CIHM ICIVIH Microfiche Collection de Series microfiches (l\/lonographs) (monographles) Canadian Instituta for Historical Microraproductiont / Institut Canadian da nticroraproductiont historiquas 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. \7\ D n n n [Zf El D D n n D Coloured covers / Couverture de couleur Covers damaged / Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated / Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculee Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps / Cartes geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (I.e. other than blue or black) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations / Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material / Relle avec d'autres documents Only edition available / Seule edition disponible Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin / La rellure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure. Blank leaves added during restoratkMis may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming / II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors cfune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, k)rsque cela 6tait possible, C8s pages n'ont pas iM fHm^es. Addttional commerns / Commentaires suppidmentaires: L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur examplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- plaire qui sont 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 indiqu^s ci-dessous. D D n n D D n n Coloured pages / Pages de couleur Pages damaged / Pages endommagees Pages restored and/or laminated / Pages restaurees et/ou pellculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxed / Pages decolor^s, tachetees ou piqueis Pages detached / Pages detachees Showthrough / Transparence Quality of print varies / Quality inegale de I'impression Includes supplementary material / Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire 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 i\6 film^s k nouveau de fafon k obtenir la meilleure image possible. 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 film^es deux fois afin d'obtenir la meilleur image possible. TKit itttn tt film«d •< the reduetian ratia etteeksd belaw/ C« doctNMnt Mt fitm4 au uuk dt rMuction wdi^u* ei-dtne«n 10X 14X ItX ax 2«x XX J 12X 1«X 20X 24X 2tX i2X The COPY filmtd h«r« has b««n raproductd thanks to tha ganorositv of: National Library of Canada L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit gr&ca i la O*nirositi da: Bibliotheque nationals du Canada Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha t^ast quality poaaibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract apacif icationa. Las imagas suivantas ont *t* raproduitas avec la plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattati da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac laa conditions du contrat da filmaga. Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad Impraaaion. Laa axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat imprimia sont filmAs 91% eommanqant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la darniAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration. soit par la sacond plat, salon la cas. Tous laa autras axamplairas originaux sont filmts an commandant par la pramiAra paga qui compona una amprainta d'impraasion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darniAra paga qui comporta una tclla amprainta. Tha last racordad frama on aach microficho shall contain tha symbol -^ I moaning "CON- TINUED"!, or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), whiehavar appliaa. Un daa symboiaa suivants apparaitra sur la darnlAra imaga da chaqua microficha. salon la cas: la symbola ^^ signifia "A SU.VRE". la fiymbola ▼ signifia "FIN". Maps, plataa, charts, ate. may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba antiraly includad in ona axposura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar. laft to right and top to bottom, aa many framas aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illustrata tha mathod: Las cartaa. planchas, tablaaux, ate. pauvant itra filmia k daa taux da reduction diff^rants. Lorsqua la documant ast trop grand pour itra raproduit 9n un saul cliche, il ast filmi k partir da I'angla supAriaur gaucha, da gaucha i droits. at da haut an baa. an pranant la nomb/a d'imagaa n^caaaaira. Laa diagrammas suivants illustrant la mithoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) 1.0 I.I 150 156 IK 2.0 IM 1.8 1.6 ^ /A PPLIED IM/1GE Inc ^^ 1653 East Main Street r— S Rochester. New n'ork U609 I.. JS (716) 482 - 0300 - Phone SS: (716) 288 - 5989 - fax y U 4i^-^-'\^ , - /". C^-x. x.'--.*t,--i-- c^C- rl Wll II ■■ ri'Hl II ■■ ■■■■■■■>■'»■ M-wi-t. ■■ .y ipi-jpt. "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT" { A BRisp rhview op thboribs advocatbd in propessor OEOROB ADAM SMITWS TALE LECTURES^ BV THE REV. E. H. DEWART. D.D. TORONTO : WILLIAM BRIGGS. WBSLBV BUILDINGS C. W. COATBS, Moim«AL, Que. S. F. HUESTIS, Halifax, H.S 1902 Ql MVntt'tM mt'g* ■■ ■■-■■■■■ ■■ iii-tf.-».-«-^fi nu-tu ■» MB if (( MODERN CRITICISM AND THE PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT" ' ""'" r:;:: """""" ■""■"=^"«" '■>• -~' GtO OH ADAM SJlrfWS YALH LECTr,u:s l!^' THK f^EV. E. H. iJEVVAKT, D.o. TOROxVTO : WILLIAM BRIGGC 1 90-. "UtbTIS, Halifax, N.S. I ; V ->\ ■^> Entered according to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand nine hundred and two, by Wiluam Brioos, at the Depart- ment of Agriculture. 9\ ANALYSlb OF CONTENTS. Free crit.csm justificd-The right to reject as sacred as the nght toaccept-Professor Smith's negative criticism cannot help preachers-He is in full agreement with the disintegrating Higher Lntics-Their premises involve grave and dangerous conclusions- Our Lord 8 teaching wholly at variance with the negative criticism -A specific stattnent of unanswerably strong objectir -An extraordinary way of fixing the indemnity or loss-Deems ii • loss to count Bible history fictitious myths-Delitzsch on hist. v -A grave mistake-- Paradise Lost "-Extreme views unfairly ascribed to conservative opponents- The real issues stated -Rationalist teaching not cancelled by eulogies of the Old Testament-Trend of Higher Criticism towards a denial of supernatural religion -Livincr examples-Views of Green and Rawlinson-Opinions of prominent divines on Professor Smith's views and illogical arguments. "Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament."* f^ ontic .tttdy of the Bible, however much they ly ^fer ,« to the truth or effect of p.rticular theorie. In (I) What are the attested relevant facial 4^."i„t'r°" "^^ '""■ ""- '-' "^' »- 4::.hoX;fth:'S;s::;rr'"''---^- ;;.pt*.:;=drj;::rpr-rs 6 "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE • The exercise of this right should not be represented as a sign of opposition to freedom of thought or progress in religious knowledge. We may freely sidmit that modern critical study has shed much light upon the origin and times of the books of the Bible, which may cause a modifi- cation of some ideas formerly held ; and yet we may be fully convinced that nearly all the speculative dissection, which tends to overthrow confidence in the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures, is built upon ingenious conjectures that are not justified by any proper proof. Dr.. George Adam Smith's Yale Lectures, published under the title at the head of this article, have attracted a good deal of attention, as one of the latest and ablest apologies for the disintegrating higher criticism of the Old TesUment. The book has been highly eulogized in some quarters, as if it were an irenic vindication of the Old Testament from the eflFects of all criticism which tended to depreciate its value and authority for Christian preachers. Of course, those who are already in sympathy with the lines of thought set forth in the work will be highly gratified with it; and those who have not studied the arguments for what we may call the Biblical view may be impressed by the eloquent and plausible advocacy of this gifted author. But we do not believe that unbiassed readers who are familiar with the literature of the subject will be likely to say that the views of the Old Testament, which are assumed throughout these lectures, are in har- mony with what has been claimed for them by those who accept the theories advocated. Though delivered under the auspices of "The Lyman Beecher Lectureship on Preaching," it is very difficult to see how the anoept^nco of the views advocated can conduce to make preachers PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 7 more effective, unless, indeed, efforts to show that much of the Old Testament is fictitious and not trustworthy are adapted to produce this effect. The main object of the lecturer seems to be to allay the apprehensions and answer the objections of those who believe that the tendency of much modern Biblical criticism is to undermine belief in the veracity and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures ; and to persuade such objectors that the " higher," or what, to avoid confusion, we may call the neo-criticism, has left enough of the Old Testament to supply materials for Chris- tian preaching. The book is a clever but very one sided effort to convince preachers and people that they may accept the theories of the disintegrating higher critics of the Bible, without loss or injury to Christian faith or to the religious value of the Old Testament. Without attempting to state in this article the reasons given by conservative Biblical scholars for questioning the argu- ments and rejecting many of the conclusions of this school of critics, we are compelled to say that in our judgment the contents of this volume fail to show that the current theories of the German critics may be accepted by Chris- tian preachers without lessening their power and confi- dence in preaching the teachings of the Old Testament ; or that the dissective criticism has " laid upon a sounder basis the proof of a real revelation in the Old Testament." Those who have read the previous writings of Dr. George Adam Smith would expect these lectures to be clever, vigorous and scholarly. They will not be disup. pointed in this expectation. But even learning, ability and devoutness do not always confer judicial impar- tiality. At any rate, they do not save this work from being largely a partial advocacy of the theories of the 8 "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE *IkC u""r "■"<'*'• "'«'"' "-Bible that LTa vLw if th! ""' .^f"'»"^™ '"hool of Biblical critic. I„ ™w of the cnhcal tenet, he accepts, it i. hard to see how "f tlfe fSTh^Ttb"":"' "" •* -«''"l-'<""'' "defender tun, r He rur-rTt:"' ^"'"f '^ °' '"^ °" R.KU * J . assumes, .s. it they were facts which no Bible student could denv tlla^ ;« *k i . , k- i. X , "eny, tiiat in the early period of thwr hMory Je ovah „a, w the Wlite, oj, such a tl goa as Uhemosh was to Mnah • +Ko«^ *i Judah i^ the ti.e of .^i-f :;"4:it cSl^e'tJ have been Deuteronomy, a, the divine la» o th iMife rants ns in takmg it as canonical Scripture; that St Paul t::itz a~hitTh^^ A';.PP./the"oM .»nin.that.;Lt:,:rrLr;?f;i-- Hebrew Scnpturee is Sctitious and not trustworthy tha heapostles had implicit confidence in er^e^^s fd'e ^ the .nsp,rat.on of the Old Testament which were held by late^'tffortsT ""' *" "^ '*'"' " ^'"»' '"»»'^. •>"' «» of „„-lt, °°°°°"' '"'• ""' 8«"8™PWo«l distribution of neghbonng nation,,'' ,v,tl, perhaps "a substratum of ^ual personal history"; that the belief in one supLj Ood w« ,n Israel a late development-nav more th J the religion of Israel remained "before the a^'oahe'^lt PItEACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 9 prophets not only similar to, but in all respects above mentioned identical with, the general Semitic religion which was not a monotheism, but a polytheism with an opportunity for monotheism at the heart." Everything that appears to favor these theories is readily accepted and made the most of; but anything that is against them L! pT r '"P'^^'^^ ^^"y- The speculative theories of the evolution critics, which assign late dates and a number of imaginary authors and redactors for so much of the Old Testament, seem to be constantly taken or granted, as if they rested on a solid basis of Lstoric tacts. There is an underlying assumption of the truth of much on the same line that is not expressly avowed. No one would suppose from reading these lectures that most Hebrew scholars, after a thorough examination of the mtical argument by which they have been supported. Yet the evidence supplied by Amos, Hosea and Isaiah ully proves the truth of Prof. James Robertson's position, that a sober and unprejudiced criticism shows tha Israel at the dawn of its national existence had a very that these things were neither borrowed from their neigh- bors nor excogitated by themselves." The ungarbfed sacred writings plainly prove this, and the whole' trend of the facts of recent discovery is to conHrm this conclu 8 on in contradiction of the late development hypothesis ^mber Professor Sayce. in a review of a recent work of Professor Hommel, states that in one of the relics of the th^logical Ideas which prevailed in .« Ur of the Chaldees " w a hymn strikingly monotheistic in its tone. " It might 10 MODERN CRITICISM AND THE indeed, alir-st have been written by the monotheistic Abram." It is strange if the Akkadians, from whose country the Hebrew fathers came, and the Egyptians, in whose country the Israelites sojourned so long, had the knowledge of one supreme God, that it should be assumed it was hundreds of years later before the people who have led the religious thought of the world attained to such knowledge. But facts like these, that are at variance with the theories of Dr. Smith and his masters, must be thrust aside as if they were of no consequence, in order to make way for thair negations. Yet Dillmann, the great German scholar, frankly (declares, " that the entire work of Moses admits of no historical explanation except in the supposition of a preparatory, comparatively pure type of religion, mch as, accordiny to Genesis, belonged to the fathers of Israel" But passing over the weighty objections to the validity of the reasoning by which these theories have been sup- ported, there is no good ground for denying that those who accept these views about the Old Testament are logically committed to the acceptance of conclusions, which can hardly fail to affect -lelief in the truth and auth .ity of the sacred Scriptures, whether they deem it expedient to draw these conclusions or avow their acceptance of them or not. To accept the theories of this school of critics, as to the way in which different books were pro- duced, is to accept premises from which it follows that the Old Testament has been largely written and compiled in a manner that is adapted to mislead its readers in respect to the actual state of things; because, according to the advanced critics, it presents an erroneous version of Israel's religious history and national life which the PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." H authors must have known to be untrue. If, as the neo- criticism alleges, Deuteronomy was mainly a late composi- tion falsely ascribed to Moses and not known till the time of King Josiah; if the Tabernacle of the Congregation ascribed to Moses never existed except in the brfin of some late scribe; if the Levitical ritual was a late product of the priests after the exile, designed to magnify their order; If monotheism was a late development after the time of the great prophets-then Ezra, or whoever were the authors or redactors of the Pentateuch, must have ^ndT. r. *^'"^'-. ^'' ""*^ '^' ^°"*^"*« °*' the books and the historic order .vhich they present are plainly designed to convey ^he impression, that the actual order and condition of Israel's religious life were quite different from what Professor Smith and his critical auchorities allege it to have been. No apologetic 'explanations, or calhng doubtful doings by pleasant names, can conceal or justify the reprehensible character of the methods which the higher critics gratuitously attribute to Old Testa- metit writers. A new standard of morals must be adopted before the deception, which is assumed to have been prac- tised in a number of cases, can be reconciled with ordinary truthfulness, not to say divine innpiration. of the Old Testament, as if all who do not accept the theories of his school were opposed to such study He must know that this is not so. In this unnecessary con- tention our Lord's references to the Old Testament are repeatedly cited as if t»>ey justified and exemplified the radical critical treatment of the Hebrew Scriptures by this school of critics ! It is difficult to see how our Lord's bi-oader application and more spiritual interpretation of 12 "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE the Mosaic laws can be made to give any warrant for the wholesale disintegration and denial of the Mosaic authority of these writings, which have been practised by the evolutional critics. Christ's fulfilment of the law and introduction of the more glorious Gospel dispensation supply no justification of the guesswork and negative theories of these "higher" critics. Their theorizing receives no countenance from the Master's teaching or example. On the contrary His constant recognition of the historic tr» ch and divine authority of " the Law and the Prophets" stands in clear contradictory contraist to the negations and fanciful reconstructiois of the neo- criticism. The epistle to the Hebrews, which deals with the passing away of the typical Mosaic ritual and the in- comL.g of the Christian dispensation, has not a word on the line of the negative criticism. Liiat parts of the Mosaic laws were typical and temporary is surely not equivalent to their being spurious. It is utterly unjustifiable to allege that the criticism which denies the authenticity of so much of the Old Testament lies "along the lines indicated by Christ and His apostles," and "takes its charter from Christ Himself." Dr. J. E. H. Thomson, of Stiriing, Scotland, forcibly says : " Christ assumes legis- lative authority over the Law, to alter it or abrogate it in portions, which His followers ctcrot assume without something like blasphemy. ... In order to maintain that our Lord was in any sense the precursor of the modern critic Professor Smith must bring forward some passage in which our Lord discusses the authorship of some portion of the Old Testament and decides against tradi- tion. But not only does he not do anything of the kind, but he cannot do so." To say that Christ and His apostles PREACHING OP THE OLD TESTAMENT." 13 taught on the lines of modern "higher " critics is a state- ment that one does not care to characterize. They were not critics ; but even if one admitted that they were it wou d not help Professor Smith ; for their methods and conclusions are entirely at variance with those of the critics, in support of whom he so unjustifiably appeals to their example. The efforts of certain " higher " critics to explain away the force of Christ's references to Moses and the prophets, by their theory of the " Kenosis," con- tradict this unwarrantable claim of Profess.- Smith They would not have tried to do this had they not felt that their theory required it to be done. Profes^r Smith's admission that modem criticism "has been forced to abandon some positions which it had previously occupied with confidence, and upon innumer- able details still exhibits among its supporters difference of opmion." would lead one to expect less of dogmatic assertion and unproved assumptions than we meet in these lectures on questions that are still strongly disputed, and some of which cannot be settled for want of the necessary data. The learning and ability of such writers MPerowne, Douglas, Zahn. Bissel, Gr.en, Rupprecht. Edersheim, Hommel, and others, who have shown the baselessness of the idea that Deuteronomy was a late fabncation, might have prevented this author from assert- ing with such off-hand positiveness that the "singular- ity"— on which this rationalist theory is based— is "so conspicuous, even to the tyro in Hebrew, that the absence of an eariier discovery of it now seems astonishing » The ckim that the critical conclusions which the author upholds mainly depend on "historical evidence furnished by the Old Testament itself " is quite characteristic. But t('( 14 MODERN CRITICISM AND THE if historic evidence is testimony that attests the truth of historic facts, the strained inferences that are adopted to meet the requirements of a preconceived theory of the evolution of these Scriptures are not '« historic evidence " The term "historical " has no charm that protects every theory which claims this character from edverse criticism or refutation. A recent writer has truly sa.'d • «« Histor ical interpretation involves all the enors, a 1 the pitfalls all the prejudices, and all the possibilities of misinforma- tion and misrepresentation that lie in the nature of fallible humanity." The historical method is, however no exclusive possession of th3 rationalist critics, as they .eem to assume. The replies-, of able and scholarly thinkers who have vindicated the claims of the Bible against the destructive guesswork of the school to which Professor Smith belongs, are much better entitled to the credit of being based on -historic evidence furnished by the Old Testament itself" than the speculative hypotheses for which this diei action is so confidently claimed; for the conservative view is the Bible view, but the dissecting critics substitute an imaginary, fictitiom history ior "the Old Testament itself." In a similar manner it is claimed that the objections to the critical theories have been examined and found to be « baseless." Yet we are confident that a large propor- tion of those who have read the arguments on both sides of the subject will hold that the objections have not been fully and fairly stated or satisfactorily answered by Professor Smith or any writer of his school. Some of these objections are as follows : That the Bible account of the history and religion of PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 15 Israel is more consistent and probable than the fanciful reconstruction which has beer. bstituted for it unvitf cSr:' '''-' ''''-' '- '-'-'' '-'' "P- That in dissecting and adjusting the Old Testament, to make it accord with a preconceived theory, the " higher " critics use unscientific and unwarrantable methods Ihat the many contradictory differences of leadin<. higher" critics discredit their methods and their con! elusions as to dates and authors. That these negative theories are not .imply literary questions for scholars, but matters that affect faUh in thi truth and authority of Scripture. to'fh^wT^' °"' '^,' ^'''^'"'"y ""^ *^^«"« ^^'^ His apostles to he historic truth and divine authority of the Old Testament tends to overthrow faith in the infallibility of T^ltam:':. '"^'^^^ '''' ^" *'^ ^"^^-^'^ ^' ^^« ^ew That the main reasons for assigning late dates and xniagmary authors to the Pentateuch and other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures -viz.. (1) the alleged silence of his tonans and prophets concerning the Mosaic laws, and (2) the assumed illiteracy and polytheism of Israel in these inLt^-r ^"^'^' "^ '''''''' ''-'' '' •'^'^p*"- These objections refer to matters of fact. They have not been '.found to be baseless." On the contrary thly the Old Testament itself." presented by able Biblical Bible by the neo-cnticism. not because ' ^opposed to higher or lower critici.sm. but bee. .ney.re con- 16 "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE vinced It is not justified hy facts. But it seems to be one of the canons of this critical school to treat the ablest scholars who do not agree with them as of nr -count. Is this a " scientific " method ? Or is it adopted jause it is easier to ignore than to answer the arguments of conser- vative Biblical critics? The practice of assuming that " the ults of modern criticism" can mean only a definite unity o£ oninion, which all scholars accept, is unjustifiable. In view of the existing diversity of confiicting opinions, we need to know what critics and what criticism a writer means, when he speaks of the results of modern criticism. Many of these writers appeal to the critics whose theories they have atjcepted, as if there were no others in existence but these. The weak and strained arguments which Dr. Smith uses, on points tending to discredit the trustworthiness of Scripture, ar.- unpleasantly numerous and reveal a strong partisan bent. But he never fails in confident assertion, liis statement " that modern criticism has won its war against the traditional theories ' ; and that '« it only re- mains to fix the amount of the indemnity," suggc f,8 some practical questions. Whose " modern criticism » does he nsean ? Is it the anti-supernatural criticism of Kuenenand Wellhausen ? Is the " indemnity " to be fixed by the partial dissecting critics ? So Professor Smith seems to think ; for he undertakes to settle the question himself. Thil he does in a very one-sided and unsatisfactory maLner He alleges that the greatest Christian preachers did not linger on the cardinal facts of Israel's national historj So, of course, the loss of the history is not a serious one The personal elements of character portrayed in the Bible furnished the chief materials for the preacher; but th«cte PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 17 IS r f being fictitious does not lessen their ethical value. The early chapters of Genesis he declares are not an account of actual events ; but " their ethical -alue to the preacher is beyond all question." What a comfort it must be to the Christian preacher to hear on such high authority, that the man who wrote the third chapter of Genesis " was the acute and faithful reader of his own heart " ! It is a strange confounding of things which differ, to hold that the preacher who thinks it lessens the homiJetic value of these Scriptures to believe they are unhistoric fictions, anr" not what on the face of them they purport to be, shuts himself out from preaching on the parables of Christ, which are lessons by the infallible Teacher Him- self. Yet Dr. Smith gives a good deal of this kind of logic in these lectures. That it may be seen that we have not misrepresented the lecturer, we will quote the summing up of his deci ion on the " indemnity." He says : " Such is the case foi the narratives of the patriarchs. On the present evidence it is impossible to be sure of more than that they contain a substratum of actual personal history. But who wants to be sure of more 1 Who needs to be sure of more ? If there be a preacher who thinks that the priceless value of these narratives to his work depends on the belief that they are all literal history, let him hold that belief if he can, and confidently so use them. Or if he cannot believe that Genesis is literal history, and yet thinks it must needs be, in order to be used as God's Wor4, let him seek his texts elsewhere : his field is wide and inexhaustible." Genesis is not the only history he reduces to legendary fiction. But he reads into these fanciful riches of ethics and religion, to make up for or cover over his denial of 18 MODERN CRITICISM AND THE their historic truth. It would have been well if Professor Smith had pondered and given due weight to the words of the eminent Prof. Franz Delitzsch : " The writing of history with a tendency or free invention of historical facts would be contrary to that veracity which is the first of all the requirements to be made of a historian." In assuming that it is of no importance whether we regard Genesis as fact or fiction, Dr. Smith overlooks the organic unity of Bible history. These early records are foundation stones, on which later prophets and historians have built : and which such preachers as Paul and Stephen, and Peter and tl^e author of the epistle to the Hebrews, used in their teaching as facts which illustrate God's dealings and man's duty. It is difficult to imagine how any unbiassed students of the Bible can regard the substitution of the conjectured history of these critics for the Biblical account of the Hebrew writers as a means of giving greater certitude and spiritual effectiveness to the religious teaching of the Old Testament. The chief use Christian teachers have made of the Old Testament has been to draw practical lessons from the recorded lives of its characters, to trace the over- ruling providence of God in the history of the Hebrew people, and to expound and enforce the great truths relating to faith and duty which were revealed to the prophets. But if the biography is believed to be to a great extent fictitious, how can it yield obligatory reasons for right conduct 1 If the history is largely doubtful and untrue, how can things which never have happened be used by the preacher to illustrate the government of God t If revelation is understood in a vague sense, that does not really recognize the divine authorship of its PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 19 precepts and doctrines, this eliminates the main ground of the Christian preacher for preaching the teaching of the Hebrew Scr'ptures as truths that possess divine authority for the consciences of those to whom he preaches. The lessons of duty taught by true history and biography derive their value and obligation from being drawn from events and experiences that have actually taken place under the order of God's moral government. We infer that similar character and conduct will be followed by similar results. The same inference cannot be drawn from imaginary things which never happened. But in the Pentateuch we have what purports to be a history of God's dealing with His ancient people, and of times and occasions on which He made revelations of His will con- cerning them. The late Prof. Franz Delitzsch truly says : "The essential truth of what is here narrated and the truth of Christianity stand in the closest mutual relation." To say that we may deny that there were such events, occasions or revelations as are recorded; without suffering any loss of faith in the value, inspiration and divine authority of the books which contain these records, is an extraordinary assumption. Yet Professor Smith boldly says : " This absence of history from the chapters, this fact that their framework is woven from the raw material of myth and legend, cannot discredit the profound moral and religious truths with which they are charged, any more than the cosmogony of his time, which Milton employs impairs by one whit our spiritual indebtedness to ' Para- dise Lost.' " This reference to the grand poetic fiction of Milton is rather unfortunate. No one supposes " Paradise Lost" to be a true history, presenting facts that yield lessons for the conduct of life, or regards its teachings 20 MODERN CRITICISM AND THE as possessing divine authority. Neither Milton nor his admirers ever made any such claim for his work. Our "spiritual indebtedness" to the teaching of the Old Testament is something wholly different from our literary indebtedness to Milton's " Paradise Lost." The illustra- tion proves nothing, except Professor Smith's lax and low conception of Holy Scripture. If some theologians have held a literal theory of verbal inspiration, the equal divinity of all parts of Scripture, the denial of any development in the religion of Israel, or quo ed the severe laws and cruel deeds of Old-Testament times to justify unchristian conduct, this does nothing to prove the truth of the conjectured hypotheses of the recon- structing critics, in support of which these things are cited. Christian scholars who reject the rationalist theories about the Bible are not shut up to those views. The most effec- tive replies to the neo-critics have been presented by writers who have vindicated and practised free Biblical criticism ; but not in defence of these ideas. The reference to these extreme ideas is too much like attnbuting to opponents weak and questionable views that they would disavow, and which are not the real issues. What wo have to decide is, not whether we should tolerate and practise thorough criticism of the Bible — not " whether out of this reconstructed Old Testament we can get materials for sermons" — not whether every historic statement is absolutely inerrant — not whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch with his own hand — not whether some of the books are based on pre-existing documents — not whether there was a development in the religion of Israel. What- ever may have been thought on these points in the past, they are not the Hougomonts or Malakoffs in this war. PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 21 V The vital issue is beyond question the truth, trust-worthi- ness and authority of the religious history and teaching of the Old Testament. It is such questions as, whether the Old Testament was to a great extent artfully made up of fictitious history aad accounts of divine revelations which never took place — whether the Hebrews had the knowledge of the or living and true God, which their sacred writings represent them to have had — whether Deuteronomy is an authentic history of Mosaic times, as on the face of it it purports to be, or a late fabrication — whether the concep- tion of the Old Testament, and especially of Messianic prediction and veritable fulfilment, held and taught by our Lord and His apostles, is the true doctrine or a mistaken Jewish belief. It would be very strange if what a preacher believed in regard to such questions did not seriously influ- ence the character of his preaching on the lessons and teaching of the Old Testament. It is not the amount of the materials for preaching which advanced critics have left that concerns us, but their assaults on the truth and authority of Scripture. How can those who accept the negation of so much of the Biblical records continue to teach the Protestant belief in " the divine Inspiration, Authority and Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures"? Does the deceptive and misleading way in which it is alleged several of these books were manufactured reasonably accord with the moral and spirit- ual influence of the Old Testament in the world? Are Christian preachers dependent on the permission of partisan critics as to how much of the Bible they may accept and teach 1 .Can theologians accept the scheme of anti-super- natural German critics and build on it without serious peril of sinking to the same level as their maaton 1 Is the 22 "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE i!!: common practice of these critics, of rejecting as interpola- tions whatever in Scripture is against their scheme, scien- tific or justifiable criticism? Can the Bible accounts of ' the giving of divine precepts and promises be discarded as fictitious, without aflfecting faith in the truth of the inter- woven teaching t Is it no objection to a critical hypothesis that it contradicts tried beliefs that have been the stay and inspiration of Christian hearts and a power in Chris- tianity through the ages 1 As the neo-criticism mainly con- sists in denials of the authenticity of parts of the Old Testa- ment and conjectures about " sources," in what way can the acceptance of these negations give greater power to the preaching of Old-Testament teaching ? Such a claim is not justified by facts. That the Hebrew prophets were " preachers of righteousness," whose messages were specially adapted to the condition of the people of their day, and that history sheds light on their teaching are certainly no discovery of " higher " critics. The recognition of this fact by the Christian Church has been in perfect harmony with St. Paul's declaration, that " whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." It is true, the existence of the Old Testament is explained in these lectures on the supposition that " there was an authentic revelation of the one true God." But the infer- ence or admission of this author that the influence of a personal God in Hebrew history " is its most natural and scientific explanation," is a very insufficient reason for a preacher to enforce the teaching of the Book as .a divine message possessing authority and obligation for all men. We freely admit that the estimate of the Old Testament PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 23 which was held and taught by our Lord and His apostles is fairly stated by Professor Smith, and given as a reason for what our idea of these Scriptures should be. But the value of this is virtually cancelled by the fact that the views of the origin and make-up of these books and the falsehood of much of the history they contain, which are assumed by the author and the Biblical critics upon whose conclusions he builds, are at variance with the plain import of the references of our Lord and the New-Testament writers to the Old Testament. What one of his reviewers calls his " tacit assertion that the prophets did not in any true sense predict," is an example of this variance. Accord- ing to Professor Smith when the prophet foretells the future " he does so, not through any magic vision of the future, but by inference from the religious principles with which God has inspired him, and by application of these to the political circumstances and probabilities of his own time." As Dr. Thomson, of Stirling, justly says : " The prophet is thus merely one who by natural sagacity sees what is coming." The words " magic vision " are disparag- ing words, used to designate the belief of those who hold the scriptural idea of prophetic prediction, which he seems to have outgrown. No amount of rhetorical eulogy of the Old Testament can make up for the rejection of the truth, that the prophets " spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." In the Old Testament, which Professor Smith at times appears to honor so much, Jehovah Himself appeals to His revelations of future events to the prophets, in vindication of His claim to the worship and obedience of the people to whom the message of the prophets was addressed. I* - of the prr •' -tions of the prophet that Jehovah say have declaied the former things from 24 "MODERN CRmCISM AND THE I the beginning ; and they went forth out of my mouth and I showed them ; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass " (Isa. 48 : 3). It is not human " inferences " that are meant by the words : " There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israsl; all came to pass " (Josh. 21 : 45). The eulogistic thing$ which Prof. G. A. Smith and other writers who have indorsed the neo-criticism say respecting the religious value of the Old Testament are true, because their negative theories are not true and because things they deny are true. No man can evade the consequences of his avowed beliefs by expressing his approval of a contradic- tory view. Every man must be held responsible for the logical consequence of the premises he accepts. Theolo- gians who are supposed to be conservative and orthodox, while they build upon the main premises of the rationalist critics, are more likely to undermine faith in the truth and authority of the Scriptures than the open rejecters of supernatural religion. Professor Smith illustrates this. Due credit should be given to men like Canon Driver and Professor Smith for avoiding the irreverent dogmatism of Wellhausen and Cornill, and for their earnest and no doubt sincere efforts to harmonize the results of the neo- criticism with Ciiristian reverence for the Old Testament. But all their eflforts must fail. They can find no perma- nent footing on the slippery incline, where they are trying to stand. Their accepted premises must compel them to follow their Rationalist leaders on the " down grade." The trend of the German criticism on which they both build is unquestionably toward a denial of the super- natural. If we accept theories about the Bible which deny the truth of its records of Uod's dealings with Israel, PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 25 and the displays of His power on their oehalf, we thereby reject the testimony on which our faith in its supernatural manifestations rests, and open the gates for the inflow of the dogmas of antichristian disbelief. It is significant that nearly all the negations of the dissective criticism have an .ulverse relation to God's interference in human affairs, or to the revelation of His will. The early volumes of the new "Encyclopedia Biblica " furnish practical evidence that writers who have been held up as safe and moderate critics deny or ignore central verities of Chris- tianity, and advocate views which divest Christ of the attributes which make Him an unerring Teacher and all- sufficient Saviour. It can hardly be questioned that those who boldly carry out their naturalistic evolution hypothesis to a rejection of the supernatural are really more logical and consistent than those who, like Professor Smith and Canon Driver, are endeavoring to hold and harmonize incom- patible conceptions of the Bible. It is wisely and pertin- ently remarked by that eminent Hebrew scholar, the late Frof. W. H. Green, of Princeton : "They who have been themselves thoroughly grounded L th^i "''r ^"''^'- °'.*^' ^y " ^^PPy incofsisteiy, hold fast their old convictions while admitting principles methods and conclusions that are logically at war wVth them But who can be surprised if others shall with TT^ ?^'^ v*''^ ""^^^ ^*' ^^"« been commended to them to Its legitimate issue ? " The questionable character of the methods of this school of critics is fitly set forth by Canon Rawlinson in these words : Jl^!ir ^-^ "IXJ^.^ historical books as delivering to us in the main a faithful and trustworthy account of the people, and of the vicissitudes through which they passed 26 MODERN CRITICISM AND THE we must confess ourselves to be absolutely without any knowledge at all of the national history for nearly a thou- sand years after the Exodus. To construct for ourselves a diflFerent history from this out of our own theories of what is likely to have taken place, or by the use of an electic process, which consists in accepting as much as we like and rejecting as much as we do not like of the extant narrative, is to substitute fancy for fact, idealism for reality, a mere imaginary picture of the past times for an authenticated account of them." There is a widespread disposition to regard any writer, who has won distinction in any department of thought, as an oracle, that it is an evidence of superiority to approve, and a sign of undue conservatism to question or oppose. This is a practice that reflects no special credit on those who adopt it. It has been well said, that " the errors of great thinkers are scarcely less instructive than their achievements." Cardinal Newman and Herbert Spencer are vastly more learned and gifted than I. Yet I am confident that I have good reasons for not accepting either the theology or the philosophy which they represent. Dr. G. A. Smith is a learned and gifted writer. But I could easily select from this book numerous illustrations which would clearly show that he reaches many of his conclu- sions by a very lame kind of logic. I have simply sought to show that, in spite of all the glowing things he has said about the ethical value of the Old Testament, he and others have committed themselves to essentially rationalist theories, which tend to undermine faith in the truth and authority of the Holy Scriptures, to a degree that must weaken the hand and heart of any preacher who accepts these views. The assumption that the adoption of this negative criticissm would help Christian preachers to preach PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 27 the truths of Old Testament teaching more effectively is too preposterous, to require any serious refutation. Opinions of Living Biblical Scholars. tJ.V^T '^''' ^ ^"^ "^^^ ^' *" P^^""*'- i" ^y estimate of few quotat ons from able and learned ministers of Prof tr. A. Smiths own church, taken from criticisms which ^2ri:.r "^^ -^'-^ -^ -- ^- -« The venerable Dr. John McEwan, of Edinburgh, in his tl^ughtfal and forcible little book, "The Bibl! Ind th B^k"' wi-T ' "''"° " "Outstanding Features of the Book, which IS very suggestive. We can only give a few po nts in a very condensed form. Some of these^re : ThI extraordinary confidence of the writer as to the conclu sions to which he has come, while not deigning any notice o the strongest arguments against themlThe graTcon t::Zt:t '^ '-'Tr^''' '"^^^^ evideL-The way the Bible is regarded as only a human production- The t tment of the Old Testament in a way that ignores the vital connection between the Old and New TestaLn ^hu eh T ' "" ''^' ^^' ^»^ bequeathed to His dill ;i,T. -PP-ently. specially to the critics, the right to dealt ntr^'^'r' '"'^'"^^ " ^^"«^ -^ H- ^Btles Of thirc? n T'V° ''''' "'^' ^^'"^ P-^-- thereof. case can rd f ^ "^^ ^ " ^^^ ^^P^^^^^^ ^ -«^ case can be demonstrated as wrong and ill-founded. In each case and m all combined it can be proved, and has inTbo'th't 'T r'^'P'^^^"^^^-^ °^'^« -» -a" ng both of our Lord and His apostles." Dr. McEwan trenchantly reviews the objectionable conclusions fthe 28 "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE lectures, and their bearing against the integrity of Scrip- ture, So serious does he deem his errors, that he asks : "If the views of Professor Smith, as formulated in his book, are to be left uncondemned and are to be allowed to continue to be taught to our students, will the Church, ii. such a case, not be held in the sight of God and man responsible for such teaching ? " Dr. J. E. H. Thomson, of Stirling, is a well-known author. His pamphlet reviewing Professor Smith's book, dis- plays keen insight and a mastery of modern Old Testament criticism. He la\ bare the partial statements and illogical arguments of the Professor's book in an effective and scholarly manner. He observes that Dr. Smith " gives a history of recent criticism, with the latent argument that what so many distinguished men maintain must be true. He says nothing, however, of the means by which this unanimity of testimony has been secured. As far as in them lies the critical school burkes all replies." After quoting an extract from Professor Osgood, on the serious contradictions of the higher critics. Dr. Thomson says : " I for one would go further, and charge them with laying down principles, which they use only when it suits them, of regarding certain sources of information as authorita- tive, or the reverse, as they are for or against the theories they wish to support." "This witness is true." The proof is abundant. Space will not allow us to reproduce Dr. Thomson's eflFectivc criticism of Professor Smith's deliver- ances on particular portions of Scripture. On the denial by this school of critics of prediction in any true sense. Dr. Thomson has some forcible remarks. Referring to Isaiah's prediction about the Assyrians, he maintains that PREACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 29 no amount of spiritual insight could account for such a prediction. He says : "We stand at the end of nineteen Christian centuries • our spiritual enlightenment has been increased, our spirit- ual insight deepened by all these centuries ; yet no believer however eminent for piety, nowadays can pretend to be able to assert a knowledge of the Divine plan. How could one— without special revelation— attain this in rg-ard to ouch a limited matter as tho deliverance of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah ? It seems an impossible supposition —one that only could be made in the eager desire to escape, as far as possible, the miraculous. ... The crowning argument against the position held by Professor Smith and others that the prophet did not foretell is that Christianitv " f ^c^*^^** ^^^""^ ^''""*^^^ °" <^^« ^"ef that prophecy was fulfilled m Chnst. Our Lord appealed to Moses and the prophets as twin evidence with His miracles of His mission. The apostles equally appealed to the prophets, as along with the resurrection, proving their Lord's Messiah- ship. If the critical school are right, then the apostles have been found false witnesses for Christ: at least it seems so to the ordinary reader." ' The natural tendency and effect of this teaching on the rising ministry of the churches is well illustrated by the following remarks : "As the professors teach them, so the theological stu- dents believe who become in due course preachers and ministers. Will the sense of the Church not be modified mto accordance with what the members of the Church hear Sunday after Sunday ? To show that this is no groundless tear, I shall state what a clerical brother told me He was worshipping in one of our churches in Perthshire A young man occupied the pulpit, and took for his text. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for nghteousnee..' Tl - young man began his sermon by saying, «The geniu^ of the Hebrew nation was personifica- \rV?/Ti^i: 30 "MODERN CRITICISM AND THE tion. Whenever the Hebrew wished to inculcate a duty or a virtue, he created for himself an individual whose history was an example of the performance of this duty or the possession of this virtue. Hence, to inculcate faith in God, the Hebrews devised the character and history of Abraham,' or words to this purport ; so with a few sen- tences Abraham was reduced to a myth." We have heard of things not unlike this a good deal nearer home than Scotland. Dr. John Smith, of Edinburgh, has during the past winter delivered a course of weekly lectures on "The Integrity of Scripture : Plain Reasons for Rejecting the Higher Criticism." These lectures have been published in The Life of Faith. Thfey evince a clear and strong grasp of the current issues raised by the higher critics of our day. Dr. John Smith regards the work of the school of critics to which Professor 6. A. Smith belongs as " the most elaborate effort ever made to elimiuatu miracle and the direct action of supernatural forces from the Old Testament." His lectures are not a formal reply to the Professor, but they deal eflTectively with the negative criticism on which he builds. This lec- turer strongly maintains that the methods, theories and assumptions of this school of theologians respecting the Old Testament, are not in accord with the facts of the spiritual influence of the Bible in the world, the history of the Christian faith, and the experience of God's children in the past. He says : " Where the higher critics, in our judgment, have gone astray is, in supposing against tradi- tion and the strongest internal evidence,- that, with what- ever differences, Jewish sacred history followed the same course of natural development ; and in applying methods suitable enough in dealing with common human fact and 1 PREACHING OF THE OlD TESTAMENT." 31 the growth of legend, to a totally different situation, the incoming of a true revelation of God, and its creative influence on the life and institutions of the people." These remarks touch the core of the question. When Professor G. A. Smith's book was first published. Dr. John Smith, in an acute and forcible letter in the British Weekly, frankly said : "I believe that Dr. George Adam Smith, and those whom he represents, are forcing upon the British Churdies the gravest issue that any of them has had to face in living memory. His criticism may or may not be well founded, but it strikes at the unity of revelation, it anni- hilates the first creative step in that revelation, and dis- credits the judgment of Paul, which was that of all the apostles and their Lord." In the same letter Dr. Smith, referring to the Profes- sor's book, uses these weighty and suggestive words : "The thing which has astonished me most in his bright and clever book is what I have failed to find there, any discussion, or even mention, of the bearing of this criticism on the Protestant doctrine of the authority of Scripture. That lay abrupt and inevitable in his way. For the ques- tion is not whether out of this reconstructed Old Testa- ment we can get materials for sermons. As authorized teachers of the Churches, we believe that we have a reve- lation from Grod of His sovereign purpose of mercy to mankind. In this modem day, jealous to irrationality of every assertion of authority, we assert this stupendous claim, commanding all men everywhere to repent. And that claim has been vindicated on two grounds : the cease- less creation of living Christians, and the broad base in history on which revelation rests. Whatever undermines that historic base, then, weakens revelation, and takes something from the authority with which we can speak in the name of God to men." 82 "MODERN CRITICISM." Are such forcible and scriptural deliverances as these, by able, learned and godly divines, life-long students of the Old Testament, to bo flippantly contemned, on the ground that they are the ideas of " Traditionalists " 1 Dr. John McEwan, whom I have quoted above, perti- nently says : " Tradition is a good word when rightly applied. When employed by our Lord it was rightly applied, for it was applied to men who ' made void the word of God by their tradition.' I think it might fairly be used in the case of many of the critical schcx)l who, not intentionally but truly, are making the word of Christ and His apostles void through their so-called historical criticism of the Old Testament. . . . But when the word Traditionalist is applied to men, whose principle has been from the dawn of spiritual life in early youth, on through manhood to mature age, to test every statement, by whomsoever made, bearing on Scripture, by the Scriptures alone— such a designation is nothing short of a gross insult." It is not the right of free biblical criticism that is ques- tioned ; but the building on conjectural theories, where attested truths are required. I disclaim being •' a timid alarmist." But I venture to say, that religious teachers, who know the degree in which professors in church col- leges in Europe and America are drifting toward Ration- alist naturalism, and yet do not realize that we are passing through a very grave crisis, have failed to grasp the signi- ficance of the facts, and in eflFect are saying, " Peace, peace, when there is no peace," * *The chief objection* to the tiieories of the rationaliHtic hit;her criti<'i«m and their tandency are pretty fully discuNHed in my little volume, " The Bible under Higher Criticism," p. r ■r^r»<#-«X i WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR Jegng the Messiah, in JPiophecy and Fnl- fliment. A Review and Refutation of the Negative Theory of Mewianio Prophecy fo 50 The Bible Vnder Higher Criticism. A Review of current Rationalist Theories 60 Essays for the Times. Studies of Eminent Men and Important Li ving Questions 75 Brief Outlines of Christian Doctrine .... o 16 Songs of Life. A Collection of Original Poems . . 75 Christ's Witnessi^s in the 60 The DcYclopment of Doctrine o 10 High Church Pretensions) or, Methodism and the Church of England q jq Broken Reeds. The Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren q jq WaymarkS) or, Counsel and Encouragement to Penitent Seekers of Salvation q 03 Misleading Lights 03 LiTing Epistles. World WILLIAM BRIGGS HIBLISHER 20-83 Richmond St. West - • TORONTO }|»^«^>«#-