and their seed the land of Canaan (i. 8; vi. 10; ix. 5, 27; xxx. 20); to redeem their seed from Egypt (vii. 8); to love, bless and multiply their seed (vii. 12); and this covenant Jehovah guaranteed by his oath and this oath is twenty-two times solemnly insisted upon in Dt. as the warrant of their faith (i. 8, 35; vi. 10, 18, 23; vii. 8, 12, 13; viii. 1, 18; ix. 5; x. 11; xi. 9, 21; xiii. 17 (18); xix. 8; xxvi. 3, 15; xxviii. 9, 11; xxx. 20; xxxi. 7). D teaches the Israelite who turns in prayer of gratitude to God (xxvi. 13 15), to use this fictitious oath of Jehovah as an argument with him. "If the critical view is correct," the covenant of God with Abraham is pure fiction, the oath of God is an equal fiction, and yet D represents Jehovah as faithful to all his promises and keeping covenant (vii. 9); and by means of this mass of fiction and oaths encourages the people to put their trust in Jehovah. Jehovah also made a covenant with Israel at Horeb (iv. 13, 23; v. 23; ix. 9, 11, 15; xvii. 2; xxix. 1; xxviii. 69) and in Moab (xxix. 1), as solemn and sacred as he made with Abraham. But these are fictions also if this criticism is correct.

There is still a deeper abyss of infamy and fraud "if the critical view be correct." D has the unparalleled hypocrisy to brand as a sin to be punished with death his own deed, ascribing to Jehovah what Jehovah had never said (xiii. 1-5; xviii. 20). D makes Jehovah forbid the changing of any word of his (iv. 2; v. 32; xii. 32: xvii. 11, 20). He makes Jehovah promise all blessings to obedience to D's words (v. 32 f; vi. 1-9, 12 19; xi. 13- 25; xiii. 17 ff. etc); and threaten all dire curses upon diso bedience (viii. 19, 20; xi. 28; xxviii. 15 ff.). There is no space to follow D, on this critical theory, through all his frauds; the above may suffice.

No European critic of this school justifies this; they condemn it as "a lie told for the glory of God," "not a moral proceeding," "an intentional forgery," "a literary fraud," "a pious fiction," "an error."1 Dr. Driver alone justifies D in his proceeding. "The means which he [D] adopted for giving it practical effect were well chosen" (p. lii). His purpose was good. "Ancient writers permitted themselves much freedom in ascribing to historical [Moses historical according to this criticism?] characters speeches which they could not have actually delivered;" "the dialogues of Plato, the epic of Dante, the tragedies of Shakespeare, the Paradise Lost, and even the poem of Job" do the same; D) “makes no unfair use of Moses' name . . . he merely develops with great moral energy and rhetorical power, and in a form adapted to the age in which he [D] lived, principles which Moses had beyond all question advocated, and arguments which he would have cordially accepted as his own” (p. lviii ff.).

Since, according to this criticism, Moses was behind a Sahara of saga 1 Kuenen, Hex., p. 219 ff.; Bible for Learners, Vol. ii. p. 330 ff.; Wellhausen, Comp., p. 204; Dillmann, Numeri, etc., p. 595; Reuss, Gte d. H. S., SS 287 289; Stade, Gte., Vol. i. pp. 16, 656; Cornill, Einl.,p. 36 ff.; Holzinger, Einl., p. 328 ff.; Kayser, Theol. d. A. T., pp. 49, 192; Wildeboer, Litt., p. 186 ff.; Westphal, Sources, Vol. ii. pp. 115, 264, 280.

tradition five hundred years wide, without a scrap of history concerning him, Dr. Driver's assertion in the words italicized by us, is a piece of pure dogma destitute of the palest moonbeam of proof. It is a case of attempted mind reading across an abyss of five hundred years; an appropriate plea in defense of D against all his fellow-critics. "If the critical view of Dt. be correct," the book is not a forgery or a fiction or an invention (p. Ixi); "he cannot be held guilty of dishonesty or literary fraud;" "its moral and spiritual greatness remains unimpaired; its inspired authority is in no respect less than that of any other part of the Old Testament which happens to be anonymous" (p. lxii). "The adoption of this verdict of criticism implies no detraction either from the inspired authority of Dt., or from its ethical and religious value. . . . Dt. gathers up the spiritual lessons and experiences not of a single lifetime, but of many generations of God-inspired men. It is a nobly conceived endeavor to stir the conscience of the individual Israelite, and to infuse Israel's whole national life with new spiritual and moral energy" (p. xii ff.).

Under this criticism it has become common to use terms with positive historic signification in a sense that none but the initiated understand. Moral, spiritual, ethical, inspired, God-inspired (only once used in the Bible), conscience, certainly mean something very different from the definitions of the lexicons and common use when applied to justify what every other critic of this school says is a pious fraud. We are glad that only one critic justifies their figment D in the work they have given him to do. This commentary is designed chiefly "for stu dents and clergymen." If they accept the fundamental theory of this criticism, that its fulcrum is mere tradition in pious fraud, we hope they will have, like the European critics, the courage of their convictions and say so plainly, and save morality by denying that God ever inspired fraud and hypocrisy.

If Dt. is what this criticism and commentary make it to be, a fiction from the mouth of God, all labor spent on it is lost. If Dt. is God's truth from God's mouth, good were it for this commentary had it never been born.

THE USE OF KINGDOM AND CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTA

MENT.

So

IN our hymnology, "kingdom" and "church" are synonyms. are they in the New Testament, but with a wider range of variation. In their simpler meanings we may accept Fairbairn's remark, that "the kingdom is the immanent church, the church is the explicated kingdom.” When Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, or in parables, or in passing VOL. LII. NO. 208.

II

allusion, spoke of the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, or simply of the kingdom, it was usually to set forth the ideal which he came into the world to make actual, but which was not yet realized.

This ideal began to be realized in the local Christian assemblies, and the apostles, both in the Acts and the Epistles, spoke much oftener of the actual, concrete church or churches, than of the ideal kingdom.

Of the twenty-one times the word “ church" occurs in the book of Acts, all except ix. 31 can be understood of the local congregation, and only three or four others can possibly be taken in any wider sense. In Acts xx. 28, "the church of God which he purchased with his own blood,” the word is more naturally taken of the church universal; and,so perhaps viii. 3, “made havoc of the church." In ix. 31 the best MSS. leave no doubt of this use, for they read," then had the church rest throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria."

The word occurs five times in the Epistle to the Romans, all in the sixteenth chapter, and always with the local meaning.

Of twenty-two occurrences in First Corinthians, only two have the distinctively larger sense: x. 32, "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God;" xii. 28, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles," etc. Two others may be taken in the more extended meaning: xi. 22, "or despise ye the church of God," and xv.9, "I persecuted the church of God." In Second Corinthians, “church" occurs nine times, always of the local body. The three uses in Galatians are the same except that i. 13, “I persecuted the church of God," cannot be so readily taken of the church in Jerusalem as of the church universal. Two references.in each Epistle to the Thessalonians are simply to the local church or churches.

On the other hand, the Epistle to the Philippians has one reference to the local and one to the universal church; while two of the four passages in the Epistle to the Colossians are of the church universal and glorified, calling the church the body of Christ. In the Epistle to the Ephesians this last use occurs nine times, and the local use not at all.

Thus there appears in the Epistles of Paul, and especially the later ones, a use of "church" in a meaning hardly distinguishable from that of "kingdom" in several of the parables and in such phrases as "enter into the kingdom," "fit for the kingdom." Compare especially the phrase "For his body's sake, which is the church" (Col. i. 24) with "For the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matt. xix. 12), and "the kingdom of heaven, for which ye also suffered" (2 Thess. i. 5).

In the Gospels the word "kingdom" occurs more than a hundred times. The word "church" is found in none of them, except Matthew, and there in but two passages. In Matt. xviii. 7, Christ makes the local church or congregation the final court of appeal in the case of an offending brother. In Matt. xvi. 18, Christ tells Peter, "On this rock I will build my church." Here the word "kingdom" would fit so well that Thayer does

not hesitate in his lexicon to suggest that the evangelist misreported this saying!

On the other hand, in the Acts and Pauline Epistles, exclusive of the Pastoral Epistles, “kingdom" occurs but nineteen times, while “church" is found seventy-nine times. The drift of usage was very rapid in preference of the shorter word. We know how emphasis was increasingly put on the word "church" in the post-apostolic time until the accepted saying was, "There is no salvation outside the church."

Two important inferences may be drawn from these facts.

The first is, that a time much later than the apostolic is very improbable for the production of four books like the Gospels that eschew the use of the word "church" which already in the days of the apostles had become so popular. Some evidence, also, in regard to the date of Revelation may be found in the fact that it never uses "church" in the larger

sense.

The second inference is as to the accuracy with which the evangelists reported the words of our Lord. Some, if not all, of the Gospels are later than a part, if not all, of the Pauline Epistles. What but the accuracy of their memory and the carefulness of their record can explain their persistent use of "kingdom" when in so many places "church," in the meantime already becoming current, would have fitted equally well? W. E. C. WRIGHT.

CLEVELAND, ().

ARTICLE IX.

SOCIOLOGICAL NOTES.

CHARITY.

IN the July number, charity was considered in its relations to the gen◄ eral law of toil. It was seen that toil is the natural lot of man; that it begets value when wisely directed, and that it begets virtue; that sloth and idleness are not negative virtues, but positive vices. Their results, like those of toil, are subjective and objective. The exceptions to the general law of toil for each and all were then noted. There were found to be the physically and mentally unsound, which brings to consideration the subject of dependents, defectives, and delinquents. A large class was found of those who are able and willing to work but cannot find employment. The suggestion of a remedy for such conditions was employment furnished by the State.

A large class who are able to work, but are unwilling and prefer to become dependents, presented a problem not so easily solved. It is simply the problem of pauperism. A false remedy was found to be indiscriminate charity. The true remedies were suggested to be in enforced industry and in education which must be largely a personal work.

But the broad question of pauperism demands a wider inquiry than is revealed through some self-evident economic axioms. While we may differ from many of our labor-union friends who find in our social conditions the entire causes of intemperance, poverty, and crime, we shall do well to heed their indictment of society as they see it to-day, and enter upon a general inquiry as to how far such a civilization as ours is responsible for the existence of a criminal and pauper class. This simply raises the question, Is the solidarity of the human race such that a contagious disease in the upper classes has become epidemic among the lower?

If pauperism is caused by social conditions, then the whole of society needs purifying, from the head to the feet. Charity, legal procedure, workshops, or even education would be like a poultice on a boil,-it would draw the bad blood out, but would not necessarily purify the system. Such would not be permanent cures. They might cure paupers, but not pauperism.

Society, being simply an aggregation of individuals, seems to resem ble the individual in his periods of health and sickness, of hope and de