author laid down canons of criticism by which to
measure the book in question. He cut the work into fragments. He
stated such and such parts were the work of an early writer, while
certain others were the additions of men unknown, far removed in time
and place. For the most part these assumptions were wholly arbitrary,
as may be seen by reading the authors on the various books. The thing
which is the most observable is their lack of agreement, while the
method used is the dogmatic. They all agree that the book is not of
the date nor authorship usually assigned to it; but what the date and
who the author, is very seldom agreed between any two. The criticism
is largely of the _ipse dixit_ sort, and the grounds of attack are,
though rationalistic, seldom rationally taken. In the vaunted name of
reason, the most monstrous absurdities are perpetrated. The line of
argument professed to be used is inductive; but in reality the
inductive element in this criticism stands second, and the deductive
element has the chief seat in the synagogue. The assumption in the
case, the _a priori, sine qua non_ ("without which nothing")--these are
the all-important elements in the discussion. It is the Homeric
argument restated. Each man professes to find his hypothesis in the
structure and language of the book. In fact, the author usually began
with his hypothesis, and seeks to find proofs for the staying his
assumptions up. The Scriptures are open to investigation. They
challenge it. No one need offer an objection to the most scrutinizing
inquiry. The book is here, and must stand upon its merits. Its high
claims need not deter scholarship from its investigation. Only, to use
the language of Bishop Butler in regard to another matter, "Let reason
be kept to." If we are to be regaled with flights of imagination, let
them be thus denominated; but let men not profess to be following the
leadership of scholarship and scientific candor, when they are in
reality dealing in imagination and scientific dogmatism, and appealing
to philology to give them much needed support. After these years of
attack from a literary standpoint, the books of the Bible are less
affected than the Iliad. The Atomist has signally failed to make a
single case. Iconoclasm has performed its task as best it could, and
finds its labor lost. The criticism of to-day is, even in Germany,
professedly in favor of the integrity of the Scripture.

But I pass to