New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-01-25

lcndS the Pentateuch into tatters. say ~assump.
,ion1 advlsedly. IL is not conclusion established
on Wnch the dvisive ctic!sm is itself butt refer
to their assumption Of the existence Of Duplicate ana
PenLdteuchal narratives.
-, This IS IN faet The marin reliance Of the critics.
lhey anect to nnd duplicate and discf, pant state
hCLtS everywhere, and liey point them as clearly
cVloenclng duplicate authorship. Examples Of this
Hle Oi reasoning as employed by the critics were
slvcnJ The necessary effect of sucn treatment Is
OF course to produce the appearance Of lancies
from first TO last Is converted from a consistent con
uhuOus and Teiable record into Il medley Of con-
Trajectory and lariing stories such a. were 1Oatng
about AT The ume when these several documents
written - Obvious What becomes Of the historical
create surprise that critics who have i"rmef his
conception Of the pentatcuch clamor for "a modihca
uOn OF the common doctrine Of Inspiration. (1he
treatment Of the Mosaic period by tie critics
infinitely examined IN similar way
1t Is very evident from all this why the critics tell
Us tat tie dp1nt OF Inspiration must be modified.
II these PentAIeuchal documents. as they describe
peculiar sense 1t il not question Of incrrancy,
but of Wholesale mutual contradiction which quite
DESTROYS THEM c'dit truthful histories. And these
cont adlctons, be ii Observed not In Pentaeucb
Itself, but result from the nanging and mainter-
prtalions to which 1t has been subjected by the
On the critical hypothesis the real facts OF the
history are not what they seem to be to the ordinary
reader They can only b. ELECTED by elaborate
critical process. Another element of pIvciriouSn@ss
enter, into the critical attempts to distinguish what
IS reliable from what Is In tie Pentaieuchal
milvcs BY the conf, sion Of the critics themselves
and the necessity of their hypothesis, the documents
which they fancy THY have discovered by means
complete.
A WORK OF DIs1NTEGRATToN.
We have been able in the discussion Of this evening
to look in hurried way at but one feature of the
diSntegIating work which is done in the name OF
Biblical criticism. do not speak OF the destructive
differences drawn by critics who are avowedlv an
agonistc 10 supernatural religion. have confined
self to the conclusions accepted bv that class OF
critics who claim 10 be evangelical, and who
occupy places OF honor and influence In evangelical
churches such the British scholars ana dlvmes, DIS
Driver and Cheyne, and tine Ameilan scholars VINO
affiliate with them The critical theory which We have
been examining is destructive Of all rational certainty
reality Of these traits, and thds tends To- 0vert
the historical basis of the religion Of the Bible. our
Holy religion is historical religion, based on series
of redeemptye fact, IL wgh 600 vyeael nntnns se
And to weaken the evidence OF those facts 10 cast DOUBT
upon the reality Of the historical occurrence j. 10 cast
DOUBT upon the reality Ol tia. revelation which they
embodied $500 -,
Those who hold these critical views which we have
been con- dc1ing may tell tina, they believe In the
sped of God that they believe il to be inallibe In all
matters of nth ana duty or course do not 1uso-
ton these statement, their personal faith iut tins
does prove their critical theories 10 be Harmless
they who have ADOPTED Wrong principle Or dalserOrs
theories do not always follow them to clr csiha'e
conclusions. What we are cohctIh.u 10 hI"M - n
personal faith OF those who sun eng u tc ,e.
acce pance OF critical ny pothtNl' "hch l. aiatonh.
Ia it, WHAT We are concerned 10 kno" i the rsluIitt
tendency of the ulucal hypothe,s llNell' IV"cNcr
some OF It's adhc1entS retain their idth III tlc III
tOrca truth OF the Icntacuch and N Divine lhspI9'-
ton IBIS hypothesis. has been shown, uIdeililoH
Them all ii, acceptance by those not well grounded
In these doctrines must tend % un>etc their ial II,
general acceptance must lead ultimately 10 me uviila
Of it, aspiration. even In that qualified sense ia "Ino
these critics profess to accept IT nov" =, ven ~ 10
the OF It's historical truth a. surely ~ the Tree
viii bear fruit after It. own kind
II may be- remembered that III tle pvlsoh VI IN,
Confession Ui Faith OF rcsby tcIian Church, Nhlci
= now in progress. the propO>i on was made 10y thc
committee appointed for that purpose 10 insert toH7
the characteristics Of Holy scripture the uulhluVs'
Of the history And IL may be- remembered tEl iHI'
natural ana appropriate cmeIrauOn met Win drtci
mined opposition III certain quarters. The aliIlu'
and the motive OF that opposition VIII auNclcuE appa
from the ,.virW Of the attitude which TINS dill~lVc
criticism assumes toward the historical truth OF IN"
lilo II Is not Biblical criticism. properly so-caIied
winch anta.OnILes Ii, truth Dut what Ohsht fdtier u
be deuomnated anti biblical criticism, sluce even H.
tamDel;ti. hands and those which most aiApls 10
claim for themselves evangelical standing, IL WftucS
the verify Of the sacred Oaco> aud annuis the reality
of their in~piiation. ,
But a .u lie word more. Nnat must rf tlr s'h'" %
mind cugcndered toward the scrptures b such spcc
auOnsl