,/" 
 
 t <r-Li 
 
 
 
 :. 
 
 / 
 
 n Y \i 
 
 
 / ^> 
 
 
 
 ) / / 
 
 /" 
 
 "V.rdxZ./M V ^_ . A/< / 
 
 .. 
 
 
 ''*'.-*. ' . X/ 
 
 ' -' -v'-' 7 - * . 
 

 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 The Lord's Return and Kindred Truth. 
 
 Fifth edition. Cloth, 217 pages, $1. 
 
 "We know of no work better suited to place in the hands 
 of one who has not made up his mind upon this most impor- 
 tant topic." Episcopal Recorder. 
 
 ' ' Prepared with a reverent and prayerful spirit. It is cer- 
 tainly an able presentation of the views of those who expect 
 a premillennial advent of Jesus the Christ." The Interior. 
 
 Furnishing for Workers. 
 
 7Oth Thousand. It is bound in full flexible leather binding, 
 has 118 pages, can be carried in the pocket without incon- 
 venience, and is only 25 cents per copy. 
 
 A prominent business man said of it : 
 
 " I would not take five hundred dollars for the copy I have 
 if I could not get another." 
 
 "Just the book to cany in the pocket, giving at a bird's- 
 eye glance the passages of Scripture needed to meet an 
 almost endless series of questions, objections, etc., which one 
 constantly hears." Book Record, New York."
 
 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 vs. 
 
 THE HIGHER CRITICS 
 
 L. W. MUNHALL, M.A., D.D. 
 
 EVANGELIST 
 
 THIRD EDITION 
 REVISED AND ENLARGED 
 
 NEW YORK: HUNT & EATON 
 
 CINCINNATI : CRANSTON & CURTS 
 
 1896
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1896, by 
 
 L. W. MUNHALL, 
 
 In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 
 TO 
 
 MARY THOMAS MUNHALL, 
 MY WIFE; 
 
 A FAITHFUL COMPANION; A DEVOTED MOTHER; A CON- 
 SISTENT CHRISTIAN; A WOMANLY WOMAN; AND A 
 
 SOURCE OF UNFAILING ENCOURAGEMENT 
 K MY LABORS FOR CHRIST, THIS 
 VOLUME IS MOST AFFECTION- 
 ATELY DEDICATED. 
 
 t. W. MUNHALL.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. WHO ARE THE HIGHEST CRITICS? 7 
 
 II. WHO ARE THE HIGHER CRITICS? 12 
 
 III. INSPIRATION 19 
 
 IV. INSPIRATION (Continued) 30 
 
 V. THE BIBLE AS A LITERARY WORK 41 
 
 VI. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE 55 
 
 VII. THE ETHICS OF THE BIBLE 68 
 
 VIII. THE PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE 79 
 
 IX. THE MIRACLE OF THE BIBLE 86 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSION. 
 
 X. THE PENTATEUCH 99 
 
 XI. JOB 108 
 
 XII. THE PSALMS 115 
 
 XIII. ISAIAH 136 
 
 XIV. DANIEL 150 
 
 XV. ESTHER... 167 
 
 XVI. WORK OF THE CRITICS COMPARED 175 
 
 XVII. SCHOLARSHIP 207 
 
 XVIII. CONTROVERSY 217 
 
 XIX. SOME NOTEWORTHY TESTIMONIES 221 
 
 XX. THE JEW AND THE BIBLE 247
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 That which is said against the Bible will travel 
 ten times faster and go a great ways further than that 
 which is said in its favor. The secular newspaper 
 press of the country is largely responsible for this. 
 As a class, the managers of our great dailies are 
 either in sympathy with skepticism, or they think 
 that which is said against the Bible is more legitimate 
 news than that which is said in its hehalf. Hence, 
 the preacher who seeks to undermine the " Old 
 Faith," stands a far better chance of being reported, 
 and having his sermons printed, than one who is 
 loyal to the Word of God. 
 
 Just now a great deal is being said by these papers 
 favorably to the " Higher Criticism." They pub- 
 lish little or nothing on the other side ; and fre- 
 quently charge those who write and speak against the 
 " Higher Criticism " with indulging in personalities, 
 as though all courtesy and politeness belonged to 
 the " Higher Critics," in this discussion. 
 
 There are religious papers of pronounced unortho- 
 dox views, and also some with liberalistic tenden- 
 cies, to which the same criticism may be justly 
 applied. 
 
 Then many of the so-called " Higher Critics" are 
 zealous and noisy, and are pushing their opinions 
 and views into notice on all possible occasions. 
 
 (5)
 
 6 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Then, too, many of them are pursuing the same 
 course as the Unitarians and Universalists in the 
 controversies of twenty-five years ago, by declar- 
 ing " Scholarship is against the orthodox belief ; " 
 " No cultured person believes the Bible to be iner- 
 rant ; " " We have outgrown the faith of the 
 Fathers ; " " The world is moving," etc., etc. 
 
 Now, because of these things, the faith and confi- 
 dence of many are shaken; for the many, in the 
 church of God, have not the time, as some have not 
 the ability, to go deeply into these matters. The 
 object of this volume is to help such people the 
 many that they be not " Tossed to and fro and 
 carried about * * * by the sleight of men, in 
 craftiness, after the wiles of error ; " that they may 
 be " Rooted and builded up in Him and stablished 
 by faith ; " and " Ready always to give answer to 
 every man that asketh a reason concerning the hope 
 that is in them." 
 
 No one can be more sensible than the author, of 
 the imperfect character of this work. It has been 
 written while absent from home, while holding from 
 two to four meetings a day, and burdened with a 
 large correspondence and much other work. But 
 the work has been gladly and prayerfully done, with 
 a great desire that it may be honored of God in 
 accomplishing much good, to the glory of His grace. 
 
 L. W. M. 
 
 GERMANTOWN, PHILADELPHIA, PA., November, 1891.
 
 HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 THE HIGHER CRITICS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 WHO ARE THE HIGHEST CRITICS t 
 
 S 
 ^>iThe Highest Critics are the one who spake as 
 
 * "Never man * * * Spake," Jesus Christ, "The 
 Son of the Living God," and He who was sent to 
 "Guide you into all the truth," the Paraclete, the 
 Holy Spirit. These Divine Persons are possessed of 
 infinite attributes. All Christians so believe. There- 
 fore, in the presence of an explicit statement as to 
 the character of the Bible, or the editorship of the 
 same, or any portion thereof, by either of these 
 Persons, all reverent souls bow acquiescently and 
 receive the same with unquestioning faith. 
 
 It is not thinkable that they would declare a lie 
 was the truth. I cannot imagine that they would 
 perpetuate an untruth as truth, because it was held 
 traditionally by the Jews. It is monstrous to believe 
 that they would condone a fraud. They are of the 
 truth, they are " the truth," and " no lie is of the 
 truth." If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, or 
 any portion of it, and the Highest Critics declare he 
 
 (7)
 
 8 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 id, it would be a lie. It would be none the less a 
 even though the Jews held, traditionally, that 
 Moses was the author of these books. The testi- 
 ^ \mony of the Highest Critics is absolutely, unerring- 
 \\ly and eternally true, and he who hesitates to receive 
 [ Vjt, as against all other testimonies, is disloyal to the 
 J truth, and will be " Tossed to and fro and carried 
 about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of 
 men." Eph. 4 : 14. 
 
 There, are, however, not a few in the churches who 
 not only deny the inerrancy of the testimony of the 
 Highest Critics, but, as between their testimony and 
 that of the Higher Critics, they accept the latter. 
 
 In a recent meeting of pastors of a certain so-called 
 rthodox denomination in a city not a thousand 
 I* '^Smiles from the capital of this country, the gentle- 
 : man who was addressing the meeting inquired "If 
 ' Moses did not write this, why did Jesus Christ say 
 \ he did ? " A pastor in the audience replied : " Be- 
 cause He did not know any better." My honest judg- 
 ment is that such a statement was blasphemous. 
 
 Canon Driver tells us, " You had better not make 
 an issue between the critics and Christ, lest He, too, 
 should go down before them." This statement is 
 very little better than the former. And yet, these 
 men but state the logical outcome of any argument 
 against the inerrancy of the Scriptures, that will not 
 at once give place to the unequivocal testimony of 
 Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit contrariwise. 
 
 Some of the " Higher" Critics set aside the testi- 
 mony of the Highest Critics for three reasons, viz.:
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 
 
 First. They say : " When Jesus Christ began 
 His ministry, He found the " Traditional views of 
 the matters under discussion, popularly held by the 
 Jews. It was not necessary that He should combat 
 them ; and it would, therefore, have been unwise for 
 Him to do so. So He passed them by as not 
 belonging to His plans and work." But this is just 
 what He did not do. He gave them the most posi- 
 tive indorsement by declaring them to be correct, 
 as we shall presently see. 
 
 Second. They say : " Jesus and His Apostles 
 were not critics. They were teachers of great ethi- 
 cal principles, and their work was to promulgate 
 these and organize the church." In " The Hebraica" 
 of April, 1889, the case is thus stated: " Christ did 
 not meddle with critical questions connected with 
 the Old Testament, as His mission was of another 
 character. He simply aquiesced in the current views 
 of such questions, as long as they did not affect the 
 nature of that mission. * * * In regard to 
 the Apostles, we cannot, in all cases, adopt their 
 interpretations of the Old Testament, since they 
 were not infallible." It is true that, in the sense 
 the Higher Critic is a critic, they were not, but it is 
 providentially and strikingly true that they did 
 express themselves very fully and clearly upon these 
 very matters in dispute. To impeach their testi- 
 mony upon the assumption that they were not 
 critics is most audacious. 
 
 The learned Canon Liddon says : " The trustworthiness ot 
 the Old Testament is, in fact, inseparable from the trustworthi-
 
 10 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 ness of the Lord Jesus Christ ; and, if we believe that He is the 
 true Light of the world, we shall resolutely close our ears 
 against any suggestions of the falsehood of those Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures which have received the stamp of His Divine authority." 
 
 Third. They say : " The Divine nature in Jesus 
 was dominated by the human during His earthly life, 
 and, therefore, it is unreasonable to believe His 
 teachings to be infallible." They call attention to 
 Luke 2 : 52, where it is said : "And Jesus advanced 
 in wisdom and stature " (R. V.) ; " which," they say, 
 " proves conclusively that the Divine nature in Him 
 was subjected to the human ; that He did not always 
 possess infinite wisdom." As touching His physical 
 body, we know that it did " advance " (grow) as 
 the bodies of other boys. Identified with His 
 human body was, doubtless, a human mind, suscep- 
 tible of development, and, as body and mind grew, 
 He became wiser, without doubt, humanly speaking. 
 That His humanity did again and again manifest 
 itself we have abundant evidence. But, He never 
 taught as a man. His words clearly prove this, 
 " Never man so spake." God said of Him, " The 
 Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the spirit of 
 wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and 
 might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the 
 Lord " (Isa. 1 1 : 1 , 2) ; and, " In Whom are all the 
 treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden" (Col. 
 2 : 3). It is therefore not astonishing that the " Doc- 
 tors" (Teachers) "That heard Him were amazed at 
 His understanding and His answers " (Luke 2 147), 
 when He was but twelve years old.
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 11 
 
 They also call attention to what He said when 
 His disciples' asked Him, "Tell us when shall these 
 things be ? and what shall be the sign of Thy com- 
 ing, and of the end of the world ? " His reply, in 
 part, was, " But of that day and hour knoweth no 
 one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, 
 but the Father only" (Matt. 24 : 36). 
 
 Let it here be noted, however, that many author- 
 ities, some ancient, omit " Neither the Son," but, if 
 these words really belong there, He simply said, as 
 the Divine Teacher, that Jesus the man, humanly 
 speaking, did not know ; for as touching His Divin- 
 ity He said, at another time, " I and the Father are 
 one," therefore, as Deity, He did know. 
 
 But these objections against the testimony of 
 Jesus cannot stand, nor those against the testimony 
 of the Apostles, for they wrote by inspiration of the 
 Holy Spirit, and their testimony, therefore, was infal- 
 lible. 
 
 Along with the criticisms of the Highest Critics, I 
 wish, also to emphasize certain self-evident things, 
 belonging properly to this discussion, as possessing 
 far greater value than the opinions and conjectures 
 of the most scholarly of men. By comparisons that 
 may be drawn ; by results that are known ; by many 
 things that are as evident as the light of day, the 
 eternal truth and unity of the Bible is demonstrated.
 
 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 HAPTER II. 
 
 WHO RE THE HIGHER CRITICS ? /* 
 
 Presumably they are certain learned arid devout 
 men, who gave, or are giving their time almost 
 wholly to an honest, reverent and critical examina- 
 tion of the text of the Scriptures. From such crit- 
 ics the Church of God has nothing to fear, and, in- 
 deed, for that matter, from any other kind. But it 
 is sadly true, that they are not all of that sort, as 
 we shall see. 
 
 The first criticism bearing upon the Pentateuch, 
 of which we have any knowledge, was in the twelfth 
 century by one Aben Ezra, a Jew. He was followed 
 by Carlstadt, a co-temporary and co-laborer of 
 Luther. Hobbs, the English skeptic, was conspicu- 
 ous in the seventeenth century for his criticisnVof these 
 books. Their work met with little favor and made 
 but little headway, even though during these years, 
 beliefs were changing and forming. Toward the 
 close of the seventeenth century, Benedict De 
 Spinoza, a most learned Jew, openly denied the Mo- 
 saic Editorship of the Pentateuchal Books, and cred- 
 ited the work to Ezra the Scribe. Less than one 
 hundred and fifty years ago one Jean Astruc, a 
 Frenchman and Roman Catholic, formulated what 
 is called the " Documentary Hypothesis, " though 
 this is attributed, by some, to Eichorn. Astruc 
 thought he saw in Genesis evidences of two distinct 
 documents. In some places the Hebrew word
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 13 
 
 Elohim (God) was used ; in others, the word Jeho- 
 vah (Lord). He concluded that there must have 
 been two writers. Therefore, Moses was not the 
 writer but the compiler of this book. 
 
 Then some German critics taught that the entire 
 Pentateuch was a sort of " crazy quilt "arrangement 
 of a lot of anonymous documents that Moses found 
 lying around loose, and put together. This is called 
 the "Fragmentary Theory." The striking and 
 remarkable unity of these books compelled an aban- 
 donment of this theory. 
 
 The " Edition Theory " was the next in order. 
 The Pentateuch was amended so as to include the 
 book of Joshua and, of course, christened " The 
 Hexateuch." The Editor is the " great unknown " : 
 but there was one, of that they were certain ; and he, 
 having the original Elohist document before him, so 
 amended it, and added to it from materials at hand, 
 that we have the " The Hexateuch." 
 
 The German scholar, Hupfeld, in 1853, formulated 
 the " Compilation Theory." He not only has an 
 Elohist writer and Editor, but a Jahvist and a sec- 
 ond Elohist ; and now his pupils have still another 
 called the " Priestly Elohist," and many others yet 
 to be heard from. His followers insist that the 
 Hexateuchal Books were not written and put into 
 their present form until after the return of the 
 Children of Israel from the Babylonish captivity, 
 about B. C. 444; and that Moses, therefore, had 
 nothing whatever to do with the authorship or edi- 
 torship of the Pentateuch. They also teach that
 
 14 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Isaiah did not write the last twenty-seven chapters 
 of the Prophecy bearing his name ; that David wrote 
 few or none of the Psalms ; that Job and Jonah are 
 unhistorical ; and that Esther and Daniel are unin- 
 spired and fictitious. 
 
 In 1836 Ferdinand Christian Baur, of Tubingen, 
 in Wurtenburg, came to the front as leader of the 
 Destructionists, and, in a most audacious and inso- 
 lent manner, attacked the integrity of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The best (worst) this destructive school could do 
 was to conclude that the first three Gospels were 
 written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by 
 the Romans, under Titus. That the Gospel of John, 
 the Revelation and the Epistles of John were writ- 
 ten by an immediate disciple of John. That the 
 Acts were suspected of being a partisan version of 
 history. That Romans, First and Second Corinth- 
 ians, Galatians and Philippians are genuine. Colos- 
 sians,. First Thessalonians and Philemon were re- 
 garded with a preponderance of favorable judgment. 
 Hebrews and First Peter were recognized as be- 
 longing to the first century. James was treated as 
 anonymous and an early literary fragment of Jew- 
 ish Christianity. Ephesians, Second Thessalonians, 
 First and Second Timothy, Titus, Jude and Second 
 Peter, or a total of eight books out of twenty-seven, 
 or fifteen pages out of a total of two hundred and 
 eight, they shelved, or thought they did. But did 
 they? 
 
 The chief result of the labors of these men and
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 15 
 
 their followers was to unspiritualize the evangelical 
 churches in Germany, Switzerland and Holland, in 
 large measure, and give them over to Rationaliz- 
 ing. Otherwise, their labors were for naught. But 
 the New Testament still remains in its integrity, 
 and is believed and honored by twice as many intel- 
 ligent and godly people as in Baur's day. 
 
 At the present time the Old Testament is the sub- 
 ject of criticism. Kuenen and Wellhausen on " The 
 Continent ;" Robertson and George Adam Smith 
 and others in England and Scotland ; and Profs. 
 Briggs and Harper in this country, are considered 
 leaders of the crusade against the integrity of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 They, like former and older critics, may make 
 notoriety for themselves and a stir in the churches ; 
 but fifty years hence their influence will be no more 
 felt than that of the Tubingen school, and the Old 
 Testament will still remain in all its present strength 
 and beauty, potential for greater good than ever be- 
 fore. 
 
 The present agitation enables many enemies of 
 the Bible to come to the front. Therefore we ought 
 to be careful to ascertain who it is that speaks and 
 writes. 
 
 Some apparently only seek to destroy the faith of 
 the church in the Bible as an infallible guide. They 
 parade and magnify the apparent discrepancies and 
 errors, and seldom, if ever, give the reconciliations 
 and verifications that have been clearly proven. 
 Nor do they point out the proofs of the integrity
 
 16 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 and inerrability of the Scriptures. Their efforts 
 seem to be to discredit them. These are dishonest 
 critics destructionists. 
 
 He who says " The Bible is no better than a 'Mass 
 Book' for stopping a bullet ; and not as good as 
 'Holy Water' for putting out a fire," is an irrever- 
 ent critic ; be he never so religious, honest and 
 scholarly. He is sure to play into the hands of the 
 enemies of God's Word. 
 
 The unspiritual critic is more likely to be wrong 
 than right in his conclusions. The man who delib- 
 erately addresses himself to the work of criticising 
 the Bible, as he would criticise any other book, with- 
 out its subtle and transforming power in his heart 
 and life, and depending upon the Holy Spirit who 
 was sent to guide us into all truth (see John 16: 13) 
 to help him, will most surely become entangled in 
 the intricacies of his own thoughts, be he the most 
 learned of men. God's Word says : " Now the nat- 
 ural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of 
 God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he can- 
 not know them, because they are spiritually judged 
 (or examined)." I Cor. 2 : 14. And this is true for 
 the simple reason that God's thoughts are as much 
 higher than man's as the heaven is above the earth. 
 Seelsa. 55 19. 
 
 There is not a man in the pulpits of orthodox 
 Christendom, or in a theological or editorial chair, 
 who is unscriptural in the doctrines of inspiration, 
 original sinfulness, atonement, repentance, faith, jus- 
 tification, regeneration and the new birth, sanctifica-
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 17 
 
 tion, resurrection, judgment and final retribution for 
 unbelievers and there are hundreds of such who 
 does not assume to be a " Higher Critic," or, in 
 hearty sympathy with any and every criticism of 
 the " Higher Critics," that in any sense questions 
 the integrity of the Bible. I personally know scores 
 of these gentlemen. They do not preach the "gos- 
 pel of God," because they do not believe it. They 
 do not " Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suf- 
 fering and teaching." Their pulpits are but " lecture 
 platforms," and their churches but little if any bet- 
 ter than social clubs for the promotion of some 
 other things than the king's business. Sinners do 
 not throng their altars inquiring the way of life and 
 salvation, and the work appointed unto the church 
 by Jesus Christ is not done by them. These are the 
 men who, as a rule, are now most vehement and 
 noisy in urging the claims of the Higher Criticism. 
 
 Therefore we need to be careful to ascertain who 
 is the " Higher Critic " we are following. There be 
 blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead 
 the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matt. 15 : 
 14.) 
 
 We ought also, always to remember that the 
 wisest and most learned man is a fallible being, can 
 only " know in part," and " see through a glass 
 darkly." " Therefore we should never try to har- 
 monize the plain teachings of the Bible with the 
 views or opinions of men ; but if we attempt any 
 reconciliation, let it be of men's views to the Word 
 of God ; and, if we fail, let us conclude that these
 
 18 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 men are mistaken in their conclusions. " Let God 
 be found true, but every man a liar. " (Rom, 3 : 4.) 
 The creeds of Christendom agree that " The Bible is 
 the only infallible rule of faith and practice." 
 Therefore, let us ascertain if the " Higher Critics" 
 agree with the Highest. If they do, let us thankfully 
 accept their help. If not, let us pass them by.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 19 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 The so called " Higher Critics," to a man, so far as 
 I know, disbelieve the doctrine of verbal inspiration, 
 although for more than one thousand years the 
 Church entertained no other view. Prof. B. B. War- 
 field, of Princeton Theological Seminary, said in an 
 article on " The Westminster Doctrine of Inspira- 
 tion," recently published in the New York Inde- 
 pendent. " Doubtless enough has been said to 
 show that the confession teaches precisely the doc- 
 trine which is taught in the private writings of the 
 framers, which was also the general Protestant 
 doctrine of the time, and not of that time only or 
 of the Protestants only ; for despite the contrary 
 assertion that has recently become tolerably current 
 essentially this doctrine of inspiration has been the 
 doctrine of the Church of all ages and of all 
 names." 
 
 They have various theories of inspiration : Some 
 say, " The thoughts only of the penmen were 
 inspired." Some say, " They were only partially 
 inspired." But they are very indefinite in their 
 statements of the extent of this inspiration. Some 
 say, " There were different degrees of inspiration," 
 and they use the difference between illumination 
 and inspiration to prove it. Some say, "At one 
 time they were inspired in the supervision of the 
 work they did ; " at another, " In the view they
 
 20 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 took of the work they were called upon to do ; " and 
 at another, "In directing the work." But in all 
 these views they are at sea, and leave all who trust 
 to their pilotage at sea as to the exact character 
 and limitations of inspiration. They sometimes 
 talk of " Dynamic " inspiration, but their efforts to 
 explain what they mean by this term are exceed- 
 ingly vague and misty. But the popular and current 
 theory now is that the " Concept " is inspired. But 
 no one attempts to tell what the " Concept " is ; 
 indeed, I doubt if any of these critics know. 
 
 The one thing they are emphatic about and united 
 upon is, that the Bible is not verbally inspired. 
 The noisy ones will tell you that " No scholar 
 believes in the theory of verbal inspiration." In 
 this they bear false witness. Another expression 
 in common use among them is this : " Such belief 
 drives men into infidelity ! " And yet not one of 
 them ever knew of a case. This class, with as much 
 care and evident satsifaction as an infidel, hunts out 
 the apparent contradictions and errors in the author- 
 ized and revised versions of the Bible, and holding 
 them up to the public gaze exultingly declare : 
 " Here is conclusive evidence that the Bible is not 
 verbally inspired." Many of these gentlemen are dis- 
 honest because, First, they know that most of these 
 apparent errors and contradictions were long ago 
 satisfactorily answered, even to the silencing of infi- 
 del scoffers ; and, Second, they know that no one 
 believes that the transcribers, translators, and re- 
 visers were inspired. The doctrine of verbal inspira-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 21 
 
 tion is simply this: The original writings, ipsis- 
 sima verba, came through the penmen direct from 
 God ; and these gentlemen are only throwing dust 
 into the air when they rail against verbal inspiration 
 and attempt to disprove it by pointing out the 
 apparent errors and discrepancies of the authorized 
 and revised texts. 
 
 But some say, " Since we do not have the original 
 writings, what is the use of insisting upon the doc- 
 trine of verbal inspiration ? " I answer, there are 
 two sufficient reasons : First. If the original writ- 
 ings were not inspired of God verbally, then we 
 have no Word of God. Second. Is there no differ- 
 ence between an inexact copy of an inerrable record 
 and a faulty copy of an uncertain record ? I think 
 there is. I rejoice that, notwithstanding the " Higher 
 Critics " long ago discovered, or they thought they did, 
 30,000 various readings in the different manuscripts, 
 yet, as Cardinal Wiseman says, " In all this mass, 
 although every attainable source has been exhausted ; 
 although the fathers of every age have been gleaned 
 for their readings ; although the versions of every 
 nation, Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Ethi- 
 opian, have been ransacked for their renderings ; 
 although manuscripts of every age, from the six- 
 teenth century upwards to the third, and of every 
 country, have been again and again visited by indus- 
 trious swarms to rifle them of their treasures; 
 although, having exhausted the stores of the West, 
 critics have traveled, like naturalists into distant 
 lands, to discover new specimens, have visited, like
 
 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Scholz or Sebastian, the recesses of Mount Athos, 
 or the unexplored libraries of the Egyptian and 
 Syrian deserts, yet has nothing been discovered, no, 
 not one single various reading, which can throw 
 doubt upon any passage before considered certain 
 or decisive in favor of any important doctrine, 
 * * * These various readings, almost without 
 an exception, leave untouched the essential parts of 
 any sentence, and only interfere with points of sec- 
 ondary importance, the insertion or omission of an 
 article or conjunction, the more accurate grammatical 
 construction, or the forms rather than the substance 
 of words." 
 
 The skeptics have been discomfited in every as- 
 sault at this point. The more recent investigations 
 of Tregelles, Tischendorf, and other most learned 
 and able critics, have made the intrenched position 
 held by the orthodox church through the ages, im- 
 pregnable ; so that we can say with the learned 
 Gaussen, " Not only was the Scripture inspired on 
 the day God caused it to be written, but that we 
 possess this Word inspired eighteen hundred years 
 ago; and that we may, while holding our sacred text 
 in one hand, and in the other all the readings col- 
 lected by the learned in seven hundred manuscripts, 
 exclaim with thankfulness, I hold in my hands my 
 Father's Testament, the eternal word of my God ! " 
 There is no doubt in my own mind but that many 
 of the Transcribers, Translators, and Revisers had a 
 large measure of illumination in doing their work. 
 This is clearly seen in the pureness of the texts we
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 23 
 
 have. It surely would have been otherwise had not 
 God vouchsafed guidance and help, in the important 
 work of transmitting His Word to succeeding genera- 
 tions. 
 
 God is an intelligent Being. He has always treat- 
 ed man as a sentient and reasoning creature. In the 
 Bible we have a revelation, to man, of God's mind 
 and purposes concerning certain things. But the 
 Bible is composed of words. These words express 
 thoughts. It is not possible to express thoughts 
 apart from words, or even to entertain them. If 
 verbal inspiration is not true, then the Bible is not 
 from God at all : it is a human composition. 
 
 At the last analysis, any doctrine of inspiration 
 save verbal, means a denial of the supernaturalness 
 of the Bible. This is logically inevitable. Hence 
 those who deny the fundamental doctrines of the 
 Bible that are unpleasant to the natural man, are 
 most determined and sometimes savage in their 
 efforts to destroy the faith of the Church in the doc- 
 trine of verbal inspiration. This, to my mind, is 
 strikingly significant. 
 
 There are those, it is true, who are firm believers 
 in all the fundamental doctrines of grace, who yet 
 deny the fact of verbal inspiration, but when these 
 gentlemen talk about inspiration they mean illumi- 
 nation. All men have illumination. " There is a 
 light which lighteth every man that cometh into the 
 world." But few men have ever been inspired. 
 Here is a case of inspiration : " Ah ! Lord God ! 
 behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child. But the
 
 24 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Lord said unto me, say not I am a child, for thou 
 shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever 
 I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of 
 their faces, for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith 
 the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand and 
 touched rny mouth. And the Lord said unto me, 
 Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." 
 (Jer. 1:6-9.) 
 
 But what say the Highest Critics on this subject? 
 
 Jesus Christ said : " David himself said in the 
 Holy Spirit." (Mark 12 : 36.) Notice, He does not 
 say David thought, but David himself said. Turn 
 to 2 Sam. 23 : 2, and we will find additional informa- 
 tion to this case. David said : " The spirit of the 
 Lord spake by me, and His word was upon my 
 tongue." He did not say " The spirit gave me 
 a concept," or " His thought was in my mind," but, 
 " The spirit of the Lord spake by me and His word 
 was upon my tongue" 
 
 The Holy Spirit said: "All scripture is given 
 by inspiration of God." The word rendered scrip- 
 ture in this passage is grapht. It means writing. 
 The writing is composed of words. What else is 
 this but verbal inspiration? 
 
 But the critics say : " The revised version renders 
 this passage. " Every scripture inspired of God is 
 also profitable." It may appear presumptuous in 
 me to say so, but since the learned men who gave 
 us the Revised Version have not claimed infallibility 
 for themselves, and this is a free country, I have no 
 hesitation in saying that these gentlemen have erred
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 
 
 in this case, in my humble judgment. I think so for 
 the following reasons : First. It is tautological. 
 Second. It is a violation of the laws of Greek syn- 
 tax. Bishop Middleton challenged the production 
 of a single instance in the compass of the whole 
 Greek language where such a violent divulsion of 
 two adjectives connected and standing as they are 
 in 2 Tim. 3 : 16, could be found and justified. The 
 challenge remains unanswered. Dr. John Pye Smith 
 attempted to produce an instance, but was over- 
 thrown by Dr. S. P. Tregelles. 
 
 Third, The Greek fathers certainly knew their 
 own language better than the Revisers. Clement of 
 Alexandria says, " The Apostle calls the Scripture 
 inspired of God." Origen says, "Every Scripture is 
 theopneustic, and is profitable." Gregory of Nyssa 
 says, "Every Scripture is, by Paul, said to be in- 
 spired of God." Chrysostom says, "Every Scrip- 
 ture is, by the Apostle, said to be inspired of God." 
 So also say Theodoret, Basil and Cyril. 
 
 Fourth. In I Tim. 4 : 4, Paul says, " Every 
 creature of God is good and nothing to be refused;" 
 and, in Heb. 4: 13 we are told that "All things are 
 naked and opened (exposed) to the eyes of Him 
 with whom we have to do." These two passages 
 are absolutely identical in form and construction as 
 2 Tim. 2 : 16. The Revisers left these two passages 
 unchanged. And why ? Because if they had 
 changed them as they did 2 Tim. 2:16, they would 
 have made absolute nonsense of them and a laughing- 
 stock of themselves.
 
 26 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Fifth. The Revisers condemned their own ren- 
 dering by putting the authorized text in the margin. 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 
 is profitable," etc., is not the equivalent of "ALL 
 Scripture inspired of God is also profitable," etc. 
 
 Sixth. By the revised rendering each person is 
 authorized to decide for him or herself just what 
 Scripture is inspired. This is just the liberty many 
 of the Higher Critics take. They accept what sup- 
 ports their pet views and theories and throw the rest 
 away. Every man becomes a law unto himself in 
 the matter. 
 
 Seventh. The revised rendering has been con- 
 demned by a great many of the best scholars on 
 earth. Bishops Moberly and Wordsworth, 
 Archbishop Trench and others of the Revision Com- 
 mittee disclaimed any responsibility for the render- 
 ing. Dean Burgon pronounced it the " Most 
 astonishing as well as calamitous literary blunder of 
 the age." The distinguished critic, Dr. Schrivener, 
 calls it " A blunder such as makes itself hopelessly 
 condemned." It was condemned by Dr. Tregelles, 
 the only man ever pensioned by the British Govern- 
 ment for scholarship, as it was condemned by the 
 scholars of Reformation times. 
 
 But for all this, the Revised Version does not 
 materially change the teaching of the text respect- 
 ing verbal inspiration ; for, if it were correct, it is 
 bound to the writings which Timothy had been 
 taught from "wee" childhood, which are declared 
 to be " sacred " and " Able to make * * * wise
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 27 
 
 unto salvation through faith which is in Christ 
 Jesus." 
 
 Of these " Sacred " writings the Holy Spirit says : 
 " For no prophecy ever came by the will of man : 
 but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy 
 Ghost. (2 Peter I : 21.) The word " Prophecy" in 
 this passage, is not limited to the foretelling of 
 events. It signifies the revelation of the mind of 
 God in human language. It is asserted, unequivo- 
 cally, that certain men " Spake (not thought) from 
 God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." 
 
 We are told in Luke 24 : 27, that Jesus Christ, 
 " Beginning from Moses and from all the Prophets 
 * * * interpreted to them (the disciples) in all 
 the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." We 
 are here informed that Moses and certain other men 
 called Prophets, humanly speaking, were the authors 
 of that which Timothy was instructed in, called the 
 " Holy Scriptures," or " Sacred Writings," which 
 were written and spoken of God by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Now let us turn to some of these books and ascer- 
 tain what the writers said concerning the matter 
 under consideration. Ex. 4:10-12: "And Moses 
 said unto the Lord, I am not eloquent (a man of 
 words), neither heretofore nor since thou hast spoken 
 unto thy servant : for I am slow of speech, and of a 
 slow tongue. And the Lord said unto him, Who 
 hath made man's mouth ? * * * Now therefore 
 go and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what 
 thou shalt speak." Ex. 34:27: "And the Lord 
 
 said unto Moses, write thou these words : for after 
 3
 
 28 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 the tenor of these words I have made a covenant 
 with thee, and with Israel." Deut. 4 : 2: "Ye shall 
 not add unto the word which I command you, 
 neither shall ye diminish from it." Deut. 18 : 20: 
 " But the prophet which shall speak a word pre- 
 sumptuously in my name, which I have not com- 
 manded him to speak, * * * that prophet shall 
 die." 
 
 In the five books of Moses, in the books called 
 historical, and books included under the general title 
 of the Psalms, such expressions as the following 
 occur hundreds of times, viz : " Thus saith the 
 Lord;" " The Lord said ; " " The Lord spake ; " " The 
 Lord hath spoken ; " " The Lord promised ; " " The 
 saying of the Lord ; " and " The word of the Lord." 
 There is no other thought expressed in these books 
 concerning inspiration than that the writers spoke 
 and wrote the very words that God gave them. 
 
 Turning to the books called prophetical we find 
 Isaiah saying, Hear the word of the Lord (Isa. I : 
 10) ; and no fewer than twenty times does he explic- 
 itly declare that his writings are the " Words of the 
 Lord." Almost one hundred times does Jeremiah 
 say, " The word of the Lord came unto me," or 
 declare he was uttering the " Words of the Lord," 
 and the " Word of the Living God." Ezekiel says 
 that his writings are the " Words of God," quite 
 sixty times. Here is a sample : " Son of man, all 
 my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in 
 thine heart, and hear with thine ears. And go get 
 thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 29 
 
 thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them 
 thus saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 3 : 10, ii).~ Daniel 
 said, "And when I heard the voice of His words" 
 (Dan. x:9). Hosea said, "The word of the Lord " 
 (Hosea I : i). " The word of the Lord that came to 
 Joel (Joel I : i). Amos said, " Hear the word of the 
 Lord" (Amos 3 : i). Obadiah said, " Thus saith the 
 Lord God" (Oba. i : i). " The word of the Lord 
 came unto Jonah" (Jon. i : i). " The word of the 
 Lord that came to Micah " (Micah i : i). Nahum 
 said, "Thus saith the Lord" (Nah. 1:12). Habak- 
 kuk wrote, " The Lord answered me and said " 
 (Hab. 2 : 2). " The word of the Lord which came 
 to Zephaniah ". (Zeph. i : i). " Came the word 
 of the Lord to Haggai the prophet" (Hag. i : i). 
 " Came the word of the Lord unto Zechariah " 
 (Zech. i : i). " The word of the Lord to Israel by 
 Malachi " (Mai. i : i). And in this last of the Old 
 Testament books is it twenty-four times said "Thus 
 saith the Lord."
 
 30 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 INSPIRATION (Continued.) 
 
 When we turn to the New Testament Scriptures 
 we find these words of Jesus : " But when they 
 deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall 
 speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of 
 your Father that speaketh in you." (Matt. 10 : 19, 
 20.) "And when they lead you to the judgment, 
 and deliver you up, be not anxious beforehand what 
 ye shall speak : but whatsoever shall be given you 
 in that hour, that speak ye ; for it is not ye that 
 speak, but the Holy Ghost." (Mark 13 : n.) 
 " And when they bring you before the synagogues, 
 and the rulers, and the authorities, be not anxious 
 how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say : 
 for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very 
 hour what ye ought to say." (Luke 12 : 11, 12.) 
 " Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate 
 beforehand how to answer ; for I will give you a 
 mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall 
 not be able to withstand or to gainsay." (Luke 
 21 : 14, 15.) In these passages we are plainly 
 taught that the Apostles and certain of the disciples 
 were to be inspired to speak certain things. This 
 same inspiration included all the disciples on the 
 day of Pentecost, for they were all with one accord 
 in one place. * * * And they were all filled 
 with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other 
 tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 31 
 
 2 : I, 4.) The multitude that heard " Marvelled, 
 saying, Behold, are not all these which speak Gali- 
 leans? And how hear we every man in our own 
 language ? * * * we do hear them speaking in 
 our tongues the mighty works of God." (Acts 
 2 : 7, ii.) 
 
 Luke introduces the Gospel bearing his name with 
 this statement : " Forasmuch as many have taken 
 in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those 
 matters which have been fulfilled (fully established) 
 among us, even as they delivered them unto us, 
 which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
 ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, 
 having traced the course of all things accurately 
 from the first, to write unto thee in order, most 
 excellent Theophilus : that thou mightest know the 
 certainty concerning the things (Greek words) 
 wherein thou was instructed (or literally, which thou 
 wast taught by word of mouth). 
 
 The opening words of Revelation are these, " The 
 Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to 
 show unto his servants, even the things which must 
 shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it by 
 his angel unto his servant John ; who bare witness of 
 the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus 
 Christ, even of all things that he saw. Blessed is he 
 that readeth, and they that hear the words of the 
 prophecy, and keep the things which are written 
 therein ; for the time is at hand." (Rev. 1 : 1-3.) 
 
 When we examine Paul's writings we find these 
 most explicit statements : " Which things also we
 
 32 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 speak, not in words which man's wisdom teach- 
 eth, but which the Spirit teacheth." (i Cor. 2: 13.) 
 " And for this cause we also thank God without 
 ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of 
 the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it 
 not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the 
 word of God." (i Thess. 2: 13.) "But unto the 
 married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord." (i 
 Cor. 7 : 10.) Peter bears this testimony to the in- 
 spiration of Paul's writings : " Even as our beloved 
 brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to 
 him, wrote unto you ; as also in all his epistles, 
 speaking in them of these things ; wherein are some 
 things hard to be understood, which the ignorant 
 and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other 
 scriptures." (2 Peter 3: 15, 16.) Two things are 
 herein affirmed, viz. : First, Paul's epistles were 
 known, at that time, in all the churches ; and, Sec- 
 ond, they are equally authoritative with all the 
 other Scriptures. 
 
 Peter said, " This is now, beloved, the second 
 epistle that I write unto you : and in both of them 
 I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in re- 
 membrance ; that ye should remember the words 
 which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and 
 the commandment of the Lord and Savior through 
 your apostles/ (2 Peter 3: i, 2.) Peter here expli- 
 citly declares that his own writings are of equal 
 authority with Paul's and the other apostles, and 
 the prophets. 
 
 And so the Bible, uniformly, from first to last,
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 33 
 
 teaches the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is the 
 Word of God. This is the invariable testimony of 
 the Highest Critics. They never, in a single in- 
 stance, say that the thoughts of the writers of the 
 Bible were inspired ; or, that these writers had a 
 " Concept." Only the " Higher Critics " talk in this 
 way. The " Highest Critics " call the Scriptures 
 "The Oracles of God " (Rom. 3:2.); "The Word 
 of God " (Luke 8 : 1 1) ; " The Word of the Lord " 
 (Acts 13 : 48) ; " The Word of Life " (Phil. 2 : 16) ; 
 " The Word of Christ " (Col. 3 :i6) ; " The Word of 
 Truth " (Eph. 1:13);" The Word of Faith " (Rom. 
 10 : 8) ; and, by these and similar statements do they 
 declare, more than two thousand times, that the 
 Bible is the Word of God, that the words are God- 
 breathed, are inspired. (Theopneustia.) 
 
 It is doubtless true, as a rule, that God operated 
 through the thoughts and wills of those who were 
 inspired to speak and write. I think this is appar- 
 ent in the different characteristics of those who 
 wrote the Bible, as seen in their writings ; but, it was 
 not always the case, indeed in some cases, the in- 
 spiration was beyond the thought and independent 
 of it, and, in immediate conflict with the will. The 
 dumb ass had no " Concept," but " The Lord opened 
 the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, 
 What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten 
 me these three times ? And the ass said unto Ba- 
 laam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast 
 ridden all thy life long unto this day? Was I ever 
 wont to do so unto thee? " (Numb. 22 : 28, 30.)
 
 34 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 " But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high 
 priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing 
 at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for 
 you that one man should die for the people, and that 
 the whole nation perish not. Now this he said not 
 of himself ; but being high priest that year, he 
 prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation : and 
 not for the nation only, but that he might also gath- 
 er together into one the children of God that are 
 scattered abroad "(John n :49~5 2.). This is a case 
 of inspiration independent of thought " Now this 
 he said not of himself." 
 
 In the case of the disciples on the "Day of Pente- 
 cost " we have inspiration above human thought. 
 They spake " With other tongues as the Spirit gave 
 them utterance. " Speaking languages of which 
 they had no knowledge, so that the multitude " Were 
 confounded because that every man heard them 
 speaking in his own language. " 
 
 Balaam was compelled to speak against his will. 
 He said: "Lo, I am come unto thee; have I now 
 any power at all to say any thing ? the word that 
 God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak." 
 (Where are the dynamics in this case ?) He did his 
 very utmost to curse the Israelites, but as often as 
 he tried it, he blessed them. Balak at last said 
 " Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all. " 
 But Balaam answered, " Told not I thee, saying, 
 All the Lord speaketh, that I must do. " (Numb. 22 : 
 38 ; 23 : 26. ) 
 
 Even independent of any living agency, God wrote
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 35 
 
 the words of the law upon the tables of stone, in the 
 top of smoke-wreathed and fire-crowned Sinai : and 
 caused a hand to stand forth and write upon the 
 wall of the festal hall, the words " Mene, Mene, Tek- 
 el, Upharsin ; (> to the astonishment and consterna- 
 tion of Belshazzar and his one thousand lords. 
 
 At the baptism of Jesus there was heard, " A voice 
 from heaven, saying, " This is my beloved Son, in 
 whom I am well pleased. " (Matt. 3 ; 17.) 
 
 Amid the dazzling splendors of the Transfigura- 
 tion scene, there came " A voice out of the cloud, 
 which said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom lam 
 well pleased ; hear ye him. (Matt. 17 : 50 
 
 When Saul of Tarsus was smitten, while on his 
 way to Damascus, " The Lord said (unto him), I 
 am Jesus, whom thou persecutest : Arise and go 
 into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou 
 must do. And the men which journeyed with him 
 stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no 
 man. " (Acts 9 : 5-7.) 
 
 No " Inspiration of Superintendence ; " or of 
 " Elevation ;" or of " Direction ; " or of " Suggestion," 
 can by any possible means explain these last cases. 
 
 Dr. Adam Clark once said : " A good man could 
 not have written the Bible, and a bad man would 
 not have written it." Another has said : " Man 
 couldn't have written the Bible if he would, and 
 wouldn't have written it if he could." 
 
 In these two statements are three self-evident 
 truths. First. Over and over again the Bible tells 
 us that God the Holy Spirit was its author. Now,
 
 36 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 if man was its author, he was a liar, and consequent- 
 ly not a good man. 
 
 Second. A bad man would not have written the 
 Bible if he could, for the simple reason it tells him 
 what he is. It speaks of unchristian men as " Abomi- 
 nable Branches," " Ashes under the feet," "Bad 
 Fishes," " Beasts," " The Blind," Brass and Iron," 
 "Briers and Thorns," "Bulls of Bashan," "Carcasses 
 trodden under feet," "Chaff," "Clouds without 
 water," "Corn Blasted," "Corrupt Trees," "Deaf 
 Adders," "Dogs," "Dross," "Early dew that 
 passeth away," " Evil Figs," "Fading Oaks," " Fiery 
 Oven," "Fire of Thorns," " Fools Jpuilding upon 
 sand," " Fuel of fire," " Gardens without water," 
 " Goats," " Grass upon the Housetops," " Green- 
 bay trees," " Green Herbs," " Heath in the Desert," 
 " Horses rushing into battle," " Idols," " Lions 
 greedy of prey," " Melting Wax," " Morning Clouds," 
 " Moth-eaten garments," " Passing Whirlwinds," 
 " Potsherds," " Raging waves of the sea," " Repro- 
 bate Silver," "Scorpions," "Serpents," "Smoke," 
 " Stony Ground," " Stubble," " Swine," " Tares," 
 "Troubled Sea," "Visions of the Night," "Wan- 
 dering Stars," " Wayward Children," " Wells with- 
 out Water," " Whited Sepulchres," " Wild Asses' 
 Colts." In the nature of the case it is not think- 
 able that any man would write such things against 
 himself. So very true is this that it is most difficult 
 to get unchristian men, as a rule, to even read the 
 book with anything like carefulness, or to go to 
 church lest they hear God's estimate of them.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 37 
 
 Third. Man could not have written the Bible if 
 he would. I can by application and study fathom 
 the depths of the writings of the wisest and most 
 learned of men. We occupy, in some respects, the 
 same plane of possibilities. We are men. " Canst 
 thou by searching find out God 5 " "O the depth 
 of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge 
 of God ! how unsearchable are His judgments, and 
 His ways past tracing out ! " Rom. 11:33. 
 
 Prof. Gaussen says : " The theory of a Divine 
 revelation, in which you would have the inspiration 
 of the thoughts, without the inspiration of the lan- 
 guage, is so .inevitably irrational that it cannot be 
 sincere, and proves false even to those who propose 
 it." 
 
 Dr. Charles Hodge says, "The inspiration of the 
 Scriptures extends to the words." 
 
 Prof. A. A. Hodge says, " The line can never ra- 
 tionally be drawn between the thoughts and words 
 of Scripture * * * That we have an inspired 
 Bible, and a verbally inspired one, we have the wit- 
 ness of God Himself." 
 
 Charles Spurgeon says : "We cannot refrain from 
 uttering our growing conviction that the Scrip- 
 tures possess a verbal as well as plenary inspi- 
 ration." 
 
 Dean Burgon, a member of the Revision Commit- 
 tee, and a man of vast learning, says, You cannot 
 dissect inspiration into substance and form. As for 
 thoughts being inspired, apart from the words which 
 give them expression, you might as well talk of a
 
 38 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 tune without notes, or a sum without figures. No 
 such theory of inspiration is even intelligible. It is 
 as illogical as it is worthless, and cannot be too stern- 
 ly put down.' 
 
 Napoleon the Great once said, " Book unique, 
 where the mind finds a moral beauty before un- 
 known, and an idea of the Supreme superior 
 even to that which creation suggests ! Who but 
 God could produce that type, that ideal of perfec- 
 tion, equally exclusive and original ? " 
 
 With the learned Bishop Ryle I say : Give me the 
 plenary verbal theory with all its difficulties, rather 
 than the doubt. I accept the difficulties, and humbly 
 wait for their solution ; but while I wait I am stand- 
 ing on a rock." 
 
 Yonder, upon the bosom of the granite hills, is a 
 fountain. By some unknown and untraceable con- 
 duit it is connected with some greater fountain 
 amid the glaciers and eternal snows of loftier heights. 
 From its subterranean depths and inexhaustible 
 source it pours forth its floods of pure, clear, life- 
 giving water. Stretching away from the base of 
 these solemn hills, far beyond the horizon, is an 
 arid, desert waste. Evidences of life are but few in 
 all its vast expanse, and it lies desolate under storm 
 and calm. But enterprising men gather the 
 floods of this fountain into a great reservoir, and 
 thence carry it, by pipes and ditches, abroad over 
 the dusty plain ; and soon teeming fields, throbbing 
 with life, everywhere greet the eye ; and happy 
 homes and sunny-faced children are seen ; and we
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 39 
 
 hear the song of the milk-maid and the shout of the 
 plow-boy, and all is beautiful, peaceful and serene. 
 
 But, suppose someone shall, in the midnight 
 hour, climb to that fountain, and put into its waters 
 that which is poisonous, until through its channels 
 death flows out to those fruitful fields and happy 
 homes ; and men and women die ; and the beasts of 
 the field perish ; and the harvests are unreaped ; and 
 that which is bright and beautiful fades ; and death 
 dominates all the scene. Would he not be an enemy 
 of his kind who did this awful thing? indeed, a 
 fiend incarnate? 
 
 The Word of God is a fountain, connected, how, 
 you and I know not, with the fountain of perennial 
 youth in the heart of The Eternal. The Church of 
 God is but a reservoir for receiving these life-giving 
 floods ; and forth from this reservoir these waters 
 are to constantly flow, to make glad the waste 
 places. 
 
 Some go through the conduit of the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith, others through the Augsburg, 
 Savoy, and Heidelberg Confessions, and yet 
 others through the Thirty-Nine and the Twenty- 
 Five Articles. No matter how these floods are 
 conducted, so they reach the desolate places of 
 earth. Our business is to keep the conduits clean 
 and unobstructed, and let the waters flow on forever. 
 
 I have looked into these waters and seen myself 
 reflected to the very innermost and uttermost, saw 
 myself as God sees me, polluted and defiled ; needy, 
 perishing and dying. I plunged me into their crystal
 
 40 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 depths, and was washed from all the stain and defile- 
 ment of sin. My thirsty soul drank long and deep 
 of the life-giving flood ; my thirst was slaked and I 
 was satisfied, and ever more shall be. Millions, be- 
 side, have had similar experiences. 
 
 " The Waters of Life" as they have flowed into 
 the dark, desolate and waste places of the earth, 
 where grew but " Fornication, uncleanness, lascivi- 
 ousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, 
 wraths, factions, divisions, heresies, envyings, revel- 
 ings, drunkenness, and such like," the fruits of the 
 flesh, have caused them to " Rejoice and blossom as 
 the rose," and bring forth luxuriant and abundant 
 harvests of " Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kind- 
 ness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance, 
 virtue, patience and knowledge," the fruits of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 Surely he who poisons the waters of this life- 
 giving fountain, by casting in doubts ; or, pollutes 
 them with his mystifying opinions and views,, is the 
 enemy of his kind.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 41 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BIBLE AS A LITERARY WORK. 
 
 I desire to call attention to certain structural evi- 
 dences and proofs, by comparisons, of the Divine 
 Authorship of the Bible, all of which I hold prove, 
 to a demonstration, its supernaturalness. 
 
 I occasionally meet a young man who says: 
 "The Bible is an outworn and outlived book, pos- 
 sessing little or no literary merit, and little thought 
 of and used by scholarly men." 
 
 Over against this and similar remarks, often heard 
 now-a-days, I wish to place the testimonies of a few 
 illustrious men, who certainly were competent to 
 speak upon the subject. Sir Walter Scott said as 
 he neared the end of his earthly journey, " There is 
 but one Book." Patrick Henry once said, " There 
 is a Book worth all other books." John Adams 
 said, "The Bible is the best Book in the world." 
 Goethe said, " It is a belief in the Bible which has 
 served me as the guide of my literary life." Daniel 
 Webster once said, " If there is anything in my 
 style or thoughts to be commended, the credit is 
 due to my kind parents in instilling into my mind 
 an early love of the Scriptures."
 
 42 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Sir W. Jones, the jurist and Orientalist, the most 
 accomplished scholar of his day in England, said : 
 " The Scriptures contain, independently of a Divine 
 origin, more true sublimity, more exquisite beauty, 
 purer morality, more important history, and finer 
 strains both of poetry and eloquence, than could be 
 collected within the same compass from all other 
 books that were ever composed in any age or in any 
 idiom." 
 
 Sir Matthew Hale once said, " I have been 
 acquainted somewhat with men and books, and have 
 had long experience in learning, and in the world ; 
 there is no book like the Bible for excellent learning, 
 wisdom, and use ', and it is want of understanding 
 in them that think or speak otherwise." 
 
 Boyle, the natural philosopher, said, " The Bible 
 is indeed among books what the diamond is among 
 stones, the most precious and sparkling ; the most 
 apt to scatter light, and yet the solidest and the 
 most proper to make impressions." 
 
 Baron Humboldt said: "The epic or historical 
 parts (of the Old Testament) are marked by a grace- 
 ful simplicity, almost more unadorned than those of 
 Herodotus, and most true to nature." 
 
 Coleridge said : " Intense study of the Bible will 
 keep any man from being vulgar in point of style." 
 
 Prof. Huxley says of the Bible : "It is written in 
 the noblest and purest English, and abounds in 
 exquisite beauties of a merely literary form." 
 
 Examine carefully the language of the Book; and, 
 as surely as you are competent to judge correctly, and
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 43 
 
 are honest, you will conclude that it is incompar- 
 able. Its smoothness, beauty and sententiousness 
 of expression is unique. Someone has said, " It 
 would require a trip-hammer to knock a word out of 
 any sentence John Milton ever wrote." Much more 
 is such a statement true of the Bible. Turn to the 
 opening chapter and read : " In the beginning God 
 created the heaven and the earth. And the earth 
 was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face 
 of the waters. And God said, Let there be light : 
 and there was light. And God saw the light, that it 
 was good : And God divided the light from the 
 darkness. And God called the light Day and the 
 darkness he called Night. And there was evening 
 and there was morning, one day." And so as you 
 read you will agree with the infidel Rousseau, " I 
 must confess the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me 
 with astonishment." 
 
 Anyhow, I know no man wrote those opening 
 sentences. It's his habit to amplify and write ver- 
 bosely. Hence, writing of " Beginning," he would 
 have enlarged and given us an octavo volume on 
 Cosmos ; and coming to speak of " Light," he cer- 
 tainly would have given us an extended treatise on 
 the subject. Usually, he is very fond of writing 
 on subjects of which he has little or no knowledge. 
 
 POETRY. 
 
 It is often said: "There are no poems in 
 4
 
 44 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 the Bible." It is true that the Hebrews were not 
 of a poetic mind or disposition. But where in the 
 libraries of the wide world can be found poetry com- 
 parable to some of the Psalms, portions of Isaiah, 
 Ezekiel and Daniel? of Job and the Revelation? 
 What of " The Songs of Moses, of Miriam, of Debora 
 and of Mary ? Where in the languages of earth is 
 there anything that will equal the following for real 
 poetic beauty and expression ? 
 
 "Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places! 
 How are the mighty fallen! 
 Tell it not in Gath, 
 
 Publish it not in the streets of Askelon; 
 Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, 
 Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. 
 Ye mountains of Gilboa, 
 
 Let there be no dew nor rain upon you, neither fields of offerings, 
 For there the shield of the mighty was vainly cast away, 
 The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil, 
 From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, 
 The bow of Jonathan turned not back, 
 And the sword of Saul returned not empty. 
 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, 
 And in their death they were not divided; 
 They were swifter than eagles, 
 They were stronger than lions. 
 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, 
 Who clothed }-ou in scarlet delicately, 
 Who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel. 
 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! 
 Jonathan is slain upon thy high places. 
 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: 
 Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: 
 Thy love to me was wonderful, 
 Passing the love of woman, 
 
 How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" 
 
 (2 Sam. i : 19-27.)
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 45 
 
 John Milton, the Prince of Poets, once said, 
 " There are no songs comparable to the songs of 
 Zion." Also, he said, in speaking of the Psalms : 
 " Not in their divine argument alone, but in the 
 very critical art of composition, they may be easily 
 made appear over all the kinds of lyric poesy to be 
 incomparable." 
 
 Dr. Johnson, the great critic, once remarked of 
 Joseph Addison : " Whoever wishes to attain an 
 English style, familiar but not coarse, and elegant 
 but not ostentatious, must give his days and 
 nights to the volumes of Addison." He (Addison) 
 says: "Homer has innumerable flights that Virgil 
 was not able to reach, and in the Old Testament we 
 find several passages more elevated and sublime than 
 any in Homer." And, also: "After perusing the 
 Book of Psalms, let a judge of the beauties of 
 poetry read a literal translation of Horace or Pindar, 
 and he will find in these two last such an absurdity 
 and confusion of style, with such a comparative pov- 
 erty of imagination, as will make him sensible of 
 the vast superiority of the Scripture style." 
 
 Baron Humboldt once referring to the iO4th 
 Psalm, said: "We are astonished to find in a 
 lyrical poem of such a limited compass the whole 
 universe the heavens and the earth sketched with 
 a few bold touches. This contrast and generaliza- 
 tion in the conception of natural phenomena, and 
 the retrospection of an omnipresent, invisible Power, 
 which can renew the earth or crumble it to dust, consti- 
 tutes a solemn and exalted form of poetic creation."
 
 46 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 Sir Isaac Newton once said : "I find more sure 
 marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any pro- 
 fane history whatever." 
 
 The Bible contains the most ancient history of 
 any book in the world. It reaches centuries beyond 
 Josephus, Xenophon, and Herodotus, clear back to 
 the dawn of creation. The confirmations that are 
 being made of the accuracy of its statements, by 
 archaeological'discoveries are indeed extraordinary. 
 It would seem that almost every turn of the spade 
 is bringing to light some corroboration of scriptural 
 statement. The cuneiform inscriptions and tablets 
 of Nineveh and Babylon ; the hieroglyphics of 
 Luxor and Karnak ; the " Rosetta " stone ; the 
 " Moabite " stone ; the " Siloam " inscription ; the 
 black monolith of Shalmaneser ; etc., etc. these all 
 speak from out the dust of the centuries in corrobo- 
 ration of the Scriptural record. These testi- 
 monies are playing havoc with the ancient histories 
 written by men. Someone has said : " Already 
 over two thousand mistakes have been found in the 
 best ancient history man ever wrote." Not one 
 mistake, however, has been proved against the Bible. 
 
 The Babylonian history recorded in Genesis ter- 
 minates with the fourteenth chapter. The remain- 
 ing portion has a Syrian and Egyptian setting. 
 
 The explorations made at Nineveh by Sir A. H. 
 Layard have brought to light the ruined library of 
 the ancient city which lay buried under the mound? 
 of Konyunjik. The three expeditions conducted by
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 47 
 
 Mr. George Smith, and the later ones of Mr. Hor- 
 muzd Rassam have added very largely to the stock 
 of tablets from Konyunjik. 
 
 Prof. Sayce tells us " Although only one of the 
 many libraries which now lie buried beneath the 
 ground in Babylon and Assyria has, as yet, been at 
 all adequately explored, the amount of Assyrian lit- 
 erature at the disposal of the student is already 
 greater than that contained in the whole of the Old 
 Testament." 
 
 Nearly every historical statement in the first four- 
 teen chapters of Genesis has been verified by the 
 cuneiform inscriptions already exhumed. The story 
 of creation ; the fall of man ; the deluge ; the story 
 of Babel ; the dispersion of mankind ; Nimrod ; Abra- 
 ham, Sarah and Lot ; the campaign of Chedor-Lao- 
 mer ; etc., etc. ; are told and described on the tablets 
 of this one library. 
 
 The Egyptologist, also, is having the same kind 
 of experience. He has, in his research, fully verified 
 the Scriptural story of Joseph. M. Naville has cor- 
 roborated the Bible date of the Exodus, and proved 
 the personality of the Pharaoh of the oppression, by 
 his excavations at Tel-el-Meokhuta. Prof. Sayce 
 says that M. Naville has not only discovered the ru- 
 ins of Pithon or Succoth, one of the Treasure cities 
 of Joseph's time, but, " Has even discovered the 
 treasure-chambers themselves. They are very 
 strongly constructed, and divided by brick partitions 
 from eight to ten feet thick, the bricks being sun- 
 baked, and made some with and some without
 
 48 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 straw. In these strawless bricks we may see the work 
 of the oppressed people when the order came : ' Thus 
 saith Pharaoh, I will not give you straw.' " 
 
 Nearly three hundred historical statements of the 
 Bible have been corroborated by the labors of 
 Egyptologists up to the present time. 
 
 With regard to Assyrian history, Prof. Sayce has 
 made a list of seventy-seven events, running from 
 B.C. 1130 to B.C. 513, that the archaeologists have 
 deciphered from the records they have exhumed, all 
 of which agree substantially with the record made 
 in the Scriptures of the same events. 
 
 These verifications prove to a demonstration that 
 the historical record of the Bible was given by Al- 
 mighty God. 
 
 Dr. W. C. Prime, a life-long student of Egyptology 
 has expressed himself concerning this matter in the 
 following explicit and emphatic manner, in the 
 New York Observer: 
 
 " To students of history it is impossible to deny the command- 
 ing position occupied by the Hebrew books, among the literature 
 of the past. Their truthfulness compared with that of secular 
 histories, is little less than miraculous. No extant history, out- 
 side of the collection known as the Bible, ancient or modern, 
 has failed to show the tendency of the human historian to error 
 if not to wilful falsification. There has never yet been published 
 a history of the United States or of England or of France, a 
 history of our own Civil War, or of any war in Europe, a his- 
 tory of any period or any series of events, which has not been 
 demonstrated to contain mistakes, and misrepresentations. The 
 father of history, Herodotus, prepared with great labor a history 
 of ancient Egypt. Modern exploration, bringing to light the 
 buried art and the buried men of ancient Egypt, has ascertained 
 that in many respects he was misinformed. It became necessary to
 
 VS. THE HIGHEK CfflTICS. 49 
 
 have an annotated Herodotus, in which his errors are corrected 
 by the indisputable evidence of the monuments. The work of 
 tht Hebrew Moses deals extensively with Egyptian history, 
 politics, manners and customs, in a period nearly forty cen- 
 turies ago. It has not become necessary to make a solitary note 
 on the margin of this history to say that Moses was mistaken. 
 Wherever discovered Egyptian remains have given us informa- 
 tion concerning any subject touched by the books of Moses, 
 there the invariable rule has been the confirmation, in the 
 minutest particulars, of the accuracy of the Hebrew historian. 
 We have no need of any annotation to correct one error of 
 Moses. 
 
 Now if this were true of Herodotus, or of Macaulay, or of any 
 historian concerning whose work no one had ever suggested 
 supernatural inspiration, that historian would rank in the world 
 of literature as immeasurably above all other authors. He would 
 unquestionably stand as the most admired, respected, and honored 
 writer known to the human race. When we consider the prone- 
 ness of men to err, the moral impossibility of any man's avoiding 
 mistake even in the common concerns of life, it may be consid- 
 ered very certain that if, in ordinary literature, there were such 
 a historian, of whom no one could say he had committed an error 
 in any line he had written, the critic, the intelligent world, every 
 sensible reader of his work would unhesitatingly say: "This 
 work is miraculous." 
 
 I am not dealing with the question of Inspiration. I am dis- 
 cussing only the position of Moses in the rank of historians. It 
 is a literary, not a religious question. I am asking you to divest 
 yourself of any conscious or unconscious prejudice against claims 
 of supernaturalism, and to consider the wonderful supremacy of 
 this author over all other authors ; a supremacy which demon- 
 strates that in his intellectual labors Truth occupied a control- 
 ling power over mind and pen which it has never occupied in the 
 mind of any one in the long catalogue of secular historians, an- 
 cient or modern. 
 
 I have not space to review those recent discoveries in Egypt 
 which, to the critics who profess to have no faith in Moses (or
 
 60 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 even in a Moses), have again so startlingly demonstrated his ac- 
 curate knowledge of Asiatic as well as Egyptian conditions, in 
 and before his time, and the folly and falsehood of their intuitive 
 conclusions. No point has been more clear to them than that 
 Melchisedek, King of Salem and Priest of the Most High God, 
 was a fancy of ages long after the supposed date of Moses, and 
 not a historical personage. This same criticism, based wholly 
 on intuition without information, has also taught the absolute 
 impossibility of any such social, political and literary conditions, 
 contemporary with Abraham, as are assumed and mentioned by 
 Moses. 
 
 The Tel-el- Amarna discoveries include a large amount of 
 diplomatic and personal correspondence between the Egyptian 
 Pharaohs and Asiatic Kings. They demonstrate a high 
 civilization, a widespread knowledge of Asiatic languages and 
 literature, close relations of correspondence in Asiatic letters, 
 and a political condition identical with that recognized by Moses 
 and discredited by modern critical imaginations. Most interest- 
 ing among these are letters from a king of Jerusalem somewhere 
 near B.C. 1400 or 1500, a successor of Melchisedek, who, in the 
 ancient style of princes, describes himself and his independent 
 royalty, as derived from God only, in the terms used by Moses, 
 and extended by later sacred writers. He says that no father or 
 mother placed him in his kingship, no king of Egypt made him 
 king, only the oracle of the Mighty King, the God of Jerusalem, 
 Uru-salem, City of Peace. Moses in mentioning Melchisedek, 
 uses an accurate description. 
 
 The Hebrew historian knew perfectly well the tenure of royal- 
 ty in the kingdom of Jerusalem. His words are correct. A 
 voice out of the tomb of thirty centuries confirms the historical 
 accuracy of Moses and demolishes the whole system of Biblical 
 criticisms, which has taught that this portion of the Book of 
 Genesis was " impossible of truth," a pure imagination. 
 
 Will it stay demolished ? Not at all. It will stand in pulpits, 
 sit in chairs of lecturing, and all who do not want to believe in 
 Moses will admire the self-sufficient folly of teachers who say : 
 " We don't believe in Moses because we don't believe in him."
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 51 
 
 Trustworthy literature of the covenant with 
 Noah and with Abraham has been preserved to us in 
 inscriptions, traditions and memoirs which no 
 respectable critic dare deny. The records of Abra- 
 ham, the rite of circumcision, the slaughter of 
 Hamor and of the men of Shechem, the escape from 
 Egypt and the renewal of the covenant rite at Gil- 
 gal, stand to-day perfectly intact, despite all criti- 
 cism. These are marvels of history. Add the 
 sacramental passover and the daily sacrifice and we 
 have the essence of the first six books of the Old 
 Covenant. These witnesses are contained in monu- 
 ments and certified by institutions and by the 
 Hebrew history for more than two thousand years. 
 Mr. Pinches tells us from the early inscriptions that 
 the Chinese, who migrated from Chaldea in the 
 twenty-third century B.C., have traditions of 
 Creation, of Paradise, the Tree of Knowledge, the 
 temptation by the serpent, the fall of man, the curse 
 upon "him, ideas of satan and angels, traditions of the 
 deluge, and the dispersion of mankind. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 The philosophy of the Bible is not equaled by 
 anything written by Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, New- 
 ton, Locke, Hegel or Bacon. Sir Isaac Newton 
 said : " I account the Scriptures of God to be the 
 most sublime philosophy." 
 
 Coleridge said : " The Bible finds me at greater 
 depths of my being than any other book." 
 
 Rousseau, infidel though he was, once wrote
 
 52 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 " Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their 
 pomp of diction, how mean, how contemptible are 
 they compared with the Scriptures." 
 
 Carlyle was very fond of the Bible. Once, after 
 reading it at length, he exclaimed, " A noble Book ! 
 All men's Book!" He was passionately fond of 
 Job, which is, without doubt, the most remarkable 
 philosophical treatise in the world. His literary 
 friends knew of this passion, and oftentimes, at the 
 club, they would ask him to read aloud the first 
 chapter of the book. Directly after beginning he 
 would invariably become so lost to all things else, 
 that he would not cease to read until the last word 
 of the entire book was pronounced, the while those 
 present were laughing at him, or talking about other 
 
 matters. 
 
 BIOGRAPHY. 
 
 The biographies of the Bible are strikingly unique. 
 The men of the Scriptures are real, natural, true-to- 
 life men. Not so other biographical characters. 
 When men write of their friends they say all the 
 good things they can of them, and usually touch up 
 their statements with glowing colors, and always 
 omit mention of anything disparagingly. So true is 
 this, that the minister, in preaching a funeral ser- 
 mon, must not mention any bad traits or weaknesses 
 belonging to the character and life of the deceased. 
 
 When God gave the record of the lives and doings 
 of the men of old His friends, He made it accord- 
 ing to the facts in the case. He tells us of Noah's 
 drunkenness ; Abraham's lying ; the rascalities of
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 53 
 
 Jacob ; the dissembling of Moses ; how King David 
 committed adultery and murder ; and all about the 
 lying and profanity of Peter. The men of the Bible 
 are neighbors of ours. This is true of no biog- 
 raphy that any man ever wrote of his friends, and 
 is a demonstration of the Divine authorship of the 
 Book. 
 
 What drama did Shakespeare write that will at all 
 compare with Saul and the witch of Endor? or 
 David and Absalom? or, Elijah, Ahab and Jezebel? 
 or a score more, contained in the Bible, that might 
 be mentioned ? 
 
 The imagery of the Bible is far more skillfully 
 drawn, and artistically colored, than anything that 
 man or woman ever did. 
 
 The character drawing of the Bible is true to life, 
 and the best work of Dickens and Thackeray is not 
 to be mentioned by comparison. 
 
 Is it not true that the best and most gifted 
 authors are those who have used the Bible most ? 
 Hundreds of books in our libraries would not have 
 outlived those who wrote them, but for the style, 
 knowledge and enthusiasm the authors borrowed 
 from the Bible, and incorporated into their pages. 
 Indeed, the Bible has had more to do with impart- 
 ing life and longevity to other books, than any other 
 reason that can be named. What would the world's 
 literature be to-day, if there had been no Bible ? It 
 has lifted literature to its present exalted position, 
 and decorated it with a wealth of beauty to which it 
 otherwise must have forevermore remained a stran-
 
 54 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 ger. We know, therefore, from these and other rea- 
 sons, that the Bible, as a literary work, stands at the 
 head of the list, and is, by comparison, without 
 doubt, the Book of books.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 55 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE. 
 
 Theology is man's knowledge of God's word 
 systematized and classified. Science is man's 
 knowledge of God's works, systematized and classi- 
 fied. Man's knowledge is necessarily limited and 
 imperfect. Therefore, theology and science are 
 oftentimes in conflict, and must ever be ; but, between 
 God's word and works, there is perfect harmony. 
 
 It is quite natural for human minds to discredit 
 the supernatural. Most of the " Higher Critics " 
 do this in their views of inspiration. The miraculous 
 is not necessarily unscientific, it is not the setting 
 aside or overriding of laws. A miracle is simply 
 God doing something according to certain laws of 
 which we know nothing. To illustrate : If I 
 had said, twenty years ago, I talked with a man the 
 other day one hundred miles away, just as though 
 he were ten feet distant from me, it would have 
 been called a miracle, and why? Simply because 
 there was then no law of acoustics known, by which 
 the human voice could be transmitted one hundred 
 miles ; but, within these twenty years, such a law has 
 been discovered, and our voices may be heard by our 
 friends one hundred, or one thousand miles away, 
 and it is not called a miracle. I doubt not there 
 are ten thousand laws operating in the universe of 
 which man knows nothing, to every one concerning
 
 66 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 which he may truthfully say : I know the method 
 by which it operates. 
 
 The axioms of science are but few. It not infre- 
 quently happens 'that that which has been classified 
 among the scientific certainties, has been displaced, 
 as a result of subsequent research and discovery. 
 Man is predisposed in favor of his own conjectures. 
 We have a striking illustration of this in the " Pro- 
 gressive Evolution " theory of Charles Darwin, 
 which so many accepted without hesitation, but 
 which he, with humiliation, was afterwards obliged 
 to greatly modify. 
 
 When one, standing amidst scientific discoveries 
 and deductions, says, "Here, at least, we have an 
 unmovable footing: we stand among the certainties; " 
 the sound of his words may be pleasant to his ears, 
 and the thought may minister to his vanity ; but to 
 thoughtful and reverent minds there is very much of 
 nonsense in his utterances. 
 
 A skeptical young man once flippantly inquired 
 of a devout old farmer, "Don't you know that 
 science has disproved the Bible? " " What science ? 
 I haven't read the morning papers today," was the 
 quick reply. 
 
 The Bible is not a text-book for the schools, up- 
 on the physical sciences ; but, it has not a little to 
 say about the works of God, and what it does say, 
 is said accurately and well, and can always be relied 
 upon. 
 
 Lieutenant Maury, than whom none stood higher 
 in his department of science, once said : "In my in-
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 57 
 
 vestigation of natural science, I have always found 
 that whenever I can meet with anything in the Bible 
 on any subject, it always affords me a fine platform 
 on which to stand, and a round in the ladder by 
 which I could safely ascend." 
 
 Prof. Dana once said : "The grand old Book of 
 God still stands, and this old earth, the more its 
 leaves are turned over and pondered, the more it will 
 sustain and illustrate the Sacred Word." 
 
 Friedrich H. A. Von Humboldt said : "As descrip- 
 tions of nature, the writings of the Old Testament 
 are a faithful reflection of the character of the 
 country in which they were composed, of the alterna- 
 tions of barrenness and fruitfulness, and of the 
 Alpine forests by which Palestine was characterized. 
 They describe, in their regular succession, the rela- 
 tions of the climate, the manners of this people of 
 herdsmen, and their hereditary aversion to agricult- 
 ural pursuits." 
 
 In 1831, "The British Association for the Ad- 
 vancement of Science" was established by Sir David 
 Brewster and others, and, while all its members are 
 not necessarily scientists, yet an overwhelming 
 majority of them are the highest scientists in the 
 world. This association in 1865, drew up a paper 
 which was signed by six hundred and seventeen 
 members, twenty only of whom were not recognized 
 men of science, setting forth their views on the rela- 
 tions between science and religion, and how these 
 relations should be treated. This important and re- 
 markable document is accessible to anyone in the
 
 58 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Bodleian Library in Oxford, England, and is as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 "We, the undersigned students of the natural 
 sciences, desire to express our sincere regret that 
 researches into scientific truth are perverted by 
 some, in our times, into occasions for casting doubt 
 upon the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 " We conceive that it is impossible for the Word 
 of God, as written in the book of Nature, and God's 
 Word written in the Holy Scripture, to contradict 
 one another, however much they may appear to dif- 
 fer. 
 
 "We are not forgetful that physical science is not 
 complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and 
 that at present our finite reason enables us only to 
 see as through a glass darkly ; and we confidently 
 believe that a time will come when the two records 
 will be seen to agree in every particular. 
 
 "We cannot but deplore that natural science 
 should be looked upon with suspicion by many who 
 do not make a study of it, merely on account of the 
 unadvised manner in which some are placing it in 
 opposition to Holy Writ. 
 
 " We believe it is the duty of every scientific stu- 
 dent to investigate Nature simply for the purpose of 
 elucidating truth, and that, if he finds that some of 
 his results appear to be in contradiction to the writ- 
 ten Word, or rather to his own interpretation of it, 
 which may be erroneous, he should not presumptu- 
 ously affirm that his own conclusions must be right,
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 59 
 
 and the statements of Scripture wrong. Rather 
 leave the two side by side till it shall please God to 
 allow us to see the manner in which they may be 
 reconciled ; and instead of insisting upon the seem- 
 ing differences between Science and the Scriptures, 
 it would be as well to rest in faith upon the points 
 in which they agree." 
 
 Let us notice a few cases, by way of illustrating 
 the truth of what these distinguished scientists have 
 said. 
 
 Once, in a " Drawing Room," in the late Earl of 
 Shaftesbury's home, the subject under consideration 
 was the first chapter of Genesis. A distinguished 
 Bible scholar was conducting the study. He called 
 attention to the fact that in this account of creation, 
 the order of genera is scientifically correct. Heaven, 
 earth, water, light, firmament, grass, herb, tree, heav- 
 enly bodies, fish, moving things (amphibia), fowls, 
 creeping things, cattle and man. The possible per- 
 mutations of fifteen numerals approximates an almost 
 incomprehensible number, i.e. 1,307,674,368,000. In 
 order to show how impossible it would be for the 
 writer of this chapter to get these events correct 
 in their order, if he wrote only as a man, he took 
 a slip of paper, and on it he wrote fifteen num- 
 bers, from one to fifteen inclusive. Under each 
 one of these numbers he wrote a letter of the 
 English alphabet, choosing the first fifteen, but 
 not writing them in their regular order, but as 
 confusedly as he could. Then he took fifteen slips 
 of paper, and on each one wrote a number, the
 
 60 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 fifteen agreeing with the fifteen on his slip. Then 
 he passed these slips to fifteen different persons, 
 one to each, and then asked them as he called the 
 numbers, one by one, for the persons having the 
 slips to write the letters he had written on the slip be- 
 fore him. One can see, at a glance, that these fifteen 
 persons could get the fifteen letters in the same or- 
 der in which they were written on the slip held by 
 the teacher, by the merest possible chance, if they 
 were to live many years and did nothing else but 
 try. 
 
 In the twenty-sixth chapter of Job and seventh 
 verse we are told : " He stretcheth out the north over 
 empty space." Astronomers who were skeptically 
 inclined, turned their telescopes to the northward, 
 and ransacking the heavens in that direction, could 
 find no " empty space ; " and then, they would twit 
 the Theologues, by saying: "Job knew nothing 
 about the geography of the heavens. He had bet- 
 ter left astronomical matters alone, and attended to 
 the things nearer home with which he was better ac- 
 quainted, his boils, for instance." Then the Theo- 
 logues, instead of insisting that Job did know what 
 he was talking about, undertook to parry the thrust 
 by saying : " Job evidently referred to the north 
 pole," feeling quite safe in making such a suggestion 
 with seven or eight hundred miles of impenetrable 
 ice-barrier intervening. Some years ago, the late 
 Prof. Loomis, of Yale University, in speaking about 
 this matter, told me that, " Recently, by the use of 
 the largest telescope in the northern hemisphere, in
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 61 
 
 the Naval Observatory, at Washington, a great 
 vacuum, corresponding to the " empty space " of 
 which Job wrote, has been discovered in the depths 
 of the northern heavens." How did Job know of 
 this? 
 
 "Joshua's Long Day" has been hooted at and de- 
 cried by skeptics ; and, too often Christian Ministers 
 and teachers disbelieve the record of it, pass it by, 
 or explain it away. On the basis of the publica- 
 tions of "The British Chronological Society," Prof. 
 Totten, of Yale University, has " Corroborated by 
 Eclipses," " Verified by Equinoxes," and "Proved by 
 the Almanac" that the Scriptural account of the 
 Long Day in Joshua, the tenth chapter, and the 
 moving backward of the Shadow ten degrees on the 
 " Dial of Ahaz" (Isa. 38 chap.) are scientifically cor- 
 rect, and this to a demonstration. (See "Joshua's 
 Long Day," by C. A. L. Totten, M.A.) 
 
 Herodotus tells us of certain records, wholly inde- 
 pendent of the Hebrew account, shown him by 
 priests while in Egypt, containing an account of a 
 " Long Day," which agreed with the Scriptural nar- 
 rative. 
 
 The Chinese, also, have an entirely independent 
 account of a " Long Day " agreeing with the record 
 in the tenth chapter of Joshua, which occurred in 
 the reign of Yeo, who was contemporary with 
 Joshua. 
 
 Jonah and the Whale is stock in trade for 
 the skeptic. He proves by two incontrovertible 
 arguments that Jonah could not have been
 
 62 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 swallowed by a whale. First, there were no whales in 
 the Mediterranean Sea ; and second, a whale's gul- 
 let is not large enough to swallow a man whole. 
 Both of these arguments are untrue. Whales of 
 the species called by Cuvier the Rorqual Mediterra- 
 nensis, have been found in this sea, and even as dis- 
 tinguished authority as Thomas Beale observes in 
 speaking of the spermaceti whale, that "the throat 
 is capacious enough to give passage to the body of 
 a man." We mention these two facts simply to 
 show how reckless and unscientific some of our skep- 
 tical friends are in discussing biblical questions. Let 
 me emphasize the fact, for we are all apt to be care- 
 less readers of the Bible, that the word whale is not 
 once used in the Book of Jonah. This is true, as 
 well of the English as of the Hebrew. The latter 
 uses dag gat hoi, and the former great fish. Unfor- 
 tunately our translators have rendered Ketos, of the 
 New Testament, whale, but certainly without good 
 reasons, for according to the best Greek scholars, 
 Ketos means any sea monster or huge fish, such as a 
 seal, shark, tunny, or whale ; thus the term being 
 indefinite, sea monster would be more correct than 
 whale. It is now generally agreed that the fish in 
 question must have been a shark. The shark is 
 found in all seas ; these fish often swallow very large 
 animals, such as cattle and even horses. Not only 
 that, but they often throw up whole and alive the 
 prey they have swallowed. Any reader interested 
 in this subject will find numerous and interesting 
 instances of sharks swallowing very large objects,
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 63 
 
 such as men, cattle, horses, etc., in the commentaries 
 of Pusey and Keil, and also in the article " Whale," 
 in Smith's Bible Dictionary or M'Clintock and 
 Strong's Cyclopedia. 
 
 I once saw a marine monster off the Island of 
 Cyprus, quite large enough to swallow an ordinary 
 sized man. 
 
 I also once saw a whale eighty-four feet long and 
 twenty-six feet in diameter at the largest part of his 
 body. Surely the God who made such a monster, 
 could easily enough enlarge his throat, if necessary, 
 sufficiently to make it easy for him to swallow a man. 
 
 But recently the remains of a whale were dis- 
 covered upon the coast of Norway, with a throat so 
 large that he could have swallowed a man on horse^ 
 back, horse and all. 
 
 Notwithstanding all these facts, skeptics will still 
 make "Jonah and the whale" do duty, until the 
 end of time. 
 
 Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons, of New York, 
 have recently published a deeply interesting volume. 
 It is the last work of the late Rev. Austin Phelps, 
 D.D., LL.D., who was for many years the Presi- 
 dent of Andover Theological Seminary, and the 
 author of many learned treatises. This work, which 
 is entitled My Note Book, was prepared just before 
 the great scholar's death. " If I can only live," he 
 wrote to a friend, " till this book is done, I shall be 
 content to go." He did live to finish it, and the 
 last letter he received was one from the publishers 
 acknowledging the receipt of the manuscript. His
 
 64 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 famous daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Stuart P. Ward, 
 has read the proofs, and added an introduction after 
 his death, but found no necessity for making any 
 changes in the book. As its name implies, the 
 volume is fragmentary, containing the jottings and 
 stray thoughts of years, but the fragments are gems 
 of rare value, all the more precious because they are 
 the last we shall ever have from the pen which has 
 written so much and so well. Among " the frag- 
 ments" are the following observations, which, com- 
 ing, as they do from so learned a man, are entitled 
 to the attention of students of prophecy. 
 
 A service of very peculiar nature and not generally known, 
 connects the books of our faith with the researches of astronom- 
 ical science. It is well understood by experts in astronomy 
 that a certain complicated cycle which should harmonize 
 certain intricate revolutions of the solar system, has been 
 sought for, for centuries. At last, it was until recently, 
 given up as being beyond the reach of human discovery. But 
 within a few years, an eminent Swiss astronomer professes to 
 have found the long-sought marvel of astronomical science. 
 His researches have been submitted to three distinguished 
 astronomers of the "Royal Academy of Sciences" in Paris. By 
 them it has been pronounced accurate and of practical value. 
 
 The interesting fact about this astronomical discovery is that 
 the discoverer was first led to suspect the existence of the cycle, 
 by a study of the symbolical prophecies of Daniel. It is well 
 known that the majority of the interpreters have found in 
 those prophecies a period of 2300 solar years, as the measure- 
 ment in the prophetic visions, of the time which should elapse 
 between the age of Daniel and the end of the so-called Times 
 of the Gentiles. The Swiss astronomer M. de Cheseaux, by 
 name is a devout believer in the Scriptures. In reading the 
 symbolical predictions of Daniel, it occurred to him as a hypoth- 
 esis that this period of twenty -three centuries might be the
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 65 
 
 cycle so long despaired of by experts in astronomical science. 
 On further investigation, by astronomical methods, he found 
 that it was even so. The discovery led to that of other cycles, 
 all involved in the prophetic computations, and by means of 
 which he was able to solve between thirty and forty astronomi- 
 cal and geographical problems. 
 
 He suggests, plausibly, to say the least, the inquiry, " How 
 happened it that a Hebrew prophet, twenty -three centuries in 
 advance of scientific discovery, used that occlt cycle in his 
 timing of coming events in the far distant future ? " If he had 
 conversed with the most eminent astronomers of his age, he 
 could not have learned it from them. They knew nothing of 
 its existence. If he had been, himself, the most accomplished 
 scientist of the century, he could not have discovered it. There 
 were no astronomical instruments in existence by which the 
 requisite observations could have been made. The famed 
 astrology of Chaldaea of which he may have known something, 
 knew nothing of it. For twenty -three centuries that ignorance 
 of the learned world has continued, notwithstanding . the 
 immense advances in astronomical knowledge, and in the 
 improvement of the instruments of the observatory. Yet all 
 the while the mysterious and unknown cycle lay embedded in 
 the symbolic prophecies of the Hebrew seer. How happened 
 that ? Not one only, but a system of co-ordinate cycles was 
 made the groundwork of prophetic computations. 
 
 How came that about? The theory of the discoverer is, that 
 a foreordained synchronism exists between the movements of 
 the solar system and the developments of human history. The 
 chronologies of the two are one. The mind which contrived 
 the one foreordained the other. The clock -work of the mate- 
 rial heavens and the clock-work of the history of man have 
 been created and wound up by the same Being. So reasons 
 the devout astronomer. Of course none but proficients in 
 astronomical researches and proficients in the interpretation of 
 symbolic prophecy can pronounce independently upon the 
 value of the discoveries. But the conditions attending their 
 announcement entitle them to the consideration of Biblical
 
 66 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 scholars. They place the hallowed books of our religion in 
 
 very interesting relation to human science. The Christian x 
 
 Herald. 
 
 In the lists of animals there occur nine in Deu- 
 
 V 
 
 teronomy which do not appear in Leviticus. Of 
 these, five or, six at least, probably more, are 
 creatures which do not, and never could have, lived 
 in the rich valley of the Nile, or in wooded and 
 hilly Palestine. They are all the inhabitants of 
 desert open plains, or of bare, rocky heights. They 
 are not named in Leviticus, because immediately -^ .; o 
 after the Exodus these antelopes and desert deni- 
 zens were strange to the Israelites. But after thirty- \ V ^ x 
 nine years had been passed in their haunts, they must 
 have been familiar with them all. Is it conceivable 
 that any writer of the later monarchy should have 
 inserted in his catalogue animals which he could x. 
 never have seen or known but by report ? 
 
 Harvey discovered the law of the circulation of^ + ^ 
 blood, and, although he demonstrated it by uncov- v 
 ering the heart of a live cat so that its action could 
 be seen, yet not one scientific man in one hundred 
 in his day would believe it. And yet this law is 
 plainly stated in Eccl. 12 : 6. 
 
 Jesus said, that when He would return a second 
 time to earth, it would be " Even " at one point, 
 " Midnight " at another, " Cock-crowing " at another, 
 and "Morning " at another (see Mark 13 : 35). In 
 fact He said the world was round. And yet, it was 
 thirteen hundred years before a man saw it, and 
 when he did, he was persecuted most unpityingly by
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 67 
 
 the scientific men of his day for believing what he 
 saw. 
 
 In these and other cases that might be cited, we 
 see the truth of what Sii John Herschel once said, 
 viz.: " All human discoveries seem to be made only 
 for the purpose of confirming more and more 
 strongly, the truths contained in the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures." 
 
 
 
 '
 
 68 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE ETHICS OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 Our objecting friend will tell us that the 
 writings of Confucius, Zoroaster and the old Pagan 
 Philosophers are, ethically considered, as good, if not 
 better, than the Bible. It is no doubt true that 
 these men had much light ; and that they had a 
 pretty correct conception of a very great deal of eth- 
 ical truth. From whence did they get their light 
 and knowledge? I reply, From the Bible. Our 
 friend don't know two things, viz.: First, that every 
 principle of ethical truth known to the world to-day 
 may be found, at least in germ form, in the Penta- 
 teuchal books and the book of Job ; and, Second, 
 that these books are the oldest in the world, and 
 were written centuries before these ancient writers 
 were born. We know that they were, to some 
 extent, familiar with the Hebrew Bible. By these 
 and other facts we know that they borrowed much 
 of what they wrote from the Bible. 
 
 There used to go about the country a notorious 
 and blatant infidel ; and enemies of righteousness 
 gave him tens of thousands of dollars to hear him 
 revile the Bible. He does not go around any more. 
 The people got tired of paying him their dollars, 
 and as that was the only thing he was after, except 
 notoriety, he remains at home now the most of his 
 time. In one of his assaults upon the Bible, he
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 69 
 
 would pick up a copy of the volume, and after 
 reading a few verses from it, stop abruptly, and, clos- 
 ing the book, throw it down with a slam, and then 
 say, " I beg the pardon of this audience ; I don't 
 dare to insult your intelligence and decency by read- 
 ing further." And then every man present, living a 
 licentious life, would applaud to the echo. 
 
 It is true there are things in the Bible I would not 
 read to a congregation of men and women. But 
 does that fact prove the book to be immoral and 
 untrue? Ought it on that account to be burned? 
 Go into any physician's office and you will find 
 books, the contents of which no one would think of 
 reading to an audience composed of both sexes. 
 And why? Because they treat of the pathology 
 and therapeutics of human diseases. Are these books 
 necessarily immoral? Ought they to be burned 
 on this account? The Bible treats of the pathology 
 and therapeutics of moral diseases and infirmities, 
 that are immeasurably more dreadful and awful than 
 physical and mental disorders. What wonder, there- 
 fore, that it contains statements that it would be 
 improper to read to a mixed congregation. And it 
 was never intended they should be. 
 
 A thoroughly dishonest trick of infidel scoffers is 
 to call Germany, England and the United States 
 Christian Nations ; and then pointing to the many 
 diabolical things done by citizens of these nations, 
 who hate the Bible, hold the Bible responsible for 
 them. These men know that all lovers of the Bible 
 are opposed to the slave trade, the opium and liquor
 
 70 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 traffics, polygamy and the licensing of all forms of 
 evil, bitterly, uncompromisingly and eternally op- 
 posed to these and all other iniquitous things ; and 
 are always to be found in the fore-front of the battle 
 for the right as against the wrong. The trouble in 
 this matter lies in the assumption that these are 
 Christian Nations. The majority rules, and as the 
 majority do not love the Bible, or walk, act and live 
 according to its precepts and commandments, these 
 immoralities and abominations are permitted and 
 legalized: but the enemies, and not the friends, of 
 the Bible, are responsible. 
 
 In what land under the sun is woman, in any 
 sense, the companion and equal of man, save in 
 those where the Bible is an open Book? In what 
 country of the earth are eleemosynary institutions 
 to be found, save where the Bible is freely read and 
 preached? The Bible has put a school-house on 
 every hill-top, and built a university, college, semi- 
 nary or academy in almost every county in so-called 
 Christian lands. Nine-tenths of educational insti- 
 tutions were founded, as they are controlled, by 
 those who love the Bible. These institutions are 
 not to be found in countries where the Bible is not 
 honored and exalted. The Bible has gone before 
 the white wings of commerce upon all seas ; and has 
 been in the fore-front of exploration and discovery 
 of all known lands. Its principles of equity and 
 justice are fundamental, in the common law. It is 
 the bed-rock foundation of the highest and best 
 forms of civilization, and is the World's Magna
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 71 
 
 Charta of civil liberty. It has broken the shackles 
 of the slave. It has comfort for the sorrowing, and 
 hope for the despairing. It has put vice under 
 bonds to keep the peace, and put highest premium 
 upon honesty, virtue and holiness. The late Earl 
 of Shaftesbury once said : " One city missionary is 
 as effective in guarding the peace of a community 
 as one hundred policemen." It is the best and most 
 satisfactory police power in the world. 
 
 I once read of a man who was traveling in the 
 wilds of Kentucky many years ago. He had con- 
 siderable money with him. He also was well armed. 
 One night he was obliged to stop at a double log cabin 
 in an out-of-the-way place. There were a number 
 of men about, backwoodsmen, and, to the eye of 
 this man, pretty rough looking. The traveler 
 retired early, but not to sleep. He put his money 
 under the bed, and his pistols under the pillow. In 
 about an hour after retiring, he was startled by the 
 barking of dogs and the noise of someone enter- 
 ing the cabin. He got his pistols and sat up in bed, 
 and looking through a crack into the other room, 
 saw a man he had not before seen, standing a gun in 
 a corner of the room. The other men sat before 
 the fire. The new arrival joined them. They 
 spent some time in earnest conversation. The 
 traveler could not hear what they said, but felt sure 
 they were plotting to rob, or possibly kill him. 
 Presently the late-comer, who seemed to be the 
 oldest, arose and stepping to the side of the room, 
 took from a shelf a copy of the Bible. He read a
 
 72 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 chapter aloud. When through, they all knelt while 
 he offered prayer. The traveler at once dismissed 
 his fears, put his pistols away, and, lying down, slept 
 peacefully until the morning, and all because there 
 was a Bible in the house, and the rough backwoods- 
 men living there loved it, and tried to be guided 
 and governed by its teachings. 
 
 Where, in the wide world, are there to be found 
 maxims, adages and rules for conduct, at all com- 
 parable to those in the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, 
 and the Sermon on the Mount, and the Thirteenth 
 Chapter of First Corinthians ? We have books 
 written by ALsop, Macchiavelli, Dr. Franklin, John 
 Stuart Mill, Dr. John G. Holland, and a host of 
 other gifted writers, on the laws of living and rules 
 of conduct, books that contain a vast amount of 
 wisdom, often beautifully and forcibly stated. But 
 compare them with the maxims of Solomon, and it 
 will not take one, competent to judge, a great while to 
 see that they are of a very inferior order. A stu- 
 dent came into the study of Dr. Wayland, when he 
 was President of Brown University, one day, and 
 said : " Dr. Wayland, I have been reading the Pro- 
 verbs of Solomon, and I don't think they amount to 
 much ; I believe I can write better ones myself." 
 " Well," said the doctor, " Suppose you take two 
 weeks and write half a dozen, and, when done, bring 
 them to me. I think I would like to see them." 
 The student said he would, and withdrew. The 
 two weeks passed, but he did not report. The wise 
 old Doctor had not forgotten, and sent for him.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 73 
 
 When he entered the President's office, Dr. Way- 
 land inquired : " How about those maxims you 
 were going to write for me ? " " Well ! " responded 
 the student, " I haven't succeeded. I thought it 
 would be an easy thing to do, those in the Bible 
 seemed so simple and common-place ; but the 
 more I tried, the more I found that I couldn't do it, 
 and, after boasting as I did, I was ashamed to 
 come to you and acknowledge my failure." 
 
 Prof. Huxley is about the last man one would 
 expect to say anything favorably of the Bible ; yet 
 in an article, published in the Contemporary Review, 
 Dec. 1870, from his pen, he says this: "Take the 
 Bible as a whole ; make the severest deductions 
 which fair criticisms can dictate for shortcomings 
 and positive errors ; eliminate, as a sensible teacher 
 would do, if left to himself, all that it is not desira- 
 ble for a child to occupy himself with ; and there 
 still remains in this old literature a vast residuum of 
 moral beauty and grandeur. And then consider the 
 great historical fact that, for three centuries, this 
 book has been woven into the life of all that is best 
 and noblest in English history ; that it has become 
 the national epic of Britain, and is familiar to noble 
 and simple, from John o' Groat's house to Land's 
 End, as Dante and Tasso were once to the Italians." 
 Rousseau, infidel though he was, once said : " If 
 all men were perfect Christians, individuals would do 
 their duty ; the people would be obedient to the 
 laws, governors would be just, and magistrates in- 
 corrupt."
 
 74 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Edmund Burke once said: " A religious education 
 is the cheap defense of nations." And for himself 
 he said : " I have read the Bible morning, noon and 
 night, and have ever since been the happier and bet- 
 ter man for such reading." 
 
 Lord Bacon said : " There never was found, in any 
 age of the world, either religion or law that did so 
 highly exalt the public good as the Bible." 
 
 John Locke, the illustrious metaphysician, said : 
 " In morality there are books enough written both 
 by ancient and modern philosophers, but the moral- 
 ity of the Gospel doth so exceed them all, that to 
 give a man a full knowledge of true morality, I shall 
 send him to no other book than the New Testament." 
 
 Cowper wrote : 
 
 Now tell me, dignified and sapient sir, 
 
 My man of morals, nurtured in the shad 
 
 Of Academus, is this false or true ? 
 
 Is Christ the abler teacher, or the schools? 
 
 If Christ, then why resort at every turn 
 
 To Athens, or to Rome, for wisdom short 
 
 Of man's occasions, when in him reside 
 
 Grace, knowledge, comfort, an unfathomed store? 
 
 Benj. Franklin, on one occasion, remarked: "A 
 Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school 
 in every district, all studied and appreciated as they 
 merit, are the principal support of virtue, morality, 
 and civil liberty." 
 
 During his last illness, General Andrew Jackson 
 pointed to the family Bible and said to a friend: 
 "That Book, sir, is the rock on which our republic 
 rests."
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 75 
 
 Wm. H. Seward, one of America's most able and 
 distinguished statesmen, said, on one occasion : "The 
 whole hope of human progress is suspended on the 
 ever-growing influence of the Bible." At another 
 time he remarked : " I do not believe human society 
 including not merely a few persons in any state, but 
 whole masses of men, ever has attained, or can ever 
 attain, a high state of intelligence, virtue, security, 
 liberty, or happiness, without the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 The distinguished French statesman De Tocque- 
 ville once wrote : " Bible Christianity is the com- 
 panion of liberty in all its conflicts, the cradle of its 
 infancy, and the divine source of its claims." 
 
 In the early part of the year 1891, Hon. W. E. 
 Gladstone said to Dr. T. DeWitt Talmage : " The 
 older I grow, the more confirmed I am in my faith 
 in religion. Sir," said he, with flashing eye and up- 
 lifted hand, "talk about the questions of the day, 
 there is but one question, and that is the Gospel. That 
 can and will correct everything. I am glad to say that 
 about all the men at the top in Great Britain are 
 Christians. Why, sir," he said, " I have been in pub- 
 lic position fifty-eight years, and forty-seven years in 
 the Cabinet of the British Government, and during 
 those forty-seven years I have been associated with 
 sixty of the master minds of the century, and all but 
 five of the sixty were Christians." 
 
 Abraham Lincoln said : " In regard to the Great 
 Book, I have only to say, it is the best gift which 
 God has given to man. All the good from the Saviour 
 
 of the world is communicated through this Book. 
 6
 
 76 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 But for this Book, we could not know right from 
 wrong. All those things desirable to man are con- 
 tained in it." 
 
 General Grant said : " Hold fast to the Bible as 
 the sheet-anchor of your liberties, write its precepts 
 in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To 
 the influence of this Book are we indebted for all the 
 progress made in true civilization ; and to this must 
 we look as our guide in the future." 
 
 England's noble and best Queen, Victoria, was 
 once asked, by an African Prince, who visited her 
 court on an embassy, what was the secret of Eng- 
 land's greatness. The Queen handed him a beautifully 
 bound copy of the Bible, and said : "Tell the Prince 
 that this is the secret of England's greatness." 
 
 The following beautiful poem was written by the 
 good Quaker John G. Whittier: 
 
 lady fair, these silks of mine 
 Are beautiful and rare, 
 
 The richest web of the India loom, 
 Which beauty's queen might wear ; 
 And my pearls are pure as thy own fair neck, 
 With whose radiant light they vie : 
 
 1 have brought them with me a weary way : 
 Will my gentle lady buy? 
 
 And the lady smiled on the worn old man, 
 
 Through the dark and clustering curls 
 
 Which veiled her brow as she bent to view 
 
 His silks and glittering pearls ; 
 
 And she placed the price in the old man's hand, 
 
 And lightly turned away ; 
 
 But she paused at the wanderer's call, 
 
 My gentle lady, stay ! 
 
 f
 
 . THE HIGHER CRITICS. 
 
 O lady fair, I have yet a gem 
 
 Which a purer luster flings 
 
 Than the diamond flash of the jeweled crown 
 
 On the lofty brow of Kings, 
 
 A wonderful pearl of exceeding price, 
 
 Whose virtues shall not decay, 
 
 Whose light shall be as a spell to thee, 
 
 And a blessing on thy way. 
 
 The lady glanced at the mirroring steel 
 
 Where her form of grace was seen, 
 
 Where her eyes shone clear and her dark locks waved 
 
 Their clasping pearls between. 
 
 "Bring forth thy pearl of exceeding worth, 
 
 Thou traveler gray and old, 
 
 And name the price of thy precious gem 
 
 And my page shall count the gold." 
 
 The cloud went off from the pilgrim's brow, 
 As a small and meager book, 
 Uncased with gold or gem of cost 
 From his folding robe he took ! 
 "Here, lady fair, is the pearl of price, 
 May it prove as such to thee ! 
 Nay keep thy gold I ask it not, 
 For the Word of God is free!" 
 
 The hoary traveler went his way, 
 
 But the gift he left behind 
 
 Hath had its pure and perfect work 
 
 On the high born maiden's mind. 
 
 And she hath turned from the pride of sin 
 
 To the lowliness of truth, 
 
 And given her human heart to God 
 
 In its beautiful hour of youth.
 
 78 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 And she hath left the gray old halls, 
 
 Where an evil faith hath power, 
 
 The courtly knights of her father's train, 
 
 And the maidens of her bower; 
 
 And she hath gone to the Vaudois vales, 
 
 By lordly feet untrod, 
 
 Where the poor and needy of earth are rich 
 
 In the perfect love of God,
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 79 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 Men have in all ages, and by all possible means, 
 endeavored in vain to unlock the future. God only 
 knows its mysteries. If there were no other reason 
 for believing that the Bible has God for its Author, 
 its prophetic utterances, that we know have been 
 fulfilled, should dissipate all doubts. 
 
 I have counted more than one hundred and fifty 
 distinct prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, found 
 in nearly every Old Testament book, written from 
 four hundred to fifteen hundred years before He was 
 born, all of which were fulfilled in the most minute 
 particular in His birth, life, passion, death, burial, res- 
 urrection and ascension. Glance at a few of these 
 prophecies, and then consider the testimony of the 
 Highest Critics as to their fulfillment. 
 
 BIRTH OF JESUS. 
 
 We are told in Gen. 3:15, that Christ shall be the 
 seed of the woman. In Gal. 4 : 4, we find that it 
 was even so. In Isa. 7 : 14 it is declared "A virgin 
 shall conceive and bear a son and shall call His name 
 Immanuel." Matt, i : 18-23 declares that this 
 prophecy was fulfilled in the conception and birth 
 of Jesus. So also does Luke i : 26-35. It was 
 prophesied by Micah that He would be born in Beth- 
 lehem Ephrathah, of Judah ; and, according to Matt.
 
 80 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 2:6; Luke 2:4; and John 7 : 42, it was even so. 
 Gen. 12:3; 18 : 18 ; and 22 : 18 informs us that He 
 was to be of the seed of Abraham. This is confirm- 
 ed by the testimony of Matt. I : i ; John 8 : 56 ; and 
 Acts 3 : 25. It was prophesied that Jesus would be 
 of the tribe of Judah. And it came to pass. See 
 Matt. 2: 6; Heb. 7: 14; and Rev. 5:5. It is 
 declared in Isa. n : I ; 9: 6, 7 ; Jer. 23 : 5, 6; Amos 
 9:11; and in several other places, that Jesus would 
 be " Of the house and family of David." And so He 
 was. See Matt. I : I ; Luke i : 69 ; 2:4; John 7 : 
 42 ; Acts 2 : 30 ; 13 : 22, 23 ; Rom. 1 : 3 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 
 8 ; and Rev. 22 : 16. 
 
 LIFE AND MINISTRY OF JESUS. 
 
 The heralding of Jesus, as prophesied in Isa. 
 40 : 3 ; and Mai. 3:1, was done by John the Baptist. 
 See Mark 1:2; and Luke 3:3, 4. The flight of 
 Joseph and Mary with the Child Jesus into Egypt 
 was necessary that Hosea 1 1 : i might be fulfilled. 
 Herod's slaughter of the children in Bethlehem was 
 the fulfillment of Jer. 31 : 15, we are told, in Matt. 
 2 : 16. Jesus taking up His abode in Capernaum 
 was according to the prophecy in Isa. 9: i, 2, so we 
 are informed, in Matt. 8 : 16, 17. Jesus made no 
 great ado in His work, but tried to keep His doings 
 hid from public notice. See Matt. 12 : 15-17 ; which 
 was according to Isa. 42 ; 1-3. In Psa. 78 : 2, it is 
 prophesied that He would teach in Parables. Matt. 
 *3 : 34> 35 declares that this prophecy was fulfilled 
 in His teaching. The people refused to receive His
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 81 
 
 teaching. This was all foretold by Isaiah in chapter 
 6: 10 ; and 53 : i. See John 12:37-40. His riding 
 into Jerusalem, as recorded in Matt. 21 : 1-5, was 
 predicted in Zech. 9 : 9. The fleeing of the Disci- 
 ples and leaving Him alone (Matt. 26 : 56) is just what 
 Zechariah said would be done. See Zech. 13:7. 
 
 PASSION AND DEATH OF JESUS. 
 
 The passion of Jesus is foretold in Psa. 22 : 1-18 ; 
 31:13; 89:38-45; and particularly in the 53d 
 chapter of Isaiah. Matt. 26 : 31 ; Luke 24 : 26 ; and 
 Acts 8 : 32-35 inform us that in His sufferings these 
 prophesies were fulfilled. We are told in John 
 3 : 14 that Jesus must be " Lifted up " even as typi- 
 fied in Numb. 21 :9; and we know He was. The 
 manner of His death is prophetically described in 
 Psa. 22 : 16 ; and confirmed by John 20 : 25, 27. 
 We are told that they who crucified Him cast lots 
 for His vesture (See John 19 : 23, 24). This was 
 foretold in Psa. 22:18. In John 19:33, we are 
 told : " But when they came to Jesus and saw that 
 He was dead already, they break not His legs." 
 Psa. 34:20 says, " He keepeth all His bones, not 
 one of them is broken." 
 
 BURIAL, RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF JESUS. 
 
 In Isaiah 53 : 9, we are told that " They made His 
 grave with the wicked and rich in His death." And 
 this is just what was done. See Matt. 27 : 57-60 ; 
 Mark 15: 43-46; Luke 23: 50-53: John 19: 
 38-42. In Acts 2 : 29-32 we are told explicitly
 
 82 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 that the resurrection of Jesus had taken place ac- 
 cording to the prophecy of David, as recorded in 
 Psalm 16 : 10. Jesus himself said : " Destroy this 
 temple and in three days I will raise it up. * * * 
 But he spake of the temple of his body." (John 
 2 : 19, 21). He here foretells the time He was to be 
 in the grave, as well as the fact of His resurrection ; 
 which facts were typified by the swallowing of 
 Jonah by the sea-monster, and his subsequent deliv- 
 erance. See Matt. 12:40. After the death of 
 Jesus the Scribes and Pharisees remembering what 
 He had said though the disciples seem to have 
 forgotten it about His resurrection, came to Pilate 
 and besought him to take extra precautions against 
 the thing foretold. See Matt. 27 : 62-66. But 
 their vigilance and efforts to make void the prophe- 
 cies and His own predictions, were futile. 
 
 In Psalm 110:1, it is said: "The Lord saith 
 unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I 
 make thine enemies thy footstool." Jesus Christ, 
 in quoting this prophecy to the Pharisees, who 
 sought to entangle Him in His words, left no doubt 
 as to the particular person who was to be exalted. 
 See Matt. 22 : 42-46. That He was so exalted, 
 see Acts I : 9-1 1 ; 2 : 33 ; Rom. 8:33; Heb. 1:3; 
 2:9; 9 : 24 ; and Rev. 12:5. In Eph. 4 : 8-10, it 
 is explicitly stated that the ascension of Jesus was 
 in fulfillment of the prophecy in Psa. 68: 18. Seven 
 years after the ascension of our Lord, Stephen, 
 " Being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stead- 
 fastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 83 
 
 Jesus, standing crf the right hand of God, and said, 
 Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of 
 man standing on the right hand of God." Acts 7 : 
 55-56. It is the unfailing comfort of the Lord's 
 people to know that, " If any man sin, we have an 
 Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
 righteous." I John 2 : I. 
 
 Among the last words spoken by Jesus to His 
 Disciples were these : " And He said unto them, 
 These are my words which I spake unto you while 
 I was yet with you, how that all things must needs 
 be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, 
 and the prophets, and the Psalms, concerning me. 
 Then opened He their mind, that they might under- 
 stand the Scriptures ; and He said unto them, Thus 
 it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise 
 again from the dead the third day ; and that repent- 
 ance and remission of sins should be preached in 
 his name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 
 Ye are witnesses of these things." Luke 24 : 44-48. 
 
 The prophecies relating to the Christ are not the 
 only ones which have been fulfilled. Consider those 
 relating to the dispersion of the Jews, the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem and the wasting and desolation of 
 Palestine, and you cannot help concluding that they 
 are quite as extraordinary. 
 
 Take the prophecies of the building of Babylon, 
 and the kingdom of Cyrus, uttered nearly one hun- 
 dred and fifty years before anything was otherwise 
 known of them. All fulfilled in exact detail. Dr. 
 Newman, in his archaeological researches among the
 
 84 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 ruins of Babylon, has declared, " I could take a 
 competent engineer, if I had sufficient resources, and 
 reconstruct Babylon, guided only by the prophecies 
 uttered concerning it, long years before the first 
 foundation stone was laid." We all know how fully the 
 prophecies of the overthrow and destruction of 
 Babylon were fulfilled. We know how all that was 
 said prophetically of King Cyrus, one hundred and 
 forty years before he was born, came to pass. Who 
 among the wise men of earth can tell us who is to' 
 be born one hundred and forty years hence? or, 
 inform us, infallibly, what will happen so distant in 
 the future? No, the future is impenetrable to 
 human ken. Only He who " inhabiteth eternity " 
 knows what will surely come to pass. Therefore, 
 we know He is the author of the Bible, for the 
 prophecies in its pages that we know have come to 
 pass, demonstrate the fact to us. 
 
 Let it also be noted, in this connection, how the 
 very best formularies of so-called "Advance knowl- 
 edge " relating to governmental affairs, seem to have 
 been anticipated, prophetically, in this oldest and 
 best of Books. 
 
 Is it not true that all the fundamental elements of 
 constitutional law, of this and all other civilized 
 countries, are taken from the "Mosaic Code?" Is 
 it not true that every beneficent principle of our 
 common law is suggested in the Decalogue?" 
 
 What approved methods of military science are 
 taught in the schools of the foremost nations to-day, 
 that are not to be found in the Old Testament ?
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 85 
 
 Study the campaigns and extensive military opera- 
 tions of Moses, Joshua, and that greatest military 
 leader the world ever saw, King David, and know 
 that Napoleon and Wellington, and Grant and Lee, 
 and Von Moltke, knew nothing of the science of 
 warfare strategically that they did not know and 
 practice. 
 
 What about the family, and civilized society ? Is 
 it not forevermore true that the best, highest and 
 happiest state is reached when the Bible model is 
 copied ? and the Bible standard is approximated ?
 
 88 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE MIRACLE OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 Whence but from Heaven, could men unskilled in arts, 
 In several ages born, in several parts, 
 Weave such agreeing truths, or how, or why, 
 Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie? 
 Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice, 
 Starving their gain, and martyrdom their price. 
 
 DRYDEN. 
 
 The Bible is composed of sixty-six separate books ; 
 written, humanly speaking, by about thirty-eight 
 different persons, the first and the last living quite fif- 
 teen hundred years apart. The characters of the 
 writers, the manner and surroundings of their lives, 
 and the situations, in every aspect of the cast of the 
 case, make it absolutely impossible that there could 
 have been a preconcerted plan and collusion among 
 the agents in its construction. Yet, when the Book, 
 as such, is examined, we find it harmonious 
 as a whole, symmetrical in all its proportions 
 and logically perfect. We find the same things in 
 Revelation that we find in Genesis : The garden of 
 God ; the river of life ; the tree of life ; and all liv- 
 ing creatures acting in harmony with the laws of 
 God and at peace one with another. All in the 
 Book that lies between, has but one bent and pur- 
 pose, and that is, to bring sinful, wandering, lost 
 man back to God and Paradise. Such a thing could 
 not happen so, positively it could not !
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 87 
 
 Suppose that fifteen hundred years ago a man 
 went to a marble quarry and took five blocks of 
 marble and placed them in an open field. After he 
 is dead many years, another man comes along and 
 places three stones upon the five. Then two hun- 
 hundred years later another man places seven stones 
 upon the eight ; and so, through the passing years, 
 men who never saw those who went before them in 
 this work, bring blocks of marble from the same quar- 
 ry, and place them upon the same pile, until to-day, 
 the thirty-eighth man brings the last of sixty-six stones 
 and places it in position on top of the other sixty- 
 five. What would any one expect to see ? Simply, 
 and only, a pile of stones. But, suppose, instead, a 
 statue, as perfect and artistic as ever came from the 
 chisel of Phideas or Michael Angelo, stood before 
 you. How could it be explained ? Only in one 
 way, viz.: That some great master artist mind 
 planned the work, and the thirty-eight workmen 
 simply wrought according to the known design. In 
 just such a way was the Bible constructed. The 
 infinitely wise God designed it, and the thirty-eight 
 men who constructed it, were chosen by Him to 
 execute His plans, and spake or wrote as He gave 
 them utterance. Its construction can be explained 
 upon no other grounds. 
 
 Again. It must be remembered that the Bible is 
 the oldest book in the world ; portions of it ante-dat- 
 ing, by many centuries, any other book. Also, that 
 portions of this Book were written, humanly speak- 
 ing, by ignorant and unlearned men. And yet, with
 
 88 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 all our boasted learning and progress, and the accum- 
 ulated wisdom of the centuries, it stands to-day, in 
 the estimation of the foremost Philosophers and 
 Statesmen; Scientists and Poets; Metaphysicians and 
 Historians ; Warriors and Wise men, pre-eminently, 
 the Book of books ! The only possible reason that 
 can be given for this very astonishing fact is that 
 God is its Author. And yet there are those who 
 ridicule the Book, and make light of this fact. But, 
 is it not remarkable that among the many brilliant 
 men who have denied the supernatural origin of the 
 Book, not one of them has written a better one? If 
 some one will write a better book, it will be a dem- 
 onstration to the world that the Bible is, as they 
 claim, who hate it, of human origin ; and he will 
 secure for himself such literary fame as no author ever 
 enjoyed ; and wealth by the millions. Why did not 
 Celsus, Voltaire, Hume, or Paine write such a 
 book? They were scholarly men, brilliant and accom- 
 plished, and industrious and prolific writers. They 
 hated the Book with implacable hatred. They 
 labored hard to destroy it, they had almost every 
 possible incentive to do this. Writing a better book 
 would have done it. Literary fame and wealth 
 would have been theirs, had they succeeded. Why 
 did they not do this thing ? Why do not some of 
 the bright, scholarly and gifted skeptics and haters 
 of the Book of our day, do this thing? There is much 
 boasting of scholarship and advanced learning by 
 such. They tell us that this is a progressive age ; 
 that mediaeval and ancient learning is as nothing
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 89 
 
 compared to the learning of these days. And they 
 are in a degree correct. Surely, then, they ought to 
 write a better book than those nomadic men who, 
 without libraries or universities, wrote in the very 
 dawn of history ; or, those unlettered fishermen of 
 Galilee. And they could, and would do this very 
 thing, were it not for the fact that God is the Author 
 of the Bible, and it contains, therefore, infinite 
 knowledge and wisdom. 
 
 " Where is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where 
 is the disputer of this world ? hath not God made 
 foolish the wisdom of this world ? " I Cor. i : 20. 
 
 Is it not true that man has improved upon every, 
 thing that man ever invented or did ? Place a mod- 
 ern " Consul " or " Mogul" locomotive engine along- 
 side of " The Rocket," the first locomotive engine 
 ever built, and it will be seen, at once, that great 
 improvements have been made upon Stephenson's 
 invention and labor. 
 
 The first sewing machine was but a crude affair. 
 The modern sewing machine is run by electricity, 
 and can make any article of wearing apparel worn 
 by human beings, with almost lightning rapidity. 
 Almost unnumbered improvements have been made 
 upon Howe's invention. 
 
 Morse captured the idea of telegraphy, and was 
 the first to apply it practically. But, if he were 
 alive to-day, he would hardly know the science, it 
 has made such rapid and great progress. The in- 
 struments now in use, in all the principal offices, 
 would be more a cause of wonderment to him, than
 
 90 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 the first instrument he constructed was to the 
 American people. 
 
 McCormick's invention of the reaping machine 
 was among the greatest of modern times. But the 
 improvements made upon it, are one hundred times 
 more complex and remarkable than the original 
 machine. 
 
 And it is just so with everything that man ever 
 invented or discovered. But, the first Book still 
 stands at the head, unimproved upon ; because like 
 all the works of God, it is not possible for man to 
 improve upon it. Nor, can it ever be done ; be- 
 cause like Him of Whom it treats, it is " The same 
 yesterday, to-day and forever." 
 
 Its indestructibleness attests its supernaturalness. 
 Men have tried in every imaginable way to destroy 
 it. All that learning could suggest, malevolence 
 contrive and unwearied energy accomplish, has been 
 done to annihilate it. It looked, at one time, to 
 those who hated the book and sought its destruc- 
 tion, as though their efforts would surely be 
 rewarded with success. Voltaire said : " In one 
 hundred years there will not be a copy of the Bible 
 on earth." The one hundred years have passed and 
 there are quite four hundred millions of copies of 
 the Book, printed in more than three hundred lan- 
 guages and dialects, in the world to-day. There is 
 one printed copy of the entire Book, or some portion 
 of it, for every man, woman and child of the nearly 
 fifteen hundred millions of the earth's population. 
 And the very printing press on which Voltaire
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 91 
 
 printed this prophecy, is owned by the Geneva Bible 
 Society, and is used by them in printing God's Holy 
 Word. 
 
 It seems to have thrived upon the hard treat- 
 ment to which it has been subjected. I once read 
 of an Irishman who built a stone fence for a man. 
 When they came to a settlement for the work done, 
 the land owner inquired : " How high did you 
 build the fence ? " " Four feet high, sir," was the 
 response. " But are you not afraid that it will fall 
 down?" was the second inquiry. The Irishman 
 replied: " Well, sir, I made it five feet thick, and if 
 it falls down, it will be higher than it was before." 
 and just so is it with the Bible ; the more it is 
 knocked down the higher it rises. 
 
 Those who seek its destruction surely are mad ! 
 They certainly have not calculated carefully and 
 dispassionately what would have to be done in 
 order to accomplish this thing. In order to destroy 
 the Bible, all printed copies and parts of the Book, 
 and the nearly thirty thousand manuscripts would 
 have to be destroyed. In order to do this, those 
 who hate it would have to plunge into 'Arctic snows ; 
 endure Africa's heat; brave the perils of India's 
 jungles ; and, of savage tribes in the Islands of the 
 Sea. The rice fields of China would have to be 
 traversed ; the mountains of South America 
 climbed; and, the contagions of tropical climes 
 faced. Into the slums of the world's great cities ; 
 where venomous serpents lurk by the way ; and, 
 where storm and shipwreck and death hold sway,
 
 92 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 wherever dying men are in darkness ; there, those 
 who love the Bible, have gone with the Sacred Vol- 
 ume, that despairing ones may look up and hope. 
 But even if these journeys were made, many copies 
 of the Bible are unpurchaseable. If they could 
 all be bought, those who hate the Book have 
 not money enough to buy them ; or, if they had, 
 they think too much of their money to spend it in 
 that way. Many persons who own copies would 
 not part from them even at the command of earth's 
 greatest monarch. Beside, many copies could not 
 be found though most diligent search be made. 
 
 But, suppose that all printed copies, and manu- 
 scripts were really burned, would the Bible be de- 
 stroyed ? By no means. In order to do this thing it 
 would also be necessary to go into all the libraries 
 of earth and riddle and ruin almost every book 
 that bears the imprint of brains, for, almost every 
 author of worth and note has incorporated into his 
 writings some quotations from, or allusion to, the 
 Sacred Volume. Some one has declared : " I have 
 found four hundred and thirty-six quotations from 
 the Bible, in the writings of Lord Alfred Tennyson." 
 Another declared : " I have found nine hundred and 
 twenty-six Scriptural quotations and allusions, in 
 the writings of John Ruskin." Lord Hailes, the 
 antiquarian, has declared : " I have actually discov- 
 ered the whole New Testament except eleven verses 
 in the secular writings of the first three centuries of 
 this era, and I am satisfied I can find these also." 
 
 But, if this too were done, would the Bible be de-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 93 
 
 stroyed? By no means. In order to accomplish its 
 destruction it would be necessary to ruin all works 
 of the great masters in painting and mosaic ; for, are 
 not their greatest productions all, or nearly all, 
 Scriptural incidents, truths and stories? 
 
 But would the Bible be destroyed then? By no 
 means. Music, as well as Art, would have to be 
 brought low. Mozart, Handel and Beethoven, and 
 their illustrious co-laborers, would be dishonored ; 
 for, are not their majestic harmonies inseparably 
 united with Bible truth and story? 
 
 With all this done, would the Bible be destroyed? 
 By no means. In order to do this it would be nec- 
 essary to raze to the dust of the earth every church 
 and cathedral building; and the buildings of every 
 educational and eleemosynary institution in the 
 civilized world ; for, these buildings are but the 
 practical and tangible demonstration of the truth 
 and power of the Bible. 
 
 But, if this were done, would the Bible be de- 
 stroyed ? By no means. In order to do this it will 
 be necessary to go into almost every cemetery of 
 earth and break down every monument and tomb- 
 stone ; for engraven upon these will be found some 
 word, or thought, from the Bible. 
 
 And now, with all this ruin wrought, would the 
 Bible be destroyed ? By no means. In order to ac- 
 complish its utter destruction it would be necessary 
 to annihilate every living Christian, for are they not 
 living epistles, "known and read of all men?" I 
 know of two men of whom it was once said by one
 
 94 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 who presumed to know, " Either of them could re- 
 produce the Bible from memory." I have six friends 
 any three of whom could reproduce the Bible if 
 every copy was destroyed, I have no doubt what- 
 ever. 
 
 An Irishman, who was a Roman Catholic, some- 
 where and how, became possessor of a copy of the 
 King James' version of the Bible. The Priest find- 
 ing it out, called upon him and demanded of him the 
 Book. It was handed to him and he at once threw 
 it into the fire before which they were sitting. They 
 both silently watched the flames consume it. When 
 this was done "Pat" threw'back his head and laugh- 
 ed most heartily. " Why do you laugh, you fool ? " 
 indignantly asked the Priest. Pat responded, " You 
 think you have destroyed the Book." " Indeed I 
 have," said the Priest. " Indeed you haven't," re- 
 sponded " Pat," " it is written on the fleshly tables 
 of my heart and you can't burn it." 
 
 But, after even this was done, would the Bible be 
 destroyed ? Indeed it would not. 
 
 If this thing is ever to be done, it would be neces- 
 sary to kill all unbelievers including Infidels and 
 Atheists. I never knew an Infidel or Atheist 
 who ever read the Bible through ; but somehow, they 
 have picked up some portion of it, and it is inefface- 
 ably written upon the tablets of their memories. 
 
 When all these things are done and it would be 
 necessary to do them all in order to destroy the 
 Bible what would we have left ? You might find
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 95 
 
 a man on the coast of Labrador, with a fish-bone 
 through his nose, who never heard about the Bible ; or 
 an almond-eyed Celestial beyond the fastnesses of 
 the Himalayas ; or a woolly-headed pilgrim, with 
 pedals so adjusted that you must needs look at him 
 twice in order to know which way he is traveling, in 
 the heart of the " Dark Continent." But, as the 
 Moravians and Bishop William Taylor are after 
 these, and most certain to overtake them soon, 
 unless the Destructionists desire to have things 
 lapse into utter chaos, they must hurry the comple- 
 tion of their work. 
 
 Destroy the Bible ! I have stood upon the north 
 coast, lifting itself with imperial grandeur from the 
 foundations of the earth, and watched the swellings 
 of the sea, as with long, majestic and apparently 
 resistless sweep, they hurled themselves, with all 
 their prodigious energy against the pulseless bosom 
 of the giant buttressed rocks, and, up ! up ! ! up ! ! ! 
 they climbed, until their strength was well nigh 
 gone, and then, shaking themselves into hoariness, 
 fall backward into their own watery depths. And so, 
 the surgings of infidel hate, with hellish and most 
 malignant fury, have, for centuries, hurled them- 
 selves against this book The Rock of the Eternal 
 Ages ! only, and always, to be hurled backward 
 into their own dark and damning depths. But the 
 Old Rock still stands ! 
 
 Julian the Apostate, Celsus, Porphyry, Voltaire, 
 Gibbon, Hume, Bolingbroke, Chubb, Rousseau, Did- 
 erot, Paine, all men of extraordinary genius, did
 
 96 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 their utmost to destroy the Bible ; but death claimed 
 them, and they were compelled to acknowledge the 
 claim, and they passed from their labors to give an 
 account of themselves to God. But the Book still 
 lives ! Thrones have fallen. Dynasties have per- 
 ished. Empires have disappeared in the strife of 
 Nations. Wars and tumults ; famine and pestilence ; 
 earthquake and storm ; hatred and death, have char- 
 acterized the passing years. But, the Book still 
 lives ! 
 
 Destroy the Bible ! One might as well talk of 
 puny man blotting the sun out of the sky! Indeed, 
 might as well talk of annihilating God Himself, for, 
 is it not the Eternal Logos ? 
 
 Jesus said : " Heaven and earth shall pass away, 
 but My Words shall not pass away." For 
 
 All flesh is as grass, 
 
 And all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. 
 The grass withereth, and the flower falleth ; 
 But the Word of the Lord abideth forever. 
 
 (Isa. 40 : 6-8 ; i Peter i : 24, 25.) 
 
 O, Thou blessed Word of God ! Thou didst 
 speak to me, in my ladhood, from fire-crowned, 
 smoke-wreathed Sinai, in thunder, trumpet tones, of 
 law, of condemnation and death. And then, when 
 overwhelmed with a sense of my guilt and peril, I 
 said, " Woe is me ! " for I am undone and without 
 help ! In that dark hour, Thou didst speak to me, 
 from Calvary's brow, in tones far sweeter than a 
 mother's lullaby, of One who was judged for 
 me, " Suffered for sins, the just for the un-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 97 
 
 just, that he might bring us to God ; " thus be- 
 coming " The end of the law unto righteousness to 
 every one that believeth," and faith, unquestioning, 
 said, This Word of the Gospel is true ! And Life, 
 eternal throbbed through my whole being, and hope, 
 most glorious, has ever since been mine. I 
 am here in an enemy's country. He has set un- 
 numbered snares and pitfalls to entrap me and 
 cause me to stumble. But Thou art "A lamp 
 unto my feet and a light unto my path," 
 that I may see how to safely make my way to the 
 hills of God. But for Thee, I could not know the 
 will and mind of God concerning me. Thou art 
 " The rejoicing of my heart ; " for " I rejoice," in 
 Thee, " As one that findeth great spoil." Thou art 
 more to me " Than my necessary food." Thou art 
 " Sweeter " to me " Than honey, and than the drip- 
 pings of the honey comb." " O how love I " Thee ! 
 " I will ever make Thee the Man of my counsel," 
 and the strength of my years. My father loved 
 Thee, and from his boyhood followed in Thy pre- 
 cepts to do them ; and, when dying he clasped Thee 
 to his heart ; and, when we laid him away, to rest 
 until Jesus comes, we placed Thee under his head 
 for a pillow. My dear mother has loved Thee for 
 quite seventy years, and hoped in Thy truth ; and, 
 now, after nearly four score years of journeying, she 
 sits where the shadows are lengthening into twilight, 
 rejoicing the while the light from the throne of God 
 falls upon her sweet though furrowed face. The 
 best and truest of all ages have loved Thee. I love
 
 98 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Thee ! If there were one drop of blood in my veins 
 that did not throb in intensest loyality to Thee, I 
 would let it out if it were the last. Go on Thy way, 
 Thou message from the skies ; dissipate earth's 
 darkness and gloom ; banish ignorance and super- 
 stition, and everywhere, among all peoples, let Thy 
 cleansing, saving power be felt, until the whole 
 world shall be filled with " The light of the knowl- 
 edge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Christ."
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 99 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSION THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 The Higher Critics are nearly of one mind as to 
 the " Compilation Theory," that is, they nearly all 
 accept it. But, this family of Hupfelds, though so 
 young, has grown almost beyond recognition, and 
 continues to increase. The case as it now stands, is 
 about as follows : They hold that those portions of 
 the first five books of the Bible where the name of 
 God (Elohim) is used, were written by an Elohistic 
 writer, whom they designate as E. That the pas- 
 sages where the name Lord (Jehovah) is used, were 
 written by a Jehovistic writer, whom they 
 designate as J. The absurdity of such a division 
 of these sacred writings was made evident, when at- 
 tention was called to the fact that these names were 
 used again and again, not only in the same para- 
 graph, but in the same sentence, as for instance : 
 Gen. 7:16, "And they that went in, went in male 
 and female of all flesh, as Elohim commanded him : 
 and Jehovah shut him in." Gen. 24 : 3, "And I will 
 make thee swear by Jehovah, the Elohim of 
 heaven." And, Gen. 28: 21. " Then shall Jehovah 
 be my Elohim." Common sense demanded, at this 
 point, that the Critics should abandon their theory ; 
 but, no, they simply said : "Such passages prove 
 that there was a third writer, combining the styles of 
 the ' Elohistic ' and ' Jehovistic ' writers, and we will 
 call Him J. E."
 
 100 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Then these gentlemen thought they discovered 
 that the first chapter of Genesis, about half of Exo- 
 dus and five-sixths of Leviticus were written about 
 eight hundred years after Moses ; and, because they 
 treated largely of priestly legislation, therefore, they 
 must have been written by one person ; and inas- 
 much as the names Elohim and Jehovah occur 
 many, many times in these portions of the Word, 
 they call these writings the " Priest's Code," and the 
 writer the Priestly Elhoist, or the P. E. 
 
 Then they say a " Deutronomist" writer wrote all 
 the later legislative portions of the books, and they 
 call him D. 
 
 After the Children of Israel returned from the 
 Babylonish Captivity, a " Redactor," whom they call 
 R., redacted all these writings into their present 
 shape ; and that, which to an ordinary mind consti- 
 tute* a sublime unity, the Pentateuch, was thus 
 edited. 
 
 It is true that a very few of these gentlemen be- 
 lieve that Moses did write a small portion of these 
 five books. Some say ten chapters ; some more, 
 some less ; but, the vast majority insist that Moses 
 had nothing whatever to do with these writings. 
 One of the arguments against the Mosaic author- 
 ship is this : that writing was not known in the days 
 of Moses. Unfortunately for this, in explorations 
 made recently in Egypt, extensive correspondence 
 was discovered, evidently written one hundred and 
 fifty years before the time of Moses. Thus does 
 the Almighty Himself come to the rescue of His
 
 YS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 101 
 
 own Word ; and causes the very stones to speak in 
 refutation of theories advanced by our rationalistic 
 critics. 
 
 These gentlemen don't pretend to tell us who 
 are E., and J., and J. E., and P. E. and D., and R. 
 They have no proof that such persons ever existed. 
 They are only imaginary personages. The Critics 
 simply insist that Moses did not write these books ; 
 and, as it is pretty certain that somebody did, they 
 invented writers to suit their views of the case. They 
 are pure fabrications. 
 
 Joshua, Caleb, Gideon, Samuel, David, Solomon, 
 The Prophets, Jesus, Peter, John, James, Jude and 
 Paul, knew nothing whatever of E., J., J E., P. E., 
 D., and R. The Church Fathers and Reformers 
 were in like ignorance of their existence. And fifty 
 years hence they will not be known, or thought of, 
 save as among the curious vagaries of human con- 
 ceits. 
 
 Let us now turn from the opinions and conjectures 
 of men, to the explicit testimony of the Highest 
 Critics. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 
 
 In Matt, viii, 4, He said : " Moses commanded V 
 the things in Lev. xiv, 1-12. In Matt, xix, 7, 8, He 
 said : " Moses commanded " and " Moses * * * 
 suffered you " the things mentioned in Deut. xxiv, 
 i. In Mark vii, 10, He said : Moses said, Honor thy 
 father and thy mother," quoting from Exod. xx, 10. 
 In Mark xii, 26, He said : " Have ye not read in 
 the book of Moses ? " and then quotes Exod. iii, 6.
 
 10? THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 In John vii, 19,22, 23, He said: "Did not Moses 
 give you the law ? * * * Moses therefore gave unto 
 you circumcision, * * * the law of Moses." This 
 law is recorded in Lev. xii, 3. 
 
 Of course those who accept the words of Jesus as 
 true will not doubt that Moses wrote the Penta- 
 teuch ; but those who disbelieve it will not accept 
 the testimony of Jesus, for He said : " For had ye 
 believed Moses, ye would have believed Me ; for he 
 wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, 
 how shall ye believe My words?" (John v, 46, 47.) 
 
 Dr. Leacock has put the case in the following 
 manner, and it is none too emphatic or strong : 
 
 "Accepting the judgment of the Critics, we have 
 before us two alternatives regarding Jesus: He was 
 either ignorant of the facts, and hence taught error 
 under a misapprehension ; or else He knew the 
 facts, and knowingly taught what was false, and 
 thus helped to fasten a fraud and a lie upon His 
 nation and His after Church. 
 
 " It is impossible to accept the first of these sup- 
 positions. He to whom the Spirit was given with- 
 out measure He who needed not that any should 
 testify of man, for He knew what was in man He 
 who, before Abraham was born, had existence 
 He who was with the Father from the beginning, 
 and was before all things, He surely could not be 
 ignorant of the true history of these books. If 
 therefore we accept Jesus as the only begotten Son, 
 and one with the Father, we must dismiss this first 
 supposition concerning Him.
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 103 
 
 " We turn then to the other proposition, viz., that 
 knowing the facts He suppressed them, and taught 
 what He knew to be false, and linked Himself with 
 those who had conspired to fasten upon the Jewish 
 nation and upon the world, a fraud and a lie. Can 
 this be so ? Is Jesus a fraud ? Is he a liar? Then 
 good-bye to His religion. If he is false in one par- 
 ticular, why not in all ? We have no security. The 
 foundations are swept away, for everything centers 
 in Him and depends upon His truthfulness. If He 
 is not " the truth" then our hope is gone. Let us 
 eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. 
 
 " This is disaster overwhelming that these learned 
 critics are trying to bring upon us. They remind 
 us of poor blind Samson putting forth his strength 
 to drag down the columns that supported the roof 
 over his head. There is this difference they know 
 not what they do. Nor have they Samson's 
 strength. We may dismiss our fears, and still look 
 to Jesus with unshaken confidence. " Heaven and 
 earth shall pass away ; but My words shall not pass 
 away." 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 The internal evidence, in part, is as follows : In 
 Exodus 17: 14, He said: "And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, Write this for a memorial in a [the] Book, 
 and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua." In Exodus 
 34 : 27-28, He said : "And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, Write thou these words : for after the tenor 
 of these words have I made a covenant with thee
 
 104 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 and with Israel ; * * * and he wrote upon the 
 tables the words of the covenant, the ten command- 
 ments" (words). In Num. 33: 2, He said: "And 
 Moses wrote their goings out according to their jour- 
 neys." In Deut. 31:9, 22-24, He said : "And Moses 
 wrote this law. * * * . Moses therefore wrote 
 this song the same day. * * * When Moses 
 had made an end of writing the words of this law 
 in a [the] Book." 
 
 The things said to have been written by Moses, in 
 the above passages, relate to the giving of the law, 
 the wars, various festivals, etc., belonging to the his- 
 tory of Israel during the desert wanderings. 
 
 In Josh, ii : 12, he said: "As Moses com- 
 manded" (See Deut. 7 : 1-2). In Judges I : 20, he 
 said : "As Moses had spoken" (see Deut. I : 36). 
 In i Kings 8 : 53, he said : "Thou spakest by the 
 hand of Moses." Reference is here made to Deut. 
 12: 10-11. In i Chron. 6:49, the things mentioned 
 are in Lev. i : 1-9, and it is declared that " Moses 
 * * * commanded it." In 2 Chron. 33 : 8, we 
 have the statement : " The statutes and ordinances 
 by the hand of Moses ;" in chap. 34 : 14, " The 
 book of the law of the Lord given by Moses ; " and 
 in chap. 35 : 6: "According to the word of the 
 Lord by the hand of Moses." Reference in these 
 three passages is made to Exod. 12. In Ezra 3:2, 
 we have the statement that Deut. 12, 5-6, was given 
 by Moses. In Neh. 8 : 14, we are informed that 
 Lev. 23, 34-43, and Deut. 16: 13, were by the 
 " hand of Moses ;" and in chap. 9 : 14, it is stated
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 105 
 
 that Exod. 20 : 8, was also " by the hand of Moses." 
 Dan. 9, 11-13, tells us that Deut. 28: 15-68, and 
 Lev. 26 : 14-39, are " m the law of Moses." 
 
 Acts 3 : 22, says : " Moses indeed said," and the 
 quotation is from Deut. 18 : 15. In Rom. 10 : 5, 
 (Rev. Ver.), we have : " For Moses writeth" (see 
 Lev. 18 : 5); and in chap. 10 : 19, it is declared: 
 " Moses said " (Deut. 32 : 21.) In i Cor. 9:9, he 
 said : " It is written in the law of Moses," and then 
 quotes Deut. 25: 4. In 2 Cor. 3: 15, he said: 
 " Whensoever Moses is read." The things of which 
 he here speaks are found in Exod. 34 : 29-35. In 
 Heb. 9 : 19, reference is made to Exod. 24 : 4-8, 
 where it is said : "And Moses wrote all the words of 
 the Lord." In Rev. 15: 3 he says that Deut. 32: 
 1-43, or Exod. 15 : 1-18, is "the song of Moses." 
 
 In the above citations I have not exhausted the 
 testimony of the Highest Critics on this subject by 
 any means ; nor have I given the testimony of the 
 Sadducees, who declared that Moses wrote Deut. 
 25 : 5 (see Matt. 22 : 24) ; nor of the Pharisees, who 
 said Lev. 12:2 was given by Moses (see Luke 
 2 : 22) ; nor of John the Baptist, who said : " The 
 law was given by Moses" (John I : 17); nor yet of 
 Philip, who said : " We have found Him of whom 
 Moses * * * did write " (John i : 45), all of 
 whom were certainly as well qualified to testify on 
 this subject as the Higher Critics. 
 
 Of course, the testimony of the Holy Spirit will 
 not count with most of these gentlemen, because 
 they practically deny His office work in these words.
 
 106 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 The fact is, they are compelled to deny the super- 
 natural in the Bible. They dare not say the Bible 
 is uninspired ; and so they have certain theories 
 which at the bottom, eliminate all supernatural 
 elements, and practically deny real inspiration. 
 Hence the vigor of their assaults upon verbal inspi- 
 ration. Their working postulates degrade the Bible 
 to the level of human productions. They will, 
 therefore, brush aside these testimonies of the Holy 
 Spirit, by insisting that, if He had anything to do 
 with the matter, He was so completely dominated 
 by the human characteristics of the writers, that 
 the accuracy and truthfulness of the record, cannot 
 be relied upon. This is, logically, the inevitable re- 
 sult of their theories of inspiration. 
 
 As between the testimony of the Highest and 
 " Higher Critics," no one who is loyal to God's 
 Holy Word, will hesitate for a single moment to 
 choose. No one appreciates more than I the great 
 labor of those scholarly men who have devoted their 
 great learning, with indomitable wills, to ascertain 
 the exact text of the Scriptures ; but, when they 
 set up their judgment against the plain and explicit 
 statements of the Highest Critics, then is "scholar- 
 ship run mad," and all Christians should part com- 
 pany with them. 
 
 Not a few ministers study the " Higher Critics" 
 more than the Highest. There is a notion among 
 some of them that, unless they agree with the con- 
 clusions of these learned men, they will not them- 
 selves be considered scholarly. Just here is a very
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 107 
 
 great peril. The minister, of all men, ought to be 
 careful to "prove all things," and "hold fast that 
 which is good," remembering that " If we receive 
 the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." 
 
 Human leadership in such matters is unsafe. We 
 can know the truth without the " Higher Critics." 
 Jesus said : " Howbeit when He the Spirit of truth 
 is come He will guide you into all truth" (John 16 : 
 13.) And the testimony of the Holy Spirit is this: 
 " But the anointing which ye have received of Him 
 abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach 
 you : but as the same anointing teacheth you of 
 all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it 
 hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him " (i John 2 : 
 27.) 
 
 The numerous and persistent attacks made upon 
 the integrity of the Pentateuch are not surprising 
 when we remember the defeat Satan suffered in con- 
 tending with Michael the archangel for possession of 
 the body of Moses, and the repulse Jesus gave him 
 in the wilderness struggle, with the " Sword of the 
 Spirit," by quoting three times from Deuteronomy. 
 
 The Higher Criticism is having full swing just 
 now. There is much of "a fad " in it. It will soon 
 be a curiosity among wornout speculations. 
 
 Long after the present school of " Higher Critics" 
 shall be forever forgotten, the testimony of the 
 Highest Critics as to the editorship of the Pentateu- 
 chal books will be believed by the good and true oi 
 all nations. " The word of the Lord abideth for- 
 ever." Let us possess our souls in patience. 
 8
 
 108 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 JOB. 
 
 Concerning the book of Job the Higher Critics 
 teach that it is a fictitious drama, representing an 
 Oriental debate between dark eyed Sheiks in their 
 tent, on the ways of Providence or the mysteries of 
 God's moral administration. They say it is only 
 fictitious like the parables of the Old Testament, 
 and that of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the New. 
 The view to-day is, that it was a part of the 
 Chochma or Wisdom Literature, and written either 
 in the time of Solomon, or in post-exile times. 
 
 Some of the Critics, however, quote the different 
 views of the Talmud as to the authorship of the 
 Book. Some saying it was composed in the time of 
 Moses and by him ; others in time of Abraham ; 
 others in time of Jacob ; others in time of Esther ; 
 and still others in time of David. All these, save 
 that it was written in time of Moses, and by Moses, 
 are the merest conceits. It is exceeding curious to 
 notice how these critics despise all reference to the 
 Talmud as worthless when it does not support their 
 views, but cling to it as deserving of consideration 
 when it does. The fatal postulate with the Higher 
 Critics now, is that it makes no difference who wrote 
 the Biblical Books ! They teach that the authority 
 of any part of the Bible does not depend upon the 
 knowledge of the "Authorship," but only on the
 
 F5. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 109 
 
 fact that it is in the Canon. Its claim to a place in 
 the Canon does not rest upon its authorship. This 
 is destructive to the last degree, of the value of the 
 tradition of the church, and of the authority of the 
 Apostles. Such a rule would admit the Apocrypha 
 into the Canon. If the Jewish Church ever received 
 a Book into the Canon, it was because its author was 
 known as an inspired writer. We of to-day may 
 not have the evidence who that author was ; but the 
 Church that received the Book as a part of God's 
 Word had it. The early tradition of the Church is 
 therefore of great value, and not to be set aside by 
 speculative criticism of men who hold lightly the 
 doctrine of Inspiration. 
 
 There are, apparently, a few valid reasons for be- 
 lieving that Moses was the writer of the Book; 
 but, the preponderance of evidence is against such 
 view and clearly in favor of a pre-Mosaic author- 
 ship. 
 
 There is not sufficient proof either from the 
 literary style, or contents, or form, that it was a 
 production written after the entrance into Canaan. 
 It belongs on its very face to the times of the 
 Patriarchs, and the philosophical discussions of the 
 " Sons of the East." It was not possible for a Jew, 
 living in Solomonian or post-exile times, in Pales- 
 tine, to produce a work like this. No post-Solo- 
 monian writer could reproduce the times before 
 Moses as here ; nor keep himself so completely as 
 not to betray by something the Hebrew times in 
 which he lived. The whole physiognomy of the
 
 110 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Book is Arabian, is of the East, and the desert, 
 in its minutest features, without one solitary kind 
 of Jewish life, custom or mode of thought. The 
 entire -manner of discussion is as different from the 
 Jewish manner of debate, as it is from the manner 
 of discussion among the Greeks and the Romans. 
 
 The following are some of many specific reasons 
 for believing that the Book is pre-Mosaic : 
 
 First The length of life peculiar to the time. 
 
 Second The worship of Sun, Moon and Stars 
 and no mention of idols. 
 
 Third Riches reckoned by cattle. 
 
 Fourth The head of the family is priest. 
 
 Fifth The kind of coin mentioned. 
 
 Sixth The musical instruments mentioned. 
 
 Seventh No sacrifices such as are named in the 
 Pentateuch mentioned. 
 
 Eighth No reference, whatever, to the Mosaic law. 
 
 Ninth No reference to the Exodus. When it is 
 remembered that no fact in ancient Jewish history 
 is so frequently and prominently referred to in 
 nearly all the Old Testament books, as this, the 
 entire absence of any statement concerning this most 
 important fact in the history of God's chosen 
 people, or allusion to it in Job, is an unanswerable 
 argument in favor of the un-Jewish and pre-Mosaic 
 origin of the Book. 
 
 Tenth No allusion to a Jew, or a Hebrew, or the 
 Holy land, or Jerusalem, or the Tabernacle, or the 
 Temple. All this adds emphasis to the ninth argu- 
 ment, and is strikingly significant.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. Ill 
 
 Eleventh The expression " Sons of God." 
 
 Twelfth The philosophy of Temah. 
 
 Thirteenth The manner of discussion. 
 
 Fourteenth It is highly probable that some of the 
 parties who are prominently named in Job were 
 identified with the times immediately following 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Gen. 36 : 4, 10, 
 mention is made of Eliphaz, as a son of Esau. And 
 Esau and his descendants lived in Mount Seir and 
 beyond in the way of the east. " Bildad the 
 Shuhite, ' whose appellation, " the Shuhite," may 
 connect him with Shuah, the sixth son of Abraham 
 by Keturah (Gen. 25 : 2). The sons of Abraham by 
 Keturah occupied the country towards the Persian 
 Gulf. Also " Elihu the Buzite." If he descended 
 from " Buz," a son of Nahor, as seems quite proba- 
 ble See Gen. 22 :2i he was a nephew of Abra- 
 ham. The family of " Buz " also settled in the 
 borders of the Arabian desert. See Jer. 25 : 23. In 
 Gen. 10: 29, and i Chron. 1 : 23, mention is made of 
 Jobab, the son of Zerah, the son of Esau. In 
 Smith's Bible Dictionary we are told : " That in a 
 notice appended to the Alexandrian version it is 
 stated: " He (Job) bore previously the name of 
 Jobab ; " and that a tradition adopted by the Jews 
 and some Christian Fathers, identified Job with 
 Jobab, prince of Edom, mentioned in Gen. 36 : 33. 
 The names of Abram, Jacob and Joshua were 
 changed ; and, taking the above-mentioned things 
 into the account it is very probable that Job was 
 once called Jobab. This places him in the time of
 
 112 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Eliphaz, Bildad and Elihu, all of whom were, with- 
 out doubt, descendants of Abraham and sons of the 
 east. The Book itself is identified with these per- 
 sonages and times. Ewald asserts very positively 
 that in all the descriptions of manners and customs, 
 domestic, social and political, and even in the 
 indirect allusions and illustrations, the genuine col- 
 oring of the age of Job is of the period between 
 Abraham and Moses ; and that all historical exam- 
 ples and allusions are taken exclusively from patri- 
 archal times. M. Renan, Hahn, Schlottman, and 
 other critics fully agree with this opinion. 
 
 Fifteenth In Job 30: 1-7, the Bushmen are men- 
 tioned. They belonged to a very early age, and 
 doubtless disappeared before the time of Moses. 
 The plain inference from the above passage is, that 
 the writer must have known them from his own per- 
 sonal observation. 
 
 The position of the Critics that this Book is a par- 
 able, is, like most of their working rules, but an au- 
 dacious assumption. The personality of Job is clear- 
 ly and most positively established by the Lord God. 
 In Ezekiel 14: 14 it is said: " Though these three 
 men, Noah, Daniel and Job were in it (the land of 
 Israel), they should deliver but their own souls by 
 their righteousness, saith the Lord God." Mark, it 
 is " The Lord God " who here speaks ; and what He 
 says utterly refutes the assumption of the Critics 
 that Job is a " Fictitious character." 
 
 Besides this, the Holy Spirit, by the Apostle 
 James, speaks thus upon this matter : " Ye have
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 113 
 
 heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the 
 end of the Lord, that the Lord is very pitiful, and 
 of tender mercy." Jas. v: n. Can any one with 
 unbiased and unprejudiced mind read the above 
 quotation and doubt the personality of Job ? Is it 
 possible that the Holy Spirit had any other than 
 a historical person in mind when He indited these 
 words ? 
 
 Parables were used by our Lord as illustrations. 
 In their structure and distinctive characteristics they 
 are uniformly and as truly unlike the Book of Job 
 as the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore the dec- 
 laration that the Book is a parable is a bare and 
 bold assumption. 
 
 The Book of Job belongs to a time far too early 
 for works of fiction. The earliest writings are 
 chronological and historical. It is demonstrably 
 true that fiction belongs to a much later age to 
 a time when authorship, by well known laws of de- 
 velopment, became an art. In order to meet this 
 argument, the Critics are compelled to assign the 
 work to post-exile times. 
 
 The singular air of reality in the entire record 
 makes it quite improbable that any one with an 
 unbiased mind could believe it to be fictitious. If 
 it is fictitious a Jew must have written it. Uz was 
 in no way associated with Israelitish history. These 
 peoples were unfriendly, if not, indeed enemies. 
 Is it thinkable that a Jew would have made such 
 heroes as this Book contains of an unfriendly race ? 
 
 The uniqueness, beauty and incomparable merits
 
 114 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 of the work all must admit. Carlyle says : "Apart 
 from all theories about it, I call the Book of Job 
 one of the grandest things ever written with a 
 pen." Froude speaks of Job as a " Book of which 
 it is to say little to call it unequaled of its kind, 
 and which will one day, perhaps, when it is al- 
 lowed to stand on its own merits, be seen towering 
 up alone, far away above all the poetry of the 
 world." The Critics ignore the Supernatural in 
 their working rules. The Sacred Writings are sub- 
 jected to the same tests as the writings of men, 
 and thus degraded to the same level. But these 
 gentlemen don't try to explain why this oldest 
 writing stands to-day unequaled as a literary pro- 
 duction and commands such testimonies as the 
 above. Judged by any established law of criticism, 
 of the progress and development of literature, and 
 only one conclusion can be reached, viz.: it has a 
 Supernatural origin God is its Author.
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 115 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE PSALMS. 
 
 It is a first principle with the " Higher Critics " to 
 set aside even the most venerated and well estab- 
 lished tradition and belief of the Jewish Church as 
 to the authorship and purport of the Psalms, and 
 decide for themselves, their date, origin, occasion, 
 authorship and meaning on purely internal grounds, 
 and their own evolutionary construction of the his- 
 tory of Israel. The so called " Scientific Criticism" 
 that assigned the Pentateuch to unknown authors 
 and redactors from eight hundred to one thousand 
 years after Moses was dead, finds no difficulty in 
 doing a like service for the Psalms of King David. 
 The deniers of Supernatural Inspiration, who limit 
 the prophetic gift, or foreknowledge of the Prophet 
 to his own " Historical situation," find it easy not only 
 to put David's Harp in the hands of some romantic 
 Maccabean, but to protest that David never wrote 
 the Psalms which are expressly ascribed to him, in 
 the titles, although our Lord and His Apostles say 
 he did ! For instance, since their imaginary "Elo- 
 histic writer" as they call him, i. <?., the author of 
 Psalms where the name God is used, did not live 
 until after the exile, it is a necessity with them to put 
 their "God-Psalms "as they call them down, at as 
 low a date as possible, even into Maccabean times, 
 /. e. y 170-160 B.C. When evangelical men object to 
 these critics that in many of the Davidic Psalms and
 
 116 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 which are expressly ascribed to David, there are 
 clear references to the Pentateuch and a constant 
 use of the name " Elohim," they meet the objection 
 by simply saying that David never wrote these 
 Psalms, and that Christ and His Apostles were mis- 
 taken in thinking that he did ! They take advantage 
 of the fact that quite a number of the Psalms are 
 anonymous. They do more ; they are so bold as to 
 contradict the titles of Psalms that are not anony- 
 mous. They say that all the titles of the Psalms are 
 pure inventions of late redactors or compilers. They 
 say the Hebrew Psalter gives to David fewer Psalms 
 than the Septuagent Version without explaining 
 why. They cite the fancies of some Talmudist and 
 a few evangelical commentators, as to certain 
 Psalms, and represent as their critical conviction 
 what was merely a transient speculation. They 
 review the judgment of the official custodians of the 
 Sacred Oracles, the judgment of centuries, and assert 
 that, because successive editions of the Psalms were 
 made as the Psalmody increased, therefore the men 
 of Solomon's time, and Hezekiah's time, and Ezra's 
 and Nehemiah's time, were ignorant of just what 
 Psalms David wrote. These collectors made blun- 
 ders, it is said, in their selections, as they did in their 
 titles, and transmitted to us a Psalter the arrange- 
 ment and contents of which not only deceived the 
 Jewish people, the Sanhedrim, the Scribes, the 
 Elders and the Priests, but Christ, the Apostles 
 and the whole Christian Church, and will not 
 stand the tests of literary and historical criticism
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 117 
 
 for one hour ! Some of them go so far as to say 
 that Christ and His Apostles were the dupes of the 
 later synagogue, and of Scribes who tampered with 
 the Hebrew Bible ; and that they accommodated 
 themselves to the " tendency of the times which 
 was to ascribe everything to Moses or David." 
 
 The audacity of some of these gentlemen is indeed 
 startling. That which is sacred to the thought and 
 heart of millions of the most holy and intelligent 
 people the world over, and, which has been vener- 
 ated for ages, is disposed of with as little ceremony 
 as though it were a fable, or, they, themselves, were 
 the disciples of Voltaire. Their arbitrary disposi- 
 tion of the traditions of the church is alarming; and, 
 their arrogant assumption that scholarship is all 
 with them, is the most stupendous specimen of 
 " cheek," of modern times. 
 
 Let us now look into the case and then examine 
 the testimony of the Highest Critics. The three- 
 fold division of the Old Testament was " Moses, 
 the Prophets and the Writings." " Moses" meant 
 the Pentateuch. The " Prophets " meant not only 
 the prophetical but also the historical books of the 
 Old Testament, for the Prophets were the Histori- 
 ographers of Israel. The " Psalms " stood at the 
 head of the third great division which included all 
 the rest of the Jewish Scriptures, and gave to the 
 whole collection their name. Besides this they were 
 called simply the " Writings " (Kethubim) or " Ha- 
 giographa," the " Sacred Writings." The fact that 
 the Psalms were classed with the " Kethubim," or
 
 118 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 third great division as was also th*e prophecy of 
 Daniel did not mean that this division was inferior 
 in authority to the preceding, for " every Scripture 
 is God-breathed," and was so regarded by the Jews. 
 From Moses to Malachi all was of divine authority. 
 The inspiration of the Word of God is not the 
 illumination of mere natural genius such as we see 
 in Homer, Dante, or Milton, but was a supernatural 
 enduement by the Holy Spirit. It was this inspi- 
 ration that gave us the Psalms. 
 
 The arrangement of the Psalms is very remark- 
 able. Prof. Delitzsch says : " The Psalter is a Pen- 
 tateuch, the echo of the Five Books of Moses, from 
 the heart of Israel. It is the five Books of the 
 Church to Jehovah as the law is the Five Books of 
 Jehovah to the Church." This is a wonderful cor- 
 respondence, and was noticed by the Fathers of the 
 Church. Hyppolytus was clear that " This five-fold 
 division of the Psalms was made with reference to 
 the Pentateuch." The division is as follows : 
 
 Book I. This contains 41 Psalms, /. e., 1-41. Of 
 these, 37 are expressly ascribed to David as their 
 author. Psalms 10 and 33 which are anonymous 
 are nevertheless Davidic, as they are simply the con- 
 tinuation of Psalms 9 and 32. The two introduc- 
 tory Psalms, i and 2, though anonymous, are clearly 
 Davidic, for Peter quotes the Second Psalm as a 
 Psalm of David, Acts 4 : 25-27, and, by all interpre- 
 ters, Psalms I and 2 are regarded as but parts of but 
 one Psalm. Thus the whole 41 are genuine Psalms 
 of David. The prevailing name of God is "Je-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 119 
 
 hovah." It is a harmless thing to call them " Jeho- 
 vistic Psalms," but the conclusion drawn by the 
 " Higher Critics " that the author of Psalms that 
 have the name of Elohim as the prevailing name 
 was not David, is but a bold assumption and not to 
 be tolerated one moment. 
 
 Book II. This contains 30 Psalms, *'. e., from 42 to 
 72, inclusive. It begins with 7 Psalms for the Sons 
 of Korah. Psalm 43 is part of Psalm 42. Both are 
 anonymous. There is no solid argument against their 
 Davidic authorship. Psalm 50 is a Psalm of Asaph. 
 Then come 2 1 Psalms of David, i. <?., from 5 1 to 72. 
 Psalms 66, 67 and 71 are anonymous, but are never- 
 theless Davidic. Psalm 72, concerning, or with ref- 
 erence to Solomon, is undoubtedly a Psalm of 
 David. So that, save the Asaph Psalm, this whole 
 group belongs to David. The prevailing name of 
 God, is Elohim. Hence they are called " Elohistic 
 Psalms." 
 
 Book III. This contains 16 psalms, i.e., from 73 
 to 89, inclusive. It begins with eleven Psalms of 
 Asaph, i. e., from 73 to 84. Then come four Psalms 
 for the Sons of Korah, all Davidic, i. e., from 85 to 88. 
 Psalm 89 belongs to Ethan. Sometimes the name 
 " Jehovah," and sometimes the name Elohim, is 
 used. 
 
 Book IV. This, also, contains 16 Psalms, i. e., 
 from 90 to 106, inclusive. It begins with the oldest 
 Psalm, the only Psalm anterior to David in the 
 whole collection. Its author was " Moses, the man 
 of God." Its historical occasion was the end of the
 
 120 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 wilderness-wandering and the sentence of death 
 recorded in Numbers 14 : 28, etc. The rest of this 
 group are anonymous, except Psalm 101 and 103, 
 which are expressly ascribed to David. " Jehovah " 
 is the only name used here. 
 
 Book V. This contains 43 Psalms, /. e., from 107 
 to 150 inclusive. Of these, 15 are expressly assigned 
 to David, viz.: 108, 109, no; 122, 124, 131, 133; 138- 
 145. Psalm 127 is assigned to Solomon. Psalms 
 111-113, II 5~ II 7> an d 146-150, eleven in all, are 
 Hallelujah Psalms, i. e., beginning or ending with 
 " Praise ye the Lord ! " The great Mercy Psalm is 
 Psalm 1 36, in which the Lord's mercy is celebrated 
 twenty-six times. The anonymous Psalms are 107, 
 111-114; 118-121, 123, 125-130, 132,134,136,137, 
 146-150; twenty-five in all. Several of these are 
 clearly Davidic because continuing the preceding 
 one which is ascribed to David. Others are de- 
 monstrably so, from their style and contents, even 
 without a title. The Jews call the anonymous 
 Psalms " Orphan Psalms." The prevailing name in 
 this group is " Jehovah." In this group there are 
 fifteen " Pilgrim Psalms," or " Songs of Degrees," 
 viz.: from 120 to 134. 
 
 Such are the divisions of the five-fold Psalter. Of 
 these, 75 Psalms are expressly assigned to David 
 and a large majority of the rest are clearly his, even 
 without a title ; one to Moses, one to Solomon, 12 
 to Asaph, eleven for the " Sons of Korah," one to 
 Heman, one to Ethan, 15 Pilgrim Songs, eleven 
 Hallelujah Psalms, or 12 if we include the great
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 
 
 "Mercy Psalm;" 51 are anonymous; 34 have no 
 title or superscription the " Orphan Psalms." 
 These " Orphan Psalms " the Talmud, Hilary, Jerome 
 and others, assign to the author named immediately 
 preceding. The fancy of the Septuagint Version 
 that they are to be distributed, to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
 Haggai and Zechariah has no historical foundation. 
 Far more likely they are parts of systems of Psalms 
 whose authors names are given. 
 
 When it is said that David wrote the Psalms, and 
 the New Testament cites the Psalms as the " Words 
 of David," this does not mean that David wrote all 
 the Psalms, for some are expressly assigned to other 
 authors to Moses, Solomon, Asaph, Heman and 
 Ethan. Some have superscriptions or titles, others 
 are anonymous. The designation of the whole col- 
 lection took its name from David, the chief author, 
 just as the name Ephraim was given to the ten 
 tribes beczftise Ephraim was the greatest of them 
 all. The most of the anonymous Psalms are indis- 
 putably the Psalms of David, as even an ordinary 
 English reader might tell, from their tone, spirit, 
 style and historical occasions. Every Psalm quoted 
 by our Lord and His Apostles, as by David, was real- 
 ly such. Some, even without a title to them, are 
 ascribed to David in the New Testament. The sec- 
 ond Psalm is an instance of this, and this deter- 
 mines the authorship of the first Psalm, for the 
 original unity of both, as one Psalm, is admitted. 
 Whatever disputes the Critics may raise as to the 
 value of the superscriptions, the words of Christ
 
 122 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 and His Apostles are authority that should be un- 
 hesitatingly recognized by all professing Christians. 
 The rejection of the authorship of certain Davidic 
 Psalms by certain critics, the denial of the au- 
 thenticity of others on purely speculative grounds, 
 or on a false view of Jewish history ; the asser- 
 tion that the titles and doxologies are inventions 
 of compilers and redactors; the attempt to in- 
 validate Davidic authorship by setting up a non- 
 correspondence of the Psalms with the person- 
 ality and times of David, and the relegation of 
 Psalms to a date low down as the Maccabees, 
 ought to be resisted in the interest of true criticism 
 as directly in the face of all tradition and of the au- 
 thority of Christ Himself. 
 
 It is an unscholarly criticism, as even a half-scholar 
 might easily see to conclude that, because certain 
 Psalms are anonymous therefore they were not writ- 
 ten by King David. There is an order 'and an au- 
 thorship, often not hard to be recognized, even 
 where everything at first sight seems to be arbitrary 
 and fortuitous. As Prof. Binney of Aberdeen says : 
 " In not a few of the anonymous Psalms the hand of 
 David may be distinctly traced." Dr. J. A. Alex- 
 ander says : " The authorship is not always as obscure 
 as at first sight it might seem. There are pairs of 
 Psalms where the author's name is found only with 
 the first. We may trace not only pairs but trilogies. 
 And even more extensive systems of Psalms, each in- 
 dependent of the rest, particularly when the nucleus 
 or the basis of the series is an ancient Psalm for in-
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 123 
 
 stance, one of David's to which others are added." 
 Hengstenberg tells us that " David was the author 
 of the alphabetic Psalms, and to him belongs the 
 formation of the pairs of Psalms, and the larger 
 Psalm-cycles" Prof. Sayce tells us that the men of 
 Hezekiah's time collected all the Psalms of David 
 and those of other Psalmists " from the Temple-Li- 
 brary." See 2 Chron. 29 : 30 ; and Neh. 12:46. Is 
 it at all likely that the best educated men of Israel, 
 editing the Psalms of David and of Asaph, under 
 the very eyes of Isaiah, the greatest of all the 
 prophets a preacher in the Temple did not know 
 what the Psalms of David were ? The words of Dr. 
 J. A. Alexander, believed by many competent 
 judges to be the ablest scholar of this generation, 
 ought to have weight with seekers after truth. He 
 says : "All the attempts so strenuously made by mod- 
 ern Critics to discredit the inscriptions to the Psalms 
 as spurious additions of a later date, containing 
 groundless conjectures often at variance with the 
 terms and substance of the Psalm itself, are defeated 
 by the fact that they are found in the Hebrew text, 
 as far back as we can trace it, not as addenda, but 
 as integral parts of the composition." And, again : 
 "The Psalms were not thrown together at random, 
 but adjusted by a careful hand. The modern critics 
 have tasked their ingenuity to prove that the Psalms 
 are separate and detached collections, contempo- 
 raneous or successive, by unknown authors and com- 
 bined afterwards to form the present Psalter. But 
 they have never been able to account for the re-
 
 124 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 markable position of the " Psalms of David " in all 
 parts of the book, a book whose five-fold arrange- 
 ment dates from Ezra, whom uniform tradition and 
 analogy agree in representing as the inspired collect- 
 or of the Canon a competent, rather, an infallible 
 authority." 
 
 Let us now examine the testimony of the Highest 
 Critics. The last question our Lord put to the 
 Pharisees was this : " What think ye of Christ ? 
 Whose Son is He ? " They answered, " David's 
 Son." Very well, said Jesus, " If David in Spirit, 
 i. e., if King David by inspiration of the Holy Spirit 
 calls Him ' Lord,' how is He David's Son ? " 
 The one hundred and tenth Psalm says: "Jehovah 
 said unto Adonai, sit on my right hand until I make 
 thine enemies thy footstool." If Messiah is David's 
 Son, how is He David's Lord ? There was only one 
 answer to this, and the Pharisees, who certainly 
 understood Hebrew, saw it and refused to make it. 
 It was that Messiah should be both God and man in 
 one person. They felt the force of it. They were 
 silenced, for the whole nation admitted that the 
 Psalm was Messianic, and that David was its author, 
 and spoke by the Holy Spirit. The Lord vindi- 
 cated His claim to Deity and Messiahship by appeal 
 to the inspired words of the King of Israel. Let it 
 be noticed that Christ refers to this in Matt. 22:41- 
 46; Mark 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44. Peter 
 referred to it on the Day of Pentecost. See Acts 
 2:34-36. Paul also mentions it in Heb. 1 : 3, 4, 13. 
 All say the Psalm is a prophecy concerning Jesus
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 125 
 
 Christ, and given by David through whom the Holy 
 Spirit spoke. We learn from these passages (i) that 
 " David Himself " spoke the Psalm ; (2) that the 
 " Holy Spirit " .by the " Mouth of David " said it, 
 " David in the Spirit," " David in the Holy Spirit," (3) 
 that the Psalm was what " God " said ; (4) and that 
 David, Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul and the Holy Spirit 
 are a unit in this testimony. 
 
 Now, what says the " Higher Criticism ? " It flatly 
 denies all this, and teaches that David never wrote 
 the Psalm ; that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do 
 with it ; that the Jewish nation was deluded in 
 thinking it to be Messianic ; that Jesus did not 
 know any better, not being a Higher Critic ; that 
 both Peter and Paul, as well as Christ, were simply 
 the victims of an old and popular idea; and that 
 we, imitating them, are no better than they. Here 
 it is in their own words : " It is usual to take this 
 Psalm as Messianic, and interpret it of Messiah's 
 warfare and exaltation. The New Testament is 
 cited as proof of this. Our Lord Himself says that 
 David wrote it with regard to a greater than himself ; 
 that is, the expected Messiah. Again, it is alleged 
 that Peter in the Acts, takes the Messianic import 
 for granted. But Christ did not meddle with critical 
 questions connected with the Old Testament, as His 
 mission was of another character. He simply acqui- 
 esced in the current views of such questions, as long 
 as they did not affect the nature of that mission 
 * * * In regard to the Apostles, we cannot in 
 all cases, adopt their interpretations of the Old Tes-
 
 126 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 tament, since they were not infallible. The Psalm 
 probably refers to the Maccabean times, and to one 
 of the Hasmonean Princes, such as Jonathan." 
 (HEBRAICA, April, 1889, p. 102.) 
 
 What are we here told ? That Jesus Christ was 
 an ignorant man in matters of authorship and exe- 
 gesis. That two days before His death He applied 
 to Himself, in proof of His Deity and Messiahship, 
 and in view of His resurrection and ascension to 
 God's right hand, a military poem that referred to 
 a brother of Judas Maccabeus, that was not writ- 
 ten by David at all, but by some one unknown to 
 the world, nearly nine hundred years after King 
 David's death ; and, that the testimony of the Holy 
 Spirit by the Apostles is false, and, therefore, not 
 to be believed. In my humble judgment this is de- 
 structive to the last degree, and comes perilously 
 near blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 
 
 In Acts 1:15, 1 6 we are informed that Peter said 
 that " David spake " the things recorded in Psalm 
 41 : 9. On the Day of Pentecost he said: "For 
 David saith concerning Him, ' I beheld the Lord 
 always before my face ; for He is on my right hand 
 that I should not be moved ; therefore my heart 
 was glad and my tongue rejoiced ; moreover my 
 flesh also shall dwell in hope, because Thou wilt not 
 leave my soul in Hades ; neither wilt Thou suffer 
 Thy Holy One to see corruption. * * * Being 
 therefore a prophet * * * he foreseeing this 
 spake,'" etc., etc. Acts 2 : 25-32. Notice the ex- 
 plicit statements of Peter : " David saith ;" " there-
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 127 
 
 fprebeinga prophet ;" <: he (David) foreseeing this 
 spake." According to this testimony David wrote 
 the Sixteenth Psalm. If he did not, Peter lied. 1 
 believe he told the truth, for he had a mouth and 
 wisdom, which all his adversaries were not lible to 
 withstand or to gainsay. 
 
 When Peter and John returned to their own com. 
 pany after imprisonment and dire threatening, the 
 disciples with one accord said : " Who by the Holy 
 Ghost, by the mouth of our father David thy ser- 
 vant, didst say," and then they quote Psalm 2:1,2 
 (see Acts 4: 25, 26). If David did not write the 
 first and second verses of the second Psalm, " By 
 the Holy Ghost," the Apostles bore false testimony. 
 I believe they knew what they were talking about, 
 and that they told the truth. 
 
 Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, says : "Even as 
 David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, 
 unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from 
 works, saying : ' Blessed are they whose iniquities 
 are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed 
 is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin.' " 
 Rom. 4 : 6-8. The quotation is from Psalm 32 : 1,2; 
 and Paul says that David is the author of what is 
 there said. I believe Paul told the truth. 
 
 In Rom. 11:9, 10, Paul says explicitly that David 
 said the things uttered in Psalm 69 : 22, 23. 
 
 In Heb. 4 : 7, we are informed that David is the 
 author of Psalm 95 : 7, 8. 
 
 We here have the unequivocal testimony of the 
 Highest Critics that King David was the author of
 
 128 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 parts and if of parts, certainly of the whole of the 
 second, sixteenth, thirty-second, forty-first, ninety- 
 fifth and one hundred and tenth Psalms. To deny 
 this is to impeach the testimony of the Son of God, 
 the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles. 
 
 Many of these critics not only deny the Davidic 
 authorship of the Psalms, but that they contain any 
 Messianic prophecy whatever. Here are a few 
 specimens : " Psalm 88. This Psalm is not Messi- 
 anic. A suffering Messiah is unknown to the Old 
 Testament." " Psalm 109. This Psalm is not Messi- 
 anic ; neither can the use of it by Peter, as recorded 
 in the Acts, make it apply to Jesus ! And it does 
 not suit the character of David, as if he were the 
 author speaking prophetically." " Psalm 118. This 
 Psalm was applied to Messiah at the time of Christ, 
 as the citation of the twenty-second verse, in the 
 Gospels and the Acts show. But it is not neces- 
 sary to suppose, on that account, that such was the 
 original sense." Speaking of the Messianic prophe- 
 cies meeting their fulfillment in Christ : " The proph- 
 ets never thought of making such a combination, 
 nor could such a combination be harmoniously 
 made." The second Psalm " has reference to the 
 reigning king. Whether this king was David or 
 Solomon is immaterial for our present purpose." 
 The twenty-second Psalm " evidently refers to 
 David. Throughout this whole Psalm he describes 
 his own personal feelings and experiences." 
 
 " The forty-fifth Psalm, as its title indicates, is a 
 ' song of loves' that is, a song in celebration of
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 129 
 
 love. It seems to have been a bridal hymn, sung at 
 the marriage of a king." The one hundred and 
 tenth Psalm " was evidently written concerning 
 David by some poet of his time, who would nat- 
 urally speak of him as his lord." When Christ 
 quoted Ps. 41 : 9 in Jno. 13 : 18, " He does not mean 
 to imply that the passage in the Psalm had an orig- 
 inal reference to Judas." Although Paul applied the 
 sixty-ninth Psalm to Christ, " from beginning to end 
 of the Psalm there is not the slightest allusion to 
 Christ or to any person other than the Psalmist." 
 When Peter quoted the sixteenth Psalm in Acts 
 2 : 2J, " there is no evidence whatever to indicate 
 that the doctrine of the resurrection was conceived 
 in David's day. This fact Peter must have known. 
 Hence he could not have imagined that the passage 
 taught the resurrection of the Messiah." 
 
 And so on ad infinitum, we might almost say, un- 
 til the head is weary of the contemplation, and 
 " the whole heart faint," if one entertains an ex- 
 pectation of salvation and heaven through the Word 
 of the Living God. 
 
 The Messianic Psalms predict, typically and pro- 
 phetically the Advent, Life, Character, Sufferings 
 and Glory of Jesus Christ. Also His Kingdom and 
 His Salvation for Israel and the Nations. They are 
 Psalms pervaded with the hope of better times for 
 all mankind. This hope entered into the very warp 
 and woof of the Hebrew life, and King David gave 
 it the fullest expression. The following are some of 
 these Psalms : 2, 8, 16, 22, 24, 40, 45, 68, 72, 95,
 
 130 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 100,109, no, 116, 1 1 8. The Highest Critics "bear 
 the following testimony to the Messianic import of 
 these and other Psalms : In Matt. 13 : 35, it is de- 
 clared that the prophecy in Psalms 78 : 2, was ful- 
 filled in the teachings of Jesus. Psalm 118: 26 is 
 certainly a prophecy of Jesus. See Matt. 21:9, 
 and John 12: 13. In Matt. 21 : 16, Jesus interprets 
 Psalm 8 : 2 as true of His ministry. In Matt. 22 : 
 44 ; Mark 12 : 36; and, Luke 20 : 42, 43, Jesus, as we 
 have seen, declares that Psalm no: I, refers to Him- 
 self. The prophecy in Psalm 22 : 18, was fulfilled 
 in the casting of " lots " for the Saviour's garments. 
 See Matt. 27: 35 and John 19: 24. His last words 
 as recorded in Matt. 27 : 46 and parallels, are 
 recorded in Psalm 22 : I. Psalm 31 : 5, is applied by 
 Jesus to Himself. See Luke 23 : 46. " Hath not 
 the Scripture said that the Christ cometh of the 
 seed of David." (John 7 : 42.) Psalms 89: 3, 4, 
 and 132: II, are the Scriptures referred to. Jesus 
 said, " But that the Scripture may be fulfilled, he 
 that eateth my bread lifteth up his heel against me." 
 The Scripture Jesus here quotes as true of His be- 
 trayer is Psalm 41 : 9. Jesus said : " But this cometh 
 to pass, that the word may be fulfilled that is written 
 in their law. They hated me without a cause." 
 He quoted Psalms 35 : 19; 69: 4; and, 109: 3, and 
 applied them to Himself. Jesus, while on the 
 cross, " That the Scripture might be accomplished, 
 saith, ' I thirst'" (John 19: 28.) The Scripture to 
 which He referred is Psalm 69: 21. This is most 
 striking ! He was in the unutterable agony of His
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 131 
 
 dying hour, and yet He remembers this apparently 
 insignificant prophecy of Himself, and arrests the 
 ebbings of His life, in order that it might be fulfilled. 
 After His resurrection, in His conversation with the 
 two whom he met on the " way to Emmaus," " Be- 
 ginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He 
 interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things 
 concerning Himself." Luke 24 : 27. The Psalms 
 are a portion of "All the Scriptures ; " hence they 
 must have a Messianic import. But He made this 
 very certain, as a little later on He said to the dis- 
 ciples : " These are my words which I spake unto 
 you, while I was yet with you, how that all things 
 must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law 
 of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms, con- 
 cerning me." Luke 24:44. And yet many of 
 these critics deny that the Psalms contain any Mes- 
 sianic prophecy. Such denial is a flat contradiction 
 of the above explicit statement of the Son of God. 
 
 In Acts 2 : 25-32 113:35 and I Cor. xv : 3, 4 we 
 have incontestable proof that Psalm 16: 8-n is pro- 
 phetical of the death and resurrection of our Lord 
 and Saviour. 
 
 Peter declared to the " Rulers and elders, and 
 scribes," that Jesus Christ " Is the stone" of which 
 the Psalmist prophetically speaks in Psalm 1:8: 22, 
 23. See Acts 4 : 1 1 and I Peter 2 : 7. Paul in 
 speaking of Jesus, in the synagogue at Antioch, 
 said : "And we bring you good tidings of the prom- 
 ise made unto the fathers, how that God hath ful- 
 filled the same unto our children, in that he raised
 
 132 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 up Jesus ; as also it is written in the second Psalm. 
 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee." 
 Acts 13: 32, 33. The same testimony is borne in 
 Heb. 1:5; and v : 5. In Acts 17 : 31 it is declared 
 that God " Hath appointed a day, in which He will 
 judge the world in righteousness by the man whom 
 He hath ordained." All this is set forth in Psalm 
 96 : 13. We find in Rom. xv : 3 these words : " For 
 Christ also pleased not Himself ; but as it is written, 
 The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell 
 upon Me." Where is this written ? In Psalm 69 : 
 9. The declaration made in I Cor. xv: 25-27, is but 
 the echo of Psalms 2 : 6-10 ; 8 : 6 ; 45 : 3,6, and 1 10 : 
 I. "Wherefore he saith " (of Christ); and Psalm 
 68 : 1 8 is then quoted (see Eph. 4: 8). Speaking of 
 Jesus the Christ, in Hebrews I : 6-9, the inspired 
 penman quotes Psalms 97 : 7 and 45 : 6, 7, as ful- 
 filled in connection with the advent of our Lord. In 
 Heb. 2 : 12, Psalm 22 : 22, is applied to Jesus Christ. 
 In Heb. v: 6, zoand 7: 17, 2 1, it is declared that Psalm 
 1 10: 4 is true of Jesus Christ. Psalm 40: 6-8, was 
 fulfilled in Jesus as we learn in Heb. x : 5-7. Rev. 
 2: 27 and 19: 15 identifies Jesus with the prophecy 
 of Psalm 2 : 9. Rev. xv : 4 makes it certain that 
 Christ was prophetically referred to in Psalm 86 : 9. 
 The prophecy in Psalm 45 : 3, 4, without doubt re- 
 fers to the Messiah in Kingly glory. See Rev. 19: 
 II. 
 
 And so we see that the Highest Critics again and 
 again, in most explicit terms and unmistakable lan- 
 guage utterly refute the views and opinions of the
 
 KS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 133 
 
 Higher Critics, that none of the Psalms are Mes- 
 sianic in their prophetical outlook. I am sure that 
 the millions who have felt the thrill of these divine 
 harmonies, and believe that Jesus Christ, the Holy 
 Spirit and the Apostles were competent to express 
 an opinion upon the matters under discussion ; that 
 they did not lie, or were not duped, but did tell the 
 truth, will not hesitate for one moment in deciding 
 whom to believe. " Let God be true and every 
 man a liar." 
 
 In face of this unbelieving criticism, and in face of 
 swerving loyalty of scholars from whom better things 
 were to be expected, we hold to the testimony of 
 the Highest Critics. Were it necessary it could be 
 supported by the testimony of the Jewish Church 
 who referred to the Messiah in the very Psalms to 
 which I have called attention. We could quote 
 from standard translations of Talmud and Targum 
 alike, but it is unnecessary. The inner witness of 
 the Sacred Books themselves, the fulfillment of the 
 Psalms in the person of Christ, , and the hope of 
 Messianic glory common to both Jews and Gentiles, 
 proved that David spoke by the Spirit (2 Sam. 23 : 2), 
 was a " Seer " as well as a " Prophet," and foretold 
 " The sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should 
 follow" (i Peter 1 : 10, 11). 
 
 The Psalmody of Israel broke out where David 
 was enthroned. It broke out again in Isaiah's time, 
 when Judah was delivered from the Assyrian yoke, 
 and again when Judah returned from Babylonian 
 exile. It is here belong the " Songs of Degrees "
 
 134 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 the music of the Pilgrims marching to Zion. Psalms 
 were written during the various invasions of Judah 
 by Heathen nations ; also when the Chaldeans de- 
 stroyed the city and burned the Temple ; also during 
 the captivity, and during the restoration. From 
 Moses to Ezra the stream of song was perpetuated 
 in the solemn liturgy of the chosen race, bursting 
 upward in floods of ebullient emotion and Messianic 
 praise. It sounded not only the glories of the Mes- 
 sianic King to come, but breathed the sorrows that 
 precede his enthronement. It poured forth the 
 penitential confession of sin, and the jubilant ex- 
 pressions of gratitude for divine forgiveness. There 
 is not a chord of religious experience, or a faith or 
 hope it did not touch. And King David, the sweet 
 singer of Israel, though others also sang sweet songs, 
 was the master hand in all. The false criticism that 
 would assign some of the noblest of these produc- 
 tions to Maccabean times, in honor of the exploits 
 of Maccabean princes, or their transient independ- 
 ence, or as utterances of distress in times of Syrian 
 persecution, is repelled by the fact that the Psalter, 
 in its five-fold arrangement, was known as early as 
 the times of the Chronicles, i. e., in the fourth cen- 
 tury before Christ. 
 
 Christ in His sufferings and Christ in His glory is 
 the substance and sense of all Israel's Prophecy, of 
 all Israel's Psalmody, of all Israel's History. He 
 is the end of the Prophets, and the Psalms, just as 
 He is the end of the Law, and of History. May 
 the Lord smite the criticism that teaches otherwise !
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 135 
 
 Christ, and Christ alone, is the key that unlocks the 
 entire Old Testament. When Philip showed this to 
 the Assyrian State Minister, the Ethiopian rode in 
 his chariot " rejoicing." Had Philip been a Higher 
 Critic " Queen Candace's prime-minister had worn a 
 blacker face ! Had Peter been a Higher Critic 
 the scenes at Pentecost had never occurred. Had 
 Jesus been a Higher Critic in the sense of modern 
 Higher Critics the gloom had never been lifted 
 from the hearts of the wanderers to Emmaus on the 
 afternoon of the first Christian Sabbath ! " The key 
 of David," said Hilary, " is the Person of Jesus."
 
 136 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 The Higher Critics subject the Bible to what they 
 call " Literary " and " Historical tests." This is all 
 right, providing the tests are all right. Sometimes 
 they are ; oftentimes they are not, since they are 
 based upon human opinion, which, too often, is 
 biased, and never infallible. Therefore, the work- 
 ing rules of these gentlemen are usually but postu- 
 lates. The mischief done by the rationalistically dis- 
 posed comes of their eliminating the supernatural from 
 their rules. Doing this, they are compelled to deny 
 that a prophet was in any sense a seer and foretel- 
 ler, except within the limits of his own time. Just 
 here these Critics work the theory they call " Time 
 Historical," or " Near Horizon." The theory is 
 thus stated by two of them : 
 
 " The prophets were bounded like other men by 
 the horizon of their own views, and occupied them- 
 selves only with that future whose rewards and pun- 
 ishments were likely to reach their contemporaries." 
 
 " Isaiah prophesied and predicted all he did from 
 loyalty to two simple truths, which he tells us he 
 received from God Himself that sin must be pun- 
 ished, and that the people of God must be saved. 
 This simple faith, acting with a wonderful knowledge 
 of human nature and ceaseless vigilance of affairs, 
 constituted inspiration for Isaiah. For the exact 
 conditions and forms, both of the punishment and its
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 137 
 
 relief, the prophets depended upon their own knowl- 
 edge of the world." 
 
 Here is a sample : "In the promise that a virgin 
 shall bring forth a child, Isa. vii : 13-17, ' the natural 
 and original reference is to the birth of a child, 
 which was shortly to take place. Hence there is no 
 direct, much less exclusive, reference here to the 
 Messiah." 
 
 Of course this theory brings them into direct con- 
 flict with the Highest Critics. But this is not an in- 
 superable difficulty, as we have already seen, for they 
 audaciously and arbitrarily set their testimony aside 
 as incompetent. The Messianic prophecies in this 
 and other books are easily disposed of by insisting 
 that there are none. The chief point of difficulty 
 encountered by them in the Book of Isaiah, is the 
 prophecy concerning Cyrus and his kingdom. They 
 are compelled, by indisputable historical facts, to 
 either confess that Isaiah was a remote foreseer, or 
 deny that he was the author of that part of the 
 Book. This latter is what they have done. They 
 allow that Isaiah wrote chapters one and thirty-nine, 
 inclusive ; but, as he could not possibly have seen 
 one hundred and fifty years into the future, some 
 writer, to them unknown, contemporaneous with the 
 times of Cyrus, wrote chapters forty and sixty-six, 
 inclusive. His writings indicate that he was quite 
 the peer of Isaiah, David and Moses, and yet the 
 Jewish nation did not know him. He is referred to 
 one hundred times in the New Testament, but no 
 Apostle or Evangelist can tell who he is. The fact
 
 138 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 is, he is a creature of the fancy of these gentlemen, cre- 
 ated to support their postulates, so that they will 
 work smoothly. That is to say, there is no such 
 personage ; there is not the slightest proof of it ; he 
 is purely and wholly fictitious, an impostor and 
 idealistic fraud. In order to be consistent they 
 have thrown out the four historical chapters, i. e., 
 thirty-six and thirty-nine inclusive, on the assumed 
 grounds that they, with the exception of the Song 
 of Hezekiah, chap. 38:9-20, and narrating certain 
 important events in which Isaiah was concerned, 
 do not differ verbally, from 2 Kings, 18:13; 18:17- 
 20 and 19. And, as there are prophecies in chapters 
 one and thirty-five, inclusive, that reached beyond 
 the lifetime of Isaiah, they have cut out the chap- 
 ters containing them; so that now, they allow 
 he wrote twenty-six chapters. At the speed they 
 are now traveling, Isaiah will be left as far behind 
 in a little while, in matters of authorship, by these 
 destructionists, as David and Moses. 
 
 The Book of Isaiah has three natural divisions, 
 and seven sub-divisions. The first thirty-five chap- 
 ters constitute, most naturally, the older prophecies ; 
 the last twenty-seven the later. Lying between 
 these are four historical chapters, which relate to 
 the Assyrian invasion of the land, the illness of 
 King Hezekiah and his miraculous restoration to 
 health. The sub-divisions are as follows : First 
 Chapters 112, recite the judgments visited upon 
 Judah and Israel. Second Chapters 13-26, contain 
 foreign prophecies and an account of the punishment
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 139 
 
 visited upon seven Gentile nations that oppressed 
 Israel. Third Chapters 27-35, are a sublime 
 apocalypse wherein are additional woes pronounced 
 upon Israel. Each of these three groups ends with 
 a song of praise in view of the second coming 
 of the Lord. Fourth Chapters 36-39, are his- 
 torical. Fifth Chapters 40-48 : we have here 
 " God in creation, chap. 40 ; God in providence, 
 chap. 41 ; God in redemption, chap. 42 ; and God in 
 the deliverance of His people from Babylonian op- 
 pression, chap. 43." Cyrus is the middle point of 
 this group, and is the key with which to unlock it. 
 Sixth Chapters 49-57, Jesus Christ as the servant 
 of Jehovah is the central figure in this group, and 
 is represented as the one Great Deliverer from all 
 oppression and servitude. Seventh Chapters 
 58-66, the millennial age, with the new heavens 
 and the new earth are the prominent things in this 
 group, with restored Jerusalem shining forth as the 
 central figure. Each of these last three sub-divi- 
 sions ends with this thought : " There is no peace, 
 saith my God to the wicked." The last expressed 
 in different language. 
 
 The question of the Prophet being able to see be- 
 yond his " Own Horizon" is the one to which the 
 Highest Critics will now testify. The testimony of 
 the Book will be limited to the prophecies concern- 
 ing Jesus Christ, with only a very few glances at its 
 eschatology. In Isa. 7:14, it is said : "Therefore 
 the Lord Himself shall give you a sign ; behold a 
 virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call 
 10
 
 140 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 His name Immanuel." In Matt, i : 20, 21, we have 
 the fulfillment of this prophecy, recited, for in the 
 twenty-second verse of the same chapter, it is said : 
 " Now all this is come to pass, that it might be ful- 
 filled which was spoken by the Lord through the 
 Prophet saying" and then the twenty-third verse 
 is a quotation of Isa. 7 : 14. Luke 2: u, and John 
 3 : 16, tell us that Isa. 9 : 6 was fulfilled in the birth 
 and gift of Jesus Christ. Without doubt the mani- 
 festation of Jesus Christ, at the " Day of the Lord," 
 is declared in Isa. 10 : 17. See 2 Thess. 2 : 7-9, and 
 Heb. 12 : 29. In Isa. n : i, 10, we have an explicit 
 prophecy that Jesus " shall come forth * * * out 
 of the stock of Jesse." " That the root of Jesse," 
 etc., etc. Of course this prophecy could not possi- 
 bly refer to King David, as he had been dead more 
 than three hundred years when it was uttered. 
 That it referred to Jesus, Acts 13: 22, 23, clearly 
 teaches. Matt. 28: 18, John 10: 11-16, and i John 
 3 : 8 make it sure that our Lord Jesus Christ is the 
 person meant in Isa. 40: 10, II. Do not Luke 2 : 32 
 and Acts 13: 47 teach clearly that Isa. 49 :6 (last 
 clause) is a prophecy of Jesus the Christ ? 
 
 The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is, from first to 
 last, distinctively and particularly Messianic. How 
 any honest man professing to believe that the Bible 
 is God's Word, or even that it contains God's Word, 
 with the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah before him, 
 can say " It contains no Messianic import whatever," 
 is impossible for me to understand. But, let us 
 glance at it verse by verse:
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 141 
 
 VERSE i. Who hath believed our report? and to whom 
 
 hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ? 
 " Yet they believed not on Him : that the word 
 of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which 
 he spake, "Lord who hath believed our report? 
 and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been 
 revealed ? " John 12 : 37, 38. 
 
 VERSE 2. There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 
 " But they cried out all together, saying : "Away 
 with this man." Luke 23 : 18. 
 
 VERSE 3. A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. 
 "Then said He unto them, My soul is exceed- 
 ing sorrowful, even unto death." Matt. 26 : 38. 
 VERSE 4. Surely He hath borne our griefs (Heb., sicknesses) 
 
 and carried our sorrows. 
 
 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
 Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our 
 infirmities and bore our diseases." Matt. 
 8: 17. 
 
 VERSE 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him. 
 " Having made peace through the blood of His 
 
 cross." Col. i : 20. 
 
 VERSE 6. The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 
 " Who His own self bore our sins in His body 
 upon the tree." i Peter 2 : 24. 
 VERSE 7. As a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; 
 
 yea, he opened not His mouth. 
 
 "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I 
 pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? 
 of Himself or of some other? And Philip 
 opened his mouth, and beginning from this 
 Scripture preached unto him Jesus." Acts 
 
 8:32-35. 
 VERSE 8. For the transgression of my people was He 
 
 stricken. 
 
 " Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on 
 our behalf." 2 Cor. 5 : 21,
 
 142 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 VERSE 9. And they made his grave with the wicked, and 
 
 with the rich in his death. 
 
 "And when even was come, there came a rich 
 man * * * and asked for the body of Jesus 
 * * * and laid it in his own new tomb." 
 Matt. 27 : 57-60. 
 
 VERSE 10. He hath put Him to grief. 
 
 " Having become a curse for us." Gal. 3 : 13. 
 
 Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, 
 
 " He was manifested to take away sins." i John 
 
 S'S- 
 VERSE n. He shall see the travail of His soul and shall be 
 
 satisfied. 
 
 " For Christ is the end of the law for righteous- 
 ness to every one that believeth." Rom. 10 : 4. 
 By His knowledge shall my righteous servant 
 
 justify many. 
 
 "Justified freely by His grace through the re- 
 demption that is in Christ Jesus." Rom. 
 
 3:24- 
 
 VERSE 12. Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, 
 and he shall divide the spoil with the strong. 
 " That through death He might bring to naught 
 him that had the power of death, that is the 
 devil ; and might deliver all them who through 
 fear of death were all their lifetime subject to 
 bondage." Heb. 2:14, 15. 
 And was numbered with the transgressors. 
 " There they crucified Him, and the malefactors, 
 one on the right hand and the other on the left." 
 Luke 23-33. 
 
 And made intercession for the transgressors. 
 " He ever liveth to make intercession for them." 
 
 Heb. 7:25. 
 
 " If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the 
 Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous." i John 
 2:1.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 143 
 
 Romans 1 1 : 26 tells us explicitly that Isa. 59 : 20 
 is prophetical of Jesus Christ. 
 
 In Luke 4: 16-19 Jesus Christ quotes Isa. 61 : i 
 and half of 2 ; and, in the twenty-first verse, He 
 says : " To-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in 
 your ears." John I : 32 ; Acts 10: 38 ; and Heb. I : 
 9, surely teach that the first part of the first verse of 
 sixty-first chapter of Isaiah is prophetical of Jesus. 
 Heb. 7 : 25 tells us that the " Mighty to save," of 
 Isa. 63: I, is Jesus the Christ. And thus from be- 
 ginning to end we see the Messiah as Saviour and 
 King in humiliation and glory. To deny the 
 prophetical characteristics of this Book, is to deny 
 the plainest teachings of the Word of God. 
 
 The unity of the Book is plainly discernible in 
 the faultless symmetry of the whole. Even from 
 the " Literary Tests," of the Higher Critics, this is 
 easily and most certainly deducible. Put on your 
 literary spectacles. It will do you no harm to wear 
 them if the Holy Spirit has enlightened the eyes of 
 your understanding. Reading carefully you must 
 be struck by the very great similarity of styles be- 
 tween the two portions of the book. Such expres- 
 sions as : " The mouth of the Lord has spoken ; " 
 " Drunken, but not with wine ; " " The lion shall eat 
 straw like the ox;" "Wilderness blossoming;" 
 " The Holy one of Israel," etc., are repeatedly found. 
 Prof. Delitzsch calls attention to the frequent inter- 
 change of the name of Jacob with Israel in both 
 parts of the book ; and, the sententiousness of ex- 
 pression and same breathless haste in the move-
 
 144 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 ment of thought, everywhere discernible. Who, 
 competent to judge, can doubt that the 35th chapter 
 is the prelude to the majestic harmonies in the 4Oth 
 and 66th chapters inclusive. 
 
 The entire Book of Isaiah was attributed to the 
 Son of Amoz by the Great Synagogue, composed of 
 such illustrious men as Ezra, Nehemiah, Zachariah 
 and Haggai, nearly five hundred years before Christ. 
 If the theory of a Deutero-Isaiah is true would not 
 these great and learned men have known it ? They 
 knew nothing of any one but the Proto and only 
 Isaiah. 
 
 The Septuagint, or Greek version of the Old 
 Testament, which was begun nearly three hundred 
 years before Christ, recognizes but one Isaiah for 
 the entire Book. 
 
 The Talmud and Targums ascribe the Book, as such, 
 to Isaiah. The Critics are significantly silent in re- 
 gard to the valuable testimony of these ancient and 
 much venerated writings, on this question. 
 
 The later Synagogue knew nothing of a Deutero- 
 Isaiah. They used the Book every Sabbath day as 
 the Book of Isaiah, and thirteen out of its sixteen 
 prophetic readings were taken from chapters 40-66. 
 
 Isaiah is referred to in Ecclesiasticus, where it is 
 written that "in his time the sun went backward 
 and he lengthened the king's life. He saw by an 
 excellent spirit what should come at the last and he 
 comforted them that mourned in Sion, he showed 
 what should come to pass forever, and secret things 
 or ever they came." A reference which shows that
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 145 
 
 the writer of that book believed that the Isaiah 
 of King Hezekiah's reign was also he who wrote the 
 later prophecies of the book. 
 
 The author of the first part of the book wrote in 
 the reign of Hezekiah (see Isaiah I : i) and the au- 
 thor of the second part of the book speaks of Hez- 
 ekiah's wife as a type of restored Israel. See Isaiah 
 62 : 4 and 2 Kings 21:1. 
 
 John the Baptist said Isaiah wrote the third, 
 fourth and fifth verses of the fortieth chapter of the 
 book bearing his name. Hear him : " I am the 
 voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight 
 the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet." 
 John i : 23. See also, Luke 3 : 3-6. The Higher 
 Critics teach that this unequivocal testimony of the 
 Baptist is false. 
 
 The four evangelists and apostles believed the 
 one great prophet to be the writer of the entire 
 book, and quote 125 verses from it and refer to the 
 whole book 162 times. 
 
 The following testimonies explicitly declare that 
 Isaiah was the author of portions (and if portions, 
 then the whole) of chapters 40-66 " That it might 
 be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, 
 saying" And then the inspired penman quotes Isa. 
 53:4. See Matt. 8:17. " That it might be fulfilled 
 which was spoken by Isaiah, the prophet, say- 
 ing " And then Isa. 42 : 1-3, is quoted. Matt. 
 12: 17. "And there was delivered unto Him (Jesus 
 the Christ) the book of the prophet Isaiah, and he 
 opened the book, and found the place where it was
 
 146 THE HIGHEST CKITtCS 
 
 written," and then read the first verse and the first 
 half of the second of the sixty-first chapter. Let it 
 be observed that the portion read was in the sixty- 
 first chapter; and the book was "The book of the 
 prophet Isaiah." " That the word of Isaiah the 
 prophet might be fulfilled which he spake." This word 
 is-found in Isa. 53 : i,and isquoted. John 12:38-40. 
 
 Luke, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit 
 says : "And Philip ran to him, and heard him read- 
 ing Isaiah the prophet. * * * Now the place of the 
 Scripture which he was reading was " And then he 
 quotes Isa. 53 : 7, 8. See Acts 8 : 30-33. 
 
 Paul, under Divine guidance, says : " For Isaiah 
 saith," and then he quotes the first clause of the 
 first verse of the fifty-first chapter. See Rom. 10 : 
 16. And again : "And Isaiah is very bold and saith " 
 and then he quotes Isa. 65 : i. See Rom. 10: 20. 
 
 The Jewish Church never entertained any other 
 thought of the authorship than the Proto-Isaiah ; 
 and the consensus of the Christian Church from the 
 first has been this : Isaiah wrote the entire prophecy 
 of Isaiah. 
 
 Josephus (Antiq. 9, 13, 3) speaks of Isaiah the 
 prophet as one who lived in the days of Hezekiah 
 (also Antiq. 10, I, 3). Then (Antiq. n, i, 2) he 
 gives the remarkable story of Cyrus bringing help 
 to the people, the reason for his conduct being " his 
 reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his 
 prophecies." Josephus adds, " This was foretold by 
 Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the Tem- 
 ple was demolished." It is certainly to be regretted
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS^ 147 
 
 that the advocates of the new criticism fail to deal 
 with this ancient historical testimony to the single 
 authorship. 
 
 The wording of the decree of Cyrus ordering the 
 erection of the temple of Jerusalem, is taken from 
 that part of the prophecy written, as the Higher 
 Critics tell us, after the day of Cyrus. 
 
 There is no way to deny that such a decree was 
 issued except by declaring the whole book of Ezra 
 to be a lie, for when the work of rebuilding the tem- 
 ple was interrupted, and Darius was on the throne, 
 " There was found at Achmetha, in the palace that 
 is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein 
 was a record thus written : In the first year of Cy- 
 rus the king, the same Cyrus the king made a decree 
 concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the 
 house be builded, the place where they offer sacri- 
 fices." Ezra vi : 2, 3. 
 
 Here is the decree : " Thus saith Cyrus king of 
 Persia. The Lord God of heaven hath given me all 
 the kingdoms of the earth ; and He hath charged 
 me to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in 
 Judah. Who is there among you of all His people? 
 his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusa- 
 lem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the 
 Lord God of Israel (He is the God), which is in 
 Jerusalem," Ez. i : 2, 3. 
 
 Here is the prophecy : ' 'That saith of Cyrus, 
 He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleas- 
 ure : even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built ; 
 and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
 
 148 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Thus saith the LORD to his annointed, to Cyrus, 
 whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations 
 before him, and I will loose the loins of kings ; to 
 open the doors before him, and the gates shall not 
 be shut ; I will go before thee, and make the rugged 
 places plain : I will break in pieces the doors of brass, 
 and cut in sunder the bars of iron : and I will give 
 thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of 
 secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the 
 LORD, which call thee by thy name, even the God 
 of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel 
 my chosen, I have called thee by thy name : I have 
 surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. I 
 am the LORD, and there is none else ; beside me 
 there is no God : I will gird thee, though thou hast 
 not known me." Isa. 44 : 28 ; 45 : 1-5. 
 
 It is here stated (i) that a prophecy concerning 
 Cyrus and the rebuilding of the Temple was uttered ; 
 (2) that Cyrus promulgated a decree in accordance 
 with the prophecy ; and (3) we find the prophecy in 
 the Book of Isaiah. Now, then, the question is 
 simply this : Who wrote the prophecy ? The Higher 
 Critics say Isaiah did not, because a prophet could 
 not possibly see one hundred and fifty years into 
 the future ; and our " Literary Tests " show a dif- 
 ferent style of composition in chapters 40-66, from 
 what we find in chapters 1-39. The first postulate 
 is audacious and eliminates the supernatural from 
 inspiration ; and the second arbitrarily requires a 
 man to have exactly the same style of composition 
 at sixty years of age as he had at twenty-five ; and
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 149 
 
 rules that it is impossible for any one to have more 
 than one style of writing. 
 
 Josephus says Isaiah wrote it. To this agree the 
 Septuagint version, the Talmud, the Targums, the 
 Great Synagogue, the later Synagogue, Ecclesiasticus, 
 John the Baptist, Jesus, the Holy Spirit speaking by 
 Matthew, Luke, John and Paul, and the Church, 
 both Jewish and Christian, in all ages. And there is 
 absolutely not one demonstrable fact to the contrary. 
 
 If an other than the son of Amoz wrote chapters 
 40-66, where are his credentials ? Isaiah began his 
 message by saying, " Hear the word of the Lord," 
 and thus " saith the Lord." Isa. I : 10, 11. Nearly 
 all the prophets of God say the same thing. But 
 no such announcement is made in the opening 
 of the section embraced in chapters 40-66. Is it at 
 all reasonable to conclude that the mighty monarch 
 Cyrus could be duped by an unknown person into 
 rebuilding the Temple, a most stupendous and cost- 
 ly undertaking ? Surely he knew it was the will of 
 God that he should do this great work ; and most 
 surely he knew the prophecy came by a prophet 
 properly accredited, who lived long before his day, 
 even Isaiah, the son of Amoz. 
 
 I say with Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander, of 
 Princeton, who, to use the admission of Dr. Philip 
 Schaff: "Handled the Higher Critics without 
 gloves," "That the criticism we are called to re- 
 spect, destroys the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 and rests on assumptions as arbitrary and capricious 
 as the adventurous spirits who conceived them."
 
 150 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 The narative of this Book is very much discon- 
 nected. History and prophecy, incidents, dreams 
 and visions are so interwoven that it stands unique 
 among the prophecies of the Old Testament. And 
 yet it is very naturally divided. The first six chap- 
 ters are historical, while the last six are predictive. 
 In the historical part, though it is not wholly histor- 
 ical, as it contains a few predictions, we find that 
 Daniel and his three companions were taken from 
 Jerusalem after its capture by Nebuchadnezzar, 
 to the royal court in Babylon ; and numerous events 
 that occurred during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 Darius and Cyrus are accurately recorded, as is 
 shown by profane history, and very clearly proven 
 by cuneiform texts that archaeologists have recently 
 brought to light. The predictive portion, though it 
 is in part historical, relates chiefly to the Babylo- 
 nian, Medo-Persian, Macedonian and Roman king- 
 doms. There can be no reasonable doubt raised 
 against the fact that the four kingdoms in chapter 
 two and the four beasts in chapter seven are the 
 same, and signify the four above mentioned king- 
 doms. Porphyry acknowledged that these prophe- 
 cies were literally fulfilled, though he insisted that 
 they must have been written after the events! 
 These last six chapters are not limited, predictively, 
 to these four kingdoms and to Antiochus Epiphanes,
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 151 
 
 but are in a large sense Messianic and eschatological, 
 as we shall see a little further on. 
 
 In the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament this 
 Book was not found among the prophets but in the 
 miscellaneous writings called the Hagiographa. This 
 fact, together with the fact that the writing does 
 not begin, as do the other prophecies, with the dec- 
 laration that it is " The Word of the Lord," is used 
 by the Critics to justify them in discrediting it as of 
 equal authority with the others. But the Psalms of 
 David are also included in the Hagiographa and do 
 not begin with such declaration, as are also Job, 
 Proverbs, Canticles, Ruth, Ezra, Chronicles, Eccle- 
 siastes and Esther. Shall we discredit all these? 
 We must if the presence of a Book in the third col- 
 lection of the Sacred Writings justifies it. 
 
 After his return from exile, Daniel was com- 
 manded to " seal up " his Apocalypse " Unto the 
 time of the end," /. *-., not to expose it to public 
 reading and use, for the time of the event predicted 
 as occurring after the release was not at hand. The 
 events related to the distant future, viz.: to the 
 End-time of the third prophetic Empire, or time of 
 the Syrian Antichrist, and to the End-time of the 
 fourth prophetic Empire, or the time of the last 
 Antichrist. Perhaps this order to seal the Book 
 and keep it from public use was a reason why the 
 Book of Daniel was not put among the prophetic 
 Books by Ezra and the compilers of the Jew- 
 ish Canon ; and Daniel's name not enumerated 
 among the names of the prophets. Perhaps, also,
 
 152 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 it was a reason why when the End-time of the 
 Greek Empire came, and Antiochus Epiphanes 
 raged against the people of God, it was produced 
 by the High Priests and Custodians of the Sacred 
 Oracles, and was so popular. Perhaps, also, it was 
 again the very reason why our Lord refers to " Dan- 
 iel the Prophet " lest any might suppose he was not 
 a prophet, because his Book was not among the 
 prophetic Books, but in the "Other Writings." 
 
 While it is true Daniel's Prophecy is not intro- 
 duced, as are nearly all the other prophecies, by the 
 statement that it is the Lord who is speaking, yet it 
 is true that Daniel uttered the words of the Lord, 
 for in chapter 10 : 9, he says: " Yet heard I the voice 
 of His words : and when I heard the voice of His 
 words ;" so that his revelation is as certainly from 
 the Lord as any other of the Prophets. 
 
 But many of the same critics deny that other of 
 the prophecies are " The Words of the Lord," even 
 where they are introduced by this statement. So 
 their chief effort is, apparently, to find objections to 
 the writing, rather than to ascertain by what au- 
 thority and to what intent were these books writ- 
 ten. 
 
 THE AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The Higher Critics insist that Daniel had nothing 
 whatever to do with the authorship of this Book. 
 They fail utterly, however, to explain how it ever 
 came to be called " The Book of Daniel ; " nor, can 
 they tell us who is the author. They find refuge in
 
 rS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 153 
 
 that most illustrious literary family the world ever 
 knew, i. e., The Unknown. 
 
 They insist that it was written some time between 
 300 B. C., and the times of Antiochus Epiphanes ; 
 the more rationalistic among them insisting that 
 the work was done during the year 167 B. C. They 
 reach this conclusion, inevitably, because their 
 " Near Horizon " theory will not allow the prophet 
 to see beyond his own times, and, because they studied 
 eschatology in the school of conjecture, which school 
 is located in the State of Don't-know-dom ; and the 
 prophetic truth of Daniel as to the Anti-Christ, is 
 sacrificed upon the altar of a Pre-Christ called Anti- 
 ochus Epiphanes. 
 
 It is not possible that a writer living at so late a 
 date as 167 B. C., could delineate so accurately the 
 details of the historic narratives of this Book, as the 
 cuneiform records prove them to be. These cunei- 
 form records have verified almost every historic 
 statement of the Book, and disclosed no error any- 
 where, which fact is inconceivable from the stand- 
 point of authorship assumed by the Critics. Francois 
 Lenormant, Prof, of Archaeology at the National 
 Library of France, says : " The more often I read 
 the Book of Daniel and compare it with the cunei- 
 form records, the more striking seems the fidelity of 
 the picture given by the first six chapters of the 
 Babylonian court, and the superstitions of the time 
 of Nebuchadnezzar, and the more strongly am I 
 impressed with the conviction that at least this por- 
 tion of the Book was written in Babylon itself, and
 
 154 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 not far from the time of the events related, and so 
 the more impracticable and incorrect it seems to me 
 to transfer its origin to a date as late as that of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes." 
 
 The first six chapters of the Book of Daniel have 
 a historical value which cannot be contested, con- 
 firmed as it is by the recovered cuneiform texts. 
 They must, therefore, have been composed at a date 
 not far removed from the persons and events of 
 which they treat, by some one having access to the 
 original Babylonian documents, perhaps fragments 
 of Nebuchadnezzar's official annals. 
 
 The style, temper, sentiment, movement of 
 thought and personal characteristics of this writing 
 belong to a much earlier time than 300 B. C. Even 
 Canon Driver admits that " In warmth of religious 
 feeling, and in the unflinching maintenance of Di- 
 vine truth, the Book resembles closely enough the 
 writings of the older prophets." 
 
 Dr. Pusey says : " I would note, how Dr. Payne 
 Smith, Mr. McGill and myself, independently of 
 one another, observed that Daniel and Ezra agree 
 so remarkably, not only in differing from the Tar- 
 gums, but in their correspondence with Western 
 Aramaic or Syriac. This correspondence, too, be- 
 longs very remarkably to the grammar as well as 
 to the vocabulary. This is further illustrated by 
 the correspondence with what Mr. McGill rightly 
 calls the " Syrizing " Targums. This character of 
 the Chaldee, of Daniel and Ezra separates them off 
 from the Targums, which come nearest to their age,
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 155 
 
 by an almost dialectic difference, analagous to the 
 difference of the Greek of Homer from that of later 
 Greek writers, when the dialects became distinct. 
 It is yet further illustrated by the correspondence 
 of both Daniel and Ezra with the Samaritan, which, 
 whatever be the age of its Targum, was separated 
 off from its parent-stock of Eastern Aramaic at a 
 period earlier than even Daniel and Ezra." 
 
 Perowne says : " The use of the Aryan words 
 chiefly turns the scale on the side of the earlier 
 date." 
 
 Josephus tells us that Alexander the Great en- 
 tered Jerusalem about 330 B. C., and offered sacri- 
 fice to God in the Temple, where the High Priest 
 showed him the prophecies of Daniel (Dan. 7:6; 8 : 
 7) which predicted the overthrow of the Persian Em- 
 pire by a Greek King, which he felt could apply to 
 none other than himself. 
 
 The Talmud tells us that the Book of Daniel 
 dates from the time of the Great Synagogue. If 
 it only dates from 167 B. C., on what grounds can 
 its presence in the Septuagint version be accounted 
 for, without arbitrarily denying the incontestable 
 evidence of the age of this venerable document ? 
 
 Canon Driver says: "Jesus, the son of Sirach 
 (writing 200 B. c)., in his enumeration of Israelitish 
 worthies, chaps. 44-50, though he mentions Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, Ezekiel and (collectively) the Twelve 
 Minor Prophets, is silent as to Daniel." 
 
 The following answer is taken from Smith's Bible 
 
 Dictionary : " In reply to these remarks, it may be 
 11
 
 156 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 urged, that if the Book of Daniel was already 
 placed among the Hagiographa at the time when 
 the " Wisdom of Sirach " was written, the omis- 
 sion of the name of Daniel (Eccles. 49) is most nat- 
 ural, and that under any circumstances the omission 
 is not more remarkable than that of Ezra and the 
 twelve lesser prophets, for 49 : 10 is probably an 
 interpolation intended to supply a supposed defect." 
 
 And so the Canon as other critics in his des- 
 perate straits to find arguments that will support 
 his non-prophetic view of this Book, tries to prove 
 his position by the use of a probably interpolated 
 passage from a secular writing. 
 
 Daniel is mentioned repeatedly in the Book as its 
 author. See chapters 7 : 2, 1 5, 28 ; 8 : I ; 9 : 22 ; 10 : 
 1-19; 12: 5. In the first six chapters Daniel 
 speaks of himself in the third person. In Chapter 
 6 he speaks in the first person : " I, Daniel, etc.," 
 and claims to have received a revelation from 
 heaven. This is no proof that there were two au- 
 thors. Caesar, Thucydides and others spoke of them- 
 selves in the third person as well as in the first. It 
 was a common practice in ancient times. More- 
 over, in the last six chapters, Daniel, who speaks of 
 himself in the first person, speaks of himself twice 
 in the third person. See Dan. 7: i; 10: I. The 
 entire cast and setting of the work is altogether 
 consistent with his authorship. 
 
 Matt. 24:15 tells us that Jesus said: "When 
 therefore ye see the abomination of desolation 
 which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet," etc.,
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 157 
 
 etc. We here note that Jesus said Dan. 9 : 26, 27 
 was spoken by Daniel ; and, notwithstanding the 
 critics have removed him from the illustrious com- 
 pany of the holy prophets, Jesus most explicitly 
 states that he was one, and uttered at least one pre- 
 diction that has a clear and distinct eschatological 
 significance. This testimony of the Highest Critic 
 settles not only the question of authorship but of 
 the age of the Book as well. To question this testi- 
 mony is to degrade the son of God to the level of 
 the Higher Critics and rob Him of His Godhood. 
 Such questioning makes the teachings of Jesus the 
 Christ of no greater value than those of Socrates, 
 Edmund Burk or Renan ; and places us, as touching 
 the purposes of God in grace, on a stormy sea, in an 
 open boat without rudder, chart or compass. It is 
 destructive to the last degree, and should be most 
 emphatically condemned by all who profess loyalty 
 to God's word and the teachings of Jesus Christ the 
 Saviour of men. 
 
 The Critics insist upon a dual authorship, be- 
 cause the Book is divided into two parts, according 
 to their " Literary Tests," though many competent 
 Critics such as Hitzig andDeWette, think otherwise. 
 They the Critics call attention to the fact that 
 about half the Book is written in Hebrew and the 
 other half in Aramaic, as though this fact supported 
 their theory. But they met with an insuperable 
 difficulty in the fact that the first chapter is in 
 Hebrew and the seventh in Aramaic. 
 
 They question the historical accuracy of the first
 
 158 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 six chapters on the ground of the many extraordi- 
 nary miracles recorded therein. If they were to ap- 
 ply this rule to the four Gospels, the world would be 
 left almost wholly without any historical knowledge 
 of Jesus the Christ. 
 
 The dimensions of the golden image which 
 Nebuchadnezzar caused to be erected on the plain 
 of Dura are said, by the Critics, to be without doubt, 
 an exaggeration. They reason from this assumption 
 that the Book, historically, is therefore unreliable, 
 and, to be consistent, not inspired at all. Prof. 
 Lenormant says " That it was the custom to erect 
 golden images of colossal size, admits of no ques- 
 tion. The three statues which crowned the pyra- 
 mid E-saggal in Babylon, previous to its sacking by 
 Xerxes, represented (according to Diodorus Siculus) 
 together with their altar and other appurtenances, a 
 weight of gold of 5,850 talents, 143,559 kilogrammes 
 /. e., a value of 430,677,000 francs. The sanctuary 
 of the storied pyramid at Borsippa contained (at 
 least up to the time of Xerxes) a similar massive 
 golden image, the height of which was, according to 
 Herodotus not less than twelve cubits." 
 
 Prof. Pusey says : " I am indebted for my knowl- 
 edge of the following facts to my friend Dr. Green- 
 hill : ' The Marquis de Beauvoir thus describes the 
 pagoda of Xetuphon. Imagine yourself with us be- 
 neath a colonnade of teak-wood, and in an immense 
 sanctuary, where the god is extended his full length ; 
 and this is no small matter, for he measured one 
 hundred and fifty feet from the shoulder to the
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 159 
 
 soles of his feet. This gigantic body, in masonry, is 
 completely and entirely guilt. It lies on the right 
 side ; a guilded terrace, ornamented with sculptures, 
 serves for his couch. His head, of which the sum- 
 mit is eighty feet above the ground, is supported by 
 the right arm, which rests towards the entrance 
 door. His left arm is extended along the thigh ; 
 his eyes are of silver, his lips pink enamel, and on 
 his head is a crown of red gold. We look like Lilli- 
 putians around Gulliver ; and if we try to climb up 
 upon him, we disappear altogether in his nostrils : 
 one of his nails is taller than any of us. We stood 
 amazed before this Titian work, of which the archi- 
 tect can only have been paid by the riches of Croe- 
 sus. This gigantic coating of the purest gold must 
 be worth Milliards ; each sheet of metal (and there 
 must have been thousands) is nearly two square feet 
 in size, and weighs, they tell us, 450 ounces of 
 gold." 
 
 "Another Buddha, in the royal Pagoda, of ordi- 
 nary dimensions, is of massive gold ; its head is of a 
 single emerald, delicately cut and of a marvelous 
 luster, surmounted with a helmet of sapphire and 
 opal. The English Consul is said to have offered for 
 it a million pounds sterling in the name of his govern- 
 ment. The annals of the kingdom speak of its dis- 
 covery seven or eight centuries ago." 
 
 And so we know that others in those far east 
 countries besides Nebuchadnezzar were given to the 
 pastime or religious duty of manufacturing colossal 
 golden images, and thus verifying Daniel's story.
 
 160 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 THE PROPHESIES OF THE BOOK. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image and 
 the increasing stone was accurately interpreted by 
 Daniel. The Babylonian Kingdom was indicated by 
 the " Head of gold ;" the Medo-Persian by the "breast 
 and arms of silver ; " the Macedonian, or Grecian, 
 by the " Belly and thighs (sides) of brass ; " the 
 Roman by the " Legs of iron ; " and the ten sub- 
 divisions of the Roman Empire by the " Ten toes 
 of iron and clay." The predictive teaching of this 
 image and the interpretation of it by Daniel, has 
 been demonstrated by history, in that the things 
 foreseen and foretold have most surely come to 
 pass. The efforts of the Higher Critics to destroy 
 the prophetical characteristics of this Book are piti- 
 able in the extreme, and certainly ought to be hu- 
 miliating to all honest and reverent scholars. 
 
 It was quite as much a prophecy to describe the 
 world-wide Empire of Rome 167 years B. C., as it 
 would have been to do so 600 years B. C., and in 
 their efforts to reconcile the facts in the case to 
 their theory, the Higher Critics invaribly beg the 
 question or throw dust into the air. 
 
 Concerning the interpretation given of " The 
 Stone" (See Dan. 2535, 44, 45), it may here be 
 said, it is not possible, by any established ruler of 
 interpretation and exegesis, to reconcile it to the 
 fact historically recorded of any kingdom the world 
 has yet seen. " The Stone " represented a King- 
 dom that shall subdue, overthrow and destroy all 
 other kingdoms, becoming universal and to " stand
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 161 
 
 forever." There is nothing, historically nothing, 
 prospectively nothing, and conjecturally nothing, 
 that will answer to the interpretation, save the 
 Messianic Kingdom ; and this does, in every par- 
 ticular. See Psa. 2 : 6-9 ; Luke I : 31-33 ; Rev. n : 
 15 ; Phil. 2:9-11; etc., etc. 
 
 In chapter seven we have a record of " A dream 
 and visions" that Daniel had, which were propheti- 
 cal of the same things predicted in Nebuchadnezzar's 
 dream, excepting as we shall see apocalyptically, 
 they were more comprehensive and specific. In 
 this case Babylon is represented by a " Lion," 
 Medo-Persia by a " Bear," Greece by a " Leopard," 
 Rome by " A fourth beast," and the ten kingdoms 
 by the " Ten horns of the ' Fourth beast.' " From 
 among the "Ten horns" arises a "Little horn," 
 and it becomes mightier than all the rest. It can- 
 not possibly be Antiochus Epiphanes, because it 
 was not manifested until after the destruction of 
 the Roman Empire ; and, it is itself the mighty 
 power that uproots three of the ten-horn kingdoms, 
 and subdues the other seven, the ten arising out of 
 the Roman Empire. These kingdoms still exist, 
 and the prophecy plainly tells us that the " Little 
 horn's " power is to be manifested in the end times 
 of this dispensation. Let us analyze the chapter 
 and see what it teaches about the " Little horn : " 
 
 First It appears in the end time. Verses 21, 22. 
 Second It usurps Divine prerogatives. Verses 24, 25. 
 Third It has the power of blasphemy. Verse 25. 
 Fourth It persecutes the Saints. Verse 25. 
 Fifth It comes to its end suddenly. Verse n.
 
 162 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Sixth It goes into perdition. Verses n, 26. 
 
 Seventh Its destruction, the coming of the Lord, the gath- 
 ering together of the Saints and the establishing of the ever- 
 lasting kingdom synchronize. Verses 13, 14, 18, 27. 
 
 Will the reader now please turn to 2 Thess. 2 : 1-9 
 and let us see what are the characteristics of the 
 " Man of Sin," and what of his future : 
 
 First He appears in the end time. Verses 2 and 3. 
 Second He is energized by Satan. Verse 9. 
 Third He usurps Divine prerogatives. Verse 4. 
 Fourth He is a blasphemer. Verse 4. 
 Fifth He possesses superhuman power. Verse 9. 
 Sixth He persecutes the Saints and many fall away. Verse 3. 
 Seventh He comes to his end suddenly. Verse 8. 
 Eighth He goes into perdition. Verse 3. 
 Ninth The coming of the Lord and gathering of the Saints 
 synchronize with his destruction. Verse 8. 
 
 Now will the reader please turn to Revelation, 
 chapter thirteen, and notice the characteristics of 
 " The Beast " with the wounded head : 
 
 First He is energized by Satan. Verses 2 and 4. 
 
 Second He is a great world power. Verse 7. 
 
 Third He usurps Divine prerogatives. Verse 4. 
 
 Fourth He is a blasphemer. Verses i, 5 and 6. 
 
 Fifth He has superhuman power. Verse 2. 
 
 Sixth He makes war upon the Saints and many fall away. 
 Verses 4, 7 and 15. 
 
 Seventh He comes to his end suddenly. Chapter 19 : 20, 21. 
 
 Eighth He goes into perdition. Chapters 17:8 and 19:20. 
 
 Ninth He appears in the end time. Chapter 14: 7-12. 
 
 Tenth His destruction synchronizes with the coming of the 
 Lord. Chapter 19 : 1 1-21 . 
 
 With these Scriptures before us is it not incon- 
 trovertably evident to an unbiased mind that the
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 163 
 
 " Beast " of Revelation, Paul's " Man of Sin," and 
 Daniel's "Little Horn " are one and the same? and 
 none other than the Anti-Christ ? Isaiah prophesied 
 of him before Daniel's day (See Isa. 14:12-17), 
 and the Saviour warns his church against him. (See 
 Matt. 24 : 23-28.) 
 
 The non-prophetic views of the Higher Critics, 
 make it impossible that they should be right escha- 
 tologically. And this explains why Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes is driven like a coach and four through the 
 prophecies of Daniel. The following very wise and 
 truthful words were written by the late Prof. 
 Delitzsch : " No interpretation of prophecy, on 
 sound principles, is any longer possible from the 
 standpoint of Antichiliasm, inasmuch as the Anti- 
 chiliasts twist words in the mouths of the prophets 
 and, by their perversion of Scripture, shake the 
 very foundation of all doctrines, everyone of which 
 rests on the plain and simple interpretation of the 
 words of Revelation." 
 
 In the eighth chapter, Daniel has another vision 
 which develops the parts of his former vision 
 touched upon most lightly, i. e., the Persian and 
 Grecian Empires. He says nothing concerning 
 Babylon or Rome, and is silent on the subject of 
 the coming of Christ and the Everlasting King- 
 dom. 
 
 In the ninth chapter is a most definite and ex- 
 plicit Messianic prophecy. Verses 24-27. The 
 times of Messiah are here exactly stated. It was 
 seventy Heptades, or periods of seven, i. e., 490
 
 164 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 years, from the decree of Cyrus " To restore and to 
 build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah." From 455 
 B. C., the time Cyrus issued his decree, to A. D. 33. 
 When Christ was "cut off," is 488 years. But, as 
 Christ was born from four to five years before the 
 Christian era, as commonly reckoned, only sixty- 
 nine Heptades have been fulfilled. Therefore Dan- 
 iel's seventieth week is, without doubt, apocalyp- 
 tic. 
 
 In the ninth and tenth chapters are some prophe- 
 cies, in detail, that cover the historical period from 
 Cyrus to the domination of the Roman Empire, all 
 of which have been fulfilled. 
 
 The twelfth chapter has to do with the end 
 times. The first four verses are as follows : 
 
 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince 
 which standeth for the children of thy people ; and there sliall 
 be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation 
 even to that same time ; and at that time thy people shall be 
 delivered every one that shall be found written in the book. 
 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
 awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- 
 lasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the 
 brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to 
 righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Dan- 
 iel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time 
 of the end ; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be 
 increased. 
 
 Michael is without doubt the angel mentioned in 
 Rev. 20 : i, and " That time," is the end of this dis- 
 pensation. It is the time of " The great tribula- 
 tion." See Matt. 24 : 29-3 1 ; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20 :
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 165 
 
 15. These explain the last clause of the first verse. 
 The second verse has reference to the resurrections, 
 "both of the just and the unjust," which, of course, 
 take place in the end times. Dr. Tregelles renders 
 the verse thus : " Many from among the sleepers of 
 the dust of the earth shall awake, these that awake 
 shall be unto everlasting life, and these the rest 
 of the sleepers unto shame and everlasting con- 
 tempt." The Critics do utmost violence to even 
 their own " Literary tests " in spiritualizing such ex- 
 plicit language as Dan. 12:2. Dean Alford, in 
 speaking of such mistreatment of this and similar 
 Scriptural passages, says : " To spiritualize such 
 statements, is to make an end of all significance to 
 language, and wipe out the Bible as a definite testi- 
 mony to anything." 
 
 Then I Daniel looked and behold, there stood other two, the 
 one on the brink of the river on this side, and the other on the 
 brink of the river on that side. And one said to the man 
 clothed in linen, which was above the waters of the river, 
 How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I 
 heard the man clothed in linen, which was above the waters of 
 the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand 
 unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall 
 be for a time, times, and an half; and when they have made an 
 end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all 
 these things shall be finished. 
 
 Rev. 10 : 5-8, and, 11:15, 17, 18, will explain the 
 above verses. 
 
 The critics will continue their destructive work 
 to the very great delight of infidel scoffers, and thus 
 minister unto their own intellectual pride ; but it
 
 166 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 remains true, incontrovertibly true, that many of the 
 prophecies of Daniel have been fulfilled ; and, by 
 parity of reasoning, we conclude in spite of Higher 
 Critics, and Lower Critics, and enemies of God, and 
 demons, and the power of the " Lawless One," 
 which is already felt, that those that reach onward 
 to the end time will be also, because " No prophecy 
 ever came by the will of man ; but men spake from 
 God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 
 1 : 21. 
 
 "And I heard, but I understood not : then said I, O my 
 lord, what shall be the issue of these things ? And he said, 
 Go thy way, Daniel : for the words are shut up and sealed till 
 the time of the end. Many shall purify themselves, and make 
 themselves white, and be refined ; but the wicked shall do 
 wickedly ; and none of the wicked shall understand : but they 
 that be wise shall understand. And from the time that the 
 continual burnt offering shall be taken away, and the abomin- 
 ation that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand 
 two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and 
 cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty 
 days. But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, 
 and shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days."
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS, 167 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 ESTHER. 
 
 This Book has been under more or less suspicion 
 from very early times. Dean Stanley says : " Of 
 all the Canonical Books of the Old Testament it is 
 the one which lingered longest on the outskirts, and 
 has provoked the most uneasy suspicion since." 
 This was said with reference to the views enter- 
 tained of it by the Church of God. The chief cause 
 of such suspicion is the fact that the Septuagint 
 version, while agreeing in the main with the Hebrew 
 text, makes extended and numerous additions 
 thereto. This is doubtless the reason why some of 
 the Church fathers were skeptical as to its genuine- 
 ness. Melito and Athanasius left it out of their 
 lists of Canonical Books, though its intense Hebrew- 
 ism may have influenced them somewhat. 
 
 It was among the latest books admitted to the 
 Canon, and was placed among the Hagiographa. 
 It became, to the Jews, the most precious of them 
 all and was emphatically the roll, " the Megillah" 
 It was believed that it would outlast all the Hebrew 
 Scriptures save the Pentateuch, and that when Mes- 
 siah would come all the other Scriptures would be 
 done away with save these two. 
 
 The Higher Critics insist that the narrative as a 
 whole, seems to read as a romance rather than a his- 
 tory. One says : " It is safer to regard it as histor- 
 ical fiction rather than as veritable history." He
 
 168 THE HIGHEST CRITICS. 
 
 goes further and says : " It seems like blasphemy to 
 intimate that God had anything to do with its com- 
 position." These views are entertained chiefly 
 because the plot, plan and movement of the narra- 
 tive are so very dramatic as to seem unhistorical, 
 and the ignoring of the supernatural in their postu- 
 lates. Canon Driver admits that " Fact, however, 
 is proverbially sometimes stranger than fiction, so 
 that it is somewhat precarious to build a far-reach- 
 ing argument upon appearances of this nature." The 
 proofs of the historicity of the Book, however, are 
 numerous and convincing. First The verifications 
 by profane history, include the times, customs, 
 events, country and persons mentioned. See Jose- 
 ph us Ant. Book n, chap. 6, and the Greek histories. 
 Dean Stanley in speaking of the historical situation 
 of the Book, says : " Then come the various scenes 
 of the catastrophy, everyone of which is full of the 
 local genius of the Empire, as we know it, alike 
 through the accounts of the earliest Grecian travel- 
 ers and the latest English investigators." Canon 
 Driver confesses that " The character of Xerxes, as 
 drawn by him (the writer of Esther) is in agreement 
 with history." The Archaeologists have discovered 
 the ruins of Ahasuerus' palace in Shushan, and " In 
 the court of the garden " they found " a pavement 
 of red, and white, and yellow, and black marble," 
 exactly as mentioned in Esther I : 5, 6. Second 
 The Persian words and those of Chaldaic affinity 
 found in the Book, are not found in the older He- 
 brew texts, and therefore fit the writing to its his-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 169 
 
 toric situation. Third The feast of Purim. This 
 feast is held by the Jews to be second in importance 
 to the Feast of the Passover. This latter Feast is 
 observed in commemoration of the passing over of 
 the Death Angel, and sparing the " First Born " of 
 the obedient Israelites, that awful night, when the 
 " First Born " in each Egyptian household was slain. 
 Is it possible that such a Feast as Purim could have 
 been instituted without an historical occasion? Does 
 not the deliverance of God's ancient people, scat- 
 tered throughout the broad Empire of Persia, as 
 recorded in Esther, exactly suit the case? In Es- 
 ther 9: 15-28 we have a record of the appointing of 
 the Feast, and we know that it has been observed 
 from that time until now. 
 
 A great majority of the ablest exegetes favor the 
 historic view, among them such distinguished 
 scholars as Baumgarten, Haverru'ck, Keil, Staehelin, 
 Berthen and Ewald. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 Eichhorn, Keil and others put this writing in the 
 reign of Artaxerxes 464 425 B.C. Rawlinson fixes 
 it /\<\/\ 434 B. C. It has always been recorded in the 
 Jewish canon. Humanly speaking no one could 
 write the Book personally unfamiliar with the laws 
 and customs of the Persian court. The details of 
 the narrative justify such a view of the case. There 
 is no one of whom we have any knowledge who 
 could possibly do this work save " Mordecai the 
 Jew." We find in him all the prerequisites for
 
 170 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 such a work. In chapters 8 : 8-10, and 9 : 20, 23, 29 
 it is recorded that he did some writing, and was, 
 therefore, somewhat of a scribe. Beside, he was 
 personally familiar with all the facts in the case. 
 However, in the absence of any explicit testimony 
 of the Highest Critics as to the authorship of this 
 Book, we may not insist on our view ; but, after 
 carefully weighing all the evidence pro. and con., we 
 express it as our conviction that " Mordecai the Jew" 
 wrote the Book of Esther. 
 
 It is urged by the Critics that the ferocious and 
 blood-thirsty spirit manifested by Esther and Mor- 
 decai was not Christ-like, and, therefore, the Book is 
 not inspired, and should never have been admitted 
 into the Jewish canon. Exodus, Numbers, Deuter- 
 onomy, Joshua, Judges, the Books of the Chronicles, 
 and The Psalms, by the same ruling, ought not to 
 have been admitted to the canon ; for Moses, Joshua, 
 Gideon and David were men of blood and slaughter. 
 But the ferocity and blood-thirstiness of Esther and 
 Mordecai is greatly magnified by the Critics. Let 
 the whole situation be taken into the account, as 
 well as the times and people, and dispassionately 
 considered, and I am sure their criticism is not justi- 
 fied. Let it also be remembered that they were liv- 
 ing under law and not under grace, and then it will 
 be understood why so few comparatively of the Old 
 Testament heroes were in any sense Christ-like. 
 
 The Critics deny the inspiration of the Book be- 
 cause the name of God does not once occur in it. 
 Ewald says : " In passing from other Books of the
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 171 
 
 Old Testament to Esther, we fall from heaven to 
 earth." Canon Driver says: " It is remarkable that 
 whereas generally in the Old Testament, national 
 and religious interests are commingled, they are here 
 divorced : the national being extremely strong, and 
 the religious feeling being practically absent alto- 
 gether." The Critic finds what he wants to find. 
 How any one can be spiritually minded and prayer- 
 fully study the Book of Esther, and write such a 
 statement as the above, is more than I can under- 
 stand. Dean Stanley saw it otherwise for he says : 
 " The name of God is not there, but the work of God 
 is." 
 
 When it is remembered that the Jews but seldom 
 wrote or spoke the name of God, and when they 
 did it was with a profound and awe inspiring rever- 
 ence, it is not at all surprising that it is not men- 
 tioned in this Book, written as it was in the land of 
 the stranger. 
 
 But let us examine it a little closely and see if 
 we can find any Spiritual lessons. Dr. Pierson 
 says, " The doctrine of God's Providence finds here 
 a historical and pictorial parable." First There is 
 behind human affairs an unseen hand guiding and 
 directing according to the purposes of God in mercy 
 and grace. (Isa. 58 : 1 1 ; Psa. 25:9.) Wherever 
 in God's Word was this fact more clearly and forci- 
 bly set forth? Second Both evil and good have 
 their ultimate awards. (Jno. 5 : 28, 29 ; 2 Cor. 5:10; 
 Rev. 22: 1 8.) Third The prosperity and exhalta- 
 
 tion of the wicked is unsatisfying and shortlived 
 12
 
 172 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 and terminates in adversity. (Psa. 92 : 7 ; 73 : 3 ; 
 17: 20.) Fourth The adversity of the good is a 
 trial of faith, issuing in prosperity. (Heb. 12: 5-11 ; 
 Rom. 8 : 28.) Fifth Retribution is administered 
 with poetic exactness. (Gal. 6:7; Rev. 20: 13.) 
 Sixth The most minute events are woven into 
 God's plan. (Matt. 10: 29-31 ; Acts 27: 34.) Sev- 
 enth Providence is not fate, but consists with 
 prayer and resolve, freedom and responsibility. 
 (James i: 17; Phil. 4: 19; i John 5: 13, 14.) 
 
 The doctrine of substitution is beautifully sug- 
 gested by Esther's willingness to die for the people, 
 a voluntary and vicarious sacrifice. Esther's com- 
 munication with the King suggests the believer's 
 fellowship with the King of Glory. (See Jno. 14 : 
 23, and I Jno. i : 7.) Esther's marriage suggests 
 the relations of Christ and His Bride the Church. 
 (See 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5 : 22-27 ; Matt. 25 : 1-12.) 
 The answers she received to her supplications are 
 quite in line with the doctrine of acceptable prayer. 
 The unlimited and innumerable promises of God 
 are typified in Esther 8 : 8. The final victory over 
 all her foes, is what is at last to be gloriously true 
 of the Bride of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 21:7; 3:21.) 
 
 Let us examine a little closer and we shall find a 
 rich mine of eschatalogical truth: Ahasuerus' was 
 a mighty monarch (See Chap, i : 1-4), and in his re- 
 gal splendor was a type of Jesus as King, when He 
 shall reign from the rivers unto the ends of the earth. 
 (See Isa. 9:6,7; Luke 1:31-33; Rev. 11:15-17; 
 Phil. 2 : 9-1 1 ; Rev. 5 : 1 1-13.)
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 173 
 
 Vashti is a type of Israel. She was the lawful 
 wife of Ahasuerus, but was banished and another 
 took her place. Because of Israel's rejection of 
 Messiah she is now in the dispersion, the lawful un- 
 divorced wife of God the Father Almighty (Isa. 54 : 
 5 and Jer. 3: 12-14). But she will return from her 
 wanderings, and be restored to Divine favor and 
 honor (Rom. 1 1 : 26 ; Rev. 7 : 4-8). In commenting 
 upon Esther 2:1, where it is said " When the 
 wrath of King Ahasuerus was appeased, he remem- 
 bered Vashti," Jehoshaphet Ben Ezra, in his book 
 entitled " The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Ma- 
 jesty," says : " The time shall come when King 
 Ahasuerns shall remember Vhasti and what she hath 
 done, and what was decreed against her. The time 
 shall come in which his heart shall move towards his 
 former spouse, whom he put away from him for 
 righteous reasons ; when taking pity upon her hard- 
 ships and softened by her tears ; and satisfied with 
 her great and most sorrowful repentance, he shall 
 call her once more to himself, and shall reinstate her 
 in all her honors, and clothe her with greater glory 
 than she was possessed of before her misfortunes." 
 
 Esther is a type of the Church. In this dispen- 
 sation of the Spirit, God is taking from among the 
 nations a people that were no people (See Hosea 
 2 : 23, and Rom. 9 : 25, 26), as a bride for His Son 
 (See Hosea 2 : 19, 20, and 2 Cor. 11:2). And so 
 the rejection of Israel has turned out to our account 
 who are called from among the Gentiles (See Rom. 
 II : 11-15)-
 
 174 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Raman is a type of the anti-Christ. The anti- 
 Christ is Daniel's " Little Horn " (Dan. 7 : 8), Paul's 
 " Man of Sin " (2 Thess. 2 : 3), and John's " Beast " 
 with the wounded head (Rev. 13:3). He is a 
 usurper, and like Haman, will come to his end sudden- 
 ly. (See Dan 7 :' 1 1. ; Phil. 2 : 8, and Rev. 19 : 20, 21.) 
 
 Haman's ten sons are types of the " ten kings " 
 mentioned in Dan. 7:24, and Rev. 17: 12-18. 
 
 The " Great feast " King Ahasuerus made for 
 Esther, chapter 2:9, 17, 1 8, most beautifully typ- 
 ifies the " Marriage Supper of the Lamb." (See 
 Matt. 25 : 1-12, and Rev. 19:7, 8, 17.) 
 
 King Ahasuerus shared equally his honors and 
 possessions with Esther. See chapter 5 : 3. This is 
 just what the King of Kings will do with His Bride 
 the Church, in His coming kingdom and glory. 
 See Luke 22:29, 30, and Rev. 3:21. And so, in 
 falling "from heaven -to earth," as Ewald puts it, it 
 is plain to be seen by one who has spiritual vision, 
 that we bring much of heaven with us, for there is 
 much of that which is heavenly in the Book of 
 Esther, to be seen by the heavenly minded. 
 
 The Highest Critics bear no direct testimony to 
 the authorship and authenticity of this Book. But 
 since it belongs to the Writings which the Holy 
 Spirit says were " Given by inspiration of God," we 
 know that it was God-given ; " For no prophecy 
 ever came by the will of men ; but men spake from 
 God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." May God 
 smite with the might of his power the destructive 
 criticisms of the Higher Critics. Amen !
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 175 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 WORK OF THE CRITICS COMPARED. 
 
 We hear a great deal in these days about " Mod- 
 ern Biblical Study," " Wonderful Progress," "Ad- 
 vanced Thought," " Marvelous Discoveries," etc., 
 etc., as applied to biblical study and knowledge. 
 These expressions, oft repeated as they are, impress 
 the young and ignorant with the twofold idea that 
 we have mastered well-nigh all the difficulties be- 
 longing to such study, and that preceding genera- 
 tions knew little or nothing, critically and scientif- 
 ically, of the Word of God. 
 
 Some of the theories and methods of some of the 
 Higher Critics are indeed " wonderful " and " marvel- 
 ous," and quite altogether " modern," and may also 
 be characterized as ingenious, unique, and startling, 
 and also very presumptuous and exceedingly auda- 
 cious. 
 
 Advancement has been made along right lines, 
 for which all lovers of God's Word are truly thank- 
 ful. 
 
 But what is said about Moses not being the writer 
 of the Pentateuch, about these writings being largely 
 made up of myths, legends, traditions, fables, and 
 sagas borrowed from the surrounding nations ; and 
 about their historic, chronologic, and scientific in- 
 accuracies and unreliability is only " threshing old 
 straw."
 
 176 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Many of the criticisms, if not all, were made by 
 Aben Ezra in 1168, by Carlstadt in 1541, by An- 
 dreas Maes in 1573, by Hobbs in 1651, by Spinoza 
 in 1670, by Jean Astruc in 1753, and by Eichhorn 
 in 1779. 
 
 There is not a single objection raised by modern 
 Higher Criticism against the integrity of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures that was not urged by Vol- 
 taire one hundred and thirty years ago, and may be 
 found in the sixth volume of the Didot edition of 
 his works. The same may be said of Paine's Age 
 of Reason, believed by many to be the most damag- 
 ing book to Christianity ever written. 
 
 More than one hundred years ago certain learned 
 Jewish rabbis, who knew their language, tradi- 
 tions, and Book far better than most modern 
 Higher Critics, wrote quite a number of letters to 
 Voltaire, in which all his objections were most satis- 
 factorily met and his questions convincingly an- 
 swered. These letters are in book form, and bear 
 the title The Jew's Letters to Voltaire. So com- 
 pletely and overwhelmingly did these rabbis route 
 Voltaire that we need nothing more with which to 
 meet the objections raised against the integrity of 
 the Old Testament Scriptures by the modern critic. 
 
 I wish to quote from three classes of critics, viz. : 
 Infidel, Rationalist, and Supernaturalist, as to the 
 authorship, character, and reliability of the Penta- 
 teuch, that the reader may see how nearly they 
 agree in these matters,
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 177 
 
 The infidels are Voltaire, Paine, and Ingersoll. 
 The rationalists are Kuenen, Wellhausen, Dillmann, 
 Cornill, Robertson Smith, Prof. Cheyne, B. W. 
 Bacon, and Prof. Ladd.* The supernaturalists 
 are Riehm, Schultz, Driver, Briggs, and Harper. 
 
 The infidels are, of course, bitterly antagonistic 
 to the Bible and Christianity. 
 
 The rationalists deny a supernatural element in 
 the Bible, reducing it to the level of other so-called 
 sacred writings at the last analysis, thus making it a 
 merely human production, and yet claim to believe 
 in Christianity. 
 
 The supernaturalists claim some of them that 
 the Bible is God's Word. Some of them insist that 
 it contains God's Word. They all believe that 
 parts of the Bible are somehow inspired of God, but 
 they seem not to know how, and are not at all 
 agreed as to what parts. They all profess to be 
 Orthodox Christians, and are so recognized in their 
 denominations. 
 
 First, then, as to the Authorship of the Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 Voltaire said : " It is said, even in their books, 
 that this Pentateuch was not known until the reign 
 of their king, Josiah, thirty-six years before the de- 
 struction and captivity of Jerusalem, and then they 
 only possessed a single copy which the priest, Hil- 
 
 * Classifying Profs. Smith, Cheyne, and Ladd and Dr. Bacon among 
 rationalists, is only stating my opinion of the views of these gentlemen, after 
 reading carefully their writings on biblical criticism.
 
 178 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 kiah, found at the bottom of a strong box while 
 counting money." " The book found under Josiah 
 was unknown until the return from the Babylonian 
 captivity." (Phil. Dictionary, Art. " Moses," 1762.) 
 
 "Almost all men well acquainted with antiquity 
 agree that this book (the Pentateuch) was not issued 
 among the Jews until the time of Ezra. * * * 
 The greatest proof to some learned men that Ezra 
 edited all the Jewish books is that they appear to 
 be in the same style." (God and Men, 1769, Chap. 
 19.) 
 
 " Those best acquainted with antiquity think 
 that these books were written more than seven 
 hundred years after Moses." (Dialogue 16.) 
 
 " It has been supposed that the whole Penta- 
 teuch was written by some Levites eight hundred 
 and twenty-seven years after Moses (according to 
 the Vulgate), in the time of Josiah." (Bible Ex- 
 plained, 1777, "Deut") 
 
 " Toland assures us that it is plain that all these 
 books were written along time after (the events) by 
 some lazy priest, * * * and that we ought not 
 to believe the Pentateuch any more than the Sibyl- 
 line books which were regarded sacred during cen- 
 turies." (Bible Explained, 1777, Exodus, Chap. 19.) 
 
 " I am asked who is the author of the Penta- 
 teuch ? One may as well ask me who wrote the 
 Four Sons of Aymon, Robert the Devil, or the His- 
 tory of the Enchanter, Merlin." (Important Exami- 
 nation, 1767, Chap. 4.)
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 179 
 
 " The Pentateuch could not be from Moses." 
 (Ex. of Lord Bolingbroke.) 
 
 Paine said : "All the contradictions in time, place, 
 and circumstances that abound in the books ascribed 
 to Moses prove to a demonstration that those books 
 could not be written by Moses, nor in the time of 
 Moses." (P. 89.) *"The style and manner in 
 which those books are written give no room to be- 
 lieve, or even to suppose, that they were written by 
 Moses." (P. 80.) " From the historical and chron- 
 ological evidence contained in these books, Moses 
 was not, because he could not be, the writer of 
 them." (P. 82.) "My intention is to show that 
 those books are spurious, and that Moses is not the 
 author of them ; and still further, that they were 
 not written in the time of Moses, nor till several 
 hundred years afterwards." (P. 80.) " It cannot be 
 admitted as a fact in those books that it is Moses 
 who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridicu- 
 lous and absurd." (P. 80.) " Moses is not the 
 author of the books ascribed to him." (P. 87.) "The 
 Book of Genesis, though it is placed first in the 
 Bible and ascribed to Moses, has been manufactured 
 by some unknown person, after the Book of Chroni- 
 cles was written, which was not until at least eight 
 hundred and sixty years after the time of Moses." 
 (P. 99.) " Though it is impossible for us to know 
 identically who the writer of Deuteronomy was, it is 
 
 * The quotations from Paine are all taken from The Theological Works of 
 Thomas Paine, Boston, J. P. Mendum, 1854.
 
 180 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 not difficult to discover him professionally, that he 
 was some Jewish priest who lived, as I shall show 
 in the course of this work, at least three hundred 
 and fifty years after the time of Moses." (P. 83.) 
 " In Deuteronomy the style and manner of writing 
 marks more evidently than the former books that 
 Moses is not the writer." (P. 81.) " If Moses was 
 not the author (of Numbers), the books are without 
 authority." (P. 81.) "Those who have supersti- 
 tiously boasted of the antiquity of the Bible, and 
 particularly the books ascribed to Moses, have done 
 it without examination and without any authority 
 than that of one credulous man telling it to an- 
 other ; for, so far as historical and chronological 
 evidence applies, the very first book in the Bible is 
 not so ancient as the book of Homer by more than 
 three hundred years, and is about the same age with 
 ^Esop's Fables." (P. 92.) 
 
 Ingersoll says in his last lecture About the Holy 
 Bible, New York, C. P. Farrell, 1894: " Many cen- 
 turies after Moses, the leader, was dead many cen- 
 turies after all his followers had passed away the 
 Pentateuch was written, the work of many writers, 
 and to give it force and authority it was claimed 
 that Moses was its author. We now know that the 
 Pentateuch was not written by Moses." (P. 8.) "It 
 is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest 
 theologians that Moses was not the author of the 
 Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows 
 who the authors were, or who wrote any of these
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 181 
 
 books, or a chapter, or a line. We know that the 
 books were not written in the same generation ; 
 that they were not written by any one person." 
 (P. 9.) 
 
 Kuenen says : " Utterly unhistorical, and there- 
 fore cannot have been committed to writing until 
 centuries after Moses and Joshua." (The Hexateuch, 
 Wicksteed's translation, p. 42.) " The representa- 
 tions of the Hexateuch, as they stand, can only be 
 regarded as the products of ages long after Moses 
 and Joshua." (P. 48.) " Most of them (the elements 
 of the Hexateuch) are remote from the age of 
 Moses and Joshua." (P. 48.) 
 
 Wellhausen says : " Somewhat later (B. c. 850- 
 750), perhaps the legends about the patriarchs and 
 primitive times, the origin of which cannot be as- 
 signed to a very early date." " Even the Jehovistic 
 narratives about the patriarchs belong to the time 
 when Israel had already become a powerful king- 
 dom." (Hist, of Israel and Judah, p. 71.) 
 
 Dillmann says : " The style of Deuteronomy im- 
 plies a long development of the art of public oratory, 
 and is not of a character to belong to the first age 
 of Israelitish literature." (P. 611.) He held that 
 P. was written B. C. 900, in the kingdom of Judah ; 
 and that E. was written in the Northern Kingdom 
 in the first half of the ninth century before Christ ; 
 while J. was written in the Southern Kingdom not 
 earlier than the middle of eighth century B. c. 
 
 Cornill says : " The old historical books and the
 
 182 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Pentateuch exclude each the other. Either the 
 representation of the historical books is true, and 
 then the Pentateuch cannot be the foundation of 
 Mosaism and of the religion of Israel ; or, the Pen- 
 tateuchal laws are from Moses, and then the rep- 
 resentation of the historical books cannot be true." 
 (Intro, to O. T., p. 272.) 
 
 Cheyne says : " Deuteronomy was composed * * * 
 by no possibility later than the eighteenth year of 
 the reign of Josiah. * * * Hilkiah may possibly have 
 had to do with the composition of the book." 
 (Founders of O. T. Crit., pp. 271-272.) 
 
 Robertson Smith says : " The Pentateuch, then, 
 is a history incorporating at least three bodies of 
 laws. The history does not profess to be written 
 by Moses." (The Old Testament in the Jewish 
 Church, p. 323.) " As a matter of fact, the Penta- 
 teuchal history was written in the .land of Canaan, 
 and if it is all by one hand it was not composed 
 before the period of the Kings." (P. 325.) " The 
 Pentateuch in its present form was written after 
 the time of Moses, nay, after that of Joshua. We 
 cannot venture to assert that the composition of 
 the Pentateuch out of older sources of various date 
 took place before the time of the Kings." (P. 331.) 
 " The narrative in its present form cannot be older 
 than the youngest body of laws, and therefore must 
 have been completed some time between the age 
 of Ezekiel and that of Ezra." (P. 388.) " No part 
 of Deuteronomy 1-30 can be older than the seventh
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 183 
 
 century B. c., while * * * some parts may be 
 a good deal later than Josiah's Reformation in 
 B. c. 621." (P. 394.) " But the mass of the Hexa- 
 teuch, after Deuteronomy 1-30 has been set on 
 one side, is made up of extracts from several sources 
 pieced together in a complicated way." (P. 396.) 
 " The priestly document or group * * * after Eze- 
 kiel, as the historic-legal argument requires." 
 (P. 408.) 
 
 Prof. Ladd says : " Undoubtedly the first six 
 books of the Bible are a composite literary struc- 
 ture, the sources and materials of which came from 
 different times and authors ; they could not, there- 
 fore, have been all the work of Moses" (What is 
 the Bible? p. 312.) "The venerable tradition, 
 more than two thousand years old, which asserts 
 the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch, 
 stands opposed to the almost unanimous verdict of 
 modern biblical study. The tradition, although it 
 is so ancient, has absolutely no valid claims that 
 justify its uncritical acceptance." (P. 302.) " The 
 whole world of scholars has abandoned the ancient 
 tradition that the Pentateuch, in any such form as 
 we now have it, was the work of Moses." (P. 300.) 
 
 Dr. B. W. Bacon says : " There are practically 
 none to hold to the main contention of the tradi- 
 tionalists, an origin within the Mosaic age for any 
 considerable part of the narrative material." (The 
 Hexateuch, New York Independent, May 3, 1894.) 
 
 Schultz says : " For the latest writers of the Pen-
 
 184 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 tateuch it was an accepted fact that all the religious 
 knowledge and all the sacred institutions of Israel 
 that were in actual existence down to the time of 
 Ezra had been received from God by Moses. * * * 
 This view is not that of Israel's early reminiscences, 
 and no historical inquirer of the present day will ad- 
 vocate it." (O. T. Theo., p. 132.) 
 
 Dr. Driver says : " Even though it were clear 
 that the first four books of the Pentateuch were 
 written by Moses, it would be difficult to sustain 
 the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy." (Intro- 
 duction to the Lit. of the Old Testament, p. 77.) 
 " The Mosaic authorship of Genesis to Numbers 
 cannot be sustained." * * * " The historical books 
 afford a strong presumption that the law of Deuter- 
 onomy did not originate until after the establish- 
 ment of the monarchy." (P. 80.) " Deuteronomy 
 does not claim to be written by Moses." (P. 83.) 
 " Neither (J. and E.} is later than about B. C. 750." 
 (P. 1 16.) " They resemble the best parts of Judges 
 and Samuel (much of which cannot be greatly later 
 than David's own time). And there are certain 
 passages in which language is used implying that 
 the period of the Exodus is in the past, and that 
 Israel is established in Canaan." (P. 117.) " It (the 
 P. document) is itself the latest of the sources of 
 which the Hexateuch is composed, and belongs ap- 
 proximately to the period of the Babylonian captiv- 
 ity." (P. 129.) " The completed Priest's Code is the 
 work of the age subsequent to Ezekiel." (P. 135.)
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 185 
 
 Prof. Briggs says : " Moses did not write the 
 Pentateuch." (Defense of Prof. Briggs. New 
 York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 120, 127, 128.) 
 " It may be regarded as the certain result of the 
 science of the Higher Criticism that Moses did not 
 write the Pentateuch." (Inaugural, p. 33.) 
 
 Pres. Harper says : " The present literary form 
 of this revelation, Gen. i-n, dates from about that 
 period," B. c. 900. (Biblical World, vol. 4, p. 415.) 
 " Should criticism prove that the larger portion 
 of the Mosaic system, as we have it to-day, arose 
 in a post-Mosaic period, it would not in any way 
 contradict the representations made in the New 
 Testament." (P. 414.) "At a later period howmuch 
 later is and always will be a matter of uncertainty 
 an editor * * * undertakes to join these various rep- 
 resentations Gen. i-n together." (P. 412.) 
 
 Second. The Character of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Voltaire said : " Is it not plain that Genesis 
 was taken from the ancient fables of their (the 
 Jews') neighbors ? " " The Fable of Moses," "The 
 Fable of the Pentateuch." (Ex. of Lord Boling- 
 broke.) 
 
 Paine said : " Take away from Genesis the belief 
 that Moses was its author, on which only the 
 strange belief that it is the Word of God has stood, 
 and there remains nothing in Genesis but an anony- 
 mous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or in- 
 vented absurdities, or of downright lies." (Age of 
 Reason, p. 86.)
 
 186 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Ingersoll says : " We also know that the account 
 of the Tower of Babel is an ignorant and childish 
 fable." (P. 24.) 
 
 Kuenen says : " We can no longer accept his 
 statements as true (the Flood). We cannot give any 
 high position to the legend itself." (The Bible for 
 Learners, p. 76.) " Legend plays a greater part 
 than history itself in the accounts we possess of 
 him " (Moses). (P. 242.) "The sagas about the 
 patriarchs, the exodus, and the conquest." (P. 
 226.) 
 
 Wellhausen says : " It dresses itself up in archa- 
 istic fashion." (History of Israel, p. 41.) "The 
 historical tradition which has reached us relating to 
 the period of the judges and of the kings of Israel is 
 the main source, though only of course in an indi- 
 rect way, of our knowledge of Mosaism." (P. 18.) 
 " The Jews had no historical life, and therefore 
 painted the old time according to their ideas, and 
 framed the time to come according to their wishes." 
 (P- 213.) 
 
 Dillmann says: "When he (the Redactor of the 
 Hexateuch) had no historical accounts he sketches 
 freely an imaginary picture." (Numb., Josh., and 
 Deut., p. 650.) " The oral saga within which falls 
 all the history given by P. He knew and used the 
 North Israelite book of sagas." (P. 655.) 
 
 Prof. Cheyne says : " And neither by him (Prof. 
 Sayce), nor by anyone else, has it yet been made 
 probable that there was a historical individual
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 187 
 
 among the ancestors of the Israelites called Abram,* 
 or that the picture of the times of Abraham in Gen- 
 esis is (to adopt Prof. Ramsay's phrase) a funda- 
 mentally true tale, except, indeed, so far as it reflects 
 the times of the narrators." (Founders of O. T. 
 Criticism, p. 239.) 
 
 Robertson Smith says : " He (P.) chooses a canvas 
 as large as that of the pre-priestly Torah, and throws 
 the exposition of the system of Israel's sacred ordi- 
 nances into the form of history from the Creation 
 to the complete settlement in Canaan. This whole 
 history his plan compels him to idealize or allego- 
 rize, and he does so boldly." (O. T. in Jewish 
 Church.) 
 
 Prof. Ladd says : " The traditions of the first 
 chapter of Genesis." (What is the Bible? p. 71.) 
 " The knowledge of these facts, too, can be shown 
 to have come to the author of Genesis solely in the 
 ordinary way of tradition or of written documents." 
 (P. 194.) " The picture of the Garden of Eden, or 
 place where life began, is also a traditional one." 
 
 * Prof. Meinhold, at the last Bonn Vacation course of lectures, claimed that 
 the biblical accounts of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are entirely 
 unhistorical, and that the whole patriarchal history of Israel is a myth, and that 
 this view is the necessary conclusion of the documentary theory of the Penta- 
 teuch. The theological faculty at Bonn addressed a circular letter to the eight 
 other Protestant faculties in Prussia asking if these opinions were contrary to the 
 confessional status of the Church. With the sole exception of Griefswald the 
 faculties answered that such views were permissible within the evangelical 
 Church, and that to maintain them was not in conflict with the confessional. 
 
 Of course, if Abraham is a myth, Jesus Christ is a myth also, for he is the " Son 
 of Abraham," and the "Covenant of Grace" stands for nothing, and we are 
 without hope, "and of all men most miserable." Being but myths ourselves, for 
 believers ' are the children of Abraham " (Gal. 3. 7), it is a matter of no special 
 importance. Can anything be more destructive? The infidels never said any- 
 thing worse against the truth of the Bible never ! 
 
 13
 
 188 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 (P. 197.) " The remarkable similarity of some of 
 these traditions (Creation, the Fall, the Flood) to 
 the early chapters of Genesis has suggested a com- 
 mon origin for both." (P. 68.) 
 
 Schultz says : " We can do nothing more than 
 draw inferences from the national legends we have, 
 and from fragments of myth and of ancient customs 
 that remain." (O. T. Theo., p. 73.) 
 
 Riehm says : u In the earliest history we find our- 
 selves on the ground of sacred saga. Either this 
 history must have been given to the narrators by 
 revelation or by historical archives in addition to the 
 popular saga. Neither is the fact. Thus it is 
 a priori probable that these narratives were taken 
 from the popular saga. Their peculiar character 
 makes on the unprejudiced mind the clear impres- 
 sion that they are not history, but saga." (Int. to 
 O. T., p. 340.) 
 
 Prof. Driver says : " None of the historians of the 
 Bible claim supernatural enlightenment for the ma- 
 terials of their narrative. It is reasonable, therefore, 
 to conclude that these were derived by them from 
 such human sources as were at the disposal of each 
 particular writer in some cases from a writer's own 
 personal knowledge, in others from earlier docu- 
 mentary sources ; in others, especially in those re- 
 lating to a distant past, from popular tradition." 
 (Int. to Lit. O. T., Preface XII.) 
 
 Pres. Harper says : " These stories " (Bible Ac- 
 counts of the Origin of Man) " are not history, for
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 189 
 
 the times are prehistoric times. They are the He- 
 brew version (purged and purified) of the best 
 thoughts of humanity in that earliest period when 
 man stood alone with nature and with God. It is 
 sacrilege to call them history. They are stories. 
 * * * Let us be careful not to credit to the 
 Holy Spirit, who kindled the fire of inspiration, the 
 ignorance and superstition of those in whose hearts 
 the fire was not kindled." (Biblical World, vol. 
 3, p. 108.) " He takes the stories" (Bible Account 
 of Paradise and the First Sin) " common to all 
 ancient nations. * * * He does what the 
 prophet always does he idealizes." (P. 188.) "It 
 seems probable that the biblical story of the sons of 
 God and the daughters of men has a common origin 
 with outside stories. * * * The story is some- 
 thing our writer finds at hand. As he finds it, it is 
 a legend. He purifies it." (P. 188.) " Some of its 
 illustrations Heb., chapter xi could be shown to 
 be drawn from religious stories commonly accepted 
 as historical narratives, but in reality generically or 
 ideally true, rather than in the modern sense of the 
 term historically." (Vol. 3, p. 164.) 
 
 Third. Reliability. 
 
 Voltaire said : " Their chronology is always erro- 
 neous." " The innumerable mistakes of geography, 
 of chronology, and the contradictions found in the 
 Pentateuch." (Ex. of Lord Bolingbroke.) 
 
 Paine said: " I am not undertaking to point out 
 all the contradictions in time, place, and circum-
 
 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 stances that abound in the books ascribed to Moses." 
 (P. 89, A. of R.) 
 
 Ingersoll says : " Genesis contradicts itself. There 
 are two accounts of the Flood." (About the Holy 
 Bible, p. 23.) " We know that the story of the 
 Flood is much older than the book of Genesis, and 
 we know, besides, that it is not true." (P. 24.) " A 
 dreary and detailed statement (Genesis) of things 
 that never happened." (P. 25.) 
 
 Kuenen says : " As a rule they concern them- 
 selves very little with the question whether what 
 they narrate really happened so or not. This is 
 why the Old and New Testament are so full of 
 legends." (Bible for Learners, p. 5.) In his 
 Hexateuch he says : " It is in P. that the abso- 
 lutely unhistorical representation of Israel's settle- 
 ment in the trans-Jordanic district and of the divi- 
 sion of Canaan by lot is most fully developed." 
 
 " He (P.) shows little care for the reality, and sub- 
 ordinates historical probability to considerations of 
 quite another order." (P. 173.) " The representa- 
 tion of the Mosaic times and of the settlement in 
 Canaan which the Hexateuch gives us is, as a 
 whole, contradicted by the veritable history." (P. 
 192.) " The exodus, the wandering, the passage of 
 the Jordan, and the settlement in Canaan, as they 
 are described in the Hexateuch are simply impos- 
 sible." (P. 43.) "The representation of all this 
 (the exodus) in the Hexateuch is absurd." (P. 
 46.)
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 191 
 
 Wellhausen says : " The historical sphere created 
 out of its own premises is nowhere to be found in 
 actual history." (P. 41, Hist, of Israel.) "It is 
 full of historical fiction." (P. 170.) "All confidence 
 in it is lost." (P. 334.) " Its incredible insipidity ; 
 it is hard to give an idea of its pedantry." (P. 331.) 
 " Indescribable pedantry of language accompanies 
 the intellectual pedantry." (P. 336.) Thus this 
 Higher Critic speaks of the first four chapters of 
 Genesis. 
 
 Dillmann says : " Noah's ark, course of the Flood, 
 tabernacle (after the manner of a movable holy tent, 
 richly furnished), the order of the camp and march 
 (in geometrical divisions), the determination of the 
 boundaries of the tribes by lot under Joshua, the 
 members of each tribe in Moses' day, the quantity 
 of manna that fell, etc. They are not to be taken 
 historically." (Numb., Josh., and Deut, p. 650.) 
 
 Cornill, in his Introduction to Old Testament, 
 says (p. 56) : " P. contains contradictions and incon- 
 ceivable things." (P. 272.) " All historical value must 
 be denied to him." " Anarratorwhose untrustworthi- 
 ness is proved." (P. 63.) " The tabernacle * * * 
 is merely a carrying back of the Deuteronomic cen- 
 tral sanctuary ; that is, the temple of Solomon into 
 the time of Moses, after it had been made movable 
 through a waste of wit not to be despised." 
 
 Robertson Smith says : " The conclusion to which 
 modern critics have been led is that the whole 
 Priest's Code, alike in those parts which are for-
 
 192 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 mally legislative and in those which a superficial 
 reading might regard as purely historical, is to be 
 taken as essentially a law-book, and must not be 
 used as an independent source for the actual history 
 of the Mosaic times." (O. T. in Jewish Church, 
 
 P- 3870 
 
 Prof. Cheyne says : " The historical fact of the 
 Hittite conquest has come down to the writer sym- 
 bolized as P. in a meager and scarcely recognizable 
 form, and has become the setting of a tradition of 
 uncertain date." (Founders of O. T. Criticism, 
 p. 240.) 
 
 Prof. Ladd says : " The same primitive and un- 
 scientific character belongs to those classifications 
 of the animals and descriptions of natural phenom- 
 ena which are found in the Mosaic cosmogony, in 
 the narrative of the Deluge and in the Mosaic law." 
 (P. 134, What is the Bible?) "The biblical 
 writers show no signs of having been inspired so as 
 to be errorless when treating of physical matters ; 
 they make the mistakes incident to their times." 
 " There is not an atom of evidence to show that 
 they had any other information concerning the 
 truths of nature than such as belonged to all their 
 contemporaries." (P. 135.) "Nowhere else in the 
 entire Bible do we find narratives the genuine his- 
 torical character of which is more doubtful, and 
 the moral and religious value obvious, than those of 
 the fourth, fifth, and early part of the sixth chapters 
 of Genesis." (P. 198.)
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 193 
 
 Dr. Bacon says : " Many, doubtless will continue 
 to cling to the tradition of the Mosaic authorship 
 of the Pentateuch, as men long clung to the Da- 
 vidic authorship of the Psalms. But those who 
 have witnessed the quiet superseding of this now 
 obsolete idea by that of historical criticism, present- 
 ing the Psalmbook as a conglomerate which unites 
 in one collection fruits of the religious thought and 
 feeling of Israel during many centuries, have no 
 excuse for regarding the exactly analogous treat- 
 ment of the heterogeneous elements of the Hexa- 
 teuch as necessarily subversive of religious faith." 
 (Gen. of Gen., p. 64.) 
 
 Riehm says : " Not only did they (the authors of 
 the Pentateuch) compose the speeches of the actors, 
 as freely as Thucydides or Livy, but they also gave 
 themselves to more or less free reconstruction of the 
 popular tradition." (Intro, to O. T., vol. I, p. 339.) 
 
 Schultz says : " The work of a priest who, unde- 
 terred by the existence of sanctuaries in Israel, has 
 presented us with his ideal of sacred customs in the 
 form of a history." (O. T. Theo., p. 73.) 
 
 Driver says: " It is difficult to escape the conclu- 
 sion that the representation of P. includes elements 
 not, in the ordinary sense of the term, historical." 
 (Intro. O. T., p. 120.) " It is probable that, being a 
 priest himself, he recorded traditions, at least to a 
 certain extent, in the form in which they were cur- 
 rent in priestly circles." (P. 121.) "The partition 
 of the land being conceived as ideally effected by
 
 194 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Joshua, its complete distribution and occupation by 
 the tribes are treated as his work, and as accom- 
 plished in his lifetime." (P. 108.) 
 
 Prof. Briggs says : " These human features render 
 it improbable that the Bible should be free from 
 errors in its human setting. The psychology may 
 be crude, the methods of reasoning sometimes in- 
 exact, the rhetoric occasionally extravagant, the lan- 
 guage of some of the writers rude, their concep- 
 tions provincial, their knowledge of the earth defect- 
 ive. But how could it be otherwise if the divine 
 revelation was to come through such men as the 
 ancient times were capable of producing ? Holy 
 Scripture does not claim inerrancy in its human set- 
 ting, and it does not in fact possess it." (The Bible, 
 the Church, and the Reason, p. 108.) " I have 
 maintained that there are errors in the texts which 
 we have and in the best texts which we can get by 
 the science of textual criticism, and that it is im- 
 probable that the original texts, if we could discover 
 them, would be much different from those we have 
 in that regard. "(The Defense of Prof. Briggs Be- 
 fore the Presb. of New York, p. 105.) " I shall ven- 
 ture to affirm that, so far as I can see, there are 
 errors in the Scriptures that no one has been able 
 to explain away ; and the theory that they were 
 not in the original text is sheer assumption. * * * 
 If such errors destroy the authority of the Bible, it 
 is already destroyed for historians." (Inaugural, 
 P- 350
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 195 
 
 Pres. Harper says : " The fact universally ac- 
 cepted that in the present manuscripts and versions 
 of our Bible there are errors and inaccuracies." 
 (Biblical World, vol. 4, p. 415.) "One may well 
 doubt whether it was really the purpose of the 
 writer to express the thought which has been com- 
 monly taken from his words." (Concerning the 
 Flood, p. 29.) 
 
 " It is not historical, in the proper sense of the 
 word. The names are ideal names gathered from 
 the stories known to all the world. The number of 
 names, ten, is ideal. The number of years each 
 patriarch lived is not known." (Vol. 3, p. 334.) 
 " Do we expect of the early times a perfect moral- 
 ity? or a morality judged by the standard of our 
 times ? Then why expect a perfect historiography ? " 
 (Vol. 4, p. 199.) " Why then should we look for 
 the highest form of literary composition ? We 
 know that it was a child age." (P. 200.) " Is it 
 literal history ? (the Deluge). No. Nor is the 
 Book of Job history, nor the Books of Chronicles, 
 nor the Books of Kings, nor the Books of Samuel." 
 (P. 120.) 
 
 " It has been seen that the representations made 
 concerning the Garden of Eden, its situation and 
 its rivers, are ideal representations ; that at no pe- 
 riod in the history of investigation has it been pos- 
 sible to determine the details; that the elements in 
 the representation are found in the same forms in 
 other ancient accounts ; that these do not accord
 
 196 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 strictly with geographical science. It has been seen 
 that the great ages assigned to the patriarchs are 
 not borne out by history and are contrary to the 
 teachings of physiological science ; that a table of 
 nations is given which purports to be ethnological 
 and to include all the descendants of Noah, in 
 which, however, many omissions are to be found 
 a table which, indeed, omits certain great races alto- 
 gether, and which, therefore, cannot be called a sci- 
 entific table. These are a few of many important 
 variations between what seem to be the implications 
 of the narratives and the results of science. * * * 
 If the Holy Spirit undertook to reveal a scientific 
 knowledge of things to men in those days, the rev- 
 elation made was of a strange and peculiar charac- 
 ter. Really it is nothing short of blasphemy to 
 attribute these things to the Holy Spirit." (P. 276.) 
 " If we deny it, we certainly assume a grave respon- 
 sibility in attributing to the Holy Spirit that which 
 is dishonoring and degrading." (P. 275.) 
 
 " If there is an analysis the sacred record can no 
 longer be claimed to present a perfectly accurate ac- 
 count of the early times, for conflicting accounts 
 stand side by side, changes have been arbitrarily 
 introduced into the text, insertions and omissions 
 have been made, the material cannot be called in a 
 strict sense historical. 
 
 " If there is an analysis there are two, though 
 perhaps not contradictory, conceptions of God, one 
 of which seems to border closely on polytheism.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 197 
 
 How is it possible for so low an idea of God to have 
 been incorporated in the sacred Scriptures ? 
 
 " If all this is true the character of the Old Testa- 
 ment material, whether viewed (a) from an archaeo- 
 logical, (b] from an historical, and especially (<;) from 
 a religious point of view,' must be estimated some- 
 what differently from the method commonly in 
 vogue. It is composed of different stories of the 
 same event, joined together by an editor who did 
 not have insight sufficient to enable him to see that 
 he was all the time committing grave blunders, and 
 yet felt no hesitancy in altering the originals with 
 which he was working. It is not historical in the 
 ordinary sense of that word." (Hebraica, Oct., 
 1888, pp. 68-70.) 
 
 We see by these criticisms that with a very few 
 unimportant qualifications, variations, and reserva- 
 tions there is striking agreement between these 
 three classes of critics upon the three points under 
 consideration, viz.: First That Moses was not the 
 author of the Pentateuch, and that it was not writ- 
 ten or edited until from four hundred to one thou- 
 sand years after his death by persons wholly un- 
 known. Second That the Pentateuch, especially 
 Genesis, is made up largely of myths, legends, fables, 
 sagas, and traditions ; and, Third That, historical- 
 ly, chronologically, and scientifically, these writings 
 are untrustworthy. 
 
 All this means : First If Moses did not write the 
 Pentateuch, its own claims as to authorship are false,
 
 198 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 the Old Testament prophets did not tell the truth 
 in their testimony upon this subject, and Jesus and 
 the apostles were wholly ignorant of this matter or 
 knowingly condoned a falsehood and perpetuated a 
 fraud.* Second That the Pentateuch is not God's 
 word at all in any real sense ; but, being made up of 
 myths, fables, and legends, borrowed or stolen from 
 the heathen about them, and the traditions of men, 
 is not binding upon the consciences and lives of 
 men. Third A denial of inspiration. If this record 
 is as unreliable as these gentlemen agree it is, it is a 
 sin before high heaven to say it is inspired of God, 
 or that it is God's Word. 
 
 Here is what Thomas Paine, Christianity's great 
 enemy, says upon this point : 
 
 "Combining, then, all the foregoing circumstances 
 together respecting the antiquity and authenticity 
 of the Book of Genesis, a conclusion will naturally 
 follow therefrom. Those circumstances are : First 
 That certain parts of the book cannot possibly have 
 been written by Moses, and the other parts carry no 
 evidence of having been written by him. Second 
 
 * Herman L. Strack says : " As regards passages from the New Testament, we 
 must protest against their use for the twofold reason, that if they prove the Mo- 
 saic authorship all other proofs are superfluous and are a derogation from the 
 authority of our Lord, and that the use of such proofs removes the whole ques- 
 tion from the historical and critical domain." (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.) 
 
 Kuenen says : " The exegesis of the writers of the New Testament cannot 
 stand before the tribunal of science. We must either cast aside as worthless our 
 dearly bought scientific method, or must forever cease to acknowledge the author- 
 ity of the New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the Old. Without 
 hesitation we choose the latter alternative." (Prophets and Prophecy in 
 Israel, p. 487.)
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 199 
 
 The universal silence of all the following books of 
 the Bible, for about a thousand years, upon the ex- 
 traordinary things spoken of in Genesis, such as the 
 creation of the world in six days, the Garden of 
 Eden, the tree of knowledge, the tree of life, the 
 story of Eve and the serpent, the fall of man, and 
 his being turned out of this fine garden, together 
 with Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel. Third 
 The silence of all the books of the Bible upon 
 even the name of Moses, from the Book of Joshua 
 until the second Book of Kings, which was not 
 written until after the captivity, a period of about a 
 thousand years. Strange that a man who is pro- 
 claimed as the historian of Creation, the privy coun- 
 selor and confidant of the Almighty, the legislator 
 of the Jewish nation, and the founder of its religion 
 strange, I say, that even the name of such a man 
 should not find a place in their books for a thousand 
 years if they knew or believed anything about him, 
 or the books he is said to have written." "Fourth 
 The opinion of some of the most celebrated 
 of the Jewish commentators, that Moses is not 
 the author of the Book of Genesis, founded on 
 the reasons given for that opinion. Fifth The 
 opinion of the early Christian writers and of the 
 great champion of Jewish literature, Maimonides, 
 that the Book of Genesis is not a book of facts. 
 Sixth The silence imposed by all the Jewish 
 rabbis, and by Maimonides himself, upon the Jewish 
 nation, not to speak of anything they happen to
 
 200 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 know or discover respecting the cosmogony (or cre- 
 ation of the world) in the Book of Genesis. 
 
 " From these circumstances the following circum- 
 stances offer : 
 
 " First That the Book of Genesis is not a book 
 of facts. Second That as no mention is made 
 throughout the Bible of any of the extraordinary 
 things related in Genesis, that it has not been writ- 
 ten till after the other books were written, and put 
 as a preface to the Bible. Everyone knows that a 
 preface to a book, though it stands first, is the last 
 written. Third That the silence imposed by all 
 the Jewish rabbis and by Maimonides upon the Jew- 
 ish nation to keep silence upon everything relating 
 to their cosmogony evinces a secret they are not 
 willing should be known. The secret, therefore, ex- 
 plains itself to be that when the Jews were in cap- 
 tivity in Babylon and Persia they became acquainted 
 with the cosmogony of the Persians, as registered in 
 the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the Persian lawgiver, 
 which after their return from captivity they manu- 
 factured and modeled as their own, and antedated it 
 by giving to it the name of Moses. The case admits 
 of no other explanation. From all which it appears 
 that the Book of Genesis, instead of being the oldest 
 book in the world, as the Bishop calls it, has been 
 the last written book of the Bible, and that the cos- 
 mogony it contains has been manufactured." (Re- 
 ply to the Bishop of Llandaff, pp. 256, 257.) 
 
 Who can say, without quibbling, that such criti-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 201 
 
 cism is not destructive of the very foundations of 
 the Christian's faith and hope ? 
 
 Voltaire and the Deists of his time and Paine 
 used these criticisms for this very purpose. Paine 
 said : " But if it should be found that the books as- 
 cribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel were not writ- 
 ten by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, every part of 
 the authority and authenticity of these books is gone 
 at once ; for there can be no such thing as forged or 
 invented testimony." (Age of Reason, p. 79.) 
 
 Ingersoll uses the same criticisms with which to 
 point the shafts he hurls at Christianity. 
 
 The Deists of Europe in the last century, of 
 whom Lord Bolingbroke was the moving spirit and 
 Voltaire the spokesman, in their brilliant and per- 
 sistent warfare upon Christianity relied chiefly upon 
 these criticisms to destroy faith in the Bible as the 
 Word of God and bring the Christian religion into 
 contempt, as infidels have ever done. As a result 
 France plunged into infidelity and atheism, and the 
 French Revolution, with its " Reign of Terror," 
 followed. 
 
 In 1864 the late Earl of Beaconsfield (Disraeli), in 
 addressing the diocesan convention at Oxford, Eng- 
 land, said : 
 
 " The opinions of the new school are paralyzing 
 the efforts of many who ought to be our friends. 
 Will these opinions succeed ? My opinion is that 
 they will fail. * * * Having examined all their 
 writings, I believe, without exception, whether they
 
 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 consist of fascinating eloquence, diversified learning, 
 or picturesque sensibility exercised by our honored 
 preacher in this university (Dean Stanley), and 
 whom to know is to admire and regard; or whether 
 you find them in the cruder conclusions of prelates 
 who appear to have commenced their theological 
 studies after they have grasped the crosier (Bishop 
 Colenso) ; or whether I read the lucubrations of neb- 
 ulous professors (Frederick Maurice), who, if they 
 could persuade the public to read their writings, 
 would go far to realize that eternal punishment 
 which they deny ; or, lastly, whether it be the pro- 
 vincial arrogance and precipitate self-complacency 
 which flash and fire in an essay or review, I find the 
 common characteristic of their writings is this 
 that their learning is always secondhand. * * * 
 When I examine the writings of their masters, the 
 great scholars of Germany, I find that in their labors 
 also there is nothing new. All that inexorable 
 logic, irresistible rhetoric, bewildering wit could 
 avail to popularize these views was set in motion to 
 impress the new learning on the minds of the two 
 leading nations of Europe (by the English and 
 French deistical writers of the last century), and they 
 produced their effect (in the French Revolution). 
 When the turbulence was over, when the waters had 
 subsided, the sacred heights of Sinai and Calvary 
 were again revealed ; and amidst the wreck of 
 thrones, extinct nations, and abolished laws man- 
 kind, tried by so many sorrows, purified by so much
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 203 
 
 suffering, and wise with such unprecedented expe- 
 rience, bowed again before the divine truths that 
 Omnipotence had intrusted to the custody and pro- 
 mulgation of a chosen people." 
 
 Without doubt England would have gone as did 
 France but for the sweeping, wonderful, and glori- 
 ous revivals under the lead of George Whitefield, 
 John and Charles Wesley, and their colaborers, 
 growing out of the so-called " Oxford Movement." 
 
 We all know that irreparable harm has been done 
 the Christian religion by Paine, Ingersoll, their asso- 
 ciates and followers. We also know how they used 
 the same criticisms with which to poison the shafts 
 hurled at Christianity. 
 
 The unspiritual condition of the churches (and it 
 is lamentable when viewed in the light of the Refor- 
 mation and its legitimate results) and the alarmingly 
 prevalent skepticism, infidelity, and atheism among 
 the masses of the people in Germany, Switzerland, 
 and Holland is, without doubt, almost wholly attrib- 
 utable to the advocacy of these criticisms by a large 
 majority of the prominent pastors and theological 
 professors in those lands. 
 
 The same condition of affairs is measurably true 
 in England, Scotland, New England, and in every 
 community where this criticism is believed by any 
 very considerable number of people and openly ad- 
 vocated. Show me a church the pastor of which 
 believes and preaches these criticisms, and the mem- 
 bers of which pretty generally accept them, and 
 14
 
 204 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 I will show you a church that is worldly, formal, and 
 unaggressive in spiritual work. 
 In view of the above facts, is it possible that any- 
 one can believe that these criticisms will promote 
 the spiritual interests of the Church and be for the 
 glory of God if advocated by such splendid and 
 noble gentlemen as Drs. Driver, Briggs, and Har- 
 per? We know that it will not, because we know it 
 cannot. Will not their high professions, unsullied 
 characters, and commanding influence make this 
 teaching all the more dangerous? We are very 
 sure it will. Already it has made its way where in- 
 fidel or rationalist could not possibly carry it, and 
 is, therefore, working all the greater mischief. 
 
 These criticisms are taught in many theological 
 seminaries and pulpits of orthodox churches of our 
 land. They are being pushed to the fore in many 
 of our Church papers and magazines. They are in 
 the course of Bible study prepared by the American 
 Institute of Sacred Literature, which course has 
 been recommended to the Christian Endeavor soci- 
 eties of the world by their honored President, Dr. 
 F. E. Clark. They may be found in many of the 
 lesson helps used in Sunday schools all over the 
 land. They find a place in the teaching at the 
 Chautauqua assemblies almost everywhere. Breth- 
 ren, claiming to believe the Bible is the Word of 
 God, are pushing these criticisms everywhere they 
 can with a zeal deserving a better cause. 
 
 It is a very common saying of the Supernatural-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 205 
 
 ists that though there are numerous errors, discrep- 
 ancies, and contradictions in the Bible, these in no 
 sense imperil or jeopardize the doctrinal teachings 
 of the book. Of course, to superficial thinkers this 
 saying will appear specious ; but to thoughtful, hon- 
 est, and reverent souls fallacious and dangerous. 
 
 If the Bible contains historic, scientific, and chron- 
 ological errors, on what ground can it be consist- 
 ently argued that it is infallible in its doctrinal de- 
 liverances? If Jesus Christ and the inspired apostles 
 were not competent and trustworthy authorities in 
 matters of authorship of the Old Testament writings, 
 by what parity of reasoning can one consistently 
 appeal to their testimony in matters of doctrine? 
 The fact is, men will not accept the doctrinal teach- 
 ings of the book as infallible if they are led to be- 
 lieve that it is untrustworthy in other matters. 
 Personally, I am confronted by this fact almost 
 every day in my work. It is not an infrequent thing 
 for me to meet young people in their " teens," the 
 children of Christians, who put aside the claims of 
 the Bible with a flippancy that is almost paralyzing 
 and a sang-froid that is characteristic of a pro- 
 fessional infidel by saying : " Professors Briggs and 
 Harper and the best scholars in the Churches ac- 
 knowledge that the Bible is full of errors and con- 
 tradictions. Why, then, should I accept it as true ? " 
 I find this condition of affairs alarmingly upon the 
 increase. 
 
 The learned Bishop Ryle recently said :
 
 206 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 " It is vain to shut our eyes to the fact that a 
 general miasma of unbelief seems to fill the air in 
 this day. Our Lord's words are verified, 'When 
 the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the 
 earth?'' Archbishop Tait said, in dying words: 
 " The age is becoming skeptical." Archbishop 
 Thompson said : " The infidelity of the day is not 
 only aggressive, it is omnipresent. It is found in 
 the club and in the drawing room. It works in 
 magazines, newspapers, and novels." A great 
 Northern divine told the General Assembly of the 
 Church of Scotland last June: "Agnosticism and 
 materialism have become the fashion. The great 
 reviews and magazines are full of it. Young misses 
 fresh from school, and who are not sound on the 
 multiplication table, will lisp to you that they are 
 not sound in the faith. Young boys will tell you 
 that they go in for agnosticism, a word of which 
 they hardly know the meaning and which they 
 would find it hard to spell." 
 
 These critics are sowing to the wind ; the Church 
 will reap the whirlwind. If the Church accepts 
 their teachings and conclusions, then shall she be 
 swept from her anchorage to drift with the whirling 
 currents of agnosticism and skepticism, or be dashed 
 upon the rocks of apostasy. May God help his 
 people to cry mightily to him for deliverance from 
 this imminent peril !
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 207 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 SCHOLARSHIP. 
 
 Dr. B. W. Bacon, in an article in a recent issue of 
 The Independent, says: 
 
 Prof. Briggs's challenge in The Presbyterian Review for April, 
 1887, to name one solitary professor in this department in all the 
 Protestant universities of the continent of Europe who would con- 
 sent on this "question " to be classed with Prof. Green, was reit- 
 erated by Prof. George T. Ladd, D.D., of Yale, in his "What is 
 the Bible?" and by myself in "The Genesis of Genesis." It has been 
 made far more explicit in Prof. Briggs's " Bible.Church, and Reason," 
 by the enumeration seriatim, in an appendix, entitled, " Who are the 
 Higher Critics ? " of eighteen foremost Protestant universities of Ger- 
 many, with their forty-eight chairs of Old Testament science ; six- 
 teen similar institutions of the rest of the Continent, with their 
 thirty-three professors of the subject ; seven of the principal univer- 
 sities and theological schools of Great Britain, with their twelve pro- 
 fessorships ; fourteen of the corresponding institutions of America, 
 with their eighteen professors and thirty-five independent scholars 
 of note, all of whom in their writings, as cited by title, present a 
 "solid phalanx against the traditional theory." 
 
 To make this challenge still more explicit Prof. Briggs enumerates 
 the exceptions, of which there are none, to his knowledge, on the 
 Continent : 
 
 " The professors of Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh are united 
 in their support of the four documents. There is not an Old Testa- 
 ment professor of standing in Great Britain who takes ariy other 
 view, except the venerable Principal Douglas, of Glasgow, who has 
 recently resigned his chair. The majority of Old Testament pro- 
 fessors in America are of the same opinion. The notable exceptions 
 are Profs. W. H. Green, Howard Osgood, and E. C. Bissell." 
 
 Letters of inquiry dispatched the past week to the most eminent 
 professors in this department at Yale, Andover, Johns Hopkins, and 
 Chicago, have added, indeed, quite a number of names to Prof.
 
 208 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Briggs's list of one hundred and forty-six ; but as to the three ex- 
 ceptions, now reduced by the lamented death of Prof. Bissell to two 
 they have produced only expressions of wonder as to where Prof. 
 Green would look for opposing authority, and of ignorance of its 
 existence. Until The Independent shall have taken a census of au- 
 thorities on "the Pentateuch question" the opponents of the docu- 
 mentary theory, besides Profs. Green and Osgood and the very few 
 who, with Principal Cave, in England, and Prof. W. K. Beecher, of 
 Auburn, N. Y., try to combine a documentary theory of Genesis, in 
 whole or in part, with Mosaic authorship, must be classed as "great 
 unknowns." 
 
 Prof. Briggs says : 
 
 The critical analysis of the Hexateuch is the result of more than a 
 century of profound study of the documents by the greatest critics of 
 the age. There has been a steady advance until the present posi- 
 tion of agreement has been reached, in which Jew and Christian, 
 Roman Catholic and Protestant, Rationalist and Evangelical schol- 
 ars, Reformed and Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopalian, Unita- 
 rian, Methodist, and Baptist all concur. The analysis of the Hexa- 
 teuch into several distinct original documents is a purely literary ques- 
 tion, in which no article of faith is involved. Whoever, in these times, 
 in the discussion of the literary phenomena of the Hexateuch, appeals 
 to the ignorance and prejudice of the multitude, as if there were any 
 peril to the faith in these processes of higher criticism, risks his rep- 
 utation for scholarship by so doing. There are no Hebrew pro- 
 fessors on the continent of Europe, so far as I know, who deny the 
 literary analysis of the Pentateuch into four great documents (J, E, 
 P, and D). The professors of Hebrew in the universities of Ox- 
 ford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, and tutors in a large number of 
 theological colleges, hold the same opinion. A very considerable 
 number of Hebrew professors of America are in accord with them. 
 There are, indeed, a few professional scholars who hold to the tradi- 
 tional opinion, but these are in a hopeless minority. I doubt 
 whether there is any question of scholarship whatever in which there 
 is greater agreement among scholars than in this question of the lit- 
 erary analysis of the Hexateuch.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 209 
 
 These are bold declarations indeed. I think them 
 audacious assumptions. One hundred and forty-six 
 persons and " a few professional scholars who hold 
 to the traditional opinion " are all the scholars in 
 Christendom who are entitled to have an opinion 
 and competent to speak on these matters ! It re- 
 minds me of the gentleman who said, " There is but 
 one Greek scholar in this country, and modesty for- 
 bids my naming him." Of the one hundred and 
 forty-six persons named, Prof. Lampe has shown 
 that thirty-four of them do not belong to the classi- 
 fication made by Prof. Briggs ; that five are Unita- 
 rians, and seventeen are unorthodox Jews. Of 
 course, if this be "a purely literary question," other 
 things being equal, the testimony of a Unitarian, a 
 rationalist, a deist, or an infidel is of as much value 
 as that of a devout Christian scholar ; but, while it 
 is true there is a literary phase to this question, it 
 is transcended immeasurably by other considera- 
 tions. 
 
 Prof. Lampe names forty-five scholars as favoring 
 the traditional view. This number can be increased 
 into the hundreds, if not thousands. There are 
 great numbers of pastors, and not a few laymen, who 
 are seldom if ever heard of outside their limited 
 fields of labor quiet, unassuming, studious men 
 who keep abreast of all the work of specialists in all 
 departments of textual, historical, and analytical 
 criticisms of the Bible ; who read the Hebrew, 
 Greek, and other ancient languages, and who are
 
 210 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 familiar with all that has been accomplished by the 
 philologist and archaeologist, who are just as compe- 
 tent to testify upon these matters as the one hun- 
 dred and forty-six gentlemen mentioned by Prof. 
 Briggs. 
 
 To read the bold claims of these professors one 
 would think, if they did not know better, that bib- 
 lical learning would die with them. And yet they 
 might all die this day, and before sundown their 
 chairs could all be filled a dozen times over by " tra- 
 ditionalists " as learned as they from among the pas- 
 tors of churches in America. 
 
 It is a fact that all orthodox Jews are " traditional- 
 ists." Are none of them competent to speak upon 
 the Hexateuchal question ? 
 
 I have no doubt but that there is as much real 
 learning among the clergy of the Roman Catholic 
 Church as can be found in all Protestantism. An 
 "Encyclical," recently issued by Pope Leo XIII, 
 contains the following deliverance : 
 
 The Sacred Books have been written in their entirety and in all 
 their parts at the dictation of the Holy Spirit ; and so far is it 
 from being possible for an error to occur in what has been di- 
 vinely inspired, that of itself inspiration not only excludes all error, 
 but excludes and rejects it with the same necessity that renders it 
 impossible for God, the Supreme Truth, to be the author of any 
 error whatsoever. 
 
 This officially commits the whole Roman Catholic 
 Church to a position of antagonism to the Higher 
 Criticism.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 211 
 
 In accordance with the authority conferred upon 
 them by a Council of the Bishops of the American 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, held in New York last 
 October, a committee of bishops, consisting of John 
 Williams, Bishop of Connecticut and presiding 
 bishop ; William Creswell Doane, Bishop of Al- 
 bany ; F. D. Huntington, Bishop of Central New 
 York ; William E. McLaren, Bishop of Chicago ; 
 George F. Seymour, Bishop of Springfield ; and 
 Henry C. Potter, Bishop of New York, have issued 
 a pastoral letter to the clergy and laity throughout 
 the country. 
 
 It is an unusual and extraordinary occasion that 
 calls forth an address on the part of the American 
 episcopate to the Church at large, and the reasons 
 for the present letter are thus set forth in the intro- 
 ductory page: 
 
 We, your bishops, having been assembled to take order, under the 
 guidance of the Holy Ghost, for the extension of the kingdom of 
 God, have availed ourselves of the opportunity to meet in council to 
 consider our duty in view of certain novelties of opinion and expres- 
 sion, which have seemed to us to be subversive of the fundamental 
 verities of Christ's religion. It has come to our knowledge that the 
 minds of many of the faithful clergy and laity are disturbed and dis- 
 tressed by these things ; and we desire to comfort them by the firm 
 assurance that the episcopate of the Church, to which, in a peculiar 
 manner, the deposit of faith has been intrusted, is not unfaithful to 
 that sacred charge, but will guard and keep it with all diligence, as 
 men who shall hereafter give account to God. 
 
 The address treats of " The Incarnation of Our 
 Lord Jesus Christ " and " The Inspiration of the
 
 212 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Holy Scriptures." In concluding the discussion of 
 the latter the bishops thus speak : 
 
 The minute and reverent study of the divine Word must always 
 be necessary and will always be profitable. The time will never 
 come when men will not be obliged to combine the separate por- 
 tions of God's Word, to study the fashions in which they were given, 
 and to consider the operation of the Holy Ghost, both in and 
 through the sacred writers ; and the time will never come when the 
 honest student of God's Word will not require and will not welcome 
 every critical appliance which the providence of God may furnish, to 
 cast new light on the sacred page. It would be faithless to think 
 that the Christian religion has anything to fear from the critical study 
 of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 We devoutly thank God for the light and truth which have come 
 to us through the earnest labors of devout critics of the sacred text. 
 What we deprecate and rebuke is the irreverent rashness and unsci- 
 entific method of many professed critics, and the presumptuous 
 superciliousness with which they vaunt erroneous theories of the day 
 as established results of criticism. From this fault professedly 
 Christian critics are not always exempt ; and by Christian critics we 
 mean those who, both by theory and practice, recognize the inspira- 
 tion of God as the controlling element of Holy Scripture. 
 
 After asserting that no discovery of modern re- 
 search, positively ascertained, is of a character to 
 unsettle a Christian's faith in any particular, the 
 letter continues : 
 
 Any instruction or any study which makes any part of the Bible 
 less authoritative than it really is, which weakens faith in its inspira- 
 tion, which tends to eliminate Christ from the utterances of the 
 prophets, or which leads a man to think of miracles with a half-sup- 
 pressed skepticism, is a pernicious instruction and a pernicious study. 
 
 This " pastoral letter " commits the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church also against the criticism con-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 213 
 
 demned in these pages. I know there are some 
 scholars in this branch of the Church of God who 
 are advocating destructive methods of biblical criti- 
 cism, hence this "pastoral." But the authorities 
 condemn their views and work, and the scholarship 
 of this denomination of Christians is in sympathy 
 with these condemnatory views. 
 
 We all know how emphatically the Presbyterian 
 Church, through its last three General Assemblies, 
 has declared in favor of the traditional views as 
 against those advocated by Prof. Briggs. After 
 Prof. Briggs and the very few scholars in the Pres- 
 byterian Church who are one with him in this matter, 
 is Prof. W. Henry Green, the only scholar belonging 
 to this communion ? 
 
 Not a single Orthodox. Church has approved and 
 adopted the conclusions of the Higher Criticism. 
 Every Orthodox Church is committed to the tradi- 
 tional views. And yet these few men, assuming to 
 possess well-nigh all the learning in Christendom, 
 are demanding of the Church of God that she shall 
 abandon views that are consistent and made precious 
 by hallowed associations ; that were baptized by the 
 tears and blood of thousands " of whom the world 
 was not worthy ; " views that were the result of the 
 labors of the Church's greatest scholars for twenty 
 centuries ; and for what ? Assumptions, supposi- 
 tions, conjectures, and no end of unprovable opin- 
 ions. 
 
 These gentlemen are creating a literature wholly
 
 214 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 their own ; and, with a zeal worthy of a better 
 cause, are pushing it into the theological seminaries 
 and the libraries of pastors all over the civilized 
 world. They are making a lexicon, so that their 
 own definitions may become current, and are trans- 
 lating the Bible to suit their own private interpreta- 
 tions. The immediate evil accomplished by them is 
 not great, since their audience is small. Their 
 writings are too dry, hair-splitting, and voluminous 
 ever to become popular; but the ultimate evil may 
 be very great, since the young men they are im- 
 pressing with their views are to go abroad in the 
 Church and world and sow broadcast the seeds of 
 error; and, as rationalism and infidelity were the 
 natural and inevitable harvest of the sowing of Baur 
 and the Tubingen school in the Protestant Churches 
 of continental Europe, so will it be in Great Britain 
 and America fifty years hence if they succeed in ac- 
 complishing their purposes. 
 
 These critics tell us that their criticisms will not 
 disturb the doctrines of the Bible; that they are 
 only clearing away the rubbish that we may see 
 these doctrines in a clearer and better light. Prof. 
 Emil Schurer, of Kiel, insists that the doctrines of 
 the Bible are in no danger ; and yet, in the second 
 paragraph from the one in which this view is ex- 
 pressed, he tells of a theological revolution already 
 accomplished by the Higher Critics. 
 
 We know how extensive and influential were the 
 influences of the Higher Criticism in unspiritualizing
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 215 
 
 the Protestant Churches of Germany, Switzerland, 
 and Holland. Wellhausen himself tells us how he 
 left the theological faculty at Greifswald of his own 
 accord in the consciousness of no longer standing 
 quite on the basis of the Evangelical Church and 
 Protestantism. Hengstenberg has well said : " The 
 denial of the Pentateuch has its origin in the prone- 
 ness to Naturalism, which has its root in estrange- 
 ment from God." 
 
 But, will the work of these critics prevail ? We 
 know it will not. 
 
 The inspired Psalmist said : " Thou hast magni- 
 fied thy Word above all thy name." We see this 
 in its literary and poetic beauty; in its historic, 
 scientific, and biographical accuracy ; in its ethical 
 and philosophical profundity ; in its indestructible- 
 ness and elevating and transforming power ; and in 
 its prophetic arid eschatological uniqueness. The 
 Written Word tells of the Living Word tells of 
 him who created all things ; who is the " Light of 
 the world " and Saviour of men. God gave him 
 " the name which is above every name." The great- 
 ness and glory of this name shall be recognized and 
 acknowledged by all created intelligences, in heaven, 
 in earth, and under the earth ; and, at last " every 
 tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
 glory of God the Father." The names of rulers, 
 warriors, and statesmen; of philosophers, scien- 
 tists, and theologians ; of critics, skeptics, and infi- 
 dels, great, noble, and illustrious in the sight and
 
 216 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 estimation of men, will pale as the morning star 
 before the rising sun before the name of Jesus. And 
 yet God has magnified his Word, by which he made 
 the heavens, and which " endureth forever," above 
 this greatest and most glorious of names. Surely 
 that which God has so exalted and honored we do 
 well and wisely to love, cherish, and obey. " For 
 we can do nothing against the truth, but for the 
 truth" (2 Cor. 13:8).
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 217 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 There are many in the Church of God who are 
 averse to controversy. Some of them are gentle, 
 quiet, timid, shrinking souls, who cannot understand 
 the martial commands and exhortations of the 
 Bible. Others are trimmers and politicians 
 " peace-at-any-price " people. They will not cen- 
 sure or condemn the man who destroys the " Old 
 Faith " if he claims to be a supernaturalist ; but, 
 strangely enough, they decry and condemn the man 
 who defends it. Hence the critics who claim to 
 believe the Bible is the Word of God are almost un- 
 hindered in pushing their rationalistic work and 
 views. These people oppose the work of infidels ; 
 they condemn the destructive criticisms of the ac- 
 knowledged rationalists ; but, when a man in the 
 Church, professing to believe the Bible to be a super- 
 natural revelation of the mind and will of God, does 
 the very same work, these people insist that they 
 must not be opposed, and will condemn as unlov- 
 ing and unchristlike the man who does it. 
 
 They say, " We do not want controversy ; we 
 want peace." They seem not to know that God's 
 Word says, " First pure, then peaceable " (James 
 3: 17). It is utterly impossible to have peace in the 
 Church excepting upon the ground of loyalty to 
 God's Word. Jesus said, "I came not to send
 
 218 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34). This is all 
 " because the mind of the flesh is enmity against 
 God " (Rom. 8 : 7). God commands the Christian 
 teacher to " reprove them sharply, that they may 
 be sound in the faith, not giving heed to" the 
 "commandments of men who turn away from the 
 truth" (Titus 1 : 13, 14). Timothy was commanded 
 to " Reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering 
 and teaching. For the time will come " (without 
 doubt here now) " when they will not endure the 
 sound doctrine " (the integrity and sufficiency of 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, see Chap. 3) ; but, 
 having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers 
 after their own lusts ; and will turn away their 
 ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables " 
 (2 Tim. 4 : 2-4). 
 
 In the Introduction to "Anti-Higher Criticism " 
 (Hunt & Eaton, 150 Fifth Avenue, New York) I 
 characterized some of the work of some of the 
 critics as "audacious assumptions." One promi- 
 nent Church paper called the use of such language* 
 " unscholarly and unchristlike." The reviewer did 
 not say my statement was untrue. If it were un- 
 true, of course it would have been " unscholarly and 
 unchristlike." But it is true. Can the truth be un- 
 scholarly and unchristlike ? The effort to make it 
 appear that one is " unscholarly and unchristlike " 
 because he tells the unvarnished truth is an ac- 
 knowledgment of the weakness of their cause, and 
 would not be made only because of those in the
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 219 
 
 Church who are afraid to call " a spade a spade " 
 and the " Peace-at-any-price " party. 
 
 What of the language of the Saviour when, in 
 speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees, who " made 
 void the word of God because of their traditions?" 
 (Matt. 15:6, R. V.) He called them " hypocrites ; " 
 " ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers " (Matt. 23 : 33) ; 
 and " liars " (John 8:55); etc., etc. 
 
 Was Paul " unscholarly and unchristlike " when, 
 in speaking to one who sought to " turn aside the 
 proconsul from the faith," he said to him : " O, full 
 of all guile and all villainy, thou son of the devil, 
 thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not 
 cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" 
 (Acts 13 : 10.) 
 
 Was the gentle, loving John " unscholarly and 
 unchristlike " when he characterized as " liars " all 
 who deny the deity of Jesus Christ (i John 2:22); 
 the man who claimed to be a Christian and yet will 
 not obey God (i John 2:4); and he who " hateth 
 his brother " (i John 4: 20) ? 
 
 Away with that sentimentalism and cowardice 
 that apologizes for one, or condemns him, for tell- 
 ing the truth and calling things by their right 
 names about the work and views of those who are 
 undermining the fortress of the Church of Jesus 
 Christ ! 
 
 While we ought to love these men personally, 
 and do them all the good we can (and I am sure I 
 
 do and will, and I have never said or written one 
 15
 
 220 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 word derogatory of them personally), at the same 
 time we must condemn their destructive work or 
 become party to it. (2 John 9-11.) 
 
 These be perilous times. In addition to the pre- 
 vailing unbelief there is an alarming increase of 
 skepticism, rationalism, agnosticism, and infidelity. 
 Can any one for a moment believe that the work 
 of the Higher Critics will turn this tide in the right 
 direction ? We do know that their work is largely 
 the cause of it. 
 
 Bishop Ryle says : 
 
 And what is the source of all this mischief? I believe it is the 
 result of the constant attacks made by the learned critics on the in- 
 spiration of the Old Testament, producing a general feeling of skep- 
 ticism about the New among the large mass of people who know 
 nothing of any criticism, but are glad of some excuse for doubt- 
 ing the truth of the whole Bible. The consequence is a general 
 shakiness in men's minds about Bible religion altogether. I firmly 
 believe that many of our modern critics mean no harm, but actually 
 think they are doing God service. But I believe with equal firm- 
 ness that one result of this Higher Criticism is that many people 
 in this day never read their Bibles at all, or at any rate read less 
 than they used to.
 
 yS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 221 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 SOME NOTEWORTHY TESTIMONIES. 
 
 Josephus, the great Jewish historian, who wrote 
 about A. D. g2, 93, says, concerning the canon of 
 the Old testament : 
 
 " With us," in contrast to the contradictions of Greek his- 
 tory, " there are, not myriads of books inharmonious and con- 
 flicting, but two and twenty books only, containing the records 
 of the whole time, and rightly believed to be Divine. Of 
 these, five are those of Moses, which comprises as well the 
 matters of law as the account of the generation of man, to the 
 time of his death. This period is little short of 3,000 years. 
 "But from the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the 
 King of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote 
 what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The four re- 
 maining books contain hymns to God, and suggestions to men 
 as to their lives. From Artaxerxes down to our own times, 
 events have been recorded, but they have not been accounted 
 worthy of the same credit as those before them, because the 
 exact succession of Prophets existed no longer. And it is evi- 
 dent indeed, how we stand affected by our own writings. For, 
 so long a period having now elapsed, no one has dared either 
 to add or to take away from them, or to change any thing ; it 
 being a thing implanted in all the Jews from their birth, that 
 they should account them as oracles 01 God, and abide by 
 them, and, if needful to gladly die for them." 
 
 He further says : 
 
 " Since I see many attending to the blasphemies uttered by 
 some out of hostility, and disbelieving what I have written 
 about our antiquities, and making it a token ot the modernness 
 of our race, that the celebrated Grecian historians have not ac- 
 counted it worthy of mention, I thought it needful to write 
 briefly of all these things."
 
 222 
 
 Professor Luthardt can speak from experience on 
 this subject. For nearly 40 years he has been pro- 
 fessor of theology, at Leipsic, and an effective leader 
 among the evangelical scholars of Germany. He 
 has combatted the rationalistic theories that were 
 so popular and threatening a generation ago, and he 
 has lived to see them dead and buried. Therefore 
 he has no anxiety because of the new storms that 
 have arisen. In a recent article he utters these en- 
 couraging words : 
 
 " We have had too many experiences in this respect, have 
 seen too many hypotheses come and go. Who knows what 
 gravediggers already stand at the door ? We older ones had 
 experience in Baur's criticism of the New Testament, and some 
 of us took an active part in opposing it. Where is that school 
 now? What a stir D. F. Strauss made in his day! All who 
 understand the matter now have abandoned the theory that the 
 life of Jesus consists of myths. How many in Germany, even 
 in scientific circles, compromised themselves by their attitude 
 towards Kenan's Life of Jesus ! Who ever speaks seriously of 
 this French romance now ? " 
 
 Coleridge remarks: 
 
 " One striking proof of the genuineness of the Mosaic Books 
 is this : they contain precise prohibitions, by way of predicting 
 the consequences of disobedience, of all those things which 
 David and Solomon actually did and gloried in doing raising 
 cavalry, making a treaty with Egypt, laying up treasure, and 
 polygamizing. Now, could such prohibitions have been fabri- 
 cated in these kings' reigns or afterwards ? Impossible ! " 
 
 Kiel and Delitzsch in Introduction to Genesis 
 say : 
 
 " All that has been adduced as proof of. the contrary (the 
 Mosaic origin) by the so-called Modern Criticism, is founded
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 223 
 
 either upon misunderstanding and misinterpretation, or upon 
 a misapprehension of the peculiarities of the Semitic style of 
 historical writing, or lastly, upon doctrinal prejudices, in other 
 words, upon a repudiation of all the supernatural characteris- 
 tics of Divine revelation, whether in the form of miracle or 
 prophecy." 
 
 Rawlinson, the distinguished antiquarian and one 
 of the most competent of critics, says: 
 
 Every work which comes down to us as the work of a par- 
 ticular author, is to be accepted as his production, unless 
 strong grounds can be produced to the contrary. The onus 
 frobandi lies with the person who denies the genuineness; and, 
 unless the arguments adduced in proof are very weighty, the 
 fact of reputed authorship ought to overpower them. Sound 
 criticism has generally acquiesced in this canon. It raises an 
 important presumption in favor of the Mosaic authorship of 
 the Pentateuch, anterior to any proof of the fact to be derived 
 from internal evidence, or from the testimony of those who 
 
 had special opportunities of knowing Until it is 
 
 shown that the book was not composed by its reputed author, 
 the mode and time of its composition are not fit objects of re- 
 search. . . . There is really not a pretence for saying that 
 recent discoveries in the field of history, monumental or other, 
 have made the acceptance of the Mosaic narrative in its plain 
 and literal sense any more difficult now, than in the days of 
 Bossuet and Stillingfleet. 
 
 To the charge of Dewette, that the evidence for the Penta- 
 teuch is of little worth, because the Jews were uncritical, he 
 says : " The Jews and Greeks, who during eighteen centuries, 
 without a dissentient voice, ascribed the ' Book of the Law ' to 
 Moses, were not acquainted with the modern Critical Analysis, 
 which claims to be an infallible judge of the age, and mode of 
 composition, of every literary production. It is true the wit- 
 nesses include apostles, prophets, confessors, our Blessed Lord 
 Himself ; but the^distance of these witnesses is held to invalid- 
 ate their testimony; or if the words of One at least are too
 
 224 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 sacred to be gainsaid, He spoke (it is argued) by way of accom- 
 modation, in order not to shock the prejudices of the Jew. . . 
 " It appears that the Pentateuch is either cited or mentioned 
 as the work of Moses, by almost the whole series of Jewish his- 
 torical writers from Moses to Ezra. 
 
 Rev. Mason Gallagher, in " Modern Objections 
 Antiquated Errors," calls attention to the celebrated 
 case of the critic Leclerc or Clericus, as follows : 
 
 In the last century the celebrated critic Leclerc or Clericus, 
 was led to deny that the Pentateuch was the genuine work of 
 Moses, on grounds similar to those now ventilated. 
 
 Dr. Dick in his admirable Lectures on Theology, p. 27, Am. 
 Ed., says of Leclerc : " His hypothesis is conjectural, improba- 
 ble, and contrary not only to the uniform belief of the whole 
 Jewish nation, but also to the testimony of inspiration." He 
 then refers to the reply of Witsius to Leclerc, and quotes Wat- 
 son's Apology, Letter III. " A small addition to a book," it 
 has been observed, " does not destroy the genuineness or the 
 authenticity of the whole book." He thus continues : " It is 
 probable that Clericus hastily adopted this opinion : it is cer- 
 tain that on mature reflection he renounced it, and acquiesced 
 in the common belief of Jews and Christians, which is con- 
 firmed by the testimony of our Lord and His Apostles, that the 
 first five books of the Bible were written by Moses." (See 
 Prolegom. i Dissert. Ill, Scriptore Pentateuchi.) 
 
 The experience of Leclerc is so interesting in this connec- 
 tion that we are led to give an extract from the " Jews' Letter 
 to Voltaire," who, when this arch-infidel used the name of this 
 great German critic, to fortify his attacks on Moses, replied : 
 " We shall not conceal that Leclerc did at first hold this 
 opinion. But if we owed that acknowledgement to truth, were 
 you not under the same obligation to inform your readers, 
 that he changed his mind since, and in a riper age openly em- 
 braced that opinion which he combatted in his youth ? " 
 Leclerc says: "These slight additions, made % by the prophets 
 who lived after Moses, ought not to prevent us from looking
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 225 
 
 upon him as the author of the Pentateuch, since there are so 
 many other proofs of this, just as the Hebrew antiquities are 
 ascribed to Josephus, although some passages may have been 
 inserted by recent hands ;" and again : " Moses cannot with any 
 show of reason, be denied to have been the real author of the 
 Pentateuch." (See Jews' Letters to Voltaire, p. 145-7.) 
 
 The late very scholarly Dr. Liddon, Canon of 
 St. Paul's, said: 
 
 For Christians it will be enough to know that our Lord 
 Jesus Christ set the seal of His infallible sanction on the whole 
 of the Old Testament. He found the Hebrew canon as we 
 have it in our hands to-day, and He treated it as an authority 
 which was above discussion. Nay, more ; He went out of His 
 way if we may reverently speak thus to sanction not a few 
 portions of it which modern skepticism rejects. 
 
 Thus, to take an example : In the Book of Deuteronomy 
 long addresses are ascribed to Moses (Deut. i, i, etc. ; v, i, etc.), 
 and Moses describes a series of events of which he claims to 
 have been an eye-witness (Deut. ix. 16; x. 1-5, etc). If, then, 
 we are told that the addresses were really unspoken and these 
 events unwitnessed by Moses ; that the " dramatized " or, to 
 speak plainly, fictitious account of them was composed by some 
 Jew, with a fine idealizing faculty, who lived many centuries 
 after Moses ; and this, although the book was undoubtedly 
 imposed upon the conscience of the Jewish people, at any rate 
 after the exile, as the work of Moses himself ; we must observe 
 that such a representation is irreconcilable with the veracity 
 of the book, which by its use of the name of the great law- 
 giver claims an authority that, according to the critics in 
 question, does not belong to it ; or, if that striking prediction 
 in the eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel, about King Anti- 
 ochus Epiphanes (Dan. viii, 13-25), was really, as has been 
 asserted, written after the events referred to, and thrown 
 into the form of prediction by some scribe of the second cen- 
 tury before Christ, in order to arouse and encourage the Jews 
 in their long struggle with the Graeco- Syrian power, then it
 
 226 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 must be said that the book in which it occurs is not trust- 
 worthy ; the writer is endeavoring to produce a national 
 enthusiasm by means of a representation which he must have 
 known to be contrary to fact. 
 
 Are we to suppose that in these and other (St. John v. 46, 47 ; 
 cf. Deut. xviii, 15, 18, etc.), references to the Old Testament 
 our Lord was only using ad hominem arguments, or talking 
 down to the level of a popular ignorance which He did not 
 Himself share ? Not to point out the inconsistency of this 
 supposition with His character as a perfectly sincere religious 
 teacher, it may be observed that in the Sermon on the Mount 
 He marks off those features of the popular Jewish religion 
 which He rejects (St. Matt. v. 27-48) or modifies, in a manner 
 which makes it certain that, had He not Himself believed in the 
 historic truth of the events and persons to which He thus re- 
 fers, He would have said so. But did He then share a popular 
 belief which our higher knowledge has shown to be popular 
 ignorance? and was He whom His apostle believed to be full 
 of grace and truth (St. John i, 14) and " in whom are hid all 
 the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. ii, 3), indeed 
 mistaken as to the real worth of those Scriptures to which He 
 so often and so confidently appealed? There are those who 
 profess to bear the Christian name, and yet do not shrink from 
 saying as much as this. But they will find it difficult to per- 
 suade mankind that, if He could be mistaken on a matter of 
 such strictly religious importance as the value of the sacred 
 literature of His countrymen He can be safely trusted about 
 any thing else. The trustworthiness of the Qld Testament is, 
 in fact, inseparable from the trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ; and if we believe that He is the true Light of the 
 world, we shall close our ears against suggestions impairing the 
 credit of those Jewish Scriptures which have received the 
 stamp of His divine authority. 
 
 Prof. Taylor Lewis in his Introduction to Gen- 
 esis in Lang's Commentary, says : 
 
 Those who set the least value on the idea of inspiration, 
 find a fancied support not only of what is called the documen-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 227 
 
 tary theory of Genesis, but also of their favorite notion of 
 earlier and later periods in the composition of the whole and 
 even of particular parts. . . . This view is already curing 
 itself by its ultra-rationalistic extravagance. It reduces Old 
 Testament Scriptures not only to fragments, but to fragments 
 of fragments in most ill-assorted and jumbled confusion. Its 
 supporters find themselves, at last, in direct opposition to their 
 favorite maxim, that the Bible must be interpreted as though 
 written like any other book. For, surely, no other book was 
 ever so composed or so compiled. In the same narrative, pre- 
 senting every appearance of narrative unity, they find the 
 strangest juxtaposition of passages from different authors, and 
 written at different times, according as the one name (Elohim') 
 or the other (Jehovah) is found in it. One verse, and even a 
 clause of a verse, is written by the Elohist, the next by the Je- 
 hovist, with nothing besides this difference of names to mark 
 any difference in purpose or authorship. Calling it a compila- 
 tion will not help the absurdity, for no other compilation was 
 ever made in this way. To make the confusion worse, there 
 is brought in, occasionally, a third or a fourth writer, or an 
 editor, or reviewer, and all this without any of those actual 
 proofs or tests, which are applied to other ancient writings, 
 and in the use of which this " Higher Criticism," as it calls 
 itself, is so much inclined to vaunt. 
 
 Principal Cave, in his "Battle of the Standpoints" 
 bears the following testimony : 
 
 "Genesis, we aver, is a compilation of t-wo documents, an 
 Elohist and Jehovist document," said the Decomposition Critics 
 about the beginning of this century. But it was objected, no 
 mere compilation could have produced such a book. "Allow 
 us to amend our theory," replied the Critics, "and permit us to 
 say, that Genesis, so far from being a mere compilation of two 
 works, is a new and much enlarged edition of one man's work 
 (the Elohist) by another (the Jehovist)." But it was objected 
 to this, why speak' you of Genesis only, why do you not extend 
 the process to all the Books of the Law? " Why not, indeed? "
 
 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 replied the Critics. "Allow us to amend our theory again, and 
 say that the whole Law, as well as Genesis, is the result of sup- 
 plementing, by the Jehovist, of the document of the Elohist." 
 But again it was objected, that so uniform a book as Deuter- 
 onomy could not have been the product of such a process. 
 " You are quite right," said the Critics, " we will again amend 
 our theory and say, now, that the Pentateuch is a supplementing 
 by the Jehovist, of tivo original works written, one by the Elo- 
 hist, the other by the Deuteronomist." But it was further 
 objected, that the sections attributed to the Jehovist sometimes 
 contained the name of Elohim, and sometimes showed the style 
 of the Elohist. "Again you are right," rejoined the Critics 
 " we will once more amend our theory, and say that there are 
 two Elohistic documents, an earlier and a later." But to this 
 it was still objected that perhaps the order of writing is not 
 Elohist, Deuteronomist, Jehovist. " There is no ' perhaps ' 
 about it," said the Critics ; " allow us the goodness to amend 
 again ; we now desire to consider that writer as the latest 
 whom we held formerly to be the earliest, and we now declare 
 the order of writing to be Jehovist, Deuteronomist, Elohist." 
 But it was objected, again, that there are facts which do not 
 square with this view. " We will, therefore," said the Critics, 
 " amend again our theory. Manifestly it is too simple. Let us 
 make it more complicated, and express our belief that the 
 Jehovist shows traces of at least three hands, and the Deuter- 
 onomist of three hands, and the Elohist of three hands" But it 
 was again objected, that if the Elohist wrote the " Book of 
 Law " about B. C. 400, then it is impossible to explain how 
 Elohistic terms and practices could occur in the " Book of 
 Joshua," written, say, about B. C. 1400. " Oh ! " said the De- 
 composition Critics, " we affirm that the Book of Joshua was 
 not written prior to B. C. 400." But it was objected that there 
 are Psalms expressly attributed to David, and yet in these 
 Davidic Psalms, written, say, about B. C. 1000, there are evident 
 references to the Elohistic sections of the Law, said to have 
 been written before B. C. 400. " Really, under the exigencies 
 of our theory," replied the Critics, "we will just deny that any 
 Psalms whatever were written by David."
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 229 
 
 So spake the Critics. How amusing it would be, were it 
 not so lamentable ! The latest " adjustment" I know of comes 
 from Dr. Kuenen. In the old edition of his Introduction to the 
 Old Testament, Leyden, 1863, Dr. Kuenen dated the prophecy 
 of Joel as about B. C. 860. But Joel contains references of an 
 Elohistic kind, and consequently, in his edition, published last 
 year, he says that Joel was written " after, rather than before, 
 B. C. 400. Nor has Criticism, I imagine, finished its 'adjust- 
 ments ' yet ! Nay, I believe, with that talented man, Professor 
 Strack, of Berlin, that, in spite of the great popularity which 
 the views of Graf and Wellhausen enjoy at the present time, I 
 am nevertheless persuaded that an essential change in the 
 previous treatment of the history of Israel, and especially of 
 the activity of Moses, will not exist permanently." Nay, I go 
 further than Strack, for he somewhat qualifies this statement of 
 his. In my view, Criticism, under the stress of Criticism, will 
 presently complete the circle, and avow, as a further " adjust- 
 ment" that the Pentateuch -was -written by Moses after all! In 
 his recent trenchant article on the " Old Testament and Its Crit- 
 ics," he writes : " I venture to impugn the judgment of the author- 
 ities (Wellhausen, Dillmann, Ewald, Dewette and others), and I 
 do so after having some years ago, cordially, nay, enthusiastically, 
 believed in their value. But maturer, and more protracted ex- 
 amination has led me utterly to distrust the more serious results 
 announced by these authorities. While I cannot but express 
 my warmest gratitude to the great German experts in the Old 
 Testament, I feel myself reluctantly compelled to avow, that 
 experience has led me to distrust the conclusions these experts 
 have drawn from the facts they have so perseveringly mar- 
 shalled." (Cont. Rev., April, 1890, 341, 3.) 
 
 Professor Green, in his reply to Professor Har- 
 per's presentation of the case, speaks as follows : 
 
 The serious aspect of the affair is this, that there are pre- 
 suppositions involved in the arguments employed and deduc- 
 tions made, which are subversive of the credibility and inspired 
 authority of the sacred record. This constitutes the gravity of
 
 230 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 the case, as it affects the great body of those who reverence the 
 Scriptures as the Word of God. The mythical character at- 
 taching to the early records of pagan nations, is not to be im- 
 puted to the biblical account of the primaeval age of the world, 
 or of the origin of the Israelitish people, for the narrative of 
 the Bible is absolutely unique. It stands alone, among all the 
 records of antiquity, in preserving in its primitive purity the 
 true knowledge of God, in its freedom from mythological con- 
 ceits, and in presenting a truly rational account, strikingly con- 
 firmed in its main outlines at least, if not in all its details, by 
 modern scientific research, as no similar document of antiquity 
 can pretend to be, in relation to the Origin of the World, 
 Unity of the Human Race, Primaeval History of Mankind, and 
 the filiation of the Nations. And, as a preliminary stage in a 
 grand scheme of Divine Revelation continued through suc- 
 ceeding ages, whose reality and supernatural character are at- 
 tested by the most convincing proofs, it has a well-founded 
 claim to be regarded as transmitting a faithful account of 
 God's dealings with men from the beginning. 
 
 " The laws, from Exodus to Deuteronomy, are, by their own 
 positive claim, by ineffaceable internal indications, and by 
 both the express attestation and incidental historical confirma- 
 tion of subsequent Scriptures, irrefragically Mosaic. And 
 Genesis, which is clearly preliminary to the books that follow 
 must, as the critics themselves allow, have the same origin as 
 they. There is something clearly wrong in a ' Critical Pro- 
 cess' which can take a history that, in itself, is quite consist- 
 ent and entirely credible, and sunder it into distinct 
 documents mutually repugnant and irreconcileable. A purely 
 'Literary Analysis' on grounds of diction, style, and modes of 
 thought, cannot impair the truth of what is otherwise credible, 
 or the consistency of what is in itself harmonious. And, in 
 fact, the damaging consequences attributed to the critical hy- 
 pothesis result in great part, from inferences resting not on posi- 
 tive data, but on the critics. The fundamental vice in the whole 
 process is that they quietly assume what they undertake to 
 demonstrate. When the credibility of Genesis is undermined, 
 by alleging that the primary documents out of which it was
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 231 
 
 complied were first committed to writing many centuries after 
 the Mosaic age, this conclusion is notoriously and avowedly 
 based on grounds which presuppose their unhistorical charac- 
 ter, convert them into fluctuating myths and legends, and 
 assume likewise that all the rest of the sacred history has been 
 tampered with, and deliberately falsified. As to the Middle 
 Books of the Pentateuch, the divisive hypothesis launches into 
 the open sea, destitute of chart or compass," encountering 
 " reefs, shallows, cross-currents, whirlpools, fogs and storms, 
 and every peril known to navigators. If the History of Lit- 
 erature affords an ampler illustration of ' confusion worse con- 
 founded,' that the hopeless inextricable medley in which the 
 critics find themselves in their attempts to struggle through 
 the three middle books of the Pentateuch, and that acquisi- 
 tion of doubtful value to themselves which they use in order 
 to create a Hexateuch, the Book of Joshua, it has never yet 
 been discovered." And as to the argument from " Style," 
 " Discrepancies," " Duplicate Accounts," " Contradictions," 
 " Divine Name," etc., etc. " The discrepancies and contradic- 
 tions alleged to prove diversity of authorship do not exist; if 
 they did they would make the work of the Redactor inconceiv- 
 able. There is no duplicate account of the Creation, nor of 
 the line of the descent from Adam to the existing race of man- 
 kind, nor of the Deluge. There are no such differences of 
 language as require the assumption of a diversity of writers. 
 The alternation of the Divine Names can be explained with- 
 out this assumption. The alleged difference of style is ficti- 
 tious. 
 
 He concludes his masterly refutation of Prof. 
 Harper's views, by saying : 
 
 " My own private opinion on the subject corresponds 
 with that of Zopharthe Naamathite, respecting the Saviourian 
 hypothesis. When he would say, in the most emphatic man- 
 ner, that a thing is impossible he says that it may take place 
 1 when a wild ass's colt is born a nUto ! ' Tob 2 : 12."
 
 232 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 The following very explicit testimony is by Prof. 
 S. K. Kellogg: 
 
 Our Saviour took it for granted that the whole legislative 
 part of the Pentateuch was the work of Moses ; so that to my 
 mind Christ has settled that question. But it does not follow, 
 necessarily, and therefore, Moses with his own hand wrote every 
 word of that law. Yet to many the teaching of our Lord as to 
 the Mosaic authorship of the book of the law is not decisive. 
 Some argue that it is possible that our Lord may have been 
 ignorant on this matter, without any prejudice to His divinity. 
 According to this unbelieving theory, when He thought He 
 was quoting the Word of God to Moses, He was really quoting 
 a priestly forgery ; and this means that He was so ignorant of 
 the meaning of the Father, that He did not know His Father's 
 own word when He saw it. 
 
 Is it credible to any loyal Christian that His ignorance ex- 
 tended as far as this? I must say that if that was so, that Jesus 
 was mistaken as to that, He might also have been mistaken as 
 to His being the Son of God. The critics of the unbelieving 
 school maintain, for instance, that the Law as given in the 
 book of Deuteronomy only originated in the days of Josiah ; 
 but our Lord quotes from Deuteronomy as the law of Moses. 
 You remember when the Sadduces asked about the widow who 
 was to marry her deceased husband's brother, the Lord refer- 
 red them to the law of Moses, and in particular to this book, 
 the book of Deuteronomy. And in another place, our Saviour 
 in John 5, said to the Jews, " If ye had believed Moses, ye 
 would have believed me ; but if ye believe not his writings, 
 how shall ye believe My words?" Now, this appears to me 
 conclusive, and I am convinced that in at least the general 
 sense which I explained at first, when Christ spoke of the book 
 in that general way He really endorsed it as in a true sense the 
 law of Moses. All the force of His argument depends upon 
 the fact that Moses " Wrote of Him ;" and if these four words 
 are true, then our Lord Jesus certifies not only to its author- 
 ship, but to its inspiration, for to write of Christ centuries be- 
 fore He came implies supernatural foreknowledge in the writer.
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 233 
 
 I have referred to the claim of Mosaic authorship of large 
 parts of the Pentateuch which the work itself contains. In 
 Leviticus, for example, fifty-six times in twenty-seven chapters 
 it is stated or implied that this law was given by the Lord to 
 Moses ; fifty-six falsehoods, if the rationalists are right. Fur- 
 thermore, the language of this law is not modern Hebrew. 
 Then there are so many allusions, incidents, and regulations, 
 which are perfectly natural if the Pentateuch was written in 
 the time of the Exodus ; but which are simply unaccountable 
 if it was first originated at a later period. It is repeatedly evi- 
 dent that the writer had intimate knowledge of the Egyptian 
 law, the customs and manners in the days of Moses ; and it is 
 almost impossible to believe that any man could have written 
 the book so many centuries afterwards without error in some 
 such minute details, which, indeed, he could have had no suffi- 
 cient motive for inventing. 
 
 In the references which he makes he is always true to the 
 facts as they were fifteen centuries before Christ. Archaeo- 
 logical researches are also confirming this argument. In like 
 manner, we have references to various customs of the Egyp- 
 tians in that age ; as, for instance, to the goat worship of 
 Mendes; as in the Revised version in Lev. 17. And we find 
 many references in the law to wilderness-life ; as in laws for 
 the " camp ;" but what would be the object in inventing these 
 when Israel had for centuries been settled in Canaan. It 
 would only have increased the danger of detecting the forged 
 character of the narrative to burden it with such details. 
 
 Again, if the law of Moses was written in Palestine long 
 after Moses' day, the writer, whoever he was, in the law of 
 clean and unclean animals, would have referred to the animals 
 about him in Canaan, but instead he enumerated the animals 
 of the Sinaitic Peninsula. Would a Palestinian writer com- 
 mand Israel not to eat many beasts that they had never seen ? 
 Last of all, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that in this 
 book there are predictions. The 26th chapter of the book of 
 Leviticus, is a marvellous miniature of Israel's history, and the 
 book of Deuteronomy contains another. In these there are 
 many details of Israel's history predicted, that were not ful-
 
 234 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 filled at the time, and are not fulfilled yet, but will be in the 
 future. But these predictions cannot be forgeries ; for they 
 imply the inspiration of the writer by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 In the Lambeth Conference of 1888, composed of 
 the Bishops of the Church of England and the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal church: 
 
 A report was presented, in some respects the most able and 
 masterly of all the reports offered ; but after a discussion, the 
 earnestness and solemnity of which could not fail to impress 
 each member of this body, the report was re-committed by an 
 overwhelming vote in consequence of a few expressions which 
 seemed to convey the impression, or, at least, to take the posi- 
 tion for the sake of argument, with the unbeliever, that the 
 Church felt well assured only of the substantial truth of the 
 New Testament ; and further conceding, or seeming to concede, 
 that the opening portions of the Word of God, like its close, 
 were a vision or an allegory. The conclusions seemingly to be 
 deduced from the few phrases we have indicated by this report, 
 were denied by the members of the Committee ; but the sense 
 of the reverence due to the Word of God was such that no ex- 
 planations were deemed sufficient to prevent the re-commitment 
 of the whole report with a view to the elimination of its ob- 
 jectionable features. On its reappearance, with modifications 
 in its language and t expressions, at a later day, objection was 
 still made to what was deemed unwise and unnecessary admis- 
 sions, and finally the report, able and excellent in all but a few 
 words, as it certainly was, was refused a place in the printed 
 proceedings of the Conference by an overwhelming majority. 
 This action of the assembled bishops affirmed their reverence 
 and respect for the Word of God, and their unwillingness, 
 even for argument's sake, to make concessions as to its substan- 
 tial verity, or admissions that might characterize portions of it 
 as vision or allegory. It was feared that the language of the 
 report might be misunderstood, and its admissions might be 
 used to detract from the confidence all should feel in God's 
 Word as the revelation of his will and way.
 
 FS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 235 
 
 No one who was present at this debate can fail to recall the 
 earnest, scholarly and impressive speech of the learned Bishop 
 of Gloucester and Bristol, Dr. Ellicott, in defense of the Bible 
 the whole Bible. Like solemn and eloquent words were spoken 
 by the Bishops of Durham, Dr. Lightfoot ; Winchester, Dr. Har- 
 old Browne ; and Cork, Dr. Gregg. Every American bishop 
 present, save one, voted for the re-commitment of the report. 
 New York Independent, Nov. 19, 1891. 
 
 The almost unanimous vote of the Presbyterian 
 General Assembly, in Detroit, May 1891, refusing to 
 approve the appointing Prof. Briggs to a chair in 
 Union Theological Seminary, was fairly expressive 
 of the views entertained by that great and learned 
 body, of the " Higher Criticism," as expounded by 
 Prof. Briggs. 
 
 The following named scholars, every one an intel- 
 lectual giant, may be named, beside many I have 
 already named, and many more that I might name, 
 are against the Higher Criticism in its popular 
 sense: Eichorn, Michaelis, Rosemuller, N^ander, 
 Tholuck, Ranke, Hengstenberg, Lange, Drechsler, 
 Kiel and Havernick. 
 
 The following eloquent, earnest and spirited 
 words were used by the scholarly Critic, Dr. Nathaniel 
 West, in closing a most able and convincing address 
 against the Higher Criticism at Mr. Moody 's Con- 
 ference, at Northfield, in the Summer of 1891 : 
 
 I have gone through every argument they have in every 
 
 writer that I can get hold of, and there are 100,000 men in this 
 
 land who can read German just as well as these professors 
 
 and understand it when translated into English, and know 
 
 16
 
 236 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 what it is just as well as I know it. The higher criticism rests 
 on assumptions, presuppositions and postulates and infer- 
 ences and deductions from false premises, all of which are sub- 
 versive of the authority of both Testaments and destructive of 
 the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles in the 
 Church. 
 
 We are not frightened, although we are aroused. If there 
 is anything under heaven for which a man and woman ought 
 to fight, it is that eternal truth of God, which was purchased 
 by the blood of God's dear Son, baptized by the consecrating 
 Spirit of His grace, and which, like incorruptible seed, is sown 
 by the living God in the hearts of His people, there to germin- 
 ate, bloom, and bring forth fruit in time and eternity. And 
 wherever the Lord Jesus has a banner flying for that, you will 
 find me there, with a sword, fighting, if it costs me life and 
 everything. The time is come when I am obliged to make 
 choice between smiling and shaking hands with my friends, 
 and smiling and shaking hands with Jesus. " He that is not 
 with Me is against Me ; " and, when it comes to that, 
 whether I shall let Jesus go and be silent about Him and 
 His truth, or let my friend, the professor, go, I say to you, 
 beloved professor, the choice is neither doubtful nor diffi- 
 cult. 
 
 The time is coming when that bright sun of to-day will 
 gather blackness, and the moon will lose the sheen of her 
 splendor and turn into blood, and the stars in the vault of 
 heaven will disappear, and convulsions will shake this entire 
 world. The three that glitter in the belt of Orion will pale 
 away, and Alps and Apennines uprooted from their base will 
 go dancing to plunge headlong into the Rockies rushing to 
 meet them. But high over all the wreck of sublunary things, 
 this Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, shall stand, 
 immortal, immovable, unchangeable, a monument of all the 
 attributes of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, a testimony of love, 
 and of grace, and of truth to His people now, and to His people 
 hereafter. And I heard a voice saying to me, " Cry ; " and I 
 said, " What shall I cry?" The higher criticism is grass, and
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 237 
 
 the goodness thereof is as the flower* of the field. The grass 
 withereth and the flower thereof fadeth. Why? "Because the 
 Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it." Surely the Higher Criticism is 
 grass, but " the Word of our God shall stand forever." 
 
 Sir William Dawson, one of the most eminent 
 scientists of our day, in a recent address to a band 
 of theological students, among other good things 
 said : 
 
 I have read recently, I confess with feelings of contempt, discus- 
 sions respecting the supposed limitations of the knowledge of Jesus 
 Christ. Did he know the data of Modern Criticism ? Was he ac- 
 quainted with the discoveries of modern science ? The fly alighting 
 on my hand might as well attempt to understand the thoughts pass- 
 ing through my mind as criticism to gauge in this way the mind of 
 Christ. To me, as a student for fifty years of nature, of man, and 
 of the Bible, such discussions seem most frivolous, since our Lord's 
 knowledge, as we have it in his reported discourses, is altogether 
 above and beyond our science and philosophy ; transcending them 
 as much as the vision of an astronomer, armed with one of the great 
 telescopes of our time, transcends the unaided vision of a gnat. 
 Christ views things from a standpoint of his own and through a 
 different medium from the atmosphere of this world. His difficulty 
 appears to be to convey heavenly thoughts to us through the imper- 
 fect language in which we speak of earthly thoughts. 
 
 That most eminent archaeologist, Professor A. 
 H. Sayce, recently said : 
 
 I do not think that the Higher Critics have established any- 
 thing beyond the composite authorship of some of the books of the 
 Bible. As regards their historical conclusions I am very much at 
 issue with them. I think they have endeavored to demolish the 
 history contained in the Old Testament upon most insufficient evi- 
 dence, and in accordance with a method which could not and would 
 not be applied to secular history, and I further believe that modern
 
 238 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 discoveries in Oriental archaeology are re-establishing the history 
 which the Higher Critics supposed they have demolished. 
 
 In a recent issue of the Contemporary Review, 
 Prof. Sayce says : 
 
 Let me briefly review some of the reasons which preclude me from 
 offering any longer the same welcome to the method and conclusions 
 of the Higher Criticism that I was prepared to accord to them 
 fifteen years ago. The pivot upon which the whole question turns 
 is the Pentateuch, or the Hexateuch, as our critical friends would 
 make it. If the Pentateuch is really a hodge-podge of ill-digested 
 morsels, none of which is older than the age of the Jewish mon- 
 archy, while a considerable part of them is post-exilic, we may at 
 once give up the contest, and follow our critical friends whitherso- 
 ever they lead us. The Christian Church will have erred grievously 
 like the Jewish Church before it, and the law which our Lord came 
 to fulfill, instead of being the rock upon which the faith of Israel 
 was founded, will have been the product of religious degeneracy and 
 decay. Moses will vanish, no man knoweth where, like his sepul- 
 chre in the land of Moab, and the history of the patriarchs, and of 
 the wanderings in the desert will become a mere series of myths 
 and popular legends. Israel, according to our newest lights, has no 
 history before its settlement in Canaan. 
 
 This, then, is the latest pronouncement of the Higher Criti- 
 cism. The Pentateuch, along with the Book of Joshua, is a sort 
 of literary hash ; hardly a fragment of it was in existence before the 
 days of Josiah ; and the history which twenty centuries have believed 
 they found in it is little more than a delusion and a fraud. Israel 
 and its religion lose the background of their history ; and the only 
 part of the Old Testament Scriptures which was received by the 
 Samaritans as of supernatural origin, and to which the Jewish 
 Church attached a special sanctity, is made later in date and inferior 
 in veracity to a considerable part of the rest of the Old Testament 
 canon. 
 
 Such revolutionary doctrines require a good deal of evidence to 
 support them. But what do we actually find ? Primarily an " anal-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 
 
 ysis " by certain Western scholars in the nineteenth century of 
 what are alleged to be the original elements of the text. The whole 
 of the Pentateuch is sliced up into minute fragments, each of which 
 is ticketed with a kind of algebraic symbol. The beginning of a 
 verse is ascribed to one writer or " source," t.he middle of it to an- 
 other, the end of it to a third. The critic knows exactly what each 
 author wrote or pieced together, where " J " and " E " dovetail into 
 one another, or where " P " breaks off and " D" commences. That 
 this should sometimes happen in the middle of a sentence is of little 
 consequence. The critic is as cocksure of his analysis as he is of the 
 approximate age to which each writer or redactor should be assigned. 
 A " polychromatic edition of the Old Testament " is even being 
 published in America, in which the "eminent biblical scholars of 
 Europe and America " exhaust all the colors of the rainbow in the 
 effort to represent the literary mosaic work of the ancient Hebrew 
 books. 
 
 Surely I am right in saying that such criticism is extravagant. 
 Conceive of a similar " analysis " being applied to any English book, 
 say of the Elizabethan era. Even in the case of a modern English 
 work, like a novel of Besant and Rice, where we know that there is 
 a dual authorship, the attempt to separate and distinguish between 
 the two authors would be futile and impossible. And yet English is 
 a language which we all speak and profess to know, and English 
 literature is almost limitless in extent. The student of the Old Tes- 
 tament is in a very different position. The Hebrew literature that 
 has come down to him is but a fragment of what once existed, and 
 the interpretation of a good deal of it is doubtful. Our knowledge 
 of the Hebrew language is in the highest degree imperfect ; our 
 Hebrew lexicons contain but a fraction of the words once possessed 
 by it, and the meaning of many of the words which have been pre- 
 served, as well as of the idioms of the grammar, is merely a matter 
 of conjecture. When we add to this that the critics are Europeans 
 or Americans, whose training and modes of thought are utterly alien 
 from those of the East, we may well come to the conclusion that the 
 boasted " analysis " of the Pentateuch is but an ingenious way of 
 weaving ropes out of the sand.
 
 240 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Yet this is the result in which years of learned labor and acute in- 
 vestigation have landed the " critic." We have, therefore, good 
 reason for doubting the adequacy or legitimacy of his method. A 
 method which leads us to a conclusion which is condemned by com- 
 mon sense cannot be a sound one. And a little consideration will 
 show that it is not. 
 
 The counter-proof presented by archaeology is of three kinds. 
 First of all we have learned not only that Moses could have written 
 the Pentateuch, but that it would have been something like a mira- 
 cle if he had not done so. We have long known that the use of 
 writing for literary purposes is immensely old in both Egypt and 
 Babylonia. Egypt was emphatically a land of scribes and readers, 
 and so, too, was Babylonia. Already, in the days of the Old Em- 
 pire, the Egyptian hieroglyphs have developed into a cursive hand, 
 while the Babylonian cities had their libraries of clay books centu- 
 ries before the Bible tells us that Abraham was born in Ur of the 
 Chaldees. But we now know a good deal more than this. Thanks 
 to the discovery of the cuneiform tablets of Tel-el- Amarna in Upper 
 Egypt, we now know that in the century before the exodus people 
 were reading and writing and corresponding with one another 
 throughout the civilized East, from the banks of the Euphrates to 
 those of the Nile. And this was not all. The correspondence was 
 carried on in the cuneiform characters, and for the most part in the 
 language of Babylonia, necessitating the existence of schools where 
 the foreign language and script could be taught and learned. What 
 this means can be realized only by those who have studied the vast 
 and complicated Babylonia syllabary, with the two languages, Sem- 
 itic and Sumerian, which a knowledge of it implies. The center of 
 all this literary activity was Canaan. At one time that country had 
 been under the influence and domination of Babylonia, but in the 
 age of the Tel-el-Amarna letters it had become an Egyptian prov- 
 ince. A considerable number of the letters were written by Canaan- 
 ites, and they show that a knowledge of reading and writing must 
 have been widely spread throughout the land. Libraries and ar- 
 chive chambers existed, like those of Babylonia, and editions of Baby- 
 lonian literary works were made for them. In fact, Canaan, in the
 
 PS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 241 
 
 Mosaic age, like the countries which surrounded it, was fully as 
 literary as was Europe in the time of Renaissance. 
 
 Can we imagine that in the midst of all this literary knowledge 
 and activity the Israelites alone should have remained illiterate ? To 
 suppose, as my friend Dr. Neubauer puts it, that they alone were 
 asleep while the rest of the world in which they lived was wide 
 awake, is to conjure up a miracle greater than any of those which 
 the traditional view of the Old Testament Scriptures calls upon us 
 to believe. And if it is alleged that Moses did, indeed, write a 
 Pentateuch, but that it has disappeared with the exception of a 
 few tattered fragments in the Book of Exodus, we may reasonably 
 ask what became of it, and why should the contemporaneous history 
 it recorded have been superseded by the myths and legends of a 
 later day? The Higher Criticism asserts that there was no writ- 
 ing, and, therefore, no history, in Israel before the age of Samuel. 
 Oriental archaeology, with no less emphasis, maintains that the 
 Israelites must have known how to read and write before their settle- 
 ment in Canaan. 
 
 Secondly, a study of the literature handed down to us by the 
 Babylonian and Assyrian kinsfolk of the Israelites tells strongly 
 against the disintegration theory of the Bible critics. We find in it 
 no such slicing and fixing together of ill-assorted fragments as has been 
 discovered in the Pentateuch. There were no redactors in Assyria 
 and Babylon, with scissors and paste and the apparatus of a modern 
 German study. Older materials were indeed used, but they were 
 used as similar materials were by the Arabic writers of the Middle 
 Ages, or by Herodotus at an earlier time. Either they were as- 
 similated and thrown into shape by the author of the work which 
 has come down to us, or passages were quoted faithfully from them 
 and embodied in his narrative. Of slicing and patching there is no 
 trace. And the faithfulness of the copies is astonishing. Where a 
 word or character has been lost in the original tablet the copyist is 
 careful to state there is a "lacuna" or a " recent lacuna ;" where 
 the form of the original character was doubtful each of its possible 
 later representatives is given. Even the compiler of the Babylonian 
 Chronicle, in describing the great battle of Khalule, which laid
 
 242 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 Babylonia at the feet of Sennacherib, candidly confesses that he 
 does " not know the year " when it took place, although the inscrip- 
 tions already in our hands, fewer though they are than those at his 
 disposal, enable us to fix it with fair exactitude. But as no positive 
 statement of the matter lay before him, the chronicler earnestly avows 
 his ignorance. This was the way in which history was written 
 among the Babylonian kinsmen of the Jews. After this, is it sur- 
 prising that my brother Assyriologist, the illustrious Orientalist, 
 Prof. Hommel, should declare his belief in the literary honesty of 
 the Pentateuch, or should maintain that while there is evidence of 
 the use of older documents in the Book of Genesis, it passes the wit 
 of man to separate and distinguish them ? The evidence for their 
 existence is historical, and not linguistic. 
 
 Thirdly, the narratives which the Higher Criticism had pro- 
 nounced to be the unhistorical figments of popular tradition are be- 
 ing shown by archaeological discovery to be historical after all. 
 Contemporaneous monuments are continually coming to light, which 
 prove that in the story of the patriarchs and of the exodus we have 
 truth and not legend. The Higher Criticism was triumphant only 
 so long as the scientific instrument of comparison could not be 
 employed against it. 
 
 I have dealt elsewhere with the monumental corroboration of the 
 histories we find in the Pentateuch. Here I have no space 'to do 
 more than refer to them, and to emphasize the fact that the most 
 uncompromising opponents of the results of the Higher Criticism 
 are to be found in the ranks of the foremost students of Assyrian and 
 Egyptian antiquity. In truth, those of us who have devoted our 
 lives to the archaeology of the ancient Oriental world have been 
 forced back into the traditional position, though doubtless with a 
 broader basis to stand upon and clearer views of the real signifi- 
 cation of the Biblical text. Year by year, almost month by month, 
 fresh discoveries are breaking in upon us, each more marvelous than 
 the last, but all, as regards the Pentateuch, in favor of the old, 
 rather than of the ne%v teaching. The story of the campaign of 
 Chedor-laomer and his Babylonian allies against the Canaanitish 
 princes has been fully confirmed, and now Mr. Pinches has found
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 243 
 
 the name of Kudur-lagamar, or Chedor-laomer, as well as that of 
 his ally, Tudghal, or Tidal. That Canaan was overrun by Babylo- 
 nian arms and influence long before the age of Abraham was already 
 known. This summer Prof. Hommel has discovered that Ine Sin, 
 who ruled over Ur of the Chaldees centuries before the Hebrew 
 patriarch was born there, captured the city of Zemar, in Phoenicia, 
 while his daughter was high priestess of Anzan, or Elam, and of 
 Northern Syria. Contract tablets, drawn up and dated in the reigns 
 of Eri-Aku, or Arioch of Ellasar, and of other Babylonian kings of 
 the same period, contain Hebrew names which indicate that a 
 Hebrew-speaking population was settled in Babylonia at the time. 
 Nay, more, the names of the Hebrew patriarchs, Abram, Jacob (-el) 
 and Joseph (-el) have actually been met with by Mr. Pinches among 
 those of witnesses to the deeds, while the kings of the dynasty which 
 was governing Ur in the age of Chedor-laomer and Arioch bear 
 names which are not Babylonian, but which are at once Hebrew and 
 South Arabian. What a commentary this is upon the statement of 
 Genesis that Eber begat two sons, one of whom was the ancestor of 
 the Hebrew patriarchs, the other of the tribes of Southern Arabia ! 
 But Oriental archaeology can go further than prove that Moses 
 could, after all, have written the Pentateuch, and that the narratives 
 contained in it are derived from documents contemporaneous with 
 the events they record. It can further show that there is no one 
 else so likely to have written it as the great leader and legislator of 
 Israel, to whom after ages agreed in ascribing the written law. 
 Let us take, for example, the tenth chapter of Genesis, in which the 
 geography of the Oriental world is described. There we are told 
 that Canaan was the brother of Mizraim, or Egypt. The assertion 
 was strictly true as long as Canaan was a province of Egypt ; when 
 it ceased to be so the statement was not only true no longer, it was 
 contrary to the daily experience and political beliefs of every inhabi- 
 tant of Palestine. But it was only during the rule of the eighteenth 
 and nineteenth Egyptian dynasties that Canaan obeyed the govern- 
 ment of the Pharaohs. With the fall of the nineteenth dynasty it 
 was separated from the monarchy on the Nile, not to be again united 
 to it, except during the short space of years that followed the death
 
 244 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 of Josiah. After the Mosaic age we cannot conceive of a writer 
 coupling Canaan and Egypt together. 
 
 If, then, I were to be asked if I believe that Moses wrote the 
 Pentateuch, I should answer that such a belief seems to me to in- 
 volve considerably fewer difficulties than does the contrary belief of 
 the Higher Criticism. Of course such a belief does not necessarily 
 mean that the Hebrew legislator wrote the Pentateuch precisely in the 
 form in which we now possess it. It does not exclude the fact of later 
 revisions or the addition of editorial notes. Jewish tradition avers that 
 in its present form the Pentateuch has come to us from Ezra and 
 the men of the great Synagogue, and the doubts that have been cast 
 upon the tradition savor of hypercriticism. But I see no reason for 
 denying that the Pentateuch is substantially the work of Moses. 
 
 And against the counter-evidence of archaeology what has the 
 Higher Criticism to bring forward? Merely linguistic argu- 
 ments. Lists of words and expressions have been compiled from the 
 imperfect literature of an imperfectly known language, and inter- 
 preted by modern Europeans in accordance with certain documen- 
 tary hypotheses. I have been a student of language and languages 
 all my life, and the study has made me very skeptical as to the his- 
 torical and literary conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic 
 testimony alone. When we endeavor to extract other than linguis- 
 tic conclusions from linguistic premises we generally go astray. 
 
 But even if the archaeological and linguistic evidence should be 
 held to neutralize one another, there is one tremendous fact to which 
 the Higher Critics in this country resolutely close their eyes, but 
 which ought to be more than sufficient to weigh down all the lists of 
 words and idioms that were ever marshaled together. Against the 
 evidence of the lists is the evidence of the doctrine and tradition of 
 the Christian Church throughout the eighteen centuries of its exist- 
 ence. And those of us who believe that, in accordance with the 
 promise of its divine Founder, the Spirit of God has been in the 
 Church, guiding it into "all truth," find it impossible to believe at 
 the same time that our new teachers can be right. The same method 
 and arguments which have made of the Peutateuch a later and un- 
 trustworthy compilation, whose divine origin and character are dis-
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 245 
 
 cernible only to the critics themselves, would, if applied to the Gos- 
 pels, end in the same results. In this countiy, it is true, our critical 
 friends have hitherto kept their faces steadily averted from the New 
 Testament, but the Protestant critics of the Continent have been less 
 timid or prudent, and the way along which they should walk has 
 long ago been pointed out to them by the Tubingen school. And 
 even if we confine ourselves to the Pentateuch, the consequences of 
 the "critical" position are serious enough. It is not only that the 
 conception of the Mosaic law which lies at the back of our own re- 
 ligion, which was assumed by our Lord and his apostles, and which 
 has been held ever since by the Christian Church, is swallowed up 
 in chaotic darkness ; we are forced to assign the origin of the belief 
 in the divine message and supernatural authority of the law to suc- 
 cessful fraud. I know we are told that what would be fraud in 
 modern Europe was not fraud in ancient Israel, and that with an 
 improvement in manners and education has come an improvement 
 in morals. But the question is not about ancient Israel and its ideas of 
 morality, but about the immutable God, under whose inspiration, if 
 we are to follow the teaching of Christ and Christianity, the law was 
 given to Israel. The Higher Critics never seem to me to realize 
 that their conclusions are opposed to the great practical fact of the 
 existence of traditional Christianity, and that against this fact they 
 have nothing to set except the linguistic speculations of a few indi- 
 vidual scholars. It is not Athanasius against the world, but Nes- 
 torius against the Church. On the one side we have a body of 
 doctrine, which has been the support in life and the refuge in death 
 of millions of men of all nationalities and grades of mind, which 
 has been witnessed to by saints and martyrs, which has conquered 
 first the Roman Empire and then the barbarians who destroyed it, 
 and which has brought a message of peace and good will to suffering 
 humanity. On the other side there is a handful of critics, with 
 their lists of words and polychromatic Bibles. And yet the Higher 
 Criticism has never saved any souls or healed any bodies. 
 
 Why is it so few of our religious periodicals have 
 even noticed this most important testimony of this
 
 346 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 most eminent archaeologist, supported as it is by 
 Prof. Hommel, the illustrious Orientalist, and all of 
 the foremost students of Assyrian and Egyptian an- 
 tiquity ? Is it not strikingly significant ? Had 
 Prof. Sayce's testimony been favorable to the 
 Higher Criticism, would not our Church papers and 
 magazines that now ignore this testimony have 
 noticed it and given it much space ? The critics 
 say we are seeking light, and yet they close their 
 eyes and turn from this light that shines as brightly 
 as the noonday. They seem now rather to be de- 
 fending their " Dearly bought scientific method," as 
 Kuenen puts it, than seeking confirmations of the 
 truth of God's holy Word.
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 247 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE JEW AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall 
 not pass, till all these things be fulfilled " (Matt. 
 24: 34). 
 
 The things mentioned in this passage are the sur- 
 prising and extraordinary events with which " this 
 present evil world " (awn) shall be terminated. 
 
 The word " generation " signifies the Jewish peo- 
 ple. Webster defines it as "A family, a race, a 
 stock, a breed." That these definitions are good is 
 evident from Psalm 12:7; 14 : 5 ; 22 : 30 ; 78 : 1 5 ; 
 and 112: 2. Also Luke 16: 8, and I Peter 2: 9. 
 
 The word genea, which is here rendered genera- 
 tion, is rendered "time" in Acts 14: 16, and 15: 
 21 ; "ages" in Eph. 3: 3, 31; and "nation" in 
 Phil. 2: 15. 
 
 Dr. Charles Hodge says : " There is high author- 
 ity for making ' this generation ' here and in the 
 parallel passages. Mark 13: 30, and Luke 21: 32, 
 refer to Israel as a people or race ; in this case the 
 meaning would be that the Jews would not cease to 
 be a distinct people until his predictions were ful- 
 filled." (Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 799.) 
 
 Peter the Great once asked his chaplain to give 
 him " one word " that would prove the religion of 
 the Bible to be divine. After a few moments' re- 
 flection the chaplain replied, " Israel ! " The king
 
 248 THE HIGHEST CRITICS 
 
 said, " I will think about it." Some days afterward 
 he met the chaplain and said, " Your word is alto- 
 gether convincing ! " The great monarch was quite 
 familiar enough with the laws and history of nations 
 to know that Israel's preservation could not be ac- 
 counted for except upon the ground of divine inter- 
 position. 
 
 All the great nations contemporaneous with Is- 
 rael's earliest history, such as Egypt, Assyria, and 
 Babylon ; and the later great nations, as Greece and 
 Rome, lie buried under the dust of centuries. But 
 Israel, though scattered among the nations since 
 the Maccabean reign, and persecuted and oppressed 
 in the most cruel and atrocious manner, still pre- 
 serves, amidst all the social, religious, and political 
 convulsions of these centuries, her distinguishing 
 peculiarities and characteristics as a people. 
 
 The apostle Paul in writing to the Romans asks 
 the question, " What advantage, then, hath the 
 Jew?" and then answers in these words, "Chiefly 
 because that unto them were committed the oracles 
 of God" (Rom. 3: 1,2). We are here informed 
 that the Jews are the custodians of the sacred ora- 
 cles. "The word of the Lord endureth forever." 
 See i Peter 1 : 23-25, and Isa. 40: 6-8. Since the 
 Word of God is to stand forever, its custodians must 
 also be preserved. This wonderful people shall not 
 cease to exist, as such, until all the wonderful 
 things predicted in this wonderful Book, for this 
 age, are consummated. A people divinely chosen
 
 VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 249 
 
 and miraculously preserved for the purpose of pre- 
 serving the God-given Book. " For I could wish 
 that I myself were anathema from Christ for my 
 brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh : 
 who are Israelites ; whose is the adoption, and the 
 glory, and the covenants [testaments], and the giv- 
 ing of the law, and the service of God, and the 
 promises ; whose are the fathers, and of whom is 
 Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God 
 blessed forever. Amen " (Rom. 9: 3-5)-
 
 ANTI-HIGHER CRITICISM; 
 
 Or, 
 
 Testimony to the Infallibility of the Bible, 
 
 Edited and Compiled by 
 
 L. W. MUNHALL, MJL, D JX 
 
 Crown 8vo. Cloth. 358 Pages. Price, $1.50. 
 
 " It is excellent." Methodist Review. 
 
 " The volume is calculated to perform a very useful ministry." 
 The Christian, London. 
 
 " This is emphatically a book for the times. We strongly com- 
 mend it." Methodist Magazine. 
 
 " The book is of great value. It is strong, timely, and helpful." 
 Western Recorder. 
 
 " A thoroughly masterful reply to all the points of objection 
 raised by higher criticism, so called." Religious Telescope. 
 
 " A solidly instructive and interesting volume. We heartily rec- 
 ommend it to all ministers." German Theological Bimonthly Re- 
 view. 
 
 " The whole volume gives in condensed form a large amount of 
 valuable material, and will be profitable both to the general reader 
 and to the student." Bibliotheca Sacra. 
 
 " It repels the assaults .made upon the Scriptures, and reasserts 
 the infallibility and plenary inspiration of the holy Book with great 
 clearness and intelligence." The Presbyterian. 
 
 "We can commend the reader to buy said solid, interesting, and 
 instructive work, and he will not be sorry if he completes its study." 
 Bimonthly Journal for Theology and the Church. 
 
 " The authors stand in the front rank for their ability and schol- 
 arship. The addresses themselves are scholarly, comprehensive, 
 and convincing, and to every honest, unprejudiced mind will carry 
 conviction. Dr. Munhall has done a good service in placing them 
 before the public in this convenient and lasting form, and especially 
 at this time when infidelity is so rampant and specious in its 
 assaults. To Bible students especially we commend this volume, as 
 an answer to the rationalistic publications which are being poured 
 out like a flood all through the land, satisfied that the false has 
 only to be confronted by the truth to reveal at once its baseness 
 and falsity." Christian at Work.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000 995 237 5