From the Independent I learn that Th. Weitbrecht, a German Biblical writer of Stuttgart, has published a book in defense of the credibility of the Scriptures, in which he gives the following account of the method employed by the new school of critics. The picture is as correctly drawn for this side of the ocean as for that:

      When the critic attacks a particular doctrine of the faith, and appeals to the "Sacred Scriptures" as the basis of his attack, I call his attention, say, to a passage in Colossians, in defense of the church's teachings. Then I am told that the Epistle to the Colossians is not Pauline, and can not be appealed to. Then I cite Romans, but am told that Romans is indeed of Pauline origin, but that Paul has no decisive voice in the matter at issue, and that a word of Christ is wanted. Then I refer him to a passage in John's Gospel, but am told that this will not do, as the fourth Gospel is not Johannine. When, then, I refer to a passage in Mark, I am told that Mark is indeed genuine, but that just the passage in question is not critically reliable, but is a later addition to the Gospel. When, then, I cite a passage as an original saying of Jesus that is not thus critically objectionable, I am told that this is indeed a genuine saying of Christ, [364] but who knows if it has been handed down to us in its original shape and form, or if it is in the present form not the result of the later dogmatic period? What certainty can such a method attain?

[SEBC 364-365]