THE following article from the pen of Brother A. T. Jones, was published in the REVIEW of March 19, 1901. There has been such a call for the paper containing the articles, that we are happy to give it again to our readers this week. It describes a dastardly revolution now in progress in our government; the article will not be out of date till the spirit of repudiation and apostasy now preying upon the vitals of our nation has accomplished its work.395
All who have been readers of the Review for the past three years know that we have constantly called attention to the fact of a national apostasy from republican principle, which has been going on in these United States. It is true that a few have thought that this was “too much politics;” but we knew that it was not politics at all, but principle of divine truth, and of prophecy. The prophecy had declared long ago, and shortly ago, that such would be; that there would be, in this nation, an apostasy from the truth, a repudiation of republican as well as Protestant principle of government.
In the Review of Aug. 30, 1898, under the general heading of “Passing Events,” we called attention to “A Quiet Revolution” that was even then going on in the United States. We cited some facts that had occurred the week before in a great convention at Saratoga, N. Y., in which the lines were drawn between the maintenance and the repudiation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence; the force of the argument resting in favor of the Declaration, but the weight of sentiment being overwhelmingly against it. We then said: “This occurrence is only an illustration of the situation all over the country. And by this it is perfectly plain that there is a great and most dangerous revolution going on before the very eyes of the American people; and they are even helping it on, while they do not discern it.
“Under the false impression that revolutions can be accomplished only by violence and visible upheaval, the American people are even now passing through a revolution, and are in danger of finding themselves in the clutches of a new and strange power before they realize that any such thing is going on at all.
“We have already shown the course of the Roman Republic, and how the American Republic is going over the same ground precisely. And just now it should not be forgotten by any member of the American Republic, that the Roman Republic passed through the despotism of two triumvirates, the second far worse than the first, each ending in the despotism of one man, and then passed into the ‘furious and crushing despotism’ of the Roman monarchy, all in the name of the republic. All this occurred inside of forty years, before the eyes of all the people, while they were pleasing themselves with the fancy and the name that they were still a republic.
“Even when Augustus had become emperor, this fiction was played by him before the eyes of the people; and the people were pleased with it. For, as Gibbon most pointedly remarks: ‘Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation that the senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom.’ Upon this safe assumption, he accordingly deceived ‘the people by an image of civil liberty, and the armies by an image of civil government.’ He was eminently successful, and both people and armies congratulated themselves upon the greatness, and the new and wonderful career, of the Roman Republic!’”
From that day, Aug. 30, 1898, to this day, March 19, 1901, the progress of this revolution has been as steady as has been the ticking of the clock. And this revolution is now so fully accomplished that, in principle, there is nothing more to be done: all that remains is the practice of the principles which have been officially adopted and promulgated by the government of the United States.
In the United States Senate, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 1901, and in the House of Representatives, Thursday, Feb. 28, 1901, there was enacted as law, for the governing of the Philippine Islands, the following:—
“All military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippine Islands acquired from Spain by the treaties concluded at Paris on the 10th day of December, 1898, and at Washington on the 7th day of November, 1900, shall, until otherwise provided by Congress, be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States shall direct for the establishment of civil government and for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of such islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion; Provided, That all franchises granted under the authority hereof shall contain a reservation of the right to alter, amend, or repeal the same.”
First of all it is to be noticed that this is a distinct abandonment of the Constitution, and a distinct abdication of its powers by the Congress of the United States. For Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States says:—
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Secondly, Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution says:—
“The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Now, when the Constitution definitely confines to Congress all legislative powers granted, and to a supreme court, and such inferior courts as may from time to time be provided, all judicial powers; and then Congress passes over to, and vests in, “such person and persons . . . as the President of the United States shall direct,” all civil and judicial powers necessary to govern territory of the United States, that is nothing less than for Congress so far to abdicate its own power, and so far to take away from the courts their powers. It is also a clear abandonment of the Constitution of the United States, so far as the Philippine Islands are concerned, and, in principle, so far as any place is concerned.
Nor is this abandonment of the Constitution merely tacit, by the wording of the law relating to the government of the Philippine Islands. It is explicit, and was repeatedly confirmed.
For an amendment was proposed, to the Philippine section of the bill, as follows:—
“Sec.—. That the Constitution of the United States is hereby extended over, and declared to be in force in, the Philippine Islands so far as the same or any provision thereof may be applicable.”
This was rejected, by a vote of thirty-nine to twenty-three: not voting, twenty-six.
Afterward there was offered the following amendment:—
“And provided further, That no judgment, order, nor act by any of said officials so appointed shall conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
That amendment was rejected by a vote of forty-five to twenty-five: not voting, eighteen.
After this an amendment was offered requiring that—
“Every person in whom authority is vested under this grant of power shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.”
This was also rejected, by a vote of forty-one to twenty-five: not voting, twenty-two.
After this there was offered the following amendment:—
“All persons shall be bailable unless for capital offenses where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land. If the public exigencies make it necessary for the common preservation, to take the property of any person, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. No ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be made. No law shall be made which shall lay any person under restraint, burden, or disability on account of his religious opinions, professions, or mode of worship, in all of which he shall be free to maintain his own, and not burdened for those of another.”
This, too, was rejected, by a vote of forty-one to twenty-three: not voting, twenty-four.
When, thus, it had been voted, over and over again, to bestow unlimited power upon such persons as the President shall name to govern the Philippine Islands, then attempt was made to limit the time of the exercise of this power. Accordingly, an amendment was offered, limiting this time to March 4, 1903. But this was rejected by a vote of forty-three to twenty-six: not voting, nineteen.
When it had been so positively decided that unlimited power should be given to these men,—and for unlimited time,—an attempt was made to give the Filipinos a part in the government of themselves. Accordingly, an amendment was offered, as follows:—
“And secure to them such participation in the affairs of the civil government so to be established as shall be consistent with the safety of the government.”
But this was rejected by a vote of thirty-nine to twenty-three: not voting, twenty-six.
When it had thus been explicitly and confirmedly settled that the powers of such men as the President shall appoint to govern the Philippines, shall be unlimited, shall be unlimited for all time, and shall be absolute over the people of the islands, attempt was made to save at least a vestige of Constitutional liberty, as follows:—
“Mr. Hoar: Mr. President, there is one principle of Constitutional liberty not yet slain, and I desire to give it a little chance for its life. I move the amendment which I send to the desk, to be inserted at the end of the bill.
“The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Massachusetts submits an amendment which will be stated.
“The Secretary: It is proposed to add as a new section the following:—
“‘In the government of the Philippine Islands no person vested with legislative powers shall ever exercise the executive or judicial powers, or either of them; no person vested with executive powers shall ever exercise the legislative or judicial powers, or either of them; no person vested with judicial powers shall ever exercise the legislative or executive powers, or either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.’”
“The Presiding Officer: The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] to the amendment of the committee.
“Mr. Jones, of Arkansas, and Mr. Pettus called for the yeas and nays.
“The yeas and nays were ordered and the Secretary proceeded to call the roll.”
And even this last principle of Constitutional liberty was slain. It was rejected, by a vote of forty-three to twenty-six: not voting, nineteen.
See the whole account in Congressional Record dated Wednesday, Feb. 27, 1901.
As already stated, the next day the House of Representatives passed this legislation, as it came from the Senate, without any change whatever. And since it was all done at the demand of the President, of course it was all approved by him when it came before him to be signed. And thus the government of the United States has, in principle,—and for the Philippines in practice,—deliberately and expressly repudiated every principle of its Constitution as a republican government. Not a single item, nor even an iota, of the principle of republican or Constitutional government remains.
NO CONFIDENCE IN HIM.
How often we hear this expression uttered by some brother in reference to another: I have no use for him, I have not a particle of confidence in him. Well, what if you haven’t? How does that affect the case? Does that change the feelings of God toward the individual? Do your feelings change the feelings of God? Does it make Him lose confidence in the individual because you have no confidence in him? Have you been appointed to gauge by your opinions and feelings the character and standing of another? But what is the reason you do not have confidence in the one of whom you speak?—Oh, perhaps he has indulged in some actions which to you do not seem just right, or holds some opinions which to you do not seem correct?
But perhaps others will or do think of your actions and views just as you think of and regard those of the other. What would be your feelings to have others, on that account, say that they have no confidence in you? And what would they mean to express by saying that they have no confidence in you?—Just what you mean in regard to others by saying that you have no confidence in them. You mean that you have formed your opinion of them, and you desire to influence the opinions of others in the same direction. You do not wish others to think any better of them than you do. You do not wish others to have any confidence in them because you do not. It is a matter of supreme selfishness on your part. You are trying to bring others down to your level in regard to them, so that they will have as poor an opinion of them as you entertain. In other words, you wish others to take you as the correct standard, and regard others as you regard them. This is not trying to help those toward whom you express such an opinion, but tends to pull them down. Is this treating your brother according to Rom 12:10? Is it treating him according to 1 Peter 4:8? And if your program was carried out, what would be the result?—The brother would lose his standing with his brethren, would become crushed and discouraged, and if the attitude of the one losing confidence in another could affect or control the decisions of higher powers, it would lead to the separation of the brother from the truth, and to the shipwreck of his faith.
Now is it not clear that whoever does this, has set himself for a judge, and judges his brethren? But what does the Saviour say on this point? “Judge not that ye be not judged; for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete [or measure] it shall be measured to you again.” Matt. 7:1, 2. Think of that, servants of the Lord, and ponder the question how it will at last affect your cases.
In the Question Chair.
[Designed for the consideration of such questions as will be of interest and profit to the general reader. All correspondents should give their names and correct post-office address, that questions not replied to here may be answered by mail.]
806.—ALTAR OF INCENSE.
How do you harmonize the Old Testament record and the statement of Paul in regard to the location of the articles of furniture in the sanctuary? In Ex. 30:1–6 the altar of incense was located in the first apartment before the veil that divided between the first and second apartments, or the holy and the most holy place. But Paul in Heb. 9:2–4 states that the censer (which held the incense) was after the second veil.
Mrs. W. H. McK., Grand Rapids, Mich.
Answer.—The golden censer was a comparatively small instrument, which could easily be moved from place to place by hand, and so be used in whatever apartment the service was to be carried on. Whereas, the altar of incense was a larger production, furnished with rings and staves “to bear it withal” (Ex. 30:4), showing that this was not designed to be moved about readily from place to place, and would require more than the high priest alone to manipulate it in such circumstances. This difference in these two articles of furniture would seem to remove all idea of conflict in the two statements. The censer was doubtless used almost exclusively in the second apartment, and so was spoken of by Paul as belonging there, inasmuch as all incense offered in the first apartment would be placed on the stationary altar of incense.
808.—THE MINISTRATION WRITTEN AND ENGRAVED IN STONES. 2 COR. 3:7.
Did Paul, in 2 Cor. 3:1–13, speaking of the law written and engraved in stones, refer to the Ten Commandment law, or the law written on the stones of the altar, referred to in Deut. 27:6–8; and Joshua 8:31? J. F. S.
Ans.—Moses does not say “law” in this connection. He speaks of a ministration, written and engraved in stones. What was written and engraved in stones?—The only thing we have any account of which was so treated was the decalogue in its ten precepts. We may be sure it was not the law referred to in Deut. 27:6–8 or in Joshua 8:30–32; for this was not written and engraved, mark the expression, in stones. The most that could be said of the law of Moses on that occasion, was that it was written on the stones, or on the plaster with which the stones were covered. Deut. 27:2, 4. But if it was the precepts of the decalogue that was engraved on the stones (2 Cor. 3:7), was it not done away?—No, for the record says, “which glory” was done away; and he is speaking about “ministration.” The sentence is, according to the grammatical construction, elliptical. Expressed in full it would be, But if the ministration of that which was engraved in stones, was glorious, etc., which glory was to be done away, or obscured, by the greater glory of the ministration of the Spirit, spoken of in the following verses. And what is a ministration?—It is the service by which the thing spoken of is put in practice, or carried out. The ministration, in this case, was the whole system of services and ordinances introduced and established by Moses. This was “glorious;” but its glory was eclipsed by the greater glory of the ministration of the Spirit, introduced and maintained by Christ and the apostles.
ONE DAY ABOVE ANOTHER.
In Rom. 14: 5, where Paul speaks of some who esteem one day above another, and some every day alike, and says, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” does he include the Sabbath among those days? J. T. S.
Ans.—He does not; because the Sabbath is set apart by itself and dedicated to the Lord. It is His day, and has been given us only to be used for Him. In Exodus 16 we have the account of the giving of the manna. None fell on the Sabbath. A man could not get it on that day. Yet they were told to go out and gather a certain portion every day. The Sabbath was not included. But suppose Paul does refer to the Sabbath and its keeping, and says, “Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.” How would you be persuaded that you ought to keep it? Would it not be to keep it just as the Lord has told us in other places that we ought to do?
The Nation's Promise Broken.
As the foregoing article was being put in type for this paper, we received the June 13 issue of the New York Independent, which, under the heading here given, speaks of the course of this nation in the Cuban matter. The Independent has been heretofore a stanch defender of the foreign policy of our government in reference to Cuba, but now it gives up its defense, and speaks of the latest action in this matter as follows, which is in exact accord with the ideas set forth above:—
When we consider the present attitude of the government at Washington toward Cuba, how far away in the dim past seem to be those resolutions, now only three years old, by which the American Congress solemnly declared:—
“The United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification396thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.”
The island having been completely pacified, and municipal elections having been held in all its provinces, without the slightest disorder, its people were directed to make a constitution, and to provide for setting up a government on the foundation thus created. They were also directed to provide, in connection with this constitution, for “relations with the United States;” which they proceeded to do, supposing that these relations were to be such as should exist between two independent and friendly republics. Suddenly and without warning, also without the politeness of civilized diplomacy, they were informed, at what they believed to be the end of their task of making a constitution, that this vague phrase in the order included a long list of conditions and concessions which they must approve—the list soon thereafter set forth in the memorable Platt amendment.
They were surprised and offended. Some of the conditions they were willing to accept; others they regarded with distrust and aversion. After much debate, their convention sent to Washington a delegation to ascertain our interpretation of the conditions imposed, and to suggest some modification of them. The visitors learned that the text of the amendment could be changed only by Congress; but the several conditions were interpreted and explained to them, so far as this could be done by executive officers not exercising the powers of the Supreme Court.
Their report concerning these interpretations and explanations was sufficiently reassuring to induce a bare majority of the convention to vote for the acceptance of the entire list of conditions, almost exactly in the language of the amendment, although, it should be remembered, a statement of the conditions “substantially” in agreement with the amendment would have been compliance with the act of Congress. But, to remove distrust, and to gain needed votes that were hanging in the balance, and to defend their own course before the people, the supporters of the amendment attached to some of its clauses statements of the interpretations and explanations given to the commission in Washington. They also added a letter of explanation written by Senator Platt, who merely said that acceptance of the amendment would not establish a protectorate over Cuba nor compromise the sovereignty of the Cuban people, “its well-defined purpose” being “to secure and safeguard Cuban independence.”
These added explanations, which may not have been reported with perfect accuracy by Cubans not familiar with the English language, do not bind our government to the interpretations which they set forth. An authoritative interpretation of the several clauses can be made only by our Supreme Court, as the Cuban delegates probably know. If there was an agreement, however, that neither the explanation nor the letter should be made public, either in connection with the constitution or otherwise, the Cuban delegates have violated that code of honor to which they profess to be intensely loyal. Still we cannot see why their use of the explanations or of the Platt letter—the publication of which the Senator cannot reasonably deplore—should cause our government to reject their acceptance of the amendment.
This is what the government at Washington has done. It has said to the Cuban Convention and the Cuban people, as we are informed, that they must accept the amendment verbatim, without attempted interpretation by appendix or footnote, before the United States will permit them to proceed with their plans for setting up a government of their own. It has said to them that their acceptance is not a compliance with the law of Congress, although they have not taken advantage of the word “substantially” in the law, but have consented to append to their constitution every one of those conditions and requirements, including the clauses about intervention and concerning those three or four naval stations that are to be used for the maintenance of Cuban independence. It has also said to them that until they shall have complied with this ultimatum, the American troops shall not be withdrawn from the island. And to any expression of hope that the new Congress may soften the conditions of the law, there is the response, made unofficially but with distinctness, that failure to obey the mandate now will cause the imposition of even more severe conditions by Congress at the coming session. All this with the persuasive eloquence of the highwayman.
And so the resolutions of 1898 seem very far away in the dim past, although they are only three years old. The solemn promise given in them has been broken, and the cynics of the Old World jeer at us when they talk or write about it. The breaking of it was begun when a weary Congress, to avoid an extra session, gave to the President in the Platt amendment the instructions suggested by himself. It would not have been completed if our government had accepted from the Cuban Convention what was substantially a full compliance with the conditions imposed, although the action of the consenting majority was not wholly free from indications of duress. But the promise was repudiated when our government said: “You shall have no government of your own until you have undertaken to give us these naval stations, and the right to intervene, in the exact words of our demand, without adding an appendix or footnote containing any statement of our own as to the unselfish and benevolent character of our designs.” Probably the Cubans will yield under such coercion, but the stain upon the honor of the United States cannot be effaced by their unwilling submission. It can be wiped out only by the repeal of the Platt amendment, followed by an expression of the purpose of the United States to take from the Cuban people only such privileges or concessions as they will freely grant, either without compensation or in honorable exchange for something which they desire.
The Relief of the Schools
By Editor
We earnestly request all our kind friends to remember that FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS is needed to pay for the material in “Christ’s Object Lessons.” We ask for large contributions from the rich and small gifts from the poor. Money for this purpose should be sent to the treasurer of the General Conference Association, care of Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich.; and be sure to state that it is for THE RELIEF OF THE SCHOOLS.
NAME.
AMOUNT.
NAME.
AMOUNT.
D. W. Randall
$1.00
Mrs. S. M. Holmes
1.00
Mrs. Geo. Walker
1.00
Mrs. Alice Holgton
1.00
Mrs. L. V. McMillan
1.00
J. D. Hughes
3.00
Mrs. L. V. McMillan, Scandinavian fund
.50
Mrs. H. C. Hughes
2.50
G. W. Copley
1.00
Mrs. A. Seckler
1.25
Mrs. Anna Gobel
1.00
J. H. Cook
3.00
F. F. Wilson
2.00
Louisa Hese
3.00
A. Jones
5.00
E. T. Finch
1.00
C. W. McConnell
5.00
Jason P. Greene
2.00
M. C. Morgan
10.00
Amelia J. Fliedner
5.00
Mrs. M. T. Cole
1.00
Mr. and Mrs. I. Sutton
1.00
E. Walton
5.00
P. L. Saunders
1.00
Mrs. Mary G. Bowen
1.00
Henry Cole
1.50
Mrs. Cal Demint
1.00
J. O. Culver
1.00
Mrs. H. J. Foster
1.00
Antoine Wery
1.00
Mrs. C. B. Porter
5.00
J. F. Mattison
1.00
Mrs. Martha Chipman
1.00
G. H. Boyd
1.00
Miss Minnie Rice
1.00
M. G. Glass
1.00
T. B. Cowgill
5.00
Mr. and Mrs. D. Akins
1.50
M. H. Johnston
1.00
Mrs. N. A. Johnson
1.00
J. J. Davenport
1.00
Mrs. Ella Chaffee
1.00
Mrs. Mary V. Luther
1.00
Eliza Parish
1.00
J. Garrison
1.00
Martha M. Norton
1.00
Emery Southworth
1.00
A sister
1.00
L. R. Flint
5.00
A friend
.50
Mrs. B. M. Cochrane
1.00
Sarah Parrott
5.00
Mrs. Ida E. Lawson
5.00
E. Warren Fraits
3.00
C. H. Wolcott
1.00
A friend
1.00
Gust Larson
10.00
W. H. and L. M. Gassett
2.00
Emily Shirley
1.00
BIBLICAL LITERATURE
METHODS OF HIGHER CRITICISM.
By L. A. Reed
In studying the book of Genesis, the “higher critics” claim to have discovered three sources from which the book has been compiled. Their manner of looking at it is like this: In one verse, for instance, the author, in speaking of God, uses the Hebrew word “Jahweh;” a little way from this, perhaps, God will be designated by the Hebrew word “El Shaddai;” and farther on, He is called by the Hebrew title “Elohim,” as in Gen. 17: 1–3: “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jahweh appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El Shaddai; walk before me, and be thou perfect. . . . And Abram fell on his face: and Elohim talked with him, saying:”
Now the critics have decided that one writer did not call God by three different names, but that three men must have written three accounts of this event, and afterward three accounts were all placed together by a fourth person, to make the complete narrative. But this is but an example of their view of the entire book of Genesis.
Those portions of Genesis which contain the word “Jahweh” they claim were written by one whom, for want of a better name, they call the Jahwist; those portions containing the word “Elohim” were written by the Elohist; and those containing the word “El Shaddai” were written by the priest.
Besides the names of the Supreme Being, there are, they say, other finger-marks of these three different writers; but this one basis of division is sufficient, and the one upon which nearly all of them are in agreement.
But such a principle of criticism will not stay within bounds. Some may say, “It matters not who wrote it; so long as it is the truth, it is from God.” But a principle either of truth or error is sure, like a seed, to develop, and as it does so, it shows its true quality and tendency.
Having criticised those parts of the Bible which are called historical, they attack even the signed epistles of the apostle Paul himself; in fact, say they, not more than four of these epistles were written by him. “The writer of Hebrews was not only not St. Paul, but not even a disciple of St. Paul.” Even the genuineness of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians has been attacked by some of the most radical of the higher critics, and here is an example of some of their logic: “The inviting of attention to the large letters in which Paul writes [Gal. 6:11] is a manifest attempt to palm off the epistle as Pauline.” Even the milder of the critics are in some doubt as to whether Paul wrote the book of Ephesians. They compare one part of the epistle with another, and then affirm that the last part could not have been written by the author of the first part, because the words, style, and theme are different. “So the Epistle to the Ephesians could not have been written by the author of the one to the Romans, because the character of Christ is treated with a more majestic sweetness in Ephesians than in Romans.”
As to the quality of this sort of criticism, I quote the good words of Bishop Warren: “I wish to emphatically declare that the methods of this so-called higher criticism, applied to any writings, would discredit their genuineness. . . . The same treatment, applied to a letter from a husband, would show that no one person ever wrote it all.”
“Notice how clear the demonstration is. The first part is terse, businesslike, deals with railroads, times of departure and arrival, questions of health, sleep, etc. You therein see the man’s turn of mind. He is practical, solid, exact, unemotional.
“But the last of the letter is by some one else, and altogether different. It is affectionate, poetic, outrageously exaggerative; talks like a lover, of an impossible number of kisses; says he cannot bear to397be away, when evidently he does bear it, or else how would he live to write it?
“You see clearly that two men wrote the letter: one a lover, and the other only a husband. Ah, some women know it is possible to have a husband and a lover in one man. But to critics every man is wooden; in great variety it is true; some of heart wood and some of sap wood; some of pine, easy to flash into flame; some of oak; some of mahogany, and some of upas. But they never mix woods.
“That is not our idea of man. He is complex,—a lover and a mathematician in one; a poet and a man of business like Tennyson; a warrior and a statesman, like Washington; a hard fighter and deeply religious, like Stonewall Jackson; nay, a little, a great deal, of all in every ideal man.
“Then, too, these critics allow no man to have a different purpose at different times. We think at one time a man might expound the law to the Romans, and four years after might expound grace to the Ephesians. They allow no room for a man to grow in the knowledge and love of God. The stupendous views of Christ, and of the possible glory of man, highest in language or thought, may have come to Paul in the interval after Romans was written. Christians believe in growth as rapid and a revelation as lofty as that in one who goes on from grace to grace and glory to glory.”
And so higher criticism runs itself into absurdities. And this is our third and last argument against the higher criticism, so called.
And so the faithful hearer of the word of God must reject higher criticism; first, because it attempts to weaken the authority of the one only standard of truth by striking a blow at its divine origin; second, it exalts human judgment to be the only standard of belief, and thus in these two steps dethrones the standard of truth and exalts human judgment in its place; but third, its methods when fairly tried, in any line of investigation, lead to such matter-of-fact absurdities as to forfeit for it all warrant of acceptance.
