We cannot close the present volume without a word retrospective and a word prospective. It is gratifying to announce that the majority of the Methodist pastors are patrons of the Review and give it their most cordial support. The labor spent in the preparation of its successive numbersthe high character of its contributors, all of them scholars and occupying posts of distinction-the wide variety of themes discussed, philosophical, scientific, biblical, theological, social, æsthetic, political, and moral-the maintenance of the specific position of the Review on biblical criticism, both by contributors and the Editor; the introduction of “The Itinerants' Club" department under the supervision of Bishop Vincent; the résumé of foreign movements in Church and State; the thorough analysis of the leading reviews and magazines of Europe and America, and the critical notices of the latest books in the market indicate the character of the contents of the Review during the year, and also the special work it undertook to do. It has sought to promote intellectual inquiry in the ministry and to defend the orthodox phases of the biblical system of religion. In this particular it has found no occasion to retreat from its earliest positions, or even to modify them. The Church is orthodox, and far in advance of German criticism. The Review of 1890 may in the future be opened for resources in a crisis with rationalism, or criticism, or infidelity.

The year 1891 will bring with it some changes and improvements in the Review. The addition of several pages to each number, besides a fuller discussion of current topics by specialists, will be accepted by the Church as a proof that the Editor and the Agents are anxious to conform to the strong demand for a still larger periodical than has heretofore been is sued. A series of articles on New Testament books in opposition to the rationalistic interpretation will be published, suitably following those on the Old Testament which have appeared during the current year. While recently in Germany we arranged with a resident scholar in Berlin to prepare the "Foreign Résumé" for the Review, thus securing for our readers the latest literary news from that country of theologians and philosophers. "The Itinerants' Club" will pass into the hands of Professor Luther T. Townsend, of Boston University, an orthodox scholar, a thinker, critic, and well-known author. The Editorial depart ments will, as heretofore, be under our personal supervision and preparation. We shall hope to discuss New Testament problems and many cognate questions of criticism, besides themes in sociology and the general subjects of reform and the political forces of civilization. Inasmuch as our plans for 1891 are already in a reasonable state of maturity, we may promise a Review that shall at the least fulfill some of our ideals of relig ious journalism on the high level hitherto occupied by this periodical of the Church. If possible, we shall endeavor to convince the minister who is not under its influence that he is suffering a loss which he cannot overcome by any substitute in periodical literature. With the expression of our thanks to the Church at large for its appreciation of the Review under the present management, we conclude the volume and at once enter upon the labors of another year.

CURRENT DISCUSSIONS.

THE RELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO CHRISTIAN

FAITH.

THE virulent pertinacity with which "destructive criticism" has assailed, and still assails, the inspiration of the Old Testament, shows the clearness of its unconfessed conviction that the various writings of Holy Scripture constitute "an organic whole," and that to disprove the inspiration of the Old Testament is to strike a "fatal blow" at the belief of men in the inspiration of the New. That criticism recognizes by implication the important fact which Dr. Augustus H. Strong succinctly states in these words: "The Old Testament is part of a progressive system whose culmination and key are to be found in the New. The central subject and thought which binds all parts of the Bible together, and in the light of which they are to be interpreted, is the person and work of Jesus Christ." In the light of this luminous fact rationalistic criticism understands that to destroy men's belief in the inspiration of any part of Holy Scripture is to overthrow the foundation on which its whole is built. Finding it easier to strike the Old because of the thicker mist of a greater antiquity which envelops the facts it records, this criticism aims its most audacious assumption at its venerable pages, vainly hoping that its poisoned arrows, by passing through the Old, may pierce the fundamental facts of the New. Its supreme object is to eliminate the supernatural-that is, God-out of the Bible, and thereby to rob it of its authority over the conscience of humanity.

The Bishop of London, Dr. Temple, once a rationalistic critic, in a recent lecture said that "the more he read the Bible through from end to end the more the things in it seemed to be master of him, so that if he differed from it he was driven to the conclusion that either he did not understand it or that he was in the wrong. The spirit of it was so supreme over all that he could think or imagine of the purest and holiest things that it was absolutely necessary he should accept its authority. When, too, he studied the unique Figure in humanity which stood unapproachable by all philosophers or heroes, his conscience," he said, “which bowed before the book, bowed before that majestic Royalty which spoke with authority, not as a learned man, not as a philosopher, not as a guide or a teacher, who having gathered knowledge from various sources communicated it, but with a voice which bore eternal truth with no qualification, and which was plain for every one to hear and to understand." In this beautiful and manly palinode of his former rationalistic criticisms the learned bishop illustrated, by his own experiences, the spiritual unity of the Old and New Testaments. In surrendering himself to their influence he had found the spirit of the divine Christ in both. The whole book had become to him what the burning bush was to Moses -the shrine of the infinite Presence speaking to his understanding, touching his spirit, winning his affections, commanding his submission, and

molding his character. One voice spoke to him from Genesis to Revelation, because one Spirit moved all the holy men who, without losing their several idiosyncrasies, recorded the manifold facts and various truths contained in the holy book. Thus when this bishop permitted his critical judgment to give due heed to that divine Voice he perceived the great truth which Ebrard finely expressed when he said, "Between Jesus Christ and the God of the Old Testament there is not the least essential disagreement."

Whoever fairly grasps this idea of the organic unity of the Scriptures holds a principle which explains the relation of each Testament to the other. "The law of genesis and progress in the revelations," says Dr. Humphrey, "gives shape to the structure of the Scriptures." As Augus tine tersely puts the thought, "The New Testament is latent in the Old, the Old is patent in the New;" the old was "a preliminary stage,” a "gradual ["literally pedagogical,' says Neander] development of the divine revelation." It was แ a prophecy, a hope, a longing, of which Christianity was a fulfillment and completion." Because of his failure to perceive this obvious fact, Marcion, in the third century, discerning little else than the severity of justice in the Old Testament, rejected it. And not seeing how dependent the New Testament is on the history, the prophecy, and the supernaturalism of the Old, unreflecting minds may even now be disposed to accept the views of a writer in a religious journal who recently penned the following paragraph. After postulating the possible success of scientific criticism in proving certain portions of our Bible untenable, he wrote: "Well, then, we may begin with Genesis and tear out every book of the Old Testament until we come to the Psalms. We may tear out all the history and the prophecy that remains. Beginning with the New Testament, we may tear out all there is in the gospels, except the Sermon on the Mount and Christ's words on Calvary. Then we may tear out every thing else except the Pauline epistles-and we still have the grandest body of natural and revealed truth that the world ever knew. We would have all the essential parts of our body still. For if we have the Sermon on the Mount we must have Christ. No mere man could have ever spoken those words. If we have the Pauline epistles, we have the heart and core of our theology; and if we have the Psalms, we have all the poetry and the spiritual uplift which the soul of man requires. Science can never touch the essential truth and spirit of the Bible. Thus we see how large reserve we have in the Bible as against the destructive critic at his worst."

Intrinsically, this crude passage is scarcely worthy of citation, much less of serious discussion. But since it has been quoted in other religious papers with more or less favor, and may therefore incline superficial thinkers to underestimate the injury to faith wrought by the destructive criticism of the times, it may not be out of place to briefly point out the absurdity of its ungrounded assumptions. On its face one discerns an implication that all the contents of Holy Scripture except the "Psalms,” "Paul's epistles," 'Christ's dying words," and the "Sermon on the

66

" does

Mount" are superfluities-are writings which the "soul of man not require for its "spiritual uplift." If this be true, it is pertinent to inquire why the greater part of the Bible was written. Assuredly "God never does any thing superfluous." Hence the fact that he moved holy men to write the whole must certainly be taken as proof that the whole was, and is still, needed for the "spiritual uplift" of humanity.

The folly of the assertion that all "the soul of man requires" for its "spiritual uplift" is contained in the disjecta membra named above, is obvious when one notes that these parts would be unintelligible without the light of the parts which the postulate "tears out." Could the Psalms, for example, be appreciated without the story of David's life, of the kingdom over which he reigned, and of the "law" which he praises so enthusiastically? Could "the Sermon on the Mount" be satisfactorily interpreted without a knowledge of the laws of Moses to which it refers? Could the awful meaning of our Lord's dying words be comprehended if the gospels which portray his unmatched character and absolutely pure life were blotted out? Could Paul's epistles be understood if the teaching and life of Christ, which are their basis, were lost, or proven to be mythical? Would Paul's grand portraiture of Christ's everlasting priesthood have any meaning but for the Mosaic account of the Levitical economy? After "tearing out" all but the parts this writer thinks requisite to the soul's spiritual life would not the Bible thus recklessly mutilated, instead of remaining what it now is, "the grandest body of natural and revealed truth the world ever knew," be like a collection of unrelated fragments broken from some stupendous ruin of unknown origin and unimaginable purpose? Obviously its meaning would be an insolvable problem vexing mankind with perplexing uncertainties respecting their relation to God and to immortality. Moreover, since this writer's "tearing-out" theory is postulated on the supposition that "science" had disproved the claim of the "torn out" books to inspiration, one is unable to see how the claims of the specified fragments to be God-spoken words could be maintained. The "science" which could set aside the authority of so large a portion of Holy Writ could with equal or even greater facility overset that of the remainder, thus relegating the entire Bible to the tomb of dead traditions and repudiated creeds. But what more need be said of this shockingly frivolous passage? No really Christian thinker can do other than repudiate it, because his knowledge of the historical connection of Christian truth with the antecedent revelations of the Old Testament shows him that there is a vital relation between them, that the former is "the flower and bloom of the latter," and that to effectually defend Christianity against the assaults of rationalistic skepticism the authority of the Old Testament must be maintained. Taken together the two Testaments constitute a beautifully symmetrical whole. Taken separately neither is complete. The New is needed to explain the Old, which is imperfect by itself because it represents a gradual process of education, pointing to something final and universal. The revelation of the incarnation in the New Testament explains and

justifies the otherwise inconclusive and inexplicable teaching, ritual, and prophecy in the Old.

We are indebted to the Old Testament for our knowledge of the source of that concept of God possessed by the Jews in the time of Christ. In an age of universal idolatry, when even the cultivated Greeks, in their most highly intellectual city, were wholly given to idol-worship, the Jews believed in God as the one living, invisible Creator and Ruler of the world. Concerning the origin of their superior knowledge we should be in utter darkness but for their history contained in the Old Testament. From its divinely illuminated pages we learn how God revealed himself, first in Paradise to the primal pair, next to the few individuals who retained that revelation in their thoughts, then to the patriarchs of the Hebrew nation, which he constituted for "the purpose of rooting deeply into human consciousness the idea of the one living and true God." So thoroughly was this sublime lesson taught by miraculous providences, priestly services, and prophetic voices that the Jews "came to look on all natural forces as manifestations of God's personal will.” Thus David said, "The God of glory thundereth." This grand concept of Deity, which is the underlying thought of all the Jewish Scriptures, prepared that much-favored but fickle people to understand the teaching of Jesus concerning the spirituality and personality of the "living God." Those ancient Scriptures inform us from whence they obtained and how they retained their exclusive possession of that monotheistic concept which all other ancient nations had lost. Without them we should be unable to show why the Saviour's theistic utterances were accepted without cavil, even by the people who rejected him. God had spoken to their fathers. saying, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."

The Old Testament is largely prophetic. Very many, perhaps most, of its prophecies have been fulfilled, thereby demonstrating the inspiration of its prophets. To the believer in Christianity this feature of the Jewish Scripture has immeasurable significance and value. "For," says Pascal, "We know God only [fully and experimentally] through Jesus Christ.

To prove Jesus Christ we have the prophecies, which are good and valid proofs. And these prophecies, being fulfilled and truly proved by the event, indicate the certainty of these truths, and are, therefore, the proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ." Hence the Old Testament, with its truly marvelous prophecies, is of inestimable value to Christian faith, which cannot afford to surrender it at the demand of a criticism which is as groundless as it is malevolent.

The Old Testament is also aglow with the light of the divine Presence, the supernatural flashes from all its parts. It reveals God in close living touch with human beings and with the universe. In Paradise it presents him in converse with Adam as his affectionate instructor. When the first pair stand before him, covered with the shame of inexcusable sin, he is heard speaking to them of mercy, and giving them a promise as a star of hope to them and to their descendants. Subsequently God is seen communing with men, who listen for his voice, all through the ages. He