have arisen as it were from the dead, to bear witness to the historical accuracy of Old Testament history. The very facts questioned and denied by critics a generation ago, have been corroborated in a most remarkable manner, and as a result, in spite of the attacks of recent critics, the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and of the Pentateuch itself, stands to-day on a firmer foundation than ever before; (3) it is an historical fact that this modern attack on the Old Testament is but a counterpart and complement to what is known among scholars as the attack of the Tübingen school upon the historical accuracy of the New Testament. This latter movement, after raging for a generation, especially in Germany, has now spent its force, and the modern movement against the Old Testament, though it may deceive and poison a certain class of minds and add greatly to the general infidelity of the day, will also finally meet a similar fate. Objection XIII. Many recent critics maintain that some of the books of the Bible, especially of the Old Testament, are not genuine, that is, were not written by the persons whose names they bear. At one time this same objection was raised by the Tübingen school against the genuineness of many of the books of the New Testament, especially against the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, but the fact that the Apostle John wrote both these books is now universally acknowledged. There is not a single book in the New Testament whose genuineness is now questioned by conservative scholars. It is agreed that the gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear, and that Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and John his three Epistles, as well as the Book of Revelation. Peter wrote two epistles, and James and Jude each one. It is agreed by all that Paul wrote thirteen Epistles, but as to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews there is much difference of opinion. All are agreed as to its inspiration and trustworthiness, but as the Epistle nowhere states that Paul wrote it, some think that it may have been written by Luke or by Apollos or by Barnabas. There seems, however, no good reason to question its Pauline authorship. From its style and from the purity of the Greek used, it is very likely that Luke was the amanuensis of Paul when the letter was written, for it bears a remarkable similarity to the other works 1 written by Luke, and we know that Paul made use of amanuenses on other occasions (2 Thess. 3:17; 1. Cor. 16: 21; Rom. 16:22; Col. 4:18). Be this as it may, there is no question about the genuineness of any of the books of the New Testament,-they were written by the men by whom they profess to have been written. The field of battle has been changed, and now the critics confine themselves to attacking the genuineness of the books of the Old Testament. Before we examine the conclusions which they profess to have reached, it is necessary to be clear on certain points: (1) It is agreed by all, both by the advanced critics and conservatives alike, that there are some books of the Old Testament of which we do not know the authors, because the names of the writers are not given. (2) The fact that we do not know the names of the writers of these books does not affect their historical accuracy, nor their inspiration, any more than the fact that we do not know for certain that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, affects the trustworthiness or inspiration of this Epistle. The questions are entirely distinct. (3) Conservative scholars maintain that there are, however, certain books of the Old Testament which profess either to have been written by certain defi. nite persons, or at least to contain their sayings and prophecies. Thus, the first five books of the Old Testament, known as the Pentateuch, are ascribed to Moses; to David are ascribed many of the Psalms; to Solomon, most of the Proverbs and the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; and the different prophecies, as a rule, are ascribed to the prophets whose names they bear. (4) This last point is the great battle-ground of the so called Higher Criticism. The advanced wing of critics maintain that the Pentateuch as we now have it, dates from the time of Ezra (450 B. C.), and that Moses had nothing to do with its composition, and diverse as may be their theories, they all agree in impugning the historical accuracy of the narratives of the Pentateuch. Without entering into an exposition of their views of the different prophetical books, it is sufficient to say that they deny that Isaiah ever wrote the last twenty-seven chapters of his prophecy, or that Daniel is the author of the prophecy known by his name, but that this latter book dates from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, about 165 B. C. It is beyond our scope, in this connection, earlier records. And it is but natural that to enter into a full discussion of this subject, but we may remark: (1) In general the question of the human authorship of a biblical book is a matter of comparative insignificance, for whether it is known or unknown, it has no bearing upon its inspiration or its trustworthiness. (2) But this question, in special cases, may become a matter of large importance. It is an important question whether the book of Isaiah is made up of fragments, culled from different writers, and loosely patched together, or whether it contains the prophecy of one man as it represents to be, whether the book of Daniel is or is not the authentic work of the prophet, especially when we also take into consideration the rationalistic spirit which prompts these critics to deny the genuineness of Isa. 40:66, and of the book of Daniel. (3) It is a question of the most vital importance whether the narratives contained in the Pentateuch have a historical value or not, whether Moses did or did not have something to do with the recording of them. No matter what may be said on this subject by the critics themselves, or by wavering defenders of the Old Testament, the veracity of the Holy Scriptures is involved in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Either these critics are right and the testimony of the Bible, both of the Old and New Testament, is false, or else these critics are wrong and the testimony of the Bible is true. It means nothing more or less, and the question ought fairly to be understood. ory It would be interesting to present the theof the origin of the Pentateuch as held by these critics, but this is beyond our aim. But I firmly believe that a clear presentation of what these men profess to hold, would be the best answer that could be given to them, for their whole theory is utterly incredible. They raise ten times more difficulties than they attempt to solve. The best answer to all their arguments, and the best antidote to whatever effect a protracted study of the works of these critics may have had on the mind, is the simple reading of the Bible narrative. There is a clearness, a simplicity, a naturalness, which impresses the reader as never before. The Mosaic authorship explains what otherwise I would be obscure. For it is agreed by all that Moses, in the composition of Genesis, under the guidance of God, may have used Moses, the leader of the Exodus, should write its wonderful history. All the various lines of evidence drawn from the Pentateuch itself, confirm this view. The writer of the Exodus shows that he is familiar with Egypt and its customs and phenomena, and his knowledge of the Sinaitic Peninsula manifests itself as that of an eye-witness. Then, too, the importance of these views is over-estimated. It so happens that the large majority of Old Testament scholars all over the world are comparatively young men of more enthusiasm than judgment. The whole movement has its origin in the rationalistic teachings of two European professors, and with but few exceptions the work is now be ing carried forward by their pupils. About a dozen Old Testament professors make all the stir, and as the literary ability of these men is unquestioned, there are some foolish enough, without even investigating what kind of stones these men are offering to us for bread, to take it for granted that the Old Testament must fall as a historical record of God's dealing with men. We, also, cannot discuss here the kindred topics of their denial of the genuineness of the prophecies of Isaiah and of Daniel, but with reference to the latter we may remark that the genuineness and authenticity of the prophecy of Daniel can be seen: (1) from the importance of its relation to the New Testament, in which it is fully accepted as authentic, genuine, and canonical; (2) from its wonderful internal witness, its prophecies, many of which were demonstrably fulfilled long after the period of Antiochus Epiphanes, and many of which are now fulfilling; (3) from the evidences which many of the best recent scholars, in conjunction with the older ones, have brought to show that there is no reason for departing from the ancient and received view as to the time of its origin; (4) from the fact that the latest results of Assyriology and the evidence of the monumental remains, all confirm those statements of Daniel which were denied by critics. Objection XIV. There are many variations between the Authorized and Revised English Versions. We also continually hear of the dif ference between the Received Greek text and the critical Greek texts. Is then the original text of the New Testament uncertain? We will first speak of the Greek text. Be fore the Greek New Testament was printed, it was circulated in manuscript. Of these manuscripts there are yet in existence about two thousand, containing larger or smaller portions of the New Testament, dating from the fourth to the sixteenth centuries. There are many variations in these manuscripts, consisting of omissions of words, or of additions, or of substitutions, or of a change in the order and spelling of words. The origin, number, and value of these variations have been carefully examined, and strange as it may seem, this immense variety of different readings constitutes our best guarantee that we can restore, with certainty, the very words in which the apostles recorded the truths of revelation. And although there are no less than one hundred fifty thousand variations, or about an average of ninety to a manuscript, only about four hundred materially affect the sense; and of these not more than fifty are really important, and in no case is an article of faith or a precept of duty affected, which is not abundantly sustained by other passages of Scripture. Such progress has been made in the science of Textual Criticism that today we have a purer text of the Greek New Testament than the church possessed since the third century, and as near the primitive text of the apostles as the organized efforts of the scholarship and criticism of the present age, assisted by Divine help, can determine. Every true scholar and earnest Christian will rejoice together at this success. Such an attempt to restore the original Greek text is known as a critical text, and we have three such texts of a very high rank, which to all intents and purposes are identical,—the texts of Tischendorf, of Tregelles, and of Westcott and Hort.. It is well known that the old English Version was made from a printed text which was based on manuscripts comparatively modern, and which did not represent the oldest and most accurate text, and, therefore, our Old Version does not in every case represent the purest text now attainable. The changes in the Revised Version result, therefore, from two causes: (1) alterations have been made in some cases on account of a change in the reading of the original, the oldest and purest attainable text having been restored; (2) alterations have been made on account of a change in the translation of the original. Reasons can be given for every change. The only valid objection that can be urged against the Revised Version is, that in some cases it is too literal. F-Jan. Objection XV. Those who profess to accept the Bible do not agree as to its teachings. That all men do not agree with reference to what the Bible teaches does not lie in the Bible itself, but partly in the feebleness of the human mind, which is unable fully to grasp the truths of Revelation, and more especially in the different principles which actuate men in their interpretation of Scripture. There can be no unity of the faith until men agree on the principles which are to guide them in interpretation. In answer to those who maintain that a passage of Scripture can be understood in different senses, and who would make the Bible a changeable, doubtful rule of faith, flexible at the will of the fancies and passions of men, we must insist that Scripture has a simple, clear, and positive meaning, that a passage has but one true sense, and that God wants us to find out this meaning, and that this meaning is capable of being investigated. Objection XVI. There are difficulties and obscurities in the Bible. We grant this, but this is no reason why we should reject the Bible. As long as men are in their natural condition and live in sin, they cannot understand the things of God. These obscurities arise from the finite nature of our minds, and from the supernatural character of the truths revealed, but espe cially from the corruption of mankind. By a proper study of God's Word and a firm reliance upon the aid of the Holy Spirit, many of these obscurities will be removed, and the seeming difficulties will disappear. Objection XVII. the wants of men, educated. The Bible does not satisfy especially of the highly It is true that there are many highly educated people who profess not to find in the Bible what their mind aspires after, but the reason of this can be traced in certain historical, philosophical, ecclesiastical, political, social, or ethical causes. But to claim that all highly educated persons cannot find peace in the Bible is a malicious libel. The greatest minds that ever lived have accepted and do accept the Bible as their only guide and hope of life. In opposition to this objection, we maintain that the revealed truths of the Bible do satisfy the most mysterious and most profound needs of the human soul. The Bible alone solves the great problem of salvation; it alone meets the deepest yearnings of our hu man being; it alone furnishes the power by God's grace of perfecting holiness; it alone gives peace to the conscience; it alone can produce joy and peace in the hour of death. Objection XVIII. We are not sure that all the Books now in the Bible have a right to belong there. This question of the Canon is an important one at the present day, but much misunderstood. It is necessary, first of all, to distinguish between the Old Testament Canon and that of the New. The Canon of the Old Testament first appears as a finished whole in the prologue to the Greek translation of the book of Ecclesiasticus, the date of which certainly lies between 250 B. C. and 130 B. C. Not only does the prologue especially refer to the Old Testament according to its three divisions of "the law," and "the prophets," and "the rest of the books," but also in the book itself it is manifestly assumed as a thing well known. So, likewise, it is evident that the Canon of the Old Testament lay in its present compass before our Lord and his apostles, just as we have the enumeration of its parts in Josephus, the Jewish historian, who flourished 70 A. D. In the New Testament these Old Testament writings are regarded as one complete whole, as in John 5:39; 10:35. From a careful study of all the evidence, there can be no reasonable doubt that at the beginning of the Christian era the Jews had a Canon of Sacred Writings distinctly defined, and that this canon was recognized by the Lord and His apostles, and that this canon was the same as we now have in our Hebrew Bibles, and accepted by all Protestant churches as the Canonical Books of the Old Testament. The Christian Church has received the Old Testament Canon from Israel, and Christ as the fulfiller of the Old Testament has definitely set His seal upon it. With reference to the New Testament Canon we have no such inspired teaching as to the extent or limit of the canon. The collection of the New Testament writings was relatively late in its origin and slow in its progress, and it was not until the year 397, at the third council of Carthage, that the canon was settled. But from a careful sifting of all the evidence, it seems that already two hundred years before, 2 Peter is the only book which was not distinctly recognized as an apostolic and authoritative writing. In the case of the New Testament the question whether a book does or does not belong to the Bible, does not depend so much on the testimony of the Early Church, as on its authenticity, genuineness, and inspiration. But as we can prove the authenticity, genuineness, and inspiration of 2 Peter, its canonicity is also established. We have thus briefly attempted to show why, as believers in the divine origin of the Bible, we are not willing to be led astray by the cavils of unbelievers and the attacks of rationalists. A GYPSY SETTLEMENT. BY JAMES K. reeve. T was not yet quite day-light when we started out one morning in early August on our search for the gypsies. The sun would be hot at midday—a long drive was before us-so we did not grumble at turning out betimes, nor at taking a cup of coffee and a hasty lunch in place of a more leisurely breakfast. Thus we found a cool air, a brisk breeze blowing, and little hint of midsummer sultriness as our ponies rapidly covered the miles of smooth white road that winds along the banks of the beautiful Miami. The country people were hardly astir at first, but by and by we saw open house-doors and the smoke curling up from kitchen chimneys; then a rural milk-man turning his cows afield; next a man plowing; a boy lazily (or sleepily) breaking the seed-stalks from the tobacco, acres and acres of which were growing on either hand, and whose heavy, tropical-looking leaves sent out a pleasant spiciness upon the air. Clover fields just purpling with the second bloom, stretched away, velvety and fragrant. The tassels of the corn standing in serried ranks nodded and waved, and as the sun rose higher gave golden glints above the green. By the road-side the first colors of the ripening year were shown in the seed-bunches upon the wild carrot, which were of every shade of yellow and brown; thistles were in bloom, and bunches of wild flowers gave bright reliefs. A field of oats stubble, a picture of gold, was fittingly framed by the deep green of a neighboring wood. The river made a silver thread, now broader, now narrower, through it all, and reflected in its bosom the delicate tints of the sunrise. If this is the sort of thing, we thought, that the tent-dwellers have every day; this exhilarating sense of freedom that out-door life conveys; this constant fellowship with Nature in her changing moods and seasons, we cannot wonder that through all the mutations of time their race have clung to the wild-wood and the tan. Viewed according to our latter-day intelligence the life of the nomad may not be the highest type of existence. The life that takes no thought of the morrow, builds no home, produces nothing from the earth, establishes no definite and honorable connection with the interests of the world at large, may be reprehensible-but it is enticing. Yet this curious, vagabondish, half-mystical people have led this life for centuries, preserving throughout a distinct tribal aspect that still definitely separates them from the nations among which they live, but with which they have never mingled. Being so few in number, perhaps never more than a million in all Europe and America, it is a matter of wonder that they have not become wholly extinct, or so absorbed as to have lost their individuality as a race. That they have been so well able to preserve their customs, mode of life, and personal aspect so unchanged by the lapse of time, has been due in a great measure to their strong and continued effort to prevent marriages between their own people and the outer world. Almost complete ostracism is the portion of such as disobey this unwritten law; the severity of this punishment and the dislike for incurring it, can only be realized when it is remembered that the gypsy is wholly unaccustomed to rely upon himself individually, but acts in all things as a part of the family or tribe. Being also wholly unused (as well as disinclined) to steady labor of any sort, he can make but a sorry fight with the world when turned adrift alone in it. Although they have thus far proved wholly unresponsive to the opportunities for a higher civilization, it may be that the old or der of things is passing away. It is to judge of this that we have come a-gypsying to-day. Almost twenty miles of smooth road and fertile country have been left behind when we stop before a modest brick house standing a little way back from the street, in a suburb of the city of Dayton, Ohio. This is. the property and for a part of the year the home of a gypsy of wide repute, the heirapparent to a throne in Little Egypt; and here, and hereabout, is the rendezvous of a numerous band, or tribe. This settlement is widely known as the home of some of the richest and most influential families of gypsydom, among them the Stanleys, of whom the present head, Levi, is called the king. As they are reticent regarding their own affairs (though voluble enough when a scent of trade is in the air) it is difficult to ascertain just the kind or degree of dignity and authority that the title confers. But there is sufficient evidence to show that it is more than an empty honor. The title is hereditary, the present king having succeeded to it as the oldest son of one Owen Stanley, an English gypsy of whom I shall speak further on. So far as may be determined from outward indications, the office of king is mainly that of judge and arbiter. All disputes among themselves are referred to him and there is no appeal from his decision. He has also the direction of the camping and trading parties, determining what route they shall take, the length of their stay, etc. More authority than this he can scarcely have, as, of course, they must conform to the laws and civil establishment of the country in which they live. In Scotland at one time special authority was conferred upon these chiefs by the state; a writ of privy seal, dated 1594, supports John Faw, lord and earl of Little Egypt, "in the execution of justice on his company and folk, conform to the laws of Egypt." This was an exceptional privilege and there is no record of a like leniency being granted elsewhere. This Levi Stanley is a short, heavy-set man of something over seventy years; he is still strong and active, with a ruddy cheek and bright eye. Much of his time is passed with the traveling parties, while his oldest son, Levi, Jr., a stalwart, handsome man of fifty, assumes much of the active direction of affairs, looking after property, etc. |