cTWODERNISM AND ITS RE-STATEMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: IS IT THE TRUTH OF GOD ? New York LOIZEAUX BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS 1 East 13th Street THE BIBLE TRUTH PRESS 1 EAST 13TH STREET. NEW YORK PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOREWORD In this review of Modernism, chiefly from its religious viewpoint, and in particular as to how it affects the truth concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, I have especially used the Rev. Dr. J. Macbride Sterrett’s book, “Modernism in Religion.’’* A review of it assures us that, “This book is really different. It is thrilling, it is scholarly, it is de¬ vout. There is a conspicuous absence of both the ‘cant’ of the ecclesiastic and the ‘can’t’ of the skeptic. A con centrated common sense graces every page. It will clear rather than create doubt.”t The choice, then, of this book for the purpose in hand would seem to be fortunate. My reader can surely count upon its presentation of Modernism being safe and sane, and feel assured that its case is fairly, and I must almost say moderately, pre sented by its accomplished author. “Christianity and Progress” by Dr. Harry E. Fosdick has also been referred to in several connections. * The Macmillan Co., 1922. t Review and Expositor. 4 Foreword Works of general reference, of acknowledged repute, have been consulted so that the ground might be thor¬ oughly covered, at least as far as concerns the particular aspect of Modernism which comes before the reader in this volume. It is sent forth with the hope that it will prove both helpful and enlightening to those who are in any measure concerned about the trend of present-day religious move¬ ment, and a warning to those who may be indifferent to what is involved, and an awakening note to at least some who are already ensnared. John Bloore. Plainfield, August, 1923. CONTENTS CHAPTERS PAGE Introduction . 7 I. — Our standard of knowledge and judgment: Is it the Bible or Science? . 19 II. — The Bible, what it is . 46 III. — Man’s history and condition: Does it witness to evolution or devolution? . 68 IV. — The virgin birth of Jesus: Is it fable or abso¬ lute necessity in view of all the requirements of the case? . 92 V. — The humanity of Jesus: What are its charac¬ teristic elements? What was its state in Him? Was it real and true humanity? . 112 VI, — The deity of Jesus: Is it an ethical ideal or con¬ crete fact? Is it merely divinity manifested in humanity, or deity and humanity in perfectly manifested union, though inscrutable as to ana¬ lysis by the finite mind? . 128 VII. — The death of Jesus: Was it a supreme example only, the consummation of a perfect life of self- sacrifice, or was it for atonement as a propitia¬ tory and substitutionary sacrifice? . 163 VIII. — The resurrection of Jesus: Was it a fact or an ^‘ethical miracle?” What relation does it bear to the truth of Christianity? . 184 6 Contents IX. — The second coming of Jesus: Is it an ethical idea, or an actual personal appearing, and still future? . 204 X. — Conclusion: A brief statement of Biblical truth as to God — Christ — the Spirit — Israel — the Church — creation and nature — man, his nature, fall, salvation, destiny — world-conditions and their consummation — the Second Coming . 223 APPENDICES I. — Some critical blunders . 272 II. — Tables of References . 274 III. — The Genuineness of John’s Gospel . 283 IV. — “The New Testament To-day” . 294 INTRODUCTION Modernism, in the aspect we are to consider it, is a distinctively religious movement. It stands for what is called a new spirit, and for the use of modem methods, particularly defined as the inductive and prag¬ matic method in the study of religious teaching and ethics. It affirms that the Holy Spirit “is speaking through men in the 20 th century as strongly and inspiringly as to men of other ages.” It is imbued with “the desire and effort to find a new theological synthesis, consistent with the data of historico-critical research.” This means an entire reconstruction of belief, “a radical transformation of hu¬ man thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life, here and hereafter.” These tenets are clearly defined in a large number of recently published books. Owing to the fact of their very wide acceptance, what they present to us demands our careful consideration. Modernists avow their purpose to think, act and worship according to 20th century concep¬ tions, and to live in better harmony with the modern world-view. This involves the most radical changes in re¬ lation to every aspect of Christianity, and the sincere, earnest soul may well raise the question. Is it the truth of God? We must of necessity try the spirits to see if they are of God or not. Thus we find ourselves imme- 8 Modernism diately faced by the question as to what we shall use to try and test the word of these modern oracles. To this they give their answer which, after all, leaves us where we must either exercise a blind faith in their word, or seek further for what will test and prove them. Since we choose the latter, they certainly cannot object to the use of inductive and pragmatic methods in making the test, for they approve of these methods. The Modernist attitude is connected with certain prom¬ inent modern conceptions which are applied to, and made fundamental to, the interpretation of doctrine and belief. These constitute what is called the world-view, to which the Modernist seeks to conform everything of a religious nature in both the natural and spiritual realms, that he may think, act and worship in accord with the 20th century. Let us summarize these modern conceptions which are basic to the attitude and views we have under consider¬ ation. 1. Evolution stands in the forefront with its hypothe¬ tical development of man from that division of mammals which includes the apes and monkeys. 2. The Unity and Order of Nature, in the light of which it is affirmed there can be no room for the inter¬ vention of the supernatural or miraculous. This means an unbroken and universal unijoirmity in the universe. 3. The Divine Immanence in Nature and Man, blended with God’s transcendency. The former idea is stated to be “the recognition in the world, of which we are a part, of spiritual qualities and values, and what we cannot but call spiritual purpose, with which as spiritual Introduction 9 beings, rational, beauty-loving, and moral, we are called to co-operate, and which as eternal and universal Spirit we are moved to worship. This is the immanent God — God in all things and in us.” Again, “God is immanent also in the experience of man, in all human history, in all institutions for man’s uplift — the same God who is also above.* That is the way that Modernists conceive of Nature, and of man in his ascent out from and above physical nature.” 4. Relativity must yield its quota to the Modernist. This is applied to everything, both of a revelational and institutional order embodied in Christianity, making all simply to bear relation to the time in which it was given, from a study of which certain things may be learned. *That is, also in some sense transcendent, as not simply being the world, as it were, nor absolutely dependent on the world for expression of Himself, which would be mere pantheism, but free and perfect in Himself before ever the world was. This, it is admitted, can only be appre¬ hended through what is termed some self-disclosure or positive revelation of God; for, “Can the unassisted in¬ tellect of man attain by speculation on the universe or out of its own resources any secure hold upon the transcendent God,” though “it be granted that it can attain to the secure conviction that in some real sense God exists as ^the spirit of the universe’ or ‘the soul of the world?’ ” The religious Modernist, since he seeks to keep some notion of God’s transcendency, must have some sort of revelation to add to the so-called “higher pantheistic” teaching which has become associated with the idea of the Divine immanence. What kind of revelation it is, and its worth to us, we will examine later; and also consider in our last chapter what is really true in the thoughts of immanence and transcendency. 10 Modernism errors detected in the light of present progress, what ap¬ peals to the modern mind retained, what does not stand its historico-critical research discarded, and a reconstruc¬ tion of belief be made which is relatively consonant with the 20th century, as that of the New Testament was with the first century. 5. With the foregoing is necessarily associated the so- called Historical Method, defined thus: “Put yourself as far as you can at the point of view of those in any age that you are stud3dng. See as far as possible with their eyes; get their world-view. How did any institution or any body of laws or doctrines come about? What was the character, time, place and needs of the situation? And what did they mean to those who formulated and to those who accepted them? Their past forms are to be estimated by their contemporary situations and problems. Their solutions are to be recognized as upon the whole the best they could make and the best for their times.” That is the value of Scripture to us! As a sample of the results, let me quote further. The Modernist “is well versed in the knowledge of the first-century Jewish con¬ ceptions, and can appreciate the way the early Christian Jews preached the gospel to their fellow- Jews. St. Mat¬ thew and St. Mark who voiced the way St. Peter preached it, did not speak in an obsolete dialect or in a foreign tongue.* They showed that Jesus was really the fulfil¬ ment of their own ideals, f But I am not a Jew, and do * We, of course, would now be doing so should we speak in this day as they did. t We, then, are to show He is the fulfilment of our ideal; that is, as in idolatry, we are to fashion a god to our own liking. Introduction 11 not need to be argued with as a Jew. Neither am I a Hellenized Jew. St. Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews presented Jesus so as to meet the needs of the Hellenistic Jews. Neither am I a Greek, and greatly as I esteem the way the gospel was presented to the Greeks,* I am not a Greek. Neither am I a Roman, and highly as I esteem the work accomplished by a Romanized form of the gospel, I cannot accept it as authoritative, for I am not a Roman.f My whole world¬ view is different from that of the Romans as it is from that of the Greeks or the Jews. Neither is my world-view like that of the mighty men of Reformation times. If you present the eternal protean Christ$ in the setting of any of these past world-views and demand my accept¬ ance of Plim in the form there given as authoritative and final, then I do not see my way clear to enter the church. * Which, I suppose, was by John, for though it is said the Greek Fathers of the early church identified the Jewish Messiah with the Greek Logos, *fit nearly all be¬ gan with the Gospel of St. John. ‘In the beginning was the Word {Logos).*” t Some of these Modernists speak of Mark as the Roman Gospel, and rather satirically say that the epistles present Christ as a *^divine official” in relation to atonement and salvation. This, I suppose, refers to Him as the one Mediator. These writers began this idea of “officialism” because it suited “the thought of the Greeks and the political lives of the Romans. Our world-view is different from both of these ... We would fain have modern con¬ ceptions for our setting of Jesus of Nazareth.” t That is, one assuming any aspect you like to give Him. There is nothing static about Him. It reduces Him to an idol of your own imagining. God forbid! 12 Modernism I would like to see Jesus robed in conceptions of the modern world-view.” 6. Another foundation stone in the Modernist structure is the science of Comparative Religion. This, through “a large and free study of other religions,” has given, it is said, the broad and divine conception of how God’s reve¬ lation has been given in the past to children of all ages and climes. 7. Finally, the New Psychology plays its part in the work of reconstruction, as it is called. It is the science of ‘‘self,” of how and what we feel, largely subordinating all to subjectivism, and destroying the reality of the objective, that which is outside ourselves. This, intro¬ duced into the religious realm, practically makes God to be what I as an individual feel or conceive Him to be in my own consciousness. I believe I have fairly summarized what is basic to the whole Modernist position. I wish now to briefly state how Christianity is affected by the views developed from this position. Doubtless my reader has gleaned already a little of what may be expected, but it may be as well to state it in a categorical manner. 1. The Bible is not to be read as an infallibly inspired book. It is “the literature, or a collection of pieces of the sacred literature, of the Jews and the early Christians. It is a record of the religious experience of many men in many ages; of their discovery of the revelation of the divine in and through the human ... It might be added to or substracted from ... It stands as complete as do the works of Homer and Plutarch . . . Suffice it to say, Introduction 13 that Bibliolatry of the Old Testament, that extravagant and uncritical devotion to it as literally the Word of God, apart from any scientific estimate of its contents is now a thing of the past.” The New Testament fares no better, being subjected to the same principles of criticism. “But when the critical work is done, devout souls will find a new New Testament, containing a livelier word of God.” 2. Christ is not to be thought of as God. That would really mean His dis-incarnation. That He was divine, was the best interpretation those living with Him could give of the impression He made upon them. And what this means to-day is thus expressed, “My faith in the God¬ head of Jesus means that I believe that in getting to know Him, I get to know God . . . Never does He cease to be a man for me. He becomes for me merged, as it were in God, or identical with God. When I say that the man Jesus is God, I mean that He is for me the index of my conception of God.” Christ is only a divinized human be¬ ing, for it is declared He simply held “in His human mind and will as much of God, of God pure (?) as human nature at its best, and when most completely su- pernaturalized, can be made by God to hold, whilst re¬ maining genuine human nature still. And yet this same Jesus (though in this supreme, heightened sense, the Christ) remains thus also truly Jesus — that is, a human body, to sense-stimulation, to history and institutions, to succession, time and space.” This is hailed as “a statement of one of the finest and most Christian minds of to-day.” This is taken to inter¬ pret the Incarnation, which is nothing more than “the conception of a kinship between God and man.” Again, 14 Modernism “The Divinity of Christ does not necessarily imply the Virgin Birth or any other miracle. The Divinity of Christ does not imply omniscience.'^ 3. Man is not a fallen creature but a being of continual upward movement in the process of his creation. He has ascended into his present form, and “has come thus far in being ‘created in the image and likeness of God.' That is the archetypal idea. And the end is not yet. His creation and man’s ascent still go on, ‘till we all come unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the ful¬ ness of Christ’ (Eph. 4: 13), the generic man, the fully created man.” From the Pithed to Deity! Why not? Of old it was said, “Ye shall be as God.” But listen! “Why do we not come to this more rapidly? Here comes the old enigma, the old discoid of ^m.” The Modernist asks and answers the ques'jin. “It comes not with a mythical fall of the first Adam. It comes rather with a sense of broken unity with God. It is not a positive in¬ heritance of total depravity. It comes with man’s vision of himself as he ought to be.” This simply means that sin is any coming short of the standard man may erect for himself. This will of course be according to the stage of his evolution. Man gets a vision of what he ought to be, and what does not answer to this is sin. “It is a state of man’s consciousness.” 4. From this it is easy to see what salvation means for the Modernist. It is “the getting of the mind of the Master into one’s soul ... So far as we have the spirit of Jesus, of self-sacrifice, of service, just so far are we saved here, and just so far we shall be saved when we pass into the kingdom above. Saved from our sins rather Introduction 15 than from future punishment.” There is no need for propitiatory or substitutionary atonement. Atonement is rather at-one-ment achieved through growing likeness to the Christ-image, and so a decreased consciousness of sin, thus effecting its removal. Propitiatory sacrifice is ^‘a reversion to the worst ideas of pagan sacrifice, savoring of the heathen temple and reeking with blood.” 5. The meaning of death and judgment must be radi¬ cally changed in such reconstruction of belief. “To the modern Christian the old doctrine that death ends all probation, and that everlasting torment awaits the major¬ ity of men, is inconceivably blasphemous.” All are to be drawn “back into the Father’s house.” “If you were to ask for the most generic belief about the character of the future life for sons of men, I should answer that it is the same that I have for the end and purpose of this life: and that is the further education and discipline of the sons of men into the image of the Master . . . That is the essential meaning of the doctrine of the intermediate state of the departed. And the intermediate state, the intermediate school, that is the highest that the vast majority of us will be fitted to enter, so slow has been our progress in Flis school here below. Our death day will usher us into the new world, just as we are. But it will be in the Fa¬ ther’s universe, somehow, if not somewhere, in His larger universe of ‘all things visible and invisible.’ . . . We shall need further education and further remedial punishment, or purging ... It is a state for refining and purifying. Few of us shall be fitted to enter heaven; few are the saints, the pure in heart who shall see God. That will take a long course of education and purgation for the most of us.” Thus it is said, “the Divine Pedagogue is 16 Modernism drawing His children [i. e., all the sons of men] into mystic union with Himself,” through many circles before they reach “the highest heaven.” All this is simply Christianized Theosophy, which suits well the Christianized pantheism which pervades these teachings of Modernism. I need not go further. All is manifestly built upon a naturalistic, humanistic, evolution¬ istic basis. Man’s thought, his conceptions, hence his wis¬ dom, is the standard of knowledge and revelation. God cannot reveal Himself except through, and as circum¬ scribed by, the imperfect medium of His creation and creature-man. There is nothing final or static. All is ever in flux, yet ever contributing abiding elements of progress, it is proudly claimed. “It is all a matter of psychology . . . The whole process is the way the mind works.” Listen, again, my reader: “What is God like? That de¬ pends upon who we are, and at what period of life and culture we are, at the time of uttering it . . . Grant, then, that man’s thought about God is conditioned by his stage of culture at any given time, and we can trace a growth in the spirituality and intellectuality of the conception of God in all vital religions. Let us grant that the reli- ious mind is naturally anthropomorphic, not forgetting the theomorphic side of man’s nature. Then we may say that an honest, just, merciful. Fatherly God, is the noblest work of thinking man . . . Again, along with the mental process of making God in the likeness of man, there goes the process of making Him out of the likeness of man; the process of de-anthropomorphizing his mental picture of God, as he proceeds in general culture . . . The history of many other religions may be best studied in the light of a Introduction 17 gradual purification and elevation of their conceptions of God. So may that of Christianity. It has been going on through the Christian centuries. And we may trace the same process in our own religious conceptions.” Con¬ sequently, “we have to validate the conceptions of people in all religions. Yes! surely in those of the Greeks and Persians, and others, as well as those of early Jews. Christianity need not be envious. Our God is not. The self-same spirit has been co-working with all His human children in all stages of culture in every age of the world. Any other view is skeptical. In all forms of experience, God has been making revelation of Himself to them.” The grand consummation of this modern reconstruction of belief is the doctrine of deified humanity and hu¬ manized deity, in effect dethroning God from His trans¬ cendency and elevating man to fill the vacancy. We are left with a human book rescued by the penetrating light of the all-searching eye of modem science from the mists of mythology and the dark enshrouding clouds of misconception which prevailed in past ages, and which threatened to carry it down to oblivion. Masterly and heroic achievement! A human Jesus, whose portrait is now presented to us after all the blurring lines and gro¬ tesque features of the portraiture made by those Pales¬ tinian disciples and Epistolary theologians are removed, the horrible distortion finally effaced by the patient labor and delicate touch of modern critical art ! A human God, whose character and features I can only learn as they become gradually disclosed in an age-long process reach¬ ing into eternity. It is not man made in the image and likeness of God, but God being made in the image and likeness of man! 18 Modernism I believe I have fairly presented the case of Modernism. It is before us to be tested. Let us examine its foundation and superstructure. Its votaries present it as the highest form of Christian teaching. The concluding chapter of this book will be the summa summarum of our iniquiry and study. MODERNISM AND ITS RE-STATEMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: IS IT THE TRUTH OF GOD? CHAPTER I Our standard of knowledge and judgment; Is it the Bible or Science? IT is plainly fundamental to our inquiry, absolutely essential for the testing and proving of the views under consideration, to determine whether we have a standard by which to weigh and measure. Let this be reached by a review in the first place of modern world-progress and its effects in the moral and spiritual realm; then, particularly in the same sphere, modern scientific developments in research and criticism; so that an answer may be given to the question. Is hu¬ man reason, scientific knowledge and research a court of last appeal for everything religious — for Christianity, in fact? If the answer is negative, we may well ask. What then? But let us wait until we have before us the results of the review just outlined. I It is stated that no real idea of progress existed in either the Greek, Roman, or Hebrew-Christian viewpoints. 20 Modernism “Gradual change for the better was not supposed to be God’s method with mankind; the future was not conceived in terms of possible progress; and man’s estate on earth was not looked upon as capable of indefinite perfecti¬ bility.” The early Christians contemplated a world- tri¬ umph of God, which was not progressive, but “cataclys¬ mic,” like a “divine invasion” which would come suddenly “like the flood in Noah’s day, like the lightning flashing from one end of the heaven to the other, like a thief in the night. To be sure, the eager expectation . . . grew dim” because the church moved out of days of persecu¬ tion into scenes of worldly acceptance, power and glory. But still the prevailing thought remained that “human life and history were static, and the only change to be anticipated was the climactic event.” To-day’s world-view is completely revolutionized. This undoubtedly is largely due to the wonderful impetus given to every branch of life through scientific invention and knowledge of the universe, man’s amazingly increased control of natural resources and power, united with world¬ wide progress in every field of human endeavor, so that the outlook is ever on to greater triumphs, whether scienti¬ fic, social, or governmental. The world to-day looks for¬ ward to a gradual but ever-increasing growth up to per¬ fection of the highest order. This rules the modern con*- ception, no matter what the apparent set-backs, from the movement of nations, physical catastrophies, or moral and social breakdown. The ultimate attainment of the goal is considered certain. The effect of this looked-for progress is seen in the pronounced materialism of the mass of men; while they complacently estimate how far off God really must be Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 21 from this evolutionary creation. This matters little since man has become so powerful and efficient. Anything like religion is of negligible importance. Confidence in God! — What is the need of it? This has become a practical work-a-day world, and the mysticism of religion is a by¬ gone, good enough for the medieval age. A little of it may still be allowed in the infancy and second childhood of human experience; but otherwise for men and women of this cosmos, the forces and resources of which they are beginning to control in a way prophetic of a race of “supermen,” it would be wasting time over the puerility of the religionists. But notwithstanding all that is said for this wonder- producing age, men — though riding on the crest of this swiftly moving flood of human knowledge and energy — have experiences which call a halt, though ever so brief, and which cannot fail to raise questions which the glitter¬ ing prospect of world-progress leaves unsolved. Catastro- phies, individual and national, come with great sudden¬ ness. Ruin in some way or other often blights the fairest prospect. The greatest plans miscarry at times. As science increases in ability to cope with human ills, ills seem to multiply; and death’s cold hand is felt just the same, and nothing warms or softens its irresistible grasp. As the babe comes in, so the man goes out, no matter what pomp, or power,' or glory has bedecked him in the interim. In these experiences man’s spiritual nature is touched, awaking questions to which world-progress is like a giant Sphinx, in whose presence man’s soul finds an awful solitude. No answer is heard, nothing but the echo of his questioning; no vision, but the spectre of his fear which he may have thought was annihilated; there 22 Modernism arises a doubt of his boasted unbelief, if he has been agnostically inclined — these thoughts recoil upon him, sometimes with crushing force. For this colossus of world-progress which so many worship, made up of some facts and laws cognizable by man, consists only of phy¬ sical things, which he can in many instances explain — things seen and external, on which utmost reliance is placed; but there are things internal, not seen, yet potent; spiritual, not material, asserting themselves £imid all this progressive achievement. For trouble and sin still bring shame and disaster. To this our hospitals, asylums, penal institutions, and the blood-soaked battle¬ fields still bear witness. Whatever answer in the way of material and physical betterment is given by world-pro¬ gress, it remains an outstanding fact in modern history that scientific knowledge, power and advancement have not met any need in the moral or spiritual realm. Life by it receives no just interpretation nor explanation. Be the outward circumstances however greatly changed, the inward condition remains ever the same. It evidently does not fall under control of the giant hand of modern progress, nor the universally applied “law” of evolution. A standard of knowledge and judgment cannot be found here. There is a vital deficiency. Must a cataclysmic divine invasion of some order after all take place, both individually as well as world-wide, for an adequate answer to be given to all aspects of world-condition? Do not answer hastily, perhaps there may be some other solution. II Perhaps this may be found in a review of modern scientific developments in research, criticism, and theory, Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 23 with the effects produced especially in relation to Religion and Christianity. Let this review be given under two main heads: (a) Darwinian Evolution. (b) Higher Criticism. It must be acknowledged that evolutionary views rela¬ tive to creation still await actual confirmation. “Links” must be found to bridge the evident “breaks” in Nature, if the process of evolution in unbroken continuity, and not special creations, is the explanation of the universe. This it is taken to be in spite of the lack of confirming fact. Clearly then, in evolution we have merely a hypothesis, which is proposed as an explanation of certain observed phenomena considered as simply parts of a constant pro¬ gression from dead matter up to the highest forms of life. If gaps are found, as indeed there are, science must bend every effort to fill them. If this cannot be done with actually known facts (and these are not forthcom¬ ing), then the attempt is made to do this with artificial material in order to give some semblance of unity and continued development to the whole scheme. This arti¬ ficial filling of Nature’s chasms is often with very loose and incohesive material, still all is made to look very imposing when brought up to an apparent level for evo¬ lution, the genius loci of this world, to make its majestic strides in a journey of several hundred thousands of years along a vista so immense that the sight of ordinary mortals quickly fails to penetrate the clouds of mist which soon gather over its seemingly boundless expanse. Darwin began what has now been made the foundation which supports the structure of modern science. This 24 Modernism structure still needs careful watching, especially where it rests upon those artificiail fillings of Nature’s incon¬ venient breaks or gaps; but our scientific builders are adepts at shoring and buttressing the great building. Re¬ ligion, too, has joined hands with evolutionary science, and as co-operation proceeds, and progress continues, the result is expected to put man in heaven and on the throne. The tower is reaching ever higher, though it may take a few more eons to reach the consummation. For our present purpose, let it suffice to say that the doctrine of evolution is a correlation of certain facts and pure speculation. It has been exalted “to the rank of a dogmatic scheme of creation.” The result is well given in the following extract. This abides, even though modifications have been made in respect to the original conclusions presented in Darwin’s books. ^‘Nature was [is] now presented under a new aspect. Granted force and matter and law, including living matter, with its constant tendency to variation in all sorts of directions, and the whole world, with all its infinite forms, appeared as having through countless ages grown of itself, or automatically. The exact specific form of each kind of plant and animal was now represented as being due, not to the Creator having originally so made it, but to the fact that, among the infinite varieties of forms which the profusion of nature poured forth, one form at each stage proved itself the best adapted to survive, and in the struggle for existence — which is due to nature producing at each moment far more specimens of each kind than can survive— natural selection had cleared the spaces of nature by killing off all the innumerable specimens less suited to survive, and leaving the field to the one having the best survival value. The appearance of design is thus due, not to any original creative act, but the fact that out of Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 25 innumerable hosts of things produced those only survived the struggle and successfully propagated their kind which were the best adapted to their surroundings." The original, and for that matter the continued, effect upon the popular imagination is found in the acceptance of this theory as: “A doctrine of nature making itself — a process which, granted the initial materials and laws, seemed to explain itself without requiring any God to design or ‘make it up.' Man, moreover, appeared as, in his physical structure, only one form of animal life, perfected in the struggle for existence, especially in virtue of preeminent mental qualities, which yet (it was suggested) were only de¬ velopments of the mental qualities which had progres¬ sively appeared in the animal world generally. And in¬ stead of a being created perfect, in the full glory of in¬ tellectual and moral power . . . who fell from his first glory . . . man now appeared as starting from the lowest depth among the anthropoid apes, and only slowly climbing up from among his animal ancestry, by his own efforts through long ages, to a dignity such as he now enjoys.” This “seemed ... to destroy not only the argument from design* in is shortest and most effective form, but also the Bible doctrine of the origin of man and of his fall, which, in its turn lay at the root of Christianity.” This along with the changed views induced by the study of astronomy; geology, with its supposed periods of mil¬ lions of years reckoned upon the fallacious supposition that the present rate of geologic action must always have been the same — that is, uniformitarianism, a necessary by- * This had been the great pillar of support in the argu¬ ment for belief in God as the Almighty Creator and ever- sustaining Power of the universe. 26 Modernism product of evolution; and then biology; all seemed to com¬ bine to make man’s world only a “speck in space,” his his¬ tory “no more than a moment in time,” and “mankind only one phase (why more than a passing phase?) in the evolution of life — a bubble, as it were, on the changing, flowing river.” The effect of these disclosures is not exaggerated when, it is said, they seemed “to obliterate God behind a self-developing universe, and to reduce the position of man to insignificance, and to contradict all that view of his history which the Bible had enforced or suggested.”* Now though there has been a large recasting of evolu¬ tionist teaching by Darwin’s successors, the theory re¬ mains an integral part of all modern thought and study. Though proof has not been found in the great depart¬ ments of Nature, the fact that it appears as a law in ob¬ servable human conditions and progress has been made the basis for claiming that it must pervade every sphere of the universe. Thus in effect there is a return to the ori¬ ginal conclusions. But I must warn my reader that .he cannot find anything like unity of interpretation — ^what¬ ever there may be as to actual facts — among those who dwell within the courts of evolution, unless it be that of f relegating “the Creator, if not wholly outside His Crea¬ tion, at any rate to its utmost verge, to a primordial cell of a primeval epoch.” Confessedly all here is in a fluid state, with rocks of fact protruding here and there. Dare we walk upon this water without fear of being engulfed? Is there solid footing which we can reach after a rather doubtful trip across this evolutionary ocean? Chart, com- * ‘^Belief in God,’ Dr. Charles Gore, pp. 8-12. Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 27 pass, and a good reliable craft do not seem at hand. If we only had a standard of knowledge and judgment things might not seem so aimless. The Modernist in religion seems to try to meet the situation by supposing God to be in everything, as much in the faulty and often failing teachings of science as in the rhythmic movement of the celestial bodies. He is the most trustful creature you can imagine — “Billow- tossed and shifted round with every wind of teaching, — in the craft of men, in knavery suited to the artifice of error.” I mean the Modernist, but you might as well say it of his God too. Coincident with these revolutionary scientific develop¬ ments in natural subjects, we must now consider what are called “the startling conclusions of literary and historical criticism,” and those in particular which relate to the Bible, for it still remains the great basis of Christianity even for the Modernist. It had, in the popular mind, already received a heavy blow by reason of the widely accepted dictum of the evolutionists. It was destined to receive another from a different quarter, which however derived its strength from what we have been speaking about. Because of its importance to our present inquiry, I shah give at some length the results and effects of the Higher Criticism. It is the child of parents too closely related, so that the law of consanguinity has operated with the result that we have to study a case of imbecility in this carefully nourished offspring. First, then, we must speak of its parentage, and then of the major organs by which it functions. Human reason was set up as the standard by which to judge of the essential and non-essential; and as far as 28 Modernism the Scriptures were concerned they contained much which the cultured mind could not permit to embarass it. From this naturally followed the acceptance of the scientific viewpoint of Evolution and uniformity in all Nature and history, so that anything like the intervention of the super¬ natural, and hence miraculous, operations or events could not be admitted. These two propositions were united by those theologians who assumed the task of effecting accommodation between Science and Religion so as to make Christianity acceptable to the modern mind and its viewpoint as revolutionized by scientific development. Clearly they began with as¬ suming the dictum of Science to be absolute, and its find¬ ings inerrant. These features which once were only ap¬ plied to the Bible, were now taken from it and applied, if not in so many words yet in the attitude assumed, to scientific theory. This was done without any sufficient reason, and before the Bible records had been the subject of investigation by critical science; it was not an attitude taken up as a result of conclusions formed from investi¬ gation, but the position taken at the very beginning, and everything was made to fit to its demands no matter what the consequences. All this because it suited the rational¬ ism and naturalism of the day. This is a priorism indeed! And Modernism in religion is built upon its results while loudly prating about following inductive and pragmatic methods. Higher Criticism is plainly in the position of suspecting all that there does not seem good reason to accept according to human judgment and wisdom. “It disbelieves in advance.” The result is that the Higher Critics manifest a childish credulity in themselves. Now in fact the position resolves itself into this: Be- Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 29 lieve only what you see. That leads to the assumption that all things, laws, movements and life have been and ever shall be what we now see them to be, or learn them to be by the study of observable phenomena. Therefore, there has not been from the beginning any special acts of creation crossing or intruding upon the now observed order of creation. Therefore, the supernatural and miracles are refused, and any claim respecting them denied. The theory of Evolution is made the dogmatic explanation of all both in Nature and Religion. I do not see miracles to-day; hence there never were miracles, for they would disturb scientific unity and order; therefore any document giving a record of miraculous events is in so far mytho¬ logical, and what may be credible history must be sifted out and separated by critical acumen. The Bible is full of the miraculous. It must be submitted to “the judicial inspection of human reason.” The child being born, it quickly began to function; and its development may be traced in successive formularies, the results of applying which constitute the basis of the Modernist view of and interpretation of the Scriptures. Let them be stated in order. 1. The accommodation theory. This defines the atti¬ tude of our Lord and His apostles as being that of ac¬ commodating themselves to the ignorance, errors, and superstitions of their times. What this means as to the character of Jesus, and in fact of the whole New Testa¬ ment, is not hard to realize. Such accommodation to popular error is also given as the explanation of Scripture teaching about angels, resurrection, inspiration, and the Lord^s second coming. 2. The theocratic theory by which the supernatural and 30 Modernism miraculous in the Bible is assumed to be the product of the over-pious imagination of the Hebrews, which led them to attribute everything to Divine intervention, and to present ordinary events in the light of theistic enthu¬ siasm. 3. The illusim theory. This explained everything hav¬ ing a supernatural aspect in the Bible records as being the product of impressions received during periods of in¬ tense religious occupation or experience, in other words, imagination run riot. 4. The late-records theory. By this is meant the appli¬ cation of the idea (which had been first applied to the early history of Greece and Rome) that records came into existence only long after the supposed events had oc- curred. Hence the Biblical writers were simply putting in¬ to written form the legends or traditions of their people. This necessarily cast a mythical cloak over all Scripture. This led the critics to adopt two general conclusions: (1) that most of the Old Testament was made up of tradi¬ tions recorded according to the associations of the age in which the writer lived; (2) that these ancient historians (rather, we might call them fabulists) very freely placed ‘‘speeches or discourses in the mouths of historical char¬ acters.” This theory of late authorship is one of the great pillars of Higher Criticism. 5. The fictitious authorship theory. This really grows out of the former, and means of course that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. It was mostly composed in the Josiah-Ezra period. Those audacious forgers actually put words in the mouth of Moses and of God! In fact, this is true of all the historical books, for we have no solid Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 31 basis of history beyond about 800 B. C. It is assumed that we are only on the clear ground of history, and be¬ yond the region of doubtful questions, when we deal with the prophets of Israel from Amos to Malachi. Daniel, it 'is asserted, dates some 300 years later than Malachi. Joel and part of Zechariah are also counted some hundred years later than Malachi. Isaiah too must be divided as to authorship, since the latter part (chs. 40-66) could hardly be written before the days of Cyrus who is mentioned by the unknown author. Hardly a book escapes this treat¬ ment. They are hewn to pieces on two counts. This is done, first, by the theory of diverse authorship on the ground that anything like predictive prophecy is impossi¬ ble, so that the latest historical allusions in the prophets must be the factor determining the time of writing. Hence, Daniel could only have been written in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, for the writer gives a detailed sketch of history up to his days; the second Isaiah could only have written in or after the days of Cyrus, for he men¬ tions him; and so on. In the second place, the same result is obtained by the theory of various documents which have been pieced together by the forgers of the Josiah-Ezra period, and these fictitious productions la¬ beled “Moses,” “Joshua,” etc. 6. The document theory, another of the great founda¬ tion stones of Higher Criticism, I have just’ referred to. The writers could not tell of anything which did not take place in their days, any more than you or I ; hence if they did write of such things, some of which must have hap¬ pened a hundred years or more before their time, they certainly must have used “sources,” even as you and I would have to do. These were either myths, legends, the 32 Modernism folklore of antiquity, or original codes of precept and ceremony, all of which are now being carefully distin¬ guished by the critics and duly labeled — Jehovistic, Elo- histic. Priestly, etc., etc. Divine inspiration would have ensured the writing of an inerrant record, no matter how many years intervened; it could have enabled the prophet to write of future events, no matter how far distant from his day. But that would be supernatural intervention, and to deny this these theories are made. They are easily riddled if given a little detailed consideration. 7. The evolution theory. This, in its application to the explanation of religion and its literature, appears as the crown of modern Biblical criticism. Since human history alone found adequate explanation on the principle of EvO' lution, so with Religion. “Men began with a belief in the power possessed by various objects. This belief was then transferred to unseen spirits. By-and-by these spirits were believed to be ruled over by mightier spirits, that is, by gods. These gods were worshiped, and then in the long process of centuries, came the supreme development of belief that there was one supreme God. And last of all came the final form of faith, that this supreme God was the only God, the Creator of heaven and earth. If you know the exact date when this belief in the unity of God was evolved — if you are certain that it did not come into existence before the Babylonian exile — what more do you need to enable you to date with utmost confidence every book of the Bible, and every part of every book? Where- ever you find clear teaching about the unity of God, that section could not, say the critics, have been written before the exile. Consequently the larger part of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and other portions of Scripture, are at once Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 33 brought down to the time” of the later prophets. On this principle “criticism” becomes an easy problem. You tabu¬ late the gradual development or evolution of society and religious belief from its rude beginnings in savagery up to the station of theistic, theocratic teaching. Then take the Bible, and a scissors; cut it up according to the way its several parts accord with the different stages of evolu¬ tionary progress, and you have the solution to the time when any given portion was written, no matter what ven¬ erable name may have been attached to it as the author — that was but a caprice of the ingenious makers of this literary crazy quilt. If the critics could only finally agree, the work of dissection might be completed; but evidently the process of evolution must work out a little more so that a larger measure of inspiration shall be in the critics. This will doubtless come; to doubt it must be the rankest skepticism in view of their monumental achievements — and then dissection completed, recompilation can begin. When this is finished we shall have the bible of the Man- God. Only I trust the critics will be warned through hav¬ ing endured such travail-pains in bringing this book to birth, caused by the innate folly of those ancient redactors, compilers, and forgers, not to put the various documents and fragments together in groups under the names of their most illustrous leaders and scholars — Astruc, Eichhorn, DeWette, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Driver — for then a coming age will be put to the same immense labor under which they themselves have staggered. I pray them to spare posterity this harrowing experience, and at least give us a piece of work of lasting quality. Surely the 20th cen¬ tury can do this. These are the general principles upon which Higher 34 Modernism Criticism builds. Can we find in them and the results of their use our standard of knowledge and judgment? Let results be summarized before going further. 1. As to time of composition or compilation: Parts of the Pentateuch were produced about 800-700 B. C. Deu¬ teronomy was written in Josiah’s days (650-640 B.C,). All the other historical books and the Poetical- Wisdom literature, with the exception of scattered fragments, came into existence during the restoration period from Ezra to Malachi and later. In this period too all the prophetic books were written. The time problem in the New Test¬ ament is really more simple, because the interval at most is not more than 30-50 years (50-100 A. D.). 2 As to authorship, except in the case of the prophetic books, and that only in a general way, there is no credi¬ bility to the names attached to the books. The New Testament authorship is more generally admitted, with a few exceptions in the Epistles. 3. As to history, there is nothing reliable in the Old Testament beyond about 800 B. C. Anything relating to earlier periods is only traditional and legendary. In the New Testament it is chiefly the Gospels and Acts which suffer from historical criticism. They are not accounted reliable historically, except in the most general way, be¬ cause of the great intermixture of the miraculous which must discredit the historicity of any document. This is the principal reason for discarding the Old Testament as history in any true sense. At best it is, can only be, the description of ordinary events written under the impulse of pious imagination stimulated by intense spiritual feel¬ ing, resulting in exaggeration. So, too, with the Gospel Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 35 narratives of the wonder-working of Jesus. These things being so, the epistles cannot help but be discredited also, for the writers refer to these very records and these events in a very sober and deeply reflective manner, making them basic to their doctrine. 4. As to character of teaching. This works up from “very low anthropomorphic conceptions of God, not much above that of some contemporary forms of paganism,” and through various “commandments that we now esteem im¬ moral” to which is attached a “Thus saith the Lord,” till from Job onward, taking the books in the order given in our Bibles, “we have men of vision; preachers of right¬ eousness in a lofty sense; uttering the voice of the Lori much more in accordance with the New Testament con¬ ceptions,” that is, I suppose, when they have been purged from what does not stand the test of human reason and foolishly insists upon the miraculous. Rather strange — is it not? — that those men of vision, preachers of right- ousness, uttering the voice of the Lord, should so abun¬ dantly interweave their oral and written testimony with references to the commandments, events, and miraculous actions recorded in the older books (the Pentateuch, Joshua, etc.), treating them as fact, not myth, as indeed the Scriptures of truth.* It must be manifest that to be of any real worth historically, morally, and spiritually, all stands or falls together. 5. The Bible then is not infallible; not inspired, in the sense of being literally the Word of God, or as to insure inerrance of matter and revelation; not a final and com¬ plete revelation, but simply a record of the gradual self- * See Table of References. 36 Modernism disclosure of God through the minds and experiences of some of the brightest and most religious of the race, which has made it possible for the evolution of revelation to continue through the great minds and experiences of the succeeding centuries, especially those of the present. And so the Divine Spirit is still leading on into all truth. Modernism being His 20th century production. This is called “constructive work,” which aims “at giv¬ ing us a more living book, even for the purpose of de¬ votional use. It gives a new Bible, rescued from the fetters of tradition, and from the fetters of infallibility.” Now constructive work, generally speaking, involves some features of destruction, and what we have been con¬ sidering builds upon a great deal of it. It may be well to take a look at the destruction, before accepting the new construction, to see if after all it is to be counted as such, or whether it is not more like what would result if a mad bull were let loose in a treasure palace. When brought face to face with what is claimed to be manifestly of God, and apparently bears the evidence of it, then these critics act very much like a bull facing a red banner — his one aim is to tear it to pieces. Do they not act in relation to the Bible, in the same spirit, and in the same way, as the Pharisees and Sadducees did toward Jesus? While seeing and learning of His mighty works, hearing and being informed of His wonderful teaching, silenced by His wisdom, themselves unable to effectually refute or silence Him, they deliberately and with set pur¬ pose counseled and consummated His death, because of their unbending pride, supposed superiority of place and human authority, and rank unbelief. The Lord Jesus was a true prophet when He said, speaking of future events, Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 37 “Verily I say unto you that this generation [faithless, perverse, wicked and adulterous He defined it to be, and of it the Pharisees and Sadducees were the leading re¬ presentatives in His day, as the Higher Critics are in ours] shall not pass, till all these things be done.” A wise man seeks a shelter from a bull in his wild rampage. Thank God, shelter can be found from this mad bull of Higher Criticism, and be found too in that which it vainly tries to destroy. But we were to consider for a moment the supposed destruction. 1. Inspiration, as we fondly thought of it, is destroyed. God has not acted so as to control men to speak and write just what He wished made known as a revelation of history, doctrine, or Himself in character, purpose and activity. If He did, the results must be perfect, inerrant, absolute, giving assurance of the truth, and correctness of the whole record from beginning to end. We thought the Bible was such a book! Criticism has proved the contrary — has it? I do not believe it, and if I thought I must, I could not join with the Modernist in a shout of triumph, but must turn my face away to weep, while still my hand and heart would cling to this book in utter solitude of soul and with crushed spirit, even as one stands in the chamber of death where the beloved of the heart is about to pass from the scenes of life, and the voice will soon be raised to cry, “Oh for the touch of a vanished hand, And the sound of a voice that is still.” This book, as it is in my hands, puts the hand of God upon me; it is His voice soimding through the innermost 33 Modernism chambers of my being; it is full of the living God; it is “the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever” (IPet. 1: 23-25). 2. Predictive prophecy there is not, could not be, if inspiration as we think of it is only a figment of the unscientific mind, which of course it is, the critic says. Hence the Synoptic Gospels must have been written after A. D. 70, for the destruction of Jerusalem is spoken of in them — ^words put into the mouth of Jesus who died A. D. 29. Remember, that according to the Modernist, He was not more than a man in whom was displayed the most that is divine as to character (not power) which God could put in man. But His knowledge was limited by His circumstances and condition, therefore He could not, any niore than anyone else, predict an event 40 years in ad^ vance of its occurrence. But then that means that these Evangelists were liars. They have practised the same forgery that the Critics say they find in the Old Testa¬ ment. Did these disciples know of this and imitate it, or what? Impossible, it was never known until “discovered” by the Higher Critics! But think of these men trying to make us believe Jesus said such things! Does it not mean that no confidence can be placed in anything they have recorded, except it be the bare fact that such a person as Jesus really lived because there is a slight confirmation of this from outside sources; but as to His life, teaching and works, it is left to the critics to pick out, as some one has said, “the needles of fact from the haystacks of fable”! What does all this mean? 3. That the reliability and honesty of the Bible is en¬ tirely destroyed. The critics have been guided by the Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 39 master-hand of their intellectual father — he was a liar from the beginning — in the sure way to induce the pop¬ ular feeling that the Bible may best be cast into the rubbish heap, until they have been able to give us that “new Bible’' of which they speak. For want of better knowledge many may be heard saying, “Who wants to read, much more study^ a book which the intellectuals of the day have demonstrated to be so largely mythical, full of traditions, and conceptions formed under the influ¬ ence of local color and associations?” 4. Unity! How can there be? The idea of it is des¬ troyed if the Bible is merely such a miscellaneous collec¬ tion of documents, forgeries, and folklore. And the ordin¬ ary man, not otherwise instructed, would not think it worth while to try to find it in such a compilation. The disproof of all these baseless speculations we may commence from our last point — unity. III. But I must ask my reader to be patient while an an¬ swer is given to the question proposed at the opening of this chapter. First, will any one contest the statement that human reason is only partial and imperfect? “One has only to *'ecall the grotesque fancies that have from time to time taken hold of the finest and brainiest men and led them into the grossest delusions, to satisfy himself that the seat of authority does not lie in the reason. Not that we are to throw reason away in matters of religion; for while faith is ofttimes above reason, it is by no means contrary to it. The voice of reason, however, is not to be con- 40 Modernism sidered final and authoritative.” In what we have been considering it is made the court of last appeal. Can the results be made the standard of knowledge and judgment? Secondly, the intervention of God by miracles in any form, and this includes inspiration as we understand it, is absolutely refused. For such action could not be subject to scientific investigation. In its presence human reason and wisdom would have to stop and own, “This is beyond me; I bow before the finger of God;” this it will not do. Therefore, anything which cannot be explained apart from such Divine intervention must be explained away or des¬ troyed. I build a house, having planned its apartments, ar¬ ranged and established its systems of water-supply, heat¬ ing, lighting, and other means of service to maintain com¬ fort and convenience. Having done so, I dare not enter this house unless as strictly bound to leave all as I find it — change anything, check or correct any part of its established system, do anything contrary to the rules ori¬ ginally established for the operation of the whole struc¬ ture, or do anything not provided for in those rules though I have the knowledge and power to do it, / must not. Such a conception is absurd, utterly ridiculous. But this is the way in which I am to conceive of God in relation to creation — His house (Heb. 3: 4) — ^whether in the na¬ tural or spiritual realm, if the supposition that all that is supernatural or miraculous must be refused, denied, be¬ cause any known laws or observed facts could not be used to explain such action or events. It is vain to say, as the Modernist does, that we think of God as in every¬ thing — “the supernatural in the natural.” This is nothing more than saying, to use my illustration again, that I am Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 41 in the walls, floors, pipes, fixtures, etc., of the house I have built, and coming into it I cannot be more than any or all of its various parts. Well, is it so? Now Modernism is built on modem scientific criticism, which in turn is founded upon those two pillars of sup¬ port which we have been considering. Can it be our standard of knowledge and judgment! No! With such foundations. No! For the domain of science must be acknowledged as very limited. It studies facts, deduces laws, and propounds theories. The latter aspect of its activities comprises by far the greatest part of the stmc- ture it builds. These theories rise out of the cup of fact that man is able to present, and expands from a little as¬ cending vapor into a great, seemingly mighty, but never¬ theless, vapory figure which takes within its flowing robes the whole universe and God Himself. Sometimes a hand shakes the cup, and the motion seriously distorts the form of the figure because it is so attenuated. The dreamy contemplation of it leads to forgetfulness of the cup. It is better to hold on to the cup and drink, even if only a little of its contents, for as soon as you take it up, the mental aberration produced by the mystic figure is broken, the vapor quickly disappears. Discard theories, and the criticism founded upon them, assimilate facts, recognize laws deduced from them, and science fills its proper role as man’s servant instead of becoming his god. Science cannot originate — create. It must have some¬ thing put into its hand — matter, already acting laws, life. It may look at them, study them, handle them, it is never safe at any other occupation. When it becomes specula¬ tive, it runs wild. Let it be satisfied with the correlation of facts and laws. The seven general principles of Biblical 42 Modernism criticism just considered, are they laws deduced from facts? Nay, but theories built upon absolutely untenable propositions, before ever the supposed facts were tabu¬ lated. Hence the facts they claim to present are only the fictitious progeny of their fictitious parentage. None of their conclusions are tenable when the actual facts are considered. It may be as well to give an example or two. It will enable us to say, “No,’’ over again with real em¬ phasis as an answer to our question. Volumes might be written along these lines, dealing with scientific vagaries both in the sphere of nature and of the Bible. We limit ourselves to the latter. It is our special interest at present. Charges of gross mis-statement and startling exaggera¬ tion are supported by such evidence as the following. The difference in price paid by David for the threshingfioor of Oman is produced — 2 Sam. 24: 24 gives 50 shekels of silver; 1 Chron. 21: 25, 600 shekels of gold. Here is a fatal blunder, bad history; both cannot be correct! Will the reader please turn to the passages and note that two transactions are involved and that different things are purchased. Both are correct, Samuel speaks of the threshingfioor and oxen. Chronicles of the place of the threshingfioor — the whole site of the future Temple-build¬ ings. Compare also 2 Chron. 3:1. Another example. 1 Kings 5:11 represents Solomon as giving to Hiram 20 measures of oil, whereas 2 Chron. 2: 10 says 20 thousand baths. What is the use of arguing that the Bible is reliable? Wait! Notice that in Kings it is stated to be to Hiram for his household; in Chronicles it says, “I will give to thy servants the hewers that fell timber.” These instances are rather ludicrous. I might greatly Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 43 increase the number of such criticisms.* Suffice it here to say that excavations in Palestine, Egypt, Assyria, and the study of ancient monuments with their interesting in¬ scriptions, along with the rich unfoldings gathered from a study of the abundant papyri discovered in various places, all have united to re-establish the reliability and honesty of the Bible, to explode many of the supposed verities of criticism, yea, shake into ruins the whole struc¬ ture which Higher Criticism has reared upon its supposed incontrovertible principles. It does not jurnish us with our standard of knowledge and judgment. IV. Let us now take up the task of presenting the evidence which disproves these baseless speculations, drawing this from the Bible itself, so that we may realize its abiding superiority to all tests, it in reality being the divine tester of all (Heb.4: 12, 13). I begin by stating two definite propositions. They are not hypothetical. They are the result of much experience and great labor in the study of this Book, devoted to it for many years by some of the brightest minds, the most acute and analytical intellects, men versed in the knowl¬ edge of life, science and philosophy. The propositions are these: 1. There is nothing within the Book itself, though at times there may seem to be things which are contradictory of each other, which will fail of satisfactory solution from a careful study of the Book. * See Appendix, 44 Modernism 2. There is nothing outside of the Book itself really contradictory of the facts of nature or history which it presents, or of the doctrines it teaches. It follows that nothing in it will be found in real con¬ flict with anything which may be observed or discovered in any department in which human knowledge and wisdom are rightly exercised. In the past many things seemed to be contradictory, but recent research, exploration, and discovery have verified the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible. What remains of a character seemingly contradictory of or in conflict with the state of present knowledge may safely be left for solution by further developments of the same order, as permitted by the good hand of God. These things being true of the Book — notwithstanding the very long period covered by its production, the great variety of circumstances and changing scenes connected wdth those past centuries, the great difference in charac¬ teristics and associations of the writers, and the immense variety of matter contained in it — ^we assert the following features as belonging to it in its entirety: 1. It is a perfect organic unity. 2. It is interlocked in testimony. 3. It is prescient. 4. It is inspired by God throughout. 5. It is revelation from God, and of God. 6. It is inerranty therefore absolutely reliable and honest. 7. It is complete in its present form. In it finality is reached. A book thus presenting unity of design in its every part, and having woven throughout it such features as I have Our Standard: Is it the Bible or Science? 45 just enumerated, must be, it is, the only acceptable stand¬ ard of knowledge and judgment. These features we will consider in detail, and seek to give with them a brief intimation of the unbounded scope of the subject matter presented in the Bible — it is a divine Encyclopedia. Careful study of it in all its parts is an absolute necessity for the right understanding of all things spiritual, ethical, and scientific. How could it be otherwise? It is Godls hook. He knows all from the be¬ ginning to the end. CHAPTER II. The Bible; what it is. The plan to be followed in considering this subject has been outlined. Its first part is the unity of the Book. I. I purpose to consider this unity from the viewpoint of its general plan and theme. This may be strengthened by seeing how certain of the more prominent and leading features of the whole book fit into the general plan, and are not isolated in the course of history, nor could they be either removed or transplanted without dislocating the whole. Further strength, may be found in considering spe¬ cial parts of the book, not only in their relation to the whole, but by detailed study to find that the same pur¬ pose pervades them which governs the formation of the general plan. Thus whether our study is general or speci¬ fic the same unity is found throughout. The proof is really overwhelming to any one who will give it fair con¬ sideration. Whatever the critics may say as to dates, there is no real question as to an extensive separation in time between the various documents or books of Scripture. Even ad¬ mitting “sources,” such as they claim, it is evident how¬ ever, that their beginnings must have been in the days of Moses. Manifestly it is a collection, a compilation of material into various and distinct books, relating to differ¬ ent ages, having their own special characteristics; the The Bible; What it is 47 work of many writers, using different styles, adopting different languages, giving various revelations and forms of teaching, some setting aside the old to establish the new, and yet doing so in a way which maintains perfect unity of purpose, and only the more contributing to the glory of God and the understanding of His mind. Now as to the unity of general plan, we may consider various lines which go to form it, and which are main¬ tained throughout. I can only suggest to you a few examples. The truth concerning man’s fall forms an integral part of the whole. There is no change in tlie testimony of the writers as to this, through all the changing centuries of this Book’s composition, whether we read Genesis or the New Testament epistles. The ideas of evolution, or of progress out of the plainly stated condition through social humanitarian uplift, and the growing effort to follow the best, does not enter into its composition, though the wise and learned of those early ages were not without such notions, even as those of the 20th century. Once we are, clear that the Holy Spirit guided in its composition, this becomes very significant, for He is omniscient, and must know all the thoughts of men. He has not incorporated them in this respect, but has given us His own teaching in this Book. There is perfect unity in the witness given as to the being, nature, power, and ways of God displayed in the dispensations which fill the course of time. In no respect is there anything to compare with it in the traditions or philosophies of the ancient or modern world. In fact the latter with all its boasted progress and achievement has nothing new to give; its religious 'Modernism is nothing 48 Modernism more than the appropriation of certain things in Scrip¬ ture which suit the fancy of its votaries combined with certain human notions arising from essentially non-chris- tian conceptions, and the whole dressed up in its own fashion and passed off as the product of 20th century wisdom and inspiration. Whether it be the record of God’s dealings with individ¬ uals, tribes of people, nations, or empires; His law in its moral precepts or ceremonial requirements; His promises; His government as read in the light of specific acts or general processes; all — ^whether in relation to the past, present or future, embracing the whole period of time, as emerging from and merging into eternity — all presents a unity of conception as to the moral nature, attributes, and purposes of God. The whole is set forth in connec¬ tion with the history of man and his responsibility to God. Along with this we get God’s way with man under various forms of testing until, man’s sinful ruin and help¬ lessness being demonstrated, the final display of the eter¬ nal purpose comes out in Christ, giving the knowledge of a perfect cycle of new relationships which have their exist¬ ence only through the Son and His work, and established in Him without fear of change. This is not evolution; but special creation and fixity and finality of species, whether we consider the first man Adam and his race, or “the second Man” and “Last Adam” with His race. There is unity in the Book in presenting mankind as divided into two such races, which never coalesce, but remain ever sharply distinguished and contrasted. Thus the history of Cain and Abel can become a text for John, as Abraham’s life is for Paul. The unity of the Book is witnessed in its consistent The Bible; What it is 49 testimony to the truth concerning Christ, as the Object of all the divine counsels, the Head of all blessing and glory — the Son of God and the Son of Man. In many ways, by means of various figures, in dim foreshadowings, in the brighter light of prophecy, and finally in the full light of perfect accomplishment, His blessed Figure is dis- cernable through all its parts, binding it in a blessed unity. Facts of history, types and ceremonies of the most ela¬ borate order, various persons, kings, priests, prophets, are all made to render their quota of testimony to Him. There is unity in the presentation of Israel as the geocentric nation, and its land as the centre of all earthly blessing and government, with its city and temple the shrine for all nations; and this is the more remarkable since the New Testament supplants Israel with the Church, which is however pre-eminently heavenly, while yet affirming Israel’s restoration and final replacement as to what is earthly; the Church being given its predestined heavenly station. By no stretch of the imagination can the Bible be con¬ sidered as the kind of book man would write. In his judgment it too often elaborates what is trivial, while what he would count of supreme importance is passed over in a few words. Its balance of treatment is radically differ¬ ent from what human reason and wisdom would dictate. This of itself argues for special purpose and plan, while the fact that one inspiring mind knew the end from the beginning, whose plan and purpose thus stand revealed to us, alone adequately explains the phenomena presented in it. For example, why are the early ages from creation to 50 Modernism the formation of great nations compressed into ten chap¬ ters in Genesis — a period when Egypt was rising to pre¬ eminence, the Pyramids built, the foundations of Meso¬ potamian empire being laid, and the once supposed my¬ thical empire of the Hittites holding sway — whilst the history of one man, Abraham, is spread out in such detail through fourteen chapters? We know this is not as man would have written the record. And those early chapters are being proved, as exploration and excavation continue, such an epitome of history as no merely human mind could produce. But why so much attention to the lonely Hebrew? The New Testament gives the answer, showing that in God’s mind Abraham was the father of the great family of faith, a spiritual race, called out of and se¬ parated from the remainder of mankind, with which Christ is put in immediate relationship. Much more might be said. You can take up the in¬ dividual books, alone or in their respective groups; or you can take up parts of these books, separate psalms, bits of history, or special ordinances, and find that the Book “is the harmonious whole of all God’s thoughts, of all His ways with regard to man, and of His determinate purpose as to the Christ, and as to man in Him; wherein also is set forth the revelation of what God is, of man’s respon¬ sibility, and of what God Himself has done for man, as well as of the new relationships with God into which man enters through Christ; — a Book which reveals what God is in His moral nature, and the dispensations in which He glorifies Himself in the sight of the heavens and their in¬ habitants; which lays bare the secrets and the state of the human heart, and at the same time unveils before it things invisible; which begins where the past touches eternity. The Bible; What it is 51 and leads us on through a development and a solution of all moral questions to the final point where the future merges in eternity, according to God.” From beginning to end this Book renders a consistent testimony: to Creation as God’s special action, to the result of which He ever remains transcendent, while also immanent; to the jail ,of man and its awful consequences; to one way alone of acceptable approach to God and the reestablishment of relationship, that of sacrifice — not some form of this that I can make, but that of Another, this being found in Christ and His cross; to grace as a great divine principle, finding expression from the very first, but ever growing in its unfolding until consummated in Christ and His work; to faith, as the only principle of abiding relationship with God from the first hour of man’s fall; to government in this world, largely staged in connection with Israel, but reaching out also in the widest way, in all of which we learn God’s character. His full control. His use of evil with blessing always in view. Coupled with the revelation of these things are the experiences of God’s people during the whole course of the dispensations, in which Christ also takes His place in the due time and perfectly suited way. The truths of judgment, salvation, and righteousness receive harmonious treatment. Life, death, and hope are interpreted in the only way which satisfies the heart and conscience, since no discordant voices, but perfect harmony falls upon the listening ear. The Book is before us as a perfect organic unity, in which every part fits with every other, in mutual ministra¬ tion making it a living entity. But I must leave this most interesting theme to give brief consideration to our other points. 52 Modernism n. In the second place I have said this Book is interlocked in testimony. By this I mean that one part is locked to another by reason of direct or indirect reference so that the parts become mutually dependent. We have just con¬ sidered unity in theme. This might be called unity in structure. It becomes a strong witness to its homogeneous character. This gains in force when consideration is given to the element of time, the different characters, temper- ments and social positions of the writers, who have been permitted to show their individuality in their work, and yet never run counter to the great themes of the Book, but whatever the age in which they lived, whatever their edu¬ cation, or lack of it, all is blended together perfectly. The first thing to notice is the way the New Testament is interlocked with the Old. Although about 400 years intervened, yet the seemingly loose threads are taken up and woven together to what is manifestly a finished de sign. It is estimated that the book of Revelation alone has more than two hundred references to thoughts and events mentioned in the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. In Romans, chapters nine to eleven inclusive, the apostle makes reference to every book of the Pentateuch; to Hosea; Isaiah, both to the first part, and also to that which is attributed to the great “unknown,” as the critics speak, all referred to as from Isaiah by Paul; the Psalms; Joel; Nahum; 1 Kings; and David, quoting Psalm 69. In the same Epistle, chapter 4, he refers to David and Abraham, while in Galatians the history of the latter be¬ comes the main support of his argument. 1 Cor. 10 builds upon the wilderness-history as given in the Pentateuch. The Bible; What it is 53 The whole epistle to the Hebrews is filled with references to the Old Testament. James, Peter, and John make re¬ peated reference to many of its events. The Acts and Gospels are likewise very full in quotation or allusion to all parts of the Old Testament. In the Acts, I believe, this appears as one of the special features of the book. It is the great historical link between the Old and the New Testaments. This is a very general statement of the evi¬ dence;* yet it is sufficient to show that the two great parts of the Bible, though quite distant in many respects, are so absolutely linked together that to mutilate any one part cannot fail to affect the whole. It is like a body of many members, each in its place and discharging its func¬ tion. The whole stands or falls together. Now as the manifest unity of theme and thought which w^e first considered is an overwhelming argument against the patchv/ork or document theory of the critics, so too the careful review of the evidence just submitted gives the answer to the late records and fictitious authorship theories. Moses is credited with the books that bear his name — the Pentateuch. Isaiah is allowed the whole of his book, and Daniel likewise. These are principal cases only. The attempted mutilation of most of the books along this line of criticism is quite extensive, but is answered by the fact that the Lord and His apostles owned the whole of the Old Testament as we have it to-day, the same indeed as in His own time. Moreover He and they treat the compila¬ tion as having the character claimed by it and for it — * See Table of References in which a very full display ot the evidence is given. This, however, is not given as being complete. 54 Modernism that of being the Word of God. And they recognized and insisted upon authorship as found in the Book itself, whether it be Moses, the Prophets, or the Psalms. To be¬ lieve Moses and his writings, the Lord declared, was es¬ sential to believing Him (John 5: 45-47). “He wrote of Me’^ in Deuteronomy as well as his other books, yet the critics say Deuteronomy was written in Josiah’s day and the other books perhaps a little earlier or later. Who speaks the truth? Christ or the critics? Moses lifted up the serpent, gave the law and circumcision (John 1: 17; 3: 14; 7: 19, 22). Paul in his utterances as given in the Acts, and in his teaching in Romans and Corinthians, re¬ fers to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. The Lord opened the understanding of the disciples to the scriptures — Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24: 27,44, 45). Was it all an imposture? Was He accrediting a spurious compilation, a mass of forged documents inter¬ woven with myths and folklore? His sincerity and truth¬ fulness are bound up — and those of the apostles too — with the Old Testament as we have it in our hands. To destroy its reliability and honesty is to destroy His moral worth and excellency. The hands of the critics are as wicked in this work of mutilation, as were those hands which laid hold of the Word Himself, bound Him, and then crucified Him. As the New Testament, with the character of the Lord and His apostles, is interlocked with the Old Testament in its entirety as we now possess it, even so may we see how the parts of the Old itself are interlocked. For example, throughout the prophetical books there is con¬ stant reference to the Pentateuch. It is estimated that there are over 1500 such references, and that Deuter- The Bible; What it is 55 onomy, which the critics have so persistently attacked, is referred to over 600 times. Now this is conclusive proof that the Pentateuch must have been in existence for some time prior to the great prophetic era, and that also it must have been well known generally, for how otherwise could the people have understood the prophetic messages? This opens up a large field of interesting study, too extensive to take up now beyond making reference to Amos who, along with Hosea, is acknowledged to be the earliest of the prophets, being dated by the critics between 900-800 B. C. There are upward of 80 references traceable in his prophecy to the Pentateuch, showing full familiarity with the Law, both in its moral and ceremonial aspects, and with history as recorded by Moses. The prophecy be¬ comes unintelligible apart from the acknowledgement, not only of the priority of the Pentateuch, but also that it must have been generally known and read. What then becomes of the contention that the Pentateuch was the product of the Josiah-Ezra period (650-500)?* The Psalms furnish the same kind of evidence. Now if the Pentateuch be of such production as the critics claim, they must give us some explanation of how the temple and its services originated, for then they had not the record of the Tabernacle and its service to guide *As may be noticed, the critics vary largely as to the dates assigned to the Pentateuch; all however attempt to deny that Moses wrote any of it. Our Lord said, “Moses . . . wrote of me” (John 5: 46). Whom then shall we be¬ lieve? — These uncertain, varying critics, or Him who is the Truth? He further asks the pertinent question: “If ye believe not his (Moses’) writings, how shall ye believe my words?” 56 Modernism them. They are not slow in telling us that the whole Tabernacle story was invented, being copied from the temple as then known. This at once destroys the relia¬ bility of the epistle to the Hebrews. To presume that what we get in Ezra and Nehemiah is the result of a literature of the exilic period, that the keeping of feasts and regulations of worship and relation¬ ship were foisted upon the people by designing forgers instead of being the revival of age-long custom, funda¬ mental to their place and character as God’s people from the beginning, is an absurdity worthy only of infidel cri¬ ticism. But that is what Higher Critical theories really mean. But I must turn to the third point. HI. This Book is prescient. It gives knowledge of events before they take place. Predictive prophecy is an inte¬ gral feature of the Bible. The critics entirely or very largely deny this. Therefore, they take the passage in any book which has the latest historical connection as de¬ fining when it or that particular part of it was written. I have already referred to the results of this in relation to Isaiah, Daniel, and the Gospels. Let us see what is the actual evidence. The Lord said Moses wrote of Him, Peter confirms it, quoting from Deuteronomy. Must we not then go the critics one better and say Deuteronomy must have been written during the Lord’s lifetime? Peter again says, “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise fore¬ told of these days.” Listen to Paul, “I continue unto this The Bible; What it is 57 day . . . saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.” But the prophets knew that what they wrote was prescient, predictive (1 Pet. 1: 10-12). We might fill many pages with the facts relating to fulfilled prophecy (whether concerning individuals, Israel, Gentile nations, or empires), a subject full of deepest in¬ terest ; but we must limit ourselves at this time to mention¬ ing some of those in the Old Testament which have been fulfilled in the Christian era. Thus the element of pre¬ diction is established beyond all date controversies. The same proof is deducible from the New Testament. Messianic prophecy opens up a vast field for study. It pervades the entire Old Testament, indeed it dominates it, and hence becomes a strong argument for the unity of the Book. In whom does it find its concentrated fulfil¬ ment? In Jesus, who appeared several hundred years after the last writer had laid down his pen. And the New Testament is framed upon the truth of this. Its whole structure is luminous with the glory of it. Hence, as I have intimated, it interlocks with the Old Testament. But Christianity in its ethical, spiritual and universal aspects lies embedded in the Old Testament as a predic¬ tive element running all through. This could not be known apart from the light of fulfilment which the New Testa¬ ment throws upon it. What does all this mean as to the character of these scriptures? In the prophecy of the 70 weeks (Daniel) we read of Messiah cut off, having nothing, and to the end war and desolation. Here is prophecy fulfilled and in course of fulfilment. 58 Modernism The words of Hosea 3 : 4 did not find complete accom¬ plishment until after Christ, while the people’s condition to this very hour corresponds exactly to the prophet’s words. Study Amos; does he describe simply what he saw either accomplished or in process of accomplishment, or is he distinctively predictive in very much of his matter? Who can doubt the latter as we read history? But it is so with all the prophets and the Pentateuch, and the his¬ torical books are no exception. I simply mention Amos because of the early date to which the critics assign him. I earnestly press the evidence of the all-pervading pre¬ dictive element in the Scriptures, both Old and New Test¬ aments, but by no means think of prophecy being ex¬ clusively of this nature. Its character is that of spiritual insight as well as foresight. This gives moral and spiritual weight to all its fore-telling. There is the keenest analysis of the people’s condition in every respect, and this in relation to God as well as their surroundings, and withal He is very largely revealed in His majesty, holiness, righteousness, judgment, yet in mercy and re¬ deeming purposes of grace, while the prophetic vista ex¬ pands to scenes of blessing and glory which have never yet been realized. Coupled with all this we have very definite predictions fulfilled after shorter or longer lapses of time which, as being thus confirmed by actual accomplish¬ ment, to which the history of the ages upon which we may now look bears eloquent witness, become at once the moral assurance of fulfilment for still unfulfilled prophecy and the confirmation of the moral truth woven into the prophe¬ tic ministry. The Bible; What it is 59 IV. Is this Book with its perfect unity of theme, its perfect structure, its very evident predictive character, inspired by God? Immediately another question arises: What is inspiration? But in the light of what we have considered, even in our very brief and partial way, can anything short of Divine intervention give a satisfactory answer to all the phenomena which Scripture presents for our study? The Christian may boldly challenge even the 20th century Modernists to produce a book measuring even a finger length to its standard. They may ruthlessly tear it to pieces, thereby weakening its moral grip on many, and thus accomplish more work for the enemy of God and man than was ever done by efforts to exterminate it by murder and bonfire, or Papal bull. This will only turn to their condemnation, for the Book itself shall judge them. One answer alone can satisfy the question of any honest investigator of the evidence — this Book must be in¬ spired of God. It absolutely transcends man’s powers. Its source and cause must be outside of him, no matter though the human element is clearly manifest, which is freely admitted. It is one of the glories of the Book. Every theory upon which the critics build is a direct blow at inspiration. They refuse the idea of it, and de¬ cide the question before investigation. All their investiga¬ tion then turns to attempt to prove their gratuitous decision. It is needless to say that throughout the Old Testament we have it declared, “Thus saith Jehovah,” or “The word of Jehovah came,” or “Jehovah spake” or “said.” The writers never stop to explain or propound some theory as 60 Modernism to how it came about. They manifest no interest or con¬ cern as to any questions that might be raised. They sim¬ ply affirm that it is so, and the message given must be the proof of their claim. It is. This is surely as it should be. Can you imagine a man who is conscious of being laid hold of by God to speak His very words with all the expression, feeling, and individual character he possesses, stopping under such mighty impulse to explain the modus operandi? hnpossible! His business is to deliver the inspired words. They accredit him as nothing else could. It is the same with the New Testament writers. The Lord and the apostles speak of all Scripture as in¬ spired, as God’s word, whether it is the Old Testament or their own words. If it is not true, where can you match such blasphemous audacity? Even the Higher Critics have not gone so far yet as to prefix their dissertations with ^‘Thus saith the Lord,” though the Modernists have taken a step in that direction when they claim the leading of the Spirit of Truth for all present-day scientific devel¬ opment and teaching along with their own reconstruction of belief. Zacharias and Peter, men filled with the Holy Spirit, declare God spake by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began (Luke 1: 70; Acts 3:21; 1 Pet. 1: 12; 2 Pet. 1: 21). After all, what is meant by inspiration? It is that all Scripture consists of God-given words uttered by those chosen for this work. This does not mean that everything recorded is an expression of the mind, will, or purpose of God, for that would include the words of Satan, of wicked men, and of holy, yet failing saints; but it does mean that God gave these words to the writers, for in many cases The Bible; What it is 61 they record that of which they could have no personal or acquired knowledge. How otherwise could they write of the past and the future as they do? How could they write as Moses, for example does, of creation and early history? — and do so in a way which, while presenting the facts, also serves to illustrate the great principles of all God’s ways, and gives us not only the beginnings, but in the very record of them foreshadows the final consumma¬ tion of Divine purposes which even yet await accomplish¬ ment, furnishing abiding instruction for every age and condition. “The things written aforetime were written for our learning.” The Book itself, whether in the history it gives, in its prophecy, or even its genealogies, con¬ tributes to the manifest purpose of moral and spiritual instruction as to man and to God in every dispensation. Being therefore a selection of significant facts which are absolutely true as stated, but which by no means are presented as giving one connected history, but are brought together without any fictitious setting, so as to present a perfect exhibition of God’s ways in relation to His pur¬ poses, and to man in responsible relation to Him whether as His people or otherwise, and in such a way as to be of application in all ages to the moral and spiritual blessing of man — I say the Book itself is a miracle of the first magnitude. The external history of its production and preservation partake of the same character. What but another miracle, that of Divine Inspiration, can really explain the whole phenomena? This inspiration is God’s entrance into the human instrument, to take up for His own service all the characteristics of the instrument, not repress them, but make them the vehicle of HJs own ex* pression in human words given to them to speak or write. 62 Modernism guiding them perfectly in the use of whatever sources of information to which they refer in certain historical con¬ nections, but all made use of in accord with the Divine Mind. Thus it is that all Scripture is like an organism instinct with life — the life of God, for He has breathed into it the breath of life, so that it is “the word of God which liveth and abideth forever.” V. The next point is that this Book is a perfect revelation of God and from God. The fact that all is inspired does not involve the conclusion that all is the revelation of God, though manifestly all is made to contribute to this end, even the wickedness of man and devil. But this perfectly inspired Book gives to us, has contained in it, the perfect revelation of God. This is simply from God, since all is inspired by God. Now to have God revealed to us in such a way as not only to impress us with creative majesty and almighty power which we might be led up to by the voice of creation, but so as to lay hold of those internal and hidden powers of our being — soul and spirit, we must have just such a Book as the Bible placed in our hands. The reason for this is evident. Man has never been able to reveal Him. His conception of God is mea¬ sured by his own lust and degradation. Profane history and Scripture bear witness to this solemn fact. Whatever record we have of man’s search after God in the exercise of his own wisdom there remains an unfilled, unfillable, void. The Bible alone corrects all, and fills all — perfectly satisfies as the resting-place for soul and spirit. Compare it with what you will, where can you find such a revela¬ tion of God? It is not that things are stated about Him The Bible: What it is / 63 simply, that His attributes are made known — His power, holiness, righteousness, mercy, grace, love, in every pos¬ sible way and manner — but that the impress of His per¬ sonality is stamped upon it. I quite admit that this must be realized through the work of God’s Spirit and on the principle of faith, for the natural man does not receive the things of God. Nevertheless just such a revelation is there in this volume of inspiration. VI. In the sixth place I have said this Book is inerrant, hence absolutely reliable and honest throughout. It could not be otherwise in the light of what we have considered. Can you conceive of a Book perfect in unity as to theme and structure, speaking the language of omniscience—- for there is nothing in the mind of God or of man as to the past, present or future which is hid from the Mind which rules throughout in its composition — which is di¬ vinely inspired, and full of divine revelation, exhibiting divine knowledge and love, otherwise than characterized by infallible accuracy? I am aware there are numerous objections raised to this in seeming discrepancies in differ¬ ent accounts of the same events, or in the records of words spoken or quoted, or in the statement of matters chrono¬ logical or natural, as the rising and setting of the sun. But such arguments must proceed from the supposition that we have all the necessary data before us to judge of the questions at issue. This by no means can be sustained. Most, if not all, of such cases are suscepti¬ ble of explanation from a careful study of all the evi¬ dence, and when this for the present seems impossible, very often another form of accuracy than that of mere 64 Modernism literalism is found, in that there is divine suitability in the seeming variations with the special object or pur- pose in view in the different accounts. VII. I come to the last point. It is that this Book as a divinely inspired revelation from God is complete, ai^d therefore final in its present form. This precludes any idea of progressive revelation such as Modernism delights to dream of, and dogmatically assert. Paul tells us it was given to him “to complete the Word of God.’^ Not, of course, write its last book; but give its crowning re¬ velation of the Eternal purpose, beyond which it is mani¬ fest no other New Testament writer ever goes. These writers do not promise any further revelation or inspired communications. In fact they make their own words the abiding standard and test for all else. Indeed, we know that in the latter time of their ministry they were faced with what boldly claimed to be further divine revelation and to constitute the full knowledge. We have, thank God, their divinely authorized answer to all such philoso¬ phic dreams, with which both the filthiness of flesh and spirit are found associated in their development, making it still more clear that there was no connection between them and “the truth which is according to godliness” — the genuine faith of God’s elect, once for all delivered to the saints, and for which they must earnestly contend. Plainly the study of the Old Testament leaves us with need of a further and completing revelation. We find the unfinished fabric taken up for a short time by John the Baptist, and then taken in hand by the Lord Himself and largely added to, but as He Himself says not completed. The Bible; What it is 65 yet the definite promise given as to when and by whom this great work would be accomplished. It is quite generally accepted that John wrote toward the end of the first century. His frequent use of the expression “the truth” is worthy of note. It makes plain that there existed in well recognized form that which could be so positively defined. He could appeal to it as the only basis for the right exercise of love, obedience and Christian walk. What is a lie, and he who is a liar, are determined for the apostle by what is termed “the truth.” He is very bold and says, ‘We are of God; he that knows God hears us. From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” This in the face of what was then claiming to be new revelation and fuller knowledge, of which Modernism is the 20th century offspring. Now as to what comprises this truth; we are told it is the word which they had heard from the beginning (ch. 2: 7). We are not left in doubt as to that with which this beginning is associated. It is the manifestation of the Eternal Life, the Word become flesh, dwelling among men, revealing His glory, full of grace and truth, speaking words which are spirit and life, giving the word and knowledge of the Father, and giving specific promises of complete and final revelation through the word of His chosen servants — “their word,” as He says in praying to the Father — in short, “the doctrine of Christ.” If a man does not abide in this he “has not God” (2 John 9). A study of John’s writings will leave no uncertainty as to what he means by “the truth.” The doctrine of Christ comprises the entire Old Testament, used and authenticated by Him; His own teaching; the teaching of His servants as given in the New Testament — to all of this the appellation, “the Word 66 Modernism of God,” is given. Jude thus speaks of “the faith once delivered,” and bids us “remember the words spoken be¬ fore by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Peter accredits Paul’s epistles as Scripture when in speaking of them he says, “As also the other Scriptures.” In agreement with these thoughts we find Paul in his late epistles frequently speaking of “the truth.” And it is striking that with him, as also with John, Peter and Jude, this emphasis of “the truth” is placed in connection with statements concerning those who refuse it, turn from it, act upon fleshly, worldly principles, wrest the Scrip¬ tures to their own destruction, those who err, have corrupt minds, itching ears which turn away from the truth, seducers, deceivers, and those who prefer gain to godli¬ ness. It is simply “the truth” which stands either ne¬ glected, refused, or opposed by those who are thus put in contrast to it. Moreover it must be that by which these New Testament writers judge those thus character¬ ized. Paul declares he speaks “the truth in Christ,” and links the faith of God’s elect with “the truth which is according to godliness ” This connects with John’s thoughts, for Paul tells us of the great mystery of godli¬ ness which must certainly be that with which “the truth.” accords. That mystery is the revelation of Christ in the truth of His person, and the divine purposes. This makes evident that the apostles had before them a definite, complete, and final standard of knowledge and judgment. They are the only divinely-inspired successors of our Lord. That which they have given becomes the only standard by which to judge of all else. This they both assert and claim for themselves and their words. A like expression — “the faith” — may be traced, and found to lead to the same conclusion. The Bible; What it is 67 Paul pronounced curse upon any so-called gospel which in any way nullified the truth he preached. His was the gospel of God concerning His Son. In the final analysis all is made to rest upon Christ, His person, work, and subsequent revelation. The Modernist loudly proclaims, “Back to Jesus for our religion, back to Him for our best conception of what God is like. See His face and live His life as He mani¬ festly intended that His disciples should do. That is the best substance of the matter. And this is the work in which Modernists in religion are earnestly and intensely interested.” We obey their behest, and as we go back to Jesus and v.ork forward with Plim until we have ranged through all the Scriptures, we with resolute mind and thankful spirit utterly discard Modernism and its foundation of pseudo¬ scientific criticism. The conclusion is certain that the Bible is the standard of knowledge and judgment. As such we accept it in its entirety, and with it in our hands shall proceed to work through the problems before us. I may add in relation to this Book that there is not any of the departments of knowledge and research in which man finds himself engaged to which it would not give clearer light and a steadying hand, even the touch of the Divine, which to-day is so largely absent (in many cases entirely so) from these fields of study because of the deliberate wilful exclusion of this Book of God. In it we have finality and stability given to us in omniscient speech. CHAPTER III. MatCs history and condition; does it witness to evolution or devolution? The consideration of this subject I wish to present in a fourfold way: first, the evolutionary pro¬ gram in relation to man; secondly, the geolo¬ gical program of earth-history in relation to man, and his place in its development; thirdly, the annals of history and what they teach in relation to man ; and fourthly, the conclusions to which the evidence leads. Perhaps a brief definition of the contrasted terms — evolution, devolution — may be given first. Evolution is the act or process of unfolding, or the state of being unfolded ; hence the process of evolving or becoming developed. This in general is always considered, in the way in which we are speaking of it, as an evolving upward in constant progression, a continuous advance from the lowest to the highest forms in the midst of which man finds his place, so tliat his physical, mental and spiritual characteristics are the results of this vast program which is undisturbed by any act of special creation. Devolution is chiefly used as describing the act of transferring, handing over, or transmitting from one person to another; a passing or falling to a successor, as of office, authority or estate. From its Latin root we get as a primary thought, the act of rolling down, so that it has been used in the sense of degeneration, and as the opposite of evolution. Our pres- Man's History and Condition 69 ent study is to help us determine which of these terms may best be applied to man’s history and condition. I. Let me now present in condensed form, though suffi¬ cient for our present purpose, the evolutionary program as it specially relates to man. Modem evolutionists chiefly ascribe all changes to ex¬ ternal causes — a mechanical operation of outward condi¬ tions, so that there evolves that form of organism which best suits the environment. Nature does not deliberately form results for certain ends, but the process is made adaptable to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, the survival of the fittest, and with this are interwoven the principles of variation and heredity. Upon this basis the doctrine formulated is that of a continuous development in the unity of nature from inor¬ ganic to organic, from the stone to the plant, from the plant to the animal, and from the animal to man. This is in fact the progress of Genesis 1, only not the result of one order of life evolving out of the other, but each dis¬ tinct and complete in itself produced by the word and power of God. But further, the evolutionist not only con¬ siders nature to have evolved according to fixed laws and natural conditions, but history also, it being simply a con¬ tinuation of the process, both having as their object the education of man in perfect humanity. The failure to attain to this causes the religio-evolutionist to add on the idea of a future life for the continuation of the process. The materialist is, of course, not troubled with any such tail to his system. It is admitted that the development of human life is 70 Modernism quite unique in the organic world. The evolutionary pro¬ gram divides it into two main departments — physical and cultural. The first presents the origin and descent of man. The second deals with evidence consisting of the remains of man’s work, these constituting the preserved impres¬ sions of his gradual development at different stages of his history. The first deals with man’s evolvement from the anthropoid apes, the second deals with the remains of man’s handicraft chronologically arranged according to geological data, as far as the earliest stages of his exis¬ tence are concerned, and these remains are taken to indi¬ cate a parallel between the development of the human skull and the growing improvement of his handiwork. To provide for all the requirements of the case from the physical side, the starting-point is placed approxi¬ mately in the Miocene epoch of the Tertiary period of geology, when man’s progenitor, whose physical and men¬ tal attainments were on a par with the anthropoid apes now existing, through some exigency due to changing ex¬ ternal conditions began to assume by degrees an erect atti¬ tude. The movement “was finally completed by the adjust¬ ment of certain muscles and bones so as to balance the upper part of the body on the spinal column, and facilitate bipedal locomotion, which henceforth became man’s nor¬ mal mode of progression.” This was soon followed by the differentiation of the hands and feet, with a corres¬ ponding change in form and parts, though the essential structure remains the same. Now the hand development of the upper limbs of this evolving animal is considered “one of the main factors in the higher brain development of man.” From this it is claimed there would develop an entirely new cycle of experiences in, and relations to, Man's History and Condition 71 the world around, which would in their process of unfold¬ ing bring also increasing mental development, by reason of their natural and constant demand for it as circum¬ stances and conditions changed under the new manipula¬ tive powers. “In this way the function of the hand and the function of the brain become intimately correlated, the conjoint result of their long continued action being a larger brain, greater intelligence, and more highly specialized manipulative organs than were ever before seen among the products of the organic world.” The cranial capacity of the average European is about 2^ times greater than the gorilla’s. It is considered “that the largest portion of this increase in the substance of the human brain is to be correlated with the higher mental powers of man, as cause and effect ... Nor can there be any doubt that its chief stimulus, at least in the earliest stages of human development, was the function of the hand. That subsequently there were other powerful factors work¬ ing in the same direcion is not denied.” These factors are the development of articulate speech, later the art of writing, and along with both the development of imple¬ ments and mechanical appliances. The same principle governs throughout, for “spoken language is virtually an extension, or rather a concentration, of the power which many of the more intelligent animals possess of giving expression to emotions and simple sensations by various ejaculatory sounds, grimaces, and gestures. The acquisi¬ tion of full human speech was, unquestionably, the result of slow growth.” The time when this stage of the evolu¬ tion was reached remains very uncertain. Thus has the way been forged “into what is virtually a new world — the world of ethics and responsibility.” Thus man evolved 72 Modernism from the pithecoid group of animals by first adopting an erect posture, then through finding new uses for his upp)er limbs, until through the mechanical process of new meth¬ ods of manipulation changes came to their form, and with this also to his lower limbs as now bearing the entire bodily structure. Gradually he fell to making things for his hands to use, clubs, or stone articles, and such like, first to use against his enemies in the struggle for exis¬ tence, and then more advanced implements for other pur¬ poses. “These implement-using animals” soon learned to accommodate themselves to the vicissitudes of their en¬ vironment. They learnt the use of fire, acquired skill in garment-making, began to construct houses, became more and more conversant with the laws of nature and their power over them, and so too the cultivation of selected plants and animals and the destruction of others. Social and sedentary habits were formed, communities established, then religion and legislation, until we enter the complexity of the 20th century. Now the foundation of this whole structure is found in the application of the comparative method, by which man — physically, mentally and socially — is linked with the animals nearest to him. “No fair-minded person who is conversant with the close anatomical and physiological resemblances between the structural details of man and those of the anthropoid apes — every bone, muscle, nerve, and blood-vessel being virtually the same — and the strik¬ ing analogy between the complex mechanism of their organs of sense, can seriously deny their community of descent, at least from the purely physical aspect of the subject.” The same reasoning is applied to man’s mental characteristics, so that the similarity between his emotions Man’s History and Condition 73 and faculties and those of the higher mammalia is made a proof of man’s mental evolution, as well as physical, from the animal. His admittedly greater superiority in mental manifestations is simply the outcome of adaptation to external conditions. It is due to “the formation of brain substance in response to the progressive stimuli of the manipulative organs — a process which has no limits and indeed is still in operation.” Now why should any fair-minded person conclude that because of these striking analogies there must be “com¬ munity of descent” when in fact “community of structure” fully meets the case? By what stretch of the imagination can descent be demsinded as the only fair conclusion, even admitting all presented as evidence? If there had not been as the promoting cause the secret desire to remove God from the realm of creation this program would never have had its birth. Thus evolutionists deny specific crea¬ tive acts, and if they do not destroy, at least greatly weaken, any sense of human responsibility toward God, nullify the meaning and force of sin, evacuate the idea of judgment of all its meaning and moral bearing upon man. It naturally follows that a being which has evolved ac¬ cording to the program here outlined cannot be held ac¬ countable by a Being outside of the world for any state of imperfection in which he is found and out of which he is striving ever upward, and has so far elevated himself as we find him to-day. Therefore ideas of salvation, atonement, or future judgment are ruled out by the nature of the case, for there cannot be any basis for a moral relationship of any kind toward God, since He had not the slightest link with the evolvement, it being en¬ tirely due to natural mechanical causes. We are not to 74 Modernism think of God presuming to come across the path of this remarkable animal, even to make its passing acquaintance. It in fact must trace back its lineage to the primordial cell, and back of that to some great Unknown, so that any idea of God is simply the product of man’s evolving mentality, and must change and advance with him. I say, if there had not been such motives at work, although perhaps not recognized by some, this whole program would never have had its birth. That there is between man and the animal kingdom community of structure and of emotional faculty is unde¬ niable; and it is recognized in Scripture, if in nothing else, in the fact that both animals and man are called living souls. With the soul Scripture consistently associates all those emotional activities and characteristics which the evolutionist delights to show belong to the higher mam¬ malia at least, as well as to man. But to this Scripture adds (and consistently teaches concerning) that element of his being to which all his undeniable superiority is attributed — the spirit; and to this great truth is added that of his special distinctive creation by God. With this immediately comes in the whole cycle of truth in its various forms, to which, as I have said, evolution is the flat denial. This theory of descent assumes as the explanation of certain analogies, “genealogical relations of affinity and changes of organisms in great numbers,” while yet “not one case of a definite and permanent change of an organic species into another has been accurately observed.” Gaps and deficiencies occur in every form of argument ad¬ vanced, whether from anatomy, or the embryo, or paleon¬ tology. Man’s History and Condition 75 II. The program of man’s descent, and that of the geologist for the age of the earth, find a sympathetic link in the principle of uniformity upon which the whole time system of geology is now built. This principle is that what may now be observed as the rate of action of, and the methods used by, geologic agents in the accomplishment of their work of earth-shaping, apart from any valid reason to the contrary, must be considered as that which has always prevailed. In other words, that the past must be ex¬ plained by the present unless good cause can be shown to the contrary. Present computation is therefore the basis of all computation generally speaking. “Given time enough, even the slow processes operating at present, which produce no perceptible change in one’s surroundings in a lifetime, will accomplish the stupendous results so clearly proved by geological study.” The result is the supposition of 100,000,000 years for the age of the oldest rocks. Manifestly this is pure assumption, for “there is as yet no reliable geological chronometer.” There is noth¬ ing conclusive against the idea that action may have been much more rapid in past ages than now observed. Phy¬ sicists from their studies cut the earth’s age down to 20 million years, and even this is based upon a similar prin¬ ciple of comparison, which can be no more considered valid for their use than for the geologist. Great breaks are acknowledged to exist in the records of the strata, which are like leaves torn out of the geologic book. These were once considered to be the result of great catastrophes, but the now prevailing uniformist view is that they are merely gaps in our knowledge which will 76 Modernism be gradually filled as time goes on. It is owned that our present knowledge is very imperfect; that a great part of the earth's surface has not been examined at all, and in the best known parts only a small part of what it is underground can be seen; that it is impossible to recover a complete history of life on the earth; that in tabulat¬ ing geological periods it is like putting together frag¬ ments, and thus giving them an aspect of continuity. These things being confessed, many professed results and theories must be of a fictitious character. We may gather that the periods, which are stated as composing the earth-development, bear a similarity to the Genesis record. The first great period when the oldest rocks were formed and laid down seems to have been characterized by a condition much like that described in Genesis 1:2. This is followed by the second, or Paleozoic, period, during which the continents emerged and dense vegetation prevailed, while the greatest pos¬ sible alterations in atmospheric and climatic conditions must have marked its progress. Something of the 2nd and 3rd days of Genesis find illustration here. But the fossil history records also abundant animal life, es¬ pecially in the great seas of Paleozoic time, and this marks a most important dissimilarity to Genesis, where such marine life does not appear until the 5 th day. Me¬ sozoic time follows in which further continental devel¬ opment takes place, and if vegetation is not so gigantic still it is abundant, and animal life is more largely de¬ veloped, so that toward its close we get what is called the age of reptiles. This again in a measure corresponds with the Sth day of Genesis, with however another feature of dissimilarity in the fossil history, namely, that land- Man’s History and Condition 77 animals are interspersed, and such only appear on the sixth day in Genesis. Then comes the Cenozoic, or Tertiary, period, of which recent time forms a part. This time is marked by the finishing off of the continental masses, the great prevalence of land-animals, some of seemingly monstrous size, and the existence of man, at least toward its close. These principal periods are marked as such by breaks or gaps, so that we are told to consider that the limits of these geological periods or formations simply mark gaps in our knowledge. As already noticed, the evolutionist places man’s appearance in about the middle part of the last period. This, according to geolo¬ gical calculations, would make his history date back several ten thousands of years. It is considered proved by recent discoveries of stone tools or weapons in caves and beds of streams, along with remains of animals long extinct; and by reason of such associations no doubt is supposed to be left as to the early date of his pres¬ ence on the earth. This really rests upon the unstable foundation of that principle and resultant calculations to which I have already referred — the principle of uniform¬ ity. There is nothing really reliable, for geologists have had to make frequent changes in their time estimates because of the real lack of anything like conclusive evidence. It is evident, however, that theoretic geolog}^ and the evolutionary theory as to man’s origin join hands, and stand or fall together. Neither geology nor evolu¬ tionary anthropology can bridge the great gaps that exist; first, between dead and living matter; secondly, between vegetable and animal life; thirdly, between any species of animal or plant and any other species; and fourthly, between animal-nature and the nature of man. 78 Modernism I have called attention to the divergencies between the general order of geological development and the Genesis record. It really forbids any possibility of making the days and the periods the same. First, the Genesis account is both astronomical and geological. The work of the first and fourth days could not possibly find any correspon¬ dence in geology. The other days are as follows: 2nd. It has only to do with waters and atmospheric conditions. 3rd. It has only to do with the emergence of the dry land, formation of the seas, and plant life. 5th. It has only to do with the introduction of marine life. 6th. It has only to do with the introduction of land life and with man. Now the whole history of geology, its every period, is marked by great water and atmospheric changes; by constant emergence or subsidence of the continents; by the presence of plant and animal life, though the scale be an ascending one as judged by the fossils. No period is marked by that which is specific and exclusive, as the days of Genesis plainly are. This fossil record indicates the co-existence of plant and animal life in most varied forms, though these periods may be said to have their predominant types answering in a certain degree to the distinctive but exclusive features of the Genesis days. But these days do not present such co-existence. The earth is presented in its final form on the third day, then plant life, then marine life, then land life in succession, not all co-existing in a larger or smaller measure through all the days from the commencement, as in the geologic record of its periods. Man’s History and Condition 79 In what light then are we to consider the six days’ work? Simply and solely as being the description of a special work of the Creator, by which He established, fitted, and furnished the earth as to its completed condition, its plant and animal life, and its heavenly relations, for man, the appointed head of this perfect system. Now the explanation of the phenomena presented by geology lies entirely outside of this. Granted that recent time is re presented in its record, there is no need of denying that that record may reach far beyond the first day of Gene¬ sis into that unmeasured time which may be introduced between verses one and two of that chapter, and in which the condition of verse 2 finds its, place, perhaps just prior to the new world-order brought in by the six days’ work and headed by man. Whatever may be the wonders of geologic and anthropologic study let it be remembered that at the best the knowledge obtained is confessed to be very partial and incomplete, that there is no secure basis for time calculations, and that therefore we have in them no stable standard by which to judge, much more condemn, the Scriptural record of creation or man’s origin. In it there is certainty, simplicity, and majesty absolutely unequaled in any other production. It palpitates with the presence of God, and bridges the gaps, so confounding to human wisdom, by the word of His power. III. What does the historian tell us? He links his study with what we have been considering, and commences by giving an outline of the Prehistoric Age. By this is meant ‘^the immensely long periods of human life which lie back of the time when man began to keep written or 80 Modernism graven records of events . . . The comparatively few cen¬ turies of human experience made known to us through such records comprise the Historic Age.” The length of this is variously given, indicating that after all the labor¬ ious research expended on the questions of chronology no secure basis has been reached. Eg3q)tian and Babylonian records still need much study, having problems and gaps still unsolved, so that present day knowledge in this as in science remains incomplete. On the other hand the Bible presents its own complete chronological system; the data which explains it is found within itself, and confirma¬ tion of it increases as archeological discoveries continue. Fastening upon the supposed evidence of man’s great antiquity as postulated by geology resting upon its very unstable foundation, the historian in a quite misleading way spealis of the old and new stone ages — Paleolithic and Neolithic ages — and declares that a study of the remains of chipped stone implements, then of those which were evi¬ dently ground smooth and sharp and had handles fitted to them, then of some rude articles of pottery showing the beginning of this art, all “embody the results of thou¬ sands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years of human experience and invention, and mark the first steps in human progress.” Along with this primitive condition it is strangely asserted that some of these cave-dwelling hunters possessed an ability in art* which “in some re¬ spects has never been surpassed or even equaled,” so that “the history of art must hereafter begin with the work of * This is deduced from animal drawings found upon the walls of caverns where these men are supposed to have lived, and into which not a ray of daylight enters. Man’s History and Condition 81 these artist hunters of the Paleolithic time,” an age which, it is said, we are not to reckon by centuries, or even millenniums, but only by geologic epochs, which, as I have stated, have no reliable time element connected with them. Now these things are artificially arranged in this way to give color to the evolutionary program in relation to man when there is absolutely no reliable evidence to sup¬ port the scheme. Why accept the uncertain, in fact the unproved, the¬ ories of anthropologists and geologists, since it is admitted that “the Australians and New Zealanders when first dis¬ covered* were in the Paleolithic stage of culture; the Tasmanians had not yet reached it.” Why then must I go back to the Ice Age of geology to find the beginning of the old Stone Age men? Why do I need to go further back than 4000 B. C. if only a couple of hundred years ago man in this rude beginning was still existing in the world? Why this vagary of tens of thousands of years? Because these implements are found in certain geologic associations, which must be of such and such an age (?), and they could only be of human production. All would seem very conclusive, but there is a fatal if in the age calculation. The implements of Paleolithic man, we are told, indicate that he made clothing of skins, doubtless the skins of animals killed in the chase, and that he had not learned the art of weaving. Granted. Does not Genesis 3: 21 offer an explanation? God made coats of skin and clothed them. Would man learn nothing from * Not until the early eighteen hundreds was exploration and study given to these parts of the world. 82 Modernism this, so that when driven out of the Garden he would du¬ plicate for himself, and teach his children also to maJke for themselves, what God had first done for the parents? And yet in this we may find the deepest typical and spirit¬ ual meaning linking with some of the most blessed teach¬ ing of Scripture as to atonement and salvation. Let us move forward now to the new Stone Age — the Neolithic — in which we get advance from the rude condi¬ tions of the old Stone Age indicated in stone tools and weapons ground and polished with handles attached, the art of pottery developing, spinning and w^eaving, cul¬ tivation of the soil, domestication of animals, house build¬ ing, and even latterly tombs and monuments. But it is admitted that “the North American Indians were in this stage of culture at the time of the discovery of the New World. The Egyptians and Babylonians were just emerg¬ ing from it when they first appeared in history.” And how about the Incas of Peru and the Aztecs of Mexico? I might ask over again the questions already proposed. Does not Genesis 4 depict every feature of so-called Neolithic culture? What still existed in the 15th century need not be supposed to have begun before the fourth millenium B. C. The Swiss lake-dwellings are pointed to as the work of Neolithic man. But such pile-villages are still found as the habitations of certain tribes of people. But we pass after several thousand years of Neolithic culture into the Age of Metals — when copper, bronze, and iron came into use. With this development, it is said, man really began “to subdue the earth and to get do¬ minion over nature. All the higher cultures of the ancient world with which history begins were based on the knowl¬ edge and use of metals.” “Speaking broadly, we may say Man’s History and Condition 83 that the Age of Metals began for the most advanced peo¬ ples of the ancient world between 3000 and 4000 B. C.” So-called Neolithic man, besides being a hunter, is credited with being a weaver, a carpenter, a founder of communities, a keeper of cattle and a tiller of the soil. He advanced by the development of the use of metals. Turn to Genesis 4. Everyone of these features mark the history of Cain’s family, with the added features of music and song. Cultivation of the soil, city-building and tent¬ making, for both of which carpentry, spinning, and weav¬ ing were essential; working in brass and iron, hence the use of fire; making of musical instruments, suggesting not only the metal-worker but also the cabinet-maker; and song — all are here. These things cannot be thought of apart from the existence of language and writing. The evolutionary historian places the origination of both dur ing the course of the many thousands of years allotted to the Stone and Metal Ages. Genesis is not behind in in¬ cluding language as one of the accomplishments of the first men. It is admitted that we find out about prehistoric man by first “studying the life of present-day backward races; for what they now are, the great races of history, we have reason to believe, were in their prehistoric age.” But why then any such age, or man? Simply and solely to meet the unfounded claims of uniformitarian geologists and evo¬ lutionary anthropologists. All the exhumed evidence used to prove such immense prehistoric periods and man’s existence is to be found actually duplicated in present- day conditions. Why is not this evidence which is found in ancient gravel-beds, in caves, and other places, nothing more than the remains of the Cainite world in which 84 Modernism wp find every feature of Paleolithic, Neolithic and Metal- ithic times, carried and deposited by the Noachian de¬ luge, and since then often covered and still further scat¬ tered by the various agents of geological work? Re¬ member we have no time-gauge for past geologic history. Two interesting points are credited to prehistoric man; the domestication of animals in which the historic period has furnished no material increase except to improve the breed; the domestication of plants, beyond the extent of which the historic period has not made progress, for it is asserted that “so thorough was prehistoric man’s search for whatever in the plant world could be cultivated for food, that historic man has not been able during the last 2000 years from the tens of thousands of wild plants to discover any species comparable in value to any one of the staple food-plants selected and domesticated by pri¬ meval man.” These two things would seem to mark the Cainite world also. It is not until after the Flood that we hear of every living moving thing being ordered as food for man. Previously then the herb of the field must have been at least the staple food of men, and this accounts for the great development of which the historian speaks. This is also intimated in God’s word to Adam: “Thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” (Gen. 3: 19), and again in the directions as to food given to Noah before entering the ark. As to the first feature, this too is marked as charac¬ teristic of the Cainite world. Jabal is called the father of those dwelling in tents and having cattle, here “desig¬ nated by a word denoting property, as being chattels personal, and consisting chiefly of sheep and oxen.” The antediluvian world answers perfectly to all that is claimed Man^s History and Condition 85 for prehistoric man. Why not compress his history within Biblical limits, instead of assuming untold ages based upon the flimsiest evidence, if evidence in any real sense it can be called? The reason is not far to seek. It lies in the refusal to accept man’s origin and fall as given in Genesis 1-3. Look upon the world to-day. Does it not contain every stage of development indicated in the evolutionary pro¬ gram from the anthropoid apes to the most civilized of men? This co-existence is not marked by any merging of one into the other; each runs in its own groove with an element of degeneration manifest in all. This one char¬ acteristic alone binds all in reference to man to a common historic origin, from which all the diverging and never meeting lines proceed, and which alone furnishes an answer to the moral features of the history. “The plain fact is that human history is a strange blend of progress and regress; it is the story of the rhythmic rise and fall of civilizations and empires, of gains made only to be lost, and lost only to be fought for once again. Even when advance has come, it has come by mingled progress and cataclysm . . . Our 19th century ideas of evolution tended to create in us the impression that hu¬ manity had made a smooth and even ascent. We artifi¬ cially graded the ascending track of human history, leveled and macadamized it, and talked of inevitable progress. Such sentimental optimism has ceased even to be com¬ forting, so utterly untenable has it become to every well- instructed mind.” Broadly speaking, every feature of progress is accom¬ panied by some feature of regress. The interaction of these forces is constant. The whole historic period proves 86 Modernism it — life and death, sorrow and joy, success and failure, wealth and poverty, health and sickness, youth and age, construction and destruction, union and division; all man’s history is like the swinging pendulum, and with him there is clearly an inherent condition of evil in constant mani¬ festation, which external development, no matter how great, never reaches nor alters. Make the circumstances and conditions whatever you please, this always manifests itself — man is a sinner. The quantity of his manifested sinfulness may vary, in certain circumstances be more or less repressed, but nevertheless there abides the evidence in some form of the real quality belonging to him, that of sin. But how and when did it come? Who will an¬ swer? The evolutionist will tell you it is simply a mental concept resulting from man establishing certain rules and customs which were considered essential to the well-being and progress of the race. To act contrary to these rules or customs was called sin, and then of course there arose the need of corrective and punitive measures. Sin is merely relative to the social consciousness, and really be¬ comes a matter of evolving mentality. IV. What are to be the conclusions drawn from this survey? First, that evolution is untenable upon scientific, historic and moral grounds; that all upon which it is based is sus¬ ceptible of much simpler explanation. Science has spoken. Apart from its statement of as¬ certained fact, it is fallible, often uncertain, unproved. Let our selected standard of knowledge and judgment — the Holy Scriptures — now speak. For it there is no pre- Man's History and Condition 87 historic period, all falls within the realm of the historic. It goes back to the beginning. Look down the long record of the historic period, whether you consider it in the light of Scripture or as men write of it, and upon its every page is inscribed a harrowing tale of conquest and loss; of crime and blood; of incessant strife between good and evil; of ever-ming¬ ling joy and sorrow; of laborious construction overthrown in a moment’s destruction; the work of an hour blighting for ever the labor of years; of toil unremitting; defects and blemishes everywhere, even when by comparison we may speak of greatest brilliancy in both morals and intelligence. All of this while there is still maintained, according to God’s promise, that orderly operation of nature which alone conduces to the existence of life. Even here, however, the operation of conflicting forces are at work, which at times break out in sudden activity, and seem to threaten an overthrow — warnings of that fiery cataclysm yet to come (2 Pet. 3: 12). There is a similarity between the moral and natural condition of the world which suggests an interrelation of striking import to the open mind. After all does not the world lie in wickedness? Is it not full of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life? Does not corrup¬ tion through lust dominate its history? Have learning, invention, philanthropy, better and more representative government, improvement in social conditions, changed or eradicated the deep-seated moral corruption of the race, even granting much outward amelioration? Can you find a more accurate and truthful description than that given in Romans 1-3? There you have the sensualist, the moralist, and the mere religionist. We have them 88 Modernism still to-day wearing the same characters. The apostle’s conclusions are irrefutable. Such is the consistent testi¬ mony of Scripture.* I study the character of God as presented in Scripture, and He rises before me as a Being of perfect love, yet of uncompromising hatred of evil; full of mercy, yet by no means clearing the guilty; inflexible in righteousness, ab¬ solute in holiness, yet tender in compassion and full of grace; absolute in truth, knowing all from the beginning to the end; delighting in the lowly and the contrite, but knowing the proud afar off — all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present. Could it be possible that such a God willed a world like ours? Can it be what He purposed it should be? Is He the author of confusion and every evil work? How reconcile these contrasts? He is such a God as I desire to know, but how explain such a world as this? Science can give no answer. Human wisdom cannot solve the enigma. On the other hand who would want to make the ac¬ quaintance of the god of theistio evolution? He can only be conceived of as a being, who threw into space, and left to its fate, an infinitesmal cell in which lay latent all the potentiality necessary to produce such a creation as we know, wonderful in its order, and yet so grievously encumbered with elements of disorder, productive of un¬ told sorrow and suffering, out of which no matter how great the progress no evolution is attained. Moreover this god cannot enter the scene which has grown from the cell, he cannot reveal himself by any specific act, he only * See Chap. X. as to Man. Man's History and Condition 89 becomes self-disclosed through this cell’s continued evolve- ment. What so effectually answers all the rising questions of the troubled mind as the fall of man which Scripture teaches? Bring that in, and the mystery is unlocked. What more perfectly illustrates the truth of the matter than those matchless parables of the Good Samaritan, the prodigal son, and the lost sheep? They not only throw light on man’s history, but God’s relation to it. And so with Genesis 3.* Who can fail to see that God there becomes the Good Samaritan, the welcoming Fa¬ ther, the Good Shepherd, while also His righteousness and holiness are not set aside. The history of fallen man opens with sacrifice disclosed as the way of meeting his need in relation to God, while the governmental conse¬ quences of his departure as far as this world is concerned are not removed, but abide as a necessary witness to the initial departure, the moral results of which have tainted the whole race. This its history very amply declares. Questions may be raised as to why God permitted all this to take place. But what is man that he should reply against God, or even that God should be mindful of him? Besides, these questions largely ignore the truth of man’s distinctive moral being as created by God, from which develops that whole cycle of moral and spiritual interests which are inward, and of which science can give no right interpretation, yet which every human being knows exist and operate in him. “For who of men hath known the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in * For a more detailed consideration of Gen. 3, 4 in rela- tion to man, his needs, and God’s ways see chapter VI. 90 Modernism him?” This marks him out as distinct from all other ranks of creation; whatever community of structure there is even to the functions of the soul, here there is absolute and abiding superiority. The dictum of Genesis, to which all scientific jact witnesses, is that of each according to its kind in the whole of creation. Thus the Genesis account of man’s creation and his fall fits in perfectly with his subsequent history, to the character of which all Scrip¬ ture and his own records bear imited testimony. This, then, is devolution, not evolution. Man’s pres¬ ent history began by a transfer of his allegiance to a pro¬ fessed friend who was in reality an awful enemy, who has become the god of this world through man’s default. He actually passed over his headship to an alien, to God’s enemy. As a result conspiracy, pride, self-aggrandize¬ ment, with all that comes in their train, have stamped themselves upon human history. Everything opposite to the mind and character of God is woven into it. Man is a being rolling down as a result of his fatal mis-step, not one evolving upward. Talk of progress as much as you please — and in certain respects there is much to be said, though it is largely mechanical and outward, not spirit¬ ual and inward — there is the abiding condition of de¬ generacy which nothing of human agency overcomes. It increases in manifestation with the increase of the race — there is a constant rolling downward. Sin reigns. Did God inaugurate a reign of sin? Man did! Death reigns. Did God inaugurate its reign? He did, as His answer to man’s act of rebellion, and as expressive of changed re¬ lationship; hence, too, death in Scripture becomes viewed as the cause of defilement in God’s sight. Man, through the very nature of the case, is permitted to pursue his Man's History and Condition 91 self-chosen path, but God at the same time comes in to work for recovery, and these two lines of action run through all Scripture, the former ever leading downward, the latter upward until it reaches its glorious consum¬ mation in Him of whom I shall now particularly speak, commencing with His birth into this world of sin and sorrow. CHAPTER IV. The virgin birth of Jesus: is it fable or absolute necessity in view of all the requirements of the case? SINCE, after all the prodigious labor and study be¬ stowed upon the subject, not one single example can be produced in all the plant, animal, and human kingdoms of one “kind” evolving into another “kind,” but the unvarying witness is to each producing continuously and only its own kind, so is it true of man morally and spiritually. Man has always begotten sons and daughters “in his likeness, after his image” (Gen. 5: 3). None of his progeny, even the most wise or mighty, has accomplished deliverance for his fellows. The loftiest thoughts and greatest achievements have been buried sooner or later under the accumulation of creature degen¬ eracy, while repeated efforts are made by the good and great, as men speak, to bring up out of the debris some ennobling conception, or make effective some uplifting program, to check the appalling downward tendency of the race. The record of the greatest and best efforts has failure written upon it — the goal unattained, the strife remains constant with no abiding victory in sight. It all proves that man cannot be his own saviour. He is not sufficient for the task, the power and wisdom to accom¬ plish it are not found with him. The conclusion cannot be successfully resisted, that his help must come from a source external to himself. But if evolutionary views constitute the truth, who can tell how this shall come? Nothing of the supernatural or miraculous is admitted as The Virgin Birth of Jesus 93 of possible occurence; yet if help must be derived from a source external to himself and his own condition, of what nature can it be other than supernatural and mir¬ aculous? Can he evolve anything from animal or plant which will cure the virus of men? There is no prospect of man’s real help as to such a development, either in respect to himself, or animal, or plant, in view of his past history, and that even as to animal and plant he has made no real progress in the domestication of either since the so-called Neolithic age. Poor record indeed it would seem. Besides, there is not the slightest evidence of any change in even one of all the kinds composing the plant and animal creation, including man. This is the hopeless¬ ness of evolution, which can only drive to agnosticism, and in its logical development to Nietzschism and its in¬ famous teachings of brute force and the super-man. All becomes illuminated when the light of Scripture is turned upon it. It offers complete explanation as to man’s history and origin, as it does also to the way of his de¬ liverance. It concurs with all that may be said as to the helplessness of man, and hence that all help must come from a source external to himself — “A man can receive nothing unless it be given him out of heaven” (John 3: 27) — and then reveals both the Source and the manner of its activity. Man’s Saviour must of necessity be free from man’s physical and moral virus, for it is this which makes man incapable of being his own saviour, tainting all his efforts, nullifying his highest attainments. Further, salvation must mean more than being lifted out of an all-pervading condition, where man’s utter help¬ lessness is fully manifest. It involves the full meeting of 94 Modernism the requirements of the character and nature of God, who is immediately upon the scene when Scripture be¬ comes our standard of knowledge and judgment. His presence in the matter, and the resultant consequences, are what the whole fabric of evolution is designed to blot out, to effectually remove from the realm of necessity. The direct opposite is true the moment we open Scrip¬ ture. Man, by the very nature of his origin, his descent from God, is in special relationship to God as possessing not only soul but spirit. As always with relationship there is responsibility, and this finds expression in the one prohibition laid upon man placed in a state of inno¬ cence in the enjoyment of earthly blessing. This made obedience fundamental to the continual enjoyment of the relationship and the fulfilment of the responsibility. Man disobeyed. His consequent behaviour at once indicated a complete change in his attitude, feeling, and position Godward. He hides, he fears, he is outside of the place in which he had enjoyed God’s presence. Man had fallen. Self-will, lust, guilt, banishment, all now characterize his condition. He is in sin, a sinner. Ever since he has be gotten his “kind,” and the features which mark the be¬ ginning of his history have stamped themselves upon it to this very hour. I repeat, salvation not only means being lifted out of a condition or position, but the re¬ moval of all the evil fruits of human depravity according to the requirements of the character and nature of God — not simply at-one-ment, but atonement. This immediately finds typical disclosure in the action of God Himself, and in that of Abel, which He accepts, while the way of Cain is refused. Again, not only must man’s Saviour be perfectly free The Virgin Birth of Jesus 95 from man’s virus, He must also be really man. Other¬ wise, defeat must be acknowledged as to God’s original purpose and plan in relation to man as created by Him. Satan and sin would have triumphed in so far as to compel God to discard His work and do something wholly different. The character and power of God would be thus seriously compromised. If salvation is not possible by self-evolvement — and who in the face of the evidence can consider it possible? - — then it can only come from a source without which in¬ troduces that which can and does work within, producing such outward manifestation that what constitutes salva¬ tion practically is realized — the partaking of the divine nature, ^‘having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1: 4). This then embraces two main conceptions — the objective and the subjective. The former, God producing without and outside of man what is essential for the attainment of the purpose in view; the latter, God producing wdthin, and as incorporating in man, what is also essential. The truth of the virgin birth is distinctively linked with the former, and yet bears a typal significance in relation to the latter, for are not the children of God those “who have been bom, not of blood [not according to human process], nor of flesh’s will [not in sin and according to lust], nor of man’s will [not through the energy, or strength, or purpose of man], but of God?” — “bom of the Spirit” — “According to His own will [i. e., ‘having so purposed’ or ‘willed it’; it was the fmit of His own mind, and so a free gift] He begat us by the word of tmth.” And this, I may suggest in pass¬ ing, gives intimation of another principle, by which alone man may know God, even jaith — heart-acceptance of, and 96 Modernism obedience to, whatever word of testimony God may be pleased to give, for man is now outside the place into which God alone could visibly come before the fall to commune with His creature, and in which all His earthly blessings were ministered and enjoyed with perfect de¬ light, no evil existing. Then sight ruled, we may say. But man rebelled, fled from God’s presence, and was right¬ eously driven out from the place and portion to which he was no longer entitled by reason of his conduct and course, and as a result finds himself in a state of misery, suffering, and death. It could not be otherwise, but it becomes the occasion for the revelation of God in greater depths of love and unexpected heights of grace, yet in full¬ est concord with righteousness and holiness. Before the fall God had come to man, now with man outside it has be come a question of man’s approach to God. Faith and sacrifice are immediately disclosed as the only way, while that which may appeal to human nature cind wisdom is rejected. This is the lesson presented in the history of Abel and Cain (Gen. 4; Heb. 11). Man, seeing and en¬ joying God, disobeyed and lost all. Now man seeing only himself and suffering the consequences of his depravity, must obey by faith, if he is to know acceptance with God, and so gain all that sovereign grace in its richness chooses to bestow, which is not a restored earthly paradise but heavenly and eternal blessing. For “where sin abounded grace has overbounded, in order that, even as sin has reigned in [the power of] death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 5: 21). The necessity of the case is obvious, the conclusion inevitable. The Virgin Birth of Jesus 97 The two afore-mentioned primary considerations in re¬ lation to man’s Saviour can alone be secured for us through such an operation as the virgin birth. The Seed of the woman is the bruised yet victorious Deliverer (Gen. 3: 15). “There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2: 5, 6). “For since by man came death, by Man also resurrec¬ tion of those that are dead. For as in the Adam all die, thus also in the Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. IS: 21,22, New Trans.). He who is thus Victor, and Head of a new race, must be intrinsically perfect, for apart from this it is manifest there is no hope of victory. He must be holy as to person, harmless or guileless as to character, undefiled by any place or association entered, and separate from sinners as being of a new order though truly man. Thus He could offer Himself “without spot” to God as the one all-sufficing sacrifice for sin at the appointed time, that being at the conclusion of what Scripture calls the proba¬ tionary ages* during which God had fully tested man in various ways as Scripture reveals. Thus He “became to all them that obey Him, author of eternal salvation.” In this statement we return to faith, since obedience is men¬ tioned, as essential for man’s blessing — “the obedience of faith.” This finds its illustration and development in the life of Abraham to which Scripture gives so large a place. Now the Modernist says, “We must go back to Jesus * See Chapter X, 98 Modernism for salvation ... to Jesus of the Evangelists; to their traditions, their memories, more or less idealized in their way; more or less blurred from our point of view. We are to go back to their traditions, and then through them, and see Him with our modern eyes” — eyes covered with the scales of evolutionary science and criticism, as we have previously noted — “We are to see all the New Tes¬ tament books with the interpretative and instructive re¬ sults of the Higher Criticism” We have already con¬ sidered the value of this. Stress is laid upon the absence of any positive teaching as to the birth of our Lord in the early apostolic preaching and teaching, and that in only two of the Gospels (Mat¬ thew and Luke) do we get the account of His birth — books which are generally placed later in the first century than many of the epistles. The argument is then made that nothing concerning His birth, except His Davidic descent and that He belonged to the family of Joseph of Nazar¬ eth, had any place in the first preaching of the gospel or the first knowledge of the Church, and that it did not form a part of the basis upon which faith in Jesus was claimed. Now granted that the chronology of the books gives the order above claimed, though criticism has not reached conclusive results as to all involved in the problem, the argument will not stand. Luke is considered even by the critics as a very reliable historian, and as the companion of Paul is supposed to write what the apostle himself believed as to the Gospel narrative (where is God in all this, or the Holy Spirit, or Divine purpose?); he states in his once questioned but now fully authenticated intro¬ duction: “Forasmuch as many have undertaken to draw The Virgin Birth of Jesus 99 up a relation (or narrative) concerning the matters juVy believed among us, as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word have de¬ livered them to us, it seemed good to me also, accurately acquainted from the origin with all things, to write to thee with method, most excellent Theophilus, that thou might- est kmiv the certainty of those things in which thou hast been instructed” Luke then is not writing of new things but of old, even that which was from the beginning, as John says, and these he certifies to his friend, who had been already instructed in them — not new things; hence the virgin birth must have been one of the old things in which instruction was given, and one of the matters fully believed among those early Christians. Only of such things is Luke writing, and he in great detail records the virgin birth. Matthew has no preface like Luke, but presents the genealogy of Christ as Son of David and of Abraham in such a way as to make Mary, not Joseph, the last men¬ tioned in the line before Jesus; she is counted as 13 in the third series of 14 generations. The Evangelist then marks how prophecy was fulfilled in this and also de¬ fines the personality and character of Jesus. It may be of interest to note that the line of descent from the cap¬ tivity is traced from that king of whom it is recorded that he should not have a man to sit upon the throne of David (Jer. 22: 30; 36: 30). Joseph is in this line. If Jesus were his son His title would be null and void, or God’s word proved untrue; but the record stands: “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,” not Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph begat Jesus. Nevertheless, He was truly of David through Mary (who also belonged to 100 Modernism the royal line as shown in the genealogy in Luke, which is undoubtedly of her side), and also legally through Joseph, since in the provision of Jewish law Joseph stood in the position of father. These two accounts establish the same fact from differ¬ ent viewpoints, while their perfect suitability to the speci¬ fic purpose of each writer is apparent from a study of the Gospels themselves. It is impossible to conceive of Christ, in the moral per¬ fectness of both conduct and essence as presented through out the New Testament, as having that glory and dignity of person and p)osition conveyed in the titles the Son of God and the Son of Man, apart from admitting the truth of the virgin birth — a specific, direct, and essential creative act of God. This was true in relation to the first man, and is true of the Second Man. Sinless humanity as the product of a sinful source, a clean thing brought out of an unclean — Jesus begotten of man “in his likeness, after his image,” even as Seth of Adam — is an utter absurdity of which much stronger language might be used. Of a piece with the denial of man’s special creation, it is much worse in what it involves. Evolutionists have been search¬ ing for such an evolvement of an entirely new kind of being and life out of an old species. All creation and its order witnesses against the possibility of such a thing. That like produces like is an unchanging law. Nature is a com¬ petent teacher of many unchanging truths which rule in the spiritual as well as the natural realm. In both special creation governs, in both the law of production is “each according to its kind,” in both death and resurrection evidently rule. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The one does The Virgin Birth of Jesus 101 not evolve from the other, but each is abidingly special and distinct. The necessity in man's case is manifestly a new be¬ ginning, as special and distinct in its character as that inaugurated in man's creation on the sixth day. With him there was communitv of structure with all before him, but absolute distinctness of descent and character of being. He is spoken of as “the figure of Him that was to come." There is comparison to make, similarity to note, and yet the greatest possible difference to emphasize. Still we may rightly expect to find, though with a trans¬ cendency becoming the wonder of the operation and the revelation, a counterpart of the first in Him who is thus referred to as the coming One, who indeed has come, ful¬ filling the original promise of the woman's Seed, the smitten yet victorious Smiter, hence the true Deliverer for the serpent-encoiled race of men. I suggest that it is the counterpart of the similarity yet distinctness (in fact, transcendency) which is true of the first man in relation to the lower creation, which we find also true of the Second Man in relation to the first man. And as in the one, so in the other; it is the result of divine intervention, it is through the supernatural and the miraculous. It is in this that the virgin birth finds its place as the mode of operation. Let me state the matter in a threefold way. 1. The operation here contemplated was as truly a di¬ vine act as that recorded in Genesis, and was the pro¬ duction of what was entirely new, as also was man in relation to the rest of creation — our present theme. 2. There was produced in this operation that which 102 Modernism bears all the evidence of community of structure as to body and human personality as between the Second Man and the first, the counterpart of which is found also to exist when we compare the first man and the lower crea¬ tion in relation to body and soul. (Treated of in Chap. V.) 3. With this was associated in perfect union that which, if we speak of Adam, was not found, and never will be, in any lov/er order of life, viz., spirit, by the special in¬ breathing of God; and if we speak of the Second Man, that which was not, and never will be, found in any other order of man, viz.. Deity, though there be between Him and man community of structure as to body and personality. So between Adam and the lower creation there was community of structure as to body and soul, though he was given spirit, which none of the lower crea¬ tion possessed. In the Second Man there is the perfect blending of Deity with perfect and sinless humanity as to the truth of His person. His every thought, word and act. (Treated of in Chap. VI.) While, for example. Scripture distinguishes as to the activities of soul and spirit, yet it also links both together so that the relation is mutual and constant. The reasoner may say, Jesus hungered, slept, prayed; was not that the man? He created bread, fish, and raised the dead; was not that God? I refuse to thus divide His life’s activities and experiences, and answer that He who is thus variously presented to my wondering heart and mind is revealed as being in the perfect unity and indivisibility of His person both God and man, and so in His every act both the Deity and humanity had their part; but to attempt to define just in what proportion is most abhorrent to any Spirit-taught soul, for it is a virtual desecration of the The Virgin Birth of Jesus 103 sacred Person of our holy Saviour and Lord. How can we possibly do it when it is even beyond human ken to separate, or accurately distinguish, between the activities of soul and spirit in man? The Scriptures give no basis for such dissection as to Deity and humanity in Christ. We may distinguish as to His use of the attributes of Deity, but that is another matter, and not within the scope of our present theme. Let our attention be now given to the statements of Scripture as to the virgin birth. 1. The power operating is that oj the Holy Spirit. “She was found with child of the Holy Spirit "... for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit’' (Matt. 1: 18,20). “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee . . . For no word of God shall be void of power” (Luke 1: 35, 37). To these may be added another tes¬ timony which must be more carefully considered a little later: “Wherefore when He cometh into the world. He saith. Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me ... to do Thy will, O God ... by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10: 5-10). 2. The vessel in which the power operates is human. “Now the birth (or, begetting) of Jesus Christ was on this wise” — marking distinction from all those mentioned in the previous record — “When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child” — hence a virgin, as Luke affirms (1: 27), and also Mary herself in her statement to the angel 104 Modernism (1: 34). “Now all this is come to pass that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us” (Matt. 1: 18-23). 3. The object attained is the conception and birth oj that which is holy, and called the Son oj God. With this the words of Elizabeth agree, who, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” cried out on the occasion of Mary’s visit to her, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1: 35, 41-43). The power working is divine, omnipotent. The vessel used is human, and in the very nature of the case as alone helpless, hence only made useful as be¬ ing “highly favored,” and the Lord being present (Luke 1: 28). That which was thus begotten and came forth is holy, while yet it was true that development and birth partook of the natural order — “God sent forth His Son born (or, come) of a woman” (Gal. 4: 4) — so that “body,” “flesh,” “blood,” are terms applicable to Him as much as to men generally. But in this, whatever similarity there may be, the difference and distinctions which Scripture makes must be carefully noted. First, let me call attention to the use of the word ‘"flesh” in relation to our Lord. I have referred to the passage which speaks of the prepared body. There need be no doubt as to its character. “Since then the children The Virgin Birth of Jesus 105 are sharers* in jlesh and blood, He also himself in like manner partook* of the same.” It was therefore a body like that of man, its materials were the same, no matter what limitations it may be found necessary to make from the moral side, and notwithstanding its preparation, in a distinctly special and supernatural operation by the power of the Holy Spirit. Here then we have community of structure which argues for the operation of natural pro¬ cesses, but these set in motion by and overshadowed in their accomplishment by Divine power. There is not community of descent from man in this case, anymore than there is of man from the ape because of the com¬ munity of structure between them upon which the scientist so strenuously insists ■ and falsely builds. This then is identity with human form, in fact it involves the pos¬ session of true humanity, but not the humanity of fallen men, as we shall see. He became “in the likeness of men,” that is, the mode of His manifestation resembled, was similar to, what men are; and He was found “in figure as a man,” which refers to His form, shape, mien, as externally regarded (Phil. 2: 7,8). With this we may associate the statement, “the body of His flesh” (Col. 1: 22). But note that this is peculiar, and should lead to the consideration of difference, whatever similarity it may denote, for it does not say “His body of flesh,” but ‘^His flesh.” This distinction, it would appear, is borne out by another expression, “God, sending His own Son in the * Two entirely different words in Greek. The former marks “the characteristic sharing of the common fleshly nature as it pertains to the human race at large/’ and the latter signifies “the unique fact of the incarnation as a voluntary acceptance of humanity” {Dr. Vincent.). 106 Modernism likeness of flesh of sin” (Rom. 8: 3).'*' Likeness here is the same word as used in Phil. 2: 7. Whatever resem¬ blance is found, there is however intrinsic difference, so that it is His flesh by way of distinction and eminence. Again Acts 2: 31, “nor did His flesh see corruption.” More than a hint of this is conveyed to us in the words, “Through the veil, that is. His flesh” (Heb. 10: 20), when we consider the beautiful typical significance of this veil in the tabernacle. True, it is here connected with the thought of atonement, but that does not interfere with, it rather enhances, the lesson it teaches as to His flesh. Not only the fact of it is essential to, but the character of it has a most important bearing upon, the true value of His death. The fact of it, with what it involves, is found in His being “made some little inferior to angels on account of the suffering of death” (Heb. 2:9). This word flesh is also used as denoting our Lord’s kinship or kindred as man (Acts 2: 30; Rom. 1: 8; 9: 5; 2 Tim. 2:8). And it refers to the period of His existence among men, and participation in the circumstances con- * “In the likeness of sinful flesh,” A. V. Lit., of the flesh of sin. The choice of words is specially noteworthy. Paul does not say simply, “He came in flesh” (IJohn 4: 2; 1 Tim. 3:16), for this would not have expressed the relation of His humanity to the great question of sin. Not in the flesh of sin, which would have represented Him as partaking of sin. Not in the likeness of flesh, since He was really and entirely human; but, in the likeness of the flesh of sin : really human, conformed in appearance to the flesh whose characteristic is sin, yet sinless. Christ ap¬ peared in a body which was like that of other men in so far as it consisted of flesh, and was unlike, in so far as the flesh was not flesh of sin. (Drs. Vincent and Dickson.). The Virgin Birth of Jesus 107 nected therewith, in such passages as 2 Cor. 5: 16; Heb. S: 7; 1 Pet. 4: 1. There, of course, underlies this the fact that He came in flesh (1 John 4: 2, 3; 2 John 7; John 1; 14; 1 Tim. 3: 16). Thus we learn that in the virgin birth our Lord took upon Himself, in fact became constituted in, community of structure with man in the elements of material form and personality — body, soul, and spirit. Now since this term “flesh” is used of our Lord, and is applied also to all mankind (1 Pet. 2: 24; Gen. 6: 12), and is made to include, not simply the body and its consti¬ tuent parts, but “the accessory idea of frailty and prone¬ ness to sin,” being extended in application to the evil nature “as an active principle of corruption,” does it apply in this full scope to Him? When it says, “The Word became flesh,” is it such thoughts we are to enter¬ tain? Some would have us think so, while they make His sinlessness a matter of self-mastery. This view is con¬ nected with the denial of the virgin birth on the one hand, and the doctrine of the ^‘Kenosis*^ on the other, at which we must look later. Modernists speak of Jesus as “God incarnate in human form, and under all human limita¬ tions,” and “of a real incarnation, the Word made flesh; the real humanity of Christ with human limitations, ex¬ cept that of sinfulness,” which cannot mean, however, that He was intrinsically sinless, for “He was mightily tempted of the devil like other men. These temptations really appealed to Him, and He had to wrestle with them to overcome them.” This could only be as having that within which responded to the temptation, but which He mas¬ tered, and so was not sinful. This really means the attri¬ bution to Him of all that “flesh” means in its application to the race of men. That this is not so I have already 108 Modernism plainly intimated. But there are other scriptures which positively forbid it. “In Him is no sin” (1 John 3:5). “Who did no sin” (1 Peter 2: 22). “Who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5: 21). This is the testimony of three men — John, Peter, Paul. Neither intrinsically, actively, nor as a matter of objective knowledge, the having of it as an object to be occupied with as in Himself, had sin any place in relation to Him. It is in the light of this alone that there is special mean¬ ing to the appellation of “holy” as applied to Him from the time of conception (Luke 1: 35; Acts 3: 14; 4: 27, 30; Rev. 3: 7; Acts 2: 27; 13: 35; Heb. 7: 26). Except in the last three passages the word is hagios, a word sig¬ nifying sacred, as set apart to God according to what suits His nature and requirements. So the Lord speaks of Himself as the One “whom the Father has sanctified {hagiazOy made holy as separated for special purposes) and sent into the world” (John 10: 36). This reaches beyond time and into the past Divine eternal counsels, hut makes the truth of the virgin birth essential in relation to His coming into the world. His coming in flesh, other¬ wise the polluted channel of human generation would defile the Sanctified One, and we read that He was the “undefiled.” The word in the last three passages is hosios, properly meaning, “right by intrinsic or divine character; thus distinguished from hagios which relates to purity from defilement,” It may be said that these terms are applied to other and ordinary men; can they mean more in relation to Jesus than they do in relation to them? They must in view of the other testimonies I have ad- The Virgin Birth of Jesus 109 duced. Furthermore, only in this light can such a pas¬ sage as 1 Peter 1: 19 be understood: “Christ, who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sakes, who through Him are believers in God,”* is spoken of as “a Lamb without blemish and without spot;” and with this agrees the statement that He “through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish unto God” (Heb. 9: 14). The word “blemish” in both these passages is amomos, and it is used exclusively of the Lord or those who by faith are accepted by God and stand in the per¬ fectness of Christ as their Saviour (Eph. 1: 4; 5: 27; Col. 1: 22; Jude 24; Rev. 14: 5). Here sin either as to nature or practice cannot be thought of as existing, for He is of holier eyes than to behold iniquity, or look upon sin. The other word is asphilos, without stain or blot, and in addition to being used of the Lord is connected with doctrine (1 Tim. 6: 14) ; and one’s life and conduct (James 1: 27 ; 2 Pet. 3: 14). The former perhaps links our thought more with the person, the latter with the person’s activity. Now let me call attention to the fact that as indicated by the use of both hagios and amomos in rela¬ tion to believers (Col. 1: 22, and other passages), their perfectness as to standing before God, their acceptability to Him, and that forever, stands or falls with the absolute perfectness and sinlessncss of Christ. There is another word used as to believers in Col. 1: 22, which could have no application to Christ, because of the eternal value of His sacrifice for sin as the One without blemish and without * Here note similarity of thought with the Lord’s words in John 10: 36 to which I have previously referred. 110 Modernism spot. I refer to the word “unreprovable,” or blameless (anegkletoSj meaning not arraigned, or accused), for it plainly implies the existence of that which made us sub¬ ject to reproof and accusation, but which has now been removed so that we are “perfected forever” by the one offering of Christ (Heb. 10: 18). There can be no honest question as to the way in which the truth of the virgin birth is interwoven with New Testament teaching concerning the person and work of Christ, while, as might be expected, it also bears a relation to the place of those who derive all their benefits through faith in Christ, and are subjects of a divine work which bears an analogy to the features of the virgin birth, so that it may be said of the believer as identified with the divine work of new birth, “Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God” (1 John 3: 9). Before concluding this subject it may be as well to call attention to a distinction in terms used in Heb. 2: 14 pre¬ viously quoted. “It must be noted here, that while the children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood — this ‘partaking’ being a real having in common, a participation of the most thorough kind — in His own ‘taking part’ another word is used which implies limitation. It does not indeed show the character of the limitation; but the difference between the words makes us necessarily ask what, in fact, that was; and the answer comes to us immediately, that while His was true humanity in every particular necessary to constitute it that, yet humanity as men have it, the humanity of fallen men, was not His. Here there must be strict limitation. We must add, as the apostle does afterwards with regard to His temptation, ‘sin apart.’ Sin, with the consequences The Virgin Birth of Jesus 111 of sin, He could not take. Death could have no power over Him, except as He might submit Himself voluntarily to it, and this He did; but it was obedience to His Father’s will, and no necessity of His condition, as it is of ours.”* In every way Scripture guards the truth of Christ’s intrinsic sinlessness. To this the virgin birth is the neces* sary corollary. It must be accepted as the truth of God. * Numerical Bible ^ Hebrews, p. 23. CHAPTER V. The humanity of Jesus: What are its characteristic elements? What was its state in Him? Was it real and true humanity? I. IN the previous chapter I have partially anticipated some of the features of the subject now to be con¬ sidered, and in this I have at least laid the founda¬ tion upon which a full development may be given of the important truth relating to our Lord’s humanity. First, His body, though specially prepared, is really a natural body — “flesh and blood” — come forth according to natural process, but this set in motion by Divine power and overshadowed in its development and accomplishment by the Divine Presence, so that the Child born and Son given, though truly of Mary as born of her, is intrinsically holy. He is spoken of as man, and as having come of Israel concerning the flesh, being of the tribe of Judah, and a Jew, as the woman of Samaria testifies; Jesus Him¬ self confirming it in saying, “IFe know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.” But, as I have already intimated, there is much more than simply identity with man in outward form. As bom of Mary, His humEinity is real and full, not only body, but also soul and spirit. It is thus that scripture speaks of Him. Indeed, if other wise. He would not be truly man, as the record and teach¬ ing of Scripture so plainly intimate unless its language is totally deceptive. This then involves the truth of what man really is. Misconception as to this cannot fail to affect important truth as to Christ, just as error as to the The Humanity of Jesus 113 origin of man also casts its evil shadow over the origin of Jesus, for both are presented as acts of Divine power, Adam being spoken of as a “figure of Him that was to come,” and both, though quite distinct (the latter trans- cendently so), really stand or fall together in this par ticular. What then is man? He is “spirit, and soul, and body” (1 Thess. 5: 23). With the simple affirmation of this as being the consistent testimony of Scripture, I must leave my reader for the present,* while passing on to show that all of these features of man's being are ascribed to the Lord. I need not say more as to the body. His spirit is spoken of in Matt. 27: 50; Mark 2:8; 8: 12; Luke 2: 40 (note that similar language is used of John, Luke 1: 80); 10: 21; 23: 46; John 11: 33; 13: 21; 19: 30; His soul — Matt. 26: 38; Mark 14: 34; John 12: 27; Acts 2: 31. That the spirit is not the Holy Spirit is at once clear by a comparison of these passages and those which speak of Him in relation to the Lord. Further, the idea that the spirit thus spoken of was His Deity, either viewed as completely circumscribed by His human condition, or that which was gradually evolved into this by “two corres¬ ponding movements ... a descent of the divine conscious¬ ness, and an ascent of the human consciousness,” so that “there was a progressive self-communication of the divine Logos to Jesus, and a moral growth of Jesus in holiness keeping step with the former” making “a gradual com¬ munication of this divinity to the God-man,” is nothing but pure speculation for which Scripture furnishes no basis. This is evident when we compare the passages * See Chapter X. 114 Modernism now before us and those which relate to the Incarnation from the side of Deity. No, the Lord possessed a true human spirit, that which is mein’s distinctive part, being that distinct addition which marked him off from the lower creation and distinguished him as being created in the image of God. These considerations give us an un¬ derstanding of that important statement, ‘Tt behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren.” It is important, not only as fixing our thoughts as to the Lord’s humanity, but also in the reasons adduced for it which immediately follow (Heb. 2: 17,18). Now this apparently broad and all-inclusive statement must not be isolated, and made to mean more than other passages of Scripture would allow. It must be considered in the light of the whole scriptural testimony. Just as the truth of the virgin birth and the action of Divine power which it presents must not be pressed so as to make the Lord other than truly man in body, soul, and spirit as born of Mary, so this statement of being in all things like His brethren must not be pressed to the opposite extreme and made to mean not only likeness in real humanity and the circumstances incident to this, but also in relationships to God, such being like those of men generally, or of Israel in particular, for to both Christ bore kinship by birth and lineage. Scripture guards the truth from both sides. While insisting therefore in the fullest way upon the real humanity of our Lord, we must distinguish be¬ tween this and His being in the same state or condition as that of men or Israel in relation to God, no matter how fully in spirit and by experience He entered into the circumstances connected with the state or condition in which men generally, and Israel in particular, were found The Humanity of Jesus 115 by reason of sin and rebellion against God. Though in the circumstances of those in such a relation to God, He, truly a real man, was never in the distance from God which this involved, except when made sin in the accom¬ plishment of atonement upon the cross. Whatever were the feelings, experiences, circumstances, in which Christ participated by reason of His humanity and presence among men, even in those of the cross itself, including the forsaking. He personally as man, as well as in His position as the Eternal Son, was ever perfectly acceptable to God in every respect. All was passed through and endured “sin apart” as far as He personally was concerned. He was not set in a new earthly paradise, like that of Adam; was this because He was in the position and relation to ' God of guilty like other men who were outcasts and had no claim to Edenic blessedness? Because He took part in flesh and blood and in all the circumstances of sorrow, privation, temptation, through which men pass because of their position of alienation to God, are we to suppose ! He also was in that pyosition? Is this involved in the “all things”? He was here in absolutely real but perfect humanity, not having outwardly the portion w^hich be¬ comes such perfection, but sharing in all that which consti¬ tuted the portion of man as fallen from his original per¬ fectness, w^hile as to Himself ever in the full favor of God. He took up humanity and entered these circumstances with, the suffering of death specifically in view, and also His ministry of mercy and grace as High Priest to those on behalf of whom before God He would occupy this re¬ presentative position. Careful distinction must therefore ' be made between circumstances and relationship in the case of the Lord Jesus. 116 Modernism There is, however, a right view of His association as to relation to God being the same as that of men within certain limitations. This is conveyed to us in connection with the very statements we are considering in Hebrews 2 — statements which we take rightly to teach the real hu¬ manity of Jesus, but which are placed also in relation to those spoken of as “the children,” “the seed of Abraham,” and “His brethren.” It is not because they have a different humanity from the rest of mankind, but, as indicated by these titles, they must be a distinct company among men. They are in fact the “many sons,” “those sanctified” and called “brethren,” the God-given “children,” in short, the family of faith, the spiritual seed of Abraham (Rom. 4, Gal. 3), the “many” identified with the new headship in Romans 5. Now as a man on earth, the Lord’s associa¬ tion as to relationship to God was with those of this dis¬ tinct company, so that He occupied, as far as communi¬ ty of relationship is connected, the place which the saints, or godly remnant of Israel, occupied before God. This was holy, being distinct from all who were unbelieving, ungodly. This naturally falls within the scope of being made in all things like unto His brethren. Further, He was not in this position because He, like the children, had been taken out of a previous one in which He was rela¬ tively guilty and under wrath. He was in it solely because of taking part in humanity, their ’s as well as that of all. in view of the suffering of death and participation in every test and trial incident to the circumstances in which even the children were found, as a result of acknowledged failure and sin, whether this be viewed in the light of man’s fall and its consequences, or specifically the com¬ plete breakdown of Israel which gave special character The Humanity of Jesus 117 to the experiences, feelings, and sorrows of the faithful with whose relationship to God Christ in great grace asso¬ ciated Himself. This finds expression for us in the Psalms, and those parts of the Prophets which let us know their spiritual feelings and exercises. Jeremiah and Lamenta¬ tions are notable examples. Into all this Christ most blessedly and perfectly entered. H. Let me now return to briefly consider the proofs that Christ did not occupy in relation to God that position or relationship which was occupied by fallen man or guilty Israel as under the curse of the law. First, as to death. He was not subject to it, though of course capable of dying as having participated in flesh and blood. This is evident, for He was sinless, perfectly holy from the moment of conception. Sin and death are inseparable, sinlessness and life likewise. And because there is no such state among men death reigns. But “in Him was life,” and the Father gave “to the Son to have life in Himself” (John 1:4; 5: 26). He then as man possessed inherent life, and hence His death was volun¬ tary, a real laying down of life in obedience to the Fa¬ ther (not a losing of it), to accomplish God's will, for which indeed He came, thus to glorify Flim perfectly, and bring about the realization of all the wonderful purposes of His love. The Lord then had authority, as He says, to both lay down His life and take it again, not inde¬ pendently, but as having received the Father’s command¬ ment (John 10: 18). He was never in that relationship to God, or condition, which involved the forfeiture of life. He came, indeed, to die, and so accomplish the will of 118 Modernism God; but this was on behalf of others, for God’s glory, and their eternal blessing(l Tim. 2: 5, 6; 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15; Heb.9: 26-28). Secondly, He was “born under the law.” Man under law had found it to be unto death and curse because of his sinfulness. Was Christ under it in this way because of being really man? Impossible, for He was holy, and had life, and perfectly fulfilled it in all its Godward and man- ward requirements. He could say: “I do always the things pleasing to” the Father. There was never any cloud over His relationship to God. “Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always” Neither can the thought be allowed in any sense that He acquired His position of accepta¬ bility to God by this perfect fulfilment of the law. Gal. 3: 12 could not be applied to Him, and never for one moment was He personally in the position of verse 10. What He became for us is quite another matter, and en¬ tirely connected with the cross (verse 13). Thirdly, though His was real humanity, as I have sought to emphasize, this did not involve His participation in man’s state, which is no part of man’s humanity, but the result of the fall, and that in which he exists for a longer or shorter period according to God’s appointment. In this state of existence man is afflicted with many infirmities, sicknesses, slow decadence — “Dying, thou shalt surely die” — death. Was it so with Christ? He grew from childhood to manhood, and are we to suppose that if He had not been cut off in the midst of His days by a violent death, He would have passed the way of all flesh? These are vain irreverent speculations. Scripture does not speak of Him as being infirm like us, but tempted like us, sin The Humanity of Jesus 119 apart. But such questions are aside from Scripture en¬ tirely, and can have no place the moment we bring in the Divine purpose which was involved in the Word becoming flesh. He came to die in the way and at the time ap¬ pointed, for the glory of God and the accomplishment of eternal redemption. There could be no other issue, for “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” was involved (Acts 2: 23). In the light of this, and the Scrip¬ ture testimony as to the character of His humanity, there is no room for any such thoughts. The passage in Mat¬ thew which speaks of Him taking our infirmities and bear¬ ing our sicknesses has clearly no application to His person or the state in which He was as man. It is explained im¬ mediately as applying to His ministry in healing power. Doubtless in performing this He in the fullest way en¬ tered into the sorrow, suffering, and moral meaning of all, as this related to man and his position of alienation from God, though He Himself was not in this state or position in any sense. Fourthly, “He suffered being tempted.” If being made in all things like unto His brethren does not involve be¬ ing subject to death, nor therefore a being in their state or condition as the result of sin, though He took part in the circumstances connected with that condition; and does not mean that He, though an Israelite, was person¬ ally under the law as in the place of curse; and does not mean that in His humanity He was subject to the frailty and decreptitude resultant from sin which characterizes men; neither does it mean in the matter of temptation, that there was in Him anything to which sin appealed, or that even with Him there was the capability of yielding to it. This in no sense weakens or nullifies the meaning of 120 Modernism His suffering and temptation. The reason for it rather intensifies both. One absolutely perfect in humanity, with every feeling and faculty unimpaired by the presence of sin, and holy in nature and practice so that His life was perfect obedience to God, could not fail to suffer with an intensity we can little apprehend, when thus living in the midst of circumstances, and sharing in all the sorrowful results, arising from man’s sinful condition. Temptation with our blessed Lord was not like that of which James speaks (ch. 1: 14). Though there was the outward soli¬ citation of evil in His case as with men, with them there is that within which responds to the evil and takes pleasure in yielding, for which however since it is within, man is always held responsible for the isssue, for he should be master of himself. As to the Lord, the prince of this world had nothing in Him (John 14: 30) which he had in every other man. This could only make His suffering under temptation the more poignant. His sympathy with others in these circumstances (not with their sin) more deep. His capability for ministry to them greater. We may not allow the irreverent thought that though He did not yield He could have done so; this could only mean that He had those evil inclinations within which spring from a corrupt nature. This would be utterly derogatory to our blessed Lord, and nothing short of blasphemy. HI. Having shown the identity of the humanity of Jesus with that of men, and also distinguished it in its moral relations and characteristics, let us now consider the tes¬ timony to it being real and true humanity, not simply in its elements — body, soul and spirit — but, as I may say, in practical manifestation. The Humanity of Jesus 121 1 . His was real and true humanity in appearance. In this respect there was not a strangeness about Him, nothing extraordinary, exclusive, or repellent; on the contrary, perfect accessibility, for He was easily entreated, patient, kind, in nothing unseemly, not quickly provoked. In Him we see the display of every moral beauty and perfection, perfectly blended in harmonious manifestation, the blessed uniqueness of which is only enhanced when we consider the entire naturalness of His appearance to those who were privileged to look upon Him. To this, disciples, friends, enemies, and others bear witness. John declares as he sees Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said. After me cometh a man which is be¬ come before me, for He was before me.” Nicodemus says, “No man can do these signs which Thou doest, except God be with him.” The Samaritan woman calls to the men of her city, “Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did.” To begin with, she had answered Him as she might any other man. The poor man at the pool Bethesda looked upon a man whom he thought might be the one that would help him first into the water. In the questioning and discussion of the crowds, some said, “He is a good man;” and when He taught, the Jews are astonished and say, “How knoweth this man letters, hav¬ ing never learned?” Upon another occasion the people say, “Whence hath this man these things? and. What is the wisdom that is given unto this man? ... Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not His sisters here with us? And they were offended in Him.” Again in the midst of controversy over Him, we hear it said, “We 122 Modernism know this man whence He is/’ while others question^ “^^^en the Christ shall come, will He do more signs than those which this mcm hath done?” The officers sent to take Him declare, “Never man spake like this man;'* and Nicodemus asks, “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him?” The Lord Himself says, “Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth.” The man of John 9 and his examiners repeatedly speak of Jesus as a man, and a little later the charge against Him is, “That Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.” Again He is spoken of as “this man” in relation to the death and raising up of Lazarus. Pilate asks, “What accusation bring ye against this man?” declares, “I find no fault in this man, and calls upon the crowd to “Behold the man.” His wife had sent to Pilate saying, “Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man.” The thief upon his cross testifies, “T/zw man hath done nothing amiss;” and the centurion after watching the scene upon the cross says, “This was a righteous man, this man was the Son of God.” Peter speaks of Him as a man approved of God. Paul witnesses that “through this man” the forgiveness of sins is preached, and that God will judge the world “by that man whom He had ordained.” He is the man by whom came resurrection of the dead, the Mediator, “the man Christ Jesus.” 2. His was real and true humanity as evidenced by His experiences. Though having no part in the state or con¬ dition of men as fallen. He never screened Himself from any of the circumstances in the world connected with this state. He hungered, was thirsty and weary, slept, needed The Humanity of Jesus 123 and accepted ministry from others^ worked with His hands^ was questioned by His opponents, assailed by His ene¬ mies, and mistreated by wicked men. He suffered priva¬ tion, for He became poor. 3. His was real and true humanity, for He had the feelings belonging to it, sin apart. It is said He looked upon them with anger, being grieved. He had compas¬ sion, could weep with the sorrowing, be troubled, be ex¬ ceeding sorrowful, be moved with indignation, manifest His wonder, be greatly amazed, and deeply sigh or groan. And then He loved. He sought companionship, desired comfort, was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, deeply felt the failure of Israel, and the lack of response to His ministry. 4. His was real and true humanity, as we may see from His various actions. He could be, like others, a guest at a wedding, and go to a feast prepared for Him by Levi, or in Simon’s house, or at the home in Bethany. He took up the children in His arms. It is plain that our blessed Lord went in and out among men as a man, yet won- drously unique and perfect in all His actions, words, and manner in all of which there is to be observed perfect suitability for each occasion. If we compare Him with even the most devoted of His followers, we find in each of them some quality which predominates, and there is always a strand of failure or weakness woven into their thoughts or actions. “But in Jesus, even as man, there was none of this un¬ evenness. There was nothing salient in His character, because all was in perfect subjection to God in His hu¬ manity, and had its place, and did exactly its service, and then disappeared. God was glorified in it; and all was in 124 Modernism harmony. When meekness became Him, He was meek; when indignation, who could stand before His overwhelm¬ ing and withering rebuke? Tender to the chief of sinners in the time of grace; unmoved by the heartless superiority of a cold Pharisee (curious to judge who He was) ; when the time of judgment is come, no tears of those who wept for Him moved Him to other words than, *Weep for your¬ selves and your children,^- — words of deep compassion, but of deep subjection to the due judgment of God. On the cross, when His service was finished, tender to His mother, and entrusting her, in human care, to one who, so to speak, had been His friend, and leant on His bosom; no ear to recognize her word or claim when His occupied Him for God; putting both blessedly in their place when He would show that before His public mission He was still the Son of the Father, and though such, in human blessedness subject to the mother that bare Him, and Joseph His father as under the law; a calmness which disconcerted His adversaries; and in the moral power which dismayed them at times, a meekness which drew out the hearts of all not steeled by wilful opposition. What keenness of edge to separate between the evil and the good! *Tn a word then. His humanity was perfect, all subject to God, all in immediate answer to His will, and the ex pression of it, and so necessarily in harmony. The hand that struck the chord found all in tune. Every element, every faculty in His humanity, responded to the impulse which the divine will gave to it, and then ceased in a tran¬ quility in which self had no place. Such was Christ in human nature.”* IV. There is one title belonging to the Lord which bears especially upon the truth of His humanity — “the Son of * Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Vol. 1, pp. 152-4. The Humanity of Jesus 125 Man.” He makes constant use of it in speaking of Him¬ self. Very important truth is connected with it, which, however, I can hardly speak of now. Clearly it means the continuation of humanity in Him, though not con¬ nected Vvdth the state in which it is now found by reason of sin. But whatever identity there is in kind, there must be distinctness and difference, since though a man He takes His place among them as the Son of Man. This is found in His perfection, the absence of all that marked man as fallen, so that God realizes His full thought as to man in Him. Consequently, all that God purposed con¬ cerning man and for him passes to Christ. The place and inheritance forfeited by man, and to which no son of man could lay claim, is now His so that He is by this preeminence marked as the Son of Man. This expands beyond a mere earthly horizon, which was man’s original limitation, and embraces heavenly and eternal purposes. He exercises universal earthly dominion — the kingdom of the Son of Man — but He also has all power in heaven. Into His hand all judgment has been committed because He is the Son of Man (John 5: 27), and His voice shall command all the dead (ver. 28). “By man came also the resurrection of [those that are] dead” (1 Cor. 15: 21, New Trans.). But these things, and this title, link with - the subject of His death and resurrection which we are yet to consider. With the latter in particular there are also two titles — “Second Man” and “Last Adam” — which we must examine later. Yet they, too, are linked with the truth of His humanity, for they carry it on into a new sphere of relation and condition, the first intimating an ad¬ vance upon, or additional characteristic of, His humanity as compared to that of men, and the second defining far 126 Modernism us the position of racial headship in which the Man Christ Jesus is now established as in resurrection. V. It may be as well to particularly consider two of the statements made in Philippians 2 which bear upon the theme we have been considering. Though indeed the en¬ tire passage (vers. 5-11) may be considered as bearing upon it, I refer especially to the expressions, “Becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man.^^ First, the statement, “Taking the form of a bond- servant” characterises in a general way our Lord’s self¬ emptying. This participial phrase is explanatory of “He emptied Himself,” and then it is more specifically defined by the next phrase, “Becoming in the likeness of men.” The change of form calls for remark, for “form” here denotes that expression or manifestation which is essen¬ tially characteristic of the subject. The form of God is that which gives expression to or manifestation of the essence of the Person, and therefore implies the reality of Deity. The form of a bond-servant is that which ex¬ presses the full reality and essential character of the new place taken by Christ. It is said, “taking,” or “having taken;” implying a new state upon which He entered, in contrast to subsisting in the form of God, that in which He always had been until He took this new form. Now His mode of manifestation by which this new form is given effect is defined as being “in the likeness of men” not angels. Since it says likeness the thought is that of resemblance, of similarity, but not sameness. It does not mean either absolute identity with men or limita- The Humanity of Jesus 127 tion to being only man. It implies therefore that thou^ His likeness to men was real this did not express His whole being. The statement leaves room for the other side of His being, that of God, in that though as to its form or likeness He did not appear, yet both the moral perfections and power of His essential nature, even Deity, were manifested before men in the bond-servant’s form, but always as keeping that character, and as serving in the humiliation and limitation incident to it as far as these affected Himself personally, while knowing no restriction in this manifestation on behalf of others, except it be that of entire subjection in all to the will and word of the Father. The second statement — “being found in fashion as a man” — is one confined to what is merely outward and presented to human observation. The word “fashion” denotes what is outward, and makes its appeal to the senses. The word “found,” in agreement with this thought, “expresses the quality as it is discovered and recognized, not the quality of a person or thing in itself.” The more the inspired apostle’s language is studied, the more its divine accuracy is discovered in both what it affirms and yet most carefully guards as to the truth of Christ’s person and place. To human eyes our Lord appeared as a man, this was His outward fashion. As to His place in the world. His circumstances and experiences, there was likeness to men, though as this allows, there was difference, even marked distinction, as Scripture clearly emphasizes. His human¬ ity was perfectly real, yet blessedly unique. CHAPTER VI. The deity oj Jesus: — Is it an ethical ideal or concrete fact? Is it merely divinity mani jested in humanity ^ or deity and humanity in perjectly manifested union, though inscrutable as to analysis by the finite mind? I. 1" N taking up this theme we enter upon a field of battle where conflict has waged long and fiercely. I have “ already referred to the Modernist view, but it will be well to now extend our review of it. First, I would ask my reader to turn back to the previous pages to which I have referred, and then proceed with this chapter. Modernists boast “in their emphasis on the reality of our Lord’s humanity,” and proclaim that “they have reached His divinity through His humanity.” Divinity is their favorite term, not Deity. These terms can be only loosely identified, and certainly the latter can¬ not be strictly applied to the Modernist view of our Lord’s divinity. Let the distinction between these words be made clear, and the difference which they imply when applied to the Lord Jesus becomes at once apparent. Divinity is “the quality or character of being divine: distinguished from deity: a being who partakes of the divine nature or qualities. The character of having divine The Deity of Jesus 129 origin, emanating from the divine nature, or possessing divine excellence/’ Now Scripture speaks of the believer in the Lord Jesus as partaking of the divine nature, as manifesting the char¬ acteristics, and qualities of God, of whom he is spiritually bom, as possessing the life of God, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. In this way we might speak of the divinity of the man who is a child of God by faith in Christ Jesus. But we could not speak of deity as pertaining to him, for it means “a god, goddess, or divine person. The true God. The nature, character, or attributes of God, or of a god.” Divinity refers to what belongs to a god, hence may be found in one to whom the place of a god does not belong. Deity refers not only to what belongs ! to, but to the fact of what the person is, he is a god. To speak then of the divinity of Jesus does not necessarily involve the deity of Jesus, and in fact the Modernist means that we should so understand his use of this term. Jesus is not God as to the truth of His person, but simply a man in whom what is divine was developed and dis¬ played. The Modernist says to us, “Go back to the Master Himself, as living and teaching and working in Judeaj I back to Jesus, and see Him re-achieving the Divinity He had before His real incarnation.” This simply means, no matter what thought may be in the mind as to the pre-existence of Jesus, that as to incarnation He became and was nothing more than man in whom there was grad¬ ually developed and revealed what is referred to as some previously possessed Divinity. This idea is further ex¬ pressed in this way: 130 Modernism “The real incarnation of the Logos \Word'] in the infant Jesus who ‘increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man’ . . . how ‘He learned obedience by the things which He suffered’ (Heb. 5:8). How He was in all points ‘tempted like as we are, yet without sin’ (Heb. 4: 15). How He suffered agony in Gethsemane; how He made the supreme sacrifice . . . how He re-achieved divinity (Phil. 2:9) through all His service of love for us love¬ less men; how He rose again* and opened the gate of everlasting life to us . . . how He completed the return process of excarnation at the ascension.f . . . The Divinity of Jesus shines forth from every page of the Gospels. That of His Deity does not appear in them . . . All [t e., Modernists] would confess that in Jesus is beheld Deltas sub specie humanitatis, the Deity of Jesus being seen in His perfect humanity.” Consistency would require Divinity to be used, for these views really forbid the application of Deity to Him. For those who hold them the incarnation consists merely in the idea that God chose to dwell in the man Jesus, illum¬ inating Him and fitting Him for the work of prophet and revealer of what God is like, so “that we are justified in thinking of God as like Christ; that the character and teaching of Christ contain the fullest disclosure both of the character of God Himself and of His will for man — that is, as far as the momentous truth can be summed up in a few words, the true meaning for us of the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity.” Therefore for Modernists the incarnation is not the assumption of real humanity by a Being, heavenly, divine. * As to what this means to the Modernist we will see later. t This means of course that He is no longer man. The Deity of Jesus 131 eternal, and to whom Deity, that is. Godhead, intrinsically pertains, and who, remaining all that He essentially weis (form excepted), came “and dwelt among us.” It is sim¬ ply that a child was born to Joseph and Mary, for “the Divinity of Christ does not necessarily imply the Virgin Birth or any other miracle,” in whom it pleased God to dwell, and work out a revelation of Himself in conjunction with the process of his natural development from infancy to manhood, so “that in the life and character, the teach¬ ing and the personality of Jesus Christ, the world has re¬ ceived the highest revelation of God.” Mark, the person¬ ality is not simply fully but only human, the divine hsis been woven into it. “The Divinity of Christ does not imply omniscience.” “Jesus never claimed the owm-attributes. Owwi-potence is not an ethical attribute. Jesus was ethical, and did not need it to be a revealer of God’s character.” We are not then to recognize in Jesus a Divine Person who is essen¬ tially God in nature, character, attributes, being, who em¬ bodied Himself in full, real, and true humanity; but we are to recognize in Him simply “a man in the fullest sense, in whom there came to be consummated in His public ministry and self-sacrifice the highest possible ethical I embodiment of God. What this really implies may be seen from the following: “His disciples soon found themselves compelled to des- ’ cribe Him by the highest term they knew, and that some¬ thing more than a teacher. Emphasis is put upon the i attractiveness of His personality; the harmonious charm of His character; the absence of any sense of sin or need of forgiveness — ‘the presence of a personality which im¬ presses and grips them.' The personal fascination which ! He exercised on His contemporaries has renewed itself 132 Modernism from age to age. Modernists have been enthralled by it and therefore think the best way to present Him to this age, is that of showing the perfect human person that lies back of the Gospel narratives.” They proclaim “the over¬ whelming personality of this man of Galilee . . . *He attracted tremendously or repelled tremendously.’ Jesus on earth was certainly one who counted and made things diiferent wherever He went. All of His wonderful works of healing and His insight and intuitions are easily be¬ lievable from our present knowledge of psychotherapy and the new pschology. They show the power of a per¬ fect humanity.” “He spoke in w’onderful parables. He wrought mighty deeds. He did not perform astounding wonders. He dis¬ approved of such signs (John 4:48). But miracles of personality; miracles for the good of the people about Him, surely He performed many more of these than those recorded in the Gospels.” “The resurrection was the culmination of His ethical miracles, wrought by the mighty power of a perfect hu¬ man personality, as that ripened again into ‘the form of God’ which he voluntarily laid aside when He was ‘made in likeness of man’ (Phil. 2 : 6, 7) . The power of this personality emptied the tomb and made intercourse with His disciples again possible. His risen body was very diiferent from the body laid in the tomb. His full ex¬ carnation had already begun. It continued through the forty days, till He returned to the Father. Most of His recorded miracles are ethical ones. They were wrought by His wondrous, sinless personality. We may well doubt the record of those seeming to be divorced from this — mere wonders of power. Power does not prove goodness. If we were left with those of the cursing of the fig tree, the demoniacs and swine, and the finding a piece of money in the mouth of a fish, we might have a paltry conception of His miracles. Jesus discouraged men seeking such signs and wonders. He said false Christs would rise and perform them. He was no such miracle worker. His life The Deity of Jesus 133 and teaching were the standing miracle. Through His own wondrous personality He wrought works of unusual power for the help of men. We do not believe He wrought the others. Why should belief in them be required in this day when the old proof from miracles has been given up? Who to-day crave such miracles? Who to-day, with the sense of law, order, unity and purpose in nature, could be¬ lieve them?” It is not any wonder that with such views “most Modernists do not quote St. John’s Gospel, as the testimony of an eye witness, as its date and authorship are still an open question. The evidence seems to point toward considering it as the work of another disciple in the early part of the second century.”* No matter though familiar terms are used to give an orthodox aspect to these views, they are the denial of what is most vital to our holy faith. 1. They deny that Jesus, though really man, was not simply divine in life, character, and nature, but also intrin¬ sically and essentially God — Deity. The divinity of Jesus not only comprises the ethical or moral characteristics of God, but His being personally God as well as personally man. 2. They deny to Jesus the possession and exercise of the omni-attributes. 3. They deny the pre-existent distinctness of His Person, and make incarnation as it applies to Jesus (and this must therefore be His pre-incamate form of God) the mere infusion of a divine emanation from God which expanded and grew with His own human expansion and ♦Appendix III. The genuineness of John’s Gospel. 134 Modernism growth, so that He became what God is like. It is thus stated: ^‘God reveals himself through others; not only through the experience of the race and through our social experi¬ ence, but through the great light that shines through great and holy men. To see the peace and joy, the calm and the energy in some good man, is to have a vision of what God is like. That was the impression Jesus made upon his disciples in Judea, and upon his disciples in all countries and ages. To see Jesus is to see what God is like. He was like God: God incarnate in human form, and under all human limitations.’^ But then any of those great and holy men could be referred to as God incarnate in human form! 4. They deny His present existence as man. Accord¬ ing to them excarnation began in resurrection, and was completed at the ascension! It may be granted that the truth of the full, real, hu¬ manity of Jesus, as we find it set before us in the four Gospels, is that which makes a mighty heart-gripping ap¬ peal, that it has had a tremendous effect upon the world, that in it there is great moral power, that it must draw to Him any who feel it laying hold upon them as they con¬ sider the records given to us. This must, I believe, in some measure bring about a change, even though it does not go beyond the outward activities of life. But can the heart and conscience fail of conviction as to the im¬ passable gulf between Him and oneself, so that the very moral perfections which may be delighted in and won¬ dered at become like a great search-light revealing the incurable sinfulness that is within the human breast? This can only result after all in leaving an honest soul in The Deity of Jesus 135 an anguish unrelieved as He is contemplated in His moral perfectness and sinlessness, until it is found that He has accomplished too the work which not only for God, but for all who will believe, removes this abhorrent sinfulness, so that rest of conscience may be enjoyed as to the judg¬ ment merited at the hand of God, and victory be realized in practical life over indwelling and outward forces of evil. And then how immense the gain to find that He who has thus won me by His moral perfections and His atoning work wrought in wondrous love is really God in the truth of His person. Greatest of all great mysteries indeed, and yet how blessedly it explains much that could not be understood without it. It settles at once how His agony on the Cross accomplished eternal redemption, pro¬ viding the forgiveness of sins, meeting fully the desires of infinite love as well as all the demands of the Divine Government in its holiness and righteousness. He came not only to show us a way of living^ but to accomplish through death the opening of the way into life. The truth of His Person, His life, and His death alone effect the perfect and eternal reconciliation in harmonious display of all that is in holy government, infinite love, and moral perfection, and that in relation to the whole question of sin and man in relation to it. Let us turn to consider our theme — the Deity of Jesus — in the light of the Book we have taken as our standard of knowledge and judgment. Its testimony to His blessed humanity is full and clear; it is not less so as to the truth of His Deity. II. In considering the testimony of the Epistles in relation 136 Modernism to this theme it may be well to remark that we are not to consider them as primarily originating Christian teach¬ ing, but rather as clearly showing what was orally taught to the Church. We are assured that all, whether oral or written, is in the words given by the Holy Spirit and not taught by human wisdom (1 Cor. 2: 10-16, R.V.)* These writings presuppose instructionf in the great foundation truths by the oral ministry of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament. They are therefore essentially a record as well as a revelation. The Acts and the Gospels are also clearly historical in this respect. In particular our present concern is with their testi¬ mony to the Deity of Jesus, first doubtless presented in the oral ministry of the Lord’s servants, and then pre¬ served and communicated in these scriptures by the Holy Spirit. It may be of interest to consider the testimony of the epistles as arranged in their generally accepted chrono¬ logical order. James may be first in this order, but there * The concluding phrase of ver. 13 is better rendered : ^^Communicating spiritual things by spiritual means” (J. N. D., New Trans.). The Amer. Standard Version gives it : “Combining spiritual things with spiritual words.” Rotherham, “By spiritual words spiritual things explain¬ ing;” he marks the strong emphasis as being upon spirit¬ ual words. See too Rom. 16 ; 25, 26 and Eph. 3 : 1-5, both R. V. Both passages refer to the New Testament Scrip¬ tures and revelation. Concerning this Paul affirms that it was given to him, “to fulfil (better, “complete,” or “fill up”) the Word of God” (Col. 1: 25, 26, R. V.). t As to this instruction and oral ministry see 1 Thess. 1 : 5,9; 2:2,13; 3:4; 2 Thess. 2:5; 3:6,10; 2 Cor. 15:1-8; Gal.3:l-5; Acts 20:17-38; Luke 1:1-4; 2Tim.l:13; 3: 13; Tit.l:3,9; Heb.2:3,4; 2 Pet.l:12-15; 3:1,2; Jude 17. The Deity of Jesus 137 is no question as to the early date of 1st and 2nd Thessalonians. The Writings of Paul Date The Writings of others 45-50 James 1 Thessalonians 52 2 53 ' 1 Corinthians 57 2 57 Galatians 58 (?) Romans 58 Ephesians ) 60 f Matthew Colossians-Philemon V to Acts j Mark Philippians ) 63 ( Luke Tiiese may have been written a little later. 64 1 Peter 1 Timothy* 67 (?) Titus* 67 (?) 2 Peter (perhaps a little earlier or in 68). 2 Timothy 68 Jude Hebrews 68 (about) ( Gospel 90-98 John j Epistles i Revelation First, let me suggest what is general. Throughout all the books of the New Testament, except 1st and 2nd John, the title Lord is applied to Jesus. It is so used over 400 times, either alone or in combination with Jesus and Christ. The force of this becomes manifest when we note the use of Old Testament scriptures in which it {kurios) represents Jehovah. This too is usual in the Septuagint. In the New Testament it is used by Christ of Himself.f But the point I press is its use for Jehovah * Might have been written after leaving Ephesus (Act& 20: 1), which would be about 60 A. D. and before his first imprisonment. t Matt. 7: 21, 22; 12:8; 21:3; 24:42; 25:37,44; par¬ allel passages may be found in Mark and Luke; John IS: 13, 14. There are several less direct references, as Matt. 22: 42-45. 138 Modernism along with its application to Jesus, made as this is in con¬ junction with those titles which more particularly relate to His manhod. To this may be objected that kurios is used of others than Christ. But this in no wise weakens the comparison above made, for the limitations in its application to others is at once clear from the references. Whereas the sense in which kurios is applied to the Lord is quite evident from such passages as: — ‘‘Jesus, He is Lord of alF’ (Acts 9: 17). “The Lord, even Jesus” (Acts 10: 36). “He is Lord both of the dead and the living” (Rom. 14: 19). “One Lord, Jesus Christ, of whom are all things and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:6). “But of the Son, He saith . . . Thou, Lord, in the be¬ ginning,” etc. (Heb. 1: 2, 8, 10-12). They “crucified the Lord of glory,” not that the One they crucified became this, but was this at that time (1 Cor. 2: 8 with 2 Cor. 8: 9). There is another word similar in meaning to kurias, — despotes"^ — ^which is also used of Godf and of Christ.^ This consistent interchange of titles shows that from the beginning of the apostolic ministry Jesus was given the place of equality with God, not only as to character, * Both of these words denote owner, lord, master; and express the position and authority arising from and be¬ longing to ownership. The latter, however, includes more absolute and unlimited authority. t Luke 2 : 29 ; Acts 4 : 24 ; Rev. 6:10; rendered “Lord” in A. V. %2 Tim. 2:21, “Master;” 2 Pet. 2:1, “Lord;” Jude 4, “our only Master and Lord (kurios), Jesus Christ,” R. V. The Deity of Jesus 139 but as to being and position. He is in fact Jehovah and Elohim. This then is the affirmation, not only of pre¬ existence, but also of His being personally God before and in His incarnation. Let us not forget that these writings are to be considered as perfectly inspired and absolutely inerrant. Besides what may be counted as formal presentations of the theme before us, and which will receive special con¬ sideration in the next section of this chapter, there are certain general statements scattered through the New Testament which, though casual in character, become just because of this, any special design being absent, strong evidence of the truth held and taught “from the begin¬ ning,’^ to which John so often turns us back. These aie presented in the chronological order of the writings. 1. Peter proclaims Jesus as Lord, quoting David, not as made this, consequent on resurrection, but proved to be this by resurrection (Acts 2). 2. The references to Jesus as God’s Servant (Acts 3: 13, 26; 4: 27, 30) link Him with the great Servant-proph¬ ecies of Isaiah (chaps. 40-53). The word here used is pais, which denotes both a child of any age up to full-grown youth, and also a servant, an attendant, or minister, as of a king, or of God. It is the word used in the Septua- gint for servant in the prophecies above mentioned, and it was .the Old Testament in this Greek form which was used in those early days. This in itself opens up a large field for study, for along with the plain intimations of the humanity and humiliation of the Servant, there is also that which gives Him equality of place and title to Jehovah. 3. Peter before Cornelius, speaks of Jesus as “Lord of all.” 140 Modernism 4. They “killed the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 2: 15). 5. “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified . . . the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2: 2-8). 6. “God raised up the Lord” (1 Cor. 6: 14) — not raised up Jesus to be made Lord, but He who was the Lord was raised up. 7. “One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8: 6, R. V.). 8. “Neither let us tempt Christ, as also some of them tempted” (1 Cor. 10: 9) — it was Jehovah Elohim whom Israel tempted. 9. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich (when, where, how? Certainly not on earth as man), yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His (emphatic: ^of that one,’ ‘such an one as He’) poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). 10. “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman” (Gal. 4: 4); plainly, not sent forth to preach and teach, but as coming into the world — One who pre-existed as God’s Son. With this His own words agree. He came down from heaven, and was sent into the world by the Father (John 3: 13; 10: 36). And John also bears this witness (1 John 4: 9, 10, 14). Of similar force is the expression in Rom. 8 : 3 — a pre-existent and distinct person so came. 11. “Israelites ... of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh,, who is* over all, God blessed forever” (Rom. 9: 5, R. V.). * An instance of the article and present participle {ho on), which denotes permanent character. It is what characterises the person, rather than a relation to time. He who came of Israel was the One ever over all. It rather implies essential being, as in Rev. 1 : 4, “who is.” The Deity of Jesus 141 12. “Christ Jesus came inio the world to save sinners” came is from erchomai. This word is not used in connection with the idea of birth. Born into the world could not be used as the equivalent of “came into the world.” It is a word of universal application to the coming or going of persons or things from one place or person to another place or person;* to come to or into any state or cir¬ cumstances; to come forth before the public or the world; to appear or make one’s appearance. Here it is with the preposition eis {to or into, indicating the point reached or entered) used with the accusative of place, to come to or into, as for example Matt. 2: 11; Luke 14: 1; Mark 5: 1; 8: 10; John 11: 38; Acts 8: 40; Gal. 2: 11. In the light of these considerations this passage distinctly im¬ plies as to Christ pre-existence, distinctness of person, and ; purpose established previous to the actual coming. It is not that He was born into the world like other men, and with His maturity a purpose to save developed with Him, but living outside of the world He came into the world to accomplish a previously established purpose ( 1 Pet. 1 : 19,20). This form of statement agrees with those pas¬ sages before referred to. * e. g., in relation to Christ: John 3: 31 (twice) ; 8: 42 (twice: “proceeded forth,” *‘came I of Myself;”) in the first instance it is the word erchomai with the preposi¬ tion ex prefixed which adds the idea of origin, the point whence notion or action proceeds. Note its use again in this form and in relation to Christ: John 13:3; 16:27, 28, 30; 17: 8) ; 12: 46; 16: 28 (“am come”) ; 18: 37; 1 John 4: 2,3; 2 John 7. In relation to the Holy Spirit coming into the world: John 16: 7,18,13. In relation to Christ's second coming: John 14:3; 1 Cor. 4:5; 11:26; Jude 14; Rev. 1:7; 22:7,12,17,20. 142 Modernism Thus Jesus was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death (Heb. 2:9). He took not hold of angels, but of Abraham’s seed. He took part in flesh and blood. That is, He, pre-existent and distinct in being, passed by angels, and became incarnate. One other divine name may be mentioned — Theos, God. In the New Testament this corresponds quite generally with Elohim, and sometimes with Jehovah in references to the Old Testament, so that it represents the Almighty, Eternal, self-existent Being therein revealed. This is also applied to Christ, Rom. 9: 25; Matt. 1: 23; 2 Pet. 1:1; Titus 2: 13,R.V.; John 1: 1; 20: 28; 1 John 5: 20. Finally there are the noteworthy and special passages in Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, and John’s writings. III. Let consideration be first given to Philippians 2: 5-11, for this passage furnishes us with an important and com¬ prehensive series of statements in relation to our Lord, each of which calls for special study which will in turn lead to other important scriptures. “Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus: A . 1. Who, subsisting in the form of God, B . 2. Esteemed it not rapine to be on an equality C _ 3. But emptied Himself, [with God, D . . 4. Taking the form of a bond-servant, 5. Becoming in the likeness of men; D . . 6. And being found in fashion as a man, C . 7. He humbled Himself, [death of the cross. B . 8. Becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the A . 9. Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and granted to Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and infernal beings, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”* * R. V., with changes selected from other translations. The Deity of Jesus 143 By the structure suggested above I wish to call atten¬ tion to a correspondence between these statements which may be traced by way of both similarity and contrast. The following topical arrangement will help in apprehend¬ ing this correspondence, if the parts similarly lettered are compared. A . 1. His pre-existence as to form and position. B . 2. His attitude in relation to this. C. . . .3. His act. D..4. His assumed form and position. 5. His charactery in that form. D. .6. His external mien, and circumstances. C . 7. His act. B . 8. His attitude as being in this assumed form. A . 9. His post-existence as returned to the Father. The first three statements bear directly on our present theme. The second three relate to the humanity of Jesus, already considered. Seven and eight properly belong to our next chapter, and nine to the one following. Let us consider them in their order, but first note their relation. In parts BB and CC we have what expresses the mind which was in Christ Jesus, and the resultant actions — He emptied and humbled Himself. Parts AA define mode in relation to Christ ; first, as prior to incarnation, “equality with God” bearing relation to “the form;” secondly, as having ascended after resurrec¬ tion, and to this “the death of the cross” bears direct re¬ lation. D4 finds its complement in D6, the first stating the place taken, and the second intimating the external features connected with the occupation of this place. The central statement of the series expresses the fact of real and full humanity. 1. “Subsisting in the form of God.” Two words 144 Modernism calls for special attention. First, subsisting, Gr., huparcho,^ which ‘‘implies essential or original condition.” Used as a logical copula, it connects the subject and predicate, where it (in this case, “in the form of God”) specifies who or what a person or thing is in respect to nature, origin, office, condition, circumstances, state, place, etc. But these ideas all lie in the predicate, and not in the copula. Here it is used with the preposition en, with the dative case ("in the form,” etc.) as the predicate, and implies a being or living in the prescribed state or condition.f The second word is “form.” It is “the jorm as indicative of the interior nature.”^ Dr. Vincent speaks of “form” as an inadequate rendering of the Greek word, but says, “Our language affords no better word. By ‘form’ is coir- monly understood ‘shape,’ ‘sensible appearance.’ So of Christ’s form (Mk. 16: 12). But the form in this sense cannot apply to God. It here means that expression of being which is identified with the essential nature and character of God, and which it reveals. This expression of God cannot be conceived by us, though it may be con¬ ceived and apprehended by pure spiritual intelligencies.”§ Again, it denotes “outward form, but as including one’s * This is one of the copulative verbs, called such because of agreement with eimi in their construction, although in reality embodying part of the predicate. Dr. Vincent re¬ marks that, “In the sense of being this verb is stronger than the simple einai, to he; denoting being which is from the beginning, and therefore attaching to a person as a proper characteristic; something belonging to him, and so running into the idea of rightful possession.'* * * § t Robinson*s Lexicon. $ Dr. Green. § International Critical Commentary. The Deity of Jesus 145 habits, activities and modes of action in general,’^ and implies “that the outward form expresses the inner es¬ sence,” so that though it deals with externals it is as expressing that which is internal.* It is the immediate, proper, personal investiture of the Divine essence. The phrase, “to be on an equality with God,” clearly bears upon the being in the form of God. First, we have in it what refers to state rather than to time, and to con- tinuity.f It was continuity in the state which, of course, was what the Lord did not esteem an object of rapine. The infinitive here, as often, is the object of a verb, “denoting a mental faculty, impression, or act, . . . asser¬ tion of thought or will.” The verb here is hegeomai, to esteem, to count, to reckon. The adjective Isos, here used adverbially, means “equal, like, alike, similar,” and is spoken of measure, quantity, condition, or kind. The result of this analysis is that we learn that Jesus, prior to incarnation, subsisted or lived in that condition, or state, which was the outward manifestation or expres¬ sion of His essential being and nature, which is none other than that of God, for His state was that of being on an equality with God. Neither “the form” or “equality” * New Test, Synonyms. Prof. G. R. Berry. See also re¬ marks on ^‘fashion,” a word which, though similar in meaning to “form,” is more limited, and so divinely suited to its connection. t “To be” : present infinitive, the article defining the ob¬ ject Infinitive. “On an equality with God” is the predicate of the Infinitive in apposition with the subject ; and “rapine” is in predicative apposition with the Infinitive it¬ self. See Grammar of Greek Test.,’* Dr. Green, pp. 325, 6. 146 Modernism touch the matter of essential being, but relate entirely to that which as to condition or circumstances becomes or is suitable to Godhead, as giving outward expression to the internal or essential nature of the Person. Attributes are not therefore included in this form or equality, for they belong to the nature, to the Person. Prerogatives, or rights, which belong to the Person are connected with “the form,” or “equality” here spoken of, and these are clearly affected by the actions of emptying and humbling Himself. Now it being clear that essential being is not involved in the form or equality, beyond the fact that they are what becomes (as to outv/ard expression) the essence of Godhead, we must conclude that this outward expression of such essence can only pertain to One who is of that essence. He must be God as to the truth of Plis Person. The scriptures which assert this may as well be intro¬ duced at this point. The opening verses of John’s Gospel are very explicit. “In the beginning was the Word” — go back as far as you please, when anything began to be, the Word already was. “The Word was with God and the Word was God'^’ — a distinct Person, yet truly One to whom Deity pertained. The article is omitted. It is not the God, as though there was no other Person of equal position and character; nor can it be a God, as though He was one among many ; but God. Thus He is characterised. He is the Creator, for “all things received being through Him, and without Him not one thing received being which has received being.” He is not spoken of as being created. “He (it is emphatic) was in the beginning with God” — coexistent in distinctness of Person, and ever the same The Deity of Jesus 147 in nature, in essence, having with this the form and equality belonging to it. Another form and place were taken when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,’^ but it was the Word, there was no change as to the truth of His Person. Though He was not flesh before, and only actually began to be this through the virgin birth, it is the same Person as to essential being, unchanged and unchangeable throughout and forever. It will not do therefore to say that John speaks of what He was, and that this was given up when He became flesh, making Him nothing more than man. This, of course, must be con¬ sidered in relation to the emptying of Phil. 2. Now just as the creation of all things is predicated of Him prior to incarnation, so of Him in incarnation it is as plainly stated that all things were upheld by the word of His power (Heb. 1: 3). This connection is made clear by the context. God had spoken to the fathers in many parts and in many ways in the prophets, and in the days at the end of that period during which He had thus spoken He spoke in the Person of the Son.* It is said of this * Heb. 1: 1,2: it is en huio, “The absence of the article here is important, though difficult to render in English; the result is, that God, speaking in the prophets, is clearly distinct, and using them as His mouth. En huio, literally ‘in Son,' is not exactly ‘as Son,' because that would be the character of the speaking, yet is perhaps the nearest to an adequate expression. It is an instance of the use of en. On the whole, I have paraphrased it, ‘in [the person of the] Son.' It is God Himself who speaks; not by another; not as the Father, nor in the person of the Father; not merely by the Holy Ghost using a person not divine, but as Himself a divine person, and that person the Son" {New Trans., and note, J. N. D.). 148 Modernism Person that He was established heir of all things. He had made all, as John declares, but He is also the object in view according to the purpose of God who by Him made the worlds {i. e., the universe). These things are neces¬ sarily stated in this way since they bear a relation to Him as come into the place of man. With this Col. 1: 16 agrees.* Further, the Person here called “Son,” that is, Jesus, who came in the days spoken of, consummating God’s testimony in the prophets (Rom. 15: 8), is de¬ clared to be the effulgencef of God’s glory and the exact expressions^ of His substance. § He as man is this, the full presentation of the glory of God, so that He is fully manifested. God is now in the light, nothing remains dark concerning Him; and all that constitutes the essen¬ tial being of God is expressed in the incarnate Son. Thus He is the imagej^ of the invisible God (Col. 1: 15), an * It is interesting to note the three prepositions used in this verse. First, ew, i e., in the power of His person. He being “the One whose intrinsic power characterized the creation. It exists as His creature.” Then, dia, the iii- strumental power; and eis, Tor.^ Thus we have the in¬ carnate Son presented to us as “the characteristic power, active instrument and end” of all the creation (Ibid). ■f Apaugasma, “what fully presents the glory which is in something else. Thus light makes us know what the sun is ; the tabernacle, what the pattern in the mount was.” — J. N. Darby. Charakter, eikion. 1. This word is ^‘from Charassein, to engrave or inscribe ^ originally a graving-tool; also the die on which a device is cut. It seems to have lost that meaning, and always signifies the impression made by the die or graver. Hence, mark, stamp, as the image on a coin (so often) which indicate its nature and value, or the The Deity of Jesus 149 expression used of Him in view of both redemption and incarnation, as the context shows. He is “firstborn of all creation,” by reason of the fact that this preeminence must be His as having become man, He being the One who has created all things. It is said of Him, “He is before all, and all things subsist together by Him,” and in Hebrews, “Upholding all things by the word of His power.” These scriptures leave no doubt as to how we are to consider Deity in relation to Jesus. Every attribute and essential characteristic of Godhead is plainly involved in them, and considered as coexistent and jointly exercised with the servant-form and the correlative state of humilia¬ tion. Eternally pre-existent, and that as God; distinct in Person; almighty, all-wise, all-knowing, as the Creator of all and the Sustainer of all — these are relations con¬ tinued and maintained in His humanity, however great their mystery must ever remain to the creature. “In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” device impressed by a signet.” Hence, the thought is that the essential being of God is stamped upon and comes into full expression in the person of the Son, for He bears the exact impress of the Divine nature and character. 2. This word is closely allied to the former. It expresses more than mere resemblance, implies representation, and is used to express resemblance in some essential character. It also involves the idea of manifestation. — SeV‘Word Studies in N. T.” and Inter. Commentary. § Hypostaseos, “clearly ‘substance,’ ‘essential being,’ not ‘person.’ It is of God, not of the Father: and no one can see the use of this word in LXX and not see its force; and even its early ecclesiastical use confirms this.” — J. N. Darby . 150 Modernism (Col. 2:9). This, it may be said, relates to Him now, but that this is the continuance of what was true of Him as man is clear from Col. T. 19, 20, the better rendering of which is: “In Him all the fulness [of the Godhead] was pleased to dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to itself, having made peace by the blood of His cross.” Here three words call for consideration — fulness. Godhead, bodily. The first word, pleroma, is variously applied in other parts of the New Testament, but here it is plainly used in relation to Deity. Paul affirms *‘that the whole fulness of Deity, the entire plenitude of the divine excellences, energies, and powers, resides in Christ . . . The idea that the entire fulness of the God¬ head is manifested in Christ is fundamental to Chris¬ tianity, and is, indeed, a wide-reaching conception difficult to grasp by the intellect — a mystery profoundly significant and precious to faith.’’ It is not only “the spiritual and ethi¬ cal perfections of Deity,” but also “the energies and powers which produce and sustain the course of the world. It is not easy to separate in thought the cosmic and ethical elements in the idea; in reality the two must blend to form a complete whole. The ethical perfections of the Godhead are manifested not in empty space, but in the complex life of the material world, in which they must be sustained and vindicated by physical energies and powers. The pleroma of the Godhead, therefore, contains not merely the totality of all ethical perfections, but all divine energies which the cosmos displays; and all these being ascribed without limitation to the Son, there arises the necessary inference that He is the final and absolute manifestation of Deity to men.”* “Godhead” in this passage represents a different Greek word from those used in Acts 17: 29 and Rom. 1: 20, * A. F. Simpson, M. A., Encyc. of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, Ed. The Deity of Jesus 151 though in all three cases the AM. uses this English word.* These also are its only occurrences, but its introduction in Col. 1 : 19 is really necessary to make the statement intelli¬ gible, and this seems fully warranted by the passage before us (Col. 2:9). If we observ^e the distinction between the words for which ‘Godhead’ is used the force of the pas¬ sages will be more clearly seen. In Acts 17: 29 it is more properly “the Divine,” a familiar philosophical expression used by the Athenians, and which Paul takes up simply to emphasize that even they, with scarcely a personal conception of God, ought not to debase their conception to the level of men’s handiwork. Hence “that which is divine” is better than the text, “the Godhead,”t though “the Divine” would be more literal.:j: As to the differ¬ ence between the words used in Rom. 1 : 20 and Col. 2 : 9, the former is the quality, and the latter the essence of God. The former relates to Divine nature and properties, and is the appropriate word when the reference is to “such attributes of God as can be read in the book of nature.” The latter relates to Divine Personality, and is the appro¬ priate word when the assertion deals with “the fulness of the entire (revealed and unrevealed) Personality of God” dwelling in the Son. It is absolute, not merely divine in character. The third word is “bodily.” This considered in the light of the verse cannot mean other than that in Christ as in bodily form — corporeally — the fulness of Deity dwells. It does, and did, from the time of His taking on the prepared body. Though the verse may be taken to * Col. 2:9, theotetos; Acts 17:29, theion; Rom. 1:20, theiotes. t See R. V., margin; New Trans., J. N. D. X Dictionary of the Bible, Jas. Hastings, Ed. 152 Modernism apply to Him now as glorified, it cannot be this exclu¬ sively, for He is in the same body, though through death a change has come to it; but none whatever to Him, or that fulness of which it was the temple. Commenting upon this passage. Dr. Vincent remarks, “The present tense katoikei, dwellethy is used like estin, is (the image) , chap. 1 ; 15, to denote an eternal and essen¬ tial characteristic of Christ’s being. The indwelling of the divine fulness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was in the form of God. The Word in the beginning was with God and was God (John 1: 1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only- begotten of the Father (John 1: 14; compare 1 John 1: 1-3). The fulness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven. . . . The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way^ clothed with a body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His pre-incarnate state when He was in the form of God, for the human body was taken on by Him in the fulness of time, when “He became* in the likeness of men,” when the Word became flesh. The fulness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fulness of the Godhead . . . *“ ‘Being made’ (A. V.) is wrong; it is TDecoming,’ genomenoSy what He was not before” (J. N. D. in his New Translation) . Dr. Vincent says, gen^ having become: contrasted with hyparchon, subsisting (ver. 6) : He entered into a new state (compare John 1: 14; Gal. 4; 4; 1 Tim. 3: 16). The Deity of Jesus 153 ‘What a contrast to the human tradition and the rudiments of the world’ (Meyer). What a contrast to the spiritual agencies conceived [by the vain philosophy and traditions of Judaic-Gnostic heretics] as intermediate between God and men, in each of which the divine fulness was abridged, and the glory shaded, in proportion to the remoteness from God in successive emanation.”* There can be no serious question concerning what these scriptures teach as to the Deity of Jesus. It was really and fully pG<&sessed by Him in manhood. With Him there was, and is, unbroken continuity of eternal and essential being not only in nature and character, but also in the exercise of the attributes of Deity, no matter how great the change in form and circumstances which mark His humiliation. What limitation as being man He may have assumed in relation to the manifestation of His essential attributes is not' now the question before us, but this could never be inconsistent with or contradictory to what He was in His very being, ever truly God as well as man.f 2. “Esteemed it not rapine.” I have already re¬ ferred to the equality with God to which this statement relates. Only one word here claims attention, that ren¬ dered rapine (A. V., robbery). The context must deter¬ mine its significance, for there is little help to be found in * Word Studies in the N. T. t There are other passages worthy of careful study, but I cannot do more than refer my reader to some of them: John 12: 37-41; Matt. 1: 21 — 2: 6 with Mic. 5: 1, 2; 1 Tim. 3:16; Tit. 2 : 13. Further, there are many indirect refer¬ ences and allusions throughout the New Testament which not only confirm the truth of the Deity of Jesus, but show that the whole of its structure and teaching is interwoven with it. In this the Gospels abound. 154 Modernism the slight evidence as to the general use of this word {harpagmos) . The “equality” being correlative with the “form,” it seems evident that the vtrord must be taken as expressing the fact that Christ did not esteem His being on an equality with God as that which should be held fast at all cost, and never relinquished, but eagerly grasped so as to resist surrender, if the occasion arose to meet which relinquishment was necessary. The occasion which involved this as an absolute necessity was indeed foreknown; and when (if I may so speak) llie question of meeting it arose, if the attitude of the Son had been other¬ wise than here stated. He would have grasped, as though seizing, this equality, the giving up of which was so essential, indeed absolutely required, for meeting the need of the occasion, even that of dealing with the question of sin so as to effect eternal redemption, the glory of God, and the overthrow of every evil power. The apostle asserts that the very opposite was true of Him. He looked be yond this to the results for God and man which would be accomplished through meeting the need of the occasion in the only way in which it could be answered, even His own self-emptying and humiliation. Thus in Him was found most blessedly expressed the very mind to which the apostle exhorts when he says, “Let nothing be in the spirit of strife or vain glory, but, in lowliness of mind, each esteeming the other as more excellent than them¬ selves; regarding not each his own [qualities, or, advan¬ tages], but each those of others also. For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,” etc. He, then, willingly relinquished all, He emptied Himself. He thus became the Lamb of God foreknown before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1: 20, R. V.), and He The Deity of Jesus 155 came forth in the fulness of time, giving up one form to take up another for the purpose of accomplishing the Divine plan so richly fraught with blessing for others, for poor sinful men. 3. “But emptied Himself.^^ ^‘The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self -emptying was not self-extinction^ nor was the Divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the con¬ sciousness of Deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it.*^* This statement cannot be made to define what limita¬ tions the Lord may have assumed in His humiliation; these can only be learned from a study of the whole scrip¬ tural testimony which relates to Him as in that state; but it does express the fulness of His relinquishment on the one hand, and on the other it is defined for us by, and includes, all the details of the humiliation which follow. While nothing in the entire passage which we are con¬ sidering can be rightly construed as defining the assumed limitations of the incarnate state of our Lord, it is ne¬ cessary to consider what the scriptural testimony may be to those limitations in view of the modem use of this particular expression — “He emptied Himself” — in the var- * Word Studies in the N. T. (Dr. Vincent) 156 Modernism ious forms of the kenotic theory. All of these to a greater or lesser degree carry the idea of self-limitation to such an extent that the essential unchangeableness of Deity as this relates to Jesus is practically denied. Along with this, therefore, we must conceive of suspended inter-Trinitarian relations and activities, and so no longer think of the Trinity in revelation, for one of the Divine Persons, though He was God before incarnation, must then have abandoned not only the form of Divine Glory but also Divine Being, becoming merely man. Thus the emptying becomes not simply a relinquishment of “form” and cer¬ tain assumed limitations in the use of the attributes of Deity, but the actual non-possession of those attributes, and so the loss of being to which they are essential and intrinsic. The inevitable result of these views is to make Deity in its real sense inapplicable to the Lord Jesus. His divinity is stated to consist in the uniqueness of His moral character, the might of His moral appeal; but not in the application to Him of terms referring to God, the ascription of names, attributes, and works of God, or the New Testament designation of Him as Son of God in a metaphysical sense. All is reduced to an ethical basis, the omwi-attributes are not to be sought in relation to Him; He is simply to be considered as the Revealer and Bearer of religious truth. Let us turn to consider what Scripture presents in rela¬ tion to this important phase of our subject. First, the element of glory is very distinctly associated with the earthly life of our Lord (John 1:14; 2:11; 11: 4,40). There was that of this nature which He did not relinquish, but which instead received its manifestation among men. This, too, must be distinguished from the glory to which The Deity of Jesus 157 He refers when saying to the Father, “And now glorify Me, thou Father, along with Thyself, with the glory which I had along with Thee before the world was” (John 17: 5, New Trans.). There was no change at any time in His cosmic relations, these being continually exercised, for He was truly God. Therefore it cannot be a re¬ entrance upon that, of which He speaks. It was never relinquished. It is rather His entrance as man upon those conditions and circumstances which characterized His presence and place with the Father before the world was, so that the form of God which He surrendered is now entered upon as being man thus glorified. It is association with the Father as man in the glory, in the same way in which He was in association with Him before entering the incarnate state. This then involves nothing as to His essential being and attributes. It is a matter of form, and the way in which the place connected with it is now occupied. This form was given up, and therefore the glory spoken of in relation to our Lord’s earthly life is distinct from it. What is this glory? Does it consist in the manifestation of the attributes of Deity, both those of power and moral perfection — love and light displayed in divinely perfect service and revelation, intertwined with the suited exercise of other essential attributes of His being, since these ever remained His though the form agreeable to the Person possessing them was laid aside? Plainly, there was the glory of relationship as an Only- begotten in all the beauty of character and fellowship, absolutely maintained in unbroken enjoyment, and mani¬ fested through all the life which the disciples contem¬ plated. Because of this He could say, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” It was in this glory that 158 Modernism He dwelt among them “full of grace and truth.” But there was also the glory of His power — “This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory.” Again, it breaks forth at the grave of Lazarus. He was omnipotent. But was He not also omniscient and omnipresent? Does not the realization of this, though actually looking upon a man, constrain Nathanael to say, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel?” His miracles. His knowledge of the unspoken thought. His searching of the hearts of men. His prescience, all witness to His essential glory, while His life. His death. His teach¬ ing, His revelation of the Father, equall}^ declare it. Through all His Deity shone forth, illuminating, healing, blessing, but always and necessarily as in the form of a servant. There is no evidence to substantiate limitations as to the possession by Jesus of Deity and its attributes. The only evidence as to limitation in any way relates to the use of what He indubitably possessed. No limitation of cosmic functions can be shown, while yet it is also evident that His exercise of the attributes of Deity as in the servant-form, performing works of power for the glory of God and on behalf of others, was ever in entire depend¬ ence upon, submission to, and under the directions of His Father to His fullest delight. He did always the things which pleased the Father. Without Him He did nothing, as He says, “The Son can do nothing of Himself;” that is, as an independent source of will or action. He could never act independently, for in the most absolute way He and the Father were one. This neither denies, nor even limits, the full and perfect Deity of Jesus. It relates only to its manifestation and the use of its attributes in the The Deity of Jesus 159 place of service and humiliation, into which He came as man in the blessed exercise of Divine love and compassion for men. In the light of all that may be gathered from a careful study of the Gospels, no ground can be found for the assumption that His poverty (2 Cor. 8:9) means an es¬ sential 5ey-limitation of Deity. Limitation for Him is found in the divestment of that which constituted “the form of God.” This must not be construed to involve a limitation of His essential being, of the attributes of Deity, for then some change must have taken place in the Person, and thus immediately the truth of His Godhead is affected. This is impossible, for He abides ever the same, from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal. He remained when man, as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent as ever He was. This is not saying, that as man He was omni present; but that the Person in that bodily form was not circumscribed by “the temple of His body.” He was not omnipresent in that bodily form, but Pie had not ceased to exercise any of His attributes, even though He had laid aside the circumstances and conditions accordant with the eternal characteristics of His being. Is not this the won¬ drous m3^stery of His Person? — “ God manifest in flesh.” This limitation involved, we may rightly say, restric¬ tion in the exercise of prerogatives which belong to Deity. This is plainly evident as regards Himself, but there are those too which He did not exercise in relation to men in view of the place He had taken and the object before Him. For example. He did not judge those who so wickedly mistreated Him, blasphemed against Him, threat¬ ened His life and finally killed Him. Yet He might have called for twelve legions of angels. He might have com- 160 Modernism manded the earth to open and swallow them up as in the case of Korah and his company, or rained down fire from heaven as upon Sodom and Gomorrah, or caused Jeru¬ salem to fall in ruins as did Jericho of old. But the Son came not to judge, but to save. Yet, as Son of Man, He had the authority to execute judgment, but in His perfect obedience He still awaits the time appointed of the Father to exercise this authority. He had the power to make the stones bread, but the place He had taken forbade the exercise of His right to do so under the circumstances. He had the power to mitigate any of His sufferings, even those of the excruciating death by crucifixion, but He did not, either as to His bodily agony, for the awful thirst was there (as He lets us know when He cries, ‘‘I thirst”), nor as to the dreadful suffering of both soul and spirit, as witness the anguish of Gethsemane, and on the cross it could not be less but greater, as again witnessed by His cry, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Humiliation for Him was not in being less really God than He was before incarnation, but it is found in the other “form,” which He took, with its attendant condi¬ tions, circumstances, sufferings, even to the death of the cross. His poverty clearly consisted in this change of “form” and what it involved in service and sacrifice. When it is said, “The Word became flesh,” it cannot be made to mean that He of whom this is stated ceased to be God and was only man — flesh. It does mean, as all that we have considered bears witness, that He who was and ever remained God took up — may I say, incor¬ porated? — as part of His essential being (and so became) flesh, dwelling in this bodily temple among men. Efforts are made to press to the same extreme and illogical con- The Deity of Jesus 161 elusion the expressions, “In the likeness of men,” “In figure as a man,” and “In the likeness of flesh of sin;” but they have already been considered at some length in Chaps. IV. and V. We maintain, therefore, the absolute /zow-limitation of Deity in Jesus along with His full and perfect humanity, though recognizing limitation in the exercise of both the attributes and prerogatives pertaining to Deity, in so far as their manifestation before men is concerned, since He was in manhood and the servant-form; this involving however no change in His cosmic relations. With this may we not also think of a gradual communication to the human consciousness of Jesus of the will, purpose, knowl¬ edge, belonging to Deity? — for He grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom, and God^s grace was upon Him (Luke 2: 40). Is not this the explanation of that difficult pas¬ sage in Mark 13:32? As omniscient He surely knew, but, as being man and in the form of a servant. He governed Himself by that which was communicated to Him as such. Though the human may not be thought to compass the infinite, yet both are perfectly united in the blessed Person of Jesus. Therefore, as man, serving among men. He acted according to the limitations of that position. He, the Man of faith and obedience, ordered His acts and words according to the communications vouchsafed to Him. Yet allowing the foregoing, it must not be construed to mean that He only possessed Deity “merely so far as was compatible with the truth of human growth and the capacity of His expanding consciousness.” This would not be Deity, but merely a gradual growth in divinity, a kind of evolution of the divine in the human personality 162 Modernism “in actual growth and development from germ to full organization, from infancy to ripe manhood/’ as it is said. Such an idea, nowhere countenanced in Scripture, denies the truth of the Deity of Jesus, however much it may affirm the truth of His humanity. We confidently affirm both in the light of all we have considered, and bow in adoring worship at the feet of Him who is thus revealed to us in God’s holy Word. CHAPTER VII. The death of Jesus — was it a supreme example only, the consummation of a perfect life of self-sacrifice, or was it for atonement as a propitiatory and substitutionary sacrifice? SIN and death are linked together, so that views as to either fundamentally affect the other. In the popular evolutionary program sin can only be the by-product of man’s still imperfect state, supposed to be diminishing as the program unfolds, though the results of about 5000 years of human history do not demonstrate this. We must not forget, however, the vast eons which have passed since the evolution of the Hominidae began, so that we could hardly expect to detect a change even in several thousands of years. Or you may consider sin to be that manner of life or action which is so defined by legislation enacted for the general benefit of the evolving race. That is, that as community life developed certain things were found detrimental, not only to the individual, but also to the community with which he was identified; these things were legislated against; thus the concept of sin, its discord and lawlessness, was formed in man’s consciousness. From this viewpoint all is considered as the outcome of social heredity. Society is the school in which men learn to distinguish between right and wrong. Custom is the head-master. In this, it is said, lies the key to the nature and origin of the judgments which make up the ethical codes of every age and race. Thus the idea of sin took shape, and has been woven into the 164 Modernism evolutionary fabric. Strange that with ever-increasing enactment of laws sin does not decrease, but increasingly manifests itself. If the growth and development of laws be taken as evidence of an ever-rising ethical standard among men, there is also along with it an ever-growing record of human depravity. These ideas undermine all sense of responsibility to God, and deny that sin can have any bearing upon His relation to man. How could it, since he is not the product of direct and special creation, but simply the result of what was commenced in the protoplasm some few hundred thousand years ago! Death has no moral link with sin, though the former is the direct consequence of the latter; and salvation is not from judgment which sin merits as an awful breach in the moral and spiritual order esta¬ blished by the Creator, but is simply social and civic betterment, humanitarian uplift, development in the social consciousness of what is good. It is proclaimed that the standard and example is found in Christ — His life. His character. His ideas, constitute the goal toward which the race must ever rise. Salvation is found in the attainment of His mind and spirit. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear the religio-evolu- tionist saying that, ‘‘Old ways of thinking about the cross have become impossible for him. Substitutionary and forensic ideas for him have ceased to be. They have not simply changed, they have lost all reality, cast as they are in legalistic terms, and tangled as they are with what to him is an outworn cosmology. They are impossible for his uses. To him substitutionary or forensic atonement is artificial and immoral. It is unworthy of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’^ The Death of Jesus 165 Further, realizing that the Christian interpreter has al¬ ways linked the sacrificial t3^es of the Old Testament with the death of Christ as imparting both instruction and illustration in regard to it, and his right to do so is justified by many passages in the New Testament, our Modernist hastens to correct these thoughts, for “clearer knowledge of the Old Testament and of the line of its development convinces the evolutionist that, on the whole, the sacrificial system of Judaism was not so much antici¬ patory of the coming of Christ, as it was reminiscent of the primitive rites of Canaan. To seek for the satisfying meaning of the atonement around the blood-stained altars of the Old Testament is to him to go astray.’^* This delusion is the product of those theories of Higher Criti¬ cism, according to which the sacrificial legislation of the Pentateuch is the work of men during the Josiah-Ezra period, instead of being delivered to the people by Moses forty years before they even crossed Jordan. Then the “Thus saith the Lord,” so often prefixed to the ordin¬ ances and regulations of sacrifice, is a plain libel upon the Divine name and character. This not only casts entire discredit upon the Pentateuch, but since it is woven into every other part of Scripture in a marvelous way, the whole becomes affected as to its reliability, authority, and trustworthiness. Thus, too, the substitutionary and propitiatory aspects of sacrifice are wrought into the entire testimony of Scrip¬ ture from AbeFs lamb to Christ, the Lamb of God, by whose precious blood we are alone redeemed, and through * *‘The Evolutionist at Calvary C The Expositor^ Lon¬ don, April, 1923. (Italics mine.) 166 Modernism whom by virtue of His sacrifice the righteousness of God is upon all who believe, they being justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Je¬ sus; whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith by His blood (John 1: 29; 1 Pet. 1: 18-21; Rom. 3: 22-25). The whole argument cis to the sacrifices and Levitical economy in the epistle to the Hebrews is founded upon the fact that they are the shadow of good things to come, even of heavenly things, those better things which are so often referred to by the Spirit of God. They were not reminiscent of the awful practices and human sacrifices of Canaanite idolatry with all of its abhorrent moral de¬ pravity, too vile to speak of in detail. There is not only plain legislation against this throughout the Pentateuch, with unsparing judgment for violation of its precepts, but there is the record too of God’s exterminating judg¬ ments upon the Canaanite nations because of their evil; God thus acting to exterminate an incurable moral plague, which could be endured no longer. In view of this, to speak of the sacrificial ritual which is so intimately bound up with all this legislation as reminiscent of Canaanitish rites is utterly fallacious. At what stage of the evolu¬ tionary process the mentality of these critics may be placed is hard to say, but it would appear to be quite low in the scale as yet. The religio-evolutionary view of the cross of Christ is that it presents the great truth of what God is always doing. In explaining this a statement is given as to the nature of sin, the relation of death to it, and so of Christ’s death. It is said that “evolution reveals an advancing purpose of God, pushing ever on toward higher and richer The Death of Jesus 167 realization of the meaning of life. In the process of the world’s development, those forms, and only those forms, have entered into life, have been one with God, have carried forward the process of advancing evolution, which have held their lives cheap. Always it is the organisms that have been content with things as they are, that have set themselves athwart the advancing purpose of God, that have been the evil powers, the sinful forces and individuals.” From this we are given the definition of sin: “In the light of evolution the very essence of sin is in holding back the advancing purpose of God in the life of the world.” And again, “The very essence of sin and failure is the holding oneself apart from God’s advancing pur¬ pose.” Since the forms in this process which are one with God have held their lives cheap, “It has always been the organisms that would risk something, would dare the dan- .gers of the new path, that would let go of life rather than let go of the purpose of God, that have carried for¬ ward the process of evolution to new heights.” Here death comes in, for “the power which saves is the prin¬ ciple of the laying down of life.” We are assured that in the life of Jesus, in His ideals and Gospel, we have “The purpose of God, the loving advancing purpose for the race, clearly and positively seen. And the cross means that men set themselves against that purpose . . From the cross shines forth also in transcendent glory the principle found all through the life of the world, . . that the world finds its salvation by the laying down of life so that the very central principle of developing life is that very law of 168 Modernism sacrifice, of daring, of willingness to risk, of the laying down of the life for the good of others, which is shown most clearly in the cross. It is the law of the cross by which evolution has got forv/ard ... I like to speak of it as the law of the sacrifice of the fittest, as over against the law of the survival of the fittest. It reaches back through the whole process of developing life on the earth. Without this law of the sacrifice of the fittest, the mother giving herself for the life of her young, the father battling for food to maintain the brood, the wolf for the pack, and the pack for the wolf, the operation of this law of the laying down of life, dim, shadowy, yet tremendously power¬ ful; without this, life would have been extinct before man came on the scene. And with the coming of man came the chance for the glorious and full outworking of this law, the definite subordination of the law of survival to the law of sacrifice.” This, it is said, “points straight to Calvary. It is a law of sacrifice, of sin-bearing, (?) of daring, of laying down the life for the good of others . . . How wonderful and glorious is the operation of this law in human living. Every child comes into life through a mother’s pangs, and grows through the sacrifice of its parents. Truth advances by men who dare to be martyrs. Civilization gets forward through patriots who love their country or their kind more than they love life. It is at work all about us, this cosmic law of progress through the sacrifice of the fittest. “This which is found everywhere comes to fullest, most dra¬ matic, most appealing manifestation in the cross of Christ. Just as in His living we have come to see the perfect life, not something apart from common human life, but the ful¬ filment of all noble living, so in His death we may and should see the perfect death, the setting forth once for all of this cosmic principle, this law on which God is always acting, this law on which God has built the world, this law of the sacrifice of the fittest.” It is also argued that the operation of this law de- The Death of Jesus 169 monstrates the true meaning of the law of the survival of the fittest. In connection with this we are treated to a definition of atonement, “It is the paradox of the process of evolution that only those who have died to help life forward have survived. We are the children and heirs not only of those who have lived, but even more of those who have died. Benj. Kidd states the law of Darwin thus: Tf A can kill B before B can kill A, then the race becomes more and more a race of A’s, possessing A’s qualities. But as life mounts higher, it becomes increasingly clear that another law is at work, which may be stated thus: If A lays down his life for B, then the spirit of A takes possession of B, and lives on in him and comes to dominate the race.^ There is atonement at work.” Apply this “law.” Christ laid down His life for the world over 1900 years ago; has His spirit, His mind^ taken possession or even perceptibly come to dominate the world? Whatever outward advance there has been, has the moral and spiritual state advanced since His day? If He was anything He was moral and spiritual, and His death is taken to be the consummation of His ethical perfection. This might seem more than enough to make clear what the Modernist teaches as to the meaning and value of tlie death of the Lord Jesus. But it may be as well to see what he thinks is its individual application, and find what is his definition of salvation. “How does the evolutionist find the cross of Christ pos¬ sessed of saving power over the individual? To answer that he must define salvation. Is not this salvation, as the evolutionist defines it in its meaning for individual ex- 170 Modernism perience — ^the realization by an individual of his highest capacities, the entering into the best and noblest possible living? If that be salvation, then there is a clear connec¬ tion between the death of the Lord Jesus Christ and per¬ sonal salvation.” This connection is defined for us in four ways: 1. “It is the supreme manifestation of the principle of life and salvation as Jesus saw it. What is life as Jesus saw it? Not being safe, but being a saviour. Not play¬ ing safe, but playing the game. He teaches us that the value of life lies in risking it, in laying it down for a man or a cause. Life is given us to be spent, to be given up; we are given life in order that we may die splendidly. Some such message is central in the teaching of Jesus, And that message He puts in unforgettable form, seals beyond question, by taking His own life, while still young, and flinging it away (?) ; looking death in the face, and saying, ‘Here is life.^ There, in His death, is our eternal and undying inspiration and challenge to a life that dares to sacrifice. His death proves His teaching, and His res¬ urrection seals it. 2. “The death of Jesus, the Eevealer of God, is the clearest proof that God is with us in this kind of life that is saved by losing ... It tells us that the self-sacrificing life is the most divine life.* The stamp of divinity is on the one who dares to die. 3. “What really saves me, saves the individual, is not something which Jesus did 1900 years ago. How can a past fact have present vital power ?t . . . What saves me * Then according to comparisons just made all life is of this character, even that of the lower animals. t But it is just this that he has stated to be the working of atonement: A^s death for B results in A’s spirit pos* sessing and dominating the race. Truly, “The legs of the lame hang loose” (Prov. 26: 7, R. V.). The Death of Jesus 171 is something God does now, something He is always doing, something that is part of His very nature, and has been wrought by Him into the very stuff of the world He is making. I am saved by the self-sacrifice of God now, mediated to me through parents and friends, through all who risk their lives that my life might be better; and Calvary is the supreme, the unique proof and forthsetting of that great principle which saves me to-day. 4. “The cross saves me by calling me into a fellowship of sacrifice and service. It is salvation of the highest sort, to be led into self-forgetfulness, through absorbing interest in a great person or a great cause. The evolu¬ tionist can even talk gladly of the ‘blood of Christ’ and its saving power; only he no longer thinks of fountains, or of cleansing by washing. He thinks of how blood cleans to-day. I know a little girl who has had again and again to have her blood cleansed by transfusion, whereby her thin diseased blood has been replaced by vigorous, healthy blood. And she is coming back to life and vigor again. It is so that men may think to-day of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ, the Son of God. It is the life of God that enters us through Christ that cleanses us, not any external washing.* We get the full power of the cross of Christ only when we say, with the apostle, ‘He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.’ To enter into that spirit is not simply a result of salvation through the atonement of Christ; it is salvation, it is entering into life through the working of God’s atoning Spirit, that eternal Spirit through which Jesus offered Himself, and in which God and man, * Certainly not baptism in water, if that is what the writer means; but what about being “washed from our sins in His blood,” with which many other passages link as expressing purification and forgiveness of sins? 172 'Modernism God in man, is ever offering Himself for the life and salva¬ tion of the world.* Plainly, salvation must be a universal condition, real¬ ized in varying degrees, in its highest form found among men, but also found in the lower creation on the princi¬ ple of self-sacrifice, even illustrated in the wolf giving itself for the pack, and the pack for the wolf. And all of this through the working of God’s eternal Spirit. All that we have in the death of Jesus is the supreme manifes¬ tation of this all-pervading principle and salvation; and it is supreme simply because the life of Jesus is considered the highest ethical manifestation of life. His supreme example is the highest presentation of principle, by the activity of which in the individual all that is here called atonement or salvation is effected. These views destro}?^ at once any thought of God exer¬ cising holy government, or judgment, in relation to sin, and of man’s responsibility in relation to Him in view of it. I suppose it is admitted that sin’s activity produces present sorrov/ful fruits, both for the individual and the race, but this is as far as the consequences go, and all is because through ignorance the process of evolution is resisted, this resistance being supremely expressed in cru¬ cifying Christ — “the sacrifice of the fittest,” type of all self-sacrifice, it would seem, whether that be of the mother for her child, or the wolf for the pack. But death, this sacrifice of the fittest, comes to those ignorant and sinful individuals who foolishly resist the evolutionary process. * These extracts are from an article in the London Expositor of April, ’23, entitled, “An evolutionist at Cal¬ vary,* by the Rev. W. P. Merrill, D. D., of New York. The Death of Jesus 173 as it does to those of nobler sort who do not resist that ever forward movement, but lay down their lives that somehow their blood may be the seed of life to the race, in whom, I suppose, it would be said the sacrifice of the fittest is realized. But the death of those sinful resisters can hardly have this character. Does it come to them so that the survival of the fittest may be attained? And then these fittest are sacrificed in death for the good of others! Strange anomaly! So lacking in that simplicity of truth and heart-satisfaction which fills the teaching of Scripture. And after death, what? We are told the Father’s house for everybody, in some way or other. Plainly, there is nothing to be saved from as far as God and His holy government are concerned, even though Scripture does speak of coming wrath and everlasting punishment. Such notions are crude, barbarous. There is nothing to be saved for, since all will reach the Father’s house, and that surely will be a safe place to be in, even allowing that some may be more favored than others for various reasons. Then the matter is reduced to the question of how to live here, and salvation consists in living as nobly as you can, in being as highly developed as possible, in doing the most you can for the good of the race. For all of this the life of Jesus is said to express God’s ideal. Then at the end, always hoping that is a long way off, you die, and lo! you have accomplished a sacrifice having all the characteristic fea¬ tures of the death of Jesus — “the sacrifice of the fittest,” you have proved yourself one of the fittest, you have been a saviour in the world, and saved yourself, not from any¬ thing like hell, or for anything like heaven, but while you were here. And then, what? Another sphere of life, and the continuation of the evolutionary process, and an- 174 Modernism other death of sacrifice? Is that what Jesus is going through and going on to? Why not, since this is the central principle of God’s working in the development of life in the universe? And who can think of it as fully developed here? All this is jargon. This whole teaching breaks down the sense of moral responsibility to God as both Creator and moral Gover¬ nor, and with this gone it is utterly impossible to think of any long continued sense of it between man and man. The evidence of this result from the wide acceptance of religio-evolutionary teaching grows stronger with every passing week. It is godless and materialistic. There is the vain effort to maintain a form of godliness by using familiar theological phrases and high-sounding sentiments, but that which alone can give power is denied, utterly re jected by these vain philosophers. As evolution in reference to creation removes God from it so remotely that any real link is impossible, except it be that which is expressed in physical laws; so in its reli¬ gious aspect it removes God to such a distance that He cannot be considered as having any moral link with man’s life and destiny, nor man to have any responsible relation to Him. Man is thus left to the caprice of his own reason, and to whatever future the evolutionary process may de¬ velop for him — certainly an unknown quantity. The issue raised by these views is threefold: 1. The true nature of sin and death. 2. The true meaning of salvation. 3. The true relation of the death of Jesus to both of the former problems. The Death of Jesus I. 175 One passage of Scripture suggests, at least by implica tion, these three vital features of the truth: “The wages of sin is death; but The gift of God is eternal life In Christ Jesus our Lord.” Death is an infliction from God. It is in the nature of judgment. It is because of sin. Scripture is transparently clear upon these points, and consistent throughout. “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.” Through the fallen first man, Adam, sin was introduced, and death comes in to reign according to God’s sentence — the distinctive mark of the changed relation between God and His creature. Although we are not to construe the sentence pronounced in the Garden of Eden to mean the final form of God’s judgment such as the “second death,” it is a solemn witness to a great change, as well as a constant admonition to every soul that a great controversy between God and men requires settlement. Unless this was so, why should He who had found plea¬ sure in man as come from His hand richly endowed with every creature blessing, now turn him to destruction, that is, remove him as not fit to abide in the place of re¬ sponsibility and relationship to which he properly belongs. Further, it is the abiding lesson of his own utter help¬ lessness, his lack of real righteousness, for all are subject to it. “In Adam all die.” “There is no difference, for all have sinned, and come short of God’s glory.” Sin, there¬ fore, is not merely that which is determined by human standards or social expediency; its nature is determined 176 Modernism by God’s perfect standard and holy claims. It is a breach of His order for His creatures, and therefore against Him, though it be also against man. Thus David exclaims, “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned.” In Cain’s case the crime is against his brother and family, but life belongs alone by right unto God, man having forfeited it, and so in the great typical system of Israel God claims the blood of the sacrifices, for “the life is in the blood.” God, then, comes in to deal with Cain about his sin, for it directly affected his position and relation toward Him. It also furnishes the opportunity for God to point out the way the sinner must approach Him — a sin-offering was required. It was at hand, even at the door, and Abel’s accepted offering proclaimed the manner of it. Death is not only a consequence of sin, but here it is presented as a fundamental necessity for God’s acceptance of the sin¬ ner who approaches Him. It is not without importance to note the use of sacrifice in the religious cults of men from the very beginning, for it is universal, though abominably perverted. This is the more remarkable since it is against nature, which finds its way illustrated in that of Cain, and reason itself might well question how an innocent animal victim could pos¬ sibly meet the question of man’s sinfulness and atone for his guilt. This being so, its prevalence argues for its di¬ vine institution, even as Genesis witnesses, while it also evidences a universal conviction as to the fundamental need for favorable relations with God. Only when these shadows are linked with the substance are they seen in a right light, and then they are found to be always pointing to the suffering yet conquering Seed of the woman, whose atoning death alone could meet all the requirements of The Death of Jesus 177 the case at the appointed time. This alone makes it pos¬ sible to understand how God could see in Abel’s bleeding lamb a value which made it possible for Him to pro¬ nounce the offerer righteous, thus bearing testimony to the meaning for Him of his gifts. This had already found illustration in God’s dealings with His fallen creatures; for while He affirms the sen¬ tence of death in relation to their place and portion in creation, it is surely by death that He obtains the coats of skin to clothe the guilty. Thus, too, we may learn what all Scripture witnesses to, that man’s efforts do not avail before God to meet his sinful condition — ^whether this be articles of his own manufacture, or as with Cain the fruit brought forth from a cursed earth bedewed with the sinful sweat of his own brow. It must be what God does, thereby providing a perfect answer to the existing need. It is God’s work, entirely apart from man, and through other instrumentality. This is made plain by the first promise, the announcement of the One who is to be victorious over all the dreadful consequences of the fall. He is spoken of as the woman’s Seed. This plainly inti¬ mates a new and mysterious beginning in which the vic¬ tory of grace over sin is realized, and that not through the restoration of the first man to the place from whence he had fallen, but by the exercise of divine power bringing forth under its immediate and special activity through the weaker vessel, woman, the Second Man, who though bruised shall gloriously conquer. Hope is not then found in Adam or his progeny, but in Another who shall come in a special way, yet born of woman. He shall suffer, yet overcome. God points to Him, and so would have them in their hopeless, helpless state of ruin put their faith in the promised Deliverer. 178 Modernism We see how the divine purpose begins to unfold at the very beginning. God marks sin as that which directly affects relationship with Him. Its true nature is that of rebellion to His revealed will. “Sin is lawlessness.” It brings alienation. We are alienated from God by wicked works. We fall short of His glory, and therefore can¬ not be acceptable to Him. Death is that which marks this changed relation between God and man, who origin¬ ally had come perfect and good from His hand. What He thinks of it as connected with sin, and consequently bringing separation from His holy presence, is most em¬ phatically taught us in the regulations given by Moses concerning it. It always produced uncleanness and de¬ filement, even though the connection with it might seem quite remote, and purely accidental. Thus He presses upon us its solemn lesson, for these things were written afore¬ time for our learning, and in those very ordinances we also see that only sacrifice can effect cleansing. In the second place. He reveals the Coming One to whom every soul must look for salvation. Then He institutes sacri¬ fice, first intimated in the coats of skin, plainly confirmed in His acceptance of Abel’s lamb and the refusal of Cain’s naturalistic, self-effort offering, in this declaring that sal¬ vation is not of works lest any man should boast, but that it is found alone through grace in Christ and by faith in Him. This indicated the only way of blessing and rela¬ tionship with God. All pointed to Christ and Calvary, and these fundamental features of God’s purpose received con¬ stantly clearer annunciation as the centuries passed by. God speaking to the fathers in the prophets in divers por¬ tions and divers manners, until the full and glorious ac¬ complishment came through the incarnation and death of The Death of Jesus 179 the Lord Jesus. In this early history sin, death, salva¬ tion, and the only Saviour, all receive their illustration. Their meaning thus set before man, agrees perfectly with the final God-breathed messages of Holy Writ which came at least 4000 years later. II. Now without question both the life and death of Jesus are presented to us as supreme examples. The following scriptures plainly teach it: Matt. 16: 21-26; Luke 9: 22- 24; John 12: 24-26; Heb. 12: 1-4. But this is only half of the truth, in fact the lesser half, which can only be realized in the individual and his experience on the basis of the truth of the greater half and its acceptance by faith, so that the divine work of new birth is wrought by the Spirit through the written Word of God and individ¬ ual faith in it. All of this in their essential meaning these religious evolutionists reject and deny, for there can be no such need according to their view of the matter. Man’s need is not new creation — that is a work of God as imme¬ diate, direct and special as that of the original creation of man, so that the individual who is a subject of it begins to live in the power and blessing of new life, eternal life, and as identified with a new sphere and new relationships all fully revealed in the New Testament; but man’s need is thought to be a transfusion of the best elements found in the noblest of men into the weak and failing of their fellows. We read that that which is born of the flesh is flesh, that is, morally. They that are in the flesh cannot please God, for it is true of all, that in their flesh dwelleth no good thing. The mind of the flesh is enmity against God. 180 Modernism The works of the flesh are manifest, and out of the heart all manner of evil proceeds. It is desperately wicked, who can know it? Its imagination is evil from man’s youth, and the thoughts of man are evil continually. “There is none righteous, no, not one . . . There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one.” This unvarying testi¬ mony of Scripture plainly intimates a virus so great, a corruption so irresistible, and irremediable, that only the bringing in of what is absolutely and essentially new, coming from a source entirely apart from man, even from God Himself, can possibly meet the case. This we have in the teaching of new birth, of new creation, and the gift of a life never possessed before. This in its very nature, and as come from such a Source, is not only new, but different, and identical with the nature and life of Jesus. It is moral and spiritual regeneration. It begins, practically speaking, v/ith the exercise of faith in the gospel of God concerning His Son, and from this continues a moral and spiritual growth, as varying in degree and character in those who are the subjects of it as is the variety to be observed among men in natural and physical development. The end, however, is assured. It is eternal life (in the perfect fulness that that implies) in the immediate pres¬ ence of God, its Giver and Source to all who will accept it on the principle of faith in the atoning death of the Lord Jesus; it being both substitutionary and propitiatory in relation to sin and its judgment. The character which belongs to man, both in regard to his nature and practice, is distinctly the cause of his alienation from God, as well as his own self-destruction. Sin is against God. He must deal both with the nature and its fruits. Sin in the flesh, the nature. He condemns The Death of Jesus 181 and ultimately removes. Sins, the fruits of the nature, are dealt with in the sacrifice of Christ who gave Himself for our sins; who bore our sins in His own body on the tree; on whom Jehovah laid our iniquity; who was de livered for our offences; by whose stripes we are healed; who being the Just One suffered for us the unjust; who is the propitiation for our sins; who offered one sacrifice for sins, by which He made purification, and then sat down upon the right hand of the Majesty on high; who died for our sjns according to the scriptures. In Him alone we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. His precious blood cleanses us from ail sin. In His cross Scripture teaches us to see God’s holy judg¬ ment of our old man in all that he is and all that belongs to him, the flesh, its lusts, and the world in which it has its place. He is our Deliverer from coming wrath, and our coming Saviour who will perfect the work of salvation, presenting us faultless in the presence of God’s glory, be¬ fore whom according to His eternal purpose we shall ever be in love, holy and without blame. Through the work of redemption we are made joint-heirs with Him, so that in Him we have our inheritance, who is the appointed Heir of all things; in whose final triumph we shall share as be¬ ing under His headship in new creation, being born of God, His children through faith in the Person and work of Christ, and destined to be perfectly conformed in res- urection to the image of His Son who is the firstborn among many brethren, the Captain of salvation, the Leader of many sons to glory, the Author and Finisher of faith. Lord of lords and King of kings, only Saviour, the Eternal Son of God, perfect Man forevermore, yet God over all blessed forever. Such is a glimpse of the mean- 182 Modernism ing of God’s great salvation, and of the relation to it of His great Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ. III. The meaning of the death of Jesus is evident. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth by itself alone” — thus would it have been with Him in the matchless perfection of His humanity and holy life. His life could not save, blessed and holy and glorious in moral beauty though it be, shining as it does, and will, for all eternity in its own peerless lustre. Yet while it could not save it is that which in its essential character is made the life of the saved. Salvation introduces to it, but it is not salvation. “But if it dlCj it bringeth forth much fruit” — thus alone are we given entrance into His life. He died as meeting the whole issue raised by sin, going into death which it had brought, bearing the judgment it deserved, being forsaken of God, perfectly glorifying Him in so do¬ ing in the very scene where sin had dishonored Him, and at the same time opening up the way of salvation and life to poor sinners, who being ungodly and without strength have no hope or resource, except in what God Himself provides. Kow the grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men — in Christ, grace and truth subsist in and by Him. He laid down His life, that He might take it again — take it in the glory of resurrection, the necessary com¬ plement to His death, for if He who died for our sins be not raised from among the dead, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and lives to die no more, so that now it can be said we are saved in the power of His life. But I must not anticipate, for resurrection is our next theme. The Death of Jesus 183 The death of Jesus presents as profound a mystery to the human mind as does the Incarnation. We still stand in the presence of the Cross, smiting our breasts, with bowed heads, and awe-stricken hearts, hearing that awful cry of forsaken sorrow which is wrung from the heart of the patient, holy, and blessed Sufferer. The veil of the temple is rent, the life’s blood flows forth, the darkness rolls away, and we hear it said again, “Without the shed¬ ding of blood is no remission ... it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul,” — “It is finished.” He has “made propitiation for the sins of the people.” “Once at the consummation of the ages hath He been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And in as much as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto salvation” (Heb. 9: 26-28). “To Him who loves us, and has washed us from our sins in His blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the might to the ages of ages. Amen” (Rev. 1: 5,6). CHAPTER VIII. The resurrection of Jesus — was it a fact or an ethical miracle?” What relation does it bear to the truth of Christianity? HE resurrection of Jesus is either the most stu¬ pendous fact of all history, or it is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated and foisted upon mankind. Certainly, it has far exceeded even the historico-critico- evolutionary fraud in its influence upon men’s minds, its power to direct their activities, and its effective formation of their religious concepts. It was universally established in an extremely short time, and maintained and increased through the centuries as the race extended and developed, while the other has been in the process of development and extension for several centuries. This is an amazing phenomenon! Especially when we are told it came to birth through the subjective visions of a few humble, illiterate Galileans, who in the strength of such illusions went forth conquering and to conquer in days of world-wisdom, art, philosophy, criticism, and religion, at which the twentieth century still wonders; who did this though enduring the loss of all that men naturally count dear and strive for, suffering greatly, persecuted mightily, they were accounted as sheep for the slaughter and as the off-scouring of the world, imprisoned, hated, hounded, and finally martyred. [Mighty, powerful, and seemingly real “visions” they must have been, to pro¬ duce results so astounding, such as have not been known before or since! And they were united in this remarka- The Resurrection of Jesus 185 ble testimony and service. They formed a group of men who were not likely to suffer from emotionailism, or be subject to hallucinations; they were rather prosaic, in fact, with little spiritual perception, and subject to rivalries and misunderstandings among themselves. Here we find them welded together in consistent and prevailing witness to the great fact of the resurrection. Furthermore, what adds to the wonder of it is the accompaniment of this witness by the loftiest moral and spiritual teaching the world has been ever given, as all admit. Being such as they were, this emphasizes the fact that both the source and power producing these results were apart from and above any merely natural order, though mightily working in and through them. They were neither knaves, nor fools. The resurrection of Jesus, we are told, was “the cul¬ mination of His ethical miracles, wrought by the mighty power of a perfect human personality . . . The power of this personality emptied the tomb and made intercourse with His disciples possible.” It was not a wondrous act of power, the greatest of the many wonders of power which are recorded of Him, for the Modernist does not believe He wrought such signs and wonders — “most of His recorded miracles are ethical ones* They were wrought by His wondrous, sinless personality.” This simply means that His life and teaching (we are not to think of miracles as we have been accustomed to think of them, and as the Gospels record them) wrought with such unusual power upon the disciples that there was produced such an effect upon their minds, so profoundly ethical was the power exerted, that they could only set forth the result of the mental condition thus produced by presenting the idea of His resurrection (there being no question of His actual 186 Modernism death) in literal bodily manifestation. This was done in such language, with much detail as to attendant circum¬ stances, that millions of their poor fellow-creatures have since their day believed, and still do, that the Man Christ Jesus actually rose from among the dead in a body of “ flesh and bones.’^ The greatest ethical miracle in¬ deed ( ? ! ) . Thus they sought to emphasize the abiding value and power of His life, teaching, and personality. The resurrection is then reduced to a product of their mental condition, the result of their circumstances and intense religious imagination, again due to “the mighty power of a perfect human personality” whose death, “the sacrifice of the fittest,” they had witnessed. This in the face of the testimony to their utterly depressed, hopeless, and fearful state of mind induced by that tragic event, and their unbelief in His oft-reiterated announcement of res¬ urrection from among the dead. One wonders why the mighty power of the Lord’s perfect human personality. His life and teaching, did not preserve them from falling into such a pitiful condition, since in a few days after the crucifixion it wrought so wondrously as to lead them to believe that the tomb was empty, that they had actually seen and conversed with the Lord, even eaten a meal with Him, so that in the strength of these “subjective visions,” in which all seemed so objective and real, they became completely revolutionized, and are found continually in the temple praising and blessing God. To such vain ima¬ ginings are those great minds of the historico-critical school reduced because, as one of its lauded leaders states, “We find that the resurrection of Jesus — as is not surprising in view of its supernatural character — is in very many quar¬ ters and with growing distinctness characterised as un- The Resurrection of Jesus 187 historical, and that not merely when it is conceived of as having been a revivification of the dead body of Jesus, but also when it is defended in some spiritualistic form.”* This Modernist view of the resurrection undermines the veracity of the Lord Jesus, of the Gospels, the apostolic testimony, including that of Paul; in fact it must ulti¬ mately affect the whole of the New Testament, and the Old cannot be exempt. “The story of the resurrection is as much interwoven with the texture of the entire Scripture as it is with the moral character of Jesus, so that, to adopt the language of Renan, to tear it from the Book would be to rend the Bible to its foundations. Hence we are bound to consider the resurrection and revelation as standing or falling to* * Paul W. Schmiedel, D. D., Professor of New Testa¬ ment Exegesis, Zurich, in the Encyclopedia Biblica. He deals at length with the Gospel narratives of the resur¬ rection, saying they “exhibit contradictions of the most glaring kind,” and considers that they abound in violent discrepancies, that they “are at irreconcilable variance with each other.” He then spends much time over 1 Cor. 15, chiefly to show how it discredits certain details of the Gospels. One wonders why such men wish to be, or re¬ main, professors of exegesis of such a contradictory and questionable collection of documents as compose the New Testament. I suppose their prodigious labors find reward in turning, as they imagine, fact into myth, truth into fiction, thus freeing their fellow-mortals from bondage to so much “delusion,” all of which makes one thankful not to be afflicted with the condition producing such miasma. To answer the variety of objections would carry us far beyond present limits. It has been done by others in a way to fully satisfy any unprejudiced mind. A book by the late Dr. James H. Brookes, “Did Jesus Rise?” will be found helpful. It may be obtained from Loizeaux Bros. 188 Modernism gether. If the former can be established as an historical fact, the supernatural origin of the latter is clearly vindi¬ cated; and if the latter can be proved the former cannot be doubted/’* I. The resurrection of Jesus at once confirms the truth of His absolute Deity and perfect humanity. It is His own omnipotent power which effected it, and on the other hand if He had not been truly man — ^body, soul and spirit — what would there have been to raise from among the dead, thus reuniting that which became separated by pass¬ ing through death. He said, ^‘Destroy this temple — He spake of the temple of His body — cmd in three days 1 will raise it up.’^ Speaking of His life. He said, ^7 have power to lay it down, and 1 have power to take it again. God the Father (Gal. 1:1; Heb. 13: 20) and the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 3: 18) are also engaged in this mighty act of power, so that we have Trinitarian unity of action displayed in the resurrection. It witnesses to the truth of His Godhead, while it also declares Him as God’s Holy One who could not see corruption, whose body, though going into the place of corruption, comes forth untouched by that which every other man’s body would suffer in the tomb, proving His perfection. He is the untainted, sinless Son of Man. According to Paul there were at least five hundred wit¬ nesses of the resurrection, many living at the time he wrote, so that if he was not correct or truthful in his account -there would doubtless be some record extant of controversy over a matter of such vital importance, while * Dr. J. H. Brookes. The Resurrection of Jesus 189 still further he asserts that he was only writing to them what already had been the constant subject of his oral ministry, along with the other apostles, as confirmed in the Acts. Make the resurrection a result of the subjec¬ tive visions of a few men, thus denying its literality, and this at one blow destroys the true meaning of the death of Jesus. The truth of His essential Deity, His perfect, unique humanity and the virgin birth, indeed His charac¬ ter, teaching, and life are all impugned. Every vital truth concerning the Person and work of Christ in life or death, the purposes of God, His blessings, and every hope for the individual and the world, demand the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus. It is into His hands as Son of Man that all things have been delivered (Heb. 2; John 3: 35; 5: 20-30; Matt. 11: 27). If the resurrection did not take place all is in vain. He is proved to be no more than any other man of whom death is the portion, and that because of sin. It means that He was not simply capable of dying, but subject to death. With this the whole structure of Christianity, more, of all divine reve¬ lation, falls to the ground. Teaching which has such a result plainly comes from only one source; its origin and development is through the machination of him who “was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth’’ (John 8: 44). II. The credibility and conclusiveness of the testimony to the resurrection needs only brief consideration for any unprejudiced mind. For those who accept the Bible as the revealed mind of God there can be no question in this matter, even though the various accounts appear to differ. 190 Modernism “The narratives of the resurrection, full of diversity in details as they are, and raising repeated puzzling questions of order and arrangement, yet not only bear consentient testimony to all the main facts, but fit into one another so as to create a consistent narrative — which has moreover the support of the contemporary testimony of Paul. The persistent attempt to explain away the facts so witnessed, or to substitute for the account which the New Testa¬ ment writers give of them some more plausible explana¬ tion, as the naturalistic mind estimates plausibility, are all wrecked on the directness, precision, and copiousness of the testimony; and on the great effects which have flowed from this fact in the revolution wrought in the minds and lives of the apostles themselves, and in the revolution wrought through their preaching of the resurrection in the life and history of the world . . . ^Unique spiritual effects,’ it has been remarked with great reasonableness, ^require a unique spiritual cause; and we shall never un¬ derstand the full significance of the cause, if we begin by denying or minimizing its uniqueness.’ ”* As to the historical sequence of the written records of the New Testament concerning the resurrection, the gen¬ erally accepted order is that Paul comes first, in 1 Cor. 15, then the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts a few years later, John coming in toward the close of the first century. Even the critics cannot raise any worth-while question as to the authenticity and genuineness of those epistles of Paul which most strongly witness to the resurrection. This alone should make us feel we are on safe ground, but when we consider the Gospels and Acts we find all these witnesses agree as to the main facts, though each may give certain details not mentioned by the others — * Benjamin B. Warfield, D. P., LL. D. The Resurrection of Jesus 191 the very variety adding strength to their united testimony instead of casting discredit upon it. Face the facts in the case as presented in these documents, study the suitability of the details given by each writer to his special object, and see their harmony in united presentation, and there can be no honest question as to the literal bodily resurrec¬ tion of the Lord Jesus. In these records there is everything necessary to abso¬ lutely establish the actuality of the event. The simplicity, straightforwardness, and unembellished language with which this stupendous event is told by these writers, is in itself a striking commendation of their record. In this it bears the Divine characteristic which is stamp)ed on all Scripture, and nowhere is it more conspicuous than when the subject is of the greatest magnitude and importance. As there is only One of whom it could be said, “Never man spake like this Man,” so there is only one Book of which it can be said, “Never book was written like this Book.” Let those who will have it other than literal resurrection explain what became of our Lord’s body, and tell us what relation to their view the oft-reiterated third day can have, and what Christianity can really mean to any sober- thinking person, if we are to accept Modernistic interpre¬ tation. III. The body of the resurrection, and the nature of the manifestations, call for a few remarks. It must be clear that when He had risen. His body was no longer subject to the same material conditions. He came forth from the closed tomb, as implied by the account in Matthew. He 192 Modernism came out of the linen clothes, leaving them in form and place as when He had been laid in the tomb; this is inti¬ mated in John’s record of Peter’s visit. He passed through closed doors (John 20: 26), and could be present at different places widely separated at no great interval (Luke 24:15,34,36). Whatever similarity there was (John 20: 27-29), a manifest difference also existed, seem¬ ing in some cases to make recognition difficult (John 20: 14; 21: 4). Plainly the Lord rose in a condition of life different from that out of which He passed in death. At resurrection, while retaining all that makes Him truly man. He was no longer in the conditions of earthly life. He had not changed, but the sphere and conditions of life had changed for Him, and the body of the resurrection was suited to this change, it being the spiritual body, so that He, the first-fruits, is the great and glorious type to the likeness of which all shall be conformed who partici¬ pate in the resurrection of life (Phil. 3: 21). That His manifestations were not phantasms, we have- His own assurance as He stands in the midst of His affrighted disciples, who supposed they beheld a spirit. ‘‘He said unto them. Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your heart? See My hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having. And when He had said this. He shewed them His hands and His feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered. He said unto them. Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish. And He took it, and did eat before them” (Luke 24: 38-43, R. V.). That He should ask for and receive food does not imply a continued dependence in resurrection upon The Resukrection of Jesus 193 such means of sustenance, but, as the connection shows, the Lord had recourse to this action for the purpose of convincing His disciples that what they saw was not a phantom. Peter uses this fact in his testimony to the resurrection (Acts 10: 40, 41). The fact of the manifest difference made it necessary for the Lord to demonstrate the reality and identity of His risen body. IV. Finally, we must trace the relation of the resurrection of Jesus to the truth of Christianity. 1. It is made the keynote of apostolic testimony. This is shown by the requirements which governed the selection of a witness to fill the place of Judas (Acts 1: 22). It is prominent in the preaching of Peter and others (Acts 2 : 32; 4: 2, 33; 10: 40). Likewise, the record given in the Acts of PauFs preaching shows that he strongly empha¬ sized it (13: 30-37; 17: 18,31; 26: 23). When we con- , sider the epistles, more than half of them contain the plainest declarations concerning the resurrection of Jesus; and they all present teaching which is not intelligent apart from its acceptance, such as for example the ascen¬ sion, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the second ad¬ vent, with the results and exhortations founded upon them. With all of this the Apocalypse very distinctly falls in line. 2. It relates especially to the truth of the Person of Christ, and the place of absolute supremacy given to Him as the glorified Man. It witnessed to His incorruptibility and absolute purity (Acts 2: 23-36; 13: 34-37). He is marked out Son of God in power by the resurrection of dead persons (Rom. 1: 4), as the statement may be more 194 Modernism properly taken to mean. Lazarus and others would be examples, but His own resurrection cannot be excluded, for it too was accomplished by His own mighty power. This, then, affirms the fact of His being the Son of God. This power of resurrection will be applied to God’s people, bringing them into the full meaning of being sons of God by fciith in Christ Jesus, but in Rom. 1 : 4 the point is more that of power applied by Him to others. Resurrection proclaims Him as the universal Judge (Acts 10: 42; 17: 31). With this we link the Lord’s own teaching in John 5. He proclaims that all judgment has been given to Him; that equal honor with the Father be longs to Him; that He raises the dead and quickens, even as the Father; and that life is inherent in Him, even as in the Father. The proof of all this will be in the mighty work of resurrection to be wrought by Him, and in con¬ nection with which He will execute judgment, as He here states. His voice will be heard and answered by all; none can escape. He rules over both dead and living; to this end He died and lived again. As risen. He de¬ clares, “All power has been given Me in heaven and upon earth.” Both Paul and Peter strongly affirm the univer¬ sality of this, and its connection with resurrection (Eph. 1: 20-23; IPet. 3: 22). Thus alone is realized the full truth of the Lord’s words spoken during His ministry among men, “All things have been delivered to Me by my Father;” and those also of John, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in His hand.” This is also closely linked with the Old Testament and its promises, for Peter declaring the resurrection of Jesus calls upon the Jews to repent, that He may come again to effect the restoring of all things of which “God has spoken by The Resurrection of Jesus 195 the mouth of His holy prophets since time began” (Acts 3: 14-21). It is the kingdom and glory which are in view, and the Lord Himself had given His disciples to under¬ stand His relation as the risen Man to the accomplishment of these divine purposes, when interpreting to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke 24: 22-27, 44-46). The fulfilment of “the sure mercies of David” is assured by the resurrection of Jesus. Finally, in resurrection He takes His place as “Last Adam,” Head of a new race. Firstborn among many brethren, all of whom live as being “in Christ,” for to them He is “a quickening Spirit,” and they are to bear His image. This brings in “new creation,” and so our identification with Christ; making the truth of resurrec¬ tion of vital importance to the Christian in relation to himself and his place, as well as in relation to Christ and His glory. 3. We may then well consider how the resurrection of Jesus is made one of the great stones of that foundation upon which the Christian must stand to insure the mean¬ ing, security and enjoyment, of his place and hope as a child of God. First, resurrection alone enables us to rightly estimate sin and its consequences. Scripture teaches that it is only as raised with Christ, as thus in identification with Him, that the believer has his place of acceptance with God. For this he must be a new creation in Christ Jesus This being so, it enforces the doctrine of man’s utter help¬ lessness to remedy his sinful condition, that he is ungodly and without strength. It is not a question of repairing the fallen creature, of healing his sinful condition, of amelior¬ ation in any form, for he is “dead in sins” and “alienated 196 Modernism from God by wicked works.” Only new creation can suit God. Man in the flesh, in identification with the Adam headship, the evil nature and^ the sins it produces, must receive well-merited judgment, and imder its execution pass away forever from before God. This is one aspect of the meaning of the death of Christ. He tasted death for everything (Heb. 2: 9, New Trans.), and if one died for all, then all have died (2 Cor. 5: 14), Christ’s death being the demonstration or proof that all were in such a state before God. This, then, declares man to be both hopeless and helpless. It is not within his own power to remedy his misery, nor will God give place to any of his own efforts to do so, for in His sight he is dead and, therefore, in a moral and spiritual state which forbids any thought of activity on his part which would be acceptable to God. Anything man does in his own fleshly energy and wisdom apart from the quickening Spirit of new crea¬ tion (as all such must be), can only have the character of ‘‘dead works.” Man’s salvation, or preservation, can not be accom¬ plished partly by his own works, and partly by the help of Christ. This truth of Scripture emphasizes in the strongest way another feature of its teaching, that of man’s complete fall and its dreadful consequences — man’s sinful helplessness and death-state toward God. It shows how terrible sin really is in God’s sight. It has put man where, as far as he himself is concerned, he can have no place before God. This is one meaning attached to the death of Christ. Man in the flesh, in this state of nature, does not, can not, live unto God. That as a creature of dust it is only in God he lives, moves, and has his being, is quite different, and has nothing to do with spiritual life The Resurrection of Jesus 197 and relation with God, with which his eternal blessing and destiny are linked. To this, resurrection alone opens the door of hope. As Christ raised from the dead is alive for¬ evermore, in an entirely new scene, the centre of a new cycle of relationships founded upon accomplished atone¬ ment, and is known no longer according to the flesh, so for him who believes in Jesus and is spoken of as risen with Christ, old things have passed away and new things have come in* (2 Cor. 5: 16, 17), all of which are of God — new nature, new life, a new sphere and order of rela¬ tionship, in short, new creation, participation in which is alone by faith in Christ Jesus. It is the resurrection of Jesus which lays the foundation for all of this, as it is His death which proves the absolute necessity for resurrec¬ tion in relation to us, both in its present moral and spirit¬ ual application, and in that of the future, to the body of all those believers who have suffered physical death, if the great blessing of living unto God is to be really and fully known. This application of the truth gives to the believer a new object, a new viewpoint, a new out¬ look, a new set of thoughts, affections, and activities, a new standard by which to judge what are the more excellent things and those which are of God, all directly connected with Christ in resurrection and glory, the last Adam, and Head of the new creation. This is the very opposite of the teaching of evolution, and conforms to that unvarying law which appears in all God’s works, whether natural or spiritual, in all His ordinances, whether they govern heavenly or earthly beings and relations, even that law stated at the very beginning of Genesis, running * So many read this text. 198 Modernism through all Scripture — “Everything after its kind,” and blest alone as keeping within its God-appointed sphere. This law extends even to man after the fall, so that of Adam it is said, he begat in his likeness, after his image; and it is made plainly applicable to the order of new creation in 1 Cor. 15; all must be after the image of the heavenly One. The whole structure of the Gospels rests upon the res¬ urrection of Christ. The fact of the death of Jesus is beyond controversy, and its scriptural meaning perfectly plain. “He died for our sins according to the Scriptures;” “He bore them in His own body on the tree;” “Our sins were laid upon Him;” “He was made an offering for sin;” “He who knew no sin was made sin for us.” In wondrous grace Christ took our place. If He did not rise, all is utterly vain, He is still under the judgment of God. “Your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins.” If Christ, absolutely perfect and sinless, is not raised, then no man can be raised. No one except Jesus could have any personal claim not to see corruption, not to be holden of death. Did then the awful weight of sin and sins make it otherwise? If so, then there can be nothing but judg¬ ment for all, His death and wow-resurrection being the solemn proof of it. There can be no atonement if such is the case. If resurrection is only a figment of the imagination, a subjective vision, then the death of Jesus can only preach our doom, our utter ruin, our hopelessly lost condition for eternity. If not this, then we must be prepared to deny that His death has anything to do with the judgment of sin as taught in Scripture; that indeed God does not judge sin in any such way; and that such a grotesque inter- The Resurrection of Jesus 199 pretation as atonement by the blood of Christ must be put down as a first century notion arising from an attempt to Christianize pagan ideas of sacrifice. This, forsooth, the 20th century must discard. What with such denials, and the enthroning of man’s own wisdom as the all- sufficient standard by which to determine the things of our faith, we may as well conclude that there is not much, if anything, left which is worthy of the name Christian. Let the Modernist discard that name too, along with his rejection of those vital truths which have given it meaning to the hearts and minds of men for nineteen hundred years. It does not belong to him, and in applying it to himself and his views he is only attempting to mas¬ querade as an angel of light, when in fact he is the minister of Satan. ‘‘Now is Christ risen from the dead.” This act of God on His behalf becomes the ground of our faith and hope in God (1 Pet. 1: 21). He who was thus raised up and given glory died for our sins, enduring the full judgment of God. This being so then the whole question of sin and sins has been settled to God’s glory, or else Christ could not be raised from the dead and return to the Father. God has set His seal upon that work of righteous¬ ness accomplished in offering Himself without spot to God, so that now there is forgiveness of sins proclaimed in His name, for there is redemption through His blood. It cleanses from all sin. This brings in the truth of our justification. He has been “delivered for our offences and raised for our justification” (Rom.4: 24). Being justified we are as those against whom no charge of sin had ever been made. This is alone true of us as being identified with Christ in the new place He fills in resurrection, with 200 Modernism death and judgment behind, and we a new creation of which He is the glorious Head. That being justified by faith is not only our acceptance of the precious blood of Christ as atoning for our sins, but also rests upon the truth of His resurrection, is proved by the case of Abra¬ ham (Rom. 4). His faith was associated with the hope concerning his seed. His own body was dead; but God had promised; he believed, and was fully persuaded that God would perform His word. But, then, this faith was in Gk)d’s power to quicken the dead, in fact, in resurrec¬ tion, by which alone the promise could be accomplished under the circumstances. By such faith was Abraham justified. The same is true of believers. That was im¬ puted to Abraham, and “not to him only, but to us also, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.” We are, then, justified in Christ (Gal. 2: 17, R. V.). “In {Greek, en) Him every one that believeth is justified” (Acts 13: 39). This leads to the subject of life. As raised with Christ, the scriptural view is that according to God’s thought Christ is the believer’s life. It must be so for new crea¬ tion, as to which He is the new life by which I live unto God, free from all judgment and sin; so that as a result, the life which I live in this body of flesh is to be practi¬ cally conformed to the mind, spirit, and character of Him who is accounted by God to be my life. The believer is to live Christ in this world. Though a poor sinner by nature and practice, through faith in Jesus as my Saviour and Lord who died and rose again, God sets me in a position before Him v;hich is alone measured in every' respect by the place of Christ as the glorified Man, the Head and Representative of the new race. This now The Resurrection of Jesus 201 becomes the standard by which to judge and hate sin with its fruits, because it is the opposite of what I actually am in God’s sight through faith in Christ. Most blessed position given in grace! Most blessed and perfect stand¬ ard and example for every phase of life! As thus ac¬ counted to be risen with Christ, and to have Him as our life, all believers are joint-participators with Him and one another, first, in the results of His atoning sacrifice, so that all that could separate from God is entirely removed; then, in His place as risen out of death, giving us a new place and sphere in which all is new and of God (only reached by us in its fulness and blessing when we shall be fully conformed to the image of Christ as Firstborn among many brethren) ; and, finally, the favor in which He is as the risen glorified Man is the favor in which all believers are for, “As He is so are we in this world” (1 John 4: 17), and, “Because I live, ye shall live also.” He is the heir of all things, and we are joint-heirs with Him (Rom. 8: 17). He is the Son, and believers are sons of God, having the Spirit of His Son, calling God “Father,” and having fellowship with the Father and the Son (Gal. 4:6; 1 John 1: 3, 4). This wondrous place and its connected relationships founded upon the death and resurrection of Jesus neces¬ sarily brings in our hope and its realization, for as being children of God we are children of the resurrection. Thus, though we are now the children of God, what we shall be has not yet been manifested. When it is manifested, “we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is,” and we shall be with Him forever. This is the Christian’s hope in Christ. If He is not risen it is utter folly, for then there can be no such event as that of His coming again, at 202 Modernism which time our hope is to be realized (1 John 3: 1-3; John 14: 1-3; Rom. 8: 18-30; Gal. 5: 5; Phil. 3: 20,21). This, too, I suppose, must come from subjective visions; but I must not anticipate, for it is the subject of our next chapter. It is the Man Jesus, God’s Son, for whom we w^ait to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1: 10). Can this be unless His bodily resurrection is true? Is it not the same Jesus who died and rose again that shall descend from heaven? (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4: 14-17). Much more might be said, but I must be content to point out as a final suggestion the bearing of this truth upon the practical Christian life. It plainly declares that man morally is utterly ruined, that God is not patching up the old, nor attempting to reform either man or his world- system; and that no matter how potential man’s faculties may be. He is bringing in what is absolutely new as to its power, character, and condition. This alone can suit God in view of man’s fallen state. The knowledge of this must clearly affect the whole manner of Christian life, both in attitude toward the world and activity in it. Christ who is our life is our great and perfect example. His life was one of continuous devoted service for God and man. He ever went about doing good. But He did not undertake the task of correcting, or bringing about a reconstruction of, the political, commercial, or social con¬ ditions of the world. He left things as He found them, moving among them, ever giving help to the needy, com¬ forting the distressed, suffering reproach, teaching the truth, but never seeking or claiming a place from and among men, and ever aiming at the individual heart and conscience, their attitude and relation Godward being of first importance. Throughout, the principle to govern is The Resurrection of Jesus 203 that of the loss of life here, the daily cross taken up as following Him; but, as a result, life is kept for and truly gained in eternity with Him. Of this His resurrection is at once the prophecy and assurance to faith, while His life and death exhibit perfectly the master principle for true Christian living and service. There are other lines of truth which might well be linked with, and considered in relation to, this great fact of the resurrection of Jesus, such as for example the work of judgment, particularly that of the wicked; and the two resurrections; and the place resurrection has in all the dispensations of God, as traced out in Scripture from the very beginning — all of which is alone validated by the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. The central place that this occupies in the purposes of God is the apostle’s theme in 1 Cor. 15. And that it is literal, bodily resurrection is clearly conveyed by one expression, among many others — ^‘Since by man came death, by man came also the res¬ urrection of the dead.” What man? The Man Christ Jesus. CHAPTER IX. The second coming of Jesus: Is it an ethical idea, or an actual personal appearing, and still future? S with the resurrection, so with the Lord’s second coming, unless there is to be an actual, personal, “^second advent of Jesus in bodily form, the lan¬ guage of the New Testament is void of meaning, unintelli- gible, and so utterly deceptive, that a dark cloud of doubt is cast over the whole book. If the writers were deluded in this; the whole of the volume is vitiated, and no confidence can be placed in any of their teachings, for this coming again is interwoven into every part of their writings. It is vital to the integrity of the book. The Lord’s ascension is necessarily related to the truth of the second coming, as it is also the fitting conclusion to the period spent by our Lord on the earth after His resurrection. The accounts of the ascension and succeed¬ ing attitude of the disciples show that they expected no further manifestations such as they had experienced dur¬ ing the forty days, so they were found together waiting for the accomplishment of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. This took place ten days later. The Lord had plainly spoken of His return to the Father from whom He had come, being sent by Him into the world.* Clearly, this return was realized at the as¬ cension. The disciples so understood it. Peter preached it; Stephen witnessed to it; Paul, along with the resur- *Lk. 22:69; John 6: 62; 8:42; 13:3; 14:12,28; 16:5, 10,16,28; 20: 17. The Second Coming of Jesus 205 rection, makes it one of the great features of his teach¬ ing.* Jesus thus entered into His glory, was received up into glory, was crowned with glory and honor, and re¬ ceived glory from God.f When He was glorified the Spirit would be given as promised (John 7: 39; 16: 7). His departure, instead of making them disconsolate and dis¬ united, only awakened joy and worship (Luke 24: 50-53; Acts 1: 13, 14). His ascension is immediately followed by angelic testimony to His return, in like manner to that in which they had seen Him taken up into heaven. As the words of Christ and the apostolic teaching — “then* word,” as He says (John 17: 20) — demand the acceptance of His literal resurrection, so, too, they absolutely require that the ascension be considered as an accomplished fact, and that His personal return be accepted as of certain occurrence. All are woven together like a threefold cord not easily broken. These three things are fundamentally linked with the truth of His Person and atoning death, both as relating to God’s glory and man’s blessing in the widest sense. All three are a matter of testimony given by the Lord Himself. I. It is easy to see that an actual personal advent of Jesus to bring about the full accomplishment of God’s purposes does not fit into the evolutionary program, any more than the fall of man can be given a place in it. Such ♦Acts 1:22; 2:33; 5:31; 7:55,56; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; 4:8,10; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10: 12; 12: 2; Rev. 12: 5. t Lk. 24 : 26 ; 1 Tim. 3 : 16 ; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 1 : 21 ; John 17: 1, 5,24. 206 JModernism events are ‘‘cataclysmic,” and the former would certainly be a “divine invasion,” if you please, a very serious in¬ trusion upon the unity, order, and eternal progress of the world. But, in reality, it is only by some form of invasion that God can enter man^s realm, man’s world-system which lies in the wicked one, for Satan is its prince and god.* Jesus, Himself, speaks of binding the strong man and spoiling his goods (Matt. 12: 25-30). Every case of true conversion is by an act tantamount to invasion, like the darkness riven by the light as a result of the Divine fiat. All production and transformation in relation to life, natural and spiritual, is by action of an invasive character. But such an invasion as contemplated by the second advent is not acceptable to evolutionary theorists, because it distinctly involves the utter failure of all hu¬ man wisdom and endeavor to attain the establishment of anything like perfect conditions among men on the earth. It preaches, in consonance with all Scripture, man’s failure, incapacity, and sinfulness, and that he is not able Jo bring in the reign of righteousness and peace with universal blessing — that golden age, the longing for which has re¬ ceived some form of expression in every age and clime, nowhere so beautifully as in the Bible. This touches man’s pride, really denies his boasted self-sufficiency, and argues against his assured progress until by his own efforts he has reached the stature of Christ. This is further intimated by the solemn work of world-judgment v/hich is connected with the second advent. When He comes in power and with great glory. He will gather *lJohn 5:19; John 12: 31; 14:80; 16:11; Eph.2:2; 2 Cor. 4 : 4. The Second Coming ('f Jesus 207 out of His kingdom all things that offend (Matt. 13: 41). Then shall a king ‘‘reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. And a Man (who can doubt what [Man?) shall be a hiding-place from the wind, and a covert from the storm; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land . . . and the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever’’ (Isa. 32: 1,2,17). To make this coming of Christ something of an ethical nature evacuates language of all meaning. By such a law of interpretation there is nothing written that could carry certain assurance concerning any fact. It is “handling the Word of God deceitfully” (2 Cor. 4: 2). The whole Modernist system is fittingly described by Paul when, speaking of the New Testament ministry in particular, he says it was given “in order that we be may no longer babes., tossed and carried about by every wind of teaching which is in the sleight of men, in unprincipled cunning, with a view to systematized error.”* The Modernist, following his so-called historical method, traces the hopes of Christ’s glorious second advent to set * Eph. 4 : 14, New Translation. “Lit., tending to the system of error. R. V., after the wiles of error. Medodeia means a deliberate planning^ or system. Of error in¬ cludes the idea of deceit or delusion. Error organizes. It has its systems and its logic. Ellicott remarks that here it is almost personified” (Dr. M. R. Vincent in “IPord Studies.”). The issue between Modernism and New Tes¬ tament Christianity is plain. Which is to be judged as the system of error? 208 iMODERNISM up His kingdom on earth, to the train of Jewish thought developed out of “their desperate national circumstances,” which gave birth “to the hope of their Messiah’s sudden coming on the clouds of heaven for their help. Between the Testaments this expectation expanded and robed itself with pomp and glory, so that when the Christians came they found await¬ ing them a phrasing of hope which they accepted to body forth their certainty of God’s coming sovereignty over all the earth. This expectation of coming triumph was not progressive; it was cataclysmic. It did not offer the prospect of great gains to be worked for over long periods of time; it offered a divine invasion of history imme¬ diately at hand. It was pictured not in terms of human betterment to be achieved, but of divine action to be awaited. The victory would suddenly come like the flood in Noah’s day, like the lightning flashing from one end of the heaven to the other, like a thief in the night.”* Thus apostolic Christianity absorbed the Jewish ideas, and associated them with Jesus. Consequently most eager expectation ruled the early Christians. This, it is argued soon grew dim through change of circumstances, resulting in emphasis being removed from “what Christ would do for his people when he came upon the clouds of heaven to what he was doing for them through his spiritual presence with them. Even in the Fourth Gospel one finds this good news that Christ had already come again in the hearts of his people insisted on in evident contrast with the apocalyptic hope literally con¬ ceived. (?). For another thing, dramatic hopes of a sudden invasion of the world are always the offspring of desperate conditions. Only when people are hard put to it do they * ^‘Christianity and Progress/^ pp. 18, 19, Fosdick. The Second Coming of Jesus 209 want history catastrophically stopped in the midst of its course. The Book of Daniel must be explained by the tyrannies of Antiochus Epiphanes (?), the Book of Reve¬ lation by the persecutions of Domitian (?), the present recrudescence of pre-millennialism by the tragedy of the Great War. But when the persecution of the Church by the State gave way to the running of the State by the Church ; when to be a Christian was no longer a road to the lions but the sine qua non of prefer¬ ment and power; when the souls under the altar ceased crying. ‘How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ? ’ then the apocalyptic hopes grew dim and the old desire for a kingdom immediately to come was subdued to an expectation, no longer imperative and urgent, that sometime the course of history would stop on Judgment Day.”* These “Greek and Roman, Hebrew and Christian con' tributions” are to be rejected because they contained “no suggestion of a modem idea of progress.” The Greek and Roman outlook was non-progressive. For them, in the main, there was only the constant re¬ current cycles of history, each beginning in perfection, and finally falling into min. To this, it is said, the He¬ brews added a dramatic picture of God’s final triumph, resulting in earth’s golden age, some slight intimation of which at least may also be found in Greek and Roman thought. The Christian took up all of these ideas and wove them into his plan. This is the value of apostolic teaching for us ( ! ? ) . Again it is said, “Jesus adopted the current Jewish ideal [the Messianic kingdom] and adapted it to His ideal ... if we thought * Christianity and Progress,'^ pp. 20, 21, Fosdick. 2i0 Modernism that Jesus essayed to be the Messiah of the Jews, to bring to fruitage their conception of it* and that He failed in his attempt at his last entrance into Jerusalem, a poor deluded religious and national zealot, then we should write no more, nor would there ever have been any church history to be read . . . His disciples never understood his conception. They have handed it down, clothed with their own preconceptions.! ^But it seems a perverse blind¬ ness to what is palpably distinctive in the teaching of Jesus, to hold Him to have been possessed by the apo¬ calyptic conceptions of the kingdom which ruled the mind of the people.^ “In St. John’s Gospel we find that the conception of eternal life is equated with and takes the place of that of the kingdom of God, this latter being used but twice * It may be well to remark that this is practically the Old Testament conception that is referred to, even those glowing word-pictures of the Messiah and His glorious kingdom which so largely abound in the Prophets. It is true that the people, while holding to this conception, had failed to apprehend weighty moral and spiritual truth con¬ nected with it, and this contributed very largely to the rejection of Jesus, yet in no way does this vitiate the kingdom-conception in its apocalyptic character. t The conception above referred to was held by the Lord and His inspired apostles. If not, we must charge these writers with wilful perversion of His views, and that by putting words into His mouth which He never uttered! Thus they made Him the exponent of their preconceptions ! If this be so, we must tear out every reference to the apo¬ calyptic conception of the kingdom from our Bibles; tins would include the teaching concerning the second coming of Jesus. This, as to the New Testament alone, would mutilate every book in it, casting the gravest doubt upon every part of it. The Second Coming of Jesus 211 ir. this Gospel. The whole of Jesus’ teaching shows this to have been His conception of his work and mission, rather than that of the Jewish conception of the Kingdom of God.* The category used is biological rather than political, T am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.’ Both St. Matthew and St. Mark preserve some of Jesus’ biological conception, amidst their Hebraic clothes of Messianism, wherewith they marred his form (!?). Either Jesus was a deluded zealot, or his disciples misunderstood Him. ^Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.’ They took this literally, if they did not put it into his mouth. If he uttered this he did not take it literally, or, he was mistaken. “Upon the whole, the judgment of the church has been right in rejecting millenarianism. It has flourished only sporadically in small sects of zealots for the Jewish conception.”! This is about all we are given as a guide to interpret the great mass of Scripture which treats of the Second Coming of Jesus. In this, I am inclined to think, the dissipation of the true meaning presents too great a task even for Modernists, so that it is judiciously left, while they rely on the mass of their other perversions of funda¬ mental Christian doctrine to so enlighten (?) their fellov- mortals that this truth will not be a cause of concern. In the light of all the rest, it simply cannot be what the * Here the argument is made to rest on the Gospel of John which the critics so boldly declare cannot be accepted as authoritative. For the answer to this see Genuineness of John^s Gospel, Appendix. Here it pleases the Modernist to use it to discredit the Synoptic Gospels, simply because in them the second coming is so plainly taught. Again, I must remark, “The legs of the lame hang loosely.” f Modernism in Religion,” pp. 29, 30. J. M. Sterret. 212 Modernism language implies. The fact is, that the statements of Scripture on this subject are so clear and definite as to defy even their amazing ingenuity to make them consist of mere ethical notions. Since this doctrine, like many others, does not accord with 20th century ideas, there is only one thing to do with it, and that is, reject it as a product of about two millenniums ago, when man’s mind was still uninstructed in the marvels of evolutionary theory, and still fettered by tradition, liberation from which has been achieved by the modem historico-critical methods of investigation. Let those who will enjoy such freedom (?) and the enlightenment it is supposed to impart, but every sincere Christian can only consider it as bondage to powers of spiritual wickedness, the universal lords of this darkness, who withstand the tmth through the employ¬ ment of human instruments. Against these he must wres¬ tle, as taking up the panoply of God which alone can enable him to withstand in the evil day, and having ac¬ complished all things,* in spite of opposition, to stand (Eph. 6: 10-13). * That is, *‘Ever3dhing which the crisis demands.” Who can doubt the present crisis? The need is “to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” And Jude turns us back to “the words spoken before by the apostles of our Lord J esus Christ,” particularly as to mock¬ ers like those of whom Peter speaks : “I stir up your sincere minds by putting you in remembrance; that ye should remember the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles: knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying. Where is the promise of His coming?” Paul and John join in giving the same warning. We are The Second Coming cf Jesus 213 II. The New Testament teaches the personal return of the Lord Jesus with special reference to the Church, and also to establish His kingdom in heavenly glory on the earth. Anyone reading through the Book, even casually, could not fail to arrive at this conclusion. In relation to the Church it is shown to be an ever-present expectation, eagerly awaited; and, as constantly entertained by the Christian, exercises a directive influence in his daily life, effecting practical purification (1 John 3:3). It is spoken of as the Christian’s blessed hope, his com¬ fort, his redemption as regards the body, his deliverance out of all present conditions, his time of reward, his ac¬ tual presence with the Lord, his coming with the Lord to reign over the earth, his participation in the kingdom and glory as being an heir of God, joint-heir with Christ.* * It is the time of resurrection for all those who have died in Christ, and of change for all who, believing in Him according to the Scriptures, may be alive at the moment of His coming. Then full conformation to the image of the heavenly One will be accomplished, and He be dis¬ played as the Firstborn among many brethren, the many sons who are being led to glory by Him, the Captain of their salvation.f in the days of which these apostles spoke. This is at least one evidence that '^Scripture can not be broken.” * Titus 2: 13; 1 Thess. 4: 18; Phil. 3: 20, 21; Rom. 8: 17- 24 ; Rev. 22 : 12 ; 1 Cor. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Thess. 1 : 5 • 10; Rev. 2:25-29; 3:21,22. 1 1 Thess. 4 : 13-17 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 23, 42-58 ; Rom. 8 : 11, 29. 214 Modernism Nearly every New Testament book contains direct re¬ ferences to this great event. It is made to bear upon every aspect of Christian life and hope. It is blessedly related to the meaning of Christ’s first coming. Then He accomplished eternal redemption by the sacrifice of Him¬ self on the cross, and laid the foundation for all blessing according to God’s glory, so making possible on an abso¬ lutely righteous basis the accomplishment of God’s eternal purpose in Him. By His work on the cross He made it possible for the forgiveness of sins to be preached in His name, and to be granted to every one believing in Him. In the fulness of time, at the appointed hour. He ap¬ peared to put away sin by His own sacrifice. Thus He opened the door for poor sinful creatures through faith in Him as Saviour and Lord to have eternal participation with Him in all the glorious inheritance to which He had been appointed in God’s eternal purpose. The knowledge of all that belongs to faith, on the basis of the work accomplished when He first appeared, is indeed already given, but actual possession in fulness and glory awaits the Lord’s second coming. Then the purposed consum¬ mation is reached, and perfect entrance is given into all that “new creation” means. Thus the wondrous results of His atoning sacrifice only find full revelation at the second coming. It introduces to them. Indeed, it is called “salvation,”* though it by no means is all that Scripture teaches us to include in that precious word. The Thessalonian Epistles make plain that this hope, this waiting for the Son from heaven, was of the very essence of Christianity, and a marked feature of the apos- *Heb. 9: 28; 1 Pet. 1: 5,13; Roni.l3:ll with Phil. 3: 20, 21, The Second Coming of Jesus 215 tolic Church. As a constant expectation, it had a direct effect upon Christian attitude toward the world, Christian service in the world, and Christian comfort, whether in the hour of persecution or death. It conduced to a patient spirit, to holy living, to ardent love and self-sacrificing ministry; detaching mind and heart from worldly ob¬ jects and pursuits, and attaching them to heavenly things; making Christ the great object in all things, so that His mind and spirit found living expression in His devoted followers. When this great hope began to languish in the Church, with the consequent loss of practical power over Christian life, the Church began to lose her distinctive character. She became merged with the world, animated with its spirit, and instead of sharing the path of rejection and suffering which her heavenly Head and Lord had endured in the world, and which He said would be the portion of His people if faithful to His name, she attained the place of preferment and rule, until in utter debasement she no longer could be considered as representing Christ. In fact, as early as John’s closing years, true representation of Christ and His death was beginning to be found only in a remnant in the worldly church. The history of the Church is the saddest of all histories, when considered in the light of the New Testament revelation of Christ’s desire and God’s purpose concerning it. In character, it is indeed the same kind of history which man always makes in connection with any divine institution com¬ mitted to his responsibility. The story of Adam’s fail repeats itself all along the line; but it is saddest in relation to the Church, because of the immense increase of divine knowledge and privilege granted to her through the grace and love of God revealed in His Son. 216 Modernism III. The more orderly treatment of scripture teaching as to the second coming of Jesus I shall leave for the next chapter, concluding this one by simply pointing out what this coming can not be, by reason of the very circum¬ stances connected with it. It can not be the coming of the Holy Spirit, either at Pentecost, or to individual believers during this present period of God’s grace, for the Holy Spirit (having come) speaks by Peter of the return of Jesus to effect future restoration and blessing. The coming of the Spirit, and the still future coming of Jesus, to receive His own and conduct them into the Father’s house, are clearly distin¬ guished in John 14. Further, none of the dead were raised, nor the living changed as to their bodies, when the Spirit came, nor did world-judgment ensue. It can not refer to the death of the Christian, for his present body is then vacated, and the spirit goes to be with the Lord, remaining in an “unclothed” state until the resurrection at Christ’s second coming. Then also those believers who are alive on the earth will have their present bodies instantly changed to a fashion like unto the Lord’s body of glory. The believing dead raised, the spirit clothed with its heavenly and spiritual body, and the living believers likewise changed, all will be united in one company to be forever with the Lord. Plainly, it can not be at what we call conversion, that is, when we are “born again,” and receive through faith in Christ the gift of God which is eternal life in Christ Jesus, thus commencing a new history as living unto God in Christ. All this brings blessed assurance that what is The Second Coming of Jesus 217 involved in this spiritual work will be made good in per- fection when the Lord comes, and He is seen as He is. It can not be the end of the world, for the Second Coming is introductory to the millennial reign of Christ over the earth, and the great work of gathering together in one all things which are in heaven and on earth under His authority. Thus Scripture associates the destiny of Israel, and of all nations, with the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Second Coming of Christ is of utmost importance to the individual Christian, to the Church as a whole, to the people of Israel, to the world at large, and, reverently let me say, to God Himself, for all things have been com¬ mitted to Christ whether in the realms of life, or death, or divine purpose. He is the first and the last, the One that liveth and was dead, but is alive forevermore, and He has the keys of death and hades. He says, “Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with Me, to render to every one as his work shall be. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” It can not be, instead of a physical second advent, a moral and spiritual return or coming of repeated occur¬ rence during the course of human history, taking place at every crisis in human affairs when there is the collapse of some existing order of society, so that upon such lower¬ ing clouds of trouble the glorious Son of Man comes riding with the hope of finding faith upon the earth, to bring about on each such occasion a new beginning upon new principles. In advocating this idea, it is boldly said that Jesus in what He says about His coming again is simply “giving us a reading of human history. It is a story punc- 218 Modernism tuated with recurring disaster, and in every such time of trouble there is a return of that Son of God who is ever offering Himself to mankind.’’* We are assured that “the New Testament teaches repeated or continuous com¬ ings of Christ, rather than one second coming.” There are at least five, and we are told that they are: 1. The coming at the time of social upheaval. 2. The coming within “this generation.” 3. The coming at His resurrection. 4. The coming as the Holy Spirit (John 14: 18). 5. His coming at the death of a disciple (John 14: 3). Further, we must not think that Christ meant a phy¬ sical return. His language must not be accepted literally. Christ’s meaning was figurative and spiritual. “The apos¬ tles may themselves have been misled by the Rabbinical type of interpretation of their day, and so may have taken Jesus literally.” Their language, like His, must be inter¬ preted as figurative and spiritual. Then we can hardly think of these apostles and prophets of the New Testa¬ ment as inspired men giving forth God-breathed Scrip¬ tures, they were simply guided by first century notions and Rabbinical traditions! Of the various comings mentioned, the first and fifth are to be considered as continually recurring. The others, I suppose, are to be counted as fulfilled. At every time of social upheaval we are to read an accomplishment of * This, and the following quotations in this chapter, are from **Religion and Modern Thought — the return of Je¬ sus by A. R. Belden, B. A., in The Review and Expositor for April, 1923, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The Second Coming of Jesus 219 those signs of the coming of which the Lord spoke, for they are not to be thought of as indicating “a cosmic up-^ heaval, but a social collapse” — the end of some particular order of human society on the planet, so that a new be¬ ginning may be made. This is brought about by Jesus coming “ ‘upon the clouds' of human disturbance.” We are warned that these disasters or collapses of the world's life must recur “until humanity agrees to build its life upon the principles and leadership of God’s Son,” and of course it is this which He is trying to effect every time He comes when such events take place; but thus far He has failed to fully convince the great world-builders that they are still using untempered mortar, and have not been fully guided by “the Divine laws of human society” — the ethical teachings of Jesus, I suppose. Why does He not use His power to impose His king¬ dom upon the world? Is it not the very best form of kingdom men could have? In fact, the language used to describe His coming again seems to indicate the use of power to force subjection. Ah, but His language is figura¬ tive and spiritual! The militant figures which are used to describe His second coming simply indicate His gentle ethic suasion! We are told that Jesus will never force His kingdom upon men, for did He not refuse to do that very thing when here? The second advent as a return of Jesus to impose His kingdom with absolute power, “ is the sort of tyran¬ nical procedure we will not permit to anyone else.” This implies, of course, that the right to pursue such a course would not be even yielded to Jesus; but then He would never seek it, or attempt to force anything upon the world (?). 220 iModernism “After such a war as we have waged against brute force, such a picture of Christ as a celestial Kaiser or Crown Prince is repugnant in the last degree, and demon¬ strably false. How utterly it contravenes the teaching and example of our Lord! Is Jesus ultimately to surrender to the temptation He fought so successfully in the wilder¬ ness and at Nazareth — ^the temptation to ‘force’ this king¬ dom upon men? Never! “Of one thing we may be quite sure, God will never force the human situation nor the human heart. He is a God of peace, not for a dispensation only, but forever and forever.” Why, Jesus has come again and again during the past centuries, and will come, and come again; in fact, every great revolution of human order witnesses such a coming, each time a step in advance being taken until the great evolutionary plan reaches its consummation. Listen ! When “we look back upon the history of the Christian era, it is wonderful how this view of history is vindicated” ( ?) A few examples are adduced. 1. The overthrow of Jeru¬ salem, A.D. 70. “It was a time of terrible judgment and suffering, but of sublime Christian opportunity . . . The cloud of Israel’s judgment was a throne of glory and power for Israel’s rejected Messiah . . . Thus in the life of that generation, as Jesus promised, men saw the king¬ dom of Heaven coming with power.” 2. The fall of the Roman empire. This effected the deliverance of the na¬ tions from its oppressive and corrupt bondage. Thus “again the moulds of custom and stereotyped thought were broken, and an opportunity of fresh entry for the Truth of Truths occurred. One of the direct results was an outburst of missionary fervor,” and “the foundations of Western Christianity vrere laid afresh.” Jesus had come The Second Coming of Jesus 221 again! (?) 3. “That terrible event, the irruption of Mohammedanism.” Among its results was a great diffu¬ sion of learning, its re-birth in fact; and this, we are told, led straight to the Reformation, thus “a still wider way was made for Christ into the world.” Think of it! Jesus had come again, this time riding upon the dark clouds of the Saracen scourge with all its awful evil and bloodthirsty fanaticism. Thus one of the world^s new births took place. In like manner we are to think of (4) the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars, and fin¬ ally (5) of “the great upheaval of our own time . . . This great catastrophe, springing as it did from the refusal of Europe to build upon the foundation of Christ, has never¬ theless liberated humanity for new ideas . . . The passing of the old order yields hope and opportunity for the i new.” So Christ came again in 1914, this time making the horrors of German militarism and ruthlessness His chariot, that upon the ruin wrought by these destructive forces a new and virile world-order might be built, worthy j of the name of Christian! Of this Modernism is the foundation! How awful will be the next upheaval needed ’I to demonstrate its folly and sin, showing that men are i still blind to the only way of life and peace, f After all, does it not seem that force must be used? Will anything else prevail to establish the reign of right- j eousness — the kingdom of the Son of Man? But it must I be the force of Divine invasion, such as both the Old and I New Testaments present in connection with the actual j coming and visible manifestation of the glory of Jesus as f Lord of lords and King of kings. Any other interpretation of the Scriptures which speak of the Second Coming in J relation to the kingdom, is utterly fanciful and childish. 222 [Modernism to say the least. What we have just considered, the Modernist viewpoint, merits stronger condemnation. Ethi¬ cal, indeed, it is made to be, for the coming is realized in “the increasing presence of Christ in human life.” For this we are to “watch;” for in “the distress of nations” we are to see “the great opportunity for Christian re¬ construction, and find the glory and power of Christ in the cloud.” Finally, “It is as Son of Man — as the very soul of humanity — that Jesus is to return. His first incarnation was individual, His second, as St. Paul daringly taught, is to be social, ‘Ye are the body of Christ.’ ” So the social upheavals, some examples of which have been given, are the travail-pains of humanity’s birth after this order — the bringing about of the second incarnation. The race is to become incarnate — God manifest in flesh. This is the teaching of religio-evolutionary Modernism. Eveiy^ crisis in human history it considers a step forward toward this consummation, and at each such period Christ comes to help onward the movement up to Deity of the former ape-like man. The sinister power which is deluging the world with the blasphemous literature of Modernism is easily detected by an}^ sincere Christian acquainted with the Word of God. The power manifested, and the voice heard, leading on in this apostasy, are those of “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan.” CHAPTER X. Conclusion: a brief statement of Biblical truth as to God — Christ — the Spirit — Israel — the Church — creation and nature — man^ his nature, fall, salvation, des¬ tiny — world-conditions and their consum¬ mation — the Second Coming I. — God: immanent, transcendent « The two opening chapters of the book of God are introductory to the whole volume. In majestic, yet divinely simple language they delineate the good and perfect work of God, unmarred as yet by the creature’s failure. The remainder of the Word occupies us with the marvelous fact (presented in various ways, and in successive steps of divine revelation) that God is now at work to retrieve the ruin wrought by sin ; and that the triumphant end is to be the establishment of the ne^v heavens and new earth in eternal perfection and relation¬ ship with Himself, all being grounded upon the work of redemption accomplished by Christ. Yet all this has been no after-thought with God, as these two chapters of His book clearly testify when typically interpreted in the light of the New Testament. These things have been His eternal purpose and counsel, so that His work in the material creation is made to express these His most cherished thoughts. He is thus blessedly, gloriously im¬ manent in all. What rest it gives, what soothing balm to the troubled mind, to turn from the fallacious theories of men and the wanton complexity of their wild reasonings, to the sub- 224 [Modernism lime but divinely simple words which open these chapters: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ! ’’ Every mist is gone. The beclouded thoughts of man are suddenly and perfectly illuminated. The per¬ plexities have vanished, one and all. Man’s search after truth has ended; here it is found. All the theories, every one of which left the enigma of creation unexplained, and its secret beyond the grasp of man, are useless now; God has given the answer. In it He has, as it were, said, “The world by Us wisdom shall not know Me. It must wait on Me to know what, apart from My willingness to reveal it, is unknowable. I will be the Teacher; only those who will learn of Me will be found wise.” As I have remarked, sublime simplicity marks these two chapters. Their style is in great contrast to all the legendary accounts of the nations of antiquity, even though the latter contain certain elements of similarity. No obscurity is here, nor exaggeration; weird imagination plays no part. Beautifully simple, yet divinely emphatic, their language is,“God created,” “God said,” “God made.” It is God’s work all through. Even a child may under¬ stand. Without preliminary, this scriptural record brings mind and soul into immediate touch with God. It pre¬ dicates His existence before all creating; therefore His eternity of Being. It preaches His Almighty power, in¬ finite wisdom, absolute will and perfect goodness. It refutes atheism and materialism, for here matter is cre¬ ated; and polytheism, for it speaks of one God perfectly good; and pantheism in every form, for God is not crea¬ tion but the Creator, independent of, and apart from crea¬ tion; and fatalism, for God is sovereign, being absolutely free to act. Conclusion 225 The Spirit of God broods over the scene presented to us here. While this may intimate that God is a spirit, the complete revelation of this Book makes known the perfect distinctness of the Divine Person referred to. The light, already existent, for we are told God dwells in it, breaks through the darkness, giving expression to the mind of God who spoke and it was done. This must surely intimate to the spiritual mind that Word and Light whose blessed figure becomes so familiar to us in the fulness of Divine revelation; He who, though eternally existent, came forth in the course of the ages as the Son, who as set in the heavens is the Ruler of the eternal day. Creation comes forth into its perfect order at the bid¬ ding of the Word, and man, a new creature, crowns the glorious work of reconstruction and creation. To man an estate is given, his work and rule defined, his consort presented. There follows the test of these responsible and moral beings. The fall results, and from this false start the great world-system develops. Then, too, God began to work out His purposes through succeeding dispensations in relation to both the earth and heavens, the Old Testa¬ ment dealing with the former, and the New Testament chiefly with the latter. The two first chapters of God’s Book are a marvelous preface to this, for in the light of the complete revelation given to us in Scripture, in their beauty and simplicity they are seen to be a prophecy of all time. They carry us back to the remotest bounds of the past, and onward to the transcendent glory of the eternal day. The material creation is here made the mirror in which the image of the spiritual is clearly dis¬ cerned. God’s last thought is seen to be His first. It is the new creation, in its successive steps of progress, its 226 Modernism eternal relationships and blessings, that is before God’s mind. And as this is formed out of creatures who are morally and spiritually ruined by the fall, and who are transformed by the spiritual work of God in grace and by the Spirit, so we see here the fair, beautiful and perfect cosmos fashioned from the ruin of the first creation. As Adam was set over the scene of perfect physical and material blessing, so Christ is the Head of the new creation, and of Him, as I have set forth in an earlier chapter, Adam is said to be a figure. So, having this introduction, the volume closes with the heavens and earth filled with One Presence and One Glory for eternity, a consummation finally reached through the second advent and its related events. The promise of the coming closes this wondrous Book, which teaches us that God is im¬ manent in and through all, yet ever transcendent to all, and revealed to us in the unity of three Persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — eternally and essentially the same in nature and attributes, coequal in all glory, and ever acting in perfect unison. The phenomena of matter and mind bear witness to the immanency of God. He has placed His indelible imprint upon all creation, physical and spiritual. In the operation of all' the forces and agencies which come under our ob¬ servation, we may see a manifestation of God as ini- manent in all His works. “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” He is the Divine Preserver as well as the Divine Creator. The religio-evolutionist may admit a special and supernatural act of original creation, but thereafter no intrusion in any form is allowable; and then to escape the notion of an absentee God, with all its evil consequences, he becomes a pantheist, with bad moral or Conclusion 227 spiritual results for the unsatisfied and often distressed heart of man. By the grace of the evolutionist the Almighty is allowed to come forth, create, give life, set in motion, and look on the scene, but then He must retire, and leave the whole to nature and its laws. Does the engine speed along the rails simply by the natural power of steam? There is a hand which controls. The uni¬ verse may seem like a great machine, moved by natural laws and powers, but God’s hand controls, sustains, directs the multiform activities of creation, and also governs in the affairs of men and nations. Eternity alone will un¬ ravel all, making apparent the fitness of each and every part to the whole vast plan of the eternal purpose; hence the utter folly of any finite creature like man (who can only observe an infinitesimal period in the age-times) to pronounce upon the ways or wisdom of the Infinite. The testimony of Scripture crowns the witness given by all the phenomena of matter and mind and the events of history, in as far as these things are subject to human investiga¬ tion. God is mirrored for us in all the departments of creation — material, physical, spiritual — and His wondrous glory is given perfect form and expression in His book of perfect revelation. In it the Divine Personality lives and moves. To this its every page bears witness. In it the immanence of God in the natural realm,* as well as the moral and spiritual, is fully revealed. David could sweetly sing, he who could assert that the Spirit of Je¬ hovah spake by him (2 Sam. 23:2), saying to God, ♦ Gen. 8: 22; 9: 13, 14; Job 34: 13-15, 21-28; 36; 26 through ch. 38; Ps. 104 and 147; Matt. 6 : 26, 28-30 ; Acts 7:48,49; 17: 27, 28. 228 Modernism ‘‘Thou visited the earth, and waterest it: Thou greatly enrichest it with the river of God, which is full of water: Thou preparest them corn when Thou hast so provided for it: Thou makest it soft with showers: Thou blessest the springing thereof. Thou crownest the year with Thy goodness; and Thy paths drop fatness” (Ps. 65: 9-11). Then as to God’s relation to the affairs of men and na¬ tions, there could be no more conclusive testimony than that given by all the prophets. Human history and des¬ tiny alone get their true meaning for us when seen in the tight of the Word of God. Thus, too. He is seen moving through it all. We may rightly think, then, of God as immanent in all creation, but He is ever transcendent to all. He has formed all ; and in all there will be found that which bears a witness to Him; and all is absolutely in His hand, con¬ tributing to His purposes; He sustains, controls, operates through all. The pantheist would say that the creation upon which he looks is God, but Scripture teaches us to recognize God in not that all is God. He, as man also, is distinct from, yet manifested in, and identified with, all his works. Man, as having been made in the image and likeness of God, though this be so greatly marred by the fall, still exhibits that which may teach us lessons concerning God and His relations to crea¬ tion. God who is thus immanent in all, yet essentially distinct by virtue of personality, is so because He is omni¬ present, omniscient, and omnipotent.* These are attri- *Any good Subject Index, or Topical Text Book, of the Scriptures will furnish the reader with a large number of passages in both the Old and New Testaments which ascribe these attributes to God. Conclusion 229 butes of His being. Thus He is transcendent to all that in which nevertheless we may find the fact of immanency manifested. Nothing in the vast realm of creation pos¬ sesses such elements of being, though in all He who does possess them intrinsically gives forth some expression of Himself, so that we may speak of Him as immanent in all. Without attempting to present the great mass of scrip¬ tures which furnish the textual proof, easily found by any who desire it, we can without fear of contradiction assert that all Scripture consistently presents God as cre¬ ating, sustaining, governing, redeeming, judging; as abso¬ lutely perfect in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness and faithfulness; having life in Himself underived, inexhaus¬ tible, He being self-existent and eternal; unlimited by time, unchangeable in nature and purpose; the only One absolute in sovereignty; and as to His essential being, invisible, unsearchable, incorruptible, immortal, immuta¬ ble. The unity of God is everywhere emphasized, while this is also clearly made to consist in the truth of the three Divine Persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — dis¬ tinct Persons, in distinct relations both to each other and the whole universe, yet separate from all other beings, each having ascribed to Him the names and attributes of Deity. The full revelation of this is given in the New Testament; the Old Testament, however, giving unmis¬ takable evidence of Trinity in unity, a striking feature of which is the frequent use of the name Elohirn^ by which God is introduced to us in the first verse of His book. It is a plural noun, not to be explained by the Rabbinical *It occurs about 2700 times. 230 Modernism idea of it being a plural of majesty, for God Himself explains its meaning by making use of the pronouns “We,’^ “Our,’’ when speaking of Adam’s creation. Since the singular form, Eloah, is also used many times,* and natur¬ ally suggests the thought of God being the only one, there can be no real question that Elohim signifies plur¬ ality, while the fact that it is accompanied with singular conjuncts, prominently conveys the thought of unity in plurality. This is conclusively presented in Deut. 6:4: “Hear thou, O Israel, Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah.” As remarked, it is in the New Testament we get the distinctness of the Divine Persons revealed; this being consequent upon the coming of the Eternal Son and the completed revelation given by the Eternal Spirit through His chosen instruments — the apostles and prophets of the New Testament. The incarnation commenced the dis¬ closure, the light of which now enables us to see many of the veiled intimations of the truth of the Trinity given in the Old Testament. The glorious God revealed to us in it becomes known now as the Father, manifested in and by the Son, who not only speaks of Him as the eternally Divine and distinct Person to whom belongs all that the older revelation makes known concerning Deity, but de¬ clares Himself as one with and coequal to the Father, as¬ cribing also in unmistakable language, the same place, character, and personality, to the Holy Spirit. The fact that this unity and equality of the Divine Persons is re¬ vealed beyond any serious question in the Scriptures, makes the truth concerning the person of Christ of funda¬ mental importance from every possible viewpoint. To a brief summary of this I must now turn. * It is used over 50 times. Conclusion 231 II. — ^The Person of Christ The association in equality of the Lord Jesus with God the Father is found throughout the New Testament. He is presented as a distinct Person, existent before being in this world as man. Not only pre-existent, but uncreated and co-eternal with the Father, pre-eminent over all cre¬ ated beings and things. Himself the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the One to whom the names and attri¬ butes of Deity are applied, for whom equally with the Father universal honor, worship, and dominion are claimed. All of this as fully and absolutely pertained to Him in unbroken continuity during His sojourn on earth as ever before or since. “From everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.” He was manifest in flesh, perfectly and com¬ pletely Man in all that that means, sin apart. To Him, the meek and lowly One, the wonderful name of Jehovah belongs. This marks Him as not merely pre¬ existent but self-existent, eternal. Its application to Christ may be traced in the following scriptures — Isa. 6 : 3 with John 12: 40, 41; Isa. 8: 13, 14 with 1 Pet. 2:8; Isa. 40: 3 with Matt. 3:3, where the prophetic word is applied to John as the herald of Christ. Jer. 23: 6 with 1 Cor. 1: 30; Ps. 97: 9 with John 3: 31; Prov. 16: 4 with Col. 1: 16,17. Compare also Exod. 3: 13-16 with John 8: 58, linking this with the wonders in Egypt which are stated to be for the purpose of manifesting Jehovah (Exod. 7:5). He who, wearied with His journey, sat at Jacob’s well, who wept with the sorrowing sisters over one He witli them dearly loved, and who sought refreshment in sleep after the toil of the day. He it was who created all things, upholding them by the word of His power. He is the 232 Modernism Creator: — Isa. 40: 28; John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1: 16; Heb. 1: 2, 3; Neh. 9: 6 with Col. 1: 17; 1 Cor. 8: 6. He whose ways of perfect lowliness and grace we trace through Gospel narratives, is none less than the great ‘‘I AM,” The Eternal. So Isaiah speaks of Him (40: 28), and Micah(5: 2) ; John 1:1; Heb. 1: 8-13; Rev. 22: 12,13; Isa. 41:4; 44:6; Rev. 1 : 8, 17, 18; Rom. 9:5; Jer. 10: 10 with 1 Tim. 1: 17. He is OMNIPRESENT — ^John 3: 13; 14: 23; Rev. 3: 20; Matt. 18: 20; 28: 20; Mk. 16: 20; Isa. 57: 15 with Micah 5: 2 and Matt. 2:6; Eph. 1: 23. He is OMNIPOTENT — Phil. 3: 20, 21; Gen. 17:1 with Rev. 1:8; Isa. 9:6; John 10:17,18; 11:25; ICor. 1: 24; 2Tim. 1: 10. He is OMNISCIENT — ^John 2: 24, 25; 16: 30; 21: 17; Heb. 4: 12, 13 with Rev. 19: 13; 1 Sam. 16: 7 with Matt. 9: 4; 11: 27. Mystery it is, not to be explained by the ingenuity of human reason, and possible to be known alone by divine revelation, that the Babe born in Bethlehem’s manger should be at the same time God over all blessed forever. This, however. Scripture abundantly affirms. It is the Eternal who came among us in human guise, in marvelous self-abasement and humiliation, to display to men in the intimacy of this near place v\^hich He entered, the power, the grace, the love, the truth, in short, “the fulness of the Godhead,” which dwelt in Him (Col. 2:9). Therefore He, “being the effulgence of His (God’s) glory and the very image of His substance” (Heb. 1 : 3, R. V.), “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1: 15), is thus the Revealer, “the Word of God” (Rev. 19: 13). Well may He say, “I am Conclusion 233 the Light of the world” (John 8: 12; 9: 5), and He only is “the true Light” (John 1:9). It is John who so fully unfolds the divine glory and eternal relationship of our blessed Lord. How amazingly comprehensive are the first three verses of his Gospel! Who but the Spirit of God could indite them? The eternity, distinct personality, absolute Deity, His ever be¬ ing a • distinct Person, and His creatorship, are clearly affirmed. He it is who “became flesh and dwelt among us.” In this connection His title, the Son of God, comes into full prominence, not only in relation to time but eternity. It expresses all the sweetness and intimacy of an eternally subsisting relationship, the expression of which has come out in the Person of the Son in incarnation, so that it might be known as far as that is possible. As born of Mary He is called “the son of God” (Luke 1 : 35). But He who thus came is “the only begotten Son” (John 3: 16,18), whom God gave. He was this before He came, for “God sent His only begotten Son,” John de¬ clares (1 John 4: 9, 10, 14; John 1: 14, 18); thus mark¬ ing the infinite difference between Him and Adam, who it might be said is called “the son of God” (Luke 3: 38). This title is expressive of Him as being ever in the bosom of the Father, enjoying the ineffable love and fellowship of this eternal relationship, knowing the Father and all the secrets of His love, purpose, and counsel. Of this, as the Word become flesh. He is the Revealer, for the glory beheld in Him was “the glory as of an Only-begotten with a Father.” God called Him “Son” at His baptism and transfigura¬ tion. Christ repeatedly applied this title to Himself. Many distinct personal confessions of Him as the Son of 234 Modernism God are made in the Scriptures, and the whole structure of the gospel, the building of the church, its security, blessing and glory, as well as the whole blessing of that relationship into which faith in Him introduces, rests upon the truth of the Man Christ Jesus being the Eternal Son. This golden cord is woven into the whole fabric of New Testament teaching. In consonance with this truth, Christ is spoken of as being equal to God, and One with the Father. With this may be properly linked the fact, already emphasized, that the title “Lord'^ belongs to the lowly Jesus, and that in the sense that this word represents “Jehovah’^ when Old Testament passages having this name are quoted in the New. But it is not only connected with His deity, for as Man He has been made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2: 36). Not made as though not essentially this before, but rather as being man, He is placed in and manifestly in¬ vested with the proper form of glory pertaining to Lord- ship. One result of this will be universally seen when He is brought into the world again; all the angels will be worshiping this Man, to Him every knee must bow. To Him all authority has been given, and all things have been put under His feet (Matt. 28: 18; 1 Cor. 15: 24-28; Eph. 1: 20-23; Phil. 2: 9-11). With this of necessity is asso¬ ciated His Judgeship — the One to whom all judgment has been committed (John 5:22,23,27, 30; Matt. 16:27, 25: 31-46; Acts 10: 42 ; 2 Cor. 5: 10, 11 ; 2 Tim. 4:1,8). The title of Christ, linked in Peter’s statement with that of Lord, is of wide and important meaning. It is interesting to note that throughout the Gospels and Acts, with a few exceptions, and also in many cases in the Epistles the correct mode of expression is ^Hhe Christ.” Conclusion 235 This may intimate that one of the chief features of testi- m.ony is the truth of Jesus being “the Christ’’ (Acts 17: 3; 18: 5). It means “anointed,” as being marked out and set apart. The promise of One coming into the world, to whom this title would be applicable, runs throughout the Old Testament. He is the Prophet of whom Moses spoke; the Priest of whom Aaron is the type, and whose order of priesthood David mentions, and He is the King of whom the royal Psalmist says that He is his Lord, the great Deliverer and Redeemer of Israel, the Ruler of the nations, the “Ensign” to which all shall be gathered. Ail converge and meet in the Holy Babe of Bethlehem her¬ alded by the angelic host (Luke 2: 11; Isa. 9: 6,7), so that in Jesus is found “He of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write” (John 1: 45). Simeon re¬ joices in Him as “Salvation,” “A light to the nations,” and “The glory of Israel;” while Anna sees in Him the One who shall accomplish redemption, and so spake of Him. He came then in these characters to Israel, 2Lnd suffered rejection as both King and Saviour. All however, adds confirmation to the truth that He is “the Christ,” for He C2in say, “Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?” To this the Scrip¬ tures bore abundant witness. God’s answer was the res¬ urrection, and His enthronement in heaven. This brought in the temporary rejection of Israel nationally and delay in the accomplishment of her iMessianic hopes (Dan. 9. 26, R. V.) ; but God’s purpose concerning the calling of a heavenly people was then revealed, and is now finding its fulfilment. In this wider and higher glory there is, never • theless, the answer to the prophetic announcement made 236 iModernism in reference to Him as Jehovah’s anointed (Isa. 49: 4-6). Therefore in this exalted and glorified place in heaven Jesus is still called “Christ,” anointed as the Man of God’s counsels to fill that special place of supreme heavenly glory, above all principality and power. The New Testa¬ ment sets forth the blessing and glory of all who by faith in God’s revelation are identified with Christ in this place ; while, of course, in the Old we find linked with Christ Israel’s hope, position, and blessing, with that of all nations through her. The accomplishment of this awaits the great and glorious earthly reign of Jesus of Nazareth, “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” I have called attention to Jesus being made, as man, in resurrection and exaltation, both Lord and Christ. This may well lead us to consider that other title which so distinctively marks Him out as Man, and which He made constant use of in speaking about Himself, and yet which plainly intimates the uniqueness peculiar to Him — ^The Son of Man. He is not so addressed by others, and this makes it all the more precious, since only His own blessed lips gave expression to it. His own constant use of it shows how His heart of perfect sympathy and love de¬ lighted in the near place to His creature, man, which He had taken, and which this title expresses. It pre-eminently teaches His true humanity, that He really possessed the body, soul, and spirit of man, while also many other glories cluster around it. If we are to think of the stupendous gift God has given, we are told He gave His Son, His ow/y-begotten. If we are to enter into how the Son was given, we are told of Jesus, the Son of Man, His privation and suffering. His rejection and sorrow, the scorn and hatred He bore, the Conclusion 237 sin-bearing and atoning work of the cross, for it is the Son of Man who must be lifted up; upon this rests the eternal welfare of the creature, yea, of all creation. In the Lord’s use of this title the thought of the king¬ dom is given considerable prominence. He constantly links it with His coming in glory to rule and reign, thus connecting the thread of Old Testament prophecy (Dan. 7: 13, 14; Ps. 80: 17; Ps. 8) with Himself in this charac¬ ter. He is the Establisher and Bringer-in of that day of universal blessing, when the crowning glory of all shall be that the throne is filled by One “like unto a son of man,” that out of the meek and lowly face of “That Man,” shall shine, in regal glory and splendor, the full display of Godhead power and majesty. He being owned as Lord of lords and King of kings. To think of the kingdom in connection with this title gives it the widest possible dominion. It goes beyond, though it embraces, His title of “Son of David.” He is the rightful Governor of Israel, in special relation with whom He will occupy the throne of glory and power; the nations shall be given to Him as His inheritance, and He shall rule them, bring < ing in their blessing, for as Son of Man He is “the Seed of Abraham” to whom all the promises belong. In Him, therefore, all the ntaions shall be blessed, yea, and the whole of creation be delivered from its groaning by His blessed rule. Thus in Him, to the fullest extent, shall be accomplished that bright hope, the first gleam of which was given in the promise of “the Seed of the woman” (Gen. 3: 15). As Son of Man He came to save (Luke 19: 10), to minister and give His life a ransom (Matt. 20: 28). He is the sacrifice, whose flesh and blood (partaken of in the 238 IModernism spiritual sense) imparts life (John 6: 53-56); and He is the appointed Judge (John 5: 27; Acts 10: 42; 17: 31). With this title is connected the place of “Mediator” (1 Tim. 2:5), and the High Priesthood (Heb. 2: 14; 4: 14, 15), He is the One, as Son of Man, in whom God is glorified, and God will glorify Him (John 13: 31). The truth that Christ was in the form and constitution of a real man is clearly implied in the title just con¬ sidered. That it should be ^‘‘the Son,” however, indicates that He is distinct from the many sons of men among whom He came. Distinct indeed He was, for no taint of the fall, no consequence of it, attached to Him. In Him humanity found its perfect expression, to the full delight of God. Thus He stands out in the greatest possible con trast to all other men — the Man who stood where all others had fallen. But if this were all. He must abide alone, and His very perfectness only confirms man’s con¬ demnation. Here two titles may be considered which teach how association is established with this blessedly unique Man who is after God’s heart. They are the Second Man and Last Adam. “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the Second Man is of heaven” (1 Cor. 15: 47, R.V.). There is not merely contrast between the first man as having failed and the Second who is perfect, but there is the plain intimation of a new order of man — “the Second Man is of heaven.” Further, not simply two men, but two races come before us (ver. 48). So there are those who are linked with the Second Man, and shall bear the image of the heavenly (ver. 49). Thus He is the Firstborn among many breth¬ ren, who are conformed to His image (Rom. 8: 29). He is the great typal Man, to whose likeness the new hu- Conclusion 239 manity shall be perfectly conformed. Of course the ful¬ ness of what He is as this is seen in Him in resurrection — in the place beyond death and judgment, the place which is beyond all question of sin and its consequences. Our link with Him in this place of perfect blessing and security is alone through faith in Him as revealed in Scripture, the only and all-sufficient Saviour whose pre cious blood cleanses from all sin, in whom Y^e can alone find redemption, justification, sanctification, righteous¬ ness, hope, eternal life, and glory. To be of this humanity of which He is the great type, v/e must possess life such as He has. “He is the Eternal Life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” He gives to those who believe in Him eternal life, and this life is “in Him,” as John makes known. From Him it flows into the believer. He is, then, not simply the great type of the new humanity, but the Source of the life-power which animates it. Thus He is the Head of the race. The first Adam became a living soul, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (1 Cor. 15: 45; Gen. 2:7); the last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving Spirit. Here there is plainly a great contrast. To each member of Adam’s race is given the power to multiply its kind, but it is not so in the new creation; life is communicated to each member of it by Christ. “/« Christ shall all be made alive.” Eternal life, the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to every one who believes, is for all such, dependent in the fullest way. Its source, spring, satisfac¬ tion, and entire sustenance is Christ, only and ever Christ. In this is found its perfect blessedness, and also that which makes it eternal, for while it is in us as God’s gift, it is in Him who is God, as the only source of it 240 Modernism to poor sinful creatures, who flee from the inevitable wrath to come to take shelter under the precious blood of Jesus, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. I cannot close this section without giving brief consider- tion to the threefold title of First-born which Christ bears. (Col. 1: 15, 18; Rom. 8:29). Our blessed Lord is declared to be “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1: 15, R.V.). The first statement of this verse unlocks the meaning of this title. His being called “the image” of God implies in the fullest way that He has that form of being which can be seen, contemplated and handled (1 John 1:1), and that in this He is the perfectly exact and complete expression of God as to glory and essential be¬ ing (Heb. 1:3). This brings in Incarnation, God mani¬ fested in flesh (1 Tim. 3: 16). Furthermore, He of whom this is stated is the One by and for whom all things were created. Hence, if He, the Creator and Upholder of all, enters His creation in creature-form, “becoming in the likeness of men,” He is in this form Head of it, and possess by right every firstborn privilege and pre-eminence. This involves the closest possible link between Himself and creation, both animate and inanimate; for, as already noted. He has spirit, soul, and body. What infinite con¬ descension, what prophecy of widest blessing and glory, what assurance that the healing beams of the Sun of Righteousness shall reach to the remotest bounds of crea¬ tion, so that not only shall every order of spiritual intelli¬ gence rejoice in the blessing and glory, but the trees of the wood, the little hills, and the mountains, shall sing for joy, and the desert blossom like the rose! The firstborn is the heir, and so Christ has been esta- Conclusion 241 blished Heir of all things (Heb. 1:1). He will enter upon the possession of His inheritance, bringing it into the full blessing of the Headship He will exercise over all creation as “Son over His {i. e., God’s) house,” the all things which God has built (Heb. 3: 4-6). He, then, is to all the image of the invisible God, the Representative, Revealer, and Interpreter by whom alone the Eternal can be known. That He should be all this in the intimacy of Manhood bespeaks an infinite depth of tenderness, compassion, and interest in creation, and how blessed this is since in Him all things subsist together (Col. 1: 17). This is a subsist¬ ing together which must ultimately show that the bands of His own ineffable love and infinite power bind all in one living organic whole, of such an order that it bears everywhere the characteristic marks of Him who is Head over all. Underlying this gathering together of all things in Christ is that supreme evidence of His love — the Cross, apart from which the full meaning of His firstborn char¬ acter could not be made good to creation. The taking of the place which this title signifies involved the settle¬ ment of the whole question of sin. He must taste death for everything. God must be glorified in the place where all has united to do Him the greatest dishonor. The Heir must lift the blight of curse and judgment from off His inheritance that He may bring into full blessing. Scripture, however, makes plain that this does not in¬ clude all persons, though in every other respect the ap¬ plication is of universal scope. There are created intelli¬ gences, including man, who do not share in the bless¬ ing and glory of this Headship, and who are subjects of eternal judgment at the hand of this glorious First¬ born, who is Lord both of the dead and living. “First- 242 [Modernism bom from among the dead’’ is the title which brings out the truth of His Headship in relation to a redeemed com- pany of joint-heirs, the great company of those who be¬ lieve in Him. This then is His pre-eminence in a narrower circle within the universal one of all things. In that death is linked with it, the application is evidently to men. It is upon them that death has been passed be¬ cause of sin, opening the door to eternal judgment in separation from God. Solemn truth of divine revelation, and that as part of the gospel, let men cavil as they will. “Firstborn from among the dead” brings in then a different line of truth. The thought of His death is surely of prime consideration: but we cannot think of that with¬ out bringing in what is connected with it. We must con¬ sider what death means in relation to the creature. In¬ troduced in relation to man through his fall, we know it as part of the judgment which is his due because of sin. It is therefore the judicial means in God’s hands for the removal of the creature from the scene of his rebellion and wickedness, and is the introduction into that unending sphere of existence, the character of which is governed by the course and conduct followed before the removal of the responsible creature from the place he occupied. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” We understand then that the wages of sin is death, and that it is appointed unto men once to die, but after death the judgment. This is the inevitable result for the crea¬ ture who remains in his fallen condition. Death in this way is a real mercy from God to ruined men. Have they not fallen and filled the world with all the sorrow and pain of sin, with all its bitter fruits and suffering? What Conclusion 243 if they were allowed to live on and on without death’s hand to smite? Can we comprehend what this scene would develop into, and the awful character it would as¬ sume? Words would fail to describe it. How well God knew all this, and brought in, therefore, that judicial re¬ moval of man by death. It means removal into judg¬ ment from which there is no escape. Is it interposed that such a thought is against the character of God and His love for the creature? It is not. Does not the man who dies a sinner remain that eternally in the con dition into which he passes? This being so, can judg¬ ment, which was his rightful due as a sinful man, be any¬ thing less than eternal, since he remains in the charac¬ ter of a sinner for eternity? The holiness of God’s char¬ acter could allow of nothing less. But the judgment is not only the due of sin, but is, of necessity, also the means of restraining it. Death, and judgm.ent after it, necessarily bring in resur¬ rection after death for judgment — the man must be raised up to receive the execution upon himself of the sentence of his condemnation. To be the firstborn from among those who are under the sentence of death and judgment, would necessitate one passing through death, and coming forth from it in the possession of a life to which the power of death and what it is the judicial entrance into — eternal judgment — could never apply. The one doing this for the first time is the Firstborn from among the dead. It is plain that no mere creature could arrive at this position of blessedness, be¬ cause death removing him as such, judgment awaits and his doom is fixed. We are told, therefore, that Christ is firstborn after this order. This implies that He passed 244 Modernism through death and judgment and reached the other side, as it were, thus manifesting life beyond all touch of death and its consequences. This required Him to be in the creature’s place to which death and judment attached. Has not He, who being in the form of God, counted equality with Him a thing not to be grasped at, taken upon Himself the form of servant, taken His place in the like¬ ness of men, and having been found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death? A man, then. He was, in all the full meaning of what that implies. He grew in wisdom and stature. He could be w^eary at times and sleep. He would weep with the sor¬ rowing, and be grieved in His spirit, while He could also rejoice in due season. All perfect in their exhibition in Him as in no other, but nevertheless showing how truly man He was, pre-eminently the Son of Man. Sonship implies likeness to him with whom this relation¬ ship is connected, and to be a son of man mesms to be in the likeness of man. But Christ is not a son but the Son, the One who above all others is in the likeness of man because according to God’s mind. What then is man properly? I do not mean as fallen, for he is not that properly — ^but as a creature of God. He was created in the image of God, and that image should have been manifested in him. A true son of man would be one in whom this likeness is reproduced. But man has fallen, he now begets in his own likeness and image (Gen. 5: 3); the image is marred, and God is not manifested by that which He had made in His own image. Therefore Christ as a man among men is the Son of Man, because in Him we find the likeness of man according to God in full de¬ velopment and perfect exhibition. Conclusion 245 But how then, since He was so perfect, can death and ensuing judgment (which He must pass through and be¬ yond to be the Firstborn from among the dead) attach to Him? Death and judgment were the fruits of man’s fall. But Christ was without the taint of sin, perfect in His every part. The shadow of the fall had never been thrown upon Him. He was the unique Man, in Himself the em¬ bodiment of the thought of the Creator. Here comes in the blessed truth that meets the need of the creature in his sinful ruin. Can we think of Him as coming into this world simply to be a justification of God’s creation? Surely this would only add to the con¬ demnation of the creature. Man had ruined himself and come under judgment, because God is light and cannot look upon sin. But God is love, and He will not, if it be possible, execute the sentence of eternal doom. So we have a note of deliverance and promised victory at the very beginning. The woman’s Seed is to bruise the serpent’s head. And this develops and expands as the ages roll on, voicing the one essential truth, in all type and shadow, of the deliverance first promised. The reason for all this is plain. We have said that death and ensuing judgment are the creature’s portion as fallen, amd that God cannot in one iota abate the holiness which claims this as the righteous judgment of sin; if the creature is to be delivered, these must be borne and endured to the full. Then His love can flow in an unob¬ structed channel of endless blessing. Who then shall meet this requirement and bring deliverance to the creature? One under the ban of them never can. It must be one who though truly a man is yet beyond their power and applicability to him. Who has ever occupied this posi- 246 Modernism tion but the peerless Son of Man, alone qualified to be the substitute for fallen creatures and bear what was their due because of sin? Did He take this place? He had claim upon life beyond all reach of death and judgment, because of His own per¬ fection. Did He become the Substitute for those who have forfeited all claim to such a life? He is the only one that could; if He did not, there is no hope. Thanks be to His all-worthy Name, that when the agonizing anticipation of what this meant for Him was upon His soul. He said: ‘‘Not My will but Thine be done.” And God’s will was for the blessing of His creatures, and the endurance by Him of death and judgment was the only possible way to accomplish it. We know Him thus as having been made an offering for sin, making in this way full and perfect atonement for it; effecting propitiation, that is, the appeasal of God’s righteous wrath; and as a result, accomplishing recon¬ ciliation between God and His rebel creatures, insuring on the principle of faith, to whosoever will believe, all the blessing His hand can bestow. The glorious witness to all this is in resurrection. He was raised up by the glory of the Father. The glory He had so wonderfully served demanded the exaltation of the servant, and so, He having made purification of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb. 1: 3). But in this very resurrection, the passing beyond death and judgment. He is the Firstborn from among the dead. He has come out as the triumphant Victor, and the only One having rightful title to life eternal beyond the power of death and judgment. The necessity of bearing these devolves upon every soul of man; but he that be- Conclusion 247 lieveth on the Son can now say, He has endured them for me, and to all such the blessing given is that of partici¬ pation in life eternal (John 3: 14-21,36; 5: 21-24; Heb. 9: 26-28; 1 Pet. 2: 24; 3: 18). This deals chiefly with the significance of the title as applied to Christ personally; but His resurrection is also the God-given witness of the acceptability of the work accomplished when He was de¬ livered for our offences. His resurrection is the justifica¬ tion of those who believe (Rom. 4: 25). If, having faith in Him, we are reckoned as having died with Christ, our Substitute and Sin-bearer, then, if He who thus took our place upon the cross has been raised up, we are also looked at as being raised up with Him (Rom. 6; Eph. 2; Col. 2 and 3). This puts all those who believe in Jesus, as the One who died for their sins and rose again, in an entirely new place before God. They have newness of life, and this, in the very nature of the case, takes them out from under the old Adam headship to which death and judgment attached, and they are under the headship of Christ according to God’s reckoning. Christ in this way is not only the Firstborn from among the dead, the Firstborn One of the new order of life, but He truly is also the Firstborn among many brethren, who are even now morally conformed to His image, and in glory will be so displayed, even to their bodies (Rom. 8: 29; Phil. 3: 20, 21). This company of “brethren” includes all be¬ lievers of every age. As Man in His birth and life on earth He stands alone in the peerless beauty of moral perfection; but as the One who passed through death and came forth in resurrection, there is established the link of life and nature between Himself and those who believe on Him, and such He is pleased to call “brethren” (Matt. 28: 10; John 20: 17). 248 Modernism This must suffice, yet how much more might be said. It must be plain that there is not a single truth of God’s holy Word, not one single ray of His glory, not one fea¬ ture of His wondrous purposes, but there is a link between them and the Person of Christ. The truth of His Deity and humanity is woven into the entire fabric of Divine revelation. III. — The Person of the Holy Spirit Upon the first and last pages of Scripture we read of the Spirit of God. He is presented to us as a distinct Person, active in all dispensations, though in a variety of relations. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personally dis¬ tinguished, yet absolutely coequal in every respect, and are spoken of in the order named, are active in special ways in relation to creation and man, but separate from all other beings in the transcendency of essential and eter¬ nal Deity alone possessed by them. Only of a distinct person can we predicate mind, love, intercession, witness-bearing, searching, grief, joy, teach¬ ing, fellowship. To the One of whom these things are said the names and attributes of Deity are ascribed. His spe¬ cial titles associate Him in the fullest way with the Father and the Son; all are specifically identified with the written word of God as revealing the Truth, inspiring the instruments used in its communication, and giving the language, arrangement and subject-matter presented in the Holy Scriptures. He creates; reveals; strives with men; regenerates those who believe His testimony, such being bom of Him so that they are called the children of God, begotten of Him by the Word £ind Spirit; sanctifies Conclusion 249 through the truth; is the alone-sufficient Director and guide in all service and worship according to the mind of God, edifying God’s people, testifying of Christ, impart¬ ing divine joy, love and hope to believers. In this dispensation, since the day of Pentecost, the Spirit is present in the world as at no previous time; in¬ dwelling every believer; forming what Scripture speaks of as the Church of God, the body of Christ; and accom¬ plishing His special mission to the world and God’s people as defined by the Lord (John 16: 8-15).* Unity in nature, attribute, prerogative, and purpose characterize the Divine Persons, while also to each of them Scripture assigns what is specific in their mutual relation and activity. Counsels, purposes, will are attributed to God the Father. The accomplishment of these, whether in creation, redemption, or government, is in the hands of God the Son. He is the Mediator. In perfect unison with all these, God the Holy Spirit takes His place as display¬ ing the Divine energies in diverse operations throughout the entire creation, whether material or spiritual, mundane or celestial. * These remarks give the most meager outline of one of the great and important subjects of Scripture. The reader is referred to an excellent book on this theme by Mr. S. Ridout — ^^The Person and Work of the Holy SpiritJ* The following are a few reference passages bearing upon the above remarks. Rom. 8 : 6 ; 16 : 26 ; 15 : 30 ; 1 Cor. 2:10; Eph. 4 : 30 ; 1 Thess. 1 : 6 ; 2 Cor. 13 : 14 ; Acts 5:3,4; 1 Cor. 12:6,11; Heb. 9:14; Gen. 1:26, 27 with Job 33:4; 1 Cor. 2 : 10 ; Luke 1 : 35 ; Rom. 15 : 19 ; 2 Tim. 3 : 16 with 2 Pet. 1 : 21 ; Gen. 6:3; John 3 : 5, 6 ; Heb. 10 : 15 ; 1 John 5:9; John 14: 16, 17; 16: 8-15; Ps. 78: 17-21 with Ps. 95 and Acts 7: 51; Isa. 6 with Acts 28: 25-27 ; Rev. 1: 10, 20 with 2: 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 29; also in ch. 3. 250 Modernism IV.— Man. Scripture presents man, Adam being “the first,” as the direct and special creation of God. He came from the Creator’s hand perfect in constitution and form, fully endowed both physically and intellectually, and surround¬ ed with every material blessing. He was placed as head over creation, but in subjection to God, as the one prohi¬ bition given would constantly remind him, and under God’s government, as the threatened penalty would im¬ ply, morally responsible to yield obedience, accomplish his service in the appointed sphere, and continue in com¬ munion with his Creator. All of this, however, was to flow from willing obedience and responsive love on man’s part, and in no wise to be the result of power arbitrarily exercised by a Superior Being. It must be plain too that, in the work assigned to man in relation to the garden, the earth, and the animal creation, God was providing for the development of the earth and its appointed lord. Through this process he would be educated; God and His creation become better known through every advance; while by reason both of his nature and place man was responsi¬ ble to preserve the perfect moral equilibrium undisturbed. Not alone was the man to enjoy this; his consort is given him, and potentially the race is in view. What illimitable possibilities present themselves as we consider the perfec¬ tion, order, and beauty of the creation described in Gene¬ sis 1 and 2! In the light of it there is no adequate explanation of man’s history and condition as we now know them, except that which Genesis 3 and 4 gives, and upon which all Scripture builds. Those who refuse the one must necessarily deny the other. This they do, accepting Conclusion 251 rather the fallacies of evolution as explaining human ori¬ gins, not because after all they possess knowledge superior to the Genesis record (for on their own showing they can produce nothing even measurably so grand in its sim¬ plicity, so comprehensive in its brevity, so entirely satis¬ fying to the unbiased mind), but because the pride of human reason and the desire for self-deification have blinded their minds to the solemn truth of man’s fall. With this comes a distorted vision of every other funda¬ mental truth of Scripture. Scripture teaches that man is a triune being — “spirit, soul, and body” — and that only in this unity is he con¬ sidered as complete; although even when separation comes at death, the man is still spoken of as living, but in the unclothed state, a condition not perfect, to remove which resurrection is essential that he may again live in the triunity of his being. This is not affected by the fact that the resurrection body will be necessarily different, for even then in the language of Scripture there is a maintained identity (1 Cor. 15 : 42-44). Annihilation is nowhere countenanced. Man’s special creation by God; his fall and consequent alienation from God; his immortality; his bodily resurrection; his conscious existence after death and for eternity, in either a condition of blessing or judg¬ ment; his absolutely lost and impotent condition as a sinful being; his salvation only possible through the inter¬ position of God in sovereign grace, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice; his blessing alone secured to him by faitli, which appropriates the divine provision found in Christ, witnessed to by the Spirit, and revealed in the perfect Word of God; his need of being bom again, that spiritual work wrought by the Spirit through the Word of 252 Modernism truth, and the absolute necessity for it according to God that relationship with Him may be possible in the power of both life and nature, new and eternal — all these things are plainly and simply taught in Scripture. It does not teach probation after death, but everywhere presses present responsibility, for here and now man fixes his eternal status in weal or woe. No book, like God’s Book, emphasizes the immense solemnity of life and its grave issues. No book like it penetrates into the darkness of man’s natural condition, tearing away the mantle of his vain pride and supposed sufficiency, to expose his sinful nakedness and unavailing self -efforts to hide his guilt, opening to full view the deceitful workings of his evil heart and corrupt nature, leaving him without excuse as to the knowledge of God’s mind concerning himself and every related interest in the world. In the light of it men must either loathe themselves and turn as penitents to God, from whom alone mercy, salvation, and availing help are forthcoming; or they will scornfully rise up, steeled in hatred to that which, being so living and power¬ ful, separates soul and spirit, joints and marrow, discern¬ ing the thoughts and intents of the heart, and reject the testimony of God, wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction. Every article of Modernist teaching is in contradiction to these verities of Scripture. It could not be otherwise, since evolution is the foundation upon which it is built. But this does not affect the imperishable teachings of God’s Word. His solemn woe is pronounced upon those who take from, or add to, it. At this work the Modernist proves himself a past master. But God is not mocked, and whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap. Conclusion 253 V. — The Age-times or Dispensations Timothy is admonished to study that he may be an approved workman, rightly dividing the word of truth. One great feature of that Word is the periods of time which it marks, during which God has manifested Himself in various ways and in special characters. I can not do more than- suggest the scope of this important subject. It embraces the whole course of time from the first act of creation until the new heavens and earth are brought in. This being so, to have some understanding of these age-times must certainly be necessary to rightly divide God’s Word, that the progress of revelation, of history, and certain special purposes in relation to both earth and heaven may be more fully realized. The first two chapters of Genesis, introductory as they are to the whole volume of inspiration, furnish us with the pattern of the whole. We may thus trace a parallel¬ ism between the work of creation and the course of the age- times; and there is also a parallel to be found be¬ tween that work in its successive stages and the moral, spiritual features of what is called new creation in the New Testament. It is, however, the dispensations which I wish now to consider, and in the light of the parallelism just mentioned. The original perfect creation The ruined earth, object of God’s work by the Spirit and through His Word, effecting a complete change and the establishment of a new order. Man created perfect and upright Man fallen and morally ruined. He, too, in this con¬ dition, becomes the object of God’s work by the Spirit and through His Word, effecting regeneration, new creation. 254 [Modernism FIRST DAY Light is introduced. Darkness and light are distin¬ guished, and each named. Dispensationally, this suggests the period from the fall to the flood which closes it. During this age man was tried under conscience, and as having the light of creation and promise. It completely demonstrated man’s utter lack of wisdom or power to direct his way on the earth to God’s glory and according to His will (Gen., chs. 3-6; Rom. 1: 19 — 2: 16). It closed in ovenvhelming judg¬ ment. Throughout this age, from the first, two families are seen, as opposite in character as the darkness and the light, or night and day. In what is recorded there is the illustration of principles which abide and govern among men, who are still divided morally into these two great classes. In the Cainite family we see the way of the natural man and his world, in which the lust of the flesh, of the eye, and the pride of life rule, and whose approach to God is after his own thought, in his own sufficiency — a way still taken by many and surely lead¬ ing to eternal perdition. In Abel the way of faith is illustrated, and God’s acceptance found through the lamb of sacrifice. This becomes characteristic of the Sethite family in which Enoch and Noah are found. I need hardly mention how the New Testament takes up and applies this history. SECOND DAY The expanse brought in, separating the waters, esta¬ blishing laws essential to the introduction and maintenance of life on the earth. Conclusion 255 To this the period after the flood and to the call of Abraham is parallel in significance (Gen.,chs. 8-11). This is the trial of man under human government as first form¬ ally established by God in the hand of Noah. Failure is quickly manifest in Noah and his family. The result, as the race develops, is again the demonstration of man’s utter failure and departure from God. He can neither properly govern himself nor his fellow; and soon idolatry prevails throughout the nations, while, as though in de¬ fiance of God who had swept the earth clean of man and his evil works in the flood, men nov/ determine to build so that their name shall endure. Again God judges, and confusion falls on human pride and self-exaltation. This period is marked by the division of the earth by mankind, the formation of nations, commencement of empires, and so the establishment of government by which violence is at least repressed (which man did not do when simply controlled by conscience) , laws put into operation, affording a larger measure of safety and protection gener¬ ally. How this answers to the character and meaning of the work accomplished on the second day of creation must be apparent to any one who knows what the expanse, in the physical realm, really means for the earth. THIRD DAY The earth brought up out of the waters and made fruit¬ ful — the period from Abram’s call to the first coming of Christ (Gen. 12) : to the cross). As on this day the earth, stable and enduring, rises out of the waters, so now in the progress of the ages the time has come to bring up out of ‘‘the peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues,” which are like the turbulent waters (Rev. 17: 5), that people and 256 Modernism nation which shall be set up as superior to and abide pre¬ eminent over all surrounding elements — Israel. Hence with the commencement of this period a manifest change takes place in God’s ways. Though He has visited man’s pride with overthrow and scattering at Babel, He does not change the already existing order of relations among men. All is permitted to go on, and still does, manifest¬ ing however the same moral characteristics of pride and idolatry in some form, that is, the rejection of the true God and His Word, while history bears witness how con¬ tinued confusion and scattering prevail among men and nations. As a consequence, human effort is ever directed toward unification and centralization of power, which time and again God overthrows. God has, and will, permit this to continue, until He comes who will reign in perfect right¬ eousness and establish His universal kingdom. God, then, begins to unfold a new purpose which bears directly upon the introduction of His own perfect and glorious King. He calls out from the mass of men and nations the man Abram to be separate from kindred, kingdom, and idolatry, that from him may spring the nation of Israel to be God’s special and distinctive peo¬ ple among all peoples of the earth, and to be head of the nations under the government of Him who is of Israel after the flesh — ^Jesus, the Christ, Son of Abra¬ ham, Son of David, the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel. In Abraham’s call God also formally sets forth those prin¬ ciples governing relation with, and blessing from. Himself, abiding for all time and of universal application. Hence Abraham is called the father of the family of faith — not of course as to time, for faith was exercised by Abel, but as to position in view of God’s call and revelation to him. Conclusion 257 Certainly, all this, in its evident stability and fruit for God, is like the work of the third day. The inspired history of this great period is an unfold¬ ing of God’s purpose and work in relation to the world and its government. Throughout the wonderful books of history, prophecy, and song which deal with it, and open up that future time of fulfilment in the millennial king¬ dom of the Son of Man, we have the greatest variety of instruction as to God’s character, ways in grace and judg¬ ment, and purposes for the earth and all nations, while we may also learn principles which operate through all dis¬ pensations, God having written these histories and spoken by His servants in such a manner as to illustrate their meaning and enforce their application. This whole period with its inspired literature is of eter¬ nal worth, for in it God is manifested in the history of individuals and nations, in ordinances and ritual, in na¬ tural and supernatural, in nature with its multiform acti¬ vities. Further, man in what he is and does is fully mani¬ fested, whether in the special place given to Israel, or as the Gentile. All the germs found in Genesis 3-6 are seen developed, with their consequences. This is made known through the history of the favored people, their re¬ lations with the Gentiles, and God’s ways through all. In short, God has made Palestine and the adjacent coimtries the great stage on which Israel and the surrounding peo¬ ples are actors, to present for all time, and eternity too, the manifestation of Himself, His ways in creation and with His creature, man. What He thus presents in this continuous performance of many centuries’ duration (the last act of v/hich is yet to be set in motion), is an abid¬ ing lesson of many parts, given to all created intelligences. 258 Modernism This can never lose its meaning and value, for the Word of the Lord, in which this great drama is written for us, lives and abides for eternity. In it we pass from the minutia of individual biography to the great world movement of empires; in its descrip¬ tions, sometimes marvelously brief, we are made acquaint¬ ed with stupendous actions which alter the whole course of world history; again, it tells of actors both heavenly and earthly; yet whether peasant, priest, prophet, king, nation or empire, individuals, families, tribes or peoples, beings heavenly or earthly of the highest or lowest rank, all are seen as under the master hand of the Divine Director — the immanent yet ever transcendent God, now known to us as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Many of the moral and spiritual lessons of this great period are given to us in the New Testament. That is the great light set over this stage of human history, illuminat¬ ing the meaning of every part in a way never before pos¬ sible. In it we have, as it were, the sun set in the heavens, so that in its shining all may be clearly discerned. This leads us to think of the fourth day; dispensationally, the present period. At the close of this third period there stands the cross of Christ — the judgment of this world and its prince, as we are told. No witness could be more conclusive than that which the cross records to the utter moral and spirit¬ ual ruin of man, while also it makes evident who are the world-rulers of this darkness. It stands as the consum¬ mation of the preceding ages, during which, as we read their history in the inspired Word, God tried man under the rule of conscience, under human government, and un¬ der His law and rule as established with and exercised Conclusion 259 over His chosen people, who are thus made the test by which the whole world is judged. They were a sample taken out of the whole race for this trial, so that the char¬ acter and condition of the whole might be determined (Rom. 3: 19,20), Emd since God chose the sample we may be sure it was the very best He could select. While this was true, there were also other purposes of God put into operation in connection with the selection of Israel, to which I have already alluded. Finally, man is tried by the coming of God’s Son into the world. The result is seen in the Cross. It brings a great break in the course of the age-times. There the bruising of the woman’s Seed finds accomplishment; the announcement of which stands at the portal of these ages. The Cross closed, as being final evidence, man’s long trial, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt his utter ruin as a fallen creature, his rebellion against God, and ripeness for eternal judgment. But thanks be unto God in His love and grace that Cross becomes the means of salvation, the way of life, the redemption which delivers from all judgment, the opening of the door into eternal blessing and the new creation to all those who will believe in Him who died upon that cross accomplish¬ ing atonement, glorifying God in thus vindicating His righteousness, satisfying His justice, perfectly manifesting His love. In this He fulfilled all the many types, fore¬ shadows, and prophecies given to just such redemption glory through all the preceding ages, from the coats of skin provided for the sinful nakedness of man, then Abel’s lamb, on to the enactment of the great ritual of sacrifice established in Israel. In this connection the Tabernacle and its system is a great lesson-book, every detail having some significance. 260 Modernism Once the eye of the heart is opened to the treasures of the Old Testament, such views as we have considered in relation to it, and so highly esteemed by Modernists, vanish as darkening mists which could rise from only one source; and the whole system of Modernism disappears like some incubus of the night. FOURTH DAY The heavenly bodies set in order in relation to the earth and its affairs. The third dispensation closed, then, with Christ cruci¬ fied and laid in the tomb. The fourth day of Genesis opens with the word that set the sun in the heavens with its accompanying train, source, and centre of government and blessing for the creation. The fourth dispensation, or age-time, comes with the glory of resurrection, the ascension of the Son, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Consequent upon this, God reveals His purpose to call out a people for His name from both Jews and Gentiles, to whom is given heavenly place, relationship, and destiny, in contrast to the earthly place and portion which be¬ long to Israel, and which are particularly revealed in the Old Testament. This people, now identified with the Son in heaven, form what is called the Church of God, the body of Christ, made known only in the New Testament (Eph. 1-3), and particularly in the ministry of Paul (Col. 1). This Church is composed of all who during this period believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the fulness of the New Testament. Further, in agreement with the great features of the fourth day in Genesis we have the unfolding of the kingdom of the heavens in its various aspects in relation to Christ and His heavenly place. Conclusion 261 This fourth dispensation is now running its course. Its completion will come with the second advent of Christ when, as the act initial to all that this coming involves. He will remove the Church out of this world to share with Him, its glorious Head, the place of glory and inheritance in heaven. During this period God is not manifestly dealing with either Israel or the nations as He was during the past dis¬ pensation. The world is being allowed to pursue its natural course, following the leadership of him who is its god and prince, though to the full consequences of this there are at present, and will be until the Church is re¬ moved, certain God-established hindrances (2 Thess. 2). which must be taken out of the way to permit the full development of man’s will and Satan’s power during the next, or fifth, age-time. Meanwhile, through the gospel of His glory God is forming all those who believe it into that great company which shall be caught up to heaven at the Lord’s coming (1 Thess. 4). During this time, since Pen¬ tecost, that company is called into separation from the course of, the spirit which animates, and the power which rules this world, subject as it is to the coming judgments of the day of the Lord. The character, place, responsi¬ bility, and destiny of this company, composed of those re¬ deemed through faith in the precious blood of Christ, is the chief subject of New Testament teaching. FIFTH DAY The waters and the expanse are made to teem with life. ITiis brings us to consider the first of the age-times which is still future. It will commence after the removal of the Church, the event closing the fourth period. This then 262 Modernism brings us into the great field of prophecy, and the Old Testament becomes our guide-book, but now as seen in the light afforded by the prophetic portions of the New — » the Olivet discourse, certain passages in the epistles and the Revelation of John. The book of Daniel is of special importance in understanding this period. Israel is nationally revived during this coming age; world-movements come to their climax; the confederation of the nations in well-defined groups takes place; the final struggle for world-mastery develops, centering, even as the last great conflict really did, in the arena chosen by God to exhibit His earthly acts and purposes, the land of Palestine; Antichrist will make his appearance as head of the revived Jewish nation, and confederate with the Wes¬ tern group of nations called by students of prophecy the revived Roman Empire; then will come the desolating attacks of the Northern groups (a Germanic, Slavonic and Tartar combination) ; the Armageddon of the nations will be fought; as of old, so again, acts and judgments of supernatural character will occur, coming both from God and Satan, whose efforts to attain universal dominion will reach their peak in this coming age. To these very things present world-conditions unmistakably point, as every intelligent and spiritually-minded student of Scripture prophecy clearly sees. This in itself is a strong indication of whose word it is which thus reveals the future. It could only be the word of Him who knows the end from the beginning, who can tell the former things, and declare the things to come. SIXTH DAY The co-habitants of man on the land, man himself, the Conclusion 263 head of the creation, are brought in, and with this we must link the details of Genesis 2 as describing man’s special place and dominion. The fifth dispensation will be closed by the revelation of Christ in power and great glory, executing judgment in the world, smiting the na¬ tions who have forgotten God, and destroying those who destroyed the earth (2 Thess. 1, 2). The Head of all creation, rightful Heir and Lord as being both the Son of Man and the Son of God, thus comes upon the scene to take the dominion and reign in righteousness over Israel and all nations for a millennium. This closes the course of the ages. The seventh day comes (Gen. 2: 1-3), in connection with which no even¬ ing nor morning are mentioned. It is God’s rest, type of the eternal state which the last book of Holy Writ briefly describes. It is fixed in its character; glorious in its per¬ fection; every bar to creature progress removed; nothing to hinder the creature, as ever abiding in dependence upon the Creator, to advance in the joy and blessing of the fulness of God. His tabernacle will then be with men, and by reason of His fulness being infinite, no failure in creature satisfaction can ever again be known, no want, no selfishness, no strife, no sorrow, ever arise. In the midst of this infinitude the eternal habitation of judgment will also abide. There, in separation from the presence of God and His blessing, ever under His wrath because of sin, those must be who would not have and love the truth. This abides, an eternal witness to the knowledge of the Infinite God, Creator of the heavens and the earth, as perfect in love as in righteousness and holi¬ ness, whose sovereignty throughout eternity will be found 264 Modernism to be perfect in every detail. Because God’s ways are in¬ scrutable, man may cavil and storm at what to his finite mind seems impossible and irreconcilable. He must bow to that Divine Sovereignty whose infinite love and power are forever revealed in Christ; or, refusing to do so be¬ cause unwilling to have anything beyond his finite ken. there is nothing left for him but that outer darkness of which the unbelief and darkness of his present state is the prelude and prophecy (Rev. 22: 11). VI. — The Second Coming of Christ AND Related Themes This subject is of the widest scope, bearing directly up¬ on Israel, the nations, and the Church. With the ac¬ complishment of this universal hope, full earthly and heavenly blessing is alone realized. The judgment of all evil, the subjugation of every evil power, and the bringing in of the everlasting kingdom are its corollaries. Also the two resurrections are related events; the first embracing all the just and being unto life; the second, at the close of the millennial reign, being that of all the wicked dead, and their appearance before the Great White Throne (Rev. 19: 20). The day of Jehovah in the Old Testa¬ ment, the day of Christ, of God, and the judgment seat of Christ, all mentioned in the New, are connected with it. The second advent comprises two distinct acts; first, Christ’s coming for His people (IThess. 4: 13-18), and secondly. His coming with His people (IThess. 3: 13; Col. 3:4). As a lapse of time occurs between these two actions, a number of events take place on earth during this period, which bear an important relation to the second coming. They are necessarily preparatory to the revela- Conclusion 265 tion of Christ in glory with all His saints, while the re¬ moval of the Church to heaven must take place first, that these very events may commence to run their course. The rapture of the Church having taken place, these events comprise: the revival of the Jewish nation imder its own ruling head (already this is well in view) ; the making of a covenant between that nation, once again established in Palestine, and the confederated empire of ten kingdoms (the powers of western Europe) — that last great empire of DanieFs visions, confessedly the Roman power, now non-existent, but to be revived in this coming period as the first beast of Rev. 13, the second beast of that prophecy being the apostate head of the Jewish people, the Antichrist and lawless one of whom Paul and John speak in their epistles, who sets up the abomination of destruction spoken of by Daniel, and then by the Lord in His Olivet prophecy; the revival of many of the old nations whose names are so familiar to the Old Testament student (indications of which already abound in the near East) ; national confederations to the north and east of Palestine, already foreshadowed in movements now taking place in Europe and Asia; the great conflicts between the North (Syria) and the South (Egypt), detailed in the latter part of Daniel 1 1 ; the assemblage of nations against Jerusalem foretold by Zechariah and Joel; and the Arma¬ geddon of the Revelation. Amid these events there will be the faithful Jewish remnant who will preach the gos¬ pel of the kingdom, and suffer great persecution, but whose message will be believed by many Gentiles who, with believing Israelites of that time, will enter the millennial kingdom. World-wide judgments will fall upon those who have rejected this testimony of the King’s 266 Modernism brethren (Matt. 25: 31-46). The interval in which these events occur, and which comes between the two ac¬ tions of the Second Advent, is that period during which the last week (the 70th) of Daniel’s famous prophecy will find complete fulfilment. The Times of the Gentiles will then come to an end, and man’s empires be succeeded by the universal and everlasting dominion of the Son of Man, as prophesied by Daniel, the Lord Himself, and John in Revelation. Then too, will the whole false religious world- system presented under the figure of Great Babylon, with its idolatry, human deification, false science, and vain philosophies, be overthrown and judged. Christ will gather out all things which offend. This will be the time when all the golden promises (Isa. 2:32; Jer. 23: 30, 31 ; Zech. 14, etc., etc.), of the Old Testament will be fulfilled, [Messiah’s kingdom and glory being manifested, the world delivered from the bond¬ age of evil and the curse, every possible natural blessing being ministered to mankind under the beneficent sway of the Lord Jesus reigning in righteousness. At His first advent our blessed Lord performed the great work of atonement, so that those who are of faith may rejoice in accomplished redemption through His pre¬ cious blood (1 Pet. 1: 18-21). But this also laid God’s righteous basis for the accomplishment of His age-long purposes in relation to both earth and heaven, v/here sin had intruded (Col. 1: 20). By accomplishing the work of atonement Christ purchased the inheritance of all things, thus fully meeting every claim of God’s holy government. Now there must be the redemption of this blood-purchased inheritance by the exercise of divine power (Eph. 1 : 9-14) . This is triumphantly effected through the Conclusion 267 second advent, and since the Church of this present dis¬ pensation is to share in a special way in this glorious work, she is first removed out of the world to be united with her glorious Head in heaven, so that with Him she may come forth as the consort of the Last Adam, to reign with Him when He establishes His dominion. At the first action of the second advent all who have died in Christ, that is, have had faith in God according to the revelation given during the ages, will be raised up in glory; and those who are of faith and living on the earth will be changed, united with those raised from the dead, and as one company enter the Father’s house according to the Lord’s promise (1 Cor. IS: 23, 51-54; 1 Thess. 4: IS¬ IS; 2 Thess. 2:1; John 14: 1-3). Then at the second act there is the coming forth of this company of the redeemed (Col. 3: 4; Rev. 19: 11-14; Zech. 14: 4-9; Rom. 8: 18- 22). Redemption by power is applied in several ways. First, to the saints by resurrection and the change of which scriptures already referred to clearly speak. Then Israel, revived, is purged of her dross by those acts of judgment which destroy the apostates of the nation, and the saved remnant, reconstituted in the twelve tribes, enter upon full blessing in the land of promise. Then, the nations, likewise first purged through judgments, are finally blessed and thus redeemed from corruption. The heavens, too, are purified by the final removal of Satan and his hosts from the heavenly places; power thus effecting their re¬ demption from further defilement through the presence of evil. Thus every promise of the Old Testament shall yet be fulfilled in connection with the Second Advent, as every 268 Modernism statement in it relating to the first coming has found per¬ fect accomplishment in the incarnation, humiliation, and ministry in life and death of Jesus, the true Messiah, the Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from eternity (Mic. 5:2), and who is coming again in regal splendor riding upon the clouds of heaven, accompanied by the holy angels and His redeemed people. VII. — Conclusion The Bible — God’s book — is an inexhaustible treasury. It has not yet been fully explored. Though we may think every chamber of it has been entered, not one of them has been fully searched; there are riches yet to be found by the diligent soul. Our brief survey has but touched spots in this vast structure of Divine revelation. Who can compass it, adequately speak of its glories, fully show its perfections, sound its depths or measure its heights? It is God’s Word. It is the only absolutely perfect standard of knowledge and judgment by which we may know God, in the measure that this is possible for finite creatures, and know His works in every sphere of His activity. It sets forth “the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrine are holy, its precepts are bind¬ ing, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practise it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s charter. Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed. Christ is Conclusion 269 its great subject. Our good is its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully. It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest respon¬ sibility, will reward the greatest labor, and condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.” t APPENDICES I. Some critical blunders II. Tables of References: 1. — References to the Pentateuch in the Prophets. 2. — Table showing in detail the references to the Pen¬ tateuch in the prophets Amos and Hosea. 3. — References to the Old Testament in the New Tes¬ tament with tables. III. The Genuineness of John^s Gospel. IV. ^‘The New Testament To-day” APPENDIX I. Some critical blunders These have been exposed from many sources in re¬ cent years, and volumes have been written giving in detail the many confirmations of Scripture which have come through the patient labor of many hands. I here mention only a handful as a sample. 1. The narrative of Gen. 14 used to be dismissed by the critics as a mere legend, utterly impossible as a piece of history; but the monuments have proved the credibility of it all. 2. The Hittites mentioned in Scripture were once an object of critical ridicule. There was no confirmation from other sources of such a people or empire. The Bible must be wrong. But recent discoveries have proved their exis¬ tence as a nation of considerable prominence, and the scriptural references to them have been confirmed. 3. The captivity and restoration of Manasseh was made a very serious reflection upon the value of Chronicles, be¬ cause these circumstances were not mentioned in the Kings, and it appeared to contradict what was known concerning Assyria at that time. It was declared entirely unhistor- ical. But the cuneiform inscriptions have shed new light on the subject and reversed the verdict of the critics. 4. Discrepancy appeared between Scripture and Sen¬ nacherib’s record as to the number of silver talents paid to him by Hezekiah as tribute. Scripture says 300, the Assyrian records give 800, and the latter of course must be inerrant. But now we know both are identical, because there was that ditference in the standard of value for the silver talent between these two countries, Palestine and Assyria, which made 300 correct in the former and 800 in the latter. In both countries, however, the gold standard was the same, so in this particular, that of the number of gold talents, both Scripture and the Assyrian records agree. Some Critical Blunders 273 5. The critics were accustomed to ridicule Daniel as un- historical because of reference to Belshazzar, and certain official titles which he mentions, but discovered tablets and monumental inscriptions have proved their correctness. 6. The so-called myths and legends of Scripture are re¬ ceiving confirmation as being reliable history, the more exploration and discovery proceed in lands which bear a relation to the Bible. Thus the patriarchal history and the early chapters of Genesis are coming into their own. 7. It is not difficult to detect the critics in exegetical blunders when it comes to an examination of their argu¬ ments dealing with words, phrases, or names occurring in Scripture by which they seek to support their theories of late origin or diverse authorship of different portions, or to prove bits of sacred history without question unhis- torical and impossible. Some minor examples are given in Appendix III. That men of scholarship and learning should fall into such blunders only testifies to the power of evil which is abroad, producing, where faith is not, an intellectual blind¬ ness which makes them its easy tools to accomplish its sole object, that of discrediting God’s Holy Word by whatever means possible, weakening its authority over men, and as a result, if nothing more, the bringing about of its complete neglect. APPENDIX II. 1. — References to the Pentateuch in the Prophets HERE are three classes into which these references may be divided: *** 1. Direct references, those in which events, laws or ceremonies are specifically mentioned. 2. Allusions, or indirect references, made in great num¬ bers to various parts of the five books. 3. Similarity of language or thought. This evidence makes it certain that the Pentateuch must have been well known before the earliest of the proph¬ ets, or in other words before the middle of the ninth century, B.C. This refutes the idea of its gradual growth during the Josiah-Ezra period, by piecing together certain fragments of legend, law and ceremony which were greatly elaborated during this process by the several writers and compilers of that late period. Deuteronomy is generally considered to be the first complete product, written, say the critics, just before or in the early days of Josiah. If the Pentateuch had not been generally known and easily referred to, the greater part of the whole proph¬ etic ministry from Amos (accorded, with Hosea, the earli¬ est date) to Malachi (sixteen prophets in all) would not have been understood by the people to whom the prophets gave their messages. In a volume like this space forbids presenting in tabu¬ lated form the large amount of evidence which the study of these references afford. They have been found in all the prophets, and are distributed among all of the five books of Moses, each one receiving testimony from the earliest of the prophets. This testimony tends to show that not only was the his¬ tory and religious economy recorded in the Pentateuch References to the Pentateuch in the Prophets 275 well known, but that the minds of these prophets were im¬ bued with its diction. It had been the subject of their study as being the living oracles of Jehovah Elohim. If this 'were not so, and at least true in measure of the peo¬ ple generally, how utterly strange this phenomenon would appear. Although not within the scope of this work to present the whole of this evidence, a good example is given in the tables following, which set forth the testimony of Amos and Hosea. In the same way the Psalms furnish a great field from which may be gathered abundant refer¬ ences to every book of the Pentateuch. Many of these must be accorded a date prior to the earliest of the prophets. ■Rejerences to the Pentateuch in the Prophets Amos and Hosea CSJ >» s O O P m (U E3 iz; M S3 o • rH •pH O P to S3 ns o X m • pH Ui O CD O CO ( (M r^ • •v •• rt< CO • • (N +-> ® Cm |> o 5 • C5 CO . • co«i4 -M P CO ''0< • ..05 00 05 CO “^of 05 • • »> ^ ai r}< 05 . . . • ® a XI ” tH C0^rJ4 • • 0 05 .. - . . e- ’ ® S'" o o •- oJ ■W aj ; P rtX‘ P bD 0< M C O.M a ai fl b _C as O * ■a aa;::; o 2Z- ^ «5 s- co^ 3: jjPl a- a ®5- a 1 1 3: 12 a: • 0k 5a rH •i- w5 «: 0 (U c OH *^3 CO +• « C .. 05 XI sap C5t^ • • ..05 10 0 10 «.S| 05 V— y- o 4-> -( CS “ 0^ !:i Phc-c^^ a -t-> O) •^4 • c3 -M * 'SlS ^ <0 o •+J <0 Pk bO P o S-4 .0 «5 «•-» (U Pp ft o ft P o p tH S 05 . C5 -t-> 0) •V P O ’Ti a> • H-^ oT . 'p cT^. . *=irP .^2 p o w 03 bOO) > ft . p ^ !>» ai P c o c w ^ w • S • ft • ft 05 o ■ ta O ■H^TlhlOCO t-00 01 o .. T-< 05 rH 05 tH 05 tH tH .. CO dr^ 10 • • r*« ^■s O O) o bO 0) ■T3 ft rs •r^ V rC!*H +3 o bO?:j ^ c3 CJXJ a w cs -t-s W CQ o_ £■3 s o -4-3 0? o ' ♦ rH o ■ 03 O 43 C a ^5 a^ bo -2 s ^ ■ n ft 13 C . . cO*^ a 03 >*9i. 03 43 03 O 0) ^r£:i - ^ CO pH ^ O a 03 54 03 o5 pCj ft 03 03 O *-i fi 03 pC! a o5 'Ti 03 43 CO • rH 03 a o y CO CO o5 CO bo Pi y fH«H ■5 CO CO . pQ W ^ O p4ftP3p5 y rv'r3 ft 03 90 gt-s I 03 5h I «« CO 03 y 5h y CO y ,3P jgPlH « rH ‘rH * y •}- •i-t* Xi 43 PJft y y ^ ®5 rtcosy a o o o -tJ 0) O CO a> • • lO 00 • o o 04 04 • 00 iH tH 04 •• • • • • 33 31 O CO _5 .. w • 1*^ • •• • • < « 00 fet-COCi-S tH^(MCOCOJ5. «• » 0„ • • • • (M 00 (M Tj< CO tH tH 04 CO t CO 04 a . ^00 lO T~t «0.-h(M^04^ . . ^ .« 04 0000' ^ 00 ^ 04 «0 rH t tH ^^V-( os *• ..«jj03 *-^00 045 t> LO O) u cu 39. • O tH CD tH ft • • ' • • • r-t lO CO .ft tH 04 u m ft o ; 20:5. bO CO •"■^oo 2^04 • p-t 04 • • uo .-o ■H’ t:-04tH 0) 17:7 18 26: tH ••^CD 00^04 04 CO CO m p3 CD • CO • 00 cd '73 O tH • • CO ^ tH • • • • . _ • • t- • • Tl* to X W CO 32 15 23 CO 28: 19: CO 04 • • lO t- 1- -04 .. • • ^co 04 • tH 04 04 ^ •• rH ••04 04 §3” 00 CO m •rH m Qi A 0) O o TJ rt) • •§ • U1 • O § “ r-H W a> t- ^ O) a D . o -M a> 0) a g« a; ® !=! g CJ -4-> 0) • Ai ■■5 •5 -i *,— I * “ &o^ a ^ PJ ^ 0) o t-^ +s +3 cc ■^3 O bO o -M 0) • -n3 O '5 +3 O ft OJ (tS — ~< OS ?-i F— < ■4J m a> • fH ft OS rE3 +3 c3’S o -M a> w OS o OS • ^ O) > *r-i Ph Cfl O ^ ^ CU^- -M Oi w P. Q a ^'71 r* ^ y ?-i o ^ ftm r£3 -(J Q n3 a S w 21 w ^ o 1 % ^ c3 ft rCj ft P ?H 03 o; 2 ft a^ft O s T3 P4 o3*H- ^ s •rft .TS 0) 0) g • r-l Ci -t-3 03 w 03 pft U ' 03 :.ft too u 4J OS ft 0) -•J -1-3 • »-^ tl) > c3 rft OpS3«Hr-H t— tl-H H-l CO i • • OS O ft M 0) r-H -»-> o bO 2 CQ O* s^tH e3 0) OJ O W 040 OSIOC-COOtH'^^IO -nsco ..iH tH tH tH iH 04 ,. .. tH •• CO 'I* 04 ''3< O W t-f CO O 04C0 04 tH iH iH .. tH iH tH • • • • • • IjO t- 00 CO'^X tH tH (MLO CO CO • • • • 00 00 CO (N • • Oi cq CJ O) • U5 O •• iH CO ..cq tH 00 lO b- iH 00 • • • • 00 00 th cq oco cq^ coTl .^cq uo ^ tH ♦ »» 00 ;h ••'oq b- iH • • • • cq 00 US • • • • cq cq CO CO CO 05 tH 00 1 • • f£> uo • • • • cq 23 12 o •4J Q> *% cq cq • • CD cq CO cdco^ CO rH • • • • oi a cq ' Tf .. ' CO cq cq cq • • CO cq CO cq id CO cq tH cq cq • • • • CO o cq • • 05 18. 19; 2,8 «o cq • • 00 ^ c^tT • • CO 10: 14: 25 32: 8; 1 cq 05 CO cq •• o ••'CO lO • • • •>v 00 00 cq tH lO •• P o <1^ P s s c3 =3 O W ri^r* o o pQ m CD'rt ... P w I: ••CO . •-cq ls| --.s CD tn • tH •p. p-rP ui *> O >» pPwP^ CD pp Oto -*g s °5o CO ^3.. •k jK • -H 03 CJ «3 P-i CD ^ P OD ^ ® O P..^ t; p-rJ CD >» g CD ?H 4J O p O s-i _Q •>-; 4J .S > CD CD^^ ='§«f|§ «2^S|S . _ jj «tD P C 5gc§§^ " s'lI-g-S T P S o«^ !Tl fH no §1 ^ CD ..W M. *I0 ^ C! X< >• ‘p-i M .. 9^ CD nd CD *■ . OD i>D •• S W "^co P cq •• (D . c CD ^ W + M S'to o^: ^‘4j o whd 5 M X CD w c •’-I r.ri 4J r sQHj •Td 03 O -d g ^ S'43 CD.^ o f^l^PprP (2 S^E' ♦ ^ -H-C-OC o o O 1H cq CO » ■ I p o CD c ^ H CD P«f < 03 . 280 [Modernism 3. — References to the Old Testament in the New Testament. Here again the references may be divided into the three classes already mentioned. They are of great number. The following tables, while not presented as complete, will illustrate this fact. In these tables the letter (6) indi¬ cates both the second and third classes of references, (a) being the first class. The references have been counted with a few exceptions, according to the number of verses which are referred to in the New Testament passage. The tables have been arranged as here given because it was found that to give chapter and verse in each case would, though presenting a most interesting study, occupy too much space. I trust these may serve to show how all parts of Scripture are interlocked in testimony and mu¬ tually dependent. New Testament Books The four Gospels . . Acts . Homans . 1 Corinthians . 2 Corinthians . Galatians . Ephesians . Colossians . 1 Timothy . 2 Timothy . Hebrews . James . 1 Peter . 2 Peter . 1 John . Jude . Revelation . References to the Pentateuch Gen. Exod. Lev. Num. Deut. A. B. A. B. A. B. A. B. A, B. 1 13 12 9 5 15 7 26 6 4 4 11 7 1 2 7 5 2 8 2 2 1 1 4 10 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 6 16 2 6 1 1 2 6 S 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 11 3 1 1 4 1 18 2 6 References to the Old and New Testaments 281 References to the Historical Books New Testament Books Joshua Judges & Ruth Samuel & Kings Chron. Ezra, Neh., & Esther A. B. A. B. A. B. A. B. A. B. The four Gospels . . . 10 2 Acts . 2 4 Romans . 2 1 2 Corinthians . 1 Hebrews . 1 4 2 2 1 1 James . 3 3 Revelation . 7 1 References to the Prophets New Testament Minor Books Isa. Jer. Ezek. Dan. Proph’s A. B. A. B. A. B. A. B. A. B. The four Gospels . . 23 24 6 2 2 1 14 20 18 Acts . 9 3 6 Romans . 19 3 2 2 8 1 Corinthians . 7 4 1 1 2 Corinthians . 6 3 Galatians . 1 1 Ephesians . 1 1 1 Philippians . 1 1 Thessalonians . . . 1 2 Thessalonians . . . 1 1 1 Hebrews . 1 3 4 3 1 James . 1 1 Peter . 4 1 2 Peter . 2 1 1 John . 1 Jude . 1 1 2 Revelation . 64 24 49 52 29 282 Modernism References to the Experience Books New Testament Books Psalms Job S. of S. Eccl. Prov. A. P. A. P. A. P. A. P. A. P. The four Gospels . . Acts . Komans . 1 Corinthians . 2 Corinthians . Galatians . Ephesians . Philippians . Colossians . 1 Thessalonians . . . 1 Timothy . Hebrews . James . 1 Peter . . 2 Peter . 1 John . Revelation . 42 7 13 4 19 5 5 2 1 2 2 1 21 2 1 3 1 3 45 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 8 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 APPENDIX III. The Genuineness of John^s Gospel HE Gospel of John is the subject of special attack because, (1) its testimony is so clear to the Deity of Jesus; (2) its account is so profoundly spiritual; (3) its unmistakable confirmation of miracles, (4) its sup¬ port of the supernatural against- all pantheistic notions; (5) its distinctively different presentation of the Person of Jesus from that given by the Synoptic Gospels, the clain; being that there is hardly anything really human mani¬ fest in it; (6) its supposed unhistorical character when compared with the Synoptists, and its supposed divergence from them. For over 100 years this warfare has been pressed assi¬ duously in both attack and defence. Great names, bearing a reputation for learning and scholarship, appear on both sides. Perhaps to-day Schmiedel* stands out as chief of the destructive school of criticism upon the particular sub¬ ject of John and his writings. The historicity of all the Gospels is of course in ques¬ tion. They are credited as being at best but the magni¬ fied accounts of certain enthusiasts, untrustworthy because under the spell of the worship of their hero — Jesus. Or they wrote not as historians, but as presenting Jesus ac¬ cording to the mind of the early Church, so that the figure we see is the one suited to the religious needs of the first century. The external evidence for the authenticity of John’s Gospel may first be summarized, and that as working back to the earliest date. Beginning with the fourth century, from the time of the Oriental Council held at Laodicea (about A. D. 363) to the Nicene Council and the days of * Prof. P. W. Schmiedel, D.D., Zurich. See his article on John in Ency. Biblica. 284 [Modernism Athanasius (about A. D. 325), altogether six councils bear testimony to universal acceptance of the Gospel as both apostolic and trustworthy. Lactantius of Nicomedia( about A. D. 314) , Methodius, bishop of Patara and Olympus, also later of Tyre; Victorinus, of Petavio, late in the third century; Novatian, of Rome (A. D. 250-75) ; Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea (about A. D. 255) ; Noetus, of Smyrna, Hippolytus, and Urban, bishop of Rome, all of the first quarter of the third century; and Callistus, of Rome, at its very beginning — all made use of this Gospel in a way confirming its authoritative place in the Church. Passing into the second century a large mass of evidence presents itself beginning (in the order we are following) with Tertullian toward its close, who bears testimony to the acceptance and authority of this Gospel. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing to Victor, bishop of Rome (about A. D. 190 or 195) uses expressions traceable to John^s Gospel, refers to John personally in language alone used of him in the Gospel, and speaks of having read all Scripture. This is not unimportant evidence since there is little doubt of John’s final residence at Ephesus. Origen (A. D. 186-254) speaks of the four Gospels as received by the Church; Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, a convert from heathenism and of great learning, uses it, and accredits it with the other Scriptures (about A. D. 180) ; Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (A. D. 177-202), gives testimony to John’s residence at Ephesus and the publication of his Gospel there, which is important because of his connection with Polycarp, a contemporary and acquaintance of John, as well as of others who knew him in Asia Minor, where Irenseus spent his early life. Athenagoras, one of the earliest Christian apologists, shows familiarity with this Gospel in his famous Legatio Pro Christianis (A.D. 177). Not a defender of the faith, but a heretic of the Gnostic school, Heracleon (about A. D. 170) wrote a commentary upon this Gospel; and about the same time ApolJinaris shows acquaintance with and recognition of its author¬ ity. At this period too Clement of Alexandria was receiv- The Genuineness of John’s Gospel 285 ing instructions in and giving himself to fullest inquiry concerning Christianity; his extensive travels and wide acquaintance gave him great opportunity, but he evidently found no reason to discredit John, for he gives emphatic testimony to him and his Gospel. Also during this period (A. D. 160-170), Celsus, heathen philosopher and bitter as¬ sailant of Christianity, who makes use of all four Gospels, does not, and certainly would if possible, refute their apostolic origin; in fact, he rather acknowledges it. He was not the man to leave any point untouched which would strengthen his attack, as would the proof of the spuriousness of any of the Gospels. The heretical Clemen¬ tine Homilies, also of this date, use John’s Gospel, as well as the Synoptists. Any heretical use of these books would be an illogical and useless procedure if they were not uni¬ versally acknowledged as genuine. Would it be of any avail to use what was not fully recognized as Scripture to support views they wished the Church to accept? About this time also Tatian issued his Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels. About A. D. 160, the Canon of Muratori appeared at Eome, the earliest catalogue of New Testament books. It bears consentient testimony. Justin Martyr (A. D. 138-150) adds his voice in recogni¬ tion; the Peshito Version of the New Testament, generally placed about A. D. 150, gives John full recognition; about A. D. 125, Basilides, a famous Alexandrian Gnostic, who evidently in early life must have been a contemporary of John, refers to this Gospel in the books he wrote to sup¬ port his heresy. Further testimony, it is considered, may be found in several other literary productions dating as early as A. D. 106. In the light of this evidence, it appears certain that from the first this Gospel was accorded universal recogni¬ tion as from John and as apostolic. The date of its writ¬ ing is generally given as between A. D. 90-100. Now until late in the second century many, both in and outside of the Church, could by experience or intimate knowledge go back 286 BVIodernism tc the very beginning of the century, and some into the closing decade of the first. In view of this, can it be reasonably supposed that a Gospel, so variant in style and teaching to the other three already received, could be foisted upon the Church and its many able leaders, unless the testimony to its genuineness had been indubitable? Added to this is the fact that heretical teachers used it to give weight to their views, a useless procedure unless it was universally recognized as authoritative and apostolic. Its appearance and origin must have been well known by many living at the middle of the second century, while at its close there must still have been a number familiar with the facts. Were they victims of an imposture in the acceptance of this Gospel? If the able opponents of Chris¬ tianity in the heathen world could have shown its spurious character, would they not have availed themselves of this weapon of attack? How is it that the critics of this Gospel can produce no evidence from these early centuries of a denial of the apostolic authorship and of the uni¬ versal acceptance of this Gospel as genuine? Had there been rejection, or even question, concerning its authen¬ ticity, at Ephesus (where it is believed John lived and wrote) or elsewhere, would not this have attracted atten¬ tion, and received consideration from the writers of the second and third centuries? It is evident that it would; whereas not until the close of the fourth century do we hear through Epiphanius of the only known incident of such a character, that being the attribution of this Gospel to none other than the heretic Cerinthus, a contemporary of John, by the unimportant and little known sect called the Alogi of obscure Thyatira. This would seem to have been so unimportant, in fact foolish, that it is given no place in the literature of the second and third centuries. The striking internal differences between John and his brother Evangelists would seem quite enough to cause the rejection of this Gospel by the early Church, unless it had come to them with full evidence as to its apostolic author¬ ship, and hence carrying with it unquestioned authority. The Genuineness of John^s Gospel 287 The objections of Schmiedel are wordy, but trivial. As to much of the evidence of reference to or quotation of John’s words in the cases above referred to, he seeks to invalidate it by arguing that there is the possibility of their derivation from some other source which, he says, ‘Tf we choose, we may suppose to have been accessible to the Evangelist also.” He thinks the words and phrases which show manifold agreement with John may easily not have come from familiarity with this Gospel, but simply be the repetition of words and phrases circulated orally, — ^‘they passed into currency by the channel of oral tradi¬ tion,” and “as they circulated they received an ever more pregnant, pointed, memorable form, and the writer of the Fourth Gospel, not as the first but as the last in the series of transmitters, set them down in a form and in a con¬ nection which excelled that of the others, and thus his work came to appear as if it were the source of the others.” For him it could not have been written until about the middle of the second century, some forty years after John’s death. But the evidence? (!) This consists of the suppositions of the critics! Now even admitting, as Dr. Cobern says, that “the dis¬ covery of rare non-Christian works . . . has shown that the religious notions and mystic expressions of certain previously unknown Jewish writers of Palestine or Egypt, of the first century and earlier, resemble in an unexpected degree that of John’s Gospel,” it also appears evident that at best the resemblances are only general, for we are assured by the same authority that modern critical study — including a thorough analysis of the Stoic doctrine of the Logos and of the ancient literature of Gnosticism, at Alexandria and elsewhere — has proved that there was a much greater divergence in vocabulary and thought be¬ tween Philo and the Fourth Gospel than had previously been supposed.* * The New Archeological Discoveries, by Camden M. Cohem, D. D., Litt. D., 1921, page 623. 288 ifclODERNISM Is it credible to suppose that those to whom reference has been made as furnishing evidence to John^s Gospel, were simply reproducing such current phrases, oral or otherwise, when their particular purpose was the explan¬ ation, defense of, or attack upon Christianity? What they would use and refer to would be the acknowledged and authenticated documents upon which the Christian struc¬ ture rested. It is utterly unfair, to say the least, for Schmiedel to say that Justin Martyr, ^^regards John — if indeed he knows it at all — ^with distrust, and appropriates from it but a very few sayings,” and that it “was by no means on the same plane with the Synoptics” in his eyes, “and that his employment of it is not only more sparing but also more circumspect.”* Now, first, Justin refers to the Gospels as written by the apostles and their com¬ panions. Mark and Luke are acknowledged as being apos¬ tolic companions; what then must the conclusion be? In his writings he does not express such an attitude as Schmiedel states; and Justin’s small use of John is easily explained by the fact that it was less suited to his particular purpose than the Synoptics. Further, showing the exaggerated em¬ phasis Schmiedel lays on anything seeming to strengthen his attack, he says, “How doubtful was the recognition of the Fourth Gospel is shown with most clearness by the fact that within the Church an entire school could regard it as not genuine, and even attribute it to Cerinthus” (italics mine). He refers to the Alogi, that obscure and unim¬ portant sect to which I have already referred, little known to history, but here dignified with great importance be¬ cause of its rejection of John. When it comes to a consideration of the internal evi¬ dence, and the marked differences from the Synoptists — found for example in the greater magnitude of the mira¬ cles John records, in such scenes as the foot-washing, certain incidents at the cross and grave, and the recogni¬ tion of Jesus as the Messiah from the very first — “we shall * Ency. Bihlica, article “John** 2550, 2546. The Genuineness of John^s Gospel 289 be safe in asserting,” declares our critic, “not only that the Synoptists cannot have been acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, but also that they were not aware of the existence of other sources, written or oral, containing all these di¬ vergencies from their own account which are exhibited in this Gospel.” If they had been, it is confidently asserted, “those writers could by no possibility have passed [them] over.”* How utterly blind he and his school are to special purpose, divine selection and inspiration, controlling each writer and giving him his materials. Yet it is the study of these Gospels from this viewpoint which makes them luminous with divine meaning, and is in itself the greatest and fullest evidence to their genuineness. John is charged with contradiction of many of his own seemingly precise statements. Schmiedel is the authority. Chs. 7 : 27 and 9 : 29 is an example. To begin with, the speakers are different, the crowd in the first case, the Pharisees in the latter. In the first case the crowds doubtless refer to the current Rabbinical teaching that though Messiah would come from Bethlehem, He would then be hid, none knew where, and then suddenly appear. In the other case the connection is evidently different, as the contrast with Moses intimates ; it is a matter of authority as a teacher and the source of it. With the crowd it is rather a matter of origin. Chs. 5: 31 and 8: 14 are cited, words of Jesus Himself. In the first it is the question of a witness not being true in the sense of lacking confirmation as required by the law (Deut. 19: 15), the actual question of truth or falsehood is not raised. The Lord at once goes on to give confirming witnesses. In the other incident He is asserting His personal truthfulness founded upon His personal knowledge. Ch. 3 ; 26 declares all the people flocked to Jesus, and in ver. 32 that no one received His testimony. But where is the contradiction? It does not say no one heard His testimony. It is one thing to hear, and another to receive as here mentioned. * Schmiedel on Ency. Biblica, 2541, 2540. 290 iModernism According to chapters 3:22,26 and 4:1 Jesus bap¬ tizes, but in 4 : 2 only His disciples do so. The last state¬ ment being emphatic as to Jesus, the others not, are easily explained as being the attribution of the work done by the disciples to the Master who being with them is thought of as directing their activities. Ch. 1 : 29, 35-42 are considered irreconcilable with Mark 1 : 16-20. But why? The latter scene takes place after John was delivered up (see ver. 14), while the former incidents took place while John was still baptizing in Jordan. Time, place and cir¬ cumstances are entirely different. In Mark it is the de¬ finite call to service; in John 1 only a visit together. Ch. 6: 3 and 15 are cited, Schmiedel saying that John speaks of Jesus going up again in the mountain (ver. 15), yet He had not left it since ver. 3. In ver. 3 Jesus and His dis¬ ciples are sitting together upon the mountain. The multi¬ tude is seen coming to them. That they came to where He was is not stated; the plain inference is that He went with the disciples to meet them in that place where there was much grass (ver, 10) , fed them, and then withdrew Himself from both the multitude and His disciples, return¬ ing to the mountain (ver. 15). Certainly the place of much grass and the mountain can not be the same when a little consideration js given to the physical characteris¬ tics of this part of the country. Again 6 : 24 and 59 are contrasted with the remark that a discourse begun at the seashore (vers. 24, 25) and not interrupted, we are told in ver. 59 was spoken in the Synagogue in Capernaum. Now ver. 24 tells us the people came to Capernaum seek¬ ing for Jesus ; ver. 25 states that they found Him on the other side of the sea, a statement of geographical import as defining along with ver. 22 the location of the miracle in relation to Capernaum to which the people had come. But it in no wise implies, because it says on the other side of the sea, that He was found at the seashore, in fact location is not defined; SchmiedeFs assumption is gratui¬ tous. Where in fact they did find Him ver. 59 makes plain, The Genuineness of John's Gospel 291 for there the discourse was delivered. He was found in the Synagogue.* I might multiply cases of the same nature. Much is made of the difference in teaching between John and the Synop- tists, and statements are taken and set over against one another and spoken of as ^‘insoluble mysteries,” without for a moment considering the setting, the purpose, or spe¬ cial relation to which each may belong. As to geographical and historical detail, it is decisive that an eye-witness, a Jew of Palestine, must have been the author. In many passages he writes, as only an eye- v/itness could, of the events recorded, speaking of days, hours and many other minute particulars which must have passed before his eyes; and he gives, too, the impressions made upon those listening to Jesus, and the misunder¬ standings uttered by various classes in connection with his record of the Lord's discourse. He shows himself familiar with Jewish customs and speaks correctly of them. Against this one thing weighs heavily with Schmiedel. It is “the serious mistake by which in 11 : 49 and 18 : 13 Caiaphas is called the high priest of that year,” which he takes to mean that the writer assumes that the office changed hands every year, while as a matter of fact the High Priest held office for life, and though it happened not infre¬ quently that one was deposed there was never any question of a yearly vacation.f Is Schmiedel really ignorant, or what? I need only refer to the article on Annas and Caiaphas by Baron Sodem, Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Berlin, in the Ency Biblica. In 6 A. D. Quiri- nius appointed Annas high priest. Through change of government, nine years later, he was deposed. Valerius Gratus,who succeeded Quirinius, appointed three men, none of whom held office for more than a year. Finally, in * These supposed cases of contradiction in John are from the Ency. Biblica, **John” 2538. t Ency. Biblica, **John,** 2542 ; and “ The Johxinnine Writings^’ (pp. 188-9). 292 Modernism 18 A. D. he appointed Caiaphas, who held the office for eighteen years. Yet history seems to accord to Annas a dominant influence throughout these years in the high priestly regime, for, after his own deposition and during his lifetime, three of his sons and Caiaphas, his son-in-law, filled this position. This prominence may well account for Jesus being first brought before Annas (John 18:13), and if we take into consideration Luke 3: 2 and Acts 4: 6 it would appear that he co-ordinately shared the first place. Some such arrangement, not previously unknown in Jewish history, would fully explain John’s supposed serious mistake. Assumption is plainly with Schmiedel, for John does not speak of tenure of office. His state¬ ment cannot be construed to mean a denial of previous or future occupation of the office on the part of Caiaphas, and is a precise statement of the time then present. I must close with a brief mention of the different repre¬ sentation of Jesus in this Gospel to that of the Synoptists. As usual no special design is thought of by the critics when treating of this feature, but stress is laid upon the almost entire lack of “any really human traits.” Well, He was wearied and evidently hungry, when He reached Sychar’s well, for the disciples went away to buy food and quickly offer it to Him upon their return. He could weep over the death of a friend, and because of the sorrow it caused. He could speak of His soul being troubled, and refer to Himself as a man, also care for His mother at the cross. Evidence is not lacking on this score, but that it does not abound is plainly due to the special object of the Holy Spirit in this Gospel, and so it becomes a perfection rather than a blemish. In fact it is just this result which is found true in nearly all that these unbelieving critics advance. In conclusion. Dr. Cobern gives an interesting archeolo¬ gical suggestion in relation to John’s Gospel from C. O. Lamberton, who, in speaking of the pictures of the early Roman catacombs, endeavors to show that this Gospel was influencing the wall-paintings in a marked degree by the The Genuineness of John's Gospel 293 end of the first century, or at least by the opening decade of the second. Lamberton “shows from the best authorities on art that Biblical themes peculiar to St. John — raising of Lazarus and the woman of Samaria — are each found once before A. D. 180 (one of these almost certainly being as early as A. D. 130), while three or four other pictures of the resurrection of Lazarus must be dated to the end of the first or during the second century. As these themes are not treated in the Synoptic Gospels, but only in St. John, the inference is drawn that the Fourth Gospel must have become widely influential before such pictures would have been painted on Christian tombs. By a similar argument the influence of Matthew’s Gospel can be proved from the many pictures of the Magi, while it may also be shown that no influence of the apocryphal gospels is apparent earlier than the fourth century.”* * The New Archeological Discoveries, pp. 401-2. APPENDIX IV. ^^The New Testament To-day”"^ HIS book sets forth in concise form the present attitude toward, and treatment of, the New Testa¬ ment. The heart of its whole argument is found in chapter three which deals with the New Testament as be¬ ing a product of its time. The basis for this is, of course, the highly esteemed historical method of criticism. This consists in studying all the various movements of thought which characterized the time immediately before the ad¬ vent of Christ, and also of the century following during which the New Testament came into existence. Certain elements or features of similarity in thought or phrase being found, the conclusion is confidently drawn that the New Testament is simply the adaptation of these ideas and thoughts, though it is admitted that they are clothed in a superior form, which has enabled them to endure for these nineteen centuries, while all from which the writers ‘‘borrowed” has fallen into oblivion. “For the modern scholar, then, the New Testament is a product of its own age, and he has learned to explore the history of thought and religion of that age for the purpose of understanding it” (p. 54). Thus the apocryphal writings which were produced in the interval between the Old and New Testaments must be considered along with those of the Pagan systems of phil¬ osophy and religion which prevailed during the first cen- * The New Testament To-day ^ by Ernest Findlay Scotty D. Z>., Prof, of Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York. The Macmillan Co., 1923. This appendix is added as showing the extreme results arrived at by following the methods of criticism and inter¬ pretation adopted by the Modernist school. 'The New Testament To-day” 295 tury, in which '‘the currents of Eastern and Western life were so strangely mixed” — Greek philosophy, Eastern mys¬ ticism, Stoic morality, all mingled together. With these must be combined a survey of the early Christian liter¬ ature usually considered outside the canon of the New Testament. These are to be considered as the sources of our New Testament. The conclusion is that “the whole literature must be taken together if we would fully understand the world of thought in which the writers of the New Testament moved. Even the writings which were condemned as heretical be¬ long to the same general movement, and serve to illustrate not a few of the tendencies which can be discerned in Paul and John. By fortunate accident a number of lost works of early Christian literature have been recovered, just at the time when scholarship had learned to value them, and a vigilant watch is being kept for others. For purposes of investigation, the distinction of writings within and out¬ side of the Canon has now been abandoned. The New Testament books for the modern scholar are only the out¬ standing peak of a large literature, which must be consi¬ dered as a whole before we can justly estimate the mean¬ ing of the Christian movement” (p. 55). “Of late years, therefore, we have learned to read the New Testament in a larger context than was formerly thought necessary, and much in the record has taken on a new significance” (p. 57). As a consequence Dr. Scott presents the New Testament as a record showing the great “borrowing” powers of its writers. He assures us that with great skill they took up Pagan rites, and in the doctrine of the sacraments pre¬ sented them purged of their grosser ideas; they took up philosophical conceptions like the Logos doctrine of the Greek thinkers, the maxims of Stoic morality, the mystical piety of the Eastern cults, and baptized them into the new religion so that “they can no longer be considered as in any real sense foreign” (pp. 70, 71). “To many minds this discovery (?) that our religion 296 Modernism has so largely borrowed from alien sources has been more disquieting than any other” (p. 66). It certainly makes it savor of adulteration instead of being unique in its source and purity. “Nevertheless there can be little doubt that while it was still in process of moulding it was influenced on many sides from without, and that some of the doc¬ trines which have always been regarded as native to it were in their origin Pagan.” Hence, “we are learning to suspect that within a few years of Jesus^ death the gospel underwent an admixture from the side of that very Pagan¬ ism which it condemned. No wonder that the discovery has seemed to many to have destroyed the value of the New Testament” (p. 72). Dr. Scott hastens to the rescue, and says, “A truer estimate of our religion will some day acknowledge that its greatness consists not only in what it gave from itself but in what it rescued. Holding to its own beliefs, it yet attracted and made part of itself all that was true and noble in the spiritual life of the ancient world. Thoughts and aspirations of the highest value which were entangled in the old idolatries, and would have perished with them, were given a place in the message of Christ, and were so transmitted to enrich the life of hu¬ manity in all times” (pp. 66, 67). So he feels we must recognize in it an inherent power. “It reacted on all that it borrowed, and exercised a power of selection. From the miscellaneous life of the time it took what was congenial to its own nature, rejecting by a sure instinct all that was alien” (p. 69). This book, then, has its own power, its own nature, its sure instinct, its own beliefs. Dr. Scott admits; but what is their source, how did it get these distinctive qualities, from what soil have they sprung? Can historical criticism inform us? Its great purpose is to discover origins; has it discovered the origin of these admitted characteristics of this book, which yet seems according to the critics to sur¬ pass all others in borrowed material? Now admitting all that is announced as discovery through these wonderful excursions of historical criticism, which “The New Testament To-day^' 297 even considers much of our Lord’s teaching to be rooted in apocryphal ideas, how does this prove the inferences drawn and then set forth as irrefutable conclusions based on the incontrovertible evidence of history? Taking our stand upon the plenary inspiration of all the Scriptures — Old and New alike— we refuse their con¬ clusions. There was no “borrowing.” That is mere infer¬ ence against which there is abundance of internal evidence to be gathered from the books themselves. When I find the New Testament rooted as to its teaching and phrase¬ ology in the Old Testament, and in no corresponding mea¬ sure when comparison is made with contemporaneous liter¬ ature, what conclusion is then to be drawn as to supposed sources? Can Dr. Scott show that we are unreasonable in considering the sources from which the New Testament writers are said to have so copiously borrowed as nothing more than the dim and faulty strivings of human wisdom, seeking what would satisfy the gropings of human reason after the knowledge of God. Can we consistently admit them to be more than this in the light of Dr. Scott’s elo¬ quent insistence upon the distinctive character, permanent value, abiding superiority and absolute necessity of the New Testament to modern religion? One of his reviewers assures us that, “For Dr. Scott, the New Testament is the central power in the whole modern task of world recon¬ struction.” But what explains this mastery, this inherent power? Modern historical criticism can give no explanation. Speak¬ ing of the triumph of Christianity, as it is called, over every rival cult, we are told: “This was not due to some accidental advantage, whereby it was able to supplant and finally absorb its rivals, for every advantage was on their side. They were already in the field, and had long over¬ come all popular prejudice against them. They had the prestige of high antiquity ,while Christianity had only come into existence in the time of men still living. They were made imposing to the public eye by gorgeous ceremonial, and men of the loftiest gifts, artists and poets and philo- 298 [Modernism sophers,* had thrown a glamour around their doctrines. Christianity from the outset was the object of dislike and ridicule and every kind of slander. Its founder had notor¬ iously been condemned as a malefactor. Its adherents were drawn mostly from the lowest ranks. It lay under political suspicion, and all good citizens were convinced that they discharged a public duty in trying to suppress it. Nevertheless, wherever it went it exercised a marvel¬ ous power of attraction, and the movements which had held contemptuously aloof were gradually won over to it. From the time when it had once succeeded in putting its message before the world its victory over all competitors was certain. It is mere trifling to contend that this suc¬ cess, obtained in the teeth of every drawback, was due to nothing more than a number of adventitious causes. When the amplest allowance has been made for all of these there is no way of accounting for the victory of Christianity except by its own inherent power” (p. 68). But agairiy 1 askj What explains this? What is the source of this power? What else can explain the New Testament but absolute independence of source? For this its distinctive purity and sublimity strongly argue, especially since it came from men who it is said could not possibly be put in the same class as those great Greeks and Romans who produced the literature from which they are supposed to have borrowed. How came these second or third class men, then, to write what is admittedly better, greater in power, abiding in value, and supreme as to place relatively considered? The explanation is found at once when the New Testa- * But Dr. Scott wisely omits reference to the well-known moral corruption which prevailed among all classes, so that the worst of moral evils ^‘regarded from of old with indulgence and even with favor, nay, practised without shame even by philosophers and surrounded by poets with all the tinsel of lasciviousness, had become in public opinion a thing really indifferent.” “The New Testament To-day’^ 299 ment ts recognized as absolutely inspired of God, final and complete in form and matter, always adaptable in every respect to every age and clime — and this it must indeed be if God-breathed. This is its claim. Thus God has given His own perfect revelation, the all-illuminating light, scattering once and forever the shades of night and the phantoms of human wisdom, bringing life and incorrupti¬ bility to light through the gospel. Could anything else happen than just what Dr. Scott describes? The New Testament was not the product of its time, but the product of the Holy Spirit, working through chosen in¬ struments, by which God thus gave His final and complete revelation to the v/orld. There is no question but that we may rightly consider the New Testament to be also a record of the oral preach¬ ing and teaching of the disciples and apostles, by which through the guiding power of the Holy Spirit the Church was formed on earth. The work had progressed over twenty years before the first book (1 Thessalonians) was written. They preached and taught during those years what we read of in its books. Were these men reared in schools of Pagan culture, or did they belong to the current schools of Judaism? Were they men of letters? How did they come to be such adepts at the borrowing art? And if they really mastered and assimilated so much from ali the current and widely accepted cults, how was it that Christianity was so disliked, ridiculed, and slandered dur¬ ing the first century? If they were such borrowers from contemporary literature how is it they did not write like “the literary writers of the time who use a jargon, in their desire toi hark back to the models of the classical age, while in the New Testament we have the living idiom” (p. 62). According to linguistic study and modern explor¬ ation, it is supposed to be now clearly proved that the Greek of the New Testament, though differing widely from classical Greek in structure, grammar, and vocabulary, is the same as the ordinary colloquial language of the day, the same as made use of in everyday life (p. 62). 300 Modernism When all the evidence is considered, and not merely the one-sided “discoveries” of historical criticism, there can be no other reasonable explanation of the New Testament than that offered in these pages. Once we are clear as to the only possible relation of the New Testament to its time, to which the internal evidence gathered from the book itself so clearly points, then the canons of modern interpretation are seen to be childish and useless. Dr. Scott enumerates some of them. We quote: “It constantly happens that in their desire to combat some particular form of error the writers state their thought one-sidedly, or develop it along special lines” (p. 38). “As the products of controversy the New Testament writings almost always betray a bias of which we must take account” (p. 38). “It is frankly recognized that they stand for different types of Christianity, and instead of trying to conceal the differences the modem scholar is anxious to set them in clear relief” (p. 39). “To obtain the guidance which the New Testament can afford us we must learn to read it historically” (p. 36). “We can no longer go to the New Testament as to a storehouse of infallible texts, but we need not treasure it the less because it makes no claim to finality” (?) (p., 46). “The New Testament does not profess to be more than a beginning” (?) (p. 46). “To be sure, we are now obliged to recognize the hu¬ man limitations of the book. We can see that doctrines which were once supposed to embody the absolute truth were mixed up with much that was transient and mis¬ taken” (p. 87). “Our very sense that they could only half express them¬ selves arouses us to a personal effort of faith and S3mi- pathy, so that we may reach through the letter to. the living conviction that was in their minds” (p. 88). “Our duty is to pierce through the letter to the truth which it has expressed in part” (p. 29). ^The New Testament To-day'' 301 And the most that can be said after about a century of enquiry along these lines is that criticism “has reached a few broad conclusions which are no longer open to ques¬ tion” (p. 51). Again we are cheerfully told, “It cannot be said that any final conclusions have yet been reached on the various questions affecting the New Testament books. On some of the most important points opinion is more divided than a few years ago, and the general result of inquiry, in this field as in every other, has been to raise two new problems for every one that is solved” (p. 33). This, then, is the extent of modern progress as stated by one of its votaries. The more it is studied the more it becomes apparent that the whole structure is without a foundation, and is built entirely upon the shifting sands of human theory. The believer ofi the old-fashioned way has nothing to fear. The book abides unchanged. The explanation it gives of its own origin alone truly accounts for* all the phenomena, whether of production, success, or continuance. Its life, its power, its authority, its abiding sufficiency are still proved every day. Is there another book like it^ On Dr. Scott’s own showing there is not! Why this uni¬ versal pre-eminence? Why, indeed, if it were merely the product of its time? Historical criticism can no more ex¬ plain the riddle of the New Testament than evolution can that of the universe. Upon both one image and super¬ scription is indelibly stamped. In the temple of the in¬ spired Word, as in that of creation, everything speaks in unison of the one eternal God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — to whom be the glory both now and forever. Works by F. W. GRANT THE EHMEBICAL BIBLE. Being : Ist— A New Translation from the Originals. Instead of chapters and verses, the divisions of the Text are those indicated in the Scripture itself, and form an Index to its sub¬ jects. 2nd.— The Notes, following with the Text, form a commentary valued above any other by diligent students of Scripture, and are the chief feature of the work. 3rd. — A new compilation of References. PUBLISHED VOLUISES. Nkw Test ament. Onn Ticst ament. (Complete in 3 Vols.) (Incomplete.) The Four Gospels. , The Pentateuch, Acts & Paul’s Epistles. I Joshua— 2 Samuel. Hebrews— Revelation. I The Psalms. Best Cloth (vols. sold separately) . . each, net, ?2 60 Half-morocco, gilt edges (sold in sets only) . . net, ^4.00 Atonement: InType, Prophecy, & Accomplishment. Tracing through¬ out Scripture atonement by the Cross. Paper, 50 cts. ; cloth, . $1.00 The Crowned Christ. Paper covers, 30 cts.; cloth, . 75 A Divine Movement, & OurPath with God To-day. Paper, 20cts.-*- ^ Facts and Theories as to a Future State. I.— Man as he is. n.— Death and the Intermediate State. HI. — ^The Eternal Issues. An exhaus¬ tive examination and Refutation, by the light of Scripture, of the views of leading annihilationists and restorationists of these times. Cloth, new and enlarged edition. (600 pp.) . $2.00 Genesis in the Light of the New Testament. Part I.— God’s coun¬ sels in Creation. Part U.— Divine life in its various aspects. Paper, 35 cts.; cloth, . . . 75 God’s Evangel. Fourteen Gospel addresses, setting forth the fulness of the grace of God in Christ. Paper, 30 cts. ; cloth, . 75 Leaves from the Book. Twenty-two papers on various subjects ; a most valuable volume for Believers. 416 pp. Cloth, . $1,25 The Numerical Structure of Scripture. A seal upon its perfect in¬ spiration, and a divinely given help to its right Inspiration. Paper, 40 cts.; Cloth, . . . 75 The Prophetic History of the Church. As seen in the Seven Churches of Asia (Rev. 2 and's). 183 pages, paper, . . 35 The Revelation of Christ to His Servants, In two parts:— “The Things That Are” (chaps. 1 — 8) ; and “The Things That Shall Be” (chaps. 4-22). A thorough exposition of the book of Revelation. 480 pp. Cloth, . $. ' Spiritual Law in the Natural World. A connected argument that Nature is throughout a witness for God. Cloth, . $l.f 0 Creation in Genesis and Geology. 64 pp . 12 Deliverance : What is it A exposition of God’s way of deliverance out of the bondage expressed in the seventh chapter of Romans, . . 06 The Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. An exposition of Mat¬ thew 13 with tracings of the Kingdom in other Scriptures . Re-Tracings of Truth : In View of Questions lately raised. Paper, . . 20 Order# for $1. sent free^ add lO^c for smaller orders. BY SAMUEL RIDOUT THE BIBLE THE TRUE UNIVERSITY. Paper, 20c.; Cloth, 50c, The Bible as a liberal education. The Word of God a necessity for tLe knowledge of the Works of God. HOW TO STUDY THE BIBLE. Paper, 50c.; Cloth, $1.00 Gives practical hints as to methods, and provides plans for Bible study from a few minutes up to several liours daily. THE PENTATEUCH. Paper, 50a; Cloth, $1.00 Befdtes the infidel assults upon this part of Scripture, and also shows Its beauty of order, general theme, and the place occupied by each of the separate books in this connection. THE FOUR GOSPELS. Cloth, $1.50 Examines the distinct yet closely connected narratives of the Life of our Lord, each of which presents Him in a special way. LECTURES ON THE TABERNACLE. Best Cloth, $2.00 A very fiill exposition, with examinations of the types and doctrinal exemxfiifications from the New Testament. With nine plates. FROM GENESES TO REVELATION. Paper, 50c.; Cloth, $1.00 Twelve Lectures on the Structure and Contents of the Bible Books. LECTURES on the BOOK of JUDGES. Paper, 50c.; aoth,$l. Sets forth the various steps of declension and recoveries in Israel, with applications to similax conditions in the professing Chm'ch. THE BOOK OF JOB. An Exposition. Cloth, $1.00 KING SAUL: The Man after the Flesh. Paper, 50c.; Cloth, $1. A tracing of the Holy Spirit’s lessons in connection with the natural man —the choice of the people ; with David’s early history. LECTURES on the EPISTLE to the HEBREWS. Paper, 50c.; Cloth, $1.00 THE PERSON and WORK of the HOLY SPIRIT. Paper, 35c.; Cloth, $1.00 I. The Holy Spirit in the Dispensations ; IT. In Salvation ; ITT. In Bauctiflcation ; IV. In the Church ; V. For Power ; VI. The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures ; VII. The Holy Spirit and Christ. THE CHURCH and its Order According to Scripture. Paper covers, 26c. GLEANINGS FROM the BOOK of RUTH. Paper, 15c. Orders for $1. tent free; add 10^ for smaller orders BY J. G. BELLETT The Son of God A Treatise dwelling on the eternal glories and Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ; — the “Son that dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed Him.’’ Paper, 25c.; cloth, 60 The Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus A precious little volume for all those who, like Mary, would sit at the Saviour’s feet. Paper, 20c.; cloth, 60 The Evangelists A Study of the Four Gospels, “tracing the varied glories of Christ, and to notice their characteris¬ tics, so as to distinguish the purpose of the Spirit of God in each of them.” 500 pp. cloth, $1.50 The Patriarchs Being Meditations upon Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Job: with the Canticles, and Heaven and Earth. 435 pp. Cloth, $1.60 The Captives of Judah Lessons from the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther Paper, 20 Short Meditations on Elisha A precious little book, tracing the ways of God in grace, as represented by His servant Elisha, amid Israel’s fallen condition. Paper. 20c; cloth, 60 Miscellaneous Papers New Creation; Woolen and Linen; etc.,etc. Paper, 20 Meditations on the Psalms Chiefly in their Prophetic Character. Cloth, $1.00 On the Gospel of John Reprinted from The Evangelists. Paper, 35 HebrewSy or The Opened Heavens Cloth, 60 Orders for $1. sent free; add lO^c for smaller orders. LOIZEAUX BROTHERS, Publishers 1 East 13th Street New York City