The Highest Critics
Ys. The Higher Critics

L. W. AlUNHALL

-^¦s

:* J

w.

-¦',«

I fi\M LtiocI) weilRga ojitj) 6oJ"!

?/ MEMORIAL --
COLLECTION

Yale University Library

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

FIFTIETH THOUSAND.
FURNISHING FOR WORKERS;
An every day companion for the Christian Worker, fur
nishing material for personal or public work, all drawn
from tne divine armory of the Word of God and arranged
for ready reference.
US pans, bound in full flexible leather binding, very dura
ble, anci adapted for pocket use. !S5 cents.
" Nothing better can be put in the hands of one who de
sires to lead others to Christ."— 77k Truth.
"The best compilation and arrangement of Scripture texts
we have yet met with  It is a rich bouquet of
Srecious ilowers from the garden of God's Word." — Tke
'aithful Witness.

Third Edition.
THE LORD'S RETURN AND
KINDRED TRUTH
12ino^ cloth^ 192 pp. ^ $1.00.
" There is much prophetic truth set forth in this book, and
m a very forceful manner." — The Ckristian^ London.
** Prepared with a reverent and prayerful spirit. It is cer
tainly an able presentation of the views of those who expect
a pre-millennial and early advent of Jesus, the Christ." —
The Interior.
"Dr. Munhall writes with pfreat sobriety and much more
logic than many writers on prophetical Scriptures." — N. Y.
Ooserver. "We know of no work better suited to place in the hands
of one who has not made up his mind upon this most im
portant topic." — Episcopal Record.
Sent to Any Address on Receipt of Price.
Fleming H. Revell Company, Publishers,
{ New York, 30 Union Square, E.
( Chicago, 148 & 150 Madison St.

THE HIGHEST CRITICS

vs

THE HIGHER CRITICS

BV

Rev. L W. Munhall, M. A.
EVANGELIST.

SECOND EDITION

FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY,

NEW YORK:
30 Union Square: East.

CHICAGO:
148 & 150 Madison Street.

Publishers of Bvangelical Literature.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1892, by
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Wasjington, L*. 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
fK MY LABORS FOR CHRIST, THIS
VOLUME IS MOST AFFECTION
ATELY DEDICATED. L. W. MUNHALL.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER. PAGE.
I. Who ARE THE Highest Critics?  7
II. Who are the Higher Critics?  12
III. Inspiration  19
IV. Iwspiration, (continued)  30
V. The BrsLE as a Litbrary 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. Conclusion  175
XVII. Somb: Noteworthy Testimonies  183

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 little 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.

THE HIGHEST CRITICS

vs.

THE HIGHER CRITICS.

CHAPTER L
WHO ARE THE HIGHEST CRITICS I*
The 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
m

THE HIGHEST CRITICS

did, it would be a lie. It would be none the less a
lie 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
it, as against all other testimonies, is disloyal to the
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
orthodox denomination in a city not a thousand
miles 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.:

vs. 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. 11 : i, 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 : 47),
when He was but twelve years old.

vs. 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.

12 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
CHAPTER IL
WHO ARE THE HIGHER CRITICS ?
Presumably they are certain learned and 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 Eben 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 criticism[of 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 ig 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 i6: 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.
See Isa. 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-

vs. 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 th^m 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 appatent 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-
yisers 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

22 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
Gau.ssen, " 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 illunii-
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 my 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 graphs. 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

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 25

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

vs. 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

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 " TKe 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" (Ezck. 3 : 10, 11). 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. lo : 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 : 11.)
" 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. i : 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.

vs. 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. 3:16); " 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.)
(3)

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 ii : 49-52.). 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. i7 = S0
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 building 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'" "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. n : 33-
Prof. Gaussen says : " The theory of a Divine
revelation, Jn which you would have the inspiration
of the thoughts, without the inspiration of the lan
guage, i#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
Confession, and others through the Savoy Confession,
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

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 1
Tell it not in Oath,
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 clothes you 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 hnst 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 104th
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. II 30 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
lather 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 HIGHER CRITICS. 49
have an annotated Herodotus, in which his errors are corrected
by the indisputable evidence of the monuments. The work of
the 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
4

50 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 stj'le 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 Might3' 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."

VS. 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 rascalitieg 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
ptherwise 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

56 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.
Our friend "Four-by-six" 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-

vs. 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 1 83 1, "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,

vs. 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, ^. ^. 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, bj' 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 pubHca-
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 our
friend "Four-by-six." He proves by two incontro
vertible 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 gathol, 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 fini.sh 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 occult 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 Chaldsea 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
s

66 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
scholars. They place the hallowed books of our religion in
very interesting relation to human science. — The Christian
Herald. In the lists of animals there occur nine in Deu
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
after the Exodus these antelopes and desert deni-
zens were strange to the Israelites. But after thirty-
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
never have seen or known but by report ?
Harvey discovered the law of the circulation of
blood, and, although he demonstrated it by uncov
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

vs. 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 Sir 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 Hcensing 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 .^Esop, 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 h,alf 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.

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:
O 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 :
I 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 !

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 77
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 I
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 VIIL
PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE.
Men have in aU, 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 wljiich 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. 11 : 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. i : 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 11 : 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.
13 • 34i 3S 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:io; and 53: 1. 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

THE HIGHEST CRITICS

that the resurrection of Jesus had taken place ac
cording to the prophecy of David, as recorded in
Psalm i6 : lo. 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 on 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 2:1.
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 ?

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS.

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 ?

86 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 I

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

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

vs. 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 timfes. 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 anrf
there are quite four hundred millions of copies oi
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 tiiey 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 accompHsh this thing. In order to destroy
the Bible, all printed copies and parts of the Book,
and the nearly eight hundred 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 Cathohc, 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 swelHngs
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 ! ! I
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
mahgnant 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 1 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, —
" Suffering for sins once, the righteous for the un-

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 97
righteous, 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 I If there were one drop of blood in my veins
that did not throb in inten.sest 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.

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 fa9t 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 : i6, "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
tutes 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

vs. 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 "
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.

102 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.

vs. 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." TPIE 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 : lo-ii. 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, ^'¦^ " '" *^hs l^w 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 i6:
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 of
all nations. " The word of the Lord abideth for
ever." Let us possess our souls in patience.

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

vs. 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 minute.st 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.
7"A^r<3?-^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,asa 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. i : 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

vs. 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: ii. 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 unHke 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
(8)

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.

vs. 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 Psalnft 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. e., 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,
i. e., 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 refetences 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 evangeHcal 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 critiqisRi

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," pr

118 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
third great division — as was also the 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, i. 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, i. 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 21 Psalms of David, /.,?., from 51 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 loi and 103,
which are expressly ascribed to David. " Jehovah "
is the only name used here.
Book V. This contains 43 Psalms, i. 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, 115-117, and 146-150, eleven in all, are
Hallelujah Psalms, i. e., beginning or ending with
" Praise ye the Lord ! " The great Mercy Psalm is
Psalm 136, 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. 121
"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 because 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-

vs. 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, beheved 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 Psalm^ 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. i : 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 I : 15, 16 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-

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 127
fore being a prophet ;" " he (David) foreseeing this
spake." According to this testimony David wrote
the Sixteenth Psalm. If he did not, Peter lied. I
believe he told the truth, for he had a mouth and
wisdom, which all his adversaries were not able 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 : i, 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 T:he 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
2:27, "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,
(9)

130 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
TOO, 109, no, 116, 118. 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: n, 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 apparent!}'
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 ; 13 : 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 n8: 22,
23. See Acts 4 : 11 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 : 18 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, 10 and 7 : 17, 21, it is declared that Psalm
no: 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. R^v. 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 1
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

vs. 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 beheve. " 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 i : 10, n).
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
rehef, 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 1-12, 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. Ij9
visited upon seven Gentile nations that oppressed
Israel. Third — Chapters 27-35, are a subhme
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

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: n, 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. 11 : 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, n. 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 tfiem. 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 griet
" 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
3:5-
Verse II. — 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. 7 125.
" 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 n : 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 dedutible. 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 40th
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 : i.
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
(10)

146 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
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 is quoted. 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

vs. 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
prus 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
fit 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, n, and so do
all the prophets of God, without a single exception.
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," i. e., 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 lo : 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

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 163
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

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, 15, 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
— i. 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 foet. 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. 2 ; 35, 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-n ; 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 : "
Eirst — 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 11.
(11)

162 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
Sixth — It goes into perdition. Verses ii, 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: 11-21.
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, /. 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 Everiasting 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 shall
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 : 29-31 ; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20 :

VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 165
15, will 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, ^7> ^8, 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
phus Ant. Book II, 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 1:5,6. 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. 109
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, Havernick, 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 444 — ^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 : S-io, 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

vs. 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: 11; Psa. 25:9.) Wherever
in Ggd'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: 18.) Third — The prosperity and exhalta-
tion of the wicked is unsatisfying and shortlived

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: 5-1 1 ;
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. 2:9-11; Rev. 5 : n-13.)

vs. 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, 11 : 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
Ahasuerus 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.
11:11-15).

174 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
Haman 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 7:11.; 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, 18, 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, 3°' ^"^ 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.
CONCLUSION.
In preparing this volume I have not made ex
tended quotations from the Higher Critics. To
even make the most condensed statements of what
they teach would make a large volume. But, I have
not misrepresented them, and have avoided person
alities, and been careful to discriminate between
Reverent and Irreverent Critics. Those Critics
who, by proper literary and historical tests,
are trying honestly, reverently and prayerfully to
ascertain the exact text of the Holy Scriptures, I
bid God speed ! for I am in profound sympathy
with their work. But to those who degrade the
Word of God to the level of human productions,
eliminating the supernatural from their working
rules, many of which are but audacious assumptions,
and irreverently and impiously deny the compe
tency of the Highest Critics, I would " rebuke them
sharply," if haply " They may be sound in the
faith." These last mentioned Critics are creating a
literature wholly their own ; and, with a zeal worthy
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 translating the Bible to suit their own pri
vate interpretations. They are destructionists, and
the church of God should be warned against them,

176 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
and promptly deal with those within her pale as the
Word of God directs. The immediate evil accom
plished by these Critics 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 impressing with their views^
are to go abroad in the church and world, and sow
broad-cast the seeds of error; and, as rationalism
and infidelity were the natural and inevitable har
vest 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 accomplishing their
purposes. I have endeavored to simplify things so that ordi
nary minds might grasp the questions involved in
this discussion and intelligently and satisfactorily
answer them. If any of the Critics were to deign
to notice what I have written they will probably
brush it aside by saying, He is unscholarly, uncriti-
ical, and incomprehensible in his treatment of the
case ; but, since they cannot truthfully say, He is
uninteUigible, untruthful and unscriptural, it matters
little to me what they may say. I have not written
for the Critics, but for the multitude of intelligent
men and women in the church of God who are won
dering what it all means, and have not the time or
patience to go deeply into these matters.
The Critics may know books better than I, but, I
am somewhat acquainted with "The Book," and

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 177
know men better than they. Many of these Critics
are not men of affairs. They shut themselves into
their libraries away from the people, and as a result
could not utilize the knowledge they acquired from
books, and were therefore failures in the pastorate ;
but, because of their scholarship, they were placed in
a theological or, possibly an editorial chair, to teach
others what they themselves could not suc
cessfully do. They are not in touch with the toil
ing, hurrying throng. They know little or nothing
of the practical, every day work of the Church of
God, and quite as little of the transforming power
of God's word upon the minds and lives of others.
They have lost in large measure, whatever of spir
itual life and power they may once have had, and
have become fossilized within the dry dusty tomes
(sometimes spelt with a b) of their environment, or
have fallen into a lifeless formalism, or are given
over to a mystifying idealism. I personally know
two theological professors in this country, who are
prominent as Higher Critics, who are known
throughout the land, who have not been in their own
churches on the Lord's Day to worship for several
years, though they reside close by, and are at home
three Sundays of every four. The work of the pas
tors who belong to this class is always barren of
spiritual fruit. This is uniformly so, as far as my
observation extends, and it is very far reaching. We
know how extensive and influential were the influ
ences of the Higher Criticism in unspiritualizing the
Protestant churches of Germany, Switzerland and
(12)

178 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
Holland. Wellhausen himself tells us how he left
the theological faculty at Greifswald of his own ac
cord in the consciousness of no longer standing quite
on the basis of the Evangelical Church and Protest
antism. Hengstenberg has well said, " The denial of
the Pentateuch has its origin in the proneness to
Naturalism, which has its root in estrangement from
God." In the past fifteen years I have preached to more
than 7,000,000 of hearers, and, therefore, have had
unusually good opportunities for observing the in
fluence of God's word upon the hearts and lives of
men. Ihaveseen morethan 100,000 persons publicly
avow their faith for the first time in Jesus the Sav
iour of men. I have seen many thousands of Laod
icean Christians repent, to do their first works. I
have seen the multitudes hang spell-bound upon
the recital of the simple words of the Bible, and
moved by an irresistible impulse under their subtle
power. I have seen these words, which some of
these critics handle with irreverent and unhallowed
touch, as a " Hammer," break shackles that have
for a long time bound men to habits vile and debas
ing, and set them forever free ; as a " Sword " divide
between men and their sins, and separate them unto
Christ and holy living; as a " Fire " consume lustful
desires and impart pure thoughts ; and, as a " Foun
tain," in which the polluted and defiled washed and
were made "As white as snow." I have seen whole
communities of from five thousand to ten thousand
souls, that were hell-like, becoma heaven-like, in one

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 179
week under the constraining and restraining power
of the Word of God.
I allow that many of these gentlemen have far
greater scholastic learning, literary acumen and his
toric knowledge of church and theological matters
than I ; but, I do know that I have a much
better knowledge of God's Word than many of
them ; or, than any unspiritual man can possible
have. (See i Cor. 2: 9-14.) While some of these
gentlemen are in the school room seeking with
chalk and board to figure out the sum of God's
Word, I am in the great school room of the world
applying the proot-rule and seeing its truthfulness
demonstrated every day. And mathematically,
that which is demonstrated cannot be doubted.
I would also mention two other things in this
connection which should cause those who are loyal
to the Bible to be on the alert. First — The fact
that all who are acknowledged to be orthodox and
are aggressive in soul-saving work, view the work of
the Higher Critics with suspicion, or, are wholly
opposed to it ; and, Second — The fact that all un
orthodox persons and those who are unaggressive
in soul-saving work, and our friends the Unitarians
and Universalists, together with all skeptics, in
fidels and enemies of the Bible, are shouting For
ward the work of the Higher Critics ! This is
strikingly significant.
The Higher 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

180 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
these doctrines in a clearer and better light. This
is doubtless true of the work of the few reverent
and spiritually-minded among them. But not so of
the many. 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 expressed, he tells of a theological revolu
tion already accomplished by the Higher Critics.
Many of these Critics are notoriously unsound in
nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Scrip
tures. They are only throwing dust into the air
when they say, " Our criticisms place no doctrine in
jeopardy." It does not require a great deal of intel
lectual strength and vigor for one to see that, if the
Bible is not verbally inspired, we have no Word of
God (nine-tenths of the Critics deny that we have) ;
and, if we have no Word of God, then are we all at
sea theologically, and the Bible is, in such case, in
no sense, the end of controversy. If the founda
tions are destroyed, how can the superstructure pos
sibly stand when the storm falls ?
The Critics themselves are having trouble just
here. Some one has declared that there are six
hundred and sixty-seven different views entertained
by them as to the authorship of the Pentateuch.
And so it seems that God has a second time brought
confusion of tongues to men for trying to build to
heaven in their own wisdom and strength.
One good result of all this discussion, without
doubt, will be an increased stimulus to Bible study,
for God will most surely overrule in all this matter,

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 181
to the honor of His Holy Word, and the glory of
His Great Name.
The inspired Psalmist said : " Thou hast magni
fied Thy Word above aill 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 indestructi
bleness and elevating and transforming power;
and in its prophetic and eschatalogical 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
greatness 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,
Scientists and Theologians ; of Critics, Skeptics and
Infidels, great, noble and illustrious in the sight and
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. May we
esteem it " More than our necessary food," hide it
in our hearts that we may not sin against God, and
ever remember that " The precepts of the Lord are

182 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
right," and, that " to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to hearken than the fat of rams." " For we
can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth."
2 Cor. 13:8.

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 183
CHAPTER XVII.
SOME NOTEWORTHY TESTIMONIES.
Josephus, the great Jewish historian, who wrote
about A. D. 92, 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 of 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."

184 THE HIGHEST CRITICS
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 Renan'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
polygaraizing. 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-call?d Modern Criticism, is founded

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 185
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 StilUngfleet.
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

186 THE HIGHEST CRITICS

sacred to be gainsaid. He spoke (it is argued) by way of accom
modation, in order not to shoek 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, III, Scriptore Pentateuchi.)
The experiimce 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. 187
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 Grseco- Syrian power, then it

188 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 Old 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. 189
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 (Elohiml
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 two 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? "

190 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-
flementing, 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 two 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 afBrm 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. 191
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 befort,
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

192 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

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 193
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
'when a wild ass's colt is born a man ! ' Job 2 : 12."
(13)

194 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 theorj-, 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.

vs. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 195
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. Archseo-
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-

196 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 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.

VS. THE HIGHER CRITICS. 197
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 Torh 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, RosemuUer, Neander,
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

198 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. 199
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.''

Popular Helps for Pulpit and Platform.

Spurgeon's Sermon Notes. Vol. l, Genesis to Proverbs. $1.00. Vol. 2^
Ecclesiastes to Malachi, $1.00. Vol. 3, Matthew to Acts, $1.00,
Vol. 4, Romans to Revelations, $1.00.
"It is a rare treat to get into the study and as it were, behind the scenes with a
great man like Charles Spurgeon. In these analyses, thorough and elaborate as they
are, one discovers the method of the Ta 'crnacle preacher. Each, of the sermon
outlines have an accompaniment oi apt illustrations r-^d side-lights." — Standard.
"Every paragraph opens a mine of riches." — Interior.

EIGHTH EDITION.
The Prayermeeting and its Improvement. By Rev. L. O. Thompson.
12 mo; cloth, $1.25.
"Most heartily do we wish this work a wide circulation, both nmong pastors and
people, and we hope it may do much towards the lifting of the prayer-meeting into
that higher place which it ought to hold among the grand instrumentalities in the
kingdom of the Ma.ster. "—Cottg'reg'ationalist.
"Mr. Thompson says some capital things in a telling manner, and, as his pages
are full of fire and gunpowder, we hope certain old, worn-out things among us will be
exploded, and good things set on fire. This is so good a book that we wish we could
afiord to give a copy of it to every young minister." — C. If. Spurgeon.

Books of Illustration, Anecdote, Etc., for Teachers and Preachers.
Seed Corn for the Sower. Compiled by Rev. C. Perrin, Ph. D. iz
mo; cloth, 9i. jo.
No public speaker need be reminded of the eifective power ot an apt illustration or
the difficulty of obtaininjj; such as are fresh and to the point. "Seed Corn" consists of
the material from a working pastor's note book, gathered during a ministry of over a
quarter of a century.
"To teachers and all engaged in Bible instruction, it will prove a volume of great
help and usefulness and furnish ready to their hand many a nail with which to fasten in
a sure place the truths they may desire to drive home.'* — Christian at Work.
Feathers for Arrows. By Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. 12 mo; cloth, fi.oo.
A choicer collection of illustrations we do not know. Mr. Spurgeon has few
equals in the choice and use of effective illustration matter.
Spurgeon's Gems. Being a collection of extracts, pointed, brilliant and
effective, from the worksof Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. 12 mo; cloth, $1.00.
Gleanings Among the Sheaves. By Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. 16 mo;
cloth, 60 cents.
Full ripe ears are these if they are but "gleanings."
Scripture Itself the Illustrator. By Rev. G. S. Bowes. Cloth, Ji.as.
Information and Illustration for Sermons and Addresses. By Rev.
G. S. Bowes. Cloth, Ji. 25.
Two well known and most helpful books of illustration.

NEW YORK. Fleming H, Revell Company, cmcAGa

f^UGGBSTIVB BOOKS ¦> ^^

NEW NOTES FOR BIBLE READINGS. By the late S. R. Briggs.
with brief Memoir of the author by Rev. Jas. H. Brookes, D. D.,
Crown 8vo, cloth, fl.OO; flexible, 75 cents.
*' New Notes" is not a reprint, and contains BidU Readings to be found in no other
similar work, and, it is confidently believed, will be found more carefully prepared, and
therefore more helpful and suggestive.
Everyone of the 60,000 readers of " Notes and Suggestions for Bible Readings" will
welcome this entirely new collection containing selections from D. L. Moody, Major Whittlci
J. H. Brookes, D. D., Prof. W. G. Moorehead, Rev. E. P. Marvin, Jno. Currie, Rev. W. J,
Erdman, Rev. F. E. Marsh. Dr. L. W. Munhall, etc,
NOTES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR BIBLE READINGS. By
S. R. Briggs and J. H. Elliott.
Containing, in addition to twelve introductory chapters on plans and method of Bible
study and Bible readings, over six hundred outlines of Bible readings, by many of the
most eminent Bible students of the day. Crown 8.vo, 2G3 pp. Cloth, library style, $1.00;
flexible cloth, .75; paper covers, .50.
THE OPEN SECRET; or, The Bible Explaining Itself. A series
of intensely practical Bible readings. By HANNAil Whitall Smith,
320 pp. Fine cloth, $1.00.
That the author of this work has a faculty of presenting the *' Secret Things " that an
revealed in the Word of God is apparent to all who have read the exceedingly popular work,
"The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life."
BIBLE BRIEFS ; or, Outline Themes for Scripture Students. By
G. C. & E, A. Needham, i6mo., 224 pages, cloth, $1.00.
The plan of these expositions is suggestive rather than exhaustive, and these suggestions
ftre designed to aid Evangelists at home and missionaries abroad, Bible School Teachers, and
Christian Association Secretaries and Workers.
BIBLE HELPS FOR BUSY MEN. By A. C. P. Coote.
Contains over 200 Scripture subjects, clearly worked out and printed in good legible
type, with an alphabetical index. 140 pages, 16mo.; paper, 4flc.; cloth flex., 60c.
" Likely to be of use to overworked brethren." — C. H. Spurgeon.
*' Given in a clear and remarkably telling foiin."— Christian Leader.
RUTH, THE MOABITESS; or Gleaning in the Book of Rath.
By Henry Moorhouse. i6mo., paper covers, 20c.; cloth, 40c,
A characteristic series of Bible readings, full of suggestion and instruction.
BIBLE READINGS. By Henry Moorhouse. i6mo. , paper covers,
30 cents ; cloth, 60 cents.
A series by one pre-eminently the man of one book, an incesiant, intense, prayeffiil
Student of the Bible.
SYMBOLS AND SYSTEMS IN BIBLE READINGS.
Rev. W. F. Crafts. 64 pages and cover, 25 cents.
Giving a plan of Bible readinK, with fifty verses definitely assigned for each day, th*
Bible being arranged in the order of its events. The entire aymbdkm of the Bible ex-
phined concisely and clearly.

.....f^^°=.... FiBmiiig H. I^eVell Co. ,. .^ri^k..

o<HAND BOOKS FOR BIBLE 8TUDENT8^^
 ^ • ? • » , 
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Rev. Jas. Stalker, M. A. A new
edition, vrith introduction by Rev. Geo. C. Lorimer, D. D, i2mo.
cloth, i66 pages, 60 cents.
This work is in truth ^''Muitum in Parvo^^ containing ¦within small compass a vast
amount of most helpful teaching, so :;dmiraMy arranged that the reader gathers with re
markable definiteness the whole revealed record of the life work of our Lord in a nutshell
of space and with a minimum of study.
THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL. By Rev. Jas. Stalker, M. A. i2mo.
cloth, 184 pages, 60 cents.
As admirable a work as the exceedingly popular volume by this author on " The Life
of Christ." "An exceedingly compact life of the Apostle to the Gentiles. It is bristling with
information, and is brief, yet clear. As an outline of Paul's life it cannot be surpassed." —
N. y. Christian Inquirer.
THE BIBLE STUDENTS' HANDBOOK. i2mo cloth, 288 pages,
50 cents.
One of those helpful works, worth its price, multiplied by several scores. It con
tains an introduction to the study of the Scriptures, with a brief account of the books of
the Bible, their writers, etc., also a synopsis of the life and work of our Lord, and complete
history of the manners and customs of the times, etc.
THE TOPICAL TEXT BOOK. i6rao. cloth, 292 pages, 60 cents.
A remarkably complete and hUpfuI Scripture text book for the topical study of the
Bible. Useful in preparing Bible readings, addresses, etc.
THE BIBLE REMEMBRANCER. 24mo. cloth, 198 pages, 50 cts.
A complete analyses of the Bible is here given, in small compass, in addition to a
large amount of valuable Biblical information, and twelve colored maps.
BIBLE LESSONS ON JOSHUA AND JUDGES. By Rev. J
GURNEY HoARE, M. A. i6mo cloth, 124 pages, 50 cents.
FIFTY-TWO LESSONS ON (i) The Works of Our Lord ; (2) Claims
of Our Lord. Forming a year's course of instruction for Bible classes,
Sunday schools and lectures. By Flavel S. Cook, M. A., D. D.
i6nio. cloth, 104 pages, 50 cents.
FIFTY-TWO LESSONS ON (i) The Names and Titles cf Our
Lord ; (2) Prophesies Concerning Our Lord and their Fulfillment.
By Flavel S. Cook, M. A., D. D. i6mo. cloth, 104 pages, 50 cents.
Extremely full in the matter of reference and explanation, and likely to make the
user "search the Scriptures."
OUTLINE OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. By Rev. J. H.
Brookes, D. D. Invaluable to the young student of the Bible as a
" First Lesson " in the study of the Book. 180 pages. Cloth, 50 cents;
paper covers, 25 cents.
CHRIST AND THE SCRIPTURES. By Rev. Adolph Sapher.
i6mo. cloth, 160 pages, 75 cents.
To all disciples of Christ this work commends itself at once by its grasp of truth,
Its insight, the life in it, and its spiritual force. — Christian Work.

CHICAGO: rTominfT U DoIrnlT f^n NEW YORK:
1 4S-1 so Madison Street, f IBIDIIly Wi nBUoil uUi 30 Union Square East.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 9096

^T *^'"^"11

¦.4h

,i;^'

t'.«T-

.t* ^.

^«A^ *¦

. ¦*«

"4 -fJ

i'-'feS

!