«>. ^^ \:^. SJ>, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. ^ ^^, 4. t/j f/- 1.0 IS I.I 1.25 "'Ha |5 1""=^ 2.5 11= U IIIIII.6 Pk)tDgraphic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ 4: I^V^"" '^ ^^'- ^^^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVi/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Cansat^n Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques Ths Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibUographically Uinique. which may alter any of the images in ths reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method cf filming, are checked below. r~l( Coloured covers/ I ^1 Couverture de couleur I — I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicula r~n Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou Roira) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illi'strations en couleur D Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents y/ y. n D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou da la distorsion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added aunng restoration may appear within the text. Whenevef psssible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoiities lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le ^exte, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmtos. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a AtA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuv^nt modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. F~l Coloured pages/ n Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages odcoiories, tachoties ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ditachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materit Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I — I Pages damaged/ r~^ Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ n'V'Showthrough/ Lrll nn Quality of print varies/ r~~| Includes supplementary material/ rn Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pa^es totalement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d 'errata, une pelure, etc., ont hxh filmies k nouveau de faqon ^ obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimi au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X XX V 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th0 copy filmed hers has been raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Archives of Ontario Toronto Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract spaciftcations. Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illuatrated imprea- sion, and anding on the laat page with « printed or illustrated impression. L'axemplaire film^ fut reproduit grice i la ginirositi de: Archives of Ontario Toronto Lea Imagaa suivantas ont 6ti reproduitas avec la piua grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nettet* de raxemplaira filmi, at an conformity avec las conditions du contrat de filmaga. Lea axemplaire9 originaux dont la couvertura an papier est imprimAe sont filmAs an commanpant par le premier plat at 9n tarminant soit par la darniAre paga qui comporta une amprainta d'impraasion ou d'iilustration. soit par la second plet. seion la cas. Tous las autras sxamplairas originaux sont filmto an commandant par la premiere paga qui comporta une amprainta dimpraasion ou d'illuatration at an tarminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Tlie laat recorded frama on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^^(meening "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol T (meening "END"), whichever appliaa. Un dea symbolas suiv-:ints apparaitra sur la damlAre imagn da chaque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols — *> signifie "A SUiVRE ". ie symbols V signifie "FIN". Mapa, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Thoae too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to right and top to bottom, as many framea aa required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, plamches. tableaux, ate, peuvant dtre filmte i dea taux da rMuction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est fiimA A partir de Tangle sup4rieur gauche, de gauche i droite. et do haut en baa, an prenant le nombre d'Images n^cessaire. Las diagrammes suivantn illuatrent la m^thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 / M i The Higher Critieism ; ; OR, '^-*<'., > MODERN CRITICAL THEORIES AS TO i..' yie Origin and Contents of the Literature and Religion found in the Holy Scriptures. (Being a Paper read before the Braiitford Ministerial Alliance.) BY REV. F. R. BEATTIE, Ph.D., D.D., Pantor, First Presbyterian Church, Brantford ; and Anther of "An Examina- tion of the Utilitarian Theory of Morals," and "The Methods of Theism." Published by request of the Ministerial Alliance, Brantford, Ontario. TORONTO : I W1LL1A.M HRIGGS. 7^ & »" ^ING STREET EAST. : C. W. Coaxes, Montreal, Que. S. F. Huestis, Halifax, N.S. | 1888. i o ,,.„„ ,,;,„,,,i,,;:,i;,,,;:,.,,..n.,;l.|.,l,ili:l:,l.'ini.Jn|iill!l,i|.iliiliiliJ^iliil.l..li:«^:i:'l''I^I"'^'l"^^ r^ 4t •X' //f' wae^oM^W^ Z:^c^ f^i/ii^/u.^^ ^^^U^C^lJ^ ^Cccc^t^/U/O/i^ THE HIGHER CRITICISM; OR, MODERN CRITICAL THEORIES. AS TO The Origin and Contents of the Literature and Religion found in the Holy Scriptures. (Being a Paper read before the Brantford Ministerial Alliance.) BY REV. F. R. BEATTIE, Ph.D., D.D., Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Brantford; and Author of "An Examina- tion of the Utilitarian Theory of Morals," and ''The Methods of Theism." Published by request of the Ministerial Alliance, Brantford, Ontario. TORONTO : WILLIAM BRIGGS, 78 & 80 KING STREET EAST. C. W. CoATES, Montreal, Que. S. F, Huestis, Halifax, N.S. 1888. i4 PREFATORY NOTE. THIS Essay was read before the Brantford Ministerial Alliance, at one of its monthly meetings. It was received with favor by the Alliance, and is now published at its request. It was hurriedly prepared in the few spare hours that were available, amid the varied and pressing duties of the pastorate. It makes no claim to be in any way a complete treatment of the very important subject with which it deals. Readers who are familiar with recent discussions in this field of Biblical study, will find in it nothing new. It is hoped, however, that others, who have not read much in this line of research, may find something of interest and profit in these pages. It will be a great satisfaction to the Author, if both classes of readers find in this paper anything to confirm careful, intelligent and conservative views regarding the questions discussed. It need scarcely be stated here that these questions are of immense importance at the present day. They IV PREFACE. are not confined to the study of the scholar, but have a place in much of the current magazine literature of the day. No minister of the Gospel can well afford to be ignorant of these critical theories ; and he should be able to estimate tlieir real import very carefully. If this little Essay, in its present form, gives to a wider circle of readers than it was first intended for, any aid in making this estimate, the author will be more than satisfied. F. R. BEATTIE. Brantford, Jan., 1888. THE HIGHER CRITICISM, TBLICAL studies have always possessed deep ^ interest for thoughtful minds. The sacred literature of the Holy Scriptures, in its origin, - „ contents ana purpose, has engaged more earnest and scholarly attention than any other litera- ture in the world. We see this interest and atten ion alike in Rabbinical, Patristic, Scholastic and Modern The questions most debated at the present day are critical rather than dogmatic in their nature. The discussions are literary rather than doctrinal ; historical rather than theological. Soon after the rise of the modern school of literary and historical criticism, less than a century ago, we find its methods applied to the Scriptures. The books of the Bible were subjected to rigid scrutiny, and the results in certain quarters have been startling. We find, for example, Kuenen, of Leyden, in the second edition of his Introduction, published in English in 1886, alluding to Wellhausens presentation of the Grafian hypothesis as ioUows : " In setting forth, in this treatise, for the first time its complete and systematic, critical justification, 1. am no longer advocating a heresy, but am expounding 6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. tho received view of European critical flcbolar.ship.'' This statement cannot but startle those who hold the orthodox views. If it be an idle boast, it is proper that we should know it. If it be a well-grounded fact the sooner we understand it the better. In Germany and Holland, it must be admitted, these radical theories do very generally prevail. Professor Curtiss, of Chicago, in a recent article, after givino- a list of those who hold radical and mediating views, goes on to say: "Lachmann, so far as we know, is the only Old Testament professor in a German university who still defends the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- teuch." This statement is, perhaps, substantially true. It is to be remarked, however, that while Delitzsch, of Leipzig, acknowledges himself, in a modified way, a supporter of the Grafian hypothesis, he does not accept all the consequences following from it. It may be added that Konig, of the same university, belongs to the conservative school of German critics. These radical views, specially those of Kuenen and Well- hausen, have been imported into Scotland by Professor Robertson Smith, and in a measure popularized in his writings. They cannot be said, however, to have really taken root in theological circles, either in Britain or on this continent. Still, they are set forth in vari- ous ways in our current theological literature; and some knowledge of these views, and of the manner in which they are supported, is of more than passing interest. An imperfect attempt to supply this in very brief compass will be made in this paper. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. • The subject before us lies in the wide and interest- in. field of sacred learning known as Bible Crmcsm or"lntroduction. Biblical Criticism n,ay be dehned as that branch of historical criticism which deals wth the books of Holy Scripture merely as ."t«"jy produ - tions. Under this very general pomt - "ew naturally divides itself into two great branches, rhese are usually termed Textual or ^7-. C'.t.c.sm and Historical or Higher Criticism A br.ef exph^nat on of each will enable us to mark off more clea.ly the topics of which we wish to treat. • „ „» Textual Criticism is that branch of the science of Biblical Criticism which undertakes to ;"7««*'!^^^^ ^"J settle the exact text of the various writings oi which the Holy Scriptures are composed. The exact text sought for is that which was originally written down by the authors of the various books. In seeking to discover this text, the various manuscripts of the Biblical writings are collected and diligently compared. The different readin.-s in these manuscripts are care- fully collated; aud the date of their P'-odu'^tion, the kind of letters found in them, and other things ar taken into account for the purpose ff getting ^^ nearly a.s possible at the original text 01 the Old and New Testaments. . Textual Criticism also studies the several versions and translations of the Scriptures, and compares these with the original languages in which they were Written. It also estimates the value of the numerous quotations of Scripture made in early and later reli- THE HIGHER CRITICISM. N il gious wiitings, in order to obtain additional informa- tion as to what was the actual text of the original manuscripts, in this department of the science, pains- taking and valuable work has been done by Scholz, Mill, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and many others. Higher Criticism takes for granted the results of Textual Criticism, and proceeds to enquire into the question of the origin, date, and authorship of the several writings. It thus lays its hands on the ques- tions of authenticity and genuineness in regard to the books of Scripture. The charac^.er of the several books as to truthfulness and authority is investigated, and their value estimated partly by literary and partly by subjective tests. The validity of \he alleged authorship of the different books is rigorously can- vassed, and the traditional views are by no means held to be authoritative. The age of the sacred writings is also explored carefully, so as to settle the date of their composition, or of their final editing, as accurately as possible. In addition to this, the Higher Criticism enquires particularly concerning the various sources from which the authors of the sacred writings obtained the materials for their literary productions, and it investi- gates critically the manifold features of style idiom and other characteristics of the several books of the Bible. This Criticism also scrutinizes the relio-ious history and institutions of the different peoples alluded to in the S(iripture narratives. In doing so, it deals \ THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 9 nforma- original e, pains- Scholz, les, and suits of nto the of the le ques- i to the several tigated, I partly alleged \y can- ns held tings is )f their tely as iquires which d the ivesti- idiom, of the ligious lluded i deals with a great variety of questions in philology, theo- iofry, and comparative religion. The task which the so-called Higher Critic thus undertakes is. to answer such questions as these :-Are the sacred writings so well attested that we can rely on the truthfulness of the statements made therein ? Are the authors of these writings candid aud trustworthy men well informed in regard to the matters of which they write ? Were the real authors the persons whose names stand connected with the several books ? What was the actual manner of the composition of the books in question ? What were the dates, places, and cir- cumstances of the writing of these books? Was the work of the reputed authors original composition, or reconstruction and editing of pre-existing materials ? Did the development of the ritual of the Jews take place in the manner described in the present order ot the books of the Bible, or must reconstruction be made in order to get the true view ? What was the precise relation of the monotheism of Judaism to the idolatry of surrounding nations ? Any writer, it is to be observed, who deals with these and all similar ques- tions, may be properly termed a Higher Critic In a general sense, therefore, he is a Higher Cri ic who discusses the questions above stated, and^ all other questions which, like these, lie beyond the simple text of Scripture. Recent critical controversies, however, have nar- rowed the meaning of the term Higher Criticism, and have considerably moditied the scope of its application, 10 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. i '. On this account it has also received certain new titles which, in a measure, indicate its present aims. It is often known now as the Advanced or Newer Criticism, and as the Historical Criticism. Taken together, those who deal with the subject in a certain way are known as the Critical School, or the Historico-Critical School of writers. In a general way, but with no great accuracy, they are also called the Advanced or Rationalistic Critics. A host of writers in Germany and Holland, and a few in Britain and America, repre- senting almost every possible shade of opinion, might be named here did space permit. It is the Higher Criticism, in the sense of the Newer or Historical Criticism, which we have specially to con- sider in this paper. The peculiarity of this Criticism consists not so much in simply discussing these ques- tions in a general way, as in dealing with them in a particular way, and under certain presuppositions. It is the method according to which these questions are treated, rather than the nature of the questions them- selves, which marks the chief difference between the newer or higher critics and the ordinary critics. The main purpose of this paper is to state and examine this method. This examination, let it be premised, can only be very general in its nature, for the field is vast and varied. There are, moreover, so many phases of opinion held by the Critics whose works we are to con- sider, that it is no easy task to cover the ground in- telligibly in the brief compass of such a paper as this, I \ THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 11 Thus we find those who may be termed Conserva- tive Critics, who believe in hastening slowly along the new lines recently marked ov.t. Here may be men- tioned Keil, Delitzsch, Sach, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Ranke. Kurtz. Davidson and Briggs. Then there are the Evangelical Critics, who hold ■ more or less firmly to the simplicity of the Gospel. As representatives here, Neander, Tholuck, Domer, Christlieb, Ebrard, Stier and Luthardt may be men- tioned. . , ■• ^ Ae third century aCSe^H^^ ''\''"" ''^''•' out inconsistencies and U. " '"''S^*' to point records. Ha critical!; examinldT f "''^ -' -^ Jews and of Mosaism Tnd Tu ?'; '^'■''"'■•>' of the Boole of Daniel, calling LqueSnJr^"'' "''"^ *'^« ship, and suggesting certl !. ffl u *'' ''"<^ ^"thor- "odeofthecLposUionofth/R'n ""'"^^ '^^ '<> 'he have, without the Chu" ch an a f ' '? ^"■'P'^^'-y -« g-ing hints of those :ts S "' '"^^"'^'^ ■-» have developed into a Inl '" "'°^''''» times Christian Church The nM ""u'"'"' "'"^'" "'« attention, and are far l^' l"' ^' '"^'^^'^ ^^mand Oelsus and Jmia^' ''''P^' *'^'*° the objections of 1/ f^ii ent. (ind Method. Movement. ^ Residts. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 13 'e was done ^ Scriptures- the literary 'ifcical study one of the Matter part hfc to point the sacred ^ry of the ' with the id author- as to the 'Phyry we »^ned man ern times ithin the demand ctions of In the latter part of the seventeenth century, we find Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher, and the father of modern Pantheism, entering upon some critical en- quiries in regard to the Scriptures. In general he called in question the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and he cast doubt upon the alleged historical antecedence of the Mosaic Law and Ritual as a definite code. In his treatise Tvmta- tus Theologico-Politicus, published in 1670, Spinoza was the first to ascribe the origin of the Pentateuch m Its present form to Ezra. Thus the formation of these books, usually regarded as the work of Moses IS due to Ezra, and they belong to post-exilian rather than pre-exiiian times. Spinoza thinks it likely that Ezra wrote the Book of Deuteronomy first, and after- wards composed the other four books. His examina- tion of the history and ritual points to the conclusion that the definite religious code of the Jews belongs to a later age than that of Moses and those with him It IS worth observing here the somewhat remarkable tact, that the great exponent of modern pantheism • also the art^or of that radical theory of Biblical Criticism which has recently produced so much con- troversy among scholars. This fact will become all the more interesting when we see, as we shall further on, that in recent times in Germany, modern idealistic pantheism, and radical views in regard to the ques- tions with which Higher Criticism deals, come again mto view side by side. Soon after Spinoza, though in many respects op- ff! 14 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. posed to him, we find Richard Simon, about the year 1678, who discarded the belief in the unity of the Pentateuch, and in its Mosaic authorship. At the same time, he allowed that there was perhaps a kind of legislative kernel of the Law which came from Moses Mature Mosaism, however, he.held, was a development only found complete in the days of Ezra and onwards. A tew >ears later, in 1685, Clericus unfolded views much more radical and startlino- in their nature than those of Simon. He maintainea that the Pentateuch and Mosaism belong to a much later date than that of the Exodus from Egypt ; and he was bold enough to venture the assertion that it owed its origin to some Jewish priest, who lived soon after the overthrow of the ten tribes, perhaps about the year 588 B.C. With these writers the movement seems to have really ex~ hausted itself for the time being, and for a while we do not hear much about it. During the eighteenth century these critical theories as well as the pantheism of Spinoza, were generally rejected. The attacks made upon the Christian faith during this century were philosophical rather than critical in their nature. Almost the only writer amon^ the English Deists who raised questions of a critical or literary nature was Collins, about the beginninc. of the eighteenth century ; and in Germany the bec^innina of the movement belongs to the close of the century Colhns examines prophecy, ...d seeks to show that Christianity rests on misinterpretations of Jewish pro- phecy by the Apostles of our Lord. His work is by i ^ i ^ i i [ X THE HIGHER CRITIC 3M. 15 it the year ity of the Lt the same a kind of 'om Moses, velopment I onwards. led views iture than *entateuch than that Id enough n to some rthrow of C. With really ex- while we [ theories, generally iian faith ber than 3r among I critical inning of eginning century, low that /ish pro- :k is by no means profound, and yet it is of historic interest in this sketch. When, however, the idealistic pantheism of Hegel was popularized in Germany by Lessing and Goethe, about the close of the last century, we observe that attempts were made, at iirst in a timid and unscientific way, to reproduce the Esdrine or post-exilian theory of the origin of the Pentateuch. These radical opinions began to crystallize into definite form about the begin- ning of the present century, and in the hands of pro- fessedly Christian scholars. In the year 1806, De Wette set forth the view that we must look to the time of Isaiah, in the eighth cen- tury before Christ and a short time before the Cap- tivity, for the origin of Deuteronomy. For the other books of the Pentateuch and for the complete Mosaic system a later date, he said, must be assigned. Some time later, about the year 1830, two writers, both holding to the truth of the philosophy of Hegel, pre- sented more radical and thorough-going views. Their names are Vatke and Leopold George. They asserted without any reserve that the whole legislation of the Pentateuch was post-Mosaic, and the major part of it also post-prophetic. They further held that Deuteronomy was written about the time of the Exile, and that it is the oldest, not the latest, book of the Law. The other four books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviti- cus and Numbers, were written after Deuteronomy, and subsequent to the Exile. These books, they fur- ther stated, are to be regarded as entirely mythical in their nature. 16 ini if im fHE HtOHKB CniriCISM. . ^?, ^^^ y«ar 1833, Ed. Reuss nt q* u «""lar view,,, only wifh Z^h ^''''''bourg, published details. He reproduced the " """"" «'«boration of E-a hypothe.is%„d !;,f 7*^'° ^T'' '" Spinoza's «>« theory of a later o'^^of^r ''-^""''^ outline to Mosaic legislation. In r"! ' ^ ^''"^^'^""h and the com™ence.nent of those theorL wh f '"" ^'^«"«t t"ne,, have developed into tT 7, "'' '" '^"'^ decent agher Criticism.' Hi "It; if T''^'^ -Extreme account. ^°'^'^ '« interesting on this So far as the O]^ T„ i 'hese Views adopted by trTm " """™^''- ^ ^-^ 'nany before the year Isis ^'7 ''''°''"-« '» ««- Penod, the Mosaic author.,hip ff .t^T' '"""" '^is the early ris. of mature Mosais.n t i^^"*'-'«"eh, and majonty of Biblical critic On ' / '^"'^"^"^ ^y 'he h«d on by the orthodox view ^/tr ^'^''^ "»^ "'-e cnt,cs was carried on with but Th/'" ""'''^ °^ ^^e ««p.ration of the Scriptures ' '""^^''''^ ^^^ ^e Jt soon became evident \ ""Ode of criticism might be aonTl? *'''' « «'■»"«' natives of the New iCstamenT' , ^ *"' «°«P«1 nar- f was reasoned that, thTtrad'? '°,*? "^^ °^ Christ. o Moses and the Pentateuch conUr'' "'^^^ '" ^^g^^d n question, the „e.t ten wa , ''"'°"''''^«''ied «'fcai method to Chri t anH, V^^'^ '^' ««>«« -g'y. in the year 1835, j StTblt fh ""r^^'^- ^""-d- rrerL-~ ----/e^ndTt-s-^^^^^^ SM, asbourgr, published •J'e elaboration of ''""^^ in Spinoza's efinite outline to nfcateuch and the ^^f the distinct n m quite recent ^ced or Extreme Testing on this icerned, we find 3ho]ars in Ger- ^es, durinor this ^entateuch, and iscarded by the ^ere and there 5 work of the ■egard for the iat a similar e Gospel nar- life of Christ. 'Ws in regard onably called y the same '^s. Accord- that Vatke, 'othesis, and ' 6"rst four !" his leben THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 17 Jesu. This IS in many respects a bold and remarkable book ana it produced an immense sensation in the world of theological learning. It soon called forth vigorous and able replies both from a dogmatic and historical standpoint. Perhaps the best of these are by JNeander and Dorner. No attempt need here be made to unfold at lencrth or to criticise in detail, the mythical hypothesis\y means of which Strauss undertook to explain the his- torical Christ and the Gospel narratives. It is vir- tually an application of Vatke's mythical views in regard to the origin of the Pentateuch to the Gospel narratives of the life of Christ-. It is also closely related on its philosophical side to the absolute ideal- ism or Idealistic pantheism of Hegel, and is really an outgrowth therefrom. According to Strauss, the real historical nature of Christ and the Gospels is rejected and botn are accounted for by the my thus, or mythical hypothesis, by means of which the origin and growth ot religious ideas and rites are to be explained. This iiypothesis assumes a general mythological tendency m mankind, and upon this, with little or nothing of historical fact to begin with, there is gradually de- veloped, along the line of a general Messianic expecta- tion, the Idea of the Christ of history, who is not so much a real objective fact or person, as an ideal crea- tion or personification. The Gospel narratives which contain the account of this development, rather than the history of an actual person, were not written, fetrauss says, for several hundred years after their I r la THE HIGHER CRITICISM. !" ■ i and It does not now exert much influence nor fi, .l' n>ert;rttrc:£:,T;;t fs? : %r "^- his rt r? rSe^U; T"r.^^^'^^. '''''"■'^"'' He is now a mum- in the develop- when Christian ool of criticism, Lder, elaborated »ry is based on consists in an ilosophy to the to Baur there ^ct tendencies; he former was ts Jewish and 5, a third ten- or mediatino- 'hurch,accord- :elianism. In id the rise of 5tic way. The is explained itten to sup- i their dates 'e supporters vritten from Tanged here line, Petrine THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 19 'i or Mediating, as the writers please. One would almost suppose that Baur and his followers had been present when Christia..ity arose, and had even been looking over the shoulders of the sacred writers when they were penning their narratives. Though the theories of Strauss and Baur are often classed together in a very general way, they are radically different. The root idea in the theory of Strauss is that of the mythus, while the main thing in the views of Baur is the intention of the author to write in support of a particular tendency or school. The former is an unconscious development, and the latter an intentional product. The vuews of Baur have been vigorously combated by writers in Britain and on the Continent, and they do not meet with much favor now. During the last twenty-five years there are three names on the continent of Europe, and one in Britain, that call for special notice in any historical sketch such as this. These four writers may be taken as the present day representatives of that Advanced School of Higher Criticism we are considering. The first of these is Graf, a pupil of Reuss, the Stras- bourg critic. In 18G0 he propounded what may be termed the negative critical theory of the Pentateuch. This theory is now generally known as "Graf's Theory," though some who followed him gave it much more definite form. As this theory will be stated more fully further on, we need not add anything more here. The second name is that of Kuenen, of Leyden. !l I di to THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Kuenen is nofc a German writer, as is often supposed by English readers, but a Hollander, and wrote in Dutch. He adopted the theory of Graf, and with great wealth of learning and boldness of speculation expounded it more fully. He is in some respects the' most unportant writer in the Modern Critical move- ment, and is certainly an able scholar. The third writer to be mentioned here is Wellhausen of Grcifswald. In 1878 he published his " History of Israel," in which he gave the Grafian hypothesis still greater completeness, and presented it in the form now generally current. This complete form is sometimes known as the Graf- Wellhausen Hypothesis of the I'entateuch and Mosaism. In general, this theory mamtams a post-prophetic origin of the Mosaic Law and a post-exilian composition of the Pentateuch He assigns the whole to the eighth or ninth cc. ; r- - B C Into the details of this theory we cannot now eater" I he fourth name we have to allude to beloncrs to i^ritam. Professor Robertson Smith was formerly a professor at Aberdeen, in the Free Church ColWe there; but ... w.s deprived of his chair some yea!^s ago by i,>, i/rec Church Assembly, after an able and pro ongea discussion. His articles in the Encyclopedia Britanmca on "The Bible," and on "The Hebrew Literature first attracted attention. Then his books one on |'The Pentateuch," another on " The Prophets' T Tnu^""! ^ ^^''^ ^^ "^^'^ ^^^ Testament in the Jewish Church," unfold his views at length. All that need be said concerning Smith's writings in this his- THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 21 :en supposed (itl wrote ill i, and with ■ speculation, respects the itical move- Wellhausen, " History of lothesis still he form now i sometimes esis of the this theory iiosaic Law, ateuch. He entury B.C. now f;nter. belongs to formerly a ch College some years n able and cyclopaedia le Hebrew his books, e Prophets lent in the All that n this his- torical sketch is that there is really very little that is nrw in them. All that Smith has done is to put into a f'ood En'dish dress the most matured form of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, at the same time en- deavoring to hold by the doctrine of inspiration. He shows abundant scholarship of a certain kind, but it is at best narrow and one-sided. This is very evident in his Encyclopsedia articles, where he professes to (rive an account of the Bible and Hebrew Literature, and in doing so seems to assume that the only writers whose opinions are worth much are those who hold, as he does, advanced views on all questions of criti- cism. This sketch would be incomplete without some reference to the result of these radical views, and a statement in regard to the position of criticism at the present day. No one need regret that these theories have been propounded, for they have been instru- mental in turning, during the last ten years, a degree of reverent and devout scholarship upon the Holy Scriptures that has perhaps never been surpassed. Judging' from reliable statements made in various connections, there is in Germany at the present time a very considerable reaction against the radical views of the Grafian School, and a tendency to return to con- servative ground in regard to the literary and critical questions round which the fires of criticism have been burning so fiercely for the past twenty-five years. Per- haps the greatest benefit has arisen among the Eng- lish-speaking people, for the replies made to Robertson .- f III III ■ III ", 22 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Smith, and the great attention which the controversy he opened up turned to the literature of Holy Scrip- tare have no .oubt been productive of much o-ood if they have caused some evil. Any one readrni? the replies of Professor Watts, of Belfast, and Professor Grreen, of P.-'nceton, cannot fail to be impressed with the force of what has just been stated. We need only add, that at the present time there seems to be a lull in the controversy which attracted so much attention a tew years ago. Section II. THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. It has already been stated, in defining the subject, that the mam feature of the later phases of the Hi^rher Criticism consists in its method of dealing with the questions it discusse,,. In order to understand this method, It IS necessary to know something of the principles or presuppositions upon which it proceeds. Our first task in this section is to state briefly what these presuppositions are. In the first place, the Higher Criticism is closely related to, if, indeed, it does not in Germany sprin' out of, the philosophy of Hegel. We cannot here enter upon an exposition of that philosophy, which is either so profound or so indefinite that scarcely any ■,>ii I'l ISM. ch the controversy ure of Holy Scrip- e of much good, if y one readinnr the ast, and Professor be impressed with 3d. We need only seems to be a lull so much attention THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 23 3F THE HIGHER ining the subject, ases of the Higher dealing with the understand this 3mething of the ^hich it proceeds, tate bi'ietly what ticism is closely Germany spring ^e cannot here osophy, which is liat scarcely any two men understand it in the same way. In general, Hegel's philosophy is an elaborate system of absolute idealism, which really becomes a kind of idealistic pantheism. It differs from the pantheism of Spinoza, in putting absolute reason in the place of the all-em- bracing substance. It also differs from the materialism of Spencer, in putting the idea of reason in the place of the unknowable, which lies behind phenomena. It is striking to observe how pantheism and the Higher Criticism seem to run side by side. We find them together in the hands of Spinoza. They re-appear together again in Germany, in the movement of the last fifty years there. It can scarcely be a matter of mere chance that Spinozism and Higher Criticism are together in the seventeenth century, and that Hegel- ianism and Higher Criticism again flourish together in the nineteenth century. There must be some natural connection between the two things, which makes the statement just presented a well-grounded one, that idealistic pantheism in some form is really the philo- sophy which underlies the radical critical methods of many recent German scholars. Hegel's Philosophy of Hisiory is simply an application of his philosophy to the evolution of the history of the human race. The method of the Higher Criticism, in its advanced and "radical forms, in like manner consists in applying the same philosophical principles to the facts of the record of a so-called divine revelation given us in the Sacred Scriptures. It is admitted that some writers, especially those il M! a 24> ^^^ HIGHEK CHlTlcrSM. i (M U-f; Brit • "^^^^uisM. named here- . ^ ^"'"'^^ ^nd manv ', ''""'^'^ .r- reverent ;„r„:" ^"^ '° -« '^ 1:1''""' sphere of ' , '^'^'"S' to which all f I • "^°'"*'on, or de- ; 'It m ^ilosophy which is Germany many of ^^eories ciro avowed 'y others could be '^«^' the influence ^^ Scriptures can ndness of HegeJ's stafcing the fact nt day declining .^^en in its Ger! ^^ it an attempt ^eat truth ; but fc truth with a th^s philosophy prance, we may ^ the Extreme ^ ^ay when a ^^«ni wiij take «o^' upon us. •^^^*- Criticism '^^^ty of the ^hich under- ^ution, or de- '^^^'ke in the ^ of human ccording to is as much oniy Hegel ^teriaJistic. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 25 Mebuhr, the historian, applied this principle to the history of the Roman Empire, and has given us the result in his remarkable History of Rome. Accordin^r to this mode of treatment hi.story becomes largely an ideal structure, rather than a faithful record of facts. It is in much the same way that the advanced critics proceed to deal with the Scripture narratives, and to explam the manner in which religious ideas and in- stitutions were unfolded among the Jews They mamtain that religious ideas, as well as national his tory, are developed according to mere natural laws of evolution ; and they assert that the cultus of the Jews as well as of other nations, arose and matured in the' s»me purely naturalistic way. It is evident that the result of this view is to reduce religion in every form to pure naturalism ; and so we find the Hie'-tson Smith the loss of his chair in tt Ft^rp^'^f ^'^^''^''^ - deen. He strenuously ma nL , ,^""''^"''*Aher- and historical investijat rof'tt t^^^V'^^"^^'^^^ d.d not interfere i„ the iL^f °*./'''; higher Criticism inspiration of the sac d larrl '^ '^"^"'>' "^ 'he however, that thou.Hho fwt Wd'u ^-^ "^ •'": ^•^-'^• to be more orthodox and T ' •'P'"'"" «eek r5^et inspiration, yeUtsdoISnn!:™ ''""' ^'^ sistent and lo-rica] in th. ^^"y '"^<' »« con- that, if the phiChyo tie c'" r'""" '' ^-™^ ^'-^ movcnent be adopt^ re 1 '"'"''^' ''^'^^"-- ^^ this i-.and there can^bl no p^^ TT "'^^^ "''^"-'- 'n general, or for the mSado , . ' ^"Pernatural ticular. Moreover if 11? '"'^P^'-atioM in par- - it were, fast and iLrS tSi ^-'T *° ^^^- chronological order of thl.f . '"^'°"<=a' facts, and - ■•" the Sciptures, and ;: rrr'^^^' -- 'before presuppositions held then U ^ *"*'' °^ <='^''tain -hie to believe that these sir' ''"" *° '^'^ "»P°«- at these Scnptures are infallible and :sM.. "^Iv, we find the K"enen, rejecting e inspired. They ^er in no material or the History of treat them in the -me. not a few of the le of inspiration Robertson Smith ^hich resulted in College at Aber- lat the Jiterary Cigher Criticism > validity of the is to be feared, ^is opinion seek '^an those who fiey are as con- it seems dear headers in this mere natural- 3 supernatural ration in par- ^ree to play, 'cal facts, and ^ come before se of certain to be impos- nfallible and THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 27 authoritative. Reconstruction, such as the critics pro- pose, of the literature and worship of the Bible accord- ing to subjective opinions, must destroy its objective truth and authority. In the fourth place, the Advanced Higher Criticism pt'oeeeds upon the tacit assumption of a certain theory in regard to the origin and growth of religion. Not only does it hold to the evolutionary theory in regard to the religions of the world generally, but in respect to the religion of the Bible it likewise assumes that it proceeds naturally from a lower to a higher form. It was only by a slow natural movement that a definite monotheism was developed among the Jews, out of the generally prevailing polytheisui of the surrounding nations. Thus the early form of the Jewish religion was Jahvism, which only in after ages, when disaster came upon the nation about the time of the Captivity, became distinct monotheism. It was in connection with the latter that the mature form of the ritual and worship at a single sanctuary appeared in exilic and post-exilic times. This assumption certainly needs much more proof than has been adduced by the sup- porters of the views of the extreme Higher Critics. It also overlooks what seems to be the historical fact, that the national tendency among the Jews was to depart from the strict monotheism of the Decalogue, rather than to rise from rude polytheism to Jahvism, and from Jahvism up to decided monotheism. Having presented these four assumptions, we next proceed to unfold the method of the Higher Critics I f 28 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. more definitely. With these assumptions, which many of the Critics seem to regard as axioms, they undertake to set aside the historical nature of Mosaism, and to deny the traditional authorship of many of the books of Scripture. The real battle-ground is the Pentateuch and the Levitical Code, as it runs on through the Bible. If we understand their method of procedure here, we will have a good idea of what it is generally. They take for granted, in different forms, what is known as the " documentary hypothesis " of the books of Moses. By this hypothesis is meant that Moses, or whoever was the author of the Pentateuch, had be- fore him various older writings, and from these made a compilation. The names Jehovah and Elohim as applied to God have significance in this connection, as indicating different documents. Assuming the truth of this hypothesis, the Critics further proceed to show that the original Hebrew text has been retouched and revised by many successive writers or revisers, before it reached its final form. As this process of revising and re-editing the literature was in progress, the ritual was also becoming more and more elaborate, and the worship at one sanctuary instead of many became gradually more and more definitely settled, till the eighth century or so before Christ, when things were matured generally, and assumed their final form. The historical ^ooks are considered to be not very trustworthy records, and so some parts of the pro- phetical books are taken to be the earliest, and to o-ive Hi THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 29 hich many undertake 3Tn, and to the books J'entateuch rough the procedure generally. IS, what is the books lat Moses, h, had be- hese made Elohim as onnection, rhe Critics brew text successive nal form, literature ing more sanctuary md more so before ally, and not very the pro- id to give the key-note to the rest. Ezekicl comes into promi- "'r wording out their theories the Critics adduce various U^guistic and philological facts. They allude to features of literary style and the use of certam peculiar words, which go to show that the Pentateuch was of a later date than the time of Moses. Imn.ense labor and a good deal of conjecture appears in their work alonjx this line. Various supposed omissions, repetitions, seeming contradictions and anachronisu.s in *e vanous books of Scripture are pointed out, and inferences favorable Z the peculiar views of the Advanced Critics are drawn therefrom. „ . „ _ It may be added, that much is made of the reform under Josiah, of the work of Ezra in connection with thTrestorati^n from Babylon, and of the prophecy of Ezekiel, especially by comparing the --askable — described in the closing chapters with the Levi ca Code of the Pentateuch. In every ca^e an effort is „"aTe to secure evidence in favor of what really seem to be opinions formed beforehand, rather than to reach conclusions based on the evidence. In general, it maybe further stated, that so far a the history of the Jews and their religious institutions contned, the Advanced Critics hold that «on was at tirst in a semi-heathen ^'f'^'^^^^^f'l^'jX ritual and sacrificial sy.stem. As to the God really worshipped by the ^^f^Z^U;;^''J^ held that He was a kind ot tribal aeity '■^ttwi^^e^B^m^ia 111 30 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Jahve. This people gradually entered Canaan, and obtained a supremacy there ; and, after a time, more elaborate ritual and sacrifices are developed by the people. As time passes on, the form of worship and the Ceremonial Law is developed still more fully by self-seeking priests. These priests proceed to compile the historical books, and these books consist of a strange mixture of historical truth, of myth, and of legend. In this way the Levitical Code was developed, and the Pentateuch compiled by the priests who lived durmg and after the exile. Graf, Knenen and Well- hausen applied this method to the Old Testament and Strauss and Baur, with still greater irreverence, ap- plied It to the New Testament, and the life of Christ in particular. The " Grafian hypothesis " regards the prophets in a purely natural way as the creators of the Jehovah of Israel ; and the " tendency theory " of Baur makes the Church the creator of the Jesus Christ of history. The general results of this method of treating the Sacred Scriptures cannot be very fully or clearly stated in the compass of a few brief paragraphs. In the present summary we shall confine ourselves almost entirely to the Old Testament, which is really the battle-ground in this controversy. The Higher Criti- cism runs along two parallel lines upon this subject. The one relates to the sacred literature found in the books of the Bible, and the other refers to the Levitical ritual and the Mosaic legislation. In regard to both of these questions we cannot enter into detailed THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 31 discussions ; a statement of results, rather, can only be given. In rejrard to the Pentateuch, it is asserted generally that Deuteronomy is the book that was written at the earliest date. Of these books, Moses is the author of only from the tw^entieth to the twenty-third chapter of Exodus ; and, perhaps, of only the Ten Command- ments in Exodus. The import of even this admission, in relation to the views held by the Higher Critics concerning the early worship of the Jews being at several, rather than at one sanctuary, will be pointed out further on. At the death of Moses there was no other part of the Pentateuch save the portions just mentioned. In regard to the way in which these books came to assume their present form, opinions vary. With various modi- fications of view as to details, it is generally held that there are three or four distinct elements in these books. Thus we find Wellhausen making the follow- ing di\ ision : First, we have the history of the Jeho- vist; secondly, there is the law-book of the Deuterono- mist; and thirdly, the priester-codex, which consists of law and history blended together. The history of these sources is given in the follow- ing way. The " documentary hypothesis," it is to be observed, really underlies the explanation given. Then the Jehovist is a combination of two documents, the one known as Jehovistic, and the other as Elohistic, on account of the names of God found in each. These two sources may have passed through a number of 82 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. redactions or revisions, before they were finally blended together into their present historical form. To the four books thus produced by the Jehovist, the Deuteronoinist added the book bearing that name; and at the same time he al.^o revised the other books, making certain changes. Side by side with the blended work of the Jehovist and Deuteronomist, though inde- pendent of it, there appears another book, containing chiefly history and law, named the Priest's Code. In this the law was set forth in its historical framework. As to the dates of these various writings, it is held that the Jehovist wrote soon after the division of the kingdom into Judah and Israel ; the Deuteronomist did his work about the age of Josiah ; and the priester- codex did not appear till after the exile. Hence, the whole of the sacred literature contained in the Old Testament came into existence between five and eight hundred years before Christ. The Pentateuch is thus made about seven hundred years younger than we have been accustomed to rejxard it. The analysis of Robertson Smith is slightly dif- ferent, and may be very briefly sketched. According to his view, we have, first, a writer called the non-Levi- tical Elohist. He was partly author and partly compiler of the so-called popular or historical literature. He wrote before the eighth centur}^ B.C. Then followed the Deuteronomist, who v/rote about Josiah's time. He re-wrote the ancient ordinances of Israel. Then came a prophetical writer, who finally shaped the historical books after the fall of Jerusalem. Then there came ^JM THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 83 inally blended n. the Jehovist, ig that name ; other books, ih the blended though inde- >k, containing it's Code. In i\ framework, ngs, it is held [vision ot* the )euteronomist i the priester- !. Hence, the d in the Old ive and eight ateuch is thus riger than we slightly dif- i. According the non-Levi- artly compiler terature. He n followed the 1 's time. He . Then came the historical an there came finally a priestly scribe, who wrote what Smith calls the Levitico-Elohistic documents, embracing most of the Levitical Laws, and large parts of Exodus and Numbers. These latter parts were proV^ably completed by a writer and reviser who lived about the time of the exile or soon after. This analysis, though differing in some details from that of Wellhausen, agrees with it in maintaining a later date for the origin of the Pentateuch, and this is the chief thing in this con- troversy. Passing from the literature to the ritual and legal system found in the Pentateuch, the Higher Criticism holds in general that this system in its fully developed foim did not exist, and was not observed, before the exile. The Levitical system is subjected to a merciless criticism, with the view of establishing the position that Mosaism was not a revelation given at first in definite form to the people through one great Law- giver. Mosaism, it is argued, with its legal and sacri- ficial system, was rather an evolution slowly wrought out during successive ages in the hands of many per- sons ; and its mature form is to be found, not in the wilderness of Sinai, but about the time of the exile, and in the hands of Ezra and those associated with him, rather than in the hands of Moses. Accordincr to this view, it is assumed that the work of the Jehovist was composed before the Assyrian period of Jewish history ; that the Deuteronomist was connected with the reform in Josiah's reign, when we read of the book of the Law being found in the 3 84 THE HIOHEU CRITICISM. Temple ; and tliat the priests of a later ai^'e elaborated the Levitical Code into its latest form, as found in the first four books of the Pentateuch, some time after the Captivity. Space forbids us followinn^ this exposition further. In summing up the results of the method of the Higher Criticism, we may add that it completely inverts the order of events, both in regard to literature and ritual, with which the Church has always been more or less fanuliar. The traditional or ecclesiastical view has generally been that Moses, who lived about fifteen centuries before Christ, wrote, with a few trifling ex- ceptions, the whole of the Pentateuch ; and that the Law was ojiven in complete form at the becfinnincf of the Israelitish history, for the guidance of the people alike in civil and religious matters. The Critics, however, set all this aside, and tell us, with much confidence and great show of learning, that the Church has been wrong durinix all the atructing the problem to tit the solution we wish to have given, rather than finding the problem as it actually is, and seeking to solve it. The proper way to proceed here is, to look at the Scriptures as a record of facts or truths of various kinds, and to apply to them all the methods of honest and scholarly criti- cism at our command, so as to determine thereby what their nature is. If we find, as we believe we shall, that the Bible contains a true and faithful record of historical fact, and a presentation of profound truth of various kinds, these very features will go far to establish the fact of inspiration. In like manner, if we find the doctrine of Inspiration thus derived from the internal evidence which the truthfulness of the Scriptures supplies, necessary and adequate to account for the peculiar features of the Scripture record, the doctrine of Inspiration is further established, and the unique nature and peculiar authority of the Scriptures are emphasized. A third general consideration relates to the sound- ness of the procedure of the Higher Critics when tested by the current canons of historical criticism. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 41 The Higher Criticism professes to be exceedingly accurate and strictly scientific in its method ot* inves- tigation ; and it oi'ten indirectly accuses the criticism which does not accept its conclusions, of being loose and unscientific in the way it deals with the questions which come before it. It is worth while examining the higher critical methods, in order to see how their claims to great scientific accuracy will stand scrutiny. In doing so we shall state the generally admitted canons ot* historical criticism, and enquire how far these are observ^ed in the work of the Higher Critics. The first canon requires us to avoid all groundless assumptions. Any one who reads the works of the Higher Critics will be convinced that they abound in bold and groundless assumptions. These writers are far too ready to put the deductions of an obscure and doubtful philosophy in the place of reasonably reliable human testimony. They deal very largely in hypo- thesis, and seem to think that a series of perchances justifies their conclusions. We venture to affirm that there are no writings of the present age, professing to be scientific, that contain so much hypothesis and groundless assumption as those of Kuenen, Wellhausen and Smith. The second canon advises us to receive reputable human te4imo'-y with favor. In regard to this canon, we find that over and over again the testimony of one sacred writer to another, and the testimony of the early und later Christian and Jewish writers to the Scriptures is ignored, or set aside as of no value ; and " : !|i 42 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. the more opinions of the C"".'>s as to how matters might or should have come to , are put in its place with the cahnest presumption. If human testimony has not more value than they ascribe to it, then history in any proper sense is impossible. Jewish history is a myth ; Gentile confirmations of that history are of no value; and the line of historical testimony from Bible days down to the present is a mere ideal creation. Applying the same method to profane history, we utterly destroy it, and so we conclude that the Higher Critics are unscientific in their treatment of well- attested human testimony. The third canon reminds us that mere conjecture proves nothing. A dozen conjectures will not make one fact, and a score of uncertainties will not make one certainty. Now, we are convinced that our friends of the Higher Criticism make far too much of mere conjecture, and that they fail to adduce sufficient evi- dence to justify the conjectures they make. On almost every page of Wellhausen and Robertson Smith we find the expressions, '• altogether likely," " most pr -b- able," "it is reasonable to suppose," and other similar expressions; and then the matters to which these expressions relate are taken to be good evidence in support of their peculiar views. Any one writing the history of Greece or Rome after the same manner would be pronounced entirely unscientific and worth- less as a historian. Think of early British history written in this way ! The fourth canon directs us to go as nearly as pos- tkJ: HtGHER CRITICISM. 43 sible to the original sourcefi for the* evidence. We must not use second-hand evidence if we can o-et it first-hand; nor are we to stop at any particular age if we can ^o a generation or a century further back. It is here, perhaps, that the Higher Criticism appears weaker than anywhere else. Its supporters do not go back to the original sources of the literature and religious institutions of the Bible. They deal chiefly with the religion of the Jews as it existed in Judah and Israel about the eighth century B.C., when they find what they call its normal type. This normal type consists in a kind of semi-pagan idolatry, only imperfectly monotheistic, using images as a part of its cultus, and worshipping at many sanctuaries. This semi-pagan form of worship, they say, was evolved from still lower forms of religion, and in the time of Josiah and Ezra it was in process of those changes, which resulted in a higher and more definite form of monotheism. It would be far more reasonable and scientific to trace the stream back to its earliest source, and find out what the form of religion really was in the days of Abraham and Moses. The critics, however, render this task all the more difficult, because they assume that the record on these points is unhistorical ; but surely it is a fatal error to allow a mere assump- tion to bar the way to a solution of the problems we are dealing w'jh. This line of criticism evidently tells severely against the bold work of the Adv^anced Critics ; and it clearly appears that, with all their claims to scientific accu- 44 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. racy, they do not observe in any consistent way the laws whicli govern the enquiries of historical criticism in general. Their accusation of orthodox critics, that they are not scientific, is, therefore, an example of persons living in glass houses casting stones at others. The last general consideration we adduce has refer- ence to the origin of religion, and the evolution of reli- gious ideas generally. We cannot here go into the wide question of the origin of religion; but we are convinced that the assumptions on this question made by the Advanced Critics are destitute of any good foundation. Their view is that the growth of religious ideas among men consists in an evolution from a lower to a higher, by means of a purely naturalistic movement. This is held to be true regarding not only the great ethnic natural religions, but also concerning the religious ideas set forth in the Scripture narratives. They are all alike, and all natural. This view, we are convinced, is not borne out by the facts of the history of religion among men. These facts go to show, that wherever naturalism has been left to itself there has been an evolution of a certain kind, but not of the kind these critics require for their theories. The evolution has been downwards or back- wards, not upwards or forwards. We observe that men have gradually lost, age after age, definite mono- theistic ideas, and that they have become more and more degraded in religion and morals when left to themselves. It is true that the Bible gives the account THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 45 of a progressive development in religious ideas ; but it must not be forgotten that this upward growth is the result, not of natural evolution working from within by necessary law, or as the going forth of ab- solute reason, but of the overruling of a personal God who interposes, and whose interposition alone pro- duces progress tow^ards better things. Of few things are we more convinced than this, that so far ai reli- gious ideas and life are concerned, the direction of mere natural evolution is from the higher to the lower — from monotheism to polytheism ; and that all upward tendency and attainment is the result of the reality of the supernatural, and of divine interposition from without, which makes progress from the lower to higher possible. The Higher Critics, therefore, assume too much wdien they assume the truth of natural evolution in regard to the origin and growth of reli- gious ideas. In the second place, we come now to consider some of the special features of the methods and results of the Higher Criticism. These special features are so many and varied that only the merest outline of the various points can be given ; and they cannot be all even stated. In the first place, we have the uniform tradition of the Jewish and Christian Churches to the Mosaic origin of the Levitical Code, and to the Mosaic author- ship of the Pentateuch. This tradition is a fact of his- tory which cannot be done away with, and it likewise calls for an explanation. Is the explanation that this 46 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Milii :iliii M m tradition is a mere nnfoundod supposition the best that can be given ? Has the Church been under a con- stant delusion in regard to this matter ? Is not the so-called traditional explanation, which makes Moses the author of these early books of the Bible, the most natural and satisfactory one ? The Higher Critics, in any case, are bound to explain the uniform tradition of which we are now speaking. Mere denial here will not suffice, for we have the facts before us. The his- toric line of testimony is difficult of explanation on their theories. In the second place, later writings, such as those of Ezekiel, distinctly presuppose the Levitical Code. The remarkable vision described in the closing chapters is intelligible, and reasonably explained only on the supposition that there already existed a definite code and ritual such as we find in Leviticus and Deuter- onomy. The very differences between the vision of Ezekiel and the Code of Leviticus still further con- firm this view. The rebukes which Ezekiel adminis- ters have meaning only on the supposition that the Levitical Code was already known, and it was for violations of this that the rebukes are administered. Instead of finding in Ezekiel confirmation of the views of the Advanced Critics, we would discover therein much to justify the conclusion that the Levitical Code existed in connection with the first Temple, and that the Pentateuch must have been written long before Ezekiel. In the third place, the observance of circumcision THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 47 the best er a con- not the »s Moses ihe most ritics, in radition lere will rhe his- ition on ihose of le. The pters is on the ite code Deuter- sion of er con- :lminis- lat the vEifi for istered. J views therein -1 Code d that before icisio^ an