The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-05-01

( IA eno uOOh Vi hctS HdS cTepb ln un
consciously. In striking article BY
Hoffman, which gives careful sur
vey of the present state of criticism
in regard to the book of Acts, he
thus classifies the German theolo
gians; first, those who take the view
of Baur; then those who have largely
modified it; and, lastly, those who
fully defend the historic character Of
the book of Acts. Under each head
ing is given catalogue of the names
of the supporters.
The shifting positions, or attitu-
des assumed, in the results, are most
strikingly illustrated in the date of
the composition of st. Johns Cos
pei. The date assumed by Baur and
Schwegler puts it somewhere between
160 and 40 A. d. Scholten and Eel
Ter retreat to $50; Hilgenfeld is salts
fed with 130 or 140, having been con-
strained to admit its use by Justin
Martyr. Keim, in his first volume of
the History of Jesus" with great
confidence placed it between the year
ITO and lis, but soon perceiving the
fatal consequences of such an ad.
mission, in the last volume, as we'll as
in the abridged edition, goes back to
130. Schenkel says: From the fact
that the Alexandrian Gnostics were
acquainted with this Gospel about
the year 120-13O, we are justified
only in concluding that it was written
at least some years earlier Q10-12O)."
| cannot conceive of any criticisms
that would cause the origin of the
book to hover around the periods in
dicated save that position assumed
which makes it to be necessary.
1t is not to be assumed that there
was no controversy between Peter
and Paul; for even the casual reader
knows that st. Paul took occasion to
administer a sound rebuke to St.
Peter. But to assume that the book
of Acts is a systematic attempt to
gloss over the differences between
Pauline and Judaizing Christians, by
judiciously blending fact and fiction,
so as to cool the heated memory of
former strife, is such an appeal to
our credulity as not to be in harmony
with the genius of the first rank of
Biblical criticism.
The claims of the advocates of the
Higher Criticism are greater than can
be substantiated. 1t may discrimi-
nate between true and false grounds
of belief; it may bring the mind to
more accurate conceptions of the OBJ
ject or aim of each separate writing;
it may give us purer text; it may
give us clearer ideas of the environ
ments surrounding the composition;
nevertheless such has always oeen the
aim of Biblical critics, even before the
days of Strauss or of Baur. The ten
dency of the age is to give to the
critic the widest latitude possible, yet
reserving the right in turn to criticise
the critic, his methods and his con-
clusions. Whatever wheat may drop
to the floor will be gathered up and
made to apply in the future beliefs of
man.
The sincere, intelligent Christian
will ever take the stand that the Bible
must be studied. He believes that it
will stand any investigation, and
withstand every and any assault that
may be made on it, as well as any ad-
verse criticism. The fact that it has
been a tower of strength for 1900
: years, believed in by the most devout,
defended by the most acute and
scholarly, is evidence that it contains
that which makes it permanent in the
wants of man. Mans faith or express
sion changes. We are coming out of
the letter into the spirit of the Bible;
we are putting our faith in the eter-
nal things of the spirit; we are turn
ing to the living bread. The letter is
but the symbol, and must not be TAX
en- for the substance. We continu-
ally need a revival of interest in the
Bible, and to receive its wholesome
lessons. The result of modern
thought is to cause us to look at the
Bible in clear light, and no longer
in ignorance to look at it as an open
sesame to guide us over the rocks
and shoals that lead us to eternity.
GREENvILLE. o.