X v^.X^"^ ^^v ^'"^ of ?rin.r - - 3 -^- BS 500 .M4 1892 Mead, Charles Marsh, 1836- 1911. Christ and criticism j'"'^} »««.«< CHRIST AND CRITICISM THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE RELATION OF CHRISTIAN FAITH TO BIBLICAL CRITICISM BY CHARLES MARSH MEAD, Ph.D., D.D. PROFESSOR IN HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NEW YORK ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY (incorporated) 182 FIFTH AVENUE PREFACE. The following treatise is in part an expansion of the last chapter of my work on Supernatural Revelation. I have been the more moved to write it inasmuch as, in spite of what might well seem to be clear enough statements, my views have been misapprehended by some, and have been represented as hostile to the higher criticism. Lest the present work should make the same impression, let me at the outset emphatically say that I regard the higher criticism as not only entirely legitimate, but as very useful, and indiscrimi- nate condemnation of it as foolish. Genuine criticism is nothing but the search after truth; and of this there cannot be too much. On the other hand, higher critics and their cham- pions are scarcely less foolish when they denounce every animadversion made on their methods or their alleged results as an illicit infringement on freedom of research. Surely the right to criticise a critic's theories is as sacred as the right of the critic to propound them. The higher criticism, like all other good things is capable of abuse; and every one has a right to say when he thinks such an abuse has been committed. iv PREFACE. The special object of the following discussion is to aid in the general work of getting at the truth as regards the Bible, by setting forth how far the author- ity of Jesus Christ should properly be allowed to modify, or to regulate, the process of Biblical criticism. Whatever may be thought of the result which has been reached, it should be distinctly understood that the object has been, not to oppose criticism, but to help it. Inasmuch as it has now become known to the public that the pseudonymous work, Romans Dissected^ by E. D. McRealsham (in German, Der Romerhrief beur- theilt und geviertheilt von Carl Hesedamm), was written by myself, I may properly here say a word concerning the object of it. Though some friendly critics have spoken of it as a reductio ad absurdum of the analysis of the Pentateuch, I can hardly assent to such a judgment. The fact that the Epistle to the Romans may be dissected in an ironical way does not prove that a similar dissection of the Pentateuch, seriously undertaken, is equally baseless. It is possible that there are more cogent reasons for postulating the composite character of the Pentateuch than that of Romans. This is itself a matter for candid critics to consider. Other critics of the book have regarded it as aimed solely at the radical critics of the New Testament, such as Professor Steck, who denies the genuineness even of the Epistle to the Romans. This is also only in part correct. Over against those who seriously contest the genuineness of the book an ironical essay to prove its spuriousness can obviously have little weight. The real object of Romans Dissected was not so much to refute any particular theory concerning either the PREFACE. Old Testament or the New, as to show in general that a critical disintegration of a hook by a mere inspection of its contents, style, and linguistic charac- teristics, unconfirmed by external testimony, cannot be depended on as giving us the truth — or, in fact, anything more than plausible conjecture — concerning the date and authorship of the book. And this object may, I think, be regarded as gained. THE AUTHOR. December. 1892. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. THE SEAECH AFTER ASSURANCE. The tendency to search for grounds of full confidence in matters of religious faith. I. The various methods pursued. 1. The Roman Catholic doctrine. The alleged authority of councils and Popes. Objections. Relation of ecclesiastical infallibility to thfr Scriptures and Christ. 2. The rationalistic doctrine. How far it is justifiable. Fallacy of it. 3. The mys- tical doctrine. Objections to it. 4. The Protestant doctrine. Authority of the Bible. Biblical infallibility. Difficulties of the doctrine. Christ the superior authority. 5. Christ as the ground of assurance. Faith in him considered as outranking faith in the Bible. But why accept Christ as infallible? 11. General answer to the question, how Christians can justify their faith. 1. Tradition first brings Christ before the mind. The presump- tion in favor of tradition. 2. Christian experience confirms the report of tradition. 3. Historic records sanction the testimony of tradition and experience. These three grounds of assurance belong together and confirm one another. pp. 1 — 20 CHAPTER II CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. Faith in Christ considered as independent of Biblical criti- cism. The question presented, How do we know Christ to be viii CONTEXTS. worthy of faith? The evidence is that of history, and the historical evidence is found in the New Testament. The invalidation of the New Testament would overthrow the foundations of the Christian faith. Reconciliation of this principle with that which makes faith in Christ prior and superior to faith in the Bible. Not accomplished by insisting that criticism confirms the authen- ticity of the Grospels. The problem illustrated by the history of Washington. Faith in the man and faith in the written history of the man go together and cannot be disjoined. Faith, there- fore, not independent of criticism. How far is criticism limited by faith? Prepossessions un- avoidable. 1. Christian faith involves faith in the general truthfulness of the New Testament portraiture of Christ. Not necessarily in the absolute inerrancy or supernatural inspiration of the book. But if so , how far may one go in the rejection of Biblical statements? One must recognize the community of the Christian faith. The common faith involves a common ac- ceptance of the New Testament. A radical departure from the common faith destroys one's claim to be a Christian. What is a radical departure? Impossibility of supposing that Christendom has in general misconceived the meaning of the New Testament. 2. In interpreting the New Testament doctrine of Christ it is unwarrantable to make use wholly or preponderantly of a particular part of the New Testament. The Epistles as legiti- mate sources of information as the Gospels. Paul in no way inferior to Luke as an informant. The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists. Unreasonableness of eliminating the evi- dence of John, Paul, and Peter, and taking only that of the Synoptists. Such a method presupposes that Christ is known before the sources of the knowledge are consulted. 3. Faith in Christ inconsistent with a general doubt or denial of the supernatural. The presumption which lies against stories of the miraculous in general cannot be pleaded against the New Testament accounts of Christ without abandoning faith in the only Christ that we know about. Miracles considered as historical events. The resurrection of Christ cannot be denied consistently with Christian faith. 3Iartineau's efifort to discredit the New Testament narratives of the resurrection. 4. Christian faith forbids in general the adoption of purely CONTENTS. ,X subjective canons of criticism. Interpretation in all departments dependent on common standards and judgments. Radically new expositions of the New Testament practically impossible. The consensus of Christendom must more or less control all exegetes. 5. Christian faith forbids us to assume that a large part of the New Testament is spurious, fictitious, pseudonymous, or partisan. The doubts about the canonicity of some of the New Testament books. How far can such doubts be carried? We are dependent on the early Church for historical information as to the authorship of the books. Can it be supposed that the Church was generally deceived in the matter ? Particular cases. The Fourth Grospel. Paul's Epistles, The Tiibingeu theory. — What are the prerogatives and uses of New Testament criticism? The Synoptic problem. Patristic studies. External evidences versus critical inspection. pp, 21— 75 CHAPTER III. CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. Diii'erence between this and the foregoing problem. Im- portance of Christ's personal testimony. I. Jesus speaks in general of the Old Testament as a history and vehicle of a divine revelation. Illustrations. II. What weight is to be attached to these utterances? Was Christ omniscient? 1. Opinion of the Church. Statements of the creeds. Difficulties of the problem. The man Christ Jesus not generally called strictly omniscient. 2. Testimony of the New Testament. Declarations which imply a limitation of his knowledge. Passages which imply a peculiar knowledge. 3. Ex- tent of the limitation. Christ considered as infallible in spiritual things, but fallible in others. Difficulties of this conception. Evidences that Christ had peculiar knowledge in secular matters. Presumptive evidence that he must have been exceptional in his intelligence. At least he must have been clearly conscious of his own knowledge. III. Application of the foregoing. 1. The Christian faith requires us to assume the Old Testament to be the record, vehicle, or product of a divine revelation preparatory to the Christian. Proof that Christ and the New Testament so con- X CONTENTS. ceived the matter, flejection of Christ's view on this point in- volves distrust of Christ in general. The doctrine of the limi- tation of Christ's knowledge not available here. 2. Christian faith requires one to hold to the general historic truthfulness of the Old Testament, The prophetic relation of the Old to the New Testament presupposes the truthfulness of the former. Impossibility of reconciling the authority of Christ with the assumption of the unhistoricalness of the Old Testament. Particular questions. Authorship of the Pentateuch and of Isaiah xl. — Ixvi. 3. It is inconsistent with Christian faith to hold that deceit and fraud played an important part in the formation of the Old Testament Canon. Allegations as to the Pentateuch. The radical theory not established. Difficulties created by it. (1) It has an immense counter-presumption to overcome, in the decla- rations of the Bible and in the general belief of Christendom. (2) It is tainted with disbelief in the supernatural. (3) The main argument for it is not conclusive. (4) The testimony of the Old Testament is rejected, and assumptions of interpolations and reconstructions have to be made, (5) It is assumed that forgery was used in the composition of whole books of the Old Testament. (6) Unsuccessful attempts to account for the cere- monial law being called Mosaic. (7) Inconsistencies in the representations of the testimony of the prophets. (8) The theory has no satisfactory explanation of the origin of the sacrificial code. (9) It assumes that the most of the Mosaic law was smuggled into currency by fraudulent tricks. Unsuccessful efforts to avoid this charge. Conclusion, The theory not established. What the Old Testament is according to the Wellhausen hypothesis. Incon- sistency of it with Christ's view. The attempt to waive aside Christ's testimony. The dilemma presented. Distinction be- tween the extreme and the modified form of Pentateuch analysis. pp. 76—154 CHAPTER IV, CONCLUDING REMAEKS. 1. The objection considered, that the foregoing conclusions impose an unwarrantable fetter on criticism. Critics must be COXTENTS. xi free to discover facts. But facts are to be distinguished from inferences. So-called results of criticism often nothing but hypotheses. The testimony of Christ one of the facts to be reckoned with. Christian faith does in some respects limit criticism. 2. Higher criticism is new only in name. 3. Higher criticism not identical with destructive criticism. 4. There is danger of exaggerating the results of modern Biblical criticism. What has been accomplished? The Penta- teuch. Isaiah xl.— Ixvi. The integrity of Zechariah. Chronicles, etc. Theories concerning the New Testament. Inspiration and inerrancy. 5. It is not well to make preiuature concessions to critical hypotheses. The analogy of new discoveries in natural science. The case of the Pauline Epistles, The extreme theory which makes these Epistles all spurious. The similar hypothesis con- cerning the Old Testament. How the Tiibingen theory was treated. The fact that some Christian men adopt a theory no proof that it is not anti-Christian in its tendency, 6. Respect for the Bible of the radical critics not to be preserved bj' the assumption that at any rate it is all inspired. Authenticity more important than inspiration, and a condition of it. Danger of conscious or unconscious illusion in this profession of faith in inspiration. 7. Faith in criticism should not control faith in Christ. Otherwise the authority of Christ is weakened, and the standard of faith lowered. The desire to make the Church "broad". The secret of the Church's power lies in the exaltation of Christ. pp. 155—186 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. CHAPTER I. THE SEARCH AFTER ASSURANCE. It is one of the prominent features of Christian thought at the present time that men are striving to find a ground of assurance for the faith that is in them. It is one thing to have certain beliefs, quite another to be able to justify those beliefs over against doubts and objections. One's faith may come (as in most cases it does and must come) from tradition. As soon, however, as the faith is questioned, and one is forced to make known what ground he has for assu- rance of faith, he may be quite at a loss what to say, "What he has implicitly accepted may seem to be without any sure foundation. A bold challenge or a plausible objection may be enough to confound the traditional faith which has been cherished. Is there , then , a ground of certainty in matters of religious belief? On the one hand, the nature of this belief is such that certitude is extremely desir- able; on the other, the great diversity of religious 1 2 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. faiths makes it obvious that not all of them can be grounded on an impregnable basis. Yet all naturally wish to feel an assurance of being in the right. It is reasonable to desire to be sure of the correctness of one's religious faith. To have to say, ^'I believe so and so , but perhaps the truth is quite otherwise", implies a faith so wavering that it can hardly nerve one to great effort or have a moulding effect on one's character. It is not strange, therefore, that Christian theologians of various types haves sought to find a ground of assurance for their religious faith. I. Let us, then, first consider the principal methods pursued in justifying this assurance. 1. The Roman Catholic doctrine. If the Church, as represented by the Councils or by the Pope, is in- fallible, then Christians of every grade of intelligence may safely rest in what this authority propounds as truth. "Whoever can implicitly accept the Papal utter- ances as the final word, whenever human judgments are at variance with one another, may enjoy a perfect sense of assurance. But the question cannot well be suppressed: How does one come to the assurance that the Pope is infallible? The Roman Catholic child is instructed to believe this ; but when he comes to inquire on what ground he accepts the doctrine, there presents itself a troublesome difficulty. The Pope's infallibility was affirmed by the majority of a Council of bishops and cardinals. Even if the minor- ity vote is cast aside as of no weight, we are still confronted with the consideration that we cannot regard that vote as establishing the truth of the doc- trine of the Pope's infallibility, unless we first assume the infallibility of the Council which proclaimed it. THE SEARCH APTEB ASSUBANCE. O The question has then to be answered : Whence comes the assurance of the infallibility of the Council? And the answer must be, either that the Council affirms its own infallibility, or that some other trust- worthy authority affirms it. In the former case the difficulty cannot but be felt that a bare assertion of its own infallibility is no proof of it. In the latter case the question arises, where is the proof that the tradition which affirms the infallibility of the Council is itself absolutely trustworthy ? The parent or teacher or pastor from whom the child first receives the af- firmation cannot be regarded as infallible; and by tracing the tradition further back through a long line of parents, teachers, and pastors the case is not bettered. Clearly, to one in doubt as to the validity of reli- gious doctrines no repose of faith can come from such bare assertions or claims of infallibility on the part of teacher, Council, or Pope. There must be some- thing to back up these affirmations, else they will seem to be dictated by foolish arrogance. And there is something back of the assertions. There is the assumption that Christ, who founded the Christian Church, promised and effectually secured to it the possession of the truth, and that there must be some means of deciding, amidst the variety of opinions, what the real truth is. It is held that Christ dele- gated to his apostles the right and power to interpret his doctrines, and that the apostles handed down this power to their successors. The real source of divine truth is thus found in Christ. The New Testament , as coming directly or mediately from the apostles, is accepted as authori- ^ CHBIST AND CRITICISM. tative. The oral teachings of the apostles, as handed down through ecclesiastical tradition, are held to be of co-ordinate authority with the Scriptures. More- over, the Scriptures themselves being largely obscure to the ordinary mind, there is need (it is said) of an authoritative interpretation of them; and this inter- pretation can be found only in those who have been authoritatively commissioned by Christ and his apos- tles to act as interpreters. Practically , therefore, though not theoretically, the word of the Popes and the Councils and the ecclesiastical authorities super- sedes the Scriptures. According to Roman Catholic doctrine no individual can appeal to Scripture as against Pope and Council, since the Pope and Coun- cil are authorized to interpret Scripture, and the private interpretation must yield to the authorized one. Thus while the Pope claims to be only the vicar of Christ, and Christ is recognized as being the supreme Head, in reality the Roman Catholic's assu- rance in religious matters comes from his faith in the authority of the Pope as the infallible interpreter of the mind of Christ and of the Scriptures. Here is the main difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. Both acknowledge Christ as Saviour and as authoritative Teacher. They disagree as regards the means by which the knowledge of Christ is mediated. The weak point in the Roman Catholic doctrine is found in the assumption concerning the delegation of infallibility not only to the apostles, but to an in- definite line of successors. Where is the proof that such infallible authority has been thus delegated? Should it be said that ecclesiastical tradition asserts THE SEARCH AFTEB ASSURANCE. g the fact of such a commission from Christ to his episcopal successors, it is sufficient to reply that the proof of this assertion is wholly wanting at just the point where it is most needed, viz., as regards the first century of the Christian Church. Where is the evidence that the apostles were to have successors at all? All that specifically distinguishes them from other Christians, according to the New Testament, is their special appointment by Christ, and their fitness to serve as direct witnesses of Christ's words and works, and particularly of his resurrection. No alleged successors of later centuries can have these quali- fications; and there is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament, or in any other authentic source, that the apostles were commissioned to delegate their authority to a line of successors. That such a notion sprang up later is true; and that it has been trans- mitted is true ; but all this does not supply the miss- ing link of the argument ; still less does it authenticate the infallibility of the Pope — a doctrine not offi- cially sanctioned till the present century. It is there- fore like leaning on a broken reed, when one's assu- rance of faith is made to depend on such alleged infallibility. 2. The rationalistic doctrine. The rationalist finds all external authority fallible, and concludes that the only means of arriving at an assurance of faith is to follow the light of one's own reason. True belief, be argues , can exist only when one sees reason for believing ; and of this one must be his own judge. Other men may contribute information and use argu- ments ; but only one's own reason can yield assent, and this assent must be an intelligent and voluntary g CHBIST AND CRITICISM. act, the result of inward conviction, not a blind ac- ceptance of another's person's dictum. Now it is true that in some sense a man's reason and conscience must independently accept, as autho- ritative, whatever or whoever is taken as the standard of truth. A Roman Catholic must have some reason for regarding the Pope as infallible. If his reason is not convinced that there is really such an authority, then he cannot exercise implicit confidence in the Papal utterances , and therefore can have no assu- rance of faith in them. So if one makes the Bible the ultimate and inerrant source of authority in reli- gious things, he must have a reason for such faith in the Bible. In short, whatever may be taken as an infallible guide, unless the faith is a purely blind faith , and therefore no genuine , intelligent faith at all, the individual reason must be active and decisive in the choice which is made of the authority to be followed. But the case before us is that of him who recog- nizes no external authority at all as infallible , and who looks solely to his own rational and spiritual intuitions and judgments as his ground of assu- rance respecting religious truth. Such a man finds all external authorities fallible. He regards it as an unworthy surrender of personal independence to resign to some one else tlie right to dictate what he shall believe. He sees no way to assurance but through personal conviction; and such conviction must be the free action of the mind responding to the facts set before it. But what each rationalist claims for himself he must concede to others. If one man, by the exercise THE SEARCH AFTER ASSURANCE. 'J of his reason, comes to a fixed conclusion and to a comfortable assurance of faith, another man, by the exercise of his reason, comes to a very different con- clusion, and yet has an equally confident assurance. But the very fact of the endless differences which are found in men's opinions is proof sufficient that the in- dividual reason is no infallible authority; so that if any one, relying simply on his own reason, feels a per- fect confidence in the faith which he has wrought out, he is logically bound to affirm his reason to be the reason by which all others ought to be regulated. But this would be an abandonment of the funda- mental principle of rationalism. And it clearly follows that absolute dependence on the individual reason cannot rationally furnish a ground of assu- rance of faith. 3. The mystical doctrine. This is a modification of the foregoing. The mystic finds his ultimate au- thority in an immediate divine inspiration or communi- cation. But even if the alleged inspiration could be distinguished from the deliverances of the reason, the practical difficulty presents itself here as in the case of the rationalist, that the individual inspirations, since they are not harmonious with one another, cannot all be infallible, and consequently none of them can be depended on implicitly. But there is the further difficulty, that there can be no sure line drawn between the alleged inspiration and the simple verdict of the reason. Processes of reasoning are often rapid and scarcely manifest themselves in the consciousness. A judgment formed suddenly on the ground of facts known may seem like a direct inspi- ration. A mere impulse, not traceable to any definite g CHEIST AND CEITICISM. previous process of thought, may be called an inspi- ration, though really nothing but an individual conceit or whim. Manifestly such a pretended source of infallible direction is anything but infallible; and an assurance of faith resting on it is without a solid foundation. 4. The Protestant doctrine. According to this the Bible is to be regarded as of divine and infallible authority. But here too it is no easy task to justify to doubters, or even to ourselves, the validity of this assumption. Before the Bible is accepted as the ultimate authority, the individual must somehow be persuaded to accept it as such. This persuasion may be merely an unquestioning faith in the credibility of one's instructors. Or it may be a conviction resulting from a consideration of the arguments that are urged in defense of the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. In the former case the persuasion, so far as it rests simply on faith in the assertions of one's elders, has no more valid basis than any transmitted superstition, unless it can be shown that the parents or teachers them- selves have a solid reason for their faith. And so we are brought to the second ground of the faith, and inquire whether the reasons for it are sufficient to justify one in resting on the Bible as absolutely in- fallible. Now as to the doctrine of Biblical infallibility it is obvious that it cannot be maintained on the ground that its propositions, like those of mathematics, compel universal assent. On the contrary, the Bible is accepted as authoritative only by a part of those who know it; and even multitudes of those who prize it most highly think that it contains errors. From THE SEAKCH AFTER ASSURANCE. 9 the very nature of the case, moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that a book of history is inerrant, unless we can go back to the sources of information and verify all the statements, and thus make it certain that the book is free from mistakes. But such a verification is for the most part impossible. How can any one directly prove that the stories about Abraham, Samson, or David are all authentic ? It is not enough to say that they cannot be proved to be incorrect. For we are now dealing with the problem of certitude : how can men be assured that the Bible gives them an infallible body of religious history and doctrine? In general, all histories are assumed to be more or less imperfect. It is not claimed for them that they are inerrant. The presumption always is that errors creep into the most conscientiously prepared works. This presumption must, in the case of the Bible, be overthrown, if it is to be made out to be an exception in respect to infallibility. Now it plainly cannot be overthrown by a detailed demonstration that all the statements of the Bible are strictly true; such a demonstration is impossible. Some other method of treatment must be resorted to, or the presumption against the strict infallibility of the Bible must stand. And accordingly the proof of the inerrancy of the Bible is attempted in another way. It is argued that we have evidence that the book is so peculiarly in- spired that it can be absolutely trusted. This argu- ment rests ultimately on the assumption that a divine revelation has been made, and that in order to make it effectual the written embodiment of it must be free from error. It is assumed that there is a God. IQ CHRIST AND CEITICISM. that God is infallible, and that he must have secured a faultless expression of his will and ways. The argu- ment for Biblical infallibility rests on the prior assump- tion of the divine infallibility. And the case is similar, if we put Jesus Christ in the place of God in the ar- gument. When it is argued that we may assume the apostles to have been inspired because Jesus prom- ised that they should be inspired, the argument is valid only as we assume the supernatural power and absolute trustworthiness of Jesus. Unless he is ante- cedently assumed to be an infallible authority, this argument for the authority of the Bible is inconclu- sive. The same can be said of this as of the Roman Catholic argument for the infallibility of the Pope. In either case the authority is supposed to be a dele- gated one: Christ is supposed in the one case to have delegated his authority to a succession of living representatives ; in the other he is supposed to have delegated to certain men the right and power to commu- nicate a faultless record of his gospel to the world. In either case the ultimate authority is assumed to be the Lord Jesus himself. 5. This brings us then to the last of the prin- cipal methods by which religious assurance is sought. Christ, it is said, is the ultimate authority for all Christians, so that we need not anxiously attempt to defend the exact accuracy of every part of the Bible. If we believe in him and follow him, we can safely let criticism have free range, and not be troubled at any discoveries it may make of defects and mistakes in the Biblical writers. As Christians we put our supreme faith in Christ, not in the utterances of any of his followers. Inasmuch as the ultimate ground THE SEARCH AFTER ASSURANCE. ^^ of our faith in the authority of the Bible is our faith in the authority of Christ, nothing is gained, while much may be lost, by attempting to defend, as abso- lutely infallible, everything found in the books of the Bible. Why not, it is urged, leave the Bible to be freely judged according to its merits, since the found- ation of our faith in any case does not rest upon it, but upon Him of whom it treats? This seems, therefore, to be the only defensible ground on which one can rest when assurance of Christian faith is sought. Christ is the object of a Christian's faith; and however much he may find that is questionable in the Christian Scriptures, this faith can remain undisturbed. Those who take this posi- tion, it may be said, are not exposed to the objection which confronts the rationalist : that the differences among the several individuals who find in their reason the ultimate standard of truth show that the individual reason cannot be the trustworthy standard. Christ, as standing above all men, is accepted as the one authority by which the aberrations of the individual reason are to be corrected. They also escape the objection that can be urged against the Papal doc- trine: that a mere man, chosen by other men to be the authoritative exponent of Christ's will cannot rationally be depended on as infallible. Both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic doctrine ultimately rest on the assumption of the supreme, infallible authority of Christ. The Bible on the one hand and the Pope on the other are admitted to be infallible only because Christ is first accepted as the supreme authority. Why, then, rest our faith on the secondary, derivative ground rather than on the primary one? 12 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. Here, then, we seem to have an impregnable po- sition, and one which enables us calmly to await and accept whatever scientific investigation may bring to light as regards the history or the character of the Bible. And if any one of these five positions is to be adopted as the exclusive one, the latter certainly is to be preferred to any of the others. But it is mani- fest that we are after all not at the end of our search. For the question at once forces itself upon us: On what ground is Jesus Christ himself accepted as an in" fallible authority? Have we any direct intuition, like a sixth sense, which informs us that he is what he has been reported to be? Is there anything self- evident in the proposition, that Jesus of Nazareth is one who can be absolutely trusted? Such a claim can hardly be made in view of the fact that only a minority of mankind, and not even all of those who know about him, assent to the doctrine of his spiritual authority. Surely, then, those who profess to believe in his authority as an ultimate and faultless standard ought to be able to give a reason for the faith that is in them. II. How, then, can Christians reasonably justify to themselves or to others their certitude of faith in Jesus Christ? How does the faith originate? On what grounds does it rest ? In answer to these ques- tions we need to consider the actual experience of those who cherish a hearty faith in Christ. 1. In the first instance Christ is brought before one's mind, as an object of faith, by tradition. The child, or the heathen, or the unbeliever, is told of Jesus as a Saviour, believes the testimony, and then personally exercises faith in the Saviour thus made THE SEARCH AFTEE ASSURANCE. j^3 known. This is in accordance with the usual method of acquiring knowledge. For nearly everything we learn we depend on the testimony of other men. That the earth moves around the sun, that Milton wrote the Paradise Lost — such propositions are accepted in most cases on the mere ground of testimony. It is assumed of course that there were good reasons for the original propagation of such propositions; hut what those reasons were, most people do not undertake to find out, and could not if they would. It is simply a necessity of human life to take on trust a great part of what we learn, whether the knowledge relates to history, natural science, or religion. There is accordingly always a presumption in favor of what is handed down by tradition. Very often indeed it may turn out to be an untrustworthy tradi- tion; but the presumption is in its favor until it is disproved. And when careful research has proved it to be a mistake, this new proposition, being communi- cated from one to another, becomes in its turn a tradition which in general is taken on trust just as the previous erroneous one had been. Nothing, therefore, can be more inconsiderate than to assert or imply that any proposition is to be distrusted, if one's faith in it rests only on tradition. Life would not be worth living, if men were allowed to take nothing on trust, but were obliged to trace every alleged truth back to its ultimate ground. And in the case of Christianity the evidence of tradition has peculiar force, because it has come down in an unbroken line, has penetrated many differ- ent races, has broken down ancient superstitions and religions, has not only maintained itself amongst the 14 CHEIST AND CRITICISM. most enlightened nations, but has been the source of enlightenment wherever it has been carried. It had no obscure origin, but sprang up in a civilized age, and at once found its way into acceptance among the most civilized peoples. It is a tradition , moreover, which has been transmitted by an organized body, the Christian Church. It is a tradition which holds the Church together. There is, therefore, an immense presumption in favor of the correctness of the funda- mental propositions to which this tradition bears witness. Christianity is something which at all events should be assumed to be true until the opposite is demonstrated. But tradition 7nay after all be misleading. In order to full assurance of faith something more may be required than the mere fact that a weighty tra- dition justifies it. And there is more. For — 2. Christian experience confirms the truth of the tradition. Since Christianity is not put forth as a mere fact of history or science, but as a system of facts and truths that are designed to have a great and salutary effect on the character and lives of men, it is pertinent to ask whether the intended effect is pro- duced. If it is not, then this failure would go far towards weakening the presumption in favor of the truthfulness of the tradition. If it is, then this fulfil- ment of the professed object of Christianity becomes a powerful witness for the rightfulness of its claims. And this evidence is found in large measure. Wherever Christ is heartily embraced and trusted, there results inward purity and peace. This faith puts a check upon selfishness, rescues men from the power of vicious tastes and habits, nerves them to THE SEARCH AFTER ASSURANCE. l^ bear suffering and persecution with patience and cheerfulness, gives comfort in times of sorrow and adversity, and makes the sinner a new man through the consciousness of being made a child of God and heir of eternal life. The proffer of forgiveness to the penitent, the revelation of the divine love and the exhi- bition of that love in the human life of the Son of God, the promise of constant aid from the Spirit of God in the contest with sinful affections — this is something that meets the wants of men; it commends itself to their faith ; and when experience has confirm- ed the hopes created by the promises of the gospel, the presumption in its favor which came from the external testimony becomes transformed into a joyful assurance, so that believers can say, with the towns- men of the Samaritan woman, ''Now we believe, not because of thy speaking; for we have heard for our- selves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world". Now this evidence of Christian experience is mani- festly of immense weight. If it were the evidence furnished by a single or a very limited experience, it would be easy to attribute it to a pleasing delusion.. Fancy and fanaticism can do wonderful things in transforming men; and Christianity, even though apparently doing good, might still be supposed to be nothing more than a happy fiction which stimulates and elevates men. Just as a novel may instruct and help one, even though known to be a fictitious work, so and still more the story of Christ might do good, especially when (as is the fact) it is supposed to be true. But it is quite another thing when the faith in Ig CHRIST AND CRITICISM. question is shared by a vast multitude and serves as a bond of union among them. One man's experience is confirmed by that of others. The suspicion that the belief and the results of it may have come from an illusion is dissipated when it is found that com- munities and nations accept the same doctrines and are moved and elevated by faith in the same Jesus. This evidence does not cover all the experiences and beliefs which have been called Christian. But it does cover the great central fact of the commanding influence and supreme authority of Christ and the uniqueness of character and function which the Christian Church has always ascribed to him. The argument, in brief, is this: Christianity is a beneficent institution; it has been handed down from generation to generation as of divine origin ; the life and sayings of its Founder have been preserved and communi- cated; and the truth of the tradition is confirmed by the beneficence of its effects. The Church has a right to assume that what has maintained itself so long and has proved its worthiness by the experience of vast multitudes is to be accepted as a settled fact. And individuals who have found themselves blessed and saved by their faith in Christ have a right to cherish unwavering confidence that their faith has an impregnable foundation. Still it is possible to object that all this beneficent effect of Christianity might conceivably come from a false faith believed to he true. When a man repents of sin and enjoys the inspiration of thinking that God has forgiven him, might not the assurance of forgiveness be just as helpful in case the Christian doctrine is a pleasant fiction as it is on the supposition THE SEARCH AFTER ASSURANCE. 17 of its being solid truth ? At the best, in one's spirit- ual experiences one can be conscious only of what one's own self feels, thinks, hopes, resolves, etc. If the Christian portrayal of Christ and of the divine character and doings is only thought to be true, might not all that is alleged to have come as the result of Christianity in respect of inward peace, deliverance from the burden of guilt, the awakening of benevolent feeling, etc., have come also from a piously and skil- fully devised fiction? The first and obvious answer to such an insinua- tion is that, even if such a thing were conceivable, there is an overwhelming presumption against its being the fact. In the face of a long-standing tradition, contended against at the outset, but maintaining itself through all these centuries and proving its truth by its power to regenerate human character, it can avail little to say that all this may be a baseless fancy. Until it is proved to be a mere fancy, it must stand as historic truth. So far, however, from this proofs being forthcoming, just the opposite is established by the appeal to history. This brings us to the third ground of assurance on which the Christian faith rests. 3. Christianity rests on a solid basis of historic fact. The Christian Scriptures furnish the proof that Christ and his gospel were no fiction, but well attested realities. The writers were either contemporaries and witnesses of the events narrated, or else were asso- ciated with those who were witnesses. The New Testament is an integral part of Christian tradition. The gospel was indeed at first, 2 ]^3 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. as a matter of course , proclaimed orally. The Christian Church was established before the New Testament was written. But what was thus orally transmitted was soon put into the more fixed and less corruptible form of written records, which present us a sketch of the life and sayings of Christ and the body of truth which his disciples derived therefrom. The oral transmission of Christian truth still contin- ued, and it continues to this day. But the written records have also been transmitted as the authoritative exposition of the essential facts and truths of the gospel. The oral tradition, however much it may have added to the written, or even corrupted it, has never avowedly contradicted it. This has always been acknowledged as authoritative, and has become more and more indispensable, the farther removed men are from the beginnings of Christian history. It has had to serve as a check upon the vagaries of fancy, upon the distortions of fact and of doctrine which would in- evitably spring up, were there no such fixed standard and ultimate court of appeal. Thus, then, we have the threefold cord of evidence that furnishes the warrant of assurance of faith in Jesus Christ. And the warrant is stronger than that which can be adduced for the greater part of what men surely believe. The most of what is called historic or scientific knowledge rests simply on what are supposed to be credible records of historic or scientific facts. These records relate to matters with which one's personal experience has little or nothing to do , and receive , therefore . no confirmation from such experience. Nor is there any tradition that goes before and prepares the way for faith in the written THE SEAKCH AFTER ASSURANCE. , ][^ records. The faith rests practically on the bare written record alone. The great mass of human knowledge has no other foundation than this. There are indeed many traditions which filter down through the generations, some more, some less, trustworthy. There are superstitions, and there are distorted accounts of ancient events, which serve to amuse or harrow the feelings, but which are left to be trans- mitted as they may be, continually modified by the imagination, having no root in well-attested ancient records and having nothing to do with the serious affairs of life. The Christian tradition, on the con- trary, is transmitted by a compact and intelligent body — the Christian Church. It is communicated to each new generation as a precious heritage. It is inculcated, moreover, as something the truth and value of which is to be verified by personal experience, by a regenerating and beatifying effect on the life. And then back of all this there is a well-attested authentic ancient historic record, vouching for the genuineness of the events and truths which constitute the basis of the Christian life. These three grounds of assurance confirm one another and cannot be dissociated. Christian expe- rience begins by laying hold of that which Christian tradition brings before us. It is a continuous repro- duction , in each new generation or in hitherto un- christianized nations, of the faith that is handed down. But the tradition itself is indissolubly connected with the Biblical record as its earliest traceable form and its permanent embodiment. The tradition authenti- cates itself by means of the record; and accordingly 20 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. the written history, though itself supported in turn by the continuous experience of the Church, is, among the evidences for Christianity, the ultimate and deci- sive factor. Christian assurance stands or falls with the verification of the New Testament Scriptures. CHAPTER n. CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. The opinion is frequently expressed that the crit- ical study of the Scriptures is something so entirely distinct from faith in Christ that the one cannot de- termine the other. The critical process, it is said, may take any course it will, and yet the Christian faith remain undisturbed. The faith being purely a spirit- ual act, having to do with the present living Christ, and literary criticism being a purely scientific process, dealing with the characteristics and composition of ancient books, the two things , it is said, should be kept entirely distinct. Criticism may, therefore, it is thought, have a perfectly free range and reach any results whatever, without endangering Christian faith. ^ * This seems to be the obvious meaning of the following passage in a recent work (Orello Cone: Gospel Criticism and Historical Christianity, p. 319): "Now although the invali- dation of the Gospels would not indeed destroy Christianity, for it is indestructible, he who subjects them to a free handling and reconstruction may well be called upon to give an account of his results, whether there remain a kernel or a husk". Simi- larly Prof. G. F. Moore (Andover Review, vol. x. p. 339) says, "Reconciliation to God in Christ through the forgiveness of 22 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. This has a re-assuring sound. For certainly Christianity itself is of more consequence than any particular book that treats of Christianity. And if we are sure of maintaining the chief thing, we can afford to be indifferent about the other. But we do not need to think long, before we find that the case is not so clear as it is represented to be. How do we come to know that Christ is a person worthy of implicit faith ? It will not do to answer that we have received the assurance from our elders and teachers. This only raises the further question, How did they and all preceding generations obtain the assurance ? How did Peter, John, and the other orig- inal disciples of Christ come to believe in him as the sinless Son of God? Our only evidence is that of history; and the historical evidence is found in the New Testament. Traditions distinct from everything there found, even if we had them, could not be regarded as possessing any substantial value, unless they could be historically traced to their sources and their correctness verified. But such a verification would be , in the present case , quite impracticable. Moreover, the tradition that we do have is to the effect that the New Testament contains the true account of the origin of Christianity. If these writings are authentic, they contain the substance of what is to be believed about Christ; if they are unauthentic, then we are left wholly to vague conjecture, when we try to determine who and what Jesus Christ was. sins— this, the heart of the gospel, is the absolute in Christianity, which no discoveries in science, no historical research, no in- tellectual enlightenment , no moral or religious progress , can touch". CHEISTIAN FAITH AND XEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 23 So nmch seems to be indisputable. But what follows? Certainly this follows: that if destructive criticism is able to invalidate the historical trustworthi- ness of the New Testament, it thereby overihroivs the foundations of the Christian faith. It would not indeed disprove the historical facts of Christianity; it would not destroy whetever good has come directly or indirectly from the adoption of the Christian faith. But it would prove that that faith is without any valid right to be. It would show that our conceptions of Christ are largely, if not wholly, legendary and false. The very foundations of Christianity would be knocked away. Any one who after this should con- tinue to hold the traditional view concerning the unique character and mission of Christ could do so only by bidding defiance to all the dictates of histor- ical evidence and sound common sense. Plainly, therefore, it cannot be truly said that fail^ in Christ is in such a sense independent of faith in the Bible that it would stand unimpaired, even though the Gospel narratives and the apostolic testimony concern- ing him should be proved to be without any historical value. On the contrary, if, as some critics have main- tained, the New Testament is wholly untrustworthy, and we therefore practically know nothing about Jesus Christ, then it would be pure fatuity to assert that criticism cannot disturb the foundations of Christianity. We seem, then, to have arrived at a conclusion the opposite of that before accepted; that is, we seem to make Christian faith depend on faith in the credi- bility of the New Testament. How shall the apparent contradiction be removed? For certainly both propo- 24 CHEIST AND CRITICISM. sitions seem to be justifiable. It has become almost a platitude to say that Christianity was founded before there was any New Testament, and that therefore the original faith in Christ could not have depended on faith in the New Testament, but was rather a faith exercised directly towards Jesus himself. This is of course indisputable. And it is also true that to this day faith in Christ is instilled into the young or the unlettered before they are able to appreciate the arguments for or against the authenticity of the New Testament. The apparent contradiction is not removed by affirming that the general result of critical study is to confirm the credibility of the Gospels. It may be true that thus far the weight of scholarly judgment favors the assumption of the substantial veracity of the New Testament. But the more one lays stress on this, the more it is insisted that critical research has established the trustworthiness of the Christian Scrip- tures, so much the more is it thereby confessed that it is an important thing to make out that the New Testament writers are truthful historians; in other words, it is confessed that Christian faith in some sense does depend on the assurance that the New Testament tells the truth. Indeed, if there were not such a conviction on the part of Christian scholars, why should they have devoted so much time and strength to the work of defending the authenticity of the sacred books? If Christianity is perfectly secure, and Christ, as the object of our faith, is so well known and so absolu- tely superior to all the assaults of skeptical critics, why spend so much energy in defending that which we should never feel the loss of? It is one thing CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 25 proudly to affirm that the Christian Scriptures never can be invalidated ; it is quite another, to affirm that, even if they should be invalidated, Christianity would still be undisturbed. We have, therefore, still to answer the question, how we are to reconcile the two seemingly irreconcil- able propositions: that faith in Christ is anterior to faith in the New Testament, and that a critical under- mining of the credibility of the New Testament would necessarily carry with it the overthrow of Christianity. The question can perhaps be best answered by making use of an analogy. George Washington is reputed to have been the most prominent actor in the revolution which resulted in the establishment of the independence of the United States. So conspicuous was he, and so vital apparently his agency in accom- plishing the work undertaken, that he has been called the Father of his country. Now supposing the general impression about the man to be correct, we must assume that those who lived with him, those who fought under him, and those who with him deliberated concerning the adoption of the new Constitution, knew him and had faith in him. And this knowledge and confidence was the result of direct personal acquaint- ance or else of the oral testimony of those who did know him personally. This acquaintance with him and esteem of him was of course not the result of any written history of him or of his times; for none was yet written. But since then such histories have appeared, and now, after the lapse of a century, these histories are the principal, we may say, practi- cally the only, source of our definite knowledge about 25 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. Washington and his career. And the earlier those records are, the more trustworthy are they. No one depends on transmitted oral testimony — on the un- certain accuracy of human memory, especially when many links intervene between him and the person or event told about — as bearing any comparison in point of trustworthiness with the records that were written soon after the time in question and have been preserved. Now let us suppose that Marshall's Life of Washington were the only history of those times left to us, that all earlier and contemporary records used by him have perished, so that we depend for our knowledge of Washington on that Life and on what- ever oral tradition there may still be concerning him. Manifestly the oral tradition would be regarded as of small account. The written Life would be the store- house of information on which all would depend. But let us suppose further that critical scholars should examine Marshall's work, and make out that it is utterly fabulous — that the whole story about Washington is legendary, and that we are left without any trustworthy information about him. If such a critical judgment should be established, if the histor- ical value of the Life were effectually overthrown, then as rational men we should have to say that the traditional notions about AVashington are false, that the enthusiastic admiration that has been bestowed on him is entirely misplaced, and that we have no right to regard him as the hero that he has had the name of being, even if we believe that the man ever lived at all. It would avail nothing to say that Washington's CHEISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 27 contemporaries admired and trusted him during his life- time, that they depended not on books, but on personal acquaintance, for their judgment of the man, and that we may do the same on the strength of their testi- mony, independently of written histories. The question at once arises , How do we knoiv that Washington's contemporaries were led by their personal acquaint- ance to esteem him so highly? Is it not through these very histories which we profess to regard as unessential to our faith in the man? If those histo- ries themselves are entirely invalidated, then with them goes all valid reason for our believing in Washing- ton, or for thinking that his contemporaries believed in him, as being what he has currently been reputed to be. In short, tradition, popular impressions, cannot be set up as capable of outweighing a critical demonstration of the incredibility of all the written histories ; for the histories must have reflected the popular impressions of the times in which they origin- ated; and if the histories are false, the popular im- pressions must have been false also. The application of this analogy is obvious. Wash- ington and what he did are, it is true, of vastly more account than the narratives of him and his doings. The narratives are only means to an end — the end being our acquaintance with the man and with the events connected with him. So (only in a much higher degree) Christ and our relation to him are much more important than the written records of his life. Yet it is only through tradition, whether written or oral, that we know of him. And if these disagree with each other, the written is to be preferred. If they agree, and the written is proved to be false, then 23 CHBIST AND CEITICISM. we simply know nothing about him. In short, faith in the man and faith in the history of the man go to- gether and cannot he disjoined. It cannot, therefore, be said of criticism, that, inasmuch as it is concerned only with the origin and composition of the early books, it can in no way affect the Christian faith. In so far as it invalidates the New Testament, it invali- dates Christian faith ; for that faith is necessarily bound together with the earliest records of Christ and his life. Accordingly it is not strange that Christians should look on with some concern, when critics threaten to undermine the authenticity of the Christian records. True , no one should be afraid of facts ; and if the facts are contrary to what has been supposed, we should be ready to abandon our faith; but it cannot reasonably be contended that we may properly ad- here to our faith in spite of a proof that we have been entirely mistaken as to the object of it. Faith, therefore, is by no means independent of criticism. If critics overthrow the trustworthiness of the New Testament, they overthrow Christianity, un- less men persist in believing what there is no ground for believing. But a Christian is one who is firmly assured of the truth of what he believes respecting Jesus Christ and Christian doctrine. Can, then, a Christian critic be conceived as holding that there is no historical foundation for Christianity ? And if not, then it is pertinent to consider the more general question. How far and in what sense does Christian faith limit or determine the course of criticism as it relates to the New Testament books? Sometimes the opinion is expressed that in a critical examination of the Bible one should divest CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 29 himself of all prepossessions and treat the Bible just as he would any other book. Can a Christian critic do this? Ought he to do it? On the contrary, it must be insisted that a Christian , just because he is a Christian, cannot but have a prepossession; he ought to have a prepossession in favor of the peculiar value of the Scriptures. If he has not such a prepossession, he is not in a genuine sense a Christian at all. As a Christian, he must have an implicit faith in Jesus Christ. His faith in Christ comes through the New Testament, or through those whose faith directly or indirectly rests on the statements found in the New Testament. A peculiar faith in the credibility of the New Testament is presupposed in Christian faith it- self. As already observed, those Scriptures cannot be discredited without destroying the foundations of Christianity. Consequently a Christian must come to the study of the New Testament with the conviction that it gives a correct account of Christ and Christian truth. But how far shall this presumption be car- ried? How far does faith in Christ rightly determine one's critical judgment of the New Testament? Let us go more into particulars. 1. Christian faith must involve faith in the general truthfulness of the New Testament portraiture of Christ and of his teachings. I say, in the general truthfulness of the New Testament. Belief in Christ as the Light of the world and the Saviour of men does not necessarily imply an acceptance of any par- ticular theory of the origin of the Gospels or Epistles. It does not require that one believe in the peculiar inspiration or the strict inerrancy of the sacred books. However forcible the arguments may be for believing 30 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. in their inspiration and inerrancy, such a belief is not essential to a genuine faith in Christ. As one can have a firm faith in what historians relate concerning the persons and events of English history without assuming that the histories are free from all error, so with regard to the New Testament. Provided that in its main and essential features, in its principal and prominent declarations, in its natural implications, in the general impression which it leaves, it is accepted as trustworthy, there is involved no rejection of Christ as Redeemer or as Teacher in questioning the accu- racy of certain minor details, or doubting whether the writers had any peculiar supernatural guidance in writing the books. This could be made essential to Christian faith only in case Christ himself had un- mistakably propounded such a doctrine concerning the composition and infallibility of the New Testament. But, it may be asked, why cannot one go so far as to question the accuracy of a considerable part of the New Testament, and yet believe in Jesus as a pre-eminently good man, or even as a divinely com- missioned prophet? May not one even reject all the leading doctrines of ecclesiastical Christology, and yet derive from the New Testament such a knowledge of Christ and such a reverence for him that he may be called a true Christian? Far be it from any one to undertake to lay down a criterion which will suffice to enable us, in every individual case, to pronounce a personal judgment as to one's Christian character. A man, as is often said, may well be better than his creed. There is hardly any limit to the inconsistencies and self-con- tradictions into which the human mind may be led. CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 3^^ But erratic and exceptional cases do not warrant us in modifying the general rule, that true faith in Christ implies and necessitates faith in the general authen- ticity of the New Testament writings. As has heen already seen, a sweeping denial of this authenticity would be inconsistent with faith in Christ. We know nothing about him, unless the New Testament gives us a correct account of him. The same early Christ- ians who preached Christ, and founded the Church on faith in Christ, have handed down also the New Testament with their endorsement of it as an authentic written exposition of the facts and truths which they themselves believed in. If we reject the New^ Testa- ment description of Christ, we are left practically without any knowledge of him, so that it v/ould be absurd any longer to profess to be Christians at all. So much is clear. But the question still remains : If it is conceded that a man may be a true Christian, although he has doubts about the thorough inerrancy of the New Testament; if, therefore, one may question or reject so7ne things there found, by what right can it be said that he may not reject many things, and yet not for- feit his right to rank as a true Christian? Now without attempting to draw an unmistakable boundary line beyond which one's critical doubt can- not go without involving a denial of the Christian faith, some general principles may be laid down the particular application of which must be largely left to one's Christian intelligence, honesty, and com- mon sense. In the first place, it must be remembered that Christian faith is pre-eminently a faith that belongs 32 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. to a community. It springs from, and it creates, as- sociation. It is not a mere matter of private judgment. Indeed, no form of belief — not even scientific opinions — can be said to be purely individual. But Christianity, more than secular science, implies and requires a common faith as the basis of the Kingdom of God w^hich it was Christ's aim to establish on earth. The faith is, therefore, also a communicated faith. It is handed down from one generation to another. It is implanted in one individual through the instruction and stimulus of another. It is the means of uniting together those who would otherwise have no common interest — those even whom differences of race and condition tend to separate. It creates an organiza- tion which is continuous and aims to be universal. In spite of the divisions of the Christian Church there has maintained itself from the beginning, so far as the person and mission of Christ are concerned, an essential agreement. He has from the first been re- garded as the incarnate Son of God, divinely com- missioned to reveal the saving love of the Father, as a preacher of righteousness, a miracle-worker, sinless, but the friend of sinners, crucified, but raised from the dead on the third day, manifested to his disciples, ascended into heaven, where he reigns as the Head of the Church which he founded. There is a general unanimity in holding that faith in him and love to him are the divinely appointed means of securing the forgiveness of sins and the promotion of true holiness, and that all Christians owe him spiritual allegiance as Lord and Master. Moreover, this substantial accord in regard to the central object of Christian faith has been indissolubly CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 33 connected with a common consent to make the New Testament the standard of Christian truth. What- ever excrescences may here and there have grown upon the faith of Christendom have generally come from mistaken or one-sided exegesis rather than from a rejection of any part of the Biblical testimony. Now it does not imply an adoption of the extreme Roman Catholic doctrine of ecclesiastical authority, when one maintains that a radical departure from what has been the general faith of Christendom con- cerning Christ does presumptively shut one out from the ranks of Christians. Every one must of course be at liberty to form his own opinions. But if the result of one's studies and reflections is to lead him to reject what has generally been held to be vital to the Christian faith — what has constituted the ral- lying-point, the basis of union, in the Christian Church — then it is not easy to see why either he or any one else should be concerned to vindicate for him the name of Christian. He has a right to regard his view as more correct than the Christian view; but he cannot reasonably regard it as being itself the Christian view. In the second place, as is already implied in the foregoing, a radical departure from the New Testament representations of Christ and Christian doctrine im- plies a departure from Christianity itself. It is true, the question may at once be raised, what is a radical departure from the teachings of the New Testament? Every eccentric man who propounds some new view of Christ and rejects the ordinary doctrine may insist that precisely what he has come to believe is the vital thing in Christian belief, or at least that his diver- 3 34 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. gences from the ordinary notions relate to non-essential points. And at any rate it may seem to be difficult to determine when a dissent from the ordinary doctrine becomes radical. But after all there need not be any great mystification on this point. Ordinary common sense , to say nothing of the enlightenment of a Christian experience, is adequate, with regard to the Bible as with regard to any other book, to perceive what the prominent and essential doctrines are which it presents. Any one can see that it is an unimportant thing whether the inscription over Jesus' cross was worded according to one or another of the four ver- sions which the Gospels give. And it is just as easy to see that the fact of Jesus' death is represented as most important. Any one can see that it is of small account whether Jesus healed only one maniac, or two, in the country of the Gadarenes ; but it is plain that stress is laid upon the healing power of Jesus. Both believers and unbelievers would generally agree as to what the conspicuous features of New Testament doctrine are. And there is especially a very strong presumption that what Christians in general have regarded as the vital points in that doctrine is justi- fied by the book itself. Of course it is possible that a majority of the Christian Church may fall into error in some points of exegesis, or may attach disproportionate impor- tance to some doctrines , to the comparative neglect of others. But it is next to inconceivable that, so far as the general grand features of the person and doctrine of Christ are concerned, the Church can have been materially wrong in what it has found the New Testament to teach. Whether, therefore, the radical CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 35 dissent from the current views comes from a peculiar exegesis, or from a wholesale rejection of such parts of the New Testament as disagree with the view which he advocates — in either case the critic who thus sets himself against what has always appeared to be the plain teaching of the Christian Scriptures cannot, with any show of reason, claim that his view is the Christian view, and the other not. Where the dissent from the ordinary conception of the truth touches only one or a few points of Christian doctrine, and those not such as have been generally esteemed the most important, the case is different. Undoubtedly many a man may question much of what the great majority of Christians have held to be the j)lain teaching of the New Testament, and yet may be a devout Christian, not able to see the truth as others see it, yet honestly trying to elucidate what the Scriptures set forth concerning the person and work of Christ. Such speculations and interpretations , even though one-sided and faulty, may yet suggest defects in the ordinary doctrine, and lead ultimately to a more comprehensive and correct apprehension of Scriptural doctrine on the part of the Church in general. A variety in doctrinal belief, on the part of those who agree in their devotion to the same Saviour and in their acceptance of the same Scriptures , is to be expected wherever thought is free. Mutual charity is here dictated by Christian- ity itself. More harm than good comes from charges of heresy hurled against those who, while they wish to remain loyal to Christ, are yet unable to see him as others see him , or to understand the Biblical 3* 3Q CHRIST AND CRITICISM. doctrine in the usual way. Leniency of judgment should be exercised to the utmost. But when the dissent from current views not only concerns what is generally held to he truths of cen- tral importance, but is connected with an arbitrary rejection of such Scriptural testimony as conflicts with the doctrine propounded, the dissenter cannot rea- sonably expect his view to be accepted as sound Christian doctrine. There certainly is a point at which the rupture with the prevailing belief becomes radical and should be regarded by the critic himself as vacating his title to the name of Christian, even though no one should accuse him of heresy. Just where this point is, it would be presumptuous to try to set forth in such specific terms that it can infallibly be determined when in every individual case the line has been overstepped. But it may serve to give greater precision to the general principle which we have laid down, if we add a second proposition, viz., that — 2. In the elucidation of the New Testament doc- trine of Christ it is unwarrantable to draw one's in- formation wholly or preponderantly from a particular part of the New Testament, to the exclusion or neglect of other parts. There are those, for example, who in their Christological studies confine themselves mostly or entirely to the Gospels, on the ground that, in seeking to learn what Jesus was and what he taught, we are on firm ground only when we are attending to his own words and deeds. Consequently the Epistles and other books are treated as at least secondary, or even as quite untrustworthy, sources of information. This is not an infrequent method of procedure. The Gospels are used as the only authen- CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 37 tic source. The Epistles are treated as if they were only the lucubrations of a later time, at which the sober descriptions of the Gospels were succeeded by exaggerations and theosophic speculations, and Jesus, instead of being regarded as the simple, godly teacher such as the Evangelists portray him, was apotheosized and invested with attributes and functions of which the more primitive record knows nothing. There is something plausible at first blush in such a view. It sounds scientific and reasonable to say that testimony at first hand is more to be trusted than testimony at second or third hand — that a man's own representations of himself should be accepted rather than other men's representations of him. And undoubtedly the Gospels have had, and always will have, a unique value and charm, inasmuch as they report Jesus' language, describe his conduct, and give us a portrait of him in his intercourse with men. In an important sense the Gospels must always furnish the basis of every attempt to set ibrth the Biblical doctrine of the person of Christ. But there is no warrant for making them the exclusive source of in- formation. The one-sidedness of this method becomes ap- parent, when we observe that the Gospels are not the earliest books of the New Testament, and that the other books, as well as the Gospels, present to us the primitive apostolic conception of Christ. Why should Mark's or Luke's portraiture be preferred to Paul's? No one of the three, so far as we know, was an im- mediate disciple of Jesus. Luke tells us that he took pains to gather accurate information about his doings and sayings. Paul tells us (Gal. i. 12) that 38 CHKIST AND CRITICISM. he received a revelation directly from Christ himself, and that soon after his conversion he had a con- ference for a fortnight with Peter (i. 18) , and still later with the other apostles (ii. 1 — 10), Wherein had Luke any advantage over Paul in the matter of learning the truth ahout Jesus' life and character? On the contrary, the early tradition is that Luke wrote his Gospel under Paul's superintendence. Paul, moreover, wrote some of liis Epistles hefore any of our Gospels were written — all of them probably, before the Gospels assumed their present form. On every account, therefore, his representations of Christ and Christian truth would seem to be more trust- worthy, if we are to make any distinction at all, than those of Mark or Luke. But what of Matthew and John ? Since they were apostles, are not their Gospels to be preferred to the other Gospels and to all the other New Testament books as source of information concerning Christ? So it might seem. Yet, curiously enough, those who depreciate the testimony of Paul are just the ones who are apt not to attach especial importance to the Gospels of Matthew and John. The First Gospel is thought to be only in part, if at all, the work of Matthew, and the Fourth is pronounced to be not John's at all, but a very late production presenting a mystic and altogether unreliable account of Jesus^ words and acts. Mark is preferred to Matthew, and Luke to John. But if so. then one might suppose that Paul as a witness would be regarded as pre-eminently trust- worthy. No book of the New Testament, so far as genuineness is concerned . is less disputed than his principal Epistles. None were written ear^ CHKISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 39 lier. According to Paul's own statement the leading apostles recognized him as an apostle worthy to preach the same gospel which had heen committed to them. They must have admitted the justness of his claim that he had had a special vision of Christ and had received from him direct revelations. What, then, according to all the evidence before us, can be more primitive and trustworthy, as a delineation of the character and work of Christ, than the Epistles of Paul? Those who assume the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel might give the preference to this, as being the work of an immediate and favorite disciple of the Master. External evidence of its genuineness is in- deed practically as decisive as for that of the Pauline Epistles. And though the portraiture of Christ in the Gospel is markedly different in phraseology and mode of conception from that of Paul, yet there is essential harmony. If there is any doctrinal differ- ence, John goes beyond Paul in the exaltation of the Saviour, reaching the point of ascribing to him strict divinity, whereas Paul, though coming near this conception, is less explicit and pronounced in his ut- terances. So then, assuming the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, we have in it a biography of Christ written by his favorite disciple, evidently the work of one man, and no compilation, and therefore worthy of peculiar confidence as a portraiture of the Redeemer and his work. Why should the Synoptists be preferred to this, when the question of their ori- gin is still so much a matter of dispute? But we have still more apostolic testimony. The first Epistle of Peter professes to come from another of the "pillar" apostles. And its representation of 40 CHEIST AND CRITICISM. Christ and his work, though having an individuality of its own, is so manifestly in accord with that of Paul's that many critics have heen inclined to as- cribe it to some disciple of Paul. But here again they have to put mere conjecture against an un- broken line of ancient attestation. We have, then, a Gospel and an Epistle of John (to say nothing of the Apocalypse and the shorter Epistles); we have one, if not two, Epistles from Peter; and all these writ- ings from the most conspicuous of the original apos- tles, though unlike in style to one another and to the Pauline Epistles, yet agree essentially with them in the exposition which they give of the character of Christ and his relation to the Christian Church. In view of these facts it is difficult to conceive of anything more uncritical and unreasonable than to assume (i) that only the Gospels can be relied on as giving an authentic account of the life and teachings of Jesus , and then (2) to exclude one of the four Gospels from the list of authentic accounts because it has a different cast from the other three, although it is equally well attested, and finally (3) to expunge as later additions whatever even in the JSynoptists more or less accords with the Pauline or Johannean writings in its characterization of Jesus. It is only an extreme form of this procedure, when everything savoring of the supernatural in the Gospels is dis- credited, and the critic simply accepts as authentic whatever he chooses, following a purely subjective standard. If there were any insuperable contradiction be- tween the Synoptists on the one hand and the Jo- hannean, Pauline, and Petrine books on the other, CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 41 SO that it were necessary to make a distinct choice between them, the case would be different; though even then it would be hard to see on what ground the Synoptists should be assumed to be unquestionably more authentic than the other writers. But such a contradiction does not exist. Neither ordinary nor scholarly Christians have found any great difficulty in accepting all of these writings as authentic sources of instruction concerning Christ and Christian truth. They have found in them different, but not discord- ant, portraits of the one Redeemer in whom they believe. The more various the portraitures the better, so long as the variety furnishes, not confusion, but completeness. The case, then, stands thus: There are no critical reasons for making the Synoptic Gospels, or an ex- purgated form of them, the sole authentic documents from which to derive our knowledge of what Christ and pure Christianity are. It would be quite as rea- sonable . to say the least, to select John or Paul as the authoritative source, and look on the others as only subsidiary, or even as apocryphal. And if we consider the matter from the standpoint of Christian faith, there is still less warrant for confining our- selves to one group of witnesses, to the exclusion of others equally competent and equally trustworthy. From the beginning Christendom has regarded these various delineations of Christian truth as authentic. As a whole, these New Testament writings have been made the standard of right belief and the basis of Christian teaching. The same continuous tradition which has handed down faith in Christ as the Saviour of men has handed down all these writings as vera- 42 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. cious and authoritative expositions of the faith once delivered to the saints. Here, however, it may be said: True, the faith of Christendom has generally been that all these New Testament books are authentic; but the question now is, whether faith in Christ requires one to esteem all these books equally. May not one be a genuine Christian, and yet make such discriminations as those above spoken of? If, for example, one accepts only Mark's Gospel as an authentic history of Christ, and regards all the rest of the New Testament as of in- ferior value^ or even as largely tainted with supersti- tious and fanciful matter , may he not still be a sin- cere believer in the Christ whom he finds in Mark's Gospel? No doubt, genuine Christian faith may co-exist with very imperfect and even erroneous conceptions of the nature and offices of Christ. Faith is not a mere intellectual conception, but an act of personal trust. Such a trust may be exercised while yet there is much to learn concerning the one trusted in. The best and wisest of Christians are in this sense learn- ers. Not until we attain to the heavenly state can we hope to know as we are known. But this igno- rance is a very different thing from that of him who, not from want of cajDacity or opportunity, but from a wilful refusal to consider all the sources of illumi- nation, fixes himself in a one-sided and erroneous conception of Christ. The critic who selects certain portions of the New Testament as containing the sole authentic description of Jesus Christ thereby proclaims not how little, but how much, he knows about him. He assumes to know so much more CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. ^3 about him than Christendom in general does, that he is able to decide what parts of the New Testament give us an incorrect and untrustworthy account of him. He can have no adequate reason for rejecting the testimony of the other parts of the New Testa- ment, unless it is because there is an irreconcilable difference between this testimony and that which he accepts. In short, he has an a priori conception of what Christ and the primitive Christianity must have been, and adjusts the documentary evidence to this conception. That is, he sets himself in opposition to that Christ whom Christendom has always believed in, and whom the New Testament as a whole bears witness to. and preaches another Christ and another Gospel. It is only by a stretch of charity or of fancy that such a procedure can be called criticism at all. The animating and determining impulse in it is sl clog mafic one. But it calls itself criticism, assumes some of the forms and appearances of a critical process, and may therefore , at least in a loose sense , be called such. But whatever it may be, it is essentially anti- Christian. It has, to be sure, a variety of grades, some of which may involve a comparatively slight departure from the ordinary Christian view ; but the principle of the criticism — that of letting a pre- conceived notion of what Christ must have been de- termine what parts of the New Testament represen- tation of him shall be conceded to be genuine and authentic — this is not Christian. Whether it leads more, or less, far astray, the method of it is perverse. The result of it, when consistently carried out, is to make every man his own judge as to what the 44 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. Scriptural testimony concerning Christian truth ought to be^ rather than the docile recipient of the truth as it has been communicated to us by the Scriptures themselves. What has just been said is of course not appli- cable to the critical doubts which, with greater or less plausibility, have been cherished concerning cer- tain parts of the New Testament. Whether the deuterocanonical books are genuine; whether John vii. 53 — viii. 11 or Mark xvi. 9 — 20 ought to be re- ceived as parts of canonical Scripture ; whether Rom, XV. and xvi. are genuinely Pauline; whether Matthew's account of the birth and childhood of Jesus can be harmonized with Luke's; these and such like ques- tions may be raised and answered affirmatively or negatively, without derogating from the sincere Christian faith of those who discuss them^ so long as they confine themselves to arguments of a truly crit- ical nature and admit that the New Testament in its entirety must be accepted as giving us an author- itative exposition of the nature, character, and doc- trines of Christ. When MS. authority, or historical testimony, or even internal evidence of a peculiarly cogent kind, can be adduced against the genuineness or authenticity of any book, or section of a book, the criticism should at least be carefully considered, even if it be not convincing. In point of fact, however, the most serious and daring assaults on the authenticity of the New Testament books have been inspired by a different spirit. The critics have not undertaken to show that those parts of the New Testament which are by strictly critical methods proved to be peculiarly trustworthy represent Christ and Christian truth to have been other than CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 45 what the Church has taught; on the contrary, they pronounce certain parts of the New Testament un- trustworthy just because they agree tvith the ecclesiastical doctrine. It is assumed, for example, that Jesus could not have been a theanthropic being, miracu- lously born, miraculously working, miraculously risen from the dead ; that he cannot be in any pre- eminent sense a Mediator between God and man, or the Judge of the world; and then, whatever in the New Testament countenances such a view of his na- ture and offices is for that reason declared to be legendary or visionary, and not historical. This leads to another proposition respecting the relation of -Christian faith to criticism, viz. — 3. Faith in Christ is inconsistent with a general doubt or denial of the supernatural in the endow- ment and the work of Christ. Men may have differ- ent modes of explaining the narratives of the mira- culous ; in some cases they may disagree on the point whether a particular occurrence was miraculous or not. They may go too far in trying to tone down the appearance of a supernatural intervention. But still so long as they accept the general representations of the New Testament concerning a supernatural re- velation, they cannot be called recreant to the Christian faith. Undoubtedly the main point to be here insisted on is that Christ himself was, according to the New Testament, an altogether unique being and endowed with superhuman powers. On this point all the books of the New Testament speak with one voice ; and Christendom has always accepted the description as true. It is not merely the stories of miraculous deeds ^g CHRIST AND CRITICISM. wrought by Christ that must be taken into account, but his general representations of himself, his assump- tion of extraordinary authority and of supernatural power. These claims run all through the Gospels and are reflected and acknowledged in the Epistles. A supernatural element is intertwined with the whole New Testament sketch of Christ's life and character. Nothing but a purely arbitrary criticism can eliminate it. It may be argued, however, that in the case of other histories the presence of stories of supernatural occurrences is regarded as of itself a presumptive evidence of untrustworthiness, and that therefore it is not unreasonable to let the same presumption weigh against the stories of miracles in the New Testament. But be it so that, as a general rule, we discredit the supernatural; Christendom has not discredited it in the New Testament, but rather found it to be an essential and irremovable part of the book. If the supernatural in it is to be discarded, then the whole may as well be discarded; for no one can disentangle the supernatural from the natural and determine what shall be called historical. The personality of Christ especially would become an insoluble enigma , if the New Testament portraiture of him is to be recon- structed according to the critical canon that every- thing must be adjusted to the theory that the super- natural is never to be admitted. For the super- natural is in the person, and not merely in his doings.. If the Christian conception of Christ is to be recon- structed in accordance with a purely naturalistic scheme, then not only the miracles, but all the claims of superhuman dignity and authority which Jesus made, must be set aside. But this would be practi- CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 47 cally setting aside the greater part of the New Testa- ment. It would be an attempt to discover and por- tray a Christ of whom we know nothing. It is easy to affirm that Jesus must have been a mere man, however gifted more than most others, and that he could not have laid claim to such powers and prerog- atives as have been accorded to him. But the stub- born fact remains that the earliest known account of him is saturated with just the opposite conception of him , and that this conception has from the first been handed down as the true one. This is the Christian view; it must always remain the Christian view; and any other rests on an interpretation of the New Testament which is neither Christian nor critical. But, it is often urged, the question of miraculous occurences is a historical question , and must there- fore be settled by historico-critical investigation, not by religious faith. What shall be said to this ? No doubt, if miracles ever occurred, they were historical events, and therefore the question of miracles is a historical one. Yes ; and equally true is it that if Jesus Christ ever lived on earth, he was a historic personage, and his life and doings form a part of human history. It is consequently a historical question, whether Jesus ever existed, and whether he ever did and said any of the things that are told about him. But if the question is asked, whether it is consistent with faith in Christ to treat the fact of his existence as doubtful, the answer can only be. No ; of course the two things are not consistent with one another. If one chooses to treat the existence and alleged life of Christ as of questionable historic truthfulness , he is at liberty 48 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. to do SO, hut not as a Christian', for to a Christian Christ and his work are not matters of doubt, but of faith. In so far as the historic question of Christ's existence and mission comes before the true Christian, it is as a question already settled. And the case is not essentially different, though of course not quite the same, when we consider the question of the New Testament miracles. Genuine faith in Christ cannot but have a determining effect on one's critical judgment concerning them. One who has not that faith might be in a certain sense quite justifiable, if he regarded the miraculous element in the New Testament as something to be disbelieved. To be sure, even such a man , if candid , would find difficulties created by rejecting; as well as by accepting, the authenticity of the book. But a Christian can take such a view only by abandoning what has been from the beginning of the Christian era regarded as fundamental. The Christ of Christendom — the Prophet, Priest, and King of the new dispensation, the Son of God, the Effulgence of the Father's glory ^ the Head of the Church universal — this Christ would disappear, if the incredibility of the supernatural is to be the crit- ical canon by which the Christian Scriptures are to be tested. The Church might well say, w^ith Mary Magdelene, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." More particularly, it must be said that a Christian interpretation of the New Testament cannot fail to find the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a historic fact. Not but that subtle and ingenious ef- forts may be made to explain away the obvious mean- ing of the whole of the New Testament on this CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. ^9 point; and not but that such efforts may be made by men sincerely desirous of getting at the truth. But the attempts contradict both the general belief of Christendom and the plain and unanimous teach- ing of the New Testament itself. This doctrine of the resurrection of Christ has from the beginning been maintained in the Church against all forms of doubt. It is not until very recently that professed Christians have seriously endeavored to con- trovert it. Their attempts have not been successful. Still the effort is continued; and when a man of Dr. Martineau's ability and sincerity makes the at- tempt, it might be expected that in view of the weak- nesses of previous attacks on the crowning miracle in the life of Christ he would do his best to make out a somewhat plausible case. But what is his argument?^ The underlying thought of his exposition is that the faith in Christ's resurrection properly meant only the belief that the crucified Jesus still lives, not, however, in the underworld, but ^4n the abodes of the immortals." The narratives of the Gospels are summarily cast aside on account of their alleged late origin and mutual contradictions ; and Paul , as being the one early witness, is called upon the stand and made to testify that Jesus was never seen after his death except by an inward vision (Gal. i. 16). The detailed statement of 1 Cor. xv. 3 — 8 is inter- preted in the same way. Since to the Galatians Paul said that God had revealed Christ in him, therefore it follows, we are told, that the being seen (or the appearing) told of in 1. Cor. xv. must be ^ The Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 361 sqq. 4 50 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. understood in the same way with reference to the ex- perience not only of Paul himself, but also of Peter, James, the twelve, and the five hundred. "The whole of these facts," Paul "received, but from two different sources which he is careful to distinguish; the first half, including the resurrection on the third day, were ^accredited by the Scriptures' ; the second half, con- sisting of the Christophanies, were personal experien- ces related to him by others or felt in himself." If this means anything , it means that Paul did not hear of Christ's death or of his resurrection through reports from the apostles or other witnesses, but that he learned about these things solely from the Scrip- tures ! It might indeed be that Paul could have inferred from the Scriptures that Christ tvas going to die and rise again ; but how could he learn that he had died and risen? If Paul had said any such thing, we should have some reason to be startled ; but fortunately he said nothing of the sort, but simply that the death and resurrection of Christ, of ivhich he had heard, were "according to the Scriptures." By no stretch of respectable exegesis can it be made to appear that, when Paul tells us that he has received that Christ was raised according to the Scriptures, he really means that he has received from the Scriptures that Christ has been raised. One naturally wonders how so clear-headed a man as Dr. Martineau could be led to so manifest a distortion of the plain language of the apostle. The reason soon appears. Having made out, in this strange way, that the report about the rising on "the third day" did not come from any eye-witnesses, but was a mere inference from the Old Testament, our author thinks the way clear to assert, with regard to the re- CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 5;^ ported Christophanies, that ^'no date is given for any of them; nor is any locality assigned; provided the order were not disturbed , there is no one of them that might not be on the third day or on the three hundredth , — in Jerusalem, — at Bethany, or on the hills of Galilee." We now see what the induce- ment was to find in Paul's language an indication of two distinct sources of information: in this way that uncomfortable "third day" is disconnected from the narrative received by Paul from the immediate dis- ciples of Christ, and thus an indefinite space of time is gained during which the so-called appearances of Christ might have taken place. The appeal to Paul is unhappy in still another re- spect. The narrative which he gives was occasioned by the doubts which some of the Corinthians had ex- pressed concerning the resurrection in general (xv. 12), and particularly concerning a bodily resurrection (xv. 35). It was to meet these doubters that Paul calls attention to the admitted fact of Christ's re- surrection — a fact which he had always made fun- damental in his preaching. Now what satisfaction could it have been to those doubters to be told that Peter and James and a number of others had at some time become convinced that Christ's disembodied spirit was still existent in one part, rather than in another part, of the invisible world? To make all this exegesis the more amazing, our author tells us that the original apostles after all ''declared that they had seen the risen Christ; and had they not been able to do so, they could hardly have conveyed to others the profound assurance of his heavenly life which, in their own minds, so largely 4* 52 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. depended on the impressions of their personal ex- perience." Indeed ; are we, then, to understand that they really had seen the risen Christ? And if so, then what becomes of all this labored explaining away of Paul's testimony? If not, is it meant that the apos- tles deliberately lied , in order to convey to others their profound assurance that Christ was now in heaven? There seems to be no other supposition pos- sible. But if the falsehood was so necessary and so successful in reference to men in general, why should we not suppose that it was told to Paul also? In that case, when he reports the account of the appear- ances of Christ, he is after all to be taken literally. It may be imagined, however, that Dr. Martineau only means that the original apostles, as well as Paul, in saying that they had seen the risen Christ, simply meant that they had had an inward vision of him such as Paul speaks of to the G-alatians. But we are forbidden to resort to this explanation of the apparent charge ot falsehood ; for our author has previously drawn out with great particularity the process of thought and feeling by which the apostles , after the death of Christ, brought themselves to the conviction that he was not in ''the storehouse of souls in the underworld", but in heaven with God and the angels. After the first bitter disappointment, we are told, they began to per- suade themselves that ^'the divinest vision of their life" could not have been an illusion. They conclu- ded that they "had read the Prophets with eyes only half open", and began to find references there to the death and resurrection of the Messiah. They reasoned from Jesus' phrase, '^kingdom of heaven", that he must have gone to heaven ^^to bring it." The ideal CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 53 jiicture, we are further told, ^^had but wavering out- lines and colors that changed with the glow or chill from the breath of circumstances." ''Thus far, then, that is, to the belief that Jesus, the crucified, still lives, and only waits the Father's time to fulfil the promises, an intelligible process might well bring the disciples; and this is the faith in his resurrection/' According to this, therefore, it was a ''process" of thought, an inference gradually reached , that led to the belief that Jesus was still living, and in the heaven- ly world; no startling vision, therefore, — nothing that could have warranted them in saying that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. On this theory, therefore, if, in order to accomplish their end, the apostles did say that they had seen the risen Christ, they acted the part of deceivers. Moreover, if any- thing can be gathered from the New Testament about this matter, it is that the assurance of Christ's re- surrection was the starting-point in the apostolic preaching. Not only Peter and the eleven, but Paul, make it a vital doctrine. It was Christ's resurrection by which he was "declared (or determined) to be the Son of God" (Horn, i. 4). Unless Christ had risen, the Christians' faith was vain (1 Cor. xv. 17). Every- thing goes to show that the greatest stress was laid on the fact that the apostles had actually seen the risen Christ. It is inconceivable that they could have preached that fact with such assurance and boldness, if they had only reasoned themselves into the convic- tion that so superlatively pious a man as Jesus can- not have gone down to Hades, but must have been distinguished, as Enoch and Moses had been before him, by being received at once into the angelic world. 54 CHRIST AXD CRITICISM. How could the preaching of this process of reasoning have produced conviction in the minds of enemies or doubters? ^'"What is the use", these might well have said; '^of telling us that you feel sure that your Master must have been exempted from the ordinary lot of men? We have no doubt that he still exists; but where is the evidence that he is not with the other dead ? Have you seen him up there in the upper heavens? Or are we expected to take your guesses and inferences for infallible truth?" In short, the preaching of this belief that Jesus had been translated like Enoch and Moses could have availed no more than the setting forth of the rare personal excellences of Jesus on which the belief was founded. And yet these fancies and ingenious speculations, spun out of the brain of the critic, resting on no ex- ternal authority, but opposed to all the external au- thority that exists, the Christian world is asked to take on trust in place of the positive and unanimous statements of the New Testament writers and the general faith of Christendom. Such criticism, if crit- icism it can be called, bids defiance not only to all the laws of evidence, but to a belief of the Christian Church which always has been, and always must be, held to be central and unconquerable. What is here implied may be generalized and put into the form of a fourth proposition — 4. It is inconsistent with a sound Christian faith to apply purely subjective canons of criticism to the interpretation of the doctrine of the New Testament concerning Christ and Christian truth. By this is meant that in a certain important sense the individ- ual Christian is limited in his critical and exegetical CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 55 treatment of the Scriptures by the general consensus of Christians, In a general way this may be said of all interpretations. No one can expound a book in- dependently of the influence of other men. Language itself is not an individual, but a social, possession. Words, in themselves apparently mere meaningless sounds, have a meaning, not according as individuals arbitrarily choose to attach a meaning to them, but according to a common understanding as to their meaning. In undertaking to define the purport of a word or a phrase the interpreter is necessarily bound to understand the language, not as he may happen to wish it to mean, but as it actually does mean to men in general. He is limited and deter- mined by the prevalent conceptions. The case is similar when the meaning of a book is considered. Though there is here somewhat more room for difference of interpretation, yet in general, since usage has fixed the significance of the several words, the combination of words into sentences and of sentences into paragraphs and whole treatises must convey to all who understand the language essentially the same meaning. If there are obscurities, the con- sensus of those supposed to be best able to investi- gate them is naturally taken as furnishing the best so- lution. If the book is written in an ancient and now unspoken language, the rule still holds, that the in- terpretation which the experts generally adopt is presumably correct. As to the New Testament in particular, the same principle holds good, with the modification, that in this case the experts should be Christians. In the reaction against the extreme position of the Roman 56 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. Catholic Church, which practically shut the Bible away from the common people, and reserved the in- terpretation of it to a select class, there is danger of forgetting the truth which is involved in the ground assumed by that hierarchy, viz., that deference is due to that interpretation of the Scriptures which has currently prevailed among enlightened, pious, and scholarly Christians. Protestants repudiate, and in most cases, it may be, rightly, certain Roman Catholic expositions of the Bible which seem to be perversions of its obvious meaning. The right of private inter- pretation must be strenuously maintained. Yet how few, when they try to make a careful study of a Bib- lical book, are willing to dispense with all commen- taries. It savors even of spiritual arrogance when a man professes to receive his exposition of the Scrip- tures directly from the Holy Spirit, apart from all human instruction. Their exact and full meaning does not always lie on the surface. Often nothing but the lessons of Christian experience suffice to un- fold the deeper significance of a passage. But it cannot be the experience of one individual alone which deter- mines that significance. It must be an experience which belongs to the more earnest Christian life in general. Undoubtedly in a certain sense new light may break out of the Word of Grod. A better understand- ing of its meaning may be attained than has been the case before. Progress in archaeological, historical, and linguistic knowledge may make clear what has hereto- fore been obscure or misunderstood. Or a varied type of Christian character may be developed which brings into greater prominence some previously overlooked or misconceived phases of Biblical doctrine. As in the CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 57 starry heavens, notwithstanding all that has been made most certain by scientific research, there is ever room for new explorations, so in the Bible. But whatever new truth concerning it may be attained must be such as commends itself to the generality of Christians, when once it is set forth. If not, that fact itself is sufficient to discredit the alleged discovery. What the Bible really means it must mean to all, not to one or a few only. Allegorical and far-fetched inter- pretations which individual ingenuity may propound condemn themselves by the very fact that they are far-fetched and do not commend themselves to the plain common sense of Christians in general. What may seem an absolutely new interpretation may be old enough ; but if it is new, it cannot be called true, until it proves its worth by being generally accepted. In the long run the ultimate test of a correct exegesis is the consensus of the Christian world. But with regard to the greater part of the New Testament such a consensus exists already. In spite of many points on which there is disagreement — points of doctrine, ethics, ecclesiastical polity — the general purport of the book is one on which Christ- endom is agreed. And when a man undertakes to contradict such a general judgment, he is pre- sumptively in the wrong. If, for example, one endeav- ors to make out that Jesus claimed no peculiar authority and no unique relation to the Father; or that he did not know at the beginning of his ministry that he was the Messiah, and only by degrees came to the suspicion that he might be such; or that he disclaimed having miraculous power; or that John does not teach the preexistence of Christ; or that 58 CHEIST AND CRITICISM. Paul does not teach the doctrine of Christ's vica- rious sufferings; and especially if, in propounding such views, a man finds it necessary to pronounce certain passages spurious or unhistorical because they contradict the view propounded; — all such exegesis^ doing violence not only to the natural mean- ing and to the integrity of the text, but to the gen- eral judgment of Christendom , must be pronounced opposed to the Christian faith. It is a substitution of an individual judgment as to what ought to have been for the judgment as to what really is. Whether it proceeds from a morbid desire to gain a reputation for originality, or is the sincere conviction of the man who indulges in it, such exegesis cannot command the general assent of Christians. It may be indulged in by good Christians, but it is not Christian exegesis. Men of such erratic propensities are to the Christian world what comets are to the solar system. They may submit to the attraction of the sun and planets; but their orbits are anomalous; and in the end they either are overpowered by the stronger force of the more solid bodies and become absorbed in them, or else they wander off to other systems and are seen no more. 5. Once more, it is in conflict with a normal Christian faith to regard a large part of the New Testament as spurious, fictitious, pseudonymous, or partisan.^ But liere a carefiil distinction must be ' By "partisan" writings I mean what in Grerman are called Tendenzschriften — a phrase often either transferred into English works (and then needing a definition) or else rendered "tendency-writings". In the latter case, since the phrase conveys no meaning to one unacquainted with German , "tendency" is CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 59 made. One cannot affirm with absolute assurance that our New Testament is entirely free from elements of this sort. We do not have the original manu- scripts. We cannot assume an infallible inspiration on the part of the Christians who decided to admit certain books and no others into the list of authorita- tive Christian Scriptures. We know that diversity of opinion for a long time prevailed respecting some of those writings. Nothing but a preponderance of opinion finally led to the retention , for example, of Second Peter, and to the exclusion of the Epistle of Barnabas. It is certain also that the early Christ- ians were much given to the composition of pseu- donymous works, and that many productions of that period are of a mixed character, the original work being enlarged or interpolated by later writers. How, it may be asked, do we know that the books of the New Testament may not be largely works of this sort? How can we be sure that no books of a partisan character gained admission, or that none were smug- gled in under false pretenses? Is it not even possible to suppose, with Professor Steck,i ^j^^^ ^^^ the New Testament books are pseudonymous, spurious, and more or less unauthentic^ and still manage to select sometimes provided with quotation marks, or is printed in Italics — neither of which devices serves any purpose except to suggest that there is some mystery about the word. The term above used, though not a precise equivalent of Tendenz- schrift, is very near being one, and has the merit of being English. It means substantially what the German word means — a work written in a partisan spirit and distorting, inventing, or misrepresenting facts for a partisan end. * Der Galaterbrief, p. 385. go CHRIST AND CRITICISM. and adopt from this miscellaneous collection enough of truth to warrant us in calling ourselves Christians? Now to such questions a general answer is that we are entirely dependent on the early church, not only for ohe preservation of the New Testament Scriptures, but for our historical information as to their authorship. Apart from this traditional infor- mation about the New Testament no man would be able to determine anything concerning either its ori- gin or its authenticity. With regard to any written work credible contemporaneous testimony concerning its authorship and composition is of more worth than a hundred critical dissertations which ignore the his- torical testimony. Without such traditional informa- tion, we should not have even the means of detecting the forgeries or interpolations which critical exami- nation may seem to have discovered. Now the books of the New Testament have been delivered to us, we may at least say, with the general endorsement of the early Christian Church as being veracious records of the history and doctrines of Christ and of the estab- lishment of his Church. It is absolutely certain that, whether or not the early Christians were mistaken in their opinion, this was their opinion. We know, moreover, that the Christians of that time were not without critical discernment, and that they distin- guished genuine from spurious works. We know that thej doubted and differed concerning this or that writing called apostolic. We know that they did not consciously admit pseudonymous or unhistorical works into the Canon. If an Epistle purported to be by Paul, it was not received unless believed to be really by Paul. There were numerous Lives of Christ pub- CHKISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. Ql lished; but only four were received as authentic. If our New Testament is made up to any considerable extent of spurious or fictitious works, then the Christ- ian Church as a whole either was deceived or was a wilful deceiver. Now the theory of a wholesale deception practised on posterity by the early Church, even if it could be held by any one, cannot be held by a sincere Christian. It cannot be held consistently with faith in Christ as a teacher of religion and morals; for it presup- poses that his earliest followers were made knaves and cheats rather than the truth-loving saints which the New Testament itself enjoins men to be. Such an effect of Christianity on Christian believers , if conceivable at all, would certainly serve to cast dis- credit on the Founder, as well as on the adherents, of it. That a sincere Christian should really believe this to be the fact is simply impossible. But may not the Church have been deceived? Amongst the numerous pseudonymous and fictitious productions of that period may not many have im- posed on even the most intelligent men and have been accepted as genuine and veracious documents? The question now before us, however, it should be re- membered, is whether it may be supposed that in the case of the New Testament a wholesale deception was practised on the Church, so that the entire book was tainted by it, all the books, or the greater part of them, being either untrustworthy in their professed statement of facts, or false in their professed origin. Now as to this it must be said that, if the earliest records of Christianity, sanctioned by the early Church as an authentic and authoritative exposition of the 62 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. facts and truths of the gospel, are so fallacious that they cannot he depended on as giving us in general a truthful statement of what Christ did and said, then it is quite impossible to determine whether any part, or what part, of the New Testament is truthful or genuine ; we have no standard by which the writ- ings can be tested; we are left afloat on a boundless sea of conjecture. Christian faith , under such con- ditions, becomes an indefinable, capricious, shifting thing, and Christ himself becomes lost in a cloud of legends and fictions. Faith in him as an infallible Teacher and as a perfect Redeemer becomes im- possible, if not even meaningless. The question, however, may assume this form: Granted that in general the New Testament can be trusted as giving us a correct account of the origin of Christianity, yet may not in some instances un- historical narratives or spurious treatises have suc- ceeded in getting accepted as apostolic, or at least as authentic, productions? The possibility oi this must be conceded. Unless we hold (what we have no proof of) that the Church was infallibly guarded from all error and deception, it is conceivable that it may have been, in some few and subordinate instances, misled by a plausible fiction or forgery. But if so, the deception could have been successful only because the fraudulent work, instead of contradicting accepted facts and doctrines, was in harmony with them. If, however, the early Christians found no such incom- patibility between the contents of the doubtful books and the others as to awaken suspicions of fraud, they could have been kept from being deceived only by some external evidence concerning the authorship CHKISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. ^3 of the books in question. As tlie fact shows, they found no such external evidence as to warrant them in rejecting the books. And if they found none, at a time when it might have been accessible, still less can any be found now, unless (what is as good as im- possible) some authentic document of that age, hith- erto unknown, should be discovered which would demonstratively prove that the framers of the Canon had been successfully deceived. There remains, then, for the modern critic who would discredit any of the New Testament books no evidence but internal evidence, and no more of that than was equally patent to the scholars of the early Church. The argument can be only such as can be made out by comparing the suspected parts with the others in regard to their language and contents. But inasmuch as no fresh external evidence is to be had, and the style and contents, not having been found to furnish decisive evidence of spuriousness or untrustworthiness to the early Christians, can hardly furnish such evidence to the later Christians, it is not too much to say that no case of a fraudulent or fictitious work being smtiggled into the Canon can ever he proved. At the most the hypothesis of fraud can only in individual instances be made somewhat plau- sible; it can never be made certain. In the case of the deuterocanonical books, respecting which we know that doubts, more or less serious, were rife in the early Church, one may be justified in thinking that perhaps or even probably the ultimate decision was unwarranted by the facts. These books accordmgly have generally not had the weight of full canonical authority. But the presumption still remains that, even (54 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. with regard to them, the original decision was correct; and the opposite can never conclusively be made out. With reference, however, to books which were originally unchallenged, and which through all the Christian centuries up to the present have been re- garded as being what they profess to be, the case is different. In so far as the effort is made to discredit the New Testament as a whole, I need not repeat what has been already observed. But it is often ar- gued that certain books, as, for example, the Fourth Gospel, or the Epistle to the Ephesians, may be re- garded as spurious without impairing the general authenticity of the New Testament. Indeed, so far as the latter book and other of the Pauline Epistles are concerned, it is sometimes said that they are equally edifying whether written by Paul or some one else who assumed his name ^ They are at any rate, ^ So, e. g-., R. F. Horton, Inspiration and the Bible, p. 31, where he says , "Those who have drunk most deeply of the spirit of those wonderful letters would never dream of saying that their value depended on the question whether St. Paul wrote them or not." Yet singularly enough, he goes on to take up the Epistle to the Galatians, and finds a large part of the interest and value of the Epistle to consist in the fact that Paul did write it! But surely, if of Ephesians, then also of Galatians and Corinthians, the value does not depend on their Pauline authorship. But in that case what shall be s^id of all the personal testimony in the Epistles? What real value can be attached to the passage about Christ's resurrection in 1 Cor. XV., if it is immaterial whether Paul wrote it, or some unknown man writing, no one knows when, what for unknown reasons he chose to put into Paul's mouth concerning the resur- rection of Christ? Or when we read what is said of Christ in Phil. ii. 5-11 or Col. i. 14—20, is it immaterial when and by whom such statements were made? If Paul made them — CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. ^5 we are told, Pauline in tone and spirit; and if written by some one who was too modest to give his own name, and who did not have the sensitive con- science of modern times as regards literary honesty, what harm, it is asked, is there in supposing that the letters are pseudonymous ? To all which it need only be said : If the letters are so Pauline that they anight have been written by Paul, if they profess to have been written by Paul, and were from the first thought to have been written by Paul, then why, in the name of common sense , should we not believe that they Paul who professed to have received revelations from Christ him- self, Paul who had early conferences with the original apostles and declared himself to be a preacher of the same gospel as they preached — if Paul made them, they have assuredly more weight than if made by some unknown man of some unknown later time. There is undoubtedly some force in the allegation that the value of a Biblical utterance does not depend on our knowledge of its author. An anonymous Psalm , for instance, may be just as edifying as if a name were prefixed to it. But the allegation cannot be made of universal application. It is opposed to what the higher critics themselves often aud prop- erly claim for their science, viz. that it invests the Bible with fresh interest just because it brings before us the circumstances under which, or the times during which, the books were written ; because it undertakes to make real the men who wrote them and the people for whom they were written. If there is any- thing in all this, then surely the same men cannot at the same time affirm that it makes no difference when or by whom a book of the Bible was written. If the result of Biblical criticism should be to prove that we know nothing about the age, author- ship, or authenticity of any one of the books of the New Testa- ment, it would be necessary of course to submit to the decision; but it would be only an insult to one's common sense to accom- pany the verdict with the unctuous remark that after all the Scriptures are just as edifying, whether we can have any assu- rance that the writings are genuine and trustworthy or not. 5 QQ CHKIST AND CKITICISM. were written by Paul? Does Biblical criticism consist in setting up hypotheses that have no solid found- ation and defending them by the inane argument, that we should be just as well off as now, even if they did have a foundation? It may be alleged, however, that there is sl found- ation for the doubt concerning some of the so-called Pauline Epistles. Although similar in style and doc- trine to the admittedly genuine ones, yet, it is argued, they are so far different that a critical examination shows them to have been written by other men under Paul's name. As to this, it can only be said that the question , whether the internal evidence against the genuineness of the Epistles is conclusive, is one to be passed on by scholarly and thoughtful Christians in general. And in point of fact the evidence has by no means convinced the most of those best quali- fied to judge. As to the matter of style, there is just such a mingling of similarity and variety , when we compare the disputed with the undisputed Epistles, as might be looked for in letters written at different times and under different circumstances. As to doc- trine and contents, the most that can be made out is that the smaller Epistles to some extent treat of different topics from those of the larger ones, that they come somewhat nearer to a deification of Christ, and that they do not deal in a polemic against the Judaizers. But as to the latter point, neither do the Corinthian letters treat of it. As to the second, no Epistle goes farther than that to the Philippians (ii. 5 — 7), of which now few even of Baur's disciples dispute the genuineness. And as to the first, it is a singular requirement that the apostle, in writing to CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 67 different churches, must always have handled precisely the same themes. But it is not here in place to discuss in detail the merits of the particular assaults that have been made on the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles. ^ It is ^ So far as these assaults have come from the Tiibingen school, the force of them is neutralized as soon as the funda- mental assumption relative to a radical difference between Paul and the other apostles is overthrown. And that it is without foundation is clear to any impartial man from the very Epistle from which the main proof of the difference between Paul and the Petrine party is sought to be found. Paul here (Gal. i. 18, ii. 6 — 9) himself distinctly testifies that he and the leading apostles were in substantial harmony before he wrote this Epistle. The narrative in Acts xv. perfectly accords with this representation. That there was a Judaizing party among the Christians is clear enough; but that any of the apostles headed or favored this party, we have no proof whatever. Paul's designation of certain men as those who came from James (Gal. ii. 12), when taken in connection with ii. 9, where James is stated to have given him the right hand after the apostolic conference had decided the disputed questions, cannot fairly be made to mean more than that they came from the church of which James was the pastor (cf. Lightfoot on Galatians , the dissertation on St. Paul and the Three, p. 344, who pertinently refers to Acts xv. 24 as a parallel). But in any case James, according to both Luke and Paul, had expressly sanctioned the exempting of the Gentile Christians from circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic law, which is the subject with which Paul is dealing in his letter to the Galatians. In fact, so groundless is this whole theory of a bitter contention be- tween Paul and the other apostles that Steck, a disciple of Baur, but one who carries his skepticism out to the extreme, admits that there is no evidence that there was any radical difference between Paul and the other apostles, but argues that later the contention between the Judaizers and the anti-Judaizers became bitter, and gave rise to the forging of the Epistle to the Gala- s' (58 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. safe to say that in general they have been successfully refuted, and that at the most, even as respects the Pastoral Epistles, the doubt can only be made plau- sible, while external evidence against them is wholly wanting. But the question now is, whether it is con- sistent with faith in Christ to suppose that in a few instances Epistles falsely pretending to be written by Paul may have been admitted into the Canon. If to any one the evidence for such a judgment seems to be convincing, may he not adopt and avow it without being denounced as recreant to the Christian faith? This question must be answered in the affirmative. However perverse the judgment may appear to others, and however improbable it may be that such an opinion will ever become that of Christendom in gen- eral, still, since the early Church itself wavered re- specting some books, and since it was not supernat- urally kept from making mistakes, it does not seem to be impossible that in the cases supposed a mistake was also made. Provided the New Testament in general is received as conveying to us a correct ac- count of Christ and his claims, and provided he is accepted as Lord and Saviour, the critical opinions in question do not contravene what is essential to Christian faith. The case is similar, but not quite the same, as regards the Fourth Gospel. It does not so unmista- kably profess to be written by John as the Pauline Epistles profess to be by Paul; and therefore there tians {Der Galaterbrief, p. 371 sqq.). It is strange, however,^ on this hypothesis that the forger did not make out a more unequivocal case. CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. gg may seem to be more liberty to doubt its Johannean origin than the Pauline origin of the Epistles. On the other hand, however, the book really, though not explicitly, ascribes itself to John ; and the importance of the Gospel, as standing in a certain sense by itself over against the three others, gives it a much greater relative importance than even a considerable number of the Pauline Epistles. We should have Paul's Christology, even though a number of the ostensibly Pauline Epistles were regarded as spurious. But if John did not write the Fourth Gospel, if it was a fictitious production of the middle of the second cen- tury, not to be relied on wherever it is not confirmed by the Synoptic Gospels, then a very important part of the Evangelistic portraiture of Jesus is removed. We have no substitute for it in any other confessedly Johannean production (for John^s First Epistle, as is generally admitted, must stand or fall with the Gos- pel). If, however, the Gospel is supposed to have been written by some disciple of John early in the second century, and to embody substantially what John had orally taught or had left in written mem- oranda concerning the life and words of Jesus, then, even though the evidence for such a hypothesis may be altogether insufficient to establish it, still the practical result is not very materially different from that of ascribing the Gospel to John himself. In general it may be said that the relation of crit- ical doubt to Christian faith depends mainly on the animus that lies at the basis of it. If the disposition is to make Christian doctrine materially different from what Christendom in general, following the New Testa- ment as a whole, has pronounced it to be; if, especially, 70 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. in doing so, the critic eliminates the supernatural from the Gospels and pronounces the Johannean and Pauline writings spurious, or at least untrue to the religion of Christ himself; if in general the critic appears to be disposed to make his own likes and dislikes, rather than historical testimony and the general be- lief of Christendom, the standard according to which he accepts or rejects books or sections of books of the New Testament; — then whatever, in the judg- ment of charity , may be thought of the critic's heart, it is not uncharitable to say that his critical pro- cesses are essentially unchristian. If purely subjective standards of judgment may decide in one case what shall be regarded as the truth, then equally in every other. Every man thus becomes a law to himself, and there is no common bond that unites all Christ- ians together. The notion, not infrequently ventila- ted, that only that is true Scripture which '^finds" a man, that is, which makes on him the impression of being inspired or divine , is radically vicious. Even though every one might be ^^found" by certain por- tions of the Bible, neither any one individual, nor all the individuals put together, would by that meth- od alone ever be able to ^'find" the Scriptures. What, then, it may be asked, are the prerogatives and uses of Biblical criticism as regards the New Testament? In general, it is useful in whatever way it can throw light on the origin, object, and mutual relations of the New Testament books. Whatever well-established facts can be made to illustrate any of the topics and problems suggested by these books should be cordially welcomed. Information gathered from linguistic, archaeological, or historical sources, CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 7]^ which serves to elucidate the meaning, or present more clearly the setting, of the several books can never come amiss. In short, there should be every encour- agement given to the critic to find out all the facts which are attainable respecting the subject of his in- quiry. In the long run nothing but good can result from the discovery of truth. As to the particular problems with which New Testament criticism has to do, they have, it is true, so long been the subject of discussion and research that nothing very startlingly novel can be looked for either in method or result. Yet new light is con- tinually being turned on old truths ; new objections are raised, and new forms of defense are resorted to ; or the older form of doctrine may, under the in- fluence of a more searching induction of facts, give place to another form without a surrender of the sub- stance. And all such tilling of the old fields yields its fruit in a more intelligent and comprehensive view of Biblical truth. Even when opinions widely diverge from one another, earnest and patient discussion and exami- nation may be expected to result in some advance in Biblical science. The Synoptic problem, for example, seems to be insoluble. It looks as if no one theory of the origin of the first three Gospels would ever be able to drive every other from the ground ; and much toilsome labor may appear to yield very little fruit. But anything that compels close attention to the details of the sacred record is a good thing. Even if not the result aimed at, yet some useful result, will be attained. Already it has become tolerably clear to the ordinary Christian that the resemblances and 72 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. differences of these Gospels are so peculiar as to neccessitate the abandonment of the notion that they were each written in perfect independence of other records of Christ's life and discourses. Whether we shall ever be able to penetrate the exact process is, to be sure, problematic; but it is not unlikely that one result will be to make nearly or quite certain that historical records of the doings and sayings of Christ were in existence soon after his resurrection, so that our present Gospels shall prove to be not merely narratives dating from somewhere near 60 or 70 A,D., but narratives which embody in themselves still earlier records. But even though no such re- sult should become assured, yet the study of the prob- lem must bring incidental good in the attention which it directs to the minutiae, as well as to the general drift, of the Gospel narratives. This same minute comparison of the Gospels with one another serves, it is true, to call attention to the differences and discrepancies between them. Yet this too, if done in the spirit of honest inquiry, must result in good. If the conclusion should be that there are differences in the description of the same event, or in the report of the same discourse, which cannot be reconciled so as to avoid the assumption of in- cidental inaccuracy, no one should be alarmed by the fact. These variations, as has often been insisted on, furnish a proof of the absence of collusion, so that we may reverently believe that God himself deemed it expedient for the security of his own re- velation that the Evangelists, while doing their best to report faithfully what they had seen and heard, should yet not be lifted wholly above the infirmities CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 73 to which other historians are subject. The general harmony of impression in the account of Jesus' Messi- anic work is such that no unprejudiced man could find in the slight discrepancies any reason for a gen- eral distrust of the truthfulness of the record. The same considerations apply to the comparison of Acts with the Pauline Epistles or of these with one another. It is no new field of labor ; but there is still room for further research. And there remain still the old problems concerning the Aramaic origi- nal of the First Gospel, the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and other like questions. The prob- lems concerning the Fourth Gospel and the Pastoral Epistles, and concerning the Apocalypse in itself and in its relation to the Fourth Gospel, will also prob- ably for some time continue to engage the attention of Biblical scholars. Much that is far-fetched and fanciful is likely to be advanced in the discussion of such themes ; but the discussion should be free and full ; and in the end what is of real worth in the new contributions will become generally accepted. Of especial value are the investigations in the field of patristic literature such as Zahn, Harnack, Sanday, Lightfoot, and others have undertaken, as also in that of the Jewish literature of the period between Malachi and the birth of Christ. The discovery of manuscripts of lost books , such as the works of Hippolytus, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Apology of Aristides. has been of immense importance in its bearing on certain disputed points of New Testament criticism; and it encourages the hope that still other discoveries may be made. Who can estimate, for example, what light might be 74 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. thrown on many problems by the discovery of the lost writings of Papias? External evidence , such as that just referred to, is of vastly more weight in determining question of date and authorship than arguments drawn merely from a critical examination of the contents of the Biblical books. But criticism of the latter kind, al- though precarious and often abused, must be defended as legitimate and valuable. In some cases of doubt as to the origin of a book we are nearly or quite shut up to it. And when the question is raised, whether the New Testament is an inspired and in- fallible book, the answer cannot be derived solely or chiefly from historic testimony. We have, it is true, the traditional doctrine on the subject; but when we inquire on what ground the belief in question rests, no answer can be satisfactory which is not founded largely on an investigation of what the books of the New Testament themselves have to say. Biblical criticism of the so-called "higher" kind will always have a place in Biblical scholarship. Old problems are always springing up in a new phase, and new ones are raised, all of which must be met and solved , so far as they can be solved , by the higher criticism. Yet after all the principal use and value of the New Testament must always consist in the disclosures it makes of the love of God and of his plan of salvation in Christ. What it communi- cates may be systematized into dogmatic statements, or brought home to the heart and conscience in hom- iletic form, or used privately as a means of spirit- ual enlightenment and edification. The practical, reli- gious use of the Bible is the main use. Biblical CHRISTIAN FAITH AND NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 75 criticism, though often necessarily dry and without any apparent practical use, must ultimately, if true to itself, minister to the end of making the oracles of God more than ever before the source of spiritual light and life. CHAPTER m. CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. When we come to consider how far Christian faith puts a limit upon critical judgments concerning the Old Testament, it is ohvious that the case is consid- erably different from that of the New Testament. In the latter case we are dealing with a hook written after Jesus' earthly life was closed — a book, there- fore, of which he said nothing, and whose authority is quite independent of any sanction coming directly from him. We believe the New Testament, not be- cause Jesus endorsed it, but because it is the written embodiment of the same gospel which Jesus came to preach, and which was propagated orally by his dis- ciples. We believe it because we cannot reject it without also rejecting him of whom we have there the only early authentic records. The Old Testament, on the other hand, as a re- ligious book, claims the respect and confidence of Christians primarily because it gives us a history that is introductory to that of Christ, and because it was recognized by Christ himself as the vehicle of a divine revelation. The New Testament writers in CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 77 general, and Christ as reported by them in particular, speak of it with peculiar respect as a storehouse of religious history and instruction. In so far, then, as faith in Christ has specifically anything to do in de- termining our judgment of the Old Testament, the in- fluence of it comes chiefly from the consideration that what Christ himself held and taught respecting the Old Testament should have a controlling weight with us. In short, while we believe in the New Testament because of what it tells about Christ, we believe in the Old Testament because of what Christ tells about it. The consideration of the topic here presented naturally divides itself into two parts : (1) What does Christ say about the Old Testament? (2) How far are his utterances to determine our own judgment? I. In general, as no can doubt, Jesus speaks of the Old Testament with the greatest reverence as being a history and vehicle of a divine revelation. He appeals to it in his controversies with the Jews as an ultimate authority. And no less in his discourses to his disciples does he give it the same dignity. To the Sadducees, when they questioned him about the application of the levirate law in heaven, he said, *^Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures" (Matt. xxii. 29, Mark xii. 24), and proceeded to enforce his an- swer by an appeal to Ex. iii. 6. In his talk with the Jews, as recorded in John v., there is the same appeal to the Scriptures as authoritative: ''Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life ; and these are they which bear witness of me" (v. 39, 46). He repeatedly speaks of the Scriptures as prophetic and fulfilled (Matt. xxi. 42,, 78 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. Luke iv. 21), and of the necessity of their being ful- filled (Matt. xxvi. 54, Mark xiv. 19, Luke xxiv. 44, John xiii. 18, xvii. 12). He represents the Old Testament in general as being prophetic of him and of his work (Luke xxiv. 27, John v. 39). He speaks of the Scriptures as something that cannot be broken (John X. 35). He says that he is come, not to de- stroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them, and that not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law till all of it is fulfilled (Matt. v. 17, 18, Luke xvi. 17). When he is asked concerning the great duty of man, he appeals at once to the law (Luke X. 26). The language and precepts of the Old Testament are often called by Christ the words of God; e. g., ^'For God commanded, saying. Honor thy father and thy mother" (Matt. xv. 4-6, Mark vii. 8, 13, cf. Matt, xxii. 31, John x. 35). What in Mark vii. 10 is called the commandment of Moses is spoken of in verses 8 and 13 as the commandment (word) of God. And generally, even when there is no such explicit identi- fication, what Moses prescribed is spoken of by our Lord as divinely authoritative (Matt. viii. 4, Mark i. 44, John vii. 19, 23). Similarly Moses and the pro- phets, (Luke xvi. 29, 31), or the law and the prophets (Matt. vii. 12, xi. 13, Luke xvi. 16). So likewise the prophets in particular (Matt. xxvi. 56, Luke xviii. 31, xxiv. 25, John vi. 45). Nowhere, moreover, do we find any exception to this reverential treatment of the Old Testament on Christ's part. In two cases he seems indeed to find fault with the law: viz., in Matt. v. 38 sqq., where the law, '^An eye for an eye," etc., is followed by CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 79 the injunction, "But I say unto you that ye resist not evil" ; and in Matt. xix. 8 (Mark x. 5), where the law of Moses concerning divorce is superseded by a stricter one. But in the first case the point of the comment is not that the law, as a rule for magistrates, is to be done away, but that the law of retaliation is not to be made a rule for men in their private relations to one another. And in the second case the original law, though declared to be too laX; is yet, by implication, affirmed to have been divinely sanctioned on account of the hardness of the Jews' hearts. Now since we know how intense, even to the point of superstition, was the reverence cherished by the Jews of Christ's time for the Old Testament, it is ob- vious that, if he radically differed from them in re- gard to it , he could hardly have failed to indicate the difference. But whenever he rebukes them, it is not for overestimating the law, but for perverting, misunderstanding, or disobeying it (e. g. Matt, xxiii. 2—4, 23, John v. 46, vii. 19). This silence of Christ — this tacit endorsement of the current view of the Old Testament — taken in connection with what he positively says about it, is of no little weight. To this might be added at great length the general manner in which the New Testament writers speak of the Old Testament. Inasmuch as they wrote under the influence of the great Teacher, who had expound- ed to them the reference of the Old Testament to himself (Luke xxiv. 27), and who had opened their mind that they might understand the Scriptures (xxiv. 45), it would be pertinent to adduce their general estimate of the Old Testament as reflecting the opinion of Christ himself. But this is not necessary. It is 80 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. ' sufficient to say that they fully agree with those utter- ances of Jesus which are recorded hy the Evangel- ists. Everywhere the Old Testament is spoken of as a book of divine laws and prophecies finding their fulfilment in the new covenant. It can at any rate not be questioned that Christ represented the Old Testament to be a collection of laws, prophecies, and other writings possessing divine authority and permeated with a prophetic reference to the Messianic dispensation. When his ministry was about to begin, he appealed to the Scripture in his conflict with Satanic temptation ; and at the close of his ministry he took pains to enlighten his dis- ciples respecting the meaning of it. He never spoke disparagingly of any part of it, but always left the im- pression, by what he said and by what he did not say, that he held it to be the word of God — an embodi- ment, in written form, of the will and wisdom of God as revealed in his conduct of his chosen people. II. But it is important to consider the question, what weight is to be attached to Christ's utterances respecting the Old Testament. How far do they serve to settle disputed questions for us? Are we to assume that his authority can properly be appealed to at all for the solution of purely critical problems ? It might at first blush seem as if what he thought and said, if we can only ascertain what that was, ought to be accepted as the final word on all doubt- ful and disputed points. But this impression is by many regarded as unwarranted. Christ's authority as a Eedeemer and as a revealer of divine truth — his strictly religious commission — is distinguished from his authority on matters of science, history, and CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 3]^ criticism. While we may trust him implicitly as our spiritual Head, we need not, it is said, implicitly trust what seemed to be his opinions on matters that did not directly concern his great work. This introduces us to a difficult theological prob- lem. Was Christ omniscient? Or if not absolutely omniscient, how are we to conceive of the limitations of his knowledge ? If the man Jesus was strictly om- niscient, then of course, since no one will charge him with wilful misrepresentation, it follows that whatever he said about the Old Testament, as well as every- thing else, is to be received as absolute truth. If, on the other hand, he was a mere man, subject to the limitations of humanity in general and of his own time in particular, then, however superior in most respects he may have been to the generality of his fellow-men, his opinions on matters beyond the range of his immediate knowledge cannot be regarded as authoritative. If, again, though not omniscient, he yet was so unique in his mental and spiritual endow- ments that he belongs to a class by himself, then we have to ascertain , as best we can , whether this uniqueness of endowment was such that whatever he said, even on matters not directly pertaining to his mission, must be received as strictly infallible. 1. In prosecuting this inquiry it is proper first to consider v\^hat the general opinion of Christendom has been upon the matter. And the answer is nat- urally to be sought in the creeds of the Churchy the ecumenical and such others as have voiced the judg- ment of large portions of the Church. These creeds, it is true, cannot be adduced as infallible. Being themselves professedly systematic statements of Scrip- 6 g2 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. tural truth, they must be tested by Scripture. But as embodying the interpretation which representative bodies of the Church have put on Biblical doctrine, they are certainly deserving of very great respect. The early Councils, in formulating the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, confined themselves mostly to general statements aiming to define the mode of the union of three Persons in one, and of two Natures in one Person. And the general burden of their deliverances was that there is one God con- sisting of three Persons of one substance and equal to one another in glory. As regards the Incarnation, they teach that the Logos, or eternal Son, in be- coming man, assumed human nature, and so united in himself a divine and human nature, but had a single personality. The Nicene Creed puts this in a very general form; that ofChalcedon is more specific, being the first to speak of the union of two natures in the incarnate Son, but not yet formulating the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity; while the Athanasian enunciates both with great minuteness and precision. But even in the Nicene the doctrine is propounded, that "the only begotten Son of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man." The following creeds only state this doctrine more minutely in opposition to heretics; but the substance remains the same: Jesus Christ is conceived to be God and Man in one Person. And all the subsequent historic creeds, both Greek, Eoman Catholic, and Protestant, have echoed the same doctrine. The natural inference would seem to be that, if God was made man, and especially if in the union of CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. Qg God and man the Logos is regarded as the principle of the new personality, then the God-man must have had the mental characteristics of God rather than of man, and that accordingly Jesus must have heen strictly omniscient. In point of fact, however, the actual interpretation of the doctrine in question has generally been different. Although the oneness of the personality has been insisted on, it has been common so to conceive of the God-man that, on account of the duality of the nature, there was a duality of men- tal characteristics. Accordingly it is said that as to his divine nature he was omniscient, but that as to his human nature he was limited in his knowledge.^ So also the creeds have ascribed to Christ a double will, condemning monotheletism as a heresy. ^ See, e. g., Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. ii., p. 387 sqq. The Formula of Concord stands almost or quite alone, among the conspicuous Creeds of the Church, in affirming omniscience of the human nature of Christ. In Art. VIII among the errors condemned is (No. XV) "that, according to the humanity, he [the Son of Uod] is not at all capable of omnipotence and other properties of the divine nature". And more specifically as to omniscience it is condemned as an error (No. XVII) to hold "that to Christ, according to his human spirit, certain limits are appointed as to how much it behooves him to know". In the positive Christological statements of the same Article (Sect. XI) it is said, "Therefore now [i. e. as glorified] not only as Grod, but also as man, he knows all things, can do all things", etc. In his earthly life, the same Section teaches, Christ divested himself of the divine majesty, and "did not always make use of that majesty, but as often as seemed good to him". — In Sect. Ill, however, it is expressly said of the distinctively divine attributes of omnipotence, eternity, omniscience, etc., "All these things neither are nor ever become the attributes of the human nature". It is not easy to see how this latter affirmation can be reconciled with the others. 6* 04: CHRIST AND CRITICISM. The obvious difficult}^ with this mode of concep- tion is that cognition and volition seem to be personal characteristics, so that to say that a person has two distinct wills and two sets of cognitions is equivalent to saying that the personality is a double one. And accordingly there has been a wide-spread tendency in recent times to modify the doctrine of the God- man so as to ascribe to him a single personalit}^ in a less ambiguous way. This is done by assuming that the deity in the God-man was, as it were, only germinally present at first and was gradually impart- ed, becoming complete only in the glorified Redeemer ; so that the historical Jesus, although unique, was yet subject, in all the development of his personal traits,, to limitations which which were overcome only by degrees. This theory avoids the difficulty involved in the other — the apparent self-contradiction of as- suming two sets of personal attributes in a single person; but it has some difficulties of its own, espe- cially if the intention is to remain true to the old doctrine of two natures in one person. The divine nature seems to be so thoroughly emptied of divine characteristics that it becomes questionable whether the incarnate Logos can properly be called divine at all. And the conception of a person, at first a^D- parently only human, gradually becoming divine, is not altogether consistent with the ordinary notion of a radical distinction between deity and humanity. But whether standing on one confessional basis or another, theologians have not generally ascribed to the man Christ Jesus, as he was in his earthly life, strict omniscience. Whether they have thought of him as having voluntarily divested himself of his CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 35 strictly divine attributes, or as otherwise limited, — in either case they have assumed some limitations of his divine attributes, and among them of his om- niscience. At the same time in one form or another they have assumed that in knowledge and power, as well as in his moral character, Christ was altogether unique among men. But it is not in place here to criticise the creeds, or to construct a dogmatic statement concerning the peculiar nature of Jesus Christ. It is not necessary to assume that the creeds are legitimately deduced from the Scriptures. We assume simply that the New Testament gives us a truthful account of the facts concerning Christ. If the creeds seem to state the doctrine of the New Testament imperfectly, one- sidedly, or erroneously, no one can be required to abjure his own judgment and accept a statement which seems to him untrue to the Biblical teaching. No one can properly be required to adopt any par- ticular dogmatic view of the incarnation or deity of Christ, unless the New Testament itself seems to af- firm it. We have only to consider the person Jesus as he is portrayed to us in the Biblical records, and to decide whether according to that portraiture he was omniscient, or, if not, to what extent his know- ledge is to be assumed to have been limited. 2. What, then, does the New Testament teach us on this point? If we first raise the question, whether Christ is there represented as absolutely omniscient, we can apparently without much difficulty find a neg- ative answer. There are particularly two statements, one positive and the other negative, which seem to settle the question. In Luke ii. 52 it is said that gg CHRIST AND CRITICISM. ^'Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men". This certainly seems to be a plain affirmation that Jesus' wisdom (and of course his knowledge) was susceptible of growth, and leaves the impression that in this respect he was like other human beings. This certainly holds true, according to this passage, of the early part of his life. It may be held that the period of limitation terminated at his baptism, or at any rate at his ascension. But against the first of these possible hypotheses stands the other explicit statement, Mark xiii. 32 (to which now perhaps is to be added, according to the critical text, Matt. xxiv. 36), in which Jesus himself declares that '^of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". This is unequivocal, and cannot fairly be understood otherwise than according to the obvious meaning. Such an explanation as that given by some of the older theologians, for example, Jerome, that the passage imputes ignorance to the Church rather than to its Head, is so violent that it only shows the difficulty of any other interpretation of the passage than that which lies on the face of it. Scarcely less forced is Augustine's explanation (followed by many), that Christ did not know so as to make known to others. This makes little less than a direct falsehood of Christ's affirmation, and one the motive for which is difficult to imagine. The declaration was not made in answer to a question, so that there is no pretext for supposing that Christ is here repelling an undue curiosity. And when after his resurrection he was questioned by his disciples on the same point, he met the question by an answer which shows that he CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. Q'J could deal with curiosity otherwise than by cowardly deception: ^*It is not for you to know times or sea- sons"; and when he adds, ''which the Father hath set within his own authority", he here again, though somewhat less explicitly, intimates that the time of his coming into his kingdom is known only to the Father. What is directly affirmed in these passages is more or less distinctly implied in many others. When it is said (Heb. v. 8) that Jesus "learned obedience by the things which he suffered", and when (Heb. ii. 10) he is said to have been ''made perfect through suf- ferings", it is certainly affirmed of him that he was subject to growth. Reference is indeed not made specifically to the mere acquisition of knowledge iu the ordinary sense; but learning obedience and be- coming perfect through suffering cannot naturally be conceived as co-existing with a knowledge which was absolutely unlimited from the beginning. It gives, moreover, an unnaturalness and insincerity to> many things in the life of Christ, if such an absolute omniscience is assumed. If he was thus all-knowing, how could he "marvel" at the centurion's faith (Matt. viii. 10) or at the Galileans' unbelief (Mark vi. 6)? How could he have prayed, "If it be possible, let this cup pass away from me"? Why should it be said of him that he withdrew into Galilee "when he heard that John was delivered up" (Mati. iv. 12), if he knew it without being informed? And yet when one is disposed to draw a sweep- ing inference from such things and to conclude that Jesus was essentially like other men in the matter of knowledge, he is at once confronted by another class 88 CHRIST AND CRITICISM. of facts that point to an altogether unique intelligence. At the very beginning of his ministry we read that he had a supernatural knowledge concerning Nathanael and his character (John i. 47. 48). Repeatedly he is said to have known the thoughts of those who were about him (Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25, Luke vi. 8, xi. 17, John vi. 61, 84, xiii. 11); he is said to have known all the things that were coming upon him (John xviii. 4). Such was the impression which he made on his dis- ciples that John makes the general statement, ^'He knew all men, and needed not that any should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man" (ii. 24, 25). And Peter, after Christ's resurrection, said to him, ^'Thou knowest all things" (John xxi. 17). When he was told of Lazarus's sick- ness, he remained two days where he was, and then announced Lazarus's death, although not told of it. He uttered formal predictions of what was to take place in the future, — the destruction of Jerusalem, Judas's treason, Peter's denial, his own approaching death and the manner of it. And even the very passage which most unmistak- ably affirms the limitation of his knowledge affirms by implication that he possessed knowledge in an altogether unique degree. In saying that ^^of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven , neither the Son", Christ indirectly affirms that it might naturally have been expected that he would know not only what other men do not know, but what even the angels in heaven do not know. The very affirmation of ignorance strikes the reader as something surprising. The declaration occurs, moreover, in the midst of a discourse which deals •CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. gQ with future events that no one but Christ would have ventured to pretend to be able to foretell. Although he is described as learning and asking questions, yet he always makes the impression of being fully informed with reference to whatever he spoke about; and he spoke with an authority and power which overawed even his enemies. He claimed an intimacy with Grod which seems to guarantee a fulness of knowledge en- tirely unparalleled : ''I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father" (John x. 14, 15). ''All things have been delivered unto me of my Father; and no one know- eth the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him" (Matt. xi. 27). "If ye knew me, ye would know my Father also" (John viii. 19). "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"