4^ 'W^ ^.' ^ '^' „0, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) i* i.O I.I 1.25 yi Hii^ £ us 1120 1.8 1.4 ill 1.6 'j V] /J >> 'm op. Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 872-4503 ■^ "^"^7 'i CIHM/ICMH MBcrofiche Series, CiHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadiarj Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques O^ Technicul and Bibliographic Notes/Notes idchniques et bibliographiqutis The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter eny of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de coulaur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde n G n n n Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pel!icul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Colouiad maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with othar material/ ReM avec d'autres documents r~7| Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion n along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II su ptiut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apperaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont paut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modificotion dans la mithode normal'^ Je filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. D D D D D D □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pagns damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou peDiculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplemertaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'&irata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Thir item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X s/ 1 ■i-^B __i_ ___ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exomplai;e filmd fut repr^duit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada Vhe images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand 'lOin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de rexemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with si printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplairc originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont film^s en comment ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la Tlernidre page qui comporte una empreinte d'impression ou d'illustratioii, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires orlQinaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page q'ji corrporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des s^mboles su'vants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de chaque microficne, selon le cas. le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V siqnifie "FiN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at diffarent reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in ore exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent 6tre film6s d des taux de rdduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop graiid pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est 1i\m6 A partir de l>ngle si'p6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes euivants illustrent la mdthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 "f^ Vi^¥^r¥i}i¥^':r^:^^-^::i^:r*i^:r^^^ i t n\ I I I I I I I MESSIANIG PROPHECY VINDICATED I OR, AN EXPLANATION AND DEFENCE OF THE ETHICAL THEORY. BY Gi C. WORKMAN, M.A., Ph.D., ' AiTTHOR OF "The Text op Jeremiah," "Thb Old Testament VlNBlCATBD," ETC. I $ ■.ii it; 4' 1 ' ■ I >»»»»«««€€« TORONTO: WILLIAM BRIQGS. 1 ISW. I I I I ^ HPRMP i^lHMMnpiMrWHf IPMIP ^4' W '■If i / 'J^ -»-■ i #«— »» -'^^ y^ MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED; ; I OR, AN EXPLANATION AND DEFENCE OF THE ETHICAL THEORY. ^ BY GEORGE COULSON WORKMAN, M.A., Ph.D., Author ok " The Tkxt of Jeremiah," " The Old Testament ' ViNDtCATED," ETC. PRINTED KOK THE AUTHOR l!Y WILLIAM BRIGGS, TORONTO. 1899. Entered acjordiiig to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand eijrht hundred and ninety-nine, by Gkoroe Coilsdn Workman, at the DepartnietJt of Agriculture. I PREFACE The substance of these pages was read to the Com- mittee of the Bay of Quinte Conference which met a*> Belleville, Ontario, on the seventeenth and eighteenth of last month. Since discussing the question with the Committee, I have compressed some parts of the address into a smaller compass, and expanded some other parts of it which seemed to need elucidation. My object in publishing the address in the form of a book is twofold : first, to vindicate my teaching ; and secondly, to get it understood by the Church. Hence, in order to make it more readable, I have simplified the style of the discussion ; and, in order to make it more instructive, I have shown wherein the critical view of the subject differs froui the traditional view. The theory of Messianic prophecy which I present is called the Ethical Theory, because the word ethical has a broader meaning than either of the words moral and spiritual. Inasmuch as the poetic and historic principles, no less than the moral and spiritual prin- ciples, of the Old Testament are sometimes applied in the New Testament by Christ and his apostles, I think it preferable to nse the more comprehensive term. According to my lecture, of which this book gives 4 PHEFACK. ' ati epitome, the testimony of prophecy to Jesus is that of truths rather than types, of principles rather than predictions. While tlie typical and predictive element in the Hebrew Scriptures must not be disre- garded, it is the moral truths and spiritual principles in them that bear direct witness to him and find divine fulfilment in him. With this explanation, I send the volume forth, believing that all who study it will acknowledge that my view heightens and dignifies the value of the Old Testament, by showing the inner spiritual harmony between the testimony of prophecy and the teaching of Christ. G. C. Workman. ^^ Toronto, May 26th, 1899. MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. I. HISTORY OF THE CASE. There seems to be a misconception in some quar- ters as to the nature and purpose of this investigation. Since the meeting of this Committee was first an- nounced in the Christian Guardian, three letters, expressing disapproval of it, have appeared in our Church paper. Rev. Dr. Shaw, of Montreal, demurs to the holding of an investigation ; Rev. Dr. Gardiner, of Belleville, challenges the action of my Conference ; Rev. J. E. Lanceley, of Toronto, laughs at the appoint- ment of " this new court." ' The first two ministers characterize the procedure proposed by the resolution of my Conference as " extra- judicial." With all respect to these honored brethren, I must say that they have either misread the resolu- tion or misinterpreted its object. This is not a trial, but an investigation ; and a similar course of proced- ure is adopted by Synods or Conferences in every branch of the Christian Church. Within the past twelve months, Professor Beet, of Wesley College, London, and Professor McGiffert, of Union Theo- logical Seminary, New York, have each had an ex- amination of his teaching similar to that which the Committee now in session has been asked to make of mine. Hence this investigation is held, not to torture mmmmmmm m 6 MESSIAXia PROPHECY VINDICATED. or to whitewash me, as Dr. (Jardiner sut^gests, but to vindicate me, if I can sliow my teaching to be sound. For nearly nine years I have been regarded by many people throughout our country as an unsound teacher. Owing to misconception and misrepresenta- tion, I was first denounced as a heretic; and then, because of an attempt to remove me from the Theo- logical Faculty of Victoria University, I was compelled seven years ago last January to resign my position as an instructor in Victoria College. Before tendering my resignation, I asked the members of the Board of Regents to have my views of Scripture examined by a committee of competent scholars, but they paid no attention to my request. From that time to this I have considered myself unfairly treated by those responsible for my enforced retirement from profes- sorial work. The men who condemned me before hearing me, and who prejudiced the country against me before trying to und^erstand me, should, it seems to me, have shown my views of Scripture to bfe false, or have given me an opportunity to prove them to be true. At the annual meetins: of the Board last May, as help was needed in the subjects of my department, an eflbrt was made by the Chancellor and others to have me restored to my work ; but my reinstatement was opposed on the ground that the people of our Church object to my teaching, and that, if I were in the College, they would refuse to support the institution. The day on which the Board met, one of the Regents said to me that there ought to be an investigation ; and the same gentleman made a similar suggestion at the meeting, I believe. I reminded him that I had asked for one in my last communication to the Board, nearly seven years before. A few days after this meeting was held, another Regent was prompted to write me a letter on the subject. " I have been think- HISTORY OF THE CASK. to in'; over your case since I returned home," he wrote, " and it bej^ins to look to me as if you were at a point in this controversy where you ought to ask for an investigation. You were practically condemned with- out trial, or any proper or adequate investigation of youi' case ; and the whoie Methodist people were called on, through the Guard tun, to place you among modern sceptics, and leave you there." As the Regents still declined to do what I have thought they should have long since done, namely, give me my work c»- grant me an investigation, I then decided, on the advice of friends both on and oft" the Board, to appeal to my brethren in the Bay of Quinte Conference. At my own recpiest, therefore, with a view of obtaining an impartial hearing of my case, the present Committee was appointed to investi- gate the questions that have been raised as to the character of my teaching. Before taking up these (juestions, I purpose giving a short account of the events which led to my resig- nation, because the history of the controversy has an important bearing on the nature of the injustice which I have suffered for so many years. In presenting this brief sketch, I shall not impute motives, but simply state facts. The time has come when, in my judgment, the truth should be told and the facts should be known. At the business meeting of the Theological Union of Victoria University, held in Cobourg, in connection with the closing exercises of the College, in May, 1889, a few weeks after my return from Germany, I was unexpectedly appointed to deliver the annual lecture at the close of the session the following year. Not being present at the time, I knew^ nothing of my appointment till after the meeting was over; but, having been away from the College and out of the country for several years, I regarded the act of my $ MKSSrAXlC FliOPIIKCY VINDICATED. %\ brethren as an expression of confiddince and considera- tion, assuming that they desired nie to prepare a critical lecture on soin^ Old Testament theme. As they designated no subject, however, I was left to choose one myself. Ov/ing to the number of my engagements and the nature of y work that year, J had not time to com- mence the special preparation of my paper till about the middle of the following winter, or towards the beginning of the following spring; but, for n)onths before I definitely decided what to discuss, I had been revolving in my unnd a couple of appropriate svibjects, namely, " IJiblical Criticism" and "Messianic Proph- ecy. " Though each of thes) subjects was congenial to my thought, as well as suitable for the occasion, the latter gradually took possession of me, so that, as the winter wore away and the time to write drew near, I could net; rid myself of the conviction that T ought to lecture on it ; and, notwithstanding all that I have suffered and lost in consequence, 1 have no more doubt that I was right in yielding to that con- viction than I have that I was right in yi^^lding i(^ the conviction, when I wjis a student at College, that I ought to enter the ministry of the Methodist Church. Several considenitions influenced me in choosing this subject. In the first place, it was one of great significance in Biblical Theology ; in the second place, it was one of peculiar difficulty to Old Testament in- terpreters ; in the third place, it was one of special interest to Christian students; in the fourth place, it was one to which I had given much thought and on which I had something important to say. Here 1 wish tc repeat what I told the members of the Toronto Conference just nine years ago, namely that my post-graduate course at a German university had nothinty w\atever to do with mv view of Messianic prophecy, or with my treatment of the theme. For a HISTORY OF THE CASK. t couple of years before going to study abroad, I tauglit Hebrew in Victoria College, and each 3'^ear, when lect- uring on the Psalms, I tried, as best I could, to show my students the historic meaning in each case; so that, as a result of my previous reading, I went to Europe in the summer of 1884 with a deep interest in the (question of Old Testament prophecy, and a strong desire to investigate it. During my residence in Ger- many, I never read a book or heard a lecture on the subject ; but, while attending Leipzig University, my critical study of the prophets, especially the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, not only led me to examine the chief Messianic passages with considerable thor- oughness and helped me to mature my view of their true teacliing, but also convinced me tliat a new dis- cussion of Messianic prophecy was greatly needed by the Christian Church. In this connection, I wish to mention anoilwi fact. The first fall I was in Leipzig, as the students were assembling for the opening of the University, the leading workers connected with the American church in that city desired to form three adult classes for the study of the Bible each Sunday afternoon during the session ; and, having heard that I was there on leave of absence as an Old Testament instructor, they re- quested me to take the class for men. Because of the condition of my health that fall, I hesitated at first to accept the position, knowing that it meant the expenditure of not a little energy ; but they insisted so strongly on the duty of my undertaking the work that I yielded at length to their recjuest. On meeting the members of the class, several of whom have since become College professors, I asked thein what part of Scripture they would like me to study with them ; but they preferred to let me decide that matter myself. Then I suggested that we should take our lessons from the Boolw of Psalms, telling them that I was 'F^- 10 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VI N VIC A TED. I particularly fond of reading portions of it for devo- tional purposes, and that 1 thought we ought to study something that would quicken our spirits, as well as stimulate our intellects ; and, that we might have a plan in the selection of our lessons, I proposed that we should examine together the so-called Messianic Psalms, in order to see how far, or in what sense, they are really Messianic. So we began the examination of these Psalms in the autumn of 1884, and continued our studies till the summer of 1885. Thus, for a number of years previous to the writing of my 'ec- ture, I had been not only maturing, but also teaching, my view of Messianic prophecy both at home and abroad. As the conviction that I ought to lecture on the subject deepened, knowing that the historic meaning of many passages is quite different from the tradi-. tional interpretation of them, I consulted with Chan cellor Burwash and Rev. James Allen, M.A., who was then the pastor of the College church in Cobourg, as to the timeliness of such a lecture, telling them what I thought of doing, and asking them if they believed the Church was ready for a critical discussion of Old Testament prophecy. The discussion being one that concerned the scientific interpretation of the Scrip- tures, not the doctrinal teaching of the Church, they both advised me to prepare my paper, as they '.con- sidered the subject most appropriate. I mention this matter now, because some of my best friends have blamed me for giving such a lecture so soon after my return from Germany. I would have acted more wisely, they have said, if I had waited for a few^ years. Had I known that my paper would be misinterpreted and that I w^ould be maligned for writing it, I w^ould have waited for a while, of course ; but I never dreamed that I would be misjudged, or that my teaching would be misrepresented. I sup- I i HISTORY OF THE CASE. posed that my brethren would regcard nie as an honest man, and that they would read my essay with an open mind. I did nothing rash or inconsiderate. I chose my subject deliberately, I wrote my lecture prayerfully, I read my paper raverently, I revised it carefully, I published it modestly, in <^he firm belief that all who studied it would recognize the integrity of my purpose ; for I never did anything in my life with a purer desire to combat scepticism and to help the cause of Christ. Hence, having acted cautiously as a loyal Methodist, and conscientiously as an ear- nest Christian, I have never regretted what I did. It did not occur to me that I should be abused and vilified for trying to get the central subject of the Bible more perfectly understood ; so that, if I had it all again to do. with the light I then had, I would do it all again. On the 12tn of May, 1890, I deHvered the lecture for the first time to an attentive audience in the Jack- son Hail of the old Victoria College ; but^ owing to a wrong meaning that was taken from it by certain persons present at the meeting, and to an imperfect report of it that was printed in the newspapers the next day, prejudice was created against me in the minds of many of my brethren. In the course of a few weeks, as our Conference was holding its sessions at Cobourg, I was startled one morning, on opening my Toronto paper, to find a resolution from the Guelph Conference, then meeting in Guelph, characterizing my views of Scripture as strongly rationalistic, accus- ing me of teaching that there is no Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament and that the prophets did not possess the gift of prophecy, except in the sense of fore- telling present facts, and requesting the College authorities to take action in the matter, in order to protect our students from teaching that is contrary to the doctrinal standards of our Church. MESSIANIC PROPHECY VIXDICATED. II On a question of privilege, I obtained permission, a« soon as I could, to address the members of my Conference in regard to this strange resolution, telling them that its allegations were false and its representa- tions ridiculous, assuring them that I had taught nothing un-Methodistic or unevangelical, and asking them if it was fair of my Western brethren to con- demn a man before hearing him ; for, at that time, not a single member of the Conference that condemned me had, to my knowledge, heard my lecture. After listening to my address, the Conference adopted a kindly- worded resolution, expressing great satisfaction with my statement, deep regret at the action o\ the Guelph Conference, and full confidence in my integrity and evangelical orthodoxy. The following Saturday I came, by the request of the local branch of the Theological Union, to repeat my lecture before the members of the Toronto Con- ference, which was then meeting in the Elm Street church ; but such was the prejudice that had been created by false rumors and misleading reports that, after I reached the church and the hour i*ppointed for the lecture arrived, an attempt was made to keep it from being delivered, and a motion was carried, post- poning its delivery for a couple of days; so that, when I was permitted to give the lecture, the opposi- tion was so great that I was frequently interrupted ; and, when I had finished reading it, some members of the Conference prevented the audience from giving me a vote of thanks. The report of that meeting, especially the account of the refusal of my brethren to allow me to receive a vote of thanks, produced a most unfavorable impression in the minds of Christian people in all parts of this country, an impression that has injured me in the estimation of many ever since. That summer, after taking a short rest, I spent the time expanding my lecture and preparing it for the m i ' 4 i ''^^ HISTORY OF THE CASE. 13 press. I was not obliged to publish it at once, and I had a good excuse for delaying its publication, because of my lame arm and my ii iirm health ; but I knew that some mombers of the Theological Union desired to have it published as soon as possible, and I believed that 1 careful perusal of it would remove prejudice. So, assuming that it needed only to be understood to be appreciated, I went to work with a:: amanue.ids, and got it ready for the October number of the Metliodist Quarterly that fall. Then commenced a storm of criticism which was as unexpected as it was unpleasant, and which has continued in one quarter or another ever since. In the tirst week of May, 1891, after twelve months of controversy, the Board of Regents met in Toronto to review the work of the session. At that meeting my case came up for consideration ; and, after much discussion, the Board directed the Secretary to request me by telegram to come to Toronto at once, as they wished me to explain some parts of my lecture. I came, as requested, and accompanied the Chancellor to the Board meeting the next morning, when the Chairman introduced me to the Regents, and read a long list of objectionable passages which they wished me to explain. I then addressed them for nearly three full hours, and not only explained every passage criticised, but also answered every question asked. After the meeting adjourned, official brethren came to thank me for my address, and even to compliment me on the character of my defence. Most of those who heard me admitted that they had misinterpreted my lecture, and seemed to be quite satisfied with \uy explanation ; so I expected no more embarrassment over the matter. I supposed that the governing body of the University would help me to allay the excite- ment that had been created, by correcting the false reports about my lecture that had been circulated 14 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. during a year of controversy, but in this supposition I was terribly disappointed. On the evening of that day, the Board met again for the purpose, amongst other things, of taking action in my case. As everything seemed to be satisfactory, I intended to return to Cobourg imme- diately ; but, at the request of the Chancellor, I de- cided to remain over till the morning, lecause he thought the Board might wish to question me still further on the subject. So I came to the Wesley Buildings, and waited in one of the offices till about ten o'clock, when, on the adjournment of the meeting, I learned, to my astonishment, that the Board had adopted a resolution to transfer me from the faculty of Theology to the faculty of Arts, and to commit my exegetical work to Chancellor Burwash. When this decision was made known to me, I could scarcely believe it. After the expressions of approval and appreciation which my explanation had elicited, such a resolution astounded me. I could not understand what they meant by resolving to transfer me from one faculty to another, when I was already a member of both faculties. So I told each of the Rec^ents whom I met that I could not entertain the proposal for one moment, as it was a temporizing and stultifying arrangement. 7\s the Board was to meet again on the fifteenth of the next month, the day on which the corner-stone of the new Victoria College was laid in the Queen's Park, Toronto, I sent the Regents the following respectful letter : — "Cobourg. June 12th, 1891. " To the Board of Regents of Victoria University : " Gentlemen, — When, in deference to a courteous request from the Chancellor of the University, pur- suant to a resolution by your honorable body, I met HISTORY OF THE CASK. 15 the members assembled in Toronto, on the 8th of last month, for the purpose of giving them some needed information respecting my views on 'Messianic Prophecy,' I met them, as requested, in good faith, believing that the removal of certain misconceptions concerning the true character of my teaching was all that was expected or desired of me. Having carefully explained my treatment of the subject, and having thoroughly answered the objections urged against it by some who took exception to my discussion, I was assured by different members present at the meeting that my explanation was exceedingly satisfactory. " After the assurances, direct as well as indirect, that I received respecting my defence, I was surprised to learn that evening that the Board had adopted a resolution proposing to transfer me from the faculty of Theology to the faculty of Arts. Having been a member of each faculty since the time that I received my appointment as a professor in the University, I find a difficulty in understanding the meaning of the resolution, as I cannot see how I can be transferred to a position which I already hold. If I had been officially informed in time of this peculiar proposal, I certainly should have promptly endeavored to pre- vent it from being either passed or published. • " Difficult as it is to understand the meaning of the resolution, it is, if possible, still more difficult for me to understand its purpose. So far as I am capable, though, of comprehending it, the proposal means not a mere transference from one faculty to another, but a complete removal from one faculty. The action of the Board, therefore, implies to me the one or the other of two things. Either it is a condemnation of my teaching, irrespective of its truth or falsity, with- out a due consideration of its object, or it is a con- descension to a popular clamor, owing to unjustifiable prejudice, as a matter of expediency. 16 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. I 1 "If by this resolution the Board intended to condemn the subject-matter of my teaching, then in the interest of personal justice, as well as for the maintenance of that intellectual liberty without which the work of a University professor cannot be either efficiently or conscientiously performed, I would humbly claim the privilege of a full investigation of the question, and would also respectfully ask the members of the Board to suspend their judgment until I have had an oppor- tunity of placing before the public a full and explicit exposition of the whole subject, a thing which I pur- pose doing at the earliest possible date. In that exposition I hope to be able to show that every fundamental truth has been not only sacredly con- served, but also more fully and richly illustrated by that which I believe I find in the facts of divinely inspired Scripture truth. " If, on the other hand, the action of the Board is taken for the purpose of allaying popular prejudice, then I do not see how I can consistently with Christian principle or Christian honesty accept the position offered me. The work required of me in the faculty of Arts is of such a character that it cannot be properly or adequately taught without involving a considera- tion of the wQYy questions which the proposal of the Board forbids me to discuss. In justice to myself, as. well as to the truth, I cannot undertake to offer to my students the imperfect and incomplete instruction which the course contemplated by your resolution really implies. I must, therefore, earnestly request the Board to reconsider the resolution adopted at its previous meeting in reference to my status in the University. Biblical Criticism and Interpretation is my specialty. For post-graduate study in that depart- ment, I was granted leave of absence by your honor- able body for nearly five consecutive years. To the \rork of my personal choice, as well as of my special i -0 HISTOnY OF THE CASE. 17 qualification, I have not only devoted my energies, but also dedicated my life. In the performance of that work, I have always striven to investigate and expound truth in harmony with the mind of Christ, as well as in recognition of the divine character and the aii'preine authority of Scripiure. In this way and with this spirit, I intend to prosecute the work of my department in the future. ** In conclusion, I cannot forbear expressing the reasonable hope t..at the Board will see its way to remove the disability, as well as the injustice, under which its recent resolution places me. Should this be the case, I scarcely need assure you, gentlemen, of my unqualified conviction that, by your sympathy and cooperation, I shall be able to remove entirely the painful misconceptions which have unfortunately been created in reference to my discussion of Messianic prophecy. " Trusting that my hope v/ill speedily be realized, " I am, Gentlemen, " Yours very respectfully, " G. C. Workman." In reply to my letter, I received from the Secretary the following communication : — "COBOURG, June 18th, 1891. " Rdv. Dr. Workman, Gohourg, Ont. : " My dear Dr. Workman, — I enclose a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Regents in re- sponse to your communication which was laid before the:n. You will see that it virtually suspends for re- <',onsideration the action taken at the May meeting, until you have an opportunity of placing before them and the public a statement and defence of your position. " Verbally, I intimated that you might be able to do 2 18 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. lit this by the 1st of October; and it is tlie understand- ing that about that date, should you be ready, they will be prepared to reconsider the entire question, when I hope a decision may be arrived at which will be satisfactory to both of us, and which will enable you to enter upon the work of next year, without any cloud which might interfere with your comfort in your work or your influence with your students. "Yours very sincerely, "N. BURWASH, " Secrelai'y of Board" The Resolution of the Regents reads as follows : — " That the letter of Dr. Workman be received, and that the Secretary be instructed to reply that tlie Board will gladly receive any extended communivm- tion on the subject under investigation, and that when such communication is made they will be glad to con- sider with due care its bearing upon his future rela- tion to the University." This resolution I acknowledged in the following terms : — "CoBOURG, July 1st, 1891. " To the Board of Regents of Vicioria University : "Gentlemen, — I desire to thank you very sincerely for the courteous resolution which was passed in reply to my recent letter to you, and which was for- warded to me at once by the Cht^.ncellor of the University. " By or before the first of October, I hope to have my statement ready for presentation to you and to the public ; at ,v^hich time I trust that your honorable body will be prepared to reconsider the question of my status, in the University, as well as to remove the disability under which your previous resolution pro- HISTOIiY OF THE CASE. 19 stand - 7, they estion, ill will enable Lit any [ort in ,8, rdr vs : — id, and at tVtO lunivm- b when jO con- e rela- lowing .891. ty: icerely sed in as for- of the 3 have and to lorable tion of Dve the 3n pro- '•**• ,.•> poses to place me, by arranging for me to enter upon the work of the approaching session unembarrassed by any restraint which would interfere either with the nature of my work in th.e lecture-room or with the character of my influence upon the students connected with my classes. " I am, Gentlemen, " Yours respectfully, G. C. Workman." With this assurance of justice on the part of the Board, I felt encouraged ; .^nd, after resting for a few weeks, I went to work at my " Se({uel," and got it ready for the press about the beginning of October. When it was published, I ordered a copy of it to be sent to each member of the Board. As no meeting of the Board was announced when the time for opening the College drew near, I consulted with the Chancellor about my work, telling him that I could not lecture in either faculty until my case was settled. Having to go to Washington to attend the Ecumenical Council of Methodism immediately after the session com- menced, he said to me befor(5 he started, " I have read your ' Sequel,' and I am perfectly satisfied, and I be- lieve the Board will be." So I resumed my lectures, as usual, in the subjects of each faculty ; and, receiv- ing no notice of a meeting of the Regents that fall, I continued my work to the end of the year, having one of the most delightful and satisfactory terms I ever had in the lecture-room. The Board did not meet to consider my case till the 6th of January, 1892, when I presented, in person, the following communication : — " To the Board of Regents of Victoria University : "Gentlemen, — At a meeting of your honorable body, held in Toronto on the 15th of last June, you authorized the Chancellor of the University to send 20 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. M me a courteous resolution, which I promptly acknowl- edged, in which you promised me, as soon as I mi«,dit have an opportunity of placing before you a public exposition and defence of my theory of Messianic prophecy, to consider gladly and with due care its bearing upon my future relation to the University. " Having, according to my agreement, prepared and published my explanatory statement, I now respect- fully remind you of your promise, at the same time cherishing the hope that, after carefully considering the character of my ' 8e(iuel,' you will be ready not only to reconsider the question of my official status in Victoria College, but also to remove the disability under which your unexpected resolution of last May proposed to place me in relation to my departmental work. "During the examination of the 'Sequel, as well as of the original article, you will have seen, i trust, that the method I have indicated of studying the Old Testament prophets in the active work of teaching and preaching, and of interpreting their prophecies in the light of the times in which they were delivered, not only invests the prophets themselves with a deeper individual reality, but also imparts to their prophetic utterances a greater spiritual freshness and vitality. In this way, the ancient prophets may be made to live and speak again, with all their charac- teristic zeal and earnestness, to the men of modern times. In this way, too, I am encouraged by my cor- respondents to believe, the Hebrew Bible will become practically a new book to the majority of Biblical students. "In my endeavor to present a scientific exposition of the leading Messianic passages of the Old Testament, I find nothing in the conscientious conclusions I have rea-ched that does not contribute to the development and defence of evangelical truth. Throughout the HISTORY OF TlIK GASH. 21 # .^^ jk'- who^e (lisciiHsion, I liave honestly emloavorcMl, not only to guard everything vital and essential from the assaults of sceptical critics, but also to turn the legiti- mate results of modern Biblical criticism to the sup- port and cnnfirmation of the doctrine of Christ. Having di? covered, as I believe, the principle on which our Lord an) his apostles quoted and applied the ancient Hebrew writings, I have illustrated and con- firmed m}^ method of interpreting prophetic Scripture by showing that it is entirely in harmony with the principle of interpreting Old Testament prophecy employed by Christ himself. " Wherever we can find a principle adopted and applied by hini, we are warranted in adopting and applying it ourselves. In my opinion, the importance of th.is position in reference to the interpretation of the Bible can scarcely be over-estimated. When studying and expounding Scripture, I yield to no man in my respect for the infallible authority of Christ ; but Christian teachers, it seems to me, should be very careful not to claim, without an express warrant, his supreme authority as deciding questions which the Divine Being has left to be determined by inquiry or research. The mission of Christ was mainly and fundamentally mediatorial ; his work was primarily and practically reconciliatory and redemptive. He speaks to us as the way, the truth, and the life of men, declaring to us, with divine authority, the things of God pertaining to man's salvation, but con- sistently leaving all questions of historical or literary criticism, such as the composite authorship of the Pentateuch, and the parabolic or the allegoric char- acter of the Book of Jonah, to be settled by study and investigation, just as the sacred writers of the Old Testament left the great problems of physical and astronomical science to be settled in the same way. " Instead of saying with some scholars that our 22 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. Lord accommodated his language to current notions or conce] tions, it seems better, because truer, to se.y that he employed the ordinary forms of human speech, and spoke to men in such a manner as to be readily understood by them. Instead of holding with other scholars that he shared the historic and scientific be- liefs of his own times, it seems wiser in every way to Jiold, because the position appears to be demonstrable, that he expressed no opinion in regard to such be- liefs. In scientific exegesis, this fact or probability, at least, possesses great importance. Inasmuch as the argument he used, or the lesson he taught, or the principle he applied, was always truly contained in the Scripture he quoted, it follows that he could con- sistently (juote a familiar passage from the books of the Psalms, or from the books of the Law, without expressinft any judgment respecting their authorship ; and that he could just as consistently employ a \^ ell- known incident, such as his reference to the prophet Jonah, as an illustration for his special typical pur- pose, without giving, or intending to give, any opin- ion whatsoever as to whether the narrative in ques- tion was allegory or history, poetry or prose. Regarding our Lord as the absolute or perfect revelation of God to man, I have tried to show that the inspired evangelists and apostles who followed him, teaching in his name, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have one and all derived their authority from him. By this method, I maintain, against all opposition and objection, the normative authority of Scripture as the ini'allible rule of faith and practice. By this method, too, I try to prove the Christo-ientric character of all God-inspired Scripture. In th's way my view of Scripture is consistent, not only with the phenomena of apostolic inspiration, but also with the development of religious doctrine and the gradual- ness of revealed truth. On this account, I hold, as I HISTORY OF THE CASE. 23 ■■m f have stated in my article, that as all ethical or spiritual teaching in the New Testament looks back- ward to Christ, so all ethical or spiritual teaching in the Old Testament looks forward to him. " Before concluding this communication, I wish to make an earnest appeal to the judicial fairness of the members of the Luard. I have reason to believe that suspicion has been created and distrust produced in reference to the character of my lecture by the per- sistent misrepresentations of the editor of the Chris- tian Qiiardian, All through the year, month after iwonth, week after week, there have appeared in the columns of our Connexional organ either open insin- uations or covert thrusts respecting the evangelical soundness of my teaching. I humbly appeal, gentle- men, to your sense of justice in this matter. I ear- nestly ask the protection of the Board from such an unfair interference with my work. I cannot hope to teach the subjects of my department with success or comfort so long as one member of the Board, despite anything that I may say or do, is systematically endeavoring to prejudice the Church and country against me. I ask you, gentlemen, if such a course is fair to the Church, or to the College, or to me. " From the time the original article appeared in print, the editor has persisted in representing my teaching as 'negative,' as 'destructive,' as 'natural- istic,' and as ' rationalistic,' each of which represen- tations is as false to the fact as it is unfair to me. Not satisfied with thus misrepresenting my teaching, he impugns my motives, and accuses me of being evasive and of playing on words. Even my explana- tory statement, which your honorable body desired me to prepare, has already been unfairly attacked in the Guardian, and just as unfairly misrepresented. Apart from his apparent ridicule of my ' evangelical orthodoxy,' the editor characterizes my ' Secjuel ' as a I m 24 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. 1 ' labored effort/ and as * an adroit defence ; ' and he continues to style my positive and explicit exposition ' negative ' teaching. Moreover, in the latter portion of his article, he employs exclamatory language, calculated to produce the impression on the minds of his readers that I am endeavoring to introduce some spurious or dangerous doctrines into the Church. " I ask you again, gentlemen, is this insinuation fair to me or to my students ? I have done nothing in a corner. I have openly given the general princi- ples of my exegetical teaching tO the Church ; I have publicly proclaimed my honest views of prophetic Scripture to the world. The honored and impartial members of the Board will, I trust, believe me when I solemnly declare that I have taught nothing that is not strictly evangelical, and that I have nothing that is not strictly evangelical to teach. They will also believe me when I say that I teach nothing to my students in the lecture-room that I do not desire my brethren in any part of the Church to know. I am just as jealous of the evangelical soundness of the students of my classes, or of the candidates for our ministry, as are any of my fellow-workers in Victoria College or out of it. Throughout the whole of the unpleasant agitation, 1 have sought nothing but the glory of God, and the elucidation and defence of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ our Lord. " Could I consistently or conscient'ously have accepted the position offered to me by ihe Board, I could, by virtue of my relation to the College, have taught every essential feature of my view of pro- phetic Scripture in connection with the work of the Arts department. From the first to the fourth year of the course, the work each year in Hebrew is connected with the very question in dispute. But I could not and would not condescend to such an un- worthy means of thwarting the wishes of the Board. ,*', HISTORY OF THE CASE. 25 some If I cannot teach honestly and openly and unre- strainedly in my department, I cannot teach at all. I wish to emphasize this fact. I have no doubtful doctrinal novelties to introduce. If I had, I should not meanly seek to import them covertly into the College. Let me once more assure you, gentlemen, that my teaching, as well as my investigation, has always been conducted in harmony with what I believe to be the mind of Christ, and in recognition of the, Divine character and the supreme authority of Scripture. " With the assumptions of radical and extreme critics I have no sympathy whatever- As stoutly as 1 am capable, both in the lecture- room and out of it, I repudiate the improbable and unproved results of literary or historical criticism when o.pplied to the books of Scripture. Only probable or proved results receive support or countenance from me. While my attitude tov/ards every question of in(]uiry is truly liberal, my spirit, as well as my practice, is as truly conservative. In my future work in the College, as in my past work I have always been, I shall be honest both with myself and with the Board. I shall fp/ithfully defend every vital evangelical doctrine, and I shall sacredly conserve every essential Christian truth. " Finally, gentlemen, I cannot forbear expressing the opinion that protracted controversy over the situation would be detrimental to the present pros- perity of the College, as well as distasteful and disagreeable to my personal feelings respecting the institution in which I received my academic train- ing, and in vjhich I have hitherto performed my professorial Arork. I do not desire to hold any posi- tion or to discharge any office that would not enable me to labor heartily for the highest interest of the College and for the truest advantage of the Church, 26 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. A " Hence, if in your deliberate judgment you think my services would be advantageous to the prosperity of my Alma Mater, then I humbly ask you to determine, as soon a" practicable, my future relation to the College, and resolve to give me your protection and cooperation ; but if in your united wisdom you may believe that, in the existing circum![.tances, because of widespread suspicion and distrust through- out the Church, my presence in the Faculty would be prejudicial to the welfare of the department that I represent, then I ask you earnestly and honestly to have my teaching carefully investigated by a compe- tent committee of impartial scholars, before any further or final action is taken in the case. " Regrettmg the necessity of biinging before you this extended communication, and expressing the firm belief that, if you fully understood the true nature and purpose of my conscientious discussion of the greatest and grandest subject of the Old Testa- ment, if not, indeed, of the whole Bible, you would not hesitate an instant to remove the humiliating disability under which your former resolution pro- posed to place me, " I am, Gentlemen, " Yours respectfully, "G. C. Workman." This communication was read to the Regents late in the afternoon, but my re(|uest for an investigation was ignored. When the Board came together again in the evening, at the suggestion of Dr. Alexander Sutherland, who said I ought to be present when my case wt s to be considered, I came with him to the meeting. After a prolonged discussion, during which I was not allowed to correct any of the false state- ments that were made respecting my teaching (and the number of such statements was large), a resolution, HISTORY OF THE CASE. 27 reaffirming the former action of the Regents, was carried by vote of ten to eight. As the Chairman would not allow the vote to be taken till nearly two o'clock the next .norning, two of my friends, owing to the illness of one of them, had about midnight to go home ; so that, out of a Board of thirty-five mem- bers, only nineteen of whom were present when the voting took place, less than a third of them were per- mitted to force TYiy resignatvm, because they at- tempted to remove me from the Theological faculty of the College without a proper trial or a fair investi- gation ; and I had told them before the voting com- nuenced that, if they reaffirmed their former action, they could not take a more offensive way to ask me to resign. Before the vote was taken, too, I assured the Regents that, if my view of prophecy were a matter of speculation or of unimportant doctrine, I would, for the sake of relieving the situation, refrain from teaching it for a time ; but, as the question at issue was one of scientific interpretation, and as I had but one Hebrew Bible to interpret, I told them that, in whichever faculty I worked, I should have to teach substantially the same thing. The Scripture has but one meaning, and a true teacher must give that meaning to his students, whether they belong to the faculty of Theology or to the faculty of Arts. The motion, passed by a small fraction of the Board, proposed to transfer me to the Arts faculty, but the words of the resolution were misleading. These Regents endeavored, not to transfer me to the Arts faculty, but to depose me from the Theological faculty ; for I was a member of both faculties at the time, and had been for going on ten years. I could not consent to be deposed by my ministerial brethren (for there were only two laymen who voted against me), when I had taught nothing but divine truth, and when I had as good a standing in the Churc' as 28 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. anyone of them had. To have consented to be deposed would have been to condemn myself before the country and to stultify myself before my students ; so, when the offensive resolution was adopted, I tendered my resignation in the following terms :— Inasmuch as your resolution implies a condemna- tion of Ly teaching without a due consideration or examination of its character, and inasmuch as I cannot conscientiously or consistently relinquish the ex--etical work of my department, I must, under the circumstances, regretfully tender you my resignation as a professor in Victoria University." II. DEFENCE OF THE TElCHING. Coming now to my defence, I have to deal first with the adverse criticisms of my lecture, and then with those of my book. As my purpose in presenting this defence is to show the doctrinal soundness of ray teaching, and to get it properly understood, I shall avoid everything of a polemic character, as well as everything of the nature of personality. During the first year of the controversy, Mr. John Carlisle, of Peterborough, wrote to one of the local papers of that place a series of articles that were afterwards issued in the form of a pamphlet, which v/as circulated throughout the town of Napanee, when our Conference met there eight years ago next June. This pamphlet is entitled " An Expose of and a Red Hot Protest against A DaTnnahle Heresy smuggled into Methodism, and taught by Rev. Professor Work- man, of Victoria University, Cobourg, and approved of by Rev. Professor Burwash, Chancellor of said institution, and by the Bay of Quinte Conference of the Methodist Church of Canada." Of this pamphlet, which every Methodist is requested on both cover and title-page to read, I have nothing whatever to say. From the beginning of 1891 to the end of 1892, Professor Hirschf elder, a former teacher of Hebrew in Toronto University, wrote eight long articles in the Canadian Methodist Quarterly. These articles were courteously written from the stand-point of a tradi- tional interpreter, but they did not disturb a single ^F 30 MHJSSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. '% .. position or disprove a single statement I had made in my lecture ; so I need not stop to analyze them. Before dismissing them, however, I may say that I know this writer was officially asked to criticise my view of prophecy, and that I know he was officially asked to stop criticising it. I may also say that I have been acquaijited with the venerable old teacher for several years, and that, the first time I met him after he ceased writing for the Qiuii'terly, he promptly complimented me on the ability of my lecture, and spontaneously assured me that he did not want to write against me, but he was urged to do it. I men- tion these things here, because I feel my brethren should know them. To the Methodist Magazine for April, 1891, Prin- cipal Caven, of Knox College, wrote, at the request of the editor, a courteous criticism, which was evidently not intended to call forth a reply from me, because the writer does not mention my name in his article, but speaks of my discussion as "the view here referred to," or "the view now presented," etc. On a few points this writer has failed to apprehend my mean- ing, buo in several respects his view of prophecy coin- cides with mine. He defines the word prophet sub- stantially as I define it, and he agrees with me that prophecy is not history written in advance. " No one is to be blamed for recognizing in prophecy much more than prediction," Dr. Caven says. He agrees with me, too, that the proper conception of the New Testa- ment prophet seems identical, or nearly so, with that of the Old Testament prophet. " If there are persons to whom it sounds strange to use the term prophecy in this wider meaning," he says, " they are only those who have given little attention to the matter, and who are not familiar with the language habitually employed by all schools of interpreters." He admits that " the announcement as to the woman's seed DEFENCE OF THE TEACH I NO. 31 which shall bruise the serpent's head, may well fore- shadow the final victory of the Church, as well as that of the Church's Head ;" and he grants that " the pre- diction in Deuteronomy respecting the prophet who shall be raised up by the Lord, may well promise a succession of true prophets, while its perfect accom- plishment is in him who spake by all the prophets." On all these points his article and my lecture are in substantial agreement. In the Methodist Magazine for January, 1891, Dr. Withrow published an editorial which is courteous in tone, but discourteous in statement, for it accuses me of excluding or deleting the doctrine of Messianic prophecy and of Messianic atonement from the Old Testament, and thus of eviscerating the Hebrew Scriptures of their very life and spirit. Being in Toronto shortly after this editorial was published, I called on the writer and showed him how unjust his accusations were, when he promised publicly to repair the damage he had done me by correcting at once what he had said. So, in the course of a week or two, he sent me a letter containing thv^ proof of an article concerning which he wrote, " You will see by the enclosed thau I have tried to make the * amende honorable.' " The article is entitled " Professor Work- man on Messianic Prophecy," and reads as follows : — " Since the appearance of our short review of Rev. Dr. Workman's article on this subject in the January number of this Magazine, we have had the pleasure of a long conference with that gentleman on the topic of hisi essay. We deem it only due to Professor Workman and to ourself to say, that the frank and full discussion of the subject removed some of the diflSculties which we had felt on first reading that essay. Professor Workman speaks with the authority of an expert on the interpretation of Hebrew phrases and idioms. There are few men living who have 32 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. devoted more time and thought to the careful study of the august and important subject of his essay than has he. We are free to confess that some of his exposi- tions carry with them very great weight. Professor Workman got down from our book-shelves our Gese- nius' Hebrew Lexicon, and the Revised Version of the Old Testament, and by a careful examination of text and context with the original Hebrew and with Hebrew usages in other passages, showed that the restricted meanings commonly given to certain Hebraic words is not warranted by Old Testament usage. " The doctrine of Messianic prophecy and of Messi- anic atonement, Dr. Workman claims, are not ' deleted,* to use the phrase we employed, and that, therefore, the Old Testament is not * eviscerated of its very life and spirit.' On the contrary, he claims that ' the Hebrew Scriptures are saturated with Messianic proph- ecy, but in a sense deeper than Christian people com- monly suppose. Because of the divine element in prophecy, the Old Testament is full of Christ, not in the sense of prediction, but in the sense of testimony. From Genesis to Malachi, the prophetic Scriptures, in their lofty ethical conceptions, breathe the spirit of Jesus Christ. To him bear all the prophets witness. He is the central or focal point, so to speak, in which all lines of Messianic prophecy converge, not in the predictive, but in the ethical, sense of the term. As all ethical teaching in the New Testament looks backward to Christ, so all ethical teaching in the Old Testament looks forward to him. As the manifested truth of God, he embodies or realizes in his own personality the truths and principles of Messianic prophecy.' " We are glad to find that the hope which we ex- pressed, that many of the differences of interpretation between Dr. Workman and his critics were differences in mode of expression more than of underlying prin- ]:)EFMC^ OF THE TEACHING. 33 new. significant ciples, m correct. Dr. Workman claims that his prin- ciples of interpretation are identical with those of John Wesley and the great exegetical authorities. ' It is only,' he says, * when a man has grasped the spiritual significance of Christianity that he can appreciate the presence of the Spirit in all Christian experience, or the agency of the Spirit in every historic age. On this principle Christ dealt with the people in his day in using or applying prophecy. As wise defenders of his Gospel, we should learn to do the same. To the believer prophecy attests a revelation resulting from the influence of the Divine Spirit. To such a person prophecy is not a credential, but an evidence, of reve- lation. It furnishes a proof that God has revealed himself to his servants under the old dispensation, which, as iias been stated, was preparatory to the As Christ was the end of the law, so also, in a sense, he was the end of prophecy, to every one that believeth. Christ ^"^as the end of prophecy, that is, the prophetic work of Christ was final, in the sense that Christian prophecy is the un- folding and explaining of the truths which he re- pealed. His prophecy was also final, in the sense that no other revelation will be made to man that will supersede the system of religious truth which consti- tutes the basis of historic Christianity.' " Hence our expression, that there are * vital points of difference between the views of Dr. Work- man, as we understand them, and the great concensus of opinion of all Biblical commentators,' we now deem too strong. How exigent these diflferences are must be decided by full and fair discussion. "Professor Workman claims the authority of Delitzsch in support of some of his views as to the ' Deutero-Tsaiah.' But that learned author, in his recent commentary on Isaiah, admits that 'much seems to be better explained when chapters xl.-lxvi. 3 34 MESSIANIC PliOPlIECY VINDICATED. are regarded as testamentary discourses of the one Isaiah, and the entire prophetic collection as the progressive development of his incomparable charism.' ' The critical (juestion,' says Delitzsch, * is not easily answered, for, however it is answered, obscure points remain which cannot be cleared up. The matter in question is the solving of a problem, not the expound- ing of a problem beyond all doubt ; at least not for us, to whom the naming of Cyrus is not a conclusive disproof of the personal unity of the two Isaiahs.' There is little doubt, however, that Delitzsch did accept cautiously, and with some reserve, the view that, as he expressly states, ' the Book of Isaiah, as it now exists, contains prophetic discourses of Isaiah, and of other later prophets ; the later ones being intermixed with his, and designedly combined into one whole.' "Di. Clarke is thought somewhat old-fashioned to-day. It is true, nevertheless, he had the reputa- tion in his day of a considerable acquaintance with Oriental lanojuacjes and literature, and he combats most strenuously some of the interpretations of Dr. Workman. Our present mental attitude is one of suspense on some of these matters till they have been more thoroughly sifted by other much more compe- tent authorities. We shall be anxious to see, in Delitzsch's posthumous work on Messianic prophecy, the critical discussion of the whole subject by a Hebrew scholar whose weight and learning none will admit more readily than Dr. Workman himself." This article, which I acknowledged to be both fair and fine, was never published, though I have had the proof of it in my possession for upwards of eight years. It was put into the press, and it was taken out of the press ; so that the February number of the Magazine that year was issued with the title " Messianic Prophecy " on its cover, but with no article on the subject amongst its contents. t)KFEKCE OP THE TEACHtNO. 55 Nearly three months later, after two new n ambers of the Magazine had been issued, I received another proof of this artichi, increased to nearly twice its original length by quotations from Dr. Gloag and by comments on them from Dr. Withrow; but these (quotations and comments imply that I do not admit any relerence to a future Messiah in the Old Testa- ment, whereas I distinctly state in my lecture that in Isaiah ix. 2-7, we have an explicit reference to a future Messiah. I also state that we have a similar reference in Isaiah xi. 1-10; Jeremiah xxiii. 5-8; Micah V. 1-4; Zechariah ix. 9; and in my Sequel I have sliown that there are nine such passages. As his additional matter was so used as to destroy the value of the original, I wrote Dr. Wi throw that I would rather not have the article published at all than to have it published in its expanded form. So what the editor of the Magazine was pleased to call his '■ amende honorable " has not, as yet, been given to the world. But the most serious criticisms of my lecture were made by Dr. Dewart in the Christian Guardian, in the Canadian Methodist Quarterly, and in a book entitled ''Jesus the Messiah in Prophecy and Ful- filment." His criticisms are so numerous and mis- chievous that I shall need to deal with them somewhat at length. Most of them are made, it should be here observed, by disregarding my explicit definitions and distinctions. In my discussion of prophecy, I define the word 'prophet as a spokesman, one who speaks forth, or one who speaks for another. The English word is derived from two Greek words — pro, before, in the sense of before the public, and pheoni, to speak. This is the only derivation that is sanctioned by the best Greek and English etymologists. Hence, in harmony with Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, which show^s 36 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. that the idea of prediction is foreign to the original meaning of the word, I say that a prophet is an inter- preter, a proclaimer, a forthteller; that is, one who speaks forth publicly, or to the public, a message from God. I discussed the derivation of the word, in order to correct a popular misconception, namely, that a prophet is one who predicts coming events rather than one who proclaims divine truth. Though modern teachers of the school of Keith assume that a prophet was a predictor who possessed the most perfect knowl- edge of the future, the assumption is uncritical and unscriptural ; for, while a prophet occasionally fore- told events, the foretelling of events was not the primary, much less the principal, feature of his work. In Old Testament times, the word prophet signified one who announced or declared a divine message, and that message might refer to the past, to the present, or to the future. When my critic, therefore, repre- sents me as teaching that the prophet is simply "a preacher," the representation is not correct. He was a preacher, or a religious teacher, but he was something more than a mere preacher. He was a preacher who was endowed with a measure of pre- dictive power. In my lecture I emphatically assert, '* That the prophets sometimes uttered predictions can be demonstrated by specific Scripture passages." In my discussion, I explain that the word prophesy literally signifies to tell or to announce, and that it technically means to speak or to proclaim under the influence of a divine impulse. In order to correct another popular misconception, I distinguished care- fully between prophecy and jyrediction. The dis- tinction between these two words is of paramount importance, because the former is a much more com- prehensive term than the latter. Prediction signifies only to foretell, but prophecy signifies to forthtell, or to tell forth, as well as to foretell. Moreover, I DEFENCE OF THE TEACH I NO. 37 explain that there are two essential elements in prophecy — the one a moral, the other a predictive, element; but I teach that the moral element is the fundamental and indispensable element, to which the predictive element is everywhere subordinate. In this respect my teaching is in perfect accord with the best modern authorities on the subject. The Impe- rial Bible Dictionary and McClintock and Strong's CyclopsBdia both state that " the moral element is the fundamental, to which the predictive is always sub- sidiary." But my critic, who asserts that " the idea of prediction is essentially imbedded in the word prophecy," which is an unfortunate misconception, and who maintains that " the essential element is predic- tive," whereas it is only one of the essential elements, and that not the fundamental one, accuses me of "persistent disparagement of the predictive element in prophecy ; " but it will be seen, I trust, that I am not disparaging either element in trying to get the true relation of the one to the other rightly under- stood. In my lecture I teach that neither element must be pressed so as to exclude the other. After discussing the tendency of some writers to disregard entirely the predictive element, and of other writers to emphasize only the moral element, I distinctly state, "The one treatment of prophecy is as preju- diced and partial as the other treatment is one-sided and incomplete." In my discussion, I observe that certain general features were common to all primitive prophecy, whether Hebrew or heathen. The dream, the vision, the power of insight and foresight, are phases of prophecy that belonged to all the great historic religions of the ancient world. I mentioned this fact in my introductory paragraphs, because it was too important to be omitted in an37^ fair examination of the subject. But, while I admit thi some 38 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. phenomena of prophecy are to be found in heathen- dom, of which fact Balaam's oracles afford conclusive proof, I indicate clearly and distinctly in my lecture the two distinguishing characteristics of Hebrew prophecy y namely, its nature and its contents. Hence, when my critic represents me as teaching that " the Hebrew prophecies have been in degree better than the heathen, but they are essentially the same kind of thing," he gives a representation which my own explicit statement would have corrected, had it not been wholly disregarded by him tliroughout the entire controversy, for I say as plainly as language can be made to speak, " Though they possess certain general features in common, Hebrcv y \ nhecy differs from pagan prophecy by the possesaion of certain special features. A comparison of the former with the latter reveals important and essential points of difference. Kindred as may have been their character in earlier ages, in later ages there is nothing between them similar, much less identical. The distinguishing differences consist especially in the peculiar nature and contents of Hebrew prophecy. Its nature is peculiar, in that it claims to be a special divine revelation ; its contents are peculiar, in that they profess to unfold a special divine purp :3. By these two fundamental features Hebrew pi ' ! i: i;y is essentially differentiated or distinguished ti . * ,ny form of pagan prophecy." In this way I teacii that Hebrew prophecy differs from heathen prophecy in kind, as well as in degree, the one being essentially differentiated from the other. In my discussion, I show that prophecy has a two- fold origin. After stating that it is a phenomenon peculiar to all great primitive religions, I suggest that it seems to have sprung originally from a deep desire for knowledge in respect to spiritual realities and temporal contingencies. This suggestion is made DEFENCE OF THE TEACHING. 39 among my introductory remarks, where I am dealing with the human side of prophecy in prehistoric times. Even here I teach that from the very beginnings of prophecy there was a spiritual or religious element in it, as the expression " spiritual realities " implies. In close connection, I state that something of God has been implanted in every man, that a measure of his Spirit has been vouchsafed to every man, and that, consequently, a portion of his truth has been received by every race of men. Then, when I come to dis- cuss the character of Old Testament prophecy, I teach that it has not only a human, but also a divine or supernatural, side, and that the spiritual or religious truths which it embodies were the outcome of super- human agency, or of supernatural inspiration. When my critic, therefore, characterizes my lecture as " rationalistic," and accuses me of teaching that prophecy "arose out of the natural desire to know the future," the accusation, no less than the character- ization, is terribly unfair. In the opening paragraph of my lecture, I show that prophecy was originally concerned with " spiritual realities," as well as " tem- poral contingencies ; " and, in the first paragraph of my chapter on the origin of Messianic prophecy, I explicitly affirm, " As prophecy is a part of revela- tion, and as revelation is an outcome of divine agency. Messianic prophecy, like all true prophecy, originated through the energizing influence of the Spirit of God. ' No prophecy,' says Peter, to quote the Revisers' rendering, * ever came by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.' All prophetic Scripture, whether general or particu- lar, is inspired of God. Without recognizing the reality of moral and religious inspiration, such a thing as prophecy proper becomes practically inexplicable." Had this explicit statement been regarded, I could not have been accused of questioning the supernatural origin of prophecy. 40 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. t M lii In my discussion, I teach that Messianic 'prophecy was a development from certain germinal ideas belonging to an early period in the history of the Hebrew race. Inasmuch as this branch of prophecy has some special features of its own, its essential con- tents arose, through divine illumination, from the organic connection of the Old Testament prophecy with the central ideas of the Jewish religion, this organic connection resembling the relation of a germ to a flower, or the relation of an incipient truth to a developed truth. Of these germinal ideas, which were inspired by the Divine Spirit in the hearts of the Hebrew people, there are three, I show, which pos- sess particular significance, namely, the idea of the covenant, the idea of the kingdom, and the idea of the theocracy. The first inspired a lofty hope ; the second suggested a universal dominion; the third foreshadowed a glorious Prince of Peace. From this last idea more particularly. Messianic prophecy, in its strict sense as prophecy concerning an ideal Coming One, was supernaturally developed. My critic, how- ever, describes my explanation as " naturalistic," and asserts that I teach "the natural development of Messia-nic prophecy from germinal iaeas ; " but there is not a naturalistic or a rationalistic suggestion in any part of my discussion. I teach explicitly in my lecture that the germinal ideas from which Messianic prophecy was developed " were planted in the minds of the people of Israel by divine revelation," and that " the development was in harmony with God's method of education in providence and with his method of discipline in grace." These quotations show that I teach, as all my critical reviewers understood me to teach, the progressive spiritual development of God- inspired ideas under the constant influence of the Divine Spirit. In my discussion, I show that prophetic inspiration DEFENCE OF THE TEACHING. 41 was not something unconscious and mechanical, but something conscious and experimental. The ancient prophets did not publish unintelligible mysteries which they could not comprehend. Though they did not know when the promised Messiah would appear, because the time element was necessarily an indefinite element, they knew the real meaning of their state- ments as truly as a modern preacher knows the real meaning of his statements. I emphasized this fact because of a very erroneous notion, namely, that the prophets did not always understand their own pro- phetic utterances, but that, after delivering a message, an inspired man had to examine his ow^n words, in order to find out just what they meant; whereas the Revisers* rendering of 1 Peter i. 10, 11, the passage commonly quoted in support of this view, proves conclusively that the inquiry in the minds of the prophets, to which the apostle here refers, pertained not to the meaning of their own utterances, but to the precise time when the idea represented in the pas- sage should be realized. Hence Peter describes the prophets as " searching wiiat time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto." Because I try to get this fact known, my critic, who holds that "the prophecy of future events is essentially miraculous," and that " the pre- dictive is the written form of the miraculous," accuses me of having " a special theory to maintain." But I am not maintaining any special theory when I teach that a true prophet was a man consciously inspired of God to communicate intelligible messages rather than to utter miraculous predictions. While, in my opinion, we should no more speak of miraculous prediction than of miraculous conversion, I hold that there was a supernatural agency at work in prophecy, just as there is in conversion; and I raaintain the supernatural character of the spiritual insight and 42 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. m 'A foresight possessed by the prophets. For the sake of getting the nature of prophetic inspiration appre- hended according to the facts of Scripture, I state in my lecture that, since there is a human as well as a divine side to prophecy, " the prophet's message was the outcome of divine ilkimination, resulting from spiritual fellowship with God, together with reverent reflection on divine truth." The process I describe as having been " analogous to that of personal relig- ious experience on the part of pious Christian people." Then, after observing that the direct operation of the Spirit must be the same for all men, because God has but one method of communicating moral or spiritual truth to the human mind, I say again that " all true prophecy originated by the direct operation of the Divine Spirit upon the human spirit, and that it entered into consciousness, not as an imaginary, but as an actual, conviction." In my discussion, I explain that the import of prophecy must be determined by the grammatico- histori'^al method of interpretation, the fundamental principle of which is to gather from each part of Scripture the precise meaning which the speaker or writer intended to convey. Hence an exegete should always ask, What did the prophet mean by his mes- sage ? What did he consciously intend his hearers to understand by it ? This is the sole question with which an interpreter of prophecy is concerned. As this is the only method of interpretation sanctioned by scientific scholars at the present time, I dwelt upon it at considerable length ; and, in order to get it duly understood, I stated that our first effort, as exegetes, must be to ascertain what the Old Testa- ment writers themselves meant in the age in which they lived. When investigating the historic meaning of the Old Testament, I said, we may keep the New Testament closed. For showing that, in the work of DEFENCE OF THE TEACHING. 43 ,ke of interpretation, prophecy and fulfilment must be kept distinct, my critic accuses me of holding "some theory of Messianic prophecy which cannot bear the light of the New Testament." This accusation is most unfair. When studying the Old Testament for doc- trinal purposes, we must regard its organic connection with the New ; but when studying the Old Testa- ment for critical purposes, that is for the sake of finding out what a certain prophet taught in any given age, w(». need not, and shoul'^ not, consider the New Testament quotations at all. As the prophets spoke and wrote for the edification and in>.truction of their own contemporaries, we must, if we would understand what they taught, endeavor to ascertain the mv^aning which the people took, and which they intended the people to take, from their inspired utterances, for this is the only meaning which their teaching can properly be said to have. Most tradi- tional interpreters have failed to discriminate be- tween the historic meaning and the doctrinal sig- nificance of a prophetic passage. A theologian has to deal with the latter, but an exegete is con- cerned simply with the former. Because of failing to make this distinction, uncritical exegetes have sug- gested that, in studying prophecy, we should seek to ascertain, not the sense in which the prophets under- stood their own deliverances, but the sense in which the Deity intended them to be understood. This suggestion, however, is a preposterous one ; for, if a prophet was consciously, and not mechanically, inspired by the Divine Spirit, the sense in which he understood his prophecy was the sense in which God intended him tc understand it. Hence the meaning in the mind of the prophet was the true meaning of his prophecy. Traditional interpreters are respon- sible for putting forth the erroneous doctrine of a double sense in Scripture — a doctrine which, as Dr. 44 MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED. ■'.f: Terry in his standard work on Hermeneutics says, " unsettles all sound interpretation." Prophecy has, and can have, but one meaning, and that is the conscious thought of the person who consciously uttered it. In my discussion, I show that the word for Messiah in Hebrew is an adjective used as a sub- stantive, signifying anointed or anointed one, and that throughout the Old Testament it is always employed as an official title, and never as a proper name. In its special technical application, the word is merely an ordinary title of the human king who was appointed by Jehovah to occupy the throne of Israel. The first royal personage to whom this title is applied in Scripture is Saul In the technical use of the word, therefore, Saul was the fiist Messiah, David was the second Messiah, Solomon was the third Messiah ; and so long as the Hebrew kingdom lasted, every rightly constituted Hebrew monarch was a true Messiah, and was called " Jehovah's Messiah," or " Anointed One." Thus, from the conception of Jehovah's anointed, which, from the time of David, was always associated with his royal house, there originated the conception of an ideal Messiah who was expected to rule in righteousness over the people of Israel, and bring to them prosperity and peace. I speak of this expected ruler as an ideal Messiah for two reasons : first, because while the Israelites had a rightful king they had a real Messiah ; and second, because, as modern scholars know, the Old Testa- ment conception of this expected ruler is mainly an ideal. The conception which the prophets give of him is that of a Coming One, who is described by them as a second David, but is never called by them a Messiah. In view of these well-known facts, I teach that while, in a general sense, the term Messianic may be applied to any prophetic descrip- bEFENCE OP TItE fEAQItWO. 45 tion that relates to the consummation and perfection of the kingdom of God on earth, in the strict sense, it should be applied only to those prophecies in which the hope of Israel centres in an ideal person who was expected in the future. Messianic prophecy proper relates strictly to a person ; and I confined my dis- cussion to the personal aspect of the subject, in order to show where the reference to this ideal Messiah first occurs in Scripture. When I speak of the ideal Messiah, I do not mean that the ancient prophets did not expect a real person, but I mean that their representations of him are ideal. In Isaiah ix. 2-7, as I show, there occurs the first Messianic prophecy, in the true sense of the term ; that is, in this passage we meet for the first time with the idea of a personal Messiah in the sense of a coming ruler or deliverer. From this time onward, numerous representa-tions of this ideal Messiah appear in tlie Old Testament. But, inasmuch as the prophets expected a purely temporal ruler, who should establish an earthly kingdom and occupy an e; thly throne, I teach that their representations did not refer directly and predictively to Jesus of Nazareth, who was a purely spiritual ruler and established a purely spirit- ual kingdom, but that they foreshadowed him spiritually and officially. Hence, when my critic accuses me of denying " the strictly Messianic char- acter of Old Testament prophecies," and of being in this respect worse than an unbelieving Jew, he does me a great injustice ; for I assert that from the time of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the canonical prophets foreshadowed a personal Messiah, and had clearly before their minds the advent of a personal Messiah. What I have tried to make clear to the Church is, that this personal Messiah was perceived by the prophets only in the great outlines of his character and office and work, and that individual representa- 46 Af£!S!SlA2^IC PtiOPItECY VmDWATED. tions, given by them to portray the Coming One, are taken from circumstances connected with their own times, which can be applied to our Lord only in an ideal or, better, in a spiritual sense. On this prin- ciple I show that there are nine definite prophecies of a personal Messiah in the Old Testament which, in a primary sense, apply to Jesus, and receive their true spiritual fulfilment in him alone. In my discussion, I distinguish carefully between the terms, origivaL reference and spiritual reference. By the first I mean a primary or historic reference ; by the second I mean a secondary or special reference. For example, the primary or historic reference of a personal Messianic prophecy, such as Isaiah ix. 2-7, is to the i