These Results Are the Outcome of the Higher Criticism Crusade: Origin and History of the Movement

And this is the abyss in which Dr. Harnack’s teaching would engulf us. And the road which leads to it is the Higher Criticism. Not so, it will perhaps be said, with our English critics. But the explanation of this is simple. As a nation we are not as logical as the Germans, and most of our English critics still feel the power of truth which every free and fearless thinker recognises to be inconsistent with the principles and conclusions of the Higher Criticism.

But here we must distinguish. The system of Bible study for which Eichhorn coined that title is ostensibly an examination of the sacred books with a view to analyzing their contents and ascertaining their date and authorship. Such a study is altogether useful and admirable. And if its legitimate results have disturbed certain “orthodox” traditions, the Bible is the gainer, and the true Bible lover welcomes the light thus thrown upon the sacred page. But Hichhorn had in view also a crusade which has no necessary connection whatever with the Higher Criticism as thus defined.’ He and his fellgw-workers set themselves to win back the cultured Gaver oY testinite to Shistisaity by eliminating from the Bible every element to which theRetienaliststookexceptiom And the Higher Criticism was promptly “captured” by this sceptical propagandism, and it has never shaken off its sinister influence. The movement, therefore, which has ever since flown

that flag is essentially a sceptical crusade against the Bible. I do not aver that all critioat Sohal have any such animus or aim. Not even in Germany is this true of them, and much less in England. Many of them, indeed, are careful to separate themselves in this respect from the more advanced of the critics. But they all give proof that they feel the force of the current which sets against the Bible; and when they use language of apology or reserve it is generally in their defense of Holy Scripture, and not in pressing their criticisms to its prejudice.

Now here several considerations will suggest themselves to the thoughtful. The word “critic” has a double meaning. It may mean a ho: hostile cxiner orfault- Sader, or it may mea ean a judge. And the proper function of the critic in the former sense is to supply materials upon which the critic in the higher and truer sense may adjudicate. For every decision of criticism involves a judicial inquiry, and experience abundantly proves that an expert seldom possesses the qualificatio ns necessary for inquiries

of this kind. This is true even in the legal profession. For it is notorious that the best lawyeroften makes the worst kes the worst Judge. Hor How much more true then must it be in other spheres. While, therefore, it is not pretended that a knowledge of Hebrew unfits a man for deciding the questions with which the Higher Criticism deals, it is certaint

proof of fitness for such a task. For the most

eminent Hebrew scholar in Christendom may be singularly wanting in the qualities essential in a judge. Indeed, he may have less broadmindedness and common sense than an average schoolboy.