Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE ARENA.

"RECENT PHASES OF THOUGHT IN APOLOGETICS."

THE valuable and timely article by Professor Rice on this subject, in the January Review, reaches the conclusion that the real evidence for Christianity "is not found in any one line of argument, but in the convergence of all lines. The dome rests, not on one pillar, but on many pillars." It is to be found, however, that the article tends to weaken some of these converging lines.

First the author attacks the argument from design. After showing, properly enough, that the principle of causality compels us to believe in an eternal and self-existent ground of all other existence, and that the design argument is of value only in helping to determine whether that ground is something intelligent or unintelligent, he proceeds to question the value of the ordinary design argument—at least to the man who believes that the process of evolution, carried on mainly under the guidance of the principles of natural selection and the survival of the fittest, has caused the eye or any other complex organ, or combination of organs, to become what it is. On the other hand, some writers maintain that the theory of evolution strengthens the design argument and enlarges its scope. Doubtless, if one thinks of natural selection and the survival of the fittest as blind principles of guidance, he will find no intelligence manifested in any result to which they may lead. The product results from the process, and the process is without intelligence; therefore the result shows none. But that is plainly a begging of the question. If one leaves the question of the blindness of the guiding principles undecided until the process is completed, and then examines the product to see if it could have been produced without intelligence, he will be in precisely the same logical relation to the question that he would be if he had never heard of evolution. If he finds evidence of intelligence in the product he will need to infer intelligence in connection with the guiding principles of the process.

The professor uses an illustration to make clear the weakness of the ordinary design argument. He finds a vessel packed solidly with various objects, so that practically all the space is occupied. One exceedingly complicated object has salient angles which exactly correspond with the reentrant angles in adjacent objects, and vice versa. There seems to be ground here for two inferences: first, that some one intended the vessel to be full; second, that the complicated object was specially designed for the particular space which it was to fill. The vessel, however, “had reached its present condition by a process of shaking [accidental], wherein the small objects had gradually rattled into the chinks between the large ones and the hard objects had impressed their form upon the

soft ones." Now, if the argument for design drawn from the consideration of the eye rested solely upon the fact that it fits into its socket nicely, that illustration would be in point. From the time of Anaxagoras and Socrates, however, "order" and "adaptation" have been the watchwords of the writers on this controversy. Order is a mark of intelligence. The adjustment of the parts of an organ so as to secure its functional perfection indicates intelligence. These are the forms of the design argument. The professor's vessel of objects and his complicated object with salient angles would show little or no order and no adaptation to the performance of any function. His illustration, therefore, throws no light upon the argument from design in nature. I conclude that the argument is not weakened by Darwinism. Butler's Analogy is not a suitable reply to modern agnosticism, to be sure; but agnostics are not the only rejecters of Christianity in our day. To the class for whom it was intended, those who believe in God but reject Christianity, Butler's great work is still of value. While not the only pillar, it is one of the pillars on which the dome of Christian truth rests.

66

Is there not also something of value in another line of argument upon which the professor heaps ridicule ? Proposition 1. There is a God, because the religious intuitions of humanity affirm that there is a God. Proposition 2. There is need of revelation, because the religious intuitions of humanity are so conflicting and uncertain that they are good for nothing. Proposition 3. Christianity is a revelation from God, because the religious intuitions of humanity approve it." Concerning this it is well to observe:

1. These propositions are not affected by modern thought, and are as true now as they ever were.

2. Most, if not all, of the defenders of Proposition 1 present additional arguments for their belief in God.

3. Proposition 2 is stated more strongly than the case demands. It is not necessary to state that the religious intuitions are good for nothing, but simply that they were not adequate to lead man into all the religious truth that he needs.

4. Defenders of Proposition 3 do not rely entirely upon the competency of men to pass judgment upon the content of a supposed revelation, but very largely upon the competency of the human reason to pass judgment upon the validity of the evidence that the revelation is supported by divine sanction in the form of miracle and prophecy.

5. The best book reviewers are not always the best writers of books. Ability to appreciate Shakespeare does not presuppose ability to write Shakespeare's plays. Ability to understand the demonstrations in Newton's Principia does not presuppose the ability to discover the truths there demonstrated. Ability to appreciate any mental product does not presuppose ability to create it. Ability to pass judgment upon a divine revelation does not presuppose ability to have discovered the truths revealed.

6. The professor himself doubtless believes that God has revealed himself to man, either in Christ or in the Bible, or both. That revelation doubtless gives us truths which we needed but could not discover, and upon which we pass favorable judgment. If so, the argument which he ridicules is valid. J. I. BARTHOLOMEW.

Stafford Springs, Conn.

WAS THE FAMILY AT BETHANY JEW OR GENTILE?

In an article on "Martha and Mary," by Dr. Walsh, in the May Review, the novel theory is advanced that the family at Bethany with whom Jesus was so familiar were Gentile. We wish to briefly examine the grounds upon which the writer of the article bases his theory:

1. Dr. Walsh argues: "This repeated statement that many of the visitors were Jews seems superfluous on the supposition that Martha's house was Jewish, for the place was nigh to Jerusalem, and one would not think of the friends being Gentiles unless it were so mentioned. But it is not stated that the sisters were Jews." Whatever force there is in this argument disappears when we reflect that the frequent use of the word "Jew" is a characteristic of John's gospel as a whole. It is used more than eleven times oftener than in any of the other gospels, and sixty-eight times in all. The word is used more frequently, in both the eighteenth and nineteenth chapters, than in the eleventh, and just as often in our Lord's conversation with the Jews in the eighth chapter as in the narrative we are considering. It is constantly used where no one would think of the persons "being Gentiles unless it were so mentioned." For example, "The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?" No sane man would think of Gentiles sending priests and Levites to John the Baptist, if it had not been stated that they were Jews.

As for the omission to state "that the sisters were Jews," John does not tell us that the man born blind was a Jew. It is said of him that "the Jews did not believe concerning him that he had been blind; " and that his parents "feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already," etc. Can we conclude that this man and his parents were Gentiles?”

Concerning the reasons for the frequent use of the word "Jew" in John's gospel, the late period at which John's gospel was written may partly account for it. Canon Westcott says that the title "Jew" in this gospel "is perhaps used exclusive of those who lived in the limited region of Judea." Also, that "from first to last they appear as the representatives of the narrow finality of Judaism.”

2. Dr. Walsh says, "Luke tells us that the woman who anointed Jesus was a Gentile, for that is the meaning of the word 'sinner' in Simon's thought." Respecting the identification of the two anointings as one-which appears to be Dr. Walsh's only purpose for putting forth his theory of the Gentile nationality of Martha and Mary-we say noth

ing, although persuaded that one took place in Galilee about the middle of Christ's ministry, and that the other happened at Bethany just before the crucifixion.

As regards the word "sinner," meaning "Gentile," it was undoubtedly so used sometimes by the Pharisees. Let it be noticed, however, that Luke also calls the woman a sinner. It is hardly possible that Luke, who was probably a Gentile himself, would mean Gentile when he said "sinner." Our Lord also speaks of her as one who had deeply sinned, saying, "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven." The Pharisees did not invariably mean Gentile when they called a man a sinner; for, when Jesus went to dine with Zaccheus, they said he was "gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner." So, also, they even called our Lord a sinner. They said to the man born blind, "Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner." But, admitting that Simon meant "Gentile," upon what possible principle could Simon, the host, object to a Gentile anointing the feet of his guest, while at the same time her sister was intrusted with the management of the feast, and was serving in order that Simon-as Dr. Walsh suggests-" by this arrangement would be somewhat relieved from the duties of host, so that he could show the scant courtesy to Jesus which Christ points out?"

3. Again, the article continues, "Martha's faith is very like that of the centurion of which Jesus said, 'I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.'" This reason is remarkable. Until seeing it we had never imagined that ethnic fruits could be discovered in faith. We also fail to see any special likeness in the two expressions of faith. The centurion's faith was perfect of its kind-"Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." Martha's faith does not appear to have had the sturdy confidence of the Roman soldiers, during her brother's sickness. Witness her plaint, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." But her trust nevertheless soared into higher regions than the centurion's. It is doubtful whether he had Martha's unwavering confidence in the resurrection at the last day, for this was a Jewish belief. Therefore Martha's confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God places her faith side by side with that of the foremost apostles, rather than that of the centurion. Taking her faith as a whole, it is seen to be based upon Jewish beliefs, and in no particular betrays her Gentile origin.

4. Dr. Walsh further says, "Making himself so intimate with the Gentile family would not be a strange thing for Jesus to do." It would certainly be strange, in the sense of being uncommon, for where is there a similar instance of such intimacy? But such a thing would not be an unaccountable thing for Jesus to do. However, such close intimacy was not probable, for his earthly mission was especially to his own people. The scruples of Peter in after years are difficult of explanation, if he had been accustomed to be entertained by a Gentile family along with his Master. And Dr. Walsh says, "It would seem. . . that many, 53-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XV.

perhaps all, of his disciples were entertained in Martha's house." One thing the narrative makes clear-it could not be thought strange that Jesus should be intimate with the family at Bethany. The fact that many Jews from Jerusalem were also intimately acquainted with them, and were consoling them in their home, and weeping with them at the grave, frees our Lord's intimacy with this family from any suspicions of strangeness. The strange thing that needs explanation is the close intimacy of so many Jews with Martha and Mary, if they were Gentiles.

We are forced to the conclusion that this large and intimate Jewish acquaintanceship, the fact that Martha managed the feast at Simon's house, the Jewish belief that underlay Martha's creed, and, especially, our Lord's intimacy with them and his acceptance with his disciples of their frequent hospitality all point to the Jewish nationality of the family at Bethany. ARTHUR SMITH.

Coal Centre, Pa.

"THE CUP OF SORROW."

...

IN steering clear of Scylla, Dr. Robert Watt, in his article on the above subject, found in the March Review, runs dangerously near Charybdis, when he says: "Death in the garden, with longed-for Calvary in the near future, would indeed be a bitter cup. . . . Death in the garden would have robbed him of one cherished boon of his earthly life." This sounds more like the voice of extemporaneous oratory than the thought of deliberate writing. Did Christ really long for Calvary? Was the cross the one cherished boon of his earthly life? Would a mode of death which did not in some way involve wicked hands in its accomplishment and imbrue them in his own precious blood have snatched from his grasp the only prize he had coveted? How then shall we reckon with Paul when he says, "Had they [the princes of this world] known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory?"

Without taking issue with the really essential features of this delightful exposition of "The Cup of Sorrow," it nevertheless seems to me that it puts more stress upon the literal cross, in these two passages, than it can safely bear, and more than its own argument requires. On this point Dr. Pope (Theology, ii, 161) justly remarks: "As entering into the fulfillment of the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, the crucifixion may be said to have been an accident of the Passion. . . . It was the death [of Christ] that was predestined; the cross was only foreknown." This harmonizes with Paul, and properly guards Dr. Watt's main position. The language of breaking hearts ignores the demands of logical consistency, and the attempt to analyze the consciousness that is suffused with sorrow, and to define the emotions of unutterable grief which struggle for expression in prayer, are always perilous undertakings. But Dr. Watt has done his work well. WILLIAM POWICK.

Philadelphia, Pa.

« PreviousContinue »