In 1802 this Rosetta stone, as it is named from the locality in which it was found, was sent to the British Museum, where it may be seen. It is three feet nine inches high, two feet four inches wide and eleven inches thick. The top has been broken off. There are still fourteen lines in hieroglyphics. Below them thirty-two lines in another writing, and still below fifty-four lines in Greek. The latter states the proclamation (of no value in itself), is the same in the three languages.

Then, surely, the carving on obelisk, statue, mummy case and temple was not an ornament solely, but had a story to tell of other ages and people. Then, would not these inscriptions help to solve the mystery?

But the black stone, like the sphynx, answered no questions; years had passed and the closest study brought no solutions. But God, who is never in a hurry, and who sent a French army with the most brilliant general of his age to find the lost stone and bring it to light, had raised up a French lad, born in 1790, who, in his school days, developed a strange interest in languages, especially the ancient ones. Hebrew, Arabic, Coptic fascinated him. Before he was out of his teens he was studying in Paris everything he could find about ancient Egypt and her monuments.

When he thought himself ready he turned to the Rosetta stone. Yes, he could read the second writing. It was in the language of the common people of those ancient times. With the two at his command could he master the third?

To this problem he turned with utmost eagerness. He noticed a certain word, a certain name, occurred the same number of times and in the same relative position. Could he find the same form repeated in the hieroglyphics? After many failures and loug, patient, minute study he was able to at last, in 1823, to publish to the world that the inscriptions with which Egypt fairly teemed could be read.

So, when French infidelity assailed the truth of His word God trained a French boy to open the hidden treasures of the past with a key which had been made 2,000 years before, and which He

sent a French army 2,000 miles to find, where it had been lost and buried a hundred miles from its original location.

Did they say we cannot trust the account of Moses and Pharaoh because it goes so far back of any reliable history?

Champollion unlocks the records of Egypt and many independent witnesses spring forward to tell us of events and Pharaohs, and national life long before Abraham visited the land in time of famine, "according to the Scriptures."

JAMES D. MOFFAT, D. D., LL. D.

I am not a Biblical critic, nor in any technical sense of the term, a critic. I therefore treat this subject from the standpoint of an outsider. I can ask no credence for any statement I make on the ground that it is I who make it. My statements must be self-evident or commonly accepted, or else be supported by facts or sound reasoning. You are not now to listen to expert testimony or the affirmations of an authority.

With this understanding, it may not be amiss to remark, that the outsiders ought to be heard, at least occasionally, for they constitute the overwhelming majority of the Christian world and it is to them that the critics are appealing for the acceptance and approval of their conclusions. It does become us to sit and listen in a modest and docile spirit to those who are qualified to teach; but the critics are the last persons in the world who can ask us to accept their teachings solely or chiefly on authority. Criticism postulates that the age of credulous acceptance of tradition and dogmatic assertion has passed and ought to pass; that we live in a scientific age, when every person or body of persons making any assertion requires to exhibit the grounds for the assertion, so that "We, the people," may judge for ourselves of its efficiency. It is therefore in accordance with the spirit of our age that we outsiders should, once in a while, make a few remarks to the critics expressive of our independent judgment.

By the rights of Biblical criticism I understand the rights that may properly be claimed by and accorded to Biblical critics. And by Biblical criticism I understand all study of the books of the Bible having for its end the discovery of their origin, form and value, while by the limits of Biblical criticism I understand the principles of literary and historic criticism which the critics are bound to respect and not to contravene in order to the attain. ment of the lawful ends they should have ever in view. When we define his rights we say to the critic, "Thus far shalt thou go," and when we define his limits we add, "And no farther."

*An address delivered before the Pan-Presbyterian Council at Liverpool.

To me, as an outsider, it seems indisputable that anyone, who wishes to devote himself to the discovery of the origin, form and value of any part of the Bible, should be accorded entire liberty to enter upon this work and to pursue it as long and as earnestly as he may please. Moreover, this right to investigate carries with it the right to discuss all related questions with his companions in research and to proclaim the results which he may feel able to support; the outside world asking nothing of Biblical critics except that they be loyal to the truth. As long as any human being is engaged in the search after truth, in any department of human knowledge, he is entitled to sympathy, encouragement and such help as we can afford. And this right is all the more imperative in the sphere of Biblical investigations, because of the unspeakably great importance of the Bible to the human race. If, at this moment, there were no Christian scholars engaged in this work it might be an imperative duty of the church to set apart chosen scholars and ordain them to find out and report to us every scrap of information obtainable concerning the origin of our scriptures. But there seems to be no lack of volunteers at the present time in this field.

This liberty and cordial sympathy to Biblical critics should not depend on the possible or actual results of their labors. These results may be quite contrary to our anticipations. Newly discovered truth is very apt to be for a time disappointing to a portion of the good people of the world, and not infrequently truth has met persecution and only through much tribulation made its way to final acceptance. The only question for us to ask concerning any results of investigation that are offered to us is, Are they true? If they are true, let our expectations be disappointed and our desires be denied if they happen to be in conflict with those results. And men ought to be judged by the same principle. Are they seekers of the truth and are they sincere in offering their results as true? If these questions must be answered in the affirmative, then the critics are within their rights. We have no moral right to call them names nor so to characterize them in public speech as to create a prejudice against them.

When we credit them with good motives we do not bind

ourselves to accept their conclusions. It may still be an open question whether or not they have discovered truth; but if they have sought and do honestly claim to have discovered it we may justly treat them with the same courtesy that we accord to those whose results are more satisfactory to us. To call them "destructive critics," "rationalistic," or "naturalistic," or "anti-supernaturalistic" critics or to charge them with hostility to the Bible or Christianity for no other reason than that their conclusions are distasteful to us, or untrue in our opinion, is to deny to them the rights that ought to be accorded to all seekers after truth.

There may, however, be Biblical critics who are in this business for other ends than the ascertainment of truth concerning the origin and value of the Biblical books, whose critical work may be a means to an ulterior end. And it seems to me legitimate that other critics and outsiders should expose the ulterior ends of such. When an out and out pantheist becomes a Biblical critic or writes a life of Christ, the fact that he treats these matters wholly from a pantheistic standpoint ought to be made known and may be employed properly to discredit his methods. He is not seeking the truth concerning the Bible but support for his erroneous philosophy. Still it is always wiser to deal with the results than with the man. To prove the result ill-founded is better than to prove the critic insincere.

But there are limits within which this liberty is to be enjoyed. The right of unfettered investigation, unlimited discussion and uncensored publication can be accorded cheerfully on our part only to those critics who respect the limits that may properly be imposed upon them. Now, what are these limits? They cannot be imposed by authority, civil or ecclesiastical, but such as the common reason of man will approve. The critics can surely ask no broader right than untrammelled liberty in their search after the truth concerning the origin of the Bible nor can we consistently impose any limit that may rob them of any part of that liberty; to do so would be an offense against truth. Only in the interests of truth should any limit be proposed. What then are these limits?

They are of two classes. The first class is made up of those