The sun., 1891-01-11
sOME NEW BooK&


sowr NFN 8OOKA
~'.s "
Whatever may be the controversial value OF
Mr. GLApsroNH's papers reprinted under the
title OF The Impreonable Rock Of Ho'v Scripture
John D. WathesL they are certain to In
tereet multitude OF readers. Md0nus IN uno'
naonas in omnibus. Is very common as
sumption, ana even IN the special neid OF
Biblical criticism many persons Will credit q
DISTINGUISHED statesman with a degree OF
authority to which he himself lays no claim.
1t 10. indeed, . favorito argument with women
OF both sexes. whom young man evinees
skeptieal turn OF mind. to inauite whether no
considers himself wiser than the SHINING iien!s
OF present and past times As mooesty ioroios
an answer In the Affirmative the incident 10
looked upon In the domestic forum as
closed. To those fond OF applying sucn extin-
Ruishsrs to the spirit OF INQUIRY. the appear
anoe OF Mr. Gladstone on the side OF cohHorva-
tive religious opinions VIII oe peculiarly eis'e-
fuL The author OF these papers aoes nos nss'-
tato 70 sccept tne MOSAIC socount Vi 'no oten
uon, or 70 delend tne Rsnersi h'SeoiHa' .sush
OF the Old Testament, ana ne sets iortn at
length the reasons ior tho isitn tnN 10 IN mn.
He also discusses the realms ano inc MOSAIC
legislation, and brings forward from inc pro.
ducts OF recent research cofrooors''ons vi
6oripture. We advise those. however VINO
would like to invoke MI. aladstones testi-
mony, to nrst sorutinize careluny the oeton.
OF his evidence; for. In point OF lsct' some OF
his admissions VIII DO oy NO means acooptaoie
to those who hold that the biole. Is We nave H.
was literally inspired. he goes. indeed con-
sidernbly furthsr IN the way OF concession
than Lux mundi. wnicn is itsei Aiemark-
able advance upon tho once famous Essays
and Reviews'
Mr.. Gladstone begins oy ACKNOWLEDGING tnat
1t ID hard for those VINO believe IN dlVine
revelation. AZ pervsdine or contained IN tns
Scriptures. TO repudiate the folloWine oonees-
e!cns. There possibly may nave oeen. no
grants, an Imperfect comprehension OF that
which was divinely communicated ana An I'M
perfect expresston OF what had once osen
comprehended. neither Will no dehy tnst thofo
may have been lapses OF memory In oral trans
mission, errors OF conyists IN written sransmis-
sion. and changes with the passage OF time IN
the sense OF words. He admits. also. the posi-
ble existence Of variations arising from render
ines Into different tongues. as Tor instance.
between the Hebrew text OF the OLD Testament
and the Greek septuagint text and. ngain' Do
tween the Greek text OF tho New Testament
and the Latin OF the Fulgats he says. further.
that - the Inspired writer's OF the New iesta-
mont varied IN tho text they USED Tor citations
from the Old Testament they evidently did not
regard either the Hebrew or the Greek text as
OF exclusive authority. he declares. hnaily.
that a. there arc three variant chronoloaies OF
tho Old Testament, according to the hebrew.
the septusgint and the Samaritan Pentateucn.
It would bs unwarrantable to claim Tor any
ono Of them. as against tho Others the abso-
Lutte sanction Of divine revelation.
Where 20 much Ia taken away pieoemea 1t Is
dihicult to DISTINGUISH what Is lott. and to un-
dsrstand what Mr.. Gladstone. and they who
concur In these admissions. moan BY never
theless affirming tho literal inspiration OF the
bcrtptures. We sro loft to infer the scope and
purport OF Mr.. Giadstone's substantive BELIEF
from certain negative propositions which he
undertakes 70 make good In the essays before
us. He denies for instance. that the books OF
the Bible. In many most important instances
and especially those books OF the Old Testa-
nent which profess to be the earliest are COM
parsttvely recent compilations from uncertain