ship of Old Testament books in Canon Driver's Introduction to the Old Testament and Professor Cheyne's Bampton Lectures. The writer is fully convinced that the criticism in question leads to a rejection of revelation and of the supernatural; and he reasonably enough remarks about it that it is a matter "of such vast importance, that in comparison with it our petty Church squabbles about millinery and gestures are infinitesimal." We cannot, however, say that he approaches his subject in a judicial frame of mind. His indignation against the theories of the "advanced school" of criticism, and his alarm at the effect he thinks those theories must have in destroying faith in the Word of God, incapacitate him for dealing fairly and impartially with the questions he discusses. Thus he says, "The conclusions of Canon Driver are these: That the Old Testament is full of contradictions and falsehoods; and that it includes many literary forgeries, like Macpherson's Ossian and Chatterton's Rowley Poems, which pretend to an antiquity and authorship they do not possess, in order to obtain an authority and value to which they are not entitled." "These critics analyse the books and chapters of the Bible into scraps. . . Their arguments so essentially depend upon the use of their scissors, that they rather deserve the name of scrapmongers than that of honourable critics." "It is no small part of the study of the destructive critics . . . . to invent contradictions where none exist, in order that the historical credit of the Scriptures may be conclusively destroyed." "These eminent false witnesses against God's Word disagree with one another in their testimony and conclusions." We can heartily agree with him in protesting against the hasty reception of the results of tentative theories, especially when the authors of them have no other information to guide them than that elicited from the sacred literature they criticize. But it must be borne in mind that the Higher Criticism, as distinguished from mere verbal criticism of the sacred text, has its own place, and may in due time lead to a more intelligent understanding of the revelations recorded in the Scriptures. It is to be feared that many of the orthodox school look on the Bible as Mohammedans look on the Koran, and consider that it is the Word of God, rather than that it contains the Word of God; and that this false idea is at the root of their inveterate opposition to the science of Biblical criticism. All through the pamphlet before us there is an attempt, which cannot be too severely reprobated, to make allusions in the New Testament to passages in the Old, decisive of questions concerning the date and authorship of the books referred to. That the Book of Jonah is a contemporary history, and not an allegory, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that David wrote the 110th and 16th Psalms, and that Isaiah was the author of the latter part of the book called by his name, are statements which the writer of this pamphlet says we must receive on the authority of our Lord and His Apostles. And the dilemma is set forth in the plainest and most horrific form that "if deceived or deceiving in this particular, both Christ and His Apostles must be unworthy of implicit credit in anything else that they tell us." It is sufficient to reply that Christ's allusion to the book of

Jonah (Matt. xii. 40, 41) is equally significant whether that book be regarded as a history or as an allegory; that the words, "Moses wrote of me (John v. 46), were not intended to answer a question as to the authorship of five books of the Old Testament; that the significance of the quotations from the Psalms referred to (Matt. xxii. 42-45; Acts ii. 25-31) does not depend upon the authorship of them; and that St. Paul simply quotes from the Book of Isaiah (Rom. x. 16, 20, 21), and does not affirm that the prophet of that name was the author of the latter part of the book. Others than "advanced critics" need to be careful not to make rash and ill-advised statements.

THE VIRGIN-BIRTH:

ITS EXPECTATION AND PUBLICATION. By PROF. WILBUR FLETCHER STEELE, Ph. D. Berlin (Methodist Review).Prof. Steele writes from a definitely orthodox standpoint. He accepts the statement of our Lord's miraculous birth from a virgin, as stated by St. Matthew and St. Luke, as an unquestionable article of faith. What he seeks to prove is-I. That there was no previous expectation among the Jews that the Messiah would be virgin-born. II. That the language of Isa. vii. 14 was not in any sense a prophecy of this event. I.-1. The first argument which Prof. Steele uses is rather a curious one, and certainly ingenious, if not of itself convincing. If the virgin-birth was generally anticipated, some official method would have been devised for discerning the genuine character of the future birth of the Messiah in the case of any virgin claimant, or else this expectation would have certainly been made a screen for grossly immodest imposture. It was also necessary to protect the true virgin-mother of the Messiah when she appeared from suspicion and legal disgrace. But there is no hint of the existence of such a method, and Joseph found it necessary to marry the Virgin, even though that marriage placed him in obviously a false position. It is further suggested that the revelation beforehand of the virgin-birth would have had a disastrous effect in another way, as modest and pious maidens, especially those espoused to royal heirs, would, in hope of being the virgin-mother predicted, have been tempted to defer marriage till past the time of child-bearing. 2. Here undoubtedly the Professor is on surer ground. He argues, very cogently we think, that the belief that Joseph was our Lord's real Father was manifestly universal during our Lord's lifetime. He lays special stress on such passages as Luke ii. 27, 48; iv. 22; Matt. xiii. 55; St. John vi. 42, and easily disposes of the objection that the term "Son of God" would then have been understood as necessarily implying the birth of a virgin. He believes that after Joseph's early death the fact of the virgin-birth was known to Mary alone, and that she probably revealed it to a few intimate friends, including probably St. Luke. We may at this point mention that though Prof. Steele is disposed to place St. Matthew about A.D. 60, and St. Luke A.D. 80, he is inclined to accept the view of Meyer that the first two chapters of St. Matthew are the later interpolations of Jewish Christians. He thus

regards St. Luke's narrative as the oldest account of the virgin-birth. II. On the second point the Professor's view is, in the main, that maintained in an article in the April number of THE THINKER. His argument is both positive and negative. The sign is so obviously intended for Ahaz, that if a virgin-birth was meant, it should, to fulfil the conditions of the prophecy, have taken place in the time of Ahaz. Negatively he argues that no sound argument can be based on the translation of 5 by Tapeévos in the LXX. He adds a somewhat elaborate note to show that these words are not necessarily convertible terms, and that even ap0évos itself does not necessarily mean a virgin. But he makes rather a serious slip when he says that the LXX. translate in Prov. xxx. 19 by "Neotés, a young woman." It is hardly necessary to say that the words ev veórηTɩ mean "in youth," and are probably a euphemism. He also differs from certainly the majority of modern commentators when he suggests that the child may have been called Immanuel "because of the plenteous butter and honey-eating times." That butter and honey symbolized not plenty but scarcity is clear from the context of ver. 22. Such defects as these do not, however, detract from the general soundness of the argument, and the paper will be read with interest and profit. It is pleasant to notice how a more intelligent study of the Bible is gradually making way among all classes of religious thinkers.

BIBLICAL THOUGHT.

CHRISTIANITY AND GREEK PHILOSOPHY:
THEIR MUTUAL RELATIONS AS CONCEIVED BY DR. HATCH,

BY REV. T. B. KILPATRICK, B.D.

(Concluded from page 308.)

II. THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.-Nothing could seem fairer than the question: From the Sermon on the Mount to the Creed of Nicæahow was the transition effected? But, from the time of Charles II., we have had reason to be suspicious of such extremely condensed and hopefullooking questions. In this case, it needs very little reflection to show that this statement of the problem proceeds on the assumption that several complex and difficult questions have been asked and disposed of in one particular way. Does the Sermon on the Mount express the whole of Christianity? Is the Nicene Creed merely the product of an alien and disturbing element ? Did nothing happen between the preaching of that Sermon and the composition of that Creed? Of course, an author is at liberty to select his theme; but if he omit all consideration of questions with whose settlement his own conclusions are inextricably connected, we naturally distrust his method, and hesitate to accept his results.

It will be enough merely to note some of the astounding silences of

this book, which detract from its value as an historical study, and give it rather the character of very able special pleading.

1. There is no reference made to the whole series of questions involved in the teaching and life of Jesus Christ. It is simply assumed that that teaching contained no other elements than are summed up in the Sermon on the Mount,1 and that the life had no further relation to the teaching than that of a magnificent illustration and a perpetual inspiration. From such a point of view, it is plain that the events of the life of Christ have a subordinate value, and it becomes indifferent whether or no we accept those narratives which contain a supernatural element. The death, in like manner, has no value beyond the fact that it puts the crown upon the long example which the life provided. From this point of view, also, a curious result is reached, viz., that all questions regarding the person of Christ are needless, and the very asking of them shows that the process of sophistication which culminated in the Nicene Creed had already begun. The conception of the Resurrection will become, therefore, actually the first step in that intellectualizing of Christianity which has destroyed its primitive simplicity. Place such an estimate of Christ's teaching and life alongside of the accounts presented in the Gospels, even after criticism has done its worst upon them, and inquire if it is a fair construction of the narrative therein unfolded. To my mind, the disparity between the two is glaring. It seems to me that the narratives present Christ as claiming to do two things: (1) To unveil to men a new ideal of life; (2) To make the realization of that ideal possible for men. The Sermon on the Mount may be allowed to contain a compact statement of the ideal to be, indeed, "the manifesto of the kingdom"; though, even so, very many deeper elements in Christ's view of life must be sought beyond the limits of the Sermon. But that which alone saves the ideal from adding to men's despair, the revelation of a power to achieve it, must be sought in the person of Christ. His death then acquires a special function in relation to this that He has done for men; and the resurrection becomes, not a problem, but a necessity of thought. The formula, "from the Sermon on the Mount to the Nicene. Creed," becomes, accordingly, profoundly misleading. Christianity started, not as a social reform society, with a code of rules, but as a community ordered by a personal influence and maintained by a personal enthusiasm ; its aim, not the discovery of a Utopia, but the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Take the problem as Dr. Hatch states it, and it becomes insoluble, and is, in fact, itself a refutation of his position. To get the Nicene Creed out of the Sermon on the Mount, or an experience of which that is the highest expression, is simply unthinkable. The contents of Christian experience must have been richer; else, even the subtle influence of Greek thought must have failed to elaborate so extraordinary a result. But if Christianity started with more than the Sermon on the Mount; if, indeed,

1 There is, of course, a prior assumption still, viz., that the Sermon on the Mount is mere ethics without metaphysics or theology. It might be shown that it contains both.

the centre of its life and teaching were the personal Christ; then the Nicene Creed becomes a natural and necessary development. Christianity could not have entered upon the stage of reflection without arriving, at least, at an analogous result; though, of course, the particular form of the result must necessarily have been determined by the intellectual movements of the day. In any case, the conclusion of this book waits the settlement of that problem, which, in the book itself, is wholly ignored.

2. There is an almost complete ignoring of the whole group of Apostolic writings in the New Testament. We read lecture after lecture in quest of some dealing with the Apostle Paul, and feel the utmost bewilderment as point after point is discussed, upon which he had his views very clearly expressed, and yet no notice taken of him, and only one quite passing allusion made to him, or any possible influence he might have had. Every one, of course, must have noticed this; and in the Reviews the matter has been alluded to. Principal Edwards puts it briefly thus: "It happens that the group of Epistles now generally admitted to have been written by him are the nearest approach to a complete theological system of any of the so-called Pauline Epistles. If this is true, we have to explain, first and foremost, the transition from the Sermon on the Mount to St. Paul's Epistles, and then, secondarily, to the Nicene Creed. Before we are justified in tracing the Creed to Greek influences, we have to show, either that there are conceptions in the Creed which do not underlie the Apostle's theology, or else that he himself derived these conceptions from the Greek philosophers. Dr. Hatch unfortunately, makes no attempt to handle either of these alternative suppositions. . . . We should be glad to know how Dr. Hatch would have answered the questions, How far was St. Paul's theological system original? and, Are there any theological ideas in the Nicene Creed which cannot be traced back to St. Paul"? I do not think that these last questions quite hit the mark. We are, of course, quite in the dark as to what Dr. Hatch's views were. I cannot imagine, however, that so frank and bold a man as our author would have deliberately ignored the problem of Paulinism had he believed it to be an element in the case. I seem to see in this rather the operation of those presuppositions of which I have spoken. He has persuaded himself that thought and life fall utterly apart, and he accordingly conceives of the Christian life of the first century flowing on quite apart from the stream of St. Paul's theological speculations. He cannot deny that St. Paul was thinking out those very conceptions embodied in the Nicene Creed. The only possible position consistent with his conclusion is, that St. Paul's ideas never influenced the Christian mind of his day, which was so completely untheological that it made nothing whatever of the Pauline literature. But is such a position tenable? To hold it one would need to conceive of St. Paul's thought not only as quite apart from the Christian life of his day, but also as quite apart from his own career as an Apostle. We would need to think of him ranging the world as a social