle by the original Church -T
and secondly, the internal relation which his teaching bears to the
rest of Scripture.

1. His recognition by the original Church is a fact of first value
because it affords conclusive evidence that his claims were admitted
by the other apostles, and thus that the first founders of the Church
confessed the validity of his credentials.

On this point, as you are aware, the modern critical assault has
been directed ; and rightly so, if the supernatural character of
Christianity is to be disproved. Baur thrust his knife into the
vital part of the system when he undertook to prove the original
antagonism of Paul and “ the twelve,” and to explain Catholic
Christianity as the reconciliation, 150 years later, of the originally
hostile elements. But this ingenious reconstruction of the history
has fallen before the attack of historical investigation itself, and the
later followers of Tubingen criticism have been forced to recede
from so many essential positions and to minimize the alleged divi-
sion of the apostolic body in so many particulars that the theory
ought to have little weight with students of the New Testament
and of po$t- apostolic literature. For the unity of the apostolic
body, and the consequent recognition of Paul, we appeal not only
to the New Testament itself, when fairly interpreted, but to the
earliest extra-canonical writers — e. g ., to Clement of Rome, writing
about the same time with the apostle John,* who appeals expressly
to Peter and Paul not only as examples of righteousness, but as
reproving that very spirit of rivalry with which modern criticism
charges them, and mingles their words together as the command-
ments of one mind ; to Ignatius, writing perhaps only a decade
later, who uses this language : “I do not enjoin you as Peter and
Paul; they were apostles: I am but a condemned man” (Rom.
iv); to Polycarp, whose imitative pen betrays his reverent use of
the writings of all the representative apostles ; and, passing by
many other witnesses, to the extensive statements of Irenaeus of
Lyons. To be sure these ancient authors were not writing for the
express purpose of refuting beforehand modern naturalistic criti-
cism, and occasional difficulties occur in the evidence which have
been made the most of. The most recent contention is that the
Epistles of Paul were not considered as technically “ Scripture ” by
the Church until the false position in which Marcion and others
placed him required his orthodoxy to be vindicated.! But before
Marcion wrote, the Epistles of Paul were used in precisely the

*Ad Cor. 5, 44, 47, 49.

f See Harnack’s DogmengescJiicJite, i, 304 ; Werner’s Der Paulismus des Ircticmt.

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

same manner as other books of the New Testament and must stand
or fall with them ; while the idea that Marcion was the first to an-
nounce the fact that God had given to the Christian Church
a written rule of faith in addition to the Old Testament, attributes
far too much originality- to that famous heretic. We admit, indeed,
that the Church of the second and third centuries did not appro-
priate the doctrines of grace which Paul taught with anything like
his consistency. But that has been no unusual phenomenon in
Christian history. None the less is the evidence ample that, while
Paul derived his authority from no man, and while his course was
opposed by many Jewish Christians, yet, after the first suspicions
were overcome, as the Book of Acts relates, the Church recognized
his credentials, and that means that the other apostles recognized
them, even as he himself declares. If so, then whatever authority on
other grounds we attach to the original apostles becomes a corre-
sponding attestation of Paul. Were they merely trustworthy wit-
nesses ? They witness to the sufficiency of those of his credentials
which we cannot examine. Were they the acknowledged founders
of the Church ? They acknowledged the apostle of the Gentiles to
be a founder too. Were they endowed with the Spirit to be the
authoritative teachers as well as founders of the Church ? Then
they admit also Paul’s claim to be the same and his epistles to be
part of the Church’s abiding rule.

2. The other argument, drawn from the internal relation which
Paul’s teaching bears to the rest of Scripture, depends on the
results of exegesis.

(a) It may be shown that his teaching is a legitimate unfolding
of ideas already announced in the teachings of Jesus. In Christ’s
declaration of the righteousness which must exceed that of the
Scribes and Pharisees, of the necessity of His death as a ransom for
sin, of the wholly lost condition of mankind, of the necessity of
regeneration and of the Father’s “ drawing,” of His peculiarly inti-
mate and vital relation to His people based on the Father’s gift of
them to Him from eternity, of the immediateness and completeness
of the reconciliation of God and the sinner through Him, and of the
necessity of the sinner’s dependence upon Him for salvation, it is
easy to see the elements of Paul’s doctrine waiting for some one to
arrange them in the light of the full significance of Calvary, and of
the person of the risen Lord.

( b ) It may be shown further that his doctrine stands in such rela-
tion of that of the other apostolic writers as to be an integral and
necessary part of the apostolic teaching as a whole ; forming the
required complement to James, one of the presuppositions of Peter
and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and with these laying

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the foundation on which John stood, with his personal remembrance
also of the Lord’s discourses, to set forth the true revelation of God
and of life with God which the divine Word had effected and in
the disclosure of which the written Word was to find its goal. The
more closely the doctrines of the several apostolic writers are
examined the more manifest becomes the one, identical truth which,
with rich diversities of view, all express ; and in this complex
organism of living truth the teaching of Paul appears as the verte-
brate column on which the structure of the whole depends.

(c) And then it may be shown, finally, that Pauline doctrine, as
the apostle himself claimed, is a legitimate unfolding of the teach-
ings of the Old Testament ; a return to Moses and the prophets as
against the Scribes and Pharisees; that he built, not on rabbinical
theology, but on the principles imbedded in the Old Testament, and
that, strange as his position seemed to the Jews of his day, he did
but bring to complete expression the central truths of Israel.

It is not my purpose to do more than indicate these points of
internal relationship. Their full working out belongs to Biblical
Theology. But the result will, I believe, be substantially what I
have indicated. It is so in its general features to every careful
reader of the Bible. If so, Paul’s epistles authenticate themselves
as an integral part of that unified and yet diversified collection of
literature which we call “ the Bible.” But that in turn authenti-
cates him as one of its intended writers.

On these two lines of attestation, the one external and the other
internal, must the New Testament student, who admits the fact of
a supernatural revelation through Jesus Christ, and who is willing
to accept the plain historical statements of the original witnesses as
to what Jesus did and taught, admit also Paul’s claims to apostle-
ship and his epistles to a place among the authoritative apostolic
teaching. Then the particular witness, which, in these epistles,
Paul bore to his apostolic consciousness, must be our guide in
determining what the New Testament, and back of that the whole
Bible, really is.

III. The question then arises, What was Paul’s doctrine about the
Scripture? Did he attach the same conception of authority and
inspiration to it that we have found him to attach to his own teach-
ing, whether oral or written?

1. To answer this, we must first examine his descriptions and
use of the Old Testament. His use of it is abundant. He quotes
from it formally. He introduces its phrases. His language is
saturated with its expressions and figures of speech. He assumes
it to be well known to his readers and an authority recognized by
them. There is no question that he possessed it in the form in

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

which we now have it in the Hebrew and substantially in the
Greek. The names, also, which he applies to it indicate in general
his acceptance of it, in unison with the Jewish Church, as the
divinely given rule of belief and conduct. It is “ the Scripture,”
called so by preeminence, “ the Holy Scriptures,” “ the prophetic
Scriptures,” “the law and the prophets ” (Rom. iii. 21), “ the sacred
writings” (2 Tim. iii. 15). He called the whole collection also
“ the law,” quoting under that title from Isaiah (1 Cor. xiv. 21 ;
see Rom. iii. 19) ; and in another place, “ the oracles of God ”
(rd Xoyia Rom. iii. 2), a phrase which must not be limited to the
direct utterances of God, but must be understood to describe the
Scriptures as a whole. These titles indicate his general attitude
towards the Old Testament. Strongly as he revolted from the
Judaism of his day, he recognized its Bible as God’s gift to the
Church of all time, and applied to it the terms of strictest faith and
devoutest reverence used by those who acknowledged its authority
(Rom. iv. 4).

But not to dwell on these obvious facts, it is important for our
purpose to observe the descriptions which Paul gives of the object
of the Old Testament and how it came to fulfill that object. He
held that the Scripture was expressly written for the purpose of
teaching the Church, both Jewish and Christian, the gospel of Jesus
Christ ; and this, of course, involved the assumption that it had
been composed under the special direction of God. He affirms
this, be it noted, of the Scripture as a book. It was not written in
the interest of a legal way of salvation, though it contained the
law ; but it was written in order that the principles of the gospel
might be learned by those who read it rightly. Not only did
Moses and the prophets speak from God, but the sacred Scriptures
themselves were in some way composed under divine control. He
not only affirms with Peter that, “ moved by the Holy Ghost men
spake from God,” but that “ the Scriptures themselves are inspired by
God.” Paul plainly recognizes the human authorship of the books,
and quotes Moses and David and Isaiah as speaking therein. But
not only through them, but in these books of theirs did God also
speak. Many readers notice the first part ot Paul’s statement, but
not the second. God spake “ through the prophets in the Holy
Scriptures ” (Rom. i. 2).

Hence we read statements like these. After speaking of the
sins and sorrows of Israel in the wilderness, he declares: “Now
these things happened unto them by way of example (typically),
and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of
the ages are come”(l Cor. x. 11). Here he represents both the
facts of Israel’s history and the record of them as having been ex-

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

pressly designed for our spiritual profit. So again, “ For whatso-
ever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,
that through patience and through comfort of the Scriptures we
might have hope ” (Rom. xv. 4). And this pertains, according to
Paul, to the use of special phrases ; for (Rom. iv. 23) he declared
that the particular statement of Genesis that “ Abraham believed
God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” was not written
for his sake alone, but for our sake also. The record, that is, of the
great typical justification, was expressly made and in this precise
form for our enlightenment. Even the directions of the Mosaic
law were written for our sakes (1 Cor. ix. 10) ; not as if they had
had no other immediate reference when originally enacted, but that
the recording of them in Scripture was for the purpose of instruct-
ing us in the doctrines or duties of a godly life. Therefore the
Scriptures are, so to speak, personified by him — as when he writes
that “the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the gentiles
by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham” (Gal.
iii. 8), as well as in the common formula, “ Scripture saith.” Of
course these affirmations could only have been made on the suppo-
sition that he who secured the production of such a record, and who
therefore speaks in its language, was none less than God. So Paul
explicitly affirms, “ The gospel of God , which he promised afore
by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures ” (Rom. i. 1, 2). He thus
clearly distinguished between the historical revelations made from
time to time, which, like the law, had a temporary purpose, and
the composition of the Scriptures. These, indeed, contained the
record of those revelations, but, besides that, were so written that
they might teach for all time the principles of faith and duty. It
was on the basis of this view that he could write to the Corinthians
(1 Cor. iv. 6), that they “ must not go beyond the things that are
written;” by which remark he meant to remind them that the
Scriptures were the rule of practice as well as of faith to every
Christian. So, too, he could write to Timothy of the Scriptures
(2 Tim. ii. 15): “They are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” His declarations then cul-
minate in the statement : “ Every Scripture,” that is, the whole col-
lection to which he had just referred as the “ sacred writings,” and
all their parts, “ being inspired by God, is also profitable for teach-
ing, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteous-
ness, that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely
unto all good works” (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17). Of this last passage I will
speak presently. I desire now only to point out that Paul repre-
sents not only the Hebrew economy as designed by God to serve a
temporary purpose in the education of His people, and Moses and

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

the prophets as having spoken from God, but the Hebrew Scriptures
themselves also as a divinely made book or collection of books
intended to teach the gospel, and an abiding rule of faith and con-
duct to the Christian. He affirms not only that the authors of the
Old Testament were media of revelation, but that the literary pro-
duct itself, and as such, was, in some way, divinely made and given
to the Church.

2. What light then is thrown upon these formal statements by
Paul’s actual use of Scripture ?

(a) He habitually employs it, in accordance, as I have already
remarked, with his idea of its purpose, to show that it taught “his
gospel.” He does this, not by catching at plausible phrases, or by
gleaning here and there from the Old Testament expressions which
imply his doctrines, but by showing that the gospel was the very
substance of the Scripture. Christ, as revealed to the apostles, was
the key to the Old Testament. The unbelieving Jews read the Old
Covenant with a veil upon their hearts (2 Cor. iii. 14, 15), but he
— “the veil having been done away in Christ ” — grasped the real
meaning of the prophetic writings. The more closely we study
Paul’s use of Scripture the more should we be filled with admira-
tion at the clearness and penetration with which he apprehended
the essential religious teaching of the passages he cites. Take the
great passages, which I need not quote, in which he uncovers in
God’s recorded transactions with Abraham the doctrine of gracious
justification through faith; or the way in which (Rom. iii) he pre-
sents the Scriptural indictment of man as a sinner by a series of
citations from the Psalms and Isaiah, so arranged as to set forth in
sacred phrase the fact, the practice, the source of human wickedness ;
or the magnificent argument (Rom ix-xi) wherein he justifies on
Scriptural grounds the loss by the Jews of their peculiar privileges.
I do not see how any one can examine Paul’s use of Scripture in
these classical instances without being convinced that the apostle,
so far from juggling with words, penetrated to the very marrow of
the law and the prophets. There are instances, I know, where at
first sight he seems to deal with words rather than with thoughts,
and to be guilty of fanciful interpretation. These instances are few
in number, but they have been made the most of. His use (Gal. iv.
21-31) of the story of Sarah and Hagar with their sons ; his inter-
pretation (1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 ; 1 Tim. v. 17, 18) of the Mosaic com-
mand, “ Thou shalt not muzzle the oxen treading out the corn
his citation of Isaiah xxviii. 11, “ By men of strange tongues will
I speak unto this people ” (1 Cor. xiv. 21), as bearing on the use by
the Church of the miraculous gift of tongues — are examples to
which as many more might be added (2 Cor. iii. 14, 15, “ When

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

it shall turn unto the Lord, the veil is taken away 2 Cor. viii. 15,
“ As it is written, he that gathereth much,” etc., Rom. x. 6-9). But
certainly it is only fair to judge of these instances by the apostle’s
prevailing habit, and to ask if further examination will not show
that below , the apparently verbal interpretation there was the per-
ception by him of a principle in each case of which the Old Testa-
ment passage was one expression and his application of it another.
I believe that this can be shown in every case, not excepting even
the miscalled “ allegory ” of Hagar and Sarah, and the much mis-
understood remark about the unmuzzled ox. It should, moreover,
not be forgotten that these interpretations, which are offensive to
some, proceed conspicuously on the supposition that the Scripture,
as a writing, was a divine work. But many more examples might
be adduced in which Paul’s use of Scripture must have been to his
first readers like the breaking of sunlight into darkened chambers.
Sometimes by merely a single word he illuminates prophetic lan-
guage, and again, by a group of passages, he lays bare at one stroke
the golden ore which the older revelation contained.

( b ) But further, he treats the Biblical narrative as true. This
will be denied by none ; but it is important to observe how vital
the truthfulness of the narrative was to Paul’s theological position.
For he conceived of the gospel as the climax in a series of econo-
mies which were particularly ordered by God with a view to the
announcement and understanding of it. He begins commonly with
the period of the promise, and then explains the reason of the later
introduction of the law. In his analysis of sin, however, he goes
back to the first man and distinctly bases his doctrine of justification
on the unity of the race in Adam. It thus appears that the truth-
fulness of the Old Testament’s narrative — so far at least as its lead-
ing features are concerned — was fundamental to Paul’s view of
God’s government of the world and of the method of man’s salva-
tion. And so, when alluding to the facts stated in the narrative,
he always treats them as real. This is to be particularly noted for
the reason that his view of Scripture, which I have described, as
written for the spiritual instruction of the later Church, might have
led him, as it has led others, to undervalue the historical nature of
the facts. It might have transformed Scripture into an allegory,
as it did in less accurate hands. But even when drawing his
spiritual lesson from Hagar and Sarah, he manifestly regards the
facts related of them as true. So he speaks of the life of Israel in
the desert, “ These things happened unto them typically (or, by way
of example).” He did not look upon the narrative as an allegory,
but as a relation of actual facts, some of which were of vital
importance for a right conception of God’s dealings with mankind,

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

and so narrated as to set forth, when properly understood, what
God intended us to learn. So organic was the relation in his view
between the dispensation of the gospel and the previous history of
Israel as set forth in the Scriptures, that only in the light of the
latter could it be said, “ when the fulness of time was come, God
sent forth his Son ” (Gal. iv. 4).

(c) Still again, he is careful at times to support his argument by
an appeal to the precise words used by the sacred writers. Did he
teach that “ Christ has been made a curse for us?” He appeals, in
justification of his language, to the language of Deuteronomy,
“ Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree ” (Gal. iii. 10). He
confirms his doctrine of the spiritual Israel by the language of the
promise to Abraham, “ and to thy seed,” “ as of one, even Christ ”
(Gal. iii. 16). So in the Epistle to the Romans, his appeal fre-
quently lies to the language of Scripture as well as to its real
significance. He points out that the Scripture declares that “ the
just shall live by faith ” (i. 17) ; that “Abraham believed God, and
it was reckoned to him for righteousness” (iv. 3) ; that circumcision
was given to him “ as a sign” (iv. 11) ; that he was intended to be
the spiritual ancestor of believing gentiles because called “the
father of many nations ” (iv. 17) ; that his spiritual seed should not
be identified with his fleshly descendants because it was written, “ In
Isaac shall thy seed be called” (ix. 7); that the Scripture itself
applies the word “ hardening” to God’s rejection of the reprobate
(ix. 18). These examples are sufficient to prove that in Paul’s
mind the very phraseology of the Scripture was valid for religious
argument, and expressed divine thought.

What then is to be said of certain features of his quotations
which appear to many inconsistent with such belief in the value of
Scripture language? It is a fact that he often makes his quotations
loosely, and occasionally does no more than give their substance.
Sometimes, also, he evidently changed the phraseology on purpose.
In a number of instances he differs from the Septuagint, and some-
times follows the Septuagint where it differs from the Hebrew, and
occasionally differs from both. Many regard these facts as wholly
inconsistent with any high valuation of the words of Scripture.
But, aside from the fact that the latter view would make Paul con-
tradict his own express statements, the following additional facts
deserve consideration.

It is wholly unreasonable to require that even an inspired man,
who believed that the words of Scripture were written under
God’s direction, should always quote Scripture with textual exact-
ness. This would be to insist on his becoming a pedant, as if God
could not inspire a man to write rhetorically, or poetically, as well
2

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

as, when the occasion required, with simple prosaic accuracy. We
have only a right to require of Paul, on his own theory of the
inspiration both of Scripture and himself, that when he declares
Scripture to have said a thing, it shall be true that Scripture did
sayr it ; and'that, when he does argue from the words of Scripture,
the words shall be there and his argument from them be in accord-
ance with Scriptural principles. To insist that Paul’s doctrine
of Scripture, as we have presented it, ought to have precluded him
from ever citing the sense rather than the language of the Old Tes-
tament, or from ever combining passages together, or from ever
failing to correct any bad translation of the Septuagint when the
existing translation did not invalidate the force of his appeal, or
from changing the language intentionally, when by so doing he
could bring out the meaning more strongly for the purpose in hand,
is to insist that his epistles, because inspired, should have none of
those rhetorical qualities which were the natural manifestation of
the apostle’s own mental processes.

In reality, however, Paul is remarkably exact, in the great
majority of instances, when formally quoting from the Old Testa-
ment. The wonder is that his memory served him so well ; for of
course he could seldom have had the means, if he so desired, of
verifying his citations. When he does quote loosely, his argument
never depends on the verbal accuracy of his quotation, and he
always correctly represents the teaching of Scripture when he pro-
fesses to do so. His mind, however, was so saturated with Scrip-
ture that he seems often to be rather speaking himself in its words
than to be citing it, and he continually strives in citing to explain
and apply it. Thus in Galatians we find eleven clear quotations.
Of these, five (iii. 6, 11, 16, iv. 27, v. 14) are verbally exact, and
three (iii. 8, 12, 13) practically so — (i. e., the differences, chiefly in
tense or person or verbal form, are too slight to invalidate the accu-
racy of the quotation), — while the variations in the other three (ii.
16, iii. 10, iv. 30) can be accounted for by the apostle’s desire to
state the Old Testament teaching in phraseology which would
make its real significance clearer to his readers. In 1 Corinthians,
out of twenty-seven instances of reference to Old Testament lan-
guage, only eleven are again formal quotations. Of these, seven
are exact or practically so, and three (iii. 19, xiv. 21, xv. 54) indi-
cate either acquaintance with the Hebrew and an intentional cor-
rection of the LXX., or else the possession by Paul of a better Greek
version than we have. The remaining quotation (ii. 9) is very free,
so that some suppose it to have been taken from a lost apocryphal
book. But that is a violent hypothesis, opposed to Paul’s invari-
able custom elsewhere ; and since the citation expresses Scriptural

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

teaching in Scriptural figures of speech, and since there is a passage
in Isaiah (liv. 4) which obviously forms its starting-point, we can
only look upon this case as one in which the apostle modified con-
sciously the prophetic declaration in order to apply its principle
more forcibly to the matter of which he was writing.

In the Romans there are about seventy-three quotations and allu-
sions of all kinds. Of these, twenty-seven are exact citations and
twenty practically so. Only eight could be called loose, eight are
mere allusions, two are centos of scattered passages grouped for a
purpose. In four cases we may observe apparently intentional
chanaes of verbiage to make the bearing of the truth more evident.
Seven times (i. 17, ix. 1, 7, 82, x. 15, xi. 4, 34, xii. 19) he differs
from the Septuagint, and corresponds more closely to Hebrew. In
six instances (iii. 4, 14, ix. 32, x. 11, xii. 19, xv. 12) he follows
the Septuagint where it differs from the Hebrew, but in none of
these cases does the sense of Scripture suffer. Once (xi. 26) he
differs in a single word from both Hebrew and Septuagint, saying,
“ Out of Sion shall come the deliverer,” instead of “ To or for
Sion ; ” but here he apparently mingled a reminiscence of one of
the Psalms with the language of Isaiah.

It would be tedious for ine to give more details. I believe these
to be fair specimens of the proportion of exact and inexact quota-
tions in Paul’s epistles as well as of his methods. The key to what-
ever difficulty remains is found in the fact, which should never be for-
gotten, that Paul combined and meant to combine in his use of Scrip-
ture the functions of both an appellant and an interpreter. He is ever
bent on letting the light of the gospel on the Scripture, as well as
on supporting the gospel by the Scripture. He never pretended
that he had derived his doctrine from the Scripture. He always
claimed that he had derived it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Then, however, he saw the meaning of Scripture, and could both
appeal to it and explain it. His exegetical method therefore was
determined by his practical purpose. He had no need, as we have,
first to state the “ grammatico-historical ” sense of the passage
quoted, and then elaborately to show the principle on which it
could be applied to the case in hand. When quoting, he often is
interpreting. Hence some of his striking combinations of passages.
Hence his change of its phraseology when occasion required.
Hence his attitude now of reverence for its letter, and now of appar-
ent disregard of its letter and attention solely to its essential mean-
ing. When all these facts are duly considered, there appears noth-
ing in Paul’s actual use of Scripture which can be fairly made to
contradict his expressed doctrine.

And now in the light of this study we may grasp the meaning

1HE FRESB T TERIA N AND REFORMED REVIEW.

which he himself must have meant to convey by the word which
in his last epistle he applied to Scripture — #e<5 xveoaro$. It is his
own word. It means “ breathed into by God.” He affirms it not
of the writers, but of the sacred writings. These writings are “God
in-breathed.” The apostle must be his own interpreter, and by the
aid of what I have shown, the idea which he embodied in this now
classic word is to be obtained. By their inspiration he evidently
meant that, as writings, they were so composed under God’s particu-
lar direction that both in substance and in form they were the spe-
cial utterance of His mind and will. Their words like the apostle’s
were “ pneumatic.” The divine Spirit dwelt in them and breathed
through them. And this in no vague, mystic, intangible sense, but
in the same sense in which he had said of himself and his fellow-
apostles, “We speak not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,” and with the same result that
the writings were veritably the Word of God. How the divine
Spirit operated in either case Paul does not say. The fact and its
consequences he unmistakably affirms.

I have purposely omitted any appeal to the Epistle to the
Hebrews because its authorship is disputed even by evangelical
scholars. If, however, it was not written by Paul, it is certainly
the utterance of Pauline ideas. When, then, we find in it the
Psalmist’s words quoted, “ To-day if ye will hear his voice,” with
this formula, “ as the Holy Ghost saith ” — and when we observe
further that the writer’s argument turns in great part on the use in
the psalm of the word “ to-day ” — we are made doubly sure that
our interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of Scripture is correct, and
that he held it in common with the other Christian teachers of the
apostolic age.

Such is the account which to the exegetical student Paul renders
of his own inspiration and of that of the Old Testament. That the
same is equally true of the other writings of the New Testament
will hardly be denied by any who accept Paul’s representations. He
recognized the authority of the other apostles as of the same nature
with his own, and the books which they wrote or gave to the
Church must stand on the same level with his or the whole Pauline
doctrine of inspiration be given up. He nowhere affirms, be it
noted, that inspiration was confined to the apostles, and his recogni-
tion of Christian prophets — as when he declares the Church to be
built “ on the foundation of apostles and prophets ” — would seem to
imply the contrary. But he does make the apostles infallible
teachers and the authorized founders of the Church. Those writ-
ings therefore which, though not written by apostles, were accepted
by the Church from the beginning as part of Scripture, must

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

be regarded as sealed with their authority and therefore also
inspired ; and the fact is that in the following century apostolic
authority — direct or indirect — was the express ground on which
the books of the New Testament were received by the Church.
That even in the apostolic age itself the conception of a New Tes-
tament Scripture had formed, to which the same qualities were
attributed which were held to belong to the Old Testament,
appears incidentally when Paul cites (1 Tim. v. 18) the saying of
our Lord, “ The laborer is worthy of his hire” (Luke x. 7) as a
saying of Scripture, and when Peter in his second epistle refers to
Paul’s epistles under the same title. Those who, partly because of
these expressions, would deny the genuineness of the Pastoral Epis-
tles and of Second Peter must surely fail to realize what Paul’s
teaching on the subject of inspired Scripture really was.

IV. Now it is not my place to condense these exegetical results
into a dogmatic formula, though I think it obvious what that for-
mula should be. I desire to state in conclusion what, I apprehend,
should be the effect of these claims of the Bible on the mind of the
Christian scholar as he approaches its study. I say “ Christian

scholar ” because with such alone we are concerned. It is not likelv

•/

that many of us would devote our lives to the study of the Bible,
were it not for our settled convictions that its teaching is of supreme
value to mankind. But when, in addition to this general convic-
tion, we find it to make such pretensions as I have endeavored to
describe, these cannot but impose special requirements upon the
student.

Certainly he must approach it with peculiar reverence. It is not
like other books. It is not inspired in the sense in which works of
genius or spiritual insight are. In its production God was immedi-
ately and peculiarly concerned. As our Lord is the Son of God in
a sense in which His people are not, though they also in their way
are sons of God, so is the Bible His W ord in a sense which cannot
be affirmed even of those other literary products (of which there
are many), which contain the truth and manifest the divine Spirit.
Such is the Bible’s oWn account of itself, and if we may not accept
its account of itself, why should we care to ascertain its account of
other things?

So it is hardly possible for one who realizes this to go to the study
of it in the same mental attitude in which he would approach other
literature. He is dealing with a body which is, he has reason to
believe, in all its parts quick with divine thought and life ; and he
cannot use his lens and scalpel on it with ordinary emotions.

He would, however, utterly misapprehend its character and
claims, if his reverence were blind or unintelligent. The inspired

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Word pretends to be in every sense a living thing, and to enter into
its secrets the student must himself be alive, both intellectually
and morally. He is very far from dealing with a mechanical pro-
duct. In its doctrines and its words, in its substance and its form,
in its historical genesis and in its proclamation of eternal truths the
Bible is an organism — with its roots running down into the history,
the language, the social, mental and religious activity both of the
Hebrews and of the greater world about them — while yet its
molding, forming principle is derived from above. As I have
said, Paul nowhere describes the method by which the divine Spirit
operated in himself or in the prophets to produce the Scripture. It
is only the fact and the consequences to which he bears his testi-
mony. The method we must judge, so far as may be possible, from
the phenomena. These point to a complex process, wherein many
subordinate agents were made to cooperate with the immediate ex-
ercise of divine power. Out of the matrix of a divinely guided
history was this divine-human book born, and our very faith in its
complete divine vitality should make us eager to apprehend every
human element which entered into its being. Through the form
alone can we reach the substance ; through the words the thought ;
through the historical the doctrinal ; through the human the
divine. Every element of this complex literary product acquires
new interest when we believe that through them all we are brought
into contact with the process in and by which God has revealed
Himself and His will to men.

At the same time his reverence for the finished product will keep
the student cautious and humble in his judgments. He will not
expect to understand everything about the construction of the Bible.
He will not be staggered if he finds in it statements which he can-
not yet comprehend, or phenomena which he cannot yet explain.
He will assuredly trust its statements when they are clearly ascer-
tained. If his reverence be intelligent and his examination be
critical, as they certainly ought to be, both his intelligence and his
criticism will recognize that the character of the subject examined
sets obvious limitations upon their exercise.

1. But to be more specific, the Bible’s account of itself will im-
press upon the student the great importance of ascertaining by valid
processes the original text. We know enough of the history of
the New Testament text to perceive that in all that is required for
the correct ascertainment of Christian doctrine and duty, God has
“by singular care and providence kept it pure through all ages.”
Nevertheless, the student will want to secure as nearly as possible
an absolute reproduction of the original, that he may apprehend
the precise thought of the inspired penman even in its smallest

ST. PAUL AND INSPIRATION.

details. The Bible’s account of itself would seem to provide the
strongest incentive to tbe study of textual criticism.

2. The same reason also will stimulate to tbe most exact and
painstaking exegesis. To one who accepts the Bible’s account of
itself, no question, even of grammatical structure, will appear with-
out importance. The usage of words, their origin and their recep-
tiveness of Scriptural thought, the laws governing literary
composition of this and of that kind, will be investigated by him
with new zeal. Everything will be valued which will enable him
to grasp the precise shade of thought in the section before him. It
would be an immense mistake for him to become a careless exegete,
or to fancy that, because its verbal forms are inspired, he is not to
strive to grasp the very thought which is in them — or to suppose
that because in all its parts it is inspired, be is not carefully to
observe from it the proportion of truth and to grasp its teach-
ing as a whole — or to allow his spiritual fancy to interpret
Scripture as the exigencies of the pulpit may seem to require. This
was the fault of much of exegesis in the ancient Church ; and
though it was based on a correct doctrine of Scripture, and was
meant to do honor to the inspired Word, it wrought for ages injury
to the truth, and hid, while it pretended to unfold, the Word of God.
We should rather conclude from the inspiration of Scripture, that
every statement of it is to be apprehended with precise accuracy
— is to be seen to be just what it exactly is, if the divine thought in
it and the relation of its thought to others, and so the complex
thought of the whole, are to be really learned. They who accept
and teach a wholly inspired Bible ought to count no labor too great
to ascertain, by the use of every critical instrument as well as by
devout sympathy with both the human and the divine authors, the
exact meaning of the book.

3. And then, building on precise exegesis, interpreting according
to the natural rules of the various kinds of literary composition,
the student will move through the Bible from its beginning to its
close — feeling his way, as it were, from fibre to fibre, from part to
part of this living organism — until he approaches to an apprehen-
sion of it as a whole, perceives its structural unfolding and its vital
principle, and is thus enabled to enter into the fullness of its content.
Such a student should not be surprised, if he discover that elements,
historical or verbal or doctrinal, which enter into the structure of
the Bible, had a previous existence of their own. There is an econ-
omy observable in all God’s operations whereby He uses existing
materials for new purposes rather than creates similar ones, and the
entirely unmechanical view of inspiration which we have gleaned
from the Bible makes it even probable that in some cases (for

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

example in the Synoptic gospels) a valid literary criticism may dis-
cern preexisting materials. But the student who accepts the Bible
account of itself must admit that only as incorporated in the Scrip-
ture can such materials be affirmed to be inspired ; and while such
investigations may interest and instruct him, he will feel it to be
his chief duty to apprehend aright the teaching of the Bible itself.
He will feel that only by entering into its thought, as that is pro-
gressively unfolded in the Bible, will he be able to use the book for
the supreme purposes for which it claims to have been given.

Prixceton.

George T. Purves.

II.

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOT-
LAND.

TWO years ago the late Principal Cairns wrote for this journal
an article in which he gave a very interesting account of
“ Recent Dogmatic Thought in Scotland.” In doing that, however,
he did not say much of our present theological drifts, and a supple-
mentary paper referring to these may not be unacceptable.

Dr. Cairns, in his review, dwelt largely on the teaching of Dr.
Smeaton and Dr. W. Lindsay Alexander, both of whom are dead.
But it is rather a notable fact that there are still living among us
quite a number of men whose books have told almost as influentially
as tbeirs on the generation. In the Established Church, for exam-
ple, are Caird, Flint, Milligan, Matheson, Robertson and Gloag; in
the Free Church are Brown, Rainy, Davidson, Bruce, Dods, Salmond,
Laidlaw, G. A. Smith, Stalker and Drummond ; in the United Presby-
terian Church are Hutchison, Whitelaw, Orr, R. A. Watson, Mair
and John Smith ; while in the smaller denominations are Morison of
the Evangelical Union, Principal Simon of the Congregational Col-
lege, and Dr. Landells of the Baptists. These are not mere figure-
heads. They are men of ability and power, and all of them have
contributed something towards the formation of theological opin-
ion in their country. Nor is the list given in the least an exhaustive
one. It would be easy to enlarge it by including additional writers
whose reputation is very much more than respectable.

Various explanations have been offered of the literary activity
which characterizes the time. The critical controversy which a few
years ago stirred our churches so profoundly, has had undoubtedly
something to do with it ; and a good deal also is due to the lecture-
ships which have been founded here — the Cunningham, Blair and
Croall, and to the scheme of Handbooks which has been carried on
now for so many years under the editorship of Drs. Whyte and
Dods. In connection with these, voices have been heard which
would otherwise have remained silent, and contributions have been
made of no small value towards the exposition of Scripture and the
elucidation of subjects connected with theology.

As to our present attitude it does not seem to me that the spirit

26 TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

of change has yet gone very deep. There are strong evangelistic
currents flowing through the country, and wherever these appear a
distinct determination is manifested to keep by the old paths. In
such connections the authority of the whole Bible is asserted with
even an impatient emphasis, and the doctrine of substitution is pro-
claimed without circumlocution or reserve. It is also notable that
the evangelical faith is taught in the most explicit terms in all our
recent commentaries, in Dr. Gloag’s books, in Denney’s Thcssa-
lonians, in MacPherson’s Ephesians , and in Dr. Dods’ St. John ; and
although instances occur every now and then which indicate the
existence of doubts as to the inerrancy of Scripture and the trust-
worthiness of the traditional views of inspiration, what is said is ad-
vanced so gently as to imply a still prevalent belief in the orthodoxy
of the masses. The demand for the gospel in the pulpit also con-
tinues. An eloquent man will attract an audience in an}^ large town,
whatever he preaches; but no solid congregation can be established -
which hears little or no mention of Christ and Him crucified.

An illustration of the strength of the conservative element which
exists among us is being supplied in the reception given to the De-
claratory Act passed by the last General Assembly of the Free
Church. The Act is certainly not an extreme one, and it is not im-
posed upon any man. If a wish is expressed to accept the Confes-
sion of Faith without any qualification, no objection whatever will
be offered. The Act has been issued simply to remove the diffi-
culties of some who feel that more or less is made of certain truths
than is necessary or desirable, and whose consciences are somewhat
troubled by the character of the language used. No change pro-
fesses to be made in the doctrine of the Confession. The Act is what
it holds itself to be, not legislative but declaratory. Nevertheless a
strong outcry has been raised against it, and threats of civil action
are being made if the Church refuses to go back upon its proceed-
ings. Nor is this agitation confined to the Highlands. Lowland
ministers in good repute have joined in it, and their doing so shows
that whatever movement “ forward ” or “ downward ” may take
place, it will not be made without strenuous opposition and protest.

How to be at once orthodox and fair-minded has become one of
the problems of the time. Very honest attempts were made in the
Confession of Faith Committee to solve that problem, but the suc-
cess achieved has not been remarkable. In one point, it is possible
there may be some excuse for the alarm which has been occasioned.
One of the articles claims for the Church the right to determine from
time to time what shall be allowed in the way of diversity of opinion.
The claim seems at first sight to put the Confession under the General
Assembly, and to make adhesion to its articles dependent on the

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

varying opinions of successive generations. Such a clause, it is
argued, may on the one hand cover the greatest laxity, or on the
other be used as an instrument of the grossest tyranny. In a time
of uncommon strictness a man may be deposed for refusing to be-
lieve in the literal six days of creation, just as in a latitudinarian
age he may deny the resurrection of Christ and yet retain his place
as a Professor. The answer of course is that things will always go in
that way, whether express provision is made for it or not. If the
Church chooses (and it will always so choose when it has become cold
and indifferent), heresy will be winked at ; while if a time of extraor-
dinary sensitiveness comes, men will be prosecuted for trifles if the
law seems to allow it. The question remains whether it was wise
to put such a clause into the Act; and those, perhaps, are right who
plead that the points which it is judged right at present to hold
open should have been particularly specified. Anyhow, here is a
fairly tangible grievance and the conservative party have not been slow
to take advantage of it.

Speaking more particularly of our theological drifts, we may say
that the most ominous, and certainly the most observable of recent
trends, is in the direction of what may be called the disintegration of
the Scriptures. The process began in a marked way, so far as Scotland
is concerned, when, in 1876, there appeared in the Encyclopsedia
Britannica the famous article, “Bible.” Previously to that, the Old
and New Testaments were almost universally regarded as a unit,
and their inspiration was held to be so real and complete that all
their utterances were submitted to as bejmnd appeal. Now in vari-
ous quarters the Book is treated with a freedom which could not be
greater if it were believed to be of human composition only ; and
the result is that it has come to be thought of, by nobody knows
how many, as artificial in the highest degree, the history of the
Church given in it being, for one thing, entirely different from what
it appears to be. At the same time its several parts are taken to
pieces and remorselessly shown to be at variance with one another.
The law of evolution is not even respected in the review. What
the Synoptical gospels say, is accepted as final without listening to
St. John, and no advance is recognized as having been made in the
epistles. '■'•Back to Christ /” in fact has become aery which im-
plies a reaction from St. Paul ; and the question of what is truth has
got to be one infinitely more difficult to answer than it has ever
been since the introduction of Chi’istianity. What increases the,_
wonder, in this connection, is that many of those who believe in the
Bible as being in this state of chaos continue to regard it as having-
come from a divine mind.

But, it will be said, these are simply the conclusions of the Higher

■28 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Criticism. So they are ; but this is a fact, that while there are few,
if any, of our Scottish theologians who have reached the position
of Canon Cheyne, for example, the influence of the Higher Criti-
cism has unquestionably been such as to have materially affected
our whole theological position.

Driver’s Introduction , for instance, is published in Scotland,
and one of the editors of the series of which it is the pioneer is a
Scottish Professor. Some of our readers, also, may recollect the sen-
sation produced in the Presbyterian Alliance in London, when
Dr. Dods, one of our best, ablest and most evangelical preachers,
frankly proclaimed it to be his opinion that to maintain the iner-
rancy of Scripture is to encourage infidelity. Dr. Dods’ own posi-
tion is not really an extreme one. When confronted by his College
Committee he gave such explanations as showed that he had been
impelled by his own honesty and sincerity into concessions the full
■effect of which he had not considered. But it was easy to guess
what was likely to be the consequence of the lead taken by such a
man, and among our younger ministers there are now not a few
who regard the 11 errancy ” of Scripture as having been demon-
strated.

For example, in a very sober and thoughtful book* written by a
disciple of Dr. Dods and published about two years ago, the famil-
iar position that the Bible is infallible only when it is revealing
spiritualities is contended for at great length and with evident ear-
nestness. “ Partial as well as plenary inspiration,” says the author,
“is what we should expect to find in the Bible. Inevitably there
is much in it that is human. Inevitably the human element is
present in it with great manifoldness and variety. Inevitably
there are manj^ things in it that are purely incidental to the history,
the character, and the designs of the divine revelation, and to hold
that the flood of inspiration streams through all the channels of
such phenomena, would be contrary alike to the facts of the Bible,
to the dictates of reason and to the ways of God.”

Mr. Thomson is a Free Church minister. Another book has
more recently appeared, written by one of the younger ministers of
the Establishment — Mr. Lindsay, of Kilmarnock — which takes up
the same position. Mr. Lindsay has evidently read a great deal
and has thought to some purpose, but his style is provokingly pre-
tentious. Speaking of what has been attained by modern Christian
^thought in the connection of which we are now speaking, he says:f
“ There has been achieved a progress in the correct apprehension of

* Revelation and the Bible. By Rev. W. J. Thomson, M. A. Edinburgh, 1890.

f The Progressiveness of Modern Christian Thought. By James Lindsay, B.D.
Edinburgh, 1892.

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

the divine element in Biblical inspiration, for with intensified real-
ity as the source and spring of the heavenly impulse, the divine
element now shines out behind the human as the latter is illustrated,
though without detriment to the fitness of Scripture as the instru-
ment of our instruction in the truth of God, amongst other ways
in defects of language and of style, and in imperfection of knowledge
or inaccuracy of statement with respect to matters of historic as of
scientific fact. In so viewing inspiration in respect of the subtle
interrelation of its divine and human elements, modern Christian
theology claims to be more accordant with truth and more corre-
spondent with reality than was the old rigid theory of an absolute
inerrancy in the Scriptures, with the mischievous consequences
which followed therefrom.”

The italics are ours. It is there indicated that we are not to
rely on the history of the Bible any more than on its science, and
we know how far that principle may lead. Its disintegrating tend-
ency is so great that already a large part of the Old Testament has
been emptied of all significance, and if the New Testament narra-
tives do not also go, by and by, they will not be protected by
their “inspiration.”

It is a very plausible theory that of finding in the Bible a divine
element in the shape of spiritual instruction, and of discovering
that element by the help of the testimonium Spiritus Sanctus. But
if for distinguishing the supernatural feature dependence is to be
placed on the testimony of the Spirit, it is plain that the best quali-
fication for receiving the light must be piety, and the most effective
means for securing it ought to be prayer. Without any lack of
charity, however, we may be permitted to question whether our
greatest critics have been our greatest saints, and their ability to
help us in this connection may therefore be doubted. Learning
may detect in the Book the presence of the human alloy, but a
mere scholar will be but a blind guide if we look to him to learn
what fundamental truth has been revealed. It is clear, on their
own showing, that the religious wants of the world will be poorly
met if we are to look to the critics. At the best the utmost that
can be said for them is that they are engaged in an interesting
enterprise. They have been of use, also, in promoting the more
careful study of the Scriptures. But if the main distinction of the
Bible is that it is the revelation of God’s will to a lost world, we
must look to others than themselves to help us to understand it.

One fact, however, remains to be mentioned which is not a little
interesting. It is that from a Scottish scholar and theologian has
recently come the book which the Higher Critics themselves have
been compelled to recognize as demanding a most serious answer

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

from them. It is that on the early religion of Israel by Prof.
Robertson, of Glasgow.* The critics make tbe Hebrew history
begin virtually with the prophets. Dr. Robertson takes up two of
* the prophets — those whose ministry is universally admitted to
have been early — Amos and Hosea ; and he shows that they had
traditions of their country’s past identical with those of the Bible
history, and that they recognized in the institutions of their nation
a stage of development much more advanced than criticism assumes
to have been possible. The publication of this important work is
regarded as a sign that a reaction is beginning against the destruc-
tive school, and the hope is now entertained that fresh discoveries
of a similar kind will be made if investigations are prosecuted
along the same line in other books of the Old Testament.

It is satisfactory to know that such a man as Dr. Stalker is
among the number of those who are taking a stand on the conserv-
ative side. Such a slavish spirit is abroad of submission to “the
Specialists,” as they claim to be called, that a number of perfectly
competent men are actually afraid to have or express an independ-
ent opinion. Dr. Stalker is a man whom no one can pretend to
undervalue. If he errs it is not through ignorance or inability to
understand the situation. And something like a pause has been
produced by his being heard to say that, in his opinion, the destruc-
tive theories of the Old Testament may, by and by, explode just
as the Tubingen illusions did.

But another subject growing out of this last has been exercising
the minds of thoughtful men in Scotland as elsewhere, viz., that of
the constitution of the Person of Christ. Questions as to this point
have inevitably been raised in connection with the views which
have become current about the Old Testament. Moses may not
have written a line of the Pentateuch, David may not have been
the author of a single Psalm, and there may have been little or no
prediction in the Prophets, but it is certain that quite different im-
pressions from these are conveyed to us by the New Testament, and
the inquiry according!}*- is forced upon us: How are the utterances
of Jesus Christ to be explained ? Was He ignorant of the compo-
sition of tbe Bible, or did He really know about it and deliberately
give countenance to the popular delusions for reasons of His own ?
There is a strong disposition abroad to account for the phenomenon
by the first hypothesis, and hence the need for a particular theory
of His Person.

A series of papers on this subject by Bishop Ellicott has been ap-
pearing in a journal which has already achieved a considerable repu-

* The Early Religion of Israel. By James Robertson,' D.D., Professor of Ori-
ental Languages in the University of Glasgow. Edinburgh, 1892.

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

tation among us, The Expository Times. It was established a few
years ago in Aberdeen by a young country minister, the Rev.
James Hastings, and Mr. Hastings still conducts it, although it has
been transferred to Edinburgh. The Bishop is, of course, an Eng-
lishman, but he appeals specially to Scotchmen; and the interest
with which his articles have been read testifies to the amount of
attention which is being given here to the subject which he dis-
cusses. He argues strongly against the theory of Christ’s ignorance.
Referring to the question of whether an appeal to Christ about the
Old Testament is legitimate, he contends that it is impossible to be-
lieve that He did not know what He was saying, considering that
He possessed a sinless nature, of which “ divine illumination ” has
always been held to be a leading grace ; that at a certain time He
was anointed with the Spirit in superabundant measure ; and that
“ in the unity of His person two whole and perfect natures are in-
divisible and yet unconfusedly united and coexistent.” As to the
other theory, that Christ did know but accommodated Himself to
the popular illusions, the Bishop holds that to suppose “that He
who was the Truth and the Light, as well as the Way, could have
taught in reference to God’s Holy Word ” unrealities, “ out of def-
erence to the prejudices or the ignorance of His hearers, is utterly
inconceivable.”

The importance of this controversy is, we may say, only begin-
ning to be realized. It is hardly possible not to see in it a trend
more or less direct towards Unitarianism. Of this, a warning is
given in a review of Mr. Gore on the Incarnation by one of the most
scholarly of our young Professors, Dr. Iverach, of Aberdeen. Re-
ferring to such philosophical views of the Trinity as that which
speaks of the doctrine as “ a rational and sublime theory of the
universe — God in nature, God in history, and God in the individual,”
he says, “ It does seem as if the great battle of the immediate future
will be against such theories as these, theories which seem to accept
the facts in a sense and which yet explain them away altogether."
Some ominous concessions which have recently been made at the
Oxford Summer School in regard to the miraculous conception
seem to point towards the need for special wakefulness in this con-
nection.

It ought to be added, however, that there is another direction
towards which speculations about the Person of Christ are pointing.
The idea is being pressed that we have been making too much of
the words, “ Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and
blood, he also himself took part of the same, that through death he
might destroy him that had the power of death;” and that in point
of fact, the Son was made flesh not with an eye to the atonement,

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

but in conformity with the great law of development in the universe.
The theory is, of course, not a new one by any means, but fresh
prominence has been given to it lately by the advocacy of Dr. Dale,
and Mr. Lindsay actually speaks of it as one of the things which
have been attained in modern Christian theology. “ When Chris-
tian thought,” he says, “ impinges on the mystery of the incarna-
tion, most mysterious of doctrines within the compass of Christian
truth, it no longer is to view it as an isolated wonder, a passing
episode in the history of the race, or a divine afterthought conse-
quent on man’s transgression, but as an event charged with a sig-
nificance fundamental, cosmical, eternal, as in fact the fitting goal
of all the world’s antecedent evolution, the crown, climax and com-
pletion of all things — the groanings of the natural, the yearnings of
the intellectual and the aspirations of the moral world. For He, in
whose becoming flesh through the Word that man might be de-
livered from the power of sin lay all future issues of the faith, had
been present since the beginning as the eternal Word — the indwelling
Spirit and sustaining Life of all things, but only in the incarnation do
we see the perfect synthesis of the infinite and the finite.”* We do
not know how far Mr. Lindsay is justified in giving to this
speculation (for it is nothing more) the place he assigns to it. Prof.
Candlish, of Glasgow, one of the soundest of our dogmatic theolo-
gians, whose Cunningham lectures on the Kingdom of God have not
received the attention they deserve, has formally called it in ques-
tion. But it is just one of those theories which are calculated to
captivate the fancy of the age with its love for philosophic expatia-
tion, and it is likely enough to meet with increasing acceptance.

About the Work of Christ, the only book recently published here
which makes any pretension to originality is Prof. Milligan’s second
series of Baird lectures. + One of the points which he discusses,
and on the importance of which he largely insists, is that the priest-
hood of Christ began with His glorification, of which His being
lifted upon the cross was a part. Christ then made an offering of
Himself to God, and His function as a priest in heaven is not that of
intercession only but that of the constant presentation of that offer-
ing to His Father. Pointing out that atonement, under the law,
was found not in death for sin, but in the use made afterwards of the
blood that was shed, Dr. Milligan represents the ascended Saviour
as engaged in the perpetual exercise of that function of the priest-
hood which it is customary to describe as ending with His ascension.
“The thought of ‘Offering’ on the part of our Lord,” he says, “is

* The P'ogressivmess of Modern Christian Thought, pp. 106, 107.

f The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord. By William Milligan.
D.D. London, 1892.

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

not to be confined to His sacrificial death ; it is so to be extended as
to include in it a present and eternal offering to God of Himself in
heaven. What He offered on the cross, what He offers now, is
His life — a life unchangeable not only in its general character as life,
but in the particular character given to it by the experience through
which He passed.”

Another thing which Dr. Milligan discusses is the nature of the gift
which was purchased for His Church by the blood of Christ. It is
usual to describe it simply as that of the Holy Spirit, the Third Per-
son in the Godhead. But the Professor enters into an elaborate
argument to prove that it is something distinctive. It is the Holy
Spirit “ as mediated through the Son,” “ as He entered into, took
possession of and perfected the human nature of our Lord.” What
is precisely meant by this it is not very easy to make clear, and one
objection suggests itself at once, viz., that the doctrine seems to imply
something like the incarnation of the Holy Ghost. But Dr. Milli-
gan does not shrink from that objection. He holds that the incar-
nation of the Second Person in the Trinity must in some way have
affected all the members, and that when the Spirit “ penetrating and
filling all the properties of that human nature which the living
Lord possesses ” is bestowed, He comes, “ to use the words of Archer
Butler, with a superadded tincture of celestialized humanity.” This
sounds a good deal like the dream of a devout imagination, and
the Scriptural basis for it does not appear to be a very solid one,
but with all that, the theory may be admitted to have so much to
say for itself as to be entitled to a hearing.

A third point to which Dr. Milligan calls attention and to which
he devotes an elaborate Note in his Appendix, is that of so presenting
the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as to shield
it from the charge of tending to promote antinomianism. He
quotes the late Principal Cunningham as emphasizing “ union to
Christ” as the condition on which the imputation proceeds, and he
then goes on to say : “ The words of this extract, ‘ through union to
Christ,’ imply much more than a mere outward relationship
between Christ and the believer at the moment when Christ’s
righteousness is imputed. Union, by its own nature, supposes in
the case of living persons an internal movement — a movement of
the heart of man towards Christ — and a communication, to some
extent at least, of the affections of Christ to man. Imputation of
Christ's righteousness thus follows and does not precede our union to
Christ , and it becomes an expression not for that by which we are
saved (for we are saved by union to Christ), but for that by which
an absolutely holy and righteous God is enabled to deal with us as
though we had, what we have not, the perfect righteousness which
3

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the Lord requires.” Dr. Milligan thinks that here a means of rec-
onciliation is offered between Roman and Protestant theologies.
“The Roman Church maintains that the meritorious cause of justi-
fication is our Lord Jesus Christ, who by His own most sacred pas-
sion on the cross merited justification for us and satisfied the Father
in our room ; and however unhappily it introduces confusion into
the subject by its definition of the formal cause of the same great
act of God, confusion is not contradiction. It may be removed by a
proper definition of terms and a fuller consideration of what those
employing them intended them to convey.”

On the Atonement not much that is fresh has recently appeared
in Scotland. Principal Simon’s Discussions are able and well
informed, but they are critical rather than constructive. The
jubilee, ho'wever, which has just been held here of the Evangelical
Union Church reminds us that within the last fifty years our atti-
tude in this connection has somewhat changed. In 1842, Dr.
Morison, with whose exegetical works everybody is now acquainted,
was deposed by the United Secession Church because he taught the
doctrine of the universality of the atonement. It is not the case
that all have come round to his way of thinking, but this is
undoubtedly true that most of those who cast him out are now
ready to admit that the atonement has a universal aspect and that
possibly the deposition wrould not have taken place if there had
been a more careful definition of terms.

But apart from that, there is a tendency on this line which
is becoming more and more pronounced among us, to acknowledge
redemption as procurable only through the sacrifice of Christ, but to
recognize no particular theory of redemption as being exclusively
true. An illustration of wrhat we refer to occurred some two years
ago, when charges were made in the General Assembly of the Free
Church against Dr. Marcus Dods. Dr. Dods is himself one of our
most orthodox teachers. All who know him well have the most
entire faith in his acceptance of the evangelical system. But he
has had a great deal to do in his day with apologetics. He knows
better than most wrhat can be said “ on the other side,” and
he is well aware how much error can coexist with very real
Christian earnestness. Being, moreover, an exceedingly fair-minded
man, who is always anxious to think the best of those who differ
from him, he allows himself sometimes to speak in a way which
seems to suggest that he has slipped from the old moorings. That
was the inference which was not unnaturally drawn when, in
a public sermon addressed to men of science, he was found uttering
such sentiments as the following: “We must not too hastily con-
clude that even a belief in Christ’s divinity is essential to the true

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

Christian.” “ If any one finds it impossible to believe in the bodily
resurrection of Christ, but easy to believe in His present life and
power, it would only be mischievous to require in him a faith he
could not give.” “ If we are accepting Ood's forgiveness and living
in the sunshine of His favor we need not be seriously disturbed in
spirit if we find that we cannot accept what is known as the orthodox
doctrine of the atonement .” It is not to be wondered at that the
public utterance of sentiments like these caused a commotion. But
in the end all that came out of the inquiry instituted was that Dr.
Dods had been too catholic. He himself believes in the divinity
of Christ and in the resurrection and in the orthodox doctrine of the
atonement, but he was anxious to preserve the scientists whom he
addressed from going off into blank unbelief, and in his eagerness to
save some of them he stretched out his hand further than he was
warranted to do. How many there may be who would be willing
to go the length with him of making the first two concessions, it
would be difficult to say, but in regard to the third point we may
speak confidently. The number is now very great of those who
think it immaterial to hold the orthodox doctrine of the atonement
and who do not hesitate to say so in the pulpit and elsewhere.

In not a few cases, especially in the Established Church, other
specific theories more or less openly prevail. The influence of Dr.
Macleod Campbell (which was so fully and frankly acknowledged
by Dr. Norman Macleod) continues to be great. Principal Caird’s
teaching has also told extensively, and Mr. Lindsay probably
represents truly enough the state of things in his own communion
when he speaks of modern Christian thought as having attained a
conception of the atonement, which if not sound, has at least
a distinctly philosophical sough about it. “ The question of the
Atonement,” he says,* “or rather of reconciliation, has occupied
its place in modern Christian theology, where it has been studied in
a more historic and inductive spirit, less as a theory than as a stu-
pendous and affecting fact — particular theories of an artificial and
methodical character having been cast off as a slough ; and it has
borne less of a forensic or materialistic representation because
viewed less in its mysterious and unfathomable relations to God
than in its ethical import and practical effect upon the soul of man.”

So much is said nowadays about the “ethical” nature of
religion, and such stress is laid upon “ life ” as the only sure evi-
dence of its truth, that the question of what sanctification is, and
how it may be obtained, has become one of almost supreme impor-
tance. It is doubtful, however, whether that modern Christian
thought which claims to be specially “progressive” has yet

* Progressiveness of Modern Christian Thought, p. 119.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

concerned itself very mucli about the matter. The “life” which
it most urgently demands is the humanitarianism which is
expected to renew the face of the earth. But among another class
of persons who are not in the least “ progressive ” in the technical
sense, the subject is being discussed in a very earnest way, and a
special system has been propounded which cannot be overlooked in
a review such as the present. We refer to the teaching which
is becoming widely known as connected with the name of Keswick.
Keswick is a small town in the Lake district of England, in which
for some years past there has been held an annual convention for
promoting the higher Christian life. The convention has become
extraordinarily popular and people gather to it from all parts of
the United Kingdom. Its spiritual influence seems to be very
great. Instances are constantly occurring of men going up to
attend it in a state of comparative indifference and returning on
fire ; and indeed the good effects which follow from it are now so
well understood that arrangements are made for bands of students
going up to its meetings, in the hope that they may come back with
a blessing. For example, last June no fewer than forty were
present from the New College, Edinburgh, under the direction of
one of the Professors — Dr. Laidlaw — and the results are said to
have been most satisfactory. Dr. Blaikie refers to the expedition
in his Old Country Letters to the New York Observer , and says : “At
a testimony meeting held at the end, many of the students rose up
and not only testified to the impression that had been made on
them, but did so in a way that carried a sense of reality to
all who heard them. The leading speakers at the convention came
on different days to the dining tent (the student company from
Edinburgh lived in tents during the meetings) and the general testi-
mony was that at no previous Keswick meeting had anything of
the kind been known. I am thankful to take note of this, as an
impression has arisen in some quarters that our Free Church
students are departing from the old lines and that the Free Church
is no longer the earnest spiritual Church she was. What I have
now said shows that the glory has not yet quite departed from our
academic Israel. Last session a student telling my wife what they
were about, summed up emphatically: ‘In fact, the New College is
just a hotbed of orthodoxy ! ”’ It is of the Free Church that Dr.
Blaikie here specially speaks; but the Keswick influence has been
no less felt within the Established Church. One of the leading
men of the convention — Ur. Elder Cumming — is a minister in that
Church, and at least the year before last showed more representa-
tives of the same communion at Keswick than of any other
denomination in Scotland. That the United Presbyterian Church

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

is equally affected, there is, as we shall immediately see, good cause
for believing.

It will have been noticed that “ orthodoxy ” and the Keswick
teaching are assumed by the student of New College to be
identical. But this is exactly what some very earnestly question.
At the convention the speakers are mostly all of a certain class —
strong “revivalists,” with, in general, a belief in the premillennial
advent, and animated with a passionate desire to see more life and
color and vivacity appearing in the every-day behavior of Christian
men. With this aim many have, of course, the heartiest sympathy,
but a strong tinge of perfectionism having been observed in some of
the addresses, the conclusion was come to pretty universally that
that ism is an essential feature in the accepted teaching of the place.
This, however, has now been strenuously denied, and except, it is said,
in one case, nothing was said at the last convention which could give
any countenance to the charge.

But that Keswick has a creed of its own is admitted ; and in view
of the influence which it is coming to have on our Scottish churches
it is desirable to ascertain, if possible, what that is. Fortunately
we find some help in the pages of the United Presbyterian Maga-
zine, where a controversy has been waged on this very subject by
two most competent writers.

The controversy was begun in January, 1892, by Mr. Jerdan, of
Greenock, who, taking. Dr. Boardman’s Higher Christian Life as
the starting-point of his remarks, argued with great sobriety and
ability against the views of sanctification taken by the school which
that book is supposed to represent. These views are summed up as
follows by Dr. Elder Cumming, who speaks of them as “ the chief
points in the Keswick teaching: (1) The duty of absolute surren-
der of the will to God ; (2) The acceptance by faith of fullness of
blessing from God ; (3) The assurance that Christ can keep the
soul that trusts in Him in a state of purity ; (4) That He can give
perfect peace amidst the cares of life ; (5) That it is possible to
live ever in the presence of God ; (6) That failure is to be met by
instant confession, return and rest ; and (7) That the fullness of the
Holy Spirit in the Christian heart is an experience that may be
daily known.” Mr. Jerdan contends that in this enumeration there
is a serious defect. “ Holiness,” he says, “ does not consist merely
in self-surrender, but also in new obedience and in the doing of
righteousness ;” and he insists that the new school fails to dwell as it
should on the necessity of personal effort as an indispensable means
of sanctification. He also strongly objects to the entrance on the
higher life being marked as the period of a “second conversion.”
“Everywhere,” he says, “the sacred writers recognize the fact that

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

sanctification can only be actually attained by the painstaking cul-
tivation of sound moral habits. It is not to be reached by a suc-
cession of leaps and bounds, still less by only one decisive act of
self-surrender. Speedy sanctification may be possible, but certainly
it is most exceptional. The believer’s earthly work is to sow acts
and reap habits, and to sow habits and reap character. The godly
man is to proceed in the strength of his union to Christ, and in re-
liance upon the divine promises from one grace of the Christian
character to another, each particular grace being an instrument by
which that which follows it is wrought out. The method of sanc-
tification is ‘ more and more.’ ”

Mr. Jerdan proceeds to argue that this description of the growth
of holiness is consistent not only with Scripture, but with common
sense and the experience of God’s people. The law of gradual
development, he says, is to be seen in operation everywhere, and
“ the higher the organism in the scale of life the more leisurely will
it grow ; in fact, extraordinarily rapid developments are not in
general satisfactory.” And he speaks of the school he criticises as
tending to produce “ a dreamy, sentimental piety, which only befits
the cloister.” These views of his, he holds, have been illustrated
in the experience of the greatest saints. “ The great lights of the
Latin Church, the Augustines and Bernards and Fenelons were
humble, struggling, penitent believers even to the last, and in more
modern times we have Bunvan picturing his ideal Christian, not
only as a pilgrim, but as a soldier armed cap-d,-pie."

Such was the position taken upon one side of the controversy ;
but it was not long left uncontested. In the very next number of
the magazine there appeared the first of three papers by the Rev.
John Smith which may be taken to contain the best account of the
best side of the Keswick teaching that has yet been published.
Mr. Smith is not unknown in America. He was at Northfield the
summer before last, and those who heard him there must have been
impressed by his fervor and freshness of thought. I have referred
to the interest in Keswick taken by the United Presbyterian
Church. That Church owes that interest greatly to Mr. Smith,
who is a constant speaker in its conventions, and who has done
much to infuse into his own communion an earnest evangelistic spirit.
He begins by complaining of the spirit in which Mr. Jerdan had
taken up the subject — one of suspicion. “ Never,” says Mr. Smith,
“ did I feel more forcibly the word of Pascal, that you must love in
order to know.” He also objects to his account of the origin of
the movement. It was not Boardman who was its pioneer, but
Marshall. And further, he is astonished that, in quoting authori-
ties, Mr. Jerdan makes no reference to such men as Murray, Hop-

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

kins and Meyer, whose writings “ are leavening the minds of
myriads.”

Leaving faultfinding, Mr. Smith agrees with Mr. Jerdan in think-
ing that the doctrine of sanctification has not been as yet conclusively
formulated, and he argues from this that Keswick is not entering
a field which is already fully preoccupied. He then proceeds to
deal with the objection that, in connection with its teaching, the
necessity of personal effort is not insisted on. This charge is em-
phatically denied; the only distinction in the case of himself and
others being that they prefer to work in another strength than
their own. “ I believe,” he says, “ yielding myself up to the
incoming of a divine power, that, with a strength not my own
and in a clearness of light I could never command, I may bring
forth much fruit. The faith of justification precludes works.
The faith of sanctification is the necessary, the unfailing spring of
ceaseless holy activity.” He adds that Mr. Jerdan speaks of the
relation of works to sanctification in a way which is doubtfully
evangelical. Those good works that truly deserve the name are
not our own. “ By the efforts of the flesh, good works cannot be
produced. The flesh cannot think aright, will aright, act aright.
Hence comes the regal place we assign to faith.”

In his second paper Mr. Smith repels the accusation that the
piety produced by this school is dreamy and sentimental. This he
does by showing what the piety springs from and how it is actually
manifesting itself in the lives of those who are under its influence.
In regard to the first point, he speaks of the dissatisfaction which
was felt by many on account of “ the very stunted, barren and joy-
less lives Christians were content to live,” and of their coming to
discover that they were not living up to their privileges. They
found themselves “ in possession of a limitless capital ” — the all-full-
ness that is in Christ — and they were brought to see what was
needed was simply a disposition to receive what was provided.
“ Was it true that by faith — by simply yielding myself in a ‘ wise
passiveness ’—I could receive into me the Holy Spirit, realizing in my
soul the very mind of Christ strengthening me to do His will? Was
it true that moment by moment, while I trusted, I could enjoy this
gracious illumination and power, and that so long as the communi-
cation was kept up and the power of Christ filled me, it was possible
for me to keep on doing God’s will in something of Christ’s spirit
and in the liberty of love — no power of the world or of Satan being
able to make head against the Holy Ghost admitted to possession and
supremacy within the soul ? These and many such questions came
up for consideration. It took time to set them in order, to establish
them on a Scripture foundation, to win for them acceptance. Yes!

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

that work is still going on.” Mr. Smith asks if a religion like that
was likely to bear the character ascribed to it. As to the other
matter, he points to the leading men in the movement as proving by
their activity and devotion to practical work that there is nothing
paralyzing in the creed they have adopted.

The third paper deals with the subject of “ Second Conversion,”
a term which Mr. Smith himself is averse to employ, but in which
he sees a perfectly definite and defensible significance. “ Being the
subject of a great divine change,” he says, “ is one thing ; it is quite

auother thing to realize all that it implies and involves Where

a multitude of believers have shown their immaturity has been in this
— they have not distinguished between the power of natural motive
and divine grace. They have not come utterly to mistrust them-
selves, and so not being as yet persuaded they have no power to
serve God except what by the Spirit He Himself gives, they naturally
gravitate to the lower region of «mere human motive and impulse.”
A perpetual “see-saw ” follows of falling and returning, until they
enter into what appears to them a new truth, although it is “only
the full development and strict application of what they had re-
ceived in conversion,” that “ as they trusted Christ for pardon, so
they must daily, hourly, momentarily trust Him for power.” The
satisfaction thus experienced is unspeakable. “ The joy of Christ’s
indwelling paralleled the joy created by a belief in Christ’s substitu-
tion. The soul rejoices in the prospect of deliverance from old
bonds. Enlightened by the Holy Ghost, it sees with enraptured
eye the unrealized possibilities of the divine life. The new sense
of security, of peace, above all of the possession by the Holy Spirit
of the very mind of Christ, fills the soul Avith an unexampled
bliss.” Mr. Smith allows that these discoveries may take place at
conversion, or may be renewed once and again, but usually the ex-
perience is singular, and it is not surprising that it should be spoken
of as it often is. Properly there are not tAvo conversions, but two sides
of the great conversion work, the one having respect to standing,
the other to life.

These papers by Mr. Smith Avere completed in May, but Mr.
Jerdan’s rejoinder did not appear till October. In it he complains
of the spirit in which he had been answered. The discussion
of such questions, he pleads, ought to be impersonal and dispassion-
ate, and these epithets, he thinks, do not apply to the articles to
which he Avas noAV called upon to reply.

With regard to the origin of the movement, he asks if Mr.
Smith can really have read Marshall’s Gospel Mystery of Sanctifi-
cation. So far from the Keswick movement being “fundamentally
identical ” Avith the theology of that treatise, the treatise nowhere

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

teaches that holiness is to be attained through the habit of simply-
yielding to God or b}r a life of passive surrender ; nor is there any-
thing in the book which countenances the Boardman doctrine
of a second conversion. Mr. Jerdan admits that in the theology
expounded by Mr. Smith there is much unquestionable truth ; but,
he adds, “ what differentiates the school — in addition to the assump-
tion of greater spiritual earnestness on the part of its disciples — is
the exclusively passive attitude which it attributes to the soul in
sanctification, and the tenet that there are only two grades of
spiritual attainment, viz., the ordinary Christian life and the
Higher Christian life.”

In relation to the first point, Mr. Jerdan attributes to Mr. Smith
confusion of thought. Speaking of there being no room for the
activity which has been described as necessary to sanctification, the
latter had said : “ By the efforts of the flesh, good works cannot be

produced Hence comes the regal place we assign to faith.”

But, Mr. Jerdan points out, there is a lack of clear discrimination
of the question at issue. “ It is not the old sinful self that is to be
active and cooperative in sanctification, but the new creature, — the
new man in Christ — who is born not of the flesh but of the Spirit,
and who is sustained and inspired, not by carnal power but by the
grace of God. And we come to the kernel of the matter when we
ask, Is the activity of the new man merely the product of sanctifi-
cation, or is it also a necessary part of the sanctifying process ? ”
“The Catechism teaches that by the divinely given power we
are ‘ enabled’ to do two things — the two things in fact which con-
stitute sanctification — 1 to die unto sin and to live unto righteous-
ness.’ The power is surely given me to be used, and for this
specific purpose. The believer is not a spiritual automaton or
passive recipient of divine power ; he is a living person and there-
fore responsible for the manner in which he uses his power. But if
he does not use it in such a way as to depart from sin and to follow
righteousness, what then ? This is precisely the case of the man
who hid his talent in the earth ; and in this case where will be the
sanctification ? ” Mr. Jerdan closes this section of his argument by
referring to the difference which seems to exist between the
Keswick teaching and Scripture on the subject of the conflict which
the believer has to maintain after conversion. Mr. Smith speaks
of the strain as continuing to be severe ; but others of the school
do not agree with this. Mr. Hopkins affirms that “ the wretched
conflict ceases when the battle is transferred from ourselves to the
Lord,” and Mr. Murray exhorts his hearers “ not to look upon a
life of holiness as a strain and an effort.” Even Mr. Smith himself
thinks of Paul’s portraiture of the Christian in complete armor as

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

suggestive of the rest which comes to the soul from surrender. Mr.
Jerdan’s idea of a soldier, on the other hand, when he is seen armed
cap-d-pie, is that of coming battle and danger ; and Mr. Smith’s
conception appears to him only a fresh illustration of “ the general
bewilderment which the doctrine of passive sanctification is
producing.”

In regard to “second conversion,” Mr. Jerdan accepts Mr.
Smith’s disclaimer about it, but he accuses him of misrepresenting
the nature of the Christian life when seeking to explain how a new
change comes to be necessary. “ Why,” he asks, “ should any
regenerate soul ‘ naturally gravitate ’ downwards ? And why
should ‘natural motive and impulse’ specially characterize the
early months or years of the new life ? Rather may we not reason-
ably expect that the motive of the new life in Christ will spring
from that life itself? What would be the practical value of the
new life if it did not produce new motives? .... The ‘average
life product ’ of the product of Christianity, drearily described by Mr.
Smith, we do not hesitate to call a caricature of the Christian life.
The person whom he thus describes, if not a backslider — and back-
sliding soon after conversion is by no means the normal course of
the new life — must be a mere professor of religion and has never
been truly converted at all. It involves an un-Scriptural and
erroneous minimizing of regeneration to assert that the ruling
tendency of the life which springs from it is, in its earliest stages, to
move downwards, and to drift further and further from simple trust
until another crisis is reached which shall issue in a second conver-
sion.”

Mr. Jerdan concludes by saying that he is profoundly convinced
that the higher-life movement is in its distinctive features un-Scrip-
tural and thus far unsettling and mischievous, and that the time
may come when the Church may find it necessary to emit a testi-
mony on the subject.

We have given a pretty full account of these articles because they
treat of a subject which promises to become one of increasing
interest and importance, but we do not propose to linger over them
for the purpose of criticising the respective positions which they
maintain. One thing only, we may say, is very clear, viz., that
there is truth on both sides. That the Keswick teachers are right
in lamenting our barren lives and in tracing these up to our
imperfect apprehension of the fullness that is in Christ and to
our failing to surrender ourselves completely to His influence,
very few, if any, will be disposed to question. But, on the other
hand, they are certainly wrong in assuming that the new man is not
according to the laws of his being to act within the spiritual sphere,

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

as the old man acts within the spehre which is natural to him ; and
they are equally mistaken in saying that when we have attained to
the point of self-surrender our condition comes to be that not of
battle but of rest. As a matter of fact we do not see these views
affecting the activities of those who at present represent the school ;
but the tendency of their teaching can scarcely be doubted, and just
as the drift towards perfectionism needs to be kept in check, so also,
in time, will the drift towards Quietism. More, however, than these
evils, worse even than the spiritual pride to which Mr. Jerdan
refers, is the risk of censoriousness which has already been remarked
as an outcome of Keswick, and which some freely speak of as one
of its inevitable issues.

There remains a question which can scarcely be overlooked in
the present review, that of the nature of the gospel which is now
being preached to the Scottish people. Something has been said
on that subject already, and we can scarcely doubt that, to a large
extent, the teaching in our pulpits continues to be evangelical. The
old language may not always be used, other ways of presenting the
truth may be employed, but on the whole there is a setting forth of
Christ and Him crucified.

But a revelation of the existence of other drifts has recently
been made in rather a significant way, and it would be an oversight
not to refer to these. Some two years ago a journal was started in
Glasgow, called The Modern Church. It is edited, practically, by
Mr. Shelley, who has long acted as the correspondent in Scotland
of the London Christian World , but it is understood to be con-
trolled by Prof. Bruce. It is the organ of broad-Churchism,
and through its pages the thoughts of many liberal inquirers have,
from time to time, found expression. Lately it published a letter
signed “A Young Minister,” who wrote as follows:

“ I would ask leave to bring before your readers, in the view of gaining in-
formation, the most important subject of a minister’s duty to the dying. It may
be said that his duty is with the living and that the deathbed is the place for the
doctor rather than the minister, but I think members of a Christian Church
legitimately look to their minister for some light and comfort on these occa-
sions What can he in truth say to those in the near prospect of death ?

He may read a generally appropriate chapter of Scripture and offer up a gener-
ally appropriate prayer, but can he not go further than that? The old evangel-
ical theology was certainly strong at this critical point and left a minister in no
doubt as to what he should say and do. His duly was to preach the doctrine of
justification by faith alone, and to endeavor to get an assent to that doctrine from
the dying, but in the full light of modern thought can we say that all who assent to
that doctrine may die in peace, and all who do not assent to it may die in despair ?
Or are we to leave the soul to silence and to God ?”

The letter seemed rather a melancholy one, and did not say much

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

for the system which modern-thought had led the writer to adopt ;
but it was impossible not to admire its honesty and candor, and the
paper to which it was addressed, recognizing the importance of the
inquiry, sent it for solution to a number of theologians in different
parts of the country.

Of the replies which came in a number were entirely satisfactory.
Dr. Blaikie, for example, wrote expressing his astonishment that
any Scottish minister, however young, should know so little about
the evangelical theology as to imagine that what it asks of the dy-
ing is mere assent to a doctrine. He appealed to the two questions
in the Shorter Catechism, bearing upon the subject — that on Effect-
ual Calling and that on Faith in Jesus Christ. Both, he showed,
present to the sinner as the object of trust, a Liviny Saviour , the
first speaking of our being enabled to “ embrace Jesus Christ freely
offered to us in the Gospel,” the second indicating that we are “ to
receive and rest upon Him for salvation as He is freely offered to
us in the Gospel.” Dr. Stalker answered in the same strain, quot-
ing with approval the method of an old minister : “ I never could
say to an unsaved man, ‘ Christ died for you,’ but I say with all my
heart, ‘ Christ who died is for you.’ ” Others followed, Dr. Hugh
McMillan, Prof. Orr, Dr. Marshall Lang, saying the same things.
But there were some who wrote differently, and of whom all that
we can say is this, that the only gospel they have to preach to sin-
ners consists in the assurance which they think they have a right
to give to every man that God is his Father, or that their views of
the whole matter are too dark and confused to be capable of clear
expression.

One of those whose position it is difficult to understand is the
Bev. John Hunter. He is a Congregational minister in Glasgow,
and he was described in a recent number of The Modern Church
as one of the great preachers of the age. He has not published
much ; the only book of his which is generally known is a volume
of hymns, which be has prepared for use in his own church, and in
which he has shown his tendency — by mutilating some of the finest
compositions in the language. But he attracts large audiences, and
he must have something to say to them. Here is the gospel which
he has for the dying:

“Believing, as I do, in living and eterpal goodness, at the beginning and end^
at the centre and heart of things, it is to me unquestionable that whatever is
natural, inevitable and universal must be beneficent, and that death, therefore,
whenever it comes, not prematurely but naturally, is good and not evil. To be

reconciled to it is to be reconciled to the divine order, reconciled to God

Let the hour of death come when it may, what better preparation for it can a
man make than doing justly and loving mercy?.”

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

The fact of shortcomings, however, could not be ignored, and the
necessity of making some provision for that required to be recog-
nized, and this demand is met thus: “ Only in the gospel of Jesus
Christ,” says Mr. Hunter, “have our spiritual needs been fully sup-
plied No one who lives by the faith of the Son of God need

die either utterly wretched or deluded by superstitious expectations.
In the fellowship of Christ we win such confidence in the justice
and goodness of God in forgiving mercy and plenteous redemption,
that the last summons awakens in the heart no dismay. We know
that though sin abounds, grace much more abounds. W e know that
the unseen world is ruled by the same laws which rule us here. In
that world we may expect discipline but we need fear no evil. The
Eternal God is our refuge in all worlds and underneath are the ever-
lasting arms.” Mr. Hunter, then, would advise “A Young Minister,”
in conversation with the dying, to avoid the doctrinS of justification
and every other doctrine, scheme or plan of salvation. “ In my own
experience,” he says, “ I have found those passages which most
breathe the spirit of simple confidence in God to be the most helpful
to the troubled in mind. God is the ultimate refuge and rest of His
children.”

It does not need to be pointed out that under this system there
is not much room for the priestly work of Christ or any great need
for looking to Him as our Advocate with the Father. A righteous
life is the best preparation for a deathbed, or if we should die more
or less under the power of our sin we may trust to the discipline of
another world to expel the remains of the evil. I do not know that
we have many in Scotland who preach the same gospel that
Mr. Hunter does, but there can be no doubt that he represents
a class among us, and it is significant in its way that he occupies a
place so influential in our most populous city and that he
was chosen to fill a prominent position at the last meeting of
the English Congregational Union.

Another teacher who may be spoken of as striking out a
new path for himself, is Prof. Drummond. All the world knows
how charmingly he writes and no one who has ever heard
him speak can fail to have felt the spiritual power which accom-
panies his addresses. His influence in his own city of Glasgow does
not seem to be so great, but for several winters past he has come to
Edinburgh and held, in a hall in that city, Sabbath evening services
which have been largely attended by students from the University.
What is his gospel? It is difficult to say. But this is certain that
it is different from that to which our evangelical traditions have
accustomed us. He does not aim at producing convictions of sin
nor does he speak much of redemption through the blood of Christ.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Some because of this, refuse to believe that he has any gospel at all.
One friend who thinks so, describes his method thus : “ Steady ! Eyes
front! March!” “But what is the use of that when the feet are
chained ?” Another, however, who knows Mr. Drummond person-
ally very well, argues that as an evangelist he is entitled to select
the truths with which he operates, while leaving the rest alone. It
is his conviction that in recent revivals deep convictions of sin have
not been very apparent and that the Spirit has changed His mode of
operation. Believing this, he has abandoned the old method and
adopted a new one of his own. “ He trusts,” as a theological
Professor once explained it to me, “ in the dynamic power of
Christ and the plan he follows has been described in these terms :
“ The commonest phrase in all his addresses to young men is
‘ your life' He is always speaking to them about their life, when
other preachers ’ speak to people about their souls. He makes
young men feel that their life (that is the time they are to live
through and what it is filled with), is a great thing, in fact the oue
precious and priceless thing they have to deal with. They may
squander it or they make it a great gift to God and the world, and
accordingly as they do the one or the other, it will be either a hurt-
ful or a beneficent influence added to the whole of human history.
Christ and the devil (or Christ and the world, Christ and self), are
competing which is to get this gift from every one, and Drummond
says, ‘ Give it to Christ' instead of saying to men, ‘ You have sinned.’
He gets the advantage of fresh phraseology by speaking of their
1 bad past,’ or telling them how they are ‘ losing their life.’ Instead
of speaking of sanctification he bids them look forward to a big,
satisfying, influential life. The means by which this change from
the old to the new life takes place is by contact with Christ, who
cleanses, rehabilitates and sustains the life. Drummond is very
strong on the necessity of regeneration and preaching Christ with
great warmth and power as the Friend in whose fellowship moral
and spiritual strength is obtained.”

There is a third theologian to whose teaching we must refer for a
moment before concluding. We refer to Prof. A. B. Bruce. He
is distinctively an apologist, but he has done something in the way
of seeking to interpret Christ’s message to the world. He has
attempted this for example in his Galilean Gospel. We confess to
rather disliking the method followed there and elsewhere by Dr.
Bruce of singling out portions of Scripture and discussing subjects
in the light of these, to the exclusion of other parts of the Word,
by which his views might possibly be modified. If the “ Galilean ”
differed from the “Pauline” gospel, the more’s the pity. But if
the method is to be adopted it should be carried out fully and we

PRESENT THEOLOGICAL DRIFTS IN SCOTLAND.

question very much whether all that Christ said in Galilee has been
fairly taken notice of.

At the same time we can see the Professor’s object in the selec-
tions he has made, and we can sympathize with it. He wishes to
show the peculiarly bright and beneficent aspect of Christ’s mission,
and he lingers lovingly over the incidents by which that is illus-
trated. In that connection he has done good service to the Church,
for there can be no doubt that if the gospel were proclaimed more
joyfully, more triumphantly, the happiest results might be expected
to follow.

But there is a danger in looking at Christ’s mission on the bright
side only. The tendency it creates is to make men think of the
door as being thrown more widely open than it is, and of the bless-
ing coming to be enjoyed by more than are ever prepared to re-
ceive it. For example, in a well-known book, The Kingdom of
God , Dr. Bruce writes as if the difficulty were not to be saved but
to be lost. “ The words ” — ‘ prepared for the devil and bis angels ’ —
“ imply,” he says,* “ that no man will find his home in the ever-
lasting fire till he has become a fit companion for devils, till in fact
he has himself become diabolic. Putting the two texts together,
the doctrine of Christ appears to be that final eternal damnation
awaits those, and those only, who have become diabolized through
moral perversity and inhuman selfishness.” It is not easy to under-
stand such teaching in the light of sayings like this: “He that
hath the Son hath life : He that hath not the Son of God hath not
life.”

There is a phrase which is much on the lips of the disciples of
this school — “ the gospel of the kingdom.” We are not sure that
we have mastered the meaning of the expression, but, so far as we
can make out, the idea underlying it is that all are in the kingdom,
whatever may be their beliefs, who have the Christlike spirit. The
Christlike spirit seems to be very much what we are in the habit
of thinking of as humanity — the spirit of love to man — benevolence,
beneficence. Where that is there is the kingdom. It is a view
which cuts a great many knots, and which allows the cultivation of
the most catholic dispositions. The community thus indicated is
greatly wider than the Church, which, we are taught to believe,
consists only of those who profess the true religion, together with
their children.

To one other thing only we need to allude — to what is being said
here on the subject of “ Eschatology.” Prof. Salmond’s Lectures
on the Christian Doctrine of Immortality will in all probability have
been published before this article sees the light. It is understood

* The Kingdom of God, 2d edition, Edinburgh, p. 319.

48 TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

that they maintain the strictly orthodox doctrine of future punish-
ment. It may be added as indicating the state of opinion in Scot-
land on this subject, that at the Summer School of Theology in
Oxford, the same view was strongly vindicated by Dr. Marcus
Dods. Of. course, other opinions are held. And perhaps it may not
be out of place to mention also, that among a certain class the be-
lief is spreading in the doctrine of the premillennial advent of
Christ.

Norman L. Walker.

Edinburgh.

III.

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

HERE is now no more important subject under discussion in

_I_ Evangelical Churches than the inerrancy of Scripture. It is
a question which is at present profoundly agitating the Presbyterian
Church. It is behind the movement for the revision of the Con-
fession of Faith. Calvinism can be held only on the supposition of
the infallibility of the Bible. Nothing could be more erroneous
than the prevalent idea that Calvin was a daring speculator in the-
ology, who searched the Scriptures for materials to support a theory
which he had arrived at by the coaction of “ remorseless logic.”
Never was there a man more submissive to what he believed to be
divine revelation.* He could sincerely affirm : “ Certainly no one
can have a greater objection to paradoxes than I have, and I do not
take the slightest pleasure in mere intellectual puzzles. But noth-
ing shall prevent me from openly avowing those things which I
have learned from the Word of .God; for He is a Master in whose
school we learn nothing that is not useful. The Bible is my only
guide.” Low views of the inspiration of Scripture have generally
characterized latitudinarian divines. We see this in Castellio and
others in the time of Calvin ; in Clericus and his party in a later
age; and the concurrence is strikingly exemplified in our own time.
The fact that Calvin regarded the Bible as authoritative on all
questions, and allowed its clear statements to outweigh all other
considerations, and accepted doctrines to which hupian reason is
most ready to take exception on its sole testimony, awakens a
strong presumption that he held it to contain the truth of God
without any admixture of error. It is significant that a man like
Guizot, in his Life of Calvin , finds fault with just two things in the
theology of the reformer — his doctrine of the plenary inspiration
of Scripture, and his doctrine of divine foreordination. The supreme

*On this point the testimony of Dr. SchafF is worth quoting: “Calvin,
though one of the most logical minds, cared less for logic than for the Bible,
and it is his obedience to the Word of God as the infallible rule of faith that in-
duced him to accept the decretum horribile against his wish and will.” (Andover
Review, April, 1892, pp. 332, 334.) Dr. SchafF makes this admission while oppos-
ing Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. But Arminius himself had said that
Calvin “is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture.”

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

authority and infallibility of Scripture must be undermined in
order to assail successfully the doctrine of predestination. Guizot
had no doubt that Calvin taught the inerrancy of the Bible and its
verbal inspiration.* It certainly, at first blush, is surprising that it
should now be maintained by those who deny the infallibility of the
Bible that the first reformers of the sixteenth century held no such
doctrine, but, on the contrary, freely conceded the existence of
errors in the Sacred Writings. But it is now boldly affirmed that
the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture is a false and
burdensome dogma, which the degenerate epigoni of the reformers
imposed on the Protestant Churches. In particular, Calvin has
been singled out as a reformer who held free views on the subject
of inspiration, and was far from contending for an errorless Bible.
Examples of mistakes on the part of the original writers of Scrip-
ture which Calvin is said to have roundly admitted, have been pro-
fessedly drawn from his commentaries, and those who now contend
for an inerrant Bible are charged with being more orthodox than
Calvin was.f

Calvin’s view on this question is entitled to the highest respect.:}:
He has left commentaries on the greater part of the Bible. He
was a man of unsurpassed perspicacity in perceiving its meaning,
and of deepest reverence for its teaching. In expounding Scripture
he manifested a singular freedom from doctrinal bias, and he was
careful to note difficulties. His commentary on the Synoptic Gos-
pels is given in the form of a Harmony, and he testifies to the great
fidelity and diligence with which he had labored in its composition.
He had to confront the passages which modern critics condemn as
tainted with error. Calvin could not have avoided letting his judg-
ment be clearly known on the question of the inerrancy of Scrip-
ture. If he had found in it indubitable errors which must be imputed
to the original writers, he must have plainly said so; and if he did
make such admission, Reformed Christians should be slow in exclud-
ing from their communion such public teachers as can be charged
only with ascribing to the Bible such an amount of error as he
acknowledged.

* “ Like Calvin, many pious and learned men uphold the plenary inspiration of
the Holy Scriptures ; they assert that not only the thoughts, but the words in
which they are clothed are divinely inspired — every word on every subject, the
language as well as the doctrine.” ( Life of Calvin, chap vi.)

j-Cf. an article in the New York Evangelist, October 15, 1891, ‘‘Was Calvin a
Calvinist?”

\ “His judgment isofthe greatest weight, for he had no superior, and scarcely
an equal for thorough and systematic Bible knowledge and exegetical insight ”
(Schaflf in Andover Review, l. c.). Reuss has pronounced Calvin “beyond all
question the greatest exegete of his century.”

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE.

We have considered this subject to be of sufficient importance to
warrant a careful study of Calvin’s writings with a view to ascer-
tain his real opinion on the question under discussion, and we now
present our readers with the conclusion which we have reached, and
the grounds on which it is based.

Strauss in his Glaubenslehre has affirmed that “ theology is only
in so far productive as it is destructive.” We do not accept the
declaration in the sense intended. But the productivity of the
destructive critics is the marvel of our age, if we think only of
their fecundity in the composition of books and essays. But to
“ object is always easy ; ” as Dr. Johnson has observed, “the hand
which cannot build a hovel may demolish a temple.” Calvin’s
tendency was conservative. His great aim was the setting forth of
positive truth. The source from which he drew his doctrine was
the Bible. To its teaching he unconditionally submitted. What-
ever was delivered in the Sacred Scripture ought, in his judgment,
to be received with meekness and docility, and without exception —
“ Nam sapere nostrum nihil aliud esse debet quam mansueta docili-
tate amplecti , et quidem sine exceptione , quicquid in sacris Scripturi-s
traditum est ” ( lnstit ., Lib. i, xviii, 4). Whatever is propounded
in the Scriptures Calvin would have us receive with unques-
tioning assent. He would give no room for the exercise of the
so-called “ Christian consciousness ” in discriminating divine truth
from human error in the Bible. He did not distinguish the Scrip-
ture from the Word of God, as if the former designation were more
extensive than the latter. Another clear proof that Calvin did not
exempt any part of Scripture from the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, but regarded it all as a divine product, is furnished in his
commentary on Bom. xv. 4, where he makes this reflection :
“ Whatever, then, is recorded in Scripture, let us take pains in
learning it. For it would be to insult the Holy Spirit if we should
think that He taught anything which it does not at all concern us
to know Although he (Paul) is speaking of the Old Testa-

ment, yet we are to judge the same of the apostolic writings.” Cal-
vin’s doctrine, it cannot be questioned, was that whatever is recorded
in Scripture ( quicquid in Scriptura proditum est ) is to be held by us
as the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and as written for our learning.
It is a favorite allegation of those who would make the Word of
God of narrower import than the Scriptures, to say that the Word
of God is contained in the Scriptures, but that we cannot affirm
that the Scriptures are the Word of God. But this is what the
Westminster Confession of Faith does affirm. Holy Scripture is
convertible according to it with “the Word of God written” ( Con-
fession., chap, i, sec. 2). If the Shorter Catechism speaks of the

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, this is to oppose the Romish doctrine that the Word of
God is not wholly recorded in the Bible, but is in part transmitted
by tradition. It is strange that any one professing to be acquainted
with the history of Protestant theology should misunderstand the
force of this statement in the Catechism, or claim it in support
of an opinion which was far from the minds of the compilers. But
confining ourselves to the doctrine of Calvin, we find him expressly
teaching that our only wisdom lies in embracing with meek docility ,
and without exception , whatever is contained in the Sacred Scriptures.
For him quicquid in Sacris Scripturis traditum (or proditum ) est
was the Word of God.

It is enough to consult Calvin’s commentary on 2 Tim. iii. 16 to
learn that Calvin held the very highest doctrine of the inspiration
of Scripture. The whole annotation is too long to be quoted. From
the assertion that Scripture is given by inspiration of God he con-
cludes that men are without controversy to receive it reverently.
“ This,” says he, “ is the import of the first clause, that the same
reverence is due to Scripture which we pay to God, because it
flowed from Him alone, and has no admixture of what is human ”
( eandem Scriptures reverentiam deberi, quam Deo deferimus , quia ab
eo solo manavit , nec quicquam humani habet admixtum).* In his
commentary on 1 Pet. i. 25, he declares “ that God wished to speak
to us by apostles and prophets, and that their mouths are the mouth
of the one God ” (“ habendum est , Deum per Apostolos et Prophetess
voluisse nobis loqui , et illorum ora os unius Dei esse ”). How
perfect was the inspiration which Calvin ascribed to the sacred
writers is seen from his remarks on Acts i. 16, 20 : “ It was
needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost
spake before by the mouth of David." Referring to these words he
observes: “Such forms of speaking win greater reverence for the
Scriptures, while we are admonished that David and all the
prophets spake under the sole direction of the Spirit, so that they
themselves are not the authors of the prophecies, but the Spirit
who used their tongue as an instrument.” “ If any one,” he con-
tinues, “should object that imprecations, not prophecies, are related

* Comp. Institutes (Lib. i, vii, i), “ Sed quoniam non quotidiana e coslis reddun-
tur oracula, et Scripturce soles extant , quibus visum est Domino suam perpetuce
memories veritatem consecrare ; non alio jure plenam apud fideles auctoritatem
obtinent, quam ubi statuunt, e ccelo fluxisse, acsi vivos ipsos Dei voces illic exaudi-
rentur.” — “But since daily oracles are not given from heaven, and the Scriptures
are the only memorials in which it pleased the Lord to immortalize His truth by
making it perpetually remembered ; the Scriptures obtain their full authority
with the faithful only on this condition, that they settle it that they have come
from heaven, as if the very, living utterances of God were heard in them.’’

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIIH'URE.

in the Psalm, and that therefore Peter improperly infers that this
behooved to be done, the solution is easy. For David was not
incited by a perverse or vicious carnal affection to seek for ven-
geance, but had the Spirit as his leader and director. Therefore,
whatever things he prayed for, moved by the Spirit, have the force
of predictions, because the Spirit does not ask for other things than
what God has purposed with Himself to perform, and wishes also
to promise to us.”

On the sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith Calvin has
expressed his judgment with all clearness and force. In his com-
mentary on John xx. 9, he affirms that the Scripture is so full and
complete in every part that any defect in our faith is to be ascribed
to our ignorance of Scripture ( “In summa tenendum est , adeo plenam
et omni ex parte absolutam esse Scripturse doctrinam, ut ejus igno-
ratio jure censeri debeat quicquid fidei nostrse deest ”). According to
him we are to hold it as a fixed axiom that no doctrine is worthy
of faith, if we do not find it to be founded on the Scriptures (on
Acts xvii. 11). How vehemently and frequently Calvin declaims
against the doctrine of the Papists as to the obscurity, uncertainty and
ambiguity of the Scriptures is known to all familiar with his writings.
He regarded as blasphemous the doctrine of Roman Catholic
theologians that nothing can be certainly determined by Scripture.
Often, too, he takes occasion to animadvert on the error of fanatics
and enthusiasts who thought they could dispense with the letter of
Scripture, and rely on the illumination of the Spirit without the aid
of the written Word.*

So, too, he often testifies to the present value and utility of the
Old Testament for our instruction in truth and righteousness against
those who would regard it as now obsolete and of no further use.
On this point his notes on Luke xxiv. 27 and Rom. xv. 4 may be
consulted. Scripture was, in his esteem, the most sacred thing in
the world ( res omnium , quae in terris sunt , sacratissima ), and he
would have men to come to the reading of it rightly prepared, with
a reverent, obedient and docile spirit (on 2 Pet. i. 20). He would
have reformers of religion to proceed with such moderation and
prudence that people may know that the eternal Word of God is
not torn to pieces, nor any novelty introduced which would dero-
gate from Scripture, nor the faith of the pious shaken by any
suspicion of contrariety .f He admitted that there might be in the

*Cf. Inst., Lib. i, ix, 1.

f More fitting counsel could not be given to innovators and reformers in our
day than in the words of Calvin on Matt. v. 17 : “Si res dissipatas in melius
restituere animus est, semper adhibenda est ha>.c prudentia et moderatio ut ag-
noscat populus non convelli propterea aternum Dei verbum, nec ingeri novitatem

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

works and words of God and Christ what would not agree with our
understanding. In such a case we are not with unbridled boldness
to clamor against it, but rather to preserve a modest silence until
that which is hidden from us is made known from heaven (on John
iv. 27). The fact that the human author of a book of Scripture
■was not known, did not give Calvin any anxiety, or make him dis-
posed to question its divine authority. Thus, in the Argument of
the Book of Joshua, after mentioning the uncertainty that exists
regarding the writer of the book, he expresses himself in these
words: “Let us not hesitate, therefore, to pass over a matter which
we are unable to determine, or the knowledge of which is not very
necessary, while we are in no doubt as to the essential point — that
the doctrine herein contained was dictated by the Holy Spirit for
our use, and confers benefits of no ordinary kind on those who
attentively peruse it.”

It is well known that Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of
the Epistle to the Hebrews. On this point he spoke with all deci-
sion, and declared that he could not be brought to regard Paul as
the author; but he contended with equal positiveness for the apos-
tolic authority of the epistle. He had no doubt in his mind that
it formed part of the Word of God, and is at pains to point out the
inestimable importance of the doctrine which it contains. There is
not a book of the New Testament from which he does not adduce
proof-texts in his Institutes , with the exception of the Epistle of
Paul to Philemon and the Third Epistle of John. From the nature
of their contents and their brevit}1-, these writings were not likely
to be drawn on by the framer of a theological system. He makes
mention of the doubts formerly entertained about receiving the
Second Epistle of Peter, as related by the Church historian Euse-
bius. But Calvin attaches comparatively little weight to the fact
that this epistle was, in the time of Eusebius, reckoned among the
antileyomena. He finds a stronger reason to question its Petrine
authorship in the marked difference of style between it and Peter’s
first epistle. He inclines to the view that it was composed by one
of the disciples of Peter, at his instigation, when he was very old,
and thus bears his name. He cannot reject a writing in which, as
he expresses it, the majesty of the Spirit of Christ comes forth in
all its parts. In regard to the epistles of James and Jude, Calvin
mentions the doubts formerly existing about their canonicity, but
he maintains the authority of both. He wrote no commentaries

qua Scriptures deroget, ne qua repugnantics suspicio piorum fidem labefactet, ac ne
insolescant temerarii homines novitatis preetextu : denique ut profano verbi Dei con-
temptui obviam eatur.” Well would it be if the HigherCritics would lay to heart
these admonitions.

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

on the second and third epistles of John or the Apocalypse ; but
from this omission we are not warranted to infer that he did not
own their apostolicity, as he did not hesitate to appeal to the testi-
mony of 2 John and Revelation as parts of inspired Scripture. But
even if Galvin had excluded from the canon of Scripture certain of
the books of the Bible now received in the Church as sacred, this
would not justify the position that he held only the partial inspira-
tion of what he regarded as Canonical Scripture, or that he ad-
mitted in it the existence of error. It would still be possible for
him to have entertained the highest doctrine of inspiration in re-
spect to the homoloqoumena.

We have shown sufficiently that Calvin taught that the Scriptures
in general are the Word of God, and that in reading them we are
to hear God Himself speaking to us; but we must define and illus-
trate his doctrine of Scripture more particularly, and consider cer-
tain statements made by Calvin in his commentary which, it is
alleged, forbid our ascribing to him a belief in the absolute infalli-
bility of the Bible, and require us so to qualify his doctrine of
inspiration as to make it consistent with the admission of human
errors in the original text of Scripture. We think it can be demon-
strated that Calvin’s declarations are of such a nature that they
exclude the possibility of the admixture of human mistakes in
Scripture, that he makes God to such a degree its Author that all its
peculiarities of diction and choice of materials have His sanction.
The marks of apparent defect in Scripture he deliberately attrib-
utes to the divine intention. While recognizing the free and
natural exercise of their mental powers by the sacred writers, he
yet unequivocally asserts that both the matter and form of what
they wrote are due to the action of the Spirit of God. To make
Calvin admit that there are real errors in Scripture would be, by
implication, to charge him with teaching that there are errors in-
spired by God. An inspired error is utterly inconceivable, and
Calvin is not guilty of countenancing the existence of such an
absurdity.

Let us attend to the manner in which Calvin treats the manifest
diversity that presents itself in the four Gospels. He does not be-
lieve that either Mark or Luke made any use of the Gospel of
Matthew. He calls upon us to hold that Mark, though not an
apostle, is a legitimate and divinely ordained witness, who related
nothing without the guidance and dictation of the Holy Spirit ( qui
nihil nisiprseeunte dictanteque Sqnritu sancto prodiderit)* He shows,
in explaining the introductory words of the Gospel of Luke, that

* Argumentum in Evangelium Jesu Christi secundum Matthoeum, Marcum et
Lucam.

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the evangelist did not follow private authors in his narrative, but
those who were ministers of the Word , those to whom was divinely
committed the office of publishing it, and who were, therefore, wit-
nesses above all exception. He blames Erasmus for not giving due
weight to the character of the witnesses from whom Luke drew the
matter of his Gospel. They were called by God ; and in what is
related by the evangelist as derived from them we are to hear the
Son of God speaking through His apostles. It is a great thing that
they are called eye-witnesses, but by being called ministers they
are taken out of the common order of men, so that our faith has
its support in heaven, not in the earth. As to the diversity observed
in the Gospels, it is the constant contention of Calvin that it never
amounts to a contradiction between them. He never acknowledges
irreconcilable discrepancies. He has a solution for every difficulty
that he can discover. He teaches once and again that the apparent
diversity is by divine arrangement. Thus in his Argument prefixed
to the Synoptic Gospels he states that this diversity was not pur-
posely aimed at by the evangelists, but since each had resolved to
write in good faith what he knew to be certain, each one pursued
the plan which he considered the best. But as this did not happen
accidentally, but under the overruling providence of God, so the
Holy Spirit in the diverse form of writing produced a wonderful
agreement among them, which alone would almost suffice to gain
credit for them, if they did 'not possess a higher authority from
another source {it a Spirit us sanctus in diversa scribendi forma mira-
lilem illis consensum suggessit , etc.). So in the Argument of the
Gospel of John he observes that God so dictated to the evangelists
what they should write, that from the parts distributed among them
He might make one complete body ( Sic ergo quotuor Evangelistis
dictavit quod scriberent , ut distributis inter ipsos partibus corpus unum
integrum absolveret). In commenting on Luke xxiv. 13, respecting
the narrative of the journey of the two disciples to Emmaus, after
saying that it is only briefly touched on by Mark and not referred
to in a single word by Matthew or John, but is, for good reason,
accurately described by Luke, he makes this remark : “ But I have
already often notified that the Spirit of God fitly allotted to the
several evangelists their parts, so that what we do not find in one or
two of them we can learn from others.”

We are, then, according to Calvin, to hold fast the principle that
the differences in the gospels are consistent with their plenary in-
spiration. Very remarkable are the words of Calvin on Matt. v. 1,
while harmonizing the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew with the
corresponding discourse which begins Luke vi. 20. After remark-
ing that both evangelists make no mention of the time when our

CALVIN'S DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Lord uttered this discourse, and expressing his opinion that it was
not delivered till after the twelve had been chosen, he subjoins •'
“ But in preserving the order of time, which I saw was neglected
by the Spirit of God ( quern videbam a Spiritu Dei neglectum), I did
not wish to be too curious.” The very disregard of the order of
time, which might be attributed to human carelessness, he describes
as proceeding from the Holy Spirit. In considering the genealogy
of Christ as given by Matthew, he states that it is clear from the
sacred history that three kings have been omitted. Then he adds :
“ They who say that this has been done through forgetfulness are
by no means to be listened to ” ( Hoc qui oblivione factum esse dicunt ,
minime sunt audiendi ). The idea that an error of memory had
been committed by the sacred writer Calvin would not tolerate.
He never suggests such an explanation of any discrepancy in Scrip-
ture. He does admit error through the carelessness or fault of
copyists , and, indeed, suggests such a cause to account for a difficulty
in the genealogical table of Matthew. But he does not concede that
there existed any error in the two genealogies in the original Gos-
pels, and he attempts a solution of every apparent discrepancy now
found in them. In the varying accounts of the resurrection of our
Lord, Calvin notes carefully the points of difference, but sees noth-
ing contradictory, no real disagreement, and undertakes to bring their
apparently conflicting statements into harmony. The most difficult
cases of seeming discrepancy between the narratives in the Gospels
Calvin does not despair of being able to reconcile. We might go
over them in order, and show that in no instance does he concede
that one evangelist is really at variance with another. We have not
space here for making an examination of the way in which he deals
with every seeming discrepancy. But we are confident that our
readers who undertake to test the accuracy of our statement, will
not be able to find a single example of apparent disagreement be-
tween the Gospels which Calvin pronounces incapable of a satisfac-
tory solution.

In regard to the quotation of the Old Testament in the New
Calvin acknowledges the freedom with which this is done by the
apostles, but he is careful to show that they never make an unjusti-
fiable or improper use of the Old Testament. We cannot here dis-
cuss the subject at length. Any one who will take the trouble to
examine particularly Calvin’s Commentary on the New Testament
to learn how he explains the Old Testament quotations, will see
that in every case he vindicates the application made of them, and
exhibits his own skill as an interpreter in his masterly treatment of
this difficult subject. To charge apostles with abusively employing
the Old Testament or imposing a false meaning on it, was looked

THE PRESBYTERIAN AXD REFORMED REVIEW.

upon by him as what none but an impious man could think of do-
ing. Thus, in his comment on Ephesians iv. 8, he repels the accusa-
tion that Paul was not justified in the application which he makes
of Psalm lxviii. 19 ( Impii eum criminantur , quasi Scriptura abusus
fuerit), “ The ungodly accuse him [Paul] of abusing Scripture.”
Only an impious man could, in Calvin’s judgment, think of an
apostle making any other than a legitimate use of Scripture. In
commenting on Matt. ii. 6, he makes the general remark that the
apostles always quote and apply the testimonies of Scripture fitly
and appositely (congruenter et apposite ), though they may be far from
making their citations word for word. He would have us to be
satisfied with this one thing, that the evangelists never wrest from
Scripture a meaning which it does not bear, but put it to its genu-
ine use ( Scriptura nunquam ab illis torquetur in alienum sensum , sed
proprie in yenuinum usum aptatur). In his commentary on 1 Cor.
ii. 9, Calvin, after mentioning a certain plausible view of the
Old Testament passage quoted by the apostle (Isa. lxiv. 4), thus
expresses himself regarding it: “But it is less accordant with
the mind of Paul in whom we are to trust more than in any
reasons. For who can be a more certain or more faithful inter-
preter of this oracle, which He Himself dictated to Isaiah, than
the Spirit of God, as He has expounded it by the mouth of
Paul” ( Quis enim Spiritu Dei certior aut fidelior erit interpres
hujus oraculi, quod ipse Iesaise dictavit, sicut per os Pauli exposuitf).
Calvin would not admit that a New Testament writer was liable to
error in his exposition of Old Testament Scripture. We advise our
readers, if they see any extracts from his commentary, which
seem to imply the contrary, to consult the commentary for them-
selves. We have met with garbled quotations which give quite a
false impression of the views which he puts forward. We must
pass from this subject with the remark that we have been greatly
helped by Calvin’s elucidation of the principles involved in the use
and application made by our Lord and the apostles of passages of
the Old Testament. We say this, while we dissent from Calvin’s
views on certain Messianic prophecies, which he does not apply
to Christ as their primary object. A study of his treatment of
quotations from the Old Testament in the New has only deepened
our conviction that he regarded both Testaments as the Word of
God, the divine authority and infallibility of which he would not
dare to call in question.

How entire, in Calvin’s view, was the divine inspiration of Scrip-
ture, is very impressively testified by the terms in which he refers
to the lowly style which often meets us in Scripture, and which
men readily conceive to be unbecoming the divine majesty. Calvin

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE.

does not tell us that in such parts of Scripture the Spirit of God
left the writers to give their own imperfect utterances, which we
are not to think of as at all inspired by Him. On John iii. 12 he
is led to use these words, which show that in all forms of speech
employed in Scripture we are to hear the voice of God. “ Most
men have less esteem for the gospel, because they do not find in it
a magniloquence which fills their ears. And so they do not deign
to occupy themselves in the study of common and lowly doctrine.
But such impudence is too bad, that we pay less honor to God
when He speaks, because He lets Himself down to our ignorance.
Let us know, therefore, that it is on our account that the Lord
speaks stammeringly with us in Scripture, rudely and in a vulgar
style (Ergo quod crass e et plebeio stylo nobiscum balbutit Dominus
in Scriptura, hoc sciamus causa nostra fieri)." It is still the Lord
that speaks in Scripture, no matter what defects of style a critic
may find in it. Where he takes offense, Calvin would have us
praise the divine condescension. In his remarks on the closing
words of the Gospel of John, Calvin expresses himself similarly.
The evangelist is not to be blamed for employing a trite and cur-
rent figure to commend the excellency of the works of Christ. For
we know how God accommodates Himself, for the sake of our
ignorance, to the common manner of speaking, nay rather some-
times, in a measure, stammers ( Scimus enim ut se ad communem
loquendi modum accommodet Deus ruditatis nostrse causa , imo inter-
dum quodammodo balbutiat). Let no one imagine, then, that,
according to Calvin, we are to exclude divine inspiration from any
part of Scripture, on the ground that the language is unworthy of
the God of glory. He can humble Himself to employ our low
forms of speech. This is not impossible with God; but there is a
thing which He will not condescend to do; it is impossible for God
to lie. This was with Calvin a certain article of belief ; and he
could never father on God a false statement, or admit that anything
contrary to truth is contained in that Scripture which is His Word,
of all of which He again and again declares, the mouth of the
Lord hath spoken it. Bather than confess that there was any
place of Scripture in which we are not to hear God speaking to us,
Calvin would prefer to say that God of His condescending grace
stammers, as it were; and just because the voice of a God of truth
is to be heard sounding everywhere in Scripture, even in its poorest
forms of speech, and those most liable to be mistaken, Scripture
must be free from error, can state nothing which, rightly
understood, can be declared false.

But “facts are brutal; they strike all our theories in the face
and it is contended that Calvin, in defiance of that theory of the

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

inspiration of the whole of Scripture which we have set forth as
held by him, nevertheless, in his Commentary on Scripture admits
that in certain places it is not free from error. If Calvin really
made such an admission, it would be extraordinary inconsistency
on his part, and might well excite our astonishment. However, it
is now assumed as an indisputable fact that Calvin freely confesses
that there are mistakes in the Bible. Cremer, in his article on
“Inspiration” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopsedie (vi, p. 754), assumes
that Calvin allows that there are inaccuracies and errors in Scrip-
ture, though the only instance which Cremer specifies is Matt,
xxvii. 9. Even a man of such unflinching orthodoxy as Dr. Adolph
Zahn informs us that here “ Luther and Calvin will find a mis-
take of the evangelist.”* Van Oosterzee puts forth this statement:
“ Errors and inaccuracies in matters of subordinate importance
are, as we have already seen, undoubtedly to be found in the
Bible. A Luther, a Calvin, a Coccejus, among the older theolo-
gians; a Tholuck, a Neander, a Lange, a Stier, among the mod-
ern ones, have admitted it without hesitation.”! Prof. Prentiss
tells us that Prof. Briggs’ position in denying perfect correspond-
ence of minor details in Scripture is “ the view of Calvin.”! Prof.
M. R. Vincent, too, in his lecture on Exegesis , claims Calvin among
the scholars who “ asserted the denial of verbal infallibility.”
Archdeacon Farrar, also, in his History of Interpretation (p. 345),
supposes that he does Calvin honor by saying of him, “ He did not
hold the theory of verbal dictation. He will never defend or har-
monize what he regards as oversight or mistake in the sacred
writers.” As examples of such mistakes, which Calvin would not
defend or harmonize, we are referred in a footnote to Matt, xxvii.
9; Acts vii. 16. Again, on p. 349, Farrar further declares of Cal-
vin : “Yet if he held that Scripture flowed from the very mouth of
God, he gives us no explanation of his own admission of inaccura-
cies in Scripture.” Again Farrar points to Calvin’s notes on the
same passages, Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Acts vii. 16. Farrar evidently
regards it as passing strange that Calvin should give no explanation
of his supposed admission of inaccuracies in Scripture, while be held
the highest doctrine of its inspiration. Farrar must have thought
him self-contradictory, especially when on the next page he charges
Calvin with “ letter worship,” which is stigmatized as a very
“ harmful error.” Further, Farrar complains of Calvin that “ he
stood far below Luther, making no distinction between different
parts of the Bible.”

Calvin must have been self-contradictory in a very flagrant man-

* Wanderung durch Schrift, p. 93. f Christian Dogmatics, Yol. i, p. 203.

X The Agreement, etc., p. 140.

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE.

ner, if he really made the admission of mistakes in Scripture with
which he is so frequently and confidently charged. But let us con-
sider what he says on Matt, xxvii. 9 : “ How the name Jeremiah
crept in I confess that I do not know, nor do I anxiously trouble
myself ; certainly, that the name Jeremiah has been put by an error
for Zechariah, the thing itself shows ; for nothing like this is read
in Jeremiah ” ( Certe Jeremise nomen errore positum esse pro Zacha-
ria (xiii. 7) res ipsa ostendit, etc). It is utterly unwarranted to
make Calvin here acknowledge an error in the original text of
Scripture. He speaks of the name Jeremiah as having “ crept in ”
obrepserit ; * and this naturally suggests the idea of a corruption of
the original text of Scripture. He holds that the name Jeremiah is
put by error for Zechariah, but he does not say that the error was
committed by the evangelist. The curt expression “put by error”
rather leads us to think of an error of transcription. We have
already seen how, in commenting on our Lord’s genealogy, Calvin
tells us that they are not to be heard who would make the sacred
historian commit a mistake through forgetfulness ; while in the
same connection he admits the fault or carelessness of copyists to
have caused error in the sacred text. Why then shall we make
him contradict here his previous teaching; make him without a
word of explanation admit what would belie his solemnly and
repeatedly avowed belief? It is most unreasonable to hold that Cal-
vin here supposes the admitted error to attach to the original text.
The more we study this passage, which is the chief one relied on,
and the one most frequently appealed to in support of the allega-
tion that Calvin did not hold the doctrine of the inerrancy of
Scripture, the more assured we are that it does not serve the pur-
pose for which it is adduced. Calvin does not charge an error on
Matthew, or on God who spake by him.f Beza, Calvin’s successor,
has been referred to as another distinguished orthodox theologian
who admitted an error in Matt, xxvii. 9, which he ascribed to
the evangelist. But one has only to consult his commentary on

* Cf. the Note on Acts vii. 14 : Incertum est an errore postea obrepserit.

+ Dr. Briggs ( Whither ? p. 72) says : “It seems to me that no candid mind
without invincible dogmatic prepossessions can doubt that there is an error of
citation in Matt, xxvii. 9, that goes back to the original autograph. A passage
is cited from Jeremiah that belongs to Zechariah. Dr. Warfield tries hard to
overcome the error by three plausible theories.” We should have more diffi-
culty in explaining how a candid mind could have invincible dogmatic preposses-
sions, than in explaining the difficulty in Matthew. We had supposed that a
candid mind was one “free from undue bias.” A good annotator on an old
Greek classic would treat it with more respect than certain critics treat the Holy
Gospel. Nothing but necessity will induce him to charge a mistake on the
author whom he interprets.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the verse to see how far he was from thinking that there was any
error in the original text of Matthew.

We take up the other passage most relied on as a witness that
Calvin acknowledged the errancy of Sacred Scripture. In his expo-
sition of Acts vii. 16 Calvin uses these words : “/n nomine Abrahat
erratum esse palam est ” (“It is well known that there is an error in
the name Abraham”). And at the close of his comment he
makes this statement, uQuare hie locus corrigendus est ” (“ Wherefore
this place is to be corrected”). A writer in the New York Evangelist
(October 15, 1891) ventures to translate : “ It is evident that he
[Luke] made a mistake in the name of Abraham.” If this were a
fair rendering of Calvin’s language, it would answer the purpose for
which it is cited. But Calvin does not say, as every Latin scholar
can see at a glance, that the mistake, which he allows to be in the
passage, was made by the sacred historian. He admits simply that
a mistake is there, without telling who is the author of it. Why
may we not suppose that Calvin blamed copyists for the error
existing in the text, as he accounts for a supposed error in the four-
teenth verse of the same chapter in this way ? The sentence with
which Calvin concludes his comment on the passage seems to indi-
cate that, in Calvin’s opinion, the error did not belong to the auto-
graph of Luke : “ Wherefore this passage is to be corrected .” The
Latin word rendered “corrected” is the one that is ordinarily used
by critical editors of the New Testament of amending a passage
by restoring the true reading.

We have considered the strongest evidence that has been adduced
that Calvin was not a believer in the inerrancy of Scripture. No
other passages have been quoted from his writings in which he
uses the word “ error ” as in any sense applicable to the Bible.

What advantage, it has been asked, is there in resting in the
belief that the autographs of the books of Scripture were free from
error, if the text as we now have it is not such? We reply, that
if the Scriptures in their original form were errorless, we can believe
that God was their author. W e could not suppose God to be the
author of an errant Bible, without denying His veracity. Calvin
maintained that whatever Scripture contains is the W ord of the Lord ;
and, if he taught that Scripture is not true in all its parts, it would
follow that he made God a liar. There is no possibility of evading
this shocking consequence. We have more reverence for Calvin
than to suppose that he would, in the actual interpretation of Scrip-
ture, forget the teaching regarding it which he has been at pains
repeatedly and emphatically to promulgate, that it is the Word of
God. Men like Archdeacon Farrar may say of the Apostle Paul :
“He shared, doubtless, in the views of the later Jewish schools — the

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE.

Tanaim and Amoraim— on the nature of inspiration. These views,
which we find also in Philo, made the words of Scripture coexten-
sive and identical with the words of God.”* Latitudinarian writers
may say this of the apostle, and afterwards represent him as false to
the views in which he doubtless shared. But we have a higher opin-
ion of Calvin’s consistency than to say of him, without satisfactory
evidence, that he has been really guilty of that “sin of sins, self-con-
tradiction.” But such evidence has not been produced, and cannot
be produced.

It is no trivial question whether we have an inerrant Bible ; and
we are glad that we are able to redeem the good name of Calvin
from a grave misrepresentation which has been fastened on it, and
to place him among the number of those who hold the historic doc-
trine of the Church regarding inspiration. We read, when a
student of theology, certain words of warning uttered by Prof.
Moses Stuart, among the last which he wrote, respecting the fearful
injury to the cause of religion which might be expected to follow
the prevalence among us of the low views of the inspiration of Scrip-
ture which were then current in Germany, but had not then spread
far in America and Great Britain. We have never forgotten that
warning, and we think it worthy of being repeated after forty
years. It comes from one who was accounted, in his day, a liberal
theologian, and who was certainly no vain alarmist : “ Could their
position in regard to the Scriptures [he is speaking of Neander,
Tholuck, Muller and Nitzsch] be received by the undiscriminating
multitude of men, both learned and unlearned, without the most
absolute hazard of all belief in the Bible as divinely authoritative ;
of all belief in its doctrines, its precepts and its facts? Impossible,
altogether impossible. The ground once abandoned, which Paul
has taken, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
every man of common attainments will feel at liberty to say
whatever his own subjective feelings may dictate : to say : ‘ This is
unimportant ; that is unessential ; this is a doubtful narrative ; that
is a contradictory one ; this is in opposition to science, and that to
reason ; this may be pruned, and that lopped off, while the tree may
still remain as good as ever.’ In a word, every one is left wholly,
and without any check, to be his own judge in the case, how much
of the Bible is consonant with his own reason and subjective feelings,
and how much is not ; and these feelings are, of course, the high
court of appeal. What now has become of the Word of God, true,
authoritative, decisive of all duty and all matters of faith? Gone,
absolutely gone, irretrievably gone, as to the mass of men who

* Life and Work of St. Paul, chap. iii. By the way, Paul wrote before the
Tanaim and Amoraim doctors arose.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

are not philosophers in casuistry and the theory of religion.
And if any doubt remains as to the effect of such doctrine, I appeal
again to the religious state of the great German community.”*
Calvin shows in his commentary on 1 Cor. vii that the apostle does
not in this chapter express any doubt as to his own inspiration or
confess that he sets forth in any case his own private opinions which
were not to be regarded as divine oracles. On the last verse,
“ But she is happier if she so abide , after my judgment ; and I think
that I also have the Spirit of God," he remarks : “ In adding, ac-
cording to my judgment, he does not understand by this expression
a dubious opinion ; but it is just as if he should say that such is his
judgment on that question, for he immediately subjoins that he has
the Spirit of God, which is enough for full and complete authority.
Yet he does not seem to be wanting in irony in saying, I think.
For since the false apostles often with inflated cheeks boasted of the
Spirit of God to arrogate to themselves authority, and mean-'
while studied to disparage Paul, he says that he also seems to him-
self to possess the Spirit no less than they.” On 1 Cor. vii. 10,
Calvin remarks of the apostle, “ In adding, not I , but the Lord, he
signifies by this correction that what he here delivers was taken
from the Law of God. For other things which he delivered he had
also from revelation of the Spirit, but he alleges that God is the
author of this, because it was manifest from the Law of God.” On
1 Cor. vii. 12, Calvin observes : “ What does it mean that Paul
makes himself the author of these things, since they seem to con-
flict somewhat with what he had lately put forward from the Lord ?
But he does not so understand that they are from himself without
his deriving them from the Spirit of God ; but since there existed
nowhere in the Law or the Prophets a certain and express word on
this subject, he anticipates in this way the calumnies of the wicked,
when he ascribes to himself what he was about to say. But lest all
this should be little esteemed, as originating in the head of man, he
will afterwards deny that whatever he speaks are figments of his
own understanding. But there is no repugnance with what goes be-
fore.” On 1 Cor. vii. 25, Calvin writes : “ He tells us that he has no
commandment of the Lord , because the Lord nowhere in the [Old Tes-
tament] Scriptures pronounces who ought to remain unmarried.”
Again, I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the
Lord to be faithful. “ He gives authority for his judgment, lest
any one should think himself at liberty to repudiate it if he pleased.
For he asserts that he speaks not as a man, but as a faithful
teacher of the Church and an apostle of Christ.” Calvin will not

* Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1852, pp. 69, 70.

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

•concede that the apostle anywhere in his epistles delivers a merely
human counsel or fallible judgment.

Calvin has been sharply censured for not distinguishing properly
between the different parts of the Bible. Farrar quotes from a let-
ter of his to the Duchess of Ferrara, and observes on it, “It is
strange that he should never have thought of the Sermon on the
Mount, ‘ It was said to them of old time, Thou shalt love thy neigh-
bor and hate thine enemy ; but I say unto you, Love your enemies.’ ” *
Calvin did think of the Sermon on the Mount; and in that noble
letter from which Farrar quotes in an unfair manner, he shows a
truly Christian spirit, and rightly contends that the Old Testament
prohibits private vengeance as well as the New. Farrar complains
that when the Duchess “had, in a letter, made the "wise remark that
David’s example in hating his enemies is not applicable to us, Cal-
vin curtly and sternly answered that 1 such a gloss would upset all
Scripture,’ that even in his hatred David is an example to us, and a
type of Christ ; and should we presume to set up ourselves as supe-
rior to Christ in sweetness and humanity ?” Now the curtness and
sternness of Calvin’s answer would not appear if it had been quoted
fairly. Calvin, in referring to David as our model, says of him :
“We see that David surpassed in kindness of character the best of
those that would be found in our days. Thus, when he protests that
he has wept in secret and shed tears for those who were plotting his
death, we see that his hatred was consistent with mourning for their
death, that he was as meek-spirited as could possibly be desired.
But when he says he holds the reprobate in mortal aversion, it can-
not be doubted that he glories in an upright, pure and well-regu-
lated zeal.” Further on he thus expounds excellently to his royal
correspondent the morality common to the Old and New Testa-
ments : “ I pray you again, Madame, not to dwell any longer on
that distinction which deceives you, while you imagine it was per-
mitted under the Law to avenge one’s self, because it is there said,

‘ an eye for an eye ; ’ for vengeance was as much forbidden then as it
is under the Gospel, seeing that we are commanded to do good even
to the beast of our enemy; but what was addressed to the judges
each individual applied to himself. There remains the abuse of the
precept which our Lord Jesus Christ corrects. Be that as it will,
we are all agreed that, in order to be recognized as children of God,
it behooves us to conform ourselves to his example, striving to do
good to those who are unworthy of it, just as he causes his sun to
shine on the evil and the good. Thus hatred and Christianity are
things incompatible. I mean hatred towards persons, in opposition
to the love we owe them. On the contrary, we are to wish, and

* History of Interpretation, p. 350.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

even procure their good ; and to labor, as much as in us lies, to
maintain peace and concord with all men.” The letter, which Far-
rar pronounced curt and stern, and wanting in Christian love in
the answer which it gives regarding Rente’s objection to David as
an example, is marked 664 in the fourth volume of Bonnet’s Collec-
tion of Calvin's Letters. It reveals not only Calvin’s right under-
standing of the teaching of the Old Testament, but also his
magnanimity and Christian temper, and extraordinary liberality,
considering the age in which he lived. In it he praises the Duchess
of Ferrara for not permitting the shops of the Papists to be robbed
and pillaged ; relates how he refused to give his consent to have
that cruel persecutor and worst enemy of the Huguenots, the Duke
of Guise, exterminated by those men of prompt and read}r execu-
tion who were bent on that object, and who were restrained only by
Calvin’s exhortation ; and declares that he did not approve of those
who said of the Duke after his death that he was damned. Guizot con-
siders this last declaration a wonderful utterance for a theologian to
make in the sixteenth century. Yet this letter, so remarkable for
its moderation and the spirit of forbearance which it breathes,
gives occasion to Farrar to say of Calvin (p. 351), “From his fail-
ure to apprehend the full force of the new commandment he ruth-
lessly burnt Servetus.” We may question the critic’s own
appreciation of the new commandment, when he could so misrepre-
sent Calvin’s part in the execution of Servetus. So far from
“ ruthlessly burning ” him, Calvin exerted himself to the utmost to
prevent Servetus from being burnt ; and it is hard to believe that
Farrar was ignorant of this well-known fact.

Calvin was right in teaching that the direction, “ an eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” was not designed to sanction vindic-
tiveness. In the three passages of the law of Moses in which it is
found (Ex. xxi. 24, 25; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 18, 19), it is
evident from the context that it belonged to judges to follow this
rule, that punishment should be exacted commensurate to the in-
jury inflicted. Likewise under the New Testament the civil magis-
trate is the minister of God, who beareth not the sword in vain, but
is a revenger — which the individual is not to be — to execute wrath
on him that doeth evil (Rom. xiii. 4). But in the law of Moses
this rule is prescribed to private individuals : “ Thou shalt not
avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev. xix. 18). Calvin
would not admit that the law of love to our neighbor was unknown
before the coming of Christ, and he distinguished between the exact
teaching of the Old Testament, and the glosses put on it by Jewish
doctors, and by some Christian commentators also.

CALVIN’ S DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE.

We can only very briefly touoh on that part of Calvin’s doctrine
of Holy Scripture which answers the question as to the way in
which Scripture may be certainly known to be the Word of God.
Its self-evidencing power is strongly asserted by the reformer. Re-
plying to those who inquire, “ Whence shall we be persuaded that
Scripture has flowed from God, unless we have recourse to the decree
of the Church ?” he makes answer : “ This is just as if one should
ask, ‘ Whence shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness,
white from black, sweet from bitter?’ For Scripture of itself does
not let us have a more obscure perception of its truth than white
things of their color, sweet and bitter things of their taste.”* Cal-
vin strenuously contends against the doctrine that the deference due
to Scripture depends on the authority of the Church and its deter-
mination. By appealing to Eph. ii. 20, he proves that the Church
is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, that is, the
doctrine of the apostles and prophets. The foundation, then, must
have preceded the existence of the Church built on it. The
Church, in receiving and attesting Scripture, does not make authen-
tic what was doubtful and disputed, but dutifully recognizes the
truth of God. A saying of Augustine that “ he would not believe
the gospel unless the authority of the Church induced him,” is ex-
plained by Calvin as spoken from the standpoint of unbelievers,
who had not yet known Christ, nor been illuminated by the Spirit
of God. Such are rendered teachable by a regard to the Church so
as to submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. But the
faith of the godly is not founded on the authority of the Church,
nor does the certainty of the gospel depend on it. The perfect
conviction of the pious that God is the Author of Scripture is derived
not from human reasons, or judgments, or conjectures, but from the
secret testimony of the Spirit. This is the highest proof of Scrip-
ture. The only true faith is that which the Spirit seals in our
hearts. Those inwardly taught by the Spirit acquiesce completely
in Scripture, and do not ask for arguments or probabilities ; Scrip-
ture is aoT07T{<7To?, credible in itself, and is seen to be such by those
enlightened by the Spirit. This singular privilege belongs to the
elect alone, who are taught of God, and whom he distinguishes from
the whole human race. “ They act preposterously who strive by
disputing to build a full faith in Scripture ” ( Prsepostere faciunt qui
disputando contendunt solidam Scripturse jidem astruere). f So, again,
in words that are often quoted of late : “ They act foolishly who
wish it to be proved to unbelievers that the Scripture is the Word
of God ; which cannot be known without faith.”:]:

These latter declarations of Calvin been completely misunder*-

*Inst., Lib. i, vii, 2. \ Inst., Lib. i, vii, 4. \Inst., Lib. i, viii, 13.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

stood. He is speaking of a firm, immovable, entire faith and saving
knowledge such as by no artifice of man we can be deprived of. Just
before making the affirmation which we have last quoted, we find him
stating : “ There are other reasons, neither few nor feeble, by which
the dignity and majesty of Scripture may be not only asserted for
pious souls, but signally vindicated against the arts of chicaners,
but these reasons are not able by themselves to produce firm faith
in it until God, by manifesting His own divinity in it, place our rever-
ence for it beyond all controversy. Wherefore, Scripture will suf-
fice to a saving knowledge of God only then when its certainty is
founded on the inward persuasion of the Holy (Spirit.” Calvin,
while steadfastly maintaining that the saving truth of Scripture
cannot be certainly known and believed in without internal divine
illumination, gave no countenance to the supposition that he who
has this divinely implanted faith may remain indifferent and unaf-
fected while criticism makes havoc of the historical character of
Scripture. He did not neglect the external evidence of Scripture ;
and the internal evidence of Scripture which a man not enlightened
by the Spirit of God can perceive , does not appear to have been
valued higher by Calvin than the evidence of miracles and proph-
ecy. Both would not suffice to produce the faith of God’s elect. In
chapter viii of the first book of the Institutes he presents such
internal evidence of Scripture as can be laid before unbelievers,
and he does not rate it any higher than the arguments from mira-
cles and prophecy. The internal evidence, which the true Christian
sees in Scripture, is hidden from all others, no matter how wise and
intelligent they may be. He remarks: “It annoys certain good
people, because, while the ungodly murmur with impunity against
the W ord of God, they have not at hand a clear proof. As if the
Spirit were not called both the seal and pledge to confirm the faith
of the pious, just because, until He illuminates their minds, they
fluctuate amid many uncertainties.”*

It is not necessary for us to name well-known critics, who entirely
mistake Calvin’s doctrine as to the paramount value of the internal
evidence of Scripture. This internal evidence, which he cannot
sufficiently magnify, is not such as a man by his own investigation
of Scripture can discover. It is such as God’s Spirit alone can
enable us to see. Though Calvin speaks deprecatingly of human
reasons for establishing the truth of Scripture in comparison with
the secret testimony of the Spirit, he yet regards them as very
strong and convincing, and sufficient to reduce to silence those who
deny the divine origin of Scripture. “ It is indeed true,” he says,
“if we wish to proceed by way of arguments, many things can

* Inst., Lib. i, vii, 4.

CALVINS DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE.

be brought forward which easily prove that if there is a/Iod in
heaven, the Law and the Prophecies and the Gospel have flowed from
Him.” He professes his own ability to silence the most cunning
contemners of Scripture, and to refute their cavils without much
difficulty. “But,” he adds, “if one should maintain the sacred
W ord of God against the abusive sayings of men, he would not yet
immediately fix in their hearts the certainty which piety requires ”
( Yerum si quis sacrum Dei verbum asserat ah hominum rnaledictis,
non protinus tamen quam requirit pietas certitudinem cordibus in -
fiqet).* For this certainty, this thorough conviction that we hold
unassailable truth, the testimony of the same Spirit is needed who
spake by the mouth of the prophets.

We cannot exhibit the several proofs which Calvin in the
eighth chapter of the first book of his Institutes adduces to
evince the divine origin of Scripture. We will refer particularly
to his way of handling the argument from prophecy. There
are predictions, he maintains, in the books of Moses of such a
character that it is clear to sane men that it is God who speaks
( ut sanis hominibus constet Deum esse qui loquitur). “ In the
remaining prophets this is even more clearly discerned.” He gives
examples, among others one taken from the latter part of Isaiah,
in which Cyrus is mentioned by name and the work which he
should accomplish is described a hundred years before he was
born. He asks : “ Does not this simple narration, without any em-
bellishment of words, demonstrate that it is oracles of God, not con-
jectures of man, which Isaiah speaks ? ” So he appeals to the
prophecy of Jeremiah about the length of time which the captivity
in Babylon should last, and to the predictions in Dan. ix sq., and
observes that “ if pious men would duly meditate on these things,
they would be abundantly instructed to restrain the barkings of the
ungodly ; for the demonstration is too clear to be liable to any
cavils.” But while Calvin frequently attributes great weight to
the evidences of the divine origin of Scripture which can be exhib-
ited to all men, he yet maintains that a faith which rests only on
such evidences is wanting in living power, and not strong enough to
withstand all objections and assaults. For our comfort and stead-
fastness our faith must not depend on probable evidence, but be
raised to the sphere of divine certainty through the illumination of
the Spirit enabling us to see the Scripture as the very Word of the
living God.

Calvin seems to us to go too far when he represents it as a great
insult to the Holy Spirit to doubt that His inward testimony is
sufficient to decide absolutely the books that ought to be admitted

* Inst., Lib. i, vii, 4.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

into the canon of Holy Scripture.* We are not prepared to affirm
that the inward testimony of the Spirit makes it evident, without
human testimony, that every book of the Bible was written by
divine inspiration. Dr. William Cunninghamf unites with Dr.
Chalmers in approving of a statement of Richard Baxter, in which
he acknowledges that for his part he never could boast of any such
testimony or light of the Spirit, as without human testimony,
would have made him believe that the Book of Canticles is canoni-
cal and written by Solomon, and the Book of Wisdom apocryphal
and written by Philo. Calvin himself, too, writes in a way to
show that he admitted the need of human testimony to help to
determine what books should be excluded from the canon, and
what should be received into it. “I know,” says he, “what some
bad men ( nebulones ) cry out in corners, that they may show the
acuteness of their understanding in attacking the truth of God.
They ask, Who has made us certain that those books which are
read under their names were written by Moses and the prophets ?
They even dare to question whether such a person as Moses ever
lived. But if any one should doubt whether there ever was a Plato,
or an Aristotle, or a Cicero, who would not say that such madness
should be chastised with blows of the hand or of the whip ? The
law of Moses was wonderfully preserved, more by divine providence

than by human care There hardly ever was an age in which

its authority was not confirmed and renewed. Was Moses unknown
to those who handled the Psalter of David ? It is most certain
that the writings of Moses and the prophets were transmitted to
posterity in no other way than from hand to hand.”;}: We do well
to maiutain that there is a self-evidencing power in Scripture to
those taught by the Spirit of God ; but this does not render super-
fluous the process of historical proof which Christian apologists,
Calvin himself among them, have been wont to employ.

Lansdowne, Pa. DUNLOP MOORE.

* Inst., Lib. i, yii, 1.

f Theological Lectures, p. 291.

\ Inst., i, viii, 9.

TRUSTING IN THE DARK.

ORD, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eter-
I 1 nal life.” “ Yea, Lord ; I believe that thou art the Christ,
the Son of God, which should come into the world.” These two
sayings are each an answer to a question from the Lord. The first
is the rejoinder of Peter, when Jesus asked the twelve if they also
would go away. The second is the rejoinder of Martha, when He
asked her if she could believe that whosoever lived and believed on
Him should never die. Most different were the two occasions and
the two speakers. Peter and Martha lay far asunder in point of
character, training and surroundings. Certainly in them we may
be reminded of what any careful inquiry and induction will abun-
dantly assure us of — that shallowest among the many theories, be
they shallow or subtle, which attempt to explain away the miracles
of spiritual grace, is the theory that Christian faith is a thing of
temperaments, and goes with a certain class of character. Such a
statement is one of that host of anti-Christian theories that break
up at the first real contact with the rock of facts. Peter and Mar-
tha were profoundly different as personal characters, and the trials
laid before them were very different, too. Peter was tested at once
by a mystery of doctrine and the pressure upon it of popular exam-
ple ; Martha was tested by a mystery of doctrine and the pressure
upon it of an agony of sorrow. Yet there subsists between their
two answers an affinity which binds them into one most helpful les-
son. In each case a disciple is strained and tried by a word or an
act of the Lord’s, and in each case the disciple came out victorious
by the solitary secret of a knowledge of the Lord Himself. I pro-
pose, then, to take for our meditation this double text, and to review
something of its common, its united teaching. I propose, with in-
vocation of our Lord’s blessing, to treat these two verses as exem-
plifying to us the reasonableness and the happiness of trusting the
Redeemer in the dark because of what we know of Him in the
light.

Take then, first, the reply of St. Peter.

The apostles, we all remember, had been hearers of our Lord’s
•discourse at Capernaum. The occasion had been critical and sifting.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

The morning (it was the morrow of the feeding of the multitude)
had seen the Man of Galilee thronged and pressed by eager follow-
ers. No distance had been too long, no march too rough, no toil of
oars too heavy, if they might but be near Him again. But the
same day saw Him deserted, finally deserted, by many, probably
by multitudes, of those followers. “ From that time many of His
disciples walked with Him no more.”

What had caused this change? It was the mystery of His
words ; the humiliation and rebuke of the mystery of His words.
He had preached, as He ever did, Himself; and Himself now as
the bread, yea, as the flesh-meat of the soul. He had assured them
that if they would live they must eat of Him, and must positively
drink His blood. These words have, in truth, large mystery about
them still, however we expound them, though there falls upon
them now all the light of Calvary. But how much more then,
when the speaker stood with no suggestions of the Cross around Him ?
But it was not these words only that caused the shock. He had not
spared at the same time to speak to them of the sovereignty of grace ;
of the moral inability of the soul, without special mercy, to come
to Him. “No man can come to me except the Father which
hath sent Me draw him.” “ All that which the Father giveth Me
shall come to Me.” These were hard sayings; who could hear
them? “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” How are
we unable, at our own discretion, at our own leisure, to come to
Him, and to believe on Him ?

While others, while many, were thus disgusted and repelled, the
apostles held by their Lord. He asks them what they will do.
Profoundly affecting is that question ; so natural, if I may dare to
say so, yet so amazing, amidst and after the mysteries amidst which
His words had ranged ; that simple, that personal, I had almost
said that anxious question, “Will ye also go away?” And Peter
replies that they will not ; and they will not for one plain reason —
they cannot. They have no choice. One great need they have,
that of eternal life, and the secret of this, they are sure, lies with
Jesus. To whom shall they go ? He has the words of eternal life !

We are not for a moment to think that the apostles, at that time,
saw through the mysteries of the great discourse. Certainly they
did not. They did not, as we know from their own express words,
then understand the sacrificial work of the Messiah. They dreamed
not for many a day of the wounding of His flesh and the shed-
ding of His blood ; how then could they guess what the meaning
was of the eating and the drinking which He prescribed? And
most assuredly they did not then, nor did they afterwards here
below, see to the other side of the mystery of the sovereignty of grace.

TRUSTING IN THE DARK.

And jet these perplexities, these folded clouds of wonder and awe,
could not overcast their choice of Jesus and their adherence to Him
as their Guide infallible. He had spoken those trying words. And,
observe, He did not close by unsaying them ; He followed them up
in His own manner, by an immovable reiteration. And they saw
neighbors and brethren drawing off in numbers therefore from Him.
Yet they did not do so, and their reason we have read.

We too may have, nay, in a measure we must have to face trials
the same in quality as the trials of Capernaum. By the ways of
Providence, by the laws of Grace, by the claims of Scripture, by the
phenomena of Nature, by some or all of these, we are but too likely
to be brought face to face with perplexities of extreme reality and
power. Few minds now that think at all can fail to know without
much exposition what I mean. Perhaps the study of His works, or
more often the all too hasty review of the study of those works
by others, has led us, through paths not difficult to define into
doubts or into unconsciousness of the Maker. Or perhaps the
riddles of His providence have vexed us. We forget how its lines
run out into eternity, and so, as it was with Asaph, “ when we think
on these things they are too hard for us.” Or, more than all, we try
to look in the face of the fact of the mystery of sin. We find our
souls asking why sin was permitted and what shall be its issue ?
What are the limits of salvation ? Are there any ? Why should
there be any ? Why should many be lost ? Why any ? Why
one? Why must there be a strait gate and a narrow way, and
why do few find it? Why is there salvation but in one Name?
How accords a sovereignty of grace with tender mercies that are
over all the works ? It is not without anxiety that I venture to
throw such questions together and recite them explicitly. But I
know not how any of us can escape their presence. And it may be
that few Christians, however wise, however deep and large of view,
are able, under the limits of these present things, to clear them up
to their own souls or to others’. Yet there they stand; in the
works of God, in the life of men, in the written Word, on the
Saviour’s lips. Whoever toils to mitigate threatenings of the doom
of evil, it is not Jesus Christ. Whoever unsays the sovereignties
of the grace of God, it is not Jesus Christ.

Now, shall we be shaken in mind by all this? Shall we be
driven off from Him, and walk, if we have at all walked there
already, no more with Him? No, not if we have anything of that
experience of Christ which Peter confessed at Capernaum. “Lord
to whom shall we go? Words of eternal life Thou hast — prjiiaTo.
£wrj$ alwviou To whom shall we go? If we must have these

riddles solved, which Thou dost not solve, who shall do it? Shall

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

fancy, shall poetry, shall dialectic skill, shall analysis of sensation,
shall independent moral theory, shall history, shall nature ? They
cannot. The mysteries belong to them, press upon them, as truly
as upon the faith. But what can they do ? The very clouds that
lower around Thy brightness, but cannot quench it, ride in only
heavier and vaster wastes in the sunless evening sky of Christless
thought. There too are the clouds, there too are the lightnings,
hidden or outbursting ; but where is the Eternal Sun?

“ W ords of eternal life Thou hast.” Of this Peter was sure.
In his inmost soul he longed for life eternal. How to inherit a
bliss and sanctity eternal ? How to break with sin now, how
to be pure in heart now, how — as the threshold of all this —
how to be pardoned now? How to stand at last clear of
sin and of death ? How to see God ? He longed to know all
this, and Jesus had the words of this deep secret, this last
felicity. And so the follower held fast to Jesus; for Jesus supplied
that exceedingly real want; and the fact of His supplying it,
observe, was in itself to His servant a sacred pledge that the clouds,
the riddles, the tortures of perplexity, were safe in the hands of that
Lord Jesus. He saw through them. He knew all about them, and
He might be trusted to explain them at last; or, if He should
never explain them, He might be trusted with them still.

Thus much the apostle knew about his Master ; He had the
words of eternal life. So he could hear from his Master’s lips the
things which shocked public opinion about him, and yet not go
away. And so shall we, like Peter, not go away, but hold to Him
the faster and with the more deliberate resolve, if we, like Peter,
have found in Him and His words the secret of eternal life. If He
has approved Himself our peace, our purity, our patience, our
humility, our release from the tyranny of self, we shall feel that the
mystery spoken by His lips has for us already this solution — that it
is known to Him.

But now let us suffer, for a little while, our thoughts to turn to
the entrance of that little town on Olivet. There stands face to
face, Jesus Christ and Martha. Jesus has arrived four days too
late, and Lazarus is decaying within his grave. And there, in the
midst of her grief, in that strong anguish of her bereavement, which
He might, she feels, have prevented, — there He says to this
lacerated heart, aching for its precious dead : “ Whosoever liveth
and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?” It
was a question of tremendous strain. To the most enlightened
faith, just then, it would have been no easy question ; I say just there
and then. But Martha’s faith was, in some respects, far from fully
enlightened, as this very passage shows; and we know enough of

TRUSTING IN THE DARK.

lier character to feel that for her it was singularly hard to grasp in the
dark, an exalted spiritual hope. We could better, perhaps, under-
stand from her sister Mary a reply of complete submission to such a
question. But it was to Martha Jesus spoke; having just allowed
her brother, so deliberately, to die ; and it is Martha who replies with
the whole victory of faith in her words: “Yes, Lord; I believe
Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the
world.” It is a wonderful answer. Scripture records very few
instances, I think, of firmer and deeper-sighted faith. This woman,
cumbered with much serving as she had so lately been, proves
able, by her brother’s grave, to rise at once to this demand to
accept what might well have seemed an absolute contradiction, and
she believed it, not for no reason, but because of the Person who
spoke it.

Most comprehensive the short answer is. “ Yes, Lord, I believe
it all. I take Thee for the Resurrection and the Life. I confess
that he that believeth in Thee, though he were dead yet shall he
live. I confess that he that liveth and believeth on Thee shall
never die. Yes, Lord, not because I can reason it out ; not because
I see into the secrets of the undying life ; but because Thou sayest
it and I know Thee. Yes, Lord, I accept it all. My beloved is in
his grave, but Thou art the Lord of Life, though Thou hast let him die.
For Thou art, Thou hast proved Thyself the Christ, the Messiah,
foretold as to issue out of eternity, and now come, as foretold, into
the world. I, for my part, have come to be sure (iyaj -nsrUaTsuKa)
of this. Therefore I trust Thee. Ask me what Thou wilt, what
Thou wilt ; ask me what seems impossible, but if as a fact Thou
askest it, I will still say yes. I may be at rest about all Thy
words, for I am sure of Thee.” Thus Martha, like Peter, overcame
the strain of indeed an agonizing mystery by the simplest faith in
her Saviour’s person. Imperfect as that faith was in respect of
knowledge, it was yet absolutely real ; and she was really sure
of Him as the promised Christ, the Son of God , and there she
rightly saw good reason to trust Him in the dark.

We looked just now upon some of the burdens of the mind, and
remembered how a knowledge of the Saviour as the Revealer
and Giver of eternal life can quiet troubled thoughts in His
followers and establish a cheerful faith and a resolute adherence.
Here we have a like suggestion about the burdens of the heart.
Sorrow is in question here and I deeply feel that that is a topic out
of place in no congregation of men. Where is the household where
some sorrow is not early tasted? Where is the young man, old
enough to remember half a generation, whose heart never turns
towards a grave ? Sorrow is, I say, in question in this verse. It

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

has a voice for those across whose lives the shadow of death has
come. Some desire of our eyes has gone with a stroke. A pres-
ence we longed to cherish, a company in which we sunned ourselves,
has passed, as to this life of which alone we have experience, out
of reach forever. We try to be resigned, but that word too much
suggests the sadness with which it deals. We cannot, we utterly
refuse to be, indifferent ; and the blow, perhaps, seems to be a
causeless mystery. We may be tempted to recognize in it only
some rough wound from a vast and pitiless machine, some tyranny
of an inevitable and invariable and unpitying nature. We do not
say so, but we are tempted half to feel it, and great is the effort, if
so, to accept in any sense worth naming the will of God.

Now as our one valid remedy in this case also, let us look to
Jesus Christ ; look at God’s will, not in the abstract, but in Him.
He is the will of God. This Lord Jesus Christ, this Eternal Son of
the Eternal, who should come and did come into the world, let us
look at Him out of the recesses of our loss. Let us be sure of hope
and life because we are sure of Him. In Him we have the insolu-
ble explained. In Him, and nowhere else, no, truly, nowhere else,
we have death, while it seems to crush us, yet annulled. In Him
we have the absolute mystery of resurrection, yet pledged into a
solid certainty, for He asks us to confide that question to nothing
less than “the working whereby He is able to subdue even all
things unto Himself.”

Thus in Peter’s answer and in Martha’s we may trace the outline
of that sacred truth that, alike in the obscurities of the mind and
the anguish of the heart, there is nothing so full of rest and strength
as a direct and personal acquaintance with and an acceptance of
Jesus Christ ; not ideas and principles taken apart, but Jesus Christ;
the one solitary Redeemer of man ; the unique fulfillment of the
unique phenomenon of Scripture prophecy ; the one Possessor of the
words of life eternal ; our Lord Jesus Christ, the Resurrection. Let
us make sure, or make surer, of Him. Let us arm ourselves for all
trial with Him — “ putting on,” in the surprising phrase of the
apostle, “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ” — and then we will be
best armed to deal with the subtlest perplexities of the mind ; and
then we will have what passes the warmest fancy and the tenderest
emotions for dealing with the anguish of the heart. Our reasoning
will be Jesus Christ. We will soon reach, on any path of thought
and whoever we may be, the insoluble, but we will touch Him be-
fore whom all lies open and familiar. We can trust His secrecy
about this or that, for He hath words of eternal life. And our
resignation, and much more than our resignation under grief will
be Jesus Christ. In Him, as we muse upon the grave and listen

TRUSTING IN TEE DARK. 77

beside it to the silence of heaven and earth, we find a Lord who
may indeed ask to be trusted there, for He once lay down there
Himself, and from thence (fact as sure as is the existence of His
Church to-day) rose again. He died for us, He died before us, and
now He bids us look steadily upon Him, and believe one thing
upon His explicit word — that He shall yet “change the body of
humiliation into true likeness to the body of His glory, according
to the energy of His being able to subdue even all things to
Himself.”

Cambridge, England.

H. C. G. Moule.

THE CHUKCH AATD THE MASSES.

A RECENT writer has said: “Apostles of complaint and de-
spondency stand ever in the pathway of progress.” These
“ apostles ” tell us that “ the Church is losing its power ; ” “ it is not
in sympathy with the masses ; ” “ Protestantism is declining ; ” and
that “ Church religion and general culture do not play any longer
into each other’s hands.” There are at least three classes of people
who sound the bugle of alarm. 1. One class is represented by such
authorities as Archbishop Hughes and the Rev. Dr. Ewer. The
former held, nearly forty years ago, that “ Protestantism had lost
all central force and power over the masses of mankind.” Dr.
Ewer wrote a book in 1868 to prove that Protestantism was a
failure, and reiterated the same ten years later. 2. Skeptical
writers find it to their interest to make it appear that the Church
is losing its power and authority over men, and is being out-
stripped by science and education ; that “ scholars and thinkers are
arrayed against its peculiar tenets ; ” that, “ only Roman Catholics
and a few seared and shriveled relics of Protestantism now attend
Church ; ” and that “ the Bible is a queer relic of an ancient faith.”
Prof. Goldwin Smith writes in the Atlantic Monthly (November,
1879), of “ The prospect of a moral interregnum,” and Mr. Froude
says in the North American Review (December, 1879), that “Prot-
estantism has failed.” 3. There are apostles of despair in the
Christian Churches who seem to be driven to the position that
Christianity is not coming on as it should. A doleful note was
struck at the Christian convention held in Washington, D. C., daring
the month of December, 1887. Now if these fears have any foun-
dation in fact, it is high time that the Church was bestirring herself to
amend the fault. We have been taught to believe that the Church
has been growing almost uniformly since the time of Christ. In
order to make this progress, it must have had some sympathy with
the people and some power over them. It is purposed in this paper
to show that the Christian Church has been the friend of the peo-
ple; that it has sought out the masses and has merited their sym-
pathy throughout the centuries ; that the present century marks
the high tide of Church effort, and that the masses were never

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

sought after nor reached before as now. The question is largely a
comparative one. The work and success of the Church of the past
must be placed alongside of the work and success of the Church of
to-day in reaching the masses. This will be our method.

“The Church” is used in the New Testament to indicate the
whole company of God’s elect (Matt. xvi. 8) ; the sum of those
under pastors who are Christians (1 Cor. xii. 18) ; particular socie-
ties in particular places (Acts viii. 1) ; assemblies of these societies
in specific places (Rom. xvi. 5). McClintock and Strong's Cyclopae-
dia mentions eight common usages of this word. We shall use the
word “ Church ” as “ that divine institution which is for the salva-
tion of men, and of which Jesus Christ has been the founder on
earth.” For present purposes we care nothing about denomina-
tions.

The term “masses” is used in a variety of senses. Webster de-
fines the “ masses ” to be “ the people in general as distinguished
from the less numerous privileged classes, the populace.” This is
the sense in which the term seems to be oftenest used. Mr. William
Rossiter, in a well-written article in the Nineteenth Century (July,
1887), criticises the churches and ministers of London for formality,
for overemphasizing creed, and for putting too much stress on rules
and deliverances. He charges the Church and ministry with ambi-
tion and a desire for ease. He asserts that they do not take enough
interest in the secular affairs of “ the masses.” He illustrates the
last thought by referring to a free library system which had been
inaugurated among the poor in the south of London, and to which
neither the Church nor clergy gave help or sympathy. He had
been speaking of the “ masses,” and proceeded at once to note an
instance that applied to workingmen and the poorer classes. Rev.
Hr. A. T. Pierson spoke, in his W ashington address, of a “ caste-
ocracy.” Rev. Dr. John Hall, of New York city, puts it tersely
thus: “What are the masses ? Crowds of people in contiguity.”
The context indicates that he has special reference to the large
crowds in cities. Rev. Dr. George F. Pentecost, in the Homiletic
Review , speaking of the “lapsed masses,” says: “It would be a
mistake to suppose that the lapsed masses are all at the bottom of
society.” He defines this term to be the “ heathen population of
our cities.” Says Prof. Harris, of Yale College, “The masses are
not merely the riffraff of great cities, but the people all over the
country.” Here are several senses in which the term “ masses ” is
used. “ The masses ” is quantity without individuality, in mis
paper the “ masses ” will include all classes, black and white, the
world’s population.

Now is it true that the Church is not seeking “the masses?”

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

that “the masses” are being estranged from the churches? Is it
true that the “ caste lines ” and “ Church lines ” are identical ? Is
the Church being “ run ” by a monopoly of wealth, culture and
fashion ? Is it losing its power over men, and has it become dis-
heartened? We wish to know the facts. Mr. C. K. Whipple, in the
North American Review (December, 1887), holds that slavery was
opposed by the few ; that nineteen-twentieths of the clergy and of the
churches were in favor of slavery ; that Felix Adler could not and
did not wait on the Church for its espousal of “ ethical culture ; ”
and that Henry George could not wait upon the Church to help his
land theory. This is given in evidence that the Church is not
favorable to the suffering classes; therefore, it is losing 'its power
over the common people.

Any number of such strictures have been made upon the Church.
But it ought to be understood that the Church was not designed to
champion the interests of any single class. The world has ever had,
and ever will have, the rich and the poor, the plebeian and the
patrician, the learned and the unlearned. The gospel is for all men.
It strikes at the very root of all class trouble — selfishness — and
would teach man to love his neighbor as himself. It would regen-
erate man, king and subject, employer and employ d, teaching him
to be just and to render justice. Reforms along this line, for eigh-
teen centuries, have been suggested and fostered by Christian teach-
ings. Many ministers avoided entering the conflict, when Beecher,
Garrison and others were kindling the fires of sentiment which
consumed slavery. Yet these very men, who avoided the conflict
outwardly, were preaching a gospel, the principles of which are
favorable to universal brotherhood and liberty. Says Dr. Beh-
rends, of Brooklyn :* “ Christ refused to pass judgment on the
legality of Rome’s exacting tribute from the descendants of Abra-
ham, and He promptly declined acting as a referee in a case where
there was a dispute about property rights. The Apostle Paul does
not figure as an agitator for the abolition of slavery, though no man
ever proclaimed more energetically the equality of all men under
the gospel.” Neither may the Church to-day become the champion
of the Henry George theory or the special advocate of the prin-
ciples of the “ Knights of Labor,” nor may it become the organizer
of a political party to champion the cause of constitutional prohibi-
tion. Gospel principles, faithfully taught, are a powerful stimulus
in all true reforms — healing differences between employer and em-
ploy^, between the high and the low, the rich and the poor. But
for the Church, as such, to take sides in a question that is not
purely moral, would be to antagonize another class, among whom

* Homiletic Review, December, 1887.

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

are found many honest and well-meaning people. “ The gospel
refuses to identify itself with social cleavages and with race preju-
dices, but addresses itself to each soul, as made in the image of
God, marred and defiled by sin indeed, but redeemed by Jesus
Christ and needing a radical spiritual renewal.”

The Church has ever cared for the poor, the sick and the afflicted.
This principle of the Christian religion was manifest at the very
beginning. Under the Hebrew economy the land was to rest every
seventh year, that the poor of the Church might eat ; when sacri-
fices were to be offered, provision were made for the poor, by which
they might give less than was usual. Vineyards must not be
gleaned, but left for the poor and the stranger. In the year of
jubilee, all who had lost the title to their farms and homes, through
bad management or misfortune, had them restored. The rich and
the poor were judged on the same basis of righteousness. Jesus
Christ was of humble origin. He worked at His trade until He
began His public ministry. He chose His disciples from among
the poorer and middle classes. His associates and the character of
His teachings go to confirm the fact that He was in deeper sympa-
thy with those who suffered, than with those who reveled in pomp
and plenty. The early Church taught charity, and this charity was
exercised towards those who most needed it. St. Paul commanded
the Churches of Achaia and Macedonia to take up collections for
the suffering in Jerusalem. James, Cephas and John remembered
the poor also. The spirit and ambition of the founders of the
Christian Church were favorable to the common people and the
poor. Turning to the post-apostolic Church we observe the same
spirit. It stands out in strong contrast with the best spirit of the
prevailing paganism. Christian charity was self-denying ; while
the heathen liberality was, at the basis, self-seeking. The Greek,
as well as the Koman, conception of charity was to give either for
the sake of the State or popular favor. Caesar and Augustus gaye
to the people when they felt a need of their good-will. Gracchus
and Claudius hoped to win favor by their famous corn laws. On the
occasion of Caesar’s triumph, the people feasted at twenty-two thou-
sand tables, and wine flowed in abundance. Marcus Aurelius pro-
vided games for the populace one hundred and thirty-five days in
the year and gave presents. Nero distributed tickets which drew
money, corn, horses and estates ; but how different the principles
involved in this prodigal waste compared with that spirit which led
the early Church to divide with the needy. Says Uhlhorn : “ Even
the collection of alms for the relief of the poor is in close connection
with Church life, yea, is an act of this Church life itself.” The
assemblies of the Churches of those times proved their membership
6

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

by giving to the needy. Says Tertullian : “ Every one deposits a
moderate sum monthly if he chooses and if he can; for no one is
forced, but each contributes voluntarily.” Says Justin Martyr:
“ Those who were able and desired to do so, gave of their free will
as much as they chose.” These instances refer to the voluntary
contributions of Church members and signify Church membership.
There was a gift belonging to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper
which was in the nature of an oblation. Bread and wine were
brought on these occasions and were for the relief of the poor.
Three things ought to be observed in this benevolence of the
early Church : 1. The giving was systematic. 2. It was a free
gift. 3. It was applied where there was actual distress. The
Christian sentiment was infinitely better than that of heathenism.
Christian giving was rational and sympathetic. Says Lecky,
after noting the various charities of the Greek and Roman gov-
ernments:* “ Christianity for the first time made charity a
rudimentary virtue, giving it a leading place in the moral type,
and in the exhortations of its teachers.” Illustrations and
testimony could be multiplied, showing that the ancient Church
was the real friend of the suffering poor. The Church has kept up
these forms of charity down through the ages. Literature and his-
tory prove the proposition abundantly.

When the European States were the weakest and did the least
for the suffering, the Church opened her doors of hospitality. The
greatest pulpit orators of ancient and mediaeval times championed
the cause of the people. Gregory and Augustine fought bravely for
the helpless, and the Church became, to a large degree, the conser-
vator of the people’s rights. The Synod of Arles decided that the
bishop must watch faithfully any Christian who was prefect of a
province and see that he committed no injustice to the people.
When Theodosius the Great would massacre the Christian people of
Thessalonica, Ambrose expelled him from the Church, and refused
him the sacrament until he did public penance. The unfortunate
flew to the Church for protection against cruel creditors. The
Church, while not advocating the abolition of slavery in the Roman
empire, became the slave’s friend. Every student of history knows
the influence which the Christian religion has had in ameliorating
the condition of women and of placing a higher value on the lives
of children and slaves. Lecky, in speaking of infanticide and other
cruelties to children practiced during the interval from Constantine
to Charlemagne, says : “ It may, however, be safely asserted that the
publicity of the trade in exposing children became impossible under
the influence of Christianity The extreme destitution, which

*History of European Morals, Vol. ii, p. 15.

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

was one of its most fertile causes, was met by Christian charity.”
Says Charles Loring Brace:* “ With Christianity naturally came in
a new conception of the position of women.” Yice among the
women of Borne was at its highest tide when the Christian era
dawned. But the Church taught her respect for herself, and gave
her husband a higher conception of woman than that of concubin-
age. The hospital and the asylum are institutions belonging to the
Christian Church. Heathenism is barren of institutions which
would either comfort or improve the indigent. Prior to Constan-
tine, the homes of the good bishop and the Christian afforded
the only hospitals for the sick and asylums for the afflicted. Sub-
sequent to his reign, when Christians had multiplied and distress had
increased, hospitals were erected. Julian attempted to establish
hospitals in imitation of the Jews, as he himself virtually acknowl-
edges. “For it is disgraceful,” he says, “when there is not a beg-
gar among the Jews .... that our people should be without our
help.” In 375 A.D., St. Ephraim became the almoner of charities
for the Christians. He provided three hundred beds, fed the hun-
gry, and cared for the strangers who flocked to his town. There
was a hospital in Antioch with which Chrysostom was connected
and he built two more in Constantinople. The Council of Chalce-
don recognized a hospital at Ephesus, founded by Bishop Brassianus.

Let us turn now to quite another line of evidence, showing that
the Church has been and is in deepest sympathy with the masses.
This is proven by our missionary efforts. Jesus Christ was not
only of the “common people,” but He certainly preached a gospe
suited to them as well as to the rich. His disciples were of the
same class and reiterated the same doctrine. St. Paul struck out
for the “ outlying masses ” when on those three or four missionary
journeys to the Mediterranean isles, to Asia Minor, to Macedonia, to
Greece and to Rome. What was the Apostle Thomas doing in
India but seeking the masses? These men declared the good news
everywhere. The gospel spread rapidly through the whole Roman
empire following the apostolic age, notwithstanding persecution.
In the second century a Christian prince ruled in Edessa, and Chris-
tianity had spread to Persia, Media and Parthia. During the third
century missionaries had carried the glad tidings from Alexandria to
Africa proper. Origen had gone to Arabia. Seven missionaries
had gone from Italy to Gaul and had established flourishing
churches. During the centuries following Anchorites, Monks and
Stylites who had settled on the border of the Roman empire had
made a strong impression upon the barbarians — the masses of Cen-
tral and Northern Europe. Probably in 432 A.D. St. Patrick and

*Oesta Christi, p. 22.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

his twenty-four friends landed on Erin’s Isle. Mvnias, who had
been educated at Rome, labored among the Piets and Scots in Cale-
donia during the fifth century. Augustine hastened to England in
the latter part of the sixth century; Bishop Aidan revolutionized
Northern England ; St. Fridolin evangelized Southwestern Germany;
St. Goar preached to the Teutons of the northwest ; St. Boniface to
the Frisians, and Ewald to the Saxons on the Rhine. Missions
were established among the Scandinavians, Slavonians and Moham-
medans in quick succession. Farther down the centuries we have
such brave men as Wycliff, Huss, Savonarola, Luther, Zwingli and
others who were not only reformers but missionaries, seeking the
elevation and salvation of the masses. To exhaust this list would
be to make a catalogue. This line of earnest and evangelizing men
has been kept up through the generations ; and yet, during these
centuries, there was no general movement such as characterizes the
Church to-day. Evangelistic work was practically abandoned for
a thousand years by the Church. Individuals only rose up now
and then, imbued with the Holy Ghost, like meteors making the
night of the dark ages blacker in contrast. "Whenever men have
gotten to the true spirit of the Christian religion they have been
seized with the desire to carry the news to others less fortunate.
The evangelistic spirit has been the thermometer indicating the
spiritual temperature of the Church. And to be evangelistic is to
seek the masses. The spirit of all true missionaries, from the
Apostle Paul down, has been to ameliorate the condition of
the individual, to make him respect self in this life and to recog-
nize his obligation to care for the soul. The spirit of Christianity
is that of sacrifice.

But it is competent now to ask, Is the Church carrying out the
spirit which we have found to exist in the earlier centuries ? Or
has it become the tool of the wealthy and favored classes? Has it
segregated as compared with its former attitude?

Let the facts answer. Dr. Dorchester* catalogues forms of modern
Christian activity under the head of “ The New Spiritual Era,” all
of which might be put in as competent testimony upon this ques-
tion. He calls attention to the “new life” which the Church has
taken on in this country during the present century, and which is
so well known by all intelligent people. This revived condition of
the Church has resulted in organization for the purpose of reaching
the masses. The laity have become active and the whole Church
aggressive in city, home and foreign missions. The Young
Men’s Christian Associations, temperance organizations, hospitals
and asylums have been set on foot for the sake of the masses.

* Religious Progress.

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

There never was a .time when benevolence was more emphasized
by the Church than at present. True benevolence is exercised
towards the truly needy. This benevolence reaches the sick,
the homeless, the hungry, the naked, the ignorant and the
churchless. This certainly is a symptom of interest in and sympa-
thy for the masses. This benevolence takes many forms. The
ministry is sustained ; thousands of churches are built ; colleges
and theological schools are erected and sustained by the Church for
the training of the youth ; missionaries are sent abroad and decently
supported ; hospitals, homes for the friendless, orphanages, places of
reform for drunkards and abandoned women, kindergarten schools
for the children of the poor, etc., have been built and are sustained
by the churches. These are only specimens of the charitable work
being done for the masses. We must not forget that the system of
our public charities, under the control of our various State govern-
ments, is the product of our Christian civilization. County infirma-
ries, city hospitals, public dispensaries, township and county poor
funds, asylums for the insane, blind and deaf, all these charities owe
their origin and belong to the Christian Church.

But it is charged that many leading churches pursue a course
which tends to alienate the working classes and the poor. This we
are not prepared to deny. Strangers are sometimes scowled at when
they happen in certain pews. There is a frigid atmosphere in some
churches calculated to discourage the plainer people. One exam-
ple must suffice, the parties to which are personally known to the
writer. A well-dressed mechanic called on the pastor of one of
the up-town churches in a certain city. While in the parlor a
wealthy parishioner called and was introduced by the pastor to
this stranger. The wealthy member proceeded to eulogize their
superior church advantages and gave the stranger an invitation
to unite with them. A moment after the pastor withdrew,
when the wealthy member inquired of him his business. “ A
carpenter,” was the reply. “Ah ! ” said the church worker with
an air of disappointment. Not another word was spoken until
the return of the pastor. It is needless to say that the carpen-
ter found a church home elsewhere, when he discovered that this
man fairly represented his congregation. On the other hand, the
people who are without means and culture are sometimes unreason-
able and oversensitive. Too many require the families who share
their pews with the stranger and show him proper attention in the
church, to take him into their parlors and social circles. There
should be a democratic spirit among Christians. Yet one of the
fundamental principles of democracy is the liberty of choosing
one’s own society. We ought to treat all alike in so far as church

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

life goes, making the rich and poor equally at. home. But home
life is another sphere and ought to be so understood. We want
the liberty of selecting companions agreeable to our tastes and con-
ditions in life. The aristocrat and plebeian alike ought to recog-
nize with distinct vision their respective places and privileges.
While there are too many wealthy churches which have become
clubhouses, yet we must not lose sight of the fact which mitigates
the evil to some extent, and that is that there never has been a
time, so far as history goes to show, when the wealthy churches of
our cities did so much for the poor as they are doing at present.
This work is going on in many different lines. These churches are
giving largely to the various charities. One glance at the reports
of the various church bodies will convince any one as to this fact.
There is scarcely a city in the United States in which there are not
mission churches sufficient to accommodate double the number of
people that attend them.

But says Rev. A. F. Schauffler, D.D., of New York,* “ We find that
the churches constantly tend to crowd their way into certain localities
where for various reasons they can easily maintain themselves, and
abandon other and less favored quarters of the city. For example,
we can mark out south of Broom street, a locality in which 68,000
people live and for twelve years there have been only two small
English Protestant Churches, one German Church and two small
chapels.” We deem it a sufficient answer to this to say that the
condition of things, of which Dr. Schauffler wrote in 1885, was not
allowed to remain so long. In that very district a Tabernacle has
since been built by such princely givers as Hon. William E. Dodge,
Hon. Morris K. Jessup and others, costing from one to two hundred
thousand dollars and built for the masses of that locality. Further-
more, an evangelistic movement in some of the most conservative
churches in New York has done much to push the cause of Christ
far into these waste places. It is true that some churches are with-
drawing into more favored localities ; and why not ? The congrega-
tions have gone up town. They find good preaching nearer their
new homes. Either the house of worship must move or the church
must die. “ But,” some one asks, “ why not bring in the new popu-
lation of Germans, Italians and Irish which swarm about these old
down-town churches in New York and Cincinnati? ” For the good
reason that such a thing is not easily done, judging from past
experience. “ However,” some would reply, “if the churches did
their duty and were wise, then old churches could be filled to their
uttermost; a new audience indeed, but filled.” We believe that it
could be done better than it is being done, certainly. So long as

* Christian Union, March 12, 1833.

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

the old churches are being held by the old congregations they
demand the conservative methods of the past. They apply the
principle of home life to church life, which is a palpable error.
This arises from a misconception of the intention of the gospel and
the work of the Church. The Church is a family where all
“ seekers after God ” should be welcomed. Seneca, Epictetus, Mar-
cus Aurelius, the Teuton and the Anglo-Saxon should meet upon
this common ground and learn to worship Jehovah. The Church
is awakening more and more to the necessity of looking after that
large mass of people in our cities who fear neither God nor man.
And this is wise ; for by and by they will govern the cities ; the
cities will govern the country ; and the nation will be in peril. Dr.
Strong well says,* “ The city is the nerve centre of our civilization.
It is also the storm centre.” Again, “ From 1790 to 1880 the
whole population (of the United States) increased twelvefold, the
urban population eighty-sixfold.” This increase comes largely
from the immigrant, who, too often, hates law, believes in anarchy
rather than government, accepts no God and has never been taught
morality. All the evils that threaten our land are concentrated in
our cities. Ex-Mayor Hewitt, of New York city, recently gave
some significant figures. “In New York there is born of native
parents only 19.85 per cent, of the whole. Born of parents one or
the other of whom was an alien, 40.47 per cent., distributed as fol-
lows: 16.46 per cent. Irish; 13.35 per cent. German; with a non-
English-speaking population of 13.37J per cent.” Many of these
people come to our shores as refugees from justice, indigent, practi-
cal heathens, agitators, ignorant. A consideration of these facts
multiplies converts, among loyal and wise Americans, to the theory
of a restricted immigration. Christian people and honest statesmen
cannot too soon lay hold of this and corelative questions with wis-
dom and firmness. But large efforts are being made to reach these
multitudes. Our public schools will have much to do with bearing
the lighted torch of knowledge and truth into these dark places, and
the Christian Church indirectly fosters this system of public schools.
A literature which is seasoned with the salt of Christianity will
help solve the problem. Unions are being formed in some of our
cities, among the churches, for the purpose of pushing the work so
much needed in evangelizing the “ unchurched.” City missionaries
are being largely employed to go from house to house, leaving tracts
and Testaments ; praying and conversing on religious topics with
those who will allow it. The Y. M. C. A. is doing a large work
among the masses which the Church, as such, does not always perceive.
Other evangelistic agencies are at work, unknown oftentimes to the

*Our Country.

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

critics. It should be remembered that the Church and our civiliza-
tion are trying to solve a problem which Greece, Rome, and later Euro-
pean nations have failed to solve. We shall not succeed in a day.
The signs are hopeful when we can locate the trouble and diagnose the
disease. The world has been seeking the remedy for centuries. It
is largely acknowledged now that we have it in the Christian reli-
gion.

Besides the millions of money spent by the Churches for the
masses of America, and the thousands who devote their lives for
the amelioration of the people in this country, it is worth while to
note what is being done for the world at large. Take the Presby-
terian Board of Foreign Missions as an illustration of what the
Church is doing for the outside world ; last year nearly a million
of money was poured out to sustain more than three hundred or-
dained missionaries, besides physicians and lady teachers, including
native helpers, making a regiment of from seventeen to eighteen
hundred who were seeking to help, elevate and save the masses
among American Indians, the Chinese and Japanese in this country;
in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Brazil and Chili ; among different
African tribes; in Siam, China, Corea, Persia and Syria. Wilder’s
statistics for 1885 and 1886, which only claim to approximate the
truth, show that the Christian Churches of Europe and America
raised $10,297,230 for foreign missions in one year. There were
6646 missionaries and 950,162 communicants in foreign mission
Churches. In the United States, from 1870 to 1880, $24,861,482
were given by the Protestant Churches for foreign missions alone.
During seventy years, from 1810 to 1880, $57,628,846 were given
for the same cause, showing that more than forty per cent, of the
aggregate was given during the last ten years. Since 1880 the ma-
jority of the Churches have largely increased their benevolence,
indicating that the evangelization of the masses has been near to
the heart of the Church, and that the missionary spirit is growing.
These figures leave out of view what the Roman Catholic Church
is doing along the same line. A study of the enormous sums of
money raised by the Christian people of the world, and the fact
that these sums are yearly increasing, are not calculated to make
“ apostles of despair.” The facts and figures bearing on this ques-
tion are most encouraging. The most reliable statistics which can
be secured show that in fifteen hundred years Christians grew to the
number of one hundred millions; then in three hundred years more
they grew to the number of two hundred millions ; then in seventy-
nine years — 1800 to 1879 — they increased to four hundred and ten
millions* When we come to compare the rate of Christian increase

* Religious Progress, p. 515.

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

during the last ten years, we are forced to concede that four hun-
dred and fifty millions of Christians are in the world to-day. To be
sure our definition of the “ Church ” will not include all these.
But these figures, taken in connection with the evidence already
suggested that the Church is possessed of a greater vitality and
deeper spirituality than ever before, indicate something of the
growth with which the “ Church ” should be credited. The world
is fast being brought under subjection to Calvary’s King. To put
these figures in another form : In the year 1800 A.D. there were, in
the United States, 364,872 Protestants; in the year 1880 there were
10,065,963. In the year 1800 there was one communicant to each
14.5 inhabitants ; in 1880 there was one communicant to each 5
inhabitants. From 1800 to 1880 the population of the United
States increased 9.46 fold, while Protestant communicants increased
27.52 fold. To these figures should be added the growth of the
Roman Catholic Church in this country, which has grown from
100,000 members in 1800 A.D. to 6,367,330 in 1880, or to over
10,000,000 according to some Roman Catholic authorities. The
exhibits recently made of Church statistics taken from the census
of 1890 are encouraging rather than discouraging. Taking the
Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Methodists of this country
alone, we find that their five million and a quarter communicants
show a vast increase over the statistics of the same denominations
taken ten years before. We submit that, if there is anything
in figures, benevolence, organization, tireless activity and a deeper
spirituality, there is no occasion for the lugubrious wails of Chris-
tian pessimists, or for the distortion of the facts by the skeptics.
Since the above figures were collated the missionary impulse has
increased most wonderfully in our Churches, colleges and theo-
logical schools. Daughters of wealth and young men with talents
sufficient to give them position anywhere, are pledging themselves
to carry the good tidings to the destitute of every clime. The
Church is pressing the printing press, the telegraph, the steam-
ship, Christian literature, large means, rapid transit and en-
larged Christian views into missionary service that the masses
may be reached. Nor is the evangelizing spirit confined to our
own country by any means. Said Mr. Powell, the General Sec-
retary of the Church of England’s Workingmen’s Society, in a
Congress of the Anglican Church held in Carlisle, Eng., in 1884 :
“ If an example were needed to show how comprehensive our
beloved Church really is, we find it in the fact that, in the
Twenty-fourth Annual Church Congress, all classes of Churchmen,
from the highest dignitary to the lowest member, were represented
and recognized. From this fact the enemies of the Church may per-

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

haps learn a lesson, proving that they speak untruly when they pro-
claim that the Church of England is the Church of the rich and the
enemy of the poor ; and no better argument could be advanced in
proof of the fact that the Church is fast adapting herself to the
needs of, and becoming in reality the Church of, the people.” Here
is testimony from one who represents the people, concerning a
Church which has been generally considered as far away from the
masses as possible, that this Church is adapting itself to the people.
This is an auspicious omen indeed.

The following questions were addressed to quite a number of
leading clergymen and laymen in different denominations three
years ago : 1. Have the Protestant Churches of modern times

drifted away from the masses? 2. If so, what are the causes?
3. What are the remedies? The Eev. B. K. Pierce, of Boston,
writes : “ There can be no doubt that the pulpit and the Church
have lost their grip in a degree upon certain classes, and that it
is much more difficult now to secure attendance upon worship,
especially on any portion of the Sabbath except in the morning,
than in former years.” He assigns as causes for this condition of
things the effect of the recent Civil War, speculation and wealth,
the Sunday newspaper, weakening in Sabbath observance, lower
standard of proper worldly pleasures, rented pews. As remedies
he suggests: the Church must go after the people, more atten-
tion must be paid to the temporal wants of the people, the Church
needs sanctified common sense, the Holy Spirit is needed in
power. Says the late Rev. Reuben Jeffery, D.D.: “I do not think
that the Churches have so much drifted away from the masses, as
the masses have drifted away from the Churches.” Rev. A. T.
Pierson, D.I)., answers the first question in the affirmative. The
causes of the trouble — pew system, caste spirit, loss of contact. Reme-
dies— free pews, systematic evangelization, democratic spirit among
the Churches. Rev. J. F. Patterson, Pittsburgh : “lam not one of
those who believe that the Protestant Church of modern times has
drifted away from the masses.” Mr. John Wanamaker, Postmaster-
General, agrees with Dr. Pierson. Rev. Herrick Johnson, D.D.,
McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago : “ The Churches are
as near the masses as the}1- ever were, but are not adequately
reaching them.” Rev. George F. Pentecost, D.D. : “ I have no
doubt the Protestant Churches are drifting away from the masses,
or rather allowing the masses to drift away from them.” Causes —
favor shown to the wealthy, neglect of the poor, a too scholarly and
rhetorical style of preaching, preaching about the gospel rather
than preaching the gospel. Remedies — remember that God is the
Maker of the rich and the poor ; that the gospel is for men , not

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

classes of men. Rev. Dr. John Hall, New York: “The Church
has more of them (the people) than she had fifty years ago, and
more, that is, a larger proportion of them even in the cities, than
.she used to have. The difference is, that those she has not have the
power and opportunity, now, to scream, shout, write and get courted
by popular talkers, who, to say the least, do little for the Churches.
A place is quoted, e. g., as having 100,000 people and only sixteen
Protestant churches. But to be exact we should know what pro-
portion of the 100,000 prefer Roman Catholic ways, and then what
proportion of' the Protestant balance is ‘drifted’ away from ‘Prot-
estant Churches.’” President Payne, D.D., of Ohio Wesleyan
University, in answer to the first question : “ I fear they have to a
considerable extent. I do not think the case is as bad as it is often
represented to be.” Rev. George P. Hays, D.D., Kansas City : “ If
by ‘ the masses ’ you mean the majority of the people of this country,
then I promptly say, in the language of Dr. W ard of the Independent ,
that they have not drifted away from the Churches, nor the Churches
drifted away from them.” The late Rev. Dr. Howard Crosby,
New York: “ I do not think the Protestant Churches have, in the
, slightest degree, in modern times, drifted away from the masses.
The masses will always prefer a Church that will absolve them from
all sins without a change of heart, and that Rome undertakes to do.
Hence Roman churches are crowded. So are heathen temples and
for the same reason.” The Rev. C. L. Thompson, D.D., New York,
fears that the Church has drifted away from the masses “ somewhat,”
especially in our large cities. He finds a remedy in doing as Christ
did, “living among them — not patronizingly by a mission station.”
Mr. William E. Dodge, of New York, speaks hopefully of the
Churches’ growing influence over the masses. Prof. E. D. Morris,
D.D., of Lane Theological Seminary, finds a subtle law “ by which
a Christian denomination, as it becomes well organized, as it grows
elaborate in doctrine and polity, and its membership increases in
wealth and social standing and influence, moves unconsciously
away from the people, and tends to become the religion of a class.”
The older a denomination is the more civic it becomes, as opposed
to rural , and thus loses its hold upon the common people to that
extent. President D. W. Fisher, D.D., Hanover College : “ Strictly
speaking, they (the Churches) have not drifted away from the
‘ masses.’ More of the 1 masses ’ than ever before are being reached
by the ‘ Churches.’ ” Rev. Charles Pomeroy, D.D., Cleveland :
“ The Churches have not drifted away from the ‘ masses,’ for the

sufficient reason that the masses have never been to them The

drift, if any, has been in the other direction — the masses from the
Church. The Church is just as ready to be useful and hospitable

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

to them as it ever was.” Bishop J. P. Newman, D.D.: “ The Prot-
estant Churches of modern times have not drifted away from the
masses, nor have the masses drifted away from the Protestant
Churches.” Prof. Samuel Harris, of Yale College : “ Statistics
show that the membership of the Protestant Churches is and has
long been increasing at a greater ratio than the population. As
efficient forces in elevating and purifying society and Christianizing
civilization Protestant Churches are certainly inferior to no others.”
Rev. Joseph Cook, Boston, writes : “ Some of the wealthier and
more fashionable churches have drifted away from the masses, but
in my opinion the Churches in the United States have been draw-
ing nearer the masses for the past fifty or eighty years.” Prof. J.
M. Stifle, of Chester, Pa., and President F. L. Patton, D.D., of
Princeton, N. J., both deny that the Church has drifted away from
the masses ; so likewise a large number of clergymen from various
denominations. It will be seen that a preponderance of testimony
is favorable to the Church.

The following questions have been addressed by the writer to
about three average churches in sixteen Synods of the Presbyte-
rian denomination in the United States: 1. What per cent, of
your church membership belongs to the laboring “class” — the
“ class” including wage-workers and moderately well-to-do farmers?
Out of a large number of replies the figures have run 60, 70, 75, 80
and up to 100 per cent. 2. Are the common people being
reached by the'churches in your community, in proportion to their
numbers, with the rich ? ■ Nine out of ten answered affirmatively.
So much for testimony favoring the theory that the Church was
never so near to the masses.

Now do we believe the Church is doing as much as it might
do and ought to do ? By no means. Some churches are too aristo-
cratic; others are too careless and selfish; some ministers care for
nothing but their own support ; too much money is put into many
of our church buildings ; the pew system is a comfortable thing for
the selfish church member, but a curse to the cause of Christ ;
travel, toil and pleasure, in some instances, have made inroads on
the Church. The present favorable condition of things could be
made better by concert of action among evangelical denominations ;
by large-heartedness on the part of pastor and people, shown towards
strangers and neighbors ; by house-to-house visitation by the church
members, carrying the gospel to the masses ; by higher consecration
on the part of the church members ; by a better understanding of the
value of a soul ; by better organization and a more practical knowl-
edge of men and things. More ministers fail from a lack of tact
and common sense, than from a lack of piety and consecration ; a

THE CHURCH AND THE MASSES.

modification of our present system of theological training would be
to the interests of the world’s evangelization. These half dozen
lines of reform we believe are practicable. And notwithstanding
the large success of the Church of modern times in reaching
the masses, when the denominations become a unit, not in name
but in objects and when a more generous, self-sacrificing and practi-
cal spirit takes hold of the people — and this is altogether possible —
then the present work of the Church will be to her future work as
the dawn to the noonday.

Terre Haute, Ind.

R. V. Hunter.

VI.

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THE THEO-
LOGICAL SEMINARIES.

THE question of methods of control of the Theological Semina-
ries of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America, is a question into the discussion of which much feeling
has been injected by the controversy now agitating the Church as
to the historical truthfulness of the Holy Scriptures. The import-
ance of the question, however, is not diminished thereby, but the
rather increased. If it be true, that departures from Confessional
doctrine have been made by certain occupants of Seminary
chairs, who claim to be outside of Assembly jurisdiction, then it
is all the more important for the Church, soberly and patiently to
consider the whole matter of the control of the education of her
candidates for the ministry, in the light both of past experience
and present exigency. The following article is respectfully submit-
ted as an aid in the solution of the problem before the Church, and
deals historically as well as critically with the subject of the Semi-
naries, viewing it from a general and Churchly rather than from a
local standpoint.

The plans adopted from time to time, in the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America, for the control of theological
institutions, have been five in number, and may be denominated :
(1) the Assembly ; (2) the Synodical ; (3) the Presbyterial ; (4) the
Independent ; and (5) the Cooperative* methods. Concisely stated,
the main features of each method are as follows.

1. Assembly control, pure and simple, involves the administra-
tion of the affairs of a Theological Seminary by a Board of Direc-
tors elected by and immediately responsible to the General
Assembly. The Professors are also elected by the Assembly, and
it can amend or annul at any time the Constitution of a Seminary.
The management of details of administration are left in the hands of
the Board of Directors, subject to review by the Assembly, but the
latter body can at any time reverse any act of the Board, or

* The word “Cooperative,” is used to designate tlie fifth method, because,
while not exactly defining the relations at present existing between the Assem-
bly and the Seminaries, it is yet applicable thereto to a considerable extent.

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 95

instruct the Board as to what should be its policy. The financial
management of the institution is committed to a Board of Trustees,
subject to change by and reporting to the Assembly. This method
is, in part, that in use in Scotland, and in accordance with its gen-
eral features, the Princeton, Western and Danville Theological
Seminaries were established and for many years satisfactorily
conducted.

2. The Synodical method involves the election, by one or more
Synods, according to a definite plan, of a Board of Directors, who
act under a written Constitution, approved by the governing body
or bodies. The Professors are also chosen by the Synods in accord-
ance with a scheme specified in the plan of control. The power of
the ruling Synods over the Constitution and policy of the institu-
tion is as thorough as that of the Assembly. Financial interests
under this method are administered either by the Directors, or by a
Board of Trustees. It was in accordance with this general method
that the Theological Seminary of the Northwest, now the McCor-
mick Theological Seminary, was first established and controlled.

3. The Presbyterial method places the control of a theological
institution in the Presbytery, the body which possesses the nar-
rowest territorial jurisdiction of any of the Superior Courts of the
Presbyterian Churches. The power of the governing Presbytery
over the Seminary is as far reaching as that possessed by either the
Synod or Assembly, and the government under the Presbytery is
vested in a Board of Directors, by whom Professors are also chosen.
It was on this plan that Ashmun Institute, now Lincoln University,
was established by the Presbytery of New Castle. The method in
use in Auburn Seminary, established in 1819, is a modification of
this plan, the number of Presbyteries exercising control over that
institution being seventeen.

4. The Independent method begins with the establishment of a
Theological Seminary by an individual or individuals. Church
control through any ecclesiastical Court, in any particular, is not
contemplated. The management of affairs is vested in a single
corporation, chartered by the State within whose bounds the insti-
tution is located. The corporation controls directly all details of
management, both educational and financial, and elects the Profes-
sors. Lane Seminary, Cincinnati, 0., was founded upon this plan
in 1829, by a number of clergymen and laymen, and also, in 1835,
Union Seminary, New York City.

5. The Cooperative method of control came into operation in
1870, by virtue of the Reunion of the two branches of the Presby-
terian Church in the U. S. A., known from 1838 to 1869 as the Old
School and the New School Churches. This method originated in

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the general demand for uniformity in Seminary control. To quote
the language of the Committee of the General Assembly of 1870,
of which the Rev. William Adams, D.D., a Director of the Union
Theological Seminary, New York, was Chairman:

“ It is obvious that a matter so important as the education of its ministry
should be in some way under the supervision and control of the Church, so as to
secure the entire and cordial confidence of the Church ” ( Minutes of General
Assembly, 1870, p. 61).

The Old and New School Assemblies of 1869 had also given
expression in legal form to this demand by the unanimous passage
of Concurrent Declaration, Number Nine, which reads as follows:

“In order to a uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision, those Theological
Seminaries that are now under Assembly control may, if their Boards of Di-
rectors so elect, be transferred to the watch and care of one or more of the
adjacent Synods ; and the other Seminaries are advised to introduce, so far as
may be, into their constitutions the principle of Synodical or Assembly control,
in which case they shall be entitled to an official recognition and approbation on
the part of the General Assembly ” (Moore’s Digest, p. 92).

The result of this unanimity of view and of action in the Church,
was the agreement known as the Theological Seminary Compact of
1870, the main features of which are: The election of all Directors
and Trustees solely by the Governing Boards of the several Semi-
naries, and the election of Professors by the said Governing Boards
subject to veto by the General Assembly next ensuing the date of a
reported election. The General Assembly yielded, by an Act for-
mally passed, its direct and immediate control over four institutions,
and was supposed to have received as an equivalent a veto power
over elections of Professors in all the Seminaries. The Assembly
also received a veto power over elections of Directors in several in-
stitutions. It is proper here, further, to remark that, in the opinion
of the writer, the Assembly’s Act of 1870 was the one thing which
gave to the Compact of 1870 validity and force. That the Church
so holds appears in the fact that the Assembly of 1871, on its own
motion, modified the Act of 1870. What it has modified, in virtue
of its own authority, the Assembly can repeal.*

The Compact, and the Assembly’s Act of 1870, it has been
asserted, unified “ all the Seminaries of the Presbyterian Church, so
far as unification ” was “ in any <vav desirable.” Jt is well, therefore,
next to consider what the actual features of the management of
each of the Theological Seminaries are, at the present time, as a
result of the said Compact. The Seminaries are considered in the
order of seniority of establishment.

*For further discussion of this point see the writer’s pamphlet on “The Ec-
clesiastical Status of the Theological Seminaries,” Cincinnati, 1891.

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 97

1. Princeton Theological Seminary. — In the plan of this Seminary
the General Assembly is still acknowledged as the “patron and
fountain of its power.” The Board of Directors is self-perpetuating,
but all elections are subject to the veto of the General Assembly.
The number of members is thirty, twenty-one being ministers and
nine ruling elders. Their term of service is three years, and one
■of the three classes into which they are divided is elected annually.
The Professors are elected by the Directors, who also may remove
them from office, but such elections and removals are subject to the
veto of the General Assembly. The Assembly has power also to
abrogate, alter or amend the Constitution of the Seminary ; but
any change contemplated must be “ proposed at one Assembly, and
not adopted till the Assembly of the subsequent year, except by a
unanimous vote.” Every Director, when he takes his seat as a
member of the Board, subscribes to a pledge or oath of office. The
Princeton Formula for Directors is here given as a fair example of
such a pledge : “ Approving the Plan of the Theological Seminary
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, I
solemnly declare and promise, in the presence of God and of this
Board, that I will faithfully endeavor to carry into effect all the
articles and provisions of said Plan, and to promote the great
design of the Seminary.” Every Professor in the Seminary also
subscribes a formula, pledging ex animo. personal reception and
adoption of the Standards of Faith and Practice of the Presbyterian
Church, and to teach nothing contrary thereto. The students like-
wise are required to sign a pledge of faithfulness in duty. The
finances are managed by a Board of Trustees incorporated under
the laws of the State of New Jersey, having the title “ The Trustees
of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church.” This
corporation consists of twenty-one persons, twelve of whom must
be at all times laymen and citizens of New Jersey, and the mem-
bers are elected for an indeterminate period. The Board is self-
perpetuating, except that the General Assembly is given power in
the Charter, at its annual meetings, wherever held, to change one-
third of the Trustees of the Seminary, in such manner as to the
Assembly shall seem proper. The Charter also specifies that when-
ever special directions are given by the General Assembly, the cor-
poration must act in accordance with them. Both the Directors
and the Trustees are required to report annually to the General
Assembly. The Charter is repealable, and has been four times
amended. Property, 1892, $1,597,212 *

2. Auburn Theological Seminary. — This Seminary was estab

* The statistics of the Theological Seminaries will be found on p. 298 of the
Minutes of the General Assembly for 1892.

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

lished by the Synod of Geneva, in 1819, with the acquiescence of
the General Assembly. The title of the Charter fixes the character
of the institution in the words : “An Act to Incorporate the Presby-
terian Theological Seminary established by the Synod of Geneva,
at Auburn, in the County of Cayuga.” The management is vested
in a Board of Commissioners, composed of two clergymen and one
layman from each of the Presbyteries comprised in the bounds of
the former Synods of Geneva, Genesee, Utica and Susquehanna, and
such other Presbyteries as shall hereafter associate with said Synods.
These Presbyteries number at present eighteen. The commis-
sioners are divided into three classes, the term of office being three
years, with an annual election. Yacancies are filled by the Presby-
teries in whose representation they occur. The Board of Commis-
sioners appoints the Tutors, Professors and other officers, and
exercises general supervision of the affairs of the institution. The
finances are in charge of a Board of Trustees of fifteen persons,
elected by the Board of Commissioners, and divided into three
classes, with an annual election. The Trustees have the immediate
care of the Seminary, report regularly to the Board of Commis-
sioners, and appropriations are made jointly by the two Boards.
The Commissioners have given to the Assembly the right of
approval of the elections of Professors, and the latter take a pledge
on their induction into office. The Charter has been once amended.
Property, $802,061.

3. The Western Theological Seminary. — This Seminary was
founded by the General Assembly in 1827. Its plan is in general
that of the Princeton Theological Seminary (which see), in so far as
concerns the control of the Directors over the institution, and the
status of the Professors. The Board of Directors consists of forty
members, twenty-eight ministers and twelve elders, divided into
four classes, with an annual election. The title of the Act creating
the Board of Trustees, to whom is entrusted the financial manage-
ment, reads: “An Act Incorporating the Trustees of the Western
Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America, at the City of Allegheny, in the State of Penn-
sylvania.” These Trustees number twenty-one, of whom fifteen
must be laymen and six ministers. Nine of the Trustees, further,
must be citizens of Pennsylvania. New members are to be nomi-
nated by the Trustees, and on the approval of the Board of Direc-
tors, elected by the General Assembly. No more than one-third
can be changed in any one year. Like the Princeton Boards of
Directors and Trustees, these Boards are subject to instruction by
the General Assembly, and are required to report annually thereto.
Pledges are required from Directors and Professors at installation.

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 99

One amendment has been made to the Charter, and it is subject to
repeal. Property, $736,970.

4. Lane Theological Seminary. — This institution is under the
control of a single Board, and its Charter was given by the Ohio
Legislature, in 1829. The title of the body corporate is “The
Trustees of the Lane Seminary,” and it is vested with the right of
“ perpetual succession.” The Charter also provides for an Execu-
tive Committee composed of the officers of the Board, who must
reside in the city of Cincinnati or its vicinity, and “ a majority of
whom, together with all the Professors, Tutors, Teachers and
Instructors in said institution, shall be members of the Presbyterian
Church in good standing, under the care of the General Assembly
of that Church in the United States.” The Board has power to
confer theological degrees, but has not exercised it thus far in its
history. The only limitation upon the power of the Board in rela-
tion to Professors, other than that contained in the Charter, is the
By-Law adopted by it, by which the right to veto the election of
Professors was given to the General Assembly. The term of ser-
vice of Trustees is for life or until voluntary resignation, and their
number must be not less than thirteen nor more than twenty-five.
Trustees do not, but Professors do subscribe a pledge of loyalty to
the Standards of the Presbyterian Church. The Charter has been
twice amended. Property, $568,600.

5. Union Theological Seminary. — The management is vested in a
single Board of Directors. The act of incorporation is entitled :
“An Act to Incorporate Union Theological Seminary in the City of
New York.” The number of persons constituting the Board of
Directors is to be “ not less ” than twenty-eight, one-half of whom
must be clergymen and the other half laymen. Directors are
divided into four classes, serving four years, with an annual election.
The Constitution of the Seminary is distinct from its Charter, is
the act solely of the Board of Directors, and is subject to alteration,
with the exception of the two sections which fix the doctrinal basis
of the institution. Any persons are eligible to the office of Direc-
tor who are in good standing in some evangelical Church, “accept-
ing the Westminster Confession of Faith as adopted by the Presby-
terian Churches in the United States.” Every Director, after each
election, pledges himself to maintain the plan of the Seminary, the
Westminster Confession of Faith and the Presbyterian Form
of Church Government. Professors are appointed by the Board
of Directors, and are required on entering office, and triennially
thereafter, or when required by the Board of Directors, to
make and subscribe a pledge of loyalty to the Westminster Con-
fession and the Presbyterian Government. The students are also

100

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

required to subscribe a pledge of faithfulness to duty. The
Charter has been thrice amended, and the Directors, in 1870, gave
to the General Assembly, by an agreement formally made and rati-
fied by both parties, a veto over all appointments of Professors.
This By-Law has been recently repealed by the Board without the
concurrence of the Assembly. Property, $2,108,000.*

6. Danville Theological Seminary. — The plan of this institution
is in its main features similar to the plans of Princeton and Western
Seminaries. The general management is in a Board of Directors
composed of thirty persons — fifteen ministers and fifteen ruling
ciders — divided into three classes, the term of service being three
years, with an annual election. The Charter is entitled, “ An Act
to Incorporate the Trustees of the Theological Seminary, under tbe
care of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America, at Danville, in the State of Kentucky.”
The Board of Trustees consists of not more than eighteen persons,
of whom at least nine must be citizens of Kentucky. They are to
be elected by the General Assembly, which can also change one-
third of the members of the Board, at any meeting held in the
State of Kentucky, and fill all vacancies then existing. The Board,
however, has power to appoint persons to fill vacancies ad interim.
The appointment of Professors is under the “exclusive control” of
the General Assembly, and of the persons appointed by it. Both
the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees must report
annually to the Assembly, and are subject to its instructions.
Pledges of loyalty to the Standards are required both from Direc-
tors and Professors. In 1851, the Kentucky Legislature made the
Charter irrepealable and unalterable. Property, $260,776.

7. McCormick Theological Seminary. — This institution is gov-
erned by a Board of Directors, consisting of twenty ministers and
twenty ruling elders, divided into four classes, with an annual elec-
tion. The original Charter of this Seminary, given in 1857, recog-
nized the Synods of Cincinnati, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, North
Indiana, Chicago and Indiana as the ecclesiastical bodies establish-
ing and controlling the Seminary. In 1859 these Synods trans-
ferred the Seminary to the Assembly, and in 1861 tbe government
was vested legally in the latter body by an amendment to the
Charter. In general, the plan of the Seminary corresponds to the
plans of Princeton, Western, and Danville. The Board of Directors
has power to elect annually not to exceed four Honorary Directors,
who have all the privileges of Directors except that of voting. The
•elections of Directors, and the appointment [or removal of Profes-
sors, are subject to the veto of the General Assembly. Every

-* Includes value of Seminary buildings.

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 101

Director and Professor takes a pledge of loyalty to the faith and
polity of the Presbyterian Church. The financial affairs of the
institution are managed by a Board of Trustees, who are elected by
the Board of Directors. The number of these Trustees is nine, not
less than five of whom must be citizens of the State of Illinois.
The Board of Directors has the power, at any meeting held in the
State of Illinois, to change one-t’nird of the whole number, to fill
vacancies, and to instruct the Trustees. The Charter has been once
amended. Property, $1,399,039.

8. Blackburn University . — This institution was founded by the
Rev. Gideon Blackburn, D.D., in 1838. It was incorporated in
1857 as “The Blackburn Theological Seminary.” In 1867 the
name was changed to “ The Blackburn University.” The Board
consists of thirteen members, residents of Illinois, nine of whom
must be regular members of the Presbyterian Church. Professors
in the Theological Department take a pledge of loyalty to the
Westminster Confession, and every Professor must affirm his “belief
in the Bible as the Word of God.” The General Assembly has a
veto upon the election of theological professors. Property, $56,800.

9. San Francisco Theological Seminary. — The plan of this Semi-
nary places its control in a Board of Directors whose members
are chosen by the Synods of California and Oregon. The number
of the Directors is twenty-four, six of whom are chosen by the Synod
of Oregon, and twelve of whom must be ministers and twelve lay-
men. The term of service is three years, with three classes, and an
annual election. The laymen must be members of the Presbyterian
Church, and at least eight of them ruling elders. The Board of
Trustees is elected by the Directors from its own membership, con-
sists of five persons, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Directors.
The articles of incorporation, filed in 1872, state the object of the
incorporation to be “ to form a corporation for religious and educa-
tional objects, under the care and control of the Synod of the
Pacific* and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America.” Professors are elected by the
Directors, subject to approval by the Synod and the Assembly.
Pledges are required at installation from both Directors and Pro-
fessors. Property, $533,163.

10. Dubuque Theological School. — The title of this institution is
“ The German Theological School of the Northwest.” It was
established by the Rev. A. Van Yliet. Its Board of Directors was
elected at first by the Presbyteries of Dane and Dubuque. The
Board is now self-perpetuating, but elections to it are not valid
unless approved by the General Assembly. The Directors are

* Name changed in 1892 to Synod of California.

102

IRE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

divided into three classes of eight each, with an annual election.
They have charge of the management of the Seminary, both edu-
cationally and financially, but “always subject to the approval and
control of the General Assembly.” Elections of Professors must be
approved by the General Assembly, “ which approval shall be pre-
sumed unless vetoed at the meeting to which such election is
reported,” and they are also required to sign a pledge of loyalty.
The Constitution is subject to modification by the Assembly. Arti-
cles of reincorporation were adopted in 1891, and these provide that
the reincorporation shall continue for fifty years, unless sooner dis-
solved by action of the Board of Directors and consent of the Gen-
eral Assembly. In the event of dissolution, it is provided that all
property shall be transferred to the Board of Education of the Pres-
byterian Church in the United States of America, to be held by it
in trust, “ the income to be used for the education of theological
students.” Property, $50,108.

11. Newark Theological School. — The Charter title of this institu-
tion is “ The German Theological School of Newark, New Jersey.”
The Board of Directors consists of twenty-five members, thirteen of
whom must be laymen and twelve ministers. They are divided
into three classes, one of which is to be elected annually, the term
of service being three years. No person is eligible to the office of
Director unless he be a minister or member in good standing in
some evangelical Church, receiving “ the W estminster Confession
of Faith as adopted by the Presbyterian Churches of this country.”
Elections are by the Presbytery of Newark, and are subject to
review by the next General Assembly, and in case of the Assem-
bly’s disapproval of any Director, his place becomes vacant. Pro-
fessors are elected by the Directors, and, on entering upon office, and
triennially thereafter, or when required by the Board, subscribe to
a declaration of loyalty to the Presbyterian Standards. Their ap-
pointments are subject to the Assembly’s disapproval. All funds
received are upon the doctrinal basis of the Presbyterian Church.
No amendments can be made to the Constitution inconsistent with
the Act of Incorporation, or with the Constitution of the Church.
The Charter provides that when it may be deemed expedient to
discontinue the institution as a distinct German Theological School,
“ it shall be lawful for the Directors, with the approval of the Pres-
bytery of Newark, and of the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian Church of the United States, to use the property and funds
for any other branch of theological education.” Property, $67,200.

12. Lincoln University. — This institution was established for the
general education of colored youth by the Presbytery of New Cas-
tle. It is under the control of a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees,

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 108

consisting of twenty-one persons, with a term of service of seven
years, three being elected each year. In 1871, the year following
Reunion, the Trustees secured an amendment to the Act of Incor-
poration, by which all the powers and authority held by the Pres-
bytery of New Castle were conferred upon the Board of Trustees of
the University, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States was given a veto in the election of
Professors in the theological department. All Professors of the
University subscribe to a rigid doctrinal pledge. Property, $162,650.

13. Biddle University. — The Charter of this institution specifies

that the property is held for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America, “for the education of men
of the colored race and others, for the ministry, for catechists and
for teachers.” The Board of Trustees consists of fifteen persons,
divided into three classes, holding office for the term of three years,
with an annual election. The nomination of Trustees rests with
the Board of Missions for Freedmen, which also nominates the

Professors and Tutors. No Professor or Tutor is to be retained,

who is not acceptable to the Board of Missions for Freedmen and

the Board of Trustees. The Board of Missions for Freedmen also

has the power to disapprove of any By-Laws, ordinances, or regula-
tions adopted by the Trustees. Elections of Professors in the theo-
logical department must be reported to the General Assembly,
which has the power to disapprove and annul the same. The
Charter has been amended three times. Property, $75,000.

14. Omaha Theological Seminary. — The Omaha Theological
Seminary was established in 1891. Its Board of Directors consists
of forty members, twenty ministers and twenty laymen, divided
into four classes, each serving four years, with an annual election.
The Constitution and Articles of Incorporation are substantially
those of McCormick Seminary. The elections of Professors are
submitted to the General Assembly for approval, but the Assembly
has no specific power of veto over the elections of Directors. Only
Professors subscribe to a pledge at installation. Property, $25,000.

This survey exhibits clearly the wide diversity in management
existing in the several theological institutions connected with the
Church. The desire generally expressed in 1870 for some unifor-
mity of method, has not been realized in any effective manner. No
concerted effort was made, following upon Reunion, to carry out the
unanimous action of both the Old and New School Churches as
contained in “ Concurrent Declaration No. 9.” Even the institution
which claims to have led in the effort to bring about Reunion, and
emphasized in a memorial to the Assembly the need for uniformity,
failed to take the first step towards recognition in its Charter either

104

THE FRESB TTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

of Synodical or of Assembly control, and limited action on its part to-
a By-Law of its own, giving to the Assembly a veto power over Pro-
fessors. The Old School Seminaries are still subject, substantially,
to the Assembly. The Seminaries established since Reunion, have
recognized in some manner the control of the Assembly over
elections of Professors, but there is no uniformity with reference to-
elections of Directors and other important matters. The Charters
of Lincoln, founded in 1854, and of Newark, founded in 1869,
recognize distinctly Assembly control, so far as Professors are con-
corned ; but the latter gives the Assembly a veto over the elections
of Directors, while the former does not. The Charter of Lane
Seminary, like that of Union, has not been amended in the matter
of Church control, either in the direction of the Assembly or of the
Synod. These two former New School institutions are legally
independent, possessed of the power to defeat any effort by the
Church, through any of its courts, to enforce either the Compact
of 1870 or its natural authority. The methods in use for the man-
agement of the temporalities of the several Seminaries, are also as
diverse as those employed for educational administration. In some
institutions the Assembly can elect Trustees, in others the Directors
elect, and in others the Trustees are self-perpetuating. There is no-
uniformity of financial management. This is a state of affairs for
which neither the Church, the Assembly, nor any Seminary is
directly responsible. It is the result, in large part, of a development
and growth unguided by a uniform law. That a remedy is needed, to
quote an expression of Dr. William Adams, “ is obvious.” Before sug-
gesting a remedy, it is advisable to consider some of the advantages
and disadvantages of the several methods of control already named.

Control by the Assembly, under the plan adopted by the united
Church, in 1812, in the case of Princeton Theological Seminary, is
complete. Of its strength, thoroughness and summary character,
there can be no question. Substantially the method of control
still exercised over four Theological Seminaries — Princeton, W est-
era, Danville and McCormick — it also appears to be the method in
use in the theological institutions at Dubuque and Omaha. The
weakness of the method lies in the fact that a body like the Assem-
bly, cannot have either the specific knowledge or the local execu-
tive relation, which secures satisfactory management in the details of
Seminary administration. In all the history, however, of the
Assembly’s relations to its Seminaries, matters of detail have never
been the occasion of differences between it and the Boards of Direc-
tors. The former body has shown its usual good sense, by invaria-
ble and prompt confirmation of the merely administrative acts of its
trusted Boards. Some things, however, the elections of Professors

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 105

and Directors for instance, are not mere matters of administrative
detail. The education of its ministers is an interest belonging to
the Church as a whole, and the Church is the proper judge of the
qualifications necessary in theological Directors and Professors.
Just as the Church as a whole determines the qualifications of
pastors, elders and deacons, the officers of particular congregations,
so also the Church as a whole is empowered and altogether com-
petent to fix the qualifications of the officers in its Seminaries. It
is not, that a given Board of Directors cannot be trusted, but that
the denomination has rights in this matter, as in some other mat-
ters, which it cannot properly commit to agents. Arguments in
this connection, against Assembly control on the ground that it is
“ mob rule,” are a reflection both upon the Church and the persons
using them, and so likewise arguments against control by Directors
are altogether improper, if based upon the allegation that Directors
may be narrow, local and cliquish in their management. The
fact is, that the common sense of General Assemblies is one of their
most marked characteristics. The people in America, whether in
Church or State, have never as yet failed in any crisis in the per-
formance of duty, and those who speak of their exercise of author-
ity as “ mob rule,” show either extreme partisanship or a lack of
sympathy with popular institutions. It is upon the grounds of
rightful Church authority, and the competency of popular govern-
ment, that Assembly control of Seminaries, in such lines as the elec-
tions of Directors and Professors, is based and can be maintained.

Synodical is of the same general character with Assembly con-
trol, and has the advantage of bringing the details of management
into a body more largely acquainted with the specific needs of a given
Seminary, than can be the case with the General Assembly. Two
of its disadvantages are, that it tends to make a Seminary represen-
tative of a narrow constituency, and also to build up institutions
in sympathy with purely local conditions both of thought and work.

The method of control by a single Presbytery has the advantage
of securing the management of details by a body of ministers and
ruling elders fully acquainted with the needs of an institution, but
at the same time labors under the disadvantage, more largely than
the Synodical plan of subjection to localizing tendencies, for the
Board of Directors will be composed to a considerable extent of
members of the Presbytery of the vicinage. The Auburn plan of
control by a body of Commissioners chosen by seventeen Presby-
teries, is an extension of this Presbyterial method, greatly to the
advantage of the Seminary and the Church. It secures direct and
sympathetic ecclesiastical control through a representative body, a
third of which is annually elected by certain Presbyteries, and fur-

106

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

nishes, therefore, an effective check to merely personal or localizing
influences. The plan needs, for completeness, the recognition in
legal form of the sustaining, informing and stimulating influence of
that widespread constituency, found only in the Church as a whole.

The Independent plan is a method through which real control
by the Church is impracticable. A Board of Directors or Trustees,
whose relation to the Church is not definitely stated in some form
in the Charter of an institution, may at any time under the pressure
of conflict of opinion or local feeling, disregard the voice of the
Church. This method, further, is out of date. It is one of the
survivals from a period when the Church permitted its work to be
conducted by voluntary agencies, irresponsible to its Courts. At
Beunion, the overwhelming sentiment both in the Old and New
School Churches was utterly opposed to such agencies. To-day,
the sentiment is practically universal that no institution of the
Church, whether it be a congregation, Missionary Society or Semi-
nary, can be regarded as organized in harmony with the principles
of the Presbyterian system, unless Church control is secured in some
definite and efficient manner. This statement is not to be under-
stood as in any way reflecting upon the past management of certain
societies and institutions indirectly connected with the Church, but
is simply the affirmation of the fact that public opinion to-day
favors the efficient control of all Church agencies by the Church.*
Experience shows, also, that institutions founded and sustained by
members of a denomination can be secured to a denomination only
by denominational control. There is no certainty of the retention
of any institution, founded and sustained by Presbyterians, in con-
nection with the Presbyterian Church, unless it is placed both
ecclesiastically and legally within the power of the Church. It is
on this basis that the work of the Board of Aid for Colleges
and Academies is at present conducted. The Presbyterian Church,
further, as an organized body, should be true to itself, should exer-
cise for the good of all its parts, by efficient methods, its natural
supervisory executive authority. The work of the Church will be
increasingly carried forward on this principle in the future, for
effective and permanent denominational work can be secured only

*The National Council of the Congregational Churches at its meeting,
October, 1892, adopted among other resolutions on the relations between
the congregations and the benevolent societies, such as the American Board,
the following : “ That the Council earnestly desires that all the benevolent socie-
ties shall be made in reality, and not in any figurative sense only, the represen-
tatives of the churches.” As Dr. A. Hastings Ross writes in the Independent of
November 17, ‘‘The resolution means election, not nomination merely ” of the
members of the Congregational Missionary Societies by State Associations, etc.
Even the Congregational Churches seem now determined to control denomina-
tional agencies by denominational authority.

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 107

along and within denominational lines. Both the Church and the
Nation have outgrown the separatist and disintegrating tendencies
prevalent sixty years ago. Independency is out of date, disap-
proved by experience, and fundamentally non-Presbyterian.

The chief disadvantages of the cooperative method, put in opera-
tion by the Theological Seminary Compact of 1870, are two in
number. The first consists in the fact that all Boards of
Directors, under its provisions, are virtually self-governing bodies.
This arises out of the lack of uniformity in the relation of the Boards
to the Assembly. Although the latter has in nine institutions out
of fourteen a voice as to the election of Directors, it can hardly in
equity follow one rule as to management in one class, and
another rule in another class of Seminaries. Practically but one
method prevails, that of merely nominal oversight, which leaves
the Boards to be a law unto themselves. Again, the veto power of
the Assembly over Professors cannot be generally enforced owing
to the legal status of certain Seminaries. It is sufficient to name in
this connection the present complication with the Union Seminary.
From the side of the Assembly, also, the veto power is inefficient,
but not because it is un-Presbyterian. Every Presbytery in the
Church, possesses the power to veto any person desiring to occupy
the office of a public teacher of the Gospel. The power the Pres-
bytery possesses within a narrow sphere, is justly vested in the
Assembly for the broader sphere of ministerial education. Never-
theless, it is a difficult thing for an ecclesiastical Court to say “ no ”
to a person, especially such a Court as the Assembly. American
Presbyterian Assemblies are not only controlled as a rule by good
sense, but are also exceedingly patient and long-suffering, using
their power only when a crisis demands its exercise. Had the
Compact of 1870 been carried out, as it should and could have been,
by the amendment of all Seminary Charters in a manner to place
the veto power legally as well as ecclesiastically and morally in the
possession of the Assembly, and also by the formulating of a law
prescribing the mode of its application, this method would have
been fairly satisfactory in its results, and would have been main-
tained for many years. But in view of the failure to give the veto
power efficiency by both legal and ecclesiastical regulations, and in
view also of the circumstances which have now arisen in the
Church, the only conclusion which seems possible is, that something
better than the present method of control ought to be secured, by
the adoption of a plan which will formulate in a comprehensive
and efficient manner, the Church’s rightful authority over its insti-
tutions for ministerial education.

Before suggesting a new method of Seminary control, certain gen-

108 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

eral statements are highly pertinent as preliminary thereto. They are
as follows : (a) That the Presbyterian system involves of right the
control of all the agencies employed in Church work by the Church,
those agencies in use for the education of candidates for the ministry
included. The government of the Church, by the Church, is a
fundamental Presbyterian principle. The parts must be controlled
by the whole. ( b ) That the principle just stated has been formally
declared, in its relation to theological institutions, by the Pres-
byterian Church in the United States of America, gathered in Gen-
eral Assembly at Portland, Oreg., May 80, 1892, in the resolu-
tion: “That the Assembly is persuaded that the Church should
have direct connection with and control over its Theological Semi-
naries,” * This part of the Report of the Committee on Theologi-
cal Seminaries was adopted, so far as the writer has knowledge, with
but few dissenting voices, (c) That the time has come in thedevel-
ment of denominational life, when the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America should adopt for all its theological insti-
tutions a really uniform plan of management. From the pres-
ent outlook, and from the view point of future denominational use-
fulness and prosperity, the welfare of the Church appears to require
wise, firm, consistent and persistent action in the adoption of a new
method of Seminary control. The present plans, with all their
varieties of educational and financial detail, ought to be unified
according to some definite scheme.

What, then, shall the new method of Seminary control be? The
following is with diffidence suggested as an available method, the plan
of Auburn Theological Seminary being taken as a basis, furnishing
as it does, at the beginnings of power, a sympathetic and immediate
control by Church Courts. The additional features are suggested by
experience, or by the plans of other Seminaries. The several fea-
tures of the method are :

(a) The control of each Theological Seminary by a Board of
Directors elected annually by a specified number of Presbyteries,
as in Auburn Seminary, elections being subject to approval by the
Assembly, as in Dubuque Seminary. This secures both local sym-
pathy, accurate knowledge of Seminary needs, and immediate con-
tact with the denomination, while securing to the Church as a whole
its right of restraint and guidance in view of the general welfare.

(b) The managementof financial affairs by Boards of Trustee elected
by the Boards of Directors, as in the Auburn, McCormick and San
Francisco Seminaries, subject to instruction by the General Assem-
bly. This vests property interests positively in the denomination.

* See Minutes of 1892, p. 17G.

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 109

approval by the Assembly, as in the Auburn and Omaha Semi-
naries, and also to removal by the Assembly, after action by two
successive Assemblies. This gives opportunity for the use of the
specific knowledge of men possessed by local Boards in choosing
Professors, while preserving to the Church its natural right to
accept, reject or displace persons serving in the teacher’s office.
Further, the positive power of approval is substituted for the nega-
tive right of veto.

(d) No new department or policy to be established in any Semi-
nary without report previously made to, and consent by, the Assem-
bly. This will prevent new departures contrary to public policy
and lessen the friction between the institutions themselves. It will
secure also uniformity in methods of instruction, in the distribution
of aid given to students, and in other matters needing general super-
vision.

(e) Insertion in the Plan and Charter of each institution of the
three first provisions named, so far as they relate to the Assembly.

(/) Formulation by the Church of a law containing and regu-
lating the method of Seminary control.

To secure the acceptance of any such plan would require consid-
erable negotiation, diplomacy, and long-suffering patience, but it is
worth the effort. The adoption of some such plan would be the
actual establishment of a uniform method of control, would place
within the power of the Church as a whole, what is simply its
natural right as a Presbyterian organization, and would definitely
settle, for all time, the problem of the Seminaries. Once adopted,
its positive and beneficial results, in the Church and in the Semi-
naries, for the Professors and for the students, would prevent any
return to the diverse methods of control of the present. It would
secure in the Church “entire and cordial confidence” in the in-
struction given by Professors, and in the Seminaries would pro-
mote the feeling that their relation to each other is not one of
rivalry, but of fraternity. Professors would be constituted the
official representatives in ministerial education of the whole Church,
and all students would reap large benefit in the leveling up of the
courses of instruction, the equalizing of aid given, and in other
ways necessarily resulting from a common and uniform method of
management.

This uniformity and stability of control could be secured, positively
and permanently, through the adoption by the General Assembly and
the Presbyteries, under Chap, xxiii of the Form of Government, of
a new Chapter in said Form, to be entitled, “ Of Theological Semi-
naries.” Much of the diversity now prevailing has arisen from the
failure of the Church to formulate Constitutional provisions, govern-

110

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

ing the establishment and administration of theological institutions.
The first Theological Seminary, that at Princeton, was erected in
1812, twenty-four years after the adoption of the Constitution, and
the work of amending the Form of Government, so as to provide a
law to regulate what was then a new departure, was not attended to
by the Church. New departures should be guided and controlled
by law, in the Church as well as in the State. A Chapter like the
following might be framed, and submitted to the Presbyteries for
consideration.

Of Theological Seminaries.

Section 1. The General Assembly, or any one of the Synods under its care,
with the consent of the General Assembly previously obtained, may establish
institutions for the education of candidates for the ministry, to be known as
Theological Seminaries.

Section 2. The general management of each Theological Seminary shall be
entrusted to a Board of Directors, to be elected by Presbyteries contiguous to
the place of its location. The number of the electing Presbyteries shall be not
less than seven nor more than twenty, and shall be named for each institution
by the General Assembly. The Directors to be chosen by the said Presbyteries
shall be in number not less than twenty-one, nor more than sixty, shall be
divided into three classes, and one member of each class shall be annually
elected by each of the specified Presbyteries. The elections of Directors must
be reported to and approved by the General Assembly, and disapproval shall
ipso facto vacate the office of any Director.

Section 3. New departments of instruction, or a new policy, shall not be
established in any Seminary without the consent, previously given, of the General
Assembly.

Section 4. Professors in all the Seminaries shall be elected by the respective
Boards of Directors, and the elections shall be reported to the General Assembly
next ensuing, but no Professor shall be installed in office, or transferred from one
Chair to another, without the approval of the General Assembly, and the failure
to approve any Professor-elect, on the part of the Assembly, shall ipso facto
vacate his Chair. Any Professor, who after installation is disapproved by two
successive General Assemblies, shall cease to be a Professor, and his Chair ipso
facto shall be vacant.

Section 5. No person shall be regarded as qualified for election to the office
of Professor, unless he be an ordained minister in good standing, in the Presby-
terian Church in the United States of America, or of some approved Church of
like faith and order, and who also shall have served three years acceptably in the
ordinary ministry of the Word, prior to his election. Every instructor or tutor
shall be a member of a Presbyterian Church under the care of the Assembly.

Section 6. All Directors and Professors shall subscribe at installation to the
Standards of the Church, and the pledges in each Seminary, after adoption by the
Board of Directors, shall be submitted for approval to the General Assembly.

Section 7. The management of the financial affairs of the Theological Semi
naries shall be vested in Boards of Trustees, to be elected by the Boards of Direc-
tors herein previously named, and said Trustees shall be in all cases members of
the Boards of Directors by which they are chosen.

Section 8. The Boards of Directors and Trustees in each Theological Semi-
nary shall report annually to the General Assembly in detail on the educational
and financial interests under their care, and the General Assembly shall have
power, after conference first had, to issue instructions to any of said Boards,

METHODS OF CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. HI

■which shall have mandatory force, provided always that such instructions shall
not be contrary to the Constitution of any State, of the United States, or of the
Church .

Section 9. The General Assembly shall also have power to enforce by appro-
priate legislation the regulations contained in this Chapter.

The present situation of affairs requires some enactment of a
positive and definite character. Crimination and recrimination
with reference to the past is useless. The time for action has come,
and for action which shall unify the Seminaries, and secure the wel-
fare and solidarity of the Church. The next General Assembly
might consider the propriety of modifying Concurrent Declaration
Number Nine to accord with both Reunion intentions and present
conditions, and also take steps looking towards the alteration of the
Theological Seminary Compact of 1870. The Concurrent Declara-
tions adopted in 1869, were not a part of the basis of Reunion. Dr.
Musgrave, Chairman of the Old School Committee, said of them,
“ They are not a compact or covenant, but they suggest to the
Assembly what are suitable arrangements. They may be annulled
or modified as any future Assembly may deem proper.” What is
true of the Declarations is true of the Compact of 1870. After
due conference with interested parties, the Assembly can resume,
if desired, its direct control of the Seminaries at Princeton, Alle-
gheny, Danville and McCormick. The institutions at San Fran-
cisco, Dubuque, Newark and Omaha, with Blackburn, Lincoln and
Biddle Universities, are held by their connections as well as by
their Charters to the Presbyterian Church, either through the Gen-
eral Assembly, or in some other effective manner. The Seminary
at Auburn is under a widespread Presbyterial control, and its plan
is in part that suggested in this article. The only Seminaries whose
Charters would require considerable change are Union and Lane.
Merely local ought to be subordinated everywhere, however, to
general interests, and united and considerate effort made to secure the
welfare and prosperity of the Church as a whole. Whatever
measures are adopted, whether the plan suggested in this article, or
some other method deemed better by the Church in her wisdom,
there should be as preliminary thereto, patient deliberation, generous
consideration for all interests involved, and marked absence of hasty
action.

Lane Theological Seminary.

William Henry Roberts.

VII.

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL NOTES.

ALFRED TENNYSON.

The death of Tennyson on October 6, brought to a fitting close one
of the noblest careers of our century. From his birth, on August 5,
1809, in the rectory of Somersby, Lincolnshire, to the hour of that
October morning eighty-three years later when he breathed his last
in the quiet room at Aldworth House, lighted only by the pale beams
of the waning moon, he was under the pure influence of Christian love
and Christian reverence. And

“ Thro’ all this tract of years
Wearing the white flower of a blameless life,”

he led “ a life that moves to gracious ends.” As a man his life is too
consistent, too even in its development, to be picturesque, but it is
the ideal life of a poet. Lived as it was

“ Not wholly in the busy world
Nor quite beyond it,”

it retained something more of the spirit of man than that of his prede-
cessor in the laureateship, Wordsworth ; and kept nearer to the great
heart of Nature than that of his companion, Browning. From the
quiet of the clergyman’s home, to the academic beauty of the Univer-
sity of Cambridge, into a life of retirement and intellectual effort, he
passed to early recognition and applause. Not lacking a touch of
that biting criticism which to the strong nature is only the sauce
piquant which makes the public appreciation more palatable, he has
preserved to the end the cordial support both of the intellectual
classes and the masses of ever}' English-speaking land. His poetic
career was as orderly in its growth as his life, and must be treated in
close relation with it. We mark in it the tentative steps of t'outh,
the firmer and yet firmer steps of manhood, and then the larger plans
but more uncertain progress of increasing age. In j'outh we observe
the promise of maturer years, in age the brief recovery of the old
ardor and self-command. He dreaded the scalpel of the biographer,
crying in bitterness of apprehension :

“ For now the poet cannot die,

Nor leave his music as of old,

But round him ere he scarce be cold
Begins the scandal and the cry.”

ALFRED TENNYSON.

113

Yet surely he had little to dread. His most questionable act was the
acceptance of a patent of nobility. There is something incongruous
in a poet of so free a speech stooping to accept the empty bauble of a
feudal title, a thing so dead in substance and so worn out in sym-
bolism, in what he himself called England’s

“ Slowly grown

And crown’d Republic’s crowning common sense.”

But this at worst was a mistake of judgment, not a sin ; a failing, not
a fault.

The first public performances of the poet are to be found in Poems
by Two Brothers , published in 1827. The other of the two brothers
was that too little known but delightful sonneteer, Charles Tennyson
Turner. This volume was followed by another in 1830, and by a third
in 1832. The Poems of 1832 show the change from boyhood to young
manhood and are full of promise. The earlier volumes are tentative,
imitative, }routhful — poetic exercises rather than poems ; though his
Cambridge prize poem, Timbuctoo, is enough above the average acad-
emic verse to prove him a clever scholar, and his second volume’s
Recollections of the Arabian Nights, is a most creditable performance ;
and Lilian, Mariana, Oriana and Eleiinore show a mastery of the meth-
ods then coming into vogue with the pre-Raphaelites. This latter vein
he worked with vigor in the volume of 1832, and in the “ Lady of Sha-
lott ” he equaled in this manner the best of that school. He showed,
moreover, a developing instinct for true poetic art. The sense of
beauty is highly developed and in a catholic spirit ; he feels the spell
of beauty in nature and in art ; the beauty of field and wood, of pic-
ture and palace, of warmth and color ; and it is portrayed with due
regard to definiteness, unity and congruity, with a self-restraint nota-
ble in one so young and prophetic of the coming man, of whom it
always may be said :

“He gave the people of his best,

His worst he kept, his best he gave.”

The volume of Poems of 1842 established his reputation on a firm
foundation. Under the name of Idylls he published a series of poems
of the most artistic finish, upon widely varying themes, exhibiting at
the same time his knowledge and sympathjr with the remotest springs
of culture and the simplest scenes of country life. Opening with the
noble blank verse of the “ Morte d’Arthur,” with its “ Homeric
echoes ” some day to swell into the splendid music of the “ Idylls of
the King,” it contained that tender and perfect ballad “ Dora ; ” the
not less beautiful “ Godiva ; ” the fanciful “ Talking Oak ; ” the ever-
popular “ Locksley Hall ; ” and the rhythmical lyrics “ Sir Galahad ”
and “ Sir Launcelot and Queen Guinevere.” Indeed to mention these
seems to be almost a critical blunder in the neglect shown to
such other masterpieces as, for example, “ St. Agnes’ Eve.” In these
poems we remark the great variety and music of his measures, his
8

114

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

felicity in the use of rhyme and refrain, the different forms and the
constant grace and dignity of his blank verse. This volume of 1842
contains his most characteristic short poems, and as such may be put
side by side with Browning’s “ Men and Women.” But though it
proved the wealth of fruitage of his early manhood, it does not meas-
ure his highest attainment.

His first long poem, The Princess , appeared in 1841 and marks a
turning point in his career. From this time he was steadily striving
to work upon a larger canvas. This poem, one of his most apprecia-
tive critics calls a “ splendid failure ; ” and critics differ as to its
merit. It is full of fine passages, is fanciful if not highly imaginative,
and singularly musical. It is a “ medley,” but it is certainly strik-
ingly beautiful in its sphere. But whatever majr be the verdict on
the poem as a whole, there can be no question that in the songs and
interludes Tennyson here sang in a strain only equaled by Keats and
the singers of “ the spacious times of great Elizabeth.” The lyric
elegance, the rhythmic music of these songs is admirable to despair.
They do not depend on the ordinary devices of song writers, but
rhj'med and unrhymed, in the dancing cadences of short and varied
lines, and in the noble movements of blank verse, they equally excel.
With all this they are in nearly every instance the vehicle for the
expression of some deep and noble thought or emotion which places
them in another category from the musical melodies of Herrick.
Surely there is no more perfect song in the language than “ Tears,
Idle Tears.”

The deepening nature of the poet found full expression in In
Memoriam, a threnody in memory of Arthur Hallam, the son of the
historian, and Tennyson’s college mate and bosom friend. Published
in 1850, it marks the attainment of his fortieth year. Where is there
a more noble prelude than that prefixed to this volume, beginning :

“ Strong Son of God, immortal love,

Whom we that have not seen Thy face
By faith and faith alone embrace,

Believing where we cannot prove?”

And there is no poem in the language in which the great problems of
life and death are so frankly, beautifully and truthfully handled. It
is a poem, not a system of theology. It is not safe to weigh and
measure every word and . phrase by a dogmatic standard. But it is a
storehouse of luminous comments on Christian experience from a
large, hopeful and reverent point of view. The whole moves with
steadfast feet towards

“ That God which ever lives and loves,

One God, one law, one element,

And one far-ofl divine event
To which the whole creation moves.”

As a well-known critic finds “ the theory of evolution in a couplet ”
in these last two lines, it is not surprising that many have missed the

ALFRED TENNYSON.

115

grandeur of this poem. As men refuse to see the hand of God in
nature and in history, it is not surprising that they should miss the
face of a risen Saviour shining through two lines of poetry.

The publication of In Memoriam was quickly followed by his
appointment as Poet Laureate on November 21, 1850. The first offi-
cial poem which he was called upon to write was the high-sounding
ode on the death of the Duke of Wellington. As a dirge it is a mas-
terpiece ; its music is martial, its sentiments fitting. It is hardly pos-
sible to rank it so high among odes, where Coleridge and Gray and
Keats have set such a lofty standard, and where his predecessor,
Wordsworth, in a similar composition, “ On the Intimations of Immor-
tality,” but one less straitened by a concrete occasion, had written so
well. The first volume published as Laureate, in 1855, Maud and
Other Poems, did not advance his fame ; but the Idylls of the King ,
which appeared from 1859-72, as thejr grew from individual composi-
tions into their epic completeness, won a wider and more universal
recognition. The Arthurian Legends are preserved in their pictur-
esqueness and their local color, but transfused and transformed by a
new spirit. They have been called unreal, and the knights and ladies
dim phantoms, but this is scarcely true. The scene painting is poetic
and the jousting is the half earnest and half play of the Middle Age
recorders of the stories, but the deeper tragedy of the human soul
which Tennyson has read into the old tragedy of the fall of the
British Celts, is a motive as noble as any epic poem boasts, and the
atmosphere in which the story moves is cleared as by a thunderstorm.
Lancelot and the Queen, and Tristram and Isolt, may sin and gild
their sin, but the sin finds them out in all their nakedness. The
triumph is to the pure in heart, to Galahad and Percival, but a higher
triumph to the noble king who represents wedded not ascetic purity.
There is no nobler poem of our century than “ Guinevere,” where the
queen stands face to face with her sin and the happiness she has
missed, and the king bears up the State despite the burden of his
blighted life. From first to last these poems are ablaze with lines cut
with the highest skill and flashing from their many facets the rays of
the white light of Christian truth.

In 1864 Enoch Arden and Other Poems appeared, renewing the
old hold upon simple hearts and showing many well-recognized powers
in full development. Then, with frequent interludes gathered into a
number of volumes of minor verse, came the unsuccessful attempts at
dramatic composition. Queen Mary and Harold , as serious attempts
at the historic drama, deserve careful study but cannot survive. His
later, lighter efforts, with much of grace and beauty in them to com-
mand admiration, are not worthy of the poet. The poet’s prime was
past ; the poet’s work was done. The active, earnest, intellectual
man needed work and occupation. Perhaps it is better for his fame
that he chose so distinct a field for his declining years and missed the
fate of Wordsworth, who for so long was his own imitator. In many

116

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

senses he was the poet of our century. He felt the impulses of its
life, he shared its culture, its demand for freedom, its command to
honest work. He was an artist in the highest sense, a man who un-
derstood that the artist must be a thinker as well as a craftsman, but
who did not undervalue the handicraft ; and not least, he had the
self-restraint of the true artist. We see in some of his later poems,
his dialect pieces, his Rizpah,and others, an obvious setting of prob-
lems for his own solution, such as was so common among the great
masters of the Renaissance. In this there was a loss of the spontaneity
and freshness of his early work and of the strength and straightfor-
wardness of his maturity. But take him for all in all he shared the
noblest instincts of our century and mirrored its varied life with
striking fullness in his works.

Lafayette College. Ethelbert D. Warfield.

DR. BURNEY ON FREE AGENCY.

In a notice of the Studies in Psychology of Dr. S. G. Burney, of
Cumberland University, which was printed in this Review for July,
1891 (Yol. ii, pp. 544-546), a promise was made to speak with some
fullness, at a somewhat later date, of Dr. Burney’s discussions respect-
ing Free Agency. It is time that this promise was redeemed.

Dr. Burney’s discussions on this subject occur here and there
throughout the book under review,* and wholly occupy the last 200
pages. But those chapters, comprising more than 100 pages, with
which the treatise closes, are particularly interesting. In them the
“ necessitarian ” views of Augustine, Anselm, Luther and Calvin, of
President Edwards, Dr. Archibald Alexander, Dr. Charles Hodge,
Drs. Gregory and Haden, Dr. Dabney and Dr. Edward John Hamil-
ton are stated and criticised ; and also the “ libertarian ” views of Dr.
Schuyler and Dr. Bledsoe. Probably the least known of these names
is that of Dr. Hamilton, yet we feel specially inclined to compare his
views with those of Dr. Burney; for not only does the writer under-
stand the views of Dr. Hamilton better than those of any one else,
but Dr. Burney also seems to do so. He says : “ Hamilton has the
honor of dealing more fairly with the doctrines of libertarians than
do necessitarians generally He is a stanch and outspoken ne-
cessitarian He states the doctrine erf moral necessity with

more clearness and less tergiversation than is common with his school.
None need misunderstand him.” Besides, the teachings of Dr. Ham-
ilton are more frequently controverted by Dr. Burney than those of
any other author; and in fact Dr. Burney finds no point at all in
which he can agree with them. In response to a prett}' rough hand-
ling Dr. Hamilton will now pursue a somewhat opposite course ; he will

* Studies in Psychology. By S. G. Burnej', D.D., LL.D., etc. Nashville,
Tenn. : Cumberland Presbyterian Publishing House, 1890. 12mo, pp. 535.

DR. BURNET ON FREE AGENCY.

117

endeavor to see how far his views can be harmonized with those of
Dr. Burney. For Prof. Hamilton’s Human Mind , from which Dr.
Burney quotes, is a treatise in mental science, and deals with ques-
tions concerning the Will only in an incidental way.

First, then, we accept the doctrine that the “ will ” is only a short
name for the man, or the soul, as willing or choosing. “ To say that
the man wills, the mind puts forth volition, and that the will acts, are
different forms of expressing the same thing." That is good doctrine,
and it involves that whatever is really included in a man’s choosing is
included in the action of his will. Now is it a part of the action of
the mind in choosing that it should exercise intelligence, or not ?
And also that it should put forth a preference — a greater inclination
— towards one object and the means of attaining it, than towards an-
other object and the means of attaining it, or than towards no object
and inactivity ? If this be so, is it not worth considering whether
an exercise of intelligence and of inclination (or motive tendency)
be not included in the action of the will as elements of it ? Of course
this would involve a more analytic view of choice, or voluntary deci-
sion, than is commonly given ; but is it not worth considering ? True
theory must be obtained from the analysis of fact.

Again, we accept the distinction which Dr. Burney makes between
the determinative and the executive acts of the will, and which some
express inadequately by distinguishing choice from volition, and by
saying that the latter of these is conditioned on the former. Un-
doubtedly we first form a resolution or purpose, and then, either im-
mediately or when the proper time comes, we renew or complete this
purpose, and act according to it. We cannot, indeed, call the exec-
utive effort and work, either of mind or of body, an exercise of
will ; this would confound willing and doing ; but we can discriminate
between the original purpose and the immediate resolution in which
it is finally renewed and terminated at the time of its being carried
out; though, since these are both modes of choosing or willing, we
do not distinguish radically between choice and volition, in this also
agreeing with Dr. Burney.

In the next place, Dr. Burney excellently defines free agency, which
also, in its essential nature, is the same as free will, or the freedom of
the soul in choosing. Rejecting Schuyler’s doctrine that freedom con-
sists in deciding without motive, and saying that this identifies free-
dom with chance, Dr. Burney declares that “ freedom consists in
choosing between possible alternative acts.” And he continues, “ I
necessarily either do, or do not, eat ; there is no freedom here, but
my freedom consists in choosing whether to eat or not to eat. If I had
to decide this question without a motive, I would be required to do
what Omnipotence cannot do. For though God is unconditioned as
to His being, He is not so as to His volitions, but puts forth His voli-
tions for the gratification of His desires.” Beyond question freedom
means that the will, or soul, is able, unrestricted and uncompelled by

118

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

anything outside of itself, to choose one out of two or more alterna-
tives and to reject the rest.

Here, however, and in accoi’dance with the foregoing doctrine,
we must note that freedom of will is a deeper thing than freedom
of agency, and is the libert\r of choosing between alternative ends,
whether the means of realizing those ends be within our power
or not. The spectators of a ship grounded among the breakers in a
storm might be unable to help or to injure her in any way, yet might
definitely prefer or choose her deliverance or her destruction. They
would be free to choose either, but would be morally bound to choose
the one and not the other. The ability to exercise such rational de-
siderative and determinate preference is that which gives moral char-
acter to free agency, and is the essence of that freedom which is
presupposed in moral accountability. At least, if moral freedom does
not lie in the very possession of a rational and volitional nature, it is
the necessary property of such a nature. It is the relation between
any being endowed with reason and will and the ends and actions
which may propose themselves for his adoption.

Further, we sympathize with Dr. Burney respecting what is called
“ the self-determining power ” of the will or of the soul in choosing ,
and believe that on this point he fully answers President Edwards.
The latter, misconceiving the libertarian doctrine respecting the fun-
damental nature of choice, supposes libertarians to hold that, in every
action of the will, the soul determines to determine, or chooses to
choose, and then shows that this involves an absurd endless regres-
sion. This is not the teaching of libertarians. They do not mean
literally that the will determines itself, but only that the will itself
determines ; that all the efficiency producing choice or volition lies in
the will itself and not outside of it. In this they are manifestly cor-
rect. With good reason, too, the}’ reject the teaching of Edwards
that “ the will is always determined bj' the strongest motive or by the
greatest apparent good.” For by “motive” Edwards means “that
which appears inviting,” in other words, an end as more or less at-
tractive. Literally, philosophical^, speaking, ends exert no influence
on the mind whatever. To say that we are determined or governed
by them is figurative language. The strength of motive considera-
tions lies not at all in themselves, but wholly in the readiness of
the soul or will to adopt their suggestions. Moreover, that man al-
ways seeks the greatest apparent good is not true according to any
proper use of terms. Very often, through passion or depravity, men
seek that from which they may expect some gratification, but which
they know to be evil rather than good! In an important sense, there-
fore, the will is self-determined. Nay ; in addition to the simple power
of choosing, which is the primary and essential action of the will,
there is also a reflex action, which should be recognized in any ethi-
cal philosophy. Man can think of himself as a free agent, and can
largely govern his own life by the direction and control of his own

DR. BURNEY ON FREE AGENCY.

119

motive regards and dispositions. This self-guidance, which may
properly enough be styled a self-determination of the will, belongs to
all rational and moral beings. It puts the utmost possible distance
between the man and the machine.

After what has been said no one will be surprised to hear that Dr.
Hamilton does not object much to the teaching of Dr. Burney respect-
ing the relation of the law of cause and effect to the volitions of the
soul. We agree with him when he says (p. 388), “ Volition is not an
effect in the ordinary sense of an effect, and the will is not determined
by motives, or anything else either in or out of the mind,” meaning
by this that the cause of the determination lies in the will itself. For
he expressly teaches that the will is the cause, the determiner, the
originator of its own action. Moreover (p. 395), rejecting “the gra-
tuitous imputation of chance or lawlessness,” he says : “ The laws of
mind (though not the same, nor even analogous, to those of matter)
are as fixed and uniform as the laws of matter.” In short Dr. Burney
(p. 526) holds, not that the will causes itself to act — for this might
mean that it always determines to determine — but that the will in its
very action is causative, and also that this causation takes place ac-
cording to law. The nature of this law is partly indicated when we
are told (p. 142) that “ determinative volition — the choice to do or not
to do a given thing — is conditioned upon desire or motive, which are
different names for the same thing. If there is no desire, there can

be no volition To choose without a motive is a physiological

impossibility ” (here “ physiological ” is doubtless a misprint for
*l psychological ”). Again, we read (p. 372) : “ We are conscious of
putting forth no volition without a desire for the end which the voli-
tion is intended to secure. We are conscious that the end of the vo-
lition is the gratification of the desire. We accordingly know, from
this testimony of consciousness, that the volition is conditioned upon
the desire for the gratification of which it is put forth.” Moreover,
that our desires — that is, our motivities of whatever description ,
whether rational or irrational, natural or moral — not merely condition
the action of the will, but influence it, is taught (p. 349) as follows :
“ 1. The desires are very much to the mind as the sails to the ship.
They are not the ship, but an indispensable part of it, that without
which its movement, if it moves at all, would be sluggish and indeter-
minate. They are to the will much as the sails are to the' rudder, or
steerage of the ship. They make the use of the rudder necessary,
but do not govern it. 2. They are like the child whose solicitations
make the action of the parent possible, even in some very necessary,
but whose action they have no power to control. They give occasion
to action, stimulate to action, condition action, but are dependent
upon the will of the sovereign arbiter for their gratification. In them
resides all motivity to action, and without them the will would be
powerless and useless.” The comparison of the desires to the push-
ing sails is good ; but we are inclined to say that the will can exert

120

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

greater directive power over one’s life and conduct than the helmsman
can over the course of a ship.

Such being the case, the true doctrine is that the action of the will
is conditioned on precedent desires and influenced by them, and is
limited to the adoption of desired ends, while yet the determining
efficiency of the choice or decision belongs wholly to the will itself
or to the soul as choosing. Moreover, as the will operates ac-
cording to law, and not at haphazard, nor yet in absolute obedience
to motives as the precedent conditions of its action, the law accord-
ing to which its decisions are finally made must be sought in the
nature of the will itself. Hence, when Prof. Burney says that voli-
tion is not subject to the law of cause and effect, but is a self-caused
or spontaneous and automatic activity, he does not mean that choice
does not take place in accordance with the law of causation, or
that the will ever fails to act when all the conditions of its action T
external and internal, exist ; he means only that volition, while
influenced from without, is determined from within, and therein
differs from the changes of the material universe, the efficiency of
which comes partly from within Hie physical agent and partly from
without. All this maj^ be expressed by saying that volition is a cause
and not an effect ; provided only it be remembered that it is a cause
which operates in accordance with law. But with a widened concep-
tion of causation volition may be called an effect ; for anything may
be styled an effect which springs from efficiency, even though this re-
side wholly in the agent itself. Such, then, is the doctrine of the will
as related to causation.

Here, however, we must add, with Dr. Burney, that the freedom of
volition implies more than mere spontaneity or self -efficiency . If a
material agent could determine its own action without any aid from
any external power, it would not be free. Freedom belongs only, but
always, to voluntary action. Hence, says Dr. Burney, “ To have a
will at all is to be free ” (p. 397), and “ freedom consists solely in lib-
erty to choose between alternative objects or ends of action — as be-
tween granting and refusing a favor ” (p. 144.) All this is very true.

We are now prepared to accept the teaching of Dr. Burney that
volitions and voluntary actions, though free, are yet certain to take
place and may be absolutely foreknown. He says (p. 506) : “I agree

with Dr. Dabney when he says, 1 God knows all things intuitively

This knowledge of events does not cause them, has no power over
them For the events and the knowledge are related as antece-

dent and sequence, and the latter, of course, has no power over the
former.” In other words, events may be perfectly foreknown, but this
does not necessitate them, nor even cause them to be certain ; it pre-
supposes their certainty and follows upon it. Nor does God’s fore-
knowledge prove that man’s volitions and actions are caused by any
agency external to man’s own will ; if the will acts only from its own
efficiency and according to its own laws, it may be possible for an in-

DR. BURNEY ON FREE AGENCY.

121

finite intelligence to foresee that a man will choose and act in a given
way under given circumstances. Human prescience is consistent with
free agency, and so is God’s absolute foreknowledge. Moreover, so
far as we can see, the doctrine of freedom does not require that God’s
foreknowledge should be a vision of the future without any relation
to the antecedents of that future. God not only sees the end, but, in
every case, sees the end from the beginning. To us the “ punctum
stans ” — a present which includes both an endless past and an endless
future — is something figurative ; and so is that conception of divine
intuition which is based on it. God’s foreknowledge is the result of
an intelligence which penetrates the possible and the future, just as
His immensity and His omnipotence comprehend the present and the
actual. Such being the case the prescience of God leaves human
freedom entirely untouched, and does not authorize the conclusion
that man’s conduct, in any ordinary sense, is necessitated or made in-
evitable. It only shows that man’s conduct is certain, and may be
certainly predicted by One whose intelligence respecting all the cir-
cumstances of human freedom and all the laws of man’s willing and
doing is absolute and unlimited.

From the foregoing exposition it will be seen that Dr. Burney and
Dr. Hamilton ai-e at one on the following points : 1. “ The will ” is
only a short name for the man, or the mind, or the soul, as willing,
that is, as forming and exercising choices and volitions. 2. The deter-
minative and the executive acts of the will may be distinguished, the
latter being that form of volition which is immediately followed by
effort or action, and the former being a resolution to act at some
future time. These modes of willing are radically of the same nature,
though each has its own characteristics. 3. The freedom necessary
to moral life does not imply that decision ever takes place without
the action of motivity or desire, but only that the soul or will, uncon-
trolled by anything outside of itself, chooses one out of two or more
alternative actions or ends and rejects the rest. 4. The will is always
self-determined. This does not mean that we always choose to choose,
but only that the efficiency producing choice or volition lies in the
will itself. The strength of motive considerations lies not in them-
selves, but in the readiness or disposition of the will to follow their
suggestions. Nay ; man also, as willing, largely controls and directs
his own life, and is, therefore, preeminently a self-determinative being.
5. Though “ volition is not an effect in the ordinary sense of an effect,”
the will is, or contains the cause (that is the determining efficiency)
of its own action ; and this cause, like all others, operates according
to law, not according to chance. The antecedent play of the motivi-
ties conditions and influences the formation of volitions, but does not
determine it. And as the efficient cause of volition lies in the will,
so the law according to which this cause operates must be sought for
in the nature of the will itself. 6. The freedom of the will, while in-
cluding self-efficiency or original causation, is more than this, and is a

122

TIIE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

specific property of all rational voluntary life. “ To have a will at all is
to be free,” ancl a rational being is free only as being able to “ choose be-
tween alternative objects.” T. Finally, volitions and voluntary ac-
tions are certain to take place and are absolutely foreknown b}r the
Divine Being. This foreknowledge does not cause the volitions to be
certain, but is a consequence of their certainty. Moreover, a suffi-
cient ground for believing in the certainty of voluntary life and in the
divine prescience is furnished b\r Dr. Burney when he says that the
will does not act b}r chance, but in accordance with law.

The foregoing seven points set forth pretty fully the doctrine
of free will ; and Dr. Hamilton agrees with Dr. Burney in them all.
Are, then, these professors entirely in accord ? That we dare
not say. Yet we do not know where either of them can find a
solid ground for difference. If there be such difference, it must
relate to one or other of three points ; none of which seems
absolutely essential to the doctrine.

The first is a question of generalization and terminology. We agree
that voluntary conduct is certain and certainlj’ predictable, and that
there is an objective (or objectual) basis for this in the fact that the
will, as a free efficient cause, operates according to law. This ground
of certainty is all that Dr. Hamilton means when he speaks of moral
necessit)'. In one sense it is not necessity at all ; there is nothing in
it either of constraint or of restraint. But if, using a wide generali-
zation, we comprehend under one notion every mode of causational
sequence which may be the ground of certainty, we should have some
one designation for every such ground of certainty, whether it be
voluntary or involuntar}'. Such being the case, may we not say that
all things take place according to a necessity ; the phenomena of the
universe being subject to “ natural necessity,” while the lives of
moral beings exhibit a “ moral necessity ? ” This use of terms may
not be the best ; it has been rejected by eminent men ; for example,
by Dr. Charles Hodge. If there be any other more suitable to express
the truth, we should be glad to hear of it.

The second point is a question of fact and of analysis. The will
being nothing else than the mind, or soul, as forming and holding
decisions, purposes, resolutions or determinations, the nature of this
faculty is to be ascertained by carefully scrutinizing these things.
Only thoughtful examination can find out what volition really is, and,
in particular, whether it be absolutely simple or not, or, if it be com-
plex, what its elements or factors may be. For an operation cannot
be said to be uncompounded, simply because it goes under one name,
or even under one conception. For our part, every choice or purpose
seems capable of analysis and to contain both an element of intelli-
gence and an element of motivity. In ever}' choice or determination
the mind both perceives euds and the means of their attainment, and
definitely settles upon some end or set of ends, as, on the whole, an
object of desire or desiderative tendenc}' ; in short, both thought and

DR. BURNEY ON FREE AGENCY.

123

motivity enter into choice. At the same time choice differs remark-
ably from that free play of considerations and motivities by which it
is preceded and which it generally brings to a close.

Moreover, in the act of resolving, man contemplates not only
ends and instrumentalities, but also himself as exercising intelligence
and motive tendency, and so consciously determines himself to a
given course. This does not involve an endless regression ; it is onlj-
a double or reflex movement of the mind ; and in this part of will-
ing, no less than in that more immediately objective, there is both
the thought which perceives and the motivity which seeks an end.
We note also that the consideration of ends and the desiderative
preference and adoption of one end or set of ends are implied when
we ascribe moral quality to choice. For a man acts virtuously
only in that he prefers the right, knowing it to be the right ; and
viciously in that he prefers the wrong, knowing it to be the wrong.
No agreement has yet been reached by philosophers as to the ex-
act nature of willing or volition. In scholastic times the distinc-
tion between intellectus and voluntas served fairly well for theo-
logical discussion ; but it is not analytical ; it merely contrasts the
contemplative with the practical side of human nature. President
Edwards does not dwell on the question, “ whether desire and will,
preference and volition, be precisely the same things or no,” yet
holds that in every volition there is a preference, or prevailing
inclination of the soul, whereby the soul at that instant is out of a
state of perfect indifference with respect to the direct object of the
volition.

Since the time of Edwards most writers describe volition as a thing
simple and irresolvable, though they generally concern themselves
more with the conditions of the act than with the nature of the act
itself. But nothing is more confusing than a false simplicity ; we
believe that philosophy calls for a new and exact analysis of volition.

Finally, persons who agree respecting the essentials of free agency
may yet differ on a point of faith and of metaphysics, viz., the relatedness
of the human will to the divine. How shall we answer the inquiry
whether man’s voluntary life and conduct are, in any sense, dependent
on the power and foreordination of the Almighty ? We can only say
that the following positions commend themselves to us. In the first
place , God, at the beginning, created man and endowed him with a
will. Therefore, although man acts as a “ first cause,” inasmuch as
the efficiency determining his volitions lies wholly in himself, he is
not an absolutely primordial cause. He is a first cause only in a
secondary way. In the next place , God created man a holy being and
with a will inclined to good only. Then the weakness of a finite and
inexperienced nature rendered man fallible ; and under the influence
of a powerful tempter, our first parent fell from his estate of holiness.
Sinfulness thus entered the world without any divine intervention,
and is the perversion of a life originally perfect and upright. And in

124

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the third place , while divine grace never injures souls, it often changes
them for the better. For God who at the first made man in His own
image, can create him anew in righteousness and true holiness. Such
a transformation is entirely consistent with fi’ee agency ; for it is not
a destroying but a renewing of man’s will. Moreover, we believe that
the kingdom of redemption confers a stability of perfection, such as
the angels have obtained, upon the regenerated and sanctified be-
liever.

Many Christians hold such views as these with respect to our de-
pendence on the help of God ; and all Christians, whatever be their
theories, seem to hold them practically.

New Yokk.

Edward John Hamilton.

VIII.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE TORONTO COUNCIL.

The Alliance of Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian Sys-
tem held its Fifth General Council at Toronto, Canada, September
21-30, 1892. The place of meeting was exceptionally excellent.
Toronto is the most prosperous and growing city of British America,
and at the same time is noted for its high tone of public and private
morality. The twin nuisances which afflict so many other great towns —
Sunday street cars and Sunday" newspapers — here are absent. The
Presbyterian portion of the population is large and intelligent and
thoroughgoing, as was shown by their profuse hospitality, the ample
provision made for the comfort of the delegates, and the large and
ever-growing attendance at the popular meetings held each evening.
No member of the Council went away without a greater respect for the
enterprising city and a profound sense of obligation to its enlightened
inhabitants.

The Council was opened with a sermon by Dr. Caven, the principal
of Knox College. It was founded upon John xvi. 13, and was an
admirable presentation of the office of the Spirit, first in reference to
the apostles, and then in regard to the Church everywhere and in all
ages. It was faithful to the truth, and y-et presented it in such a way
as to avoid unnecessary offense. It was a happy introduction to the
proceedings of the Council, and as such was cordially" welcomed by'
the immense audience gathered to hear it. Its devout recognition of
our dependence upon the Comforter as the interpreter of the mind of
Christ to the Church was singularly- appropriate in the face of the present
tendency to glorify mere scholarship as the exegetic chief qualifica-
tion. It is not matter of surprise that the Council unanimously-
requested a copy for publication in the volume of Proceedings.*

The General Secretary-, the Rev. Dr. G. D. Mathews, laid upon the
table a thick pamphlet, full of valuable matter, much of which is not
easily accessible in any- other form. Its first portion was entitled
Statistics, but after the usual tabular statements, brought up to date
as nearly as possible, the sagacious Secretary inserted a series of

* A marked feature of the Council was its devotional spirit. The first twenty
or thirty minutes of each session was given to prayer and praise, and, unlike
what sometimes happens with other ecclesiastical gatherings, the attendance
was as full at these services as at the other proceedings of the body.

126

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Notes on Church Government, giving a variety of useful information
concerning the constitution and order of the Reformed Churches in
Bohemia and Moravia, in France, in Germany (Prussian Evangelical
Church), in Lower Saxony, in Hanover, in the kingdom of Saxony,
in the Netherlands, and among the Waldenses. Nowhere else in any
tongue is there such a collection of trustworthy statements on these
points. The second part is the report of the Eastern Section of the
Executive Commission, relating what was done by them in the interim
since the Fourth Council. Then came the reports of both sections of
the Committee on Cooperation in Foreign Missions, showing the
difficulties that stood in the way, what had been done to meet them,
and what was still further proposed. To any friend of the missionary
cause these reports are deeply interesting and instructive. The fourth
place is occupied by reports of both sections of the Committee on
Work in the European Continent, with an appendix containing a list
of Presbyterian services in English on the Continent, and notices of
the Church work in Belgium, Bohemia, Russia, and Spain. Next fol-
lows a report on Sabbath-schools by Dr. Cochran, and one on the
Desiderata of Presbyterian History by Dr. A. F. Mitchell. The
latter contains several interesting particulars, not generally known,
yet it seems to have excited less attention than any other subject,
although few exceed it in importance, since it is from the past that we
get our best lessons for the present and the future, and they who dis-
regard the doings of their ancestors are little likely' to do anything
worthy the attention of their posterity.

Taught by past experience the Committee on the Programme
arranged for fewer papers than had been required by former Councils,
and provided more liberal^ for discussion. Some, indeed, complained
of being limited to five minutes in remarking upon the papers read,
but such a rule is imperative if more than one or two are to speak.
Nor is the limit unreasonable, for if a man will cut off introductions
and perorations, plunge at once in medias res, abstain from digressions
and personalities, and state his views compactljq five minutes will be
found ample. Besides, a number of such short speeches convey the
sense of the Council more easily and correctly than it can be reached
in any other way. The time limit in the case of papers, twenty min-
utes, was rigidly observed in all cases where exceptional circumstances
did not call for an extension, and the readers gracefully submitted to
the call of the bell. And it becomes increasingly evident that one
who is master of his subject can, if he is willing to take the requisite
pains, state his view in such a simple, natural, and straightforward
way that the statement implies the argument, and the hearers are con-
vinced without being wearied. Sometimes a practiced writer or
speaker will so concentrate and order what he says as that his words
will resemble the great hail of the Apocalypse, “ each one about the
weight of a talent.” And usually the subjects are announced so far
in advance that there is ample time for each participant to make

TEE TORONTO COUNCIL.

127

thorough preparation, though this circumstance sometimes leads to
disappointment, as when a capable man accepts an invitation which
he is every waj' qualified to fulfill in the most desirable manner, and
then, through unforeseen events subsequently occurring, is compelled
to decline, and what time remains is too short to secure an adequate
substitute.

The papers read before the Council on the first day were on a very
important theme — the Protestant Reformation, its character and fruits,
and its influence on the religious, intellectual, and civil condition of
communities — and were of an unusually high order, both as to thought
and statement. Prof. Lindsay, of Glasgow, vindicated in a striking
manner the spiritual forces which lay at the bottom of the movement,
expressing some noA’el, yet doubtless correct, views as to the ante-
cedents which called down the gracious effusion of the Spirit. This
paper was hailed with delight, and considered a very felicitous intro-
duction to the proceedings. The next paper, by Prof. Bavinck, of
Kampen, Holland, written in excellent English, was a manly, cogent,
clean-cut statement of the theological views of the Reformed and
their happy influence on the character and life of the peoples who
accepted them. To by far the larger portion of the delegates the
author’s name was strange, but it will be so no longer, and men will
expect much from so vigorous an advocate of the doctrines of grace.
The closing paper on the general theme was considered by some of
the European delegates the most finished and complete of all the state-
ments read before the Council. It was by Prof. H. M. Baird, D.D., who
undertook to set forth the bearing of the Reformation upon civil and
political institutions, and treated his theme with a wealth of learning,
insight, and discrimination which would satisfy the most exacting
critics. The evening of this dajr was given up to popular addresses
on “ Our Reformed and Presbyterian Churches,” Dr. Van Home treat-
ing of their characteristics and mission, Dr. Munro Gibson of their
strength and weakness, Drs. Van Slyke and Eschbach of their unsolved
problems and unemployed resources. All were worthy of the occa-
sion, and listened to with profound attention.

The second day was given to foreign missions. The reports of the
Committee on Cooperation were read, and Dr. Swanson, of the Eng-
lish Presbyterian Church, accompanied his with a speech of thrilling
interest and intense significance. Papers of great value on the work-
ing of missions were read by Dr. Dennis, of Beirut, Mr. Grant, of
Dundee, and Mr. Ellis, of North Wales. The last-mentioned electrified
the audience by his Welsh fervor and humor. In the evening a num-
ber of moving addresses on the varied portions of the immense field
of the world were made by men who had been on the ground and testi-
fied what they had seen. The presence of so many missionaries and
secretaries and chairmen or conveners of missionary committees gave
occasion to a private conference which served a very useful purpose.

It was called to agree on some terms of comity to be proposed to

128

THE PRESS TIER TAX AND REFORMED REVIEW.

all Presbyterian and Reformed missions with, a view to prevent un-
wise interference or intrusion, and favor an economical distribution of
work and agents. Some twentj” or more persons compared views and
agreed upon a schedule to be proposed to each Board. It is hardly
possible that other than good results should follow from suggestions
thus made. This action was no part of the Council’s proceedings,
but the meeting of the Council rendered it possible that so many rep-
resentative persons of different bodies and from widely separated fields
should meet and confer together.

An extremely agreeable excursion to Niagara Falls on Saturday of
the first week afforded an opportunity of private personal intercourse
which was eagerly availed of, and quite fulfilled the expectations of
those who, with generous hearts, planned the excursion and defrayed
its expenses.

Monday was devoted to the work of the American Churches among
the Negro races, the aborigines, the European emigrants and the Asi-
atic. Very able papers were read by specialists on all these topics,
and these when reproduced in the printed volume of the Proceed-
ings will well repay profound and attentive study. The evening
was occupied with Church life and work in the British colonies. Dr.
Robertson, of Winnipeg, astonished many by setting forth the extent
and productions of the western portion of the Dominion of Canada
and the success of the efforts made to overtake its spiritual needs.
He was followed by Prof. Rentoul, of New South Wales, one of the
most noticeable members of the Council, who described in a most in-
teresting manner the moral condition of Australia. The Professor’s
varied ability and tact, and his power of swift and effective speech,
brought forward the vast field he in part represented far more than
had been the case in any previous Council. And it was seriously con-
sidered whether, besides the eastern and western section of the Exec-
utive Commission, there should not be also an Australasian section.
Doubtless in due time there will be such a section, or its equivalent,
and the southern hemisphere will have the weight and influence which
seem to belong to its wide extent and extraordinary growth and prog-
ress.

On Tuesday (27th), work on the European continent was the topic.
The able reports of Dr. Marshall Lang and Dr. W. C. Cattell indicated
what had been done and what was still lacking, after which came ad-
dresses by delegates from Germany, Belgium and the Waldenses ;
and Dr. John Hall spoke with point and precision on the methods of
assisting the Continental Churches — a matter which needs far more
attention than it has received, for, as the late Dr. Buchanan, of Glas-
gow, said, “ To gain the Continent for Christ is to gain the world,”
and yet true as this is, no systematic scheme has yet been devised to
succor efficiently the struggling churches of the home lands of the
Reformation. Our Methodist and Baptist brethren are doing a good
work in Europe, yet one which often weakens the native organizations

TEE TORONTO COIN OIL.

129

by attracting tlieir most hopeful members to an enterprise of foreign
origin. To drain off its most spiritual members is not the best way
to “ vitalize a dead church.” In the afternoon there was a free con-
ference on spiritual life, when Dr. Henderson, of Glasgow, spoke with
power on the work of the Holy Spirit, and Dr. Somerville, of New
York, made an earnest address on personal and family religion. In
the evening addresses were made by Dr. Burrell, Mr. Cheyne Edgar,
Dr. McKibbin and Mr. P. M. Muir on the “ Relation and Duty of the
Church to Outside Societies doing Christian Work.” The discussion
of this topic was very animated, contrary views were vigorously
maintained and the matter was sifted to the bottom. The interest of
the audience was intense, and when a telling point was made by any
speaker the applause was uproarious. It was very evident that all
are not of one mind on this subject, and the Church has yet to feel
its way towards a just and permanent conclusion.

On Wednesday morning a deputation from the Methodist (Ecumeni-
cal Conference, held last year in Washington, D. C., was introduced,
but the speaker on its behalf hardly came up to the demands of the oc-
casion, while the response of Dr. Blaikie, the President of the Alliance,
was all that could be desired. The ministry was the theme of the day,
and Principal McYickar read a paper on “The Biblical Idea of the
Ministry,” Dr. Oliver, of Glasgow, on “ The Minister as a Teacher,”
and Dr. Ross Taylor on him as an organizer. All these papers were
excellent, but the last one was peculiarly remarkable for thoroughness
and judicial precision. It touched every point with consummate skill.
In the afternoon Prof. Moore, of Union Seminary, Va., read a paper on
“ The Drift of Thought in Apologetics and Criticism Dr. Hutton, of
Paisley, on “ The Social, Mental and Philanthropic Activities of To-
day,” and Dr. Black, of Marshall, Mo., on “ The Demand for an In-
creased Number of Ministers and Short Courses of Study.” All
were listened to with interest, but Dr. Moore’s utterance provoked
most discussion. It was an able and reasonable plea for conservatism
and as such was highly esteemed, but the negative criticism did not
lack advocates who freely expressed their views and yet did not suc-
cessfully meet the temperate and cogent statement of the Virginia
professor. In the evening Dr. R. S. Drummond, of Glasgow, spoke
on “ The Inner Work of the Church ” in a manner worthy of his repu-
tation, and Dr. Wilson, of Ohio, and Dr. Dixon, of New Jersey,
offered weighty and forcible statements on the important theme, “ The
Aggressive Movements of our Churches.” These addresses received
less attention than they deserved and would otherwise have had, be-
cause the topic of the afternoon came up again to complete an unfin-
ished discussion.

On Wednesday Christianity in relation to social problems was con-
sidered. Principal Grant, of Kingston, Ont., read a strong paper on
“ The Wage Question,” and Dr. McDonald, of Calcutta, treated “ The
Opium Question in India.” Both called forth a lively discussion,
9

130

TEE PRESS TTER1AN AES REFORMED REVIEW.

and it was apparent that the house was not of one mind on either,,
but a good deal of information was imparted, especially upon the lat-
ter topic, and men felt that it was good to hear both sides of a dis-
puted point. The same thing was experienced in the afternoon when
“ The Drink Question in Great Britain ” was considered by the Rev,
John Campbell, of Edinburgh. The advocates of temperance usually
compensate themselves for their abstinence by intemperance in speech,,
and this was the case in Toronto ; but the Scripture doctrine was
laid down by some speakers with masterly clearness and force. In
the evening the aspects of Romanism was the theme. Pastor Choisy,
of Geneva, spoke of it on the Continent ; Dr. Kerr, of Glasgow, in
Great Britain ; Dr. John Laing, of Dundas, Ont., in Canada ; Dr. Bush-
nell, of Tennessee, in North and South America ; and Dr. Underwood, in
Corea. Two churches were opened for these addresses and both were
filled, the speakers alternating from one to the other. The tone of
what was said was kind and gentle, although the truth was not with-
held. The distinction was carefully observed between the personal
excellencies of not a few Romanists and the characteristics of the
S3rstem to which they belong.

The morning of Friday (30th), (he last day of the Council, was oc-
cupied with reports of Committees, and a paper by T. IV. Chambers
on “ The Doctrinal Agreement of the Reformed and Presbyterian
Churches,” which, however, was not followed by anj’ discussion. Then
were appointed the members to constitute both sections of the Exec-
utive Commission, which carries on the work of the Alliance during
the interim between the Councils. The usual committees were re-
newed, viz., on Cooperation in Foreign Missions, on Work on the
European Continent, and on Sabbath-schools. The officers for the
next four years were also chosen. In the evening a farew'ell meeting
was held, when an immense audience was in attendance, and continued
in earnest attention to the very end. Spirited addresses were made
by three brethren from the Eastern Section and as many from the
Western, followed by touching words from the Rev. Dr. Blaikie, who
was alwa}’s listened to with interest and respect ; and then an appro-
priate response was made by Principal Caven and William Mortimer
Clark, Q.C., on behalf of the churches and people of Toronto. The
President offered a short prayer and announced that the Council was
dissolved.

Thus ended one of the best Councils the Alliance has ever held.
True there was a less attendance of delegates from the Continent
than on former occasions. Some eminent men from Great Britain,
such as Prof. Charteris, Drs. Mitchell and Marshall Lang, Sir George
Bruce and the like, were hindered from coming, and age or infirmity
kept awaj' Dr. McCosh (one of the founders of the association), Pres-
ident Patton and Prof. Schaff and others whose presence had been
eagerly expected ; yet the programme was more wisely prepared,* a

* This was owing largely to the wisdom of Prof. Aiken, of Princeton, who,
alas, was called away before the Council met.

THE TORONTO COUNCIL.

131

larger admixture of practical themes was secured, the actual working
of the Alliance came into clearer light, the various committees had
more to do and the general feeling was one of satisfaction with the
outcome of the whole. Much was due to the Rev. Principal Caven,
the Chairman of the Business Committee, whose weight of character
and intellect, united with a calm and genial spirit, gave effectual aid
in solving difficulties and reaching harmonious conclusions.

The following are, for the ensuing four years, the officers of the
Alliance : President, Rev. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D.; Hono-
rary Secretary, Rev. W. G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D.; General Secretary,
Rev. George D. Mathews, D.D.; American Secretary, Rev. William H.
Roberts, D.D., LL.D.; General Treasurer, R. T. Turnbull, Esq.;
American Treasurer, George J unkin, LL.D.

Executive Commission, Eastern Section : Chairman, Rev. J. Mar-
shall Lang, D.D.; Secretary, Rev. George D. Mathews, D.D.

Executive Commission, Western Section : Chairman, Rev. Talbot
W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D.; Secretaiy, Rev. William H. Roberts,
D.D., LL.D.; Recording Secretary, Rev. David Waters, D.D.

The action of the Council upon some side issues brought before it
by one or more delegates needs to be stated.

1. A proposition was presented and urged with considerable ear-
nestness that a deliverance be made, asserting in strong terms the
absolute inerrancy of Scripture, whereupon the following was adopted :

The Alliance is based upon the consensus of the Reformed Confessions, and
in these the doctrine as to Holy Scripture is set forth in its place, but inasmuch
as the Churches composing the Alliance have conferred upon the Council no
power farther to define doctrine, it is

Resolved, To take no action upon the resolution dealing with the authority
of the Scriptures.

The wisdom of this course is shown by the admitted fact that, had
the Council undertaken to formulate the utterance called for, the dis-
cussion of its terms would have occupied the whole time to the exclu-
sion of everything else.

2. Dr. John G. Paton, the well-known missionary to the New Heb-
rides, brought before the body a subject which was carefully consid-
ered, and led to the following action :

Whereas, The Council has been informed that a proposal for an international
arrangement to restrict the traffic in firearms and liquors with the "Western Pa-
cific natives was accepted in principle in 1884 by the Government of the United
States of America ; and,

Whereas, A plan for joint action by the great powers interested in this pro-
posal is now under consideration by the United States Government ; and,

Whereas, This Council is in thorough sympathy with every movement hav-
ing in view the humane treatment of uncivilized peoples and the moral elevation
of the race ; therefore,

Resolved, That a deputation be sent by this Council to the President of the
United States respectfully to urge prompt and favorable action by the Govern-
ment upon the plan above referred to, or some other plan which shall secure the

132

TEE PR E SB 7 TER TAX AND REFORMED REVIEW.

interests of humanity and morality in the New Hebrides and other portions of
the Western Pacific.

The deputation was appointed to consist of the following : Dr. El-
linwood, Chairman ; Drs. John Hall, T. W. Chambers, J. B. Dales,
II. M. Somerville, M. D. Hoge, J. S. McIntosh, J. L. Rentoul, J. G.
Paton and W. H. Roberts, and the Hons. H. W. Bookstaver, J. M.
Gant, and D. R. James, Geo. Junkin, LL.D., Hon. J. W. Lapsley and
Mr. Justice Strong.*

3. The subject of marriage and divorce having been brought for-
ward, the Council adopted the following resolution, at the same time
referring the subject to both sections of the Executive Commis-
sion for the gathering of information and the careful maturing of the
whole matter, that it may be deliberately and worthily dealt with by
the next General Council :

Resolved, That the maintenance of the sanctity of marriage calls for the ear-
nest efforts of the Churches ; that there is urgent cause to protest against the
granting of divorce on insufficient grounds in various countries, and that the
Council heartily commend all proper efforts to have divorce legislation in our
communities brought into conformity with the law of Christ.

4. The matter of the closing of the World’s Fair on Sunday hav-
ing been presented to the body, it was, after due deliberation, unani-
mously determined to make the ensuing deliverance :

This Council, holding the consensus of the Reformed Churches throughout
the world, declares its cordial satisfaction with the recent action of the Congress
of the United States of America in favor of closing the Columbian Exposition
on the Lord’s Day, and expresses the conviction that this action of the Congress
will tend to promote the more general recognition of the weekly day of restand
worship alike in this and other lands.

There were highly respected members of the Council who sought
to intensify this action by a further and more direct assertion of the
Headship of the Lord Jesus over nations and governments, but it
seemed best to be content with such an utterance as would command
the hearty assent of all. There seems no reason to doubt that the
deliverance just recorded will give satisfaction to the vast constitu-
ency represented in the Council.

5. Some appropriate personal recognitions were made. Thus it
having been learned that the Rev. Dr. McCosh, who had been ap-

* It is pleasant to be able to state that this Committee held a meeting at the
Chairman’s office, on the 21st of October, 1892, when there was laid before them
a copy of all the correspondence between the British Minister and the American
Government from January, 1884, to July, 1892. From this it appeared that the
matter is now in the course of a satisfactory adjustment, and there is good rea-
son to think that such an adjustment will be secured in the former part of the
year 1893. Hence it was considered unnecessary for the Committee to proceed
to Washington to wait on the President or the Secretary of State, and
accordingly they adjourned to meet at the call of the Chairman in case circum-
stances should arise to call for their action.

TEE TORONTO COUNCIL.

133

pointed to prepare a paper, had been detained by infirmity, the fol-
lowing message of sympathy and respect was sent to him :

The Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian system,
mindful of the debt it owes you, sends you love and greeting, greatly regrets
your absence and invokes God’s choicest blessing upon you.

It also directed that the paper prepared by him should be printed
in the volume of the Proceedings. It being stated on the 22d of Sep-
tember that that day marked the semi-centennial period of the Rev.
Prof. Dr. Blaikie’s ministry, the Council by resolution conveyed its
congratulations to Dr. Blaikie, invoked the divine blessing upon him
as one of the fathers of the Alliance whose long-continued and effi-
cient services had done so much to promote its welfare, and as a mark
of honor requested him to accept the position of Honorary Secretary
of the Alliance. Further, the Revs. Dr. Mathews and J. Marshall
Lang were appointed to represent the Alliance at the Jubilee of Dr.
Blaikie to be held in Edinburgh. Fitting occasion was taken by the
retiring President to refer to the excellent service rendered by the
General Secretary (Dr. Mathews) in his diligent and unwearied efforts
to promote the objects for which the Alliance had been formed, and
there was a general agreement that the cordial tribute was just. The
Chairman of the Western Section of the Executive Commission also
took the opportunity to bear witness to the American Secretary (Dr.
Roberts), who without any pecuniary compensation had freely given
a great deal of time and pains to the work of the Commission, and
by his tact and skill had contributed very largely to the accomplish-
ment of its objects.

The wisdom of the formation of the Alliance has been amply
demonstrated by experience. There are ninety-one different bodies
of the Christians described in its title, and eighty-two of these are in
formal connection with the Alliance. They contain four millions of
communicants and twenty millions of adherents. They were repre-
sented in the Council by nearly three hundred delegates coming from
every part of the globe. These delegates cheerfully recognized each
other as agreeing in doctrine and polity, and, to a large extent, in
forms of worship, nor could they help feeling an unusual exhilaration
in the thought that, while any one member of the Alliance might be
small in itself, yet it belonged to a mighty host who, without any lim-
itation of place or language all round the world, held up the same
banner of truth and order. The mutual acquaintanceship thus pro-
duced is of inestimable value. It enables men to act together. It
gives confidence. It stimulates effort. It lessens friction. The Al-
liance has already done much to promote cooperation in the foreign
field, and will do still more in the future. Nor may we doubt that the
same result, sooner or later, will follow in the domestic field. Its rep-
resentative character and its absolute disclaimer of legislative author-
ity give its utterances a weight second only to that of Holy Writ.

134

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Men will, they must, listen to the suggestions of their brethren given
in no spirit of authority, but only in brotherly atfection, and they will
by their conduct show the truth of the couplet,

“ Sweet are the words of truth
Breathed from the lips of love.”

The example of the Reformed has been followed by our Congrega-
tional brethren, who have twice held a general Council, and by our
Methodist brethren who also have twice met in an (Ecumenical Meth-
odist Conference. Let the Baptists and the Lutherans do the same,
and then these large bodies can gradually grow into mutual recogni-
tion, fellowship and cooperation in promoting the cause and the honor
of Him whom all regard as their common Master.

New Yoke. Talbot W. Chambers.

DR. ROBERTS’ ARTICLE OX SEMINARY CONTROL.

The General Assembly of 1892 adopted an additional report of
the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries. The preamble
of the first section of the report recites the fact, that “ disorders are
appearing in the Church, doing great injury to the unity and purity of
the Church.” The preamble of the second section refers specifically
to the “ Overtures and all the other papers in the case of Union
Theological Seminary.” The action of the Assembly included in the
report is based on the fact recited and the papers referred to. This
action includes an interpretation of “ the Compact of 1870,” a refusal
to break this compact in the case of Union Seminary, a statement
of the Assembly’s persuasion that “ the Church should have direct
connection with and control over its Theological Seminaries,” and,
finally, the appointment of a committee of fifteen, “ to take into con-
sideration the whole subject of the relation of the Assembly to its
Theological Seminaries, confer with the Directors of these Seminaries,
and report to the next General Assembly such action as in their
judgment will result in a still closer relation between the Assembly
and its Seminaries than that which at present exists.”

No one can doubt that the Assembly was acting within its rights
in appointing this committee. And few will doubt that the state of
the Church required some action. The attitude taken by Union
Theological Seminary, touching the veto b}' the Assembly of the
election of Dr. Briggs to the Professorship of Biblical Theology, ex-
cited, as it was well calculated to excite, widespread alarm. A Pro-
fessor had been appointed or transferred by the Board of Directors
of the Seminary, and this action had been reported to the Assembly.
By an overwhelming majority the Assembly disapproved the action.
In response to this disapproval, the Directors of the Seminary, first,
retained the “ appointed ” or “ transferred ” Professor, and, secondly,

DR. ROBERTS’ ARTICLE ON SEMINARY CONTROL. 185

repealed their memorial of 1870, which completed elections were
conditioned on the Assembly’s refusal to veto them. That this repeal
should have become the occasion of the appointment of a committee
to consider the relations between the Church and the Theological
Seminaries ought to surprise no one. The Assembly was bound to
take distinct notice of the new conditions, and to proceed to some
action.

It would have been well, I think, had the public discussion of the
subject been postponed until the committee had made at least a pre-
liminary report. The committee is charged with the duty of consid-
ering a question not of principle but of policy ; for the General
Assembly has settled the principle on which the committee is to pro-
ceed. The discussion of questions of policy involving details of
administration may, in the first instance, well be left to the body
charged with its consideration. But my valued friend, Dr. Roberts,
•of Lane Seminary, evidently looks on this as an exceptional case ;
for the current number of this Revjew contains an article from his
pen, in which, after an interesting history of the relations between
the Church and the Seminaries, he discusses the several modes of
Church control, defends a single mode as suited to all the Semina-
ries, and even presents for consideration a highly specialized new
chapter on the subject of Theological Seminaries, for the Form of
Government. Dr. Roberts’ article, at one or two points, is open, I
think, to criticism.

In the historical section of Dr. Roberts’ paper, he gives names to
the several plans adopted by our Church for the control of its theo-
logical institutions. The first he calls the “Assembly method,” and
the last the “ Cooperative method.” “ Cooperative ” is the name he
gives to the method adopted by the Church at the Reunion of 1870.
This method assigned to the Directors of several Seminaries the dut}r
of filling vacancies in their number and the duty of electing Pro-
fessors, subject to the veto of the General Assembly. Dr. Roberts
lias stated accurately some of the details of the method as it is em-
ployed in Princeton Seminary. But his employment of the adjective

Cooperative ” to describe it is entirely misleading. The Board of
Directors of Princeton Seminary is as much the creature of the Gen-
oral Assembly as it has ever been. It is simply the agent of the
Assembly to execute the Assembly’s own “ plan.” How thoroughly
the institution is now under the control of the General Assembly may
be gathered from the following section of the article relating to that
body :

Art. I, Sect. 3. The General Assembly shall, at all times, have the power of
adding to the Constitutional articles of the Seminary, and of abrogating, alter-
ing, or amending them ; but in the exercise of this power, the contemplated
additions, abrogations, alterations, or amendments, shall, in every case, be pro-
posed at one Assembly, and not adopted till the Assembly of the subsequent
year, except by a unanimous vote.

136

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Besides this, the Board of Directors is to be composed only of
“ ministers and ruling elders.” Each member, previously to his tak-
ing a seat, is to approve the plan of the Seminary and to promise to
endeavor to carry into effect its articles and provisions. Every elec-
tion, whether of Director or Professor, is made subject to the veto of
the Assembly. The Directors are to submit an accurate transcript of
their records to the Assembly for “ the unrestrained inspection ” of
the Assembly’s members. Though the Directors may make rules for
the performance of the duties assigned them, or for the preservation
of order, and though they are bound to direct the Professors of the
Seminary in regard to the topics on which the latter are to instruct
the students, these privileges and duties are limited not only by the
“ plan ” of the Seminary, but specifically, also, by “ the orders of the
General Assembly.” Though the Directors may suspend a Professor
pending an investigation of charges against his life or doctrine, yet
his removal by them, like his election, is subject to the Assembly’s
veto. The General Assembly, it will be perceived, under the present
plan, can interpose at any time and at any point. It can override the
action of the Directors. And if on any subject it shall seem neces-
sary to do so in order to initiate action, it can change the plan of the
institution.

This being the case, it is, as I have said, misleading to describe
the relations between the Directors and the Assembly as coopera-
tive. One might as well say that the Assembly and the Board of
Home Missions are cooperative bodies.* It is true that the Gen-
eral Assembly, at the Reunion, granted to the Directors the power to
fill vacancies in their own number and to elect Professors, both being
subject to the Assembly’s veto. The history of this grant is honora-
ble to the General Assembly. Before the action was proposed to the
Assembly, it was thoroughly discussed. Both the New School and
the Old School parties in the united Church thoroughly favored it ;
and it was unanimously adopted. But no one, I take it, supposed
that the effect of this action was to release the Seminaries, which
before had been administered by the Assembly, from the Assembly’s
control, and to transform their Boards of Direction, which had been
the Assembly’s administrative agents, into bodies of another class,
properly called “ cooperative.” The Boards of Direction are to-day
the Assembly’s agents as really as they ever were ; and the institu-
tions are as really and effectively as ever under the Assembly’s super-
vision.

In view of the proposal by Dr. Roberts to repeal the method of
control in operation since the Reunion of 1870, the history of the
adoption of that method, and the reasons that led to its selection out
of several methods proposed, need to be stated anew. The Assembly’s

* Dr. Roberts, in another place, calls the Boards of Directors “virtually self-
governing bodies.” If he means by this, “sovereign” or “independent of the
Assembly,” he is in error. If he means only that they have a large discretion

DR. ROBERTS’ ARTICLE ON SEMINARY CONTROL. 137

Seminaries were all Old School Seminaries ; they had been endowed
by Old School benefactors ; in some cases (as at Princeton) these
benefactors made specific provision for the diversion of the endow-
ments in case of a change in doctrinal teaching.* * It was felt that
these facts should be regarded by the united Church as controlling,
when it should begin to make changes “ in the method of the Assem-
bly’s control.” To have continued the election of Directors and Profes-
sors by the General Assembly would have been, as was well said at
the time, “ to invest the branch, lately New School, with a full share
in the legal control of the Seminaries of the other branch ; because
these are all by their charters placed under Assembly supervision,
leaving those of the other body entirely independent of the Assembly
and of all supervision by any portion of the late Old School Church.”
I am quoting the language of the late Dr. Charles Hodge in the
Princeton Review for April, 1870. He adds, that this action would
involve “ an inequality which has been more deeply felt than ex-
pressed, especially by some of the principal donors to the funds of
Princeton and other Old School Seminaries.”

The force of the objection thus urged by Dr. Charles Hodge to the
continuance of the election, by the united Assembly, of either Direc-
tors or Professors was felt by the whole Old School Church and was

in acting for the Assembly, he should show that that has been a disadvantage.
But this he does not do. On the contrary, he thinks the Boards of the Assem-
bly Seminaries have done well.

* The language in which some of the large gifts to the Theological Seminary at
Princeton are conditioned may well be quoted. The language of one deed of
gift is the following :

“ Provided, However, that if at any future time, the said Seminary shall pass
from under the supervision and control of the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian Church of the United States of America, now known as the Old School
General Assembly and its successors, or if at any future time the leading doctrines
declared in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church,
such as the doctrine of universal and total depravity, the doctrine of election, the
doctrine of the atonement, the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to all
his posterity, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to all His people for
their justification, the doctrine of human unability, the doctrine of the neces-
sity of the influence of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration, conversion and
sanctification as these doctrines are now understood and explained by the afore-
said Old School General Assembly, shall cease to be taught in said Seminary,” etc.

The condition in another gift is stated as follows : “That if the said Seminary
shall at any time hereafter be separated from the General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church in the United States of America (now known as the Old School
General Assembly), or cease to be subject to its supervision and control through
any act or default of the party of the second part, or if the said Theological Semi-
nary, or any of its Professors shall depart in their professions and teaching from
the opinions and doctrines specified and set forth in the recital of this indenture,
or if the Professor for the time filling the Helena professorship shall in his pro-
fession or teaching depart from the said opinions and doctrines and the persons
having the power of removal of the Professors in the said Seminary shall not, on
notice from the Trustees of said Seminary, or from the Trustees of the College
of New Jersey, or any three of them, shall not restrain him from no departing,
or discharge him from his office, then in that case,” etc.

138

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

recognized by the New School Church ; and it may safely be said that
the change actually made in the electing body was a causa sine qua
non of Reunion. It will be observed, that the very same objec-
tion would have been urged with equal force to any proposal to
place Princeton Seminary under contiguous Synods or contiguous
Presbyteries (which is Dr. Roberts’ proposition) of the united Church.
For these contiguous Synods or Presbyteries, like the Reunion Gen-
eral Assembly, were, and still are constituted in part of ministers and
commissioners from Churches formerly New School. Had a plan of
control like that embodied in Dr. Roberts’ paper been proposed, its
adoption would simply have made impossible the Reunion of the
Presbyterian Church.

In order, then, to secure the Reunion with all its benefits, those
active in promoting it formulated a plan, by which bodies distinc-
tively Old School (the Boards of Directors representing the former
Old School Assembly), should thereafter initiate all action in the Old
School Seminaries ; the General Assembly retaining its power always
to veto elections, and in great crises to interpose by original action.
Meanwhile, the New School Seminaries gave to the General Assembly
the right to “ veto ” the election of Professors. In this way Prince-
ton, Allegheny, McCormick, etc., were allied with, but were not put in
danger of control by, the New School party ; and Union, Auburn and
Lane were allied with, but were not put in danger of control by, the
Old School party.

Now Dr. Roberts’ proposal involves precisely what the Old School
Church not only declined to do, but protested against, and what,
if it had been seriously proposed and persisted in, would have
been regarded by the Old School Church as a sufficient objection to
further action towards Reunion. Moreover, he presents this proposal
without showing any reason for it in either the bad or the unwise con-
duct of the Boards of Directors of the former Old School Seminaries,
or in the condition of the Church at large. Had the Board of any
one of these former Old School institutions been guilty of malfeas-
ance or non-feasance, the question of the general policy of taking their
immediate direction from the hands of the bodies selected as the
representatives of the former Old School Church and of putting it
directly into the hands of some composite body (i. e., partly Old and
parti}' New School) might perhaps properly be considered. But Dr.
Roberts’ article contains no such charge. So far as appears these
Boards have all been faithful to their great trusts, and the Seminaries
have flourished under their management.

It will not, of course, be seriously alleged, that the withdrawal of
Union Seminary from union with the Assembly is a good reason for
changing the plan of control in Princeton, Western and the other Old
School Seminaries. This would be to diminish the power of the
Princeton Board of Directors, which has kept its agreement, because
the Board of a neighboring Board of Directors has, in the judgment
of the Assembly, broken its agreement with that body. And yet,

DR. ROBERTS' ARTICLE ON SEMINARY CONTROL. 139

except the desire to make a uniform plan for the control of all the
Seminaries, nothing but the strained relations between Union and the
Assembly is alleged either as the reason or as the occasion of Dr.
Roberts’ proposal.

Nor does the fact that Union Seminary has disregarded the veto of
the General Assembly contain the slightest ground for Dr. Roberts’
sweeping generalization that “ the veto power of the Assembly can-
not be generally and effectively applied fi'om the side of the Semina-
ries ; ” that the “ oversight ” of the Assembly is merely “ nominal,”
and that the Boards are “ a law unto themselves.” Dr. Roberts
knows that had Dr. Briggs been a Professor in one of the Assembly
Seminaries, the veto of the Detroit Assembty would have been applied
with immediate and conclusive effect. The only support this general-
ization has given to it in the article, is the remark, “ It is sufficient,
in this connection, to name the present complication with the Union
Seminary.”

In this connection, it is right to call attention to the charge that
Union Theological Seminary has receded from and therefore broken
a solemn agreement with the reunited Assembly of 1870. The
Assembty, quite correctly, as I think, regards this charge as true, for
it declines “ to be a party to the breaking of the compact with Union
Seminary.” But, if the reunited Assembly of 1870 made a compact
with Union Seminary it made one just as real with Princeton and the
other former Old School Seminaries; and it is this compact with
these other Seminaries, which Dr. Roberts now, unconsciously, I am
sure, but really, suggests that the Assembly break. If Dr. Roberts’
proposals should be adopted, the Assembly could not, with consist-
ency, say one word against the action of theUnion Board of Directors.

Dr. Roberts proposes to confine the personnel of the Board of each
Seminary to Presbj’ters of a specific locality. He cites the plan of
Auburn Seminary and makes it the basis of the new chapter he has
formulated. This feature of his proposal is peculiarly unhappy. The
Seminaries of the Church ought, one would say, to be Seminaries of the
whole Church. They ought to be connected with the body which repre-
sents the whole Church and which expresses the Church’s unity. They
should be under its supervision, and not under the supervision of local
judicatories. Perhaps I have no right to sa}r a word about the plan
of Auburn Seminary. Why the classes in that institution have not
been larger I do not know. Certainty, the reason is not that the
institution has lacked, at any time, an able, learned, orthodox and
devoted Faculty of Instruction. Its teachers, living and dead, have
by their conspicuous talents and attainments and industry blessed
and honored the whole Church. I cannot but believe, however, that
their opportunities would have been enlarged, had the control of Au-
burn been conducted by a Board of Directors acting for the Assembly,
instead of by a Board elected by, and acting, therefore, immediately
for a specific number of contiguous Presbyteries.

140

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Besides, something is due to history. Princeton and the other Old
School Seminaries were “ Assembly Seminaries ” at the time of the
Reunion. Why they should be changed into Synodical or Presbyte-
rial institutions, it is impossible for me to conceive. I had the great
honor to be a member of the Faculty of the McCormick Theological
Seminary and to know something of its history. The Church may well
be proud of this great institution, which has increased since 1880, in
students, from fifteen to more than two hundred, and whose endow-
ment has been increased many fold during the same period. What
McCormick Seminary is doing and is likely to do for the Presbyte-
rian Church in the central section of the country is so great as to be
beyond the power of one not intimately acquainted with it adequately
to conceive. But, had McCormick Seminary been confined, in the
selection of its administering Board, to its immediate vicinity, as Dr.
Roberts wants to confine all the Seminaries, the Church would have
no such splendid and commanding possession, as it now has, in the
central metropolis of the country.

The truth is, that Dr. Roberts’ plan of localizing the Boards was
placed before the Church at the Reunion, and it was rejected.
Article ix, of “ the concurrent declarations,” suggested, as a per-
missible “ method of control, the watch and care of one or more of
the adjacent Synods.” But with this suggestion before them all,
no Seminary adopted it. All preferred the Assembly to the Synods ;
and, of course, therefore, to the contiguous ten or twenty Presby-
teries of Dr. Roberts’ plan. The reasons for this preference were
distinctly given. Thejr may be read, for example, in the article
already quoted from the Princeton Review for April, 1870, and written
by Dr. C. Hodge. Precisely the same view was taken in the Southern
Church by Dr. Dabney, in an article in which he favors the very plan
adopted by the General Assembly in 1870.* Unfortunately, instead
of this plan, a plan, in its essential features like Dr. Roberts’, obtained
in the Columbia Seminar}'. That is to say, each of several judicato-
ries elected its proportion of Directors. What confusion and bitter-
ness was the result, those who recall the recent Woodrow case will
remember.

The committee appointed by the Assembly is charged with the
consideration of a difficult and delicate subject. I should not have
written on it at this time, but that the Review has opened its columns
to an article discussing it. In these circumstances, it has seemed
proper to call the attention of our readers to aspects of the sub-
ject not treated by Dr. Roberts, and especially to call attention to
the fact, that if his proposal were adopted, we should as a Church be
in no position to criticise Union Seminary for receding from its en-
gagement of 1870.

Princeton. John DeWitt.

* Discussions, Vol. ii, pp. 51, 52.

IX.

REVIEWS OF

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

L— EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

The Early Religion of Israel as Set Forth by Biblical Wri-
ters and by Modern Critical Historians. The Baird Lecture
for 1889. By James Robertson, D.D., Professor of Oriental Lan-
guages in the University of Glasgow. Hew York : A. D. F. Randolph
& Co. ; Edinburgh and London : William Blackwood & Sons, 1892.
12mo, pp. 524.

This is a valuable and timely book. The general attitude of the writer
towards current critical questions may be understood from a few striking
utterances in the Preface : “ Whatever may be said of the ‘ traditional ’ view
on these subjects, it is to be remembered that the ‘ traditional view ’ of the his-
tory of the religion is the view of the Biblical writers, and if it is declared to be
incorrect, our estimate of the value of the books must be considerably modi-
fied.” “ I look in vain to the critics for a passable road with a firm bottom,
which a man of plain understanding may tread.” “ I am less concerned to
defend a theory than to claim for the Biblical writers what I think they
have not received— fair play.” “ It is altogether inadequate (to. say) that
‘ criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the
inspiration of the Old Testament; it presupposes it.’ Such scholars would
do an invaluable service to the Church at the present time if they would
explain what they mean by inspiration in this connection and define wherein
their position differs from that of critics who profess no such reverence for
the Old Testament.”

In the Introduction Prof. Robertson shows how unfortunate is the posi-
tion of the plain reader of the Bible over against the reasoning of the critics.
“ There is a continual assumption of something which the reader has been
no party in establishing, a building on foundations which are underground.”
He proposes, on the other hand, to take his stand “ at certain clearly marked
points in history or undisputed phenomena of literature and to ask what
account is given of them respectively by the Biblical writers and by modern
historians of Israel.” In chap, i he considers the religious character of
Israelitish history. It is “ something more ” than other principal religions.
What is the difference ? In the following chapter he gives the Biblical ex-
planation of the matter as contrasted with that of modern critics. Inasmuch

142

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

as both appeal to the same books and arrive at different conclusions, he pro-
poses to exclude from his discussion the books and portions of books thus
brought into dispute, and to confine himself to those where there is universal
agreement. From these, the writings of the prophets of the ninth and
eighth centuries, he hopes to be able to determine the “ value of the books
which at the outset are left out of account.”

He shows in chap, iii that the utterances of these writings is inconsistent
with the idea that it is a time of rudimentary religious thought and concludes
that it is not the period of the beginning of the prophetic religion. In
chap, iv he seeks to find traces of the men and the activity thus implied as
previously existing and finds them in the earliest Biblical writers. In
regard to patriarchal history, he finds (chap, v) that the intimations of the
prophets, as far as they go, are in accord with the Pentateuch. He then
takes up (chap, vi) the claim of the modem view that it rests on a critical
sifting of the documents and shows that it lacks a fixed objective standard of
appeal and misapplies its own principles. Its position as to the low tone of
preprophetic religion rests on a false system of mythologizing and fails to
furnish the historical proof required, etc. (chaps, vii-x).

In chap, xi he considers the “ Jahaveh Religion ” which was characteristic
of Israel; in chap, xii, “Ethic Monotheism;” and in chaps, xiii, xiv,
“Authoritative Institutions: Their Early Date and Their Religious Basis,”
and in the three following, “The Three Codes,” “ The Law Books,” and “Law
and Prophecy.” In the final chapter (xviii) he reaches the conclusion that
the “ Biblical theory, when not burdened wTith assumptions with which it
has been often ‘ traditionally ’ encumbered, will stand the test of a sober and
common-sense criticism.” The theory proposed in its place is too thorough-
going, for it goes in the teeth of evident obstacles and refuses to bend its
way to embrace plain facts. “ It does not leave sound materials of which
a credible history can be constructed.” “Modern critical writers, in
fact, can scarcely lay their hands on a single book and say : ‘ Here is a docu-
ment to be relied upon to give a fair, unbiased, unvarnished account of

things as they were In this way a history is no doubt constructed,

but the supporting beams of it are subjective prepossessions, and the mate-
rials are only got by discrediting the sources from which they are drawn.”
Prof. Robertson finds that the history of Israel as a nation, as told by the
Bible historians, “ is credible in all the essential points at which we have
means of testing it.” As to the accounts in the first eleven chapters of Gene-
sis, they “ are characterized by a sobriety, purity and loftiness of conception
which render them altogether unique.”

We have deemed it best to allow the writer of this book to give largely his
own account of it. In doing so we have left out of view some minor points in
which Prof. Robertson might differ with his colleagues on the conservative
side. In our opinion he allows too much latitude to the critics in their
literary analysis; makes more of alleged discrepancies in the Pentateuch
than the facts warrant : and lays claim to an originality in the form of his
argument which it does not possess. There is scarcely any considerable
work on the general subject in which his argument, in the main, has not
been at least suggested, and such works as Watson’s The Law and the
Prophets (1S84), Bredenkamp’s Gesetz und Proplieten (1881), and Leathes'
The Luxe in the Prophets (1S91), have had more or less directly to do with it.
To none of these books is any reference made. Still these are relatively
slight defects in a work which is of great merit both from a scientific and
literary point of view. The statement of W. T. Davison, in the Critical
Review (April. 1S92), that these arguments of Robertson apply only to one
school of critical analysis seems to us incorrect. There is but one general

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

143

method among critics of all schools of reaching their results, however much
those results may differ. It is against that method that our professor directs
his batteries.

Chicago. Edwin Cone Bissell.

Prolegomena van Bijbelsche Godgeleerdheid, door Dr. E. H. van
Leeuwen. Utrecht : C. H. E. Breger, 1890. 8vo, pp. 150.

In the Preface the author gives his reasons for considering the study of
Biblical Theology of supreme importance in the present crisis of theology.
The Bible, “that strange book, of which our age, notwithstanding all its
efforts, cannot rid itself,” being subjected to the most searching criticism
and to ever-repeated applications of the anatomical knife, it devolves upon
the Churches of the Reformation to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, and
“ to take their composition and their contents for a moment, not as we should
like them to be, but as they really are.” The truth of these statements will
appear to everybody who is at all aware of the destructive influences at work
around us. There is an urgent need in all branches pertaining to Biblical
study, and not the least in Biblical Theology, to replace the distorted and
disrupted fragments into which the Scriptures have been torn, by the organic
unity of both form and matter as it is given in the Bible itself. Biblical
theology in particular should derive its strength, not from any tacit or even
outspoken opposition to the Church doctrine, but should rather, in close
alliance with the latter, attempt to show how the Church, being guided by
the Spirit, in its historical development of the truth has remained in closer
contact with the Word than the critical theories of the present day.

The book has other features that please us. The objective character of
revelation is maintained in a very positive manner. The temptation to
weaken this may become especially strong in Biblical Theology. It would
seem as if the idea of a progressive, living revelation, that gradually unfolds
the perfect doctrines from their perfect germs, no longer suffices to satisfy the
prevailing demand for so-called historical, or, more accurately speaking, evolu-
tionistic treatment of sacred things. Hence many, in an altogether subjec-
tive manner, make the religion of Israel the object of Old Testament Theology,
either minimizing with Herman Schultz the revelation lying back of it to
some undefined, immanent process, or limiting it with Bernhard Weiss to a
series of divine acts, then making Biblical Theology the description of the
views and conceptions in which these acts were appropriated and interpreted.
In either case Biblical Theology will have for its object something relative
and human, and will be free to exhibit it as passing through the stages of a
human and imperfect development. Prof, van Leeuwen ’s book is almost
entirely free from this serious error. It states the object of the science to be
“ the doctrinal contents of the Bible.” These doctrinal contents, including
both dogmatic and ethic elements, are the product of revelation, and revela-
tion is a speaking of God. It is to be regretted that there are some state-
ments not fully in line with this excellent position; e. gr.,the following: “The
doctrine contained in the Bible is not distinguished from a formal point of
view from the historical character of the Biblical contents in general ....
being as it were woven into the historical narrative.” And again : “ What
the Bible places before us is neither a doctrinal^system nor a system of duties,
.... but it is history,” etc. This is only true in part. Certainly books
like Proverbs and the Epistle to the Romans do not present to us their dog-
matic and ethical contents interwoven with an historical narrative. We fear
that the author here allows himself to be influenced by a theory of revela-
tion which, in the abstract, he would perhaps not accept as his own. Divine

144

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

acts are no doubt an integral part of revelation, but they derive their reveal-
ing power only from the divine words preceding, accompanying and following
them, by which they are placed in their proper light. The highest form for
man to communicate his thoughts in is speech, and in this respect also man
was made after God’s image. Far more objectionable, however, than the
above is a statement like the following : that Biblical history is “ the unfold-
ing and development of the work and life of Ood in humanity, as it finds its
most glorious manifestation and its highest perfection in and through Jesus
Christ, the Word Incarnate.” According to this formula, revelation is not
merely encased in history, but history also ceases to have for its chief aim
the communication to us of God’s revealed truth, and becomes instead the
description of a mystical process of imparting divine life to humanity. We
hasten to say, however, that such a view would not be in accordance with
the whole tenor of the book.

The author follows the traditions of the Utrecht school in placing little
stress on inspiration. This topic is almost entirely ignored. The seventeenth
paragraph, to be sure, bears the heading “ Inspiration but a perusal shows
that the term is here used to denote one of the several forms of revelation,
and not in its technical sense. Inspiration is defined as “ an inward revela-
tion wrought in man by the Spirit of God,” and is distinguished from visions,
dreams, etc., as “ immediate revelation.” It is afterwards characterized as
being in particular “ the form of prophecy.” There are serious objections to
this use of terms. Notwithstanding the caution appended, confusion will
arise. Inspiration, according to well-established usage, means one thing and
revelation another. Together with the name, some of the characteristics of
the former are likely to be transferred to the latter, and the result is obvious.
It is further in accordance with this neglect of the doctrine of inspiration,
that we find the Scriptures characterized as “ documents of God’s revela-
tion,” without any further information as to the nature of these documents.

The critical problems, in their bearing upon Biblical Theology, are lightly
disposed of with the remark of Oeliler that the science of introduction is as
much dependent on the results of Biblical Theology as the latter on the
former. The question of canonicity is met with the simple statement that
the author, teaching theology for the Reformed Church in the Netherlands,
takes the Bible not in its Lutheran or Roman sense, but “ as it really exists
among us.” This is hardly satisfactory from a scientific point of view. It
may not be obligatory upon Biblical Theology to establish, a definite view con-
cerning the Bible, but we do not see how it can escape the duty of having
and expressing such a view in unambiguous and scientific terms. On our
estimate of the Scriptures, and more particularly on our estimate of their
inspiration, the right of Biblical Theology to form a separate science depends.

The opening sections, defining the scope and limits of Biblical Theology,
suffer from a lack of scientific definiteness. Biblical Theology is said “ com-
prehensively to convert the doctrinal contents of the Bible into a scientifically
arranged whole.” We are not told, however, whereby this treatment of the
Biblical data is distinguished from that applied in Dogmatics. Without
further definition, the term Theology is vaguely given a middle sense between
that in which it denotes the Locus de Deo in dogmatics, and that in which it
covers the whole field of sacred studies. The name, Biblical Dogmatics, is
disapproved of on the ground that dogma means “ an ecclesiastical decretum
or statutum.” Apart from the questionable accuracy of this last statement,
we are not enlightened thereby as to the specific difference between Dogmatics
and Biblical Theology. On the whole, our book is weakest on its encyclopaedic
side, a defect all the more serious in a work exclusively devoted to Pro-
legomena.

REGENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

145

There are four chapters. The first discusses the introductory problems.
The second, following Heb. i. 1, treats of the manifold character of revela-
tion. The third, under the title “ Revelation in its Manifoldness,” succes-
sively speaks of Dreams, Visions, Theophanies, The Voice of God, Miracles,
Inspiration, Prophecy, and the Revelation to Moses. The concluding sec-
tion gives a very brief and summary treatment of the completed revelation
in Christ.

Another volume, containing the pars materiaUs of Biblical Theology, may
be expected to follow, though it is not definitely promised.

Grand Rapids, Mich. G. Vos.

Pseudepigrapha. An Account of Certain Apocryphal Sacred Writings of
the Jews and Early Christians. By the Rev. William J. Deane. M.A.,
Rector of Ashen, Essex ; Author of The Book of Wisdom, with Prole-
gomena and Commentary, etc. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark ; Hew York :
Imported by Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. 8vo, pp. vi, 348.

Books which Influenced Our Lord and His Apostles. Being a
Critical Review of Apocalyptic Jewish Literature. By John E. H.
Thomson, B.D., Stirling. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; New York:
Imported by Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. 8vo, pp. xvi, 497.

Das Selbstbewusstsein .Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoff-
nungen seiner Zeit. Von W. Baldensperger, a. o. Professor
der Theologie. Zweite vielfach vermehrte Auflage. Strassburg: J. H.
Ed. Heitz, 1892. 8vo, pp. viii, 282.

These three books may be looked upon as in some sense supplementary one
to the other. Mr. Deane’s treatise (which is made up chiefly of essays published
from time to time and here gathered together with additions and corrections)
has no other purpose than to make the curious pseudepigraphical literature
of the years surrounding the advent of our Lord better known to English
readers. It adopts the formal isagogical method and unfolds the literary
history, composition and contents of each book in turn, in a style which, if
a trifle dry, is thoroughly suited to its purpose. The books thus brought
into review are classified into the four categories of Lyrical, Apocalyptical
and Prophetic, Legendary, and Mixed. They are the following : The Psalter
of Solomon; The Book of Enoch, The Assumption of Moses, the Apoca-
lypse of Baruch, and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ; The Book
of Jubilees, and The Ascension of Isaiah; and the Sibylline Oracles. Mr.
Deane’s well-known sobriety and caution are exhibited on every page, and
give the reader no small amount of confidence in his guidance through the
mazes of these obscure writings. His book is the best and safest formal
introduction to their study which we have. We advert at random to only a
few points which have struck us. We think Mr. Deane is right in rejecting
Schnapp’s dissection of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (pp. 177, 178),
popular as it has become. We are glad to observe that Mr. Thomson also
treats the book as a unity. There is apparently an odd confusion of the
temporal relation of 2 Esdras and the Apocalypse of Baruch on pp. 136
and 137. There seems to be exhibited occasionally too great confidence in
the dating of these books — a problem that to our thinking is still in a very
fluid state. Even the broad question of whether they are pre- or post-Cbris-
tian must in many cases be held as yet unsettled. It is as difficult to be
sure of their historical background as it is in the case of the Psalms ; and
students differ about it as interpreters of the continuous historical school
do in finding the course of history predicted in the Apocalvpse. If it be true
10

146

THE PRESB YTERIAX AND REFORMED REVIEW.

that the Apocalypse of Baruch is purely Jewish and yet has used the Book
of Revelation (p. 135), the question of date is additionally complicated for
all those books which approach Christianity in some of their sentiments.
Can portions of Enoch be post-Christian in date and yet purely Jewish in char-
acter and origin (cf., p. 90) ? Is not, at all events, the Assumption of Moses
post- Christian ? The uncertainties which attend these questions may be
illustrated by the fact that whereas Mr. Deane is sure that Baruch quotes
Revelation, Mr. Thomson is prepared to admit that our Lord quotes Baruch
(p. 415). Me cannot accord with Mr. Deane iu his general defense of Pseu-
depigraphical composition as not deceitful. This is not a mere question of
a literary nom de plume, or of mere harmless personification. The Book of
Mormon is the more accurate parallel. Students of the subject should not
miss reading the careful papers on it by Dr. Candlish, of Glasgow, published
recently iu The Expositor.

Mr. Thomson has done his studies in Apocalyptic literature no service by
presenting them to the public under the sensational title of Books which In-
fluenced Our Lord and His Apostles. Many will be inclined to return the
answer that was once returned to Ignatius: npoxstrac. Mr. Thomson’s
thesis is that the pseudepigraphic Apocalypses were the esoteric books of
the Essenes ; that our Lord was in some sense an Essene ; and that these
books were therefore an influence in His life and teaching. This thesis he
has not proved in any of its parts. There is absolutely no proof that Jesus
was influenced by these books. There is no probability of His having been
an Essene, in even the broadest sense ; it is indeed confessed that His teach-
ing was, in points, the very opposite of Essenism (p. 13). There is no suffi-
cient reason for identifying these books with the Essenic literature. Their
most prominent characteristic — their developed and burning Messianic
hopes — we have no reason for believing was Essenic at all. Mr. Thomson,
indeed, often speaks of this as characteristic of the Essenes, as, e. g., on
p. 227, when speaking of Enoch : “ Here appear the Messianic hopes, the
cultivation of which was such a marked characteristic of the Essenes.”
But this is only the result of his theory. If the Essenes wrote these books,
no doubt the hopes that burn in them were theirs ; but it is an objection to
the theory that they wrote these books, that they are so suffused with Mes-
sianic hopes, whereas there is (as Zeller is quoted, p. 99, as objecting) no
trace “ in the doctrines of the Essenes,” as reported to us historically, “ of
the Messianic hope which is so prominent in the Apocalyptic books.” Mr.
Thomson’s remarks upon this objection do not do away with it. Can it
be easily believed that a sect whose literature was just this body of books
could be repeatedly described to us and this distinguishing feature be always
omitted ? For, after all, this is the distinguishing feature of these books :
above all else they are apocalyptic ; and they develop the Messianic concep-
tions of the Jews. After reading carefully and sympathetically the whole
argument, we can only say that it does not seem to amount to more than
this : that we do not know who wrote these books, and we do not know
what books the Essenes wrote ; therefore we are at liberty to suppose that
these are the books the Essenes wrote. But, are we ? Our notion is that
with two “ don’t knows” in the premises, there ought to be at least one. in
the conclusion. Mr. Thomson’s decision is : “ Taking all these things into
consideration, it seems impossible to deny that the Essenes were the writers
of the Apocalyptic books.” The question we are more concerned with is
whether it be possible to affirm it.

Apart, however, from these unsupported theories, the book is a most
readable, bright and instructive study of the Apocalyptic books. The
author has made an honest effort to understand them and displays quite

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

147

unusual critical skill in reconstructing the conditions of their origin and
drawing out their teaching in a vital way. lie has too much confidence in
his own divining powers, of course. What critic has not ? But the reader
who will diligently read out of the book all that connects the writings
brought into view with the Essenes, will be always interested and
instructed by its discussions. There are, of course, many points in which
we cannot follow the author, for such criticism is necessarily largely subjec-
tive and individual; and now and then there is an infelicity that offends.
We may note in passing, that Dr. Schodde’s very American English (by the
way he is uniformly printed Schodde) has given occasion to some amusing
footnotes on pp. 215, 246 : Mr. Thomson could not know that “ buck ” stands
for “ram,” and “crows and buzzards” are the equivalents in popular
speech in Ohio for the English “ravens and vultures.”

There are also some things of more importance. "We cannot but think it
seriously unfortunate, for instance, that Mr. Thomson has committed him-
self to the non-genuineness of Dan. xi, and has made of it also an Essene
forgery. This is inconsistent with his high (doubtless too high) estimate of
the value of Mr. Margoliouth's linguistic investigations. And there is a
greater than Margoliouth here. “The fact.” says Mr. Thomson (p. 412),
“ that our Lord, Matt. xxiv. 15, refers to Dan. xi. 31, and quotes it as from
‘Daniel the prophet,’ is at first sight a difficulty ; but we must bear in mind
that our Lord did not regard it as His mission to teach Biblical criticism.
Hotliing depended on the words beiug those of Daniel and not of some other.
.... Our Lord used the description here of the camp of the invading force,
but did not thereby lend his authority to the forgery of the Essene of the second
century B.C. It seems clear that this chapter was not recognized as part of
Daniel by the author of First Maccabees : yet it is recognized as such by our
Lord.” As to which we need to remark: 1. That it is not exact to say that our
Lord only uses the language of the. passage ; he does not so much adopt its
words in making a description as adduce it as prophecy and as Daniel's
prophecy. 2. That, therefore, it is not exact to say that nothing depends on
the words being Daniel’s: this depends.on it, viz., what was Scripture and
what was prophecy to our Lord. 3. That, therefore, if it was not Scripture or
prophecy or Daniel’s but an ex-post-facto Essene forgery of the second cen-
tury B.C., much more depends on it as to our Lord’s authority as a Teacher
than Mr. Thomson could contemplate without horror. The whole passage
and the treatment of Dan. xi as a whole will illustrate the uncertainty of
the purely subjective method of criticism to which one is largely shut up in
the case of writings like the pseudepigraphs.

A serious word seems also due as to the inevitable outcome of Mr. Thom-
son’s theories. It is given us in Prof. Baldensperger's thoroughly wrought
out treatise on The Self-consciousness of Jesus in the Light of the Messianic
Hopes of His Times. Mr. Thomson’s conception of the person of Christ is far
from identical with Prof. Baldensperger’s. He has repeatedly in the course
of his book spoken without reserve of his reverence for Christ as God , of his
faith in the originality of Christ, of his hearty acceptance of all that is
involved in the incarnation. But his theories carried to their legitimate, nay,
their inevitable issue, would give us just Prof. Baldensperger’s conception
of Jesus and nothing more. For Prof. Baldensperger’s fundamental postu-
late is simply that our Lord’s Messianic conceptions are explicable and are to
be explained out of the “world of Jewish Messianic belief,” understanding
by “ Jewish Messianic belief ” that circle of conceptions developed by post-
exilic Judaism, as distinguished from the prophecies of the Old Testament.
This he sets out to prove by, first, a careful study of the Messianic hopes
of the Jews from the sources (using as such Daniel, the Sibyliines, Enoch,

14S

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Esdras, Ba-
ruch and the Talmud) ; and, then, an exposition of our Lord’s Messianic
consciousness in the light of these hopes, showing how fully it is explained
by them. Now, if it be true that our Lord was an Essene, and that these
books were the Essene esoteric literature, known to Him, used by Him,
trusted by Him to such an extent as that He should frankly present them as
divine prophecy which must be f ultilled in Him, as in the case of Dan. xi,
can we escape from Prof. Baldensperger’s ground? Are we not bound to
go on and say that His Messianic hopes and conceptions were formed upon
the Jewish, or (as Mr. Thomson would say more precisely) the Essene
expectations of His day ; that He felt that He came to fulfill them; and that
they rather than the prophecies of the Old Testament are to be looked upon
as the formative Scriptures of His early study and of His manhood’s hopes ?
We do not for a moment suppose that Mr. Thomson could himself develop
such a position ; we think it nevertheless the legitimate outcome of a class
of remarks scattered through this volume.

The whole matter of the relation of the New Testament, and of our Lord
along with it, to the contemporary Judaism, is one of extreme delicacy and
difficulty, and we cannot but think that Mr. Thomson approaches it in much
too easy a temper. Is it so plain, e.g., that John borrows the term izapaichjTos
(1 John ii. 1) as applied to the Logos from Philo (p. 160) ? Then does our
Lord also borrow it from Philo (in John xiv. 16) ? Or is this passage to be
attributed to John, who has not exactly reported his Master? Again, is it
so clear that Philo was a preparation for Paul’s teaching men to be ready to
depart from the body as something “ far better ? ” Or does not Paul
teach precisely the opposite of Philo’s heathen conception of the body as a
prison for the spirit, repeating explicitly even in 2 Cor. v. 4 the Old Testa-
ment view that “the disembodied state was one to be dreaded and not
longed for ? ” Is it really easier to believe that our Lord (p. 415) quotes the
Apocalypse of Baruch, than that Papias was mistaken ? But we cannot go
into details. Suffice it to say that Mr. Thomson seems to us at fault in his
treatment of these matters and that the fault follows him into his much too
meagre closing chapter on “ Theological llesults,” where the Apocalypses
are pictured, with some little pressing, as true intermediations between the
Old Testament and the New; a position with just enough truth in it to
render it dangerous. If carried out to its logical conclusions, as here pre-
sented and according to the general positions striven for by Mr. Thomson,
we might need to say that Christianity is a development of Essenism, and
is founded on the esoteric books of that sect and not on the Old Testament.
Leave out the specific identification of the influencing party with the Essenes
and we have practically Prof. Baldensperger’s position.

It would not be fair to omit to mention that the kernel of truth in all this is
well brought out by Mr. Thomson in other passages. It is admirably
expressed onpp. 475, 476 : “ Our Lord’s teachings implied a certain kind and
degree of culture towards which His exhortations were directed. The doc-
trinal soil on which the Great Sower was to sow the precious seed of the
kingdom wras of necessity the product of the Apocalyptists. In order then to
understand Christianity in its first publication, ■we must endeavor to esti-
mate the theological position exhibited in these Jewish Apocalypses.” Most
just and most excellently said. But here is something very different from a
study of books “ which influenced our Lord: ” unless indeed we are to take
only the conception from these words hinted at an earlier point (p. 11):
“ What those who wTere His audience read and wrere moved by that He made
His own by His divine insight. Thus any books commonly read in Judea
at the time might be said to have influenced Jesus; as knowing ‘what was

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

149

in man,’ He modified His teaching to meet the knowledge or ignorance of
His audience; thus whatever the hooks read, our Lord's teaching would of
necessity he modified by them, even though He might not have read them.”
Were this all that the drift of the discussion pointed to, who could find
fault ? We are ready to go even further than this. But we are by no
means prepared to accept the logical outcome of the main positions laid down
in this book, which would seem to drive us inevitably to a Christ molded
by the fanciful dreams of His day into an Essene Messiah in a sense far
beyond Mr. Thomson’s meaning. The main question at issue in studying
the development of doctrine and especially of Christology in the New Testa-
ment, and above all in the teaching of our Lord, is whether it takes hold of
the Old Testament or of the uninspired and often sufficiently bizarre dreams
of the later Judaism as its starting point and its basis. We regret to be
obliged to look upon the drift of Mr. Thomson’s book as on the wrong side of
this fundamental question, and as to be so far ranked with Prof. Baldensper-
ger’s treatise.

We have already characterized Prof. Baldensperger’s book as a thorough
study of the Messianic hopes of the Jews, and an extended and most inge-
nious attempt to explain Jesus’ Messianic conceptions by means of them.
The work from this point of view could not be done better. The first edition
appeared in 1888 (pp. 193) and created something like a sensation. The
second edition is much enlarged and much improved. The first section on
the Jewish hopes has received less revision than the second on “ Jesus’ Self-
consciousness,” which is not only everywhere touched wTith the improving
(and controversial) hand, but has also received the addition of three new
excursus on controverted points. The reader will always be carried on by the
author's pleasant style and will always find food for reflection. Those
interested in the study of the origin, use and meaning of the title “ Son of
Man,” as here discussed, should not omit to read along with it a paper by
Hilgenfeld in the 4th Part of his Zeitschrift for 1892, which is written with
his usual lucidity and learning. In view of Prof. Scott’s full notice of the
book on a subsequent page (see p.160), further remarks here seem unneces-
sary.

Princeton. B. B. Warfield.

Die Lehre Jesu. Yon Dr. H. H. Wendt, Ord. Professor der Theologie in
Heidelberg. Zweiter Theil : “ Der Inhalt der Lehre Jesu.” Gottingen,
1890.

The Teaching of Jesus. By Hans Hinrich Wendt, D.D., Ord. Pro-
fessor of Theology, Heidelberg. Translated by Rev. John Wilson, M.A.,
Montreux, Switzerland. Two vols. Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark ; New
York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1892.

When the first volume of the German edition, containing the “Gospel
Sources of the Teaching,” was noticed in the Presbyterian Review, Vol.
vii. p. 740, the confidence was expressed that the second volume would bring
■with it an interest for which the fine work and the peculiar critical position
of the first volume would prove simply an appetizing stimulus. This second
volume, together with its translation into English, now lies before us, and
our confidence has been more than confirmed. Dr. Wendt has nowr a name
that will place him easily among the foremost modern scholars of New Tes-
tament thought. A translation does not follow so quickly upon the original
work — even in these modern days of books — where there is nothing worth
translating.

FollowTing the translation, which has been in the process so thoroughly

150

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

revised by the author as to constitute in effect a rewriting of the German
original, there presents itself before us a very simple table of contents.
There is first the Introduction (pp. 17-32), in which Dr. Wendt hopes the
English reader will obtain the substance of the untranslated first German
volume (Author’s Preface, p. 7). Then follows the book proper, divided
into five principal sections. The First Section (pp. 33-105) presents the his-
torical foundation of the teaching of Jesus, treating of the religious views
and hopes of the Jews in Jesus’ time, and the development of Jesus’ own
religious mode of view. In the latter of these topics the author comes in a
preliminary way into contact with the great theme of his book — the self-con-
sciousness of Christ. The Second Section (pp. 106-172) then gives the ex-
ternal aspects of .Jesus’ teaching— its external form, and, if we may so term
them, its external ideas regarding the natural world. The Third Section
(pp. 173-408) takes up the teaching’s substance in its announcement and
preaching of the kingdom of God. In this is necessarily discussed not sim-
ply the divine origin, the saving blessings, and the individual responsibilities
adhering in that kingdom, but Jesus’ views as to the relation of this king-
dom to the Old Testament promises, and so, of course, the whole question
of the authority of the Old Testament’s teaching in New Testament things.
The following section, the Fourth (pp. 122-339), is, by the author’s admission,
as well as by the general readers’ conviction, the most important in the
entire book. It considers the testimony of Jesus to His Messiahship, which
includes His person and work and death, together with what Dr. Wendt chooses
to call his “ heavenly future ” (himmlische Zukunft). There remains then
the Fifth Section (pp. 340-383), concerning Jesus’ view of the earthly devel-
opment of the kingdom. The book closes with “ Concluding Observations ”
(pp. 384-414), in which are summarized the contents of the teaching — already
treated in detail throughout the book — and then reviewed and defended
the method and the process by which the author has confined himself, for his
sources, to those parts of the gospels which he considers to present the orig-
inal tradition of this teaching.

Critically, this last is the foundation of the work which Dr. Wendt has
done. It will form the starting point of an article which the writer hopes
to prepare for an early number of the Review, treating of the Fourth Gospel
problem and its relation to the results which are laid before us in this book.

Hartford. M. W. Jacobus.

Die Weilhausensche Pentateuchtheorie in ihren Grundziigen dargestellt und
auf Hire Haltbarkeit gepruft. Yon G. Schumann, Pfarrer. 12mo, pp. 93.
(Karlsruhe: Reiff, 1892.) German works on Old Testament criticism tak-
ing so decidedly conservative a position as does this one, are just now quite rare.
Although not written by a professor of theology, its presentation of the subject
is thoroughly intelligent and scholarly. The book divides itself into three
parts. In Part i the positions of Wellhausen are carefully stated. In Part ii
their historical and religious consequences are set forth. In Part iii,
forming about one-half the book, the theory is ably criticised. Among the con-
sequences of the scheme this clear-headed German pastor says that, if it be
true, no one can properly speak any more of the divine inspiration of the Old
Testament ; nor can even that degree of credibility be ascribed to it which is
generally accorded to other literary works of antiquity. The earliest history,
for example (Gen. i-xi) is supposed to be made up of philosophical myths ; the
patriarchal history (Gen. xii-1), for the most part, of ethnographical myths;
while with the times of Moses begins the Volkssage , to which only a germ of
historical truth can be allowed. The religious consequences run parallel with
the historical. In fact, the spirit of negation ruling in the criticism makes

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

151

no pause at tlie writings of prophets or apostles, but is working vigorously to
the end of robbing us of the whole Bible. In criticising the method of Well-
hausen and his associates. Pastor Schumann takes up first the argument from
silence, which he shows often proves too much and cannot therefore be relied
on. An equally decisive objection he finds lies against the reasoning that
because a law cannot be independently proved to have been executed
therefore it did not exist. The priests’ code, for instance, prescribes a
yearly jubilee, but there is no historical evidence of its observance
even in postexilian times. The principle of evolution, in like manner, is
found too weak for the duty required of it. Wellhausen himself holds that
in proportion as mankind progressed in civilization, it retrograded in spirit-
uality and the fear of God. So, too, it is utterly illogical to hold that there
are no traces of the priests’ code in Biblical writings before the exile ; and,
then, if such traces are pointed out, to refer them to interpolation, or to give
to the books themselves a new date to correspond to the theory. These are
simple specimens of our author’s reasoning. They show that not even in Ger-
many have all the prophets of the Lord bowed the knee to the Baal of the de-
structive criticism. The Ecclesiastical or Deutero-canonical Books of the

Old Testament Commonly Called The Apocrypha. Edited with Various
Renderings and Readings from the best Authorities, by the Rev. C. J.
Ball, M. A. (London : Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1892.) This book, named on
the cover The Variorum Apocrypha, is uniform in size and style with
The Variorum Bible , published by the same firm (second edition, 1890),
rnd is intended to make one volume with it ; in fact, it has already appeared
in England in this form as the third edition of The Variorum Reference Bible.
The idea which underliesit is a good one, and, historically considered, there is
good reason why the Apocryphal books should be connected as an appendix
vith the canonical. It would suit us still better, however, if the Apocalyp-
t:c Jewish literature were oftener given a place beside the Apocryphal.
Though they are generally younger and move, perhaps, on a lower literary and
moral plane, they are no less important as respects the central Messianic idea
ol the Old Testament. The editor of the present work is well known among
Biblical scholars, of late more especially in connection with some venture-
some theories in Assyriology. Personally, we should feel more confidence in
tie editorship if Mr. Ball had not omitted from his authorities some first-
rite names, like Lagarde and Ileuscli, and seemed not to have known of
friinkel’s translation of the Apocrypha into Hebrew (Lips., 1830), etc.
The readings selected are not always the best, and too high an authority is

given to the Syriac version. Howto Read Isaiah. Being the Prophecies of

Isaiah, Chaps, i-xxxix. Arranged in the Order of Time and Subject, with Ex-
planations and Glossary. By the Rev. Buchanan Blake, B.D. Second Edi-
;ion. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892; Imported by Charles Scribner’s
Sons.) Another book by this author in the present series as well as the
first edition of the present one were noticed in the J uly number of this Review
<p. 557). What is there said will apply in general to this volume. The author
has made a translation of his own, which naturally cannot be accorded the con-
fidence given to the Revised Version. Without attempting to justify his posi-
tion by argument, he casts unnecessary suspicion on the present text and
form of the book, saying, for example : “ The Book of the Prophecies of
Isaiah, as now extant, contains prophecies by several prophets, even as the
Book of Psalms contains Psalms by many psalmists, and the Book of the Law
additions by many writers.” .... “ Whether we have the prophecies in the
exact form in which Isaiah, in his old age, edited them, can never be deter-
mined ” (see “ Introductory Remarks,” pp. 8, 9). He suggests that some of
the writings of Zechariah, aprophetof Uzziah’s time, may be bound up with

152

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

those of the postexilian Zechariah (p. 179), and holds that Isaiah probably
meant by “ Immanuel ” in chap, vii a third son of his own (p. 181). The

style of the book is good and there is much useful matter in it. The Bible

Work. The Old Testament. Vol. v : Psalms Ixxiii-cl. Vol.vi: Job, Pro-
verbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. Prepared by J. Glenworth Butler,
D.D. (Xew York: Butler Bible Work Company, 1892.) The first two-
volumes of this series appeared in J887, 1888, from the publishing house of
Funk & Wagnalls. Sufficient encouragement seems to have been given it to
justify its continuance. The two volumes before us contain, severally, 509
and 579 large octavo pages in medium type. At this rate the work will
almost, if not quite, rival in size the Lange series of Commentaries with its-
fifteen volumes for the Old Testament alone. We trust Dr. Butler may not
be disappointed in his truly Herculean task. The idea of the work is not a
bad one. It is to give the English text of the Bible in the revised form and
in connection with it “ comments selected from the choicest, most illuminat-
ing and helpful thoughts of the Christian centuries.” But can any one mind,
however gifted, compass so massive an undertaking and do good work
throughout ? The danger is that with much wheat there will also be much
chaff, costing the same amount by the bushel and making the discovery of the
wheat more difficult. In the Psalms alone nearly eight hundred names are
cited with extracts from their works. The introductions to the several Biblical
books are prepared in the same way, that is, by quoting the opinions of dif-
ferent authors. For example, on the age of the Book of Job we have the
opinions of Dr. Stuart Robinson, Canon Cook of the Speaker's Commentary
and Henry Cowles, D.D. They make out that it is a pre-Mosaic work. Xc
contrary opinion is given. Again, in Ecclesiastes, Dr. Gray (1616), Dr
Bullock of the Speaker's Commentary, and Henry Cowles are cited for the
position that Solomon was its author. Prof. Plumptre is introduced as giving
the opinions of certain other scholars, but not his own. This method will not
be satisfactory to those who wish to get at the bottom facts, or even to tho©

who want the fair average of opinion. Das Bundesbucli, Ex. xx. 22-xxii.

33, seine ursprungliche Oestalt, sein Verhdltniss zu den es umgebenden Qud-
lenschriften und seine Stellung in der alt-testamentlichen Gesetzgebung. Vai
Bruno Baentsch, Lie. theol., Dr. philos. (Halle: Hiemeyer, 1892; In-
ported by Westermann & Co., 812 Broadway, X. Y.) This is an unbound
book of 123 octavo pages. The writer feels that this part of the Hexateuch
has been too much neglected in current discussions. That on which he
would place the most emphasis in his own work is not his conjectures, but
the positive results of exact examination. In the Introduction he argues
(unnecessarily) for the right of critical investigation, and defines his point of
view. He holds that more confidence is to be given to what the book proves-
itself to be to an investigator than to what its author claims that it is. He
therefore rejects the claim of the Book of the Covenant to Mosaic origin. He
does not seem to consider whether he can justly trust the book at all, if its
professed author is false, or that his method simply opens wide the flood-
gates of conjecture. Would not the first step properly have been to give good
and sufficient reasons for rejecting Mosaic origin though claimed ? He begins,
on the other hand, with unproved and unprovable assumptions. For instance,
he asserts (p. 7) that sections of laws are never the subject of divine revela-
tion, but always those high universal principles alone which, taking form in
some person of a mighty spirit, are given by him to his contemporaries to
guide them in new endeavor. It is evident that our author takes far too
much for granted to be a correct reasoner, or a safe guide. It may interest
critics to know that Baentsch thinks, with Wellhausen, that the Book of the
Covenant had a different author from both J and E ; that, however, it was

REGENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

153

adopted by J, in his historical work, in a mangled and shortened form,
though with additions and rearrangements of matter, and that, originally,
the Decalogue formed no part of it, but is of later origin, the form in Ex.
xxxiv being historically nearer to it. In general, his investigations follow
the old lines and reach the expected foregone conclusions. The author closes
his book with these words : “ To-day, when the floodtide of critical investi-
gation in the Old Testament is beginning somewhat to ebb, so that the peaks
of the mountains, the foundation pillars on which the new view of the his-
tory of Israel will hereafter rest, are ever more clear and offer to the wan-
dering eye a point of rest, it is needful before all, not alone to increase the
number of the positions won, but rather singly to test, fortify and strengthen
them.” In view of this and similar books, we are inclined to echo, with
Andrew Lang, in the September number of Longman's Magazine , Mr. Mat-
thew Arnold’s exclamation in view of similar performances of Homeric com-
mentators : “ Terrible Learning ! ” Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies

of Isaiah. By Franz Delitzsch, D.D., Professor of Theology in the Univer-
sity of Leipzig. Authorized Translation from the Third Edition. By the
Rev. James Denney, B.D. In Two Yolumes. Yol. ii. (London : IIodder&
Stoughton; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co.) The first volume of this
work has not been noticed in this Review. The present one provides us
with neither Introduction nor Preface and has no date on its title page. It is
to be observed that it is a translation from the third German edition. A
notice of a translation from the fourth German edition (T. & T. Clark, 1890),
with an Introduction by S. R. Driver, will be found on pp. 148, 505, of Yol. ii,
of this Review. It is there stated (p. 148) that thirteen years elapsed be-
tween the two editions and that the changes in form are quite numerous.
Of course, no book by Dr. Delitzsch, old or new, is without its value, and the
enterprising firms of Hodder & Stoughton and Funk & Wagnall3 have not
published the present work without due consideration. But scholars who are
interested in the critical discussions of the last dozen years will naturally
prefer Delitzsch ’s latest thoughts concerning the great prophet. The Docu-

ments of the Hexateuch Translated and Arranged in Chronological Order.
With Introduction and Notes. By W. E. Addis, M. A. Part i : ” The Oldest
Book of Hebrew History.” 8vo, pp. xciv, 236. (New York : G. P. Putnam’s
Sons ; London : D. N utt, 1893.) This volume is the first of three of like size
on this theme. It contains the so-called “ Jahvist and Elohist traditions ”
of the earliest ages of Hebrew antiquity. The second is to have those of
the “Deuteronomist;” the third those of the “ priestly writer.” The docu-
ments are distinguished typographically. The writer has made his own
translation, but has sought to adapt it to that of the Revised English Ver-
sion. The work adds nothing new to the discussion. The positions taken
are those of the most advanced German and Dutch critics, whom Mr. Addis
acknowledges as his leaders. The scanty notes will be scarcely intelligible
except to scholars acquainted with the criticism. The book is beautifully
printed on fine paper, and appears in the best style of the English press. It
is hardly to be expected, however, that many persons will be found to pay
three dollars a volume for three volumes containing simply a translation of
the Pentateuch thus arranged and provided with the author’s introduction
and footnotes. The writer says he had “ no predecessors in the same field.”
It is true, if the whole Hexateuch is considered. There are several books of
the kind covering Genesis. What the writer thinks of the Hexateuch after
he and his fellow-critics have had their way with it, we will let him say :
“ True, we have at least four witnesses instead of one. But the earliest of
these witnesses is anonymous and late; the witnesses on the one hand copy
each other, on the other hand contradict each other ; the oldest among them

151

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

proceeds on unhistorical assumptions ; each in his order displays an increas-
ing taste for the marvelous, and wanders further from the fact. We cannot
out of such material construct the early history of Israel. We may feel sure
that Israel’s sojourn in Goshen, the deliverance of Moses, the temporary
union of the Hebrews, and the beginning of a higher religion under his
influence, are facts which cannot be shaken. We can lay the finger here and
there on precious fragments which enable us to form some idea of the way
in which the Hebrews conquered Canaan. That is about all ” (Introduction,

p. xciv). The Composition of the Book of Genesis. With English Text

and Analysis. By Edgar Innes Fripp, B.A. 16mo, pp. 198. (London:
David Xutt, 1892.) Part of this volume previously appeared in Stade’s
Zeitschrift f ur Alt- Testament liche Wissenschaft. The Introduction of twenty-
one pages sets forth the grounds on which the analysis is based. They
are essentially those of Kuenen and Wellhausen, whom, with Bleek and Dill-
mann, the author cites as his principal authorities. The critical attitude
taken maybe judged from a single citation from the Introduction (p. 16):
“ The stories of Joseph .... are the longest of the patriarchal legends and
the latest, and nearest the time of the prophetic writers. They, no doubt,
took shape in the century and a half that intervened between Jeroboam I,
the son of Xebat, an Ephraimite, and Jeroboam II, and in their present
form reflect the prosperity and pride of the latter end of this period.” The
text of the so-called “Prophetic History” (“ Iahvistic ” and “Elohistic”)
is given first, then the “ Priestly History.” Very condensed footnotes bear-
ing on the analysis are found throughout the book, but they are of such a

character as to be of little use to the ordinary lay reader. The Books of

Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch and the “Higher Criticism. ” By
Lord A. C. Hervey, D.D., Bishop of Bath and Wells. 16mo, pp. 175. (Lon-
don: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1892.) This book is made
up of a series of five lectures delivered before the Society for Promoting
Higher Keligious Education in the spring of the present year. It is of a
very different character from the two last noticed. The title, however, is
somewhat misleading. It is only in the last two lectures that the Books of
Chronicles are considered. The first and second treat of the “ Theory of
‘ Higher Criticism,’ ” the third has “ Miscellaneous Remarks on the Earlier
Books of the Old Testament and Their Authenticity.” Of the tendency and
results of the current theory of analysis Bishop Hervey says: “ It is obvious
to remark that it revolutionizes the received views of Holy Scripture as
* given by inspiration of God,’ and degrades the books of the Old Testament,
not only to the level of fallible human writings, but to that of willfully false
and misleading history; and this it does without one particle of historical
evidence to support it.” In the last two lectures the author seeks to vindi-
cate the character of the Books of Chronicles, and to establish their claim
to be honest witnesses and faithful histories. Having done this, he shows
how “ absolutely destructive of the theory of the ‘ Higher Criticism ’ as to
the law of Moses their testimony is. Indeed, the advocates of that theory
are well aware of this, and hence their efforts to discredit the Chronicles.”
It would seem from this book and that of Bishop Ellicott {Christ us Com-
probator ), not to speak of others, that the discussion of this theme has not
been left in England wholly to scholars of the Cheyne and Driver school.

McCormick Seminary. Edwin Cone Bissell.

REGENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

155

II.— HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.

Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg. Sein Leben und Wirken nach
gedruckteu und undedruckten Quellen dargestellt von Johannes
Bachmann, der Theologie Doctor und ordentlicher Professor und
Universitats-Prediger zu Kostock. 1 Band, rait einem Bilde und Fac-
simile seiner Handsclirift. Gutersloh bei Bertelsmann, 1876. 2 Band,
1879. 3 Band, dargestellt von Th. Schmalenbach, 1892.

The long period of sixteen years has been occupied in drawing the picture
of the life of one of the most important and most influential German theolo-
gians of this century. The hope had been abandoned that the book would be
finished, and the negative theologians were pointing to the fragment with the
remark : “ So forgotten is the man that not even his Life could be completed.”
In this they erred. The last volume contains five hundred pages, and this
brings the work to a dignified conclusion.

Hengstenberg’s great importance consisted in restoring the Old Testament
to its high place in opposition to the rationalistic exegesis. He rendered
service of extraordinary value in defense of the Old Testament. At the
same time he was under the influence of modern ideas, and always asserted
a relative freedom of the human will— the prerogative of self-determination ;
which is contrary to Scripture and the doctrine of the Reformation. Not-
withstanding the great reverence which we cherish for him, we must yet
say that he did not go back to the doctrine of the Reformation in its full
strength. The consequence was that he became finally involved in total
confusion concerning the dogma of justification. He was not equal to the
task which he set himself, namely, to revive the good old orthodoxy ; and so,
too, did he fail in the work of his life, in the field to which he specially
devoted himself— that of the Old Testament: a result which was essen-
tially contributed to by the unpropitiousness of the age, which had fallen
more deeply from God and His Word than he imagined.

Hengstenberg has now not a single disciple occupying a professor’s chair
in Germany. Indeed, almost all teachers of Old Testament theology in Ger-
many have more or less fallen a prey to the modern views touching the
origin of the Old Testament. When Bachmann began to write the life of
Hengstenberg, he complained already that it might appear as if he were
“ forgotten as a dead man.” In the very place where for more than forty
years he defended the pure Word of God, there was recently heard the lau-
dation of a philosophy of religion as the only salvation. Hengstenberg’s
influence was not permanent. The attempt he made to arrest the general
defection was ephemeral, and withal feeble. Since the time of the German
classic authors it has had universal sway, and it now spreads itself out like a
sea.

Sehmalenbach is a superintendent in Westphalia, and has written the
last volume in such a way that he lets Hengstenberg himself speak as much
as possible. He derived the abundant material at his disposal from the
Evangelische Kirclienzeitung and a very extensive correspondence. A good
tract of Church history is therewith presented to us. The book embraces
the time from 1836 to 1869. All the movements which have affected
Germany since the Life of Jesus by Strauss, the rise of the Lichtfreunde, the
strife about the Union, etc., are here depicted. The most original part is
what is written by the historian, Heinrich Leo of Halle. The close
is formed by a description of Hengstenberg and his last sickness. Heng-
stenberg was originally of the Reformed Church, but became more and more
Lutheran, driven on by the Lutheran movements. Had he remained a good

156

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Reformed Christian, he would have been clearer in many points. Let us
hold our Calvinism fast and lay to heart how perilous the age is in which we
live, which is walking ou the edge of abysses, and is making its demoniac
sport with the Word of God.

Stuttgart.. A. Zahn.

American Religious Leaders— Francis Wayland. By James O.
Murray, Dean and Professor of English Literature in Princeton
College. Boston and New York : Houghton, Mifflin & Co.; Cambridge :
The Riverside Press, 1891.

In their choice of a biographer for Dr. Wayland, the publishers of this
series have shown a good judgment in gratifying contrast with some of their
selections. Dean Murray has admirable qualifications for his work, and has
executed it in such a manner that one is at a loss which to admire more —
the strong, unique, beautiful personality which is the subject of the memoir,
or the skill with which it is presented. The striking characteristics of Dr.
Wayland; his nobility of character ; his intellectual eminence ; his spiritual
fervor ; his thorough, conscientious, unswerving fidelity to his convictions ;
his deep sympathy ; his power of impressing himself upon others ; are all
clearly and justly portrayed.

Dr. Wayland was fortunate, not only in his gifts, but in the time in which
he lived. His gifts were eminently adapted to the wants of the time; he
had the clear vision of what the age needed and ready resources to answer
the call. When his work on Moral Science appeared, the field was almost
absolutely unoccupied, and for a generation every educated young man and
young woman in America was taught by him in this fundamental science ; a
greater privilege can hardly be conceived. In the early part of his career as
college president began the educational unrest, and he first gave form and
pressure to many methods which have since been adopted. In the excite-
ments attending the strife originated by the system of American slavery, he
was easily recognized as the first citizen of the State in which he lived ; he
engaged early in the discussion of the questions involved, and during the
contest, in every great crisis, his fellow-citizens called for his guidance, and
listened to his words as to those of the judge of final appeal.

Two difficulties Dr. Murray encountered in what has obviously been to
him a labor of love. One, to meet satisfactorily the ideas of a large number
of students who not only have drawn inspiration and intellectual quickening
from the atmosphere which Dr. Wayland created, but who regard him as
the earthly molder of their lives and character; the other, to present the
views and feelings of a denomination, whose sentiments he does not share, in
such a manner that they will accept his representations — one of the most
difficult things for even a generous and candid man to do. The writer of
this notice was a student in Brown University during the palmiest days of
Dr. Wayland’s administration, and is a member of the denomination of
which the honored president was so distinguished an ornament ; he has
read with care every word of this memoir and has not found an expression
which he would change. Dean Murray has given the lovers of Dr. Wayland
an ideal biography.

Crozer Theological Seminary. Henry G. Weston.

Church and State in Scotland. A Narrative of the Struggle for
Independence from 1560 to 1843. The Third Series of Chalmers Lectures.
By the Rev. Thomas Brown, D.D., F.R.S.E., Edinburgh. Edinburgh :
Macniven and Wallace; London: Ilodder and Stoughton, 1891. 8vo,
pp. xiii, 244.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

157

History of the Free Churches of England, 1G88-1891. From the
Reformation to 1851, by Herbert S. Skeats; with a continuation to
1891, by Charles S. Miall, author of Henry Richard, M.P.; a
Biography. London : Alexander and Shepheard, 1891. 8vo, pp. xxiv, 757.

The “ Heads of Agreement ” and the Union of Congregationalists and
Presbyterians Based on Them in London 1691. By WillistonWalker,
Ph.D., Professor of Mediaeval and Modern Church History, Theological
Seminary, Hartford, Conn. Reprinted from the Papers of the “ Ameri-
can Society of Church History ” for 1891. 8vo, pp. 24.

The Chalmers Lectureship is a foundation for the treatment of the sub-
ject of the “ Headship of Christ over His Church, and its Independent Spirit-
ual Jurisdiction.” The previous lecturers, Sir Henry Moncrieff and Dr.
Wilson, approached the subject from the legal and Scriptural points of view.
In this third course, Dr. Brown, known everywhere from his delightful
Annals of the Disruption , has taken it up from the historical side. His aim
has been to show that, not only has the Church of Scotland always claimed
to be spiritually independent, and from time to time made good her claim,
but also that this claim of the Church to spiritual independence has all along
been one of the most living forces in the land, molding the course of events,
and making Scotland the free and godly country which she is. To it, indeed,
the causes of civil liberty on the one side and of vital religion on the other
have owed what we might call, with little exaggeration, their all. Dr. Brown
distributes his matter into six periods, in each of which there is first a time
of struggle for the principle of the spiritual independence of the Church, fol-
lowed by a time of success — in each of which the principle may be studied,
therefore, first in conflict and then in victory. These periods are: (1) The
period of seven years under Queen Mary from 1560 to 1567, ending under the
regency of the Earl of Murray ; (2) the conflict with Regent Morton and
King James, ending in the great Act of 1592, the Charter of the Church ;
(3) the forty-six years of worse conflict from 1592 to 1638, ending in the
Second Reformation; (4) the twenty-eight years of persecution, from 1660
to 1688, ending in the Revolution Settlement ; (5) the long reign of Modera-
tism, ending in 1834, when the Evangelical parLy in the Church rose into
the ascendant ; and (6) the Ten Years’ Conflict, ending in the Disruption of
1843.

By a rapid but vivid survey of the history of the Church of Scotland
through these periods, the author has clearly shown that the principle of the
authority of the Church to regulate her own spiritual affairs in obedience to
the revealed will of Christ, her sole Head, not only was never yielded by the
Church of Scotland, but that it was tenaciously clung to, struggled for, suf-
fered for even unto death, until an Erastian settlement was acquiesced in,
for the first time in her history, in 1843. Dr. Brown will not admit that it
was acquiesced in even then. For, although the Church as a Church sub-
mitted then to the conditions which the State imposed, and owned herself
powerless, even in the spiritual matters of ordination and the like, to act for
herself apart from the permission of the civil magistrate; yet Dr. Brown
holds that “ the true old Church of Scotland, adhering to her principles, had
once more, as in 1662, to renounce her connection with the State, and, leav-
ing all emolument behind her, go forth not only the Free Church of Scotland,
but The Church of Scotland Free,” and he hints that the end is not
yet. We must wait to see. But certainly we must assent to the eloquent
summing up of historical progress up to the state of affairs produced by the
decision of the House of Commons in 1843 :

“ Here, then, we stand at an important crisis in the history of the Church of Scotland. It was

158

THE PR ESB TTERTAX AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the close of a long struggle which had gone on for nearly three hundred years. The Church
ever since the days of Knox had claimed her spiritual independence and freedom to serve
Christ according to her own views of duty. She had fought for it against Mary and Lethingtcn,
against Morton with his Tulchan bishops, against James and Charles with their kingcraft and
violence. She had stood the storm of persecution through the blood-stained reign of the second
Charles ; she had contended with King William, and even through the long dead time of Mod-
eratism a faithful band of noble witnesses had stood by her Constitution, overborne as it was in
the interests of Patronage. It had been a gallant struggle all along for the liberty with which
Christ had made His Church free. But now at last it was over and done with. The judges in
our civil courts, the government of Sir Robert Peel, and the English House of Commons, did what
no statecraft and no arbitrary violence of former generations had ever been able permanently to
do. The Constitution was broken down. The spiritual independence of the Church was over-
thrown ” (pp. 236, 237).

The liberties of the Church of Scotland were overthrown by an English
government. The explanation is that the Establishment in England is
fundamentally Erastian ; and it was difficult for an English House to under-
stand the essentially different relation of the Establishment in Scotland to
the State. For the Church of Scotland was always a free Church in a free
State. “ We have no other connection with the State,” said Dr. Chalmers
truly in 1838, “ than that of being maintained by it, after which we are left
to regulate the proceedings of our great Home Mission with all the purity
and piety and the independence of any Missionary Board.” This, as Dr.
Brown's pages sufficiently show, was the position of the Scottish Church
from the beginning; it always jealously guarded its spiritual liberties, and
always sought from the State only support. When Maitland contended that
the General Assembly could not meet without the Queen’s express permis-
sion, Knox's reply was : “ Take from us the freedom of Assemblies, and take
from us the Evangel, for without Assemblies how shall good order and unity
in doctrine be kept ?” When Melville was called before the Privy Council :
“ Mr. Andro never jarging nor dashed a whit .... plainly told the King
and Council that they presumed overboldly .... to tak on them to judge

doctrine And that ye may see your weakness and rashness in taking

upon you what ye neither can nor ought to do, lowsing a little Hebrew Byble
from his belt, and clanking it down on the burd, these, he said, are my
instructions, see if any of you can judge of them.” It is this different sit-
uation of the Establishment in Scotland and England which has determined
the different course of Christian life in the two countries ; which caused the
early growth of dissent in the one —a phenomenon which only became menacing
in Scotland when the liberties of the Church were in abeyance; and which
has rendered it difficult for the friends of the free Churches in England to do
justice to the position of the defenders of the Establishment in Scotland or
to those English free Churchmen (like the Presbyterians) who were not
averse to Establishment in England. The natural effect of the ingrained
Erastianism of the English Establishment has been to identify in English
minds the free-Church idea with disestablishment, whereas the history of
the Church of Scotland is a clear proof that they are not inconsistent.

All this is illustrated again in the valuable and exceedingly interesting
History of the Free Churches of England by Mr. Skeats, now brought up to
date and reissued by Mr. Miall. Forgetful of the free position as over against
the State of the Church in Scotland, Mr. Skeats half excuses the original
Erastianism of the Church in England by the remark that, “ A Church of
Christ, independent as such of human control, and existing apart from state-
craft, was an idea almost impossible in that age ” (p. 3) ; and nowhere in his
history does he do justice to the desire of the English Presbyterians for a
free established Church. Mr. Skeats’ history is really a history of the growth
of the principle of religious equality in England ; quite a different thing — if
one not less valuable — from the principle of the sole Headship of Christ in

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

159

His Church. The latter may be had with an establishment. The former,
scarcely ; for the very existence of a State-assisted Church is a religious
inequality of the most galling kind. It is enough to make us blush for our
ancestry to follow a calm survey like this of the religious oppressions, so
stoutly contended for, so slowly removed, of which the English Parliament
has been guilty. The standpoint of both the authors of this admirable his-
tory is that of extreme Independency, which is inimical to all creeds and
stands for individualism and disintegration: justice is not done by their
account to such bodies as the Presbyterians who stand for organized effort
on the basis of common Confessions; and an unpleasant strength of language
sometimes emerges (e. g., p. 548), which must be pronounced strange (though
it is not rare) upon the lips of men who are writing professedly in the inter-
ests of Christian forbearance of even the most widely divergent views. The
main interest of the authors, also, is naturally in opposition to the tyranny
of an established religion, and this leads to an appearance in the course of
the history of less importance being attached to evangelical truth than to
dissent from the establishment of religion. But with all these petty objec-
tions, the book remains a most meritorious, candid, and, indeed, indispensa-
ble survey of the progress of the principle of religious equality in England,
and of the steady, if slow, removal of disabilities and oppressive discrimina-
tions from Dissenters. The sketches of the origin and growth of, and of the
leaders in, the several dissenting denominations are also most welcome. The
last chapters (by Mr. Miall), while scarcely equal in interest to Mr. Skeats’
full and exact narrative, are a most desirable completion of a volume which,
we trust, will be given by them a new lease of life.

Dr. Williston Walker’s paper is a careful study of an important episode in
the gradual dying of English Presbyterianism. It is treated judiciously by
Mr. Skeats on pp. 136-138 of his volume. Dr. Walker has examined the
sources, and has written an interesting and instructive account of the matter,
being led thereto chiefly by his interest in the place given the “ Heads of
Agreement” in the Preface to the Saybrook Platform. The “Heads of
Agreement ” proved a bond of straw so soon as controversy arose. They
are chiefly interesting as one of the many proofs of the extreme eagerness of
Presbyterians all through their history to unite in Christian work with their
fellow-Christians — an eagerness which exhibits them as ever the most liberal-
minded of Christian denominations, but which not seldom presses beyond its
mark and results in the subordination of principle to charity. In all such
arrangements it is the Presbyterians who yield the most. This case is a
typical one. Mr. Skeats says: “On the whole, however, the Congregation-
alists gave up less than their brethren of the more powerful denomination ”
(p. 138). And Dr. Walker writes: “ But so far as the document is positive, it
leans in the direction of Congregationalism. It is, as Dr. Bacon affirmed, ‘ in
fact, though not in name, a Congregational platform ’ ” (p. 43). One other
remark of Dr. Walker’s might well be kept in our sight in these days of zeal
for “ unity ” (not “ in faith,” but “ in appearance ”) : “ Union creeds are
usually creeds of omission rather than inclusiveness, and the Heads of
Agreement are no exception. In a true sense the document is open to the
keen criticism of one of its contemporary Congregational opponents, that
‘ It was no more than a Verbal Composition, or a number of Articles indus-
triously and designedly framed with great Ambiguity, that Persons retaining
their different Sentiments about the same Things might seem to Unite.’ ”
History teaches us as clearly as reason, that no true gain for Christ’s Church
is ever made by easiness in yielding principles for whatever apparent profit.
While the reader of Dr. Brown’s and Mr. Skeats’ books will also find abund-
ant cause for holding that history teaches equally that every stand for prin-

160

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

ciple, however unpopular, diowever apparently petty it may be, bears its fruit
in the coming years, often in most unlooked-for ways, but always to the glory
of God, the good of the Church, and the benefit of humanity.

Princeton. Benjamin B. Warfield.

Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner
Zeit. Von W. Baldensperger, a. o. Professor der Theologie. Zweite viel-
facli vermehrte Auflage. Pp. 282. (Strassburg : Heitz, 1892.) During the
past few years German scholars have given much attention to the human
development of Jesus Christ in its relation to Jewish religious thought, espe-
cially to the Messianic expectations of His time. Schiirer elaborates the
Jewish teachings amid which Jesus grew up, in the second edition of his
well-known work. John Weiss, in his Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892,
and Bousset, in his Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum, 1892,
these two last called forth by Baldensperger, and not yet in my hands, deal
with the teachings of both Jesus and His Jewish masters. Wendt, in his
Teaching of Jesus, which we are glad to see appearing in an English transla-
tion (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh), approaches his subject by a very clear and
able discussion of Jewish teachings as a factor in the development of Jesu3.
So far has this historical approach to systematic theology gone that we find
a new work just published on Dogmatik , which turns the traditional classifi-
cation end for end. Bornemann, in his TJnterricht im Christentum (Gottingen,
1892), begins with eschatology, putting the last first, because he holds that
the doctrine of the kingdom of God preached by Christ must come first, and
the teachings of that kingdom are shot through and through with eschato-
logical ideas. He puts next the doctrine of the Person of Christ, for Jesus
stands outside the system of Bible teachings, and His words, His example,
form the light by which all Scripture problems are to be solved. After the
chapters on the kingdom and on Christ comes that on God, and in connec-
tion with this is discussed the doctrine of justification. These writings show
the intimate and somewhat organic connection which is growing up between
Biblical and systematic theology, and may be the forerunners of a recasting
of the methods of the latter science. But we must return to Baldensperger.
After a critical estimate of the Apocalyptic literature of the Jews, in which
their Christological teachings are set forth, he proceeds to notice first the
meaning and importance of the Messianic hopes in the general religious life
of Judaism, and then traces the development of Messianic-apocalyptic ideas
in their connection with the religious and political history of Israel. This
completes the first part of his work. The second part treats of the self-con-
sciousness of Jesus, His inner development as related to Jewish thought.
In the first division of the subject Baldensperger finds that the great central
doctrine of Judaism, the belief in Jehovah, had passed through a change,
and had become in the later teachings transcendental and supermundane in
a marked degree. On the other hand, man’s relation to God had become
less national, and more particular, more personal. Hence the two ruling
ideas of this later theology may be called Transcendentalism and Individual-
ism. Closely connected with these two modified doctrines come other modi-
fications in belief. Faith in the supermundane God led to the doctrines of
predestination, angels, middle beings, as the Memra, Wisdom, being empha-
sized ; it also led to an ideal view of the Messiah. The outgrowth of Indi-
vidualism showed itself especially in belief in a personal immortality, per-
sonal resurrection and personal participation in the Messianic kingdom.
Turning to man’s religious life, as related to this changed conception of God,
Baldensperger says it was marked preeminently by Nomism, obedience to
the absolute law of the Supreme Jehovah. But not a fewr godly in the land

REGENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

161

found the law a yoke, found obedience impossible, found the promises of God
unfulfilled in national disaster ; these turned more than ever, these men of
the Apocalypses, towards the Messiah. So Jewish religious life in the time
of Jesus had two foci, or poles, Nomism and Messianism. The Messiah,
taught in this later theology, we are assured, in opposition to Holtzmann,
Holsten and others, was not only a great human king ; He was divine, pre-
existent, sharing the transcendental character of God, and would be Judge
of all men. In other words, the divine Christ, whom Harnack and other
recent critics make a postapostolic product of Greek thought, is shown to
be a pre-Christian character, developed among godly students of the Old
Testament in Israel, and taught before the time of Jesus. This is very
important ; for in such a case the divine Christ as set forth in the time of
Jesus must be the Messiah whom He claimed to be ; and we have thus from
a new source the testimony of Jesus to His own divinity. We cannot in a
few words present the second part of this book, in which the development of
the character of Jesus is described. The two things which He brought over
from current Jewish theology were the conception of the kingdom of God
and that of the Messiah. The two points, however, in which He most radically
differed from current teachings were : (1) His view of the kingdom, which
He made spiritual, the highest good, in which He was King over, above and
beyond the law, and (2) His view of the work of the Messiah, which He made
end in a suffering, atoning death — this last being a conception utterly abhor-
rent to Jewish teachings. Jesus must develop between the Nomism and
Messianism of His age, and as He grew into the consciousness of His Son-
ship and Messiahship He must by natural reaction from barren legalism be
led more and more into the Messianic thoughts of His time. He reached
full Messianic consciousness at His Baptism. This came to Him as a revela-
tion in His own soul, and not through any process of reasoning. The
position of Wendt and Holsten to the contrary, is called “an ineradicable
remnant of the old rationalism.” The student who seeks to pursue the line
of inquiry here indicated cannot do better than begin with this very sug-
gestive book of Baldensperger (see further on Baldensperger above, p. 115).
Das Neue Testament unci dev romische IStaai. Yon Dr. Heinrich Holtz-
mann, Professor der Theologie. A Lecture. Pp. 42. (Strassburg : Heitz,
1892.) How Holtzmann describes the genesis of the New Testament is known
from his Einleitung in das Neue Testament , which has just appeared in a
third, enlarged edition. In the pamphlet before us, an address delivered in
the University of Strasburg on the Emperor’s last birthday, he illustrates
the chronological order of the appearance of some of the New Testament
writings, according to the way they speak of the relation of Church and
State. The oral teachings of Christ were known in the Church as of
supreme authority in the first half of the second century ; and the great
deliverance here on the theme in question was, “ Render therefore unto
Cmsar the things that are Caesar’s ; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
In Rom. xiii, Paul elaborates this instruction, and traces civil government
to a divine source. In the First Epistle of Peter, ii. 13-17, political rule is
spoken of as a human creation, xrtai? dvOpiuxivT]. The pastoral epistles, a
work of the second century, add the striking teaching (1 Tim. ii. 2) that
prayer for the Emperor is part of the public worship of the Church. The
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians then shows the view that the Roman
Empire, as a dam against the flood of terrors which should bring in Anti-
christ, should be regarded as very much the least of two evils. All this
teaching Holtzmann holds is in the line of what Jesus had said. But in the
Apocalypse we find quite an opposite view (chap. xiii). Paul called the pow-
ers that be of God, the Apocalypse considers them of Satan ; the one makes
11

162

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

opposition to Rome rebellion against God, the other says that whosoever
obeys the beast (Rome) shall not be found in the Book of Life. These two-
conflicting tendencies, already traceable in the Xew Testament, can be dis-
tinguished for two hundred years later. Paul is followed by Clement of
Alexandria* Irenseus and most Christians ; the gloomy view of the Apoca-
lypse is adopted by Tertullian, Hippolytus and like zealots. Augustine com-
bined both these views, by making the Christian empire, so long as it was

true to God, atone for its pagan and Satanic origin. Untersuchungen zum

ersten Klemensbriefe. Yon Lie. Theol. W. Wrede, Privatdocent der Theolo-
gie in Gottingen. Pp. 112. (Gottingen: Vandenlioeck & Ruprecht, 1891.)-
It is refreshing to read an essay like this. Lipsius and Hilgenfeld and other
critics have read into Clement so much by way of remote inference that it
was high time for somebody to call us back to more sober limits. This-
Wrede has done, especially by showing that Clement himself had only a
general knowledge of the state of the Church in Corinth, and further by
pointing out that the character of his epistle, being essentially a homily
with special reference to harmony among brethren, was not intended to give
all sorts of antiquarian information by way of allusion. The cause of Clem-
ent’s writing was a quarrel in the Church of Corinth, in which the whole
congregation, having made the case of a fewT leaders their own, disputed the
authority of the elders and deposed some of them from office. Clement
takes sides with the elders and in behalf of Church order as he understood
it ; hence his epistle must be regarded as the utterance of an advocate and
not that of a judge. This apprehension of the aim of the epistle leads
Wrede to investigate, first (pp. 8-58), the organization of the Church of
Corinth. The second part of his essay (pp. 58-112) treats of Clement’s
relation to the Old Testament. The controversy in Corinth revolved about
the rights of the Church and her officers ; it was a question of ecclesiastical
organization. Wrede agrees with Harnack in making the leaders of the con-
gregation against the ruling eldership the prophets and teachers, the charis-
matic men ; but he differs from him in holding that the yyou/ievoi were not
identical with these prophetic leaders. He thinks that this term, as well as-
that of elder, were common titles, which included both bishops and deacons.
The body of appointed elders in Rome and Corinth, in the time of Clement,
included bishops and deacons. The dispute between these ‘‘spiritual”
leaders, on the one side, and the eldership of bishops and deacons on the
other, was not in matters of doctrine or morals, but was in matters pertain-
ing to worship. It was not an attack upon the principle of appointed officers
in the Church (Harnack, Uhlhorn),for all the elders were not deposed; it
was, however, such a claim on the part of these prophetic men in reference
to teaching, prayer, prophesying, which the elders were taking more and
more to themselves, as part of their regular administrative duties, that
Clement could regard the whole controversy as i~) zoD dvo/iazos zijs i-taxo-r^.
These charismatic men must have had great influence, for the mass of the
Church sided with them ; but the eldership was also strong, it had already
become a body of authority ; so Clement regarded disobedience to it, whether
on theory or impulse, as violating the regular usage from the apostles, and
as such rebellion against God. He defends the life-long tenure of office by
the elders, and ignores the prophetic men as having any rights in the Church.
He probably refers to their earlier itinerant character when he repeatedly
urges them to leave the congregation, to go elsewhere. This presentation of
the problem of the epistle is undoubtedly in the main correct, and puts it in a
position to both give and receive fresh light from the statements in the
A tSa^rj respecting the bishops and deacons who succeeded to the position of
the prophets and teachers. The second part of Wrede’s essay offers many

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

163.

details of interest which we cannot reproduce. He agrees with most recent
critics that Clement was a gentile Christian, and finds in his thorough
knowledge of the Old Testament, his supreme reverence for it, and his great
use of it, an illustration of the place which the Jewish Scriptures held in the
gentile churches. He quotes the Old Testament as the Word of God just
as one of the Puritan divines might have done. This leads Wrede to say, as
is now often the fashion, that such a view came from “ the Hellenistic con-
ception of inspiration, according to which the individual writers were pas-
sive instruments of God.” Such statements lead to the conclusion that the
New Testament writers got their views of inspiration from Hellenism, so
that Clement and the apostles stand together here. This is admitted
incidentally in the following paragraph, which begins: “The view which
Clement has of the Old Testament, and the use which he makes of it, show
no essential peculiarities when compared with Christian writings nearest to
it for comparison, especially the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, and the Epistle
of Barnabas.” An interesting description is given of the theology of
Clement, which we cannot reproduce. He summed up religion in obedience
to God; faith in God, not faith in Christ, was central ; in fact, Christology
formed no organic part of Clement’s theology. He made the Old Testament
a Christian book, and showed little appreciation of Paul’s doctrine of justifi-
cation by faith. His theology was not a deterioration of apostolic teach-
ings, but grew up without having taken in the full New Testament form of
doctrine, and left Christ out of vital relation to the salvation of men. (Cf.

Dr. Zenos’ notice in this Beview for April, 1892, Yol. iii, p. 362.) TJeber

das Gnostische Buck Pistis- Sophia. Brod und Wasser: die eucharistischen
Elemente bei Justin. Zwei Untersuchungen. Yon Adolf Harnack. Pp.
144. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1891.) Kostlin set forth in 1854 ( Theol . Jahrb .)
the system of teaching in this strange, confused Gnostic book. What Har-
nack undertakes is to supplement the treatise of Kostlin by a historical
inquiry into: (1) The relations of the Pistis-Sophia to the New Testament,
and (2) to the Old Testament ; (3) its Biblical exegesis, (4) its common Chris-
tian and Catholic elements, and (5) its time and place of origin. He concludes
that the writer had our four gospels, and regarded them as the Catholic Church
did ; the Pauline writings were also for him canonical. He recognized the
Old Testament as of divine and canonical authority ; but into the Old Testa-
ment he puts five Gnostic odes of Solomon not part of the well-known
eighteen Psalms of Solomon : these odes arose between A.D. 100-150, prob-
ably in Egypt. Harnack gives them in two Latin versions. He regards
them as a part of the attempt to “ Christianize the Old Testament — i. e., to
add such writings to it as would leave no doubt of its Christian character.”
The Bible exegesis is absurd and arbitrary, an attempt by wild allegory to
show the Gnostic meaning of the Scriptures. The most valuable element in
this Gnostic book, the sole Gnostic work of any size that we possess, is the
knowledge which it gives of the large body of teachings held in common by
Gnostics and Catholics. It is a very important corrective to the one-sided
presentation of Gnosticism given by Irenseus and Tertullian. Harnack pro-
ceeds herefrom his well-known position (cf. Dogmengeschichte, 2te Aufl., Bd. i,
s. 186 ff.), that Gnosticism was an anticipation of Catholicism, “ not a parent
of Catholicism, but an elder brother, which attained by storm what the
younger brother gained in later times through a thousand hardships.” He
finds the Christianity of Pistis-Sophia summed up in prayers of penitence
and the sacraments (mysteries), both of which draw their strength from
Jesus Christ. Penance and sacraments, the ruling ideas of Catholicism in
the fourth century, were the governing principles in the Gnosticism of the
second. The second great element in this new teaching was that all Chris-

164

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

tianity must be apostolic, resting on the words of Jesus through the apos-
tles; so Hamack adds, the Pistis-Sophia is a Gnostic parallel to the Christian
A idayrj. Here also Gnosticism led the way in making prominent Church
tradition. With these positions of Harnack most critics will agree; the
chief danger , in his line of thought is that it not only leads to Gnosticism
and Greek philosophy as the source of Catholic corruptions, hut it finds the
same earthly origin for the divine Christ, notwithstanding all that is said
about Him in the Old Testament, in pre-Christian Jewish writings, and in
the New Testament. In the second essay, on the elements used in the Lord’s
Supper during the first two centuries, Harnack concludes “ that the appoint-
ment of the Lord was originally so understood, that its blessing did not
inhere in a legal manner in the bread and wine, but in the eating and drink-
ing— i. e., in the simple meal.” Bread and wine might be used, as they were
by Christ at the institution of the Supper, hut many poor people made their
meal of bread and water ; so these also might he used at the Lord’s Supper.
The constant element was the bread ; the other, the cup, might contain wine
or water indifferently, for it was not the element of nourishment, but an
accompaniment of the bread. Harnack finds this use of either wine or water
allowed in the New Testament (John iv. 8 ; Kom. xiv. 21) and practiced in
a growing degree both by Catholics and sects from 64 to 150 A.D. After
this introduction he investigates the writings of Justin, aud by the aid of
“tendency” interpolations removes wine entirely from his account of the
Lord’s Supper. We cannot go into the details of the text criticism, but we
fail to see that Harnack has proved his case. At the most he but shows that
ascetic tendencies not only led certain sects to use water at the Lord’s Sup-
per, but induced a few within the Church to favor similar usage. Brot

und Wein im Abendmalil der alten Kirche. Von Dr. Th. Zalin, Professor der
Theologie in Erlangen. Pp. 32. (Leipzig : Deichert, 1892.) This article of
Zalin is a reprint from the Neue Kirchl. Zeitschrift , 1892. H. iv, and replies
to Harnack. His remarks about his former fellow-laborer are caustic. He
calls Harnack’s essay “ a ‘ discovery ’ which makes the surest facts of history
incomprehensible.” He admits the two wrong readings of olvo^ for ow>?
in Justin, but holds that the change was made to suit the reference to Bac-
chus in the context, and not in view of the Lord’s Supper. To the argument
of Harnack that Justin could not speak repeatedly of Gen. xlix. 10 ff., as he
did, and make no reference to the Lord’s Supper, had he regarded wine as
part of that Supper, Zalin replies by showing that Clement of Alexandria,
Hippolytus and Augustine did that very thing, and all taught wine in the
Supper. Justin spoke of water as well as wine prominently in his Apology ,
because of the heathen charges of -wine drinking and immorality at Chris-
tian feasts. Harnack’s rejection of oho? in the three passages of the Apology
is confessedly conjectural. The statements of Abercius (180), Irenaeus (180),
and Clement of Alexandria all condemn the use of water in the Supper as
heretical, and show it could not have been as widespread thirty years before

as Harnack urges. Das neu entdeckte vierte Buck des Daniel-Kommentars

von Hippolytus. Nacli dem Originaltext des Entdeckers Dr. B. Georgiades
zumersten Male vollstandig lierausgegeben. Von Lie. Dr. E. Bratke, a. o.
Professor der Kircliengesckickte in Bonn. Pp. 50. (Bonu : E. Cohen, 1891.)
This is part of the long-lost commentary of Hippolytus on the Book of
Daniel. It was discovered by a Greek scholar, Dr. Georgiades, in the
patriarchal library on the island Chalki, and published in the magazine
ExxDjtrtaffTixi] 'AX-rjOeta at Constantinople in 1888. Part of it was edited
with an English translation by Kennedy, Dublin, 1888; but Bratke now
gives the first obtainable complete text. He has prefixed a brief Introduc-
tion, and adds also the critical notes of the Greek editor. It now seems

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

165

probable that the commentary of Hippolytus on Daniel consisted of four
books — the first on the story of Susannah, the second on the song of the
three children, the third on Daniel i-vi, and the fourth, now given us, on
Daniel vii-xii. Here is new information or new light on such subjects as
Church discipline, the date of the birth and death of Christ, the persecutions
under the Severi, the attitude of the most devoted Christians towards the
Roman State, and the exposition of the New Testament, especially in ques-
tions of the second coming of the Lord. Geschichte des Untergangs des

griechisch-romischen Heidentums. ii : Die Ausgiinge. Yon D. Victor
Schultze, Professor an der Universitat Greifswald. Pp. 392. (Jena : Costeno-
ble, 1892.) Thi3 is the second volume of Schultze’s Decline of Grceco-Roman
Heathenism. He here discusses first the general changes that took place as
the old gave place to the new, under the topics “ Law,” “ Art,” “ Litera-
ture,” and the “ Calendar.” Every reader feels that this list might be easily
enlarged, and that the author has only made what seemed a selection of
striking features in the great transition. The next division, which forms the
bulk of the book, traces “ the provincial development,” and shows the de-
cline of paganism in Gaul, Britain, Spain, North Africa, Italy, on the Rhine
and the Danube, in Greece, Egypt, Syria, Constantinople, and Asia Minor.
The third part of the volume (pp. 340-390) gives an account of the religious
changes that went on within classic heathenism as the ferment of Christianity
was more and more felt. Everywhere Schultze is instructive, writes in a
clear style, and uses his special archaeological researches to illumine not a few
details of his history. He traces well how, in the fourth century, the State,
with all its organization, the Church, especially by its wide system of poor
relief, the bishops, molding the cities, and the monks who led the way in
converting the rural population, all helped produce the fall of paganism and
the victory of the Cross. What we miss most in the book is a strong, sharp
expression of the motives and tendencies running through the period treated,
and a graphic, dramatic reproduction of the characteristic historic scenes.

Chicago. II. M. Scott.

III.— SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Being the Twenty-first Fernley
Lecture, delivered in Nottingham, July 31, 1891, by the Rev. Francis J.
Sharr. 8vo, pp. 180. (London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1891.)
Mr. Sharr’s Fernley Lecture is eloquent and sound, but not in the highest
sense of the words scholarly or scientific. It will serve to comfort us by
indicating that thoughtful and competent minds amongthe British Wesleyans
still hold to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and know how to
express their belief in noble language ; but it will not add to the confidence
with which we hold the truth. Mr. Sharr announces the true inductive
method of the study of the Scriptural testimony (p. 203) ; and distinguishes
properly between inspiration and revelation on the one side and spiritual
illumination on the other (pp. 10 and 15) ; but he does not allow these prelim-
inary definitions sufficiently to determine his own treatment of the subject.
He teaches, however, with great clearness the true doctrine of plenary
inspiration, extending to the form of Scripture and preserving it from all
error (p. 129). He is agnostic as to the mode of inspiration : “ The Scriptures
are the joint product of the natural and the supernatural ; but how the one
operates on the other is a mystery ” (p. 128). He points out the value of the
humanity of the Bible in a rich passage (p. 101 sq .) : “ The Bible is at once

166

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

the Word of God and the word of man. Dr. Westcott wisely observes, 1 The
Bible is authoritative, for it is the Word of God ; it is intelligible, for it is
the word of man.’ It is the most human book on earth, and we need a
human Bible just as much as we want a human Christ. It is because it is
so purely human that it has satisfied the soul-hunger of millions. No matter
how desolate, how unutterably sad, how perplexed, how crushed with a sense
of guilt, how ablaze with desire, how rapturous and ecstatic the human soul ;
no matter what its moods, what its resolves, what its aspirations, there is
something in these God-breathed writings that fully and promptly responds
to it.” Here we find the reason why God did not give the Bible as a finished
product of His own hand direct from heaven, or dictate it literally to its
authors, who would then become mere amanuenses. We must quote also a
few words in which the analogy of the God-man is used to aid our apprehen-
sion of what is involved in a divine-human Bible: “But another conse-
quence follows if this analogy holds good. The human nature of Christ was
beset with all the weakness and infirmities incident to our common humanity.
‘ The Word was made flesh,' ‘born of a woman, born under the law,’ born
under natural law as well as moral. God sent ‘ His own Son in the likeness
of sinful flesh,’ like it in everything except its sinfulness. He ‘ was with-
out sin.’ He ‘ did no sin.’ And so with the human element in the written
Word. It is beset with all the ordinary infirmities of human compositions,
sinful error and untruth excepted. The divine nature in Christ preserved
the human from sin ; the divine agency in writing the Scriptures preserved
the human from mistakes and falsehood ” (p. 108). Here we find the reason

why God’s inspiring influence extended to every word of Scripture. The

Inspiration of Holy Scripture. Its Nature and Proofs. Eight Discourses,
preached before the University of Dublin. By William Lee, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of Trinity College. 8vo, pp. xiv, 478. (New York: Thomas
Whittaker [1892].) These lectures were delivered in 1852, and published first
in 1854 ; the American edition was issued by the Carters. Mr. Whittaker,
having acquired the plates at the sale of the Carter effects, now puts out this
new edition from the same somewhat worn plates. The reissue is certainly
timely. Despite all the advance in scholarly study of the Bible which the
last forty years have registered, Archdeacon Lee’s treatise remains still the
most complete, the most sober, and the most satisfactory treatise on its great
subject accessible. The reading of it will clarify the minds of many who
have been disturbed by recent discussions. The chief rival of the lectures
of Archdeacon Lee is the able book of Dr. James Bannerman, published by
T. & T. Clark in 1865, and the interested reader will find a judicious discus-
sion of the chief difference in conception and presentation of the two 'writers
in Dr. F. L. Patton’s little treatise, The Inspiration of the Scriptures. (Pres-
byterian Board of Publication [1869], pp. 122 sq.). St. Paul and Inspira-

tion. Inaugural Address of George Tybout Purves, D.D., as Professor of
New Testament Literature and Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary.
8vo, pp. 57. (New York : Anson D. F. Randolph & Co., 1892.) This beauti-
fully printed pamphlet contains the “ Charge ” to the new professor by Dr.
George D. Baker, of Philadelphia, as well as the inaugural address itself,
and the “ Charge ” also touches pointedly on the burning question of inspira-
tion. The two papers will furnish most profitable reading for the present day.
The greater portion of the address has been reprinted as the first article in
this number of the Review (see above, pp. 1 sq.), and we can only hope that
our readers will enjoy and ’profit by its clear exegesis and cogent argumenta-
tion as much as wre ourselves have done. McCormick Theological Semi-

nary: Inaugural Addresses by Willis Green Craig, D.D., LL.D., as McCor-
mick Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology, and Andrew C. Zenos,

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

167

D.D., as Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History ; with the Charge to
the Professors by J. H. Holliday, Esq., President of the Board of Directors.
Svo, pp. 46. (Chicago : Young Men’s Era Publishing Co., 1892.) McCormick
Seminary is to be congratulated on filling her chairs with such teachers as
these addresses represent. Dr. Craig chose as the subject of his address
■“Systematic Theology Viewed in its Relations to Kindred Disciplines,” and
gave a notable treatment of his theme. In its course he pronounces him-
self an adherent of that Federal theology which is taught in the West-
minster Confession, and which Dr. E. G. Robinson has announced to have
•been buried in the grave of Charles Hodge, but of which Dr. Craig speaks
no more than justly in his solemn and eloquent closing words, thus : “ I can
say with the simplicity of honest, but we hope intelligent, conviction, that l
am more ready now than ever before to affirm that our noble Westminster
Standards set forth, with marked precision, ample fullness, and profound
spiritual grasp, the system of truth revealed to us in God’s Word ” (p. 29).
We wish we had space to quote the wise words on page 15 as to the caution
to be exercised by specialists in theology. Prof. Zenos chose as his subject,
The Cultivation of the Historic Sense the Need of the Church in the
Present Crisis,” which he strikingly expounds in the proposition that “ what
memory as a faculty of the mind is to the individual, enabling him to build
tip an experience, the historic faculty is to the community and to the Church,
•enabling them to profit by the lessons of the past ” (p. 38.) His treatment

of it is very rich and valuable. Supra en Infra. Een woord van Verde-

-digingen TcelichtingderConfessioneelGereformeerdeleeren practijk,omtrent
•de Prsedestinatie en het Genadeverbond. Door L. J. Hulst, Predikant der
Hoi. Chr. Greref. Gemeente van Caldbrook in Grand Rapids, Koord-Amerika.
12mo, pp. 139. (Grand Rapids, Mich. : D. J. Doornik & Zoon [1892].) This
little book is a polemic against certain teachings of Dr. A. Kuyper’s, espe-
cially: (1) his predilection for Supralapsarianism ; (2) his doctrine of “an
eternal covenant of grace ; ” and (3) his views as to the sacraments, particu-
larly his declaration that infants are baptized on the presumption of their
being among the elect. Accordingly, it is divided into three sections, the
first of which discusses Supralapsarianism, the second the “ eternal cov-
enant of grace,” and the third the practical influence of this teaching. It
is very plain from the beginning, however, that Mr. Hulst’s interest is prin-
cipally engaged with the second of these subjects. Supralapsarianism is dis-
cussed apparently only because it pleases him to designate the doctrine of an
■“ eternal covenant of grace ” as “ Supralapsarian ;” and the evil practical in-
fluences on the preaching of the gospel and the doctrines of the sacraments,
-the Church and the last judgment, which he discovers, he presents as con-
sequences of the doctrine of an “ eternal covenant of grace.” To represent
■the doctrine of an “eternal covenant of grace” as distinctively Supralap-
sarian is, of course, absurd. The differences between Supra- and Infralap-
sarians turn on a single point, viz., the relation of the decree of election
and reprobation to the decree of the fall, and have no further doctrinal sig-
nificance. The distinction, so far from implying a difference as to God’s
relation to sin and the fall, implies agreement as to it, the very question at
issue being the relation between the decrees of God concerning the fall and
election. Arguments against Supralapsarianism founded on its alleged doc-
trinal consequences, therefore, nearly always fall into the grave error of urg-
ing against it alleged consequences which, if valid at all, would press against
both theories equally, or rather against the common ground of both ; and
thus the reasoner comes to occupy really an Arminian standpoint, and is
found to be arguing against fundamental Calvinism. Mr. Hulst does not
■escape this fault. He says, indeed, truly, that “the Supralapsarians and

168

TEE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

Infralapsarians are entirely at one in holding that God’s decree, and also his
predestination, are absolutely eternal, sovereign and independent ” (p. 12);
and he declares his belief, from the heart, in God’s eternal sovereignty in
election and reprobation too often to permit us to doubt that he personally
would occupy Calvinistic ground. But it is otherwise with the logic of his
reasoning. What boots it to say, for example, that Supralapsarianism makes
God the author of sin, when it is obvious to a moment’s thought that whether
God is the author of sin or not is not in the question between these parties.
The relation of God to sin is in the two theories precisely the same — they
both teach that sin was included in God’s decree; they differ only in the
relation they assert between the two decrees of the fall and election. It
probably represents the effect of his argumentation upon himself when Miv
Hulst at a later point allows himself to say (p. 21) : “ The Infralapsarians
will not, by their view, remove the creation and the fall out of God’s decree,
but on account of the delicacy of the point they follow the example of Scrip-
ture and leave this divine secret untouched.” As an Infralapsarian of the
clearest conviction (based on such grounds as are finely expressed by Mr.
Hulst on p. 10), we repel this statement. Infralapsarians do nothing of the
kind — have never done anything of the kind ; and Scripture gives them no
example so to do. To do this would be, in fact, to desert their exegetically
secure aud unassailably reasoned Calvinism. All Calvinists agree that man’s
fall did not happen outside of, but within, God’s plan; all Calvinists agree
that God had a good reason for embracing the fall in His plan, and that He
need not have permitted sin had He not freely chosen to do so. They may
differ as to what God’s immediate reason for the permission of the fall was;
or whether it is discoverable by man ; but this does not touch the question.
A similar criticism is in place when Mr. Hulst permits himself to write as
to the effect of a doctrine of an “ eternal covenant ” on preaching : “ In this
covenant none are included except the elect. Only these are given to the Sou,
and bliss is destined for them alone ; for none others is the Lord’s sacrifice
intended, and God interests Himself in them alone. But how shall the gos-
pel be brought to those who have no part or lot in bliss ? On these principles^
how shall God be represented to men as swearing that He has no pleasure in
the death of the wicked ? Is not the preaching of the gospel thus made a
scandal ?” (p. 90). And much more to the same effect. How can he con-
ceal from himself that this reasoning, if it has any validity at all, is valid
against Supra- and Infralapsarians alike, and cannot therefore be pleaded by
one against the other ? Mr. Hulst makes much of the Confessional position
of his Church. Let him look to it that the arguments he uses against what
he looks upon as Supralapsarianism do not find their logical basis not in the
denial of particular redemption alone (as is true of the one just quoted),
but in the general Remonstrant line of thought. When Mr. Hulst approaches
the doctrine of the covenant of grace he begins by drawing a sharp distinc-
tion between what he chooses to call absurdly the Infralapsarian and the
Supralapsarian doctrines of the covenant. Under the former head he out-
lines a doctrine substantially the same as that of the Westminster Confession
of Faith , vii, 3; and under the latter he outlines a doctrine substantially that
of the Larger Catechism , Q. 31. These he represents as mutually exclusive
and even destructive, and attempts to show that the latter is quite dreadful
in its practical consequences. The issue made is obviously a false one. The
question is not, as he tries to make it, Has God offered no covenant of grace
to sinners ?— all hold to this. The question is, Is there not also a covenant of
redemption with the Son ? Mr. Hulst’s whole argument is, therefore, beside
the point. He endeavors to show at large that the fathers of the Reformed
Church taught the former covenant. No doubt ; so do we, their descendants-

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

169

But do they teach that there was no other covenant ? We may prefer to rep-
resent the mysterious engagement between the Father and the Son of which
our Lord speaks so fully in the discourses in John, by some other name than
a “ covenant,” but, if this be all, it cannot be a very great difference which
thence arises with those who find the word “ covenant ” the best one to express
the nature of this great transaction. Nor ought the preference of the word
“ Verbond ” for this arrangement to the word “Yrederaad ” which the author
uses, subject any to such serious theological and practical consequences as he
seeks to draw out. Let us agree that God freely offers a covenant to sinners, re-
quiring of them faith in Christ that they may be saved ; and then let us ask on
what ground He gives some that faith which concludes the covenant and gives
them the right to plead the promises ? Does it make such a dreadful difference
whether we say, On the ground of the decree, or, On the ground of His cov-
enant with His dear Son ? And is the difference Scripturally and in the line
of Beformed teaching, in favor of the former or of the latter reply ? This is
the sole question at issue as to the matter of “ the eternal covenant.” Supra-
lapsarianism has nothing to do with it; theological and practical conse-
quences have nothing to do with it ; unless in arguing against the doctrine of
an “eternal covenant,” we take up an attitude and are led to urge objections
which, when carried to their logical outcome, are found to involve an attitude
of denial or doubt of particular redemption, or even of eternal election and
reprobation. If Mr. Hulst will attend to two important distinctions, he
may be able to see his way clear to do more justice to those of his brethren
who state common Calvinism under the covenant principle. These are, first,
the distinction between the conditional and the absolute covenant with men,
which is admirably stated by Triglandius in an extract quoted by Mr. Hulst
(pp. 38, 39) ; and, secondly, the distinction between the covenant of redemp-
tion and the covenant of grace, as stated, for example, by Turretine. The

Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord. By William Milligan, D.D.,
Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the University of Aberdeen.
Crown 8vo, pp. xvii, 367. (London and New York: 1892.) This volume,
consisting of six lectures delivered on the Baird foundation for 1891, follows
out the line of thought in Dr. Milligan’s previous Croall lectures on the
Resurrection of our Lord and Baird lectures on the Apocalypse, one of the
fundamental thoughts in the latter of which is worked out here in its im-
plications— viz., that Christ’s redemptive work proceeds in the heavenly, not
the earthly, sphere, and that the true conception of His Church, therefore, is
“that she begins in heaven, and, in possession of the Spirit of her glorified
Head, descends to earth ” (p. 233). Everything that Dr. Milligan writes is
inspiring and suggestive, and the present lectures are no exception to this
rule. They are filled with passages as true in their conception as they are
noble in their expression, and the reader often pauses to reap the full impres-
sion of remarks of the deepest spiritual significance. Nevertheless, it is
often very difficult to follow Dr. Milligan’s teaching. There is usually a
sense in which what he teaches is true ; but the coloring which he gives it
often removes it out of the reach of the sobriety which clings to facts ; and
one is ever wishing that the conceptions had been formed in distinctively
Reformed molds, instead of those of modem Germany which root in
Lutheran forms of thinking, and that the author seemed as familiar with
the noble body of Scotch theology as with recent Anglican divinity, espe-
cially that section of it which has drunk of the same German fountains with
himself. These remarks may be illustrated by the central idea of these lec-
tures— that of Christ’s Heavenly Priesthood. That the ascended Lord is
Priest in heaven, no one doubts : “ The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent.
Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” What is involved

170

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

in this eternal priesthood no one could state better than Dr. Milligan has
stated it in a noble passage which we cannot forbear to quote : “ Perhaps it
might be thought that when the completed number of the elect has been
gathered into the safe protection of that heavenly home into which nothing
that defileth enters, there will be no need either of priesthood or of priest.
But such is not the teaching of the New Testament. We are rather taught
there that in our Lord as Priest we shall always stand accepted before God,
and that whatever progress towards perfection awaits us in the heavenly
state must be made in Him. We can never either stand or advance in our
own strength. We can never forget to whom we owe the continuance as
well as the first bestowal of our blessedness. Throughout eternity the love
of the Father must flow forth to us ‘ in the name ’ of Jesus as much as it
flows forth to us in that name now. He has made known to us the Father’s
name, and He will also continue to make it known, ‘ that the love wherewith
the Father has loved Him may be in us, and He in us.’ Therefore does the
Seer of Patmos behold the glorified Lord in heaven clad in priestly robes ;
and in similar robes, in garments made white in the blood of the Lamb, His
redeemed there either surround Him with their songs of praise or follow Him
whithersoever He goeth ” (p. 110, 111). But Dr. Milligan is not content to
teach, thus, with the Church, the continuance of our Lord’s priesthood in
heaven — the Church having always taught that the priestly work includes,
along with the sacrifice on earth, also the continuous presentation of the
victim in heaven and His “ intercession ” for us. He seeks rather to repre-
sent Christ’s only priesthood to be in heaven. He avoids the extreme,
indeed, of most who use this mode of representation, and is strenuous for
the sacrificial character of the death on the cross; there are (as on p. 14)
numerous explicit declarations that the death was “a true and proper sac-
rifice for sin.” This leads him to teach that, while Christ was not a priest
in His earthly life, yet His priesthood began with His crucifixion (p. 113) ;
which compels further the odd positions that the crucifixion did not mark
the lowest depth of Christ’s humiliation (as Paul explicitly asserts in Philip,
ii. 8 sg.), but was the first step in His glorification, and that “the sac-
rifice on the cross falls within the sphere of a supereartlily or heavenly priest-
hood ” (p. 91), which, more bluntly put, amounts to saying that the cross
was “ in heaven.” Of course this view of a “ heavenly priesthood ” affects
the conception held of Christ’s “ offering.” Dr. Milligan, as we have seen,
strives hard to prevent its driving out the element of penalty-paying on the
cross. Instead of saying, with most of those who occupy his general point
of view, that Christ’s offering consists not in His death on the cross but in
His presentation of His holy life in heaven, he says more moderately that it
is not to be confined to His death on the cross but that there is included in
it a present and eternal offering of His life in heaven (p. 141)— a view which
has nothing to recommend it above the Church doctrine that the sacrifice is
completed by its eternal presentation (an essential part of the sacrifice, be it
noted, and not a mere subsequent transaction), and which, when pressed to
mean more than this, so as to throw the emphasis on the “ heavenly offering,”
cannot but, despite every effort to prevent it, result in belittling the sacrifice
on the cross itself. In spite of Dr. Milligan’s full explanations, therefore, we
cannot but find that his mode of presentation makes serious inroads upon the
doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; nobody is likely to confuse it, indeed,
with the “ moral influence ” theory, as he seems to fear, but no one ought to
confound it either with the Church doctrine of substitution and imputation.
To the Church doctrine, by the way, Dr. Milligan is not quite fair, whether we
think of its doctrine of atonement or the closely related doctrine of j ustification
(pp. 145, 249). The Church doctrine fully allows for the very true and important

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LI2 ERA TURE.

171

statement that, “ Pardon of sin and deliverance from its bondage — or, at all
events, pardon of sin and the impartation of the principle which, as it
acquires strength in the soul, will and must in ever-increasing measure de-
liver us — cannot be separated except in thought.” It fully allows for the
statement that “ the redemption which touches our legal position before
God, touches at the same moment our life and character.” But in avoiding
the Antinomian extreme, the Church doctrine knows how to avoid the
Osiandrian extreme of an infused righteousness also ; which, we regret to
say, Dr. Milligan does not succeed in doing. Enough has been said, how-
ever, to show that Dr. Milligan’s whole point of view is so “ modernized ”
that his presentation of doctrine is continually discolored. Thus it comes
about that the reader is continually offended as well as continually charmed
by this volume. The several chapters proclaim truths, but proclaim them in
a way and with a color which cannot but be regretted. The first lecture
defends the reality and deep import of our Lord’s ascension, but immediately
so explains the nature of His “body” and of “heaven” as to make the
defense of a real ascension almost meaningless. The second proves a
heavenly high priesthood for our Lord, and the third discusses His high-
priestly work, but with such exaggeration as we have already pointed out.
The fourth speaks of the gift of the Holy Ghost, and says many important
things about it, but vitiates it all by so “ Christologizing ” the doctrine of the
Spirit as to make the Spirit possess a human as well as a divine element !
The last two lectures discuss the doctrine of the Church, and do it most
inspiringly ; we could not miss their fine thought without great loss ; but the
Churchism is a little too high for simply Bible Christians. Dr. Milligan’s
position on creeds will be of interest at the present juncture. He wishes to
draw a sharp distinction between: (1) “creeds as a test of office-bearing or
membership,” and (2) the testimony of the majority of the Church to truth
believed by it. The former he would reduce to a minimum, putting into the
creed nothing but what is “ essential to the existence of the Church in the
unity of her Head and members.” He would include more in this than a
mere confession of faith in Jesus, but not logically. This is what it would
reduce to. What, then, will become of his own teaching that the Church,
“ in the first place, has to proclaim her faith to the honor of Him from whom
it comes ; in the second place, she has to make clear to herself what she
believes; and, in the third place, she has to be a witness to the world that
she knows her faith and is not ashamed of it.” He has rightly taught that
the Church must have such a creed as this. But this is alreadv a discredit-
ing of his minimum scheme. There is no escape from the position that the
Church is bound to confess all that God has lovingly revealed to her as
His truth ; that is, the whole scheme of truth revealed in Scripture.
What the Bible teaches , not what is convenient, undisputed, or unlikely to
put us to the trouble of defending, is the proper measure of the contents of
■our c redo.

Princeton. Benjamin B. Warfield.

IY.— PRACTICAL THEOLOGY.

A Baker' s Dozen. By Faye Huntington. (American Tract Society.) This
little volume has been called an object lesson in the art of doing good. Such
it is in very deed. In a simple, artless way it tells how a bevy of girls came
to learn the true way and means of helpfulness. It suggests both wholesome

principles and happy practice. The Gospel of Gladness. By David James

Burrell, D.D. (Ibid.) The volume is happily named from the title of the

172

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

first sermon it contains. There are thirty-six discourses, all of a cheery sort,
full of animation and freshness, and well calculated to interest and impress.
They may heartily be recommended for use where no minister can be had;
and it is desired to add a sermon to the worship. They are lively, but never
at the expense of truth or of reverence. Silver Shield Series. Four vol-

umes. (Ibid.) This is a collection of short narratives, at once interesting
and instructive. Put as they are in a neat box, they are a suitable present
for a boy or a girl. The same remark applies to a pleasant volume by the

same publishers, entitled Fan Fan Stories, by Mrs. F. I. Burge Smith.

Beside the Waters of Comfort : Thoughts from Many Minds. Compiled by
Agnes Giberne. (Ibid.) The selection is well made, and mainly from con-
temporary sources, and therefore quite fresh. Such books are not attractive
to the prosperous, but to folks under the harrow are like manna in the
desert. The mourner will not go astray in turning these pages. A smaller
book of the same general character, but not a compilation, is entitled Crumbs
of Comfort, by Mrs. F. A. Noble. (Ibid.) It is a tender, loving series of
short essays, evidently the result of a very vivid experience, and one that
goes at once to the reader’s heart. The poetical extracts it gives are all from
recent singers and well chosen. We know that it has helped to wipe the

tears from some eyes, and believe that it will do the same kind office often.

The Andersons : Brother and Sister. By Agnes Giberne. What Girls Can Do :
“ Not to be Ministered Unto but to Minister .” By Mrs. H. K. Potwin.
Adam's Daughters. By Julia McNair Wright. (Ibid.) These three vol-
umes belong to the class of wholesome fiction which the American Tract
Society is accustomed to furnish. They are stories, full of life and character,
well written and interesting, and admirably calculated to suggest what is
good and refined and elevating. What they have to teach is not given in
homiletic form, but comes out in the development of the story and the
progress of events. Nor can one see how a young person, especially a young
woman, can read any one of them without being animated to a higher style
of life and a more serious view of personal and social responsibilities. The
aim of each writer is obvious, yet it does not detract from the merit of the

volume as an entertaining narrative. Outline Analysis of the Books of the

Bible. By Prof. Barnard C. Taylor. (American Baptist Publication So-
ciety.) This volume is intended for the ordinary reader, yet comes from a
scholarly hand. It is brief, yet contains a vast deal of useful matter. It
sets forth in the case of each book the author, the date, the historical occa-
sion, the leading subject, the chief purpose, and its relation to other books
of the Bible, mentioning in conclusion the topics for special study. The
book is conservative in tone, but does not ignore the results of modern criti-
cism. It is to be earnestly commended as an aid to the perusal of the whole
Word of God, so many Christians contenting themselves with reading only
favorite portions. Its brevity and compactness do not interfere with its
clearness and ease of comprehension. Of course it does not take the place
of elaborate introductions, but is an admirable substitute in the case of those
who have not time or means to obtain and use larger and more costly works.
Any book is to be welcomed which enables men to be more intelligent readers

or students of the living oracles. A Winter in India and Malaysia among

the Methodist Missions. By the Rev. M. V. B. Knox, Ph.D., D.D. (New
York : Hunt & Eaton.) The Introduction which Bishop Hurst furnishes to
this volume does not exaggerate its value as a picture of the work, trials,
and success of missions in the East. It consists of letters written by Dr.
Knox while on a visit to the Indian Peninsula, and conveys a great deal of
information in a pleasing form. Works of this kind are eminently useful in
awakening or deepening the interest of Christians in the great matter of the

REGENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

173

world’s conversion to Christ — a remark which especially applies to this vol-
ume, if it be true, as a Presbyterian missionary of many years’ experience
told the writer, that the missions of our Methodist brethren are more suc-
cessful in Hindustan than those of any other evangelical body. A Chicago

Bible Class. By Ursula N. Gestefeld. (New York : U. S. Book Company.)
A very crude volume, without Index or Table of Contents, full of strange
assertion, but destitute of logical argument, and wrong from beginning to
end. A single extract (p. 15) will convey a just idea of the book’s worth :
“We see how by one man death entered into our world, and how all men
have so sinned because all are, individually, this one Adam. Then we
see that we are not sinners because Adam did sin in the past, but because

we are Adams.” Boston Homilies. Short Sermons on the International

S. S. Lessons for 1892. By Members of the Alpha Chapter of the Convo-
cation of Boston University. Second Series. (Ibid.) This volume con-
tains forty-eight discourses by as many different persons. They vary much
in character, but agree in being short, sensible and practical. They are
hardly as useful as they would be were fewer hands engaged. In general
the teachings are such as are common to evangelical churches, but one
homily (p. 167) quotes George McDonald’s objection to the doctrine of elec-
tion, and then asks, “ Who would not feel that he had lost his God and found
instead the power of evil, if he could for one moment bring himself to believe
that there was a being in the univei'se whom God did not love ?” The author
of this feminine logic — the writer is a woman — must admit that if God loves
Satan He has a vex-y singular way of showing it. And if there are no “ objects
of special benefaction,” how large a portion of both the Old Testament and the
New must be cut out and thrown away ? Visions. By Mrs. A. R. Simp-

son. (Edinburgh and London : Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier.) This is a
pleasant little booklet, suggesting in novel way the need of spiritual illumi-
nation to counteract the moil of daily life, to elevate the affections, to kindle
faith and hope, and give the future its due influence over the present. There
is great freshness in the treatment, and the author shows how visions have
an appropriate place in the believer’s experience, and make the imagination

a mighty helper in the Christian life. Christianity Between Sundays. By

George Hodges, Rector of Calvary Church, Pittsburgh. (T. Whittaker.) As
the title indicates, this volume contains a series of discourses, though not in
homiletic form, which aim to set forth every-day duties. The author writes
in a crisp, direct style, which never leaves one a moment in doubt as to his
meaning, and usually that meaning is sensible and wholesome, though not
always. He says (p. 72) that Christ dwelt more upon the duty of love to
man than on that of love to God, which is not the fact. The only love to
one’s brother which amounts to anything is rooted in love to God, and the
Master, unlike Mr. Hodges, laid stress on the chief thing. Nor is it true
that “ Christ taught sociology rather than theology.” The author is misled
by his zeal to say trenchant things l'ather than what is exactly true. But his
book is readable, and his unconventional way of saying what he thinks stirs
attention. He addresses the actual needs of men, and shows a warm sym-
pathy with all classes. Sometimes, as in the case of “ The Two Stumbling

Stones,” old truth is put with wonderful freshness and power. Our

Heavenly Rest. By Margaret Stewart Hormel. (Presbyterian Board of
Publication.) A collection of seven pleasant essays, one for each day in the
week, which set forth the attractions of the rest on high, its refreshing after
toil, its eternity, its rest from sin, its communion with God, its communion
with saints, its praise and its retrospect. A suggestive and helpful tract.

Our Scholars for Christ. By the Rev. R. Ballantine. (Ibid.) This is

a Scotch tract which, having proved very useful in Scotland as a stimulus to

174

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

parents and teachers, has been reproduced here, and is earnestly and justly

recommended by Dr. J. R. Miller. First Steps for the Little Ones. ( Ibid .)

This is a series of primary class lessons arranged by Mr. Israel P. Black. It
is extremely well done. — The Westminster Question Book for 1898. ( Ibid .)
This little volume is produced after the pattern of former years, and like its
predecessors is remarkable for giving a wealth of information packed into a
small compass. It is well suited for teachers and older scholars, but should
be studied at home and never brought into the Sunday-school. There the

Bible alone should be in the hands of teacher or scholar. The Voice from

Sinai: The Eternal Bases of the Moral Law. By F. W. Farrar, D.D. (T.
Whittaker.) This volume consists of a series of discourses delivered mainly
in Westminster Abbey, which accounts for their hortatory character, though
the book is not deficient in solid information. The somewhat florid rhetoric
of the Archdeacon appears on every page, yet this will doubtless attract more
readers than would a simpler and more scientific discussion. The author’s
aim was not so much to make an exhaustive treatise upon the decalogue as
to use its contents for a means of rebuking the errors of modem society and
summoning men to a higher, nobler life ; and he has accomplished his pur-
pose very well. The book will do good as a fresh application of the external
principles of morals to the usages and spirit of our own day. The conclud-
ing section, entitled “ Thou Shalt Not,” is a clever defense of the negative
character of many of the commandments, and the note appended on the
“ Sanction of the Second Command,” though by no means what it ought to
be, furnishes data enough for the intelligent reader to draw his own con-
clusion. Divine Brotherhood. Jubilee Gleanings, 1842-1892. By Newman

Hall, D.D. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.) This volume is a collection
of the tractates delivered at various periods in the author’s long ministry,
and now arranged in a Jubilee volume. The title is made to include all, as
one treats of the source of the brotherhood, another of its law, a third of its
friendship, etc., etc., though the connection is sometimes forced. But all
are pervaded by a common spirit, are richly evangelical, and thoroughly
practical, and the volume may well be taken as a faithful specimen of the
preaching heard in the famous pulpit which Dr. Hall so long occupied. The

section entitled “ The Saviour’s Bible ” is extremely well put. The People's

Bible. Discourses upon Holy Scripture. By Joseph Parker. Vol. xvii :
IIosea-Malachi. (Funk & WagnallsCo.) This volume concludes the Old
Testament, and bears witness to the diligence and enterprise of the author.
It is rare in these days, as the author justly says in the Preface, that one man
comments upon the whole of Scripture, and, though his work is not a literal
commentary, it is a series of sermons which range in orderly succession from
Genesis to Malachi, and therefore cover a very wide field. It is pleasant to
hear Dr. Parker testify from experience to the value of systematic and ex-
pository preaching. Certain it is that consecutive teaching brings out the
riches of the divine Word better than any other mode, and the People's Bible
offers a good many suggestive hints to those who affect this style of discourse.
The volume before us corresponds with those that have preceded it in vig-
orous thought and striking expression. It is, of course, no help to the
exegete, but it is of service in showing how the truths of Scripture may be
drawn out and applied to daily life. The first sermon in this volume is
entitled “ Ilosea Revised,” and consists of a series of passages in which it is
clearly shown how greatly the meaning of the prophet is clarified and em-
phasized by the late revision of the English Bible. The instances are well
selected and forcibly stated. One could wish that Dr. Parker had followed
his own suggestion in subsequent discourses, at least so far as to use or refer
to the Revision in cases where it relieves obvious obscurities, such as Joel ii.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

175

23, Amos viii. 8, Habak. ii. 3. His comments on the clause, “that he
may run that readeth it,” are based (pp. 342, 343) upon a complete mis-
apprehension of its only possible meaning. The publishers state that Dr.
Parker, having already published discourses upon much of the New Testa-
ment, only two more volumes are needed to complete the series of twenty-
five— a work which, after all needful abatements, is a striking testimony to

the author’s power and persistency. The American Tract Society have

issued a new and elegant Wall Roll entitled The Gospel in Picture and Text.
Each page contains a good delineation of some striking scene in the evan-
gelic history, on the sides of which are the passages which tell of the scene,
while below is a series of seven illustrative texts from other Scriptures, ar-
ranged so as to furnish one for every day in the week. The roll must be seen
to be appreciated. It seems to us very admirable. Repeated experience has
shown how useful such a roll may be, hung up in sight of an invalid, weak
and wearied by disease, who may be incapable of discussion or consecutive
thought, but is refreshed beyond expression by a glance at some well-chosen
words of the good book. Tlieologisches Hilfslexicon. (F. A. Perthes, fur-

nished by Westermann & Co.) We have to acknowledge Lieferungen 10, 11,
and 12, which continue the departments begun in previous issues, and begin
two new ones, the Kirchliche Kalender and the Verwaltungs-Tabellen, the
former of which gives the dates of Church history and of the more important
events of universal history, arranged according to the days of the year,
beginning with the first of January. The latter furnishes tables by which
one can find out on what day fell the Sunday or the Church festival of any
year from the beginning of the era ; also a variety of tables showing the
interest and compound interest of a given sum at varying rates and for
different periods. The publishers congratulate themselves with justice on
the wide sweep of the Helfslexicon's contents and its usefulness to pastors.
It is made up with German thoroughness and accuracy, and would prove an
acquisition to any library. The work has grown on the hands of its com-
pilers, and instead of being completed in about ten Lieferungen , as was prom-
ised at the beginning, will doubtless require more than twice that number.
Still the enlargement was not without reason. Ingersoll under the Micro-

scope. By T. M. Buckley, D.D. (Hunt & Eaton.) Usually it is not worth
while to notice the rhapsodies of the modern American blasphemer, but Dr.
Buckley, perceiving that the daily press had given currency to some of his
ravings, subjected them to a keen scrutiny, and this booklet gives the result

in a neat and readable form. Prayers from the Poets. Compiled by M. H.

(F. H. Revell Co.) This pretty volume contains a great variety of devo-
tional utterances from the pens of English and American authors, mostly of
our own century. The selection is well made, and there are few believers to

whom the book will not prove both attractive and useful. From the Pulpit

to the Palm Branch. A Memorial of C. H. Spurgeon. (A. C. Armstrong &
Son.) This volume, intended at first to report the memorial services held in
the Tabernacle after Mr. Spurgeon’s death, has been enlarged to a narrative
of the last chapter of his earthly life. It recounts his long illness, his last
month at Mentone, his last two addresses, and the last two articles he wrote,
together with five memorial sermons by the Rev. Dr. Pierson — the whole
making a very interesting book, and a just tribute to the most remarkable
preacher of the century. Some men dwindle on a close approach, but the
more one learns of Mr. Spurgeon the larger he looms as a herald of the cross

and the shepherd of a very numerous flock. The Heart of the Gospel.

Twelve Sermons. By Arthur T. Pierson. (New York: Baker & Taylor
Co.) These discourses were delivered in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in the
autumn of 1891, while the pastor was seeking to regain health at Mentone.

176

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

They were appropriate then, and are not less useful now, being earnest, evan-
gelical, direct, and impressive. The Sermon Bible. Acts vii-1 Cor. xvi.

(Ibid.) This is the ninth volume of the series, which has appeared with
remarkable regularity and promptness. It retains all the characteristics of
former volumes, and indeed seems to have improved upon them, doubtless
because there is a wider field to select from. A glance at these pa'^es will
give one a very fair notion of the homiletic literature of the present genera-
tion. The compilers are confined to no one sect or school or nationality, but
take the best wherever they can find it. Of course some selections give a
sample of what one is carefully to avoid, but in the main what is quoted is
just and helpful. But, as has often been said, the book is one which needs
to be used with discretion, for if made a crutch it will break and pierce the

arm that leans on it. Westermann & Co. have sent us Der Stand der

evangelischen Heidenmission in den Jahren 1SJ{5 und 1891. Von T. Dahl.
(Gutersloh : C. Beitilsmann.) This excellent manual has been translated from
the Danish into German by G. Kurze. Its origin is due to the fact that
Provost Vahl, the director of the Danish Missionary Society, read a paper on
Missions before the Evangelical Alliance at Florence, and in this paper set
forth the progress of the cause since the year 1845, in which the Alliance was
formed. His review of the forty-five years was so accurate and trustworthy
that it was desired to make it accessible to a wider circle, and hence came the
German version. The first part of the tractate describes the missionary field
on all the continents, and the different bodies at work there; the second
enumerates the various organizations at home formed for missionary pur-
poses ; and an Appendix furnishes a set of tables giving the statistics of each
mission. It appears that there are four times as many missionaries and nine-
teen times as many native helpers as there were in 1845. The Christians
have increased sixfold and so have the children and youth in the schools.
The total number of converts is estimated at two and three-quarter millions,
and these figures are within rather than beyond the truth. Forward the royal

banners go. Illustrative Notes on the Sunday-school Lessons for 1893. By

Jesse L. Hurlbut, D.D., and Robert R. Doherty, Ph.D. (New York: Hunt
& Eaton.) This handsome octavo gives the common version and the revised
of the lesson in parallel columns, and adds expositions original and selected,
illustrative anecdotes, archaeological notes, hints to teachers and practical
applications, together with pictures, maps, tables, and diagrams, the whole
making a volume of great interest and value. It is not easy to see that any-
thing has been omitted that would be of service to a thoughtful teacher.
The editors have done their work well, although not always following the
Revised Version when it gives a better rendering, even in places such as Job v.
24, where it presents the well-nigh unanimous consent of modern scholar-
ship. The American Tract Society have issued The Family Christian Al-

manac for 1893, which, like its predecessors for a long series of years, fur-
nishes in a correct form, and one adapted to the leading divisions of the
country, all the needful data of such a calendar and a variety of wholesome
reading matter illustrated with well-executed cuts. The little manual de-
serves its name, being thoroughly Christian in its contents, and suited to all

the members of the family. The same Society has also issued The Essex

Lad who became England's Greatest Preacher. By J. Manton Smith. The
volume gives an account of Mr. Spurgeon’s remarkable career in such a way
as to interest and impress young people. It contains several facsimiles of
his handwriting and a number of illustrations which always illustrate. The
book is admirably adapted to its purpose and must prove very useful.

New York. T. W. Chambers.

FOR USE IN LIBRARY ONLY

FOR use in library only

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Presbyterian and Reformed Review"

See other formats