different words. Of these 138 are common to the two, that is, .22 of the whole. "Comparing G1 and CJ, we find that together they use 628 words, of which 113 are common to the two, that is, only .18 of the whole. "Comparing G1 and JC, we find that together they use 531 words, of which 85 are common to the two, that is, .16 of the whole. "Comparing G2 and JC, we find them using 539 words in all, and of these 118 in common, that is, .22 of the whole. "We have thus gone through the possible permutations, and find that in the comparison of any two of these parts of the Epistle to the Romans with one another, the number of words common to the two is never more than .22 of the whole, and in one case is only .16 of the whole, the average being .19 as over against the .25 in the corresponding comparison of P and Jin Gen. i.-xii. 5. Every one must see the significance of this result. If the linguistic phenomena brought out by Professor Harper indicate difference of authorship in Gen. i.-xii. 5, a fortiori does the result of our analysis indicate the fourfold authorship of the Epistle to the Romans."1 The author then goes into detail, and brings out a great many very cur ious results. For example: in the different conceptions of righteousness and justification which appear in JC and CJ,“both of them use the term dikaιoσúvŋ, but not in the same sense. In every instance in which JC uses it (i. 17; iii. 21, 22, 25, 26; v. 17, 21; x. 3-6, 10) with reference to the peculiar state or privilege of the Christian, it is used in a forensic sense; it is God's justifying righteousness, an imputed righteousness, not a moral state of uprightness. CJ, on the contrary, in every instance uses the word to denote the moral or religious state of the Christian. He uses it at vi. 13, 16, 18, 19, 20; viii. 10; xiv. 17. No one looking at these passages by themselves, and without reference to JC's use of dikaιorún, would ever think of assigning to the word here any other than the simple ethical sense. And even those who regard the Epistle as a unit have for the most part recognized this difference of sense. 1 "Our omission of the pronouns and the more common conjunctions and prepositions must be quite balanced by the prefixes, suffixes, and inseparable prepositions and conjunctions of the Hebrew, which of course cannot have been counted in Professor Harper's enumeration. Should all these words be added to our list, it would be increased by about 64, of which 41 are used by all in common. But here, too, striking phenomena appear. E. g., πpós occurs nowhere in G1, once in G2, but 7 times in JC and 10 times in CJ. "Os is used by CJ 17 times, by G2 13 times, but by JC only 4 times, and by G1 only Ovrw occurs 17 times in G1 and nowhere else. 'Aro occurs in CJ 15, in G1 and JC each 4, in G2 only 2 times. 'Ey' in G2 10, in CJ 4, in JC 2 times, in G1 not at all. El in G2 22, CJ 20, in G1 and J each 4 times. "Iva in CJ 14, G2 12, JC 4 times, in G1 not at all. Merá in CJ 4 times, JC twice, G1 once, G2 not at all. My interrogative in G2 6 times, JC once, in G1 and CJ not at all. Zúv 4 times in CJ, nowhere else. Tis in G2 24, CJ 14, JC 4 times, in G1 not at all. Tép in JC 10, CJ 8 times, G2 once, G1 not at all." once. In reference to only one of these passages (vi. 16), does Meyer, for example, undertake to interpret the word as denoting justification; and in this case he makes it refer not to the present state, but to the final judgment. Such phrases as "the righteousness of God,' "gift of righteousness," "righteousness which is of faith," are entirely wanting in CJ. "The same difference appears in the use of the verb dikaiów, and the nouns δικαίωμα and δικαίωσις. The verb is used twice by JC (v. 1, 9) and both times expressly with reference to justification through faith in Christ's atonement. It is used four times by CJ (vi. 7; viii. 30 bis, 33), but in none of these instances is there any such express connection indicated. No doubt the verb in all these cases may have a forensic sense; but in none of them is the notion connected with the atonement of Christ. Δικαίωσις occurs only in JC (iv. 25; v. 18), and in both cases is used with express reference to justification through Christ's redeeming work. Alkalwua is used by both, but in an entirely different sense. JC (v. 16, 18) means by it a judicial sentence, or justifying act; CJ means by it simply an ordinance (viii. 4). "In short, the general conception concerning the initiation of the Christian life is markedly different in the two writers. According to JC it is introduced by faith in Christ on man's part (i. 17; iii. 22, 25, 26; v. 1, 2) and by an act of gracious acquittal on God's part (iii. 21, 24, 26; v. 9, 16, 17, 18, 21). According to CJ, however, the Christian life is begun by dying to sin, by being identified with Christ in his death to sin (vi. 2-11; vii. 6; viii. 2), and entering upon a spiritual life in Christ (vi. 11, 16; viii. 9-11, 14-17). It is a striking fact that, while JC speaks of faith (Tloris) in this specific sense of justifying faith in Christ's atonement no less than ten times (i. 17 tris; iii. 22, 25; v. I, 2; x. 6, 8, 17), and of believing (TOTEúw) no less than eight times (i. 16; iii. 22; x. 4, 9–11, 14 bis) in the same sense, CJ nowhere in the dogmatic part of his work uses wiσTis, and when he does use it, in the hortatory part (xii. 3, 6; xiv. 1, 23 bis), in every case denotes by it merely the general religious attitude of the Christian. This is equally true of his use of miσteúw (vi. 8, xiv. 2), which, as he employs it, has no reference whatever to faith in Christ's atonement. "Now if anything is cardinal in the so-called Pauline doctrines, it is the conceptions of faith and justification. Yet with reference to these conceptions we discover a marked and unmistakable distinction between JC and CJ. Their phraseology is largely different; and where it is identical the meaning is different." But space fails us to dwell upon the numerous ingenious theories, such as are frequent in many recent works upon Old Testament criticism, to escape a difficulty by supposing an interpolation or a corruption of the text. The historical argument is also dealt with in the same thorough manner, and every conceivable objection is considered and parried after the manner of the followers of Kuenen and Wellhausen, and the author closes with the just remark, that "by the exercise of sufficient ingenuity equally plausible efforts might unquestionably be made with many other ancient and even modern works about whose genuineness there is not the slightest doubt in any wellbalanced mind." And it must be confessed that, on comparing the linguistic argument for the composite nature of Romans with that given by Delitzsch in the fourth edition of his Commentary on the Prophecy of Isaiah for the composite character of that book, Mr. McRealsham has presented the stronger case. If Delitzsch is surprised at the strength of his argument against the unity of Isaiah, much more reason is there for surprise on the part of the author of this brochure. Says Delitzsch: "In carefully weighing the material collected in these lists one is surprised at the number of phenomena telling against the unity of authorship. It is strange that the combination of divine names, Lord, Jehovah of hosts' (i. 24; iii. 1; x. 16, 33; xix. 4), meets us nowhere in the Deutero-Isai anic parts, and the description of God's judicial power by his hand stretched out' (v. 25; ix. 12, 17, 21; x. 4; xiv. 26 f.; xxxi. 3) only in xxiii. II; but it is still more strange that the Isaianic leading thought of a remnant surviving the period of judgment is nowhere put in this form in chaps. xl.-lxvi., and that in chaps. xl.-lxvi. the idolatry of the heathen and of Israel is constantly opposed without the idols being once called elilim, as in ii. 8, 18, 20; x. 10 f.; xix. 1, 3; xxxi. 7. And it is a heavy weight in the scale, that in xlii. 6; xlix. 8; liv. 10; lv. 3; lix. 21; lxi. 8 covenant' is a religious conception belonging to revelation, whereas in the first part it occurs only in a political sense (xxviii. 15, 18; xxxiii. 8), and that all flesh' (xl. 5 f.; xlix. 26; lxvi. 16, 23, 24) is quite foreign to the first part. The fact is hard to reconcile with the identity of the author, that God's designation of himself: I am he, I am Jehovah and no other, I am First and I Last, running through chaps. xl.-lxvi., is without parallel in the first part; that such attributive designations of God as Maker of heaven and earth, Former of Israel, etc., are wanting in the first part; and that bara, which occurs in the first part only once (iv. 5), in the second part is a governing word about God, the world's author. Driver pertinently remarks, that the first Isaiah celebrates the majesty of Jehovah and the second Isaiah his infinity; and it is quite correct to say that the idea of the "Servant of Jehovah' does not stand to the Messiah-figures of the first Isaiah in the relation of continuous development, but is a departure from the previous line of teaching and the striking out of a new path." Indeed, the elaborate articles of Rev. Mr. Cobb1 upon the linguistic peculiarities of the different portions of Isaiah when compared both with each other and with the literature of other periods of Jewish literature, prove as conclusively as anything can be proved outside of mathematics, that whatever arguments there are which can be adduced against the unity of the book are to be sought in some other quarter. In other words, the discussion of the unity of Isaiah is not one in which expert Hebrew scholars have any special advantage. Isaiah may be a composite book, but the evidence of it does not 1 Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxxviii. pp. 230-253, 658-664. appear in its linguistic characteristics, except upon the adoption of the principles of proof that are demonstrated to be false by McRealsham's reductio ad absurdum in the case of Romans. And the same is true, also, as the author himself shows, in the case of the efforts to establish the composite character of the Pentateuch by a similar analysis and classification of its conWe earnestly advise all who are in danger of falling into the toils of the mistaken methods of so many Old Testament critics, to peruse this jeu d'esprit of McRealsham, and before surrendering themselves to their confident assumptions make a preliminary effort to expose his fallacies and answer his subtle arguments. tents. G. F. W. II. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SUPERNATURAL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Ir is a serious logical error to attempt at the present time to prove or disprove any of the subordinate miracles of the Bible apart from the general evidences supporting the system to which they belong. This is as true of the miracles of the New Testament as of the Old. To those who have lived since the beginning of our era, and have been called upon to decide concerning the claims of the Bible, the first and the most important question has ever been, What think ye of Christ? This question has been forced upon them, first of all, by their contact with those who believe in Christ and have experienced the blessedness of his promises. In answering this question, the vast majority of candid minds have been led to confess that Christ was at least a supernatural being, and that a notable miracle was wrought in his resurrection from the dead, and exaltation to heaven. Thus, at the very outset of our inquiries concerning the Christian system, we are forced either to believe in a miraculous dispensation or to stand aloof altogether from participation in the work of the church. It is appropriate, therefore, that we should find a superabundant amount of evidence going to establish this central miracle of the system. And this we do find. The resurrection of Christ and the events immediately leading up to it are recorded with great minuteness in all four of the Gospels, and are the basis of most of the exhortations and reasoning of the Epistles. No man therefore can cross the threshold of the church and enter the company of believers without confessing at least as much as the centurion did who beheld the Saviour's dying agonies, "Surely, this is the Son of God." Without proper appreciation of the evidential value of this fact, there can be no just estimate of the weight of testimony supporting the various other historical facts connected with the system of which Christ is the central figure. It must be admitted also that the human mind is too limited in its vision to determine by itself what should have been the appropriate ante cedents and accompaniments of the career which closed on Calvary. The 150 Critical Notes. principal province, therefore, of historical criticism, is to determine from One of the most noticeable things to the student of Christian evidences is the congruity of the culminating facts of the Christian system with all their antecedents and accompaniments as recorded in the Old and New Testaments. There is a unity pervading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation If there are miracles introduced into the history which cannot be ignored. at various stages, they are clearly proportionate to the ends to be attained; that is, upon a just comprehension of all the accompanying circumstances, they conform to the law of parsimony so constantly used in scientific reasoning. The system is not so overloaded with miracles as to be fantastic, but everything is subordinated to the grand culmination at the close of Christ's If there are a few miracles,-like the floating of the axe, or earthly career. the experiences of Jonah, or the destruction of the swine at Gadara,—that seem fantastic, it can be said of them, in the first place, that they are the exceptions, and not the rule; and, in the second place, that we are debarred from arbitrarily rejecting them by our ignorance of the accompanying history, and by our inability fully to estimate their importance in making the truth attractive to multitudes who could not otherwise have been properly impressed. It is the province of the Bible not only to contain the truth, so that all by diligent search can find it, but to enforce its central facts, so as to compel even the inattentive and the unwilling to give it due consideration. The Bible is not a bare revelation of truth, but a book of facts clothed in every kind of rhetorical form and set forth with infinite variety of representation. In considering the direct evidence supporting the mass of the miracles recorded in the four Gospels, the student is at once struck in most cases with its meagreness as compared with that supporting the more central fact of the resurrection. The former often consists merely of the single statement of the anonymous writer of a Gospel. How, then, is it that we rely with such confidence upon the testimony of a single witness to events of such a nature that similar reports at the present time could not obtain general credence though a committee of scientific experts should sign an affidavit that they had witnessed them? The evident answer is that these isolated reports in the Gospel histories receive confirmation from the general evidence supporting the system to whose history they belong. They cannot be proved to be incongruous elements in the history. In the main they are manifestly in strict accord with the other acts attributed to Christ during his earthly ministry, and they are free from those fantastic elements elsewhere so universally connected with reported miraculous facts. If Christ is indeed the Son of God, and has come into the world to accomplish the great purposes that throughout the New Testament are attributed to his mission, the |