2. Forging New Weapons --
THE Roman church had discovered that the root of her troubles lay in the reading of the Bible by the
laity, and had opposed it with all the power at her command. But she finally realized that her open war
on the Scriptures had aroused suspicion that her life and doctrines were out of harmony with God's
word, and could not endure the light of an open Bible.
To allay such feelings she must make it appear that she was not opposed to the Scriptures, but only to
the "erroneous Protestant Bible." But how could such an impression be made, when that Bible was a
faithful translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts, in which the Scriptures were originally written?
Then, too, the Protestants had, at that time, some of the most able Hebrew and Greek scholars in all
Christendom.
Providence had brought the Reformers in contact with some of the best sources of Bible manuscripts:
(1) When the Turks captured Constantinople in 1453, many of the Greek scholars fled to the West,
bringing with them their valuable manuscripts from the East where Christianity originated, and then
Greek and Hebrew learning revived in the West.1 (2) With this influx from the East came also the
Syrian Bible, used by the early church at Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:26), which was translated directly
from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts long before the Massoretic (O.T.) text, and is the oldest
known Bible manuscript (unless it should be the one lately discovered by Chester Beatty.2 (3) During
their severe persecutions the Waldenses came into contact with the Reformers at Geneva, and thus their
Bible, which had been preserved in its apostolic purity, was brought to the Reformers.3
Translations direct from the original languages in which the Holy Scriptures were written, and
comparisons with ancient sources, by men of high scholarly ability and sterling integrity, gave the
Protestants a perfectly reliable Bible. In spite of these plain facts, the Catholic authorities had to do
something to turn the minds of their people away from the Protestant Bible, so widely distributed. They
therefore advanced the claim that Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation was more correct than any copy
we now have of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. We shall now examine this claim.
-- The Latin Vulgate Bible --
At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), in the fourth session, the second Decree, in 1546, they decided
that the Latin Vulgate should be the standard Bible for the Roman church. But then they discovered a
curious fact, that during the 1050 years from the time Jerome brought out his Latin Vulgate Bible in
1 See "History of the English Bible," by W. F. MouIton. pp. 34-36.
2 Copies of the Syriac Bible were later found among the Syrian Christians at Malabar. South India, with all the earmarks of the old Syrian
manuscripts. See "The Old Documents and the New Bible.” by J. P. Smyth, pp. 166, 167; "Indian Church History.--by Thomas Yates, p.
167, "Christian Researches in Asia," by Claudius Buchannan, pp. 80, 143.
3 An illustration of how some learned Roman Catholics have estimated the Protestant Greek New Testament can be seen when we read of
the Catholic legislation on forbidden books. A commentator says:
"In diocesan seminaries the textbook prescribed in Greek was very often some portion of the original text of the New Testament, and
Protestant editions were selected as they contained a more ample vocabulary, and, perhaps, better grammatical annotations than Catholic
editions. Such an act would appear quite pardonable and excusable as the text was entire and pure. . . . But according to the present rule . .
. bishops have no power to select such works.' "A Commentary an the Present Index Legislation,- Rev. T. Hurley. D. D.. p. 70.. New York:
Benziger Brothers. 1908.
With their feelings against Protestant books, such permits could not have been given, unless the superiority of the book demanded it.
Page 8
405 A.D., until John Gutenberg printed it in 1455, it had been copied so many times, mostly by monks,
and so many errors had crept in, that no one knew just what was the actual rendering of the original
Vulgate. The learned Roman Catholic professor, Dr. Johann Jahn says of it:
"The universal admission of this version throughout the vast extent of the Latin church multiplied the
copies of it, in the transcription of which it became corrupted with many errors. . . . Cardinal Nicholas,
about the middle of the twelfth century, found 'tot exemplaria quot codices' (as many copies as
manuscripts).” “introduction to the 0ld Testament.” Sec. 62,63. (Quoted in "History of Romanism," Dr.
John Dowling, ed. of 1871, P. 486.)
-- The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Latin Vulgate:--
"From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions, mostly through the copyists who
introduced familiar readings of the Old Latin or inserted the marginal glosses of MSS. which they were
transcribing." - Vol. XV, p. 370, art. “Versions” “The Vulgate.”
The Council of Trent having made Jerome's Latin "Vulgate the standard text,"4 it must now determine
which of the hundreds of copies (all differing) was the correct " Vulgate." A commission was therefore
appointed to gather materials so as to "restore St. Jerome's text," but its members were “not to amend it
by any new translations of their own from the original Hebrew and Greek.”5 They "were merely to
collect manuscripts and prepare the evidence for and against certain readings in the text, after which the
Pope himself, by reason not of his scholarship, but of his gift of infallibility, decided straight off which
were the genuine words!" - "The Old Documents and the New Bible," J. Paterson S7nyth, B.D., LLA,
pp. 17-1f, 175. London and New York: 1907.
Pope Sixtus V undertook this work of revision, and to make sure of its being correct, he read the proofs
himself. This edition was printed at Rome in 1590, accompanied by a bull forbidding the least
alteration in this infallible text. "But alas! . . . The book was full of mistakes. The scholarship of Sixtus
was by no means great, and his infallibility somehow failed to make up for this defect." - Id., p. 175.
The Catholic Encyclopedia comments:
"But Sixtus V, though unskilled in this branch of criticism, had introduced alterations of his own, all
for the worse. . . . His immediate successors at once proceeded to remove the blunders and call ill the
defective impression." - Vol. II, p. 412.
All available copies of the Bible of Pope Sixtus were called in and burnt as were the heretics. Pope
Clement VIII, in 1592, ordered a better edition to be made, accompanying it with a similar bull. Dr.
James, keeper of the Bodleian Library at Oxford, where one of Pope Sixtus's Bibles remained,
compared it with that of Pope Clement, and found two thousand glaring variations in them. He
published his findings in a book called: "Bellum Papale, i.e. the Papal War." ("History of Romanism,"
Dr. J. Dowling, p. 487. New York: 1871)
Dr. Thomas James, in the following statement, gives valuable information on the Vulgate Bible:
"Isidorus Clarius hath noted eight thousand places erroneous in the vulgar bible, the divines of
4 See Cardinal Gasquet's article in the Forum for August, 1926, p. 203
5 "History of the Council of Trent,- T. A. Buckley, Part II. chap. 16, p. 127.
Page 9
Louvaine, and Joannes Benedictus have observed above twice as many differences, from the original
Hebrew and Greek fountains. If Paulus V., the now pope, will take the pains to reform these also; in my
judgment, he shall do a work very acceptable unto the whole Christian world, both Protestant and
papist." - "A Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers," p. 208. London: 1843.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the latest revision of the Vulgate by Pope Clement:
"This revision is now the officially recognised version of the Latin Rite and contains the only
authorised text of the Vulgate. That it has numerous defects has never been denied." - Vol. XV, p. 370.
That the Roman church is not satisfied with the present Vulgate text is seen by the fact that in 1907
Pope Pius X, according to the Forum, commissioned H. E. Francis Aidan Cardinal Gasquet, with his
Benedictine Order, to reproduce the true Latin text of St. Jerome by a new revision. Cardinal Gasquet
says of the former attempt made by Pope Clement VIII, in 1592:
"The commission laboured for some forty years, and strange to say, many of the changes proposed by
them were never inserted in the final revision. From the notes of this commission it may be safely said
that had they been accepted we should have had a much better critical text than we now possess." -
"Forum," August, 1926, p. 203.
The Catholic Encyclopedia points out a fact often overlooked by scholars today, that "the Hebrew text
used by St. Jerome was comparatively late, being practically that of the Masoretes. For this reason his
version, for textual criticism, has less value than the Peshito and the Septuagint. As a translation it
holds a place between these two." - Vol. XV, p. 370.
E. S. Buchanan, M. A., B. Sc., says of Jerome's translation:
"Jerome, to the great loss of posterity, did not dig deep into the history of the text. He did not revise on
the Latin and Greek texts of the second century but solely on the Greek text of the fourth century, and
that was a text too late and too limited in range and attestation on which to base an enduring fabric. . . .
He was not bidden to search for the earliest MSS. He was not bidden to bring together the versions of
the East and the West. He was not bidden to make inquiry for the lost autographs with a view to the
reconstruction of the Apostolic text. He was only bidden to prepare a suitable text for ecclesiastical
usage. And this he has done; but it is painful to think of all he left undone, that with his position of
vantage he might have done." - "The Records Unrolled," p. 20. London: John Ouseley, Ltd.
From these considerations we see, that, even if the original text of Jerome's translation could be
reconstructed, it would not be of as much textual value as is sometimes supposed. We are not
depreciating the Catholic Bible. We wish Catholics would read it more than they do. All we are here
aiming at is this: When leading Catholic authorities admit that their Bible is of so little value as a
"Standard Text," then why do they so relentlessly oppose the circulation of the authorised Protestant
Bible, which is translated from the best original sources? Henry Guppy, M. A., D. Ph. et Litt., Librarian
of the John Rylands Library, England, says:
"The Church of Rome has always bitterly opposed any attempt to circulate the Bible in the language of
the people, and license to read the Scriptures, even when truly and catholicly translated, was but
sparingly granted. "In spite, however, of the denunciations uttered by the Roman Catholic priests
against what they were pleased to term the incorrect and untruthful translations which were in
circulation, the Bible continued to be read by increasing numbers of people. Indeed, the attempts to
Page 9
Louvaine, and Joannes Benedictus have observed above twice as many differences, from the original
Hebrew and Greek fountains. If Paulus V., the now pope, will take the pains to reform these also; in my
judgment, he shall do a work very acceptable unto the whole Christian world, both Protestant and
papist." - "A Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers," p. 208. London: 1843.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the latest revision of the Vulgate by Pope Clement:
"This revision is now the officially recognised version of the Latin Rite and contains the only
authorised text of the Vulgate. That it has numerous defects has never been denied." - Vol. XV, p. 370.
That the Roman church is not satisfied with the present Vulgate text is seen by the fact that in 1907
Pope Pius X, according to the Forum, commissioned H. E. Francis Aidan Cardinal Gasquet, with his
Benedictine Order, to reproduce the true Latin text of St. Jerome by a new revision. Cardinal Gasquet
says of the former attempt made by Pope Clement VIII, in 1592:
"The commission laboured for some forty years, and strange to say, many of the changes proposed by
them were never inserted in the final revision. From the notes of this commission it may be safely said
that had they been accepted we should have had a much better critical text than we now possess." -
"Forum," August, 1926, p. 203.
The Catholic Encyclopedia points out a fact often overlooked by scholars today, that "the Hebrew text
used by St. Jerome was comparatively late, being practically that of the Masoretes. For this reason his
version, for textual criticism, has less value than the Peshito and the Septuagint. As a translation it
holds a place between these two." - Vol. XV, p. 370.
E. S. Buchanan, M. A., B. Sc., says of Jerome's translation:
"Jerome, to the great loss of posterity, did not dig deep into the history of the text. He did not revise on
the Latin and Greek texts of the second century but solely on the Greek text of the fourth century, and
that was a text too late and too limited in range and attestation on which to base an enduring fabric. . . .
He was not bidden to search for the earliest MSS. He was not bidden to bring together the versions of
the East and the West. He was not bidden to make inquiry for the lost autographs with a view to the
reconstruction of the Apostolic text. He was only bidden to prepare a suitable text for ecclesiastical
usage. And this he has done; but it is painful to think of all he left undone, that with his position of
vantage he might have done." - "The Records Unrolled," p. 20. London: John Ouseley, Ltd.
From these considerations we see, that, even if the original text of Jerome's translation could be
reconstructed, it would not be of as much textual value as is sometimes supposed. We are not
depreciating the Catholic Bible. We wish Catholics would read it more than they do. All we are here
aiming at is this: When leading Catholic authorities admit that their Bible is of so little value as a
"Standard Text," then why do they so relentlessly oppose the circulation of the authorised Protestant
Bible, which is translated from the best original sources? Henry Guppy, M. A., D. Ph. et Litt., Librarian
of the John Rylands Library, England, says:
"The Church of Rome has always bitterly opposed any attempt to circulate the Bible in the language of
the people, and license to read the Scriptures, even when truly and catholicly translated, was but
sparingly granted. "In spite, however, of the denunciations uttered by the Roman Catholic priests
against what they were pleased to term the incorrect and untruthful translations which were in
circulation, the Bible continued to be read by increasing numbers of people. Indeed, the attempts to
Page 10
suppress it created a prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church; and, as time wore on, it was felt by
many Catholics that something more must be done than a mere denunciation of the corrupt translations
in the direction of providing a new version which the Roman Church could warrant to be authentic and
genuine. "A Brief Sketch of History of the Translation of the Bible," p. 54. London: University Press,
1926.
After the Jesuits had been expelled from England in 1579, they settled at Rheims, France, where they
translated the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate into English. This was printed in 1582. Later they
moved to Douay, where they printed the Old Testament in 1609. We have seen that the learned
Catholic doctors, Johann Jahn and Isidor Clarius, acknowledged that there were 8,000 errors in the
Vulgate Bible, and as a stream cannot be expected to rise higher than its fountain, we must conclude
that the errors are carried over into the Douay Version. We shall take the space to mention only two of
them:
1. The Douay Bible uses the word "adore" where the Protestant Bible has "worship." (Compare
Matthew 4: 10 in both Bibles.) While the Protestant Bible says that Jacob "worshipped, leaning upon
the top of his staff," the Douay Version says that he "adored the top of his rod." Hebrews 11: 21. "The
Approved Holy Catholic Bible," with "Annotations by the Rev. Dr. Challoner," and approved by Pius
VI, says: "Jacob . . . worshipped the top of his rod." Thus Catholics have proof for worshipping relics.
2. Our Protestant Bible more correctly translates 2 Timothy 3: 16 to read, "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God," but the Douay version reads: " All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable." As can
he readily seen, this latter rendering gives no assurance that the Bible is inspired, but simply makes the
superfluous statement that what is inspired is profitable. And so it is left with the church to say what is
inspired.6
In full view of all the foregoing facts, how can Roman Catholic authors shut their eyes to it all, and
brazenly declare that their church alone has the true and correct Bible? They say:
"She alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and the copies of the Scriptures existing
outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective.
"This Bible was the celebrated Vulgate, the official text in the Catholic Church, the value of which all
scholars admit to be simply inestimable. . . . The Council of Trent in 1546 issued a decree, stamping it
as the only recognized and authoritative Version allowed to Catholics. . . . It was revised under Pope
Sixtus V in 1590, and again under Pope Clement VIII in 1593, who is responsible for the present
standard text. It is from the Vulgate that our English Douai Version comes." "Where We Got the Bible,"
Right Rev. Henry G. Graham, pp. 7, 16, 17. London: Eighth Impression, 1936.
Do these men actually believe that Protestants have no access to the facts of history, but are dependent
on such misstatements! Or are they vainly hoping that the public will have no opportunity to read the
Protestant side of the story?
The interesting part of it all is the fact that the Catholic Church, after proclaiming so loudly since 1546
that the Latin Vulgate is "the only recognized and authoritative version," and crying out against the
Protestant Bibles (translated from the original Hebrew and Greek text) as "heretical," is herself at last
6 The new Catholic version of 1941 renders it: 'All Scripture is inspired by God.'
Page 10
suppress it created a prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church; and, as time wore on, it was felt by
many Catholics that something more must be done than a mere denunciation of the corrupt translations
in the direction of providing a new version which the Roman Church could warrant to be authentic and
genuine. "A Brief Sketch of History of the Translation of the Bible," p. 54. London: University Press,
1926.
After the Jesuits had been expelled from England in 1579, they settled at Rheims, France, where they
translated the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate into English. This was printed in 1582. Later they
moved to Douay, where they printed the Old Testament in 1609. We have seen that the learned
Catholic doctors, Johann Jahn and Isidor Clarius, acknowledged that there were 8,000 errors in the
Vulgate Bible, and as a stream cannot be expected to rise higher than its fountain, we must conclude
that the errors are carried over into the Douay Version. We shall take the space to mention only two of
them:
1. The Douay Bible uses the word "adore" where the Protestant Bible has "worship." (Compare
Matthew 4: 10 in both Bibles.) While the Protestant Bible says that Jacob "worshipped, leaning upon
the top of his staff," the Douay Version says that he "adored the top of his rod." Hebrews 11: 21. "The
Approved Holy Catholic Bible," with "Annotations by the Rev. Dr. Challoner," and approved by Pius
VI, says: "Jacob . . . worshipped the top of his rod." Thus Catholics have proof for worshipping relics.
2. Our Protestant Bible more correctly translates 2 Timothy 3: 16 to read, "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God," but the Douay version reads: " All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable." As can
he readily seen, this latter rendering gives no assurance that the Bible is inspired, but simply makes the
superfluous statement that what is inspired is profitable. And so it is left with the church to say what is
inspired.6
In full view of all the foregoing facts, how can Roman Catholic authors shut their eyes to it all, and
brazenly declare that their church alone has the true and correct Bible? They say:
"She alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and the copies of the Scriptures existing
outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective.
"This Bible was the celebrated Vulgate, the official text in the Catholic Church, the value of which all
scholars admit to be simply inestimable. . . . The Council of Trent in 1546 issued a decree, stamping it
as the only recognized and authoritative Version allowed to Catholics. . . . It was revised under Pope
Sixtus V in 1590, and again under Pope Clement VIII in 1593, who is responsible for the present
standard text. It is from the Vulgate that our English Douai Version comes." "Where We Got the Bible,"
Right Rev. Henry G. Graham, pp. 7, 16, 17. London: Eighth Impression, 1936.
Do these men actually believe that Protestants have no access to the facts of history, but are dependent
on such misstatements! Or are they vainly hoping that the public will have no opportunity to read the
Protestant side of the story?
The interesting part of it all is the fact that the Catholic Church, after proclaiming so loudly since 1546
that the Latin Vulgate is "the only recognized and authoritative version," and crying out against the
Protestant Bibles (translated from the original Hebrew and Greek text) as "heretical," is herself at last
6 The new Catholic version of 1941 renders it: 'All Scripture is inspired by God.'
Page 11
driven, by facts long known within her own circle, to translate the Bible "from the original text,"
Hebrew and Greek. What a complete somersault! This late Catholic version is called "The Westminster
Version" (printed by Longmans, Green and Co., London). But, as the work is intrusted mostly to the
Jesuits, we can expect very little change from their former Douay Version, except that it will be more
carefully written to conform to the Roman viewpoint judging from the portions that have already been
published). For instance, the correct note under Revelation 13:18 is entirely changed, but Revelation
22:14 reads the same as in the Douay Version: "Blessed are they that wash their robes." In our
Authorized Protestant Version (King James) it reads: "Blessed are they that do His commandments."
Inspired by Revelation 22:14, P. P. Bliss, musician assisting D. L. Moody, wrote the hymn:
"Hear the words our Saviour hath spoken,
Words of life unfailing and true:
Careless one, prayerless one, hear and remember,
Jesus says, 'Blessed are they that do.'
Blessed are they that do His commandments,
Blessed, blessed, blessed are they."
Later Mr. Bliss went to Rome, where he learned that "Blessed are they that wash their robes," "must be
the correct" rendering. And "during his last week in Rome," he told his brother-in-law that he was sorry
he had written that hymn. He declared: " I see so clearly its contradiction of the gospel that I have no
liberty in singing it." Then he wrote the hymn: "Free from the law, oh, happy condition." - "Memories
of Philip P. Bliss," D. W. Whittle, pp. 131, 132. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1877. It is deplorable
that this good Christian man should get such impressions at Rome. But, sad to say, P. P. Bliss is not the
only beloved Protestant that has been in touch with Rome, and lost his desire and liberty to teach the
good old truths of the Protestant Bible.
Some follow the Roman Catholic translation of Revelation 22:14, because the Vatican possesses one of
the three oldest Bible manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus). But that manuscript ends with Hebrews 9:14, so
that it could not give Catholics the proper rendering of Revelation 22:14.7
7 For further light on this point see “A Brief Sketch of the History of the Translation of the Bible,” H. Guppy, p. 7, and "The Records
Unrolled" by E. S. Buchanan, p. 50.
Page 12
-- 3. Rome Undermines the Protestant Foundations --
THE second, and more effective, weapon Rome used against the Reformation was "higher criticism,"
in an effort to undermine the very foundation of Protestantism.
The strongest appeal of the Roman Catholic Church lies in its claim to "apostolic succession," that is,
that its popes descended in direct line from the apostles. Protestants, originating in the sixteenth
century, have no such appeal. Their strong argument lies in their exact conformity with the Bible in
faith and morals. "The Bible, and the Bible only" is their battle cry. The Bible reveals man's utter
inability to attain justification by his own works, and offers it as a "free gift," obtained by faith in the
merits of Jesus Christ alone. The Bible presents good works only as the natural fruit of genuine faith.
On this foundation was Protestantism built. Before going further we shall let Catholics and Protestants
state their foundations.
Catholic Foundation
"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God,
the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of
their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition is
to us more clear and safe." - "Catholic Belief," Joseph Faa di Bruno, D.D., p. 88. New York: Benziger
Brothers., 1912.
"But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions (Vatican
Council, I, II), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are
only silent witnesses, ... we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living . . . .
The Bible could not be left to interpret itself." Therefore Catholics declare the "Church to be its
acknowledged interpreter." And under the heading: "The Catholic Doctrine Touching the Church as the
Rule of Faith," we read: "Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of
time." But of the teachers of this body, they say: "Unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ [the
Pope], it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith." They then sum up their rule
of faith thus: "'Hence we must stand rather by the decisions which the pope judicially pronounces than
by the opinions of men, however learned they may be in Holy Scripture." - "Catholic Encyclopedia,"
Vol. V, pp. 766-768, art. "Faith, Rule of." The teaching Church, with the pope at its head, is therefore
the Catholic "rule of faith."
Thus we see that the Roman Catholic Church places tradition above the Bible as more safe, and
substitutes the pope for the Holy Spirit as the guide. Christ promised His followers: "Howbeit when
He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth." "He shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance." John 16:13; 14:26. That these promises are not confined to the
leaders of the church, is made plain by John, who applies them to all Christians: "But the anointing
which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same
anointing teacheth you of all things, . . - ye shall abide in Him." 1 John 2:27. In answer to these
Scriptures the Catholic writers say:
"Nor can it be said that being a divinely inspired book, its prime Author, the Holy Ghost, will guide the
reader to the right meaning." - "Things Catholics Are Asked About," M. J. Scott, S. J., p. 119. New
York: 1927.
Page 13
-- Protestant Foundation --
Protestants have announced as their rule of faith: "The Bible, and the Bible only," with the Holy Spirit
as its sole Interpreter. William Chillingworth, M. A., says:
"The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants! I for my part, after a long and (as I
verily believe and hope) impartial search of 'the true way to eternal happiness,' do profess plainly that I
cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see plainly and with my own eyes,
that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same
fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age,
the church of one age against the church of another age. . . . In a word, there is no sufficient certainty
but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon." - "The Religion of Protestants," William
Chillingworth, M. A., P. 463. London: 1866.
`The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!' Nor is it of any account in the
estimation of the genuine Protestant, how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. . . .
"He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name
he will, by so doing, steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates
Protestantism from Popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier
doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism, upon the same authority." - "History of Romanism," John
Dowling, D. A, pp. 67,68. New York: 1871.
This childlike faith in the Bible as God's infallible word carried the Reformers above all opposition,
and swept over Europe with an irresistible force which threatened to engulf the old, decaying structure
of the Roman church. This unabated force could be broken only by robbing Protestants. of their
implicit faith in the Bible. They would then lose their power as surely as did Samson, when he was
shorn of his locks. (Judges 16:19, 20)
Rome Undermining Protestant Foundations
Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic priest, called the " Father of Higher Criticisrn," in 1678 wrote "A
Critical History of the Old Testament" in three books, laying down the rules for a more exact
translation. He advanced the new theory that only the ordinances and commands of the books of Moses
were written by him, while the historical parts were the product of various other writers. Simon's
declared purpose was to show that the Protestants had no assured principle for their religion. (See
edition of 1782) "This work led to a very extended controversy and the first edition was suppressed.1
So vigorous was the opposition of the learned, that his theory lay dormant for seventy-five years. The
Catholic Encyclopedia says:
"A French priest, Richard Simon (1638-1712), was the first who subjected the general questions
concerning the Bible to a treatment which was at once comprehensive in scope and scientific in
method. Simon is the forerunner of modern Biblical criticism. . . . A reaction against the rigid view of
the Bible [was one of] the factors which produced Simon's first great work, the ‘Histoire critique du
Vieux Testament' ['Critical History of the Old Testament'] which was published in 1678. . . . It entitles
him to be called the father of Biblical criticism." - Vol. IV, P. 492
1 Catalogue of R. D. Dickinson. 1935. No. 462. p. 10, book No. 167.
Page 14
"In 1753 Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician of considerable note, published a little book,
'Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il parail que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de
la Genese (Conjectures on the original records from which it appears that Moses composed the book of
Genesis)."' - Id., same page. (See also New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol.
I, p. 336, art, "Jean Astruc. ")
His book is rightly named, for in it he conjectured that the book of Genesis must have been written by
two different authors, because the Creator is there called "God" ("Elohim.") in some places, and "Lord
" ("Jehovah") in other places. Such a line of reasoning would be as inconsistent as to claim that Paul's
Epistle to the Philippians, for instance, must have been written by two different apostles, because our
Saviour is there called "Jesus" in some places, and "Christ" in others. But what about the places where
He is called "Jesus Christ"? And so in Genesis. Who wrote the five passages where He is called "Lord
God" ("Jehovah Elohim")? In 1792, Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic priest of Scottish origin,
carried this "fragmentary hypothesis" still further. Absurd as this theory was, the Protestants fell into
the trap set for them, and Germany, the seat of the Reformation, became the seat of this destructive
"higher criticism." Today this inconsistent criticism of the Bible has invaded the seminaries, colleges,
and universities of practically all Protestant denominations, and few ministers are free from its
blighting influence. Edwin Cone Bissell, Professor in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago,
carried out this "fragmentary" theory in his book, "Genesis Printed in Colors, Showing the Original
Sources from Which It Is Supposed to Have Been Compiled " (Hartford, 1892), displaying the seven
colors of the rainbow in shorter or longer fragments, each representing a different author or editor.
Harold Bolce spent two years investigating American colleges from Maine to California, and wrote his
astounding findings in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, May to August, 1909. Here are a few expressions
culled from his report:
"In hundreds of classrooms it is being taught daily that the Decalogue is no more sacred than a
syllabus; that the home as an institution is doomed; that there are no absolute evils; that immorality is
simply an act in contravention of society's accepted standards; . . . and that the daring who defy the
code [the moral law] do not offend any Deity, but simply arouse the venom of the majority - the
majority that has not yet grasped the new idea; . . . and that the highest ethical life consists at all times
in the breaking of rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case. . . .
" There can be and are holier alliances without the marriage bond than within it. . . . Anything tolerated
by the world in general is right. . . . The notion. . . . that there is anything fundamentally correct implies
the existence of a standard outside and above usage, and no such standard exists." - Pp. 665,
666,674,675,676.
Can anyone wonder at what Dr. Charles Jefferson declares? He says:
"A theological student at the end of the first year of his seminary course is the most demoralized
individual to be found on this earth. His early conception of the Bible has been torn down all the way to
the cellar, and he is obliged to build up a new conception from the foundations." - "Things
Funndamental," pp. 120, 121.
In regard to the inevitable result of teaching the rising generation such revolutionary ideas, and of
undermining completely their moral standards, and their belief in God, the editor of the Cosmopolitan
Magazine says in a note to Mr. Bolce's articles:
Page 14
"In 1753 Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician of considerable note, published a little book,
'Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il parail que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de
la Genese (Conjectures on the original records from which it appears that Moses composed the book of
Genesis)."' - Id., same page. (See also New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol.
I, p. 336, art, "Jean Astruc. ")
His book is rightly named, for in it he conjectured that the book of Genesis must have been written by
two different authors, because the Creator is there called "God" ("Elohim.") in some places, and "Lord
" ("Jehovah") in other places. Such a line of reasoning would be as inconsistent as to claim that Paul's
Epistle to the Philippians, for instance, must have been written by two different apostles, because our
Saviour is there called "Jesus" in some places, and "Christ" in others. But what about the places where
He is called "Jesus Christ"? And so in Genesis. Who wrote the five passages where He is called "Lord
God" ("Jehovah Elohim")? In 1792, Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic priest of Scottish origin,
carried this "fragmentary hypothesis" still further. Absurd as this theory was, the Protestants fell into
the trap set for them, and Germany, the seat of the Reformation, became the seat of this destructive
"higher criticism." Today this inconsistent criticism of the Bible has invaded the seminaries, colleges,
and universities of practically all Protestant denominations, and few ministers are free from its
blighting influence. Edwin Cone Bissell, Professor in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago,
carried out this "fragmentary" theory in his book, "Genesis Printed in Colors, Showing the Original
Sources from Which It Is Supposed to Have Been Compiled " (Hartford, 1892), displaying the seven
colors of the rainbow in shorter or longer fragments, each representing a different author or editor.
Harold Bolce spent two years investigating American colleges from Maine to California, and wrote his
astounding findings in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, May to August, 1909. Here are a few expressions
culled from his report:
"In hundreds of classrooms it is being taught daily that the Decalogue is no more sacred than a
syllabus; that the home as an institution is doomed; that there are no absolute evils; that immorality is
simply an act in contravention of society's accepted standards; . . . and that the daring who defy the
code [the moral law] do not offend any Deity, but simply arouse the venom of the majority - the
majority that has not yet grasped the new idea; . . . and that the highest ethical life consists at all times
in the breaking of rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case. . . .
" There can be and are holier alliances without the marriage bond than within it. . . . Anything tolerated
by the world in general is right. . . . The notion. . . . that there is anything fundamentally correct implies
the existence of a standard outside and above usage, and no such standard exists." - Pp. 665,
666,674,675,676.
Can anyone wonder at what Dr. Charles Jefferson declares? He says:
"A theological student at the end of the first year of his seminary course is the most demoralized
individual to be found on this earth. His early conception of the Bible has been torn down all the way to
the cellar, and he is obliged to build up a new conception from the foundations." - "Things
Funndamental," pp. 120, 121.
In regard to the inevitable result of teaching the rising generation such revolutionary ideas, and of
undermining completely their moral standards, and their belief in God, the editor of the Cosmopolitan
Magazine says in a note to Mr. Bolce's articles:
Page 15
"These are some of the revolutionary and sensational teachings submitted with academic warrant to the
minds of hundreds of thousands of students in the United States. It is time that the public realized what
is being taught to the youth of this country. 'The social question of to-day,' said Disraeli. 'is only a
zephyr which rustles the leaves, but will soon become a hurricane.' It is a dull ear that cannot hear the
mutterings of the coming storm." - "Cosmopolitan Magazine," - May, 1909, p. 665.
The Bible declares: "They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." "There is no truth,
nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and
committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood." Hosea 8:7; 4:1,2. (Compare 2 Timothy
3:1-5) Yes, the saying is true, that " whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
The Christian Register for June 18, 1891, page 389, commenting favorably on the work of higher
criticism, says:
"Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and set aside as an infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern
scientific Biblical critic. . . . He lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific
criticism had not yet come. . . . And now it is interesting to find that, in a different spirit and with
different tools, and bound by certain traditions. . . . the professors in our orthodox seminaries are doing
again the work which Paine did."
As long as these men domineered over the Old Testament, most of the Christian teachers remained
silent. But the work did not stop there. The Lutheran Pastor Storjolian of Oslo, Norway, says of
Wellhausen:
"After they have permitted him to domineer over the Old Testament for more than twenty-five years, it
is not more than reasonable, and a just punishment, that he in his presumption has now undertaken his
war on the Gospels." - "Bibelen paa Pinebaenk [The Bible on the Inquisitorial Rack]," p. 7.
Christiania, 1907.
In closing let us briefly point out the road which higher criticism had to travel, after it had taken the
first step: When critics had denied the historicity of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), they
discovered that the Psalms referred to them as acknowledged history. (Psalms 33:6,9; 29:10; 77:20;
103:7; 105:6-45; 106:7-33.) To be consistent, the Psalms had to be rejected. They also found that the
books of Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah, and the prophets acknowledged the
Pentateuch as the inspired work of Moses (Joshua 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 35:6, Nehemiah 8:
1, 8; Daniel 9:11,13; Malachi 4:4), so these books had to be rejected.
But then they found that the New Testament repeatedly referred to the Old Testament as inspired
authority (about eight hundred twenty-four times), and to their consternation they discovered that Jesus
declared the first five books in the Bible were written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Luke 24:25, 44, 45), and
that He asked: "If ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe My words?" John 5: 46,
47. The critics had declared that the account of the Flood was only a myth, which no intelligent person
could believe. But Jesus said: "Noe entered into the ark," and "the Flood came, and took them all
away." Matthew 24:33, 39. He even believed the truthfulness of the account of Jonah's being in the
great fish for three days, and of his preaching in Nineveh afterwards - (Matthew 12:40,41.) There was,
therefore, no way of reconciling Jesus to higher criticism, so they rejected Him as the divine Son of
God.
Page 15
"These are some of the revolutionary and sensational teachings submitted with academic warrant to the
minds of hundreds of thousands of students in the United States. It is time that the public realized what
is being taught to the youth of this country. 'The social question of to-day,' said Disraeli. 'is only a
zephyr which rustles the leaves, but will soon become a hurricane.' It is a dull ear that cannot hear the
mutterings of the coming storm." - "Cosmopolitan Magazine," - May, 1909, p. 665.
The Bible declares: "They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." "There is no truth,
nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and
committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood." Hosea 8:7; 4:1,2. (Compare 2 Timothy
3:1-5) Yes, the saying is true, that " whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
The Christian Register for June 18, 1891, page 389, commenting favorably on the work of higher
criticism, says:
"Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and set aside as an infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern
scientific Biblical critic. . . . He lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific
criticism had not yet come. . . . And now it is interesting to find that, in a different spirit and with
different tools, and bound by certain traditions. . . . the professors in our orthodox seminaries are doing
again the work which Paine did."
As long as these men domineered over the Old Testament, most of the Christian teachers remained
silent. But the work did not stop there. The Lutheran Pastor Storjolian of Oslo, Norway, says of
Wellhausen:
"After they have permitted him to domineer over the Old Testament for more than twenty-five years, it
is not more than reasonable, and a just punishment, that he in his presumption has now undertaken his
war on the Gospels." - "Bibelen paa Pinebaenk [The Bible on the Inquisitorial Rack]," p. 7.
Christiania, 1907.
In closing let us briefly point out the road which higher criticism had to travel, after it had taken the
first step: When critics had denied the historicity of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), they
discovered that the Psalms referred to them as acknowledged history. (Psalms 33:6,9; 29:10; 77:20;
103:7; 105:6-45; 106:7-33.) To be consistent, the Psalms had to be rejected. They also found that the
books of Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah, and the prophets acknowledged the
Pentateuch as the inspired work of Moses (Joshua 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 35:6, Nehemiah 8:
1, 8; Daniel 9:11,13; Malachi 4:4), so these books had to be rejected.
But then they found that the New Testament repeatedly referred to the Old Testament as inspired
authority (about eight hundred twenty-four times), and to their consternation they discovered that Jesus
declared the first five books in the Bible were written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Luke 24:25, 44, 45), and
that He asked: "If ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe My words?" John 5: 46,
47. The critics had declared that the account of the Flood was only a myth, which no intelligent person
could believe. But Jesus said: "Noe entered into the ark," and "the Flood came, and took them all
away." Matthew 24:33, 39. He even believed the truthfulness of the account of Jonah's being in the
great fish for three days, and of his preaching in Nineveh afterwards - (Matthew 12:40,41.) There was,
therefore, no way of reconciling Jesus to higher criticism, so they rejected Him as the divine Son of
God.
Page 16
For if Jesus did not know that those Old Testament stories were only myths, He was deceived. If He
knew this, and yet taught them, He was a deceiver. In either case He could not be divine, they reasoned.
"If in the dawning of the fortieth century, it shall be found that the law and the prophets are obsolete,
the Gospels and Epistles discarded, Moses forgotten, and Paul and his writings set aside to make room
for the inerrant productions of [higher critics]. . . . if it shall then appear that the hunted prophets who
wandered in sheepskins and goatskins, and were destitute, afflicted, and tormented, 'of whom the world
was not worthy,' have gone down before the onslaught of the learned and well salaried professors of
modern universities; if it shall appear that the word of the Lord which they uttered at the loss of all
things and at the peril of life itself has paled its ineffectual fires before the rising radiance of oracular
higher criticism; if it shall then be learned that God hath chosen the rich in this world, poor in faith, and
heirs of the kingdom - who can tell how welcome this information may prove to those who suppose
that gain is godliness, and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor
man to enter the kingdom of heaven?" - "The Anti-Infidel Library," H. L. Hastings, "More Bricks from
the Babel of the Higher Critics," pp. 172, 173. Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, 1895.
Some might properly ask how Romanists dared to start higher criticism. Would not this menace be
equally dangerous to their church? Absolutely not! The Roman church rests on an entirely different
foundation. The Church, and not the Bible, is her authority. She flourishes best where the Bible is least
circulated, as history amply shows. But Protestantism that rejects the inspiration of the Bible, has
abandoned its foundation, and stands helpless. It is like a ship that has lost its mooring, thrown away its
chart and compass, and is drifting toward - Rome.Page 15
"These are some of the revolutionary and sensational teachings submitted with academic warrant to the
minds of hundreds of thousands of students in the United States. It is time that the public realized what
is being taught to the youth of this country. 'The social question of to-day,' said Disraeli. 'is only a
zephyr which rustles the leaves, but will soon become a hurricane.' It is a dull ear that cannot hear the
mutterings of the coming storm." - "Cosmopolitan Magazine," - May, 1909, p. 665.
The Bible declares: "They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." "There is no truth,
nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and
committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood." Hosea 8:7; 4:1,2. (Compare 2 Timothy
3:1-5) Yes, the saying is true, that " whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
The Christian Register for June 18, 1891, page 389, commenting favorably on the work of higher
criticism, says:
"Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and set aside as an infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern
scientific Biblical critic. . . . He lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific
criticism had not yet come. . . . And now it is interesting to find that, in a different spirit and with
different tools, and bound by certain traditions. . . . the professors in our orthodox seminaries are doing
again the work which Paine did."
As long as these men domineered over the Old Testament, most of the Christian teachers remained
silent. But the work did not stop there. The Lutheran Pastor Storjolian of Oslo, Norway, says of
Wellhausen:
"After they have permitted him to domineer over the Old Testament for more than twenty-five years, it
is not more than reasonable, and a just punishment, that he in his presumption has now undertaken his
war on the Gospels." - "Bibelen paa Pinebaenk [The Bible on the Inquisitorial Rack]," p. 7.
Christiania, 1907.
In closing let us briefly point out the road which higher criticism had to travel, after it had taken the
first step: When critics had denied the historicity of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), they
discovered that the Psalms referred to them as acknowledged history. (Psalms 33:6,9; 29:10; 77:20;
103:7; 105:6-45; 106:7-33.) To be consistent, the Psalms had to be rejected. They also found that the
books of Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah, and the prophets acknowledged the
Pentateuch as the inspired work of Moses (Joshua 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 35:6, Nehemiah 8:
1, 8; Daniel 9:11,13; Malachi 4:4), so these books had to be rejected.
But then they found that the New Testament repeatedly referred to the Old Testament as inspired
authority (about eight hundred twenty-four times), and to their consternation they discovered that Jesus
declared the first five books in the Bible were written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Luke 24:25, 44, 45), and
that He asked: "If ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe My words?" John 5: 46,
47. The critics had declared that the account of the Flood was only a myth, which no intelligent person
could believe. But Jesus said: "Noe entered into the ark," and "the Flood came, and took them all
away." Matthew 24:33, 39. He even believed the truthfulness of the account of Jonah's being in the
great fish for three days, and of his preaching in Nineveh afterwards - (Matthew 12:40,41.) There was,
therefore, no way of reconciling Jesus to higher criticism, so they rejected Him as the divine Son of
God.
Page 16
For if Jesus did not know that those Old Testament stories were only myths, He was deceived. If He
knew this, and yet taught them, He was a deceiver. In either case He could not be divine, they reasoned.
"If in the dawning of the fortieth century, it shall be found that the law and the prophets are obsolete,
the Gospels and Epistles discarded, Moses forgotten, and Paul and his writings set aside to make room
for the inerrant productions of [higher critics]. . . . if it shall then appear that the hunted prophets who
wandered in sheepskins and goatskins, and were destitute, afflicted, and tormented, 'of whom the world
was not worthy,' have gone down before the onslaught of the learned and well salaried professors of
modern universities; if it shall appear that the word of the Lord which they uttered at the loss of all
things and at the peril of life itself has paled its ineffectual fires before the rising radiance of oracular
higher criticism; if it shall then be learned that God hath chosen the rich in this world, poor in faith, and
heirs of the kingdom - who can tell how welcome this information may prove to those who suppose
that gain is godliness, and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor
man to enter the kingdom of heaven?" - "The Anti-Infidel Library," H. L. Hastings, "More Bricks from
the Babel of the Higher Critics," pp. 172, 173. Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, 1895.
Some might properly ask how Romanists dared to start higher criticism. Would not this menace be
equally dangerous to their church? Absolutely not! The Roman church rests on an entirely different
foundation. The Church, and not the Bible, is her authority. She flourishes best where the Bible is least
circulated, as history amply shows. But Protestantism that rejects the inspiration of the Bible, has
abandoned its foundation, and stands helpless. It is like a ship that has lost its mooring, thrown away its
chart and compass, and is drifting toward - Rome.Page 15
"These are some of the revolutionary and sensational teachings submitted with academic warrant to the
minds of hundreds of thousands of students in the United States. It is time that the public realized what
is being taught to the youth of this country. 'The social question of to-day,' said Disraeli. 'is only a
zephyr which rustles the leaves, but will soon become a hurricane.' It is a dull ear that cannot hear the
mutterings of the coming storm." - "Cosmopolitan Magazine," - May, 1909, p. 665.
The Bible declares: "They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." "There is no truth,
nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and
committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood." Hosea 8:7; 4:1,2. (Compare 2 Timothy
3:1-5) Yes, the saying is true, that " whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
The Christian Register for June 18, 1891, page 389, commenting favorably on the work of higher
criticism, says:
"Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and set aside as an infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern
scientific Biblical critic. . . . He lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific
criticism had not yet come. . . . And now it is interesting to find that, in a different spirit and with
different tools, and bound by certain traditions. . . . the professors in our orthodox seminaries are doing
again the work which Paine did."
As long as these men domineered over the Old Testament, most of the Christian teachers remained
silent. But the work did not stop there. The Lutheran Pastor Storjolian of Oslo, Norway, says of
Wellhausen:
"After they have permitted him to domineer over the Old Testament for more than twenty-five years, it
is not more than reasonable, and a just punishment, that he in his presumption has now undertaken his
war on the Gospels." - "Bibelen paa Pinebaenk [The Bible on the Inquisitorial Rack]," p. 7.
Christiania, 1907.
In closing let us briefly point out the road which higher criticism had to travel, after it had taken the
first step: When critics had denied the historicity of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), they
discovered that the Psalms referred to them as acknowledged history. (Psalms 33:6,9; 29:10; 77:20;
103:7; 105:6-45; 106:7-33.) To be consistent, the Psalms had to be rejected. They also found that the
books of Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah, and the prophets acknowledged the
Pentateuch as the inspired work of Moses (Joshua 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 35:6, Nehemiah 8:
1, 8; Daniel 9:11,13; Malachi 4:4), so these books had to be rejected.
But then they found that the New Testament repeatedly referred to the Old Testament as inspired
authority (about eight hundred twenty-four times), and to their consternation they discovered that Jesus
declared the first five books in the Bible were written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Luke 24:25, 44, 45), and
that He asked: "If ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe My words?" John 5: 46,
47. The critics had declared that the account of the Flood was only a myth, which no intelligent person
could believe. But Jesus said: "Noe entered into the ark," and "the Flood came, and took them all
away." Matthew 24:33, 39. He even believed the truthfulness of the account of Jonah's being in the
great fish for three days, and of his preaching in Nineveh afterwards - (Matthew 12:40,41.) There was,
therefore, no way of reconciling Jesus to higher criticism, so they rejected Him as the divine Son of
God.
Page 16
For if Jesus did not know that those Old Testament stories were only myths, He was deceived. If He
knew this, and yet taught them, He was a deceiver. In either case He could not be divine, they reasoned.
"If in the dawning of the fortieth century, it shall be found that the law and the prophets are obsolete,
the Gospels and Epistles discarded, Moses forgotten, and Paul and his writings set aside to make room
for the inerrant productions of [higher critics]. . . . if it shall then appear that the hunted prophets who
wandered in sheepskins and goatskins, and were destitute, afflicted, and tormented, 'of whom the world
was not worthy,' have gone down before the onslaught of the learned and well salaried professors of
modern universities; if it shall appear that the word of the Lord which they uttered at the loss of all
things and at the peril of life itself has paled its ineffectual fires before the rising radiance of oracular
higher criticism; if it shall then be learned that God hath chosen the rich in this world, poor in faith, and
heirs of the kingdom - who can tell how welcome this information may prove to those who suppose
that gain is godliness, and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor
man to enter the kingdom of heaven?" - "The Anti-Infidel Library," H. L. Hastings, "More Bricks from
the Babel of the Higher Critics," pp. 172, 173. Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, 1895.
Some might properly ask how Romanists dared to start higher criticism. Would not this menace be
equally dangerous to their church? Absolutely not! The Roman church rests on an entirely different
foundation. The Church, and not the Bible, is her authority. She flourishes best where the Bible is least
circulated, as history amply shows. But Protestantism that rejects the inspiration of the Bible, has
abandoned its foundation, and stands helpless. It is like a ship that has lost its mooring, thrown away its
chart and compass, and is drifting toward - Rome. [TO BE CONTINUED]
