admission of these writings into the canon which gave them authority, but, on the contrary, that it was the authority which they had enjoyed from the beginning as the works of Apostles that determined their admission. The authority existed; the Church simply declared and confirmed it. The authority of the Apostolic writings, therefore, does not rest upon the ancient Catholic Church, but upon that of the Apostles, which in its turn rests upon the sovereign authority of Christ, who gave these men the charge to feed and govern His Church. This is the ultimate foundation of the canonical writings. We can recognize it without accepting the authority of the Church which collected them and formed them into one book.

But behind this lies the much more serious question-Have we works written by Apostles, and can we recognize them with certainty? M. Sabatier asserts that we cannot be sure of the Apostolic origin of any of the New Testament books with the exception of some written by St. Paul, who was of course not one of the twelve chosen by Christ. Let us, then, consider what means we have for ascertaining the authorship of the other books of the New Testament. There are two kinds of evidence on which to decide the question—(1) External, the belief of the primitive Church; and (2) Internal, that drawn from the books themselves.

1. External Evidence.-The Apostolic writings addressed to special Churches were first of all deposited in the archives of those Churches, in the care of the presbyters, to be consulted and re-read from time to time. This fact is asserted by Irenæus and Tertullian. After a little, copies of these works were mutually exchanged. Thus at the close of the first century Clement of Rome makes use of 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, and probably Titus. At the beginning of the second century Ignatius makes use of St. Matthew, St. John, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Timothy. Polycarp a little later quotes St. Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John. In a short time all the Churches had in common a certain number of Apostolic writings universally received. These were our four Gospels, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, and 1 Peter and 1 John. Soon after the middle of the second century they all appear in the Syriac version of the East and in the Latin version of the West, and they are named in the Muratorian fragment. Seven of our books were not as yet universally used; five of them (Jude, 2, 3 John, 2 Peter, Apoc.) were wanting in the Syriac version, and three probably (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter) in the Latin. When the final decision as to the canon was come to, there was no debate as to the twenty books universally received; the only discussion was as to the remaining seven, which were admitted by the decision of the synod. A few other religious books which were favourite reading in isolated districts, but which found no general acceptance, were finally excluded. These are the facts of the case: so that we have the full weight of historical evidence for the Apostolic origin of twenty of the books which form the nucleus of the canon; the question as to the origin of the remaining seven being left an open one.

2. Internal Evidence.-One of the most important items in this class of evidence is the way in which the writer describes himself. If he mentions his own name, as in the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, or if he implies it in the course of his book, as in the case of the Fourth Gospel, 1 John, and perhaps the Apocalypse, it is simply a question of good faith. The Church has not hesitated to decide this question in the affirmative, the only exception being that of 2 Peter, and the admission of it into the canon was in harmony with a very widespread opinion in its favour during the two preceding centuries. The Epistles of James and Jude are, from their titles, not of Apostolic origin, and they can therefore only occupy a secondary place in the

canon. The same is true of the anonymous epistle to the Hebrews. As for the synoptic gospels, the Church in collecting them gave them their titles; but there can be no doubt that the materials of which they are composed were drawn from the testimony of the Apostolic circle. St. Luke distinctly affirms this concerning his own work, and implies that the same is true of other primitive narratives of the ministry of Jesus. We can, therefore, assure ourselves of the Apostolic origin of the greatest part, and certainly of the most important part, of the New Testament. M. Sabatier rightly reminds us that this is only human, historical conviction which bears no proportion to religious faith. Still, it is impossible to separate the two; they confirm and complete each other. The former is a stepping-stone to the latter, and is, indeed, necessary to it. For religious faith may in times of depression be driven to ask if it is founded on something more than what may be, after all, the mere inventions of some dreamer. The relation between the two kinds of faith and the natural transition from the one to the other are very strikingly set forth in the conversion of the Samaritans at Sychar. After Jesus had been a couple of days in the village, the inhabitants said to the woman whose report had first attracted them to Him, "Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world" (John iv. 42).

The great point at issue between us is as to the nature of the revelation from which the Christian life springs. M. Sabatier seems to allow that it consisted simply in the personality of Jesus Christ, His life in God, and His consciousness of Sonship. The question is, is such a revelation sufficient to explain the facts? Is it sufficient to effect the salvation of the sinner? In a subsequent article I shall deal with these questions.

QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY TO EXEGESIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. E. MARTIN (Revue de Théologie).—It is often said that historical criticism has overthrown the authority of the Bible, as science has banished the supernatural. Both affirmations are generally uttered thoughtlessly, and on examination turn out to be baseless.

Let us glance first at that which is often presented as an axiom-that the supernatural is impossible. This question of the supernatural is of capital importance in considering the New Testament, not only because the Gospels record a great many miracles wrought by the creative power of God, but especially because the fact to which the whole New Testament bears witness is a supernatural fact. The life of Jesus is abnormal. When the Apostle says (Rom. i. 16) that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth," he affirms that Christianity is due to an act of will on the part of God, who interposes in the life of the world to change its course. How can advance in science be said to contradict this statement of the Apostle? So far at any rate as it is concerned, the matter is not within the province of what is properly called science at all. A careful observation of the facts of nature has established the idea of law, and law is the direct negation of chance, incoherence, and superstition. Natural laws are various applications of the one great principle that in certain circumstances a certain phenomenon will appear. But this principle does not touch the question of the supernatural. Science has to do with results-to explain them if possible—and its province is not to decide what may or may not enter into the antecedent circumstances.

Every day it happens that the ordinary course of events is modified by some unforeseen cause, or by the hand of man. Why should it be held impossible that God should interpose, and in like manner, without the violation of any law, alter the course

of events? To deny that it can be so may be the decision of a scientist or of scientists, but not of science. This interposition on the part of God is not by any means to be regarded as limited to material facts. All through the Bible the miraculous in the physical world is regarded as quite subordinate in importance to the miraculous in the moral order of things-in other words, to the revelation of the kingdom of God. Revelation is the interposition of God in the course of the history of mankind to overcome the law of sin and death. To discuss the reality or possibility of this action is not the province of science or mere intelligence—it lies in the department of the moral and the spiritual. He who has placed his confidence in Christ, the Word made flesh, lives in the supernatural—he strives against the law of subjection to evil; henceforth he finds it easy to recognize in those material facts called miracles the action of the creative Spirit of God. Not only does that interposition on the part of God appear to him as in itself possible, but those isolated facts are regarded by him as occasions when it has pleased God to show that, while ordinarily allowing events to take their course, He reserves to Himself absolute sovereignty and the right of manifesting it.

2. The bearing of historical criticism upon the authority of the New Testament. Just as in science the idea of natural law is accepted, so we must admit that the books of the New Testament were drawn up by men in certain circumstances, with certain purposes in view, under the influence of certain feelings, that these men were not agreed in all points, that each had his own individuality, that they were liable to error, &c. This being admitted at the bidding of historical criticism, what results from it as to the authority of the New Testament and the part it plays in the origin and development of religious faith ?

The New Testament is not the object of faith, for only that which is perfect, worthy of worship, and essentially Divine can be the object of faith. It is the sincere testimony rendered by the first believers to the object of their faith, i.e., Christ, the Conqueror of sin and death, the Saviour of the world. It is a means for creating faith, just as the Apostles were "ministers by whom men believed, even as the Lord gave to every man" (1 Cor. iii. 5). It contains four narratives of the life and character of Jesus, and in some letters it gives a vivid representation of the faith of the Christians of the first generation in that Person who had proved His true spiritual Lordship in rising from the dead and entering upon power by the forgiveness of sin and the new birth.

Of what importance are the imperfections of witnesses if their testimony is clear enough to show us the perfection of Him whom they know and describe? What matters it that it is difficult to reconstruct the history as a whole and to harmonize its details if every earnest-minded reader perceives it to be a message from God-an invitation to enter into personal communion with Him who is the only begotten Son? What does it matter if the expressions and images of the writers need sometimes to be translated into words and ideas more familiar to our minds, if their faith impresses us with a sense of its vigour and superiority? The New Testament has been from the beginning a means for propagating Christianity, for kindling faith, and for securing the development of faith in thought and action. This it still is at the present day; in spite of all criticism, it has lost nothing of its intrinsic value and authority. We conclude, therefore, that to avoid superstition, it is necessary to subject every book of the New Testament to historical criticism, which sometimes is barren enough of results, but is often very suggestive; and that, in order that the criticism may not be injurious, it must be constantly carried on reverently, with faith in the Son of God, who loves us and gave Himself for us (Gal. ii. 20).

NO. III.-VOL. I.—THE THINKER.

S

CURRENT CANADIAN

THOUGHT.

MESSIANIC PROPHECY, by Prof. WORKMAN, Ph.D. (Canadian Methodist Quarterly).— Dr. Workman, in this article, elaborates and qualifies a previous article which had been both misunderstood and misrepresented. He takes the position of an orthodox champion of the scientific investigation of prophetical Scripture. Dealing with the phenomena of prophecy, he recognizes something common to all primitive prophecy, both Hebrew and heathen. In all nations we find the prophetic genius taking shape in dream, vision, power of insight, and power of foresight. But Hebrew prophecy has distinguishing characteristics. It is in its nature a special Divine revelation, a part of the progressive revelation of God's truth to man, such as was not given to pagan prophets. It is in its contents a special unfolding of the Divine purposes, a gradual disclosure of God's purpose toward man, such as was never given to heathen seers. Dr. Workman asserts, but does not prove, that Hebrew differ from heathen prophets in kind, and not merely in degree. It is open to any one to argue, that the difference is wholly traceable to the different missions which separate nations have to fulfil, and that the peculiarity of Hebrew prophecy is fully accounted for by the speciality of its race-mission.

In the origin of prophecy there is both a human and a Divine side. Humanity has ever shown a deep desire for knowledge in respect to spiritual realities and temporal contingencies; the seer and the fortune-teller represent the human side of prophecy. But all true prophecy originates in the energizing influence of the Spirit of God. Man, especially some men, can foresee much, but the Divine power alone can lift foresight into prophecy. The Hebrew prophets did not merely claim inspiration, they claimed inspiration of God. Their work is only viewed aright when considered in direct relations with the central ideas of the Jewish religion, which are: 1. Covenant; 2. Kingdom; 3. Theocracy. From this last-the direct personal rule of God-came the prophetic conception of an "ideal person," which is the speciality of Old Testament prophecy. Prophecy has two elements, a moral and a predictive; but the moral end is the supreme end, and for the sake of it predictions are given. Careful distinction should be made between the terms "foretell" and "forthtell." The predictive element is incidental to the main work of Old Testament prophets; they "foretell" only that they might "forthtell." The recognition of this fact gives a key to the modern treatment of the prophetical books. We now seek to recognize the relation of a prophet to his age, and expect to find him using the future for present purposes.

The prophet is one who speaks from another and for another. His primary function was the religious teaching or instruction of his own contemporaries. He adapted his teachings to the special needs of the people among whom he lived and laboured. Their work was very comprehensive; they were teachers, preachers, poets, patriots, politicians, reformers, theologians, and historians. Their range of vision was also comprehensive. Delitzsch is quoted as saying, "Prophecy goes out from the present, and does not transport itself into the future, without returning to the ground of its own contemporary history." As the present necessarily contains the germ of the future, prophecy also has an outward, onward look. But if it looks beyond the present, it is to give expression to principles which were capable of wider application. The truths and principles are permanent.

A popular notion prevails that the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament Apostles belonged, somehow or other, to a different race of mortals from that to which the rest of men belong. The difference between them and their

fellow-men arose from spiritual training and experience; in other words, from Divine education and grace. Though differing in degree, it was the same in kind as that possessed by other consecrated men of God under the Jewish or the Christian dispensation. They were subject to limitations through their human faculties and infirmities. To all inspired teachers but Jesus the Spirit was given partially, not plenarily. Prophets were also limited by the partial dispensation under which they lived; as ministers of a progressive revelation, they possessed imperfect and incomplete conceptions of moral and religious truth. "Revelation was a progress not so much from errors in truth, as from incomplete statements of truth, resulting from inadequate conceptions of truth." However endowed, prophets were not conversant with the whole range of knowledge.

There need be no question that, in certain cases, the prediction might have been suggested by the existing circumstances to a person of great natural sagacity, because by reason of spiritual quickening and culture the prophets were placed upon a moral and spiritual elevation above that of other men; their range of vision was broader and larger.

Messianic prophecy was a development from certain germinal ideas belonging to an early period in the history of the Hebrew race. This is acknowledged by all competent students, but many overlook the superhuman agency at work through the process of development. By the development of Messianic prophecy is meant the progressive spiritual development of God-inspired ideas under the constant influence of the Divine Spirit.

The import of prophecy must be determined by the grammatico-historical method of interpretation. Exegesis is not a matter of authority, but of evidence. One can find authorities for the most absurd interpretations of prophetic Scripture ; but there is no authority that can overturn the force of fact. And we must always assume that the prophets understood the meaning of what they wrote, and wrote intelligently. In prophecy there was a threefold purpose-an immediate, an intermediate, and a remote. The immediate purpose was the upbuilding of the kingdom of God among the Hebrew people at a certain time and in a certain place. The intermediate purpose was the strengthening and extending of that kingdom from age to age throughout the Israelitish nation. The remote purpose was the establishment of the Divine kingdom, in the fulness of the time, by Jesus Christ, and the gradual consummation of that kingdom through the Spirit's influence to the end of time.

When expounding prophecy we should discriminate between its historical meaning and its doctrinal significance. But we should keep in mind that exegesis is independent of theology. In exegesis, we investigate each particular portion of an organic revelation, considered as a constituent element, by itself; in theology, we investigate each particular portion, considered as a constituent element, in relation to the whole system of which it forms a part.

Dr. Workman's idea of Messianic prophecy is that Jesus realized the ideal which the prophets had set forth, with more or less distinct anticipation of Christ: and the true fulfilment of prophecy lies in the realization of the principles which it has embodied and expressed. Because the advent of Christ was the outcome, and the mission of Christ was the accomplishment, of a gracious Divine purpose concerning the world, therefore Jesus of Nazareth was the historic realization of the prophetic idealization; that is, the prophetic ideal was actually realized in Him, not literally, but spiritually and officially. "The great ethical and spiritual ideas which appear in germinal form throughout the Old Testament not only attain in Christ a full and complete expression, but also find in Him a perfect spiritual embodiment."