quantity, and I submit the following proposition, begging the advocates of the nebular hypothesis to show that it is an error, if it be one: In a contracting, rotating spheroid, actuated by no external force, there can be no acceleration of the actual velocity of the peripheral portions, and there can be no increase of the centrifugal force. This proposition, if true, is fatal to the nebular theory. I think the proposition demonstrable.

It may be thought that the increase of actual velocities found successively in the planets as we pass from Neptune toward the sun illustrates a fact in the contraction of the solar nebula quite the opposite of my proposition. For it is true that each successive planet moves through space with a higher volocity than its immediate predecessor. Neptune has an actual velocity of about 12,500 miles an hour; Uranus, 15,000; Saturn, 21,000; Jupiter, 28,700; Mars, 53,000; Earth, 65,000; Venus, 77,000; Mercury, 105,000. Does not this show that the parent spheroid had given to the peripheral portions increasing actual velocity? My reply is, Go on. Examine the present actual velocity of the peripheral portions of the parent spheroid, the sun. Hypothetically it has continued to shrink until now. Mr. Winchell says it is demonstrable that so long as it continues to shrink the velocity of its peripheral portions will continue to be accelerated. It has contracted about 34,000,000 miles of its radius. It must have reached a very high velocity, for it has contracted into a very small volume, and the tidal friction caused by the smaller planets nearest to it cannot greatly hinder its rotation. Behold! The peripheral portions of this body are moving at the rate of about ten thousand miles an hour. From one hundred and five thousand to ten thousand is not a very rapid acceleration. And the same thing is found in the Saturnian and Jovian systems. The satellites of Saturn exhibit, successively, a higher velocity, ranging from 8,000 an hour in the most distant to 33,000 miles an hour in the nearest, but Saturn itself has an equatorial velocity of only 21,000. The satellites of Jupiter exhibit velocities ranging from 19,000 miles an hour to 40,000, but the peripheral portions of Jupiter have a velocity of only 28,000.

What is the explanation of these facts in the system of the world? Based on the postulates of the nebular hypothesis I know of none. Reflecting that these orbital velocities are ex

actly what are required to maintain these bodies in their respective orbits and produce the stability of the system; reflecting that the eccentricities and the inclination of the orbits all have some relation to the same end; we may conclude that this system of the world must be the production of a being whose wisdom and power are illustrated in its constitution. Thus to us "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork." Devotion may be kindled by the contemplation of his works, and we may rest in the assurance that He who, moment by moment, directs the movements of mighty globes, does not forget the meanest of his creatures. While we employ no theological argument against the nebular hypothesis, we are conducted by the consideration of scientific data alone to a theological conclusion which is full of comfort.

ART. V. THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.

Preliminary

1. Things assumed—

SYLLABUS.

(1.) The genuineness of the sacred books.
(2.) The authenticity of the sacred books.

2. Elements which must be eliminated

(1.) All additions to the text, such as the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew, (sixth to tenth centuries,) Greek breathings and accents (seventh and eighth centuries,) Greek punctuation, (complete in the ninth century,) etc.

(2.) All additions to the subject-matter, such as the titles of books, (those of the Pentateuch are later than 285 B. C., those of the Gospels and Epistles took their present form probably in the second century A. D., while of the others the date is more uncertain,) the subscriptions to the Pauline Epistles, (fifth century,) and the titles of the Psalms. (Possibly some of these are original; certainly they are older than the Septuagint, 285 B. C.)

(3.) All modifications by way of division and arrangement. Among these are the Parshioth of the Pentateuch, (greater, earlier than the second century, lesser, fourth century;) the Haphtaroth of the prophets, (of uncertain date;) the Ammonean sections of the Gospels, substantially preserved in our modern paragraphs, (third century;) the chapter-division (1248 A. D.;) and the verse-division, (New Testament, 1551 A. D.-Old Testament, made by the Masoretic punctuation mentioned above.) The most important issue involved in arrangement is in the position assigned to the book of Hebrews, which in the catalogues of the Eastern Church follows Thessalonians, but in those of the Western Church comes after Philemon. This difference of arrangement is an evident indication of difference of view as to its Pauline authorship. A. The Fact.

1. General course of proof.

(1.) Christ is divine. This is shown

a. By his relation to Old Testament prophecy.
b. By his strange and unique career.

c. By the unaccountable originality of his sayings.
d. By the absolute perfection of his character.
e. By his miracles.

f. By his unmistakable assumption of divine pre-
rogatives.

(2.) Hence Christianity is divine, for it is simply an expansion of Christ's life.

a. Christianity developed, which is the New Tes

tament religion

(a.) In its principles.

(b.) In its organs, which are eminently the sacred books and the sacred offices.

(c.) In its work.

b. Christianity germinant- The Old Testament

religion

(a.) In its origin.

(b.) In its manifestations.

(c.) In its end or outcome-The incarnation

of Christ.

2. Particular proofs of the divinity of the Scriptures. (1.) The writers of Scripture were inspired. These

were

a. Prophets. From these we have the Old Testament, which is, as a whole, essentially prophetic, and, in considerable part, formally so.

(a.) The inspiration of these men is everywhere claimed in the Old Testament. Isa. i, 1, 2; Ezek. i, 3; Hos. i, 1, etc.

(b.) And is borne witness to in the New Testament. 2 Peter i, 21; Acts i, 16; 1 Peter i, 10-12; Acts xxviii, 25, etc.

b. Apostles. From these we have the New Testament, which is essentially apostolic in its function a body of apostolic testimony and teaching.

(a.) To them inspiration was promised. Matt. x, 19, 20; John xiv, 26, etc.

(b.) By them claimed or assumed. 1 Cor. ii, 13; xiv, 37; 1 Thess. ii, 13, etc.

(2.) The phenomena of Scripture prove its inspiration. Among these phenomena are its predictions of future and contingent events, its supernatural revelations, and its wondrous power of searching the heart.

(3.) Our Lord and his apostles recognize the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures. Matt. xxii, 43; Mark xii, 36; Acts xxviii, 25; John xii, 41; Heb. ix, 8, etc.

(4.) Scripture makes this direct claim for itself

a. By the terms employed, such as "the Scripture." Matt. xxii, 29; Mark xiv, 49; Rom. iv, 3, "Holy Scriptures." Rom. i, 2; 2 Tim.

etc.

iii, 15, etc.

b. By the term Scripture used as synonymous with its divine Author. Gal. iii, 8; Gen. xii, 1-3; Romans ix, 17; Exod. ix, 16; Heb. iii, 7; Psa. xcv, 7.

c. By direct assertion. 2 Tim. iii, 16; 2 Peter i, 21; iii, 16.

(5.) This was the uniform faith of the early Church. See Lee on "Inspiration," Appendix G.; or Westcott's "Introduction to the Gospels," Appendix B.

3. Objections.

(1.) Inspiration is not necessary to account for much of the Bible. Take, for instance, the historical books. Their human authors were competent to write them without supernatural aid; indeed, we are accustomed to rest the claims of the Bible to authenticity on this very assumption. If, then, they belong to the domain of man, why ascribe them to God?

a. But who is competent to say that inspiration was unnecessary here? May it not be that to write the histories of the Bible, with their proper adjustments, required divine aid as much as to write prophecy itself?

b. The histories of the Bible are fundamental. Every thing rests upon them, or is an outgrowth from them. To leave out inspiration here and bring it in in prophecy or psalm, is to place the greater below the less. The grandest phenomenon in all literature is these same historical books, especially the gospels.

c. This view is opposed to the explicit statement of Scripture concerning itself. The external testimony to the inspiration of these books is as perfect as to that of any portion of Scripture. (2.) Many things in the Bible are too trivial to comport with the dignity of inspiration. For example, Paul's mention of his cloak and parchments, his advice to Timothy about drinking wine, his personal salutations, etc.

a. But things are trivial or important often, not because of what they are in themselves, but because of their relations.

b. If any human trait or feature is in place in the Bible, why not these? The summit of the loftiest mountain is no nearer the overarching firmament than the common level of the world.