"VOX DEI

IS, defence of Simpte

Presenting the real case for

and explaining the obstinacy

of the stalwarts who know
all that can be urged against
the Bible far better than
some of the critics, but who
remain absolutely convinced
that it is
of

By
ISLIP COLLYER.

BIRMINGHAM :

C. C. WALKER, 21, H E N D O N ROAD, SPARKHILL.

1921.
 (Toitt&nts*

CHAPTER L— Page
Explanation of objects. Cumulative evidence. Mistakes of
Christians and Sceptics which prevent them from under-
standing each other ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1
CHAPTER II.—
The Sceptical tendency. Appeals to feeling and prejudice all
useless. The cold logic of the case ... ... ... ... ... 5
CHAPTER III.—
Miracles and unbelievable stories. Tendency to deride the
unfamiliar ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11
CHAPTER IV.—
Alleged contradictions in the Bible. The real task of the
unbeliever ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 15
CHAPTER V.—
Impossibility of compromise. The Bible either super-human
or fraudulent 19
CHAPTER VI.—
The Jews as God's Witnesses 22
CHAPTER VII.—
The resurrection of Christ. Attempts of sceptics to grapple
with the facts 27
CHAPTER VIII.—
Unwilling witnesses. Direct prophecies regarding the Messiah. S3
CHAPTER IX.—r
Unwilling witnesses continued. Many Christian prophecies of
which enemies have been custodians ... ... ... ... 41
CHAPTER X.—
The Chapter of chapters 52
CHAPTER XI.—
Prophecies regarding various nations, Egypt as a special
example 61
CHAPTER XII.—
When were the prophecies written? An examination of an
unreasonable assumption which nearly all unbelievers take for
granted t 66
CHAPTER XIII.—
The rude arguments. Evidence which has been ignored because
it is unpleasant ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 73
CHAPTER XIV.—
The prophecies of Daniel 79
CHAPTER XV.—
The last message 87
CHAPTER XVI.—
Seals, Trumpets and Vials. Consecutive and detailed events
in modern history which were foretold by students of prophecy
long before they occurred. The Shelves of Memory 92
CHAPTER XVII.—
Analogies and harmonies. Showing how the student can
continue to accumulate evidence 114
CHAPTER XVIII.—
Final considerations ... 116
Vox
 44

A DEFENCE OF SIMPLE FAITH.

CHAPTER I.

We have travelled far since the time when a bishop made a

sensation by first suggesting doubts as to the authority of the
Pentateuch. Perhaps we have almost reached the time when
another bishop may cause an equal sensation by confessing a
belief that Moses was right after all. It is certain that in the
present age there is very little, belief in the only real foundation
of Christianity. Few men have ever read the Bible through.
We cannot recognise the sincerity of people who, as a matter
of theory, thank God for giving them a revelation of His will,
but while praising the book do not trouble to read it. Such
people are only falling into harmony with a convention and
making use of conventional language with no real meaning
behind it.' On the other hand, everyone can understand the
meaning of men who attack or condemn the Bible. Scientists
brush its claims aside as beneath their notice; Socialists attack
it vehemently as an obstacle to their ambitions; and many leaders
of religion use language as bitterly hostile as that of the atheist
of half a century ago.
Meanwhile there are a few people left who cling most
obstinately to the old idea of plenary inspiration, and who
demonstrate by their acts that their faith is real. The writer of
these lines was brought up in such an atmosphere. Among his
earliest recollections is the family reading of the Bible. We read
by a system which carried us through the Old Testament once
and the New Testament twice in the course of the year. We
rarely omitted a chapter on the ground of unsuitability, and if
it chanced that a portion of the daily reading was of such a
character as to be unfit for reading aloud to the entire family,
it was understood that the older members should peruse it in
private. There are men and women living now who have sustained
such a system of reading through life, going through the whole
of the Bible twenty, thirty, or forty times in the course of their
studies, while some portions of the sacred writing's have been
perused many more times than this. They have compared part
with part, they have studied history in the light of prophecy, and
they remain to this day convinced that the Bible is in truth the
Word of God, and that all its promises will be fulfilled.
Why is it that they are so obstinate when even ministers of
religion have been prominent in leading a revolt against such
simple faith ? Some critics have a ready answer to this question.
They scornfully affirm that these stubborn last defenders of the
faith are fools, absolute simpletons who cling to the old absurd
ideas merely because they have never possessed sufficient intelli-
gence or received sufficient education to know how far the modern
world has advanced.
It is quite true that often these defenders of the Bible have
been, like the first disciples of Christ, "unlearned and ignorant
men"; but it has not been an invariable rule, and even when
they have been most lacking in learning they have been not at
all deficient in elementary logic. When we find it impossible to
understand the attitude of men who hold very definite doctrines,
it is well either to refrain from expressing any opinion regarding
their intelligence or to make ourselves acquainted with their
peculiar point of view. If we investigate we shall generally find that
there are some unsuspected reasons for the stubbornness of the
last defenders; for absolute fools are almost as rare as wise men.
This essay in defence of simple faith is undertaken with the
object of making the position of such devoted adherents of the
Bible more intelligible to critics who have often treated them with
a contempt which is undeserved. There is a real need for such a
book, even in a world with libraries already too full. It is not that
there are many absolutely new arguments or ideas to be presented.
The arguments may be old and well known, but hitherto they
have not been elaborated in such a manner as to give an outsider
a proper understanding of the case as it appears to the devoted
defenders of Scripture.
The force of the evidence is cumulative. It is impossible to
appreciate the real value of any part of it unless we have a compre-
hensive grasp of the whole. This principle is recognised in
connection with ordinary matters. It is possible to identify a man
by a multitude of minor peculiarities, any one of which would seem
absurdly trivial when considered by itself. He is exactly five feet
ten in height, he has red hair, he is slightly lame in the left leg,
he has an anchor tattooed on the right arm, and so on. Let the
number of such peculiarities be multiplied sufficiently and we can
be absolutely certain that we have the right man. If a casual,
uninterested critic witnessed only a single point of the test he might
exclaim scornfully: "What fools these people are. They think
they have identified this man as the one they want merely because
he has red hair! "
 The injustice of such a comment is obvious. The significance
of the man having red hair is wholly dependent on the fact that
it is one of many peculiarities all pointing in the same direction.
Let the critic master all the facts of the case, and even if he is
not convinced that they have found the right man he will at least
see the reasonableness of others holding such a conviction.
In the same way let the man who repudiates the claims of
the Bible obtain a comprehensive grasp of the evidence as it
appears to the real believer, and even though he remain a sceptic
he will find a new respect for Christian "simpletons." Unfortu-
nately this cumulative evidence is more complex than the most
detailed description of a man. It requires many months of close
study to enable one to grasp it fully, and generally speaking,
sceptics of all degrees are unwilling to give the necessary time to
such investigation. They brush aside the first point of evidence
as absurdly inadequate by itself, and then by the time they have
been persuaded to examine a second point they have forgotten
the first. We could never identify the missing man if we examined
all his peculiarities separately, with complete forgetfulness of all
the others. We say this is the man we want not merely because
he corresponds to the description given in any one point, but
because he corresponds in every point. The real Bible believer
says this is the Word of God not merely because of one point of
evidence, but because of very many converging lines of evidence
which he is able to perceive in one comprehensive view.
Another direction in which the casual critic goes astray in
dealing with Christian simpletons is in his constant assumption
that certain conventional ideas are accepted by everyone. There
are some lines of evidence, especially in Old Testament prophecy,
regarding the Messiah, which are really startling if carried to
their logical conclusion, but which involve ideas so completely
at variance with certain traditions of Christendom that the
conventional Christian never pursues them. We have known an
instance of a man of some learning condescending for a moment
to answer one point raised by a "simpleton'* and revealing an
astonishing ignorance of the real issue. He contemptuously
brushed the argument aside by pointing out the unpleasant
conclusion to which it inexorably led, although as a matter of
fact these unpleasant associations greatly added to the force of
the argument. The " simpleton" who, of course, knew every
detail of the case far better than the critic could tell him, accepted
the unpleasant idea as a palpable fact which no real believer in
Scripture could deny. It seemed to him that the critic, for all his
learning, was a man of such abysmal ignorance in Bible matters
that it was useless to reason with him. The real difficulty was
that there was a complete failure to understand the issue.
 We have known the Bible devotee to fall into an exactly
similar error. He has grouped all sceptics together, and has
apparently supposed that a modern scientist in some way stands
for the defence of all the ideas that have ever been expressed in
the name of science since the world began. Thus, instead of
dealing with a new theory on its merits, he has scornfully brushed
it aside by showing that it contradicts certain ideas that have
been discarded long ago. The learned sceptic can see how
contemptible and foolish such a method is in dealing with his
convictions. Surely he will desire to avoid falling into a similar
error in his treatment of others.
This little work is undertaken with the idea of presenting in
simple and comprehensive form some of the principal reasons
for the intense conviction still held by some people that the Bible
is, in the fullest sense, a true book. It will not be possible to
reveal the matter in the glowing light in which it appears to those
who have devoted years of study to the sacred writings and have
lived in an atmosphere of fervent faith.
It may be possible to present a view of the subject sufficiently
complete to be stimulating to friends and enlightening to the
opponents of the Bible. It may be even that in some cases a
train of thought will be started with ramifications far beyond the
scope of the present essay.
 CHAPTER II.

THE SCEPTICAL TENDENCY.

It is not necessary to say much in defence of the Christian

simpleton regarding his belief in God. Few men venture to deny
the existence of a Creator, even if they are atheist or "without
God in the world." It is doubtless difficult to realise the idea of
an all-powerful Creator, Uncreate and Immortal, but it is still
more difficult to deny Him. The Universe as now constituted
must have had a cause adequate to the present effect. That cause
must have been a force of some kind or it could have produced
nothing. That force must, in some form, always have existed,
or it could never have come into existence. A force which always
has existed and which has been the primary cause of all things
is utterly beyond our understanding, so that whether we accept
the idea of a Creator or not, we are bound to begin our conception
of the Universe with an unknowable force. It is no more difficult
to believe in an intelligent first cause than in a blind force. We
cannot grasp the idea of anything having always existed.
Unending time and unending space are utterly beyond our com-
prehension, whether we believe in God or whether we think that
all things have come by chance from an unintelligent and uncon-
scious force. In view of the world of life and intellect this force
has produced, it seems more reasonable to believe, in a conscious
Creator, and so to begin our philosophy with a recognition of
God.
The case, indeed, may be stated far more forcibly than this.
All that has been proved by genuine science tends to show that
we can never get out of anything more than it originally contained
or than has been put into it. All the pitiable attempts of inventors
to make perpetual motion machines were efforts to flout this law.
Some primitive scientists spent years attempting to hang weights
on a wheel in such a manner as to keep it constantly revolving.
Some inventors laughed at the folly of the wheel man, but fell
into precisely the same error with a mechanism only slightly more
complex. They tried to use the falling of water to drive a wheel,
and thought to have enough spare power to pump the water back
to its original position. They failed to recognise that to lift a
given volume of water to a certain height would take exactly as
much power as the same water would yield in falling. Any heat
caused through friction of machinery would be dead loss to the
inventor. Such men attempted to cheat Nature by a complication
of chains and cogs. They easily confused themselves, but Nature
never made a mistake. At last her law has been recognised and
reduced to a formula. "Action and reaction are equal."
Whether we hang weights on a wheel or whether we try to harness
the current of electricity to make it self-generating, we are
confronted with this inexorable law.
Does not the same principle prevail in the larger machinery
of worlds and systems ? All the stars known to astronomers only
constitute a speck floating in boundless space. The energy of
the inventor's machine is dissipated in the surrounding world,
and he cannot recapture it. The whole system of worlds is sur-
rounded by infinite space into which its light and heat will radiate,
and what is there to bring back that lost energy to keep the finite
machine moving. Yet clearly the system of worlds and suns is
an evidence of perpetual motion, for it is moving now, after the
lapse of infinite time. The only explanation is that all forces and
substances are finally subject to an infinite will. The man who
thinks the universe is a perpetual motion machine without any
supreme will -to control it is as foolish as the inventor who assayed
to harness gravitation to his service by hanging weights on a
wheel. The man who imagines that a blind and unconscious first
cause could produce intelligence and volition is as foolish as the
one who believes that water will mount by the force of gravitation
higher than its fount. Science tends to prove that which
philosophy would enunciate. All substance comes from pre-
existing substance. All force comes from pre-existing force.
All life from pre-existing life. All intelligence from pre-existing
intelligence. And in that conception of substance, force, life, and
intelligence we have the idea of God as the one supreme reality.
Everyone will concede the lesser part of the argument. The fact
that substance and force exist now, proves that in some form
they always have been. Why not the logical conclusion ? The
fact that life and intelligence exist now proves that they always
have been. Nothing can put into the universe more power than
was originally there. It is difficult to believe in the existence of
an all-powerful God; but the difficulty is of the same kind as that
we experience when we contemplate the idea of space without limit
or time without either beginning or end. We cannot understand
it, yet it must be so.
Probably many sceptical observers would admit freely that
Christian "simpletons" have good grounds for their confidence
in this foundation of their belief. Such critics would invite us to
deal with faith in the Bible as a revelation from God, and to
elaborate our defence of the "simpleton" for holding so persistently
his confidence in revelation.
 There is one phase of the matter to which we pass very
naturally from consideration of the belief in God. It is necessary
to make a statement which will probably seem very strange to
sceptics, and will perhaps at first be derided by almost everyone
who hears it. Yet as the result of twenty-five years of constant
observation the writer has no hesitation in making the affirmation.
The real Christian "simpleton," the man who genuinely believes
in the Bible and studies every part of it, supports his position
by arguments which, whether completely reasonable or not, are
certainly appeals to reason. On the other hand, the bitter opponent
of Scripture generally uses arguments nine-tenths of which are
merely appeals to human passion, prejudice and sentimentality.
This doubtless will seem an extraordinary statement, but it
will not be difficult to make every reader recognise the truth of it.
The earnest Christian who tries to establish the fact of Divine
revelation realises that sentiment which appeals to him will not
influence opponents, and he therefore eliminates feeling from his
argument. He cites the preaching of the early disciples and
emphasises the fact that they had no worldly advantage to gain
and everything to lose by their testimony as to the resurrection of
Christ from the dead. He points to the alleged fulfilment of
prophecy, and argues that an unaided man could not possibly
foresee future events as the writers of the Bible foretold them.
These are certainly appeals to reason, however unconvincing you
may think them: What happens in the average discussion when
the opponent of Scripture begins his attack ? He generally pays
little heed to the Christian's argument, but makes a horrifying
parade of the ugly features of Bible history and teaching. The
bloodshed, the suffering, the exhibition of man's impotence, all the
features, in fact, which are most distasteful to the natural man.
There can be no doubt that this kind of tirade is effective. Many
conventional Christians have been overwhelmed by the discovery
that the Book to which they had rendered an unreasoning
allegiance administers such rude shocks to human sentiment.
It is easy to understand why the opponent of Scripture has been
led to use such arguments as the chief of his stock-in-trade.
They have had the most effect on the majority of Christian
apologists. It is clear, however, that they are only appeals to
prejudice and sentiment. They will not have the slightest effect
on the real Bible devotee. He knows all the ugly passages better
than any opponent can tell him, and he knows that there is nothing
in Scripture more horrifying than the events of which he can read
in secular history or can see in the world around him. Such
a man marvels at the narrowness of people who allow their faith
in God to be ruled by the experience of the moment.
" W h a t ! " one such exclaimed, "people losing faith in the
existence of God because of this last terrible war! Why, if we
had no better foundations than that our faith would be killed in
our Sunday schools! ''
When you reflect on the matter you must surely admit that
it is very unreasonable and little-minded for a man to alter his
conception of unalterable verities merely because he discovers that
the generation in which he lives is no better than the hundreds
of generations that have preceded him.
The real believer in the Bible tries to face the ugly truths
of life with endurance and resignation. He recognises, as all
thinkers admit, that we are driven back to acknowledge a supreme
Creator in spite of all the terrible events of life. He claims that
insomuch as the ugly passages contained in the Bible can be
applied as a reasonable argument, they are in favour of the Book
and not against it, for they are in harmony with all past history
and present fact.
If such a man sees that since the days of Christ there have
been "wars and commotions" and "distress of nations," x does that
constitute any reason why he should lose faith in Scripture ? If,
in taking a long survey of history, he is forced to the conclusion
that God permits or even * 'creates evil," 2 is that any reason
why he should begin to doubt the Bible? Or if, in contemplating
the idea of God as the ruler of all, he sees wicked men used as
the "sword of the Lord" for the punishment of other wicked,
should that make him doubt? If finally he feels crushed and
overwhelmed with a sense of human insignificance, if in observing
Nature "red in tooth and claw," careless alike of "the single
life" and the type, he is at last led to exclaim "all nations are
before God as a drop of a bucket," or "the small dust of the
balance, altogether vanity," 3 is such a conclusion to make him
deny the truth of the Book which makes these affirmations ? The
ugly passages in Scripture can be used as effective weapons by
unbelievers just insomuch as they are appeals to human passion,
prejudice and sentiment. The moment we try to make a reasonable
application of them the argument is all the other way, for we are
led to recognise that here we have a collection of writings, telling
us about God, giving us hope of a better life, and yet at the
same time recognising the terrible facts of this world.
This distinction may be emphasised if for a moment we
suggest an application of the sentimentalist's argument to a
scientific discussion. When Charles Darwin and other lesser
men have expounded the doctrine of evolution they have tried to
reason from a multitude of proved facts to a conclusion in dispute.
Their arguments have unquestionably been appeals to reason,
whether we consider them sound or unsound. What would be
thought of the Christian who boastfully claimed that he could
overthrow the scientist's theories, and who then confined himself
(1) See Luke xxi. (2) See Isaiah xlv., 7. (3) Sec Isaiah xl. 15, 17,
entirely to a tirade against the cruelty involved in evolution ?
Nature certainly appears far more cruel according to the faith
of the scientist than in the hopes of the Christian. The struggle
is so much more protracted and with so much less hope of
alleviation. What is it but a painful fight to rise higher, to
suffer more keenly during untold millions of years ? And what
hope but to continue the struggle for some millions of years more
until the powers of Nature fail and all creatures go back to the
frozen dust from whence they came ?
What would be thought of the Christian who attacked the
doctrine of evolution on these grounds, fulminating against the
cruelty of Nature and appealing to human passion ? What a
contemptible sentimentalist he would seem! In what way are
the sceptics superior when they use the same foolish arguments
against the Bible?
It may freely be admitted that such critics have some excuse.
They have fallen into the habit of using the kind of appeal that
proves effective without inquiring into the sense of it. A man
who in early days has taken the Bible on trust from his spiritual
guides, one who has never read more than a few chosen chapters
and who has only paid heed to the prophets of smooth things,
may so easily be turned from his conventional allegiance. In
religion he is only a flabby sentimentalist, and the flabbiest of
arguments suffice to overthrow him.
If, however, you desire to understand the position of the real
adherents of the Bible, you must recognise the possibility of their
being at least as stalwart as the devotees of science. A real
scientist patiently studies the book of Nature and compares part
with part. He recognises that his sentiments, his ambitions, and
his affections count for nothing in the ordering of law. He
patiently bears all the hard blows that Nature gives him, and
he loves her in spite of them all. It is so with the real Bible
believer. He admits freely that the Bible contains many statements
that shock and wound him, but he loves the Book in spite of them
all. He recognises the utter futility of raging against unpleasant
truths, or of setting up human standards by which to judge the
conduct of God.
The sceptic sometimes, in an attempt to invest his attack
with an element of reason, raises the question, "Is not your God
all good ? If so, how can you reconcile this quality with some
of the acts recorded of Him in Scripture ? *' Such a question
offers an excellent foundation for blasphemous fulminations which
may silence the Christian through his abhorrence of such language,
but which make no appeal to reason. Certainly the Bible affirms
that God is good; but would any man who admitted even the
possibility of a supreme being existing, venture to call Him
anything else ? God is good from the highest possible standard,
and that standard is His own. The attempt to judge the Creator
by human measurements is grotesque folly. We cannot even agree
as to what constitutes a good man. Find a man who is prominent
in the world and who thus wields a measure of power, and
although he has all the virtues of an ideal hero, someone will plot
to murder him and hundreds of his fellows will call him scoundrel.
If we are unable to agree in judging those of our own nature in
connection with the matters of our little world and our short
span of life, how shall we judge the Supreme Being in His purpose
relating to infinite space and time?
When we speak of a good man we do not mean good from
the standpoint of the animals he breeds to supply him with food.
When we speak of a good woman we do not mean from the point
of view of the domestic cat and her many kittens. We mean
good from the human point of view with human purposes and
final ideals. Why, oh why should men become so utterly shallow
when they try to criticise God? Why should they assume that
all other creatures are made for us and we are made for ourselves ?
Why judge from the human standpoint when considering the lower
creatures and still from the human standpoint when considering
the Creator of all?
The genuine, whole-hearted Bible lover tries to escape from
this narrowness. He recognises that human sentiment and self-
pity are worthless in the discussion. He recognises that the work
of God can only be judged in relation to infinite time, and the
matter is beyond our grasp. He recognises that God's word
"will not return unto Him void. It will prosper in the things
whereunto He has sent it"—and nothing else matters.

10
 CHAPTER III.

MIRACLES AND UNBELIEVABLE STORIES.

Critics appear to regard the stalwart Bible believer as a man
of amazing credulity, who accepts all the extraordinary stories
of Scripture without ever being conscious of any difficulties. As
a matter of fact, in many cases the believer is fully aware of
incongruities and stumbling blocks; but he claims also to be
conscious of certain superhuman qualities which demand his belief.
In this again his appeal is to reason, whether the conclusion is
reasonable or not. The argument may be stated thus.
The book of Daniel, for instance, claims to give us a revelation
from God. A considerable portion of the book of Daniel reads
like a fairy tale written for children, and it is quite unlike what
we should expect in a divine revelation.
These two propositions may be accepted freely by all candid
people.
But we have no data by which to determine how God would
reveal His will. If He inspired a man to write a divine book,
it might be a profound and heavy treatise which only professors
could understand, or it might quite as likely be a jolly tale for
the children. If, therefore, the book of Daniel reveals a knowledge
which only God could possess, there is reason for believing that
the claims of the book are true. The mere fact that it is not
the kind of book we should expect a divine revelation to be counts
for nothing in the logic of the case. Hardly anything in life
turns out exactly as we expect. We grow in knowledge through
a long series of surprises, and children often greet the first
assurance of the most sober facts with incredulous laughter.
Then again, the critic is not quite logical in his treatment of
miracles. Some men, claiming to speak in the name of science, rule
out miracles altogether on the ground that they are unscientific.
This is simply begging the question. Science means knowledge
reduced to a system. We may, with our knowledge of existing
forces, affirm that certain things are possible; but unless we
possess infinite knowledge of all forces we are not in a position
to say that anything is impossible unless it involves % contradiction.
If fish could engage in philosophic discussion they might, on the
basis of exact knowledge, affirm that it was possible for their

11
kind to live out of water for a few minutes. If, however, they
went beyond and denied the possibility of any creatures surviving
out of water for a longer period they would be falling into an
obvious error.
Is it not a fact that life is found almost everywhere with
organs and capacities suited to its environment? In the air and
in the water, on the earth or in the earth. In the dry sand or in
the mud at the bottom of a river. Under almost all conditions
life of some sort is found, from the lowest form we can recognise
as living to the highest form we are capable of understanding.
Is it not both illogical and narrow-minded to suppose that there is
nothing in the scale of life higher than man ? All the argument
of analogy would suggest the probability, on scientific grounds,
that there are beings of a higher order than ours, capable of
living where we should perish, and capable of understanding us
though we may not be able to understand them. If once we
concede that there may be such beings it is useless to deny the
possibility of miracle. The occasional intervention of the ethereal
race in the affairs of humanity would account for any miracle
that is recorded in the Bible.
Perhaps a follower of Haeckel may arise to carry the story
of creation rather further, and on the most thoroughly atheistic
lines find an explanation for all these things. If blind force and
chance could evolve the human race, surely, given long enough
for its operations, it could evolve an ethereal race also. And as
the universe has already had infinite time for its processes, it
must already have produced all it is capable of producing. The
ethereal beings are generally invisible to us, just as we are
invisible to the fish; but sometimes they come down among us
in strange disguises, and then miracles happen. The old stories
of wonders might become quite popular on such a basis, with the
God of Israel excluded!
Of course the scientific man does not mean that miracles
are impossible. All he means is that he does not believe in them.
There is no reason why he should believe them unless they are
extraordinarily supported by evidence; but it is foolish and unfair
to prejudice the case by declaring beforehand that they are
impossible.
A more logical method of attack is that of the one who
produces evidence of a credulous age in which people readily
believed almost any story of wonders and miracles. Such a critic
contrives quite plausibly to class the miracles of the Bible with
these discredited tales.
This argument should be recognised by everyone, and its
correct weight should be allowed in our consideration of this
subject. Unfortunately this is very seldom done. The logical
conclusion to be drawn from the premises is obviously that we
should examine the evidence of any story of miracle with great

12
 care. If we find ourselves in a neighbourhood where spurious
coins circulate freely, we do not conclude that all coins are
spurious. The base metal is an imitation of the genuine. We
make the logical decision that any coins in which we are interested
must be examined carefully. In dealing with these stones of
miracle, however, the believer too often pays no heed to the
warning, while the unbeliever accepts the fact that there are
many spurious coins as an excuse for not examining the evidence
at all.
In considering the possibility that there may have been an
age in which real miracles were worked, it is only fair to recognise
how unconvincing and even absurd anything unfamiliar may sound
if it is related in the old-fashioned and matter-of-fact language
of our English Bible. The sceptics of Voltaire's day scoffed at
the old stories of miracles, but assuredly they would have scoffed
more at true stories of modern development described in the old
style of language. If the days of Israel's kingdom in Palestine
had been the age of science instead of the age of miracle, and
then the accumulated knowledge and the many inventions had
perished as completely as the power to work miracles, how farcical
the record would seem. Let us suppose a few choice specimens
of how the Bible might have read in such a case.
" I t came to pass in the reign of King Uriah that cunning
men made them chariots to fly in the air, and they flew even to
Egypt, and to the far off isles of the Gentiles, going and returning
swifter than the eagle, and so high that no enemy could see
them; and the people marvelled: They made use of the free
spirit of the air to talk and to send their messages withal. They
laid them down wires through the length and breadth of the land,
from Dan even to Beersheba, and from the river Jordan unto the
great sea, so that the king in his palace could talk with his
ministers in whatsoever part of the land they sojourned, and they
could answer him again.
"And it came to pass that a wise man came to the king and
said, 'Is there any searching of the power of the spirit? Behold,
it is a light thing that we should send messages through wires.
We will build towers and send our messages through the air.'
And the king answered, 'Even so, do as thou hast said; have not
I commanded ? ' And it was so that they built towers, and the
king of Egypt he also built, and they flashed their messages
through the air from the centre of the land to the remotest bounds
of Egypt, in a moment in the twinkling of an eye."
* * * * *
"And there came a young man from Gilead, and he said:
'Go to, let us make machines that can talk with the voice of
man.' So he took him wood and iron and brass, and he taught
cunning men to shape them withal, and he made him a machine
which could speak the words of a man. It even spake great and

13
high-sounding words in the presence of the king, * reproving him
for his evil ways, and saying, "Turn from thine iniquity, O king." '
And the king rose up astonished."
One can almost hear the derisive laughter of such men as
Voltaire on reading such accounts as these. They would have
exclaimed: "This is the greatest absurdity of all! If it is once
granted that God has intervened in the affairs of men miracles
become possible, but who can believe such an absurdity as the
idea of men building towers which would flash their messages for
a thousand miles through the air, or of making a machine which
could talk? "
It must in common fairness be admitted that our impressions
as to whether a story sounds reasonable count for very little in
the logic of the argument. Whatever the true story of creation
may be, it would certainly sound incredible to us. Whenever
people possess powers which are quite beyond our range, a simple
narrative of their exploits will seem absurd.
Scientists who claim' that nothing has ever happened outside
the reign of law as they have observed it, have to repudiate their
statement almost as soon as it has been enunciated; for there
was a time when not a single living creature existed in all the
universe. Surely the beginning of life was in the nature of
miracle ?
Men who laugh at the old stories of wonders find themselves
surrounded by wonders of another type, the story of which would
seem equally absurd to another generation.
The only logical course is to test each case upon its merits.
Not to say that no man could possibly make a talking machine
or that messages could not possibly be flashed for a thousand miles
through the air, but to reserve our judgment, to admit the
abstract possibilities, and to believe the accomplished fact when
it is well attested by evidence. Not to affirm that no man could
possibly be endowed with power to give sight to the blind and
hearing to the deaf; but certainly to demand very good evidence
before we believe in such things.

14
 CHAPTER IV.

One more argument of the sceptic calls for attention before

we proceed to explain the case of the Christian "simpleton."
An attempt has often been made to overthrow the Bible by
exhibiting the apparent contradictions between one part and
another. In many controversies during the past fifty years this
has been the principal weapon used, and probably many opponents
of the Bible have marvelled that any Christians could survive the
deluge of destructive criticism.
It is certain that the critics have never secured an adequate
understanding of the case or they would not attach so much
importance to these efforts. It is generally easier to point out
apparent discrepancies in any book than to explain them. Even
if the teaching of the book is perfectly harmonious, a partial view
will disclose some apparent contradictions which can only be
explained through a patient investigation of all the facts. Thus,
while the superficial contradiction may be pointed out in a sentence,
the fundamental harmony may require a complete essay. An
avalanche of alleged contradictions is effective in a public dis-
cussion when passions are excited, and the most generous applause
is often given to the most shallow hits; but it cannot be expected
that such trifles will greatly influence the convictions of one who
is thoroughly in earnest.
The Christian champion quite reasonably points out that the
argument based on supposed contradictions is double-edged.
Whenever it is found that something which appeared contradictory
is harmonious after all, this discovery is more than a refutation
of the antagonistic argument. It is a point in favour of the book.
The Bible is a compilation written by so many different authors
and separated by such wide intervals of time that one would
expect the contradictions to be numerous and unmistakable. The
hostile critic says that they are so, but he has often weakened his
case by protesting too much. Some efforts to establish contradic-
tions have been as unfair and tortuous as the most desperate of
all the attempts to set up a defence. The Christian stalwart has
found the explanation of apparent discrepancies in many instances;
why should he not assume that with further knowledge he would
find it in every case?
As one pointed out some years ago, there may often be an
unknown factor which reveals a complete harmony between

15 •
apparently contradictory statements. Two accounts of the exile
of Napoleon Buonaparte would appear hopelessly contradictory if
one related to the time when he was sent to Elba and the other to
the time when he was banished to St. Helena, yet both might be
perfectly true. If nothing were known of an escape and a second
overthrow, a defender of the records who suggested such an
explanation would be derided as an unfair champion of narratives
which were obviously indefensible.
Then again, the real Bible believer fully realises that he is
not dealing with original writings. When manuscripts are copied
and translated, even with the utmost care, it is almost inevitable
that some errors will enter. The man of faith may feel confident
that God would exercise a controlling hand, even upon such
matters as transcription and translation, but just as He permits
His servants to be tried severely while guarding them against
overwhelming temptation, so He may have interfered to protect
the written word only so far as to insure that it would "prosper
in the thing whereto He sends it."
The unbeliever may scoff at such thoughts, but it cannot
well be denied that the Christian is logical in taking such an
attitude. The analogy of Nature does not suggest that everything
would be made easy for man. Nature hides her riches and men
have to search for them with patient labour. Often men have
mistaken Nature's laws, and failing to recognise that conditions
were different, have brought disaster upon themselves. It is useless
for the sufferers to declare petulantly that Nature is uneven and
contradictory. If they study her more closely they will discover
the fundamental harmony of her laws and the manner in which
men have been at fault in applying them.
It is easy to understand how the alleged contradictions of
Scripture would operate on the mind of a sincere believer.
Perhaps, for instance, a sceptic pours forth a dozen of such
objections. He and his friends smile with self-satisfaction, and
they may be right in thinking that they have scored a polemical
triumph. The sincere believer, however, wants to get at the
root of the matter for the satisfaction of his own mind, and
without much regard for the excitement of discussion. Perhaps
as the result of his investigations he finds explanations which
completely satisfy him in respect of half the objections raised.
Naturally he accepts the conclusion as a further evidence of Bible
truth, and a renewed assurance that if his knowledge could be
extended all difficulties would vanish in the same way. He is
logical in this. Beyond all cavil it is a fact that apparent contra-
diction with fundamental harmony is the characteristic of the
true record, while superficial harmony with intrinsic contradiction
is characteristic of the false. If several men give a true account
of an event in which they have played a part, it may require some
careful analysis before we perceive the complete harmony between

16
 the several versions. If deceitful men in collusion concoct a story,
the superficial harmony will be perfect. Careful analysis will be
required to expose the discrepancies.
It certainly seems to the writer that in view of the many
men belonging to different ages who contributed to the collection
of writings we call the Bible, the case made out by those who
have attempted to convict it of contradicting itself is surprisingly
weak. It is a more logical style of attack than the appeals to
human sentimentality or the attempt to use the weapon of ridicule,
but it cannot be expected to carry much weight with serious
students. People who have accepted the Bible much as an English
schoolboy accepts the British Empire may be turned against it
by the discovery that it is not in harmony with their views of
life, and they are thus led to make an open repudiation of a faith
that was never in them. To the real believer all these arguments
appear as shallow trifling.
Perhaps a sceptic might exclaim, "You are trying to deprive
us of all our weapons and so to fence the Christian round that
no conceivable argument could influence him. If we declaim
against the severity of the Bible, we are shallow sentimentalists
with the logic of fact against us; if we ridicule the Bible, we are
using an unfair weapon which can be employed against anything
strange or outside of our usual orbit; if we point to the contra-
dictions, these matters are of no weight, for some have been
explained, and probably all could be explained if we had sufficient
knowledge. What kind of attack can we make then ? What kind
of objection would carry any weight ? ''
To such questions we would answer—why worry about finding
objections at all ? If you desire to turn the stalwart believer from
his faith, show him that his reasons for belief are inadequate.
If you can do that, all other objections are superfluous. Until
you can do that, all your usual methods of attack are utterly
futile. Surely every man of commonsense will agree that if the
God of the Universe were to give a message to us personally we
might feel a hundred objections to it, although we should have
too much sense to urge them. The message would probably
differ greatly from all that we expected, but we should have too
much intelligence to be surprised. It is almost impossible to think
of a logical negative argument that could shake the claims of the
Bible. We have so little data on which to work, for we know
nothing of what God would or would not do. Incomparably the
best argument to prove the Book false would be to show that
there is no reason for believing it true.
There may be some people who read a psalm and exclaim,
"How beautiful! The Bible must be the word of God." Then
later they may have their attention drawn to the destruction of the
Midianites, and they exclaim, "How dreadful! The Bible cannot
be the word of God.' * If the sceptic only desires to influence such

17
people, then let him go on his way without any change of method.
He cannot be too shallow in his appeals or too illogical in his
arguments.
There are, however, some men of simple faith who are not
ruled by sentimentality. They have received all the hard knocks
the Bible can give them. They have studied all the alleged
contradictions with the closest attention. Yet they maintain a
faith which lives and moves in their everyday life, strengthening
them for daily self-sacrifice and filling the future with soul-stirring
hope.
It will be the object of the following pages to show some
of their reasons. If any reader desires to understand them, it
will be necessary to read carefully, and to bear the points in mind
so as to obtain the comprehensive view. It is the cumulative force
of the evidence that carries conviction. It is this that is per-
sistently missed by critics.

18
 CHAPTER V.

It has often been claimed by "unlearned and ignorant men"

that there is no possibility of compromise in one's attitude towards
the Bible. Either the Book is a revelation from God or it is the
greatest imposture the world has ever known.
This harsh statement of the case is resented by many people
who would greatly prefer to compromise in the matter. As a
writer recently stated, "No one would dispute the supreme position
of the Bible in literature if no claim had ever been made that it
was a divine revelation." It would suit our convenience much
better to regard the Scriptures as inspired only in the manner that
all good books can be so described, leaving us at liberty to attach
much or little importance to its messages according to the manner
in which they appealed to us.
Learned men have often attempted to effect such a com-
promise, but they have not been very successful. Their learning
has been used to confuse the issue rather than to enlighten it, and
we have to confess that the Christian "simpletons" have been
more logical. The Bible unmistakeably makes claims which we
do not find in an ordinary book. Repeatedly it represents God
as speaking through men and declaring, "I am the Lord," "I am
the God who brought you out of the land of Egypt.'' The prophets
are represented as saying, "The Word of the Lord came to me,"
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." One is represented as
declaring that such evils befel him as the result of his testimony
to the house of Israel that he determined to speak no more in the
name of the Lord; but the Spirit compelled him (see Jer. 20).
The history of Israel from the Exodus to the Captivity is a record
of God's dealings with men. There were, however, some periods,
such as in the early days of Samuel, when "The word of the Lord
was precious and there was no open vision." There were also
some very plain predictions that there was coming a time when
the sun should go down on the prophets, when God would "hide
His face from the House of Israel," and for a lengthy period the
special revelations would completely cease.
The student who desires to understand the position of the
Christian "simpleton" must pay careful attention to these special
professions and reservations. Why are there such gaps in the
history of this literature which claims to be inspired ? If God

19
 never spoke to the house of Israel he could not ever cease to
speak. If they were never His people He never cast them away.
It would seem strange, then, that there should be such a division
between inspired and uninspired times. Strange that there should
be predictions of an approaching eclipse of the prophetic impulse
on account of the wickedness of the nation: and that later writers,
whatever their ability might be, should meekly accept the situation
and give tacit sanction to the condemnation. It would seem still
stranger that the revival of prophetic claims in the last days of
the Jewish constitution came only from a small and despised
section of the people, and in connection with the introduction of
a religion which, although powerful enough for its influence to
sweep through the world, was nevertheless repudiated by the
nation which gave it birth.
There can be no mistaking the fact that the New Testament
Scriptures claim inspiration. Not only in the Gospel narratives,
which place Jesus in such a special light, but even in the Epistles
the most distinct claim is made that the writers were under the
direct control of God. Thus the Apostle Paul writes: "If any
man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge
that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the
Lord."
On a special occasion the same Apostle explained that one
particular feature of advice was given by permission and not by
commandment, surely in itself a sufficient indication that these
writings cannot be judged by ordinary standards. Indeed, the
whole of the New Testament is in harmony with the declaration
of the first few verses of the letter to the Hebrews: ' 'God who at
sundry times and in diverse ways spoke unto the fathers by the
prophets hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son."
The Christian may well ask, "If these claims were not true,
why should not a second Isaiah have arisen to speak with all the
old authority and to denounce the new religion? " It does not
seem easy to suggest an explanation of this partiality of the
prophetic impulse if it came solely by the will of man.
Beyond these general claims, which stamp the Bible as
different from ordinary books, there are one or two special
utterances which set forth the issue very distinctly and prepare
the way for a searching test of these claims. In the book of
Isaiah a challenge is addressed to all who should presume to
dispute the supreme position of the God of Israel. They are
invited to come forth and produce their reasons. "Show us the
former things, or declare things to come." Then we have the
God of Israel rerpesented as saying, "I am God and there is none
else declaring the end from the beginning and from former times
the things that are not yet done; saying My counsel shall stand
and I will do all My pleasure."

20
 This claim is put so definitely and so emphatically that 'he
student is bound to recognise the setting of a direct test of the
Bible. We certainly cannot in the exercise of our natural powers
declare the end from the beginning. If we attempted anything
in that direction it is practically certain that the march of events
would discredit us, and the longer the period over which our
pretensions could be put to the test the more complete would be
our failure.
It is true that there have been some modern predictions
which have excited a measure of interest through the manner in
which they have been justified by events, but usually these
prophecies have followed an obvious line of thought and have
guarded themselves against the possibility of being proved false.
They have predicted developments that were recognised as possi-
bilities by all far-seeing men, and they have refrained from fixing
any time for the realisation of their expectations. Thus, the march
of events may easily prove them true but can never prove them
false. It has generally happened that when they have ventured
to make a prediction which could be falsified their limitations have
been exposed immediately.
We might with safety predict in this year of grace 1921 that
there will come a time when the tides shall be harnessed to the
service of man, when a source of power at present unknown
will perform all the work of our inland cities, and when coal
will be needed no more. Another century may easily witness
such developments; but if the century should pass without them,
the prediction is not falsified, for we fix no time period for the
fulfilment of our prophecies. If, however, we venture to write
that certain things never shall be, we may be proved false before
the ink is dry on our paper.
The Christian stalwart often grows impatient with critics
who attempt to class the prophecies of the Bible even with the
most famous of Gentile prognostications. He maintains that they
are utterly different, not only in degree, but also in kind. They
set forth such high claims as to call forth the fiercest light of
criticism, and they challenge eternity by affirming that certain
expectations of man never shall be realised, even though from the
ordinary human point of view they seemed inevitable.
It is only reasonable that all men who venture to treat the
claims of the Bible slightingly should at least make themselves
acquainted with the point of view of those who, after such close
study of these ancient writings, remain so confident of their super-
human origin.

21
 CHAPTER VI.

THE JEWS AS GOD'S WITNESSES.

In connection with the challenge the Bible offers to anyone

who should dispute the supremacy of the God of Israel, and the
claim to declare the end from the beginning, we have to take note
of a very definite statement regarding the Jews. "Ye are my
witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen.
. . . I have declared and have saved and I have showed when
there was no strange God among you, therefore ye are my wit-
nesses saith the Lord that I am God."
It is only reasonable to call the Jews as the first witnesses
and to enquire whether their history offers any justification of the
claim that the end was declared from the beginning in a manner
beyond the power of man.
The argument to be drawn from the history of the Jews is
well known and there is no need to elaborate it. All that is
necessary here is to re-state the evidence in a series of simple
affirmations and to point out the manner in which it constitutes
a reasonable foundation for the argument which gradually develops
with cumulative force in the mind of a Bible student.
Since the beginning of the Christian era the Scriptures of
the Old Testament have been in the hands of Jews and Christians,
whose mutual jealousies have safeguarded them from interpolation.
It will be admitted even by the most prejudiced opponent of
the Bible that the whole of the Old Testament was completed
long before the destruction of Jerusalem in the last quarter of
the first century.
If, therefore, we consider only those well attested facts of
history which have occurred since the beginning of the Christian
era, we shall be able to put the claims of the prophets to a
searching test.
If we compare the last seven chapters of Deuteronomy, the
twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus, the third chapter of Hosea,
and the thirtieth chapter of Jeremiah, we shall find very definite
statements regarding the future of the people to whom these
writings were given.
A series of blessings were put before them if they should
obey the law, and curses if they should disobey.

22
 Moses said, "I know that after my death you will utterly
corrupt yourselves and that evil will befall you in the latter day."
It is clear, therefore, that according to these Scriptures the
curse pronounced would come upon them.
A fierce nation was to come against them and besiege them
in all their gates until, amid scenes of appalling tragedy, they
should be overthrown. They were to be sold into slavery until
"no man should buy" them. They were thenceforth to be
"scattered among all nations." They were to be persecuted and
hated, to be an "astonishment, a proverb and a byword."
They were to dwell for many days "without a king, without a
prince, without a sacrifice, without an ephod and without
teraphim." Yet, in spite of all these shocks to their nationality,
in spite of their being without a country, and without organisation
to hold them together, they were always to remain a separate and
distinct people.
It was also declared with emphasis and reiteration that the
fertile and favourably situated land of Palestine, instead of being
developed by the conquerors and brought to an increased produc-
tivity, was to lie desolate for "many generations," so that the
"heathen should be astonished" at its appearance. Arid this
condition was to continue until the day of deliverance and restora-
tion, when it should be "brought back from the sword and the
desolation of many generations."
All these predictions have been fulfilled exactly. Many
centuries after the last of them was written "the evil in their
latter end" came upon the Jews. The Romans, to whom the
figure of the eagle mentioned by Moses is singularly applicable,
besieged Jerusalem, and in the straitness of that terrible time
the predictions of Deuteronomy xxviii. were fulfilled with dreadful
completeness. The city was overthrown, the survivors were sold
into slavery until the slave markets were glutted and "no man
would buy." After a second rebellion in the reign of Hadrian
further punishment was administered, and the savage edict was
issued forbidding the Jew to live in the land of his fathers, from
that time the Jews have presented the anomaly of a people without
a country. They have been scattered among all nations,'' as Moses
declared they would be. They have been persecuted and hated
in all these lands. They have been "an astonishment, a proverb
and a byword" in the most literal manner, for the "wandering
Jew" is a phrase known to everyone, and in the speech of the
vulgar to "jew" a man is to defraud him.
After some attempts to appoint leaders who could help to
sustain their nationality, the Jews surrendered themselves to the
fate that had been foretold for them, and for many days they
have dwelt "without a King and without a Prince." The symbols
of their religion have similarly failed in accordance with the same
prophecy. It has been impossible to sustain their ritual in their

23
enemies' land, and they have been "without a sacrifice and without
ephod and without teraphim."
Yet in spite of all adversity, in spite of every circumstance
which might have overwhelmed them and merged them into the
surrounding nations, the Jews have remained through all the
centuries a separate and distinct people. Their case is unique.
For over seventeen hundred years they have been forbidden to
enter their own land. They have been scattered in all parts of the
earth and subjected to every kind of trial, but they remain a
separate people to this day, reminding the earnest Christian of
those challenging words repeated more than once in their ancient
Scriptures, "Thus saith the Lord, though I make a full end of
all nations whither I have driven thee, yet will I not make a full
end of thee."
The facts of the case are not called in question. The dispute
between the believer and the unbeliever is simply as to the
significance of the facts.
A candid and capable sceptic will not pretend that he sees
no force in the argument. Nor will he regard it as unworthy of
consideration merely because it is old and well worn. An
argument may lose some of its potency through frequent repetition
just as a drug fails to have any effect on one who has taken too
much of it. But if this principle applies to matters of reason and
logic it is only our weakness; in harmony with the well known
saying "familiarity breeds contempt." In strict logic the only
effect of frequent repetition upon an argument is to test it by
exposing any possible flaws and affording opportunity for an
answer to be found. It is only a weakness of the human mind
that yields to an interestingly novel argument while refusing to
be influenced by much better reasons which are well worn.
What answer, then, has been found to this well known
argument based on Jewish history? We know of none except
an attempt to minimise the significance of the events. In this the
opponent of the Bible has often missed the point. It has been
urged that the preservation of the Jews in their dispersion was
the natural consequence of the conflict between Christianity and
Islam, or that it was due to certain special features of their law.
Every phase of the history has been examined as if the defender of
the Bible claimed that Jewish experience had been ruled by
constant and obvious miracle, and the attacker only needs to show
that all the results came as the natural effects of certain causes.
This completely misses the point. Of course things happened
"quite naturally." All history is natural, but often it is very
unexpected. What could be more natural than the manner in
which England, France, Russia and Japan were brought into
an alliance against the Germanic powers? Yet who would have
expected such a development a few years earlier? What could
be more natural than the way in which the power of the Czar

24
 was broken and the Bolsheviks put in the ascendant? Yet who
would have anticipated such a change? And who will venture
to predict what the "natural development" of European history
will be during the next decade? If the course of history is so
uncertain and unexpected even over such brief periods, who could
foresee the course of events for thousands of years ahead ?
The ingenious critics who explain the natural combinations
of causes which scattered the Jews among the nations, brought
upon them bitter persecutions and yet preserved them through
it all, only succeed in showing how easily events might have
taken a different course; and thus they emphasise the significance
of the prophecies which have been fulfilled.
When the Jews were prosperous in their land their prophets,
claiming to speak the words of God and making their predictions
with sublime confidence, declared that such a calamity as that of
the year A.D 70 should come upon them. That they should be
sold into slavery, that they should dwell for many days in a
scattered condition, without a king or a prince or the proper
symbols of their religion. That they should be persecuted and
hated and yet never come to a full end. As sure as the covenant
of night and day; as sure as the existence of God himself, the
Jews were to be preserved through all their tribulation ready for
that great day of restoration which is the principal theme of their
inspired songs.
Still more remarkable is the prophecy that the land should
be desolate. In this matter it would seem that all probabilities
were against the prophet. Palestine was a favourably situated
country in the centre of human activities. It is at the conjunction
of three continents, presenting a long coast line to "the great
sea" of the ancient world. It is a well watered land of great
natural fertility, and there would seem every reason to anticipate
that the "fierce nation" which was to come against it, possessing
sufficient virility and energy to expel the Jews from the land,
would develop the resources of the conquered country to a higher
degree of fertility than ever. The prophets declared that it would
lie desolate in the sight of all who passed by. The Jews had
neglected to observe the Sabbaths of years while they dwelt in
their own land, but the land was to "enjoy her Sabbaths" * while
the people were "in the land of their enemies." The heathen
were to be astonished at the barrenness of the land, and so this
once fertile country was to remain until it was "brought back
from the sword and from the desolation of many generations."
This was surely a bold forecast and, judging by ordinary
standards, very unlikely to be justified. History, however, has
fulfilled it completely. Again it might be easy to show the natural
process which has produced the situation, but that does not in
any way answer the argument.
(1) Lev. xxvi., 34.

25
 Some critics have attempted a more direct attack, alleging
that the land always was desolate and that the reports of its
one-time fertility must have been false. Such statements have
only been made by people who have lacked knowledge and who
have been proportionately bold in speech.
The father of the present writer visited Palestine in 1887 as
the guest of the late Mr. Laurence Oliphant. He was given
facilities to examine the country, and he brought to the task a
good knowledge of horticulture. He was astonished at the
desolate appearance and the evidence of neglect, even after the
descriptions he had read from the pens of travellers. Stones were
scattered over the land, heaps of refuse, which might have been
used to fertilise the soil, had been left to accumulate for genera-
tions to breed disease, yet on looking below the surface with the
keen interest of a fruit grower the observer was amazed at the
evidence of neglected wealth.
In these days there is no need to argue the matter further.
The land is being brought back from the sword, and the most
convincing evidence of its fertility is forthcoming. The suggestion
that the ancient description was false need hardly be taken
seriously.
All that is needed here is that we shall take due note of the
ancient prophecies regarding both land and people. These predic-
tions offer a challenge to eternity. They might easily have been
falsified in any of the many generations that have passed. The
fact that they have stood the test for over two thousand years
surely offers some justification for the claim of the Bible defender
that they are different from Gentile prognostications, not only in
degree but also in kind.
It is not suggested that an unbeliever should immediately be
convinced by them. We only urge that if he desires to understand
the peculiar point of view of the thorough-going Christian he
should take due note of them. With a full grasp of their entirety
he should put them on the shelf of his mind, so to speak, ready
to be produced when another point of evidence calls for
co-operation. The argument of»the Jews as God's chosen people
is only the first stone in the building. If you desire to test
the cumulative evidence we have to put before you it must
be remembered.

26
 CHAPTER VII.

CALVARY.
If Christ rose from the dead we can surely put full confidence
in Him. The recognition of that one central doctrine of the
Christian religion would make other argument superfluous. When
sceptics repudiate the Bible it is certain that they deny the resur-
rection of Christ. When Christians are supine and indifferent it
is certain that they do not properly realise that Christ rose. It is
obvious, therefore, that in attempting to understand the confidence
of Christians whose religion is a burning reality to them, it is
necessary to examine carefully the direct evidence as to the
Resurrection.
In this matter again the facts are well known, and yet have
been much misunderstood. Some thoughtless rejectors have
treated the subject as if the books of the New Testament could
not logically be called in evidence because they are the writings
in dispute. A moment's reflection will reveal the absurdity of
such an attitude. Whenever we are considering the origin of a
great human movement the very first witnesses should be the
writers of the official records. We are not bound to believe the
witnesses, but we are in reason bound to hear them and give
due consideration to their testimony. If we conclude that what
they say is not true it is reasonable to form a judgment as to
whether they are dishonest men telling lies for some sinister
object, or whether they are mistaken men, honest but in error.
It is not reasonable for an objector to adopt a merely
negative attitude, refusing to admit anything. Even the exact
science of arithmetic would fail to convince a man if he only
disputed the final result and refused to admit or deny any of the
propositions leading to it. Unless he will agree that twice two
make four we cannot begin to reason with him.
There are some propositions in connection with the rise of
Christianity which are analogous to this element of mathematics.
A great human movement does not arise without cause. An
individual of exceptional character is almost invariably at the
root of the matter. This is often the case even when the name
of the prime mover does not transpire. How much more definitely
is it the case when all traditions of the movement centre
round him.

27
 It must be accepted as an incontrovertible fact that in the
closing years of the Jewish constitution in Palestine, only shortly
before their dispersion, an extraordinary character appeared
among the Jews. It is absolutely certain that He was hated,
and His claims were rejected by the leaders of the nations. It is
quite certain that He died. It is almost certain that He was
crucified. It is incontestably true that a report was spread abroad
that He had risen from the dead, and this was really the origin
of the Christian movement.
These first postulates must be accepted by everyone. The
evidence for them is independent of the New Testament record.
These are broad facts which stand out clearly in history, and one
cannot even pretend to account for the origin of Christianity
without recognising them. Arising from these postulates we have
a number of debatable questions. How far did the great
character of real life correspond to the account we have of Him
in the official records of the movement? Were the four Gospels
written by the men whose name$ they bear or were they the
products of a later age? Or does the truth lie between those
positions and were the original records much altered and
developed during the first century of the Christian era? What
was the origin of the singular report that Christ had risen from
the dead?
This last question is the most direct and the most important.
The learned of the Gentile world scoffed at the idea of resurrection,
which was quite contrary to their philosophy. The doctrine was
adumbrated in many parts of the Old Testament Scriptures, and
even directly stated in one or two passages, so that it was not
foreign to Jewish thought. If we examine the official records
of the Christian movement, however, we find very definite indica-
tions that the immediate disciples of Christ did not anticipate
such an event. We are shown that they hoped for a restoration
of the Kingdom to Israel, and when Christ died they lost faith
in Him. The four Gospels give an account of such evidences of
His resurrection as to set the matter at rest for ever if those
records are true. If critics reject the account given in the official
record, can they suggest any other explanation of the origin of
this persistent story that Jesus rose from the dead?
An honest attempt was made in this direction some years
ago, and was favoured even by some of the most eminent of the
men who have repudiated the authority of the Bible.
It was admitted that Jesus was a remarkable man who might
well command the most extraordinary devotion of His disciples,
and by the same qualities arouse the bitter hostility of others.
It was admitted that He was crucified, but it was suggested that
He did not at that time die. The idea was that He swooned
through the agony of crucifixion, that He was regarded as dead and
laid in the tomb, and that afterwards He revived, thus giving His

28
disciples the impression that a miracle of resurrection had been
wrought for Him.
This certainly seems an inadequate explanation of so great
a fact as the planting of Christianity in the world, but nevertheless
the swoon theory is intensely interesting in that it brings us to
closer quarters with the argument. To the whole-hearted believer
of the Bible it presents a most peculiar anomaly. The sceptic
puts forward an extraordinary and far-fetched theory merely to
account for less than a twentieth part of the evidence. The
suggestion that Christ swooned and recovered would only at the
most offer a doubtful explanation of the first claim that He had
risen. It does not touch the case of the Apostle Paul, who is
incontestably the strongest of the direct witnesses; it does not
touch the evidence of the Jewish Scriptures, which yield an oblique
support to the claims of Jesus far stronger than any direct testi-
mony could be; and it does not touch the evidence to be drawn
from the book of Revelation, which claims to come from Christ
after His Ascension to Heaven. Why such a far-fetched theory
to account for so small a portion of the evidence?
It will be easy at least to make any reader understand our
statement that the evidence of the strongest direct witness is not
touched by this suggested explanation.
The Apostle Paul's support comes at a later period than that
which is affected by the swoon theory. The claim is put forth
that he saw the Lord Jesus in glory by special manifestation from
Heaven, and heard from the Lord direct the words of reproof that
turned him from being" the most zealous of opponents and made
him the most zealous of champions.
The testimony of the Apostle Paul is particularly strong-
because we have very definite statements in the Epistles referring
to the familiar fact of his conversion and emphasising* his testi-
mony. Surely it is obvious that in a letter we come more closely
into touch with the writer than when we read of him in a record
from the pen of another.
The fact is, no one disputes the honesty of the first Christians.
They had no temporal advantage to gain by their teaching. On
the contrary, they had much to lose. The Epistles that have come
down to us in particular bear evidence of perfect sincerity. In
dealing with some of these Epistles, however, there is no possi-
bility of compromise. Either they are the letters of the men
whose names they bear, telling the truth as far as it was known,
or they are the most outrageous frauds in all literature.
It is obvious that there is a distinction between such personal
letters and an impersonal history. One who attempts to give
an account of a great movement in which many characters have
taken part, even with the best of intentions and with the exercise
of meticulous care, may nevertheless fall into some errors. His
record of the words and actions of the leading character may be

29
misleading despite the most genuine efforts to keep it accurate.
The historian and the biographer must in some measure rely on
hearsay, and sometimes they are tempted to fill in gaps with the
aid of imagination. When, however, we have a letter from one
of the leading characters we come more directly into contact with
the real man. We hear what he has to say, not merely what he is
reported to have said.
In the first letter to the Corinthians, and in the letter to the
Galatians, the writer comes before us as a witness quite as dis-
tinctly as if he were with us in the flesh and we were able to
question him. In one sense he comes before us even more
definitely. His letters have been before the world for many
centuries, subject to a fierce light of criticism, and thus they have
been put to a test greater than can be imposed upon a witness
during a short period of cross-examination.
In both of these letters to which we refer, the claim is made
in the most definite manner that the writer is the Apostle Paul.
In both of them reference is made to the well known fact that
he has been a persecutor of the Church. In both the writer
emphasises the claim that he was converted by a miraculous
intervention.
The witness comes forward claiming to be the Apostle Paul.
We ask: "Are you the Paul referred to in the official records
of the Christian movement ? The man who was a persecutor and
a defamer? "
He answers. "Yes. You have heard of my conversation in
times past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I
persecuted the Church of God and wasted it.''*
"I am the least of the Apostles and not fit to be called an
Apostle because I persecuted the Church of God.'' a
We ask: "By what means were you converted? Was it a
matter of theory and abstruse argument which changed your
opinion ? " He answers : "No." It was a matter of fact, the fact
well known to the Christians that Christ rose from the dead;
everything depended on that. "If Christ did not rise our faith is
vain, and those who have fallen asleep are perished."
He rehearses some of the evidences of this fact.
"Christ rose according to the Scriptures. He was seen of
Cephas, then of the twelve; afterwards he was seen of over five
hundred brethren at once, of whom the majority remain to the
present time although some have fallen asleep. . . . Last of all He
was seen of me also as of one born out of due time; for I am the
least of the Apostles and am not meet to be called an Apostle
because I persecuted the Church of God.''
In writing to the Galatians he refers to the well known facts
regarding his one-time antagonism to the Church and his con-
version by direct revelation from God, and he confirms his testi-

30
mony with an oath. " Behold, before God in the things that I
write unto you I lie not." 3
Will anyone venture to say that before God the Apostle did
lie ? Or that the writer of the Epistle was not the Apostle Paul
but an unknown writer who was lying throughout ?
If an opponent will not venture to make such a statement; if
he will admit that the writer of these Epistles was the Apostle
Paul, telling the truth so far as he knew it, then surely it must
also be conceded that we have an excellent witness. A man
whose early training and prejudice and whose entire temporal
interests were against the new religion was converted and became
the most zealous advocate, thus inevitably bringing upon himself
the anger" and hatred of former friends, and holding the prospect
of no advantage whatever if the new religion should prove untrue.
And this remarkable conversion was brought about, not by
any process of reasoning, but simply through the fact that Paul
saw and heard the Lord Jesus—or at least thought that this was
the case—in a direct revelation given under such circumstances
as would seem to eliminate every possibility of fraud or error.
The evidence of the first witnesses to the resurrection of
Christ was sufficiently strong to induce some modern sceptics of
repute to put forth the swoon theory, which is surely rather
fantastic and far-fetched. What other theory shall we suggest to
account for the case of the Apostle Paul?
He may be described as an enthusiast, even a fanatic. It
may be said that he was an extreme instance of a type of man
we sometimes encounter even now. One who, having formed a
conviction which seems to him of supreme importance, will
subordinate everything to the one idea. It is true that we have
encountered men of this type; but they do not help us to under-
stand the conversion of the Apostle Paul on rationalistic principles.
Invariably the men who hold to an idea so tenaciously are
extremely difficult to convert, and when they do change their
minds they are able to explain exactly what it was that convinced
them. Paul was of the same character when he "persecuted the
Church and wasted it.'' What converted him ? He tells us
repeatedly that it was not through conferring with flesh and
blood but by direct revelation from heaven. He had "seen the
Lord," and he confirms this fact with a solemn oath.
In the foundation of the Christian religion, therefore, we have
not mere matters of opinion and theory, but testimony as to one
supreme fact. We come closely into touch with direct witnesses
who had nothing to gain and much to lose in their insistent claim
that Christ was raised from the dead, and who gave the most
convincing evidence of their sincerity. Something extraordinary
had occurred to persuade them of this unexpected event, and to
endow them with a courageous confidence strong enough to
revolutionise the thought of the world. Yet if the unbeliever,
31
attempting to face the facts, suggests a far-fetched and uncon-
vincing explanation of the first report he finds that his theory
fails to touch the case of the strongest witness.
We do not suggest that an unbeliever ought to be convinced
by this evidence alone. All that we ask is that he should take
full note of it, and, making it into a neat mental parcel, put it
on the shelf of memory alongside of the argument drawn from
the history of the Jews.

32
 CHAPTER VIII.

THE UNWILLING WITNESSES.

In the last chapter it was stated that "the Jewish Scriptures
yield an oblique support to the claims of Jesus far stronger than
any direct testimony could be."
Perhaps this assertion requires a little explanation, for many
people, even devout Christians, have never taken the trouble to
understand the matter fully.
Almost everyone will agree that the indirect evidence of an
unwilling witness is generally more interesting and often more
effective than the most explicit of direct testimony. Unimpeach-
able witnesses may declare that they saw the prisoner under certain
circumstances; but there is always the feeling that they may
possibly be mistaken, however positively they speak. If, how-
ever, we surprise the most complete admission from the unwilling
lips of the prisoner's friends, the confirmation is unmistakable.
This is just the kind of evidence that we can draw from the
Old Testament Scriptures. Those Scriptures were written by
Jews; they have been in the custody of Jews, and if they were
the work of unaided men they would merely express the opinions
of Jews. There would be nothing to favour the claims of Jesus.
This line of argument perhaps needs rather careful explana-
tion, because many readers have been confused either by foolish
and illogical talk about "internal and external evidence," or by
the mere fact that the various books of the Bible are now bound
in a single volume.
We once knew a young man who objected to the argument
on the grounds that "even in a novel we have hints in the early
part of the story which only become intelligible in the light of the
conclusion."
This is a good illustration to make our point clear. It is
true that in a work of fiction—especially in a mystery story—'
there are many suggestions thrown out which even practised
readers cannot understand until the denouement makes all clear.
Then they may feel surprised at their own obtuseness in failing
to see the significance of those early hints. The reason that we
find these adumbrations interwoven with the structure of such
a story is that the author knew from the beginning how matters
would turn out at the end.

33
 The truth regarding Christ was a mystery kept secret from
the foundation of the world. Who was the author who knew what
the end would be, and who could thus give hints which, though
stimulating to the minds of readers, only became clear in the light
of the denouement ?
The Bible is a collection of books written at widely different
times and by men of greatly varying character. The Old Testament
is essentially Jewish, and the Jews reject Jesus. The Jews have
been custodians of their Scriptures from the beginning, and
probably no other book has been so efficiently guarded against
interpolation. If any Christian had been impious enough to
attempt to insert into the sacred writings any passages to favour
the cause of Christianity, the Jews would have exposed the fraud
immediately. If any Jew had been impious enough to delete from
the sacred writings a passage favourable to the claims of Jesus,
the Christians would have detected the sacrilege.
Beyond all question it is true that if the Bible does not come
from God the Old Testament comes merely from Jews, reflecting
Jewish opinions and Jewish hopes. If anything is found therein
to favour the claims of Jesus it is only a coincidence—a mere
chance.
It may be urged that there was the possibility of New
Testament writers moulding their record of the life of Jesus to
accord with ancient prophecies. We quite agree that those many
details for which we are entirely dependent in the New Testament
cannot well be cited in evidence. But, as we pointed out in the
preceding chapter, there are certain broad facts which stand out
clearly in history and have to be accepted by believer and
unbeliever alike.
The most majestic character who ever appeared among the
Jews came at a time when the Messiah was expected, but instead
of a national deliverance there followed a national catastrophe.
The great Teacher was rejected and crucified, and the nation
repudiates him to this day.
The Messiah was expected at the time that Jesus appeared.
Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks would be sufficient to
excite such a hope in the minds of earnest Jews, even though
they regarded the prediction as obscure and difficult. It was
admittedly one of those periods in which there was a lively
anticipation of the advent of a great deliverer. The Disciples of
Christ formed the conviction that He was the one to effect this
national salvation, and although their faith was doubtless tried
by many incidents during the period of preaching it was not
overthrown until the Master was slain. Then a little later the
report spread that He had risen from the dead; He had been
seen first by one, then by another, and then by many together.
Finally the great opponent and persecutor of the Church came
humbly to them, seeking their aid, with the confession that while
34
on an errand of persecution he had seen the Lord Jesus and heard
from Him direct the commands to fix the principles of a lifetime.
Try for a moment to realise how such men would be stimulated
to read the Scriptures afresh with a new interest and a keener
apprehension. They found many passages which made them
wonder at their own former blindness and the "blindness which
had happened to Israel" as a whole in the reading of their
Scriptures. Passages which had only conveyed the assurance of
an ultimate glory became charged with a new meaning, just as
the conclusion of a cleverly written mystery story renders clear
all the hints of the earlier chapters. Even readers who have been
on the alert for a surprise nevertheless may be taken unawares,
but in the light of the conclusion they exclaim, "Why did we not
see that before? "
Whether or not it is true that Jesus expounded to His
disciples "all things that were written" concerning Him, it is
certain that appeals were soon made to the Scriptures. The
disciples thought they saw clear evidence that there were to be
two advents of the Messiah, one in weakness and one in power,
with a period of waiting at the right hand of God between the
two events. They thought that they found unmistakable indica-
tions in their Scriptures that the Messiah was to be rejected by
His own people, that He was to be given as a light to the
Gentiles and not to be accepted by Israel as a whole until the
second advent in power and glory. They thought they saw in
His sacrifice the substance of all that had been shadowed and
hinted in the law and the prophets from the sacrifice of Eden to
provide a garment, to the definite prophecies of Zechariah.
The Jews as a whole, rejecting Jesus, were compelled to
repudiate these interpretations of their Scripture, and Gentile
rejectors of all degrees are under a similar obligation. It cannot
be too strongly emphasised that there was no possibility of
collusion between the writers of the Old Testament and the
disciples of Christ. If God did not in any way move the ancient
prophets to write their testimony, the Old Testament Scriptures
are the expressions of Jews writing for Jews, and any passages
favourable to the claims of Jesus must be attributed merely to
chance.
To do them justice, the more intelligent of sceptics fully
recognise this fact, and much effort has been put forth to explain
the prophecies of the Old Testament which have been applied by
Christians to the sufferings of Christ.
One complained not long ago that the subject had been
discussed ad nauseam, and he seemed to think that was a
reason for taking no further notice of it. Our present purpose,
however, is to explain the obstinacy of the last defenders, and
this object could not be achieved without taking careful note of
this line of argument. There is certainly no need for a sceptic to

35
 grow angry at the recitation of these passages, especially if he is
confident that he has found a rational explanation for them all in
harmony with his unbelief.
First then, for a moment, consider the prophecy of Daniel.
The sceptics will admit that the writer was a Jew, although they
seek to prove that his prophecy was produced at a later age
than is assigned for it by tradition. It is part of the Hagiographa
according to Jewish classification, and it was certainly well
established as having a place in the sacred Scripture of Israel
long before the beginning of the Christian era.
In the ninth chapter of this book there is an account of a
prayer, the rare beauty of which will be recognised by everyone
who has an appreciation of the magic of words. At the conclusion
of the prayer the angel Gabriel, being caused "to fly swiftly/*
reached the prophet with a message of love and a great
revelation.
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon
the holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end
of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in
everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand,
that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks,
and three score weeks and two weeks, the street shall be built
again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after three
score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself,
and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city
and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and
unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
We can imagine the unbeliever becoming impatient at this
recitation and saying, "Surely the man has heard of the destruc-
tive criticism of this prophecy! Surely he knows that the
traditional Christian interpretation has been shaken to its
foundations.' *
Of course we know of the objections that have been raised
by opponents of various grades. If there had been no difficulty,
if it had been impossible to shake the orthodox Christian interpre-
tation in any of its details, the battle with unbelief would have
been over long ago, scepticism killed by this single example of
prophecy. Instead of having an argument good enough to take
its place in our accumulating store on the shelf of memory, we
should have a complete demonstration to resist which would be
simply silly. Instead of the argument being analogous to a single
point of coincidence in the effort to identify a certain man, it
would be like a complete confession from the accused himself.
All we wish to point out here is that after making the most
generous concessions to the claims of the critics there is still
enough significance in this passage to make one of those mental

36
parcels to be given due weight in our final view of the whole
subject. And reasonable men will recognise that the thorough-
going Bible believers cannot be expected to go so far with the
critics in their determination to accept any kind of explanation
rather than admit that God inspired the prophet.
We are not unfair in passing this remark. Inoontestably it
is true that our treatment of evidence in detail is profoundly
affected by our general convictions. Everyone can see how this
principle works when the personal interest and the strongest of
prejudices are touched. We may have a friend in whom we repose
implicit confidence. When he is accused of a horrible crime we
repudiate the charge with scorn and indignation. We feel to
know that he is incapable of any base action. His enemies put
the worst possible construction on all his movements because they
think he is a scoundrel. We put the best possible construction on
them, for we believe he is a saint. Certain suspicious facts are
brought to light and the accused gives the most fantastic and
unconvincing explanation of them. We are quite honest in accept-
ing his story and arguing strenuously for it, but it is not the logic
of his explanations that convinces us. We are mainly influenced
by the original conviction that he is innocent and that consequently
all his actions must be explained in harmony with this fact. If,
however, the points against him multiply to such an extent that
our faith wavers, we begin to see all the evidence in a different
light, and perchance call to mind many circumstances in the past
which we never noticed at the time, but which unmistakably
indicate that he was leading a double life.
Even where personal interests are not touched the same
principle prevails. Indeed, there is hardly any other subject that
causes such strong feeling as religious controversy or that has
been the cause of so much unfair statement on both sides of the
argument.
Try for a moment to pass an absolutely unprejudiced judg-
ment on the question. If the Book of Daniel had been solely in
the custody of Christians, with no evidence for its existence before
the end of the first century, would any opponent of Christianity
have doubted for a moment that the ninth chapter of the prophecy
related to Jesus ? Surely it must be admitted that in such a case
all would have agreed as to the meaning of the words. The
unbeliever would have cited the exactness of the details as an
additional reason for assigning a late origin for the book just as
he does with regard to the Macedonian prophecy. The com-
pleteness of the prediction would have been conceded freely, and
the whole book would have been denounced as a Christian fraud.
It is precisely because the book comes from Christian enemies,
and we cannot on natural lines expect to find anything favourable
to His cause, that such desperate efforts have been made to find
another meaning for its words. By saying this we do not mean

37
 to bring any accusation of dishonesty against either the open
enemies of the Bible or unbelieving Christians. There can be
no dbubt that the recognition of inspiration leads to startling
conclusions which many people find unbelievable. They -would
quite honestly accept almost any explanation of a prophecy rather
than that it revealed a superhuman knowledge on the part of the
writer, just as we would believe the most fantastic explanation of
our trusted friend rather than admit that we were mistaken in him.
Let us try to> avoid being unduly prejudiced either way. We
will not say that the ninth chapter of Daniel is a plain prophecy
regarding Jesus which all honest men must recognise; neither will
we say that it is plainly nothing of the kind and all sensible men
must agree.
If we first take the words as they appear in our Authorised
Version of the Scriptures we have the following facts.
There is a definite prophecy that Messiah the Prince would
appear after sixty-nine weeks from the going forth of the com-
mandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. That would be
literally a period of four hundred and eighty-three days, but
according to the usual style of prophetic language would mean
four hundred and eighty-three years.
If the objector should deny the reasonableness of this interpre-
tation and* try to insist on a literal number of weeks he would find
himself hoist on his own petard. In explaining other of Daniel's
prophecies he is bound to represent that the writer lived at least
a century after the traditional date. In that case a literal period
of seventy weeks would have expired long before the book was
produced. Surely no one will think that the author made an
elaborate prophecy which had already been falsified fifty years
before his book was written!
It must be agreed in common honesty that whatever view we
take of the book we must acknowledge the chances to be a
thousand to one that the day for a year principle was intended in
its time periods. This method of symbolising time was enunciated
in the early history of the Jews by Moses,1 it was again explicitly
stated to be a feature of prophecy in the days of Ezekiel,2 and it
is in harmony with the general method of the book of Daniel,
which used beasts to represent empires and horns for kings and
rulers.
On this principle the Messiah was to appear four hundred and
eighty-three years after the going forth of the commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem, while a period of seventy weeks or,
in plain language, four hundred and ninety years, was to cover
all the matters mentioned by the angel in verse 24.
The orthodox view is to date the period from the twentieth
year of Artaxerxes, when Nehemiah received permission to go to
Jerusalem. But even if that is disputed, it is difficult to see how
(1) Numbers, xiv., 34, (2) Ezekiel, iv. 6.

38
the objector can assign a beginning which will assist him. The
first decree of Cyrus was only for the building of the temple. It
was not until the reign of Artaxerxes that the decree went forth
for the building of the wall. The most honest and reasonable
course for the rejector to take is to admit that Daniel's prophecy
required the Messiah to come at the time when Jesus appeared,
and this was the main reason why devout Jews were on the look-
out for Him. Such a rejector would regard the attitude of the
first disciples as directly related to this general expectation. The
fact that the most majestic character in Jewish history appeared
just at this time would be regarded as a mere coincidence.
So far there would be no great difficulty for the sceptic, If,
however, he made this concession, he would immediately be
confronted with a series of other facts which would be rendered
so much more significant by this first reasonable admission.
The angel is represented as mentioning several matters to
be comprehended within the total period of four hundred and
ninety years. "To finish the transgression, to make an end of
sin, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint
the most holy."
These are Christian doctrines which only become intelligible
in the light of later revelation. What are they doing in a Jewish
book and in connection with the most definite promise of the
Messiah that the Scriptures of the Jews contain ? Surely the
natural impulse of a Jewish writer would be to associate the
advent of Messiah the Prince with the glory of Israel as in most
of the prophecies. There is not a reference to the glory here.
Why? The Christian "simpleton's" answer to this question is
that this prediction with its definite time periods related to the
first coming of the Messiah in weakness to "make an end of sin
and to make reconciliation for iniquity." He also sees a special
significance in the phrase "to seal up the vision and prophecy/'
If it is right to connect this with the prophecy of Isaiah viii.,
which deals with the same matter, it is certainly worthy of
special note.
If, however, the Christian is completely mistaken, if the writer
of Daniel was only an unaided Jew who had never sQen an angel
and who knew no more than other men, why was it that in telling
the tale of an angel giving him a message that Messiah the Prince
was soon coming he said nothing regarding the national deliver-
ance for which the oppressed Jews sighed, but said much regarding
matters in which the Jews were not interested but which are
essential features of Christianity ?
Next we come to the prophecy, "After three score and two
weeks shall Messiah be cut off but not for himself."
Instantly the critics are to the front with assurances that this
is a wrong translation.

39
 We quite admit that there is something to be said against the
rendering "not for Himself,M but it is not easy to find a trans-
lation to bring the passage into harmony with the general trend
of Israelitish thought.
It has been suggested that "cut off" should be rendered
"covenanted with." What then? The very sign of the Israelitish
covenant was a cutting off of flesh, surely emblematic of this
matter of "making an end of sin." A student of the Bible finds
his mind vibrant with so many thoughts in this connection that it
is impossible to explain them all. He thinks of the Abrahamic
covenant; the insistence on circumcision (significant of the cutting
off of sin's flesh) as an absolutely essential condition of the
covenant. He thinks also of the child of promise, the offering of
the first-born on Mount Moriah and the extraordinary significance
of Jehovah-jireh.
If, however, the unbeliever satisfies himself regarding this
matter, there is still another prediction for him to explain.
"The people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the
city and the sanctuary, and the end shall be with a flood and unto
the end of the war desolations are determined.M
Why should a mere Jew write such words as these? The
book of Daniel was unquestionably written while the Jews were
in great distress and in much need of comfort. All their natural
impulses would make them associate the coming of Messiah with
a renovation of their nation and deliverance from their enemies.
Yet in this the most definite of the predictions regarding the
Anointed there is no mention of glory, there is much mention of
Christian doctrines and there is the declaration that the city and
the sanctuary should be destroyed by a people who should come
to bring desolation instead of deliverance. Surely everyone will
remember that the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans, one
of the most appalling tragedies in history, follows shortly after
the repudiation of Christ by the Jews. The city and the temple
were destroyed and desolations have followed exactly as the
prophet declared, but exactly contrary to all that a Jew would
have expected as the outcome of his Messiah's appearance.
It cannot be doubted that if such a prophecy had been solely
in the custody of Christians everyone would have recognised its
applicability to Christ and the unbeliever would have denounced it
as a palpable Christian fraud. As it cannot be so treated, as the
prophecy was written by a Jew for Jews and was accepted as part
of the sacred Scriptures of Israel, it must by the same tokens be
recognised as a palpable piece of Christian evidence. Even after
taking the fullest note of all that has been urged against it, at the
very least it makes a significant parcel for our shelf.

40
 CHAPTER IX.

THE UNWILLING WITNESSES (Continued).

After .the general consideration of the phase of the argument

in the last chapter, we may pass under rapid review the various
other prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures which have
been the subject of controversy.
In the one hundred and tenth Psalm there is a prophecy which
is referred to in the New Testament as applying directly to Christ.
Jesus only quoted the first part of it with the object of showing
that the Messiah was to be more than a mere man.
"The Lord said unto my lord sit thou at my right hand until
I make thine enemies thy footstool." If David called him Lord,
how is he then his son ?
If it be granted that David was the author of the Psalm,
and that the prophecy related to the Messiah who was to come,
the argument was a good one. Among the Jews there was far
more respect for parents than we find in modern Gentile lands,
and the title lord applied by an Israelitish king to any of his
descendants would indicate something quite exceptional in the one
so addressed. There are some more significant features of this
prophecy which Christ did not quote and which at once challenge
the antagonism of one who repudiates the special claims of the
Bible. He is practically compelled to deny that it refers to the
Messiah at all.
We remember the contention of an objector who made some
claims to learning, that a slight knowledge of Hebrew would
convince anyone that the Psalm was simply an address to one
of the Maccabees and that it had no reference to the Messiah.
This argument is not quite honest. It is painfully reminiscent
of old and discredited methods which have too often been
employed on the Christian side. Many theologians have attempted
to shelter behind their learning, and with terrifying sentences,
freely interloaded with adjectives, have sought to establish their
positions by branding their opponents as "unlearned and ignorant
men."
It must in honesty be admitted that a knowledge of Hebrew
does not insure unanimity of opinion any more than any other kind
of learning.

41
 There have doubtless been instances of poems which were
only intended to have a local and contemporary application being
given an extended meaning by editors, but there have been still
more instances of great and enduring poems being so edited as to
be given a topical significance far removed from the intention of
the original writer.
There are many prophecies in the Old Testament regarding
the coming of a great deliverer. The sceptic has a right to claim
that this is only natural, especially among people who were often
in trouble and who needed the comforting assurance that some
day a hero would come to deliver them. The Christian has a
right to point out there would be a natural tendency to apply the
prophecy to each successive leader as he appeared, and such
application is no evidence of the prophet's intention.
The point of the argument is that the prophecy is different
from anything that might have been expected in a merely human
expression of national aspirations, and yet in these peculiar details
it fits the case of Jesus exactly.
All attentive readers will notice that there is a difference in
the type used for Lord, indicating different words in the original.
The Psalm begins, "The LORD said unto my Lord." The
Covenant name is used as indicated by the capitals, "Jehovah said
unto my Adon, sit thou at my right hand until I make thine
enemies thy footstool."
What man, however great his eminence, was to sit at the
right hand of Jehovah waiting till his foes should be made his
footstool? How could such a prediction be fulfilled?
It is easy to understand the first disciples calling this Psalm
to mind when they became convinced that Jesus had been raised
from the dead and taken to Heaven. Here was the explanation
of the one who was to rule in Zion being addressed by Jehovah
in such a manner; here was the explanation of this period of
waiting at the right hand of God, an idea which seemed utterly
unintelligible in connection with any other man.
The Psalm goes on to declare, "Thy people shall be willing in
the day of thy power"—surely implying a day of weakness in
which they would not be willing, and very significant in view of
that period of waiting for the manifestation of power.
Finally there is the assurance to this Lord of the Psalmist,
"Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." If
the great ruler referred to was to come of the tribe of Judah (and
that is the most probable assumption despite the suggestion
regarding the Maccabees), for him to be a priest would involve
a change in the law, for priests under the law were of the tribe
of Levi. Again there is a perfect harmony of ideas. Melchizedek
was a king as well as a priest. He was described in the book
(1) Genesis, xiv., 18.

42
of Genesis as "king of Salem, the priest of the most high God.M l
He was obviously superior to the Levitical order of priests.
A further point of interest is brought out in the narrative of
Genesis xiv. When Abraham first met this priest of the most
high God and received from him a blessing, Melchizedek "brought
forth bread and wine." Assuredly no refreshments were needed
for the young men who were with Abraham. They had been
successful and had taken a great spoil. Abraham refused to keep
any of the treasure thus secured "except wrhat the young men
had eaten.'' It cannot be reasonably doubted that they would have
enough food and wine and to spare. This priest of the most high
God, coming forth to bless the father of the faithful, offered no
animal sacrifice, as was usual since the days of Abel, but he
brought forth just the symbols which have been employed since
by the great antitype—bread and wine. Surely the Christian
may be excused for regarding this as a finishing touch of har-
mony to put the interpretation of the Psalm beyond reasonable
doubt. The great deliverer was to be lord of the Psalmist, a
priest of this high order with its unusual symbols, a king of
Salem as well as a priest. His people were to be unwilling in a
day of weakness, He was to be exalted to sit at the right hand
of Jehovah, waiting for the time when He should rule in the midst
of His enemies and His people should be willing in the day of
His power.
There is the one obvious objection to this interpretation of a
passage in the Jewish Scriptures. To admit this meaning is to
admit inspiration. If, therefore, we are convinced that the claim
of the Bible to be inspired is untrue we must perforce find another
explanation of such a passage as this, even though in a moment
of candour it might be admitted that the Christian view sounded
more plausible.
We would ask again, however, if this prophecy had come
solely out of the custody of Christians, would any sceptic have
doubted that it was a skilfully worded reference to Christ,
evidently produced after the beginning of the Christian era, and
a palpable fraud?
Well, we will not urge the point. Remember the details and
put this parcel on the shelf of memory with the others.
In the book of Isaiah there is a prophecy which is applied to
Christ in the New Testament, but which has been the subject of
so much controversy that we will not emphasise it. "The Lord
Himself shall give you a sign, behold a virgin shall conceive and
bring forth a son and shall call his name Immanuel.' *
This has been regarded by Christians as a prophecy of the
virgin birth, while the name Immanuel, meaning God with us,
has been recognised as strictly applicable to Christ, and indeed
quite unintelligible apart from the light of the New Testament
teaching.

43
 Those who reject Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, claim that
the Hebrew word Almah may mean simply a young woman, and
that Immanuel was one of Isaiah's sons, no particular significance
being attached to the meaning of his name.
It may be even as these critics say; we will not argue the
question beyond confessing that the various points of their con-
tention do not seem very convincing. We can find no instance
in the Old Testament of the word Almah being applied to a
married woman, and in some cases it appears to refer to quite a
young girl, as in the case of the sister of the infant Moses.
We cannot quite see how a son being born to a young married
woman could be regarded as a "sign." Surely it is one of the
most ordinary events of human life. If a healthy young woman
is married to a healthy man we expect her to have children..
Among Jewish women particularly it was regarded as a terrible
misfortune to be sterile, a sign, perhaps, of divine displeasure.
But for a young married woman to have a son was no sign at all.
Why then the declaration in connection with this matter, "the
Lord Himself shall give you a sign"?
Finally we would remark that if Isaiah indeed had a son,
the subject of special prophecy and with a name meaning "God
with u s , " it is surely extraordinary that nothing is written
regarding the history of his life.
In any case, however, it should be remembered that the
prophets of Israel were described as "men of sign." * Ezekiel was
a sign to his contemporaries even in his domestic sorrows.2
Isaiah was a sign to the people of his day, and experiences of his
private life might in accordance with the principles enunciated in
his book have a meaning far beyond the immediate connections.3
In the light of these facts consider the following passages
from chapter viii., verses 13 to 17. "Sanctify the Lord of hosts
himself and let Him be your fear and let Him be your dread.
And He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and
rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall
stumble, and fall, and be broken, and snared and taken. Bind
up the testimony, seal the law7 among my disciples. And I will
wait upon the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob
and I will look for Him."
To whom could the title Lord of hosts be applied except to
the Creator Himself?
Perhaps the captain of the angelic host of whom we read in
the book t)f Exodus might be so described, for God is represented
as saying, "My name is in him," but we read of no man in Old
Testament history who could be called by such a name. 4 The
Jews would have felt outraged at the bare suggestion.
(1) Zech., iii., 8. see margin. (2) Ezekiel, xii.,,2, xxiv., 16-22. (3) Isaiah, xx.
(4) Exodus, xxxiii., 21.

44
 There are some Old Testament prophecies, however, regarding
the great king and deliverer who was to come which give to Him
such titles. Note, for instance, the very definite prophecy in the
twenty-third chapter of Jeremiah regarding the righteous branch
which was to grow up unto David. "In His days Judah shall be
saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name whereby
He shall be called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."
It is evident that this king who is to reign and prosper and
deliver Judah and Israel must be the Messiah. Here the covenant
name Jehovah is applied to Him. Surely it cannot be applied to
any other man either by Jew or Christian!
What, then, is the meaning of these words appearing in the
sacred writings of the Jews, " Sanctify the Lord of hosts and let
Him be your fear, . . . and He shall be for a sanctuary; but for
a stone of stumbling and rock of offence to both the houses of
Israel"?
Who is it who is represented as saying, "Seal the law among
my disciples and I will wait upon God that hideth His face from
the house of Israel"?
If these words had appeared in a prophecy which was only
found among Christian writings, who would have doubted the
meaning? Christ is the LORD of righteousness. Christ can be
called LORD of hosts. Christ is a sanctuary or place of safety
for those who come to Him. Christ has been a stone of stumbling
and rock of offence to the Jews. Christ went to* wait upon God,
even the Father during a period in which the divine face is hidden
from the house of Israel.
The prophecy fits the case of Jesus exactly/ especially having
regard to all the circumstances of its setting. What other
explanation can be suggested from the Jewish point of view and
consistent with a repudiation of inspiration? If you think that
it was the prophet who was to wait upon God and that in some
way his sons are the immediate subjects of his prophecy, it will
be well to note the statement which follows the words we have
quoted. "Behold I and the children whom the Lord hath given
me are for signs and wonders." Here is a re^emphasis of this
principle of the prophets being men of sign directly in connection
with these remarkable words. Surely the most determined of
unbelievers must be able in some measure to see the force of the
argument and to sympathise with the Christian's point of view.
We have endeavoured to state the case with forbearance and
moderation, even at the risk of making some Christian stalwarts
regard us as timid defenders yielding too much to the prejudices
of unbelief. The writer is quite conscious of the fact that there
is much more in this prophecy than he has yet exhibited. It is
difficult, however, to make a further elaboration of the argument
intelligible to those who have not made a life study of the subject.
It may be possible to carry it a stage further by first dealing with
45
 the prophecy of Zechariah and then turning back to Isaiah for
purpose of comparison.
In the New Testament record of the death of Christ reference
is made to the prophecy, "they shall look on Him whom they
pierced." The quotation is evidently from the twelfth chapter of
Zechariah, and thus, occurring in the Jewish Scriptures, it
challenges attention as a piece of Christian evidence. Does the
connection in which this prophecy appears justify the interpretation
put upon it by the evangelist?
Unfortunately the views generally held in Christendom have
often been so little in sympathy with Bible teaching that the
unbeliever has been able to play off one prejudice against another
and to escape from the obligation to explain a difficult passage
simply because it presented equal difficulties to the average
theologian.
We remember a sceptic who, on having his attention drawn
to this prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures, thought it was quite
enough to point out the connection of ideas. Evidently he
supposed that the associations would be so repugnant to a
Christian that the argument would be dropped immediately on the
setting of the text being brought to light. As a matter of fact,
the prophecy becomes immeasurably more significant when it is
comprehended as a whole.
It is impossible for a real believer in the whole Bible to
doubt that there is to be a real restoration of Israel. The very
attempts of some theologians to escape from this conclusion have
led them into methods of exposition so palpably dishonest that
at last the effort has been abandoned.
Figures of speech are used in the Bible, but they are intelligible
figures. It is simply absurd to pretend that when Jewish prophets
spoke of the future glories of Jerusalem they meant the spiritual
glories of the Christian Church. The effort to maintain such an
artificial style of interpretation led the "spiritualising" theologians
into the most grotesque unfairness. They treated all the denun-
ciations and predictions of evil as referring to the real Zion and
the real Jerusalem, and all the prophecies of good things as
referring to themselves. In many cases, however, the prophecies
of ultimate blessing are so closely connected with the denunciation
for past offences that they cannot be separated even by the most
prejudiced and unscrupulous of expositors.
Zion was to be ploughed as a field,1 and Jerusalem was to
become heaps on account of the iniquity of the people, but in the
last days the house of the Lord is to be established there and the
law and the word of the Lord are to go forth from Zion and
Jerusalem, bringing peace to all mankind.3
CD Micah, Hi., iv. (2) Micah, iv., 3.

46
 The very people who have been scattered are to be gathered
by God.x As God has watched over them to root out and destroy,
so will He watch over them to build and to plant.2 As they have
been a curse among the heathen, so they will be a blessing.* The
land that has been desolate is to be inhabited, and the cities which
have been broken down are to be rebuilt.*
In these days many theologians treat the Bible with far more
candour though with less show of reverence than was manifested
by their predecessors. It has been freely admitted, even by many
who do not believe in the second coming of Christ, that the
ancient prophecies cannot be fulfilled without it. Some have gone
further and have agreed that the early disciples of Christ looked
for the establishment of a real kingdom and a literal restoration
without any of the more popular conceptions that have been
learned from Gentile culture.5
To the present writer it seems incomprehensible that anyone
who really studies the Bible can come to any other conclusion.
The rejection by Christians of the prophecies regarding Messiah's
glorious kingdom seems like a mysterious blindness, worse than
"the blindness that has happened to Israel" in rejecting the
prophecies regarding His suffering.
Once recognise that the prediction regarding the future king
of Israel are to be taken in the only sense which would make them
intelligible to the Jews for whom they were written, and it will
be seen that the prophecy of Zechariah is in harmony with all
the others.
All the prophets who have written of these things agree in
declaring that Jacob will have a special time of trouble just before
the final deliverance.
Ezekiel describes the restoration as resembling the resur-
rection of dry bones,6 a gradual development until an army of
living men is produced. In this connection he declares that "in
the latter days" 7 a great confederacy of enemies will come from
the North to overwhelm the early colonisers of the renovated
land, and it will be in this extreme of distress that God will again
reveal His power on behalf of His ancient people.8
The prophet Daniel declares that in "the time of the end"
the king of the North will come against the land and "plant his
tabernacle in the glorious holy mountain."9 And then Michael
(who like God) will stand up for His people and deliver them.
The prophet Joel says that "at that day and that time," when
God brings again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, He will
gather the nations into the valley of Jehoshaphat and plead with
them there.10 There will be a great preparation for war among
the Gentiles, "ploughshares beaten into swords and pruning hooks
(1) Jeremiah, xxx., 10. (2) Jeremiah, xxxi., 28. (3) Zech., viii., 13. (4) Jeremiah, xxxiii., 12-15.
(5) See Luke i., 32-33 ; Matthew, xix.. 28 ; Matthew, xxv., 31.
(6) Ezekiel, xxxvii. (7) Ezekiel, xxxviii. (8) Ezekiel, xxxviii., 18-23.
(9) Daniel, xi., 45. v10) Joel, iii.

47
into spears." Then the Lord will "roar out of Zion" for the
deliverance of His people.
We might point out also, for the benefit of Christians, that
in the New Testament the second coming of Christ is connected
with wars and commotions as shown in the Mount Olivet prophecy,
and still more definitely in the book of Revelation. Armageddon
is connected with Christ's return; indeed, the sequence of thought
is broken for a minute to interject the warning, "Behold I come
as a thief, blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his
garments." *
The late Lord Kitchener, who at one time assisted in survey-
ing the land of Palestine, spoke of the plain of Esdraelon as
"the greatest battlefield in the world from the days of Joshua. "*
And he adds, "Here also is the ancient Megiddo where the last
great battle of Armageddon is to be fought."
Incontestably Lord Kitchener was right in thus identifying
this much-abused name with the great battlefield of Palestine.
Armageddon simply means Hill of Megiddo. Scores of prophecies
agree in representing that as the spot where God will once again
manifest His power and save Jacob from the time of unprecedented
trouble. The prophecy of Zechariah is one of them, and no real
believer in the Bible ought to experience a moment's difficulty in
understanding it.
Jerusalem is to be a burdensome stone to all nations, "but
all who burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces though all
the people of the earth be gathered together against it." 3
The Lord shall "save Judah" and "defend Jerusalem." He
will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
He will "pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants
of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication, and they shall
look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn
for him as one mourneth for his only son and be in bitterness for
Him as one that is in bitterness for his first-born."4
There shall be a mourning in the land comparable to the
mourning for righteous king Josiah who was slain at Megiddo.
"The land shall mourn every family apart and their wives apart." 5
Taking this prophecy strictly from the Jewish point of view,
we would ask how can this complete deliverance of Israel be
effected except by the coming of the great Anointed ? When will
the spirit of grace be poured upon them and all their enemies
be overthrown except at the time when the great king shall come ?
But why, from the Jewish point of view, should there be a great
lamentation through all the land on account of one they had
pierced ? Surely the %great day of deliverance would be a time
of supreme rejoicing and not of mourning.
(1) Rev., xvi., 14 16. (2) Address to Geographical Section of British Association.
(3) Zech,, xii. (4) Zech. xii.. 10. (5) Zech. xii., 11, 12.

48
 Suppose for a moment, however, that this is one of those
plain hints regarding the mystery kept secret from the foundation
of the world; a hint comparable to those set forth by the skilful
story writer who knows from the beginning what the end of the
plot will be. In other words, suppose that the prophet Zechariah
was not merely an unaided Jew writing for Jews, but that the
spirit of God spake by him. Suppose that just before the great
voice sounds from the temple in Heaven "All is over" * there
is to be a fulfilment of the prophecy in the book of Revelation
which immediately precedes that pronouncement. A great prepara-
tion for war, a gathering together of nations to Armageddon, and
the thief-like advent of the Lord Jesus. How would the prophecy
of Zechariah fit the case then ?
The Jews are delivered from their enemies, they see the most
convincing evidence that the great king has come at last,
thousands of voices are ready to welcome the Messiah with a wild
joy that can only come to those who, after years of oppression and
disappointment, find complete deliverance just at the blackest hour
of all
And then the Deliverer reveals Himself as Jesus, the despised
and rejected. They realise that they have pierced God in
piercing His Son, and they mourn with bitter lamentation. The
land mourns, not with the passionate anguish of a united nation
in the face of national disaster, but with a more private grief in
which there is an element of shame, "every family apart and
their wives apart/'
If this had been a Christian prophecy it would have been so
easy to have understood it, and the unbeliever could have set
it aside as a Christian fabrication. What shall we say of it in
view of the fact that it- is in the Scriptures of the Jews who reject
Jesus ? Why this description of mourning for one they have
pierced just at the time of joyful deliverance ?
Now turning back for a moment to the eighth chapter of
Isaiah, we would like to point out that there is every reason to
regard this as coming into line with the other prophecies, and
having a direct reference to the final invasion of the land at the
time of the end. The Assyrian, we are told, "shall fill the breadth
of thy land, O Immanuel." There is the assurance that Gentile
powers shall be shattered and their counsel come to nothing,
scheme how they will. In verse 10 Immanuel is mentioned again,
but in the Authorised Version of the Bible His name is translated
and its meaning rendered "for God is with u s . " Dr. Young,
in his literal translation, restores the name to its proper position,
and we have the far more significant explanation of the overthrow
of the enemy who has filled the land. "Take counsel together
and it shall come to naught. Speak the word and it shall not
stand, because of Immanuel."
(1) Rev., xvi., 17, ; Dr. Moffatt trans.

49
 To the students of the Bible, among whom the writer of these
lines was brought up, it seems certain that this eighth chapter of
Isaiah refers to the final controversy in "the valley of Decision.'*
The attempt of the unbeliever to make out that Immanuel was
merely one of Isaiah's sons appears to them not only unreasonable
but positively absurd.
There are one or two other passages of Scripture which are
worthy of note as hinting at the mystery of the Atonement, though
the connection of ideas is not sufficiently definite to make a
powerful argument.
Psalm xxii., beginning "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken m e ? " is regarded by Christians as referring to the
Messiah, but the main reason for this interpretation is that it
is so applied in the New Testament. The passage "they pierced
my hands and my feet" is interesting because it seems to be
an unmistakable reference to crucifixion, and crucifixion was not
a Jewish custom. The Psalm thus presents an idea foreign to
the Jews, and yet singularly fitting the case of the One who
immortalised it by quoting the opening words.
The passage in Zechariah xiii. regarding the one who was
wounded in the hands in the house of his friends is not often
cited. Indeed, considered as a prophecy regarding the meeting
of the Lord Jesus with the Jews, the passage would be almost
as offensive to the average Christian as to the average Jew. It
is too real and mundane to be tolerated. This, however, is not
a valid objection. If the verse can be considered as following the
conclusion of chapter xii., it fits the case exactly, and we know
of nothing against its intense reality. The true objection to the
citation of this passage is that the preceding words are obscure
and difficult to understand. From whatever point of view they
are regarded, whether accepting or rejecting Christ, it seems
impossible to establish a solid argument for any application we
may suggest for these words.
We must point out, however, that the passage which imme-
diately follows is very much more definite, and its presence in
the writings of the Jews offers a challenge to those who reject
Jesus.
"Awake, O sword, against the Shepherd, and against the
man who is my fellow, saith the Lord, smite the shepherd, and
the sheep shall be scattered."
Who is the shepherd of Israel? Who is the man who is
Jehovah's fellow? Who was to be smitten?
It seems as if the prophet in this chapter puts forth a few
ideas little connected with each other, just as a poet will some-
times present his thoughts in a series of sketches, entailing
considerable labour on the part of a reader to fill in the gaps and
get at the meaning.
50
 It is in the Old Testament Scriptures that we have the
affirmation, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the
honour of kings to search out the matter."
The earnest student may therefore be excused for thinking
that some of these Scriptures are worthy of at least as much
patient endeavour to get at the meaning as we should accord to
the fancies of a poet. Those who are uninterested will dismiss
such passages impatiently. A student will repeat the question,
"What did a Jewish prophet mean by the smiting of the shepherd
and the man who is God's fellow? " He will ponder as to the
meaning of the strange passage immediately preceding, and
perhaps in the same questioning spirit he may retrace his steps
through all the prophecies we have quoted, assigning to each its
appropriate position on the shelf of memory.

51
 CHAPTER X.

THE CHAPTER OF CHAPTERS.

Probably the critic who complained that the Messianic
prophecies had been discussed ad nauseam would object most of
all to the citation of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. That
prophecy has received more attention than any other. It is the
most complete and the most sustained of the forecasts in the
Old Testament, and in some respects it is the most important as
an argument in favour of revelation.
We do not think there can be any doubt that, however
thoroughly this prophecy has been examined by some of the
critics, there are thousands of men of the world who reject the
claims of the Bible to be inspired by God without ever having
looked at this argument. They have heard the words regarding
the One on whom the sins of the world were to be laid, the one
despised and rejected of men yet chosen by God for the pleasure
of the Lord to prosper in His hand. They have heard that His
soul was to be made an offering for sin, He was to be smitten for
the transgression of God's people, yet eventually was to see of
the travail of His soul and be satisfied. We are convinced, how-
ever, that in many cases careless and thoughtless rejectors do
not know where these words are to be found. They would say,
"Yes, of course, that is a Christian description and proves
nothing." They would be surprised to learn that it was not
Christian at all, but that it comes from the sacred writings of
the Jews, who reject Christ. Many others who perhaps know
where the prophecy originated have nevertheless failed to consider
the significance of such words emanating from such a quarter.
In plain logic, it has to be admitted either that the words were
inspired by God or else they were the expressions of a Jew writing
for Jews, and their fitting in with Christian foundations is merely
a matter of chance.
This point is recognised by the leaders of sceptical thought,
and great efforts have been made to find a rationalistic explanation
of the prophecy. Probably some sceptics have felt satisfied with
their suggestions, even though the Christian stalwart might regard
them as desperate evasions so palpably forced and unreasonable
that they could not carry an honest conviction even to the dis-
putants themselves. We need to make much allowance for

52
 different points of view if we are going to understand those who
oppose us.
Any broad-minded Christian should be able to understand the
honesty of the unbeliever, and using the word in its proper sense
should be capable of sympathising with him in his repudiation of
revelation. There is very little chance of helping him without
such an intelligent comprehension of his position. But, while it
is narrow-minded and foolish to doubt the honesty of an opponent,
it is well to take note of those prejudices and antipathies which
tend to warp the judgment. The sceptic generally recognises the
existence of such prejudices in the Christian, but fails to perceive
that he is under any such influence himself.
Mr. G. K. Chesterton, in one of his many delightful essays,
tells the story of a young atheist who challenged him to name a
man of outstanding intellect who believed in the miraculous.
On a formidable list being ^instantly supplied, the atheist made the
surprising answer, "Oh, but of course they had to believe, for
they were Christians. 0
We can understand what the young man meant. He had
noticed in Christians that which he should have seen in all
humanity. We are obliged to believe in certain details because of
our main convictions. There are times when we are logically
bound to accept conclusions which in themselves would not attract
us because the only alternative is the repudiation of foundations
which we regard as quite settled. If a Christian is logically bound
to believe in a miracle or else to reject Christ, he may reasonably
conclude that the mere prejudice of feeling against the miracle
has no weight against the tremendous fact of Christ's position
in history. If an atheist is logically bound either to reject an
obvious interpretation of prophecy, or to admit the fact of
inspiration, he is, to say the least, quite as stubborn as the
Christian in his determination to bring everything into harmony
with his main theory.
This natural tendency to reject any idea which seems to
menace the security of our general convictions is quite reasonable
so long as we do not carry it too far. It is obvious, however,
that it often prevents us from seeing the true value of evidence,
especially when the problem is to overcome scepticism of any
kind. •
To take a simple illustration. Suppose that while you are
living in a quiet little English country town a savage lion, having
broken loose from a menagerie some distance away, puts in an
utterly unexpected appearance in the quiet streets. The bare idea
of a lion being at large in such a locality may seem so wildly
improbable that you resist the first evidences of his proximity
without feeling the slightest doubt as to the soundness of your
scepticism. When you first hear his roar you merely think that
one of the little boys has succeeded in imitating a wild beast with

53
unusually nerve-racking success. When you hear the boy shout
to his brother that there is a lion in the street which has just
killed the policeman, you feel serenely confirmed in your impression
that the children are having a game at "let's pretend," and the
roar was a realistic overture to the play. When there is another
roar and a neighbour's boy dives into the room through the open
window, affirming that the lion has chased him, you begin to
think that perhaps someone is frightening the boys and the joke
is being carried too far. So the evidence may be traced through
various stages—the testimony of adult neighbours, a report in the
local paper, the discovery of the dead policeman, and perhaps, as
a final demonstration, an encounter with the lion himself.
Presumably this last piece of evidence would convince all but the
most sceptical and self-satisfied of men. In every stage of this
process, however, it is obvious that you are bound either to
abandon your original scepticism or to reject the testimony of
those who challenge it. It is clear, too, that when you are finally
convinced of the main surprising fact, you will see the various
points of evidence in a different light, and probably realise that
you were foolishly prejudiced in your original judgment. Of
course it was absurd to suppose that one of the children could
have emitted that terrible roar. It was absurd to suppose that
the terrified cry was only in a children's game. At the time
of occurrence reason was blinded by the stolidity of the original
scepticism. Now all the evidence appears in a different light.
We recognise that the same illustration might be so inverted
as to reveal the prejudices of superstition. If a timid child felt
convinced that there was a lion at large, he might see corrobora-
tive evidence in many incidents quite innocent of real menace.
All we ask is that the universality of this human weakness shall
be recognised. The Christian may accept certain traditions
because he is "bound to" as a Christian. The sceptic may fail
to see certain Christian evidence—may even refuse to look at it
because he is bound to reject it as an atheist. He can believe that
the earth was once a ball of fire and that all life and intelligence
have evolved by blind chance, but he cannot believe that God
produced a redeemer for the human race from among the Jews.
He dismisses such an idea as unscientific and therefore impossible.
But while such a man is bound to repudiate our interpretation
of the fifty third chapter of Isaiah so long as he remains an
unbeliever, it may be possible to persuade him to look at the
prophecy with sympathetic eyes, so as to understand the position
of those who hold to the traditional view. That, for the moment,
is all that we desire.
It cannot be doubted that the natural prejudice against
prophecy has been increased by the attitude of some Christians.
It is natural for a sceptic to feel that he is freed from any
obligation to find an explanation of a prophecy if it is repudiated

54
by one whose sympathies would be supposed to be in its favour,
just as the defence set up by a prisoner would seem to need little
examination on the part of his accusers if his own wife said that
it was nonsense.
It is very unsafe, however, to reason in this way. The name
Christian is claimed by all sorts and conditions of men, from the
hearty believer in the whole Bible to the man who would be an
open opponent of Christ if it were not too much trouble. There
are many theologians whose entire scheme of philosophy is so
completely out of harmony with these prophecies that they
approach the subject with quite as much bias against the traditional
view as can be felt by any sceptic. There are others who are
so determined to be original that they cannot tolerate any
interpretation that is obvious and commonplace.
Try for a moment, however, to view this prophecy in its
entire setting, as it appears to one who accepts the whole Bible,
and ask yourself the question whether it seems reasonable or even
possible that it can be applied to anyone other than the Messiah
of Israel?
The Jews have put forward a theory that "the man of
sorrows" is simply a personification of their nation, and the
sacrifice referred to is the long drawn out tragedy of their history.
Is this a reasonable suggestion ? It is true that in chapter xlix
one is represented as being prepared by God for the work of
human redemption, and is addressed by the name of Israel. The
context, however, shows clearly that the reference is really to
an individual who is to "raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore
the preserved of Israel."
In view of the special meaning attached to Bible names, it
is natural and reasonable that the future king should be so
addressed. In some prophecies He is called David—that is, the
beloved. In this case under review He is called Israel, which
means ruler with God. The father of the nation was originally
named Jacob, which means a supplanter. There is a whole poem
in the circumstances of his renaming which might almost lead
us away from the main theme into a bypath of Christian evidence.
Jacob, we are told, wrestled with an angel. He wrestled through
the night seeking a blessing. When morning came the blessing
was given and his name was changed to Israel "because as a
prince he had power with God and man.''
DuFing the long night of Gentile darkness the Messiah, as
the One Mediator, is wrestling with God for a blessing. When
morning comes, even that "morning without a cloud," referred
to in the last words of David, the one who was at one time "filled
with iron and the staff of a spear" * will be the ruler with God
over men. He will have secured the blessing for which He
laboured, and in this connection He is appropriately addressed
(1) See II. Samuel, xxiii.

55
 by' God: "Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be
glorified."
We cannot find space to elaborate the arguments suggested
by these allusions, but an earnest student will be well repaid for
a careful consideration of these passages.
Let the sceptic try to imagine the feelings of such a student
when he is asked to believe that the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah
suddenly inverts this method of address and personifies the
nation under the figure of a man. It is difficult to believe that
those who put forth such an idea have any faith in it themselves.
If the Jews can believe it, why is not the fifty-third chapter of
Isaiah read in their synagogues ? Why is it not the most popular
chapter in all their Scriptures ? Incontestably it is one of the
most beautiful poems. If the man of sorrows is a personification
of the nation it is immeasurably the most flattering chapter in
the whole Bible!
In the first chapter of Isaiah the Jews are referred to as
" a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity," and they are
compared with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. In
chapter lxiv. the prophet says that all their righteousness was
simply like filthy rags and their iniquities had laid hold of them
and had taken them away. If the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah
suddenly reverses this verdict and says that they are absolutely
righteous, having done no evil and with mouth free from guile,
it is by far the most flattering poem in the Bible! It is, in fact,
too flattering to be believed. The real feeling of the Jews is
revealed in the fact that this chapter remains probably the most
unpopular in all their literature.
This incongruity, however, is only a small part of the case
against this attempt to represent "the man of sorrows'* as merely
a personification of the nation. We should have to ask who are
the people here represented as speaking, The prophetical poems
of the Old Testament take a certain dramatic liberty as with
other. poems. Sometimes it is represented that God speaks;
sometimes the chosen nation and then the prophet himself. But
who ever heard of the Gentiles taking the leading part? What
people are supposed to be speaking when we have the words,
"All we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on
him the iniquity of us all"? Who is the speaker when the
prophecy declares "for the transgression of my people was he
smitten" ? Are we to conclude that the Gentiles are God's people
after all, while the Jews, though perfectly righteous, have been
subjected to a long period of sorrow and affliction, not because of
their own sins, as Moses predicted, but to make atonement for
the sins of the heathen ?
There is no need, however, to argue this matter at greater
length. No one who is capable of escaping from blinding
prejudice will pretend that the personification theory is satis-

56
 factory. What else has ever been suggested ? Attempts have
sometimes been made to show a want of harmony between the
details of the prophecy and the New Testament account. In the
fifty-second chapter of the prophecy we have the words, "His
visage was marred more than any man, and his form more than
the sons of men." It has been objected that this is not true of
Jesus, for other men have had their countenances marred more.
Surely even a prophet may be allowed a measure of poetical
license! It would be difficult to demonstrate with mathematical
accuracy which was the most serious marring of a human
countenance in all history. We may point out, however, that
the marring of a visage does not mean the same as its destruction.
Christ's form was marred more than the sons of men, for He
was crucified, and this was not a custom among the Jews. If
we think of Him with a crown of thorns pressed upon His brow
and with such a trial of ignominy and pain imposed upon His
exquisitely sensitive nature as to produce the effect described in
Luke xxii. verse 44, surely we need little invocation of poetical
license to justify the words of the prophet.
Then the critics have raised the objection that the man of
sorrows is described as being dumb before his accusers, whereas
in one of the Gospel records it is represented that Jesus spoke
several times. Surely this is a futile type of criticism to bring
against such a startling prophecy. It is true that Jesus answered
when an oath was laid upon Him charging Him to do so.
He made no attempt to defend Himself or to attack His accusers,
and that is obviously the meaning of the prophet's declaration
with its figure of a sheep before her shearers.
These are only matters of detail, however, for which we
depend wholly on the Bible record. If we could convince the
sceptic that all the details fitted perfectly, he would say that they
were so adjusted by the writers of the New Testament. We
would press the question as to the meaning of the main facts,
for our knowledge of which we are not dependent on the Bible.
That a great character arose among the Jews during the closing
years of their commonwealth; that He proclaimed new doctrines
of gentleness and non-resistance; that He was rejected by the
nation as a whole and put to death; that a report of His resurrec-
tion spread abroad through all the earth; that millions of Gentiles
have accepted Him while the Jews continue to reject Him to this
day—these are facts which are as firmly established in history as
the very existence of our own nation. How are we to interpret
the prophecy of Isaiah in the light of them ?
Come with us for a few seconds and try to see the point of
view of the stalwart believer.
Throughout the prophecy of Isaiah there are references to
the great deliverer who was to come. "A rod out of the stem
of Jesse," one who should be of quick understanding, with a

57
 knowledge of humanity independent of the judgment of eye and
ear. In chapter xlix. He is represented as speaking, and in every
particular the Lord Jesus whom we acknowledge as Christ
answers the requirements of the prophecy. Jesus was the One
who was *'called from the womb." It was the very Word of
God that called Him. He was the One who was made like a
polished shaft with *'mouth like a sharp sword.M He has
wrestled for a blessing for humanity during the long night of the
world's sin, and He will come as ruler with God when the
"morning without cloud" shall dawn.
Thus it is that according to this prophecy God immediately
proceeds to address Him. "It is a light thing that fchou shouldest
be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the
preserved of Israel. I will also give thee for a light to the
Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of
the earth.
"Thus saith the Lord the Redeemer of Israel His holy one to
Him whom man despiseth, to Him whom the nation abhorreth, to
a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall
worship because of the Lord that is1 faithful and the holy One of
Israel, and He shall choose thee."
Jesus has been given as a light to the Gentiles. Jesus has
been despised by man and abhorred by the nation. How can
these words be applied to any other ? For what conceivable object
can they have been written by an unenlightened Jew, writing for
his own nation ? The prophecy goes on to describe the deliver-
ance of prisoners out of darkness and their establishment in a
land where they shall hunger and thirst no more.
The chapter which immediately follows deals with the same
subject, fitting in perfectly with the Christian belief, although not
presenting an argument which can be pressed home on unwilling
ears.
Then the chapters li. and Hi. deal with the familiar subject
of Israel's restoration, Jerusalem is to rise from the dust and
escape from her captivity. The people who have "sold them-
selves for naught" are to be "redeemed without money." In
this connection God's righteous servant is again introduced.
"He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high." Many
were astonished at Him. His visage and form having been
marred, He shall startle many nations, kings shall shut their
mouths at Him, for that which has not been told them shall
they see, and that which they have not heard shall they
consider. a
There is a world of meaning in these last words. Christ
came to "fulfil the law and the prophets," but who will believe
the report of such an astonishing work ?
The Jews could not believe in a Messiah who fulfilled the
(1) Isaiah, xlix., 5-7. (2) See Revised Version.

58
law. The Gentiles as a whole do not expect Him to fulfil the
prophets. Many Christian kings have never even heard of these
matters, and they could receive no greater surprise than to
witness the fulfilment of prophecies of which they have "not
been told."
Then the prophet asks the question, " W h o hath believed our
report? " Put a little stress on the word "hath" to catch the
full meaning of the question. Even the chosen people would not
believe, but when He should first grow up as a tender plant and
a root out of a dry ground, they would despise Him, and see no
beauty that they should desire Him. He would be smitten, con-
demned and put to death, but not for His own offences, for He
did no evil. Just as the prophet Daniel confessed his iniquity
and the iniquity of his people which had brought God's curse
upon them, so the prophet Isaiah makes confession, "All we
like sheep have gone astray and have turned every man to his
own way." Just as Daniel's prayer was answered by the
assurance of the angel that Messiah was coming to put away sin
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, so the prophet Isaiah
continues, "and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us
all." "For the transgression of my people was He smitten."
Just as the prophet Daniel declared that Messiah should be cut
off, so Isaiah says that "His soul should be made an offering for
sin, and He should be cut off out of the land of the living."
He would be raised from the dead, however, for the time of
exaltation "He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the
Lord will prosper in His hand." He is to be prince of peace
and father of the coming age. He will justify many, having borne
their iniquities, and viewing the great company saved by His
merit "He will see His seed." The words of the Old and New
Testament combine so perfectly that we may well borrow from
both. "Who are these that are arrayed in white robes, and
whence came they ? These are they who have come out of much
tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in
the blood of the lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of
God, and serve Him day and night in His temple." "By His
knowledge God's righteous servant shall justify many, for He
shall bear their iniquities." They shall say, "Thou art worthy,
for thou hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood." " H e shall see
of the travail of His soul and be satisfied."
Who but the Christ was God's righteous servant to raise up
the people of Israel and to be given as a light to the Gentiles ?
Who but Christ has been chosen by God yet despised by man and
abhorred of the nation ? Who but Christ to be exalted and very
high, to astonish kings, to redeem His people, to be perfectly
free from evil—the only one so described in all the Scriptures ?
Who but Christ to be offered as a sacrifice, to have the sins of
the world laid upon Him, to be killed, to conquer death, to

59
prolong His days, to make the pleasure of Jehovah, to prosper,
to justify many, and finally to view with satisfaction the living
fruit of His painful labour ?
We know of one good reason for repudiating this interpre-
tation. To admit it is to admit that God spoke through the
prophet. If then you cannot believe in inspiration, you are bound
to find some other meaning for these words in a Jewish book.
The prophet meant himself or his son, or the Jewish nation, or
just nothing at all.
Well, choose the side on which you think the weight of
evidence is, but do not be so narrow-minded and prejudiced
that you can see no element of reason in the Christian stalwart's
position, or any justification for his obstinate faith in Christ.
Rather view the argument with judicial broad-mindedness, and
taking careful note of its various features put it on the shelf of
memory with the others.

60
 CHAPTER XI.

PROPHECIES REGARDING VARIOUS NATIONS.

When reference is made to Old Testament prophecies regard-
ing nations which have passed away, rejectors of all degrees are
disposed to explain them by assigning a late date for the Scripture
in question. They claim that the predictions were written after
the events. In some instances the accuracy of detail has been
openly cited as evidence that the prophecies were written centuries
after the time claimed in the book itself.
This argument, if it can be so described, is based upon the
assumption that the claims of ancient seers are false; that, in
fact, there is no such thing as a capacity to foretell future events.
It is really a case of begging the question, but it is interesting as
a tacit recognition of the fact that the establishment of the
authenticity of prophecy would be evidence of inspiration.
If we compare the eighth chapter and the first few verses of
the eleventh chapter of the book of Daniel, we find prophecy
partly in symbol and partly in plain language the meaning of which
cannot be doubted. It was predicted that in the coalition of Medes
and Persians the latter people should rise higher than the former,
although they should be second in coming to the ascendant. There
was to be a conflict between the Persians and the Greeks, resulting
in the overthrow of the former and the establishment of a great
empire by a mighty Grecian king. This conqueror passing away,
his kingdom was to be divided into four, symbolised in chapter viii.
by four horns and described in chapter xi. as being divided to the
four winds but "not to his posterity."
All this was fulfilled exactly. The Persians came to the
ascendant after the Medes, and they r6se higher. They were
overthrown by the Grecians under Alexander the Great. When
Alexander passed off the scene, his dominions were divided into
four parts, not to his posterity, but to four of his generals.
The application of this prediction cannot be disputed. The
objector unhesitatingly affirms that the book was written after
the division of the Grecian empire instead of during the Babylonian
captivity. The accuracy of the prophecy is cited as evidence that
it must have been written after the events.
61
 Similarly there is a prophecy in the book of Ezekiel regarding
Tyre.1 The famous city of the Phoenicians was to be overthrown,
the dust of it was to be scraped up so as to make it like the top
of a rock. It was to be a place for fishermen to spread their nets,
and it should never be built again.
Tyre was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar. Then, when the
city had been entirely removed to the island fortress, the work of
demolition was completed by Alexander the Great when he built
his famous bridge across the water. The demand for material
was so great that the dust of the old city was literally scraped up,
and the ancient site made like the top of a rock.
Again the sceptic has no hesitation in saying that the prophecy
was written at a much later period than is supposed by believers,
and that it claimed to predict the future when, as a matter of fact,
the events had already passed into history.
We quite agree that it is difficult to demonstrate that these
prophecies of the Old Testament were written at the date claimed
for them, but we cannot agree that the sceptic's explanation of
their apparent prescience is as simple and obvious as he appears to
think. It is a very strained assumption to account for only a small
part of the difficulty. The Bible contains prophecies quite as dis-
tinct as those just cited, which have been fulfilled as exactly in
modern history. It is easy to show such instances of prophecies
being fulfilled hundreds, and even thousands, of years after the
last date that would be named by the most hostile of critics for
the completion of the Bible.
For instance, the prophecies regarding Egypt cover the whole
period from the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar down to the present
time. The predictions were of a kind that might most easily have
been falsified. They were utterly different from any of those
Gentile prognostications that have sometimes been quoted by
rejectors of Scripture.
It was declared by the prophet Ezekiel, in the twenty-ninth
chapter of his book, that the king of Babylon should devastate
the land of Egypt, and that the Egyptians should be scattered
among the nations. To this point the prophecy somewhat
resembles the predictions regarding Israel. Both people were to
have their land invaded and were to be scattered among the
nations. Here, however, the resemblance ends. The dispersion
of the Jews was to continue for many generations. That of the
Egyptians was to last for only forty years. After this period
the Egyptians were to return from their captivity into their own
land.
To this point the unbeliever would feel no difficulty. He
would say unhesitatingly that the prophecy was written after the
event. What shall we say of the words which immediately follow ?
"They shall be there a base kingdom. It shall be the basest of
(1) Ezekiel, xxvi.

62
the kingdoms, neither shall k any more exalt itself above the
nations.''
This is an illustration of the point mentioned in an earlier
chapter. It differs completely from even the most famous of
Gentile forecasts. It is not a prediction of a likely development
without any time limit; it is not fenced round so that it could
not be falsified. It is an emphatic assertion that a development
which seemed very likely on natural grounds should never
materialise. It is a challenge to eternity. Egypt, favoured by
nature, rose early to a position of eminence. Why should it
not do it again? "It shall be a base kingdom" and "shall no
more exalt itself above the nations." " I will diminish them that
they shall no more rule over the nations." This is the verdict
of the prophet Ezekiel. Every century that has passed has been
a menace to this forecast if it was a mere expression of Jewish
opinion. At any period events might so easily have favoured a
recrudescence of Egyptian power, completely falsifying the Jewish
prophecy that the ancient land of the Pharaohs should never again
be exalted over the nations. Surely, then, there is something
rather significant in the fact that this prophecy has stood the test
of over two thousand years.
This, however, is only a small part of the case. In the next
chapter, Ezekiel xxx., the prophet goes on to declare that the land
of Egypt should be wasted by strangers, and there should be no
more a prince of the house of Egypt. This is another challenge
to eternity with more of detail in its prophecy. To say that the
kingdom should be base and never again exalt itself over the
nations was bold enough, but to declare that it should be per-
petually ruled by strangers, that there should never again be a
native prince, is surely unique in its confident assumption of fore-
knowledge.
The prophecy is matched by a unique history in fulfilment.
A reader who is interested in the matter will do well to read a
brief history of Egypt, such as can be found in the "Encyclopaedia
Britannica." The record of two thousand years, considered in the
light of the very definite prophecies quoted from Ezekiel, will at
least make an intelligent student reflect seriously.
When the Medes and Persians came to the ascendant the
Egyptians suffered from the rule of a "cruel lord," 1 as was
foretold by the prophet Isaiah. We read in the history how a
long struggle was maintained until "at length the native energy
was worn out." That when the Greeks took possession of the*
country as conquerors of Persia they were "welcomed as
deliverers." From this time we are told "the native princes pass
off the scene." For three centuries the Grecian rule was main-
tained by the Ptolemies. In B.C. 217 the aid of Rome was called
in, still stronger strangers then coming to the ascendant. It
(1) Isaiah, xix., 4.

63
became the policy of Rome to keep Egypt weak. The government
of the Ptolemies was not allowed to fall, neither was it permitted
to be efficient. A strong prince was thwarted by Rome, but a
weak prince was supported. "Egypt could not rid herself of a
bad ruler or enjoy the full advantage of a good one." The
"Encyclopaedia Britannica" thus describes how Egypt was made
and maintained as a base kingdom. The very word "debased"
is used in this brief history.
In A.D. 639 Egypt was invaded by Muslims, and from this
time until A.D. 868 the country was governed by a succession of
viceroys appointed by the Caliphs of Damascus and Baghdad,
who capriciously changed the rulers, regardless of the interests
of the unfortunate country.
In the thirteenth century Egypt entered upon a still darker
period with the rise of the Mamelukes. The accession of these
people to power presents an anomaly unparallelled in history,
and hardly surpassed even in the most extravagant farce. As the
name implies, they were originally slaves. They were Circassians
imported into the country as bond slaves, and by an extraordinary
trick of fortune which can hardly be explained they became the
rulers. For over two centuries they maintained their ascendancy,
the basest of strangers thus ruling this country that once had
been greatest among the nations.
Early in the sixteenth century the Turks came on the scene.
In the year 1798 there was a brief interlude with fresh strangers,
the French attempting to establish themselves in the land. The
Turks, however, maintained their hold without any radical change
in the situation until within the memory of many who are
now living.
In the year 1882 there was a rising of the national party
under Arabi Pasha, which, had it been successful, might have
provided the sceptic with a better weapon against the Bible than
any he has yet found with all his efforts.
The rising was well timed, for the power of Turkey was
waning fast, and the Sublime Porte could not offer much assistance
to the outlying parts of his dominions. The only effect of the
rebellion, however, was to bring still stronger strangers on the
scene. The British went into Egypt with the idea of preventing
disorder, and in the early stages many promises were made
regarding an early evacuation. Circumstances, however, have
proved too strong. The British remain the real rulers of the
country to this day.
This last phase of Egyptian history introduces a new chain
of evidence perhaps more convincing than any that has yet been
presented, but also too recondite to find a place in this chapter.
It may be possible to give a hint of it later. For the moment
the case shall rest on the main facts of this history of two

64
thousand years. We will not even trouble about the details of
prophecy to be found in Isaiah xix.
It was certainly more than two thousand years ago that the
prophet who reproved the "rebellious house" of Israel turned
to assign for the Egyptians an entirely different destiny. They
should return from a short captivity, they should constitute a base
kingdom, it should exalt itself no more above the nations, the
country should be ruled by strangers, and there should be no
more a prince of the house of Egypt.
History shows how Egypt was debased through many
different causes. The country has been ruled by Persians,
Grecians, Romans, Saracens, slaves, Turks, and finally by the
British. There has been no native prince for two thousand four
hundred years. All has happened quite naturally, but how did
the prophet foresee it ? His own explanation is that the word of
the LORD came to him, telling him to set his face "against
Egypt and prophesy against it.''*
Surely, then, it is reasonable that we should make careful
mental note of this evidence and put it away on our shelf, ready
for the final review.
We may make a similar parcel of the otljer prophecies we
have mentioned. The one regarding Tyre and the prediction of
Daniel as to the conquests of Alexander the Great and the final
division of his empire. It is true that the sceptic brushes these
on one side with the confident assertion that they must have been
written after the events they profess to foretell, and it is difficult
to prove just when these books were produced. In view of the
fact that some of the most explicit prophecies have been proved
true through a searching test of more than two thousand years,
is it sensible to explain less important but more ancient evidences
of prescience by the strained and unreasonable suggestion that
fraudulent predictions were written after the events they professed
to foretell?
Perhaps some readers would ask what we mean by saying
that this familiar suggestion of unbelief is strained and unreason-
able. We will try to explain in the next chapter before presenting
any other evidences of prophecy.

(1) Ezekiel. xxix., 1-2.

65
 CHAPTER XII.

WHEN WERE THE PROPHECIES WRITTEN?

It is undeniable that the prophets of Israel professed to fore-
cast future events by the power of God's spirit. If, therefore,
these were bogus prophecies written after the events they pretend
to foretell, it is impossible to escape from the conclusion that they
were deliberate frauds. For what conceivable purpose could such
frauds have been perpetrated ? There is only one answer that
can even be suggested. It was with the object of supporting the
special claims made and to convince the people that God had
really inspired the prophet. Obviously the first appeal would be
to contemporary readers. Authors do not engage in elaborate
frauds merely to deceive a remote posterity. Surely it is equally
obvious that the object of impressing the people would be achieved
without the fraudulent prophecies far more readily than with
them.
The justice of this observation is instantly apparent if we
transfer the circumstances to our own time. If an author in
these days claimed to write by direct inspiration from God, his
only chance of gaining a following would be by avoiding any
decisive test of his professions. If his command of language
was in any way comparable to that of the old prophets, he might
find .some people who would believe in him so long as he relied on
his exalted claims and the magic of his words. If, however, he
tried to support his case by giving professed forecasts of events
which had already occurred, he would immediately deliver himself
to his opponents.
Of course the sceptic claims that there is no parallel between
modern times and the days of ancient Israel. The usual suggestion
is that in Palestine two thousand years ago the people were very
ignorant and credulous. It is argued that these fraudulent
predictions were thrust upon them by designing priests.
We are tempted to wonder whether people who make this
suggestion have ever read the Bible at all. The prophecies
fabricated by designing priests! Surely no other collection of
writings can be found where the priestly order is so severely
treated as in these books of the Old Testament. Prophets and
priests were condemned with frightful vehemence. The evils

66
which had befallen the nation are directly ascribed to the wicked-
ness of the great men. "The rulers of this people cause them
to errM is a testimony frequently repeated and emphasised in
the long-drawn indictment of the "rebellious house."
To find a parallel case in modern times we should have to
suppose a succession of writers claiming to be inspired by God
and offering to the nation greater insults than it has ever received
from foreign enemies. Our imaginary writers tell the truth about
party politics! They smite the rulers of, the country with
scandalous vehemence. They condemn the judges and lawyers,
officials and teachers, declaring that they "take bribes" and
"pervert all justice," so that the whole nation has become corrupt
like a body "full of wounds and putrifying sores.M They condemn
society from top to bottom, likening the country to Sodom and
Gomorrah or any other example of extreme abomination. Then,
declaring that the religious teachers are mainly responsible for
these evils, they call for the vengeance of Heaven on idle and
greedy priests and parsons who "tell lies in the name of the
Lord,'* who "prophesy for hire" and are too much hardened in
sin to be able to blush "when they have committed abomination."
We are not suggesting that such a furious indictment would
be just, but we certainly suggest that it would be very unpopular.
If, therefore, the writers were so foolish as to attempt to support
their claims to divine inspiration by bogus prophecies written
after the events they professed to foretell, a complete and crushing
exposure would inevitably follow. The men best able to expose
the fraud would have the best personal reasons for desiring to
do so. We cannot imagine anyone making the grotesque sugges-
tion that designing priests and parsons were the actual authors
and fabricators of prophecies so insulting to their order. Yet, in
dealing with the Scriptures of ancient Israel from which we
have taken these offensive words, just such an idea is confidently
put forward. It is assumed that the whole problem of prophecies
which were fulfilled previous to the beginning of the Christian
era is disposed of by the simple answer that they must have been
written after the events. We are quite sure that anyone who will
take the trouble to become acquainted with the character of
these writings will experience no difficulty in understanding what
we mean by describing this familiar suggestion of scepticism as
strained and unreasonable. It is an extraordinarily mild descrip-
tion of such a theory.
Then we have to consider the fact that many of the predic-
tions deal with world-wide events which would certainly not offer
the best ground for impressing an ignorant and rural people.
Such readers would be more influenced by predictions regarding
local matters which came immediately within their survey. The
prophecies of the Bible often have to do with events the full
meaning of which can only be seen by the student of history who

67
takes a broad view of events which have developed through many
centuries. This has been shown in connection with the history
of Egypt. It is still more evident in the prophecies of the book
of Daniel.
The prophecies of Daniel have suffered severely from the
efforts of reputed friends. The obvious meaning of his main
prediction has been resisted by theologians because it clashed with
their theories regarding the Kingdom of God. On the other hand,
the more obscure passages of his book have been pressed into
service in connection with any event of the moment. Applications
have been made so fanciful and strained that one has sometimes
been tempted to doubt the sincerity of the expositors. Beyond
all doubt much harm has been done by giving the unbeliever
reason to scoff at those who try to expound Bible prophecies.
The second chapter of the book of Daniel furnishes an
excellent illustration of a great revelation given in a setting which
seems simply like a story for children. We are told that King
Nebuchadnezzar had a dream which troubled him. The details
of the dream had entirely escaped from his memory, and yet such
a definite impression was made that he felt convinced that it had
a real meaning which called for interpretation. He therefore sent
for the wise men and commanded them to supply the defects of
his memory. The magicians—undoubtedly wise men in their
generation—asked that the king should tell his dream, when
they would make known the interpretation. They would have
been quite equal to the task of finding a flattering meaning for
any dream. The king answered that he had forgotten the dream,
but that it would come back to him as soon as they related it.
He added shrewdly that if they could first describe the dream to
him it would be the best evidence that they were capable of
making a correct interpretation. The magicians were quite unable
to meet this demand, and therefore the angry king, with the
thorough-going methods of his age, decreed that all the wise men
in the land should be slain.
To this point the narrative is quite on the lines of a story
for children. We should smile on reading it for the first time,
and even the children would know what was coming. Of course
Daniel is a wise man. They will come to kill him, and then he
will step forward and tell the king what it was that he dreamed.
Then Daniel and his friends will be exalted, the magicians will
have been saved by him, and all will end well.
It is easy to understand a reader who has not mastered all
the details laughing at the idea of this being regarded as a divine
revelation. We must repeat, however, that we have no data on
which to reason when we try to determine what kind of book
God would cause to be written in giving a revelation to man. The
only logical test of its pretensions lies in the simple question,

68
does it reveal matters which are beyond the knowledge of
mankind ?
Try for a moment to banish every kind of prejudice,
whether of scepticism or of theological theories, and let Daniel
be his own interpreter. He definitely stated that the king had
been cogitating as to what would come after him, and the dream
was a revelation of the future from God, Who alone could know.
The dream was of a great and terrible image, with head of gold,
breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron
and feet part of iron and part of clay. While the king regarded
this vision a stone "cut from the mountain without hands" struck
the image on its feet. Then all the metals were broken up,
while the stone became a great mountain and filled the whole
earth.
The interpretation, given in perfectly plain language, was
that the image represented the kingdoms of men. The head of
gold stood for the Babylonian power. "After thee," said Daniel,
"shall arise a kingdom inferior to thee," represented by the silver,
"and a third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the
earth." The fourth kingdom, represented by the legs of the
image, was to be strong as iron, breaking in pieces and bruising
other kingdoms even as iron breaks other metals. After the
passing of the fourth power mentioned the kingdom was to be
divided, as symbolised by the feet and toes of the image, part of
iron and part of clay. It was to be"partly strong and partly
broken," "mingling with the seed of men but not cleaving together
even as iron is not mixed with clay.''
"In the days of these kings," Daniel concluded, "the God
of Heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed,
and the kingdom shall not be left to other people but it shall
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand
for ever."
Many superior people might smile at this recital and suggest
that we are trying to revise the old and exploded idea that history
can be dealt with under the heading of four great empires. They
would liken us to the "fifth monarchy men" of Cromweirs time,
and contrive to suggest that only very ignorant people could
see anything wonderful in Daniel's prophecy. It may freely be
admitted that there has been ignorance of history among expositors
of Daniel. Knowledge, after all, is only a matter of degree. We
are all ignorant of many truths. It is to be feared, however, that
among the superior people there has often been something worse
than ignorance. There has been an effort to raise obscurity where
unpleasant truths showed too clearly.
Who would dispute that there have been other kingdoms on
earth beside the four mentioned by Daniel ? In testing this
prophecy, however, we only need to deal with the ground it
covers. It makes no attempt to present a universal history. It

69
 presents the kingdoms of men in relation to the kingdom of God
or the final dispensation on earth, of which all the prophets
speak, when the will of the Father will be done on earth even as
it is now done in Heaven. How does the prediction fit in with
history ?
The first great power was the Babylonian. Everyone will
admit that this was great and imperial, as it is represented. The
second was the coalition of Medes and Persians. The attempt of
some commentators to make out that only the Medes were
intended is simply not honest. In the seventh chapter and again
in the ninth chapter there is the clearest indication that the writer
of the book of Daniel regarded the Medes and Persians as
constituting one power, whether symbolised by the two arms of
the image, or the beast raised up on one side, or the ram with
two horns, of which the higher came up last. Beyond this,
however, the matter is surely settled by Daniel's own history.
When the Babylonian power passed away it was stated "thy
kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."
This admitted, it follows inevitably that the third kingdom
referred to is that of the Grecians who, under Alexander the
Great conquered the Persians. Equally certain is it that the
fourth kingdom was that of the Romans, who next rose to the
chief place. Who will deny that this was the strongest of the
powers breaking in pieces all who resisted it and fittingly sym-
bolised by iron ? Some sceptics will claim that this was another
instance of predictions written after the events. They will
maintain that the writer of the book of Daniel saw the ascendancy
of the terrible power of Rome, and thus in describing its iron-like
strength was only wise after the event. There is a limit, how-
ever, to this violent process of ante-dating. Everyone will admit
that the book of Daniel was completed and was part of the
Jewish Scriptures before the beginning of the Christian era.
Rome had risen to ascendancy before then, but she did not begin
to decline until two centuries later. Then why make such
strained and unreasonable efforts to assign a late origin for the
prophecy merely to account for the less important of its
prophecies ? Incomparably the most striking part of the predic-
tion is the latter half, which indicates a complete change in the
order of events. One who, looking back on history, saw the
uprise of four powers successively dominating the world in which
they moved, would surely expect the process to continue. He
would expect a fifth great power to follow the fourth.
Even on looking back from now it is not easy to see why
this did not happen. The lust of conquest has remained with
the monarchs all through the ages, and surely the facilities have
not been decreased. As fighting became more artificial there was
increased opportunity for a conqueror who happened to obtain
control of a new weapon to crush all opponents and to hold them

70
in subjection. If the Greeks with their pikes and the Romans
with their short swords could successively conquer the world,
who could set a limit to the power of the nation which first used
guns or other modern weapons ?
The prophecy of Daniel was quite definite on this point.
It offers, in fact, a challenge to eternity in the teeth of all that
might have been expected on natural grounds. The terrible
Roman power was to be divided, to be partly strong and partly
broken, and this condition was to continue until the final dispensa-
tion, when the kingdom and dominion under the whole heaven
should be given to the saints of the most High. There was to be
no fifth kingdom of men. It is only when we see the matter in
this light that the full significance of the prophecy can be realised.
Fourteen centuries have passed since the break up of the
Roman empire. Repeated efforts have been made by successive
rulers of flourishing countries to establish an empire on the Roman
plan. Spain made the attempt; France has tried more than once.
In our own days Germany has made a still more determined effort.
Inventions which have revolutionised the science of war and have
conquered the obstacle of distance have given to the great leader
far more opportunity to outstrip all rivals and to crush them than
was ever enjoyed by the conquerors of the past. Yet all the efforts
to establish a fifth empire have failed. The kingdom has remained
partly strong and partly broken. There has been in it of the
strength of the iron, but "mingled with the seed of men"—a
democratic element which has been a cause of weakness and an
obstacle to imperial ambitions. The conditions were aptly sym-
bolised by the feet and ten toes of the image part of iron and part
of clay, or by the ten horns of the terrible fourth beast, represent-
ing ten kingdoms which should arise.
Perhaps some critics may raise the objection that the men of
simple faith who believe in this prophecy exaggerate the difference
between the conditions which prevailed in the days of Roman
power and the days which have followed. They will claim that
even in her palmiest days the empire of Rome was not so com-
plete as simpletons have supposed, and that consequently the pro-
longed period of division and weakness which has followed is not
so significant as they have represented.
We will admit this. It is almost invariably the case that an
argument is exaggerated by those who honestly believe in it.
That is no reason, however, for critics to swing to the other
extreme and to deny the plainest of facts. If anyone is disposed
to question whether a great change has taken place in the affairs
of Europe since the fall of the Roman empire, we would ask
them to read the words of Gibbon. He is renowned as a great
authority on this subject, and as he did not believe in the Bible
he certainly will not be suspected of colouring history for the
benefit of Old Testament prophets. The following words are from

71
Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"—the end of
chapter iii.—
"A modern tyrant who should find no resistance either in his
own breast or in his people, would soon experience a gentle
restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present
censure, the advice of his allies and the dread of his enemies.
The object of his (displeasure would easily obtain in a happier
climate a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merits,
the freedom of complaint and perhaps the means of revenge.
But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that
empire fell into the hands of a single person the world became
a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. 'Wheresoever you are,'
said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, 'remember that you are equally
within the power of the conqueror.* "

The fact is that whatever crudities and exaggerations there

may be in the views of the devoted student of Daniel, their
position has a solid foundation which has been most unfairly
ignored by critics. If we compare the words of the prophet with
the words of the accredited historian, and treat both with common
fairness, we are bound to admit that Daniel's forecast has been
fully justified during a period of prolonged test, with the prece-
dents of ancient history all against it, and with successive military
leaders attempting to realise ambitions which would falsify it.
There are other details arising, particularly out of the seventh
chapter of the prophecy, which are probably regarded by some
believers as the most convincing of all, but which involve reference
to matters so objectionable that we would gladly avoid them.
Our object, however, is to explain the obstinacy of those people
who evoke the astonishment and sometimes the scorn of observers
by the implicit faith they still repose in the Bible. It would not
be fair or honest to ignore some of the arguments they regard as
most powerful merely out of consideration for the feelings of their
opponents.
We must present the rude convictions of the Christian stal-
wart, asking the reader to restrain all feeling of anger even if
the argument involves an attack on institutions that are revered.
It is always well to try to understand those from whom we differ.
We may remain convinced that they are wrong and yet come to
perceive why it is that they are so certain that they are right.
It is foolish to be angry at the impotent attacks of opponents if
we remain quite sure of our own ground. It is still more foolish
to lose temper if we begin to doubt our own position and to
suspect that the outrageous opinions of a despised minority may
be right after all. #

72
 CHAPTER XIII.

THE RUDE ARGUMENTS.

There are times when we make ourselves politely stupid in
order to spare the feelings of friends. If a visitor has an unfor-
tunate cast in the eye we carefully avoid any reference to such
defects. If an unsophisticated little boy stares at the visitor and
asks why some people's eyes do not both look the same way, we
ignore the child if we can, and pretend we do not know what
he means if it is impossible to ignore him. Some polite adults
would find occasion to administer a severe corrective to teach
to youth the blessing of reticence.
There is a similar tendency even in connection with matters
of religion. Educated people often make themselves politely
stupid to spare the feelings of friends. If rude Christians point
out ugly facts, the first effort is to ignore them. If this is impos-
sible, misunderstand them; and if opportunity offers, punish them.
Religious persecution has generally been the expression of utter
spiritual nakedness, and scornful and sarcastic speech has often
been the final confession of polemical bankruptcy.
There is a wonderful power in the kindly and patient exhibi-
tion of truth by a well educated man or woman. If, therefore, in
dealing with people of unmistakable sincerity, educated men
employ violent language of scorn and contempt, it is fair to draw
the inference that there are no real arguments to use. Often
the case is analogous to that of the little boy who gives offence
by pointing out uncomfortable truths. The simple Bible believer
calls attention to prophecies regarding the uprise of a corrupt
system of religion. He points to the details of ecclesiastical
history as affording the most extraordinary confirmation of these
Scriptural forecasts. His case is such that whether he is right
or wrong any intelligent observer who takes the trouble to master
the argument can at least understand why it has produced such
conviction. The whole subject is so unpleasant, however, that
polite Christians naturally desire to send the rude man out of the
room.
Perhaps it will be denied that such considerations could weigh
with men in connection with a subject of such importance. A
little purposeful resistance to truth may be legitimate in the

73
 amenities of polite society, but who would dare to encourage it
in connection with matters of life and death, where in any case
truth must prevail?
We would answer that in reason and logic all must agree
that there is no excuse for allowing vital decisions to be affected
by convention of manners; but where, in all the world, is your
completely logical human being? Even in commercial matters,
which touch men's interests in the closest possible manner, and
in connection with which realities are pressed home with merciless
insistence every day, men still give rein to feeling and prejudice,
and continually they are resisting unpleasant but obvious truths.
Experts in business matters agree that one of the greatest diffi-
culties they experience is in persuading their clients to face ugly
facts. The truth will inevitably prevail, and it may drag down to
ruin the men who refused to see it. If they would recognise the
ugly truth in time and make the necessary reform in their business,
success would follow. The facts of the case are palpable, and
yet continually they are ignored. All the weight that reason can
bring to bear fails to overcome the natural reluctance to accept
a rude and unpleasant truth which involves an immediate inter-
ference with the placidity or the paucity of thought. If this is
so in connection with matters of business, where truth is near
and insistent, how much more in the more abstruse problems of
religion ?
There is some excuse for the unfair way in which modern
observers have treated sincere and thorough-going protestants.
There has been much bitterness in the religious controversy of the
past. Persecution has provoked persecution. There has been
hatred on both sides, with the result that judgment of Scriptural
matters has often been warped. It is perhaps natural, therefore,
for an observer who is not particularly interested, to assume that
every offensive application of Bible prophecy is merely an
expression of unreasoning antipathy. We desire to do justice in
the matter and show that the extreme protestant, whether he is
right or wrong in his conclusions, has some solid ground for
his convictions. Sometimes he holds them solely at the call of
reason with personal inclination, family ties and self-interest all
pulling in the other direction.
Take, for instance, the most extreme case of all—the terrible
imagery of Revelation xvii. There we have the figure of a harlot
drunk with the blood of saints yet arrayed with such splendour
as to command the admiration of beholders. The extreme
protestant regards it as a prophecy of the uprise of the Roman
Catholic power, and as such an unmistakable evidence of divine
fore-knowledge displayed in the Bible. Some impartial but little
interested observers have regarded this interpretation as a mere
exhibition of spleen and bitter feeling, as unreasonable as it is
unkind. They would seek no better cause for such a conviction

74
 than the well-known hatred which has divided and disgraced the
sects of Christendom, and which may lead narrow-minded men
to apply any harsh and insulting description to their opponents.
If there had been no explanation of that awful imagery of
the book of Revelation this criticism might be just. The meaning
of the symbol is explained, however, in plain language. We are
informed quite definitely that these signs were given to show to
the servants of God things that should come to pass. In con-
nection with the particular symbol under review, the Apostle John
states that the details were explained to him by the angel. The
seven heads of the beast on which the woman sat represented
seven mountains. The ten horns represented ten kings which had
not at that time received their kingdoms. The woman was "that
great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
Surely it is foolish for anyone to pretend that there is any
difficulty in identifying this city. Everyone must know that Rome
has the peculiarity of being built on seven hills. You can find
them named in any cyclopaedia—Capitolina, Palatine, Aventine,
Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, and Caelian.
Everyone knows that Rome was the only city which could
be described as reigning over the kings of the earth at the time,
or anywhere near the time when the book of Revelation was
written. The words of the angel tell us twice over that Rome
is the great city symbolised by the woman, and it is only a very
purposeful obtuseness which fails to understand. If we speak
of a mysterious and wicked city which is on the river Thames
and is the largest city in England, we shall not expect listeners
to find any mystery in identifying the place so described. Even
if one were convinced that London contained no wickedness of
any kind, we should think he would nevertheless recognise that
London was referred to. Why should the lover of Rome pretend
that he cannot understand the equally explicit description of a city
built on seven hills, and the city which reigned over the kings
of the earth in the days when Christianity was first planted in
the world ?
When reasonable men can be induced to face this matter they
fully recognise that Rome was meant, but sometimes they say it
was pagan Rome, not papal Rome. To this the real protestant
has a ready answer. He points out that the ten horns represent
ten kings which had not received a kingdom when the Revelation
was given, and the woman is shown among them. It is clear,
then, that she did not represent a persecuting power, existing
before the break up of the Roman empire, but something that
was to come later, among "things which should be hereafter."
There is another argument the protestant can use, an
argument much stronger than the consideration of historical
developments, and as it seems to many earnest students

75
absolutely conclusive. The symbol of harlotry is used repeatedly
in Scripture, and always with the same meaning.
We have known critics to take violent objection to the gross-
ness of the symbol. No one, however, will be so foolish as to
argue that if God condescended to give a revelation to mankind
He would necessarily show any regard for the susceptibility of
human prudes. It is more reasonable to suppose that the One
to whom all things are naked and open would strip us of our
pretences, and that if He desired to depict something which on
the spiritual plane is offensive to Him He would employ a symbol
which on the material plane is offensive to us.
In any case it cannot be denied that in the Bible this symbol
of whoredom is used repeatedly, and always with the same
meaning. Spiritual fornication is a departure from God on the
part of those who profess or have professed to serve Him. The
symbol is not applied to heathen nations whose practices are so
strongly condemned. They had never served God, so they could
not depart from Him. They were vile, but they were not
unfaithful.
When, however, Israel followed heathen gods, the offensive
word was applied to them again and again. "I have been a
husband to you," God is represented as saying, and Israel had
departed from Him like an unfaithful wife.
The same idea of God's relation to His people is taken up in
the New Testament. "I have betrothed you to one husband,"
says the Apostle Paul, "that I may present you as a chaste virgin
to Christ."
In addition to this we must note the fact that the New
Testament declares in perfectly plain language that there would
be an apostasy. It is an unpleasant and distressing thought,
but surely it is only reasonable for earnest Christians to face the
facts, and if religious people in these days think that Christ and
His immediate disciples were narrow-minded or mistaken men,
it would be honest to say so openly.
In the Sermon on the Mount we have Christ saying that the
way to life was a narrow one which only few people would find,
while the way to destruction was broad and "many should go
in thereat." 1 We have the Apostle Paul stating that the "day
of the Lord" for which they looked should not come until there
had first been a' "falling away" and the manifestation of a sinful
power.2 The same Apostle declared "the mystery of iniquity doth
already work and it will increase unto more ungodliness." In
writing to Timothy he predicted that a time would come when
men "would not endure sound doctrine," but that they would
regard teachers of their own choice and "turn away from the
truth unto fables."8
(1) Matt., vii., 13,14. (2) II. Thess., ii., 3-8. (3) II. Tim. iv., 3, 4.

76
 It is idle to pretend that there is any ambiguity in this
language. A falling away from the primitive faith is foretold in
language as plain as can be devised. Therefore, when the well-
known symbols are used again in the book of Revelation they
should be intelligible. The book refers to the bride of Christ,
who is to be prepared and clothed in white garments ready for
the marriage, and it also predicts that there should be a harlot
among the ten powers which should arise in the earth. An
apostate unfaithful system of Christianity closely identified with
the city of the seven hills which reigned over the kings of the
earth in the day when the revelation was given.
Perhaps the significance of the symbol may become more
apparent to the average reader if comparison is made between the
seventeenth chapter of Revelation and the fiftieth chapter of
Jeremiah. The earlier prophecy denounced the real Babylon,
which had been such an enemy to Israel, and predicted its over-
throw. Very similar language is used to that of the Revelation.
Even the symbol, of the golden cup and the maddening wine is
employed, but there is no reference to whoredom. The reason
lies on the surface. Ancient Babylon was evil, and her doctrines
were like wine to make the nations mad, but the Babylonians
had never been the people of God. They did not profess to serve
the God of Israel, and therefore they could not be called unfaithful
in all their idolatry. The mystical Babylon of the Apocalypse,
however, is repeatedly denounced as a harlot; beautiful and
bejewelled but unfaithful to the God she professes to worship.
To the thorough-going and sincere protestant the identifica-
tion with papal Rome seems as complete as a mathematical
demonstration. It seems equally clear to him that the prophecy
has been wonderfully fulfilled in the history of Europe.
"Call no man on earth your father," said the Lord Jesus,
"One is your Father in Heaven. Call no man your master, for
One is your Master even Christ, and all ye are brethren." This
is in accordance with the entire spirit of primitive Christianity. Is
it the spirit of the papacy with a man at the head called the
"Holy Father"?
"Be kind and gentle to all men."
"Be ready to render a reason for the hope that is in you with
meekness and fear.''
That is the spirit of primitive Christianity. Is it the spirit
of Rome ? Think of the Spanish Inquisition; the massacre of St.
Bartholomew, and the fires of Smithfield, nearer home, and you
will realise how this prophecy appears to those who, by their
study of the Scriptures, have been led to the conviction that the
real saints were among those persecuted minorities.
Every man who is willing to take an impartial view ought
to be able at least to understand the position of the simple believer
in the Bible and his convictions that the Roman Catholic religion

77
with its exaltation of a priestly caste and its Babylonian doctrines
has made a great departure from the simple gospel of the Galilean
fishermen. The vast majority of independent and impartial
sceptics will recognise this fact. What then will they say to this
rude and intensely unpopular prophecy? Can they suggest any
possible meaning of the harlot except an .unfaithful church ? Can
they suggest any possible meaning for the city built on seven hills
and reigning over the kings of the earth except that it meant
Rome ? Can they deny that the Papacy has persecuted those who
dissented from it—Waldenses and Huguenots and English
reformers ? We suggest that a candid and truthful answer should
be given to these questions, and then that the argument, whatever
value we attach to it, should be placed on the shelf of memory
with the others.
If any readers should be sincere admirers of the Roman
Catholic religion, we apologise for mentioning these matters,
but still urge that the ugly facts should be faced. There are
times when it is wise for a man to admit that appearances are
against him. Such candour induces even those who believe in
his guilt to hear his defence. The same rule applies when
appearances are against a system. A purposeful obtuseness or a
scornful repudiation of obvious inferences will never serve any
good purpose. If a man thinks that he has any reasonable defence
to make, either for himself or his faith, it is well to state it rather
than to expend an equal amount of energy in fruitless manifesta-
tions of anger.

78
 CHAPTER XIV.

THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

We desire now for a few minutes to return to the book of
Daniel in order to explain the convictions of the extreme
protestant with regard to the rude details of this prophecy.
In chapter vii. we have the vision of the four beasts,
harmonising with the vision of chapter ii. but adding further
details. There cannot be any doubt that the fourth beast, stronger
and more terrible than any of the others, represented the Roman
empire. The break up of the Roman empire was symbolised in
the second chapter of the prophecy by the ten toes of the image,
part of iron and part of clay, partly strong and partly broken. In
chapter vii. the uprise of ten kingdoms is signified by ten horns.
The objector naturally resists the application of this prophecy at
every stage. Sometimes he is rather scornful regarding the ten
kingdoms because believers in the prophecy have not always
agreed as to their identity. We think this is a very natural diffi-
culty. Modern statesmen may agree that political boundaries
should be drawn according to nationality and yet be quite unable
to agree as to how many nations there are in Europe to be so
divided. The rise and fall of kingdoms is determined by a multi-
tude of causes acting and reacting on each other with infinite
complexity. The believer in Daniel does not maintain that hosts
of angels manipulated the history of Europe in order to sustain
an exact correspondence with the symbolism of the prophecy.
He merely believes that the power which inspired the prophet was
able to foretell the main consequences of all the efforts and
intrigues of humanity and the million causes of change which
have moulded Europe's history.
It is difficult sometimes for expositors to agree as to whether a
certain power is strong enough to be accounted a kingdom, or as to
whether another is properly within the limits of the old Roman
empire. In the main, however, it cannot be denied that the
prophetic symbol has been wonderfully justified. In spite of the
fact that warfare has become more scientific and that opportunities
have increased for a conqueror to subjugate the nations, the old
Roman empire has been divided and has so remained. There have
been ten kingdoms, sometimes more than ten, but never many

79
 more. It would certainly be impossible to fix on a number which
would be truer to history.
What, then, of the other details in connection with these
kingdoms which should arise? Everyone who is even slightly
acquainted with this subject knows the significance attached by
thorough-going protestants to the prophecy of the little horn. He
regards it as a wonderful forecast of the uprise of the Papacy.
What justification is there for this offensive application ? We
have no desire to labour the matter or even to argue it. We only
wish to point out the facts which have led the extreme protestant
to this conclusion.
The prophet declared that in the vision he saw a little horn
rise among the ten. That it was diverse from the others, that it
plucked up three horns by the roots, that it had a mouth speaking
blasphemies against God, that it was full of eyes, that it persecuted
the saints and that it was permitted to continue for a time,
times and the dividing of time.
When the angel explained the vision he" interpreted the
symbols in the only sense possible, emphasising the fact that the
vision was a revelation of future events. Ten kings were to
arise out of the Roman empire. Another diverse power was to
come up after them. He was to subdue three of them. He was
to manifest the characteristics of the little horn seen in the vision,
and to continue for the length of time indicated.
We will take the points one by one and try to show the
protestant's point of view.
Everyone knows that the papacy arose to power after the
break up of the Roman empire. Everyone will admit that it
became a real power, with strength material no less than spiritual.
Everyone will admit that it was diverse from the others. The
first point of disagreement will be as to the subduing of three
powers. This is an old controversy which has been fought out
in high places, and there has been ample cause on both sides of
the dispute for that unconscious form of prejudice in the reading
of history which has often obscured some facts and over-
emphasised or distorted others. The enthusiastic expositor of
prophecy may easily be led into error without any conscious
dishonesty. He will attach too much importance to those features
of history which seem best to illustrate his ideas, and in the end
he may distort them. If controversy is provoked, such as there
has been between Papist and Protestant, the inevitable effect will
be that the reaction will tend to minimise or obscure the features
of history which have been over-accentuated. The historian who
recognises no creeds, but who claims to deal merely with facts,
will nevertheless be insensibly influenced by these controversies.
In his effort to be impartial he will avoid any special emphasis of
events which have been used by extremists in their attacks upon
venerable institutions. This may have the effect of obscuring

80
facts and leading to distortions as serious as those produced by
the most zealous and ignorant of Bible students.
The extreme protestant declares that three kingdoms were
subdued by the papacy, and that was the origin of the triple crown
worn by the Pope. The devout Catholic would repudiate such an
idea altogether, and would maintain that the three crowns sym-
bolise lordship over Heaven, earth and hell. The impartial
historian would be far less definite. He might maintain that the
papacy had been responsible for the downfall or subjugation of
more than three kingdoms; while he would remain very sceptical
as to the earth, heaven and hell theory as to the origin of the
triple crown. He would probably maintain that the matter was
one of the obscurities of history.
With all this uncertainty, however, there is no doubt as to
the fact that the Pope alone among the rulers of earth has worn
a triple crown, nor can it be disputed that kingdoms have been
subdued by the papacy, whether the protestant expositor of Daniel
is quite accurate in his view of history or not.
Then the little horn was described as full of eyes. It can
hardly be disputed that this is an appropriate description of the
Papacy, with its unequalled facilities for espionage in
matters temporal, and its claim to a spiritual insight far trans-
cending all others. It should be easy 'to understand how this
argument appeals to those who use it, even if you cannot in any
way yield to their convictions.
Then the little horn was represented as persecuting the
saints. There may be divergence of opinion as to whether the
extreme Protestants have been saints, but there can be no doubt
that they have been persecuted by the papacy. No historian would
attempt to deny this. The impartial chronicler of history would
balance matters by stating that Protestants have been persecutors
in turn, so that there has not been much to choose between them.
We think, however, in point of fact the devoted students of the
Bible have never been in a position of power to enable them to
persecute anybody, and they have suffered both at the hands of
Catholics and Protestants.
We are told that the little horn power would have a mouth
speaking great things, even blasphemies against the Most High.
Here again the argument may be stated very simply. Everyone
will admit that the papacy has had a month speaking great things.
As to whether the utterances have been blasphemous depends
entirely on their truth. A simple-minded elder of an obscure
Christian brotherhood may be quite wrong in his belief; but there
is rarely anything that could be described as blasphemous in his
statements, however mistaken they may be. The church of Rome,
however, makes such claims that no compromise is possible.
Either the papacy is all that it claims to be, or it certainly has
a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies against God.

81
 Finally there is the cryptic prophecy that it should retain
its power against the saints for a time, time and the dividing of
time.
There has been an extraordinary unanimity of opinion as to
the correct reading of this cryptogram wherever any attempt has
been made to understand it. Indeed, in all these matters the
despised extremist of the present day does little more than repeat
the expositions which were given by the most learned of the
Protestant church in a ruder and honester age.
A Jewish time was three hundred and sixty days. Times
would be seven hundred and twenty days, while the dividing of time
—or, in other words, half a time—means one hundred and eighty
days. The total is twelve hundred and sixty days, and meant,
according to the established prophetic principle, a total period
of twelve hundred and sixty years.
We have before us a little work by Robert, Lord Bishop of
Clogher, "An impartial inquiry into the time of the coming of
the Messiah," published in the year 1751. The bishop regarded
the identity of the little horn with the papacy as established
beyond all dispute, and the duration of the ascendancy as clearly
twelve hundred and sixty years. He expected the final end of
the papacy to be about the year 2015. Learned protestants of
later days may be more polite or less honest, or broaded-minded
or less faithful (just as you care to view the matter), but we
have never known a modern bishop of the Anglican Church to
expound this prophecy with a view to showing that former bishops
were mistaken in applying it to papal Rome.
It is obvious, however, that the uprise of the papacy was a
work of time, and the fall may be gradual also. Have the
extremists any sort of justification for applying this period of
twelve hundred and sixty years and claiming that events have
justified the prophecy? Unbelievers may scoff, but we think it
would be foolish to deny that there are very strong grounds for
the rude contention. We cannot imagine any well-informed man
disputing that the papacy suffered very severely from the time
of the French Revolution, and for eighty years onward to the
fall of the temporal power. Neither can we imagine any reputable
historian denying that the Church of Rome rose rapidly from the
time of the emperor Justinian, and for seventy or eighty years
onward to the recognition of the headship of the bishop of Rome.
These two periods are separated from each other by 1,260 years.
It may be argued that the power of the bishop of Rome began
to assert itself even before the beginning of the sixth century,
and that it continued to increase until the beginning of the eighth
century. In the same way it might be argued that the first signs
of waning came before the French Revolution, while the final end
has not come yet. The fact remains that the papacy gained power

82
to make war against those who opposed its claims, and retained
its position for over twelve centuries.
There is good reason, however, to give the period a much
more definite application than this. The prophecy speaks quite
definitely regarding the power of the little horn to make war, and
the twelve hundred and sixty years is stated to be the period in
which the saints should be given into his hand. Surely it is
reasonable to suppose that the power to make war began when*
the bishop of Rome was first proclaimed the head of all the
churches by the decree of Phocas in A.D. 606, and the end of the
power to make war came with the abolition of the temporal power
in 1866-70, twelve hundred and sixty years later.
This application is naturally resisted by all lovers of the
church of Rome and all rejectors of Scripture. It is one of those
cases in which there is abundant reason on both sides for
prejudice and for that unconscious perversion of fact to which
we have referred earlier in this chapter. It has been urged by
some that Phocas was a monarch of little authority, and that his
decree was of no great importance. It has been pointed out that
modern historical writers have little to say regarding Phocas or
the recognition of pontifical supremacy accorded to the bishop
of Rome in his reign.
It is quite true that you will need to search for any reference
to the decree of Phocas if you look up the matter in an
encyclopaedia, and you will probably find that the later the edition
of the work of reference the more meagre will be its details^
What is the explanation ? Has it been a case of over-accentuation
on the one hand or of minimising and concealing on the other;
or has there been an element of both ?
The writer confesses that when he first gave attention to
this matter he was under the impression that enthusiasts in the
study of prophecy had allowed their judgment to be warped by
their anxiety to find a definite application of the famous time
period. It was impossible, however, to accuse them of prejudice
and perversion of the fact in their conviction as to when it
began. They had fixed upon the year 606 or 606-608 as the
beginning of the power to make war long before the period of
twelve hundred and sixty years came to an end. To the writer's
knowledge, the decree of Phocas was confidently put forward as
the time from which the period should date, in a general exposition
of prophecy published in 1848. Probably this interpretation was
a reflection of others written still earlier. Clearly this was no case
of attempting to find in ancient history something to harmonise
with the protestant's exposition of current events. In the year
1848, who could foresee what the events of 1866 would be? If
there has been any perversion of history by the expositors of this
prophecy, it must have been in their view of the ending of the
time period. Did anything happen in the year 1866 to justify

83
them in saying "this ends the power of the Pope to persecute
the saints"?
Strangely enough the secular historian supports them in their
views as to the end of the period far better than in the beginning.
Take the Encyclopaedia Britannica as an authority. We may
be confident that if the writers of this work were under the sway
of any form of prejudice it would be a very definite tendency to
avoid anything which could support these ideas that we are
expounding.
In the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Vol. IV., page 266, we are told that "Boniface was Pope from
the 15th of February to November 12th, 606. He obtained from
Phocas recognition of the headship of the church of Rome."
Now turn to the article under the heading Pius IX., and you
will find a much more detailed description of the events of twelve
hundred and sixty years later.
We are told that "from the reduction of Ancona to the year
1870 Pius was maintained in Rome only by a French garrison."
We are told that when Victor Emmanuel felt himself to be
strong enough he put in a formal claim for Rome; that it was
agreed by the convention of 1864 that.the French troops should
withdrawn, and the actual evacuation was effected in December,
1866.
The historian adds that this engagement was virtually
violated by the entry in the following year of other troops, and
"for some time longer the French soldiery continued to ward off
both the daring assaults of Garibaldi and the more insidious
approaches of Ratazzi."
When the war of 1870 broke out, however, this last legion
was withdrawn. The end is described in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica.
"The Zouaves, some nine thousand in number, after receiving
as they stood massed in the square of St. Peter the pontifical
blessing, marched out of Rome, and the temporal power of the
Pope had ceased to exist."
These words are definite enough to satisfy the most extreme
of protestants. What better authority can we have than a
standard encyclopaedia, designed for the use of all classes of
the public, written to inform, by the men best qualified to instruct
us, and certainly with no bias in favour of those unpopular
applications of prophecy. What more definite words than these—
"the temporal power of the Pope ceased to exist"? What is
the explanation of this most significant termination of the
temporal power ? Was it merely a chance ? One more coincidence
in the long list which we have to accept if we reject the Bible ?
We do not imagine that one who repudiates this prophecy
would take comfort in that extension of four years from 1866 to
1870, during which the pope was in a measure supported by

84
France. The effort has been rather to dispute the reasonableness
of dating the twelve hundred and sixty years from the decree
of Phocas. It is too late, however, for such a challenge. As
we have already pointed out, the decree of Phocas was fixed upon
as the true beginning at least as early as the year 1848. It was
confidently anticipated by students of Daniel that 1866 and the
few years immediately following would mark the end of the
temporal power. Recognising, as we must, the inveterate
tendency of humanity to allow the judgment of events to be
warped by prejudice, it is well to take special note of this con-
trast. Previous to the events of 1866 the extreme believers in
the prophecy of Daniel had no reason whatever for over-
emphasising the importance of the decree of Phocas. Since the
events of 1866 all who repudiate the prophecy have had ample
reason for minimising it. Yet it was at least twenty years before
the fall of the temporal power that believers fixed upon the
decree of Phocas as the true beginning of the power to make war.
We are confident that since the fall of the. temporal power the
compilers of encyclopaedias and other chroniclers of history have
been led to effect a measure of concealment in their effort to avoid
giving support to ideas which are accounted outrageous.
It will be obvious, however, that to the simple soul who
follows a belief in the Bible to its logical conclusion the prophecy
of Daniel seems very wonderful. It was predicted that the
Babylonian power would give place to a coalition of two powers,
of which the second, to take the supreme position, would rise
to a greater eminence than the first. This was fulfilled by the
Medes and Persians, a Mede first reigning, but the coalition rising
to greater power when later the Persian monarchs took the throne.
It was predicted that the Persians would be overthrown by the
Grecians under a great king, and that on the passing of this
king his dominions would be divided into four, but "not to his
posterity." This was fulfilled in the conquests of Alexander
the Great and the subsequent division of his empire among his
four generals. It was predicted that after the Grecian empire
another power should arise, more terrible and stronger than
any of the others which preceded it, a veritable kingdom of iron.
This was fulfilled with the uprise of the Roman empire. It was
predicted that after this there should not be another such empire
of men; that the Roman kingdom would be divided into a number,
retaining some elements of imperial strength, but also with
elements of weakness and the rule of "the seed of men." This
has been fulfilled during fourteen centuries in which successive
conquerors have vainly striven to establish empires on the Roman
plan. It was predicted that among the several kingdoms of
divided Rome a new power should arise diverse from all the
others. A power which should win three crowns, which should
have great powers of seeing, a mouth speaking blasphemies and a
85
disposition to persecute the saints of God. And that this power
to make war on those who dissented from it would continue for
twelve hundred and sixty years.
Perhaps we are too near the facts for anyone to speak with
complete impartiality as to whether these last predictions have
been fully realised. When violent passions are aroused there
is hardly a limit to the human capacity for over-accentuating or
for resisting evidence. We are confident, however, that any
reader with the slightest capacity for impartial investigation will
at least be able to understand how the argument appeals to the
extreme protestants, whose point of view we have tried to explain.
For the moment that is all we desire. Make a neat mental
parcel of the prophecies, and we will give them due weight in
the final review.
 CHAPTER XV.

THE LAST MESSAGE.

The devoted student of the Bible is sometimes rather

suspicious of those who complain that the book of Revelation is
too obscure for anyone to understand it. He cannot resist the
conviction that the real difficulty is not thajt the last message of
the Bible is painfully obscure, but that in its main features it is
painfully plain. He does not marvel at the efforts at one time
made to expurgate it from the canon of Scripture. He regards
the preservation of the book as one of the greatest miracles of
history, indicating that Providence has sometimes overruled in
the councils of men.
We* have heard it said that there are three schools of thought
in the interpretation of this prophecy. First, that it is progressive,
forecasting the development of history from the time the Revela-
tion was given to the end of the kingdom of men. Second, that
it all relates to the past in connection either with the destruction
of Jerusalem or the overthrow of paganism. Third, that it is still
all future.
In the same way it might be affirmed that there are three
schools of thought in astronomical science. First, the idea that
the earth is a sphere, revolving around the sun. Second, that
it is a plane with sun, moon and stars revolving around it;
and third, that it is a mountain of uncertain shape mounted on
the back of a gigantic elephant. There are many earnest students
of Scripture who would regard this as a fair analogy. The man
who quotes the alternative theories of exposition as an excuse
for not attempting to understand the Apocalypse, seems to them
as unreasonable and puerile as the repudiator of astronomical
postulates seems to the scientist.
In all such matters there will always be men who scorn to
follow the beaten track made by the patient labours of those who
have preceded them. They desire to elaborate a theory entirely
their own.
We remember that a few years ago a self-appointed scientist
put forth the theory that instead of living on the outside of a
sphere we were living on the inside. That instead of the horizon
curving down it curved up and finally encircled us, while all the
heavenly bodies were situated somewhere inside the ball. Every-
one with a head for geometry will realise how profoundly this
theory would affect the calculation of distances. The sponsor
of the theory invented an instrument to test the curvature of the
earth, and this achieved the object for which it was designed,
loyally supporting the views of its creator. Since then we have

87
heard no more of the matter, and we do not suppose that real
scientists ever give it a passing thought.
The only genuine plan, either in science or in the exposition
of prophecy, is for the student to learn all he can from those who
have preceded him, to "prove all things and hold fast that which
is good." He must test the conclusions of his mentors and
only reject them after a humble and careful examination. Finally,
he must be satisfied with his legitimately won honours if, as the
result of a life's work, he only succeeds in adding a single ray
of new light to the subject of his study. To the genuine student
of prophecy it seems as certain that there has been a legitimate
succession of thinkers and workers in the interpretation of the
deep things of Scripture, just as in the exposition of Nature's
secrets. In each case the genuineness of the study is unaffected
by the fact that there have been charlatans and egotists who, by
their folly, have provided some excuse for the indolent and the
uninterested to scoff at the whole subject.
It is interesting to note in this connection that one man at
least secured a place in both these lines of study. Sir Isaac
Newton k recognised as one of the greatest of scientists. He
is also admitted to a place in the long line of genuine Bible
students, although most modern believers would probably place
him on a lower level than such a man as Joseph Mede. Is it
not possible, however, that if Sir Isaac Newton had devoted his
entire energy to the study of prophecy he would have been the
greatest exponent of all? In such a case he would doubtless
have remained unhonoured by the world, the flesh and the devil.
He would not even have found a place in the biographical pages
of encyclopaedias, and friends of the world would not have
admitted that he was a man of exceptional mentality if they had
ever been induced to cast a scornful eye at his work. As it was,
Sir Isaac Newton only devoted a small part of his energies to
the study of prophecy, and he only saw far enough to suggest
the great work he might have accomplished if he had devoted
his life to the subject.
There has been quite as much agreement among the genuine
students of the book of Revelation as among the genuine students
of Nature. Among them certain propositions are recognised as
first postulates, certain lines of exposition have been so well
established that they are no longer matters of dispute. They
constitute a foundation on which successive expositors can build.
It is agreed by all such students that in the book of Revela-
tion the future was revealed to the Apostle John by means of
signs and symbols. It is agreed that the seals, the trumpets
and the vials span the entire period from the time of the vision
to the end of the kingdom of men.
It is agreed that the millennium or thousand years* reign of
Christ on earth, instead of being a doctrine peculiar to the book

88
of Revelation, as some theologians have represented, is simply
a more detailed explanation of the kingdom of God foretold by
Daniel and all the prophets, and preached by Christ and His
disciples as the very basis of their glad tidings.
This last point is perhaps the most important of all.
Wherever there has been an understanding of the reality of the
"kingdom of God promised by the prophets of both Old and New
Testament, there has been a growing appreciation of the book
of Revelation and an understanding of its message. To the
simple follower of the early disciples of Christ it seems certain
that the general indifference to the book of Revelation in the
religious world to-day is almost wholly due to the fact that the
doctrine of the personal reign of Christ has been so largely
discarded. And conversely the original repudiation of this
doctrine was due to a failure to understand the book of
Revelation, a failure which may have been excusable in those
early days, but which is absolutely unpardonable now.
Every student knows that a belief in the reality of the
Kingdom of God to be established on earth was universal among
the early disciples of Christ. Gradually it came to be discarded.
The "spiritualising" method of interpreting prophecy grew in
favour. Some of the most talented of theologians put forth the
theory that the Church was the Kingdom, and that through the
Church Christ had begun his reign on earth.
What was the real reason of this change? It seems to us
that there is a tremendously strong argument in support of the
view that it was the natural outcome of a great triumph and a
crushing disappointment. During the first three centuries of the
Christian era there was already a marked falling away from the
* 'simplicity that was in Christ." Some of the ecclesiastical leaders
put forth claims and manifested qualities far removed from the
days when even the great Apostle to the Gentiles was only "our
"beloved brother Paul." In the third century came the terrible
persecution under Diocletian. For a time proud prelates and
humble disciples of Christ alike suffered tribulation. Then, not
long after, what a mighty change, with the greatest political
earthquake history has yet recorded! Constantine embraced
Christianity, and convinced all but the most thorough of Christ's
followers that the time had come for them to take the sword.
He led them with rare military genius, and the dragon of
paganism was overthrown. It was natural that such a triumph,
following a period of subjection and persecution, should produce
the belief that the kingdom of God had come at last. In the
first blush of success the deliverance from ignominy and constant
danger would seem like the restoration of Paradise, with Christ
Trery near if not actually visible. Doubtless the Christians had
many ignoble associates, faithless and grasping. Possibly there
were some at the opposite extreme who, through constant study
89
of the Scriptures, knew that the rejoicing of their fellows was
only the mistaken triumph predicted in Rev. xii., and that the
worse judgments were yet to come. It is certain, however, that
there were very many who honestly believed that the promised
kingdom had been established and that before long all its
blessings would be manifest.
The crushing disappointment soon followed. There were
quarrels between the immediate successors of Constantine. There
was an attempt to restore paganism. Before many years had
passed away, barbarians swept down from the North, putting an
end to the Christian hope of peaceful dominion. Goths, Vandals
and Huns successively invaded the western third of the Roman
empire. Christians were slain, women were violated; churches
were broken down. There was such wanton destruction of all
that the civilised world venerated that two of these barbarous
races have furnished us with words of reproach that are in common
use to-day. A savage destruction of works of art we describe as
vandalism. We have applied the name Hun to stigmatise a
barbarism too bad for any ordinary word.
It was after this disappointment, this dashing of Christian
hopes, that the doctrine of a merely spiritual kingdom gained
ground. Is it not reasonable to conclude that this was merely
an illustration of cause and effect?
To the student who follows the great exponents of the book
of Revelation, the error of those who followed Constantine is
glaringly apparent. The great change from paganism to a
nominal form of Christianity was the great earthquake of the
sixth seal. The jubilation of Christians exalted to the political
heavens was predicted. After this were to follow the terrible
woes of the seven trumpets, and the seven last vials of the wrath
of God.
When the student accepts this starting point, he can trace
the book of Revelation in history stage by stage. It has not
only thrown a wonderful light on past events. It has enabled
some of the great exponents to foretell the future in such a
manner and with such consecutive order as to forbid the thought
that it is mere coincidence.
We emphasise this last point very strongly. When we fit
the symbols of the prophecy to the events of the past, critics
may accuse us of moulding a doubtful form of language to suit
the accomplished fact. When we are able to show that the same
interpretation was made by former students centuries before the
events, even those who are least inclined to believe are
bound to recognise that they are presented with a direct and
arresting challenge.
If any reader desires to acquire a further understanding of
our burning faith in the Bible, we urge that special attention
should be given to our next chapter.
90
 We will endeavour to present in condensed and simple form
the main features of the apocalyptic forecast as it has been
expounded by the genuine students of all ages, and we will test
the expositions of two centuries ago in the light of recent history.
The subject is most distasteful, even to the majority of religious
people. So are the dreadful facts of modern history and every-
day experience. We are bound to face the facts of life, however.
Will you try to be impartial and with judicial eyes look at the
facts of Revelation?

91
 CHAPTER XVI.

SEALS, TRUMPETS AND VIALS.

The actual exhibition of future events in the book of
Revelation begins with the fourth chapter, when the angel said
to the Apostle, "Come hither and I will show thee things which
must be hereafter.*'
John saw a book sealed with seven seals, and it was pro-
claimed that no one was found worthy to break the seals and
open the book. This is an appropriate figure of the future,
which is a sealed book to all' of us. Christ, referred to under
symbols the meaning of which none will challenge, was then
exhibited as the one who had prevailed and was found worthy
to open the book. A song of adoration followed, and then the
seals were opened one by one.
The Revelation is supposed to have been given the last
year of Domitian. The thunder clap first mentioned on the
opening of the first seal might well be the assassination of that
tyrant. The Apostle then beheld a white horse. The rider was
crowned with the laurel wreath of victory; he carried a bow,
but there is no mention of arrows, and he went forth conquering
and to conquer.
It is easy to recognise the horse as a symbol of the great
Roman world. The whiteness is indicative of a period of peace,
and we may surely recognise the triumphant rider as the
Christian Church, conquering without the use of carnal weapons.
After the assassination of Domitian there followed a wonder-
ful period of peace during the reigns of Trajan Nerva, Hadrian
and the two Antonines. Gibbon expresses the opinion that could
a man have been permitted to choose the period of his life, he
would unhesitatingly have elected to live his days under the rule
of those monarchs.
On the opening of the second seal a red horse was seen,
and the rider, armed with a great dagger, was to take peace
from the earth.
In the unfolding of history just such a change occurred.
The wise and virtuous Marcus, whose "thoughts" delight
thoughtful readers even now, was followed by the profligate
Commodus, who prepared the way for the fall of the empire.
92
 Commodus was assassinated. He was followed by the virtuous
Pertinax, who in a few days suffered the same fate. Then came
the tradesman Julian, who, despite the most extravagant efforts
to please the soldiers, only lived for a few weeks after pur-
chasing the barren title of emperor. Three murders of rulers in
only a few weeks, and many more followed.
When the third seal was opened a black horse was seen.
The rider carried a pair of scales, and a proclamation was made
fixing a price for wheat at about eight times as much as it was
worth when the revelation was given. This can hardly be
described as an enigma. Surely it means famine.
Every student knows that, as the result of the excessive
taxation inaugurated by Commodus, some of the land went out
of cultivation, resulting in a period of severe distress. The
symbolism of the seal, however, suggests some mitigation of the
evil in its reference to oil and wine. History agrees, telling us
that wiser counsels prevailed, and some of the severities of taxa-
tion were relaxed.
On the opening of the fourth seal a pale horse was seen
with death as the rider and Hades following.
The word describing the colour of the horse is the one
from which we derive the word chlorosis—an extreme form of
bloodlessness. This symbol indicates a very anaemic condition
of the political body. Such a period followed the partial revival
brought about by the energy of Alexander Severus. Internal
strife, invasions by barbarians, pestilence and the ever-present
results of bad government, all contributed to bring the Roman
world into a condition which is aptly described by the symbolism
of the fourth seal.
After this there was an improvement in the political condi-
tions of the Roman empire. A succession of wise princes accom-
plished much in the direction of restoration and reform.
Aurelian, Probus, and, supreme among the reformers, Diocletian,
restored security and vigour to the Roman empire. Gibbon spoke
of this last-named prince in terms of the warmest praise, and
there can be no doubt that, judged by worldly standards, he was
a great man. The improvements he effected in the general con-
ditions of the empire cannot be disputed. There was, however,
a blot on his reign which has been remembered against him to
the concealment of his virtues. Everyone has heard of the
Diocletian persecution of Christians. For about ten years the
Christians were hunted and persecuted in a manner that had
never been attempted by any of the other Roman emperors.
Is there not, therefore, something rather significant in the
fact that the next seal—the fifth—makes no suggestion regarding
famine or anaemia in the political body, but represents the souls
of saints under the altar, crying to God because of the way in
which their blood is shed on earth ?

98
 When the sixth seal was opened we are told that there was
a great earthquake, and men are represented as fleeing from the
wrath of the Lamb, even the great ones of the earth being unable
to stand before Him.
In the language of symbol a revolution, or great upheaval of
human affairs, is described as an earthquake. This is not peculiar
to the book of Revelation. The figure is employed by ordinary
writers of the present day. Unless readers are purposefully stupid
they will recognise that the obvious meaning of the sixth seal is
that there would be a great revolution, in which paganism would
pass away and men would have reason to fear the power of
Christ.
Well, Diocletian, who so persecuted the Christians, died in
A.D. 305; Constantine, who effected the great change from
paganism to a form of Christianity, came to the seat of power
in A.D. 323.
We do not suggest that this interpretation of the seals
furnishes first-class evidence of the truth and inspiration of the
prophecy. Far from it. We think, however, that every candid
reader will admit that, whether by chance or by fore-knowledge,
the forecast fits in very well with the facts of history. We do
not think it can be doubted that every Christian would accept this
interpretation as in the main obviously true, but for the inevitable
sequence'. This, however, is one of those cases in which men
are "bound to" accept or reject certain propositions on account
of their being either harmonious or discordant with their main
convictions.
If you believe that the triumph of Christianity under Con-
stantine was the establishment of the true Church and the setting
up of God's kingdom on earth, you are logically bound to repudiate
this exposition of the seals, for according to the scheme of the
revelation still more terrible and more directly caused judgments
from God were to come upon the world after the great earthquake
of the sixth seal.
If, however, you are not bound by any such prejudice, please
follow this line of exposition for a few minutes. Surely it must
be recognised that history bears out the idea of woe to continue
and even to increase after the Roman empire had accepted the
name of Christ. One can hardly believe in Providence at all with-
out concluding that God has been angry with the nations all the
time. His kingdom has not yet come, His will has not been done
on earth, evil has gone forth from nation to nation, warfare has
increased, the gospel has been corrupted, paid preachers have
"made merchandise" of religion by the use of "feigned words," x
just in accordance with the predictions of Scripture. During this
period Europe has been subject to the most terrible of visitations
of warfare, as all readers must admit, whether they regard
(1) Peter, ii., 3.

94
 ambitious warriors as the "sword of the Lord" or whether they
think of them as products of adverse chance.
It must be admitted, then, that the trumpets and vials of the
book of Revelation, unmistakably indicating as they do the advent
of woe for humanity, harmonise with the facts of history. There
are repeated references to "the third part" being destroyed or
plagued in connection with these trumpet judgments. This refers
to the third of the Roman empire. Evil first fell upon the
western third. Goths, Vandals and Huns plagued the people of
Italy in rapid succession. Again, we may say, whether by chance
or as the effect of fore-knowledge, the symbols of the trumpets
fit the facts of history. The Goths overran Italy, and thus
scorched the "third part" of the Roman earth. The Vandals,
under Genseric, revived some of the maritime glories of Carthage
and struck a blow at the power of Rome on the sea, as suggested
by the words used in connection with the second trumpet. Every-
one acquainted with the details of history will recognise that the
expression "fountains and rivers of water," indicating the
locality of the judgments of the third trumpet, fits in with the
history of the Huns. Then, when the Goths captured Rome and
put an end to the empire in the west, it was surely an eclipse of
political sun and moon for a third part of the Roman world, just
as indicated in the judgment of the fourth trumpet.
To this point we admit that the prophecies are not sufficiently
definite to provide first-class evidence of inspiration. On the
other hand, we think it must be admitted, even by the most deter-
mined of opponents, that from the accession of Constantine to the
fall of the western empire the course of history was such as to
fit in very well with the most rational interpretation of the first
four trumpets. The real significance of this matter as Christian
evidence lies in the fact that it lays the foundation for the under-
standing of the far more striking prophecies which followed.
An angel was represented as proclaiming woe, woe, woe, to
the inhabitants of the earth by reason of the three trumpets,
which were yet to sound. It might be thought that the first four
trumpets indicated woe enough. What worse coujd follow?
The greater detail and far longer description of the fifth and sixth
trumpets suggest a possible answer. The judgments of those
trumpets were to be of much longer duration.
It may be stated quite definitely that at least since the days
of Joseph Mede no serious and capable exponent of the book of
Revelation has felt the slightest doubt as to the application of
the fifth and sixth trumpets. There may have been other exposi-
tions put forward by egotists who at all costs have aimed at
originality. In the same way you may find pseudo-scientists who
have written books to prove that the earth is a triangle revolving
round the moon, or that the sky is a big blue curtain with holes
in it which have been mistaken for stars. There is hardly a limit

95
to the possible foolishness of egotists, either in the world of
science or religion, but surely it would be very weak for genuine
students in either subject to be much influenced by them.
We repeat that at least since the days of Joseph Mede the
real expositors have felt no doubt as to the interpretation of the
fifth and sixth trumpets. The fifth trumpet produced a locust
plague to torment the men who had not the seal of God in their
foreheads. Although locusts are mentioned, the prophecy, by
referring to horses and human faces, makes it fairly clear that
men and mounted men are meant, with a king over them, a
veritable messenger of divine vengeance named the Destroyer.
Mede interpreted this to refer to the uprise of the Mohammedan
scourge, and the prolonged torment inflicted on the Eastern
Roman empire during three hundred years. His exposition
settled the question for all time so far as serious students are
concerned.
Why do we speak so confidently? The following points will
indicate some of the reasons, although we cannot find space to
elaborate the argument in detail.
In Hebrew the word for locust is radically the same as the
word Arab. The symbol is therefore a particularly suggestive
one for the Arabian destroyer. The time period indicated exactly
corresponds with the torment of which we read in history. Two
periods of five months are mentioned, a total of three hundred
days. Three hundred years was the actual duration of this
plague. It was expressly stated that the locust power was to
inflict torment but not to kill. Accordingly, political death was
not inflicted on the Eastern Roman empire until the next woe.
Finally, we may refer to one of those especially rude applica-
tions of prophecy which lash to fierce anger some of our religious
friends, but which will doubtless be considered by the philosophical
reader with a just effort to understand the point of view of simple
disciples.
We have before us, as we write, the Bible open at the book
of Revelation, chapter ix., and Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire" open at chapter li.
From the Bible we read, in connection with the destroying
power of the fifth trumpet, "it was commanded them that they
should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing
neither any tree, but only those men who have not the seal of
God in their foreheads."
From Gibbon we read that Abubekr, the immediate successor
of Mahomet, commanded his followers: "Destroy no palm trees
nor burn any fields of corn. Cut down no fruit trees. . . . You
will find another sort of people that belong to the synagogue of
Satan who have shaven crowns; be sure you cleave their skulls."
The prophecy of the sixth trumpet has been applied with
still greater confidence to the uprise of the Turkish power, and

96
 the passing of Constantinople, the eastern capital of the empire,
into Turkish hands.
For reasons aside from the significance of the chronological
order of events we may mention the following:—
Four personages are mentioned—evil angels in this case.
They are described as being loosed from the river Euphrates,
exactly in harmony with the facts of history. They were to
"kill the third part of men." In other words, they were to
inflict the political death which had been denied during the
previous woe. Accordingly Togrul Beg "crossed the Euphrates
at the head of the Turkish cavalry," as we read in Gibbon's
monumental history, and began a work of conquest and develop-
ment which, after several centuries, resulted in the overthrow of
Constantinople.
The vision mentions many horses in connection with this
invasion. Reference is also made to serpent-like tails to these
armies, and heads with mouths from which fire and brimstone
issued with terrible effect .on the enemy. The prophet tells us
plainly that he saw the horses in the vision. He evidently also
saw other things to which he could not give a name, but which
he attempted to describe. If he saw some of the heaviest cannons
that have ever been made going into action, how could he have
given a better description than this in Revelation ix. verses 17-19?
The prophet in vision sees thousands of horses. Hundreds of
them are apparently linked together in serpentine form at the
rear of the army, dragging forward a monstrous contrivance to
which he can give no name. He sees that these monsters have
heads with mouths, like lions in that they roar, but unlike any-
thing he has seen before in that "fire and brimstone" streams
out of their mouths with terrible effects in slaying the third part
of men.
Most people are aware that the Turks were among the first
to make extensive use of gunpowder, but few seem to have any
idea of the size of the cannons used at the siege of Constantinople
over four hundred years ago. It is often assumed that they must
have been very small weapons as compared with those of the
present day.
If you will consult the Encyclopaedia Britannica under the
subject "Artillery," you will find an enlightening description of
some truly monster pieces of ordnance which the Turks used in
the great siege. One of these was still in working order two
centuries later, and capable of hurling a stone shot weighing
seven hundred pounds. Such a shot was actually fired, killing
or wrounding forty men. A cannon capable of throwing a rough
stone shot of such weight would need to be at least as large as
the greatest of modern guns. In view of the fact that modern
methods of imparting strength had not then been discovered,
it is probable that these weapons of the Turks were larger than

97
any that have ever been made since, at least having greate*
"heads," with thicker masses of metal to resist the strain of the
explosion and the attrition of time.
If we can imagine a moving picture of such weapons being
dragged into action it would be hard to suggest how a man.who
had never even heard of firearms could give a better description
than this of Revelation.
Finally, we have the time period of this preparation to kill
the third part. An hour and a day and a month and a year (see
Rev. ix. 15).
Bagdad was taken by the Turks in the year 1057. Com-
menting on this Joseph Mede says :—
"From* this time, therefore, the Turks, having the principal
seat of the Saracenical empire with the whole dominion beyond
Euphrates, are prepared that after a prophetical day, month and
year they should kill the third part of men. That is, in the year
of Christ 1453 they should utterly cut off the rest of the Roman
Empire in the east, the royal city of Constantinople being taken.
For the space from the year 1057 to the year 1453, wherein
Constantinople was taken, is precisely 396 years, whereof the
day maketh one, the month thirty, the year three hundred and
sixty-five.''
Mede omits the hour as representing a period so short that
in a survey of the broad facts of history our knowledge is not
sufficiently perfect to make an application.
Perhaps some of our readers are scornful or perhaps are
mildly amused at us for bringing these matters forward. Perhaps
they feel that such an exposition can only be regarded as an
ingenious manipulation of vague and figurative language to fit
the accomplished facts of history.
We are quite aware of the possibility of such manipulation,
especially in connection with time periods. We can quite under-
stand the attitude of those who do not believe in these matters.
We must ask readers to be patient for a few minutes longer.
We have not really begun to state our argument yet. The point
we desire to emphasise is this.
Joseph Mede and others not only expounded prophecies
relating to events that were past. They also, in the most explicit
manner, set on record their expectations as to the future. Their
understanding of seals and trumpets involved" certain logical
necessities in the interpretation of the vials or the last judgment
of God. These expectations were put on record in some instances
centuries before there was the slightest indication in the political
heavens of such developments. We emphasise this point, not
because it presents the best of evidence or that the expositions of
old writers are necessary to make the matter clear, but merely
because these ancient prognostications, based on Bible prophecy,
can be forced on the attention even of unwilling ears. Every

98
 honest man who can be induced to look at these matters is bound
to recognise that he is in the presence of some startling facts
which cannot be set aside by sneers and laughter. Some may
be induced to study rather more, and thus to discover how pain-
fully ignorant they were when they so scornfully derided the
ignorance of the Christian "simpleton."
As we write we have before us a first English translation of
Joseph Mede's "Key of the Revelation." This was translated
from the original Latin by Richard More, and the volume in our
possession passed through the press in the year 1643.
Joseph Mede had no doubt whatever that the "beast" of
the Revelation was a figure for the power of Rome, and that
consequently the vials or "seven last plagues" indicated a suc-
cession of evils to come upon the papacy and papal powers. It
will not be denied that papal powers have suffered very severely
on land and sea during the last hundred and twenty years.
Napoleon Bonaparte, although nominally a Catholic, imprisoned
the Pope. When he directed his energies against Catholic
countries he was uniformly successful. He was a terrible scourge
to Europe as a whole, but he failed to invade England, and his
invasion of Russia met with disaster.
It should not be difficult to understand that a hundred years
ago students of prophecy who regarded the papacy as the great
enemy should be convinced that the outpouring of the vials of
divine wrath had begun.
You may suggest that this is all very vague. You may
reasonably demand something more definite before you can begin
to sympathise with the extremist's argument. The more definite
facts are ready. Remember that from the Protestant point of
. view the time had arrived for the outpouring of the later vials,
and then for a moment give special attention to the following
(gee Rev. xvi. verses 8-21).
The fourth vial was to be poured upon the sun, resulting in
the scorching of men with great heat and the increase of their
blasphemies.
The fifth vial upon the seat of the beast, filling his kingdom
with darkness and producing still further blasphemy.
The sixth vial upon the river Euphrates, drying up the water
thereof to prepare the way for the kings of the East. Under the
same vial was to be the preparation for the final great war and
the gathering of the nations to Armageddon.
The seventh vial into the air. This is exhibited in the last
of the plagues. Its characteristic features are an earthquake such
as had never been since there was a nation, the fleeing away of
islands and mountains, the final judgment of the mystical Babylon,
and the falling upon men of great hailstones, "every stone about
the weight of a talent."
Now we might write a volume of exposition without con-

99
vincing any sceptic that these figures could be reasonably applied
to the events of recent history. They would accuse us of moulding
the vague language of hyperbole to suit the accomplished facts.
We will make no attempt to argue the case, but will simply quote
from the exposition of Joseph Mede, written and published more
than two hundred and fifty years ago.
"The heaven of the antichristian world is either that supreme
and universall authoritie of the Pope or any other excellent regall
authoritie whatsoever in the world of the Beast; that is, in the
universality of the provinces acknowledging the Pope of Rome
for their head. . . .
"Now of these" (lights in the papal heaven) "the most
glorious and by far the greatest light of all which shine in the
Papall Firmament is the Germane empire the proper inheritance
of the House of Austria now for these two hundred years or
thereabouts. Is not this therefore the sunne of that Heaven ?
Now upon this sunne the fourth phyall is even now to be powred
out that it being pulled away from the heaven of the Beast and
shining to another purpose may burne and torment the inhabitants
of the antichristian world even to< blasphemy."
Surely this was at the least a fortunate forecast! The
Austrian sun has surely been the subject of an out-poured vial
of wrath; it has shone for the support of Protestant Germany
instead of for the benefit of the papacy, and it has scorched men
with great #heat.
Joseph Mede is more definite and confident when he comes
to the next vial.
''The fifth phyall is to be powred out upon the Throne or Seat
of the Beast. That is Rome itself. Where the holy Ghost hideth
not the matter any more with any vaile of figures or allegories
haply because of the great light which shall then arise to these
prophecies by this most evident signe whereby it shall be cleere
what phyalls are past what to come.
"Now by this destruction of the citie of Rome . . . the name
of the Pope shall not indeed utterly perish, but from thence he
shall be deprived of his glory and splendour so that for griefe
they shall bite their tongues; in the meanetime notwithstanding
persevering as yet in their impenitency their hearts being hardened,
they will abuse their griefs unto further blasphemy."
The extinction of the temporal power of the papacy was in
the year 1870. The same year witnessed the decree of the Pope's
infallibility! We may safely challenge anyone to suggest a com-
bination of circumstances which would more exactly realise the
expectations thus expressed by Joseph Mede two hundred and
fifty years ago. Deprived of temporal power, they abused their
griefs to further blasphemies. You may not accept this view of
the case, but can you suggest anything which, from the point of
view of the extreme protestant, would better suit the requirements

100
 of this "most evident sign," as it was expounded by Mede? For
the moment we are only trying to make you understand the point
of view of such men. You may remain superior to them, yet with
a little expansion of human sympathy which may enable you to
understand their convictions.
The next vial was upon Euphrates, drying up its waters,
preparing the way for the kings of the East, while the nations were
prepared for the final war.
Listen to Joseph Mede again.
"Mystical Babylon it seemeth shall have her Euphrates
even as that ancient Babylon; to wit the Turkish Empire as I
conceive. . . . Neither will such understanding of Euphrates be
without example of Esay himself." (Mede here refers to the
eighth chapter of Isaiah verse seven, where the Assyrians are
referred to under the figure of the great river.)
"Why should not now this Euphrates of the phyals by the
same reason be understood of the Turks ? being no less borderers
upon Euphrates before their overflowing than the Assyrians, yea
the inhabitants of the same tract.
"To this it maketh not a little that the loosing of that great
army of horsemen long stayed at that great river Euphrates at
the sound of the sixth trumpet (chapter ix. 7) we interpreted to
be meant of the Turks, thence to over run the Roman Empire
having followed the series of the trumpets and the apt truth of
the matter.
"Therefore by the sixth phyall this Euphratian deluge shall
be dried up."
Doubtless you are aware that when Mede wrote those words
Turkey was one of the strongest powers in the world, both on
land and sea. For a century after that time its strength remained
undiminished. Then when the decline began events developed so
naturally that few observers have seen anything to excite their
attention. The symbol of a river first flooding and then gradually
drying up exactly fits the case. For the last hundred years the
drying up process has been almost continuous. The loss in
territory must now amount to nearly two million square miles.
Hungary and Transylvania, Greece, Bulgaria, Roumania, Serbia,
Montenegro, Cyprus, Tunis, Egypt, Crete, Bosnia and Herze-
govina, Tripoli and Algeria were all at one time in Turkey's
possession. Now all this territory has been lost. In the army
and navy, in finance and prestige, the decline has been equally
marked. Whether successful or unsuccessful in war, whether
with the old form of Government or with a new party loud in
the promise of reform, the result has been the same. Turkey
has always lost. Twenty years ago a Turkish statesman
unwittingly used the figure of Scripture. He declared that the
bad administration of the provinces was "drying up the Turkish
empire." So at least he was reported as saying by the English

101
newspapers, and many interested believers in prophecy clipped
out the paragraph as an interesting comment coming from such
a quarter.
Readers will know how much has happened since then. The
Balkan war of 1912 nearly drove the Turks out of Europe. .Before
there was opportunity to recover, the great European war tempted
the Turks to join hands with the Germanic powers. The result
is fresh in our minds at the time of writing. Britain and her allies
advanced up the Euphrates—the river which is the symbol of the
sixth vial—and Bagdad was captured. Later the Turks were
driven out of Palestine, and from that time the great war hastened
to its end.
There were two other definite predictions in connection with
the sixth viaJ; both of which were fully understood by Joseph Mede
and interpreted in plain language in the book before us.
The symbolical Euphrates was to be dried up to "prepare the
way of the kings of the East.'' Mede understood this to involve a
restoration of the Jews. It is difficult to see how any close student
of Scripture could come to any other conclusion. The evaporation
of a literal river would not be necessary to prepare the way for
any kings. The drying up of the Turkish power was certainly
necessary in view of the fact that the Turks had possession of
Palestine. We might quote a hundred passages of Scripture in
support of this association of ideas. For the moment, however,
this is unnecessary. All we need is to take notice of the fact
that two hundred and fifty years ago it was understood that the
restoration of the Jews would come under the operation of the
sixth vial.
Seventy years ago there were watchers of the signs who felt
convinced that the drying up of Turkey had begun, and who
eagerly looked forward for the other signs of the sixth vial. At
that time there were no Jews in Palestine, or if a few chanced to
be there they were the most poverty stricken and wretched of
human kind. The edict of Hadrian forbidding the Jews to enter
this ancient land had never been revoked.
In the year 1848 a book called "Elpis Israel" was published.
The author had read the works of Joseph Mede and of practically
all other expositors of repute. He was convinced that the drying
up of the Euphratian power had begun, and he looked for the first
stages of Israel's return.
It was not until ten years later that there was any definite
movement in this direction, and then progress was at first very
slow. It is an extraordinary fact that the feebleness of the
Zionist movement has been cited by critics as a reason for
repudiating the idea that it has anything to do with prophecy.
Such criticism is indicative of a deplorable lack of acquaintance
with the elementary facts of the subject. The Old Testament
prophecies of the restoration agree in representing the work as

102
 gradual. Nothing could be more definite than such a forecast as
in the thirty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel. The house of Israel is
symbolised as a valley of dry bones and the restoration is exhibited
as a matter of growth. First merely a "shaking" among the
bones, then a formation of skeletons, a growth of flesh and sinew
and a covering of skin, but still "there was no breath in them."
It needed another proclamation before the spirit of God entered
the movement and completed the work.
The writer of "Elpis Israel" did not expect a sudden uprise
of Palestine to be chief among the nations. Such a revolution
would have falsified the ancient prophecies in which he placed
implicit confidence. In view of the fact that the sixth vial
appeared to have begun, however, he did expect a shaking among
the dry bones of the house of Israel. Ten years later the shaking
began. The movement continued until items of news began to
appear in Gentile papers; until worldly preachers found it neces-
sary to explain that these events had nothing to do with prophecy;
until over fifty Jewish colonies were established in the ancient land
with over a hundred thousand of the restored people and with
Jewish banks, schools and hospitals.
The great war threw back the movement for a time, but
prepared the way for far greater things. The Turk was driven
out of the land; Jerusalem was taken, and Britain's great
proclamation sounded a trumpet call through all the world to
convince all people that whether by the spirit of God or by
human caprice there was a real movement towards the restoration
of Israel.
A third expectation in connection with the sixth vial was that
there would be a great preparation for war among the Gentiles.
Joseph Mede refers to "the horrible and unheard of prepara-
tion for warre that is here described." The author of "Elpis
Israel" gave great offence at a peace meeting in the year 1851 by
telling the people that the optimistic expectations of peace and
brotherhood so generally entertained at that time were foredoomed
to disappointment. But it is hardly necessary to quote interpreta-
tions in this matter. The newspapers have been ringing with
reference to Armageddon in connection with the great war. The
allusions of journalists, though crude and mistaken, at least show
a capacity to understand the meaning of words. The preparation
for the great war of Armageddon was to be under the sixth vial.
Surely events have justified this prophecy.
The seventh vial was to be poured out into the air. We are
not aware that any ancient expositor of Scripture suggested that
this would have a literal application. A literal element has been
recognised in connection with the earlier vials. The pouring
out of the second vial into the sea meant a divine judgment on
human naval interests. The pouring of the sixth vial upon the
Euphrates meant a judgment on the human interest connected with

103
 that river. Might not the seventh vial into the air on the same
principle mean divine wrath upon man in so far as his interests are
affected by the literal air?
At least it must be acknowledged that there is something
startingly significant in the fact that just as the sixth vial, accord-
ing to all the authorities, is hastening to its close, aerial warfare
should begin for the first time in human history. The wrath of
God with the wicked as His sword had been manifest on land
and sea and rivers. Now for the first time it appears in the air.
Hailstones drop upon men, the "islands flee away" and mountains
"disappear." x In modern language, we have lost our insular
security, since airships can reach us.
We suggest that this language is at least startling. It is
not, however, the most important feature of the vial. The one
outstanding fact of the seventh vial is the great earthquake "such
as had never been since there was a nation, so mighty an earth-
quake and so great."
We can speak quite definitely regarding this matter. It was
fully understood years ago that this earthquake, like those fhat
preceded it, would be an upheaval in human affairs. The greatest
revolution in the history of the world. In Russia and in the central
countries of Europe there has already been revolution on a greater
scale than has ever been known in the world before. The men
of simple faith believe that still greater upheaval in human affairs
is yet to come.
Before leaving this consideration of consecutive events we
must call attention to another matter in which there has been an
extraordinary realisation of the expectations of Bible devotees.
Another series of events dovetailing with those already
mentioned and agreeing exactly with the requirements of prophecy
in time and circumstance.
It was firmly believed by some students of the Bible at least
seventy years ago that England was mentioned under the name
Tarshish in prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel in "the
latter days." We will try to show the grounds of this conviction
in as brief space as possible.
First the Bible refers to a country called Tarshish which could
be reached by ships going from the Mediterranean.2 It was the
land from whence the Tyrians secured their supplies of tin and
lead.
It is well known that the Phoenician traders secured large
supplies of tin from the ancient mines of the Scilly Islands and
Cornwall. On the basis of this one fact Blackie and Sons'
"History of England" throws out the suggestion that Great
Britain may have been "that mysterious Tarshish lying somewhere
beyond the pillars of Hercules."
We would ask you to take special note of this suggestion in
(l; Dr. Moffatt's Translation. (2) Bzekiel, xxvii., 12.

104
 a matter of fact history. Spain was the only other country from
whence tin could be secured in those days, so that the field of
enquiry is not a large one.
The students of prophecy to whom we refer took full n©te of
this fact regarding the supply of tin, and they added the following
arguments, all culled from Bible prophecies:—
Tarshish was to be a great power in the "latter days*' when
Israel was to be restored.
It was an island power.
It was to be a great maritime power, with its ships among
the proud possessions of mankind in the last day of divine
judgment. *
It was to show favour to the Jews.3
It was to be a great merchant power.
It was to be the lion power of the latter days; for in a
prophecy regarding the latter days reference is made to "the
merchants of Tarshish with all the young lions thereof. " 3
Any reader who will take the trouble to look up the passages
of Scripture cited and study the context in each case can convince
himself that these interpretations are not only reasonable but even
obvious. Every candid reader must admit that in a political
cartoon the young lions alone would be sufficient to identify the
British empire, or that there could be no hesitation as to the
answer if questions were put based on any of the other points.
Which is the great island power of these days ? Which the great
maritime power ? Which the power to show favour to the Jews ?
Remember, then, that the ancient tin mines of Cornwall were
alone sufficient to make a matter-of-fact historian suggest that
Britain was the ancient Tarshish. Remember that the students of
prophecy were able to add these six other points of evidence, all
pointing in the same direction, and you will surely admit that at
least there was reason in their madness.
On the basis of this conviction that Britain was the latter day
Tarshish, it was confidently anticipated by the author of "Elpis
Israel" that before long England would assume a protectorate
over the land of Palestine. That having already shown favour
to the Jews in giving them civil liberty, the lion power with its
many ships would "bring the sons of Israel from afar their silver
and gold with them," and would present them to the Lord in
the ancient land of promise. In "Elpis Israel'' it was stated
in the most definite language that whatever opinions British
statesmen held then, they would be forced to play the part
assigned to them when the time arrived. This was not all. On
the basis of the forty-third chapter of Isaiah, it was concluded
that Britain would be the recipient of the "ransom" to be given
for Israel in the day of restoration. In other words, that the
(1) Isaiah, ii., 36.
(2) Isaiah, lx. 9; and see also verse 10. What was it the prophet saw in vision ?
(3) Ezekiel, xxxviii., 13.

105
protecting power was to be given such interests in adjacent lands
as to be led to the position finally required. The analogy of the
"wages" given to the king of Babylon was quoted to illustrate
the Biblical use of such language.
We might write many chapters and yet fail to explain the full
meaning of this argument to one who had not much studied these
matters. There is no need for such elaboration. Here are some
solid facts which anyone can grasp. In "Elpis Israel,'* written
in the year 1848, we find these words:—
"God who rules the world and marks out the bounds of
habitation for the nations will make Britain a gainer by the
transaction. He will bring her rulers to see the desirableness
of Egypt, Ethiopia and Seba, which they will be induced—
probably by the force of circumstances—to take possession of.''
Thirty years later England went into Egypt led by "force of
circumstances." The excitement caused by this realisation of
expectations is among our earliest recollections. We watched
events with interest as the years passed by, and we noted that
in spite of many promises to evacuate, England's position in
Egypt became more secure.
When the British force, under the command of the late
Lord Kitchener, advanced up the Nile, we were sufficiently
interested to study some ancient maps giving the old names of
lands as near as scholars can place them. We found that the
best authorities placed Ethiopia and Seba in the territory which
then passed under British influence.1
Years passed on. The Zionist movement gradually became
stronger, so that it was often mentioned in the newspapers, until
at last, in the fourth year of the great war, the posters blazed
forth the news that the British had entered Jerusalem.
For forty years to our knowledge this has been the subject
of continual conversation and expectation among Bible students.
When England moved into Egypt the main point of interest lay
in the anticipation of the next move, and since then hardly a week
—certainly no year—has passed without conversation passing
regarding the latest conditions in Palestine and the prospect of
Britain taking up her proper position there. The present situation,
therefore, seems like the gathering up of many threads of evidence
into an unbreakable cord, or like the mathematical demonstration
of a problem which was indeed well supported by evidence, but
which never previously had been proved.
Perhaps you will say that at the best these are only points of
coincidence and you are quite unmoved by them. We will not
try to force the point. Please try, however, to broaden your
mind so as to understand the point of view of one who was told
to expect these things from early days of boyhood. Try also to
(1) See for instance " The Biblical Atlas and Scripture Gazetteer " published by
the Religious Tract Society.

106
make a mental parcel of these latter day prophecies so as to
place them with the others already stored. It is only by such an
effort to secure the comprehensive view that you will be in any
way able to understand the position of one who has all the points
mentioned in this book so thoroughly impressed on the mind that
the full cumulative force of the evidence can be viewed at any
time and without effort.
Let us have a look at our shelves.

THE SHELVES OF MEMORY.

FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
The Jews stated in Scripture All this has been fulfilled.
to be God's witnesses. It was It has come about quite natur-
predicted that they should be ally, but how did the prophets
scattered among the nations know?
and persecuted. That they What other people have re-
should be for a long time with- mained for two thousand years
out a king or sacrifice. without a country, persecuted
That they should be a bye- and ill-treated, yet always re-
word and a reproach. maining distinct?
That in spite of all destruc-
tive experience they should
always remain a separate and
distinct people.
Shelf No. i. THE JEWS.

107
FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
It was predicted that the The land was most favour-
once fertile land of Palestine ably* situated, and had great
should be desolate in the sight natural fertility. When the
of all that passed by for "many Jews were driyen out, why did
generations.'' not the stronger invading
That the worst of heathen power develop the land more
should dwell therein and that than ever? What man ven-
people should be astonished at tured to make this most un-
its desolate appearance. This likely prediction ftiat the land
has been fulfilled by history. should be desolate?
Shelf No. 2. THE LAND.

FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
Christianity is a fact. A Were the original pro-
remarkable man appeared claimers of the resurrection
among the Jews about the true men, false men, or mis-
beginning of the first century, taken men ?
and some claimed that he was The swoon theory is a far-
the Christ. fetched and unconvincing sug-
His teaching was unpopular gestion to account for only a
in Jewry. He died. A report fragment of the evidence.
was spread that he had risen
from the dead. The evidence
of the first preachers of the
resurrection was sufficiently
strong to make some modern
sceptics suggest the " swoon"
theory to account for it. There
are some letters which claim
to be the work of the Apostle
Paul, in which the writer de-
clares that he was a persecutor
but was converted by Christ
revealing himself as alive.
Shelf No. 3. CHRIST.

108
FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
That the Scriptures of the Many attempts have been
Old Testament come out of the made to explain these pro-
custody of the Jews, who phecies away on rationalistic
reject Jesus. lines.
If they contain no prophecies We emphasise the one test
inspired by God there are no already suggested.
predictions intended to refer If these prophecies had come
to Jesus. solely out of the custody of
Daniel predicted the coming Christians, anyone would have
of an Anointed One to make recognised the obvious refer-
an end of sin and to bring in ence to Jesus, and unbelievers
everlasting righteousness, and would have denounced them as
desolation f o r city and palpable frauds.
sanctuary was to follow. As they come out of the
Isaiah predicted the coming custody of the Jews, in just
of one who should be styled such degree are they palpable
Lord of Hosts, who would be Christian evidence.
a stone of stumbling and rock
of offence to the Jew. One
who should be chosen by God
yet abhorred by the nation.
One who should be perfect,
sinless but put to death as a
sacrifice for sin and for the
deliverance of others.
Zechariah predicted the final
great deliverance of Jerusalem
in the time of restoration, and
described the Jews as mourn-
ing bitterly on account of One
they had pierced just at the
time when all their enejmies
were overthrown, and God
pours upon them the spirit of
grace and supplication.
Shelf No. 4. THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES.

109
FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
Ezekiel declared that after All this has come about quite
the desolation of Egypt by naturally, but how could the
Nebuchadnezzar Egypt should prophet foresee it?
be a base kingdom, should His own explanation is that
exalt itself no more, should be God commanded him.
ruled by strangers, and there
should be no more a native
prince. This prophecy has
been fulfilled during two thou-
sand years.
Shelf No. 5. EGYPT.

FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
Daniel predicted the succes- It is usual for those who
sion of four great powers, be- reject prophecy to claim
ginning with the Babylonian. wherever possible that the
The fourth was to be the predictions were written after
strongest. This fourth king- the events.
dom was to be divided so as to In spite of the reverence and
be partly strong ? and partly fear the Jews have shown for
broken. Ten kingdoms are the Covenant name, it has been
hinted at. The broken condi- argued that some of the best
tion was to continue until the of Jewish writers declared
establishment of the kingdom "the word of the LORD came
of God, when "the dominion to me," and then told the most
and greatness of the kingdom" deliberate of lies in the holy
shall be "given to the saints of name.
the most high." We ask why such strained
A detailed prophecy is given and unreasonable suggestions
of the development of the ram to account for so small a part
and goat kingdoms, which are of prophecy?
interpreted to refer to the Per- We claim that the later
sians and the Greeks. A still events of history were pre-
more detailed prophecy is given dicted quite as clearly as the
regarding the division of the earlier, only they have been
fourth great empire and the beclouded by the controversies
uprise among the several king- of fierce prejudice.
doms of a diverse power perse-
cuting, seeing, blaspheming,
thinking to change times and
laws and making war on God's
saints for a stated period.
Shelf No. 6. VARIOUS PROPHECIES.

110
FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
The Bible predicts the up- It is impossible for a sceptic
rise of a false system of Chris- to see these arguments in
tianity. "With feigned words quite the light in which they
shall they make merchandise appear to the constant reader
of you."—II. Peter ii. verse 2. of the Bible, inasmuch as he
"The time will come when cannot appreciate how great
they will not endure sound has been the departure from
doctrine . . . they will turn the simple faith and practice of
from the truth unto fables.' *— the early Church.
II. Tim. iv. verse 3.
"The day of the Lord shall
not come except there be a
falling away first and that man
of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition; who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that
is called God or that is wor-
shipped so that he as God
sitteth in the temple of God
showing himself that he is
God."—II. Thess. ii. 3-4.
The Apostle John saw There is a peculiar signifi-
among the things to be here- cance in this prophecy in view
after a harlot beautiful and of the fact that the true Church
bejewelled, among the ten is symbolised as a pure virgin
kingdoms to arise. She is who will be ready for Christ
positively identified by the at His coming.
angel with the city on seven Can you really doubt what
hills, which reigned over the city was meant? On seven
earth. hills and reigning over the
A harlot in the symbols of kings of the earth ?
Scripture is always indicative
of unfaithfulness to God.
Shelf No. 7. THE RUDE ARGUMENTS.

HI
FACTS. REFLECTIONS.
The book of Revelation Events from the assassina-
claims to come from Christ tion of Domitian (that is the
after His resurrection, to show year when the Revelation is
to His servants things which supposed t© have been given)
were to come to pass. to the success of Constantine
It indicated the following conform to this outline of the
succession of events in the Seals. Expositors have re-
Foman world. garded the judgments of the
A period of peace. A period first three trumpets as fulfilled
of assassination. A period of by the successive invasions of
famine. A period of evil and Goths, Vandals and Huns.
misfortune of various kinds. The eclipse of the third part
A period of persecution of under the fourth trumpet has
Christians, followed by a great been regarded as obviously
revolution in which the enemy referring to the establishment
should fear the name of of the Gothic kingdom in
Christ. Italy.
Following this a succession The fifth trumpet was ex-
of judgments on land, sea and pounded by Joseph Mede and
rivers. Then with the fourth others to refer to the uprfse
trumpet an eclipse of sun and of the Mohamedan power.
moon. The exact period of the tor-
The fifth trumpet was ap- ment was indicated, and in one
plied by old expositors to the part Gibbon's history reads
uprise of Mohamedanism. almost like a translation of the
The sixth trumpet to the up- Apocalyptic forecast.
rise of the Turks. The sixth trumpet was ap-
On the basis of their under- plied to the uprise of the
standing of these past events, Turks. Here again the exact
some expositors two hundred period was indicated, and
and fifty years ago predicted many clear details given.
the following succession of It was wholly on the basis
events for the last days. of the understanding of past
Evil to befall the papacy. events that expositors were
The house of Austria to be able to foretell the exact course
turned from the mere support of modern history. We can
of the papacy to another pur- specify nine consecutive points
pose, bringing great evil to of fulfilment in right order and
itself and others. The fall of time:—
the temporal power of the (1) General evil on papacy
papacy, accompanied by in- and papal countries.
crease of blasphemy. (2) Special evil on House of
The drying up of Turkish Austria, turning it from
Empire like the evaporation of service of papacy to
a river. At the same time a another and destructive
"horrible and unheard of pre- purpose.
paration for war." (3) Fall of temporal power.

112
 At the same time the first Date foretold on basis of
stages of Israel's restoration. Daniel's prophecy.
Followed by the greatest revo- (4) Drying up of Turkish
lution the world has ever power.
known, with wrath poured out (5) Concurrent with this, great
into the air. preparation for war.
As early as the year 1848 it (6) Concurrent with this, first
was definitely predicted that stages of restoration of
the fall of the temporal power Jews.
would be in 1866 and the years (7) Britain's peculiar ascent
immediately following. t o power, mercantile,
That Great Britain was men- naval, colonial.
tioned in prophecy as the (8) Britain's occupation of
island, naval, merchant Lion Egyp Ethiopia and
power of the latter days, show- Seba.
ing favour to the Jews. (9) Britain's occupation
p of
That Britain would go into P l i d l
Palestine and proclama-
Egypt led by ''force of cir- tion to Jews.
cumstances. '' That she would
extend her influence further
south to the ancient Ethiopia
and Seba. That she would
afterwards extend her influence
into Palestine and favour the
restoration of the Jews.
That during this period
there would be many labour
disputes and general political
agitation.
All these statements are
facts which can be verified by
anyone who is interested.
Shelf No. 8. THE REVELATION.

Shelf No. 9.—Incidental harmonies and arguments for the reader

to fill up as he studies.

113
 CHAPTER XVII.

ANALOGIES AND HARMONIES.

If space had permitted it,was our intention to deal in detail
with points of evidence which continually occur to the constant
reader of the Bible in the incidental harmonies and analogies
between widely separated parts.
We shall be content with a very few illustrations of what
we mean.
In the Old Testament there are many hints of a future
purpose, which are only intelligible in the light of New Testament
teaching, and which therefore are indicative of a controlling
mind superior to that of the old Hebrew writers. The coats of
skins provided for the covering of sin-caused nakedness hinted at
the necessity for a sacrifice and a covering garment to be derived
from the offering. The acceptance of Abel's offering and the
rejection of Cain's, and still more definitely the prophecy of the
partial bruising of the woman's seed pointed in the same
direction.
The promise to Abraham regarding his seed, taken in connec-
tion with the family history, is again significant. It required a
miracle to produce Isaac, the father of the Jewish race. Then
his father was told to offer him as a sacrifice, and the name of
the place where he was to have been slain was called "The Lord
will provide."
The Passover when Israel came out of Egypt has associations
which cannot easily be explained away by the one who rejects
inspiration. The rock which was smitten to provide the people
with life-giving water was surely significant in view of the
repeated use by Moses of the symbol of a rock for their Lord and
Saviour. If a student cares to investigate further he may compare
the two occasions when water came from a rock and note the
difference in the word used and the instruction given. Then if
he possesses a good knowledge of prophecy regarding Christ he
will add a remarkable pointer to his store.
When we come to the Law, volumes might be written on these
lines. Why was it that a law so far in advance of its age in
justice, hygiene and general wisdom should be loaded with the
most irksome and apparently useless of ordinances ? If all the

114
applications made by Christians are fanciful, there is something
very extraordinary in the series of chances which makes them
possible.
The Apostle, in commenting on the law, tells us that the veil
of the tabernacle represented the flesh of Christ. He speaks of
other Apostles as pillars of the Church. He leaves us to discover
by comparison of many parts of Scripture how much more the
type suggests. The materials of which the veil was made indicate
just the features that are blended in Christ. Scarlet is repeatedly
used in the Old Testament as a symbol of sinful flesh, fine linen
for righteousness, and purple for royalty. The veil made up of
these materials was hung upon four pillars, just as Christ is
exhibited to the world by the four evangelists—pillars of the
Church. A way had to be made through that veil before it was
possible to enter the most holy place. The most holy place
could only be entered by the high priest at stated times, and then
with a perfect sacrifice.
Finally, we have the suggestive record that the people could
not endure to look on the glory of Moses1 countenance, and he
had to wear a veil to keep them from seeing the divine light that
he reflected.
It would be easy to expand these matters into another volume
if space permitted. We do not lay too much stress on them, but
we suggest that they add to the load of staggering coincidences
and cruelly deceptive chances which have led some of the best of
men and women astray if the Bible is not what it claims to be.

115
 CHAPTER XVIII.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS.
We will not make any further elaboration of evidence or any
increased emphasis of arguments already enunciated. We are
confident that all who have read this book will realise that we are
fair in our statement of facts, and that the conclusion drawn by
men of simple faith is at least intelligible.
We are fully aware of many objections that have been raised
by sceptics in the name of science. We respect these difficulties
and we can sympathise with the unbelievers' point of view. It
is obvious, however, that there is grave danger of misinterpreta-
tion, whether we study the ancient writings of Hebrew prophets
or the book of Nature, and we entertain a rude conviction that
there is in one respect at least, a humiliating resemblance between
the ignorant disciple of Christ and the learned scientist. Each
is inclined to place over much confidence in his interpretation
where his studies have been imperfect, and each is disposed to
treat with contempt matters which he has not studied at all. We
may leave it an open question as to whether there are any instances
of irreconcilable discord between Nature and the Bible as we'
now possess it. There can be no question, however, that in many
cases the apparent contradiction is through faulty interpretation
on one side or other, or both.
We hope that we have stated an argument which will in some
degree tend to soften the asperities of controversy and render
more intelligible the pertinacity of those who look for a complete
realisation of all the promises of Scripture.
Is it utterly impossible that the men of simple faith should
be right after all? Surely it may be true that there is a final
object in the history of this beautiful but blemished earth and
in the painful struggles of humanity. We ask from whence come
the evils of bloodshed and pestilence and the persistent shadow
of mortality? We may also ask from whence come the soul of
mankind, the bejewelled sphere on which we live, the sense of
good and the mystery of love?
Many of the greatest of scientists have felt it impossible to
believe that all life has evolved by chance from a ball of molten
matter. Sometimes they have sought consolation in the shadows,

116
with the light of their learning as dim as their darkened rooms.
Other thinkers make an illogical compromise between faith and
scepticism, trying to avoid the responsibility of full belief and
yet drawn toward the light of Christ.
It seems to us reasonable to believe that there is a world of
life above as there is below. It seems quite possible that
humanity is suffering for its sins, and that the Creator, in
"staining the pride of human glory,M adopted a method of
revelation such as would not occur to the wisdom of man.
Thus, as it appears to us, we have a collection of writings
claiming to be the product of revelation, offending our sense of
propriety and arouskig our antagonism at every turn, yet better
supported by evidence than any other proposition in the world.

THE END.

117