The Portland daily press., 1895-03-09

Demolished by New school-Too Much
Tendency on Part of Pulpit and People
to Demolish the Old Testament.
Ever since DR.. Harper gave his famous
lecture on the Old Testament at the Mem.
orial BAPTIST Church last winter he has
been asked as many questions about higher
criticism as he himself raised in his lee
lures. He undertook last SATURDAY., says
the Chicago Herald, to answer questions
on the relation of higher criticism 10 faith
In the scriptures. The defender of the es-
sence as opposed to the letter of the Bible
took up the sword of higher criticism and
parted all the thrusts. lie was ably assist
ed by Professor E. D. Burton, who took it
upon himselfto meet the questions concern
ing the New Testament.
All sorts of interrogations were pouring
all day into the box for the purpose. They
had scope from small requests for infor-
nation to philosophical and motaphy steal
propositions. The Bible scholars answered
them all. though many of them would have
puzzled the highest Of higher critics. The
questions were answered before a large au-
dience in Cobb Hall chapel yesteday after
n Don. This question was asked: What is
The best definition of higher oriticism?''
The doctor said that the question was APP
pro2riate, because many ministers put
higher criticism in a wrong position and
because nine out of ten oppon ents of the
higher criticism remained ignorant, many
of them willfully ignorant, Of what it was,
Criticism, he said, was inquiry after cor'
| rect text. Higher criticism was term in
| use with reference to inquiries that related
to the literary form of the books of the
Bible, to questions of authorship, to the
time when they were written.
Lower criticism. DR.. Harper said, dealt
with the text; higher criticism had to do
| with questions that related to literary and
hist orical significance. There was nothing
he said, in the term ''higher criticism"
which meant that one set of critics was
higher class than the other. Higher eriti-
cism might be divided into two classes.
hose who undertook the work of CRITICS.
ing having decided beforehand that there
was no such thing as God or the supernat-
ural were higher critics, but from DR.. Har-
-per's point of view they were destructive
higher critics. If any man of accepted faith
undertook this work. of critioising he was
higher critic, though his work was not TO
destroy, but to construct.
| DIR. Harper was asked. what effect does
higher criticism have on the mirac ulous
element?"
| The old school, the doctor said, sought to
find as many miracles in the Bible as pos.
| sihle. The modern school. while granting
the miraculous in the Bible. took the posi-
| tiUn that no more of the miracles was to ut
| accepted than was necessary. If ii wat
possible to explain an accepted miracfle IL
part or in whole on natural grounds theI
| it was right to do So.
| Another question was, Z" Does reasona
BILE study of the historical take away from
the Miraculous"
1T does take away from the number o.
| miracles, but higher criticism from my owl
point of yiew,'' said DR.. Harper. ''whil
bringing out clearly and distinctly tn,
great features of the Old Testament histor!
has shown that Old Testament historI
is one stupe ndous miracle. When We
the grand development of this history till
the time of Jesus Christ. WHO could doubi
that we have here unique miracle and
miraculous history
SIS it likely to shake the faith of the peo-
pie if certain of the oanonical BOOKS are re-
jected?'
DR.. Harper said this higher criticism did
not pass on the oanonical books.
To the question, why does 1t not lesson
the authority of The Scripture if we re-
ject the verbal meaning?" the answer given
| was that if the letter was higher than the
spirit, then the authority was diminished.
Was the tangible more real than the spirit
ual? he asked. The things seen were. after
all. the things people were in doubt about.
God might speak in the ear, but was that
more tangible than if he spoke in the hearth
he 1or Of hnI ri
people abandon faith by the interpreta-
| lions of higher critic:sm2:' was asked. The
answer was that the large mass of unschol-
arly people was not going 10 change. By
kind Providence when person passed from
| one Intellectual position to another he was
prepaI ed gradually for the change. Change
of INTEL actual position based upon facts
was slow.
| "Does not higher CT itiCism hold that ths
| work of God was Influenced by human
agencies through which it was accom-.
| plished?" was the succeeding query. The
doctor answered it by asking il it was mo-
necessary for God Himself to become maj
| to teach man.
| One questioner wanted to know if highe
criticism had not thrown doubt on pas
| sages which were quoted with approval D1
| New Testament writer's. The doctor said
| that higher criticism lid not throw doub.
| on any book. Higher criticism was thu
agency which by the power of God was Il
save the Old Testament. People and pulpk
were deserving the Old Testament. 1t Wal
regarded now as pleasant enough TO
children TO read, but grown people demand
| ed the New Testament. The Old Testa
meEt was going and the time had come 70
| some agency 10 save it. The trouble wa
that the praao her had been preaching tina
| all higher criticism was destructive. 1t wa
the study of the Old Testament from his
torical and a literary point of view tina
would make it possible to answer every
question that any lngersoll would raise.
| A student asked If the higher criticism
could Le studied so that it would not shake
confidence in the kihle. The critic replied
that it did not do this. He said believerl
| did not know the authors of many of tho
books of The Old Testament and yet did nog
cast them out Who knew who wrote JoA
or Samuel? Scores of men wrote the Prove
cribs. The Authors were not known of one
third of the books of he Old Testament