\^\> "^ *» «» \\ *,^ .S*]^^ ^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V^ ^ \'*' I 1.0 1.1 1^ 110 12.0 |lj25 |U 1 1.6 ScMioes Carporatian as WAIT IMAIN STMIT ,N.V. 14SM (71«)t7X4S03 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHJVl/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian da m^croraproductiont historiquas Tachnical and BibNosrapMc NotM/NotM MchniquM M NbliographiqiMM Th« liwtitut* has attMnptad to obtain tha baat original co|»y availabia for ffilniinfl. Faaturaa off thia copy which may ba MMIographicaNy unlqua. which may altar any off tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or wNch may aignlfficantiy changa tha usual mathod off ffliming. ara chaekad balow. □ Colourad covara/ Couvartura da coulaur I — I Covara damagad/ Couvartura andommagto □ Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rattaurAa at/ou paHlcuMa □ Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua □ Colourad maps/ Cartas gAographiquas an coulaur D D D Cc'ourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua Maua ou noira) I — I Colourad platas and/or illustrations/ Planchas at/ou illustrations an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Ralii avac d'autras documants Tight binding may causa shadowa or diatortlon along intarior margin/ La reliura sarrte paut causar da I'ombra ou da la distortion la long da la marga intiriaura Blank iaavas addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibia, thaaa hava baan omittad ffrom ffliming/ II sa paut qua cartainas pagaa Manchas ^loutias lora d'una rastauration appar a l ss ant dana la taxta, mais. lorsqua cala 4tait poaalbla. caa pagaa n'ont pas 4t« ffilm4as. Additional commants:/ Commantairas suppMmantairas: FROM: THE NURTH AMNERICAN REVIEW VOL.1«LB.MAV.iafa L'Institut a microffHmA la malHaur axamplaira quil Ivi a 4tA poaalbla da aa procurar. Las details da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-Atra uniquaa du point da vua MMIographlqua. qui pauvant modiffiar una imaga raproduHa. ou qui pauvant axigar una modlfficatton dana la m4thoda normala da ffllmaga aont indiquAs d-daaaous. Tl to D Colourad pagaa/ *agas da coulaur r~| Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagias Pagas rastorad and/or laminatad/ Pagaa rastaurAas at/ou palliculAas Pagas discolourad, stainad or foxad/ Pagas dAcolorAas. tachatias ou piquias □ Pagas datachad/ Pagas dAtach^ao r^k Showthrough/ uLJ Transparanca r~n Quality off print varias/ Tl P o ffl G b tl si o ffi si o Quality in^gala da I'imprassion includes supplamantary matarial/ Comprand du material suppMmantaira Only adition availabki/ Saula Mitton disponlbia D Pagas wholly or partially obscured by arrata slips, tissuaa, ate, hava baan raffilmad to anaura tha baat possibia imaga/ Las pagas totalamant ou partlallamant obscurcias par un ffauillat d'arrata, una palure. ate, ont 4t4 ffllmAas k nouvaau da ffapon A obtanir la maillaura imaga possibia. T si T V h d b ri r This itam is tilmad at tha reduction ratio chaekad below/ Ca documam aet ffHm* au taux ^ rMuctfcm indk|u* ci-da ss ous. 10X HX itx 22X 2SX 30X ^ 3 ttX Itx 32X Th« copy fNm«d h«r« hM bMn reproduG«d thanks to th* gwMrositv of: Unitsd Church of Canada Archivas L'oxomplairo filmA fut roproduit grico A la fl4n4rositA da: Unitad Church of Canada Archiwat Tho imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality poaalbia consMaring tha condition and laglblllty of tha original copy and in kaaplng with tha filming contract spacif icatlons. OriginvJ copies in printad papar covars ara fllmad baglniiing with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or iliustratad impras- sion, or tha back covar whan appropriate. Ail othar original coplaa era fllmad beginning on tha first paga wKh a printad or iliustratad Impras- sion, and anding on tha last paga with a printad or (iiustrata* Imprrssion. Las images suhrantes ont 4tA reproduites evec le plus grand soin. compta tenu do le cond> Ion et do le nettetA de i'exempleire film*, et en conformitA evec les «.onditions du contret de flimege. Lee exempieiree origineux dont le couverture en pepier eet ImprimAe sent fiimAe en commen^ent par la premier plot et en terminent salt per le demlAre pege qui comporte une empreime dimprassion ou d'iilustretion. soit per le second plet. eelon le cee. Tous les eutree exempieiree origineux sent f ilmis an commenpem per le premlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impreeeion ou d'iilustretion et en terminent per le dernlAre pege qui comporte une telle empreinte. The lest recorded freme on eech microfiche shell contein the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever eppiiee. Meps. piatee. cherts, etc.. mey be filmed et different reduction retios. Those too lerge to be entirely included in one exposure ere filmed beginning in the upper left hend comer, left to right end top to bottom, es meny fremes ee required. The following diegrems iliustrete the method: Un dee eymbolee suhrents sppereltra sur la demiAre imege de cheque microfiche, selon le ces: le eymbole -^ signifie "A 8UIVRE". le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les certes. plenchee. tebleeux. etc., peuvem Atre fiimAe A des taux de rAduction diff Arents. Lorsque le document eet trop grend pour Atre reprodult en un saul clichA. 11 eet fHmA A pertir de i'engle supArieur geuche. de geuche A drolte. et de haut en bee. en prenent le nombre d'iinegee nAcessaire. Les diegremmes suhrents iliustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE OLD TESTAMENT NOT A MILLSTONE. BT BBV. DB. GEORGB COFLSON WORKMAN. The article entitled ''Christianity's Millstone," by Prof. Ooldwin Smith, in the December number of this Retibw, has made considerable atir throughout the continent, and in bome commanities has created a sensation. Dr. Smith is a practised writer, as well as an accomplished scholar, and his article is both interesting and stimulating ; but his treatment of the Old Testament, with which his essay deals, is disappointing and nnsatisfactory. The aim of the essayist is, apparently, to foster a more rational yiew of the Scriptures, which is certainly a consummation de- Toatly to be wished ; but the way in which he seeks tc accomplish his object is extraordinary. Were a Etblical critic to discuss his- tory as this critic, who is an adept in history, discusses Scripture, the distinguished historian would undonbtcdly complain of un- fairness, if not of incompetence. No impartial scientist would treat the subjects of his department, or suffer them to be treated, as Professor Smith has treated the writings of the Old Testament. The method he has adopted is peculiar. Assuming that Biblical inspiration is equivalent to dictation by the Holy Spirit \A theory which no scholar holds), he shows that the Old Testa- ment contains some things which are incompatible with s^ch a view (a truism which no scholar doubts), and then he asks if these things are inspired (a supposition which no scholar enter- tains). Pursuing this plan throughout bis article, he presents, perhaps, the most misleading, if not the most mischievous, critique of the Hebrew Scriptures that has over been written by a reverent, religious scholar ; so that to the superficial reader his 072 THX NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 1 1 :-^ if"' I 1 essay seems like a formidable arraignment of the Old Testament, whereas it is simply an arraignment of an obsolete theory of the Old Testament. That is to say, he arraigns the difficulties con- nected with an old-fashioned yiew of Scripture, which a recent, but truly evangelical, view removes. To use the results of criticism, as Dr. Smith does, to arraign the misconceptions of traditionalism, without showing the ele- ments of truth which the latter contained, is as unwarrantable as to take the established facts of chemistry to demolish the absurd superstitions of alchemy, without showing the important service which it rendered in the development of the more perfect science. By such an unfair use of facts, a modern specialist could make almost any ancient department of knowledge appear ridiculous. The occasion of this elaborate essay, it appears, wt\s an ad- dress, delivered before the members of the recent English Church Congress, at Norwich, England, by Professor Bonuey, Canon of Manchester, who made a few harmless but unhappy remarks re- specting the true character of certain parts of the Old Testament, which Dr. Smith considers "ahold and honorable attempt to cast a millstone off the neck of Christianity by frankly renouncing be- lief in the historical character of the earlier books of the Bible.'' Taking as a text this statement, which is worth repeating here. Dr. Smith suggests that, in order consistently to make such an acknowledgment, the author of it must renounce certain un- worthy conceptions of doctrine which there is no reason to sup- pose he holds. " With the historical character of the chapters relating to the creation," says the essayist, " Canon Bonney most resign his belief in the fall of Adam: with his belief in the fall of Adam he must surrender the doctrine of the Atonement, as connected with that event, and thus relieve conscience of the strain put upon it in struggling to reconcile Vicarious Punishment with our sense of justice. He will also hare to lay aside his belief in the Serpent of the Temptation, and in the primeval personality of evil." Professor Smith is too profound a student not to know that the account of the Fall in Oenesis, which was once regarded by theologians as literal history, is now regarded by Chriatian scholars as religious allegory, an allegory, like a parable, being a form of narrative employed by the sacred writers to illustrate and inculcate spiritual truth. This portion of Scripture is an allegorical or a parabolical reptesentation of the beginning of moral evil in human nature. ■^r THE OLD TESTAMENT NOT A MILLSTONE. 673 Interpreted in harmony «rith its figarative style, the aooonnt contains neither irrational doctrine nor nnhistoric fact. Inas- much as the doctrine of a personal devil does not belong to Mosaism, and does not appear in tlie Old Testament before the time of the Exile, the best interpreters of Genesis do not hold that the story of the Fall teaches the primeval personality of evil. ''The story apparently presupposes an ungodly principle which had already entered the world," says Oehler, "bnt does not give any further account of it." Iriosmnch, coo, as the serpent was used, from prehistoric times throughout the Eact, as an emblem of an evil principle in the world, a true interpretation of the account does not require us to believe in the actual appearance of a tempting serpent. While Paul uses the familiar form of Qenesis in introducing the doctrine of Atonement, and, in that sense, connects it with the fall of Adam, the Apostle really connects the di jtrine with the entrance of sin as a moral fact into human nature. Oonse- quently we are not required by anything in Scripture " to recon- cile vicarious punishment with our sense of justice," because the New Testament writers nowhere represent God as punishing Christ for the sins of men. They simply represent Christ as, in loving obedience to the will of his Father, eSdcting the recon- ciliation of man to God. Neither Canon Bonney, wb >>se words have been so strangely used, nor the editor of Lux Mundi, whose views have not been fairly represented, needs anyone to hold a brief for him ; but when, referring to certain mythical or traditional materials out of which the latter writer admits that some parts of the Old Testament were developed. Dr. Smith says, " It is difficult to see how myths can in any sense bo inspired, or why, if the records are in any sense inspired, the Church should not be able to insist on their historical character," he must know that the writer in question does not assume that myths are inspired. He simply regards traditional narratives, such as those presented in the earlier chap ^ ters of Genesis, as containing ** great inspirations about the ori- gin of all things — the nature of sin, the Judgment of God on sin, and the alienation among men which follows their alienation from God," — inspirations " conveyed to us in that form of myth or allegorical picture, which is the earliest mode in which the mind of man apprehended truth." 074 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. r \\ In close connection, when the esaayist asks, " Ib it conceiv- able that the Holy Spirit, in dictating the record of God's deal- ings with mankind for oar instruction in the way of life, fhonld simulate the defects of human evidence P " he knows very well that such a supposition is as unworthy as it is irrational. He knows, too, that no scholar of repute to-day accepts the "dicta- tion " theory of inspiration, because, in the closing paragraph of his article, he speaks of " Verbal Inspiration'' as being but "a consecrated tradition." He must also know that, instead of assuming that the Holy Spirit dictated the records of Scripture, or simulated the defects of human evidence in dictating them, the editor of the volume already montionod expressly says that ** the recorders of Israel's history were subject to the ordinary laws in the estimate of evidence, (and) that their inspiration did not consist in a miraculous communication to them of facts as they originally happened." Holding with other Christian scholars that Biblical inspiration refers to the spiritual or divine element in the Scripturop, the same writer further says : " The inspiration of the recorder lies primarily in this, that he sees the hand of God in the history and interprets his purpose." Moreover, when the essayist suggests that "the first step towards a rational appreciation of the Old Testament is to break np the volume, separate the acts of Joshua or Jehu from the teachings of Jesus, and the different books of the Old Testa- ment from each other," he must certainly know that what he so sagaciously proposes is just what Christian teachers are doing, and just what they have been doing for a great many years. Modern Rcholars do not put all the books of the Bible on the same level, or attach to all parts of it the same importance. In view of these well-known facts, it seems scarcely fair of the essayist to say, " We have forcibly turned Hebrew literature into a sort of cryptogram of Christianity," as though respectable scholarship were still pursuing such a foolish coarse. It isagood while since the Song of Songs, which all reputable scholars now regard as a lyric poem intended to display the triumph of pure affection over the temptations of wealth and rank, has been turned by intelligent interpreters into " acryptogrammic descrip- tion of the union of Christ with his Church." Biblical scholarship is not in such a deplorable condition as Dr. Smith's article implies. It recognizes all the difficnlties. THE OLD TESTAMENT NOT A MILLSTONE. 076 moral, hiBtorical, or tlioologioul, that really exist ; bat it aeea ft way b, which, in every iiiHUnce, the difficulty may be explained in harmony with the cluinia of Scripture, aa well as with tk«i claims of reason. The following analysis will let the reader see how unfair to the Ilubruw Scriptures Dr. Smith has been. 1. He criticises the uiihistoric character of the Old Testa- ment record. Speaking of tlio mythical or traditional features of the Hubject-mutter of the book of Genesis, he says : ** The history of every nation begins with myth. A primeval tribe kieps no record, and a nation in its maturity has no more recol- lection of what happened in its infancy than a man of what hap- pened to him in his cradle." This statement is unquestionably true, but its implication is misleading. A myth is not a falsehood, much less an imposture. It is u presentation of truth in fictitious or rather tropical form. As the editor ot Lux Mtindi says : " It is s product of mental activity, aa iniitructive and rich aa any later product, but its characteriHtic iMttiat it in not yet dintingniahed into taiatory, ami poetry, and pliiloKopby. It is all of these in the Keno, aa dream and imagination, and thought and experiencfi, are fused in the mental fumiturs of a child's mind." The narratives of Genesis, however, cannot properly be called myths. The earlier ones express the world's best traditional conceptions, at the time when they were compiled, respecting the origins of things ; and they embody, in tropical form, not only important historic facts but also great moral and religions truths. Owing to their age and character, though, it should not bo claimed for either the earlier or the later narratives of the Pentateuch that they furnish a perfect modem scientific eth- nology, chronology, cosmogony, or synopsis of history, although from them each of these subjects may have derived important aid. Canon Bonney's admission, therefore, that " the increase of scieniific knowledge has deprived parts of the earlier books of the Bible of the historical value which was generally attributed to them by our forefathers," is one which does not at all involve the essayist's conclusions. Our forefathers thought that the first part of Genesi'^ was the oldest piece of literature in exist ence; but the recent decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions has revealed another still more ancient literature, one which 0T6 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. ! I give* ns an Assyrian account of the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel, in a form thut la shomi by its mythological and polytheistic features to be much older than the Biblical account, the latter being a purified and spiritualized and monotheized version of the former. Christian scholars have recognized for a long time that the ethnological statements of ihebookof Genesis are imperfect, just as they have recognized that the genealogical tables of the Evun- gelists are incomplete ; but they do not claim thiit such matters were dictated by the Holy Spirit. They also reuognizo that the stories of tlie Flood and Tower of Babel, though having an his torical bnsis, are chaructorizod by a manner of expression which must be interpreted according to the habit of Oriental speech, and that they contain traditional elements which are peculiar to all such ancient accounts. But this latter fact does not lessen the value of either story as a primitive moans of imparting re- ligions instruction. When Dr. Smith, therefore, complains in the language of the editor of Lux Mundi that "the Church cannot insist upon the historicr.l character of the earliest records of the ancient Church in detail, as she can on the historical chiiracter of the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles," it is sufficient to reply that the Church does not insist upon the perfect historicity of those ancient narratives which are known to contain traditional elements, and which are also known to have been compiled long after the events recorded are said to have taken place. She frankly admits that, previous to the time at which Abraham is believed to have emi- grated with his family into Palestine, we cannot determine with certainty much of the history or the chronology pertaining to the primeval and patriarchal ages, because so little of the early record can be definitely traced to a period at all approaching the events. 3. He criticises the unscientific character of the Old Testa- ment teaching. After mentioning several times the crude con- ceptions of the Mosaic cosmogony, he says, " The Old Testa- ment is altogether geocentric, and not merely in the phenomenal sense.'' That the Mosaic cosmogony represents the earth and not the sun as the centre of the uui verse, is a fact familiar to the most ■nperficial reader of the Bible ; but no fair-minded person thinks TBS OLD TESTAMENT SOT A SOLLSTONE. 577 of blaming Moses for this geocentric view, much less of holding him responsible for it. Up to a few centuries ago, the whole world held substantially the same view. Like eyery other Scripture writer, the compiler of the boolc of Oenesis shared the scientific conceptions of the age in which he lived, and wrote in harmony with the ideas which then prevailed. Moreover, he does not profess to give ns a miraculous history of creation, nor does the Church claim that he anticipated in any way the results of modern discovery. Supposing the story of creation to be a miraculously revealed account of the origin of all created objects, theologians once be- lieved that the whole universe was constructed piece by piece, that the first man was made directly from the dust of the ground, that the first woman was built out of a rib taken from his side, and that the world was formed in six days of twenty-four hours each. They now recognize, however, that some features of the story are not to be treated literally, but tropically ; and they also recognize that the aim of the writer was not to explain how any- thing actually came into being, or to tell how long the process of creation lasted, much less to give a complete history of our planet from the beginning, but rather to >1 ow that everything owes its existence to the creative energy of God, and to describe the divine adaptation of the earth to be the abode of creatures such as can subsist upon it. Hence Christian scholars do not "play fast and loose either with words or with science," in order to bring the story of crea- tion " into harmony with what we have learned from geology.'' They simply take the story for what it ia, namely, a popular presentation of the more striking phenomena of creation for the purpose of teaching, not science or philosophy, in the technical sense of these terms, but moral and religious truth. In broad outline, they recognize that there ia a substantial agreement be- tween the narrative in Genesis and the teaching of science; and that is all we should expect, as well as all the Scripture, prop- erly expounded, leads us to expect. But, while the general order of Genesis is such as physical science now accepts, judicious teachers do not maintain that the narrative in the first chapter of the book is perfect geology. On the contrary, they perceive that the writer's description of the Spirit's operations as so many creative acts, occupying so many VOL. CLXII.— KG. 474. 37 0TB THE SORTH AMFRICAS REVIEW. I •ol«rd«y«, thou)!h having a general fountlation iu nature, inorely ropreaeuU an orderly progreM iu tlio wurk of creation. Instoud of claiming, therefore, that the itory of creation coincides in all ro^iHVis with the results which physical investigation has dis- closc-d. such teachers, roi'ognizing the popular and picturesque chtiracter of the account, do not attenipt to correlate Genesis and geology day by day. Sinoe the tirst chapter of Genesis teaches neither geology nor chronology, there is nothing in it inconsistent with the doctrine of evolution that the >it orUl was formed by a gradual process of development iu harmony with Uiitural lawc. oi with the declara* tiou of gei^logy that animal life existed for ages before the human Tao# appeared. That all crejitod things are due to divine activity, and that spiritual death, or separation from God, is the outcome of human disobciiience — these arc two fuu^iainental facts which the story of cn'ation leaches, and which the tvjtimony of the rocks does not gainsay. Thus Christian geoK-gists are not driven to the desperate shifts to which lYfo^iSor Smitli renu'mbcrs that Dr. Buckland •• was driven in his efforts to reooncilc the factji of his science with the Mos.iic cosmogony, the literal truth of which he did not venture to impugn." Xo competent instructor now finds anything in the story of cieation to impugn, since, technically »}H\ikiDg, the account is neither s<."ientitic nor unscientific, but nonscicntifio. The lK">t.'k of Genesis givt-s us no theory, iu the motlcrn use of the terra, either of tiie proce^ of creation or of the origin of liie world : i; meriOy connects God with creation in an order foundeti njxm the best conceptions of nature to which the mind of m.tu had then attained. 3. lie criticises the imperfivt character of the Old Testament morality. Kcferring to a weak as well as an unwise defence, by the «xiitor of Zw- Mtrndi. of the most stAriling of the so called impnx\itory psalms, he says. "This istiieway in which we have been W by our trauilioual belii-f ia th.* inspiration of the Old Te«tamcni to play fas; aud loose wiih oar understandings and with our moral sense." ^ The best expositors do not. ia their interpretation of the re- vengeful imprccatioas of the Old Tcsstamrrii, play fust and loose either with uudersiandisg or with moral sense. While they perceive that, in the majority of vindictive ^lassages, the speaker I THE OLD TESTAMEyr NOT A MILLSTOSB. 679 or the pBalmtBt, aa the case may he, xealoui for the honor of Jchuvab, 60 identities himself with Qod that he regards Ocd's enemies as bis enemies, and hates them simply because, being evil, they are enemies of good, they frankly admit with Dr. Moll, in Lange's Bibhwork, that Psdm ciz. displays a spirit " which is not free from carnal passion." Tiie true explanation of the revengefal spirit here displayed is fonnd in the difference between the yiew-point of the Uw and the view-point of the Gospel — a difference indicated by our Lord's rebuke to bis disciples for manifesting the zeal of Elijah, when they desired him to imitate the spirit of the Jld Testat.eut dispensation by commanding fire from heaven to consume the inhabitants of a hostile village. Owing to the incomplete dereU opment of spirit aal ideas under the old dispensation, men's con- ceptions of morality were necessarily imperfect. Hence tbe Old Testament characters could not reasonably be expected to speak and act according to the exalted standard of the Sermon on the Mount. But is inspiration compatible with imperfect morality ? Cer- tainly ; because, if a man honestly conforms to the highest moral standard of his time, be is a truly moral man. That inspiration is compatible with immorality no rational teacher maintains ; but that inspiration u compatible with imperfect or crude morality may be consistently maintained, because, as Dr. Brace says, *' Crude morality is compatible with a good conscience." Such examples of cruelty and treachery, therefore, as these to which Dr. Smith refers, those which he considers "responsible in no small decree for murderous persecutions, and for the extir- paiion or oppression of heathen races," were quite in keeping with the rindicnve spirit, as well as with the crude morality, of Old Testament times. Such deeds of violence could, doubtless, have been jui^tified by the persons who committed them, in har- mony with the highest moral standards which then exi£t>ed ; but a wise a]x*logist does not think of defending them. He iimply claims that ihey should be judged, not according to the complete state- iiients of Christian ethics, but by the crude conceptions of the age in which they occurred. 4. Ue criticises the inhuman character of the Old Testament irarfare. Commenting on the cruelties connected with the set- tlement of Palestine, and complaining of the iuoonfiistent replies 680 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, ' - I :| I I which foolish apologists have made to tho objections raised by hamanity against the slant^hter of the Oanaanites, he says, ''We are in no way bound to believe that God so identified himself with a favored tribe as to license it to invade a number of other tribes which had done it no wrong, to slaughter them and take possession of their land«'' True apologists do not attempt to justify the butcheries and barbarities of the ancient Hebrew wars, or to maintain that Israel had a legal right to the land of Canaan. They neither claim that> in conquering the country, the Israelites did but recover their own, nor hold that, having been driven by force from Egypt, they had a right to help themselves to a homo where they conld find it, by putting all the existing inhabitants to the sword, nor do they fall back upon the simple command of God, justifying it on the ground that the Ganaanites were idol- worshippers and consequently ignorant of the true God. They believe it to have been the purpose of Providence that the Israel- ites should possess Canaan, just as they believe it to have been his purpose that the Puritans should possess New England ; but they do not consider Providence responsible for tho inhuman- ities either of Israelites or of Christians. Instead of holding that " God so identified himself with a favored tribe as to license it to invade a number of other tribes which had done it no wrong, to slaughter them and take posses- sion of their land,'' modem apologists hold that the Hebrew leaders so identifibd themselves with Jehovah that they regarded anything done in his name as a divine design. The explanation of this fact is very simple. The Israelites were not a philosophic, but a religions, people. Unaccustomed to philosophical specula- tion, but impressed with physical phenomena as manifestations of the Deity, they beheld God everywhere and traced his hand in everything. Connecting everything directly with God, the Old Testament writers did not duly discriminate between a natural consequence and a divine design. As Bishop Perowne says, "The Biblical writers drew no sharp, accurate line between events as the consequence of the divine order and events as fol- lowing from ^be divine purpose. To them all was ordained and designed of God.'' Hence the Israelites saw no place for chance or accident in creation. Believing that everything was of God, they naturally THE OLD TESTAMENT NOT A MILLSTONE. 681 belioTed that OTerything was designed of him. All those expres- sions, therefore, which represent him as prompting men either to be cmel or to do evil should be interpreted as Hebrew forms of speech that originated in a Semitic mode of thought. Thns the harsher features of the Old Testament are capable of a rational explanation, and, in this sense, of a safficient vindication. In their conquest of Canaan, the Israelites adopted the methods of warfare that were characterisfic of their age ) and, impelled by a religious motive, they de.^lt with their captives in such a way as they believed would, in the circumstances, promote the purest worship of Jehovah and the highest welfare of his people. 5. He criticises the irrational character of the Old Testa- ment sacrifice. Discussing the leading features of Hebrew law, he comes at length to the sacrificial worship of the Israelites ; and, though he remarks the absence from the Mosaic ritual of human sacrifice, which was practised even by the polished Athe- nians, he takes occasion to say that "all sacrifice is irrational.'* Many of the heathen conceptions of sacrifice were, doubtless, irrational ; but the sacrifices of the Old Testament present e marked contrast to those of the heathen, and express the deepest religious instincts of the human heart. In its devouter moods, at least, the soul of man is drawn by a sort of natural impulse to express in deeds, as woll as in words, its obligation of indebted- ness to Ood. That inward prompting whici impels a man to offer prayer or praise impels him also to ol^er sacrifice of some kind, either outward or inward or both. The same instinct that leads him to perform acts of devotion leads him, according to his education and development, to perform acts of service or sacri- fice. Strictly speaking, even propitiatory sacrifices are merely symbols of reconciliation and communion between man and Ood. In an uncultivated and undeveloped state, man endeavors to establish a relation of reconciliation and communion between himself and his Maker by giving to the Deity a portion of what the Deity has given to him; in a mo^e cultivated and developed state, man endeavors to establish this relation of harmony by con- secrating himself and his substance to God. Thus in prin- ciple, sacrifice is simply the putting of a part of oneself, so to speak, into that which one devotes to God; and such an act can scarcely be regarded as irrational. G. He criticises the anthropomorphic character of the Old I' I • hi '1! .1 >'l THS NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. Testament langaage. AHmling to an event recorded in Genesis whicb represents Jehovah as appearing to Abraham and as being entertained by the patriarch, he asks, "Why should we force ourselves to believe that the Being who fills eternity and infinity became the guest of a Hebrew sheik?" Dr. Smith asks this question as though modern scholars in- terpreted the anthropomorphic language of Scripture literally, whereas he knows that they regard all those expressions which seem to ascribe to God the possession of bodily parts and organs, such as hands and feet, eyes and ears, month and nose, simply as symbolic. The application to God. in a figurative way, of terms which properly relate to human beings, is as reasonable, however, as it is natural. In the sphere of representative thought, no religion can dispense entirely with anthropomorphic expressions. In accordance with our mental constitution, di- vine truths can be neither conceived by us nor conveyed to us without the employment of such figurative language. When the essayist, therefore, asks, " Why should we force ourselves to believe that the Being who fills eternity and infinity became the guest of a Hebrew sheik ? *' he is well aware not only that the Old Testament teaches the spirituality of God, but also that the eighteenth chapter of Genesis, to which he here refers, contains an account belonging to a time when it was generally believed that men sometimes entertained angels and even gods, and that consequently the account is to be explained as an anthro- pomorphic representation of an ancient manifestation of the divine presence. Hence, we are not to infer from the language that the Deity really exists in the shape of a man, or that he actually appeared to Abraham with a human body, and walked and talked and ate with the old patriarch ! 7. He criticises the partial character of the Old Testament covenant. Representing the Deity as having "entered into a covenant with the sheik's tribe," as he calls the descendants of Abraham, " to the exclusion of the rest of the human race," he asks, " Can we imagine the author of the universe limiting his providential regard and his communication of vital truth to his creatures by tribal lines ? " Here is a three-fold misconception. In the first place, accord- ing to the record in the book of Genesis, the covenant of Jehovah with Abraham was not made to the exclusion of any race, but yr THE OLD TESTAMENT NOT A MILLSTONE. 688 rather to the inclnsion of every race. " In thee,*' or, *' in thy seed," the record reads, "shall &Vi the families (nations) of the earth be blessed." The gracions divine purpose of revelation and redemption, which is expressed in so many Old Testament passages, though it has a primary reference to Israel, may be shown to have an ultimate reference to mankind. As set forth in Scripture, the election of the Israelites was simply a condi- tional choice of a certain people, on account of a special fitness for a certain work. In the second place, instead of teaching that God limits the manifestation of his providential regard to men by tribal lines, the Old Testament teaches a divine superintendence that extends to all men, so that they all are sharers alike in the care of Providence. The author of Psalm Ixv., for instance, represents God as the hearer of prayer, to whom all flesh may come ; and the prophet Amos (ix., 7) represents him as having granted the same providential guidance to the Syrians and the Philistines that was granted to the Hebrews. In the third place, instead of teaching that God limits the communication of his vital truth to men by tribal lines, the ancient Scriptures teach that, while the heathen had some true knowledge of God, relatively it was not so large as that which Israel possessed. The whole tenor of Old Testament teaching is that, so far as its relation to him will permit, God does as much, in his protecting Providence and by his revealing Spirit, for one nation as he does for another. 8. He criticises the tribal character of the Old Testament religion. Describing the Hebrew religion as a tribal monotheism, although, as he admits, a tribal monotheism of an eminently pure and exalted type, he asserts that "higher than to tribal mono- theism it did not rise." This assertion is singularly inconsistent with the facts of the Old Testament. The religion of Israel started as a tribal mo- notheism, but it rose to an ethical monotheism. That is to say, the idea of a tribal Deity, who had a special relation to a single people, developed into the idea of an absolute Deity, who has moral relations with every people. In the teaching of the prophets, there is a manifest advance upon the teaching of the Pentateuch respecting the doctrine of God. Many passages might be quoted to show that Israelitism, which commenced as a ^. ■N ,0 ■A '-±. '%. ▼ fi84 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. iff 11! national religion, restricted in some measure to a single nation, developed, with the progress of revelation, into a universal re- ligion, which knows no national limitations, becanse it rests upon belief in a Supreme Being who is the Saviour of all the ends of the earth. Nehemiah ix., 6, is particularly full and complete. Continuing his description of the Hebrew religion, Dr. Smith says, " It advanced no further than to the belief that its god was supreme in power as well as in character to all other gods, and thus Lord of the whole earth.'' This statement is contradicted by the explicit declarations of the prophets, who, from the time of Isj^i^onward, proclaim not only the nothingness of idols, but also the absoluteness of Ood. The canonical prophets declare emphatically that the gods of the heathen are " no gods, but the work of men's hands"; "dumb idols," which cannot move, much less speak and help. With an equal emphasis they declare not simply that there is no god among the nations like Jehovah, but that there is no god anywhere except him. Hence they represent him as the Lord of the whole earth, not because he is superior in power and character to all other gods, but because all other gods are nothing, and he is God alone. To this other assertion that the Jew, hampered by lingering tribalism, was unable to " form a conception of the univeraality and majesty of the moral law such as wo find in Plato or in Cicero," one need simply reply that Israel's specialty was not philosophy, but religion. Her representative writers were re- ligious teachers, most of whom lived and wrote before the time when philosophical speculation began to take definite shape in the scientific systems of Plato and Aristotle. Hence we should not look in the Old Testament for abstract statements of reasoned truth, but for practical statements of moral and religious truth. If, however, the Jew could not form a conception of the moral law as high and broad as Plato and Cicero could, he did form a con- ception of the moral Lawgiver as pure and exalted as they did ; and, if his staten^ ^its of moral truth were not as scientific as theirs, his ideas of moral duty were as adequate. His influence, too, on moral life and character was vastly greater than that of either the Roman or the Greek. ■ 9. He criticises the inadequate character of the Old Testa- ment idea of miracle. After making frequent allusions to the miraculous events recorded in the earlier books of the Bible, he • THE OLD TESTAMENT NOT A MILLSTONE. 580 singles oat '* the strange episode of Balaam and his colloquy with his ass/' and comments on ** the stopping of the snn and moon that Israel might have time for the parsnit and slaughter of his enemies. '* The story of Balaam is a traditional acconnt of an ancient angelic appearance, belonging to a time when the idea of animals talking with men was practically nniversal, and is to be inter- preted in harmony with chat fact. The acconnt of the inn and moon standing still also belongs to a time when men had no strictly scientific conception either of the natnre of a miracle or of the constitntion of the universe, so that physical phenomena which would now be called extraordinary would then be consid- ered miraculous. The citation from the book of Jasher, to which Dr. Smith refers, is part of an ancient Hebrew poem, which must bo interpreted as Oriental poetry. Hence, consistently with the character of the account, the best modem expositors regard the extraordinary phenomenon it describes as a prolonga- tion of the daylight by the ordinary laws of atmospheric refraction. 10. He criticises the undeveloped character of the Old Tes- tament conception of immortality. ** Of a belief in the immor- tality of the soul," he says, '* no evidence can be found in the Old Testament." ' This assertion is both ambiguous and incorrect. Immor- tality, in the fullest sense of the term, is c New Testament doc- trine. It was Christ, the Apostle declares, who " brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel." But, while its teaching on the subject is vague and indefinite, the Old Testa- ment does contain evidence of it belief in a future state of being. The Hebrew Sheol, like the Greek Hades, represents, it is true, a shadowy abode of the dead ; but neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks supposed that death was the end of personj^l existence, or that it involved the loss of personal identity. In the Old Testa- ment, death is represented as a sort of sleep, out of which the shades of the departed in Sbeol could be aroused into conscious- ness, as Isaiah xiv., 9-11, plainly shows. The continued existence of man after death is a conception that goe^ right through the ancient Scriptures. Even the book of Job, whether one uses the revised or the unrevised version, contains the germ of a belief in a future state of fellowship with God, though the conception is not so fully developed, perhaps, as it is in Psalm Izziii., 84. 686 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. il! t 11. He criticises the indefinite character of the Old Testa- ment prophecy respecting Christ. " No real and specific predic- tion of the advent of Jesas, or of any eyent in his life/' he says, " can be produced from the books of the Old Testanient." This statement is incomplete, and its implication is untme. It implies that the Old Testament contains no prophecies of a future Messiah which Wbi3 properly fulfilled in the New Testa- ment Christ, whereas, from the time of Isaiah, the canonical prophets put forth the conception of an ideal Coming One, whom they represent as a ruler, a counsellor, a teacher, and a deliverer or saviour, all of which representations were spiritnally fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth ; so that the Evangelists were not " simple- minded," as Dr. Smith says, but sensible-minded, when they fouji'l " in the sacred books of their nation prognostications of the character and mission of Jesus, '' because such prognostica- tions or fore8hadowin|i;s of him really occur in them. A number of passages set Christ forth in his character, in his office, and in his work. , It is not the Hebrew Scriptures regarded as a sacred literatnre, however, but these Scriptures regarded as a supernatural revela- tion, which renders them, in the estimation of the essayist, a mill, stone to Christianity. *' The time has surely come," he says, "when as a supernatural revelation they shonld be frankly, though reverently, laid aside." Does Dr. Smith not know that the time has long come since the soundest Christian teachers taught that the Old Testament is notlr revelation, but the record of a revela- tion? These Scriptures are now acknowledged by all scholars to be the record of a revelation which was received, during a long period of time, by a large' number of men who spoke or wrote on religious subjects, as. they were moved by the Holy Spirit, but who made use of a great variety of materials, traditional, histori- cal, and philosophical, according to the fullest knowledge they had, and the soundest judgment they possessed. Though he rejects the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation in the obsolete sense which no modern scholar holds, yet, toward the conclusion of his article, he grants that the Old Testament may, so far as it is good, be a manifestation of the Divine. " As a manifestation of the Divine," he says, "the Hebrew books, teaching righteousness and purity, may have their place in our love and admiration forever." In making this admission, he THE OLD TESTAMENT NOT A MILLSTONE. S87 allows sabatantially the very thing which Christian scholar- ship maintains. If these books are a manifestation of God, they mnst not only, in some sense, be an inspired litera- tare, bnt also, in some degree, contain a divine revelation. It is this divine element in them which distinguishes them from all other ancient writings. In their inner spiritual contents, the Hebrew Scriptures are an organic part of the Christian Soriptnres. The divine ele- ment in the Old Testament was the spiritual germ from which the Oospel evolved, the nidimental teaching out of which the doctrine of Christ was developed . Instead of being Christian- ity's millstone, therefore, the Old Testament is rather Chris- tianity's foundation-stone, because it forms the spiritual ground- work, so to speak, from which the Christian superstructure rises, or ou which the Christian system rests. George Ooulsok Workmait. iCMii "Hmtf^ i« iSpMMBm^lo •pttuq nittiMi^' imiooq ^^m"M- m H>«nt«> 4^ Oiv Old <9N^^ f\ J ., me THE NORTH AMERICAS REVIEW 1 ^ 1 i! fM I 11. lie criticises the indefinite character of the OM Testa- ment prophecy respecting Christ. " No real and speciQo predic- tion of the advent of Jesus, or of any event in his life," he says, " can be produced from the books of the Old Testament." This statement is incomplete, and its implication is untrue. It implies that the Old Testament contains no prophecies of a future Messiah which were properly fulfilled in the New Testa- ment Christ, whereas, from the time of Isaiah, the canonical prophets put forth the conception of an ideal Coming One. whom they represent as a ruler, a counsellor, a teacher, and a deliverer or saviour, all of which representations were spiritually fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth ; so that the Evangelists weronjt "simple- minded," as Dr. Smith says, but sensible-minded, when they found " in the sacred books of their nation prognostications of the character and mission of Jesus," because such prognostica- tions or foreshadowings of him really occur in them. A number of passages set Christ forth in his character, in his oflice, and in his work. , It is not the Hebrew Scriptures regarded as a sacred literature, however, but these Scriptures regarded as a supernatural revela- tion, which renders them, in the estimation of the essayist, a mill- stone to Christianity. " The time has surely come," ho says, "when as a supernatural revelation they should bo frankly, thongli reverently, laid aside." Does Dr. Smith not know that the time has long come since the soundest Christian teachers taught that the Old Testament is not"» revelation, but the record of a revela- tion? These Scriptures are now acknowledged by all scholars to ue the record of a revelation which was received, during a long period of time, by a large number of men who spoke or wrote on religious subjects, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, but who made use of a great variety of materials, traditional, histori- cal, and philosophical, according to the fullest knowledge they had, and tlie soundest judgment they possessed. Though he rejects the Hebrew Scriptures aa a revelation in the obsolete sense which no modern scholar holds, yet, toward the conclnsion of his article, he grants that the Old Testament may, BO far as it is good, be a manifestation of the Divine. " As a manifestation of the Divine," he says, " the Hebrew books, teaching righteousness and purity, may have their place in our love and admiration forever." In making this admission, ho . I lib ,3 «er article. Besides, the object of th:a i'TticIe Is not to take part In the con- troversy between Dr. Goldwin Smith ar.d Dr. Workman, but to call atten- tion to what they have written, so Th«it the readers of The Mall and Em- pire may procure the Review and reed (ifor themselves what these scholars have written upon the great subject i.>Pder consideration. It Is d*je, per- haps, to the brilliant essayist who opened the controversy to say that though In point of general scholarship, erpecially in all that pertains to litera- ture and iilstory, be has few equula, and, perhaps, no superior, he Is placed at a disadvantage in this instance by being pitted against a specialist who has made the Old Testament Scrip- tures the subject of life-long study: wbo la thoroughly up in the latest pkasea of the subject: and who Is hln.8elf an original investigator in this n>0Bt Interesting and important field. I: la impossible to read what he has written, especially If one has acquaint- ed himself to any considerable extent With the latest results of Biblical scho- litrahlp. Without feelln.<; that he Is In the presence of a master wbo, to use a taniillar phrase, has the whole sub- JWm BMRH AMD TBB OLD ths Editor of The Olobs : Sir,— In your Isane of last Satarday there appearsd firom the pen of Prat Ooldwln Smith a latter which I havs re^ with conMderabIa surprlas. I rs- sret that he haa written such a letter. bntwOlIeC those who havs pemssd ths two easajrs Oeolds If I havs "miscon- oolved the lasus and misled the erltlcSb" U Is aa Immatsrlal to ms how hs rs> cards mr scholarship as It was Irrcls- vaat to ths subject for him to repre- sent me as a rationalist. The question under consldsratlon Is not whether I am a " scholar " or a " raUonallst," but whether ths (Hd Testament la a " mill- stone " which the church should rev- , erently lay aalde. The aim of my essay was to show the ethical and rs- llgious value of the Hebrew Scriptures in their inner spiritual relatloa to Christianity. In former tlmes,rellKlous scholars so magnified the Influence of Qod lit ths composition of the Scriptures as to see nothing but a divine element In th-) Bible ; and, for a long tline. rationalist scholars have so exalted the reason of man In the evolution of religious Ideas as to deny the presence-ln it of any ele- ment other than human. Should Chris- tian teachers who perceive a two-fold element in the Bible, but who hold as flrmly to the divine element which faith recognises as to the human ele- ment which, reason sees, advise stu- dents of thoQld Testament, perplexed by reason ofTspeclal prominence of the human element In it. to cast it off as a cumbersome appendage when every difficulty in it may be rationally solved and when, wlthout.lt, Christianity can be neither explained nor understood ? That were not rational but IrratlonaL In my essay f have pointed out the sense In which the Hebrew Scriptures are an orgpnlc part of the Christian Scriptures. So far aa the Old Tjsta- . ment Is eoQcemed|I have briefly shown, there is nothing about It that needs to be renounced but a traditional view of its origin and structure : and thsre Is nothing about it that needs STsn to bs modified but an Impossible theonr of tho Inspiration of its authors aoa an irrational method of interpreting its *>^sk«. Consequently those who. from reading sceptical objMtloiia to the Old Testament, have tis- coBM IndWercnt or invJuOIsM In record to It > may rest as- wed awt_«b*iMI|^AtacjJsaa4| UhU coght Co bo diseardsd Is u «! Ir;:ed way ot vlewlnc and treatlBS Utsiatare. joborob qpin.80N workman. ti •t9n»to, lUgr.tir . J^