Handbook for Bible Students

“M” Entries

Maccabees, Books of.—Four books which bear the common title of “Maccabees” are found in some MSS. of the LXX. Two of these were included in the early current Latin versions of the Bible, and thence passed into the Vulgate. As forming part of the Vulgate they were received as canonical by the Council of Trent, and retained among the Apocrypha by the Reformed churches. The two other books obtained no such wide circulation, and have only a secondary connection with the Maccabean history. HBS 323.1

1. The First Book of Maccabees contains a history of the patriotic struggle of the Jews in resisting the oppressions of the Syrian kings, from the first resistance of Mattathias to the settled sovereignty and death of Simon, a period of thirty-three years, b. c. 168-135. The great subject of the book begins with the enumeration of the Maccabean family (chap. 2: 1-5), which is followed by an account of the part which the aged Mattathias took in rousing and guiding the spirit of his countrymen (chap. 2: 6-70). The remainder of the narrative is occupied with the exploits of Mattathias’s five sons. The great marks of trustworthiness are everywhere conspicuous. Victory and failure and despondency are, on the whole, chronicled with the same candor. There is no attempt to bring into open display the working of Providence. The testimony of antiquity leaves no doubt that the book was first written in Hebrew. Its whole structure points to Palestine as the place of its composition. There is, however, considerable doubt as to its date. Perhaps we may place it between b. c. 120-100. The date and person of the Greek translator are wholly undetermined. HBS 323.2

2. The Second Book of Maccabees.—The history of the second book of Maccabees begins some years earlier than that of the first book, and closes with the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor. It thus embraces a period of twenty years, from b. c. 180 to b. c. 161. The writer himself distinctly indicates the source of his narrative,-“the five books of Jason of Cyrene” (chap. 2: 23), of which he designed to furnish a short and agreeable epitome for the benefit of those who would be deterred from studying the larger work. Of Jason himself nothing more is known than may be gleaned from this mention of him. The Second Book of Maccabees is not nearly so trustworthy as the first. In the second book the groundwork of facts is true, but the dress in which the facts are presented is due in part at least to the narrator. The latter half of the book (chaps. 8-15) is to be regarded as a series of special incidents from the life of Judas, illustrating the providential interference of God in behalf of his people, true in substance, but embellished in form. HBS 323.3

3. The Third Book of Maccabees contains the history of events which preceded the great Maccabean struggle, beginning with b. c. 217. HBS 324.1

4. The Fourth Book of Maccabees contains a rhetorical narrative of the martyrdom of Eleazar and of the “Maccabean family,” following in the main the same outline as 2 Maccabees.—“A Dictionary of the Bible,” William Smith, LL. D., pp. 371, 372, Teacher’s edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, 1884. HBS 324.2

Magna Charta, Conditions Leading to.—In England, Innocent’s interference assumed a different aspect. He attempted to assert his control over the church in spite of the king, and put the nation under interdict because John would not permit Stephen Langton to be Archbishop of Canterbury. It was utterly impossible that affairs could go on with such an empire within an empire. For his contumacy, John was excommunicated; but, base as he was, he defied his punishment for four years. Hereupon his subjects were released from their allegiance, and his kingdom offered to any one who would conquer it. In his extremity, the king of England is said to have sent a messenger to Spain, offering to become a Mohammedan. The religious sentiment was then no higher in him than it was, under a like provocation, in the king of France, whose thoughts turned in the same direction. But, pressed irresistibly by Innocent, John was compelled to surrender his realm, agreeing to pay to the Pope, in addition to Peter’s pence, one thousand marks a year as a token of vassalage. When the prelates whom he had refused or exiled returned, he was compelled to receive them on his knees-humiliations which aroused the indignation of the stout English barons, and gave strength to those movements which ended in extorting Magna Charta. HBS 324.3

Never, however, was Innocent more mistaken than in the character of Stephen Langton. John had, a second time, formally surrendered his realm to the Pope, and done homage to the legate for it; but Stephen Langton was the first-at a meeting of the chiefs of the revolt against the king, held in London, Aug. 25, 1213-to suggest that they should demand a renewal of the charter of Henry I. From this suggestion Magna Charta originated. Among the miracles of the age, he was the greatest miracle of all; his patriotism was stronger than his profession. The wrath of the pontiff knew no bounds when he learned that the Great Charter had been conceded. In his bull, he denounced it as base and ignominious; he anathematized the king if he observed it; he declared it null and void. It was not the policy of the Roman Court to permit so much as the beginnings of such freedom.—“History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL, D., Vol. II, pp. 54, 55. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. HBS 324.4

Magna Charta, Principal Provisions of.—The Great Charter, called by Hallam the “keystone of English liberty,” was granted by King John at Runnymede in the year 1215. In addition to the preamble, the Charter contains sixty-three clauses, and is partly remedial and partly, as Coke says, “declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England.” Its principal provisions are: (1) A declaration that the Church of England is free. (2) Feudal obligations are defined and limited. (3) Law courts are to be held at fixed places, assize courts are established, and earls and barons are to be tried by their peers. (4) No extraordinary taxation without consent. (5) No banishment or imprisonment save by judgment of peers and the law of the land. (6) No denial, sale, or delay of justice. (7) One standard of weights and measures. The Magna Charta was confirmed many times by different kings, and the form which appears in the Revised Statutes is the confirmation by Edward I in 1297.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, art. “Magna Charta,” p. 521. HBS 325.1

Magna Charta, Fundamental Principle of.—Now what was the fundamental principle and the great merit of the Magna Charta? It was this: that it established the reign of law instead of the arbitrary will of the monarch. It meant that henceforth the king should be under the law, that he should no longer be an absolute ruler, that the law and not the monarch should be supreme in the land. When Archbishop Langton read the articles to King John, he broke out in a rage, and swore that he would never enslave himself to his barons. He was king and intended to remain king, and his word alone should be law. “Why did they not at once demand his throne?” he said. But at length he was compelled to submit. The barons and the people of England, with the primate at their head, had sworn to bring back the ancient laws of Edward the Confessor and Henry I, and so the tyrant had no choice but to bow to their will and affix his signature to the charter. By that charter resistance to the royal power was made lawful, and in the struggle that followed, it was the king who was the rebel. “Christendom was amazed at the spectacle of a king obliged to surrender at discretion to his “subjects.” And the spectacle of the king’s humiliation at Runnymede was to stand out in the minds of future generations in strong light.—From a sermon delivered in Epiphany Church, Washington, D. C., on Sunday, June 13, 1915, by the rector, the Rev. Randolph H. McKim, D. D., LL. D. HBS 325.2

Magna Charta, Importance of.—The Great Charter did not create new rights and privileges, but in its main points simply reasserted and confirmed old usages and laws. It was immediately violated by John and afterward was disregarded by many of his successors; but the people always clung to it as the warrant and safeguard of their liberties, and again and again forced tyrannical kings to renew and confirm its provisions, and swear solemnly to observe all its articles. HBS 325.3

Considering the far-reaching consequences that resulted from the granting of Magna Charta,-the securing of constitutional liberty as an inheritance for the English-speaking race in all parts of the world,-it must always be considered the most important concession that a freedom-loving people ever wrung from a tyrannical sovereign.—“Mediaval and Modern History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, p. 203. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1919. HBS 325.4

Magna Charta, Annulled by Innocent III.—When the English barons wrested from the stubborn king the great Magna Charta in 1215, Pope Innocent III championed the cause of the king, his vassal, against the barons. He called a council, annulled the Magna Charta, issued a manifesto against the barons, and ordered the bishops to excommunicate them. He suspended Archbishop Langton from office for siding with the barons against the king, and directly appointed the Archbishop of York.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., p. 554, 555. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909. HBS 325.5

Failing in his contest with his barons, John complained to Innocent of the extortion of Magna Charta, and astutely suggested that his troubles with his rebellious subjects prevented him from fulfilling the vow which he had taken to enter upon a crusade. Innocent hastened to his relief; pronounced the Charter void, forbade his performing its promises, and threatened excommunication against all who should insist upon its execution. In the same spirit he wrote to the barons reproaching them for not having referred to his tribunal their differences with their sovereign, revoking the Charter, and commanding them to abandon it. His mandate being unheeded, he proceeded without delay to fulminate an excommunication against them all, denouncing them as worse than Saracens, and offering remission of sins to all who should attack them.—“Studies in Church History,” Henry C. Lea, pp. 381, 382. Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea’s Sons & Co., 1883. HBS 326.1

Let us remember that the noble mother of European constitutions, the English Magna Charta, was visited with the severest anger of Pope Innocent III, who understood its importance well enough. He saw therein a contempt for the apostolic see, a curtailing of royal prerogatives, and a disgrace to the English nation; he therefore pronounced it null and void, and excommunicated the English barons who obtained it.—“The Pope and the Council,” Janus (Dr. J. J. Ign. von Döllinger) (R. C.), pp. 22, 23. London: Rivingtons, 1869. HBS 326.2

Man, Origin of.—According to Scripture, man’s destiny was to “replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over fish, fowl, and every living thing” (Genesis 1:28), as God’s steward (oikónomos, Titus 1:7), as fellow laborer with God (sunergós. 1 Corinthians 3:9). Hence he was placed by God in the garden of Eden (gan be’ çdhen; LXX, parádeisos t çs trophçs; Vulgate, paradisus voluptatis, “paradise of delight”). The situation of that garden is carefully described, though the proper site remains unknown. Genesis 2:14, 15. Some, like Driver, consider this an ideal locality (“Genesis,” 57); others take a very wide range in fixing upon the true site. HBS 326.3

Every continent has been chosen as the cradle of the race-Africa, among others, as the home of the gorilla and the chimpanzee, the supposed progenitors of humanity. In America, Greenland and the regions around the north pole have had their supporters. Certain parts of Europe have found favor in some quarters. An imaginary island, Lemuria, situated between the African and Australian continents, has been accepted by others. All this, however, lies beyond the scope of science and beyond the range of Scripture. HBS 326.4

Somewhere to the east of Palestine, and in or near Babylonia, we must seek for the cradle of humanity. No trace of primeval man has been found, nor has the existence of primeval races been proved. The skulls which have been found (Neanderthal, Engis, Lansing) are of a high type, even Professor Huxley declaring of the first that “it can in no sense be regarded as the intermediate between man and the apes;” of the second, that it is “a fair, average skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage” (“Man’s Place in Nature,” 156, 157). HBS 326.5

Of the Lansing skeleton found in Kansas, in 1902, this may at least be said—apart from the question as to its antiquity—that the skull bears close resemblance to that of the modern Indian. Even the skull of the Cro-Magnon man, supposed to belong to the paleolithic age, Sir J. W. Dawson considers to have carried a brain of greater size than that of the average modern man (“Meeting-Place of Geology and History,” 54). Primeval man can hardly be compared to the modern savage; for the savage is a deteriorated representative of a better type, which has slowly degenerated. History does not know of an unaided emergence from barbarism on the part of any savage tribe; it does know of degradation from a better type.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Anthropology,” p. 152. HBS 327.1

Mark’s Gospel, Genuineness of Ending of.—The following is a brief statement of my reasons for thinking that in this instance critical editors have preferred (1) later testimony to earlier, and (2) a less probable story to a more probable. The question is one that stands by itself, so that the conclusions here stated may be adopted by one who has accepted all Westcott and Hort’s other decisions. HBS 327.2

1. As to the first point there is little room for controversy. The disputed verses are expressly attested by Irenaus in the second century, and very probably by Justin Martyr, who incorporates some of their language, though, as usual, without express acknowledgment of quotation. The verses are found in the Syriac version as early as we have any knowledge of it; in the Curetonian version as well as in the Peshito. Possibly we ought to add to the witnesses for the verses-Papias, Celsus, and Hippolytus. On the other hand, the earliest witness against the verses is Eusebius in the fourth century; nor is there any distinct witness against them who, we can be sure, is independent of Eusebius. [p. 190] ... They are found in every Latin manuscript that we know of but one; and they were in the Gospel as read by Irenaus. This alone might give us reason to think that they must have been known to Cyprian also; but it happens that one of the things which an impugner of the verses has got to explain away is what seems a clear quotation of them by a bishop at one of Cyprian’s councils. On the other hand, if the argument from silence is worth anything, the fact deserves attention, that we have no evidence that any writer anterior to Eusebius remarked that there was anything abrupt in the conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel, or that it gave no testimony to our Lord’s resurrection. [pp. 190, 191] ... HBS 327.3

“Supposing that we cannot produce against the verses any witness earlier than Eusebius, still Eusebius in the fourth century used a purer text than Irenaus in the second, and, therefore, his testimony deserves the more credit.” Again, I raise no question as to general principles of criticism, nor shall I inquire whether in this case Eusebius was not liable to be unduly influenced by harmonistic considerations; but if we accept the fourth-century witness as on the whole the more trustworthy, it remains to be considered whether we are to prefer a credible witness telling an incredible story to a less trustworthy witness telling a highly probable one. HBS 327.4

2. The rejection of the verses absolutely forces on us the alternative either that the conclusion which St. Mark originally wrote to his Gospel was lost without leaving a trace of its existence, or else that the second Gospel never proceeded beyond verse 8. The probability that one or other of these two things is true is the exact measure of the probability that the Eusebian form of text is correct. HBS 327.5

We may fairly dismiss as incredible the supposition that the conclusion which St. Mark originally wrote to his Gospel unaccountably disappeared without leaving a trace behind, and was almost universally replaced by a different conclusion.... But the total loss of the original conclusion could not take place in this way, unless the first copy had been kept till it dropped to pieces with age before any one made a transcript of it, so that a leaf once lost was lost forever. HBS 328.1

It has been imagined that the Gospel never had a formal conclusion, but this also I find myself unable to believe. Long before any Gospel was written, the belief in the resurrection of our Lord had become universal among Christians, and this doctrine had become the main topic of every Christian preacher. A history of our Lord in which this cardinal point was left unmentioned, may be pronounced inconceivable. [pp. 191, 192] ... HBS 328.2

On the other hand, the opinion that the concluding verses, just as much as the opening ones, belong to the original framework of the Gospel, has no internal difficulties whatever to encounter. The twelve verses have such marks of antiquity that Dr. Tregelles, who refused to believe them to have been written by St. Mark, still regarded them as having “a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel.” In fact, we have in the short termination of Codex L a specimen of the vague generalities with which a later editor, who really knew no more than was contained in our Gospels, might attempt to supply a deficiency in the narrative. The twelve verses, on the contrary, are clearly the work of one who wrote at so early a date that he could believe himself able to add genuine apostolic traditions to those already recorded. If he asserts that Jesus “was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God,” he only gives expression to what was the universal belief of Christians at as early a period as any one believes the second Gospel to have been written. (See Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; 1 Peter 3:22; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.) This belief was embodied in the earliest Christian creeds, especially in that of the Church of Rome, with which probable tradition connects the composition of St. Mark’s Gospel. Further, the twelve verses were written at a time when the church still believed herself in possession of miraculous powers. Later, a stumblingblock was found in the signs which it was said (verse 17) should “follow them that believe.” The heathen objector, with whom Macarius Magnes had to deal, asked if any Christians of his day really did believe. Would the strongest believer of them all test the matter by drinking a cup of poison? The objection may have been as old as Porphyry, and may have been one of the reasons why Eusebius was willing to part with these verses. We may, therefore, ascribe their authorship to one who lived in the very first age of the church. And why not to St. Mark? HBS 328.3

Thus, while the Eusebian recension of St. Mark presents intrinsic difficulties of the most formidable character, that form of text which has the advantage of attestation earlier by a century and a half contains nothing inconsistent with the date claimed for it. In spite, then, of the eminence of the critics who reject the twelve verses, I cannot help looking at them as having been from the first an integral part of the second Gospel. [pp. 192, 193]-“A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament,” George Salmon, D. D., pp. 190-193. London: John Murray, 1885. HBS 328.4

Marriage, Roman Catholic Definition of.—That Christian marriage (i. e., marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the new law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the church, and is thus defined in Canon 1, Sess. XXIV: “If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the church by men, and does not confer grace; let him be anathema.”-The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, art. “Marriage, Sacrament of,” p. 707. HBS 328.5

Marriage, A Part of the Ne Temere Decree Concerning.—I. Only those matrimonial engagements are considered to be valid and to beget canonical effects which have been made in writing, signed by both the parties, and by either the parish priest or the ordinary of the place, or at least by two witnesses.... HBS 329.1

III. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of these, and at least two witnesses, in accordance with the rules laid down in the following articles, and with the exceptions mentioned under VII and VIII.... HBS 329.2

VII. When danger of death is imminent, and where the parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of these, cannot be had, in order to provide for the relief of conscience, and (should the case require it) for the legitimation of the offspring, a marriage may be contracted validly and licitly before any priest and two witnesses. HBS 329.3

VIII. Should it happen that in any district the parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of them, before whom marriage can be celebrated, is not to be had, and that this condition of affairs has lasted for a month, marriage may be validly and licitly entered upon by the formal declaration of consent made by the contracting parties in the presence of two witnesses.... HBS 329.4

XI. (i) The above laws are binding on all persons baptized in the Catholic Church, and on those who have been converted to it from heresy or schism (even when either the latter or the former have fallen away afterward from the church), in all cases of betrothal or marriage. HBS 329.5

(ii) The same laws are binding, also, on such Catholics, if they contract betrothal or marriage with non-Catholics, baptized or unbaptized, even after a dispensation has been obtained from the impediment mixta religionis [of a dissimilar religion] or disparitatis cultus [of a difference of worship]; unless the Holy See have decreed otherwise for some particular place or region. HBS 329.6

(iii) Non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, who contract among themselves, are nowhere bound to observe the Catholic form of betrothal or marriage. HBS 329.7

Given at Rome on the second day of August, in the year 1907. HBS 329.8

Vincent, Card. Bishop of Palestrina, Prefect. C. de Lai, Secretary. HBS 329.9

-“The New Marriage Legislation,” on Engagements and Marriage, John T. McNicholas, O. P., S. T. Lr. (R. C.), pp. 9-14. Philadelphia: American Ecclesiastical Review. HBS 329.10

Marriage, Roman Catholic View of Civil.—A civil marriage is only licensed cohabitation. There should be no such legal abomination, and the church should be supreme judge of the marriage relation.—The Western Watchman (R. C.), St. Louis, Mo., March 28, 1912. HBS 329.11

Marriage, Roman Catholic View of Protestant or Civil.—7. Marriage of all Catholics (both parties Catholics) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no marriage at all. HBS 329.12

8. Marriage of all fallen-away Catholics (who have become Protestants or infidels) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no marriage at all. HBS 330.1

9. Marriage of a Catholic to a non-baptized person is never a real marriage unless the church grants a dispensation. Such a marriage before a minister or a justice of the peace is no marriage at all for two reasons. HBS 330.2

10. Marriage of a Catholic to a Protestant (one never baptized in the Catholic Church) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no marriage at all, unless the holy see makes a special law for the United States.—“The New Marriage Legislation,” on Engagements and Marriage, John T. McNicholas, O. P., S. T. Lr. (R. C.), p. 63. Philadelphia: American Ecclesiastical Review. HBS 330.3

Marriage, Application of Roman Catholic Law of.—Many Protestants may think the church presumptuous in decreeing their marriages valid or invalid accordingly as they have or have not complied with certain conditions. As the church cannot err, neither can she be presumptuous. She alone is judge of the extent of her power. Any one validly baptized, either in the church or among heretics, becomes thereby a subject of the Roman Catholic Church. The present marriage law does not bind any one baptized in heresy or schism, provided they have never entered the Catholic Church.—Id., p. 49. HBS 330.4

Masorah, Explanation of.—Although Philo asserts that “the Jews never altered a word of what was written by Moses,” and Josephus maintains that nothing was added to the text of Scripture or taken therefrom, such statements cannot be regarded as absolutely true, because it is certain that additions and glosses were from time to time added to the various books. Moreover the assertions of Philo and Josephus are opposed to the facts disclosed by an examination of the LXX and of the other versions. There is, however, no ground for accusing the Jews of wilfully corrupting the sacred text, an accusation constantly preferred against them by the church Fathers, as well as by later writers. The care taken by the Jews in post-Christian days to preserve intact the books committed to them, led to the execution of the work generally designated under the name of the Masorah. [p. 31] ... HBS 330.5

Under the name is often included (1) the vowel points and accents, and (2) more correctly the critical notes affixed to the Hebrew MSS. The latter recount the number of times certain rare words or combinations of words occur, and call attention to divers peculiarities. The short Masorah is often divided into various heads: the short notes written on the margin of MSS., or of the large Rabbinic Bibles, are known as the Masora marginalis, which is an abridgment of the Masora magna, which latter was written above or below the text, and often in MSS. in all sorts of grotesque forms. The Masora parva is written on the sides of the margins and between the columns, and contains divers notes on words and sentences which occur only once, or on various peculiarities in vowel points or consonants, which are noted by mnemonical signs. Larger notes are sometimes found at the end of the MS., and thus designated the Masora finalis. [p. 32] ... HBS 330.6

Ben Asher, who lived in the tenth century, and whose family lived at Tiberias in the eighth century, is said to have left behind him a Hebrew codex, affirmed to have been the main source from whence the present Masoretic text is derived. Ben Naphtali somewhat earlier wrote also a model codex of the Hebrew Bible. [p. 33] ... HBS 330.7

The object of the Masoretic scholars was, as far as possible, to preserve the text as they received it. They did not venture to correct the text, even in places where its blunders were most distinctly ascertained. [p. 34] ... HBS 331.1

The labor undergone in the numbering of the letters and the notation of the middle letters and middle words in each book subserved no useful purpose. It did not preserve the text from corruption. The Masoretic lists of parallel passages and peculiarities are, on the other hand, important. The use of litera majuscula (as in Genesis 34:31), minuscula (e. g., Genesis 2:4), suspensa (Judges 18:30), inversa (Numbers 10:35, 36), with many other peculiarities of a similar nature, were designed for critical purposes of various kinds, which in some cases have been discovered, while in other cases their real significance has been hopelessly lost. The puerilities about these matters mentioned by Buxtorf in his “Tiberias,” are in many cases mere “conceits” of a later age. The puncta extraordinaria, which are of far older date than the Masoretic period, have been in some cases explained as simple signs of correction on the part of the scribes. There is much to be said in favor of this view. For similar points occur in Samaritan MSS, with that signification, and some of the words so pointed in Hebrew MSS. are omitted in the ancient versions. But although some such use was subserved by those dots, the explanation cannot yet be absolutely accepted. [pp. 37, 38] ... HBS 331.2

The order of the various books seems to have been finally settled by the Masoretes. The Hebrew Bible is divided into three parts: (1) The Torah, “Law” or Pentateuch; (2) The Prophets, divided into two, (a) the former, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; (b) the later, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, with the twelve Minor Prophets; (3) The Kethubim, or the “Writings,” generally termed the Hagiographa, viz., Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth or Rolls (i. e., Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. HBS 331.3

The order of the books in the English Bible is that of the Latin Vulgate, with the Apocryphal books excluded. The Masorah reckons the books as twenty-four, the two books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles being counted as single books; the twelve Minor Prophets are reckoned as one book, and Ezra and Nehemiah are also regarded as forming together one book. The English Bible regards the books as thirty-nine. Josephus and the Alexandrine writers reckon only twenty-two, Ruth with Judges being counted as one, and Lamentations being included in Jeremiah. HBS 331.4

The arrangement in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 14b) is: Law; Prophets, i. e., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve; Writings, i. e., Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Koheleth, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles. But the latter order is of very doubtful authority. (See Bloch, “Studien;” Wright, “Koheleth,” Excurs. 1.) HBS 331.5

The size of the respective books, as ascertained by the pages actually occupied by each, was evidently the principle which determined the order in which the books of the Prophets were placed according to this arrangement. [pp. 38, 39]-“An Introduction to the Old Testament,” Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., Ph. D., pp. 31-39. New York: Thomas Whittaker. HBS 331.6

Masorah, The Small and the Final.—Masorah: The system of critical notes on the external form of the Biblical text. This system of notes represents the literary labors of innumerable scholars, of which the beginning falls probably in pre-Maccabean times and the end reaches to the year 1425. HBS 331.7

The name “Masorah” occurs in many forms, the etymology, pronunciation, and genetic connection of which are much-mooted points. The term is taken from Ezekiel 20:37, and means originally “fetter.” The fixation of the text was correctly considered to be in the nature of a fetter upon its exposition.... The Small Masorah consists of brief notes with reference to marginal readings, to statistics showing the number of times a particular form is found in Scripture, to full and defective spelling, and to abnormally written letters. The Large Masorah is more copious in its notes. The Final Masorah comprises all the longer rubrics for which space could not be found in the margin of the text, and is arranged alphabetically in the form of a concordance. The quantity of notes the marginal Masorah contains is conditioned by the amount of vacant space on each page. In the manuscripts it varies also with the rate at which the copyist was paid and the fanciful shape he gave to his gloss. HBS 332.1

The question as to which of the above forms is the oldest cannot be decided from the data now accessible. On the one hand, it is known that marginal notes were used in the beginning of the second century of the common era; on the other, there is every reason to assume the existence of Masoretic baraitas which could not have been much later. The Small Masorah is in any case not an abbreviation of the Large Masorah. Like the latter, it occurs also arranged in alphabetical order.—The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, art. “Masorah,” p. 365. HBS 332.2

Matthew’s Gospel, Original Language of.—There is not the least difficulty in believing that Matthew might have written a Gospel in Greek, even on the supposition that he intended it only for the use of the Christians in Palestine; and the first Gospel contains internal evidence that it was meant to have a wider circulation. On the other hand, the proof I have given from Josephus of the literary use of the Aramaic language in his time makes it equally easy to accept evidence of the existence of an Apostolic Hebrew Gospel, if only decisive evidence for its existence were forthcoming. But it does not appear that any of the witnesses had themselves seen such a Gospel, and there is no evidence of the existence of any Greek text but the one which was universally regarded as authoritative. [p. 223] ... HBS 332.3

The statement that it had been written in Hebrew rests on a private tradition, for all we know first made public by Papias himself; and Papias has been generally condemned as overcredulous with respect to some of the traditions which he accepted. If the Greek Gospel had been, as some suppose, only based on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but was actually the work of one of the second generation, I do not know why the name of the real author should have been suppressed; for the second and third Gospels bear the names of those who were supposed to be their real authors, and not those of the apostles on whose authority they were believed to rest. So that, if Matthew did not write the first Gospel, I do not think the name of Matthew would have been necessary to gain it acceptance in the church. [pp. 224, 225]-“A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament,” George Salmon, D. D., pp. 223-225. London: John Murray, 1885. HBS 332.4

Messiah, Prophecies Fulfilled in.—To Bruise the Head of the Serpent.-The first intimation we have of a Messiah was in the promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. Genesis 3:11. In the New Testament it is said, “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.” Galatians 4:4. And again: He became a partaker of flesh and blood, that “through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” Hebrews 2:14. HBS 332.5

To Be of the Seed of Abraham.-The next general intimation was given to Abraham, and his family was predicted. “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 22:18. “Now, to Abraham,” says Paul, “and his seed, were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians 3:16. “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” Hebrews 2:16. HBS 333.1

Of the Tribe of Judah.-He was to be of the tribe of Judah. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come: and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Genesis 49:10. “For it is evident,” says Paul, “that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” Hebrews 7:14. HBS 333.2

Of the House of David.-He was to be of the house of David. “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.” Isaiah 11:10. “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Jeremiah 23:5, 6. Paul says, “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Romans 1:3. HBS 333.3

Place of Birth Designated.-The place of his birth was designated. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. “Now,” says Matthew, “when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.” Matthew 2:1. HBS 333.4

The Time of Birth.-The time was designated. It was not only to be before the scepter departed from Judah, but while the second temple was standing. “And I will shake all nations,” says God by Haggai, “and the Desire of all nations shall come: and the glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts.” Haggai 2:7, 9. Daniel also said, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 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.” Daniel 9:24. HBS 333.5

Accordingly we find, not only from Jewish writers, but from the most explicit passages in Tacitus and Suetonius, that there was a general expectation that an extraordinary person would arise in Judea about that time. So strong was this expectation among the Jews as to encourage numerous false Christs to appear, and to enable them to gain followers; and so certain were they that the temple could not be destroyed before the coming of the Messiah, that they refused all terms from Titus, and fought with desperation till the last. HBS 333.6

Elias to Come First.-He was to be preceded by a remarkable person resembling Elijah. “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.” Malachi 3:1. “Behold, I will send you Elijah the propnet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” Malachi 4:5. “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” Isaiah 40:3. “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 3:1, 2. HBS 333.7

Was to Work Miracles.-He was to work miracles. “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing.” Isaiah 35:5, 6. These are precisely the miracles recorded as wrought by Christ in instances too numerous to mention. HBS 334.1

His Public Entry into Jerusalem.-He was to make a public entry into Jerusalem, riding upon a colt the foal of an ass. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” Zechariah 9:9. An account of the exact fulfilment of this prophecy will be found in the twenty-first chapter of Matthew. HBS 334.2

To Be Rejected by the Jews.-He was to be rejected of his own countrymen. “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel.” Isaiah 8:14. “He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” Isaiah 53:2, 3. “He came unto his own,” says John, “and his own received him not.” John 1:11. And again: “Though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report?”-quoting the first verse of the fifty-third of Isaiah, and thus claiming it as spoken of the Messiah. And after quoting another prophecy, the apostle says, “These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” John 12:37, 38, 41. HBS 334.3

To Be Scourged and Mocked.-He was to be scourged, mocked, and spit upon. “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Isaiah 50:6. “And when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.” Matthew 27:26. “Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.” Matthew 26:67. HBS 334.4

His Hands and Feet to Be Pierced.-His hands and his feet were to be pierced. “The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.” Psalm 22:16. This is remarkable because the punishment of crucifixion was not known among the Jews. HBS 334.5

To Be Numbered with Transgressors.-He was to be numbered with the transgressors. “And he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:12. HBS 334.6

To Be Reviled on the Cross.-He was to be mocked and reviled on the cross. “All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” Psalm 22:7, 8. “Likewise also the chief priests, mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save.... He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son God.” Matthew 27:41-43. HBS 334.7

To Have Gall and Vinegar to Drink.-He was to have gall and vinegar to drink. “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink.” Psalm 69:21. “And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, A place of a skull, they gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall.” Matthew 27:33, 34. HBS 334.8

His Garments to Be Parted.-His garments were to be parted, and upon his vesture lots were to be cast. “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” Psalm 22:18. “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat; now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” John 19:23, 24. HBS 335.1

His Death to Be Violent.-He was to be cut off by a violent death. “For he was cut out of the land of the living.” Isaiah 53:8. “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.” Daniel 9:26. HBS 335.2

Was to Be Pierced.-He was to be pierced. “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” Zechariah 12:10. “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” John 19:34. HBS 335.3

To Make His Grave with the Rich.-He was to make his grave with the rich. “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.” Isaiah 53:9. “When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock.” Matthew 27:57, 58, 60. HBS 335.4

Was Not to See Corruption.-He was not to see corruption. “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” Psalm 16:10. “Men and brethren,” says Peter, after citing this passage, “let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” Acts 2:29-31. HBS 335.5

And yet there are some who say that these prophecies are no prophecies, and were never claimed to be. But I think it evident that Peter did not belong, as an interpreter of prophecy, to the schools of German neology.—“Evidences of Christianity,” Mark Hopkins, D. D., pp. 312-318. Boston: T. R. Marvin & Son, 1874. HBS 335.6

Miracles, Definition of.—A miracle is an effect or event contrary to the established constitution or course of things, or a sensible suspension or controlment of, or deviation from, the known laws of nature, wrought either by the immediate act, or by the assistance, or by the permission of God, and accompanied with a previous notice or declaration that it is performed according to the purpose and by the power of God, for the proof or evidence of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority or divine mission of some particular person. [pp. 204, 205] ... HBS 335.7

The possibility of miracles, such as we have described them to be, is not contrary to reason, and consequently their credibility is capable of a rational proof; and though we cannot give a mechanical account of the manner how they are done, because they are done by the unusual interposition of an invisible agent, superior both in wisdom and power to ourselves, we must not therefore deny the fact which our own senses testify to be done. [p. 206]-“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. I, pp. 204-206. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 335.8

Miracles, Description of.—A miracle is an event making known to the senses the presence of a personal power above the physical and human plane, working toward a moral end.—“Why Is Christianity True?” E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., p. 170. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. HBS 336.1

Miracles, A Different Manifestation of Power.—The miracle is not a greater manifestation of God’s power than those ordinary and ever-repeated processes; but it is a different manifestation.—“Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord,” Richard Chenevix Trench, M. A., p. 17. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1852. HBS 336.2

Miracles, Not Against Nature.—While the miracle is not thus nature, so neither is it against nature. That language, however commonly in use, is yet wholly unsatisfactory, which speaks of these wonderful works of God as violations of a natural law. Beyond nature, beyond and above the nature which we know, they are, but not contrary to it.—Id., p. 20. HBS 336.3

Miracles, An Unwarranted Distinction Concerning.—The distinction, indeed, which is sometimes made, that in the miracle God is immediately working, and in other events is leaving it to the laws which he has established, to work, cannot at all be admitted; for it has its root in a dead mechanical view of the universe which lies altogether remote from the truth. The clock maker makes his clock and leaves it; the shipbuilder builds and launches his ship, and others navigate it; but the world is no curious piece of mechanism which its Maker makes and then dismisses from his hands, only from time to time reviewing and repairing it; but as our Lord says, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17); he “upholdeth all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). And to speak of “laws of God,” “laws of nature,” may become to us a language altogether deceptive, and hiding the deeper reality from our eyes. Laws of God exist only for us. It is a will of God for himself. That will indeed, being the will of highest wisdom and love, excludes all wilfulness-is a will upon which we can securely count; from the past expressions of it we can presume its future, and so we rightfully call it a law. But still from moment to moment it is a will; each law, as we term it, of nature is only that which we have learned concerning this will in that particular region of its activity. To say, then, that there is more of the will of God in a miracle than in any other work of his, is insufficient. Such an affirmation grows out of that lifeless scheme of the world, of which we should ever be seeking to rid ourselves, but which such a theory will only help to confirm and to uphold.—Id., pp. 16, 17. HBS 336.4

Miracles, Six Marks of.—The miracles related in the Bible are accompanied by such evidences as it will be found difficult to adduce in support of any other historic fact, and such as cannot be brought to substantiate any pretended fact whatever. HBS 336.5

Since ... the proper effect of a miracle is clearly to mark the divine interposition, it must therefore have characters proper to indicate such interposition; and these criteria are six in number: HBS 336.6

1. It is required, then, in the first place, that a fact or event, which is stated to be miraculous, should have an important end, worthy of its author. HBS 336.7

2. It must be instantaneously and publicly performed. HBS 337.1

3. It must be sensible and easy to be observed: in other words, the fact or event must be such that the senses of mankind can clearly and fully judge of it. HBS 337.2

4. It must be independent of second causes. HBS 337.3

5. Not only public monuments must be kept up, but some outward actions must be constantly performed in memory of the fact thus publicly wrought. HBS 337.4

6. And such monuments must be set up, and such actions and observances be instituted, at the very time when those events took place, and afterward be continued without interruption.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. I, p. 216. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 337.5

Miracles, Place of, in the Government of God.—If we apply the notion of a law to God at all, it is plain that miraculous interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a regular, fixed, and established rule of his government, as the working ordinarily by what are called natural laws.—“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 43. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 337.6

Miracles, The Proper Phenomena of Christ’s Person.—He [Christ] himself was the great moral miracle. Miracles are the proper “phenomena of his person.” They are the laws of his nature. “It is not that the miracles prove the doctrine, or that the doctrine makes credible the miracle,” says Canon Gore. “It is rather that as parts of one whole they cohere as soul and body.”-“Why Is Christianity True?” E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., p. 182. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. HBS 337.7

Miracles, The Manifestation of a Supernatural Person.—What is common to all four evangelists, and what is in their mind essential, is the idea, not that the miraculous history proves the person to be supernatural, but that the history was miraculous because it articulated and manifested the supernatural person. The Gospels may indeed be described as the interpretation of this person in the terms of history; and so regarded, the Jesus of Mark is as miraculous as the Jesus of John. There is more than art, there is real philosophy, in the evangelical standpoint and method; for the supernatural personality is more able to make the supernatural in nature and history real and credible than the miraculous in nature and history is able to make the supernatural personality living and intelligible.—“The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,” Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 326, 327. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. HBS 337.8

Miracles, Defended as the Result of Belief in Christ.—We, for our part, do not hesitate to defend the Christian belief in miracles, as a consequence of belief in the holy God-man. If the Lord was really the One, as whom we have learnt to know him, then his acts may be miracles for us, for Him they were only the highest nature. If even the discoveries and occupations of the more cultivated man are incomprehensible for the wilder tribes; if even the man of rational and moral culture is able, mechanically and physically, to bring under the material world, how much less for Him in whom the supreme Godhead was united with a pure humanity could the material world prove an insuperable barrier, where he will work dynamically! HBS 337.9

The human spirit is by nature higher than matter; how much more the divine! The evidence against the possibility of such miracles, derived from daily experience, signifies nothing, so long as the right of the experience of the present day to contradict in a lofty tone that which ages ago was observed by the experience alike of eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses, is not better proved than hitherto. And if it is demanded of us that we should prove the possibility of such rare phenomena, this possibility is sufficiently guaranteed for our faith-for our faith, mind-by the Christian idea of an almighty, wise, and loving Architect of all things, existing not only in, but above, the world. For this God the laws of nature are no chains with which he has bound himself, but threads which his hand, so often as he thinks necessary, can alternately contract or loosen.—“The Person and Work of the Redeemer,” J. J. Van Oosterzee, D. D., pp. 242, 243. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886. HBS 338.1

Miracles, A Part of Revelation.—This association of revelation with miracle is of the highest importance. The miracles are more than supernatural acts attesting a revelation; they are part of the revelation. They yield a light of their own. And in the case of our Lord they are linked with revelations of moral and spiritual truth of the sublimest character, miracle rising into discourse, and discourse illuminated by miracle. To separate between the miracles and teachings of Christ is impossible. We cannot retain the words and reject the deeds.—“On This Rock,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., F. R. G. S., p. 62. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 338.2

Miracles, A Witness to the Divine Origin of Christianity.—The following statement is true beyond controversy: Man cannot, in the present constitution of his mind, believe that religion has a divine origin unless it be accompanied with miracles. The necessary inference of the mind is, that if an Infinite Being acts, his acts will be superhuman in their character; because the effect, reason dictates, will be characterized by the nature of its cause. Man has the same reason to expect that God will perform acts above human power and knowledge, that he has to suppose the inferior orders of animals will, in their actions, sink below the power and wisdom which characterizes human nature. For as it is natural for man to perform acts superior to the power and knowledge of the animals beneath him, so reason affirms that it is natural for God to develop his power by means and in ways above the skill and ability of mortals. Hence, if God manifest himself at all,-unless, in accommodation to the capacities of men, he should constrain his manifestations within the compass of human ability,-every act of God’s immediate power would, to human capacity, be a miracle. But if God were to constrain all his acts within the limits of human means and agencies, it would be impossible for man to discriminate between the acts of the Godhead and the acts of the manhood. And man, if he considered acts of a divine origin which were plainly within the compass of human ability, would violate his own reason. HBS 338.3

Suppose, for illustration, that God desired to reveal a religion to men, and wished them to recognize his character and his benevolence in giving that revelation. Suppose, further, that God should give such a revelation, and that every appearance and every act connected with its introduction, was characterized by nothing superior to human power. Could any rational mind on earth believe that such a system of religion came from God? Impossible! A man could as easily be made to believe that his own child, who possessed his own lineaments and his own nature, belonged to some other world and some other order of the creation. It would not be possible for God to convince men that a religion was from heaven, unless it was accompanied with the marks of divine power.—“Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation,” James B. Walker, D. D., pp. 47, 48. New York: Chautauqua Press, 1887. HBS 338.4

Miracles, Benefits of.—The miracles of Jesus, then, are amply supported by evidence. They are an offense only to those who place things above persons, the mechanical order of nature above the moral order. Miracles as Jesus employed them are a bond of unity at every point, not a doctrine of anarchy. The unity of the Gospel records is fatally marred without them. They do not violate but restore the dismembered moral kingdom, which had been broken up by sin. The doctrines of Fatherhood and grace are far from complete without them. They vindicate the conception of the universe as a family, in which persons are bound together by love, over against the conception that the universe is merely a cosmos bound together by physical force. They suggest to the intellect the clew to the final unity of nature and spirit in the Supreme Person. Miracles, then, bring rest to the mind seeking for ultimate truth by suggesting the bond which secures a moral, theological, and philosophical unity in all these ways. They will abide as a part of the New Testament records and of the convictions of believers.—“Why Is Christianity True?” E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., pp. 186, 187. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. HBS 339.1

Miracles, Christ’s Not Performed for His Own Benefit.—In his whole life, then, and in all his actions Jesus exercised his power always and only for man. The mystery of the life which so appealed to the heart and imagination of his people lies here-with the power to save he yet wills to lose himself. The vision of God which he creates brings to man beatitude; the vision of sin which he suffers brings to himself sorrow. The strength of his will is seen, not in any immunity from calamity which he commands, but in the sacrifice he makes. And this touches a specific and distinctive quality of the supernatural element in the Gospels. There is nothing like it in the mythology of the miraculous. The mythical miracle is primarily personal; for what could be the use of a supernatural power which did not serve its possessor in his own hour of need? ... But Jesus from first to last, in all his acts and in all his doings, is supernatural on man’s behalf, and not on his own. He was a moral wonder rather than a physical marvel.—“The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,” Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 342, 343. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. HBS 339.2

Miracles, Relation of, to Doctrines.—The miracles have been spoken of as though they borrowed nothing from the truths which they confirmed, but those truths everything from them; when indeed the true relation is one of mutual interdependence, the miracles proving the doctrines, and the doctrines approving the miracles, and both held together for us in a blessed unity, in the person of Him who spake the words and did the works, and through the impress of highest holiness and of absolute truth and goodness, which that person leaves stamped on our souls; so that it may be more truly said that we believe the miracles for Christ’s sake, than Christ for the miracles’ sake. Neither when we thus affirm that the miracles prove the doctrine, and the doctrine the miracles, are we arguing in a circle; rather we are receiving the sum total of the impression which this divine revelation is intended to make on us, instead of taking an impression only partial and one-sided.—“Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord,” Richard Chenevix Trench, M. A., p. 81. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1852. HBS 339.3

Miracles, Impossible to Atheism Only.—Is there then anything in the nature of things to make miracles impossible? Not unless things have an independent existence, and work by their own power. If they are in themselves naught, if God called them out of nothing, and but for his sustaining power they would momentarily fall back into nothing; if it is not they that work, but he who works in them and through them; if growth, and change, and motion, and assimilation, and decay, are his dealings with matter, as sanctification, and enlightenment, and inward comfort, and the gift of the clear vision of him, are his dealings with ourselves; if the Great and First Cause never deserts even for a moment the second causes, but he who “upholdeth all things by the word of his power,” and is “above all and through all,” is also (as Hooker says) “the Worker of all in all,” then certainly things in themselves cannot oppose any impediment to miracles, or do aught but obsequiously follow the divine fiat, be it what it may. HBS 340.1

The whole difficulty with regard to miracles has its roots in a materialistic atheism, which believes things to have a force in and of themselves; which regards them as self-sustaining, if not even as self-caused; which deems them to possess mysterious powers of their own, uncontrollable by the divine will; which sees in the connection of physical cause and effect, not a sequence, not a law, but a necessity; which, either positing a divine First Cause to bring things into existence, then (like Anaxagoras) makes no further use of him; or does not care to posit any such First Cause at all, but is content to refer all things to a “course of nature,” which it considers eternal and unalterable, and on which it lavishes all the epithets that believers regard as appropriate to God, and God only. It is the peculiarity of atheism at the present day that it uses a religious nomenclature-it is no longer dry, and hard, and cold, all matter of fact and common sense, as was the case in the last century; on the contrary, it has become warm in expression, poetic, eloquent, glowing, sensuous, imaginative. The “course of nature,” which it has set up in the place of God, is in a certain sense deified,-no language is too exalted to be applied to it, no admiration too great to be excited by it-it is “glorious,” and “marvelous,” and “superhuman,” and “heavenly,” and “spiritual,” and “divine”-only it is “It,” not “He,” a fact or set of facts, and not a Person; and so it can really call forth no love, no gratitude, no reverence, no personal feeling of any kind; it can claim no willing obedience; it can inspire no wholesome awe; it is a dead idol, after all, and its worship is but the old nature worship,-man returning in his dotage to the follies which beguiled his childhood, losing the Creator in the creature, the Workman in the work of his hands. HBS 340.2

It cannot therefore be held on any grounds but such as involve a real, though covert atheism, that miracles are impossible, or that a narrative of which supernatural occurrences form an essential part, is therefore devoid of a historical character. Miracles are to be viewed as in fact a part of the divine economy,-a part as essential as any other, though coming into play less frequently.—“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 44, 45. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 340.3

Miracles, Elijah’s and Elisha’s.— HBS 341.1

Elijah’s Eight Miracles (1 and 2 Kings)
1. Shutting heaven (17:1).	5. Rain (18:45).
2. Oil multiplied (17:14).	6. Fire on 50 (2 Kings 1:10).
3. Widow’s son raised (17:22, 23).	7. Fire on 50 (2 Kings 1:12).
4. Fire from heaven (18:38).	8. Jordan (2 Kings 2:8).

Elisha’s Sixteen Miracles (2 Kings) 1. Jordan divided (2:14.) 9. Bread multiplied (4:43). 2. Waters healed (2:21). 10. Naaman healed (5:10). 3. Bears from wood (2:24). 11. Gehazi smitten (5:27). 4. Water for kings (3:20). 12. Iron to swim (6:6). 5. Oil for widow (4:1-6). 13. Sight to blind (6:17). 6. Gift of son (4:16, 17). 14. Smiting blindness (6:18). 7. Raising from dead (4:35). 15. Restoring sight (6:20). 8. Healing of pottage (4:41). 16. One after death (13:21). HBS 341.2

-“The Companion Bible,” Part II, “Joshua to Job,” p. 491. London. Oxford University Press. HBS 341.3

Miracles, List of.—Of the fifty-seven events of the gospel history which we have called miraculous, five are events connected with the Saviour’s birth and infancy. They are: HBS 341.4

1. Angel appears to Zacharias. Luke 1. HBS 341.5

2. Angel appears to Mary. Luke 1. HBS 341.6

3. Loosening of Zacharias’s tongue, etc. Luke 1. HBS 341.7

4. Angel appears to Joseph. Matthew 1. HBS 341.8

5. Angel appears to shepherds. Luke 2. HBS 341.9

Of the remaining fifty-two, there are two which were performed without any direct volition of the Saviour, that is, by God himself. They are: HBS 341.10

1. The baptism of Christ by the Holy Spirit at the Jordan. Matthew 3:16. HBS 341.11

2. The miracles at the crucifixion-rending of the veil of the temple, opening of graves, etc. Matthew 27, 28. HBS 341.12

The fifty we now have left, are capable of still further subdivision. Twelve of these fifty were events which were miraculous in their nature, actings of the Father upon the Son, or appearances of the Son or of angels after his resurrection, but were not wrought, like healings, upon others. They are: HBS 341.13

1. The transfiguration of Christ. Matthew 17. HBS 341.14

2. The resurrection of Christ. Matthew 28. HBS 341.15

3. The angels at the Sepulcher. Matthew 28. HBS 341.16

4. Jesus appears to the women. Matthew 28. HBS 341.17

5. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. Mark 16. HBS 341.18

6. Jesus appears to Peter. Luke 24. HBS 341.19

7. Jesus appears to two disciples. Luke 24. HBS 341.20

8. Jesus appears to ten disciples (Thomas being absent). John 20. HBS 341.21

9. Jesus appears to eleven disciples. John 20. HBS 341.22

10. Jesus appears on mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28. HBS 341.23

11. Jesus appears to seven disciples in Galilee. John 21. HBS 341.24

12. Ascension. Mark 16. HBS 341.25

We have left now thirty-eight events which may be called miracles of our Lord. About two of them there may be more or less dispute; viz., (1) The falling backward of the band of men who came to arrest Jesus in the garden (John 18:4); and (2) the fire of coals, etc., noticed by the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, when Jesus appears to seven of them at that place. (See John 21.) As to the remaining thirty-six we think there is no dispute. They may be found classified in the helps in the Teachers’ Bible. HBS 341.26

The following occurred at Capernaum: HBS 342.1

1. Healing of demoniac. Mark 1. HBS 342.2

2. Healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and many others. Matthew 8. HBS 342.3

3. Healing of paralytic. Matthew 9. HBS 342.4

4. Healing of centurion’s servant. Matthew 8. HBS 342.5

5. Raising of Jairus’s daughter. Matthew 9. HBS 342.6

6. Healing of two blind men. Matthew 9. HBS 342.7

7. Healing of the dumb spirit. Matthew 9. HBS 342.8

8. Stater in the fish’s mouth. Matthew 17. HBS 342.9

9. Healing of woman with bloody issue. Matthew 9. HBS 342.10

In Galilee (place not certain) occurred: HBS 342.11

1. Healing of a leper. Matthew 8. HBS 342.12

2. Healing of withered hand. Matthew 12. HBS 342.13

3. Healing of demoniac. Matthew 12. HBS 342.14

On, or in the immediate vicinity of, the Sea of Galilee, occurred: HBS 342.15

1. Miraculous draught of fishes. Luke 5. HBS 342.16

2. Stilling of tempest. Matthew 8. HBS 342.17

3. Feeding of five thousand. Matthew 14. HBS 342.18

4. Walking on water. Matthew 14. HBS 342.19

5. Draught of fishes. John 21. HBS 342.20

In Jerusalem, or near it, occurred: HBS 342.21

1. Healing of man at pool of Bethesda. John 5. HBS 342.22

2. Healing of a blind man. John 9 and 10. HBS 342.23

3. Withering of fig tree. Matthew 21. HBS 342.24

4. Healing of Malchus’s ear (Gethsemane). Luke 22. HBS 342.25

In the Decapolis occurred: HBS 342.26

1. Healing of deaf and dumb (and many). Mark 7. HBS 342.27

2. Feeding of four thousand. Matthew 15. HBS 342.28

-“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, pp. 641-643. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 342.29

Miracles, Lack of, in Mohammedanism.—The mission of the ancient prophets, of Moses and of Jesus, had been confirmed by many splendid prodigies; and Mahomet was repeatedly urged, by the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina, to produce a similar evidence of his divine legation; to call down from heaven the angel or the volume of his revelation, to create a garden in the desert, or to kindle a conflagration in the unbelieving city. As often as he is pressed by the demands of the Koreish, he involves himself in the obscure boast of vision and prophecy, appeals to the internal proofs of his doctrine, and shields himself behind the providence of God, who refuses those signs and wonders that would depreciate the merit of faith, and aggravate the guilt of infidelity. But the modest or angry tone of his apologies betrays his weakness and vexation; and these passages of scandal established, beyond suspicion, the integrity of the Koran. The votaries of Mahomet are more assured than himself of his miraculous gifts; and their confidence and credulity increase as they are farther removed from the time and place of his spiritual exploits.—“The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Edward Gibbon, chap. 50, par. 16 (Vol. V, pp. 111, 112). New York: Harper & Brothers. HBS 342.30

Miracles, Why More Are Not Seen Now.—What has become of the miracles and supernatural gifts of the gospel era? These were associated historically with the planting of Christianity. By such tokens Christ authenticated his mission, giving the like signs to his apostles, to be the authentication of theirs. What, then, it is peremptorily required of us to answer, has become of these miracles, these tongues, gifts of healing, prophecies? what, also, of the dreams, presentiments, visits of angels? what of judgments falling visibly on the head of daring and sacrilegious crimes? what of possessions, magic, sorcery, necromancy? If these once were facts, why should they not be now? If they are incredible now, when were they less so? Does a fact become rational and possible by being carried back into other centuries of time? Is it given us to see that Christianity throws itself out boldly on its facts, in these matters, or does it come in the shy and cautious manner some appear to suppose, asserting a few miracles and half-mythologic marvels that occurred in the romantic ages of history, where no investigation can reach them; adding, to escape all demand of such now, in terms of present evidence, that they are discontinued, because the canon is closed and there is no longer any use for them? HBS 342.31

Such a disposal of the question, it must be seen, wears a suspicious look. If miracles are inherently incredible, which is the impression at the root of our modern unbelief, evidently nothing is gained by thrusting them back into remote ages of time. If, on the other hand, they are inherently credible, why treat them as if they were not? raising ingenious and forced hypotheses to account for their nonoccurrence? [pp. 446, 447] ... HBS 343.1

There may certainly be reasons for such miracles and gifts of the Spirit, apart from any authentication of new books of Scripture. Indeed, they might possibly be wanted even the more, to break up the monotony likely to follow, when revelations have ceased, and the word of Scripture is forever closed up; wanted also possibly to lift the church out of the abysses of a mere second-hand religion, keeping it alive and open to the realities of God’s immediate visitation. HBS 343.2

And yet, for these and such like reasons, it is very commonly assumed, and has been since the days of Chrysostom, that miracles and all similar externalities of divine power have been discontinued. [p. 448] ... HBS 343.3

The Christian world has been gravitating, visibly, more and more, toward this vanishing point of faith, for whole centuries, and especially since the modern era of science began to shape the thoughts of men by only scientific methods. Religion has fallen into the domain of the mere understanding, and so it has become a kind of wisdom not to believe much, therefore to expect as little. HBS 343.4

Now it is this descent to mere rationality that makes an occasion for the signs and wonders of the Spirit. The unbelieving and false spirit in half-sanctified minds, converts order into immobility, laws into lethargy, and the piety that ought to be strong because God is great, grows torpid and weak under his greatness. Let him now break forth in miracle and holy gifts, let it be seen that he is still the living God, in the midst of his dead people, and they will be quickened to a resurrection by the sight. Now they see that God can do something still, and has his liberty. He can hear prayers, he can help them triumph in dark hours, their bosom sins he can help them master, all his promises in the Scripture he can fulfil, and they go to him with great expectations. They see, in these gifts, that the Scripture stands, that the graces, and works, and holy fruits of the apostolic age, are also for them. It is as if they had now a proof experimental of the resources embodied in the Christian plan. The living God, immediately revealed, and not historically only, begets a feeling of present life and power, and religion is no more a tradition, a second-hand light, but a grace of God unto salvation, operative now. [p. 453]-“Nature and the Supernatural,” Horace Bushnell, pp. 446-448, 453. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1877. HBS 343.5

Mithraism.—Mithras, a Persian god of light, whose worship, the latest one of importance to be brought from the Orient to Rome, spread throughout the empire and became the greatest antagonist of Christianity. HBS 344.1

The cult goes back to a period before the separation of the Persians from the Hindus, as is shown by references in the literatures of both stocks, the Avesta and the Vedas.... HBS 344.2

Modified, though never essentially changed, (1) by contact with the star worship of the Chaldeans, who identified Mithras with Shamash, god of the sun; (2) by the indigenous Armenian religion and other local Asiatic faiths; and (3) by the Greeks of Asia Minor, who identified Mithras with Helios, and contributed to the success of his cult by equipping it for the first time with artistic representations (the famous Mithras relief originated in the Pergamene school toward the second century b. c.), Mithraism was first transmitted to the Roman world during the first century b. c. by the Cilician pirates captured by Pompey. It attained no importance, however, for nearly two centuries.... HBS 344.3

Toward the close of the second century the cult had begun to spread rapidly through the army, the mercantile class, slaves, and actual propagandists, all of which classes were largely composed of Asiatics. It throve especially among military posts, and in the track of trade, where its monuments have been discovered in greatest abundance. The German frontiers afford most evidence of its prosperity. Rome itself was a favorite seat of the religion. From the end of the second century the emperors encouraged Mithraism, because of the support which it afforded to the divine right of monarchs.... HBS 344.4

Finally, philosophy as well as politics contributed to the success of Mithraism, for the outcome of the attempt to recognize in the Graco-Roman gods only forces of nature was to make the sun the most important of dieties; and it was the sun with whom Mithras was identified. HBS 344.5

The beginning of the downfall of Mithraism dates from a. d. 275, when Dacia was lost to the empire, and the invasions of the northern peoples resulted in the destruction of temples along a great stretch of frontier, the natural stronghold of the cult. The aggression of Christianity also was now more effective. [p. 622] ... HBS 344.6

The most interesting aspect of Mithraism is its antagonism to Christianity. Both religions were of Oriental origin; they were propagated about the same time, and spread with equal rapidity on account of the same causes, viz., the unity of the political world and the debasement of its moral life. At the end of the second century each had advanced to the farthest limits of the empire, though the one possessed greatest strength on the frontiers of the Teutonic countries, along the Danube and the Rhine, while the other throve especially in Asia and Africa. The points of collision were especially at Rome, in Africa, and in the Rhone Valley, and the struggle was the more obstinate because of the resemblances between the two religions, which were so numerous and so close as to be the subject of remark as early as the second century, and the cause of mutual recrimination. The fraternal and democratic spirit of the first communities, and their humble origin; the identification of the object of adoration with light and the sun; the legends of the shepherds with their gifts and adoration, the flood, and the ark; the representation in art of the fiery chariot, the drawing of water from the rock; the use of bell and candle, holy water and the communion; the sanctification of Sunday and of the 25th of December; the insistence on moral conduct, the emphasis placed upon abstinence and self-control; the doctrine of heaven and hell, of primitive revelation, of the mediation of the Logos emanating from the divine, the atoning sacrifice, the constant warfare between good and evil and the final triumph of the former, the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, the resurrection of the flesh, and the fiery destruction of the universe,-are some of the resemblances which, whether real or only apparent, enabled Mithraism to prolong its resistance to Christianity. At their root lay a common Eastern origin rather than any borrowing. HBS 344.7

On the other hand, there were important contrasts between the two. Mithraism courted the favor of Roman paganism and combined monotheism with polytheism, while Christianity was uncompromising. The former as a consequence won large numbers of supporters who were drawn by the possibility it afforded of adopting an attractive faith which did not involve a rupture with the religion of Roman society, and consequently with the state. In the middle of the third century Mithraism seemed on the verge of becoming the Universal religion. Its eminence, however, was so largely based upon dalliance with Roman society, its weakness so great in having only a mythical character, instead of a personality, as an object of adoration, and in excluding women from its privileges, that it fell rapidly before the assaults of Christianity. [p. 624]-The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XVIII, art. “Mithras,” pp. 622-624, 11th edition. HBS 345.1

Mithraism and Christianity.—The diffusion of Mithraism and of Christianity in the Roman world was from the same direction, at about the same time, and its propaganda, popular rather than philosophic, was carried to the same class of people. In theory, ritual, and practice, Mithraism parodied or duplicated, after a fashion, the central ideas of Christianity. The birth of Mithra and of Christ were celebrated on the same day; tradition placed the birth of both in a cave; both regarded Sunday as sacred; in both the central figure was a mediator (mesit çs) who was one of a triad or trinity; in both there was a sacrifice for the benefit of the race, and the purifying power of blood from the sacrifice was, though in different ways, a prime motive; regeneration or the second birth was a fundamental tenet in both; the conception of the relationship of the worshipers to each other was the same-they were all brothers; both had sacraments, in which baptism and a communion meal of bread and the cup were included; both had mysteries from which the lower orders of initiates were excluded; ascetic ideals were common to both; the ideas of man, the soul and its immortality, heaven and hell, the resurrection from the dead, judgment after death, the final conflagration by which the world is to be consumed, the final conquest of evil, were quite similar.... HBS 345.2

There were, however, two very important differences between the two faiths: Christianity had as its nucleating point a historic personage; Mithra came out of a distant past with all its accretion of myth and fancy. In the second place, Mithraism, like Buddhism and Brahmanism, was syncretistic, was tolerant of the practices of other cults. Where it could not supplant, it assimilated or adopted. [p. 419] ... HBS 345.3

The great triumphs of Mithraism were not won east of the Agean, even Greece was wholly inhospitable; it was in the Roman world where success was to be gained. The story of the transition thither is almost that of romance. Among the people of Asia Minor the Cilicians were possibly the most devoted Mithraists. In their ambition they presumed to dispute with the Romans the control of the seas, and this brought upon them the force of Roman arms and the consequent conquest by the Romans of the “Cilician pirates.” Among the immediate results of this was the initiation of Roman soldiers into the mysteries-it must not be forgotten that the cult of Mithra appealed especially to the soldier, and one of the ranks in the mysteries was that of miles, or “soldier.” HBS 345.4

To this was due the introduction of the mysteries into the army, and the army was the principal of three methods by which Mithraism passed into the Roman world. [p. 420] ... HBS 346.1

In the first Christian century there were at Rome associations of the followers of Mithra, probably organized as burial associations, in accordance with a common device of that period employed to acquire a legal status. The growth and importance of the cult in the second century are marked by the literary notices; Celsus opposed it to Christianity, Lucian made it the object of his wit. Nero desired to be initiated; Commodus (180-192) was received into the brotherhood; in the third century the emperors had a Mithraic chaplain; Aurelian (270-275) made the cult official; Diocletian, with Galerius and Licinius, in 307 dedicated a temple to Mithra; and Julian was a devotee. Indeed, the un-Roman cult of the worship of the emperors is a direct reflection of the Oriental cults in which the sun was the attendant and patron of the ruler. HBS 346.2

The four elements, fire, water, earth, and air-the first and third typified by the lion and the serpent-were deified and worshiped. So, too, the sun, moon, and planets were objects of regard. Babylonian influence wove into Mithraism its theories of the control by each of the planets of one day in the week, and with each a metal was associated, while the signs of the zodiac, which take creation under their influence, marked the devotions of the months in their turn. [p. 421] ... HBS 346.3

The decay of Mithraism was begun by the attack of the barbarians on the Roman Empire, and naturally fell first where Mithraism was strongest, on the outposts. Diocletian favored the religion because it opposed Christianity. Under Constantine imperial favor was withdrawn, and Christianity demanded the repression of the cult. A Roman panegyric of the year 362 says that under Constantius no one dared to look at the rising or setting sun, and that farmers and sailors were afraid to observe the stars, and this very vividly suggests not only active persecution of the Mithraic religion, but also implies that those objects were regarded with worship in the way which the cultic objects suggest. Julian’s short reign was a time of favor to this cult, for that prince regarded himself as under the favor of Mithra and introduced the practice of the worship at Constantinople. When George, patriarch of Alexandria, was slain by a mob roused to fury by his attempt to build a church on the site of a ruined mithraum, the emperor addressed a comparatively mild remonstrance to the city. After Julian’s death, the attack of Christianity was definite and furious. But the contest was no local nor easy matter. Mithraism had its temples from India to Scotland, its devotees in families of senatorial rank, among the merchants, in the ranks of laborers and slaves, and especially in the military camps; and these devotees were inspired with sincerity in worship, and were governed to no small degree by a real nobility of teaching, and uplifted by the hope of immortality which was a fundamental tenet of the cult. At times the persecution was bloody, and the remains prove that the priests were sometimes slain and their corpses were buried in the mithraums in order to desecrate the site. A feeble period of revival took place under Eugenius, but Theodosius ended the prospects of the cult. [p. 423]-The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol VII, art. “Mithra, Mithraism,” pp. 419-423. HBS 346.4

Moabite Stone, Recovery of.—In the summer of 1869, Dr. Klein, a German missionary, while traveling in what was once the land of Moab, discovered a most curious relic of antiquity among the ruins of Dhibân, the ancient Dibon. This relic was a stone of black basalt, rounded at the top, two feet broad and nearly four feet high. Across it ran an inscription of thirty-four lines in the letters of the Phonician alphabet. Dr. Klein unfortunately did not realize the importance of the discovery he had made; he contented himself with copying a few words, and endeavoring to secure the monument for the Berlin Museum. Things always move slowly in the East, and it was not until a year later that the negotiations for the purchase of the stone were completed between the Prussian government on the one side and the Arabs and Turkish pashas on the other. At length, however, all was arranged, and it was agreed that the stone should be handed over to the Germans for the sum of L80. HBS 346.5

At this moment M. Clermont-Ganneau, a member of the French consulate at Jerusalem, with lamentable indiscretion, sent men to take squeezes of the inscription, and offered no less than L375 for the stone itself. At once the cupidity of both Arabs and pashas was aroused; the governor of Nablus demanded the treasure for himself, while the Arabs, fearing it might be taken from them, put a fire under it, poured cold water over it, broke it in pieces, and distributed the fragments as charms among the different families of the tribe. Thanks to M. Clermont-Ganneau, most of these fragments have now been recovered, and the stone, once more put together, may be seen in the Museum of the Louvre at Paris. The fragments have been fitted into their proper places by the help of the imperfect squeezes taken before the monument was broken. HBS 347.1

When the inscription came to be read, it turned out to be a record of Mesha, king of Moab, of whom we are told in 2 Kings 3 that after Ahab’s death he “rebelled against the king of Israel,” and was vainly besieged in his capital Kirharaseth by the combined armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom. [pp. 73, 74] ... The whole inscription reads like a chapter from one of the historical books of the Old Testament. Not only are the phrases the same, but the words and grammatical forms are, with one or two exceptions, all found in Scriptural Hebrew. We learn that the language of Moab differed less from that of the Israelites than does one English dialect from another. [p. 76] ... HBS 347.2

The covenant name of the God of Israel itself occurs in the inscription, spelt in exactly the same way as in the Old Testament. Its occurrence is a proof, if any were needed, that the superstition which afterward prevented the Jews from pronouncing it, did not as yet exist. The name under which God was worshiped in Israel was familiar to the nations round about. [p. 77]-“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 73-77. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 347.3

Moabite Stone, Description of.—Moabite Stone, a stone bearing an inscription of thirty-four lines in Hebrew-Phonician letters, which was discovered by the Rev. F. Klein in 1868 among the ruins of Dhibân, the ancient Dibon. The stone was of black basalt, rounded at the top and bottom, 2 ft. broad, 3 ft. 10 in. high, and 14 1/2 in. in thickness. The monument now stands in the Louvre at Paris. The inscription was discovered to be a record of Mesha, king of Moab, mentioned in 2 Kings 3, referring to his successful revolt against the king of Israel.—Standard Encyclopedia of the World’s Knowledge, Vol. XVII, art. “Moabite Stone,” p. 353. HBS 347.4

Moabite Stone, Inscription on.—The monument, which is now one of the most precious treasures of the Louvre in Paris, bears an inscription which is the oldest specimen of Semitic alphabetic writing extant, commemorating the successful effort made about 860 or 850 b. c. by Mesha, king of Moab, to throw off the yoke of Israel. We know from the Old Testament record that Moab had been reduced to subjection by David (2 Samuel 8:2); that it paid a heavy tribute to Ahab, king of Israel (2 Kings 3:4); and that, on the death of Ahab, Mesha its king rebelled against Israelite rule (2 Kings 3:5). Not till the reign of Jehoram was any effort made to recover the lost dominion. The king of Israel then allied himself with the kings of Judah and Edom, and marching against Moab by the way of the Red Sea, inflicted upon Mesha a defeat so decisive that the wrath of his god, Chemosh, could be appeased only by the sacrifice of his son (2 Kings 3:6 ff.). HBS 347.5

The historical situation described in the Old Testament narrative is fully confirmed by Mesha’s inscription.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Chemosh,” pp. 601, 602. HBS 348.1

Modern Theology, Characteristics of.—There are certain ruling principles which characterize modern critical theology: 1. A rooted dislike of miracle; 2. An inherent objection to prophecy; 3. A disbelief in revelation. HBS 348.2

1. Science, it is presupposed, has absolutely exploded miracle. Miracle exists only in our own imagination; it is a subjective error which must be got rid of at any risk and at all costs. Then, I ask, what about the resurrection of Christ? was that also a subjective error? Did he or did he not rise again to life after having died? because, if he did, then to talk about miracle being disproved or exploded is absurd; for if Christ, after he had died, raised himself to life again, that was, and always must be, a miracle; and if we admit one miracle, it is only a matter of degree and a pure matter of evidence how many we admit. The charmed circle of science has been broken, and one breach renders others possible or even probable. Of course, if we decide that Christ did not rise, then there is an end of the whole matter. There is no further need of argument. There is no room for discussion. HBS 348.3

2. Prophecy must in like manner be brought within the circle of the regular, the ordinary, and the natural. It is not the one phenomenon that differentiates the Old Testament literature; it is strictly analogous to the poetical rhapsodies that are common to all literature, and possesses no features that are not shared by them. If Isaiah mentions Cyrus, he must have had experience of Cyrus. What passes under his name must have been written after Cyrus appeared. HBS 348.4

Canon Cheyne speaks of the difficulty of explaining the “wonderful” passages of Isaiah, and says it arises “partly from the abruptness with which they are introduced, partly from the apparent inconsistency of some of the expressions,” and “partly from the extraordinary distinctness with which the most striking of them, at any rate, prefigure the life of Jesus Christ.” The same writer admits that as we read chapter 53 we are conscious of something of the impression it produced on the Earl of Rochester, who “was convinced, not only by the reasonings he had about it, which satisfied his understanding, but by a power which did so effectually constrain him, that he did, ever after, as firmly believe in his Saviour as if he had seen him in the clouds.” Then if this be so, where, I would ask, is the inconsistency or the unreasonableness of ascribing the special character of this passage to the divine intention which was claimed for it by Philip the evangelist? Such an inference would, of course, not be scientific, for it is impossible to have a scientific proof of any such thing as prophecy. It is impossible to have a scientific proof of the special manifestation of the will of God. There was nothing scientific in the action of Christ or the teaching of Christ. Nor is it possible to have any special declaration of the will of God conveyed in a scientific manner or by scientific means, for science is concerned only with the orderly workings of the divine mind in nature; whereas, if prophecy is a fact, it is independent of, and superior to, the ordinary operations of nature. Every attempt, therefore, to explain the phenomena of prophecy by reducing them to the terms of the experimental and the natural must necessarily be destructive of prophecy, if, indeed, there is any such thing. HBS 348.5

Now my position is, that the phenomena of Old Testament prophecy, apart altogether from its productive features, are such as to defy explanation upon natural principles, and to be entirely without parallel elsewhere; and I point to Isaiah 53 as illustrating my position. It defies explanation, whether written in the sixth century or the eighth, and as it thus defies explanation upon any other supposition than that of Philip the evangelist, a strong presumption is created that the character he claimed for it is its real character. This, of course, is not a position that is capable of being demonstrated, or therefore that is scientific; but, so far as it is a just and valid position, it is one that involves and implies the exercise of the supernatural. And if the prophet was enabled to write, as he did, in language which could not refer to himself or others, but did refer to Jesus Christ, and was intended to do so, this can no more be accounted for or explained naturally than the mention of Cyrus by name can. And it is only throwing dust in our eyes to say that the mention of Cyrus by name, in the time of Isaiah, is more contrary to “the analogy of prophecy,” or more difficult of explanation, than the utterances of the fifty-third chapter are, always supposing that these utterances were intended by the Holy Spirit to refer solely to Jesus Christ, and were imparted to Isaiah with that intent. HBS 349.1

With this proviso it is certainly not more easy to account for or explain Isaiah 53 if we suppose it written at Babylon in the sixth century than at Jerusalem in the eighth. Nothing whatever is gained on behalf of “the analogy of prophecy” by referring it to the later date, unless, that is, in so doing, we hope to elude suspicion as to our disbelief of its true character by bringing all its phenomena within the limits of the purely natural, historical, and personal. But if that is our secret hope, the sooner we confess it the better, in order that men may know what it is we are really aiming at, which is the denial of prophecy as a phenomenon out of the region of the ordinary, the experimental, and the scientific. HBS 349.2

If Isaiah 53 stood alone, it might be more easy to deal with it; but it is one only of a large number of scriptures that must ever remain hopeless enigmas if dealt with as merely natural productions, for it is not in the prophets only that we meet with apparent prophecies. The Psalms are full of passages that can never have referred to any human writer, and the books of the law, and the historical books, as a whole, present numerous features that are confirmatory of this position, and are of the nature of prophecy. And it is only by doing violence to these and the like features that we can reduce the Scriptures of the Old Testament to the same level as the ordinary literature of other nations. The Old Testament literature either is or is not entirely exceptional; if it is not, we must belie its witness to itself and obliterate its most characteristic features; if it is, there is nothing to, be done but to confess its unique character and to decide accordingly. HBS 349.3

3. The dislike of miracle and the objection to prophecy arise from and involve a disbelief in revelation as a real and actual fact, and this disbelief infects and underlies the mass of our modern thought. The simple question is, whether the God of nature has ever spoken to us in any other way than by nature, or whether the indications of his having done so may not rather be referred to the spontaneous action of our own minds, which we father upon God and attribute to him, when they really emanate from ourselves. This is the position of Kuenen, who regards Christianity as one of the principal religions of the world, with no more claim to a real objective origin than any other. HBS 349.4

All the miracles of Scripture, therefore, are resolved at best into erroneous subjective impressions, and the prophets of the Old Testament had nothing more than their own convictions to rest on and are proved to have been false prophets by the failure of their predictions to be realized. HBS 350.1

Now, of course, if we take the Old Testament alone, and by itself, it may be possible to establish this position more or less successfully; but if the Old Testament is part of a whole, of which the ultimate and more significant part is the New Testament, and the facts of the Christian religion, then we are not only forbidden so to take it, but our estimate of the Old Testament must be affected by our judgment concerning the New. HBS 350.2

We fall back then, as before, upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This either was, or was not, a fact. If the laws of nature are supreme and universal, it obviously was not a fact, because it fundamentally contradicts them; but if it actually did occur, without mistake or illusion, then it not only is impossible to say what other marvelous facts may not have occurred in the long course of preparation for that event, but also the occurrence of it renders probable such a course of preparation, with all its attendant features of miracle and prophecy. HBS 350.3

But if Jesus Christ really and actually lived again after having died, it becomes absolutely certain that God has spoken to us in a manner other than by nature. For he has spoken to us by his Son, who exercised an absolute command over nature, and appealed to his command over nature as supplying the credentials of his mission and origin. I by no means say that this is the only way of representing or regarding the mission of Christ, but I do venture to affirm most emphatically that in whatever way we regard Christ, we cannot fail to recogninze the fact that he advanced his own mighty works as bearing valid testimony to his divine claims. We cannot therefore accept him and reject his works, and we cannot accept either him or his works without acknowledging the action of the supernatural, and without taking our stand upon an elevation which is above the reach and the demonstration of science. It is impossible to explain scientifically any one of Christ’s miracles, as it is to prove or explain scientifically his own resurrection. But if we have sufficient reason to believe that God has actually spoken to us by his Son, we must regard it as not wholly improbable that he may have spoken as truly and miraculously in the ages before he came, as he did when he came in the fulness of time. The one question which underlies all others, is the question whether or not Christ truly rose from the dead, and whether or not he had an exclusive right to be called the Son of God. If he had, then the cause of supernatural religion is secure; but if there is no adequate reason to believe in the supernatural, then it becomes impossible to believe in Jesus Christ; for not only did he deceive himself, but he did likewise most completely deceive us. HBS 350.4

If, however, we accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a literal and actual fact, a rising again to life after having been dead, we are virtually committed to a belief in the general character and framework of that history which led up to it, and of which it claimed to be the purpose and the outcome. The redemption of Israel from Egypt, the giving of the law, the divine guidance and direction of the fortunes of the nation, as declared and interpreted by the prophets, are all presupposed in the history which set the seal to those events, and consequently it is of vital importance that these things are not fictions or fictitious representations of distorted facts. Every investigation therefore which tends to confirm and verify them as historic and real is of value in relation to the history of Christ, and every investigation which tends to show that the true origin of the law was not human, but divine, is likewise of value, and the witness of the prophets is conclusive evidence to their estimate of its character as divine, and so far confirmatory evidence of the claims of Christ.—“The Law in the Prophets,” Rev. Stanley Leathes, D. D., pp. 271-277. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1891. HBS 350.5

Mohammed.—Mohammed was born at Mecca in Arabia, 570 a. d., of the powerful tribe of the Koreish. In early life he was a camel driver noted for his faithfulness, and while acting as business manager of the wealthy widow Khadijah for a year, won her love and they were married in Mohammed’s twenty-sixth year. HBS 351.1

The religion of the Arabs was at this time mostly a degraded fetischism, but Mohammed was accustomed to spend long periods on Mt. Hira in fasting and prayer. About this time he began to see visions, and to suffer attacks of convulsions. We believe these visions and convulsions to have unquestionably been due to his own weakness, long fasts, and overexertion: the ascetics of the desert of Egypt, and, in fact, all such ascetics have been subject to similar delusions, while even overworked bicycle racers today have fancies not unlike them in real nature. Mohammed thought the angel Gabriel revealed to him in succession some of the earliest chapters of the Koran, and began preaching, first for three years in secret, then nine years in public, but with few converts. HBS 351.2

In 620 a. d. he converted six men of the town of Yatreb, and two years later the whole town swore allegiance to the new faith. His followers at Mecca emigrated to Yatreb, and later he escaped from Mecca and joined them. Henceforth Yatreb was called Medina (City of the Prophet). War arose between the Koreish and Medina. Mohammed was at first successful, then defeated, and glad to sign a truce that was soon broken by the Koreish. He thereupon marched against them with ten thousand men, and they surrendered without a battle. HBS 351.3

His faith spread rapidly, and at his death in 632 a. d. was the religion of Arabia and had begun to encroach on the Greek and Persian empires. HBS 351.4

The results of Mohammedism have been greatly underestimated. In the century after Mohammed’s death it wrested Asia Minor, Africa, and Spain from Christianity, more than half of the civilized world, and established a civilization, the highest in the world during the Dark Ages.—“The Library of Original Sources,” edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. IV, pp. 240, 241. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. HBS 351.5

Mohammedanism. -Mohammed divides with Buddha and the Brahman the religious sovereignty of the Oriental mind, yet the sovereignties are in idea, in type, and in form worlds apart. All three are rooted in religion, but the faith of the Brahman is a polytheism so multitudinous and tolerant as to include everything that men may call deity, if only the deity will consent to be included and to be respectful to those who dwelt in the pantheon before him. The sovereignty of Buddha is that of the ideal man and the idealized pity, which, without concern or care for any god, draws humanity toward the dreamless beatitude he has himself attained; while Mohammed’s is strictly derivative and representative, due to his being the one sufficient and authoritative spokesman of the one merciful and almighty God. The Brahman’s sovereignty is social and heritable, came to him by the blood which defined his place and function in society as well as his office before the gods and on behalf of men; but both Buddha’s and Mohammed’s may be described as in a sense personal, though it was acquired by the one through his own efforts, achievements, and merits, and granted to the other by the will and deed of his God. The sovereignty of the Brahman is expressed in the society he has organized, the system, at once natural and artificial, of caste; while Buddha’s is expressed in a society whose orders correspond to his theory of merit, and Mohammed’s in a brotherhood where all are equal before a God too great to know any respect of persons. The image, or the symbol, of his god which the Brahman loves is to Mohammed but a shameful and empty idol, while the statue which the Buddhist reveres speaks to him of a still more graceless idolatry, the supersession of the uncreated God by the created man he had appointed to be his minister. But though his sovereignty is not represented to the eye by any image, it yet has a fitter and more imperious symbol, a book which reveals the mind of God and proclaims the law which man is bound under the most awful and inexorable sanctions to obey. The worship it enjoins is one of stern yet majestic simplicity; it concerns God only, and there is but the one God who has made Mohammed his final and sovereign prophet, and declared through him that all idols are “idleness and vanity.”-“The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,” Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 277, 278. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. HBS 351.6

Mohammedanism.—Circumcision is used in Mohammedanism as the badge of the faith. It is commonly performed between the sixth and eighth year.—Standard Encyclopedia of the World’s Knowledge, Vol. XVII, art. “Mohammedanism,” p. 362. HBS 352.1

Mohammedanism. -Mohammedanism has unique claims upon the interest of the student of religions.... It is the one world religion outside of Christianity the origins of which lie open in the light of history. It arose in one man’s lifetime, was shaped by one hand and directed by a single mentality. It is a religion in which the miraculous is minimized, yet within eighty years it won an empire as great as Christianity’s in the time of Constantine, and it is still extending its influence. [p. 436] ... HBS 352.2

Idolatry was already under suspicion, and there was consequently an opening for the prophet’s resolute preaching. Mohammed’s repute for wisdom grew with the frequency with which he was called upon to act as arbiter; his decisions he claimed not as his own, but as the dictates of Allah, and his position soon came to be practically that of city judge and dictator. Ordinances for practice were soon formulated by the prophet; prayer was directed toward Mecca (not Jerusalem, which, in the endeavor to conciliate the Jews and gain their support, he had formerly adopted), the fast of Tisri was changed for that of Ramadan. The five fundamentals of Islam were conceived and formulated at Medina. Most important of all, citizenship was made dependent not on family but on faith, preparing the way for a united Arabia and a world religion. For the triumph of the faith the bonds of kinship had to yield if they stood in its way-Mohammed did not blanch at fratricidal war. The idolater, even though a brother, was doomed unless he gave up this practice, and to the believer belonged the idolater’s goods. [p. 437] ... HBS 352.3

The fundamental theological doctrine of Islam is the unity of God, whose will, declared by the prophet Mohammed, is law for man. The doctrine of God is intensely and baldly unitarian. Special points antagonized were the Christian trinity and the deity of Christ. Emphasis was laid upon the sovereignty of Allah and his omnipotence. Allah was not a philosophic first cause, but a present active agency ever working in his world and accomplishing his purposes. In other words, Mohammed’s was a practical, not a speculative monotheism. Allah was sharply distinguished from his creation, and the latter included evil as well as good. HBS 353.1

From no logical consequences of this doctrine did the founder shrink. Right is right, not because of its essence, but because Allah decrees it. Hence Mohammedan predestination is arbitrary in its absoluteness, acquiring the force of fatalism. The practical result was the inspiration of a magnificent but terrible courage. Arab warriors went into battle convinced that their life span was so definitely determined that whether they stayed at home or went to the fight their hap would surely overtake them. This fanaticism was intensified by the eschatology of the faith, which is gross, crude, and vivid. Both heaven and hell are material, both are preceded by resurrection and judgment, through which all Moslems pass with success-though some may have to be purified in purgatory. But the warrior who dies in battle is sure of paradise. HBS 353.2

It is to these facts that the dread of a jehad, or holy war, is due. Hell is in seven regions, of which the first is purgatory; to hell all infidels (non-Mohammedans) are destined. Heaven is across a chasm over which is a bridge broad and easy for the believer, but shrinking to the width of a razor’s edge when infidels attempt its passage, and they then fall from it into the fire which for them is eternal. While the delights of the Moslem heaven as portrayed in the Koran are sensual, there can be no doubt that, as in other religions, the idea conveyed depends upon the mental and spiritual culture of the individual. [p. 439] ... HBS 353.3

Briefly, the four practical points of the Mohammedan creed are: (1) prayer five times a day, directed toward Mecca; (2) almsgiving on a fixed scale at least, above that scale according to one’s inclination; (3) fasting in the daytime during Ramadan; (4) pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime. These things are regarded as most firmly binding on all Moslems. [pp. 439, 440]-The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, art. “Mohammed, Mohammedanism,” pp. 436-440. HBS 353.4

Mohammedanism, Extent of—Mohammedanism possesses something which appeals to certain races or certain stages of culture, and the attraction is still potent. It now stretches in a broad belt from the Atlantic shores of Africa over all the equatorial and northern part of that continent, through the Turkish dominions, Persia, Turkestan, Afghanistan, India, and the Chinese Empire to the islands of the Pacific; and it is making more converts in Africa and the islands northeast of Asia than is Christianity, the other great proselytizing religion of the world. Probably 200,000,000 is a conservative estimate of the number of Mohammedans at the present time.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, art. “Mohammedanism,” p. 227. HBS 353.5

Monarchy, The Divided, Israel.— HBS 354.1

[Table of Leading Features of Periods, Dynasties, Kings, Lengths of Reigns, Prophets, Kings of Judah] HBS 354.2

-“A Manual of Bible History,” Rev. William G. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., p. 270. London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1906. HBS 354.3

Monarchy, The Divided, Judah.— HBS 355.1

[Table of Leading Features of Periods, Kings, Lengths of Reigns, Prophets, Kings of Israel] HBS 355.2

-“A Manual of Bible History,” Rev. William G. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., p. 301. London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1906. HBS 355.3

Monasticism, Historical Notes Concerning.—It was during the period between the third and the sixth century that there grew up in the church the institution known as Monasticism. This was so remarkable a system, and one that exerted so profound an influence upon medieval and even later history, that we must here acquaint ourselves with at least its spirit and aims. HBS 356.1

The term “monasticism,” in its widest application, denotes a life of austere self-denial and of seclusion from the world, with the object of promoting the interests of the soul. As thus defined, the system embraced two prominent classes of ascetics: (1) Hermits, or anchorites,-persons who, retiring from the world, lived solitary lives in desolate places; (2) cenobites, or monks, who formed communities and lived usually under a common roof.... HBS 356.2

St. Anthony, an Egyptian ascetic (b. about a. d. 251), who by his example and influence gave a tremendous impulse to the movement, is called the “Father of the Hermits.” ... HBS 356.3

Most renowned of all the anchorites of the East was St. Simeon Stylites, the Saint of the Pillar (d. a. d. 459), who spent thirty-six years on a column only three feet in diameter at the top, which he had gradually raised to a height of over fifty feet. HBS 356.4

During the fourth century the anchorite type of asceticism, which was favored by the mild climate of the Eastern lands and especially by that of Egypt, assumed in some degree the monastic form; that is to say, the fame of this or that anchorite or hermit drew about him a number of disciples, whose rude huts or cells formed what was known as a laura, the nucleus of a monastery. HBS 356.5

Soon after the cenobite system had been established in the East it was introduced into Europe, and in an astonishingly short space of time spread throughout all the Western countries where Christianity had gained a foothold. Here it prevailed to the almost total exclusion of the hermit mode of life. Monasteries arose on every side. The number that fled to these retreats was vastly augmented by the disorder and terror attending the invasion of the barbarians and the overthrow of the empire in the West.—“Medimval and Modern History.” Philip Van Ness Myers, pp. 22-24. Boston: Ginn & Co., copyright 1919. HBS 356.6

Moses, Genealogy of.—The immediate pedigree of Moses is as follows: HBS 356.7

[Table from Levi to Phineas and Jonathan] HBS 356.8

-“A Dictionary of the Bible,” William Smith, LL. D., p. 417, Teacher’s edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. HBS 356.9