s substantially Mosaic authorship. I say this,
however, with deference, for a university president of note, when asked
about the stories of Cain and Abel, replied that no such persons in all
probability ever lived, but that the account was still valuable, since
it taught the great moral lesson that it is highly improper for a man to
murder his brother! I grant that there may be more than one Isaiah,
while yet I see in the later Isaiah a continuance of the divine
revelation given through the earlier. Any honest Christian, I would say,
has the right to interpret Jonah and Daniel as allegories, rather than
as histories. I can look upon the book of Job as a drama, while I still
assert that Job was a historical character. I can see in the Song of
Solomon the celebration of a pure human love, while at the same time I
claim that the Song had divinely injected into it the meaning that union
with Christ is the goal and climax of all human passion. In short, I
take the historical method as my servant and not my master; as partially
but not wholly revealing the truth; as showing me, not how man made the
Scripture for himself, but how God made the Scripture through the
imperfect agency of man. So I find _unity_ in the Scriptures, because
they are the work of the omnipresent and omniscient Christ: I find
_sufficiency_ in the Scriptures, because they satisfy every religious
need of the individual and of the church; I find _authority_ in the
Scriptures, because, though coming through man, they are, when taken
together and rightly interpreted, the veritable word of God. I denounce
the historical method, only when it claims to be the solely valid method
of reaching truth, and so, leaves out the primary agency and determining
influence of Christ.

What sort of systematic theology is left us, when the perverted
historical method is made the only clue to the labyrinth of Scripture?
There is but one answer: No such thing as systematic theology is
possible. Science is knowledge, and to have a system you must have
unified knowledge. The historical method so called can see no unity in
Scripture, because it does not carry with it the primary knowledge of
Christ. It simply applies in its investigations the principles of
physical science. Physical science begins with the outward and visible,
not with the inward and spiritual, with matter and not with mind.
Laplace swept the heavens with his telescope, but he said that he
nowhere found a God. He m