THE

TESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE

CONCERNING THE

Assumptions of Destructive Criticism

BY

S. E. WISHARD, D. D. 

LOS ANGELES, CAL. 

JOHNSON & HANEY

BIBLE INSTITUTE PRESS

1909

Copyright, 1909

By S. E. WISHARD, D. D. 

Presentation Copy

 * * * * *

"In the defence and confirmation of the truth"

--_Phil 1:7_

BIBLE INSTITUTE

Los Angeles, Calif. 

FOREWORD. 

 _This booklet is sent out To all Sabbath-school teachers, To the young people of the Christian churches, And to all believers in the living Word_. 

 * * * * *

The work of the destructive critics has been widely disseminated incurrent literature. Magazines, secular newspapers, and some religiouspapers are giving currency to these critical attacks on the Word of God. The young people of our churches are exposed to the insidious poison ofthis skepticism. It comes to them under the guise of a broader and moreliberal scholarship. They have neither the time nor the equipment toenter the field of criticism, nor is this work demanded of them. 

While abler pens are meeting and answering the questions raised bydestructive critics, something may be said that will clear away the fogproduced by them and enable young Christians to come directly to thetruth. 

Hence this booklet is an attempt to "give God a chance" to have his say. The testimony presented is on the divine plan of giving, "Precept uponprecept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, " "lest weforget. "

There has been no attempt to cover the whole ground of destructivecriticism in the brief compass of this booklet. It will be enough topermit God to answer; hence, in the following pages he speaks forhimself. We are content that his voice shall be heard. 

S. E. WISHARD. 

CONTENTS

 PAGE

 I. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM 9

 II. SHOULD REPLY BE MADE? 17

 III. WAS MOSES A LITERARY FICTION? 25

 IV. WERE CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES MISTAKEN? 39

 V. THE ATTACK ON THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS 59

 VI. ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH 73

 VII. GOD'S REPLY TO THESE ASSUMPTIONS. 87

VIII. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JONAH 101

 IX. RADICAL EXPOSITION 111

 X. GOD HIS OWN INTERPRETER 119

I. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. 

_"Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us. " Eph. V. 1, 2. _

_"Be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto anyman; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and toall men. " 1 Thess. V. 14, 15. _

_"He that believeth shall not make haste. " Isa. Xxviii. 16. _

_"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandmentsare sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth anduprightness. " Psa. Cxi. 7, 8. _

_"My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. " Isa, xlvi. 10. _

The attitude which God's people should assume toward destructivecriticism has been questioned. It should certainly be a position of calmpatience, that can deliberately weigh valid testimony, and abide by thedecision of intelligent judgment. The history and life of the Church fornearly two thousand years should go for something. They are not to beswept away by the bluff, the egoism of what claims to be the only"Expert Scholarship. "

There is no occasion for a panic. Truth that has been, and has buildednoble, goodly life, is truth still, and ever will be. It is not a timefor denunciation. The assumptions of the destructive critics are soenormous, so radically revolutionary, so directly aimed at vital truth, that one's heart is stirred. There is danger of yielding to the heat ofa righteous indignation. It is not well to lose one's intellectual andmoral poise, even in a contest involving the honor of God and thewelfare of immortal souls. But "he that believeth shall not make haste. "

The lovers of the Book that has safely passed through every storm ofantagonism that the Prince of Darkness could evoke, need not now bemoved to hasty utterance. The eternal foundations of truth, like him wholaid them, are "the same, yesterday, to-day and forever. " The Book, withall its precious doctrines, is here to stay. It can not be destroyed. Fire has not burned it, water has not quenched it, the edicts of tyrantsand popes have not been able to break its power. The Church of God cancalmly rest on "the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. " (1Peter i. 23. ) Hence we may calmly move on undisturbed in our work. 

Further, our attitude should be marked by an intelligent understandingof the question involved. It is not a question of fair, honestcriticism, for the purpose of a deeper knowledge of God and his truth. All reverent and helpful study of the Word of God is critical, and isthe kind of criticism that the Book challenges. Our Lord invites it, andurges us to "search the Scriptures, " which testify of him. 

It is assumed by the rationalistic critics that we have entered a newera, that the Bible has never been studied until within recent years. This is an assumption unworthy of scientific scholarship. Critics whohave not sought to destroy the Word of God, but, by thoroughinvestigation, to determine its claims, have been at work on theScriptures in all the past, seeking to know the mind of the Spirit. There is, and ever has been a legitimate study of the Bible. Hence, there are absolutely no grounds for the assumption of the rationalists. The Church of Christ is not opposed to the application of the bestmethods and best scholarship in the investigation of revealed truth. Indeed, the Protestant Church has ever been the mother of the highesteducation, and has had an open ear to the call of God--"Come, let usreason together. "

It is well to understand that the poorly-concealed purpose of the schoolof higher critics is not to press the just and holy claims of God's Wordon the human conscience, but to eliminate the supernatural from it. TheChristian Church should understand this. If atheistic scientists canconstruct a universe without God, by evolutionary processes, and thecritics can construct a Bible without the supernatural, "the wisdom ofthis world" will have pretty thoroughly disposed of God. 

In the attitude of the Church toward destructive criticism, sometimescalled historical, or constructive, we must not fail to discover itsbearing on the character of Christ. For the final conflict of allskepticism of every grade and quality is in reference to the person andwork of Christ. The elimination of the supernatural from the Bible wouldbe an invalidation of Christ's claims and testimony. It would place himbefore the world as a false teacher, a fraud, a charlatan. Loyalty tothe Word, and to the Incarnate Word, demands, therefore, that we shouldclearly understand the end to which this rationalism is drifting. ForChrist's testimony concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, which willbe presented later in this discussion, is so thoroughly in conflict withthe modern critical assumptions that it must be disposed of by thoseclaiming expert scholarship. In the attempt to accomplish that feat, they put our Lord under such limitations as would rob him of hischaracter as Teacher and Redeemer. 

The "experts" are logically driven to one of two conclusions: eitherthat Christ did not know the facts of the Old Testament Scriptures, which he believed and was sent to teach, or, knowing the facts, hedeemed it not important to teach them. 

The first assumption puts our Savior on the basis of a fallible humanteacher, and nothing more. The second assumption contradicts all theprofessions of the critics. For they affirm to-day that the professeddiscoveries of the mistaken views of the Bible are of the utmostimportance, and as honest men they are in conscience obliged to makethem known, while claiming that Christ did not make them known. 

Shall we assume that these views, which they deem so important to-day, were of no importance when the Church of Christ first took form? We mayask, what estimate should we have of Christ, who, knowing his peoplewere in error as to the authorship and origin of the Scriptures, wouldleave them in darkness for more than eighteen hundred years? Is it to beassumed that he would wait through the long centuries for the coming ofcritics to enlighten his people? That is what we are logically asked toaccept at their hands. It is thus made clear that the issue of thisconflict, as in all the past, is narrowed down to the person andcharacter of our Savior. It is well to face the issue calmly, and with aclear understanding of what is pending. Did Christ know truth? Was hehonest? Hence, the attitude of the Church should be taken in view of thetrend of modern critical discussion. 

II. SHOULD REPLY BE MADE?

_"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psa. Xi. 3. _

_"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. " 1 Thess. V. 21. _

_"Buy the truth and sell it not. " Prov. Xxiii. 23. _

_"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the commonsalvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you thatyou should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered untothe saints. " Jude 3. _

_"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye havebeen taught, whether by word or our epistle. " 2 Thess. Ii. 15. _

_"I am set for the defense of the gospel. " Paul, Phil. I. 17. _

It is a question among earnest Christian men, who are busily engaged inthe work of the Master, as to whether we should turn aside long enoughto make reply to the destructive critics. It is affirmed that, as theWord of God has already passed through all the attacks that have beenmade upon it, it will defend itself in the future as in the past--thatour duty is to preach the gospel. Certainly the victories of the gospelare a noble defense of its truth and power to save. There should be norespite from this work. But there are vast multitudes of people thatpermit the critics to do their thinking for them. They are not wellinformed concerning the Scriptures, and consequently are not prepared torepel the attacks of skepticism, nor to reply to the specious argumentsor positive assumptions of the critics. These multitudes are in dangerof casting aside the Word of God, and missing the offer of eternal life. 

The fact of the increased activity of the enemies of the truth must beknown to Christian people. Their organized and persistent use of thepress has gained for them a wide hearing. Shall the Christian peopledeny themselves this instrumentality of getting a hearing for God andhis truth before the world? Would not silence be construed by the worldas meaning that the cause dear to the heart of God's people isindefensible?

It should be known to all lovers of the truth that the skepticism widelysown by the destructive critics has entered the Protestant Church andmany of our institutions of learning. 

"Read the utterances of representative men and teachers in hercommunion, who deny the Incarnation, repudiate vicarious sacrifice, makelight of the story of the resurrection, and refine the risen Son of Godinto nothing more than the spirit and essence of truth; or, at most, thedisembodied ghost of a man who called himself a Messiah, mistaken in hisclaims, but authoritative in his morals. " (Rev. I. M. Holdeman. )

The author of this statement refers also to the fact that there are"modern professors of theology who convict the very prophets whom theyhold up as exemplars of righteousness, of absolute literary fraud, anddeliberate piracy. " They "demonstrate with cool precision that thehigher critics of to-day are better informed concerning the mistakes ofMoses than was he who claimed that Moses wrote of him, and prove totheir own satisfaction and the belief of many followers that JesusChrist, our Lord, was limited in intelligence, and would, if he werehere to-day, deny some of the statements he once so unqualifiedly made. "

We may not shut our eyes to the fact that many of our colleges are moreor less infected with this rationalistic criticism. Some of ourtheological professors have substituted the theory of evolution for theScriptural doctrine of creation by the Word of God. Our young menpreparing for the work of the ministry are under the influence andinstruction of some of these teachers here in our own country. 

It is a matter for thanksgiving that we have literary and theologicalinstitutions into which the destructive critics have neverentered--institutions that stand for the Word of God as given by theHoly Spirit, and believed in by God's servants in the past and to-day. 

We do well to recognize the further fact concerning the effort toeliminate the supernatural from the Bible, that the work of therationalists has permeated the literature of the day. In this age ofreading fiction, that form of literature has become a convenient vehiclefor taking everything out of the hands of Providence. It has become easyto leave God out of his universe and supplant him with the heroic inman. Hence, the literary appetite, ever craving the human instead of thedivine, turns away from the truth that confronts the conscience of thereader with God and his claims. 

For the defense of truth we have the example of prophets, apostles, andChrist himself. Much of the work of the prophets of the Old Testamentwas devoted to the exposure of the "New Thought" of their times. Mosesdealt thoroughly with the new theology that asserted: "These be thygods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. " Theheresy was ended as suddenly as it was introduced. 

The Epistle to the Galatians was Paul's reply to the Judiazing teacherswho would substitute ceremonials for the doctrine of justification byfaith. His Epistle to the Ephesians was a constructive work, in answerto Jewish prejudice and teaching, in which he set forth the unity ofJews and Gentiles in one Church, which is the body of Christ. In hisEpistle to the Corinthians he answered their false views of marriage. Heshamed their partisan spirit, in which some claimed to be of Paul, someof Apollos, some of Christ. He labored most earnestly to convince themof their false views concerning the resurrection, and dealt faithfullywith the errorists concerning the inquiry that was coming to the Churchthrough their magnifying and perverting the use of the gift of tongues. He showed them a more excellent way. 

There should be no turning aside from preaching a full and free gospel, nor should there be any halting in its defense, or against the effort toeliminate the supernatural from the Word of God. The critical work thatlogically leaves us a Savior ignorant of the Scriptures, or, if knowingthem, afraid to meet Jewish prejudice by correcting their mistakes, should be kindly, candidly, and manfully met by those to whom the truthhas given life. 

III. WAS MOSES "A LITERARY FICTION"?

_"God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.... Come now, therefore, and I will sendthee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people, the childrenof Israel, out of Egypt!' Exod. Iii. 4, 10. _

_"And afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh, Thus saith theLord God of Israel, Let my people go. " Exod. V. 1. _

_"Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Drawout and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill thepassover.... And the children of Israel did according to the word ofMoses.... And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children"Exod. Xii. 21, 35, 37. _

_"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after thetenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. "Exod. Xxxiv. 27. _

_"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the wordsof this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commandedthe Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark of thecovenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witnessagainst thee" Deut. Xxxi. 24-26. _

We turn now to the assumption that Moses was not the author, under God, of the Pentateuch. The destructive critics do not agree among themselvesas to the origin of the Pentateuch. Dates and authors are variouslyadjusted among those claiming to be experts. There is, however, agreement on one point, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. It isaffirmed that his name has been attached to it to give it authority, because many of the events recorded and much of the history took placeduring the period of Moses' life and in connection with his influence. But the critics place the _record_ of those events almost altogetherafter the exile, between nine hundred and a thousand years after thetime of Moses. 

It was once affirmed that writing was not used in the days of Moses, andtherefore he could not have written the five books that claim him astheir author. But the fact now brought to light, and conceded by thecritics and all well-informed scholars, that writing antedated Moses bymany centuries, has swept out of existence that objection. But thequestion is still raised as to the Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch. It is said in reply:

_First_--The Holy Spirit declares by the mouth of Stephen that "Moseswas learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in wordsand deeds. " Acts vii. 22. 

Writing was long known to and practiced by the Egyptians, hence the mantrained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians _was competent_ to write thePentateuch. 

_Second_--The Pentateuch very definitely claims Moses as its author, notonce or twice, but many times, all through these writings. 

"The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, andrehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out theremembrance of Amalek from under heaven. " Exod. Xvii. 14. This was notthe law, parts of which even some of the critics concede that Moseswrote. It was God's judgment against Amalek. But it was written in abook. What book? The inspired Scriptures say it was written here inExodus xvii. 14. And again it was repeated in Deut. Xxv. 19, and thatMoses wrote it. 

In the twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus Moses has given an account ofGod's call to him, to Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders, tocome up to Horeb. Moses was called into the immediate presence of God, while the others remained at a distance. After his interview withJehovah it is written: "Moses came and told the people all the words ofthe Lord.... And _Moses wrote all the words of the Lord_. " Exod. Xxiv, 3, 4. 

In the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus God is represented as givingdefinite instructions to Moses concerning worship, at the conclusion ofwhich "the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words, for after thetenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. "Exod. Xxxiv. 27. 

We turn to the positive statement in Deuteronomy xxxi. 9. The chapteropens with the declaration that "Moses spake these words unto allIsrael, " giving an extended account of what the words were. In the ninthverse it is stated: ... "_And Moses wrote this law_ and delivered itunto the priests and unto all the elders of Israel. " What became of thatwriting of Moses? Was it lost? Or is the statement false? And did somelater writer forge the statement, attributing the writing to Moses, togive weight and authority to the forgery? To ask the question is toanswer it. "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. "

In the twenty-fourth verse in this same chapter in Deuteronomy it isstated that "Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in abook. " Yet the critics teach that this book, Deuteronomy, was notwritten until after the exile, almost a thousand years after the eventsnarrated. Does not critical credulity make larger demands than are laidon faith?

The summing up of the book of Numbers, of what had been said and writtenin the book, is stated in the last chapter and last verse, namely, that"these are the commandments and the judgments which the Lord commanded_by the hand of Moses_ unto the children of Israel. " Again and again itis affirmed in the Pentateuch that God commanded Moses to write, andthat he did write, but the critics affirm that the hand of Moses hadnothing to do with producing the books of the Pentateuch--that they werewritten after the exile!

Not only does the Pentateuch distinctly teach the Mosaic authorship ofthe five books of Moses, appropriately so called, but all the OldTestament saints entertained the opinion which the Jewish people and theChristian Church hold to-day, that God spake to Moses, and that _Mosescommitted to writing_ the messages that God gave him and commanded himto write, embracing the story of God's miracles, his instruction anddealing with them in the wilderness. 

We find the critics contradicted in the Scriptures from Joshua toMalachi. To Joshua God said: "As I was with Moses, so will I be withthee. " (Joshua i. 5. ) Eight times in the first chapter of the book ofJoshua God accredits Moses with having received and having given the lawto Joshua and the people. 

The Pentateuch is the book which God, speaking to Joshua, calls "the lawwhich my servant Moses commanded thee" (Joshua i. 7), and it was soaccepted by Joshua. Was he mistaken? or the critics? He had long enjoyedmost intimate relations with Moses, and knew what Moses had written bythe command of God. 

David affirms that God had "made known his ways unto Moses, and his actsunto the children of Israel" (Psa. Ciii. 7). We have seen that the manMoses was competent to write, and did write, what God had made known tohim (Deut xxxi. 24). The Psalms are illuminated and set aflame with thefaith of Israel, that Moses said and wrote what is ascribed to him inthe Pentateuch. 

Ezra, Nehemiah, and the prophets down to Malachi reiterated the samebelief, sung and taught it to their children. Were they mistaken?

The finding of the Pentateuch during Josiah's reign, which had been lostin the rubbish of the temple during the wicked reign of Manasseh andAmmon, is evidently referred to in 2 Chron. Xxxiv. 14, 15; "Hilkiah thepriest found the book of the law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses. (Margin, R. V. ) And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan, I have foundThe Book of the law of the house of the Lord. " Four times within sevenverses it is called "_The Book_. " It was read before the King, whohumbled himself, and prepared himself and the people to observe thePassover as it had been prescribed in "the law of Moses. " Josiahcommanded them to "kill the Passover, and sanctify yourselves andprepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of theLord _by the hand of Moses_" (2 Chron. Xxxv. 6). This took place longbefore the exile, which the critics insist was the beginning of Israel'sliterature, and after which they say the Pentateuch was written. 

Ezra testifies to the existence of the Mosaic law before his time. Histestimony establishes the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Ezra vii. 6: "This Ezra ... Was a ready scribe _in the law of Moses_. "

After the return from captivity Ezra describes the building of the altarin these definite terms: "Then stood up Joshua, the son of Jozadak, andhis brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and hisbrethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burntofferings thereon, _as it is written in the law of Moses_, the man ofGod" (Ezra iii. 2). Was Ezra deceiving the people?

There are several things to be noted here:

1. _There was a written law of Moses_, the man of God, then inexistence. It was not a written law of Ezra which the priests palmed offas the written law of Moses. 

2. _There was a priestly order_, according to the written law of Mosesthe man of God, not according to the invention of the exiles returningfrom captivity, under the pretense that Moses wrote it. 

3. The altar was built according to the written law of Moses the man ofGod. These records by Ezra effectually bar the door against the criticalconjecture that the Pentateuch, in which the written law of Moses theman of God is found, was fabricated after the exile. 

The definite law for the place of building the altar, by which thepriests proceeded in the days of Ezra, is recorded by "Moses the man ofGod, " in Deut. Xii. 5-7: "Unto the place which the Lord your God shallchoose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto hishabitation shall ye seek, and thither shalt thou come; and thither shallye bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices and your tithes andheave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewillofferings, and the firstlings of your herds, and your flocks; and thereye shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice in all thatye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the Lord thy Godhath blessed thee. "

It is Ezra, not the critics, who informs us that this was "written inthe law of Moses the man of God. " We will be pardoned for accepting thetestimony of Ezra. He does not mean to forsake his faith in the Mosaicauthorship of the Pentateuch, for he writes in chapter vi. 18: "They setthe priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, forthe service of God, which is at Jerusalem; _as it is written in the bookof Moses_. "

In the eighth chapter of the book of Nehemiah, that great servant of Godaffirms his faith in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which wasalso the faith of all the people of his time. In the first verse in thischapter he informs us that "all the people gathered themselves together, as one man, into the street that is before the water gate, and theyspake unto Ezra the scribe to bring _the book of the law of Moses_, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. " Ezra was not to make a book andcall it the book of Moses, as some of the critics teach, but to "bringthe book of the law of Moses, " a book in their possession already made, and with which they were already familiar--"_The Book of the Law ofMoses_. "

"The Book of the Law of Moses" was the Jewish title given to thePentateuch at that time, and is so recognized again and again. Nehemiahviii. 14 affirms again: "They found written in the law, which the Lordhad commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell inbooths in the feast of the seventh month. " Nehemiah quotes this "commandof the Lord by Moses" from Lev. Xxiii. 39-42, which was a fraud on thepart of Nehemiah, if Moses was not the author of the book. Again he saysin the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah and first verse: "On that day theyread in the book of Moses, in the audience of the people"; but it wasnot the book of Moses if he had not written it, but the book of anotherone of the "unknown" so frequently found (?) in Scripture by ourcritics. 

The book of Moses in which this last reference from Nehemiah is writtenis the command that the "Ammonite and the Moabite should not come intothe congregation of God for ever, " and is recorded in Deut. Xxiii. 3, 4. 

But our critical friends inform us that Deuteronomy was not writtenuntil after the captivity. Hence, the logic of their position is, thatNehemiah attributes to Moses what he did not write, and proves himselfto be either ignorant of the truth or practicing a fraud upon thepeople. We prefer the testimony of Nehemiah to that of the latter-daycritics. 

It should be repeated that the prophets and inspired writers down toMalachi reiterated their confidence in the Mosaic authorship of thePentateuch. And he, the last messenger of the Old Testament to Israel, gave them this message from God: "Remember ye _the law of Moses_ myservant, which I commanded unto him" (Mal. Iv. 4). Indeed, the entiretestimony of the Old Testament is in harmony with the positivestatements made in the Pentateuch, that Moses was commanded to write, and that he actually and positively "wrote all the words of the Lord"(Exod. Xxiv. 4). There is not a word, syllable, hint, or shadow of ahint assigning these five books of Moses to a later date or author. 

The presumption, or guess, of the critics carries no weight in the faceof the testimony of the entire Old Testament that God commanded Moses towrite, and that he did write, the five books attributed to him. 

IV. WERE CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES MISTAKEN?

_Christ said to his apostles:_

_"Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. " Acts i. 8. _

_"I speak the truth in Christ and lie not. " Paul in 1 Tim. Ii. 7. _

_"Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness and the first begotten ofthe dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. " The Apostle John inRev. I. 5. _

_"We know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do thesemiracles that thou doest, except God be with him, " Nicodemus, in Johniii. 2. _

_"If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?" Christ, in John viii. 46. _

_"I am the way, the truth and the life. " Christ, in John xiv. 6. _

The opinions and testimony of the apostles are certainly worthsomething. They had three years of instruction under our Lord, and thepromise from him that the Holy Spirit should guide them into all truth. (John xvi. 13. )

A study of the writers of the New Testament proves that they are inabsolute harmony with the writers of the Old Testament as to the Mosaicauthorship of the five books of the Pentateuch. Luke ii. 22 informs usthat the mother of Jesus, "when the days of her purification wereaccomplished according to the _law of Moses_, " brought the child "topresent him to the Lord. " This was done, according to Leviticus xii. 2-6, and accredits that book to Moses, and not to some imaginary author. 

The Apostle John informs us that "the law was given by Moses, but graceand truth came by Jesus Christ" (John i, 17). If he has misled us inreference to Moses and the law, can we trust him in reference to graceand truth by Jesus Christ?

When Peter made his address to the people who were surprised at thehealing of the cripple, he said: "_Moses truly said_ unto the fathers, Aprophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, "(See Acts iii. 22. )

This saying of Moses is recorded in Deut xviii. 15, the contents ofwhich book are introduced to us in these words; "These be the wordswhich Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red Sea" (Deut. I. 1), referring to thewhole books spoken by Moses, the learned man, mighty in words and deeds, but not recorded, the critics say, until after the exile, about athousand years! This you are asked to believe on the basis of theprofessed or assumed acumen of the critics!

Further, in his great speech before the Sanhedrim at his martyrdom, Stephen quotes Moses as having received full and complete directionsfrom God concerning the tabernacle. (Acts vii. 44. ) In the twenty-fifthchapter of Exodus, the book in which Moses was commanded to write anddid write, these directions are recorded. We accept Stephen's testimony, added to that of Exod. Xxv. , rather than the testimony of the critics. 

When Paul was writing to the Corinthians of the blindness of the Jews (2Cor. Iii. 15) he said: "Even unto _this day, when Moses is read_, theveil is upon their hearts. "

Moses must have written something if he was read. What has become of hiswritings? Is it not the Pentateuch which the Scriptures everywhere callthe writings of Moses? Undoubtedly, yes. 

In Paul's missionary sermon at Antioch in Pisidia, he declared to hisaudience that through Christ "all that believe are justified from allthings, from which ye could not be justified _by the law of Moses_"(Acts xiii. 39). 

Why does Paul refer to the ceremonial of the Jewish ritual as the law ofMoses? It must be answered that Paul was a Jew. He was familiar with theJewish scriptures. He had read the following passages and believed them, and was grounded in the truth which they declare, that "by the hand ofMoses" they were given to the people. 

To satisfy the reader that they were "given by the hand of Moses" thefollowing Scriptures are furnished:

1. "Aaron and his sons did all things which were commanded _by the handof Moses_. " (Lev. Viii. 36. )

2. "That ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which theLord hath spoken unto them _by the hand of Moses_. " (Lev. X. 11. )

3. "These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the Lord madebetween him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai, _by the hand ofMoses_. " (Lev. Xxvi. 46. )

4. "These were they that were numbered of the families of theKohathites, all that might do service in the tabernacle of thecongregation, which Moses and Aaron did number, according to thecommandment of the Lord _by the hand of Moses_. " (Num. Iv. 37. )

5. "These ... Whom Moses and Aaron numbered, according to the word ofthe Lord _by the hand of Moses_. " (Num. Iv. 45. )

6. "According to the commandment of the Lord they were numbered _by thehand of Moses_. " (Num. Iv. 49. )

7. "They kept the charge of the Lord, at the commandment of the Lord, _by the hand of Moses. _" (Num. Ix. 23. )

8. "And they first took their journey according to the commandment ofthe Lord _by the hand of Moses_. " (Num. X. 13. )

9. "Even all that the Lord hath commanded you _by the hand of Moses_, from the day that the Lord commanded Moses. " (Num. Xv. 23. )

10. "That no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near tooffer incense before the Lord, that he be not as Kora and his company, as the Lord said to him _by the hand of Moses_. " (Num. Xvi. 40. )

11. "And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lordcommanded _by the hand of Moses_. " (Num. Xxvii. 23. )

12. "These are the commandments and the judgments which the Lordcommanded _by the hand of Moses_. " (Num. Xxxvi. 13. )

13. "By lot was their inheritance, as the Lord commanded _by the hand ofMoses_. " (Joshua xiv. 2. )

14. "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for youcities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you _by the hand of Moses_. "(Joshua xx. 2. )

15. "The Lord commanded _by the hand of Moses_ to give us cities todwell in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle. " (Joshua xxi. 2. )

16. "And the children of Israel gave by lot unto the Levites thesecities with their suburbs, as the Lord commanded _by the hand ofMoses_. " (Joshua xxi. 8. )

17. "And the children of Reuben, and the children of Gad, and the halftribe of Manasseh returned, ... According to the word of the Lord _bythe hand of Moses_. " (Joshua xxii. 9. )

18. "And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they wouldhearken unto the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded theirfathers _by the hand of Moses_. " (Judges iii. 4. )

19. "Thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, tobe thine inheritance, as thou spakest _by the hand of Moses, thyservant_. " (1 Kings viii. 53. )

20. "There hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which hepromised _by the hand of Moses his servant_. " (1 Kings viii. 56. )

21. "So that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances _by thehand of Moses_. " (2 Chron. Xxxiii. 8. )

22. "To kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare yourbrethren, that they may do according to the word of the Lord, _by thehand of Moses_. " (2 Chron. Xxxv. 6. )

23. "Thou ... Madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedstunto them precepts, statutes and laws, _by the hand of Moses thyservant_. " (Neh. Ix. 14. )

24. "Thou leddest thy people like a flock _by the hand of Moses andAaron_. " (Psa. Lxxvii. 20. )

Paul was familiar with these statements of the Jewish Scriptures. Hebelieved them. (2 Cor. Iv. 13. ) He believed that God gave "the whole lawand the statutes and the ordinances _by the hand of Moses_" (2 Chron. Xxxiii. 8), who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and wasmighty in words and deeds. (Acts vii. 22. ) Hence he called theScriptures "The Law of Moses. "

Some of the critics will concede that many things were done by Moses, but not recorded until after the exile. Think of it! The laws, statutes, and ordinances which were vital to the life of the Jewish nation, whichhad been given at Sinai, and were announced with the sanctions of lifeor death, were not recorded by God's appointed leader, whom he hadtrained in all the learning of the times, but were left for almost athousand years to uncertain tradition!

Paul had not forgotten the above statements concerning Moses' personalconnection with the giving of the law. Before Felix he was arraigned, and testified "what the prophets and Moses did say. " (Acts xxvi. 22. )

To the Jews at Rome "he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the laws of Moses and outof the prophets. " (Acts xxviii. 23. )

In his Epistle to the Roman Christians he says (quoting from Lev. Xviii. 5): "For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness whichis of the law shall live thereby. " (Rom. X. 5, R. V. )

To the Corinthian Christians he says: "It is written in the _law ofMoses_. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox when he treadeth outthe corn. " (1 Cor. Ix. 9. ) Here again he quotes from Deut. Xxv. 4, andrepeats the quotation in 1 Tim. V. 18. But the critics deny that it waswritten until after the exile, at least nine hundred or one thousandyears later. 

The Apostle James adds his testimony to that of Paul, while addressingthe assembly of the apostles at Jerusalem, saying: "For Moses of oldtime hath in every city them that preach him, _being read_ in thesynagogues every Sabbath. " (Acts xv. 21. )

We have learned in these quotations from Matthew, Luke, John, Stephen, Peter, and Paul, their repeated testimony, their unvarying faith that_Moses both spoke and wrote_ the scriptures contained in the Pentateuch. We have seen that their faith was founded on twenty-four inspireddeclarations that these five books were given "_by the hand of Moses_. "These statements are found in the books themselves, from Leviticus tothe Psalms. If inspired testimony is worth anything, the case is closed, and the critics' case goes out of court, more than disproved. 

WAS CHRIST MISTAKEN?

The reader will be interested to know what Christ has to say of thecritics' denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. For he who"spake as never man spake, " he of whom the Father said, "This is mybeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, _hear ye him_, " this same Jesushad some very positive opinions on the subject before us. He has spokenclearly and definitely. We may not turn away from his testimony. 

1. After healing the leper, our Lord said to him: "Go thy way, showthyself to the priest, and offer the gift that _Moses commanded_ for atestimony unto them. " (See Matt. Viii. 4, Mark i. 44, Luke v. 14. )

Our Savior here quotes from Lev. Xiv. 2-8. Moses had been commanded towrite the words that God had given him. (Exod. Xxxiv. 27. ) "And Moseswrote all the words of the Lord" (Exod. Xxiv. 4), hence our Lord quotesthe passage in Leviticus _from Moses_. 

2. The Pharisees, always captious and controversial, sought to entanglethe Savior in a discussion on the subject of divorce. Replying, "Hesaith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, sufferedyou to put away your wives. " (Matt. Xix. 8. ) Our Lord here quotes fromthe Mosaic law (Deut. Xxiv. I-4), recognizing Moses as the author of thesame. 

3. He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees also for turning from the wordof God to the traditions of men. "For Moses said, Honor thy father andthy mother. " (Mark vii. 10. ) This quotation is from Exod. Xx. 12, andDeut. V. 16. They had made the command of Moses of no effect, hadviolated the law which Christ taught had been given by Moses. 

4. The Sadducees came to him with their controversy concerning theresurrection. They presented to him an unanswerable argument, as theysupposed, against the doctrine, questioning as to whose wife she shouldbe in the resurrection, who has had seven husbands in this life. Christreplied (Mark xii. 26, 27): "As touching the dead, that they rise; haveye not read in the _book of Moses_ how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God ofJacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. "

This quotation by our Lord is from Exod. Iii. 6, and he calls the bookfrom which it is made "the book of Moses. " Did Christ know whether itwas the book of Moses or of some unknown author who had so artfullypalmed it off under false colors as to deceive the entire Jewish nation?

Or, as certain of the critics teach, did Christ know that the pretensethat it was the book of Moses was a fraud, but, in view of publicopinion, was unwilling to expose the deception? To ask these questionsis to uncover the animus of the critical assumptions which logicallyattack the character of Christ himself. 

Christ knew who was the author of the book, and knowing, he affirmedthat it was "_The Book of Moses_. "

5. In our Lord's parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Dives isrepresented as pleading that some one be sent from the dead to warn hisbrothers, lest they also come into this place of torment. The reply tohis request was: "They have Moses and the prophets.... If they hear notMoses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rosefrom the dead. " (Luke xvi. 29, 30. ) "Moses and the prophets" was thename for the Jewish Bible. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, thename of their Bible was false, and the Savior indorsed a falsehood. Webelieve "the faithful and true Witness, " and reject the critics whodishonor his character. 

6. After Christ's resurrection he walked and communed with the twodisciples on the way to Emmaus. He instructed them concerning theMessiah's death, and, "beginning at Moses" (Luke xxiv. 27), informedthem that it was God's plan, foretold in the Old Testament. He appearedto his apostles and declared to them that "all things must be fulfilledwhich are written in the law of Moses and the prophets. " (Luke xxiv. 44. ) The critics deny Moses' authorship, but Christ affirms it, usingthe language that means the Pentateuch. _We believe him_. 

7. In our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus he recognizes Moses inconnection with the book of Numbers. He refers to the historicalincident, if our critical friends will leave us any Biblical history, inNumbers xxi. 8, 9. He says: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in thewilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, " (John iii. 14. )

Recurring to the passage in Numbers, we learn that, in the dire distressof the people for their sins, God commanded Moses to make a brazenserpent, and lift it up before the people, that they might look andlive. 

Certain of the critical school consent that Moses, was connected withthe event, but did not record it. Indeed! And what proof that he failedto make the record? It was personal to himself. It was symbolicallyprophetic of the crucifixion of Christ, as our Savior used it, an eventtoward which all prophecy moved. And we have already learned that ninetimes it has been stated in the book of Numbers that the acts, precepts, and statutes of this book were done and given by "_the hand of Moses_. "

8. To the Jews, seeking to murder their Messiah, he said; "Do not thinkthat I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses ye would havebelieved me, _for he wrote of me_. " (See John v. 45, 46. )

When and where did he write of Christ? He wrote of him in the five bookswhich are ascribed to Moses by all the Old Testament Scriptures, and byChrist and his apostles. He wrote of him in Gen. Iii. 15, when Godpromised that "the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. "He wrote of Christ in Gen. Xii. 3, when God promised Abraham: "In theeshall all families of the earth be blessed. " He wrote of the Messiahwhen he recorded Jacob's prophecy in Gen. Xlix. 10: "The scepter shallnot depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shilohcome. " Moses wrote of Christ, when under divine direction he institutedthe passover, as recorded in the twelfth chapter of Exodus. 

He wrote of Christ in the Levitical ritual, when under God's instructionhe set up the system of types, for the tabernacle and the templeservice, which taught the fundamentals of the New Testamentgospel--_redemption by the blood_. 

The whole tabernacle and its furniture was necessary to complete thesymbolism that should represent the Messiah. The altar, the laver, theshew bread, the golden candlestick, the mercy seat, and the officiatinghigh priest. For "Moses was admonished of God when he was about to makethe tabernacle, " and received positive direction as to how he shouldconstruct it, that redemption should echo from every part of theservice. Beautiful and glorious was the service that proclaimed "Christand him crucified. " Christ's testimony here is twofold: That "Moseswrote, " and that he "wrote of me, " of Christ, the witness of thesethings. 

9. It was at the feast of tabernacles, in the year 29 A. D. , that theJews attacked the Savior in a fierce controversy, because he healed onthe Sabbath day. He was teaching in the temple when they charged himwith violating the Sabbath. 

To that charge he replied: "_Did not Moses give you the law_? Yet noneof you keepeth the law. " (See John vii. 19. ) He affirms in most positiveterms, that can not be twisted into the shadow of a negation, that Mosesgave them the law. The interrogative form of his statement isrhetorically the strongest possible affirmation. 

10. Once more, in the twenty-third verse of the same chapter, Christrefers to the fact that their children received circumcision on theSabbath day, that "the law of Moses be not broken. "

The sum of Christ's testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuchis before us. Ten times our Lord asserts in the passages quoted that thelaw given in the Pentateuch was the "law of Moses. " He affirms that inthat law "he wrote of me. " From Genesis to Revelation there is continuedaffirmation by prophets, apostles, and by Christ, who can not lie, thatthe five books of the Pentateuch are the books of Moses, under theguiding hand of the Spirit of God. 

A recent writer, who has gone over the testimony of the Bible itselfagainst the critics, says: "We find in them (the writers of the OldTestament) more than eight hundred quotations from, or references to, the first five books of the Bible, and not a hint is given that Moses isnot their author, " but he is everywhere recognized as the author, underGod. 

Witnesses multiply with every restudy of the book, proving the Mosaicauthorship of the first five books of _The Book_. "What shall we say, then, to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?"

V. THE ATTACK ON THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS. 

_"The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacleof the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel and sayunto them, If any man of you bring an offering, ye shall bring youroffering of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock. " Lev. I. I, 2. _

_"And when any will offer a meat offering unto the Lord, his offeringshall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil upon it, and putfrankincense thereon. " Lev. Ii. 2. _

_"And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, ... He shall layhis hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of thetabernacle of the congregation, and Aaron's sons the priests shallsprinkle the blood upon the altar round about, " Lev. Iii. 1, 2. _

_"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children ofIsrael, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of thecommandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, ... Let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullockwithout blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. " Lev. Iv. 1, 2, 3. _

_"His truth endureth to all generations. " Psa. C. 5. _

Having considered the critical assault on the Pentateuch as a whole, attention should be called to the special criticisms on the book ofLeviticus. A prominent representative of the school of critics affirmedin his recent lectures at Long Beach, California, that the Hebrews hadno literature until their connection with the Babylonians while incaptivity, that their literature was developed during their agriculturallife while in Babylon. He affirmed that the sacrificial ritual of thebook of Leviticus had its roots in the heathen sacrifices growing out oftheir false conception that their deities must be appeased by theshedding of blood. The Levitical ritual was, therefore, never writtennor given by Moses. If this gentleman and the critics that hold with himare correct, we must conclude with them that Moses never saw or heard ofour book of Leviticus. 

In reply let it be said:

1. The denial of the existence of Hebrew literature prior to the exileis thoroughly answered and set aside by the records discovered on theEgyptian monuments and writings before and during Israel's bondage. Manyof the critics have found this criticism untenable, and have abandonedit. They have been obliged to concede that Egyptian and Babylonianliterature existed long before the time of Moses. The best scholarshipof to-day affirms that "the discovery and first use of writing iscertainly as old as the time of Abraham. " (See Schaff-Hergoz, Enc. Art. Writing. )

2. If the Bible itself is not a fraud, writing was constantly in use inthe time of Moses. See:

(1) Exod. Vii. 14: "The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorialin a book. "

(2) Exod. Xxiv. 4: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. "

(3) Exod. Xxxiv. 27: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou thesewords. "

(4) Exod. Xxxiv. 28: "And he (God) wrote upon the tables the words ofthe covenant. "

(5) Num. V. 23: "And the priest shall write these curses in a book. "

(6) Num. Xi. 26: "They were of them that were written. "

(7) Num. Xvii. 2: "Write thou every man's name upon his rod. "

(8) Num. Xvii. 3: "Write Aaron's name upon the rod of Levi. "

(9) Num. Xxxiii. 2: "And Moses wrote their goings out according to theirjourneyings by the commandment of the Lord. "

(10) Deut. Vi. 9: "Thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house andupon thy gates. "

(11) Deut xi. 20. Repeats the last reference cited. 

(12) Deut. Xvii, 18: "When he (the king) sitteth upon the throne of hiskingdom, he shall write him a copy of this law in a book. "

These are a few out of the many passages in the Pentateuch in which Godhas commanded his servant to write, and in which it is positively statedthat his servant did write. One of two things is certain, either thewhole Pentateuch is a fraud, having stated repeatedly that writing wascommanded and practiced, or the book is true, and the fraud must becharged to the belated critics. 

The reader will see very clearly that the purpose of such criticism isto eliminate the supernatural from the Bible, as has been said, anddestroy its certitude. 

It is too late in the day for the Professor's criticism, that Hebrewliterature had its first development during the exile. "Stephen full ofthe Holy Spirit, looking steadfastly into heaven, " read the record ofhistory concerning Moses differently. Stephen could not have heard theChautauqua lecturer's statement, for he affirmed that "Moses was learnedin all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds. "

3. Consider now the assumptions of the critics in the face of the claimsof the book of Leviticus. In the first verses of the book it is written:"And the Lord called upon Moses, and spake unto him out of thetabernacle of the congregation, saying. " Then follow God's specificdirections concerning

(1) The burnt offering;

(2) The meat offering, and

(3) The sin offering, occupying the whole of the first three chapters. The fourth chapter is introduced in the same explicit language. 

(4) The sin offering. 

This definite direction of God to Moses extends to the sixth chapter ofthe book. Here again the same formula of speech is employed, Godspeaking to Moses gave directions concerning

(5) The trespass offering. 

In the eighth chapter we have God's direct communication to Moses, andMoses' response in such phrases as the following, and all in a singlechapter: "And the Lord spake to Moses, ... And Moses did as the Lordcommanded him, ... And Moses said unto the congregation, ... And Mosesbrought Aaron and his sons, ... As the Lord commanded Moses, ... AndMoses brought Aaron's sons, as the Lord commanded Moses. " Ten times inthis single chapter it is recorded that God spake to Moses, and Mosesobeyed God. 

And yet our critic would have us believe one of two things; God eithertook the heathen sacrificial ritual, veneered it with some sort ofdivine approval, and handed it over to his people for their use, or bysome sort of evolution the book of Leviticus came up out of the heathenmethod of appeasing their malevolent deities!

Let the facts be summarized. In every one of the twenty-seven chaptersof the book of Leviticus God is represented as commanding Moses, andMoses is represented as doing the thing which God required of him, andseveral times in many of the chapters. In the eighteenth chapternineteen definite things are done by Moses, the seventeenth verseasserting that all this was done "as the Lord commanded Moses. "

The following references are absolutely unanswerable by the critics, viz. :

Lev. I. 1: "The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him. "

Lev. Iv. 1: "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, " etc. 

Lev. Vi. 1; "And the Lord spake unto Moses. "

Lev. Viii. 1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses. "

Lev. Viii. 36: "Aaron and his sons did all things which the Lordcommanded by the hand of Moses. "

Lev. Ix. 6: "And Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commandedthat ye should do. "

Lev. Xi. 1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron. "

Lev. Xii. 1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses. "

Lev. Xiii. 1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron. "

Lev. Xiv. 1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses. "

Lev. Xiv. 33: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron. "

Without further repetition of this phraseology, the reader will find thesame in the following references, viz. : xv. 1, xvi. 1, xvii. 1, xviii. 1, xix. 1, xx. 1, xxi. 1, xxii. 1-17, xxiii. 1, xxiv. 1, xxv. 1, xxvii. 1-34. 

Here are twenty-five positive statements that God spake to Moses, orcommanded Moses. Does language mean anything? Is there any escape fromthe truth, except by a denial of the entire Word of God?

God and Moses are the active agents in every chapter in the book ofLeviticus. And this fact is definitely stated in the last verse ofLeviticus: "These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses. "

You might as well attempt to blot the sun from the heavens at high noonas to eliminate from the book of Leviticus the one great anddivinely-appointed personality, Moses, the lawgiver, the leader theactor, and under God the author of the book. 

A further word concerning the date of Leviticus. When was it written? Asalready stated, the critics place the time of the writing after theexile, between nine hundred and one thousand years after the decease ofMoses. Something additional should be added to what has already beensaid on the subject. 

The reader of the English Bible will see that Leviticus immediatelyfollows Exodus by the connective "and. " The same Hebrew connectiveunites Exodus with Genesis, and Numbers with Leviticus. The natural, grammatical, and logical inference is, that the author of Genesis is theauthor of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. 

In addition to this fact we have the testimony of some of the prophetswho lived before the exile, that they were familiar with what thecritics call "the priestly code, " which is elaborated in Leviticus. 

Professor Stanley Leathes adduces forty-five allusions to the books ofMoses in the book of Amos. (See _Bible Student and Teacher_, October, 1906. ) Amos' prophetic work was "in the northern kingdom, between 807and 765 B. C. , during the reign of Jeroboam II, when the kingdom ofIsrael was at the height of its splendor. " (See Schaff-Herzog, Enc. Art. Amos. ) This was more than two hundred years before the restoration fromthe exile, long before the captivity, which the critics designate as thebeginning of the literary period. 

Professor Leathes affirms that "there is apparent acquaintance with andreference to each book of the Pentateuch in this prophecy. " He showsthat Leviticus is referred to in nine passages in Amos. The reference inAmos iv. 5 to "a sacrifice in thanksgiving with leaven" is an allusionto the law of thanksgiving in Lev. Vii. 13. 

In giving God's message to Israel in a time of great backsliding, Amossaid to them: "Though ye offer unto me burnt offerings and meatofferings, I will not accept them, neither will I regard the peaceofferings of your fat beasts. " (Amos v. 23. )

This is an allusion to the law of burnt offerings and meat offerings setforth in the first chapter of Leviticus. But the critics inform us thatthere was no law concerning these offerings until several hundred yearsafter Amos ceased to prophesy!

Again, enumerating the sins of the people, Amos charges them with givingthe Nazarites wine to drink. "Ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink, andcommanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not. " (Amos ii. 12. ) This was aviolation of the law of God as found in Num. Vi. 2, 3, showing at leastthat the Pentateuch, of which Leviticus is an important part, was knownto Amos, long before the period to which Leviticus has been assigned bythe destructive critics. 

Hosea adds his testimony to that of Amos and Ezekiel. Again and again herefers to the law of sacrifices as taught in Leviticus. "They shall beashamed because of their sacrifices. " "They sacrifice on the tops of themountains and burn incense upon the hills. " (Hosea iv. 13, 19. )

Concerning Ephraim, God says by the prophet Hosea: "I wrote for him tenthousand things of my law. " (Hosea viii. 12, R. V. ) He refers to the lawas given to Moses in all its length and breadth. 

The critics demand large credulity from us. They ask us to accept theirposition that the Bible itself was mistaken as to its authorship, thatChrist and his apostles were mistaken; or at least did not tell thetruth when they assigned the Pentateuch (Leviticus included) to Moses. They then ask us to believe that the Bible is not only unimpaired by themistakes which the experts claim to have discovered, but is really muchimproved by the discovery!

It passes rational comprehension that we are permitted to expunge fromthe Word of God, on the ground of literary criticism, the positive andrepeated statements of inspired men, and of the Son of God, and yetassume that we have an unimpaired revelation!

We rather turn to the glorious array of witnesses to the integrity ofthe Bible that God has furnished--the book itself, Moses and theprophets, all the New Testament writers and the "Teacher sent from God. "From these witnesses we rest in the unshaken belief that "God spake allthese words" (Ex. Xx. 1) and that "Moses wrote all the words of theLord" (Ex. Xxiv. 4), including Leviticus. 

VI. ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 

_"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is there anything toohard for me?" Jer. Xxxii. 27. _

_"God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongethunto God. " Psa. Lxii. 11. _

_"Great is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is infinite. "Psa. Cxlvii. 5. _

_"He revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in thedarkness, and that the light dwelleth with him. " Dan. Ii. 2. _

_"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" Actsxv. 18. _

_"The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. " Psa. Xxxiii. 13. _

_"Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee whatthou shalt say. " Ex. Iv. 12. _

_"And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understandnot; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. " Isaiah vi. 9. _

The critics claim to have discovered, on literary and other evidence, that the Church of Christ, in all its branches, has been mistaken in allthe past concerning the author of the book known as the Prophecies ofIsaiah. They assume that all the foremost scholars of the world, and thefaith of God's people, have been misled. Our critical advisers professto have discovered that there were at least two, and probably many moreprophets, whose writings compose the book. They refuse to recognizeIsaiah alone as the author; and for several reasons:

_First_--Because of the change of style of composition from thethirty-ninth chapter to the close of the book. 

_Second_--On the ground that the theme is more exalted than in the firstthirty-nine chapters. Hence, it is assumed that these last chapterscould not have been written by Isaiah. 

_Third_--On the ground that Cyrus is mentioned by name, in theforty-fourth and forty-fifth chapters of the book, as the restorer ofJerusalem. Hence, our critics conclude that this part of the book musthave been written after the event, as the prophet (it is assumed) couldnot name Cyrus before his birth. 

_Fourth_--The critics assume that the prophet must prophesy out of hisimmediate surroundings, whatever that may mean. They furnish theirtroubled disciples the comforting assurance that these discoveries donot diminish the value of the book, but render it more accurate andinteresting as a literary work. The professor already quoted, a fairrepresentative of the critical school, in his recent lectures, referredto on a preceding page, distinguished the authors of the book as "Isaiahand the Great Unknown Prophet. " Other critics multiply, somewhatindefinitely, the number of "The Unknowns. " Our critic regards thechange in _style and theme_ from the thirty-ninth chapter to the end ofthe book as valid proof of at least the dual authorship of the book. 

This assumption instantly raises the question as to who is the author ofprophetic themes. Is it the prophet himself or the Holy Spirit? Does theprophet himself bring forth the prophecy of his own foreknowledge? Or, is the Holy Spirit the inspirer of themes new and old? Happily God hassettled the question for us. He declares by his Apostle Peter "that noprophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation"; that is, of theprophet's own disclosure. "For prophecy came not of old time by the willof man; but _holy men of God spake as they were moved by the HolySpirit_. " (2 Peter i. 20, 21. ) It is, therefore, bold assumption toaffirm that God could not give to the same prophet new and more exaltedthemes in his progressive revelation of truth. It is a limitation of Godhimself to the critic's notion of what should, or should not be. Thiswould eliminate the divine element of the book by a sweep of thecritic's pen. It is an assumption too groundless to need a reply. 

Further, as to the change of style. Nothing is more natural orreasonable than the fact that a change of theme should produce a changeof style. A more exalted theme must quicken the imagination, set theemotions aflame, stimulate all the mental and moral powers of theauthor. A historical statement, a commonplace theme, can be dealt within a commonplace style, while new and uplifting truth awakens new powersin the writer. Milton's Paradise Lost was entirely different from hisordinary prose composition. Dr. John Watson's sermons were on a higherlevel than his books of fiction. Writers who do much of their literarywork on the level plain on which the people move, frequently rise tomountain peaks of sublime composition when the occasion and theme demandit. 

The style in the later chapters of the book of Isaiah is just what wewould expect from the prophet when the Holy Spirit opened to hisenraptured mind the theme of redemption through a suffering Messiah, inthe fifty-third and following chapters of the book. 

The objection to conceding the authorship of the entire book to Isaiah, because the prophet mentions Cyrus by name before his birth, is made inthe face of the fundamental fact already stated that God inspired thewriter, and is therefore the author of prophecy, "declaring the end fromthe beginning. " (Isa. Xlvi. 10. ) He knows all the future and whom hewill choose to accomplish his glorious purposes. To deny this fact is todeny all prophecy. If God can not foretell future events and theinstruments for their accomplishment, there can be no prophecy, andGod's omniscience is impeached. Isaiah prophesied in the seventh chapterand fourteenth verse: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. " Matthew affirms that this prophecywas fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. (Matt. I. 22, 23. ) He also declaresin the same connection that the announcing angel foretold that the name"Jesus" was to be given to the Messiah at his birth. Thesepreannouncements must be cast aside if the critic's dictum is accepted. Shall we discredit Isaiah, the announcing angel, and Matthew on theground of the critic's literary acumen?

Further, the student of the Word will remember that when Jeroboam wasbringing disaster upon Israel, God sent his prophet to declare: "Beholda son shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and uponthee (the altar at Bethel) shall he offer the priests of the high placesthat burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. "More than three hundred years after this prophecy was given, accordingto Usher's Chronology, Josiah was born and did the precise things thatwere predicted concerning him. (See 1 Kings xiii. 2 and 2 Kings xxiii, 15, 16. ) The omniscience of the Holy Spirit can predict the name of theinstrument as readily as the event which is to be accomplished. 

Again, undoubtedly the prophet must speak out of his own environment. Hecan speak only where he is. But who is to decide how many and whatallusions he must make to custom or incident in order to satisfy thecritic, as to his time and place in history?

The tailor who decides that he must have twenty yards of cloth to make asuit of clothes, when ten yards are sufficient, will shortly be wantingcustomers. The critic who has decided how many and what kind ofsynchronous events must be furnished by the prophet, in order to securehis credence as to authorship, will be left without a prophet or aBible. 

The erection of an arbitrary law, by which to interpret history orprophecy in the Bible, is contrary to all the treatment which secularliterature receives from these same critics. 

From these strained, forced and unphilosophical methods of dealing withprophecy, we turn to the testimony of the inspired book itself. The bookof Isaiah is distinguished by a phraseology peculiar to this prophet. Hespeaks of God as "The Holy One of Israel. " This title, as applied toGod, is used only seven times in the entire Old Testament; once in 2Kings, three times in the Psalms, twice in the prophecies of Jeremiah, and once in Ezekiel, but never in the minor prophets. But Isaiah usesthis title as applied to God, twenty-two times, running through theentire book from the first to the sixtieth chapter. 

The reader will be interested to note how the repeated use of thephrase--"The Holy One of Israel"--attests the unity of the authorship ofthe entire book. Hence the passages ("line upon line, line upon line")are here presented to give their unequivocal testimony to our SabbathSchool teachers. 

1: Isaiah I:4--"They have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked _theHoly One of Israel to anger_. "

2: Isaiah v:18, 19--"Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords ofvanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope: that say ... Let thecounsel of _the Holy One of Israel_ draw nigh and come, that we may knowit. "

3: Isaiah v:24--"Because they have cast away the law of the Lord ofhosts, and despised the word of _the Holy One of Israel_. "

4: Isaiah xii:6--"Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion; for greatis _the Holy One of Israel_ in the midst of thee. "

5: Isaiah xvii:7--"At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and hiseyes shall have respect to _the Holy One of Israel_. "

6: Isaiah xxix:19--"The poor among man shall rejoice in _the Holy One ofIsrael_. "

7: Isaiah xxx:11--"Cause _the Holy One of Israel_ to cease from beforeus. " (The language of a rebellious people. )

8: Isaiah xxx:12--"Wherefore, thus saith _the Holy One of Israel_, because ye despise this word ... Therefore this iniquity shall be to youas a breach ready to fall. "

9: Isaiah xxx:15--"Thus saith the Lord God, _the Holy One of Israel_; Inreturning and rest shall ye be saved. "

10: Isaiah xxxi:1--"They look not unto _the Holy One of Israel_, neitherseek the Lord. "

11: Isaiah xli:14--"Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; Iwill help thee, I will help thee saith the Lord, and thy Redeemer, _theHoly One of Israel_. "

12: Isaiah xli:16--"Thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, and shalt glory in_the Holy One of Israel_. "

13: Isaiah xli:20--"That they may see, and know, and consider, andunderstand together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and _theHoly One of Israel_ hath created it. "

14: Isaiah xliii:13--"I am the Lord thy God, _the Holy One of Israel, thy_ Savior. "

15: Isaiah xlv:11--"Thus saith the Lord, _the Holy One of Israel_, andhis Maker, Ask me of things to come, concerning my sons, and concerningthe work of my hands command ye me. "

16: Isaiah xlvii:4--"As for our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, _the Holy One of Israel_. "

17: Isaiah xlviii:17--"Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, _the Holy Oneof Israel_, I am the Lord thy God, which teacheth thee to profit, whichleadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. "

18: Isaiah xlix:7--"Thus saith the Lord ... Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and_the Holy One of Israel_, and he shall choose thee. "

19: Isaiah liv:5--"For thy Maker is thine husband; The Lord of hosts ishis name, and thy Redeemer is _the Holy One of Israel_; The God of thewhole earth shall he be called. "

20: Isaiah lv:5--"Nations that knew not thee, shall run unto theebecause of the Lord thy God, and for _the Holy One of Israel_. "

21: Isaiah lx:9--"The Isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshishfirst, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold withthem, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to _the Holy One ofIsrael_, because he hath glorified thee. "

22: Isaiah lx:14--"And they shall call thee the city of the Lord, theZion of _the Holy One of Israel_. "

The reader will notice that this phrase, as applied to God is acharacteristic of Isaiah. We have not found it in any of the minorprophets, and but twice in the prophecies of Jeremiah, and once inEzekiel. But Isaiah uses it more than twenty times, running from thefirst to the sixtieth chapter. He uses it ten times before reaching thefortieth chapter, and twelve times in the chapters following, which thecritics have assigned to some unknown author or authors. Shall we beasked to conclude that the unknown authors adopted Isaiah's style, hisphraseology, from the fortieth chapter to the end of the book? For whatmotive? To conceal themselves? The assumption is too large. If the firstthirty-nine chapters of this book are accepted, as the prophecies ofIsaiah, by every law of fair criticism the whole book must claim thisprophet as its author. 

VII. GOD'S REPLY TO THESE ASSUMPTIONS. 

_"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Rom. Ix. 20. _

_"At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. " Deut. Xix. 15. _

_"Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for ourlearning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures mighthave hope. " Rom. Xv. 4. _

_"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they arewritten for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. " 1Cor. X. 11. _

_"My people shall know my name, therefore they shall know in that daythat I am he that doth speak, Behold, it is I. " Isaiah lii. 6. _

In the New Testament we have in the Gospels and the Epistles God'steachings concerning the Old Testament. The writers of the New Testamenthad the promise of our Lord that "The Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, andbring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. "(John xiv. 26. )

In the fulfillment of this promise they have given us the testimony ofGod, the Holy Spirit, on all the subjects of which they have written. What, therefore, is their testimony concerning the author of the book ofIsaiah? Did that prophet write the book, or is it a patched book fromvarious authors?

Matthew, the inspired author of the book that bears his name, quotesfrom Isaiah xl. 3: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highwayfor our God. " (See Matt. Iii. 3. )

The critics inform us that this prophecy was not given by Isaiah, but bysome unknown prophet, and was bound up with Isaiah's prophecies, andlabeled as his. Matthew informs us that it was a prophecy concerningJohn the Baptist, and was given by Isaiah himself, and not by another. He says (iii. 3), referring to John the Baptist: "For this is he thatwas spoken of through _Isaiah the prophet_, saying:

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of theLord, Make his paths straight. " (R. V. )

Again, in Matt. Viii. 17, the author of this gospel quotes a passagefrom the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. The critics have handed thisfifty-third chapter over to the Unknown prophet or prophets. They affirmagain that the theme and literary style of this chapter are such thatIsaiah could not have written it. They base their affirmation on theirown literary discoveries, their ability to detect the footprints of someother prophet, though they do not inform us who that prophet is. Theyare sure that it was not Isaiah, for they have already placed him undersuch limitations that, according to their critical decision, he couldnot write the chapter. Of course, their conclusion is reached bypractically denying the Holy Spirit's agency--logically denying that"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. " (2 Peteri. 21. )

The inspired author of the gospel of Matthew had a different conceptionof the Holy Spirit's agency in giving prophecy to the world. He had notdiscovered the limitations of the prophet, which the critics profess tohave found. Hence, in giving the history of God's gracious andmiraculous work of casting out demons and healing the sick, he declares(Matt. Viii. 17), without a shadow of a mistake, that Christ wroughtthese miracles, "that it might be fulfilled _which was spoken throughIsaiah the prophet_, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare ourdiseases. " (See also Isaiah liii. 4. )

As Matthew is on the witness stand, the reader will be interested tohear his testimony further. In his gospel (xii. 17-21) he testifies thatIsaiah wrote the forty-second chapter of the prophecy that bears hisname. Matthew quotes the first four verses of the chapter, inexplanation of the fact that Christ found it necessary during hisministry to retire from the public excitement which his teaching andmiracles had produced. He says that Christ pursued that course "that itmight be fulfilled which _was spoken through Isaiah the prophet_, saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen; my beloved in whom my soulis well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him and he shall showjudgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall anyman hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment untovictory, and in his name shall the Gentiles trust. "

This quotation is from Isaiah, forty-second chapter, and first part ofthe chapter. The reader will remember that the critics deny thistestimony of Matthew. This forty-second chapter which he (Matthew)assigns to Isaiah is a part of the book which they affirm has come to usfrom some unknown source. 

It is worthy of repetition that three times Matthew, the inspired authorof the first gospel, has affirmed without equivocation that the passageswhich he quotes were "_spoken by Isaiah the prophet_. " The critics say"No. " Which will the reader believe?

The author of the third gospel, describing our Lord's visit to Nazareth, says: "As his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book ofthe prophet Isaiah, and when he had opened the book, he found the placewhere it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hathanointed me to preach the gospel; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight tothe blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach theacceptable year of the Lord. " Luke iv. 16-19. 

_Luke informs us that it was "the book of the prophet Isaiah_" fromwhich our Savior made this quotation. We turn to the prophecy anddiscover that the passage is found in the sixty-first chapter and firstand second verses of the book. But the critics who are correcting ourBible for us (?) inform us that their same literary discovery holds goodhere--that this part of the book _was not_ written by Isaiah. Theyassume to hand over this part of the book, knowingly, to the "GreatUnknown" and unknowable prophets. The testimony of Luke contradicts thecritics. He gives Isaiah full credit as the author of the statement. Thereader will doubtless accept the fact that the inspired writer, theauthor of Luke's gospel, obtained his information at first hand, fromGod himself, who inspired the record. 

Again Luke contradicts the critics when he puts on record Philip'sinterview with the eunuch, as we find it in Acts viii. 30-33. WhenPhilip joined himself to the eunuch, by direction of the Spirit, he"heard him reading _Isaiah the prophet_ (Isaiah liii. 7), and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?" ... Now, the passage of theScriptures which he was reading was this: "He was led as a sheep to theslaughter and as a lamb before his shearer, dumb, so he opened not hismouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: his generationwho shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth, " (R. V. , Actsviii. 30-33. )

Our critics have robbed Isaiah of this passage. It was written, so theirliterary skill claims to have discovered, by some prophet who hassuccessfully concealed himself, and finally disappeared from sight, leaving no hope that his name will ever be discovered. 

Luke informs us that he knew who the prophet was that penned thattouching description of the coming Messiah, and that his name wasIsaiah. This question he has settled. 

Turning to the gospel of John, we are furnished the testimony of one ofwhom our Lord said, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born ofwoman, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. " Thiswitness comes before us, therefore, indorsed by Jesus Christ himself, "The faithful Witness. " We ask him, therefore, to speak for himself asto who is the author of that part of prophecy which the critics areattempting to wrest from Isaiah. 

When the priests and Levites came to ask him, "Who art thou? That we maygive an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" hereplied, "I am the Voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straightthe way of the Lord, _as said Isaiah the prophet_. " (See John i. 22, 23, R. V. )

This was his testimony, first concerning himself. We believe him. Andthis was his testimony, secondly, concerning the author of the prophecywhich he quoted: "_Isaiah the prophet_. "

Again we believe him, and as confidently, concerning the secondstatement as the first. And the Apostle John was so confident of itstruth that he put it on record. 

The passage quoted (Isaiah xl. 3) belongs to that part of the book whichour critic and his fellow critics have decided was predicted by somestray prophet, unknown to the world, to the Jewish people or the church. We prefer the statement of John the Baptist, and its indorsement by Johnthe Apostle. 

The reader will now recall that we have already heard Matthew'scorroboration of the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Isaiah'sclaim to this prophecy. (See Matt iii. 3. )

In the gospel of the Apostle John he puts on record his personaltestimony concerning the author of the book bearing Isaiah's name. Explaining the amazing unbelief of the Jews, he says (xii. 37, 38): "Butthough he (Jesus) did so many signs before them, yet they believed noton him: _that the word of Isaiah the prophet_ might be fulfilled, whichhe spake:

"Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of theLord been revealed?" (R. V. )

The reader will see that this inspired writer of the fourth gospel isquoting from Isaiah liii. 1, thus testifying to Isaiah's authorship. 

Our literary critics have decided that this chapter was forbidden groundto Isaiah, that, if we are to believe them, he had no connection withthis prophecy. 

We are asked to believe that the author of this fifty-third chapter, themost minute and tender prophecy concerning the Messiah's sufferings forhis people, and rejection by them, has dropped out of sight! We areasked to believe that the name of the prophet who gave this dramaticpicture of what was to take place on Calvary seven hundred years later, has been lost in the fog of the passing centuries! We are asked tobelieve that the name of the author of the first thirty-nine chapters, the less important part of the book, has been preserved, but oblivionhas overtaken the author of the book from the fortieth chapter to theend. 

The assumption is an affront to the intelligence of the ordinary readerof the Bible. It is an impeachment of the honesty of the authors of thegospels, which the unshaken faith of God's people can never concede. 

The reader can now sum up the testimony of Matthew, Mark (see i. 3, R. V. ), Luke, John, and John the Baptist, all of whom with one voicecontradicts the critics. We also prefer, with these witnesses, todiscredit the men who are picking out clauses, verses and chapters hereand there, and guessing them off to authors of their own invention, whohave never been known or heard of. 

It is not sufficient for the critics to say that these New Testamentauthors knew better, but deferred to popular sentiment, based ontradition. That can not satisfy our estimate of them as God's divinelyappointed teachers, chosen to make record of the momentous truth onwhich the salvation of a lost world hangs. Men, ready to lay down theirlives for the truth, were not the men to play fast and loose with theWord of God, in deference to a supposed popular sentiment. 

Further, our critical friends have assumed to decide for the prophetsthat they must prophesy out of their immediate surroundings in such amarked way, with such continued reference to the events of the period, that the prophecy must be located in that period. If the critic cannotfind these particular local earmarks, he must push the prophecy to apoint of time with which he can make it synchronize, and which willsatisfy his literary judgment. By this law of determining dates, thecritics claim that the book of Isaiah is a composite work, produced bydifferent authors and at different times. 

On this assumption the latter part of the book of Revelation was not arevelation to the Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos. The first part ofthe book may be adjudged as his. But presently the matter of the bookpasses into a realm beyond the time and circumstances that belong tothat period, hence may not claim him as its author. An assumption thatsets aside the claims of Scripture, as to authorship, in order toharmonize the book with one's literary and critical judgment, may bedismissed on its own lack of merit. 

The proposed law above referred to, as a method of locating prophecy asto time, or determining the author, is arbitrary, and an absurd attemptto destroy all the testimony of inspired writers, who have settled thequestion of authorship and the date of prophecy. 

VIII. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JONAH. 

_"According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by thehand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, which was ofGath-hepher. " 2 Kings xiv. 25. _

_"The word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying, Arise go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it: for theirwickedness is come up before me. " Jonah i. 1, 2. _

_"So Jonah arose and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of theLord. " Jonah iii.. 3. _

_"And he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall beoverthrown. " Jonah iii. 4. _

_"So the people of Nineveh believed God. " Jonah iii. 5. _

_"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and Godrepented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he didit not. " Jonah iii. 10. _

_"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, andshall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas. "Matt. Xii. 41. _

The book of Jonah has been attacked by the destructive critics. Itshistoricity has been denied. The critics, though certain of almost allof their objections to the Bible, have not all decided whether it is"based on history, or is a nature myth. " Keunen has discovered (?) thatit is "a product of the opposition to the strict and exclusive policy ofEzra toward heathen nations. " Objection is made to the historicalstatements of the book on various grounds. The objector interposes thisdifficulty: "Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by anobscure foreign prophet?"

This objection is of kin to that which can not conceive that by acreative act of God the universe was brought into being, or the inspiredstatement that "the worlds were framed by the word of God. " It is thepresence of the supernatural everywhere that is beyond the conception ofthe critics. 

Again, they interpose the difficulty: "How could the Ninevites givecredence to a man who was not a servant of Ashur?"

Without presenting the multiplied difficulties that rationalism hassupposedly discovered, they may be summed up in their statementsubstantially, that the book of Jonah is not historical. Whatever elseit may be, whether legend, myth or allegory, it is not history. 

We turn again from the fancies of "Expert Scholarship" to the testimonyof the Bible concerning itself. We discover that the prophet Jonah isreferred to several hundred years before the critics have permitted himto live. It is written in 2 Kings xiv. 25 that Jeroboam the Secondsecured the restoration of certain territory, "according to the word ofthe Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher. "

The name of Jonah, of his family, and the place of residence of hisfamily, are definitely stated. The work is accomplished "by the hand ofhis servant Jonah, " and the date of its accomplishment, is so preciselyrecorded that these statements could have been disproved had they beenfalse. Hence, there was a person named Jonah. 

Our Lord has settled the questions of the personality and work of Jonah, if anything can be settled for unbelief. He has affirmed the historicalcertainty of the two important events which critical assumption declaresimpossible. The critical Jews were demanding a sign from our Lord. Hehad wrought many miracles, but they wanted something beyond what he hadgiven, a miracle for their special benefit. He declined to gratify them. Of that generation he said: "There shall no sign be given it, but thesign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nightsin the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and threenights in the heart of the earth. " (Matt. Xii. 39-41. ) As Jonah wasmiraculously preserved for three days and nights and was brought forth, as by a resurrection, so was the Son of man to be brought forth from thetomb. His resurrection was to be the crowning miracle, the sign foreverconfronting his nation, Jonah's deliverance from apparent death was sucha miracle as convinced the Ninevites that he had a message from God forthem, so Christ's resurrection was to become the keystone of the arch onwhich the whole structure of the redemptive system should rest. "He wasraised for our justification. " (Rom. Iv. 25. )

The reader will mark that our Lord referred to the miraculouspreservation of Jonah, and his deliverance, as a historical event, recorded in the first and second chapters of the book of Jonah, not as amyth or allegory, but as a historical fact. "_As_ Jonah was three daysand three nights in the whale's belly, _so_ shall the Son of man bethree days and three nights in the heart of the earth. " _As_ the one, _so_ the other. As certainly and literally the one, so certainly andliterally the other. If Jonah's preservation and coming forth from thefish that God had prepared was only a legend, then was Christ's death, burial, and resurrection a legend. And in consistency with theircritical theory some of the rationalists have reduced them both tolegend. For _as_ one was, _so_ was the other to be. The statement isplain, definite narrative, from which there is no escape. 

Others of the critical school hold to the historical verity of Christ'sburial and resurrection, but assert that he made use of the assumedlegend concerning Jonah, as we might illustrate any fact in history by afamiliar statement from fiction. To such an assumption we reply that ourLord was dealing with tremendous realities, such as could not bebelittled by turning for support or illustration to a fictitious story. He quoted from Old Testament history to illustrate and enforce NewTestament truth. On another occasion he said: "_As_ Moses lifted up theserpent in the wilderness, even _so_ must the Son of man be lifted upthat whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternallife. " Shall we hand over to legendary literature the great historicalfact of the twenty-first chapter of Numbers--God's deliverance of thepeople from the fiery serpents--by one look at the uplifted brazenserpent by the hand of Moses? We may as well reduce one passage tofiction as the other. "_As_ Jonah ... Three days and nights, _so_ theSon of man. _As_ the serpent was lifted up, _so_ the Son of man shall belifted up. " This comparison has a definite meaning. The apostle uses itin his Epistle to the Romans, fifth chapter and twelfth verse. "_As_ byone man sin entered into the world, ... _so_ death passed upon all menfor that all have sinned. " As certainly as sin entered into the world byone man, so certainly it resulted that death passed upon all men. _As_Christ's remaining in the grave three days was not a fiction, _so_Jonah's three days and nights in the great fish that God had preparedwas not a fiction. 

Our Lord further certifies to the historicity of the book of Jonah byhis reference to the great prophet's preaching. The critic's objectionis thus stated: "Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by anobscure foreign prophet?"

Of course, the objection to the record of that mighty moral movementcomes from those who have counted God out of Jonah's preaching. If theycan eliminate the divine power from that event, they can easily hand thewhole record over to what they are pleased to call the "folk lore of theBible. " Here, as ever, the critic must rid the Scriptures of thesupernatural. 

But our Savior knew that "power belongeth unto God" (Psa. Lxii. 11), andhe put on record the repentance of the Ninevites, saying, "The men ofNineveh shall rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it, _because they repented at the preaching of Jonah_. " (Matt. Xii. 41. ) Butif the book is not history, our Lord's statement is false, for he saysthe Ninevites did repent. 

There is no rational possibility of denying our Lord's positivestatement without impeaching his veracity. 

His words authorize the following conclusions:

I. There was a prophet whose name was Jonah, as is stated in 2 Kingsxiv. 25. He was not a myth or figment, but a prophet whose personalityis authenticated by Christ himself. 

2. There was a city of Nineveh. The skepticism of other days denied theexistence of Nineveh. So completely was the prophecy concerning thedestruction of Nineveh fulfilled that the enemies of God's Word refusedto believe that the city had ever existed, until the excavations of thelast century revealed the hidden ruins. But the word of God was true, and in God's time Nineveh was revealed. 

3. God sent this same prophet Jonah to Nineveh to preach. Christ tellsus what took place under "the preaching of Jonah. " It terminated in agreat awakening and reformation for:

4. "The men of Nineveh ... Repented at the preaching of Jonah. "

Did the Savior know what he was talking about? Did he know the truth ofthe statement he made? Or, knowing (as is assumed) that there were nosuch events, did he resort to _fiction_ in order to assert the_certainty_ of his own resurrection? If the latter, then we must correcthis statement concerning Jonah, and read: "As Jonah has beenfictitiously represented to have been three days and three nights in thewhale's belly, so, fictitiously, shall the Son of man be three days andthree nights in the heart of the earth. "

Our Sunday-school teachers, with the words of Christ before them, willbe able to give the critics important information. They can report thecertainty of the historical facts. 

IX. RADICAL EXPOSITION. 

_"Among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bringin destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. " (R. V. ) 2 Peter ii. 1. _

_"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profaneand vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, whichsome professing have erred concerning the faith. " 1 Tim. Vi. 20, 21. _

_"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them. " 1Tim. Iv. 16. _

_"We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well thatye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place until the daydawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. " 2 Peter i. 19. _

The destructive critics have pushed their work far into the field ofboth prophecy and exposition. They have relegated to the domain ofmythology the clear and unequivocal historical statements of Scripture. Where the intrusion of their mythological theory was too large a demandto make on our credulity, they have attempted a radical exegesis inproof of their assumptions. 

They claim to have discovered that the Church in all the past hasmisconceived the first prophetic promise given to man. That promise wasgiven to our first parents immediately after the fall. God said to theserpent (Gen. Iii. 15): "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and thoushalt bruise his heel. "

Our critics have two objections to the interpretation that has alwaysbeen given and maintained by Christian scholars and by the Church as awhole. First, that "the seed of the woman" does not refer to theMessiah, but to the human race, which is to bruise the serpent's head. Second, that the serpent engaged in seducing Eve, and here placed underthe curse, does not refer to Satan. 

In replying to the objection that the Messiah is not referred to in thepassage, let it be said that the pronoun is a pronoun referring to aperson. It is so translated in the Revised Version. "_He_ shall bruisethy head and thou shalt bruise his heel. " It is not the human race, buthe, an individual person. This person was not to be the seed of the man, but of the woman. 

The announcing angel said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come uponthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore alsothat holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son ofGod. " (Luke i. 35. ) The child to be born was to be literally and truly"_the seed of the woman_, " and that was the Messiah, the only person ofthe entire human race of whom that could be said. 

We are not left, however, to an exegetical statement alone, althoughthat is absolutely unequivocal. The promise was repeated to Abraham, toIsaac, to Jacob, and to David. The seed of the woman was to be theMessiah, the Christ, triumphing over the power of Satan. The race hasnot triumphed over Satan, but has been a failure. 

The Holy Spirit has settled the question in Paul's Epistle to theGalatians, iii. 16: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. _He saith not, and to seeds, as of many_ (or, the human race), _but asof one, and to thy seed which is Christ_. " On the human side, our Saviorwas of the line of Abraham, and David, but was singularly and literally"_the seed of the woman_, " being the Son of God. 

He called himself the Son of man only in the sense that he was born ofher who was of the race of man. He ever claimed God as his Father, andin a different sense from that in which men can claim God as Father. Hisclaim to be the Son of God was the claim to be equal with God, which nocreated being dare make. 

The Holy Spirit further declares, in Hebrews ii. 14; "For as much thenas the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himselflikewise took part of the same, that through death (his death on thecross) he might destroy him (Satan) that had the power ofdeath"--"bruise the serpent's head. " It was Satan that inflicted death. He was the first higher critic who changed and denied the word of God, saying to the woman, "Ye shall not die. " Through his denial of the wordof God, he deceived the woman and brought spiritual death on the race. This was the work of Satan, according to the New Testament teaching. Heis the same that God calls the serpent in the third chapter of Genesis. For the Holy Spirit informs us, in 2 Cor. Xi. 3, that "the serpentbeguiled Eve, " and states definitely who the serpent is--"that oldserpent called the devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. "(Rev. Xii. 9. )

Having God's testimony that the serpent and the devil are one and thesame, we are prepared for the mark which our Lord puts on him, "Amurderer from the beginning ... And no truth in him. " He had alwayssought to pervert and discredit the word of God. He suggested to Evethat she did not understand God's command; she had taken it tooliterally, which is a popular form of attacking the Bible today. "Yea, hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Are you notmistaken? And when he had injected the doubt into the mind of Eve, hadgained an advantage, he seized it and boldly denied the word of God, "Yeshall not die. " He is an artful critic and successfully did his deadlywork. 

Hence, the first great promise which God gave to the fallen pair, andthrough them to the race, set the seed of the woman, the Messiah, inconflict with "that old serpent called the devil and Satan. " Thatpromise is now in process of fulfillment, and must reach its finalconsummation when John's apocalyptic vision is fulfilled, "And the devilthat deceived them (the nations) shall be cast into the lake of fire andbrimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall betormented day and night, forever and ever. "

X. GOD HIS OWN INTERPRETER. 

_"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not accordingly to thisword, it is because there is no light in them. " Isaiah viii. 20. _

_"Thy law is the truth. " Psa. Cxix. 142. _

_"Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and veryfaithful. " Psa. Cxix. 138. _

_"Lead me in thy truth and teach me. " Psa. Xxv. 5. _

_"The word of our God shall stand forever. " Isaiah xl. 8. _

_"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. "Mark xiii. 31. _

The destructive critics have assaulted the most precious propheticscriptures. It has been already stated that the final aim of skepticismis against the person of Christ. If the unbelieving world can be rid ofboth the prophecies concerning Christ, and the history of his life, hissacrificial death and resurrection, they will be rid of that stumblingstone which they have been pleased to call the "much-abusedsupernaturalism. " Hence, the strenuous effort is made to destroypredictive prophecy concerning the person of the Son of God. The factthat there are more than thirty-five prophecies, containing one hundredand thirty distinct counts, concerning the birth, the life, theteaching, the death, and the resurrection of our Lord, greatly disturbsthe critics. 

The prophecy of Isaiah ix. 6 has been troublesome. The prophet foretold, in distinct and unimpeachable language, the coming of the Messiah: "Forunto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the governmentshall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince ofPeace. "

A critic who claims to be loyal to the word of God says concerning thispassage: "The prophet always paints upon the canvas the events of the_near_ future. I can not believe that Isaiah ix. 6 refers to a far-offevent, because it would not give comfort to his people at that time. " Asthis prophecy was given more than seven hundred years before the comingof the Messiah, our critic concludes that it could be of no practicalbenefit to Israel, hence, must have referred to some person who mustsoon appear. 

To affirm that this promise of the Messiah long before his coming "wouldnot give comfort to his people" is mere assumption. The time of hiscoming was not announced, and the people were to live in expectation ofthe event, which expectation was to be their stay and comfort. Thisassumption would vitiate the promise of his coming made to our firstparents. Gen. Iii. 15, the promises made to Moses; Deut xviii. 15, thepredictions made in Psa. Xxii. 1, 8, 16, 18, in which his cry on thecross, the taunt of his enemies, the piercing of his hands and feet, andthe parting of his raiment among the soldiers, were all predicted. 

The prediction that "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be littleamong the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth untome, he that is to be the Ruler of Israel; whose goings forth have beenof old, from everlasting" (Micah v. 2) was made seven hundred yearsbefore the coming of Christ, and, according to critical assumption, could not refer to our Savior, "because it would not give comfort to hispeople. "

Indeed, no prophecy preceding the time of Isaiah ix. 6 could be allowedto refer to Christ, on the assumption of the critic. More than this, theprediction of Christ's second advent is vitiated by this assumption. Itwas more than eighteen hundred years ago that the angels said to thedisciples who were steadfastly watching his ascension: "This same Jesuswho is taken from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as yehave seen him go into heaven. " Was there no comfort to the disciples inthe promise of his return, though they did not live to witness it? Paul, enlarging on the promises of Christ's return, said to the Thessalonians:"Wherefore comfort one another with these words. "

Let us now consider the prophecy in its context. The prophecy of theseventh and eighth chapters is projected on through the ninth. The firstverse of this chapter predicts some relief of the former sufferings ofthe people for their sins. 

"The people that walked in darkness (verse 2) have seen great light. "The prophet informs us who it was, to whom this light should come. Theinhabitants of "the land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, " whichembraced the region of Galilee, in which the larger portion of Christ'sministry was exercised. Matthew quotes this scripture as fulfilled bythe coming of our Savior. (See Matt. Iv. 12-16. ) "Now when Jesus hadheard that John was cast into prison he departed into Galilee, andleaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the seacoast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim; _that it might befulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet_, saying, The land ofZabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw a greatlight, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light issprung up. "

Undoubtedly the prophet looked into the future, when the coming of theMessiah should bring the light of the gospel into that region soparticularly described by him. And the inspired writer of the gospel ofMatthew positively applies the context of Isaiah ix. 6 to our Lord. Then, proceeding with the explanation as to how the light should breakforth in "Galilee of the Gentiles, " the prophet announces (verse 6)that, "for unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and thegovernment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be calledWonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, ThePrince of Peace. "

The reader may well investigate the language of this prediction, "forunto us a Child is born. " The "for" is given as an explanation, a reasonfor the coming light to "Galilee of the Gentiles, " a region and a peoplethat had been for generations "in the shadow of death. " The light was tobreak forth because a child was to be born and a son given. 

The announcement was made as if the event had taken place, though so farin the future. This is in accordance with the form of predictiveprophecy, as in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, where the atoningwork of Christ is spoken of as already accomplished, though it remainedto be achieved in the future. The prophet said of that work: "He hathborne our griefs and carried our sorrows.... He was wounded for ourtransgressions.... He was bruised for our iniquities.... The Lord hathlaid on him the iniquities of us all. " So it is stated in this prophecy:"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, " for the promiseof God is the same to him as the fulfillment. His word is equivalent tohis deed. It cost him as much to purpose and pledge as to fulfill hispledge. Hence, the prophecy speaks of the thing as done, since God haspromised to do it. Seven centuries before he came, the prophet said, "unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given. "

Our critical friends can not inform us who was the "Son given. " They canonly say it must refer to some "_near future event_. " Let our Book speakfor itself. It gives no uncertain testimony. 

1. "_The government shall be upon his shoulder_. "

As already stated in the context, and affirmed by Matthew, it is he thatshould bring light to the Gentiles. There is only one who is himself "alight to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel. " (Lukeii. 32. ) He said of himself: "I am the light of the world. " (John ix. 5. )

The government is his. He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings andLord of lords. " (1 Tim. Vi. 15. )

There is only One Potentate, One Ruler, One who could say, "All power isgiven unto me in heaven and in earth. " (Matt. Xxviii. 18. ) There is onlyOne who could say, "All things are delivered unto me of my father. "(Matt. Xi. 27. ) There is only One of whom it could be said, "Of theincrease of his government and peace there shall be no end, " and that issaid of the "Child born unto us and the Son given, " and is a part of theprophecy concerning him. (Isaiah ix. 7. )

All earthly thrones have crumbled, all earthly kings and potentates haveslept in the dust of death with the poorest of their subjects. But ofthis Son given, Daniel says: "There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him;his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, andhis kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. " (Daniel vii. 14. )

2. "_His name shall be called Wonderful_. "

His name means his character, his person. He, himself, shall be calledWonderful, in a sense in which no other person can be entitled to thatdesignation. Nicodemus accredited him as a wonderful instructor. "Weknow that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do thesemiracles that thou doest, except God be with him. " (John iii. 2). Hisenemies that were sent to arrest him quailed before him, and returned tothe chief priests and Pharisees, saying, "Never man spake like thisman. "

A devout scholar has well said: "The manner of his birth was wonderful;his humility, self-denial, and sorrows were wonderful; his mighty workswere wonderful; his dying agonies were wonderful; his resurrection andascension were all fitted to excite admiration and wonder. "

3. "_His name shall be called ... Counsellor_. "

This term plainly indicated his exalted wisdom and dignity. The wisdomof men comes to naught; their counsel shall perish with them. But thereis One, who understands, who declares the end from the beginning. Of himit is said: "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever; the thoughts ofhis heart to all generations. " (Psa. Xxxiii. 11. ) He says of himself, "Counsel is mine and sound wisdom" (Prov. Viii. 14), and it was by his"determinate counsel and foreknowledge" that the glorious scheme ofredemption and complete salvation from sin was planned and executed. Hence, he takes to himself the title, "The Great and Mighty God, ... Great in counsel, and mighty in work. " (Jer. Xxxii. 19. ) Therefore, theChild that was to be born, the Son that was to be given, was to have aname, and "his name shall be called ... Counsellor. "

4. "_His name shall be called ... The Mighty God_. "

And now we are face to face with the Lord Jehovah, and the positivestatement that this was the promised Son. By what guessing or criticallegerdemain one who claims loyalty to the word of God and ordinaryintelligence can attempt to sweep away these definite and determinatestatements, and crowd some insignificant worm of the dust into the placegiven to him who was in the beginning, who was with God and _who wasGod_, we can not comprehend. 

And still the prophet rises to the climax, to make sure that "wayfaringmen, though fools, shall not err, " and adds the prediction concerningthe coming Son that, 5. "_His name shall be called ... The Everlasting Father_. "

The Revised Version gives the same rendering as the accepted version, and adds the marginal reading, "Father of Eternity. " The sense of thepassage is the same. The name "Everlasting Father" was the name of thecoming Son. He would be Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, not for ashort time, but eternally, forever and ever--"the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. " His care of his people would never cease. 

The distinctions between the persons of the trinity were not made in theOld Testament, as in the New. Jehovah was God, the Lord was God, and wasknown as Jehovah God, the Everlasting Father. The incarnation of thesecond person in the trinity gave emphasis to his sonship, in order toput him in brotherly relation to us. "Wherefore he is not ashamed tocall them brethren. "

This prophecy of Isaiah, however, condescends to accommodate ourweakness, and necessity, and gives to the promised child the name bywhich he is recognized in the New Testament, for

6. "_His name shall be called ... The Prince of Peace_. "

At the birth of the Child the angel choir sang "Glory to God in thehighest, and _on earth peace_, good will toward men. " (Luke ii. 14. )"Him hath God exalted with his right hand _to be a Prince_ and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. " (Acts v. 31. )

Isaiah spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. He gave to Israel thisassuring promise for their comfort, that the Seed of the woman, theMessiah, was coming not as a fallible, impotent ruler, but as a Princeand Savior. Israel failed to comprehend the glorious things predicted, and even yet they are not fully unfolded. But the Messiah did not failto come, and, as predicted, he came at Bethlehem. Every phase of hislife, and the mighty work of redemption, all that was predicted of hisearthly career, has been accomplished. And now, at the right hand of theFather, he is moving to the final consummation of his purposes ofredeeming grace. 

He will not be moved from his purposes by the uncritical attempts ofrationalism to destroy the confidence of God's people in his revealedtruth. We can move forward confidently in our work, knowing that nothingshall pass from his Word until all is fulfilled. 

In this very brief study, in which God has spoken through the testimonyof his word, we have only touched a few points in which the truth ofScripture has been assailed. But the testimony of the Book settles allquestions. We can well rest on the assurance, "Forever O Lord, thy wordis settled in heaven, " and can not be unsettled on the earth. OurSunday-school teachers and Christian young people can not fail tocomprehend, and will rejoice in the fullness and power of God'stestimony through prophet, apostle, and Christ the incarnate Word. Tohim be honor, glory, and dominion forever. Amen.