more friendly to miracles than before. We are not here raising the
question of miracles as such, but we do insist that an assumption as to
what the natural order may or may not allow can be fraught with peril in
the hands of critical students of the Scriptures. We say again that
while, in general, the larger contentions of the biblical school can be
looked upon as established beyond reasonable doubt; and while, in
general, the methods of the school are productive of good, yet, because
of the part that assumption plays in the fashioning of all critical
tools, the assumptions must be scrutinized with all possible care. A
good practical rule is to read widely from the critics, to accept what
they generally agree upon, to hold very loosely anything that seems
"striking" or "brilliant." This is a field in which originality must be
discounted. There is so little check upon the imagination.

It is but a step from the consideration of the critical methods in
biblical study to that of the historical methods in the broader sense.
Many students who are out of patience with the more narrowly critical
processes maintain that the broader historical methods are of vast value
in biblical discussion. Here, again, we must admit the large measure of
justice in the claim. We can see at once that the same reservations must
be made as in the case of the critical methods. The assumptions play a
determining part. If we are on our guard against any tricks that
assumptions may play, we can eagerly expect the historical methods to
aid us greatly.

We have come to see that any revelation to be really a revelation must
speak in the language of a particular time. But speaking in the language
of a particular time implies at the outset very decided limitations. The
prophets who arise to proclaim any kind of truth must clothe their ideas
in the thought terms of a particular day and can accomplish their aims