BS6'00 
 .A5/ 
 
Bible 
 
 or -Wo Bible? 
 
 ^ticc 25 Cents 
 
■miiiiS't; 
 
 3-lZ- 41 
 
 fcibrar;^ of €he trheolojicd ^emmarjp 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 The Estate of 
 Philip H. Waddell Smith 
 
 Am354 
 
«ible or -fflo «fblc7 
 
 IReport of the jflrst Convention of 
 
 XLbc Bmerican :fiSf ble Xea^ue 
 
 irn 1Rew Vork City, ITHav 3, 4, and 5, 1904 
 
 IRcprinted from "dbe IBible Student and Q^cacber*' 
 
 |>rice 25 Cents 
 
 c:bc Bmerican Bible Xeague 
 
 37*39 ISible IHouse 
 
Copyright, 1904 
 by 
 Cbe Bmcrlcan IBIblc Xcaquc 
 
tReport of the 
 
 Convention in 1Rew Vork. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 The Marble Collegiate Church, New 
 York City, hospitably opened its doors 
 for the first Convention of The Amer- 
 ican Bible League, May 3, 4 and 5, 1904. 
 The sessions began on Tuesday evening, 
 May 3, and ended on Thursday at mid- 
 day. The speakers were representative 
 men in various branches of the Evan- 
 gelical Church. The aim of the conven- 
 tion was to give a bird's-eye view of the 
 present situation that has resulted from 
 the wide dissemination of the views of 
 the rationalistic critics concerning the 
 Bible. The speakers were selected with 
 this end in view. Leaders of philosophic 
 breadth of vision were chosen to set 
 forth the nature of the present conflict 
 between faith and disbelief; preachers 
 and pastors of large experience and wide 
 observation in the work of the churches, 
 to portray the practical consequences of 
 the critical assault upon the Bible; 
 Biblical scholars of the first rank to ex- 
 hibit the groundlessness of the claims of 
 the radical critics; and men in touch 
 with the work of instruction in the Bible, 
 to present suggestions regarding the best 
 methods of leading to a better syste- 
 matic and constructive study of the 
 Bible as the Word of God. 
 
 It was a source of regret that, owing 
 to previously formed engagements in 
 connection with ecclesiastical assemblies, 
 seminary commencements, etc., and to 
 the lateness of the notice sent out, 
 many of the leaders most deeply interest- 
 ed in the movement, especially those re- 
 siding at' a distance, were unable to be 
 present. Among the many thus neces- 
 sarily debarred from attendance may be 
 mentioned the names of President Henry 
 
 A. Buttz, of Drew Theological Seminary, 
 Professor Willis J. Beecher, of Auburn 
 Theological Seminary, Professor Wil- 
 liam M. McPheeters, of Columbia Theo- 
 logical Seminary, Principal J. P. Shera- 
 ton, of Wyckliffe College, Toronto, and 
 Principal William Caven, of Knox Col- 
 lege, Toronto, all among the original 
 corporate members of the League. 
 
 The attendance upon the meetings was 
 unexpectedly large, and the interest and 
 enthusiasm were of marked character, 
 and grew from the opening session to 
 the close. The daily press gave constant 
 and sympathetic attention and large 
 space to the utterances and acts of the 
 Convention, thereby contributing largely 
 to its success. Believing that one of the 
 great New York dailies was right in 
 looking upon the Convention as "an 
 event of pivotal importance," the League 
 determined first to print a complete re- 
 port of the proceedings in the May and 
 June issues of The Bible Student and 
 Teacher, and later to give it the widest 
 possible circulation in pamphlet or book 
 form. It has been encouraged to do this 
 by assurances coming from every quar- 
 ter of the globe, of a marvelous awaken- 
 ing of interest in its organized move- 
 ment for the study, defense and dissem- 
 ination of the Bible as the Word of God 
 and the Way of Life. 
 
 The President of the League, Mr. Wil- 
 liam Phillips Hall, presided during the 
 Convention, communicating something 
 of his own enthusiasm to the proceed- 
 ings; and Rev. Dr. David James Burrell, 
 pastor of the Marble Collegiate Church, 
 took charge of the devotional exercises 
 with peculiar acceptance throughout the 
 sessions. 
 
IRcport of the Convention in 2)etail 
 
 TUESDAY EVENING SESSION, MAY 3. 
 
 8:00 P. M. President William Phillips Hall in the Chair. 
 
 OPENING DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES. 
 
 The Convention was called to order at 
 8 o'clock by the President, and the open- 
 ing devotional exercises immediately fol- 
 lowed. 
 
 Prayer by Dr. Burrell: 
 
 KJod, be with us and bless us, and cause 
 Thy face to shine upon us; and be gra- 
 cious unto us and help us in this service 
 to glorify Thee. We ask it in the name 
 of Jesus Christ, our Lord, who taught 
 us when we pray to say (the congrega- 
 tion join in the Lord's Prayer). 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Let us sing Hymn No. 776. 
 
 "The Church's one foundation 
 Is Jesus Christ, her Lord." 
 
 Responsive reading from the Nine- 
 teenth Psalm. 
 
 Prayer by Rev. Dr. Schmauk: 
 Almighty and ever-living God, before 
 Thou hadst formed the earth and the 
 world, even from everlasting to everlast- 
 ing Thou art God. By Thy word didst 
 Thou form the heavens and the earth; by 
 Thy word are we established in our 
 earthly life; by Thy word do the seas 
 and the tides and all the orbs of heaven 
 
 move continually in their courses; by 
 Thy word are we redeemed; by Thy 
 word we walk by faith; and in Thy word, 
 trusting, and hoping and going onward, 
 we shall fight the battle of life until, by 
 the promises of Thy word and by the 
 redemption of Thy Living Son, who was 
 before all worlds, the Eternal Word, we 
 shall see the truth as it is forever. 
 
 O, mighty God, do Thou establish 
 what Thou hast ordained from of old. 
 Do Thou grant life, and strength, and 
 power in Thy Spirit to the testimonies 
 that have come down from the ages. Do 
 Thou enable us to discern, and also to 
 make clear to all round about us, that 
 God still lives, that His Word still 
 stands, and that we are Thine, safe in 
 Thine everlasting keeping, and through 
 all the ages in Jesus Christ, our Lord. 
 Amen! 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Now, let us all sing No. 
 85: 
 
 "How precious is the book divine, 
 By inspiration given." 
 
 We will sing the whole five verses, and 
 will all sing No. 85. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE AIMS OF THE LEAGUE 
 STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM PHILLIPS HALL. 
 
 In reverently opening the first Conven- 
 tion of The American Bible League in 
 the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus 
 Christ, it gives us pleasure to state that 
 the object of the League is "to organize 
 the friends of the Bible, to promote a 
 more reverential and conservative study 
 of the Sacred Volume, and to maintain 
 the historic faith of the Church in its di- 
 vine inspiration and supreme authority 
 as the Word of God." 
 
 To realize most fully its objects the 
 
 League proposes to lead Christians to a 
 better and more comprehensive and com- 
 plete mastery of the Bible itself; espe- 
 cially as found in the English versions; 
 and, in carrying out this purpose, to pro- 
 mote everywhere a devout, constructive 
 study of the Bible as a whole, and in its 
 various books and parts, by the common 
 sense and rational, or truly scientific 
 method, and with the aid of all the light 
 that can be thrown upon it from all 
 sources, thereby to meet and counteract 
 
the errors now current concerning its 
 truthfulness, integrity and authority as 
 the Word of God. 
 
 To represent the League as having 
 been organized to oppose the work of 
 The Religious Education Association, as 
 has been unfortunately done by some, is 
 to misrepresent most grossly the facts in 
 the case. As a matter of possible histor- 
 ical interest, the primary planning of the 
 organization of an American Bible 
 League by the late Rev. Dr. George T. 
 Purves, Rev. Dr. Willis J. Beecher, Rev. 
 Dr. Howard Osgood, Rev. Dr. Daniel S. 
 Gregory and others, including the speak- 
 er, took place some five years ago — sev- 
 eral years before the Religious Education 
 Association was organized or publicly 
 known. 
 
 If great spiritual and moral needs jus- 
 tify the organization of great movements 
 to meet them, and if great perils justify 
 great and extraordinary alarms, then The 
 American Bible League is justified, not 
 only in its organization, but also in the 
 great Christian educational movement it 
 aims to promote, and in the extraordi- 
 nary alarm it endeavors to sound in view 
 of the active and widespread workings 
 of what appears to be nothing less than 
 a great scholastic apostasy in Christen- 
 dom at the present time. 
 
 Fascinated by a strange scholarship 
 multitudes among the leaders in the 
 Christian ministry and educational work 
 have turned aside in large part from the 
 faith which was delivered once for all 
 
 to the saints, to worship at the shrine 
 of a rationalistic criticism that destroys 
 individual faith in the divine origin, in- 
 tegrity, inspiration and authority of the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, and that, sooner or later, logic- 
 ally and inevitably leads to the denial of 
 the incarnation, omniscience, atonement 
 and supreme authority of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 In pursuance of the purpose the 
 League aims to accomplish we propose 
 in this Convention to show: 
 
 First. — That the Bible is now being 
 subjected to a scholastic assault of un- 
 paralleled danger; 
 
 Second. — That the practical conse- 
 quences of this assault are in evidence in 
 the demoralization of conduct and edu- 
 cation, and in evil influence on the min- 
 istry and missions; 
 
 Third. — That the assault is based upon 
 groundless claims of a false scholarship; 
 and 
 
 Fourth. — That the methods proposed 
 by the League will fully meet the impera- 
 tive needs of the situation, and lead to 
 a recovery of faith in the Bible as the 
 Word of God, and to the enthronement 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ in the hearts of 
 men. 
 
 In carrying out our great work, we 
 shall meet Biblical experts with Biblical 
 experts of the highest rank, and a nega- 
 tive, destructive scholarship, with a posi- 
 tive, constructive scholarship that, please 
 God, shall win the day. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. GREGORY, THE GENERAL SECRETARY. 
 
 President Hall: It now gives me very 
 great pleasure to announce as the first 
 speaker of the evening, the Rev. Daniel 
 S. Gregory, the General Secretary of The 
 American Bible League. Dr. Gregory is 
 widely known as ex-President of the 
 Lake Forest University, as Managing 
 Editor of that most useful work, the 
 Standard Dictionarj% and later as Editor 
 of The Homiletic Review, but most par- 
 ticularly as a staunch champion of the 
 faith once delivered to the saints. 
 
 Dr. Gregory will express to you more 
 fully the objects and plans of the League, 
 as introductory to the principal address- 
 
 es of the evening. Permit me to intro- 
 duce Dr. Gregory. 
 
 Dr. Gregory: I have been asked, not 
 to make an address, but to make a state- 
 ment concerning the objects and aims 
 of the League. 
 
 The American Bible League stands 
 first, last and all the time for the Bible as 
 the inspired Word of God, the only way 
 of Life for lost sinners, and the only au- 
 thoritative rule of Christian faith and 
 conduct. It came into existence in rec- 
 ognition of the fact that the present 
 death-grapple between faith and disbelief 
 
centres in the Bible and involves the 
 question of Bible or no Bible. That de- 
 termines its object, and its aim and 
 method. 
 
 In the view of the League, and justify- 
 ing its right to exist, two absolutely con- 
 tradictory statements of the nature, val- 
 ue, and claims of the Bible are struggling 
 for the supremacy. 
 
 There is the old view, that the Bible is 
 a divine production, the inspired record 
 of God's revelation of the unfolding of 
 His purpose for the redemption of lost 
 man. It reveals the onl> and exclusive 
 religion from God. 
 
 According to this view, it is the Word 
 of God, carrying with it the authority of 
 .God; and so, on the evidences it pre- 
 sents for the justification of its claims, is 
 to be reverently received and loyally 
 submitted to by man as the only way of 
 salvation and the final and infallible rule 
 of faith and practice. 
 
 The supreme question with which to 
 approach it is always "What has God 
 said?" 
 
 There is also a new view, that the 
 Bible is simply a human production, a 
 natural evolution from the experiences of 
 the Hebrew race. Its religion is merely 
 one of the many ethnic religions, with in- 
 numerable and obvious defects and con- 
 tradictions, and entirely without divine 
 inspiration (except of the kind that 
 Homer and Shakespeare enjoyed), and 
 with no special right to claim divine au- 
 thority over human reason, conscience 
 and life. The Book is merely the litera- 
 ture of the Hebrew people — or selec- 
 tions from that literature — and is to be 
 treated precisely like any other national 
 literature. 
 
 In harmony with this view, that the 
 Bible is a natural evolution and not a 
 divine revelation and movement, in the 
 study of the Book, a new theory of the 
 universe has been introduced. Nature 
 and the»natural have been substituted for 
 God and the supernatural; and Evolution 
 put in the place of creation, providence 
 and grace. 
 
 To meet the exigencies of this hypo- 
 thesis a new method of treatment has 
 been invented and pushed to the front. 
 The study of the Bible as the completed 
 
 and authoritative revelation of God, to 
 find out what God has said in it, has 
 been displaced by an unjustifiable liter- 
 ary and critical method, that assumes 
 that the Bible is mere literature, orig- 
 inating, like the literatures of Babylon 
 and Greece and Rome, in legend and 
 myth, and being a primitive record of 
 man's early condition of savagery and 
 idolatry. Upon this assumed crazy-quilt 
 material, made up of shreds and patches 
 of every conceivable origin and author- 
 ship, so-called scholars have set them- 
 selves, by this literary and critical 
 method, to the task of taking apart the 
 bits and scraps, throwing away what- 
 ever does not suit their critical fancies 
 and vagaries, and patching the tattered 
 remnants into the thousand and one new 
 crazy-quilts of the critics. 
 
 In this work they have been given free 
 scope, while Christian people have been 
 asked, in the interest of Christian peace 
 and harmony, to wait meekly for the 
 wonderful results to be reached, — being 
 exhorted in the meantime to avoid any 
 wicked manifestations of controversial 
 perversity. And they have waited, and 
 at last we have the results of this free- 
 hand method, and can judge of their 
 value. 
 
 The historical and critical results of 
 the new view and method have been em- 
 bodied for us in new commentaries, in 
 the "Encyclopaedia Biblica" in the Poly- 
 chrome Bible, and latest of all in the 
 "Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew 
 History, from the Creation to the Es- 
 tablishment of the Hebrew Kingdom," 
 just published as the first instalment of 
 the "Students' Old Testament" (the title 
 should have added to it: "With the Old 
 Testament Left Out") — all these together 
 giving a partial revelation of their irra- 
 tional and monstrous quality. 
 
 In the application of the new method 
 to the Old Testament, one finds astound- 
 ing results. 
 
 On a single page in the Polychrome 
 Bible are "nineteen different little por- 
 tions pieced together to make one small 
 fragment of history, all of which snippets 
 the critic professes to be able to separate 
 and assign to different writers who had 
 a hand in the business," — and all this in 
 
spite of the fact that there is not a 
 whisper in all history or even in tra- 
 dition of the existence of any such 
 writers or of any such work done by 
 them I 
 
 In the "Encyclopaedia Biblica," Pro- 
 fessor Cheyne finds, in Volume III., that 
 about one-half — 42 out of 95 — of the 
 proper names are derivatives from Jerah- 
 meel, including among them Laadah, 
 and Laban, and Ladan, and Maacah and 
 Machpelah, and all the long list. He 
 finds, too, that the names in the earlier 
 volumes — of Aram, Amram, Abram, De- 
 borah, Ham, Jerubbaal, Balaam, Amclck, 
 Ammcn, and many more — are all corrup- 
 tions of the same Jerahmeel, — so that 
 this becomes the one dominant name in 
 the Old Testament. And yet Jerahmeel 
 occurs only once in the Old Testament, 
 and Jerahmeelites but once! 
 
 In their application to the Gospels, in 
 the same work. Professor Schmiedel 
 finds that there are only seven facts left 
 that can be at all depended upon as his- 
 torical, and every one of these is abso- 
 lutely insignificant, so far as Christian 
 truth is concerned. 
 
 And now we are having put in at- 
 tractive form, pushed upon the public by 
 great publishers and in the name of 
 great universities, a series of Textbooks 
 for Schools and Colleges and Sunday 
 Schools, to give these views the largest 
 possible vogue, and to place them where 
 they shall do the utmost possible in un- 
 dermining the old faith in the Bible as 
 the Word of God! 
 
 Here, as a sample, is the reconstruc- 
 tion sent out in the "Messages of the 
 Lawgivers" — for the enlightenment of 
 the School.^ and Colleges — stating what 
 is left of the Old Testament down to the 
 time of King Josiah: Moses up in the 
 cloudland, a possibility, perhaps, and 
 somewhere — and then reaching down for 
 an indefinite period, precedents, customs, 
 tradit'"ons, — only a few uncertain frag- 
 ments being left before the time of Jo- 
 siah, when the priests invented a patch 
 of what is now Deuteronomy, and bj' a 
 pious fraud palmed it off on the pious 
 Josiah and the ignorant people as the 
 Law of Jehovah! The Old Testament, 
 as we have it, is represented as having 
 
 been produced centuries later, just before 
 the coming of Christ! 
 
 In this process of criticism they have 
 wrought havoc with the doctrines as well 
 as f5cts of the Bible. They have dis- 
 credited or discarded every essential 
 truth of the Scriptures, — revelation, in- 
 opiratioM, redemption, atonement, regen- 
 eration; the virgin birth and the deity 
 and the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and 
 all the basal doctrines and motives in- 
 volved in missions and the world's evan- 
 gelization. 
 
 It is this condition of things — some of 
 the astounding facts concerning which 
 you will hear in the course of this Con- 
 vention from some of the ablest men in 
 this country, — it is this condition of 
 things that The American Bible League 
 desires to remedy. These shreds of the 
 Bible are manifestly no Bible at all that 
 reasonable men can believe or on which 
 a soul can rely for salvation. 
 
 Believing this to be one of the most 
 serious crises in the history of the Chris- 
 tian faith, the League has taken up its 
 task, under the guidance of the Spirit 
 of God as we profoundly believe, with 
 a two-fold object and aim, one defensive 
 and aggressive and the other educational 
 and constructive. 
 
 I. It takes its stand for the Bible, and 
 for the old view, so far as it is true, and 
 yet with open vision for any new light 
 that may come from any source whatso- 
 ever; and it challenges these claims of 
 the radical criticism, the baselessness of 
 which it proposes to show. 
 
 1st. We challenge the fundamental as- 
 sumption of the radical critics, that the 
 Bible is to be treated precisely like any 
 other book of literature, and we do it 
 for a twofold reason: 
 
 (i) The Bible is not primarily or 
 chiefly literature, although it has in it 
 confessedly some of the literary master- 
 pieces of the ages. It is unspeakably 
 more than literature; it is God's Way 
 of Life. 
 
 (2) It is infinitely unlike any other lit- 
 erature, and therefore scientific treat- 
 ment requires that this fact of difference 
 be taken into account as the supreme 
 fact. It stands out as the only regenerat- 
 ing and transforming power among men; 
 
the source (Prof. Huxley, the Nestor of 
 the agnostics being witness) of all that 
 is highest and best in human civiliza- 
 tions, and especially in English and 
 American civilizations; and (according to 
 the same witness) the only sure hope for 
 even the moral well-being of mankind 
 for the future. 
 
 The logical principle involved in fa- 
 vor of the Bible is, that the presumption 
 is always in favor of existing institutions 
 — that they are here because they have a 
 reason for being here, — and the weight 
 of this presumption in the case of the 
 Bible is inconceivably great. It has the 
 right of way until its claims are dis- 
 credited by valid and irresistible proofs 
 to the contrary, 
 
 2d. We challenge the far-reaching results 
 of the new criticism, and for the best of 
 reasons, which we are ready to present. 
 
 In our opposition we do not object to 
 it because it is criticism. If, as Matthew 
 Arnold suggests, the object of criticism 
 is to bring one to understand and "see 
 a literary production as it is in itself," 
 that is the very thing we favor every- 
 where and always. We have nothing to 
 say against it even as Higher Criticism, 
 which aims to reach a correct under- 
 standing of the origin and literary quali- 
 ties of the literature of the Bible. This 
 has been one of the choicest instruments 
 of the best scholarship of the Christian 
 Church in all ages. What we challenge 
 is the application to the Scriptures of 
 false critical principles, the perverted ap- 
 plication of correct principles, and the 
 substitution of philological and linguistic 
 crochets and vagaries, that have no claim 
 to be called literary, for the study of the 
 grand elements of artistic construction 
 which are the soul of literature, and 
 which have won the acknowledgment 
 from all competent critics that these 
 Books of the Bible are among the liter- 
 ary masterpieces of all time. We are so 
 foolish, if you choose to call it that, as 
 to prefer the grand constructions of 
 Moses and the Prophets, of Matthew and 
 Luke and John and Paul, to the petty 
 crazy-quilt reconstructions of Professor 
 Go-as-you-please, critic and iconoclast, 
 whether he hail from Germany or Britain 
 ■> or Scotland or America. 
 
 We do not challenge the new views be- 
 cause they are scientific, but because they 
 are unscientific, — ignoring all the basal 
 facts in their so-called inductions. There 
 is not a shred of science in it all, process 
 and product included. We affirm, and in 
 the course of our future work expect to 
 show that the critical view is made up 
 largely of reckless assertions and base- 
 less conclusions in about equal propor- 
 tions. 
 
 Nor do we object to the results 
 reached and propounded because they 
 are new. They are not new. One can 
 parallel the statements of every one of 
 the present-day boasted new principles 
 from the works of Thomas Paine and 
 his co-laborers. He can match every 
 one of the new positions from the pre- 
 decessors of Paine, all the way back to 
 Porphyry, and to the objections thrust 
 at our Lord Himself by the lawyers and 
 scribes and Pharisees; and he can trace 
 the spirit of them all back to that in- 
 sidious word whispered to Mother Eve 
 by the tempter: "Yea, hath God said?" 
 We oppose the new exploitation of 
 radical results, primarily and principally, 
 however, because they are not true; 
 while the Bible, according to the old in- 
 terpretation of it, is true, and eternal 
 truth. History, science, archeology, true 
 literary criticism, ripe Christian experi- 
 ence, all combine to shatter the claims of 
 the critics, and to confirm the claims of 
 the Bible. 
 
 Here is a crucial test. It is a fact that 
 this old Book meets fairly and settles 
 rightly the great and unchanging prac- 
 tical problems of existence that have 
 pressed upon every human soul from 
 Adam down, — the only practical ques- 
 tions that can have any permanent in- 
 terest for an immortal soul. Nature sug- 
 gests and man carries in his bosom at 
 least five of these great religious prob- 
 lems, from which we cannot escape: 
 Whence came I? On whom can I de- 
 pend? Whence the evil which I find 
 within and around me? Is there any way 
 to escape? May I hope for such escape 
 and a future life? Now this Bible gives 
 the only clear, certain and reasonable 
 answer to these ever-living questions, in 
 its doctrines of Creation, Providence, the 
 8 
 
Fall into sin, the Incarnation, and the 
 Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. 
 It deals, not with the passing show of 
 this world, but with these problems that 
 grow out of the bottom facts of man 
 and of history, and it always commends 
 itself as giving the supreme and eternal 
 truth on all these vital points, all center- 
 ing in the incarnate, living, dying, risen, 
 reigning Christ. And it confirms its 
 claims by many and infallible proofs. 
 Outside of it there is not even one faint 
 whisper of hope for man in all the uni- 
 verse, so that we are shut up to it as 
 God's answer to these questions that will 
 not down. The Bible answers demon- 
 strate their right of way by matching 
 the eternal realities and needs. 
 
 Do we object to these critical results 
 because they are destructive? Yes. 
 Only a fool thinks of living regardless of 
 consequences. The fact that they are de- 
 structive — to conscience, conduct, char- 
 acter, the soul — demonstrates that they 
 are not of God, and not in harmony with 
 Him, for in God's world on God's side 
 is the only safe place, and in obeying him 
 the only salvation. 
 
 But all this is merely negative and 
 defensive; it is not to be the chief thing. 
 The positive and constructive side is to 
 be presented at a later session. Here I 
 need only suggest it in outline, deferring 
 the unfolding of it till that occasion. 
 
 II. The League proposes, as its main 
 business, to help the people to see the 
 Bible as it is, and to find out what is 
 in it. 
 
 Its purpose is to organize the friends 
 of the Bible in order to give men a larger 
 and better view of it as the Word of 
 God and the Way of Life, — a view that 
 shall be worthy to replace all this misdi- 
 rected scholarship and learning, and by 
 its self-evident power make clear as sun- 
 light the worthlessness of all these 
 boasted conclusions and results that run 
 counter to the teachings of Scripture. 
 In carrying out this purpose — 
 1st. It will stand for the unity of the 
 Bible, and will seek to find in the Book 
 a divine plan that shall commend it to 
 all reasonable minds. 
 
 2(1. It proposes to advocate a method 
 of Bible Study and instruction that shall 
 be really scientific, and so be natural, 
 constructive and cumulative; and that 
 shall help Christians to master for them- 
 selves what is in the Bible. 
 
 3d. It proposes to organize the friends 
 of the Bible, and push a propaganda for 
 the rational study and mastery of the 
 Bible itself, with the purpose if may be 
 of reaching the ends of the earth with its 
 message of life. 
 
 This educational and constructive work 
 will be set forth at a later stage of this 
 Convention. 
 
 President Hall: Among the princes of 
 the world of Christian education, stands 
 one today, as he has stood for many 
 years, a staunch champion for that faith 
 that was the faith of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, as it is now the faith taught by 
 The American Bible League, and by all 
 
 those who stand upon the platform upon 
 which we stand. I have the pleasure of 
 introducing to you Rev. Dr. Francis L. 
 Patton, President of Princeton Theolog- 
 ical Seminary, who will now address us 
 on the principal topic of the evening, 
 "The Present Assault on the Bible." 
 
iT^rst Oeneral Clopic 
 
 "THE PRESENT ASSAULT ON THE BIBLE" 
 
 ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT PATTON 
 "The Issue Between Supernaturalism and Atheism'' 
 
 My Christian friends, I am here to- 
 night because I am glad to show my 
 sympathy with the object of this meet- 
 ing, and because I am in the heartiest 
 accord with the aims and purposes, and, 
 so far as I understand them, with the 
 methods of this Bible League. I hope 
 that this will appear in the remarks that 
 I shall make, and, yet, I want to warn 
 you in advance, that what I say may bet- 
 ter be called a talk than an address, cer- 
 tainly better be called a talk than a lec- 
 ture. I am going to speak very freely 
 and very unconventionally on this ques- 
 tion; and I want to say a few things by 
 way of preliminary remarks. 
 
 Of course, there is a certain polemic 
 setting to this Conference, and in a met- 
 aphorical sort of way we are speaking as 
 though we were engaged in a great war- 
 fare; so we are; and as though a great 
 assault were being made with malice 
 aforethought upon the integrity of our 
 faith. Now, I wish before I proceed 
 any further to acquit any one involved 
 in this controversy of any conscious de- 
 sire to do wrong, or of any hostile atti- 
 tude. I think the thing to do is to recog- 
 nize that we are a set of intellectual be- 
 ings, and that some of us have intellect- 
 ual convictions, and that some other peo- 
 ple differ with us in their intellectual 
 conclusions in regard to this matter. My 
 experience is, not that people wax hot, 
 so much as that they are so cold-blooded. 
 They have not interest enough to be 
 controversial; there is no controversy. 
 It is as though a man should meet you on 
 the street and challenge your integrity, 
 your veracity, your honor; and instead 
 of resenting it, as you might, you should 
 say to him, "Well, my friend, that is a 
 matter of difference between us. You 
 are in one psychological climate, and I 
 am in another psychological climate. Let 
 us get down to the facts and study this 
 matter inductively, and see where we will 
 
 come out." That seems to be the tem- 
 per of this day. 
 
 And, then, I want to make another re- 
 mark still prefatory: — you can gather 
 from the prefatory how long the address 
 will be — that I have not any heart to find 
 fault with a man who says he wants to 
 criticise the Bible. Why not? Let him. 
 If we have confidence in it, don't we be- 
 lieve it will come out all right? You 
 can't shut it up in a glass case. You can't 
 make an Index expurgatorius and tell 
 men they must not read these bad books 
 that criticise the Bible. If the Bible 
 can't stand in the daylight, there is no 
 use of your keeping it in the dark. It has 
 got to conform to the canons of criti- 
 cism that we apply to other things. It 
 has got to stand that test or go down. 
 Don't be afraid of it. Take hold of the 
 butt-end of this question right now. 
 
 I want to make another prefatory re- 
 mark: I am not concerned here to-night 
 about inspiration — I have a theory of in- 
 spiration, and it might be interesting if 
 there was time to consider it, but it is not 
 pertinent to this subject — I have not any 
 concern to-night with any theory of in- 
 spiration. Christianity is not identified 
 with the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 Don't forget it now. The inspiration of 
 the Scriptures is a doctrine taught in 
 the Scriptures. The Divinity of Christ 
 is a doctrine taught in the Scriptures. 
 Do I need the inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures to back up the Divinity of Christ? 
 Well, then, don't I need the inspiration 
 of the Scriptures to back up the inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures? I can not assume 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures in order 
 to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 I tell you if your Christianity will stand 
 without the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 it will stand a fortiori with it. Nobody 
 is going to push me to the edge, so far as 
 all that is concerned. I tell you I am 
 still in a ship that is pretty well provided 
 
 10 
 
with compartments, longitudinal and 
 transverse, and the bulkheads are shut all 
 the time, every one of them. You can 
 break a hole in one and fill it; she won't 
 sink. 
 
 Now, I want to say one word more, and 
 that is that in the management of this 
 controversy, you have to depend on the 
 specialists; you have to. They are the 
 only ones that know anything about it. 
 What do I know about it? What I 
 mean is that, in the details of criticism, in 
 the minute form which criticism assumes at 
 the present time, Old Testament and 
 New Testament, the questions are of 
 such a character that you have to have 
 the Old Testament man to deal with the 
 Old Testament questions, and the New 
 Testament man to deal with the New 
 Testament questions; and if one tries to 
 be both an Old Testament man and a 
 New Testament man, he is very likely 
 not to be very much of either. 
 
 Now then, you have to meet minute 
 special learning of one kind with minute 
 special learning of the other kind. You 
 will have some of that kind here. There 
 will be conservative critics in this com- 
 pany. I am not one of them, because I 
 am not a critic; if I were, I would be 
 conservative. But then, what we want 
 meanwhile — you can let the critics fight 
 this battle out, and you can have implicit 
 faith in the outcome. We have got a 
 good set of attorneys. We are not let- 
 ting the case go by default by any 
 means: and when it gets up to the Su- 
 preme Court, we count on a decision in 
 our favor, too. But, meanwhile, that is the 
 point, meanwhile we do not want our 
 ministerial brethren to lose heart and min- 
 imize, and think the thing is all gone, stop 
 preaching doctrines and fill their sermons 
 with these pretty little amenities of so- 
 ciology and sentimentality. What we want 
 is that meanwhile our people shall not 
 grow indiflferent and think that this 
 whole fight is a mere matter of placing 
 the emphasis, a mere question of whe- 
 ther you will have one doctrine more or 
 less; it is not so. And if I do not do 
 anything else tonight, I hope, at least, 
 I shall do this — indeed I do not expect 
 to do anything more; this is what I came 
 
 for — I do want to make it as clear as sun- 
 light what this issue is all about; because 
 I tell you, it is not a question as to 
 whether this doctrine is true or that doc- 
 trine is true, whether this man wrote 
 that book or that man wrote the other; 
 it is a question as to the very life of the 
 Christian religion in any sense that the 
 Christian religion can have any signifi- 
 cance for you or me. 
 
 Now, then, what do we mean by the 
 Christian religion? For, after all, it is 
 not a question of higher Criticism or 
 lower Criticism. The issue is joined now 
 on the question as to what is Christian- 
 ity. 
 
 Christianity a Piece of Supernatural In- 
 formation. 
 
 Now, one answer to that question is 
 this: — I think it is the answer we have 
 all been accustomed to — It is a piece of 
 supernatural information with respect to 
 the way of salvation from the perils of 
 eternal death, through the blood-shed- 
 ding of Jesus Christ. That is what it 
 is. That is the gospel you and I were 
 brought up on. That is the gospel that 
 is being preached in this pulpit, thank 
 God, every Sunday by my friend, Dr. 
 Burrell. 
 
 Now, they are making a great deal 
 these days of the distinction between the 
 judgments of fact and judgments of 
 value. I tell you that if Christianity is 
 what we were brought up to think it to 
 be, it begins with the judgment of fact. 
 Whether the play of Hamlet is a great 
 production, is a judgment of value. Whe- 
 ther Shakespeare wrote it or Bacon, is a 
 judgment of fact. The question of 
 Christianity as we understand it, is a 
 question of fact. Has any information 
 been lodged anywhere in regard to the 
 way of salvation? That is the issue. 
 Now, if it has been lodged anywhere, it 
 is a matter of the greatest moment for 
 you and for me where we are to look for 
 it. If you say you are looking for it in 
 the Church, even the Church — whether 
 she be only a trustee; and still more, if 
 she pretend to speak in the present tense 
 — needs the Scriptures to back her up; 
 and the question as to whether she has 
 
corrupted the inheritance, or is teaching 
 what she was told to teach, or has in her 
 possession the same old deposit of faith, 
 is a question to be tested by comparison 
 with the inspired Word. So that even 
 when you put the seat of authority in the 
 Church, you have got to get back to the 
 Scriptares to support the Church. There- 
 fore, it is not strange that, believing that 
 'God has given us a piece of information, 
 and has lodged it in the written Word, 
 we should be intensely interested in the 
 question what that Word has to say. 
 Why, my friends, if we believe it — now, 
 it is a great question as to whether we 
 do or not — but, if we believe that the 
 Almighty has put into the Scriptures 
 of the Old and New Testaments His an- 
 swer to thi.s question how you and I can 
 be delivered from eternal peril, we are 
 simply idiotic if we are not interested in 
 what that Word has to say. But that is 
 not all. In days gone by, in the days 
 within the recollection of some of us 
 who are over fifty years of age, it was an 
 understood thing that every question in 
 theology — whether it was the Divinity of 
 Christ, or the Future State, or Justifica- 
 tion by Faith, or what not — every ques- 
 tion was settled on exegetical grounds, 
 and by an appeal to a text of Scripture. 
 We all know that — now, don't we? Now, 
 why has exegesis gone by the board? 
 Because a change has come over the 
 world to a very large extent in this mat- 
 ter, and men, if they will really be hon- 
 est with themselves and scrutinize their 
 own thinking, will realize that it is not 
 always a question with them what the 
 Word has to say, but whether they are 
 bound by it, even when they know what 
 it says. 
 
 Now, what has produced this change? 
 Two things, two things. In the first 
 place, men have come by a new phil- 
 osophy of religion, holding which they 
 are obliged to put a new meaning on the 
 Bible, and so stand in a new attitude 
 toward it. In the second place, men 
 have come to the literary criticism of the 
 Bible, and as the outcome of that liter- 
 ary criticism they have been forced to 
 find that they can not hold the old view 
 of Christianity, and are, therefore, adopt- 
 
 ing a new philosophy of religion. Now, 
 do you not see a new philosophy of re- 
 ligion, forcing some men to a new view 
 of the Bible, and a new view of the Bible 
 forcing other men to a new philosophy 
 of religion? Two extremes meet at this 
 juncture and in this crisis. 
 
 Christianity a Moment in a Great Pro- 
 cess of Evolution. 
 
 Now, then, under those circumstances, 
 what follows? This follows: that when 
 you ask a great many men at the pres- 
 ent time what they mean by Christianity, 
 they will not give that old answer. They 
 will tell you, if they formulate an an- 
 swer at all, that Christianity is a mo- 
 ment, a stage in a great cosmic process, 
 a great movement of evolution with 
 which you and I have as little to do as 
 we do with the precession of the equi- 
 noxes. So there has been this great 
 growth, through infinitesimal grada- 
 tions, and through all the phases of life 
 until the period of religion dawns, and 
 through all the phases of religion until 
 the very climax of religious experience 
 has been reached in the Christian relig- 
 ion and in the Scriptures. And the 
 Scriptures are simply historical; they are 
 the records of the religious experience 
 of the times in which they were written, 
 and of the men particularly who had part 
 in writing them. They are, therefore, 
 valuable as giving us an account of the 
 religious experiences of those times. 
 Now what? What follows? Why, you 
 must remember that under these circum- 
 stances men will say they concede the 
 consummate beauty of the Christian re- 
 ligion. It is the bright and consummate 
 flower of this tree of Religion. They 
 concede the superior advantages of the 
 Scriptures over all other sacred books; 
 and yet, conceding these superior advan- 
 tages, they recognize that they may con- 
 tain some very important truths in con- 
 nection with a great deal of error. The 
 myth and the legend have not been elim- 
 inated, and the allegorical and miracu- 
 lous have been mixed up with what is 
 historical and true; but in the light of the 
 process of evolution, it is easy for them 
 to realize that all miracles must be elim- 
 
inated, and, therefore, in the light of that 
 foregone conclusion, there was no Pri- 
 meval Innocence, and there was no Fall, 
 and there could be no Redemption, and 
 there can be no Incarnation, and one by 
 one the doctrines drop away — absolutely 
 every one goes, except as you may 
 choose to look upon the Incarnation as a 
 beautiful symbol of the longing that the 
 finite mind has for the Divine; except as 
 you may look upon the Atonement as a 
 beautiful symbol of the idea that a man 
 ought to be self-sacrificing and live for 
 his neighbor, and not consider his own 
 advantage; except as you may take each 
 one of these doctrines as suggesting 
 some beautiful idea. 
 
 Now, that is your Christianity. Do 
 you care much about it? Is there any- 
 thing for the poor man, anything for the 
 troubled heart, anything for the sin-sick 
 soul? Do you think it is worth while to 
 send missionaries abroad to preach that? 
 Why, it is metaphysics, it is a philos- 
 ophy; that is all there is of it. 
 
 Christianity the Self-Revelation of God 
 in Jesus. 
 
 Why, now, my friends,you say that He- 
 gelianism is dead. But Caird is not dead; 
 and you will find plenty of men who will 
 interpret the Christian religion for you in 
 the terms of philosophy. But still men 
 do say that this purely metaphysical re- 
 ligion won't do, that the heart craves 
 something that this does not satisfy, and 
 the pendulum when it had gone just as 
 far as it could go that way, must swing 
 back. And now it has gone as far as it 
 could that way; and men do say, "Let 
 us get rid of this metaphysics. Let us 
 get back to the historical Christ. Let us 
 get back to Jesus." So, they get back, 
 they get back. We are not Hegelian 
 any more. We have left that now. We 
 are with Harnack and the Ritschlians 
 now. But then, what have you got? You 
 have given up Paul and all his meta- 
 physics, and his Jewish ways of looking 
 at things, and you have gone back to the 
 heart of the gospel, to Jesus. Very well. 
 Now, what have you got? 
 
 You say, "You must not be metaphysi- 
 cal." Who was Jesus? Christianity, a 
 
 piece of supernatural information? one 
 answer. Christianity, a moment in a 
 great process of evolution — that is the 
 second answer. Christianity, the self- 
 revelation of God in Jesus — that is the 
 third answer. So, Jesus is the great re- 
 vealer to us of God. And men who write 
 about it write very piously, so as to de- 
 ceive the very elect. And they tell you 
 you must not be metaphysical. Why 
 not? Then, if you can not be meta- 
 physical. Who was Jesus? Did He rise 
 from the dead? Yes or no. Now, I want 
 a categorical answer, because if He 
 stayed dead, that is one view; if He did 
 not stay dead, He rose from the dead, 
 and is declared to be the Son of God 
 with power by the Resurrection from the 
 Dead. 
 
 Did He live in a pre-existent state be- 
 fore he was born of Mary? Well, that 
 is a metaphysical question, too, and we 
 must not have any metaphysics in our 
 theology. Was He "very God of very 
 God?" Was He "God manifest in the 
 flesh?" This is a hard question; they do 
 not care to have this question put to 
 them. But I want a categorical answer. 
 I tell you if He was not God, you have 
 no right to worship Him as such; and if 
 He was God, you dare not deny Him. 
 Which? 
 
 Now, they talk sentimentally to me. 
 Now, they begin to tell me about His 
 ethics. They begin to say. "We don't 
 want metaphysics or dogma; we want the 
 Sermon on the Mount; we want the mor- 
 alities of the gospel." Do you? Very 
 well. I will accommodate you. Well, 
 come right up now. We will not discuss 
 the doctrines. We will discuss just the 
 morals. Our Lord says something with 
 respect to divorce and the marriage state. 
 What right had He to say what He did? 
 Do you authenticate His teachings by 
 His authority, or do you authenticate 
 His authority by His teachings? Do 
 you value Him on account of His teach- 
 ing, or do you value His teaching on 
 account of Him? That is the question. 
 Did He have any right to speak? H'e 
 taught them as one having authority, and 
 not as the Scribes. Did He have the au- 
 thority? I tell you that if He were a 
 
 13 
 
mere man, if He were anything short of 
 God T have very serious doubts as o 
 Shelher the fact that He taught should 
 bind my conscience. 
 
 Well now, supposing He is not God, 
 suppo Ing He is not divine; supposmg 
 he're is nothing supernatural; supposing 
 Nicodemus was all wrong ^"^J f^f, 
 Nicodemus is worth a whole congrega 
 tion of modern apologetes). when he 
 
 savs- "We know Thou art a teacher come 
 ^^o'm God. for no man can do these m.a 
 
 cles that Thou doest, except God be 
 with him." Now, I say if you give up 
 Th: doctrines and give up the metaphys- 
 ics and come down to simply the one 
 hTs'torical Jesus of Nazareth, I wish o 
 ^r what' authority He had that should 
 bind my conscience; and, then, why 
 should I have these strict views of 
 monogamy? Is there any intuition on 
 That subject that anybody carries about 
 with him? Have you got one? Are you 
 d ad suTe. in the same way that you are 
 fhat two and two are four and that every 
 event must have a cause, that monogamy 
 is the only rule? ^in^ ^^^^^^ ,^ .' ^^^ 
 think so, and King Solomon did not 
 think so; there are plenty of people a^l 
 over this world that do not think so, so, 
 if we are going to test an ethical ques- 
 tion by the standard of intuition, as 
 something that is self-evident and uni- 
 ve'sal, you will find it hard to support 
 
 Jhis teaching as a part of obligatory mor- 
 
 ality. 
 
 Is it not true, therefore, that the ques- 
 tion as to who Jesus was is a far bigger 
 question than the question as to what 
 Jesus said? Because the question as to 
 the value of what He said depends upon 
 the prior question of what right He had 
 to say it. Oh, well, we are not out of 
 the religion of authority y^t because we 
 still have Jesus. He had authority^ What 
 authority? If you rob Him of His im- 
 perial purple, and deny Him His right to 
 be Lord of lords, still this will not sat- 
 isfy everybody, and they say. You are 
 still in the religion of authority you are 
 tying your Christianity to a book or to a 
 man, to a person, to something external; 
 and we will never get at the bottom of 
 Christianity until we deliver it altogether 
 
 from the trammels of external authority 
 and find its divine authority mside. Very 
 well, let us try it. 
 
 Christianity the Religion of the .Spirit. 
 
 Christianity, in the fourth Pl^ce. is the 
 religion of the spirit. We have left Har- 
 nack and the Ritschlians. We are with 
 
 Sabatier, now. c.K^tJer 
 
 Now, what does he say? Sabatier 
 says: "Christianity proves itself to the in- 
 dividual conscience by the witness of the 
 Spirit." Now, I want to make J/emark 
 right there. He has written his book 
 entitled "The Religions of Authority and 
 The Religion of the Spirit," as much as 
 
 to sav that when he is dealmg with the 
 Spirit, he is not dealing with an author- 
 ity He is. Take up his particular be- 
 liefs-and there are not many left-but 
 what few there are left, he is trying to 
 back up by an appeal to the Spirit. Fa- 
 ternal Theism," that is, the outcome of 
 Christianity is that God is love, and if 
 you are good. He will be good to you 
 and he supports that by the authority of 
 
 the Spirit. 
 
 It is not a question of authority or no 
 authority; but in his case it is an author- 
 ity that you can not put your finger on. 
 It is an authority that you can not lo- 
 cate It is an authority that you can not 
 define. How do you know the witness 
 of the Spirit? How do you know? / 
 would like to ask him. The mystic is 
 just as subjectivistic as the Hegelian, 
 only it is an emotional subjectivism. Do 
 you think that subjectivism is the less 
 subjectivism because it is touched with 
 
 emotion? 
 
 And now you are in that state, and you 
 say that that state of heightened feeling 
 is the witness of the Spirit. How do you 
 know? Where did you ever learn any- 
 thing about any Spirit, much less about 
 any witness of any Spirit? Did you not 
 learn that out of Paul? Did you ^ot get 
 that out of the New Testament? What 
 right have you got to be going around 
 talking about the witness of the Spirit 
 which you got out of Paul, after you have 
 discarded Paul? How do you know what 
 is the witness of the Spirit? You do not 
 know. 
 14 
 
Sabatier tells us we are now in the 
 region of psychology and history. In- 
 deed we are; and I tell you that when 
 the psychologist gets hold of this relig- 
 ious state, and begins to subject it to 
 the analysis that he is accustomed to, he 
 will not know very much about the wit- 
 ness of the Spirit. H'e will probably tell 
 us that that state of mind that we are in 
 is abnormal, perhaps pathological, and 
 that what we need is the treatment of 
 the physician. You can not identify — 
 that is your trouble — the witness of the 
 Spirit. In the region of the psychologi- 
 cal and historical? Yes. And there we 
 are brought face to face with the fine 
 distinction that they make so much of, 
 judgments of fact and judgments of 
 value. And they say to us, We may be a 
 little mystical, or even in doubt; or we 
 may go so far as to discard the judg- 
 ments of fact altogether, so we keep the 
 judgments of value. Why, "The Good 
 Samaritan" is a fine story no matter 
 who told it. "The Prodigal Son" is a 
 fine story, no matter who told it. The 
 sentiment of self-sacrifice is a great idea, 
 no matter whether there is any real 
 atonement or not. The sentiment of 
 longing after communion with God is a 
 great idea, no matter whether there be 
 any real regeneration, or whether there 
 be any Incarnation or not. So, they say 
 the historical statement is a mere shell; 
 it is the idea that counts. Is that all? 
 Is that what Christianity means too? 
 And, so, I have read men, who, when 
 they had discarded the supernatural ele- 
 ment of the Old Testament, tell me 
 that the Old Testament furnishes 
 many interesting lessons. Why you 
 can preach about Joseph, if there 
 never was any Joseph. You can preach 
 about Abraham, if there never was any 
 Abraham. Why, so you can, and so 
 you could preach out of .i^sop's Fables 
 splendid sermons, if that is what you 
 want, if you can discard the judgments 
 of fact, and just keep the judgments of 
 value. Bless my soul! whoever wanted 
 such a Christianity as that? Why, my 
 friends, need we make a fuss about the 
 Christian religion^ if that is the truth 
 about the Christian religion? But the 
 
 essence of Christianity is that these judg- 
 ments of value become judgments of 
 value because they are anchored in judg- 
 ments of fact; it is the fact that gives 
 them value. 
 
 Now, get rid of the doctrine of the wit- 
 ness of the Spirit, because that is a mere 
 piece of emotionalism. Where are you 
 now? You have given up Christ, you have 
 given up the Spirit, you have got the eth- 
 ics of the New Testament, and you are 
 going to hold on to that. Where are you? 
 You are down in moral philosophy. You 
 have swamped your Christianity. You 
 are just where Plato was, and Aristotle 
 was, and Cicero was; and you have no 
 more ethical guidance than they had. You 
 have no more reason for believing in the 
 distinctions of right and wrong than they 
 had; excepting as Christianity has given 
 us some new ideas in regard to our re- 
 lations to one another. But, even then, 
 the question may be raised whether 
 Christianity was quite right. It may well 
 be a question whether we have not gone 
 too far in the practice of the passive 
 virtues, whether it has not made us a 
 little too soft, whether Christianity car- 
 ried to an extreme would not make a 
 very chicken-hearted set of people, and 
 result in the production of the wrong 
 kind of patriotism. That is what Nietsche 
 said, and if Nietsche is right, we should 
 glorify the Soldier and let the Saint take 
 a back seat. You would say, as to whe- 
 ther you should rule your own spirit or 
 not, that is something I do not know, 
 and can not profess to care; but you 
 must take the city at all cost! Something 
 of that kind would be said. Now, isn't 
 there something to be said for Nietsche? 
 If Christianity is simply a piece of mor- 
 al philosophy, and our value judgments 
 are merely ethical sentiments, which in 
 these days of keen analysis have under- 
 gone a great deal of scrutiny; if you go 
 around among the moral philosophers — 
 those of you who know what the moral 
 philosophy is at the present day, the 
 Utilitarians, Idealists, the School of 
 Green and the School of Spencer — and 
 ask them to be kind enough to give you 
 the loan for a night of a list of virtues 
 that j'ou can tie to, and feel bound by. 
 
 IS 
 
and that wil' command your conscience, 
 and that will stand the test of reason, 
 satisfy your intellect; — I would like you 
 to find the man that will do it. I know 
 what I am talking about. You can not 
 find him. 
 
 And, so, your Christianity drops down 
 into moral philosophy. And your mor- 
 ality goes to pieces, except as morality 
 is an instinct, except as virtue happens 
 to be an appetite. 
 
 Ah, my friends, that is Christianity af- 
 ter you have discarded the Bible; in the 
 
 hands of the modern disciples of the 
 Destructive Criticism! I tell you that, 
 in the interests of morality, in the inter- 
 ests of the home, in the interests of 
 trade, in the interests of civil liberty, in 
 the interests of all that is best in this 
 life, and all that is bright with hope in 
 respect to the life to come; we must 
 keep our old fashioned Christianity; we 
 must rehabilitate Paul; we must get 
 back, and back, and back, and back to 
 Atoning Blood, or else we shall go on to 
 atheism and despair. 
 
 President Hall: We have listened, with 
 intense interest, to the address of Dr. 
 Patton. We are now privileged to listen 
 for a few minutes to an address from 
 
 Lebanon, Pa., President of the Lutheran 
 General Council and Editor of the Lu- 
 theran "Church Review." Dr. Schmauk 
 will address you on another phase of 
 
 Rev. Theodore E. Schmauk, D.D., of the general subject. 
 ADDRESS OF DR. SCHMAUK 
 
 "Some Counts Against the 
 
 Permit me to draw your attention to a 
 distinction between a judgment of fact 
 and a judgment of value. It is a judg- 
 ment of fact that Dr. Patton spoke an 
 hour and five minutes; it is a judgment of 
 value that we might have listened another 
 hour and five minutes without becoming 
 tired. 
 
 My address tonight must be brief. The 
 present assault on the Bible must be met, 
 and that in a scientific way. In this work 
 we need not less science but more. It 
 would be a great mistake for us to ques- 
 tion the motives of the critics, or to use 
 against them the methods that the late 
 Robert G. Ingersoll used against the Bi- 
 ble. By means of these one can give 
 some hard knocks at what are popularly 
 supposed to be weak spots in the Scrip- 
 tures; but this method of attack, whether 
 used for or against the Bible, is usually 
 futile, and reminds one very much of the 
 attacks and criticisms made by some 
 Orientals upon our Occidental civili- 
 zation. Take some vigorous China- 
 man or some wily Brahmin, and the 
 blows that he can deliver against our 
 Nineteenth Century Western civilization 
 will stun us for the moment; but after all, 
 they do not touch the vital region. In 
 
 i6 
 
 Rationalistic Criticism " 
 
 spite of all the attacks made by Orientals 
 upon the seamy side of American and 
 European civilization, the superiority of 
 the latter is not seriously questioned by 
 any of us. 
 
 The subject we are considering must 
 be dealt with rationally and scientifically. 
 It is from this point of view that we are 
 to offer what we have to say. 
 
 I. The Radical Criticism of the Day 
 proceeds upon a hypothesis of Material- 
 istic Evolution that is untenable. 
 
 Mr. Herbert Spencer, by the presenta- 
 tion of his evolutionary views, has done 
 much to change the whole trend of mod- 
 ern philosophy, as popularly accepted. 
 Perhaps the conclusions from his views 
 have been more harmful in Biblical Crit- 
 icism than anywhere else. Taking a ma- 
 terialistic view of the world, and assum- 
 ing that man possesses in himself poten- 
 cies that make for righteousness and nec- 
 essarily develop into perfection, this phil- 
 osophy takes away the need of a Bible, 
 and is often content to move on its way 
 simply ignoring the Scripture and its 
 teachings as a back number, and devel- 
 oping in its stead theories of life and 
 character and conduct that can only be 
 indirectly connected with its pages. In 
 
fact, Mr. Spencer's fatal weakness is that 
 he attempts to explain completely the 
 laws of higher development in terms of 
 the lower. He has applied a mere bio- 
 logical principle as an adequate explana- 
 tion of the phenomena of sociology, 
 psychology, ethics, pedagogy and relig- 
 ion. In plain words, he has completely 
 eliminated the moral and spiritual from 
 the universe. What remains is not mind 
 or soul, but tissue. That is the biological 
 view by which he has set the laws of 
 matter to originate and develop and con- 
 trol spirit. It need only be said that, in- 
 genious as his deductions are, they fall 
 short of the mark, by ignoring or leav- 
 ing unexplained the main facts of the 
 universe and human history, and that 
 they will therefore be unable to stand 
 the future test on account of this fatal 
 error. All that is best in humanity is in 
 eternal protest against the principles in- 
 volved in the system of Spencer. And so 
 is all that is best in the Bible. 
 
 II. The Radical Criticism proceeds 
 upon the hypothesis of the late origin of 
 the Old Testament Books, in its later 
 forms upon their Post-Exilic Origin. 
 
 I wish to draw your attention to this 
 simply to prepare the way for giving a 
 comprehensive view of what may be said 
 against the whole theory of the negative 
 criticism. 
 
 1. All the positive evidence of the Old 
 Testament itself is against that hypo- 
 thesis. 
 
 2. All the positive evidence of the New 
 Testament is against that hypothesis. 
 
 3. The evidence of ancient Jewish and 
 Christian history is against that hypo- 
 thesis. 
 
 4. The evidence of the later historical 
 books of the Old Testament does not 
 warrant that hypothesis. 
 
 5. The negative theory makes all Is- 
 rael's literature spring from the period 
 of a nation's decline and fall, which is as 
 much as to say that we have harvests in 
 winter time. 
 
 6. The principal argument of the nega- 
 tive theory for the post-exilian author- 
 ship is inconclusive. 
 
 7. The ground on which it rests is not 
 adequately supported by the facts. 
 
 17 
 
 8. It explains other cognate facts in 
 an unsatisfactory manner. 
 
 9. It fails to fit Deuteronomy into the 
 time of Josiah and Leviticus into the 
 time of Ezra. 
 
 10. It fails to explain the presence of 
 many regulations that are meaningless on 
 its own hypothesis. 
 
 11. It fails to present a plausible view 
 of the personality of Moses. 
 
 12. It contradicts itself in explaining 
 the term "Mosaic." 
 
 13. It fails to explain the rise of the 
 Prophets. 
 
 14. It forces the words of the Proph- 
 ets, 
 
 15. It assumes that the Mosaic Law 
 was smuggled in twice. 
 
 16. It assumes a pious fraud on the 
 part of the Old Testament writers. 
 
 17. The negative theory is essentially 
 an artificial one. 
 
 18. It is essentially and wholly rooted 
 in a desire to deny the supernatural. 
 
 19. The conclusions of the negative 
 theory affect the authority of our Lord's 
 teaching. 
 
 20. The negative theory throws over- 
 board all external and traditional evi- 
 dence. 
 
 21. The reasoning of the negative criti- 
 cism is not freed from the weakness of 
 its own mental type. 
 
 22. The whole theory is in all its as- 
 sumptions, with one exception, depend- 
 ent entirely upon internal evidence. 
 
 23. The negative theory is obliged to 
 introduce a large number of reckless in- 
 ternal assumptions, redactions and inter- 
 polations. It fails to show why the re- 
 dactors are not consistent ,and yet it re- 
 jects Pentateuchal legislation on the 
 ground of inconsistencies. 
 
 24. The negative theory forces pas- 
 sages to make them agree with its hy^ 
 pothesis. 
 
 25. The negative theory needlessly as- 
 sumes that writings are non-authentic. 
 
 26. It assumes that the same things 
 will not happen twice, or be described 
 over again. 
 
 27. The negative theory assumes that 
 a writing which can be decomposed into 
 two narratives is a compilation. 
 
28. The negative theory assumes that 
 similarities of style assure identity of 
 authorship. 
 
 29. The negative theory assumes that 
 dissimilarity of style assures different au- 
 thorship. 
 
 30. The negative theory fails to note 
 the real force of the argument from gen- 
 eral internal consistency. 
 
 31. The negative theory fails to note 
 the drift of the argument from the sub- 
 ject, style, thought, construction and 
 words. 
 
 32. The negative theory assumes and 
 permits the existence of writings in the 
 age of Augustus which history now dis- 
 proves. 
 
 33. The Post-Exilic theory is shown to 
 be improbable, by the discoveries in 
 Egyptology and Assyriology, and in view 
 of the scenes, topography and characters 
 of the Pentateuch. 
 
 On every one of these points a chapter 
 of facts can be adduced fatal to the mod- 
 ern theory of the late or Post-Exilic ori- 
 gin of the Old Testament. 
 
 III. The Mediation Criticism, now in 
 vogue, has no better foundation than the 
 Radical Theory. 
 
 Permit me to draw your attention to 
 the great difference between the two sets 
 of men who are advocating the critical 
 theory of the Old Testament. In the 
 one class are those who attempt to pre- 
 serve their Bible as the Word of God, 
 while holding fast their radical principles; 
 and in the other are those who throw it 
 away. It is this Mediation-Criticism that 
 is far more dangerous than the Radical 
 Criticism, and which has now control of 
 most of the chairs in the theological insti- 
 tutions in the United States; that pro- 
 duces a majority of the books that are be- 
 ing published on Biblical scientific sub- 
 jects; and that is prepared to introduce 
 its results and teachings into the Sunday- 
 school and to inculcate its principles from 
 various pedagogical foundations. 
 
 The extent of the mutilation of the 
 Bible is something that one can scarcely 
 realize. The theories of Wellhausen and 
 Kuenen respecting the Pentateuch, and 
 the more recent utterances of Frederick 
 Delitzsch attempting to account for Gen- 
 
 esis and the other books of the Penta- 
 teuch by a purely Babylonian origin, are 
 so well known that they need not even 
 be alluded to. The same may be said 
 of the critical results reached by German 
 writers and by such American critics as 
 Professors Moore and Smith with re- 
 gard to the period of the Judges and 
 First and Second Samuel, while the 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles are also 
 being made a very centre of these his- 
 torical attacks. The Psalms, it is well 
 known, have been brought down to Post- 
 Exilic times and to the period of the 
 Apocryphal books, by many German wri- 
 ters and such English critics as Canon 
 Cheyne. All the Prophets, with a few 
 exceptions, have been torn to shreds. 
 
 In the New Testament, the book of the 
 Acts of the Apostles was reduced to 
 fragments by Bauer in the beginning of 
 the Nineteenth century, and after being 
 the battlefield of German critics from 
 that time to the present, has been recent- 
 ly mutilated over again by one of the 
 theological professors in this country. 
 Matthew, Mark and Luke have been re- 
 duced to a merely human expansion of 
 the "logia," and the gospel of John has 
 been ruled out of court altogether. Even 
 those Epistles which a generation ago 
 were supposed to be unassailable have 
 been reduced by later New Testament 
 critics to a mere historical composite. 
 Perhaps the most striking recent exam- 
 ple is the attack of Professor Smith of 
 Tulane University, in a late number of 
 the "American Journal of Theology" and 
 the "Hibbert Journal," upon the genu- 
 ineness and authenticity of Romans. In 
 conclusion, the Book of Revelation — al- 
 ways a target — has been annihilated 
 over and over again, and by schools of 
 criticism whose methods are diametric- 
 ally opposed. 
 
 In consequence of these destructive re- 
 sults of purely negative criticism, we 
 have hardly anything left in the Bible 
 beyond some remnants of history and 
 poetry, some codes of law and rules of 
 conduct, some visions of the seer, some 
 very lofty insights of the human soul; 
 the whole of Revelation (as a specifically 
 divine thing, not to be compared with 
 
 18 
 
other great works of the human intel- 
 IcQt) and the whole of the teachings of 
 the Atonement and Redemption have 
 disappeared. 
 
 IV. And now permit me to say in 
 conclusion that all the forms of this Ra- 
 tionalistic Criticism proceed upon certain 
 unnatural and untenable postulates. 
 
 In opposition to these may be pre- 
 sented certain rational and correct prin- 
 ples that should be grasped and applied: 
 
 1. We should not expect inspiration to 
 be susceptible of mathematical proof, for 
 two reasons: 
 
 (i) It is not God's way of conveying 
 any organic or vital truth to us, to make 
 it capable of mathematical proof. 
 
 (2) Such proof would force a mechani- 
 cal intellectual assent from all men, the 
 very opposite of the voluntary spiritual 
 assent God is aiming at. 
 
 2. We should not expect inspired 
 knowledge to be less difficult and compli- 
 cated in its proof than ordinary knowl- 
 edge, for the themes it handles are vast- 
 er. Very little of even the best-estab- 
 lished of ordinary knowledge is suscepti- 
 ble of exact demonstration. 
 
 3. We should not expect the problem 
 of knowledge in inspiration to be less 
 difficult than the fundamental philosophi- 
 cal problem of knowledge which is the 
 sphinx of the human intellect, and which 
 has been only partly grasped, and never 
 yet solved. Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, 
 Berkeley, Hume, Locke, Spinoza, Kant, 
 Schelling, Hegel and Spencer have la- 
 bored upon it, but none of them has 
 found the golden key. Should we expect 
 the intellectual paradox to be absent in 
 the problem of our recorded inspired 
 knowledge? 
 
 4. In any case of difficult fact to be de- 
 cided in the courts we should not ex- 
 pect conflicting details to be absent in the 
 evidence, — not even from the expert tes- 
 timony; and paradoxes and mysteries 
 naturally abound in inspired testimony. 
 Our Lord's own utterances and testimony 
 under questioning have this mystical, 
 paradoxical character. Should we then 
 expect the absence of all apparently con- 
 flicting testimony, and deviation from the 
 ordinary principles of evidence in a re- 
 
 corded plan of God, so comprehensive 
 that it embraces many ages and stages of 
 knowledge and culture vast in them- 
 selves? Is this not in itself one main 
 proof that the testimony of Scripture has 
 not been manufactured, this fact that 
 difficulties bristle in it, as they always do 
 in true evidence in the courts; and that 
 they are not ruled out of the Scriptural 
 record, as they are not ruled out of the 
 record of the courts? 
 
 5. Because a lawyer can not resolve all 
 the contradictions in his evidence, does 
 the jury therefore believe it to be false? 
 Because the judge can not resolve the 
 paradox in two conflicting statements of 
 principle, and can not force them into ab- 
 solute harmony, does he therefore declare 
 them errant or declare them untrue? 
 
 That must be a marvelously penetrat- 
 ing intellect and a judicial insight of in- 
 finite intuition which would dare to go 
 back through the ages, and, on the basis 
 of such slender threads of induction as 
 modern critics can gather (such as 
 Bauer and others on the New Testament), 
 resolve the paradoxes, harmonize the de- 
 tails, and declare true or untrue the ap- 
 parently conflicting elements in records 
 whose documentary methods are un- 
 known to us, except from internal or 
 speculative data. The themes with which 
 these records deal profess to be the Word 
 of the Most High to man in all the var- 
 ied stages of the latter's thought and 
 life, and the topics treated embrace the 
 beginnings of the universe, the end of 
 worlds, the Person of an Infinite Being, 
 the salvation of the world, the opera- 
 tions of an Incomprehensible Spirit, and 
 the mysteries of an inconceivable eter- 
 nity. Shall rude fingers of human clay 
 dare to handle these things recklessly or 
 irreverently? • 
 
 If the evidences of Christianity on 
 these high themes be deemed trivial and 
 trifling, surely the evidences that are 
 marshaled against the records from As- 
 syrian or Israelitish sources, by the men 
 who dissect the pages of the Old Testa- 
 ment, are singularly inconclusive and trifling. 
 
 The session closed with prayer and 
 the benediction. 
 
 19 
 
WEDNESDAY MORNING SESSION, MAY 4 
 
 10 A. M. President William Phillips Hall in the Chair 
 OPENING DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Let us begin our service 
 by singing No. 82 : 
 
 "A glory gilds the sacred .page." 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Now we will turn to Psalm 
 cxix., Aleph and Beth, and read responsive- 
 
 ly. 
 
 Prayer by Dr. Burrell: O God, we 
 thank Thee that, sitting high in the 
 heavens, Thou dost still condescend to 
 be with us; and we thank Thee that 
 Thou hast not hid Thyself in Thy throne 
 room with guards about Thy doors; but 
 Thou hast been pleased to bow the hea- 
 vens and come down to reveal Thyself. 
 We thank Thee for this, which is writ- 
 ten, "In the beginning was the Word, 
 and the Word was with God, and the 
 Word was made flesh and dwelt among 
 us." We thank Thee that Thy Word was 
 articulated in the incarnation so that we 
 have Thy very speech in Jesus Christ; and, 
 oh, blessed be Thy name that, in addition 
 to Jesus, Thine Only-begotten Son, Who 
 was here only a brief lifetime and in a re- 
 mote corner of the earth. Thou has given 
 us a complete Word vi^hich was written 
 by holy men, moved by the Spirit of God, 
 in which this incarnate Word is perpetual- 
 ized and universalized so that all the ends 
 of the earth know about Him. We bless 
 Thee for the Bible. We bless Thee for 
 Christ who speaks in the Bible, and we 
 rejoice, O God, that we have such a 
 perfect and sweet confidence in this rev- 
 elation of Thyself in Thy Word. We 
 bless Thee for Christ, we bless Thee for 
 the Bible ! and we pray for those to whom 
 the truth of Thine entire Word is not 
 clear. The Lord grant that Jesus Christ 
 may seem to those whom He came to 
 save, not as a Root out of a dry ground, 
 but as Thy Fulness in the Flesh. Oh, we 
 pray for those to whom Thy written Word 
 is not clear, who are not sure whether it is 
 true or not. Do Thou help them, we pray 
 Thee, to search a little more deeply, and 
 with all deference to the fact that God 
 knows more than they do, until it shall be 
 as when Thou didst speak out of Heaven 
 concerning Thy Son. Say Thou to these 
 
 waiting, questioning, doubting ones, as 
 Thou didst of the Christ, "This is My 
 Beloved Son, hear ye Him." And, O 
 God, is this asking too much of Thee, 
 that Thou wouldst speak to us through 
 Thy Word, to every heart and con- 
 science, that we may understand what it 
 says, and that we may respond to it? 
 Hear us, O Lord, and bless us and 
 all in this fellowship throughout the world. 
 We thank Thee, that, though in this 
 controversy, we are still at the eye of 
 the storm, — there is a perfect calm there, 
 because we are with Thee. We thank 
 Thee that Thy Church stands through 
 all the ages. O God, grant that the 
 Church may be , more and more loyal 
 to all the landmarks of truth, and that 
 Thy people who stand beneath these 
 Heavens may hear Thy voice, and may 
 none ever say, "Behold it thundereth." 
 We ask it in Jesus' name. Amen. 
 
 President Hall: In opening this second 
 session of the Convention of The Ameri- 
 can Bible League, I would like to an- 
 nounce that various forms of literature 
 in line with the purposes of the League 
 are to be found on the table out yonder^ 
 in the vestibule; copies of "The Bible 
 Student and Teacher," little slips giving 
 an account of the inception and organiza- 
 tion of the League and its plans and 
 purposes, and also an advertisement from 
 Revell & Co., of Sir Robert Anderson's 
 latest work on the "Pseudo-Criticism," 
 and various other publications that we are 
 pleased to recommend for the reading 
 and thoughtful consideration of all those 
 who are seeking light on this great sub- 
 ject. 
 
 It gives me great pleasure to introduce 
 this morning the last speaker anounced 
 for last evening's meeting, who, owing 
 to the lateness of the hour, was prevent- 
 ed from delivering the message unto us 
 that I believe God has given him. It 
 gives me very great pleasure to intro- 
 duce Rev. Dr. S. L. Bowman, S.T.D., of 
 Newark, N. J., the well known lecturer, 
 
formerly head of the Theological Depart- 
 ment of De Pauw University, a leading 
 theologian and diligent student and ex- 
 
 positor of the teachings of the Master, 
 the Word of God. Professor Bowman 
 will now address us. 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. S. L. BOWMAN, S.T.D. 
 "Attack upon the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch " 
 
 In Biblical Criticism there are Critics 
 and Critics. These constitute two differ- 
 ent and antagonistic Schools. The Ra- 
 tionalistic School propose to subject the 
 Holy Scriptures to their own scrutiny 
 and judgment as an appeal to reason, re- 
 jecting all that they cannot understand, 
 which means all that is Supernatural; 
 overlooking the indispensable fact that 
 "the natural man receiveth not the things 
 of the Spirit of God, for they are foolish- 
 ness unto him; neither can he know 
 them, because they are spiritually dis- 
 cerned." Truly, as a skeptical philosoph- 
 er (Schelling) remarks: "Nothing is 
 more doleful than the occupation of all 
 rationalists who strive to make that ra- 
 tional which declares itself above rea- 
 son." 
 
 The Scriptures appeal to man's spir- 
 itual nature and point to his spiritual 
 interests; accordingly he must have the 
 spiritual preparation of mind to realize 
 and appreciate these provisions. Now, 
 the School of Loyal Faith, while by no 
 means ignoring the just rights of reason 
 in its legitimate exercise, holds that the 
 Word of God is His Revelation ad- 
 dressed to human reason, and yet that 
 in so far as it reveals, it is something 
 above reason. The rationalists of the 
 Destructive School — whatever may be 
 said of their judgment in view of the fact 
 that they reach conclusions which are 
 remarkably antagonistic to one another 
 — make loud claims of possessing a mon- 
 opoly of the scholarship of the twentieth 
 century. And they have long had their 
 say, that they might complete their work. 
 But now the field is open for the oppos- 
 ing School to be heard in reply, and its 
 ability and scholarship will be made suf- 
 ficiently obvious in the destruction of 
 their skeptical postulates, of which pos- 
 terity will form a just judgment. An in- 
 destructible conviction abides in the as- 
 surance of Isaiah (xxviii. i6) : "Thus saith 
 
 the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for 
 a Foundation, ... a tried stone ... a 
 sure Foundation; he that believeth shall 
 not make haste." 
 
 I propose to restrict my remarks to 
 the Pentateuch and its disputed author- 
 ship, as related to the Historic Moses, 
 as constantly voiced in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 I apprehend that I shall not render 
 myself liable to the charge of arguing 
 "in a vicious circle" in violation of the 
 principles of logic, in that I shall cite 
 the authorities of the New Testament to 
 prove the facts of the Old. For we are 
 not at liberty to regard the Bible as one 
 single Book, as respects human author- 
 ship and authority. Nothing could be 
 more obvious and evident than that it is 
 a Collection of Sacred Writings, em- 
 bracing sixty-six books in number, writ- 
 ten by different men, living in different 
 countries, in different centuries, ex- 
 pressed in different languages; yet when 
 brought together into combination, found 
 to constitute a marvelous unity in plan 
 and design, as a Revelation exactly 
 adapted to the condition of universal 
 mankind. And it should be carefully re- 
 marked that the Scrolls of the Penta- 
 teuch in the Synagogue were not at all 
 divided into distinct books known as 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers 
 and Deuteronomy, as we have them now 
 in print. These several titles were an 
 afterthought intended merely to be des- 
 criptive of the special subject-matter con- 
 tained in each; so were the arrangements 
 into the several chapters and verses. The 
 Jews themselves designated the Penta- 
 teuch nt^ nnin i. e. the Law of Moses; 
 and their Rabbis styled it "the five-fifths 
 of the Law." 
 
 Critical Argument from the Names of 
 God. 
 
 One principal objection alleged against 
 the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch 
 
is the use made of two different names 
 attributed to God, supposed to justify 
 the inference that there were at least 
 two, or even many, authors involved in 
 writing earlier documents which then 
 were reconstructed into one, which is 
 our Scriptures. 
 
 The first Name ascribed to God in the 
 first verse is Elohim, which is derived 
 from the word El, meaning power. That 
 is, the supreme Person reveals and iden- 
 tifies Himself before man, by His crea- 
 tion of the material Universe. To sen- 
 tient natures nothing is so impressive as 
 the idea and exercise of power; and no- 
 thing is so powerfully impressive as a 
 God of Power thus revealing Himself to 
 primeval man as pictured in the won- 
 drous Creation. Then in the second Chap- 
 ter we find another Name for the God of 
 power; the Name Jehovah, which again 
 is derived from Havah ( nin ) which 
 means to be, to breathe— this is, the 
 self-existent, immutable One. Hosea 
 says, "Jehovah is His Name" (xii. 6). 
 Why is this new Name then introduced? 
 Because living, breathing creatures are 
 here mentioned as now brought into ex- 
 istence, in distinction from the material 
 Universe; and if Yahveh be the restora- 
 tion of the lost pronunciation of Jeho- 
 vah, the very form of the Name is under- 
 stood as revealing God as the Cause of 
 the existence of His creatures. This is 
 progress even in His revealing Names 
 to man: (i) the Divine Personality of 
 power, as Creator of the material Uni- 
 verse; (2) as Jehovah the self-e.astent 
 First Cause of living Creatures; (3) and 
 finally the two Names used conjointly to 
 identify Him as the One eternal God of 
 power and life. As a process of revela- 
 tion to the understanding of Adam of 
 the mutual relation between God and 
 Man — the Creator and the Creature — 
 could anything be happier? 
 
 Yet Astruc, a Roman Catholic physi- 
 cian ^.o Lcuis XIV. of France, in the 
 seventeenth century, and his followers 
 ever since, have not been able to see in 
 these Scriptural Names what Adam saw 
 and understood from the first, t-iat this 
 God of creative power had constructed 
 man into a being, and constituted him 
 
 into His own very image and likeness, 
 when "the Lord God [Jehovah-Elohim] 
 formed man out of the dust of the 
 ground and breathed into his nostrils 
 [D"n DDl^J Nishmath Khayyim,] not 
 "the breath of life," but plural, the 
 breath of lives — animal life, which alone 
 would leave man a m6re brute, intellect- 
 ual life which placed him out of the brute 
 category in intelligence, and spiritual 
 life which made him Godlike; "and man 
 became a living soul" (ii. 7). These des- 
 tructive critics can discover only the 
 merest indication — certainly not any con- 
 clusive proof — that the Pentateuch must 
 have been originally written, as they sur- 
 mise, by different writers, who used these 
 two names distinctively in prior docu- 
 ments, which afterwards some unknown 
 and unnamed Redactor took in hand to 
 edit, and so doctored the scriptural state- 
 ment, working it up into a oneness, plac- 
 ing the two names together as they now 
 appear in Genesis. 
 
 Do such speculative guesses really re- 
 quire serious refutation? I once knew 
 a young minister who for some reason 
 best known to himself wrote in his first 
 sermons, "Jesus," "Jesus," "Jesus"; later 
 on he changed his mind and wrote 
 Christ, Christ, Christ, and finally he con- 
 cluded to write the two names together, 
 Jesus Christ. Now, employing the very 
 same canon of criticism used by the Des- 
 tructive Critics, these sermons must have 
 been written by at least two different au- 
 thors; and the two names brought to- 
 gether by some redactor. I knew that 
 young man about as well as I ever knew 
 any one, and I feel entirely safe in say- 
 ing that I know better; for I was myself 
 that young minister! The circumstance 
 is without significance, except to illus- 
 trate how thoroughly superficial and un- 
 warrantable are such conjectures as are 
 applied to these Scriptures. Fairness in 
 criticism demands that the same canon 
 which is applied to secular and unsacred 
 writings, shall be applied to the Scrip- 
 tures. Remember that no adverse critic 
 has been able to tell us who the Elohis- 
 tic and who the Jehovistic writers were 
 who antedated Moses; and who the re- 
 dactor was of whom they claim to know 
 
so much. And what is fatal to their re- 
 corded conclusions is the fact that these 
 adverse critics disagree and quite antag- 
 onize each others' opinions. Well, I for 
 one am not yet prepared to surrender 
 what has been constantly regarded for 
 three thousand years as a statement of 
 historical fact, for mere conjectural fic- 
 tion. 
 
 The Argument from the New Testament. 
 
 Now glance at the evidence furnished 
 by the authority of the Evangelists, 
 Apostles, and even by Jesus Christ Him- 
 self, in the recognition and application to 
 the Mosaic authority and authorship of 
 the Pentateuch. 
 
 Believers at least will realize repose of 
 conviction and faith upon noting that the 
 writers of the New Testament, and also 
 our Savior, constantly and without var- 
 iation or contradiction ascribe to Moses 
 under God the authorship of these writ- 
 ings. 
 
 That he had all the literary acquire- 
 ments and qualifications for the work, 
 was attested by Stephen in his last mo- 
 ments when he said: 
 
 "Moses was learned in all the wisdom 
 of the Egyptians and was mighty in 
 words and deeds" (Acts vii. 22). 
 
 Moreover his integrity is vouched for 
 by the author of Hebrews (iii. 5): 
 
 "Moses indeed was faithful in all his 
 house as a servant [of the Lord], for a 
 testimony of those things which were 
 afterward to be spoken." 
 
 Then the Apostle Peter affirms and 
 confirms (Acts iii. 22) the choice of Mo- 
 ses as the human type and representative 
 of the coming Christ announced in Deut. 
 (xviii. 18, 19): 
 
 "And Jehovah said unto me ... I will 
 raise up a Prophet from among thy 
 brethren, like unto thee; and I will put 
 My words in His mouth; and He shall 
 speak unto them all that I shall com- 
 mand Him." 
 
 This assured belief of the Jews in the 
 time of Christ is a fact beyond question 
 or recall, as applied alone to the Historic 
 Moses, for, when Jesus opened the eyes 
 of the blind-born on the Sabbath, the 
 Pharisees reviled both him and the 
 Christ, saying: 
 
 "Thou art His disciples, but we are 
 Moses' disciples. We know that God 
 spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, we 
 know not whence He is" (John ix. 
 28, 29). 
 
 To the refractory Jews respecting their 
 steadfast faith in the Moses of Scripture, 
 Jesus Himself said: 
 
 "Do not think that I will accuse you 
 to the Father; there is one who accuscth 
 you, Moses in whom ye trust. For had 
 ye believed Moses, ye would have be- 
 lieved Me, for [mark the singular pro- 
 nouns] he wrote of Me. But if ye believe 
 not his writings, how shall ye believe 
 My words?" (John v. 45-47). 
 
 So Moses alone is recognized as the 
 prophet of Christ in the Pentateuch, and 
 "his writings" are those which our Lord 
 indorsed, which are no others than those 
 which we have now. 
 
 John Chrysostom, the "golden-mouth 
 orator of the fourth century," remarked: 
 
 "Moses did not put his name to the 
 Five Books; nor did the historians who 
 wrote after him prefix their names to 
 their writings; but the blessed Paul ev- 
 erywhere prefixes his name to his Epis- 
 tles — excepting to that of Hebrews, 
 where he had reason to be on his re- 
 serve. Why is this [distinction]? [Be- 
 cause] they [the evangelists] delivered 
 their writings to those who were present 
 when it was needless to put down the 
 name. He [i. e. Paul] sent his writings 
 to those at a distance, in the form of an 
 Epistle, where the addition of a name 
 was necessary" ("Homily on Romans," 
 B. 9). 
 
 I.. Test the Book of GENESIS. 
 
 (i) In John's Gospel (i. 45) it is re- 
 lated how that 
 
 "Philip findeth Nathaniel and saith 
 unto him: We have found Him of whom 
 Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did 
 write, Jesus of Nazareth." 
 
 The authenticative references stand 
 verified in Gen. iii. 15; xxii. 18; xxvi. 4, 
 etc. 
 
 (2) John again states (i. 17): 
 
 "For the Law was given by Moses, 
 [but] grace and truth came by Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 In viii. 19, 22, Jesus addresses the Jews: 
 
 "Did not Moses give you the Law? 
 Moses hath given you circumcision, not 
 that it is of Moses, but of the fathers. . . 
 If a man receive circumcision on the Sab- 
 
 23 
 
bath, that the Law of Moses may not be 
 broken, are ye wroth with Me because 
 I made a man every whit whole on the 
 Sabbath?" 
 
 This Mosaic Law of circumcision was 
 originally ordained by Jehovah unto 
 Abraham, the progenitor of the Jewish 
 race, and is recorded in Gen. xvii. lo, ii: 
 
 "This is My Covenant which ye shall 
 keep between Me and you and thy seed 
 after thee. . . It shall be for a token of 
 the Covenant between Me and you." 
 
 (3) The first three Gospels (Matt. xix. 
 4; Mk. X. 5; Lk. xvi. 18) record that the 
 Pharisees once approached Jesus on the 
 subject of divorce, saying: 
 
 "Is it lawful for a man to put away his 
 wife for every cause? Jesus replied: 
 What did Moses command you? And 
 they said, Moses suffered to write a bill 
 of divorcement and to put her away. Je- 
 sus answered: For the hardness of your 
 hearts he wrote you this precept. But 
 from the beginning of the creation, God 
 made them male and female." 
 
 The identification of the Mosaic au- 
 thorship, and the verification of the ref- 
 erence to Genesis, can be found in Gen. 
 ii. 24; V. 2, and also in Deut. xxiv. 1-4. 
 
 II.. Test the Book of EXODUS. 
 
 (i) The Apostle John represents Jesus 
 as saying: 
 
 "Did not Moses give you the Law?" 
 The verification is in Ex. xx. 24, and in 
 Deut. xxx. 4. In Ex. xxxiv. 3, 4, we read: 
 
 "And Moses came and told all the 
 words of Jehovah. . . and wrote all the 
 words of Jehovah." 
 
 In Deut. xxxiii. 3, 4, we read: 
 
 [Every one] "shall receive thy words. 
 Moses commanded us a Law, even the 
 inheritance for the assembly of Jacob." 
 
 (2) In Matt. XV. 4, and Mk. vii. 10, we 
 read: "For Moses said. Honor thy father 
 and thy mother;" which is authorized and 
 verified in both Ex. xx. 12, and in Deut. 
 V. 16. 
 
 (3) Paul, in 2 Tim. iii. 8, makes dis- 
 tinct reference to the names of those 
 Sorcerers and Magicians who by their 
 arts undertook to oppose Moses when he 
 wrought miracles before Pharaoh for the 
 deliverance of Israel — the only place in 
 the Scriptures where their names are 
 mentioned: 
 
 "Even as Jannes and Jambres with- 
 stood Moses, so do these also resist the 
 truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobates 
 concerning the faith." 
 
 Verified in Ex. vii. 11. 
 
 (4) In Hebrews viii. 5, we have: 
 
 "A copy and shadow of heavenly 
 things, even as Moses is warned of God 
 when he is about to make a tabernacle; 
 for saith He, 'See that thou make all 
 things according to the pattern that was 
 showed thee in the mount'." 
 
 And in Ex. xxv. 40, it reads: 
 
 "See that thou make them after the 
 pattern which hath been shown thee in 
 the mount." 
 
 And again in Numbers viii. 4: 
 
 "According to the pattern which Je- 
 hovah had shown Moses; so made he the 
 candlestick." 
 
 (5) When Paul stood alone before the 
 Jewish Sanhedrin, pleading that he had 
 lived in all good conscience until that 
 day, Ananias, who had usurped the high 
 priesthood in the absence of the Roman 
 procurator, commanded that the Apostle 
 be smitten on the mouth with the iron 
 heel of a shoe. 
 
 "Then Paul said unto him [Ananias], 
 God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, 
 for sittest thou to judge me according to 
 the Law, and commandest me to be smit- 
 ten contrary to the Law! and they that 
 stood by, said, Revilest thou God's high 
 priest? And Paul said, I knew not, breth- 
 ren, that he was high priest; for it is 
 written. Thou shalt not speak evil of the 
 ruler of thy people." This is verified in 
 Ex. xxii. 28, which reads: "Thou shalt 
 not. . . .curse the ruler of thy people." 
 (Conip. XX. 20-22, etc.) 
 
 III. Test the Book of LEVITICUS. 
 
 Jesus having concluded His Sermon on 
 the Mount, descended to the plain and 
 cured a leper of his malady, saying: 
 
 "Go show thyself to the priest, and 
 offer the gift that Moses commanded for 
 a testimony unto them" (Matt. viii. 4, 
 confirmed by Mk. i. 44). 
 
 And in Lev. xiv. we find the ample au- 
 thentication and provision for the priest- 
 ly inspection of such case, and the offer- 
 ing to be made by the cured, where it 
 is expressly stated that the Lord spake 
 unto Moses (ver. i) these directions. 
 
 24 
 
IV. Test the Book of NUMBERS. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel (iii. 14), it is rep- 
 resented that Jesus said unto Nicodemus: 
 
 "As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the 
 wilderness, even so must the Son of Man 
 be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in 
 Him, may have eternal life." 
 
 In Numb. xxi. 7-9, we find the identical 
 historic occasion, and a description of 
 the event given in detail: 
 
 "And Moses prayed for the people. 
 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make 
 unto thee a fiery serpent and set it upon 
 a standard; and it shall come to pass, 
 that every one that is bitten, when he 
 seeth it shall live." 
 
 V. Test the Book of DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 (i) In 2 Cor. xiii. i, the Apostle Paul 
 says: 
 
 "At the mouth of two witnesses or 
 three shall every word be established." 
 
 Our Lord according to Matthew (xviii. 
 15, 16) said: 
 
 "If thy brother sin against thee, go 
 show him his fault between thee and him 
 alone. . . .if he hear thee not, take with 
 thee one or two witnesses, that at the 
 mouth of two witnesses or three, every 
 word may be established." 
 
 The warrant for these two references 
 and citations is found in Deut. xvii. 6; 
 xix. 15: The Lord said unto Moses: 
 
 "One witness shall not rise up against 
 a man for any iniquity. . . .at the mouth 
 of two witnesses, or at the mouth of 
 three witnesses, shall the matter be es- 
 tablished." 
 
 (2) The Sadducces said unto our Lord: 
 
 "Moses said. If a man die having no 
 children, his brother shall marry his wife 
 and raise up seed unto his brother" 
 (Matt. xxii. 24; Mk. xx. 19; Lk. xx. 28). 
 
 This arrangement is provided for in 
 Deut. xxv. 5. (Comp. Gen. xxxviii. 8). 
 
 (3) On the afternoon of our Lord's 
 rising, while journeying toward Em- 
 maus, which was about seven and a half 
 miles from Jerusalem, Jesus opened the 
 understanding of the two disciple com- 
 panions: 
 
 "Beginning at Moses and all the Proph- 
 ets, He expounded unto them in all the 
 Scriptures, the things concerning Him- 
 self. . . .These are My words which I 
 spake unto you while I was yet with you, 
 that all things must needs be fulfilled, 
 
 which were written in the Law of Moses, 
 and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms 
 concerning Me" (Lk. xxiv. 27, 44). 
 
 Biblical scholars understand how that 
 Jesus here refers to the three grand di- 
 visions of the Old Testament supposed 
 to have been arranged by Ezra and his 
 coadjutors upon his return from the 
 exile; and not only the Pentateuch, but 
 each division of those Scriptures abso- 
 lutely bore witness to the closing events 
 of Christ's life as then cited by Himself 
 — first of all, Moses is mentioned as an- 
 other name for the Pentateuch, then the 
 Prophets as such second division, and 
 last of all, the book of Psalms, which 
 stood the first, for all the other books in- 
 cluded in the third and miscellaneous 
 division of the Old Testament in the 
 time of Christ. 
 
 Moses recorded the very first predic- 
 tive statement respecting the Seed of the 
 woman (Gen. iii. 15). This however con- 
 veyed merely the promised Fact of the 
 Messianic Redeemer. Who He would 
 be, what His character, through whom 
 He should come, and when He should 
 appear, no one could know. It was not 
 until the time of Abraham that it was 
 revealed from what Nation Messiah 
 should spring (Gen. xxii. 18); or until 
 the time of Jacob that people could know 
 of what Tribe (xlix. 8) ; or until the time 
 of David that they learned of what 
 Family (Psa. Ixxxix. 3); or until the time 
 of Isaiah that they knew that H'e would 
 be born of a Virgin (Isa. vii. 14); or until 
 the time of Micah that they knew of 
 what place (v. 2) ; or until the angel Ga- 
 briel appeared and hailed Mary as the 
 Person, as "highly favored of the Lord," 
 the one "blessed among women" (Matt, 
 i. 20-23; Lu. i. 26-28). Here is progressive 
 Revelation, constant and undeviating, 
 brought forward just as fast as the ap- 
 prehension and appreciation of men 
 could receive the knowledge of the mag- 
 nificent movement of God in His under- 
 taking the Redemption of the world. 
 
 Here are twenty or more express refer- 
 ences found in the New Testament wri- 
 ters, including many sayings of the Lord 
 Jesus, all identifying Moses as the author 
 of the Pentateuch, attested in every one 
 
 25 
 
of the five books included. Many more 
 of indirect allusions could be adduced in 
 further proof of the Mosaic authorship. 
 We are now left to our own choice, whe- 
 ther to accept the witness of Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, John, Stephen, Peter, Paul, 
 the writer of Hebrews, and above all, the 
 authority of Jesus Christ Himself, as to 
 the authorship of the Five Books, against 
 the speculative opinions, conceits, wild 
 conjectures, and sheer assumptions of the 
 
 Destructive Critics, who deny the time- 
 honored authorship of the Historic Mo- 
 ses. 
 
 Where is the man who is willing to 
 stand up before all Christendom and in- 
 sist that neither our Lord Himself nor 
 His Apostles knew what they were talk- 
 ing about, or did not mean what they 
 said, when they so repeatedly and em- 
 phatically ascribed the authorship of the 
 Pentateuch to the Historic Moses? 
 
 Second <5eneral ^opic 
 
 PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ATTACK ON THE 
 
 BIBLE" 
 
 President Hall: After listening to the 
 instructive and interesting address of Dr. 
 Bowman, necessarily left over from last 
 evening, we now proceed to take up the 
 regular topic of this morning: "Practical 
 Consequences of the Attack on the Bi- 
 ble." Men of large experience, who have 
 had peculiar advantages for observing 
 the practical consequences of the dissem- 
 
 ination of the current false views of the 
 Bible, have been selected to address you 
 on some phases of this topic. 
 
 It gives me special pleasure to intro- 
 duce to you as the first speaker, Rev. 
 Albert H. Plumb, D.D., Pastor of the 
 Walnut Avenue Congregational Church, 
 Roxbury, Boston, Mass., whose theme is: 
 "What I Have Seen of the Results." 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. ALBERT H. PLUMB 
 "What I Have Seen of the Results" 
 
 Mr. President and Christian friends: 
 While I appreciate very warmly the hon- 
 or and privilege of making here certain 
 observations which I am anxious to press 
 upon the public mind, I must, at the out- 
 set, call attention to two things. 
 
 One is that the topic asigned for this 
 session is not one requiring the learning 
 of a Biblical expert in all the questions 
 involved. Experts have their value. They 
 sometimes claim an exclusive hearing, 
 but, as Gladstone said, "We do ourselves 
 wrong if we bow to the authority of ex- 
 perts out of their peculiar province." 
 Were this not so, I would not have been 
 present among this body of distinguished 
 
 scholars; but I have felt that the com- 
 mon man is competent to understand 
 consequences. Indeed, our Lord sent 
 the common people, you remember, di- 
 rectly to the Old Testament Scriptures 
 to settle the greatest of all questions, 
 "What think ye of Christ?" saying "They 
 are they which testify of me." And so 
 I have ventured to think that any one 
 who has knowledge of the philosophy of 
 cause and effect can say what the effect 
 of certain principles involved in this dis- 
 cussion must be; any one who has been 
 at all conversant with history will be 
 enabled to see what the consequences 
 have been in the past; and any one at 
 
 26 
 
all alert and sensitive to spiritual inter- 
 ests is competent to say what is now the 
 effect, occurring all around us every- 
 where, of certain principles under dis- 
 cussion. And as I have been trying for 
 some forty-five years to preach the Gos- 
 pel within sight of the gilded dome of 
 the State House in Boston, and as I have 
 had the privilege and honor of sitting for 
 over twenty years on the Prudential 
 Committee of the American Board of 
 Missions every Tuesday, there have been 
 thrust upon me all the time some of 
 these evil consequences, and also the 
 good effects of the contrary principles, 
 and therefore I venture to hope that an 
 ordinary minister may not be out of 
 place in this scholarly company today in 
 making known what he has seen. 
 
 The second thing is, that it is a matter 
 of inexpressible grief for a man to have 
 to state what he must of these conse- 
 quences. I said I was eager to do this, 
 not that it is a welcome task, but be- 
 cause of its vital necessity and vast im- 
 portance. 
 
 True, it is to be said that these harm- 
 ful views do not always do as much 
 harm as they ought to; that is, God does 
 not always leave a man to the unhappy 
 influences of any one destructive princi- 
 ple. He supplies, in His gracious provi- 
 dence, counteracting agencies which limit 
 the deleterious effect; and I am happy 
 to say that among those counteracting 
 influences oftentimes I have observed the 
 power of the lovely Christian character 
 of some of the higher critics. And yet 
 I must remember they were not nur- 
 tured on this diet, and I ask myself, if a 
 generation is trained on this new food, 
 what sort of Christians will they be? 
 When there is time to reap the har- 
 vest of this new sowing, what will the 
 harvest be? 
 
 I was present years ago at a sympo- 
 sium in Dr. Joseph Cook's parlors. There 
 were gathered at the meeting many dis- 
 tinguished philanthropists, men and wo- 
 men of culture, but who rejected the 
 Christian religion. One of those ladies 
 remarked, "Time was when you used to 
 conjure by the memory of our praying 
 mothers, but we are of the second gen- 
 
 eration of unbelievers, and that argu- 
 ment does not apply." The more's the 
 pity. 
 
 And so, it is not as a disputant, with 
 an "I-told-you-so," that I come here, but 
 with sincere sorrow, sorrow of heart. 
 
 I. And the first point I make in re- 
 gard to the destructive influence of the 
 higher criticism is, that its eagerness to 
 present every possible captious objection 
 to the Bible greatly ministers to our nat- 
 ural aversion to spiritual truth, and pro- 
 motes in the public mind a suspicious 
 complaining attitude towards the Book 
 which, in vie\y of its kind intention and 
 its useful influence, it does not deserve. 
 
 You remember perhaps a work that 
 appeared many years ago on "The Phil- 
 osophy of the Plan of Salvation," writ- 
 ten by President Walker. The introduc- 
 tion to that book, by Professor Calvin E. 
 Stowe, pictured two men, Contumax and 
 Benignus, who were cast up on a desert 
 island. Benignus fell on his knees and 
 thanked God for saving his life, while 
 Contumax growled that he had lost ev- 
 erything he had. On looking around, 
 they found a little cavern, and there was 
 material for fire, and coarse raiment and 
 good, plain food. The one was full of 
 praise that the benignant government 
 thought so kindly of them, while the 
 other complained that he never had worn 
 such clothes in his life, or eaten such 
 food, forgetful that the necessities of 
 the case limited such provision. 
 
 Now, we are all sinners, and God 
 is holy, and the Bible comes as a remedy 
 for our sin, that we may be at peace with 
 God. The hard facts in our situation 
 were here before the Bible came, and the 
 Bible is to be looked upon primarily as 
 coming to help us. But by the necessi- 
 ties of the case, if we ever are to be 
 reconciled to a holy God, there must be 
 certain severe conditions, and that we 
 do not like. This disposition to find 
 fault with the truths of the Bible is too 
 prevalent. It does not need to be fanned 
 into flame, as the critics are doing, in 
 that they are all the while dictating to 
 the Almighty how He should have been 
 pleased to reveal Himself and. His plan 
 of salvation. They say, "Why didn't 
 
 27 
 
more than one writer mention this?" 
 "Why didn't another writer mention 
 that?" "Why didn't he do it oftener?" 
 "Why don't we find this?" and "Why 
 not that?" All these things minister to 
 this complaining spirit, and that is a 
 wrong spirit. We ought to welcome the 
 Bible with an expectant spirit, because 
 we have evidence enough that the inten- 
 tion of the Bible is good, and we ought 
 to look kindly on its provisions. 
 
 II. The second charge I make against 
 the Higher Critics as to the evil conse- 
 quences I have observed, is, that in their 
 appeal for perfect candor, in asking us 
 to come to the Bible as we would to any 
 other book, they are making a claim 
 which, in view of the valid evidence of 
 its authority, does violence to our in- 
 tellectual nature, and also to every grate- 
 ful instinct of the Christian heart. 
 
 Why, to comply with that request were 
 to commit a degrading crime against 
 our profoundest intellectual convictions. 
 We should be false to the dictates of 
 tender Christian gratitude were we to 
 come to the Bible as if we had never seen 
 it. Oh, my friends, we have seen it, we 
 have tried it, we know it by experience. 
 When I was a boy fifteen years old, a 
 clerk in Western New York, I felt that 
 the great crisis of my life had come; 
 that God was calling, and it was to im- 
 peril my soul not to come to Him at 
 once. Then and there I tried to yield 
 to His claims, but I was in great anguish 
 and doubt. There was a good woman 
 whom I saw at the prayer-meeting who 
 marked some passages in my "Daily 
 Food." "Fear not, thou worn Jacob. I 
 will help thee, saith the Lord." My name 
 was not Jacob, but that promise just 
 suited me. I was not a worm in value, 
 but I was in impotence. My cry was 
 that of the hymn: 
 "Yet save a trembling sinner, Lord, 
 
 Whose hope still hov'ring round Thy 
 Word, 
 
 Would light on some sweet promise 
 there, 
 
 Some sure support against despair." 
 I clung to that promise in my hour of 
 distress as a man does to a spar in the 
 drowning waves. 
 
 "Be not dismayed, for I am thy God; 
 
 I will strengthen thee; yea, I will up- 
 hold thee with the right hand of my 
 righteousness." 
 
 Do you think now I can ever come to 
 that promise, or to the Book of Isaiah, 
 without a feeling of prepossession in its 
 favor? Speak well of the bridge that has 
 carried you safely over a chasm! 
 
 We have a room in our house called 
 Fred's room. Fred has been in heaven 
 four years. There are a couple of pic- 
 tures hanging in that room; one of them 
 is a picture of one of our sea-side resorts 
 in the summer time, and the other is a 
 picture of that same resort when the 
 wild tempests of winter are on it, and a 
 dismantled wreck Ues there. These two 
 pictures hang upon the wall by one 
 cord, a piece of rope ten feet long and 
 one inch thick, and it was by that cord 
 that my boy was bound to the rigging of 
 that vessel as it drifted helpless nine 
 hours in a November storm. The last 
 twelve years of his life and his precious 
 companionship were due to that rope. 
 Dear friends, can I ever go into that 
 room and look upon that rope as upon 
 any other old rope? 
 
 I have a friend, long a missionary in 
 India, one who has known so much about 
 the Bible women in that land, and loves 
 the Bible so gratefully that in passing 
 through a room sometimes she can not 
 restrain herself from going where the 
 Bible lies, and laying a caressing hand 
 upon it. The feeling we have for that 
 book is not like that we have for any 
 other book, if we know anything about 
 it in our experience. 
 
 III. Furthermore, it seems to me that 
 the critics create the impression very 
 largely in the public mind that they are 
 doing great service by controverting ev- 
 erything that is dear in our Bible, and 
 that they are yet to be regarded as 
 friends of righteousness, and no one is 
 ever to object to their course, or ques- 
 tion their standing in the church. 
 
 Here is the Boston Transcript of last 
 Saturday, telling about this meeting and 
 saying that "Orthodox leaders deplore 
 the launching of the Bible League," be- 
 cause "religious strife is feared." It 
 adds: 
 
 28 
 
"The orthodox leaders admit that the 
 higher critics have never been contro- 
 versalists. These critics have stated their 
 positions candidly. They have not 
 sought to force them upon others. The 
 league comes in at this time and brings 
 controversy with it." 
 
 Now religious controversy is not nec- 
 essarily an evil, any more than Presi- 
 dent Eliot's holy war in his magnificent 
 contention just now for the "joy of 
 work," against the misconception and 
 prejudices of certain valiant knights of 
 labor. Why don't the secular editors, 
 who often blame ministers for standing 
 up in behalf of certain principles as 
 against others, take their own medicine, 
 and quit arguing about trusts and the 
 labor problems? Has there ever been 
 any other way in which men come to 
 a more general agreement as to facts and 
 opinions than by discussion, unless it be 
 by the test of practical working, and that 
 involves argument, to show which works 
 best and is more nearly true? The con- 
 troversies of the Church have by no 
 means been confined to trivial matters; 
 some of the greatest heroes of the ages 
 have been noted controversialists, whose 
 work was a necessity and an honor, and 
 resulted in imperishable treasures for 
 mankind. 
 
 As human nature is, however, relig- 
 ious controversy often brings a strain 
 upon kind feeling, and is liable to work 
 incidental harm. And the responsibility 
 for introducing religious controversy, 
 with all its perils, rests always upon 
 those who introduce new views, and thus 
 controvert received opinions. 
 
 The first sentence quoted above would 
 be exactly true if one letter were omit- 
 ted: "The higher critics have ever been 
 controversialists." Leave out three let- 
 ters from the third sentence, and that 
 would be true: concerning their opinions, 
 "they have sought to force them upon 
 others"; not only by the force of the 
 better reason as they think, but by the 
 arrogant claim of authority, many of 
 them asserting, and most of them im- 
 plying, that about all the brains and all 
 the scholarship are so far on their side, 
 that our "sanity" may b^ doubted if we 
 
 do not accept their conclusions. If their 
 efforts have been censured, it has been 
 because of the spirit and method some- 
 times shown; never to challenge their 
 right of inquiry. Congregationalists es- 
 pecially are utterly impatient at the erec- 
 tion of any barrier to free thought. No 
 fetters on the mind, no restraint on the 
 right of free inquiry. But the critics 
 have no monopoly of free speech. 
 
 Freedom to attack existing beliefs im- 
 plies freedom to defend them. The lib- 
 erty to assault the citadel of truth is no 
 more sacred than the liberty to defend 
 that citadel. If anyone and everyone 
 who calls himself a higher critic is free 
 to build up his earthworks, and plant his 
 batteries, and train his guns, and keep up 
 perpetual cannonade against whatever 
 cherished belief he feels called upon to 
 demolish, he must not be surprised, or 
 his friends hold up their hands in holy 
 horror at religious strife, if at length, 
 after long patience, some answering 
 shots from the heavy artillery of Chris- 
 tian defence come thundering along his 
 way. 
 
 Yet, as the critic's destructive work 
 is directed at the whole body of Chris- 
 tian believers, charging them with teach- 
 ing error, it names no person in particu- 
 lar; and, since the reply of necessity 
 must be aimed at the individual critic, 
 outsiders sometimes think such perso- 
 nalities are unfair, and cry "Persecution!" 
 The critics themselves, however, do not, 
 for they are used to it, having on hand 
 all the time such bitter controversies 
 among themselves. 
 
 A few months ago the versatile and 
 volatile Rev. B. Fay Mills resumed his 
 peculiar and most remarkable advocacy 
 of his new evangelism in Wisconsin. It 
 was asserted "that he now throws all 
 doctrinal controversy overboard, throws 
 aside all theological discussion and pre- 
 sents truth in which all churches meet." 
 This is what he calls "constructive 
 work," in a recent personal letter, in 
 courteous reply to a friendly note of 
 inquiry from me: "I will neither criti- 
 cise men, nor institutions, nor doctrines, 
 nor will I reply to criticism." But in the 
 same breath his next Sunday sermon 
 
 29 
 
was announced as "The True Biography 
 of Jesus." Constructive work, indeed! 
 What could be more violently destruc- 
 tive of the foundations of the faith of the 
 churches than thus in effect to denounce 
 the accepted biography of Jesus as false? 
 This is precisely what many of the high- 
 er critics are doing, controverting our 
 belief in the record of Jesus's life and 
 work. 
 
 It seems as if some of these men want 
 to eat their cake and have it too. They 
 want all the reputation of being leaders 
 in the Christian Church, and yet tear 
 away the foundations on which that 
 Church stands. Thus they develop a 
 low moral sense as to the responsibility 
 of the position of representative expo- 
 nents of the Christian religion. The 
 right'to hold and teach opinions destruc- 
 tive of the Christian religion is not con- 
 sistent with the right to stand as the 
 friend and teacher of that religion. 
 
 IV. The disposition of some of our 
 critical friends to deny the authority of 
 God's written Word, and install in its 
 place the ideas of the critic as to what the 
 Bible ought to teach, and what ought 
 to be true, is fostering an offensive hu- 
 man pride and greatly imperils the rare 
 and precious virtue of humility. 
 
 I was at an installation the other day 
 of a fine young minister. His paper very 
 properly said: "I believe in the Divine 
 authority of the Bible in matters of 
 faith and practice"; and then he added, 
 very improperly: "The reason why I be- 
 lieve it is that the Scriptures find me." 
 The next man may say: "Some parts of 
 the Bible find me and other parts do not, 
 and those I reject." That installs the 
 man's opinion instead of the Word of 
 God in the place of spiritual authority. 
 Every man makes his own Bible, accord- 
 ing to that. 
 
 Thus the author of "The Christ of To- 
 Day," in arguing that all will be saved 
 because he thinks "the human soul is 
 forever indispensable to Christ," says, 
 "Many texts may be adduced from the 
 New Testament against the idea of a Di- 
 vine Choice inclusive of humanity; but 
 these isolated passages must be read in 
 the light of the great declaration of John: 
 
 'God is light, and in Him is no dark- 
 ness at air." Among those texts thus 
 trampled under foot are some of the most 
 solemn declarations of our Lord, con- 
 cerning the judgments He will pronounce 
 at the last day. My opinion, the judg- 
 ment of a poor sin-blinded mortal on my 
 way to the judgment seat of Christ, iis 
 thus made to override the judgment of 
 the Judge on the throne, simply because 
 I have a feeling that Christ's words cast 
 a shadow on the character of God. This 
 is where we are left when we deny the 
 authority of God in His written word. 
 And I submit, it ought to be, and from 
 my observation I find that it is, hurtful 
 to a person's character to assume this 
 lofty prerogative of sitting in judgment 
 on the truth of Christ's words. It is 
 placing a man on a pedestal, very flat- 
 tering to human pride, but very destruc- 
 tive of the true humility befitting our 
 condition. The function of reason comes 
 in when Christ presents His credentials 
 to us. He said of those who sinfully re- 
 jected His words: "If I had not done 
 among them the works which none other 
 man did, they had not had sin." By 
 many infallible proofs he is accredited 
 at the bar of our reason as a trustworthy 
 witness. Concerning the subject matter 
 of his testimony my information is so 
 meagre, and my mind so liable to be 
 prejudiced, that for me to dispute his 
 testimony, is to do violence to right 
 principles of conduct. It is to show such 
 an unreasonable self-sufficiency as con- 
 stitutes a deplorable blemish on one's 
 character. 
 
 Many years ago we had a glowing 
 prospectus from a great publishing house 
 in this city, announcing a splendid vol- 
 ume they were to print, giving the ex- 
 purgated words of Jesus. The author 
 informed us how deliberately and de- 
 voutly he had weighed, in the extremely 
 delicate scales of his super-sensitive sub- 
 jective sensibilities, all the words at- 
 tributed to Jesus, and now, at last, the 
 world might be very sure it had got 
 back to the real Christ. Well, what be- 
 came of this one more endeavor to doc- 
 tor the New Testament to suit a con- 
 ceited man's whims? By long search I 
 
 30 
 
found a single dust-covered copy in the 
 Boston Public Library, safely entombed 
 with a thousand other paltry products 
 of human folly. 
 
 Before I was a minister I was a pro- 
 duce commission merchant in Buffalo; 
 and when I wanted to buy a quantity of 
 flour I would go on board a vessel and 
 try the different brands, taking a pinch 
 in my fingers to decide by the feeling 
 something of the quality, and the adap- 
 tation to different markets. I have been 
 reminded of this when I have seen the 
 self-assurance of some critics, taking up, 
 as it were, in the fingers of their sub- 
 jective sense, a certain portion of Holy 
 Writ, and shutting their eyes to all exter- 
 nal evidence, oracularly saying they feel 
 that this passage was written a thou- 
 sand years later than its alleged date. 
 Taking up another passage, they say, 
 they feel it is wholly spurious, and must 
 be thrown out altogether. A third pas- 
 sage they examine, and gravely decide 
 that their feelings will allow that to 
 stand, at least for the present. For such 
 critics to demand that their feelings 
 shall give law to everybody else is not 
 the way to cultivate humility. 
 
 I had a habit, some years ago, of go- 
 ing around the house in the dark the last 
 thing before retiring, to see that the 
 lights were out and the fires safe. I 
 went one night through the dining-room 
 and thought I would go to the window 
 and see what the weather promise was 
 for the morrow. I never could go 
 straight in the dark, and I went beyond 
 the window, and got hold of a map on 
 the wall, and put my head behind it, 
 and looked to see what the weather was 
 out of doors. "Well," I said, "it is the 
 blackest night out there I have seen for 
 a long time!" When I let go the map 
 its rustle showed my mistake. I went 
 back a little and pulled the shade away 
 and looked out, and there the sweet stars 
 were shi&jng in their serenity. I was 
 not in the right place; and, my friends, 
 we need to get into the right place, as 
 Daniel did. "Are your windows open 
 toward Jerusalem, to hail the coming 
 of the King?" 
 
 V. Furthermore, the critics, in weak- 
 
 31 
 
 cning the authority of the Bible, weaken 
 moral restraints. 
 
 They claim they do not. They say 
 the Bible is more precious and more 
 powerful when you get rid of all these 
 objectionable things; many pretended 
 miracles which criticism throws out; and 
 what is left is better adapted to be use- 
 ful. But somehow there are people that 
 don't seem to think that way. One of 
 them was saying lately: "Our minister 
 is so busy telling us how many things 
 there are in the Bible that we must not 
 believe, and how many there are that it 
 is too early to tell whether we are to 
 believe them or not, that he leaves us 
 in such a haze that for many days some- 
 times neither sun nor stars appear." 
 
 If any one thing is clear in regard to 
 human duty, it is the obligation to keep 
 holy the Sabbath day. In the constitu- 
 tion of man, in the Decalogue, in the 
 example of our Savior, in the providen- 
 tial favor attending Sabbath observance, 
 God has made known His will that one 
 day in seven should be set apart for 
 religious uses, so far as the claims of 
 necessity and mercy allow. Any man 
 who breaks the fourth commandment 
 weakens those moral restraints which 
 religion alone can supply, and which are 
 indispensable to the maintenance of so- 
 cial order. 
 
 A public example of such violation of 
 God's law w^as lately given in sight of 
 hundreds of young people, and against 
 the remonstrance of Christian teachers, 
 by one who thus showed that his rev- 
 erence for the Bible and his regard for 
 the moral restraints it provides had been 
 lessened, his claim to the contrary not- 
 withstanding, by his efforts as a leader 
 in the destructive criticism of our time. 
 In an argument recently a young min- 
 ister, when a passage from the Bible 
 was quoted against his position, instant- 
 ly responded, with an air of finality, "Oh, 
 but that is in the Old Testament." 
 
 "It is written.'' "it is written," again 
 and again exclaimed bur Lord, in that 
 awful hour when the world's salvation 
 was trembling in the balance; when 
 alone with wild beasts in the wilderness 
 He wrestled in dire encounter with the 
 
arch fiend against all the subtlest temp- 
 tations of hell; when, if He had swerved 
 a hair's breadth from the line of perfect 
 restitude, He would have been forever 
 incapacitated for His mediatorial office. 
 It was to the Old Testament then that 
 He turned for spiritual strength and safe 
 guidance in the ordering of His conduct. 
 Can we deride His example, and despise 
 that source of power to which He resort- 
 ed in His bitterest conflict with our com- 
 mon foe? 
 
 I knew a minister for whom the de- 
 structive criticism had destroyed faith in 
 the Bible. He left the ministry, and he 
 refused to let his children attend Sunday 
 School, for he said: "They would have 
 so much to unlearn when they grew up." 
 Some of them have grown up, and if 
 you knew the sad facts as I do, you 
 would agree that those families who 
 bring up their children on the Sunday 
 newspaper, are not as likelj'- to succeed 
 as those who "desire for them the sin- 
 cere milk of the Word, that they may 
 grow thereby." 
 
 I was at an installation, and a Congre- 
 gational minister, who held the new 
 ideas about the Bible, said to the young 
 minister: "I congratulate you on enter- 
 ing the ministry at a time when Christi- 
 anity is sloughing off its old forms and 
 putting on the new"; and he went on as 
 if everything was "without form and 
 void," as the world was in the first chap- 
 ter of Genesis. 
 
 The minister who gave the address 
 to the people told the old story about 
 the skipper on a fishing-smack, who 
 went below for a nap, having put the 
 helm in the hand of a new man, telling 
 him to steer by a particular star. By 
 and by, the man got asleep, and when he 
 awoke, the star was away behind him. 
 He waked up the captain, crying, "Cap- 
 tain! Give me another star, I have got 
 by that one." 
 
 That is the claim of a great many peo- 
 ple; they think they have got beyond the 
 eternal guiding-stars, when the trouble 
 is, their own heads are turned. All this 
 tends to weaken moral restraint. That 
 minister who was counselling his friend 
 
 and giving him congratulations because 
 everything was in a state of flux, now 
 thinks there are a great many men that 
 are wiser than Jesus ever was. He says 
 if Jesus were alive now he could give 
 Him points. Now, do you think that is 
 good for public morals? 
 
 VI. Again, in thus weakening the au- 
 thority of the Bible the Written Word, 
 you are paralyzing Christian effort. 
 
 Dr. Wayland used to say there is one 
 thing that the Church has never appreci- 
 ated, and that is, the power of prayer. 
 It is an exalted privilege to lift the flood- 
 gates by which the Almighty pours out 
 on mankind the blessings of His grace. 
 Are we not continually urging Chris- 
 tians to a higher estimate of the value 
 of prayer? 
 
 But I know several pastors who have 
 given up their midweek prayer-meeting 
 to give lectures on Higher Criticism. 
 The views of these erratic men got a 
 voice in one of our religious journals, 
 setting forth the idea that there is a 
 question whether this great instrumen- 
 tality has not outgrown its usefulness, 
 and prayer-meetings ought to be aban- 
 doned. 
 
 Within a fortnight, at the spring meet- 
 ing of two Congregational Conferences 
 in Massachusetts, comprising some sixty 
 churches, I heard profound expressions 
 of regret that doubt on such a matter 
 had been so foolishly spread, and that 
 such a question had found a place on 
 the printed programs, and in the discus- 
 sions of two such important meetings. 
 It was said, v.'hen the early Church was 
 enjoying the Pentecostal gift, certain 
 brethren continued with one accord in 
 prayer and supplication with the women; 
 and we read of a place by the riverside 
 where prayer was wont to be made. But 
 at once the reply is ready: "That fur- 
 nishes no guide, for, you know, scholars 
 are not all agreed on the historicity of 
 those details in the Book of Acts." 
 
 Take another instance: Our Boston 
 Monday meeting of Congregational min- 
 isters was addressed a few years ago 
 by a very estimable and scholarly cler- 
 gyman on the higher criticism. This 
 professor advised us not to preach in 
 
 32 
 
our pulpits on these matters, but to give 
 afternoon lectures. "For," he said, "if 
 any of your thoughtful people think that 
 their pastor does not know that Moses 
 did not write the Pentateuch, or that 
 there were two Isaiahs and perhaps 
 more, you will lose your influence as a 
 competent religious leader." He also 
 said the conclusions of the higher criti- 
 cism are only matters of opinion which 
 do not affect our work in bringing men 
 into the life of God. I am compelled 
 to take issue squarely with this view of 
 the practical effect of these opinions. 
 Opinions shape conduct. Ideas control 
 life. Our belief concerning the messen- 
 ger may give force to the message, 
 "They will reverence my Son," that is, 
 if they think He is God's Son. Christ 
 speaks of those to whom the word of 
 God came, and our effort to induce men 
 to yield to the demands of this Word of 
 God are directly and powerfully hin- 
 dered when the critics tell them it is not 
 the Word of God at all, but a fraud, a 
 pretense, palmed off as the Word of 
 God, by certain parties for partisan ends. 
 At the very time the above plea for the 
 harmlessness of the higher criticism was 
 made, the pastors addressed were en 
 gaged in an earnest effort to induce 
 many young people who seemed to be 
 entering the Christian life to confirm 
 their new purpose, and ensure their 
 growth and usefulness, by coming to 
 Christ's table in affectionate response to 
 the Savior's tender desire, and in loyal 
 obedience to His express command. But 
 according to the historical methods of a 
 distinguished higher critic, whose writ- 
 ings were then being pressed upon the 
 public attention, whose manifest desire 
 to rid the ordinance of the Lord's Sup- 
 per of its expiatory teaching, shapes his 
 treatment of the narrative, our young 
 people were being told that it is not cer- 
 tain that Jesus ever instituted the sup- 
 per, that while there may be a sentimen- 
 tal naturalness in the usage to those who 
 care to observe it, there is no divine 
 authority for its observance. This is 
 only one of the ways in which the des- 
 tructive criticism, now constantly com- 
 ing into our families in certain publica- 
 
 33 
 
 tions, v/eakens the hands of pastors in 
 their spiritual work. 
 
 VII. One thing more, the radical 
 higher critics take away our Lord by 
 destroying our confidence in Him as a 
 competent and trustworthy guide. 
 
 Christ called the Old Testament the 
 Word of God, and declared its authority: 
 "The Scripture cannot be broken." He 
 said it testified of Him; He constantly 
 referred to it as a truthful record of 
 God's dealings with men; He quoted it 
 as the end of controversy in the prac- 
 tical guidance of life for others and for 
 Himself. But the higher critics say that 
 in all this He was either mistaken, or 
 repeated popular misconceptions which 
 He knew were not true. In either case 
 we can say, "They have taken away my 
 Lord." 
 
 At an examination of a theological stu- 
 dent not long ago, he said: "There is 
 great doubt among scholars whether 
 there ever was such a man as Abraham." 
 "What do you think?" he was asked. 
 "Well," he replied, "I am inclined to 
 think, on the whole, he was a myth and 
 not a man." Now if Christ did not know 
 whether Abraham was a myth or a man. 
 He could not say, "I am the light of the 
 world;" and if He knew he was a myth 
 and not a man, and yet spoke of him as 
 a man. He could not say, "I am the 
 Truth." Christ said to the Jews: "Your 
 Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day 
 and he saw it and was glad." 
 
 Thus the higher critics do not leave 
 us either the intellectual competence or 
 the moral trustworthiness of Jesus. 
 What sort of a gospel have they left us 
 to take to this poor, lost, sin-blinded 
 world? 
 
 Suppose the recent claim of Canon 
 Henson and other critics is accepted as 
 true, and we agree that Christ had not a 
 virgin for His mother, that He did not 
 rise from the dead, that miracles do not 
 happen. It is said, we still have Christ's 
 ethical teachings; but divested of their 
 authority as the utterance of a divine 
 Christ, every man is at liberty to dispute 
 even those ethical teachings. 
 
 Moreover, it is something more than 
 an ethical scheme, more than a system 
 
of moral philosophy, this sin-smitten 
 race needs. What of the spiritual teach- 
 ings of Christ, of His office and mis- 
 sion, and the relation of the soul to 
 God? Pretty much all those teachings 
 which are distinctive here, the critics tell 
 us are "irrational and superstitious ac- 
 cretions, the outcome of pagan and bar- 
 barous ages." And to account for those 
 supposed accretions, the critics of the 
 New Testament and of the Old seem to 
 know or imagine a great deal concern- 
 ing the partisan motives of various 
 schools of thought, or of certain un- 
 known writers they suppose existed at 
 the proper time to work these wonderful 
 changes in the record. But the result is 
 that if we trust the conjectures of the 
 critics, we shall listen in vain to hear 
 that voice that has been sounding down 
 through the ages, and echoing in the 
 hearts of innumerable mighty heroes of 
 faith, through whose valiant service the 
 religion of Jesus has been transforming 
 society, exalting humanity, and moving 
 the race on towards the millennial glory. 
 And when we turn away from the 
 noisy din of the critics, moved by the 
 irrepressible longings of our spiritual na- 
 ture, we hear again resounding in the in- 
 nermost chambers of the soul, the voice 
 of that radiant One who is walking amid 
 the golden candlesticks, the Churches of 
 His love, saying: "All power is given 
 unto Me in heaven and in earth." "The 
 Son of Man is come to seek and to save 
 that which is lost, and to give His life 
 a ransom for many." "I came down 
 from Heaven not to do mine own will, 
 but the will of Him that sent Me. And 
 this is the will of Him that sent Me, that 
 every one that seeth the Son, and be- 
 lieveth on Him, may have everlasting 
 life, and I will raise him up at the last 
 
 day." "I am the resurrection and the 
 life." "The hour is coming in which 
 all that are in the graves shall hear the 
 voice of the Son of Man, and shall come 
 forth." "When the Son of Man shall 
 come in His glory, and all the holy an- 
 gels with Him, then shall He sit upon the 
 throne of His glory, and before Him 
 shali be gathered all nations, and He 
 shall separate them one from an- 
 other." 
 
 It is a matter of vast concern for me, 
 for every soul of man, whether any one 
 ever said all this who had a right to 
 say it, or whether such voices are the 
 echoes of pitiable folly and sacrilegious 
 fraud. And therefore it is a legitimate 
 undertaking in which we are here to-day 
 engaged, in pointing out the unscientific, 
 untrustworthy, unwholesome, character 
 of that destructive criticism which hides 
 from suffering humanity its adorable Re- 
 deemer, Who alone is able and mighty 
 to save. 
 
 That is to say, this is a worthy en- 
 gagement on occasion. President Way- 
 land's homely phrase was wise: "Do not 
 spend much time in boosting up the Bi- 
 ble." We do not. This Convention 
 voices the occasional efforts of the 
 friends of the Bible. Our main work all 
 the time is to preach the Word of God, 
 to teach the Bible, to apply its authorita- 
 tive principles to all the complicated 
 problems of life, and to exemplify its 
 teaching in our lives. 
 
 "For the Word of God is quick and 
 powerful, living and active, sharper than 
 any two-edged sword, piercing even to 
 the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, 
 and of the joints and marrow, and is 
 quick to discern the thoughts and intents 
 of the heart." 
 
 President Hall: We will now have the in this City, in further discussion of the 
 pleasure of listening to Rev. Dr. Remen- general topic, "The Practical Conse- 
 snyder, of St. James' Lutheran Church, quences of the Attack on the Bible." 
 
 34 
 
ADDRESS OF REV. DR. REMENSNYDER 
 " Christianity Placed On Trial " 
 
 That a crisis confronts Christianity is 
 not to be denied. Never has there been 
 such a concert of energetic thinking di- 
 rected against the cardinal tenets of the 
 Christian faith. The peculiarity of the 
 situation is that Rationalism within the 
 Church is joining its hostile forces with 
 those without. Secular thinkers treat 
 orthodox Christianity with curt intoler- 
 ance, assuming that the victory over it 
 is already won. And with vast learning 
 and immense painstaking, brilliant schol- 
 ars, professedly Christian, are turning 
 the fire of a destructive criticism upon 
 the Bible. While declaring that their 
 aim is to give us the real message of the 
 Bible, and claiming a motive to honor it, 
 they are insidiously destroying the main 
 grounds upon which can rest any belief 
 in its inspiration or any respect for its 
 authority. This new attack on the Bi- 
 ble has evidently put Christianity anew 
 on trial. 
 
 And constantly it is urged, that we 
 must look upon the Scriptures from a 
 totally new standpoint, that Christian 
 theology must undergo a radical recon- 
 struction, and that the great and essen- 
 tial Christian doctrines must submit to 
 cardinal modifications. The Bible is sim- 
 ply a book of moral edification, not a 
 revelation of divine truth. If Christian- 
 ity will not thus adapt itself to the spirit 
 of the age, we are told that it can not 
 survive, but will be relegated to the 
 niche of an effete, outworn faith. 
 
 But let not the hearts of believers 
 fail, nor let any one waver in his firm, 
 full confession. It was meant that the 
 Kingdom of God should pass through 
 just such crises as this. True faith is 
 but purified and strengthened by the se- 
 verity of the crucible. Time and again 
 has the Church met such crises, when 
 the powers of darkness have premature- 
 ly rejoiced, and when the hearts of 
 Christians have grown faint. But ever 
 has she issued forth victoriously from 
 the peril, and entered upon a larger and 
 more prosperous career. But the point 
 for us to weigh is that this has not been 
 
 done without effort. Victory can not be 
 won by inertia, listlessness and indiffer- 
 ence. Attack must be met by defence. 
 Sleepless aggressiveness must be resist- 
 ed by untiring vigilance. Scholarship 
 must be answered by scholarship. Spe- 
 cialists must be refuted by specialists. 
 If we allow the citadel to be carelessly 
 defended and exposed, we must not be 
 surprised if it be taken by assault. It 
 is a burning shame if the confessors of 
 Christ manifest less of interest, ardor 
 and sacrifice in standing up for His 
 cause, than those exhibit who are bent 
 on overthrowing it. At present, not 
 only do Christians seem not to be suffi- 
 ciently awake to the danger, but they 
 are allowing to the enemy almost a 
 monopoly of zeal and enthusiasm. One 
 can not but admire the patient, tireless 
 study and microscopical investigation 
 which extremely latitudinarian critics are 
 giving to every book of the Bible. The 
 most difficult secrets of history are ex- 
 plored. The most improbable and im- 
 possible hypotheses are formulated. Ev- 
 ery conceivable literary outfit is brought 
 into play. Money is expended with the 
 most lavish liberality. The press is used 
 with unparalleled energy, and these nega- 
 tive views are circulated far and wide. 
 They are touching and influencing every 
 channel of current thought. Especially 
 is the effort made to popularize them, to 
 present them in such attractive guise as 
 to win the ear and gain the mind of the 
 public. The situation reminds one of a 
 witticism of Henry Ward Beecher. In 
 the hall of the Twin Mountain House in 
 the White Mountains, where he spent his 
 vacations, he observed a painting which 
 represented a huge mastiff asleep, with 
 a fine piece of meat between his paws, 
 which an agile little cur is quietly and 
 dexterously getting away with. "This 
 scene," humorously remarked Beecher, 
 "fitly represents the conservatives and 
 the radicals in religion. While the mas- 
 sive watch-dogs of orthodoxy are se- 
 curely asleep, the vigilant poodles of 
 destructive thought are stealing away 
 
 35 
 
the faith from the hearts of the people." 
 Still, there is no peril, if we but do our 
 duty, for God is on this side of Zion and 
 its loyal servants. But the holy treas- 
 ure of our faith can only be preserved by 
 the fidelity, the learning, the mental ef- 
 fort and activity of its defenders. Chris- 
 tians must be awake to the emergency. 
 They must think, must read, must have 
 an intelligent acquaintance with the ques- 
 tions at issue, and must be quite as able 
 to repel, as others are to assail. They 
 must call for and liberally support evan- 
 gelical publications. It is but by thus 
 contending earnestly for the faith once 
 delivered to the saints that it can be 
 maintained inviolate. And evincing this 
 vigilance and putting on the whole pan- 
 oply of God, no one need have the least 
 doubt or tremor as to the final issue. 
 The Bible, Christianity and the Church 
 will come forth from this crisis triumph- 
 ant as from every other. 
 
 What, in a word, will be the practical 
 effect, if by our failure to recognize the 
 fact that Christianity is on trial in this 
 attack, we do not meet it with timely, 
 energetic resistance? 
 
 The authority of the Bible will be 
 weakened, in fact, practically destroyed. 
 Its spiritual authority rests upon the 
 fact that it stands unique in literature. 
 Other books and moral writings are the 
 product of the natural human mind. But 
 the Bible claims to be given by men su- 
 pernaturally inspired to know the will 
 and truth of God. The extreme higher 
 criticism explains the Bible by the same 
 natural process by which merely human 
 writings have arisen. It is absurd to 
 contend that when the Bible's unique 
 basis of authority has been thus removed 
 it can any more wield the supreme in- 
 fluence over the consciences of men it 
 has had all through the centuries. 
 
 It is indeed the satire of logic to al- 
 lege that the more a foundation is un- 
 dermined the more secure the building 
 is made; that the more a wall is riddled 
 and battered down, the stronger it be- 
 comes as a bulwark of defense; that the 
 more a narrative is proven to be a tis- 
 sue of myth, legend and fable, the more 
 authentic it becomes as genuine, sober 
 
 history; and that the more the Bible is 
 shown to be a patchwork of falsehoods, 
 pretended miracles and pious frauds, the 
 more it will be looked up to as a moral 
 code, demanding respect and obedience. 
 
 Again, the cardinal tenets of Christian- 
 ity will be swept away. These destruc- 
 tive attacks at first were merely aimed 
 at the verbal inspiration of Scripture. 
 But from the form it was a short step to 
 the substance. Says Harnack: "Jesus 
 does not belong to the Gospel" — meaning 
 that the Church's Jesus, the divine 
 Christ, is not there. Cheyne repudiates 
 the atonement. Henry Preserved Smith 
 denies the resurrection. And so, one 
 after another of the pillars of the edifice 
 of evangelical Christianity is dragged 
 down. This result Canon Henson has 
 already reached, for he tells us that ev- 
 ery supernatural fact and doctrine of the 
 New Testament must go. 
 
 Further, the foundations of morality 
 will be impaired. Ethics that do not 
 rest upon religion are unable to check 
 immorality and sin. Remove the super- 
 natural sanctions given by a personal 
 God, immortality and future judgment, 
 which are found in the Bible only, and 
 there is no adequate deterrent from 
 wrongdoing, no sufficient motive to men 
 to choose duty to the sacrifice of pleas- 
 ure. 
 
 Finally, irreparable harm will be done 
 to those outside of Christianity. The 
 most potent argument to draw men to 
 the Church is the authority of the Word 
 of God. But when Christians no longer 
 accord the Bible this place, why should 
 the world trouble itself about it? What 
 is it to them then, more than any other 
 book? In practical effect, then, these 
 so-called modern views and this New 
 Theology, so far from pouring new light 
 on the Bible, flood it with darkness, and, 
 displacing this venerable volume from 
 its seat as the bed rock of religion, mor- 
 ality and civilization, will turn the world 
 backward on its axis to the dark ages of 
 history. 
 
 Let, then, Christians everywhere be 
 aroused to the crucial nature of the 
 struggle. And standing in impregnable 
 phalanx for the Word of God and the 
 
 36 
 
altar of our faith, as did the saints and 
 fathers of old, we will win a victory 
 which will make epochal our age by one 
 
 more of those great triumphs which 
 shine like mighty sea marks along the 
 shore of Christian history. 
 
 President Hall: Among the organizers 
 of The American Bible League, and 
 among those who have for years prayed 
 that God might stir up His people to 
 some definite organized action along the 
 
 line of campaign that is represented by 
 this Convention, I can give the name of 
 the one who is now to address us, the 
 pastor of this Church, our much-beloved 
 friend, Rev. Dr. David James Burrell. 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. BURRELL 
 "Preachers and the Dictionary" 
 
 I observe that a good many of the 
 speakers have had something good to 
 say of the Bible, but there is one book 
 that is being seriously neglected, and I 
 should like in making reference to the 
 practical consequences of Destructive 
 Criticism to pay my very reverential res- 
 pects to that other book. The Bible is 
 the Gibraltar of the Church, it is true; 
 but, good people, the Bible would not 
 mean anything to us if it were not for 
 another book, which is in sore danger by 
 reason of Destructive Criticism in these 
 days. I mean the dictionary. I speak 
 now for the dictionary. I am not a bit 
 afraid for the Bible; I am afraid for the 
 other book. I am not here to save the 
 Bible from danger. God forbid! On 
 last St. Patrick's Day, when the proces- 
 sion was coming up here on the avenue, 
 a little girl with her pet dog was down 
 below, and the mother was up in the 
 window above, and they were watching 
 the procession. The dog got into a 
 great nervous fury, and was barking and 
 running, and the little girl was greatly 
 troubled, and she called out, "Mother, 
 come quick! Jip is going to bite the 
 army!" I am not worrying about the 
 army. The Bible can take care of itself; 
 but I am worried about the book that is 
 back of the Bible. It is losing its defi- 
 nitions in these days. 
 
 Now, in all seriousness, brethren, I 
 reckon among the most calamitous re- 
 sults of the metaphysical speculations 
 that have been pursued by our friends 
 upon the other side of the Biblical dis- 
 cussion in these last days, the complete 
 overturning of definitions. That is one 
 
 of the bad things that has come out of 
 it. Now, words mean something. Words 
 ought to mean something. It is im- 
 mensely important that we preachers, 
 when we stand in the pulpit, should 
 define things, and stand by the defini- 
 tion of things. A man who counter- 
 feited a coin in Great Britain in the 
 olden times, paid the penalty with his 
 life; counterfeiting was death. To utter 
 a spurious word deliberately is vastly 
 more calamitous than to utter a spurious 
 coin. 
 
 When a man stands in this place, or- 
 dained by God Almighty to stand here, 
 and speak the truth in the name of the 
 Christ of Truth, he is bound to stand by 
 his Bible and by the definitions and 
 terms given in the dictionary with res- 
 pect to the great doctrines which are 
 outlined in the Word of God. 
 
 A friend of mine went up to Boston, 
 Dr. Plumb, a little while ago, and heard 
 one of your ministers who is a very 
 bright man, and a warm friend of mine, 
 and who is so far off that I don't know 
 whether he believes he wears shoes or 
 not. But I do know my friend came 
 back and said to me, "I never heard 
 such an orthodox sermon as that was!" 
 Now, in point of fact, if he had known 
 the man as I did, he would have known 
 that he had a dictionary of his own. 
 
 Now, I say there is a whole line of 
 important words, and practically they 
 are the words that make the entire 
 chain of terminology in Christian doc- 
 trine, and this whole list of technical 
 words is being used in one way by men 
 who are loyal to the Scriptures, and 
 
 37 
 
by men on the other side of this 
 controversy in a totally and fundamen- 
 tally different way. Inspiration, Atone- 
 ment, Vicarious, Resurrection, even Im- 
 mortality, all these words are used in 
 undictionary ways. Men are using them 
 in the pulpit and explaining away the 
 significance of the doctrines they were 
 intended to designate. They are doing 
 it all the while, and the people do not 
 know it, and they sit in the pews and 
 think that the pastors believe in these 
 things. 
 
 Now what is the consequence? 
 
 The result is disastrous to common 
 honesty and to our confidence in human 
 nature, and it is thus around the whole 
 circumference of our ecclesiastical life. 
 
 And not only words such as I have in- 
 dicated, technical words, are twisted, put 
 on the rack and twisted, tortured until 
 they scream out things that neither the 
 Bible nor the dictionary ever meant they 
 should, but untechnical words as well. 
 Take that little word "is." You would 
 think everybody knew what is means; 
 yet there are men who are preaching the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ who do not know 
 its meaning, but are using it in outre 
 and outlandish and lawless ways. I say 
 the Bible is the Word of God, and I want 
 to mean it; but I do not know a man on 
 the other side who would not say "the 
 Bible is the Word of God." But what 
 does he mean by is? He has got a little 
 stock of reserves at his back when he 
 says "is." He means only that there 
 are some things in the Bible which are 
 true and which, like all other truth in 
 the world's literature, came from God. 
 In point of fact he regards the Book as 
 largely false, involving no end of in- 
 credible fables and legends, made up 
 considerably of forged documents, teach- 
 ing frequent error in both doctrine and 
 ethics. If he really holds that opinion, 
 why, in the name of common honesty, 
 does he not say so? If he means that 
 the Bible merely contains a modicum of 
 truth why should he say "is" rather than 
 "contains?" He is bound to speak so 
 that the people shall not misunderstand 
 him. 
 
 He is turning aside from the tradi- 
 
 tional use of the word, and he is bound to 
 say so. I would say to the best friend 
 I have on the other side: he must explain 
 if he is using the word in an out- 
 landish way. "IS the Word of God"— 
 does he mean that? Brethren, he does 
 not mean what the people think him to 
 be saying, at all. I can convict him 
 right here and now. Bring me a hun- 
 dred books, a hundred books that are ac- 
 cepted by the public as books of general- 
 ly acknowledged truth: Macaulay's His- 
 tory, Green's, all the other histories — pile 
 them up here; and books of science, books 
 of common philosophy — pile them up — a 
 hundred books. Let the Bible be the 
 hundredth book. Now, I will call be- 
 fore you the man who represents the 
 Destructive Criticism of which we are 
 speaking today, and by all that is holy in 
 truth, that man is bound to say that the 
 one-hundredth book there has certainly 
 less of truth in it than any book of all 
 the other ninety and nine! It is not only 
 not the best of books by all the canons 
 of common judgment; it is the worst 
 and least trustworthy of them all! And 
 yet, they will say to you without a lift- 
 ing of the eyebrows, without a word of 
 reservation or of qualification, "The 
 Bible is true." "Oh, yes, the Bible is 
 the Word of God." Now, you see they 
 have turned the thing topsy-turvy. "Is" 
 means "is not," doesn't it? I say that 
 is not honest. 
 
 There naturally follows from this ety- 
 mological confusion the demoralization 
 of the ministers themselves. It is record- 
 ed that in the period of Roman deca- 
 dence the priests, as they ministered at 
 the altars, smiled in each others' faces, to 
 think how easily they were deceiving the 
 people. Their level of common morality 
 was no lower than that of the Chris- 
 tian minister who leads his congregation 
 in repeating, "I believe in Jesus Christ, 
 the Son of God, who was conceived by 
 the Holy Ghost," while privately affirm- 
 ing, "It is nothing to me whether Jesus 
 was begotten by the Holy Ghost or by 
 Joseph of Nazareth." In such cases the 
 fine edge of honesty has worn off, and 
 manly courage has gone with it. 
 
 Now, do you begin to see that the die- 
 
 38 
 
tionary is of some consequence? It 
 makes a difference how men trifle with 
 definitions. That is a far-reaching cal- 
 amity that comes from this Destructive 
 Criticism. It was born in the fact that 
 men were timid at the first in anouncing 
 their conclusions, and it lingers still be- 
 cause they know that the great multi- 
 tude of the people who sit in the pews 
 are loyal to the Word of God. 
 
 A second result of this sinister use of 
 historic and well-defined words and 
 phrases is seen in a diminishing attend- 
 ance at church. Preachers who believe 
 and affirm their convictions without 
 mumbling or mouthing usually have no 
 difficulty in getting a hearing. But the 
 times are too earnest and strenuous for 
 a meaningless theology. Men and wo- 
 men are too busy in these days to trouble 
 themselves with "ifs" and "perhapses;" 
 and they have too much common sense 
 to listen to preachers whose vocabulary 
 can not be depended on. Commerce de- 
 clines when Bank-note Reporters have to 
 be used to determine the value of com- 
 mon currency. So it has come about 
 that, in certain portions of our country 
 where this kind of preaching prevails, 
 the Sabbath services are thinly attend- 
 ed and not infrequently churches are 
 abandoned altogether. I can go, my 
 dear Dr. Plumb, up into some portions 
 of New England with which I am thor- 
 oughly familiar, and find you churches 
 there filled with void because Ichabod 
 is written over the archway and the con- 
 gregation with the glory has departed. 
 That is true, isn't it? 
 
 I know what some of you ministers are 
 giving them there, and it is not con- 
 fined to New England. Why should the 
 people come to hear a man cast reflec- 
 tions upon the truth of the Word of 
 God, air his doubts and add to the 
 misgivings of the individual man, when 
 God knows that he has enough of his 
 own? He does not need to go to church 
 for that. Give the people truth and they 
 will come. The churches where God's 
 Truth is being ministered are not lament- 
 ing today over the loss of a congrega- 
 tion. I say that deliberately and I mean 
 it The average business men — and I 
 
 speak to busy men, and wives who are 
 cumbered with much serving, too — and 
 we have reached an age in the history 
 of the world when they are too busy in 
 the hurly-burly of life to go anywhere 
 to hear ifs and perhapses, or loose 
 phrases about anything — they want a 
 man to stand up in the pulpit and if he 
 has any convictions, utter them squarely 
 in plain English, and without indirec- 
 tion. You won't go to this church or any 
 other church to hear a man propound 
 conundrums and hypotheses to you. O, 
 man, on the road to the Judgment Bar 
 of God, don't waste your time that 
 way! Get out of the church where you 
 hear only the sermon of a man who does 
 not believe the gospel he preaches, or is 
 explaining away by the use of false 
 phrases or misused words the truth 
 which he is in covenant bound to preach 
 to the people. The people understand. 
 The reason why they are not going to 
 some churches is because what Lincoln 
 said is true, "You can trust the people, 
 they are not fools." 
 
 A third result is seen in the lack of 
 candidates for the ministry. There arc 
 Theological Seminaries, where a nega- 
 tive or destructive criticism is taught, 
 that have to beat the woods for students. 
 And why not? Why should a youth de- 
 vote himself to a ministry that has no 
 purpose but to ask unanswerable ques- 
 tions or root up convictions in the souls 
 of men? The Seminaries that teach pos- 
 itive truth, while not wholly unaffected 
 by the general sentiment, are numerously 
 attended by as earnest and able a body 
 of students as ever devoted themselves 
 to the service of Christ; but, as to the 
 total list of candidates, there is a con- 
 siderable falling off. And again I ask, 
 Why not? What, in the name of youth- 
 ful zeal and holy ambition, has a nega- 
 tive or equivocal ministry to offer a 
 young man? Why should he consecrate 
 his life to tearing things down and throw- 
 ing things overboard? Or, more import- 
 ant still, why should he deliberately set 
 out to preach doctrines which are dis- 
 counted, in words twisted out of their 
 usual sense? The average young man is 
 rational. Give him something worth 
 
doing and he will hasten to the task; 
 but the glory of youth revolts against the 
 thought of beating the air. 
 
 But, though I thus speak, I have no 
 misgivings as to the final outcome. Nei- 
 ther the Bible nor the dictiona^ry is in 
 any real danger. The "Impregnable 
 Rock of Holy Scripture" will stand, like 
 Gibraltar, when the wreckage of the hos- 
 tile fleet is scattered on every side. The 
 prime purpose of the Bible League is 
 neither offensive nor defensive; it is in- 
 tended to be a fellowship of people who 
 are like-minded as to the trustworthiness 
 of Scripture and the positiveness of the 
 truths contained in it. We believe in the 
 Bible as the Written Word and in Christ 
 
 as the Incarnate Word of God; and, in 
 saying that, we employ words in their 
 usual sense, have no desire to qualify, 
 and we mean precisely what we say. It 
 is a goodly company. "Blest be the 
 tie that binds!" The work of defend- 
 ing the Scriptures is merely incidental 
 to the real purpose of the organization 
 as I understand it. We propose to lend 
 ourselves to the positive and constructive 
 teaching of the vital truths of our re- 
 ligion as set forth in the Scriptures. Our 
 desire is not to tear down but to build 
 up; not to instil doubts but to strengthen 
 faith; and in all things to buttress our 
 teachings with the ultimate authority of 
 the Word of God. 
 
 President Hall: In closing this morn- 
 ing's session of the Convention, we are 
 to have the privilege of listening to the 
 testimonies of some of the most dis- 
 tinguished men in this country, as we 
 have listened to such men in the ad- 
 dresses already delivered this morn- 
 ing. They will speak briefly and right 
 to the point, as they always do, and I 
 am sure that all of you who remain for the 
 few moments they are to occupy will be 
 
 glad that you remained. I trust that 
 you will bring with you this afternoon 
 as many of your friends as you can pos- 
 sibly mduce to come. 
 
 It gives me great pleasure to intro- 
 duce the Rev. Robert Russell Booth, 
 D.D., LL.D., of this city, Pastor Emeri- 
 tus of the Rutgers Riverside Presbyter- 
 ian Church, and ex-Moderator of the 
 Presbyterian General Assembly, who will 
 now address us. 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. ROBERT RUSSELL BOOTH 
 "The Claim of a 'Consensus' of the Scholars" 
 
 I have so much respect for the breth- 
 ren who are to speak after me that I 
 shall be very brief in what I have to 
 say. The subject has been so presented 
 from different points of view, in the 
 services of last evening and this morn- 
 ing, that as to the substance hardly any- 
 thing that is novel can be said. Yet there 
 are always personal impressions; and 
 the experience and convictions of one 
 who has seen this evil growing on this 
 ground for fifteen years, and who has 
 faced it, and who has suffered in the 
 process, entitles him at least to utter a 
 word of thanks that this League has 
 been established, and that it is here to 
 stay. 
 
 I have been for a very long time in 
 the service of the Presbyterian Church 
 here in New York. The contemporaries 
 of my early ministry were men like Dr. 
 
 Phillips [to Chairman Hall], your grand- 
 father, who, compared with many that 
 are now upon this field, were as giants 
 unto pigmies; and I can imagine what a 
 sense of horror would have filled those 
 men if they had foreseen the things that 
 have been said and done by some among 
 us in respect of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 What I would say briefly concerns 
 what I hope to be the clear outcome of 
 this Bible League. I hope that in its 
 future activity, in the first place, it will 
 be enabled to dispel the ignus fatuus of 
 a "consensus" on the side of the Des- 
 tructive Criticism. Now, this is a thing 
 that has not been said here by any of our 
 brethren, and it is perhaps the most im- 
 portant thing to have said. The "con- 
 sensus," imagined, fictitious, unreal, of 
 scholarship in regard to these views, is- 
 the dark cloud that has hung over us 
 
 40 
 
from the beginning. There is no such 
 "consensus;" and yet the people do not 
 realize that this is the fact. They have 
 been misled by the journalists, who are 
 always ready to present criticisms and 
 objections as if they had been proven. 
 Almost every one gives the impression 
 that the scholarship is all on the side 
 of the Destructive Critics, and yet 
 when we rank up in line, man by man, 
 taking for example, the published list of 
 the adherents of this League, I will say 
 that among the men who have thought 
 and studied most deeply, and who can 
 claim to be in a comprehensive sense. 
 Christian "scholars," there are five to 
 one in this country against the Destruc- 
 tive Criticism. 
 
 The ablest thinker that I knew in my 
 early and mature life was President Ju- 
 lius Seelye, of Amherst College, the best 
 able to formulate a proposition that had 
 to do with a question of evidence. We 
 were students together. As he was near- 
 ing the close of the voyage of life, he 
 said to me: "I have spent two years on 
 this subject, and I find the evidence is 
 utterly inadequate to sustain the alle- 
 gation." And yet we are constantly con- 
 fronted by those who are so positive in 
 their assertions that they remind us of 
 the famous edict that was issued from 
 Threadneedle Street by the Nine Tailors, 
 "We, the People of England!" We may 
 safely put up against the writings of 
 Wellhausen and the recent works of De- 
 litzsch the works of Prof. Fritz Hommel, 
 and that masterly work of Frank Moller, 
 published by Revell, which is an abso- 
 lutely decisive weapon against the new 
 Deuteronomic theory. We cite as against 
 men like Driver and Cheyne, a name 
 that is hardly ever mentioned among us, 
 the oldest Hebrew scholar in Great 
 Britain, Dr. Stanley Leathes, who has 
 utterly demolished, on the ground of ver- 
 bal comparison, the claim of the Two 
 Isaiahs; and as against George Adam 
 Smith we name such a man as John Ur- 
 quhart; and, even in this country far and 
 wide, the silent scholars that have not 
 yet been counted. We expect that they 
 will be counted before the verdict is 
 reached. These men have been quietly 
 resting, not realizing that there was such 
 
 an emergency upon the Church of God. 
 
 I say then that the first thing is to 
 show that weight of scholarship is in 
 favor of the traditional view, the only 
 view that is credible, because it is in no 
 other way possible in history that such a 
 method of construction of the Word of 
 God should have been realized. 
 
 I want also to have the people under- 
 stand — and that has been brought out 
 in this meeting — that it is the testimony 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ that is im- 
 peached in this crisis, and the point of 
 my assertion is this: four hundred times 
 as Bishop Ellicott has shown, the Old 
 Testament is cited with the approval of 
 ihe Lord Jesus Christ. If He was by a 
 kenotic process emptied of His knowl- 
 edge in respect to so plain a subject as 
 His Father's Book, upon which He tes- 
 tified, what value has His assertive 
 knowledge on any subject whatsoever? 
 If, however, — as was said by one of the 
 professors in an institution on the neigh- 
 boring hill — the critics will frankly tell 
 us that He did not know, then I say, 
 What did He know? If He was ignorant 
 of knowledge which in that age was 
 within the range of ordinary human 
 faculties, how shall He tell us of things 
 divine and eternal? And how did He 
 know that God so loved the world that 
 He gave His only Begotten Son? I tell 
 you, brethren, that when Jesus Christ 
 has been thus discredited, the very be- 
 ing of a gracious God has been obscured; 
 for Nature tells nothing of the love of 
 God. I am afraid of Nature; I tremble 
 at its convulsions. I am overwhelmed 
 at the confusion that everywhere reigns 
 around us. It is, in many of its aspects, 
 a world of gloom and pain and death, 
 and it is only Jesus, the Resurrection 
 and the Life, the Brightness of the Fa- 
 ther's Glory, that has taught Christen- 
 dom that there is a God of Grace and 
 Mercy, who forgiveth sin. Now, let it be 
 understood that it is the very being of 
 God as God, and the Father of our Lord 
 and Savior, Jesus Christ, that is in- 
 volved in this controversy; for in im- 
 peaching His testimony in regard to 
 common things. He is discredited at ev- 
 ery point. 
 
 One thing more, and that is the qucs- 
 
 41 
 
tion of honesty. We are living in a time 
 that to old-fashioned men seems perilous. 
 There are scenes and transactions in the 
 financial world that are simply appalling 
 in contrast with the standards of forty 
 and fifty years since. And there has 
 come over the ministry of the Church in 
 many quarters a sentiment of conceal- 
 ment and repression which is as a taint 
 upon character, and which justifies the 
 suspicion of the people that the minis- 
 ters do not mean just what they say 
 when they speak of the threatenings of 
 the Word of God. Here, for instance, 
 is an illustration: there is in this city a 
 minister — whether he is an Episcopalian, 
 Methodist, or Presbyterian, does not 
 matter — who confessed that when he 
 used the Apostles' Creed he did it with 
 mental reservation, saying to himself, 
 when he came to the words "Jesus Christ 
 who was born of the Virgin Mary," "as 
 they say," and applying the same inter- 
 polation at the words "rose from the 
 dead." Brethren, a man who can do 
 that has set his foot in the way of hell! 
 That is blasphemy against the Holy 
 Ghost! I trust that there are but few 
 such; and yet Canon Freemantle did not 
 hesitate about a year ago^ in a conven- 
 tion of the clergy of the Church of En- 
 gland, to declare that he disbelieved in 
 the Virgin Birth; and yet the next day he 
 recited the Apostles' Creed! 
 
 Can we wonder that crime has ap- 
 peared in the community, and that men 
 find excuse for easy virtue, when the 
 very teachers of the righteousness of 
 God are willing to descend to such con- 
 cealment? 
 
 I would ask you also to realize that 
 this attack comes upon us, not from 
 without, but from within. For nineteen 
 centuries the Church of God has been 
 a Warrior Church. Through controversy 
 and through conflict it has come up out 
 of the wilderness leaning on the arm of 
 the Beloved. But, here today in the 
 very midst of us, is a condition of trea- 
 son; and it is a treason that is using the 
 resources of the Church, the salaries of 
 her ministers, and the sacred endow- 
 ments established by the sainted ones 
 who are now in the presence of God. 
 What honest man can look at Andover 
 
 and not be ashamed that such things 
 should be possible? And when we think 
 of those who have endowed our semin- 
 aries, who have wrung oftentimes from 
 their poverty the sums by which they 
 have been enabled to make their gifts, 
 and realize that some of these institu- 
 tions are consecrated to the destruction 
 of that which they were intended to up- 
 build; then we feel that the emergency 
 that is upon us is altogether unlike that 
 of the continuous conflict of the Church 
 of God with foes that are avowedly such. 
 Celsus and Porphyry, Bolingbroke and 
 Rousseau, Thomas Paine and Robert In- 
 gersoll, — they have called for no Bible 
 League, for they are enemies outside our 
 lines; and they have gone to their own 
 place, and no one reads their books. But 
 when we have to do with those who are 
 questioning about the Old Testament 
 and the New, about Jesus Christ Him- 
 self, deceiver or deceived, then we feel 
 that the time has come for the Church 
 to realize that these are not friends, but 
 enemies, that are in the midst of us. 
 
 And we shall stand in all fidelity to 
 this work that we have thus begun. The 
 world will not love this Bible. The world 
 will not love the Christ of the atoning 
 sacrifice; but if the time should come 
 when the Presbyterian ministry becomes 
 degenerate and unworthy, and when the 
 Methodist and the Baptist cease to pro- 
 claim the old doctrine of expiation and 
 redemption, then we shall find that, sad 
 as it may be, there will be a mighty tide 
 of human souls that will hasten, if no 
 other way is seen, to the old historic 
 Church, in spite of all that there is cor- 
 rupt therein, and that Roman Catholic 
 Church, that has been faithful to the 
 Word of God, notwithstanding all that 
 she has added to it, woiiTd be the last 
 refuge of despair. But this will not be 
 the outcome of the conflict. We expect 
 the triumphant on-going of this work; 
 we expect to enroll on our list of mem- 
 bers Archbishop Farley, because his 
 Church and he stand for the Bible; we 
 expect and confidently call upon Bishop 
 Potter, whose church establishes its 
 Scripture lessons for every day and ev- 
 ery Sabbath from the Old Testament 
 and the New, to which they are solemn- 
 
 43 
 
ly pledged, — we expect that they will 
 join in some sense this movement; and 
 that all these evangelical leaders, with 
 the multitude of the church who are pre- 
 paring to stand on High in the blood- 
 washed throng, will be with us in heart 
 
 and spirit, if not by the actual enrollment 
 of their names. Let us remember that 
 the power of God will be our strength in 
 this movement, and that it is our simple 
 purpose to uphold the Word of God that 
 liveth and abideth forever. 
 
 President Hall: The last of the speak- 
 ers at this session is the Rev. William 
 T. Sabine, D.D., Bishop of the Reformed 
 
 Episcopal Church, and Rector of the 
 First Reformed Episcopal Church of 
 this City, who will now address us. 
 
 ADDRESS OF BISHOP SABINE 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Fellow Christian 
 Friends: The time for lunch has come 
 and we are all pretty tired after this 
 feast of reason and this flow of soul, 
 which have been most delightfully encour- 
 aging and edifying; and so I feel sure 
 that the best thing for me to do now is 
 just to offer a little prayer that I have 
 always prized in our Liturgy, a prayer 
 for the Bible that is very precious to us 
 all. I would like to say much, but I 
 will just say how glad I am to look into 
 the faces of so many true friends of the 
 
 old Bible, who stand fast and firm for 
 the Book in its integrity. Now, let us 
 pray: 
 
 "Blessed Lord, who hast caused the 
 Holy Scriptures to be written for our 
 learning, grant that we may in such wise 
 hear them, read, mark, learn and inward- 
 ly digest them, that by the patience and 
 comfort of Thy H'oly Word, we may 
 embrace and ever hold fast that blessed 
 hope of everlasting life, which Thou hast 
 given in Thy Sion, our Savior, Jesus 
 Christ. Amen." 
 
 President H'all: In concluding this 
 session I would invite your attention 
 to the program for the afternoon 
 session. Remember that the session be- 
 gins promptly at half-past two. The 
 topic is "Groundlessness of the Present 
 Rationalistic Claims." The first special 
 topic is "The Identity of the Present 
 Views with Those Propagated One Hun- 
 dred Years Ago." The second special 
 topic is "The Uncritical Character of the 
 Present Application of the Rationalistic 
 Principles to the New Testament." Upon 
 the first special topic we shall have an 
 address by Prof. Howard Osgood, D.D., 
 LL.D., of the Rochester Theological 
 Seminary, ex-Member of the American 
 Bible Revision Committee. Upon the 
 second special topic, Chicago will be 
 heard from in an address by Reverend R. 
 F. Weidner, D.D., LL.D., President of 
 the Theological Seminary of the Evan- 
 gelical Lutheran Church of Chicago. Af- 
 
 ter that. Prof. Edmund J. Wolf, D.D., 
 LL.D., and Prof. Jesse D. Thomas, D.D., 
 LL.D., and Rev. Edward P. Ingersoll, 
 D.D., Secretary of the American Bible 
 Society, will address us. Now you see 
 we have a very attractive program, 
 and I trust that not only those who are 
 present this morning will find it conven- 
 ient to be present this afternoon, but 
 many others. 
 
 I would like also to announce that the 
 Rev. Dr. George C. Lorimer, who was to 
 have addressed us this morning, has been 
 detained by the illness of his wife. 
 
 The devotional exercises will now be 
 conducted, as the other devotional exer- 
 cises have been, by Rev. Dr. Burrell. 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Sing Hymn No. 84, the 
 last two verses: 
 
 "Word of the everlasting God, 
 Will of His glorious Son." 
 
 Benediction by Rev. Dr. Burrell. 
 
 43 
 
s;hircl (General Copic 
 
 "GROUNDLESSNESS. OF THE PRESENT RATIONALISTIC 
 
 CLAIMS " 
 
 WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION, MAY 4 
 
 3 P. M. President William Phillips Hall in the Chair 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Let us sing No. ^^, 
 "I love the volume of Thy word." 
 
 Let us turn to Psalm cxix. Read res- 
 ponsively. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Wilson Phraner will lead us 
 in prayer. 
 
 Prayer by Dr. Phraner: Almighty God, 
 our Heavenly Father, we invoke Thy 
 presence, and the guidance of Thy good 
 Spirit as again we are assembled in this 
 place to meditate upon Thy precious 
 truth, in sympathy with its teachings, and 
 to testify of our appreciation of the pre- 
 ciousness of its revelation. We give Thee 
 thanks for Thy Word, Thy Word of 
 everlasting truth, revealing to us God 
 and His Being, His character. His at- 
 tributes, the principles of His govern- 
 ment and the purposes of His grace. Es- 
 pecially reveal to us Thy dear Son, our 
 Savior, and Thy divine purpose through 
 Him toward a world lying in sin and 
 wickedness. We thank Thee for the rev- 
 elation of the blessed Holy Spirit, whose 
 office work it is to take of the things of 
 Christ and reveal them unto us. Open 
 our minds and hearts more and more to 
 receive the instructions of Thy precious 
 Word. We thank Thee for all the peace, 
 all the joy, all the comfort, all the hope 
 which Thy Word has brought to us in our 
 lives. We thank Thee that we may rest 
 upon it with confidence and rejoice in 
 it as the truth of God, abiding evermore. 
 And now direct in all the discussions of 
 the hour. In all that is said may Thy 
 Word be honored. May Thy name be 
 glorified. May cur minds be stored with 
 Thy truth, our souls uplifted into sym- 
 pathy with God and the purposes of His 
 grace, and love for Jesus Christ. Bless 
 
 us, everyone. Bless this organization, O 
 God, and prosper it in the work on be- 
 half of which Thy saints are banded to- 
 gether, and lead in such manner by Thy 
 Spirit that Thy servants shall indeed re- 
 alize that God is with them, going be- 
 fore them and opening their way, and 
 showing them the path of duty and of 
 privilege in Thy service. And to Thy 
 name shall be the praise. Amen. 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Sing again No. 80 to the 
 old tune of Uxbridge. Anyone who does 
 not know Uxbridge wants to begin over 
 again. 
 
 "The heavens declare Thy glory, Lord! 
 In every star Thy wisdom shines." 
 
 President Hall: In opening this ses- 
 sion of the Conference, I regret that we 
 are obliged to state that Rev. Dr. How- 
 ard Osgood, who hoped to address us 
 at this time, is unable, on account of the 
 frail condition of his health, to be pres- 
 ent; but we are not to be disappointed 
 in the message he was to bring us. He 
 sent that on, and I have asked Dr. Greg- 
 ory, the General Secretary of the League, 
 if he will not kindly read it. Professor 
 Osgood is known throughout the world, 
 as a former Professor in Rochester The- 
 ological Seminary, ex-Member of the 
 American Revision Committee, and an 
 associate of the late Professor Thayer, 
 and Professors Charles M. Mead and 
 George E. Day in the preparation of the 
 American Standard Revised Version. I 
 am sure that we shall be most intensely 
 interested in the message from this 
 mighty man of God, this great student 
 of God's Holy Word, and this great ex- 
 pert in the original languages of the 
 Scriptures. We will now listen to the 
 reading of his paper by Dr. Gregory. 
 
 44 
 
J^irst Special 2;opic« 
 
 "EXPLODED THEORIES REVIVED TO BE AGAIN EXPLODED" 
 
 PAPER OF REV. DR. HOWARD OSGOOD 
 "The Identity of the Present Views with those Propagated One Hundred Years Ago" 
 
 [Dr. Gregory: Allow me to say by way 
 of preface, that when Dr. Osgood found 
 that his physician would not permit him 
 to be present, he wrote that he had 
 shortened his paper, boiling it down as 
 rnuch as possible, because he knew that 
 a read paper does not hold the interest 
 as does an address. He has given us a 
 brief, and yet very conclusive, argument, 
 proving his position absolutely.] 
 
 Outside of experts the people know no- 
 thing and care less for scholastic pro- 
 cesses. They wish only to know results. 
 What the common sense results of much 
 criticism of the Bible are today, we are 
 told by professors, preachers, popular 
 writers by scores. A Canon of West- 
 minster and a popular preacher in Lon- 
 don tells us in The Contemporary Re- 
 view, that the Old Testament has lost 
 all influence because of "the absurdities 
 and moral crudities," "the incredible, 
 puerile or demoralizing narratives," and 
 that the New Testament "will have to go 
 the way of the Old Testament prodi- 
 gies." The only salvage from this wreck 
 will be the moral precepts. The most 
 learned of the destructive critics in Scot- 
 land teaches that the New Testament has 
 no historical foundation. Men of Cam- 
 bridge and Oxford and of equal sets of 
 learning in our land certify to us that 
 the Old and New Testaments contain 
 a mass of fables, myths, legends. 
 
 When we ask to see the proofs neces- 
 sitating these results we are told that 
 they are: 
 
 1. Historical and chronological. 
 
 2. The constant contradictions found 
 everywhere in the Old and New Testa- 
 ments. 
 
 3. The disorderly arrangement of each 
 book and of all the books. 
 
 4. Evidences that the books were not 
 written by the authors assigned to them 
 and long after the times narrated. 
 
 5. The low morality in precept and 
 practice and the low view of God. 
 
 6. The incredible claims made for Je- 
 sus Christ, His birth, miracles, resurrec- 
 tion and deity. 
 
 These proofs are said to be the out- 
 come of the present day applications of 
 the true canons of historical and literary 
 criticism, the fruit of a late advanced 
 scholarship that is now a science. With 
 these new evidences before it, we are 
 told, modern reason and philosophy can 
 no longer hold the Bible to be the Word 
 of God. That this is the much vaunted 
 modern view taught by learned men in 
 Europe, Great Britain and America, is 
 too well known to need the superabund- 
 ance of references ready to prove it. 
 
 Let us look back one hundred years. 
 Our country had just come out of its 
 long sufferings in the war with England. 
 A series of changes had for more than 
 a century been turning many ministers 
 and churches from their earlier purity 
 of doctrines and life. The revivals led 
 by Whitefield from Maine to Georgia, 
 through thirty years, had separated the 
 churches of all denominations into those 
 that favored and those that opposed 
 evangelistic efforts. The long Frencii 
 war and the Revolution had turned the 
 thoughts of the people. to the desperate 
 needs and sufferings, the wild passions 
 aroused by conflicts. To be our friend 
 when our fortunes were darkest was the 
 title to unbounded gratitude and influ- 
 ence. 
 
 45 
 
We had two such friends. Thomas 
 Paine came to us from England with a 
 recommendation from Benjamin Frank- 
 lin, and in the well-nigh hopeless first 
 years of the Revolution he stirred the 
 country and nerved it to the pledge of 
 all its resources by his popular writ- 
 ings. France by her help enabled us to 
 win victory, and for twenty years, in- 
 cluding the time of her own revolution, 
 the influence of France, her ways, her 
 thoughts, her writers, was pre-eminent 
 in the United States. So great was that 
 influence that it blinded men, otherwise 
 sane, to the tyranny and murders and 
 banishment of all religion by the French 
 revolutionists. Americans wore the tri- 
 color and sang popular songs to the 
 glory of France and to the reviling of 
 Washington. The great popular and sci- 
 entific writers of France were the teach- 
 ers of Europe and were to a man the 
 outspoken Iocs of the Bible. Their works 
 were largely read and accepted in Amer- 
 ica as the best exponents of the latest 
 science and literature. How far their in- 
 fluence reached is shown by the fact that 
 students in college called themselves Vol- 
 taire, Diderot, d'Alembert, etc., and less 
 than one in a hundred in Harvard, Yale, 
 Williams and Princeton were willing to 
 profess themselves Christians. 
 
 Thomas Paine the friend of America 
 went to France and from the centre of 
 her revolution, in 1794-6, wrote and dedi- 
 cated and sent by thousands to America 
 his "Age of Reason." It had immense 
 vogue for a time and was spread from 
 Maine to Georgia, from Massachusetts 
 to Kentucky, commended by Paine's 
 reputation as a friend to America. The 
 boys in the barns read and believed in 
 it. The strength of the book was in its 
 plain, vigorous, often coarse English, 
 level to the common understanding, its 
 apparent earnestness and the clear state- 
 ment without any evasion or dissimula- 
 tion of his conclusions. These conclu- 
 sions follow quick upon his premises. 
 This small work is the shortest, strong- 
 est popular display of reasons for re- 
 jecting the whole Bible as "fabulous and 
 false" that had ever appeared. That 
 which gave the book its strength at first 
 
 brought it many republications through 
 the century until within a few years, 
 since which it has been published in a 
 splendid edition and praised by its edi- 
 tor as one of the great books of the 
 world. 
 
 The method Paine follows is the appli- 
 cation of what he thinks the simple rules 
 of history, literature and science to the 
 contents of the Bible. And the points 
 he makes against the Bible are: 
 
 1. The "historical and chronological" 
 evidence.^ pp. 97-100, 105, iii, 119. 
 
 2. The "contradictions" found every- 
 where, pp. 42, IDS, 113, 134-6, 153-175, 222. 
 
 3. The "disorderly arrangement," pp. 
 99f, 119, I29f, 156, 222. 
 
 4. The books were not written by the 
 authors assigned to them, pp. 93, 104-106, 
 156-168, but long after the times nar- 
 rated, pp. 41, 93, 109, III, I56f, i62f. 
 
 5. The low morality and the ascription 
 to God of wicked and unjust words 
 and deeds, pp. 90, 96, 103, 106, 113, 186- 
 188. 
 
 6. The incredible claims made for 
 Christ, particularly as to His birth. His 
 miracles. His resurrection. His deity, pp. 
 77% 152-175, 417. 
 
 Paine concludes that the Old Testa- 
 ment is "a history of the grossest vices 
 and a collection of the most paltry tales," 
 p. 38, and that the New Testament is 
 full of "glaring absurdities, contradic- 
 tions, falsehoods," pp. 167, 192, and there- 
 fore is "fabulous and false," pp. 133, 153, 
 419. 
 
 Paine's method and main points are 
 identical with those of the destructive 
 critics of the Bible today. In method and 
 main points there has been no advance 
 since 1796. There have been changes in 
 mere externals but none in essentials. 
 There is one advantage wholly on Paine's 
 side. He wrote so that he could not be 
 misunderstood and he drew the only 
 possible conclusion from his method and 
 main points, that the whole Bible is a 
 "pious fraud," "spurious," "an impos- 
 ture," and "a lie," and that "I can write 
 a better book myself," p. 222. 
 
 The night of infidelity and the influ- 
 
 'The references are to Volume 4 of Paine's writings, 
 edit, of i8q6. 
 
 46 
 
ence of Voltaire and Paine was swept 
 away by the Spirit of God in a series of 
 revivals of earnest faith and life in 
 Christ. These began in 1792 and for 
 forty years spread through all the States, 
 bringing into activity the positive Chris- 
 tian men and women who began and 
 maintained missionary societies, Bible 
 and Tract societies, Sunday Schools and 
 all the decided works of faith and love 
 to Christ that have grown with the cen- 
 tury and have been our precious in- 
 heritance. 
 
 Paine's book in 1796 taught nothing 
 new. Any one who is acquainted with 
 the learned and popular destructive crit- 
 icism in England from Herbert to Hume, 
 in Europe from Spinoza to Semler, in 
 France from Rabelais to Voltaire, will 
 see in Paine's book nothing more than 
 a strong, popular condensation of the 
 same arguments employed by all those 
 writers. Nor were these predecessors of 
 Paine pioneers, for "The Three Impos- 
 tors," and Faustus and Julian and Por- 
 phyry and a host of others in earlier 
 
 centuries, had passed over the same 
 ground and reached the same conclu- 
 sions. Nor were these the first. The 
 most sharp-witted and learned men in 
 the Bible of their day confronted the 
 Son of God and denied His teaching of 
 the Old Testament, and His claim that 
 He was the Son of God, the Christ, to be 
 believed and honored equally with the 
 Father; and they charged Him with be- 
 ing a blasphemer, a servant of the devil, 
 a deceiver, because being only a man He 
 made Himself God. And on these grounds 
 they condemned and crucified Him. The 
 twenty-seven accusations against Christ 
 by the chief priests and learned scribes 
 cover the whole possible range of des- 
 tructive criticism of the Bible and of 
 Christ. From that day no really new 
 unbelief has been invented. The for- 
 tress defines the lines of attack. As 
 the essential lines of the strategy of 
 war have always been the same, the 
 essential lines of destructive attack on 
 the Bible remain the same, old as 
 Eden. 
 
 President Hall: As the subject dis- 
 cussed by Professor Wolf falls into line 
 with that treated by Dr. Osgood, I shall 
 take the liberty of calling for it before 
 the address of President Weidner, whose 
 name appears next on the program, but 
 who is to discuss a different phase of the 
 
 proposition before us. It gives me pleas- 
 ure to introduce to you Professor Ed- 
 mund J. Wolf, D.D., LL.D., of the Theo- 
 logical Seminary at Gettysburg, Pa., and 
 President of the Lutheran General Syn- 
 od. Professor Wolf will now address 
 you. 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. EDMUND J. WOLF 
 "The Tubingen Cyclone" 
 
 The Sacred Scriptures have weathered 
 many a tempest. Sixty years ago they 
 encountered a storm so fierce that timid 
 minds listening to its roar almost gave 
 up for lost the vessel which bears in its 
 cabin our Lord and Savior. The waves 
 of criticism threatened to engulf the 
 
 body of the New Testament. All the 
 resources of historical learning, all the 
 weapons of philological lore, all the im- 
 plications of philosophical postulates, 
 were combined for its destruction. The 
 students, the experts, the specialists, the 
 masters, all joined in decrying the tradf- 
 
 47 
 
tional acceptance of the earliest Chris- 
 tian literati're. And if some courageous 
 Scribe still dared to believe in them, he 
 at once became the target for ridicule. 
 There was a consensus of critics, a rever- 
 berating chorus of scholars. The attack 
 on the Scriptures was all the 'rage — for, 
 be it remembered, the tyranny of fashion 
 rules the world of learning as it does the 
 world of dress. The Colossus of Tii- 
 bingen bestriding all the world of Bibli- 
 cal and historical learning set the pace, 
 and lesser minds, as usual, aspired to be 
 in distinguished company. If American 
 scholars did not generally join the pro- 
 cession, it was because America was not 
 then so much given to foreign importa- 
 tions. 
 
 A bull of scholastic infallibility expur- 
 gated everything from the New Testa- 
 ment excepting four Epistles of St. Paul 
 and the Book of Revelation, the former 
 representing the anti-Jewish and liberal 
 Christianity, of which Paul was regarded 
 the founder, the latter representing the 
 original Jewish and contracted Christian- 
 ity propagated by Jesus and the Twelve. 
 
 All other writings previously regarded 
 as the works of Holy Evangelists and 
 Apostles were ascribed to a gang of 
 counterfeiters, who blended the villainy 
 of forgery with their spiritual unction. 
 They were fabrications stamped with 
 honored names for the purpose of secur- 
 ing in the contemporary Church Apos- 
 tolic sanction for their contents. They 
 consisted, it was claimed, of unhistorical 
 myths and legends, heretical romances, 
 partisan manipulations, clumsy patch- 
 work and clever redactions, having about 
 as much basis of fact as may be found 
 in a historical novel. 
 
 To account for the origin of these 
 forgeries and their reception as genuine 
 Apostolic productions, the imagination 
 of the critics audaciously invented a pe- 
 culiar theory of the conditions of Primi- 
 tive Christianity — not scrupling to at- 
 tempt a reconstruction of Primitive 
 Christian history. They assumed a fun- 
 damental antagonism between the 
 primeval Christian belief and the subse- 
 quent Gentile type of Christianity; a 
 radical difference between the early "Ju- 
 
 daic Socinianism" and the later doctrinal 
 innovation which essentially changed this 
 religion in heart and soul; a bitter hostil- 
 ity between the party which adhered to 
 Peter and the other original Apostles, 
 and that which adhered to Paul and his 
 universalistic claims. In the face of 
 Galatians ii., conceded to be genuine, 
 Paul's Gospel was declared to be "an-' 
 other Gospel, essentially different from,' 
 and fundamentally subversive of that 
 which the Twelve had originally delivered 
 as from the Lord;" and so determined 
 was the opposition to this Gospel that a 
 Counter-Mission was organized at Jeru- 
 salem which came near ruining the work 
 of Paul. 
 
 The Pauline revolution, changing the 
 original nature of Christianity, having 
 for a second time gained the upper hand 
 in the Christian community, 
 
 "There grew into its mind an essen- 
 tially mistaken view of the original his- 
 tory of Christianity, which view em- 
 bodied itself in our existing Scriptures, 
 conformably to the revolutionary Pauline 
 doctrine of the religion; so that the 
 forged Scriptures and the reception of 
 them by Christians all over the world, 
 are accounted for by operation of that 
 mistaken view." (McGregor, "Hist, of 
 N. T. Apologetics," p. 229.) 
 
 These documents, then, bearing the 
 venerable names of Matthew, Mark, 
 Luke, John, Paul, Peter and James were 
 all resolved into "tendency writings." 
 They were not history pure and simple, 
 but an adjustment of history to a doc- 
 trinal and factional aim, in the interest 
 of one or the other party, or of a com- 
 promise between the two. They were 
 pseudo-Apostolic tracts, exhibiting vari- 
 ous phases of the supposed situation, 
 some polemical, like the third Gospel, 
 which emanating from the Pauline side 
 distorted history in a way to favor the 
 Gentile claims; some irenical, seeking to 
 bridge the gulf between the two parties, 
 like The Acts, which aims to harmonize 
 Jewish and Gentile Christianity by liber- 
 alizing Peter and Judaizing Paul, artfully 
 concealing the differences between them. 
 
 The fourth Gospel, an ideal composi- 
 tion of some great unknown religious ge- 
 nius, "completed with consummate skill 
 
 48 
 
the unifying process about the middle of 
 the second century." 
 
 Out of such a subjective hodge-podge, 
 exaggerating, distorting, manipulating, 
 recasting and redacting Primitive Chris- 
 tian history, a compound of fiction and 
 fraud designed to further the views and 
 aims of some tlieological party, grew the 
 orthodoxy of the second and third cen- 
 turies. 
 
 This daring exploit of historical crit- 
 icism was motived and ruled by precon- 
 ceived scientific and philosophical theo- 
 ries. Men denouncing the dogmatism of 
 theologians treated the world to a spec- 
 tacle of the dogmatism of critics, their 
 arguments being primarily grounded on 
 the negative prejudgments, that miracles 
 are scientifically impossible, that revela- 
 tion, prophecy, everything supernatural, 
 is philosophically incredible. Nature is 
 all; natural development accounts for all. 
 Jehovah must keep hands ofT the system 
 of things — this was the foundation as- 
 sumption of the school which sought to 
 discredit the oracles of revelation by mak- 
 ing them infamous in their authorship. 
 
 Baur followed the Hegelian Pantheism, 
 "that in history there can be no real be- 
 ginning, such as a miracle would involve; 
 that in all seeming history there in fact 
 is only an absolute continuity of evolu- 
 tionary eventuation, with no such gap or 
 break as would be constituted by inter- 
 vention of a will or existence of a per- 
 sonal free agent." This determined 
 avowedly his so-called historical criti- 
 cism of Primeval Christianity and its rec- 
 ords — "Atheistic metaphysics masquer- 
 ading as a student of the Bible and its 
 history"! 
 
 Here is the true inwardness of the 
 Tiibingen assault upon the New Testa- 
 ment — the scientific conviction that any- 
 thing supernatural is absolutely incred- 
 ible, inducing an intellectual condition 
 which incapacitates men for judging fair- 
 ly as to the historical reality of anything 
 claiming to be supernatural — the as- 
 sumption of the impossibility of mira- 
 cles smiting this school with intellectual 
 blindness, disqualifying them for weigh- 
 ing evidences in proof of alleged facts at 
 variance with their prejudgments. 
 
 Such was the storm. And what of the 
 result? A historical episode! A remin- 
 iscence! Yea, the very memory of it has 
 almost faded away. The fantastical hy- 
 pothesis of villainous forgeries imposed 
 upon the whole Christian Church long 
 after the decease of their alleged authors, 
 is no longer accepted by any school of 
 critics. Before the titanic leader closed 
 his eyes it had come to be known as the 
 Tubingen fiasco — "defeated along the 
 whole line," retreating before the fatal 
 blows of sane criticism and common 
 sense, and leaving unshaken the genuine- 
 ness of every book of the New Testa- 
 ment which was undisputed at the close 
 of the second century of the Christian 
 Era. All that survives of this terrific 
 blast of the critics is here and there 
 a stray "uncomprehending echo of the 
 long silent voice, like an incoherent 
 ghost revisiting the glimpses of the 
 moon." Our New Testament was not 
 submerged. The Word of God did not 
 pass away. Per contra the assaults upon 
 it proved to be of signal advantage t<7' 
 the cause of Biblical Science. This plow- 
 ing through it deepened and cleansed the 
 soil. The thunder cloud dissolved into 
 a gracious rain. The fury of the storm 
 cleared the sky. And the Tiibingen col- 
 lapse is not only a new presumptive 
 proof of what the Church has hitherto 
 believed concerning the Scriptures, but 
 it has been made the occasion for a new 
 demonstration of the genuine Apostolic 
 authorship of the body of our New Tes- 
 tament Scriptures. 
 
 To quote Dr. Schaff: 
 
 "This modern Gnosticism must be al- 
 lowed to have done great service to Bib- 
 lical and historical learning by removing 
 old prejudices, opening new avenues of 
 thought, bringing to light the immense 
 fermentation of the first century, stimu- 
 lating research, and compelling an entire 
 scientific construction of the history of 
 the origin of Christianity and the Church. 
 The result will be a deeper and fuller 
 knowledge, not to the weakening, but to 
 the strengthening of our faith." 
 
 Says MacGregor: 
 
 "Not only have all the learning, abil- 
 ity, and unsparing labor, expended on the 
 warfare against those Scriptures, left 
 their credit unshaken, solidly established 
 on the old foundation of scholarly his- 
 
 49 
 
torical judgment, but they have placed 
 that foundation in a clearer light. And 
 the credit that thus remains unshaken is 
 necessarily strengthened by the failure 
 to shake it — as the reputation of a vet- 
 eran pilot is raised by his now weather- 
 ing all the storms of a new stormy sea- 
 son — as new storm is new proof that a 
 house is founded on the rock." 
 
 And now another storm is raging, an- 
 other tidal wave is beating against "the 
 impregnable rock of Scripture" — this 
 time lashing the other side of Gibraltar. 
 It is the same destructive criticism, only 
 changing the point of attack — a repeti- 
 tion of the old assumptions, the old 
 aims, the old charges, the old methods, 
 the old boasts, the old arrogance, the 
 old cocksureness, which characterized 
 the Tubingen tempest. 
 
 The bulk of the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures are forgeries, it is charged, late 
 productions while pretending to be of 
 early origin and concealing the impos- 
 ture by the invention of a false history. 
 They are a composite of myth and le- 
 gend, of fiction and fraud, invention and 
 redaction — growing out of natural con- 
 ditions and revolutionizing the original 
 religion. 
 
 This onslaught is in turn motived by 
 the prepossessions of philosophy, the 
 incredulity of the supernatural, the im- 
 possibility of any such thing as miracle, 
 revelation or prophecy. Negative as- 
 sumptions are made the criterion for 
 determining what to think of Scripture 
 and its content. All must be accounted 
 for by the laws of humaa development, 
 the fixed continuity of nature. We have 
 again "the blind unreason of disbelief 
 in the operative being of God," "the de- 
 nial of those great principles whose rec- 
 ognition is absolutely necessary to a 
 right understanding of the Old Testa- 
 ment." 
 
 And it may be said of the present 
 movement, as was said of the Tiibingen 
 School: "It has brought into the assault 
 its own resources of learning, trained 
 
 academical acumen, and industry such 
 as the world is not able to contain the 
 books it has written" — and it has capped 
 the climax of its pretensions by the un- 
 scientific arrogation of infallibility for 
 Science! 
 
 Our limits do not allow us to account 
 for the fiasco of the Tiibingen critics or 
 to puncture the fallacies of their succes- 
 sors; but since these are rearing the same 
 sort of superstructure on the same un- 
 substantial foundations on which was 
 built the Tubingen criticism, the un- 
 sophisticated, inexorable common sense 
 of history points to its early and inev- 
 itable downfall. The recollection of the 
 Tiibingen cyclone removes all doubt 
 over the result of the modern blast. 
 The evidences of its failure are already 
 apparent. 
 
 Professor Hommel, once in full sym- 
 pathy with the modern destructive 
 school, has prophesied its collapse 
 within a generation. The signs of dis- 
 integration have already appeared. The 
 result, he holds, may give us some mod- 
 ifications of the traditional view, but 
 will not be a patchwork — bits of verses 
 taken from various authors at various 
 times. The Law will be recognized as 
 of Mosaic origin — the entire Pentateuch 
 as emanating from the same age — and 
 nothing to impair the authority of the 
 Old Testament as God's revelation. The 
 result to the Christian cause will, there- 
 fore, ultimately be, not loss but gain, 
 not the weakening but the strengthen- 
 ing of the foundations. 
 
 Says Dr. MacGregor: 
 
 "As the result of two grand experi- 
 ments, which are exhaustive, there will 
 be not only an addition but a completion; 
 there will have been completed a grand 
 arch of demonstration by experimental 
 proof: a fabric whose two sides, though 
 separately neither of them should be able 
 to stand, in their combination may be 
 strong as the mountains round about 
 Jerusalem." 
 
 "Das Wort sie sollen lassen stehn!" 
 
 SO 
 
Second Special dopic 
 
 "NEW UNCRITICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE 
 
 ISTIC PRINCIPLES" 
 
 RATIONAL- 
 
 President Hall: The question was 
 once asked, "Can any good thing come 
 out of Nazareth?" And the question 
 can quite properly be asked, with good 
 reason, Can anything conservative come 
 out of Chicago? I am happy to say that 
 something conservative can come out 
 of Chicago; something just as sound and 
 logical in every way as comes from New 
 York, Richmond or Gettysburg, can 
 come from the Windy City. I have 
 
 great pleasure in introducing to you a 
 friend from Chicago, a thorough stu- 
 dent, and the well known author of many 
 profound Biblical works, in the person 
 of Rev. Dr. Revere Franklin Weidner, 
 President of the Theological Seminary 
 of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, in 
 that city. He will speak upon another 
 special topic that is just now coming into 
 great prominence, and that can not fail 
 to attract increasing attention. 
 
 ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT WEIDNER 
 
 "The Uncritical Character of the Present Application of the Rationalistic Princi- 
 ples to the New Testament" 
 
 Mr. President and Brethren: I had 
 prepared an elaborate address, and my 
 manuscript I purposely left in my va- 
 lise at the hotel; I thought it would 
 be safer there. If you will pardon me, 
 I want to be perfectly at home, and I 
 will speak as I do in my classroom, when 
 fifty young men are listening to me. 
 
 First of all, I will express to you 
 the intensity of my feeling with refer- 
 ence to this whole subject. For twenty- 
 two years I have been in the centre of 
 the warfare, both in the Old Testament 
 fight and in the New Testament fight. 
 It has been my peculiar privilege, and 
 I thank God for the opportunity, to 
 study carefully the Old Testament in the 
 Hebrew, and the New Testament in the 
 Greek. For many years, from 1882, 
 in all the earlier movements, when 
 this trouble began, my specialty was 
 the Old Testament in Hebrew, and 
 at the same time the New Testament in 
 Greek, and I know whereof I speak. I 
 have been in the midst of the battle, and 
 I have been privately and publicly at- 
 tacked. 
 
 The saddest thing of all is that some 
 of my dearest friends who, at one time, 
 were professors in theological semin- 
 aries, step by step, began to lose faith, 
 carried away by the insidious attacks. 
 And today one of those exegetes of the 
 Old Testament is in the real estate busi- 
 
 ness in Minneapolis; he was an honor- 
 able man and gave up teaching when 
 he found he had no faith in it. I wish 
 they all would do the same. Another 
 one of my dear friends — I am sorry to 
 say he was one of the most earnest 
 Presbyterian ministers I ever met, godly 
 and devout — came gradually under the 
 personal influence of men by whom he 
 was surrounded and where we were 
 working together, until finally he re- 
 signed his charge. He began to drift 
 away, and today he is lecturing, when he 
 has the opportunity, on Wagnerian Mu- 
 sic and the beautiful things of Hindoo 
 Theosophy and kindred subjects! There 
 he has found a subject to his heart. 
 
 Brethren, this is a serious matter, and 
 before I come to the point at issue, I 
 wish to pave the way for certain things. 
 We have had many practical addresses. 
 You will pardon me if I go a little to 
 the root of things. I have a few things 
 that I jotted down this morning, as I 
 would use them in my classroom, be- 
 cause the subject is so important, and 
 we have to go so into detail. I want to 
 make the matter clear and, therefore, 
 will sometimes read a few things and 
 then expound them, as I do in the class- 
 room. When I quote men I want to 
 quote them in their exact words, so that 
 we will know just what these men teach. 
 Otherwise we are playing at hazard. •" 
 
 SI 
 
It is a serious matter, and it depends 
 so much on how you look at things. 1 
 look at that window; I see some beauti- 
 ful colors-my glass happens to be a 
 white glass and I can see them. If 1 
 put on blue glass, green or yellow, things 
 will look different. It depends on what 
 we look at things through, what presup- 
 position we start with. The way you 
 start decides the way you will go. 
 
 There are lots of trains that run out 
 of New York. If I get on a tram that 
 has its destination Philadelphia, even if 
 I want to go to Boston, I will get to 
 Philadelphia. And if I want to go to 
 Philadelphia, and there is a train stand- 
 ing that, with all its pre-suppositions, en- 
 gine and everything else, is going to 
 Boston, if I go along with it I will go 
 there, no matter what my opinion may 
 be about the way we are gomg. The 
 way you start decides the way you will 
 
 go. 
 
 A. Definition of Higher Criticism. 
 
 Now, what is Higher Criticism? We 
 have heard so much about it-but I must 
 lay down a few fundamental principles 
 
 to start with. 
 
 Higher Criticism itself is nothmg but 
 a method of study. It aims by means of 
 internal evidence, obtained by the study 
 of any one Biblical book or narrative, to 
 determine the origin of that book, its 
 authorship, the literary character and 
 trustworthiness of the book. The de- 
 sign, the contents, the character of the 
 book under consideration and their rela- 
 tions to other writings— we call that, 
 technically, the science of Higher Criti- 
 cism. . . 
 
 The word itself does not designate any • 
 given set of opinions regarding the Bi- 
 ble. That is only the result of it The 
 phrase does not decide by itself whether 
 the critics are radical or conservative; it 
 is simply a name given to the method 
 of historical and critical study of the 
 Bible. Now, whether it be called Nega- 
 tive Higher Criticism or Positive Higher 
 Criticism depends altogether on the in- 
 tellectual temperament, the mental dis- 
 position of the investigator, and on the 
 presuppositions and the principles which 
 guide him in his work. That is the 
 
 whole thing at issue. Negative Higher 
 Criticism can only be met on its own 
 ground, and that only in a strictly scien- 
 tific way. There assuredly exists, how- 
 ever, a Higher Criticism that springs 
 from full confidence of faith as well 
 as one that starts up from doubt. I 
 simply wish to draw the sharp Ime there. 
 There is a Negative Higher Criticism, 
 and there is a Positive Higher Criti- 
 cism; the two things are utterly dis- 
 
 Before I discuss this topic which has 
 been assigned to me, it will be helpful 
 to state what causes led these two 
 schools of Higher Criticism, Negative 
 and Positive, to reach such opposmg and 
 contradictory conclusions,— for they are 
 contradictory. _ 
 
 The Negative Higher Critics profess 
 to be seeking the truth. They maintain 
 that they have found a better way for 
 finding out the meaning of a book of the 
 Bible, or the significance of its message 
 to us, than we have. It may sound par- 
 adoxical, but it is nevertheless true, 
 that with these disciples of destructive 
 Criticism, the true believer in Revela- 
 tion, the true believer in the inspiration 
 of the Bible, can have no manner of con- 
 troversy. You can not discuss the mat- 
 ter with them on that ground. I am 
 speaking seriously. I know whereof 1 
 am speaking. 
 
 B. The Presuppositions and Principles 
 of the Negative Criticism. 
 The presuppositions of these Negative 
 Higher Critics, their specific views, their 
 peculiar logical processes as affectmg the 
 study and the interpretation of the New 
 Testament, are so totally different from 
 our own that it is as impossible to argue 
 with them as with beings of different 
 species. They only laugh at us. It is 
 as impossible to explain to them the 
 true meaning of passages of Scripture as 
 to explain the beautiful shadings of blue 
 and green to a man who is color blind; 
 you might talk till doomsday and he 
 would not detect the difference. These 
 live in another world of thought, and 1 
 am not finding fault with them; they 
 may be honest in their aims; I am 
 simply saying they live in another world 
 
 52 
 
of thought. The majority of these Nega- 
 tive Higher Critics have such peculiar 
 conceptions of God, of Revelation, of 
 Inspiration, of the natural ability of hu- 
 man nature, of the Person of Christ, of 
 the consequence of His death, of the ob- 
 jective reality of truth, that all discussion 
 of the difficulties pertaining to Higher 
 Criticism have to be postponed until we 
 have come to some general agreement on 
 these fundamental questions. We have, 
 therefore, at present no controversy at 
 all with these Negative Higher Critics, 
 we are only presenting the stand taken 
 by those that are known as Negative 
 Higher Critics. My object is mainly to 
 show you the great difference between 
 the way they look at things and the way 
 we look at things, and to make this as 
 comprehensive and clear to you as I 
 possibly can. We are now neither argu- 
 ing for or against these critics, nor are 
 we pleading with them. I simply wish to 
 present to you the question at issue. 
 
 We intend simply to map out as fairly 
 and sharply as possible the presupposi- 
 tions and principles on which these 
 Negative Higher Critics are working, 
 and then contrast with them the pre- 
 suppositions and the principles with 
 which those of us who believe in the 
 Bible are working, to show the contrast. 
 
 But, first, you must meet the charge, 
 so persistently brought against the con- 
 servatives, that they approach the study 
 of the Bible with certain preconceived 
 ideas. The moment you meet a Higher 
 Critic and want to talk with him, the 
 first thing he will say to you is this: 
 "You are dogmatic; you have a bias; you 
 can't get that out of your head; there is 
 no use of discussing the matter with 
 you." They hold that we come with a 
 dogmatic bias, and therefore we can not 
 pursue our studies in a critical manner. 
 
 These critical students claim, however, 
 that they approach the Bible simply with 
 the earnest desire to know the truth, 
 and that they do not come with any 
 dogmatic bias. Well, these men have 
 a bias. We all come with a dogmatic 
 bias; I do for myself; I can't get rid of 
 it. The Bible is the Bible; I can't get rid 
 of it. But it is equally true that no man 
 
 on earth can approach the study of the 
 Bible without some bias. Every human 
 being in this matter has a mental bias; 
 it may be of indifference, of skepticism 
 or of faith; it may be a dogmatic bias, 
 a historical bias, or an ethical bias. He 
 ma}' be a Pantheist, denying there is a 
 personal God. He may be a Deist, de- 
 nying there is any Revelation at all. He 
 may be a Theist — and there are a dozen 
 kinds of theists now — no matter what 
 he is, everything will affect the position 
 here. He may be by conviction a Nega- 
 tive Higher Critic, or he may be a Posi- 
 tive Higher Critic; but no one is without 
 some opinions, without some views, and 
 a certain mental bias. The Negative 
 Higher Critics in their way have just 
 as much bias, just as many preconceived 
 ideas, as their companions. Nothing is 
 here gained by calling names or claiming 
 special prerogatives. This is the first 
 great weakness in their whole general 
 position. 
 
 In the second place, as has been re- 
 ferred to again and again in these meet- 
 ings, they claim that all the scholarship 
 represented in New Testament work is 
 arrayed on their side. However this may 
 be, it may, as a rule, be said to their 
 credit, that the real scholars among 
 them have more sense and are juster to 
 themselves, and this cry comes from 
 "the drawers of water and hewers of 
 wood," who serve at the tables of their 
 masters. The real scholars know better. 
 
 There are, therefore, two kinds of 
 Higher Criticism; the one we call Nega- 
 tive, the other we call Positive, and they 
 can be as sharply defined as day and 
 night. 
 
 First presupposition — The majority of 
 Negative Higher Critics altogether deny 
 a special Revelation in the New Testa- 
 ment. They maintain that the New Tes- 
 tament writings are to be read as human 
 books and regarded in the human way^ 
 alone. Revelation, according to them, 
 must be regarded as a genuine human 
 progress, the creation and product of 
 Christian consciousness. They say there 
 is nothing revealed in the Bible; it is 
 the product of the human mind like the 
 literature of all ages. This is the first 
 
 53 
 
presupposition, their first general opin- 
 ion. 
 
 One of the ablest theologians of the 
 New England school — a great author who 
 for almost fifty years moulded the theo- 
 logical and philosophical minds of nearly 
 a thousand Congregational ministers, — a 
 great author who has written many books, 
 and among them books on Apologetics, 
 says — and I want to bring this out clear- 
 ly, because this brings out the very point 
 at issue that I want to illustrate: — 
 
 "It is an error and a misconception to 
 maintain that God's revelation ceased 
 with the death of the last of Christ's Apos- 
 tles." This is the first mistake we make. 
 
 Secondly, he says: "It is incorrect to 
 hold [I quote him] that Revelation was 
 then complete and recorded in a book, 
 and that God leaves that book among 
 men as His finished Revelation by which 
 the world is to be converted." He says 
 that is a mistake. 
 
 He says, thirdly, "The common dis- 
 tinction between Revealed Religion and 
 Natural Religion is misleading." These 
 are his words. 
 
 Then he says, "God reveals Himself pri- 
 marily by what He does in the constitu- 
 tion and evolution of the physical uni- 
 verse, in the constitution of man and in 
 his progressive education and develop- 
 ment, and He reveals truth only in a 
 secondary sense, for the truth revealed 
 is simply man's intellectual apprehension 
 of what God really is and does as He 
 has revealed and is revealing Himself in 
 His actions." Now, that is his definition 
 of Revelation. 
 
 The question at issue here really is. 
 Has Christianity a supernatural origin? 
 The tendency of the Higher Critics i^ 
 to deny the reality of such a supernat- 
 ural origin of Christianity. In this they 
 are neither scientific nor logical. Nor 
 are they consistent with the very first 
 principles of interpretation, for it is a 
 familiar law of hermeneutics that to un- 
 derstand a writing we must put our- 
 selves in a sympathetic relation with the 
 writer. No one who denies Revelation 
 can recognize the immense significance of 
 Paul's statement when, in Galatians, he 
 makes this assertion: "For I make known 
 
 to you, brethren, as touching the Gospel, 
 which was preached by me, that it is not 
 after man; for neither did I receive it 
 from man nor was I taught it, but it 
 came to me through the Revelation of 
 Jesus Christ." Now, a man who has such 
 views of revelation as these men have 
 can not understand what Paul means 
 when he says that. 
 
 Now, in contradistinction to such an 
 equivocal, hypercritical and unscientific 
 way, believers approach the study of the 
 Bible in a sympathetic way; because 
 Christianity declares itself to be the 
 fruit of special Revelation, of which the 
 historic Christ is the centre. Where 
 this disposition is wanting, where men 
 refuse to accept the superhuman origin 
 of the New Testament, there men reason 
 about it, write about it, talk about it. and 
 criticize it, just like blind men reasoning 
 about colors. 
 
 Now, that is one presupposition, as I 
 said, of almost all Higher Critics; in 
 other words, they say we draw too sharp 
 a distinction between Supernatural Rev- 
 elation and Natural Revelation; they say 
 it is all Natural Revelation. 
 
 Second Presupposition. — In the second 
 place these Negative Higher Critics also 
 show their unscientific character by their 
 peculiar views and theories of inspira- 
 tion. 
 
 A professed historian of the High- 
 er Criticism says (and I quote his 
 exact words) : "Criticism has its In- 
 spiration. The credal period was 
 inspired." He means the time when 
 creeds were made and when the Bible 
 was collected together — that was in- 
 spired. "Without it we could not have 
 our own Bible. Without it we should 
 not have that common Christian con- 
 sciousness, whicli is the foundation of 
 the idealizing forces of our time. Our 
 own critical age is no less inspired. The 
 Word of God has now been unbound, 
 set free from the shackles that human 
 opinion had put on it." That is the way 
 he puts it. 
 
 Now, it is not our aim to discuss the 
 various theories of Inspiration current 
 among these Negative Critics — you have 
 heard of some of them. Some of them 
 
 54 
 
maintain it is simply Natural Inspiration 
 just like Shakespeare, Homer, or any of 
 these grand old authors; that it is illu- 
 mination of the mind and nothing more. 
 Then, others, again, hold the popular 
 view that some things are inspired, 
 others are not. I am not going to dis- 
 cuss this. 
 
 The point I make is simply this: If 
 we approach the study of the Bible with 
 a view not in sympathy with it, or in 
 conflict with what it professes to be; if 
 we do not take into consideration the 
 moral and intellectual character of the 
 Bible, — we do not approach it in the 
 true way. It is not in accordance with 
 the true principles of interpretation, nor 
 can such a man ever arrive at the 
 thought of the men whose words are 
 written in the New Testament. 
 
 The question also arises, Can any one 
 obtain a true knowledge of the Word of 
 God, its meaning and its bearing upon 
 our lives, unless he is taught by the 
 Spirit? 
 
 Now, that is an important question. 
 Do you know, the Bible makes that a 
 prominent point, — that no man can be- 
 lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, or call 
 Him Lord, except by the power of the 
 Spirit? They utterly cast that aside. 
 They demand that we interpret the 
 Bible in the same way as all other 
 known writings. 
 
 Now, if this be the true way (and we 
 will grant it for the time being), then 
 these writings must be taken on their 
 own claims and judged by the light they 
 bring. If they want to do that, let them 
 take them just as they are, in the light 
 of what they profess to be. These books 
 claim to be divine. They prove their 
 claim, as every man who has been re- 
 generated by the Holy Spirit can tes- 
 tify. Then, why should we reduce them 
 back to purely human writing? This 
 whole position on their part is preju- 
 diced, it is one-sided, it is altogether un- 
 scientific. Speaking about their critical 
 principles, there is nothing critical about 
 this, nothing scientific about it. There 
 must be a better critical method on their 
 part. Let them apply the canon of criti- 
 cism they love to speak about. 
 
 Why, such men can never understand 
 the true significance of Jesus Christ's 
 promises. Well, if you were critics, my 
 friends, I would not dare to urge this 
 position. If you were Negative Critics, 
 you would raise the question: "You 
 know very well our Savior never said 
 that; it is from St. John; 'But the Com- 
 forter, even the Holy Spirit whom the 
 Father will send in My name, He shall 
 teach you all things and bring to your 
 remembrance the things that I have said 
 unto you.' " 
 
 Others will say, "You know as well 
 as I do that St. John did not write that, 
 nor did our Savior ever say it." 
 
 If we then quote John xvi. 13, which 
 we love to dwell upon: "H'owbeit when 
 he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will 
 guide you into all truth; for he shall not 
 speak of himself; but whatsoever he 
 shall hear, that shall he speak; and he 
 shall declare unto you the things that 
 are to come," they will say: "You 
 know very well, Professor, that John 
 did not write that, nor did our Savior 
 say it. We critics have gone beyond 
 that." There is no use proving this 
 from the Bible; you might as well talk 
 to the moon. They could not under- 
 stand such testimony as that of St. Paul, 
 when in First Thessalonians he writes, 
 "For this cause also thank we God with- 
 out ceasing, because when ye received 
 the Word of God which ye heard of us, 
 ye accepted it not as the word of men, 
 but as it is in truth, the Word of God 
 which effectually worketh also in you 
 that believe." They could not under- 
 stand that in that way. 
 
 Brethren, there is a right way and a 
 wrong way to carry on your critical 
 study. We can readily understand what 
 results a man will attain who preaches 
 the Bible with such views as we have 
 discussed, denying its supernatural ori- 
 gin and denying its inspiration. 
 
 Brethren, there are two great miracles 
 which are the centre and the foundation 
 of all Bible truth: the first is the Incar- 
 nation of the Son of God, that the Son 
 of God took upon Himself our human 
 nature; the second, which is a comple- 
 ment to it and which you can not sepa- 
 
 55 
 
rate, is the Inspiration of the Bible. How 
 can I know the fact of the Incarnation of 
 the Son of God, unless I have an abso- 
 lutely true statement concerning it? I can 
 not otherwise believe it; I can not sepa- 
 rate the two; they stand or fafl together. 
 
 Let me tell you another thing, Breth- 
 ren. The men who do not believe in the 
 Inspiration of the Bible are the very 
 men who do not believe in the Incarna- 
 tion of the Son of God. 
 
 Now, you can rest assured I am telling 
 you the truth here — I know whereof I 
 speak — and those of you who have ever 
 investigated the matter, know these 
 things are absolutely so; the doctrine of 
 the Incarnation of the Son of God, and 
 of the Inspiration of Scripture, com- 
 plement each other. Excuse me for 
 using the expression in the Word 
 of God — written in the language of 
 men, using the powers and gifts of 
 men and their peculiar character, and 
 everything that pertains to them — the 
 Holy Ghost has become Incarnate, and 
 the doctrines of Incarnation and of In- 
 spiration can not be separated; they stand 
 and they fall together. You can medi- 
 tate on that, brethren, as long as you 
 live and investigate Scripture. It is the 
 Bible that claims that the Son of God 
 became Incarnate, and it is the Bible 
 that claims that the H'oly Record is in- 
 spired, and that men wrote the books 
 guided by the Holy Ghost. I have not 
 time to discuss that subject; that is an- 
 other topic. 
 
 The way of the believer is the truly 
 scientific way; he approaches the Bible, 
 not in a sceptical, but in a reverential 
 and devout, spirit, acknowledging the 
 supernatural origin of the Bible and its 
 inspiration; for, brethren, the conserva- 
 tive may be more truly critical than the 
 most radical critic, for he has a desire 
 to get all the facts recorded in Scripture 
 in all their bearings. A book must be 
 studied from the standpoint of its inner 
 claims. If it professes to be written by 
 Paul, if it claims to have received a reve- 
 lation from God, the true critical spirit 
 is to enter upon the more detailed ex- 
 amination of that book on the basis of 
 these facts. 
 
 The question narrows itself down to 
 this, my friends: Shall we start our 
 study of a particular book of the New 
 Testament from the standpoint of what 
 the book itself says of itself, or from the 
 view of some critic who may deny the 
 fact of a supernatural revelation at all, 
 or of inspiration? There can be but one 
 answer. The position of the Negative 
 Higher Critic is neither critical nor sci- 
 entific. 
 
 Third Presupposition. — These Nega- 
 tive Higher Crftics take it for granted 
 that our traditional views of the New 
 Testament are utterly false from every 
 standpoint. They put outside the critical 
 pale those who retain the supernatural 
 interpretation of the origin of Christi- 
 anity. This position on their part is 
 neither critical nor scholarly. We hold 
 that the traditional view is the most 
 reasonable working hypothesis for the 
 proper study of the Bible. It is just as 
 legitimate, and certainly it constitutes 
 just as good a working hypothesis. 
 
 Fourth Presupposition. — Strange as it 
 may seem, brethren, certain presupposi- 
 tions in philosophy underlie every form 
 of Negative Higher Criticism, and these 
 are the most important of all. The dis- 
 cussion of this point may be a little dry, 
 but I know that in view of its import- 
 ance you will bear with me, and I will 
 try to make it as interesting and brief 
 as possible. 
 
 Certain presuppositions in philosophy 
 underlie every form of Higher Criticism. 
 We can not rid ourselves of any and all 
 philosophic views. The more positive 
 and realistic our philosophy, the more 
 conservative will be our position. The 
 more idealistic our philosophy, the more 
 radical will be our position. 
 
 Three Fundamental Questions in Phi- 
 losophy. — In these days of advanced cul- 
 ture and thought, when everybody wants 
 to know something about philosophy, 
 we have a right to ask three great fun- 
 damental questions of every man who 
 poses as a theologian, or wishes to come 
 forth as an interpreter of the Bible. 
 
 The first question is, What is j'our 
 theory of the Universe, or don't you be- 
 lieve in the Universe at all? 
 
 56 
 
 i 
 
The second is, What is your theory of 
 Knowledge, or don't you know anything? 
 
 The third is, What is your opinion of 
 the ultimate rule of Right, or is Right 
 right because you say so? 
 
 Remember those are three great ques- 
 tions; and of every man who poses as 
 an interpreter of the Bible we have a 
 right to ask those questions. 
 
 Well, now, I have got to subdivide 
 the discussion. 
 
 I. Theory of the Universe. — With ref- 
 erence to a man's theory of the Uni- 
 verse, he must be able to give answer to 
 five important questions. He is talking 
 now so learnedly; he is going to ex- 
 pound the Bible. You want to know 
 with reference to his opinion of the Uni- 
 verse his answers to five questions. 
 
 First, Do you believe that there is a 
 Supreme Spirit who created the Uni- 
 verse? He must either say yes or no. 
 
 We ask him again. Do you believe 
 that only matter exists or only mind ex- 
 ists; or do both exist; or is there a fu- 
 sion of the two? That is, he must con- 
 fess and tell us whether he is a mate- 
 rialist or whether he is a spiritualist, or 
 whether he is a dualist, or a monist. 
 
 We will go a step further, and ask 
 him: Do you think that events occur 
 mechanically or from the point of view 
 of purpose? He will have to come to 
 some conclusion. 
 
 We have a right to ask him: "What 
 is your idea of God? Are you a Panthe- 
 ist, or are you a Deist, or are you an 
 Atheist, or are you a Theist? You must 
 be one or the other, and we have a right 
 to ask." 
 
 And, finally, we ask him: "Do you be- 
 lieve in the Freedom of the Will, or do 
 you not? What do you say about that?" 
 
 Well, you may say, "What has this to 
 do with the matter of Criticism?" It 
 has a great deal to do with it, brethren. 
 All this we must know with reference 
 to a man's metaphysical ideas in rela- 
 tion to the question: "What is your 
 theory of the Universe?" Strange as it 
 may seem, his views on the Bible are 
 largely dependent upon his attitude 
 upon these important questions on the 
 theory of the universe. 
 
 2. Theory of Knowledge. — But this is 
 not the most important, yet it is im- 
 portant. We come to the second ques- 
 tion: "What is your theory of Knowl- 
 edge?" Here, we have to ask three 
 questions of this man. We put him be- 
 fore us and we say: 
 
 "Now, let me ask you, what is your 
 idea of the origin of Knowledge? Where 
 did you get it? Is Reason the only 
 source, or is it from Experience?" 
 Nearly all these men are empiricists, 
 holding that we gain our knowledge 
 mainly, if not wholly, from experience, 
 "Or does knowledge arise from both Rea- 
 son and Experience, or is there some other 
 explanation of this?" All men, that is, 
 true theologians, have positive convic- 
 tions about these things, and we can 
 mark them just as you can the difference 
 between yellow and white. When we 
 learn a man's philosophical opinions, we 
 know exactly where he is going to come 
 out. We know by what train he is go- 
 ing and we know where he will get oflf. 
 Now, that is the second question. We 
 are not through yet with him. 
 
 We ask the next question: "What is 
 your conception of the validity of 
 Knowledge? When is a thing really 
 true? Is all knowledge valid, and can we 
 know everything? Or is all knowledge 
 only relatively and subjectively valid, 
 and true only for a particular time and 
 particular place, or under particular con- 
 ditions? Here all these fellows sit in a 
 row; they all say, "It is only true at a 
 certain time, but it is not always true." 
 Brethren, that is very important. 
 
 Again, we have a right to ask: "Is it 
 only valid and true for the individual 
 who comes to the knowledge of it?" 
 And they say, "Yes, a thing is not true 
 unless you know it." 
 
 What nonsense! A thing is true, 
 whether you believe it or don't believe 
 it; whether you ever heard of it or not. 
 There is a God that exists, whether you 
 believe it or disbelieve it, or have no 
 views about it. That has nothing to do 
 with it. But these men all take that 
 position. Or is the true answer, that 
 human knowledge has limits or degrees 
 of certainty, and that necessarily we 
 
 57 
 
must determine these limits of human 
 knowledge? 
 
 I simply wish to say that we must ask 
 every one of these critics, "What are 
 your theories of Knowledge? What are 
 your views about those things? What 
 is your conception of the contents of 
 Knowledge? What is it that you ac- 
 tually can get when you have it in your 
 little book here? Does it consist merely 
 of ideas and simply a content of con- 
 sciousness, something subjective; or is 
 there an objective something existing 
 outside of consciousness not dependent 
 upon our ideas; or are the two, the sub- 
 jective and the objective, simply phenom- 
 enal things as they appear in their re- 
 lation to us, and not things as they 
 are?" And here, brethren, all these men 
 take the wrong conception. There is no 
 such thing to them as objective truth; 
 no such thing. It is only true when you 
 believe it. If I had time, I would like 
 to develop this, although it has been dis- 
 cussed under a different topic. Breth- 
 ren, these men are all full of points 
 everywhere, horns sticking out every- 
 where; and you have got to commence 
 pulling at one end and pull out every 
 one, and after you pluck them, they 
 don't see it. 
 
 3. The Ethical Question.— The third 
 great question is the most important of 
 all we have touched upon yet, that is, the 
 ethical question. You have a right to 
 ask this: "What is the origin of Moral- 
 ity? Why is a thing right? Why is it 
 obligatory? Does moral obligation have 
 its origin in the mind of man?" And, 
 poor fellows, lots of them think that 
 reason decides everything. 
 
 Or, is it in his conscience? They think 
 their conscience — even if it is depraved 
 or stunted — settles everything. That 
 is the rule of right. 
 
 Or, is there an authoritative law that is 
 positive, based upon the Will of God as 
 H'e has revealed Himself? That is the 
 point at issue. Is a thing right, even if 
 I do not know it and do not value it, 
 and reject it and refuse it? Is it right 
 after all, depending not at all upon my 
 conscience nor upon my will? 
 
 Is this moral idea in us implanted. 
 
 born with us, born in us, or is it simply 
 the product of opinion, and the evolu- 
 tion of the individual and the race? 
 These men are all permeated with 
 this evolution theory. Why, even 
 Spencer goes so far that he maintains 
 that conscience is an evolution, and the 
 time will come when there will be no 
 distinction between right and wrong, be- 
 cause every one's conscience is abso- 
 lutely right — that is Herbert Spencer's 
 conclusion. 
 
 These Questions Fundamental to Crit- 
 icism.— Now, why speak of these things? 
 Because we can not properly and 
 intelligently speak of the problems of 
 New Testament Criticism, or under- 
 stand the reason of the uncritical and 
 destructive conclusions arrived at by 
 these Negative Critics, unless we know 
 the positions that these men take on 
 these philosophic problems; and unless 
 a man knows this and knows whereof 
 he speaks, there is no use of arguing 
 with him. 
 
 That they come to such views does 
 not depend so much on the facts they 
 have had before them; it does not de- 
 pend upon those facts that they pro- 
 duce in that analysis and investigation; 
 everything depends on the views and 
 presuppositions which they bring with 
 them, and the mental bias that guides 
 them, and that so colors their mental 
 and spiritual vision that they see men 
 like trees walking, — and they are always 
 trees. 
 
 Now, these Negative Critics have a 
 peculiar view of Knowledge. The Ideal- 
 ists have drawn a sharp distinction be- 
 tween religious knowledge and theoret- 
 ical knowledge. Religious knowledge, 
 they say, has only to do with value judg- 
 ments; there is no objective truth that 
 is universally true. A doctrine is only 
 so far true as it has a value for me, i. e., 
 according to its fitness to me or as it 
 satisfies my own religious needs. 
 
 A historian of this movement thinks 
 (and let us listen to his grandiloquent 
 language) — he thinks that "the great 
 aim of all true Biblical men in their 
 study is to do their work in such a way 
 that the Bible may commend itself to 
 
 S8 
 
reasoning and reverent men as God's 
 Book of final values for all who would 
 live nobly." That is it. Just think, 
 brethren, it is to commend itself to you 
 for its final values; if you know what 
 that means — I do not. 
 
 Equally peculiar is their conception of 
 moral judgment. The natural reason is 
 regarded as the norm, the rule, the stand- 
 ard of all that is right. Whatever I think 
 is right; that must be right. This in 
 Ethics is known as the Autonomist view; 
 the man is a law to himself. 
 
 C. The Three Methods of the Higher 
 
 Criticism. 
 
 Now, brethren, those are the princi- 
 ples — you understand that — and when a 
 man looks at things that way and comes 
 to teach the Bible, you all know what 
 the result will be. 
 
 Now, Higher Criticism has three meth- 
 ods. The first is what we call the Liter- 
 ary Method. The second is what we call 
 the Historic Method. The third is what 
 we call the Theological Method. Oh, 
 they have got things down to a fine 
 point! 
 
 I. Now we come to the Literary 
 Method. 
 
 That is a fine thing — I wish I could 
 tell you about it — how they get up all 
 these objective propositions and study 
 the soul of things. Oh, it is wonderfully 
 interesting! but the vagaries and extrava- 
 gancies of the so-called Literary Critics 
 are simply amazing. I will just illus- 
 trate. 
 
 You have heard of Tiibingen. These 
 Tiibingen fellows are very wise; they 
 know what style is; they know all about 
 that in the New Testament; so they ex- 
 amine the writings of St. John, the Gos- 
 pel and Epistles and the Apocalypse. 
 Well, then, one set come to the conclu- 
 sion at one time that the man who 
 wrote the Greek of St. John and wrote 
 the Greek of the Epistles could not have 
 written the Apocalypse; but that John 
 wrote the Gospel and the Epistles, and 
 he didn't write the Apocalypse. Then, a 
 few years later came another set, and 
 they began to thresh it over again, and 
 they concluded: "Yes, that is so. One 
 
 could not have written them both; but 
 it was St. John that wrote the Apoca- 
 lypse, and he did not write the Gospel 
 and the Epistles." And next came the 
 third set. They concluded: "There is 
 a mistake here evidently. St. John wrote 
 the Epistles and the Apocalypse, but he 
 did not write the Gospel." And so they 
 kept on threshing one another, and the 
 latest thing is that St. John wrote the 
 Apocalypse but no one knows who wrote 
 the Gospel of St. John or the Epistles. 
 I only want to show you how conclusive 
 the argument is; how they all agree to 
 disagree. 
 
 Brethren, it takes clear judgment, it 
 takes fine skill; it becomes a Bacon- 
 Shakespeare question. It revives the old 
 question, "Who wrote Shakespeare?" to 
 settle these matters of style. It is a very 
 difficult problem, and there is a wide- 
 spread conviction among scholars that 
 those attacks upon the books by the 
 critics will not come to anything posi- 
 tive in the way of results. 
 
 Let me tell you a little story. I do 
 not know whether many of you have ever 
 read Dr. Mead's "Romans Dissected." It 
 is a good book. He wrote it in Germany, 
 and he took the position (by the way, I 
 must tell you beforehand that this was 
 only to show how foolish their position 
 is; he wrote it as a joke; but he wrote it); 
 and he took the position that there were 
 four authors of the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans; that one man always said, "Jesus 
 Christ the Lord;" another said, "The 
 Lord Jesus Christ;" another, "The Lord 
 Jesus;" and the other, "Jesus the Lord." 
 It is a good thing, and he signs himself 
 "McRealsham." The joke was, the Ger- 
 mans got hold of it and praised it, and 
 said it was a decided step in the progress 
 of Higher Criticism! Then, in the second 
 edition, he had to translate it into Eng- 
 lish; and then he put in the preface that 
 it was to be understood clearly that he 
 did not take that position himself; he 
 only wrote the book to show how foolish 
 their argument was. I want you to ex- 
 amine it sometime. 
 
 This literary method is very complex 
 and misleading. The internal evidence 
 upon which they rely, you can not find. 
 
 59 
 
Each man has a certain ground for his 
 conclusion, but it is always questionable. 
 The whole process lacks external evi- 
 dence, and so we must say it is alto- 
 gether unsatisfactory. This is what we 
 call the Literary Method, and the amaz- 
 ing learning these men display is some- 
 thing wonderful; they are depositaries of 
 learning, walking encyclopedias, but what 
 good does it do? 
 
 2. We come now to the Historical 
 School. 
 
 The Historical School generally take 
 the naturalistic position; that is, they say 
 the miraculous is incredible. They start 
 with that and come to the Book with 
 presuppositions so strong that their judg- 
 ment is all distorted and one-sided. They 
 take for granted that there is a contrast 
 between the teaching of Jesus and that 
 of St. Paul— they take that for granted 
 and say that Paul is the real founder of 
 Christianity as we know it, and not 
 Christ. 
 
 Notice again, that they say, the teach- 
 ing of Jesus Christ being the only guide, 
 we can not claim for Paul the same level 
 of authority as we can for what Jesus 
 said: they take that position. 
 
 jNow, notice again, they say Paul was 
 possessed of certain presuppositions; and 
 that the peculiarities of his wonderful 
 theology are due to two things: first, 
 the Pharisaism that was still in him — 
 on this they quote passage after passage 
 — and, secondly, his early training; and 
 they say that is the reason we have got 
 things so distorted in St. Paul's writings. 
 
 In fact, notice this, brethren — and you 
 can not understand New Testament criti- 
 cism unless you lay stress upon this — ac- 
 cording to the view of the Higher Critics, 
 as a rule, the Apostles were but inter- 
 preters of Christ's teaching just as we 
 are today simply interpreters. Christ 
 said something and they try to explain 
 it; their teaching was but an individual 
 interpretation of Christ's teaching. One 
 of them says that the teaching of the 
 Apostles in the New Testament has not 
 as great an authority as ours has today. — 
 Why? Why? Why?— We have lived later; 
 we have more knowledge; we have more 
 experience. They say we have the whole 
 
 past behind us, and so we have got the 
 whole history and experience of the 
 Christian Church to aid us; and there- 
 fore we can interpret the New Testament 
 better than anything we have found in 
 the New Testament itself. 
 
 Now, what does that mean, brethren, 
 just think what that means! We must go 
 back and find out what sayings there are 
 of Christ in the Gospels; and then we 
 can interpret them better than these men 
 could! 
 
 They say that the Apostles and early 
 writers themselves added something, — 
 their views, their interpretation — to the 
 sayings of Jesus; that the sayings of 
 Jesus are the whole thing, the logia. The 
 Apostles added their interpretation to 
 those logia, and so there was a documen- 
 tary growth; first, a little was added to it, 
 and then a little more; Matthew had col- 
 lected certain things, Luke had collected 
 certain things; after a while each added 
 a little more, his own interpretation, 
 then afterwards enlarged it; then an- 
 other man got hold of it and enlarged it; 
 so we do not know anything that Christ 
 really said, except a passage or two, and 
 there are doubts about even that. 
 
 That is their idea of documentary 
 growth, and there is that Evolutionary 
 Fad, about which we will hear later from 
 a scientific point of view. They start 
 with the idea — this is the historical posi- 
 tion — that all records of the supernatural, 
 whether in the Gospels or in the Epistles, 
 are evidently unhistoric. As they are 
 not historic, we need not pay any atten- 
 tion to them; such narratives are largely 
 legendary and mythical. 
 
 3. Now we come to the Theological 
 Method. There the Critics take up the 
 contents of each book with reference to 
 its theology, and start in with their pre- 
 supposition that we have only interpre- 
 tations of Christ's teaching in the New 
 Testament, and they positively attack all 
 the fundamental truths of Christianity; 
 there is not a single one that is left ac- 
 cording to the position of these critics. 
 The Apostles have everywhere erred in 
 their statements of doctrine. They have 
 erred especially in the doctrines of Esch- 
 atology; even Jesus, they say, got mixed 
 
 60 
 
up there; there is nothing clear about 
 what they claim; they all got mixed 
 up about punishment, about the incarna- 
 tion, about Christ being born without 
 sin. And so they take up every doctrine 
 and question it; especially about the 
 Second Advent, they do not want to 
 hear anything about that. 
 
 Now, when they come to the study of 
 all these things they pursue very un- 
 critical methods. They do nothing but 
 find fault; they are critical in this par- 
 ticular sense of the word, finding fault 
 all the time. They start on the principle 
 of doubting everything — and I am sorry 
 to say that this is the method of modern 
 education; modern education now says 
 a man can not learn anything unless he 
 doubts, he must doubt; don't believe in 
 anything that has been told you from 
 childhood, but question everything — and 
 so they start in on all their critical la- 
 bors, not to believe it is so and take it 
 for granted until you find it is false; but 
 no, you must doubt everything. We say 
 this is a non-critical way. 
 
 They first make fun of the doctrine of 
 the Roman Catholic Church which main- 
 tains the infallibility of the Church. Then 
 they claim that the Protestant Church 
 takes the safe position. Then they make 
 fun of Papal Infallibility and say that is 
 not so. Finally they settle down upon 
 the Infallibility of every man that writes 
 upon it — he knows all about it (Christ 
 did not know and Paul did not know) — 
 the Critics settle everything and they 
 give us the facts. 
 
 I only want to tell you, my friends, 
 what this thing amounts to. There is 
 something back of it. They claim nu- 
 merous contradictions, and then they use 
 these discrepancies, as they regard them, 
 as arguments against the credibility of 
 the Book. 
 
 They love to tell us about that entry 
 of Christ into Jericho, where in Luke 
 it tells us that when he drew nigh unto 
 the city, He cured a blind man; but in 
 Matthew we are told that when our Sav- 
 ior was leaving Jericho He cured two 
 blind men. They say, "Here is evidently 
 the same narrative, but the writer got 
 mixed up." Why, there were many blind 
 
 men in Jericho at that time. Those of you 
 who have travelled in the East, know that 
 there is a great deal of blindness; there 
 is nothing surprising at all in that. But 
 they emphasize all seeming discrepan- 
 cies every time — that is their stock in 
 trade — they bring that out; and the man 
 who does not know anything about it, he 
 gets stunned when these learned men 
 come with these profound discussions. 
 
 And you ought to study the question 
 of the Harmony of the Gospels. Ac- 
 cording to their claims, there is no har- 
 mony at all; we have nothing positive. 
 Their method is unscientific, because they 
 limit themselves mainly to internal evi- 
 dence, and leave out of consideration and 
 systematically exclude a large amount of 
 the evidence at hand on which the truth 
 of Christianity rests. 
 
 One illustration: If there is one thing 
 clear in the testimony of the ancient 
 Church, it is that St. John, in his old age 
 (about the year 96), wrote the Apoca- 
 lypse. This is the uniform testimony of 
 all Christian writers from St. John's 
 time on to the Third Century, the uni- 
 form external evidence. And, yet, these 
 men simply sit down (and I am sorry to 
 say not only the rationalistic interpret- 
 ers, but many others) and take the po- 
 sition, purely from very questionable in- 
 ternal evidence, that if St. John v/rote 
 this book it must have been composed be- 
 tween the death of Nero (68 A.D.) and the 
 destruction of Jerusalem (70 A. D.) — 
 and they settle the whole thing right 
 there and then. They go on and get 
 the internal evidence and never touch 
 the question of external evidence. The 
 latest critic, however, finds it to his pur- 
 pose to accept St. John as the author, 
 and so he accepts the external evidence, 
 and maintains that John wrote the Apoc- 
 alypse about 96 A.D. He, however, 
 comes to the astounding conclusion that 
 the Gospel of John records only logia, 
 or sayings of our Savior, and that St. 
 John had very little to do with it; that 
 it contains simply the metaphysical opin- 
 ions of a writer who lived long after 
 John's time; and simply because it falls 
 in with his view, the latest critic reaches 
 the conclusion that the external evi- 
 
 61 
 
dence must be considered in deciding 
 the time and authorship of Revelation. 
 
 Nov, one of them maintains that the 
 most trustworthy information that we 
 have regarding the origin of the greater 
 part of the New Testament books, is 
 not to be credited to the Christian wri- 
 ters who lived within sixty or one hun- 
 dred years after they were written, but 
 we owe all of this knowledge to the 
 historic criticism which took its rise sev- 
 enteen hundred years later. 
 
 Another writer, who lives in this city, 
 writes: "If the question which the higher 
 criticism seeks to answer can not be an- 
 swered by this method, then there is no 
 answer at all." That is, we are to ex- 
 clude external evidence altogether, and 
 rely only on internal evidence. 
 
 I had intended to go into the Synoptical 
 Problem, but I must pass over that. I 
 would like to tell you the opinions they 
 have about Matthew, about Mark, and 
 about the other books, but it is not pos- 
 
 sible now. They simply make the decla- 
 ration that we have really nothing that 
 our Savior said, not even in the Sermon 
 on the Mount. It is simply an unhis- 
 torical reproduction. 
 
 In closing I thank you for your pa- 
 tience, brethren. I simply wished to 
 present to you the view that these men 
 have. In the light of that view we can 
 understand very well why they come to 
 such conclusions — it is not at all surpris- 
 ing; and until we settle those fundamen- 
 tal questions, they will keep on grinding 
 away, and finally nothing will be left. 
 
 Many things have necessarily been 
 omitted or barely touched upon in this 
 discussion; but I think that you will 
 agree with me, that enough has been 
 said to show that the application of the 
 principles of the Negative Higher Criti- 
 cism to the New Testament, by the Mod- 
 ern School of Critics, Kas neither been 
 truly Critical nor in any proper sense 
 Scientific. 
 
 President Hall: In concluding this 
 session of the Convention, if it is your 
 pleasure to remain for a few minutes 
 longer, I know we shall be greatly priv- 
 ileged in listening to two short addresses. 
 I would ask Prof. Jesse B. Thomas, 
 D.D., LL.D., of Newton Theological In- 
 
 stitution, Newton Center, Mass., if he 
 will kindly step to the platform. He 
 will be followed by Dr. Edward P. In- 
 gersoll, of the American Bible Society. 
 I am glad to introduce to you Professor 
 Thomas, who will now take up the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 ADDRESS OF PROF. JESSE B. THOMAS 
 'Some Conditions and Changes Bearing on the Present Issue" 
 
 I congratulate myself that I have not 
 prepared any formal address for this oc- 
 casion. I understood from the program 
 that the "discussion" was to be an im- 
 promptu commenting on what has been 
 said by those who have prepared formal 
 papers. Surely, what has been thus far 
 said has been sufficiently elaborate and 
 minute to make extended comment un- 
 necessary. I will, however, allude to two 
 or three points that suggest themselves 
 in connection with some of these dis- 
 courses. 
 
 But before proceeding to their direct 
 discussion let me allude to what seem 
 to me to be 
 
 I. Some peculiar conditions of the 
 time a£fecting the question in hand. 
 
 I think it worth remembering that the 
 Christian ministry of the day has 
 fallen, or is rapidly falling, almost exclu- 
 sively into the hands of very young men. 
 Had that brilliant member of the British 
 Parliament, who once so passionately de- 
 fended himself against the "atrocious 
 crime of being a young man," lived in 
 our day, the burden would have been 
 found to have shifted: his defense must 
 now be against the charge that he is no 
 longer young — at least, if he be a minis- 
 ter. It is true that men do not yet resort 
 to novices in medicine to deal with their 
 bodies; nor to allow experimenters in 
 law to take care of their property; but, 
 in the management of their souls, they 
 seem to h9.vc concluded that age and ex- 
 
 6z 
 
perience disqualify rather than commend. 
 Now the young man, as yet unsobered 
 by experience and personal observation 
 of the mutability of even "scientific" con- 
 clusions, is apt to be instinctively tempt- 
 ed to over-confidence in, and adventur- 
 ous utterance of, new opinions. Having 
 a reputation to make, he is peculiarly 
 sensitive to the remembered cautions of 
 his instructors, not to "fall into ruts"; 
 he is easily moved by the common senti- 
 ment, and perhaps the fear of the con- 
 tempt, of his ambitious classmates; he is 
 keenly alert to know what will bring 
 blame or praise from the secular press. 
 He shrinks, therefore, with peculiar 
 dread from the epithet "traditionalist." 
 Whatever else befall, he will not allow 
 it to be suspected that he is ignorant of, 
 or that he has failed to adopt, the "as- 
 sured results" of the latest scholarship. 
 He is tempted accordingly to reconcile 
 himself with the scholarly Zeitgeist, as 
 he understands it, by passive, if not 
 overt, assent to the new views. 
 
 Another notable circumstance is the 
 recently rapid growth of emphasis upon, 
 and extension of range of, linguistic 
 study, in our theological institutions. In- 
 structors and courses of study in Hebrew 
 and Greek and their cognate Biblical 
 addenda, have multiplied surprisingly at 
 the expense of the other departments of 
 the theological curriculum. Expert ac- 
 quaintance with Hebrew and Greek has 
 become a generally recognized sine qua 
 non for commendation to the churches as 
 a suitably equipped candidate for the pul- 
 pit. And in some institutions the ability 
 to read Greek fluently is practically 
 treated as an infallible test of the gen- 
 uineness of a call to preach, since the 
 applicant is refused permission even to 
 begin his theological studies without it. 
 So high an estimate of the relative place 
 of linguistic skill in ministerial efficiency 
 lends a factitious importance to those 
 disturbing controversies concerning the 
 origin and authority of the books of the 
 Bible, which here interest us. They are, 
 in fact, but incidental to the intelligent 
 study of the languages themselves, yet 
 they have become inextricably inter- 
 woven with, and in our time virtually in- 
 
 separable from that study. To ignore 
 them is to invoke the ready sneer of 
 culpable ignorance of, or incompetence 
 to appreciate, the modern methods of 
 "Bible study." 
 
 Again, with increasing emphasis on 
 linguistic technique, comes the call to 
 more minute anatomical dissection and 
 histological analysis of the text of Scrip- 
 ture. This pains-taking and subtle art 
 has come to its height in Germany. It 
 is there that the white light of the old 
 Book has been resolved into its poly- 
 chromatic elements — by what may, in a 
 double sense, be called (considering the 
 number of spectres from E to P evoked 
 in the process) a kind of sp'^ctral 
 analysis. 
 
 Now we all doubtless recall the old 
 quip which in distributing fit fields of 
 activity for each nation assigned to 
 France the earth, to England the sea, and 
 to Germany the air. Or, to refer to Sir 
 Arthur Helps' characterization, the 
 Frenchman, if called upon to describe 
 a camel would hasten to the Jardin des 
 Plantes to study his subject there; the 
 Englishman would pack his valise and 
 hie away to the desert to find the crea- 
 ture in its habitat; while the German 
 would sit down calmly in his study to 
 construct a camel out of his own con- 
 sciousness. The German tendency to the 
 speculative reconstruction of all things, 
 is, in any case, unmistakable and uni- 
 versally recognized. His world and his 
 Bible are apt to go with his tobacco 
 into the philosophic pipe, where all are 
 alike sublimated into smoke. So long as 
 these fantastic smoke-wreaths ascended 
 within the lecture-room, there was little 
 danger that they might be mistaken as 
 anything more than unsubstantial crea- 
 tures of the mind. The veteran Delitzsch, 
 who in his later years yielded re- 
 luctant and partial assent to some of 
 these products of modern critical ingen- 
 uity, earnestly protested against the at- 
 tempt to popularize them — they were, for 
 some time to come, to be treated as, at 
 the best, the unverified guesses of ex- 
 perimentalists — working hypotheses only. 
 But it may be said of the Anglo-Saxon 
 race, at large, as John Hall once said of 
 
 63 
 
the Yankee, when speaking of the impor- 
 tation of the drink-habit from the old 
 world — "It is a serious-minded race, im- 
 porting nothing that it does not amplify 
 and make practical." Beginning with 
 certain English scholars, who denounced 
 it as cowardly not to announce boldly 
 to the people, and propagate, the "as- 
 sured results of criticism," there has been 
 a steady disposition to insist on the pop- 
 ularization of the whole Hexateuchal 
 scheme. This being undertaken, with 
 whatever qualifications and reservations, 
 by men whose ability, candor, and Chris- 
 tian temper were above just suspicion, 
 the effect upon the untechnical hearer, as 
 well as upon the plastic and confiding 
 student, has often been perplexing if not 
 disastrous. 
 
 Among the lectures constituting the 
 first series delivered in Boston under the 
 auspices of the American Institute of 
 Sacred Literature, one was given by a 
 man whose name is justly revered for 
 his scholarship and whose personality is 
 tenderly remembered as illustrative of 
 Christian devotion. In his eagerness to 
 encourage the introduction of the new 
 conceptions of the Bible into Sunday 
 School instruction he so emphasized the 
 mythical quality of Old Testament nar- 
 ratives, and so magnified the contradic- 
 tions of the New Testament and the in- 
 firmities of its style, as thoroughly to 
 mystify his simple-minded hearers. One 
 good lady next day remarked to her 
 Bible class teacher that, while some of 
 the hard stories of the Old Testament 
 had once given her trouble, she now 
 cared no more for their eccentricities 
 than for those of .^sop's Fables. A 
 bright young man in one of my classes 
 had been called upon to read and report 
 upon that passage in Theodore Parker's 
 writings in which he magnifies the au- 
 thority of intuition as the final arbiter in 
 religion — saying, substantially, "if any- 
 thing in Scripture grates upon your in- 
 stincts, re-examine it to see that it is 
 susceptible of no fair reconstruction to 
 which you can rationally agree; failing 
 to find this, let the Scripture go and stick 
 to your intuition." The young man com- 
 pleted his rehearsal of this advice, with 
 
 the statement that he perfectly agreed 
 with the view expressed. When I sug- 
 gested to him, that this theory would 
 have brought serious trouble to Abra- 
 ham, when called of God to sacrifice his 
 son, his answer was instantaneous and 
 conclusive: "I find no difficulty there; 
 for I do not believe the Abraham inci- 
 dent ever happened." This confident and 
 prompt avowal of disbelief was unex- 
 pected and surprising. I remembered 
 the story of President Wayland, who 
 when a member of one of his classes, 
 met his psychological teachings with the 
 question, "What would you say were I 
 to tell you that, in coming down the 
 street this morning, I had seen the op- 
 posite lamp-posts leave their places and 
 come waltzing down the street to- 
 gether?" "I should ask you where you 
 had been, my son," gravely replied the 
 good Doctor. Asking a like question of 
 the progressive young man in my class 
 I was informed that he, too, had been a 
 hearer of the lecture in question. It is 
 not to be inferred or even suspected 
 that the lecturer had any positively 
 sceptical intent, or a fear that he would 
 create any. But doubt is easy to create 
 and hard to stifle: nor is it less danger- 
 ous because inadvertently fostered. 
 Tares once sown, by whatever hand and 
 with whatever motive, grow apace. It 
 would be better that they were left to 
 be sown by "an enemy;" but the result 
 is not less deadly if the band be that of 
 a friend. 
 
 Bearing in mind the plasticity of a 
 young ministry, fresh from scholastic 
 scenes and ambitions, the supreme em- 
 phasis on linguistic proficiency as a 
 credential of scholarship, the increasing 
 reverence for, and dominance of, Ger- 
 man methods, and the growing disposi- 
 tion to popularize the supposed final con- 
 clusions of the critics, — 
 
 II. Let us notice some Specious and 
 often Incongruous Results. 
 
 I. The Substitution of a Critical for 
 the Orthodox Tradition. 
 
 My beloved and reverend friend Dr. 
 Howard Osgood — one of the foremost 
 Biblical scholars in America — has made 
 plain in his unanswerable paper the iden- 
 
 64 
 
tity of the positions of the new critics — 
 even the conservative section of them — 
 with those of the rampant infidelity of 
 a century ago. He might have gone fur- 
 ther: for there is as pronounced a ten- 
 dency to cyclic return of identical no- 
 tions in the school of so-called "free 
 thought," as elsewhere. The sceptical 
 "tradition" is more fragmentary and in- 
 termittent, yet none the less real than 
 that of orthodoxy. 
 
 When Renan, a little while ago, sug- 
 gested that the story of the Resurrection 
 sprang first from the excited report of a 
 hysterical woman, he was applauded as 
 the inventor of a novel and ingenious 
 explanation; but the theory is as old as 
 Celsus in the second century. The au- 
 thors of the "Essays and Reviews" 
 created a sensation by insisting that the 
 occurrence of certain alien words in 
 Daniel makes it incredible that it should 
 have been written at so early a date as 
 commonly believed — an objection inces- 
 santly reiterated by later critics; but 
 Porphyry had made the same discovery 
 and offered the same argument against 
 authenticity in the third century. An 
 influential educator and editor in this 
 country had the temerity to make the 
 published statement not long ago, that 
 up to twenty-five years before, nobody 
 had ever doubted that the "day" of Gen- 
 esis was a period of twenty-four hours. 
 He had surely failed to observe that Cel- 
 sus, again, had ridiculed Moses for hav- 
 ing spoken of "days" before the appear- 
 ance of the sun; that Augustine, among 
 others, noticing the difficulty, had de- 
 clared the term to allude to a "day of 
 God," which could not be limited to 
 twenty-four hours; and that one after an- 
 other of the Fathers, as well as of the 
 Medieval writers, had recognized the in- 
 congruity and grappled with the diffi- 
 culty of the twenty-four hour interpre- 
 tation — a difficulty which lies open in 
 the record itself, and which they must 
 have been stupid indeed not to have ob- 
 served, even if not compelled by the 
 sneers of cavilers. 
 
 Now let the young man, in the pulpit 
 or the pew, who is afraid of becoming 
 the bond-slave of "tradition" or human 
 
 authority — who is charmed with the ex- 
 hortation to "think things out for him- 
 self" — observe that the moment he ven- 
 tures to attempt the formation or utter- 
 ance of an independent opinion as to the 
 integrity or genuineness of any Scriptur- 
 al document, he is certain to be con- 
 fronted with the demand that he accept 
 the verdict of the "world's scholarship" 
 as a finality in the premises. He may not 
 meddle with matters that belong exclu- 
 sively to "experts," and upon which they 
 have already reached an authoritative 
 consensus of opinion. Instead of being 
 set free from tradition, in this way, he 
 has only been transferred from one bond- 
 age to another. He must not, under 
 penalty of ostracism from the realm of 
 "scholarship," accept the concurrent con- 
 clusions of the Christian thinkers of the 
 ages which have undergone the scientific 
 test as "survivors" in the "struggle for 
 life;" but he must, under the same pen- 
 alty, accept as obligatory the arbitrary 
 results of a headlong and as yet unveri- 
 fied series of speculative flights of fancy! 
 
 He must bow submissively to the "spe- 
 cialist," forsooth. The "specialist" in 
 what? Does the mastery of daghesh 
 forte and the subscript iota forthwith 
 give a man exclusive claim to precedence 
 in all realms, scientific, historical, philo- 
 sophical, and theological, as well as lit- 
 erary? The very nature of his work as a 
 specialist renders him less fit for the set- 
 tlement of broader questions. No lawyer 
 needs to be reminded that the testimony 
 of the detective, or technical expert of 
 any kind, is least credited by the common 
 sense of the ordinary juryman. Such a 
 witness has seen the facts through a 
 theoretically narrowed or distorted eye, 
 and, inadvertently or otherwise, reshaped 
 them to fit his mental preconception. 
 The enthusiastic exploration of verbal 
 niceties does not fit for synthetic judg- 
 ment of the whole. Who would choose 
 a watchmaker, rather than a sailor, to 
 scan the horizon and shape the vessel's 
 course? 
 
 2. As to the recoil of the Highe\ 
 Criticism upon the New Testament. 
 
 We have been reminded, in the lucid 
 and instructive paper of Dr. Wolf, of 
 
 65 
 
the auspicious advent, and early decay 
 and vanishing, of the Tiibingen Theory. 
 There is so close a parallelism between 
 that theory and the Hexateuchal scheme, 
 that the one may naturally have sug- 
 gested the other. In both, an attack is 
 made upon the historic verity . of the 
 sacred record by a like indirect route. 
 Accepting the Pauline Epistles, in part, 
 as genuine it was easily insinuated by 
 Baur that there appeared upon their face 
 evidence of an early Pauline and Petrine, 
 Prophetic and Priestly, Doctrinal and 
 Ritualistic, partition in the Church. 
 Here was basis enough to formulate a 
 theory of "tendency," in rival writers, to 
 reshape history for the support of one 
 segment or the other or the reconcilia- 
 tion of the two. All the historic docu- 
 ments of the New Testament thus lost 
 historic significance, and became cam- 
 paign documents in which the facts were 
 warped to suit the occasion. 
 
 The same process has been followed in 
 dealing with the Old Testament: only, 
 now, some of the Minor Prophets have 
 been arbitrarily fixed upon as exclusively 
 reliable. From this coign of vantage 
 there has been a like bombardment of 
 the historic books of the Old Testament. 
 They, too, are said to have been "re- 
 dacted" and the facts imaginatively re- 
 shaped, or their borders enlarged with 
 shifting prismatic colors, to suit the ends 
 of "Priestly" or "Prophetic" contestants 
 for mastery: so that they also are revela- 
 tions of struggling "tendencies," rather 
 than veracious records of fact. Let us 
 hope that as their spirit and method are 
 identical, the already realized fate of the 
 one theory may prove a true augury of 
 the coming issue of the other. 
 
 When the Kuenen-Wellhausen theories 
 were broached in England, it was with 
 the precautionary reassurance, that they 
 could never be made to react upon the 
 New Testament. The Old Testament 
 was said to be out of historic reach, but 
 the New Testament too impregnably for- 
 tified by contemporaneous testimony to 
 be historically discredited. Singularly 
 enough, the application of destructive 
 speculative canons to the Old Testa- 
 ment was almost imniediately followed 
 
 66 
 
 by the recovery of a clue to the sealed 
 papyrus rolls of early Egypt, in the Ro- 
 setta Stone; and by the uncovering of 
 the clay tablets of Babylon and Nineveh 
 with a speedy recognition of the Behis- 
 tun Inscription as a key to the long hid- 
 den cuneiform records in them. These 
 events, with the later disclosure of the 
 Tell El Amarna tablets, not only refuted 
 the alleged impossibility of written rec- 
 ords in Mosaic times, but showed an ad- 
 vanced stage of civilization and inter- 
 communication in those remote ages 
 which seriously endangered the whole 
 argument of the disintegrators. The 
 work still goes on. . "We have already 
 dug up Homer; we shall yet dig up the 
 Bible," confidently said Professor Sayce. 
 
 The Old Testament is fast becoming 
 as accessible to contemporaneous tests 
 as the New. The methods of speculative 
 assault upon each being identical, it was 
 inevitable that the wave of doubt which 
 has advanced so far upon the Old, in 
 spite of archaeological countercheck, 
 should return upon the New. We find 
 accordingly a revival of sharp attack 
 upon the central facts of the Gospel his- 
 tory: the virgin birth, the literal resur- 
 rection, the miracles, and the like. 
 Those who cling to evangelical faith con- 
 tent themselves with the bland assur- 
 ance, that in all this only the concrete 
 facts are jeopardized, but no essential 
 doctrine. Do they forget the uniqueness 
 of Christianity among religions, in that 
 it alone rests on a historic foundation? 
 Do they ignore Paul's assertion that "if 
 Christ be not risen our preaching is vain, 
 and your faith is also -.in?" Chris- 
 tianity rests on foundation- ; of fact: and 
 "if the foundations be destroyed, what 
 can the righteous do?" 
 
 3. The Elusive Use of Terms in Con- 
 nection with the Higher Criticism. 
 
 Dr. Burrell and Dr. Booth have 
 spoken eloquently and trenchantly of the 
 disingenuous use of words in connection 
 with the advocacy of the new theories. 
 The peril, as well as the unfairness, of 
 "paltering in a double sense," can not 
 be too earnestly emphasized. A certain 
 preacher in Chicago was pastor of "the 
 Church of the Messiah." He averred in 
 
one of his sermons that Jesus was not 
 the only Messiah; but that Moses, Isaiah, 
 Paul, and Savonarola were each, in his 
 time, equally Messiahs; Berthold Auer- 
 bach being the Messiah of the nineteenth 
 century. And yet he did not have the 
 grace to inform his audience to which of 
 these Messiahs his church was dedicated. 
 One is reminded of Dr. Bushnell's fa- 
 mous tirade against "dictionary" bond- 
 age in the preface of one of his works 
 that had been criticized for its misuse 
 of language and its disregard for logic. 
 He averred that no assault upon his po- 
 sitions reinforced by help of the diction- 
 ary or logic would be of the least avail. 
 He should disregard all such things irf 
 the future, since his arguments would 
 not be in the least damaged by being 
 proved absurd. Dr. Charles Hodge un- 
 dertook a reply in "The Princeton Re- 
 view," but with the disconcerting pref- 
 aratory remark: "Why, Dr. Bushnell 
 laughs at syllogisms as a ghost would 
 at a musket!" He who uses words in a 
 sliding or vacuous sense needs to be 
 challenged, first of all, to throw off the 
 mask of illusive speech, and "deliver him- 
 self like a man of this world." 
 
 What is meant, for instance, by the 
 claim that the Higher Criticism is, in its 
 ultimate aims, "constructive?" Criticism 
 is simply judgment; and judgment deals 
 with an existing thing, approving it, 
 modifying it, or repudiating it. Its func- 
 tion is never creative. The alleged con- 
 struction of the existing document is in 
 too many cases the substitution of a 
 wholly different record purely suppositi- 
 tious in character. The actual testimony 
 of the ancient writer is sublimated into a 
 vaporous cloud: then out of the cloud the 
 dextrous imagination of the critic evokes 
 something which, he suggests, is "very 
 like a whale," and this phantasm of the 
 brain ends the constructive process! 
 
 Again, what is the force of the fre- 
 quent invidious suggestion that this 
 method of dealing with the text is in a 
 peculiar, if not an exclusive, sense, "his- 
 toric?" The historic method is primarily 
 objective and inductive. If an alleged 
 ancient title-deed or other document 
 were presented in a court of justice, it 
 
 would be treated as prima facie genuine. 
 But, if its genuineness were questioned, 
 the normal appeal would be first of all 
 to external circumstance as confirmatory 
 or discrediting; whether it comes from a 
 normal place of deposit, in whose hands 
 the property rests, what does family his- 
 tory or common tradition say, etc. It 
 is only when discrepancies appear, or 
 evidences of later alteration or addition 
 are made clear, that the process of docu- 
 mentary criticism (which is not in the 
 proper sense historic at all) normally be- 
 gins. Even then every intendment in fa- 
 vor of the integrity and consistency of 
 the document will be judicially indulged. 
 But this order of inquiry, wrought out 
 and confirmed as legitimate by the ex- 
 perience of ages, is suddenly reversed by 
 the method of to-day. It begins with 
 the process of documentary analysis, and 
 rests its judgment wholly on inferential 
 conclusions therefrom. Professing to 
 move inductively, it treads the "high a 
 priori road" from the beginning. It ig- 
 nores what is affirmed to have happened, 
 in behalf of what, it is theoretically con- 
 cluded, ought to have happened. In 
 default of historically identifiable char- 
 acters, to whom to attribute the disjecta 
 membra of the dissected documents, it 
 invents a list, lengthening with each new 
 emergency. It thus dissipates the actual 
 testimony into myth, and proceeds by a 
 sort of irresponsible, oracular, literary 
 divination to write a substitutionary doc- 
 ument therefor. Were any lawyer to deal 
 with the witnesses summoned, as some 
 of the critics have dealt with the Evan- 
 gelists (their, as well as our, only con- 
 temporary witnesses), he would be 
 laughed out of court. How would it 
 sound for him to say to the jury: "These 
 are the only witnesses in the case. But I 
 ask you to dismiss most of their testi- 
 mony as unreliable. Instead, thereof, let 
 me suggest that you listen to my theory 
 of the case, and allow me to reconstruct 
 their testimony according thereto. It is 
 true you will not then rely upon what 
 they have said, but how much safer it 
 will be to accept what an expert thinks 
 they ought to have said." 
 Once more, what are we to under- 
 
 67 
 
stand by the claim that higher criticism 
 alone proceeds according to the "scien- 
 tific" method? That method requires us 
 to accept the phenomenal as prima facie 
 real, and to proceed inductively from 
 facts near and known to the remoter and 
 unknown. The Bible is itself a fact; it 
 is inwoven with the web of the world's 
 history in a creative way; it lies at the 
 heart of the literary and spiritual forces 
 that move mankind to-day. It cannot be 
 intelligently studied apart from these 
 environing conditions and the pre- 
 sumptions in its favor thereby engen- 
 dered. 
 
 It is wholly unscientific, then, to ig- 
 nore these imperative preliminary con- 
 siderations, and treat the Bible "just like 
 any other book." A book, for the per- 
 manent certification of the origin of 
 which the Jews have been so marvelous- 
 ly preserved to a "life beyond life;" a 
 book that has lifted that segment of the 
 earth which we call Christendom to so 
 marked exaltation above the rest; a book 
 that has been the indisputable anteced- 
 ent, if not the cause, of the highest 
 phases of intellectual, ethical and politi- 
 cal advance, and that still holds its place 
 
 in the affections of the ripest peoples, 
 and outtops the highest spiritual ideals 
 of the twentieth century — cannot be thus 
 ignominiously flung into the tide of pro- 
 miscuous literature as "just like any 
 other book." 
 
 Telescopy can get no justice while you 
 regard the telescope as "just like any 
 other brass;" and count the only legi- 
 timate form of "study" of it to be chemi- 
 cal analysis of its metallic constituents, 
 or curious speculation based on the half- 
 effaced name of its constructor. Would 
 it not be more "scientific" to point it 
 heavenward, and by its help get better 
 vision of the stars? 
 
 The new Jerusalem can never be meas- 
 ured by a carpenter's foot-rule; nor can 
 mere linguistic or other technical trig- 
 onometry ever gauge or fitly judge the 
 nature or source of the written Word, 
 which, as truly as the Incarnate Word, 
 has proven itself irreducible to purely hu- 
 man standards of measurement. Let the 
 literary anatomist deal with his dead 
 subjects. The dissecting knife is not the 
 fit, much less the only fit, apparatus 
 wherewith most effectively to "study" 
 the Living Word. 
 
 President Hall: The next speaker on tive of The American Bible Society, at 
 
 the program will be Rev. Edward P. 
 Ingersoll, D.D., of this city. Secretary 
 of the American Bible Society. Dr. In- 
 gersoll has returned from Great Brit- 
 ain whither he went as the representa- 
 
 the Centenary of The British and For- 
 eign Bible Society. He brings back a 
 cheering report of the victories of the 
 Bible during the past century and of 
 the present outlook. 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. E. P. INGERSOLL 
 "A Century's Victories of the Bible" 
 
 It is reported that Voltaire once said 
 that it took twelve men to found Chris- 
 tianity, but that he would show the 
 world how easily one man could over- 
 throw it. He was confident that it would 
 be overthrown by the new discoveries 
 of that age and would not survive the 
 century. Well, the Bible has gone on 
 for a century, and Christianity still sur- 
 vives and extends, and we believe that 
 the house where Voltaire uttered his 
 boast is now a depot for Bibles. Its ex- 
 perience with Voltaire gives us courage 
 in the new conflicts with error and unbelief. 
 
 Its experience in the conflicts of the past 
 century, as I have recently heard it, is an 
 inspiration to new faith and a higher 
 courage. 
 
 I am in hearty sympathy with the 
 Bible League, because it has a conserva- 
 tive and yet positive aim with regard 
 to the Bible. Those who have asso- 
 ciated themselves together as members 
 of this League thoroughly believe that 
 we ought to say to our countrymen and 
 to Christendom "We believe in the 
 Scriptures as inspired of God and as the 
 only infallible rule of faith in practise." 
 
 68 
 
Like our fathers we are holding fast to 
 the "Eternal Word." 
 
 We have not organized for contention 
 with others, but rather that we may 
 strengthen each other's hands, and, if 
 possible, be a help to great multitudes 
 who are being disturbed by the destruc- 
 tive criticism of these latter days. We 
 wish to say to them that this is no new 
 thing, but that the assaults upon the 
 integrity of the Bible have, through the 
 centuries, come frequently and in many 
 guises. Some of us have seen the Bible 
 "overturned,' time and time again, and 
 yet, after a little anxiety, we have found 
 that it was a cube and stood on its solid 
 base just as firmly as before it was 
 "overturned." 
 
 The gentlemen who have spoken be- 
 fore me, have drawn attention to the 
 unscientific nature of Destructive Criti- 
 cism. Permit me to add that I regard 
 it as unfair as well as unscientific, be- 
 cause it seeks to tear down the house in 
 which I have been living before it pro- 
 vides for me a better house to live in. 
 I object to it again as being unfair be- 
 cause, for the most part, the work is not 
 done reverently. If I gave myself to 
 this destructive criticism, bearing down 
 upon Genesis or Isaiah, or the Wonders 
 of the Old Testament or the Miracles 
 of the New, I am confident that my best 
 friends would whisper to me, "You are 
 not reverent." I have a strong and 
 steady conviction that every man who 
 would be a thorough teacher of Bible 
 lore, so as to discriminate between what 
 is divine and what is human must 
 have a very devout spirit. And be- 
 yond this, ought it not to make every 
 critic very cautious when he considers 
 that there are a hundred different forms 
 and statements in this Book which men 
 are criticising? They stand up and con- 
 fer together, — finally one says, "I do 
 not criticise that book or that statement, 
 but I criticise this book and this state- 
 ment; another one says, "I criticise that 
 which you approve and approve that 
 which you criticise;" and so it goes on 
 until scores of them have uttered their 
 criticisms and you find, upon investiga- 
 tion, that no two of them absolutely 
 
 69 
 
 agree. There are a hundred different 
 roads of criticism, and, when you have 
 gathered all of the critical scholars of 
 the world together, you find a few going 
 in this path, a few in that path, and a 
 few in another path; while every one of 
 these scholars affirms that there can be 
 only one path that is right — and that 
 his own. This thought ought to make 
 us modest when we come to the criti- 
 cism of a book that has endured the test 
 of ages. 
 
 THE GREAT BIBLE MEETINGS IN 
 LONDON. 
 
 I have been requested to say a few 
 words in regard to the outcome of the 
 Bible work in the last century. A few 
 weeks ago I was in London, as the rep- 
 resentative of the American Bible So- 
 ciety, at the Centenary of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society. The story 
 of what the Bible has done for mankind 
 during the last century, as I heard it 
 there, was an inspiration of faith. 
 
 There were great gatherings: repre- 
 sentatives of the royal family, distin- 
 guished Christian ministers and laymen, 
 scholars and business men — ten thousand 
 and more — from the different Protes- 
 tant denominations, twice in Albert 
 Hall and once in St. Paul's Cathedral. It 
 was delightful and reassuring to note the 
 enthusiasm in London and throughout 
 the whole of England. There were 
 magnificent audiences everywhere, and 
 not a single note of discord was struck. 
 It was the Bible, as the infallible rule 
 of faith and practice, the whole Bible 
 that was being honored as the means 
 by which the Nations in darkness were 
 being enlightened and lifted up into in- 
 telligent and Christian manhood. One 
 evening toward the last of March, I 
 spoke to a large gathering, probably a 
 thousand people, in Penrith, near the 
 English Lakes. The meeting was not 
 held in a church, but in a public hall. 
 At the close, some one offered a resolu- 
 tion which was substantially the state- 
 ment of the aim of this Bible League. 
 It looked to the Bible as giving the 
 blessings of our civilization, — in other 
 words, as being the light and comfort 
 for time and for eternity. It was a 
 
popular gathering at which a distin- 
 guished lawyer presided. When a rising 
 vote upon that resolution was taken I 
 did not see a single person remain seat- 
 ed. One of the Secretaries of the Brit- 
 ish and Foreign Bible Society, on the 
 first Sunday in March last,' went to 
 Manchester and was advertised to speak 
 about the Bible and the work it was do- 
 ing in the world. The meeting was in 
 the largest public hall in Manchester, 
 seating four thousand people; it was 
 crowded to the doors, and multitudes 
 were obliged to go away because they 
 could not gain admission. And it was 
 all to hear the story of the Bible and its 
 achievements from the lips of a man 
 not especially known to them, who was 
 to tell them of the work of the Bible in 
 the world. 
 
 At one of the great centennial meet- 
 ings in London (Tuesday evening, 
 March 8,) our Ambassador, Hon. Jo- 
 seph H. Choate, stood on the platform 
 in Queen's Hall and gave a noble testi- 
 mony to the power of the Bible in the 
 early American life, and of its beneficent 
 influence which continues still; and he 
 said, amid great enthusiasm, "I believe 
 that Britain and America are destined 
 to carry this Bible, its liberty and its 
 life to the earth's remotest bounds." 
 There was none of the watchmaker busi- 
 ness, of which Dr. Thomas just spoke, 
 in the grand utterances of our Ambas- 
 sador. 
 
 Let me now come back to America, 
 and assure you that my own observation 
 and the testimony of many friends have 
 convinced me that the pastors who have 
 proclaimed themselves enthusiastic ad- 
 herents to this critical spirit which is 
 fastening upon the Bible, are not gain- 
 ing in influence for good. I rejoice that 
 there are multitudes of pastors who are 
 holding fast to the form of sound words; 
 are preaching the gospel with all enthu- 
 siasm; are so preaching the Word that 
 
 souls are converted, comforted and es- 
 tablished. The church of which I am a 
 member received 120 at its Communion 
 in April, two-thirds of them upon pro- 
 fession of faith. I have been a member 
 of that church for two years, and in all 
 that time have not heard the pastor 
 name "Higher Criticism," or touch upon 
 anything that verged toward it. He is 
 preaching the Lord Jesus Christ and 
 preaching Him with power, and strong 
 men and multitudes of young men are 
 coming into the church. How in con- 
 trast is this with the case of a young 
 minister with whom I spoke not long 
 ago. I said, "Are you preaching Higher 
 Criticism?" "Why, of course I am." 
 "Why?" "Because my people will think 
 I don't know anything if I don't preach 
 the Higher Criticism." May he get over 
 that idea of delusion and folly! 
 
 But despite the skepticism and the criti- 
 cism the Bible has been more and more 
 shedding abroad its light for mankind. 
 The American Bible Society in eighty- 
 seven years has published 72,000,000 Bi- 
 bles and portions of the Bible. The British 
 and Foreign Bible Society in one hun- 
 dred years has published 180,000,000 vol- 
 umes. There were between forty and 
 fifty languages into which the Bible was 
 translated when the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society was organized in 1804, — 
 there are now four hundred and seventy- 
 four languages and dialects into which 
 the Bible and portions are translated. 
 All of the centuries to the nine- 
 teenth gave us less than fifty transla- 
 tions; the nineteenth century has given 
 us at least four hundred and thirty new 
 ones, and we were never going forward 
 so rapidly as now. Men are asking for 
 this Book everywhere. "Give us the 
 wonderful Book;" and all through the 
 world it is transforming lives, it is trans- 
 forming nations. Let us hold fast to it 
 for it is the plinth that supports the 
 glorious temple of truth. 
 
 President Hall: I am going to ask hj^mn I will call your attention to the 
 Dr. Burrell if he will give us a closing program for this evening. Under the 
 hymn, and while he is selecting that Third Special Topic: "The Unscientific 
 
 70 
 
Character of the Prevailing Higher 
 Criticism," there will be an address on 
 "Its Unscientific Treatment of the Facts 
 of Scripture; or Misdirected Scholar- 
 ship," by Prof. G. Frederick Wright, 
 D.D., LL.D., of Oberlin Theological 
 Seminary, Editor of the "Bibliotheca 
 Sacra." He will be followed by Prof. 
 Robert D. Wilson, Ph.D., D.D., of 
 Princeton Theological Seminary, speak- 
 ing for Oriental Scholarship; and by 
 Rev. M. G. Kyle, D.D., of Frankford, 
 Philadelphia, Pa., the well-known Egyp- 
 tologist, representing Archaeology. The 
 concluding address will be delivered by 
 Rev. Robert Mackenzie, D.D., of Rut- 
 gers Riverside Presbyterian Church, of 
 this city, formerly Professor in San 
 
 Francisco Theological Seminary. Now, 
 I am sure, there will be a real feast for 
 all lovers of the Word of God, and I 
 hope you will not only come yourselves, 
 but bring your friends. 
 
 Dr. Burrcll: Let us sing hymn num- 
 ber 370. 
 
 "Come, O Creator, Spirit blest. 
 And in our souls take up Thy rest." 
 
 President Hall: I would like to make 
 a special request that all of the speakers 
 at this afternoon's session will meet here 
 on this platform. 
 
 After the singing of the hymn Dr. Bur- 
 rell pronounced the benediction. 
 
 ^bird Special ^opic : 
 
 THE UNSCIENTIFIC CHARACTER OF THE PREVAIL- 
 ING HIGHER CRITICISM " 
 
 WEDNESDAY EVENING SESSION, MAY 4 
 
 8:00 P. M. President William Phillips Hall in the Chair 
 
 Prayer by Dr. Burrell: We thank 
 Thee, O God, for all the blessings of 
 the day, for Thy manifest presence with 
 us in Thy work. We thank Thee for the 
 high privilege of service, for the delight 
 of acknowledging ourselves to be labor- 
 ers together with God. We thank Thee 
 for the revelation of Thyself every way 
 unto us. We glory in thy blessed Word. 
 Be with us here to-night. Sanctify to 
 us every moment of the hour that we 
 shall spend together, and help us, we 
 pray, to glorify Thee in all that we do 
 and by what we say during the further 
 sessions of this Convention; and follow 
 it all with a watering from Heaven, "for 
 Paul may plant . . . and Apollos may 
 water," but Thou Thyself must, after 
 all, bring about the increase. Bless the 
 Truth; give it power, abundant power; 
 and place us in the possession of truth 
 with clear eyes and receptive hearts, for 
 Jesus' sake. Amen! 
 
 We will sing — 
 
 "A glory gilds the sacred page, 
 Majestic like the sun." 
 
 Turn to Psalm cxix. We have been 
 reading over and over again in it. We 
 will begin at Cheth, verse 57. 
 
 (Responsive reading of the Psalm.) 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Now, will Rev. Dr. Joach- 
 im Elmendorf offer prayer. 
 
 Prayer by Dr. Joachim Elmendorf: 
 We bless Thee, O our Christ, that we 
 are permitted to see this day. We bless 
 Thee that Thy people have aroused 
 themselves to the need of uttering their 
 convictions as to the preciousness of 
 this blessed Bible which Thou hast given 
 us. We rejoice that there are so many 
 of us that can testify that it speaks to 
 our needs, that it speaks to our needs 
 even in childhood, in youth, in young 
 manhood; and when the inquiry went 
 up from our lips, "Lord, what wilt Thou 
 have me to do?" Thou didst then, out 
 of Thy blessed Word, show us the way 
 in which Thou wouldst have us walk. 
 We bless Thee that Christendom is full 
 of those who think they are called upon 
 to testify to the preciousness, and the 
 guiding power, and the saving power of 
 
 71 
 
this Word of the Living God. We know 
 it is Thine, Tor we have had it speak to 
 the depths of our souls. Oh, help Thy 
 people to come together. Help them to 
 unite in the testimony that shall con- 
 vince the world that it is none other 
 than the Word of God. Grant* to bless 
 this Convention. Raise up those that 
 shall speak even as Thy servants have 
 been speaking, to the convincing and 
 comforting of men. And the men who 
 have thought they have believed Thy 
 Word, men who have thought they 
 loved Thy Word, oh! help them to know 
 more and more its preciousness and its 
 power from the testimony of those who 
 are speaking for it in this Convention. 
 And we pray that Thou wilt carry for- 
 ward this movement; give it increasing 
 membership; give increasing devotion 
 on the part of those who constitute the 
 movement. Give it, we pray Thee, more 
 and more of the manifest presence of 
 God in the organization and in its prog- 
 ress. Be with us this evening. Grant 
 that all the words that are spoken may 
 be prompted by Thy Holy Spirit, blessed 
 by Thy Holy Spirit, and reach many 
 minds and many souls with convincing 
 and comforting and saving power, for 
 Christ's sake. Amen! 
 Dr. Burrell: Sing No. "jy, 
 "I love the volume of Thy Word." 
 President Hall: Despite the fact that 
 it is prayer-meeting night in most of 
 the city churches, you see that we have 
 
 a splendid audience. We have had 
 good audiences during all our sessions. 
 We had as many here this morning al- 
 most as we have at this present mo- 
 ment. This afternoon we had a splen- 
 did audience, and much enthusiasm was 
 exhibited, and deep interest and heart- 
 felt sympathy with the great matters 
 that we have in hand; and now this 
 evening we shall continue our program. 
 One of the most attractive portions is 
 to be presented in the addresses that 
 are to follow before the close of the 
 evening service. We shall aim to make 
 the session as short as may be consist- 
 ent with a proper handling of the burn- 
 ing subject that is to be presented. 
 
 It gives me especial pleasure to an- 
 nounce the Third Special Topic under 
 the General Topic, "Groundlessness of 
 the Present Rationalistic Claims," — the 
 topic of the evening: "Unscientific Char- 
 acter of the Prevailing Higher Criti- 
 cism." 
 
 In the front rank among the scientific 
 men of the present day is one whose 
 standing as a scholar I do not think is 
 questioned by any one, — who will ad- 
 dress you on the subject of the evening, 
 our good friend and beloved brother and 
 honored colleague in this great work, 
 Prof. G. Frederick Wright, D.D., LL.D., 
 of Oberlin Theological Seminary, Edi- 
 tor of the Bibliotheca Sacra. I have 
 great pleasure in introducing Professor 
 Wright. 
 
 ADDRESS OF PROFESSOR G. FREDERICK WRIGHT 
 "Unscientific Treatment of the Facts of Scripture; or, Misdirected Scholarship' 
 
 I call attention at the outset to the 
 fact that this is no talk on Higher Crit- 
 icism in itself considered. In reading 
 the program you will see that there is 
 always an adjective before that phrase. 
 We speak of the Rationalistic Higher 
 Criticism; of the Destructive Higher 
 Criticism; and in the subject announced 
 for this evening, of the Prevailing 
 Higher Criticism. We are speaking of 
 a special department in a legitimate line 
 of criticism; for we are all critics. It 
 is our business, in the first place, to ex- 
 amine, and that carefully, all the facts^ 
 The very first principle of science is to 
 
 know the facts in any region that is be- 
 ing investigated, — to be sure of the facts. 
 The whole scientific process consists, 
 first, in observation, and next in ex- 
 plaining and putting together those ob- 
 servations, that you may increase your 
 knowledge; and this we all do, or all 
 profess to do. 
 
 I have been powerfully impressed dur- 
 ing the last few years, in the course of 
 my studies, with what may be the pro- 
 duct of our educational system, or of 
 the neglect of those of us who have 
 been teachers — I know not what — that 
 certain fundamental principles of scien- 
 
 72 
 
tific investigation are being pretty large- 
 ly overlooked by many who are writing 
 on these subjects of Biblical Criticism. 
 There is a very general tendency to 
 start with a supposition, an interpreta- 
 tion of the fact, an interpretation of a 
 passage of Scripture, which may be 
 plausible but may be wrong; and then 
 go forward and reason upon that as 
 though we had an established fact. It 
 is to some things of this sort that I 
 wish to call your especial attention. 
 
 The Requirements of Inductive Science 
 
 Now, the methods of science are pure- 
 ly those of common sense. Inductive 
 science is indeed nothing more than en- 
 larged common sense. All our knowl- 
 edge of the actual world is based on 
 observation. But it is not confined to 
 observation. We obtain our knowledge 
 of the past by weighing evidence. We 
 make our plans for the future by cal- 
 culating the outcome of present forces 
 which we know to be in operation. By 
 reason of our ignorance of the forces in 
 operation, our inferences concerning the 
 past and the future are of every degree 
 of uncertainty. To a considerable de- 
 gree, thereore, all our knowledge both 
 of the past and of the future is specu- 
 lative; and in science as well as in re- 
 ligion we all walk by faith, and not by 
 sight. 
 
 But it is a fundamental principle of 
 inductive science that it makes the most 
 of the facts of observation. Modern 
 science differs from that of the Middle 
 Ages pretty largely in this one thing, 
 that it keeps as clear as possible from 
 speculation which can not be restramed 
 and guided by facts. So far as it can, 
 it keeps in sight of land, and only ven- 
 tures out upon the broad ocean when 
 compelled to do so, and then proceeds 
 with much misgiving and great caution. 
 
 If a man comes into a scientific soci- 
 ety and presents a theory without any 
 facts to base it upon; if he has not added 
 any facts from his own observation, so 
 as to enlarge the scope of our reason- 
 ing, he is at once turned down. He is 
 called an a priori philosopher. 
 
 So, this is the scientific principle with 
 
 which we start; and we shall see before 
 we get through that is a very important 
 one. 
 
 Mr. Tyndall well nigh lost his repu- 
 tation among scientific men when he 
 left the solid facts of observation, and, 
 with his mind's eye, looking into the 
 abysmal recesses of the infinite past, re- 
 ported that he saw Shakespeare and 
 Milton and Napoleon and Grant and 
 Cuvier and Darwin emerging by natu- 
 ral processes from the whirling fiery 
 star-dust out of which the physicists 
 suppose the earth to have been made. 
 In that he was not speaking as a sci- 
 entific man. He had no more business 
 to talk upon that than a child ten years 
 old had. It has been a very humiliat- 
 ing thing to see the respect that we 
 have paid to such a statement as that, 
 a statement which almost discredited 
 him with scientific men. 
 
 Professor Huxley, who was a greater 
 man by far than Tyndall, damaged his 
 scientific reputation when, in spite of 
 all the facts which he himself arrayed 
 disproving the theory of spontaneous 
 generation, he ventured out on the 
 wings of faith, and declared that he 
 believed that somewhere in infinite 
 time, and amid the infinite changes 
 through which matter has been called 
 to pass, life with all its possibilities did 
 somehow originate by a natural process 
 from the material forces of the uni- 
 verse. He strained our confidence in 
 his scientific judgment still more when 
 he endeavored to prove that both ani- 
 mals and men are automata, doubting 
 even that animals had any sensation of 
 pain, and denying to man a free will. 
 The picture of Huxley contending with 
 the English bishops, and yet compelled 
 by his theory to maintain that he had 
 no free will in the matter, is in the high- 
 est degree ludicrous! 
 
 Herbert Spencer, who, apparently, has 
 so much influence upon popular writers 
 of the present day, had no standing 
 among the men of science. He made 
 no investigations in science, as Tyndall 
 and Huxley did. He was simply an a 
 priori philosopher sailing out upon the 
 boundless sea of unrestricted specula- 
 
 72 
 
tion. And so he was looked upon by 
 all the great scientific men of the world. 
 It is philosophy, not science, that he is 
 teaching. 
 
 In the revulsion from this bald mate- 
 rialism of the physical phijosophers, 
 many have gone over to the other ex- 
 treme, and made so much of the imma- 
 nence of God that they have lost sight 
 of His transcendence. These have no 
 need of troubling themselves about the 
 origin of species, since, according to 
 them, everything originates in the im- 
 mediate action of the Divine Will. 
 These need no historical evidences of 
 Christianity and no specially inspired 
 authors of the Bible, since every one 
 is inspiredj and there is no source of 
 knowledge but the immediate breathing 
 of the Almighty through the soul of 
 man. 
 
 But one thing is very certain, and this 
 is one to which scientific men have 
 called attention. It is this, that evolu- 
 tion however far it may be applied in 
 the material creation, does not apply in 
 human history. When you come to 
 man — and that is an argument that un- 
 derlies very much of our reasoning con- 
 cerning the Bible and the Old Testa- 
 ment — when you come to man you have 
 no theory of evolution such as you 
 think you have in nature. 
 
 But what are the facts with which 
 Biblical Science is concerned? 
 
 The facts are that in Assyria, in Baby- 
 lonia, in the Valley of the Nile, the fur- 
 ther back you go the better was their 
 sculpture. There has been a deterio- 
 ration. No man can visit Egypt and 
 not see the evidences of this deterio- 
 ration. The Fellaheen of Egypt are 
 descendants of the men who built the 
 pyramids. What are they now? You 
 can see to what an extent they have 
 deteriorated. So you find in the up- 
 ward progress of the world what we 
 believe is not the result of what you 
 call evolution; but it is, as clearly as 
 can be the result of historical processes, 
 the result of a revelation. We make 
 a revelation to the heathen, that is, we 
 carry the revelation which we have re- 
 ceived; and our only hope and expec- 
 
 tation for the rise of the heathen na- 
 tions is that the truth which we carry 
 to them will be received. So as we go 
 back, — from whom did our ancestors 
 in Europe receive the truth that has 
 made Europe and America what they 
 are? They received it from Greece and 
 Rome. And Greece and Rome re- 
 ceived it from Egypt. And so, glanc- 
 ing from one altar to another, this 
 light has come down, and we have be- 
 come the possessors of it. It was not 
 by a process of Natural Selection. 
 
 The Church is a Missionary Church, 
 and the essential idea of it is, that a 
 gift from Heaven has been bestowed 
 upon us, and woe to us if we preach 
 not the Gospel. We are taken into 
 partnership with Christ. It is not an 
 evolution by a natural and slow pro- 
 cess; but it is a revolution when the 
 Gospel comes into a heathen's mind, 
 when the Gospel acts on the soul, when 
 it receives this Gospel of peace. 
 
 Now, those are the facts, and when 
 one reasons on any other theory, he 
 reasons without his facts; and you can 
 not bring that theory to have any 
 weight with us in the matter of dis- 
 cussing such problems as come before 
 us in the Bible. Whatever evolution 
 may have been in the forces below us, 
 of earth and inanimate nature, it does 
 not apply in this case. 
 
 Now, this leads me to the point of 
 great difficulty, and of great import- 
 ance, namely, that the main facts upon 
 which we should form our judgment 
 concerning Christianity are within the 
 reach of ordinary men: ninety-nine one- 
 hundredths of all the evidence that bears 
 upon that subject can be brought be- 
 fore any man of common intelligence. 
 The fault I have to find with the pre- 
 vailing tendency is that it disregards 
 all this main evidence, to concentrate 
 attention upon getting a little additional 
 evidence, and then rests the case wholly 
 upon that. 
 
 We are all of us, I say, critics. We 
 are all out trying to find the truth. We 
 do not feel we have attained all the 
 truth, or got all the evidence in. But 
 it is like the Parable of the Lost Sheep: 
 
 74 
 
we all want to get the one sheep that 
 was lost upon the mountains. But, mark 
 you, it says the other sheep were in the 
 fold. It was not because they cared so 
 much more for the one sheep than the 
 others; but the others were safe. Now, 
 the difference between the Conserva- 
 tives and some of the Radicals is, that 
 the Conservatives feel that they want 
 to keep the ninety and nine in the fold, 
 and then go out and see what they can 
 do with the other one; but a great many 
 of the Radicals open the gates and turn 
 the ninety-nine out into the wilderness, 
 and then go out and search for the one. 
 That is the process that is going on. 
 
 I will show you in a few minutes 
 how it is that, abandoning the main evi- 
 dences, they come to rest their whole 
 case upon the straggling bits of evidence 
 that had not all of them come within 
 the reach of our minds heretofore. 
 
 The Bible and the Critics Tested by 
 Inductive Science. 
 
 Now, the Bible in the fullest meas- 
 ure endures all the tests of modern in- 
 ductive science. It grants, yes, affirms, 
 the existence of that material substra- 
 tum of nature which modern physical 
 science demands; while it lifts supreme, 
 that directing agency of an all-compre- 
 hensive Mind, of whose existence we 
 are assured in that life of feeling, 
 thought, and will of which we are most 
 immediately conscious. 
 
 As a historical religion, Christianity 
 places itself upon a scientific basis. The 
 doctrines of Christianity are not bare 
 speculations, but they rest upon facts, 
 and are legitimate inferences from the 
 most permanent phenomena in the 
 world's history. The tree is known by 
 its fruits. The fruits of Christianity 
 abound on every hand. There is the 
 Church, with its ordinances, its insti- 
 tutions, its sacraments, and its varied 
 forms of life; there is its line of liter- 
 ature, continuous from the Apostolic 
 time; and there is its Sacred Volume, 
 most marvelous in the variety of its 
 interest and the sublimity of its con- 
 tents. The Bible shines by no reflected 
 light. It is a unity by itself. It is its 
 
 own best witness. With the vast major- 
 ity of men, this remarkable literature 
 constituting the Bible needs only to be 
 seen to be recognized as a product of 
 divinity. In this, as in every other case, 
 seeing is believing. 
 
 But we have fallen upon evil times, 
 when the blind are trying to lead the 
 blind. 
 
 Many of the Biblical Critics who are 
 obtaining a wide hearing are so afraid 
 of the beaten paths, and so enamored of 
 what is new, that they seem deliberately 
 to choose the hardest road and the most 
 obscure paths by which to attain the 
 desired goal of truth. Reversing the old 
 maxim that "whatever is true is not new, 
 and what is new is not true," they as- 
 sume that nothing old is true, and noth- 
 ing is true which is not new. Even so 
 conservative a critic as Herman L. 
 Strack, in so conservative a work as the 
 Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, begins his 
 discussion of the authorship of the Pen- 
 tateuch by protesting against the use of 
 the passages in the New Testament in 
 proof of the Mosaic authorship, on the 
 ground that if they prove it, "all other 
 proofs are superfluous and are a deroga- 
 tion from the authority of our Lord, and 
 that the use of such proofs removes the 
 whole question from the historical and 
 critical domain." It is also noticeable, 
 in the most recent volume of the late 
 Prof. A. B. Davidson, on "Old Testa- 
 ment Prophecy," that, when discussing 
 the authorship of the book of Isaiah, he 
 makes no use of New Testament refer- 
 ences, except to explain away two pas- 
 sages from Paul's epistles which imply 
 that Isaiah was the author of the latter 
 part of the prophecy attributed to him. 
 Apparently he does not care publicly to 
 face the question of Christ's indorse- 
 ment of the Isaianic authorship of the 
 whole book, since he would be much 
 more ready to attribute ignorance or an 
 excessive use of the principle of accom- 
 modation to Paul than he would to his 
 Lord and Master Jesus Christ. 
 
 This tendency to eliminate the testi- 
 mony of the New Testament to the his- 
 torical character of the Old Testament, 
 is in principle like that of professedly 
 
 75 
 
discarding the original and best wit- 
 nesses in the trial, and contenting 
 oneself with the fragmentary evidence 
 which can be picked up from later and 
 hearsay witnesses. Upon the impro- 
 priety of this course we have, no diffi- 
 culty in passing judgment in ordinary 
 affairs. In legal matters we are familiar 
 with what is known as the "statute of 
 limitations," which provides that if a 
 title is not disputed before a certain 
 time has elapsed, the question shall not 
 again be reopened. The reason for this 
 is that the time to challenge the primary 
 witnesses to any fact is while they are 
 still living and accessible. If one delays 
 to adduce his rebutting evidence until 
 the primary witnesses are dead or be- 
 yond reach of ordinary effort, the pre- 
 sumption is very strong that this delay 
 is due to weakness in the evidence, 
 which would be made manifest by the 
 explanations of the primary witnesses. 
 While it is not true that the principles 
 underlying the statute of limitations 
 should have unrestricted and absolute 
 sway, it is true that it throws a very 
 heavy burden of proof on those who 
 come in with alleged new evidence long 
 after the question has been settled, and 
 endeavor to reverse the original decision 
 based on contemporary evidence. Pos- 
 session is not only nine points of the 
 law, but is nine points of the evidence 
 upon which we may properly base our 
 belief concerning great historical facts. 
 
 The Newtonian theory of gravitation 
 is not overthrown by the fact that there 
 are numerous anomalies in the move- 
 ments of the heavenly bodies which we 
 are not able to explain. With the posi- 
 tive evidence supporting the theory, it 
 is sufficient for its advocates to show 
 that these anomalies are possibly capable 
 of being explained; thereby throwing the 
 burden of proof upon the objector who, 
 in order to maintain his case, is com- 
 pelled to prove a universal negative. 
 
 The main principles of geology are 
 not proved false by adducing a great 
 number of phenomena which are diffi- 
 cult of explanation. The geologist is 
 permitted to make almost any number 
 of suppositions which do not violate the 
 
 principles of physical science to save a 
 well-accredited theory. To account for 
 his phenomena he is privileged to lift 
 mountains and continents above the sea, 
 and to invoke long eons of time and the 
 action of an endless variety of causes 
 which may have combined to produce 
 the observed results. In no other effort 
 of modern science to reconstruct the 
 past is this more strikingly seen than in 
 Darwin's advocacy of the origin of 
 species through natural selection, a 
 theory which is well described as a 
 series of "loopholes" and "may-bes" in 
 which the difficulties are explained by 
 reference to such things as "reversion," 
 "correlation," "use and disuse of parts," 
 "direct action of external conditions," 
 and "spontaneous" variation. 
 
 The believer in transmutation "can in- 
 vent trains of ancestors of whose exist- 
 ence there is no evidence; he can mar- 
 shal hosts of equally imaginary foes; 
 he can call up continents, floods, and pe- 
 culiar atmospheres; he can dry up 
 oceans, split islands, and parcel out eter- 
 nity at will. Surely, with these advant- 
 ages, he must be a dull fellow if he can 
 not scheme some series of animals and 
 circumstances explaining our assumed 
 difficulties quite naturally." 
 
 Nobody was more willing to grant the 
 abundance and strength of these objec- 
 tions than was Mr. Darwin himself. In 
 a striking letter to Sir Joseph Hooker 
 he makes this admission, but comforts 
 himself with the fact that he is not so 
 open to criticism on that score as is 
 Herbert Spencer, Commenting upon 
 Spencer's "Principles of Biology," he 
 says: 
 
 "I have now read the last number of 
 H. Spencer. I do not know whether to 
 think it better than the previous num- 
 ber, but it is wonderfully clever, and I 
 dare say mostly true. I feel rather 
 mean when I read him: I could bear, 
 and rather enjoy, feeling that he was 
 twice as ingenious and clever as myself, 
 but when I feel that he is about a dozen 
 times my superior, even in the master 
 art of wriggling, I feel aggrieved. If 
 he had trained himself to observe more, 
 even if at the expense, by the law of 
 balancement, of some loss of thinking 
 power, he would have been a wonderful 
 man." 
 
 7(> 
 
Nevertheless, he tenaciously held on 
 to the main proofs of his theory, con- 
 tenting himself with the belief that all 
 the objections might be explained away. 
 
 Without affirming or denying the truth 
 of Mr. Darwin's theory, we can say 
 most emphatically that his method is 
 scientific. The only question would be 
 whether his main arguments are as con- 
 clusive as he supposed. 
 
 It is thus, that, from the beginning, 
 the Christian Church has in a truly 
 scientific manner held on to the central 
 facts of Christianity and guided itself 
 by the clearest light which shines out 
 from the Bible. The central fact from 
 which the life of the Church has sprung 
 is Christ's resurrection from the dead. 
 Around that central fact is gathered a 
 mass of historical evidence which is al- 
 most superabundant in its amount, and 
 of such a character as to satisfy the 
 most scrupulous stickler for legal and 
 scientific evidence. To the legal mind 
 there is the appeal of the report to 
 Pilate by the regular officers, whose 
 business it was to carry out his com- 
 mand, that Jesus was really dead. To 
 Professor Huxley, who asked for a post- 
 mortem examination, we can reply, that 
 there was such an examination. The 
 thrusting of the spear into the side of 
 Jesus fulfilled every requirement of a 
 post-mortem examination. Christ's 
 emergence from the tomb was not the 
 resuscitation of a man who had fallen 
 in a swoon, but was a real resurrection 
 from the dead. 
 
 The witness to this resurrection is so 
 varied, so inartificial, and so thoroughly 
 wrought into the life of the Primitive 
 Church, that it can not be resisted, ex- 
 cept by doing violence to every prin- 
 ciple of reason upon which the ordinary 
 affairs of life are regulated. 
 
 With the establishment of the resur- 
 rection of Christ there goes, by a simple 
 and easy process, the establishment of 
 the truth of the whole New Testament. 
 There is such a general congruity in the 
 story of Christ's supernatural birth, His 
 brief period of miraculous activity, 
 when, besides doing what no man could 
 do, He spake as no man ever spake, — 
 
 there is, I say, such a congruity between 
 these recorded incidents of His life and 
 the nature and work ascribed to Him 
 and the marvelous results effected by 
 Him in the life of the Church, that it is 
 impossible, with the facts clearly in 
 mind, to resist the conviction that the 
 New Testament is, in the main, a gen- 
 uinely authentic account of the life and 
 work of our Lord and Master. The 
 New Testament embodies the whole cir- 
 cle of facts out of which sprang the life 
 of the Christian Church. In the course 
 of a Providence before which we can- 
 not but stand in awe, what we have in 
 the Gospels and Epistles was preserved, 
 and no more. Not a dozen sentences 
 outside of these books tell us anything 
 which we can reasonably believe con- 
 cerning the words and acts of our Di- 
 vine Lord and Master. 
 
 Such a historical document deserves 
 at least the respect which the scientific 
 man gives to the central facts upon 
 which he bases his theories. In ref- 
 erence to the Bible we speak of it 
 as the reverence due to a highly quali- 
 fied and well-established authority. But 
 reverence has well nigh disappeared 
 from a considerable portion of our mod- 
 ern Biblical critics. Instead of asking 
 whether an interpretation of an obscure 
 passage may be explained in accordance 
 with the clearer passages, they ask, Can 
 it possibly have an interpretation which 
 will make it conflict with the clearer 
 passages? 
 
 We have an example of this in the 
 persistent effort made by a large num- 
 ber of prominent commentators and 
 Biblical critics to make the world believe 
 that there is a plain contradiction be- 
 tween the fourth Gospel and the other 
 three Gospels in their statements con- 
 cerning the time at which Jesus ate the 
 last Passover with His disciples. Scien- 
 tific common sense would say that an 
 unexplainable discrepancy between such 
 documents should not be assumed if 
 there was any reasonable way of har- 
 monizing them. 
 
 The first three Gospels affirm with 
 great clearness that . this Supper was 
 eaten before the arrest and trial ol 
 
 17 
 
Jesus; whereas the fourth Gospel af- 
 firms that early in the morning, while 
 the trial was in progress, the Jews de- 
 clined to enter Pilate's judgment hall, 
 lest they should be defiled so that they 
 could not eat the Passover. Now there 
 are two very natural suppositions which 
 can be made, either of which would re- 
 move this apparent discrepancy, and 
 leave the credit of the documents unim- 
 paired. 
 
 ' 1st. It may have been, and probably 
 was, so early in the morning that the 
 priests could regularly eat the Passover 
 in the strictest sense of the word before 
 sunrise. 
 
 2d. The phrase "eat the Passover" be- 
 longs to that elastic class of expressions 
 that make it apply to the concluding 
 portions of the festival that followed 
 during the day up to the next evening. 
 
 Besides, it is susceptible of proof that 
 while this defiling would have prevented 
 them from taking part in the minor 
 closing festivities, it was not such as 
 would have absolutely prohibited them 
 from partaking of the paschal lamb upon 
 the evening following. From such a 
 defilement they could easily free them- 
 selves before the close of the day. 
 
 Now we submit that the commentators 
 and critics, who insist upon a contradic- 
 tion in the face of such an easy recon- 
 ciliation, are ignorant of the simplest 
 rules of evidence which prevail in courts 
 and in all well-informed scientific cir- 
 cles. Yet this is only a specimen of the 
 false reasoning which is being forced 
 upon the guileless public and labeled as 
 the product of the new science of Bib- 
 lical criticism. But instead of being 
 new, it is as old as Celsus, and the fal- 
 lacy of the method has been made clear 
 to every generation until the present, 
 and now we have to go painfully over 
 the same ground again and give line 
 upon line and precept upon precept. 
 
 We have time simply to enumerate a 
 few of the cases parallel to the one al- 
 ready mentioned. 
 
 The author of the third Gospel can be 
 shown by innumerable lines of evidence 
 to be a writer who was exceptionally 
 well informed upon all matters of local 
 
 history and geography. In so many 
 cases have his questionable statements 
 been confirmed from unexpected 
 sources, that, aside from the question 
 of inspiration, he has come to have the 
 reputation of a first-class witness. Yet 
 so hard is it for modern critics to believe 
 that he has made no mistake, that they 
 insist with inordinate vigor in affirming 
 that in those instances where the facts 
 depend wholly upon his statements he 
 not only may be wrong, but he must 
 be wrong. One of the most prominent 
 professors of New Testament Greek 
 adduced as one of his principal argu- 
 ments for the fallibility of the writer, 
 that in Acts v.36 Gamaliel is made to 
 refer to an impostor by the name of 
 Theudas, who had come to grief some- 
 what before his time, during the reign 
 of Augustus. But, because Josephus 
 mentions a Theudas who ran a similar 
 career fifty years later, in the time of 
 Claudius, it is assumed that Luke must 
 have made a mistake. It would seem, 
 however, to be a very plausible suppo- 
 sition that there may have been two 
 Theudases; for such repetition of names 
 and careers is by no means unusual. 
 Josephus himself mentions four Simons 
 within forty years, and three Judases 
 within ten years, who were all instigat- 
 ors of rebellion. To insist upon fas- 
 tening an error upon a credible witness 
 on so flimsy a basis as this is certainly 
 not scientific. Darwin would count him- 
 self fortunate if he could save his theory 
 by a "wriggling" which was ten times 
 more violent than this. 
 
 Similar remarks could be made con- 
 cerning the absurd ideas attributed to 
 Biblical writers by prominent commen- 
 tators and critics, through imposing 
 upon the words of Scripture meanings 
 which by no means necessarily belong 
 to them. Thus a prominent theological 
 professor accuses Paul of "almost re- 
 senting the idea" that the Mosaic leg- 
 islation which prohibited the muzzling 
 of an ox while treading out the corn 
 "meant what it says;" and this because, 
 forsooth, in an impassioned exhortation 
 to the early disciples properly to care 
 for those who ministered to them in 
 
 78 
 
spiritual things, he exclaims, "Is it for 
 oxen that God careth, or saith he it al- 
 together for our sake? Yea, for our 
 sakes it is written." This spectacle of 
 one who is set up to be a teacher of 
 the people being so unable to under- 
 stand a rhetorical expression, does not 
 augur well for the intelligence of the 
 rising generation of ministers. And yet 
 illustrations of the same sort can be re- 
 peated without number. 
 
 Turning for a moment to the inter- 
 pretation of the Old Testament which 
 is coming to be prevalent, we find the 
 same unscientific mode of procedure in 
 even more aggravated form. Not only, 
 as we have already seen, is the testi- 
 mony of the New Testament to the Old 
 Testament ignored, but the chief wit- 
 nesses in the New Testament are set 
 aside with a flippancy that is as shock- 
 ing to one's nerves as it is discreditable 
 to the critics. I have heard a prominent 
 professor in an orthodox theological 
 seminary affirm that Paul as an inter- 
 preter of the Old Testament was un- 
 worthy of consideration; that if any 
 modern exegete should make such egreg- 
 ious mistakes in interpretation as Pniil 
 made he would be speedily recognized 
 as unfit for his position. 
 
 But, coming to facts nearer at hand, 
 a number of the recent books written 
 by leading professors in orthodox theo- 
 logical seminaries, to reconstruct and 
 reverse Old Testament history, begin 
 their work by wrenching the first verse 
 of the second chapter of the book of 
 Genesis from its proper place, and pre- 
 fixing it to the first chapter, where it 
 does not belong. This they do in order 
 to defend their theory, rcsving upon a 
 doubtful interpretation of a Hebrew 
 tense, that the first chapter of Genesis 
 and second chapter contain contradic- 
 tory accounts of the creation. Coming 
 
 to the account of the marriage between 
 the sons of God and the daughters of 
 men, they make it ridiculous by assign- 
 ing an interpretation to the phrase "sons 
 of God" which was alien to Jewish ideas, 
 and which has little to support it, either 
 in the nature of the phrase or in the 
 nature of the case. 
 
 And so on to the end of the chapter, 
 the main things are overlooked, and the 
 flyspecks are magnified, and we are pre- 
 sented with a theory of the scheme of 
 salvation which runs counter to the 
 whole current of revelation and of his- 
 tory, and has no support except what 
 comes from an obsolete, incorrect, and 
 unphilosophical theory of evolution; for 
 it is as clear as day that, apart from the 
 positive revelation of the Bible, there 
 has been no continuous upward stream 
 of tendency towards higher and better 
 things in the experience of mankind. 
 When left to himself, man has every- 
 where been on the down grade. The 
 world is strewn with the wrecks of the 
 nations that forgot God. Apart from 
 the influence of the first chapter of 
 Genesis, monotheism has never main- 
 tained itself in the world. The upward 
 tendency of mankind is due to the ef- 
 forts of a chosen people, who have had 
 a mission from God to the world. The 
 Church of the present day is walking in 
 the steps of Abraham, its great fore- 
 runner. It hopes for the regeneration of 
 the world through the blessing of the 
 Holy Spirit upon the truth which it pro- 
 claims. That truth is not new but old. 
 Its cornerstone is Christ. Christianity 
 is not the product of the natural man, 
 but it is a gift from heaven, committed 
 to our keeping, and woe be to us, and 
 woe to the world, if we preach not the 
 gospel in all its fullness as a supernat- 
 ural revelation supported and enforced 
 by all the powers of heaven. 
 
 President Hall: The next address will 
 be given by Professor Robert Dick Wil- 
 son, Ph.D., D.D., of Princeton Theologi- 
 cal Seminary, whose attainments and 
 
 position entitle him to speak as a rep- 
 resentative of Oriental Scholarship. His 
 studies have specially fitted him to dis- 
 cuss the theme he has chosen. 
 
 79 
 
ADDRESS OF PROFESSOR ROBERT DICK WILSON 
 *< Groundless Attacks in the Field of Oriental Scholarship " 
 
 As the time allotted to me is limited, 
 I shall speak merely upon the ground- 
 lessness of certain of the attacks made 
 upon the Scriptures in the- region of 
 palaeography and philology. 
 
 But before plunging into my subject 
 let me state that in my opinion the only 
 way in which the conservative party can 
 maintain its position in the field of 
 Biblical criticism is by showing that the 
 premises of the radical critics are false; 
 by showing, through a more thorough 
 investigation of the facts, that the 
 foundations upon which the magnificent 
 structures of the radical critics rest are 
 indeed groundless, unscientific and illog- 
 ical, unproven and often incapable of 
 proof. 
 The Attack in the Field of Palaeography 
 
 I. I remark that many of the premises 
 of the radical critics are fallacious, be- 
 cause of assumptions based upon an un- 
 justifiable use of the vowel letters and 
 signs. 
 
 It is a point admitted by writers of all 
 schools, that the vowel points of the 
 Massoretic text were not fixed till some 
 centuries after Christ. A study of the 
 variants of the Hebrew MSS. will show 
 further that there is scarcely an internal 
 vowel letter that has been invariably 
 written either fully or defectively. The 
 omission of all internal vowel letters (as 
 well as vowel signs) is shown conclu- 
 sively, also, on the inscriptions of the 
 ancient Phenicians, Aramaeans, Moabites 
 and Hebrews. Now, in view of these 
 facts, what do you think of arguments 
 like the following? 
 
 Wellhausen says (on page 389 of his 
 History of Israel), that 
 
 Za-kar; "male" is in earlier times 
 Za-kur; for this is the writing of 
 Ex. xxiii. 17; xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 16; 
 XX. 13; and if it is right in these pas- 
 sages, as we can not doubt it is, it must 
 be introduced in Ex. xxxiv. 19; Deut. 
 XV. 19; I K. xi. 15, seq., as well. In the 
 priestly code, Za-khar occurs with great 
 frequency and elsewhere only in the later 
 literature, Deut. iv. 16; Is. Ixvi. 7; 
 Judges xxi. 11, 12, etc." 
 
 You all see, that if the vowels did not 
 
 80 
 
 exist in the original text, that the docu- 
 ments of the original text can not be dis- 
 tinguished by the vowels of that text. 
 
 2. The second palaeographical assump- 
 tion arises from wilful changes made in 
 the consonantal text. 
 
 By wilful changes, I mean those for 
 which there is no evidence in MSS., or 
 versions, or palaeography, or the monu- 
 ments. The worst sinners in this respect 
 are Professors Klostermann, of Kiel, 
 and Cheyne, of Oxford. 
 
 In his latest work, Biblia Critica, just 
 coming out, Prof. Cheyne attempts to 
 reconstruct the text of the Old Testa- 
 ment on a theory so incredible, so en- 
 tirely without any foundation in facts, 
 historical and textual, that it seems to 
 me, to surpass all the groundless theories 
 that have before been proposed. 
 
 Did you ever hear of the Jerahmeelites? 
 They are mentioned once in the Bible 
 and their progenitor Jerahmeel once also. 
 Now could you believe it possible that 
 a professor in Oxford would attempt to 
 string the whole text of the Prophets 
 and Histories of the Old Testament upon 
 the thread of this word, which he has 
 inserted times almost innumerable in the 
 four parts of his work already published? 
 One can not but wonder, whether Pro- 
 fessor Cheyne ever expected anybody to 
 accept as fact these fanciful reconstruc- 
 tions of his. I can perceive how the 
 radical critics might in despair give up 
 all attempts to reconstruct the original 
 text of the Scriptures; but I can not un- 
 derstand why they do not, one and all, 
 perceive that any attempt to reconstruct 
 the text out of their own heads, is 
 doomed to failure. One Oxford Profes- 
 sor tried to reconstruct the original He- 
 brew text of Ecclesiasticus, by re-trans- 
 lating it from the Greek and Syrian ver- 
 sions. When the original Hebrew text 
 was found, his text agreed with the orig- 
 inal in only three places out of lOo! 
 
 Would you like to have a sample of 
 Professor Cheyne's method? On page 
 135, he asserts that "corruptions based 
 on transpositions are common;" and 
 
hence he changes the word tomekh into 
 maakhath. But notice: (i) That there 
 is no MS. nor version, that supports 
 this change; and (2) that such transpo- 
 sitions can not, comparatively speaking, 
 be called common. For the past fifteen 
 years I have been making a collection of 
 such transpositions for which there is 
 authority in the MSS., parallel passages, 
 versions, or critical editions (including 
 large parts of the Polychrome Bible), 
 and so far my list counts sixty-four ex- 
 amples in all. When you consider that 
 these examples are collected from the 
 whole Bible, and that the consonant let- 
 ters in the Bible number about 1,200,000, 
 you will perceive that these changes 
 number about one in 18,000 from all 
 sources whatsoever. But (3), even if the 
 instances of simple transposition were 
 much more numerous, what Professor 
 Cheyne claims in the case before us, is 
 not a simple transposition of two let- 
 ters; but the 1st is made the 4th, the 3rd 
 the 1st, the 4th the 3rd, and the 2nd is 
 changed from one letter to another, 
 which it resembles in no Semitic alpha- 
 bet as yet discovered! 
 
 3. The third palaeographical assump- 
 tion arises from ignorance of the He- 
 brew, or from a misunderstanding of 
 some version of it. 
 
 Some critics are always on the lookout 
 for variants. When they do not see the 
 connection in meaning between the He- 
 brew word and its version, they jump at 
 the conclusion that there has either been 
 a change in the original or that the trans- 
 lators have misunderstood their text. 
 
 An example of what I mean is to be 
 found in i Sam. xiii.6, when the Book 
 renders the Hebrew word by a word 
 meaning "grave." Ewald, the great critic 
 of the middle of the last century, asserted 
 that the Hebrew word here used did not 
 mean "grave," but "tower;" and, hence, 
 many critics rejected the Hebrew text, 
 because, they said, people do not hide in 
 towers, and generally adopted the Greek 
 version as giving the true meaning. 
 Klostermann proceeds to reconstruct the 
 Hebrew text by changing the present 
 Hebrew word to another one which 
 means "sepulchres," Now the fallacy here 
 
 lies in assuming a variation where there 
 is none. The Greek is right in having 
 the word for "grave." The Hebrew word 
 found in the text also means "grave." If 
 you would look in the Arabic dictionary 
 you would find the exact philological 
 equivalent of the Hebrew used ordinarily 
 in the sense of "grave." The variation is 
 the figment of the critic's imagination. 
 And the persistence in claiming that 
 there is a variation is one evidence 
 among many that there is a traditional 
 interpretation among the radical as well 
 as among the conservative critics. 
 
 4. But the most groundless of all of 
 the assumptions of the radical critics 
 with regard to the text of the Old Tes- 
 tament Scriptures is that the text, as it 
 emerged into historic times, had already 
 been so changed from its original form 
 as to be utterly unrecognizable by its 
 own composers. 
 
 Yet what convincing evidence is there 
 to prove that such radical changes were 
 ever made in the original text of the Old 
 Testament? None whatsoever, except 
 an analogy derived from the Egyptian 
 and Babylonian liturgies and legends. 
 No trace of any such radical changes can 
 be found in the parallel portions of the 
 Old Testament, nor in any statements 
 of the Scriptures, nor in any tradition of 
 the Jews. On the contrary, so far back 
 as we can go with MSS. and versions 
 (i. e., to 200 B. C.), the evidence is over- 
 whelming and convincing, that in general 
 no changes, even in sporadic cases of 
 consonantal letters, have been made in 
 the text of the Old Testament; except 
 such as might occur in the copying or 
 translating of any document, especially 
 one of a long past age. The Egyptian 
 papyri, recently discovered and pub- 
 lished, some of tb-'.m more than 2,000 
 years old, show that some of the frag- 
 ments of the Classics differ by not a sin- 
 gle letter from the texts of the ordinary 
 text-books now used in the preparatory 
 schools. No evidence has yet been 
 found in support of a tendency theory on 
 the part of either copyists, or translators, 
 of the Old Testament, except, perhaps, 
 in the case of two or three books of the 
 LXX., and in a few changes in the Tar- 
 
 81 
 
gums Such tendency theories are an- 
 other creature of the critics' imagination. 
 The only tendency theory that the au- 
 thors of the Old Testament Scriptures 
 recognize is that which tends -from the 
 Paradise of the fall to the Cross of 
 Calvary, and from the Cross of Calvary 
 to the Paradise of the redeemed. 
 The Attack in the Field of PhUology. 
 In the second place, the groundless- 
 ness of the radical attack may be shown 
 in the field of philology. 
 
 I The first of the many false assump- 
 tions are those made as to the meaning, 
 the origin, and the use of words. 
 
 Time forbids that I should mention 
 more than one or two examples of these 
 kinds of assumptions. Their wide-reach- 
 ing character can be judged, however, 
 from one as well as from many examples. 
 Let us take the Aramaic word for 
 King as an example of a false assump- 
 tion based on the meaning of a word. 
 Belshazzar, as you know, is said m the 
 Aramaic portion of Daniel to have been 
 king of Babylon. Now, inasmuch as the 
 monuments do not state that Belshazzar 
 was ever king in the sense that Neb- 
 uchadnezzar and Nabonaid were, it has 
 been assumed that he could have been 
 king in no sense at all. 
 
 To harmonize the monuments with 
 Daniel, it is only necessary to remember 
 that the Aramaic word mal-kah, king, 
 is equivalent to two, or more, words 
 found in the Assyrio-Babylonian or He- 
 brew. In the Aramaic, the word mal- 
 kah, "king," is used, not merely of the 
 emperor of the Greeks, and of the shah- 
 in-shah, the king of kings, the kmg of 
 Persia; but also of the mayor of a city 
 or of a village, or of the chief of a tribe. 
 Belshazzar may have been king of the 
 city of Babylon, while his father was 
 king of the land. 
 
 The second word which I shall men- 
 tion illustrates the fallacies based upon 
 false assumptions as to the origm and 
 use of words. I shall take the ^familiar 
 New Testament word korban, a gift. 
 Wellhausen asserts that this word is a 
 late importation into the Hebrew from 
 the Aramaic; that it occurs nowhere m 
 the Pentateuch, except in the Priestly 
 
 Code; and that its presence there is an 
 evidence of the late date of that work 
 Now, inasmuch as both the root and 
 the derivative are found in Arabic and 
 Assyrio-Babylonian, as well as in He- 
 brew and Aramaic, is it not most prob- 
 able that both root and derivative were 
 used by the primitive Semites; and, 
 hence, that in their use there is no in- 
 dication of derivation, or date? Well- 
 hausen, at least, gives no evidence except 
 his mere assertion that the Hebrews de- 
 rived the word from the Aramaeans. _ 
 
 2 The second philological assumption 
 is that the date of books can be deter- 
 mined from the use of sporadic forms 
 and of once-written words, to many ot 
 which the indefinite term "Aramaism 
 is applied. . 
 
 But notice, first, that as to the relations 
 existing in early times between the He- 
 brews and the Aramaean peoples, aside 
 from the statements of the Scriptures, 
 we know absolutely nothing. So far as 
 Aramaisms are concerned, there are no 
 conclusive grounds for assertmg that a 
 book like Ecclesiastes must have been 
 written in the age of the Maccabees 
 rather than in that of Solomon. A large 
 proportion of the words which even con- 
 servative critics supposed a few years 
 ago to be Aramaisms, can now be shown 
 not to be necessarily such at all. In 
 Keil's "Introduction to Ecclesiastes, 
 about half of the most important words, 
 which he classes as Aramaisms, are found 
 in Arabic and Assyrian as well. The pre- 
 sumption is that they are all from primi- 
 tive Semite roots and that they might . 
 have occurred in any book which was 
 written at any time in the history of the 
 Hebrews, or of any other Semitic people. 
 3. The third philological assumption 
 lies in the contention that the employ- 
 ment of certain words rather than others 
 implies a difference of author, or date, 
 rather than a difference of idea to be 
 expressed, or a different way of express- 
 ing the ideas. . 
 
 This assumption lies at the basis of the 
 divisive hypothesis of the Pentateuch. 
 Without going into a discussion of the 
 words for God, about which there is so 
 much that is disputable, let us take the 
 
 82 
 
word "subdue" [Note qa-vash] as an 
 example of the fallacy that diction alone 
 is an indication of a separate document, 
 or a different author. This word is said 
 to be indicative of P. If this were so, 
 if a characteristic of P lies in the word 
 here used, we should expect to find J 
 or E using some other word to express 
 the idea "subdue." As a matter of fact, 
 however, we find no word for "subdue" 
 in either J or E. J, to be sure, uses twice 
 a verb "to bow down." [Note ka-ra'], 
 which in the causative means "to sub- 
 due." A third word, the causative of the 
 word "to humble" [Note ka-na'], is 
 used once in P and once in D. The two 
 other words used in Hebrew to denote 
 the idea of subduing [Note da-var and 
 ra-dad], do not occur in the Pentateuch. 
 
 It will thus be seen, that of the five 
 Hebrew words meaning "subdue," P em- 
 ploys two (of which D once uses one); 
 but J and E never use any one of the 
 five. Any difference, therefore, between 
 P and JE is one of idea and not of words 
 to express the idea. Nor could anyone 
 maintain, that either the word or the 
 idea may have been unknown to the 
 writers of J or E. The Hebrew word 
 for "subdue" found in Genesis I. is 
 found, also, in Assyrio-Babylonian, Ara- 
 maic and Arabic. Hence, it may be as- 
 sumed, in the absence of all evidence to 
 the contrary, to have belonged to the 
 primitive Semitic language; and, if it be- 
 longed to the primitive language, there 
 is no reason why it may not have been 
 used at any time in the history of any 
 one of its descendants. That the idea 
 expressed by the word "subdue" may 
 have been unknown to the authors of J 
 or E, is a supposition which, in view of 
 the endless subjugations of nature and 
 man revealed by the monuments and lan- 
 guages of ancient nations, is too prepos- 
 terous for sober discussion. 
 
 In the second place, a difference of 
 words, involved in the same general idea, 
 does not necessarily imply a different 
 author, nor a separate document; but 
 may rather imply a fine discrimination 
 of synonyms, or a slightly different way 
 of expressing the same idea. Take, for 
 example, the words for "likeness," 
 
 "form," etc. P alone used the words 
 "image" (shadow) and "likeness" [Note 
 tse-lem and d'mooth]; but only in 
 Gen. I. and V. P and D both use "pat- 
 tern" (form or build [Note tav-nccth], 
 D and E use the word for "form." 
 [Note t'moo-nah a word of unknown 
 origin and doubtful meaning.] Now, if 
 a difference of words to express the same 
 general idea implies a difference of au- 
 thorship or document; we would here 
 have three P's and two D's, and tiie as- 
 sumption would be that no author can 
 ever use a synonym. But, if they ex- 
 press simply a different shade of mean- 
 ing under the same general idea, their 
 use is no indication of separate docu- 
 ments or different authors. Whichever 
 horn of the dilemma the critic takes, he 
 stands to fall. 
 
 4. The fourth and last philological as- 
 sumption that I shall mention is that 
 made by Frederich Delitzsch and others 
 when they assert, without any sufficient 
 evidence from the vocabulary, that the 
 Hebrews derived their religious ideas 
 from the Babylonians. 
 
 Two years ago, I made an exhau»tive 
 comparative study of the vocabularies of 
 the four great Semitic languages, espe- 
 cially of the words found in Hebrew and 
 Babylonian, with the following result: 
 I found that while there were many 
 words common to all the Semitic lan- 
 guages; that these words were most 
 common in the lower spheres of life; 
 and that, as you rise from the physical 
 and phenomenal to the mental and re- 
 ligious spheres, the similarities of the 
 vocabularies become less and less; until 
 when you come to the highest sphere of 
 all (the doctrines of God, sin, grace, 
 pardon, salvation, faith, the Messiah, 
 and the kingdom of God), the vocabular- 
 ies have become largely distinct, and the 
 ideas in great measure dissimilar. 
 
 To those who would magnify the in- 
 fluence of the ancient Babylonian upon 
 the ideas of the Israelites, let me empha- 
 size the fact, that the stories of the 
 creation and the flood, the belief in the 
 existence of angels, the observance of a 
 Sabbath, and the use of sacrifices and of 
 the name Jehovah (one or all of which 
 
 83 
 
are certainly found in the monuments 
 to have prevailed in the age of Abra- 
 ham), do not invalidate the Scriptures, 
 but rather confirm them. The remarkable 
 thing is, that we find such close resem- 
 blances of names and institutions in Gen- 
 esis and so few in Exodus and Leviticus. 
 While on this part of my subject and 
 in conclusion, I can not refrain from call- 
 ing the attention of this audience to the 
 long line of opposition between the re- 
 ligions and the policy of the Hebrews and 
 Babylonians, which extends from the time 
 when Abraham was called out of Ur of the 
 Chaldees to leave his country and his 
 kindred, until,»in the Apocalypse and the 
 later Jewish literature, Babylon became 
 the height and front of the offending 
 against the kingdom of the God of Israel. 
 All through that extended and extensive 
 literature of the ancient Hebrews, all 
 through those long annals of the Assy- 
 rians and Babylonians, wherever the He- 
 brews and the Assyrio-Babylonians were 
 brought into contact, it was by way of 
 opposition. The only exceptions were in 
 the cases of some weakling, Jehovah-dis- 
 trusting kings. But with these excep- 
 tions, prophets and kings and poets em- 
 
 phasize and reiterate the antagonism, es- 
 sential and eternal, existing between the 
 worship of Jehovah and the worship of 
 the idols of Babylon. And when the 
 children of Israel had been carried away 
 to the rich plains of Babylon, so beauti- 
 ful, so vast, was it as a Greek patriot to 
 the Athens of his dreams, or a Scotsman 
 to his "ain countrie?" Not thus. But 
 they wept when they remembered Zion: 
 "How shall we sing the Lord's songs in 
 a strange land?" Not thus does the 
 Catholic pilgrim sing when he treads the 
 streets of papal Rome and stands in awe 
 beneath the dome of St. Peter's. Not 
 thus does the Arab Hadji pray when he 
 bows within the sacred precincts of the 
 Kaaba. But thus has every Jew through- 
 out the ages felt, the record of whose 
 thoughts and feelings has been pre- 
 served to us; and thus does every child 
 of Abraham according to the promise 
 feel — that not to Babylon, the golden 
 city, the mother of science and art and 
 commerce, and of idolatry and harlotries 
 and sorceries, do we look for the springs 
 of our religion and the hope of our sal- 
 vation, — but to Jerusalem the Golden, 
 the City of the Great King. 
 
 President Hall : We shall now have the 
 privilege of listening to the Rev. M. G. 
 Kyle, D.D., Frankford, Philadelphia. By 
 
 reason of his original investigations in his 
 department Dr. Kyle is entitled to speak as 
 a representative of Arch2eology. 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. M. G. KYLE 
 
 " Unscientific Handling of 
 
 I have been introduced to you as an- 
 other of those dreadful specialists. I 
 want you to note that they are not all 
 on the wrong side, not by a great deal. 
 You will have to allow us one privilege, 
 however, if we are to be specialists, the 
 privilege of being somewhat microscopi- 
 cal in method. 
 
 One of the fundamental errors of the 
 prevailing criticism is the illogical 
 handling of facts. The so-called "mod- 
 ern view" fools itself with facts and then 
 tries to fool the people. We must credit 
 scholarly and seemingly candid men 
 with real candor, and so, I say, they fool 
 themselves first and then fool the peo- 
 
 the Facts of Archaeology" 
 
 pie. Now, the Archaeologist is a man of 
 facts. I see that a few of you look a 
 little incredulous at that, and it must be 
 confessed that Archaeologists do some- 
 times theorize prodigiously. Neverthe- 
 less, the Archaeologist's material in hand 
 is facts, things that other people have 
 done a long time ago and that have been 
 kept in hand or have been dug up in 
 these later days. We deal with facts. 
 However much we may theorize upon 
 them, the material is facts. 
 
 I wish to point out to you very briefly 
 some of the fallacies of the Higher 
 Criticism of the day in the handling of 
 these facts of Archaeology. I am not to 
 
 84 
 
make an address, but simply to make 
 points that others may elaborate at their 
 leisure. I have promised myself to 
 make five points in ten minutes, if that 
 clock does not go too fast. 
 
 Fallacy First: Depending upon au- 
 thority instead of upon evidence. 
 
 Here I hasten to guard against misun- 
 derstanding. I would not have any- 
 body suppose that I seriously charge the 
 Higher Critics of the day with depend- 
 ing too much upon the authority of 
 Moses or Joshua, or David or Isaiah, 
 but upon the authority of one of the 
 modern scholars without presenting, or, 
 must I say it? even examining the evi- 
 dence upon which that scholar's opinion 
 rests. A single example will suffice to 
 illustrate the point. In that rhetorically 
 charming book, "Modern Criticism and 
 the Preaching of the Old Testament," 
 by a distinguished Scottish Professor 
 who has done more than any other to 
 entwine the garlands of rhetoric about 
 the cold hardness of the shaft the 
 Critics would raise over the tomb of di- 
 vine revelation, the gifted author pays 
 his respects to the work of the Arch- 
 aeologists of a century in a brief portion 
 of a single chapter. He finds almost 
 nothing that has any bearing upon Bibli- 
 cal questions, and that little to favor the 
 advanced critics. You will remember 
 that he singles out the Egyptian name 
 of Joseph as about the only thing really 
 worthy of notice, and settles the whole 
 matter not by evidence but by authority. 
 
 The statement stands at the end of 
 a long attenuated line of quotations. 
 He quotes confessedly from Profes- 
 sor Driver, in the Hastings Bible Dic- 
 tionary (which is but a brief presenta- 
 tion of the same author's views in his 
 essay in "Authority and Archaeology"); 
 who in turn rests his opinion upon the 
 declaration of Ebers, Brugsch and Stein- 
 dorff. The opinion of Ebers he quotes 
 from the Bible Dictionary, that of 
 Brugsch from his "Steinenschrift," and 
 the work of both belongs to the past. 
 Both these men passed from the sphere 
 of opinions into the world of knowledge 
 some time ago. As no communication 
 has been received from them since, even 
 
 a critic may not assume that this is what 
 they believe now, or what they v/ould 
 have believed had they lived and labored 
 on through the period of recent produc- 
 tive research which has set so many 
 things of Ancient Egypt in a new light. 
 Thus the authority of these scholars is 
 removed from the argument. 
 
 The remaining authority, the distin- 
 guished Egyptologist of Leipsic, appro- 
 priates, as the basis of his opinion the 
 work of M. Krall. Upon this authority 
 is based the assertion that Egyptian 
 names such as that given to Joseph had 
 no existence until about the ninth cen- 
 tury B. C, a thousand years after the 
 time of Joseph, if he be entirely his- 
 torical. A little patient investigation of 
 the evidence discovers that the identifi- 
 cation of Joseph's Egyptian name by M. 
 Krall is weighted down with all but im- 
 possible phonetic difficulties; whereas 
 there are known four names of kings of 
 the fourteenth dynasty before the tradi- 
 tional time of Joseph, which supply an 
 exact Egyptian equivalent for Joseph's 
 name, letter for letter, with the mean- 
 ing, "the one who supplies the nourish- 
 ment of life." The evidence has been 
 ignored for the authority of a great 
 name. 
 
 Fallacy Second: Deduction without 
 comparison or without sufficient induc- 
 tion. 
 
 This fallacy finds its most patent, per- 
 haps its most fiagrant, use, or abuse, in 
 the classification of the words peculiar 
 to various ages or various authors of the 
 same age, upon which, from Astruc 
 down, the literary analysis of the Pen- 
 tateuch has depended, and which has 
 been so much used in the further exten- 
 sion of the literary analysis to all the 
 books of the Old Testament. But it is 
 a fundamental law of logic that there 
 can be no deduction without compari- 
 son, no conclusion from one premise, no 
 list of words peculiar to any age, if there 
 is no book in that language from any 
 other age, or list of words peculiar to 
 one author of any age if there is no 
 known book of any other author of that 
 age. This method as applied to the 
 Bible could hold good only if there was 
 
 8S 
 
an extensive Hebrew literature from 
 centuries from which there is absolutely 
 nothing but the Bible; and as applied to 
 many authors could hold good only if 
 there were several others for compari- 
 son, where, in fact, there is none at all. 
 The only way it has been possible to use 
 this method with the Old Testament is 
 to assume that it was written at a much 
 later date and thus bring it into com- 
 parison with the extensive Hebrew lit- 
 erature of Exilic and Post-exilic times; 
 but this is to beg the question at issue. 
 But the fallacy of deduction without 
 sufficient induction is by no means con- 
 fined to this classification of words. It 
 is applied also to the other materials of 
 Archseology. A most familiar illustra- 
 tion is the usual interpretation given by 
 the Higher Critics to the Israel tablet 
 found by Professor Petrie in Egypt. 
 They assert that at the time of the in- 
 scription Israel was already in Palestme, 
 and that the destruction of Isiaels 
 "seed" means not the destruction of the 
 male children but the destruction of the 
 "crops." This all seems in a general 
 way out of harmony with the Bible ac- 
 count but quite in harmony with the 
 current development theorv of Israel's 
 history. But it is a case of insuflicient 
 induction. 
 
 It rests first upon the opinion, spe- 
 cially supported in this country by the 
 distinguished Egyptologist of Chicago 
 University, that "seed" in Egyptian 
 never means children, as it does m so 
 many other languages. Yet in Hatasu s 
 great wall inscription at Deir el Ba- 
 hari, the god Amon is represented as 
 addressing the Queen by the same word, 
 and clearly meaning, "Issue, my holy 
 Issue." Imagine a father addressing his 
 daughter as "Crops, my holy Crops!" 
 
 This opinion of the Israel tablet rests, 
 in the second place, upon the assertion 
 that all the other peoples mentioned 
 were in Palestine, that Israel seems to 
 be associated with Khar, and that Khar 
 was a name for Palestine. So it was, 
 but it was a name of Palestine by way 
 of the great valley that runs from the 
 Jordan down through Arabia to the Red 
 Sea the very desert of the wanderings. 
 
 86 
 
 In the third place, this opinion over- 
 looks altogether the fact that, of the 
 eight peoples named, Israel is the 
 seventh. All that precedes and the one 
 that follows have in the Egyptian two 
 determinatives, meaning "Foreign peo- 
 ple" and "own country;" while the name 
 Israel has only one determinative, that 
 for a "Foreign People." That denoting 
 an "own country" is omitted. If Israel 
 were the last name, we might think the 
 scribe had carelessly omitted the second 
 determinative, but since "Khar" follows 
 with both determinatives, it is about as 
 near to a demonstration as anything in 
 epigraphy can be, that the scribe in- 
 tended to omit the determinative for 
 "own country" after "Israel." 
 
 Thus the inscription, when all the 
 facts are gathered, is in entire accord 
 with the Biblical narrative. It may mean 
 the destruction of the male children. 
 Israel seems to be put just where the 
 Bible puts the wandering nation, and 
 it is clearly indicated that she^^was a 
 people without an "own country," a set- 
 tled abode of her own, either still in 
 Egypt or, more probably, in the wilder- 
 ness of the wanderings. 
 
 So far is this fallacy of deduction 
 without sufficient induction carried in 
 the use of Archseological facts, that 
 nearly every great inscription discovered 
 that has a bearing on the Bible is 
 claimed by the critics as against the 
 Bible's historicity, until careful investi- 
 gators have had time to collate all the 
 evidence. 
 
 Fallacy Third: Disregard of the evi- 
 dential value of the complete harmony 
 between Archseological finds and Bibli- 
 cal records purporting to be from the 
 same time and place. 
 
 As long as a discovery can be made to 
 appear as against the Bible, it is con- 
 sidered very important by the critics 
 But just as soon as all the evidence is 
 adduced, and it is shown to be in har- 
 mony with the Bible account, it is dis- 
 carded and classed with nearly all that 
 has gone before as of little or no evi- 
 dential value. 
 
 Now it is admitted that any one thing 
 that merely does not contradict the 
 
Bible is not of so great evidential value 
 as one thing that did contradict the 
 Bible, if such should be discovered. But 
 that is not at all the state of the Arch- 
 aeological argument for the Bible. Let 
 me illustrate. You and I have a very 
 dear old friend who has told us much 
 of his childhood, of the place of his 
 birth, the people among whom he lived, 
 the customs of the people, and many 
 events of their history, together with the 
 topography of the country and the 
 names and character and conduct of the 
 neighbors round about. But some per- 
 sons have aspersed his reputation, have 
 said that while our old friend imparted 
 to us some lessons of great moral 
 value, he romanced a great deal 
 about the facts of his life history. 
 Then we have gone to investigate. We 
 have visited the community he has 
 named, have inquired among the old 
 neighbors, have looked into the history 
 and examined the remains of the times 
 he indicated, and have found many 
 things to confirm his statements, and not 
 a single thing inconsistent with his 
 story, and we have come back with con- 
 fidence fully established in his veracity, 
 under the conviction that it is a moral 
 impossibility to believe that he could lie 
 so much and never get caught at it. 
 
 This Book [pointing to the Bible] is 
 your friend and mine, and very dear. 
 It has told us much of the times and 
 the lands and the peoples and the 
 events from which it comes. But the 
 prevailing Higher Criticism has aspersed 
 its reputation, has challenged in large 
 part its historicity. We are told that it 
 inculcates moral lessons of great 
 value, but romances much upon the 
 facts. Then the Archaeologists have 
 gone to see. We have visited the old 
 communities, have enquired among the 
 old neighbors, have read in the old 
 chronicles, have seen depicted the old 
 customs, have searched the ruins of pub- 
 lic works long buried, have even gone to 
 the cemeteries and read the old names 
 on the tombstones. We have found 
 many things explicitly confirming our 
 dear friend's story, and nothing what- 
 ever inconsistent with it, not one estab- 
 
 lished fact of Archaeology has contra- 
 dicted the Bible. Our confidence in our 
 old friend is made stronger than ever 
 before, because it is morally impossible 
 to believe that under the searchlight of 
 present-day Archaeological investigation 
 the Bible could deceive us so often and 
 never get caught at it. 
 
 That is the Archaeological argument 
 for the historicity of the Bible, and it 
 exposes the fallacy of the critics in dis- 
 regarding the value of general harmony. 
 
 Fallacy Fourth: Disparagement of 
 the Bible as Archaeological material, a 
 part of the records of the past. 
 
 Putting aside for a moment all ques- 
 tion of the inspiration of the Bible and 
 of its character as a divine revelation, 
 let us look at it merely as a part of the 
 literary remains of Bible lands. The 
 peoples of Bible lands left immense lit- 
 erary treasures. By far the largest por- 
 tion of them have been lost, alas! per- 
 haps forever. Some parts have never 
 been lost. These sixty-six books of the 
 Bible have never been wholly lost, to- 
 gether with a vast Rabbinical literature 
 from Exilic and post-Exilic times and 
 some Greek remains of the beginning of 
 the Christian era, — but most notably 
 these sixty-six books which we call 
 Scriptures. Some that was lost was 
 recovered a long time ago, especially 
 the writings of certain Greek travel- 
 lers, as Herodotus, Strabo, Xenophon, 
 not to mention others; and these are 
 usually called classics. Still other por- 
 tions of the literary remains of Bible 
 lands, some on papyrus, some on parch- 
 ment, some on tablets of clay or of 
 stone, have been recovered from oblivion 
 in quite recent times. These are spe- 
 cifically denominated Archaeological 
 finds. Now, all of these, whether Scrip- 
 tures, or Classics or Archaeological 
 finds, are monuments of antiquity, liter- 
 ary remains of Bible lands. But the self- 
 styled champions of the literary method 
 disparage the Bible among these liter- 
 ary remains of Bible lands. They insist 
 upon testing the Bible by all the rest. 
 They put the Bible in the prisoner's 
 dock, deny it a prisoner's right before 
 conviction to be heard on the witness- 
 
 87 
 
stand without undue prejudice. And 
 they call against it all the other remain- 
 ing witnesses, and, if Eddin-sin or 
 Muballet-sin or any other old heathen 
 Babylonian or Egyptian "Sin-ner" can be 
 found to say a word that seems to be in- 
 consistent with the statements of Moses 
 or Joshua, or any other Biblical author, 
 forthwith they announce that the Bible 
 has been discredited. In the name of the 
 Bill of Rights, I protest against such un- 
 equal treatment of witnesses. The Bible 
 is not the prisoner at the bar. As 
 Archaeological material, the Bible is no 
 more on trial than any other witness of 
 antiquity; and it is not to be disparaged, 
 to be made unequal, in the comparison. 
 I might go on pointing out fallacies 
 and giving illustrations until it would be 
 time for the historic rooster on the top 
 of this Church building to announce the 
 morning. I will only name one more 
 point, and this one is not against the 
 critics. The greatest danger from the 
 prevailing Higher Criticism is not with 
 the critics but with the dear people that 
 have been utterly indiflferent. Thank 
 God, they are waking up, but they have 
 
 President Hall: Owing to the late- 
 ness of the hour. Dr. Mackenzie will ad- 
 dress us to-morrow morning, when he 
 will give us one of the most interesting 
 addresses of the Convention. 
 
 The General Topic for the session to- 
 morrow morning is, "Method proposed 
 by the League for Remedying the 
 Evils." There will be addresses by Dr. 
 Gregory, General Secretary, and other 
 members of the Education Committee 
 and of the League on the First Special 
 Topic, "Concentration of Popular At- 
 tention Upon the Best Way of Master- 
 ing the Bible and What is in It." 
 
 On the Second Special Topic, "Co- 
 operation with Existing Agencies in In- 
 teresting the Young in Systematic and 
 Constructive Bible Study," addresses 
 are expected from Rev. Wayland Hoyt, 
 D.D., LL.D., of Philadelphia, a leader in 
 Christian Endeavor work; Rev. Charles 
 L. Fry, of St. Luke's Church, Philadel- 
 phia, Literary Secretary of the Luther 
 
 been indiflferent and in that indiflference 
 lies the great danger. Tuberculosis is 
 not essentially a very dangerous disease, 
 because it is easily preventable; the dan- 
 ger lies in the amazing indiflference of 
 the people. The prevailing Higher 
 Criticism is the tuberculosis of faith. It 
 is not a very dangerous disease in itself, 
 because its evil effects are easily pre- 
 ventable; the danger lies in the utter in- 
 diflference of the Church hitherto. The 
 Bible-loving people have gone on ignor- 
 ing it, very much in the mental attitude 
 of the man who was being examined by 
 the civil service commissioners. They 
 asked how far the moon is from the 
 earth. Well, he did not know. So he 
 wrote: "I do not know how far the moon 
 is from the earth, but I feel very sure 
 that it is not near enough to interfere 
 with my mail route." So the people 
 have had the idea that the Higher Criti- 
 cism was something away up in the air, 
 well out of the way of their mail route. 
 But it does afifect their mail route, the 
 only road by which any message has 
 ever come to us from God. Let us 
 wake up! 
 
 League of America; Mr. Willis E. 
 Lougee, Secretary of the Business De- 
 partment of the International Committee 
 of the Y. M, C. A.; Rev. James A. Wor- 
 den, D.D., LL.D., of Philadelphia, Su- 
 perintendent of the Sabbath School and 
 Missionary Work of the Presbyterian 
 Church, and others. 
 
 I think we have also one or more rare 
 treats in store, of which announcement 
 has not yet been made, and we do not 
 propose to make that announcement un- 
 til to-morrow morning. 
 
 We will now join in singing the clos- 
 ing hymn, and after the Benediction, we 
 shall go to our homes with a prayer on 
 our lips and in our hearts that our 
 Heavenly Father will most graciously 
 bless the labors of His servants this 
 day. 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Hymn No. 79. 
 "Come, pure hearts, in sweetest meas- 
 ures." 
 
 Benediction. 
 
 88 
 
THURSDAY MORNING SESSION, MAY 3 
 
 10:00 A. M. President William Phillips Hall in the Ch«ir 
 OPENING DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Let us sing the old 
 Hymn, No. 370, Prayer for light: 
 
 "Come, O Creator, Spirit blest!" 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Psalm cxix. We will 
 read the two divisions, Mem and Nun, 
 beginning with verse 97. 
 
 Prayer by Dr. Burrell: 
 
 O God, that dwellest in light and 
 glory unapproachable, everything is 
 clear before Thee; but we, Thine own 
 sons and daughters, down here among 
 the mists and shadows, among doubts 
 and misgivings, ifs and perhapses and 
 peradventures, groping our way like 
 blind people along the wall, dost Thou 
 not see and pity us, our Father? 
 
 Aye, verily. Thou hast given us light. 
 We thank Thee for the light shining in 
 the face of Jesus Christ, who is Thy 
 Word unto us. We thank Thee for the 
 light shining upon the pages of the writ- 
 ten Word, showing us the face of Jesus 
 Christ. We rejoice in this written Word 
 of Thine. Thou hast done everything to 
 make our way clear. Save us from our- 
 selves, now; save us from our own wis- 
 dom, from getting into our own light, 
 from stumbling over our own feet, from 
 going before the pillar of cloud and try- 
 ing to have our own way. Thou art 
 wiser than we are, infinitely. Oh, we 
 are glad to have a Father so much great- 
 er than His children, so much wiser; 
 and our hands are in Thine. If they are 
 not in Thine, oh, Lord God, we want to 
 put them there now, here and now, to 
 be guided by Thee. 
 
 Father above, give us light for the 
 next hour; and after that we ask Thee 
 for another hour of light, and so on until 
 the day-break and the shadows flee 
 away. Meanwhile we trust in Thy word; 
 it is a lamp unto our feet. Thy prom- 
 ises. Thy precepts, we love them; sweet- 
 i er than honey they are to us. Blessed be 
 '>> Thy name, in Jesus Christ. Amen! 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Now, let us sing again, 
 No. 82: 
 
 "A glory gilds the sacred page 
 Majestic like the sun." 
 
 President Hall: In opening this con- 
 cluding session of the first Convention 
 of The American Bible League, I would 
 announce that this Convention is but 
 preliminary to a much more comprehen- 
 sive one to be held in the near future, 
 in which we shall be able to treat the 
 vital Biblical issues in much greater de- 
 tail than has been possible in the meet- 
 ings that conclude with this morning's 
 session. While I am not prepared at 
 the moment to announce definitely when 
 the next convention will be held in New 
 York City, I may say that in all prob- 
 ability such a convention will be held 
 some time next fall or winter. We shall 
 aim, by preparation most thorough and 
 by notice most general, to insure not 
 only a convention of the very highest 
 merit in every respect — even as this has 
 been — but also one that shall be very 
 much more comprehensive — including 
 many more speakers and covering a 
 wider range of the great subject in 
 which we are interested. 
 
 I would also state that we have al- 
 ready received a request from friends in 
 Chicago to hold a convention somewhat 
 similar to this in that city next month. 
 I think that will be out of the question. 
 We have also been invited to St. Louis; 
 and friends in Boston have suggested 
 that a convention be held there; and 
 from other places word has been re- 
 ceived that a convention of the charac- 
 ter of this one would be welcome. All 
 this indicates the widespread interest 
 that is felt in this work, as was evi- 
 denced by the letter read from Principal 
 Sheraton, of Wyckliflfe College, To- 
 ronto. We have already heard from 
 many places in the Motherland across the 
 sea, as well as from other points in the 
 Christian world. The movement al- 
 ready inaugurated is broadening, deep- 
 ening and intensifying in its sweep, and 
 it is becoming evident that within a very 
 short time, we trust within the present 
 year, The American Bible League will 
 have no less a membership than ten 
 
 89 
 
thousand in the United States and 
 Canada We think there is every reason 
 to anticipate that this increase will be 
 
 realized. . . ^ ^u „„ 
 
 I stated last evening, in giving the an- 
 nouncements of this morning's pro- 
 gram, that we had some pleasant sur- 
 prises to present at this time. It gives 
 me very special pleasure therefore, in 
 line with this statement, to introduce a 
 very dear friend personally and a very 
 dear friend of the Bible and the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who comes from the city 
 of Providence with a message of pecul- 
 iar interest at this time. It is a message 
 that is not announced upon the pro- 
 
 gram, because it has come to our no- 
 tice since the program was printed; 
 but it has reference to one of the most 
 interesting questions in connection with 
 this subject of the Destructive Criticism; 
 in fact, the discovery that he will pre- 
 sent to you has been pronounced by no 
 less an authority than Sir Robert An- 
 derson, of Great Britain, as a discovery 
 that deals the most stunning blow to the 
 Radical Criticism that has yet been dealt 
 by scholarship. I have the pleasure of 
 introducing to you Rev. Robert Cam- 
 eron D.D., Editor of "The Watchword 
 and Truth," who will address us upon 
 the subject stated. 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. ROBERT CAMERON 
 "The New Key to the Psalm Titles" 
 
 I have but five or ten minutes in which 
 to condense what ought to occupy at 
 least three-quarters of an hour, and 1. 
 therefore, can only indicate to you the 
 wonderful discovery that has recently 
 been made,-a discovery which Dr. Bui- 
 linger says is the most marvelous dis- 
 covery made in Biblical research for the 
 last two hundred years. "The Titles of 
 the Psalms," by James William Thir- 
 tle, published by H'enry Frowde, Lon- 
 don, Edinburgh, .Glasgow and New 
 York, is the name of the book. Sir Rob- 
 ert Anderson says that the result of the 
 discovery is to utterly destroy— not sim- 
 ply discredit, but destroy-the hypothesis 
 of the Higher Critics. , 
 
 The discovery is simply this: the sig- 
 nificance of the titles to the Psalms I 
 am glad there are so many scholars here 
 this morning, who will perfectly under- 
 stand every single thing I have to say 
 about it. Everyone knows that the mu- 
 sical notes of the Psalms are in utter 
 confusion; they are utterly misunder- 
 stood. Delitzsch says the significance of 
 them was lost at an early date. Well- 
 hausen states-and you will find this m 
 the Polychrome Bible, and of course 
 that is uj) to date and has the highest 
 scholarship-that in most cases the mu- 
 sical titles are unintelligible to us. 
 Now, then, Mr. Thirtle has discovered 
 
 the significance of these musical titles 
 in a singular way, and when I state it 
 you will say, "It is so simple, why was 
 not I bright enough to see thatr it 
 was said here yesterday morning that 
 the Pentateuch was written right along 
 without any divisions or punctuations, 
 and with no titles given to the Five 
 Books. The same is true of the Psalms. 
 The Oriental writing did not have para- 
 graphs, nor punctuation points, as we 
 have to assist the eye and help the un- 
 derstanding. Therefore, the Psalms are 
 written in that way and dovetailed into 
 one another. In what way could they 
 determine where a Psalm ended? Some 
 of them had no name and were called 
 "Orphan Psalms." 
 
 Now suppose that all the Psalms were 
 written so that at the top of the page 
 there was a Literary Title indicating who 
 wrote it, when it was written, the occa- 
 sion out of which it grew and the nature 
 and the character of the Psalm. Suppose 
 that there was a Musical Title put at the 
 bottom of it, stating its place in the Jew- 
 ish Calendar, the time when it was to be 
 used, and where it was to be used. Now, 
 then, grant that they put in Psalm after 
 Psalm in this way, and you will see how 
 easy it is to separate the Musical Title 
 from the bottom of one Psalm and join 
 it to the Literary Title at the top of the 
 90 
 
Psalm following. That was the very 
 thing that was done. 
 
 I happened to see the gentleman who 
 discovered it two days after he found it 
 out, and he was in perfect ecstacy about 
 it. I said to him, "Thirtle, do you see 
 what that does? It knocks the bottom 
 out of the hypothesis of the Higher 
 Criticism." 
 
 He said, "I see it does, but I won't 
 put that in my book. The scholars may 
 work that out." 
 
 You see, then, how this would obviate 
 the great confusion as to the time, occa- 
 sion and circumstances under which 
 these Psalms could be used. 
 
 Change the position of the Musical 
 Title e. g., of Psalm iv. and put it back 
 to Psalm iii. At once the whole Psalter 
 is filled with light. 
 
 Now, bear in mind that we have the 
 Psalms exactly as they have been hand- 
 ed down to us by the Seventy, who made 
 their translation two hundred years be- 
 fore Christ; that those Seventy schol- 
 ars knew absolutely nothing about the 
 significance of those Musical Titles, the 
 liturgical notes. It had dropped out of 
 the knowledge of the most scholarly men 
 in the Jewish nation two hundred years 
 before the days of our Lord. 
 
 The Psalms, then, date further back 
 than the period of the Septuagint; but 
 how far back? 
 
 Sir Robert Anderson says, it seems 
 utterly incredible that the Sanhedrim of 
 the Septuagint period — which was prac- 
 tically the same body that existed in the 
 time of Nehemiah and Ezra, the College 
 of the Great Synagogue — utterly incredi- 
 ble that that body should have allowed 
 the key to the Musical Titles to have 
 dropped out of their consciousness. It 
 must, therefore, have been lost before 
 their time. Therefore, Delitzsch and 
 others are right in saying that the mean- 
 ing of these musical symbols was lost 
 at the destruction of the First Temple. 
 
 Now, where does this lead us? The 
 Psalms are carried clear back to the 
 days of Ezra. We must look for a time 
 when these musical titles could have been 
 appended. One thing is very evident: 
 that whenever Psalm and Title were 
 
 91 
 
 brought together, the services of the 
 Temple were in full force. The Psalms 
 could not possibly have been thus gath- 
 ered together after the days of Josiah 
 and his great revival. It could not have 
 happened under the last three Kings; 
 therefore, we have the Psalter practic- 
 ally as we have it now clear back to the 
 days of Josiah. At that remote period 
 we find that the chief musicians who were 
 appointed according to King David, had 
 given titles to them: one by Moses, many 
 by David, and some by the sons of 
 Asaph, and many were assigned to cer- 
 tain Feasts, or to choirs, or to some spe- 
 cial use in the Temple. 
 
 It is utterly unbelievable that men in 
 the days of Josiah could have given these 
 titles, unless they had good reason for 
 believing that they belonged to them. 
 And thus we get back not far from the 
 days of Solomon for the origin of these 
 titles for the Psalms. 
 
 If it be true that you do find one 
 or two of these Psalms that were 
 post-Exilian, or about the time of the 
 Captivity, it simply proves that the 
 Psalter existed practically in its entirety 
 at that time, and that a few additions 
 were then made. 
 
 Permit me to say that I hope the time is 
 coming when lovers of God's Word will 
 not any longer have to be bleeding with 
 sorrow or boiling with indignation at 
 the way in which men have talked about 
 our Lord, — that He did not know when 
 He said that David was the principal 
 author of the Psalter. Let us hope that 
 there will be more of modesty among 
 these men; that they will believe that 
 there are j30.me things that they do not 
 know, and some things which our Lord 
 did know; and that among the things 
 that He knew were, that Moses was the 
 author of the Pentateuch and that David 
 was the principal author of the Psalter. 
 
 It seems to me that this discovery at 
 this time is very similar to the discov- 
 eries that have been made by the arch- 
 aeologists. Just as a man gets dead sure 
 that something is wrong with the Bible, 
 some old Bedouin sheik stubs his toe 
 against a brick or a tablet and all they 
 claim is disproved. And now just as they 
 
have been dead sure that the Psalter 
 never could have been written earlier 
 than the days of the Maccabees, God 
 has let this man discover the significance 
 of these titles that pushes their origin 
 back beyond the days of the Exile. 
 
 Do you ask how he discovered it? 
 In a very simple way. 
 
 In the last chapter of the Book of Ha- 
 bakkuk, and the thirty-eighth chapter of 
 the Book of Isaiah, he found two Psalms 
 standing out alone, exactly as they were 
 originally written. Examining them he 
 found that the Literary Title was at the 
 opening, the musical title at the close. 
 
 He made his discovery known to Col- 
 onel Conder, the head of the Palestine 
 Exploration Society of London, and Col- 
 onel Conder said that the Oriental 
 Psalms from 1500 to 500 B. C, have that 
 exact arrangement so far as he has given 
 them examination. 
 
 There has not been a single schol- 
 ar thus far that has questioned the 
 discovery; but hundreds of them have 
 written to the author, declaring it to be 
 the most marvellous discovery that has 
 been made, and acknowledging how stu- 
 pid we have been that we did not see it 
 long ago! 
 
 ADDRESS OF REV. DR. MACKENZIE. 
 
 "The Right of Defence' 
 
 [The last place on the program for 
 Wednesday evening was assigned to 
 Rev. Robert MacKenzie, D.D., formerly 
 Professor in the San Francisco Theo- 
 logical Seminary, now pastor of the Rut- 
 gers Riverside Presbyterian Church, 
 New York City. For reasons given by 
 President Hall his address was deferred 
 until Thursday morning. As Dr. Mac- 
 Kenzie was not able to be present at that 
 session, he has kindly prepared his ad- 
 dress in written form for publication in 
 the Report. — Editor.] 
 
 Paul says that he was sent for the de- 
 fence of the Gospel. The word he uses 
 for defence is our word apologetic. For 
 sinister reasons apologetics is slightingly 
 spoken of, yet it has scriptural warrant 
 and apostolic example. It has come to 
 pass that to say a word in defence of the 
 Gospel, or of the Bible, as we have it, 
 is at once to meet the objections of two 
 opposing parties. One party deprecates 
 the effort on the ground that the Bible 
 need not be defended; the other on the 
 ground that the Bible should not be de- 
 fended, that it should lie open to all 
 manner of attacks. If it is what we 
 claim for it, it can not be injured. To 
 
 defend it is to acknowledge that some- 
 where and in some conditions it is weak. 
 To form a league against the Bible is 
 laudable, scientific and in the interest of 
 scholarship; to form a league for the 
 Bible is reprehensible, narrow and mis- 
 chievous. 
 
 This is a convenient assumption; but 
 not readily granted in a world of fair 
 play. The assumption is not without its 
 parallels in other fields of contest. China 
 has been assumed to be fair game and 
 the prey of Western nations; to be ex- 
 ploited and divided for Western pur- 
 poses. For China or any of its friends 
 to defend its integrity is mischievous, 
 hindering to the progress of the new 
 civilization, and is the rise of a Yellow 
 Peril; which assumption is likely to be 
 roughly treated by the hard facts of the 
 case. For the right of defence is a pri- 
 mary right of human nature in regard to 
 any possession. It is gratuitous as it is 
 futile to question our right to defend 
 the most sacred of all our possessions 
 as Christians. 
 
 When the right to defend the Bible is 
 admitted we are then told with naive 
 
 92 
 
blandness that all the new thinking and 
 reverend scholarship is against the evan- 
 gelical view of the Bible. Just what 
 these ornamental adjectives "new" and 
 "reverend" mean in the terminology of 
 the day has nowhere been defined. 
 Thinking is as old as man, and scholar- 
 ship has been reverend since it first 
 considered religious subjects. The forms 
 of thought and the principles of scholar- 
 ship have long been fixed. If these 
 comfortable adjectives mean anything it 
 is something like this: Two young men 
 of equal parts, of similar training on 
 similar subjects by the same professors, 
 come out into the arena of religious ex- 
 pression, one speaking against the Evan- 
 gelical view of the Bible and the other 
 for it; the one speaking against it is as- 
 sumed, by that fact itself, to be the 
 greater scholar, and the one speaking 
 for it, by that fact itself, to be the lesser. 
 Thus there is at last discovered a royal 
 and a cheap road to new learning and 
 reverend scholarship. But such grave 
 questions as those involved in the Evan- 
 gelical and traditional view of the Bible 
 are not settled by such naive assump- 
 tions. 
 
 Much is said at the present time on the 
 supposed overthrow of all traditional be- 
 liefs by rationalistic higher criticism, and 
 of the necessity under which every in- 
 telligent man now lies to adapt himself 
 to a new condition of things as to the 
 Bible, Christ and the way of Salvation. 
 Has this criticism, then, already and fi- 
 nally won the battle? If indeed the last 
 word has been spoken, if the present 
 verdict of such criticism is confirmed, 
 we can hardly contemplate the religious 
 prospect with a light heart. The Bible, 
 as we hold it, has done so much in this 
 world, in the way of the education and 
 reformation of the individual, in the 
 sanctity of the home, in the charity and 
 philanthropy of society and in the free- 
 dom of government, that we may be 
 reasonably prejudiced in its favor and 
 regretful at the passing of such an in- 
 fluence from the motives of men. It 
 has done all this because it has been re- 
 ceived among us, not as the word of men, 
 but, ?s it j§ in truth, the Word of God. 
 
 Certainly this Book runs across man's 
 natural desires and imposes moral res- 
 traints not welcome. It imposes duties 
 not easy to perform. It pronounces all 
 men — even well-dressed, well-mannered 
 and educated men — sinners before God. 
 It presents one definite condition of sal- 
 vation — repentance and faith, and one 
 only Savior — Jesus Christ. It lifts up an 
 awful future for those who disobey its 
 injunctions and refuse to repent and be- 
 lieve in Christ. It thus commands our 
 intellect and our conscience, our hopes 
 and our fears, on the ground that it is 
 in the most peculiar and particular man- 
 ner the Word of God Who is our Crea- 
 tor, our Providence and the Disposer of 
 our destiny. 
 
 If, however, it is but the word of men, 
 that at once releases us from its res- 
 traints, its duties and its beliefs. If it is 
 but the word of men, that reduces the 
 book from the level of a religion to that 
 of a philosophy, and we know at once 
 what to expect. The world has had its 
 philosophies before Christ and after. 
 Masterly creations of the wisest of men 
 in all the old world continents are in our 
 libraries. But the masses of mankind 
 with their needs have always proved a 
 burden too heavy for any philosophy to 
 bear. Nor were the philosophers them- 
 selves able "to keep ^rom sinking to a 
 moral pollution which placed the civi- 
 ization of their time below its barbar- 
 ism." 
 
 This is the main issue of the present 
 hour. Higher Criticism seeks to show 
 that the Bible is a religion — the Word 
 and Will of God to man. Rationalistic 
 Higher Criticism seeks to show that it 
 is a philosophy — the word of men to 
 men. There can be few concessions and 
 no compromise between these two. It 
 is one or the other for each of us. 
 
 The effort to reduce the Bible to a 
 philosophy is an old story. The curious 
 thing is that it should be presented to 
 us today as something new, and as the 
 result of a new science, a new thinking 
 and a more reverend scholarship. More 
 than thirty years ago Dr. Christlieb of 
 Bonn University compared it to the bat- 
 tle of Chalons, where the Romans ob- 
 
 93 
 
tained a triumph over the invading and 
 devastating hordes of Attila and his 
 Huns. "The bloody work of the sword 
 was done, and the vast plain strewed 
 with countless heaps of dead. But for 
 three nights following" — so ran the tale — 
 "the spirits of the slain might be dis- 
 covered hovering over the scenes of 
 their late encounters, and continuing 
 their ruthless conflicts in the air." What- 
 ever new body this rationalistic criticism 
 may take on, the informing spirit of it 
 is a ghost of a confident, but vanquished 
 past. With this difference, however, the 
 original theory had a deliberate and con- 
 fessed purpose to get the Bible and 
 Christ and the Evangelical church out 
 of the way of men. It went straight to 
 that purpose. It had the courage of its 
 convictions. Men lived it out in a 
 Christless, Godless life. It did not pre- 
 tend to be religious. It knew it was op- 
 posed to the whole scheme of revealed 
 religion and said so. In its present re- 
 vival it poses as peculiarly religious and 
 uniquely Christian, and bans to the 
 outer darkness of ignorance those "who 
 will not do it reverence. We are told 
 by the frankest of these critics, that if 
 the whole Bible were to be given up re- 
 ligion, would not suffer. The result of 
 snch a loss is not left to a guess or to a 
 prophecy. There is a world without the 
 Bible — a world not only in far-off Africa 
 
 or Polynesia, but here all about us — 
 without any regard to God's Word, or 
 God's law, or God's offer of salvation 
 through Jesus Christ; a world large 
 enough surely in which to test this flip- 
 pant prophecy to its utmost logical con- 
 sequences. Are they living any better, 
 are they doing any more for the good of 
 men in the life that now is, than those 
 who guide their faith and their conduct 
 by the Bible? Is their life any way en- 
 riched by taking Jesus Christ out of it? 
 Is the heart of man purer, nobler, by tak- 
 ing the Holy Spirit out of it? Is death 
 made less terrible and the grave more 
 hopeful by extinguishing these words of 
 assurance in the Gospel? These are 
 questions to be answered, not by suave 
 prophecies of the future, but by perti- 
 nent facts of the present. 
 
 What defence may now be made 
 against this recrudescence of an old 
 theory should follow not only the lines 
 of scholarship, but also the lines of 
 morals, of philanthropy and of Christian 
 pity for the multitude. To play at this 
 game of subjective criticism with Ho- 
 mer,* or Shakespeare, or Goethe is to 
 entertain and amuse the studious. To 
 play at it with the Bible, with the birth, 
 the death and the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ, is to rob men and women of that 
 for which there is no known substitute 
 in the stress of life and of death. 
 
 W 
 
fourth (General Cloplc 
 
 «' METHOD PROPOSED BY THE LEAGUE FOR REMEDY- 
 
 ING THE EVILS " 
 
 President Hall: The speaker named 
 Sir Robert Anderson in connection with 
 this matter. It gives me pleasure to an- 
 nounce that it is our expectation at our 
 next Convention to have Sir Robert An- 
 derson, as well as some other represen- 
 tatives of the British Bible League, and 
 other scholars of Great Britain, to ad- 
 dress us. 
 
 We will now proceed with the ad- 
 dresses under the General Topic of the 
 morning session: "Method Proposed by 
 the League for Remedying the Evils." 
 
 The first special topic is: "Concentra- 
 tion of Popular Attention upon the Best 
 
 Way of Mastering the Bible and What 
 Is in It." 
 
 It gives me great pleasure now to in- 
 troduce to you as the first speaker on 
 this program, one who has spoken to 
 you already during the sessions of this 
 Convention, our beloved General Secre- 
 tary, the Rev. Daniel S. Gregory, D.D., 
 LL.D. 
 
 After Dr. Gregory, other members of 
 the League will address us. This ses- 
 sion will doubtless prove to be to all 
 who are present one of the most inter- 
 esting in all the series. Dr. Gregory 
 will now address you. 
 
 f^irst Special CCopic 
 
 'Concentration of Popular Attention upon the Best Way of Mastering the Bible 
 
 and What Is in It" 
 
 ADDRESS BY REV. DR. GREGORY 
 "Method Proposed Involves a Three-fold . Campaign" 
 
 I am glad to stand here, brethren, as 
 representing especially the Education 
 Committee of The American Bible 
 League. Many of the members of the 
 Committee are absent for causes beyond 
 their control. President Buttz would 
 rather be here, I am sure, than to be 
 made Bishop away on the Pacific Coast; 
 
 and Dr. Willis J. Beecher would be here 
 if anything less stood in the way than 
 the Seminary Commencement, and the 
 fortieth anniversary of the graduation 
 of his class at Auburn; and Principal 
 Sheraton would be here, were it within 
 the limits of possibility. I represent, 
 the Education Committee, however, as 
 
 9i 
 
we have had much conference concern- 
 ing the plans of the League. 
 
 Under the "Method Proposed by the 
 League for Remedying the Evils," I am 
 to consider, in particular, "the concen- 
 tration of attention upon the mastery of 
 the Bible and what is in it." 
 
 We assume that the Bible is the source 
 and basis of our civilization and of all 
 that is best in the civilization of the 
 world, and we are seeking to present 
 the remedy for the evils of which we 
 have been told during this Convention, 
 and which sorely need to be remedied. 
 
 Those evils you may sum up briefly: 
 
 (i) As a lack of knowledge of the 
 Bible. That has been demonstrated by 
 the recent examinations of students by 
 college professors and the public school 
 teachers and superintendents; so that no 
 one can possibly doubt the density of 
 the ignorance of the Bible that exists 
 in high places and in low places. 
 
 (2) A lack of reverence for the Bible, 
 consequent upon lack of knowledge of 
 what it is and what it claims to be. You 
 have heard enough during this Conven- 
 tion to convince you that this age is 
 peculiar in its monumental lack of rev- 
 erence for the Bible as the Word of God. 
 
 (3) A lack of obedience to the Bible 
 in its commands, consequent upon the 
 lack of knowledge of it and of reverence 
 for it. And this lack of obedience mani- 
 festly extends from the failure in the 
 smallest thing connected with individ- 
 ual honesty, away up to the fatal failure 
 to obey the Great Commission of Jesus 
 Christ to carry the Gospel into all the 
 earth. 
 
 The Bible being at the basis, there is 
 need of concentration of attention just 
 now on the Bible, in order, not to find 
 out something about the Bible, but to 
 find out what it is and what is in it. We 
 must get the Bible back into its true 
 place in the minds and hearts of the 
 people; and we must get the people and 
 the institutions back to their place on 
 the Bible; if we are to remedy the exist- 
 ing evils. 
 
 We have undertaken, therefore, under 
 the influence of the profound conviction 
 that this must be done, 9 three-fold cam- 
 
 paign: a campaign of education on the 
 Bible, a campaign of new literary work 
 for the Bible; and a campaign of national 
 and international organization of Chris- 
 tian and conservative forces for the de- 
 fense and dissemination of the truths of 
 the Bible. 
 
 I. The Campaign of Education on the 
 Bible. Attend for a moment to the con- 
 templated campaign of education on the 
 Bible. That lies at the basis. 
 
 "The best way of mastering the Bible 
 and what is in it," — that is the way it is 
 put in our statement. We propose, in 
 the first place, a new and natural method 
 of studying the Bible and of presenting 
 the Bible truths. 
 
 Old and Artificial Methods 
 
 The present ignorance of the Bible, 
 now everywhere in evidence, is proof 
 of the failure of the old methods. We 
 shall not stop to show that that is so. 
 
 The fragmentary method was tried for 
 a generation or two. We were kept 
 studying the comments upon verse after 
 verse, on the tacit assumption that no 
 verse had any connection with any other 
 verse, until we wearied of that, and 
 would have no more of it. 
 
 So the lesson systems came in, and we 
 have had series upon series of such sys- 
 tems, showing that men deeply felt that 
 there was need of system in the study 
 of the Bible. But these systems have 
 been artificial, all of them; the latest of 
 all the most so of all. The men who 
 have been engaged in preparing them 
 deserve our gratitude. They have done 
 the best they could, doubtless; and we 
 will look for more light and improve- 
 ment for the time to come. But you 
 hear everywhere that the people are 
 weary of Lesson Systems. They are so 
 because the systems are artificial, and 
 because they do not take you directly 
 to the Bible as the Word of God, but 
 rather by means of most useful lesson 
 leaves and other devices take you away 
 from it. 
 
 And it is impossible to grasp the sys- 
 tem, however valuable it may be. You 
 study in seven years your three hundred 
 and fifty Lessons in a ^o-galkd system f 
 
 ^ 
 
and at the end of the seven years the 
 best memory in Christendom has been 
 found unable to hold that system so as 
 to tell what has been taught in that time. 
 When you have passed on from each 
 Lesson you have lost its connection with 
 the Bible, and lost the Lesson, too. 
 
 Men have at last wearied of that 
 drudgery; for it has inevitably become 
 drudgery. I have met many a Sunday- 
 school teacher who has been engaged in 
 the work, say for twenty years, who has 
 told me: "I am tired of this thing. I 
 have been studying and following these 
 so-called systems year after year, but I 
 don't know any more about the Bible 
 than I did twenty years ago; in fact I 
 don't think I know as much about it as 
 I did then. I am exhausted, and I am 
 going out of business as a Sunday-school 
 teacher." 
 
 There was a call for something bet- 
 ter. To this call the New Critical 
 Method was doubtless a response. 
 There was, so to speak, a vacuum in the 
 minds of teachers and professors in 
 charge of instruction in the Bible. Well, 
 just at the psychological moment there 
 came all this German material, — inter- 
 esting, ingenious, imaginative, ready to 
 fill that vacuum. The two needs meet, 
 and so we have had our recent develop- 
 ment of the critical system of studying 
 and presenting the Bible, which they are 
 seeking now to introduce into all the 
 schools and colleges and Sunday schools. 
 
 That critical method has taken the 
 Bible apart into bits and scraps and 
 scattered it to the ends of the earth, as 
 we have heard and have reason to know. 
 When one comes upon its results he feels 
 that he does not know exactly where he is. 
 
 I will give you a parable of my barn, 
 that will illustrate what I mean. When 
 I lived on a :anch, a cyclone came one 
 night, and its results will perhaps show 
 you the feeling I have had after going 
 through all these works of the radical 
 critics. I had a barn that was a fairly 
 good structure. In it there were a good 
 many valuable — almost indispensable — 
 things; but one night there came a cy- 
 clone while I was asleep, and the next 
 jnorning I found that barn scattered 
 
 over forty acres of prairie land. The 
 only piece of its contents that came out 
 of it not entirely crushed and scattered 
 was a light road-wagon; and that had 
 been lifted bodily and carried a quarter 
 of a mile and left in what we Western 
 people call a slough. That wagon was 
 the only thing left in recognizable form. 
 
 Now, when I look at the work cf the 
 critics, and find that the only fragment 
 left of the Pentateuch, for example, is a 
 little piece of Deuteronomy, and that 
 even that has been swept all the way 
 from Moses to Josiah, it reminds me of 
 that cyclone and the wagon in the 
 slough. I found I was not warranted in 
 attempting to reconstruct my barn out 
 of the wrecked material; in fact there 
 was nothing left of it. Quite as absurd 
 would be the attempt to reconstruct this 
 material of the Pentateuch that has been 
 wrecked and wrenched and scattered 
 far and wide. You have only to read 
 the attempted reconstructions that have 
 been undertaken of late, in order to see 
 just how absurd the attempt at recon- 
 struction is. 
 
 The event has made it sufficiently clear 
 that these proposed methods have not 
 fully satisfied the needs they were devised 
 to meet. They have been too artificial 
 and mechanical. 
 
 A New and Natural Method 
 
 There seems to us to be a call for 
 something better; for a method that 
 shall be natural, not artificial; that shall 
 be constructive and truly scientific, and 
 not destructive and scattering and un- 
 literary; and that shall be cumulative in 
 its results, — so that when a man has 
 studied one year, or five years, or ten 
 years, or twenty years, he can feel that 
 he has added the treasures of knowledge 
 from all the work of the years to what 
 he started with at the beginning. 
 
 The Secretary has sketched this 
 method, and the Education Committee 
 has considered it carefully; and it has 
 been presented for your consideration 
 in a pamphlet entitled "Bible Study for 
 Permanent Results and Use," that will 
 be scattered this morning, so that you 
 can see and understand for yourselves 
 the general method proposed, 
 
 97 
 
Study of the Bible in its Natural Divi- 
 sions. 
 
 We propose, first of all, to have this 
 method a natural one. We are not go- 
 ing to take the Bible apart and study a 
 fragment here and a fragment there. 
 We propose to follow the natural plan 
 of the Bible, if such a plan can be found. 
 
 Now, there are natural parts to the 
 Bible. The Pentateuch, for example, 
 gives you the origin and organization 
 of the Divine religion as the Law. The 
 rest of the Old Testament exhibits the 
 development of that religion: 
 
 (i) In the Historical Books in con- 
 nection with the national life and insti- 
 tutions and customs of the people, so 
 as to shape the public life; 
 
 (2) In the Poetical Books, the devel- 
 opment of that religion in connection 
 with the inner religious life, because you 
 must always have a basis of conviction 
 and feeling if you are to have any prac- 
 tical vital religion; 
 
 (3) In the Prophetical Books, the 
 struggle of Divine Grace with the peo- 
 ple to save them from destruction and 
 prepare for the future Messiah and the 
 Gospel. 
 
 Now, these are natural divisions, and 
 each of them falls into its natural sub- 
 divisions. If we can only study these 
 divisions and sub-divisions in their nat- 
 ural order and in a natural way, you can 
 readily see what the outcome of such 
 study will be: you can come back to 
 the Bible with the results of your study 
 every time, and find everything you 
 have ever learned before right there in 
 the Bible itself; and you can add a thou- 
 sand-fold to it as you go on to succes- 
 sive years of study. 
 
 To show the difiference between a nat- 
 ural and an artificial method, let me 
 call attention to a method that has been 
 devised — which has been popular and 
 advocated by many able men — which 
 takes up the Scriptures of the Old Tes- 
 tament in dispensations. Following this 
 method your teacher says: "Why, the 
 oldest book in the Bible is Job." So he 
 begins with Job, and you are called upon 
 to study Job first of all, and the Penta- 
 teuch comes somewhere after that. Your 
 
 Bible is "pied" for you, as the printers 
 say. And after you have gone through 
 it in that way you never get the parts 
 back in place again; for this method 
 scatters the parts, rather than concen- 
 trating attention upon the Book as it 
 is and upon every part of it in natural 
 order. 
 
 Constructive and Literary Study 
 
 We propose to study the Bible in its 
 unity and in its completeness, and, there- 
 fore, to make the study constructive and 
 truly literary. 
 
 One great trouble with the methods 
 of Bible study is the trouble that we 
 have had in the universities in the past 
 in the study of English Literature. Years 
 ago the editor of The Dial, of Chicago, 
 wrote to all the leading professors in 
 the great universities and asked them 
 to set forth how English literature was 
 studied in the universities. There was 
 a series of papers printed from the lead- 
 ing professors, and it was generally ad- 
 mitted after the series was completed, 
 that it demonstrated just one thing, and 
 that was that English Literature was 
 not studied at all in any proper sense 
 in our universities. There was a little 
 biography (for instance, they would tell 
 the student that when Sir Isaac New- 
 ton was born he was so little that they 
 could put him into a quart mug) ; ^there 
 was a little mechanical history; there 
 were a great many curious things and 
 all that, told the student by way of in- 
 formation; there was a little poor phil- 
 ology and perhaps a little bad grammar, 
 and a little attention to figures of speech, 
 and so on; but of attention to English 
 Literature in the strict and proper sense 
 there was none worth mentioning. Why, 
 a literary production is a great and mas- 
 terful construction, having a theme, an 
 aim, an organic unity. If you are to 
 study it as Literature, you must study 
 it from that point of view. You need 
 to begin by asking to what department 
 of literature a production belongs, and to 
 get all the light that can be had con- 
 cerning its origin and environment and 
 aim, — and then to study it carefully with 
 all the light possible from these sources. 
 
 98 
 
Now, that same method must be ap- 
 plied to the Bible if you are to get any 
 satisfactory .esults. If you study the 
 "Julius Caesar" of Shakespeare, the very 
 first thing you ask is, What is Shakes- 
 peare doing here? Is this prose or 
 poetry? If it is a tragedy, what is the 
 one great action that is presented here? 
 Well, when you find out that that action 
 is "The Death-Struggle of the Old Ro- 
 man Republicanism with the Rising Cae- 
 sarism," you have the key to that drama. 
 Applying the key you find that death- 
 struggle presented with most marvelous 
 movement and unity. There is a suc- 
 cessful conspiracy against Caesar. The 
 First Act gives its inception in which 
 the elements are brought to light; the 
 Second Act, the organization of the con- 
 spiracy; the Third Act, the execution of 
 that conspiracy and the scattering of 
 the forces from the dead body of the 
 fallen Caesar. 
 
 Then follows the military Death-Grap- 
 ple: the Fourth Act setting forth the 
 gathering of the military forces for the 
 death-struggle, so that at the end of the 
 Act they face each other on the Plains 
 of Philippi; the Fifth Act depicting the 
 death-struggle itself, over which the 
 spirit of Caesar comes to preside. The 
 old Roman Republicanism is dead; Cae- 
 sarism is triumphant. With this key 
 you are prepared to come to an under- 
 standing of the general plan of the "Ju- 
 lius Caesar" of Shakespeare. 
 
 When that has been completed the 
 detailed study of the tragedy becomes 
 a delight, instead of a drudgery. When 
 you have studied it in both ways, you 
 don't have to remember it; "it remem- 
 bers itself," as one of my bright men 
 once said to me after such a study of it. 
 It has become one of your permanent 
 possessions. 
 
 If you are to study the Bible so as to 
 get a masterful hold upon it, you must 
 study it in a similar way. It is of little 
 use to study Genesis m bits and frag- 
 ments; but if you once get the idea that 
 Genesis has just two things in it — the 
 two being really one — the origin of the 
 Divine religion of redemption in its old 
 form, qr as the X>aw, and the origin of 
 
 the people who arc to become the de- 
 positary of that religion; then you have 
 the key to the Book, and everything falls 
 into its place in a natural and complete 
 plan. 
 
 And if you once get the idea that the 
 Gospel according to Matthew is, not a 
 biography but the written record of the 
 preaching of Matthew — history declares 
 it to be that — intended to demonstrate 
 to the Jew that Jesus was the Messiah 
 of the Prophets; so that it is an argu- 
 ment of the closest kind based upon the 
 Old Testament Scriptures; you have the 
 key to the Gospel according to Mat- 
 thew. Its natural divisions fall apart 
 of themselves before you. And the Jew- 
 ish origin and aim of this Gospel furnish 
 the key to those forty-two parts out of 
 one hundred that are in Matthew but 
 not in any of the other Gospels. You 
 will find that they are explained by the 
 fact that they are for the Jew, intended 
 to show to him and the man of like na- 
 ture that Jesus is the Messiah, that he 
 may be led to accept Him as his Savior. 
 
 Beyond all question this constructive 
 and literary method may be applied to 
 all the Bible. One thing that we pro- 
 pose to do is to help to apply it. 
 
 Cumulative and Accumulative Study 
 
 This will lead to cumulative results in 
 the study of the Bible. 
 
 Men hate bits and scraps; at least 
 men of sense. Man was made a con- 
 structive being rather than anything else 
 — if he is not that in measure, he is a 
 small pattern of a man — made to be a 
 creator in some sense. I say he hates 
 bits and scraps. The human mind is 
 made so that it has an infinite abhor- 
 rence of all such things, and of all meth- 
 ods that would direct its energies to them. 
 
 Now, this is the method we propose 
 for consideration, adoption and practi- 
 cal use. I have illustrated it in the 
 pamphlets that will be distributed to 
 those who desire them. This method 
 is to be advocated, among other things, 
 in our magazine, and is to be set forth 
 in a series of Bible League Primers. 
 "Bible Primer No. I." the first of the 
 kind issued, is ready for your cxamina- 
 
 99 
 
tion and for the use of the public. It 
 presents an "Outline View of the Bible 
 as God's Revelation of Redemption." 
 It seeks to show how all the books fall 
 into the one great plan as parts of the 
 unfolding of God's one work of Redemp- 
 tion as Law and as Gospel. This is in- 
 tended to prepare the way for the study- 
 in detail and in succession of the natural 
 divisions found in the Bible. And all 
 this is in order to open up to men its 
 teachings as the Way of Life. 
 
 II. The Campaign of Literary Work for 
 the Bible. 
 
 The second undertaking in which the 
 League is engaged is a campaign of lit- 
 erary work. 
 
 It contemplates the use of the con- 
 servative scholars and forces for the 
 purpose of carrying forward this work 
 on the largest scale. We are to get be- 
 yond our Bible League Primers. We 
 are to have Primers on the vital issues 
 that we have been considering. We are 
 to have Commentaries, if the Lord will, 
 coming at the Bible as the Word of God 
 from this natural and constructive point 
 of view that we have been setting forth, 
 and treating the books in such a way 
 that when one has studied one of the 
 commentaries, he will know something 
 about what is in the Bible, and not mere- 
 ly something that somebody has said 
 about the Bible, or about something in 
 the Bible that somebody has said was 
 not so. 
 
 And then we have in contemplation 
 (and on this the lamented Dr. Purvis 
 was in conference with us before his 
 death and our plan was fairly outlined) 
 a great Bible Dictionary and Encyclo- 
 paedia that shall, in its scholarship and 
 breadth and scope, surpass the works 
 of all the Encyclopaedias that are now 
 being brought before the public, and 
 that shall show the falseness of the posi- 
 tions which the Critics seek to maintain, 
 often with so much scholarship and 
 learning. The necessity for this has 
 been felt very widely. I recollect that 
 President Buttz, in discussing the mat- 
 ter in one of our meetings not long 
 pince, §aid; "Th^t abpv? everything else 
 
 is one of the great things we must have. 
 There come to my students at Drew 
 Seminary the agents from the publish- 
 ers, and they say: 'Here is the Ency- 
 clopaedia Biblica. You can't afford to be 
 without that.' 'Well, but I can't afiord 
 to buy it.' 'But you can have it for al- 
 most nothing, for a dollar a month, pay- 
 ing for it as you go along.' They treat 
 the Polychrome Bible in much the same 
 way. They get the student to subscribe 
 to it as a necessity, at the rate of a dol- 
 lar a month; and then the poor young 
 man goes out into the ministry to be 
 saturated with it and be perverted by it." 
 
 That was the opinion of President 
 Buttz, and he said: "We must provide 
 something that will give the Bible in 
 popular as well as scholarly shape; 
 something to meet all these evil teach- 
 ings that are abroad and counteract 
 them." 
 
 This is, in brief, one enterprise that 
 we have in view. 
 
 III. The Campaign of Organization. 
 
 We have a third thing in contempla- 
 tion, a campaign of organization at all 
 centers for the purpose of carrying for- 
 ward our work on these lines with the 
 aid of all available forces. 
 
 We need organizations for this pur- 
 pose, general and local organizations. 
 The advocates of the views we deprecate 
 have been organized with absolutely per- 
 fect generalship, and are pushing their 
 work with the aid of almost limitless re- 
 sources. They are backed, too, by sub- 
 stantially all the great publishers. It 
 ought to be self-evident that, in this age 
 of organization, we can never accom- 
 plish anything without bringing the con- 
 servative elements and forces together 
 upon a common platform, and massing 
 them for this work. All the conserva- 
 tive scholars must be engaged in the 
 enterprise of pushing the study of the 
 Bible and the understanding of it out 
 into all the world. 
 
 In these organizations that are pro- 
 posed we shall have a two-fold aim. We 
 first want to get the issues before the 
 public, issues that have been presented 
 
 here. But there is little use in mere 
 
 100 
 
talking; the evidence must be presented, 
 that the people may be brought to un- 
 derstand what the real state of the case is. 
 
 The Boston Transcript, as Dr. Plumb 
 told us, accuses us of stirring up ftrife. 
 Well, the Lord Jesus Christ stirred up 
 strife when he was upon earth, and The 
 American Bible League will have to stir 
 up strife in this evil world, if it accom- 
 plishes anything. We do not propose 
 to do it for the sake of strife, but for 
 the sake of enlightenment, and for the 
 purpose of giving the people the knowl- 
 edge they need. Discussion is the only 
 method possible in the circumstances. 
 
 But we are to go beyond that, to give 
 back to the people the Bible itself. If 
 we can get the Bible into the minds of 
 the people — beginning with the preach- 
 ers, who will confess to you that they 
 do not at all know the Bible as a whole 
 — why, the Bible will take care of itself, 
 and all this rationalistic criticism will 
 fall to the ground in due time. 
 
 We desire, first of all and most of all, 
 to get the leaders and the people down 
 to this work of studying the Bible and 
 of mastering it, from the natural, con- 
 structive and cumulative point of view 
 that has been set forth. We desire to 
 get a better knowledge of the Bible into 
 their minds, and to get them back upon 
 the Bible again as the basis. That is 
 what we are for, not for controversy 
 
 but for more light; and that because we 
 believe the Bible to be not only the 
 basis of our civilization but also the only 
 way of life for perishing men. 
 
 It must be self-evident that all this 
 will involve the use of money as well 
 as of brains. Our work has been car- 
 ried on with what energy and means 
 could be brought to bear upon it; but 
 the financial burden so far has fallen 
 largely upon one who has said nothing 
 about the burden, but to whom we owe 
 to a larger extent than to any other 
 this Convention and this work that 
 has been done. We look for the help 
 of many men of moderate means and 
 many men of wealth, who will come up 
 and aid in carrying forward the work. 
 We need ten thousand dollars a year to 
 begin with. We need a special fund of 
 one hundred thousand dollars for imme- 
 diate use. That will be but a trifle if 
 our friends could be made to feel what 
 a mighty work needs to be done, and 
 how God demands that it be done at 
 once. We appeal to you, dear brethren 
 in the Lord, for your help in this task 
 in which we are engaged. The Educa- 
 tion Committee desires your interest in 
 it, your prayers in its behalf, your co- 
 operation in every way, that the work 
 may be carried forward with power to 
 that complete triumph for which we look 
 through Christ, our Lord and Master. 
 
 Dr. Burrell: In pursuance of what 
 Dr. Gregory has said, though I suppose 
 we have no authority to take any def- 
 inite action here today, I have in my 
 hands a note, proposing a matter of 
 considerable importance, and which 
 moves me to suggest the following ac- 
 tion on the part of the people who are 
 present: 
 
 Resolved, That the Directors of The 
 American Bible League be requested to 
 select, as soon as possible, a local secre- 
 tary for every city, town and village of 
 the United States and Canada, wJiose 
 special work shall be to organize the 
 friends of the Bible into Local Auxiliar- 
 ies or Branch Leagues, and to arrange 
 in that connection for Local Conferences 
 in general character like that in which 
 
 we are now assembled, and for syste- 
 matic Bible Study in all practical and 
 profitable ways. 
 
 I am not only a member of the Bible 
 League but I am also a member of this 
 body today, and it is as such that I 
 would now offer this resolution, if it is 
 entirely in order, I would offer it as a 
 request made to The League. (Sec- 
 onded). 
 
 President Hall: All in favor will re- 
 spond by saying aye. It is carried. 
 
 We shall now pass on to the second 
 subdivision of the topic already an- 
 nounced: "Co-operation with Existing 
 Agencies in Interesting the Young in 
 Systematic and Constructive Bible 
 Study." 
 
 lOI 
 
The first speaker on the program not 
 being present at the moment, we shall 
 announce the second, Rev. Charles L. 
 Fry, of St. Luke's Church, Philadelphia, 
 
 and Literary Secretary of the Luther 
 League of America. It gives us great 
 pleasure to introduce our good brother, 
 Dr. Fry. 
 
 Second Special (Topic: 
 
 "Co-operation with Existing Agencies in Interesting the Young in Systematic 
 and Constructive Bible Study" 
 
 ADDRESS BY REV. CHARLES L. FRY 
 
 "The Bible the Instrument of Spiritual Power with the Young" 
 
 It is perfectly logical and natural that 
 the final words of this Convention should 
 be along the line of application, espe- 
 cially to our young people as being the 
 hope of the future. If the message may 
 not appeal to the entire 32,000 of Gid- 
 eon's army, nor even to the 10,000 of the 
 second count, it does appeal tremendous- 
 ly to the faithful 300, on whom the sav- 
 ing of Israel depends. The Gospel deals 
 with souls as individuals, not in masses. 
 Herein it differs radically from every 
 form of Paganism. 
 
 Take the whole system of caste in 
 which a man is born, how it binds him 
 with fetters of steel hand and foot, so 
 that he can not budge and can not move. 
 But the Word of God comes to every 
 man as an individual, and even if he is 
 a very humble individual, it clothes that 
 man with the power of the Spirit of the 
 Living God. Why, think of Luther, for 
 example! Think of how little he had in 
 the way of anything like equipment; but 
 have you ever seen a statue of him that 
 has not the Word in one hand, and the, 
 other hand resting firmly on that Word, 
 as the only source of what he is and 
 hopes to do? "Not by might nor by 
 power." 
 
 Now, this power of the Spirit upon 
 which we are absolutely dependent 
 comes through the Word. That is the 
 keynote, Mr. Chairman. There is not a 
 word in the language that appeals to 
 our young people so much as that word 
 "power." That is what they want; and 
 all who are susceptible to these higher 
 influences will rally if we can make posi- 
 tively certain to them that this Word 
 is the instrument of power. Now, they 
 do not apprehend that. We take up the 
 hymn, and this is what we sing: 
 
 "From the discoveries of Thy Law, 
 The perfect rules of life I draw." 
 
 Whilst this is true, grandly true, yet 
 we need more than rules. We do not 
 simply need the Word of God as giving 
 us rules. Suppose, then, you make that 
 last line read: 
 
 "From the discoveries of Thy Law, 
 Thy very life itself I draw" — 
 
 do you not see what a very diflferent 
 gospel that is? It does not disparage 
 the Bible in other respects. If this Book 
 were simply a book of information, even 
 then there is not anything else like it 
 on earth. But this is not simply a book 
 of information; it is far more than that; 
 it is a "Book of Life." You do not startle 
 at that definition; it is one you have 
 been accustomed to as long as you can 
 remember. Just take that "Word" and 
 take that "Life." What does it mean? It 
 means what it says: it means Life comes 
 thro' the Book. Isn't that a startling 
 statement? yes; there is but one book 
 in the world in that category; Life 
 comes by a Book. That is to say, here 
 we have not simply historic and scien- 
 tific truths, but supremely moral and 
 spiritual truth; and even here the pre- 
 vailing conception is far too low. It is 
 not simply a Book of spiritual truth, it 
 is supremely and above everything a 
 Book of Power, 
 
 Ask the average man among our 
 young people what is his conception of 
 the Book. He will say to you that it is 
 a Book that tells us our duty, and a 
 Book that awakens in us yearnings for 
 a higher Life. Do you say, "All that 
 is good so far as it goes, but it does not 
 go half far enough?" It is true so far 
 as it goes — awakens a yearning for a 
 
 102 
 
higher Life; but the great thing is that 
 it satisfies that yearning. It does not 
 simply awaken yearnings; it does not 
 simply make us wish to be good; it does 
 not simply comfort us in our sorrows; 
 it gives us power. There is not a thing 
 which that Book tells us to do but that 
 it enables us to do it. That is a mar- 
 velous thing. That is why it is the 
 Word of God. With the command 
 comes power. With every command in 
 this Book comes power; it is a Book 
 instinct with power; it is the Word of 
 God. The vital question is, What is the 
 value placed upon the Bible among our 
 young people? Well, actions speak 
 louder than words. We have a right to 
 judge by the part it has in the public 
 meetings and in the young people's so- 
 cieties, — oftentimes merely a rubric in 
 the opening devotional exercises; so much 
 so that its omission would hardly be 
 noted as much as that of the opening 
 prayer, or of the opening hymn. 
 
 One thing is sure: if we can discover 
 the secret to arouse in the hearts of 
 young men and women who represent 
 the best types of thought in the next 
 generation, an intense enthusiasm for 
 the Holy Scriptures, as if their very life 
 depended upon the Sacred Book; so that 
 a man would rather lose his right arm 
 than his confidence in the inspiration, 
 genuineness and authenticity of his Bi- 
 ble, then the problem of this Conven- 
 tion is solved. 
 
 As regards the problem we are now 
 dealing with, we may as well give it up 
 and ask for an easier one, unless our 
 young people can be brought to an en- 
 tirely different conception of what the 
 Bible, is from the universally prevalent 
 conception. That is far too low. That 
 conception is, that the Scriptures are 
 nothing more than a text-book of sacred 
 history, a manual of sacred geography, 
 a schedule of sacred scenes, festivals 
 and observances, a compendium of 
 sacred precepts and customs, a collec- 
 tion of morning and evening exercises. 
 If that is the view, then the thought of 
 this encyclopedia, this dictionary of 
 theological terms, this dictionary of good 
 morals, this atlas of by-gone nations 
 being snatched from the hands of our 
 
 103 
 
 young people by the robber critics, may 
 be regarded by them without a shudder, 
 since they do not appreciate what has 
 been taken from them. A man suffers 
 the frenzy of desperation if he knows 
 he is being robbed of his only means of 
 livelihood, on which not only himself but 
 his wife and children and perhaps his 
 aged parents are entirely dependent for 
 support; but this involves his immortal 
 soul rather than his perishing body. 
 When he realizes that the destiny of 
 his deathless being is involved in hold- 
 ing fast that inspired revelation which 
 is being wrenched out of his grasp, he 
 clings to it with all the energy qi which 
 he is capable. 
 
 If the Bible be an inert printed page, 
 a mere product of the bindery, on a par 
 with any other book of literary worth- 
 ies, made up of sentences, paragraphs 
 and chapters containing information of 
 ancient civilizations and religious codes, 
 or even including precepts for our own 
 personal religious observance, and noth- 
 ing more than that; then, all its unique 
 value is gone, and it is not a Bible at 
 all. The Word of God claims to be as 
 a book what the Christ of God claims 
 to be as a man. 
 
 Deny the divinity of Christ and you 
 have no Savior. Deny the divine char- 
 acter of the Book, and you have no rev- 
 elation. Acknowledge the Bible to be 
 a good book, the best of all books, 
 but not in very deed and truth what it 
 claims to be — the Word of God, — that is 
 exactly like acknowledging Christ to be 
 a good man, the best of men, but not in 
 very deed and truth what He explicitly 
 says He is, the Son of God incarnate, 
 the Word made flesh. The heart of the 
 question centers here. 
 
 Now, what is it? Let it speak for 
 itself: "Ye shall receive power after the 
 Holy Ghost is come upon you." We 
 know where to go when we need power; 
 we know where to go and get power. 
 We do not get spiritual power apart 
 from the Word. Have you ever got 
 any? Do you know anybody who has? 
 We do not get spiritual power apart 
 from the Word. Such a sublime and 
 simple truth as this leads us out of the 
 region of false mysticism and of laying 
 
undue stress on the subjective. We 
 have been talking about the Radical 
 Higher Criticism over-emphasizing the 
 subjective; and not only over-emphasizing 
 the subjective, but as saying there is no 
 objective truth. Mr. Chairman,, we are 
 ourselves to blame for this over-empha- 
 sizing of the subjective which the crit- 
 ics have carried to its logical issue. We 
 have failed to note what the Scripture 
 does claim on the objective side: "The 
 words that I speak unto you, they are 
 spirit and they are life"; "Quick and 
 powerful, sharper than any two-edged 
 sword"; "Which effectually worketh," — 
 worketh (that is the emphatic Word) 
 "Which effectually worketh." 
 
 Now, that is one thing we have for- 
 gotten. In our experience meetings we 
 make subjective the whole matter. In 
 our revivalism we fail to place the proper 
 stress upon that which is objective. So, 
 in our own private devotions, all the 
 spiritual light and life, and joy and 
 peace and strength we have, we have 
 gotten from the Holy .Ghost through 
 the Word. There is no other source. 
 
 Then, power is not evolution; spirit- 
 ual power is never an evolution, it can 
 not be. Spiritual power is always and 
 in every case a gift. 
 
 Is it not simple? "Ye shall receive 
 power"! And who is there that can not 
 do that? It does not take any genius 
 to receive a thing. "Ye shall receive 
 power"! And if you have power, you 
 have it because you received it. You 
 do not evolve it; you do not generate it. 
 
 Why, is there a man that says it is 
 scientific to talk of spontaneous gener- 
 ation? Is there a spontaneous gener- 
 ation of life? The Rationalistic Crit- 
 icism is based upon that acknowledged 
 absurdity of spontaneous generation. 
 Now, it is false science. Life is from 
 God; science can not analyze it; science 
 can not create it. God alone is the Author 
 of life; and this Book is the "Book of 
 Life," because it is the Book of God. 
 Suppose we realized that in our work as 
 teachers in the Sunday school; suppose 
 we realized it as we stood before our 
 classes; suppose they realized it, as they 
 take it in their hands, that they are 
 
 holding the Book of Power, the Book of 
 Life! Why, I feel sometimes that I wish 
 it might make some appeal to physical 
 sensation; that there might be some 
 thrill, as if from an electric battery to 
 make us realize: "Here is a Book that is 
 absolutely unique! Here is the Book of 
 Power!" 
 
 It is true that in things spiritual there 
 is never an appeal to flesh and blood, but 
 true also, true without exception, that 
 power is always communicated in a def- 
 inite way. Is it not glorious to think 
 of that? Because you know where to 
 go. Suppose it were not so; suppose 
 the gifts of the Spirit were conveyed 
 at hap-hazard; suppose they were acci- 
 dental; suppose you could not tell where 
 they came from; suppose you could not 
 tell whether they came at all; suppose 
 you could not know. You do know; 
 you know there is only one source of 
 power; and that is the Holy Ghost. You 
 do know that this Word is inspired by 
 Him, and inspired for the purpose of 
 conveying power! 
 
 Suppose we take that truth into our 
 classes; suppose the purpose of teaching 
 it be to receive power through it. There 
 is not one here who has the least hesi- 
 tancy in fully agreeing that science, so 
 long as this earth shall last, science will 
 never generate life. That is a thing Di- 
 vine, out of the province of science, and 
 therefore if this Book is the Book of 
 Life, then to cut it to pieces is vivisec- 
 tion. 
 
 Now, to apply this truth to our young 
 people, and then we stop. If we can 
 make them realize that the Word is the 
 source of power — do you think they do 
 not all want power? Do you know a 
 young man in all your acquaintance that 
 does not want power? Do you know 
 any man that does not; of whom that is 
 not the strong cry? Oh, if he could only 
 have power to do what he wants to do! 
 How can he evolve out of himself what 
 is not in himself? He receives it; he 
 receives by definite means of grace. That 
 makes it so plain to him. 
 
 Here is the last sentence. We are 
 holding in our very hands "the instru- 
 ment" (I hardly dare say it; it takes m^ 
 
 104 
 
breath I) We are holding in our very 
 hands the instrument of God's creative 
 power! Let us reverence it! Let us be 
 glad of it! Let us have a definite pur- 
 pose always in using it! Let it be the 
 
 prayer of each one, that He who in- 
 spired this Word shall quicken us by it! 
 Let it be our prayer that he will uplift 
 us by it, energize us by it, sanctify us 
 by it, for His name's sake! 
 
 President Hall: We have heard from 
 a representative of one of the greatest 
 Young People's Societies in the world, 
 and we have been delighted with the 
 message. I am sure that it has come 
 with no uncertain sound. 
 
 We shall now hear from a gentleman 
 who represents another great Christian 
 society in this fair land of ours, The 
 Young Men's Christian Association, 
 
 one of the greatest agencies for the 
 practical exemplification of the spirit, 
 life and work of Jesus Christ that the 
 world under God has ever produced. It 
 gives me great pleasure to introduce 
 our friend, Mr. Willis E. Lougce, Secre- 
 tary of the Business Department of the 
 International Committee of the Young 
 Men's Christian Association. Mr. Lou- 
 gee will now address you. 
 
 ADDRESS BY MR. WILLIS E. LOUGEE 
 "Bible Study and the Y. M. C. A." 
 
 It was a surprise that I should be 
 placed upon the program in a conven- 
 tion like this. I have been wondering 
 what I could bring as a layman to sup- 
 plement what has been said. And yet, 
 perhaps I might represent very feebly 
 that greater constituency of our Chris- 
 tian workers — the laity. We do not 
 thoroughly understand the theological 
 terms and expressions which have been 
 used here, but we do understand that 
 this Book which we love and revere 
 above everything else is God's own 
 Word and God's own weapon for us to 
 use. 
 
 After spending nearly twenty-five 
 years in special work for the young, and 
 at the same time attending to my duties 
 as a superintendent, teacher and church 
 officer, I bring to you as a layman, not 
 a pessimistic view, but I come rather 
 with a feeling of optimism. Yet, at the 
 same time, I do recognize as a layman 
 the dangerous tendencies so prevalent in 
 our schools in relation to the destruc- 
 tive criticism. There seems to be an 
 effort to take away from us laymen that 
 Book which has been such a source of 
 blessing and inspiration to us, to take 
 away from us our Bible, the Bible that 
 speaks to us as the voice of God, speaks 
 directly to our hearts and consciences. 
 If I read the signs of the times aright, 
 this is the tendency. 
 
 There was a time when a certain 
 Church continually robbed, as it is at 
 present robbing, the plain people of this 
 Word of God, and saying to them, "You 
 must not interpret this Book or its doc- 
 trines, except as we tell you the inter- 
 pretations thereof. You must not study 
 this Bible for yourself; we will tell you 
 its teaching; we will tell you what it 
 means to you. You must receive the 
 message of God through us; not directly 
 from His Word." 
 
 There are other Churches which for 
 centuries have given the Bible to the 
 plain people as the authoritative Word 
 of God; but a certain class of scholars 
 have arisen who by their criticism of this 
 Book, by putting it upon the plane of 
 all other literature, are shaking the con- 
 fidence of the plain people in it as the 
 inspired Word of God. 
 
 But there are higher critics and higher 
 critics; and we of the common people 
 understand that among these critics are 
 those who devoutly accept this Book as 
 the Word of God, and as the infallible 
 rule of faith and practice. Now, as I un- 
 derstand our organization it is a band- 
 ing together of those who believe in the 
 Bible, including many of the devout 
 critics, for the purpose of preserving 
 that Divine Word which has been the 
 hope, confidence and help of our Chris- 
 tian ancestors as well as ourselves. It ia 
 
 105 
 
designed to help us give a reason io: our 
 faith. What we laymen need is not the- 
 ory, but such practical help in our daily 
 studies of the Bible as to lead us to ac- 
 cept Christ as the Divine Lord and Re- 
 deemer, the very Son of God, and to 
 help us to commend Him to others as 
 their Savior and Lord. 
 
 The Young Men's Christian Associ- 
 ation is one of the best agencies for pre- 
 senting Christ to men as the very Son 
 of God. Through the teaching of the 
 Word God's will is revealed, and men 
 are shown what should be their attitude 
 toward God. There never has been a 
 time in the history of the Church when 
 young men have shown such a deep in- 
 terest as now in the study of the Word 
 of God. This interest has reached the 
 industrial classes. Among the railway 
 employees who are members of the 
 Young Men's Christian Association, 
 there has never been a time when in- 
 terest in the Bible as the Word of God 
 was as keen as it is to-day. Railway 
 men and other working men in this 
 country are turning to it and finding 
 in it those principles that will make their 
 lives better and stronger. In one of our 
 Christian Associations in one of the cit- 
 ies of this country nearly 300 young men 
 were banded together in systematic 
 Bible study. One year ago the number 
 had increased to over 900, and this year 
 it is over 2,000. Besides these about 
 1,000 men in the shops and manufac- 
 tories of that city spend twenty minutes 
 at the noon hour in studying the Word 
 of God and praying. Altogether over 
 3,000 men in that one city are carefully 
 and systematically studying the Bible. 
 
 This League has a great work before 
 it among the plain people. It can prove 
 to them that their confidence in the Bible 
 as the Word of God is not misplaced. 
 It can furnish them with safe helps for 
 the study of the Divine Word. 
 
 In our Associations we have nearly 
 40,000 working-men, plain, common lay- 
 men, who are studying the Word of God. 
 But study of the Word is not confined 
 to the common people to-day; there 
 never has been a time in the history of 
 the Church when the young men of our 
 
 colleges and other educational institu- 
 tions have had the interest in the Bible 
 that they have at the present time. 
 Seven years ago there were only 2,000 
 young men in our Associations engaged 
 in systematic Bible study. They got 
 their spirit from Northfield, from that 
 man who valued this Word as no other 
 man ever had seemed to value it. The 
 influence in favor of Bible study that 
 has gone out from Northfield is incalcu- 
 lable. 
 
 Not only does the Y. M. C. A. join 
 hands with this Bible League, but North- 
 field and the Moody institutions every- 
 where are with us in purpose and effort. 
 
 Last year nearly 15,000 students made 
 a systematic study of the Bible. In 1904 
 there are over 25,000 who stand for 
 that Book as D. L. Moody stood for it. 
 Think of it! Thirty-five thousand labor- 
 ing men and 25,000 students — 60,000 men 
 studying this Word of God! Does not 
 this give us a Pentecostal outlook? 
 
 Will you pardon a personal allusion? 
 As a boy I had no religious training, but 
 I often noticed my grandmother reading 
 that old leather-covered Book. I would 
 see her push the glasses back upon her 
 head and look across the hills with a 
 look that made me, a wild reckless boy, 
 want to go on tiptoe as I looked at her 
 face. And I looked at that Book as a boy 
 and wondered what there was in it that 
 brought that look into my grandmother's 
 face. I went down into Massachusetts, 
 and there I found Jesus Christ. I went 
 back home to my old grandmothf^r, 95 
 years of age, and told her about it. I 
 told her I had found in Christ and the 
 Bible the secret of that peculiar look in 
 her face. I had the pleasure of going 
 into the little home schoolhouse and 
 telling about this Bible, and I had my 
 grandmother there, 95 years old. Now, 
 this may be sentiment to you, but it is 
 real enough to me. I would give more 
 to hear the testimony which my grand- 
 mother gave at that time than all the ut- 
 terances of the higher critics that the 
 world could bring together. Brethren, 
 sentiment moves the world. This Bible 
 sentiment is worth preserving. The 
 League would do well to promote such a 
 
 106 
 
Bible sentiment as that which touched 
 the lives of Luther, LesHc, Finney, Mur- 
 
 ray, Livingston and Moody, who in turn 
 touched and moved tlie world! 
 
 President Hall: The gentleman whom 
 we have just had the pleasure of listen- 
 ing to, not only represents the Interna- 
 tional Committee of the Y. M. C. A , but 
 is the former President of the Presby- 
 terian Union of New York City, and in 
 that capacity has had opportunity to 
 learn the minds of many of our leading 
 laymen in this great Metropolis on this 
 burning question. 
 
 In concluding the program of the 
 morning, we will again hear from Phil- 
 adelphia. I want to say that Dr. Hoyt 
 expected to be here, but has been unable 
 to be present, to represent the United 
 
 take not, we have had the Society repre- 
 sented in the person of our brother. Rev. 
 Dr. Burrell. The Chairman is also one of 
 the trustees of the World's Christian En- 
 deavor Union. I want to say that I be- 
 lieve the great Christian Endeavor move- 
 ment in the main stands for the dear old 
 Book as we understand it and as we be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 It now gives me very great pleasure to 
 introduce the Rev. James A. Worden, 
 D.D., LL.D., of Philadelphia, Superin- 
 tendent of the Sabbath School and Mis- 
 sionary Work of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of 
 America 
 
 Society of Christian Endeavor. If I mis 
 
 ADDRESS BY REV. DR. WORDEN 
 "The American Bible League and the Sabbath School" 
 
 In the very few minutes which are 
 mine I shall endeavor to speak, first, of 
 what this League can do for Sabbath 
 Schools, and, secondly, of what the Sab- 
 bath Schools can do for this League. 
 
 Mr. President, we, the people in Phila- 
 delphia, have been deeply impressed al- 
 ready by this Convention. We regard it 
 as one of the most important that has 
 ever been held. The brother that has 
 taken his seat, representing the Young 
 Men's Christian Association, spoke in 
 eloquent and impressive terms. I may 
 be regarded as representing, in a sense, 
 the Bible students of this country. And 
 I, too, may speak in optimistic terms. 
 Let me tell you there are 1,200,000 Bible 
 teachers in this country, and among them 
 the best equipped, intelligent, practical 
 Christians. They have read all that has 
 been said against the Bible, and they are 
 interested in it. There has been, as you 
 are perhaps aware, a systematic and per- 
 sistent endeavor to bring the principles 
 and methods of the destructive criticism 
 into the ranks of the Sabbath schools. I 
 myself know — for I have been, as some 
 of you are aware, in the heart of this 
 work in our Church, the Presbyterian 
 Church, for twenty-six years — that for 
 over twenty years our brethren holding 
 different views from ours have steadily 
 
 and systematically endeavored to get the 
 car of the Sabbath school teachers of the 
 country and bring them into their sys- 
 tems of study and under their influence. 
 They have failed. Those to whom they 
 have appealed are readers; they are stu- 
 dents; they are diligent studiers of the 
 Word of God and of all that has been 
 said for and against it. 
 
 Why, then, do they stand so steadfast? 
 We have been told here in the last two 
 speeches that this Word is spirit and this 
 Word is life. There is a correspondence 
 between this Bible and the soul of the 
 Christian; there is a self-convincing 
 power in the Scriptures that only calls 
 for a candid, impartial, prayerful and 
 practical study, that it may demonstrate 
 that they are the Word of God. The 
 Bible is its own best defender. This is 
 one way to state it. Another way to 
 state it is, that the ground of faith in 
 the Scriptures, after all— and no one can 
 speak in more appreciative words than I 
 can of external proofs derived from the 
 miracles, and from prophecy, and from 
 the character of Christ, and from the ef- 
 fects of Christianity, and drawn from all 
 such discoveries in the line of scholarship 
 and from archaeology, such as have been 
 mentioned here; but, after all, that is not 
 the reason we believe in the Bible; it is 
 
 107 
 
not the reason you and I believe the 
 Bible. 
 
 Why do you and I believe the Bible? 
 Brethren, it is because the same Holy 
 Spirit that inspired this Word dwells in 
 our hearts, illuminates that Word, which 
 is a mirror in which that blessed Spirit 
 reveals to us the glory of God in the face 
 of Jesus Christ. It opens our eyes to see 
 that glory, and not only do we perceive 
 but we see; we are not convinced simply, 
 we have direct knowledge and apprehen- 
 sion of Jesus Christ as He is in the 
 Word, — and that Word is to us Truth. 
 Therefore, it is that 1,200,000 teachers in 
 this country are studying that Word. 
 
 Let me give you a piece of advice. I 
 want to say that in my judgment, it will 
 be making the greatest mistake that this 
 League could make, ever to speak a dis- 
 paraging word concerning the work of 
 the Bible teachers and students in our 
 Sabbath schools. They are firm believers 
 in the inspiration of the Word, de.=pite 
 all that has been written, despite all that 
 has been said, for the last twenty-five 
 years. They stand by your side, Mr. 
 President, 1,200,000 strong, convinced, by 
 the self-convincing power of the Bible 
 and by the work of the Holy Spirit in 
 their hearts, that this is a supernatural, 
 divine revelation, and that it is infallibly 
 recorded in the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testaments. 
 
 What can you do for them? Carry out 
 the program that has been outlined 
 for us by Dr. Gregory. You do not have 
 to convince us that Jesus Christ is the 
 Son of God and our only Savior. You 
 do not have to convince us that this 
 Bible is inspired. But we do have our 
 difficulties. These poor people have their 
 troubles; these humble teachers hear this 
 criticism made upon the Pentateuch and 
 upon the history in the Bible and upon 
 Isaiah, and they do not know how to 
 answer it. 
 
 Now, we want your Primers; we want 
 you to circulate them. We want yo\i, 
 Mr. President, to incorporate into your 
 League tens of thousands of our Sab- 
 bath school workers. This League and 
 its objects are not yet known to our Sab- 
 bath, school workers. Just as soon as 
 
 they know that a League has been or- 
 ganized for the advancement of the 
 Word against the criticism that widely 
 prevails, they will rally around you. Get 
 the names of the hundred thousand su- 
 perintendents of our Sabbath schools. 
 Send to them your plans. Tell them that 
 you mean to resist the assaults made 
 upon the Scriptures, with which they 
 have some little trouble; and you will 
 find they will respond. This is just what 
 we want. We have no trouble in our 
 own souls; yet these criticisms do cause 
 us some intellectual difficulties, and your 
 answers will be very welcome. Let us 
 have these answers. 
 
 Of course there has not been a single 
 allegation made by these destructive 
 critics that has not been answered a hun- 
 dred times. They are well-known to you 
 and to me. They are well-known in the 
 circles of theologically trained men. We 
 have no doubts about them; but the an- 
 swers have never been circulated; they 
 have never been published or printed in 
 elementary form so that our Sabbath 
 school teachers and superintendents 
 could have them in form easily under- 
 stood so as to satisfy their minds. 
 
 My message to you, brethren, is one of 
 gratitude to the League, and one of 
 gratitude to you, Mr. President, and to 
 the Secretary, and to the honored and 
 beloved Pastor that has hospitably 
 opened this church to us and to this Con- 
 vention. We feel that you have met a 
 felt want in the Sabbath school v/orld. 
 We feel that you are going to strengthen 
 the hearts and encourage 1,200,000 Bible 
 teachers and 12,000,000 of Bible students 
 — that is what the Sabbath school is for, 
 to study the Word; and you come in and 
 define that Word. And I want to speak 
 in highest terms of that portion of Dr. 
 Gregory's remarks, in his admirable ad- 
 dress, in which he wants us to study the 
 Word. There is not enough of study in 
 our Sabbath schools, there is not enough 
 of personal, individual investigation of 
 the Scriptures on the part of teachers 
 and of scholars with the help of the 
 Holy Spirit. That is true; and we need 
 such an organization as this. We need 
 such a stimulus. We need such a 
 
 108 
 
National League as has been formed 
 here to lead the Sabbath school 
 workers to do more thorough work. Do 
 not disparage what they have done. 
 They have done their best, Mr. Presi- 
 dent. There are 500,000 of them that are 
 capable and effective teachers. Who has 
 trained them? Not the church, not any 
 man. God Himself has trained these 500,- 
 000 laymen and lay-women — and the ma- 
 jority of them, two-thirds, are women, 
 and the best two-thirds of them. They 
 have trained themselves, and it is not to 
 be wondered at that they have not done 
 better work than they have. But, come 
 and help us. Come and answer for us in 
 a practical, intelligent and brief form 
 these so-called destructive criticisms of 
 our friends. 
 
 Why should not these Sabbath school 
 teachers be brought by tens of thou- 
 sands into this League? I do not under- 
 stand why they should not; and I believe 
 it should be done. 
 
 Mr. President, I brought up here this 
 morning our leading paper of Philadel- 
 
 phia — it has every day a letter from New 
 York City, the great Metropolis, and 
 each morning we get what is the pre- 
 valent theme. And this morning what 
 do you suppose it is? This is simply as 
 a newspaper: "Theology Claims Invent- 
 or's Leisure. William Phillips Hall Per- 
 fects Appliance to Secure Safety on Rail- 
 ways, and Preaches with Power as a 
 Layman. American Bible League's 
 President." It is an admirable article. 
 I stand here, as I said before, coming 
 from Philadelphia at this late hour of this 
 Convention, praying for God's blessing 
 to rest upon this League and praying for 
 that blessed Spirit, of Whom we have 
 heard in the last two addresses, that He 
 will use this Conference, not only for 
 us who have the great privilege and 
 pleasure of attending, but also, through 
 these newspapers that are sending forth 
 all over our country accounts of the ad- 
 dresses that have here been made, for 
 multitudes all over the land who would 
 have been glad to be here but have not 
 been able to come. 
 
 Closing JBxcrc\scs of the Convention 
 
 Dr. J. L. Clark: Mr. President, be- 
 fore the meeting is dismissed, I would 
 move that we tender a hearty vote of 
 thanks to Dr. Burrell and the officers 
 of the Marble Collegiate Church for 
 opening its doors to the First Conven- 
 tion of The American Bible League, and 
 for the many courtesies extended during 
 the various sessions; also that we ex- 
 press our thanks to the sexton and his 
 assistant for their valuable services. 
 (Seconded.) 
 
 President Hall: All those in favor will 
 respond by saying aye. (Carried.) 
 
 The Chairman, on behalf of the Bible 
 League and all the friends of the Word 
 of God throughout the country, wishes 
 to acknowledge with grateful thanks the 
 excellent services of the representatives 
 of the Press, who have correctly and 
 kindly recorded the proceedings of this 
 Convention. I think that it is due them 
 
 that they should have a vote of thanks. 
 (Seconded and carried.) 
 
 Dr. Gregory: I move that we extend 
 thanks to the brethren, who have come, 
 at great trouble and expense and in 
 some cases from a great distance, to ad- 
 dress us at these meetings. (Seconded.) 
 
 President Hall: All who are in favor 
 of the motion will respond by saying 
 aye; contrary minds no; it is a vote. 
 
 It may not be known to those present 
 that the services of nearly all the speak- 
 ers have been contributed without money 
 and without price. Many of the most 
 eminent scholars that have attended this 
 convention, have even paid their own car 
 fare from distant points, in order that 
 they might come to this platform and 
 plead for the dear old Book. 
 
 And now, before the closing hymn is 
 sung, pardon me if I make a personal 
 
 109 
 
statement — I know you will be inter- 
 ested to hear it. Our friend, Mr. Lou- 
 gee, referred to the late Dwight L. 
 Moody, than whom there was no man 
 in this country who more thoroughly 
 appreciated this blessed Book of God. 
 He did not attempt to meet the attacks 
 of the Higher Criticism in a scholastic 
 way, because he knew he was not able 
 to do that; but he appreciated the fact 
 that there were scholars in our Chris- 
 tian educational institutions who were 
 just as good in point of scholarship and 
 of ability, who were able to meet the 
 leading scholars of the opposite school. 
 He believed, as I know from his per- 
 sonal assurance, that the day was com- 
 ing when such Conventions as this 
 would be called to meet the issue. 
 Through The American Bible League 
 this is now being done, and for that we 
 thank and praise God. 
 
 Permit me to say another personal 
 word, this time about Mr. Moody's son, 
 William R. Moody. He is heartily in 
 sympathy with us in this work, and has 
 enlisted as a member of the League. 
 The word I have concerning him is in 
 "The Record of Christian Work," the 
 organ of the Northfield work that he is 
 carrying on as the successor to his la- 
 mented father. — Let me say, by the way, 
 that if you are not a subscriber for the 
 "Record of Christian Work" you can 
 not do better than to take it. — I read in 
 that magazine last month the statement 
 to which I refer. You know that Dwight 
 L. Moody was very careful about invit- 
 ing people into the ministry. His son, 
 in that last issue, comes out and tells 
 of having received a letter from a New 
 England minister, stating that during 
 the past few months the Conference of 
 which he was a member had received 
 applications from six candidates for the 
 ministry. Of these six, not one believed 
 in the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, 
 and only one in His physical resurrec- 
 tion from the dead. In commenting 
 upon this, Mr. Moody says — and his 
 strong statement filled my soul with de- 
 light—: 
 
 "It seems to us that a theological sem- 
 inary which is sending forth men who 
 
 doubt the essential truths of Christianity 
 may well consider the advisability of re- 
 vising thoroughly its curriculum and 
 teaching force, or of permanently closing 
 its doors." 
 
 And now one word for the publication 
 of my dear friend. Dr. Cameron, "The 
 Watchword and Truth." If you don't 
 take it, you had better take it. You will 
 find that he stands true to the old Book 
 every time. 
 
 Now, just a word about The Amer- 
 ican Bible League. We want to see 
 every one who has been in attendance 
 upon this Convention a member of this 
 League. We ask every one here who 
 desires to be practically interested in 
 pressing this glorious propaganda for 
 the better knowledge of the Word of 
 God, to join with us. The annual mem- 
 bership is one dollar, and that entitles 
 you to The Bible Student and Teacher, 
 the official organ of the League, which 
 will contain a full report of the entire 
 proceedings of the Convention. Later 
 on we hope to publish the entire pro- 
 ceedings in book form, of which due an- 
 nouncement will be made. 
 
 And now in conclusion I have only 
 this to say further, — that we are de- 
 voutly thankful to God for your moral 
 support, for your continued attendance, 
 and for the beautiful, loving Christian 
 spirit that has characterized all the pro- 
 ceedings. I do not think it can be said 
 that there has been any spirit of bitter- 
 ness or hatred in these sessions. We 
 love our brethren on the other side who 
 own the Lord Jesus Christ as their Mas- 
 ter, even though to some of us it may 
 seem that they are groping in the dark- 
 ness of their own ignorance of things 
 spiritual, things true, and things Christ- 
 like. 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Now, we will all sing 
 Hymn No. 698. 
 
 I think President Hall made a slight 
 omission in not saying that all Mem- 
 bers of the Bible League get what is 
 better than the best chromo on earth, 
 a receipted bill for their subscription to 
 The Bible Student and Teacher. It is 
 intended to have that magazine answer 
 
 no 
 
exactly Dr. Worden's request for in- 
 struction along the lines he indicated, 
 specifically in behalf of those who are 
 engaged in teaching the young. If you 
 Sunday school teachers want to know 
 the best thought along the line of loyal 
 defense of the Scriptures against all 
 fuming and malignant and aggressive 
 criticism, you will find it in the schol- 
 arly contributions made from this time 
 on to The Bible Student and Teacher. 
 And I hope that the teachers of the 
 country and the men in the Young 
 Men's Christian Association will be ad- 
 vised with as to whether it meets the 
 purpose or not. That is what is intended 
 by Dr. Gregory and those who are asso- 
 ciated with him in its publication. It is 
 intended to stand right in the forefront 
 for the scholarly defense of the Scrip- 
 tures as the veritable Word of God. 
 
 Now, then, one thing more. Pardon 
 me, but this is the only good chance I 
 have had since day before yesterday. 
 Not a word has been said, I believe, 
 about our Primers. Now, Dr. Gregory 
 is responsible for their preparation, and 
 he is the best cheese-press in a literary 
 way that was ever known on earth. He 
 is right up against old Dr. Philip 
 Schaflf. He knows how to get things 
 into brief form. We are to issue a num- 
 ber of Primers in the interest of coher- 
 ent and comprehensive Bible study. I 
 think they will be very helpful for all, — 
 he is such a splendid binder together of 
 good points. 
 
 I am going to propose that our next 
 meeting of the Executive Committee, in 
 pursuance of some things that have been 
 said here to-day — particularly by my be- 
 loved friend, Mr. Lougce, and by that 
 most able representative of work for 
 Sunday Schools in the Presbyterian 
 Church — I am going to suggest that we 
 proceed at once to print a number of 
 Primers that shall represent the ad- 
 vanced scholarship of the day in the 
 very briefest form, with respect to the 
 defense of the Scriptures against all 
 malignant and destructive attacks; and 
 that those Primers shall be such as may 
 be sold for, say ten or fifteen cents 
 apiece, and put into the hands of any- 
 
 body that wants to know a little cate- 
 chism in answer to the destructive criti- 
 cism of these days. I am going to pro- 
 pose that we put out something that 
 men can get for next to nothing, so that 
 no man will ever come up and say that 
 the people don't know what is being 
 said by the scholars. The scholars such 
 as we have had in this Convention know 
 what they are talking about and believe, 
 with every drop of blood in their bodies, 
 in the old Book as the Book of God, — a 
 Mighty Fortress. We will sing it as 
 the Germans do; we will sing No. 698 the 
 way Luther did, as he stood at the win- 
 dow of the Castle and said, "Philip, 
 come!" Let us sing it, the old Hynm of 
 The Reformation, No. 698, two verses: 
 
 (Singing.) 
 "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott." 
 
 Dr. Burrell: Mr. Hall has had a num- 
 ber of letters put in his hands, which 
 time forbids the reading of. One in par- 
 ticular I would like to read, calling upon 
 ministers (that means me, I know; and 
 I will, too,) to preach the Bible more 
 and more expositorily; and there are 
 other letters in the same line. One let- 
 ter that I have here is from one of the 
 most distinguished ladies in the country, 
 whose name is on the lips of all Chris- 
 tian people; a lady of wide beneficence, 
 who expresses her cordial sympathy 
 with our work. 
 
 Now, about that Word, that is what 
 we will sing of in the last verse: 
 
 "That Word, above all earthly powers. 
 No thanks to them — abideth." (Singing.) 
 
 Dr. Burrell: I am going to ask Presi- 
 dent Hall to offer the closing prayer. 
 
 Prayer by President Hall: 
 
 Almighty God, Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, author, through the Holy 
 Ghost, of Thy Divine Word, we thank 
 Thee for this Convention. We thank 
 Thee for these discourses. We thank 
 Thee for the Divine Truth that has 
 touched each and every one of our 
 hearts, and for the holy thrill of a Di- 
 vine enthusiasm that has filled our souls 
 as we have listened to the utterances of 
 ripe scholarship, consecrated to Thy ser- 
 vice. And now we pray that Thy bless- 
 
 III 
 
ing may be upon us and upon all Thy of millions of precious souls, and the 
 
 people throughout the length and greatest revival ever witnessed of the 
 
 breadth of this land, as they shall study power of God in the hearts of men. 
 
 Thy precious Word. Grant that as the And this we ask in the name of our Lord 
 
 outcome of this meeting there may come Jesus Christ, and to the Glory of God 
 
 a quickened interest on the part of all the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. 
 
 Thy people in the study of Thy Divine Amen. 
 Volume, and that through that study 
 
 there may come the spiritual birth Benediction by Dr. Burrell. 
 
 112 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 •«s4«[|^^ 
 
 m^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLOKO