Chapter III

Superior persons will no doubt object that the spirit in which this book is written is unsuited to a theological discussion. But the objectors mistake the author’s purpose; which is not to discuss theology, but to explode fallacies and to expose frauds. Such is the humble and not unfamiliar task which he has here undertaken.

And superior persons are as unreasonable as the “children sitting in the market-place.” Were the author to proceed to the calm and sober discussion of theological questions, they would tell him that, being a mere layman, he is not entitled to a hearing. But the only condition on which he could obtain episcopal ordination would be his giving an affirmative answer to the plain question, ‘’ Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?” Once, however, a man becomes a clergyman by giving this pledge solemnly and publicly he is entitled to be heard, even though he sets himself to persuade people that the Scriptures are not to be believed. A man who honestly accepted such a pledge and then found his career imperilled by a change of views might well deserve our pity. And if he maintained a studied silence on the subject, he might not forfeit our respect. But when men obtain ordination by declaring their belief of the Bible, and then upon the very house-tops proclaim their unbelief, their attitude and conduct seem to call for some sort of apology or explanation.

Let me give an illustration. In a treatise written by a foreign infidel nine passages are singled out as being the “credible elements “in the Four Gospels, and of these he says: ‘* They prove that in the person of Jesus we have to do with a completely human being, and that the Divine is to be sought in him only in the form in which it is capable of being found in a man; they also prove that he really did exist, and that the Gospels contain at least some absolutely trustworthy facts concerning him.”

‘’A completely human being’’ mark. Not only is the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ denied, but His Divinity also, even in the modified sense acknowledged by devout Unitarians, Christianity thus becomes a huge fraud, and the Christian’s faith a sheer delusion.

If such statements were reproduced to warn us against the excesses of the pseudo-Criticism and the blindness and folly of profane apostates, most of us would deprecate their publication in England. But as a matter of fact, the article from which those words are quoted appears in a standard theological work, bearing the imprimatur of a Canon of the Church of England and a Professor of Oxford University.

And the Encyclopcedia Biblica differs only in degree from the Dictionary of the Bible, of which Canon Driver, also a Professor of Oxford, is one of the editors. These and other kindred works designed to destroy belief of the Bible are written or edited by

Encyc. ‘Bib., art. “Gospels.” The writer proceeds to enumerate nine credible passages in the Four Gospels!

men who command attention just because of their holding a position gained by their declaring their unfeigned belief of the Bible.

Their attitude and conduct, I repeat, are an enigma. That an adequate explanation of them can be given is a natural inference from their high personal character. And when they deign to offer it, all fair and generous minds will be relieved and gratified. Meanwhile is it strange if ‘’ mere laymen” are perplexed? For it is certain that their views of morality in such matters do not run altogether on the same lines as those which prevail in the Clubs, or even in the City.

Let me not be misunderstood. I am not impugning the character of the distinguished ecclesiastics and scholars who lead the pseudo-Criticism movement in this country. But I wish plainly to suggest that they do not view matters quite in the same way as other men. My words are not to be misread as a veiled attack on their integrity or their honour. They are intended as a frank and open impeachment of their judgment. My object is to secure a fair field in this controversy. Hence my protest against the “Brutussays-he-was-ambitious” guillotine which is now used to silence all remonstrance and stifle all discussion.

In certain quarters, I doubt not, this impeachment and this protest will provoke a sneer. I shall be ridiculed for setting up my own judgment against that of the scholars and the ecclesiastics. But that is not quite fair. Surely I have made my meaning clear. My contention is, not that I personally am better fitted than they are to deal with difficult questions of conflicting evidence, but that this is true of any man who, in any capacity, whether as judge or magistrate, or lawyer or juror, has experience of judicial inquiries.

If I seem to labour this point, it is because the success of all religious frauds — the pseudo-Criticism not excepted — depends on preventing “the laity “from thinking for themselves. My own case will illustrate this. It was Professor Driver’s” Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament” which first shook my faith in the Bible. The ‘’ Daniel” section very specially influenced me. His case against the book seemed complete; and not being a Hebrew scholar, I felt myself incompetent to review his decisions.

It was some time before I recovered from the shock; but when I began to regain my breath, my recovery was hastened by a counter-shock. The pivot on which the whole case turned was the presence of Greek words in the book; and when I discovered that on this vital point the argument was either an anachronism or a puerility,^ I determined to prove the matter further.

But what about the Hebrew? Lawyers have too much sense to waste time over anything conceded by the other side. And while to his assertion that ‘’ the Greek words demand ‘* a verdict against Daniel, Professor Driver adds that “the Hebrew supports “the same conclusion, Professor Cheyne, quite as competent a Hebraist, and far more uncompromising as a critic, expressly declares that” From the Hebrew of

* Canon Driver’s words are,” The Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits’,’ a late date. The whole argument, therefore, turns on the presence of the Greek words.

the book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn.”

This was enough for me. The philology being thus ruled out, I was face to face with allegations of fact, and inferences from evidence. And, inflated with conceit engendered by remembering that, in problems of that kind, people quite as clever as the professors sometimes seemed to value my opinion and advice, I decided to examine the whole matter for myself.

My judgment had been overawed by the great authority of Dr. Driver’s name. For I supposed his treatise to be the result of independent inquiry and thought. My next shock was the discovery that it was merely a reproduction of the case made out by the foreign Rationalists long ago.

And when this was followed by the further discovery that recent archseological research had proved that his main “Historical Errors “were not errors at all — that, for example, Cyrus’s own inscriptions tell us that Belshazzar actually ruled in Babylon, as the Bible says he did, and that he was killed when the Mede who commanded the invading army captured the city and set up the Persian rule — I began to think it was high time to inquire what could be said upon the other side. And my efforts were rewarded by finding an array of solid facts, as set forth in the preceding chapter, sufficient to convince any competent tribunal that the “critical hypothesis” is untenable.

I appeal to my readers, therefore, to use their own judgment in this controversy. And when superior persons attempt to overawe them by the “Brutussays-he-was-ambitious” refrain about “the latest and best scholarship,” let them remember, first, that the scholarship is neither good nor modern; and, secondly, that it is not a question of scholarship at all, but of evidence, requiring no knowledge of Hebrew whatever, but only intelligence and shrewdness, and what is called a “level head.”

There is absolutely nothing new in this sceptical crusade against the Bible. English scholars have made no contribvition to it, save only the sanction of their names. And when, half a century ago, it began to leaven religious thought in this country, its course was predicted by those who knew its progress in the land of its origin.

If a man of good repute is bluntly denounced as a drunkard or a rogue by one who is known to be his enemy, his character may be left to take care of itself. But if a charge of dishonesty or excess is made with great reserve and seeming reluctance by one who poses as his friend, and who declares his esteem for him and his earnest wish to screen him, most people will take for granted there is some foundation for it.

And so it is here. When foreign sceptics assailed the Bible they were ignored. But now that English Christians join in the attack, people begin to think there must be something in it. Among the educated classes indeed there is not one person in a hundred who accepts their conclusions. But there is not one person in a thousand who is not in some degree influenced by their teaching. And as a result the cultured classes are drifting towards a kind of religious agnosticism. And when these pestilent errors have fully penetrated to the unthinking multitude, they will lead to an agnosticism with no saving element whatever — an agnosticism which will soon develop into practical atheism. In this generation the pseudo-Criticism is undermining the faith of the Church; in the next it may affect the fabric of Society.