The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-02-06

in what is called THE higher criticism
and in the last in what is called lower
or textual, criticism"
Now, both these kinds Of criticism may
be, and often are, not only perfectly inno-
cent, but immensely valuable. II there
had been 40 higher criticism IN the
second century there could be no recog-
nzed New Testament canon now.
ITO SETTLE THE TEXT"
Textual criticism, as a science, is mod
ern. Its object is TO ascertain as nearly
IS possible Just what the Evangelsts ana
Apostles wrote; or, in critical language
"to settle the text" Now, unless We
are prepared 10 hold that the divers
readings" OF the mulutudinous manu-
scripts Of the New Testament are an
Of equal authority (Which is ABSURD then
IL logically follows that intelligent anu
candid examination and comparison q
these documents IS necessity II We
wish to ascertain as nearly as po9S'o'e
what John and Paul wrote.
Nobo6v who has stadied the subject
vii be likely to doubt that Johh A
Broadus was legitimately employed when
ne looked into the questions OF the dale
and the authorship of the first gospel
nor that II was perfectly proper lot nun
to Investigate the question Whethcr
Matthew wrote the "Doxology' or the
Lords PRAYER" and the first two of
these questions belong to the department
of Higher Criticism" as the thirc be-
longs to that OF '1extual CRITICISM
Thus FAR the plain Christian may go,
and indeed. 81 intelligent. he must 60
with the Biblical critics.
But when the Advanced critic as
sumes that the Bible is a purely human
growth" and that everything in II IS
TO be examined" on purely natural prin-
c!ples: and when he then proceeds TO
dissect the various books according TO
these principles then the plain Christian
holds that such criticism Is unsound and
unwse.
After p careful reading OF Wellhausen,
7 am prepared to say that he holds ana
advocates the views just now stated.
Perhaps the most scholarly and certainly
one OF the most radical OF the Ameri-
can representatives of this school is
Professor c. II. Toy. OF Harvard; and
with his views. as set forth IN his pub
llshed works. shall here deal.
PROFESSOR TOYS VIEWS.
With Professor Toy, personally | have
been on intimate terms from early man
hood. | was his pastor for some years.
and taught with him IN our Theological
Seminary at Greenville. S. c. Few men,
living or dead have ever won from me
such admiration and love
After he had become Harvard pro-
lessor. Bishop Dudley, in bidding him
adieu from the Conversation Club,
OF Louisville. wrote:
And Toy. our founder preacher, schol-
ar. sage.
VINO knew all learning whatever its age.
Who dreamed in Arabic, and smoked
In Greek.
And read the Tend-Avista once a week;
As brave as Paladin. as shy as girl.
AS bright as diamond. pure as any pearl:
Alasl he too. is gone, nor shares our
feast.
A modern Magus. he went TO tell the
East;
his learning grew TOO heavy for his sta
ton.
He fell 10 Boston just by gravitation."
But I am now dealing not with nv old
and dear friend: but with his published
Views. and | know OF none that could
arouse my more determined dissent
Professor Toy gives no uncertain sound.
After a careful study OF President Har-
pers debate with Professor William
Henry Green and OF his Stories OF Gene
Sis as published in the biblical
World" I find IL extremely difficult TO
ascertain just where he belongs TO
borrow the image OF distinguished
British statesman, | should say that he
seems TO be like a ferry boat, made TO
20 from one side TO the other
Not so Toy. he IS as pronounced as
possible. He is Wellhausen down into
English. In his History Of the Religion
or Israel there IS not the slightest recog-
pi'ion ~ the supernatural: but every
faing H. expiained(:) on perfectly nat
urai principles. In this book he holds