The Denison review., 1899-09-19

taken into consideration the baseless-
ness OF the system as a system of pure
criticism is seen; still, however, they
are in accord in their assumptions. So
Paul Haupts parti-colored Bible is the
Standard of the critics and defines the
|system. Wellhausen may modify the
rainbow colors somewhat, and Kuenen
may paint them differently, Dillman diff
ferently still, Noldeke still differently,
and Driver disagree with ali the rest in
the way the color should be put on, and
Cheyne propose to touch it up some
what diversely from the rest, and Har-
per put on the pigments after his own
individual notions, and so with all the
rest, yet they are in harmony on one
thing, and that is the documentary
theory OF F., j., p, D., R., ]. E., etc.
etc. Between this scheme and the
fraudulency OF the Old Testament there
is no middle ground. He who accepts
it becomes an apologist to the moral
sense of Christian believers, for numer-
Gus deceptions, Misrepresentation, mis-
leading statements throughout the en-
tire record. Look at it for moment,
what is the reasonable, necessary and
only conclusion you derive from the Old
Testament record as you now have it,
concerning Israel's historic and relig-
ious development? Evidently that it
began with complete religious system
revealed through Moses, and that this
system was designed to prepare the way
for Christ. And when you read the New
Testament you find that this is the con-
struction the New Testament puts upon
it. The New Testament order is the So
called traditional order and no other.
But by the critics all this has been
turned about. The priest-codex osten-
sibly established during the wilderness
sojourn. and put into fullest operation
on the entrance of Israel into Canaan,
was not established until after the re-
turn OF the remnant of Judea from exile
Do our reputedly orthodox critics who
teach in our biblical schools believe
this? Do they still believe that the Old
Testament is the word of God? If they
do, we have right to demand of them
that they reconcile these two logically
contradictory positions. They have no
right to leave the church nor their pu-
pills in doubt. If there is any basis of
reconciliation we want to see it. The
profession upon the part of the critics
for each other OF overwhelming Semitic
scholarship will not atone for logical
inconsistency. The word OF God has
gone through battle with adverse as
sumptions age after age, and it will
stand. We are not at all alarmed for it,
but we are alarmed for the faith Of those
who come into contact with these ideas
put forth with such assurance, as though
they were not for one moment to be
called into question. While we question
no mans liberty to think and teach as
he pleases, we do question the right OF
any Methodist minister to believe and
teach system that makes the Penta-
teuch fraud, Daniel fraud and our
Savior mistaken when he assigned the
Pentateuch to Moses, the book of Isaiah
to Isaiah and the book oil Daniel to
Daniel. Some things for Methodists
are settled. Especially for Methodist
preachers. They are not minor and un-
important things, but those that make
the foundations of revealed truth We
are not tenacious for any theory OF in
spiration? Sufficient for our purpose is
it to know that the Old Testament is
essentially truthful, and reveals to men
the preparation OF the world for the
coming OF the Messiah. That it contains
a revelation from God to men. We in
sist that such it is in the worlds his
tory as living fountain OF moral and
spiritual truth, unique, unequaled, sub
lime, all conquering, that it must not
be morally discounted by a process OF
critical guesswork that makes it essen
tally false to the history OF religious
development is assumes to give. Its
Alpha is the Old Testament "seed of
the woman" its Omega is the New
Testament, glorifed Christ, our Inter
cessor and Redeemer.