nly curious
instances of a wrong method of criticism. But they filter down from the
scholars to the masses of Christian believers and weaken their faith. It
becomes a duty to deal with the method which leads to such results, and
threatens to destroy all our missionary zeal. Hence I proceed to test
the value of the method itself, even though it is commonly called "the
historical method" by those who adopt it. If we can bear a somewhat
roundabout way of treating the subject, we shall gain a new and valuable
light upon our missionary theory and practice.

To prevent misunderstanding, however, I must premise that it is the
historical method as frequently employed, and not the historical method
as it ought to be, to which I offer my objections. My criticism is
directed against the historical method, only when it assumes to be the
exclusive means of attaining truth, follows the methods of physical
science, and ignores the far more important material for religious use
which is furnished by intuition and revelation. The phrase "historical
method" has come to imply much that does not properly belong to it. I
criticize only its frequent exclusiveness and exaggeration. And I do
this, as I think, in the interest of true science.

There are two methods of reasoning possible, in this case or in any
other case, and there are only two--I mean the deductive, and the
inductive. I make no mention of argument from analogy, for that proceeds
upon a deductive basis, presuming that there is a designed order in the
world which makes analogy possible. The deductive method argues from the
universal to the particular, from the higher to the lower, from God to
man. The inductive method, on the other hand, argues from the particular
to the universal, from the lower to the higher, from man to God. Both of
these methods are correct when each is taken in connection with the
other. Much depends, however, upon the question which is taken first.
Shall we begin with the particular, leaving out for the time all thought
of the universal? There is danger that induction will come to be
regarded as itself sufficient to lead us into the truth. This is a
serious error, for correct induction presupposes deduction, and
therefore deduction should be the guiding principle and safeguard of
induction. If this is forgotten, induction may go fearfully astray.

To make my meaning still more plain, let me say that in our
investigations we need a comprehensive method, a