The Portland daily press., 1896-10-03
n... aa ;. ATKINSON FURNISHING CO,

who denied their inspiration, ID Indicated
in the following from writer of the
second century. as reported by the father
of ecclesiastical history, Eusebius.
OF sect which denied the deity, and
asserted the mere humanity OF Christ
that writer said: 1.-THE sacred Scriptures
have been boldly perverted by them; the
rule of the ancient faith they have set
aside; Christ they have renounoed, not
inquiring what the Holy Scriptures de-
clared, but what form of reasoning may
be devised to establish their impiety.' .
"They abandon the a0ly Scriptures
and know not him that cometh from
above
They "adulterate the simplicity Of that
faith, contained In the Holy Scriptures.
by the willy arts Of impious men.
For this purpose they fearlessly lay their
hands upon the Holy Scriptures, saying
that they have corrected them"
Either they do not believe that the
Holy Scriptures were uttered by the Holy
Spirit, and they are thus infi1els or they
doom themselves wiser than the Holy
Spirit, and what alternative is there but
to pronounce them demoniacs.
"But some of them did not think it
worth while to mutilate the Scriptures,
OOv 01lGCuiy QOIyiA& b0C Jaw 0AA tA0
prophet" 1.-THE Old Testament, 'by their
lawless and impious doctrine, they sink
to the depths Of perdition.'
This is rather hard on our higher
critics in general and this essayist in
particular, but their deeds compel the
words. But, say the critics, those
Apostolic Christians were not "intelli-
study of the Bible. !" This was the very
pretense of the anti Christs whom the
Apostle John distinguished as 'the
liar" And it's constant use by higher
critics now shows the sublime egotism
expressed by DR.. Stackpole thus: The
ultimate stamford is the opinion of wise
and good men," Indeedl And how
many opinions respecting different books
of the Bible have been put forth by tho
higher critics in the last fifty yearsS DR..
Mendenhall, late editor of the Methodist
Review, put the nEm her at 1000, and
said he had examined TAI g them, and
ali but IA were defunot and many Of
those were in the last stages Of dissolu-
ton. Too many ultimate standards"
Too many" defunct." DIS. defines high
er criticism as intelligent study of the
Bible. NO intelligent study of the Bible
in the Christian world till the advent of
one Astruo who feasted at the swine
troughs of harlots and int1dels, and
whose extraordinary capacity for vice
luAu0 otcH O1UdlF6 say u6 WAS
possessed with DEVIL He became
high priest of these critics and gave the
key Of the tune which they are now sing
ing. After Astruc came Eichorn, Ger
man nationalist, who developed ian or
ganic method" and called it higher
criticism. That method was deism. He
repudiated the supernatural and ex-
planned all miraclen az products of SUPER
atition and ,delusion.
The essayist says. that Paul was 'sin
error in regard to the coming of Christ.
1t is very evident that be changed his
opinion Of that event." It is very
evident that he did not change his
opinion, but the error Is blunder OF the
writer. Christ said repeatedly that he
some then present were alive, coming to
destroy those "wicked husbandmen"
who were about to kill him, and to
establish his own Kingdom. And he did
come as he said. Every epistle of Paul
was written before that coming, A. ID.
70-185. and every expression in those
epistles relating to Its imminence re-
power. !. e, his potential coming like
those OF Old Testament history. And
DR.. S. has blundered in applying those
texts to Christ's bodily appearing in
direct opposition to his repeated deolara-
tions, which slows that this doctor is
copyist and not the careful student of
the Bible that he should be. / wonder if
DR.. S. will feel the force Of the editors
significant words:
ssThe logical effect of Mr.. Stackpole's
conclusions seems ITO us to be to destroy
pretty effeotually the Old Testament as
an authority on anything"
What O spectacle! A D. d. rushing
about in that satanic work and a layman
trying to open his eyes to his deadly do
ing. G. MUNGER.