CIHM Microfiche (Monographs) ICIMH Collectiori de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Instituta for Historical IMicroraproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions hittoriquas Tachnical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquas Tha Instituta has attemptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha reproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual method of filming, ara checked below. L'Institut a microfilm* la maillaur aaemplaira qu'il lui a ate possible da se procurer Las details de cet exemplaira qui sont paut-itre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier una image reproduite. ou qui peuvent emger une modification dans la mithod* normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. Coloured covers/ Couverture da couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagAas n Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ st/ou pelliculAe n Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAes et/ou pelliculAes □ Cover title missing/ La tit D D n n itre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartas g^ographiquas an couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Boun< Reli* Bound with other material/ avac d'autrea documents rri Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion la long da la marga intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches aioutAea lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la taxta. mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: E D D D □ n Pages discoloured, stained or foxe Pages decolor Aes. tachetAes ou pictt Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualita inAgale de I'lmpression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc . have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. una pelure. etc.. cnt in film^es A nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible This item Is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X V 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmad h«r* has b««n raproduead thanks to tha ganarosity of: Tht Unittd Church of Cinedi Archivw Victoria University Archivn Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia consldaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad beginning with tha front eovar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion. or the back eovar whan appropriate. All other original copies ara filmed beginning on the first paga with a printed or illustrated impres* sion, and ending on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impression. L'exemplaira fllm4 fut raproduit grica k la gAnArositA da: Tht Unittd Church of Ct nida Archivn Vietorii Univonity ArcliivM Las imagas suivantas ont Ati reproduites avac la plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at da la nettet* de l'exemplaira film*4-at en conformiti avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Lea exemplairas originaux dont Is couvertura en papier est imprimia sont fiimis an commenpant par la premier plat at an terminant soit par la derniira page qui comporte une emprsinte d'imprassion ou dlllustratinn, soit par la second plat, salon le eas. Tous las autras exemplairas originaux sont filmts en commenpant par la pramlira paga qui comporte une empreinte dimpression ou d'lllustration at an terminant par ia demiira paga qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain ths symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un das symbolas suivants apparaltra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, salon le cas: la symbols -^ signlfia "A SUiVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed et different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ara filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many .frames ss required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, plenches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent itre filmAs A des taux da reduction diffiranu. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra reproduit en un aaul clichA. II est film* i partir da Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droita, et de heut en bas, an prenant le nombre d'imagas nAcesssire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthoda. 12 3 12 3 4 5 6 1.0 !S"a I I.I 4S 50 1 4.0 2.5 ta lU lU u iubu 2.0 1.8 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL 1010a (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF HIGHER CRITICISM "rci\ \ I FROM A PREACHER'S STANDPOINT &^. ^^^^^^^¥^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A LECTURE GIVEN BY m REV. J. B. SAUNDERS, M.D., D.D. OF lONDON, ONT., BEFORE THE THEOLOOICAL UNION OF THE LONDON CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, JUNE, 1900, AT ST. MARTS, ONT. PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE CONFERENCE a ir^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PRICE, 10 CENTS TORONTO: WILLIAM BRIGGS 1901 ^.>-,„.,._ .- i,-,.v,.,ij;\ r^^.:.:.- :;. z^ur*ir .▼•"^^B^ '^iwiffaaH^^r v''-fn^'3?^'~m^^^'ij- 7.11. f?5£-^'X' SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF HIGHER CRITICISM FROM A PREACHER'S STANDPOINT H Xecture GIVEN BY REV. J. B. SAUNDERS, M.D.. D.D. OF LONDON, ONI. BKFORH TUB TIIKOLOOICAL I/XIOX OF THE LONDON CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST CIWRCU, JUNE, I'MO, AT ST. MARYS, ONT. PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE CONFERENCE TORONTO WILLIAM BRIGGS 1901 » zfwr'iW^tmfmiem^^J^'mM^ "imi"''!mv9mimM^si!as^i^ mimamBimnsfU' "-i^'^ ^ry^rx^mfFit # SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF HIGHER CRITICISM FROM A PREACHER'S STANDPOINT. T AM sure that I may draw largely on your sym- A pathy to-night. You will recognize thv vastness of the field of thought to which our theme invites us, and understand how impossible it will be for me, in the time I can Sake, to deal adequately with the many phases of this much discussed subject. You will admit the necessity of my keeping to a very few points, and if I should not refer to many features of the discussion in which you are specially interested, my excuse must be, not that I do not recognize their importance, but that my time is limited and that I have selected those which seem to be most vital and may be most helpful to all. I shall have to take it for granted that you are all fairly acquainted with the ground over which we travel ; that your reading has familiarized you with the terminology employed and the principal authors from whom I may quote, ■nmmmK^^^ms^^MMo^s^smvmsM^^iswm^it^s^- V \ ♦ SOME MI8TAK1H AND l>ERII.s Or or to wl.om I may ref.r. I shall bo gla,l if you will permit me to use the alphabetical character/usua" ly e^..ployed when referring to the redactors and compile™ who have been credited with the con.position in It™ present forn, of various portions of the sacred text I "hall be compelled to condense my arguments inl,. very ew word, and in quoting fro'm a™ ",^,: but the words which are necessary to make the p„ nt M,'!:7,IT""" ^'"""•'^ -- - to ">e author"; or full text of the quotation, I may say that in the iuller notes from which I have condensed this JZ 1 have noted th. author, the book and pa^eTm wh,ch I have quoted, and shall be glad L^furnTsh hese to any who may question the%orrectneL of he q,,otat,o„, or who may desire to look more fuily into the position taken. '' It may be well to dottimine what i>, meant in fi,- paper by -. Higher Criticism." The ter?s lidly losing the meaning which was first attached toTand beccnimg so broad „„d vaguo that for purr's of clear th.nkmg and perspicuous reasoning i^t is^Tmo^f .^eless^and other more definite terms ar! su;;iaX erm lit" ^"'"='7"- ™ther an unfrrtunatf term It has an air of afiectation about it ■ it smack, of pedantry and undue assumpl ion But , ! first used in that sen,e T. . . ' """* °°' guish it from a :: genetlTr,:Tf n'' "^ "'''''"- lower or textual criticism """"'"" '""'" "Higher Criticism" is a critical inquirv intn *i, nature, origin and dates of H,„ J inquiry into the s »'ia aates ot the documents of the Bible _,.J?#.' . -JJf^.^ ' HIGHER CRITICISjT. and a close inventigat on into their value and credi- bility. Or, as ! >f. ^ riggs puts it, " Having secured the best text of th^ writings, ' Higher Criticism' de- votes itself to the hijijher task of consid< ing them as to their integrity, authenticity, literary form and reliability." It is by no means a new thing. It is probably as old as the Bible itself. We cannot think ^ of men in any age taking these books as a revelation I from God without critical inquiry as to their origin 'I and credibility. And this i> ^dy of tl genuineness f and authenticity of the sacred Script es has con- tinued through the centuries. Pilcy discussed in his Horae PaulinsB similar nestior; No one should object to the most thoro* u and cureful examination and criticism of the Scriptures which have been given to us to guide us in the way of life. Least of all should we object, whose special work it is to examine and explore them ; nay, rather we should strive to excel in higher and lower criticism and criticism of every kind, provided it be genuine, frank and reverent. It is not, then, to any true criticism that we take ex- ception, but to some of the methods employed, some of the conclusions reached, and some of the positions taken, by many of the Higher Critics. We often hear it said in a general way, " These men are only careful students ; they do not destroy the Bible. They are believers in its inspiration. They declare that once they have reached these conclusions the Bible is more real, radiant an^l helpful to them than ever before ; that it flashes with a new meaning 6 1^ i I SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OP and glows with a richer beauty " But «. . until centuries after Moses' time Le^enH J ^ greaierpartthan history in thercoutf ^ ^' * simply impossible " ^lexateuch are f^te. The Pentarr 'd^S" u. r^^T-^ fashion. It is full of hiof • ,T ^ '"^ *''^^»^« in it is lost" '""'"^ fiction-all confidence Prof. Cheyne says: " Deuteronomy was romnn. ^ to enable them toJ^K ^1°°""'™ '"'■sht efficient tnem to see that they were all the time com- BlOHER CRITICISM. mitting grave blunders, and they felt no hesitancy in altering the originals with which they were working." Dillman, Robertson Smith, Ladd and Briggs all agree very generally with these conclusions. How, then, is it possible for men to flatter themselves that because of positions thus taken, the Bible becomes to them more precious, luminous and divine than ever before ? The standpoir"^ from which I invite you to look at this matter is that of the preacher. The professor in the college has his special work, and necessarily devotes himself to the minute examination of certain questions that are interesting, academic, theoretical or abstract. But we are in the field ; we are where these theories are put to the test and their working charac- ter is tried. It is in theology as in medicine. In the medical class-room, fanciful theories and new discov- eries are thoroughly canvassed and carefullj*^ ex- amined. Possibilities and probabilities are weighed and sometimes advocated, but it is not unusual for the professor to stop in the midst of the experiment or the argument, and say, " This is all very well for the class-room, but practice is a very diiBEerent thing. Try no experiments there. Keep down to well-known working lines, for human lives are at stake." So in theological halls, many questions may come under review and may be discussed with profit, but we who are in the field and doing the practical work of saving men and leading them to Christ, must remember that human souls are in our care and we 8 I '-^ «OME MISTAKES ,sr> PEK,^ „, .»•>•■ part the m<«t unfetje'l , '''T '''""'d -ot be on the one hand, the temptat^r;. ^" '""'' »™H on thought sehoiariy by flan It '" "'" P°P"tarity ani be "danced thinkers fnd nf ^..'"'"' ''''"^' PosingaT -P.-oven opinions 121^1"' "■"■^™""*d -" hand the danger of fail n!Sr ""'■"" ''"' <"her thoughtless, despising tfue ' v'™'°'""''dl6a„d honest research. wfjTu '"='"" ^-d earnest ""^ King-s messagrtha 1h """ ^ <""■ "-a^et ^- the King'stthortt r^"':r"°"''«'»''ke -■epeat have His «„,°2i ">*' 'he promises w» '"an stands before a C.^ ?''• , '"' "«""'^'" 'hat a h--^ lost condition, inS tf '"•°"'«- ■=<">" -eed of "We to save his soul. ^""^ "^ Life that is P-:a""Cnt';S"^™""--'^^'.andwi„ - he. Our one bu"nlrtr' "" <^-'4d - fors must be detected , ° """""''"; therefore denounced ,c«t nj^'^^ ifd ™' '"" ^^P^-d and darkness and doubt. "'' "'^"^ ""^ them into -''"'----uidi-t?ap:taf- Ff' " 'l^^' : HIGHER CRITICISM. 9 specialist. That, too, is a grievous error. The Bible is our text-book, our authority for offering salvation to men. Scholarship is a valuable auxiliary, but only an auxiliary. The translator must be a scholar, but once the right rendering is secured the learned linguist has no advantage over other men ; nay, it often happens that the expert and the specialist is unquali- fied for the more comprehensive task. The specialist everywhere is prone to lose sight of the broader aspect of things in his constant examination of the minute and the specific. Dr. Pusey rightly says: "It is an infelicity of the German mind that it is acute in detail rather than comprehensive in grasping resem- blances." So a new kind of priestcraft is arising amongst us. Men still love pre-eminence, and calmly tell us that these things must be left to the experts, that their verdict must be sought, that we must not dare to sift and weigh evidence for ourselves, but lean on their opinions. Other forms of priestcraft have come and gone, and this, too, will, I doubt not, follow in the long procession and be buried in the sands of its own wrecked ambitions. Again, we are told that the questions at issue are not vital, that they do not aflfect the general teaching of the Word, that the great saving truths are just as present in the Bible whether we accept or reject the conclusions of these higher critics. That may, of course, be admitted on some points. The authorship of a book may not be vital to its acceptance as a divine revelation. But if that book annoimces its 10 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF author and Christ sanctions his claim, then the matter becomes vital, not only to the book itself, but to Christianity and to the divine character of Christ. To say that it is of little importance when or by whom the Pentateuch was written, so long as it can be shown to be true, implies that there is nothing in it relating to its age or origin. But this is not the case. It claims to have been originated by Moses. Most of the inspired writers admit its claim. Christ endorses it. Then, to deny its claim becomes a vital matter that involves the credit and authority of the entire Bible and saps the foundations of Christianity. If the Pentateuch is not to be believed when it refers again and again to Moses as its author, when is it to be believed ? If it is not true and accurate here, where is it true and accurate ? If we cannot go to men with an unequivocal " Thus saith the Lord " on our lips, then Our labor will be largely in vain and we shall spend our strength for nought. Cover up the attack as you please, assure men of the harmlessness of the position as you may, for one I cannot shake off the impression that it is, as one has said, " The Grecian strategy over again." When the Greeks could not capture Troy by force of arms they resorted to guile. They built a large wooden horse, which they professed to worship, but afterward apparently abandoned. The Trojans brought it into their city, hoping that it would bring them success, but within the wooden structure were armed warriors who, rushing out under cover of night, opened the HIOHER CRITICISM. 11 gates for the enemy to enter. So this, I believe, will only open the gates to whole battalions of unbelief. Laocoon's advice was: "Distrust e Greeks, even bearing gifts;" and we shall find the advice to be invaluable to us in the present controversy. But again our opponents, with an arch look, reply, " What if it is true ? It is useless to cling to error. It is unmanly not to look at the truth. It is childish to shut our eyes to the light." We have no hesita- tion in granting that, but this may be urged on either side. The question cannot be begged in that manner. Calling a view erroneous does not make it so, and which of these views is correct is precisely the question in debate. One feels like saying with Dr. Salmon, when addressing the students of Trinity College, Dublin : " I feel ashamed of repeating such nonsense, but it is necessary that you should know the things that are said, for you may meet these German dreams retailed as sober truth by writers in this country, many of whom imagine that it would be a confession of inability to keep pace with the progress of critical science if they ventured to test by English common-sense the successive schemes by which the German aspirants after fame seek to gain a reputation for ingenuity." Another argument often presented is : " All scholars accept these views, the great thinkers of the age hold them. If you desire any reputation for scholarship, do not dare to reject those conclusions." That is not true. Scholars differ widely, and there are great follow, the .rg>iment from the ^fri,^ratTon of the earth makes this clear. We a knowthat hot things cool gradually according to the^ Know b -^ nt from the increase ot substance or mass. It is eviaeni. heat as we descend below the surface, ^^^^ t^^f^J*^ fa still cooling, and as its rate of cooling is fairly well known we can calculate how hot it was so many Rnowu wc hotter by millions of years ago. Ha^ any ^^^^ ^^^ fifty degrees F. than it is now, u impossible upon the planet, and so we can fix a date b^orwhich life on the earth cannot have existed lord Kevin limited this period to one hundred :uL?ot years, and Prof. Tait reduced that to ten milion of yea- Evolutionists, however, have ra::!::dtheir^mnuons..^^^^^^ llirlZJceterwhrBarwinconductsusfrom HIGHER CRITICISM. 21 the first jelly-fish lying on the primeval shore to man as we know him, if we reflect that the prodigious change requisite to transform the one into the other is made up of a chain of generations, each advancing by a minute variation from the form of its predecessor, and if we remember that for the last three thousand years (our historic period) this progressive variation has not advanced by a single step perceptible to our eyes in respect to man or animals or plants with wliich we are familiar, we must admit that for a chain so vast the evolutionists require thousands of millions of years for the accomplishment of the stupendous pro- cess. Then we are shut up to the conclusion that the jelly-fish would have dissipated in steam long before he had a chance to evolve into anything that could be regarded as an ancestor for the human race. There- fore, as Lord Salisbury says, the laity may be excused for returning a verdict of " not proven." If in their calculations Lord Kelvin and Prof. Tait be right, where will Prof. Drummond find time and room for his " Ascent of Man," or rather as he should have called it, " The ascent of woman " ? Another obntacle lies in the teaching of Moses that God is not only the originator of life, but also that He is the direct cause of the different kinds of life which have subsequently appeared. " God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb and fruit tree after his kind, so of every living creature after his kind," not of another kind in the course of time. Thus Moses holds that God and nature worked toj^ether ; the vital forces of the «w;- ^■^in I 22 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF world were guided, fortified and supplemented by His supreme force and skill. The theory of primordial germs, out of which all the other species weif evolved, here meets with direct opposition. Moses places unmistakable emphasis on " after his kind." A most extensive series of observa- tions has shown how groundless is the notion of the transmutation of species. There is no well authenti- cated instance of one species producing another. Nature distinctly condemns the perpetuation of hybrids. The product of the union of two species is generally sterile, and if not so at first it becorues so in a few generations. Environments can bring about marvellous modifications, but have never been known to transmute one species into another. To accept all this, then, as occurring in the period which geology can allow, implies a credulity far more ignoble than the belief in man's higher origin. Indeed, in the bodily structure of the race there is no sign of evolu- tion. Dawson says : " The skulls, great stature and grand development of limbs in the skeletons of the most ancient men of Europe testify to a race more firmly constituted physically than the majority of existing Europeans, and with a development of brain above the European average." Prof. Boyd Dawkins considers the oldest known human skull to be that of Engis, and Prof. Huxley affirms that that is identical with the European cranium. It is clear that geology and anatomy agree in placing man apart as a new and distinct order of fitGBER CRITICISM. 2d ■31 being. Verily the Mosaic theory comports well with the facts of nature and science. However, all this opposes the modern view of evo- 3'ition, and so, with a wave of the hand, Moses and his writings are swept aside as mythical. But what of Jesus Christ ? Is He the product of evolution ? If it breaks down here, where can it stand ? Did environment produce Him ? Did the rottenness of society in His day produce His purity ? Did the bigotry and narrowness of His nation produce His large-heartedness ? Did the hypocrisy and intense selfishness of His day engender His holiness and self- sacrifice ? Evolution? What was there ever upon the earth that could develop a sinless Saviour? Before Bethlehem's manger and Calvary's cross the doctrine of evolution collapses like an empty bubble. So in revelation there has been a true development : the Bible like a rare flower has been unfolding in the light of heaven. First there was only the mere bud enwrapped in the crude calyx, but sepal after sepal expanded,revealing new loveliness, and then the petals unrolled as the ages passed until the splendid corolla in its matchless beauty greeted the eyes of men, and is filling the earth with its cheering and exhilarating aroma. New beauties are constantly being revealed, and with a deeper meaning even than Paul had, we say : " For this cause thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God, ye i ' N i ac-c- IS"' -'• ? . ■ »»^>>Jac-. 24 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God." Glance at some of the methods employed to bolster up the views of these critics. First, in the matter of the names given to God, the Elohist is credited with Gen. 22 : 1-14, yet the name Jehovah occurs in v. 14 as though even the Higher '^ritic dare not make mincemeat of the sublime story of the offering up of Isaac. In Gen. 27 : 20, Jehovah occurs in an Elohistic narrative and again in Ex. 14:10. In Ex. 3:14, given by Driver to the priestly code, Elohim says, I am Jehovah. Could confusion be worse confounded ? The Deity is referred to in Deuteronomy by precisely the same names as in the previous books, but Deuter- onomy is declared by these men to be the work of one man whom they call D. A very curious speci- men of the difficulties besetting this theory, which is based on the distinctions between the names of the Deity, is found in Gen. 17:1-3 where all three names, Yaveh (Jehovah), Elohim and El-Shaddai, are given to God. To argue, then, that a different name for God, used by the writer, indicates a different author leads to the most ridiculous absurdities. The argument based on ihe style of diction is just as unsatisfactory. E. is said to be didactic and J. to be popular and flowing. Within this generation we have had examples enough of the inability of English scholars to determine the authorship of even English productions. Junius has not yet been clearly identified, and the conflict about Shakespeare and HIGHER CRITICISM. 25 Bacon rages still in some quarters. Who, then, will pretend that the modern Hebraists, poring over their lexicons and running to Jewish Rabbis with their perplexities of syntax, are competent to distinguish subtleties of style three thousand years old ? It is arguing in a circle to decide that J. is picturesque, then when you come to a bald passage assign it to some one else. Let P. have a fondness for forms, then assign all formal phrases to him. If a passage arises that will not yield to this treatment, call it an interpola- tion, as Dr. Briggs does with Matt. 25:46: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment," etc- " Why," we ask, " do you call that an interpolation ?" He answers, " Jesus never said that, it must be one of the disciples or scribes who wrote it in," and he assumes that his ipse dixit alone should decide it. Again, look at the ground on which so much is made of discrepancies in the Scriptures. It sounds alarm- ing to say that there are one hundred and fifty thousand various readings in the New Testament, but Ezra Abbott shows us that we must dismiss nineteen-twentieths of these as supported by so little authority that no critic would regard them as having any im to consideraticn. This leaves 7,500. but these 5,8 V do not affect the sense. They relate merely to questions of orthography, the order of the words and similarly insignificant matters. This reduces the number to 2,160 which involve differences of meaning often very slight, and oi^r critical helps are so abundant that in nearly all of I I i! i 26 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS Oi* !!| • ! them we are able to determine the true text with a great degree of confidence, and no Christian doctrine or duty rests on these portions of the text affected by differences in the MSS. Still less is anything vital to Christianity touched by these various readings. Or, look at the reasons assigned for thinking that Deuteronomy,etc.,were post-exilic in their origin. Was the finding of the roll by Hilkiah really a discovery of somethintr which had been hidden since the death of Hezekiah and now in the providence of God brought to light once more, or was it a forgery and a fraud ? Those who would have us believe that the book of the law was a copy of Deuteronomy, and that it was a concoction of the reign of Manasseh or Josiah, tell us that the fabricators were actuated b} a high sense of zeal I'or the worship of Jehovah, while yet, in defiance of the third commandment recorded in that book they proceed to profane that most holy name for the purposes of their forgery. On this view, Deu- teronomy, save on the ground of literary excellence, falls into the same category as the apocryphal books and the false decretals. It is an attempt to bolster up a religious cause and a priestcraft by the free use of false statements backed by what profess to be the direct utterances of God. Ewald maintains that it might hp ve been written thirty or forty years before its discovery by an exile from Egypt who had fled hither from Manasseh's persecution. Thus we are to suppose that it might have been slowly circulated and had reached Palestine by chance, and a copy of it HIGHER CRITICISM. 27 may have been accidentally found by the high priest. This, while appearing to get rid of the charge of fraud, builds on a frail chapter of accidents. Well- hausen becomes very plain and emphatic, and says : " In all circles where appreciation of scientific results can be looked for at all, it is recognized that Deuter- onomy was composed in the same age in which it was discovered. Reuss declares : " It is a book which was pretended to have been found in the Temple." Kuenen says: "If Hilkiah found the book in the Temple, it was put there by the adherents of the Mosaic tendency, or else Hilkiah himself was of the number, and in that case he pretended that he had found the book of the Law." Driver attempts to be more reverent, and says: "It is improbable that Hilkiah was concerned in the composition of the book of the Law," but he adopts the theory that it is of the age of Manasseh. He holds that Deuteronomy does not claim to have been written by Moses, because the author speaks in the third person, but the same argument would deny to Caesar the authorship of the Commentaries, and to Virgil the authorship of the Georgics. Dr. Driver contends that Deuteronomy is the work of an unknown author, living probably in the reign of Josiah, who was anxious to impress on the people the duty of more strictly observing their national religion, and for this purpose he pretended that it was written by Moses,thinkingthis would have more effect, a process similar to a man who, wishing to pay his creditors in full, writes out a cheque upon a h 11 S8 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OP bank, but fearing lest his own name should not com- mend itself sufficiently to the bankers, signs his master's name instead. Such deeds are denoted by a rather ugly name, nor is the goodness of the object in view considered a justification of the act. And we naturally ask, how does Dr. Driver know this? He can know nothing of the matter but what he learns from the books themselves. He assumes, there- fore, the very point in dispute, and a more un- founded assumption was never made. Not a scin- tilla of evidence is ever offered ; we are merely told that anyone who claims to be scientific can see it at a glance. Prof. Cheyne suggests that to the priests and prophets who loved spiritual religion, God had revealed that now was the time to take a bold step forward and accomplish the work which the noblest servants of God had so long desired ; and accordingly, to ancient laws adapted to present purposes they added new ones framed in the spirit of Moses. These had apparently been placed in a repository beside the ark, and there Hilkiah professed to Shaphan to have found it. Yet he professes indignantly that it is wrong to charge Hilkiah with being the forger of Deuteronomy. But what can we say ? He clearly makes God the instigator of this unpardonable fraud. There can be no escape from the conclusion that if Deuteronomy be of that age, then, gloss it by what gentle term we please, the book is a forgery. It pro- fesses again and again to be the work of Moses; repeatedly it brings in the solemn declaration, HIGHER CRITICISM. 29 4« " Jehovah said unto me." What evidence is there in the story of the discovery that substantiates this impious claim ? There is not a stray allusion either in Kings or Chronicles suggestive of any guilty know- ledge on Hilkiah's part. The fraud exists in the imagination alone of these ingenious critics. Here was a forgery too clumsy to escape detection under the searching eye of modem critics, yet sufficiently well done to have misled mankind for centuries and to have induced them to accept as divine oracles, inventions devised by Jewish Rabbis of the sixth and following enturies B.C., in order to strengthen their own influence, and it was not until our times that men sufficiently acute arose to detect these frauds. It is not necessary that I should detain you by proving that Deuteronomy claims to have been produced by Moses. There are nearly two hundred such claims put forward in the book itself, and we must accept its testimony or else deny its right altogether to be considered a religious book. Neither is it necessary that I should weary you by showing you that almost every writer in the Old Testament accepted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. More than thirty times in the historical books alone the Law is mentioned, and in fifteen instances is ascribed to Moaes. All through the prophetical books are allu- sions and quotations to the same eflfect. Canon Cheyne, in his " Isaiah," gives fifty passages in which the Pentateuch is alluded to. Joel, the earliest of the prophets, as is generally thought (B.C. 900-800), is so SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF £?.-» %-t w A full of this conception. He knows nothing of a fragmentary Torah, nor any author but Moses. From Joshua to Malachi there is a line of unbroken evidence for the existence and authorship of the Mosaic writ- ings. The oldest of the prophets seems as familiar with them as the latest. If the Pentateuch was written after 800 B.C., then Joel must have been acquainted with what was not in existence. If such fragments as J.E. or P. had ever existed, it is impos- sible to believe that some reference would not have been made to them either by enemies or friends during the long millennium through which they con- tinued to be the only religious standards of Isrftel. Yet their names are never mentioned, nor their works referred to. The high morality and noble conceptions of religion in the Pentateuch are such that none save a man like Moses could have written it. Had there been another besides Moses capable of producing it the whole world would have known who he was. His fame and name could not have remained forever hidden. Let us go a step farther. Our Lord himself sanctioned and endorsed the view of the traditionalists, as it is called. To deny it, therefore, is to undermine the authority of Christ as teacher and Lord. It is not, then, a mere question of literary criticism ; the divinity and veracity of our Lord are involved. The Pentateuch and the Gospels stand or fall together. Huxley says : " There certainly is no ground for con- tending for the authenticity of the New Testament, HIGHER CRITICISM. 31 if the Old Testament is thus shown to be the product of a post-exilic age. We must recopTiize the alterna- tive, that either the Pentateuch is essentially Mosaic in its origin, as Christ again and again pronounced it to be, or else that His utterances on the subject are of such a character that we could not long hold consis- tently to His claims as divine." Christ refers more than four hundr*^'^ times to these Scriptures. His Bible was identical with our Old Testament. The Sermon on the Mount frequently calls attention to the Law. When He came down from the mount He bade the leper go show himself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded. He mentions con- spicuous personages whose histories are given in the Pentateuch — Adam, Noah, Lot, and Jacob. He refers to leading events and customs recorded there, such as creation, marriage, Sabbath, death of Abel, deluge, burning bush. Exodus, commandments, Sinaitic code, and fate of Lot's wife. Further, in regard to divorce and marriage with a deceased brother's widow. He f "^rms that Moses originated these customs. To His disciples on the way to Emmaus, "beginning with Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them ii all the scriptures the things concerning himself." In John's Gospel he refers to Jacob's vision, the serpent in the wilderness, the manna, and to their father Abraham. In John 7 : 19, He asks, " Did not Moses give you the law ? " and in v. 2 He declares that circumcision was given by Moses. His ministry commenced with the announcement, " Think ! I n I 82 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled." If Christ used the term law then in the sense that these critics would have us use it, and in which they say He did, then He deceived the people, for they knew no other use of the expres- sion than as referring to the Torah, th • lav: book, the writings of Moses. Christ declares that Moses was the giver of the law, that he wrote of himself, and on the occasion of the transfiguration, Moses stood with Him. If Moses was a mere myth, how then could he appei.r with P^lijah and talk with Christ, How long will it be before the transfiguration, too, will be called a myth ? If it was a real occurrence, as Peter and John affirm, then Moses was as real as either of the persons there assembled, and his existence and rela- tion to Christ is put beyond all cavil. If he was not there, except in the imagination of the disciples, then the New Testament must fall with the Old, and the chief figures in its pages must be consigned to the list of earth's basest deceivers or earth's most sadly deceived men. If possible, the case is stronger when Deuteronomy is concerned. On three different occa- sions our Lord spake of this book in such a way as to convey the idea that He accepted the Mosaic origin of it. " He wrote of me," He declared at a feast, referring to the well-known prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 : 15 : " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee HIOHEB CRITICISM. 33 a prophet in the midst of these thy brethren, like unto me. Unto him shall ye hearken." "Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me, for he testified of me." " If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Again, during His temptation He cited most exactly and solemnly two passages from Deuteronomy 6 : 4, 5, words which are given in Deuteronomy as those of Moses. His use of them in so awful a connection nir.kes it impossible for us to think that He knew them to be a forgery. There can be no question but that our Lord believed, and wished others to believe, that Moses had lived and written by divine command the books which bear his name. How is this sought to be met ? These men tell us that the human limitations of Christ in the incarnate state were such that He did not know any more about the past than He could learn from the Itabbis of His time. This is the strange fiction of the kenosis, the emptying of himself, who said in the flesh, " I and my Father are one." If Christ knew no more than He learned at school and at home and picked up in conversation, we cannot go to Him for authorita- tive teaching. If the divine within Him was subject to such overshadowing as these critics assume, then may He not have been wrong in any of His teachings about His own personality, mission, atonement, power to forgive sin and save men, and His mediatorial office ? Any or all may be ascribed to some limitation of His knowledge. Where can we stop ? Are we to 3 S4 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF If:- ■^ ~m Ml sacrifice the whole fabric of Christianity to this idol of kenotisrn ? Some critics, it is true, feel the force of these argu- ments and attempt to fence them off. by suggesting that Christ did not know wlio was the author of the Pentateuch, but that He simply believed what every one else believed in regard to the matter. He lived nearly two millenniums nearer Moses and the prophets than we do, but He could not enter into the spirit of their writings so deeply as we can. He lived when Hebrew was practically a living tongue and probably spoke a dialect of it, but He could not appreciate its subtleties so finely as the Hebraists of our colleges. He belonged to a race which venerated their sacred books so that they could not allow the omission of a yod or accent in the recitals of them, and yet He was totally unaware that the Old Testament reeked with errors and contradictions. Apart from His divinity being such a man as He was, Christ could not have been subject to all these errors and defects. This curious and novel theory of the kenosis is based on such passages as Phil. 2 : 7, where it is said that the Son of God made himself of no reputation (literally, emptied himself) and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. But this kenosis in reality was merely the laying aside of His glory, so that it should not be displayed to the bewilderment of men. The very context declares that He was still in the form of God. If He divested himself of all divine attributes, then HlUiii.U CRITICISM. 35 He was no longer divine and the incarnation is a delusion. Christ still, however, possessed the Spirit without measure. He was still one with the Father. He knew what was in man. He knew the Father as no one save the Son could know Him. He was God manifest in the flesh. In Him dwelt all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He had power over nature, as His miracles testify. He knew the future, as His prophecies show. The Father and the Spirit declared Him to be divine. The only passage where it could possibly be suspected that any limitation to His knowledge is taught in the Scriptures, is that which refers to His not knowing the day and hour of the final judgment (Matt. 24 : 36), but the expression both in Greek* and Hebrew is well known to mean not that He did not know, but that He did not make known or reveal. It was one of those things which men were not prepared to hear. God never makes His revelations known prematurely for all our curiosity. But others suggest that it was not His special mission to correct these things, any more than to correct the erroneous conceptions of science then prevailing, that He accommodated himself to the prejudices and ignorance of the times in these matters. Why ? Were these prejudices and ignorance a state of bliss which had better not be disturbed ? No teacher worthj'- of the name would take such a position. And such a degrading representation of Christ must be repudiated by every reverent and intelligent man. What could be gained by it ? He could not have IW 36 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF ir.' i !■ been more scornfully rejected or cruelly treated than He was. What are the facts ? He sternly opposed all traditions and customs that made the Word of God of none effect. He condemned in scathing words all hypocrisy and casuistry, and He was slain for doing so. It is true that some of the critics seek to evade the most disastrous issues of their speculations by taking what they call the Christocentric standpoint. As though to regard Christ as the centre and object of revelation covered a multitude of defects and errors in the form of that revelation ! But we know Christ only by means of the Bible. Therefore, either the Bible must be reliable or we have no Christ. The influence of Christianity has all along been, and still is, exerted by Bible teaching, and, therefore, any Christocentric theory that is independent of an accurate and trustworthy Bible is a delusion and a fiction. And if the doctrines of Christ as given in the Bible are taken as the foundation of the Christo- centric theory, then the testimony concerning the Old Testament must be regarded as part of that foundation. One need scarcely dwell on the testimony of the Apostles. Peter in his epistles quotes from every book of the Pentateuch, and aflHrms that no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but that holy men spake from God, being inbreathed by the Holy Ghost. Paul told Agrippa that he taught nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come. He per- suaded the people concerning Jesus both from the fe.H HIGHER CRITICISM. 37 law of Moses and from the prophets. James and John add their testimony. If Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch the apostles were not inspired. They knew not what they said. They can command no confidence. It is worse than idle to say, as a sermon published during the year in the Guardian said, " A new Old Testament as much more vital and interesting and suggestive thar^ the old as the rose unfolding in dewy fragrance f ■ Se hud is different from the rose of wax or ma.-. . .las appeared as a result of Higher Criticism." That is poetic gush and hysterical rhapsody. Look at it. Which critic gives us this vital conception ? No two of them agree. Is it so beautiful to think that words which we believed came from the majestic and inspired Founder of the Jewish national system, were the fraudulent produc- tion of a post-exilic age, or the fragmentary writings of an unknown J. or E. or D. or P., and form a tissue of pious deception and legendary fancies ? All this is buttressed by the Testimony of the Monuments. Prof. Sayce, of Oxford, said recently : " The most uncompromising opponents of the results of the Higher Criticism - re to be found in the ranks of the foremost students of Assyrian and Egyptian antiquity. In truth, those of us who have devoted our lives to the archaeology of the ancient Oriental world have been forced back into the traditional position. Year by year, almost month by month, fresh discoveries 88 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF If ■' ! 1 H^i I are breaking in upon us, each more marvellous than the last, but all as regards the Pentateuch in favor of the old rather than the new teaching." In opposition to the claim that Moses and Israel were semi-barbar- ous, he says : " We have learned not that Moses could have written the Pentateuch, but that it would have been something like a miracle if he had not done so For he lived in a literary age." We have now mere than three hundred letters written before Moses was born. Prof. Fritz Hommell, of Munich, scarcely •tX T I rl- '^^" ^° ^"*'^"^^' -^« - regard to the Tel-el- Amarna tablets: "They brush aside the cobweb theories of the so-called Higher Critics of the Pentateuch, and place ..« in the position from hope to dislodge us." "The tJieory of Higher Criticism must collapse inevitably, and the fact Ihat the cntics still persist in holding their views against this indisputable evidence to the contrary, we caf only The truth of history cannot be determined by phil- olog.ca speculation and arbitrary assumption/ The arch«,log,eaI method is the method of science. Until Zl^Z T^r "" ''*<*■"»<« of literaiy history with the facts revealed by contemporaneous mon^ ments we have no scientific means for testing their truthfulness Herodotus rejected the asaertion^of the Phflenican sailors who circumnavigated Africa, because they claimed that for a part of the time they had the HIGHER CRITICISM. 39 sun on their right, and a part of the time on their left. But that ia juat the statement that modem science regards as proof of the truthfulness of the story. The adherents of the Higher Criticism claim the monopoly of criticism, and will not allow any methods but theirs. But the criticism they mean is speculative and visionary, and is based on fancies and presuppositions and not on facts. The discovery of the famous Tel-el-Amarna tablets was greeted at first by literary criticism with its customary scepticism. They were called forgeries, but that position is no longer tenable. Take, as an example, the discoveries of Mr. Pinches in a cuneiform text of the names of Chedorlaomer and his allies, which are recorded in Gen. 15. "Kudur-Laghamar" is called King of Elam, and we are told that he oppressed Babylonia and even attempted to destroy the temple of Bel in Babylon, and all through the text the names and the political situation are the same as in the Genesis narrative. Literary criticism had decided that the account in Genesis was mythical and unhistorical, that the names were etymological fictions, and that the idea of a Babylonian expedition to Palestine in the age of Abram was suggested by the campaigns of the later Assyrian monarchs. Consequently it was necessary to deny the archaeological facts. Mr. Pinches and his brother Assyriologists were told by the literary critics, who could not decipher a single cuneiform character themselves, that their readings were mis- taken, and that Kudur-Laghamar, Tidal, Amraphel and Esrai mm 40 Mi SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OP wholly different pr^nuncTati™ " «??" '"^ "^ «>on met by Dr sl; „ ^" ''""ement was Who found in^ho Mu e"™ It iTf ,^^^^™'°gi". written by Amranhel h7!^ ,f •"*"'"'°P'^ l«tter8 Chalde. In this the nam of the E,™^"""^ '" 'S represented in a w«v Ti! ? . . *■""" """larch Literary criticism thrtook a •' °^ " '"P^'^- '"g of the names w.s^,^tL T, *^^- '^''^ ""^^- . the cuneiform doc mltfltain " ™^ ''" """ Abraham, and that » f™ ? "" *<=<»"nt of had been' introdntd' vT ffi itT '"'■'"- ''■''-^ ma^s of Action. It is hfjd h "'"'"' '"t" « Critics that Ab J ^ , ' Yh """^ °' ."■« Higher which tradition has IL ^^' "'"'" '<'«« '"■°'»>d the lapse of time B °t 2 "'''"° '^S^"* "nring Joseph. Ishmael and SarahT™ "'■ ^^^'"' ''^' tobJets Mr. Gore Ls7n - T'". '" *' """t""" firatthroechapteL of Gen • "^ ^"'''''" f"** «>« -not forget fhirso 000 tSlerh"^'""'- ^"' ^ at Nineveh, many of hem 7 • /™ *'"*" "^"""ned tions, dating back ti !, ^'^ °' "'"' "''J^'' ■^crip- B.C. Thes^ "Sttuttl !f 'Zf ..^''"^ ^- (Accad is mentioned in Gen lO lot .'*" ''"^'^■ -theBelngetab,etsinll^:„f:r;rr HIGHER CRITICISM. 41 lations are most common. It represents Noah re- hearsing the story of the flood to Nimrod. It is copied from a tablet dating back at least 4,000 years. It has been preserved by the enemies of the Jews, who would not have been likely to do anything to substantiate the Hebrew Scriptures. Every detail of the Mosaic narrative is corroborated with minute accuracy, and these hoary monuments confirm the Hebrew annals. The account given in Gen. 10:8-10 of Nimrod receives remarkable corroboration fro) inscriptions on monuments exhumed in Mesopotamia The story of the Hittites is marvellous as told by them. It was a mere Biblical name two decades ago, and indeed the accuracy of the scripture narrative was questioned, on the ground that no such people had ever existed. But Dr. Schlieman has brought to light from the great past specimens of the art and literature of that people, which now crowd the British Museum. The oldest Accadian tablets of Sargon the First prove the Hittites to have been colonizers and conquerors long before. A most fascinating volume has been written by Dr. W. Wright, showing their character and their history, and proving beyond reasonable doubt that Abraham came into contact with them. And the promises given to him that he should possess their land, and the declaration which Moses heard at the burning bush, all receive a strengthening meaning from these long-buried records of a forgotten empire. One interesting inscription m 42 !' I V, (*• m If SOME MISTAKE«J iwr. A«ES AND PERILS OP *«-*MlrfS op Among the papyri th **'*'• 8isf«. ®^ *^<^ victories of " P^^n^ by Pentaur wenty-two days of „i„ • °"'' say thaf .f. unanimous in 1 ^ '°''e»«g»tion fh f *^'«'' "tI, ''"'™*"°''*«^ti:^or;t i"" '^erf«H''!fJ?^''"':^tJ'^'''y °^ the «' Te," -St" p '" ^^ '■■». havTCdt "'"■'"' <«- „ade .ear b/r ^l^^- HIGHER CRITICISM. 48 tablets, and the condition of the Israelites is vividly described. The name Moses is shown to be purely Egyptian, and means " son," a very appropriate name for the adopted son of an Egyptian princess. Such names could not have been invented at a later period, vi^hen the Israelites were settled in Palestine, and these very stones cry out in vindication of the sacred record and the traditional view. I cannot linger longer here, nor is it necessary. Sufficient has been referred to to show that the authorship and authenticity of the Pentateuch are buttressed by { )of so unassailable that like a rock it stands unmoved by the hurtling storm or surging waves of rationalistic criticism and materialistic animosity. There is, however, no cause to fear that the citadel of truth will be taken. Already the tide seems to be turning; the master-minds of Europe are flinging ; aside these ill-founded theories and reverting to \ former positions, and those who seem to think it a pro f of superior intellectuality to be of their way of thinking will doubtless follow them in their retreat, and out of it all the Scriptures will shine with ' increased beauty and lustre. Once I passed an old j fort on the outskirts of Paris soon after the siege of ^ the Prussians, where I saw sticking in the wall the shells thrown there by the German artillery. To me they did not mar the grandeur of the massive fort or disfigure the splendor of that solid masonry. Nay, ; rather they seemed to add to its beauty, and to hang i i m u f> ' u »0«i=>ST.KKS .VB PHR,^, „, »pregnability „, ,^^.;"^'=« - I serve to show the 'h-^ugh .t „en will ,ee mo^L ""'Piration, and ^°f wrote a« U.ey w"e Ik T?'""'"''^ ■««» Spmt; that He ligh J „ '"^r "'' ""^ ""^ Holy "f them, mov.> wUhin th*^ ^''"'' '<»'' Posseasion controlled tJ t TA ""' ""^''-ained theH? 7"W apeak-; »t."'!.i:''fV^-g'. wh^h H "one to e.ec«te some mite ' ""'"'"■'"' """'d tnrns to the mournful ZT^u^'^"^' P"^ his li,„ b„ ";^"'f"' pipe, and hf L f'P^'^^'i'^ reed, the ^'™ff%tosou„d,n'„te™T T' ""•" ^ "- "ord has played unonn! '" *'*''"''' 'ife-mvi„„ »en.a„d givVu, inZ ttlTt ''•"■^y-^'^i^ol 'he sublime .simplicity frth""'r'"'^^^'''«on «°7?y of Paul, fh, 4 °' John, the soul-atirring poetic grandeur of Isaith 1. "^ '""'"' "' ^e'er. thf '"•<'. the majestic „rrratil '?'' 'y"''=» "f dIvW .^«"ous the instru ™™: "^ "o^es. Howevlr' harmonised by one mind sljT'' ''"'^ »- a| «nd demonstrate the great t™?^ ^'^ ™' "''ter-hand £ven by the inapiratL "f G^''":' »" S-ipture is' doctnne. cor«ctio„ and Lp^f'f ''.Profitable for "ghteousness that the mZTn J" ""''^^tion i„ thoroughly fu^^h,, J;''" of God may t, What has been said o^ the P^^'' '"''"''■ 2' of Isaiah. The un'ty of ?h t""'' ""^ "'- be »■ S. Margoliouth, M.A., of qI^" .^-^o^^^-. Prof "^fo«I. w contributing a '4eT«fi:'«5«5!ri^l*5^ HIGHER CRITICISM. 45 series of articles on " Lines of Defence of the Biblical Revelation " ; and in the May number and the previous one contends with much force for the unity of the authorship of the book of Isaiah as against plurality. His arguments briefly stated, are : 1. The external evidence is uniformly favorable to single authorship. 2. The theory which bisects Isaiah leads to further and further dissection. 3. The geography of the latter part is earlier than Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 4. The idolatrous practices rebuked in the second part are pre- exilian rites. The Holy Scriptures seem to me to stand like a mighty temple built through the rolling centuries, after a heaven-conceived plan. The mind of the great Architect stands revealed in every part. Just as the angle of the loftiest spire is determined in its first layer of stone and persists throughout to the tapering finger that points to the heavens, so this temple has been rising grand and fair. Its mighty foundations were, in the morning of time, formed of great indestructible blocks of self-evident truth. There was the foundation of Monotheism. The foundation of man's creation in the image of God, which flashes and glows with God's Fatherhood and man's sonship, with God's sovereignty and man's debt of loyalty ; which scintillates with the truths of the unity of the race and the equality of all men ; the foundation of the family with its hallowed sanctities 1 •«•. ^ 46 SOME MISTAKES AND PERILS OF and Its holy monogamy; the foundation of the Sabbath, the moral, spiritual, physical and physio- logical demand of human and divine nature; the foundation of the Decalogue, the ten words which he at the root of all wise and beneficent legislation : on these foundations have arisen splendid spires of hope, the hope of redemption, the hope of pardon, the hope of immortality, and eternal felicity— hopes' that chase away human sorrows, that give life a new meaning and a loftier purpose. Great transepts stretch out, spanned and vaulted by the arches of prophecy, holding the centuries together with a grip of steel. Clustering pinnacles shoot forth, the pin- nacles of joy, peace, prayer, and praise, and th(;re is tjhe holy place, the great central altar on which lay and beside which now stands the Great High Priest of our profession. "Every star about him wheels, Every penitent he heals ; Higher than the highest, he , Son and Soul of Deity." There the Shekinah abides, the wondrous paraclete making every stone of truth flash with a holy light, until they seem to us to be transformed into emeralds,' crysolites, beryls, and calcedonies of peerless beauty,' and ever revealing some new spl-ndor, some loner- hidden loveliness. It is, as we live in that temple and join its holy litanies and bask in the light of its presiding genius, that we are able tc behold its beauty II 4l1 ^' •VeJ ■T^r^'w HMHFK UBITICISM. 47 t« thought Btranjje, for no man can hear more of the s^eet oraeor,o, -leasiah, than he has of Meaaiah in and .heard ,t only i„ Uh own so«I. Every rendering turL 111 '"■'''""' """ "''^"'f^f'-y. and he would turn to the great choir and impatiently, in broken Enghah cry. " Loudaire ! you do not undLtand" So « our hearts are filled with the spirit of the Bible the Sp,„t of 0,^ ^y, ^.P 2 wUh ncher hght and th,ob with deepe. :...aning.Tnd wt shall see what Paul meant when he said : " For tie ^ural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit o ^^for hey are foolishness unto him, neither »„ he know them because they are spiritually discerned but he that IS spiritual disceraeth all things." ■ iraxi^a^.^iiSB^^'^ia^rrsi^': ^3Cirs^5s:^ j:-^'iiM