As understood by the lecturer his theme includes Mosaism, as the real beginning of the religion of Israel, and he proceeds to define the work and importance of Moses. The tradition is now near enough its subject to be of value. The man Moses lived. He learned from the Kenites the religion of Jahveh (storm-god) whose abode was Sinai, and through Moses this god becomes the God of the Hebrews and thus emerges into history. From Moses on, the changes in the religion were a true evolution, God working indeed, but always by the use of natural law. Moses introduced ethical features into the religion, but did not eliminate entirely the heathen elements referred to above as constituting the pre-Mosaic religion.

The lecture has met with widespread and severe criticism. It is somewhat intemperate in its tone, and has provoked equally extravagant replies. In this case, as so often, a really debatable subject is thrown into discussion in a way very poorly fitted to elicit a calm treatment of it. The criticisms are very diverse. There is the usual number of men who pass judgment without knowing what Meinhold said; others are aroused by the address to a passionate condemnation of everybody and everything which varies from their own position; another class of criticisms is from critics more moderate than Meinhold who think that they and the science are misrepresented and endeavor by sober argument to correct the evil results of the utterance. First and last the whole German Church seems stirred up by it. It may appear strange that a Church which has submitted for so many years to the propaganda of the new criticism should be so aroused by a really unimportant address, in which the novelties are so easily discredited, and the truths are commonplaces in critical literature: but the wonder is rather that it should have been so long seemingly indifferent to the movement now burdened by another extravagance. The universities have for many years been teaching one thing to theological students, and the church, in which these same

students have become pastors, has been believing the opposite thing about the Bible. The relation has been one of hostility, and the Church has maintained itself only because it has been able to control the instruction of the school children, as Meinhold complains, and these early acquired views have not been altered by attendance upon the universities. There is evidence, however, that the present alarm is heightened by the fear that there are many adherents of the new views among the clergy themselves.

This is not the place for a detailed examination of the arguments either pro or con; we have stated his position in outline, and it will suffice to say that many of his positions require the assumption of premises which are not commonly conceded, and need not be. He has a very restricted notion of inspiration; he rejects much evidence that is usually held to be fair; his exegesis and etymologies are not always in accord with the consensus of scholars; he places unwarranted reliance upon hypotheses not yet known to be facts; he ignores archæological evidence of no slight importance. Such offences against the true critical spirit are not infrequent, and his critics are not slow to charge him with them.

One contention made by Meinhold involves so much that we venture to draw special attention to it. He insists that he who adopts the current critical view of the Pentateuch as composed of post-Mosaic documents must reject the existence of the patriarchs as he himself does. It is not enough to make the creation and fall narratives mythical, it is not enough to discard here and there a suspicious detail of the patriarchal stories; the very last vestige of these narratives must be wiped away, the existence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is to be denied by one who would be regarded as scientific. Is this a fair statement of what is involved in the adoption of the principles of literary criticism and the application of them to the Pentateuch? Is it true that the student finds no place to pause between the admission of post-Mosaic documents and

the rejection of the patriarchal narratives? Meinhold is not the only one who asserts it. The same prospect is held out by the opponents of higher criticism, who use it as an awful warning against taking the first downward step. It makes a capital danger-signal. It is like the picture of the drunkard lying freezing and bruised in the ditch, which we remember. as constituting our earliest temperance lecture. The radical critic argues, You would be scientific and the only scientific. position possible is the one indicated; therefore you must hold it. The champion of the traditional view argues, You will of course not be willing to give up Abraham, the higher criticism involves so doing; therefore reject higher criticism.

The question as stated is a very practical one. It is true, the courageous reply to the apologist of the older view would assert utter disregard for the consequences; Abraham, David, Isaiah, John, the Church, may stand or fall-we will have the truth. But we are not all so bold. Most of us are a little timid, or as we prefer to call it, conservative; not that we are without faith in the ultimate triumph of the Bible, but we believe that God proposes to use means to maintain the truth of the Scriptures, and perhaps our own efforts may be serviceable to that end. For many minds the common assertion of conservative and radical is sufficient to keep them closed against the claims of criticism.

Whether timid or not, most of us are too busy or too incompetent to pursue for ourselves the thorough and vast investigations which alone can put us in a position to judge independently what is the truth. All but a few must take our knowledge of the sciences second hand and must get our philosophical and religious systems ready made. The question then is of great practical importance to the Church, Is a moderate criticism tenable? To what lengths, as a minimum, will higher criticism lead one who adopts it and holds it consistently?

As we apprehend the issue, both between traditionalist and VOL. LIII. NO. 209. 6

critic, and between critics of the various schools, it is the student's attitude toward the supernatural and especially toward inspiration. It is difficult to state the matter so that the statement shall commend itself as fair, for our views are the result of so many influences and so diverse, working together and opposing one another, and that simultaneously, that the logic of the situation is not patent. Our opinions form a bundle of inconsistencies and yet we repudiate the thought of a possible strife when we analyze them. The traditional theory of inspiration, the one that still prevails in the rank and file of the churches, does not, strictly speaking, allow an investigation into the origin of the Scripture. The questions raised by literary and historical criticism are already comprehensively and finally settled in the adoption of this belief in inspiration. Obviously, then, he who would give serious attention to the claims of criticism must assume the attitude of one who has not yet finally adopted a theory which prejudges the matter, must for the time become a critic. This openness of mind is not asked by criticism as a favor, but is demanded by the nature of the case. To hold a theory of inspiration is to predicate something of the Bible; the nature of the Bible is the precise question which criticism claims to be studying; to refuse to re-open the question in the presence of what purports to be new light, is not an exercise of faith or of reason. Criticism asks of us only such a mental attitude as we take toward every candidate for our favor. It asks us to formulate no theory of inspiration in advance, and obviously any theory deduced from the facts in hand may be held as a result of study. It will of course be understood that in practical life and for the vast majority of us, the logical order is not followed in the acquisition of knowledge in this sphere or any other.

If the critical spirit has been represented correctly, as involving openness to the reception of new truth, it follows that there exists a very strange fellowship in opposition to it. We have seen the traditional positive theory of inspiration to be

hostile to it, and exactly the same attitude of prejudice, more or less incapacitating the mind for recognizing truth, is taken by those who hold in advance that there is no inspiration; that God acts in the world only by natural law, and by such natural laws as man can formulate and understand; and that there is no revelation of God other than that which is effected by the operations of the natural forces of the universe. Evolution is the motto, and that because there can be no other method of getting on. This is exactly the position taken by Meinhold, as will be seen by reference to even the outline of his argument already given. It is the critical position of not a few Old Testament scholars, but it is not true that they are led to it by their adherence to the critical theory as to the authorship of the Pentateuch.

What is the relation between the current theory of the composition of the Pentateuch and the historicity of the patriarchal narratives? Recalling the course of argument employed by the masters in this field, we observe that certain of them, convinced of the unhistorical character of the narratives and after demonstrating the same to the reader, use this fact as one proof that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. They produce many other proofs, but none can be more startling and conclusive, if the fact is conceded. All debate ceases, if for no other reason, because it was this very Mosaic authorship which was relied upon to vouch for the truthfulness of the narrative, and if this last is yielded, no one is interested. in championing Moses as the author. Other critics do not concede the untruthfulness of these narratives and therefore it is not adduced by them as an argument for non-Mosaic authorship. These rely upon other more widely conceded facts and it is the soberer reasoning of these more moderate critics that has and is to have a following in our country. Still others perhaps not known as critics, but who have for argument's sake consented to consider the Pentateuch a subject for examination as to its authorship and date, conclude