f PRINCETON, N. J. S/ie// Division B 5 "TS.O Section,.,, S^ZD.^.:.' Number w- .^,^ * ^ 'V «^,. 'I ' •♦ , T. and T. Clark's Publications. In Four Volumes, imperial 8vo, handsomely lound, pice \8s. each, A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS. Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. Just jntblished, Volume 11. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. By W. MILLIGAN, D.D., and W. F. MOULTON, D.D. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By the Veky Rev. Dean HOWSON and Eev. Ca.non SPENGE. Recently published, Volume I. THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., and MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D. THE CONTRIBUTORS ARE — Joseph Angus, D.D. Principal David Brown, D.D. Marcus Dods, D.D. J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. Paton J. Gloag, D.D. The Very Rev. Dean HowsoN, D.D. J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. "WiLLIAlM MiLLIGAN. D.D. W. F. MouLTON. D.D. Edward H. Plumptre, D.D. William B. Pope, D.D. Matthew B. Riddle, D.D. S. W. F. Salmond, D.D. Rev. Canon Spence. Maps and Plans — Professor Arnold Guyot. ninstrations — "W. M. Thomson, D.D., Author of ' The Land and the Book.' From the Right Rev. the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. ' A useful, valuable, and instructive Commentary. It contains a large amount of in- formation, is judiciously illustrated, and, so far as I can judge, is likely to be of great use. I have not tested it in difficult doctrinal passages, l)ut I see in it nothing to lead me to doubt that it would stand the test. Its design seems to be that of a popular Commentary, and this design, it seems to me, it has fully carried out.' From the Right Rev. the Bishop of Winchester. 'I have looked into this volujne, and read several of the notes on crucial passages. They seem to me very well done, with great fairness, and with evident knowledge of the controversies concerning them. The illustrations are very good. I cannot doubt that the book will prove very valuable.' From the Very Rev. Edward Bickersteth, D.D., Dean of Lichfield and Prolocutor of Canterbury. 'I have been looking into this volume, and I am much struck with the fulness and accuracy of the annotations, wherever 1 have examined them, as well as with the general excellence of the work.' From Rev. W. G. T. Shedd, D.D. (Presbjrterlan), Professor in Union Theological Seminary, New York. 'Having examined the volume with some care, it impresses me as admirably adapted to the class for whom it is prepared, and calculated to promote a popular understanding of the Word of God. It selects the important words and clauses, and explains them concisely yet thoroughly. It grapples with the difficult questions, and answers them generally in a satisfactory manner. The illustrations are well chosen, and the style in which the book is made is very attractive.' From Rev. Professor Lindsay Alexander, D.D. 'I feel satisfied that, if the whole were completed after the same manner, it would be the Commentary par excellence in the English language. Indeed, as a Commentary for popular use. 1 know nothing equal to it in any language.' T, and T. Clark's Publications. Complete Critical and Exegetical Apparatus on the Old Testament. KEIL AND DELITZSCH'S COMMENTARIES ON AND INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. THE above series (published in Clark's Foreign Theological Library) is now completed in 27 Volumes, and, in compliance witli numerous requests, ^Nfessrs. Clark will supply it at the Subscription price, in complete sets (only), of £7, 2s. Separate volumes may he had at the non-stibscription price oflQs. 6d. each. So complete a Critical and Exegetical Apparatus on the Old Testament is not elsewhere to be found in the English language, and at the present time, when the study of the Old Testament is more widely extended than perhaps ever before, it is believed this offer will be duly appreciated. The ' Ki'il and Delitzscli ' series is so well known that little need be said regarding it, but the Publishers may refer to the following opinions during the currency of its publications. ' This series is one of great importance to the bibh"cal scholar, and as regards its general execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.' — Edinburgh Review. ' We have often expressed our opinion of Dr. Delitzsch's great merits as a commentator, and, in particular, of his portion of the admirable Commentary on the Old Testameur, written by himself and Dr. Keil, that we need only now congratulate our readers on the completion of the entire work.' — Church Bells. 'A more valuable commentary for the "theological students and scholars," for whom it is exclusively intended, than the one contaiued in these volumes, does not exist iu English.'— Methodist Recorder. ' The authors are among the most accomplished of living Hebraists, and Delitzsch is, in addition, a man of true historical imagination, and of clear spiriiual vision.' — Baptist Magazine. ' A more irnportfint contribution than this series of commentaries has, we think, never been presented to English theological students.' — Rock. 'Very high merit, for thorough Hebrew scholarship, and for keen critical sagacity, belongs to these Old Testament Commentaries. No scholar will willingly dispense witli them.' — British Quarterly Review. ' The very valuable Keil and Delitzsch series of Commentaries.' — Wesleyan Methodist Magazine. ' From a pretty careful study of his commentaries we have come to the conclusion that for j)ninstaking tidolify, extensive and tliorough knowledge, and capacity to ent'-r into tli(^ spirit of the writer ho is busy with, there are few commentators so competent as Keil.' — Daily Review. 'In Delitzsch's work we find the same industrious scholarship which is of acknow- ledifcd worth, and the same conscientious exegesis which is always worthy. No book Could be treated with more pains than by ttiis writer, and none could be examined more thoroiighly — every phrase, every word, every syllable showing the utmost interest and research of the commentator.' — Scotsman. THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE IN CONNECTION WITH REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND THE CANON. I'UIN'TED BY MOUinSON AND GIBB FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON', HA>nLTOX, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, nOBERTSON AND CO. NEW YOKK, . SCKIBNER AND WELFOKD. THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE IN CONNECTION WITH REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND THE CANON. BY JOHN JAMES GIVEN, Ph.D., I'ROFESSOR UI-- HEBRKW AND HERMCNEUTICS IN MAGEE COLLEGE, LONDONDERRY. EDINBURGH: T & T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET 1881. PREFACE. THE present is an age of inquiry. In every department of science and art, of philosophy and theology, of criticism and interpretation, we are required to give a reason for the truths believed and the courses pursued. This within proper limits cannot reasonably be objected to ; it is both sensible and scriptural. Sometimes, however, matters are carried to an extreme, and the demand becomes too exacting : but even to the froward we may not show ourselves froward ; while we are required to be " ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear." Some of the signs of the times are not a little ominous. In this fast age in which we live, when knowledge is in- creasing so amazingly and men running to and fro so rapidly, there is an impatience of old beliefs. The brilliant achieve- ments of physical science, not a few of which make themselves palpable by contributing in so many ways to the conveniences and comforts of daily life, naturally create a longing for a similar advance — something of a like striking and startling nature in other departments. It is quite possible, too, that even multiplied ecclesiastical machinery may co-exist with much spiritual leanness. At all events, from many causes, be they what they may, scepticism is unusually rife — it is in the air. That there is a tendency in many quarters to shift tlie old moorings, or to remove the old landmarks, cannot be denied. What with the unbelief of some openly avowing infidel sentiments, the misbelief of others greedily embracing erroneous views if they only present the aspect of novelty, and the disbelief of many turning aside from the faith of former times, the humble believer is tempted to relax his own firm grasp of truth, and is far too apt to harbour gloomy Ibrebodiugs about the future. But, fully convinced of the VI PREFACE. power and prevalence of truth in general, and having firm confidence in the truth of Scripture in particular, we have no just ground for present apprehension or alarm, and nothing- whatever to fear for the ultimate result. Our first duty is to determine our own individual position ill relation to the truth of God. We are enjoined to " prove all things, but to hold fast that which is good." Now, as, according to the old saying, life is short and art is long, we must deprecate the idea of always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth — of always proving and never actually possessing — of always trying but not yet tenaciously liolding what has been already tried. Life is too short for this sort of seesawing. It is our duty as well as privilege to examine the matter thoroughly, searchingly, honestly ; but let it be done once for all. What the apostle advises in a par- ticular case, admits a more extended application when he says : " I speak nnto wise men, judge ye what I say." When, then, we have duly exercised our judgment in the matter, when we have used all available means for that purpose, and when, under the guidance of God's good Spirit, we have come to a legitimate conclusion on the subject of divine truth itself and of our personal relation to it, — a subject of greatest importance and most vital concern, involving as it does our welfare for time and eternity, — then let us in God's great name and by His grace fearlessly abide the issue. It then remains to look to the interests of the truth of God in the Church and in the world. The truth of Scripture has been tried and tested thousands of times in the past. In the early ages of Christianity Celsus tried it. Porphyry tried it, Julian tried it ; the English infidels in the beginning and middle of the 18th century tried it — Chubb, and Collins, and Tyndal, and Toland, and the rest of them ; the French Encyclopedists tried it ; the German Illuminati tried it ; the infidelity of the 19th century is now trying it — the transcen- dental philosopher, the scientist, the critic, all try it in turn. It has been often put upon its trial, it has stood many a test, it has passed through many an ordeal ; but as it was in the l)ast so it is in the present and ever shall be ; again and yet again the enemy comes in like a flood, but the Spirit of the PREFACE, Vll Lord lifts up a standard against him. Nay, tlie more the truth of Scripture is searched and sifted the purer it is found, the brighter and clearer it becomes : " The words of the Lord are pure words ; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." We need not wonder when the truth of Scripture is once more attacked anew. Eevelation, Inspiration, and the Canon have been assailed, sometimes singly, again collectively. But these fresh assaults are not a whit more formidable than those of former times, nor likely to prove in the least more successful. jSTow the object of the present treatise is to furnish some weapons of defence, and to indicate the source of many more ; it is purely defensive, not aggressive. Where subjects of recent or present discussion are touched on in it, they are dealt with apologetically, not controversially. Eeasons for adhering to traditional beliefs are assigned, but no railing accusation is brought against the opponents of those beliefs ; for " the wrath of man worketh not the riohteousness of God." Besides, this treatise is meant to be merely suggestive and in no sense exhaustive. To treat such subjects as Eevelation, Inspiration, or the Canon fully, or, perhaps I should say, satisfactorily, would require a treatise as large or larger than the present for each of them separately. To plain persons, however, who are earnestly seeking truth, I venture to think that this succinct and synoptical treatment, as I may call it, of the subjects indicated, may be of some service, to others it may help to popularise certain topics involving critical difficulties, while to junior students at least it may point out the right way to further and fuller investigation. On the subject of Eevelation several publications of varying excellence are well known and easily accessible ; on Inspira- tion, Lee and Bannerman are standard authorities ; while on the Canon of the New Testament, Lardner and Kirchofer and Westcott, with Stuart and Alexander on that of the Old Testament, may be consulted with advantage. From all these the author has derived benefit; while obligations in- curred in other quarters will be found duly acknowledged in their proper place. Vlll PREFACE. The great and ultimate end which the author has en- deavoured steadily to keep before him is the promotion of a justly appreciative sense of the divine original of Scripture, with a view to the attainment of a sound and enlightened acquaintance with its saving truths, and a cordially sympa- thetic acceptance thereof; so that he that writes and they who read may be enabled to entertain a good hope by grace, as also to render a right reason for the ground of that hope. Head and heart must go together here ; the affections and intellect must be enlisted at the same time ; else the right result is not attained. A man may, like the great Orientalist Gesenius, who did so much for Hebrew learning, be possessed of advanced scholarship and truly critical judgment ; and yet, like the same great man, he may be the victim of a cold rationalism, and presume to treat the everlasting verities with a smile or even a sarcasm. You pass, let. us suppose, through a lovely district after the shades of evening have fallen on the earth, when the busy world has sunk to rest, and while silence reigns around. The full-orbed moon sheds down her silvery light on field and flood and forest, on hill and valley, on tower and town. The scene is beautiful, but the stillness is death- like ; the landscape is charming, but a chilly coldness pervades it ; the moonbeams are bright, but there is no warmth nor animation. You pass through the same district in the light of day at the busy hour of noon, when the warm radiance of the summer's sun is beaming on all, brightening all, and beautifying all, and at the same time diffusing warmth throughout the district, quickening the pulses of daily life, and animating the labour of the industrious. What a change ! You will say, What an improvement ! That landscape seen by the moonbeams may represent divine truth as seen in the clear cold light of rationalistic criticism ; but that landscape seen amid the sunshine, is the same truth as it is exhibited by the sanctified criticism of the scholar whose heart has been warmed by the rays of the Sun of righteousness, and whose understanding has been enlightened by the Spirit of tlie Lord. J. J. G. 32 Clarkndon Stiieet, LoxnoNDEnnv, December 2, 1880. CONTENTS. PAET L — REVELATION. CHAPTER I. REVELATION AND MIRACLES. Importance of Revelation — Necessity for Revelation — Possibility of Revelation — Miraculous element in Revelation — Definitions of Miracle — Law of Nature — Scripture names of Miracles — Probability of Miracle — Credibility of Miracles— Tests of Miracle— False Miracles— Character and competency of the witnesses, ..... CHAPTER II. FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY. Conditions necessary — Alleged predictions in Secular History — Prophecies relating to Nineveh — Predictions of Nahum — Prophecies concerning the Jews — Prophecies relating to Egypt — Predictions by Ezekiel — Predictions by Jeremiah, . . . . . 43 CHAPTER III. ST. JOHN AND THE SYNOPTISTS. Naturalistic method of Paulus — Mythical method of Strauss — Legendary method of Renan — Two main objections to the genuineness of John's Gospel — Course of events in our Lord's life — Character of His discourses — Difference between John's Gospel and Revelation urged as another objection — External evidence for the genuineness of John's Gospel — Objections answered — Tendency theory of Baur, . . 57 CHAPTER IV. RELATION OF THE LINES OF EVIDENCE. The objective standard — The subjective standard — The requisite subjective element, . . . . . . . 81 4 CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. THE MOUALITY OF THE BIBLE. PaGE !^[oral system of Plato — Sloral system of Aristotle — Moral system of the Stoics — Moral system of Epicurus — Moral system of the Bible — Comparison of Ethical systems with Scripture — The principle and practice of each — Experimental evidence, .... 85 PART II.— INSPIEATIOK CHAPTER VI. NATURE AND PROOF OF PLENARY INSPIRATION. Statements of Scripture on Inspiration — The Saviour's promised power and presence — Testimony of the Synoptic Gospels — Proofs from the Johannean Gospel — Testimony of the Spirit — Inspiration not Omni- science — The sacred penmen claim Inspiration — Inspiration involved in the use of single terms — Inspiration belongs to both Testaments — Inspiration affirmed of each part of Scripture — Inspiration extends to the less important matters — Quotations in New Testament consistent with Inspiration — Scripture not contradicted by Science, . . 104 CHAPTER VII. OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. S upposed contradictions — D i versity di ffers from discrepancy — Apparent not real discrepancies — Several examples considered — Biblical and classical subjects compared — Difficulties removed — Attacks on inspired truth never successful, ....... 137 CHAPTER VIII. CONFIRMATIONS OF INSPIRED SCRIPTURE. Section I. — Direct Confirmations. A peculiar distribution — Inscriptions — Fall of Babylon — Sinaitic peninsula. Section II. — Indirect Conjirmations. A remarkable adjustment — Starvation a species of combustion — Circulation and vitality of the blood — Striking coincidences in the narrative of St. Paul's voyage, . . . . . .161 CHAPTER IX. SOLOMONIC AUTHORSHIP OF ECCLESIASTES. Tlie name of the Book — Certain statements the ground of objection — Account of Solomon's reign in 1 Kings compared with Ecclesiastes — CONTENTS. PAGE Exceptions taken to the style of language— Statements by the author himself— Hebrew and Christian tradition— Relation of Ecclesiastes to Job and Proverbs — Practical remarks in closing Part II., . . 184 PART III.— THE CANON. CHAPTER X. WHAT CONSTITUTES OANONICITY. Principal theories of canonicity — Genuineness and authenticity — Integrity and credibility, ...... 203 CHAPTER XI. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. Section I. — Formation of the Canon. New Testament writings originated in special circumstances — Con- nection of Paul and Luke — Connection of Peter and Mark. Section II. — The Writers claim Divine Direction. Luke's own account of his Gospel history — Ground on which the inspired writers rest their claim. Section III. — Evidence of Divine Help. The divine sanction of the New Testament writings. Section IV. — Authentication and Diffusion of the Inspired Writings. Two eiToneous allegations refuted — Effect of reading the Epistles in the public assemblies — Apparently exceptional cases. Section V. — A more detailed Account of certain Books of Neiv Testament Canon. Earliest account of the Gospels by Papias — Renan's account and admissions — The Pauline Epistles — Hebrews — Arguments for and against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews — Conclusion of Hug — Canonicity of 2 Peter — Canonicity of James and Jude. Section VI. — Inspiration of New Testament Penmen acknowledged by their Contemporaries. Testimony of the sub-apostolic writers — Testimony of Clemens Romanus — Testimony of Polycarp — Testimony of Ignatius — General observations on this part of the subject — Testimony of the Apologists — Testimony of Justin Martyr — Testimony of the opponents ot CONTENTS. !n;resies— Testimony of I renfeus— Testimony of Tertullian— Testimony of the rhilosophic School of Alexandria— Testimony of Clemens Alexandrimis — Testimony of Origen, ..... 213 CHAPTER XII. OLD TESTAMENT CANON. Section I. — Fact of JRecoynition of the Old Testament in the New. Manner of New Testament quotation— Conclusions therefrom with respect to the fact of recognition. Section II. — Character of this Recognition. Section III. — The Means and Method of Identification. Important statement of Josephus — The same threefold division 7nentioned by Sirachides — The same threefold division mentioned by Philo — Confirmation from Septuagint — Confirmation from Old Syriac — Confirmation from ilelito — Confirmation from Jerome. Section IV. — The Exclusion qf the Apocrypha. The reasons of that exclusion. Section V. — The Principle on tvhich Canon formed, and Period of its Close. Inspiration comprehends two agencies — Various circumstances point to the time of closing the Canon — Ezra's connection with the Canon — Belief of the early Christian Church on Ezra's relation to the Canon — Nehemiah's connection with the Canon — Time of closing the Canon infen-ed from Sirachides — Time of closing the Canon accoi'ding to .losephus — Confirmation of same from Pirke Avoth — The same con- firmed by Babylonian Gemara, ...... 279 CHAPTER XIII. A SUMMARY OF THE DEUTERONOMIC DTSCUSSION. Analysis of the Book of Deuteronomy — Distinction of Priest and Levite recognised in Deuteronomy — Various arguments in proof thereof — Dilference of expressions relating to priestly and Levitical service — Certain conclusions arrived at — Chapter x. 8 of Deuteronomy examined — Rebellion of Korah dilfered in its object from that of Datlian and Abiram — Implied reference in Deuteronomy xxxiii. 8-10 to different orders among the Levites — The law of the kingdom as stated in Deuteronomy involves reproof — The law of the kingdom acknowledged by Samuel and alluded to by Abimelech — The law of one national sanctuary, with its exceptions — The operation of this law — Abnormal condition of things in Samuel's time — The altar built by Joshua on CONTENTS. Jlount Ebal— The Deiiteronomic law acknowletlged in Joshua's time, as inferred from the altar of witness— Supposed discrepancies in minor details, . . . . . . . .312 Conclusion of the whole, ...... 344-346 Appendix A.— Probability in favour of Resurrection, . . . 347 Appendix B.— The LXX. version of Isaiah liii. compared with the original, ...... 349 Appendix C— The Ignatian Epistles, ..... 350 Appendix D.— Early diffusion of Canonical Scriptures according to several authorities, ..... 359 Appendix E.— The Epistle of Barnabas, .... 362 PART I. REVELATION. CHAPTER I. REVELATION AND MIRACLES. THE importance of the subject of Eevelation cannot "be readily over-estimated. Issues of the most momentous kind depend upon it. In the absence of the teachings of revela- tion, or, what amounts to the same thing, in the ignorance or disbelief of those teachings, we are deprived, or voluntarily deprive ourselves, of the only true solution of the great problems of human existence. The only key that promises to unlock the mysteries of our being is flung away or lost. Conjecture is substituted in the stead of certainty ; dim anticipation takes the place of well-founded faith, and gloomy forebodmg that of Christian hope. Apart from the truth of revelation, we have no reliable information as to man's origin, present position, and future prospects ; while to such questions as, What in reality is man ? why is he ? whence is he ? and whither is he going ? we are left without any satisfactory answer. Has man a soul distinct from his material organization ; and does that soul merely co-exist with the body, or is it capable of a separate exist- ence ? Does this present life exhaust the term of his being, and is death an everlasting sleep ? Or is there a life beyond, that shall continue while aeons lapse and ages roll away ? Shall that life, moreover, be one of happiness or misery ; and will that state of weal or woe be connected with or dependent on man's course and conduct in the present world ? Have the great and good, that benefited their race and were eminently A 10 EEVELATION. useful in their day and generation, passed hence to heaven ; or have they, sad and melancholy thought ! faded for ever into " the infinite azure of the past"? What about the beloved dead, endeared to us by every tender tie, lovely in life, and even in death leaving us the fragrance of their memory behind ? When in deep distress from sore bereavement — *' "We sigh for the touch of the vanish'd hand, And long for the voice that is still," is there no hopeful prospect of reunion ? Now to these and kindred questions certain analogies may indicate a reply, but in revelation alone is tlie decided and unfaltering answer found. The necessity of revelation is, I am aware, denied by some who would substitute reason for revelation, shoving the latter out of the way, or setting it in opposition to the former. But against the existence of this supposed antagonism, we feel bound at the very outset strongly to protest. Eevelation does not supersede reason, it does not supplant reason, it only supplements reason. If reason be the eye of the mind, then revelation is the telescope that extends immensely its field of vision ; if reason be the human arm, then revelation is the heavenly leverage that multiplies its power more than a thousandfold : if reason be the common method of managing quantity and number, then revelation is the higher calculus that grapples with those problems to which the former is inadequate. We admit to the fullest extent the power of conscience, the light of nature, and the important province of reason, but we affirm their utter incompetence to expound fully man's destiny and duty. We refuse to credit the natural reason of man with power to offer any satisfactory solution of the engima of our being, or to shed light on the nature and character of the Author of that being, setting clearly before our eyes our relationship to Him, and the obligations which that relation- ship involves. We deny that it can rectify what is abnormal in the latter, or remove the consequences of neglecting the former. And where is the individual with any right insight into the workings of his own spirit, and any proper under- standing of his own real wants, who will confidently affirm that reason can fully meet all the needs of his spiritual nature ? INADEQUACY OF EEASON AND CONSCIENCE. 11 Scant and stinted as is man's knowledge of God by nature, it is ever prone to diminish in quantity and deteriorate in quality. What was known of God by natural reason, with its two spheres of operation, — creation without and conscience within, — though sufficient to leave man without excuse, was partial in its nature and unpractical in its effect ; for when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God. Their worship and their works alike were worse than even the scantiness of their knowledge would warrant one to expect. There was a reciprocal action between head and heart ; faults in the life bred errors in the brain, while errors in the brain reacted by producing faults in the life. After indulging " the lusts of their own hearts," they " changed the truth of God into a lie ; " and conversely, when they ceased "to retain God in their knowledge," they commenced " to do those things which are not convenient." Peruse the brightest page in the history of heathendom. Go to Greece at the period when speculation was rifest, when philosophy was most cultivated, and when the mightiest minds were busied with its problems, and what do we find ? An unqualified acknowledgment of the impo- tence of man, without the aid of heaven, to master the mysteries of man's spiritual nature. They are feeling after God, if haply they may find Him ; they look out with straining eyes towards the remote heavens, and long for some hint from thence. Plato alludes, once and again, and not obscurely, to man's ignorance of divine things, and the conse- quent need for a revelation from on high, or a heaven-sent instructor. Socrates consults his daimonion, not his con- science, not his guardian spirit or special genius, not his conviction of a divine mission, but a sort of vague presenti- ment taking the place of, and approximating to, an immediate revelation, though of such a sort as to restrain from, not incite to, action — preventing one course of conduct, and only so far forth prompting to the opposite. But it may be said that, as the world has grown much older, it has become much wiser ; that reason, benefited by the experience of the ages, advanced by modern culture, and schooled by revelation, has outgrown revelation, and is now able to " shift for herself," as the phrase has it. Why, 12 EEVELATION. to talk of the severance of reason and revelation at this time of day, is nothing better than the merest myth. Such independence is impossible in the nature of things, for, moulded at first by the teachings of revelation, reason can never shake itself entirely loose from its control. Suppose revelation were discarded, still reason and revelation have so long intermingled in human developments, that what is the product of reason, and what the result of revelation, it would now be most difficult, if not altogether impossible, to dis- criminate. Certain differential equations become compara- tively easy once you separate the variables, but it is just that separation of the variables that constitutes the chief part of the problem, and it is only when the separation is effected that the relation of those variables to each other becomes ascertainable. But what power of calculus can separate entirely the direct effect of reason, and the indirect influence of revelation, and so estimate exactly the varying amount of these two potent factors in human advancement ? Man is sunk in sin ; he is in the darkness and shadow of death. He is given to idolatry, prone to superstition, while his heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. He cannot restore himself to the divine favour, or renew himself in the divine image. In his struggle against sin he cannot subdue it, or save himself from it. By nature he is not only morally impotent, but a stranger to holiness. Thus the light is dim and the power weak. Again, the all but universal acknowledgment of sin, and the many diverse expedients resorted to in all the lands of heathendom, while they bear witness to the existence of conscience, do at the same time prove its variations and errors, and consequent need of something higher and better to rectify its aberrations, remove its erroneous judgments, and purify the stream at the very fountainhead. The mirror is there, but the silvering is so impaired that the reflections are always inexact and often most defective. While thus the intellect is darkened by error and the conscience dimmed by sin, while nature gives some notion of God's goodness but speaks nothing of His grace, and while reason and philosophy can raise no effectual barrier against the power as well as EEVELATION NEEDED BECAUSE OF MAN's SIN AND MISERY. 13 ruinous effects of iniquity, the only resource is revelation making known the great redemption — God's remedy for sin. Wherever sin precedes, misery follows ; God has so wedded them that man cannot divorce them, and where is there any redress for the misery of man ? Human reason, when brought to the highest acme of perfection under the tuition of philo- sophy, has proved perfectly powerless. The most it can do is to opiate the sense or petrify the feelings ; or, when this fails, the wretched sufferer plunges headlong into the whirlpool of dissipation, that he may forget for a wliile his misery, or in some sort mitigate his woe. Arain we are driven back to revelation as setting before us the only refuge from all the ruin that sin has wrought. But what of death ? Even the wisest of the ancient sages and the father of several of the old philosophies, in the close of his address to his judges, and in the near prospect of his dissolution, is reported to have said: "It is now time to depart, — for me to die, for you to live. But wdiich of us is going to a better state is unknown to every one but God." The most eminent of those sages speak of and try to argue for the immortality of the soul, but they evince a lurking misgiving about the matter, while there is a lingering hesitancy in most of their utterances on the subject. They represent it as an old tradition, and qualify it by such expressions as " according as we are told," or " if the things told us be true." But instead of calmly and certainly reposing in it, they resort to the alternative of an utter extinction of being, or a state of entire insensibility. Even Cicero, who reflects so largely the sentiments of the most enlightened among the Greek philo- sophers, and who in the first book of his Tusculan Questions enumerates various considerations in favour of the soul's immortality, yet scarce ventures to decide whether the soul dies with the body or survives it; or, in case of its survival, he cannot determine whether that survival be temporary or perpetual, not advancing beyond a conjecture, and concluding the whole with the most imdisguised avowal of extreme uncertainty, when he says in one place : " Which of these opinions is true some god must determine ; it is an important question for us which has the most appearance of trutli ; " 14 EEYELATION. and again in his peroration, at the close : " For if that last day does not occasion an entire extinction, but a change of abode only, what can be more desirable ? and if it, on the other hand, destroys and absolutely puts an end to us, what can be preferable to the having a deep sleep fall on us in the midst of the fatigues of life, and being thus overtaken, to sleep to eternity ?" But we may put this part of our subject into a few sen- tences, which may serve as a summary of the whole. By all that irrepressible yearning of the human spirit after God, for man must have a God, whether true or false ; by all that is incorrect and uncertain in human imag;inings about the nature and being of God ; by all those unsatisfied cravings of man's soul for communion with God, and by all those unauthorized and often unhallowed modes of worship, and more than questionable means of man's devising for securing such communion ; by all that confirmation which the teach- ings of natural reason required, and by all that enlargement which those teachings, even if things had remained as at the beginning, would make probable, — by all these weighty con- siderations, the conviction must force itself on any unpreju- diced mind, that revelation is an undeniable necessity. Then, when we reflect on the sad departure and alienation from God brought about by the introduction of evil, wliile the existence of evil is something that cannot be gainsaid, and that man cannot by the flickering light and feeble power of reason recover himself from that state of degradation ; that all the while he cannot feel at ease within, unless some means of expiation or some method of satisfaction be resorted to ; that, moreover, he finds in his own moral consciousness a stranse dualism, so that, notwithstanding all his love and longings for the right, he is utterly unable to resist a tyrant power of wrongdoing that so often dominates and brings him into thraldom ; that defective as is his knowledge, his practice is yet in arrear of that knowledge, and that, through this discord of his daily life, guilt is accumulating, while, worst of all, he lacks the right way of atoning for the past, and the proper power of elevating himself above his evil tendencies for the future ; in other words, that he is as little able to regenerate THE POSSIBILITY OF A KEV ELATION. 15 as to redeem himself, — by sucli reflections as these the conviction of the needfiihiess of revelation is immensely- strengthened. Add to this, that, just as in the incertitudes of his condition there is nothing that can give him assurance or inspire him with well-grounded confidence, so amid the miseries of his state there is nothing to bring him that conso- lation and comfort of which he stands so sorely in need ; and that, above all, when with the instinctive love of life he has to face dissolution and blank despair, or if he carries forward his view beyond the precincts of the tomb, there is the dread of something after death rather than any element of hope or prospect of happiness. Put all these together, and the greatest opponent of revelation must have the persuasion, though he may be slow to make the admission, that above and beyond his natural reason man needs some communication from a higher and better world, some radiance shed from heaven on our mortal life and strife, something to encourage us by making known deliverance from sin here, and something to cheer us by the hope of life and immortality hereafter. Let us now consider the possibility of a revelation, for this has been denied. Can that God, who is absolute and infinite, make communication of Himself to finite and limited humanity? Or can man, who is so limited and finite, comprehend it ? If a complete communication of the infinite to the finite were the question, we might hesitate about the answer ; but here and now we only know in part, and see through a glass darkly. And while the Infinite One, stiU infinite and supramundane, is pleased to reveal Himself, there is on His part a self-limita- tion to which He condescends, whether it be through angelic medium, or human form, or physical phenomenon, to such an extent that His back parts only are discernible, for He has expressly declared : " My face shall not be seen." On the other and human side, though man cannot comprehend, yet he may apprehend Him who is unapproachable and invisible. Nor yet is the unchangeableness of the Eternal in any way com- promised by such communication, for in His plan and purpose from eternity He had perfect foreknowledge of all, and made proper and previous arrangement for all, so that, owing to that prearranged harmony, no alterations that man's defection 1 6 EEVELATIOX. might make necessary could possibly interfere with Him who is ever the same, and whose very name of / am that I am bespeaks His nature to be tlie same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. And so, while in one aspect He is the self-communi- cating One, in another He is still the unchangeable, as He is the incomprehensible One. But could those that received such a communication be certain that it was an objective communication from without that they received, and not a subjective suggestion from within 1 Here we encounter the difticulty of Kant and Fichte. It might be enough to say that surely God, when He made the communication at all, could make it readily recognisable, and certify it to the re- cipients. But the external miraculous event that usually accompanied the communication, sometimes filling them with awe, sometimes prostrating them to the earth, left no room to doubt about its objectivity ; while predictions stretching away into the far distant future, and revelations unfathomable even by the recipients, could not possibly be the product of their own mental powers. But now that we are face to face with miracle, we proceed to consider the objections urged against the miraculous element in revelation. In recent times the objections urged against the Bible as containing, or more correctly, as being a revelation from God, come from two distinct quarters. The objectors of the present day resemble two detachments of the same army, coming from two distant points and attacking different por- tions of the outworks, yet concentrating their chief and com- bined assault on the citadel. The great aim of scepticism now-a-days, whether the scepticism of certain philosophers or that of some biblical critics, is to eliminate the supernatural from Scripture ; and if they succeed in eliminating the super- natural, they unquestionably eviscerate the whole. Now the objection which the opponents of a revelation from God, such as we believe the Bible to be, seem to con- sider the strongest and urge with greatest force, is the mirac'idous element embodied in, and if really existing, estab- lishing such revelation. But as the term miracle has been very variously defined, sometimes with more and sometimes with less accuracy, it may not be amiss to glance at some VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF MIRACLE. 17 of those definitions. The well-known statement of Thomas Aquinas, that miracles are wrought " prater naturam, supra naturam, et contra naturam," is still maintained by many, though not a few omit or lay less stress on the contra. Some take high ground, and speak of a miracle as a violation, or suspension, or even transgression, of a law of nature ; others call it a deviation from the established order of the material world, " A miracle," says Butler, " is relative to a course of nature, and implies somewhat different from it considered as being so." Again, there are those who regard it as an exercise of superhuman power ; as commonly understood, it is a sen- sible event produced by the direct volition of God ; while a recent acute and able writer has hazarded a definition new and original, at least in expression, to the effect that it is " an immediate transition from a volition to an external result." Though we strongly suspect that none of these definitions would satisfy the logical laws of definition, yet, since we shall have occasion to notice some of these as we proceed, we may be satisfied with a description, if not a definition, of miracle amply sufficient for our purpose. It is a Scriptural one, and from the lips of a Jewish ruler, namely, " works which no man can do except God be with him." There may be wonders in nature which form exceptions to ordinary experience, there may be marvels in art which startle by their exceeding strange- ness, there may be interpositions of Providence seemingly special and very singular ; but none of all these, however remarkable, can be considered miraculous. In miracle proper there is something that impresses the senses of man while it obviously bespeaks the power of God ; there is a work of power, and a prophetic word to notify it ; there is a command and a consequence without any apparent intermediate agency to link them together ; and all in furtherance of a divine purpose or in proof of a divine mission. When Augustine defines a miracle in the words, " miraculum voco quidquid arduum aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet," and when he gives the following explanation of the miracle at Cana : " ipse fecit vinum in nuptiis qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus; illud autem non miramur quia pmni anno fit, assiduitate amisit admirationem," he certainly B 18 REVELATION. tliminisbes the improbability of miracle, but just in the same proportion he weakens its distinctive element. If miracle be only an acceleration of natural processes or a more rapid movement among secondary causes, what is gained in pro- 1 ability is lost in power, while the disturbing force still remains to be accounted for. But it is argued that a miracle is impossible, or improbable, or incredible, or all combined. Any one who has marked the tendency of modern thought must have observed, that while the argument against such miraculous interposition as a reve- lation implies has been shifted off the old line, still it keeps alongside of that line with more or less closeness of proximity. The sceptical argument of philosophy has advanced in sub- stance little if anything beyond the point at which Hume left it. That aroument of Hume, more celebrated than sound, and more specious than solid, whether in its original form or with subsequent modifications, requires to be dealt with in detail. "VVe need not quote his words, so well known, and forming, as they do, a sort of infidel apostles' creed on the subject of miracle. The gist of them is, that universal experience vouches for the constancy of the laws of nature, but a miracle is a violation of those laws, and so contrary to such experience. Lut this argument, whether as advanced by Hume or adduced with modern variations, has never, we conceive, been so pre- sented as to be free from fallacy. When it is asserted that a miracle is contrary to universal experience, there is surely more than a legitimate postulate ; for if experience against the miraculous be universal, that experience tlius presumed to be universal admits no exception, and so denies at the very onset, before argument and without proof, the past or possible existence of the miraculous. If this be not a plain iniAtio irrincipii, or sheer begging of the question, it were ditficult to find an instance of that species of sophism. But there is an implicit and undue assumption in the word contrary itself, for what is the real import of a miracle being contrary to expe- rience ? Why, for example, if one individual out of the nuiny usually present when our Lord performed His miracles came forward and solemnly averred that, though present at the time when and in the place where an alleged miracle was wrought, MIRACLE NOT THE VIOLATION OF LAW. 19- and though in the full exercise of all his faculties and witli every means of observation, he had witnessed no such miracu- lous occurrence, the miracle would no doubt be contrary to his experience ; but no such case is once hinted at even by the bitterest enemies of Christ. One and all they acknow- ledged the fact of the miracle, however erroneously they might attempt to account for it. Further, a miracle is not contrary to even your experience or mine ; for unless we had been circumstanced as in the case just supposed, and unless we had been actually present at the performance of an alleged miracle, and, with every capacity for examining and facility for testing it, had failed to observe or realize its existence, then and only then would it be truly contrary to our ex- perience. Surely this umnt of experience on our part is no contradiction of or contrariety to the experience of others ; it is no counter-experience, neither can the negative evidence of persons distant both in time and space from the scene of a miracle ever overthrow the positive testimony of persons who were present on the spot. Again, it is alleged that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. But such language is loose, unguarded, and highly objectionable. If the same cause, operating under the self- same conditions, produced in ' succession or at intervals two different and contrary effects, there would in such a case be a violation of a law of nature and the occurrence of something unnatural. If, for example, the law of chemical decomposition, instead of causing the putrefaction of a corpse, actually pro- duced the opposite effect of preventing it, there would be a violation, that is, a reversal of an ordinary law. A milder way of putting it is, that a miracle is a suspension of a law of nature, but it does not even amount to that ; and this state- ment of the matter is little less chargeable with error than the preceding. Instead, however, of a suspension of the law of cause and effect, there is a superadded factor in the case, or what Brown calls the introduction of a new force. Mill admits and so far agrees with Brown. " A miracle," says the former, " is no contradiction to the law of cause and effect ; it is a new effect ; it is a new effect supposed to be produced by the introduction of a new cause." No doubt he neutralizes 20 EEVELATION. that admission when he denies the probability of the existence of such a cause, but of this anon. When, then, a new force supervenes, it controls, or checks, or counteracts the force or forces previously operating, so that the resultant takes a new and different direction. In such a case there is no violation of a law of nature ; it is only a physical force that is over- come by the introduction of one more powerful. But tlie great question, after all, is not how this new force acts, but how comes it to act at all ? By whom is it intro- duced ? Here we at once admit that its introduction must be referred to the direct interposition of the divine will. In the forces that everywhere operate around us there is a well-known gradation. Statical equilibrium is overborne by dynamical force; chemical action controls meclianical forces, whether dynamical or statical; vital force, again, checks chemical action; the brain issues a mandate along some efferent motor nerve, and muscular motion ensues. Not only does the human will thus originate muscular action, hut that muscular action inter- feres with physical forces, so that the stone, which by the force of gravity lay quiescent on the ground, is hurled by the hand through the air, and still the law of gravity is not thereby nullified, for tlie otherwise onward direction of the stone is changed by it into a parabolic curve. And we all know how frequently moral force counteracts and overcomes physical. Tlius the higher realm ever rules over the lower. In like manner the divine will, as it is most natural to expect, dominates over all ; and so it either supplies or becomes itself the superadded factor in the case of miraculous operation. When tlie " waters were a wall" to Israel in their passage through the sea, we do not need to suppose that the atmo- spheric pressure was either lessened or entirely lifted off the surface of the waters, neither are we to understand that the law of gravity was even suspended ; we have only to conceive that the force of gravity which tends to spread out waters laterally was held in abeyance by an equivalent to the force of cohesion which keeps a wall of stone stable and erect ; but that equivalence must ultimately resolve itself into the will or word of the Almighty. Whatever notion, then, we form of a cause, whether we THE EXPRESSION "LAW OF NATURE," 21 understand it to be an immediate and invariable antecedent, as Brown does, though he seems to include something more when he admits the aptitude of a cause to precede ; or whether we agree with Mill, who makes it an invariable and unconditional antecedent ; or whether we take it to import invariableness of sequence without any notion of efficiency or force, events being conjoined, not connected, as Hume does ; or understand, with Hamilton, the concurrence of at least two causes to every effect ; or affirm, with a living metaphysician of the Scotch school, that " in a cause there is a substance acting according to its powers and properties," while " in every effijct there is a change or a new object," — we have in miracle not an effect without a cause, nor an effect without an adequate cause, nor an effect for which we can assign a natural cause ; but an effect of which the cause is supernatural, or more correctly, superhuman, and so traceable to the dii'ect agency or imme- diate will of God, Again, the expression laio of nature is used in a very vague and wide sense. A law of nature is the order of sequences as observed by us, or the method in which phenomena succeed one another ; but a law of nature does not tell us who estab- lished that particular order, nor explain to us what arranged the mode of this phenomenal succession and made it what it is. Much less has a law of nature any power of this kind itself. And yet we invest it with a motive power, and thus lose sight of the agent in the law according to which he acts. Behind these laws of nature, then, there is a power that makes the phenomena what they are — that has arranged these series of sequences, appointing the system of causes and effects, which sequences men observe and classify, and then call laivs — in a word, that originates these second causes, Himself the causa causarum or great First Cause of all. If this be acknow- ledged, and acknowledged it must be, except by that Atheism which outrages common sense, stultifies human reason, insults high heaven, and fearfully frustrates the uplooking soul of man, then the possibility of miracles cannot be consistently denied. Once admit the existence of a personal God, and the possibility of a miracle is undeniable, for you thereby acknow- ledge the existence of a being who has the power, if Ho 22 ' KEVELATIOX. possess the "Nvill or have a reason to work it, — who, if tlie occasion be .ureat enough, the circumstances urgent enough, and the end high enough, lias, beyond a peradventure, the ability to perform it. Once admit that those regular recur- rences in nature, which men name laws, were in the beginning ordained by God, — that the course of nature, as we have it, was constituted in conformity to His will from the first, — and we do not see how you can reasonably deny the possibility of divine intervention at any subsequent stage ; for you thus admit the existence of a power above nature and independent of nature, and consequently capable of exercising control over nature, so as to add to or take from, or otherwise modify at pleasure His own workmansliip. Otherwise you involve your- self in the contradiction of admitting omnipotence, and then setting limits to the exercise of omnipotent power, and so circumscribing the sphere of its operation as to confine it within certain bounds. Or you concede to Him power to create, but not to change anything He has created, — to com- mand into existence, but not to control the objects made to exist. What is this but to own the existence of an omnipotent workman, and at the same time to deny Him the power or debar Him from the privilege of ever after interfering with His own work ? Turther, men speak of the uniformity of physical laws as something rigidly fixed and absolutely unyielding, and seem to regard them as rules that allow no exception. But is it really so that these laws admit no relaxation, and that these rules know no deviation ? Is it reasonable to suppose that the Creator, whose will is law to all the universe, subjected His freedom to natural law, or laid such restraint on His own operations as to preclude the possibility of relaxing any law or modifying any rule, even in view of some great moral end, or in order to effect some most beneficent and salutary pur- pose ? Such a supposition is, we think, at variance not only "with reason, but with facts. It is a well-knowii principle that cold contracts and heat expands ; but this law, general as it is, has its limitation ; and to this principle, well established as it is, there is a most salutary exce})tion. As water cools down it contracts till it reaches 4° centigrade. But once this point THE FOSSIBILITY OF MIRACLE, AND SO OF REVELATIOX. 23 of maximum density is reached the law is just reversed, and expansion sets in and increases rapidly as the freezing-point is appi'oached; and while the freezing process goes on the expan- sion proceeds at the rate of 10 per cent. Why is this ? Is it a mere freak of nature, or a cliance change of natural law ? Or is this reversion of the ordinary series of occurrences due to the government of God ? Few will hesitate to assign it to the beneficent action of the latter, which retains the ice on the surface in consecpience of its being lighter and keeps it from sinking down layer after layer, and so preserves the whole from being frozen, and thus prevents our lakes and rivers in winter from becoming solid masses of ice and our climate completely Arctic. Need it be thought strange, then, if for purposes of still higher beneficence the Creator should interject exceptional effects among the ordinary sequences of nature ? But this leads us to consider the probalility of miracle. Is a miracle probable ? Granting it to be possible, is its occur- rence probable ? In the divine government there are two departments, the material and the moral ; but the moral is decidedly superior to the material, as moral agents occupy a higher sphere than material forces, and moral ends take precedence of material effects. Surely, then, it is at least supposable that the lower should serve the higher, and that the material should be made subservient to the moral. When the Framer of this universe established that uniformity to which we are accustomed, and which is so advantageous. He was not likely to overlook the mighty magnitude of moral ends, and so He comprehended both in His original scheme, while, with that wonderful economy of energy which charac- terizes all His operations. He appointed certain departures from the former as beneficial to the furtherance of the latter. The presumption would thus be for rather than against such miraculous intervention. Indeed, the probability of miracle falls little, if at all, short of the highest point to which pro- bability can reach. It rests on the surest grounds, and com- bines many elements of strength ; so that whatever be the presumption against miracles from the general uniformity of nature, or from the supposed presence of the same identical forces in nature to the exclusion of all supernatural inter- 24 REVELATION. ference, that presumption is entirely overborne by the pro- babilities of the case when some great moral end is to be attained, and when that end is not only most easily and effectually attainable by miracle, but cannot be attained at all without miracle. If all the efforts of philosophy had failed to make man what he ought to be, what he feels he is capable of being, and what the instincts of his own moral nature tell him he was designed to become ; if the world of man was to be kept from becoming a total wreck and a terrible failure ; if truths, which unaided human reason could never reach, were to be made known to humankind ; if, in short, man was to be redeemed, regenerated, and made for ever free as well as finally happy, — a supernatural communication was indispens- able, while at the same time a revelation of this kind required, as foremost among its evidences, the unmistakable certificate of supernatural signs. And though we do not leave out of sight the special and subordinate purposes served by miracles as specimens of the Saviour's exercise of sympathy towards the distressed and compassionate relief of the suffering, as symbols of spiritual benefits, and as forestalnients of the future restitution of all things, still we recognise their great and primary purpose to be this evidential use. In it we find the true point of contact between miracle and revelation, and the real relation in which they stand to each other. A teacher sent from God required divine credentials to certify the authority with which He was invested, and to prove the commission which He professed to bear; miraculous inter- positions were needed to authenticate His mission, and vouch for the superhuman nature of His message to man. The divine mission thus authenticated, and the divine authority of the teacher once guaranteed, the truth of the doctrines followed as a necessary and inevitable corollary. Accordingly, the possibility and the probability of miracle being once estab- lished, the miracles not only recorded in, but interwoven with, the contents of the Bible throughout, stamp divinity on its teachings, and become a most material witness to it as the truth of God. It was from a similar standpoint, and in a similar light, that the Jewish ruler Nicodemus viewed miracle MIKACLES EVIDENTIAL ACCORDING TO CIIRIST's TEACHING. 25 when he said, " Eabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from God : for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with liim." Nor was it an expression of mere individual opinion on his part, it was a statement of the common belief in the validity of authentication by miracle ; neither was that belief without foundation in fact, for the Saviour's own positive declaration was on this wise : " The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me." His definite answer, and conclusive proof of Messiahship, was to the same effect : " If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, ' I told you, and ye believed not ; the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.' " Here, then, we perceive that miracle is appealed to as evidence of a divine commission in general — as setting the seal of divinity on the Saviour's mission as a whole. But this is not all. Miracle is also employed to attest a particular fact asserted or a single truth communi- cated. Thus our Lord, after saying to the Jev/s : " Bnt that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," proceeds in proof of this particular statement to perform a miraculous cure, saying to the paralytic: "Eise, take up thy bed and walk." A miracle was thus not merely a n|?3 separated by its very singularity from all ordinary and occurrent events ; and a repa^ producing wonder in its sub- jective effect on the mind and arresting attention ; it was objectively a BvvafiL<;, a manifestation of power resulting from the forthputting of superhuman energy and of divine inter- position, either immediately without or mediately through the agency of man ; while it was ever a arjfielov, a sign of a higher power — a token of the finger of God, and so a pledge to faith of a heaven-bestowed commission and of a divinely authenticated ambassador. Here, then, from the terms applied to miracle, we learn the essence of a miracle, its exceptional nature, its effect, and its end. Its essence is superhuman power (8vvafjLiut, after all, how do we come by this notion of nature's imiformity, about which we hear so much ? This, in our opinion, we are not entitled to identify, as some do, with the universality of the law of causation. It is well known that the causal judgment, or the belief that every effect has a cause, has been variously accounted for. You may regard it as THE UNIVERSALITY OF CAUSATION. 31 experiential or intuitional in its origin. You may treat it as a result of experience, or as a condition of intelligence. You may, according to one school, make it a product of induction, or explain it by custom. Or you may view it, in accordance with the other, as an original and necessary principle, or even as contingent, leaving out the idea of necessity, with Brown ; or you may analyze it into sheer mental impotency to conceive absolute commencement, as Hamilton does. With Kant, you may regard the causal judgment to be one of the forms of the understandiufT — one of the conditions under which one must think ; or you may look upon the notion as a particular property acquired by facts from their peculiar connection. You may even take sides with Comte, the founder of the Positive Philosophy, and confine yourself to the classification of phenomena, rejecting altogether the search after causes as vain. Still nature will reassert herself, " Katuram expdlas fitrca tamen bisque t'ecurret," and you will, consciously or unconsciously, voluntarily or involuntarily, act in accordance with that law of mind which in reviewing phenomena makes one a cause and another an effect. And here it may be observed that Mozley admits a serious flaw into his defence of miracles, when making common cause with the positivist he adopts his principle, to the effect that " we see no causes in nature — that the whole chain of physical succession is a rope of sand." It is to be regretted that by this admission instead of strengthening he weakens his argument. On the other hand, when Tyndall affirms that " nature has never been crossed by spontaneous action," and that it is bound in " the bonds of fate," his assertion is a contradiction of fact. It is refuted by the proportion between the surface and the progressive popu- lation of our globe, by the geological changes under the crust of the earth, and by the connection of our planet with the great centre of the solar system. But it matters not which system you follow, or what theory of causation you adopt, as far as belief in the uniformity of nature is concerned, for it must rest on other ground. We cannot help believing in the universality of causation, but our belief in the uniformity of nature does not rise above an expectation, for I cannot tell whether the same causes, and under the same circumstances, 32 REVELATION. that exist to-day, will continue in existence to-morrow, Thou"li I believe in the universality of causation, I cannot infer from that the recurrence of to-morrow's light, because I cannot be sure of the continuance of the self-same cause, and under the self - same conditions. My confidence in the uniformity of nature is a kind of mechanical reflecting of the future in the mirror of the past, it is a sort of natural impulse, it is an instinctive expectation that the future will resemble the past — the known the unknown ; in any case, it is more akin to instinct than to reason. But when we have the record of trustworthy witnesses to past occurrences, the appeal is to our reason ; the language of that appeal is tanta- mount to "I speak unto wise men, judge ye what I say." Which then, in the balancing of probabilities, deserves greater consideration — the instinct or the reason, the impulse or the evidence ? Surely in such a case, if the appeal of testimony to reason be sufficiently strong, the unreason must give way to reason, the impression to rational belief. But the very author who hazards the assertion that miracle is incapable of proof from testimony, by a strange inconsistency not only recedes from that position, but makes an admission of the very opposite. He supposes a case of miraculous darkness of eight days' duration, so supported by testimony that " philosophers, instead of doubting of that fact, ought to receive it for certain." So it happens not unfrequently that men tear to pieces with their own hand the flimsy spider-like web they had woven, whether it is that in their better moments the intellectual vision becomes clearer, or that con- science proves more potent than their creed. But the matter may be disposed of in another way, and the whole argument, so to speak, put into a nutshell as follows : — Two courses lay open to Hume. One was to show on a priori grounds the impossibility of miracle. But instead of pursuing this method, he takes the contrary course, and admits, as we have just seen, the possibility of miracle. The other was to prove by a posteriori evidence the non-occurrence of miracle; but this he does not attempt. Instead o^ a 2'>ostcriori argument of this kind he employs two assumptions, and these ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS FROM FALSE MIRACLES. 33 assumptions are made to do double duty. They are meant to set aside his admission of the a 2'>riori possibility of miracle, and so the concession is only verbal and then virtually revoked ; and to serve at the same time as a substitute for the a jJostcriori argument. At the first blush of the thing the admission looks generous and fair, but it is soon seen to resemble a gift offered with one hand, while the other prevents acceptance. It is thus, if not actually withdrawn, at least practically nullified. The argument a 2Josfcriori is quietly presumed to be needless and superfluous. The two assumptions deemed so potent by Hume are, (1) that uniform experience is a full disproof of miracle ; but this uniformity or universality of experience is just the matter in dispute, namely, Is the experience of every one, without any exception, opposed to miracle ? Besides, this uniformity of experience includes the aggTegate of all indi- vidual experiences, comprehending all the events of human history, embracing all the phenomena that have taken place on earth, for a single exception would vitiate the whole — in fact, an exhaustive induction of all particulars. The question of important exceptions is thus shirked or shelved. Now, that there have been exceptions, is alleged as the experience of a respectable minority of men ; and it must not be for- gotten that there can only be a minority in the case, for the experience of the majority would transfer an event out of the list of miracle altogether into that of ordinary occurrences. The (2) assumption is, that a miracle has never been observed in any age or country. But this is the very point to be proved, and mere assertion, however positive, can never take the place of proof. Both these assumptions, moreover, take for granted the thing to be proved, and both of them, instead of sifting the testimony or examining witnesses, deny the existence of either. Thus the only means of testing the truth is ignored, the testimony by which historical events are established is rejected, the witnesses by which matters of fact are discovered refused a hearing, and testimony, the falsehood of which would be more miraculous than miracle, is demanded, while by that very demand the possibility of the thing demanded is denied. Then there is the extraordinary state- c 34 EEVELATION. ment that witliout imiform experience against a miracle, it would not be a miracle at all, — a proposition -which, if it be not self-contradictory, is much the same as if one said, a comet has never been observed in any age or country, or, if it has been observed, it could not be a comet. Again, objections have been drawn from the false miracles of heathenism, or those of meditieval and later times. In reality, however, such objections rather tell in favour of than against true miracles ; just as bad money is sure proof that there has been good currency, and counterfeits owe their very existence to the fact that there has been genuine coinage. The answer which Butler has given to such objections is concise, and to an unbiassed mind convincing. He asks, " "What would such a conclusion really amount to but this, that evidence confuted by contrary evidence, or any way over- balanced, destroys the credibility of other evidence, neither confuted nor overbalanced ; " and he further illustrates the case as follows : " This is the same as to argue, that if two men of equally good reputation had given evidence in different cases no way connected, and one of them had been convicted of perjury, this confuted the testimony of the other." Such is the illustrative example by which the author of the Analogy disposes of the unreasonableness of denying the reality of miracles on the ground that certain evidence has been pretended in support of false miracles. But this necessitates our looking more closely at the miracles of Scripture. When we do so, we find them occupying a platform unspeakably higher than the alleged miracles of heathenism, or Judaism, or even pseudo-Christianity ; and that, whether we take into account the character of the miracles themselves, or the conduct of the persons who wrought them, or the object for which they were wrought, or the evidence by which they are attested. As to their character, they were truly sui generis and perfectly unique. If we confine ourselves to those of New Testament times, we find as the normal type restoration to life, and resurrection from the dead. True there were cures, but not doubtful ones ; visions, but well authenticated ; demoniac expulsions rendered palpable by the results, and altogether different from pretended exorcisms. There is ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS FROM FALSE MIRACLES. 35 nothing in tliese or any of the Christian miracles that bears even a remote resemblance to the clever manipulations of men of superior scientific knowledge among a people of an ignorant, barbarous, and credulous age. Neither was the miracle- working power diffused among a multitude, so that if some failed, others might chance to succeed. It was lodged in one central head, and in those to whom He delegated the privilege. And here we may note as not improbable the common opinion which makes tlie miracles of the ancient Church cease with the last surviving disciples, to whom such power had been transferred from apostolic hands, about the middle of the second century, by which time Christianity had secured for itself a firm footing throughout the Eoman Empire, and miraculous gifts were no longer needed. The gradual with- drawal of miraculous powers from the Church accounts, according to Kaye, for the uncertainty that prevailed about the time of their cessation. " The power of working miracles," he concludes, " was not extended beyond the disciples upon whom the apostles conferred it by the imposition of their hands. As the number of those disciples gradually diminislied, the instances of the exercise of miraculous powers became continually less frequent, and ceased entirely at the death of the last individual on whom the hands of the apostles had been laid. That event would in the natural course of things take place before the middle of the second century." Think again of their object. They are wrought on the most momentous occasions, and for the highest moral ends — not to excite mere wonderment or surprise by a vain display of power, or gratify a prurient curiosity, or foster superstition, or promote a purposeless prying into the sphere of the spiritual. Add to all this the unparalleled weight of evidence by which they are supported. They were wrought in the broad light of open day, before the eyes of friends and foes, under the scrutiny of other senses beside that of sight, amid circum- stances of greatest publicity, and after a fashion that enabled the learned and the unlearned alike to put tliem to the proof ; while that evidence has come down to us from eye-witnesses and contemporaries, and has been transmitted to us by men of heavenly aspirations and holy impulses, by men in circum- BG KEVELATIOX. stances calculated to kindle the highest enthusiasm, yet con- fining their enthusiasm within the bounds of good sense, practical in their purpose and grave in their testimony ; and never was testimony so tested as in the person of these men, who passed through ordeals the most stern and sufferings the most severe. But the moral world has its laws as well as the natural ; and testimony may furnish guarantees of its truthfulness so strong, that the supposed falsehood of such testimony would be as great a miracle in the moral, as any miraculous occui'- rence could possibly be in the physical world. Besides, it may be set down as axiomatic that there are only two possible ways in which testimony can be set aside, namely, proof of the incompetency of the witnesses, or proof of their being subject to some sinister influence in giving their testimony. Further, to impeach the testimony of witnesses, all whose qualities and all whose circumstances prove them credible, is to subvert the law of evidence, and to assume a miracle in itself quite as great, and under all the circumstances even greater, than any of the miracles of Scripture ; thus the improbability is shifted to the wrong side. For if, in balancing the improbability of miracle with the improbability of the falsehood of testimony, we allow the former to prepon- derate, we pronounce the laws of evidence deceptive, and calculated to mislead ; nay more, we commit ourselves to the absurd and monstrous notion, that there is a greater likeli- hood of divine power being employed to make men of unim- peachable truthfulness testify untruth, than of the same power being exercised miraculously in attesting the truth that saves. It is nothing short of a moral miracle — a real violation of the laws of thought and action — that ten or twelve, or more, whom there is every reason to believe honest, should combine to falsify. Such falsification in the moral world would be as marvellous as any supernatural event ever recorded in the physical world. That God should make or allow the testi- mony of upright men to become the vehicle of falsehood, would be a thousand times less probable than the working of a miracle. The miracle then is surely far more likely to occur on the side, on which Scripture represents it, than in the TESTS OF MIKACLES. 37 department of testimony where the opponents of the super- natural would place it, ignoring, as they do, the beneficence of the purpose, the excellence of the end, the exigencies of the occasion, and the unspeakable importance of the scheme of mercy to man as well as glory to God, which miracles subserve. The position that no amount of human testimony /or can outweigh the uniform experience of mankind against a departure from the course of nature, has been subjected to a rigorous mathematical test, first by Babbage, then by Young, with demonstration of the following result : That if thirteen witnesses, whose veracity is such that each of them tells one falsehood in every ten statements, testify without collusion to the truth of a specified miracle, the probability of the truth of their statement is five times the probability for the con- stancy of nature — that is, the probability for the miracle is five times the greatest possible probability against it. Passing, however, from this abstract probability to a more practical mode of testing the matter, we are shut up to one or other alternative on the supposition of the falseliood of the miracles ; either that the witnesses to them were themselves the victims of delusion, or that they were chargeable with dcccjJtioji. That so many witnesses, say of our Lord's miracles, should all simultaneously be the victims of delusion — in other words, be so devoid of sagacity to detect fraud, if fraud existed, were a greater miracle than any of those to which they testify. Even Eenan, after proceeding for some length with this theory of hallucination, seems forced to give it up and boldly face the alternative of deception. He vacillates from the very difficulty of his position. Completely cornered by the overwhelming evidence for the miraculous, and yet vainly labouring to escape from it, he finds himself compelled to combine enthusiasm and fraud. At this particular point his theory hopelessly breaks down. His conception of the Saviour proves an impossibility, because of his rejection of the miraculous ; for, to steer clear of the miraculous, he has to resort to delusion or deception, or both united ; and then what becomes of those sublime qualities, both of head and heart — that incomparable excellence, which Eenan attributes to Him whom he, thus with such strange •38 KEVELATION. inconsistency, pronounces to be the greatest of the sons of men ? Tlie last words of his Vie de J^sus to this effect are truly remarkable: "Jesus ne sera surpassed. . . . Tous les siecles proclanieront qui entre les fils des hommes, il n'en est pas ne de plus grand que Jesus." Now Jewish teachers have laid down six tests of miracle, and Eawlinson has stated several canons of historical criticism; the former are too numerous, and the latter perhaps too elabo- rate. Other tests might be suggested, as, for example, publicity, perceptibility by the senses, performance by power apart from second causes, proper reason assignable for their performance, and permanence of effect. These would serve the purpose very well. Still we prefer the four common tests, with which all are familiar, that have been applied to ascertain the facts of history. To all these the miracles of both Old and New Testament fully answer. Take the miracles of any of the three great epochs of miracle — that is to say, those wrought by Moses, or by Elijah, or by Jesus — and they will be found to stand the tests. (1) They were sensible — matters of fact cognizable of the bodily senses ; the eyes, the hands, the taste, could all be made available for the purpose. Some of them were so prominent, and of such paramount importance and engrossing interest, as to leave an indelible impression on every faculty and feeling of the human breast ; for the passage of the Eed Sea, the miracles of healing and of feeding multi- tudes, the central miracle of our Lord's resurrection, could not possibly be mistaken. (2) They were public — done openly, not in a corner, not in secret ; at a period of enlightenment, in the presence of men of intelligence ; before the face of persons keen and vigilant to detect any flaw — hostile as well as friendly spectators. (3) Monuments of a public kind, or memorial acts, were instituted to perpetuate the memory of those transactions. (4) These commemorative attestations were commenced at the time the events took place, and have con- tinued ever since, such as the Passover and segregation of the first-born, among the Jews ; with the Lord's Supper, the Sabbath, among Christians, not to speak of the institution of the Christian Church itself, with its ordinances and offices. You have only to apply these tests at your leisure, and you CHARACTER AND COMPETENCY OF THE WITNESSES. 39 must conclude that matters so triable by the senses, so publicly performed, so extensively commemorated, — while that com- memoration, commencing contemporaneously, has continued constantly, — could not, according to the first and second tests, by any possibility be mistaken by the first actors and original witnesses ; and just as little can they, according to the third and fourth tests, mislead and impose on us. But what can we gather further about the capability and character of the witnesses themselves — their motives and object ? Enough, certainly, to free them from the imputation either of being seK-deceived or of attempting to deceive others. They were as trustworthy as intelligent. They wore all the appearance of true men ; their honesty was not called in question. They agree substantially, yet there is no symptom of concert. They persisted in their attestation in spite of greatest perils — they persevered through evil report and good report. Tliey cheerfully surrendered their earthly all ; they toiled, they suffered, they bled, they died (many of them), in testimony of the truths they taught. And all this, be it observed, in attestation not of ic/^'c/ merely, but oi facts, which w^e must hold to be a most important distinction. We may confidently ask, therefore, as has been asked before, — " "Whence but from heaven could men unskilled in arts. In different ages born, in different parts, AVeave such agreeing truths ? or how or why- Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie ? Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice, Starving their gains, and martyrdom their price. " We conclude, then, that the miracles by which the seal of its divine origin is affixed to revelation are not only possible and probable, but credible. We close with a case somewhat analogous, and which should commend itself to the consideration of scientists. A certain planet pursued its course according to the established laws of planetary motion ; but when it reached a certain part of its orbit, perturbations occurred. No one could tell how or why these irregularities took place. Many were the guesses and numerous the theories to account for these irregular movements. But in vain. Some power unseen, and for long unknown, counteracted the ordinary effects 40 TiEVELATION. of centrifugal and centripetal forces. At length a Freucliman and an Englishman, independently and by marvellously diffi- cult calculations, reached the conclusion that there must be another orb of a certain size and at such a distance in the remote invisible space ; and a German turned his telescope to the spot indicated, and sure enough another heavenly body of huge dimensions was discovered. And now it was made clear that that far-off planet — unknown, unseen till then — was exerting the disturbing force. So, in regard to miracle, the course of nature went on year by year and century after century without interruption or alteration ; but now and again at certain points tliat course was interfered with — a perturba- tion of a particular kind took place. From the first till now, no doubt, many ways of accounting for it have been imagined; but safe reckonings, guided by the word and based on the ways of God, assure us of a power at work beyond, while the telescope of faith discovers, away in the remote heavens, that potent agency which produced the strange but salutary devia- tion. Thus it ever shall be ; the honest seeker after truth, whether in relation to the mechanism of the material heavens or the moral movements of a higher sphere, shall seldom or never have reason to complain that his search has been un- rewarded by at least some moderate measure of successful discovery. It is not our intention to dwell on or draw an argument from the rapid propagation of Christianity. That rapid progress and wide diffusion seem little if anything short of miraculous. Turning to the testimony of Tertullian on this subject, and making all due allowance for his rhetorical style, we cannot read without surprise such statements as the following : " Though," he says in his Apology, addressed to the Governors of proconsular Africa, " we date our existence only from yesterday, we have filled every part of your empire ; we are to be found in your cities, your islands, your camps, your palaces, your forum Were we only to withdraw our- selves from you, and to remove by a common consent to some remote corner of the globe, our mere secession would be sufficient to accomplish your destruction and to avenge our cause. You would be left without subjects to govern, and TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN. 41 would tremble at tlie solitude and silence around you — at the awful stillness of a dead world." Again he says in his argu- ment against the Jews : " We witness the accomplishment of the words of the Psalmist, ' Their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world/ For not only the various countries from which worshippers were collected at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, but the most distant regions, have received the faith of Christ. He reigns among people whom the Eoman arms have never yet subdued, among the different tribes of Getulia and Mauretania, — in the farthest extremities of Spain, and Gaul, and Britain, — among the Sarmatians, Dacians, Germans, and Scythians, — in countries and islands scarcely known to lis by name." This wide-spread and wonderfully rapid diffusion of the Christian religion, in itself marvellous, becomes more so when we consider the obstacles that had to be overcome. There was the uncompro- mising nature of that religion itself; then there was opposition to be encountered on every side — from Jew and heathen. There were the strong prejudices of persons attached to ancient beliefs, the passions of the popidace, easily roused against innovators, the selfish motives of mercenary priests and other interested parties, the perils to which the propagators of the new faith were in consequence exposed, and the fierce perse- cutions which they had to endure. The attempt of Gibbon to minimise the difficulties and dangers in the way of its propa- gators appears at first sight plausible, but on more careful consideration it proves the opposite of what its author intended. His account of the matter is as follows : " The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Eoman world were all considered by the people as equally true, by the philosophers as equally false, and by the magistrates as equally useful." Paley's reply to this, though well known, is so able in itself, and so triumphantly refutes the specious but shallow plea of the historian, that no apology is needed for calling attention to it here. " I would ask," says the archdeacon, " from which of these three classes of men were the Christian missionaries to look for protection or impunity ? Could they expect it from the people, ' whose acknowledged confidence in the public religion ' they subverted from the foundation ? from the '42 REVELATION. philosopher, who, * considering all religions as equally false,' would of course rank theirs among the numl)er, with the addition of regarding them as busy and troublesome zealots ? or from the magistrate, who, satisfied with the utility of the subsisting religion, would not be likely to countenance a spirit of proselytism and innovation — a system which declared war against every other, and which, if it prevailed, must end in a total rupture of public opinion ; an upstart religion, in a w^ord, M'hich was not content with its own authority, but must dis- grace all the settled relij^ions of the world ?" ]\Iosheim, the Church historian, assigns two chief causes for the rapid propagation of Christianity, namely, apologies com- posed in its defence, and the translation of the New Testament into different languages. The former may be admitted to have served that purpose to some small extent, but only as a secondary and subordinate means ; the latter, as exhibiting the doctrines and duties of Christianity, and their suitability to the wellbeing of society and to the promotion of the best interests of man, would no doubt be a primary means. The good im- pression made by the teachings of the New Testament, brought by those translations within the reach of all, would be deepened by the apologies. But nothing short of the divine origin of the truths thus taught, and divine power accompanying the teachers, can satisfactorily account for the reception which they met, and the marvellous progress v/hich they made. CHAPTER 11. FULFILMENT OF rROPHECY. HAVING examined the leading objections to, and ex- hibited the force of, miracles in evidence that the Bible is the word of God, we proceed to a kindred kind of proof, namely, the fulfilment of prophecy. Tliis naturally follows miracle ; prophecy is, in fact, a species of miracle, being a miracle of knowledge. As miracle is the superhuman in power, prophecy is the superhuman in knowledge ; and these two combined with the superhuman in excellence, form three main lines of apologetic defence. Here it must be premised that two conditions are indis- pensable to invest prophecy with an evidential function in reference to the truth of Scripture. Indeed, the two con- ditions referred to enter into the very essence of prophecy properly so called. They are the following : — First, that it is clearly provable that the prediction was prior, by an interval less or more, to the event ; and secondly, that no supposable foresight, or calculation of probabilities, or power of conjecture, or mystical lore resulting from lengthened experience, could possibly lead to, or account for, the discovery of the far future or more nearly approaching event that forms the subject of prophecy. A third condition is added by some, namely, the palpable and positive fulfdment of the prediction. But this is scarcely necessary as a condition, because it is taken for granted, and is implied in the very nature of the case. Of course without such fulfilment at one time or other, the prediction would con- sist of so many mere idle words, the prophecy would have no existence, and the very name would be a sheer misnomer, or an entire misapplication of language. The prophecies of Scripture are very numerous and very various. Many of them have been fulfilled in the most astonishing manner and in the most minute details. Nothing 43 44 REVELATION. less and nothing sliort of omniscience could have accurately predicted so many and strange events, many years, often centuries, before their fulfilment. Some of these predictions have been so clear, so distinct, so altogether beyond the reach of human sagacity or probable conjecture, that the unbeliever's chief way of attempting to evade their force, is either to treat them as vaticinia post cvcntum, written after the event ; or as the shrewd anticipation of events in the immediate future. But not a few of the prophecies of Scripture are of such a sort that no ingenuity can divest them of their validity as testi- monies to the truth of God. These prophecies, moreover, are a perfect contrast to the oracular responses of the heathen, in several most noteworthy respects, such as the depth to which they penetrate into the future, while those responses float on the surface ; the total impossihility of any previous knowledge of the preparatory circumstances, while such formed the groundwork of those guesses by which the heathen pretended to foretell the future ; the absence of all amliguity as opposed to the equivocation of heathen oracles, such as the responses to Pyrrhus, " aio te, .^acida, Eomanos vincere posse," so equi- vocal as to foretell the victory of Pyrrhus over the Eomans or of the Eomans over Pyrrhus, and in neither case to be falsified by the event ; or the Delphic response to Croesus : " That if he should make war on the Persians, he w^ould destroy a mighty empire " {rjv arparevrjrat eVl Ilepaai; fMeydXTju o.p'^i^v fitv KaToKvcat), thus leaving it doubtful whether it would be the Lydian or the Persian Empire that would be destroyed ; still more tlie unswerving independence and unimpeachable disin- terestedness and poverty of the Hebrew prophets as compared with the fawning sycophancy and servile venality of, for example, the Delphic proplietess, whom Demosthenes dis- tinctly charged with Fhilijjpizing. Certain alleged predictions in secular history have been placed on a par with those of Scripture. Among these, that of Seneca, supposed to foretell the discovery of America, is perhaps the most conspicuous. But instead of being entitled to rank as a prophecy, it is only the poet's expres- sion of belief in an old tradition. If classed as a prediction, it is too vague to be applicable, for it might refer to any SUPPOSED PREDICTION OF SENECA. 45 land "beyond any sea ; while the expression " in late years," put in the mouth of a chorus belonging to the fabulous era of Grecian story, must be referred to the times of Seneca himself rather than to those of Columbus, fourteen centuries later. Besides, where it does seem capable of application, it is incorrect, because in contradiction to the so-called prophecy. Thule is still the utmost land in those hyperborean seas. From previous discoveries, particularly of a geographical kind, and from the extreme probability of other lands being discovered in a great ocean unexplored, there could not be much difficulty in fore- casting other discoveries, both geographical and physical. It was a conjecture well-founded and most likely to be made by a man of such vivid imagination as Seneca. Whether, there- fore, he sings in the Medea, — " Venient annis Sascula seris, quibus oceanus, Vincula rerum laxet, et ingens Pateat tellus, Tiphysque novas Detegat orbes ; nee sit terris Ultima Thule:" or whether he says in his Naturales Qucstiones : " Quam multa animalia hoc primum cognovimus sreculo ! quam multa negotia ne hoc quidem ! Multa venientis sevi populus ignota nobis sciet. Multa sseculis tunc futuris, cum memoria nostra exoleverit, reservantur," he speaks in perfect keeping with the natural force of his own lively fancy, and in entire accordance with the commonest probabilities. Instead, therefore, of a prediction in the proper sense, the expression of Seneca was an obvious and most natural anticipation. Where predictions are so numerous and marvellous as those of the Bible, the difficulty is to select or particularise. Let us, however, take as samples certain predictions that all must acknowledge to be unequivocal and particular — predictions confessedly beyond the reach of human foresight, admittedly uttered, one of them many centuries, the other one century at least, before the fulfilment began. The one relates to the fate of a city, the other to the fortunes of a people. The first relates to Nineveh. (1) An exceeding great city, one of the mightiest the sun of heaven ever shone on, dating from nearly the time of the flood, occupied, what with palaces, buildings, parks, and vacant spaces, an area stretching five and twenty miles or more in length along the left bank of the 46 REVELATIOX Tigris, and some fifteen in breadth from the river "back to the eastern hills. It was protected by its ramparts, forts, frowning embattled towers, and strong encompassing walls. Wealth had poured in from many sources — from the luxuriant pasture lands and the harvests of fertile plains adjoining, from the richly laden craft that crowded her magnificent river, and carried on her commerce with different and distant lands. Occupying the position of a central emporium on the great line of traffic between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, this city had in some measure united east and west. Combining the military with the merchant element in her population (a rare union), she also enriched herself with the spoils of war, and sent out her messengers like Eabshakeh to demand or levy the tribute of subject states. Such was Nineveh ; but succumbing to the combined assault of the Medes under Cyaxares and the Babylonians under Nabopo- lassar, that great city vanished all at once, with a singular abruptness, from the face of the earth. In the time of Herodotus, four centuries before Christ, it had ceased to exist, and had become a thing of the past ; for, referring to its site on the river, he says o'Urjro, that is, it had formerly stood. Xenophon, in the retreat of the ten thousand, passed the place, but the very memory of its name was gone. Lucian says : not a trace of it remains, nor can any one tell where it once stood. For two thousand years and more it had disappeared, leaving no trace to tell where once it was. No one knew exactly wliere its site had been — it was buried, and no one could point out its grave. But the minutest circumstances of its fall, the manner of its destruction, and the fact of its total dis- appearance, were all foretold by the prophet Nahum, a full century before, and with astonishing particularity. Nearly the whole Book of Nalmm, besides some other Scriptures, is occupied with this subject ; we can only, therefore, indicate a few of the facts so circumstantially foretold. With besieging foe, flood and fire united to accomplish the ruin of the' world- famed city. The king, elated with some insignificant success he had achieved in conflict with the besiegers, was feasting his troops and indulging in mistimed revelry, wdien, attacked by the enemies, he and his army were defeated, and driven ' FULFILMENT OF PKOniECIES KEGAEDING NINEVEH. 47 ■within the walls, just as the prophet has it : " While they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards." Their activity in preparing against the siege, as recorded by Diodorus, was foretold in the words : " The defence shall be prepared, draw thee waters for the siege, fortify the strongholds." In the third year of the siege, the river, which had done so much for the city, then turned its strength against it ; an extraordinary rise of the river Tigris, swollen by excessive rains, swept away a considerable portion of the walls. This also the prophet had predicted : " The gates of the rivers shall be opened." The monarch in despair, and alarmed by a tradition, distorted perhaps from the very prediction just quoted, fired the palace and perished in the flames, as fore- told : " The palace shall be dissolved (molten)." Meantime the besiegers found a ready ingress through the breach already made in the walls by the waters of the river, according to the prophet's words : " The gates of thy land shall be set wide open unto thine enemies." We are aware that by " gates " here some understand the passes leading into the country. Then followed a scene of indiscriminate slaughter and spolia- tion, in strict agreement with the prediction : " The sword shall cut thee off, it shall eat thee up like the cankerworm ;" and again : " Take ye the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold." This concluded, the savage conquerors consigned the whole city to the flames ; just as had been prophesied : " I will burn her chariots in the smoke ;" again : " The fire shall devour thy bars ;" and once more : " There shall the fire devour thee." Thus foe and flood and fire, a very unlikely combination, completed once for all and for ever the destruction of Nineveh, precisely as the prophet had foretold : " He shall make an utter end of the place thereof," or more literally, " He shall make the place thereof a desolation ;" that is to say, not only the city itself, but the place it had occupied — its very site was to be made a desolation. Not only so ; it is added : " He will make an utter end;" "There is no healing of thy bruise." Other great cities perished gradually, or survived their capture, or rose again from their ruins ; but for Nineveh there was to be no resurrection. 48 REVELATION. It was to be hidden, moreover : " Thou shalt be hid," literally, " Thou shalt be a thing hidden (no^j?: ^nri)," the sub- stantive verb and passive participle denoting a continuance. At length that city, after lying in the grave for twenty centuries, was disinterred and its palaces disentombed, when further confirmations of the prophecies came to light. The action of fire was everywhere apparent among the ruins. " The recent excavations," says Eawlinson, "have shown that fire was a great instrument in the destruction of the Nineveh palaces. Calcined alabaster, masses of charred wood and charcoal, colossal statues split through with heat, are met with in parts of the Ninevite mounds, and attest the veracity of prophecy." The same author also states that " the palaces of Khorsabad and Nimrud show equal traces of fire with Koyunjik." Hitzig and others, we admit, have attempted to show that certain peculiarities of language evidence a later date than that usually assigned to the prophecy of Nahum; but the attempt is utterly futile, for {a) the peculiarities in question are found in the oldest books of Scripture, as, for example, in the Pentateuch. Of these the following specimens may suffice : — I. 13, ii. 4. The suffix in occurs in in3"'pp fourteen times in the Pentateuch ; though, no doubt, it is most frequently found in words ending with n— II. 11. rhrhn, Pilpel, is a conjugation occurring from Genesis 7373 downwards ; besides, rbrbn is met with in ISTahum's contemporary, Isa. xxi. 3. II. 1 4. n33spo^ if written n3 (as in some copies), is found in the following passages of the Pentateuch : Gen. iii. 9 ; Ex. xiii. 16, xxix. 35. III. 18. =iK'S3, Niphal of C'^Es, which is the root of the river called Pislion. But (h) the prophecy of Nahum is coincident in point of time with that of Isaiah in the reign of Hezekiah, and is the very counterpart of the condition of things at the second invasion of Sennacherib, and before the miraculous destruction of his liost. At no subsequent period did the state of things exactly correspond with that pictured by the prophet, and which is the following : — The Assyrian capital was in the vigour of its FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY IN PELATION TO THE JEWS, 49 strength ; her merchantmen were countless as locusts, or as the stars of heaven ; her military men were violent as ever, their hands stained with blood and filled with prey ; her messengers went forth to demand submission or exact tribute ; the order of the day was still mischievous devices against God and His jjeople ; the people of I'alestine were galled by and groaning under the Assyrian yoke, but there is a promise of its speedy removal; godless invasion was interfering with tlie feasts of Judah, but that was soon to pass away ; the alarms of war were still around them, but these were ere long to give place to the proclamation of peace. Further, (c) some of the pre- dictions of Nahum in relation to Nineveh are fulfilling to the present hour, and are as true now as they were two thousand years ago, and as true then as now ; in proof of which we might refer to its charred ruins, long hidden relics, and thorough desolation. If space permitted, we should refer to the inscriptions on the walls of Mneveh's palaces, on bricks, on stone tablets, and cones of clay, that have come forth out of the bowels of the earth, and from under the heaped-up rubbish of Assyrian mounds, to proclaim to an unbelieving age, with an eloquence and emphasis that nothing can gainsay,, the everlasting verities of the Bible, and to publish to all lands that it is indeed the word of God. The second prediction referred to concerns the Jews. (2) We hasten to notice briefly a prophecy delivered, as all are obliged to confess, many centuries before its fulfilment began, and of which the fulfilment has continued for many centuries since, nor has it ceased to the. present day. • There is scarcely a large town in any country in the world where you will not meet, along its streets, or on its exchange, or in its market-place, certain persons of Eastern visage, and usually with marked Oriental features. They belong to a race peeled and scattered and sifted. They are dispersed among all nations, and their laws are diverse from all people. They are found everywhere, and as a race have a home nowhere.. They are literally what the poet terms them : " tribes of the wandering foot and weary breast." They have been in this condition for well-nigh two thousand years. But fifteen, hundred years before they were reduced to this condition, D 60 REVELATION. in the very infancy of their national existence, it was pro- phesied concerning them most accurately and truthfully, as the event has proved — and the prophecy still stands recorded in the Bible — as follows : " The Lord sliall scatter thee among all people from the one end of the earth even unto the other, and among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither the sole of thy foot have rest." It was further prophesied : " Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations;" and so it has been. The great peoples and mighty empires of antiquity have passed away — no vestige of them remains — no man can trace his lineage to Assyrian or Babylonian progenitors — no man can affirm that a drop of pure Eoman or Grecian blood flows in his veins. Yet here is a nation — a nation sui generis — a monumental nation with monumental institutions, and with records contemporaneous with its origin — that can trace its pedigree up to the patriarchal man, who received the honourable appellation of " father of the faithful and friend of God." The most singular circumstance perhaps of all is, that scattered as they have been, through all countries and all climes, they have so kept apart and dwelt alone, not reckoned among, because not amalgamating with, the nations, and that they can thus trace their lineage in one unbroken line up to its very source. Every Jew, then, that you meet is thus a living walking witness to the truth of revelation — the truth of the Bible, proving it to be the word of God. To the prophecies about a city and a people respectively, may be subjoined one about a country. (3) Another prophecy which draws attention to it by recent events, and which derives impressiveness from those events, is one relating to the land of Egypt. The prophecy in question is one which, from the very nature of the case, precludes the possibility of guesswork, and excludes generali- ties. It is precise, minute, and varied. It dates from the days of Ezekiel, nearly six centuries before Christ.' The prophet sketches with a few bold and broad strokes an outline history of the country and capital for more tlian twenty centuries in advance. The prophecy, so minutely and remarkably fulfilled as we FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY IN RELATION TO EGYPT. 51 shall see, is found in Ezekiel, chaps, xxix. and xxx. We shall only cite the portions that are directly to the purpose. In chap. xxix. 1 5 we read : " It (Egypt) shall be the hascst of the kingdoms; " that is to say, a base kingdom, the basest of kingdoms, but still a kingdom. But the prophecy proceeds : " Neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations : for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations." In chap. xxx. 13 it is written : " And there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt." In the same chapter, at the preceding verse : " I will sell the land into the hand of the iviched : and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers : I the Lord have spoken it." Again, in the two following verses we read : " I will execute judgments in No . . ., and I will cut off the multitude of No . . ., and No shall be rent asunder" Also the unavailing remedial measures are alluded to in the 21st verse: "It shall not he hound up to he healed, to put a roller to bind it." In both chapters we have a prediction about the desolation of the country and its cities in the midst of surrounding desolation — in the 12 th verse of the 29 th chapter, and also in the 7th verse of the 30th chapter, where the same is repeated in words of like sad and solemn import as follows : — " I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate ; " " They {i.e. the inhabitants) shall be desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted." To these may be added Jeremiah's prediction about Noph in the book of that prophet, chap. xlvi. 19:" Noph shall be waste and desolate without an inhabitant." The remarkable nature of these predictions about Egypt may well entitle them to a more detailed consideration. It was (a) to retain its rank as a kingdom. Empires not then in existence rose and fell ; kingdoms unheard of for ages after started into being, lived their day, and died ; states with government of one form or other came into existence, but long ago disappeared from the map of the world, and have become mere matter of history ; yet throughout all those 52 REVELATION, centuries Egypt has remained a kingdom. But; strange to say, (/3) during all that time no native prince or king has held the reins of government, or sat on an ancestral throne, and that in a country where once not merely successive, but contemporary monarchs reigned. Persian, Greek, Roman, Saracen, and Turk have ruled in succession, and in turn have swayed the sceptre of the Pharaolis. Stranger still, though subjected to tlie rule or misrule of so many sovereigns of alien race and blood, it still holds a place among the commonwealth of nations. Though exhausted it is not extinct, though down- trodden it is not destroyed ; though all along it has been in a condition of gradually progressive decadence, it has not yet reached the point of entire dissolution. True, it is (7) a hasc kingdom. The descendants of the ancient Egyptians have sadly degenerated. While this deterioration is visible in the personnel of the people, it is still more manifest in the want of mental power. This is just what might be expected, for it is a truth old as the days of Homer, that when a man loses his liberty he loses half his worth ; and what is thus true of individuals is true of nations. No people has ever groaned under more cruel oppressions, or has been ground down under more harassing exactions of governors and officials. Science and art and literature have left the land, trade dwindles, •manufactures languish, commerce has found other channels, industry and thrift are discouraged, enterprise and energy are completely paralyzed ; add to all this, taxes enormous, wages quite unremunerative, resources exhausted, ruined industries, besides forced labour levies. If we compare modern with ancient Egypt, or the Egypt of the Khedives with the Egypt of the Pharaohs, we feel the force of the superlative, that it is (8) the basest of kingdoms. A greater contrast could scarcely be imagined. That country which was once the granary of the world, is scarcely able to supply a scanty subsistence to its wretched inhal)itants ; the cradle of the arts and sciences, which passed thence to Greece, and from Greece to Europe, and onward to tlie world, is become the home of a stupid and besotted people ; the early seat of civilisation is only a short remove from a state semi- barbarous ; the land of tlie pyramids and of other works that challenge the admira- FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY IN llELATION TO EGYPT. 53 tion, while they remain the wonder of the world, has sunk into total ignorance or disuse of mechanical skill. The soil possesses its ancient capabilities, and the source of its fertility flows onward as of yore, but the tillage is miserably defective, and its resources undeveloped. In addition to all this, picture a people fearfully oppressed, the country impoverished, the finances exhausted, and the government bankrupt, its rulers at the mercy of foreign powers, and you may form some idea of the complete degradation which justifies the title of basest of kingdoms. It is added : " neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations : for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations." Their tyrannous exercise of power over the Jews and neighbouring nations was to come at length to an end ; as they had long and often done to others, so was it in turn done to them. Never was Nemesis more perfect and patent. Nor is even this all. The ruler of Egypt was long appointed by, and subject to, the Sultan of Turkey, or even those military slaves called Mamelukes, while internal dis- orders not unfrequently called for the interference and control of other foreign powers. And this suggests the next point of this wonderful prediction. The agents that wrought the ruin of the country are (e) distinctly pointed out, and cha- racterized as being strangers and wicked; into the hand of such the Lord threatened to sell the land ; as if alluding to the fact that Pashas often purchased their power. Now it is notorious that unscrupulously wicked strangers have blackened by their wickedness page after page of Egyptian history. Out of such a long list of strangers chargeable with this sad mis- government, one needs only single out the tyranny of the Greeks, the persecutions and blighting influences of the Saracens, the untold villanies and brutalities of the Turks, as also the imbecilities and cruelties of Pashas. The heart of humanity aches, and the face of humanity blushes for the crimes of the nefarious strangers that have disgraced and degraded that wretched country. No doubt, attempts have been made from time to time to remedy the ruin referred to, or to rectify this calamitous state of affairs, but those attempts have been without any i^ermancnt success, or have even made 54 EEVELATIOX. matters worse. This also (?;) forms part of the prediction. Passing over former efforts of this sort, and coming down to the present century, we find that IMehemet Ali, a man of strong will and independent spirit, threw off the galling yoke of the Grand Seignior, and made the Pashalik hereditary in his family, introducing at the same time many schemes for the education and general improvement of the country. But all those schemes, instead of benefiting the country, made its ruler a monopolist, and resulted in his personal aggrandize- ment. So with the late Khedive, his habits and tastes were expensive, the gratification of his own wants and wishes were of primary importance, and his extravagance ended in national insolvency, and an allowance only partly paid. The present viceroy promises fairly, he has issued a programme. His intention appears to be an honest endeavour to remove abuses, remodel matters of finance, and effect necessary retrenchment. He proposes changes of administration that seem salutary, while the Comptrollers-General, that England and France have nominated, may help to stay for a time the entire disorganization, and stave off the utter ruin of this hapless land. At all events, it will be another of the oft-tried but hitherto unavailing remedies which prophecy foretold and history records. But it remains to say a word of the ancient capital of Egypt and the countries adjacent. The prophet's vision com- prised them all. This country has changed its capital almost as often as it has changed its rulers, to wit, Thebes, Memphis, Alexandria, Cairo. The first of these is celebrated by the poet Homer for its might and its magnitude. Its one hundred gates give some notion of the extent of the place; the 200 chariots, and 20,000 men that issued out of each, give us some idea of the population and prowess of the people, even after making all due allowance for a poet's exaggeration. But (0) populous as No, the Scripture name of Thebes, had been, the multitude was to be cut off, its populousness Svas to cease, judgments were to be executed upon it. After many disasters, it received the finishing blow from the grandfather of Cleopatra, after a three years' siege. Not only that, it was to be rent asunder, and so in truth it was, so that a quaiter FULFILMENT OF TROPHECY IN RELATION TO EGYPT. of a century before Christ its ruins were partitioned, according to the testimony of the geographer Strabo, into several villages; while at the present day a few (nine it is said) hamlets occupy its ancient site. Noph, that is Memphis, the capital in suc- cession after Thebes, fared still worse ; for of it nought remains but the bare sands that cover its site or perhaps a broken column to tell where the populous city stood. "Noph," says Jeremiah, " shall be waste and desolate without an inhabitant" (Jer. xlvi, 19). Further, (t) the land was to be desolate in the midst of the countries that arc desolate, and her cities in the midst of cities that are wasted. To the east lay the land of Edom, Palestine, and Syria ; it had Ethiopia on the south, with Fezzan and Barca on the west. The fate of these regions is so well known as to need no comment. The district last named may be taken as a sj)ecimen of the whole. It once contained five flourishing cities — the Pentapolis of former days — Cyrene, Berenice, ApoUonia, Arsinoe, and Ptolemais, with others of less note. Where are those cities now ? All gone — they have either altogether vanished like some dissolving view, or their ruins alone remain. Here, then, there is not one prediction merely, but a whole series fulfilled and yet fulfilling. Where is the eye that fore- saw all this, surveying the long perspective of years and centuries ? Whose is the wisdom that forecast all this, and foretold it with svicli precision and particularity ? Whose is the power that forced futurity to surrender its secrets ? Who but the Allwise, Almighty One Himself could make His servant acquainted with so many distinct events away in the distant future, undreamt of and unexpected by any human being, improbable in their nature, and seemingly impossible of accomplishment ? None surely but that God, whose eye sees the end from the beginning, tracing the whole course of events, and whose hand has made itself manifest in all their accom- plishment, and whose Spirit endued His servants the prophets with the qualifications needed for the clear vision and unerring record of their wondrously varied details. CHAPTER III. ST. JOHN AND THE SYNOPTISTS. IN order to get rid of the supernatural, Scepticism tries various expedients. Sometimes it employs the dis- coveries of science, again it resorts to the results of criticism. More especially has it in recent times impressed the latter into its service. Criticism of this sort busies itself in finding out a new author, or in assigning a late date for some book of Scripture. If in either way the book can be discredited, its narratives are falsified, and the miraculous that may be mixed up with them falls as a matter of course to the ground. The difference of style which distinguishes the inspired penmen of the Gospels, especially John from the Synoptists, has been fixed on for this purpose. An argument is based thereon for the later date of the Johannean Gospel, by which it is referred to post-apostolic times. It is still the supernatural that is the main object of attack. This is distinctly avowed. Strauss pronounces a narrative unhistorical when the thing narrated is " irreconcilable with known and elsewhere univer- sally prevailing laws;" in like manner Eenan declares the Gospels to be legendary, since they are full of miracles and the supernatural. His words are : " Que les Evangiles soient en partie l^gendaires, c'est ce qui est evident, puisqu'ils sont pleins de miracles et de surnaturel." When the naturalistic method of Paulus failed, and when he did not succeed in bringing the miracles of Scripture down to ordinary natural events, and such as fall within the sphere of natural law, Strauss tried the mythical. But Ms failure was equally or even more signal, when he attempted to reduce miracles, not to conscious fabrications indeed, but to the involuntary outgrowths of childlike imagination in a MYTHICAL SYSTEM OF STEAUSS. 57 credulous unthinking age, embodying a common faith, or a common fear, or a common hope, as the case might be, and mistaken for facts— in other words, the imaginings of artless enthusiasts, ^vhose unwitting fictions passed for realities. No wonder such a theory could not long maintain itself, for the character of the apostolic days was quite unmythical ; it was no rude time of unwritten records, it Avas far removed from those primitive days, when men of quick fancies and strong feelings personified the objects of nature around them, or deified the ancestors who had gone before them. It was, on the contrary, a period of great intellectual activity and general intelligence — conditions the very opposite of a myth-producing age. Besides, who or where were the men of mythopreic faculty to invent the myths ? There was no body of persons to whom they could be ascribed. Further, there was no proper soil in which the myths could grow, neither was there sufficient time between the death of the miracle-worker and the record, oral or written, of the miracles, in which that growth could be developed. Myths, moreover, bear the impress of the people and place where they originate; the Gospel narratives are in spirit as universal as our race. Accordingly, the author of the mythical method had eventually to retrace his steps, or at least re-state his theory. But he continued to cling to the name, even when he felt himself compelled to change the nature of his system, holding that the term myth may have such convenient latitude of meaning as to apply to the intentional invention of a single individual instead of the unconscious fabrications of a whole enthusiastic community. Eenan, perceiving the utter weakness of the mythical, proposed the legendary theory. With him the accounts of miracles were acknowledged to have a nucleus of fact. They were actual occurrences, but poeticised and highly coloured. He regarded them rather as the trans- formation of fact, than the pure invention of pious enthusiasm. He admits that the story of the life of Christ, as told by the evangelists, is real history, only distorted by legends. But though he admits in the main the genuineness of the documents and the reality of the life they record, he takes care to deny that there is anything whatever supernatural iu 58 REVELATION. that life. Certain events in the life of our Lord, remarkable enough in themselves, wore the appearance of the miraculous. But how did they assume that aspect ? Through the enthusiasm of devoted followers. A strange hallucination truly ! But this is not enough to account for the seemingly miraculous in the narrative. Eenan himself feels that more is needed — that another element is wanting, and he does not hesitate to supply it. With hallucination he combines pious fraud on the part of the disciples. But even that is not sufficient. The ]\Iaster Himself must bear His share. If the disciples were the active agents of the fraud, He must have been a consenting party. And yet how inconsistent is this with Eenan's own representation of the Saviour ! How unworthy of that " wondrously beautiful " character as seen in the portrait of the Christ with which Eenan himself presents us! We may well say: "Quantum mutatus ab illo !" We cannot stop to notice the three periods into which he dis- tributes the life of Christ. We need only say of them, that they are a sort of anticlimax from bad to worse, and then to worst. Enough, too, has been said to indicate the incon- sistency of his legendary theory. But Baur, at the head of the Tubingen school, also tried his hand at the work of divesting Christianity of any miraculous element. His is known as the tendency theory. He sought to show that the tendency of the Gospels as well as of other early Christian writings was to exalt Petrinism or Paulism, that is to say, Jewish Christianity or Gentile Christianity; or to mediate between and reconcile them. Of the Xew Testament books which he acknowledged to be genuine, he reckoned the Gospel of John the latest, because of its fully developed Christology. This theory may, we think, from another point of view be termed the chronological theory, as its aim is to bring down to a later period the composition of the books in question. Still, much as these theorists difler from one another, and actually demolish each other's arguments and supplant or supersede each other's systems, there is one rallying point which unites them all, and tliat is disbelief of the miraculous, and consequent desire to do away with the supernatural. As the raising of Lazarus from the dead in all probability pre- TWO MAIN OBJECTIONS TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, 59 cipitated the hostile action of the Jewish leaders ; so the record of that miracle in particular probably tended most to provoke the ire of the sceptics, and to occasion their fierce attack on the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel. The two circumstances mainly seized on by those who try to invalidate the genuineness of this Gospel, are the course of events in our Lord's life, and the character of His discourses. It is at the latter especially that Eenan staggers, though he is far from going the lawless length of the Tubingen critics. The record of John differs manifestly in the two respects referred to from that of the Synoptists. But just here an insuperable obstacle in the way of their theory stares these theorists in the face, and that at the very outset ; a stone of stumbling lies in their way at the very commencement, which they can neither step over nor walk round. For if the fourth Gospel had been forged by some one living in the year of our Lord 120, or 140, or 160, — since there is difficulty as also diversity of opinion among them, as there well may be, in regard to the time of the supposed forgery, — the very thing of all others which the author of such a forgery would have been most careful to guard against, if he wished his forgery to become a success and gain acceptance, was every relation that might clash with, or diverge from, or even appear incom- patible with, or in any way contradictory to the accounts of the other Gospels so long prior, and so long current, and so favourably received in all the communities, so widely spread even then like a network over Christendom. This very divergence, so plain and palpable, coming so many years after the genuine Gospels, must have proved fatal to the forgery, if forgery it had been. On the present occasion, we can only refer in a few passing observations to the external evidence for the genuineness of John's Gospel. Besides the indirect quotations of the apostolic Fathers Ignatius and Barnabas, there is sufficient ground for the belief that Polycarp and Papias were acquainted with this Gospel, and approved of it as the genuine production of the apostle. They had both had intercourse with John, and received instruction from him ; they were both familiar with his first Epistle ; the former quotes it in his extant Epistle to the Philippians ; the latter 6 REVELATION. used testimonies from it, according to Eusebius. It scarcely admits a doubt, therefore, that they both knew and acknow- ledged the Johaunean Gospel. Among other patristic witnesses to the canonicity and authorship of this Gospel, may be reckoned Justin ]\Iartyr, Irenaius, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, who composed his Diatessaron, or Harmony from tlie Four Canonical Gospels, and Theophilus of Antioch, who first quotes it by name, all in the second century ; together with Origen in the third, on to Eusebius and Jerome in the fourth. It is found in the oldest versions of the New Testament — the Old Latin, dating from the middle of the second century, and the Peshito Syriac, still older. The Gospel of John is assigned the fourth place among the four Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment, which contains a list of the books esteemed canonical by the Western Church soon after the middle of the second century. Other sections of the Church, in Syria, Africa, and Alexandria, endorse this judgment. Neither can we do much more than direct attention in passing to some of those internal charac- teristics \vhich constitute the strongest possible presumption in favour of the Johannean authorshij) of this Gospel. It were instructive as interesting to notice the extreme natural- ness and artlessness of manner throughout it, the freshness and versimilitude of the narratives, the many graphic touches, the portraiture of the inw^ard workings of deep human feeling, the variety and number of incidental notices, which none but an eye-witness of the events related could possibly produce, together with the numerous signs of thorough personal knowledge. Among the latter may be mentioned the author's intimate acquaintance with places and persons in Palestine, the manners and customs of the people, their mode of life and various employments, the productions of the country, both animal and vegetable, the prevalent modes of thought and feeling — in fact, with all matters, political and religious, civil and social, down to the smallest details. That any writer in post-apostolic times could write so naturally, so graphically, so minutely, and withal so truthfully, of a state of things that had existed a century before his time, and of events that had taken place without his personal knowledge or presence. ILLUSTRATIVE E3JAMPLES OF AN EYE-WITNESS. 01 far transcends the limits of human belief. Equally incredible it is that any such writer would expose himself to detection at so many points and in so many ways. (1) The statement that no one but an eye-witness could furnish so many particulars and such minute details of places, persons, seasons, and ceremonies, may be illustrated by the following examples. Among the places in and around Jerusalem as well as throughout the Holy Land, he makes niention of the Pool of Siloam, the Wady of the Kidron, the Treasury, Solomon's Porch, Bethesda, close to the Sheepgate, with its five porches, the pavement named in Hebrew Gab- batha, Gethsemane, Golgotha, and Bethany. Passing thence through Samaria, he pauses to describe Jacob's Well, its situation at the opening of the lovely valley of Sichem, its depth ; the piece of ground purchased by Jacob and given to Joseph, where the bones of the latter were deposited ; the wide fields of corn waving in the breeze and whitening to the harvest; Gerizim., towering high above, and commanding a vast and varied prospect, with its temple built by Manasseh, the seat of Samaritan worship. Then entering Galilee he shows the same intimate acquaintance with its scenery, the grassy slopes east of the Lake of Gennesaret clad in spring verdure — " there was much grass in the place ; " the sudden gusts that sweep down the mountain gorges and fall with such severity upon the lake, which is 600 or 700 feet lower than the bed of the Mediterranean ; the size of the lake, as may be inferred by comparing Mark's statement that they were in mid-lake when the storm overtook them, with John's account that they had rowed twenty-five or thirty furlongs, exactly half across, the lak^ being some forty-five furlongs, or six miles at its broadest part ; the elevation of Cana, the modern Kana- el-jelil, on the table-land, and the descent to Capernaum, Tell Hum, on the border of the lake, implied in the words : " as Jle was going down." His references to persons are equally noticeable. Besides the members of the apostolic circle, Andrew, Philip, Peter, and Nathanael, he names Nicodemus, Lazarus, Simon, Malchus, Pilate, Joseph of Arimathsea, the relationship of Annas and Caiaphas, the Greeks coming to Philip. He was equally at home in relation to times — that 6 2 EEVELATIO^^ is to say, not only the festal seasons of Passover, Tabernacles, Dedication, and the undefined feast in the beginning of the fifth chapter, whether Pentecost, Piirim, or Trumpets, but even days of the week and hours of the day — namely, the tenth, the seventh, the sixth, also early morning, evening, night. Still more his perfect familiarity with Jewish customs and ceremonies, their marriage feasts, modes of purification, sites of sepulture, rock-hewn tombs, the Jews' method of embalm- ing, so different from the Egyptian, the coinage of the country, tlie K€pfMaTicrT7]ovcTty (Bethaniyyah), and the former the place of the ferryboat (Bethoniyyah). The name Bethany, though originally found in nearly all MSS., was changed to Bethabara of the received text by Origen, and .this correction was adopted by Chrysostom and others. The place (/3) might no doubt change its name, and all the more readily as both have like signification ; for if Bethany, as just remarked, means ijJaee of the ferryboat, Bethabara signifies -place of the ferry, both intimating the place of a ford for crossing the Jordan. In Tent Work in Palestine, by Lieutenant Conder, there is an interesting note on this name. The following is an extract : — " ' And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee' (John ii. 1). Here is the controlling passage. The hostile critics of the fourth Gospel have taken hold of it ; they have supposed the traditional site " {i.e. the fords of Jericho) " to be undoubtedly the true one, and have thence argued the impossibility that in one day Christ could have travelled eighty miles to Cana. . , . We should therefore look naturally for Bethabara within a day's journey of Cana. The ford 'Abarah is about twenty-two miles in a. line from Kefr Kenna, and no place can be found on Jordan much nearer or OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 65 more easily accessible to the neighbourhood of Cana." He had stated previously that his attention was drawn to 'Abarah as the name of a ford ; that on looking it out on the map he found it to be one of the main fords " just above the place where the Jalud river, flowing down the valley of Jezreel and by Beisan debouches into Jordan ; " and further, that among the names of forty fords " no other is called 'Abarah." But (h) the name Sychar is held to be a mistake for Sichem in chap, iv, 5. Now, (a) even in the LXX. version of the Old Testament the orthography of the name varies, being sometimes ^'v^e/x and sometimes ScKifio^ or StKifxa ; this last, by a not unfrequent interchange of the liquids m and r becomes Sikar. Or (13) the change of name from Sichem to Sychar was meant to intimate some incident in connection with the place or its population — either the falsity of Samaritan worship, if the word came from li^"^, or the intemperance of the people, if it be taken from I3t^, or Jacob's purchase of the parcel of ground hard by, if it be derived from "i^D, Or (7) what is still more probable, Sichem and Sychar were different places in the same locality, the latter being identical, at least in site, with the present poor village called Askar, according to Delitzsch and others, while Lightfoot ingeniously accounts for the troublesome initial Ai/in by supposing the word a contraction for Ayin-Sychar, the " Well of Sychar." Again, (c) the author of the fourth Gospel is credited with a jealous rivalry of Peter, and several most reckless inferences have been drawn therefrom. Among others is that of Baur, who sees in it an effort to exalt Paulinism in the person of John to the disparagement of Petrinism as represented by Peter. This is utterly baseless. The whole originates mainly in mistaking an incident which has a quite different bearing. Peter beckons John to ask Jesus the name of the traitor. The reason is obvious, and the result all the other way. On the couch Jesus was middlemost, the place of honour, reclin- ing on Peter, who was at the head of the couch, and so in the second place of honour ; John reclined on Jesus, and conse- quently was at the foot of the couch, and only third in place, but in a more favourable position for asking the question ; and indeed this much is indicated by the expression dvaireaoiv E 6 6 KEVELATION. eVi. At table John reclined on Jesus' bosom avaKe[^evo<; iv TO) KokTTw {i.e. the fold of the robe), as we learn from the 23d verse; but thus (oi/tg)?) situated, he changed his posture in order to put the question which Peter wished, having leant back towards the Saviour's breast, as we are taught by the words dvaTreaoov iirl aT^6o<;. But another phrase must here be taken into account. When John is called the disciple whom Jesus loved, the word i^ydira denotes moral preference, in Latin diligcbat ; but when Peter and John are together, John XX. 2, we find the word i(f)i\€c {amahat), which, according to Trench, is at once more and less, signifying personal affec- tion with which Jesus embraced them both alike and equally. When the fancied preference is a mistaken notion, what ground is left for unholy envy or unseemly rivalry ? But we now hurry on to those matters in particular to which, as already intimated, exception has been taken. 1. Let us look at the character of our Lord's discourses as narrated in this Gospel. Comparing His teaching as set forth by the Synoptists and by John respectively, we find in the former short sententious sayings, proverbial expressions, and parables fully expanded ; while the latter presents dialogues of some length, as with Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria, and discourses of considerable extent, but in a somewhat different vein and style. Even that longer discourse known as the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in full by Matthew and abbreviated by Luke, consists largely of a series of short pithy sayings, with sundry gnomic expressions ; and at the conclusion in both is the parable of the wise and foolish builders as the application of the whole. In the synoptic Gospels we have the sententious saying or peculiarly weighty sentiment ; in that of John we have the doctrinal statement ; in the former we find the short simile or its expansion the parable, in the latter the simple metaphor, with occasionally its elaborated form the allegory, as in the case of the vine and its branches ; in the former we have the irapa^oXri, in the latter the Trapoifiia ; a comparison is no doubt implied in both, but in the one it is developed at full length, in the other condensed and concentrated. Not only so, the teaching of the Synoptists is eminently practical in its purpose, that of XEXOPHON AND PLATO AS BIOGEAPHERS OF SOCRATES, 67 John somewlmt speculative in its caste ; that of the former is pLainly popular, that of the latter not a little philosophic in its character. Still more, the subjects most dwelt on by the Synoptists are the nature, extension, and consummation of the kingdom of heaven upon earth, with the character of all true members of that kingdom ; while those in which John delights most are the unspeakable glory of that kingdom's head, even the Son of God, and His exalted dignity in closest relation- ship to the Father, together with the duties of true disciple- ship. The difference of style and subject we have thus presented as fully as is necessary for our purpose, and as faithfully as due regard to brevity permits. Xow the consideration of a somewhat parallel case, that has been often referred to and quoted, will, we think, serve best both to explain and illustrate this difference. We are all familiar, no doubt, with a comparison that is sometimes instituted between our blessed Sa.viour, the Son of God, and that greatest of Athenian sages Socrates, especially in relation to their moral teachings, life, and death. Some also have been pleased to institute a comparison between their respec- tive biographers. The latter comparison is the parallel to which we would advert for a few moments. Xenophon and Plato have both left on record an account of the teaching and doctrines of their great master; but between the Memoirs of the former and the Dialogues of the latter there is the greatest possible difference of style ; while Socrates himself, as seen in this picture and in that, appears quite a different person. There must be a background in the character and teaching of Socrates of which we can only catch an obscure glimpse, and that on rare occasions, in the account of Xenophon. In him who originated dialectics, the soul of all subsequent Greek philosophy, as also the subject that distinguished the earlier from the later method of inquiry, and who started the doctrine of those conceptions which Plato separated from the phe- nomenal world into independent existences or ideas, but which Aristotle replaced in the world of appearances as the very essences of things, both of them developing, each in his own way, the Socratic germ — in that philosopher who first treated morals scientifically, and who, besides giving such a mighty 68 IlEVELATIOX. impulse to the perfect Socratics represented by Plato at the head of the Academics, and Aristotle at the head of the Peripatetics, was the founder of the three imperfect or one- sided Socratic schools, that is to say, the Megareans with their dialectics, the Cynics with their snarling and self-denial, and the Cyrenaics with their selfishness and self-indulgence, all of whom derived their system from some doctrine of this many-sided man, — in such a man there must have been more, much more, than appears from Xenophon, In that chatty old man who, according to the Memorahilia, tried to talk the people into good sense and right living, now entangling them inextricably in the well-woven web of his reasonings, again surprising them with the disagreeable discovery of their omii ignorance, there must have been more of the speculative and philosophic element than is made apparent in Xenophon, and at the same time more of that practical business-like canvas- sing of the concerns of daily life than he is credited with by Plato. Few now-a-days find any difficulty in accounting for this diversity of delineation. There is a pretty general agree- ment at the present day that these two different representa- tions are both truthful and both life-like — that instead of being discordant with, they are supplementary of each other. There was a manifoldness in Socrates, while Xenophon and Plato were the very intellectual antipodes of each other. Consequently each took up that aspect of his master that most coincided with his own cast of mind. Xenophon, the matter-of-fact military man and man of business, addresses himself at once in a style of crisp terseness to the practical side and everyday details of his master's teaching ; Plato, combining the spirit of a poet with the subtilty of the philosopher, deals with the theoretical and discusses with exuberance of diction the principles of the Socratic philosophy. It is the same teacher withal, in different aspects of his deportment and doctrines, whom both represent. Moreover, different as these representations are, Socrates presented phases of doctrine and sides of character answering to both ; while, now and again, even amid the bald dry details of Xenophon, X^assages crop up closely resembling, in their speculative turn and even more Huent style, the descriptions of Plato. Take, XENOniON AND TLATO AS BIOGEAPHEES OF SOCRATES. 69' for example, Mem. i. 4. 8, where, speaking of the diffusion of intelligence through nature, he touches on the dialectic question about the correspondence between thought and being; iii. 10, where he seeks to lead artisans to correct conceptions of their several trades ; and iv. 6. 1, where he aims at the formation of conceptions, not for the purpose of practical knowledge, but for the sake of knowledge itself, and tries to make men more skilled in dialectics (hiakeKTiKoy- T6povpayL^co, crKrjvow, y)) is inspired by God; or, as some prefer to construct it, being inspired by God is also useful. But we INSPIRATION INVOLVED IN THE USE OF SINGLE TERMS. 121 must reclaim against the restrictive sense attached to the phrase by some, who, besides taking it as an epithet, limit the sense : such limitation is erroneous, and introduces an idea Avhich derives no countenance from the original. It does not mean that every Scripture tahich is inspired, or, so far as it is inspired, is useful for the purposes specified, as though there were some not inspired at all. This would foist an idea into the original, and force on it a modification never meant. The Vulgate, though rendering it as an epithet, gives no counte- nance to the wrong restriction indicated ; it is, Omnis Scripiura divinitus insinrata, all Scripture, not which is, but being, or because it is, or as it is inspired. The Syriac, indeed, rather loosely renders by davrucho ethhathcv, wdiich has been written by His Spirit, but not, as it appears to us, in any sense of limita- tion. This also must be attentively weighed, that all or every Scripture is inspired ; not, you will observe, the meaning of every Scripture, nor the doctrines of every Scripture, nor the ideas of every Scripture, but the Scripture or writing itself, and that writing consists of words. 7. Another, and to our mind satisfactory, proof of verbal inspiration is involved in the fact that an argument is often made to hinge on a single term. Twice our Lord argues from the use of a particular word, as when, in reasoning with the Jews, He quotes from the Old Testament : " Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods?" Or when He poses them with the question : " How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord ?" Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the reasoning in two instances pro- ceeds on a special expression, or a single word, as where it is written : " And this expression, yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken;" and also: "Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet. For in that He put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him." Nay more, our Lord bases the proof of such an important doctrine as the resurrection on the tense of a verb: "I am the God of Abram, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob " (€70; d^ii of the LXX. being equivalent to ^3:n* "•nbs, that is, / am, not loas). Further, a long chain of reason- ing is linked by the Apostle Paul to the employment of the 122 INSPIRATION. singular number : " Xow to Abraham and liis seed were the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Now, we all know what becomes of an edifice when its foundation is weakened, or undermined, or in any \vay damaged. So with arguments based on the use of a particular expression, or on a single word, or a tense, or a number, if the sacred writer, who originally employed such expression, word, tense, or number, had only been guided in the matter merely, and not in the manner also ; if he only possessed inspiration as to the ideas, but was left entirely to his own option in the choice of words to clothe them withal. In such a case he might have retained the sense and yet varied the expression, word, tense, or number at pleasure ; and if he were at liberty to do so, or did so, or if the expression selected by him were not adequate or appropriate, or in any way not the best, no argument based on an expres- sion, word, tense, or number thus left indifferent could possibly be conclusive. Unless the writer possessed verbal inspiration, no proof derived from his use of this or that particular form of expression could carry sufficient weight either to convince a gainsayer or confirm the faithful. But admitting the application of all this to the Old Testa- ment, how are wo. to prove its extension to the Xew ? The words of the prophets of the Old Testament, and the command- ments of the apostles of the New, are co-ordinated with respect to inspiration and authority, as when it is said (2 Pet. iii. 1): " That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour." Not to speak of those passages which thus put the apostles and evangelists on the same platform with the prophets of the Old Dispensation, we meet with such promises (some of which have been already cited) as : " It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost ; " " Whoso heareth you heareth me ;" " The Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." To the fulfilment of this promise there is undoubtedly significant reference in the frequent " remembered " (ifMv>]7) ri}^ dlrla^ avrov. Another explanation is the certainly ingenious one of L)r. Nicholson : " That Pilate wrote the rough draft, and that two or three men of different nationalities translated it freely." Other matters of this sort are reserved for next chapter. CHAPTER Vir. OBJECTIONS. Sec. I. — Supposed Contradictions. CERTAIN cavils arise from mistakes about supposed dis- crepancies among the inspired writings. The number of such has been gradually dwindling down and becoming small by degrees ; and if we were in possession of all the facts and of all the circumstances of the few remaining cases, the last of those vanishing quantities would, there is little doubt, disappear entirely and for ever. But here we may premise, that in attempting to harmonise alleged discrepancies or to remove supposed contradictions, we must take into account two circumstances — (a) that our ignorance of all the data in each instance generally lies at the root of the difficulty, and tends to render a positive solution impracticable ; and (&) that in consequence of a defect in this respect, that is to say, when the data are insufficient, there may be a variety of solutions, any one of which, in such a case, may be deemed satisfactory. To make our meaning clear, let us take the case of indeter- minate equations in common Algebra. In such equations the data are deficient, inasmuch as the number of unknown quantities exceeds the number of independent equations. Consequently the number of solutions is indefinite or unlimited; the number, however, is diminished and confined within definite limits by certain restrictions, such as the rejection of all values not integral, or of negative values, or of numbers not square or cube, and so on. Still, after all deductions, a variety of solutions is possible ; and any one of these solutions properly arrived at is accepted without hesitation. Just so with respect to the discrepancies referred to, the problem is often one that labours under deficiency of data, 137 138 INSPIRATION. owing to which several solutions may be possible ; any one of those solutions fairly made out meets the requirements of the case, and shows the feasibility of the attempted recon- cilement. I. The first class consists of antinomies which present themselves in Scripture, and which some mistake for real contradictions. They are, however, no contradictions at all, but rather contrasted or antithetical statements. This will appear to be so from a few familiar examples — some from the Old and others from the New Testament. In the proclama- tion of the divine name in the 34th chapter of Exodus, God is represented as " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation ;" but in the 18th chapter of Ezekiel, at the 14th and l7th verses, we read : " Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like .... he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live." These two sentiments so apparently opposite are brought together in one passage of Scripture, namely, the 3 2d chapter of Jeremiah, at the 18 th and 19 th verses. " Thou recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them," is the statement of the former verse, while that of the latter is to the effect that God " gives every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Both statements are perfectly true, and though sometimes urged as contradictory, do in no way contradict each other. The one respects our personal responsibility, the other results from our social unity. In accordance with the latter, the members of a community may have their condition injuriously affected by the conduct of their progenitors ; the children of a criminal suffer disgrace and detriment from their father's crime ; often, too, has the iniquity of vicious parents been visited on their unhappy off- spring, whether that visitation come in the shape of disease, or debility, or dishonour, or degradation. The two statements, therefore, referring as they do, the one to social and temporal calamity, the other to personal and spiritual recompense, cannot contravene each other ; like other similar statements of God's word, which, however apparently antagonistic, can never come DIVERSITY DIFFERENT FROM DISCREPANCY. 139 into collision, because they traverse different and distinct planes. Similarly we read that God " ended His work, and rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made." And again, in our Lord's answer to the Jews, He says : " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." But here it is obvious that the contradiction is only apparent. The work which God completed was the work of creation ; that which He continues to carry on belongs to the department of provi- dence. In like manner God is represented as saying to the Israelites: " Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them;" on the other hand, we are informed that "the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." Nor yet is there anything more than a mere seeming contradiction, for the one expression relates to His glory, the other to His grace ; the one to His absolute dwelling-place in glory, the other to His gracious presence with His people on earth ; the one declares His infinite majesty, the other expresses His ineffable condescension. So in Gal. vi., at the 2d verse, we read : " Bear ye one another's burthens " {(^dprf) ; while in the 5th verse it is affirmed that " every man shall bear his own burthen " (cfiopTi'ov). Both are quite compatible, for the refer- ence in the latter case is to individual responsibility, and in the former to social sympathy. II. Another class comprises apparent discrepancies between the writers of the New Testament. There is need of being reminded that a discrepancy and a diversity are separated by a very wide interval indeed. The Augustinian axiom is as valuable as it is needful, and as needful now as ever, to the effect : " Locutiones varite sed non contrarite ; diversae sed non adverste." Some of those so-called discrepancies that are still and most commonly insisted on, are readily set aside or adjusted. A few examples of such a kind as rule a number of similar cases may be adduced, and a few will be amply sufficient. (1) The healing of the blind man near Jericho is impugned on the ground of both number and locality. (a) Mark and Luke speak of one blind man, and Matthew of two. A case exactly similar in respect of number is that of the demoniacs of Gadara ; Mark and Luke mention only one, Matthew two. Now a common maxim, with which Le Clerc 140 INSPIRATION. is credited, disposes of both. It is : " Qui plura narrat pauciora complectitur ; qui pauciora memorat plura non negat," whicli has been freely but correctly rendered : " The fuller account comprises the shorter, the shorter does not contradict the fuller." Ebrard is of opinion that two distinct cures were effected under similar circumstances — Luke narrating the one, Mark the other, and Matthew combining both. It is more likely the three records refer to one event. A very natural reason, then, for the mention of only one in each case by two evangelists, may be found in the peculiar circumstances or condition of the one mentioned, which may have made him better known or rendered him more prominent. This is hinted, not very obscurely, in Luke's words in reference to the demoniac : " There met Him out of the city a certain man," which seem to imply that he had once been a well-known citizen. Or perhaps the one mentioned in either case by Mark and Luke was the only svirvivor at the time, (b) Matthew and Mark represent the occurrence in the case of the blind man as taking place when Jesus was leaving Jericho, but Luke when He was entering that city. Now, (a) either the word iyyi^eiv means, while Jesus was still mar the city instead of drawing near, as in the following among other passages : — Deut. xxi. 2 (the LXX. version) : " The city that is nearest to the slain man {e'yyl^ovaa)." (/S) Or the one was cured by our Lord when entering, and the other when He was departing from the city. (7) Or supposing our Lord to have stopped some days in Jericho, as seems implied in the words of Mark : " And they came to Jericho, and as He is going out," and making occasional excursions into the suburbs or surrounding district, on His return from one of these, as He approached the city, He performed the miracle. The cure was thus effected after He had gone out of or departed from the city, and yet as He drew nigh to it when coming back. (8) Or the application was made by the blind man to our Lord as He entered the city, but it was not attended to, or rather the cure was deferred till He was leaving, by which time the second blind man had joined the first, (e) There is another possibility or even proljability in the case ; for as Jericho consisted of an old town and a new, or had its villages, like the towns with DISCREPANCIES APPAKENT, NOT REAL. 141 their villages in Old Testament times, or contained exten- sive suburbs, all comprehended under the name Jericho, the miracle may have been performed while He departed from one part and was come nigh the other. (2) Another supposed discrepancy refers to the place where our Lord delivered His Sermon on the Mount, as it is commonly called. It was on the mount, according to Matthew ; on the plain, or rather on a level lolace {ein tottov irehivov), according to the statement of Luke. This mountain, it is admitted, had two peaks, called Kurun Hattin or the Horns of Hattin at the present day ; a level tableland, suitable for such a congregation as our Lord addressed, lies between. Thus it was both a mountain and a plain — a plain on a mountain, as indicated. The exact word for a plain, in the strict and ordinary sense, is different, being ireScov or irehLvrj ; while eV/, with a local genitive instead of the dative, is thought by some to imply elevation. (3) A third instance is in connection with the healing of the centurion's servant. According to Matthew's narration of the cure, the centurion seems to come personally to the Saviour ; but, accord- ing to Luke, he deputes the elders of the Jews for that purpose. This is an important case, as the principle of its solution rules several similar instances. Thus " Jesus," it is said, " made and baptized more disciples than John, though," it is added, " Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples;" John and James made a request to Jesus, but it was their mother who pre- ferred it ; Pilate scourged Jesus, but he must be understood to have done so by his officials. " Joseph laid the body of Jesus in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in a rock," that is obviously, had got hewn out. Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, that is, he caused or gave occasion to its purchase by the chief priests. The maxim that harmonises all such diversities of representation or seeming dis- crepancies, is the well-known one : " Quod facit per alteram, facit per se." This maxim holds good in law as well as in the common affairs of life, and is not called in question or objected to. Here we may introduce (4) the two seemingly conflicting statements about the death of Judas. In Matt, xxvii. 5, we are informed that, after he had thrown down in the temple the money he had got as the reward of treachery, he went 142 INSPIRATION. away and hanged himself; but, according to the narrative of Luke in Acts i. 18, falling headlong, or on his face, "he l)urst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." These two statements are neither inconsistent nor contradictory. Luke's account has the appearance of being rather abrupt, and supposes something to have preceded, but whicli has been passed over in the onward progress of narration. Matthew supplies the omitted and connecting link. There is no contra- diction, for Luke does not deny that the traitor had hanged himself before falling to the ground, neither does Matthew contradict the sad sequel of his prostrate fall and frightful rupture. There is no inconsistency or incompatibility in the circumstances, for on the breaking of the branch, say, of a tree, to which the rope had been attached, or on the snapping of the rope itself by which he was suspended, the fearful fall would be the necessary result. And if, moreover, we conceive, as we may fairly do, the occurrence to have taken place on the verge of such precipices as overhang the valley of Hinnom, twenty, thirty, or forty feet in height, with or without a jagged rock projecting, the dreadful disembowelling w^ould be no improbable consequence. A parallel to the supposed discrepancy that has just been noticed is found in the Old Testament in relation to the death of Saul. Thus in 2 Sam. xxi. 12, it is stated that "the Philistines slew Saul in Gilboa;" in 1 Sam. xxxi. : "Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it;" while in 2 Sam. i. 10, we are informed that an Amalekite despatched him : " So I (the Amalekite) stood upon him (Saul), and slew him, because I was sure he could not live after that he was fallen." Now, much as has been made out of this seeming discrepancy, there is only need of a careful examination of these passages and their context with ordinary fair dealing in order to effect a satisfactory reconcilement. The Philistine archers had shot at the unfortunate king and wounded him ; sorely wounded in body, and smarting keenly in spirit under disaster and defeat, Saul longed for the end, and fell upon his sword ; but in his nervous trepidation this self-inflicted wound did not prove fatal, at least not immediately ; though he sought for death, he found it not. He may indeed have swooned from loss of blood DIFFICULTY ABOUT PETER'S DENIALS OF CHRIST. 143 or weakness, for the armour-bearer thought his master dead, when with less erring aim he slew himself. While lying on the ground, or partially and feebly raising himself by his spear, he sees the Amalekite, and eagerly solicits the finishing stroke at his hand. And so the life of the ill-fated monarch was brought to its sorrowful close by Philistine archer, by suicidal hand, and by Amalekite volunteer. Three acts ended the catastrophe, three agencies had their share in the work of destruction and death. If any of these instances occurred in ordinary historic narrative, and proceeded from the hand of a secular writer, we would find no great difficulty in harmonising the seeming discrepancy, and could not refuse to credit the writer with honesty of purpose and acquaintance with the facts. Can less be conceded to an inspired writer ? (5) A more difficult example meets us in the narratives of Peter's denial of our Lord. Here both the jplace, of that denial and the persons who provoked it are differently represented. But (a) in reference to the 2^^(^(^^> the first denial occurred by the fire in the high priest's hall (i.e. the uvXtj or quadrangular court under the open air) ; and the place of the third denial is not specified. At the second denial he went out, according to Mark, into the TrpoavXtov, and according to Matthew into the irvXwva, while according to John he stood and warmed himself. Now the fire, as we have seen, was in the avXrj or open court ; the passage from this avkrj or open court out into the street was irpoavkLov ; the portal of this passage, or its entrance door, was nrvkoDv, the same place more exactly defined. But though he had withdrawn a short way from the fire, he had not removed beyond the reach of its influence, nor ceased to share its warmth, (h) Again, as to the pcrso7is, the first question was put by a damsel who is described by John as the portress (i) TraiSio-Kr), rj 6vpo)p6'>], as we have seen, has also the sense of taxing. A different way of evading the difficulty is resorted to by Wieseler. "With codex B and Lachmann, he omits the article, and refers avrr} to the decree of Augustus, accounting for its gender by attraction on the part of the predicate. The translation and sense would then be : " this (namely, the decree of Augustus) became a first census in Palestine when Cyrenius was governor ;" that is, the census, though previously commenced and afterwards inter- rupted, was first completed then, and dated from the time of its completion. Not to speak of the awkward assumption involved in this construction, it is plainly too artificial, though a parallel for the change of gender in avTTj may be found in several passages. Once more, Wordsworth gives two ways of rendering the expression under consideration ; but he has him- self misgivings about one of them, and acknowledges that it might appear to require a different order of the words. The other which he proposes has certainly the merit of no small degree of plausibility. It is as follows : — " This taxing or enrolment became (that is, began to be entitled) first when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." This rendering proceeds on the admission that there were two diroypacfial or registra- tions — one in the time of Cyrenius, called by way of eminence " the registration," and an earKer one distinguished from it by the title of the first registration. Luke mentions both. In Acts he refers to " the registration," and here in the Gospel narrative he speaks of the earlier one, noticing the fact, as though parenthetically, that it had become necessary to dis- tinguish this registration as the first, owing to the existence of that second one which took place under Cyrenius ; and thus he directs to the first as that in which the registry of the Saviour's birth might be found. In opposition to all these, Ellicott insists that the plain grammatical sense of the words must be : " this taxing took place as a first one when Cyrenius was governor of Syria;" and with this rendering that by Winer nearly coincides : " this taxing took place as the first under the government of Cyrenius." This is obviously the plain, straightforward method of dealing with the passage, but 152 INSPIRATION. then the difficulty ah-eady mentioned meets ns at the outset, and must be grappled with. Here it is that the fact discovered by Zumpt and proved by him, as Merivale thinks, to a demon- stration, enables us satisfactorily to clear up the discrepancy and honestly dispose of the difficulty. Zumpt, by a laborious and exhaustive process, discovers the successive governors of Syria from the days of Augustus till the time of Vespasian, that is, from 3 B.C. till more than 6 a.d., and puts it beyond a doubt that Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria — once at the time of Christ's birth, besides a second time some ten years afterwards. His governorship at the former period arose from the circumstance of his being at that time governor of Cilicia ; and as Cilicia, after its separation from Cyprus, was annexed to Syria, so Cyrenius, being de facto governor of Cilicia, was de jure governor of Syria. Thus at the time of our Lord's l)irth Cyrenius held office in Cilicia, then become a province of Syria, and under the popular title of rj'yefidjv super- intended the enrolment in question, while a few years later he obtained the actual governorship. The mention of Cyprus calls up another circumstance, at once illustrative of our subject and elucidative of an expres- sion of Scripture about which a doubt had been entertaiued. A certain title given to the governor of the island of Cyprus by the inspired historian of the Acts was called in question. It was supposed to be at variance with the title which that same governor bore in secular history; but the discovery of certain coins furnished, though not the first, yet powerfully confirmatory and conclusive evidence of the perfect propriety of the title. It is well known that the first Eoman emperor, by a stroke of clever but cunning policy, contrived to retain in his own hand complete control over the military power of the empire, while he gratified the senate and people of Eome by the empty semblance of ancient liberties. Accordingly the provinces kirap'^^iai were divided into senatorial and imperial. The power of appointing a governor to the former was vested in the senate, and to the latter in the emperor. The person appointed by the senate to a senatorial province received the title of iwoconsul, in Greek dvdv7raTo<;. His district was supposed to be peaceful, his administration more PROPER TITLE OF THE GOVERNOR OF CYPRUS. 153 of the cliaracter of civil rule, and, though he had the ensigns of power, was restricted in its nature and limited in duration, for his appointment lasted but a year. Achaia was a province of this sort, and hence we read that Gallio w^as its proconsul, or deputy according to our English version. So was Asia, of which the proconsuls or deputies are also mentioned. The governor of an imperial province, on the other hand, was called iiroprcctor, in Greek avriaTpdrTj'yo'i. His province was less settled, requiring the presence of a strong military force to prevent internal revolt or external invasion. His command was that of a military chief, and his tenure of office depended on the emperor's pleasure. Syria was a province of this kind, and the technical name of its ruler M-as proprietor, unless when a more general term, such as 'ijje/jioov, applicable to any official command, was employed. A dependency or subordinate district of such a province was usually governed by a 2^''Ocurator, in Greek liriTpo'iro';, who attended to duties similar to those of qiiccstor, rajxia^, in the ordinary provinces. Judsea was a dependency of this sort in relation to Syria. Now the correctness of the title av6v7raTo'^'fi^ > '^"Vl, vexation, desire, or endeavonr ; p3L"n, account, reason (of things) ; P''v'?, '2)rosperity, with which may be compared nnc'is in Ps. Lxviii. 7 ; l^:37L^', r«/e ; V_}V, object, occupation, business, travail ; n^73p^ folly ; '^^"'[1^*, youth ; nvEK'*, idleness. Though a few more words are added by I'usey, and a considerable list of additional words and forms is supplied by Delitzsch as pointing to a recent period of the language, yet those here enumerated are chiefly the ones to which exception is taken, {d) Other peculiarities are the frequent use of the participle, the rare use of Vav con- secutive, the interchange of Zamed-Alcj^h with the forms of the Lamed-He verb, the frequent employment of the personal pronoun with the verb, as ''J>5_ ^ril^ox. In view of these peculiarities of words and expressions which characterise this book, how, we naturally ask, can it be shown that these peculiar characteristics, relied on by many in proof of a late date, are notwithstanding perfectly consistent with its Solomonic authorship) ? The answer to so wide a question must necessarily comprise several particulars. The lollowing considerations will at least indicate the line of reply : — (1) The numerous abstract forms in P, |— , and ni are only evidences that the author adapts his style to his subject, and proofs of that correspondence that should ever exist between thought and language. To treat philosophical subjects con- nected with the great problems of life and death, duty and human destiny, Avithout such abstract forms of speech would amount to a manifest incongruity, if not an absolute impossi- bility. Besides, many of those abstracts are the natural offshoots of good old Hebrew roots. (2) The use of the pronoun with the verb, which occurs some eleven times, wall clearly appear, on a careful examination of such occurrences, no mere pleonasm or proof of modern composition, but tlie result of a definite purpose, wliich was to emphasise as personal an experience so varied and so extensive as that of the royal author is acknowledged to have been. Besides, this emphatic use of the pronoun is not confined to this book ; it occurs in Hosea viii. 13, xii. 11, and in Ps. xxxix. 11 and Ixxxii. G, the only difference being one of position, as the THE ARAMAIC TINGE ACCOUNTED FOlt. 197 pronoun in these instances goes before the verb. (3) That the imperfect with Yav consecutive to continue a historical narrative is infrequent in Ecclesiastes, — occurring only three times, — while the perfect with simple Vav copulative is pro- portionately frequent, we admit ; but the cause of this is, we hold, not the lateness, Init the peculiarity, of the composition. Regular sequence in the historical record of past events is required ; but when one recalls his own past experience, or rehearses the communings with his own spirit, tlie case is quite different, just as the strictly historical differs from the ethically didactic or devotional. This circumstance of difference accounts for the usage referred to. (4) After making all reasonable deductions from the number of Aramaisms and Hebrew peculiarities with whicli this book has been represented as abounding, there is undoubtedly an Aramaic colouring discoverable throughout it. While some have recklessly multiplied peculiarities of this kind, others have quite needlessly laboured to minimise them. The truth lies between the two extremes ; and its explanation is found not in lowering the date of the composition, but in looking at the districts it was designed to influence, and the probable design of the writer. In the reign of Solomon the kingdom was widened away beyond its former limits, while it was especially in an eastward direction that this enlargement took place, embracing the Aramaic-speaking peoples onward to the Euphrates. Without taking any account of the freer and more frequent intercourse which this extension of territory would necessitate between the sovran and his subjects through ambassadors and governors, and witliout trying to estimate the influence which his many wives may have exercised on the original purity of liis Hebrew speech, we may not overlook nor understate the inducement which Solomon would have to adopt a form of speech which woukl be best understood by and most acceptable to his subjects. The Aramaic colouring would bring him into closest contact with the peoples of that wide region which owned his sway to the east. By such an accommodation and approximation to their dialect, he would occupy a vantage ground in secur- ing their attention to the great subjects, ethical and religious. 198 INSPIRATION. discussed in this book. He would thus place himself in full accord with their sympathies, enlist their affections, and make his most effective appeals to botli head and heart. The Book of Ecclesiastes would thus be a great missionary manifesto to the heathen inhabitants of those lands. Amid all the perplexities that embarrass liuman life, and all tlie dissatis- faction attendant on human pursuits, it would acquaint them with the living God as the true source and centre of all real happiness. It is no small confirmation of this view that God is not presented under the designation of Jehovah, the name by which He was known in His covenant relation to Israel, but as Elohim., the God of all the nations and peoples that call upon His name. Not only so, in that portion of 1st Kings that treats of Solomon and his reign, curiously enough numerous Aramaic forms mingle and interchange with the jiurer Hebrew. Farther, the subject of the highest good, which receives so much attention in this book of Scripture, was so familiar to the chosen people, and so fully and frequently set before them, as to preclude the necessity of its special treatment as far as they were concerned. Not so with those who dwelt in other lands, where the cry went up from yearning hearts and numerous tongues : " who will show us any good ? " According to this apprehension of the matter, Solomon would be acting in tlie spirit and aiming at the great object of Israel's mission, so little understood and so often forgotten, a mission at once conservative and cosmo- politan — conservative of the worship of the true God, cosmo- politan with blessings to all mankind. The work of the royal preacher and the word of the royal psalmist would thus be in beautiful harmony with each other, and find fit expres- sion in the utterances of the 67th Psalm, saying: "Let the people praise Thee, Lord, let all the people praise Thee," — all Israel, though like the sands of the sea or the stars of heaven for multitude ; but the aspiration does not stop there, it stretches far beyond Israel : " let the nations be glad, and sing for joy." A case analogous to the linguistic peculiarities sought to be explained was the deterioration of the language of Greece from Attic to Hellenic, consequent on and occa- sioned by the extension of the kingdom of Macedon, when THE PL.VN AND PURrOSE OF ECCLESIASTES. 199 the different tribes and nationalities subject to the sceptre of Alexander contributed more or less of individual dialectic peculiarities to the speech of Greece — no longer Attic in its purity, but common in its compass. The plain statements of the book cannot be quibbled away nor lightly set aside. They are : " The words of the preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem ; " and again : " I, the preacher, have been (and am ^0"'^7) king over Israel in Jerusalem." It has been objected that, if Solomon were the author of the book and still continued to reign, the pronoun and noun i^o "'iX = / am Icing, would be used ; that the pre- terite in"'\T denotes : I ^oas once hing, hut am so no longer. On the contrary, the preterite connects the past and present, and expresses the required idea, namely, that he was king when he acquired his varied experiences, and that he is king still while recording them. Moses, speaking of his sojourn in Midian, says : I have been "Ti^M a stranger in a strange land, and he continued so at the time he spoke (Ex. ii. 22). However far deception may be from a writer's design, it is difficult for ordinary people to distinguish from fraud that mode of composition known to the higher criticism as personated authorship. Neither is the voice of tradition, Hebrew and Christian, to be silenced or disregarded in deference to mere subjective theories. The late dates assigned by the destructive critics, so very many and so very diverse, some three centuries apart from each other, show how little reliance can be placed on any of them, while their advocates thus confute each other. Where at those late dates were those numerous literary productions, those " many books," to be found ? The Solomonic era was surely a more likely period for such. How, besides assuming those late dates to be correct, can we account for the entire absence of that Oriental theosophy or Alexandrian Greek pliilosophy, so apparent in the books of the Apocrypha ? The plan of the book has been misunderstood. It sets the fear of God before our eyes as the object never to be lost sight of, and leads us up from the unsatisfying vanities of the world to delight in God as the highest happiness and greatest good. It rebukes avarice, ambition, pleasure-seeking, murmuring, and bootless 200 INSPIRATION. speculating ; at the same time it inculcates a temperate enjoyment of the good gifts of God, and vindicates the ways of God to man, replying to the sceptical objections of the time ; and all by an appeal to an unusually large experience. After each new experience, at the close of each of the four divisions, comes the sad and solemn summing up — vanity of vanities. It is midway between Job and Proverbs. It resembles Job in dealing with the perplexities of mortal life, and the doubts about human destiny. Job dwells in those perplexities and mysteries of providence that present them- selves in connection with the sufferings of the righteous ; Koheleth pictures the failures that men encounter in the pursuit of happiness ; the former takes to do with the sufferer, the latter with the pleasure-seeker. But then comes the difference ; Job is poetry, but Ecclesiastes is only rhythmic prose. Again, it resembles Proverbs in those sayings and maxims which embody the wisdom of experience, urging prudence and the present discharge of the duties of practical life, and refers the full solution of all liuman difficulties and divine dealings to the present rule of the righteous Creator, and the future allotments of the just Judge. Not till then shall the crooked be made straight, and disorders of time for ever done away. Here again is a difference. Proverbs is also poetry, and is more lively and cheerful in its caste. The motto of Koheleth may be written in the words : present duty, true wisdom, earthly vanities, and tlie fear of God. At all events these subjects are treated pointedly, practically, and profitably, in this most instructive and interesting book of sacred Scripture. If space allowed, we might materially strengthen our position by instituting a comparison between portions of Ecclesiastes, especially of the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th chapters, and passages of Proverbs; and likewise by comparing Ecclesiastes with Canticles, as also with the record of Solomon's eventful reiuu in Kinus and Chronicles. The singular resemblance of sentiments in Ecclesiastes on the one hand, and in Proverbs or Canticles on the other, bespeaks a common paternity. If the authorship of Ecclesiastes were a mere literary ques- tion, we would doubtless be promi)ted by the love of truth to THE TRUTH OF GOD THE CIIKISTIAN's GUIDE. 201 seek and search it out. But ^vhat makes us yet more earnest in our endeavour to vindicate the traditional belief of its Solomonic origin, is the feeling that it touches somewhat closely, as we conceive, the doctrine of inspired truth. Though learned and excellent men may take the opjtosite view, and yet hold fast by inspiration, still we are persuaded that that view tends to lower the standard, or at least to lessen our attachment to it. In closing this part of our subject, a few })ractical remarks cannot be out of place. What enhances the value of inspired truth is the practical consideration that it is the means which God employs to sanctify and save. It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to hail the light of truth whencesoever it may come. We hail accordingly every additional ray from whatever quar- ter it proceeds, or on whatever object it may fall. There is truth in science, for science properly so called is the exposition of nature, and nature itself is an effect whose cause is God. There is truth in art, for it turns to account the facts of science, and employs the laws of nature for the benefit of man. There is truth in astronomy, calculating, as it does, the dimensions, distances, periodic times, and other circumstances of the planets, or tracing the fair-haired comet in its erratic tour througliout the remote invisible space. There is truth in the facts of geology, thougli not always in the hypotheses of geologists, diving down into the bowels of the earth, examin- ing its strata and their formation, with tlie fossils and other remains therein imbedded. There is truth in the events of history, for what is history but philosophy teaching by example ? There is trutli in physiology, showing the structure of plants and animals, and the high position of man, so fearfully and wonderfully made, in the scale of being. There is truth in chemistry, with its wonderful combinations and curious analyses. There is truth in ethics, sounding the depths of human con- sciousness, dealing with the human conscience, and expounding the duties of man. But while elevating all, and to some extent ramifying through all, yet high above all, is the truth of God — the truth as it is in Jesus, and which sanctifies and saves the soul. Hence the petition in the great intercessory prayer : "Sanctify them through Thy trutli; Thy word is truth." 202 INSPIRATION. The Christian's life may be fitly compared to a voyage. This world is the troubled sea, heaven is the port in prospect, the truth of God is the Christian mariner's means of safety. It serves the double purpose of compass to show the direction, and of chart to save from the shoals and rocks and dangers of the dee]). The importance of its function will clearly appear if for a little you view with the mind's eye the voyage. As a picture of that voyage, you may contemplate the mighty vessel ribbed with mountain oak, plated with metal, and rigged with care, then launched from the stocks, and sent forth to plough the main. From the time it leaves its home in the mountain, or its station in the harbour, it traverses the wide waste of waters. Many are the dangers it encounters, and many the difficulties it meets. Sometimes its track is cir- cuitous, frequently it is chequered — there are the sunshine and the calm, often days of gloom and nights of darkness. The winds of winter buffet it, the wild waves roll round it and dash over it. It mounts up to the heaven, it goes down again to the depths. It reels to and fro, and staggers like a drunken man. By and by the tempest becomes a calm, and the waves are still, the perils of the voyage are past, and the gallant ship, having weathered every storm, speeds her homeward way, laden with a rich and precious cargo. Yonder you see her skim the wave like a true ocean bird, with full sail and flaunt- ing flag. Onward she comes, with sunshine above and smooth sea below, while amid cheers from the crew on deck and the crowd on shore, she enters the port gloriously and triumphantly. That is just a figure of the Christian guided by this truth of God through all the vicissitudes of his perilous voyage, till he reaches at last the " fair havens" above, when an abundant entrance, through faith in that Saviour whom this word reveals, and by the grace of that Spirit by whom it was inspired, is mini- stered to him into the kingdom of Christ and of God. So may reader and writer at last be brousht into the desired haven ! 1 PART III. THE CANON. CHAPTER X. WHAT DETERMINES CANOXICITY. OVR next investigation has respect to the canon of Scrip- ture. If God has been pleased to reveal His will to men, and if that revelation has been committed to writing under the inspiration of His Spirit for the benefit of His people all down the ages, it cannot but be a matter of great import- ance to ascertain the exact limits of the record containing that will. We are thus led to inquire. What are the books in which the divine will is recorded, and which God has been pleased to give by inspiration ? By what process of proof do we dis- cover them ? And on what evidence do we accept them ? It is a matter of some moment at the outset to seek a cor- rect definition of the term canon, as wrong definitions have led to low and imwoi thy notions about the nature of the entire subject. The canon is not a list of books read in the Christian assemblies, as Seraler and others would have it, for this leaves out the main element, that of inspiration, from which the canon derives its true value. Neither is it merely a catalogue of sacred books, for this also lowers the idea and deprives it of much of its worth. The canon, as properly understood, is the rule of faith and morals divinely recorded in Seripturc. The Scriptures are a standard of supreme authority. They are authoritative because they are infallible, and they are infallible because they are divinely inspired. As to the word canon, its origin and meanings have been 203 204 THE CANON. carefully traced. The word is immediately derived from the Greek Kavr], which is the representative of the Hebrew n^i?. Like other Semitic words denoting Asiatic products and articles of traffic, it made its way through Phoenician commerce into Greece along with the object denoted by it. That oV)ject was a reed or cane. Thus derived, canon denotes sometliing straight ; something to keep straight ; then something as the test of straightness, like a rule ; also passively, something ruled or measured off. But from material measurement the word was transferred figuratively to things mental and moral ; while, from tliis signification of a rule or standard applicable alike to matter or to mind, to things civil or sacred, it came by a natural association of ideas, in virtue of which the mind forms a con- nection between the rule itself and what contains it, to denote that book or collection of writings in which the rule or standard is found ; in other words, the Scriptures, as containing the authoritative rule of faith and practice. Its application to the Scriptures is by way of eminence, as implying such a standard of doctrine and duty as we are morally bound to conform to. Those who assign a passive signification to the word under- stand by it the Scriptures themselves measnred and defined, as consisting of certain books which have been ratified and received by the decision of the Church. Even in its later ecclesiastical nsage, as applied by the Fathers during and after the fourth century to a catalogue or list, it does not seem to have been employed synonymously with KaraXoyo'; to denote a mere list, but in a higher sense and with reference to an ulterior purpose — that is, as a standard whereby to settle the character of different books, or determine the question of canonical authority. Owing to the labour expended on it, the carefulness with which it was framed, and the scrupulous inquiry into the character of the books admitted into it, it was clearly distinguished from a mere KaraXoyo^;, beiug elevated to an authoritative position, or allowed the place of umpire in deciding tlie pretensions of other compositions. It is acknowledged that, though the word occurs twice at least in the New Testament, it is not applied by the New Testa- ment writers, nor by the early Cliristian Fathers, to the Scriptures as a volume. That application was first made by DIFFERENT THEORIES OF CANONICITY. 205 AmphiloLiiius, after an enumeration of tlie Looks of Scripture. The same application is found in Atlianasius. But tliougli the word canon itself was thus late in its application to the sacred Scriptures, several of its derivatives, such as canonical, canonise, had been employed in this way by Origen, or even earlier. Still it was not till early in the fourth century that this usage of them became common and current. More important for us than the derivation or application of the name, is the nature of the thing which that name denotes. We do not mean to enter on a history of the for- mation of the canon, as that history is closely interwoven with the history of the early Churcli. The one was the com- plement of the other, the doctrines of the canon first had their living embodiment in the members of the Church ; but before the first founders of the early Church passed away, a written permanent record of the doctrines taught with their lips and illustrated in their lives became at once a necessity and a natural outgrowth. We mean to confine attention to the authority of the canonical books, and the evidence by which that authority is supported. It may be proper for us here to glance at some of the principal theories of canonicity. The question is often asked, What constitutes canonicity ? Without a formal definition of canonicity, it may be sufficient for our purpose to say that we understand by it the right of a book to take rank among and form part of that collection of writings which contain a revela- tion of the divine will. Accordingly we associate with a canonical book the idea of sacredness of character, and con- sequent authoritativeness in all matters of doctrin'e and duty. It is another and a distinct question how we are to ascertain the canonicity of a document, or what is the standard of appeal in such a case, or the test to be applied. But, tliough a separate consideration, it touches the former inquiry at several points, the one in fact frequently involving or at least overlapping the other. To both questions the same or a similar answer is occasionally, and rightly too, returned. Here, however, there is considerable variety and no little diversity. To the question. What constitutes canonicity, or what determines it, and how are we to make sure of it ? the 206 THE CANON, reply of some is ecclesiastical authority. This is the teadiino' of the Latin Church on this important subject. It is for the Church to say what writing is canonical and what not, and to bestow or withhold its sanction accordingly. The pronounce- ment of the Cliurch decided the case. The Anglican Church in its 6th Article decides the matter thus : " In the name of the Holy Scriptures we do understand those canonical books of the Old and Xew Testaments of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." The Reformers, loath to accept anything at the hands of a Church against the doctrines of which they protested, and setting canonical Scripture above the Church, looked within for the settlement of the matter, and rested satisfied with the ivitness of the Spirit. This was their test. Convinced on the one hand of the self-evidencing power of Holy Scripture, and assured on the other of the inward testimony which the Spirit of God bears to the word of God, they required no other or higher standard, and sought no further proof. A subjective standard of this sort nec'es- sarily varied. Thus Luther founded the proof of canonicity on testimony to the doctrine of Christ, and rashly rejected an Epistle where he failed to see that doctrine stand out with such clearness and distinctness as satisfied him. The contents of Scripture again have been appealed to in proof of canonicity; some fixing on the peerless purity of Scripture ethics, others on the adaptation of Scripture to our spiritual needs, as Coleridge, when he speaks of Scripture " finding us," by which he meant its wonderful suitability to the varied cravings and necessities of our nature. Again, apostolic authorship has been set up as the standard. This no doubt is coming nearer to the true state of the case. Cunningham, in the recently published volume of lectures, resolves canonicity into apos- tolic authorship. Lardner long ago had done the same, but with a certain reservation or restriction. He confined that authorship to what was doctrincd or ijreceptive. In this way he sought to evade the exception that might be taken to the alleged non-apostolic authoi'ship of two of the Gospels. But while he steered clear of a supposed difficulty on one side, he involved himself in defect on the other. Without urging the particular objections that lie against A DEFECT IN MOST OF THE THEORIES OF CANONICITV. 207 each of these, it must be obvious that they all labour under one common defect, and that is onesidedness. It may be readily conceded at the same time that there is an element of truth in every one of them, but then it is only a part of the truth. It is truth drawn from a different aspect of the subject, and expressed according to a particular standpoint. Like a figure of several sides which are all differently coloured ; those that look only at one side, while the rest are concealed or out of view, may maintain that the colour of the object is blue ; those that look on a different side under similar circum- stances may affirm that it is green ; others in like manner may assert it to be red. Each is right as far as he sees, and each wrong. It is only on examining all the sides that truth is eventually reached. So to some extent with the conflicting theories of canonicity. The sanction of Church authority neither constitutes nor confers canonicity, any more than the signpost creates the city to which it points the way ; nor has a section of the Church, and that a section by many deemed degenerate, any right to arrogate to itself such authority ; and yet the authorisation of the primitive Catholic Church has a most important bearing on the subject. It is not the inward witness of the Spirit that constitutes canonical proof, though such evidence we hold to be of prime importance. It is not the contents, pure as they are, and needful as they are, and suitable as they are, and unspeakably blessed as they are, that meet all the exigencies of the case, though they undoubtedly go far in the way of proof The undoubted or never doubted recognition even by the ancient Church only goes a certain length, for a few portions, which men hesitated to accept for a time, were subsequently and in due course received and acknowledged. Though apostolic authorship comes, perhaps, nearest of all to a satisfactory solution of the problem, yet without modification it cannot be proved fully adequate. We are of opinion that by substituting insjjhxd autliorsJiip for apostolic authorship, we come fully up to the mark we aim at. This inspired authorship meets all the requirements of the case, and is the main constituent in canonicity. But how is this inspired authorship to be ascertained ? How can it be proved ? What are its criteria ? There is a threefold testi- 208 THE CANOX. mony availal)le for the purpose — there are three that bear record in this business. The testimony of the Church from earliest times and in all its sections to the acceptance of the books and acknowledgment of their authority ; the testimony of tlie Spirit, not only to the individual consciousness, but in the whole body of believers — the voice of God by His Spirit in the Church universal ; and the testimony directly to apostolic authorship, or indirectly to apostolic sanction and suggestion, or other source of divine instruction ; while the character of the contents iiecessarily come in also for a share in this department of evidence. After this general view of the theories of canonicity we may now consider some of them a little more in detail. We have seen that some rest the authority of Scripture entirely on the decision of the Church ; others plead the external evidence afforded by the concurrent testimony of the Jewish and Christian Church with regard to the Old Testament, and of the latter in relation to the New ; while others again profess themselves satisfied by the internal evidence derivable from the surpassing excellence of the books themselves. But the first of these views involves the surrender of the right of private judgment, as also the vicious circle of the logician, which goes to establish the Church by the canon and then the canon by the Church. The second is inadequate, though the testimony of such early and respectable witnesses to matters of fact is most valuable. The third theory is incom- plete, and requires a historical basis. If, however, we combine the second and the third, we are more likely to reach a satisfactory result. That result depends partly on historical research, and partly on moral reasoning. The former enables us to ascertain what books were admitted by the Jews into the Old Testament canon, and what books were received by Christians into that of the New. This is purely a matter of history. But we may not stop here, we must further inquire, Were the Jews and Christians respectively justified in their choice, and had they sufficient grounds to go upon ? ' And in connection with this part of the subject such questions as the following seek and need solution : — Did the writers of the books, received and regarded as sacred, assume on their own CONSIDERATION OF SOME THEORIES IN DETAIL, 209 Lelialf and assert for themselves the possession of divine instruction and guidance in the composition of those books ? Did they afford to others such tokens of divine help as under the circumstances were possible, and such as to their con- temporaries were satisfactory ? Were they regarded by those with whom they came into contact, and who from proximity in time and place had the best means of judging, as writing by divine warrant and under divine direction ? Was there a general concurrence in this verdict by the great body pf believers ? And has there been an unanimous or all but unanimous acquiescence in the same, on the part of tlie various Churches of Christendom, from the period immediately adjoining the close of the canon all along the centuries till the present time ? These are questions ascertainable by historical research, and, as far as ascertainable, capable, we are convinced, of an affirmative answer. Then follows the internal evidence touching on the con- tents of the books, their perfect consistency in themselves, their complete correspondence with the language, customs, and other conditions of the time in which they appeared, their entire agreement with what is universally known of God's works and ways in creation and providence, their unspeakable moral grandeur and transcendent excellence. Are these and their other characteristics such as bespeak them to be divinely inspired ? For on the ground of such inspiration they were allowed a place in the canon at first, and their position there guarantees to after-times the fact of that inspiration. The subjects of genuineness and authenticity, which fall under the head of canonical authority, are after all secondary to that of inspiration. They can only be referred to here in general terms. Such investigations in regard to particular books have been usually relegated to the department called " Introduction," and have been, on the whole, disposed of by reasonably candid and honest critics in a manner confirmatory of the conclusions generally held by the Church universal. Neither space nor time at present permits us to investigate the genuineness of the books of Scripture individually. Such investigations may be found in several excellent works of the 210 THE CANOX. kind just referred to, in which an attempt is made, and made in almost every instance successfully, to ascertain that the sacred books were written severally by tlie author whose name they bear, or, in case of an unnamed author, that they were written at the time, in the place, and under the circum- stances which they indicate, and that they are thus free from spuriousness. Their authenticity at the same time is abun- dantly established, so that their contents are shown to be a narrative of facts as opposed to what is false or fictitious. To some particular points of internal evidence of genuineness we shall liave occasion afterwards to refer ; while regarding the external, every one acquainted with the matter will agree with us when we affirm, that there is ten times stronger and more satisfactory evidence for the genuineness and substantial integrity of the books of Scripture than for the histories of Tacitus and Thucydides, of Livy and Xenophon, about which no scholar ever entertains a doubt. If, beginning with the present generation or present century, we trace the writings of the New Testament, for example, backwards and upwards along the stream of time to the very source, we shall find them accredited by each foregoing generation and by the men of each preceding century till we reach the days of primitive Christianity itself, when we find them universally believed by the early Christians to be the works of their eight reputed authors, and quoted as such by the earliest Cliristian writers, the contemporaries and successors of the primitive penmen. Add to this the testimony of neutrals, apostates, heretics, foes as well as friends of Christianity. What more conclusive proof of authorship can reasonable criticism demand, or the archives of human literature produce, than this combined and concurrent testimony to the genuineness of the sacred Scriptures ? If after such evidence of authorship we turn attention to proofs of integrity, we find abundant means of authenti- cation. If we were to institute a comparison between the secular classics and Scripture, we should find a vast pre- ponderance of evidence on the side of the latter, and that arising from a combination of distinct particulars. Among these may be reckoned the unusually large number of manu- genuine>:ess and integrity of the n. t. wkitings. 211 script copies ; for, while in the case of an ordinary classic twenty manuscripts are above the average number, and five are deemed amply sufficient, and even one, as of the Eomau history of Paterculus, is relied on ; of the New Testament alone we have nearly sixteen hundred ; some of these con- tain large portions of it, and twenty-seven contain the whole. Their great antiquity is another important element ; for, while the dates of most manuscripts of the classics range between the 10th and 15th century, and not more than half a dozen rise above the 6 th, we have at least two New Testa- ment manuscripts dating from the 4th century, probably from an early part of it ; two with several large fragments from the 5 th ; seven at least from the 6 th, and so on in increasing numbers down the succeeding centuries. But without dwelling on the particulars enumerated, we need only mention, in addition to those already specified, the early and wide diffusion of copies of the Scripture, the high estimate formed of them, and consequent care in guarding them as well as pains taken in copying them, the numerous early versions, quotations, and references, the wide dispersion and jealous divisions of the custodians of the books of Scrip- ture, together with the mighty influence exerted and the wonderful eff'ects produced by these books. No more cogent argument for the antiquity, genuineness, and integrity of Scripture can be urged than that which is furnished by the ancient versions still extant ; so much so, that it has been asserted by a very high authority, that " when accordant translations of the same writings, in several uncoimected lau^uacres, and in lanfruaLres which have loni^ ceased to be vernacular, are in existence, every other kind of evidence may be regarded as superfluous." But with this proof of genuineness coexists a testimony to their credibility. It has been laid down as almost axiomatic in matters of this sort, that the genuineness of the writings proves the truth of the narrative. "No such suppositions," says Taylor, referring to supposed instances of falsehood being believed, " meet the case of various public transactions, taking place through some length of time, and in diff'erent localities, and which were witnessed by persons of all classes, interests, and dispositions, 212 THE CANON. and which were uncontradicted by any parties at the time, and which were particularly recorded, and incidentally alluded to, by several writers whose works were widely circulated — generally accepted and unanswered, in the age when thousands of persons were competent to judge of their truth." On the disbeliever in such narratives rests the onus of accounting for the writings, if the events narrated never occurred. But reverting to the subjects of genuineness and authenticity, no one can pretend to gainsay the fact that they have been established on a hundredfold more solid historical basis than any of those literary productions of classical antiquity which nobody ever thinks of calling in question. CHAPTER XI. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. Sec. I. — Formation of the Canon. WE are now prepared to examine more minutely the subject of the Kei'j Testanunt canon. Though Luke in the beginning of the Acts makes mention of his former treatise, which was his Gospel, yet the first reference to any collected portion of the canon occurs in the 3d chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter. In that passage he refers to a collec- tion of the Epistles of Paul, eitl^er in whole or in part, placing them on the same platform with Old Testament Scripture. The cliaracter of the reference clearly indicates that the collection in question was known and acknowledged in the Churches then planted, and accepted as Scripture among the Christians who constituted the membership of those Churches ; for Peter in that Epistle addresses not one individual believer, or one single community of believers, but all the believers in all the Christian communities then in existence, as far, at least, as the circulation of the letter might extend. This is plain from the 1st verse of that Epistle : " Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us." It has also been inferred from the supplementary character of the fourth Gospel, that John must liave been acquainted with the other three Gospels, and in all probability had them before him in a collected form when he wrote. His acquaintance with them scarcely admits a doubt ; but whether they circulated as separate treatises, or were brought together for more convenient perusal and comparison, can only be a mere matter of conjecture. Equally or rather more uncertain is the tradition which attributes to John the collecting and sanctioning of the books to be admitted into, 213 214 THE CANON. and so the closing of, the Xew Testament canon. This tradition, however, seems to have no other foundation than John's survival of his brethren in the apostleship, together with the circumstance that his Gospel concludes the histories of the Saviour's life on eartli, and his Eevelation completes the history of the Church on to the consummation of all things. Perhaps, too, the solemn prohibition at the close against adding to or taking from the words written, and the things recorded in that book, by an extension of its application to the whole of Scripture, may have had some- thing to do with that tradition. But be this as it may, the settlement of the canon cannot be regarded as the result of direct determination by apostolic authority. Still less can we ascribe it to the decision of an ecclesiastical council ; for, before any such council had pronounced on the subject, the canon had been fully completed and finally closed. The work of a council went no farther than to record what had been already done, thus giving its sanction to and setting its imprimatur on the result. Neither need we resort to the supposition of an immediate miraculous interposition in the case ; for, according to that law of parsimony, which uses the fewest and simplest means to reach a given end, God never employs the supernatural when natural means are sufficient for the accomplishment of His purpose. At the same time, that the ordinary means and agencies employed to effect the work were under divine direction and special divine superintendence, no Christian will be disposed either to doubt or to deny. Not only would God's care for His own word, the importance He attaches to it, and the high and holy interests which He makes that word subserve, warrant such a presupposition, but the circumstances of the case abundantly confirm it ; for otherwise it were difficult to account for such remarkable oneness of purpose which, as we have already seen, prevails amid such variety of subject and style, — such completeness of result amid compositions so diversified and independent, — such wonderful condensation in a case where, if all the things done and all the words spoken had been written, it would be no very extravagant hyperbole fo say that the " world itself could not contain the books that should THE N. T. BOOKS ORIGINATED IN A NECESSITY, 215 "be written," — such marvellous productions emanating from men, most of M-hom, from rank, habit, and occupation, were unacquainted with and naturally averse to literary labours, all combined into one harmonious whole. But while, no doubt, under divine guidance, the formation of the New Testament canon was natural and gradual ; yet as in worldly matters demand and supply are mutually regula- tive, so here the books that eventually composed the canon were issued to meet the rising requirements of the time or urgent necessities of the Church — in every case to supply existing wants. From the time of the Pentecostal efifusion of the Holy Spirit, ten days after our Lord's ascension, the apostles, rendering a ready obedience to their Master's com- mission to disciple all nations, and having received the necessary power from on high, entered at once on their career of vigorous and continuous evangelisation, preaching and teaching orally the gospel of the kingdom. The consequence was that disciples multiplied daily. Christian associations were formed, neicthbourin" districts and even distant lands were visited, while everywhere at home and abroad the preached word had free course and was glorified. Then and not till then were proper persons prepared to take charge of written records of Christianity. It was only when societies of faithful men had been called into existence or had con- tinued to exist for some time, that safe and suitable deposi- tories of the forthcoming documents of the new faith were provided. Then, too, and not till then, did such documents become a necessity. As long as the apostles engaged in the ceaseless activities of their ministry and the constant itinerancies of their mission, the words of the Lord proceeded fresh and glowing from the living preachers' lips, and there was little occasion and less leisure for written compositions. But when an apostle was about to remove permanently to another and distant sphere of labour, it was natural as well as necessary that he should leave behind a permanent record of his oral teaching. It was thus that Matthew, after having proclaimed the gospel to the Jews in Palestine, and before setting out for other lands, committed to writing the Gospel which bears his name for the benefit of his countrymen. Also 216 THE CANON. an apostle, in anticipation of his decease, and before quitting the earthly scene of his labours, would make suitable provision for the permanent instruction and edification of believers. This is exactly the course pursued by the Apostle Peter, who, speaking of the present, and indicating his arrangement for the future, says : " Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up, by putting you in remembrance ; knowing that shortly I nmst put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. Moreover, I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." Again, when circumstances of a peculiar nature or emergencies of one kind or other arose in connection w4th the Churches already formed, apostolic interference was required. Thus Paul refers to the report that had reached him about the state of matters and the spirit of party in the Church of Corinth : " It hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you ; " and subse- quently states the object of his letter : " I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you." To another Church he says : " To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe." Even a single individual convert enlists his sympathies and employs his pen, when he writes on his behalf to Philemon, to whom he says : " Having confidence in thy obedience, I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say." By and by, too, the complete organisation of Churches some time formed claimed more attention, and hence came the pastoral Epistles. In some such way as this the twenty-seven books composing the New Testament canon originated, issuing necessarily yet naturally, spontaneously yet providentially, from the hands of some eight apostolic men, or, if not all apostolic, at least all inspired men. Sec. II. — Claim to Divine Direction or Inspiration. Now, having seen that what the apostles wrote was the natural sequel to what they spoke, and sprang out of special CONNECTION BETWEEN PAUL AND LUKE. 217 circumstances, it remains for us to consider the importance which of necessity attaches to apostolic authorship. The fact of a book having been written by an apostle, or having received his sanction, is of itself sufficient to stamp it with divine authority. Let it once be proved that an apostle wrote the book with his own hand or by an amanuensis, or sanctioned it when written by another, and it follows that the book is an unerring record. The reason of this is obvious, for the apostles of our Lord were His accredited witnesses, and their testimony He identifies with His own ; for hath He not said : " He that heareth you heareth me " ? But while to some this mode of treating the canon may seem the most satisfactory, as undoubtedly it is the simplest, still others may prefer a wider induction and a fuller analysis. Meantime we may notice, in order to obviate, an objection that may fairly enough be made against the apostolic origin of all the books in the canon of New Testament Scripture, namely, that though there is a general agreement that six of the eight penmen were apostles, it is readily acknowledged that the remaining two, that is to say, Luke and Mark, were not. There is, however, a perfect consensus of ancient authorities for the opinion that Luke committed to writing the gospel which Paul preached, just as Mark wrote down that proclaimed by Peter. In evidence of the former statement, Irenaus, Origen, TertuUian, Eusebius, Jerome, and others may be quoted ; while most of the same authorities may be cited in proof of the latter. The connection between Paul and Luke was exceedingly close and cordial. From the Acts, of which Luke is acknow- ledged the penman, we learn their constant companionship. Luke accompanied him in his first voyage to Macedonia, as is reasonably inferred from the employment of the first personal pronoun, for example, " Loosing from Troas ive came with a straight course to Samothracia," and so on to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. A short interval of separation is intimated by Luke narrating the apostle's further journeying in the third person, saying : " When they had passed through Amphipolis." Ere long, however, Paul is in Greece the second time, and Luke is with him, for he resumes the use of the first person : 218 THE CANON. " These going before tarried for us at Troas ; and vje sailed away from Philippi." Paul, on the other hand, associates Luke with himself in salutations to the Church of the Colossians, thus : " Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you ;" and in the salutations to Philemon, where he calls him " Lucas, my fellow-labourer ; " while towards the close of the apostle's career, in his second letter to Timothy, he mentions him as his sole companion : " Only Luke is with me." A strangely curious and interesting circumstance arising out of this close companionship, and singularly confirming it, is the remarkable manner in which Paul and Luke act and react on each other with respect to modes of thought and expression. That the apostle influenced the style of the evangelist is pretty well known, but it is seldom suspected that the converse is equally true. In illustration of the former circumstance we may refer to similarity nf phrase in their respective accounts of the Lord's Supper; in the maxim recorded by both to the effect that " the labourer is worthy of his reward ; " in the expression, " whatsoever is set before you eat," occurring in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, as compared with "eat such things as are set before you" in the 10th chapter of Luke ; also to the use by both Paul and Luke, and by them alone, of certain words, or words in a certain sense, as KaTTj^eo), to instruct orally ; irkr^po^opeladai, to be fully believed ; and TrapaKoXovdeco, to understand perfectly. Hence it would seem that there is some ground for the opinion of Origen, that the Gospel of Luke is cited and approved by Paul, and that it is to Luke's Gospel Paul refers when he says in two different places, " according to my Gospel," and speaks in another Epistle of " the afflictions of the gospel." Now let us see how tlie matter stands on the other side, and how Luke influences the language of the apostle. Luke, as a physician, is accurate in the diagnosis and technical description of disease, — for example, to persons whom the other evan- gelists speak of as vjhole or strong, Luke applies the term healthful ; where they speak of the case of a particular lejjer, he says full of kyrosy, showing his correctness in characterising disease ; when they simply mention a case of fever, he terms it a (jrcat fever, showing his superior acquaintance with that PAUL AND LUKE INFLUENCE EACH OTHER'S STYLE. 219 class of illness. Many more instances of a similar kind might be adduced. Frequent intercourse and close contact with the special culture of the beloved physician exercised a very sensible and clearly perceptible influence on the apostle's modes of expression, as may be seen from the few striking examples that follow : — "When Paul refers to sound doctrine, he terms it healthy (yyiavovarj) ; doting about questions is diseased about questions ; a scared conscience is literally a conscience cauterised ; persons puffed up are really persons seized with the delirium of typhus fever (Tv(f)co6ei'i) ; tlie spread of error is that of cancer. These are only samples of many such. Let us, however, examine briefly the evangelist's own account of his Gospel history. In the reasonable and scriptural theory of inspiration here advocated, the inspired writer must be conceived at liberty to use at his discretion such materials as suit his purpose, and on which he can lay his hand, being guided in the selection and guarded from error all the while. In accordance with this principle we might construct a theory from the style and contents of Luke's Gospel, about the materials of which the evangelist availed himself. Theorising in this way, we might arrive at a plausible and even somewhat seemingly probable conclusion about the factors employed. The genealogy of the 3d chapter bespeaks a Judean element. The deep Aramaic colouring, clearly perceptible through the light Greek shading, in the style of the first two chapters, implies a purely Hebrew source — a document, say, in the family of Mary or Joseph. In the long middle section, extending from near the end of the 8th to the 15th verse of the 18th chapter, a Judeo-Christian element prevails. In the account of the institution of the Supper tlie origin is unmistakably Pauline. In the history of the Passion, again, the style being freer from Hebrew and more purely Greek, seems to have a basis in oral narratives or antecedent Greek accounts. Even on such a supposition the evangelist would make those materials subservient to his purpose, selecting and arranging, correcting and completing, or moulding and modifying. In a word, as a great historian avails himself of all sources of information open to him, and 220 THE CANON. makes all available materials his own, the sacred historian employs in a similar manner all trustworthy means and sources of knowledge ; the difference consisting in the fact, a very significant one, no doubt, that the secular historian has to depend on his own instincts and genius, while the sacred historian acts under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. These and kindred theories about the genetic origin of the Gospels, and their relation to each other, however plausible such theories may appear, can only be regarded as mere theories and no more. They must not be allowed to assume or usurp the place of well-ascertained facts. At the same time, we have some reliable information with respect to Luke's method, which deserves our most careful attention ; that information is furnished by the evangelist himself. We are consequently at liberty to canvass and scrutinise to the utmost the information thus afforded without being chargeable with seeking to be wise above what is written. The informa- tion which Luke is pleased to give us is, in regard to the materials somewhat meagre, with respect to his method quite full, while in relation to the result it is most satisfactory. With respect to his materials or sources of information, it would appear to resolve itself into apostolic tradition (irapd- Boaiq), by which is meant the oral testimony of the apostles, or the instruction imparted by the apostles to the infant Church, called in Acts ii. 42 the StSa;^^ twv airoaroXcov. The preface to Luke's Gospel, similar but superior to that of Herodotus or Thucydides, here claims our attention. It is at once modest, simple, and concise, commencing in the following familiar words : — Since (cTret), as is well known (Btj), and as might be expected from the nature of the case ("Trep), many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of the events fully accomplished or surely believed among us. This undertaking is rather commended than condemned by the evangelist ; nor does the Word iire^x^elprjaav of itself contain a reflection, as some have thought, on the writers. This is made clear (a) by their narratives being in conformity with (KaOm) the tradition of apostolic men, that is, of those who had been eye-witnesses from the beginning, and had become, probably after the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, ministers. Luke's own account of his gospel history. 221 not of the eternal Word, nor yet of the thing related, according to the mistaken views of some interpreters, but of the word in its ordinary sense; as well as O) by the fact that the evangelist places himself to a certain extent in the same rank M'hen he says, it seemed good to me also {Kafxol) to compose a history. Still, though he does not censure their well- meaning efforts, or even insinuate their absolute incompetency, yet he certainly implies the inadequacy of their narratives. Otherwise why should he increase by one the number of the iroXKoL so engaged ? Not only so, he clearly claims, and has a perfect right to claim, superiority over them, and that on several grounds. And here he gives us considerable insight into his mdliod. He not only possessed the apostolic tradi- tion and the documents of those predecessors, though whether he used the latter, or how, or to what extent, we are not informed ; but he had traced the stream of the history to its source (dvcodev). Besides, he had made himself acquainted with all {iTaaiv) the circumstances. In doing so he did not content himself with the acquisition of such information as was needful for his work ; the use of the dative TraprjKoXov- drjKOTi instead of the accusative is thought to imply that he had so assimilated that information as to make it part of his mental constitution, " a quality inherent in his person." Further, he had used all diligence to attain exactness and precision (a/cpt/So)?) with regard to the facts of his history ; nor are we at liberty to imagine that his inspiration super- seded, or was ever intended to supersede, the vigorous exercise of his mental faculties, and the careful investigation of all accessible means of correct information. Still more, after all these pains, and this patient, persevering industry, he finds himself in a position to give a correct consecutive account (Kade^rj'i = in order), whether this is to be understood of a systematic classification or of strict chronological order. And now we come to the grand result which was to crown the whole, and which, notwithstanding all his efforts, could not have been attained without the teaching of God's Spirit. For though he does not specifically mention or make any parade of the superior aid and agency at work, he makes no secret of the effect produced — an effect corresponding with the end in 222 THE CANON. view, namely, a(T(j>aXeiav, UDfailing certainty or unerring correctness — in other words, infallibility. The immediate purpose was the attainment on the part of Theophilus of full knowledge {iTriyvSs:) of the perfect reliability of the oral instruction he had previously received, and the more remote consequence was of course the infallihilitij of the record. If, then, we accept the tradition already referred to of Iremieus, Jerome, and others, that what Paul calls " my Gospel" in Eom. ii. 16 and xvi. 25, as also in 2 Tim. ii. 8, was that written by Luke, it consequently follows that it was written with the apostle's sanction, if not suggestion and supervision ; and further, if the supposition of Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom, and many others, that Luke is referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19 as " the brother whose praise is in the Gospel in all the Churches," be admitted, then the expression just cited is a sort of distinctive appellation marking him out almost as distinctly as a proper name ; and while the reference may be to his written Gospel, as Chrysostom maintains, saying hici T7]v laroplav rjVTrep eypayfre, he is thus singled out not merely as an oral teacher, for there were many such, but as one otherwise as well as pre-eminently distinguished. The generality and grace of the gospel as preached by Paul would thus be shown by Luke to have been proclaimed by our Lord Himself even from the beginning, and so the Gospel of Luke, affording support to the Pauline doctrine, might most appro- priately be styled Paul's Gospel. Such a Gospel, moreover, would serve to " introduce," as a modern commentator expresses it, " beneath the vast ecclesiastical edifice raised by Paul, the only foundation which could in the end prevent it from falling." Though this statement appears somewhat strong and even bold, it may, with certain modification, be regarded as founded in fact. Again, Mark's intimacy with Peter appears to have begun in the house of Mark's mother, in Jerusalem ; for after Peter's release from prison it was to her house, as his home, that he repaired. His conversion was due to the instrumentality of Peter, who speaks of liim with such tenderness when he says, " And so doth Marcus, my son." On Paul's first missionar}'- tour Mark discharged the duties of attendant or minister. TESTIMONIES TO THE CONNECTION OF MARK WITH PETER. 223 making the necessary arrangements for the various stages of the journey, and the supply of their bodily necessities. AVheu, afterwards, Silas took his post, as it would seem, with Paul, Mark attached himself in the same capacity to Peter. To both apostles in turn he had been what Paul says of him, " profitable for ministering " (ei;;^p7;o-To? eh BiaKoviav). The patristic testimonies to the connection of Mark with Peter, and the relation of Mark's Gospel to Peter's teaching, come down to us from the very' border-land of apostolic times. We may only select a few as follows : — Ircnceus (latter half of 2d century) says : " Mark, the disciple and interpreter (6 /j,a6T}TT](; KoX €pfi7)vevTT]'E AUTHORSHIP. 249 was external, while Christian worship had all the elements of intrinsic value. The one was gilding, the other gold. The gilding may be very bright, and very beautiful, and very suitable in its place ; but gold, though dimmer and darker, has the sterling worth. The one dispensation was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator, but the author of the new dispensation is Christ, superior to angels, because nearer to the Father ; superior to Moses, for He is a son, not a servant. The old dispensation had the ministrations of the Aaronic priesthood, but the Christian High Priest is more sympathetic and more potent — the former presented the l^lood of bulls and goats, the latter pleads His own blood. The old covenant wanted perfection, the new makes perfect as pertain- ing to the conscience. It is thus apologetic for the gospel by one intimately acquainted with Judaism. A Hebrew of the Hebrews, and a Pharisee of the strictest sect, was, humanly speaking, just the man to develop and defend the gospel from the Jewish standpoint. It was a theme worthy of an apostle, and one that gave full scope to the eloquence of one who of orators was chief. Paul's apostolic authority was not called in question, but the authority of the other apostles, by whom the Hebrew Christians had been instructed, is properly pleaded. But (3) while the style is suited to the subject, and consequently somewhat singular, we must not overlook the similarities. There are (1) close similarities in words, con- structions, and expressions, as follows : — (a) We have similarity in words, e.ff. veKpoo), airoXavat^, a^Ckdp'yvpo 30 \ 89 Now, what attaches great and grave importance to this enumeration of Josephus, and the identification which it so materially helps, is the circumstance already intimated, that he is not writing in the interests of a sect, nor is he giving us the expression of his own private opinion, but rather the embodiment of the public faith of his nation. But in addition to Josephus' own express and explicit declaration regarding the canon, we find in his casual quotations every book of Scripture referred to except four. The four excep- tional cases are Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Job ; NO CHANGE IN CANON FROM ITS CLOSE TILL JOSEPIIUS. 291 wliile the case of the former tliree is covered by the circum- stance that from the eighth Look of his Antiquities, where lie refers to Solomon as an author, it may, with strong proba- bility, be inferred that he regarded him as their author ; and that of Job is accounted for by the fact that the events recorded in that book have no point of contact with the histories of Josephus. If necessary, it might easily be proved that in the interval between the close of the canon and the time of Josephus no change in the books thereof had taken place. We might adduce several authorities to this effect. The same threefold classifi- cation that is found in the New Testament and in Josephus, occurs in the preface to the translation of Ecclesiasticus out of Hebrew into Greek by Sirachides. The lowest date assigned for the translation of Sirachides is 130 B.C., and consequently that of the original by his grandfather must have been at least forty years earlier, say about 170 B.C. Three times in the prologue of this work is this very threefold division of the canonical books referred to ; thus, he says : " Whereas many and great things have been delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets, and the rest that followed their steps ;" that is, the other books that followed in the same spirit. Again, he refers to " the reading of the Law and the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers." And a third time he speaks of " the Law and the Prophets, and the remainder of the books." In this way Sirachides, when referring to the divine authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, makes express mention of that self-same threefold division of them which existed in the days of our Lord and in the time of Josephus. Here it is indisputable that by tmv aXXtov, twice repeated, and by ra Xoiird a third class of sacred writings is designated — a class occupying the same common platform with the Law and the Prophets, though not yet bearing a technical name. The miscellaneous nature of those •writings would perhaps make difficult, and so delay, the designating of them by one appropriate general name. An instance somewhat analogous is noticed by Thucydides in reference to Homer's mention of the Greeks, at the time of the Trojan war, by their tribal designations of Argives, 292 THE CANON. Achoeans, Dorians, lonians, and Danaoi, for want of one national, all-embracing common name. It is obvious, at the same time, that the designation of the others or the rest would have been utterly unintelligible to his readers unless in the supposition of a distinct, well known, and clearly defined class of writings. Here, too, must be observed the definite terms in which Sirachides mentions these books comprised in the third division. They are not others that follow, but "the others;" not other books of our fathers, but " the other books ;" " the rest of the books." A similar reference occurs in Philo, who flourished 40 B.C., for in describing the practices of the Essenes, he refers to " the laws, and oracles predicted by the prophets, and hymns and other writings by which knowledge and piety are increased and perfected." It must also be kept in mind that the Septuagiut version, made before the middle of the 3rd century B.C., though it errs by excess, as we shall see, yet contains all the books of the canon of Josephus, But a sure guarantee for the unchanged condition of the canon before the time of Josephus was the jealous rivalry of the two opposing sects of Judaism, namely, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the ritualists and ration- alists, or rather, the traditionists and Scripturists of that day, for the opinion about the Sadducees only holding by the Pentateuch has Ijeen e.xploded for many reasons that cannot be specified here. Further, if the watchfulness of these conflicting sects was a voucher for the unchanged condition of the canon up till the time of Josephus, a similar vigilance of the two contending parties, that is to say, Jews and Christians, is a warrant for the absence of change or of any tampering with the books or text of the canon since the days of Josephus. The first authority in confirmation of the view just referred to is that of the old Syriac, dating from early in the 2nd century. Tiiere is good reason to believe that the books of this version coincided exactly with those that constituted the Hebrew canon. This might naturally be expected, for, trans- lated directly from the Hebrew Scriptures, it adhered strictly to the books contained therein. Immediately connected with the Hebrew original, it comprised all the canonical books of RESULT OF MELITO'S RESEARCHES IN RELATION TO CANON. 203 the Old Testament, but no more and no less. This Avas the state of matters at the first, and even down till the time of Ephraem the Syrian, a.d. 370, as is certain from the fact that his commentaries embrace all the canonical books and no others. This is further evidenced by the quotations of Ebedjesu, Mdiile the same conclusion is confirmed by the postscripts to certain MSS. published by Pococke. Scarce a century had elapsed from the time of Josephus till that of Melito, bishop of Sardis. This eminent man was born, there is reason to believe, near the beginning of the second century, not long after the death of the Apostle John, and so was a contemporary for many years of I'olycarp and Papias. He flourished a.d. 150-170, when we find virtually the same enumeration of the sacred books by the Christian bishop as that made previously by the Jewish priest and historian Josephus. A special importance attaches to the testimony of Melito. His position, his intelligence, his spirit of inquiry, and critical taste, all combine to increase its value. He had journeyed from his residence in Sardis to Palestine for the express purpose of ascertaining with cautious discrimi- nation and utmost accuracy (dfcpt'^eLav) the number, names, order, and other circumstances connected with the books of Old Testament Scripture. The result of his researches and inquiries is contained in a letter to his brother Onesimus, who was like-minded with himself, and animated with the same earnest inquiring spirit in relation to the records of salvation. In that letter, which is still preserved in the fourth book of the Church History of Eusebius, Melito gives a list of the books of the Old Testament. In the list handed down from this trustworthy and accurate witness — the first Christian writer who has been at the pains to give us such a list, we have proof positive of the sameness of the Old Testament canon from tlie first. Two things, however, are noteworthy in this catalogue. Melito after the Proverl)S of Solomon [HoXo- /x(i)voLa, by which some have understood the apocryphal book called " Wisdom ;" but this is obviously erroneous, for the y is not the article, which would be out of place, but the relative, the meaning of the whole being, The Froverhs of Sdumoii, ivhich is also called 294 THE CAXox. Wisdom. The other matter for remark is, that under the general title Esdvas, Melito comprehended Ezra, Xehemiah, and Esther. Passing over several respectable vouchers for tlie same canon, we arrive at the age of Jerome, at once the best Hebraist and the most learned as well as critical of all the Fathers. This distinguished scholar distributes the canonical books into the three familiar classes of Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, making the whole number of books comprised under these divisions to correspond witli the number of the letters that make up the Hebrew alphabet, that is, twenty- two. He reckons five double books, namely, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah, as corresponding with the five letters in the Hebrew alphabet that have double forms — the so-called final letters, or as they are mnemonically termed, KamnejjJietz ; Eutli he connects with Judges ; and the twelve minor prophets he ranges in one book, according to the well-known Jewish custom. Thus his list is precisely that of Josephus and of the Jews, as already seen. This array of testimony may be closed by referring to the councils, by which the decision of the Cliristian communities, long since come to under divine guidance, was registered, and the canon, already long in existence, was crystallised in the creed of the Church. For example, the list of canonical books authorised by the council of Laodicea is identical with the books in our Bibles at the present day, with a very slight deviation, and one easily accounted for. Baruch is mentioned along with Jeremiah, obviously from the circumstance that a portion of the prophet's words was written down by Baruch acting as his amanuensis, and, no doubt, in a separate roll. Sec. IV, — Tlic Exclusion of the Apocrypha. This topic claims a brief discussion. (ri) The .Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, dating — most of it — from upwards of two centuries and a half before Christ, and containing all the books in our ordinary Bibles, affords a powerful support to the cauonicity of those books. ADMISSION OF ArOCRYPIIA INTO LXX. 295 But this support is to some extent counterbalanced by an acknowledged difficulty and consequent objection. If we admit that the argument from the Septuagint is valid, and no one can question its admissibility, then, it has been urged, the argument proves too much, and constrains us to accept the apocryphal books as of equal authority with the canonical Scriptures. This version undoubtedly is chargeable, as already intimated, with redundancy, but not, there is good reason to believe, in its original condition ; while the true history of this redundancy goes far to meet the objection which it occasions. It was among the sacred books of the Egyptian Jews that the admission, or rather intrusion, of tlie apocryphal books took place. Many special circumstances contributed to this disastrous result, (a) The Jews of Egypt were not so scrupulously conservative of their sacred writings, neither were they so punctiliously exact in tlieir treatment of them, as their brethren in Palestine. Into the causes of this differ- ence it is not necessary to enter. (/S) Besides this difference, the form in which they possessed their books of Scripture had a good deal to do with their too facile introduction of apocryphal books into the canon. They were familiar with their books of Scripture only in the Greek version, made not by one person nor at one time, but by different translators and in successive parts. The production of this translation in such a piecemeal manner helped to weaken the notion of close connection and unity among its several portions as they were successively issued. (7) The apocryphal books, more- over, would, as a matter of course, attain a high rank in their religious literature ; and by and by they stealthily insinuated tliemselves among their sacred books. And j^et we are firmly persuaded that they formed no part of the autlioritative canon even of Alexandrian or Egyptian Jews, (b) (a) Sirachides, the translator of the Book of Wisdom, in a passage already referred to, when contrasting his own biblical studies in Egypt with those of his venerable grandfather, the author of the book, in Palestine, appears to assume the Biblical canon of both as identical, specifying its three well-known divisions as " the Law and the Prophets and the other books," tliat is, the Hagiographa. (/S) Philo in Egypt a little before, and (7) 296 THE CANON. Joseplius in Palestine a little after, the beginning of our era, ignore, each in his own way, the Apocrypha. The former, a man of priestly origin and literary habits, a man intimately acquainted with the religious rites and customs of his fathers, has never once quoted any of the apocryphal books as of Scriptural authority. This is all the more remarkable, as it is certain, from his style and incidental notices, that he was well acquainted with the Apocrypha, and that they might have been adduced by him in several instances as confirmatory of his views. What makes this still more conclusive is the circumstance of his quoting so many of the canonical books as divine in their origin and authoritative in their declara- tions. Josephus, moreover, so far from quoting an apocryphal book as of Scriptural authority, actually cuts them off from all connection therewith. After speaking of the twenty-two books of canonical Scripture being " deservedly regarded as divine " (ra BtKai(o<; 6ela ireiricnev^evd), he pronounces the books written from the time of Artaxerxes till his own time as " not entitled to like credit with those which precede them," at the same time assigning an admittedly valid reason which will afterwards present itself for consideration. Are we not then justified in drawing the legitimate inference that the acknowledged canon of Hebrew Scripture, whether in Egypt or Palestine, was identical, and consisted of the very same books which all Protestants own as constituting the Old Testament Scriptures ; while the apocryphal books were never admitted into that canon by that people wliom Jehovah had constituted the conservators of His truth and the deposi- taries of His living oracles ? (c) In the third place, the matter is put beyond dispute by the fact that no apocryphal book is quoted directly or authoritatively by our Lord or His apostles, while they have quoted upwards of 600 times from the Old Testament canon, and from every book of it, with the exception of six, that is to say. Judges, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. (cl) Another argument of considerable importance against the canonicity of the Apocryplia, is the language in which the apocryphal books were M'ritten. With two exce[)tions, they were all written in Greek, as we still have them. Now, a genuine Jew would shrink from uniting APOCRYPHA AN OPEN QUESTION TILL COUNCIL OF TRENT. 297 Greek books M'ith those written in his own holy Hebrew tongue (^'i'lp li^Jv), to which he was so devoutly attached ; so that however they may have obtained admission among the Greek books of the Septuagint version, they never gained, nor were likely ever to gain, a position among the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. Farther, taking the lowest reasonable date for the close of the canon of the Old Testament, we shall find that tlie Greek language was not sufficiently known to the Jews to be employed by them for literary purposes till a much later period. But there will be occasion to return to tliis. Meantime, it is sufficient to observe that of the two books written in Hebrew, one admits distinctly and decidedly its own inferiority to the books of the canon ; while the otlier, with equal explicitness, disclaims all pretension to canonical authority, (t') To all this must be added the fact that among the very copious and numerous quotations from the canonical Scriptures tliat abound in the early Christian writers, not one is taken frf)m the apocryphal books — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (= the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach), Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees. Even Justin Martyr has not a single quotation from them. In fact, the only Father during the first four centuries of Christianity that countenanced the introduction of the six apocryphal books into the canon was Augustine. But eminent as he was in the domain of theology and interpretation, he possessed little skill in his- torical criticism ; while all the other Fathers, distinguished for critical discernment, give in their adhesion to the Hebrew canon. Among these Origen and Jerome may be specially referred to, — the former so pre-eminent for persevering devotion to critical studies as to justly earn the name of Adamantine, the latter superior to all the other Fatliers in Hebraistic attainments. Even up till the famous Council of Trent the canonicity of the apocryphal books was left an open question. In 1546, at a session of that council, consisting of some 53 members, the decree was issued that all the books and all their parts found in the Latin Vulgate should be acknowledged as sacred and canonical. Since then, judicious and enlightened theologians of the Latin Church, as, for example, Du Bin and Jahn, have tried to evade the stringency of the decision by 298 THE CANON. having recourse to the doubtful expedient of dividing the books of Scripture into proto-canonical and deutero-canonical ; the former possessing dogmatic, tlie latter only ethical autho- rity. But this compromise is inconsistent and equally objec- tionable with the Tridentine decision. The choice must lie between two courses. The alternative is canonical or un- canonical. The ground of that alternative, as we shall see by and by, is inspiration or non-inspiration — prophetical author- ship or non-prophetical. Is any of tliese documents inspired ? then it is fairly and properly entitled to a place in the canon. Is it an uninspired production ? then must it without any hesitation be excluded from that rank. There is no halfway house in regard to this matter. There is no middle region. The history of the introduction of the Apocrypha is soon told. It made way gradually. The Septuagint, it must be owned, laid the foundation ; Augustine helped to rear the structure ; and the Tridentine Council laid the topstone on the work. Sec. V. — Principle of the Canons Formation, and Period of its Close. (1) The time when and tlie ijrinciple on which the canon was formed must now engage attention for a little. We have somewhat anticipated in refusing the Apocrypha a place in the canon, and in stating the ground of that refusal. Here, however, it is necessary to examine the matter a little more in detail. The question propounded at the outset in regard to the grounds on which Jews and Christians admitted certain books into the canon, and whether or how far they were jus- tified in doing so, now comes up in its proper order. In other words. On what principle did they proceed ? It will also become apparent that the time at which the canon \vas com- pleted, and the principle on which it was formed, are so inter- laced that it would be at once inconvenient and inexpedient to dissociate them ; for if the canon of the Old Testament was formed on the principle of prophetic authorsliip, its close would, as a matter of course, have a near relation to or con- nection with the cessation of the prophetic element. Here it ECCLESIASTICUS INFERIOR TO CANONICAL SCRIPTURE. 299 will be necessary to have in recollection that by a iirophct the Jews understood not always or necessarily one who foretold future events, but in every case one who spoke, or wrote, or ]:)rophesied, giving religious instruciion hy divine inspiration. Hence it is that we find the books which are mainly historical classed with the strictly prophetical, because the former as well as the latter were attributed to prophetic authorship. The Book of Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus, already mentioned, and composed, on the lowest calculation, nearly two centuries, but according to other and better authorities, early in the 3rd century, before the Christian era, affords data from which it may with good reason be inferred that long prior to its composition the canon liad been closed, the succession of prophets having concluded and the spirit of inspiration ceased. At the very time Sirachides speaks of translating it out of Hebrew, lie admits candidly and clearly its inferiority to any part of the canonical Scriptures. This is not brought out with proper distinctness or made sufficiently apparent in the common rendering of the words as they stand in the Prologue of Sirachides. To this Pusey has properly called attention. The words referred to are the following : ov fjuovov Se ravra dWa Kol avroraisG and thanksgiving unto God." Here we perceive a clear indication of the third part, as elsewhere in the same Book of Nehemiah of the first and second parts, of which the canon was composed. But the connection of ISTehemiah with the canon is asserted by the author of Second Maccabees, who in the 2nd chapter of that book contrasts Jeremiah and Nehe- miah, and draws a parallel between the services which they had respectively rendered to the sacred writings. The former, he alleges, had preserved the law, the latter had performed a similar good office to the other books of Scripture, combining them into one sacred collection. The words in the original are : — co? KaTa^aW6fi€vo<; ^i^Xtod^KTjv i7rL(TVur]yay€ ra Trepl rwv ^aaCkeoiv koI nrpoc^riTOiV, Kal ra rov /lavlB, Kal e7rLaTo\a.'} D"'?l1"3^')." Still it may be fairly asked how or why is it that in the middle books of the Pentateuch the priests are called " sons of Aaron ;" while in Deuteronomy that designation gives place to " the priests the Levites," or Levitical priests ? A good reason can be rendered for this change of title. During Aaron's lifetime the priesthood was confined to himself and his sons — restricted, in fact, to a single family. During that time the priests w^ere literally sons of Aaron. Subse- quently their descendants succeeded to that office ; and as the priests were no longer the sons of Aaron in any proper sense, but formed a tolerably numerous spiritual class, they are named no longer after the nearer, but after the more remote progenitor who was head of the tribe. But even in these middle books the priests have the name Levites applied to them. This, we are aware, has been conti'overted, but it is confirmacd nevertheless by the following statements of Scripture: — "Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?" Ex. iv. 14; "And Eleazar, Aaron's son, took to him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife ; and she bare him Phinehas : these are the heads of the fathers of the Levites according to their families. These are that Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord said. Bring out the children of Israel," Ex. vi. 25, 26; "Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side ? Let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi (including, of course, the priests) CERTAIN LEGITIMATE CONCLUSIONS COME TO. 321 gathered themselves together unto him ;" again, " And the children of Levi (necessarily inclusive of the priests) did according to the word of Moses," Ex. xxxii. 26, 28. The children of Israel were commanded to give to the Levites forty-eight cities in all ; of these forty-eight cities thirteen were set apart for the priests, as we know from 1 Chron. vii. 62. But in Num. xxxv. 7 we read : " So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities." Thus the thirteen cities specially reserved for the priests, as well as the remaining thirty-five cities, are said to be given — all of them — to the Levites ; clearly, then, the term Levites is applied to the priests as well as other members of the tribe in this passage of Numbers, one of the so-called middle books of the Pentateuch. Not only so ; of the cities of refuge Hebron was one, and it was given to Aaron's sons, as we read in 1 Chron. vii. 57:" And to the sons of Aaron they gave the cities of Judah, namely, Hebron, the city of refuge," etc. But again, in Num. xxxv. 6, we read : " And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge ;" a city given as we know to the sons of Aaron is here affirmed to have been given to the Levites ; consequently, the name Levites is thus applied to the priests the sons of Aaron. In like manner, in Num. xxvi. 57-60, we read : " And these are they that were numbered of the Levites after their families ... of Kohath, the family of the Kohathites. . . . And Kohath begat Amram . . . and she (Joche- bed) bare unto Aniram Aaron. . . . And unto Aaron was born Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar," and so the name of Levites is here also extended to the priests the sons of Aaron. We are justified, then, in concluding {a) that by " the priests the Levites " we are to understand the priests from among the sons of Levi. With this the comment both of Kaslii and Ibn Ezra agrees ; the former says : ixv^K' c^nDH ^"1^ OSK'D, the priests that issued from, the tribe of Levi ; the other has : ""lij Dn''"'D D3''XB' '"'jna B'^ '•a, that there are priests who are not of the family of Levi ; (b) that by the term " Levites " by itself alone, are meant the other ordinary and non-priestly members of the tribe ; and (c) that in the middle Pentateuchal books, as well as in Deuteronomy, the priests have the name X 322 THE CANON. of Levites occasionally applied to them. " The most plausible passage for confounding priests and Levites," says Keil in his Introduction, " is chap. x. 8." It appears to us, on the con- trary, that this verse, with a clause of the 6 th verse which precedes, presents, or at least implies, that very " graduated hierarchy," the absence of which from Deuteronomy has been urged against the Mosaic authorship of the book. The por- tion of verse 6 to which we refer, together with verse 8, reads as follows : — " There Aaron died, and there he was buried ; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead. ... At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name, unto this day." Here we have first the priestly office, or rather the high-priesthood of Aaron, and of his son and suc- cessor Eleazar, as a distinct thing ; then we have the whole tribe to which this priestly family belonged separated for the dis- charge of certain duties — some to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, others to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name. Though on sj)ecial and solemn occasions the priests bore the ark, yet in the wilder- ness the Kohathites, a non-priestly section of the tribe, were told off for this business, as we learn from Num. iv. 4, 5, 15 : " This shall be the service of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation, about the most holy things : And when the camp setteth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering vail, and cover the ark of testimony with it. . . . And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward ; after that, the sons of Kohath will come to bear it : but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation." But while it was incumbent on a non- priestly portion of the Levites " to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord," it was the exclusive duty of the priests " to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name." Here, then, is a graduated hierarchy — high priest, priest, and Levite, or rather, high priest, Levite, COMMENTS OF EASHI AND IBN EZRA CITED IN CONFIRMATION. 323 aud priest (the Levite intermediate, as his office required him to minister to both). But it may reasonably be asked, What ground is there for this division of duties among the members of the tribe, or for this distribution of its members according to those duties ? Our answer is as follows :— (a) God is a God of order, not of confusion ; and that all the members of a tribe numbering so many thousands should be competent to the selfsame duties, and employed therein, would seem to tend directly to disorder, and could not conduce to any orderly discharge of the required duties, (b) Immediately after the mention of the separation of the tribe of Levi in chap. x. 8, reference is made to their support in these words : " Where- fore Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren ;" in chap, xviii. we have a similar, virtually the same, assertion in regard to them — they " shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel ;" and then follows a statement (already glanced at) speci- iying as separate and distinct the priest's due on the one hand, and the Levite's portion on the other ; so that, as it appears to us, while the distinction of office or service, in connection with support, is pointed out with tolerable plainness in the 18th chapter, a similar distinction of service is assumed in the 10th chapter as a matter of common notoriety, (c) Our understanding of chap. x. 8 is confirmed by the commentary of Eashi on that verse ; thus D^bn 'n 't^!?, to bear the ark — the Levites; d^d: n1X^t^•J xini n^jn^n 'n 'h '^h 'h, to stand to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name — the priests, and this is the lifting ui^ of the hands. The comment of Ibn Ezra makes a like distribution, but is somewhat fuller ; its literal rendering is as follows : — At the time of the luorship of the calf the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark to stand before the Lord; to minister unto Him— ^Ae sons of Levi with the sons of Aaron {i.e. the priests assisted by the Levites) ; and to bless in His name— /or Eleazar lifted up his hands, (d) We need not be in the least surprised if the line of distinction be not so sharply drawn in this book between the different orders in the tribe of Levi ; for (a) the writer's object was not to give prominence to distinctions among the members of the tribe, but to place the tribe itself in its proper relative position with regard to the other tribes, to claim for it the prerogatives to 324 THE CANON. which it had a right, to state plainly what was due to the tribe as such, and to enforce the consideration and treatment to which its members were entitled ; (/3) the style of the book is hortatory, rhetorical, and eminently popular — a sort of style which refuses to embarrass itself with and degenerate into wearisomeness by minute distinctions and details ; (7) such dis- tinctions as those referred to, particularly that between priests and Levites, did not come within the writer's scope, and were not needed, as they could not be unknown to those who were addressed. The condign punishment with which Korah and his company were visited must have impressed the distinction in question with solemn awfulness on the heart of every Israelite. When Korah and his adherents, not satisfied with the honour of service in the courts of the tabernacle, aspired to the dignity of ministering at the altar, their destruction made the distinction between priestly and non-priestly Levite for ever memorable. But surprise has been expressed that, when in Deut. xi. 6 the punishment of Dathan and Abiram is adduced as a warning, there is no mention made of the sin or punishment of Korah and his company ; while the omission is urged as telling against the distinction for which w^e plead. Thus it is said : " His example could not serve as a warning in Deuteronomy, which concedes altar privileges to any Levite." No doubt Korah and his company made common cause with Dathan and Abiram and their abettors ; they were all alike malcontents and fellow-rebels. But the cause of the rebellion in the one case was very different from that which operated in the other. Dathan and Abiram rebelled against the civil jurisdiction and authority of Moses ; Korah and his company aspired to the sacred office of the priesthood hitherto vested in Aaron and his sons. Each party had a colourable pretence to allege in support of its claim. Dathan and Abiram were the sons of Eliab, the son of Eeuben, Jacob's first-born ; they had never forgotten nor lost sight of the rights of primogeniture thougli forfeited by the sin of their forefather. Those rights which Reuben forfeited were threefold, viz. that of pre-eminence transferred thenceforth to Judah ; the double portion given to Joseph, so that the one tribe became two, and that of Joseph was represented by Ephraim and Manasseh ; the priesthood NATURE AND GROUND OF KORAH'S CLAIMS. 325 bestowed on Levi. Accordingly, these chiefs of the house of Eeuben opposed the civil power of Moses, and refused to acknowledge his right to rule ; hence, when he summoned them to his presence they refused obedience, and declined to come, saying : " We will not come up : Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thyself altogether a prince over us?" Consequently when, in the 11th chapter of Deuteronomy, obedience is enjoined, and the observance of the divine charge, statutes, judgments, and commandments is inculcated, and the chastisements incurred by disobedience pointed to as warnings, the affair of Dathan and Abiram was just a case in point. They had resisted the divine administration of which Moses was merely the instru- ment ; they had rebelled at once against the legislative power of the Most High and the executive authority of man, for God was their lawgiver and Moses the administrator. But Korah's pretensions were of a quite different kind, though here also they were encouraged by his rank. He was one of the chiefs of the family of Kohath, being the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi; and we have already had occasion to remark on the position and privileges of the Kohathites who were specially employed to carry the ark and holy of holies, though strictly enjoined not to look into them ; and thus among the Levites they stood next in dignity to Aaron and his sons, and next to them ranked highest in the sacredness of the service which they rendered and of the func- tions they had to discharge. Thus elevated by the sacredness of their function in being employed about the ark and holy place, as also by near kinship to Aaron, he laid claim to the priestly office on behalf of all his tribe, as we may rightly infer from Moses' remonstrance, as contained in the following words : " And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi : Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them ? And He hath brought thee near to Him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee : and seek ye the priesthood 326 THE CANOX. also ? For which cause Loth thou and all thy company are gathered together against the Lord : and what is Aaron that ye murmur against him ?" It is plain then, we think, that while Dathan and Abiram constituted themselves the cham- pions of popular rights, professing a desire for elevating the whole congregation of Israel, and possessing, probably, as much disinterestedness as such leaders are often found to have, Korah claimed the priesthood for himself and tribesmen. Consequently, in Deut. xi., where there is no special reference to the priesthood, or to Levitical service, or to any differ- ences whatever among the members of a single tribe, or to any single tribe as such, but where God deals with all Israel, — the whole congregation, without respect to tribe, or rank, or office, — urging all to loyal obedience, and warning all against the sin and danger of disobedience, the sad story of Korah's ambi- tion would have been as much out of place as that of Dathan and Abiram's disaffection was in place in the passage. Still that history of fearfully blasted ambition, when Korah and his men (probably his servants or others who supported his cause — not his sons who survived) miserably perished, and " the 250 princes of the assembly, famous in the con- gregation, men of renown," were consumed by fire from the Lord, drew the line of demarcation with sufficient sharp- ness to make the distinction remembered ever after in all the succeeding centuries of Hebrew history, and to supersede entirely such repeated reference to the distinction as some would appear to desiderate. But (e) reverting to the difficulty involved, as is thought, in Deut. x. 8, and referring to the supposed want of distinction between priest and Levite, and the consequent competency of the latter to discharge all the duties pertaining to both, we shall be excused for quoting the following sensible observations from Keil, who says : " If so " {i.e. if all Levites were competent to all those functions referred to), " it only remains to say that this is affirmed, according to the technical language of the old logicians, in a divided and not in a compounded sense ; not that ' each individual Levite was separated to do all these things, but that all who were separated to do them were Levites." Then, after denying that Deuteronomy slurred the distinction INTIMATIONS OF DIFFERENT ORDERS IN THE TRIBE OF LEVI. 327 between the two orders in the sense hostile to the belief of the Mosaic authorship, he goes on to say that " the character of the book did not call for the discrimination of the two orders. This will surprise no one who considers how much they were alike ; so that the Levites were the companions and assistants of the priests, competent to do everytliing at their bidding which they could do, except ministering at the altar ; and let it be noted how the distinction remains in entire abeyance, for instance, in the argument in Heb. vii., though the writer will be acknowledged to be familiar therewith." One other passage of the Book of Deuteronomy, which pre- sents in a strain of poetic and beautiful language the " graduated hierarchy" of the middle books, deserves attention. Here, how- ever, we must premise that in the language of poetry we cannot expect a minute specification of the different orders of function- aries, and a particular allotment of the duties discharged by each ; for while this might be done in a prosaic detail, it would not and could not suit the genius of poetry. The passage to which we refer is Deut. xxxiii. 8-10, where in the blessings of the tribes we read : " And of Levi he said, Let thy Thum- mim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah ; who said unto his father and unto his mother, I have not seen him ; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children : for they have observed Thy word, and kept Thy covenant. They shall teach Jacob Thy judgments, and Israel Thy law : they shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon Thine altar." There is undoubtedly an intimation here of the different orders in the tribe of Levi, for though not specifically named, the nature of their respective duties sufficiently defines them. The Thummim and the Urim were the distinguishing privilege of the high priest ; the instruction of the people in the divine judgments and law, but especially the ministry of the altar, described here as putting incense before the Lord and whole burnt sacrifice upon His altar, were the ordinary functions of the common priest; while the historical allusion is to the occurrence in the wilderness in consequence of the worship of the golden calf, when the Levites at Moses' command turned 328 THE CANON. their swords against their brethren indiscriminately, and slew of them in one day about three thousand men. The record of this event is found in Ex. xxxii. 26-29, and is as follows : — " Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side ? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses : and there fell of the people that day, about three thousand men. For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to-day to the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother ; that He may bestow upon you a blessing this day." Thus the sons of Levi — all of them — executed divine vengeance on their idolatrous brethren with- out favour or affection, or any respect of persons whatever. The conduct of the whole tribe had been meritorious in the past ; this is the background of the picture of the future blessings to be bestowed. But while there are blessings in store for the whole Levitical body, there is a plain intimation of special duties and of special privileges that can only fall to the lot of few ; the parcelling out of such duties and privi- leges, with specific mention of those to whom they should pertain, would not harmonise with the poetic diction of this address, and could not reasonably be expected in this place. The knowledge of such allotment is presupposed or to be gained elsewhere. And yet these orders are shadowed forth, and a graduated hierarchy of high priest, priest, and Levite outlined on the surface of the passage. 2. The law of the kingdom is the next topic to which we shall advert, but with due regard to brevity. In the article " Bible " in the Encyclopedia Britannica, the following state- ment occurs : — " If the law of the kingdom in Deut. xvii. was known in the time of the Judges, it is impossible to comprehend Judg. viii. 23, and above all, 1 Sam. viii. 7." The law of the kingdom as contained in the chapter referred to {i.e. Deut. xvii.) extends through vers. 14-20, and is too long for citation INSTRUCTION BLENDED WITH REPROOF. 329 here. On carefully examining the whole, one cannot fail to perceive an undertone of remonstrance, if not of rebuke, along with the directions and warnings that are contained in it. God foresaw that a time would come when Israel would back- slide from the Lord, and when, forgetful or neglectful of the fact that God Himself was their king, they would seek an earthly kinsf to rei"n over them ; that, unmindful of and ungrateful for the blessings of His benignant sway, they would ask for another sovereign to rule among them. Foreseeing what in course of time would come to pass, God directs His servant to make provision for such an eventuality. But even in the instruc- tions which He gives in this regard there is an intermingling, half apparent, half concealed, of justly deserved reproof. Such is our reading of the passage in question. " When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein ;" here is an enumera- tion of the blessings God had bestowed on them — the land was the Lord's, and He gave it to Israel ; they were now settled in quiet and peaceful possession by the good hand of His providence upon them ; they were dwelling in it prosper- ously under His special sovereignty. But lo ! their base ingratitude — stupidly and sinfully they reject the King who had been author of all these benefits, and under whose reign they had enjoyed all these blessings, saying : " I will set a king over me ;" this was as much as to say. We will not have God any longer to reign over us — under the circumstances it could not mean less. " Like as all the nations that are about me" they add ; but this is the very thing that God forbade — He separated them from the nations, and meant them to be a witness and an example to them, and a peculiar people to Himself; but they longed for assimilation to the nations, and a sovereign like the rest. If with any skill or any sort of clearsightedness we read between the lines, we cannot fail to read the meaning thus. Farther, provoked by their folly and faithlessness, God lets them have their way so that their own rod may chastise them ; His repentings, however, are kindled together. He does not cast them off by dealing with them as they have sinned, or requiting their iniquity. He says in effect, if they must have a king let them have him, still let 330 THE CANON. him be such an one as the Lord their God shall choose : " Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose : one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee." He then proceeds in a similar strain to blend warning with thinly veiled reproof — your king is not to multiply horses to himself, nor cause his subjects to go back to Egypt, you had enough of its slavery and its sin ; I redeemed you from the house of bondage, do not return thither, nor allow your king — the king you substitute for me — to lead you back. Neither is he to multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away ; nor greatly multiply wealth to himself — as though there was some danger that self-indulgence, or self-aggi^andisement, or self in one form or other, should engage his thoughts and affections much more than his subjects or their interests. Xow, {a) viewing this passage of Deuteronomy in this light, which we believe to be the true light, and comparing it with 1 Sam. viii. 7, 9, 19, 20, where we read : " And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee : for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them . . . howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. , . . Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel ; and they said. Nay ; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations" we come to the irresistible conclusion that the spirit of the two passages is identical ; that the tone of both is the same ; that what was foretold in the one is fulfilled, and fulfilled exactly, in the other. Nor is this all, the very words of Deuteronomy are repeated in Samuel, so that instead of the knowledge of the law of the kingdom, as stated in Deuteronomy, making Samuel incomprehensible, it is almost indispensable to our right comprehension thereof, the latter being perfectly compatible with and complementary of the former. The cherishing of the desire for a king when God was their. king was sinful, the motive that prompted that desire was more so — they aspired to similarity with the surrounding nations. The kind of king that the law of the kingdom contemplated — a king from among their brethren — a king whom the people LAW OF THE KINGDOM KNOWN TO SAMUEL. 331 would choose, God guiding the choice and setting him on the throne, was after all not exactly the thing they aimed at — they wanted a king like those of the heathen nationalities around. Moreover, if we compare the directions in Deuteronomy to the king, to fear God and to keep all the words of the divine law, for the prolongation of his days and those of his children in the midst of Israel, with the like exhortations of Samuel to fear the Lord, and serve Him, and obey His voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, that they and their king might continue following the Lord God, we are strength- ened in the belief that Samuel, instead of being ignorant of the law of the kingdom in Deuteronomy, had it before his mind, and had an eye to it throughout the whole transaction. (h) With regard to Judges, the case is similar. Putting aside the difference between b^D and l^D, namely, rule of any kind, and the reign of a king, we find that Gideon had been raised up at a particular emergency and for a particular work ; that done and the crisis past, he is invited to rule over Israel ; but Gideon declined to accept a longer term of office or a higher degree of dignity than had been necessary for their deliverance out of the hand of Midian. As a return for the safety he helped to bring them, they wished to make him their sovereign : " Eule thou over us, both thou and thy son and thy son's son also : for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian." He saw full well that, as was tlteir wont, they were putting man in the place of God — the instrument instead of the author of their safety ; he accord- ingly reminds them of Jehovah, their proper saviour and sovereign, and refuses to usurp the glory due to God, saying with greatest propriety : " I will not rule over you ; and my son shall not rule over you : the Lord shall rule over you ; " He who delivered you has the sole right of dominion over you. We fail entirely to see any contradiction between Judges and Deuteronomy in this matter ; on the contrary, we have positive evidence of acquaintance with the law of the kingdom in Deuteronomy on the part of Gideon's son Abimelech, when he was eagerly grasping at what his father declined ; his words to his kinsmen of Shechem on the occasion were, " Whether is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal, 332 THE CANON. wliicli are threescore and ten persons, reign over you, or that one reign over you ? remember also that I am your hone and your Jlesh." Surely we have here an eclio, and one very distinct, of the Deuteronomic terms in the law of the kingdom, viz., " One from among thy bretlireu shalt thou set king over thee." (c) The view here taken of this whole affair is confirmed by several ancient authorities. The appointment of a king was out of harmony with the Mosaic constitution, according to which Jehovah was Israel's king. The revolutionary move- ment that issued in monarchy was predicted by Moses in the passage we are considering ; but the change from Theocracy to an earthly king has neither the sanction nor recommenda- tion of the Most High. No approval of the measure is either expressed or implied in this Scripture ; and when popular clamour had brought it about, the prophet Samuel gives utterance to the strongest disapproval. A reluctant permis- sion, it is true, is granted — a concession is made to a stiff- necked wayward people, who were ignorant of their own mercies and unthankful to the author of them. Instead of collision, then, there is correspondence between the concession made anticipatively in Deuteronomy, and the permission grudgingly granted when the emergency that had been thus anticipated actually arose. Ibn Ezra speaks of the nomination of a king as a permission (n1t^'■|) empowering, not a precept enjoining. Such, too, is the opinion of Abarbanel. Similaiiy Josephus says : " Aristocracy, and the way of living under it, is the best constitution : and may you never have any inclination to any other form of government ; and may you always love that form, and have the laws for your governors, and govern all your actions according to them ; for you need no supreme governor but God. But if you shall desire a king, let him be one of your own nation," B. iv, ch. viii. 17, Whiston's Josephus. The opinion of some, who hold that the rules laid down for the king point to the time and circum- stances of Solomon, is quite unfounded. One of these rules furnishes positive disproof of that opinion. When the king is forbidden to multiply horses to himself, the reason assigned for the prohibition is lest the people should return again to Egypt ; " nor cause the people," it is added, " to return to Egypt . . . forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you. Ye shall henceforth return no more that way." This would be quite in keeping with the recent departure from that land, and the known fickleness of the people in the days of Moses, when on any occasion of danger, or difficulty, or distress, " back to Egypt " was likely enough to become the general cry. From the sad experiences of this sort in the past, the lawgiver with good reason guards against any temptation to such a con- tingency in the future. But to imagine an allusion in con- nection with such an event to the reign of Solomon, when the time of any thought of a return to Egypt was long past, after the people had been long in possession of the land of promise and in the enjoyment of unexampled prosperity, when the constitution was firmly and well established, and the nation fully conscious of its independence, would be as absurd as to fancy the United States again taking their place among the colonies of Britain. 3. The central altar or national sanctuary is the next sub- ject for consideration in connection with the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. " The law of the high places," says the article already referred to, " given in this part of the Penta- teuch (i.e. Deuteronomy) was not acknowledged till the time of Josiah, and was not dreamed of by Samuel and Elijah." That it was not always acted on would be nearer the true state of the case. But let us examine the law itself, the occasional exceptions to its operation, together with the cause of such exceptions. The law is stated in Deut. xii. 5, 11, and is as follows : " But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there for His dwelling ye shall seek, and thither shalt thou come ; " again : " Then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there ; thither shall ye bring all that I command you ; your burnt-off'erings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord." But before examining the nature of this law, and the circum- stances that occasioned it, let us look at the law of Exodus XX. 24, to which, as is thought, it stands opposed. In the 66-i THE CANOX. verse of Exodus just cited we read : " An altar of earth thou shalt make unto nie, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt- offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen ; in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." Now the allegation is that these statements — one in Deuteronomy and the other in Exodus — contradict or are inconsistent with each other ; that the former refers to the temple ; and that it was not fully acknowledged till the reign of Josiah, and that consequently the time of the composition of the book was in that king's reign, or at least subsequently to the reign of Hezekiah. The verses of this chapter, Deut. xii., going before and introducing the command of this text (ver. 5) required the complete destruction of all the places of Canaanitish worship as well as the idols worshipped there — the high hills and mountain-tops, chosen by heathen nations in general from their fancied nearness to the heavenly habitations of their numerous deities, the gloomy groves with sombre shade, the green trees with thick foliage, as though tending to inspire awe or dispose to devotion. All these, and such like means and memorials of idolatry, were to be cleared away in prepara- tion for the pure worship of the true God. Then comes the contrast, " Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God ; " He was not to be worshipped in all places of man's choosing, nor with a variety of different altars at man's option erected to Him, nor by offering sacrifices of human selection. But, on the contrary, " unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there for His dwelling shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come." Thus, in the first place, the direction was levelled against places, modes, and objects of idolatrous worship. Neither the place nor the manner of Jehovah's worship was left to human arrangement, but to exclusively divine appointment. The choice of a place for the erection of an altar was indicated by a divine manifestation — wherever He put His name, that is, made known His special presence. Thus in patriarchal times we read : " And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said. Unto thy seed will I give this land : and there builded he an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him." But in the KELATION OF LAW OF DEUTERONOMY TO THAT OF EXODUS. 335 days of the patriarchs there was less restriction in this matter, for in places without such manifestation, as far as recorded, the tent was pitched and an altar erected. After the Sinaitic covenant, however, the rule became more stringent, in order, as it seems, to prevent any approach to or contact with idolatrous practices. Henceforth the direction in Ex. xx. 24 came into operation, and in no place was an altar to be erected except where God recorded His name ; and to all such He attached the gracious promise, " In all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." Soon as the tabernacle was erected there was a place where God put His name — recording that glorious name, and manifesting His gracious presence. There was the appointed place of worship. But during the wanderings and journeyings of the Israelites in the wilderness the tabernacle could not be per- manently localised, but was shifted about from place to place. In Deut. xii. 5, however, an intimation is given that, in time to come, when the wilderness pilgrimage would be over and the land of promise gained, God would be graciously pleased to make choice of a place in one of the tribes of Israel for the setting up of His sanctuary, whether tabernacle or temple, or for the manifestation of His name. Here commentators and scholars diverge — some holding that the law of Deuteronomy in this matter is " only an explanation and more emphatic repetition of the divine command in Exodus ; " others, that the Deuteronomic law repeals or collides with that in Exodus. We confess our inability to acquiesce in either statement of the case. That there is a restriction in Deuteronomy as com- pared with Exodus must, we think, be acknowledged ; but, on the other side, the restriction to the one place is not so rigid as to exclude every other, no matter what circumstances might emerge, while an exclusive reference to Jerusalem or Moriah or Zion may be justly pronounced " an arbitrary assumption." A Erench Eabbi of note, commenting on the difficulty of bringing the one central altar of Deuteronomy into harmony with the plurality of altars in Exodus, thinks that one way of solving the difficulty is to refer the one passage to the nomadic life in the desert, and the other to the settled life in Canaan. His words are : " Ces difficultes disparaissent, quand on songe 336 THE CANON. qu'il s'agit ici d'une epoqiie on la vie nomatle avait cesse, voy. ci dessous, v. 8 et 9." This is true as far as it goes, for, though there was the one legitimate sanctuary for divine service, namely, the tabernacle where God manifested Himself, yet that was moved about from place to place, and in all these places worship, if rightly offered, was acceptable and accepted. When they reached their destination in the land of Canaan there was to be one place chosen by God for recording His name and receiving His worshippers. This, under ordinary circumstances, was the divinely appointed place. But while the law of worship was restricted in one direction, it was enlarged in another. In Lev. xvii. 3-5, the people were enjoined under a severe penalty not to kill ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or out of the camp, without bring- ing it unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord. They were required to bring the animals intended for food unto the priest, and offer them for peace-offerings unto the Lord. But that restriction is here relaxed, or rather that law is repealed, for in Deut. xii. 15 it is written : " Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lustetli after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which He hath given thee : the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart." Animals slaughtered for human food could be eaten by clean and unclean alike, just like the animals here named which were not offered in sacrifice, and so required no ceremonial distinction on the part of the eaters. It has been argued, indeed, from the words, " a statute for ever unto them throughout their gene- rations " (Lev. xvii. 7), that this Levitical law was meant to be permanent, and by consequence necessitated a plurality of contemporaneous altars, contrary to the law of a single central one. But a careful reading of the context shows that the essential principle of the law, which was the prohibition of demon-worship and of blood, alone was permanent, the tem- porary restriction of the wilderness giving way to a regulation more liberal and suitable to the people settled throughout the promised land. And now we come to consider the operation of the Deutero- CONDITION OF THINGS IN SAMUEL'S TIME ABNORMAL. 337 nomic law of one national sanctuary. In the normal con- dition of things this was the law to be observed, and yet circumstances might, as we shall see, transpire when God for good and wise ends would record His name and manifest His presence elsewhere. After the passage of the Jordan the ark was first set up at Gilgal, and there for the time was the national sanctuary; there the rite of circumcision was ad- ministered ; there the Passover was kept on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho. The next place where the ark was set up was Shiloh, after the conquest and division of the land by Joshua, as we learn from Joshua xviii. 1 : " And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there." Here it remained many years, and during all these years God's name was recorded in Shiloh, and Shiloh was the place of the national sanctuary. The story of the disastrous defeat of Israel in the time of Eli, and of the capture of the ark by the Philistines, needs not to be repeated here. For seven months it was lost to the Israelites, and for twenty years after that it seems to have lain neglected at Kirjath-jearim, in the house of Abinadab. This was a time of disorganization of both Church and State in Israel; the circumstances were exceptional ; it was a period of great spiritual declension. What was said shortly before the beginning of this period was very probably true throughout it : " There was no open vision." In this state of things the law of Deut. xii. fell into abeyance ; and now tliat the people began to repent of their sins, for we read that " all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord," Samuel, acting on his own responsibility, or perhaps directed by the Lord, undertook the work of a reformer, and fell back on the rule in Exodus, for we find him at Eamah when there was a sacrifice of the people in the high place (1 Sam. ix. 12); again we read in Samuel's direction to Saul (1 Sam. x. 3), of three men going up to God to Bethel; then (1 Sam. x. 17) we find Samuel calling the people together unto the Lord to Mizpeh ; also (1 Sara. xi. 15) Samuel invites the people to Gilgal, where Saul was made king, " and there they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings before the Lord." In all this, as we shall see Y ooH THE CANON. I'eason to believe, there was neither collision between Deut. xii. and Ex. xx., nor impropriety of conduct on the part of Samuel. Shiloh had been the national sanctuary in Samuel's youth, and thither his pious mother brought him. Of that as a national sanctuary he must liave been well aware, and so of the law against high places ; but in a quarter of a century or so from that time the condition of things both civil and religious had become abnormal. And so, when he engaged in the arduous work of restoring the state from its condition of decadence and of reviving religion after a long period of de- clension, he acted with undoubted judiciousness in exerting his influence for good in different places, and not confining himself, as he might and probably would have done in a normal state of things, to one centre of operations. Further, if we revert to the time when Samuel commenced his work of reform, after the ark had been brought to Kirjath-jearim, and Eleazar, son of Abinadab, sanctified to keep it, we find Samuel stirring up the people to humiliation and repentance in a solemn address unto all the house of Israel, saying : " If ye do return unto the Lord with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve Him only " (1 Sam. vii. 3). After their compliance with this direction, Samuel announced an assembly of all Israel at Mizpeh ; at this great convocation of the children of Israel at Mizpeh he engaged in solemn religious exercises, offering up a sucking lamb for a burnt-offering, and engaging in prayer. Now while, as we have seen, he chose different centres of operation, and while that choice was in all probability dictated by what appeared most conducive to the more rapid and thorough revival of religion, it does seem strange that he did not begin at least with Kirjath-jearim where the ark was, or that he did not have the ark transferred to those different centres of operation in turn. Why was this ? Was there in this any needless neglect of " tlie ark of the covenant of the Lord of Hosts which dwelleth between the cherubim " ? In the absence of any direct or positive information on the subject we may only conjecture. Tlie reason of the preference he shows to Mizpeh above Kirjath-jearim, and his apparent Joshua's altar on mount ebal. 339 neglect of a former observance by overlooking the ark, may have lain deep down in his purpose to wean the people from what was visible, — even from the ark, though the visible symbol of the divine presence, — to turn their thoughts to what was inward and spiritual, and to concentrate them on their own hearts as the seat and source of true repentance and real reformation, that rending their hearts and not their garments they might turn unto the Lord. Thus he meant to turn them from a superstitious reverence of the symbol, like that of their heathen neighbours for the images of their idols, to the living One Himself — from the ceremonial to a complete abjuration of their present corruption of morals and irreligion. Besides, the law against high places was levelled against idolatrous practices and against self-constituted religionists ; not assuredly against the servants of the Most High or the prophets of the Lord, when influenced by His grace and authorised by His spirit they reared an altar when it was most needed, and where it was most likely to serve the purpose of true religion. But even in the same Book of Deuteronomy, where the national sanctuary or central altar is sanctioned, we find one of these exceptional cases. In chap, xxvii. 5—8 we read, " And there {i.e. on Mount Ebal) shalt thou build an altar unto the Lord thy God, an altar of stones : thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of whole stones : and thou shalt offer burnt- offerings thereon unto the Lord thy God. And thou shalt offer peace-offerings. . . . And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly." This was strictly complied with, and with a particular reference to this very passage. It was a special occasion as well as a most imposing scene. The Law was to be ratified with unusually solemn ceremonies. In that lovely valley, bounded by Gerizim on the south and Ebal on the north, and with its wonderful acoustic properties, priests and elders and officers and judges round the ark forming a central group, while half that multitude of people crowded up the slopes of the northern hill and the other half those of the southern, the Levites read the curses of the Law, responded to by the loud Amen from Ebal, and the blessings, with a like response from 340 THE CANON. Gerizim. There an altar had been erected " as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, and thereon they offered burnt-offerings unto the Lord and sacrificed peace-offerings" (Josh. viii. 31). On that grand and solemn occasion, though the letter of the law about the one national sanctuary was departed from, yet its spirit lived and energised when on that fresh spring morning, as has been beautifully said, " Israel did consecrate Palestine unto the Lord, and take sea and lake, mountain and valley, — the most hallowed spots in their history, — as witnesses of their covenant." But while the letter of the law in Deuteronomy may thus have been departed from for exceptional purposes or on special occasions, when a servant of the Lord acted on his own spiritual instinct, or it may be, according to some unre- corded intimation from the Most High, or even by express divine command at the very time when that law was fully known and acknowledged, we can conceive another and a far different cause of such departure — a cause for which there can be neither excuse nor apology. At a time of abounding ungodliness men may shut their eyes to the law though well known, and to all tlie consequences of transgressing it. In the subsequent history of Israel this many a time took place. But we have not to advance beyond the desert wanderings for an example and proof of a law being well known and acknowledged by all, and yet not acted on. Who in all the Hebrew host could be ignorant of the rite of circumcision, or rather of the law that so positively enjoined that seal of the covenant ? and yet for nearly forty years that law was disobeyed and departed from. Thus it is written in Josh, v. 5 : " Now all the people that came out were circumcised ; but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised." And all this in direct violation of a command so positive and a law so absolute as that relating to circum- cision, and recorded in Gen. xvii. 12-14: "He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in, your generations. . . . He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised. And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin LAW OF THE ONE ALTAR IN THE TIME OF JOSHUA. 341 is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." But the Deuteronomic law of the national or central sanctuary was known, and well known, even in the time of Joshua, as we learn from the august embassy and earnest expostulation from Israel to the two tribes and a half on the occasion and in consequence of the erection of the memorial altar called Ed (surviving as 'Ayd to the present day) by those trans-Jordanic tribes. When Phinehas the priest and the ten princes that accompanied him came unto the land of Gilead, to the Eeubenites and Gadites and half tribe of Manasseh, they addressed them in the name of all Israel : " Thus saith the whole congregation of the Lord, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the Lord, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the Lord ? . . . but rebel not against the Lord, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God." What was it that aroused the fears of the people, and called forth the zeal of priest and princes ? Evidently the strong suspicion of, or perhaps, we should rather say, the holy jealousy against any infringement of this very law which forbids another altar. It was plam that such an altar would be in unholy rivalry to the one at the national sanctuary, as much as those at Dan and Bethel, which were expressly set up for that very purpose by Jeroboam, It was equally obvious that such a rival altar, even if it did not tend to idolatry, which it would be most likely to do, would be certain eventually to rupture the tribal union. The building of such an altar for sacrifice would be attended by the worst consequences ; it would be necessarily antagonistic, as we have said, to the national altar ; it would be rebellion against the Lord, who had appointed one national place of worship ; it would be isolation for the present, and separation from the congregation of Israel in the end. But such apprehensions were groundless. This altar was not for sacrifice in opposition to the Deuteronomic law ; neither was it for separation, but to testify their share in the sanctuary and service and common- wealth of Israel. " It is a witness pV) between us and you. 342 THE CANON. God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord, and turn this day from following the Lord, to build an altar for burnt- offerings, for meat-offerings, or for sacrifices, besides the altar of the Lord our God that is before His tabernacle" The last words of the Scripture just cited seem to put it beyond doubt or question that the Deuteronomic law was both acknowledged and acted on in ordinary circumstances in the time of Joshua. Even in David's day, and after the disorders and disasters of the preceding reign, though the tabernacle remained at Gibeon, yet that reforming monarch appears not to have lost sight of the one national sanctuary when he had the ark brought up to Zion, purposing in his heart and making pre- paration for the building of that beautiful house which Solomon his son and successor was privileged to erect. Circumstances over which he had no control prevented the full accomplishment of all he desired. The great- gi'and son of Solomon, Asa, in acknowledgment of, and acting on the principle of tlie Deuteronomic law, " took away the altars of the strange gods and the high places, and brake down the images and cut down the groves : and commanded Judah to seek the Lord 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 images" (2 Chron. xiv. 3-5). In the time of Jehoash, who reigned well all the days of the priest Jehoiada, and who repaired the house of the Lord ; as also in the good reign of Amaziah ; it was a standing draw- back and subject of complaint that " the high places were not taken away : the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places." They did what they could, but the evil was beyond :their power to remedy. They evidently knew the law of the case and respected it, but were unable to secure compliance with it ; and all this long before the time of Josiah. Even Hezekiah, great-grandfather of Josiah, was well aware of it, and succeeded where his predecessors had failed, for " he removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves." We hold, then, that the traditional belief in the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy remains unshaken by any argu- ment derived from supposed anachronism or fancied dis- SUPPOSED DISCIlEPx\.NCIES IN MINOR MATTEKS. 343 crepancy in relation to the law of a national sanctuary, or the law of the kingdom, or the alleged equality of priest and Levite in Deuteronomy, as compared with their relative position in the middle books of the Pentateuch. There are several minor matters in connection with which discrepancies are supposed to exist, and to militate against the authorship of Moses. We can barely notice these. (1) The mountain of the law is called Horeb in Deutero- nomy, and Sinai in the other books of the Pentateuch. But Horeb is the entire mountain range, and Sinai the single mountain-top, as pointed out by Hengstenberg and approved of by Eobinson. This is confirmed by the prepositions employed with these words respectively, as may be seen from one example ; thus : " Behold, I will stand upon (/V) the rock in (3) Horeb" (Ex. xvii. 6), the one being the individual spot, the other the whole region ; while the latter preposition is usual with Horeb, the former with Sinai. Besides, Sinai occurs once in Deuteronomy, and Horeb thrice in Exodus. (2) It has been inferred from 'n -\2V2 in the hrst verse of Deuteronomy that it was written on one side, and that Moses spoke on the other. But this expression, as also other forms of it, denote simply across the Jordan, sometimes west of the river, oftener east of it, just according to the position, real or supposed, of the persons addressed, and easily discoverable from the context. (3) In Ex. xxii. 31 : "And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field: ye shall cast it to the dogs;" in Lev. xvii. 15, such a contingency is anticipated and provision made for it : " Every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even ; " he was thus cleansed, otherwise he remained unclean and bore his iniquity; but in Deut. xiv. 21, it may be given to the stranger within the gates or sold to an alien, for it is there stated : " Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself : thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat ; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien." The 344 THE CANON. eating of such flesh is forbidden in the first passage ; non- compliance witli this proliibition defiled either native or stranger, as we are taught in the second ; in the third it may not be eaten by an Israelite, but may be given to a stranger. The same thing that pollutes the stranger in the one passage is permitted in the other. How is this to be accounted for ? Apparently thus : the stranger in the one instance is a proselyte, and occupies the same position with a native Hebrew in respect of defilement. Not so a stranger who, declining to become a proselyte, preferred to throw in his lot with the heathen rather than with the Hebrews, and was accordingly treated with only a trifle more consideration than the alien — to the one it was given, to the other it was sold. Neither came under the Jewish ceremonial, the conscience of neither was bound by Levitical law. Want of time and space obliges us to reserve the consideration of many other important topics in this connection. CONCLUSION OF THE "WHOLE. As an offset to cavils might be adduced the many wonder- ful confirmations of the Bible, from ancient history, modern discoveries, long-buried inscriptions, human experience, topo- graphical research, and numerous other sources. As the centuries roll these confirmations have been multiplying. Let us relate an anecdote with which Mr. Bardsley illustrated the valuable confirmations of Holy Scripture in connection with the Palestine Exploration still going on. " A cloth factor in Yorkshire," he proceeded to say, " had a piece of cloth stolen from him. After careful inquiry he came to the conclusion that a neighbour of his, also a dealer in cloth, had stolen it. He went and claimed the cloth, saying that he thought this must be his cloth. ' Prove it,' said the other. ' I think I can,' said the first. He had reflected that if the cloth were really his, the holes in the selvedge would exactly fit the distances of the posts and nails in his field along which the cloth had been stretched. These holes had, of course, been made by the nails at the time of stretching. The cloth was carried to the field and tried. Every hole fitted every nail, no more CONCLUSIOX. 345 and no less, and the distances were exactly right. The proof was sufficient. The man confessed the theft. Now, this is what the Palestine Exploration Society have been doing with the Bible and the Holy Land. They take the Bible to the Holy Land, and everything fits. The incidental allusions, the places, manners, customs, products, climate, all correspond. The Bible fits the land, and the land fits the Bible." In tlie Bible, if anywhere in all the universe, is found the truth of God ; here, as nowhere else, is presented not the word of man, but in truth the word of the Lord. Over the surface of this troubled unresting sea of human life many a storm sweeps, while many a sunken rock and perilous quick- sand and treacherous shoal lie hid beneath ; but in this Word of God is the evershining, everlasting lighthouse of our world. Amid tlie many changing scenes of earthly existence, the vanities of time, the uncertainties of condition, and even the treacheries of human friendships, we have in this "Word of God an unchanging and never-failing testimony to heaven's unintermitting love. Under the deep unspeakable sorrows that at times overwhelm us in our sojourn, there are truths here that can soothe us now, and not only prove our solace on earth, but form part of our joyful triumphant song in heaven. The mightiest works of man may perish, powerful empires be overthrown, and great cities vanish, but the Word of the Lord, through all the ages that lapse and the centuries that roll, liveth and abideth for ever. Human institutions may live their day and die, having served their purpose they may grow old and outlive their usefulness, becoming obsolete and antiquated; but this Word of God is animated by a living imperishable principle that makes it proof against all feebleness or decrepitude of age. In all the years that have been it has proved tlie rod and staff, the stay and support of the faithful ; in all the years that shall be it will retain its strength unshorn, and its vigour shall neither know nor feel decay. The myriad angels that came down on Horeb at the giving of the law, and the angelic hosts that carolled the nativity on the plains of Bethlehem, returned to the light and splendour of their native heavens ; but the voices left behind and cauglit up in Scripture will reverberate round the world, 346 THE CANOX. awaking echo after echo in ceaseless succession that shall never die away. And though no voice from heaven may sound down to us through the blue empyrean, and no vision be vouchsafed to us as to ancient patriarch or seer ; yet are we privileged to hold uninterrupted converse with prophets, apostles, and evangelists, and not only with them, but through them with Almighty God Himself, as He speaks to us by His servants and addresses us in His Word. This Word of God may be attacked in the future as at the present and in the past — the ribaldry of Paine, the wit of Voltaire, the subtilty of Hume, the theories of scientists, and the plausi- bilities of criticism, all in succession or combination may be arrayed against it, but it shall never be shaken, and can never be overthrown. This Word of God, in its stateliness and stability, may be compared to that great pyramid that stands in the Nile valley, tlie evidence of man's mechanical power and a wonder of the world ; it has borne the brunt of countless storms, the thunders of heaven have rolled over it, the lightnings have flashed against it, all the fierceness and fury of warring elements have spent themselves upon it, the desert sands have been dashed around it, still it stands a monument of imperishable greatness, unshaken and immovable on its solid foundation. The elements themselves shall melt with fervent heat, this earth and all the works thereof shall one day be burnt up : Scripture affirms it, science confirms it ; but even then the truths of this Bible will only be entering on a higher and grander fulfilment. " How precious is tliis book divine, By inspiration given ! Bright as a lamp its glories shine. To guide our souls to heaven. " may its lamp, through all the night Of life, make plain our way ! Till we behold the clearer light Of an eternal day. " APPENDIX A. THE following is tlie calculation referred to on page 37. This line of argument employed by Babbage was wrought out and extended by J. E. Young, Esq., formerly Professor of Mathematics in the Eoyal College, Belfast. We have here made some important additions to it, and at the same time modified and simplified it considerably : — (a) As usual in such cases, put certainty = 1 . {/8) Let it be borne in mind that the pro- \ bability of an uncertain event is represented f _ No. favouring by the number of chances favourable to an | "" No. for + M o. ac. event divided by the total number of chances, ) (I.) Put the number of persons who died without resurrection = (/. Put the number of all persons born into the world = d+l. Accordingly death prevailed over d+l, or failed in 1. (a) .'. Probability oi TesMTTection = - — ; — - = - — •- . . . (1). . ^ d+l+l d+2 (b) Improbabilihj of same, or probability of non-resurrection (1+2 ~ d + 'l d + '2 ^'^'' (II.) Probability of falsehood in case of a person who is — (rt) Guilty of one false statement in every ten statements that he makes =yq=/ (!)• (b) Probability of veracity in case of the same individual (c) Now, in a compound probability, the rule is to multiply the chances of the separate events together. .-. Chances for =_I_x(l-/) (3). d + 2 ^ ^' . '. Chances against = -, — x / (4). .'. Probability of resurrection dT2^^~^^'' {\-fY . d + 2^ ■'' ^d+2-' 347 348 APPENDIX A. .•. Imirrohahility of resurrection d^2^ (d + l)f- d+2-^ ^d + 2^ -^ ' (III.) In order that A may exceed B, or the probabiUty /(>?• be greater than the probability against resurrection, let (1-/)" ^ (^+1)/" {l -fr + {d+ !)/» ^{d + 1)/» + (1 -f)n ' or, as denominators are the same, (1 -/)'>(./ + !)/» Dividing by/" Taking the logarithms, .-. nlog. (l-l)>%. ((/+!) a-o //I ,\ /9 ^12 no ^12 ^1.^ .'. ?i> — = orn> -or7i>12. / 9 -954 ^ Put creation = 6000 years (ago), A generation — 30, . 6000 ^^^ .". — =^- =200 generations. Again, put average population = 1,000,000,000, .■.d+\ =200,000,000,000. Suppose it 5 times greater, that is, = 1,000,000,000,000 = IQi-. If prob. of resurrection = -; = — — - — -- ^^^ — ,- ^ (/ + 1 + 1 200,000,000,000 + 1 .*. chances against = (denom. mimos num.) = 200,000,000,000 + 1 - 1 = 200,000,000,000. (IV.) Multiply the chances against K by 5 = 1,000,000,000,000. (a) Thus the odds against its occurrence = a million millions to one. {(5) Yet the testimony of any number of witnesses above twelve, though the truthfulness of each is one falsehood for every nine truths, renders the occurrence of an event against which the chances are a million millions to one more probable than its non-occurrence. (y) But, as a million millions is five times the number of the human race from its origin till the present time, the probability of the occurrence becomes five times greater than of its non-occur- rence, under the circumstances and according to the data already assumed. APPENDIX B. T HE LXX. version of Isa. liii. 7, 8, referred to on page 132, is here compared with the original Hebrew. (1) 1. u)S TTpoySaroi' CTrt cr(f>ay7]V '^X^V '^"' '^^ dyu.vds. nb' = lainb ^rn = sheep. 2. ivavTLOV Tov K€tpovTOS avTOv d(f>u)vo?, ovT(i}<; ovK dvoiyet to (TTOfxa avTOV. rT'TT-lj pi. and fem. saff. =her shearers, 3. iv rfj TaiTCLv '^4' ^i?P^ m