THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD

Acknowledging the supreme authority of the Scriptures as a source of religious knowledge we yet do not found this authority on a general theory of inspiration, but on the fact that reason finds the doctrines of the Scripture most evidently true and such as must come from God. In short we accept the Bible as containing the Word of God somewhat in the same way that we accept the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. Above all, we hold that "the Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." For us the truth is well exprest in the following words: Altho all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

III

THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE

RESURRECTION

THE temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 of the Christian era, when the Romans under Titus successfully stormed its battlements. In each of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke we read that our Savior foretold this event and the sufferings connected with it. Of course, if this recorded prediction involved a knowledge of fact which was impossible till after the fact occurred, we must conclude that all three evangelists wrote after the year 70. This argument has had weight with some modern critics, altho it creates the impression that the Gospels are tinged with pious fraud. We, who find nothing irrational in the idea of supernatural prophecy, any more than in the thought of a miracle—and who allow that, under certain circumstances divine predictions are not merely possible, but probable -can consider without prepossession the question concerning the dates to be affixt to the canonical accounts of our Savior.

THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS

Moreover, so far as we can see, the origin of these Scriptures should be investigated and ascertained in the same way as that of other ancient writings. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that much may be learned from the contents of these venerable documents-from the ideas and words, the statements and references, to be found in them; much also from the testimony of the early Christian Fathers who were contemporaries of the Apostles or who lived while apostolic memories were yet fresh. If now we accept the statements of Papias, Polycarp, and Irenæus, who wrote in the second century, and of other later authors, we must hold that the three synoptic Gospels were composed independently of each other, and probably at places far apart, yet all of them at nearly the same time and approximately thirty years after the cruci fixion.

Possibly, too, they followed other memoirs of Christ which had been found unsatisfactory. Luke tells us at the beginning of his Gospel that many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which were most surely believed among Christians. Each of the Evangelists may have felt called to meet the de

sire of God's people for a better life of our Lord than any which had been written. But it is also evident that each had a specific purpose in view.

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN

Matthew wrote with the object of convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah, whom they expected. Mark shewed to the Gentiles that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Luke aimed to put into acceptable literary form all the things concerning the Lord of which he had "perfect understanding from the very first."

Matthew was that disciple, also named Levi, the son of Alphæus, whom our Savior called from his work as a receiver of taxes; he may have had more skill with his pen than the other Apostles; he is supposed to have been the oldest of them all. Luke is identified by the Fathers with the beloved physician who was associated with Paul during certain journeys and during the residence of the Apostle at Rome; he was born at Antioch and probably was a Gentile proselyte before his conversion to Christianity. Mark was sister's son to Barnabas, the apostolic missionary; Peter in his first epistle speaks of him affectionately as "my son Marcus"; and Irenæus says

that "Mark delivered in writings the things preached by Peter."

The account of our Savior by John, the disciple whom he loved, was penned toward the close of the first century when this Apostle was an aged man, but still a pastor at Ephesus. Jerome, who was born about the year 345, records the tradition that John wrote his Gospel at the instance of the bishops of the churches in Asia Minor in order to confirm the faith of God's people in the divine character of our Savior. John dwells less on the outward proofs of Christ's claims and more on Christ's thoughts and utterances than the other evangelists do.

REPRODUCTION OF VERBAL TEACHINGS

So far as the four Gospels agree in their statements, the coincidence may be ascribed to the fact that their common aim was to reproduce the teachings which the first preachers of Christianity had been repeating for years to the churches everywhere, and which, as Luke says, were matters of common belief. No one of the sacred documents makes any reference to any of the others; each bears the appearance of an independent undertaking. But we may suppose that John had seen the other Gospels before writing his own, and that he intended to throw new light