nineteenth century the number of Protestant missionaries had gradually increased until they numbered 15,000 in 1900, the succeeding 25 years had seen this number doubled to 30,000, which unmistakably showed what this living Book was still capable of, for the Protestant missionaries were and mostly still are all men of the Book.

Mr. SIDNEY COLLETT said: I wish to add an expression of my very high appreciation of the excellent lecture to which we have just listened and I congratulate the Council on securing the services of Mr. Michell for this occasion.

66

I have only two remarks to add to what has already been said. First, I think the word "critic" is altogether out of place when used in connection with the Bible, especially in what is called Textual criticism. It is remarkable that the word critic is only used once in the Bible, viz., in Heb. iv, 12, where we read: "The word of God... is a discerner (Greek critic) of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Therefore, seeing that the Holy Spirit has declared that the Bible is intended to be a critic of the human heart, it does seem to me an altogether irreverent position for any human being to set himself up as a critic of the Bible! I would suggest that we drop the expression" Textual criticism," and adopt, as an alternative, the words "Textual study or Textual research." For that is what is really meant, and it is more becoming for mortals in dealing with the inspired Word of God.

66

Then, as to the dual authorship of Isaiah, to which the lecturer has referred, and of which the critics are so confident. This is one of the many points, raised by the so-called "Higher Critics,” the answer to which is found within the covers of the Bible itself. It will be seen by carefully reading John xii, 38 to 41, that we have, first a quotation from Isaiah liii (which, according to the critics, was written by Isaiah No. 2), then comes a quotation from Isaiah vi (which, according to the critics, was written by Isaiah No. 1). Yet in verses 39 and 41 both these quotations are attributed by the Holy Spirit to one author! Then, let the critics be who they may, I say: Let God be true and every man a liar!" (Rom. iii, 4.)

66

Mr. PERCY O. RUOFF said: The able, judicial paper of Mr. Michell is a valuable contribution to the subject. It is with some trepidation that I submit that the argument of this paper would be strengthened by the omission of a sentence on p. 11 in the centre of the third

paragraph, which reads: "It (Scientific criticism) must, at the same time, be mindful of the limitations of our knowledge of all the circumstances, and the possibility of later discoveries which would throw a new light on points which may completely alter the judgment expressed." The latter part of this sentence pledges the future, but a judge can only give a true decision on the facts under review. If his criticism is contingent upon, or qualified by, some unknown factor it ceases to be of value.

66

The constituents of Scientific criticismunder the headings (a) to (f) on p. 12 are very important, and if applied as tests to the conclusions of some modern critics, it will clearly be discovered that many of these conclusions which are proclaimed as "assured results are without true foundations. For instance, let these tests be applied to the statement of Kuenen in The Religion of Israel (p. 225, vol. i) : To what one might call the universal, or, at least, the common rule, that religion begins with fetishism, then develops into polytheism, and then, but not before, ascends to monotheism the Semites are no exception." Or to this quotation from Wellhausen For Moses to have given the Israelites an enlightened conception of God would have been to have given them a stone instead of bread." This is purely gratuitous and, it seems to me, the very reverse is the truth.

To quote Wellhausen again : "The giving of the law at Sinai has only a formal, not to say dramatic, significance. For the sake of producing a solemn and vivid impression, that is represented as having taken place in a single thrilling moment which in reality occurred slowly and almost unobserved." Here again, is an attempt at reconstruction which must be resisted in the name of Scientific criticism.

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, in his Digest of the Law of Evidence, says, under the heading "Production and Effect of Evidence": "Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence or non-existence of fact which he asserts or denies to exist, must prove that those facts do or do not exist " (p. 108, 1899 edition). If many of the Higher Critics submitted their case to a court of unbiassed persons who asked for proper proof, they would find their claims rejected because the appropriate facts were lacking. Professor G. Adam Smith has said

that" criticism has won, and we have to discuss the indemnity." In this connection, it would be advisable to consult the jury, and not seek to force an issue. A distinguished modern preacher has said, somewhat sadly, that the findings of Higher criticism are not being received by a very large body of Sunday-school teachers and Church members. Their minds, he says, seem impervious, and their prejudices cannot be broken down. I would suggest that these resisting barriers against the tide of destructive criticism are erected in Christian minds through the work of the Spirit of God, and are abiding bulwarks.

Miss HAMILTON LAW said: My question has been partly answered by the Chairman. No one can criticize unless they have all the facts before them.

I would ask Have the critics of God's Word all available information before them? *Reading recently about the Jews in Western Abyssinia, I was much struck by the fact that they have in their possession certain portions of Holy Scripture (O.T.) which they have apparently always had. These comprise, as I understand, the Law of Moses and the history of Israel up to the time of Solomon— no further-in what may be looked on as their own old records. This lends colour to one of the traditions concerning these people-namely, that they were sent by Solomon to Abyssinia in the days of the Queen of Sheba.

Have the critics traced the origin of such Scripture documents as are in the hands of these Falasha Jews? And have they fully considered and given due weight to the testimony borne by these documents?

The AUTHOR'S reply: Before replying to the discussion on his paper, Mr. Michell wished to express his high appreciation of the honour done to him in being allowed to open the new Session of the Victoria Institute with his paper. Also that his lecture should be presided over by Mr. Finn, whose work in the cause of Bible Truth is so important. He wished, too, to thank Professor Pinches for so kindly consenting to exchange the date of his lecture, so as to permit him to read his paper in person.

* I twice heard Mr. Flad speak about the Falasha Jews. Mr. Flad when a tiny child was in prison with his parents in Magdala in 1868.

With regard to the reference to Mr. Estlin Carpenter in p. 17, it should be explained that, through the exigencies of space, a paragraph relating to "The Documents of the Hexateuch," by Carpenter and Harford, had been excised, while this reference had been inadvertently retained. The paragraph omitted related to the specious argument summarized in p. 13, clause (1), of this paper.

With reference to the Chairman's work on the Pentateuch, the lecturer could only ardently hope that this would eventually be available for the general public. The edition of the Samaritan text, published by Bagsters in 1849, has long been out of print, and is very difficult to procure. The only other edition is a large and very expensive German work. Yet the Samaritan text is of the utmost importance for the scientific criticism of the Pentateuch.

In answer to Mr. Theodore Roberts, he wished to point out that in this short paper it had been necessary to confine himself strictly to the subject of "scientific criticism." But he ventured to think that it would be found that the principles laid down and insisted on applied equally to the criticism of the New Testament. But he welcomed Mr. Roberts' timely allusion to this fact.

While agreeing with Mr. Sidney Collett in the main, he could hardly give up the use of the word "criticism," as applied to the Bible, so long as it was confined to the proper meaning of the term as set out in his paper.

With regard to Mr. Ruoff's suggestion, the lecturer did not think the consequence of a prudent reserve in view of later discoveries would be quite such as Mr. Ruoff supposed. A decision on the facts under review may be perfectly true and valuable, so far as it goes. On points in which our information as to facts external to the Bible statements is imperfect, no judgment can be final as concerns these external facts. He thought Mr. Ruoff's contribution to the debate was, in other respects, most convincing.

Miss Hamilton Law's remarks were also most interesting. Mr. Michell could not help feeling that there must be Biblical documents still undiscovered that will yet be found, and which will throw a decisive light upon many subjects now in dispute. Not only in Abyssinia, but probably in Egypt, and perhaps in other parts of North Africa, it is well within the bounds of possibility that such discoveries may be made. It is very remarkable that the

great activity in archæological research, since the war, in countries where it was hitherto hampered by the misrule of the Turk, has been rewarded by very valuable finds.

Almost any day something decisive may be found. Meanwhile, it was not only in the lack of examination of the documents of the Falashas that Biblical criticism is at fault. There remains a vast field for young students yet to occupy. It would be well worth the while of a new school to take up the study of the comparative philology of the Semitic languages from the earliest to the latest times, tracing their development and their mutual relations and influence on one another. Only thus can the ages of different writers be determined, as, for instance, we can do in the case of Anglo-Saxon, Old English, Middle English, Elizabethan, &c., &c.

Then, the Cuneiform documents await a similar treatment in order to distinguish what things in Babylonian and Assyrian history, literature, and myth rest on late, and what on really ancient, testimony. We must get down to a groundwork of really scientific research based on facts and not on theories.