Full text of "The Bible, the church and the reason : the three great fountains of divine authority"

See other formats

ico

THE BIBLE
THE CHURCH AND THE REASON

DR. BRIGGS' WORKS.

AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM. Its Origin and Early
History, together with an Appendix of Letters and
Documents, many of which have recently been dis
covered. Cr. bvo, with maps $3 oo

MESSIANIC PROPHECY. The Trediction of the Fulfil
ment of Redemption through the Messiah. A critical
study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament
in the order of their development. Cr. 8\o, . $2.50

BIBLICAL STUDY. Its Principles, Methods, and Historj
of its Branches. Fourth edition. Cr. Svo, . $2.50

WHITHER? A Theological Question for the Times.
Third edition. Cr. Svo, $J-75

THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. An Inaugural
Address. Third edition. Cr. Svo, paper, 50 cts.

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON. The
Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority. Cr.

. $1.75

Bvo.

• THE BIBLE
THE CHURCH AND THE REASON

THE THREE GREAT FOUNTAINS OF
DIVINE AUTHORITY

CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.

EDWARD ROBINSON PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IN THE UNION
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK

NEW YORK

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1892

PRESS OF

EDWARD O. JENKINS' SON,
NEW YORK.

TO
CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D.,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OF THE

UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK ;

THE SOLE SURVIVOR OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE SEMINARY ;

AND THE GENEROUS FRIEND WHO ENDOWED
THE EDWARD ROBINSON CHAIR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY,

IS DEDICATED WITH REVERENCE AND LOVE.

PREFACE.

THIS book contains seven lectures. Five of these
were prepared in response to requests that I should set
forth more fully the views expressed in my Inaugural
Address on the Authority of Holy Scripture. These
lectures were given in several churches in New York and
its vicinity. It was impossible to respond to the invita
tions to deliver them in other cities, because of the impera
tive engagements of the author in his professorial work.
It was not his intention to publish these lectures; but
he could not decline to comply with the many requests
for their publication from all parts of the land. The
lectures have been enlarged, furnished with notes, and
illustrated by numerous and extensive Appendices. To
these five lectures have been added a lecture on Biblical
History, delivered at the opening of the term of the
Union Theological Seminary, September 19, 1889, and
subsequently published in pamphlet form ; and a lecture
on the Messianic Ideal, prepared for Wellesley College,
and subsequently delivered there, and also at Oberlin
College, and before the American Institute of Sacred
Literature, at Chicago. These lectures have been added

viii PREFACE.

because they have an important bearing on the ques
tions in debate, and are involved in the theme of the
book.

The subjects discussed in this volume are of such im
portance that each one of the lectures might be regarded
as a summing up of material that would require a sepa
rate volume adequately to set it forth. Other lectures
might have been added upon other phases of the divine
Authority in the Bible, the Church, and the Reason.
The author does not propose to give an exhaustive dis
cussion of this theme ; but only several lectures upon the
most important phases of it. He does not treat even
these fully and exhaustively, but only in a general way,
and in their broad outlines. The lectures are offered to
the public as an introduction to a great theme and as
a contribution to the solution of some of the prob
lems involved in it, especially those now chiefly in de
bate. These are matters which lie at the roots of our
common Christianity. They are the questions which
force themselves upon us in this generation of our race.
It is impossible to ignore them. They cannot be
pushed aside by any other interests, because they are
more important than any other interests. They are not
merely theoretical questions for scholarly debate ; they
are practical matters upon which Christian life depends.
It is useless to dogmatize about them. They cannot be
determined by ecclesiastical process. They cannot be
crushed by violent measures. They are questions of
truth and fact, to be determined by weight of evidence

PREFACE. Jx

and by the witness of realities. They should be bravely,
honestly, and intelligently faced, and determined by
patient, diligent, painstaking, exhaustive, investigation of
truth and fact.

The differences that prevail within the Church and
without the Church as to the questions discussed in this
book, are the great barriers and stumbling-blocks in the
way of the peace, harmony, and unity of Christendom.
To remove them even at the cost of conflict with those
who insist upon their remaining, is the work of a true
Christian peacemaker. The author wrote his lectures
with this end in view. The peace, unity, prosperity, and
glory of Christ's Church are the aim of his labor and
his prayer, of his hope and his ambition ; and these he
assuredly sees as the goal of prophecy and history, and
as the crowning work of the reigning Redeemer.

CONTENTS.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH, p. i.

The authority to define the Canon of Holy Scripture, p. 2 ;
(2) The authority of interpreting Scripture, p. 8 ; (3) The
Westminster doctrine of the Church, p. 13; (4) The Church
is a great fountain of Divine Authority, p. 17.

II.

THE REASON AS A GREAT FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY,

p. 29.

This is shown, (i) from the Westminster doctrine, p. 30 ; (2) from
Holy Scripture, p. 38 ; (3) from the condition of the world,
p. 43 ; (4) from the nature of rrian, p. 48 ; (5) from Church
History, p. 50; (6) from Christian experience, p. 54.

III.

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY, p. 57.

What is meant by Fountains of authority? p. 57; (2) Are the
three fountains co-ordinate ? p. 63 ; (3) The Reason is not a
rule of faith, p. 66; (4) The unique authority of Holy Scrip
ture, p. 73; (5) The Church has divine authority in its
institutions, p. 83 ; (6) The unity of the Fountains in the
Messiah, p. 84.

(xi)

xii CONTENTS.

IV.

Is HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? p. 91.

The infallible rule of faith and practice, p. 92 ; (2) Kept pure
in all ages, p. 95 ; (3) The Word of God contained in Holy
Scripture, p. 99 ; (4) The Scriptures do not claim inerrancy,
p. 107; (5) Inerrancy is not an orthodox doctrine, p. 109; (6)
Inerrancy is a dangerous doctrine, p. 113.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM, p. 118.

What is Higher Criticism, p. 119; (2) Problems of the Higher
Criticism, p. 122; (3) Dogmatic obstacles, p. 125; (4) The
evidences used by the Higher Criticism, p. 135; (5) The
Higher Criticism is constructive, p. 148.

VI.
BIBLICAL HISTORY, p. 152.

What is Biblical History? p. 152; (2) The four types, p. 158; (3)
The theophanic presence of God, p. 161; (4) The theocratic
historian, p. 165; (5) The prophetic historian, p. 167; (6)
The theologian's view of history, p. 170; (7) The oriestly
historian, p. 171.

VII.
THE MESSIANIC IDEAL, p. 177.

The ideal of mankind, p. 182; (2) The woman's seed, p. 185;
(3) The Advent of God, p. 186 ; (4) The blessing of Abraham,
p. 189; (5) The Kingdom of priests, p. 192; (6) The Prophet
greater than Moses, p. 194; (7) The Messianic king, p. 195 ;
(8) The day of Jahveh, p. 198.

CONTENTS. Xlll

APPENDIX.

I. NEW EVIDENCES FOR THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIP
TURE, p. 205.

II. A LOW-CHURCH MODIFICATION OF THE POWER OF THE

KEYS, p. 208.

III. A RECOGNITION OF THE SALVATION OF ELECT

HEATHEN, p. 208.

IV. THE SUPPOSED CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS OF

DIVINE AUTHORITY, p. 210.
V. SOME OF THOSE WHO FIND ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE,

p. 215.
VI. WHO ARE " THE HIGHER CRITICS " ? p. 236.

VII. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE

NAME JAHVEH, p. 248.

VIII. THE DECALOGUE OF J. AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE

OTHER CODES, p. 250.

IX. THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY,
P. 273-

X. THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THEOLOGICAL

ENCYCLOPAEDIA, p. 275.
XI. EICHHORN'S VIEW OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER

CRITICISM, p. 277.
XII. MIRACLES AND THEOPHA.NIES, p. 279.

XIII. PROPHECY AND THEOPHANY, p. 280.

XIV. THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN, p. 281.
XV. THE. POEM OF THE CREATION, p. 283.

XVI. THE MINUTE DETAILS OF PREDICTION, p. 286.

INDEX, p. 291.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.

THE Church and the Bible are gifts of God for the re
demption of the world. There ought to be no conflict,
no rivalry, no jealousy between them ; for each has its
own place and importance, each its own special work to
do for God and humanity. And yet, in fact, there
is now, and long has been, jealousy, rivalry, and conflict
in Christendom between those who are zealous for the
supremacy of the Bible, and those who are zealous for
the supremacy of the Church. The discord has not yet
been removed. The conflict still goes on to the detri
ment of the best interests of Christ and Christianity.

The relative authority of Bible and Church was one of
the great battle grounds of the Reformation. The
Roman Catholic party in the Church claimed that the
Church had divine authority to determine the canon of
Holy Scripture, to give the official interpretation of Holy
Scripture and to define all questions of doctrine and
practice not defined by Scripture. The Protestant party
in the Church denied the authority of the Church at
these points. They asserted the independent divine
authority of the Holy Scriptures ; and the independent
rights of the conscience and private judgment. We re
serve the consideration of the relation of the Church

2 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

to the Reason for our next lecture. We shall now con
sider the authority of the Church in its relation to Holy
Scripture,
(i). The Authority to define the Canon of Holy Scripture.

The Roman Catholic party defined the Canon of Holy
Scripture at the Council of Trent, claiming that the
Church had divine authority so to do in accordance with
its traditions.*

The Protestant party denied the authority of the
Church in this particular, and claimed that Holy Scrip
ture had sovereign independent authority in itself.

Thus Luther in his controversy with Eck said: "The
Church cannot give any more authority or power than it
has of itself. A council cannot make that to be of Scrip
ture which is not by nature of Scripture." f Calvin
says:

• " But there has very generally prevailed a most pernicious
error that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is conced
ed to them by the suffrages of the Church, as though the eter
nal and inviolable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will of
man." ....

" For as God alone is a sufficient witness of Himself in His own
Word, so also the Word will never gain credit in the hearts of
men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit.
It is necessary, therefore, that the same Spirit who spake by the
mouths of the prophets should penetrate into our hearts, to con
vince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles which were
divinely intrusted to them" (Institutes, I. 7).

This principle is well expressed in the second Helvetic
Confession, the most honored in the Reformed Church :

* " But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire
with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church,
and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition ; and knowingly and
deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid ; let him be anathema." — TJ,e Can
ons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Decree IV.

t Disputatio exc. theol. Joh. Eccii et Lutheri, hist., iii., 129 seq.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.

"We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy
prophets to be the very true word of God, and to have sufficient
authority of themselves, not of men" (Chap. I.). 'Therefore in
controversies of religion or matters of faith we cannot admit any
other judge than God Himself, pronouncing by the Holy Scrip
tures what is true and what is false ; what is to be followed, or
what is to be avoided " (Chap. II.).

The Gallican Confession gives a similar statement :

"We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of
our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the
Church, as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy
Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other eccle
siastical books " (IV. Art.).

The Scotch Confession of 1560 maintains the position
of the reformers :

" As we beleeveand confesse the Scriptures of God sufficient to
instruct and make the man of God perfite, so do we affirme and
avow the authentic of the same to be of God, and nether to
depend on men nor angelis. We affirme then therefore, that sik
as allege the scripture to have na authoritie bot that quhilk
it hes received from the Kirk, to be blasphemous against God,
and injurious to the trew Kirk, quhilk alwaies heares and obey is
the voice of her awin spouse and Pastor; bot takis not upon her
to be maistres over the samen " (Art. XIX.).

This doctrine is also taught distinctly in the West
minster Confession.

"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the
Church, to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture ;
and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine,'
the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope
of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full dis
covery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many
other incomparable excellencies and the entire perfection there
of, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to
be the word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion
and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof,

4 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by
and with the Word in our hearts " (I. 56).

This doctrine of the independent sovereign authority
of Holy Scripture as sufficient of itself to convince, as
sure and give infallible certainty to men as regards its
own authority, is one of the most precious doctrines of
the Reformation. The divine authority of Holy Scrip
ture consists in the presence and power of God in it and
with it. God Himself speaks to men through the Bible.
The Church has divine authority to teach and to preach
the Holy Scriptures. But the Church cannot impart
any authority whatever to them. The Church recognizes
in the Scriptures the same divine energy and authority
which pervades and controls the Church itself. A Chris
tian man knows that Holy Scripture is the Word of God.
The Church as a holy organization of Christians bears
united and concordant testimony to the authority of
Holy Scripture. Holy Church sees in Holy Scripture an
authority entirely independent of itself, to which it does
obeisance and yields allegiance as holy and divine. The
Roman Catholic party, as we understand it, does not
dispute this fundamental position ; but it builds upon it
the claim that the Church has in its possession an oral
traditional Holy Word, of equal divine authority; and
also a divine right of giving the sense of Scripture
and tradition, to which every man must yield obedience
as to the voice of God. The Church thus interposes as
the mediator of the divine Word between the individual
Christian and the fountain of Holy Scripture. It stands
guard at the fountain and fills its ecclesiastical vessels
with the waters of truth and so gives them to the Chris
tian people.

A later Protestantism fell away from the genuine prin
ciple of the Reformation, and sought to reintroduce the

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 5

principle of ecclesiastical authority in an indirect way
apart from Roman Catholic tradition. It lost faith in
the Scriptures themselves as a fountain of divine au
thority, and sought to hew out dogmatic cisterns into
which it might store such portions of the water of
life as it might force into them through the conduits
of deductive reasoning. And so they repeat the fault of
the Roman Catholic party in a more aggravated form.
They impair the fundamental principle of Protestantism
in a still more serious way.

The Scriptures of themselves win the confidence of
men by the authority of the divine truth that is in them
and by the divine grace that flows forth .from them. A
mere dogmatic faith may be anxious about Holy Scrip
ture, and undertake to defend it with the batteries of
scholastic dogma. Such a faith has more confidence in
dogma than in Scripture. But a living faith uses the
Scriptures themselves as the most potent weapons to
overcome doubt, to confirm and fortify faith and to main
tain the truth, because it is assured that they are the
power of God unto salvation.

In recent times some Protestant theologians have en
deavored to prop the divine authority of the Scriptures
by arguments drawn from traditional sources. They
have even gone so far as to rest the authority of the
canon of Holy Scripture upon the probable evidence of
its acceptance by the early Church. They make the
canonicity of Scripture a purely historical question, and,
therefore, can never go beyond the range of probability,
can never reach certainty.* The same questions as to

* Dr. Francis L. Patton admits that he and his teachers have departed from
the position of the Reformers in this respect, when he says : '• It does not tend
in the slightest degree to reconcile us to these opinions to say that the Reformers
entertained them. It would not be strange if in their opposition to the claims of

Q THE BIBLE, TE1E CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

the canonicity of certain books of Scripture which were
disputed in the early Church are again raised. If canon
icity be a purely historical question, scholars doubt the
propriety of resting their faith upon the judgment of a
majority of Christians in the second century, no wiser or
better than ourselves. If canonicity be a purely histori
cal question, the serious reflection presses itself upon us
in our historical investigation, that we thereby gain only
fallible human evidence after all, and that there is no
avenue to certainty in that direction. How can we get
an infallible Holy Scripture from a fallible tradition
reaching back to uncertain human testimony in the early
Christian Church? If we could recognize with Roman
Catholics the divine authority of tradition in the Church
as resting on the authority of Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit no less than the written Word, then we might
rest the canon of Scripture with confidence on that tra
dition. But we would be obliged to include in the
canon the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. But,
if we deny the divine authority of the Church and the
divine authority of the traditional teaching of the
Church, we cannot safely build the authority of the
canon upon a discredited tradition and a discredited
Church. If any one should attempt by historical criti
cism or by subjective tests of any kind to eliminate the
apocryphal books, he would have the same right to go
further, and for sufficient reasons eliminate other writings
also from the canon. The canon we would have left us by
such an historical sifting, would be only a selected part
of a discredited tradition. This is the perilous position
in which we are left by those who depart from the posi
tion of the Reformers and the Westminster divines,

the Church of Rome, they went to the opposite extreme, and were in danger of
falling into the errors of the mystics." — Presb. Review, IV., p. 346.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. f

and claim that canonicity is a purely historical ques
tion.*

The dogmaticians have also gone so far as to identify
the canonicity and divine authority of Scripture with
questions of authorship and dates of Biblical books, and
thus array their doctrine of the canon of Holy Scripture
against the science of literary criticism. Accordingly,
the question whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch,
Isaiah wrote the whole of the prophecy that bears his
name, whether Jonah is history or fiction, whether Joel
was the first of the prophets or one of the latest, whether
Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, and John the
Apocalypse — all these and numberless other purely
literary questions they have so identified with their
theories of inspiration and canonicity, that they imperil
their doctrine of the canon with every change that takes
place in the theories and results of Biblical criticism. f

It is not surprising that many thinking men in our

* We again cite Calvin as a witness to the faith of the Reformation. " This is
a principle that distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God
hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at
their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered
what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever, then,
wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled
point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to
the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.

" If it be objected, ' How can this be known ? ' I answer, both to disciples and
to teachers, God is made known to be the author of it by the revelation of the
same Spirit. Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have re
ceived from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and
fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord
that spake. The same Spirit, therefore, who made Moses and the prophets cer
tain of their calling, now also testifies to our hearts, that He has employed them
as His servants to instruct us. Accordingly, we need not wonder if there are
many who doubt as to the Author of the Scripture ; for, although the majesty
of God is displayed in it, yet none but those who have been enlightened by the
Holy Spirit have eyes to perceive what ought, indeed, to have been visible to all,
and yet is visible to the elect alone." — Calvin on 2 Tim. iii. 16.

t See " Higher Criticism," 118 seq.

8 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

time reject a Bible which has been offered to them
cushioned on such authority as this, and inextricably
entwined with the uncertainties and errors of traditional
theology. They turn from these traditional theories to
their own conscience and religious feeling. Nor is it
surprising that many cultivated men, anxious for certi
tude of faith, turn away from these fluctuating and un
certain evidences and take refuge in the divine authority
of the Church. Such theories are laboratories of Ration
alists and Roman Catholics. The only way to stop the
leaks of Protestantism is to discard the scholastic dog
mas of later Protestantism and to reaffirm the original
Protestant principles.

The Reformers and the Puritans refused to define
questions of Biblical criticism or in any way to mingle
questions of authorship with the authority of Holy
Scripture. They assert that historical evidence is prob
able ; but that the divine evidence in the Scriptures
themselves gives the believer certainty, the assurance
that his faith and life are founded upon the word of
God, which cannot be broken, changed, or avoided.

" The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any
man [Moses or Paul, David or John] or church [Greek Catholic,
Roman Catholic, or Protestant Catholic], but wholly upon God
(who is truth itself), the author thereof ; and, therefore, it is to
be received, because it is the word of God." *

(2). The authority of interpreting Scripture.

. The Roman Catholic party in the Church also claim
that the Church has divine authority in the interpreta
tion of Holy Scripture.

This doctrine is moderately expressed by the best in-

* W. C., I. 4. The words in italics are inserted as explanations.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 9

terpreter prior to the Reformation, Nicolaus de Lyra, who
says :

" I protest, I intend to say nothing either in the way of asser
tion or determination, except in relation to such things as have
been clearly settled by Holy Scripture on the authority of the
church. All besides must be taken as spoken scholastically
and by way of exercise ; for which reason I submit all I have
said, and aim to say, to the correction of our holy mother the
church " (Postzllae, prol. II.).

So also in the Profession of the Tridentine Faith, it is
said :

" I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense
which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which
it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the
Scriptures ; neither will I ever take and interpret them other
wise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers "
(III.).*

Wicklif, the morning star of the Reformation, gave
expression to the doctrine of the reforming party in the
Church when he said :

" The Holy Spirit teaches us the sense of Scripture as Christ
opened the Scriptures to his apostles. "t

Luther said :

" It is the attribute of Holy Scripture that it interprets itself
by passages and places which belong together, and can only be
understood by the rule of faith." J

The Westminster Confession sets forth this doctrine
of the Reformers, thus :

* " Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees, that no one,
relying on his own skill, shall,— in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining
to the edification of Christian doctrine, — wresting the sacred Scripture to his
own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy mother Church,— whose it is to judge of the true sense and inter
pretation of the Holy Scriptures,— hath held and doth hold."— The Canons and
Decrees of the Council cf Trent, Decree IV.

t Lechler, John Wiclif, Lorimer's edition, i., p. 295.

J Walch, iii., p. 2042.

10 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scrip
ture itself, and therefore when there is a question about the true
and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one)
it must be searched and known by other places that speak more
clearly " (I. 9).

This passage clearly teaches that Scripture is to be its
own interpreter ; that the meaning of Scripture in diffi
cult passages is to be determined by the meaning of
places that speak more clearly on the subject, that the
rule of faith is contained in the Scripture itself. To use
the words of a member of the Westminster Assembly of
divines:

" The analogy of faith is nothing else but the constant and
perpetual sentence of Scripture in the clearest places of it." *

This doctrine is irreconcilably opposed to those in our
times who interpret the Scriptures, not by its own rule
of faith, " the clearest places in it," but by another rule
of faith external to it, such as the " Reformed System of
doctrine," or the "Calvinistic Rule of Faith," and too
often also by the utterances of some favorite dogma-
tician. This doctrine of the Reformation needs great
emphasis at the present time, in the effort of the Church
to throw off from the Scripture and modern thought
the incubus of traditional dogma. Protestants did not
renounce pope Leo X. in order to exalt pope Luther or
pope Calvin, still less those little popes who appear in
succession in the different countries and churches and
who try so hard to dominate theology by the use of
such ecclesiastical machinery as may happen to be with
in their reach.

On Malvern hills is a holy well to which pilgrims have
resorted from the most ancient times, on account of the
matchless purity and tonic properties of its waters.

* Sam. Bolton, Arraignment of Err our, 1646, p. 250.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.

Some years ago an enterprising citizen gained possession
of the holy well, built a bottling establishment about it,
and now sells the water in bottles properly labelled and
sealed. It is true a trickling stream is allowed to flow
for the free use of the public, but if one desires the holy
water fresh and full from the fountain, he must enter
the bottling establishment or drink it from the bottles.
This is the way dogmaticians and ecclesiastics have
dealt with the holy water of life welling up from the
Word of God. They may encourage the free circulation
of the Scriptures, but if you study them you must not
find anything different from the so-called orthodox in
terpretation. If you would have the genuine, pure, and
uncorrupted article, you must take it in that dogmatic
system which has been prepared by elect hands, and
which has been labelled and sealed with the well-known
seal of a certain school of theology. Thus they bottle
the Word of God in human dogmas and encase its
holy doctrines in their speculative systems, and they
discard as mystical the cardinal doctrine of the West
minster Confession and all the creeds of the Reforma
tion, that Scripture is its own interpreter and its own
rule of faith.

If it be necessary that we should be controlled by tra
ditional dogma^ in interpreting Holy Scripture, any his
torical scholar would prefer ancient Catholic tradition to
a tradition which goes no farther back than the Swiss
and Dutch scholasticism of the i/th century, or to its
ill-formed and sickly child which was born in American
schools of theology not a century ago. But we are not
forced into such a cruel dilemma. Genuine Protestant
ism, as defined by the symbolical books of the Reforma
tion, and true Puritanism as set forth in the Westminster
Confession, refer us to the Scriptures themselves as the

12 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

only infallible rule of faith and life ; and to the Holy
Spirit speaking in Holy Scripture as the only infallible
judge in matters of religion.

The Reformers rescued the Holy Scriptures from the
hands of ecclesiastics and exalted them to an independ
ent, divine authority as the only infallible rule of faith
and practice. The Church has no authority to determine
the canon of Holy Scripture, but accepts the canon as it
is given by God Himself to His Church. The Church
cannot interpret the Scripture with divine authority.
Scripture is its own interpreter to every conscientious
student. The reason, the conscience, human prudence
and judgment must be freely and fully employed in
searching the Scriptures, for God will fill all these facul
ties of human nature with their appropriate holy contents
of grace from the inexhaustible fountain of the Word of
God itself.

The Westminster Confession in the first chapter gives
the best statement of the doctrine of Holy Scripture
which has yet been framed by man. It ought to remain
untouched by revision. Biblical theology has no fault
to find with this chapter. It urges that its noble doc
trine should become a reality in the Christian experience
of God's people. The change proposed by the Commit
tee on Revision of the General Assembly of the Presby
terian Church in the United States of America, is like a
mud spot on a beautiful garment.*

The children of the Puritans should maintain the en
tire doctrine of the Scriptures set forth in the first chap
ter of their Confession, in all its sections and in all its
sentences and clauses, in its unity and variety and har
mony ; and they should reject every doctrine that op-

* See Appendix I,

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. ^3

poses it. Above all, they ought to trample under foot all
those dogmatic conceits and traditional explanations of
modern divines which make the Puritan doctrine of the
Bible void and of no effect.

(3). The Westminster Doctrine of the Church.

The reforming party in the Church did not seek to de
stroy the Church, but to reform it. When Reformation
resulted in the breaking up of the Church in Northern
and Western Europe into a number of national churches,
the fathers of those churches never for a moment thought
of denying the divine authority of the Church within its
own sphere. They deprived the Church of its usurped
authority over the Holy Scriptures and the consciences
of men ; but they did not take from the Church any au
thority that it rightfully possessed by divine right or
historic right. When the Puritan fathers sought to re
form the Church of England they repudiated the author
ity of monarch and prelates over Christ's heritage, and
maintained the crown rights of Jesus Christ ; but they
asserted as strongly as the Anglo-Catholics the divine
authority of the Church of God.

It is significant that the Westminster Confession gives
seven chapters upon the doctrine of the Church and of the
sacraments, doctrines as essential and necessary to the
system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession
as the doctrine of Holy Scripture contained in the first
chapter.

(a). The Westminster Confession teaches clearly that
the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, when
it says :

" The Lord Jesus as king and head of His Church, hath therein
appointed a government in the hand of church officers, distinct
from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the king
dom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power

14: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom against
the impenitent, both by the word and censures ; and to open it
unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel, and by ab
solution from censures, as occasion shall require" (W. C. F.,
xxx. i, 2).

We know that the Committee on Revision of the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America weaken the force of this chap
ter by inserting the qualifying clause, "ministerial and
declarative," before power, but this clause will not do
away with the doctrine — it simply shows that the Com
mittee on Revision have, in a measure, receded from the
high ground of the Confession so sturdily maintained in
the i/th century.*

Unless the members of presbyteries, synods, and the
General Assembly have been called to their high office
by the authority of Jesus Christ, speaking to them first
in their own reasons in the internal call, and then through
the authority of the Church in the external call of ordi
nation, they are no courts of Jesus Christ, no church
organization, whatever else they may be. Unless Jesus
Christ has committed to them the keys of the kingdom
of heaven they have no authority whatever to exercise
ecclesiastical discipline ; they are usurping the crown
rights of Jesus Christ, which He has given only to His
Church, if with their voice they deny the divine authority
of the Church, and in their acts endeavor to exercise
that authority, f

*See Appendix II.

fWe give an extract from a Presbyterian authority only second to that of
the Westminster Assembly itself :

" Ministers do not receive their Ministrie from the People, or Bishops, but im-
mediatly from Jesus Christ : For they are Ministers and Embassadors of Christ,
not of the People : Indeed they are Embassadors for the good of the People, but
not Embassadors of the People : All that the people or Bishop doth, is but to
choose zmd ordain a man ; but it is Christ that gives him his power and authority :

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. . ^5

(b\ The Westminster Confession further teaches that

" The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under
the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law),
consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true
religion, together with their children ; and is the kingdom of
the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which
there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

" Unto the catholic visible church Christ hath given the minis
try, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and per
fecting of the saints in this life, to the end of the world, and doth
by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make
them effectual thereunto " (C. F., xxv. 2-3).

This clearly teaches that according to Puritan doc
trine," the visible church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus
Christ ; that he hath given the ministry, oracles, and or
dinances of God unto it ; and doth by his own presence
and Spirit make them effectual." If a Presbytery is not
a court of the kingdom of Christ erected by divine
authority, if Presbyterian ministers have not been given
the ordinances by Jesus Christ to administer in His
name; if Jesus Christ and His Spirit are not present in
the midst of them— then they are no part of the Church
of Christ at all. The only clause in this section to
which modern Christians take exception is the state
ment, " out of which there is no ordinary possibility of sal
vation." This is no longer believed ; because it is the
common opinion that millions of unbaptized children
and considerable numbers of other unbaptized persons

As when a wife chooseth a husband, and a Town a Mayor ; the Town doth not
give the Mayor, nor the wife the husband, the power they have ; but the Laws
of God, the one ; and of Man, the other : So it is here. It is Christ that gives
the Office, and the Call to the Ministry ; They are Ins Servants, and in his Name
Execute their function. It is he that fits them with ability for their work."—
From A Vindication of the Presbyferiall Government and Ministry, page 145.
Published, by the Ministers, and Elders, met together in a Provinciall Assembly,
Novenib. zd, 1649.

16 . THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

in heathen lands and also in Christian lands are to be
counted among those who are in process of salvation.
The statement of the Confession is in other respects a
true statement. There is divine authority in the Church,
it is Christ's kingdom, He reigns over it, He inhabits it
by His Spirit, He makes its institutions efficacious, He
grants access to Himself through His Church. Those
who deny the doctrine that the Church is a great foun
tain of divine authority, are guilty of transgressing essen
tial and necessary articles of the Westminster Confes
sion ; they take away from the Presbyterian Church the
only ground for its existence.

(c). The Westminster Confession teaches that :

" The sacraments are holy signs and seals of the cove
nant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ
and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him " (xxvii. i).

The sacraments are therefore divine institutions, hav
ing divine authority, as holy signs and seals ; and they
do in fact represent Christ and His benefits; they do in
deed confirm our interest in Him.

The Confession teaches that :

" The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time
wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right
use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but
really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost " (xxviii. 6).

If the Holy Spirit does in fact confer divine grace
in the right use of the sacrament of baptism, is it not a
great fountain of divine grace and of divine authority?
The Confession teaches that : In the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper

" Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements
in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and in
deed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive
and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death : the

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. ^7

body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally
in, with, or under the bread and wine ; yet as really, but spirit
ually, present to the faith of belivers in that ordinance, as the
elements themselves are, to their outward senses " (xxix. 7).

If they spiritually receive and feed upon Christ, if the
body and blood of Christ are really present to the faith
of believers in that ordinance, then there is divine grace
present in the Lord's Supper. Is it not then a great
fountain of divine authority?

Those who deny that there is divine authority in the
Church, deny the sacraments as divine institutions, rob
them of the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and
make them of no effect as means of grace.

Those Presbyterians who contend against the divine
authority of the Church cut out seven chapters from the
Westminster system of doctrine and strike at the vitals
of institutional Christianity.*

(4). The Church is a great Fountain of divine

A uthority.

(i). Our Saviour said :

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ;
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatso
ever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."!

* These seven chapters of the Westminster Confession have been greatly
neglected by American divines. On a common factor of 1630 the Westminster
Confession gives 295 to these subjects and the new articles of the Presbyterian
Church of England 321, but Dr. Charles Hodge gives but 150 and Dr. Shedd
but 43. It is also noteworthy that the self-styled committee of prosecution of the
Presbytery of New York, in their charges and specifications where they represent
that I am in error in teaching that " the Church is a great fountain of divine au
thority " do not make a single citation from these seven chapters which give the
Westminster doctrine of the Church. If I am in error on the doctrine of the
Church, some statement in these chapters ought to show it. It would rather
seem that my prosecutors do not hold the Westminster doctrine of the Church.

t Matth. xvi. 18, 19.

18 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Whatever interpretation of this passage may be prefer
red, in any case, it is certain that the Church in some sense
has the power of the keys by the institution of Christ.

In accord with this promise the Church was establish
ed by the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven on the
day of Pentecost to abide in the Church until the end of
the world.

Paul teaches the Ephesfens that Christians are "built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ; in whom
each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into
a holy temple in the Lord." *

Christ is the king reigning on His heavenly throne.
His Church is His kingdom over which He reigns
through the ministry called and endowed by Him. Christ
is the head of His body, His Church. Christ is the vine
stock, all His people are branches of Him. Christ is the
shepherd, His Church is the flock. Christ is the husband,
His Church is His bride. Christ is the corner-stone of
His temple the Church. Christ is the holy place of the
temple of the city of God. Those who deny that the
Church is a great fountain of divine authority, deny
thereby this entire group of doctrines of Holy Scripture.
They deny the reign of Christ over His Church. They
deny the presence of Christ and His Spirit in the Church.
They deny vital union and mystic communion of the
Church with her Lord. They take away from the
Church its divine power, its energy of grace, its effica
cious Spirit, its divine Saviour, and leave it a shell empty
of divine content.

(2). The condition of the world shows that the Church
is a great fountain of divine authority. What shall we

* Ephesians ii. 20, 21.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. jg

do with the great majority of nominal Christians at the
present time in countries where the Roman, Greek, and
Oriental churches have the supremacy, where the Holy
Scriptures are little known and where men are taught to
find God through the Church? Who among us is ready
to say, that this largest section of Christendom, em
bracing churchmen of every name, who claim that they
find God and divine certitude through the Church,
is altogether mistaken ? The testimony is so extensive
and so concordant that no one should doubt it without
urgent reasons to the contrary. Will any one claim that
God withholds Himself from every one who does not seek
Him through His Word ? The late Cardinal Newman was
a representative churchman of our days, a man of the
highest culture, of deep insight into the things of God, a
saintly man, a man of God, if there ever was such in the
world. If it be heresy to take such a man at his word,*
and say that he found divine certainty through the
Church, I glory in such heresy. For it is a heresy that
I share with the Reformers and the Westminster divines.
It is a heresy which is regarded by the Christian world,
apart from a narrow set of modern Bibliolaters, as Chris
tian orthodoxy. I would rather follow Newman into
the presence of my Master than risk the companionship
of those uncharitable men who would exclude him from

* ;c From the time that I became a Catholic, of course I have no further history
of my religious opinions to narrate. In saying this, I do not mean to say that my
mind has been idle, or that I have given up thinking on theological subjects; but
that I have had no changes to record, and have had no anxiety of heart what
ever. I have been in perfect peace and contentment. I never have had one
doubt. I was not conscious to myself, on my conversion, of any difference of
thought or of temper from what I had before. I was not conscious of firmer
faith in the fundamental truths of revelation or of more self-command ; I had
not more fervor ; but it was like coming into port after a rough sea ; and my
happiness on that score remains to this day without interruption."— Newman's
AfOtOgM Pro Vita &ua, p. 204.

20 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASOil.

the kingdom of God. With the burning words of Jesus
sounding in my ears:

" Woe unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites ! because ye
shut the kingdom of heaven against men." *

I would fear lest the Master should say to such a com
pany : I know you not. Ye have none of my spirit, ye
are none of mine.

(3). Church history shows that the Church is a great
fountain of divine authority. It is well known to all
historians that, prior to the great Reformation, the Bible
was not in the hands of the Christian people. Few even
of the priests and prelates used it, except in those por
tions which were sung in the liturgy of the Church. It
was the common doctrine of Christendom that men were
to seek God and find Him in and through the Church.
Those, therefore, who deny that the Church has been a
great fountain of divine authority, would blot out of ex
istence the Church before the Reformation. They find
ages of Christianity that are dark indeed, because the
light of divine authority was put under the bushel and
hidden away with the Bible from public use. They
take the position of the radical party at the Reforma
tion, that there was no true Church in all that long
period. They destroy the divine continuity of the
Church. They make the ministry and the sacraments
altogether invalid. They make the greater part of
Church history a dark tunnel, or a subterranean river,
as if the true Church flowed into the tunnel away from
the light of day and knowledge of men, only to emerge
after thirteen or fourteen centuries as a trickling stream
in the midst of a nominal Christian world. God forbid
that any one should hold such a cruel doctrine.

* Matt, xxiii. 13.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHUKCH.

X4). Biblical history shows that the Church is a great
fountain of divine authority. If we go back of Church
history into Biblical history, we find that the Church
antedates the Bible. If there had been no divine au
thority in the Church, there would have been no divine
canon of Holy Scripture. God called Abraham to found a
holy family in the midst of the earth, centuries before
any holy writing of our canon was composed. God es
tablished by covenant the children of Israel to be a king
dom of priests, a holy nation, before the proclamation of
the ten words, before a single one of the statutes of the
code of the covenant, or any other of the Pentateuchal
codes was framed. So Jesus Christ commissioned His
apostles, and the Holy Spirit planted the Church, and
trained it in its earliest and most important lessons of
life, institution, and doctrine, decades before a single one
of the writings of the New Testament canon was writ
ten. Indeed, it was necessary that the Church should
be inhabited of God and His Spirit, and be filled with
the divine authority of Jesus Christ, or the Holy Scrip
tures could never have been written, would never have
been collected, would never have been preached, and
would never have exerted their divine influence upon
the children of men. We do not say that the Church
is superior in authority to the Scriptures ; or that the
Church is co-ordinate with the Scriptures; but we do
say that, in the order of time, God spake through the
Church before He spake through the Bible. We do not
see how it was possible for God to do otherwise, if He
designed to give a holy Bible to the world. It was
necessary that there should be an organized society,
filled with the Holy Ghost, ere the sacred writings could
be produced, codified in a canon, and proclaimed to the
world as the Word of God. Those, therefore, who deny

22 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority
strike at the vitals of the Bible itself, and imperil the
authority of those very Scriptures which they design to
exalt and to honor.

(5). Christian experience shows that the Church is a
great fountain of divine authority. One of the greatest
faults in modern Protestantism is its neglect of the divine
authority of the Church and the efficacy of the sacraments.
The Reformers and the early Puritans were mighty in
the battle for Christian life and doctrine, for the reason
that they were deeply sensible of the divine authority of
the Church and the sacraments. When they assembled
for public worship, they knew that they were worship
ping a present God. When they partook of the bread and
wine of the Lord's Supper, they were conscious of a
present Christ. When they preached the gospel and
contended for the faith of the saints, they experienced
the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

I can understand very well that a man may become so
infatuated with dogma as to think that dogma is more
important than religious experience, and deliberately to
choose dogma rather than Christian life. The preach
ing of such dogma may be carried on in a Church all un
conscious of divine authority and distinguished by the
absence of God. Dead orthodoxy is an inalienable char
acteristic of Pharisaism in all ages. But the Bible and
the Church, Christian history and Christian experience,
the Westminster Confession, and all other historic Con
fessions, so far as I know, agree in teaching that our God
is really present in the Church, and that the Church is
a great fountain of divine authority. No dogma is Chris
tian dogma unless it is alive with Christian faith and
active in a fruitful life. " If any man willeth to do His will,
he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.

or whether I speak from myself." * Indeed, the Bible
cannot exert its full power upon men unless the divine
authority that is in the Church sing to the soul with
responsive voice. For while we all agree that God
grants His presence and the assurance of His divine
authority to men in the simple, private reading of the
Word, yet it is the common doctrine of all churches
that it is the Word in the hands of the ministry, that is
the sharp two-edged sword of the divine Spirit, flashing
with the light of divine truth and flaming with the fire
of divine love.

It is the public reading of the Scriptures and the pub
lic preaching of the Word, or, in other words, it is the
Bible in the hands of the Church, that after all is the
power of God unto salvation ; for the authority of God
speaking in Holy Scripture is re-echoed by the authority
of God speaking through the Church, and in the blend
ing of that wondrous harmony, sinners are converted
and regenerated, and the people of God are edified and
sanctified.

" Dogma is not a substitute for truth, but a guide to its appre
hension. To accept a dogma on the Church's external author
ity, is only the first step to apprehending it for ourselves. In
deed, till ' dogma ' has ceased to be a mere dogma, and become
part of our own spiritual apprehension, we are not developed
Christians, 'spiritual men ' (i Cor. ii. 15), and private judgment is
only in error where it refuses to be enlightened by the catholic
judgment. Scripture, the Church's mind, our own spiritual ap
prehension, are the three elements which must combine to pro
duce in us the true holding of the Christian creed.

" These are the three great chords of might,
And he whose ear is tuned aright
Will hear no discord in the three,
But the most perfect harmony." f

* John vii. 17.

t Roman Catholic Claims. By Charles Gore, M.A., pp. 68-69.

24 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Do we depreciate the Bible when we claim that the
Church is a great fountain of divine authority? Nay,
we exalt the Bible. For we urge that the divine author
ity that speaks through the Church is the same divine
authority that speaks through the Bible. God does not
contradict Himself when speaking through these two
different sources. The rulers of the Church may misin
terpret the divine voice speaking through the Church,
just as they misinterpret the divine voice speaking in
Holy Scripture ; and so it is necessary to maintain the
independence of the Reason as a source of divine au
thority; but these misinterpretations are only temporal,
local, and formal ; they never present the genuine fea
tures of catholicity. And history shows that every
usurper is ere long cast out from the throne of authority
where God reigns alone. When the divine Spirit moves
upon the great heart of the Church, and rouses it with
throes of revival and reformation, the Holy Scriptures
rise pre-eminent as the holy banner of light and progress.
When the Messiah purifies His bride, the Church, with
the waters of sanctification, and washes away every spot
and wrinkle and blemish, the mirror of the Word gives
back the same beautiful face and glorious form that are
present to it. The divine authority speaking through
the Word is re-echoed by the divine authority speaking
through the Church, and they speak one and the same
message of grace and salvation.

It is true that the Roman Catholics exaggerate the
divine authority of the Church, so as to affirm that the
pope when enthroned in the chair of St. Peter and
speaking as the head of the Church, and vicar of Christ,
gives infallible decisions in faith and morals. This claim
of the papacy we reject when we affirm that the Holy
Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and prac-

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 25

tice. But we refuse to go over into the camp of the
Radicals and deny that there is any divine authority in
the Church. We hold the middle ground of the Prot
estant Reformation, which was maintained by the
Puritan fathers and is expressed in the Westminster
Confession, that the Christian ministry, the holy sacra
ments, and all the other sacred historic forms of the life
and experience of the Church are of divine institution
and of divine authority and bear in them and with them
the authority of God, the presence of Jesus Christ, and
the power of the divine Spirit.

(6). Prophetically the Church is a great fountain of di
vine authority. Who can read the prophetical parts of
Holy Scripture without rising on the wings of hope and
holy expectation toward the sublime prospects of the
kingdom of God ?

" One of the earlier prophets predicted that the temple
mount would be exalted above all the mountains, as the
goal of the pilgrimage of the nations, the source of in
struction and judgment. Jeremiah sees a new Jerusalem
that will be as sacred as the ark of the covenant, that will
bear the name ' Jahveh is our righteousness,' that will be
rebuilt and will be holy in all its surburbs, so that there
will be no places of uncleanness. A psalmist declares
that Jahveh will come and dwell in Zion forever, and
provide abundantly for all its inhabitants. Ezekiel
names the holy city ' Jahveh is there.'

" The great unknown represents that the new temple
will be the house of prayer for all nations, and that they
will bring their choicest treasures thither. Jerusalem
will be rebuilt of precious stones, its gates salvation, its
walls praise. It will be the light and glory of the world,
and bear the names ' Married,' and * My delight is in thee.'
It will be the centre of a new earth and new heavens.

26 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

" Haggai predicts that the latter glory of the temple
will be greater than the former. Zechariah sees that
•the new Jerusalem will be inhabited by a vast multitude,
and that Jahveh will be a wall of fire round about it, and
a glory in its midst, and that it will be called ' the city
of fidelity.' A later prophet predicts that the new
Jerusalem will be so holy that the bells of the horses
and the cooking utensils will bear the same inscription
as the tiara of the high-priest, ' Holy to Jahveh.' " *

Peter sees Christians as living stones built upon Christ,
the living corner-stone, a spiritual house to be a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ.f Paul sees the Church as
the body of Christ, building up and growing until we all
attain unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge
of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ::): John
sees the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven,
adorned as a bride for her husband. Her foundations
are apostles, her walls are pure and transparent dia
monds of the sanctified, shining in the light of the Lord
and radiant with His splendor. §

It is true that the Church is far from attaining its
ideal. It has ever been a weak and unworthy minister ;
and yet God's Spirit has guided it in the development
of its institutions, its doctrines, and its life.

God does not employ the means of grace in any me
chanical or magical way. He allows full scope for
human freedom. The opportunity for loving heroic
service involves the possibility of disastrous failures.
There is divine authority ever in the Church, even when
the ministry and people harden their hearts against its

* Briggs' Messianic PropJiecy, pp. 480 seq. f i Peter ii. 4 seg.

t Eph. iv. 13. § Rev. xx.

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 27

call, and prefer their own way to the way of God. The
people of God may decline to listen to the voice of God
in the Church, as they decline to listen to Him when He
speaks in the Holy Scriptures, but their failures do not
make the presence and authority of God of no effect, for
He persists and eventually overcomes all human weak
ness and folly and failure.

The Church has a higher calling and a wider ministry
in every succeeding age. She has never failed to fulfil
in a measure her high calling. There have been ecclesi
astics who have used the treasures of grace for their own
advancement. There have been scholastics who have
hardened the religion of Christ into cold, barren dogmas.
But there have never failed self-sacrificing heroic men
who have followed their Master in faithful ministry even
unto death. The Church has harder tasks now than
ever before in her history. She is not only called to
evangelize the world, but the entire world is open, be
seeching her ministry. She is called to evangelize the
great cities, and solve all the intricate problems of social
life. She is called to reconstruct her doctrine so as to
embrace the vast horizon of modern learning. She is
called to adapt her worship to the manifold tastes of
modern society. She is called to improve her adminis
tration in accordance with the principles of the law and
government of modern nations. She is called to enlarge
her methods of work, so as to cope with the circum
stances of the new age. It is not strange that the
Church seems slow in so extensive a transformation.
The Church is changing her battle array. She is cloth
ing herself with new armor. She is equipping her host
with new weapons. She is learning new tactics. She is
crippled and distracted by old, worn-out controversies.
She encounters manifold traditional difficulties. All her

28 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

efforts at revival, reformation, and reconstruction in
volve conflict with conservatives who insist upon the old
methods and the old paths. But the divine Spirit is
present in the Church with more potent energies and
more comprehensive agencies than ever before. The
breath of the Spirit fans the flames of holy zeal, to rouse
the Church from her lethargy and compel her to action,
even at the cost of internal controversies. She will rise
to all her grand opportunities. She will clothe herself
with fresh zeal and courage. She will consolidate her
forces. She will lay aside every impediment and hin
drance. The Holy Spirit is enflaming her with holy love
to Christ and inspiring her with a love for humanity
that will ere long eliminate all dirt and dross, and fuse
the now heterogeneous Christian masses into one fiery or
ganism of redemption, and the world will be aflame with
the love of God. We shall have a new theology, that
will declare in its entirety the doctrine of the divine
Word, and the responsive echo of the human mind and
heart ; a new church government that will absorb all
that is valuable in historic Christianity, in the experience
of the successive generations of mankind ; a new wor
ship that will give appropriate and harmonious expres
sion in art and music and liturgy to the devotions of all
souls; and a new and holy Christ-like life that will
transform the society of our cities from cellar to garret ;
solve all social, national, and racial problems, and bring
about the peace, harmony, and holiness of the world.

II.

THE REASON AS A GREAT FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE
AUTHORITY.

THE Westminster Confession sets forth the great dis
tinguishing doctrine of the Reformed churches, that the
divine grace is not confined to the means of grace, but
may use other channels and media in communicating
itself to men ; that while the Holy Spirit ordinarily uses
Bible, Church, and Sacrament, He sometimes works apart
from them and without them. It is on this ground that
the Westminster Confession bases its doctrine of the
salvation of elect infants and elect incapables, who from
their age and constitutional defects are " incapable of
being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."*
Such are " saved by Christ through the Spirit, who work-
eth when, and where, and how he pleaseth."f

This doctrine of the freedom of the divine grace, and
the power of the divine Spirit to work anywhere, and
in any place, and how He pleaseth, opens a gate upon a
wide territory which the Westminster divines themselves
did not explore; but which they left for us to explore as
a region of liberty and extra-confessional doctrine. The
Westminster divines did not themselves go any further
than elect infants and elect incapables, but the heirs of
Puritanism have with unanimity extended their doctrine
of elect infants and incapables to all infants and all

* *• 3- t x. 3.

(29)

30 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

incapablcs ; and have also added the class of elect
heathen.* If any class of persons can be saved by the
divine Spirit apart from Church and sacraments, how
else can they be saved except by the direct contact of the
divine Spirit with their souls in the forms of the Reason ?
It is one of the special merits of the Westminster Confes
sion that it opens the gate into this territory of divine
grace imparted apart from Bible and Church through
the Reason ; who then shall venture to close it ?

(i). The Westminster doctrine of the Reason,
(a). Some may imagine that the introductory sentence
of the Westminster Confession of Faith is against this
doctrine when it says :

" Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and
providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power
of God, as to leave men inexcusable ; yet they are not sufficient
to give that knowledge of God and of his will, which is necessary
unto salvation " (I. i).

But this statement of the Confession has nothing what
ever to do with the doctrine that the Reason is a great
fountain of divine authority. The light of nature is
one thing, the light of grace is another thing. The
light that shines from universal nature setting forth
the being and attributes of God, and declaring the glory
of the Creator and Sovereign of the universe, is a blessed
light that convicts man of sin for failure to unite in the
choral of praise that pervades the universe of God. But
the light of the eternal Logos is a still more blessed
light ; for it is the light of the Son of God, the Saviour
of men. The world came into existence through Him.
He was ever in the world, even when the world knew
Him not. He was ever coming into the world in the

See Appendix III.

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 3}

progress of divine revelation until theophany and proph
ecy, historic guidance and ideal aim were realized in
the incarnate Redeemer.

It is true that the Westminster divines did not catch
a glimpse of this light of the Logos. Their Christology
was defective at this point, as well as at other points.
They did not give expression to this doctrine. It is
significant that in the proof-texts of the Confession they
do not cite from the prologue of John's gospel, with the
exception of verses I and 14 to prove the incarnation
of the Logos. They made no use of verses 2-13, which
set forth the doctrine of the light of the pre-existent
Logos. But they did not exclude the doctrine of the
light of the world, even if they neglected it. It is the
merit of the Friends, or Quakers, that they discerned
this doctrine in the prologue of John's gospel, and held
it up before the modern world until it became one of
the most characteristic doctrines of modern times.*
This noble band of pioneers for truth accomplished
their mission of establishing the doctrines of the Light
of the eternal Logos, and of the universal working of the
divine Spirit, in such a firm position in the modern
Christian world that they can never be displaced.

(b). Furthermore, the vast strides made in Christian phi
losophy, led on by the Cambridge Platonists, have given
the human Reason, including the conscience, the relig
ious feeling, and the metaphysical categories, a place in
Christian theology that it could not have had in the
time of the Westminster Assembly. All historical schol
ars know that the psychology and metaphysics of the
Westminster divines were sadly defective. They could
not possibly give the human Reason that place and im-

* See How shall we Revise ? p. 98 seq. Charles Scribner's Sons.

32 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

portance in the system of doctrine which every scholar
must give it at the present time. It is sufficient that
they have nowhere made any statement that bars the
way to the doctrinal expression of the great truths and
facts of modern philosophy. We agree with the West
minster Confession in all its essential and necessary arti
cles, but we claim the right of going beyond it into
fields unexplored and undefined by it. We agree with it
in maintaining that the light of nature is insufficient for
salvation ; but we advance beyond it into the field of ex
tra-confessional doctrine, where the Westminster divines
made no definitions whatever, when we say that the
light of redemption shines from Jesus Christ, the eter
nal Word of God, the incarnate Redeemer, not exclu
sively through Church and Bible, but also through the
Reason. We push its doctrine a little further when we
maintain that the same divine Spirit who works effect
ually through Church and Bible for some, also works
effectually through the Reason for others, and that the
sa.me God and Father of all, does not confine His au
thority and the certitude of it to the Bible and the
Church ; but in His sovereign grace, in the free play of
His omnipotent love, also uses the human Reason as a
channel of grace, a source of authority, a throne-room
of certainty and assurance of salvation.

The. Westminster Confession opens the gates to this
doctrine when it represents that the divine Spirit works
" TV/ten, and ivhcrc, and how he plcascth" and it does not
exclude the light of the Logos by its denial of the suf
ficiency of " the light of nature." The authority of the
" light of nature " is one thing, the authority of the light
of grace is another thing. The authority of the natural
reason is one thing, the authority of the Reason as in
formed by the divine Spirit is another thing. The suf-

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 33

fiency of the Tight of nature is a doctrinal error, but the
sufficiency of the light that shines forth from the divine
countenance in the presence-chamber of the Reason,
through the religious feeling and the conscience, is one
of the grandest doctrines of the Bible, of History, and of
human experience.

(c). The Westminster Confession gives the Reason a
very important place in matters of religion. This results
from a further unfolding of the doctrines of the right of
private judgment, of the universal priesthood of believers,
and of the immediate access of the individual Christian to
God and his Saviour, which had been so grandly set
forth at the Reformation. The Roman Catholic party
in the Church claim that the Church has divine author
ity to determine all matters of doctrine and life not de
fined in the Word of God. The Reformers denied that
claim. The conflict between the authority of the Church
and the rights of conscience was carried a stage further
in the so-called second Reformation, or Puritan revival
in Great Britain. The Anglo-Catholic party claimed
that the Church had authority to impose upon the min
istry and the people certain doctrines, institutions, and
ceremonies that were regarded by the Puritans as intrud
ing upon the conscience and the right of private judg
ment. This brought on the great religious wars which
established our political and religious freedom in Great
Britain and America.

Three parties arose on this question — first, the church-
ly party insisting on the authority of the Church in these
matters; second, the radical party, denying that the
Church had any authority whatever in matters not de
fined by Scripture; and third, the intermediate party, who
were called Puritans, who insisted upon reforming the
Church after the model of the holy discipline, the holy

34 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

doctrine, and the holy life set forth in Scripture, the only
infallible rule of faith and life ; but allowing, according
to the Westminster Confession, " that there are some cir
cumstances concerning the worship of God, and govern
ment of the Church, common to human actions and so
cieties, which are to be ordered by the light of nature
and Christian prudence, according to the general rules
of the word, which are always to be observed." *

This passage is against the doctrine of the Radicals,
that nothing whatever ought to be believed or practiced
that is not expressly taught by holy Scripture. The
Confession teaches that there is a range of matters, es
pecially in connection with the government and worship
of the Church, where the Scriptures make no decisions,
and that in this field the Church should appeal to Chris
tian prudence, and the light of nature. What is this but
an appeal to the human Reason ? The human Reason
is to decide, therefore, in questions of religion where the
Scriptures do not decide. The human Reason is not
excluded from authority by the authority of the Scrip
tures. It has a place and an importance in matters of
religion.

But the Puritans also had a quarrel with the church
men. This they set forth in the Westminster Confes
sion (chap, xx.), which states what may be regarded as
one of the great principles of Puritanism, namely, Chris
tian liberty, and liberty of conscience, as follows :

" God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free
from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any
thing contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith or wor
ship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such com
mandments out of conscience is to betray true liberty of con
science ; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute

*I. 6.

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 35

and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and rea
son also " (xx. 2).

The conscience and the reason are definitely recog
nized as free, and not to be reduced to bondage. Such
liberty is inconsistent with a required faith, and an abso
lute and blind obedience. The reason and the conscience
respond to the teachings of God's Word and bow to its
divine authority ; but nothing should be imposed upon
the reason and the conscience by the Church that is con
trary to that Word, or beside it and not determined by
it. The reason and the conscience are authoritative in
all matters of faith and worship not defined by Scripture.
Holy Scripture has left ample room for the free exercise
of the reason, the conscience, and the religious feeling,
and it is usurpation for the Church to claim divine au
thority in this sphere.

This chapter was designed to reject the doctrine that
any Church, or any theologians, or any ecclesiastics, or
any body of men whatever, could have authority to force
their doctrines and practices upon other men.

(d). Theie are several important statements in con
nection with the doctrine of Holy Scripture which set
forth the rights of the Reason in relation to the Scrip
tures themselves. Thus the Confession says :

" The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any
man or church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof" (I. 4).

"Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and
divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy
Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts " (I. 5).

The objective authority of Holy Scripture is incom
plete. It has subjective authority also, in that the divine
Spirit enters the soul of the man to convince his reason,
sway his conscience, and assure his religious feeling that

36 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

God is indeed speaking to him. Unless the Holy Spirit
bear witness in our heart, we can never be assured of the
divine authority of Holy Scripture ; unless the Holy
Spirit enters the reason and conscience, and speaks with
the same voice there as in Holy Scripture, there can be
no rational faith or conscientious obedience to the Word
of God. God exacts no blind obedience, He requires
no irrational faith in His Word, but a reasonable faith
and an honest, hearty, loving obedience. Those, there
fore, who deny that God speaks to men through the
Reason, destroy the Puritan doctrine of Holy Scrip
ture.

(e). It is the doctrine of the 1 8th chapter of the West
minster Confession, that assurance of grace and salvation

" Is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded
upon a fallible hope ; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded
upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward
evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,
the testimony of the Spirit of adoption, witnessing with our
spirits that we are the children of God " (xviii. 2).

The office of the Word of God is here distinctly recog
nized ; but the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit is
represented as necessary in order to impart this assur
ance. If this certainty of salvation can be imparted only
by the direct contact of the divine Spirit with the human
spirit in the forms of the Reason ; and this gives an infal
lible assurance of faith ; then those who teach that the
Reason is not a great fountain of divine authority are in
irreconcilable conflict with the cardinal doctrine of the
Westminster Confession as to the assurance of grace and
salvation. How can there be assurance of grace without
the assurance of the reason by the authority of God ?

(/). Furthermore, this doctrine of the authority of
God in the forms of the Reason is essential to the integ-

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 37

rity of several other important doctrines. The West
minster Confession states that

"Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit enlightening
their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of
God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an
heart of flesh ; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power,
determining them to that which is good " (x. i).

" The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to
the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in
their hearts" (xiv. i).

" Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but
wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled
thereunto, besides the graces which they have already received,
there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to
work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure" (xvi. 3).

There can be no such thing as effectual calling, no such
thing as saving faith, and no such thing as good works
acceptable to God in Jesus Christ without the direct in
fluence of the divine Spirit upon the hearts of men;
what is this but divine authority in the forms of the
Reason ? To deny that the Reason is a great fountain of
divine authority is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit
upon the heart, to undermine and destroy the work of
grace within the soul of man. It is necessary to affirm
that the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority in
the interests of a whole group of cardinal doctrines of
our Confession, and of Holy Scripture.

It is evident that the Westminster Confession, as the
great symbol of the second Reformation, teaches that
the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority; that
the Holy Spirit carries on the work of redemption by
direct influence upon the hearts and consciences of men.
It is expressly taught that the Holy Spirit, in the effect
ual calling of elect infants and incapables, works apart
from Scripture and Church. Why, then, should there

38 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

be any impediment to extend this effectual calling to
elect heathen and elect rationalists? The divine Spirit
worketh " when, and where, and how He pleaseth." Who,
then, will venture to exclude Him from the hearts and
consciences of those persons who for exceptional reasons
cannot or do not use the means of grace? Who dare
limit the work of God's Spirit ?

(2). Holy Scripture teaches that the Reason is a great

Fountain of divine Authority.

(a). It is evident that the Wisdom Literature of the
Old Testament, embracing such writings as Job and
Proverbs, ignores the institutions and sacred writings of
Israel. No one could know from them that there was
any such thing as Church or Bible. They appeal
throughout to the human Reason. " The spirit of man
is the lamp of the Lord."* "It is an understanding
mind the simple need/'f Men are to gain the heavenly
wisdom by the reverential fear of God, which is the begin
ning and ever remains the radical principle of wisdom.
They enter the school of divine discipline in personal
union and communion with Wisdom herself, and she
pours out upon them the divine Spirit, and gives them
freely her possession of knowledge.:}: The Wisdom
Literature of the Old Testament is sealed to those who
do not understand the use of the Reason as a means of
access to God.

The same is true of the wisdom of the New Testa
ment, embracing the epistle to the Hebrews, the writ
ings of John, and in a measure the epistle to the Colos-
sians. The Christian knowledge so grandly set forth in
these writings, is a knowledge that the soul gains
through the witness of the divine Spirit within the forms

* Pr. xx. 27. t Pr. viii. 5. J Pr. i. 7, 20-23.

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 39

of the Reason. Our Saviour tells us: " And this is life
eternal, that they should know Thee, the only true God,
and Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." *

The beloved apostle re-echoes it when he says:
" Hereby we know that He abideth in us, by the Spirit
which He gives us." f

Those who deny that God grants certitude of divine
authority through the forms of the Reason, would rob
the divine Spirit of His chief glories. The Holy Spirit
is the divine agent in the regeneration and in the renova
tion of men. He convicts of sin, righteousness, and
judgment. He is the Paraclete who gives holy comfort
and guidance into all truth. He enables us to pray, and
bears us on pinions of light and peace to the throne of
grace. He gives the assurance of the forgiveness of sin,
the answer to prayer, the certitude of sonship and
eternal salvation. The activity of the divine Spirit is
essentially through His personal approach and influence
upon the human spirit. The means of grace derive
their only efficacy from His presence and energy. Or
dinarily the Spirit uses the means of grace, Bible,
Church, and Sacraments ; but whether He use them or
not, His presence, power, and authority are the principal
thing, and unless He so uses them as to enter through
them into the forms of the Reason they cannot be effi
cacious in the transformation of men.

(£). Biblical history shows that the Reason has been
"a great fountain of divine authority." Unless God
approaches men through the forms of the Reason, the
whole human race prior to the advent of Christ, except
the little nation of Israel and the pious handful in
Judah, are lost forever in the depths of Sheol.

John xvii. 3. f i John iii. 24.

40 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

This may be the teaching of some dogmaticians, but
the Old Testament teaches no such doctrine. It repre
sents God appearing to monarchs of Egypt, Philistia,
and Babylon in dreams.* If in dreams, how else save
in the forms of the Reason ? Melchizcdek was recog
nized by Abraham, and Jethro by Moses as priest-
kings ;f but where do we find that they had any Church
or Bible, or enjoyed any other communion with God
than through the forms of the Reason ? When " the
Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia,":): it
was his spirit, the inner man, in the forms of the Reason,
without any mediation of Church or Bible. And who
shall say that God may not have spoken with divine
authority to Socrates and Plato, and other Grecian sages
through the forms of the Reason, and thus prepared the
Greek and Roman world for the advent of Christ, in a
lesser degree, yet no less truly, than He prepared the
chosen people of Israel ? That was the opinion of
Clement of Alexandria and of others of the most distin
guished Christian fathers. It may be against the preju
dices of certain schools of theology of the present time,
but there is nothing in Holy Scripture that stands in
the way of such a comfortable hope.

What man can look with complacency upon the
damnation of the ancient world, all save a handful of
Hebrews, when they were kept by the providence of
God apart from the means of grace so richly enjoyed by
Israel ? Can we think that our own Aryan ancestors of
several hundred generations were all reprobated, or passed
by, by the God of all grace in those millenniums when
they were permitted to exist on this earth under the
light of nature, but without the light of law and gospel,

* Gen. xx. 3, xli.; Dan. ii. t Gen. xiv. 18; Ex. ii. 16.

t Ezr. i. i.

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 4^

of old covenant or new covenant ? Nay, we thank God
that we have more comfort than the divines of the i;th
century, in that we grasp the significance of the light of
the Logos shining in all the earth as universal as the
light of dawn ; and of the activity of the divine Spirit,
which is as free and full and omnipresent as the atmos
phere of heaven.

(c). We cannot explain the origin and the historical
development of the Old Testament religion unless we
recognize that God spake to the patriarchs and prophets
through the forms of the Reason. As the Church was
constituted before the Bible was given, so still farther
back the Reason antedates them both. Abel and Enoch
and Noah walked with God before there was any such
thing as Church or Bible, and how else could they have
communed with God except through the forms of the
Reason, even if they were favored at times with the-
ophanies ?

When God appeared unto Abraham, called him, and
gave him the covenant which established the holy seed,
he spake with divine authority in the forms of his Rea
son. When Moses was called to his high position as the
founder of Mosaism, he was granted a theophany, but
no Church or sacred writing mediated that call. God
appealed to his conscience, his religious feeling, the
forms of his Reason ; and gave him divine authority in a
commission and a covenant, which he first grasped in
conception before he gave utterance to it in speech.

It is of the very essence of prophecy that it springs
from a man in union and communion with God. The
prophet differs from the priest or churchman, and the
scribe or interpreter of the written word, by his inde
pendence of Church or writing. God speaks to him
directly either in dream, or in vision, or in the normal

42 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

self-conscious condition, but in any case in the forms of
the Reason, so that he is enabled to conceive of the
new truth from God, to know that he has received it
from God, and that it is his calling to proclaim it as
divine truth, and to execute his commission in word and
deed.* No holy prophet could ever have spoken, no
sacred penman could ever have written, no covenant of
God could ever have been established, no Israel of God
would ever have come into existence, if it had not been
that God from time to time spake unto the fathers by
the prophets, in the forms of their Reason. Those who
deny that the Reason is a great fountain of divine au
thority, undermine the foundations of the Church and
the Bible, and give us over to the dreary ruins of Agnos
ticism.

The New Testament religion could never have been
established unless God spake to man through the forms
of the Reason. The Old Testament Church and sacred
writings could never of themselves have produced by nat
ural development the New Testament Church and canon.
Jesus Christ came from heaven into the world, fresh
from the bosom of the Father. Jesus called every one
of His apostles by a personal call before He organized
His Church. Saul, the Pharisee, was not changed into
Paul the Christian by the Church, for he thought he was
doing God service in persecuting the Church ; or by
sacred writings, for nothing of the New Testament had
yet been composed, and his study of the Old Testament
writings had made him a Pharisee of the Pharisees. It
was the light of the enthroned Saviour striking through
into the conscience, the religious nature and the reason
of that man which gave birth to Paul and Paulinism. In

* See Briggs' Messianic Prophecy^ Chap. I. Charles Scribner's Sons.

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITT. 4.3

the reason of Paul, divine authority uttered its voice
before Paul could become a Christian, a churchman, and
a writer of New Testament writings. So it was the love
of Jesus in the heart of John, that made him the apostle
of love, the revealer of the Father's heart, and of a re
ligion which consists essentially in union and communion
with the Triune God. Deny that the Reason is a foun
tain of divine authority, and you thereby deny that the
Church and the Bible are fountains of divine authority,
for there never could have been any such thing as Bible
and Church without the Reason.

(3). The condition of the world shows that the Reason
is a great Fountain of divine A uthority.

Let us consider for a moment the condition of our
earth at the present time. After nearly nineteen cen
turies of Christian effort, notwithstanding the wondrous
progress of the Church and its grand march forward
through the centuries, there still remain more than three
times as many followers of the Light of Asia as Roman
Catholic followers of the Light of the world ; many mill
ions more who adhere to the Koran than Protestants,
who love the Holy Scriptures ; and a vastly greater body
of heathen in the mone degraded forms of religion than
there are Greek and Oriental Christians. We cannot
for a moment think that the God of infinite love repro
bates or passes by at the present time a thousand mill
ions of our race, or that He reprobates all the men and
women and saves only the babes.

The salvation or damnation of the heathen world is
the most serious problem of modern theology. This
world was little known in the seventeenth century. The
great theologians of that age had but a faint conception
even of the skirts of America. The merest fringe of

44 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Africa was accessible to commerce and missions ; Asia,
with its teeming millions, and the islands of the Pacific,
were outside the estimation of the theological systems
and plans of Christian work. The great explorers and
modern commerce have changed the face of the world.
The circumnavigation of the globe not only disclosed
the limited extent of our earth, but also the limited
conceptions of the older systems of theology. These
systems must expand to the size of the world or burst.

Have you seen the ancient map of the world in the ca
thedral of Hereford ? It was prepared by a monk in the
thirteenth century. It represents the earth as a flat sur
face, encompassed by water. Jerusalem is the centre of
the world. The Mediterranean bears the world's com
merce. The map is spread all over with classic legends
and myths, and with a wealth of Biblical stories, showing
the knowledge of that age. To us it is a monument of
ignorance, superstition, and grotesque fancy. The the
ology of that age is, in some respects, as grotesque as its
geography. The discovery of America and the invention
of printing had a great deal to do with the Protestant
Reformation. Growth in theology did not stop with the
Reformation any more than progress in discovery and
commerce stopped at that time. The advance went on
beyond the seventeenth century, beyond the eighteenth
century, and the twentieth century will advance beyond
the nineteenth. Those who endeavor to limit their con
ceptions of theology to the range of the seventeenth
century, and yet would appropriate the science and
philosophy of our age, either drown their theology in
the ocean of modern learning, or spend their lives in a
ruinous warfare against its advancing billows. We can
not now ignore the thousand millions of our race in
heathen lands. We cannot shut our eyes to their re-

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 4.5

ligions. We cannot disregard their history, their civiliza
tion, their part in the world's life and development, and
their destiny.

How can any one in our times really think that the
reigning Christ, whose heart is full of pity and tenderness,
will suffer all of these vast multitudes to descend to per
dition, without some opportunity of redemption?

Unless some one can point to a direct affirmation of
Holy Scripture, we refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit
" who worketh when, and where, and how He p lease th "
will refuse His guidance to pious Mohammedan, or Buddh
ist, or worshipper of the sacred fire, who, destitute of
Bible and Church, may be earnestly seeking after God in
the only way open to him, through the forms of the Rea
son. There is no statement of Holy Scripture that for
bids this comfortable hope. The prejudices derived from
systems of dogma as antiquated as the map of Hereford,
and the bigotry born of a pharisaic contempt of the low
er religions of mankind, are unworthy of our age.*

But some will say, you are robbing us of the great mo
tive for Foreign Missions. To this we reply, that we are
exposing the weakness of a motive which has thus far
been sadly ineffective. We are calling you back to the
true Christian motive. As I have elsewhere said :

" The present century brought the Church of Christ
face to face with the heathen world. Hundreds of mill
ions of heathen stand over against nominal Christians
half their number. The latter must be reduced by mul
titudes who are inhabitants of Christian lands, but who
do not profess the faith of Christ. It is safe to say that
there are not one hundred millions on the earth to-day
who comply with the methods of salvation taught in

* See pp. 71 seq.

4(5 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Christian Churches. The damnation of all these millions of
heathen, who have never heard of Christ, and millions of
nominal Christians who do not use the means of grace
offered them by the Church, is an awful fact for the
Church to confront after nearly two thousand years of
Christianity on the earth. The ministry and the people
do not really believe that these multitudes will all be
damned. The matter is eased a little by the theory that
the dying infants of the heathen are saved, and that some
of the best of heathen adults may attain redemption ; but
the great mass of the adult population of Asia and Africa
— yes, of Europe and America also — are doomed to hell-
fire according to the popular theology. The ministers
preach it and the people listen to this doctrine as they
do to many others, but they are not moved by it. They
accept it as orthodox doctrine without understanding it;
but they do not really believe it in their hearts. If they
did they would be more worthy of damnation than the
heathen themselves. If a single man were in danger of
physical death, the whole community would be aroused
to save him. No price would be too great. Men and
women would cheerfully risk their lives to save him.
Those who would not do this would be regarded as base
cowards. But here, according to the average missionary
sermon, are untold millions of heathen all perishing with
out the Gospel, and at death going into everlasting fire.
Vast multitudes of unevangelized persons in our cities
and towns and villages are confronting the same cruel des
tiny.

" If the ministry and the people really believed it they
would pour out their wealth like water ; they would rush
in masses to the heathen world with the gospel of re
demption. There would be a new crusade that would
put the old crusades to shame. Those who have the Gos-

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 47

pel, and will not give it to others who know it not, may
incur a worse doom in the day of judgment than the ig
norant. Those who knew the Lord's will and did it not
will be beaten with many stripes; those who knew not
and did things worthy of stripes with few stripes." *

Christians do not now believe this dogma of the uni
versal damnation of the heathen, because the reason,
the conscience, and the religious feeling in our times
shrink back from it with horror. A re-examination of the
Scriptures does not find it therein. It is not real catho
lic dogma. It is an error into which Christians have
stumbled from lack of knowledge. The grace of God
through the universal working of the divine Spirit and
the omnipresence of the eternal Logos is operative to
save in all the earth. But this salvation is only of the
most elementary kind, such as that enjoyed in the earli
est times by the chosen people of God, before the gos
pel, before the prophets, before the Mosaic covenant,
and even before the call of Abraham. If Israel needed
the salvation of Jesus Christ even if they were not lost
before His advent, so the heathen need Him all the more
in order that their salvation may rise through all those
stages of development that are represented by the history
of Israel and the Christian Church. The commission of
Christ to preach the Gospel to the world is the great
legacy of our Saviour. Loyalty to Christ, — that is the
one great motive for Foreign Missions which should ab
sorb and crown all others. The love of God to the world
as expressed in the incarnation, death, resurrection, reign,
and second advent of the Messiah is the most potent im
pulse to declare the love of God to the world until the

* Luke xii. 48. Briggs' Redemption After Deatht in the Magazine of Chris
tian Literature, Dec., 1889, pp. 109, no.

48 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

whole world knows His love and rejoices in loving and
serving Him.

(4). The nature of man shows that the Reason is a great
Fountain of divine A utJiority.

Unless conscience speaks with divine authority where
is your basis for morality ? The universal existence of
that moral sense which we call conscience, and its voice
which speaks in every language under heaven, distinguish
ing between good and evil, makes man a moral being,
and opens a possibility of his training in virtue.

Dr. Robert Flint, one of the chief theologians of Scot
land at the present time, says :

" Conscience claims to rule my will in virtue of a law which
cannot be the expression of my will, and which cannot be any
thing else than the expression of another will ; one often in an
tagonism to mine — one always better than mine — one which
demands from me an unvarying and complete obedience. It
comes to me and speaks to me in defiance of my will ; when my
will is set against hearing it, and still more against obeying it ;
when my will is bent on stifling and drowning its voice. It
warns, threatens, condemns, and punishes me, against my will,
and with a voice of authority as the delegate or deputy of a per
fectly good and holy will which has an absolute right to rule
over me, to control and sway all my faculties ; which searches
me and knows me; which besets me behind and before. Whose
is this perfect, authoritative, supreme will, to which all con
sciences, even the most erring, point back ? Whose, if not
God's?"*

Cardinal Gibbons, the ornament of the American Ro
man Catholic Church, teaches the same in simple and
beautiful language :

" This moral governor of whom I am speaking, demands that
his jurisdiction over us be absolute and supreme, and that

* Theism^ p. 219, 3d edition, 1880.

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 49

we render to him entire obedience. He is imperious in his dic
tates. He admits no rival or associate judge. His decision is
to us final and irrevocable. There is no appeal from it. Neither
Pope nor Bishop can dispense from it. And it is this same voice
that will judge us on the last day. The Gentiles, who have not
the [Mosaic] law, do by nature the things that are of the law . . .
who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their con
science bearing witness to them, the thoughts mutually accusing,
or even defending one another on the day when God shall judge
the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.

" Now, who is this judge ? It is conscience. Conscience is the
practical judgment we form upon the moral rectitude or deprav
ity of our acts. It is the expression of that Divine Justice by
which society is upheld and bound together. It is the living
witness and interpreter of that natural ' law written in our hearts '
which is the basis of all human legislation. It is the echo of the
voice of God."*

The categorical imperative of the conscience, what is
it, if not the voice of God speaking with divine author
ity to the children of men ? Without the religious feel
ing, the only organ of vital union with God, religion it
self is impossible in any form.f The universality of the
religious instinct, the great variety of religions found in
all parts of the earth, make it evident that man is a be
ing whose nature demands union and communion with
God.

The great missionary and traveller, David Livingstone,
standing on the shores of one of the central African lakes,
Bangweolo, which he had just discovered, when asked
why he had come so far, said to his inquirer, who had
never before seen a Christian : " We are all children of
one Father, and I am anxious that we should know each
other better.''^ In these words Livingstone showed a pro-

* Our Christian Heritage, pp. 52-53.
t See Smythe, The Religious Feeling.
% Last Journals, p. 250.

50 T1IE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

found sense of the brotherhood of man, the Fatherhood
of God, and the world-wide reign of the religion of grace
that is rare and Christlike. If the Church had been in
fluenced by such a spirit, the world would have been
Christian long ago. A Gideon's band of such mission
aries is worth more than a host of weaklings, who think
only of rescuing a few of the heathen from the great
masses doomed to everlasting damnation. We cannot
explain the centuries during which the mass of mankind
have been excluded from Christianity; we cannot ex
plain the religions of the world, unless, in a measure, we
acknowledge that in some way the divine Spirit has
been guiding the founders and the reformers of those
religions, in that historical development which is the di
vine training of mankind.

(5). Church History shows that the Reason is a great
Fountain of divine AutJiority.

The Church could have made no progress but for
the apostles and prophets, the fathers and theologians,
the reformers and the evangelists, called by God and en
dowed by the divine Spirit for their work. The divine
Spirit, ever at work guiding the Church in its training
in quest of all truth, uses Bible and Church, and inter
prets them in the forms of the Reason. Unless the
divine Spirit had worked in the forms of the Reason,
there could have been no church organization, no litur
gies, no creeds and confessions, no Christian writings.
What are these but products of the human mind guided
by the divine Spirit in the forms of the Reason ? It is
quite true that the Mediaeval Church was chiefly absorbed
in the Church as a means of grace, as the divinely ap
pointed channel for union and communion with God ;
but the greatest leaders of the Church show by their

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 5^

lives and writings, that they have also enjoyed imme
diate union and communion with God, in the forms of
their Reason.

It was the work of the divine Spirit in the hearts of
the Reformers which enabled them to maintain the right
of private judgment, the universal priesthood of believ
ers, and the immediate access of men to God through
the Spirit. They did not remove the stumbling-blocks
that the Church had put in the way of immediate access
to God, in order to set up other stumbling-blocks in
their stead.

The Reformers rescued Holy Scripture from the dom
ination of the Church and they maintained the right of
the Reason. The second, or Puritan Reformation, made
a still further advance in the maintenance of the inde
pendence of Bible and Reason. But these times of
reformation and revival were succeeded by reactionary
times when men lost confidence in the Reason and the
Scriptures and again reduced them to bondage, chained
to the traditional dogmas of Protestant scholasticism.

The scholastic divines of Protestantism erected a series
of barriers about the Bible no less serious as obstacles to
communion with God and stumbling-blocks to faith, than
the Roman Catholics had erected about the Church.
Rationalism is historically the reaffirmation of the inde
pendence of the conscience and the reason, and of im
mediate communion with God. If Rationalists do not
seek God through the Church, may not the ecclesiastics
who have governed the Church be somewhat to blame?
For they have too often, in a Sadducean spirit, shut them
out from the kingdom of God. If Rationalists do not
seek God through the Bible, may not Protestant scholas
tics be somewhat to blame ? For, to use the language of
our Confession, they have too often required an implicit

52 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

faith and an absolute and blind obedience to scholastic
dogmas about the Bible, " that destroy liberty of con
science and reason also." What have such earnest, God
fearing men done, when shut off by ecclesiastics from
the Church, and by scholastics from the Bible ? What
else could they do but seek God through the forms of
the Reason? And our heavenly Father, who in infinite
mercy and love judges righteous judgment, when He
estimates them may take into account those who have
discredited the Church and the Bible by obstructing the
work of the divine Spirit through these means of grace.
He who welcomed publicans and sinners into His king
dom rather than Pharisees and Sadducees, may in our
times give a welcome even to the Rationalist and the
Heathen. It may be that in the case of Martineau and
other Rationalists God has granted union and commun
ion with Himself in the forms of the Reason, higher and
richer and grander than that enjoyed by some of their
critics, who, having the means of grace in their hands
and such blessed opportunities within their grasp, are con
tent with the external forms, neglecting to rise through
them and upon them to the high privilege of communion
with God in the Spirit, through the forms of the Reason.
If Martineau claims to have found divine certitude
through the Reason, why should we doubt it ? * Shall

* " I am prepared to hear that, after dispensing with miracles and infallible per
sons, I have no right to speak of • authority ' at all, the intuitional assurance
which I substitute for it being nothing but confidence in my own reason. If to
rest on authority is to mean an acceptance of what, as foreign to my faculty, I
cannot know, in mere reliance on the testimony of one who can and does, I cer
tainly find no such basis for religion ; inasmuch as second-hand belief, assented
to at the dictation of an initiated expert, without personal response of thought
and reverence in myself, has no more tincture of religion in it than any other les
son learned by rote. The mere resort to testimony for information beyond our
province does not fill the meaning of ' authority'; which we never acknowledge
till that which speaks to us from another and a higher strikes home and wakes

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 53

we venture to limit the grace of God to the orthodox?
May not God's Spirit work in the reason of a Rational
ist ? Why not take such an honest, straightforward, truth-
seeking scholar as Martineau at his word, when he says
that he could not find divine authority in the Church or
the Bible, but did find God enthroned in his own soul?
Such an admission does not make the Reason an infalli
ble rule of faith and practice, or in any way recognize
that the Reason maybe a substitute for Holy Scripture.
It simply recognizes that God may grant divine certi
tude to such men as Martineau through the Reason,
even though they may be guilty of sin against the Bible
and the Church. God has not left Himself without a
witness in Reason, when Scripture and Church, for one
cause or another, do not accomplish the work of grace.
It was because the Reason was insufficient by itself that
God established His Church, and it was because the
Reason and the Church were insufficient when combined,
that God gave the Holy Scriptures as the only infallible
rule of faith and practice. But the Church does not do
away with the Reason ; and the Scriptures do not do
away with the Church. These are three divinely chosen
media which, when properly used, will always speak the
same divine message and lead to the same throne of the
divine grace. When men are cut off from any one, or
any two of them, they may use the third, and it will give
them divine testimony.

the echoes in ourselves, and is thereby instantly transferred from external attesta
tion to self-evidence. And this response it is which makes the moral intuitions,
started by outward appeal, reflected back by inward veneration, more than ego
istic phenomena, and turning them into correspondency between the universal
and the individual mind, invests them with true ' authority.' We trust in them,
not with any rationalist arrogance because they are our own, but precisely be
cause they are not our own, with awe and aspiration. The consciousness of
authority is doubtless human ; but conditional on the source being divine,"—
Stat of Authority, Pref., p. vi.-vii.

5J. THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

(6). Christian experience shows that the Reason is a great
Fountain of divine Authority.

This doctrine is a very practical doctrine. Upon it
is founded the doctrine of prayer, as a means of grace ;
and that private meditation upon God and holy things,
which is so very important in religious experience. It is
no depreciation of the Bible to say we cannot always
have the Bible with us. It is no depreciation of the
Church to say, that there are times when we are beyond
the reach of the visible Church. Is our Christian relig
ion confined to the use of Bible and Church ? Is there
no religion for Christians when Bible and Church are
absent? The religion of Jesus Christ is a universal re
ligion. Our Saviour taught that God is spirit, and they
who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in
truth. Such worship is not confined to any place, or
time, or form. It is as universal and eternal as the rela
tion of the divine Spirit to the human spirit and the
forms of the Reason. It is through prayer that the hu
man Reason rises to the throne of grace ; and it is in the
time of prayer that the divine Spirit ordinarily enters
the throne-room of the Reason to make the human body
a temple of the Holy Spirit.

The doctrines of the indwelling Spirit, of the present
reigning Christ, and of the immanence of God, all these
precious doctrines insist that God speaks with divine au
thority in the forms of the Reason. Hereby the believer
knows that his prayers are answered ; that his praises are
accepted and re-echoed in blessings ; that his consecra
tion of himself and his offerings are sweet incense to
God, and are themselves a reinvigo ration from the Holy
Spirit ; that while he is laboring with all his might to do
the will of God, God within him is working all His gra-

THE REASON A FOUNTAIN OF AUTHORITY. 55

cious pleasure. It is by the divine authority in the forms
of the Reason that the believer is assured of the pardon
of sin, of his personal acceptance with God, of his son-
ship and heirship in the kingdom of heaven, of the assur
ance of grace and salvation. The Bible and the Church
are the arms of the ladder up which we climb to God on
the rounds of the Reason. It is only through immediate
communion with God, in forms of the Reason, that the
higher Christian life is possible. How can the believer
be made to sit with Christ in the heavenly places ; * how
can he seek the things that are above, where Christ is
seated on the right hand of God ;f how can we have our
access in one Spirit unto the Father; J how can we draw
near with boldness unto the throne of grace ; § how can
our fellowship be with the Father and with His Son Jesus
Christ, || except through the forms of the Reason ; through
the religious feeling that has become a vital tie, a blood
union with Christ ; through a conscience that is purified
and enlightened by the divine Spirit ; and through facul
ties of cognition, conception, and imagination, immedi
ately informed by the Father of spirits Himself ?f

* EPh- »• 6- t Col. iii. i. j Eph. ii. 18.

§ Heb. iv. 16. | x john i. 3.

II " This consciousness of God growing forth from the divine communion of love
becomes in the regenerate thinker a source of theological knowledge. The theo
logian himself becomes a fountain, a secondary fountain, from which the knowl
edge of things spiritual and heavenly may be developed. Says our Lord : ' I am
the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness; but shall
have the light of life.' The obedience of faith in Christ is the new life. His
followers live this life : they live it by following the light. Possessing the life,
they have the living light, or the light of life-communion with Him. They have
the light because they have the life. The life is a shining light. Accordingly
our Lord says : « Ye are the light of the world.' Not only that His disciples are
prominent objects which all men see, but also that they are like a burning focus
whence divine radiance is shed forth into the world. Hence it is added : « Let
your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.' The pri
mordial light kindles in the believing soul a lesser light which illumines Christian

56 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

The religion of the Church and the Bible must become
the religion of the Reason, in order that it may become
the master principle of the man, and rule him from the
centre to the circumference of his being.

It is through this divine consciousness, in the forms
of the Reason, a consciousness of God as our immanent
Father, of Christ as the ever present sovereign of our
hearts, and of the divine Spirit as the indwelling energy
of a spiritual and a holy life, that man becomes not only
a believer, a babe in Christ, but a child of God indeed, a
matured Christian, assured of his sonship, and living a
conscious heavenly life even in this world. Such a man,
and such a man only, assured of the presence and the in
dwelling of the immanent God, can sing with the Psalm
ist from his inmost heart :

" Whither shall I go from Thy spirit ?
Or whither shall I flee from Thy presence ?
If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there ;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ;
Even there shall Thy hand lead me,
And Thy right hand shall hold me.
Have I said surely the darkness shall overwhelm me,
And night, the light that is round about me ;
Even the darkness hideth not from Thee,
But the night shineth as the day :
The darkness and the light are both alike to Thee." *

reason and guides, more or less completely, the processes of thought on theologi
cal issues."— Gerhart's Institutes of the Christian Religion^ pp. 51-52.
* Ps. cxxxix. 7-12.

III.

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY.

IT ought to be a commonplace that " there are his
torically three great fountains of divine authority — the
Bible, the Church, and the Reason "; * and yet this state
ment has been questioned by some and controverted by
others ; and many who have recognized its essential
truthfulness have objected to the terms in which the
truth is expressed.

(i). What is meant by Fountains of Authority ?

All language is more or less symbolical, and it is im
possible to state any profound truth or fact in terms
which all will accept or which every one will understand
without reflection. It is possible that some may prefer
the synonymous expressions, " seat of authority," source
of authority, or " medium of authority." Any one of
these phrases sets forth the true doctrine only in part,
and any one of them may be pressed to logical inferences
that would be repudiated. If any one has a better ex
pression we will gladly accept it. But if we could combine
all the above with any others which any one might con
ceive to be more suitable for the purpose in a higher
unity of conception and expression, they would still set
forth only some phases of a truth and a fact which tran
scends human powers of comprehension and expression.
At best we can only catch glimpses of the sublime truth

* Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture^ 3d edition, p. 24.

(57)

58 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

and fact of the authority of God and express it in lan
guage that seems most appropriate for the conception
that may be granted to us by God. Let us consider
several of these synonymous terms.

"Seat of authority in religion" is a phrase used by
Martineau and others. The seat of divine authority is
that seat upon which God enthrones Himself when He
speaks with divine authority to men. The seat of au
thority is not the authority itself, any more than the
throne is the monarch seated on the throne. God Him
self is the only divine authority. But in order to make
divine authority known to men, it is necessary that God
should enter the forms of the Reason, either immedi
ately by the direct contact of the divine Spirit with the
human spirit, or mediately through the divine institutions
of Church and Bible. When God enters the forms of
the Reason He enthrones Himself there as sovereign and
judge, in order to speak through the conscience and the
religious feeling a divine decision which cannot be ques
tioned and give a divine guidance in truth and right.

When it is said that the Church is a great." source of
divine authority," it is not taught that the Church is
the original source of divine authority apart from and
independent of God. Source may be used for the first
cause, the original source; but the primitive meaning of
the word source is, that from which anything rises or
springs ; and the common meaning of the word, as in
the sources of a river, the sources of history, and the
like, justify one in speaking of the Church as a source
out of which, as out of a fountain-head, or as out of an
original document, comes the divine authority that we
need. The source does not constitute the authority,
but transmits it; the authority creates and uses the
source, as the channel through which it pours its divine

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 59

influences. When it is said that the Church is a source
of divine authority, we mean that the divine Messiah,
enthroned on the right hand of the Father as the king
and head of His Church, communicates His divine pres
ence and authority to the Church in the world, through
the divine Spirit who pervades and controls the institu
tions of the Church and fills them with the divine pres
ence, giving the certitude of it to the faithful. And so the
Church becomes a source through which the divine au
thority flows to men in a river of grace.

The term, " fountain of divine authority," ought not
to be obscure, for no one can reasonably confuse the
fountain with the living water that flows through it, or
the power back of the fountain that forces the water
forth. Holy Scripture justifies the use of the term foun
tain of authority. Jeremiah rebukes Israel for forsaking
" God, the fountain of living waters." * Our Saviour
said: "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and
drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath
said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."f
Hebrew Wisdom tells us :

" Understanding is a well-spring of life unto him that
hath it." $

"The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life."§
" The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life." |
Moses says : " Not by bread alone doth man live, but
by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of
Jahveh,"^f and this is re-echoed by Hezekiah when he
says:

" O Lord, by these things men live, and wholly there
in is the life of my spirit." ** The prophet predicts :

* Jer. ii. 13, xvii. 13. t John vii. 37, 38. I Prov. xvi. 22.

§ Pr. x. ii. \ Pr. xiii. 14. 1J Dt. viii. 3. ** Is. xxxviii. 16.

60 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

:< Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the
wells of salvation." *

" And thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a
spring of water, whose waters fail not." f

A psalmist says :

" How precious is Thy loving-kindness, O God !
And the children of men take refuge under the shadow of Thy

wings.

They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of Thy house,
And Thou shalt make them drink of the river of Thy pleasures,
For with Thee is the fountain of life." J

Jesus tells the Samaritan woman :

" Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give
him shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give
him shall become in him a well of water springing up
unto eternal life." §

And the enthroned Saviour says in the great prophecy
of the New Testament :

" I will give unto him who is athirst of the fountain of
the water of life freely." ||

These passages of Holy Scripture not only teach that
God Himself and the Messiah are fountains of divine
authority, but that the Reason, when rilled by the divine
Wisdom with holy understanding and instruction, be
comes a fountain of divine authority to the man himself,
and also to those whom he teaches ; that the word of
God, either in the form of oral instruction or written
teaching, becomes a fountain of divine authority ; and
that Israel and the Church become fountains of divine
authority and salvation ; or to use more technical lan
guage, that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason are
great fountains of divine authority.

* Is- xii- 3- t Is. Iviii. ii. J Ps. xxxvi. 7-9.

§ John iv. 14. | Rev. Xxi. 6.

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. (ft

This use of the word fountain of authority, is also
justified by historic usage. Thus the Council of Trent,
in its decree concerning the canonical Scriptures, says :

"Which [Gospel], before promised through the prophets in
the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first
promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be
preached by His Apostles to every creature, as \hzfountam of all,
both saving truth and moral discipline, and seeing clearly that
this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and
the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the
mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the
Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmit
ted as it were from hand to hand."

Luther agrees in using the term " fountain," when he
says that Holy Scripture is " sola omnis sapientice fons
est."* Van Oosterzee represents that Holy Scripture is
the fons primarius of truth, the confessional writings of
the Church the fons secimdarius, and the Christian con
sciousness \hefons internus.\ He then goes on to say :
" This is quite in the spirit of the apostles and of the re
formers, not only of Calvin, concerning the doctrine of
the witness of the Holy Spirit, but also of Luther.

" We might preach the law forever to a beast, and yet it will
not enter into the heart. But man, as soon as the law is pro
claimed to him, at once exclaims, ' Yes, it is so ; I cannot deny
it.' We could not convince him of this if it were not beforehand
written in his heart. But since it is so, however dim arid faded,
it is again quickened with the word, so that the heart must con
fess that it is indeed as the commandments ordain." \

Principal A. M. Fairbairn has recently said :

" Dr. Martineau speaks of the ' seat of authority,' but the posi
tion which he maintains, the arguments he uses to support it,

* Op. exeg., iv., 328. t Christian Dogmatics, i., p. 23.

\ VValch, Werke, iii., p. 1575.

62 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

and the terms he employs, show that he does not mean abode
or home, but medium or vehicle of authority. The ultimate or
fontal authority is God. The medium through which His mind
and will are made known is conscience ; it is the seat of authority
in an altogether secondary sense, as the bench is the seat of law.
God is the source of the authority which sits in conscience, as in
England, Parliament and the crown are the sources of the au
thority that resides in the bench. Dr. Briggs again, in a more
scientific and comprehensive spirit, has spoken of three sources
of authority: Reason, the Church, and the Scriptures, and by
'source ' he seems to mean something rather different from what
Dr. Martineau means by 'seat.' 'Seat ' expresses more the idea
of authority possessed and exercised by inherent or delegated
right ;•' source ' expresses more the idea of channel or medium,
as a spring, though termed the source, does not originate the
water which it discharges, but is simply the mouth or opening
through which it flows to greet the earth. ' Seat ' thus more
emphasizes the place where authority resides, ' source ' more the
vehicle through which it comes — the point, as it were, from
which it breaks that it may find us. But now it is evident that,
whether, with greater regard to the organ, we speak of 'seat,' or,
with more reference to mediate origin, we speak of ' source,'
what we really mean is that authority, fontally and ultimately,
resides in God, but that God uses as media or vehicles for the
manifestation of His authority, either exclusively the conscience,
or, more comprehensively, Reason, Church, and Scriptures."*

Whatever defect there may be in any one or all of the
terms used to set forth this doctrine, the doctrine itself
ought to be plain enough. God Himself speaks with
divine authority to men, and gives them certainty of that
authority, sometimes through the forms of the Reason,
sometimes through the Church, sometimes through Holy
Scripture ; and then again in any two of them, or in all
three of them.

* The Christian Union, August, 1891.

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 53

(2). Are the three Fountains co-ordinate?

When we say that there are historically three great
fountains of divine authority, we do not in the statement
either co-ordinate these fountains or subordinate them,
or in any way define the relation between them. We
state a fundamental fact upon which Christianity as a
whole is agreed. If there be a seeming discord, it is due
to ignorance, misconception, or misrepresentation. It
is conceivable that the three fountains might be regarded
as co-ordinate. If any one holds such an opinion, we
do not.

The Christian world is divided into three great parties.
The Churchmen have exalted the Church above the
Bible and the Reason. The Rationalists have exalted
the Reason above the Bible and the Church. The
Evangelical party have exalted the Bible above the
Church and the Reason ; but no party, so far as we
know, has made Bible, Church, and Reason co-ordinate,
that is, on the same level, in the same order, of equal,
independent authority.*

The Roman Catholic does not deny that God speaks
to men through the Reason and the Bible ; but he sub
ordinates the Bible and the Reason to the authority of
the Church. Evangelicals do not deny that there is
divine authority in the Church and the Reason, but they
subordinate Church and Reason to the Bible. A Ration
alist may deny that there is divine authority in the Bible
or the Church, but all that is essential to Rationalism is
the maintenance of the supreme authority of the Reason.

The relation of Bible, Church, and Reason as seats,
sources, fountains, media, channels of divine authority,
is one of the most difficult of questions ; but that each

* See Appendix IV.

(54: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

one of them is in some measure such a seat, source, and
fountain, is not an open question in any of the historic
churches in Christendom. The concord of Christendom
is that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason are the
three great fountains of divine authority. The discord
of Christendom is as to their relative place and value. It
should be the aim of all earnest men to diminish the
discord so far as possible by avoiding extreme state
ments, and by determining carefully how far the three
fountains share alike in divine authority and how far
each one has certain features which discriminate it from
the others.*

The Bible, the Church, and the Reason are the three
great fountains of divine authority, and yet we claim
that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith and
practice ; the conscience alone speaks the categorical
imperative within the man ; the Church alone adminis
ters sacramental grace. The Bible, the Church, and the
Reason are all alike dependent upon the real presence
of God in them and with them. God is the only divine
authority. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason have
divine authority only as the instruments of His sovereign
will and as the channels of His gracious pleasure, each
having its own special place and importance in the work
of grace.

In the preceding lectures we have endeavored to show

* " To take a wider view : it should be the work of this age, with all its ques
tionings of fundamental principles, to advance that branch of religious philos
ophy, which may be described as the Logic of Belief, the theory of the methods
for attaining religious truth, and of the just grounds of religious conviction.
The true place of authority is an important department of this subject. And it
is my own conviction that a fuller perception of the true bearings of this ques
tion would prove a very powerful agent in the reconciliation of differences among
Christians and in a general advance in spiritual knowledge and life." — V. H.
Stanton, The Place of Authority in Religious Belief ^ p. 12,

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. (55

that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason, each in its
own place, is a great fountain of divine authority. We
shall now endeavor to consider the relation between
them. This has not been solved by the Church. The
discord of Christendom is a sufficient evidence of that.
There are many questions that have not been satisfac
torily determined. We have to consider what is the
consensus of Christendom and so essential to orthodoxy ;
what is essential to Protestantism and so binding upon
Protestants ; and what is within the range of Christian
liberty — the open field of public discussion.

We adhere to the Catholic doctrine that the Bible,
the Church, and the Reason are the three great fountains
of divine authority. And we hold to the Protestant
position as to their relative place and value, namely, that
the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
We maintain it over against Roman Catholicism, which
exalts tradition to an equal place with Holy Scripture
and makes the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, as the
supreme head of the Church, the supreme judge in all
controversies of religion. We maintain it over against
Rationalism, which makes the Reason the ultimate test
by which to determine the validity of all statements of
Holy Scripture and Holy Church. We also maintain it
over against Protestant scholasticism and Anglo-Catholi
cism, both of which seek to establish a rule of faith exte
rior to the Bible, the one in dogmatic systems, the other
in Catholic traditions. We maintain that the only infalli
ble rule of faith and practice is Holy Scripture itself—
and that the supreme judge in all religious controver
sies can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the
plain statements of Holy Scripture.

66 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

(3). The Reason is not a ride of faith.

The Reason gives no rule of faith. It gives deter
mination of specific questions submitted to it. The
Conscience and the Religious Feeling speak with divine
authority that cannot be questioned. The fundamental
laws of thought demand implicit obedience. The meta
physical categories are the limitations of our intellectual
powers which can no more be transcended than we can
pass out beyond the horizon of our earth. So even
Holy Scripture and Holy Church must enter into the
holy of holies of the human reason ere they can exert
any influence whatever upon men. The Church and the
Bible have no divine authority to violate the autonomy
of the Reason. The Reason will not bend the knee to
any statements which conflict with the fundamental laws
of thought, which are contrary to the metaphysical cate
gories, which outrage the conscience and offend the re
ligious feeling. Ecclesiastics and dogmaticians may try
to compel the Reason to accept their decisions. But
Holy Scripture and Holy Church gain the consent of the
Reason by being true and right. This is recognized by
Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics, as well as Prot
estants.

" But although faith is above reason, there can never be any
real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God
who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of
reason on the human mind ; and God cannot deny Himself, nor
can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such
a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not
having been understood and expounded according to the mind
of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken
for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every
assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly
false."*

* Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Chapter IV,

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. $7

^ Anglo-Catholic position is stated by Charles

Gore :

" We make a great mistake about the essence of faith if we
imagine that faith is merely the surrendering of our reason and
the passive acceptance of an unmistakable voice of external au
thority. Faith, in the Bible, is opposed not to reason, but to
sight. It was not Christ's will to reveal Himself beyond all pos
sibility of doubt. He did not utter a dogma about Himself and
bid men bow down to it. The faith which could accept Him had
to see through a veil. When men complained that He kept their
souls in uncertainty, when they importunately asked to be 'told
plainly,' He made no response to their complaint, except to at
tribute their unbelief to their not being « His sheep.' Faith is an
inner sense which faithfully and perseveringly apprehends God
in spite of difficulties and through the veil."*

There is no difference of opinion in the Church at this
point among intelligent persons. The difference ap
pears when we come to apply the principle of the di
vine authority of the Reason. What shall be your po
sition when there is seeming conflict? Which one of
the three fountains of divine authority will you then
follow? The Roman Catholic says in such a case that
the Church must decide. But the Protestant says that
when the Church rises up in antagonism to the Reason,
we may be sure it is not acting by divine authority, but
under the influence of ecclesiasticism ; whenever Holy
Scripture seems to do this, we may conclude that its
meaning has been perverted by dogmatism. Thus the
Reformers appealed to the Reason against the dogma of
transubstantiation. It was a violation of the Reason to
say that the bread and the wine had been transformed
into the real body and blood of our Lord and at the
same time remained bread and wine to the human

* Roman Catholic Claims, p. 50.

68 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

senses. So Zwingli appealed to the Reason against Lu
ther, who insisted upon " This is my body" and he
claimed that these words of Jesus must be interpreted in
such a way as not to violate the Reason. The real pres
ence in the sacrament of the table is a mystery that
transcends human conception and imagination, but it
should be so expressed in dogma as not to be unthinka
ble and unreal. So the conscience and religious feeling
of modern evangelical Christians revolt against the doc
trine of the damnation of unbaptized children, and the
assertion of traditional dogma that the whole heathen
Avorld is lost forever in eternal punishment. No doctrine
can ever maintain its ground when it is condemned by
conscience, or the religious feeling, or any of the forms
of the human Reason. When the Reason resists the
dogma, it is necessary to re-examine it in order to deter
mine whether it is truly catholic and truly biblical. It is
also necessary to re-examine the grounds of resistance
in order to determine whether human reasoning and hu
man prejudices may not have obtruded themselves upon
the Reason. But if the Reason persists in opposition,
refuses to recognize the truth and right of the dog
ma, and shrinks from it as false and wrong ; we may be
sure that the Reason is giving a divine decision, so far,
at least, as that phase of the dogma which has been pre
sented to it. Experience shows that the voice of God
speaking in the Reason is invariably right, and that the
decisions of the Reason eventually are shown to agree
with Scripture against tradition. It was this divine
energy within the Reason of man that enabled Luther
to stand firm against pope and emperor, and strength
ened Athanasius "contra mundum" '

* " It is indeed impossible, as will soon appear on a nearer investigation, that
Reason can say to Belief, or Belief to Reason, • I have no need of thee.' Such a

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. (59

We should take great pains lest these decisions of the
Reason be confounded with human reasoning, human
conception, or human imagination. These operations
of the mind are merely human, they have nothing certain
in them, they are often extremely fallible.

We are not urging that divine revelation or the teach
ing of the Church must confine themselves to those things
which men may apprehend by perception and compre
hend in conception and clothe in the forms of the human
understanding and the colors of the human imagination
and fancy. Many things in Holy Scripture are tran-
scendently above the comprehension of the Church of
our times as they have been above the understanding of
the men of ancient times. Later ages may extend their
powers of conception and imagination to greater lengths
and breadths and heights and depths, and yet Holy
Scripture will probably be higher and deeper and longer
and wider still. It is one of the most striking features
of Holy Scripture that it transcends the grasp of our

separation is in the highest degree unpsychological ; as it partly presupposes,
partly establishes, an inner dualism, which may be conceivable as a transition,
but cannot possibly continue as the normal condition. That separation is alike
irreligious and unchristian ; God cannot be glorified by the rejection of one of
His two most glorious gifts, Reason and Faith ; and the Lord nowhere disa
vowed in His contemporaries either the right of reason or the voice of natural
feeling. He constantly appealed to both, and His apostles followed His exam
ple. Lastly, this separation of belief and knowledge is unprotestant and spe
cially unreformed. The well-known declaration of Luther at Worms, that he
would not yield his consent unless he were convinced by Holy Scripture or by
'clear reasoning,' is in this respect symbolical, and it is universally known how
little hostile the supporters of a healthy orthodoxy during the best period of our
Church have shown themselves to philosophy. Their motto was rather, ' True
philosophy, though it may differ greatly from the doctrines of the Church, yet
neither fights with it, nor is a lie, as are the false doctrines of other sects, but is
truth, even a spark of God's own wisdom kindled in the creation in the human
mind. (Ursinus, Opp., torn, i., p. 48.)" — Christian Dogmatics, by J. J. Van
Oosterzee (Vol. I., p. 161-2).

YO THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

minds and hearts as the heavens transcend the earth.
Henry B. Smith rightly says:

" Human reason may indeed inquire whether the voice which
speaks be delusive or divine ; it may test the truth of revelation
on historical grounds; it may ask whether its doctrines be in
harmony with, or contradictory to moral truth, to our essential
ideas and necessary convictions ; it may inquire whether the
problems it proposes to solve be real or only imaginary ; but hav
ing answered such preliminary inquiries, it has no shadow of a
right to go to this revelation and dictate to it what it shall tell
us of God's nature, or what shall be the method of the revelation
or of the redemption, any more than it has a right to go to that
other reality, nature, and prescribe its laws and limit its elements.
In both cases man is to study and to learn. Viewless as the life
of nature, Christianity, like that life, is a diffusive, penetrating,
and shaping agency : it moves majestically according to its divine
laws, and knows not the control of human reason. It is simple
as is light to the eye of the child, it is profound as is light to the
eye of the sage, it is blessed as is light to all, it is darkness only
to those who see not the light." *

With this explanation, and within this province, we
assert that the Reason, embracing the conscience, with

* Faith and Philosophy, p. 231.

" If we ask what rights and duties must be conceded to Reason in its relation
to the Revelation of Salvation, the answer is already determined in principle by
what has been said. Reason may and must submit the grounds for the reality
of this revelation to a close and accurate test ; compare its contents with that
which general revelation proclaims, and reject what appears to be in irreconcila
ble conflict therewith ; it must seek to distinguish the unchangeable essence of
this revelation from the temporary form in which it is now given, and try to pene
trate more deeply into its internal coherence, its value, and Divine dignity ; and
attempt by its light to raise itself to the height of a really Christian notion of tke
world — believing, but also reasonable in the very highest sense of the word. In
some degree — it is a comparison drawn irom Liebnitz — in some degree Revela
tion, as contrasted with Reason, fulfils the task of an Extraordinary Royal Com
missioner before a lawful assembly, to which he first of all delivers his creden
tials ; but when these credentials have once been properly examined and approved,
he now takes the place of President, communicating his deecrees and commands,
which were unknown before, and by the right of these rules all further delibera
tion (§xvi. '$)"—Uiristian Dogmatics, by J. J. Van Oosterzee (Vol. I., p. 163).

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. fl

its categorical imperative, the re-ligious feeling, the
metaphysical categories, and the fundamental laws of
thought, has a divine authority which is not alien to the
authority of Bible and Church, but which is so necessary
that without it they could not accomplish their divine
purpose.

We have thus far considered the relation of the Rea
son to the Scripture ; we shall now consider the relation
of the Scripture to the Reason. The Reason does not give
a revelation from God in the form of a rule, whether in
concrete or abstract forms, whether written or unwritten.

The memory of the individual may retain the deci
sions of the Reason, and these may be formulated by the
intellectual powers into a rule of faith and life. So great
minds may collect comprehensive rules of faith and
life from the consensus of human experience. But these
rules, whether framed by the individual for himself, or
collected from the experience of the generations for the
guidance of mankind, cannot claim divine authority, can
not assert infallibility unless it can be shown that divine
authority has been imparted to the authors of these
rules in their collection and composition. This is not
claimed by Rationalists, for such rules, whether made in
our day or in the days of old. Rationalists contend
rather that the rules of Holy Scripture and the rules of
Holy Church were made up in essentially the same way
as the rules of other religions and civilizations and of
modern scholars.

In the sacred books of the ethnic religions and in the
various systems of religious philosophy we have religi
ous writings which are the product of the human con
ception and imagination under the guidance of God
speaking to man through the Reason. It is claimed for
the prophets of some of these religions as well as for the

^2 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

prophets of Isr-ael that they had something more than
this, namely, that they were not only guided through
their reasons as were other men, but that they had a
special divine guidance which made them the teachers
of mankind ; and that therefore not only in their reasons
but also in their conceptions and in their imaginations;
in their speaking and writing as religious teachers, they
were divinely guided ; and that their words and writings
have divine authority.

We are not prepared to deny that there were such
prophets among other people than Israel, and that there
may be such divine instruction in some of the sacred
books of the East as well as in Holy Scripture. We can
only test these claims by the Reason on the one side and
by the methods of historical criticism on the other.
Such a testing shows that some of these sacred books
are of great religious excellence. We acknowledge
frankly that they have been unfairly dealt with by many
Christian Apologists, who have pointed to their errors
in science and philosophy as evidence that they were
not infallible — who have depreciated their religious con
tents, and who have endeavored to derive the residuum
of good from the influence of the Jewish or Christian
religion.

We recognize that there are errors in Holy Scripture,
in science, in geography, and in history, as well as in the
sacred books of the East.* We admit that there are
crude conceptions and gross immoralities recorded in the
lower stages of divine revelation in the Old Testament.
We acknowledge that the writers of Holy Scripture were
in a measure influenced by the religious ideas of the re
ligions with which they were brought in contact. If

* See pp. 91 seg.

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. f3

these admissions destroy the value of the Bible to any
one, it is not from any defect in the Bible ; it is due to
unfortunate traditional methods of thinking about the
Bible. If in these respects our Holy Scriptures show in
a measure the defects of the sacred books of the East,
we should cease our polemic against these books, lest
the same unreasonable polemic should be made against
Holy Scripture by the adherents of these other relig
ions. We should also cease involving the divine author
ity of Holy Scripture in such external and circumstantial
questions as these. The value of the sacred books of the
world depends upon their religious contents, upon the
ethical ideals they present for the pursuit of man.
These ideals in all the sacred books are vastly higher
than the actual attainments of the adherents of these
books. But when we compare these ideals with those
presented to us in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments, even the most extreme rationalist ad
mits that we are rising to infinite heights of transcend
ing excellence. In the study of the sacred books of the
great religions of the world, presenting the highest
religious attainments of mankind, we have been groping
in caverns with the faint and flickering light of torches,
in order at last to come forth into the full blaze of the
noontide sun shining through the Holy Scriptures from
the Light of the world, the eternal Logos.

(4). The Unique Authority of Holy Scripture.

The Holy Scriptures of the Church have thus a unique
place in the literature of the world. They present a rule
of faith and life which is of such a holy and heavenly
character that they reflect the holiness and heavenliness
of the Messiah Himself, and gain our credence that they
are the Word of God.

74: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

" The heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine,
the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope
of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discov
ery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other
incomparable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, are
arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be
' the word of God ' " (Westminster Confession of Faith, i. 5).

Such evidence is the highest evidence which can be
produced until the divine Spirit Himself, who guided
the writers of Holy Scripture, also speaks in our hearts,
in the forms of the Reason, the confirming word, for " Our
full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and
divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of
the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word
in our hearts." *

The Holy Spirit must convince the Reason of man that
the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, ere he
can know with a certainty that they have divine authority
in them.f The authority of God speaking through the
Scriptures then coincides with the authority of God
speaking through the Reason.

This divine evidence convinced Israel of the divine
authority of the sacred writings of the Old Testament ;
and then convinced the Church of the divine authority
of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, and so
these have remained through all the centuries of Church
history the divine word to the Church. It is true that
the Church has ever been divided in opinion as to the
recognition of the Apocryphal books of the Old Testa
ment, and there are several writings of the Old Testa
ment and the New whose authority has not been
recognized with such universal consent; but with these
minor exceptions the Holy Scriptures have been recog-

*West. C. F., i.5. t See p. 35.

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 75

nized as the divine Word, everywhere, at all times, and
by every one in the Church who recognized any divine
revelation at all. With reference to these exceptions we
must say that the Holy Spirit has not granted such uni
versal conviction of their authority as He has in the case
of the Holy Scriptures as a whole.

But in what sense is Holy Scripture a rule of faith?
It gives no creed, no liturgy, no canon law for the
Church. It has the same wonderful variety that we find
everywhere in nature — its revelations are in the concrete
forms of simplicity and beauty for the instruction and
comfort of the people of God. In the Bible, as in na
ture, the man and the child, the sage and the peasant,
the master and the slave, the Aryan and the African and
the Shemite may all find exactly what they need. The
rule of faith and practice may be formulated by a study
of the Scriptures — but this external rule is not the in
ternal rule of the Scriptures themselves. The Scripture
rule is in the passages which speak plainly and unmis
takably the lessons of life and salvation.* These les
sons of Holy Scripture were not only divine when
given to the prophets in the forms of their reason, but
they remained divine when constructed by these proph
ets under the guidance of the divine Spirit into those
marvellous forms of literary expression which we find in
our Bible. The divine instruction remains the same in
whatever language or literary expression it may be sub
sequently translated. We deny that it was necessary
that infallibility should extend to the words or the liter
ary expressions, or to the circumstantial details and
historic occasions, f but we claim that the rule of faith and
life itself as written was, and ever remains, the infallible
divine guidance.

* See p. 9 seq. t See p. 107 seg.

76 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Thus Protestants rightly claim that Holy Scripture is
the only infallible rule. The traditions of the Church
which are included with Holy Scripture in the Roman
Catholic rule of faith, are recognized by Protestants as
having historical value as the expressions of the pious
opinion of the leaders of the Church in ancient times;
but we deny that they are any part of the only infallible
rule of faith and practice. We recognize that there was
a certain amount of unwritten divine teaching of Jesus
and His apostles which has been treasured in the mem
ory of the Church and transmitted from age to age in
regular succession of pious teachers and disciples, yet the
form in which this tradition has been transmitted, taking
new shape from age to age as it passed through so many
different minds and tongues and pens, has been so modi
fied that it can no longer claim such infallibility as be
longs to that part of the teaching which has remained
unchanged in sacred writings from the apostolic times.
Those who recognize tradition as having an equal place
with Holy Scripture, in fact give it a higher place : be
cause, being largely in the nature of comment upon Holy
Scripture and being so much greater in bulk than Holy
Scripture, it eventually becomes the interpreter and sub
stitute for Holy Scripture. As the Old Testament was
encased in the successive layers of the Talmuds, so the
New Testament has been encased in the successive layers
of ecclesiastical tradition.

As Protestants reject the apocryphal books of the Old
Testament because they do not have the same holy and
heavenly character as the books of the Protestant canon
of Holy Scripture and because they have not conveyed
the divine testimony to the minds and hearts of Protest
ants; so they reject this ecclesiastical tradition because
it does not sustain the test of the Reason as enlightened

THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 77

by the Spirit of God, it does not commend itself to the
Christian consciousness as holy, heavenly, and divine.

Tradition is indeed nothing more than Christian ex
perience in its historical evolution. We recognize that
the Church has been divinely guided. We rejoice in the
Holy Spirit who, in fulfilment of the promise of the Mes
siah, has been and is now guiding Christians into all the
truth. But the Spirit's guidance has not yet reached its
goal, and it is nowhere promised that the Spirit of God
would guide the Church in the transmission of ecclesias
tical tradition, so as to make it infallible, or would in
spire Christian scholars or Christian councils in the com
position of creeds, confessions of faith, liturgies, and can
ons of ecclesiastical law. It was nowhere promised that
the Holy Spirit would continue such divine inspiration
in the Church as to add to the number of the writings of
Holy Scripture in every successive age, and so substitute
for the rule of faith in Holy Scripture other rules of faith
and practice expressing the divine authority and infalli
ble guidance of the later generations. The Church had
no authority to add to the writings of Holy Scripture. It
is true that the Church has never claimed this right. But
it has virtually exercised this authority by giving tradi
tion explicitly an equal rank with Scripture and implicit
ly a greater rank than Scripture as an essential part of
the rule of faith, and as an essential part, a traditional
interpretation of the written Scripture. And in reality
the infallible authority of the Church to decide every in
terpretation of Scripture and tradition, and to determine
all questions extra-scriptural, as claimed by the Roman
Catholic Church, places the infallible authority of the
Church above the infallible authority of Holy Scripture.

Charles Gore states the Anglo-Catholic position in a
very clear, historical, and attractive form, when he says :

78 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

" I say that the Bible does not stand alone in giving the
Christian rule of faith, but the Bible interpreted by the
Church. The Spirit in the society interprets the Spirit
in the books." * But we cannot accept even this position.
The Church is indeed divinely guided as the interpreter
of Scripture, but the interpretation of the Church is not
and cannot be infallible; it cannot therefore in any way,
directly or indirectly, with propriety mingle its opinion
in the Christian rule of faith, which must ever remain the
Scriptures alone. We claim with our Puritan fathers
that the Bible does stand alone as giving the Christian
rule of faith. Reducing the prophetic gift in the Church,
as Gore does, to the interpretation of Scripture ; and re
ducing this, as he does, to teaching which conforms to
the ancient catholic consensus as defined by the princi
ples of Vincent of Lerins, he yet does not convince us
that we can safely add even such catholic teaching to the
rule of faith and life contained in Holy Scripture. When
Gore comes to define the Catholic faith, he includes in it
doctrines which are now and ever have been rejected by
the great mass of Protestant Christians and which cannot
be found in the consensus of the earliest Christians. If
the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all the truth, are
we to suppose that the primitive Christains attained that
maximum of guidance which is to measure the faith of all
times? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that each
successive age has under the guidance of the Holy Spirit
advanced nearer and nearer to the goal ? We cannot be
bound to the attainments in faith and life of any age of
the Church. We must ever press onward in quest of all
the truth. We cannot be restrained by the faith and
life of the less favored parts of Christendom. We must

* Roman Catholic Claims, p. 57.

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 79

aim to transcend the faith and life of the most favored
parts. We cannot remain upon the low levels of the
common faith, for he who follows his Master most closely,
who listens most intently for the teaching of the Holy
Spirit, will rise above his fellows to an unique knowledge
of his Lord. Only in this way, through such heroes, does
Christianity advance in the world and go on to greater
victories of faith and more magnificent triumphs in holy
living and doing. The rule of Vincent of Lerins may be
a satisfactory test of catholicity, may give the minimum
of faith, may assign the limits of ecclesiastical orthodoxy,
but it is a very weak and inferior rule when compared
with the rule set before us in Holy Scripture. Such a
rule minimizes the rule of ecclesiastical tradition, but it is
exposed to essentially the same objections. It substi
tutes for the heterogeneous mass of tradition interpreted
by an infallible living Church, a meagre body of tradition
to be derived by historical criticism from the teachings
of the most ancient fathers, in which so soon as he be
gins to state them, Gore stands out in his individuality
as a Christian teacher of the igth century, before the
background of the ancient Catholic Church.

We trust no teacher to define the Catholic faith. We
accept no rule of faith from any other hands save Christ
and His apostles. We say with Whichcote : " The sense
of the Church is not a rule, but a thing ruled. The
Church is bound unto Reason and Scripture, and gov
erned by them, as much as any particular person."*
The divine Spirit speaking in Holy Scripture is the
only infallible judge in religious- controversies. The
rule of faith is in the plain and unmistakable lessons of

* Benj. Whichcote's Aphorisms, Aphorism 921. London, 1753.

80 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Holy Scripture. There is but one only infallible rule
of faith and practice, the divine written Word.

If now we compare Holy Scripture with the best pro
ductions of Christian thought, its pre-eminence is evi
dent. Compare Holy Scripture with the creeds and
confessions, the liturgies and the canons of the Chris
tian Church. The best minds in the Christian centuries
have constructed them. They are the best fruits of the
experience of the Church in its progress during nineteen
centuries. But the Bible surpasses them in every way.
In each successive age a fresh study of the Bible proves
their insufficiency, and then comes the ever-renewed
struggle of Bible with dogma and ecclesiasticism. They
say that the Bible is under fire. But it is not the Bible,
but the dogmas about the Bible which are under fire. We
have learned to distinguish between the Bible, the creed,
and the dogmatic system. The Bible is on fire. That
fire was not kindled by Rationalists, but by the divine
Spirit, who is in the Bible, and who wraps it in the
flames of His presence as did the angel of the covenant
the acacia bush of Sinai. The Bible is on fire as never
before. It is covered with a halo of glory — it shines
with gracious guidance. It kindles the enthusiasm of
multitudes of students. It is a fire which will consume
every false dogma and false practice. It will light up
the realm of universal truth, it will command the Chris
tian world with its rule of faith as the sun is the ruler of
nature.

Compare the Bible with the best systems of doctrine.
They are all inadequate. The dogma of the theolo
gian is to the student of Biblical Theology a very small
affair. The Bible stretches out in all directions and en
velopes it as the heavens the earth. If you are troubled
with any dogma taught you, go to the Bible yourself and

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. gl

you may not find it there ; or if you do find it, it will
be in such a form that its meaning will be transformed
to you. Compare the Bible with systems of morals.
The morals of Jesus and the morals of Paul transcend
the best ethical attainments. The words of Jesus are
like diamonds clustered in a diadem of infinite purity
and beauty. They are like magnifying-glasses bestow
ing visions of the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of
man, and the universal reach of redemption. They are
like a mountain brook, clear and bright, whose waters ex
tend to invisible depths only because of the deficiency of
human vision. They are like mountains of God, whose
massive rocks tower to infinite heights of snowy majesty
and dazzling splendor. The ethics of Jesus are simple,
beautiful, and touching as the innocence of a babe ;
they are as majestic and unapproachable as the living
God. The words of Jesus are spirit and life. The
Church is far from their comprehension in faith, still far
ther from their attainment in practice.

Compare the Bible with the masterpieces of piety.
Augustine's Confessions are too much under the influ
ence of an exaggerated conception of original sin.
Thomas a Kempis' " Imitation of Christ" is too ascetic.
Bunyan's "Pilgrim" and Taylor's "Holy Living" ex
hibit some of the worst as well the best features of Pu
ritanism and Anglicanism. They cannot approach the
piety of James and Peter, not to speak of Paul and
John, and of our Supreme Master. The Holy Scripture
gives us types of piety which are suitable to every race,
condition, sex, class, age, land, and epoch of the world.
The Holy Scripture is the perennial fountain of piety,
which assumes newer and holier forms as the Church
advances in its religious nurture.

Holy Scripture, the one only sovereign rule of faith

82 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

and life, is simpler and grander, more comprehensive and
more inspiring than any other rule which man can frame.
Any other infallible rule is an impertinence. Any addi
tion to that rule is a profanation. Any substitution for
that rule is a sin against the divine majesty.

There is a wonderful unity in the Bible. The essen
tials of our religion have ever been plain enough. They
are few and simple. The great fault of Christian teach
ers has been in multiplying the essentials. The Old
Testament finds its unity in Jahveh, the one everlasting
hope of Israel, the New Testament in Jesus Christ the
Saviour, and it is the Messianic ideal of the Christ that
binds the books together.* The one thing needful is to
know God and Jesus Christ our Saviour as He is evi
dently set forth in Holy Scripture. Jesus Christ is the
Master of the Bible. All its avenues lead to the Messiah
and His kingdom. Men may halt on the way, but if
they pursue any one of the ways to its end, they will find
Christ. The Bible is a book, not God ; it leads to Christ,
is not Christ. It is a means of grace. This is vastly
more important to know than its inspiration. A man
may believe in its inspiration, and never use it as a means
of grace. But if a man use it as a means of grace, it is
of small importance what he may think of its inspira
tion. If it bring him to the presence of the living God
and give him a personal acquaintance with Jesus Christ,
that is its main purpose. This, after all, is the greatest
evidence of the authority of Holy Scripture that it
does accomplish this. This has been the experience of
multitudes in all ages. It is the experience of many
now living. It may be the experience of every one who
will put himself under its influence. It satisfies the

See VII., p. 177-

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. g3

Reason — it appeases the conscience — it gives joy to the
religious feeling, and thereby we know that it is the rule
and guide of our faith and life.

(5). The Church has divine Authority in its insti
tutions.

The Church, as a divine institution, bears in it and
with it the presence of God. Holy Scripture is a col
lection of sacred writings, not an organization of sacred
institutions. The Church has a ministry instituted by
Christ. This ministry is ordained to govern the Church,
administer the sacraments, and to teach and disciple the
nations, conduct holy worship, and lead in Christian
charities. The divine authority that is in the Church
works through these institutions. Holy Scripture does
not make the ministry of none effect. Holy Scripture
does not make the sacraments unnecessary. In holy
baptism, in the holy supper of our Lord, and in the holy
ministry of the Church, divine authority works through
institutions, as in Holy Scripture it works through writ
ings. Holy Scripture does not intrude upon the insti
tutions of the Church. The Church ought not to in
trude upon Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture does not
make the Church. The Church does not make Holy
Scripture. Both alike are original and independent
fountains of grace. The Church is not founded on Holy
Scripture, but upon Christ and His apostles. The Holy
Scripture is not the gift of the Church, but of Christ
through holy men inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is a
common error of Romanism to make the Church the mas
ter of Scripture. It is a not uncommon error of Protest
antism to make Holy Scripture the master of the Church.
Christ is the one master of them both. Each of these
divine means of grace has its own independent place and

84: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

importance under the Messiah. And yet they were
created not to act apart — they were made as helpmeets.
Holy Scripture is the magna charta of the Church — and
the Church should be the mirror of Holy Scripture. The
one cannot get on without the other. The problem is
to recognize them as independent and marriageable, and
then to marry them in indissoluble bonds of holy love
and communion.

The Church has divine authority to ordain in per
petual succession a holy ministry. The Church has
divine authority to administer the Holy Sacraments.
The Church has divine authority to use the power of
the keys — to admit into the visible kingdom of Christ
and to discipline and cast out the unworthy. These
powers the Church received by the institution of Christ
before the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were
given. All this divine authority is original to the Church,
and would have remained in the Church even if no Holy
Scriptures had been written. So the Church had a divine
calling to preach the Gospel to every creature, and this
calling was prior to the composition of the earliest of
the New Testament writings. It is nowhere said, how
ever, that, in any of these institutions, the Church will be
infallible. God retains His own freedom to bestow His
Spirit and make the means of grace, wrapt up in the in
stitutions of the Church, effective or not. The Church
is a teacher, and an interpreter of Holy Scripture ; but
the Scripture alone is an infallible guide. God's Spirit
reserves to Himself the supreme decision of all ques
tions of religion, faith, and morals.

(6). The Unity of the Bible, the Church, and the Reason,

in the Messiah.

The Bible, the Church, and the Reason find their
unity and harmony in Christ, the everlasting Logos. It

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. $5

was the pre-existent Logos who enlightened the Reason
of men before His visible advent in the world. He was
in the world by spiritual presence from the beginning
and abode in the world even until the incarnation, when
His presence became visible in the man Christ Jesus.
After His ascension to His heavenly throne, He granted
His invisible presence to His Church and continues this
invisible presence during the entire period between the
advents, preparing for His second visible advent. Christ
reigns over the Church as His own kingdom. Christ
gave the Church its Holy Scriptures. In the historic
Christ Holy Scripture has its centre of light and glory.
In the reigning Christ the institutions of the Church
find their centre of grace and source of life. In the liv
ing Christ, the Saviour and ultimate Judge who rights all
wrongs and clears all mysteries, the human Reason finds
its centre and ideal. As Christ stands forth from Holy
Scripture, and is mirrored in baptism, in the Lord's sup
per, in the holy ministry, and in the holy worship and
chanties of the Church— the Reason recognizes Him as
its satisfaction, its comfort, its joy and everlasting bless
edness.

If it is true that there are three ways of access to
God, three great fountains of divine authority, what is
it that determines which one of these ways men shall
use, and which one of the means God shall use in speak
ing with divine authority to men ?

We answer that " men are influenced by their tempera
ments and environments which of the three ways of ac
cess to God they shall pursue." * This does not mean
that men are determined by their temperaments and en
vironments, still less that their temperaments and en-

* Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture^ p. 28.

86 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

vironments determine them in their quest, for it is God
Himself who alone determines whether men find Him
or not ; and it is the divine Spirit who alone determines
whether men shall be made certain of divine authority
in the one way or the other, or in them all. If there
are three ways, certainly the temperaments of men and
their environments must have some influence upon
them in their choice, even if the three ways are alike
open, free, and unobstructed. How much more must
this be the case, if by certain environments, men are
shut off from one or more of these three ways and shut
up to a third.

We know that the Greek, Roman, and Oriental
churches and the entire Mediaeval world, together with
large numbers of Anglicans and Lutherans, claim to find
God through the Church. These constitute the majority
in Christendom at the present time ; yes, one may say,
were the whole of Christendom for centuries. Are not
these Christians influenced by their environments to seek
access to God through the Church ? Is it not evident that
a man born in the Middle Ages, or in the midst of Latin
Christianity at the present time, would be urged byshis
entire environment to seek God through the Churcn ?
We also know that the great majority of Protestants are
taught to seek access to God through the Bible. Do not
their environments influence them to seek God through
the Bible ? Futhermore, it is evident that if there is
any such thing as union and communion with God out
side of the visible Church, and the theocracy of ancient
Israel, the environment of the heathen world makes it
necessary that there at least God should be sought
through the forms of the Reason.

In some countries of modern Europe and in the
United States of America, there is a mingling of re-

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 37

ligions and of denominations of Christians. There are
represented the three great parties in Christendom,
Churchman, Evangelical, and Rationalist. Which way
of access to God will a man pursue under these circum
stances ? Certainly the environment of home, school,
and society will continue to influence the great multi
tudes in their quest after God. But there are some
stronger natures who rise above their environments ow
ing to the strength of their temperaments, and so there
are transitions from the one to the other of these three
religious parties. Some men are of such a temperament
that the Church and the Sacraments as external means
of grace, as divine institutions, seem the most appropri
ate avenues to God. Institutional Christianity is to
their taste. Others are attracted by irresistible impulse
to the Word of God. The religion of a book to which
they can always resort for guidance seems to be the most
appropriate religion for them. But there are others in
whom the conscience, the religious feeling, and the ration
al powers are highly developed, who are impatient of
every kind of external religion and seek by every means
for a religion of the conscience and the Reason.

To state these things is not to state theories, but to
state facts for which we must account in some way or
other.

But this fact that men are influenced by their tem
peraments and environments which of the three ways of
access to God they may pursue, does not make it indiffer
ent which way a man may pursue. The Bible, the
Church, and the Reason are three different means of ac
cess to God. In the order of historical development we
rise from the Reason to the Church, and from the
Church to the Bible. All should agree that none of the
sources should be neglected. We hold the Protestant

88 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

position that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith
and practice. But whether Protestant or Catholic, we
ought all to be willing to agree that no man can attain
the heights of religious development until he has used
the three fountains in harmony. The three great parties
into which Christians are divided at the present time,
should cease to exaggerate one of these sources of di
vine authority at the cost of the other two. It is improb
able that any one of the three parties has made full use
of the fountain of divine authority in its own possession.
The Bible is higher than Protestantism, the Church is
higher than Romanism, the Reason is higher than Ra
tionalism, and God is supreme over all. Each party
should remove the obstructions that it has thrown up in
the path of others. When we undertake to remove the
stumbling-blocks cast up by modern dogmaticians in
front of the Bible, we are simply doing our duty as Prot
estants and as devout students of the Bible. We are
clearing the Protestant principle of the Scriptures from
all the errors that have gathered about it. We are not
depreciating the Bible when we cast down the barriers
that obstruct its influence upon men ; we are enthroning
the Bible, by lifting it above false human dogmas and
by pointing to its own essential contents, shining as the
sun, with irresistible conviction upon all who look at
them.

We could easily show that the divine authority of the
Church has been obstructed by the folly of ecclesiasti-
cism. We could easily show that the divine authority
of the Reason has been obstructed by the conceits of
philosophers and the fancies of Rationalists. But we
sum up all in saying : " Removing these human conceits
and follies, and these obstructions erected by well-mean
ing but misguided men, from the Bible, the Church, and

THE THREE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE AUTHORITY. 39

the Reason, it will be manifest that they are, they always
have been, and they always will be harmonious." *

From the most ancient times a tradition has -come
down the centuries and millenniums of human history
that the river Nile has its origin in three great fountains
in the heart of Africa. The problem o'f the Nile has
ever been one of the most important questions of geog
raphy and science. Recent explorations have probably
discovered these fountains ; but they have not yet been
given their exact geographical location and their relative
part in the Nile system. So the greater Nile of human
experience has ever had its origin in the three great
fountains, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason ; how
ever little men have known about them, and notwith
standing no one has been able to give them precise
definition and explain their interrelation. The river of
divine grace has ever been fed by these fountains, and
ever continues to flow with its life-giving energies.

Have any of you thought what might be the result if
all parties would rise above their prejudices and seek
God and divine certitude in the three ways which God
has appointed ? If we would cease saying, I am of Paul,
I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas ; if Evangelicals
would cease depreciating the Reason and the Church in
order to exalt the Bible ; if Rationalists would cease
depreciating the -Church and the Bible in order to exalt
the Reason ; and if Churchmen would cease depreciating
the Bible and the Reason, in order to exalt the Church,
and instead of this, all would exalt the three ways
without depreciating any of them, determined to use
them all to the uttermost, in order to union and com
munion with the living God and the certitude of the.

* Brings, Authority of Holy Scripture, p. 64.

90 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

divine presence and guidance ; then we would speedily
realize the most ardent hopes of the Christian world.
All parties would rise above their environments to such
heights of attainment in heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
that the fences and barriers which have so long divided
Christendom would be reduced to faint lines, serving a
useful purpose of definition and discrimination, in order
to a better comprehension of the whole field of truth ;
but no longer distracting and confusing and demoraliz
ing the Church of the living God. It has been the will
of God that these parties should exist side by side for
centuries. We may be sure that no one will conquer
the others ; but that each has its own work to do for
God and Christ, and that in the end there will be frater
nal recognition and co-operation ; and it will become
manifest that the variations of Christendom are as con
sistent with the unity of Christ's Church as the colors
of the rainbow are consistent with the pure bright light
of the sun that gives them birth.

IV.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT?

EVERY minister, elder, and deacon in the Presbyterian
Church at his ordination subscribes to the following
statement : " I believe the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only in
fallible rule of faith and practice." What did we sub
scribe to when we made this statement, brethren of the
ministry, of the eldership, and of the deaconry? Did
we subscribe to the modern dogma of the inerrancy of
the original autographs of Holy Scripture? This is a
practical question for every one of us, for an effort is
now being made to force that interpretation upon us.
Doubtless the most of us, if not all of us, honestly sub
scribed to the face meaning of these words without sup
posing that there was any implicit and latent meaning
in the mind of the Church which was not in our minds.
We then supposed that the language was sufficiently
definite. We then subscribed to the natural, the gram
matical, and the historical meaning of the terms which
any plain man may see to be involved in them. We do not
subscribe to the statement that the Scriptures are the
only infallible rule of everything in science or philoso
phy, in history or in art, in grammar or in literature ;
but specifically, the " infallible rule of faith and practice."
If one should find errors of chronology and geography,
of historical statement and description of events, of ge
ology and astronomy, of natural history and of archaeol-

(91)

92 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

ogy, errors in any one or all of these departments,
whether few or many, he would not be in contraven
tion of the statement that " the Scriptures are the only
infallible rule of faith and practice." The position that
I have ever held, and which I now maintain, is that there
are errors in Holy Scripture ; but " these errors are all
in the circumstantials, and not in the essentials ; they
are in the human setting, not in the precious jewel it
self." " If we should limit divine inspiration and au
thority to the essential contents of the Bible, to its re
ligion, faith, and morals, we would still have ample room
to seek divine authority where alone it is essential, or
even important, in the teaching that guides our devo
tions, our thinking, and our conduct." *

" The doctrine of inspiration, as stated in the symbols
of faith, will maintain its integrity in spite of any cir
cumstantial errors that may be admitted or proved in
the Scriptures, so long as these errors do not directly or
indirectly disturb the infallibility of its matters of faith,
or of the historic events and institutions with which they
are inseparably united." f Our ordination statement
binds us to the infallibility of Holy Scripture in all mat
ters of faith and practice. There we stand firm and im
pregnable. But it does not bind us to the infallibility
of any statement of Holy Scripture that is outside the
range of faith and practice. In those other fields we may
find errors in Holy Scripture without violation of our
statement at ordination.

(i). The Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice.
The Biblical student is often met with the objection,
" Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." But this ancient

* Authority of Holy Scripture, pp. 35, 36.
t Biblical Study, p. 242.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ? 93

proverb has no manner of application to the matter in
hand. It does not refer to errors of ignorance or inad
vertence, but to errors of deceit and falsehood. If it
could be shown that the writings of the Old Testament,
any of them, were written with the intent of deceiv
ing and misleading men, then we could not trust them
as infallible in matters of faith and practice. But the
errors that have been found in the Bible are not errors
of deceit but of inadvertence, not of falsehood but of
lack of knowledge. A witness in a court of justice is
not rejected because he betrays ignorance and slips into
errors of detail, which may have resulted from careless
ness and inattention. His evidence is all the stronger
for these marks of simplicity and the faults of common
people. A witness who makes no mistakes is open to
suspicion, lest his testimony may have been prepared
for the occasion by his advocate or himself. Historical
documents are not cast aside as worthless because they
contain errors. No historic document can be found that
is altogether infallible. Even the pope of Rome does
not claim infallibility in all things, in his utterances at
the table and on the street, in his conversation with his
friends about literature, art, science, or philosophy, war
or finance, but only when sitting in the chair of St. Peter
he speaks, ex cathedra, as the vicar of Christ, in his offi
cial position as the supreme head of the Church in mat
ters of faith and morals.

When we assert that the Scriptures are " the only in
fallible rule of faith and practice," we affirm that they
are infallible in all matters of divine revelation, in all
things where men need infallible guidance from God.
We do not thereby claim that a writer dwelling in Pales
tine had an infallible knowledge of countries he had
never visited, of dates of events beyond his own experi-

94 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

ence where he had to rely upon tradition or doubtful or
imperfect human records. We do not affirm that he
gave an exact and infallible report of words spoken cen
turies before, which had never been previously recorded ;
or an infallible description of events that happened in
distant lands and ages ; removing from the traditional
report every excess of color and every variation in de
tail. We do not thereby claim that the writer of the
poem of the creation knew geology and astronomy, and
natural history better than the experts of modern^ sci
ence. The divine revelation was not made to teach us
all the arts and sciences, but to teach us the science of
God and redemption, and the art of living holy, godlike
lives. The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and
practice. If any one claims that it is an infallible rule
of everything else, he goes beyond our term of subscrip
tion, and takes a position with regard to the Bible which
he may maintain if he can, and take upon himself the
consequences of his mistakes and follies ; but if he attempt
thereby to compromise the Bible and the Church, he is
guilty of a sin that cannot be too severely censured. If the
Presbyterian Church should put itself in the position of
claiming that the Bible is the only infallible rule of ge
ology, of astronomy, of natural history, no man of sci
ence who is worthy of the name could ever thereafter
become a Presbyterian. If the Presbyterian Church
should ever decide that the Bible is the only infallible
rule of history, chronology, and geography, no true his
torian could ever be a Presbyterian. If the Presby
terian Church should decide that the Bible is the only
infallible rule of literature and art, of taste and of cul
ture, the whole class of literary men and artists must
leave the Presbyterian Church. Those who would
urge the Church to such a position are blind guides

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 95

—they would lead the Presbyterian Church into a
ditch.

(2). Kept pure in all ages.

It is claimed that to recognize errors in the Bible is
to impair the doctrine of the Bible, set forth in the first
chapter of the Westminster Confession. The Confession
teaches that : " The Old Testament in Hebrew and the
New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by
God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure
in all ages, are therefore authentical ; so as in all contro
versies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto
them."* There are three affirmations here: (i). That
the original texts were immediately inspired by God.
(2). That they have been kept pure in all ages, and are
therefore authentical. (3). They are the final appeal in
all controversies of religion. The third statement gives
the scope of the others. The Scriptures are the final
appeal in religious controversies ; matters of faith and
practice, not in questions of science. Those who have
resorted to the Bible to prove that the sun moved round
the earth, that the earth could not be circumnavigated,
that the universe was created in six days of twenty-four
hours, and the like, have surely gone beyond the range
of the Westminster Confession, which specifies contro
versies of religion. Those zealous defenders of the infal
libility of the Scriptures in other like matters of detail
outside of the range of religions controversies, apart
from matters of faith and practice, will ere long be con
victed of similar error. The Greek New Testament and
the Hebrew Old Testament have been kept pure in all
ages by the singular care and providence of God, and are
authentical. They are authentic for their purpose as the

. *I. 8.

96 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

only infallible rule of faith and practice, to determine
controversies of religion. They have been kept pure by
divine providence in all ages for this purpose. Those
who use this passage in order to prove the inerrancy of
Scripture in every particular make several inferences
which are not justified. They have no right to infer
that the adjective "pure" means inerrant in every par
ticular. Pure, yes, for '*ts purpose of grace and salvation.
Pure, yes, to determine infallibly controversies of religion.
Pure, yes, to give the infallible rule of faith and practice,
and to determine every question of religion, doctrine, and
morals. Pure, yes, so that these great purposes of the
grace of God shall in no wise be contaminated, or colored,
or warped, or changed in the slightest particular ; but not
pure in the sense that every sentence, word, and letter
of our present Greek and Hebrew text is absolutely
errorless and inerrant. The Westminster divines knew
as well as we do that the accents and vowel-points of
the Hebrew text then in their possession did not come
down from the original autographs, pure and unchanged.
They were not in the original autographs at all. Levita,
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, and the great array of
Biblical critics in the i6th and i;th centuries had set
tled that. They knew, as well as we know, that there
were variations of reading and -uncertainties and errors
in the Greek and Hebrew texts in their hands. The
great Polyglotts had settled that. They knew that there
were errors of citation and of chronology and of geo
graphical statement in the text of Scripture. Luther
and Calvin, Walton and Lightfoot, Baxter and Ruther
ford, and a great company of Biblical scholars recognized
them, and found no difficulty with them.

The language of the Confession does not, in itself,
teach that the Holy Scriptures are altogether without

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 97

error ; and it is extremely improbable from the historic
situation of the Westminster divines in the development
of Biblical scholarship, that they ever designed to make
any such statement. But even if they had intended to
make such a statement, and did actually make it^im-
plicitly if not explicitly, in the clause, " kept pure in all
ages," it is the unanimous testimony of modern Biblical
scholarship that there are errors in the Hebrew and
Greek texts now in our hands, errors that meet us in
textual criticism, in literary criticism, and in historical
criticism, that no one has been able to deny or to ex
plain away. Modern Biblical scholarship has forced the
advocates of inerrancy to fall back from the texts in our
hands, and grant that there are errors in them ; in order
to rally about the modern dogma of the inerrancy of the
original autographs.

The attentive reader of the Westminster Confession
will note that it states with regard to the original auto
graphs, that: (i). The Old Testament in Hebrew and
the New Testament in Greek were immediately inspired
by God ; and (2). That they, " by His singular care and
providence, have been kept pure in all ages." The first
statement that the original autographs were immediately
inspired by God, is not in debate in the Presbyterian
Church. All parties agree to that. The second state
ment affirms nothing more as regards the original auto
graphs, than it affirms of the Hebrew and Greek texts
in our hands. "Kept pure" means that the text we
have is as pure as the original text was, no more, no less.
Those modern scholastics who have generated this dogma
of the inerrancy of the original autographs, seem alto
gether unconscious of the fact that they have trans
gressed the Confessional statement when they claim
that the original autographs were so pure as to be iner-

98 rJ'HE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

rant, and then admit that they have not been kept suffi
ciently pure in all ages as to be inerrant at the present
time. The Confessional doctrine is, "kept pure in all
ages." This we firmly believe. The texts are as pure
to-day to determine religious controversies, as they ever
were. They are as pure, as the only infallible rule of
faith and practice, as when they first issued by immedi
ate divine inspiration from the hands and the brains
of those who wrote them and uttered them. Our oppo
nents deny the Confessional statement when they assert
that the original autographs were purer than the Biblical
texts are now. They deny the Confession which states
that they have been "kept pure in all ages" They make
the synagogue and the Church the scapegoats and throw
upon them the blame for the errors in the present texts
of Scripture. Doubtless many errors have arisen in the
course of transmission through the mistakes of copyists.
But these may, for the most part, be traced out and ex
plained according to the principles of Textual Criticism.
These errors are chiefly errors of inadvertence, although
some have arisen from dogmatic efforts to harmonize
variant passages and to correct supposed errors in the
older texts. It discredits the scientific work of textual
criticism to make conjectures as to an original text dif
ferent from the best one we can find after we have ex
hausted the resources of criticism. Conjectures in the
interests of skepticism are quite as easy as conjectures in
the interests of orthodoxy. Those who by pure conject
ure invent an inerrant original autograph that has never
been in the possession of the synagogue or the Church,
so far as we can trace the historic records, deny that God
has kept the Holy Scriptures pure in that period of their
history concerning which we are left in darkness. It is
quite easy to imagine anything in the dark.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ?

The Confession does not present any obstacle what
ever to Biblical scholarship at this point. The Confes
sion says, " kept pure in all ages" This is in accord with
Biblical scholarship. It is well known to those who
have pursued the study of Biblical Criticism, that text
ual criticism, while it advances steadily toward the orig
inal autographs, finds the number of errors increasing
as well as diminishing. As it works its arduous way
backward, some errors are removed, but others of equal
difficulty are disclosed. The Higher Criticism in its
quest after the exact literary forms of the original Scrip,
tures also finds an increasing number of errors. Histor
ical Criticism in its comparison of Bible with monument
and the parallel lines of history, clears up many difficul
ties, but also adds to the number of errors of names,
dates, geography, and incident. Biblical scholarship
could have no objection to the statement of the West
minster Confession, "kept pure in all ages"; for criti
cism shows that the present text is as pure and free from
errors of truth and fact as any earlier text accessible to
us. Indeed, the study of the errors of Holy Scripture
is one of the strongest evidences of the credibility of
Scripture. It shows clearly that the text has in all ages
been kept pure for its purposes of grace and salvation.
All the errors that have yet been discovered are but as
moles upon a beautiful face, or those discolorations of a
cathedral which come in part from the wear and tear of
ages, and in part from minor defects in the marbles
themselves, but which enhance the beauty and majesty
of the structure, witnessing to its antiquity, strength,
and grandeur.

(3). The Word of God contained in Holy Scripture.
In order not to overlook any statement of the
Westminster Confession that might seem to be in con-

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

flict with errors in the Scriptures, let us consider the
statement of the Larger Catechism : " The Holy Scrip
tures of the Old and New Testaments are the word
of God, the only rule of faith and obedience."- This
should be placed alongside of the second question of
the Shorter Catechism : " The word of God which is
contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa
ments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify
and enjoy him."

It is a shibboleth of some modern writers that the
Scriptures " are the word of God," and that it is a dan
gerous error to say they contain the word of God.
These polemic theologians take their stand at the wa
ters of life and demand of every one who would partake
of them, " Say the Bible is the word of God, or depart
from the Bible and the Church." You will observe
that the Larger Catechism states the one phrase, " arc
the word of God "; the Shorter Catechism, which was a
compendium of the Larger, states the other phrase, "the
word of God which is contained in the Scriptures." The
antithesis designed by the dogmaticians is plain. They
mean to exclude from orthodoxy all who say " contains
the word of God." But it is also evident that the Short
er Catechism did not mean to controvert the Larger
Catechism, when it used " contained in the Scriptures,"
instead of " are the word of God." It used an expres
sion that was not at all inconsistent with " arc the word
of God," but rather parallel with it. How shall we deal
with this apparent inconsistency, not seen by the West
minster divines ; but brought into prominence by later
scholastic distinctions and controversies ? It has been
proposed to interpret the word "contained" to mean

•A.J.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 1Q1

" is the word of God," and then to reject the doctrine
that " the Scriptures contain the word of God," as an
error. An interpreter who really desires to know what
a document means, is in the habit of interpreting a nar
rower term by the broader, especially if the broader be
a later usage of the same author. The apparent inconsist
ency can be removed by the comprehension of the nar
rowed term in the broader term. It is a happy circum
stance that we have an interpretation of their meaning
by a number of the Westminster divines themselves.
The very man who had a chief hand in the construction
of the Shorter Catechism, the great mathematician, Wal-
lis, the intimate friend of Herbert Palmer, the principal
author of the Larger Catechism, gives us a plain state
ment when he says :

" The Scriptures in themselves are a Lanthorn rather than a
light ; they shine, indeed, but it is alieno lumine ; it is not their
own, but a borrowed light. It is God which is the true light
that shines to us in the Scriptures ; and they have no other
light in them, but as they represent to us somewhat of God, and
as they exhibit and hold forth God to us, who is the true light
that ' enlighteneth every man that comes into the world.' It is
a light, then, as it represents God to us, who is the original
light. It transmits some rays ; some beams of the divine nature ;
but they are refracted, or else we should not be able to behold
them. They lose much of their original lustre by passing through
this medium, and appear not so glorious to us as they are in
themselves. They represent God's simplicity obliquated and
refracted by reason of many inadequate conceptions ; God con
descending to the weakness of our capacity to speak to us in our
own dialect."*

This is a simple and beautiful distinction between the
light of the divine word itself and the case, or external
letters, words, and sentences, which enclose it. It rep-

* Sermons^ London, 1791, pp. 127-8.

102 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

resents how inadequate even Holy Scripture is, at its
best, to set forth the essential glory of divine truth.
Human conceptions, even when enlarged and informed
by the divine Spirit, cannot altogether grasp the infi
nite truth of God. Human language, even when the
speaker or writer is guided by the indwelling Spirit, can
not give complete and faultless expression to the
heavenly message. This is one of the reasons why the
truth of God is given in such a great variety of forms in
Holy Scripture. Error in theology commonly springs
from the undue emphasis of a few favorite texts. The
divine way of preventing and overcoming error is by a
comprehensive view of truth through a great variety of
Biblical authors, and many varying methods of presenta
tion, the one supplementing the other, and correcting
those misinterpretations that may arise in connection
with any language, written or spoken.

Another Westminster divine says: " For the Scripture
stands not in cortice verborum, but in medulla sensus, it's
the same wine in this vessel which was drawn out of
that." *

This symbol of the wine and the vessel is also appropri
ate and beautiful. The same wine of divine truth makes
glad the heart of man in the vessel of the English lan
guage as in the vessel of the Greek, in the Chinese as in
the Hebrew.

One of the best of the early Puritans says :

" All language or writing is but the vessel, the symbol or dec
laration of the rule, not the rule itself. It is a certain form or
means by which the divine truth cometh unto us, as things are
contained in words, and because the doctrine and matter of the
text is not made unto one but by words and a language which I
understand ; therefore, I say, the Scripture in English is the rule

* Vines, Common'' s Sermon, 1646, p. 68.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 1Q3

and ground of my faith, and whereupon I relying have not a
human, but a divine authority for my faith." *

This author represents that the divine authority of
Holy Scripture is not confined to the Hebrew or the
Greek, or to the original autographs of these, but
speaks to man in every language into which the Holy
Scriptures may be translated. As another says : " For
it is not the shell of the words, but the kernel of the
matter which commends itself to the consciences of men,
and that is the same in all languages."!

According to this author, the external Bible, its letters
and sentences are only a shell — we must break through
them in order to get at the rich nut of the truth itself.
Another distinguished Puritan says :

" The testimonie of the Spirit doth not teach or assure us of
the letters, syllables, or severall words of holy Scripture, which
are onely as a vessell, to carry and convey that heavenly light
unto us, but it doth seal in our heart the saving truth contained
in those sacred writings into what language soever they be trans
lated." t

These several writers of the seventeenth century show
us clearly that they distinguished between the form and
substance of Scripture, and that the Westminster Shorter
Catechism used " contained " advisedly, in order to distin
guish between the letter of Scripture as the shell, the
case, the wine-glass, the instrument ; and the essential
contents of the divine word respecting faith and practice,
what we are to believe, and what to do in the Christian
life.

When the Westminster divines say " are the word of

*Lyford, Plain Man's Sense Exercised, etc., p. 49.
t Poole, Blow at the Root, Lond., 1679, p. 234.

t Ball's Short Treatise, containing all the Principall Grounds of Christian
Religion, pp. 30-31, 1637.

104: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

God," they do not mean by " are " what the modern
scholastics mean by their " is "; otherwise they would be
inconsistent with their own term " contained." Still less
do they mean by " contained" what a modern Rationalist
means when he would exclude from Holy Scripture all
that does not commend itself to his judgment, else they
would not say " are ." It is the doctrine of the West
minster Confession that the Scriptures " are the word of
God written" they contain the word of God in the writ
ings, and they are the word in that they do thus contain
it ; and they " principally teach what man is to believe
concerning God, and what duty God requires of man/'
The doctrine of the scholastic divines that the Bible is
the word of God, and, that as to form and content it is
the word of God in every letter and syllable and sen
tence and utterance in the original autographs, is a very
different doctrine from that taught in the Westminster
Confession. With such a doctrine you could not say
" contains the word of God." Any errors whatever
would be incompatible with it. But errors that do not
disturb the infallibility of Holy Scripture in faith and
practice are not inconsistent with the Westminster state
ment ; for they are in the lanthorn case, and not in the
light ; they are in the wine-glass, not in the wine ; they
are in the shell, not in the kernel ; they are in the ves
sel, not in its contents. The wine of redemption is just
as fresh and strong and pure to us in our English Bibles
and in our present Greek and Hebrew texts as when first
it was poured out for prophets and apostles. The light
of divine grace is just as bright and clear and pure to us
shining from our own English Bibles as when it first
shone from the lamp-stands of the primitive church, and
in ancient Jerusalem.

When dogmatists say, " A proved error in Scripture

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 1Q5

contradicts not only our doctrine but the Scripture
claims, and therefore its inspiration in making those
claims," * they substitute modern speculative dogma for
the doctrine of Holy Scripture itself. Holy Scripture
is built on the impregnable rock of divine authority. It
is a sin against the divine majesty for men to hide this
divine authority beneath the scaffolding of human au
thority. The Konigstein crowns a mass of native rock,
the citadel of Saxony. The shrub which derives a scant
maintenance from the soil in its crevices may think that
it is doing a very important work in sustaining this mass
ive structure. If it do so it is guilty of no greater folly
than the man who thinks he can enhance the authority
of Holy Scripture by the authority of his school of the
ology, or his own great name.

This doctrine of the inerrancy of the original auto
graphs of Holy Scripture stands like a wall of rock in the
path of the scientific study of the Bible. It is impos
sible for any one who holds it to do any thorough Bibli
cal work. In every department of Biblical study we
come upon errors. If we shut our eyes to the errors we
cannot see the truth with which they are connected.
We may- turn away from the real Bible and use an ex
purgated Bible in the form of a dogmatic system. We
may bury the Bible in the tomb of the dogma, and give
up the study of Biblical criticism for fear of the errors ;
but the inevitable penalty of such a course is un
reality in Christian experience and uncertainty at the
foundations of our faith. The vice of the older Bibli
cal study was just this, that it made Holy Scripture the
slave of dogma. The Bible might be studied, but ever
with the torch of the dogmatic rule of faith in hand.

* Presbyterian Review, ii. 245.

106 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

" Our doctrine " of some school of theology, or famous
theologian, must be the judge in all matters of contro
versy. The Westminster Confession teaches that : " The
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are given
by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."
" In all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to
appeal unto them." But this doctrine has been made
of no effect by traditional opinions. The dogmatic
system of their school of theology, the traditions of
their party have been the ultimate appeal during the
reign of denominationalism, and have become, in fact,
the only infallible rule of faith and practice to large
numbers of Christians; and so a dead orthodoxy has
assumed the place of a living faith. It is the " our
doctrine" and not the Westminster Confession. It is
the "our doctrine" and not Holy Scripture, which
has been raised up as a barrier to bar the way of the
critical study of the Bible and the scholarly appropria
tion of all its infinite treasures. Biblical scholars in our
day find errors in the Scriptures because they are search
ing the Scriptures more thoroughly than have any previ
ous generation of men. They are using microscopic criti
cism. They are searching the Scriptures through and
through. They are looking at them from every differ
ent point of view, and in every variation of light and
shadow. But errors are not the only things they find.
They discern truths and facts of exceeding worth, of ines
timable value, unknown to former ages, and neglected by
the older divines ; and these are the very truths and facts
we need in this generation to give new life and vigor to
our religion, to reconstruct our doctrines, and to reform
our lives. The traditional dogma of the schools is fall
ing into the background, cast into the shadow of that
grand system of Biblical and historical theology which

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT?

is rising into the very heavens instinct with the life of
God, expanding so as to comprehend every utterance of
Holy Scripture, every genuine experience of the historic
Church, every normal expression of the Christian con
sciousness, and reaching forth for higher divine guid
ance through Bible, Church, and Reason in all the mani
fold duties of the present age, in order that the Church
may become at once a holy temple of the divine Spirit,
the real body of Jesus Christ, and the kingdom of re
demption to the world.

(4). The Scriptures do not claim inerrancy.

The Scriptures nowhere claim to be free from
errors. From Genesis to Revelation no such claim can
be found in any sentence or in any word. They claim
to be the word of God ; they claim to be inspired by
God; they claim to be sufficient to enlighten and save
mankind ; they claim to be infallible in religion, faith,
and morals ; but they do not claim that minute accuracy
which distinguishes exact scholarship and the highest
professional skill, much less do they claim the infinite
perfection of God. Doubtless God might have sent an
inerrant Bible into the world. It might have been pre
pared by angel hands. A heavenly pen might have
traced heavenly letters, words, and sentences. An arch
angel might have given it once for all to father Adam.
But God did not choose this way. If He had, an inter
preter would have been needed to translate the heavenly
language. And how could the translation be inerrant?
The Scriptures were not written by dictation. The holy
penmen were not copyists or stenographers. God did
not inspire their fingers or their tongues; He inspired
their hearts, informing their reason, quickening their
conscience and religious feeling, and setting on fire their

108 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

entire intellectual, moral, and religious nature. The
holy men of the Bible were men, not machines. Doubt
less the Apollo Belvidere is more perfect in form than
any existing man, but he cannot think, he cannot speak,
he cannot worship God. God made all His theophanies
to culminate in the man Christ Jesus. So He gave all
His revelations through human minds, lips, and hands.
Their human nature, character, and training appear in
their writings as the human setting of the divine ideas.
These human features of the Bible render it improbable
that the Bible should be free from errors in its human
setting. The psychology may be crude, the methods
of reasoning sometimes inexact, the rhetoric occa
sionally extravagant, the language of some of the
writers rude, their conceptions provincial, their knowl
edge of the earth defective. But how could it be other
wise if the divine revelation was to co-me through such
men as the ancient times were capable of producing?
Holy Scripture does not claim inerrancy in its human
setting, and it does not in fact possess it. It is sufficient
if the divine ideals that come from revelation are error
less, so that the Bible can be followed with implicit con
fidence in all matters of faith and practice. The sacred
writings are able "to make wise unto salvation, through
faith which is in Jesus Christ." " Every Scripture in
spired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, furnished com
pletely unto every good work." * No error has ever
been found in the Holy Scriptures which in the slightest
degree impairs this precious doctrine.

* 2 Tim. iii. 15-17.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? 109

(5). Inerrancy is not an orthodox doctrine.

The Christian Church has nowhere at any time
decided that the Scriptures are free from errors. There
have been those at different times who have held this
opinion ; but it has been private opinion, not the
official and orthodox judgment of the Church. If the
Presbyterian Church should make such a decision in a
judicial case, it would separate itself thereby from the
Christian world and mark itself off as a partisan sect.

(a). For many years I have been contending that the
doctrine of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture is an un
safe doctrine, and that we must recognize errors in the
Scriptures ; but, in fact, the only errors referred to in
my writings are two errors of citation in the Gospels.
In Matthew xxvii. 9, the following citation is made :

" Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jere
miah, the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty
pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom
certain of the children of Israel did price."

But this passage is not found in Jeremiah. It is
really from Zechariah xi. 12-13.

In Mark i. 2, we find these words :

" Even as it is written in Isaiah, the prophet, Behold,
I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare
thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths
straight."

The evangelist seems to have overlooked the fact
that one of these passages is from Malachi iii. I. Here
are two slips of memory on the part of the evangelists,
such as any writer is liable to make. Various efforts
have been made to explain these errors, and to show that
they were not in the original autographs, but none of these

110 THE BIBLE, THE CIIURCEI, AND THE REASON.

can be said to be successful. Calvin says with reference
to Matthew xxvii. 9: "How the name of Jeremiah
crept in, I confess I know not, nor am I seriously
troubled about it. That the name of Jeremiah has
been put for Zechariah by an error, the fact itsetf shows,
because there is no such statement in Jeremiah."

Calvin was the greatest exegete of the Reformation.
If the great reformer was not seriously troubled about
such an error, why should we be troubled about it, or
think our Bible imperilled by it?

(£). Prof. L. J. Evans, of Lane Theological Seminary,
recently said :

" If Stephen transposes certain Old Testament incidents, or con
fuses certain names, does that affect the convicting power of his
terrific arraignment of an apostate Israel ? Was not the power
of the Holy Ghost in every word that he spoke, even when least
accurate ? Suppose that one of his hearers had undertaken to
reply to him, saying: 'You have said that Abraham left Haran
after the death of his father Terah ; whereas, if you study the
figures in Genesis, you will find that Terah must have lived fifty
years or more in Haran after Abraham left. You were mistaken,
also, in saying that Abraham bought the sepulchre of the sons of
Hamor in Shechem. If you look into the matter a little more
closely you will find that that was Jacob, and that Abraham
bought his purchase at Hebron of Ephron the Hittite.' But would
that have silenced Stephen ? Such a criticism on such a speech
would have been like flinging a feather in the teeth of a
cyclone."*

Possibly some of you may think that Prof. Evans is
indiscreet. But what will you say of Calvin when he
writes : " It is evident that he (Stephen) made a mis
take in the name of Abraham, since Abraham bought a
double cave of Ephron the Hittite, for the interment of
his wife: but Joseph was buried elsewhere, viz., in the

* Inspiration and Inerrancy \ pp. 165-167.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT? m

field which his father Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor
for an hundred lambs. Wherefore this passage is to be
corrected."

Calvin was not disturbed by this historic mistake of
Stephen ; why should we be disturbed by it or by any
other historic mistake in the Bible?

(<:). Prof. Henry P. Smith, of Lane Theological Semi
nary, has called attention to the errors which appear
when we compare the books of Kings with the books of
Chronicles. Take, for instance, I Kings xv. 14, and 2
Chron. xiv. 2-5.

i KINGS xv. 14. 2 CHRON. xiv. 1-5.

"But the high places were "And Asa did that which was

not taken away ; nevertheless good and right in the eyes of

the heart of Asa was perfect Jahveh his God : for he took

with Jahveh all his days." away the strange altars, and

the high places, and brake down
the pillars and hewed down the
Asherim ; and commanded Ju-
dah to seek Jahveh, the God
of their fathers, and to do the
law and the commandment.
Also he took away out of all
the cities of Judah the high
places and the sun images : and
the kingdom was quiet before
him."

As Prof. Smith says, " These certainly look on their
face like direct contradictions,"* and they represent dif
ferences of point of view which prevail through these
parallel writings written at widely different periods of
history. One of these writers must be in error, for Asa
either removed the high places or he did not. But
whether he removed them or did not remove them does

Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration, p. 104.

112 TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

not in the slightest degree disturb any matter of doctrine
or duty.

(d). The New Testament writers in their logic and
their rhetoric follow the methods of the men of their
times. Paul was trained in the Jewish schools, and it was
natural for him to use the rabbinical methods of argu
mentation. He uses the allegorical method in Gal. iv.
24, where Hagar and Sara are taken to represent the
Pharisee and the Christian. To us this seems invalid and
without force. Luther said bluntly : " It is weak and not
to the point." But why should we expect that Paul
would rise above his time in logic and rhetoric? He
was obliged to argue with the men of his times and con
vince them by their methods. As Bishop Lightfoot
well says:

"We need not fear to allow that St. Paul's mode of teaching
here is colored by his early education in the rabbinical schools.
It were as unreasonable to stake the apostle's inspiration on
the turn of a metaphor or the character of an illustration or
the form of an argument, as on purity of diction. No one now
thinks of maintaining that the language of the inspired writers
reaches the classical standard of correctness and elegance, though
at one time it was held almost a heresy to deny this. ' A treas
ure contained in earthen vessels '; ' strength made perfect in
weakness'; 'rudeness in speech, yet not in knowledge,' such is
the far nobler conception of inspired teaching, which we may
gather from the apostle's own language. And this language we
should do well to bear in mind. But, on the other hand, it were
sheer dogmatism to set up the intellectual standard of our own
age or country as an infallible rule." *

It is well known that Calvin and Luther and other
reformers recognized errors in the Scriptures; that Baxter,
Rutherford, and other Puritans of the second reformation
were not disturbed by them; and that the choicest spirits

* Epistle to the Galatians, note xiii.

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT?

of modern Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, such as
Van Oosterzee, Tholuck, Neander, Stier, Lange, Dorner,
Delitzsch, and Godet, have not hesitated to point out
numerous errors in Holy Scripture. This view is main
tained by Sanday, Driver, Cheyne, Davidson, Beet, Bruce,
Gore, Fairbairn, Dods, and numerous others in Great
Britain ; Fisher, Thayer, Grant, Smythe, Evans, Brown,
H. P. Smith, Gould, W. R. Harper, and hosts of others
in this country.*

If such men, the leading Biblical scholars of our time,
can maintain their faith in the Bible, while they frankly
recognize errors in the Scriptures wherever they occur,
why should any be disturbed by errors they may find?
When such critics, with a full knowledge of all the facts,
are exalting the Bible to the supremacy over all the doc
trines of men, you need not be alarmed by the outcries
of partisans who are anxious about their system of dog
ma which they have identified with the Bible itself. All
that we need to know, is that the Scriptures " are the
only infallible rule of faith and practice."

(6). Inerrancy is a dangerous doctrine.

The dogma of the inerrancy of the original auto
graphs of Scripture is one that has no practical advan
tage, but it may be very pernicious in effect. It is recog
nized that all modern versions of the Bible contain er
rors. King James' version and the Revised Version
alike have them. You cannot escape them in the use of
the Scriptures in church, in Sunday-school, in prayer-
meeting, and in the home. The people are exposed to
their influence, they cannot avoid them. Our opponents
say that these errors were not in the original autographs.

* See Appendix V.

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND TlIE REASON.

What comfort does this offer to the people of the Church
who never can see the original autographs and could not
read them if they saw them ? What possible advantage
is there in making statements as to documents to which
no man has any access at the present time, or has had
access for centuries ? Such a pure speculation which is
beyond any possibility of verification cannot be promul
gated as a dogma of the Church ; for no dogma has any
binding force that cannot be proved by clear, definite, and
decisive evidence and be verified by criticism. The peo
ple who use the English Bible have no use for such a
dogma. They desire to use their Bibles with profit and
to know the grounds of their faith. If the dogmatician
should say to these English readers of the Bible, who
have found errors that they cannot explain, "A proved
error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but
the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspiration in mak
ing those claims," some would doubtless respond : Then
I must give up my Bible, for I cannot deny the errors.
If the dogmatician replies, Oh, but these errors were not
in the original autographs; the inquirer asks, But how
do you know that ? Have you ever seen these original
autographs? Has any divine for a thousand years or
more seen them? The dogmatician can only answer,
No, and reaffirm his theory that Holy Scriptures must
have been inerrant, for God could not give a revelation
that would not be inerrant. And thus they reproach the
real Bible in which errors are found, in order to exalt an
imaginary Bible which neither they nor any one else has
ever discovered. We are not surprised that such argu
ments excite grave doubts in many minds in our times,
whether the Bible is inspired at all.*

* Let Samuel Rutherford rebuke them :

" If God will have us to try and examine all Spirits, all Doctrines, by the

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ?

Biblical scholars pursue a very different course. They
say, Yes, there are errors. There is no doubt about that.
These errors are also in the original texts. There is no
fault of translation. They are in the best manuscripts
we have. It is altogether probable that they were also
in the original autographs. But we have not the origi
nal autographs and we refuse to dogmatize about errors
in them. But what do these errors amount to, after all?
They are only in minor matters, in things which lie en
tirely beyond the range of faith and practice. They
have nothing to do with your religion, your faith in God
and His Christ, your salvation, your life and conduct.
They are but as motes in the sunbeam. They are the
imperfections of the human medium through which the
divine revelation has come. Men at the best are and
must be earthen vessels, in their preaching and writing
unto you. Take the word of God that is in these writ
ings, its message of grace and salvation, its lessons of
life, its holy guidance, its precious comfort. These will
attest themselves as the word of God to you and yours
as they have to others in all ages.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were
immediately inspired by God, but that inspiration did
not make them inerrant in matters of science. They

Scriptures written, then are we certainly assured, that the books we now have, of
the Old and New Testament, are the very word of God, though we cannot, by
any possibility, have the first and originall authentick copies of Moses and the
Prophets and Apostles ; Because i. God would not bid us try, and then leave us
no rule to try withall, but our owne naturall light, which must lead us into dark-
nesse. 2. The visible Church should not be guilty of unbeleefe, if the written
word were not among us, or then Christ and his Apostles speaking to us, as is
cleare, Joh. xv. 22 ; Rom. x. 14, 15 ; Matth. xi. 21, 22. The assumption is
cleare by the commended practise of the Bereans, who tryed Paul's doctrine, by
the Scriptures, Act xvii. See Rivctus, Whitaker, Calvin. 3. By the command c£
God, i Thess. v. 2 ; i Joh. iv. i. Try all things, try the Spirits" — A Free Dis
putation against pretended Liberty of Conscience, Sam. Rutherford, Lond.,
1649, p. 368.

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

have been kept pure in all ages, so far as their purpose
of grace, their message of salvation, their rule of faith
and practice is concerned ; but they are not inerrant
now, and it is not probable that they ever were iner
rant in matters of chronology. They are sufficient to
give that knowledge of God and of His will which is nec
essary unto salvation ; but they are not sufficient to give
the knowledge of astronomy and botany. They are the
only infallible rule of faith and practice; but they are
not the only infallible rule of agriculture and naviga
tion, of commerce and trade, of war and finance. The
Scriptures are pure, holy, errorless, so far as their own
purpose of grace is concerned, as the only infallible rule
of the holy religion, the holy doctrine, and the holy life.
They are altogether perfect in those divine things that
come from heaven to constitute the divine kingdom on
earth, which, with patient, quiet, peaceful, but irresist
ible might, goes forth from the holy centre through all
the radii of the circle of human affairs and persists until
it transforms the earth and man.

The Bible is the infallible rule of faith and practice.
It is such, and no one can make it otherwise. It claims
to be such, and it vindicates its own claim. The reader
of the Bible will find this out for himself. The author
ity of God will grasp his heart and conscience with irre
sistible power. The preaching of the Word accompanied
by the divine Spirit will ever continue its blessed work of
convicting and converting men, of sanctifying them and
redeeming them. The Bible will ever be the counsellor
and guide of our race, until the second advent of our
Lord. From the Bible new truth will break forth for
every generation, to lift men higher and urge them on
ward in the paths of sanctification. The Bible is the
master, the infallible rule, and it will ever continue to

IS HOLY SCRIPTURE INERRANT ?

break in pieces every other rule of faith and life that
men may put in its way. It will ever continue to give
new theology, new religious forces, and new, fresher, and
grander guidance in holy life and conduct to all the suc
cessive generations of mankind.

There are errors in the Bible as there are spots upon
the sun. The sun-spots do not disturb the light and
heat and chemical action of the great luminary or check
his reign over our solar system. They suggest that
there are greater mysteries of glorious light and reign
beyond our vision. So the errors in Holy Scripture do
not in the slightest degree impair the divine authority
that shines through it or the reign of grace that is
carried on in this world by means of it. They inti
mate, however, that the authority of God and His gra
cious discipline transcend the highest possibilities of
human speech or human writing ; and that the religion
of Jesus Christ is not only the religion of the Bible, but
the religion of personal union and communion with the
living God.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

CRITICISM is a method of knowledge ; it is a testing
of its certainty, the method of its verification. In all
departments of human knowledge criticism is necessary
in order that we may know whether the opinions and
practices that have come down by tradition from former
generations, and those that have originated in our own
times, are true opinions and right practices. We can
not be certain about them until we have tested them
ourselves or have seen them verified by others. Criticism
is, therefore, as comprehensive as human knowledge and
human practice. Wherever the human mind has pur
sued its investigations in the world of man or the uni
verse of God, there criticism reviews those investiga
tions, with the utmost care and the most painstaking
accuracy, in order to verify them, correct the mistakes,
remove the errors, strengthen the weak places in the
argument, and fortify the results.*

Criticism has no other aim than truth and fact.
Whatever will not stand the test of criticism is false.
Whatever shrinks from criticism excites doubt and sus
picions. Truth and fact are indestructible. You may
shut your eyes to the truth, you may hide it behind the
walls of error, you may imprison it in the cells of super
stition ; but sooner or later its own intrinsic light will
shine through all obstacles. It is as indestructible as

* Briggs, Biblical Study, p. 78 seq. Charles Scribner's Sons.
(118)

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

the light of the sun. You may bury fact under a
mountain of false theories, but the false theories will ere
long crumble by their own inconsistency ; they will de
cay from their own weakness. No human force or in
genuity can destroy facts. You may cut truth and fact
into ten thousand fragments, but the fragments return
each to its own place. Your warfare has been as vain
as beating the air or cutting the waves of the sea. Let
us rejoice in an age of criticism, for it is an age which
will doubtless excite anxiety in the minds of the weak
and the timid, but it is an age which is laying the
foundations of a magnificent future, when men will be
certain of what they believe, and will stand firm on solid
and indisputable facts. Truth is God's daughter, and
woe to the man who dishonors her. Facts are the sons
of divine providence ; cursed be the man who bears false
witness against them.

(i). What is Higher Criticism ?

Biblical Criticism is only one of the departments of
criticism. Every branch of human knowledge or pur
suit has its own branch of criticism ; for criticism searches
all things. But the general aims, principles, and methods
are the same. Some, possibly, may think that the Bible
should be exempt from criticism, because it is the word
of God, the foundation of our faith and hopes of eternal
life. But a little reflection shows this is impossible. It
is necessary for us to know whether the Bible is indeed
the word of God, and whether we can safely build our
faith and life upon it. You may be willing to take it on
the authority of your pastor, or your parents, or your
friends, or the Christian Church. But there are multi
tudes who cannot do this. They want to know by what
authority the Church claims that the Bible is the word

120 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

of God. The Church has committed so many sins
against truth and fact that it is necessary for us to know
whether the Church is in error about the Bible also, or
whether it is right. How can we know this except by
criticism ?

1. So soon as you open your Bible, you see that there
are four gospels giving parallel narratives of the life and
teachings of Jesus. When you compare these narratives
you find various statements relating to the same events.
The same discourses of Jesus are given in -different
forms and under different circumstances. The compari
son of the four gospels in the effort to learn the whole
truth about Jesus and His gospel is Historical Criticism.
In the Old Testament we have parallel narratives in the
books of Samuel and Kings on the one side, and the
books of Chronicles on the other, with numerous varia
tions which are perplexing to the student. If we study
these with the effort to understand them and get at the
exact truth, we are engaged in Historical Criticism.
These narratives come into contact with the history that
is recorded on the monuments of Assyria, Babylonia,
and Egypt, and it is necessary for us to make the com
parison if we would know the truth and the facts of the
case. Historical Criticism of the Bible is necessary to
any thorough study of Biblical History.

2. We have a collection of writings separated from
all the other writings in the world, which we call the
Holy Bible, or the canon of Holy Scripture. As soon as
we come in contact with Roman Catholics we learn that
they include in the canon of Holy Scripture the apoc
ryphal books which Protestants reject from their Bible.
The extent of the canon cannot be regarded as certain
when the Christian world is divided on the subject.
Furthermore, there have been from the most ancient

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

times doubts among the learned as to certain books
contained in the Protestant Bible, such as the Song of
Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. If we would know the
truth and -the facts of the case, it is necessary that we
should investigate the canon. This requires criticism
of the canon of Holy Scripture.

3. The Bible we use in our churches and homes is
an English Bible. This translation is the result of a
number of previous translations made from the original
Hebrew and Greek Bibles, with a study of the Latin
Bible and the German and Swiss Bibles. The Bible
was written originally in three different languages — the
Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek. We have
many manuscripts of these. The earliest manuscripts
of the New Testament are from the fourth century.
The earliest manuscript of the Hebrew text is a codex
containing the prophets only, dated 916, and a codex of
the entire Old Testament, 1009. The best of these
manuscripts were not used by the authors of our Eng
lish version of the Bible. A study of the manuscripts
shows an enormous number of variations due to copy
ists' mistakes and improvements ; not throwing any
doubt upon any rule of faith and practice contained in
Holy Scripture ; but of great importance in the correct
interpretation of large numbers of passages. It is nec
essary, therefore, to study all these manuscripts and ver
sions. This study is the science of the Lower Criticism,
or Textual criticism.

4. There still remain a large number of important ques
tions relating to Holy Scripture which are not deter
mined by a criticism of the history, or the canon, or the
text. We have still to study the Bible as a collection
of literature. The criticism of the literature of the Bible
is called Higher Criticism in order to distinguish it from

122 TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

the criticism of the text, which is called Lower Crit
icism.

The term Higher Criticism was adopted for the criti
cism of the classic literature of Greece and Rome, and of
the ecclesiastical writers of the Christian Church long be
fore it was applied to the Bible. Eichhorn, the father of the
Higher Criticism of the Bible, published his Introduction
to the Old Testament in 1780. But in 1699, Richard
Bentley, one of the greatest Greek scholars of his age,
published his criticism of the epistles of Phalaris and
used all the principles and methods of the Higher Criti
cism in proving that the epistles of Phalaris were for
geries, with such success that no one has since questioned
his results. In 1694 the learned Roman Catholic French
man, Du Pin, in his " New History of Ecclesiastical
Writers," stated the principles and methods of the High
er Criticism of ecclesiastical writers, in such a clear and
comprehensive manner, that all critics would acquiesce
in them at the present time. The science of the Higher
Criticism had thus been firmly established in the study
of the literature of Greece and Rome, and of the Chris
tian Church long before any one proposed to apply it to
Holy Scripture.

(2). Problems of the Higher Criticism.

The Higher Criticism has four questions to determine :
I. The integrity of a writing. Is the writing the work
of a single author, or is it a collection of writings of dif
ferent authors ? Is it in its original condition, or has it
been edited or interpolated by later writers? e. g. The
traditional opinion is that Solomon wrote the book of
Proverbs. But modern critics claim that it is a collec
tion of writings of different authors and editors : (i), a
collection called the Proverbs of Solomon, x.-xxii. 16 ;

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

123

(2), another collection of Proverbs of Solomon, which
it is said the men of Hezekiah copied out, xxv.-xxix. ;
(3), the words of Agur, xxx. 1-14; (4), of Aluqa, xxx.
r5-33 5 (5)>°f Lemuel, xxxi. 1-9. Two little collections
of "words of the wise" were inserted: (i), xxii. 17-
xxiv. 22 ; (2), xxiv. 23-34 ; and then the Praise of Wis
dom, i. 8-ix. was prefixed, and the alphabetical praise
of a talented wife appended, chap. xxxi. 10-31. This is
an answer of the Higher Criticism to the question of
the Integrity of Proverbs.*

2. The authenticity of a writing. Is the writing an
onymous, pseudonymous, or does it bear the author's
name? If the author's name is given, is the title origi
nal, or the conjecture of an editor?— e.g., the book of
Ecclesiastes is ascribed to Solomon by tradition ; but
modern critics think that the Hebrew name Koh£leth
is a pseudonym, and that the book was written long
after the return from exile. The book of Lamentations
is ascribed to Jeremiah by tradition ; but it has no title
and is really anonymous. The titles of the Psalms were
all prefixed by later editors, and are no part of the origi
nals, f Thus these questions of authenticity are an
swered by the Higher Criticism.

3. What is the style of the author? Does he write in
poetry or prose ? Is he a historian or a writer of fiction ?
What is his method of composition ? Upon the deter
mination of these questions our interpretation of a book
often depends. Bishop Lowth, in 1753, first published
his discovery of the principles of Hebrew poetry. The
poetry of the Bible had been obscured by neglect. Its
principles and arrangements into lines and strophes had
been lost. The poetry of the Bible had all to be re-

* See Delitzsch, Com. on Proverbs.

t Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 2d edition.

124: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

covered by criticism. The anti-critics have resisted
every advance in our knowledge of Hebrew poetry.
Even the revisers of the Old Testament were, with few
exceptions, representatives of an antiquated Biblical
scholarship. They did not venture to give the Old Tes
tament prophets in the forms of poetry, although the
New Testament revisers often g.'ve the citations from
the Old Testament prophets in the parallel lines of
poetry. Thus there is a glaring inconsistency between
the two versions. Furthermore, the large number of
beautiful poetic extracts in the historical books of the
Old Testament and the New Testament, with few ex
ceptions, were entirely neglected. For this and similar
reasons of reactionary scholarship in other directions,
the Revised Version of the Old Testament is already
stranded and left behind by the advancing tide of Bibli
cal study. It makes an immense difference in our inter
pretation of the early chapters of Genesis whether we
interpret them as poetry or prose. One who has learned
the dramatic character of Job, and the Song of Songs,
will have a new conception of their meaning. It makes
an immense difference whether we accept the traditional
theory that Esther and Jonah are histories, or the
views of the critics that they are inspired works of the
imagination.

4. The final question of the Higher Criticism is as to
the credibility of the writings. Is the writing reliable ?
Do its statements accord with the truth, or are they col
ored and warped by prejudice, superstition, or reliance
upon insufficient or unworthy testimony? The tradi
tional theory is that the books of Chronicles were writ
ten by Ezra, and the books of Kings by Jeremiah.
These books are really anonymous. Modern critics hold
that Chronicles was written long after Ezra, by a priest

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

who had no interest in the northern kingdom or the
prophets ; but who proposed to give an ecclesiastical
chronicle of Jerusalem. How far did his late date, his
devotion to the priest's code, and priestly ideals, influence
him in his report of the early history ? Some critics
think that the chronicler was so warped by his position
and circumstances that he is not so reliable as the author
of the book of Kings. Others think that he gives a true
view, but one-sided, and that happily we may supple
ment him by the prophetic histories. Criticism must
answer such a question which forces itself upon our at
tention in the Biblical books.

These four questions of the Higher Criticism confront
every student who ventures a little below the surface in
his study of Holy Scripture. How shall we answer
them and gain a reasonable degree of accurate knowl
edge respecting them ? Is there any better way than to
pursue the methods of Higher Criticism ? Is there any
other way? These methods have been used for cen
turies as safe and reliable in the study of Greek and
Roman literature, in the criticism of the ecclesiastical
writers, in the criticism of Shakespeare and Bacon ; why
then should they not be used in the study of the liter
ary features of the writings of Holy Scripture ?

(3). Dogmatic Obstacles.

But the Higher Criticism of the Scriptures is con
fronted on the threshold of its work by a number of
obstacles which are not very important in themselves,
but which gain an extrinsic value because they are urged
as the orthodox opinion of the Church.

I. A tradition has floated down the centuries giving
authors to all the books of the Bible. Such traditions
are not confined to Biblical literature. It is the natural

126 TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

desire of a reader to know the author of the writing he
is reading, and it is the tendency in all literature to con
jecture the authors of anonymous and pseudonymous
writings. There are dictionaries of modern anonymes
and pseudonymes which exhaust all the resources of his
torical and literary criticism to learn the names of these
authors. The difference between these modern diction
aries and the traditional ascription of authors to Biblical
books is, that the dictionaries are scientific, they do not
neglect to give reasons, they do not hesitate to express
ignorance and doubt where it is proper; but the tradi
tional theories which have clustered about Biblical litera
ture give the names of authors without reasons, without
discrimination and without exception. Can we rely
upon these traditions? No scholar would rely upon
tradition of such a character in the study of any other
group of writings ; why should tradition be so indis
putable when it gathers about the Biblical writings? It
should be mentioned that the Christian Church has
never given its sanction to these traditions. In no
creed, confession, or catechism of any Christian Church
is there any official determination of these questions.
An official decision of the Christian Church would be
entitled to respect, although no Protestant could ac
cept it as infallible. But when mere tradition parades
in the livery of orthodoxy, and with pious ignorance
and self-assuming zeal attempts to be the porter of the
Word of God, we pass it by without being disturbed by
its mightiness, and enter upon our study of the Bible
without waiting for its permission.

2. It is claimed that Jesus and His apostles have al
ready decided these questions for us, and therefore we
cannot pursue the Higher Criticism of the Old Testa
ment without dishonoring our Lord. This is the opinion

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 127

of some of the opponents of Criticism. They interpret
the words of Jesus and His apostles as teaching that
Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah wrote all
the book that bears his name. But other and better
scholars interpret the words of Jesus and His apostles
in a very different way. When scholars differ in their
interpretations, and the Church has not decided the
question, it is presumption for either side to claim that
they alone are orthodox in their interpretation. Biblical
critics have not neglected to consider this objection, and
they have found it to be invalid.

(a). It is the custom in literature to name anonymous
writings after the name of the chief character in it, or
the theme of it, and then in that case it is quite common
to personify the book and represent it as saying or teach
ing this or that. When Jesus uses Moses as another
name for the Law or Pentateuch, and when He repre
sents that Isaiah prophesied, it is by no means certain
that Jesus meant to say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch,
or Isaiah wrote the prophecy referred to.* e.g. The book
of Esther is named Esther not because any one ever sup
posed that she wrote it, but because she is the heroine,
the theme of the book ; and when I say, as I often have
said, Esther never uses the name of God, or teaches any
doctrine of faith, you will understand me as using Esther
for the book of Esther.

No one ever supposed that Ruth wrote the book of
Ruth, or would suppose that I regarded her as its author
if I should say, as I have often said, Ruth teaches a doc
trine different from Deuteronony and Ezra in represent
ing that even a Moabitish woman may enter the king-

*See Francis Brown, The New Testament Witness to the Authorship of Old
Testament Books, in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis. 1882, p. 95 seq. Briggs, Biblical Study, p. 187 seq.

128 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

dom of God. The usage of the New Testament is also
sufficiently clear at these points. Thus the epistle to
the Hebrews, iv. 7, uses David as a name of the
Psalter. It was the common opinion until the i8th
century that David wrote all the Psalms; but no Biblical
scholar at present, so far as I know, thinks that the
epistle to the Hebrews forces him to hold that David is
the author of the entire Psalter. Why, then, should any
one insist that when the name Moses is given to the
Pentateuch, and Isaiah to the book of Isaiah, that it im
plies that Moses and Isaiah wrote all those writings at
tributed to them by tradition?

In Acts iii. 24 it is said ; " All the prophets, from
Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have
spoken, they also told of those days." But Samuel
uttered no Messianic prophecy in the book of Samuel.
The name Samuel is used as the name of the book, and
the name of the book is personified and represented as
speaking the prophecy which in the book is attributed
to the prophet Nathan. If, now, Samuel as the name of
the book may be represented by the apostle Peter as
speaking the prophecy of Nathan, why may not Isaiah
as the name of the book of Isaiah be represented as
prophesying the prophecy of an unknown prophet con
tained in the book which bears his name ? It is quite
true that an ancient Jewish tradition in the Talmud rep
resents that Samuel wrote his book ; but a later writer
in the Talmud itself comments on the statement that
Samuel wrote his book, thus : " But it is written there :
and Samuel died, and they buried him in Rama. Gad
the seer and Nathan the prophet finished it." In other
words, the book was begun by Samuel and completed
by Nathan and Gad. It may be that there are some
persons at the present time who would accept this Tal-

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 129

mudic comment on the older Talmudic tradition ; but
certainly no one believes that Samuel recorded Nathan's
prophecy delivered long after Samuel's death, and this is
just the prophecy that Peter represents Samuel as speak
ing.

(b). But some will say, " Was it not the common opin
ion in the days of our Lord that Moses wrote the
Pentateuch, and that Isaiah wrote the book that bears
his name ? " We answer, that so far as we know, it was
the common opinion that Isaiah wrote the book that
bears his name-. But it was also the common opinion
that David wrote the Psalter. As to the Pentateuch,
opinion was divided whether it was lost when the temple
was destroyed by the king of Babylon, and restored or
recast by Ezra, or not. If you insist upon interpreting
the New Testament by the opinion of the Jews of the
time as regards Isaiah and the Pentateuch, you must
follow it also as regards the Psalter. But why should
we interpret Jesus and His apostles by the opinions of
the Jews of His time ? Why should we suppose that
He shared with them in all the errors He did not op
pose and refute ? Jesus either knew whether Moses wrote
the Pentateuch or He did not know. («). If we said that
Jesus did not know whether Moses wrote the Penta
teuch or not, we would not go beyond His own saying
that He knew not the time of His own advent. Those
who understand the doctrine of the humiliation of
Christ and the incarnation of Christ find no more diffi
culty in supposing that Jesus did not know the author
of the Pentateuch than that He did not know the day
of His own advent. As Charles Gore says :

"When He speaks of the 'sunrising' He is using ordinary
language. He shows no signs at all of transcending the science
of His age. Equally He shows no signs of transcending the his-

130 TilE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

tory of His age The utterances of Christ about the Old

Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or clear enough to
allow of our supposing that in this case He is departing from the
general method of the incarnation, by bringing to bear the un
veiled omniscience of the Godhead to anticipate or foreclose a
development of natural knowledge."*

(j9). If on the other hand any one should say Jesus must
have known all these things, and He ought not to have
used language that might deceive men ; we respond,
that His language does not deceive men. We have
shown from literary usage in all ages and in the Bible
itself that it is equally true and good language for the
critics as for the anti-critics. The question is, shall we
interpret the words of Jesus by the opinions of His con
temporaries? This we deny. Jesus was not obliged to
correct all the errors of His contemporaries. He did
not correct their false views of science. He was the
great physician, but He did not teach medicine. He
was greater than Solomon and yet He declined to de
cide questions of civil law and politics. He never re
buked slavery. Is He responsible for slavery on that
account ? The Southern slaveholders used to say so ;
but even they are now convinced of their error. The
signs of the times indicate that in a few years the anti-
critics will disappear as completely as slaveholders.

The attempt to bar the way of the Higher Criticism
of the Old Testament by interposing the authority of
the New Testament is an unworthy effort to make our
Lord and His apostles responsible for those conceits
and errors of ancient tradition which modern American
traditional dogma with great unwisdom has accepted
and endorsed.

3. The real obstacle to the Higher Criticism of the

Lux Mundi, p. 360.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

131

Scriptures is the error into which some of our American
dogmaticians have fallen. The majority of the ministry
now in the field have been taught the doctrine that the
inspiration of the Scriptures depends upon the inspira
tion of human authors, known as prophets and apostles,
or of those of their associates who can be proved to have
written under their influence. It has recently been said :
" If, as one asserts, ' the great mass of the Old Testa
ment was written by authors whose names are lost in
oblivion,' it was written by uninspired men."
"This would be the inspiration of indefinite persons like
Tom, Dick, and Harry, whom nobody knows, and not of
definite historical persons like Moses and David, Mat
thew and John, chosen by God by name and known to
men."*

This error of hitching the doctrine of the authority of
the Holy Scriptures to floating traditions respecting their
authors, is the real occasion of all the alarm and excite
ment throughout the American churches. These dog
maticians take the position that so soon as Higher Crit
icism detaches a sacred writing or any part of it from a
well-known prophet or apostle, it destroys its inspira
tion. But this theory of the traditionalists is a modern
error. It cannot claim orthodoxy, for it has never re
ceived recognition in any official document of the
Church. On the contrary, it is a heterodox doctrine,
when tested by the standards of orthodoxy. The West
minster Confession states that : " The authority of the
Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and
obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any
man."f These dogmaticians make the authority of
Holy Scripture depend upon the testimony of the men

* W. G. T. Shedd, N. Y. Observer, April 16, 1891.
t Westminster Confession, i. 4.

TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

whc in their opinion wrote it. In the evidences for the
authority of Holy Scripture given in the Confession, one
nowhere finds any reference to human authors. Dr.
A. F. Mitchell, of St. Andrew's, the best authority on
the Westminster Confession, says:

" If any chapter in the Confession was more carefully framed
than another, it was this, ' of the Holy Scripture.' It formed the
subject of repeated and earnest debate in the House of Com
mons as well as in the Assembly; and I think that it requires
only to be fairly examined to make it appear that its framers were
so far from desiring to go beyond their predecessors in rigour, that
they were at more special pains than the authors of any other
Confession: i. To avoid mixing up the question of the canon-
icity of particular books with the question of their authorship,
where any doubt at all existed on the latter point ; 2. To leave
open all reasonable questions as to the mode and degree of in
spiration which could consistently be left open by those who
accepted the Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith and duty."

What the Westminster divines were at special pains
not to do— that very thing modern dogmaticians have
taken special pains to do. And so they have involved
us in the present crisis.

Luther once said : " What matters it if Moses should
not himself have written the Pentateuch?" But an
American opponent of Biblical Criticism tells us: " If
Moses is the author of those books which bear his name,
their historic truth is placed beyond controversy— we
have the highest possible voucher of the truth and cer
tainty of the whole." . ..." We have abundant and
decisive evidence of the inspiration of Moses, of J, E, D,
and P we know nothing whatever, and of their inspira
tion we have no proof." '

Thus he gives up their inspiration, if not written by

* Dr. W. H. Green in the Independent, Jan. 28, 1892.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

133

Moses. And yet a score of professors of Hebrew in the
United States, and two score and more in Europe, deny
the Mosaic authorship, and still 'hold to the inspiration
of the Pentateuch.* They think that J, E, D, and P, that
is, the Jehovist or Judaic writer, the Elohistic or Ephraim-
itic writer, the Deuteronomist, and the priestly writer,
were inspired because of the evidences of inspiration
which are in the writings themselves. And this is the
only way in which -we can prove the inspiration of any
Biblical author. Calvin regarded Malachi as a pseudo
nym for Ezra. The anti-critics think that a pseudonym
is nothing better than a forgery, and that it cannot' be
inspired. Calvin and Luther both denied that Paul
wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. A recent writer
claims that " if it were not written by Paul, it was at least
written by Apollos, or Barnabas, members of the apos
tolic circle." But how do we know that? The debate
as to its authorship from the earliest times shows that
there is no certainty in the Church on this subject, and
there never has been concord about it. We have no
sure evidence that it was written by Paul, Apollos, or
Barnabas, or any one in the apostolic circle. It differs
in its character and style and doctrine from every other
book in the New Testament. If the divine authority of
Holy Scripture depends upon our knowing the human
author, no man can be asked to accept a book as of
divine authority when the human author is so uncertain.
It is the inevitable result of this theory that the epistle
to the Hebrews is uninspired. But this modern dog
matic theory of basing canonicity on authenticity is
without foundation in history or in fact. It is a modern
assumption. It is a recent speculation. It can no more

See Appendix VI.

134: THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

stay the progress of Biblical criticism than Chinese gongs
can stay the advance of an army.

These obstacles to the Higher criticism of the Holy
Scriptures are no more than thin streams of tradition
that any critic will ford without risk to life or limb, or
rather bubbles of speculation expanding in pride and
arrogance as they are blown up by the breath of dogma
tism, only to burst by their own strainings.

They say that criticism is anti-Biblical. We say that
criticism is Biblical, but anti-traditional. They say,
" You are destroying the Bible"; we say, "We are using
the Bible to destroy your false theories." My friends,
consider for a moment which of us is destroying the
Bible ? The critic who says, " Textual criticism shows that
the Bible is not verbally inspired, but is truly inspired in
its concept, in its thought, in its emotions, in its ideals";
or the dogmatist who says, " There can be no inspiration
without verbal inspiration"? Who is destroying the Bible,
the critic who says, " Historical criticism shows that there
are errors in the Bible, but these do not impair its author
ity as the only infallible rule of faith and practice," or the
dogmatist who says, "One proved error destroys the in
spiration of the Scriptures"? Who is destroying the
Bible, the critic who says that " the Higher criticism shows
that several books of the New Testament and the major
ity of the books of the Old Testament are anonymous and
yet truly and divinely inspired," or the dogmatist who
says, " Remove the name of Moses from the Pentateuch
and Isaiah from Isaiah xl.-lxvi., and you destroy
their inspiration" ? The critic who accepts all the results
of criticism and yet regards the Bible as the only infalli
ble rule of faith and practice, does not discredit the
Bible. But the dogmatician is discrediting the Bible
when he risks its authority on the truthfulness of his

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

135

theories or the mere chance of a victory of dogmatism
over criticism in the last ditch of Traditionalism where
three or four American professors of Hebrew and those
who blindly follow their leadership are contending.

There is no barrier to the Higher Criticism either in
the creeds of the Church, or the Scriptures themselves,
or in any sound and accredited doctrine of Christianity.
As Bishop Westcott says :

"The subject is one of great obscurity and difficulty where the
sources of information are scanty. Perhaps the result of the
most careful inquiry will be to bring the conviction that many
problems of the highest interest as to the origin and relation of
the constituent Books are insoluble. But the student, in any
case, must not approach the inquiry with the assumption — sanc
tioned though it may have been by traditional use— that God
must have taught His people, and us through His people, in one
particular way. He must not presumptuously stake the inspira
tion and the divine authority of the Old Testament on any fore
gone conclusion as to the method and shape in which the
records have come down to us. We have made many grievous
mistakes in the past as to the character and teaching of the
Bible. The experience may stand us in good stead now. The
Bible is the record, the inspired, authoritative record, of the
divine education of the world. The Old Testament, as we re
ceive it, is the record of the way in which God trained a people
for the Christ in many parts and in many modes, the record which
the Christ Himself and His apostles received and sanctioned.
How the record was brought together, out of what materials, at
what times, under what conditions, are questions of secondary
importance.*

(3). The evidences used by the Higher Criticism.

Brushing aside tradition and dogmatism, let us inquire
how the Higher Criticism proposes to answer the ques
tions within its own sphere. There are two lines of

The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 493.

136 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

external evidence and four lines of internal evidence
upon which the Higher Criticism relies to answer its
questions. The lines of external evidence are: I. Tes
timony. 2. Silence.

I. The argument from testimony is a simple one.
There is no reliable testimony respecting the questions of
the Higher Criticism of the Old Testament books apart
from the Old Testament books themselves. Twenty-two
of the thirty-nine books, as we count them, are anonymous ;
that is, they do not give the auth6rs' names in titles ; all
the historical books, seventeen in number, Job, Psalms,
Daniel, Jonah, Lamentations. They do not themselves
mention the names of their authors. And there is no di
rect testimony assigning them authors in the Old Testa,
ment. Ecclesiastes and Malachi seem to have titles, but
it is not certain whether these are pseudonyms or whether
they propose to give the name of the author. The
books with titles are the three great prophets, ten of the
minor prophets, Proverbs and the Song of Songs. But
it remains to be determined with reference to these
whether the titles came from authors or editors, and
whether the titles cover the writings in their present
form, or whether additions have been made since the
titles were prefixed. It is evident, therefore, that the
argument from testimony leaves much the greater part
of the Old Testament anonymous.

But is there not some testimony as to authorship in
the Biblical books apart from titles? Yes, a little.
(a). In the Hexateuch, Num. xxi. 14 cites a poetic extract
from the book of the wars of Jahveh. Jos. x. 12-13 c^tes
a section of an ode of the battle of Beth Horon from
the book of Jasher. The book of Jasher is also cited in
2 Sam. i. 1 8, \vhere a dirge of David is given. It is
also cited in the LXX. version of I Kings viii. 12, with a

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

poetic extract from Solomon.* The book of Jasher con
taining poems of David and Solomon could not have
been written before Solomon. The writing which cites
the book of Jasher must have been written after the
book of Jasher. If now, as modern critics unanimously
hold, the book of Joshua and the Pentateuch belong
together as a Hexateuch, then it is the testimony of the
Hexateuch itself that it could not have been written in
its present form before the time of David or Solomon.

(&). The Hexateuch refers to several writings of Mo
ses, several songs, the Ten Commandments, the book of
the covenant in two forms, a list of the journeys, and a
book of law; also to a book of God in which Joshua
wrote. A writing which uses sources which it ascribes
to Moses and Joshua, testifies thereby that the writing
using them was not written by Moses or Joshua. Thus
the testimony of the Hexateuch itself is that Moses did
not write it, but only certain documents which were
used as sources by the authors of the Hexateuch.
2. The argument from silence is used in this way:
(a). There is no reference in the literature of the Hebrews
prior to the reign of Josiah, to any written Mosaic code of
law, or any Mosaic writing. At that time a law code was
discovered in the temple that was attributed to Moses.
The references to this law code in the text f are cov-

* These additions in the LXX. of an initial line to the poem to which the first
line preserved by the Massoretic text, is in antithesis, and of the statement that the
poem was derived from the book of Jasher, are altogether probable, and they are
recognized by the best modern critics as belonging to the original text, which
then would read :

" The sun is known in the heavens,
But Jahveh said that he would dwell in thick darkness.
I have built up a house of habitation for thee,
A place for thee to dwell in forever.
Lo, is it not written in the book of Jasher ? "
f 2 K. xxii. ; 2 C. xxxiv.

138 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

ered by the book of the law referred to in Deuteronomy,
and give no evidence of the existence of any other Mo
saic writing. They do not show a knowledge of the Pen
tateuch in its present form. What does this silence and
this subsequent discovery mean? Criticism tries to an
swer this question, which is not raised by Criticism, but
by the writers of Kings and Chronicles and by the si
lence of the prophets, that is, by Holy Scripture itself.

(fr). Another interesting example of the argument from
silence is the following: The plagues of Egypt as re
corded in Ex. iv.-xii. are in a composite narrative made
up by the editorial use of the three original documents,
E, J, and P. The analysis of these chapters is difficult
in some respects, but in the main is clear. The analysis
assigns seven plagues to the Judaic narrative. Turning
now to Psalm Ixxviii., we find these seven plagues of the
Judaic narrative J, and no others. The plagues pecul
iar to the documents E and P are not given. What is
the meaning of this silence? In other parts of this
Psalm there are traces of a knowledge of the Ephraim-
itic document, but no trace whatever of the priestly
document. Shall we say the writer knew nothing of P
because it was not yet composed ? Shall we say that
the documents E and J were known to the author of
this Psalm, but that they had not yet been compacted
into J E? What other explanation will you give
of this silence ? Possibly some one may thoughtlessly
say that the analysis was made to suit the Psalm. But
this would not be true. The analysis was first made.
And it was a critical surprise that the seven plagues of
the Psalm followed so closely the seven plagues of the
Judaic document.

(c). We shall present one more example of the argu
ment from silence. The sin-offering and the trespass-

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 139

offering do not appear in the pre-exilic literature, unless
the priestly document of the Hexateuch be pre-exilic.
The sin-offering is mentioned in 2 Chron. xxix. 20-24,
as offered in the reign of Hezekiah, but no one supposes
that the author of the book of Chronicles wrote before
the time of Ezra; and the description of this sin-offering
does not correspond with the ritual of the sin-offering in
P. In Psalm xl. 6, 7, Jlt^n is rendered sin-offering in
our version, but with doubtful propriety, because there
is no other example of this rendering of the word, and
the technical term for sin-offering is nj$ton> an inten
sive noun. Furthermore, this Psalm at the earliest is
exilic. The only example of the dtB^ victim is in Is.
liii. 10, where the suffering servant offers Himself. But
this is in the exilic Isaiah. There are examples of an dt2J&
of golden mice and tumours in I Sam. vi. 17 and of
money in 2 Kings xii. 16, but no dtEfc* victim in
the pre-exilic literature. If now the sin-offering and the
trespass-offering were essential parts of the ritual on the
holy days and for individuals who had committed sins,
according to the priest's code, from Moses until the exile,
according to the traditional theory, how will you explain
this silence in the literature at such essential points in
the Old Testament religion ?

These are examples of large numbers of questions
which are forced upon the Biblical student by the silences
of Holy Scripture.

The chief resources of the Higher criticism are, how
ever, the internal evidence. There are four lines of in
ternal evidence. Before taking up these, let us for a
moment consider what internal evidence means. It is
simply and only evidence derived from the study of the
contents of the Old Testament itself. What better way
can any one propose to determine questions relating to

140 T11E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

the Holy Scriptures than by studying the Scriptures
themselves? In this way we honor the Scriptures far
more than do those who decline to study them by scien
tific methods, lest in some way they should come in con
flict with traditional dogma or popular prejudice.

3. The first line of the internal evidence is that a
writing must be in accord with its historic position.

(a). Moses on the east of the Jordan could not have
written in the title of Deuteronomy, "These are the
words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan in
the wilderness." Beyond Jordan is on the east of the
Jordan. These words imply an author on the west of
the Jordan. But Moses never crossed the Jordan. He
could not have written it.

(b). The statement, Deut. xxxiv. 10, " There arose not
a prophet since in Israel like Moses," could not have
been written by Moses, for it implies other prophets
after Moses who were his inferiors.

(c). In I Sam. ix. 9, it is said : " Beforetime in Israel
when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said, Come
and let us go to the seer ; for he that is now called a
prophet was beforetime called a seer." This is an his
torical note by the editor of Samuel, stating that the
fcS'OS of his time was anciently called a H&O. This pas
sage is an explanation of the fact that in this document,
Samuel was called a seer. The most natural interpreta
tion of it is that prior to the time of Samuel and for
some time afterwards, fcOiD was not used. How then
shall we explain the usage of fcfc^D with reference to
Abraham and Moses in the Hexateuch?* Are we jus
tified in supposing that the writers of these documents

* Gen. xx. 7 ; Ex. xv. 20 ; Num. xii. 6 ; Deut. xxxiv. 10 (E); Num. xi. 29 (J);
Deut. xiii. 1-5 ; xviii. 15-22 (D).

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

who use this term in the Hexateuch, wrote subsequent
to Samuel and after the term fcO^5 had supplanted fl&O ?

(d). On the principle that the writing must be in ac
cord with its own historic framework the magnificent
prophecy Is. xl.-lxvi. was written during the exile. The
scenery of the piece is the period of the exile, the time
of the supremacy of Babylon, and the impending con
quest of Cyrus ; the author is looking forward for a res
toration to the Holy Land.* There is nothing in the
piece that in any way reflects the Assyrian period or the
reign of Hezekiah in which Isaiah lived. From the crit
ical point of view the prophecy becomes full of new and
rich meaning. The historic theatre of the prophecy hav
ing been restored by criticism many obscurities are re
moved, and the gems of poetic thought sparkle with new
brilliancy and power. The prophecy loses nothing but
the name of Isaiah ; and it gains vastly in depth of
meaning, in appropriateness and in grandeur. Taking
our stand with the great unknown prophet in the exile,
we look forward through his vision to the restoration
which is to find its fulfilment in a return higher and
grander than that led by Zerubbabel to the land of Pal
estine.

4. The second line of the internal evidence is that
differences of style imply difference of author. When we
compare the books of Chronicles with the books of Kings,
any one can see the differences in style because they
glare upon one from the surface of different books. When
we study the Chronicler more closely, we see that he uses
sources that are similar to our books of Samuel and of
Kings, and we must distinguish the style of the Chronicler
from the style of his sources. Looking into the books of

* Is. xliv. 28 ; xlv. i ; xlvi. 1-2 ; xlvii.

142 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Samuel and Kings we see a writer who uses two sets of
sources, one written in the Northern Kingdom, interested
in the stories of Samuel and Saul, Elijah and Elisha — the
other chiefly interested in David and the royal line of Ju-
dah. By style, that is difference in uses of words, different
phrases, different methods of composition, different in
terests, we detect the different authors. Going back in
to the Hexateuch, modern criticism has found four dif
ferent writings each with its law code, each marked by
differences in style. These four writers of the Hexateuch
resemble the writers whom we have found in the prophetic
historians and the Chronicler. And thus all the histori
cal books of the Old Testament appear to have been
composed in the same way by the editing and the re-
editing of older documents. The names of these histo
rians have not been preserved to us, but we learn how
careful and conscientious they were in their work. The
credibility of the narratives increases as we see that they
used with fidelity ancient sources. And the strength of
the evidence increases as the four documents entwine in
a fourfold cord that cannot be broken. The foundations
of the New Testament rest upon a fourfold gospel. The
foundations of the Old Testament rest upon a fourfold
narrative. The different documents in the Hexateuch
were discovered by a French Roman Catholic physician,
Astruc, in 1753, who first saw the striking difference in
the use of the divine names Elohim and Jahveh in the
book of Genesis. Since his date, that line of argument
has been thoroughly worked. out. I have myself exam
ined every use of the divine names throughout the whole
Hebrew Bible, in the preparation of the new Hebrew
Lexicon, edited by Dr. Brown with the co-operation of
Canon Driver and myself, and have given a fresh and ex
haustive investigation of the whole subject. In Ex. vi.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 14.3

2-3, it is written : "And Elohim spake unto Moses and
said unto him, I am Jahveh : and I appeared unto Abra
ham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob as El Shadday ; but by
my name Jahveh I was not known to them." Turning
now to Genesis we find El Shadday used in connection
with the covenants made with Abraham and Jacob ; but
we also find that the divine name Jahveh is placed in the
mouth of the antediluvians and patriarchs from Genesis
ii. onward. Here is a glaring inconsistency not invented
by critics, but on the surface of Genesis itself. The dis
covery of Astruc that this was a usage of different docu
ments removed the difficulty. Criticism has found that
the priestly writer who wrote Ex. vi., never uses the di
vine name Jahveh in his document prior to Ex. vi., when
he states that it was revealed to Moses for the first time.
The use of the divine Jahveh in Genesis is in the Judaic
document, which nowhere mentions or seems to know
anything about the revelation of the name Jahveh to
Moses. He uses it as the name of God from the begin
ning. The early analysts were confronted with the diffi
culty that there was a very singular and apparently capri
cious use of the divine name left in the Judaic document.
This led to a more thorough study of that document,
which resulted in the discovery that it had been closely
connected with another document which uses the divine
name Elohim. Looking now at Ex. iii., we observe that
it tells of a revelation of the divine name Jahveh to Moses,
at Horeb. This is a parallel narrative to chapter vi., and
is now recognized by criticism as from the Ephraimitic
author. Thus the whole difficulty of the use of the di
vine names is solved. The critics did not make the dif
ficulty. They have removed the difficulty by the science
of criticism. This Ephraimitic author not only uses the
divine name Elohim, but it is his style to use it with the

144 THE BIBLE> THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

definite article, and it is also his style to use it by prefer
ence even after the divine name Jahveh was revealed;
whereas the priestly writer seldom uses Elohim after he
tells of the revelation of Jahveh to Moses. In the book
of Deuteronomy we find a fourth document which also
extends through Joshua and appears occasionally in the
earlier narratives. It is the style of this writer to use
the terms Jahveh thy God, or Jahveh your God. He uses
Jahveh thy God 239 times. It is used elsewhere in the
Hexateuch, 5 times in the Ten Words, 3 times in the an
cient law of worship in the covenant codes, and in two pas
sages, Gen. xxvii. 20, Ex. xv. 26, in verses which present
other reasons of editorial seams. I shall not take your
time to refer to the numberless evidences under the head
of style. The critics have gathered long lists of such
differences and the number is increasing with every fresh
investigation.*

5. The third line of the internal evidence is that dif
ference of opinion and conception imply difference of
author.

(a). There are in the Pentateuch two versions of the
Ten Commandments, the one Exodus xx., the other
Deuteronomy v., differing in some of the specifications
and reasons attached to several of the Commandments.
Is it likely that Moses would have given these two ver
sions of the fundamental law? Is it not more reasonable
to suppose that the ten words have been given by two
different writers, each one appending the reasons and
specifications that are peculiar to his document? It is
the common critical opinion at the present time that the
original words written on the tables of stone were all
brief sentences without any reasons or specifications.

* See Appendix VII. for a few illustrations.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

(b). We also find in the Pentateuch five distinct codes
of law. One of these, the sanctity code in the middle
chapters of Leviticus, has been embodied in the priest
code, which embraces besides Leviticus the closing chap
ters of Exodus and the earlier chapters of Numbers.
The Deuteronomic code stands by itself in the m-idst of
the book of Deuteronomy. The covenant code is given
in the Judaic document, Exodus xxxiv., in a brief deca
logue of worship. In the Ephraimitic document, Ex.
xx.-xxiii., is a group of decalogues and pentades.
Modern critics find that each of the four documents has
its own code of law, and that the same fundamental
legislation lies at the basis of them all. They cover in
some respects the same ground, and yet each one is of
increasing bulk and developing in intension as well as in
extension as we rise in the constant order from the little
book of the covenant through the greater book of the
covenant and the Deuteronomic code to the priest code.*
The traditional opinion is that Moses gave all these codes
of law to the same people within the lifetime of the
same generation, and all before they entered into the
Holy Land, and that there was no constitutional de
velopment in Israel through all that long period from
the conquest of the Holy Land by Joshua until the close
of the Old Testament history. Modern criticism, while
it recognizes the fundamental Mosaic legislation, sees in
the codes successive stages of codification as the original
code of the covenant was enlarged by the experience of
the nation in their long history in the Holy Land.
These codes do not merely contain minor differences,
but differences all along the line of the most essential
things in the religious, civil, and social life of the people,

* See Appendix VIII.

14G TI1E BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

such as the altars, the kinds of sacrifice, the modes of
purification, the orders of priesthood, and the names and
number of the feasts.

There are also similar differences in matters of
religion and of doctrine. (V). The Ephraimitic writer
reports a large number of dreams. These are unknown
to the other writers, (d). This same writer reports the
rod of Moses as the great instrument of miracle-working;
the priestly narrator occasionally mentions the rod of
Aaron, but neither he nor the Judaic nor the Deuteronomic
writer know anything of the rod of Moses. The mira
cles of the Judaic writer were all wrought by God with
out any instrument of miracle-working whatever, (e).
When God reveals Himself in the Ephraimitic docu
ments, He speaks to Moses face to face, and Moses sees
the form of God in the pillar of cloud standing at the
door of his tent. In the great theophany granted to Moses
in the Judaic document, Ex. xxxiii. 20-23, Moses is per
mitted only to see the departing form of God, and it is
represented that it would be death to see God's face. In
Deuteronomy it is said that the voice of God was heard
but His form was not seen. In the priestly document it
is the light and fire of the glory of God which always
constitutes the theophany.* How was it possible for
the same author to give four such different accounts of the
methods of God's appearance to Moses and the people?

(/). The doctrine of creation taught in the priestly
document of Genesis i. is altogether different from that
taught in Genesis ii. In the one, God creates by speak
ing, by word of command to His creatures, His host;
and they spring forth when God speaks, in an instant
on the mornings of six successive days. The divine

* See Appendix IX.

THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 147

Spirit is also active in this creation, personified as a bird
hovering over the original abyss. The second narrative
of creation represents God creating by means of His
own hands, forming man and animals out of the soil of
the earth, planting trees, and building the form of Eve
from a piece of the body of man. In place of the bird-
like Spirit of God of Genesis i., the breath of God's
nostrils imparts the breath of life to man and animals.
The order of creation is different. In the first chapter it
is vegetation, animals, man. In the second chapter it is
man, trees, animals, Eve. How could the same writer
give two such variant accounts of the creation of the
world ? Modern criticism ascribes them to two different
and independent writers. It is my opinion that they
are two poems, giving poetic pictures of the creation.*
We make a great mistake if we force their poetic images
into hard and fast statements of dogma. These, again,
are only specimens of large numbers of facts extending
all along the range of religion, doctrine, and morals.
These differences of opinion and representation show
difference of authorship.

6. The fourth line of internal evidence is citation.
It will be sufficient to refer to the prophecy of the ex
altation of the temple mount in Micah iv. and Isaiah ii.
These are two different versions of the same prophecy.
The general opinion of modern critics is that they are
both cited from an older and unknown prophet.

We have thus gone over the principles and methods
of the Higher Criticism as applied to the Old Testa
ment. We have seen some of its results. I shall not
deny that they are revolutionary. They cut up the tra
ditional theories by the roots. They destroy the scho-

* See Appendix XIV. and XV.

148 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

lastic dogmas of verbal inspiration, of the inerrancy of
Scripture, and of the evidence of inspiration from the
authorship by well-known apostles and prophets. But
these dogmas have no claim whatever to be regarded as
orthodox. They have never been recognized by any
official decision of the Christian Church. They are not
even ancient traditions. Some of them are not a century
old. It will be an enormous gain when they are blotted
out of the land of the living. Biblical Criticism brings
them to the test of Scripture and so destroys them.
No compromise is possible here. Criticism and dog
matism are wrestling in a life-and-death struggle. It is
the Reformation over again. The Bible in the hands of
the critics is in mortal conflict with Tradition in the
hands of ecclesiastics.

(4). The Higher Criticism is constructive.

Criticism is destructive of traditional dogma, but it is
constructive of Biblical doctrine. Criticism from its na
ture cannot destroy anything but error. It searches for
truth. It gives vastly more than it takes away.

i. Criticism is nothing more than a scientific, exact, ex
haustive study of the Bible itself. It makes the Bible
more real, more historic, more pregnant with holy mean
ing than ever before, simply because it studies the Bible
more extensively and more profoundly. Criticism has
made the Bible a new book, because exhaustive study
has found numberless new things in it, unknown to
students who neglected to study it. In the times of the
supremacy of the* traditional dogma it was studied only
on the surface and for dogmatic or practical purposes.
It was merely a treasury out of which there might be a
capricious selection of texts to prove statements of dog
ma which were already constructed by deductive reason--

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

ing. It was a thesaurus of texts for pulpit discourse
from which one might start an evangelical sermon. But
now the Bible is studied ardently from cover to cover,
by large numbers of enthusiastic students the world
over, who are bringing forth treasures new and old to
enrich the Church of God. Think not the critics are
destroying the Bible which they study with so much
enthusiasm and love. They have enthroned the Bible
in a higher position than it has ever held before in the
estimation of the world. They have restored the Bible
to its place as the queen of the literature of the world,
as the holy book for the man of science, the student of
literature and art, the historian and philosopher. Criti
cism has created several new theological disciplines, such
as the Contemporary History of Israel and of Christ and
His apostles, Biblical Literature, and Biblical Theology,
and these are furnishing the divine material for a nobler
theology and a nobler Christian life.

2. The traditional view of the Biblical books attached
all the law to Moses, all the psalms to David, all the
wisdom to Solomon. The prophets and histories were
the only books which were left as guides to the develop
ment of the religion of Israel. There was a gap of cen
turies between the Old and the New Testaments. This
view of the history has changed. The gap between the
books has been filled up by modern criticism. God did
not leave Israel without guidance when she needed It
most, under the Persian and Greek yoke, when exposed
to the distracting influence of other religions and civil
izations. God's Spirit abode with His people after the
theophanic presence had departed, and holy men of God
spake under His influence in sacred song and wisdom, in
historic composition and prophecy through all that long
period of waiting for the Messiah. There is an un-

150 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

broken continuity in divine revelation until divine revela
tion reached its summit in Jesus Christ and His apostles.
If Criticism had done nothing else than fill up this sup
posed chasm in divine revelation, it would have con
ferred a boon of greater value to the world than all the
theories and traditions it has destroyed.

3. Another great result of Criticism is the destruc
tion of the pessimistic theory that the history of Israel
was a history of backslidings. Modern Criticism finds a
legislation given by Moses, but unfolding in a series of
codes until Ezra, the second Moses, laid its capstone.
Criticism finds Israel from David onward until the Mac-
cabean age, singing and praying, in ever increasing
wealth of devotion, sacred psalms, responding from the
heart of the people to the teachings of God's law.
Criticism finds a succession of sages from Solomon to
the latest times preparing the way by their sentences of
wisdom for the jewelled sentences of the Messiah in
His training of the twelve. Israel did not go on declin
ing through the centuries. Israel went on steadily ad
vancing through the centuries in religion, in doctrine
and in morals, in wisdom, in law, in psalmody, and in
prophecy, undergoing that divine training which pre
pared her to welcome the Messiah and furnish Him with
the apostles and prophets of the new dispensation.
What has Criticism destroyed that can compare with
this immense gain?

(4). Criticism has shown a wonderful variety as well as
unity in the Scriptures. Criticism has called attention
to the marvellous beauty of Biblical literature. It has
shown that there are works of the imagination in the
Old Testament in prose and poetry, preparing the way
for those visions of truth contained in the parables of
our Lord. It has disclosed wondrous specimens of

THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

151

gnomic, lyric, and dramatic poetry. It has discovered
forms of the poet's art which approximate to the classic
epic poetry. It has disclosed four distinct varieties of
historic composition, and detected in their sources an
cient poems and legends which the older Biblical scholars
never dreamed of. It has more than doubled the num
ber of Hebrew prophets. It has increased the inspired
penmen to a much larger and richer company. The old
choirmasters of the inspired congregation remain.
Moses and David, Solomon and Isaiah, and every one of
the ancient worthies retains his historic place. But
we now see that they were not merely soloists appearing
at great intervals in the progress of divine revelation,
alone, without masters, without disciples and without
associates, but that they were leaders of choirs of law
givers, historians, prophets, poets, and sages who make
the entire history of Israel a grand oratorio of redemp
tion.

VI.

BIBLICAL HISTORY.

BIBLICAL HISTORY is the History contained in the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. It is nec
essary to distinguish it from the History of Israel on
the one hand, and from the recent theological discipline
called " Contemporary History of the Old and New Tes
taments " on the other. I do not undervalue either of
these two important branches of History when I urge
that Biblical History is a separate branch. I rather
aim to put these three branches of history, that deal
more or less with the same themes, in their true rela
tions.

(i). The Contemporary History of the Old Testament
aims to study the history of the nations that influenced
Israel. It studies the monuments of Babylon, Egypt,
Phoenicia, Assyria, and the lesser nations that encom
passed Israel or were entwined with him in his develop
ment. It studies the history of Persia, Greece, and Rome,
— the ancient masters of the world that held Israel in
subjection.

These cast a flood of light upon the history recorded
in the Bible and give us invaluable information with re
gard to the external influences working upon Israel and
co-operating with the internal influences to produce his
historical training. Great attention has been paid to
this method of study in recent times, and it has in many

(152)

BIBLICAL HISTORY. 153

minds overwhelmed and absorbed the study of Biblical
History itself.

Biblical History moves on its way in the narratives of
the Bible, touching the great nations of the Old World
at various points in its advancement, giving and receiv
ing influences of various kinds, but pervaded with a
sense of an overpowering force that has determined not
only the History of Israel, but of all nations of the
world. Israel has been a football of the nations, trod
den under foot and tossed hither and thither by those
mightier than he, but he has been a ball of light and fire
that no violence could quench ; for a divine blessing
was in him for all mankind. God cast Israel into the
fiery furnace that his dross might be consumed and the
pure gold shine in its glorious lustre. The nations were
his hammers, to beat him into the holy image God had
designed for him from the beginning.

The earlier Isaiah warns the proud Assyrian :

" Wherefore it shall come to pass, that, when Adonay hath per
formed his whole work qji Mount Zion and on Jerusalem,

" I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of As
syria and the glory of his high looks."

" Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith ?
Or, shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it ? "
(Isaiah x. 12, 15).

And the later Isaiah encourages Israel :
"And now, thus saith Jahveh,
Thy creator, O Jacob, and thy former, O Israel,
Fear not, for I have redeemed thee.
I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine ;
When thou passeth through the waters, I will be with thee ;
And in the rivers, they shall not o'erflow thee :
When thou walkest in the fire, thou shalt not be burned,
Neither shall the flame consume thee.
For I, Jahveh, am thy God,
The Holy One of Israel is thy Saviour " (Isaiah xliii. 1-3).

154 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

The Hebrew Prophets see that Jahveh, the God of
Israel, shaped all the migrations of the nations, all the
movements of mankind, all the revolutions of history,
for the training of His own well-beloved people.

" When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance
When he separated the children of men,
He set the bounds of the peoples,
According to the number of the children of Israel ;
For Jahveh 's portion is his people.
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance " (Deut. xxxii. 8-9).

And yet Israel was not for himself alone. The Biblical
historians do not encourage any neglect of the other
nations of the world. They represent that all are to
share in the blessings of Abraham ; they see them all
ultimately before the judgment-seat of God ; they look
forward to their ultimate incorporation in the kingdom
under the Messianic King. The prophet rebukes Israel
for supposing that he alone was the people of God, and
that all the other nations were neglected by the God of
all the earth.

" Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me,
O children of Israel, saith Jahveh,
Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt,
And the Philistines from Caphtor,and the Syrians from Kir?"
(Amos ix. 7).

God watched over the other nations of the world,
guided their history, and will bring them also to sal
vation and judgment. No one can altogether under
stand Biblical History until he has placed it in the light
of its Contemporary History, and yet he would make a
vast mistake who would suppose that this Contemporary
History is the key to Biblical History. The Biblical
History is the centre of this circumference of nations.
It is the Sun in the midst of the world in whose risine

BIBLICAL HISTORY. 155

all mankind are to rejoice (Is. lx.). It is the light stream-
ing forth from Biblical History that illuminates the Con
temporary History. Contemporary History reflects the
rays of that light. The study of the one ought not to
conflict with the study of the other.

It is also necessary to distinguish Biblical History
from the History of Israel. The history of Israel is a
part of the history of the world. It is a section of the
discipline of Universal History. It should be studied
with a purely scientific interest. It uses Biblical His
tory as one of its sources ; it uses Contemporary History
as another; it arranges all its material in a scientific
manner, in accordance with the principles of historic de
velopment. It is on the one side more extensive than
Biblical History. It fills up the numerous blanks that
are left therein from other sources of information.

The period between Nehemiah and John the Baptist is
of no importance to Biblical History; but it is of vast
importance to the History of Israel. The historian will
lay much more stress upon it than upon many earlier
periods where the Biblical writers dwell at length. On
the other hand the History of Israel is less extensive
than Biblical History. It does not enter into the prov
ince of the supernatural, that most characteristic feature
of Biblical History. It stumbles at theophanies, mir
acles, and prophecies. It finds it difficult to adjust these
supernatural features to the principles of scientific study.
The purely personal relations of Jahveh to his people
are matters into which the scientific historian does not
venture.

The scientific study of the History of Israel is of vast
importance. No one can understand altogether the His
tory of Israel, unless Israel's true place and importance
in universal history have been determined. Each one of

156 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

the great nations of the old world has contributed its
own best achievements for the weal of humanity. No
one can understand the workings of God in History who
does not estimate, to some extent at least, the work of
Egypt and Assyria, of Phoenicia and Persia, of Greece
and Rome, in the advancement of mankind. The his
tory of the world is, as Lessing grandly shows, the
divine education of our race ; and every nation has its
share in that instruction, and contributes its quota of ex
perience to the successive generations. The nations of
the modern world have all come into line with their inter
play of forces, making the problem more complex and
wonderful. The old nations of the Orient — China, In
dia, and Japan — with Africa and the islands of the sea,
share in that education and service. The world is one
in origin, in training, and in destiny. There is force in
Kenan's remark:

"Jewish History that would have the monopoly of the mir
acle is not a bit more extraordinary than Greek History. If
the supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the one,
the supernatural intervention is also necessary to explain the
other." *

I do not agree with his use of the term supernat
ural. But I do agree with him in the opinion that the
hand of God alone can explain the history of Greece and
the blessings it contained for mankind. The school of
Clement of Alexandria were correct in the opinion that
the philosophy of Greece was a divinely ordered prepa
ration for the gospel, as were the law and the prophets
of Israel. The Biblical historians were the first to see
this fact, and to set it forth in the horizon of their nar
ratives. They see that the God of Israel is the God
seated upon the circle of the heavens, turning the hearts

* Histoire cfu Peuple d' Israel, I., p. v.

BIBLICAL HISTORY. 157

of kings and nations ; they know that the Messiah of
Israel is the universal King ; they see all the forces of
history converging toward His universal sway. It is a
Hebrew poet who describes the New Jerusalem as the
city of the regeneration of the nations :

" Glorious things are being spoken in thee, city of God !
I mention Rahab and Babel as belonging to those who know

me;

Lo, Philistia and Tyre with Cush : ' This one was born there,'
• And as belonging to Zion, it is said, — ' This one and that one

were born in her,'

And Elyon, Jahveh — he establisheth her,
He counteth in writing up the peoples, — ' This one was born

there,'
Yea, they are singing as well as dancing, all those who dwell

in thee."*

We do not by any means undervalue the scientific
study of the History of Israel and the origins of Chris
tianity. We do not depreciate the importance of the
Contemporary History of the Old and the New Testa
ments, when we insist that Biblical History has its own
place and importance as the lamp of the nations and the
key for the development of mankind.f

Biblical History is confined to the history recorded in
the canonical writings of the Scriptures. Here is a
group of sacred histories that are of unique import
ance. They cover a wide range in time, an immense
mass of detail ; they were written by different writers,
in three different languages, and yet they have common
features that distinguish them from all other histories,
and entitle them to be bound together in one book as
Biblical History.

This history extends over a vast period of time : it be-

* Ps. Ixxxvii. See Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, p. 227. f See Appendix X.

158 TfIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

gins with the creation of the world, it closes with the
erection of the banner of the Messiah in Rome, the
capital of the world. It is narrower in its geographical
range. Its centre is Palestine, a little land that has al
ways been and always must be, for geographical rea
sons, the centre of the world. But it radiates from this
centre into all the territories of the great nations of the
Old World. It deals with a little nation and very often
with single persons, but that nation was the people of
God, the bearer of the greatest religions of the world,
Judaism and Christianity, which have determined the
entire development of mankind ; and these individuals
were the prophets of God : Abraham, Moses, Samuel,
David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra — names
that outshine the brightest stars of other nations in
moral worth, and all of whom point, as watchers of the
night, to the dawn of the sun of the world, Jesus Christ,
the greatest of men, the Son of God, and Saviour of
man. Such a history that discloses to us the religious
heroes of mankind, the banner-bearers of God ; and that
culminates in the glories of God manifest in the flesh,
has a unique place and importance in the development
of the world.

(2). Biblical History is wonderful in its variety. Four
different types of writers give us four different points of
view, of the most important and fundamental characters
and events. There are four Gospels, that combine to
give us a comprehensive view of Jesus Christ, our Sav
iour. Any one of them is easily worth all other books
written by men. We have also four narratives of the
establishment of the Old Covenant.

Higher Criticism has traced these four narratives in
the Hexateuch, and has for the most part separated them
so that we can place them in parallelism, just as we do

BIBLICAL HISTORY. 15 9

the gospels in our Harmonies. A postexilic editor com
pacted them together, just as Tatian did the gospels in
the second Christian century. Dogmatists and Tradi
tionalists have gone on " snorting " against the Higher
Criticism since the days of Eichhorn, its father — but
they have long since been silenced on the Continent of
Europe ; they speak with timidity in Great Britain. It
is only in ultra-conservative America that they still go
on battling for traditional theories and clamoring
against the truth of God.* Any one can see that four
gospels are better than one ; four narratives of the story
of the founding of the Old Covenant are also better
than one. Even if we have to give up the Mosaic au
thorship of the Pentateuch, we gain four writers in the
place of Moses ; and the history of Moses and the estab
lishment of his covenant, gains vastly in strength by the
testimony of four witnesses instead of one.

In the history of the kingdom from its establishment
to the exile, we have two parallel narratives in the books
of Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and the Chroni
cler on the other; but Higher Criticism finds in the
narratives of Samuel and Kings three original writers,
similar to three of the writers of the Hexateuch.

These four kinds of writers of Biblical History that
we find in the Old Testament, as well as in the New,
are not without significance, for they correspond with
four types that run through the entire literature of the
Bible. James, Peter, Paul, and John represent four dif
ferent points of view in the New Testament epistles.
Each of these types has its corresponding gospel. In
the Old Testament we distinguish the writers of the
wisdom literature from the writers of the lyric poetry,

* See Appendix XI.

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

and both of these from the prophetic and the priestly
writers. Are not these the same types that we find *'a
the New Testament, and ought we not to expect to find
these same types, that are in the New Testament, repre.
sented in the older histories ? These are not fanciful
combinations of theorists and speculators, but are the
interesting product of the scientific study of the Bible
itself. When we compare these four types of Biblical
writers with the results of the scientific study of other
religions and races, we find that they correspond with
the four great temperaments of mankind, and the four
great types of character that reappear throughout human
history.

It is one of the wonderful results of the Higher Criti
cism of the Bible that all the important events and
doctrines rest upon a fourfold foundation, and a compre
hension of the four great ways of looking at things that
are possible to the human mind. There is danger in
our study of the Bible on this very account. Few minds
are sufficiently comprehensive to grasp the entire repre
sentation of these Biblical writers. Each man will natu
rally look at any subject through the eyes and the rep
resentations of the author of kindred temperament and
type. The analysis of the Hexateuch has brought to
light a large number of apparent inconsistencies. This
was what ought to have been expected. They are no
more, however, than those that still trouble scholars in
the Harmony of the Gospels after all these centuries of
study. On the other hand, many old difficulties have
been removed. Many statements that were inconsist
ent and even contradictory in the same author, are com
plementary and supplementary in different authors ; and
so we gain a higher unity of representations, which is all
the grander for the fourfold variety out of which it

BIBLICAL HISTORY.

161

springs. The history has not the unity of a straight line,
a series of points, but the unity of a cube— the unity
such as we see in the cubical structure of the Holy of
Holies of the tabernacle, and the temple. The new Jeru
salem of the Apocalypse is four-square. The army of
the living God marches in four solid divisions. The
cherubic chariot of its King faces the four quarters of the
earth. The four cherubic faces represent not only the
four gospels, but also the four types that are in the
epistles of the New Testament, and the histories and
writings of the Old Testament.

(3). Biblical History has certain features that distinguish
it from all other history. The most important of these
is the theophanic presence of God.

There are some who would point to miracles and
prophecy as the great supernatural features of the Bible,
that prove its uniqueness and its divine origin. But any
intelligent person will admit that it is just these super
natural features of miracles and prophecies that, in our
day, constitute the chief obstacles to faith in the Bible
for scientific and literary scholars. Biblical History is
not unique in this regard. The ancient histories of other
nations claim miracles and divine prophecy for the lead
ers of their religion. The scientific historian is tempted
to treat the miracles and prophecies of Biblical History
in the same way in which he treats them in the history
of Egypt, Assyria, Greece, and the Roman Church. He
is bound so to do, unless something of a distinguishing
character is found in these supernatural features of the
Bible. It also is noteworthy that Moses and Jesus rec
ognize the supernatural in miracle-working and prophecy
beyond the range of prophetic-working and outside the
kingdom of God. There must be something in the
character of the supernatural in Biblical History that

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

will vindicate its reality and power, or it cannot be
saved from the tomb into which modern Historical
Criticism has cast the supernatural in all other history.

It has long been clear to me that the Bible does not
magnify the supernatural in miracle-working and proph
ecy to the same extent as is common in modern
treatises on the evidences of Christianity and Apolo
getics.

It is my opinion that undue stress upon these things
has called attention away from still more important fea
tures in Biblical History. The miracles of Biblical His
tory were not wrought in order to give modern divines
evidences of the truth and reality of the Biblical re
ligion. The prophets did not aim to give apologists
proofs for the inspiration of the Scriptures. The miracles
were wrought as acts of divine judgment and redemp
tion. Prophecy was given to instruct men in the religion
of God, in order to their salvation and moral growth.
The miracles were not designed to show that God was
able to violate the laws of nature, to overrule or suspend
them at His will. The miracles of the Bible rather show
that God Himself was present in Nature, directing His
own laws in deeds of redemption, and of judgment.
The miracles are divine acts in nature. Prophecy was
not designed to show that God can overrule the laws of
the human mind, suspend them, or act instead of them,
using man as a mere speaking-tube to convey heavenly
messages to this world. Prophecy rather discloses the
presence of God in man, stimulating him to use all the
powers of his intellectual and moral nature in the instruc
tion of the people of God. Miracles and prophecy in
Biblical History are the signs of the presence of God in
that History. He has not left that History to itself. He
has not lett the laws of nature and of mind to theii

BIBLICAL HISTOEY.

ordinary development, but He has taken His place at
the head of affairs as the monarch of nature and the king
of men to give His personal presence and superintendence
to a history which is central and dominant of the history
of the world.

Now this is the conception of the supernatural, that
we find in Biblical History. Miracles were chiefly at the
Exodus from Egypt, and the entrance into Palestine.
Here they are associated with the theophanic presence
of God. They reappear in the age of Elijah and Elisha,
a period marked by theophanies. Then again they were
wrought by Jesus, the God-man, and by His apostles, in
connection with theophanies of the divine Spirit. The
Theophany, the Christophany, and the Pneumatophany
are the sources of the miracles of the Bible. When God
is really present in Nature, in the forms of time and
space and circumstance, then miracles are the most natu
ral things in the world.*

The Prophecy of the Old Testament also springs
from theophanies. The great master-spirits of prophecy
were called by theophanies. The apostles were com-
missioned by Christophanies and Pneumatophanics. God
entered into the human mind, into its perception, con
ception, and imagination, and guided these to give utter
ance to the wonderful things of God.f I do not presume
to say that every miracle and every prophetic discourse
may be traced directly to theophanic influence, yet I do
venture to say that the most of them can be traced to
such origination, and that the others may likewise be re
ferred to a more secret divine presence jn nature and in
man, even if that presence was not always disclosed in
some external manner.

See APP61"11* XII« t See Appendix XIII.

T[IE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

It is necessary, however, to go much farther, in order
to realize the importance of the theophany in Biblical
History. It is the representation of the Patriarchal
History that God was constantly manifesting Himself
to the antediluvians and patriarchs in various theophanic
forms, to guide them in all the important affairs of their
lives. The four narratives of the Exodus tell us that
God assumed the form of an angel and then of a pillar
of cloud and fire, and remained with His people in a per
manent form of theophany from the Exodus from Egypt
until the entrance in the Holy Land. God's theophanic
presence remained with His people until the exile. The
ark was His throne, the tabernacle His abode, the tem
ple His palace. The sacred writers of the Old Testa
ment knew that God was reigning in Jerusalem as the
real King of Israel and the nations, by personal theo
phanic presence.

The theophanic presence was withdrawn from the na
tion during the exile and only granted to a few proph
ets ; but on the return to Canaan, God again appeared
in wondrous theophanies. These are not recorded in
the cold, dry narrative of the chronicler, but they appear
in the psalms and prophets of the period. The theo
phanic presence of God was not granted to the second
temple. God withdrew Himself from His people for
several centuries in order to prepare mankind for the
grandest of all theophanies — the Incarnation of the Son
of God. The Incarnation was God manifest in the flesh,
an abiding presence of God, no longer in the Holy of
Holies, but in familiar intercourse with men until His
death on the cross and ascension to the heavenly
throne. Then a few days of divine absence, and the
theophany of the divine Spirit came at Pentecost.

Pneumatophany and Christophany now abound in the

BIBLICAL HISTORY.

period of planting the Church in the world. The last is
the wonderful one in Patmos. And here Biblical His
tory comes to an end, with a prophetic picture of the
final scenes of all history. From this survey, it is clear
that the most distinguishing feature of Biblical History
is the theophanic presence of God. The narratives of the
Biblical writers treat of the times of that presence.
When the theophany is absent, the Biblical narrative is
absent also. When the theophany is absent, the Bibli
cal historian sees nothing to narrate ; his Lord is not
there. History is to him a blank. When the theoph
any is withdrawn and the enthroned Saviour governs
His kingdom without theophanic manifestations, Bibli
cal History passes over into Church History. From
this point of view, Biblical History is the History of the
theophanic presence of God in His kingdom of grace.

This central feature of Biblical History determines all
others.

(4). The Ephraimitic historian begins his narrative with
the story of theophanic manifestations to the patriarchs,
taking a special interest in Israel, the father of the na
tion. This writer is graphic, plastic, and realistic. God
appears in dreams : He comes in forms of man and angel.
He lets Himself be seen and touched. He even conde
scends to wrestle with Jacob. He appears to Moses in
the burning bush as the angel of the presence. He
assumes human form and lets Moses see Him and com
mune with Him in His tent. He manifests Himself to
the elders of Israel, enthroned on a glorious throne, and
lets them eat the covenant sacrifice in His presence.
God is to this narrator ever present to guide the nation
as their King.

" Thy right hand, Jahveh, is glorious in power,
Thy right hand, Jahveh, dasheth in pieces the enemy.

1(56 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Thou sendest forth thy wrath, it consumeth them as stubble,
And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were piled up,
The floods stood upright as an heap,
The deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.
Thou, in thy mercy, hast led the people which thou dost re
deem,

Thou hast guided them in thy strength to thy holy habitation.
Jahveh reigns forever and ever." (Ex. xv. 6-19).

The same spirit guides the Ephraimitic narrator who
tells the story of the later history. He is very zealous
for his own God, and scorns the gods of the nations.
Elijah condenses this feeling in his bitter irony to the
prophets of Baal :

" Cry aloud : for he is a god ; either he is musing or he is gone
aside, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and
must be awaked." (i Kings xviii. 27).

The calm, serene confidence of the prophet is justified
by the theophanic interposition and the cry of the peo-
pie:
" Jahveh, He is God ! Jahveh, He is God ! " (i Kings xviii. 39).

The gospel of Mark writes in a similar spirit in the
New Testament. Mark has no interest in introductory
matters or even results. He is absorbed in the Christ
of history, in His life and deeds. His plastic style gives
us Jesus as He manifested Himself. He tells his story
in such a realistic and powerful manner that we bow be
fore the Christ as the King of nature and of men, with
out waiting for solicitation or argument.

Other histories give us evidences of the presence and
power of God. Mythological conceptions lie at the ba
sis of the histories of other ancient nations. There the
gods descend to earth and clothe themselves in forms of
nature and man ; but they thereby assume the parts and
passions of man and share in all his weaknesses, sins, and

BIBLICAL HISTORY.

corruptions ; or they become merely forces and forms of
physical nature. But the theophanies of these Biblical
historians never confound God with man, with angels,
or with nature; and the form assumed is merely for
manifestation to holy men ; and it is a thin veil through
which as much of the glory of deity shines as the holy
man or prophet was able to bear. And whereas these
mythological conceptions are only at the mythical roots
of other ancient Histories ; the theophanies pervade and
control Biblical History from the beginning to the end.
There is no other history in which God is manifest in
such a simple, natural, and yet kingly way, where men
see Him, know Him, and obey Him as their own Prince
and King.

(5). The Judaic historian begins his story with an epic
poem, disclosing, on the one side, the origin and devel
opment of human sin and the divine wrath, and on the
other the grace of God in the progress of redemption.
The great theme of his history is redemption from sin.
He and other Biblical historians of the same type, give
us the development of the Kingdom of Redemption. The
great Hebrew epic that constitutes the preface of this
history is the most wonderful of stories.* The history
of mankind begins with Adam, sculptured by the hands
of God and quickened by the breath of God. He is
placed in a paradise planted by the hands of God, and
has charge of animals formed, like himself, by the hands
of God. He receives his wife from the hands of God,
built out of a portion of his own body. He is trained
in conception and speech by the voice of God. All
things in him and about him exhibit the marks of God's
personal presence and contact ; and yet Adam sinned

* See Appendix XIV.

1(58 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

against his creator and benefactor, and brought an entail
of woe upon our race. The epic describes, in a series of
pictures, the successive catastrophes of mankind, the
Fall, the Fratricide, the Deluge, and the Dispersion,
events that lie at the foundations of human history.
Faint reflections of these events are found in the legends
and myths of other ancient nations, but nowhere do we
see such a beautiful, simple, touching, and profound
story. It is an artist's masterpiece, whether we regard
it as prose or poetry, whether it be legend or narrative.
I think that it is poetry in form as well as substance —
an epic poem of the highest order. Here the imagina
tion and fancy are supreme, and yet there is nothing of
those grotesque mythological forms, and those extrava
gant legendary scenes that constitute the staple of all
efforts to depict the origin of things among other an
cient nations. The poem is so simple, so chaste, so real
istic, so artless, that it has been mistaken by most stu
dents for prose. Such poetry must have been inspired
by a divine art ; such imagination and fancy must have
been inflamed and at the same time tempered and sub
dued by a divine breath.

The poem describes the origin and development of
sin in the family of Adam, in the descendants of Cain,
in the human race, in the family of Noah, in the build
ers of Babel. The wrath of God comes upon sin in
several catastrophes of judgment. But redemption is
never absent. The promise to the woman's seed opens
up the path of Messianic prophecy, which the prophet
traces in its stages of divine revelation, so that human
sin is overwhelmed and destroyed in the progress of
redemption. Sin and Redemption are the master words
of his entire history. We see them unfolding in the
patriarchal story, in the exodus, and the wanderings,

BIBLICAL HISTORY. 169

and the conquest. Jahveh, the personal God and Sav
iour, is ever with His people to guide and to bless.
This prophet is the brightest and best narrator in the
Bible. His stories never tire us, for they ever touch the
secret springs of our heart's emotions.

A writer of a similar spirit tells the story of David, of
his sins and sorrows and restoration, and traces the his
tory of the kingdom of redemption in his seed until the
Exile.

Matthew is an evangelist of a similar spirit — the favor
ite among the gospels. He is the evangelist of the Mes
sianic promise, of the kingdom of redemption, and of
the conflict of sin and grace.

The history of sin and of redemption in these Biblical
historians is unique. Sin, indeed, is everywhere in the
world. Other histories cover it over. These histories
expose it. And yet Israel was not the greatest sinner
among the nations. If his sins are more patent, are
more in the light of history, it is because he has ever
been a penitent sinner. Deceitful Abraham, crafty
Jacob, choleric Moses, wilful Saul, passionate David,
voluptuous Solomon, hasty Peter, doubting Thomas,
heresy-hunting Paul — these are not the chief of sinners.
Their counterparts are to be found in all ages and all
over the world. We see them every day in our streets.
They are not distinguished above other men as sinners ;
but they are distinguished as repenting sinners, the dis
coverers of the divine forgiveness of sin, the banner-
bearers of redemption, the trophies of divine grace. No
other history but Biblical History gives us such a history
of redemption, an unfolding of the grace of God, from the
first promise of the ancient epic, through all the intricate
variety of Messianic prophecy and fulfilment, until we
see the Redeemer ascend to heaven, the son of woman,

170 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

the second Adam, the serpent-bruiser, victor over sin
and death, to reign on a throne of grace as the world's
Redeemer.

(6). The fifth book of the Hexateuch is called Deuteron
omy, on the ancient theory that it was a repetition of
the law. Its legislation is represented in the narratives
of the book of Kings, rather, as the Instruction or the
Covenant. This legislation is embedded in narratives
that assume the oratorical form. They have a character
of their own ; they are of a distinct type from the nar
ratives thus far considered. The same writer is chiefly
responsible for the history of the Conquest. A writer
of the same type has touched up the history of the
Kings. This writer has the conception of the Father
hood of God, and from this point of view he estimates
the history of God's people. The whole history is a
discipline, a training of the child Israel by his father
God. The love of the Father and His tender compas
sion are grandly conceived, and the sin of the nation is
a violation of the parental relation. The ideal life of
God's people is a life of love to the heavenly Father.
Man shall not "live by bread alone, but by the word that
issues from the mouth of God. The divine instruction,
the holy guidance is what the child needs for life,
growth, and prosperity. All blessedness is summed up
in loving God and serving Him with the whole heart.
All curses will come upon those who forsake Him and
refuse His instruction and guidance. God is Judge as
well as Father, and this discipline is to end in an ultimate
judgment that will award the blessings and curses that
have been earned. The Deuteronomist judges the whole
history of Israel from this point of view, and regards it
as determined by the disciplining love of God.

The Gospel of John is of the same type, in the New

BIBLICAL HISTORY.

Testament. It is the gospel of light, and life, and love.
The love of God, displayed throughout Biblical History,
reaches its climax in that love which gave the only be
gotten Son for the salvation of the world. The life that
was in the words of the Old Covenant was intensified in
the words of Jesus, which are spirit and life ; it entered
the world and dwelt among us as the Incarnate Word,
the light of the world, and the true life for mankind.
The Biblical History is thus a history of the fatherly
love of God. We shall not deny that other histories
display the love of God, and that all mankind share in
the heavenly discipline. But it was left for the Biblical
histories to discern that love, and to describe it as the
quickening breath of History.

(7). The priestly historian takes the most comprehensive
view of Biblical History. He begins with an ancient
poem describing the creation of the world. This stately
lyric, in six pentameter strophes, paints the wondrous
drama of the six days' work in which the Sovereign of
the universe, by word of command, summons His host
into being, and out of primitive chaos organizes a beau
tiful and orderly whole. The sovereignty of God and
the supremacy of law and order are the most striking
features of this story of creation.*

I doubt if there is any other passage of the Bible that
has attracted such universal attention and been the cen
tre of such world-wide contest from the earliest times.
Here Biblical History comes into contact with Physical
Science in all its sections, with Philosophy, with the his
tory of ancient nations, as well as with theology. I shall
not attempt to discuss the numberless questions that
spring into our minds in connection with the first chap
ter of Genesis. I will only remark that if one takes it

* See Appendix XV.

172 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

as a lyric poem, and interprets it in the same way as we
are accustomed to interpret the psalms of creation and the
poetic descriptions of the creation in Hebrew Prophecy
and Hebrew Wisdom, the most of the difficulties will
pass away ; and the greater part of the contest with Sci
ence, Philosophy, and Archaeology will cease.

It is plain to me that the poem does not teach crea
tion out of nothing, but its scope is to describe the
bringing of beauty and order and organism out of primi
tive chaos. It is clear to me that the poem makes the
word and spirit of God the agents of creation, and
these are just as suitable to the conception of develop
ment in six stages as to the conception of an indefinite
number of distinct originations out of nothing.

I am not troubled with the order of creation, for the
poet is giving us six scenes in the Act of Creation, six
pictures of the general order of the development of
nature. I think it is not necessary to suppose that there
was a wide gap between these pictures, and that there
is no overlapping. When God said, " Let light come
into being," He did not continue saying these words for
twenty-four hours, or a century or more. Divine speech
is instantaneous. The effect of His saying may go on
forever, but His word is a flash of light. I think that
God did no more speaking on the second day than on
the first, no more on the sixth than on the third. The
poet certainly does not tell us that God spake a creative
word for every object of creation, or even for every
species or genus. He, who in His divine conception is
above the limits of time and space and circumstance,
who grasps in one conception the whole frame of uni
versal nature, with one word, or one breath, or a thought,
might have called the universe into being. The poem
of the Creation conceives God as speaking six creative

BIBLICAL HISTORY. 173

words, in order thus to paint the six pictures of creation
in an orderly manner. The poet does not propose to
comprehend in his representation all the forces and
forms and methods of the work of God.

Take it as it is, it is a lyric poem of wonderful power
and beauty. Science has not yet reached a point when it
can tell the story of creation so well. The story of
creation is set forth in the legends and myths of many
nations. The Babylonian poem gives us the best ethnic
representation. But all these ethnic conceptions are
discolored by mythological fancies and grotesque spec
ulations. Compared with the best of them, the Biblical
Poem is pure and simple and grand. A divine touch is
in its sketchings. A divine spirit hovered over the mind
of the poet to bring order and beauty out of his crude
and tossing speculations, no less than He did over the
primitive chaos of the world itself.

The priestly historian gives another ancient Poem of
the Deluge, which also is marked by the same general
characteristics of the sovereignty of God and the suprem
acy of law, that we have seen in the poem of the Crea
tion. He connects these and his other histories by a
well-arranged table of genealogies, giving us the line of
mankind from Adam through the centuries of the holy
race. He conceives of God as a holy God, and of man
as created in the image of the holy God, with sovereignty
over the earth. It is sin against the divine majesty
that involves the catastrophe of the deluge. This his
torian traces the history of Israel in a series of divine
covenants with Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses.
These involve the government of God and the service
of a holy people. The constitution of a holy law and
holy institutions is his highest delight. God's people
must be a holy people, as God their Lord is holy, and

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

all their approaches to Him must be in well-ordered
forms of sanctity. The entire history of the Exodus and
the conquest is conceived from this point of view.

The chronicler is an author of kindred spirit. He
describes the history of the kingdom until the exile,
and judges of it from the point of view of the holy law
of God. He also gives us an account of the Restoration
and establishment of the holy people in the holy land,
under the priestly rule and the holy law. And here he
brings his history to an end.

A writer of similar spirit in the New Testament is
Luke. He also begins his genealogy with Adam. He
also gives a later unfolding of the history in the story
of the planting of Christianity among Jews and Gen
tiles. He also has a profound sense of the sovereignty
of God, the work of the divine Spirit, and the ideal of
holiness.

When now we compare these Biblical historians with
other ancient historians, we observe that the Egyptians
come nearest to the Hebrews in their conception of
sanctity, but the Hebrews transcend them in making
holiness the norm of History. The ideal of the image
of the Holy God in man, is the ideal that these Biblical
writers held in mind, as the goal of history. Whence
could they have derived this ideal if not from the mind
of God?

I shall not attempt to enter into any details in expo
sition of the History contained in the Bible. It is suffi
cient to say that the History is determined in its divis
ions by its great principles. The History is divided into
two parts, not only by the blank of several hundred years
that separates the Old Testament History from the New
Testament ; but still more, by the fact that the history
of the Old Testament is guided by Theophanies, the his-

BIBLICAL HISTORY.

tory of the New Testament by Christophanies, and it is
just the unfolding of these Theophanies and Christoph
anies that marks the subordinate periods.

You have doubtless noted that I have had nothing to
say about inspiration, and that I have taken little ac
count of some things that are usually magnified by those
who are over-anxious about the evidences of our religion,
and seem to consider a system of Apologetics the chief
end of the Bible and Theology. I have called your at
tention to other things that seem to me of much greater
importance. I have shown you the great principles of
Biblical History as they appear in the Biblical his
torians. We have seen that the Presence of God in na
ture and man is the greatest feature of Biblical History,
and that this presence is sometimes conceived as a royal
personal presence, as friend and guide, sometimes as the
Saviour guiding the history of redemption, sometimes
as the Father disciplining His people in love, and some
times as a holy God governing His people with a holy
law in view of an ideal of holiness. These principles
are the dominant principles of Biblical History. These
attributes of Biblical History distinguish it from all other
History. The Biblical writers have a divine way of
historical composition. They bring God near to us,
encompass us with heavenly influence, and make us
sensible of the touch of God. If this is not Inspiration
it is fully as good as Inspiration. It is better than many
conceptions of Inspiration. It assures us that the books
are books of God, the words of life and redemption. If
such features and attributes do not convince men of the
divine authority of the Scriptures, I doubt whether you
can convince them in any other way.*

* See IV., p. 91.

176 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Biblical History lies in the midst of Ancient History
as its centre of light and life. Biblical History lies at
the basis of Church History as its root and spring. Once
a grain of mustard-seed in Palestine, the people of God
have produced a wondrous plant in Christendom.
Planted as a cedar twig on the mountains of Israel, they
have become a giant of Lebanon, overshadowing the
earth (Matth. xiii. 31, 32; Ezck. xvii. 22-24). A long
period of eighteen centuries lies between us and the His
tory recorded in the Bible, and yet that History still re
mains a well-spring of life to mankind. A period of sev
eral centuries separated the Old Testament theophanies
from the Incarnation of the Son of God. They were cen
turies of preparation for the first Advent. So these eight
een centuries of Christianity are centuries of preparation
for the second advent of Jesus Christ ; an advent that will
transcend all theophanies, and be the culmination of all
Christophanies. For this, Millenniums of preparation
may well be necessary. But then we may anticipate
that Biblical History will once more be told by holy
men of God, who will be stirred to narrate those trans
cendent events in which the kingdom of grace will reach
its fruition. Themes worthy of holy penmen will again
appear, when Prophecy shall be transformed into His
tory in the Advent of our Lord. Sacred historians
will tell the story for eternity, of that last combat with
evil, the resurrection of the dead, the day of 'doom, the
New Jerusalem, the New Heaven and the New Earth,
and the Messiah's presentation of the kingdom of the
redeemed in all its sanctity and glory, as His own best
gift of love to the Father.

VII.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

PROPHECY is religious instruction. It meets us in all
the religions of the world. The belief in supernatural
forces, whether good or evil, whether many or few, ex
cites the desire to know what their dispositions are with
reference to mankind, what their intentions may be with
regard to communities and persons, and what may be
learned from them for guidance in human life and con
duct. Among primitive peoples all nature is mysteri
ous, and it is conceived that the divine powers are in
some way manifesting themselves in the rocks and
streams, in the lofty trees and fountains, in the flight of
birds and the movements of animals. Those are the
primitive prophets who are the interpreters of nature and
who are able to gain from nature lessons for the guid
ance of their fellow-men. Such primitive forms of
prophecy meet us in the Bible in the hydromantic of
Joseph, who divined by observing the movements of
liquids in his cup,* in divination by the king of Bab
ylon shooting arrows and noting their flight,f in the as
trologers of Babylon who watched the movements of the
stars4 Among other nations some observe the rustling
of leaves in the sacred trees, the movements of sacred
animals, and the lines in the palms of the hands. The
Greeks and Romans sought divine guidance in the en-

* Gen. xliv. 5. f Ezek. xxi. 21-23. j is. xlvii. 13.

(177)

178 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

trails of sacred animals. These are crude ways of seek
ing the divine will, and yet I am not prepared to say
that the God of all grace withheld religious guidance
from earnest seekers, even in these strange ways. He
who suffered His people to use the sacred lot and to de
termine His will by the casting of a sacred stone, may
have suffered those who were feeling after God, if haply
they might find Him, to determine His purpose in the
flight of birds, the rustling of leaves, the movement of
liquids, and other such changes in nature.

Among the oldest forms of prophecy is necromancy-
consulting the departed for counsel for the living. Such
necromancy we see in the Bible in the case of the so-
called witch of Endor and Samuel the prophet. In this
case God graciously granted the necromancer success,
and Samuel came forth from the abode of the dead to
give prediction and warning to the wicked and trembling
Saul. God had forbidden such necromancy under pen
alty of death, and yet He granted it success in this case.
If in this case, who shall say He may not have granted
it success in other cases, among the heathen who relied
upon this method for divine guidance? The prophet
Isaiah, however, warns God's people against such necro
mancy :

" When they say unto you, Seek unto the necromancers and
unto the wizards ;

Ye chirpers and mutterers, should not a people seek unto their
God?

On behalf of the living will they seek unto the dead for instruc
tion and for testimony." *

He who has the higher revelation degrades himself by
using lower means.

* Is. viii. 19.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL. ] 79

The form of prophecy that is regarded as legitimate
in the earliest writings of the Old Testament is the
dream and its interpretations. The dream has some
thing mysterious about it, from whatever cause it may
originate. It was easy for the ancients to suppose that
a supernatural power had produced those scenes which
pass before the mind in the dream. The dream was
used by God in the Old Testament and in the New Tes
tament to guide His servants. Jacob and Joseph in the
patriarchal narrative, Daniel during the exile,* and Jo
seph and the wise men in the narrative of the infancy of
our Lord, were all guided by dreams and the interpreta
tion of dreams. These dreams were not only given to
the heroes of faith, but also to Laban and to Abimelek,
to Pharaoh and to Nebuchadnezzar, and to the wise men
of the East. Who shall say that God has not used the
dream to guide other heathen princes and sages in other
parts of the earth for the weal of mankind ?

A higher stage of divine revelation is in the ecstatic
state. The ecstatic state is an abnormal condition of
the human body, in which it has lost consciousness in
whole or in part to the conditions and circumstances of
the external world, the inner spiritual nature is intensi
fied in activity and heightened in emotion, so that the
imagination becomes more active and its constructions
more vivid and real. It is supposed that in the ecstatic
state man is under the influence of the supernatural.
Among ruder nations epileptics and deranged persons
are regarded as possessed by evil spirits or a divine spirit.
Among the ethnic religions it is the custom for prophets
of this class to cast themselves into the ecstatic state.
The Grecian prophetesses were filled with the prophetic

* In the Ephraimitic document of the Hexateuch and Daniel.

180 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

ecstasy by the foul gases arising from clefts in the rocks.
The dervishes of the Mohametans cast themselves into
the ecstatic state by whirling in the sacred dance or by
long-continued howling. Indian fakirs cut themselves
with knives. The Shamans of Eastern Asia use stim
ulants and music. So the prophets of Baal " called on
the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, O
Baal, answer us. And they leaped about the altar which
was made ; And they cried with a loud voice and cut
themselves after their manner with swords and lances
until the blood gushed out."J

Balaam is described with closed eyes prostrate on the
ground, seeing the vision and hearing the words he was
to utter to Balak. So in early times in Israel the
prophet was called a seer,f because the ecstatic state
and its vision were the characteristic features of his
prophecy.

Such prophets are described as prophesying with psal
tery and timbrel, with pipe and harp and sacred songs.
Under the influence of the prophetic mania Saul stripped
himself of his clothes, and fell down upon the ground in
a state of unconsciousness all day and all night.J

This is the lower form of prophecy which is recognized
as legitimate in the Old Testament, and also in the New
Testament, for Paul tells us of such ecstatic visions,§
and John describes them to us in his Apocalypse.

But this is not the highest form of prophecy. Moses
is contrasted with prophets of the lower grade.

" If one is to be your prophet.

I, Jahveh, in the vision make myself known to him.
In a dream I speak unto him.
Not so my servant Moses

* i Kings xviii. 26 seq. t

\ i Samuel x. 5 seq.\ xix. 23 seq, § 2 Cor. xii. 2 seq.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

With all my house he is entrusted,
Mouth to mouth I speak with him,
In an appearance without riddle ;
And the form of Jahveh he beholds." *

It is personal contact with God in theophany and with
Christ in Christophany that marks the highest order of
prophecy in the Scriptures. It is the divine Spirit who
came upon men, entered into them and guided them in
their self-conscious condition, enabling them to use all
the endowments of their nature in the conception and
then in the expression of the truth of God. Such per
sonal contact with God is described in the Old Testa
ment in the history of Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha,
Isaiah, and Ezekiel, and in the New Testament in the
history of the twelve apostles and of Paul. Such guid
ance by the Holy Spirit pervades the Biblical books in
varied forms. The prophet of God is assured by the
personal presence of God in Theophany or by the con
scious presence of the divine Spirit within him, that he
is commissioned to declare the truth of God which he
sees and conceives.

The greater portion of the prophecy of the Bible is
religious instruction in general. Each prophet in turn
is the instructor of his own people and of his own genera
tion. So far as he gives them the truth of God that is
appropriate to all times and peoples, so far is he our re
ligious teacher likewise. But the prophet also has an
office with reference to the future. He bears a commis
sion from God who sees the end from the beginning, and
who gives instruction in every period with a view to
train those who receive it for the ultimate end to which
He is leading all the generations of mankind. Lessing's

Num. xii. 6-8.

132 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

thought that human history is the divine education of
our race, is also the doctrine of the prophets ; only they
set a time, the day of Jahveh, when that education will
be completed. They look forward to a Messiah who will
establish a kingdom of glory, in which all human history
will reach its fruition. Messianic Prophecy is therefore
the crown of all its religious instruction.

The older writers took too narrow a view of Old Tes
tament Prophecy, and a still narrower view of Messianic
Prophecy. They were looking for the fulfilment of mi
nute details.* They did not comprehend its broad and
massive sweep. They did not see it swelling in the heavier
tide of New Testament Prophecy. They studied it too
much to find minute fulfilment in the historic Christ of
the Gospels, and they neglected our Saviour's prediction
of His kingdom and second Advent.

I propose to set before you an outline of the Messianic
Idea of Holy Scripture.

(i). The ideal of mankind at the creation.

The Messianic Idea grasps humanity. Man was created
as the lord of nature to reign over nature. This is in some
respects the most comprehensive Messianic ideal. It in
volved the possession of the divine image, the retention
of the divine image in its integrity, and growth in the
likeness and communion of God. The Messianic ideal
of mankind involves the perfection of man and nature.
This ideal was forfeited by sin. It is to be regained by
grace. This involves the conflict with nature and the
subjugation of nature. The prophets predict the accom
plishment of this ideal. The Psalmists see the ideal man
exalted to dominion over all creatures,f superior to perils,

See Appendix XVI. t Ps. viii.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

183

sustained by angels and lord of animals,* victor over
death, and enjoying communion with God after death.f
Isaiah describes the universal peace when the little boy
is shepherd of lions, and the babe sports with the ser
pent.;): Hosea sees all nature in grand oratorio, where
responsive choruses of earth and heaven, of corn and
wine and oil, welcome restored Israel at the marriage
festival with Jahveh.§ Ezekiel predicts a paradise with
a river of life and trees of life.|| The great prophet of the
exile sees the world transformed into a garden and a
park. New heavens and earth take the place of the old.T
The uninspired Apocalypses are full of glowing descrip
tions of this new world, where there are rivers of wine
and milk, honey drops from the skies, the air is filled with
delicious odors, and mankind live without sin, sorrow, or
death.

In the New Testament our Lord comes as the Son of
man, the second Adam, the sinless and perfect, the model
of all perfection, the only one of our race ever recognized
by a divine voice from heaven as well-pleasing to God,
the only conqueror of death ; who rose triumphant to
heaven ; the enthroned sovereign of nature and man.
New Testament Prophecy looks forward to His rule and
His second Advent to accomplish the ideal of our race.
He reigns to restore mankind to his ideal perfection ; to
make him pure and holy; to transform him into His own
holy image and likeness; to make His bride spotless and
perfect ; to give the race, as such, victory over death, and
to raise men from the dead to dwell in a renovated
world. Peter predicts the time of the restoration of all
things, the regeneration of the world, the new heavens
and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.**

*Ps.xci. tPs.xvi. {si. §ii>l8>

|| xxxvi. 35. 1 li. 3 ; Iv. 12-13 5 Ixv. 1?- ** Acts in. 21 ; 2 Peter iii. 13.

184 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Paul tells us that the whole creation groaneth and tra-
vaileth in pain together until now, in the blessed hope
that it will be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.*

The history of the world is moving on toward the
realization of this great ideal. In the present century
man has for the first time grasped the problem of the
subjugation of nature. Now we know the entire extent
of our globe. Now we know what humanity is. Now
we know something of the position of our world in the
universe of God. This century has given man wonder
ful triumphs over nature on the surface of the earth.
Light, heat, sound, and electricity have all been taken
captives. The forces and motions of nature are to a
great degree subject to man. There are strong proba
bilities that man's triumphs will increase in wonders.
The world and the race are no more to the men of our
times than the land of Palestine was to the ancient Jews.
The ethical and religious development of mankind has
not been so rapid in recent times as in the sphere of
Natural Science. But it has ever been the case in the
history of the world that the external conditions and
circumstances must precede the internal movements of
the human spirit. We may expect that ere long a won
derful advance will take place in morals and in religion
and that Christian sanctification may be the dominant
doctrine, and the holy image of Christ, the world-wide
ideal of our race. For this has been the will of God
from the beginning, even our sanctification. For " whom
He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to
the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born
among many brethren." f

Rom. viii. 22 seg. t Rom. viii. 29.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

(2). The woman s seed.

The Messianic idea is ordinarily conceived as begin
ning with the promise of victory to the woman's seed
over the seed of the serpent. Here is a world-wide and
a world-long conflict between good and evil. These
forces are now conceived as scattered in a numerous
seed — then, again, as united in single contending heads.
Victory by suffering is here the prescribed lot of our
race. Herein is a miniature of human history. With
the development of mankind the forces of good and
evil unfold into mighty congregations. It often
seems that the good is outnumbered and almost over
whelmed by the evil ; but the combat goes on through
the centuries until the advent of our Lord. The history
of redemption is the history of the elimination of a
chosen seed from the masses in which it is enveloped.
It is not the teaching of the Old Testament that there
were no gracious influences for those passed by in the
elections of grace. The true conception is rather this,
that, as redemption unfolds to higher stages, it nar
rows its circles of influence. Those in the earlier stages
are left in possession of the measure of grace and good
that seemed best for them. The victory by suffering, in
its highest sense, was not a victory to be gained by
masses in conflict, but by the hero of humanity alone
by himself. Thus, in the election of grace, Shem is
separated, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then the
kingdom of Judah, at last a pious remnant that the
great prophet of the exile sees culminating in a unique
servant, a second Israel, who suffers for the sins of all,
and achieves redemption for all. Such a suffering victor
does not meet us in the uninspired prophecy of the
Jews. The Jews in the time of our Lord were not pre-

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

pared for such a Messiah. And yet, this was just the
kind of victory that Jesus was to win. Accordingly, as
second Adam, He enters into conflict with Satan in the
wilderness and overcomes him. He carries on a life-and-
death struggle with him during His ministry, until He
sees him falling like lightning from heaven. He is mor
tally wounded by him in His death on the cross, but He
rises from the dead and tramples the old serpent under
foot as He ascended to heaven in the clouds. Having
overcome the prince of evil, He enables His people, His
Church, to overcome all the lesser forces of evil. The
Church goes on conquering and to conquer, subduing
the world, overcoming evil in its multitudinous forms,
until the end is reached and the Church shall share in
the triumph of the Lord.

Paul told the Romans that " the God of peace shall
bruise Satan under your feet shortly." * John describes
the last great combat of the world and as the result of
it, " The devil that deceived them was cast into the lake
of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the
false prophet ; and they shall be tormented day and
night, forever and ever." f

(3). The Advent of God.

Noah starts a fresh line of Messianic promise. He
sees in his dying vision the races of his descendants
in their struggles and victories throughout the history
of the world, and finds the blessing in the advent of God
to dwell in the tents of Shem. The curse of Canaan is
the doom of the ancient world. History discloses the
ancient populations of Babylon, of Egypt, of Canaan, of
Phoenicia, and of Carthage, all going down under the

* xvi. 20. f Rev. xx. 10.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

187

victorious onset of Semitic and Japhetic hosts. The
expansion of Japhet tells of the wonderful empires of
Persia, Greece, and Rome— the migrations of Scythian
and of German — looks the world of our day in the face
and sees the Japhetic races belting the globe. But the
unholy ambitions of Ham and the heroic endeavors of
Japhet, the failure of the one and the successes of the
other are the framework of the story of blessedness that
is involved in the advent of God to the tents of Shem.
Shem is the bearer of the true religion. Shem is the
high-priest of mankind. God dwells with him and makes
him the prophet of the race. The history of redemption
is the unfolding of this promise. The presence and
blessing of God are the source of every religious move
ment. The covenants with Abraham and with Israel,
with David and with Jesus, are blessings from the hands
of God dwelling in the tents of Shem. The Theophanies
to the Patriarchs granted at certain times and in certain
places, pass over into a permanent Theophany in the
glory of the Shekinah of the tabernacle and the temple.
Canaan becomes the land of God, Jerusalem the city of
God, the temple the palace of God. The old temple is
abandoned by God because of the sins of the people.
But a new and greater temple is to take its place, so
holy and so magnificent that the temple will be all the
holy of holies— the new Jerusalem will be the temple,
yes, the whole city will be as sacred as the ancient ark
and the cherubic throne;* and every cooking utensil
and even the bells of the horses will be as sacred as the
tiara of the high-priest.f The residence of God will be
built of precious stones and nothing impure will enter
it.J Micah sees the temple mount ascending until it

* Jer. iii. 17. f Zech. xiv. 20-21. J Is. liv, 12,

188 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

overtops the highest mountains and becomes the beacon
for the pilgrimage of all nations;* the temple is to be
come the house of prayer for all mankind. f This new
temple and city were not built by Zerubbabel or Herod.
The pseudepigraphical apocalypses recognize that they
are reserved in heaven for the Messianic age.

When our Saviour came to Jerusalem He saw the
temple erected by Herod, the court of Pharisees and a
den of thieves. That was not His Father's temple, the
residence of God, the house of prayer for all nations.
He cleansed this poor structure of its traders and Phari
sees for a brief moment in His Messianic wrath, and He
told them that that temple was soon to be destroyed,
and that He would raise up for them a new temple in
three days. That temple was the body of our Lord.
The Messiah was the temple of God, God incarnate.
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us full of
grace and truth, in glory as of the only begotten of the
Father. In this incarnation the Messianic prediction of
Noah's blessing finds its realization. That temple rose
from the ruins into which it was cast by the rulers of
the nation, who rejected this corner-stone of the king
dom of God and ascended to the height of heaven.
Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. Jesus Christ
is God dwelling with man. Jesus Christ is the temple
and the holy of holies of the temple, the corner-stone
and the cope-stone, because He is a living temple.
Those who worship God in Him are united to Him as
living stones and so become themselves parts of the
temple and city. Thus Paul sees all Christians built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus Himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom

* Mic. jy, i, f Is. Ivi. 7.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

each several building, fitly framed together, groweth
into a holy temple in the Lord.* And John sees the
New Jerusalem descending from heaven, ready as a
bride for her husband, whose foundations are apostles
and whose walls are the pure and transparent diamonds
of the sanctified, shining in the light of the Lamb and
radiant with the splendor of the glory of the Lord. For
the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell
with them, and they shall be His people, and God Him
self shall be with them, and be their God.f

(4). The blessing of Abraham.

The blessing of Abraham opens up three distinct lines
of Messianic prophecy, the land of blessing, the seed
of blessing, and the blessing to the nations. It presents
the high calling of the people of God in the midst of
the earth. There is a holy land, but it is in the temple
of humanity; there is a holy seed, but it is in the
prophet of humanity. There is a blessing going forth
from the centre, but it is a blessing that is for the hu
man race. This lesson has been very hard to learn.
The universality of the true religion has ever been
limited by human particularism. Jewish and Pharisaic
particularism is no worse than Roman Catholic or Cal-
vinistic particularism. If Jew and Christian have been
chosen by God to be the recipients of special blessings,
they have corresponding duties to those left on the
lower stage. The Jew ought to have been a blessing to
the Gentiles, the Christian ought to be a blessing
to Jew and Gentile. The Protestant ought to be a
blessing to the less privileged Christian world, and if a
Presbyterian has been elected to special privileges in

* Eph. ii. 20-23. f Rev. xxi.

190 TIIE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

doctrine, and an Episcopalian has special privileges in
apostolic succession, the Baptist has the true baptism,
the Lutheran the true table of the Lord, the Unitarian the
true ethical sense, and the Methodist the true religious
experience — these highly favored ones owe correspond
ing duties to the less favored of mankind.

The holy land of the promise was framed within the
limits of the land of Canaan and set between the Euphra
tes and the Nile, the desert and the sea. In its unfolding
the land becomes the holy city, and the earthly Jerusa
lem the heavenly Jerusalem ; for as the epistle to the
Hebrews tells us, the essential contents of the promise
were the city which hath the foundations whose builder
and maker is God ; a better country than Canaan, a
heavenly country.*

The holy seed of the promise rises in its development
like a pyramid of grace. Ismael and Esau are elimi
nated from the holy seed. Judah rises as the lionlike
tribe that will gain the victory and take possession of
the holy land by divine right. The holy remnant is
eliminated from the wicked in Judah. The true Israel
is at last found in a prophet, who is the gentle preacher
and saviour, who is the covenant for the people and the
light of the Gentiles. The seed of Abraham reaches its
apex in Jesus Christ, the only one who fulfils its condi
tions of sanctity and blessing. Those who claim carnal
descent from Abraham have been eliminated in this
progression of grace, not that the divine grace has passed
them by, but that they have been passed by in this spe
cial grace of being the medium of the Abrahamic bless
ing. As John the Baptist warned the Jews: " Say not
within yourselves, ' We have Abraham to our fatheY ' :

* Heb. xi. 10, 16.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to
raise up children unto Abraham." * And as Paul tells
us , " Know, therefore, that they which be of faith, the
same are sons of Abraham." f The Gentiles have been
grafted on to the true olive-tree after that it had been
reduced to a stump by cutting off its unprofitable
branches.^ Jesus Christ is the one seed, the one true
vine of Israel, and the true children of Abraham are all
united to Him. The children of Abraham after the
flesh are not altogether passed by. They retain all their
ancient privileges. But they did not rise to the height
of their privileges as a nation. They did not as a race
fulfil their Messianic calling. This calling was fulfilled
alone by the Messiah and those remnants of Israel and
the Gentiles who attached themselves to Him. Accord
ingly the Church of Christ is the Israel of God, the holy
seed, the bearers of redemption to mankind. The bless
ing for the world wrapt up in the Abrahamic covenant
is in the hands of the Church. The great missionary
enterprises of our century are carrying this blessing to
the Gentiles and to the Jews and to the entire world.
The world is now for the first time in history open for
the blessing, waiting for it and stretching forth its hands
to receive it. The most pressing question of our times
is how shall we do this great work and accomplish this
great mission to the world. The sublime vision of our
Lord stirs us :

" Many shall come from the East and the West, and
shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in
the kingdom of heaven " ; § and in the visions of the
Apocalypse, we see upon the heavenly Zion a great

Matth. iii. 9. f Gal. iii. 7.

Rom. xi. 17-25. § Matth. viii. n.

192 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

multitude which no man could number, out of every
nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, stand
ing before the throne and before the Lamb.*

(5). The Kingdom of Priests.

The covenant at Horeb constituted Israel a king
dom of priests, a holy nation in the midst of the world.
God was their king, and they were a kingdom. They
were called to march into battle with all hostile forces,
and to gain the victory over every foe — for the king
dom of God is the empire of the world. This king
dom was also a priestly kingdom. Its chief aim was not
the ruin of the nations, but the salvation of men. Israel
had a priesthood for mankind as the mediators of re
demption. This high calling was fulfilled in a measure
in the Old Covenant, but the measure was small. The
relation between Israel and the nations was chiefly a
hostile relation. This ideal of ministry was held up by
a few Psalmists and singers, but is not a frequent one or
familiar one in prophecy. The prophets and Psalmists
rather unfold the doctrine of the triumphs of the king
dom of God and the reign of Jahveh Sabaoth, the king
of glory. It was just this triumphant kingdom of God
that filled the minds of the Jews in the centuries prior
to the advent of our Lord. They were longing for the
advent of God in Theophany to save His people, and
make Israel the mistress of the world. They saw the
great world powers, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece,
and Rome, one after the other, rising up and pushing
Israel to and fro. They longed for the time when the
lion should come forth from the forest and devour the
eagle, when the little stone from the mountain would

* Rev. vii. 9.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

crush the great image, when the Son of man in the
clouds would cast the beasts into the fire. It was the
kingdom of God that the Jews expected in the time of
our Lord. It was one of the most difficult tasks our
Lord had to do to give them a true conception of the
kingdom of God. He taught them that the kingdom of
grace must precede the kingdom of glory. He called
their attention to the priestly kingdom of the Sinaitic
covenant.

There are splendid elaborations of the priestly minis
try of Israel in the Old Testament. Isaiah sees Egypt
and Assyria united with Israel as the people of God,
sharing equally the covenant names and privileges.*
A Psalmist f sings of the adoption of the nations into
the city of God, and their enrolment as citizens of Zion.
The great prophet of the exile describes eunuchs and
foreigners worshipping in the house of prayer for all
nations, and the peoples of the world bringing their
choicest treasures to Zion,J the light of the world. Zech-
ariah describes the nations as encouraging one another
to seek Jahveh, and catching hold of the skirts of the
Jew to secure his guidance to the holy place.§ He pre
dicts a feast of tabernacles celebrated by all nations. |

But it was hard for Israel to learn this lesson and do
this work. It was hard for Israel, suffering in bondage,
to look with complacency upon the redemption of their
oppressors. The author of Jonah represents Jonah
waiting outside the city for the grand sight of its de
struction, in accordance with his prediction — but sad at
heart and ready to die with mortification when he
learned that God had graciously spared the repenting
city.! Jonah represented only too well the way in

* Is. xix. 16-25. t Ps. Ixxxvii. J Is. Ivi. 7 ; Ix.

§ Zech. viii. 22-23. I Zech. xiv. 16-17. II Jon. iv.

194 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

which ancient Israel refused his high calling, looked for
the destruction of the nations by the kingdom of God,
and neglected to minister unto them the means of grace
for their salvation. The Messiah, when He came, rebuked
the Pharisees, as God had rebuked Jonah. He taught
the men of His time that those who would reign in His
kingdom must first serve — that their prior calling was a
ministry of self-sacrifice, cross-bearing, and mediatorial
service in the kingdom of grace ; and that only in this
way could the kingdom of glory be prepared. The
kingdom of glory was postponed till His second advent,
but the kingdom of grace the Messiah set up among
them. Into this kingdom entered, not the rich and the
great and the strong, not the Pharisees and Sadducees,
not the ecclesiastics and dogmaticians of the time, but
the poor, the suffering, the children, the publicans and
the sinners who were ready to repent and have faith in
the Saviour of sinners.

Accordingly, the apostle Peter sees the Sinaitic call
ing in the ministry of the Christian Church. He tells
his readers, " Ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a
holy nation, a people of God's own possession, that ye
may show forth the excellencies of Him who called you
out of darkness into His marvellous light." * And
John sings the Christian choral : " Unto Him that loved
us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood : and He
made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto His God
and Father: to Him be the glory and the dominion
forever and ever " f

(6). The Prophet greater than Moses.
Moses predicts a prophet greater than himself who
will complete the divine revelation. Prophets are raised

* i Peter ii. 9 seq. t Rev. i. 6.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

up from time to time in the history of Israel bearing on
ward the standard of divine revelation. But none arose
to be compared with Moses. The prophets were not
welcomed by the people. They were a succession of
sufferers and martyrs of whom the world was not worthy.
The suffering prophet finds his depth of humiliation in
the person of Jeremiah. The experience of Jeremiah is
the basis of the suffering servant of the Psalms and
Prophecies of the Exile. The time of the Restoration
passes and no such prophet appears. Centuries roll on
and prophets seem to have abandoned the people of
God. At last in the wilderness of Judea a prophet
arises in the spirit and power of Elijah, and he points
to the greater prophet who was at hand. At last the
prophet like Moses appeared in Jesus of Nazareth, and
He realized in His experience in life and in death the
anticipations of the prophet of the exile. He accom
plished the martyrdom of that prophet, and He com
pleted the Mosaic revelation. He was the prophet in
the wondrous words of religious instruction preserved in
the Gospels. He was a prophet in the predictions that
He gave respecting His own life, death, and resurrection,
and respecting the kingdom of grace and the kingdom
of glory. He was a prophet also in a newer and higher
sense, in that He not only bore with Him the presence
and power of the Holy Spirit, but He bestowed that Spirit
upon His apostles, and made His Church prophetic.

(7). The Messianic king.

The prophet Nathan begins the prediction of the Messi
anic king who will erect the house of Jahveh, be the Son
of God upon an everlasting throne, bear the stripes of
punishment, and be the bearer of the divine grace. This
Messianic king now becomes the favorite theme of psalm-

196

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

ist and prophet. Now He is the chosen and beloved Son of
God, sitting in peace and righteousness upon His throne of
glory.* Then He is a conquering king, riding into the
battle at the head of a priestly army springing forth like
dew-drops from the womb of the morning.f Then, again,
He is a bridegroom, the fairest, the bravest, the noblest,
a-nd the most Godlike-J He is a king reigning by divine
right. He is a king who knows no defeat. He is a king
who gives peace, righteousness, and joy to the world.
These grand ideals that were built out of the experience
of the reigns of David and Solomon were soon seen to
rise high above historical reality. The monarchs of the
Davidic dynasty did not rise to it, but receded from it.
Hezekiah and Josiah revived the hope of the faithful
and encouraged the prophets and psalmists of their time
to fill up the outlines of the Messianic kings. But the
exile blasted every hope. There wrere certain definite
predictions that must be realized in any one who would
claim to be the Messiah. He must be a son of David ;
he must be born in Bethlehem ; he must come forth
from obscurity ; he must be endowed with all the gifts
and graces. He must be a great warrior. He must con
quer all nations and achieve universal peace. The Psalter
of Solomon and other kindred writings of the Jews in
the time of our Lord kept this Messianic king before the
' minds of the people.

Jesus was recognized by His disciples and the common
people as the Messiah, the son of David. He was born
of the line of David ; He was born in the city of David ;
He came forth from the obscurity of Nazareth ; He was
endowed with every gift and grace ; He had authority
over man and nature. He soake and the demons obeyed

* Ps. ii. t Ps. ex. t Ps. xlv.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

Him ; He spake and the winds became calm ; He spake
and every disease fled from its victim ; He spake and
the dead came forth from their tombs ; His word gave
men the assurance that their sins were forgiven, and that
they were called of God to His service. And yet Jesus
declined to organize armies; He declined to be made
king. He testified before the sanhedrim under oath put
to Him by the high-priest, that He was the Messiah. He
testified before Pilate that He was the Messiah, but told
him that His kingdom was not of this world. His throne
was not to be set up in Jerusalem. His empire was not
to be accomplished by the shock of armies. Legions of
angels would soon put to flight the legions of Rome
should He give the command. The throne of the Mes
siah was the throne of the world ; what earthly capitol
was suited to such an empire? The kingdom of the
Messiah embraced the living and the dead; only a
heavenly throne could be the seat of such a dominion.
When Jesus lived in this world He was the king's son,
entitled to reign, but not reigning. He had a battle to
fight that the Jews knew not of. He battled with Satan
and the princes of darkness, and overthrew them. He
battled with temptation and sin and evil and stripped
them of their power. He battled with death and tram
pled it under foot. When He rose from the dead and
ascended into heaven He sat down on His throne of
dominion. He is reigning over a kingdom of grace; He
is preparing by conquests of redemption for the kingdom
of glory. For He must reign until all things are put
under His feet ; until He has sanctified and delivered
from death every one of His people. Then when the
sanctified rise, some of them from their graves and others
ascend from earth into the air to be glorified together,
then will the kingdom of glory be established and the

198 THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

Messiah will deliver over His perfect work in joy and
triumph to God even the Father.*

(8). The day of Jahveh.

The prophets introduce the Messianic idea of the
day of Jahveh. This is a day of grace in the outpour
ing of the divine Spirit with manifold gifts of prophecy
on all flesh. It is also a day of judgment for the last
great decision of the world. This day of Jahveh is ever
represented as near. It is a day of divine advent, when
sun, moon, and stars will put on mourning; when the
heavens will be rolled together as a scroll, and stars will
fall like ripe figs from a tree.f The earth will quake, the
mountains totter from their foundations, the valleys will
spring into the air, the deep recesses of the earth will be
exposed, the seas will be dried up, and the rivers be
changed into blood ; all nations will tremble in terror,
the universe will blaze with the fires of divine wrath, will
flame with the glories of the divine presence. When
God appears on the great white throne earth and heaven
flee away and find no place, and all nature and all men
are naked and open to the eyes that search them through
and through.

This day is a day of wrath and a day of redemption.
As a day of wrath it closes the age of the world, it is at
the very end, the last of the times of human history, the
closing act of the tragedy, whose first act began in Para
dise. The judgment is described by a heaping up of fig
ures of speech that are not always congruous, and which
when taken together and regarded as realistic are gro
tesque and extravagantly impossible, but which all the
more set forth that dies irac that transcends human con-

i Cor. xv. 24. t Joel iv. 18-21 ; Is. xiii. 10 ; xxiv. i, 19; xxxiv. 4.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL.

ception and imagination. Fire is one of the means of
divine judgment. Sometimes fire and brimstone are
rained upon the wicked.* Then there is a furnace of fire.f
Daniel tells us of a river of fire.J The Apocalypse of a
lake of fire.§ But the fire is not so common in the judg
ment scenes of the Bible as other representations ; and
Christian theologians and preachers have laid too much
stress upon the fires of judgment. More frequently the
judgment is a battle where the Messiah leads the army
of the redeemed into the last great struggle with Satan
and the forces of evil. Joel describes the judgment as a
conflict with multitudes of warriors in the valley of de-
cision.|| Isaiah describes the battle in which the car
casses of the slain defile the very heavens with their blood
and pestilential odors-t Ezekiel tells of the battle with
Gog and Magog when the holy land is covered with the
slain.* Zechariah sees Jahveh standing on the Mount
of Olives fighting against the nations and smiting them
with a leprosy which consumes them on their feet. ft The
Apocalypse gives us a battle scene in which the Messiah,
the King of kings and Lord of lords, with his priestly
army clad in white and on white horses, overthrows the
enemies, and the vultures are summoned from all parts
to devour the carcasses of the slain.JJ

Another common feature of the judgment is the har
vest—sometimes a wheat harvest where the sickle does
the work and cuts down the ripe grain, gathering the
wheat into the barn and casting the tares and the chaff
into the fire.§§ At other times it is the harvest of grapes,
and the wine-press of the wrath of God is trodden and

* Ez. xxxvi.i. 22. f Matth. xiii. 42. j Dan. vii. 9-12

§ Rev. xx. 10. | Joel iv. xS-aa. «fl Is. xxxiv. 3.

- Lz. xxxviii.-ix. ft Zech. xii. i^ ; xiv. 1-21. « Rev. xix. 14 seq.
§§ Matth. xiii. 30.

200

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON.

the blood of the grapes pressed out * Thus Isaiah
describes the Lord in glorious apparel stained red from
the blood of His enemies whose vital juice has sprinkled
His garments, strutting in the pride of victory. The
Apocalypse describes the wine-press trodden without the
city and blood issuing from it in a great flood, f

These representations of the wrath of God of a more
violent kind must be set alongside of that judicial exam
ination of the books of record and the judgment in ac
cordance with those records— all alike symbols of that
dies irac in which in some way or other those who have
rejected the divine grace and committed the unpardona
ble sin of casting away redemption, are doomed to perdi
tion.

But the day of Jahveh is also and chiefly a day of
grace and redemption. And from this point of view it
embraces the whole Messianic age. It began with the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost;
it continues through the centuries of Christian history
until the Church has become sanctified ; it is completed
in that day of the Messiah, when for the first time the
redemption of Christ is accomplished, when His work of
grace is finished in the glorification of all His redeemed,
and in the marriage forever of His espoused people.
The Church has looked sufficiently perhaps at the ad
vent day as a day of doom ; it is important that it should
look forward to it more as to a day of redemption and
glorification.

These are the chief Messianic ideals of the Scriptures.
They are apart in the Old Testament. Many of them
converge toward the Messiah at His first Advent. All of

Joel iv. 13 ; Rev. xiv. 17-20. t Is. Wit x-6 ; Rev. xiv. 18-20.

THE MESSIANIC IDEAL. 201

them centre in the Messiah at His second Advent, which
is the great hope of the Church and of the world. All
prophecy points to this goal. All history unfolds toward
this climax. All nature yearns for this realization. Our
salvation is not all faith, we are saved also by hope,
and we are saved also by love. Faith begets hope,
and hope becomes mature in love. A Christian looks
backward and sees all history preparing the way of the
Messiah and then opening up the path for the advance
of the Church in the conquest of the world. A Christian
looks forward and sees all history marching to its goal in
the second Advent. But the Christian also looks upward
and sees the Messiah enthroned at the right hand of the
Father, the head of the Church, the sovereign of the
world, the Saviour of His people and the director of the
destinies of mankind. The Messiah is the centre of the
Bible. The Messiah is the centre of history. The Mes
siah is the Lord of Nature. The Messiah is the Saviour
of the world. The Messiah is our own Redeemer, our
hope and joy, our crown and our everlasting life.

APPENDIX.

I. NEW EVIDENCES FOR THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIP
TURE, p. 205.

II. A LOW-CHURCH MODIFICATION OF THE POWER OF THE
KEYS, p. 208.

III. A RECOGNITION OF THE SALVATION OF ELECT

HEATHEN, p. 208.

IV. THE SUPPOSED CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS OF

DIVINE AUTHORITY, p. 210.
V. SOME OF THOSE WHO FIND ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE,

p. 215.
VI. WHO ARE "THE HIGHER CRITICS"? p. 236.

VII. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE

NAME JAHVEH, p. 248.

VIII. THE DECALOGUE OF J. AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE

OTHER CODES, p. 250.

IX. THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY,
P- 273.

X. THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THEOLOGICAL

ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 275.
XI. EICHHORN'S VIEW OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER

CRITICISM, p. 277.
XII. MIRACLES AND THEOPHANIES, p. 279.

XIII. PROPHECY AND THEOPHANY, p. 280.

XIV. THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN, p. 281.
XV. THE POEM OF THE CREATION, p. 283.

XVI. THE MINUTE DETAILS OF PREDICTION, p. 286.

(203)

NEW EVIDENCES FOR THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

The Committee of the General Assembly on revision of the
Westminster Confession recommend the insertion of the section
in italics, in Chapter I. Of the Holy Scripture, as follows :

" 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the
Church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ;
and the truthfulness of the history, the faithful witness of prophecy
and miracle, the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the
doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts,
the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the
full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the
many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection
thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the word of God ; yet, notwithstanding, our full
persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine au
thority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit,
bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."

This proposed revision does not set forth the doctrine of the
"truthfulness of the history " or "the faithful witness of proph
ecy and miracle " ; these doctrines we recognize and affirm
equally with the committee who propose this revision. But the
proposed revision puts the "truthfulness of the history," and
"the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle " in the same line
of evidence as the internal evidences ; " the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the
consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, the full discov
ery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof ";
and makes these external evidences equally with the internal
evidences, "arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the word of God."

(205)

206 APPENDIX.

The Westminster divines understood their Bible so well that
they could not insert " the truthfulness of the history " and " the
faithful witness of prophecy and miracle " among the arguments
which " abundantly evidence " the Bible " to be the word of
God "; and Christian apologists, who know what they are about,
agree with them.

Truthfulness of the history is no evidence at all that the his
tory is a part of the Word of God. There are many histories
which are as truthful as the histories given in the Bible. There
are many ancient histories, not in our Bible, which compare favor
ably with the Chronicler. And if Esther be history, there are many
histories which give less perplexity to the historical student. It
is not the truthfulness of the history that is an evidence of its
inspiration, any more than the truthfulness of the doctrine. But
it is the " heavenliness " of the history, " the scope of the whole "
of the history, " the full discovery " that the history " makes of
the only way of man's salvation "; "and the many other incom-
paraole excellencies thereof "; which are "arguments whereby"
the nistory "doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of
Goa. ' The separation of the history from these attributes
which really prove its divine authority and the assigning another
attribute : namely, " truthfulness," and resting the whole evi
dence for the divine authority of the history upon this attribute,
is like lifting a house from a rock foundation and setting it upon
rotten piles.

Miracles may have been in a measure evidences of the divine
ministry of Moses and Elijah and Jesus ; but it is plain that
they made little use of them for this purpose. Nowhere in
Holy Scripture is the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle
presented to us as an evidence of the inspiration or the divine
authority of a writing. On the other hand, Moses warns Israel
against false prophets who would work miracles and utter proph
ecies (Deut. xiii. 1-5 ; xviii. 20-22). Jesus also warns against false
Messiahs who would deceive even the elect (Matt. xxiv. 23-24;
Rev. xiii. 11-18).

The evidence in the miracles of Scripture for us, and even for
the majority of those who saw them, is not in the miracles as
miracles. For it is recognized in Scripture that miracles may be
wrought by evil spirits and false prophets. It is the heavenly
character of the miracles as deeds of grace and mercy, as ex-

NEW EVIDENCES. 207

pressions of a divine power to judge and to save. As Jesus said
to the messengers of John the Baptist : " Go your way and tell
John the things which ye do hear and see : the blind receive
their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the
deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good
tidings preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall
find none occasion of stumbling in me " (Matt. xi. 4-6).

Jesus refused to work miracles to please His apostles (Luke ix.
54, 55), or the devil (Matt. iv. 3-7), to convince the multitude (John
vi. 30), or the Pharisees (Matt. xii. 38-39). He wrought miracles
on behalf of His poor and suffering people, not to gain the cre
dence of men.

So of His ministry at Nazareth it is said : "He did not many
mighty works there because of their unbelief " (Matt. xiii. 58). If
the miracles were not used by Jesus for the purpose of evidence
for Himself, it is unlikely that they are evidence for the writings
which record them. If the General Assembly's committee of Re
vision be correct in their opinion, Jesus ought to have done all the
more mighty works there in order to overcome their unbelief*
We prefer to recognize that our Lord was sound in the faith and
that this committee is in error.

It is not the faithful witness of prophecy that is an evidence
of inspiration, it is a^ain the " heavenliness " of the prophecy,
the " efficacy of the doctrine " of the prophecy, the " majesty of
the style " of the prophets, " the consent of all the parts " of the
prophets, as so many links in a chain, as so many parts of the
sublime whole of the Messianic ideal of Holy Scripture, "the
scope of the whole," embracing in the ideal of God, the ever
lasting and complete salvation of man, "the entire perfection,"
therefore transcending in incomparable excellence all other writ
ings — these are abundant evidences of its divine authority.

Prophecy is religious instruction — it is a false conception of
Biblical prophecy to think of it chiefly as a faithful witness.
This exaggerates the predictive element, and then again ex
aggerates the minute details of prediction which belong to
the form of prophecy and not to its substance, many of which
have not been fulfilled, and never can be fulfilled, and it neglects
the ideal contents, the substance, the great comprehensive and
sublime Messianic plan of redemption (see VII., p. 177, and Ap
pendix XVI).

208

APPENDIX.

If the American Presbyterian Church should adopt thio pro
posed revision, they would teach unscriptural doctrine, they
would depart from the historic faith of the Church, they would
fly in the face of modern Apologetics, they would introduce new
dogma into -the already too cumbrous system, and they would
add another barrier to separate Presbyterianism from the his
toric churches of Christendom.

II.

A LOW CHURCH MODIFICATION OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS.

The revision of Chapter XXX., as proposed, is the insertion of
the clause in italics, as follows :

" 2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are
committed, by virtue whereof they have ministerial and declara
tive power respectively to retain and remit sins, by shutting that
kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and by cen
sures, and by opening it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry
of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall
require."

This insertion is ill advised, for it defines the power of the keys
more precisely, and, therefore, makes the passage more difficult
to subscribe not only by those who think that the power of the
keys is something more than this ; but also by those who can see
no Scriptural authority for such limitations. The Low Church
party in Presbyterianism are here putting into the Confession a
statement which represents their party ; but which can hardly be
acceptable to a High Churchman who follows the Westminster
divines, or a Broad Churchman, who wishes no definitions which
cannot be proven by clear and indubitable evidence.

III.

A RECOGNITION OF THE SALVATION OF ELECT HEATHEN.

This is recognized by the proposed revision of the Westminster
Confession, as follows :

' Infants, dying in infancy, and all other persons not guilty of
actual transgression, are included in the election of grace, and

ELECT HEATHEN. 209

are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who
vvorketh when and where and how He pleaseth. So also are all
other elect persons who are not outwardly called by the Word "
(xii. 3).

Here are the three classes— infants, incapables, and others not
outwardly called. The phrase " not guilty of actual transgres
sion " is unfortunate, for it makes a qualification which is not only
unnecessary in itself, but which raises the question whether
idiots and maniacs who have become such after actual trans
gression, are to be excluded from the election of grace. It is
also not altogether clear from the connection of this clause with
the previous clause, whether there may not be young children
dying after actual transgression who may be excluded from the
elect. Furthermore, it makes the doctrine of the universal sal
vation of infants and incapables, which did not gain recognition
until the present century, into an article of faith, and thus ex
cludes from orthodoxy the entire body of Westminster divines
and the universal Church before the Reformation. We doubt
the propriety of making such an article of faith, all the more that
we have no authority in Holy Scripture for the doctrine, and it
has not gained any firm position in the system of Christian doc
trine. It is a revolutionary doctrine which must transform many
other doctrines of the Westminster Confession before it can
rightly claim a place in the system. If this be made an article of
faith, those who hold to the traditional opinion of the Church are
shut out from the Presbyterian Church. I hold the new doctrine
myself as a precious hope and as a lawful theory, but I deny that
it is an article of faith.

The revisers also recognize the universal working of the Holy
Spirit.

"The Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, is everywhere
present among men, confirming the teachings of nature and the
law of God written in the heart, restraining from evil, inciting to
good, and preparing the way for the gospel " (ix. 3).

It is true that it is not stated here that the Holy Spirit regen
erates and saves in this preparatory work. But this is distinctly
stated in the clause of Chap. XII.

" So also are [regenerated and saved by Christ through the
Spirit] all other elect persons who are not outwardly called by
the word."

210 APPENDIX.

The doctrine is expressed in a clumsy and diffuse style in these
new revisions, but it is there.

IV.

THE SUPPOSED CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS OF DIVINE
AUTHORITY.

The only persons, so far as I know, who have ever thought of
co-ordinating the Bible, the Church, and the Reason as fountains
of divine authority, are some recent controversialists who im
pute to others their own misconceptions, or who, after the man
ner of scholastic logicians, invent imaginary opponents in order
to show their dialectic skill in destroying them.

Dr. Shedd, after the delivery of my Inaugural Address on the
Authority of Holy Scripture, asserted that I had co-ordinated the
Bible, the Church, and the Reason. In the appendix to the
second edition of the address I replied : •« I did not say, and I did
not give any one the right to infer from anything whatever in
the Inaugural Address, or in any of my writings, that I co-ordi
nated the Bible, the Church, and the Reason " (p. 84). Again,
when called upon to respond to the charges and specifications
made against me before the Presbytery of New York, as to their
form and legal effect, although restricted by the limitations of
my plea in law, I was yet able, while pointing out the invalid in
ferences of the prosecution, to say : " • Reason is a great fountain
of divine authority,' and yet not 'an infallible rule of faith and
practice.' The Church is a 'great fountain of divine authority/
and yet not an ' infallible rule of faith and practice.' The Bible
is a 'great fountain of divine authority,' and it is also the • only
infallible rule of faith and practice.' Here are two different
statements of truths that may be embraced under a more general
truth, but to affirm the one, as to Bible, Church, and Reason,
that ' they are great fountains of divine authority,' is not to deny
that the Bible is the only one of which the other can be affirmed,
namely, that ' the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith
and practice.' When God speaks through the conscience, He
speaks with divine authority, and the conscience becomes ' a
great fountain of divine authority '; but the conscience does not

CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS. 211

become thereby an 'infallible rule of faith and practice.' God
speaks through the holy sacrament with divine authority, and
the sacrament of the Church is then a 'great fountain of divine
authority '; but it does not become thereby an ' infallible rule of
faith and practice.' I affirm that I have never anywhere, or at
any -time, made any statements or taught any doctrines that in
the slightest degree impair what I ever have regarded as a cardi
nal doctrine, that ' the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible
rule of faith and practice ' " (p. 146).

Nothwithstanding these statements of my position, Dr. Shedd
persists in affirming that I co-ordinate the Bible, the Church, and
the Reason, and endeavors to prove his position in a labored
argument in the N. Y. Observer of Jan. 2ist, as follows :

" i. We begin, in the first place, with Dr. Briggs' well-known view of the Bi
ble, the Church, and the Reason. In the discourse these are denominated ' three
great fountains of divine authority.' In the response, the author endeavors to
show that this proposition does not place all three upon an equality, by claiming
that while it asserts that all three of them are divine, it asserts that only one of
them is infallible. He explains as follows : ' The Bible is a great fountain of
divine authority, and also an infallible rule of faith and practice ; the Reason is a
great fountain of divine authority, and yet not an infallible rule of faith and
practice ; and the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, and yet not an
infallible rule of faith and practice' (p. 20). He contends that the discourse,
when correctly understood, attributes divinity to all three of the sources of divine
authority but infallibility to only one of them, and denies, as he did in his answer
to the first of the Directors' questions, that it teaches that all three are co-ordi
nate and co-equal. Whether this is the fact or not, depends upon the author's
use of the term 'divine' in this leading proposition of his discourse. Any author
ity that is divine in the absolute and strict sense as opposed to human, is un
questionably infallible. But in his discourse, Dr. Briggs denominates the Bible,
the Church, and the Reason 'three great fountains of divine authority' in the
strict sense of the word as the opposite of human. The proof of this is plain
and indisputable, as we shall show.

" In the opening of the discourse the author makes the common discrimination
between human authority and divine. ' If,' says he, ' we search the forms of au
thority that exist about us, they all alike disclose themselves as human and im
perfect. The earnest spirit presses back of all these human authorities in quest
of an infallible guide and an immutable certainty. Divine authority is the only
authority to which man can yield implicit obedience, on which he can rest in
loving certainty and build with joyous confidence' (pp. 23, 24). Now, immedi
ately after this careful distinction between human and divine authority, he lays
down his fundamental proposition : ' There are three great fountains of divine
authority, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason.' He applies the epithet divine
as opposed to human, and as implying infallibility, in identically the same way

212 APPENDIX.

to all three sources. Not the slightest discrimination is made by the author re
specting the nature of the divinity attributed to the three fountains of authority.
In this proposition the Church and the Reason have divine authority ascribed to
them in precisely the same sense that the Bible has. This takes the Church and
the Reason along with the Bible out of the category of the human and fallible,
and places all three of them in that of the divine and infallible. And if there are
three fountains of authority that are alike divine in the strict sense of the term,
they are certainly co-ordinate, that is, they belong to the same order or rank ; and
they are certainly co-equal, for things that are equal to the same thing, namely,
' divinity,' are equal to each other. And, accordingly, throughout the discourse,
the Church and the Reason are described as furnishing man a ground of certainty
and confidence in matters of religion such as he cannot find in what the author
denominates ' the human and imperfect forms of authority that exist about us.'
— a class of authorities from which, along with the Bible, he excludes the Church
and the Reason.

"Still further proof that the 'three fountains of divine authority ' are represented
as co-ordinate and co-equal, notwithstanding the author's disclaimer and denial,
is found in his declaration that they are ' complementary ' to each other. ' If God,'
he says (p. 64), 'really speaks to men in these three centres, there ought to be
no contradiction between them. They ought to be complementary, and they
should combine in a higher unity for the guidance and comfort of men.' That
is ' complementary,' say all the dictionaries, which supplies a deficiency. For
example the quantity required to make up any angle to 90 degrees, or the quar
ter of a circle, is its complement. When, therefore, two or more things are com
plementary to each other, neither of them is sufficient of itself alone. They are
mutually dependent upon each other. Each needs the other or others to fill out
(complere) something wanting in itself. If, therefore, the Bible has the Church
and the Reason as its complements, it must be because it is of itself inadequate
in some particulars to meet all the religious necessities of mankind. It must be
helped out by them. And so the author teaches. The Bible, he says, could not
do for Newman all that he needed, and the Church was its complement. It
made up the deficiency. The Bible and the Church could not do for Martineau
all that he needed in matters of religion, and the Reason was their complement.
It filled up the lack (pp. 25-28). Consequently, in representing the ' three great
fountains of divine authority ' as ' complementary ' to each other, he makes them
inter-dependent, and all on the common level of divinity as co-ordinates and co-
equals. No one is sufficient of itself alone, and no one is supreme over the oth
ers in respect to the characteristic of strict and absolute divinity which belongs to
all alike."

Dr. Shedd's argumentation is based on invalid premises which
he assumes, but which we do not grant, (i). He assumes that
"any authority that is divine in the absolute and strict sense as
opposed to human, is unquestionably infallible."

But Dr. Shedd seems to have forgotten his own deliberate
teaching as set forth in his Dogmatic Theology :

CO-ORDINATION OF THE FOUNTAINS. 213

" Human knowledge, then, considered from this point of view, is an unwrit
ten revelation because it is not aboriginal and self-subsistent, but derived. It
issues ultimately from a higher source than the finite intelligence. Human rea
son has the ground of its authority in the Supreme Reason. This is seen particu
larly in that form of reason which Kant denominates ' practical ' and whose
judgments are given in conscience. This faculty has an authority for man that
cannot be accounted for, except by its being the voice of God. If conscience
were entirely isolated from the Deity, and were independent of Him, it could not
make the solemn and sometimes terrible impression it does. No man would be
afraid of himself, if the self were not connected with a higher Being than self.
Of the judgments of conscience, it may be said literally that God reveals His
own holy judgment through them. l Whence comes the restraint of conscience ? '
asks Selden (Table-Talk}. 'From a higher power; nothing else can bind. 'l
cannot bind myself, for I may untie myself again ; an equal cannot bind me, for
we may untie one another. It must be a superior Power, even God Almighty.'
.... General or unwritten revelation, though trustworthy, is not infallible.
This differentiates it from the special or written revelation.

"i. In the first place, the ethical and religious teaching of God through the

structure of the human mind is vitiated more or less by human depravity

2. Secondly, infallibility cannot be attributed to the unwritten revelation, because
of the limitations of the finite mind."

Dr. Shedd here represents that God speaks to men through
the reason and grants an "unwritten revelation," which though
"trustworty,"is not infallible, because "it is vitiated more or
less by human depravity " and " the limitations of the finite
mind." Dr. Shedd and I are agreed at this point. I appeal
from Dr. Shedd, the ex-professor and polemic divine, to Dr.
Shedd, the professor and teacher of dogmatic theology.

Dr. Shedd further states that : " In representing the three
great fountains of divine authority as ' complementary ' to each
other, Dr. Briggs makes them interdependent and all on the
common level of divinity as co-ordinates and co-equals." This
statement is reached by assuming a suppressed premise to this
" Two or more things that are complementary to each
other are co-ordinate and co-equal." But this premise is untrue
To use Dr. Shedd's illustration: "The quantity required to
make up any angle to 90 degrees, or the quarter of a circle, is its
complement." But the complement of an angle of 90 degrees
might be less than one-hundredth part of a degree, it would not
then be equal to 89.99 of a degree. The complement of a thing
may be equal, or may be lesser or greater in the same order, or
it may belong to a different order, higher or lower. Thus, when

214

APPENDIX.

Paul says, " Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and
fill up in my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ
in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church " (Col. i.
24), he does not mean to co-ordinate himself with Christ, or to
co-ordinate his sufferings with the atoning sufferings of his
Saviour. When Christ fills up the full complement of divine
revelation He does not co-ordinate Himself with the Old Testa
ment prophets, or represent that His revelation was only adding
another link to theirs in the chain. of prophecy. So is it with
the three fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the Church,
and the Reason, when I say : " They ought to be complementary
and they should combine in a higher unity for the guidance and
comfort of men," I do not thereby make these fountains co
ordinate, that is in the same order. I do not make them co
equal. I do not state what is their relative importance or what
is their relative rank. And when I say, " The Bible needs the
Church and the Reason ere it can exert its full power upon the
life of men " (p. 64), I say that each one of these fountains has
its own place and importance, that they were designed to work
together in harmony for a common end. God, man and nature
work together to accomplish the divine purpose, and in a sense
the work of any one of these three, God, man, and nature, com
plements the work of the other two; but man is high above
nature and God is infinitely above them both.

Dr. Shedd's arguments rest upon premises which he has as
sumed without reflection. In fact Dr. Shedd shows that he is
not at home in this department of theology. If one examines
Dr. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology he will find no discussion what
ever of the sources of divine authority. There is a long discus
sion upon the authenticity, credibility, and canonicity of the
Scriptures, topics which belong to the department of Exegetical
Theology, but he neglects the discussion of the authority of the
Reason and th.e Church which belong to Dogmatic Theology.
Dr. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology has chapters
upon rationalism, mysticism, and the Roman Catholic doctrine
of the Rule of Faith, in which he discusses the sources of divine
authority.

Dr. Henry B. Smith gives careful consideration to the sources
of Christian theology, discussing Christian experience, confes
sions of faith and systems, philosophy and nature in their places,

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.

215

as well as revelation in Holy Scripture. But Dr. Shedd ap
parently has not considered these topics of systematic theology
as worthy of a place in his system.

Calvin divides his system of doctrine into four books, giving
the last book to a full discussion of the doctrine of the Church.
All that Dr. Shedd has to say about the Church is in less than
two pages of his system. A theologian who thus ignores the
doctrine of the Church and the divine authority of the Church, is
so far separated from genuine Calvinism and historic Puritanism
that no zeal for Reprobation or the inerrancy of the original au
tographs of Scripture could have saved him from a condemna
tion for heresy if his Dogmatic Theology had appeared in Lon
don in the middle of the i/th century.

SOME OF THOSE WHO FIND ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Inasmuch as the question of errors in Holy Scripture has
become such a matter of heated controversy, it has seemed best
to give extracts from the Fathers, Reformers, and leading Anglo-
Saxon divines who teach that there are errors in the Bible, and
who show that these errors do not disturb its divine au
thority. With the single exception of Van Oosterzee, we have
refrained from quoting scholars from the continent of Europe,
for it is well known that they are practically unanimous on the
same side. To these here cited may be added all those who
hold the modern critical views of the Old Testament given in
Appendix VI., for no one can be a true Biblical scholar and main
tain the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

(i). O rig en.

" Quin si de aliis compluribus diligenter quis exquisierit Evan-
gelia de dissonantia secundum historiam, quam singulatim tenta-
bimus pro virili ob oculos ponere, vertigine affectus, vel renuet
confirmare Evangelia tanquam vera, et judicio suo sibi eligens
quod voluerit, alicui ipsorum Evangeliorum adhaerebit, non
audens funditus infirmare de Domino nostro fidem ; vel admit-
tens quatuor esse Evangelia, veritatem ipsorum non in formis et

210 APPENDIX.

characteribus corporalibus esse adjunget " (Com. in Joan. Tomus
x. 2. Mtgne, Patrologta, Greek, Tom. xiv., Ortgen, Tom. iv. 311).

(2). Jerome.

"Hoc Testimonium in Jeremia non invenitur. In Zacharia
vero, qui pene ultimus est duodecim prophetarum, quaedam
similitude fertur (Zach. xi.) : et quamquam sensus non multum
discrepet ; tamen et ordo et verba diversa sunt. Legi nuper in
quodam Hebraico volumine, quod Nazaraenae sectae mihi He-
braeus obtulit; Jeremiae apocryphum, in quo haec ad verbum
scripta reperi. Sed tamen mihi videtur magis de Zacharia sump-
turn testimonium : Evangel istarum et Apostolorum more vulgato,
qui verborum ordine praetermisso, sensus tantum de veteri Testa-
mento proferunt in exemplum"(Matth. xxvii. <$)*MignetPatr.xxvi.

(3). Augustine.

" 30. How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by suppos
ing that this has been done in accordance with the more secret
counsel of that providence of God by which the minds of the
evangelists were governed ? For it may have been the case, that
when Matthew was engaged in composing his Gospel, the word
Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in accordance with a familiar ex
perience, instead of Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy, however, he
would most undoubtedly have corrected (having his attention
called to it, as surely would have been the case, by some who
might have read it while he was still alive in the flesh), had he
not reflected that (perhaps) it was not without a purpose that the
name of the one prophet had been suggested instead of the other
in the process of recalling the circumstances (which process of
recollection was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and that this
might not have occurred to him had it not been the Lord's pur
pose to have it so written. If it is asked, however, why the Lord
should have so determined it, there is this first and most service
able reason, which deserves our most immediate consideration,
namely, that some idea was thus conveyed of the marvellous man
ner in which all the holy prophets, speaking in one spirit, con
tinued in perfect unison with each other in their utterances, — a
circumstance certainly much more calculated to impress the
mind than would have been the case had all the words of all
these prophets been spoken by the mouth of a single individual.

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 21 T

The same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of
accepting unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given ex
pression to through the agency of these prophets, and of looking
upon their individual communications as also those of the whole
body, and on their collective communications as also those of
each separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken by
Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and, on
the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are really as
much Jeremiah's as they are Zechariah's, what necessity was
there for Matthew to correct his text when he read over what
he had written, and found that the one name had occurred
to him instead of the other ? Was it not rather the proper course
for him to bow to the authority of the Holy Spirit, under whose
guidance he certainly felt his mind to be placed in a more decided
sense than is the case with us, and consequently to leave un
touched what he had thus written, in accordance with the Lord's
counsel and appointment, with the intent to give us to under
stand that the prophets maintained so complete a harmony with
each other in the matter of their utterances that it becomes
nothing absurd, but, in fact, a most consistent thing for us to
credit Jeremiah with a sentence originally spoken by Zechariah ? "
{Harmony of the Gospels, III., 7, 30, in Select Library of the Ntcene
and Post- Nicene Fathers, Augustine's Works, VI., pp. 191-2).

(4). Luther.

" In diesem Kapitel ist beschrieben der Ausgang und das Ende
beider Reiche, des Judenthums und auch derganzen Welt. Aber
die zween Evangelisten, Matthaus und Marcus, werfen die beide
in einander, halten nicht die Ordnung, die Lucas gehalten hat;
denn sie nicht weiter sehen, denn dass die Worte Christi geben
und erzahlen, bekfimmern sich nicht damit, was vor oder nach
geredet sei ; Lucas aber befleissiget sich, es kliirlicher und ordent-
licher zu schreiben, und erziihlet diese Rede zweimal ; eines kiirz-
lich am "neunzehnten Kapitel, da er von Zerstorung der Juden zu
Jerusalem saget; darnach am ein und zwangigsten von diesen

beiden nach einander So ferae hat nun Christus von den

Juden geredt. Nun hab ich zuvor gesagt, dass Matthaus und
Marcus die zwei Ende in einander mengen ; daraus es hier schwer
ist zu unterscheiden und miissen es doch unterscheiden. Darum
merke, dass, was bisher geredt ist, alles dorthin auf die Juden

218 APPENDIX.

gehet; aber hier flichtet er nun beides in einander, bricht aber
kurz ab, fraget nicht viel nach der Ordnung, wie die Spriiche, so
Christus gesagt hat, auf und nach einander gehen, sondern lasset
es dem Evangelisten Lucas befohlen sein, will aber sosagen, dass
es vor dem jiingsten Tage auch so gehen werde " (Luther's Werke,
Erlangen edition, Vierzehnter Band, pp. 319, 324).

"Von diesen dreien Verlaugnen Petri haben wiroben gehfiret.
Die anderen Evangelisten beschreibens also, als sind sie gesche-
hen in dem Hause Caipha : Johannes aber beschreibts, als sei
die erste Verlaugnung geschehen in dem Hause Hanna, wie
seine Wort lauten : Hannas sandte Jesum gebunden zu dem
Hohen-priester Caiphas. Dieser Text lautet gleich als sei die
erste Verlaugnung in dem Hause Hanna geschehen. Solches zu
vereinigen befehle ich den Scharfsinnigen, wie ich oben auch
gesagt habc. Es kann auch wohl sein, dass Johannes nicht also
gnau und eben gehalten habe die Ordnung im Reden ; doch
davon itzt nicht weiter." (Luther's Werke, Fitnfzigster Band, p.

325-)

" Aber die fragts sichs, erstlich, wie sich die zweene Evangel
isten, Matthaus und Joannes, zusammen reimen. Den Matthiius
schreibet, es sei geschehen am Palmentage, da der Herr zu Jeru
salem ist eingeritten : hie lautets im Joanne also, als sei es bald
umb die Ostern nach der Taufe Christi geschehen ; wie denn das
Mirakel, dass Christus Wasser zu Wein gemacht hat, auch umb
die Ostern geschehen ist, und ist darnach gen Kaupernaum
gezogcn. Denn umb der dreier Kc3nige Tage ist er getauft, und
hater leichtlich ein kleine Zeit verharren kdnnen zu Kapernaum
bis auf Ostern, und da angefangen zu predigen, und das gethan
auf Ostern, davon Joannes hie redet.

" Aber es sind Fragen und bleiben Fragen, die ich nicht will
auflosen ; es liegt auch nicht viel dran, ohne dass viel Leute sind,
die so spitzig und scharfsinnig sind, und allerlei Fragen auf-
bringen, und davon gnau Rede und Antwort haben wollen.
Aber wenn wir den rechten Verstand der Schrift und die rechten
Artikel unsers Glaubens haben, dass Jesus Christus, Gottes Sohn,
fiir uns gestorben und gelitten hab, so hats nicht grossen Mangel,
ob wir gleich auf Alles, so sonst gefragt wird, nicht antworten
konnen. Die Evangelisten halten nicht einerlei Ordnung : was
einer vornen setzet, dass setzet der ander bisweilen hinten ; wie
auch Markus von dicser Gcschicht schreibet, sie sei am andern

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 219

Tage nach dem Palmtage geschehen. Es kann auch wohl sein,
dass der Herr Solchs mehr denn einmal gethan hat, und dass
Joannes das erste Mai, Matthaus das ander Mai beschreibet.
Ihm sei nu wie ihm wolle, es sei zuvor oder hernach, eins oder
zwier geschehen, so brichts uns an unserm Glauben Nichts ab "
(Luther's Werke, Seeks und vierzigster Band, pp. 173-4).

" Proinde tecum non possum sentire, quod 3 Reg. VI. sit in-
telligendus numerus pro bonis tantum judicibus. Sed potius
Actor. XIII. putabo depravatum 400 pro 300, ut in meo Chronico
signavi. Quandoquidem et Stephani narratio Act. VII. cedere
debet Mosi Chronico, ut ibidem ostendi. Igitur aliam afferto
conciliationem Pauli Actor. XIII. cum 3 Reg. VI. Tua ista mihi
non satisfacit " (De Wette's Luther's Brief e, Fiinfter Theil, p. 489).

(5). Calvin.

" Stephen saith, that the patriarchs were carried into the land
of Canaan after they were dead. But Moses maketh mention
only of the bones of Joseph (Gen. 13). And Joshua xxiv. (32)
it is reported, that the bones of Joseph were buried, without
making any mention of the rest. Some answer, that Moses
speaketh of Joseph for honour's sake, because he had given ex
press commandment concerning his bones, which we cannot
read to have been done of the rest. And, surely, when Jerome,
in the pilgrimage of Paula, saith, that she came by Shechem, he
saith that she saw there the sepulchres of the twelve patriarchs ;
but in another place he maketh mention of Joseph's grave only.
And it may be that there were empty tombs erected to the rest.
I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save
only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else
that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses as accord
ing to the old fame ; as the Jews had many things in times past
from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to
hand. And whereas he saith afterward, they were laid in the
sepulchre which Abraham had bought of the sons of Hemor, it
is manifest that there is a fault (mistake) in the word Abraham.
For Abraham had bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite,
(Gen. xxiii. 9), to bury his wife Sarah in ; but Joseph was buried
in another place, to wit, in the field which his father Jacob had
bought of the sons of Hemor for an hundred lambs. Wherefore

220 APPENDIX.

this place must be amended " (Calvin's Commentary on Acts vii.
16).

"Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend? etc. Moses men
tions heaven and the sea, as places remote and difficult of access
to men. But Paul, as though there was some spiritual mystery
concealed under these words, applies them to the death and
resurrection of Christ. If any one thinks that this interpreta
tion is too strained and too refined, let him understand that it
was not the object of the Apostle strictly to explain this passage,
but to apply it to the explanation of his present subject. He
does not, therefore, repeat verbally what Moses has said, but
makes alterations, by which he accommodates more suitably to
his own purpose the testimony of Moses. He spoke of inac
cessible places ; Paul refers to those, which are indeed hid from
the sight of us all, and may yet be seen by our faith. If, then,
you take these things as spoken for illustration, or by way of im
provement, you cannot say that Paul has violently or inaptly
changed the words of Moses ; but you will, on the contrary, al
low, that without loss of meaning, he has, in a striking manner,
alluded to the words heaven and the sea." (Calvin's Commentary
on Romans x. 6).

" And worshipped on the top, etc. This is one of those places
from which we may conclude that the points were not formerly
used by the Hebrews ; for the Greek translators could not have
made such a mistake as to put staff here for a bed, if the mode
of writing was then the same as now. No doubt Moses spoke of
the head of his couch, when he said, nBBn LMX1 ^y ; but the Greek

translators rendered the words, ' on the top of his staff,' as though
the last word was written HDEin. The Apostle hesitated not to ap
ply to his purpose what was commonly received : he was in
deed writing to the Jews; but they who were dispersed into
various countries had changed their own language for the
Greek. And we know that the Apostles were not so scrupulous
in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the un
learned, who had as yet need of milk ; and in this there is no
danger, provided readers are ever brought back to the pure and
original text of Scripture. But, in reality, the difference is but
little ; for the main thing was, that Jacob worshipped, which was
an evidence of his gratitude. He was therefore led by faith to

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.

submit himself to his son " (Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews
xi. 21).

(6). Baxter.

" And here I must tell you a great and needful truth, which
.... Christians fearing to confess, by overdoing tempt men to
Infidelity. The Scripture is like a man's body, where some parts
are but for the preservation of the rest, and may be maimed
without death : The sense is the soul of the Scripture ; and the
letters but the body, or vehicle. The doctrine of the Creed,
Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue, Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
is the vital part, and Christianity itself. The Old Testament
letter (written as we have it about Ezra's time) is that vehicle
which is as imperfect as the Revelation of these times was : But
as after Christ's incarnation and ascension, the Spirit was more
abundantly given, and the Revelation more perfect and sealed,
so the doctrine is more full and the vehicle or body, that is, the
words are less imperfect and more sure to us; so that he
that doubteth of the truth of some words in the Old Testa
ment, or of some circumstances in the New, hath no reason
therefore to doubt of the Christian religion, of which these writ
ings are but the vehicle or body, sufficient to ascertain us of the
truth of the History and Doctrine " (The Catechising of Families,
1683, p. 36).

(7). Rutherford.

" Mr. John Goodwin will allow us no foundation of faith, but
such as is made of grammers and Characters, and if the Scrip
ture be wrong pointed, or the Printer drunke, or if the transla
tion slip, then our faith is gone : Whereas the meanes of con
veying the things beleeved may be fallible, as writing, printing,
translating, speaking, are all fallible meanes of conveying the
truth of Old and New Testament to us, and yet the Word of
God in that which is delivered to us is infallible, i. For let the
Printer be fallible ; 2. The translation fallible ; 3. The Grammer
fallible; 4. The man that readeth the word or publisheth it
fallible, yet this hindreth not but the truth itself contained in
the written word of God is infallible Now, in the carry
ing of the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles to our knowl
edge, through Printers, translators, grammer, pens, and tongues

222 APPENDIX.

of men from so many ages, all which are fallible, we are to look
to an unerring and undeclinable providence, conveying the
Testament of Christ, which in itself is infallible and begs no
truth, no authoritie either from the Church as Papists dreame,
or from Grammer, Characters, Printer, or translator, all these
being adventitious and yesterday accidents to the nature of the
word of God, and when Mr. Goodwin resolves all our faith into a
foundation of Christian Religion (if I may call it Religion) made
of the credit, learning and authority of men, he would have men's
learning and authoritie either the word of God, or the essence
and nature thereof, which is as good as to include the garments
and cloathes of man, in the nature and definition of a man, and
build our faith upon a paper foundation, but our faith is not
bottomed or resolved upon these fallible meanes ; . . . . and
though there be errours of number, genealogies, &c., of writing
in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold providence
watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith, and
necessary truths, we are certaine with the certainty of faith, it is
that same very word of God, having the same speciall operations
of enlightning the eyes, converting the soule, making wise the
simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of
divinity, life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdome, certainty, &c.,
which the Prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists,
and Apostles had " (A Free Disputation Against Pretended
Liberty of Conscience, Sam. Rutherford, London, 1649, PP- 3^2~
363. 366).

" May not reading, interpunction, a parenthesis, a letter, an ac
cent, alter the sense of all fundamentalls in the Decalogue ? of
the principles of the Gospel ? and turne the Scripture in all
points (which Mr. Doctour restricts to some few darker places,
whose senses are off the way to heaven, and lesse necessary) in a
field of Problemes, and turn all beleeving into digladiations of
wits? all our comforts of the Scriptures into the reelings of a
Wind-mill, and phancies of seven Moons at once in the firma
ment ? this is to put our faith and the first fruits of the Spirit,
and Heaven and Hell to the Presse. But though Printers and
Pens of men may erre, it followeth not that heresies should be tol
erated, except we say, i. That our faith is ultimately resolved
upon characters, and the faith of Printers. 2. We must say, we
have not the cleare and infallible word of God, because the Scrip-

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 223

ture comes to our hand, by fallible means, which is a great in
consequence, for though Scribes, Translatours, Grammarians,
Printers, may all erre, it followeth not that an erring providence
of him that hath seven eyes, hath not delivered to the Church,
the Scriptures containing the infallible truth of God. Say the
Baruch might erre in writing the Prophesie of Jeremiah, it follow
eth not that the Prophesie of Jeremiah, which we have, is not
the infallible word of God; if all Translators and Printers did
their alone watch over the Church, it were something, and if
there were not one with seven eyes to care for the Scripture. But
for Tradition, Councells, Popes, Fathers, they are all fallible
means, and so far forth to be beleeved, as they bring Scripture
with them" (A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of
Conscience, London, 1649, PP- 37°> 37 O-

(8). Van Oosterzee.

" Errors and inaccuracies, in matters of subordinate import
ance, are, as we have already seen, undoubtedly to be found in
the Bible. A Luther, a Calvin, a Cocceius, among the older
Theologians ; a Tholuck, a Neander, a Lange, a Stier, among the
more modern ones, have admitted this without hesitation. But
this proves absolutely nothing against the truth and authority of
the Word, where it is speaking of the Way of Salvation " (Chris
tian Dogmatics, Van Oosterzee, p. 205).

(9). Marcus Dods, Professor of New Testament £xe-
gesi's, New College (Presbyterian), Edinburgh.

" In Scripture we have the infallible truth about God and His
salvation. This position is the mean between two equally un
tenable positions ; it is, on the one hand, impossible to maintain
the infallibility of Scripture on the ground of its literal accuracy;
and, on the other hand, it is impossible to maintain that the Bi
ble is not infallible because there maybe found in it inaccuracies.
Its infallibility attaches to its main substance and central mes
sage. It infallibly achieves the object for which it was designed "
(Magazine of Christian Literature, Feb., 1892, p. 396).

224: APPENDIX.

(10). William Sanday, Dean Ireland Professor of Exe
gesis, Oxford.

"History is strewn with warnings as to the mistakes in which
we are involved the moment we begin to lay down what an In
spired Book ought to be and what it ought not to be. I spoke
of some of these mistakes last time. They are all so many ap
plications of the assumption that an Inspired Book must be in
fallible, not merely as a Revelation, but as a Book. Is there any
better reason for this than there was for those other assumptions
which Bishop Butler showed to be so untenable — that a revela
tion from God must be universal, that it could not be confined
to an obscure and insignificant people ; that a revelation from
God must be clear — that it could not be wrapt up in difficul
ties of interpretation ; that its evidence must be certain and such
as should leave no room for doubt ? All these criteria had been
actually put forward ; the Christian revelation had been tried
by them and found wanting. No one would think of putting
forward any such criteria now. Yet there is no essential differ,
ence between the claim which was then made for the Revelation
itself, and the claim which is still made fpr the Book in which
that Revelation is embodied. Such a Book, it is urged, must at the
least be infallible. If that were so, we should find it hard to con
tend with the facts; for the sphere of its infallibility has been
steadily narrowed. Its text is not infallible ; its grammar is not
infallible; its science is not infallible; and there is grave ques
tion whether its history is altogether infallible. But to argue
thus is to take up a false position from the outset. It is far bet
ter not to ask at all what an Inspired Book ought to be, but to
content ourselves with the enquiry what this Book, which comes
to us as inspired, in fact and reality is. It will not refuse to an
swer our questions " ( The Oracles of God, pp. 35-36).

(n). Alexander B. Bruce, Prof, of Apologetics in the
Free Church College (Presbyterian}, Glasgow.

"In conclusion, let us say that men create for themselves a
great many difficulties in connection with Scripture by thinking
of God too literally as an Author. Viewing the matter abstract
ly, it is difficult to understand how, if God be really the Author
of the Bible, in the sense in which Milton was the author of

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 225

Paradise Lost, He should not write in perfect style, and with
perfect accuracy in all statements of fact, and in perfect accord
ance with the ideal standard in morals and religion. He is
surely the most consummate Artist ; He knows everything ; He
is absolutely holy. How can He possibly embody His thought
in inferior Greek? How can He possibly make a mistake?
How can He have anything to do with crude morality or a de
fective religious tone ? To questions of this sort more might be
added, such as that one asked by the free-thinker Reimarus,
How could God, the Holy One, employ as His agents in revela
tion men with glaring moral infirmities? There are several
ways of dealing with these questions. One is to deny the facts
on which they are based : to allege boldly that the Greek is fault
less ; that there are no mistakes in point of fact, no crude moral
ities, no religious shortcomings ; that all the men of revelation
were faultless, saintly, perfectly exemplary persons. Another
way is to admit the facts and draw from them the sweeping con
clusion, There was no revelation, the Bible is in no sense an ex
ceptional Book. The best way is to admit the facts, and try to
discover a way of reconciling them with the reality of revelation
and inspiration. This can be done partly by conceiving of God's
relation to the Bible as less immediate than was formerly sup
posed, and partly, and very specially, by giving large prominence
to the gracious condescension of God in the whole matter of
revelation. Think of God's authorship as spiritual, not literary;
and remember that in giving to the world a Bible, through the
agency of the best minds in Israel, He was greatly more con
cerned about showing His grace than about keeping aloof from
every form of human imperfection " (Inspiration and Inerrancy.
Introduction, pp. 34-35).

(12). Joseph A. Beet, Prof, of Systematic Theology in the
Wesleyan Theological College, Richmond, England.

" Against the foregoing historical arguments, the cursory al
lusion in Gal. iii. 17 has no weight. About trifling discrepancies
between the Hebrew and Greek texts, Paul probably neither
knew nor cared. And they have no bearing whatever upon the
all-important matter he has here in hand. He adopted the chron
ology of the LXX., with which alone his readers were familiar;

226 APPENDIX.

knowing, possibly, that if incorrect it was only an understatement
of the case.

" The above discussion warns us not to try to settle questions
of Old Testament historical criticism by casual allusions in the
New Testament. All such attempts are unworthy of scientific
Biblical scholarship. By inweaving His words to man in historic
fact, God appealed to the ordinary laws of human credibility.
These laws attest, with absolute certainty, the great facts of
Christianity. And upon these great facts, and on these only,
rest both our faith in the Gospel and in God and the authority of
the Sacred Book. Consequently, as I have endeavored to show
in my Romans, Diss. i. and iii., our faith does not require the ab
solute accuracy of every historical detail in the Bible, and is not
disturbed by any error in detail which may be detected in its
pages. At the same time, our study of the Bible reveals there
an historical accuracy which will make us very slow to condemn
as erroneous even unimportant statements of Holy Scripture.
And, in spite of any possible errors in small details or allusions,
the Book itself remains to us as, in a unique and infinitely glori
ous sense, a literary embodiment of the Voice and Word of
God " (St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, p. 90).

(13). A. H. Charteris, Prof, of Biblical Criticism in the
University of Edinburgh.

" Errors, as a matter of fact, are admitted by good men on all
sides to exist in the books as we now have them, due in most
cases to the slips of copyists, but yet such that we have no means
of removing them. The fact that good men on both sides admit
the existence of such errors, and yet maintain the supreme au
thority of Scripture, may warn us to beware of dogmatism on
either side. It may teach us to shrink from the fierce consis
tency of the advocates of verbal dictation, without driving us to
manifest the arrogance of those who cut and carve in Holy Writ
as they think fit,— as though their own minds were the highest
of all revelation,— as though they were sure of this one thing only,
that there is neither miracle nor marvel in the collection of docu
ments which have 'turned the world upside down " (The Chris
tian Scriptures, pp. 45, 46).

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.

227

(14). Alfred Plummer, Master of University College,
Durham.

" The difference, if there be any, between the duration of the
drought, as stated here and by St. Luke (iv. 25), and as stated
in the Book of the Kings, will not be a stumbling-block to any
who recognize that inspiration does not necessarily make a man
infallible in chronology. Three and a half years (=42 months=
1,260 days) was the traditional duration of times of great calamity
(Dan. vii. 25; xii. 7; Rev. xi. 2, 3; xii. 6, 14; xiii. 5).

.... "Have we any right to assume that there was this
special Divine care to produce a particular wording, when it is
quite manifest that there has not been special Divine care to pre
serve a particular wording?

" The theory of verbal inspiration imports unnecessary and in
superable difficulties into the already sufficiently difficult prob
lem as to the properties of inspired writings. It maintains that
' the line can never rationally be drawn between the thoughts
and words of Scripture'; which means that the only inspired
Word of God is the original Hebrew and Greek wording, which
was used by the authors of the different books in the Bible.
Consequently all who cannot read these are cut off from the in
spired Word ; for the inspired thoughts are, according to this
theory, inseparably bound up with the original form of words.
But if it is the thought, and not the wording, that is inspired,
then the inspired thought may be as adequately expressed in
English or German as in Hebrew or Greek. It is the inspired
thought, no matter in what language expressed, which comes
home to the hearts and consciences of men, and convinces them
that what is thus brought to them by a human instrument is in
deed in its origin and in its power Divine. ' Never man thus
spake ' was said, not of the choice language that was used, but of
the meaning which the language conveyed.

.... "St. Jude probably believed the story about the dispute
between Michael and Satan to be true ; but even if he knew it to
be a myth, he might nevertheless readily use it as an illustrative
argument, seeing that it was so familiar to his readers. If an in
spired writer were living now, would it be -quite incredible that
he should make use of Dante's Purgatory or Shakespeare's King
Lear ? Inspiration certainly does not preserve those who pos-

228

APPENDIX.

sess it from imperfect grammar, and we cannot be certain that it
preserves them from other imperfections which have nothing to
do with the truth that saves souls. Besides which, it may be
merely our prejudices which lead us to regard the use of legend
ary material as an imperfection. Let us reverently examine the
features which inspired writings actually present to us, not
hastily determine beforehand what properties they ought to
possess. We not unnaturally fancy that when the Holy Spirit
inspires a person to write for the spiritual instruction of men
throughout all ages, He also preserves him from making mis
takes as to the authenticity of writings of which he makes use,
or at least would preserve him from misleading others on such
points ; but it does not follow that this natural expectation of
ours corresponds with the actual manner of the Spirit's working.
' We follow a very unsafe method if we begin by deciding in
what way it seems to us most fitting that God should guide His
Church, and then try to wrest facts into conformity with our pre
conceptions ' (Salmon, Introduction to the N. T.t 4th ed., Murray,
[1889], p. 528 ").— St. James and St. Jude, pp. 344, 405-6. 424~5-

(15). Charles Gore, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford.
" Here then is one great question. Inspiration certainly means
the illumination of the judgment of the recorder. ' By the con
tact of the Holy Spirit,' says Origen, ' they became clearer in
their mental perceptions, and their souls were filled with a
brighter light.' But have we any reason to believe that it
means, over and above this, the miraculous communication of
facts not otherwise to be known, a miraculous communication
such as would make the recorder independent of the ordinary
processes of historical tradition? Certainly neither S. Luke's
preface to his Gospel, nor the evidence of any inspired record,
justifies us in this assumption. Nor would it appear that spirit
ual illumination, even in the highest degree, has any tendency to
lift men out of the natural conditions of knowledge which be
long to their time. Certainly in the similar case of exegesis, it
would appear that S. Paul is left to the method of his time,
though he uses it with inspired insight into the function and
meaning of law and of prophecy as a whole. Thus, without
pronouncing an opinion, where we have no right to do so, on
the critical questions at present under discussion, we may main-

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 229

tain with considerable assurance that there is nothing in the
doctrine of inspiration to prevent our recognizing a considerable
idealizing element in the Old Testament history " (Lux Mundi,

P- 354).

" The Church is not restrained, in the first place, by having
committed herself to any dogmatic definitions of the meaning
of inspiration. It is remarkable indeed that Origen's almost
reckless mysticism, and his accompanying repudiation of the
historical character of large parts of the narrative of the Old
Testament, and of some parts of the New, though it did not gain
acceptance, and indeed had no right to it (for it had no sound
basis), on the other hand never roused the Church to contrary
definitions. Nor is it only Origen who disputed the historical
character of parts of the narrative of Holy Scripture. Clement,
before him in Alexandria, and the mediaeval Anselm in the
West, treat the seven days' creation as allegory arid not history.
Athanasius speaks of paradise as a ' figure.' A mediaeval Greek
writer, who had more of Irenaeus than remains to us, declared
that 'he did not know how those who kept to the letter and
took the account ot the temptation historically rather than alle-
gorically, could meet the arguments of Irenaeus against them.'
Further than this, it cannot be denied that the mystical method,
as a whole, tended to the depreciation of the historical sense,
in comparison with the spiritual teaching which it conveyed.
In a different line, Chrysostom, of the literal school of inter
preters, explains quite in the tone of a modern apologist, how
the discrepancies in detail between the different Gospels, assure
us of the independence of the witnesses, and do not touch the
facts of importance, in which all agree.

" The Church is not tied then by any existing definitions. We
cannot make any exact claim upon any one's belief in regard to
inspiration, simply because we have no authoritative definition
to bring to bear upon him " (Lux Mundt, pp. 357-8).

(16). Alfred Cave, Principal of Hackney College, London.

"So long as the Bible convinces the practical man, to say
nothing of the diligent student of its pages, of its unique divine
origin, its unique prophecy, its unique apostolic teaching, its
unique Gospel, what matters it whether the Bible is wholly iner-
rant or not ? Absolute inerrancy, in such a case, is really a some-

230 APPENDIX.

what scholastic and indifferent matter. He who has used as the
messengers of His grace so many generations of preachers (who
certainly have not been wholly perfect), may surely if He will
reveal Himself to men by many generations of writers (who,
although specially selected and adapted for their purpose, may
yet be not wholly inerrant). Does not the supreme authority of
the Bible lie in the revelations recorded rather than in the in
spiration which rendered the record possible? And if the reve
lations are accurate enough for all practical purposes, what mat
ters it whether they are absolutely inerrant ?

" Indeed, I cannot help thinking that this doctrine of absolute
inerrancy, like the doctrine of papal infallibility, is an outcome
of faithlessness, and even of want of courage. We^ must, we
think, put our human defences around the ark of God, or we
would make the pursuit of truth easy. But God wills, it would
seem, that the path to truth should not be easy, and should be a
constant exercise of faith, and God wills, apparently, to demon
strate the reliableness of His Word, in His own way, by the testi-
monium Spiritus Sanctt" ( The Homiletic Review, Feb., 1892, p. 105).

(17). James Iverach, Prof, of Apologetics, Free College
(Presbyterian}, Aberdeen.

«« Even when we grant the results, or all the legitimate results
of the critical movement, give to criticism all the rights it can
claim, we have still all the mighty resources of arguments of the
kind we have outlined, wherewith to vindicate the Divine au
thority and inspiration of the Scriptures, and their claim to be
the Word of God and to be the guide and inspirer of men. But
this is an argument which can scarcely be used by men who tie
us to the formal discussion of a theme which limits itself to the
question : Are there or are there not errors in the Scriptures ?

" When we have so many claims to make on behalf of
the Word of God, claims which can neither be weakened nor de
nied, why should we put in the forefront of the battle a claim to
errorless perfection, which can only be made good at the cost of
endless argumentation, often of the kind which is only special
pleading at the best?" (The Thinker, Jan., 1892, pp. 27-8).

ERRORS IN HOLT SCRIPTURE.

(18). Joseph Henry Thayer, Prof, of New Testament
Criticism in Harvard University.

"The view of the Scriptures here urged I have called a
'change.' But let me remind you again that it is such only in
reference to current and local and comparatively recent views.
Of the great mass of Christian believers down through the cen
turies it is doubtful whether more than a small fraction have
held the hard and fast theory currently advocated among us to
day. They may be said to have been unanimous and emphatic
from the first in asserting the inspiration of the written word ;
but as to the degree and nature of this inspiration there has been
great diversity, or at least indefiniteness, among leading Christian
thinkers all along. It was not before the polemic spirit became
rife in the controversies which followed the Reformation that the
fundamental distinction between the 'Word of God' and the
record of that word became obliterated, and the pestilent tenet
gained currency that the Bible is absolutely free from every error
of every sort " ( The Change of Attitude Towards the Bible, pp.
62-3).

(19). W. R. Huntington, Rector of Grace Church, N. Y.

" The advantage gained by shifting the burden of argument
from inspiration to revelation is further evident when we con
sider that inspiration is a thing of degrees, a matter of more and
less, whereas, with respect to revelation all we have to ask is,
Has it or has it not occurred ? There is a sense of the word in
which inspiration is credited to all men who accomplish more
than the common. Bezaleel is said in the Book of Exodus, to
have been filled with the Spirit of -God 'to work in gold and in
silver and in brass, and in cutting of stones to set them, and in
carving of timber.' This is a definition of inspiration large
enough to cover the case of Leonardo da Vinci, the Bezaleel of
the Renaissance. So then, if Christians confine themselves to a
claim of ' inspiration ' for the authors of Scripture, they may find
men putting the Bible on the same shelf with other sacred books,
wedging it in between Plato and Confucius, and quite content to
claim for Isaiah and St. Paul only such a measure of the Spirit
as they are willing to concede to Dante, Bunyan, and a-Kempis.
A revelation, on the other hand, does not admit of degrees.

232 APPENDIX.

Either it has been made or it has not been made ; either the
heavens have been opened and God has showed us the truth, or
they are brass over our head for ever.

" To a mind studying the Bible from the point of approach now
indicated, many of the so-called difficulties of faith shrink into
insignificance. The intimation, for example, of little inaccura
cies in the record, whether of an historical, a geographical, or a
scientific sort, cease to alarm. Are the great structural lines of
the whole fabric right and true ? is the real question. Because
I accept the erratum of some chronologist who has discovered a
wrong date in the Book of Chronicles, it does not follow that I
am logically bound to welcome with open arms a whole troop of
interpreters who are bent on writing the Resurrection down a
myth, and distilling the personality of God into a figure of speech.

. . . . " The simple fact of the matter is this : modern research
is modifying, — some say revolutionizing, but it is more accurate
to say modifying, old opinions as to the process by which the vari
ous books of the Bible were brought into their present combina
tion, and made into the volume as we have it now. Modern re
search, be it also observed, is doing what it is doing after a fash
ion not unlike that in which Sedgwick, Murchison, and Lyell
changed our old conceptions of the manner in which the globe
was brought to be what to-day it is. But the earth itself is pre
cisely what it was before the geologists began to investigate, and
the book we know as the Bible is precisely what it was before
the critics began to criticise. And just as there are those of us
who while thankfully accepting all that Geology can really prove
with respect to the formation of the earth's crust, nevertheless
hold fast the old-fashioned faith which expresses itself in the
words, 'I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker'; so there
are those of us, and their number is reckoned by tens of thou
sands, who while ready cheerfully to concede whatever the best
critical scholarship may be able to establish regarding the forma
tion of the Scriptures as an historical process, are not at all shaken
in their confidence that as the record of God's revelation of Him
self, the Bible, substantially as we have it now, will stand to the
end of time" (The Peace of the Church, pp. 82-85).

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 933

(20). Thomas G. Apple, Professor of Church History in
the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, Lancaster, Pa.

" We feel at once that the Ten Commandments and the Ser
mon on the Mount are the Word of God in a sense that cannot
be claimed for certain other portions of the Scripture. St. Paul
might be mistaken in his chronology, counting 430 years from the
promise made to Abraham to the giving of the law, and yet this
would not affect the inspiration of his teaching in the doctrines
of the Christian faith.

" ' But where will you draw the line ? ' it is said, if you begin to
make such distinctions. In answer, we reply, we have seen that
in some cases such distinction most assuredly must be made, and
all that is required is that common sense and intelligence must
be used in interpreting the Scripture. In making a revelation
God assumes that it is made to intelligent creatures, and, there
fore, He does not reveal science, chronology, etc., subjects that
man can acquire a knowledge of by his own research, except in
cidentally, but confines His revelation to supernatural truth
which man could not know of himself.

"It is the province of the Higher Criticism to determine such
questions as the authorship and age of the different portions of
Scripture and the relative importance and authority of the differ
ent sections, just as the lower criticism has to do mainly with
the purification of the text. Great fears were entertained when
Bengel and others began the study of the text by comparing the
different MSS., and when first the thousands of various readings
were brought out, many people feared that it would destroy all
proper faith in the Bible as the Word of God, but we know now
that the result has been healthful. This faith has in nowise been
lessened, but it has become more intelligent. And so the Higher
Criticism must produce equally good results. What though
rationalists use it against the Bible ? So did Strauss and Bauer
try to invalidate the truth of the New Testament, but their at
tack only served to bring out a better and stronger defence of
the gospel of our Lord. Much yet remains to be learned in
reference to the Bible, and the more we learn of it the more im
pregnable will its position become in the faith of believers in
Christianity" (The Reformed Quarterly Review, Jan., 1892, pp.
16-17).

234 APPENDIX.

(21). George P. Fisher, Professor of Ecclesiastical His
tory in Yale University.

" What a stupendous miracle would be involved in imparting
this impeccable character to so large a body of historical writ
ings as the Bible contains, — writings which run through so many
ages ! Of what avail would it be, unless not only the original
writers, but also amanuenses and transcribers, were all to be
equally guarded to the end of time ? Exaggerated statements
on this subject are the occasion, at present, of two great evils.
One mischievous consequence of them is that the truth and di
vine origin of Christianity are staked on the literal correctness
of even the minutest particulars in the copious narratives of
Scripture. The conscientious student, seeing that such views
are untenable in the light of fair historical criticism, is virtually
bidden to draw the inference that the foundations of the Chris
tian faith are gone. Moreover, some of the most impressive
arguments in defence of historical Christianity, which depend on
the presence of unessential discrepancies, showing the absence
of collusion, and in various other ways confirming the truthful
ness of the main features of the narrative, are precluded from
being used whenever the obsolescent theory that the biblical
narratives are drawn up with the pedantic accuracy of a notary
public is still insisted on. It is a conception of inspiration, it
may be added, which the sacred historians themselves do not
allege " (Nature and Method of Revelation, pp. 41, 42).

(22). Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of Sacred Litera
ture, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

" We must construct our formula of inspiration (if we deem it
wise to attempt that task at all) from an actual and not from an
imaginary Bible. All that we can do is to study our Hebrew
and Greek Bibles in the best texts which critical scholarship can
give us, and to see for ourselves whether the contents are liter
ally accurate and consistent in date, quotation, and other detail.
If, on such examination, we find errors or discrepancies, exegesis
compels us to abandon, not the/tfc/ of inspiration, but that par
ticular theory of inspiration, and to seek for another which will
agree with the facts."

ERRORS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 235

. ..." It is difficult to avoid severe expressions concerning
the attempts of certain divines, and writers in the religious
journals, to stigmatize as unorthodox those who deny the verbal
infallibility of Scripture, and to represent them as drawing their
arguments from sceptical sources. The question of Christian
courtesy, charity, and candor entirely apart, such utterances be
tray an ignorance which is unpardonable in men who assume to
shape and direct public opinion. Tt ought not to be necessary
to inform such that the denial of verbal infallibility is not only
no new thing, but that it has been asserted by a host of Christian
scholars, of the first rank, since the days of Jerome, not to go
farther back " (Exegesis, An Address, pp. 1 1, 40).

(23). /. H. Fairchild, ex-President of Oberlin College,
Ohio.

" It is impossible to prove absolute inspiration in the sense
claimed. The Scriptures do not affirm it, and no other proof is
possible. No human wisdom is competent to search it out in
the Scriptures, and establish it, in reference to every affirmation.
It might be safely claimed that there is marvelous accuracy, even
in the geographical and historical statements, and marvelous
wisdom in reference to all matters of science — such wisdom as
seems to imply divine guidance ; securing the use of popular ex
pressions such as are always appropriate, and the avoidance of
all technical terms which imply a scientific theory. This claim
might be reasonably maintained. But to go farther, and claim
the absolute accuracy of all minute statements of fact, or the ab
solute harmony of all these statements with one another— this is
a task which the broadest and most thorough scholarship in
Scriptural learning would not undertake. Indeed, such scholars
suppose they find minute statements, in the Scriptures, which
they cannot reconcile with each other, or with the facts. The
advocate of absolute inspiration disposes of these cases by as
suming that, if we knew the facts perfectly, the difficulty would
disappear. But this is not proved, and cannot be ; and absolute
inspiration, to avail us as such, must be absolutely proved " (In
spiration of the Scriptures, Bibliothcca Sacra, Jan., 1892, p. 20).

230 APPENDIX.

VI.

WHO ARE "THE HIGHER CRITICS"?

THE following is a list of the chief modern authorities who
hold the modern critical views. Some of these are rationalists,
but the majority of them are evangelical Christians. All of them,
so far as I know, are honest, faithful, and truth-seeking scholars.
They all recognize the composite character of the Hexateuch and
Isaiah, though they differ as to the date of the documents and
as to the extent and thoroughness with which they make the
analysis of the documents. But however much they differ in de
tails, they stand in solid phalanx against the traditional theory
that Moses is responsible for our Pentateuch in its present form
and that Isaiah wrote the whole of the book which bears his
name.

The list is limited to those who have lived during the past 25
years, since 1866, when the writer began his studies in the Uni
versity of Berlin. Those who have died are marked with a t.
We do not propose to give all writers or all the writings of the
authors cited ; but only the chief writings, and a sufficient num
ber to indicate their critical opinions.

I. Germany.

(i) University of Berlin.

Prof. AUGUST DILLMANN. Die Genesis. $te Aufl. 1886; Exodus
und Leviticus. 2te Aufl. 1 880 ; Numeri, Deuteronomium, und
Josua. 2teAufl. 1886; Der Prophet Jesaia. $te Aufl. 1890.

Prof. PAUL KLEINERT. Hertwig's Tabellen zur Einleitung
in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Backer des Alt en Tes
taments. 2te Aufl. 1 869 ; Das Deuteronomium und der Deu-
teronomiker. 1872.

Prof. EBERHARD SCHRADER. De Wette's Einleitung in die ka
nonischen und apokryphischen Biicher des Alien Testaments.
SteAufl. 1869.

Prof. HERMANN L. STRACK. Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
in ZOckler's Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften. 3te
Aufl. 1889.

tWiLHELM VATKE. Religion des Alien Testaments. 1835; His-
torisch-kritische Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 1886.

"THE HIGHER CRITICS." 937

(2) University of Breslau.

Prof. RUDOLPH KITTEL. Geschichte der Hebrder in the Hand-
biicher der alien Geschichte. 1888.

tH. GRATZ. Geschichte der Juden. 1864-70.

(3) University of Haile.

Prof. EMIL KAUTZSCH. Die Genesis mit dusserer Unterscheidung
der Quellenschriften, with the co-operation of Socin. 2te
Aufl. 1891 ; Die Heilige Schrift des Alien Testaments iiber-
setzt und herausgegeben. 1-5 Lieferung. 1890-92.

Prof. EDWARD MEYER. Geschichte des Alter t hums. 1884; Kritik
der Bericht uber die Erobcrung Palestinas. Z. A. W. 1881 ;
Die Krieg gegen Sichon. Z. A. W. 1885.

tHERMANN HUPFELD. Die Quellen der Genesis. 1853.

tD. KONSTANTIN SCHLOTTMANN. Kompendium der Biblischen
Theologie. 1889.

tEDUARD RIEHM. Alttestamentliche Theologie. 1889; Einleitung
in das Alte Testament. 1889-1 890.

(4) University of Strassburg.

Prof. THEODOR NOLDEKE. Die Altestamentliche Literatur.
1866 ; Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alien Testaments.
1869.

Prof. KARL BUDDE. DieBiblische Urgeschichte. 1883; Die Biicher
Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau. 1890 ; Die
Gesetzgebung der mittleren Biicher des Pentateuchs. Z. A. W.
1891 (2).

Prof. WlLHELM NOWACK. Der Prophet Hosea. 1880.

tEDUARD REUSS. Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alien
Testaments. 2te Auf. 1890; La Bible. Vol.1. 1879.

f AUGUST KAYSER. Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels
und seine Erweiterungen. 1 874.

(5) University of Marburg.

Prof. W. W. BAUDISSIN. Die Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen
Priesterthums. 1889.

Prof. JULIUS WELLHAUSEN. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Is
raels. 3te Ausg. 1886 ; Die Composition des Hexateuchs und
der historischen Biicher des Alt en 7esi 'amenta '2te Druck mit
Nachtrdgen. 1885 ; Bleek's Einlcitung in das Alte Testament
4te Aufl. 1878 ; Sketch of the History of Israel. Third Edi
tion. 1891.

Prof. ADOLPH JULICHER. Die Quellen von Exodus VII.-XXIV
inj. P. T. 1882.

238 APPENDIX.

(6) University of Giessen.

Prof. BERNHARD STADE. Geschichte des Volkes Israels. 1881-88;
Hebrdisches Worterbuch zum Alien Testaments, with Sieg
fried, ite Abtheil. 1892.

(7) University of Rostock.

Prof. EDUARD KONIG. Der OJfenbarungsbegriff des Altcn Tes
taments. 1882; The Religious History of Israel. 1885.

(8) University of Greifswald.

Prof. FRIEDRICH W. BATHGEN. Beitrdge zur Semitischen Re-
ligionsgeschichte. 1888.

Prof. FRIEDRICH GIESEBRECHT. Der Sprachgebrauch des Hexa-
teuchischcn Elohistcn in Z. A. W. 1881 (2) ; Beitrdge zur
Jesaiakritik. \ 890.

(9) University of Gottingen.

Prof. HERMANN SCHULTZ. Alttestamcntliche Theologie. 4te
Aufl. 1885.

Prof. RUDOLPH SMEND. Der Prophet Ezechiel. 1880.

IHEINRICH EVVALD. Die Prophetcn des Alien Bundes. 2te
Ausg. 1867-8; Commentary on the Prophets. 1875-81; Die
Lchre der Bibel von Gott otter Theologie des Alien und Neuen
Bundes. 1871 ; Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 3te Ausg.
1 864-8 ; History of Israel. 1 869-7 1 .

I-ERNST BERTHEAU. Das Buch der Richter und Ruth. 2te
Aufl. 1883; Die sicben Gruppen Mosdischer Gesetze in den
drei mittleren Biichern des Pentateuchs. 1 840.

tPAUL A. DE LAGARDE. Or:'entalta,l. 1879; Symmicta, I. 1877;
Mitthcilungen, I. 1884.

(10) University of Leipzig.

Prof. ALBERT SociN. Die Genesis mit ausscrer Unterscheidung
der Quellenschriften, with Kautzsch. 2te Aufl. 1891.

Prof. HERMANN GUTHE. Die Zukunftsbild des Jesaias. 1885.
Prof. FRIEDRICH DELITZSCH. Wo lag das Paradies? 1881.
Prof. FRANTS BUHL. Kanonund TeztdesAlten Testaments. 1891.

fFRANZ DELITZSCH. Zwolf Pentateuch-kritische Studicn, Z. K.
W. 1 880 ; Neuer Comment ar uber die Genesis. 1 887 ; Com
ment ar iiber das Buch Jesaia. 4te Aufl. 1889; Messianic
Prophecy. 1891.

(n) University of Heidelberg.

Prof. ADALBERT MERX. Nachwort in Tuch's Commentar uber
des Genesis. 2te Aufl. 1871.

" THE HIGHER CRITICS." 239

Prof. LUDWIG LEMME. Die religionsgeschichtliche Bedentung
des Decalogs. 1 880.

tFERDlNAND HlTZiG. Der Prophet Jesaja. 1833 5 Geschichte
des Volkes Israel. 1 869 ; Vorlesungen iiber Biblische Theologie.
1880.

(12) University of Konigsberg.

Prof. CARL H. CORNILL. Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel. 1886 ;
Einleitung in das Alte Testament in the Grundriss der Theolo-
gischen Wissenschaften. 1891.

(13) University of Kiel.

Prof. EMIL SCHURER. Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes. 2te
Aufl. 1886-89.

Prof. AUGUST KLOSTERMANN. Die Heiligkeitsgesetz in Luther-
ischer Zeitschrift. 1877 ; Beitrdge zur Entstehungsgesc hie lite
des Pentateuchs. N. K. Z., 9, 10.

Prof. CONRAD BREDENKAMP. Gesetz und Propheten. 1881 ; Der
Prophet Jesaia erldutert. 1886-87.

(14) University of Bonn.

Prof. ADOLPH KAMPHAUSEN. Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte
Testament. 2te Aufl. 1865 ; Das Lied Moses. 1862.

(15) University of Tubingen.

Prof. JULIUS GRILL. Die Erzvater der Menscheit. 1875; Der
achtundsechzigster Psalm. 1883.

(16) University of Erlangen.

Prof. AUGUST K5HLER. Lehrbuch der Biblischen Geschichte.
1889-90.

(17) University of Munich.

Prof. FRITZ HOMMEL. Die Semitischen Volker und Sprachen, I.
Bd. 1883.

(18) University of Jena.

Prof. CARL SIEGFRIED. Hebratiches Worterbuch zum Alien Tes-
tamente, with Stade, ist Abtheil. 1892.

Prof. JOHANN G. STICKEL. Das Hohelied. 1888.

fProf. LUDWIG DIESTEL. Geschichte des Alt en Testament es in
der Christ lie hen Kirche. 1869. Der Prophet Jesaia. Ate
Aufl. 1872.

(19) Other Scholars.

JOHN HOLLENBERG. Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des B.
Joshua in the Stud, und Krit. 1874.

240 APPENDIX.

GEORGE EBERS. Egypt en und die Bucher Moses. 1868.
GUSTAV KARPELES. Geschichte der Judischen Literaiur. 1886.
JULIUS LIPPERT. Allgemcine Geschichte des Priesterthums. 1883.
MAX DUNCKER. The History of Antiquity. 1877.

S. MAYBAUM. Die Entwickelung des altisraelitischen Priester
thums. 1880.

JULIUS POPPER. Der Ursprung des Monotheismus. 1879.

tKARL HEINRICH GRAF. Der Prophet Jeremia. 1862. Die
geschichtliche Bucher des Alten Testaments in Merx Archiv.
'1866-68.

tL. HERZFELD. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 1847-57.

These are chiefly the professors in the Old Testament depart
ment in the German universities who have expressed themselves
in favor of modern critical views of the Hexateuch and Isaiah. If
there is any professor in the Old Testament department of any
German university who holds the traditional theory of the Hexa
teuch and the book of Isaiah we do not know his name. He has
not spoken his opinion. In 1866 the writer was a student of
Hengstenberg, who was a great and influential man, having
taught several thousand students in his class-rooms. Hengs
tenberg was supported by Hfivernick and Keil. Not one of his
students now represents his views in any university in Germany.
The writer was convinced by Hengstenberg's methods in his class
room that he was wrong. We know of others who went through
the same experience. What Hengstenberg could not accom
plish, it is vain to think that any American or English Old Tes
tament professor can do.

We shall now give the names of authorities in

II. Other Countries of the Continent of Europe.

(i) Switzerland.

(a) University of Basle.

Prof. KONRAD VON ORELLI. Die Alttestamentliche Weissagungen
von der Vollendung des Gottesrciches. 1882. Old Testament
Prophecy of the Consummation of God's Kingdom. 1885. Die
Propheten Jesaia und Jeremiah. 1886. The Prophecies of
Isaiah. 1889. Das Bitch Esechiel und die zwolf klcinen
Propheten. 1888. Theologie des Alten Testaments in Zock-
ler's Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften. 1 889.

Prof. BERNHARD DUHM. Die Theologie der Propheten. 1875.

Prof. KARL MARTI. Die Spuren der sogenannten Grundschrift des
Hexateuchs in der vorexilischen Propheten. J. P. T. 1880.
Der Prophet Jeremia. 1889.

11 THE HIGHER CRITICS." 241

(b) University of Bern.

Prof. SAMUEL OETTLI. Die geschichtlichen Hagiographen und
das Buck Daniel. 1889.

Prof. VICTOR RYSSEL. De Elohistae Pentateuchi Sermone. 1878.
Untersuchungen iiber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des
Buches Micha. 1887.

(d) University of Geneva.

Prof. EDOURD MONTET. Essai sur les origines des partis Sadu-
cien et Pharisien. 1883. Reviews of Reuss, Vernes, and
others, in R. H. R., xv. xxi. xxii.

(e) University of Lausanne.

Prof. H. VUILLEUMIER. Articles in the Revue de Thcologie et de
Philosophic. 1882-1883.

(f ) Free Church College, Lausanne.

Prof. LUCIEN GAUTIER. Le Mission du Prophete Eztchiel. 1891.

(2) University of Dorpat, Russia.

Prof. WILHELM VOLCK. Die Biblische Hermeneutik, in ZOckler's
Handbuch der Theologischen Wissenschaften, 3te Aufl. 1889.

(3) France.

(a) The Theological Faculty at Montaubon.

Prof. CHARLES BRUSTON. Histoire critique de la literature
prophctique des Hebreux depuis les origines jusqu'a la mort
d'Isaie. 1881 ; Les quatre sources des lois de I' Ex ode. 1883;
Les deux Jchovistcs. R. T. P. 1885 ; La mort et la sepulture
de Jacob. Z. A. T.

Prof. FERDINAND MONTET. Le Deuttronome et la question de
VHcxateuque. 1891.

(b) College of France, Paris.

Prof. ALBERT REVILLE. Review of Kuenen in R. H. R. xxii.
Prof. ERNEST RENAN. Histoire du Peuple d' Israel. 1887-91.

Prof. A. CARRIERE. Review of Kttenen's Hexateuch in R. H. R.
xiii. 206.

Prof. MAURICE VERNES. Article, Pentateuque, in Lichtenberger's
Encyclopedia, x., p. 447. Une nouvelle hypothese sur la Com
position du Deuteronome. 1887. Preces d' Histoire Juive.
1 889. Essais bibliques. 1 89 1 .

Prof. JAMES DARMSTETTER. Die Philosophic der Geschichte des
Jiidischen Volkes. 1884. Les prophetcs d' Israel in R. D. M.
1891.

242 APPENDIX.

(d) Other Scholars.

GUSTAVE D' EIGHTH AL. Melanges de critique Biblique. 1886.
F. H. KRUGER. Essai sur la thtologie d'Esaie, xl.-lxvi. 1881.

CHARLES PIEPENBRING. Histoire des lieux de culte et du sacer-
doce en Israel. R. H. R. xxiv. i, 2. Thtologie de I'Ancien
Testament. 1886.

ALEXANDRE WESTPHAL. Les sources du Pentateuque. 1888-92.

L. HORST. Etudes sur le Deutfronome. R. H. R. 1887, 1888,
1891. Leviticus X VII. -XX VI. und Hesekiel. 1 88 1 .

ISIDORE LOEB. La littcrature des pauvrcs dans la Bible. R. E. J.

xxiii.
t FRANCOIS LENORMANT. The Beginnings of History, edited by

Francis Brown. 1882.

(4) Italy. Institute of Florence.

Prof. DAVID CASTELLI. La Profezia nclla Bibbia. 1882. Storia
degT Israelite. 1887. La Legge del Popolo Ebreo net suo
svolgimento storico. 1884.

(5) Holland.

(a) UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN.

Prof. CORNELIS PETRUS TIELE. Vergctijkende Geschicdcnis der
Egypt ische en Mcsopotamische Godsdicnsten. 1869-72. Out
lines of the History of Religion to the spread of the Universal
Religions. 4th edition. 1884.

Prof. HENRICUS OORT. The Bible for Learners. 1878-9.

fABRAHAM KUENEN. The Religion of Israel. 1874-5; The
Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. 1877. Hist.-crit. Ondersoek
naar het Ontstaan en de Verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden
Ver -bonds. 2de uitgave. 1885-1889; The Hexateuch. 1886.

(b) UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT.

Prof. J. J. P. V ALSTON. Jesaja volgens zijne algemeen als echt
erkende Schriften. 1871. Beteckemis en gebrink van het word
Thord in het Oude Testament in the Theologische Studien.
1891.

Prof. G. WILDEBOER. Het Ontstaan van den Kanon des Ouden
Verbonds. 1889. De Pentateuch-Kritik en het Mozaische
Strafrecht in Tigdschrift von Strafrecht. 1890-1.

(d) UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM.

Prof. CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE. Lchrbuch der Rcligions-
gcschichte. 2 Bde. 1887-89.

Prof. J. KNAPPERT. The Religion of Israel. 1878.

THE HIGHER CRITICS."

243

(6) Austria.

Prof. WALTER LOTZ (Evangelical Faculty at Vienna). Quaes-
tiones de Historia Sabbati. 1883.

VICTOR FLOIGL. Geschichte des Scmitischen Alter turns. 1882.

III. Great Britain.

The chief British scholars who have expressed modern critical
views are :

(1) University of Oxford.

Prof. THOMAS K. CHEYNE. The Prophecies of Isatah. 3d edition.
1884; Jeremiah, his life and times. 1888; The Origin and
Religious contents of the Psalter. 1891.

Prof. SAMUEL R. DRIVER. Critical Notes on the International Sun
day-School Lessons from the Pentateuch, 1887 ; Isaiah, his life
and times. 1888. Introduction to the Literature of' the Old
Testament in the International Theological Library. 2d
edition. 1892.

(2) University of Cambridge.

Prof. ALEXANDER T. KIRKPATRICK. The Divine Library of the

Old Testament. 1891.
Prof. W. ROBERTSON SMITH. The Old Testament in the Jewish

Church. 2d edition. 1892; The Prophets of Israel and

their place in History. 1882 ; Lectures on the Religion of the

Semites. 1889.

Prof. HERBERT E. RYLE. The Canon of the Old Testament. 1892.

Prof. VINCENT H. STANTON. The Jewish and the Christian
Messiah. 1886.

(3) Manchester New College.

Prof. JAMES DRUMMOND. The Jewish Messiah. 1877.

Prof. J. E. CARPENTER. The Book of Deuteronomy, in the Modern
Review. 1883.

(4) Wesleyan College, Richmond.

Prof. W. T. DAVISON. Inspiration and Biblical Criticism. A
Paper read at the London Wesleyan ministers' meeting,
March 16, 1891.

(5) Countess of Huntingdon's College, Cheshunt.

Prof. OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. Franz Delitzsch and Aug. Dill-
mann on the Pentateuch. Expositor, Feb., 1888. Review of
Cheynes Origin and Religious Contents of the Psalter in Criti
cal Review, Jan., 1892.

(6) United College (Independent), Yorkshire.

Prof. ARCHIBALD DUFF, Jr. Old Testament Theology. 1892.

244

APPENDIX.

(7) Free College (Presbyterian), Edinburgh.

Prof. ANDREW B. DAVIDSON. Articles on Isaiah, xl.-lxvi., in
the Expositor. 1883, 1884.

(8) Other Scholars.

SAMUEL DAVIDSON. Introduction to the Old Testament. 1862-3.

Bishop J. J. STEWART PEROWNE. The Age of the Pentateuch.
Contemporary Review, 1888, Jan. and Feb.

G. J. SPURRELL. Notes on the Hebrew Text of Genesis. 1887.

C. H. H. WRIGHT. Introduction to the Old Testament. Third
Edition. 1891.

ROBERT F. HORTON. Inspiration and the Bible. Third Edition.
1891.

H. A. GILES. Hebrew and Christian Records. 1877.

C. G. MONTEFIORE. Recent Criticism upon Moses and the Penta
teuch in the 'Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan., 1891. Some Notes
on the Effects of Biblical Criticism upon the Jewish Religion.
Ibid. Jan., 1892.

F. W. FARRAR. The Minor Prophets. 1890.
C. J. BALL. The Prophecies of Jeremiah. 1891.
P. RAY HUNTER. After the Exile. 1890.
GEORGE A. SMITH. The Book of Isaiah. 1890.
BUCHAN BLAKE. How to Read Isaiah. 1891.

W. E. ADDIS. The Documents of the Hexateuch translated and
arranged in Chronological order, with Introduction and Notes.
1892.

JOSEPH JACOBS. Recent Researches in Biblical Archceology ; Are
there Totem-clans in the Old Testament. Archceological Re
view, 1889.

tM. KALISCH. Historical and Critical Commentary on Genesis,
1858. Exodus, 1855. Leviticus, 1867, 1872.

"THE HIGHER CRITICS." 245

tM ATTHEW ARNOLD. The great prophecy of Israel 's Restoration.
Fourth Edition. 1875.

tSAMUEL SHARP. History of the Hebrew Nation. Fourth Edi
tion. 1882.

tARTHUR P. STANLEY. The Jewish Church. Seventh Edition.
1877.

tJOHN WILLIAM COLENSO. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua
Critically Examined. 1862-79.

IV. America.

(r) Harvard University.

Prof. CRAWFORD H. TOY. Judaism and Christianity. 1890.
History of the Religion of Israel. Third Edition. 1884.

Prof. DAVID G. LYON. Results of Modern Biblical Criticism
O. T. S. 1883.

(2) Yale University.

Prof. GEORGE T. LADD. The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture. 1883.

(3) University of Pennsylvania.

Prof. JOHN P. PETERS. The Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian.
1886. Jacob's Blessing. J. B. L. 1886. The Bate of Leviti
cus. J. B. L. 1888.

Prof. MORRIS JASTROW, Jr. The Bible in the light of Modern
Criticism, in the American Hebrew. 1886.

(4) University of Chicago.

Pres. WILLIAM R. HARPER. The Pentateuchal Question, He-
braica. 1888-1890.

Prof. EMIL G. HIRSCH. Modern Views of the Bible. A memorial
discourse on Professor Kuenen. Reform Advocate, Jan., 1892.

(5) Johns Hopkins University.

Prof PAUL HAUPT. The Cuneiform Account of the Deluge.

\J. 1. o. 1004.

(6) Andover Theological Seminary.

Prof. GEORGE F. MOORE. Tartan's Diatessaron and the Analysis
of the Pentateuch. J. B. L, ix. 1889.

246

APPENDIX.

(7) Chicago Theological Seminary.

Prof. SAMUEL IVES CURTISS. The Higher Criticism : Some of its
Results. Independent, July 30, 1891.

(8) Lancaster Theological Seminary.

Prof. FREDERICK A. GAST. Pentateuch Criticism: Its History
and Present State. Reformed Quarterly Review, April and
July, 1882.

(9) Victoria University, Coburg, Canada.

Prof. GEORGE C. WORKMAN. The Text of Jeremiah. 1889.
Messianic Prophecy, in the Canadian Methodist Quarterly.
1890 (2).

(10) Lane Theological Seminary.

Prof. HENRY P. SMITH. The Critical Theories of Julius Well-
hausen, in the Presbyterian Review, III. 2. Biblical Scholar
ship and Inspiration. 1891.

(n) P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.

Dean E. T. BARTLETT. The Scriptures: Hebrew and Christian.
1886.

Prof. L. W. BATTEN. The Historical Movement traceable in
Isaiah xl.-lxvi., in the Andovcr Review, Aug., 1891.

(12) Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge.

Prof. M. L. KELLNER. The Deluge in the Izdubar Epic and the
Old Testament. American Church Review. 1889.

(13) Union Theological Seminary, N. Y.

Prof. CHARLES A. BRIGGS. Biblical Study. Fourth Edition. 1891.
Messianic Prophecy. 1888. Whither? Third Edition. 1890.
Biblical History. 1889. The Authority of Holy Scripture.
Third Edition. 1891.

Prof. FRANCIS BROWN. The New Testament Witness to Old
Testament Books. J. S. B. L. Is the Higher Criticism Scien
tific? Homiletic Review, April, 1892. Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Part I., 1892. With the co
operation of S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs.

" THE HIGHER CRITICS." 247

(14) Other American Scholars.

R. HEBER NEWTON. The right and wrong uses of the Bible.
1883. The Book of the Beginnings. 1884.

WASHINGTON GLADDEN. Who Wrote the Bible? 1891.
BENJAMIN WISNER BACON. The Genesis of Genesis. 1892.
JOHN W. CHAD WICK. The Bible of To-day. 1879.

ADOLPH MOSES. Nadab und Abihu oder der Untergang der
Sauliden. 1 890.

tMiCHAEL HEILPRIN. The Historical Poetry of the Ancient He
brews. 1879.

The list of British and American scholars who hold to the
documentary theory of the composition of the Hexateuch and
Isaiah is quite incomplete, because a large number of Professors
who hold these views have not written upon the subject. The
number of Professors in the Old Testament department who
hold to the traditional theory may be counted on one's fingers.
Under these circumstances it ought to be plain to every intelli
gent person, that the traditionalists are in such a hopeless minority
that it is extremely improbable that they will ever be able to over
come the weight of scholarship throughout the world which is
so overwhelmingly on the critical side. And even if any one
should suppose that there are perils in the methods and results
of the Higher Criticism, it is, to say the least, unwise, in view of
the enormous literature on the critical side and its influence ex
tending so widely and so rapidly, to risk the authority of the
Bible upon the maintenance of the traditional theory, and to
assert, as some foolish people do, that the scores of evangelical
critics are destroying the Bible.

The great majority of the writings mentioned above have been
examined by the author. But for a number of them he has re
lied upon the testimony of his friends, Profs. Toy, Moore, Henry
P. Smith, Peters, and Adler, who have kindly given him their
assistance.

248

APPENDIX.

VII.

THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF
THE NAME JAHVEH.

Ex. Hi. 12-15 (E).

And he said, Verily I shall
be with thee ("joy rpriN) and this
shall be the sign to thee that
I 03JK) have sent thee : when
thou hast brought forth the
people from Egypt, ye shall
serve God (D'r6«n) upon this
mountain. And Moses said
unto God (D*p6«n), Behold I
032K) am going to come unto
the children of Israel and say
to them, the God of your fa
thers hath sent me unto you.
If they say to me, what is his
name, what shall I say unto
them ? And God said (Dvfal)
unto Moses, / shall be the one
who will be (e. g. with thee
flYiN "IB»N nviN). And he said,
Thus shaltthou say to the chil
dren of Israel, / shall be (e. g.
with thee iTTIK) hath sent me
unto you. And God (Dv6tt)
said again unto Moses, Thus
shalt thou say unto the children
of Israel Jahveh (mrp He who
will be with thee), the God of
your fathers, the God of Abra
ham, the God of Isaac and the
God of Jacob hath sent me
unto you. This is my name for
ever, and this is my memorial
to all generations.

These parallel passages not

Ex. vi. 2-7 (/>).

And God (D'r6«) spake unto
Moses and said unto him, / am
Jahveh (niJT ':«). I appeared
unto Abraham, unto Isaac and
unto Jacob as 'El Shadday, but
as to my name Jahveh I was
not known to them. And I
have also established my cove
nant WanN TIOpH) with them
to give to them the land of
Canaan, the land of their so-
journings (D.T"OE), in which
they sojourned. And I OJKJ
have also heard the groaning
(np8W) of the children of Israel
whom the Egyptians keep in
bondage and have remembered
my covenant (mn "OT). Where
fore say to the children of Is
rael, / am Jahveh (mrp r«), and
I will bring you out from under
the, burdens of the Egyptians,
and I will deliver you from
their bondage and redeem you
with a stretched-out arm and
with great judgments ; and take
you to me for a people and be
to you for a God (&rkvh D3^ .Til),
and ye shall know that I am
! Jahveh your God (":« O DnjTP
i DDTI^K miT), who bringeth you
forth from under the burdens
of the Egyptians.

only give different accounts of

THE REVELATION OF THE NAME JAHVEH. 249

the same revelation of the divine name, Jahveh, but they also ex
hibit the differences in style between E and P. I shall not men
tion all of these differences, but only some of the more striking
ones.

(i). establish a covenant JV"U D^pn is used by P 8 times, and in
Ez. xvi. 60, 62, in this sense ; but by Lev. xxvi. 9 (H the
Holiness code of P) and Deut. viii. 18 (D) in the sense con
firm a covenant. It is not used elsewhere.

(2). remember a covenant mi -OT is used by P 4 times and by H
in Lev. xxvi. 42, 45 ; elsewhere, Ez. xvi. 60, i C. xvi. 15, Ps.
cv. 8, cvi. 45, cxi. 5 ; Am. i 9. It is not used in J E D.
(3). I am Jahveh (m,T \)K) is used by J, Gen. xv. 7, xxviii. 13 ;
Ex. vii. 17, viii. i8,x. 2;andxv. 26 (R) ; elsewhere in the Hex-
ateuch in P 35 times and H 40 times, often in the emphatic
sense I Jahveh. It is never used by E or D.
(4). "OK is always used by P (130 times) for /, except possibly
Gen. xxiii. 4 ; whereas 'mx, the longer form, is commonly
used in E and D. The usage in J varies.

(5). DTI^Kn is used as subject or object 33 times in E, and

as an absolute defining a preceding construct 12 times

in E. It is used by P only Gen. xvii. 18, Jos. xxii. 34 (?),

and in his sources Gen. v. 22, 24, vi. 9, n.

(6). God of the fathers ni3N TI^K is a phrase used 12 times by

E and 8 times in D ; by J thrice, but never by P.
(7). EPr6ft6n*fl is used 10 times by P, 6 times by Jeremiah, 6
times by Ezekiel, by D in Deut. xxvi. 17, xxix. 12; else
where in 2 Sam. vii. 24, i C. xvii. 22, Zech. viii. 8, and
in Gen. xxviii. 21, which is a redactor's insertion in the docu
ment E.

(8). lUD is used by P 7 times ; elsewhere Job xviii. 19, Ez.
xx. 38, Ps. Iv. 1 6, cxix. 54, never in the other documents of
the Hexateuch.
(9). npfrO is used by P here and Ex. ii. 24 ; elsewhere Judges

ii. 1 8, Ez. xxx. 24.

(10). ^W ^N is used in the blessing of Jacob, Gen. xlix. 25, ac
cording to LXX. Sam., Syriac, Arabic versions, and some
Massoretic MSS. On this basis it is used by P 5 times and
by the Redactor in Gen. xliii. 14, not elsewhere in the Hexa
teuch.

250

APPENDIX.

(n). The style ot P in using suffixes with the sign of the defi
nite accusative rather than with the verb appears 6 times
in this passage, but not at all in the parallel passage of E.

(12). Notice also " And God spake unto Moses and said," the
style of P, as compared with " And God said " of E.

VIII.

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE OTHER

CODES.

The book which Moses was commanded to write as the basis
of the Covenant according to J (Ex. xxxiv. 27), is called the
little book of the Covenant, to distinguish it from the book
which Moses wrote according to E as the basis of the Covenant
at Horeb (Ex. xxiv. 4) which is called the greater book of the
Covenant, on account of its much greater extent. The latter
embraces the section Ex. xx. 22-xxiii., the former the section
Ex. xxxiv. 11-26. This little book of the Covenant is scarcely
larger than the tables of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 1-17). Indeed
it is now the opinion of many critics that we have here another
decalogue. It is true the critics differ in their arrangement of
these commands, but as there have always been differences in the
synagogue and the church as to the arrangement of the "Ten
Commandments of the Tables," such differences of opinion as
to the arrangement of this decalogue cannot destroy the consen
sus as to their number in either case. There are some critics
who hold that this decalogue was written upon the Tables (Ex.
xxxiv. 28), on account of "the words of the covenant," which
seem to go back upon " write thou these words, for upon the
basis of these words do I conclude a covenant with thee and
with Israel " (v. 27) ; and also on account of the verb HnDs1 which
has no subject expressed and where the most natural interpreta
tion finds the subject in Moses, the subject of the verbs which
immediately precede. This would then be the execution of the
command given in v. 27 ; and would force to the conclusion that
these tables contained the decalogue of vs. 11-26, and not the
decalogue of Ex. xx. 2-17. If the section Ex. xxxiv. 11-28 stood
by itself we could not escape this conclusion; but if we go back
to Ex. xxxiv. I we find the promise that Jahveh will write upon

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 25 1

these tables the same commands that were upon the former
tables destroyed by Moses, and these were certainly the ten
words of Ex. xx. 2-17. This forces us to supply the subject
Jahveh to iro^l in thought or to take the verb as having an
indefinite subject and then render it as a passive. " The words
of the covenant, ten words were written upon the tables." This
certainly was the opinion of the Redactor.

In the code of E we may find six complete decalogues, (i)
xxi. 2- 1 1, of Hebrew slaves ; (2) xxi. 12-25, of deeds of violence ;
(3) xxi. 26-37, of lesser injuries; (4) xxii. 6-16, of breaches of
trust; (5) xxiii. 1-3, 6-9, of justice ; (6) xxiii. 10-19, of feasts and
offerings. We may also find four separate pentades, (i) xx.
23-26, of worship ; (2) xxii. 1-5, of theft and damages ; (3) xxii.
20-26, of treatment of poor and weak ; (4) xxii. 27-29, of rever
ence and first fruits. There also seem to be several remnants of
pentades and decalogues. We apparently have fragments of
three decalogues, (i) of Magic and Idolatry, in two pentades,
xxii. 17 and 19; (2) of sexual laws, xxii. 18; (3) of laws of purity,
xxii. 30 ; and two pentades, (i) of kindness, xxiii. 4-5, and (2) curs
ing of parents, xxi. 17. In all we probably have nine decalogues
and six pentades. If the pentades could be combined in deca
logues we would have twelve decalogues. If this could be ac
complished we might conclude that these were written upon the
twelve nuafO which Moses built in connection with the altar
(Ex. xxiv. 4), for which we can find no use in the historical nar
rative. If this were so, we would have an analogy with the case
of the Deuteronomic code which was written upon stones in
connection with the altar erected on Ebal, after the entrance
into the holy land, Deut. xxvii. 8 ; Josh. viii. 30, sq. In both
cases the code would then have been written on 'stones as well
as in books.

We shall take the decalogue of J as a basis for our comparison :
We shall compare these laws of J and E with corresponding
laws in the Deuteronomic code (D), the code of Holiness (H),
and the Priest's code (P). We shall also bring into comparison
the Ten Words of the Tables. There are two versions of these,
the one in Ex. xx. (T a), the other in Deuteronomy v. (T b}.
The version in Ex. xx. embraces material from P, and, accord
ingly, has embedded in it the Tables of E and J. The Tables
in D are called "Tables of the Covenant," Deut. ix. 9; in P

252 APPENDIX.

" Tables of the testimony," Ex. xxxi. i&z ; in E " Tables of
stone," Ex. xxxi. i8£; in J "Tables of stones," Ex. xxxiv. i, 4.

/. Command.

J. — " Surely yc shall not worship another God " (Ex. xxxiv. 14 a).
E. — " Ye shall not make with me gods of silver " (Ex. xx. 23 a).
T. — " Thou shalt have no other gods before me " (Ex. xx. 3).
D. — " If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, .... say
ing, Let us go after other gods .... and let us serve,
them," thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that
prophet" (Dt. xiii. 2).

H. — " Turn ye not unto worthless gods " (Lev. xix. 4).
This is the same command in five different codes (a) "other
gods " (T and D), = " another god " (J), = " gods of silver " (E), =
" worthless gods " (H) ; (b) " have " (T), = " go after and serve "
(D), = "make"(E), = "turn unto " (H), = " worship " (J) ; (c)
"with meM (E), = "before me " (T).

//. Command.

J. — " Molten gods thou shalt not make thee" (Ex. xxxiv. 17).

E. — " And gods of gold ye shall not make you " (Ex. xx. 23 £).

T. — " Thou shalt not make thee any graven image" (Ex. xx. 4).

H. — " Molten gods ye shall not make you" (Lev. xix. 4).

D. — " Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image "
(Dt. xxvii. 15).

" Molten gods " (J and H), = " gods of gold " (E), = "graven
image " (T), = " graven or molten image " (D).

It is probable that the reasons attached to these commands
were not original. In J the reasons are appended to the first
command.

' For Jahveh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He. (Take
heed) lest thou conclude a covenant with the inhabitants of the
land, and when they go whoring after their gods and sacrifice
unto their gods, they invite thee and thou eat of their peace
offerings, and then take some of their daughters for thy sons,
and when their daughters go whoring after their gods they make
thy sons go whoring after their gods " (Ex. xxxiv 14 b, 16). These
verses simply unfold the meaning of N3p. As Jahveh is the
husband of Israel he demands the exclusive allegiance of his
people. Any worship of other gods is as the neglect of her

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 253

husband by a wife and her going after other lovers. Any par
ticipation in the sacrificial meals of these gods is committing
whoredom with them. In both versions of the Tables a corre
sponding reason is appended to the second command.

" ( nor T a) any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt
not bow down thyself unto them, nor be led to serve them : for I
Jahveh thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children (and T b} upon the third and upon the
fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me and keep my command
ments " (Ex. xx. 4-6 ; Dt. v. 8-10).

(a). This enlargement of the command has its parallel in Dt. iv.
15-19.

" Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no
manner of form on the day that Jahveh spake unto you in Ho-
reb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye corrupt yourselves, and
make you a graven image in the form of any figure, the likeness
of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth,
the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven, the
likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness
of any fish that is in the water under the earth : and lest thou lift
up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the
moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn
away and worship them and serve them."

It is evident that this is an expansion by D of the lesser specifi
cation given in connection with the Tables. The specification in
the Tables is earlier than D, and not derived from D.

(0). The first part of the reason of the 2d command of the Ta
bles is the same essentially as the first part of the reason of the
decalogue of J.

J. — " For Jahveh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He "
(Ex. xxxiv. 14 b).

T. — " For I, Jahveh, thy God, am a jealous God " (Ex. xx. 5).

This we may also compare with

D.— " For Jahveh, thy God, is a consuming fire, a jealous God "
(Dt. iv. 24).

(r). The second part of the reason of the 2d command of the
decalogue of the Tables we find in essentially the same form in
the revelation of the divine grace by the theophanic voice, "Jah-

254: APPENDIX.

veh, Jahveh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to an
ger, and plenteous in mercy and faithfulness : keeping mercy for
thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin : and
that will by no means acquit ; visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the
third and upon the fourth generation " (Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7). This
passage certainly belongs to J. It is probable, therefore, that
the whole of the specification and reasons appended to the 2d
command of the Tables belongs to the document J.

(a). The larger portion of the reason attached to the first com
mand of the decalogue of worship in J is not found in T. We
find this prohibition of making a covenant with the Canaanites
in D.

" Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy
unto them : neither shalt thou make marriages with them ; thy
daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt
thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from
following me, that they may serve other gods ; so will the anger
of Jahveh be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quick
ly " (Dt. vii. 2-4).

The conception of " whoring after other gods " is found in the
Hexateuch elsewhere in Deut. xxxi. 16 (J) ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; xx. 5-6
(H), and Num. xiv. 33 (J ?) ; xv. 39 (P). There seems to be little
doubt that this conception also is original to J.

///. Command.

J. — Six days shalt thou labor, but on the seventh day thou shalt

rest (Ex. xxxiv. 21)..
E. — Six days shalt thou do thy work, but on the seventh day thou

shalt rest (Ex. xxiii. 12).

T a. — Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it (Ex. xx. 8).
T b. — Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it (Dt. v. 12).
H. — Ye shall observe my Sabbaths (Lev. xix. 3, 30; xxvi. 2).
P. — Verily ye shall observe my Sabbaths (Ex. xxxi. 13).

In the decalogue of J the feast of unleavened bread precedes
the Sabbath, but in the parallel passage in E, and in the cata
logues of holy days in P, the Sabbath comes first. The reason
for this strange transposition it is difficult to see.

J mentions the six days as days in which to "labor" — "do

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS.

255

thy work" (E). The seventh 'day is for "rest," rat? (J E).
In the Tables " the seventh day " gives place to " the Sabbath,"
rot?. This is to be " sanctified," j»np. It is to be " remembered "
(T a) ; but observed (T bt H, P). The Sabbath becomes Sab
baths in H, P.

J. gives an additional specification.

E. — " In ploughing and reaping thou shalt rest " (Ex. xxxiv.
21), that is, in the busiest seasons of the year, when
the temptation to labor would be strongest.

The Tables also give specifications.

T a.— " Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work ; but
the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God :
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor
thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates" (Ex. xx. 9, 10).

T b.— " As Jahveh thy God commanded thee,— Six days shalt
thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day
is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt not
do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine
ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stran
ger that is within thy gates " (Dt. v. 12-14).

The Priest code contains two sets of specifications from differ
ent sources.

P a.— " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for it is holy
unto you : every one that profaneth it shall be put to a
violent death : for whosoever doth any work therein,
that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six
days shall work be done ; but on the seventh day is
a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jahveh : whosoever
doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall be put
to a violent death. Wherefore the children of Israel
shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath
throughout their generations for an everlasting cove
nant" (Ex. xxxi. 14-16).

Compare also in the catalogue of DHJflO of P.

P t>- — "Six days shall work be done : but on the seventh day
is a Sabbath of solemn rest, an holy convocation ; ye

256 APPENDIX.

shall do no manner of work : it is a sabbath unto Jah-
veh in all your dwellings " (Lev. xxiii. 3).

Compare also the catalogue of ritual offerings, Num. xxviii.
9-10, where the offerings for the Sabbath are presented.

The specifications are two-fold : (a} as to the method of ob
serving the day, and (b) as to those who are to observe it.

(a). The first object is abstinence from labor, n3&6» ^3 HC*yn vh
T a and b. This takes the place of f K'Vtt ntryn of E. The
second object is rest To this fundamental conception contained
in the J"QE> of J we have the rw\ rest, t?Q3\ take breath, of E.
The third object in view, religious observance, is peculiar to P
in his phrases prOC? rQt? ,rQ!? i"CT and ynp NIpD.

(b). Those who are to observe it are in J " thou," in E ox and
ass, the son of the maidservant, and stranger ; in T a, son, daugh
ter, manservant, maidservant, cattle, and stranger; T b, ox and
ass are added to those of T a ; in P, it is every soul, or person, un
der penalty of a violent death.

(c). The reasons of the command are still more varied than the
specifications. There are none in J.

E. — " that thine ox and thine ass may rest and that the son of
thy maidservant and the stranger may take breath " (Ex.
xxiii. 12).

T b. — " in order that thy manservant and thy maidservant
may rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember that
thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jahveh thy
God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a
stretched-out arm ; therefore Jahveh thy God commanded
thee to keep the Sabbath day " (Dt. v. 14-15).
T a. — " For in six days Jahveh made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; where
fore Jahveh blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it " (Ex.

XX. II).

P. — " For it is a sign between me and you throughout your
generations : that ye may know that I am Jahveh which sanc
tify you it is a sign between me and the children of

Israel for ever : for in six days Jahveh made heaven and earth,
and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed " (Ex.
xxxi. 13, 17.)

It is evident that the reason given in T b is only a Deutero-
nomic enlargement of E fortified by the reference to the deliver-

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 25*7

ance from Egypt which is the Deuteronomic underlying motive
of gratitude to keep all the commands. This reason is omitted
in T a, and was without doubt absent from the Tables as given in
the Versions of J and E. It is not difficult to trace the origin of
the reason given in T a. We find it essentially in the appendix
to the Poem of the Creation : " And on the seventh day God
finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the
seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it ; because that in it he
rested from all his work which God had created and made " (Gen.
ii. 2-3). It is a characteristic of the priestly document.

It is also characteristic of P that he represents the Sabbath as
a sign of the covenant, just as he has given the sign of the Abra-
hamic covenant, circumcision (Gen. xvii.), and the sign of the
covenant with Noah, the rainbow (Gen. ix. 13 seq.), these three
signs being peculiar to his document.

The three commands thus far given have their parallels in the
Tables ; the seven now to be considered have nothing to corre
spond with them in the Tables.

IV. Command.

]• — The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt observe (Ex.

xxxiv. 1 80).
E. — The feast of unleavened broad thou shalt observe (Ex. xxiii.

15*).
D. — Observe the month Abib and keep Passover to Jahveh thy

God (Dt. xvi. \d).

P. — In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month, be
tween the evenings, is passover to Jahveh. And on the
fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened bread
to Jahveh (bev. xxiii. 5-6).

In the ritual of the holy days, Num. xxviii. 16-17, (P b), we have
a section identical with Lev. xxiii. 5-6, save that " Mazzoth to Jah
veh " has fallen out after "feast," probably by an ancient copy
ist's mistake, and " between the evenings " is omitted. H prob
ably had a similar brief law, but it was left off when his law was
appended to P in Lev. xxiii. The comparison of these parallel
laws in the four codes shows that the feast of unleavened bread
was the great feast of J E. There is no reference to the Passover
in E. In J it is mentioned in his 8th command, Passover has

258 APPENDIX.

become a proper name in D and has risen above the feast of un
leavened bread. So also in P, the Passover comes first in im
portance. The simple command for the observance of the feast
of unleavened bread is enlarged in all the laws. In D and P it is
appended to the Passover. We shall reserve the Passover for dis
cussion under the 8th Command of J and limit ourselves here to
the feast of unleavened bread.

J. — "Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread according as
I have commanded thee, at the season of the month Abib.
For in the month Abib thou didst go out from Egypt "
(Ex. xxxiv. 1 8).

E. — " Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread according as
I have commanded thee, at the season of the month
Abib. For in it thou didst go forth from Egypt " (Ex.
xxiii. 15).

D.— " Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith,
even the bread of affliction ; for thou earnest forth out
of the land of Egypt in haste : that thou mayest remem
ber the day when thou earnest forth out of the land of
Egypt all the days of thy life. And there shall be no
leaven seen with thee in all thy borders seven days.
.... Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread : and on
the seventh day shall be a Azereth to Jahveh thy God ;
thou shalt do no work " (Dt. xvi. 3-4, 8).

P (a). — " Seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the
first day ye shall have an holy convocation : ye shall do no
servile work. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire
to Jahveh seven days: on the seventh day is an holy
convocation ; ye shall do no servile work " (Lev. xxiii.
6-8).

(£).— " Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. In the
first day shall be an holy convocation ; ye shall do no
servile work ; but ye shall offer an offering made by fire,
etc." (Num. xxviii. 17-25).

The month Abib is the time of J E D, but P in accordance
with his usage mentions the number of the month. The simple
rule of J E as regards eating unleavened bread, in D is paraphrased
and intensified, and the last day is made into a special day called

rroy,

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS.

259

In P the feast opens and concludes with great Sabbaths of holy
convocation, and an elaborate scheme of sacrifices was prepared.
Attached to the feast of unleavened bread in J is the law of
firstlings.

J- — " A11 firstlings of the womb are mine, and all male cattle,
the firstlings of the ox and sheep. And the firstlings of
the ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep. And if thou
canst not redeem it thou shalt break its neck. All the
firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem " (Ex. xxxiv.
19-20).

E.— "The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give me. So shalt
thou do to thy oxen, to thy sheep ; seven days shall it be
with its mother, on the eighth day thou shalt give it to
me " (Ex. xxii. 28-29).

D.— " All the firstling males that are born of thy herd and of
thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto Jahveh thy God : thou
shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox, nor shear
the firstling of thy flock. Thou shalt eat it before Jah-
vah thy God year by year in the place which Jahveh
shall choose, thou and thy household. And if it have
any blemish (as if it be), lame or blind, any ill blemish
whatsoever, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto Jahveh thy
God. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates : the unclean
and the clean (shall eat it) alike, as the gazelle, and as
the hart " (Dt. xv. 19-22).

H. — " Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling
to Jahveh, no man shall sanctify it ; whether it be ox or
sheep. It is Jahveh's. And if it be an unclean beast,
then he shall ransom it according to thine estimation,
and shall add unto it the fifth part thereof : or if it be
not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thine
estimation " (Lev. xxvii. 26-27).

P.—" Every thing that openeth the womb, of all flesh which
they offer unto Jahveh, both of man and beast, shall be
thine : nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely
redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou re
deem. And those that are to be redeemed of them from
a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine esti
mation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel
of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs). But

APPENDIX.

the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the
firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem : they are holy :
thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt
burn their fat for an offering made by fire for a sweet sa
vour unto Jahveh. And the flesh of them shall be
thine" (e. g. the priests), (Num. xviii. 15-18).
The law of the firstborn is associated with the feast of unleav
ened bread in the narrative of J, and there is a remarkable verbal
correspondence between the law of J and the narrative of J. In
the narrative we find the following :

" Thou shalt cause to pass over to Jahveh all that openeth the
womb, and every firstling which thou hast that cometh of a
beast : the males shall be Jahveh's. And every firstling of an
ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep ; and if thou canst not re
deem it thou shalt break its neck : and all the firstborn of
man among thy sons shalt thou redeem " (Ex. xiii. 12-13).
The law of E is not in the decalogue of worship, but in a pen-
tade (Ex. xxii. 28). In D nothing is said of redemption. Only
the animals without blemish could go to the sacrifice. The others
could be eaten at home. The firstborn suitable for sacrifice were
to be eaten in the communion meal of the peace-offering in the
central sanctuary of D. In H the beasts were to be ransomed ac
cording to an estimation and a fifth part added to their value.
In P the firstborn of men and unclean beasts were to be redeemed.
The ~\\& is common to the five codes ; but there is a differ
ence between the codes as to the terms for the animals of
the flock. J and H agree in giving ntr, a term compre
hending sheep and goat. E and D use |N¥, sheep. P uses the
two words COD, sheep, and TV, goat. The estimation of the re
demption price was five shekels of the sanctuary. The firstlings
unredeemed went to the priests as well as the redemption money
of the redeemed. The stages of legal development are clearly
marked in these successive codes.

Attached to the law of the feast of the unleavened bread in J
is the command.
J.— " And thou shalt not appear in my presence empty" (Ex.

xxxiv. 20).

E.— " And they shall not appear in my presence empty " (Ex.
xxiii. 15).

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS.

D.— "And they shall not appear before Jahveh empty" (Dt.
xvi. 16).

In J E this is attached to the feast of unleavened bread. In
D it is extended to the three great feasts, and the command is
enlarged, "every man according to the gift of his hand, accord
ing to the blessing of Jahveh thy God which he hath given thee "
(Dt. xvi. 17). In H and P these become prescribed offerings of
an elaborate ritual (Lev. xxiii.; Num. xxviii., xxix.).

V. Command.
J.—" And the feast of weeks thou shalt keep at the first fruits of

the wheat harvest " (Ex. xxxiv. 220).

E.—«And the feast of harvest (thou shalt observe) the first
fruits of thy work which thou shalt sow in the field "
(Ex. xxiii. 16).

D.— " Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee : from the time
thou beginnest to put the sickle to the standing grain
shalt thou begin to number seven weeks. And thou
shalt keep the feast of weeks unto Jahveh thy God with
a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which
thou shalt give, according as Jahveh thy God blesseth
thee : and thou shalt rejoice before Jahveh thy God,
thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manser
vant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within
thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the
widow, that are in the midst of thee, in the place which
Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell
there. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a
bondman in Egypt ; and thou shalt observe and do these
statutes" (Dt. xvi. 9-12).

H.— " And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the
sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the
wave offering ; seven sabbaths shall there be complete :
even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall
ye number fifty days ; and ye shall off er a new minchah
unto Jahveh. Ye shall bring out of your habitations
two wave loaves of two tenth parts (of an ephah) :
they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baken with
leaven, for first fruits unto Jahveh. And ye shall pre
sent with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the

262 APPENDIX.

first year, and one young bullock, and two rams : they
shall be a burnt offering unto Jahveh, with their minchah
and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire,
of a sweet savour, unto Jahveh. And ye shall offer one
he-goat for a sin-offering, and two he-lambs of the first
year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. And the priest
shall wave them with the bread of the first-fruits for a
wave offering before Jahveh, with the two lambs : they
shall be holy to Jahveh for the priest. And ye shall
make proclamation on the self-same day ; there shall be
an holy convocation unto you : ye shall do no servile
work: it is a statute forever in all your dwellings
throughout your generations " (Lev. xxiii. 15-21).
P.—" Also in the day of the first-fruits, when ye offer a new
minchah unto Jahveh in your weeks, ye shall have an
holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work, but ye
shall offer a burnt offering for a sweet savour unto Jah
veh ; two young bullocks, one ram, seven he-lambs of
the first year; and their minchah, fine flour mingled
with oil, three tenth parts for each bullock, two tenth
parts for the one ram, a several tenth part for every
lamb of the seven lambs ; one he-goat, to make atone
ment for you. Beside the continual burnt offering, and
the minchah thereof, ye shall offer them (they shall be
unto you without blemish), and their drink offerings"
(Num. xxviii. 26-31).

The name of this feast in J and D is feast of weeks, in E the
feast of harvest, in P the day of the first-fruits. The time of ob
servance of J is at the first-fruits of the wheat harvest,
more general-the first-fruits of thy sowing. D counts seven
weeks from the time of the first putting the sickle to the stand
ing grain H counts seven Sabbaths from the day of the omer
offering, on the morrow after the Sabbath of the feast of un
leavened bread. According to D it was a joyful family feast, in
which freewill offerings were offered at the central sanctuary
According to H, it was the time for the offering of the two fr
loaves of the new harvest, prior to which no portion of the har
vest could be eaten by the people. It was also a great Sabbath
with a ritual sin offering and peace offerings, burnt offerings and
minchoth. P gives explicit directions as to these offerings.

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 263

VI. Command.

J. — " And the feast of the ingathering (thou shall observe) at
the circuit of the year " (Ex. xxxiv. 22^).

E- — " And the feast of the ingathering (thou shalt observe) in
the going forth of the year when thou gatherest in thy
work from the field " (Ex. xxiii. i6£).

D« — " Thou shalt keep the feast of booths seven days, after that
thou hast gathered in from thy threshing-floor and
from thy winepress : and thou shalt rejoice in thy feast,
thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manser
vant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, and the
stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are
within thy gates. Seven days shalt thou keep a feast
unto Jahveh thy God in the place which Jahveh shall
choose : because Jahveh thy God shall bless thee in all
thine increase, and in all the work of thine hands, and
thou shalt be altogether joyful " (Dt. xvi. 13-15).

H. — " And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly
trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees,
and willows of the brook ; and ye shall rejoice before
Jahveh your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a
feast unto Jahveh seven days in the year : it is a statute
forever in your generations : ye shall keep it in the
seventh month. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days ;
all that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in booths :
that your generations may know that I made the chil
dren of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them
out of the land of Egypt : I am Jahveh your God " (Lev.
xxiii. 40-44).

P (#).— " Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, On the fif
teenth day of this seventh month is the feast of booths
for seven days unto Jahveh. On the first day shall be an
holy convocation : ye shall do no servile work. Seven
days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jah
veh : on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation
unto you, and ye shall offer an offering made by fire
unto Jahveh : it is a closing festival ; ye shall do no
servile work " (Lev. xxiii. 34-36).
(£). — " And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall

204 APPENDIX.

have an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work,
and ye shall keep a feast unto Jahveh seven days : and
ye shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire,
of a sweet savour unto Jahveh ; thirteen young bul
locks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year;
they shall be without blemish : and their minchah,
fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for every
bullock of the thirteen bullocks, two tenth parts for
each ram of the two rams, and a several tenth part for
every lamb of the fourteen lambs : and one he-goat for
a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, the
minchah thereof, and the drink offering thereof. And
on the second day (ye shall offer) twelve young bul
locks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year
without blemish : and their minchah and their drink
offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the
lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance:
and one he-goat for a sin offering; beside the continual
burnt offering, and the minchah thereof, and their
drink offerings " .... (Each of the intervening days
has its ritual).

" On the eighth day ye shall have a closing festival :
ye shall do no servile work : but ye shall offer a burnt
offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto
the Lord : one bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs of the
first year without blemish : their minchah and their
drink offerings for the bullock, for the ram, and for
the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the
ordinance: and one he-goat for a sin offering; beside
the continual burnt offering, and the minchah thereof,
and the drink offering thereof" (Num. xxix. 12-19,
35-38).

The third annual feast is called "the feast of the ingathering"
spDK in J E = feast of booths rOD in D and P, observed by
dwelling in booths in H. The time in J is "at the circuit of
the* year," rUBTl DDIpfl = in the going forth of the year rum nx¥3
E. In E the additional statement is made, " when thou gather-
est in thy work from the field, "=" after thou hast gathered in
from thy threshing floor and from thy winepress," D. H puts the
feast in the seventh month, and P on the fifteenth day of the

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 265

seventh month. From J E we would suppose the feast was for
a single day. But D H P mention seven days of observance.
P mentions an mvy on the eighth day, the seventh great Sab
bath of the year. In D it is a joyful harvest feast at the central
sanctuary. In H it is a celebration of their dwelling in booths
when they came forth from Egypt. In P it is a feast in which
the ritual prescribes a greater amount of whole burnt offerings
expressing worship than at any other feast. It is the culmina
tion of the worship of the year.

Appended to this command in J is the command, " Three
times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord Jah-
veh, the God of Israel. For I will dispossess nations from thy
presence, and I will make thy boundary broad in order that no
one may desire thy land when thou goest up to appear before
Jahveh thy God three times in the year " (Ex. xxxiv. 23, 24).

In the other codes we find similar prescriptions :

E a.—" Three times shalt thou keep feast to me in the year "
(Ex. xxiii. 14).

E b. — " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before
the Lord Jahveh " (Ex. xxiii. 17).

D.— " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before
Jahveh thy God in the place which he shall choose "
(Dt. xvi. 1 6).

Instead of the three times of J E D, we have the three harvest
feasts of H, the offering of the first ripe sheaf, the offering of the
first loaves of the harvest, and the dwelling in booths after all
the harvests had been gathered in (Lev. xxiii.). P gives the rit
ual of the seven great Sabbaths of the year in Num. xxviii.-xxix.

D appends his law of the one central sanctuary as is usual with
him. E gives the command as an introduction to the three
feasts as well as a conclusion. But these differ in language to
such an extent that one of them must have been taken from an
other source. It seems probable that E b, as less original, is a
later addition. E a uses D^>n for D'DJJa in E b. J D ; and Jjn
for " appear before " of E b. J D. Ed uses f>K for n« of J and D.
The encouragement of J is peculiar to him.

VII. Command.

J.— " Thou shalt not offer the blood of my zcbach with leavened
bread" (Ex. xxxiv. 25 a).

266

APPENDIX.

E. — " Thou shalt not offer the blood of my zebach with leavened
bread" (Ex. xxiii. 18 a).

p at — " He shall bring with the zebach of the thank-offering per
forated cakes, unleavened, mingled with oil and wafers
unleavened, anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with
oil, of fine flour, soaked. With perforated cakes of
leavened bread he may offer his oblation with the ze
bach of his peace-offering for thank-offering " (Lev.
vii. 12, 13).

p £. — " No minchah which ye bring to Jahveh shall be offered
leavened" (Lev. ii. 11).

J E and P b use |*Dn, leavened. P a uses ni¥E, unleavened, as
well as pn. J uses for offer I3n%^ = POT E = 3*1 pn P a, b. J E
use H3T = D'D^irn PQT Pa. P allows the use of leavened bread in
the case specified to be eaten at the common meal of the peace-
offering, and H mentions the offering of the two leavened loaves
at the harvest feast (Lev. xxiii. 17).

VIII. Command.

J. — " And the zebach of the feast of the Passover shall not be left
unto the morning " (Ex. xxxiv. 25 b).

E. — " And the fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the
morning" (Ex. xxiii. 18 b}.

D.— " And thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jahveh thy
God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which
Jahveh shall choose to cause his name to dwell
there." ....

"Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the
first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of
thy gates, which Jahveh thy God giveth thee : but at
the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause
his name to dwell in, there thou shait sacrifice the
passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the
season that thou earnest forth out of Egypt. And
thou shalt roast and eat it m the place which Jah
veh thy God shall choose : and thou shalt turn in the
morning, and go unto thy tents" (Deut. xvi. 2,

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 267

P (a). — " They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break
a bone thereof: according to all the statute of the
passover, they shall keep it" (Num. ix. 12).

P(£). — "And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the
month, is Jahveh's passover" (Num. xxviii. 16).

The fuller law of the passover is given in connection with the
mingled history of J and P in Ex. xii.

P. — "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In
the tenth (day) of this month they shall take to them
every man a lamb, according to their fathers' houses,
a lamb for an household : and if the household be too
little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next
unto his house take one according to the number of
the souls ; according to every man's eating, ye shall
make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be
without blemish, a male of the first year : ye shall take
it from the sheep, or from the goats : and ye shall keep
it up until the fourteenth day of the same month : and
the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall
kill it at even. And they shall take of the blood, and
put it on the two side posts and on the lintel, upon
the houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall
eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleav
ened bread ; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat
not of it rfl w, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with
fire ; its head with its legs and with the inwards there
of. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morn
ing ; but that which remaineth of it until the morn
ing, ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it ;
with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and
your staff in your hand : and ye shall eat it m haste :
it is Jahveh's passover." ....

" And Jahveh said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance
of the passover : there shall no alien e?,t thereof : but
every man's servant that is bought for money, when
thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A
sojourner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
In one house shall it be eaten ; thou shalt not carry
forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house ; nei-

208 APPENDIX.

ther shall ye break a bone thereof" (Ex. xii. 3-1 1 ;

43-46).

J. — "Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said
unto them, Draw out, and take you lambs according
to your families, and kill the passover. And ye shall
take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is
in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side
posts with the blood that is in the basin ; and none of
you shall go out of the door of his house until the
morning. For Jahveh will pass through to smite the
Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the
lintel, and on the two side posts, Jahveh will pass over
the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in
unto your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe
this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for
ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to
the land which Jahveh will give you, according as he
hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And
it shall come to pass, when your children shall say
unto you, What mean ye by this service ? that ye shall
say, It is the sacrifice of Jahveh *s passover, who passed
over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt,
when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our
houses" (Ex. xii. 21-27).

The passover feast of the eighth command of J, which is here
incidentally referred to under the offering peculiar to the feast,
is more fully mentioned in the narrative of J. The passover
sacrifice is indeed a special kind of the zebach, or peace-offering,
noan in POT = HOD POT of Ex. xii. 27. E gives the command a
more general reference to all the feasts. D uses the phrase
"sacrifice the passover," nD3Pl rQT = noan tanz? of J. In the
narrative of J the victim is |N¥, a lamb ; in P, a nt?, embracing
BO3, lamb, and TV, kid. There is no specification in the codes
of E and J. In J the zebach shall not be left until the morning,

ipn^ [^ «i> = -ipa iy r^ &6 of E = -iprineon p r^ vb of D =

1p3 ny Wmn vb of P (narrative) = 1p3 IV VPNC* «!> of P a.
D emphasizes the celebration of the feast at the central sanc
tuary. P a gives the additional rule, " nor break a bone thereof,"
both in his code and in his narrative. If we had space we could
point to a large number of features which distinguish the docu-

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 269

ments here and elsewhere, as illustrated by these extensive pas
sages. Any one of our readers may do it for himself.

IX. Command.

J._« The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to
the house of Jahveh thy God" (Ex. xxxiv. 26 a).

E. — *' The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to
the hoiise of Jahveh thy God" (Ex. xxiii. 19).

Dt — " That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground,
which thou shalt bring in from thy land that Jahveh
thy God giveth thee ; and thou shalt put it in a
basket, and shalt go unto the place which Jahveh
thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell
there. And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall
be in those days, and say unto him, I profess this day
unto Jahveh thy God, that I am come unto the land
which Jahveh sware unto our fathers for to give us.
And the priest shall take the basket out of thine hand,
and set it down before the altar of Jahveh thy God.
And thou shalt answer and say before Jahveh thy God,
A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went
down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number ;
and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and popu
lous : and the Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted
us, and laid upon us hard bondage : and we cried unto
Jahveh the God of our fathers, and Jahveh heard our
voice and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our op
pression : and Jahveh brought us forth out of Egypt
with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm,
and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with
wonders : and he hath brought us into this place, and
hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and
honey. And now, behold, I have brought the first of
the fruit of the ground, which thou, Jahveh, hast given
me. And thou shalt set it down before Jahveh thy God,
and worship before Jahveh thy God : and thou shalt re
joice in all the good which Jahveh thy God hath given
unto thee, and unto thine house, thou, and the Levite,
and the stranger that is in the midst of thee " (Deut.
xxvi. 2-1 1).

270 APPENDIX.

H. — "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them,
When ye be come into the land which I give unto you,
and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring
the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the
priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before Jahveh
to be accepted for you : on the morrow after the sab
bath the priest shall wave it. And in the day when ye
wave the sheaf, ye shall offer a he-lamb without blemish
of the first year for a burnt offering unto Jahveh. And
the minchah thereof shall be two tenth parts (of an
ephah) of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made
by fire unto Jahveh for a sweet savour: and the drink
offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an
hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn,
nor fresh ears, until this self-same day, until ye have
brought the oblation of your God. It is a statute for
ever throughout your generations in all your dwell
ings " (Lev. xxiii. 10-14).

P. — " All the best of the oil, and all the best of the vintage,
and of the corn, the first-fruits of them which they
give unto Jahveh, to thee have I given them. The first
ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring
unto Jahveh, shall be thine ; every one that is clean in
thy house shall eat thereof " (Num. xviii. 12-13).
The phrase of J E is yi»-JK ni33 IT^'JO =

>a rvtrao of D =

p JVC'NI of H =

ni?n io of p.

The house of Jahveh seems to imply a temple. It may have
been a change by insertion from an original command to bring
the first fruits to Jahveh. In D it is brought to the priest of
Jahveh. In H it is the offering of the first ripe sheaf. In P it
is generalized so as to include oil and wine and grain, and these
are to be given to the priests for food.

X. Command.
J. — " Thou shalt not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother s

milk " (Ex. xxxiv. 26^).
E. — " Thou shalt not s:eihc a /-/./(which is still) ivi'Ji its mother s

milk " (Ex. xxiii. 19),

THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 271

D. — " Thou shalt not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother's
milk" (Dt. xiv. 21).

This command is identical in these three codes. It is not
clear in itself, and probably remained as an enigma after the law
and usage had changed. The older Protestant interpreters.
Luther, Calvin, Piscator, ct al., thought of a limitation of the age
of the animal for purposes of sacrifice. This is most suited to the
context, for we have had three laws of offerings prior to it.
But the Rabbinical interpretation that it is a dietary law against
eating a kid in the milk of its mother has been followed by most
moderns. The Deuteronomic code (xiv. 21) is thought to favor
the latter view from the fact that it is there preceded by the
command not to eat anything that dies of itself. But on the
other hand, it is followed by the laws of tithes and first-fruits, and
it may rather go with these laws there, as it is associated with
the law of first-fruits here. We do not hesitate to follow the
former interpretation and class this law with the three preceding
ones as laws of offerings. i>BO is used for cooking the portions of
the animal victim that were eaten by the offerers in the communion
meal of the POT (Ex. xxix. 31). This then would forbid the sacri
fice of suckling animals. It is true that in the larger book of the
Covenant (Ex. xxii. 29) first born of animals were to be given to
Jahveh on the eighth day, notwithstanding the law in Ex. xxiii.
19, corresponding exactly with ours. It is also true that in Lev.
xxii. 27, we have the more explicit statement, " From the eighth
day and upward it shall be accepted for a qorban an offering by
fire unto Jahveh," but notwithstanding the consensus of Rabbin
ical interpretation we are not sure that this amounts to any more
than that as the male child was circumcised on the eighth day,
so the animal on the eighth day was taken from its mother
to the divine presence. It may then have been kept in the flocks
and herds of the altar for subsequent use at the proper age. In
deed the "and upward," favors our view. But even if the ordi
nary view is taken as to the age of animals suitable for offerings,
we have still to bear in mind that the various codes differ not in
frequently in their prescriptions. The offerings are generally of
animals a year old or more, in the specifiations of age that are
not infrequently made.

We have gone over this decalogue of worship given in the nar
rative of J, and have compared its ten laws with similar laws in

272 APPENDIX.

the other codes. We have found that the same fundamental
commands underlie the several forms in which they appear in
the different codes. These fundamental commands we may re
gard as Mosaic; but how is it possible to explain the variations
in the codes on the traditional theory that all these variations
were given by Moses to the same people before their entrance
into the Holy Land, and ere it was possible to fulfil any of them
in action ? They appear in the codes in several stages of devel
opment representing different stages of codification, as changes
were rendered necessary in the experience of God's people in the
Holy Land. If any one can propose any more reasonable ex
planation, or one more in accord with the traditional theory that
will take the facts of the case into account, we shall gladly follow
him.

If we should take the seven words of the Tables not included
in our study, and the other decalogues and pentades of the greater
book of the covenant, we would find the same kind of develop
ment as we passed from code to code. The specimens we have
given are simply specimens of thoroughgoing differences through
out the whole legislation of the Hexateuch.

We shall mention but one instance to illustrate the differences
in other parts of the legislation. This law shows such a simple
and evident series of changes that it ought to convince every
one that the codes represent different stages of codification.

E. — " And ye shall be holy men unto me : therefore ye shall
not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field ; ye
shall cast it to the dogs " (Ex. xx'ri. 31).

D.— "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou
mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates,
that he may eat it ; or thou mayest sell it unto a for
eigner : for thou art an holy people unto Jahveh thy
God " (Dt. xiv. 21).

H. — " And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or
that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or
a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself
in water, and be unclean until the even : then shall he be
clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then
he shall bear his iniquity " (Lev. xvii. 15, 16).

P. — " And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die ; he that

REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY.

273

toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the
even. And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash
his clothes, and be unclean until the even : he also that
beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be
unclean until the even " (Lev. xi. 39, 40).

In E the carcass of the animal found dead in the fields was to
cast to the dogs. In D it might be given to the stranger to eat
and sold to the foreigner. In H it could not be eaten by home-
born or stranger. In P the distinction between stranger and
home-born has passed away and the prohibition is a universal
one. One generation is insufficient to account for these four
stages of change in the law.

IX.

THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY.

We shall simply place four accounts of theophanies to Mo
ses, side by side, and then two accounts of theophanies to
representatives of the people and to the people. The differences
are evident. In E Moses sees God's face and form habitually.
In J he is not permitted to see God's face, but only His back
parts, and that as the greatest privilege of his life. In D the
prohibition of making images is based on the fact that the peo
ple had seen no form of God in the theophany, but only heard
His voice ; whereas in E, the elders see God standing on a plat
form, and eat and drink in His presence. In P the glory of the
theophanies lights up the face of Moses every time he enters
into the presence of the glory. Nothing of the kind appears in
any of the other narratives. These representations are suffi
ciently difficult to harmonize in different documents of later
writers depending on different sources of information. How
could Moses give such various accounts of what he himself had
seen and heard ?

" Now Moses used to take
the tent and to pitch it without
the camp, afar off from the
camp ; and call it, The tent of

J-

" And he said, Shew me, I pray
thee, thy glory : And he said,
I will make all my goodness
pass before thee, and proclaim

APPENDIX.

meeting. And it used to be,
that every one who sought
Jahveh went out unto the tent
of meeting, which was without
the camp. And it used to be,
when Moses went out unto the
Tent, that all the people rose up,
and stood, every man at his tent
door, and looked after Moses,
until he was gone into the Tent.
And it used to be, when Mo
ses entered into the Tent, the
pillar of cloud descended, and
stood at the door of the Tent :
and spake with Moses. And all
the people used to see the pil
lar of cloud standing at the door
of the Tent : and all the people
rose up and worshipped, every
man at his tent door. And
Jahveh used to speak unto Mo
ses face unto face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend. And
he used to turn again into the
camp: but his minister Joshua,
the son of Nun, a young man,
departed not out of the Tent "
(Ex. xxxiii. 7-11).

" If one is to be your prophet,
I, Jahveh, in the vision make
myself known to him ; in a
dream I speak with him. Not
so my servant Moses, with all
my house he is entrusted, mouth
to mouth I speak with him, in
an appearance without riddles ;
and the form of Jahveh he be
holds. Why then do ye not

the name of Jahveh before thee ;
and I will be gracious to whom
I will be gracious, and will be
' compassionate to whom I will
i be compassionate. And he said.
, Thou canst not see my face : for
mankind shall not see me and
live. And Jahveh said, Be
hold, there is a place by me, and
thou shalt stand upon the rock :
and it shall come to pass, while
I my glory passeth by, that I will
| put thee in a cleft of the rock,
j and will cover thee with my
hand until I have passed by :
and I will take away mine hand,
and thou shalt see my back : but
my face shall not be seen " (Ex.
xxxiii. 18-23).

" And when Moses had done
speaking with them, he put a veil
on his face. And when Moses
went in before Jahveh to speak
with him, he used to take the
veil off, until he came out ; and
he used to come out, and speck
unto the children of Israel that
which he was commanded ; and
the children of Israel used to see

THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY.

275

fear to speak against my ser
vant Moses?" (Num.xii. 6-8).

" Then went up Moses, and
Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of Israel :
and they saw the God of Israel ;
and there was under his feet as
it were a paved work of sapphire
stone, and as it were the very
heaven for clearness. And upon
the nobles of the children of
Israel he laid not his hand : and
they beheld God, and did eat
and drink " (Ex. xxiv. 9-11).

the face of Moses, that the skin
of Moses' face shone : and Moses
used to put the veil upon his face
again, until he went in to speak
with him " (Ex. xxxiv. 33-35).

" And Jahveh spake unto you
out of the midst of the fire:
ye heard the voice of words,
but ye saw no form ; only (ye
heard} a voice. And he de
clared unto you his covenant,
which hecommanded you to per
form, even the ten command
ments Take ye therefore

good heed unto yourselves ; for
ye saw no manner of form on
the day that Jahveh spake
unto you in Horeb out of the
midst of the fire : lest ye cor
rupt yourselves, and make you
a graven image in the form of
any figure (etc.)" (Deut. iv.
12-16).

THE PLACE OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLO
PAEDIA.

Hagenbach* treats Biblical History as a section of Historical
Theology, dividing it into the History of the People of Israel,
the Contemporary History of the New Testament, the Life of
Jesus, and the Life of the Apostles and Founding of the Church.
He regards Biblical History as the transition from Exegetical to
Historical Theology. On the other hand, he makes Biblical
Archaeology, including Biblical Geography and Natural History,
a section of Exegetical Theology.f This distribution of the

* Encyklopadie, nth Aufl. 1884, p. 219, seq.

t/. c.t p.

APPENDIX.

material seems to be unfortunate and without sufficient reasons.
The line separating Exegetical Theology from Historical The
ology is not a line that divides between History and Exegesis.
On this theory Exegetical Theology has to do with the exegesis
of the sources of Biblical History and Theology; the results of
that exegesis in History and Theology going to the Historical
department. To carry out such a distinction, we would have to
distinguish between the exegesis of the sources of Church His
tory and Church History itself. Christian Archaeology, Patris-
tics, Diplomatics, and the like, would come under the head of
Exegetical Theology. Exegetical Theology is really a section of
Historical Theology, as most recent writers on Encyclopaedia
have shown. The chief reasons for making Exegetical Theology
a separate division are : (i) its essential material is derived from
divine revelation ; and (2) the department is so vast that it de
mands separate treatment. A more logical division would be to
take Historical Theology as a general term, embracing (i) Ex
egetical Theology— the Theology of the Old and New Testa
ments ; (2) Ethnic Theology— the Theology of the other relig
ions of the world; and (3) Christian Theology- the Historical
Theology of the Christian Church.

Principal Cave* has recently made a similar arrangement of
material, only making six divisions. He includes Biblical His
tory under his third division, which he terms Biblical Theology ;
and Church History under his fourth division, which he names
Ecclesiastical Theology.

Exegetical Theology should include Biblical History, Biblical
Theology, Biblical Archaeology, Biblical Geography, and Biblical
Chronology, as well as Biblical Exegesis and Biblical Literature
— just as Historical Theology should include Patristics, Monu
mental Theology, Diplomatics, and Christian Epigraphy.

Biblical History will include Archaeology, Geography, and
Chronology. It is limited, however, to the Biblical sources, and
therefore must be distinguished from the History of Israel, which
is a part of Universal History, and the Contemporary History,
which looks at the Biblical History from the point of view of
the surrounding nations.

*An Introduction to Theology, Edin., T. & T. Clark; N. Y., Scribner,
Welford & Co,

THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

The older writers on Biblical History treated it in a devotional
or homiletical interest. In more recent times Biblical History
has been neglected, while scholars have devoted themselves to
the History of Israel and the Contemporary History.

XI.

EICHHORN'S VIEW OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE HIGHER
CRITICISM.

" Eichhorn separates the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents
in Genesis with great pains, and with such success that his an
alysis has been the basis of all critical investigation since his
day. Its great advantages are admirably stated :

' ' For this discovery of the internal condition of the first books
of Moses, party spirit will, perhaps, for a pair of decennials, snort
at the Higher Criticism, instead of rewarding it with the full
thanks that are due it, for (i), the credibility of the book gains
by such a use of more ancient documents; (2) the harmony of
the two narratives, at the same time with their slight deviations,
proves their independence and mutual reliability ; (3) interpre
ters will be relieved of difficulty by this Higher Criticism, which
separates document from document; (4) finally, the gain of Criti
cism is also great. If the Higher Criticism has now for the first
distinguished author from author, and in general characterized
each according to his own ways, diction/ favorite expressions
and other peculiarities, then her lower sister, who busies herself
only with words and spies out false readings, has rules and prin
ciples by which she must test particular readings.'*

"Eichhorn carried his methods of higher criticism into the
entire Old Testament with the hand of a master, and laid the
foundation of views that have been maintained ever since with
increasing determination. He did not always grasp the truth
He sometimes chased shadows and framed visionary theories
both in relation to the Old and New Testaments, like others
who have preceded him and followed him. He could not trans
cend the limits of his age and adapt himself to future discov-

*Eichhorn's Einleitung ins Alt Test., 1780, ii., p. 329.

278

APPENDIX.

cries. The labors of a large number of scholars and the work of
a century and more were still needed, as Eichhorn modestly an
ticipated " (Extract from Briggs' Biblical Study, 3d edition,
Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 205, 206).

The analysis of the Hexateuch into four writings, is an achieve
ment of the Higher Criticism that has won the consent of the
vast majority of professional students of the Old Testament
throughout the world. I doubt whether there is any subject of
importance in which professional scholars are so well agreed.
The Biblical scholarship of the continent of Europe may be said
to be unanimous on this subject. The Professors of Oxford,
Cambridge, and Edinburgh are united in their support of the
four documents. There is not an Old Testament Professor of
standing in Great Britain who takes any other view, except the
venerable Principal Douglas, of Glasgow, who has recently re
signed his chair. The majority of Old Testament Professors in
America are of the same opinion. The notable exceptions are :
Professors W. H. Green, Howard Osgood, and E. C. Bissell.
They use the tools of criticism, so far as possible, as apologists.
It is hardly likely that they will long be able to resist the Bibli
cal Scholarship of the rest of the world. It is extremely im
probable that the more than one hundred specialists in the Old
Testament, who have given their lives to its study, should all be
wrong, and that these three Americans should have the right of
it. The Higher Criticism has advanced steadily since the time
of Astruc and Eichhorn. It has made no retreats. Its career
has been a series of victories for more than a century. These
three Americans have not yet won a single scholarly victory or
checked for an instant the advance of Criticism in America.
The contest ought to be a scholarly contest between critics who
adhere to the traditional theory, and critics who have abandoned
the traditional theory for the results of a more scientific study
of the Scriptures. The chief difficulty in the situation is that
some ministers and editors, who are not critics and who are
ignorant of the history and terminology of criticism, endeavor
to excite the public mind against Higher Criticism by appeals to
prejudice and brutal methods. Our Saviour represents such
enemies of the truth as hissing serpents (Matt, xxiii. 33) ; Paul
writes of them as dogs (Phil. iii. 2). It is in accordance with
§uch precedents that Eichhorn uses the term snort. This term

MIRACLES AND THEOPHANIES.

279

has been regarded by Biblical scholars for a century as a graphic
description of a kind of opposition they have had to contend
with.

XII.

MIRACLES AND THEOPHANIES.

" There can be no doubt that recent criticisms have consider
ably weakened the evidences from miracles and predictive
prophecy. To many minds it would be easier to believe in the
inspiration of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ, if
there were no such things as Miracles and Prediction in the sacred
Scriptures. The older apologetic made too much of the external
marvels of miracle-working, and sought to find in history the ful
filment of the minute details of prediction. But it has been found
easier to prove the divinity of Christ without miracles. Belief
in miracles needs to be sustained by faith in Jesus Christ. It is
necessary to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures as the prod
uct of the spirit of prophecy, before we can advance with profit
into the special field of prediction. Even the Scriptures them
selves recognize miracle-working and prediction in false prophets,
and teach us to distinguish the true miracle and the true predic
tion from the false by their internal character and their con
formity to truth and fact. Recent criticisms have brought these
lines of evidences into better accord with the representations of
the Bible itself.

"The Old Testament is full of Theophanies; and in the New
Testament there are many Christophanies and Pneumatophanies.
These manifestations of God in the forms of space and time and
n the sphere of physical nature, are of vast importance in the
unfolding of divine revelation. These are the centres from which
miracles and prophecies flow. If there were such theophanies
or divine manifestations in the successive stages of divine revela
tion, then we should expect miracles in the physical world and
prophecy in the world of man. If Jesus Christ is God manifest

the flesh, then prophecy and miracles are exactly what we
should expect so long as He abode in this world in the flesh. If
the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles on the day of Pente
cost, and He was present with the churches of the apostles in the

2go APPENDIX.

peculiar manner of external manifestations of pneumatophany
such as are described in the New Testament, we are not surprised
at the occurrence of miracle-working and prophecy during that
period ; and it seems to he the most natural thing in the world
that, when these divine manifestations ceased, miracle-working
and prophecy ceased with them. If, then, on the one side, re
cent criticisms have weakened the independent value of the evi
dences from miracles and prediction, they have, on the other side,
given something vastly better in their place. They have called
the attention to the presence of God with His people in external
manifestations of theophany, to guide the advancing stages of
the history of redemption. Here is the citadel of our religion,
to which all its lines of evidence converge, the centre of the en
tire revelation and religion from which prophecy and miracle-
working issue in all their variety of form. The evidences from
miracles and prophecy gain in strength when they are placed in
their true relations to the theophany in which the unity of the
evidence is found " (Extract from Briggs' Whither f 1889, Charles
Scribner's Sons, pp. 279- 280).

XIII.

PROPHECY AND THEOPHANY.

"The Hebrew religion is a religion of union and communion
with God, a living, growing, everlasting religion. The Hebrew
prophets present us with an immortal religion. They derive it
by direct communication with the ever-living God. It is the
theophanic manifestation of God in the forms of time and space
and sphere of physical nature, to call and endow the master
spirits of Hebrew prophecy, that constitute one of its most dis
tinctive features. Hebrew prophecy, as Hebrew miracle-work
ing, springs from theophanies. These were the sources of every
new advance. They constitute a series leading on to the incar
nation as their culmination. They were the divine seals to the
roll of Hebrew prophecy, sealing every new page with an object
ive divine verification and authentication. They bind the proph
ets into an organic whole. They come in the great crisis of the
development of prophecy, and shed their glorious light over the

THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN. 281

prophecies that precede and those that follow. We have not only
therefore the calling and endowment of particular prophets by
these theophanies, but the calling and endowment of prophetic
chiefs to originate and perpetuate a succession of prophets with
an organic system of prophecy.

" We do not find these theophanies in connection with every
prophet, but only with the greatest prophets, the reformers of
their age. It is possible that other prophets were also called by
theophanies which they have not described to us. But this is
improbable. It was, indeed, unnecessary. Theophanies are to
initiate religious movements and mark the stages of their de
velopment, but are not the constant feature of prophecy. Ordi
narily Hebrew prophecy comes from prophets who have the
internal subjective assurance of the truth of God and their com
mission to declare it. But in all cases of objective, as well as
subjective assurance, the prophet's powers are taxed to the
utmost to give expression, in the human forms of his own nature
and surroundings, to the divine ideas that have taken possession
of him " (Extract from Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, Charles Scrib-
ner's Sons, pp. 20-21).

XIV.

THE EPIC OF THE FALL OF MAN.

" The earlier chapters of Genesis contain a series of brief, sim
ple, and charming stories of the origin and early history of man
kind, that bear the traces of great antiquity. They were doubt
less handed down for many generations as unwritten tradition
ere they were committed to writing by the sacred writers. They
passed through a series of editions, until at last they were com
pacted in that unique collection of inspired Scripture which we
call the book of Genesis. The literary beauties of these stories
have been recognized since Herder, by those who have studied
the Scriptures with their aesthetic taste. Poetic features have
been noticed by a number of scholars, but, so far as we know, no
one has previously observed that they are a series of real poems.
It was the good fortune of the author to make this discovery.
Annual work upon these passages with his classes led him grad
ually towards it. He first noted a number of striking instances of

232 APPENDIX.

parallelism of lines here and there, and thus detected snatches of
poetry in several passages. These continued to enlarge from year
to year, until he was constrained to ask the question, how much
real poetry there was in these ancient stories, and to apply the
tests of poetic composition to the entire series. The first pas
sage to disclose itself as poetry was the Elohistic narrative of the
creation. This proved to be a poem of six strophes, with re
frains. The lines are pentameters, measured by five beats of the
word accent, with the caesura dividing the lines into two sec
tions

" All the characteristic features of Hebrew poetry are clearly

manifested in the poem This led us to examine the Elohistic

narrative of the flood, and it proved to be a poem of the same
essential structure as the Elohistic story of the creation.

" We next examined the Jehovistic narrative of the temptation
and fall, and found it to be a poem of an entirely different struct
ure from the poems of the Elohist. The lines of this poem are
trimeters, and the strophes are regularly composed of fourteen
lines each. We then examined the Jehovistic story of the flood,
and found that it was a poem of the same structure as the Jeho
vistic poem of the fall. The stories of Cain and Abel, and the
dispersion of the nations from Babel, resolved themselves into
the same poetical structure. And thus it has become manifest
that the earlier chapters of Genesis are a series of real poems,
which have passed through the hands of several editors in the
earlier collections of the Elohist and Jehovist, until at last they
were compacted by the redactor of the Hexateuch into their
present form.

" If it be thought surprising that the poetical structure of these
poems has so long been hidden from Hebrew scholars, it is suffi
cient to mention that Bishop Lowth, in the middle of the last
century, was the first to discover and to unfold the essential
principle of Hebrew poetry, namely, the parallelism of lines, and
to show that the prophecies of the book of Isaiah were chiefly
poetry. From time to time, during the past century, a large
number of poetical extracts have been discovered in the historical
books, as well as in the prophetical literature. The great ma
jority of scholars have studied the Old Testament in the interests
of dogma, or else of grammatical, historical, or practical exegesis.
Very few have studied the literary features of the Old Testa-

THE POEM OF THE CREATION. 283

ment. The structure of the Hebrew strophe and the measure
ment of the lines of Hebrew poetry are known to comparatively
few Hebrew scholars

" The poem of the Fall of Man exhibits the several features of
Hebrew poetry.

" (i). The lines show all the various features of parallelism
that are found in other Hebrew poetry, synonymous, antitheti
cal, and progressive, and the several varieties of these

(See Briggs' Biblical Study, p. 264, seq.}

" (2). The lines are trimeters, with the exception of a very few
broken lines, which are shortened in order to a pause in the
thought, in accordance with the frequent usage of all Hebrew
poetry of this measurement. The trimeters of Hebrew poetry
are composed of three beats of the word accent. The Hebrew
poet has the power of combining two or more short words by a
makkeph under one word accent. (See Briggs' Biblical Study,
p. 279, s<y.)

" (3). The poem has strophical organization. It is composed
of ten strophes of fourteen lines each. These are arranged in
two groups. The first group is composed of four strophes, ar
ranged on the principle of strophe and anti-strophe. The second
is composed of two sets of three strophes each. The second set
is balanced against the first set. The ten strophes are equal in
the number of the lines. There are fourteen lines to each
strophe. These strophes are always divided into two parts, but
there is a considerable variety in the inter-relation of these
parts

" (4). There are a considerable number of archaic words which
belong to the language of Hebrew poetry." (Extract from article
on The Poem of the Fall of Man, in the Reformed Quarterly
Review, April, 1886. See also Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, p. 74.)

XV.

THE POEM OF THE CREATION.

" The first chapter of the Bible gives a representation of the
creation of the world. This has been studied fur ages by all
classes and conditions of men. It has been justly admired for
its simplicity, picturesqueness, and sublimity of style. It is a

284 APPENDIX.

masterpiece of literature as well as of religious conception. In
our century it has been the chief battle-ground between science
and religion. Theologians have sought in it the mysteries of
the origin of the universe, and the order and time of the work
of creation. Men of science have sought in it a reflection of the
facts that have been discovered in the history of the rocks and
the stars. The strife of theologians and scientists has made this
chapter — which is one of the most precious gems of Biblical
literature — a crux interpretum, that is a means of torture to the
Biblical scholar who is forced to reconcile the claims of dogma
with the claims of science, and yet maintain his integrity as an
interpreter of Scripture.

" So far as the questions between science and dogma are con
cerned, the candid scholar should admit that the contest is un
decided. The interpreter of Scripture, who is neither a scientist
nor a dogmatist, ought to see in this first chapter of Genesis a
magnificent piece of literature, the grandest representation of
the most important of all events, the origin of the world and
man, which these combatants are doing their best to tear in
pieces and patch together in their dogmatic theories and their
scientific conjectures. The chief error in the use that is ordi
narily made of the first chapter of Genesis is a mistake as to the
point of view and scope of the representation, together with a
neglect of its literary form. It has been generally held that the
author designs to give us the doctrine of the creation of the uni
verse in a simple prose narrative, stating the creations as they
occurred day after day in their orderly succession until the whole
universe was completed with all its contents in six days. Science
has determined the great outlines of the history of the heavens
and the earth, in the study of the stars and the rocks and the
forces of nature. The problem has been to compare these two
representations and see how far there is agreement, and how far
there may be difference and disagreement.

" But the author of the first chapter of Genesis does not propose
to give us a history of the creation of the universe out of nothing.
He represents in a few graphic touches the origination of the
beautiful organism of our earth and heaven out of a primeval
chaos. He does not propose to give us a narrative of the method
of the origination of all things, but to describe the appearance of
certain great classes of objects in their appointed place in this

THE POEM OF THE CREATION. 285

beautiful organism. He does not give us a prose history or a
prose treatise of creation, but he presents us with a poem of the
creation, a graphic and popular delineation of the genesis of the
most excellent organism of our earth and heaven, with their con
tents ; as each order steps forth in obedience to the command of
the Almighty Chief ; and takes its place in its appointed ranks
in the host of God. Our Poem of the Creation rises above the
strifes of theologians and men of science, and appeals to the
aesthetic taste and imagination of the people of God in all lands
and in all times.

" The Poem of the Creation has all of the characteristic fea
tures of Hebrew poetry, (i). Tht feature of parallelism which
Hebrew poetry shares with the Assyrian and ancient Akkadian,
is characteristic of our poem in its varied forms of synonym, an
tithesis, and synthesis

" (2). The measurement of lines by words or word accents is
as even and regular in our poem as in the best specimens of
Hebrew poetry. It has five poetic accents with the caesura-like
pause between the three and the two, or the two and the three,
which is characteristic of all poems of this number of ac
cents

" (3). It has considerable number of archaic words, such as
we find elsewhere only in poetry

" (4). It has strophical organization. It is composed of six
strophes or stanzas, which are indicated by the refrain, 'And
evening came and morning came,' varying only in the number of
the day. These strophes, while they do not have exactly the
same number of lines, vary within definite limits, e.g., strophes
Land II. have seven lines each and the refrain; strophes III.,
IV., and V. have ten lines each and a refrain. The last strophe,
the VT., has twenty lines and a refrain — or, in other words, is a
strophe with a double refrain — such as we find, for example, in
the allegory of the vine in the LXXX. Psalm.*

" (5). There are certain catch-words, or secondary refrains, also
characteristic of Hebrew poetry, especially in the Song of Songs
and Hosea, e.g.: (i) And God said, which begins each item of
Creation in its turn. (2) And it became so. (3) And God saw that
it was excellent.

* See Briggs' Biblical Study, p. 277.

286 APPENDIX.

" (6). Our Poem employs poetic license in the use of archaic
endings of suffixes and cases to soften the transition from word
to word and make the movement more flowing. This is also to
be noted in the order of the arrangement of the words in the
lines

"(7). The language and style are simple, graphic, and ornate,
such as we find everywhere in poetry, but are regarded as unu
sual and especially rhetorical in prose.

" (8). There is a simple and beautiful order of thought which
harmonizes in the several strophes : God speaks, the creature
comes forth in obedience, the Creator expresses his delight in
his creature. The Creator then works with the creature and
assigns its place and functions. The day's work closes with its
evening; and the break of the morning prepares for another
day's work. All this gives a monotonous character to the story
if it be regarded as prose, but it is in exact correspondence with
the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew poetry, which extends
not only to the lines of the strophe, but also to the correspond
ence of strophe with strophe in the greater and grander harmo
nies of the poem as a whole. These eight characteristics of the
first chapter of Genesis are all poetical characteristics, and we
make bold to say that there is no piece of poetry in the Bible
which can make greater claims than this to be regarded as Po
etry" (Extract from article on the Hebrew Poem of the Creation,
in the Old Testament Student, April, 1884. See also Briggs' Mes
sianic Prophecy, p. 68.)

XVI.

THE DETAILS OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY.

I said in my Inaugural Address on the Authority of Holy
Scripture, that " If we insist upon the fulfilment of the details of
the predictive prophecy of the Old Testament, many of these
predictions have been reversed by history." I have been aston
ished at the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of that sen
tence. I was simply quoting from my Messianic Prophecy, pub
lished in 1886, from the chapter on predictive prophecy, in which
I show that : " Kuenen has the right of it over against the scho
lastic apologists when he says : ' When they assert that the proph-

THE DETAILS OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY. 287

ecies have been fulfilled exactly and literally, and thence de
duce far-reaching consequences, we cannot rest satisfied with the
general agreement between the prediction and the historical fact,
but must note also along with that the deviation in details, as
often as such a deviation is actually apparent.' But Kuenen and
the Scholastics are here alike in error, for the prophecies are
predictive only as to the essential and the ideal elements. The
purely formal elements belong to the point of view and coloring
of the individual prophets. We are not to find exact and literal
fulfilments in detail or in general, but the fulfilment is limited
to the essential ideal contents of the prophecy."

" Thus the poet uses a gigantic vine to illustrate the marvellous
growth of the kingdom of God. It was transplanted from Egypt
to Canaan, covered the whole land, reached with its branches
from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, cast the cedars of Le
banon in the shade of its gigantic boughs. Thus Daniel uses the
stone cut out of the mountain without hands, growing to become
a vast mountain filling the whole earth. The mountain of the
house of Jahveh rises above the highest mountains. Ezekiel
represents the New Jerusalem and the holy land in impossible
proportions and situations. Some of these cases are so grotesque
and extravagant that no one could for a moment think of an ex
act and literal fulfilment. And yet there are a large number of
predictions which, in their proper interpretation, are no less im
possible. These have been so interpreted by Scholastics as to
find exact fulfilment, and by Rationalists as to show that they
have not been fulfilled. A striking example of this is the new
temple and holy land and institutions of Ezekiel, and under this
head may be brought all that large class relating to Israel's future,
which Kuenen argues to be unfulfilled, and to be impossible of
fulfilment. He classifies them thus : (i) the return of Israel out
of captivity ; (2) the reunion of Ephraim and Judah ; (3) the
supremacy of the house of David ; (4) the spiritual and material
welfare of the restored Israel ; (5) the relation between Israel and
the Gentiles; (6) Israel's undisturbed continuance in the land of
their habitation.

" If exact and literal fulfilment of these prophecies was designed
in the predictions, then we must agree with Kuenen that they
have been disproved by history ; but it is against the laws of pre
dictive prophecy so to interpret them. These predictions are

288 APPENDIX.

not only impossible now, but in form many of them always were
impossible. Israel in predictive prophecy is not Israel after the
flesh, but Israel after the spirit, as the Apostle Paul explains.
The true children of Abraham are the faithful. The Christian
Church is the legitimate successor of the Israel of old and the
heir of its promises. The essential contents of these predictions
when eliminated from their formal elements are spiritual and not
carnal " (pp. 50-51).

The view that I have presented takes a middle course between
the scholastic dogma of the fulfilment of the details of Biblical
prophecy and the Rationalistic position that predictive prophecy
is nothing more than the foresight and the forecast of men of
genius, some of which has been fulfilled, but the greater part of
which has been disproved by history.

The Westminster Confession of Faith nowhere states that the
details of Biblical prophecy have all been fulfilled, or will all be
fulfilled in the future. The passages cited from the Confession of
Faith and the Catechism, in the charges made against me, do not
mention the words predictive prophecy. They have nothing what
ever to do with prophecy or the details of prophecy. The verses of
Holy Scripture cited by the prosecution in proof of this specifi
cation, number thirty-two. Twenty-three of these are not used
in the Confession of Faith at all ; six of the remainder are used
under other chapters than the first chapter, to prove other doc
trines than the doctrine of Holy Scripture. Only three are used
under the first chapter, and these have no manner of relevancy
with the question of the fulfilment of the details of predictive
prophecy. This is a question entirely beyond the range of its
definitions. It is difficult to see how any one by any process of
inference can bring the details of predictive prophecy under these
statements.

There is not a word of Holy Scripture that teaches directly or
indirectly the fulfilment of the details of predictive prophecy.
The passages adduced by the prosecutors have all been consid
ered by me many times and used in my lectures and writings in
their Biblical meaning. They do not teach the fulfilment of all
the details of predictive prophecy ; but either the fulfilment of
predictive prophecy in general, or some particular predictive
prophecy.

THE DETAILS OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY. 289

The passage Matthew v. 17-18, may seem on the surface to be
an exception, but it is not such in reality.

" Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets :
I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall
in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be fulfilled."
Our Saviour here teaches that He and His gospel are not in con
flict with the Old Testament Scripture, but rather their complete
and entire fulfilment. This wonderful passage opens up the
whole doctrine of the relation of the two dispensations. The jot
and the tittle doubtless indicate the most minute details. But
details of what ? of every statement, sentence and letter and va
riation of letter in the Old Testament Scripture ? Our Saviour's
own discussions show such an interpretation to be impossible.
He himself changed the law of divorce. The greater part of the
legislation of the Mosaic codes was superseded once and for all
by Jesus. The Westminster Confession teaches that, all the
ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament,
and that the judicial laws expired together with the state of the
Jewish people, not obliging any other now, further than the gen
eral equity thereof may require (xix. 3, 4).

If then we cannot interpret Jesus' words, " one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law," with such preci
sion as to infer the eternal validity of every minute detail of the
Pentateuchal legislation ; still less can we do so with reference to
the fulfilment of the Prophets, about which it is not expressly
said that, " one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from
the prophets till all be fulfilled."

The doctrine of Jesus is perfectly true in the sense in which He
clearly meant it. All that was really predicted in the prophets
has been or will hereafter be fulfilled to the jot and tittle ; but
the details of the predictive prophecy of the Old Testa
ment are not in fact predicted. They belong to the symbolic
form, the typical frame, the clothing, the setting of the predic
tion and not to the prediction itself. The predictions must first
be interpreted, before we can raise the question of their fulfil
ment. The difference between the scholastics and myself is, as
regards the interpretation of predictive prophecy. I have care
fully studied all these prophecies and in my volume entitled Mes
sianic Prophecy have carefully set forth the principle for their

290 APPENDIX.

interpretation, and these principles expressly exclude the details
as not designed in the prediction and therefore not to be looked
for in the fulfilment. It is not a priori reasoning or inference
that leads to. this result, but the inductive study of all the pre
dictive prophecies of Holy Scripture.

INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS.

ADVENT of God 186 seg.

Advent, Second, the goal of Mes
sianic Prophecy 201

Anselm 229

Apple, Thomas G 233

Assurance of grace 36

Astruc 142, 143, 278

Athanasius 68, 229

Augustine 81, 216

Authority, divine, fountain of, 59
seg. ; seat of, 58 seg. ; source
of 58 seg.

BALL, JOHN 103

Baur, Ferd 233

Baxter, Richard 96, 112, 221

Beet, Joseph A 113, 225

Bengel, J. A 233

Bentley, Richard 122

Beza, Theodore 96

Bible and Church I seg.

Biblical History, 152 seg. ; variety
in, 158 seg. \ theophanic pres
ence of God in, 161 seg. ; Eph-
raimitic writer of, 165 seg. ; Ju
daic writer of, 167 seg. ; Deuter-
onomic writer of, 170 seg. ;
priestly writer of, 171 seg. ; its

place in theology 275 seg.

Bissell, E. C 278

Blessing of Abraham 189 seg.

Bolton, Sam 10

Brown, Francis 113, 127, 142

Bruce, Alexander B 113, 224

Bunyan, John 231

Butler, Bishop 224

CALVIN, JOHN, 2, 7, 10, 61, 96,
no, in, ii2, 115, 133, 215, 219,

22O, 221, 223, 271

Canon of Holy Scripture, author
ity to define 2 seg.

Cave, Alfred 229, 276

C h^rteris, A. H 226

Cheyne, T. K 113

Chrysostom, J 229

Church, a great fountain of divine
authority, 17 seg.] divine author
ity in its institution, 83 seq.\
Scriptural doctrine of, 25 seq.\

Westminster doctrine of 13 seg.

Clement of Alexandria . . 40, 156, 229
Code, covenant, 250^^.; priest, 250.^.

Confucius 231

Contemporary History of the Old

and New Testaments 152 seg.

Council of Trent, canons and de
crees of, 2, 9, 61 ; profession of

the Tridentine faith 9

Covenant, little book of, 250;

greater book of 250, 271

Creation, doctrine of, 146 ; poem of,

283 seg.

Criticism, 118 ; Higher, what is it ?
119, 121 ; problems of, 122 seg. ;
real obstacles to, 130 seg. ; evi
dences used by, 135 seg. ; con
structive, 148 seg. ; Eichhorn's
view of the opponents of, 277
seg. ; Historical, 97, 120 ; Lower,
121 ; of Canon of Holy Scrip
ture, 120 ; results of, 148 seg.,

160 ; Textual 97

(291)

292

INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS.

DAVIDSON, A. B ................ 113

Day of Jahveh .............. 198 seg.

Decalogue of J .............. 250 seq.

Delitzsch, Franz ............ H3» I23

Dods, Marcus ............. «3i 223

Dorner, Isaac A ................. «3

Douglas, Geo .................. 278

Driver, S. R ....... ... «3, 123, 142

Du Pin, L. E ................... 122

ECK,J ......................... 2

Eichhorn, J. G ____ 122, 159, 277, 278

Evans, L. J ................ no, 113

Evidences, external, 136 seg. ; in
ternal ................ i3

FAIRBAIRN, A. M ........... 61, 113

Fairchild, J. H .................. 235

Fall of man, epic of ......... 281 seg.

First-fruits ...................... 269

Fisher, Geo. P ............ 113, 234

Flint, Robert ................... 48

Fountains of divine authority, 57

seg.
seg.
seg.

are they co-ordinate ? 63
unity in the Messiah, 84
supposed co-ordination of,

210 seg.

Feast of unleavened bread, 257 ;
of harvest, 261 ; of ingathering,
263 ; of passover 266

GALLICAN Confession 3

Gerhart, E.V 56

Gibbons, Cardinal 48

Godet, F 113

Goodwin, John 221, 222

Gore, Charles 23, 67, 77, 79,

113, 129, 228

Gould, E. P . . 113

Grant, Geo. M 113

Green, W. H 132, 278

HAGENBACH, K. C 275

Harper, W. R 113

Heathen, recognition of salvation

of elect 208 seg.

Helvetic Confession, second 2

Hodge, Charles 17, 214

Huntington, W. R 231

IDEAL of mankind 182 seg.

Idolatry 252

Image making. 252

Inerrancy, Scriptures do not claim,
lojseg. ; notan orthodox doctrine,
109 seg. ; an unsafe doctrine,
109 seg. ; a dangerous doctrine,
113 seg.\ those who teach. . 215 seg.

Irenaeus - . ... 229

Iverach, James 230

JAHVEH, name of 248 seg.

Jerome 216, 219

KANT, Immanuel 213

Kid with its mother's milk 270

Kingdom of Priests 192 seg.

Kuenen, A 286,287

LANGE, J. P 113,223

Leo X., Pope 10

Lessing. 156, 181

Levita 96

Liberty of conscience 34. S3

Liebnitz 70

Light of nature 30 seg.

Lightfoot, John 96, na

Livingstone, David 49

Low Church modification of the

power of the keys 208 seg.

Lowth, Bishop 123, 282

Luther, Martin, 2, 9, 10, 61, 68, 69, 96,

112, 132, 133, 217, 218, 219, 223, 271

Lyford, William 103

Lyra, Nicolaus de 9

MARTINEAU, JAMES, 52, 53, 58,

61, 62, 212

Messiah 195 seg.

Miracles, 206 seg., and theoph-

anies 279 seg.

Missions, Foreign 45 seg.

Mitchell, A. F 132

INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS.

293

NEANDER, A 113, 223

Newman, Cardinal 19, 212

ORIGEN 215, 228, 229

Osgood, Howard 278

PALMER, HERBERT 101

Patton, Francis L 5

Phalaris, epistles of. 122

Piscator, J 271

Plato 40, 231

Plummer, Alfred 227

Poole, Matthew 103

Prophecy, lower forms of, i^seg. ;
highest order of, 181 set?., and
theophany, 280^^.; predictive,

details of 286 seq.

Prophet greater than Moses . . 194 seq.

REASON, a great fountain of di
vine authority, 29 seq. ; human,
31, 41 ; rights of, 35 ; West
minster doctrine of, 36 seq. ;
Scriptural doctrine of, 38 seq. ;

not a rule of faith 66 seq.

Reimarus 225

Renan, Ernst 156

Revision, Committee of, 12, 14,

205, 207, 209

Rivetus, Andrew 115

Rule of Faith, Calvinistic 10

Rutherford, Sam, 96, 112, 114,

115, 221, 222

SABBATH . 254

Sacraments 16

Sanday, William 113^ 224

Scotch Confession 3

Scripture, Holy, authority of in
terpreting, 8 ; unique authority
of, 73; infallible rule of faith
and practice, 92 ; kept pure in all
ages, 95 seq. ; final appeal in con
troversies of religion, 95 ; im
mediately inspired by God, 95,
97 ; word of God contained in,
99; errors recognized in, 112;
new evidences for 205

Sedgwick, Obadiah 232

Selden, J 2I3

Shedd, W. G. T 17, 131, 210 seq.

Silence, 136 ; argument from. 137 seq.

Smith, H. B 7o, 214

Smith, H. P in, u3

Smythe, Newman 49, 113

Socrates 40

Stanton, V. H 64

Stier, R II3j 223

Strauss, David 233

TATIAN I59

Testimony, 136; argument from,

136 seq.

Thayer, Joseph H 113, 231

Theophany, several representa
tions of 273 seq.

Tholuck, A u3) 223

VAN OOSTERZEE, J. J., 61, 69,

70, 113, 215, 223

Vatican Council 66

Vincent, Marvin R 234

Vincent of Lerins 78, 79

Vines, Richard JO2

WALLIS, JOHN i0i

Walton, Brian 96

Westcott, Bishop I35

Westminster Assembly, 10, 14, 31 ;
Catechism, Larger, ico, 101;
Shorter, 100, 101, 103 ; Confes
sion, 3, 8, 9, 10, u, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 5*, 74, 95, 96,
97, 98, 99, 104, 106, 131, 132,
205, 208, 209, 288, 289 ; Divines,
6, *9> 29, 3i, 32, 96, 97, ioo,
101, 103, 132, 206, 208, 209 ; doc
trine of the Church, 13, 17 seq.\

doctrine of the Reason 30 seq.

Whichcote, Benj 7g

Whitaker, Jeremiah n^

Wicklif, John 9

Wisdom literature 38 seq.

Woman's seed j85 seq.

ZWINGLI, ULRICH 68, 96

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

GENESIS.

i 146, 14?

ii 143. i46. J47

ii.2,3 257

V. 22, 24 249

vi. 9, ii 249

ix. 13 seq 257

xiii 219

xiv. 18 40

xv. 7 249

xvii 257

xvii. 18 249

xx. 3 40

xx. 7 140

xxiii. 4 249

xxiii. 9 219

xxvii. 20 144

xxviii. 13, 21 249

xli 40

xliii. 14 249

xliv. 5 177

xlix. 25 249

EXODUS.

ii.i6 40

ii. 24 249

iii 143

iii. 12-15 248

iv.-xii 138

vi 143

vi. 2, 3 142

vi. 2-7 248

vii. 17 249

viii. 18 249

X. 2 249

xii 267

(294)

EXODUS.

xii. 3-n, 21-27, 43-46 268

xiii. 12, 13 260

xv. 6-19 166

xv. 20 140

xv. 26 144, 249

xx 144, 251

xx. -xxiii 145

xx. 1-17 250, 251

=c. 3, 4 253

xx. 4-6 253

«. 5 253

xx. 8 254

xx. 9, 10 255

xx. ii 256

xx. 22-xxiii 250

xx. 23 252

xx. 23-26 251

xxi. 2-n 251

xxi. 12-25 251

xxi. 17 251

xxi. 26-37 25i

xxii. 1-5 251

xxii. 6-16 251

xxii. 17, 18, 19 251

xxii. 20-26 251

xxii. 27-29 251

xxii. 28 260

xxii. 28, 29 259

xxii. 29 271

xxii. 30 251

xxii. 31 272

xxiii. 1-3, 4, 5, 6-9 251

xxiii. 10-19 251

xxiii. 12 254, 256

xxiii. 14 265

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

295

EXODUS.

xxiii. 15 257, 258, 260

xxiii. 16 261, 263

xxiii. 17 265

xxiii. 18 266

xxiii. 19 269,270,271

xxiv. 4 250, 251

xxiv. 9-11 275

xxix. 31 271

xxxi. 13 254

xxxi. 13 256

xxxi. 14-16 255

xxxi. 17 256

xxxi. 18 252

xxxiii. 7-11, 18-23 274

xxxiii. 20-23 146

xxxiv 145

xxxiv. i 250

xxxiv. i, 4, 14 252

xxxiv. 6, 7 254

xxxiv. 11-26 250

xxxiv. 11-28 250

xxxiv. 14 252, 253

xxxiv. 16 252

xxxiv. 17 252

xxxiv. 18 257, 258

xxxiv. 19-20 259

xxxiv. 20 260

xxxiv. 21 254,255

XXXiv. 22 26l, 263

xxxiv. 23, 24 265

xxxiv. 25 265, 266

xxxiv. 26 269, 270

xxxiv. 27 250

xxxiv. 28 250

xxxiv. 33-35 275

LEVITICUS.

H. ii 266

vii. 12, 13 266

xi. 39, 40 273

xvii. 7 254

xvii. 15, 16 272

xix. 3 254

xix. 4 252

xix. 30 254

xx. 5, 6 254

LEVITICUS.

xxii. 27 271

xxiii 261, 265

xxiii. 3 256

xxiii. 5, 6 257

xxiii. 6-8 258

xxiii. 10-14 270

xxiii. 15-21 262

xxiii. 17 266

xxiii. 34-36 263

xxiii. 40-44 263

xxvi. 2 254

xxvi. 9 249

xxvi. 42, 45 249

xxvii. 26, 27 259

NUMBERS.

ix. 12 267

xi. 29 140

xii. 6-8 181,275

xii. 6 140

xiv. 33 254

xv. 39 254

xviii. 12, 13 270

xviii. 15-18 260

xxi. 14 136

xxviii.-xxix 261, 265

xxviii. 9, 10 256

xxviii. 16, 17 257

xxviii. 16 267

xxviii. 17-25 258

xxviii. 26-31 262

xxix. 12-19, 35-38 264

DEUTERONOMY.

i. i 140

iv. 12-16 275

iv- J5-i9 253

iv- 24 253

144, 251

253

254

v. 8-io..

V. 12

v. 12-14.
v. 14, 15
vii. 2-4.

255
256
254

™i-3 59

viii. 18 249

296

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

DEUTERONOMY.

ix. 9 251

xhi. 1-5 140, 206

xiii. 2 252

xiv. 21 271, 272

xv. 19-22 259

xvi. i 257

xvi. 2-n 269

xvi. 2, 4-7 266

xvi. 3-4, 8 258

xvi. 9-12 261

xvi. 13-15 263

xvi. 16 261, 265

xvi. 17 261

xviii. 15-22 140

xviii. 20-22 206

xxvi. 17 249

xxvii. 8 251

xxvii. 15 252

xxix. 12 249

xxxi. 16 254

xxxii.8, 9 154

xxxiv. 10 140

JOSHUA.

viii. 30 seq 251

x. 12, 13 136

xxii. 34 249

xxiv. 32 219

JUDGES.

ii. 18 249

I. SAMUEL.

vi. 17 139

ix. 9 140

x. 5 seq 180

xix. 23 seq 180

II. SAMUEL.

i. 18

vii. 24

I. KINGS.

vi 219

viii. 12 136

xv. 14 in

xviii. 26 seq 180

xviii. 27 166

xviii. 39 166

136

249

II. KINGS.
xii. 16. . .
xxii. ..

139
137

I. CHRONICLES.

xvi. 15 249

xvii. 22 249

II. CHRONICLES.

xii. 2 seq 180

xiv. 2-5 in

xxix. 20-24 *39

xxxiv 137

EZRA.
i. i.

JOB.
xviii. 19 249

PSALMS.

ii 196

viii 182

xvi 183

xxxvi . 7-9 60

xl. 6, 7 139

xiv 196

Iv. 16 249

Ixxviii 138

Ixxx 285

Ixxxvii 193

Ixxxvii. 3-7 157

xci 183

cv. 8 249

cvi. 45 249

ex 196

cxi- 5 249

cxix. 54 249

cxxxix. 7-12 56

PROVERBS.

i. 7, 20-23 38

i. 8-ix 123

viii. 5 38

*• TI 59

x.-xxii. 16 122

xiii- M 59

123

XVI. 22

xx. 27

xxii. i7-xxiv. 22.,

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

297

PROVERBS.

xxiv. 23-34 123

xxv.-xxix 123

xxx. 1-14 123

xxx. 15-33 123

xxxi. 1-9 123

xxxi. 10-31 123

ISAIAH.

ii. . .

viii. 19.. .
x. 12, 15.
xi..,

147

178

i83

xii. 3 60

xiii. 10 198

xix. 16-25 193

xxiv. i, 19 198

xxxiv. 3 199

xxxiv. 4 198

xxxviii. 16 59

xl.-lxvi 134, 141

xliii- i-3 153

xliv. 28 141

xlv. i 141

xlvi. i, 2 i^i

xlvii 141

xlvii. 13 i77

li- 3 183

liii. 10 139

liv. 12 !87

Iv. 12, 13 183

Ivi. 7 188, 193

Iviii. ii 60

lx 155, 193

Ixiii. 1-6 200

Ixv. 17 183

JEREMIAH.

"•'3 59

iii. 17 187

xvii. 13 59

EZEKIEL.

xvi. 60, 62 249

xvii. 22-24 176

xx- 38 249

xxi. 21-23 177

xxx. 24 249

xxxvi.35 183

EZEKIEL.

xxxviii. 22 199

xxxviii.-ix 199

DANIEL.

ii 40

vii. 9-12 199

vii. 25 227

xii. 7 227

HOSEA.

ii. 18 183

JOEL.

iv. 13 2oo

iv. 18-21 198

iv. 18-22 199

AMOS.

'•9 249

ix-7 154

JONAH.

iv 193

MlCAH.

iv. i 188

iv 147

ZECHARIAH.

viii. 8 249

viii. 22, 23 193

xi. 12, 13 I09

xii. 1-9 199

XIV. I-21 199

xiv. 16, 17 193

Xiv. 20, 21 187

MALACHI.

iii. i 109

MATTHEW.

iii. 9 • 191

iv. 3-7 207

v. 17, 18 289

viii. ii IQI

xi. 4-6 207

Xi. 21, 22 115

xii. 38, 39 207

xiii. 30 199

xiii 31, 32 176

xiii. 42 199

xiii. 58 207

298

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

MATTHEW.

xvi. 18, 19.... J7

xxiii. 13 20

xxiii. 33 278

xxiv. 23, 24 206

xxvii. 9 109, no, 216

MARK.
i 2 109

LUKE.

iv. 25 227

ix. 54, 55 2°7

xii. 48 47

xix 217

xxi 217

JOHN.

i. i, 14 3i

i. 2-13. 31

iv. 14 60

vi. 30 207

vii. 17 23

vii. 37,38 59

XV. 22 115

xvii. 3 39

ACTS.

iii.2i 183

iii. 24 128

vii „ 219

vii. 16 220

xiii 219

xvii 115

ROMANS.

viii. 22 seq 184

viii. 29 184

x. 6 220

x. 14, 15 "5

xi. 17-25 191

Xi. 21 221

xvi. 20 186

I. CORINTHIANS.

ii. 15 23

xv. 24 198

II. CORINTHIANS.

xii. 2 seq 180

GALATIANS.
iii. 7 191

GALATIANS.

iii. 17 225

iv. 24 us

EPHESIANS.

ii.6 55

ii. 18 55

ii. 20, 21 18

ii. 20-22 189

iv. 13 26

PHILIPPIANS.

iii. 2 278

COLOSSIANS.

i. 24 214

iii. i 55

I. THESSALONIANS.

v. 2 115

II. TIMOTHY.

iii. 15-17 108

iii. 1 6 7

HEBREWS.

iv. 7 128

iv. 16 55

xi.io, 16 190

Xi. 21 221

I. PETER.

ii. 4 seq 26

ii. 9 seq 194

II. PETER.

iii. 13 l83

I. JOHN.

i-3 55

iii. 24 39

iv. i 115

REVELATION.

i.6 194

vii. 9 192

xi. 2, 3 227

xii. 6, 14 227

xiii. 5 227

xiii. 11-18 206

xiv. 17-20 200

xix. 14 seq 199

xx 26

xx. 10 186, 199

xxi. 2 seq 189

xxi. 6. . . .60

Biblical Study.

Its Principles, Methods, and History of its Branches, together
with a Catalogue of Books of Reference. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages in Union
Theological Seminary, New York. Third Edition. One volume,
crown 8vo, $2.50.

" A choice book, for which we wish wide circulation and deep influence in its own
land and also recognition among us. The author maintains his position with so much
spirit and in such beautiful language that his book makes delightful reading, and it is
particularly instructive for Germans on account of the very characteristic extracts
from the writings of English theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Moreover, he is unusually familiar with German literature of recent date as well as
with that of the earlier period.11— Zarncke's Literaturisches Centralblatt filr Deutsch-
land.

'-Here is a theological writer, thoroughly scientific in his methods, and yet not
ashamed to call himself evangelical. One great merit of this handbook is the light
which it throws on the genesis of modern criticism and exegesis. Those who use it
will escape the crudities of many English advocates of half-understood theories. Not
the least of its merits ia the well-selected catalogue of books of reference— English,
French, and German. We are sure that no student will regret sending for the book."
— The Academy, London.

" Dr. Briggs begins with a chapter upon the advantages of Biblical study, and the
subjects of the following chapters are : Exegetical Theology, the Languages of the
Bible, the Bible and Criticism, the Canon and Text of the Bible, Higher Criticism,
Literary Study of the Bible, Hebrew Poetry, Interpretation of Scripture, Biblical
Theology, and the Scriptures as a Means of Grace. It will be seen that the subjects
occupy a wide range, and, ably treated as they are. the volume becomes one of real
value and utility. Appended to the work is a valuable catalogue of books of reference
in biblical studies, and three indexes— of Scriptures, of topics, and of books and
authors. The publishers have done honor to the work, and it deserved it."— The
Churchnian.

" The minister who thoroughly masters this volume will find himself mentally in
vigorated, as well as broadened in his scope of thought ; will almost certainly be able to
better satisfy himself in his understanding of what the truth is which from the Bible
he ought to preach to men ; and so will speak from his pulpit with new force, and
find his words mightier, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds."— Boston-
Congregationalist.
"After all that we have heard of the higher criticism, it is refreshing to find so

scholarly and trenchant defences of the old paths His historical account of the

movement and developement among the English-speaking scholars is very valuable.
This, and the chapter on the ' Literary Study of the Bible,1 are among the best in this
excellent book."— New York Christian Advocate (Methodist).

14 We are constrained to rank this book as one of the signs of the times in the Amer
ican church. It marks the rising tide of Biblical scholarship, Christian liberty of
thought and evangelical interpretation of the Scriptures."— Christian Union.

" There are many grounds on which the work may be earnestly commended. Large
reading in German and English, quick apprehension of the salient points of opposing
theories, an unflagging earnestness of purpose, and very positive belief in his positions
conspire to make the work instructive and attractive. But above all these excellences
there shines out the author's deep reverence for the whole Bible."— The Examiner
(Baptist, N. Y.)

Messianic Prophecy.

The Prediction of the fulfilment of Redemption through the
Messiah. A critical study of the Messianic passages of the Old
Testament in the order of their development. By CHARLES
A. BRIGGS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and the Cognate Langu
ages in Union Theological Seminary, New York. One volume,
crown octavo, $2.50.

" Messianic Prophecy is a subject of no common interest, and this book ie no ordin
ary book. It is, on the contrary, a work of the very first order, the ripe product of
years of study upon the highest themes. It is exegesis in master-hand, about its

noblest business It has been worth while to commend this book at some

length to the attention of Bible students, because both the subject and the treatment
entitle it to rank among the very foremost works of the generation in the department
of Exegetical Theology. Union Seminary is to be congratulated that it is one of her
Professors who, in a noble line of succession has produced it. The American Church
is to be congratulated that the author is ;m American, and Presbyterians that he is a
Presbyterian. A Church that can yield such books has large possibilities."— New
York Evangelist.

"It is second in importance to no theological work which has appeared in this
country during the present century."— The Critic.

"His arduous labor has been well expended, for he has finally produced a book
which will give great pleasure to Christians of all denominations The pro
found learning displayed in the book commends it to the purchase of all clergymen
who wish for the most critical and exact exposition of a difficult theme ; while its
earnestness and eloquence will win for it a place in the library of every devout lay
man."— N. Y. Journal of Commerce.

"It is rich with the fruits of years of zealous and unwearied study, and of an ample
learning. In it we have the first English work on Messianic Prophecy which stands
on the level of modern Biblical studies, It is one of the most important and valuable
contributions of American scholarships to those studies. It is always more than in
structive : it is spiritually helpful. We commend the work not only to ministers, but
to intelligent laymen.11— The Independent.

"On the pervading and multiform character of this promise, see a recent, as well
as valuable authority, in the volume of Dr. Briggs, of the New York Theological
Seminary, on 'Messianic Prophecy.'" — W. E. GLADSTONE.

" Prof. Briggs' Messianic Prophecy is a most excellent book, in which I greatly
rejoice.''' — Prof. FRANZ DKLITZSCH.

" All scholars will join in recognizing its singular usefulness as a text-book. It has
been much wanted."— Rev. CANON CHEYNE.

"It is a book that will be consulted and prized by the learned, and that will add to
the author's deservedly high reputation for scholarship. Evidences of the ability,
learning and patient research of the author are apparent from the beginning to the
end of the volume, while the style is remarkably fine."— Phila. I^resbytenan.

" His new book on Messianic Phrophecy is a worthy companion to his indispens
able text-book on Biblical study .... What is most of all required to insure the
future of Old Testament studies in this country is that those who teach should satisfy
their students of their historic connection with the religion and theology of the past.
Prof. Briggs has the consciousness of such a connection in a very full degree, and
yet he combines this with a frank and unreserved adhesion to the principles of modern

criticisms He has produced the first English text-book on the subject of

Messianic Prophecy which a modern teacher can use." — The London Academy.

American Presbyterianism :

Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Letters
and Documents, many of which have recently been discovered.
By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and the Cog
nate Languages in the Union Theological Seminary, New York,
i volume, crown 8vo, with Maps. $3.00.

"Tl.e Presbyterian Church owes a debt of gratitude to the enthusiasm and antiquar
ian research of Professor Briggs. He seems to have seized the foremost place among
them, and his vigorous, skilful, and comprehensive researches put all Protestant
Christians, and especially Congregationalists, under obligation to him.1'— Boston
Congregationalist.

"This is an admirable and exhaustive work, full of vigorous thinking, clear and
careful statement, incisive and judicious criticism, minute yet comprehensive research.
It is such a book as only a man with a gift for historical inquiry and an enthusiasm
for the history and principles of his Church could have produced. It represents an
amazing amount of labor. Dr. Briggs seems to have searched every available source,
British and American, for printed or written documents bearing on his subjects, and
he has met with wonderful success. He has made many important discoveries, illus
trative of the Puritan men and period, useful to himself, but certain also to be helpful
to all future inquiries in this field.1'— British Quarterly Review.

" The work before us bears evidence of a research which is as gratifying as it is un
usual. We allude particularly to the examination of MSS. in England and Scotland,
as well as in this country ; and to the very thorough and careful collation of author
ities on the whole subject. The author has been for years securing the writings of
Westminster divines, and the light which these books now cast on the inception of
the Presbyterian Church in America is not only new, but invaluable.1'— The Christian
Union. •

" The volume is a substantial addition to the literature of the subject. It is good in
itself, and, besides, must exert a powerful influence in leading others to examine the
sources of knowledge here brought to notice, and give the Church the benefit of re
newed investigation. The author deserves the warm thanks of all the Reformed who
hold the Presbyterian system." — N. Y. Observer.

"The original investigations of the author have put him in possession of much
material hitherto unused It ought to be added that the volume touches so con
stantly upon the early history of New England as to be indispensable to the student
of American Congregationalism, while all lovers of antiquarian research will find much
in it to interest them."— Sunday-School Times.

"This book accomplished what it professedly aimed at It is really wonder
ful how much valuable knowledge Dr. Briggs has been able to press into the volume.
We commend the work to our Presbyterian readers. It wiil give them a reason for
the faith that is in them, and it will make them proud of the history of the denomin
ation to which they belong. "— The Scotsman.

"It will be of priceless value to the future historian, and Dr. Briggs deserves the
thanks of the whole Church for his laborious researches, and for his success in rescu
ing from oblivion so many significant facts.'11— Chicago Interior.

" Professor Briggs has written the history of American Presbyterianism in a manner
which exhibits it as an essential part of the Christianity of the country, and makes
every reader whose range is large enough for such views, feel a personal pride in it as
a history in which he himself has an interest and a share."— Jf. Y. Independent.

Whither?

A Theological Question for the Times. By CHARLES AUGUSTUS
BHIGGS, D.D., Edward Kobinson Professor of Biblical Theology
in the Union Theological {Seminary, New York. One volume,
crown 8vo, $1.75.

« TTO *>,rm-* that zenuine Christianity has nothing to lose, but much to gain, by un-
fPtrJJid t h< .<- ami the ripest modern scholarship ; that the doctrines which pro-
rr K, f 'v threatens areiio essential part of the historic faith, but raiher out-

I^Smen^o^ with warp and woof oftadiuon and speculation; that being
ln?n" mHlhe noble form of Christianity, have obscured its real proportions and
mt"' e i S' T i.'is.u ' of which tim.d and unscholarly souls are so much afraid,
il really making the Bible more inan.feslly the,- book of God, by relieving it from the
false interpretations of men."— The frets, Philadelphia.

" Tho hook is a stroii" one. It is packed with weighty matter. Its reach is larger
than any o the £,!& other works, though its compass is smaller It contamsonly
300 oage^ vet it is a critical treatise on Westminster and modern theology and a so
mrch Me and Christian unity. It is written in nervous, virile English that holds
h »n si, i "rip and force. The title and the chapter headmgs sug-
'Whither?' 'Drifting/ 'Orthodoxy,' 'Changes,1 'Shifting,1

attention. _.

tion

Cn(i>:, New York.

"At the same time it is irenic both in tone and tendency. It is noble from
beginning to end, though the author may possibly nlace unnecessary cmp ia»i|» ot
tl.e or-amc unity of the different denominations of Christendom as the co ml ition
precedent for a frue catholic unity. There is not a touch or smell of rationalwi or

preceent or a rue caoc u.

rationalistic speculation in the book, and freely aa the author deals with
ncnts, it is an honest freedom, which will promote good feeling even amid .

The ludeiwndent.

" The literary quality of the book is very much superior to anything else we have
seen of its author's. It is written, as the Germans say, mis etnem Gvu. It also puts
the orthodoxy of its author in a stronger light than we had «P***th^J{L .line
titiulc toward other denominations it occupies an irenic posit ion, which l*9Q««
with the general tendency of American Christendom. *-Tlie, American, Fi

" The professor has written a revolutionary and at the same time an irenic book
Its temper is judicious, its tone courteous toward opponents, >** "P1"1 T,,^' m
seeks peace, not strife. Instead of desiring to cast out those who think difl ^tly
from himself, he would grant to every sincere Christian unhindered frV-d<>™ °.r
tho.mhl and expression, and would open the doors of the church wide enough to wel
come all who love the Lord Jesus Christ. "—Bofton Advertiser.

" It is a thesaurus of important historical matter, and the brilliancy »*J*J*2
Us style make it attractive even to those who have comparatively little interest
main subject of its discussion."— The Sunday -Sclwoi Times.

" There is much both of historical and of dogmatic interest in this volume. Its
author works in the spirit of his two greatest teachers— ROdiger and J
Academy, London.

" Interesting as a novel, almost elegant in its language, clear in its express ion, ma

llous in showing research, the book will pay largely for its reading. Though the re

ust come a doubt of Dr. Briggs1 orthodoxy, yet there will abo c

must come a doubt of Dr. Brggs

in his honesty."— The Christian Inqvirer.

While it is loyal to Presbyterianism, it is also grandly catholic. Thanril
laro-e book, only 300 paces, yet it furnishes abundant food for thought, it was in
vigoratin as the best of tonics, and is as optimistic as Christian hope it

New York Evangelist.

" To sum up our notice of this book, there remains only to say that we I
book will be widely read by churchmen and by all who are desirous for the rest
of Christian unity. It will indicate to the members of everv division of Wjlcrenu*
principles upon which the return of unity must eome."— 2& New lork Chur

This book is for sale by all booksellers, or will to sent, post-paid, on receipt of price, by

CHARLES SCEIBNEK'S SONS, Publishers,

743 and 745 Broadway, New York.

BRIGGS, CHARLES A.

(CHARLES AUGUSTUS),

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH

AND THE REASON

BCA-7043 (MCAB

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 Bible, the church and the reason : the three great fountains of divine authority"

See other formats