New-York tribune., 1891-05-24


give up some views of the Bible without giving
Nm the Bible itself. It is oil or nothing with him
II he believes in the Bible at all, he believes In IL
nc an infallible oracle free from all errors and mis-
s,atemcnts And when criticism, which III lts
first touch is always destructive like the FROST re-
| ects a text here gives new meaning 10 pass
aee there, and throws over the whole DooK mover
and strange atmosphere of naturalsn, ne cries ouV
in wrath that the critics trying TO destroy tne
| Bible.
| Such fear of criticism, however does not oe'
long to Christianity itself. but to its overcautiouS
defenders As matter of fact, the result thus
far of Biblical criticism has been to BRING ouo
more clearly and strongly the claims OF the biole
! to the regard of men, In innumeraDe ways .he
researches of the critics confirming the Veracl~
| of the Bible, and investigation mas le1t IL IN "
much stronger, because more rational, position
than il occupied before Even the discrepancies
and contradictions that criticism has discovered
in it have confirmed its honesty and veracity'
4 strange as it may appear. For they are just such
discrepaneies and contradictions as would be made
by honest and truth-seeking men in the clrcum-
stances under which they wrote. For instance,
there are two accounts given OF the origin oI ohc
| name Beer-sheba. In the twenty-nrst chapter VI
| Genesis. we are told that 1t was SO nameu oy
! Abraham because of striking event that nap
| pened there And in the twenty-slXth chaPvei VI
The same book it is said that Isaac gave the PaI
its name about ninety wears a"ivi a,,on@ers have
| tried 10 smooth over this difficulty, Dut WIN no
| success The true explanation OF TINS anu tor n
merous other contradictions oil a. similar oe .eDoo
is that the Biblical writers and editors inSorpo
rated into their narrative accounts from a..
documents, and did not always n9Iice n t .ne dnes
crepances in these documents, ~ nus CHS deal
NOT impeach the Bible record Oh oou 80, uer,
ings with men; but it does overthrow uie & T1,e
that every word in it is infalnoly lnsPlleo P vond
real enemy of the Bible IS not d. Tse eetimae t and can
aid criticism but the man who, py reius1ins 1t 10
allow such tests gives color 10 ,ne fatb who
fears the result Christians Oh sefe tSo relicion of
have cauQht the finer spirit OF uhe 5onHHiC 4asts
Christ welcome all investigations ana al 49, 49,
however disturbing may be thelI UliIynS UiI tSSot hin
1t would be unfair, however 10 I'm npS ,,n M nrinc
lica criticism is always true to l,S own
nIes for il is not 1t is often sneerlngy Ie!itc
HAT the the6logans hold brief f3r Shrsi Ssin hcId
hut it is forgotten that many so-called crlGS N is
" br;of on fhe other side Of the case MucIi M,i1 -
said about the absurd capers OF the ND deal
docmatist and perhaps he deserves SOo Uon him
of Tho onprobriun that has been heapeu upol.
Rpt STRANGELY enough, the scientific anu ,1 Gtitnc -
dormatist is looked upon as very IN mo anneal
from whose decisions ms theTg tdognots I of the critic
;s oIi>fe as intolerabe as the dogmaus&Ti & oa o1e %
theooqian and much more OFFENSIVE. t.,oulent
many socaed critics of the Biole whose Nv hool.
attityude toward that noble and veneTape ppoA t
docs more 10 discredit legitimate crluclsn .ln aa
ANYTHING else Ignoring the fact that tne 81
~ rps
~ ~ pblo in on ATTITUDE of contemptuous unoelei
that is AZ contrary to the true principles OF seen
tfc criticism it is insulting 70 ren9Ioih;
forget that criticism is not windy decatnIIlo y. Ioor
and that the function of the true crtlc is 10 Iea
the truth whether it squares WIN ms p!eleSI ,Is
sons not They assume 1or INSANE S end that it's
nresence in any professed history is suilSleaV n
presumption against its HISTORICAL charac'er ouct
are merely merely TSose Se bsed opinions ought to
have NO vpiqht with fair-minded men, Inc man
whose only function is TO destroy is no true rep
resentative of modern criticism, the aim OF whlcR
Is to reconstruct on the enduring foundations OF
truth, rather than 10 destroy. The mclhods % o.
modern Biblical criticism cannot oe HnpeaThtto to
dav are using these methods in dishonest way,
NOT in order TO find ont what is true, but to Dolser
nm their own prejudiced opinions. ....,
Having said this, we may perhaps DE pernut!eu
IN say that on the other hand many Chrlsaah
scholars who ought 10 know better are mnlalr IN
their treatment of Biblical criticism Ihey no.
ore supported by evidence that cannot possibly
be refuted but they impugn its motives and deny
the prGprey Of its met methods dsraTe 5aUghb KAT f cr ft
| cjsm has added nothing to the sum OF Blonco
knowledge, and that it Is having no Hlsn ellecs
on the current beliefs OF the thutc9 t the +beoIng
Of Of a Critical study Of the Bible and Of
as Of no consequence If man presumes to deny
anv doctrine or tradition of his Church. on the
ground that critical investigation has disproved
the truth or the binding authority OF that doc
trine or tradition we are told that the Church
can only deal with te bare fact that he IS hereuc
All its beliefs and opinions have been settled once
and for all by men in the far distant past, many
of whose names are unknown to us; and
nothing that modern criticism can say can afrect
their present status
There are to-day eminent ministers Of religion,
| some Of them great preachers and some of them
instructors in theological semnaries, who boldly
affirm that il was decided by inspired men long
before the time Of Christ Just what books should
be regarded belonging to the Old Testament
| Protestants now acknowledge. AS matter Of
| fact the Canon of the Old Testament was not
fixed until sixty years after Christ's death. And
IL is TO all intentS and purposes proved that the
| Old Testament read and quoted by Christ and
| His Apostles was the Septua0in. which contained
| the books known as tho Apocrypha, not
| collected together by themselves as doubtful or
! inferior. hut mixed with the other books as CO.
| eoual in authority So that if Protestants main
tain that our Lord attested the inspiration of the
Old Testament by quoting from 1T, to he con-
hooks with the Canon. And yet what Sunday
| school manual of the Bible frankly informs its
readers of these facts? Such irrational-and must
we not say dishonest ?-defenders of the faith, on
| tbe one hand. and the unecientifc destructive
critics of whom we have spoken on the other
| hand are almost wholly responsible for the CON
| nict that is raging between the old truth and the
| new truth between tradition and criticism. There
| are some Christian apoogists who seem 10 think
| that difficulties can be met and overcome by
refusing to see them. 1t is mental attribute
| that is very well illustrated by the story OF
| woman who was converted to a belief in the
| modern miracles of the faith cuTists. What DO
| you mean by faith ?" some one asked her. well,
| che replied. al mean the power of persuading
myself that believe things which know to be
| untrue"
| II.
ITS BOOKS AND THEIR AUTHORS!