THE HAMILTON ASSOCIATION. 139 
1. The formalaries were drawn up a long time ago. Theo- 
logical thought continually advances, and it has always ad- 
vanced. It is only a very ignorant and illiterate clergyman 
who can even imagine himself to hold the whole doctrine of the 
Church of England as it was intended to be defined in 1571, or 
1662. 
2. In particular, the acceptance of the results of what is 
known as “the higher criticism”. of the Old Testament by a 
large section of the High Church party, and some who would 
hardly disclaim the designation “ evangelical,” has entirely al- 
tered the position of the more advanced liberals. The Bishop 
of Worcester and the Bishop of Exeter, for instance, certainly 
do not unfeignedly believe all the canonical scriptures of the 
Old and New Testament since they admit them to contain nu- 
merous historical misstatements and contradictions. 
Dr. Sanday ranks among the most conservative and ortho- 
dox of New Testament critics. Specially in favor with “ Eng- 
lish Church Union,” in his article on Jesus Christ in Hastings’ 
Dictionary of the Bible, he admits that some of the miracles 
probably did not occur, while others have been exaggerated. 
The following is taken from an article by Dr. C. Briggs 
(Union Theological Seminary), published in the Presbyterian 
Review in 1887, quoted approvingly in “ what is the Bible,” by 
Dr. Ladd, of the Yale University, and Dr. Bacon in the “ Gene- 
sis of Genesis.” ‘The critical analysis of tne Hexateuch is the 
result of more than a century of profound study of the docu- 
ments by the greatest critics of the age. Hilkeah’s discovery 
of “ The Book of the Law”’ occurred in the reign of the King 
Josiah, 620 B.C. Internal evidence in the book itself indicate 
that “the Priestly Code” was written during or shortly follow- 
ing “the exile,” some older fragments being worked into it. 
The condition which the Jews found themselves in after exile, 
597-537 B. C., made such a system of laws necessary. The 
system was unsuitable for an earlier period. ‘The Section may 
see from the foregoing the writer had some reason, at least, for 
asserting the early Hebrew sacred writings contained not a few 
Chaldean myths. The legend of Lot’s wife is said to be of 
