tality (xx., xxi., xxii.). We have even the trace of Church government not merely in the four and twenty elders, but in the angels of the churches. Here, then, we have the testimony of Paul in his four unquestionably genuine Epistles corroborated by the testimony of John in his unquestionably genuine Apocalypse, and it must be borne in mind that the latter was not only the contemporary, but the immediate disciple and companion of our Lord. Surely we may reasonably assume that his evidence contributes in no small degree to strengthen the evidence of Paul, which we have already seen to be so overwhelmingly strong.

Before closing, it may be of importance to mention that in this study we have taken as our sources only the minimum of New Testament books, only the books which have been, we may say, unanimously accepted by the extreme representatives of the hostile school of criticism. It would be a great mistake, however, to suppose that these are all the books accepted by the general body of hostile critics. The truth is, as we shall see more fully in the next study, the present representatives of the negative school are gradually coming back to the recognition of more books as genuine productions of the Apostolic Age, and in regard to the so-called spurious books they agree in dating them much nearer that age

than was done by Baur.' Hilgenfeld, the present head of Baur's immediate school, accepts not only the last two chapters of Romans, the three closing verses excepted, as the genuine production of Paul, but also I Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. He regards the Epistle to the Hebrews as not the work of Paul, but certainly written in the Apostolic Age, and probably before A.D. 66. He accepts the present Matthew as written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and as founded on a still older Gospel, while he assigns Mark and the Epistle of James to the reign of Domitian, A.D. 81 to 96. He also regards the portions of Acts narrated in the first person ('we') as genuine, and probably the work of Luke. manner, Renan accepts as genuine Pauline Epistles I and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon in addition to the four unquestioned Epistles, not to speak of the fact that he assigns to Ephesians, Hebrews, Mark and Matthew, Luke and Acts, James and I Peter, a date far within the limits of the first century and before the death of the Apostle John.

In like

We have a practical remark of the very highest importance to make in conclusion. The object of the

1The number of those who represent Baur's standpoint whole and entire is, at least among German theologians, very small. In Tübingen there is now no longer a Tübingen School.'-Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, p. 547 (Clark).

2 St. Paul, p. lx.

3 St. Paul, p. xxxiii.

preceding discussion is not merely to satisfy the logical understanding, but to lead up to intelligent faith in Christ and unless this be achieved, very little is gained. It is quite true that such faith implies a moral element or state of soul, as well as an intellectual one, but the intellectual element is an important, even a necessary preparatory factor. Our present object is to contribute in some small degree to this intellectual preparation and element. And what we would now emphatically say is this, that in these five New Testament books, the minimum left us by the extreme representatives of hostile criticism, we have far more than enough to warrant saving faith in Jesus, to form the firm foundation of such faith, and to nurture it into the highest degree of intelligence, power, and fulness. The man who has a reasonable assurance of the genuineness and truthfulness of the books specified has no sufficient ground for remaining a moment longer apart from Christ, and does so at his peril. His bounden duty as a guilty sinner is, without a moment's delay, to cast himself at the feet of Jesus as an expression of his penitence, faith, and self-surrender. And the very instant he does so as a real act of his soul, these books assure him that he is pardoned, accepted, made a son of God, and if a son then an heir; 'an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ.' And as he comes to know the reality of Jesus and His truth in the

experience of daily life, he will soon be able to say with the Samaritans of old, 'Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard Him for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.'

VI.

SOME RECENT REVERSES OF NEGATIVE CRITICISM.

IT is generally and confidently acknowledged by the highest authorities of the modern schools of negative criticism that there are certain books in the New Testament which are unquestionably genuine. As we have seen in the previous study, such men as Baur and Strauss, Renan and the author of Supernatural Religion, agree in accepting Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and the Revelation of John as books incontestably genuine and authentic. That is, these representative leaders of modern learned unbelief agree with catholic Christians in holding fast by the unquestionable genuineness of about one-fourth of the New Testament, and that a fourth containing over and over again all the essential facts and doctrines of the gospel. In regard to the remaining books of the New Testament, the position originally taken up by Baur and his more immediate followers was, that they were composed far on in the second century, and mainly between A.D. 130 and 170. It is the object of this study to show that