the idea of giving it to an evil spirit. It looks more like a symbolical representation of putting the people's sin away, so that it may be remembered no more.

The third case is the one in which Satan, the adversary, moves David to number Israel (1 Chron. xxi. 1). But Mr. Chambers does not notice that there are two accounts of this incident, and that in the one God is said to do what, in the other, Satan is said to do. With this diversity, no argument for a personal evil spirit can be based on the passage.

The fourth mention of Satan occurs in one of the night visions of Zechariah (Zech. iii. 1-3). The high priest is standing before Jehovah, and Satan, as his adversary, stands on his right hand. But it may fairly be urged that no dogma can be proved by visions, which are accommodations to times and modes, and were representative, not descriptive. Mr. Chambers also claims the Satan of the book of Job as the personal evil spirit, though the book itself represents him as no more than the angel-minister of God's afflictive dispensations.

It may be that sufficient arguments may be found for the existence of Satan as a chief evil spirit; but if Mr. Chambers covers the ground of Old Testament references, it must be admitted that his facts and arguments are altogether insufficient to bear the weight of such a conclusion.

CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS. By CHARLES A. AIKEN (Presbyterian and Reformed Review).-The Church is ill at ease in view of the social situation. Those who believe that for society, as well as for the individual man, promise of the life which now is and of that which is to come," cannot be content 66 Godliness has with things as they are. The Church, studying social problems in the light of her own endowments and opportunities, and the world's needs, finds that in relation to them she has three offices, a conservative, a reformatory, and a mediating office. This is the order of the natural relationship, dignity, and importance of these offices. 1. The Conservative Office. sioned with special reference to the condition and needs of the great human society. The Church is ordained, equipped, and commisIt has a witness to bear and a work to do for God among men with reference to the relations and interests of this life. Then the Church must be conservative of the position assigned her in the world. Her place is appointed for her, and she is to hold it to the end. The Church must be conservative of the instructions given her; and where the letter of her instructions is not at once clear, she must take care not to allow any other spirit to vitiate or supplant the spirit of the Divine orders under which she alone has warrant to act at all. The Church should conserve high and pure doctrine in regard to such truths and principles as these: "The reality and efficiency and rightful supremacy of moral and spiritual entities and forces; the reality and the transcendent importance of moral and spiritual interests; the maintenance of a due proportion and a right relation of things material to things spiritual; and therefore, of course, the supremacy of God and things Divine; the uncompromising assertion of the reality and the authoritative nature of God's revelations of Himself in His Son and in His Word honest earnest toil; the law of increase and conquest in many of the most important the grand principle of the dignity and blessedness of departments and relations of life, that losing is finding, that sacrifice is acquisition, that submission is ascendancy, that surrender is triumph." It is for the Church to reassure herself in respect to these truths, not solely by considering their source and their primary credentials, but also by constantly putting them to the proof which they invite. They demand application.

2. The Reformatory Office of Christianity.

Some declare that Christianity is

anti-reformatory, because of its "other-worldliness." It looks to another life for the correction of the inequalities and other ills of this life. But Christianity, though conservative, is not conservative of all that exists. Its concern is for salvation in no narrow sense. It includes, with individual rescue, "the transfiguration of society." Its grapple is with men's estrangement from God, in all the spheres, and all the forms, and all the degrees in which this shows itself. Westcott is quoted as saying, "The supremacy of Christianity extends to all social organizations, to all civil compacts, to all imperial designs, no less than to all doctrines of God and the single soul." It approaches the reformation of society through the reformation of the individual, instead of relying, as Socialism does, on the artificial, summary, and, if necessary, violent reconstruction of society. It works from within outward. It works as leaven, inter-penetrating, and so transforming, the life, the mass, into which it is introduced.

3. The Mediating Function of Christianity. The Church is no direct arbiter in the strifes of men. But her mediation is always timely, and should contribute much to the solution of the vexed problems of the day. She can speak with a disinterestedness and a conciliating kindness that are all her own; as well as with a firmness and an authority that no other may assume to use. The Christian Church never assumes to speak the only word that is to be spoken on the delicate, complicated, and important problems with which we are now dealing.

Social life, society, in the mediation of the Church, should come to be acknowledged and treated as the ordinance of God. "This divinely ordained society is an organism which becomes more highly and variously complex. Its primary, permanent, and indestructible elements-the family, the State, the Church-providing for home life, civic life, and the religious life of men, in fellowship with God, and with one another, continue to the end, fulfilling their appointed office. The industrial life of men, protected and promoted by less fixed and unchanging institutions, finds shelter, honour, nurture, in its largest expansion and its most diversified development, proving the reality of the dominion conferred on man over lower life and matter, and ministering to varied enjoyments and rich and satisfying usefulness." "He will be greatest in the kingdom of earth, as he is declared by Christ to be chief in the heavenly kingdom, who serves most and best." And with this as primary principle, Christianity can enter into all social questions, and materially aid in guidance to right issues.

CURRENT

GERMAN

THOUGHT.

NOTE ON "GO TOWARD NOON," TорEÚον кαтà μeonμßplav (Acts viii. 26). By PROF. E. NESTLE, Tübingen (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1892, Second Part).-" C. Weizsaecker still translates: Ziehe hin gen Mittag," showing by the use of gen instead of gegen that he still understands кarà μeonμßpíav in a geographical, not in its original temporal sense. So, too, all expositors known to me: Meyer (to the last edition), De Wette, Noesgen, Baumgarten, J. D. Michaelis, Erasmus, Chrysostom. Scarcely in any one do I find the question raised whether it may not also mean: "Go toward noon," i.e., shortly before twelve o'clock, and yet in my opinion this is the only right rendering; for

1. Toрevov represents to which scarcely occurs in Biblical Greek. In the LXX

NO. III.-VOL. I.-THE THINKER.

R

only in Ex. xxxii. 26; Prov. vi. 6, paraphrased by Hesychius in the first line by TOPEÚOV; in the New Testament, léva‹ is not found at all.

2. In Biblical Greek, μeoŋußpía denotes only the time of day (Acts xxii. 6), and twenty-two times in the LXX; intelligibly, for the Oriental calls the south the right hand, not by the position of the sun, but by his own position in prayer. In Biblical Greek, even in Luke, the south is vóros (Luke.xii. 55; xiii. 29). The Hebrew Negeb, by which Delitzsch renders the present κarà μeonμßpíav, is never so translated in the LXX. Eusebius also, in his Topography, uses μconuẞpía in a geographical sense only thrice, instead of the usual vóros.

3. The south road from Jerusalem is not the Gaza, but the Hebron road, by which no doubt Gaza can be reached. But if the latter were meant, as supposed by modern editors, and, in consequence of the wrong translation, by old legends, it must have read: by the way which goes by Hebron; not simply: which goes to Gaza. In the time of Eusebius the fountain, in which the chamberlain was baptized, was shown in the Gaza road.

4. If one is certainly to meet a man in a road, the time must be indicated when he will be passing it. The case is different when Ananias has to find Saul and the messenger of Cornelius Peter in a house. Thus it is probable a priori that Karà

μεσημβρίαν indicates the time of day.

5. In a quite similar connection karà with accus. denotes the time toward (xvi. 25, karà μeσovúktɩov), i.e., shortly before midnight; there also in some MSS. the article is wanting as here, whilst wept with accus. (xxii. 6, πepi μconμßpíav) denotes about noon, i.e., shortly before or after.

6. About this time of day a road, animated at other times, is empty; perhaps the much-debated expression, "the same was desert," is to be thus explained. But in any case Zeller may be right in making Philip to have returned with the Apostles to Jerusalem, whereas Meyer and most others think of him as still in Samaria. Chrysostom, who read πpòs μɛσ., interprets as the latter.

7. "After my attention was directed to the passage in Acts by the passage Ecclus. ix. 7 (ἐν ῥυμαῖς πολέως καὶ ἐν ἐρήμοις αὐτῆς, where the Latin translator has in vicis et plateis) and xlix. 6 (ǹpńμwσav ràs ódovs avtîs), I afterwards found a reference to the temporal sense first in the old interpreter Starke, who, however, rejects it, saying: 'The meaning is not about noon-day, for there was no need to say this here, and in that country no journeying ordinarily takes place about noon-day, because of the great heat, but: toward the South'; and secondly, in the English Revised Version, where the rendering 'at noon' is put as an alternative in the margin. May I hope that future interpreters of the Acts will not merely notice this new, or revised, explanation of apparently so simple a passage, but even adopt it?"

A GERMAN CRITICISM OF A GERMAN DIVINE. By DR. ERICH HAUPT, HALLE (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1892, Second Part).-Prof. Nösgen, of Rostock (successor of Philippi the commentator), is writing a new history of the New Testament Revelation. The first volume, embracing the Gospel history, has recently appeared, and the other, dealing with the Apostolic age, is to follow. The writer of the present notice did his best to learn the drift of Nösgen's work, but found himself largely baffled by the author's wordy and involved style. It is a relief to him to find that even Prof. Haupt (author of an excellent commentary on 1 Epistle of John), has had a similar experience. His long article gives a very clear account of the purport of the work, at once doing justice to its good points and criticizing its weak ones. The critic does the latter part of his work with evident reluctance and pain, as might be expected in

one of his gentle spirit. What is remarkable is that Haupt is at one with Dr. Nösgen in his main conclusions, in hearty faith in the evangelical history and doctrine. But none the less he dissents from Nösgen's mode of advocacy and defence, which seems to be a reproduction of the method of Hengstenberg. A good cause suffers from bad arguments. Nösgen's industry, laboriousness, apologetic earnestness and zeal are all admirable; it is his wisdom and tact which seriously fail. The critic finds the book heavy reading on account of the peculiarly clumsy and monotonous style. Both the method and substance are sharply criticized in several respects.

Starting from the principle that the revelation of God given in Christ consists of words and acts (ignoring the Person of Christ Himself as a revelation), Nösgen protests against the separation of the two elements, and contends for their union and reciprocal influence. Another of his contentions is that the Christian revelation must be viewed as something altogether apart from ordinary history, a wholly supernatural product. The first position contains nothing new or objectionable. Neither of the two factors of revelation should be entirely severed from the other. They interpenetrate in the closest manner. Most writers concede and act on the principle. A separate discussion of the two elements, indeed, is useful in the interest of clearness, and perhaps the absence of this explains some of the difficulty of Nösgen's work; but the two sides are always again brought into union. The other principle is far more open to objection. It asserts the old non-historical view of revelation. According to it, revelation is given not through, but alongside the human and natural. It may be possible to carry this principle out to some extent in reference to Christ Himself, because of the uniqueness of His life and character. But how can it be done in regard to the Apostles, who, outside their special office, were simply men like others? The obvious effect is to obliterate the distinction which even believers must make between Christ and the Apostles, to co-ordinate the two parts of revelation in the New Testament, and so far to rob Christ of His uniqueness. He that has Christ has the Father; he that sees Christ sees the Father. This can be said of no Apostle. "All that the Apostles know is light from His light. . . . . The Apostolic age is to be viewed as a period of revelation, not merely because the Apostles received revelations of a miraculous kind, but primarily because the entire history of the age brought clearly out the full meaning of the revelation given in Christ, chiefly by quite natural means. Without bringing into account this element of historical influence, the revelation of the Apostolic age cannot be exhibited, for the history is the form in which the latter is given. . . . . Certainly the Apostolic age is part of the period of revelation, since the content of the latter was only fully understood in that age, and its aim, namely the founding of a community at peace with God, was realized; but the history of the age cannot be regarded as a co-ordinate continuation of God's revealing work in Christ." Thus the critic completely traverses the second principle.

66

...

66

He also contests Dr. Nösgen's rigid theory of Inspiration, on which the "absolute" trustworthiness of the New Testament writings is an a priori maxim.” To me," Dr. Haupt says, "the historical character of the Gospel narratives in all essentials is quite certain, and if I have any difficulties, these are so little a matter of joy that it would be a joy to me if they could be removed." Nösgen's rigid maxim, he argues, is just, neither to the nature of Christian faith, nor to the facts of the case. It is not just to Christian faith to make its very existence depend as much on every detail of historical statement as on the great central facts of redemption. "If it is not true that the temple-veil was rent asunder, I am told in effect it is illogical in me to believe in the truth of the Resurrection on which my salvation depends."

So again the historical evidence only is taken into account, all the subjective confirmation of personal experience being ignored. Nor is such a maxim just to the facts. The more any one binds up the entire case of Christianity with every detail of historical statement, the more he is bound to defend every such detail. This Dr. Nösgen does most vigorously, but often with arguments and in ways which are far from carrying conviction. He is too often blind to the weakness of his own case and the strength of the opposite one, to say nothing of reflections upon the motives of others.

To refer somewhat more fully to the author's treatment of the Resurrection, he shows himself unable to distinguish between a mere figment of imagination and a revelation in a vision. He describes some opponents as saying that Paul "regarded as real what he only saw in spirit." "So, in fact, he only saw in spirit and held it real! Thus inward facts are less real, according to our author, than objects of sense. The distinction between a mere subjective fancy and the real revelation of the exalted Saviour has not even occurred to him. I do not mention this to defend the hypothesis of a revelation by vision, but only to show how little the author can distinguish between different ideas." Haupt also regards the effort to base the verity of the Resurrection on historical proof exclusively as wrong and dangerous. He, of course, himself holds the historical proof to be ample. Still, the issues are too great to be staked on that ground alone. "If this Christ has become to me the author of a new, supersensual life, the foundation of my whole being, He through whom my life has first gained security and meaning, this is proof to me that He did not fall a prey to destruction, not merely that He enjoys some sort of existence in general, but that He is the exalted Head of His kingdom, and is doing to-day what He did before, namely, seeking and saving the lost. In such personal experience, and in it alone, do we find the ground from which we can receive the Biblical narratives as historical, and also the supplement of that which, in the mere historical aspect, would remain an open question. There is a further misunderstanding in Nösgen's assertion, in presence of Paul's statement, that, if Christ be not risen, our faith is vain, there is no ground for saying that the Easter faith of Christians cannot be established by historical argument. First, it is clear that the statement of Paul remains just as true when the verity of the Resurrection is deduced from Christian experience as when it is proved historically. But Nösgen will reply, Paul himself in that passage proved the Resurrection to the Corinthians historically. Just so. He gave a series of cases in which men believed in Christ as living on the ground of their own experience. This is precisely my standpoint in holding that all believers in the Risen One have got this faith in substantially the same way—on the ground of their own experience. For that they saw Him in bodily form, and we not, makes no difference in the nature of the case. Not merely because here the saying applies, 'the Spirit quickens, the flesh is useless,' but also because the Lord Himself, after His resurrection, always blamed His disciples for refusing to believe in His resurrection unless they saw Him in bodily form. It is also a misunderstanding to say that 'the Resurrection of Christ is no question of science, but a question of the certainty of the facts believed as to which the decision rests with the Apostles.' On the contrary, according to Nösgen, the Resurrection would be a question of science, since he is continually trying to establish the authenticity and truth of the Gospel narratives on grounds of reason; but this is a scientific procedure. Certainly the Resurrection is not a question of science in the highest sense, but one of faith; and for this very reason the course taken by Nösgen is one that cannot lead to the goal."