Chapter III
IN this enlightened age we are not content
with checking the spread of a disease when it appears: we seek to diagnose it and to discover its origin. And an inquiry of this kind respecting the prevailing epidemic of unbelief cannot fail to be useful.
The scepticism of the day may be clearly traced to the rationalism which almost swamped the religious life of Germany in the second half of the eighteenth century. But the chief cause of that apostasy has never been fully recognised. Not even in the darkest periods of the history of Christendom had the character and authority of the Bible ever been questioned.! It was always regarded as the inspired word of God, the supreme and infallible guide in all questions of faith and morals. But just as apostate Jews in a preceding age had ‘“‘made the word of God of
* Questioned by Christians, I mean; and speaking broadly. 22
Cu. III.] THE REFORMERS AND THE BIBLE 23
none effect by their traditions,” so also did apostate Christians.
In England the law is supreme. But it does: not rest with “the man in the street” to interpret the law: that is the function of the King’s Courts. And so here. The supremacy of the Bible was unquestioned. But the Church was the “keeper” and the “interpreter” of it; and it so kept it as to keep it from the people, and it so interpreted it as to “change the truth of God into a lie.” An open Bible was the prize at stake in the glorious Reformation struggle. The leaders in that great revolt proclaimed the truth of salvation in Christ apart from the Church, and without the intervention of priests. And this truth set the conscience free from the bondage which had enthralled it.
But justification by faith was not the only truth that had been lost in the superstitions of a thousand years. Every truth of the Bible had been perverted or darkened. And yet the men who came after the Reformers were content to maintain the ground already gained. ‘The Bible the religion of Protestants” was a proverb in the Reformation age. But in the age which followed it, the religion of Protestants became narrowed to the special truths which the Reformation brought to light. And with what result? In course of time the memory grew dim of the darkness and perils of pre-Reformation times, and of the struggle by which liberty was won. More than this, the methods of the Reformers. were forgotten, and the spirit which inspired them had died out. And so it came to pass that when the eighteenth century gave a new impetus to the mental activity and free thought promoted by the Reformation; and the German mind, so famed for its analytical subtlety, turned to the study of Scripture in the cold light of reason, difficulties innumerable presented themselves. And to these difficulties the Evangelical Churches had no adequate answer to offer. The Bible was discredited by the ignorance and incapacity of its defenders; and the resulting mischief has never been retrieved.
It is no reproach upon the Reformers that their writings fail to help us in such bloodless conflicts. ‘For theirs was a life and death struggle such as leaves no leisure for questions like those which make up the stock-in-trade of the critics. But if they could revisit the scenes of their labours and their triumphs, how deep would be their indignation and distress at the discovery that the mass even of real Christians have no fuller knowledge of Divine
Cu. III.] POST-REFORMATION APOSTASY 25,
truth than they themselves had attained. And this wholly understates the case. From the great truths which Luther taught with a fulness and boldness never since surpassed, the Lutheran Churches have largely apostatised. The doctrines of Grace have been swamped in a pagan sacramentalism which destroys true Christianity.
And such an apostasy can only be explained by ignorance of Scripture as a whole. It was charged upon the Hebrew Christians of apostolic days that they were ignorant of the A BC of revealed religion ;1 and a like charge can be sustained against the Evangelicalism of Germany at the close of the eighteenth century. “Truth is one”; but when the circle of Divine truth is broken, men soon forget its unity, and the segments that remain lie open to attack. What advance had been made in the knowledge of Scripture during the two centuries and a half from the date of the Diet of Worms? The Bible as a whole is, of course, ‘a book of piety”; and its worth in that respect is unchallenged. But, ignoring that element, the Old Testament naturally admits of a threefold division — the historical, the typical, and the prophetical.
2 Heb: va 12,
But history lies outside the special province of theology. Prophecy was ostentatiously neglected until Hengstenberg appealed to its testimony in answering the rationalists. And as for the third division, Hengstenberg himself lamented the prevailing ignorance respecting it. ‘The elucidation of the doctrine of the types,” he declared, “now entirely neglected, is an important problem for future theologians.”
And how can any one who is ignorant of ‘the doctrine of the types,” and of the grand scheme of Divine prophecy, understand the New Testament aright? Such a man has not learned even the language in which the New Testament is written. Nor does this remark apply only to special passages: it bears upon the scope and meaning of entire books, and the relation of the books to one another — the “hidden harmony” of Scripture as a whole.
The rationalistic crusade against the Bible, which Eichhorn christened “the Higher Criticism,” owed its strength and success to the appeal it made to the Auman element in the Scriptures. The Bible is called ‘the word of God” for the same reason that Christ is called “the Word of God’” — it expresses the mind of God. But as Christ is ‘“‘very God” and yet perfect man, so the
Cu. III.] CRITICISM CANNOT BE STIFLED 27
Bible, while absolutely Divine, is yet the most human book in all the world. And as the Living Word became subject to all the infirmities of humanity, sin excepted, so also the written Word is marked by all the characteristics of human writings, error excepted! German Evangelicalism, however, had neglected the human side of the Bible, as indeed a certain type of Evangelicalism does to the present day.
But to attempt to stifle criticism of Scripture by the cry that “the Bible is the word of God” only serves to excite distrust on the part of earnest and honest-hearted inquirers. There never was an attack made upon the truth that could not be refuted. ‘ Truth is one”; but error is in its very nature inconsistent, and therefore absurd. And while Divine truth is spiritual, and can only be spiritually discerned, human error is natural, and can be met on its own ground. We cannot “reason” men into the kingdom of God, but by reasoning we can expose errors which prejudice them against it.
We can appeal to them, moreover, not to expend all their scepticism upon ‘the Biblical writers,’ but to reserve a little of it for the
x JT here use the word “error” in its deeper sense, and I do not prejudge questions which shall be considered in the sequel.
critics themselves — to carry the Higher Criticism one step further, and bring the exponents of the science within its scope. Take Professor Blank, for example, who criticises the Bible in such a patronising way. Surely it is legitimate to investigate his fitness for his self-appointed task. His eminence as a scholar in his own particular line is unquestioned. But would those who know him best accept him as an arbitrator in any case where a sound judgment, and breadth of view, and common sense are necessary qualifications? Or if the case came into court, and Professor Blank were found to be foreman of the jury empanelled to try it, would not the parties ask for half an hour’s adjournment, and retire to consider a compromise rather than go to trial?!
“After all,” says Matthew Arnold, “shut a
* Some years ago I published a defence of one book of Scripture against the attack of an eminent critic, and Mr. Gladstone was at the pains of writing two successive letters to impress on me that the distinguished scholar in question was wholly wanting in the judgment requisite for dealing with questions of the kind.
One of the prominent figures in Charles Lever’s most popular novel is Dr. Barrett, who was Vice-Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, a century ago. His extraordinary erudition made him the envy and admiration of contemporary scholars; his extraordinary silliness mdde him the butt of every undergraduate. And stories of his great learning and his great folly are rife to the present day. And in no department of scholarship is this phenomenon more likely to be manifested than in that of Philology.
Cu. III.] MATTHEW ARNOLD ON THE CRITICS 29
number of men up to make study and learning the business of their lives, and how many of them, from want of some discipline or other, seem to lose all balance of judgment, all common sense!” In the same connection, he speaks of “the ordeal of the Englishman’s strong and strict sense for fact,’ and he adds, “We are much mistaken if it does not turn out that this ordeal makes great havoc among the vigorous and rigorous theories of German criticism concerning the Bible-documents.” And ‘‘ German criticism” does not cease to ‘be German because during the present generation it has been fathered by Englishmen.
‘‘Great men are not always wise,”! and even in the natural sphere they may prove to be blind guides. The ‘Ptolemaic System” is a monumental proof of this. Pythagoras had taught men to regard the sun as the centre of our system; and that truth held sway until, by methods analogous. to those of the Higher Critics of to-day, Ptolemy persuaded his contemporaries to abandon it. And for long centuries all the wisdom of the wise was on the side of error. And when we turn to the
Job xxxii. 9.
religious sphere the wonder is how any Protestant, with the history of Christendom open to him, can be influenced by the dicta of men of intellect and genius. Down to the present hour, have not men of the highest eminence in every branch of human knowledge bartered the truths of Christianity for the pagan superstitions which are the stock-in-trade of priestcraft?
The leaders in this Higher Criticism crusade in England have facile pens and they are prolific authors. And yet if they may be judged by their writings, there is not one of them who is a student of prophetic truth or of the typology of Scripture. Their Bible is but an ill-assorted collection of Jewish books. Their “Jesus” came to found a new religion, and they seem very hazy about His coming back again. The ground-plan of the Bible they know nothing of.
“The whole Scriptures are a testimony to Christ: the whole history of the chosen people, with its types, and its law, and its prophecies, is a showing forth of Him.” Thus wrote Dean Alford, one of the greatest commentators of our age. But all this has no existence for the critics; and if they would speak out plainly, some of them would brand it as superstitious drivel.
Cai WHY THE CRITICS ARE SCEPTICS 31
As the spiritual Christian reads their books he is conscious of an atmosphere and an environment that are uncongenial. For their writings are in great measure but a fost mortem upon dead truth. Some of them, like the Jews of old, have “a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” But these are a minority. As for the rest, if they have ever known what it means — but here I tread on delicate ground, and I will call a witness from the grave to express my meaning. The following letter, which appeared many years ago in the columns of the Record newspaper, made a profound impression on me at the time, and it may appeal to others to-day. The writer of it withheld his name, but I was told at the time that he was Professor Birks, of Cambridge. Here are his words : —
“You well observe in a recent article that the public is becoming accustomed to the strange vagaries on the Bible which men of learning and high position in the Church seem so constantly falling into.
“TJ should be glad to express, through the medium of your columns, what appears to me the secret of all this; and I the rather desire to do so, because I am myself a monument of the delivering power and mercy of God in this very matter.
“It is very observable that almost all the men who ae THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM
have thus notoriously erred from the way of truth are men of some kind of eminence in natural ability. Of Mr. Maurice I cannot say I think that even in natural things he excels in distinctness of ideas, or the power of clearly discerning nice differences. But the errors of such men as Heath, and especially Bishop Colenso, cannot be attributed to any confusion of mind as to things which differ — their eminent honours at Cambridge forbid our taking that view. Besides, I. know from past experience in the same gloomy school, that the possession of very considerable natural acumen does not in the least degree aid a man whose mind is perplexed about the foundations of Bible truth.
“As to the objections urged by the above gentlemen to the generally-received views of Scripture, and the doctrines which flow so immediately from its simple and spiritual acceptance as the Word of God, they know as well as we do that they are hackneyed and as old as our fallen nature, but then that does not remove them; they cannot receive the simple accounts of Scripture, because they have not Divine faith. I remember when I first began to read the Bible (and I thought I was sincerely seeking the truth) I was miserable because I could not believe it; I dared not reject any statement I found there, but I could not fully believe it was true. The Bishop of Natal just expresses what I felt, and the fact that we took exactly the same University honours (in different years of course) makes me sympathise with him peculiarly. My own history was just this : — I had read and studied deeply in mathematics, had mastered every fresh subject I entered upon with ease and delight; had become accustomed (as every exact mathematician must do)
Cu. II] THE “RECORD” LETTER 33 to investigate and discover fundamental differences between things which séem to the uninitiated one and the same; had seen my way into physical astronomy and the higher parts of Newton’s immortal ‘Principia,’ and been frequently lost in admiration of his genius till St. Mary’s clock warned me that midnight was past three hours ago. I had, in fact (as we say), made myself master of dynamics, and become gradually more and more a believer in the unlimited capabilities of my own mind! This self-conceited idea was only flattered and fostered by eminent success in the Senate House, and by subsequently obtaining a Fellowship at Trinity, and enjoying very considerable popularity as a mathematical lecturer.
“It would have spared me many an hour of misery in after days had I really felt what I so often said, viz., that the deeper a man went in science, the humbler he ought to be, and the more cautious in pronouncing an independent opinion on a subject he had not investigated or could not thoroughly sift. But, though all this was true, I had yet to learn that this humility in spiritual things is never found in a natural man.
“JT took orders, and began to preach, and then, like the Bishop among the Zulus, I found out the grand deficit in my theology. I had not the Spirit’s teaching myself, and how could I without it speak “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”?
“Tn vain did I read Chalmers, Paley, Butler, Gaussen, &c., and determine that, as I had mastered all the other subjects I had grappled with, so I would the Bible, and that I would make myself a believer. I found a poor, ignorant old woman in my parish more than a match for me in Divine things. I was distressed to find that
4 she was often happy in the evident mercy of the Lord to her, and that she found prayer answered, and that all this was proved sincere by her blameless and harmless walk amongst her neighbours; whilst I, with all my science and investigation, was barren, and unprofitable, and miserable — an unbeliever in heart, and yet not daring to avow it, partly from the fear of man, but more from a certain inward conviction that all my sceptical difficulties would be crushed and leaped over by the experience of the most illiterate Christian.
“I was perfectly ashamed to feel in my mind like Voltaire, Volney, or Tom Paine. I could claim no originality for my views; and I found they were no comfort, but a constant source of misery to me.
“It may now be asked how I came ever to view Divine truth differently. I desire to ascribe all praise to Him to whom power belongeth; I desire to put my own mouth in the dust, and be ashamed, and never open my mouth any more, because of my former unbelief. I cannot describe all I passed through, but I desire with humility and gratitude to say, I was made willing in a day of Christ’s power. He melted down my proud heart with His love; He shut my mouth for ever from cavilling at any difficulties in the written Word; and one of the first things in which the great change appeared was, that whereas beforetime preaching had been misery, now it became my delight to be able to say, without a host of sceptical or infidel doubts rushing into my mind, ‘Thus saith the Lord? Oh, I am quite certain no natural man can see the things of God; and I am equally certain he cannot make himself do so. ‘It was the Lord that exalted Moses and Aaron,’ said Samuel; and, ‘By the grace of God I am
Cu. IIT.] THE “RECORD” LETTER 35
what I am,’ said St. Paul; and so, in a modified and humble sense, I can truly say.
“It used to be a terrible stumbling-block to me to find so many learned men, so many acute men, so many scientific men, infidels. It is not so now; I see that ‘God has said, ‘Not many wise men after the flesh, not ‘many mighty, not many noble’; I see, as plainly as it is possible for me to see anything, that no natural man can receive the things of the Spirit of God. Hence I expect to find men of this stamp of intellect coming out boldly with their avowals of unbelief in the written Word of God. The only answer I can give to them is: *God has in mercy taught me better’; and never do I sing those beautiful words in the well-known hymn but I feel my eyes filling with tears of gratitude to the God -of all compassion —
“Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God.”
“So it was with me; so it must be with any one of them if ever they are to know the truth in its power, or to receive the love of the truth that they may be saved.
“JT feel very much for the young of this generation, remembering the conflicts I passed through in consequence of the errors of men of ability.” ’
* Prof. Birks’s literary executors have intimated their decided conviction that I am in error in attributing this letter to him. It does not seem worth while to enter ona discussion of the grounds -which led me to do so.