CIHM Microfiche Series (Monographs) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) m Canadian Institute for Historical Microraproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes technique et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming are checked below. [3 D D D Coloured covers / Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged / ' — ' Couverture endommagee I I Covers restored and/or laminated / ' — ' Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculee I I Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps / Cartes geographiques en couleur r^ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) / ' — Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations / ' — ' Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur I I Bound with other material / ' — ' Relte avec d'autres documents Only edition available / Seule edition disponible Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin / La reliure serree peut causer de Tombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge int^rieure. Blank leaves added during restorations may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming / It se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque ceta ^tpit possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete filn'i^es. L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur examplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- plaire qui sent peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibli- ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modifications dans la meth- ode normale de filmage sont indiques ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages / Pages de couleur I I Pages damaged / Pages endommagees I I Pages restored and/or laminated / ' — ' Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees I ,■ j Pages discoloured, stained or foxed / ' — ' Pages decolorees. tachetees ou piquees I I Pages detached / Pages detachees r~? Shovrthrough / Transparence I I Quality of print varies / ' — ' Qualite inegale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material / ' — ' Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire I I Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata ' — ' slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image / Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. etc., ont ete filmees a nouveau de fagon a obtenir la meilleure image possible. I j Opposing pages with varying colouration or ' — ' discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des colorations variables ou des decol- orations sont filmees deux fois afin d'obtenir la meilleur image possible. n Addtional comments / Commentaires supplementaires: This ittfli Is f llmMl at tht rtductton ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimi au tauv de rUuction nMliqui ci-dessous. lox ux 1«X 22X 26 X »X J t2X 20X Th* copy filmad htrt hat ba«n raproduead thanki to tha ganarotlty of: D.B. WaMon Library University of Weitern Ontario L'axamplaira filmi fut raproduit grica t la Qtntfotitt da: D.B. Waldon Library Univariity of Wettern Ontario Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality poitibia eonaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and In kaaping with tha filming contract apaeificatlona. Original copiat in printad papar covara ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha firat paga with a printad or illuatratad Impraa- aion, and anding on tha laat paga nvith a printad or illuatratad impraaaion. Tha laat racordad frama on aach microfieha ahall conuin tha aymboi — » (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha aymboi y (moaning "END"), whiehavar appiiaa. Mapa. plataa. charu. ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraly includad in ona axpoaura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar, laft to right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illuatrata tha mathod: Laa imagaa tulvantaa ont ttt raproduitaa avac la plua grand aoin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da I'axampiaira filmt. at an conformit* avac la* conditiona du contrat da fllmaga. Laa aaamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat imprim*a tont fiimta an commancant par la pramlar plat at an tarminant loit par la darnMra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration, aoit par la lacond plat, aalon la caa. Tout laa autrai axamplairas originaux aont filmta an comman9ant par la pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration at an tarminant par la damitra paga qui comporta una talla ^mprp^ta. Un daa aymbolaa auivanta apparaitra aur la darnitra imaga da chaqua microfieha. salon la caa: la aymbola ^v- aignifia "A SUIVRE", la aymbola ▼ aignifia "FIN". Laa cartaa, pianchaa, tablaaux. ate, pauvant «tre filmts t daa taux da reduction diffArents. Loraqua la documant aat trap grand pour itra raproduit an un aaul clichi. il aat film* 1 partir da I'angia sup'-iaur gaucha, da gaucha A droita. at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagaa nAcaaaaira. Laa diagramma* auivanta illuatrant la m*thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART (ANbi and ISO TEST CHART No. 2| 1.0 !f"B ilia 12.2 A -APPLIED INA^GE In ^^ 1653 EQ5t Moin Street g'-g Rochester. New York I'ieog USA '■^g (7!6) 492 - OJOO - Phone ^S (716) 288 - 5989 - Fa» The CHURCH'S ONE FOUNDATION CHRIST and . . , . RECENT CRITICISM The Chnr;h's One FoLindarion. Christ and Recent Criticism By the Rev. W. Robertson NiCOLL, M.A., LL.D., Editor of " The ExposJtor," " The Expositor's Bible " "The Expositor's Greek Testament," etc. " There is in the Bible above all tue personal Christ, a Personality which men could not have imagined, a Personality which must be historical, and which rai St be Divine. ■— Professor Robertson Smith TORONTO M l:\iiv., I ! ; , I ,11. ^\^ RICHMOND STREET ..ondon: hodder and STOUGHTOV 1901 li«JnOc» TO MY FAITHFUL FRIEND IAN MACLAREN PREFATORY NOTE This little book is made up out of articles which have already been p;j'.''shed in the British Weekly. They have been carefully revised, and some .lotes and references have been added. But I have endeavoured 'o make the book intelligible to the plain rr i. The questions discussed cannot be left to experts. They conc-rn not merely the health, but the existence of the Church. I have to acknowledge gratefully the kind help given by the Rev. David Smith, M.A., of Tulliallan, and also the helpful sugges- tions of the Bishop of Durham, and Mr. George Augustus Simcox, Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. Hampstead, Novemier, 1901. I CONTENTS I. — CHRIST AND THE NEWER CRITICISM II.— THE MODES OF ACCESS TO CHRIST III.— THE HISTORICAL CHRIST : PRELIMINARY ASSUMPTIONS .... IV.— THE HISTORICAL CHRIST : ECCE HOMO ECCE DEUS .... V. — THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS . VI. — THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD FROM THE DEAD VII. — CHRIST'S TRIUMPHANT CAPTIVES . VIII.— THE ARGUMENT FROM THE AUREOLE IX.— THE CHRIST OF DREAM . X. — "keep" PAUS 19 43 64 88 130 151 "73 192 210 « 1 Introduction The controversy about Christ is essentially a controversy about facts. Christianity is not a sentiment, not a philosophy, not even a theological system, but a historical re- ligion. As Westcott says in his last book, "Christ the Word, the Son of God, is Himself the Gospel. The Incarnation, the Nativity, the Transfiguration, the Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, are the' final and absolute revelation to man of God's nature and will. These facts con- tain, implicitly under the conditions of earth, all that we can know of self, the world, and God, so far as the knowledge affects our religious life." Or, as Church I Introduction puts it : " The Christian Church is the most potent fact in the most important ages of the world's progress. It is an institution like the world itself, which has grown up by its own strength and according to its own principle of life, full of good and evil, having as the law of its fate to be knocked about in the stern develop- ment of events, exposed, like human society, to all kinds of vicissitudes and alternations, giving occasion to many a scandal, and shaking the faith and loyalty of many a son, showing in ample measure the wear and tear of its existence, battered, injured, sometimes degenerate, sometimes improved in one way or another, since those dim and long-distant days when its course began ; but showing in all these ways what a real thing it is, never in the extremity of storms and lum, never in the Introduction deepest degradation of its unfaithfulness losing hold of its own central unchanging faith, and never in its worst days of decay and corruption losing hold of the power of self-correction and hope of recovery. And the Christian Church is founded on a definite historic fact— that Jesus Christ Who was crucified, rose from the dead ; and coming from such an author, it comes to us, bringing with it the Bible. ... A so-called Christianity, ignoring or playing with Christ's Resurrection, and using the Bible as a sort of Homer, may satisfy a class of clever and cultivated persons. . But it is well in so serious a matter not to confuse things. This new religion may borrow from Christianity as it may borrow from Plato, or from Buddhism, or Con- fucianism: or even Islam. But it is not Christianity. ... A Christianity which tells £ I ff- Introduction us to think of Christ doing good, but to forget and put out of sight Christ risen from the dead, is not true to life. It is as delusive to the conscience and the soul as it is illogical to reason." When dealing with criticism, old and new, this is never to be forgotten. The Church cannot without disloyalty and cowardice quarrel with criticism as such. It is not held absolutely to any theory of any book. It asks, and it is entitled to ask, the critic : Do you believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ? If his reply is in the affirmative, his process and results are to be examined earnestly and calmly. If he replies ii the negative, he has missed the way, and has put himself outside the Church of Christ. If he refuses to answer, his silence has to be interpreted. Certain conclusions about the Gospel have been Introduction judged by all who maintain them to be fatal to the historic creed. Some one some day may accept them, and be able to show that his predecessors and their antagonists were illogical, that certain critical views may be held in perfect consistency with a loyal faith in the great revealing acts of God. But he must be prepared to show how this is so, especially at a time when many critics frankly declt i that the In- carnation and Resurrection of the Son of God are no longer credible. Every part of the Church Catholic must define its position and defend it. The issue is old, and must constantly recur. The Protestant Synod of France discussed it most ably at their memorable meeting in 1872. It was the first meeting of the Synod for more than two hundred years. The Court had been silenced by Sii Infoduction the power of the State. A desire for unshackled freedom had grown up, especially after the fall of the Empire and the rise of the Republic. M. Guizot obtained the permission of M. Thiers to convene a meeting where the limits of Church mem- bership should be decided. In the Temple du Saint Esprit the Synod had to face the question: What is and what is not the Christian religion? Who are and wl.o are not entitled to call themselves members of the Christian Church? The problem was faced with the highest ability, and with perfect honesty. M. Guizot said: "As for me, 1 am a Christian. I know What my symbol is. There are men sitting by my side who do not accept the Christian religion. They have a sincere belief in God. I have been careful not to deny that these men have a religion. Let them Introduction form a Deistical Church : I shall be glad of it ; but assuredly the difference is great between them and Christians." The ques- tion then was : Is Deism Christianity ? Should all men who have a belief in God, and a pious feeling towards Him, be re- garded as Christians, and be included in one common organisation? The Liberals neither disguised nor evaded the issue. Their champion said : "In my eyes a man is a Christian who, though a sinner, has a joyou > confidence in God." He denied that any specifically Christian belief was neces- sary to the Christian religion, and laid down the limits of Church association which would make room for every religiously minded Deist. M. Bois, of Montauban, the leader of the Orthodox party, met him squarely by moving that the Synod adopt as its Confession "salvation by faith in 8 Introduction Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who died for our offences, and rose again for our justification. It preserves and maintains as the basis of its teaching, its worship, and its discipline the great Christian facts that are expressed in its reli^aous solemnities and its liturgies." The differ- ence between his t.pponents' creed and his own, he described as a difference between two religions. Some attempt was made on the part of the Liberal-; to show that they interpreted spiritually the Christian facts. The answer was given by M. Dhombres : " Spiritualiser ce n'est pas vaporiser. When a fact is ex-plained in such a manner as to make it disappear, that process is no longer called the taking a spiritual view of it." Finally M. Bois summed up the issue before the v.^e: "The question which divides us is Introduction this: Is there or is there not— Yes or "^'o —a supernatural revelation of God? Has God created, loved, ,ind saved us by His Son? If so, is ;his compatible with its contradictory? If Christianity is a super- natural revelation of God, it is not the supreme effort of the human reason. Tliere are no shades or deirrecs ht're ; the pro- position is either iv holly true or uholly false." On the whole discussion, M. Guizot, who had been present for more than sixty years at many parliamentary struggles in which the first orators of France were engaged, said he had never seen any argument which had a more elevated or a more dignified character, or which was more remarkable for form and substance. The Synod adopted the motion of M. Bois by a majority of sixty-one against forty- five. No one argues against the right of IS i b ;3: I, r II lo Introduction philosophers to affirm that goodness is everything, that mir<-iclcs arc impossible, -.nd that nothing in Jesus Christ has any importance except His moral teaching. But Christian believers in revelation arc compelled to say that these philosophers are not Christiins. If they refuse to do so, they are declaring that in their opinion these beliefs have no supreme importance. To say this is to incur the penalty of extinction. For Christianity dies when it pases altogether into the philosophic region. To believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection is to put these f-":ts into the foreground. Either they are ;rst or they are nowhere. The man who thinks he can hold them and keep them in the background deceives himself They are, and they ever must be, first o'' all. So, then, the battle turns on their truth or I Introduction II falsehood. It does not turn on the in- errancy of the Gospel narrative. It does not turn even on the authorship of the Gospels. Faith is not a belief in a book, but a belief in a living Christ. If there is no living Christ to trust to, Christianity passes into mist and goes down the wind. The Christian Church is entitled and bound to take part in the critical and ' storical study of the New Testament. It las the right, indeed, to disregard flippancy nd frivolity. Such criticism as Huxley bestowed on what he was pleased to call "the Gadarcne pig affair" may well be ignored. John Morley, in his piece on Voltaire, put the reason as well as it can be put. He .says: "The best natures are most violently irritated and outraged by mocking and satiric attack upon the minor details, the accidents, the outside of the 9 12 Introduction objects of faith, when they would have been affected in a very different way by a contrast between the loftiest parts cf their own belief and the loftiest parts of some other belief Many persons who would listen to a grave attack on the con- sistencj', reasonableness, and elevation of the currently ascribed attributes of the Godhead with something of the respect due to the profound solemnity of the subject, would turn with deaf and im- placable resentment upon one who would make merry over the swine of Gadara." When Christians are asked to furnish a reply to every fresh assault on the Gospel history, they are entitled to say that if they can establish the great faiths of the historic creed, the critic who denies these, and justifies the denial on the grounds of criticism, must be in error. To establish — I Introduction 13 the sinlessness of Christ and His Resur- rection is virtually to refute many critical arguments. Further, in dealing with analysis as applied to the Gospels, we are entitled to ask for the principles on which the so- called historical and literary criticism is carried on. For our part, we have the deepest conviction that until the principles of criticism are established by an induc- tion based on the phenomena of literature generally, little that is solid or certain can be established. It is past dispute that English criticism is unable, as a rule, to assign, authorship to an anonymous contemporary book. It is unable, as a rule, to distinguish between the work of two collaborators. It is unable, in short, to perform any of these achievements which are believed possible when the Scriptures are handled. We are convinced, further, that the whole history of H Introduction English literature will show that English criticism was always just as powerless as it is now. There may be probabilities ; but, as a rule, the likely explanation is not the true explanation. In other words, the answer to much sceptical criticism is to be found in showing, by a catena of instances, that criticism is attempting a task of which it is fundamentally incapable. Christians are also entitled to ask for more agreement between critics of the Gospel history than has yet been reached. In the face of the differences that divide the extreme critics, one may well doubt whether the problem of the composition of the Gospels is soluble. One m?y be perfectly certain that it has not been solved. Again, Christians are entitled to insist upon knowing the presuppositions of their adversaries. To begin the study of the Introduction 15 origins of Christianity with a theory about the world and its management which from the first settles arbitrarily the most im- portant questions involved, vitiates the whole process of reasoning. Like the mummers of old, sceptic i critics send one before them with a broom to sweep the stage clea .f everything for their drama. If we assume at the threshold of Gospel study that everything in the nature of miracle is impossible, then the specific questions are decided before the criticism begins to operate in earnest. The naturalistic critics approach the Christian records with an a priori theory, and impose it upon them, twisting the history into agreement with it, and cutting out what cannot be twisted. For example, the earlier naturalistic critics, Paulus, Eichhorn, and the rest, insisted on giving a non-miraculous interpretation, [ill x-. U i6 Introduction Strauss perceived the unscientific character of this method, and set out with the mythical hypothesis. Baur set to work with a bch-ef in the all-sufficiency of the Hegelian theory of development through antagonism. He saw tendency everywhere. As Bruce said of his method : « Anything additional, putting ,nore contents into the person and teaching of Jesus than suits the initial .stage of development, must be reckoned spurious. If we find Jesus in any of the Gospels claiming to be a super- human being, such texts may with the utmost confidence be set aside as spurious. Such a thought could not possibly belong to the initial stage, but only to the final, when the human Messiah had developed into a deity, through the love and reverence of his followers." Abbott .sets out with the foregone conclusion of the impossibility Introduction of miracles. Matthew Arnold says : " Our popular religion at present conceives the birth, ministry, and death of Christ as altogether steeped in prodigy, brimful of miracle, and miracles do not happen." Schmiedel starts with the hypothesis of ten . ncies, and discovers them. He sees Paulinism and Ebionitism in Luke, and opposing tendencies in Matthew (universal- ism and particular isn:). Moffatt, who does not clearly define his attitude towards the Incarnation and Resurrection, regards Matthew xxviii. 16-20 as a later appendix on the a priori ground that the following cannot be primitive: (i) Universal mission, (2) The baptismal formula, (3) The Trini- tarian formula. The subject might be illustrated indefinitely. In these cases the difference is upon first principles. Those who take the ground that miracles cannot happen. A. •m : i- i8 Introduction need not examine the Gospels in order to reject Christianity, for certainly it is the supernatural character of Christianity that constitutes its differentia, its true and necessary essence. These men start the study of the Gospel history with the assumption that God can- not visit and redeem His people. His arm is chained that it cannot save. It is not uncharitable or untrue to say that behind this there is often the belief that man n^eds no redemption, but can save himself Sin docs not need an atonement, remorse is an impure and morbid passion ; a divine intervention for man's recovery is as unnecessary as it is inconceivable. The sense of sin and guilt is absent. The argument for historical Christianity is based upon the fact- a fact attested by the whole history of humanity— that there was need that Christ should come. Christ and the Newer Criticism ' In his address from the Chair of the Congregational Union, delivered more than thirty years ago, Dr. Dale declared that the controversies on theology had narrowed to one vital question. " If only a theory of hy?K'cZ"^''''^^ii" ^''""'' ^°'- "•■ <=di.ed ll . ?^^"^' ^•"- ^"d J- S. Black LLD (A. and C Black); (.) TAe HisioricLH^ Th- XT f """'■• ^P"'- '901, Art. II., "Few Things Needful," by T. K. Cheyne, D.D. (HoddeT and Stoughton); (5) n. Z>J„/c,rJlft four Gospels, by R. W. Dalp I T n /h a a , {5 [ii 20 Christ and the inspiration were breaking down, if men were discussing nothing more serious than the precise and minute accuracy of the four Gospels, if we were threatened with nothing more formidable than the demonstration of the historical untrustworthiness of a few chapters here and there in the Old Testa- ment, we mi^.it look on calmly and wait for the issue of the conflict with indifference. But it becomes plainer every year that the real questions in debate are far different from these. The storm has moved round the whole horizon, but it is rapidly concentrating its strength and fury above one Sacred Head. This then is the real issue of the fight Is Christendom to believe in Christ any longer or no? It is a battle in which everything is to be lost or won. It is not a theory of ecclesiastical policy which is in danger, it is not a theological system, it is not a creed, Newer Criticism 21 it is not the Old Testament or the New, but the claim of Christ himself to be the Son of God and the Saviour of mankind," Dr. Dale's words might be used without the change of a letter to describe the situation which is now created. For many years the Church of Christ in this country, and particularly in Scotland, has been agitated by disputes over the Old Testament. They are not over, but the end is in sight. Now the New Testament is once more thrown into the furnace, and with it the Christian religion itself It was inevitable. We never f' -'d the belief of some amongst our friends in the weight to be attached to the conclusions of Harnack. It seemed toler- ably plain that Harnack's vvords meant less than they «ere made to mean, and also that his position was unstable. Now we have in the new volume of the Encyclopedia I i 22 Christ and the Piblica, a thorough-going criticism applied to the New Testament, and in The Historical New Testament of Mr. Moffatt there issues from the bosom of an orthodox Church a new claim oa tl.e part of advanced criticism for room and verge. It is of no avail to lift up hands in horror. The critics have to be met. If they are not frankly encountered the door of faith will be closed on multitudes. In one sense we take up the discussion with great satisfaction. Now, at last, the very life of the faith has to be fought for. and, as Dr. Dale says : " This is surely enough to stir the Church to vehement enthusiasm and to inspire it with its ..d heroic energy. It is a controversy not for theologians merely, but for every man who has seen the face of Christ and can bear personal testimony to His power and glory." As Jesus is the Lord and Head ^^^^^ Newer Criticism 23 of the Church, so He is its Impregnable Rock. But we confess that for personal reasons we have been reluctant to take the field. With two of the writers concerned —Or. Cheyne and Dr. Bruce— we have had in past days somewhat intimate association, and both the living and the dead have laid the Church of Christ under heavy obliga- tions by their patient toil, their noble, truth- loving spirit, and the light they have cast on Tiany parts of Holy Scripture. We are glad to think that the personal side of the question does not bulk largely, and that it will be unnecessary to burden the dis- cussion with many references to individual writers. Very little that is really new has been said. The old assumptions have been made, and the old results have been reached. Those who have studiL Strauss and Baur and Renan, and the literature gathering ...i. H Christ anJ the round these names, will find themselves surprised at very few points. Further we emphatically desire to disclaim attributing what seem the logical inferences from their statements to scholars who have not accepted these inferences, and who may think that the said inferences are not mevitable. I„ one point, however, we venture to blame them. They know the h.story of their criticism, what has be-, ■ts result in the case of their forerunners. They ought, as we humbly think, to have shown how they could conserve the faith after surrendering what they have sur- rendered. Instances might be multiplied but we content ourselves with the case of Strauss, who, though not the most ag.le nor the most learned of the anti- supernaturalists, was by far the ablest, the strongest, the most masterly. When Strauss I Newer Criticism 25 I wrote his first Life of Jesus, he argued that the Gospels were mythical, but seriously and honestly tried to save their ethical spirit, and believed he had succeeded. He was in orders, a preacher of the Gospel, who fully meant to continue in that work. So far from thinking that he had undermined the Christian faith, he believed that he had strengthened it by putting it in a form in which Hegel could approve of it.' He was cut to the quick when theologians cast him out, and regarded him as an arch-enemy of the Christian name. The theologians were right in .sa>ing that his was not the Christianity of Christ, nor of Paul, nor of the Catholic Church. So it ' Strauss studied under Baur at Blaubeuren and Tubingen, and Baur was an ardent Hegelian. His criticism was simply a thorough-going apphca- tion of Hcgclianism to New Testaiiient history. b 26 Christ and the -- froo, the first, and what Straussfsm "me to we know, and shall have occasion >n these articles to describe. Further, we beh-eve that Straussism, in its latest dc- veIop„,ent, would be the inevitable successor to Christianity, if Christianity could bedis- P'-d. It is a large if. But to say that Strauss, when he wrote his first book -w all that was to co„,e of it, would be unjust in the highest degree. The history of theological controversy ought to have ^-Sht us by this tin,e that opponents mu.st be treated not only justly, but mildly, and that their adherence to Christianity' -en if illogical, should be viewed with gladness and with hope. We ,nust refrain from minute points of criticism and content ourselves with giving our readers as best we may an understanding of the points on which the battle must turn. WW\ &.^.3^> Newer Criticisir Dr. Cheyne's career has beei. j.ic jC t'le most remarkable on record, but few of his students in the Old Testament could have imagined that he would have attacked with such vigour in his later period the prob- lems of the New Testament. A mind so eager, so acute, so versatile, and so laborious as his must perhaps have felt it a positive necessity to apply to the New Testament the methods he followed in the Old. In this country there has been no Encyclopaedia like the Encydopiedia Biblica. No editor of an Encyclopaedia in this country has taken quite the same view of his duties as has Dr. Cheyne. Even Robertson Smith, who could be masterly enough, left much of the Encydopadia Britannica to be done by contributors who were left to their own discretion. But in the Encydopadia Biblica the editor's hand is seen every- r:: r" 28 Christ and the where except in the extraordinary articles of Dr. Armitage Robinson, which remain an unsolved mystery. Dr. Cheyne acts as he thinks the editors of the Old Testament acted, and has a hand in many contributions which he did not write He has what to our mind is a most objectionable way of mixing up the work of one author with another. For example, he takes Robertson Smiths f5ne art.cle on Hebrews '" *'^" Encyclopedia Britannica and cuts 't up with pieces from von Soden. But ■f Dr. Cheyne will tell us what reason he has to believe that Robertson Smith changed his views on the subject, we W.11 tell him why we believe he did not change them. Any way, the practice is -defensible. ,f Robertson Smith was not good enough, let von Sodcn be substituted but the mingling of the two serves no ML w%:^^^^mmB^ Newer Criticism 29 purpose save to irritate and to confuse. Dr. Cheyne's method compels us to attach the most serious importance to the treat- ment of Jesus in this new volume, and he will no doubt accept the full responsi- bility of the most negative conclusions given in his book. Dr. Schmiedel, who writes upon " Gospels," confesses that his criticism " may have sometimes seemed to raise a doubt whether any cr '■■ '' elements were to be found in '.he Gospei all." To make out that Jesus existed, he resorts to a few statements, such as the fact that the relations of Jesus thought Him mad. But in Dr. Schmiedel's view the main fabric of the Gospels is utterly incredible.' The ' §§ 139-140]. Only nine "absolute credible passages": (i) Mark x. 17 f. : "Why callest thou me good ? none is good save God only." (2) Matt. xii. 31 f: that blasphemy against the son of man can be forgiven. (3) Mark iii. 21 : % 3° Christ and the ■'tories of n^iracle are contemptuously re- jected and of course for the Resurrection nd the Ascension there is no room at a.,. In fact. ,t would not be too much to say that there ,s a deliberate attempt in this book Ihal his retations held him fn 1,= t -. l«<»eih „„ „„t „, ';!"'"'"'' •"■' ■>' *a. ho«, sees, and of Herod "-.„ T "^ ""^ P*^"'- Sch.,ede.. th. ?4e ^reS^JT-"^ '° the 4000 was not an h,ct„ • ■ -^°°° ^nd ^p-b.c." (9; 4tt\fr=irr "■''"' answer to the Banfkf k ^"- ^^ ■■ the 'hat the tina, ci'^I^-, ;;^^-'^e, argues enumeration," and proves that 'T Preceding not of the physicallv h,l f u ^"" ''■"' speaking >ame, leprous.'dea^de.d. °' "' ^^'''^^''^ '''"«^' Newer Criticism 31 . to obliterate Christ. The cxirtencc of Christ as a man is admitted rather than affirmed, but that he was God is distinctly denied.' In the article on Faith ' there is no rcfer- ince that wc can trace to the meaning of faith as the Church understands it, faith in the risen Lord. Dr. Cheyne, writing on John the Baptist, calls him Johanan, and quaintly informs us that " primitive tradition rightly accentuates the inferiority of Johanan to Jesus " ! Judas is another of Dr. Chcyne's subjects, and he argues that the story is unhistorical. Of Dr. Abbott's contribution we say nothing, for his arguments and his attempts at construction are alike familiar, ' § 139]- "In the person of Jesus we have to do with a completely human being, and the divine is to be sought in him only in the form m which it -s capable of being found in a man." - By Dr. Cheyne. No notice is taken in the article of the Pauline idea of Faith. p vi) V y -'"'i h9' 32 Christ and the ti: ■' "' °; ^^- «-«'^ a.ic,e we sha,. speak ^o- the fact that they are pubWshed and :;'r '' ' "■^"'^'^ °^ ^-^^ Church ol d V^'" ha. the co-operatfon of orthodox .scholars .n a.i the Churches. Dr Cheyne .ust hi„,self fee, his positfon ° '•= ^"-^ '^"«-'^- D- Colenso, who. P"b..shed a hy.n.hook in ,866 which ''. "7 ™"*^'" *he na.e Jesus or Chnst fro,n one end to the other. When ^epi.ed. no douhfn perfect ,ood fait, ^: ^h. was quite unintentional on his part. He had rejected hy„,n after hy„„ .hich conta,ned prayers to Christ which h^ objected to on Scriptural and apostoiicai grounds. And yet Dr. Colenso used the Newer Criticism 23 iM English liturgy, which is full of prayers to Christ: "O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us Thy peace," "Christ have mercy upon us" "God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy upon us miserable sinners"' The question of subscription is very difficult and we are far fro.n wishing to press it. but to use in Christian worship for the purposes of the common devotional life prayers which employ a doctrine which the offerer of the pra>cr disclaims else- "here as unsound, is to turn worship into a mockery. We are glad to point out that in the interesting apologia which Dr. Cheyne published in the ExM'ior, he says that Jesus knew Himself to be the Saviour of men. "The centre of gravity in theology can never be shifted from the person of Christ. The Jesus 3 a' 'p i:::: i,/i- [in N.TX S 7 *3'- ^§19. Newer Criticism 7,7 edited a translation of Ebrard's Gospel History, a book uhich, as many of our readers know, is strenuously orthodox and interesting to this day for its boldness and ing-^nuity, though somewhat marred by a spirit of scorn and defiance. In his Tmin- ing of th. Twelve and his Hinniliation of Christ he made noble contributions to Christology, but he moved gradually away from the early standpoint. Even in 1886, when he published n.s work on the Miracu- lous Element in the Gospds, he showed him- self curiously uncertain and inconsistent. He staked everything on the sinlessness of Christ. There was, according to him, but one miracle vitally important to faith, and that was the moral miracle of the sin- lessness of the Redeemer. And yet he faltered in the assertion of that great fact. When vindicating Christ from charges il V'.. 38 Christ and the y i # against His character, he said:' "The most outstanding, charge brought against Christ was excessive severity in exposing Phari- «aism, but tha, u.as a fault n