242 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.E.A.S.^ ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND 



these corrections 1 I, for one, am not aware of a single such 

 instance. 



It seems to me, therefore, that the " critical theories " on the part 

 of certain Biblical scholars with which Mr. Tuckwell has dealt this 

 afternoon are discredited by the test of their comparison with the 

 results of archaeological discovery, and that as regards the Old 

 Testament this is very convincingly set forth in Mr. Tuckwell's 

 paper. 



The Rev. Chancellor Lias said : As one of the oldest members 

 of the Council, I am pleased to congratulate the Institute on the 

 striking and picturesque paper which has been read to-day. I say 

 picturesque because of the graphic language in which the author 

 has put his points before us. It is now some years since the 

 learned Professor Flint, the great authority on Theistic philosophy, 

 remarked that the time had come when ''the critics should be 

 criticized." They have been criticized to-day. It is a pity that 

 they should, as I fear they do, resent such criticism ; and should 

 be unwilling, or at least seem to be unwilling, to come out into the 

 open to discuss the questions at issue. For they claim for their 

 criticism that it is " scientific." Yet it cannot be rightly called 

 "scientific" until it has been tested and has stood the test. 

 Especially is the claim so frequently made for the Biblical criticism 

 of the hour that it represents "the final and unalterable results of 

 scientific criticism" essentially unscientific. For scientific theories 

 are constantly liable to be corrected by fresh discoveries, e.g., the 

 recent discovery of radium has profoundly modified the hitherto 

 accepted theories about heat and matter. If the Biblical critic, on 

 scientific grounds, can claim finality for his conclusions, he not only 

 sets the history of Biblical criticism at nought — since it has been 

 constantly replacing one theory by another — but on his principles 

 the supposed discovery of radium ought to be resolutely disallowed 

 as contrary to the "final and unalterable" conclusions of modern 

 physical science. That were to return to the old dogmatism which 

 barred the progress of scientific discovery from the days of Aristotle 

 to those of Bacon. 



I have only one or two remarks to make in support of Mr. 

 Tuckwell's paper. Professor Orr seems to think (see p. 224) that the 

 theory that the use of the names Jahweh and Elohim are character- 

 istic of different authors has been conclusively established. This 



