Chapter XIX

His book has already passed the limits I

had fixed for it; and though I seem to

have but touched the fringe of a subject which

is inexhaustible, the present chapter must be the last.

Here, then, is my answer to the question of the opening page, Whether, in view of modern criticism, the Bible may still be received with the settled and simple faith accorded to it in the past? “I hold no man’s proxy,” and yet in a sense I represent a class that may surely claim a right to be heard in this controversy. ‘Taught in early life to regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God, we came in time to feel the power of destructive criticism. And our faith was severely tested by the strain. For the man who believes on mere human testimony that a virgin bore a child, and that a dead man came back to life, is a

superstitious creature who would believe anything. 249

The question at issue, therefore, is between agnosticism and Christianity. And we have faced that question in the light of all that the critics have to urge. Some of us have studied the Bible quite as diligently as they have; and as the result, while wholly free from the trammels of “articles” and ‘creeds,” we have come back to the faith of those who framed those formularies. We do not look upon the martyrs with patronising pity as fanatics or fools. The faith they died for we deem worth living for. And if belief in Holy Scripture in the sense in which they believed in it led to the same consequences now as in dark days gone by, we trust we should not shrink from them.

My answer, then, is clear and unequivocal. As for the manner of it I am well aware of its faults and imperfections. But one characteristic of it, for which I expect to be taken severely to task, I refuse to regard asa fault at all. At the outset I waived appeals to authority, and therefore I have deliberately abstained from paying the critical scholars the homage to which they are accustomed. To adopt the words of Dr. Pusey, ‘“I have turned against sceptics their own weapons, and used ridicule against the would-be arguments of a false criticism which thought

Cu. XIX.] MORALITY OF THE CRITICS 251

itself ‘free’ because it made free with God’s Word.”! i

My treatment of the critics is due to no want of deference for scholarship. But that which gives them such a commanding influence upon the public mind is not their scholarship, but the vantage-ground they occupy as professors of Christian universities or colleges, or ministers of Christian Churches. Their power to attack the Bible is mainly due to positions they have gained by giving solemn pledges to defend it. Not that I accuse them of conscious dishonesty in this. They are above the suspicion of such a charge. But they do not view things as others view them. The morality of religious men seems to differ from that of ordinary men. The critics see no inconsistency between their position and their teaching; just as they cannot see the obvious consequences of that teaching. Moreover, with some notable exceptions, they are mere experts, and experts are proverbially lacking in judgment.

To speak in this way of such eminent personages will seem to some people almost to savour of profanity. Many of us have laughed over David Ross’s warning to his wife in Zhe Days of

* Dr. Pusey’s Daniel (Preface).

Auld Lang Syne, “We maun be cannie wi’ John’s title, wumman, for ye ken professor is a by-ordinar’ word: a’ count it equal tae earl at the verra least, an’ it wudna dae tae be aye usin’t.” But in this controversy we cannot afford to be “cannie.” The issues at stake are too tremendous. And moreover, nothing sublunary is sacred to a lawyer.

I may plead, too, that I have merely brought the critics within the meshes of their own net. I have treated them as they themselves treat the ‘Biblical writers.” Appeals to the New Testament they refuse on the ground that the inspired Apostles of the Lord, and even the Lord Himself, were prejudiced and ignorant: is it very shocking, then, to question their own competency? As for me, I would say, in borrowed language, how deeply I feel my ‘utter weakness before the power of His Word and my inability to sound the depths even of its simplest sentence.” But yet it would be the merest affectation in one who knows even a little of the spiritual meaning and ‘hidden harmony” of Scripture, to pretend that he can study such works as Hastings’s Bzbde Dictionary and The Encyclopedia Biblica without being conscious of living in a sphere which most of the writers seem to have never entered, and

Cu. XIX.] COMPETENCE OF THE CRITICS 253

of the very existence of which they display no knowledge.

It will be said perhaps that in these books the editors and contributors write avowedly as critics, and it is not fair to assume that they are only critics. But can any one point to anything that has come from their facile pens which gives proof of acquaintance with the spiritual power of Holy Scripture as “the living and eternally abiding Word of God”? (1 Pet. i. 23.)?

“It is the first rule of criticism,” one of the most eminent and trusted of the critics tells us, “that a good critic must be a good interpreter of the thoughts of his author”;2 and it would be difficult to frame a sentence which more definitely discredits the whole fraternity. ‘“‘ These are they which bear witness of Me”3 is the Divine inscription upon the Hebrew Scriptures; and in ignoring this the critics are entirely out of touch

ee a ae

“Robertson Smith,” exclaims a friend at my elbow. “Oh the pity of it!” is my rejoinder; for I recall such words as these: “Only of this I am sure at the outset, that the Bible does speak to the heart of man in words that can only come from God”’ (Old Testament in the Fewish Church). But see p. 39, ante. And one of the most notable of his successors in Scotland is now running the same course; so that Professor Cheyne need no longer pity his weakness (Old Testament Criticism, p. 245).

2 Robertson Smith, Old Testament in the Fewish Church, Lecture III.

3 John v. 39 (R.V.)

with the thoughts both of the God who inspired the Bible and of its human authors.

Our quarrel with the Higher Criticism, I repeat with emphasis, is not because it is criticism, but because it is purely destructive, and therefore the lowest kind of criticism. And, moreover, it systematically ignores the science of evidence, on which all true criticism rests. In fact, when judged by every test that can be applied to it, it is found wanting.

In the higher sense of the word a “critic” is a skilled and impartial judge — all that here in England we expect a judge to be. Its secondary meaning is that of “a harsh examiner,” a hostile fault-finder. These sceptical writers belong to the second category. And let this be kept in view. We do not reject the ascertained results of true criticism. Our protest is against the assumptions of a criticism which is unsound in principle, and which is carried on by unsound methods. ‘ We are prepared as Christian men to receive and welcome the fullest light of the new learning. We are not prepared to be dragged at the wheels of those who would give us a discredited Old Testament, an emasculated New Testament, a fallible Christ.” 1

* These words are quoted from Dr. Sinker’s valuable treatise on The Higher Criticism (p. 184).

Cu. XIX.] SCEPTICISM AND SCHOLARSHIP 255

If therefore I may venture to combine practical counsel with this summary and retrospect, I would say, first, let no one be “‘ browbeaten out of belief” by these attacks upon Holy Scripture. The Bible is not discredited because eminent scholars have turned against it in the camp of faith. The critics represent indeed that the scholarship of Christendom is with them. But the claim is absolutely unfounded.!. Their apparent pre-eminence is due largely to their being adepts in the art of what the Americans call “literary log-rolling.” They are “a mutual admiration society.” No one of them can raise a cry but that the whole party responds. And then the secular Press joins in. For the Press is with them. Naturally. For the newspapers represent ‘“‘the world,” and “the world” is never on the side of Divine truth.

The alarming spread of scepticism among the Nonconformists during the last quarter of a century has been largely due to their wincing under this charge of want of scholarship. They long refused to barter the faith of Christ for German rationalism. But Matthew Arnold’s

t Such a book as Lex Mosaica is in itself an answer to it. That notable work is a complete refutation of the critical attack upon the Pentateuch.

appeal for “culture” was a veiled taunt which they keenly felt; and like the schoolboy who is shamed into evil ways by the fear of being deemed unmanly, they betook themselves to the new cult. Under this influence many of the younger men are now ministers of “culture,” instead of being ministers of the gospel. The result is that while, politically and socially, Nonconformity never stood higher, as a spiritual power it has sensibly declined. It is bartering its birthright for a mess of pottage.

It is noteworthy that this boast of a monopoly of scholarship, and this taunt of want of culture, were among the weapons used by the Arians in the supreme controversy of early days. Those who stood with Athanasius in the great struggle for the faith of Christ appeared for a time to be a weak minority. But the undeclared suffrages of “the whole congregation of Christian people” were behind them; and in the end the truth triumphed.

If I may go on to offer advice of a still more practical kind, I would say in the words of that most sensible of men, the town clerk of Ephesus, ‘‘ Seeing that these things cannot be gainsaid, ye ought to be quiet.” It is idle to hold exciting meetings, and to shout for ‘‘about the space of Cu. XIX.] NEGLECT OF THE BIBLE 257

two hours” that the Bible is the Word of God. A reaction is sure to follow; and when the shouting is over thoughtful people will turn away to listen to the critics.

The success of the sceptical movement is not due to the strength of the attack, but to the weakness of the defence. With the vast majority of Christians the Bible is nothing more than “a plan of salvation” and ‘a book of piety.” Of “the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” which it unfolds they are content to know nothing. The golden threads of type and prophecy which are in the warp and woof of it from Genesis to Revelation, they ignore. And some who pose as champions of the Bible share the ignorance of those whom they seek to lead. No wonder, therefore, if scepticism prevails.

I once asked the late Bishop of Limerick, when visiting him in his charming summer home upon the Kenmare river, whether, when separated from his library and his work, the time did not sometimes hang heavily. I well remember Dr. Graves’s answer. ‘‘Give me,” said he, “a single square yard on the side of a dry ditch, and I can find enough to interest me for a day.” To me, I confess, a Kerry ditch, wet or dry, would be

nothing but a ditch. And there are multitudes 18 nel

“who profess and call themselves Christians” to whom the Bible is nothing but a book. And yet with the spiritually intelligent every page of it will bear the microscope. Not a single student of prophecy can be found in the ranks of the critics; not a single individual who understands the Pentateuch as “the word of the beginning of Christ.”!

Let us never forget that the Higher Criticism is what has been called ‘“‘Aost-mortem talk.” No one could make a constant study of a fost-mortent report upon some lost relative or friend without becoming morbid or degraded. And a like deterioration seems to result from the habitual study of the critics. Let us then keep their books on the upper shelf, and use them only for reference. These writers seem to miss even the open and obvious scope of the Old Testament as the Divine history of the Abrahamic race. And its esoteric teaching about Christ, which pervades not merely the writings of the Prophets, but the Law and the ‘Former Prophets” (as the historical books were called), they entirely ignore. And it is neither

* In other words, the critics know nothing of the typology of Scripture. And therefore they are ignorant of the language in which Christian doctrine is taught in the New Testament (see p. 26, ante).

Cu. XIX.] CONFIDENCE IN THE BIBLE 259
by Se Se ee es

wholesome nor even safe for the Christian to accustom himself to a system of Bible study in which Christ has no place.!

Here I would add a warning against being frightened by a parade of seeming errors in the Scriptures. In the preceding chapters I have selected examples of various classes of difficulties, and have shown how some that may seem to be insoluble can not only be explained, but so explained as to become helps to faith. Others there are, no doubt, to the solution of which we cannot find a clew, though perhaps, if we had all the facts and circumstances in view, the solution might be simple and obvious. But surely it is a poor sort of faith that depends on the absence of difficulties.

Treat your Bible as you would treat your friend. A friendship that cannot bear the strain of a misunderstanding does not deserve the name; nor a faith that gives way in presence of a diffculty. But with many the place the Bible holds resembles that not of a friend at all, but rather that of a mere acquaintance. For proofs that it is the Word of God are clear and abundant. But

* “It is ignorance of Christ which turns the Scriptures into a dark, inexplicable riddle.’ — Birks’s Modern Rationalism.

they do not lie open on the surface. Gold and diamonds are not picked up upon the highway; men need to dig for them. Even Nature hides. her treasures from the trifler. God is ‘‘a rewarder of them that seek Him diligently.”

But nothing is gained by exaggeration or overstatement. When, adopting the language of Scripture itself, we call it the Word of God, the oracles of God, we make full allowance for possible errors in transcription, and imperfection in translation. But as we have seen, to press these considerations to a point that would impair its Divine authority betokens perverseness and pedantry.

And this leads me to repeat a warning against identifying the fact of inspiration with any definition of it, or with popular theories respecting it. Many people, for instance, seem to assume that we cannot regard Genesis as. inspired unless it be maintained that every portion of it was imparted to Moses in the same way that the 53rd chapter of Isaiah was. imparted to the prophet. But what warrant is there for this? If the Higher Criticism view of Exodus, for example, be sustained, that book is a profane fraud, and our Divine Lord is an unreliable teacher. But if the a przovz argument

Cu. XIX.] THE GENESIS “DOCUMENTS” 261

in favour of a written revelation be valid,! it vetoes the assumption that there was no such revelation during the thousands of years which preceded the Mosaic age. That Genesis was based on existing “documents” is a reasonable suggestion; but the inference that this disproves its claim to inspiration is false. Our Lord set His seal upon the book as a whole, but He said no word either to guide or to restrain the efforts of reverent and competent criticism to analyse it. While therefore the absence of definitions and theories will seem to some a serious defect in this book, it is a defect which I refuse to remedy. If any one doubts whether God could make His will known to men, unmistakably, and in language they can understand, the question at issue is not — inspiration at all, but the power and character of God. And while an intelligent scepticism will apply the severest tests to anything claiming to be a Divine revelation, the rejection of it on a priort grounds is nothing but the dull stupidity of an ignorant unbelief.

The Higher Criticism is, as we have seen, the product, not of nineteenth century enlightenment, but of eighteenth century rationalism. And yet

* See p. 64, ante.

it can boast of a far more venerable origin. For while there is plenty that is novel in its elaborate details, in its main outlines there is nothing new. People talk as though the faith of the Church as to Holy Scripture was settled in an uncritical and ignorant age when the objections and difficulties which now influence the minds of men were unknown. The thought is worthy. of this conceited age of ours. The faith of the Church was settled under a fire of keen and intelligent criticism. Names such as Celsus and Porphyry, and the rest, not to speak of the Gnostics and other sects, will occur to every student. The ‘‘ Mosaic narrative” was, then as now, explained as allegory, or dismissed as fable. The Mosaic books were declared not to be Mosaic at all, but the product of a later time. The historical books were discredited as being unauthentic, and the miracles were ridiculed. And in the case of such books as Jonah and Daniel it may be averred that the modern attack adds nothing that will stand the test of still more modern discoveries. The distinctive element in the Higher Criticism is merely that the attack is now delivered from the Christian camp.

And in conclusion I would repeat with emphasis a warning against being deceived as

Cu. XIX.] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOVEMENT 263

to the significance of the present movement. There is nothing which proves more plainly a critic’s want of judgment, and of clearness of vision, than the incapacity to see that the Christ controversy: of the Early Church is reopened by the Bible controversy of to-day. A supernatural creed which does not rest on a supernatural foundation is not faith, but superstition. Puzzle- headed people may taunt us with putting the Bible in the place of Christ, but every clear thinker recognises that once we pass out of the sphere where reason and the senses can teach us, we are dependent absolutely on a Divine revelation.

Not that “the historic Jesus” isa myth. The rejection of the Evangelists’ testimony betokens not a reasonable scepticism, but the stupidity of the “boot-eating” juror, who doggedly refuses to believe the evidence. But an intelligent appreciation of the evidence for the public facts of His life and ministry stands quite apart from belief in the Divinity of Christ. The foundation truth of Christianity is that the Man of Calvary is now sitting upon the throne of God. And I appeal to all fair minds whether I am not justified in saying that those who believe this upon no better authority than the Higher Critics’ Bible, are credulous and superstitious. We can reach the Living Word only through the written Word. Therefore in contending for a veally inspired — an absolutely authoritative — Bible, we can say with Athanasius, “We are fighting for our all.”!

But it is not merely in this incidental way that the Higher Criticism undermines the foundations of Christianity. It attacks them directly. The critics freely acknowledge that the Lord Jesus Christ accredited the Old Testament as being the Word of God. Unless, therefore, they can discredit His testimony their whole position must be condemned as not only false, but profane. And from this, as we have seen,? they do not shrink.

The Christian truth of the Humiliation is that, with the full realisation of all that He was, and the clear apprehension of all that God had revealed in the Scriptures which testified of

* It is a well-known fact that the present dearth of candidates for Holy Orders is due, not to the causes publicly put forward, but to the effects of the Higher Criticism in undermining faith in the Incarnation among those who might be expected to offer themselves for ordination. And it would be arash statement at this moment to assert that the majority of the clergy believe the Apostles’ Creed. The book Contentio Veritatis, by “Six Oxford Tutors,” bears startling testimony to the extent of the present apostasyy. Those of the writers who clearly believe in the supernatural appear to do so as Churchmen and not as Christians.

* Pp. 69-74, ante,:

Cu. XIX.] “KENOSIS” HERESIES 965

Him, the Lord in infinite grace stooped to the lowest depths of self-emptying and self-effacement. But the Kewzoszs of this new theology betokens not Divine grace but human misfortune. It is not the humiliation of Christ, but His degradation. It is not that He became man, but that He sank to the level of a Jew of that age. Not that while ‘‘ knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands and that He was come from God and was going to God,”! He humbled Himself; but that knowing nothing more than His contemporaries, His mind was warped by prejudice and ignorance.

Such is the doctrine of the critics on this question of transcendent importance. Nor is it an excrescence upon their theology that. might be got rid of: it is vital to their system. They admit that they are challenging what has been the belief of the Church in all ages. They admit that that false belief — as they deem it — is based upon the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. Their whole position, therefore, is untenable unless they can disparage His authority or His competence.

It is clear, therefore, that the Higher Criticism

* John xiii. 3. 2 This is merely a summary of the argument of chap, vi.

raises again in a new and more subtle phase the same issue as the old Arian heresy. It is not the Bible that is at stake, but the Christ of the Bible. Is it, then, the language of exaggeration to declare that in resisting it ‘‘we are fighting for our all”?