Изображения страниц

from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. It is not the body only which now serves the law of sin, which hopes for liberty, but the aúrós éyú of chap. vii. 25, the whole man, the self in the fullest sense of the word, though indeed it is the higher principle, the sanctified intellect, which chooses that service which is perfect freedom, and the lusts of the flesh connected with the wants of the body which allure to the bondage of corruption. Indeed, the whole creation (here for the first time we have “the whole,” Tâoa ktious) groaneth and travaileth in pain together, or perhaps “ with us,” as in the margin of the R.V. Here it may be that St. Paul extends his glance from man, the centre of the creation, to his surroundings, and recognizes the truth that for Adam's sake the ground was cursed, and

“ Bids us see in heaven and carth,

In all fair things around,
Strong yearnings for a blest new birth,
With sinless glories crowned."

--Christian Year, “Fourth Sunday after Trinity."

But he does not dwell on this thought, which seems to be only an illustration, if indeed it was really in his mind at all. He uses the same combination with distinct reference to the human race in Mark xvi. 15 ( táoy Kthoel), and again in Col. i. 23. His mind seems never to have dwelt much on outward nature; he never mentions the many fair and wonderful sights which he must have witnessed in his travels. Probably he is repeating and enforcing what he had said in ver. 19. He does not proceed, as some have thought, to distinguish believers from this whole creation in ver. 23. The translation of the R.V., “ not only so," is better than that of the A.V., “ And not only they." There is no pronoun in the original. Not only does the whole creation groan and travail in pain together, but, included in that whole creation, true believers also groan. They have indeed received the firstfruits of the Spirit, the Spirit of adoption (ver. 15), which is “the earnest of our inheritance" (Eph. i. 14). But they are still compassed about with infirmities, with temptations, with sorrow and suffering, and they look forward with an earnest longing for the inheritance itself, the inheritance of the saints in light. The revelation of the sons of God is the manifestation of the adoption, the complete realization in all its glory of that filial relation of which the first gift of the Spirit of adoption is the germ and the beginning. Then the Father which seeth in secret will reward openly those who are in truth His dear children; His glory will be revealed in them; they will be revealed before the universe as the sons of God. But that revelation involves the redemption of the body. The whole man must share in the glory of the resurrection. The body which was once presented unto God as a living sacrifice (chap. xii. 1) must be redeemed from the bondage of corruption. It is subject to that bondage during the earthly life; it is subject to pain and suffering, to sickness and decay; it is sometimes made the instrument of unrighteousness unto sin (chap. vi. 12, 13); it becomes at

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

last subject to dissolution and corruption; and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But we look for the redemption of the body, that the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, may attain to the promised inheritance. And the Lord Christ, who Himself rose from the grave in His human body, is able to change the fashion of this body of our humiliation and make it like unto the body of His glory. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. This is the redemption of the body for which we pray when we beseech Almighty God "shortly to accomplish the number of His elect, and to hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those who are departed in the true faith of His holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in His eternal and everlasting glory.”

The OLD TESTAMENT AND Its Critics. By Rev. Principal Douglas. (J. N. Mackinlay).—The introductory lecture given at the opening of the winter session of the Free Church College in Glasgow has been published in pamphlet form, in order that, as the author says, the Church may know the attitude towards the advanced school of Old Testament criticism, which he has maintained during the thirty-five years he has been Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Theology. We cannot say that the lecture impresses us with the feeling that the author is at all fair in his judgment of those who have departed from the old-fashioned opinions in Biblical criticism, or attempts to give any explanation of the phenomena, that have given occasion for the multifarious theories concerning authorship and dates, which have been current in recent times. He begins by referring to the state of matters in 1857, when he was appointed professor. At that time questions as to the authorship of different books of the Old Testament were being discussed in connection with the writings of Dr. Samuel Davidson. A little later the Colenso controversy broke out, and since then the discussion has never ceased. He attributes the favour shown to new views of the authorship of the Pentateuch to personal vanity. “Those who deemed themselves superior in discernment to the common run of people " adopted the critical view which was “in favour with the corresponding class in Germany.” One might as well have said that the sciences of astronomy and geology had their origin in the vanity of persons who“ deemed themselves superior in discernment to the common run of people,” and that those who founded those sciences were to blame for unsettling the minds of their contemporaries. No fair-minded or intelligent reader could be satisfied with this explanation of matters. It is far nearer the truth to say that the science of Biblical criticism was quite a new one, and that it was reasonable to expect that it would come into collision with conventional opinions that had come down from a pre-scientific and uncritical age. Principal Douglas offers no defence for any of the positions held by the “traditional school," a designation he accepts quite contentedly as that of the school to which he belongs, but thinks it sufficient


to give a brief but not a clear narrative of the various theories concerning the composition and dates of Old Testament books, especially of the Pentateuch, which have prevailed from the beginning of the century down to the present time. He fairly enough objects to the high-handed manner in which many critics treat as interpolations passages of Scripture which do not fit in with their theories. But one can scarcely understand the bitterness with which he mentions the fact that those who treat the book of Joshua as intimately connected with that of Deuteronomy have substituted a Hexateuch for the well-known Pentateuch, and “use the imaginary (sic) name with scarcely a thought that explanation is needed ”! What explanation

! is needed ? From the frequent allusion to the fact that such and such a critic, of whose works he disapproves, is dead, one would be inclined to infer that the rate of mortality among advanced Biblical critics is unusually high, and that a departure from traditional views is something almost equivalent to “tempting Providence.” One is by this time tolerably familiar with the fact that a theory which might be “widely held " in any other country is “ rampant” in Germany, and therefore is not surprised to meet the phrase in the present pamphlet. The assertion, too, that “many English people, hitherto profoundly ignorant and indifferent, are gulping down the whole of a criticism which is really played out on the continent," we have heard before, though the combination of metaphors is new. The final paragraph of the pamphlet will give our readers a better idea of its style than any description could do. “Not that I have any wish that discussions about the age in which this and that book were written should monopolize your thoughts, or even get the largest share. We are often asked about a book by critics; what matter does it make who wrote it, and when? To which I am ready to reply in the most friendly manner, that it has been they who have pressed such questions, and wasted their own and their neighbours' strength in these discussions. At the same time I wish it to be understood that we esteem their arguments, at the very best, to be indecisive, convincing only to those who wish to be convinced, and that we hold to our old convictions; and, further, while we concede the utmost liberty we can to those who are enamoured of these literary speculations, even while we believe them to be mistaken, we attach very great importance to these controversies on date and authorship, when the usual beliefs have been discarded for a special purpose, and when the discussion is maintained by assumptions which have been carried into the Church of Christ from the camps of Agnosticism, Pantheism, and Anti-supernaturalism."


THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. By Rev. E. B. WENSLEY, B.A., Vicar of All Hallows, Kent. (Elliot Stock).-A paper on the above subject, read by the author before a Chapter of the clergy of the rural deaneries of Rochester, Gravesend, and Cobham, and afterwards to a meeting of the Maidstone Clerical Society, has been printed by request. It contains a strong protest against the statements made concerning the dates and author

[ocr errors]

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

[ocr errors]

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.

[ocr errors]



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

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »