H yp ^rcr 4.:^^ bj;* ^i ttit ®I?foIngtfa/ ^ PRINCETON, N. J. '^.> 'iS^/.. ^v^ Section . Division. !* ,BS55 Co ipY \ Vol XIII No. I. CI^c parisi). * PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY %. Sohn'Q (3uilb. The Reverend George F. Breed, Rector. ©ctober, 1899. _^ THE PARISH OCTOBER, 1899. 1. Bigbtecntb SunDag after ^rinitg. 2. S. John's Guild, 8 P.M. 6. Fr. Evening Prayer, 5 r.M. 8. minetcentb ^unOag atter Q:rinitB. 10. Tu. Missionary Chapter, 2 p.m. 13. Fr. Evening Prayer, 5 p.m. 15. Zvocntictb SunOag after a:rinits. 17. Tu. Missionary Chapter, 2 p.m. 18. We. S. Luke, Evangelist, Holy Communion, 7:30 A.M. 20. Fr. Evening Prayer, 5 p.m. 22. irwentB=firgt SuiiDag after n:rinitB- 24. Tu. Missionary Chapter, 2 p.m. 28. Sa. B, S. Simon anO JllOe. Holy Com. munion, 7'30 a.m. 29. XTwents-seconD SunOay after ^rinitg. 31. Tu. Missionary Chapter, 2 p.m. PARISH NOTES. The Parish now begins its tliirtcenth year of continuous life without adverlisements or a subscription price. The first meeting of S. John's Guild was held Monday evening, Oct. 2nd. The election of officers was omitted. Therefore the officers of last year will continue in their places for another year. Mrs. M, R. Kintzing, was appointed Head of the Altai- Chapter. Mr. Frank Wright, Head of the Choir Chapter, and W. A. Atkinson, Head of the Sunday School Chapter. The Missionary Chapter is con- tinued and the Head of the Chapter will be appointed at the next Guild Meeting. Last year the Rector received a gift of five hundred dollars to be used as he deemed best for the interests of the parish. He tliought then that a new Organ was a most urgent need and therefore created an organ fund which is now held by the Treasurer of the parish for this purpose. After a year of trial there seems little hope of getting a new organ and there- fore the Rector now withdraws this five hundred dollars from said fund and will place it conditionally in the Mortgage Debt fund. Recently the Rector received from a friend not in the parish five hundred dollars that he will add to the amount already in hand, making one thousand dollars which he will place in the hands of the Treasurer of the parish to be applied to the Mortgage Debt whenever a like amount shall be raised by the parish for this purpose. With this offer before us, it ought not to be hard to reduce our debt this year two thousand'dollars. Ask some friend to come with you to Church. Perhaps it you try you may induce some one to rent a pew. If you try, certainly you can get one scholar for our Sunday School. Teachers are needed in the Sunday School. Who will come to help us in this good work ? Two dollars will furnish flowers for the Altar for one Sunday. How can you better commemorate the death of some loved one than by thus adorning God's Altar ? Send your offering to the head of the Altar Chapter or to the Rector. Our Monthly Music List has made its welcome appearance again. It is now printed by Mr. Creveling who is a faithful member of our Choir. Contributions to pay for this greatly appreciated publication will be thank- fully received by the Rector. We are very sorry to loose from our parish two valuable and successful workers in our Guild. Mrs. Clark, who has been at the head of The Missionary Chapter, and Mrs. Wilcox, its Secretary, have both moved to New York. We shall miss them, and while we do not expect to ever fill their places yet we mean to keep up their good work as we know they would have us do. More than a passing word of commendation and of regret because of our loss is due to Mrs. Clark, who for ten years past has so successfully planned and guided the work of the Missionary Chapter of our Guild. She possessed very remarkable I THE PARISH. ability to attract and hold together a strong band of workers, in the vineyard of the Lord, and she spared not herself to accomplish all in her power for her Church which she loved so much. In her new home and work, Mrs. Clark caries with her, the best wishes of the Missionary Chapter and of all who knew her in S. John's Parish. We are glad to publish in this issue of The Parish a valuable paper read before the B.'ooklyn Clencal League, Oct. 2nd, by John McDowell ^O-eavitt, D.D., L.L.D., who is an esteemed member of S. John's Church. HYPERCRITICISM. A REVIEW OF THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. It is difficult to distinguish the man from his system. Origen was a saint and a genius, yet he often allegorized scripture into nonsense. Most eloquent of Latin Fathers, the pious and learned TertuUian, was a cynical ascetic who ended in Montanism. Ambrose of Milan, the wise Bishop, the ecclesiastical statesman, the magnificent poet and preacher, said and did, what our veneration wishes otherwise. Prince of theologians, peerless in argument, brilliant in style, Augustine glorified relics, and en- couraged invocations of saints. The im- mortal author of the Vulgate, Jerome, was discourteous and violent. Basil, the Greg- cries, Chrysostom, equals of Cicero in splendor of oratory, and glowing with exalted piety, were superstitious as medioeval monks. Under the spell of that nightmare of philos- ophy. Gnosticism, we yet deem Marcion a Christian. No possible human errancy sur- prises those familiar with ecclesiastical history. During the Decian persecutions, when fire tested faith, the Clementines were read like Pilgrim's Progress, and after two centuries in Greek were translated by Rufinus into Latin, yet the story of the Fall they ridicule as "senseless," scorn Moses, insult the Baptist, denounce Paul, and make Peter say, " in the Scripture are some true sayings, and some spurious." As we estimate the past, so must we measure Dr. Briggs, with charity as well as justice. We bring to the Bar, not the man, but his book. — "The Study of Holy Scripture." Hypercriticism we distinguish from Higher Criticism. The aims and principles of the latter we approve. It, and its antithesis. Textual Criticism, have their place, and it is only against an extreme that we argue. We can advance what we wish to develop in a single proposition. — Hypercriticism is a proba- bility, while Christianity is a Certitude. All literary research into a far past is under a haze. Each archaeologist feels his way in mist. Have we one Homer? Is the Iliad a unit? Who wrote the Odeyssey ? Did many minds create the immortal poems ? Thirty centuries have not answered these questions. Battle is now fighting over the tomb of Shakespeare, and his glory given to Bacon. A hundred years have not settled the authorship of Junius. It seemed proved that only three of the fifteen Ignatian Epistles were genuine. After a life- devotion to the martyr of the Colosseum, great Lightfoot, late Bishop of Durham, extends the number to seven. Another generation may change his estimate. Josephus ascribes the Septuagint to the seventy at Pharos under the patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphus. For nearly two thousand years this statement was accepted as historic fact. The venerable ver- dict has been reversed by a modern tribunal. Germany and Dr. Briggs decide that the illustrious work is of later origin, and not a translation, but a targum. Who added the Apocrypha? Not even Hypercritism can an- swer. As in Assyriaso in Egypt, Biblical manu- scripts multiplied differences until they became innumerable and inexplicable. Especially, puzzling and amazing in the Septuagint its wide departures from the Hebrew. Sometimes there is not the remotest resemblance to the THE PARISH original. Hypercriticism in determining the authorship of Genesis has drawn immense inferences from the names of the Deity. In the Septuagint they appear without plan, or reference to ihe original. More than once in the narratives of the creation and fall where the Hebrew has— n^-i!?{< nin^— the Septuagint gives only S Qeoi. In the specification for the ark this is reversed. The Septuagint has /tvpioi u Beoi where we have but nin'' in the Hebrew. Philo ! What differences about this illus- trious Alexandrian Jew ! To him is attributed a writing of the first century. Then it is shown to be of the third. Again it is proved Philo was not the author. Nor yet are critics satisfied. Massebeau and Sandys maintain genuineness. Dr. Briggs dissents. The bat- tle will be waged in the next century. Surely we should be able to determine the period and circumstances and authorship of that most venerable of Christian Symbols — the Apostles' Creed ! Dr. Briggs believes that Schaff dissipated the clouds of ages. But about four years since the celebrated Harnak issued another explanation. Thus at the close of our nineteenth century the glorious old Creed is still kept oscillating in its critical suspension. How touching and beautiful the tradition ascribing the Te Deum to Ambrose of Milan! For ages the Church believed that the sublime hymn was chanted first at the baptism of Augustine, Archbishop Usher finds two manuscripts assigning the magnificent com- position to Nicetus, in A. D. 535, Bishop of Treves, We have ourselves witnessed a revolution in the pronunciation of the classic languages. Germany has supplanted England. In my academic days kikero was a blunder of vul- gar ignorance ridiculed in a boy's address which was spouted daily in the schools of our land. Now it is accepted in our colleges and universities. Greek and Latin are afloat. No scholar can affirm that his reading of Homer, or Herodotus, or Plato, or ^schylus, or De- mosthenes, or Cicero, or Horace, or Virgil, or Livy, or Tacitus, would not have amused and confused those classic poets, historians, orators and philosophers. What shall we say of Hebrew ? Uncertain- ties multiply ! Only within a few years have our theological seminaries grated on our ears the harsh, uncouth, and irreverent Jaweh. Jaw! or Yaw! What vulgar syllables in sound and suggestion ! Can they mingle in the name of the Majesty of the Universe ? Characteristically, Hebrew has its accent on the ultimate, as Aramaic on the penult, and Arabic on the ante-penult. This rule gives ]e-ho-va/i instead of Jaweh. Polish and Ger- man Jews accent the penult. Some hold that in reading we should not accent the accented syllable. Saalchiitz rejected the Massoretic vocalization and substituted the Aramaic. Amid this critical confusion we might spare our ears and compromise on Jehcvah — that most sublime name of our Creator. Dr. Briggs would discard the Massoretic signs, and use the pointless text. With a stroke of its confident pen, young America sweeps away the traditional aids of Rabbini- cal learning. Left to its sure self it will " fix " the Hebrew ! Yet with this certainty of con- clusion, these same critics are not agreed about the pronunciation of the name of their God. Consider the exposure of our Hebrew Bible to corruption ! Before the captivity the rev- erential care of Scribes kept the text compara- tively pure. Dispersions brought dark streams of various errors like a deluge over Holy Scripture. In Babylon the very script was revolutionized. The Hebrew Script was sup- planted by the Aramaic Script. What a flood of changes this produced ! Popular for its promises and prophecies of national restora- tion, Isaiah would be peculiarly exposed. And even in more peril the Psalter ! The worship of Israel, its translations would mul- THE PARISH 5 tiply. As the Jew passed from Hebrew to Aramaic in script and speech, while copies in- creased errors would grow. Writing in Baby- lon, Daniel composes chapters in Aramaic. Ezekiel is colored by his Assyrian environ- hient. We have in Eygpt the inexplicable addition ot the Apocrypha in the Septuagint. Each book, each chapter, almost each verse, marks the influence of exile on the banks of the Nile. Scripture was scarcely less exposed in Palestine. During the Maccabean persecu- tions the Jewish manuscripts were largely destroyed, and the corrupted Assyrian and Egyptian parchment-rolls forced into the synagogues. What critic can prove that the Chaldeeisms of Isaiah and the Psalter were riot introduced^ by copyists and translators ? We are in a land of mists where certainty is unattainable. In such darkness Colenso, Briggs and Ingersoll have been working, and Hypercriticism now ventures to assert that there is no ability in Gcd Himself to prevent the errors of man. Difficulties apply to the whole Bible. Often they are insuperable. Manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek, and cognate languages have to be searched. For this work not ten living scholars have the aptitude and ability. In America perhaps, not one. Rabbins are to be stud- ied. The Talmud itself is a life-labor. Targums and Translations are to be weigh- ed. Quotations from Fathers open a vast field. Nor can we overlook evidence from history and archaeology. How intermi- nable the task ! How doubtful the labor ! Often how unsatisfactory the result ! In the Commission which prepared oift" Revised Vei- sion were two parties irreconcilably antagonis- tic. Differences were fundamental, and cloud the work with doubt. The disagreement was on the very principles which were to decide the text. One set held that the combined author- ity ot the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaitictis should always together fix the reading, while the other maintained that not only these two, but all other authorities should be consulted. So that this division still leaves our English Bible in suspense. We mention these facts not to oppose either General Criticism, or Textual Criticism, or Higher Criticism. Each has its wide field and noble function. Our object is to show that the man of true science is required to feel his way with conservative modesty in regions of inevi- table probability. The scholar transcending his limitations we call the Hypercritic. On a lofty throne he sits who decides between truth and falsehood. Presumption cannot hold with even hand the balance of eternal justice. When the Bible is involved arise questions of salvation for races and generations. Having made these remarks, we approach with pain the critical infirmities of Dr. Briggs. I. Our author exalts himself. Not seldom he speaks as if his mere schol- arly judgment must be conclusive. I have not counted the number of his quoted author- ities, but I am quite sure that, in text and notes, he cites his own works more frequently than those of any other celebrity, ancient or modern, Greek or Latin, or German or French,' or English or American. II. Our author abuses his enemies. A critic must never lay aside his judicial ermine. He loses caste and influence when he descends from the dignity of the bench to the acrimony of the bar. • We are amazed that a man of learning and culture, surrounded by all refining literary and religious influences, should in our age and land of courtesy, so far forget himself as to call his adversaries — "dogs": "evil-workers": " time servers ": "traditiona- lists" "theological Bourbons:" " Narrow en- thusiasts," "with obstructive methods and insincere apologies," " imposing penalties of unrighteous and illegal ecclesiastical disci- pline," " blind guides," " Pharisees:" "Philis- tines." III. Our author exaggerates his OFFICE. We have endeavored to show the nebulous region of probabilities in which the Higher THE PARISH Criticism is forced to work. Incertitude is its inseparable characteristic. It is the Hyper- critic who mistakes the genius of his vocation, "and asserts that by his methods he attains results, "surely as any other department of the world's literature." How dangerous to truth when we narrow the field of proof to our own art or office! " The internal evidence," our author says, " must be decisive in all questions of Biblical Criticism," " which is the test of the certainty of knowledge: the method of its verification." As St. Sophia was converted into a mosque, and the Bible on its walls plastered over with the Koran, when the cross was supplanted by the crescent, so Holy Scripture has been in- crusted and dishonored by " traditonalists," and the Higher Criticism is to restore the im- mortal edifice to its pristine glory. "Scholars" ot but one school are fitted for this work, and those, like the philosophers of Augustus Comte, are to constitute a supreme tribunal. We can imagine who will be the self-crowned auriga, driving his sun-chariot with beams to wake over earth the bloom of its millenial Eden. A Hebraist must be a specialist. He loads his memory with points and accents and para- digms, and a myriad minute things it requires a life to master. The man begins with an aptitude the reverse of logical, and his ex- actitude of scholarship unfits him for historic and philosophic research. Inflated, he be- comes amusing, unless he makes himself a blind, baffled, suicidal Samson, vainly embracing the pillars of eternal truth. In all his views the accomplished Hebraist tends to the microscopic. He is awkward with the telescope, and unfits himself for companionship with the stars. While he might piece together the pins and wheels of a clock, beyond him are the laws of a universe. Let us apply a crucial test to our author! He says — " It may be regarded as a certain result of Higher Criticism that Moses did not write the Pentateuch." Observe ! For this immense destructive conclusion, no argument ! The magic word — " Scholarship "—entombs Moses, obliterates Joshua, extinguishes Jonah, pulver- izes David, bisects Isaiah, muUifies Daniel, discredits Christ, clouds his Apostles, sweeps away Rabbins, overthrows Jewish national belief, contradicts the Greek, and Latin and Anglican Communions, and repudiates the profoundest learning of English and American Protestantism. Aliord and Lightfootand West- cott, with our Hodge and Greene and Bishop Williams, fall from their thrones before their hypercritic master. Is criticism the sole test of authenticity and credibility ? I turn to Paul ! His authorship of Hebrews has been the question of cen- turies. Amid the conflicting authorities I wish to shape for myself an opinion. Not on one kind of proof, but all ! I notice in Hebrews, Graecisms peculiar to Paul. They are found in no other New Testament writer,and are not in the Septuagint. Powerful evidence ! Not the whole ! Our apostle's name at the beginning of the epistle, att4 his place of writing at the end, have no claim to inspiration, but they show an early belief in the Church. From text and tradition I rise to what, with me is crowning proof. In the thirteen admitted epistles I find a masterful genius for which I know no equal in any literature. In argument our apostle is king of men. Hebrews even surpasses Romans. Of human reasoning and illustration it seems to me the ideal. No man, I believe before Paul, could write Hebrews or after Paul, could write Hebrews, and, fortified by my other proof, I conclude, for myself, that Paul did write Hebrews. Or take Milton ! In his early political and prelatical pamphlets what bitterness and meanness mingle, darkling, in the fiery flow of his eloquence ! But in his Paradise Lost and Areopagitica, the man is sublimated into a glory of imagery and argument which exceeds all classic poetry and oratory. Do I seek him only in a critical analysis of his text ? I might as well examine the cut and color of THE PARISH 7 his coat. As I can discover but one Paul, so the grasp of his intellect and the grandeur of his imagination, prove there is but one Milton. What shall we say of Moses ? Above all mortals he sits enthroned ! Poet, Prophet, Historian, Lawgiver! In his creation of genius Almighty God is less lavish than hypercritics, and the first star He placed in the firmament of Scripture shines indivisible and inextinguish- able in its supreme and solitary glory. What- ever the species and number of its traditional sources the master-intellect of Moses pervades and unifies the Pentateuch. Now that Astron- omy and Geology enable us to trace worlds from nebuloe to rotundity and organization, we can interpret his narrative of creation, and know that it is history and not poetry, and see how inspiration anticipates science. Paradise ! The Temptation ! The Fall ! The Expulsion ! The Deluge ! Inimitable the touches in these historic pictures ! They live in the memory of ages and exceed art as salvation transcends literature ! In contrast, how puerile the idol- atrous Assyrian and Egyptian legends ! Moses alone of mortals could paint the sacrificial Story of Abraham and Isaac; the career of Jacob from guile to glory; Joseph doomed in Dothan, and exalted in Egypt; the cradle in the Nile; the plagues of Pharaoh; the cloud- guided passage through the sea; the miracle pilgrimage in the wilderness. One fact stands like a mountain before the nebulous deductions of Hypercriticism. For thousands of years the Jewish nation has received the Pentateuch as the work of Moses. The supreme law of our Republic is our Constitution. We trace its elements in Eng- land and its preparations in the colonies; we study the Revolution which made it possible, and the masterly discussions in the Convention by which it was adopted. The Federalist makes us yet more intimate with its develop- ment and genius. Only as such a growth of the nation could it become the law of the nation. Let a hundred years pass ! On this day let that Constitution be first presented as it now stands ! It would be an unseemly and unintelligible anomaly. You might as well expect a corpse to be received as an animated body after a century in its tomb. Whatever its merits a Constitution, proposed under such untimely conditions, would be repudiated by our nation, and hurled back into the darkness from which it came. When Hypercriticism buries Moses, it evokes from its tomb, into the light of our century, four shadows, nameless and unsubstantial as ghosts. It gives us the Judaic Code, the Ephra- imitic Code; the Deuteronomic Code, and the Priest Code — sounding titles, but they and their authors, unknown to history or tradition — mere phantoms of scholarly imagination. We will confine ourselves to the accounts of the taber- nacle and its ministries, and to Deuteronomy, Included, we have the most minute system of laws ever given to a nation. From first to last, a series of scores of Revelations, in words, from the lips of Jehovah to the ears of Moses, and sometimes accompanied by visible and ineffable glory. Jehovah presents a model of the taber- nacle with directions even for its pins. Jehovah appoints the priests, their garments, their resi- dence, their service. "Jehovah spaketoMoses," is the simple and sublime introduction to these numerous personal communications. Never in our world's history have we recorded so many details for political and religious government. At the close of the pilgrimage of the venerable leader we have Deuteronomy. How does it begm ! " These are the words which Moses spake to all Israel on this side of Jordan." Could there be a more distinct avowal of authorship ? And it is implied or expressed in every part of the record, and wrought into its texture. As Leviticus is a communication from Jehovah to Moses, so Deuteronomy is a communication from Moses to Israel. The final message is that of a father to his people, breathing a paternal solicitude, which a thou- sand years after, would have showed in an imitator the icy hypocrisy of a fabrication. It directs on Ebal an altar of witness. As a wit- THE PARISH. ness it commands that the book be placed in the ark of the covenant. Also as a witness is com- posed and sung the wonderful song at the close. Prophecies, like pictures, paint the Jews as we see them this moment; and promises flash their light down through all ages and cheer life and death with words such as these — " The eternal God is our refuge and under- neath the everlasting arms." Here we have not only history, but a rational explanation of the genius and future of Israel. The unbe- lieving fathers fell in the wilderness, and for forty years Moses educated their sons into his system. After the conquest, was erected at Shiloh the tabernacle, succeeded by the tem- ple at Jerusalem. But the nation, following the seduced Solomon, with their kings, rushed into idolatry. Bel supplanted Jehovah, the law was forgotten, the temple defiled. Hezekiah and Josiah were royal reformers and restorers. After the captivity, Ezra established the wor- ship of the New Temple, and Moses came down to Christ as the author of the Pentateuch and the lawgiver of Israel. Before we test the opposite, hypercritic view, we must pause to notice a contradiction in our author. He says that the laws and institutions of the Jews, civil, religious and domestic, were not given in the wilderness, but are " now seen to be the development of the experience of Israel during the centuries of his residence in the Holy Land. No one would think of ascribing the constitution of the United States, and all the elaborate system of common and statute law in Great Britian and America to the Anglo Saxon tribes who invaded England, and established the basis of the Anglo Saxon civilization. It would be no more absurd than to ascribe the elaborate Penta- teuchal codes to Israel of the Exodus." Here Hypercriticism sweeps from the Bible every revelation from Mount Sinai to Mount Pisgah. It gives the lie to each instance where it is said, " Jehovah spake to Moses." It obliterates God from his word, which it brands with false- hood. It makes the Law of Israel, not as described in the Pentateuch, a divine commu- nication in the wilderness, but a natural evolution in Canaan, just as our constitution was a human development. Neither Straus nor Renan, nor IngersoU could do, or say, or ask more, and the subsequent admission of the theophanies only exposes the painful con- tradictions of a learned, but illogical writer. You will not be surprised if I now proceed to show that Hypercriticism tends to infidelity. As we have seen, it creates, instead of Moses, four authors for the Pentateuch. We will con- sider only two of its codes, and for our conven- ience, call them Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These Hypercriticism ascribes to periods just before and after the Babylonish Captivity. In answer to this view I will draw an illustra- tion from Greece and America. What gives us our confidence in Thucydi- des ? He was a man of broad intellect, large culture and stainless integrity. Anticipating the Peloponnesian war, before burst forth the fatal flames, he began to collect his materials. During the battles and intrigues of thirty years between the states of Greece he was a keen and faithful observer. Hence, when published, his history was received by his country as a! supreme authority; and Thucydides will for- ever occupy the throne assigned him by his contemporaries. His History was made at the time by an author all ages trust. But let a thousand years pass ! Now introduce Thu- cydides ! All is reversed ! No human mind could retain and recall such innumerable de- tails. Every argument for credibility becomes an argument for imposture. Our Nicolai and Hay were intimates of President Lincoln. The man and the ruler were familiar to these writers. Before their eyes passed the events of the Civil War. What they saw and knew they give our nation, which receives their biography as a standard author- ity. Again, suppose a thousand years to pass ! In this far future let the great work first appear ! What a monstrous incongruity and impossibility ! No memory could transmit THE PARISH. such a vast mass of minute facts. All once in favor of the book would now be against it. Never could it obtain circulation. An indig- nant republic would repudiate the work as a fraud. The principles we apply to Grecian History, and to American History, let us now apply to Mosaic History. After the wanderings of the wilderness a thousand years pass. To the Jews Moses as a writer is unknown. Josiah is on the throne of Israel. A manuscript is brought to the King. It is Deuteronomy ! The monarch examines the new parchment-roll ! Promises ! Proph- ecies ! A review of the wildernsss ! The Law rehearsed ! Predictions embracing the twelve tribes ! An altar commanded at Ebal ! The book to be deposited in the ark ! Cursings and blessings on the mountains ! Jehovah's care recalled in the small matter of a camp- paddle ! A song palpitating with the heart of a father ! Warnings and encouragements as from Moses solemnized by death and eternity ! After ten centuries no mortal memory could retain these details. Those very minutioe which a thousand years before would have gained confidence, are now so many sure marks of imposture. Josiah would be forced to condemn such a Deuteronomy as a forgery. Yet Hypercriticism would persuade us that this forgery converted the monarch, reformed the temple, revolutionized the kingdom, This forgery draws to itself the name of Moses as its writer, and is believed, and accepted and venerated by the nation. This forgery is quoted three times by our Lord as Scripture in his Temptation. With heaven open, and its glory on his face, Stephen, from this for- gery, applies a prophecy to Christ. Twice in Romans Paul uses this forgery as an argument. All Jews receive this foi^gery as the work of Moses, and as such it is incorporated into the canon of Chistendom. Stronger than Deuteronomy the case ol Leviticus ! Add the parts of Exodus and Numbers pertaining to the tabernacle ! The plan of this sacred structure was communi- cated by J'.hovah to Moses on the mountain. Nothing could be more specific. Pins are mentioned. We have poles, bars, boards, curtains, vestments, incense, altars, lamps, oil, bread, mercy-seat, feasts and fasts, and offerings, and cities of refuge and of habita- tion — the most elaborate priesthood and ceremonial everappoiiited. Details innumera- able ! Beyond the retentive power of mortals ! To tradition impossible ! Everywhere words expressing revelation ! " And Jeliovah spake to Moses." Presented at the time of the events, details would be a recommendation, and promote credence, while, a thousand years after, they would be a barrier, as beyond memory, and compel rejection. Hypercritic Leviticus Ezra would pronounce forgery. Yet we are to be persuaded that this forgery became the law of the new temple, and for ages shaped the belief and worship of the Jews. This forgery supplied that typica} tabernacle which, under the Gospel, illustrated the sacrificial system of Christ, and in the Apocalypse was made the celestial centre of the everlasting glory. Hypercriticism thus forces us to conclude that its Leviticus is a forgery; its Deute- ronomy a forgery; and with the greatest part of its Exodus and Numbers also a for- gery, to the small residuum will attach for- gery, and the taint of the fraud will extend to Genesis: and its Pentateuch be a discred- ited falsehood. Moses a forgery ! Yet Jesus Christ fulfilled this forgery, quoted this forgery, imposed this forgery as a condition of faith in Himself ! Speaking of Moses he said, " But if ye believe not his writings how can ye believe my words ?" Believe a forgery ! To me such a Moses is an imaginary literary patch work more incredible than the Koran. You miglu as well place Mohammed between Christ and my faith as this Hypercritic Moses. But of him whose Holy Law convinces my reason and convicts my conscience and prepares me for the salvation of the Gospel, I hear the lO THE PARISH. Master say — "My Moses, I, the Jehovah, watched in his cradle, commanded from the bush, empowered in Egypt. My Moses I led through the sea, met on the mountain, guided through the wilderness. My Moses I inspired as a Prophet, and taught as my Lawgiver, and summoned to my Transfiguration, and joined his name in that song to the Lamb which is the sublimest worship of my universe." Now let us turn from the Law to the Gospel ! With sorrow I make a last arraignment of Hypercriticism ! Our Bibles are full of errors. These we ascribe to copyists and translators; and it is the grand work of critical science to correct mortal mistakes and restore the text to its original purity. In this holy enterprise we have to consider Scripture as a Revelation and an Inspiration, whose record has not been placed beyond our human infirmities. Reve- lation is substance and Inspiration is form. Revelation communicates the truth which Inspiration expresses. When Jehovah showed Moses the model tabernacle He could have left its description to the words of his servant. But Paul says, ndda y pacpij fJE^nvEvdroi all Script- ure God-breathed, and therefore an Inspira- tion as well as a Revelation. Each writer re- tains his individuality, and we limit the Holy Ghost by no definitions. For ourselves we cannot believe that the Holy Ghost in the same man, at the same time, in the same act, teaches truth and permits error. To admit this, for us, would make faith in the Holy Ghost impossible, and therefore veil the Scripture in eternal darkness. Hypercriticism thinks otherwise. Boldly it traces the errors of our Bibles, not only to the inability of man, but the impotency of God. "Canst thou bind the Pleiades?" Yet Hyperiticism limits our Lord, the omnipotent creator of stars, and the Holy Ghost proceed- ing from the Father of the Universe, and thus the Everlasting Trinity. Hear the proof in the words of our author! "The only answer is that Jesus could not give his teachings in inerrant forms; the Holy Spirit could not communicate the inerrant word to man." We have not yet seen the full flower in the crown of the glory of Hypercriticism. This our author unfolds in a quotation to prove the importance of his science. Now we can test him, not in the haze of misty manuscripts, and corrupted texts, and nebulous regions, where scholars reign, but in an exegesis determinable by plain common sense. I will give the words our author cites and approves. — " It was apparently this gift of tongues with which the disciples were endowed at Pentecost, and they spoke, therefore, not in foreign languages, but in the ecstatic, frenzied, unintelligible, spirit- ual speech of which Paul tells us in his First Epistle to the Corinthians." In glowing words the Old Testament pre- dicts the Holy Ghost. Baptism by the Holy Ghost is the grand characteristic of the Gospel. For the Holy Ghost our Lord commanded his disciples to tarry in Jerusalem. Their assem- blage was glorious as the sublime occasion of the true birth of the Christian Church. On their heads fall and flame tongues of fire. They, speak, how? " As the Spirit gave them utter- ance." They speak, our author asserts, "not in foreign languages," whereas the Scripture says, " How hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born ? " They speak, what? Toi i^isyaXeia rov Osov The wonders of God. What " wonders ! " " Wonders " given in Peter's Pentecostal Sermon — Christ Pro- phecied; Christ Crucified: Christ Glorified. Hearing these " wonders," the Proselytes were first amazed and then converted. Yet Hyper- criticism makes the apostolic witnesses of our Lord unintelligible babblers ! For testimony, frenzy ! Instead of inspired speech, pitiable jargon ! A New Testament Babel ! Such is the crown of festivals in the calendar of the Universal Church ! No ! Hypercriticism libels Pentecost, and caricatures the Holy Ghost ! We must not forget, that in Europe and America, men, ambitious to pulverise the everlasting rock of the Divine Word, have filled the air with the dust of their own doubts. Paralysis threatens the old manly faith of prophets, apostles and martyrs. Hypercriti- THE PARISH. II cism mistakes form for substance, and makes the first last, and the last first. It loves to style the Bible a Literature; Does it call Science a Literature ? No ! Why ? Literature appeals to esthetical taste proverbially fickle, while Science appeals to reason seeking by proof the fixed eternal laws of the universe. Literature is to Science an incident. If Literature is not the essential of Science still less is it the es- sential of Scripture. My Bible presents itself, not as a Literature but as a Revelation, attested by prophecy and by miracle. To the Jew it was a statute from his sovereign Jehovah, Creator of the universe, guarded by temporal rewards and penalties; and to the Christian, it is a Redemption by Jesus, the Incarnate God, predestined in eternity, with everlasting sanc- tions. Amid these assaults from within and with- out, why is Scripture a certitude} My reason must be satisfied. Our quickened, universal popular intelligence craves truth. For bread shall I offer a stone to appease an immortal hunger? Never! My Bible invites and dares criticism. Only these lightning-flashes of controversy can clear our spiritual atmosphere. Arius made an Athanasius and Pelagius an Augustine. Shall my faith depend on the cameleon theories of scholars ? Before I be- lieve must I wait the turn of the spade of the archaeologist, the discoveries of the hammer of the geologist, the analysis of the nebuloeofthe astronomer ? Must my salvation be postponed to an indefinite future? Then am I left change- ful as a cloud and restless as the ocean. Amid multiplied Biblical errors insinuated by mortal infirmity I have a comfort. Diffier- ences relate to minute matters noticeable only by scholars, and do not affect one fact or truth of our salvation. In whatever language I read Scripture it is the same true and trustful guide to the Life Eternal. It begins with announcing Almighty God as the creator of his universe. The majesty of the Everlasting Sovereign stoops not to philosophic or metaphysic argument. My Bible is a statute of salvation pro- posed on condition of my repentance, faith and obedience, with eternal rewards and penalties. But, with proofs to my Reason! To my Reason it makes one simple and supreme appeal! And as the proofs of Science are plain which end in laws, so are the proofs of Revelation plain which end in mysteries. All the proofs of my Bible centre in the Resurrection of my Lord. After death did He exhibit voluntary motion? Did He see ? Did He hear ? Did He talk ? Did He walk ? Facts these for the eye and ear and finger! Through the visible, the audible, the tangible, this appeal to Reason ! I ex- amine in the Gospels the apostolic witnesses. In them meet all legal tests of truth. Behind them in One who compels my faith. He, in earth's history, the alone perfect man — He a model for angels — He the moral ideal of a universe — He, to imposture impossible as the creation of his worlds — He, in regard to whom the thought of lie is blasphemy — He testifies to his own Resurrection. My reason believes this infallible witness. Then, as He claimed, He is Messiah with Godhead. The seal of his Godhead He placed on the Old Testament and pledged his Godhead for the New. Gospels ! Acts ! Epistles ! Each and all I can show written by apostles, or under sanction of apostles. These apostles Christ promised his Spirit to testily of Himself. Thus behind the whole Bible is the Godhead of my Savior. When I examine the books in detail, all I find within corresponds to all I find without. Evidences and Contents alike satisfy my reason. I start from the senses in proof of the Resur- rection. I ascend to Messiahship. I end in God- head. Have I separated myself from the faith and tradition, and learning and wisdom of the past ? No ! Here is our English Bible ! It is accepted by Christendom. Greeks and Latins are divided from Anglicans and Protestants in regard to the au hority of the apocrypha. About a thousand other things they disagree. But all the books of my English Bible are received as Revelations from God by all the communions of all the world. This silent and spontaneous concurrence is more powerful and satisfactory than any formal decree of a General Council. It is the voiceless sovereign- ty of the Church Universal, and a prophetic sign of the future unity of a divided Christen- dom. With such proofs to reason, enlight- ened by the Holy Spirit, the Scripture becomes a triumphant Cekth ude. 12 THE PARISH. S, 3obiV0 Cburcb, S. John's ^lace^below Seventh ji.venue. SERVICES. A. M., and on month, at the Thk Holy Communion.— At the tirst Sunday in each Morning Service. MoKNiNG Service at 10:30. Evening Service at 7:45. Sunday-School at 3 P. M. Celebkatiox every Saints' Day, 7:30 A.M. Friday Es^euing Service, 5 P.M. Holy Baptism.— This Sacrament -will be ad- ministered, after due notice, at any Service of Moruing or Evening Prayer, and especially at the Children's Service, second Sunday in each month, except on Sunday moruing. It will always be administered in Church, except in case of sickness. Other Offices. — The Rector is always ready to perform any spiritual office, whenever desired; to visit any person who is ill ; to administer the Holy Communion to the sick and to bury the dead. All funerals should be in the Clinrcll, and never on Sunday, except when absolutely neces- sary. The Rector should always be consulted before the time is appointed. CORPORATION AND PAROCHIAL ORGANIZATIONS. Hector. The Reverend George F. Breed, No. 139 S. John's Place. Wardetts. Edward I. Horsman, J. Eliott Langstaff, Vestrymen. George W. Gilbert, Melvin J. Bailey, Sherman Esselstyn, Treasurer, No. 486 Second Street. Gonzola Poey, John G. Luke, Thomas McIlvaine, Henry S. Northrop, Charles R. Kearns John Lund. Choir Master and Organist. Frank Wright, 564 Carlton Avenue. Sexton. E. M. Stephenson, 48 Garfield Place. Vestry Committees, On Finance and Building— Messrs. Esselstyn, Gilbert, Kearns and Northrop. Music — Messrs. Lyles, Luke and Lund. On Pews — Messrs. Horsman, Langstaff, Bailey and McIlvaine. S. JOHN'S GUILD. Warden -The Rector. Meets the first Monday in each month, from October to June, at 8 P.M. ChaptePyS of the Guild. The Missionary Chapter. Head of Chapter — '^ Meets Tuesdays at 2 P.M. The Altar Chapter. Head of Chapter -Mrs. M. R. Kintzing. - Meets the Tuesday preceeding the first Sunday iu each mouth at 4 P. M. The Sunday School Chapter, Head of Chapter — W. A. Alkinson. Meets every Sunday at 3 P.M. The Choi? Chapter. Head of Chapter — Frank Wright. Liirarian of Church Periodical Club. Mrs. G. W. Gilbert, 149 Sixth Avenue. FOBM OF BEQUEST. I hereby give and bequeath to the Sector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Saint John's Church, a1 Brooklyn, situate on S. Jolm^s Place, near Seventh Avenue, the sum of Dollars, to be used and applied for the payment of its mortgage debt or as an endowment. DATE DUE "^^mr^^mss,^ HIGHSMITH # 45220