New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-02-12
THE BIBLE CONTROVERSY,
DIR. NEWMAN ON "HIGHER CRITICISM"

character OF the night His tonic was Moses and the
Prophet" and his text Luke XVI 81: they near not
Moses and the prophets neither will they bepersuaded
though one rose from the dead" Dr. Newman said In
| part:
"Let us rejoice my brethren that the public mind ia
excited on the vital questions whether the Bible ia
worthy OF faith whether 1t In fact the revelation
OF God TO man or simply the production OF goou out
mistaken men. No book Is too holy to De
| examined Intelligent and revercnt criticism has Its
exalted mission and both and our fah de-
mand that this kind of criticism shall explore to their
foundations the grounds or faith In revelation Let
in the light what reveals; II 1t be the forms
of angels blessed be God If forms OF devils alas Tor
mani But let faith IN the Book be calm, intelligent
and conscientious. As welcome criticism, l. e., a
| careful examination OF the ground OF our falth
in the Scriptures do welcome what is come to be
known to-day higher criticism" What IL this higher
criticism Of which we hear so muchi Does 1t contain
any principles of logic any canOns OF investigation not
known in the past Call In the reverend minister VINO
stands in sacerdoal robes and administers the sacra
while at the time he breaches the untrust-
worhness Scripture and ask him for the catalogue of
his objections. Not is new. Yet there Is
degree prctension about this higher criticism, as
though something t. scholars or new toaver-
age hearers It's objective point ia 10 eliminate from the
prophecies miracles of the Scriptures the supernatu
raj This is done by reducing all recorded facts 10 ooer-
atoms Of natural laws. 1t does not cast mputations
upon honesty and tthfuness OF the sacred writers,
but in paroxy OF mOIesty pronounces them mis-
taken
Higher criticism therefore, has to do with the genuine
Of the sacred writings, and IL asserts that what we
suppose have been the Book Of one Author i5 really
the book four i've It SAYS that pr phecy Is the
record made after the events predicted hal occurred,
and II csteems miracles to be simply extraordinary
phenomena. II has 10 do with the 81 the books the
OF the books aud the canOnizaton Of the Old
Testament. 1t draws its arguments from comparative
phology from the apparent inteIccton OF historical
facts OF their eraiuterpoatOns This the sum If
higher criticism. IL goes TO the book Itself AID says
that only con-umnatc scholar Il capable Of taking the
microscope and Of applying It 10 the books IN question
COME audience like this tnat do not see any
thing in what they call hi ,hcrcrc!sm true, II requires
Knowledge IN special branches but declare 1t ha,
been expanded to proportions that are not authorized
Last week called your attention TO the authenticity
OF the Old Testament histories; tonight / wish to
pass 10 their commences, !. e., their authorship.
The question is. Did Moses write the Pcuacach Isaiah
his prophecies David the Psa'm-i II Is said, mat
who wrote the Peutaieuch long We have It no
matter VINO wrote the burning words oil lsa'ah' OF
the sweet melodies Of the Palms, 80 long u. We
the Imitation of christ" grant you that % is ~
no earthly cons quence 70 me whether rare old Sen
Th33ma Krppis or someone ,lsS vrot@ m. imit, A..
ton Of christ whether Charles Wesley or IoPlidy
and saws thou shalt do thus and So aud thou shalt
imposes duties and selfdcnal7. / must know
its and cannot accept u withou, competent
authority. Iruc tuerc are books the sacred
canon whose authorshlpis not known. II - an open
question whether Ju0 Moses OF Solomon wrote the book
Of job too j. an open question VINO "ioc some of
the Psllmsa a. - quite eydeut Da'li dd not write
them all How then avn TO meet thi-' having argued
that 1 Will not accept such DOCK nuleTs
and prophecc-i When remember iuat thi- GA lcsla-
mcLt accepted by Jesus tnr- that lie quoted from
job .nd the Prnn- and recOguiz the thTe,iOd dlyi
sion into the Law, the Prophets and The s1mS lcn his
recognition of tue books Is sufficient for me. We're it
did not know the auDOI Of solitary book
OF the Ola Testament but hu c'at eNldtIo thAl ~ vas
received by Jesus Christ divine that would Do sufficient
Did Mo4cs write tnc Pcniatcucht Oac reverend ccr.
gyman Of this cy says TO- lie mas lola the children of
uis Suuday school that MOscs did he las told the
Of his church tna Moses dd not AMI he Pres
hn= IL al over the continent there i've rules
by winch scholars judge 81 the genuine - Of book fGc
fret f. tus when doubts bayc bcsu cnte auci ~ the
g.nuinentss o. book from TIE inr u appeared IN tnc
word. Wncu aud where doubt expressed to the
Authorship OF tue Pcntatcuch Among The jews
10. It va, Reserved Tor Germany to sat the
question that Pcutateuch wa, N its authorship
Mosaic. Ihc second canon Of doubt when the I'M
medetc friends OF me r,puted author VINO were pest
able To LecIdc. denied tue book a. AIS production ind
Aaron )eA"nH 81 ms pro,ner po"e,, eve, "i'Hpcl
doubt or joshua hls successor Inc lhld i"Ie Is
when long series oil years nave elapsed after che
aud In when 1t must hayo been mentioned had really
existed. There has no bern century since in which
Moses Fourth rule: When tue style OF tue book d, the
that " n- other writag', or II no other ~ ns
writings remain the same might lie expected Fftn
rue: When the cyens recorded were etucr past or
present and not later than the time IN which II Is known
Auer discussing these points Dr. Newman found proof
OF the Mosaic authorship IN the fact mat II ~ stated i've
tmes IN tue Penacucn tnat MJscs Was liz author. VIZ:
Exodus XVII IA; XIV, 1; XNXy., -; Numbers KNIi,
.. Deuteronomy xxxI %; KKL II further that Il, A.
tie subsequent bOoks OF the ElJ covering 1000 Years,
Moses Malachi, the samc act i- recognized tDat
Christ quoted rom tue -dited Moses
with thcIr authorship in Matthew yi Mark Z 3 and
4, the sermon gu tne MOJnt and Other placcs.
The spcaEct, coatlnuing reviewed the reasons al
yanced by toe modern raOnasuc critics against the
OF tue Pentatcuch aud other Old IcsaIncnt
books Replying to The cnargc mat the former showed
indications OF having boon male up OF from three To
1--WE earlier documents he demanded the sources dates
and authors OF such documents sayn that he, In his
specially nrcn9ologis and WIN ais facilities
member Archaeological Society Of LOnGOn, never
heard Of such documents. He urged besdes that II IL
were true that older documents had been Incorporated
lowed Inc custom of historians of all this regard.
lie met tue claim that LeYscus did not make
bc.n framed by Ezra, with tie statement
that 100 years before that lime King Josiah had called
M tins very book order 10 secure reformation
the people In proof Of the genunencss Of uteronOmy
he pointed out the circumstance that the three answers
gwen by Christ the devil at the time OF the tempta
ton were quotations from Deuteronomy IL was hardly
probable e said mat The Divine Master would answer
the ~ h 81 fd tnS fyi ono Win ITO"
N@xt SUNDAY Mr. Newman will preach on Inspiration
and ltcveauOn and will meet the question: Did tine
Propaes Prophecy by proofs GATHERED by him In his
MR. CHADWICK ON BIBLICAL CRITICISM
I'm the Second Unitarian Church, at Clinton
and Congress SITS, Brooklyn. the Rev. John W. chad
wick preached yesterday morning Things Necessary
"a salvation" Ar usual he took text In the intro
duclory part he spoke OF the controversy
that has grown out Of Rev. r. IIebr Nowtons ser
mons on the Bible and spoke sharply Of OF those
nrcachcrs who have condemned the results OF modern
p,bca criticism This part Of the discourse was TO this
eject
Knowing "a many OF you do, that the love OF truth
alone has Inspiration Of those patient scholars
who have aborated tue results OF modern criticism,
can imagine with what pain and with what ndig alton
you have read the various comments Of the
nd uulp