Chapter 16 First Major Book A climactic event in Machen's earlier career, occurring not long after the fortieth anniversary of his birth, was the publication of his brilliant book on the origin of Paul's religion in the year 1921. Though the designation Opus Magnum has to be reserved for The Virgin Birth of Christ, published in 1930, the book on Paul, in The Judgment of the Biographer, excels in some respects even that volume, whose preparation was a principal concern for about twenty-five years. it is considerably smaller than the later book, is less demonstrative of Machen's massive scholarship, and perhaps is somewhat less masterful as an example of fine scholarly writing. But it was dealing with a more comprehensive and more difficult theme. really with the fundamental question of the origin of Christianity, and the acute manner in which this question was analyzed, the clarity and vigor in which his discussion and argument were carried through from beginning to end, and the pervasiveness of his reasoning contribute to the verdict that it is a book of rare excellence. Though we shall be concerned here with the publication of this volume and the reception accorded it in the Church and the scholarly world, perhaps even more interest attaches to the story of its preparation. As has been observed, the book consists substantially of lectures delivered on the Sprunt Foundation at Union Seminary of Richmond, to which Machen had been invited already in 1915. The call to service in the war had prevented any sustained activity until his return, and when it appeared that the date for their delivery could not well be postponed beyond the early weeks of the year 1921, Machen was placed under extraordinary pressure to do justice to the occasion. His own comments on various phases of this preparatory labor form a revealing and fascinating story in themselves. Exacting Demands If only Machen had not had anything else to do during this period, he might have been much more at ease. Our preceding pages have shown, however, that he was practically overwhelmed with the multiplicity of duties. Following his return home from the war, he was under a severe burden in seeking to provide the pastoral care required by R.H., the former drunkard, and several exhausting trips had to be taken to deal with emergencies which arose. And the preceding chapter has indicated how absorbing and demanding of time and energy the church union battle had been for a period of somewhat over a year. He was preaching nearly every Sunday, and oftentimes during the week. Of course, there were also the constant demands made by his teaching schedule. It was during this period also that his peace of mind was somewhat disturbed by invitations which, if accepted, would have taken him away from Princeton. One of these was from Dubuque, and the other from Louisville. The former approach was undertaken by a friend from student days at Princeton onward. David Burrell, who was on the faculty at Dubuque, and it was made on the authorization of Dr. Steffens, president of the institution. Evidently, Machen did not require prolonged reflection to reach the decision that he could not see his way clear to accept this call. Rather serious consideration was given for a time, however, to the approach made on behalf of Louisville, the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky, by the president of the institution, Dr. C. R. Hemphill. As a student and faculty member at Columbia Seminary, Hemphill had been acquainted with and had esteemed Machen's grandfather, Judge John J. Gressom, director of that seminary. On June 20, 1919, Hemphill wrote Machen that he had long had a covetous eye on him. It appears also that Harris Kirk was in touch with Dr. Hemphill and was encouraging him in his desire to secure Machen's services for this seminary, which was partially under the supervision of certain synods of the Southern Church. In his reply, Machen did not offer much encouragement, but he did add that he would not like the impression to be fixed among my friends that I am determined to remain all my life at Princeton Seminary without careful consideration of opportunities of usefulness which may be offered to me elsewhere. Some time went by before this was followed up very definitely, but early in the year 1920, Dr. Hemphill wrote at length concerning Louisville and the opportunities it offered, and expressed the desire to see him. By this time, however, Machen felt more firmly bound to Princeton, its opportunities, and its problems, and, as he informed his mother on February 3, 1920, he asked Dr. Hemphill to drop consideration of his name. One factor influencing this decision may have been the fact that, commencing with the fall of 1919, Machen had entered upon a period of greater satisfaction with the response to his teaching, which was partially indicated by the fact that a considerably larger number of students than in the years prior to the war were enrolling in his elective courses. Moreover, he was just then engaged with the Herculean task of preparing his Sprunt Lectures, and he feared that if he changed the scene of his labors he would not be able to fulfill that appointment supremely important to him, with the prospect of the publication of a solid book. One cannot doubt, furthermore, that his sense of commitment to the cause represented by Princeton in the great Christian conflict of the day was so profound that he could not have conceived of leaving Princeton without suffering a severe wrench. And one may not overlook the deep bonds of affection that united him with Armstrong, Hodge, and other colleagues at Princeton. Romance. The unity of this chapter may not appear to be too studiously disturbed if, in addition to the matters mentioned above, space is given here to a reference to Machen's romantic life. The isolated mention of young women in his earlier letters does not, it must be confessed, provide a very firm basis for judging why he remained a bachelor. Nothing is clearer than that he was not a misogynist and that women found him attractive. His affection for and devotion to his mother was one of the most memorable characteristics of his life. But neither her attitude toward him nor his toward her was marked by a possessiveness which would have left little room for affection for other women. He was clearly very fond of many such members and friends of the family and of the Armstrong and Hodge households. That he felt at ease in such company is also plain. Occasionally, as a young man at Princeton, he went out with girls, usually in company with male companions, or on a picnic, or to a concert. The prevailing impression, however, is that his romantic interests were not highly developed, and that for the most part he preferred the company of men and the opportunity of engaging in the various aspects of his life without encumbrances often attendant upon marriage. The example of his father and his older brother, moreover, may have influenced his attitude, or the fact that they waited until they were forty or beyond to marry may disclose a distinctively Machen approach to the subject. One must most seriously allow for the possibility, however, that the real reason that Machen did not seriously pursue romance is that he did not, at least for many years, meet any available young woman who fascinated him. On one occasion, in May 1917, in connection with a visit to his cousin, the Rev. Leroy Gressom, in Salem, Virginia, he preached at nearby Hollins College and was charmed by several members of the senior class to whom he was introduced. Somewhat facetiously, he observed to his mother, they are the only pretty girls, except that one cousin of mine in Sparta, and one girl at Princeton, now long married, whom I have seen for fifteen years. Had I enjoyed such advantages before I got too old, my life might have been different. It was really lots of fun. I wish I could preach at that same senior class every Sunday, and join the class meeting afterwards. After the war, the subject of marriage was mentioned somewhat more seriously on a few occasions than the exchange of letters between his mother and himself. In January 1920, in connection with one of his preaching trips in New York State, he paid a call on a YMCA steamer acquaintance with whom he had had some correspondence. He spoke at length of the enjoyable visit he had had, and of the lady as being vivacious and having lots of sense. But he seems to think it necessary to warn his mother not to draw premature conclusions. For he added, do not, however, detect any possibility of an incipient romance. His mother was quick to answer that she was glad that he had not dropped the friendship, and said, I will not construct an incipient romance out of it since you tell me not to, but, from your account of the girl and the family, it would not seem to be such a bad thing. There was, however, one real romance in his life, though unhappily it was not destined to bloom into marriage. One would never have learned of it from the files of his personal letters, since it seems that he did not trust himself to write on the subject, extraordinary though that might seem when one considers how fully he confided in his mother. He did tell his brother Arthur about it, and in a conference concerning the projected biography in March 1944, The elder brother told me that the story, to be complete, would have to include a reference to Gresham's one love affair. He identified the lady by name, as a resident of Boston, and as intelligent, beautiful, exquisite. He further stated that apparently they were utterly devoted to each other for a time, but that the devotion never developed into an engagement to be married because she was a Unitarian. Miss S, as she may be designated, made a real effort to believe, but she could not bring her mind and heart to the point where she could share his faith. On the other hand, as Arthur Machin hardly needed to add, Gresham Machin could not possibly think of uniting his life with one who could not come to basic agreement with him with regard to the Christian faith. With the key provided by this conversation, a number of items in Machen's correspondence receive a significance that they otherwise would not have had. She was known to his mother, apparently because she was wont with members of her family to take vacations at Seal Harbor. It is likely that Machen met her there, and this was certainly not later than the summer of 1920. On this background, Machen could refer to Miss S. in his letters to his mother without divulging his deeper thoughts and feelings. The first reference to her is in a letter of October 31, 1920, in which he speaks of his expectation of taking Miss S. to see the Princeton-Harvard game in Cambridge after luncheon at the S. home. A week later he spoke of his enjoyment on the occasion, but nothing more. A number of similar, quite casual references appear in later letters. Meanwhile, his mother continued to occupy her supreme and unique place in his affections. On March 6, 1921, for example, he began a letter as follows. My dearest mother, my own dear mother, what could I ever do without you? Who else would cheer me up by some good letter just when I needed cheering the most? Who else would treasure up all the good things that were ever said about me and pass them on to me? What other letters could break in upon the dull monotony of life like your letters and bring the only little touch of warmth and love? Her own response was at once indicative of her profound enjoyment of such affection and of her unselfish concern for his lasting happiness. Her letter of March 10th began, My beloved son, since my letters to you give you such real satisfaction, I ought not to let my day slip by as I did yesterday. It is certainly a joy to be first still in one heart, but a little pathetic for you, so that I find myself wishing that you could have a good wife to understand you and share your work. That Machen's mother knew far more than he or anyone else suspected is shown incidentally by a remark in a letter of the following summer. Writing after he had left Seal Harbor, she closed a letter with the following statement and observation. Ms. S. paid me an evening visit, and we talked a little about Bible study and kindred topics, but I don't think I helped her much. I know more about her perplexities than you expect, and everything that troubles you is redoubled in my heart. Your own loving, faithful mother, MGM. In addition to these data, Machin's files bring to light perhaps two scores of letters from Miss S., several from the fall and winter of 1920-21, and others at infrequent intervals through the years that followed. None is exactly a love letter. They contain no particular expressions of affection and are always signed with a simple, always sincerely. But they serve to confirm and to enlarge the impressions gained from the other sources. They reflect from the beginning the fact that Machen had been advising her with respect to study of the Bible. He must have counseled her to read the Gospels through consecutively. He had a copy of his course of Bible study prepared for the Board of Christian Education, especially bound for her. He sent her copies of his books as they appeared. He had copies of Dr. Eerdman's little commentaries and other books sent to her. On her part, she indicated an interest in these things, but evidently it was stimulated more by the desire to please Machen than by an earnest agitation of spirit. At any rate, her mind was set awhirl as she read some of the books, and she was forced to come to the conclusion that, judged by his views as set forth in Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1923, if she was a Christian at all, she was a pretty feeble one. How tragic an ending to Machen's one real romance or approach to it! It does serve to underscore once again, however, how utterly devoted he was to his Lord. He could be counted upon in the public and conspicuous arenas of conflict, but also in the utterly private relations of life, to be true to his dearly bought convictions. Love of Children Brief mention may be made here of the happy consideration that, though he was not to enjoy the bliss of marriage and fatherhood, the circle of loved ones at home was being enlarged. There had been the children of his younger brother to charm, and later his older brother's children came to captivate him. First there had been Mary Gressam Machin, named for her grandmother, whose name was really Mary, and did not wish to have many perpetuated. Later, when a third Arthur Webster Machin was born, he said, Probably Arlie is glad it is a boy, but for my part I don't think anything could be lovelier than little Mary. Now that her parents have another baby, and so presumably have no further use of her, I think I shall just take her along with me to Princeton." To this his mother replied that the baby's parents were very happy about their little son, but you will not get Mary Gressom. This is but one bit of evidence of the deeply affectionate nature of Machen. He was a man of the tenderest compassion and sympathy, as all who really knew him delighted to testify. He loved children and was able easily to enter into their world, and they on their part responded to his attentions with adoration and rapturous delight. In this respect, as in others, he reminds us of another illustrious bachelor in the history of Princeton Seminary, the genial Joseph Addison Alexander. The six Armstrong children were his chief source of joy at Princeton and held almost the place in his heart that he accorded his own nieces and nephews. Since he spent so much of his time in Princeton, he did not see nearly as much of the latter as he desired, though the letters from Baltimore kept him well informed of their welfare. Christmas was the great opportunity of seeing them and sharing in their joys. He contributed to their happiness by giving considerable time and thought to the selection of gifts that would please, but his rare ability to enter with simplicity of manner and warmth of feeling into their experiences was remembered when the gifts were forgotten. Machen's attitude toward children was basically the fruit of his extraordinary humility. As his prayers constantly disclosed, if ever a man received the kingdom as a little child, it was he. This characteristic is also reflected in a story of a Christmas celebration of some years later than this period, after a third child, Betsy, had become a member of the Arthur Machen household. Betsy, while playing on a Meccano toy, had become naughty and was told by her mother to pack it up and place it in another room. Evidently upset, she dropped the container on her way out, with the result that the parts scattered far and wide. Instantly her uncle Gressom was on his knees to help her pick them up, when the little girl's mother forbade him on the ground that the child was clearly at fault and the punishment was just. But, answered Machen, that is exactly why I sympathize with her and want to help her. So frequently in my own life the troubles that have overcome me have been my own fault. Toiling on Paul The recital of events in this and the preceding chapters has indicated that many duties and cares were resting upon him during the period when he was faced with the preparation of his Richmond lectures and the labors connected with the publication of his book on Paul. Considering his years of interest in Paul, as reflected in his earlier teaching and writing, One might suppose that the composition of the book would have been a relatively easy task, but such an evaluation would display little knowledge of the toil involved in writing a book, least of all a Machen book. Some of his comments on the subject are most revealing. When the date for the lectures was definitely settled for the winter of 1920-21, he was rather overwhelmed at the burden that had come upon him. The only question is, he wrote on December 2, 1919, can I get ready for next year? Work, work, work must be the rule. Work indeed was the master day after day, at Princeton, on holiday at Seal Harbor, and wherever he happened to be. It is fascinating how much was done in hotel rooms where he could feel free from the eventuality of interruption. July 15, 1920 finds him in the Hotel Lenox in Boston, and he writes, My dearest mother, I am still at this charming spot. It is the best place to work in that I have found for a long time. My room is on the top floor. There are no nuisances, and everything is fine and dandy. The last two mornings have been devoted without interruption to writing on my book. It has been as painful as pulling teeth. I suffered intensely. I paced the floor in agony. I dawdled because nothing would come to me. but I was quite uninterrupted, and I did get something done. The product, I am afraid, is miserably poor, and I do not see how even the skilled Mrs. Doanhower is going to read my handwriting when she tackles the typewriting job. Furthermore, I have been working only on the introduction, which had long been in my mind and which had even taken shape to a considerable extent in informal lectures. But at least I have made a beginning. I wish I could stay right here. In the afternoon I have been going out to work at the Harvard Library. Then I have taken long walks and a good bath. Later he was working intensely at the Vanderbilt Hotel in New York, and he must have produced a fairly large portion of the work before the seminary opened in the fall of 1920. However, there was still considerable ground to cover at the time, and he had to ensure uninterrupted quiet away from Princeton in order to bring the work to completion. As it happened, he had preaching engagements for several Sundays at the First and Central Church in Wilmington in November and December, and by staying on in his room at the Hotel DuPont, he was able to utilize the Mondays to great advantage. On November 15th, he was now at a hotel in New York, he wrote of the progress made the preceding Monday. On Monday morning at the DuPont Hotel, I got in the best work on my Sprint Lectures that I have been able to accomplish for some time. I composed or wrote from 8.30 a.m. till after 3 p.m. without stopping for lunch. Charlie Candy wants me to stay with him on my next visit, but I must get out of it. I simply must have another of those precious mornings of work. You may remember that I cannot write at any time except in the mornings, and I cannot write in the mornings if I have to talk to anybody before I get started. Fortunately, my classes at Princeton this year do not begin, except Thursday, till 1030 a.m. I usually get started on Sprint at about 810 and work hard till 1030. During this past week I wrote about 10 pages a day, 100 words to the page. Just now I am in the portion of my lectures about which I am best prepared. A sticky stage will come soon. Yesterday I preached at Stamford, Connecticut. In order to get that all-important, uninterrupted Monday morning, I came to New York Sunday night, Stamford being only 35 miles from here. Unfortunately, I lost sleep both Saturday night and Sunday night, so that the results of this morning's work were disappointing. I worked hard from about eight o'clock till about half-past one, but a large part of the time was spent in the throes of unsuccessful efforts at composing. I got only about eighteen pages written, and a considerable part, I am afraid, will have to be torn up. He began to fear that he might have to cut short his precious days with his mother at the Christmas season, and asked for her understanding. She was, of course, most generous in her response, and writing on November 25th, said, My beloved son, I take the first opportunity of writing in answer to your letter to assure you, as far as words can, that I do thoroughly understand the pressure you are under about the work on the Sprint Lectures. I know also that the present labor is not by any means a pleasurable recreation to you, but involves the intellectual effort and moral strain that come from the carrying out of a difficult undertaking. To me, it is the most important thing in life. And for me to be perfectly willing for you to use your holidays or such part of them as necessary is not unselfish because the work ranks far above any lesser consideration. I sympathize and I understand. If I cannot make you see this, it is because language is inadequate. Here is where faith in a person comes in. You love me very dearly and admire me in some ways more than I deserve. But somehow, somewhere, I have failed to inspire you with faith. I could not do otherwise than understand you, my own beloved son. I would not be myself if I did not. It would be a comfort if you could rest in my perfect love a little more securely. The divine love is infinitely greater, but it cannot be more true. I do not take too seriously what you say about your lack of preparation. I believe you are now in the throes of a great work, and I sympathize, too, with your evident discouragement and shed some tears over it, because I cannot bear to see you suffer. In his reply of November 29th, he said he felt repentant for having caused her to shed tears about his lack of preparation for his lectures. He was now back at the DuPont in Wilmington, and on that Monday had gotten in some very fruitful work. There is something about the 11th floor of the Hotel DuPont that stimulates literary activity, he wrote, but he was more encouraged about the quantity than the quality. He stayed over two more Sundays in that delightful spot, and the following Friday went to New York and was able to put in a good forenoon of work. Regretful, however, that his conscience with regard to Sabbath observance did not permit him to continue when his mind had gone into high gear. He had now written enough for four or five courses of lectures, and would have to give thought to preparation with a view to their delivery. how he longed for at least two months longer to give to the lectures. The labor was finally brought to a conclusion without the sacrifice of his stay at home over the holidays, and in early January he went to Richmond to deliver the lectures. His stay in Richmond proved most delightful. He was the guest of President Moore, whom his mother described as one of the finest and best men I have ever known, and with whom, as has been recalled, Machen had previously had pleasant contacts. There were also delightful associations with the professors of the seminary, and he enjoyed the experience of hearing several of them teach their classes. To add to the pleasure of the occasion, his cousin Louis H. Machin and his wife Aldine resided in Richmond, and it was always a joy to renew fellowship with these affectionate and appreciative relatives. Eight lectures were scheduled in all, and Machen chose to deliver them, except for part of the first, completely without benefit of notes. Though he was characteristically deprecatory in his estimate of the impact which he had made, his cousin reported to his mother that he had made a hit, and that Dr. Moore had told him that the lecturer had made a splendid impression and helped the students greatly. And Dr. Moore himself, though evidently restrained in his remarks to Machin, had been quick to apprise his mother of the unqualified success of the lectures. His letter was as follows. Richmond, Virginia, January 15, 1921. Mrs. Minnie G. Machin, 217 West Monument Street, Baltimore, Maryland. My dear Mrs. Machin, this is a congested week for us, but I must snatch a moment to tell you how greatly delighted our professors, students, and people are with Gressom's James Sprunt Lectures. He is giving us one of the most instructive series we have ever had, and they are delivered with remarkable ease and effectiveness. There was a suggestion of nervousness at the beginning of the first lecture, which, however, soon passed away, and since that time they have proceeded in a full golden stream. I wish very much it had been possible for you to hear them. In addition to the benefits of the lectures, we have had great pleasure in the personal associations with him which we have enjoyed. He came right into the current of the life of the seminary and community in a way that no preceding lecturer in this foundation has done. And he is taking in the various activities of the seminary every day he has opportunity. And so his days have been full and busy. and he seemed to enjoy the fellowship of the campus, which has always been one of the attractive features of the institution. This is not merely a conventional note. I knew that you would be deeply interested in the success of his lectures here, which are to constitute his first book, and I have given you the facts without adornment. His lectures have been an unqualified success. Cordially yours, W. W. Moore. The Book The press of duties at Princeton did not even permit Machen to stop off at Baltimore on the way back from Richmond. He was determined not to rest until his manuscript was ready for publication, and, with all the other matters that were pressing upon him at the time, including the church union issue in its crucial stages, he had to strain every nerve to complete it by March 26th. The origin of Paul's religion had come by this time, at the suggestion of Dr. Moore, to be adopted as the title instead of the more prosaic Paul and his environment. Not because Machen liked the title very much, for he disliked the word religion, especially because of unsavory associations. But he became reconciled to it, declaring that, after all, in the book I am trying to meet the modern historian on his own ground and take the religious life of Paul, first of all, as a phenomenon of history that requires explanation. I worked hard to get some better title, but could find nothing. Armie at first disliked the origin of Paul's religion, but later came to favor it. My own development was somewhat similar. Meanwhile, Dr. Moore and Dr. Kirk had interested themselves in the publication of the work, and an approach was made to Macmillan, which resulted in an expression of interest. The manuscript was sent off to New York on March 26th, but this was only the beginning of drawn-out negotiations. Two chief obstacles to publication developed. It seemed to Macmillan that the manuscript, running to 560 typewritten pages, was so long that the sales price would have to be at an inadvisably high level, and they insisted that it would have to be reduced by about one-third. That was distressing and involved considerable labor as well. Moreover, since Machen was virtually unknown in the world of book sales, they stipulated that he should purchase 500 copies. The number was finally reduced to 400 at half of the retail price of $3. Though taken aback by this condition, and wondering whether there might not be prejudice against his theological viewpoint as a representative of Princeton, he was not unduly alarmed at the demand for subsidy. He had been paid liberally under the terms of the Sprint Lectureship. The honorarium was $1,400, and he was hopeful of disposing of the copies, especially among the students of the seminary. In the course of the next 15 years, no doubt he gave many, many times the 400 away to students in seminaries and colleges. The contract was finally signed about June 1, 1921. Even then, his difficulties were not at an end. There was, of course, the routine work of proofreading both in galleys and pages, and this had to be done meticulously. but there was an unexpected development in connection with the proposed publicizing of the book. Machen had been asked to prepare a statement giving the scope and viewpoint of the book, but when it was returned for his approval, he discovered that it had been revised in such a way that it was closer to expressing a liberal point of view than his own. He naturally had to insist on correction of this inadvertent misrepresentation, but no further difficulties arose. The book was finally published on October 9, 1921. When Machen received his first copies, his immediate concern was to send one to his mother. At the same time, he wrote her a lengthy letter giving her his first impressions of the book and expressing his general satisfaction with its appearance. The book had been dedicated to William Park Armstrong, my guide in the study of the New Testament and in all good things, and Machen wanted to explain this to his mother. Army was not expecting me to dedicate the book to him. You know the reasons that impelled me to do so. In my own heart, the book is really dedicated, despite my profound gratitude to Army, to the one person who has never failed me either in joy or in disappointment and sorrow. That person is my own dearest mother. My debt to Army, as far as the contents of the book are concerned, is enormous. I felt that the least I could do was to make a public acknowledgment of the debt. Of course, I do not mean that my gratitude to Army is not of the heart. On the contrary, he has meant to me far more than I can possibly say. He never made life miserable for me with the drudgery which is otherwise universally placed upon assistance. and he led me always in the right path by example and by counsel. How many times he straightened me out when I was in a tangle about the Sunday school lessons. Yet he never gets the slightest public credit for what he does. Hence, I felt impelled to pay him at least the slight tribute of dedicating my book to him. I wanted to say to the alumni of the seminary and others that whatever I do in the sphere of the New Testament study is due to Army's help. But in my heart, it is to my dearest mother that the book and everything else that I do is dedicated. Can anyone take account of this letter and fail to acknowledge that if ever there was a man of nobility, magnanimity, gentility, and tender considerateness, Machen was that man? But one can never forget that these qualities were not original with him. One is reminded of that again in reading his mother's response upon receiving his letter and a copy of the book over which she had agonized with her son. Hurrah for the book! I have been full of excitement all day trying to steal a moment for writing. Now the book has arrived, and I can tell you what a thrill it gave me to hold it in my hands. To me it seems a very successful presentation, dignified in aspect, readable and convenient in size, the print and paper good. I know I would think it appetizing, even if I did not know the author. But I am not such a good critic, though I do believe I know a nice book when I see one. The main satisfaction is that you are even tolerably satisfied yourself. After all the hard work and the many apprehensions and vexations of last summer, I feel as if I had been through the throes of creation with you. I am so glad the much-tortured passages came out correct at last, and that the mistakes are clearly printer's errors, and altogether I am happy about it. Now my prayers will follow it, for the accomplishment of good to the cause of Christ. That makes my life count for something. I love it all, including the dedication, which is just the right thing. If it belonged to me first, how glad I am to give it to dear Armie, who has been our guide and friend. I can have the virgin birth, and that will be an especially appropriate book to dedicate to a mother. All the beautiful things you say in your letter fill my heart with overflowing joy, and I do not need the public dedication. Of course, I haven't read it, for I have this moment taken it out of the box. General Estimate It is beyond the scope of this biography to present a detailed analysis or a critical evaluation of this volume or of other important Machen books. My primary purpose is not to estimate his significance as a theologian and New Testament scholar, though a study of that kind, that was done really well, would be eminently worthwhile. But even in a narrative stressing the more personal and intimate aspects of his life, it would be inexcusable to say nothing concerning the contents of a volume that meant as much to Machen as the origin of Paul's religion. And some attention must be given to the reception which the book received in the press of the day in order to disclose the standing which it gave him as a thinker and scholar. The message of the book is that the religion of Paul, as reflected in the teaching of his epistles, is at its heart a religion of faith in Jesus Christ as the divine Redeemer, and that the only satisfying explanation of the origin of that religious faith is to be found in the trusting acknowledgment, with Paul, of that Jesus as the person who, as the divine Redeemer, had lived and died in Palestine. Machen's exposition of this theme was at the same time a refutation of various alternative views which had been prominently held. His book is, first of all, a powerful critique of the view of modern liberalism. Paul's position was not based on the merely human historical Jesus. If Jesus was only what he is represented by modern naturalistic historians as being, then what is really distinctive of Jesus was not derived from Jesus. In connection with the refutation of the liberal view, Machen effectively appealed to the testimony of Reed and Bousset. Reed had convincingly argued that the religion and theology of Paul were inseparable, and therefore one could not save Paul as a disciple of Jesus if one's theological estimate of Jesus' person and work were given up. And Bousset stressed the conclusion that according to Paul, the lordship of Jesus involved an acknowledgment of him as a divine person. He was the object of faith and worship. Then Machen turns to examine the answers of Reed and Bousset as to the origin of Pauline Christianity, and finds them wanting. It was not derived, he showed, from the pre-Christian apocalyptic notions of the Messiah, as Reed held, for the apocalyptic Messiah was neither an object of worship nor a living person to be loved. nor was it derived from pagan religion in accordance with the hypothesis of Bousset. For pagan influence is excluded by the self-testimony of Paul, and the pagan parallels utterly break down. But even if the parallels were ten times closer than they are, the heart of the problem would not even be touched. The heart of the problem, Machen contended, is to be found in the Pauline relation to Christ, and in accordance with this thought he closes his book in the following eloquent and glowing words. That relation cannot be described by mere enumeration of details. It cannot be reduced to lower terms. It is an absolutely simple and indivisible thing. The relation of Paul to Christ is a relation of love, and love exists only between persons. It is not a group of ideas that is to be explained if Paulinism is to be accounted for, but the love of Paul for his Savior. And that love is rooted not in what Christ had said, but in what Christ had done. He loved me and gave himself for me." There lies the basis of the religion of Paul. There lies the basis of all Christianity. That basis is confirmed by the account of Jesus which is given in the Gospels, and given, indeed, in all the sources. It is opposed only by modern reconstructions, and those reconstructions are all breaking down. The religion of Paul was not founded upon a complex of ideas derived from Judaism or from paganism. It was founded upon the historical Jesus, and the historical Jesus upon whom it was founded was not the Jesus of modern reconstruction, but the Jesus of the whole New Testament and of Christian faith. not a teacher who survived only in the memory of his disciples, but the Savior who, after his redeeming work was done, still lived and could still be loved. Reception in the Press The reception given the volume was on the whole most gratifying. Among conservative Presbyterians it was hailed as a splendid example of orthodox scholarship and telling argument, and as offering evidence of the emergence of a new eloquent spokesman for the truth. Thus, only a month after the publication of the book, the Presbyterian, in its leading editorial, expressed itself as follows. Within the last year, the Christian Church in general, and the Evangelical Church in particular, suffered a great loss in the death of three outstanding scholars of the Reformed theology, namely Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin B. Warfield, and Hermann Bavink. Such a great loss within so short a period, and in these days of such vigorous contention against insistent rationalism, would be depressing if it were not for the appearance of a stalwart company of younger men who are now coming to the front to maintain the standard of the Christian faith against its opponents. Prominent among this company of virulent, corrected to virile in the next issue, and explained as due to some demon influence of the press, young scholars may be named the Rev. J. Gressom Machin, assistant professor of New Testament literature and exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary. The editorial, in connection with its general characterization of the book, also said, we certainly congratulate the students of Princeton on their opportunity to sit under a teacher of such power, scholarship, logical faculty, and wholesome and attractive personality. A few weeks later, the Presbyterian carried a lengthy review article under the title, A Powerful Apologetic for Christianity, from the pen of Dr. Samuel G. Craig. He spoke of it as dealing with its theme in so masterly and convincing a manner as not only to greatly enhance Professor Machen's reputation as a New Testament scholar, but as to entitle him to the gratitude of every lover of Christianity. And in summing up, he spoke of its exact and discriminating scholarship, its kindly tone, its lucidity, its many-sidedness, the depth and vigor of the Christian faith by which it is inspired. He also observed that while Dr. Machen sticks to his main theme throughout, yet in the course of his discussion he tells us more about the real nature of Christ, the real nature of the Gospel, the real nature of Christianity, than many books that are devoted exclusively to these subjects. His book constitutes a powerful apologetic for Christianity and one befitted to appeal powerfully to an age in which the conflict between naturalism and supernaturalism has concentrated itself in the field of history by one who has a correct conception of Christianity. Within a few months, the book was being reviewed in magazines and newspapers throughout the country, and indeed in many other countries around the globe. Benjamin W. Bacon treated it in the literary review of the New York Evening Post. Lyman Abbott devoted a leading article to it in The Outlook. Henry J. Cadbury reviewed it as an outstanding new book in The Congregationalist. James Moffat commented upon it in the British Weekly, and followed this up with a review in the Hibbert Journal. Adolf Jülicher, one of his former teachers at Marburg, evaluated it in the Christliche Welt. It was also reviewed in other leading periodicals in England and Germany, as well as France, Italy, and other countries. Not all the comment was favorable in every particular, though it was consistently respectful. Even scholars whose viewpoints were to a greater or lesser extent under criticism in the book expressed their admiration. The volume of B. W. Bacon on Jesus and Paul had been subjected to particular criticism, but Bacon praised it as worthy of a high place among the products of American biblical scholarship. He said that it presented a bold challenge to those who offer a naturalistic answer to the problem of the origin of Paul's religion, and he characterized it as a book which in spite of its minor defects commands respect. His review also stated, Professor Machen grapples with the most vital problem in the history of Christianity, the question of the worship of Jesus as a superhuman being, arising as it did very shortly after his ignominious death, and dominating the religious life of such a man as the author of the Pauline Epistles. Professor Machen's solution is not new. It is a strong defense of old-fashioned supernaturalism. but this by no means implies an unscholarly book or one of negligible value. On the contrary, it is entitled to a wide and careful reading and will doubtless receive it. Professor Machen may expect his warmest welcome and widest circulation Among readers to whom attempts to explain the origin of Paul's religion by inquiry into contemporary Jewish theology or contemporary Hellenistic religions of personal redemption are obnoxious, as tending to undermine or obscure its real source in Princeton Seminary as the headquarters of apologetic and polemic theology, and in seeking here a strong, clear, and logical defense of the traditional supernaturalistic viewpoint, they will not be disappointed. Professor Machen upholds the best standards of his school. He does not profess to write without bias, but he has read thoroughly, presents clearly and fairly his opponent's view, and answers it logically. The work is a good example of sound American scholarship in the field of apologetics. but its chief value to scholarship lies elsewhere. So long as Christianity endures, men will seek the explanation which supernaturalism pronounces a hopeless quest. It is well for such efforts to be subjected to the keenest criticism that partial and inadequate explanations may not pass unchallenged. Professor Machin performs this service well. James Moffat, in the issue of the British Weekly for January 12, 1922, stated that the eight chapters are a sustained, trenchant argument that the religious interpretation of Christianity in Paul's epistles requires an estimate of the historical Jesus, which must be richer in supernatural content than the liberal schools of critics is prepared to admit. We have here a strong conservative pronouncement. It is significant for its insistence upon the need of a genetic connection between Jesus and Paul, and for its exhibition of the loose statements which are still being made about the mystery cults in the first century. Dr. Machen is nothing if he is not acute. In his later review in the Hibbert Journal, while praising highly Machen's work, Moffat charged that in his eagerness to demolish the interpretations of his opponents, he had not put anything satisfactory in its place. In particular, Bacon felt that some psychological account of the faith mysticism of Paul was missing. Cadbury also criticized Machen for not being more positive in his exposition and establishment of the supernatural view, which he presented as the true explanation of the origin of Paul's religion. He assumes that the reader knows it as the established view of Christians for many past generations. He defends it principally by refutation, that is, by refuting three alternative views of more recent origin. It is doubtful whether, on its positive side, this is a wholly convincing method of proof. But by attacking vulnerable alternatives, the author certainly carried his readers with him and gives the impression of having proved his thesis. And the theories he attacks, especially the last two, are very vulnerable. and Uelicker, while praising the book for its thoroughness and objectivity and literary qualities, and characterizing it as an excellent defense of supernaturalism, criticized it as oversimplifying history and historical problems due to a tendency to stress the logical consequences of a position. Certain criticisms of detailed points were no doubt well taken. Machen would have been the last to claim complete invulnerability for himself, but the more general criticisms he could hardly have accepted as valid. He did not charge critics personally with holding to the logical consequences of their positions, But he did maintain that there was a certain logic in their positions as in Christianity itself, and that it was the business of persons dealing seriously with these views to analyze them with their implications as sharply and clearly as possible. The criticism that he largely assumed his position rather than proved it was not without an element of truth. But it is asking a great deal to expect a representative of supernaturalistic Christianity, every time he expresses himself on particular questions connected with the Bible, to expound and substantiate his Christian presuppositions. Machen was entirely self-conscious in realizing the great gulf that was fixed between his basic philosophy of reality and history and that of the representatives of various naturalistic positions. But conscious as he was that his basic outlook was that of historic Christianity, he could understandably regard the refutation of various critical theories as confirmations of the truth of his Christian position. He often seemed indeed to be meeting the critics on their own ground rather than on his own as he engaged in an expose of the inconsistencies of their positions as they appealed to the data of the New Testament. In the final analysis, however, his apologetic was neither mediating nor minimizing. Everywhere, he was convinced, the data was intelligible only as it was recognized that they taught and implied the uncompromising supernaturalism of the revelation and redemption contained and taught in the Bible. Thus both the total estimate of the nature and message of the Bible and particular exegesis in individual passages involved and confirmed the supernaturalistic view of the origin of Paul's Christian faith. Considering the intrinsic worth of the book and the gratifying response which it received in the press, It comes as no surprise that the book, though it virtually was introducing a new author, had a good sale. Judging from records supplied Machen by the publishers, about 2,000 copies were sold in a little more than a year, and it continued to be in good demand year after year. Arrangements were made by Macmillan for a second printing at a reduced price as early as January 1923. and there were several other printings later on. Finally, in 1946, publication rights were secured by the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, and still another printing was made.