The sun., 1892-01-28
The Enemies Of tho Bible.

The opponents OF the higher criticism Of
the Bible. as 1t Is called. have the advantage
over Its defenders that they are clear and
consistent, honest and straightforward.
They do not beat about the bush and
dodge the consequences Of their arguments.
as the others do, juggle with words, and
pretend that unbelief Is only larger and
more enlightened belief. They say ex-
actly what they mean in terms which
cannot be mistaken. Everybody un-
derstands them. The others. apparently.
do not want to be understood by anybody,
or. perhaps we should say more charitably.
they dare not themselves face the conse-
quences Of their methods and principles Of
Biblical Interpretation. They try to make
themselves and other people believe that
they are only putting the authority OF the
Bible on q more rational basis. when in
truth they are destroying it utterly. and
along with it the supernatural basis Of all
theology and religion.
AS Prof. GREEN OF Princeton said last
Sunday. there is nothing novel In attacks
upon the genuineness and truth OF the
books Of the Bible by scholars who have no
faith in the supernatural; but these assaults
are new because they are made by Chris
tian scholars who claim to be evangelical in
their creed. and to be reverent students OF
the Word Of GoD." DR.. BRIGGS, for in
stance. processes to believe In the "in-
spiration Of the Bible. but it is a
sort Of inspiration which would be admit
ted readily by those who deny the SUPER
natural origin and Divine authority of the
Scriptures. 1t is not inspiration. to use the
words Of Prof. GREEN. lin its proper and
universally accepted sense. as such O Di-
vine control over the writer's Of Scripture as
secured their infallibility and guarded them
from error" Its theory assumes that they
were as liable to error as other men. and it
accumulates proofs to show their inconsis-
tencies. contradictions. and discrepancies;
or. as DR.. VAN DYKE put it In his letter In
The Sun on Monday. to exhibit the fact that
they were conditioned by their national
and personal peculiarlties' and their
natural faculties. intellectual and moral.
freely exercised In their production" Un-
doubtedly Col. INdERsOLL himself would be
ready to accept inspiration so defined.
Prof. GREEN. therefore. stated the issue
between the new and the old theories Of
inspiration correctly when he said that it
concerned 1.-THE historical truth and Divine
authority OF the Old Testament from begin
ming to end" and consequently the author
ity Of the New Testament also. for therein
what is assumed by these critics as error is
accepted and confirmed as indisputable
truth. They deny that MOSES was the au-
thor OF the Pentateuch. and say that some
OF its writer's were not earlier than $50 b. G..
though "our Lord and the inspired
writer's OF the New Testament abundantly
a,.,,, nnIo 80 l.
regarded as the Word OF GOD. for In SO
doing they uniformly attach to 1t the name
Of Moses" II JESUS and His disciples were
deceived as to this point. how can they be
believed as iniallible In any respect They
also must have been limited by tn air mat
ural faculties. intellectual and moral"
DR.. VAN DYKE may call that " "old.fash-
ioned logic" purely inductive instead OF
deductive;" but is 1t not common sense
So also is the logic OF Prof. GREEN when he
says that il in ordinary affairs legal in
strument or a piece OF commercial paper.
for instance. sis not from the source 1t |
claims to be. and the signature attached to |
1t Is false. 1t is not worth the paper 1t Is |
written upon" II MOSES did not write the |
Pentateuch. andits authorship Is purely con-
jectural, some OF 1t obviously having been
produced thousands Of years after his time
as q record OF Jewish traditions by un-
known writer's and for the purposes of |
priestcraft. what remains OF the authority |
of those books or OF any part Of the Bible |
as the Word Of GoD? II its statements |
OF fact are contradictory and distinct
events are confounded. IL it Is q
mere compilation and not an orig
inal document. wherein consists its
inspiration II the Bible thus be-
gins with false pretences. what else In 1t
can be accepted as genuine truth from Gop
any more than the doctrines and specula-
uons Of any other book2 II the natural