^!|il!i!ij!i!li!!|!pii)|if!!i:;!lli 
 
'7. ic'oij 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 ;<ss^ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 *A 
 
 % 
 
 Presented 
 
 O 
 
 
 Dwision ■ 
 Section 
 
THE HA W All AN SITU A TION. 63 
 
 world to impeach. Judge Dole writes on January 17, 1893, the 
 very day on which Mr. Stevens had refused any longer to regard 
 Messrs. Parker and others as ministers, and says : 
 
 "I acknowledge receipt of your valued communication of this day 
 recognizing the Hawaiian provisional government, and express deep ap- 
 preciation of the same. We have conferred with the ministers of the late 
 government, and have made demand upon the marshal to surrender the 
 station-house. We are not actually yet in possession of the station-house ; 
 hut as night is approaching, and our forces may be insufficient to main- 
 tain order, we request the immediate sujjport of the United States forces," 
 etc. 
 
 We must leave this highly respectable man, Judge Dole, to rec- 
 oncile his statement with Mr. Stevens' declaration. If Judge Dole 
 was telling the truth, at a time when there was no reason why he 
 should dissemble or disregard it, he was not in possession of the 
 station-house at the time ivhen he ivas thanking Mi'. Stevens for 
 his recognition of the provisional govei'nment. Until these two 
 gentlemen have settled this question, it must be assumed, with 
 all the probabilities in favor of the assumption, that Mr. Stevens 
 had actually, as he certainly had in intent, promoted, encouraged, 
 aided, and abetted the insurrection. 
 
 The downfall of the monarchy may or may not be a desirable 
 event ; the Queen may or may not be what her enemies charge ; 
 Judge Dole and his associates may absorb in themselves all the 
 cardinal and other virtues, but it is difficult for an impartial man 
 to escape the conviction that whatever good, whatever credit, and 
 whatever praise may attach to the downfall of Queen Liliuoka- 
 lani belongs mainly to Mr. Stevens. Judge Dole and other 
 excellent gentlemen may have a just claim to a small part of the 
 success, but the chief actor is undoubtedly Mr. Stevens. 
 Truly he did it; and if it be part of the occupation of United 
 States envoys to act the part of international Don Quixotes, to 
 use their office and their power to subvert governments that do 
 not suit their tastes, and to arrange new establishments more to 
 their own liking, he has earned the gratitude of his countrymen. 
 In the mean while his zealous eiforts have made it imperative upon 
 our people to decide how far they will ratify his acts, thereby 
 establishing precedents which are very sure, if followed, to relieve 
 our international relations from the reproach of being tame or 
 monotonous. 
 
 F. K. COUDERT. 
 
7^-i;^i^-2^^-t.— c^-v /^-^^. ^o^^ ^ h^ 
 
 ' I 
 
 THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND MODERN BIBLICAL 
 
 CRITICISM. 
 
 BY THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D. D. 
 
 The Sunday-school is a modern institution, springing up as 
 one of the fruits of that revival of religion in Great Britain and 
 America which is called Methodism. The origin of the modern 
 Sunday-school is generally found in the efforts of Eobert Kaikes, 
 at Gloucester, England, in 1780. Long prior to this, schools of 
 various kinds for the religious instruction of children on Sunday 
 had been in operation in England, Scotland, Germany, Bohemia, 
 and especially in Milan, where the pious Archbishop Charles Bor- 
 romeo had established them in the middle of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury. But these were local or provisional enterprises. The 
 effort of Raikes was the beginning of a world-wide movement. 
 It is interesting to note that Eichhorn, the father of the Higher 
 Criticism of Holy Scripture, published the first edition of his 
 Introduction to the Old Testament in 1780. The work of Eich- 
 horn was also preceded by the preparatory labors of Herder, 
 Astruc, Lowth, Simon, and other investigators. Tiiese two great 
 movements of our age, the practical movement of the Sunday- 
 school and the scholarly movement of the Higher Criticism, be- 
 ginning in the very same year, the one in the heart of England, 
 the other in the heart of Germany, have pursued each its inde- 
 pendent course, each thriving chiefly in the land of its birth ; but 
 now at last the two movements have come together, and it has be- 
 come a burning question. What shall be the relation between them ? 
 
 The Sunday-school has as its aim to give religious instruction, 
 primarily in Holy Scripture ; secondarily, in the Catechisms of 
 the Church. The primary aim of the Sunday-school cannot be 
 accomplished without the aid of Biblical Criticism, for Biblical 
 
SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND MODERN BIBLIC^iL CRITICISM. 65 
 
 Criticism searches Holy Scripture in order to test its truths and 
 facts, to verify them, and to discriminate between them and the 
 theories which have been formulated about them. Biblical Criti- 
 cism brings the student near to the original Bible, so that it be- 
 comes more real, more vivid, more lively, and so more impressive 
 and attractive. These are the very qualities of the Bible which 
 enable the Sunday-school teacher to understand it, and which 
 impart to him the ability to teach it to his scholars. The har- 
 monious combination of these two great enterprises of our century 
 will accomplish an enormous gain for the study of the Bible 
 in the Christian Church. 
 
 For nearly eighteen centuries the Christian Church marched 
 through history winning its greatest triumphs Avithout the help 
 of the Sunday-school. It accomplished the most essential parts 
 of the work of the Sunday-school by catechetical schools of 
 various kinds conducted by pastors and their helpers. These 
 catechetical schools date from the beginnings of the Christian 
 Church ; they were involved in the Christian sacraments of Holy 
 Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, and the training necessary for 
 participation in them. It was largely owing to the multiplica- 
 tion of sects in Great Britain and America and the immense 
 numbers of children who were brought up by their parents with- 
 out baptism and entirely apart from churchly influences that 
 made the Sunday-school a necessity. The need of the Sunda}^- 
 school has not been so great in those countries where there are 
 few if any dissenting sects and where all the children are baptized 
 and are expected at the proper time to undergo the training 
 necessary for confirmation. 
 
 The usefulness of the Sunday-school is also involved in the 
 question of religious education in the Common School, On the 
 continent of Europe, in most countries, religious instruction is 
 given in the national schools, or in parochial schools. Under 
 these circumstances Sunday-schools have little place. But in the 
 United States of America, where religious instruction is banished 
 from the common schools, where else shall the religious instruc- 
 tion be imparted to the children who attend the common schools 
 unless in the Sunday-school ? 
 
 The American Sunday-school has, in most cases, to compre- 
 hend all the problems of religious instruction that are involved 
 [1] in the daily religious instruction of parochial schools and of 
 VOL. CLVIII. — NO. 446. 5 
 
66 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
 
 the national schools of Europe ; [2] in the catechetical training 
 for confirmation ; [3] in the special work of the Sunday-school 
 itself. All of these great tasks are to be accomplished in the 
 American Sunday-school in the limited time of one hour on Sun- 
 days. The American Sunday-school does not succeed in these 
 tasks. It cannot. Practically it limits itself in most cases to its 
 own special work. That is the reason why wise pastors insist 
 upon having catechetical classes of their own. That is the reason 
 why thinking men of other denominations than the Eoman 
 Catholic are urging that in some way religious instruction should 
 be given in common schools. 
 
 The teachers of parochial schools and of national schools are 
 well trained. They are required to undertake special preparatory 
 studies, and to sustain examinations which will qualify them and 
 accredit them as competent teachers. The classes in preparation 
 for confirmation are ordinarily conducted by thoroughly educated 
 pastors. But the teachers of Sunday-schools are commonly pious 
 young peoj^le who have had little, if an}-, training in the art of 
 teaching or in Biblical study or in the doctrines or customs of 
 their Church, and whose qualifications have not been tested by 
 examinations. The actual situation is that for five days of the 
 week the children are taught by experienced, well-trained, and 
 approved teachers in all the common studies of our schools ; but 
 on Sunday they are taught for a single hour, too often by inex- 
 perienced and untrained teachers, in the most sacred matters of 
 our holy religion. Many efforts have been made by earnest 
 Sunday-school workers to give teachers the preparation which 
 they need to meet their classes ; but this can be accomplished only 
 by a comprehensive and thorough enterprise conducted on sound 
 principles of education. The most hopeful movement in recent 
 times is the organization of the Bible Study Union to encourage 
 theuseof the Blakeslee Graded Lessons. The difficulty of the 
 situation is that the most of the lesson helps, which have been 
 examined by the writer, contain a large amount of crude, undi- 
 gested material ; good, bad, and indifferent statements mingled 
 without discrimination ; tradititional opinions, speculative apol- 
 ogetics, and mere guesses, presented as if they were the truth of 
 God ; anything and everything which may be used for illustrat- 
 ing the lesson, with indifference whether it corresponds with 
 truth or fact. If such rubbish is to be taught in the American 
 
SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 67 
 
 Sunday-school the word of God contained in Holy Scripture will 
 hardly emerge through it. 
 
 The International Lessons for 1894, used in the most of the 
 American Sunday-schools, cover ground which, more than any 
 other, comes into relation with modern Biblical criticism. The 
 lessons for the first half of the year are in the books of Genesis 
 and Exodus; for the second half of the year in the Gospels. 
 These come in contact with the Lower Criticism, the Higher 
 Criticism, Historical Criticism, and Biblical Theology. It is dif- 
 ficult to see how any except teachers in the more elementary 
 classes can avoid these departments of criticism. It is doubtful 
 whether this selection of lessons was wise in view of the great 
 agitation of the public mind of several denominations about 
 Biblical criticism. It is doubtful whether the attention of all 
 Sunday-school teachers and children should have been called to 
 these questions in the most difficult of all fields, for the next 
 six months. But it is now too late for doubts and regrets. The 
 American Sunday-school is now obliged to face the questions of 
 Biblical criticism. 
 
 1. Textual criticism has to determine, by the study of manu- 
 scripts, versions, citations, and the laws of transmission, what was 
 the exact original text of Holy Scripture. The Sunday-school 
 depends upon translations from the original text. Which trans- 
 lation shall be followed, the Common Version or the Eevised 
 Version? or shall the teacher and student compare the two and 
 make his choice between them? Shall he take into consideration 
 the readings of the ancient versions given in the margin of the 
 Kevised Version or refuse to consider them ? Shall he take 
 account of the readings suggested by the best modern critics as 
 carefully collected in the Variorum Bible ? Just as soon as the 
 teacher or scholar deviates in any respect from the Common 
 V^ersion, he, to the extent of his deviations, enters into the work of 
 Textual Criticism. If he is not content to rest on the Com- 
 mon Version, is he competent to decide himself between the two 
 versions without evidence ? He must, therefore, in all honesty, go 
 to the margin of the Revised Version; he will act wisely if he re- 
 sort to the Variorum Bible, where the names of the principal 
 authorities are given for every variation, and there is room for 
 discrimination. 
 
 2. The higher criticism has to determine these four questions: 
 
Qg THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
 
 (rt) The integrity; (b) the authenticity; (c) tlic literary style; and 
 {(l), the credibility of the writing. It is diflficult to see how 
 these questions can be avoided in the study of Genesis and Exodus. 
 [a) Who wrote Genesis and Exodus? This question will be asked 
 in the American Sunday-schools this coming year as never before. 
 Tlie lesson helps, many of them, state the traditional opinion that 
 Moses wrote these books, without modification. Some state that 
 Moses used older documents and so compiled the books. But 
 other lesson helps recognize that Biblical criticism has shown 
 that Moses did not write these books and that the author is un- 
 known. The teachers and scholars will often be perplexed 
 by this difference of opinion. When they turn away from their 
 lesson helps to the larger works upon the Bible, they will see 
 that Biblical critics are practically unanimous in their opinions 
 on this question. It matters little if a few American professors, 
 in theological seminaries renowned for their extreme conserva- 
 tism, hold the traditional opinion, when the majority of Ameri- 
 can Biblical scholars agree with all the professional teachers of 
 the Old Testament in all the universities of Protestant Europe 
 that Moses did not write Genesis or Exodus. Tlie student turns 
 to the Encyclopasdia Britannica and to the new edition of Smithes 
 Biblical Dictionary and to the Cambridge Bible for Sunday-schools 
 and to the Commentaries and critical works of the most famous 
 scholars of modern Europe, and finds them all agreeing that 
 Moses did not write the books of Genesis and Exodus. If the 
 Sunday-school teachers are content to state the facts, that the 
 traditional opinion is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; that mod- 
 ern criticism holds that he did not write these books; but that 
 the question is unimportant for the religious lessons of these books; 
 lie may reserve his own opinion and that of his scholars with safety. 
 Butif he undertakes a polemic against Modern Criticism in thein- 
 terests of the traditional theory, and makes the question a test of 
 orthodoxy, the divisions and heartburning which are among the 
 ministers will arise among the Sunday-school teachers and 
 scholars; and if he should pursue the unwise course commended 
 by some ultra-conservative teachers and maintain that if Moses 
 did not write Genesis it cannot be inspired, it is altogether prob- 
 able that not a few teachers and scholars may be forced into a 
 dilemma and be compelled to give up the inspiration of the book. 
 There is no danger of this in those parts of our country where 
 
SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 69 
 
 Biblical criticism is known and valued. The peril will arise in 
 reactionary schools where ultra-conservatism prevails. 
 
 (b) The Sunday-school teacher will be unable to avoid the 
 question of the integrity of the book of Genesis. The question 
 is raised in many of the lesson helps. It matters little that the most 
 of them raise the question of earlier documents in order to deny 
 them. The teachers and scholars will examine into this matter 
 for themselves. They will see that the documentary theory is 
 recognized as the established doctrine of criticism in Smith's 
 Dictionary of the Bible and in the Cambridge Bible for Sunday- 
 Schools. Some of them will look at the documents as they are 
 separated by Driver, Bacon, Harper, and others, and they will de- 
 cide for themselves. 
 
 It is noteworthy that the International Lessons for 1894 seem 
 to have been chosen with the analysis of Driver in view. There 
 are three documents in Genesis: The Ephraimitic document {F), 
 written in the northern kingdom of Samaria ; the Judaic docu- 
 ment (J), written in the southern kingdom of Juduh, and the 
 later priestly document (P). We give in parallel columns the 
 selections from Genesis and the corresponding ones from the 
 Gospels in order to show that, consciously or unconsciously, the 
 compilers of these lessons have selected from the different 
 documents of the Pentateuch very much in the same way as they 
 have selected from the four Gospels. 
 
 Gen. I. 2&-31, ;IL )-3. P. 
 
 " III. 1-15 J. 
 
 " IV. 3-13 J. 
 
 *• IX. 8-17 P. 
 
 " XII. 1-9 J [except 4 b-5 PI 
 
 " XVII. 1-9 P. 
 
 " XVIII. 22-33 J. 
 
 " XXII. 1-13 E. 
 
 " XXV. 27-34 J. 
 
 " XXVI 11. 10-22 J E [mixed]. 
 
 " XXXII. 9-12, 24-30 J. 
 
 " XXXVII. 1-11 E [except 1-2 a 
 
 " XXXVII. 23-36 J E [mixed]. 
 
 " XLI. 38-48 E [except 40 P]. 
 
 " XLV. 1-15 E. 
 
 " L. 14-26 E. [except 14 J]. 
 
 Luke II. 1-16. 
 Luke II. 25-38. 
 Matthew IL 1-12. 
 Matthew II. 1^-23. 
 Luke II. 40-52. 
 Mark I. l-ll. 
 Matthew IV., 1-11. 
 John I. 35-49. 
 John II. 1-11. 
 John II. 13-25. 
 Luke IV. 16-30. 
 
 Luke V. 1-11. 
 Mark I. 21-34. 
 Mark 11. 1-12. 
 Mark II. 23-28; III. l-J 
 Mark III. 6-19. 
 
 Only two of these passages from Genesis contain a mixed 
 text— XXVIII. 10-22 and XXXVII. 23-36— where J and E are 
 mingled. In XXXVII. 1-11, L. 14-20, the opening verses came 
 from another document. But these were used because necessary 
 to the connection. In XII. 1-9 and XLI. 38-48, historic inser- 
 
70 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, 
 
 tions from P are used because it would be difficult to leave them 
 out. The lessons, therefore, give specimens from the documents 
 fairly well in accordance with Driver's Analysis. From Matthew 
 three passages are given ; from the priestly document, three ; 
 from Mark and Luke, five passages each ; from J, six passages, 
 and from F, five passages ; from John, three passages ; from the 
 mixed text of J E, two passages. A careful reader of the Eng- 
 lish versions will note differences which shine through these vari- 
 ous documents, and these differences will be as striking in the 
 documents of Genesis as in the documents of the Gospel. 
 
 (c) The literary style of the story of Genesis cannot be alto- 
 gether ignored. The question will often be asked in the Sunday- 
 schools whether the earlier chapters of Genesis are real historical 
 narratives or whether they contain historic facts embellished by 
 legend, myth, or tradition ; whether the poetic imagination is 
 chiefly responsible for the story of creation and of paradise, and 
 of the antediluvians and patriarchs, endeavoring to teach the 
 most important lessons of the origin of the world, of man, and of 
 sin, in beautiful pictures which are easily understood ; or whether 
 the logical faculty gives exact reproductions of the truths and 
 facts imparted by divine revelation or derived from human 
 authorities. The question will also be raised whether the authors 
 use the style of historical prose, or of lyric, epic, or didactic 
 poetry. It may not be easy to answer any of these questions with 
 sufficient decision to give satisfaction to the inquiring mind. If, 
 however, the teacher can show to the scholar that these questions 
 have only to do with the literary form of the documents, and that 
 the religious instruction contained in them is independent of the 
 literary form, he will concentrate attention upon the religious in- 
 struction of these early books of Holy Scripture, and derive from 
 them the lessons which the Sunday-school ought chiefly to learn. 
 
 {d) The most serious question the Sunday-school will 
 have to confront is the question of credibility. This 
 question depends to a large extent upon the other questions 
 which have been considered. The Sunday-school teacher 
 should be careful lest he risk the credibility of Genesis with the 
 assertion of its Mosaic authorship. He should teach that many 
 of the best modern critics deny the Mosaic authorship of Genesis 
 and yet maintain its credibility. It is not so clear that the 
 name of Moses is a better attestation for the credibility of Gene- 
 
SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 71 
 
 sis than the anonymous writers of later times ; for the final 
 compiler of Genesis used three great original documents and 
 compacted them together. These three documents are three 
 independent witnesses who themselves used older documents and 
 sources for their authority. Marshall's Life of Waslmigton is by 
 no means so ci'edible an authority as Bancroft's History of the 
 United States; for though Marshall is much nearer to the events, 
 he had not such extensive sources of information and he lacked 
 the critical sagacity and historic skill of Bancroft. We have 
 evidence that Moses was a prophet and a lawgiver, but what 
 evidence have we that he was an historian ? 
 
 The question of credibility depends still more upon the literary 
 form of the 'narrative. If it should be maintained that the story 
 of the Creation and the Fall are plain historical narratives, and 
 that therefore we must believe that God created the world in six 
 days of twenty-four hours, and that He then rested on the seventh 
 day and consecrated it to be the Sabbath of rest from that time 
 onward; and that an animal serpent conversed with Eve and 
 seduced her to eat of a forbidden fruit and so introduced sin and 
 death into the world ; then it will be exceedingly difficult to con- 
 vince many of the Sunday-school teachers and scholars that these 
 narratives are altogether credible. If it should be said that there 
 has been some poetic embellishment of these stories ; that the 
 days are periods and that the rest of God from further creation 
 in the seventh period is the basis for the subsequent establishment 
 of the weekly sabbath ; that the serpent was really an evil spirit, 
 the devil, and that it was not so much the fruit of the tree as the 
 disobedience and lack of faith in God that brought sin and evil 
 into the world ; then the narrative becomes more credible in 
 some respects ; but at the expense of its consistency and harmony. 
 If these stories are regarded as works of the imagination, poetic 
 in structure and poetic in conception ; if the days are simisly the 
 framework to set forth the general orderliness and progressiveness 
 of the creation ; the seventh day the appended conception of a 
 later prose writer using the poem of the creation as the basis for 
 the sabbath of the priestly law ; if the story of the serpent and 
 the tree are poetical pictures of that mysterious event, the first 
 entrance of sin into the world ; then the great spiritual lessons 
 of the creation and the original sin of man stand out in attractive 
 beauty and power and bear witness to their own credibility. It is 
 
72 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
 
 really immaterial to thcbc religious lessons how far the poetical 
 embellishment of the stories may extend or how far it may be iu 
 accord with the actual facts of the case. 
 
 3. Historical criticism will meet the Sunday-school teacher in 
 his study of the books of Genesis and Exodus. The lessons 
 have been selected apjiarently with great skill, so as to avoid as 
 many such questions as possible. This gives them the appear- 
 ance of a hop, skip, and jump over cliapters and verses in their 
 course through the book of Genesis. But it is difficult to see 
 how it is possible to avoid taking the neglected passages into con- 
 sideration. The lesson on the creation is limited to the crea- 
 tion of man and the resting on the seventh day, and thus the 
 most of the questions which spring up in the early 'chapters of 
 Genesis in connection with modern science are avoided. The 
 story of the deluge is passed over. The only reference to it is in 
 connection with the Covenant with Noah. The Dispersion of the 
 Nations is omitted. The selections from the story of Abraham 
 and Jacob are those which come least into contact with external 
 history. In the story of Joseph the one document E is closely ad- 
 hered to, and in the story of the Exodus there seems to be a careful 
 avoidance of difficulties. Nevertheless historical criticism must 
 be faced in many of the passages. 
 
 {a) The story of the institution of the Passover in these lessons 
 is taken from the story of Pin Ex. XIL, 1-14. But the par- 
 allel story of / is given in Ex. XII. 21-27, and is much simpler and 
 more primitive in conception. It seems that the story of P 
 has mingled with its narrative the more complex legislation of 
 later times. This is confirmed by a study of the law codes 
 where there are five different laws respecting the Passover show- 
 ing development through the different codes : (1) Ex. XXIII. 18 
 E. (2) Ex. XXXIV. 25. J. (3) Deut. XVI. 2-7 D. (4) Num. IX. 
 12 P a. (5) Num. XXVIII. 16 P b. The narrative of / cor- 
 responds with the earlier code of J, the narrative of P with the 
 later code of P. 
 
 (b) The story of the crossing of the Eed Sea is given 
 in Ex. XIV. 19-29, in which E J and P are all mingled in 
 the compiled narrative of the final editor. The Song, Ex. XV., 
 gives another poetic version of the story. There are several refer- 
 ences to it in the Psalter and in the Prophets. A comparison of 
 the different Hebrew representations gives a varied and complex 
 
SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 73 
 
 conception. It is not our purpose to distiuguisli here between 
 the historical nucleus and the varied poetical enibellisliments or 
 to urge the Sunday-school teacher and scholar to undertake this 
 difficult task. There is a certain advantage in such an under- 
 taking, because it enables the scholar to distinguish between the 
 real and the ideal in Biblical history, and cautions him against 
 the besetting sin in practical interpretation of exaggerating the 
 importance of trivial and unimportant accessories to the neglect 
 of the essential features of the narrative. But we have called at- 
 tention to this lesson because it comes in contact with historical 
 geography. The lesson omits the references to historic places in 
 the previous context and limits our attention to the scene of cross- 
 ing the Eed Sea itself. It is probable that its northern arm in 
 ancient times extended farther to the north than at present, and 
 eminent authorities think that it included also the Bitter Lakes. 
 But tliere is no agreement as to place of passage. It was probably 
 a little below Suez, but several other places are contended for by 
 scholars who are entitled to a hearing. 
 
 (c) Egyptian archiBology sheds light upon the lesson, Ex. I. 
 1-14, with reference to tiie bondage of Israel in Egypt, through 
 the recent investigation of the buried treasure cities upon whicli 
 the Hebrews labored. But the lesson carefully avoids raising the 
 difficult historical question of the length of the sojourn in Egypt 
 and the date of the Exodus. Teachers and scholars may make 
 an excursion into these regions of historical criticism, but they 
 are not called so to do, and it would seem to be best to adhere to the 
 path of religious instruction which has been marked out for them. 
 4. The International Lessons from Genesis raise some of the 
 most difficult questions in Biblical Theology. These lessons 
 spring out of the passages in their order. It is evident that there 
 is a very great disproportion in the importance of the religious 
 instruction given in these lessons. A glance at the following table 
 will suffice : 
 
 [1] The creation of man and the 
 
 seventh day's rest. Gen. I. 26- 
 
 II., 3 
 [2] The original sin and the original 
 
 promise. Gen. III. 1-15. 
 [3] The origin of sacrifice, and the 
 
 fratricide. IV. 3-13. 
 [41 The covenant with Noah. IX., 
 
 8-17. 
 [5] The call and migration of Abram. 
 
 XII. 1-9. 
 
 [1] Discord iu Jacob's family. 
 XXXVII. 1-11. 
 
 [2] Joseph .sold into Egypt. 
 
 XXXVII. 23-36. 
 [3] Joseph ruler in Egypt. XLI, 
 
 38^8. 
 [4] Joseph forgiving his brethren. 
 
 XLV. 1-15. 
 [5] Joseph's last days. L. 14-26. 
 
74 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
 
 Ei tiler more than five lessons should be given to the study of 
 the first group of topics, or five lessons are too many for the 
 relative importance of the second group. It may be that this 
 disproportion inheres in any use of lessons from Holy Scripture 
 itself. If this be so, it affords a strong argument in favor of 
 textbooks for a harmonious and well-proportioned study of 
 Biblical history and Biblical doctrine. But this difficulty might 
 have been overcome, in a measure at least, by a larger and more 
 detailed study of the twelve earlier chapters of Genesis, This 
 would have been more profitable than sucli a hasty study of the 
 fundamental facts of our holy religion. It was not necessary to 
 append the question of the Sabbath to tlie study of the creation of 
 man. There is peril lest the more practical question of the observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath may crowd the vastly more important doctrine 
 of the creation of man. It would have been wiser to make two 
 lessons out of the second, the one on the original sin, the other 
 on the protevangelium, and even then the themes would be too 
 vast for one hour of study. 
 
 The doctrine of the creation of man in the lesson from the 
 first chapter of Genesis can hardly be successfully considered 
 without the study of the creative acts of the previous days of 
 creation ; and certainly the story of the second chapter of Gene- 
 sis will have to be studied likewise. The differences are here on 
 the surface. In the one story mankind is created as a race, male 
 and female, on the sixth day before the seventh day of rest 
 dawns ; in the other there is a long series of divine and human 
 activities separated by events of transcendent importance, before 
 the human race was produced. In the one story God creates by 
 saying as a sovereign and commander ; in the other he uses his 
 hands and the breath of his nostrils as a -workman and a benefac- 
 tor. In the one story God blesses the race and assigns mankind 
 his dominion and destiny ; in the other God trains the man, the 
 woman, and their children by personal, visible, and audible pres- 
 ence. In the one story man bears the image of God, and there- 
 fore is sovereign of nature ; in the other, man's body is made of 
 dust and his spirit of the breath of God ; but inasmuch as the 
 animals were made in the same way, the difference first appears by 
 experiment when no helpmeet is found for the man from among 
 the animals. When now to these differences is added different 
 names of God, different terms for the vegetation and the animals. 
 
SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 75 
 
 aud even for the two sexes of mankiud, it is abundantly evident 
 that we have two different stories and two different conceptions 
 and representations of the creation of our race. If now the 
 teacher can grasp the significance of these facts and apprehend 
 that the mode of the creation of man is of small importance com- 
 pared with the creation itself ; if he has the discernment to see 
 that the mode of the creation was not revealed to man by God ; 
 but was represented by different poets as they were enabled by the 
 divine spirit to construct it by the use of their imagination aud that 
 these are pictorial representations of a divine act which could not be 
 represented or described in its mysterious and unknowable reality, 
 and that through these varied poetic embellishments the same 
 essential doctrine shines; then the religious instruction, that man 
 was created by God as the crown of nature, as the ruler of nature, 
 and as the image and re])rt'sentative of God in person, character, 
 activity, and entire life, will impress itself upon the schol- 
 ars and teachers Avitli freshness, vividness, and redemptive 
 power. If modern science can give us a better description of the 
 creation of man than the Hebrew poets, what matters it? They 
 cannot give us any truer doctrine of the creation or of the 
 relation of man to God and to nature than that given us in 
 the early chapters of Genesis. If any one insists upon the mode of 
 creation of the first chapter of Genesis, he will come in confiict 
 with the mode of creation of the second chapter of Genesis, and 
 either of them will bring him in conflict with the sure results of 
 modern science. And if he insists upon the literal verbal represent- 
 ations what can he do with other parts of Holy Scripture such as 
 Psalms XXXIII. and CIV., which give still other varying pictures 
 of the creation, and with Proverbs VIII., Job XXXVIII., Amos 
 IX,, Isaiah XL, ? If he insists upon it that the body of man was 
 formed by God and his spirit inbreathed, how will he meet the 
 objection from Zechariah XII. 1 where it is said that Yahweh 
 "formeth the spirit of man within him"; and from Psalm 
 XXXIII. 6, where all the hosts of heaven were made "by the breath 
 of his mouth''; and from Psalm VIII. 3, where the heavens are the 
 work of God's fingers ; and from Ps. XIX. 1, where ''the firm- 
 ament sheweth his handiwork"? There are those who think that 
 they can build a doctrine of creation out of a prosaic interpre- 
 tation of the first chapter of Genesis. They can do it only by 
 shutting their eyes to the great variety of beautiful images under 
 
76 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
 
 wliicli the creation of niiin and nature istauglit, in many difEereut 
 j)assages of Scripture. There is only one way to reach a sound 
 and reliable doctrine, and that is to seek for the essential instruc- 
 tion which underlies all these images, and beAvare lest we become 
 absorbed in the coloring and traceries of any one of them. This 
 one example must suffice to show the vast importance of Biblical 
 theology to the Sunday-school. 
 
 Modern Biblical criticism thus has a double work. It removes 
 an immense amount of crude, indefinite, erroneous and false 
 material which has commonly been brought into the Sunday- 
 school to illustrate everything but the lesson and to dull its 
 points. It presents a solid basis of truth and fact upon which re- 
 ligious lessons may be built that will be firm, reliable, and perma- 
 nent. Those Avho teach without taking account of modern Bibli- 
 cal criticism teach a mass of material which will have to be un- 
 learned in a few years to the accompaniment of sad and bitter ex 
 periences. Such teachers will have no thanks from their pupils 
 — will have no reward for their services. The rewards of the fu- 
 ture are with the faithful teachers who teach nothing but the 
 truth and who search for it as for hid treasures ; who in these 
 days of battle between tradition and criticism calmly watch the 
 issues, and, if they cannot decide between them, limit themselves 
 to those matters about which there is no doubt. In those they 
 find the religious instruction which is most suitable for the Sun- 
 day-school and which lies safely enshrined back of all human 
 controversies, indestructible and eternal in its quickening truths 
 and facts. 
 
 0. A. Briggs. 
 
Date Due 
 
iiiiiiiiiii