*From the Introduction to Joshua, in the second volume of The Numerical Bible.*

We have now reached a place from which it will be most convenient to review the pretensions of what assumes to be the " higher" criticism; lofty enough indeed in these, and manifesting abundantly the spirit of the latter days,-days which Scripture characterizes with sufficient plainness. To its advocates, that it should manifest this will not even be a reproach; for nothing is more the boast of these latter times than the scientific spirit, and here is but in their eyes the scientific spirit in religion:where should it be more needful ? The spirit of science being to-day evolutionist, the higher criticism will be found to be little else than Darwinism (morals and all) in another sphere,-a sphere which, so much the more important as it is, craves the more for it an earnest examination.

It is the well-known characteristic of Darwinism, that it substitutes a theory of the how for the why, with the effect of removing the appearance of design from nature. What appears like design may be but a consequence of the mode or conditions of production,-a consequence, not a cause; and the universe be the result of the operation of natural laws, apart from all supernatural superintendence or interference. As Huxley says. "For the notion that every organism has been created as it is, and launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the conception of something which may be fairly termed a method of trial and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations, the few meet with surrounding conditions which suit them, and thrive; the many are unsuited and become extinguished." It is on account of this elimination of design out of the world that skeptics and materialists range themselves so unanimously under the leadership of Darwin; and this they proclaim a distinguished merit of his scheme. Others have, of course, taken it up who can by no means be classed with these, and thus it has received various modifications. But the original vice of the thing manifests itself through all, as far as possible from the spirit of Scripture, the attempt, which we have even been told is "the duty of the man of science, to push back the Great First Cause in time as far as possible." The beauty and blessedness of Scripture consists in its persistent effort to bring God nigh.

It is certainly a bold and subtle plan of the enemy to import in this sense the scientific spirit into Scripture itself, to fix our minds upon theories of its production which are proclaimed incapable of damage to our faith because merely that, until we find that unawares we have indeed "pushed back" God far into the distance. The "higher" criticism, as distinct from that of textual integrity, concerns itself, it is said, only with questions of "authorship, etc."*-where the "etc." will be found much the most important part-of the Bible books. * Sanday:"The Oracles of God," p. 30.* "Its conclusions," says Prof. Driver, "affect not the fact of revelation, but only its form.

They help to determine the stages through which it passed, the different phases which it assumed, and the process by which the record of it was built up. They do not touch either the authority or the inspiration of the scriptures of the Old Testament. They imply no change in respect to the divine attributes revealed in the Old Testament, no change in the lessons of human duty to be derived from it, no change as to the general position (apart from the interpretation of particular passages) that the Old Testament points forward prophetically to Christ" (Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament." Preface, p. 11:).
Harmless as it thus looks, it is an admitted fact that the patchwork theory which the higher criticism accepts was born of infidelity, cradled in rationalism, and is to this day claimed rightly by professors of it such as Kuenen, for whom " the Israelitish religion is one of the principal religions,- nothing less, but also nothing more:" a "manifestation of the religious spirit of mankind." The babe has been stolen, taught a somewhat different accent, smuggled in among Christians, and passed off as Christian; but though made to appear lamb-like, its voice is still the dragon's. Even as interpreted by Dr. Driver, it can contradict Christ to the face, as where, in His application of the hundred and tenth psalm to Himself He avers that "David in spirit calls Him Lord," while the higher criticism says, " This psalm, though it may be ancient, can hardly have been composed by David"(Introduction, p. 362). But indeed, everywhere it contradicts Christ, who says, and just of these Old-Testament books, "Scripture cannot be broken" (Jno. 10:35), while these men are continually, to their own satisfaction, proving that it can, and their system could not be maintained apart from this.

The very criteria by which they distinguish the different documents that make up, for instance, the book of Genesis, involve the idea of contradictory statements, too inconsistent to be from one hand. Thus the order of creation in the second narrative (chap. 2:4-6, seq.) is said to be "evidently opposed to the order indicated in chap. 1:"(p. 7). True, the editor who, in their conception of the matter, put them together, did not see it, and thus has left (happily for them) the seams of his patchwork visible, when once the critical eye rests upon it. So the narrative of the deluge, where in one document " of every clean beast seven are to be taken into the ark, while in 6:19 (cf. 7:15) two of every sort, without distinction, are prescribed."(p. 7). Again:"The section 27:46-28:9 differs appreciably in style from 27:1-45, and at the same time exhibits Rebekah as influenced by a different motive in suggesting Jacob's departure from Canaan,-not to escape his brother's anger, but to procure a wife agreeable to his parents' wishes. Further, we find two explanations of the origin of the name 'Bethel;' two of 'Israel:' 32:3, 33:16, Esau is described as already resident in Edom, while 36:6, seq., his migration thither is attributed to causes which could only have come into operation after Jacob's return to Canaan."(p. 8.).

" Scripture cannot be broken "?-why, here it is broken ! All these are plainly given as statements contradictory of one another; for that is the only reason why one writer should not be supposed to have written them all. It is easier to suppose an editor who put them together not perceiving the contradiction between them, although strangely too, as none of these statements lie very far apart. But Scripture can, then, be broken:and "if we are forced to answer" how the Lord could make such mistakes as these, Dr. Sanday tells us piously " that the explanation must lie in the fact that He of whom we are speaking is not only God, but Man. The error of statement would belong in some way to the humanity and not to the divinity "! (Oracles, p. 10)

Can, then, He who for Christians is the Great Teacher, and who claims to he in some sense the only one (Matt. 23:8) lead us astray? To prove the possibility, Dr. San-day stamps the expression He uses, " He maketh the sun to rise" as "imperfect science" (!) and to those who, timidly enough, "maintain that questions relating to the authorship of the Old Testament touch more nearly the subject-matter of Revelation," he puts the question, "Are these distinctions valid? Are they valid enough to be insisted upon so strongly as they must be if the arguments based upon them are to hold good ? "
He answers for himself:"I greatly doubt it;" and by and by undertakes to read us a lecture on humility:"In regard to these questions, I think we shall do better to ponder the words of the psalm,-' Lord, I am not high-minded; I have no proud looks. I do not exercise myself on great matters which are too high for me " (!!)

So Scripture is broken, and we must not be so haughty as to defend it. Dr. Sanday, with all the scientists of the day, have expunged the word "sunrise" from their dictionary, and of course never use it. Scripture, even in its most positive assertions may mislead us ; only let us talk piously:"I should be loth to believe "-notice, my reader, it is Dr. Sanday who would be " loth to believe that our Lord accommodated His language to current notions, knowing them to be false. I prefer to think, as it has been happily worded, that He ' condescended not to know.' "

Piously, however, or impiously, it is the same thing in result:Scripture has passed out of our hands. Even the author we have quoted confesses, as to these changes in men's thoughts about it, that "it must be admitted frankly that they involve a loss. … In old days, it was very much as with the Jews in the time of our Lord. When any question arose of doctrine or practice, all that was needed was to turn the pages of Scripture until one came to a place which bore upon the point at issue. This was at once applied just as it stood, without hesitation and without misgiving."* Dr. Sanday owns that this, according to their view, is gone, although he is not so candid as he seems, when he tells us how far it is gone. *Oracles, p. 76.* It is not merely that "the inquirer feels bound, not only to take the passage along with its context," which was always true, nor even "also to ask, Who was the author? when did he write? and with what stage in the history of revelation is the particular utterance connected?"-questions, some of them, which have no likelihood of being ever answered,-the much deeper question is now, Is the utterance true? and instead of our becoming as "babes" to have divine things revealed to us, we must be learned men, and that to no ordinary extent, in order to pass judgment upon the mingled truth and error presented in Scripture ! By and by, Dr. Sanday hopes, with the help of specialists who are devoting themselves to this, we shall have an annotated-really, a purged-Bible, which will make things easier for simple souls. Practically, thus, another great principle that our Lord announces is taken from us. Scripture becomes like a morass-with firm footing, indeed, somewhere, if I could only find it; but, alas! without help, I cannot even know what is firm from what is treacherous ! We are not to be delivered from the necessity of faith:"I, like them,"-the intelligent among his audience-" must take a great deal upon trust," * says Dr. San-day ; but it is trust in the competency of the critics! * Oracles," p. 7.* The "open Bible" of which we have boasted is to be taken from us, and that more completely than by Romanism itself.

As to the historical books of the Old Testament, with which we are now concerned, they are, according to this view, "in many parts," (how many, we have no means of knowing, it would seem,) "traditions, in which the original representation has been insensibly modified, and sometimes (especially in the later books,) colored by the associations of the age in which the author recording it lived." No wonder, then, " (2) that some freedom was used by ancient historians in placing speeches or discourses in the mouths of historical characters. In some cases, no doubt, such speeches agreed substantially with what was actually said; but often they merely develop at length, in the style and manner of the narrator, what was handed down only as a compendious report, or what was deemed to be consonant with the temper and aim of a given character on a particular occasion. No satisfactory conclusions with respect to the Old Testament will be arrived at without due account being taken of these two principles "!* *Driver, "Introduction, pref. 13:n.*
"Scripture cannot be broken"!-how far have we got away from this! Perhaps, however, the Lord never said that. Perhaps it is some chronicler of a tradition, piecing and patching some musty manuscripts, who put that sentence into His mouth ? They were very little careful about such things, those old historians. Man had not developed, at that age of the world, into the moral being that he is today. The criticism of the New Testament is steadily progressing. Volter, Visher, Weizacker, Pfleiderer, hailing from authoritative German universities, have shown us, but a short time since, the composite character of the Apocalypse. Steck has done the same for the epistle to the Galatians, and has proved, to his own satisfaction, that neither this nor Corinthians nor Romans is of Pauline origin. Voller has found later still that Romans is made up of no less than seven different epistles; Spitta, only the year before last, that the Acts is of two accounts, put together by a " redactor."* *Prof. Jacobus, in The Hartford Seminary Record.* All these are Germans, are professors, or at least students, of colleges, and of course, competent men! Is it not safer to withdraw, while there is yet time to do so with honor, from the extreme position of verbal inspiration which all these and a host of others so determinedly attack ? Is it not more reverent to believe that the Lord did not vouch for this, which, after all, these learned men cannot accept as fact?

Well, what is left us? It is impossible just yet to know. We shall, of course, have the criticisms left; but even the value of these is doubtful. Certainly, " to the poor," their gospel cannot be preached. With all their wisdom, they cannot distinguish a stone from bread, and know nothing of the need of the human heart,-of the sickening sense of having only uncertainty when the future is to be faced,-of the awful silence in the soul when what was held for the voice of God has died out of it. Is there no possibility of distinguishing what is really that from every merely human voice whatever? Drs. Sanday, Driver, and many of their fellows agree that He has spoken; but it is something in the air, which has not shaped itself in definite words:the words are human! Yes, and is there no possibility that He who became man, in His desire to be with us,-if that is among the things left still,-can speak definitely in a human voice? Oh, if I must yet "take a great deal upon trust," may I not trust this wondrous book, which, like the Unchangeable in whose name it speaks, is the Past in a living Present, rather than all the opinions of all the critics in the world? Can they reconstruct this life pervading it, which their dissections in vain search after? Can they give me, with all their wisdom, another Bible, or add a book to it, even? No, they cannot; and by that fact, Scripture is shown more authoritative than its would-be judges. I may have here to "take a great deal upon trust," but it is a trust which heart and conscience approve, and which gives rest and satisfaction to them. It has the witness of centuries to it, and of adoring multitudes in every century, who in every circumstance have found faith in the Bible the one thing sufficing them. Are these modern critics more to be believed than the living Christ this book has given me ? No, says my highest reason ;-no, ten thousand times :it is here I trust alone,-with the faith of a little child, if you will,- trust and rest here.

But we need not be afraid of their arguments. As with evolution in its other branches, the facts which the higher criticism produces-so long as they are facts,-are always interesting, and can be read with profit in the light of the "why." The "why"-the design-reveals the heart of the designer; and where the " how," if it can be ascertained, and while it is connected with this, may illustrate the wisdom of the designer, the purpose in it exhibits him in his whole moral character. If there be no design, the mere "how" of accomplishment is utterly trivial. If the apparent footprint in the sand be not human, and my solitude is to find no relief, how much to me is it to learn how winds and waves have mocked me? But think of men being frenzied with delight in being able to show that what seems mind in all around is not that, and that chance really rules in all the law and order that exist! This most certain truth that chance is nowhere makes every fact at once of interest:they are real foot-prints that are round about me,-and not of a human comforter, but a divine! F. W. G.

(To be continued.)