8MAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 ! I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 1^128 
 
 |5 ™^ 
 
 " lis iio 
 
 2.5 
 
 Wm 
 
 m 
 
 1.8 
 
 1-4 iiijii.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /2 
 
 % 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 y 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 WL <^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 Microfiche 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
 li'iMiilM - ■■ ^ ■- 
 
Technical Motes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of thi 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur 
 qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procu 
 d^fauts susceptibles de nuire d ia 
 reproduction sont not6s ci-dessou 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en cculour 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serrd (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 int^rieure) 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 □ 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 n 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes g^ographiques m 
 
 D 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
^ages appearing here are the best quality 
 ble considering the condition and legibility 
 > original copy and in keeping with the 
 ig contract specifications. 
 
 ist recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 in the symbol —►(meaning CONTINUED"), 
 » symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 
 IS. 
 
 riginal copy was borrowed from, and 
 I with, the kind consent of the following 
 ition: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 or plates too large to be entirely included 
 exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 l«ft hand corner, left to right and top to 
 n, as many frames as required. The 
 ing diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 Les images ouivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de I'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la der- 
 nldre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 lo symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 L'exemplaire film* fut raproduit grdce * la 
 g*n*ro8it* de I'dtablissement prdteur 
 suivant : 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour Stre 
 reproduites en un seul clich* sont filmdes d 
 partir de I'angle sup*rieure gauche, de gauche * 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'smages n*cessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la m*thode : 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
lb 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 AND 
 
 MODERN THOUGHT 
 
 Ibiober Ciiticism 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. W. D. ARMSTRONG, M.A, Ph.D. 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 VS^IIvLIAM BRIGOS 
 
 WESLF.:V liUII. DINGS. 
 
 J 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 '"T^HE following pages contain the second of two 
 -*- lectures on " The Christian Ministry and 
 Modern Thought," delivered at the Ahnnni Con- 
 ference of Knox College (1890). A number of 
 those who heard it desired its publication as a 
 short, clear statement of the problem of " Higher 
 Criticism." It was accordingly given to the press, 
 but as I have been since repeatedly urged to put it 
 in a more convenient and permanent form, it is 
 herewith sent to the public, with all its imperfec- 
 tions on its head, in the shape of a pamphlet. No 
 one will expect from it, therefore, what it does not 
 profess to be. It will not take the place of a wider 
 and minuter study of the subject, but if it prove 
 helpful to anyone perplexed in the mazes of this 
 burning question, I shall not regret the publicity 
 given to a production prepared for oral delivery 
 rather than the printed page. 
 
 W. D. A. 
 
HIGHER CRmCISM. 
 
 /^-CHRISTIANITY lias well-nigh absorbed all 
 V_^ that is of pliilosoj)hieal value in evolution.* 
 It at least takes the friendly help of this prin- 
 ciple to guide it in not a few of its inquiries and 
 perplexities. But there has appeared on the stage 
 another disturber of the theological peace, ani\ 
 very persistent and troublesome one. It is the 
 aspect of modern thought towards the Bible. 
 
 Higher Criticism is the battle cry of the theo- 
 logical war that is now upon us. No rest for the 
 theologian. It is well there should not be. He 
 might "stagnate in the weeds of sloth," if not 
 aroused by attacks upon his ancient towers. Con- 
 troversy has its evils— but better controversy far 
 than the peace of indifference. 
 
 Now, the course of the theological professor is 
 clear. It is his business to deal with these ques- 
 tions as they rise. But what shall the mere pastor 
 do ? I wish to speak from his standpoint He has 
 
 " Evohition was dealt with in a previous lecture. 
 
6 IIIOHLK t'IMTIClSM. 
 
 a (liffuivnt vocation and a (littbrciit au(]i('nc(\ an<l in 
 regard to such (juestions as modern BiMiciil criticism 
 lie is often perplexed as to what he shonld do. 
 
 The Christian minister pursning his ordinary 
 work may reason : " I shall not trouble myself or 
 my people about this great critical controversy. I 
 shall just bide my time, and when these great 
 scholars have finished their work and settled tiie 
 controversy, I shall step in and take the side that 
 wins as the right side." But what if neither side 
 should win a positive victory ? And what if the 
 wdiole subject should be sprung upon him in public, 
 and he have nothing to say or begin to talk igno- 
 rantly, and, as a teacher and a leader, with shame 
 he takes a lower seat in public esteem, his imluence 
 and the cause of religion wounded because — to use 
 a common phrase — he was "not up" in these things? 
 And what, again, if one of our professors should get 
 a little oti* the track and the whole mass of critical 
 quesvions be suddenly thrown into the General 
 Assembly ? Such a thing might happen any day. 
 It is not so long ago' since the temper and dis- 
 position of our Assembly was shown in regard to 
 this matter. Was our Assembly intelligently pre- 
 pared for a discussion that then seemed so immi- 
 nent ? I frankly avow for myself I do not think 
 it was. Well, what then ? Out of mental and 
 moral self-respect, out of regard for the exigencies 
 of pastoral life, and as a duty incumbent upon him 
 as a member of church courts, the Christian min- 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 7 
 
 i.st(3r sliould have a clear knowle(1ge of the many 
 points of the niodern Kiblical controversy. 
 
 Now it has become a sei'ious (lucstion, How 
 shall we ministers deal witli this subject in our 
 pulpits and pastoi-al work ? Some would tell us, 
 " Oh, preach the Gospe^ and never mention it." I 
 liold that this seemin^'ly o;ood policy is not wise. 
 The subject has left the study of the specialist. 
 Through the press and platform, even when the 
 pulpit is silent, it has come to the knowledge of 
 our ordinary churcli members. They think some- 
 thing is being done with the Bible behind their 
 backs. They will be glad to hear from us in some 
 way ..at it is. They will be glad to know that 
 they can still read their Bibles as the Word of God. 
 They will be glad to have a word given them to 
 reply to those who taunt them, " Where is now 
 your Bible ? " 
 
 Just at the time I was preparing this lecture, 
 there appeared in one of the papers of my city — 
 a paper that comes into more than one -half the 
 homes of my congregation — a leading article, 
 headed " Criticism of the Bible." It started out 
 by quoting from a distinguished Canon of the 
 English Church a statement that the increase of 
 scientific knowledge had deprived parts of the 
 Bible of the historical value that was generally 
 attributed to them by our forefathers. It then 
 referred to an article in the North American 
 Revieiv, by Goldwin Smith, in which that gentle- 
 
8 hicjIMEr criticism. 
 
 man in his own trenchant way speaks of the O 
 Testament as " the millstoi.(3 tied about the ne( 
 of Christianity." After referring to IngersoU ai 
 the Campbell case, the article insidiously sugges 
 the rejection of the Bible as a Divine revelatioi 
 advises preachers to preach the t(;achings of Chrij 
 which it defines as truth, love of humanity, neig 
 borliness, unselfishness, etc., and ends with a qu 
 tation from Ian Maclaren which the writer ev 
 dently did not understand. The aim of the who 
 article was to sap the foundations of the Bible ; 
 a supernatural revelation. There is not a past< 
 who could not give similar instances. I refer 
 this to show that if we pastors do not present 
 our people in a wise and truthful way the trer 
 of modern criticism and its probable effects, oi 
 people will get it from other sources in a fak 
 exaggerated and damaging aspect. 
 
 It will never do to have fears for the Bible, 
 has stood all assaults. It has gone through mar 
 fiery trials. It will go tlirough this. 
 
 It will not do, either, to meet argument by me 
 dogmatism. Who will say nay, if the crit 
 demands the Bible to be submitted to him like ar 
 other ancient book ? Who will say him nay, if 1 
 bring to bear upon it the widest scholarship ar 
 the keenest research in determining its authorsh 
 and literary merits ? We may object when we s< 
 a critic evidently start with the foregone conclusio 
 " it is like any other book," and seem bound, I 
 some process or otiier, to bring in a verdict to sui 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Someone has said that definition before discus- 
 sion is as necessary as diagnosis before prescription. 
 In this address 1 shall seek to dehne, and to define 
 in such a way as to make the subject clear as a 
 popular statement of the case. 
 
 So far as Higher Criticism is concerned I shall 
 not be expected to deal with every theory or with 
 any exhaustively. I intend to deal with results, 
 and with these results, as embodied in the theory 
 at present, the popular one with the critics — the 
 hypothesis of Graf, followed by Keunen, Well- 
 hausen, Robertson Smith, etc. 
 
 In a general way it may be stated that the 
 modern controversy centres in the cpiestion, How 
 shall we regard the history of the people of Israel ? 
 From what standpoint shall we view it ? The 
 controversy has been well styled " the battle of 
 the standpoints." 
 
 We shall briefly define the two standpoints : 
 (1) The traditional and (2) the critical. 
 
 ( 1 ) As we read our Old Testaments we saw, or at 
 least we thought we saw, a gradual development ui 
 God's dealing with the nation, llie Patriarchal, 
 the Law-giving, the Prophetical, all seemed to 
 follow one another in due course and proper order. 
 And mo'^e, we saw in it all a beautiful and neces- 
 sary preparation for Christ, the crown of all and 
 the summit of God's sfrace to sinninfj man. This 
 scheme of history seemed so consistent that though 
 read and studied through centuries by thousands 
 2 
 
10 HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of the keenest minds, no other \v{is thouglit of. 
 We accepted the Divine call to Abraliam as tlie 
 legitimate beginning. We followed with fascinated 
 delight the histories of the patriarchs. We went 
 down with Jacob and his sons to Egypt and 
 sojourned there. We followed witli wonder the 
 marvellous story of the exodus and the journeyings 
 in the desert. The thunders of Sinai were real to 
 us, and so was the legislation of Moses. We fol- 
 lowed the history of the concjuest of Canaan and 
 the settlement of the tribes, the sad story of the 
 declension and backsliding of Israel, the judges 
 raised up for their deliverance, the prophets sent 
 to rebuke, teach, exhort, encourage and guide. 
 We were carried away by the tragic story of the 
 captivity and return. And then, through the four 
 hundred years of silence, we looked on to Christ. 
 This we accepted as the outline of the history of 
 Israel, and, whether this scheme of history be true, 
 or whether it be, as the critics tell us, manipulated 
 history, it is unquestionably the theory of the 
 Bible writers themselves, the theory accepted by 
 Christ, the theory accepted by the apostles, the 
 theory accepted by the Cliurch almost without 
 suspicion until recently. This is the traditional 
 standpoint. 
 
 (2) Within this wonderful nineteenth century men 
 have risen up of unquestionable scholarship, and 
 many of them men of candor and character. They 
 say this theory of the history of Israel is all wrong. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 11 
 
 They submit the books to closest scrutiny, and from 
 them proceed to determine matters as to tlie (bites 
 and circumstances ot* their composition. Tliey find 
 dirterent documents in the Pentateuch, They 
 discern different codes which they assi^j^n to dif- 
 ferent dates, and these dates far apart. 1'liey pro- 
 ceed to frame a liistory from a new standpoint — the 
 naturalistic. These Hebrews, they say, were 
 simply wandering tribes who came up from the 
 desert and settled in the land of Canaan. They 
 brought witli them their God Jahaveh. As the 
 god Chemosh was to the Moabites, or JMelcom to 
 the Ammonites, so Jaliaveh wuh to the Hebrews. 
 They had their own traditions about their God 
 Jahaveh, and in course of time they assimilated 
 nuich from the religious customs and notions of the 
 Canaanitcs among whom they dwxdt. 
 
 As time went on these legends and myths became 
 to them history, and customs developed into laws. 
 
 In the eighth century before Christ, when, 
 according to the theory, we have the first authentic 
 writings, this people were still worshipping their 
 God with traditional rites. Then the Prophets 
 arose. Everything depends on the Prophets. They 
 brought about a wonderful change. They purified 
 the religious conceptions of worship, and brought in 
 the higher ideal of ethical monotheism. This new 
 ideal came in conflict with the national traditions, 
 and these were changed to fit into them. 
 
 Now comes in the process by which our Old 
 
12 HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Testament was brought into its present form. We 
 can see the task of the critic. By tlio analytic pro- 
 cess critics have disclosed three strata of writings 
 in the Pentateuch — the three codes. These after 
 being from time to time revised and re-edited were 
 skilfully combined in the form in which we now 
 have them. Their order as agreed upon to suit 
 the theory is : (1) Code of the Covenant. (2) Deu- 
 teronomic Code. (8) Levitical Code. The Code of 
 the Covenant has a basis of Mosaic tradition, but 
 could not have been composed before 850 ]1C. The 
 Deuteronomic (Jode was compiled in the days of 
 Josiah by some unknown author. It was the Book 
 of the Law presented to Josiah by Shaphan the 
 scri^ found by Helkiah in the Temple. The date 
 assigned to it is 621 B.C. It was simply ascribed 
 to Moses, they say, to give it greater sanction. The 
 Levitical Code was compiled in the days of the 
 Exile, and framed in the interest of the priesthood 
 and ritual. The date assigned to it is 444 B.C. 
 So then, according to this theory, instead of the 
 Law and the Prophets, we should have the Prophets 
 and the Law. Cut of the Prophets came the Law, 
 and the development of the Law gave the Levitical 
 Code. 
 
 From this standpoint Judges, Samuel, Kings are 
 remodelled history — pictures repainted to fit into 
 the prophetical or priestly standpoints. The 
 prophets used history as a vehicle for their own 
 ideas as preachers and reformers. Predictions are 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 m 
 
 ]»ut shrewd anticipcatioiis of events, accordinor to 
 tlieir idea of the providence of God. The Book of 
 Chronicles is looked upon with special suspicion as 
 history tiid<ered to sustain the priestly-Levitical 
 theory as to the setting- apart of tlie tribe of Levi. 
 The stories of the patriarchs are not veritable 
 history. Some of the critics at least see in them 
 only " free creations of unconscious art," " the fruit 
 of late Jewish fancy." 
 
 There are many modifications, but, without en- 
 terino- into the specific shades of view of ditlerent 
 men, I think I have fairly stated the general stand- 
 point of the Higher Criticism of the present day. 
 In outline the two theories are now before us. 
 
 Cautions, Comparisons, and Criticisms. 
 
 I am not ij^oiniif to Ixmst of extensive readiiiir in 
 critical literature, but I have read, and read care- 
 fully enough to satisfy my own niind as to the 
 spirit and conclusions of Higher Criticism. I con- 
 fess that modern critical productions are to myself 
 painful reading. My feeling is that if the tradi- 
 tional theory is a confusion and a mistake, if the 
 earliest books of the Bible are the latest and the 
 latest the earliest, if the facts of Bible history 
 which for generations have taught us Divine 
 truth more powerfully than words, are in a great 
 measure but legends or mythical end)odiments of 
 these truths, then the picture of God's dealing with 
 men in the Old Testament, a picture which genera- 
 
14 HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 tions liave gazed upon with deliglit and wonder, 
 is not liistoiy at all. However beautiful it i.^;, and 
 however much wo may admire .'ud reverence it, it 
 is not true. The development of the Old Testa- 
 ment is not a development of real life. It i." the 
 development of the stage — the men and women 
 merely players. 
 
 But, whilst I presume we all approach the sub- 
 ject with this feeling of pain and reluctance, it will 
 be riglitly expected from us as lovers of the truth 
 and as teachers of tlie truth that we keep our 
 minds frankly open to the truth, and that we avoid 
 as far as possible the blinding influences of pre- 
 judice, 
 
 Now, it would certainly be prejudice in us and 
 mental dishonesty to take sides agrinst the \'iews 
 of this modern analytical school without an ex- 
 amination of them. 
 
 It would be prejudice not to acknowledge the 
 blessing they have brought to the Church in im- 
 parting a fresh and living interest to the study of 
 the Bible, and in bringing new light to bear on its 
 interpretation. We can accept nmch that ti icy 
 have done without accepting their theory, a theory 
 which has been aptly described as " evolutionary 
 in its principles and revolutionary in its results." 
 
 It is not prejudice for us to hasten slowly — very 
 slowly ; and, although our Higher Critics may put 
 on grand airs and tell us their theory is now 
 established in the minds of all who are competent 
 
HIGHER ClUTIClSI.l. 15 
 
 to jud<;'C, to gmiit them nothing Turther than the 
 uUl Scotch verdict " Not proven." 
 
 It is not prejudice to hold Ijy tlie estabhshed 
 tlieory until it is disproven and displaced. 
 
 Even when they bring us facts that induce us to 
 modify our views on some points, we nmst not for- 
 get that a modification of the old differs widely 
 from the adoption of the new. If we hold to the 
 old, even with modifications, we may be dispara- 
 gingly called " traditionalists " ; but we need not 
 blush. 
 
 Are not many men to-day accepting the new 
 view traditionally, accepting it and j)roclaiming it 
 not because examined and found true, not because 
 it is supposed that great Hebraists competent to 
 judge have decided the matter beyond dispute ? 
 As Andrew Lang has finely said, " There are many 
 who disbelieve in authority, but do ])elieve in 
 authorities." 
 
 For myself I always watch suspiciously a spe- 
 cialist with a theory. 
 
 But here the mighty hand of the specialist is 
 raised, and waves us ordinary ministers off' the 
 ground altogether. We are told that none can 
 enter here but the specialist, the Hebraist, the 
 critic. They would have us believe that these men 
 by education and training have developed a kind 
 of supernatural sense for discen tig documents and 
 tracing fragments (^f literature, and that without 
 this our judgments are vain. 
 
IC TIIOHER CRITICISM. 
 
 I want to stand here with the rest of my hrethrcn 
 and I'ot'uHo to be so iiwijestically dismissed. We 
 cannot, it is true, al) he specialists in linguistics or 
 in " stylistics." We have not time for this; Imt we 
 may with moderate diligence learn enough to be 
 able to appreciate the argument of the specialist. 
 We may not be able to do what a Kuenen, a Well- 
 hausen, or a Robertson Smith has done in linguistic 
 and critical examination of (*ld Testament litera- 
 ture. To tliese men with their vast learning the 
 work they have gone through has been most 
 laborious, and the process of investigation tedious 
 and painful. We may not be able even to follow 
 them in all their minutiae But now that the results 
 of their great labors are before us, with moderate 
 learning and good sense I claim we can estimate 
 the value of these results ; but furtlier, and what is 
 of more importance, with all the facts before us I 
 think we can come to some conclusion as to the 
 validity of their underlying hypothesis. 
 
 And further still, not only we Christian ministers, 
 but the intelligent mend)ers of our churches must 
 come to a conclusion on this theory, for, is it not 
 evident, that whatever view prevails it nnist be one 
 that will commend itself to the good judgment of 
 all reflecting Christian people ? The critics disclaim 
 the judgment of the people on their work. I have 
 indicated a sense in which they are right in this. 
 But, if their Bible be one for specialists only to 
 interpret, and not to be put into the hands of the 
 connnon people, they take a leaf out of the Roman- 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 17 
 
 ist'H book in liolding tliat the laity cannot read and 
 interpret the Bil)le for themselves. 
 
 Now, I would like to put my tin<^er on the spot 
 where I think a real danger lurks in Higher 
 Criticism, 
 
 Truth should not be, and is not, in danger from 
 the Hiiiher Criticism that takes the literature of 
 the Old Testament as it stands and submits it to a 
 thorough -going literary analysis. This should and 
 must serve the interests of truth, and we uuist 
 never forget that the truth, whatever it is, will 
 yield a bett(^r moral result than any lie or any 
 error however sacred. 
 
 But there is danger to the truth when attempts 
 are made to use this analysis as a basis for a purely 
 naturalistic development of Bible history, with an 
 apparent determination to stretch the facts of the 
 Bible on the Procrustean bed of such a theory. It 
 is wonderful how even the fairest of the men who 
 hold this theory will say to us, " It is perfectly 
 clear," concerning some conclusions needful for 
 their theory, when the clearness is not apparent, 
 and will strike out a passage of Scripture as an 
 interpolation with but little reason if it stands in 
 the way of their theory. 
 
 It must be fully admitted that there arc diffi- 
 culties in the way of the usually accepted theory. 
 There always have been some apparent objections. 
 The critics have raised many more. These objec- 
 tions of tlie critics must be acknowledged and met 
 
J; 
 
 18 HIGHEH CRITICISM. 
 
 as far as p()}SHil)l(' ; sucli objections, for example, as 
 tlie following: The minute ritual in a desert legis- 
 lation ; the absence of any record of the observance 
 of the Mosaic law from th*' entrance into Canaan 
 to the times o'i the earlier kings ; the late date of a 
 central place of worship ; the anachronisms and 
 contradictions which they point out in the Old 
 Testament narratives ; variations and [)eculiariti(.'s 
 of style in books by the same reputed author. 
 
 But, whilst we acknowledge these difficulties, we 
 think that the difficulties besettini*' the modern 
 theory are very much greater. Some of these diffi- 
 culties and inconsistencies I shall proceed to point 
 i out, and state some reasons \A\y the new theory 
 
 j should not be substituted for the old. 
 
 5 1. We can press the naturalness .and simplicity 
 
 I of the traditional view as against a view of the 
 
 i Scriptures that is complex and dominated by a 
 
 theory, namely, the theory that the records were 
 framed for the purpose of establishing a priestly 
 code and consolidating priestly authority. 
 
 2. We want further light on the great literary 
 phenomenon of their composition according to the 
 critical theory ; — some explanation of how such a 
 vast mass of rewritten history and fabricated legis- 
 lation could be crowded into the period of the Exile. 
 The ingenuity of the modern school of critics is 
 • un(|uestionably very great, but it is nothing to the 
 
 ingenuity and marvellous inventiveness they ascribe 
 to the school of Ezra. 
 
H Kill Ell curncisM. 
 
 19 
 
 Take ji .simple point. Accordiiii,^ to the ciMties 
 perhaps a score ol* writers, or more, were eii^tineJ 
 ill briii^^int;' the Pentateiu-h and liistories into their 
 present shape. How comes it then that writers, 
 writing of times, say, eight luuKhvd years in the 
 past, make no mistakes in theii* descriptions oF 
 topograpJiy or of the ha])its and cnstoms of the 
 times of which tliey write ? It is a Hterary miracle. 
 
 3. Again, as against their supposition of the non- 
 literary character of the Mosaic age, wi' go to Tell- 
 ol-Amarna, and behold the bricks are there unto 
 this day that tell us of the wonderful literary 
 activity in Egypt bef(jre the exodus. Indeed, 
 arch.*X3ology is arraying a logic of facts that will 
 apparently tumble down very much of the fabric 
 erected on critical intuition. 
 
 Not only was Egypt, the land from which the 
 Israelites went out, a literary land, but there is 
 abundant evidence to show that this w^as true of 
 the land to which they went ; that reading and 
 writing were well known to the Canaanites ; that 
 Kirjath-Sepher, or Book Town, was no anach- 
 ronism. It was therefore (juite possible for Moses 
 to have written, in the main, what was ascribed to 
 him, and quite probable that he did have much 
 more to do with the composition of the Pentateuch 
 than even moderate critics contend for, and (piite 
 probable that the historic records date much farther 
 back than critics at present allow. 
 
 It does not seem to me to be common-sense to 
 
20 HTflHFn CllITICISM. 
 
 reduce the Ic^'islutiou of Moses to a few prinual 
 principleH and a Few covenant old illations. Moses 
 is altom'tlier too lai'<»:e a fimire to he ci'UsIhmI into 
 sncli a small spaei^ 
 
 The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateucli, in ;i 
 form hetter defined tlian h(>,retofore, will likely 
 stand the test of historic criticism, i^ut we sliould 
 have it clearly understood that we contend for the 
 Mosaic le<j;'islation rather than for the Mosaic 
 autliorship. These records have on them an 
 honest face, and we want good proof if tliey ai'e 
 charged with fraud. The I'eal point, however, to 
 he determined is this : Is the history true ^ 
 
 4. Ao-ain, W(^ can hrini.;: the two theories tom'ther 
 on connnon ground. We can test them as expla- 
 nations (*!' admitted facts, and ask which is the 
 better ? which is the more rational ? 
 
 '^riie critics a(hnit Hosea and Amos to be genuine 
 writings of their time — 750 B.C. At that time, 
 too, they acknowk'dged tlie existence of tlu^ Cove- 
 nant Co(h' ; the stories of EH jali and Elisha ; tlie 
 stories of the patriarchs; Judges and Sanmel (less 
 additions). 
 
 Now, these writings as literature have to be 
 accounted for. The critics, according to their 
 theory, have to expkain — and they have not done 
 it — how a non-literary people became in an in- 
 credibly short time a literary people. 
 
 The writings of these prophets are remarkable 
 productions of literature. The Book of Amos is, 
 
 !i 
 
 !! 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 21 
 
 according- to the vovlict of the In-st critics, in 
 choice Hebrew and in <'X(|uisit(' litcniry style. 
 WliJit ex[)l{in<ition can ha •^•iven — and at the sanu^ 
 tinu! ^"ive the writers fair-phiy — of the reli<;-ious 
 consciousness and of the literary attainments of 
 tliese writers ^ Surely there nnist have been lono- 
 antecedent literary culture and lonj^ reli<;'ious de- 
 velopincnit, else how could Amos so write ? and for 
 what readers ^ 
 
 There is nothini^^ moreover, in these earlier 
 pro[)hets to hint that they are the ori<;inators of 
 a new reliii'ious ideal or of ik^w reliirious customs. 
 
 Look at this little Book of Amos. In it you do 
 not find any su<^ti;'estion as of v., new reli»;fion sprin;^" 
 int( out of old traditions. His appeal is for the ohl 
 relit;;"ion a<;'ainst modern sins and new errors ; an 
 appeal to reli^^ious and moral ideas presumed to be 
 already grounded in the minds of his readers {e.g., 
 Is it not so, O house of Israel ? ii. 11 ) ; an appeal 
 to the fact of a line of prophets wlio had taught 
 and protested in the past. Surely Amos knew 
 where he got, and where Israel got, their religious 
 ideas, knew better than any critics iii the nine- 
 teenth century can tell him. 
 
 5. I would like further light on a few things. I 
 would like more light on the assumed fact that the 
 religion of Israel for centuries continued to be as 
 one of the other religions of the earth in a low, 
 animistic, unethical form, and then so rapidly 
 developed into the pure ethical monotheism of the 
 
22 HIGHER CRITICL . 
 
 proplietw. 1 would so like a little explanation of 
 this subtle process by which senii-heath(3nish Israel 
 absorbed heatlienish material from the nations 
 round a])Out, and transnmted it into a higher 
 spiritual religion. 
 
 I would like to know, further, how it comes 
 that both Deuteronomy and the Levitical Code 
 contain the laws that have reference to the desert 
 life. If these laws existed, where were they kept 
 during this long period ? If they did not exist, 
 how came they into codes written so long after ? 
 I should like to know how it happens that the 
 Deuteronomic Code which was, according to the 
 critics, introduced to centralize worship at the 
 temple, is so comparatively barren in ritual, the 
 thing most needed in the temple service, whilst 
 the Levitical Code drawn up during the Exile 
 when the temple lay in ruins is full to repletion 
 with ritualistic details. 
 
 I should like much more light than they give us 
 as to the source of the cer monial and the ritual. 
 I should like some explanation of this more clear 
 and consistent than " the codification of a praxis" 
 and " ihe programme of the priests." 
 
 (). I look at the great outstanding facts in the 
 sacred writings, the nation's testimony to its earlier 
 history ; the ethical monotheism throughout ; the 
 place of Moses and his legislation ; the prophets in 
 their work and national import, and I ask, can the 
 
 1 i 
 
 i; 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 23 
 
 critic deal lioiiestly witli tlie literature and do 
 historical justice to these ^ 
 
 For my part I think they fail sadly here. I 
 tidve then the admitted facts of history, and I find 
 the theory of the Biblical writeivs fits into its oen- 
 eral trend naturally ; the modern theory does not. 
 I take abidin(( effects that must be accounted for. 
 The Biblical theory accounts for them ; the modern 
 does not. I take the Jew with the Tahnud and 
 his traditions. The Bible theory accounts for him; 
 the modern does not. 
 
 * 
 
 I take the New Testament, Christ and His 
 teachings, the apostles and their teachings. The 
 Biblical theory harmonizes with them ; the modern 
 does not. 
 
 Now, with all these, to me apparently insuper- 
 able objections, and others I have not time to 
 mention, I see no other course than to reject the 
 new theory until it shows far better reasons than 
 it has shown for displacing the old. 
 
 But rejecting the theory does not preclude us 
 from assimilating nmch of the light critics have 
 tl own upon the Bible. 
 
 We may feel that if the laws are not by Moses, 
 the history ttocribing them to him is a fraud ; but, 
 if the laws are by Moses, we may allow revisions 
 and emendations, and still have veritable history. 
 Bishop Ellicott's view will cover the ground and 
 give a line of explanation that will meet many of 
 the difficulties : " The historical books as we have 
 
 
24 HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 them bear unmistakable marks of the work of 
 liaviiig passed tlirough tlie liaiids, not only of 
 earlier c 'iipilers, but of later editors and revisers, 
 numerous not(3s, arclueological and explantitory, 
 some obviously of an earlier and some of a later 
 date, being found in all the books, but particularly 
 in the more ancient." 
 
 It will be a long time yet before the last word is 
 spoken on the details of this subject. In the mean- 
 time let us be sure of this, that criticism cannot 
 destroy the abiding Word of God. The pow; : of 
 God has been in and with His Word in the .st. 
 The power is very manifest in the present <lay, and 
 will continue to the end. If new facts are brought 
 to light, let us honestly receive them and wisely 
 adjust our view of the Bible to the facts. 
 
 At present there is considerable chaos reigning in 
 Old Testament criticism, and the critics, whose 
 process is too largely subjective, are asking us to 
 build too nmch on their intuition, an intuition 
 which in the nature of the case is changeful. We 
 may rest assured that that view of the Bible will 
 finally be adopted which is histoi-ically true. 
 
 This modern view is not propagated by those 
 who hate the Word, but by many who at least pro- 
 fess to revere it. Still the religious element has 
 been left hitlierto too much in the background by 
 the critics. I feel that criticism is too scientifically 
 cold. We wait for some man of large erudition in 
 full sympathy w^ith the great throbbing heart of 
 
HKiHEll ClUTICISM. 25 
 
 tlio Bible, and liviiii-- in the stream of a wann 
 Christian life, to tell us the real meaning and value 
 of this threat movement. 
 
 In the meantime modern criticism is affecting 
 everything with which the Bible is specially identi- 
 fied, and in what remains of this lecture, I shall 
 proceed to indicate how it has affected (1) the 
 Doctrine of Inspiration, (2) Theology, (8) Compara- 
 tive Religion. 
 
 (1) Inspiration. 
 
 That the modern theory of Higher Criticism, as 
 well as the trend of all modern Biblical criticism, 
 sliouhl affect the doctrine of Inspiration, is to be 
 expected. It will not, however, as free thinkers 
 are fond of averring, do away with it altogether. 
 " Every Scripture is inspired of God, and is profit- 
 able for doctrine," etc., will stand. Some of the 
 critics speak as if their views would not affect the 
 doctrine of Inspiration at all, but when they speak 
 in this way we feel tempted to ask them to define 
 what they mean by inspiration. Indeed, the 
 Church is waiting for its teachers to speak a 
 strong, sure word on this question of the Inspi- 
 ration of the Bible. We would like so much a 
 definition that would cover all the facts of the 
 case. With the exception of those who have 
 adopted an extreme naturalistic theory of the 
 origin of the Bible, it is admitted by all that the 
 Scriptures are a divine-human product. " Holy 
 
 men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 3 
 
26 HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Holy Ghost." But to wliat extent were tliese li<^ly 
 men controlliMl \)y tlie ])ivine Spirit ? To vvh«at 
 extent was tlie trutli influenced by the human 
 medium throu^di which it passed ? This is the 
 crucial (juestion. Tliis is the <;'reat battle-ground 
 of debate to-day. As mi<;]it be expected modern 
 criticism emphasizes the human element, and cer- 
 tainly does not look with favor ui)on any theory of 
 inspiration that would pronounce the Scriptures 
 inerrant. The disposition to minimize the Divine 
 element in inspiration is mort^ dangerous to truth 
 than the disposition to nn'niniize the human, but 
 both extremes should be avoided. It is clear that 
 the true view must give to both elements their 
 proper weio-ht. 
 
 There is a theory of Inspiration once almost 
 universally held in our Church, and still revered, a 
 theory (juite recently brouoht prominently under 
 your notice by a Princeton professor (Prof. Warfield), 
 one of its most distinojuished a<lvocates. According 
 to this theory you ask the Scriptures themselves 
 how they are inspired, and they are interpreted as 
 answering in the words, " plenavy," "infallible," 
 " inerrant." When pressed by the (luestion, what 
 about the discrepancies and errors found in the 
 documents, the advocates of this theory reply, 
 " These are not so numerous as some allege. They 
 refer only to the viiniiiia and trivialities of Scrip- 
 ture. With fuller light and reference to the original 
 autographs they would vanish altogether." 
 " But," reply the advocates of another and freer 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 27 
 
 theory, one perliaps more in synipatliy with tlio 
 spii'it of modern criticism, "no living' man has seen 
 or is likely to see tliese auto^j^raphs. The aiito- 
 graplis are mychs. The oldest manuscript does 
 not date farther hack tlian the tenth century. 
 Further, your a priori theory of absolute inerrancy 
 and faultless perfection has led to wrong views of 
 the liible and to some stran<^e mistakes. Were 
 there not those who, holding that the Bible nuist 
 be perfect in every respect, contended that its 
 Greek nuist be pure Attic Greek ? God would 
 have used no other. But investigation soon proved 
 that it was not pure Attic Greek. Again, did tliis 
 theory not lead some men of great piety and learn- 
 ing (the Buxtorfs) to maintain that the Hebrew 
 vowel points were inspired ? And this view was 
 even incorporated in the Helvetic confession. But 
 the historic fact is that these points were inserted 
 at a comparatively late date. There are many 
 facts in the Bible which this theory camiot cover. 
 Be careful, therefore, you do not postulate a theory 
 that facts will compel you to disclaim. It is dan- 
 gerous to postulate necessary inerrancy in regard 
 to minor matters of history, science, etc. 
 
 These men, and they constitute perhaps the 
 majority of learned divines to-day, hold a theory of 
 inspiration giving more freedom to the human ele- 
 ment. The Divine inspiration and superintendence 
 do not extend to the point of securing inerrancy in 
 every particular. Or, as one of their number states 
 the position, they hold " inerrancy of revelation but 
 
28 HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 not inerrancy of inspiration." T am inclinlin<ij here 
 only those who with a(biiitttMl candor and piety 
 seek to maintain tlie J:>il)h' as tlie authoritative, 
 divinely-inspiied Word of God. 
 
 Thus over a<;*ainst tlie view that most of us wei'e 
 ^n-ounded in as students, the view of which Hod<^e 
 and Warfield are accepted as the modern cham- 
 pions, you liave this one held by German theo- 
 looians (evantjjelical), by most En^j^lish theolo<;ians, 
 by the Scotcli theolof^ians, Bruce, Dods, Davidson, 
 ])enny, Lindsay, etc., a view held by the reformers 
 Calvin and Luther, althouuh both sides claim these. 
 
 Time would not permit, nor would it be expected 
 that 1 sliould discuss in this lecture the merits of 
 these two theories. 
 
 But the ([uestion is, " What should be the posi- 
 tion of the Christian minister with regard to this 
 vexed question ^ Which view shall he hold ? " He 
 cannot hold both. But it is, I think, evident that 
 he nuist be allowed to hold either. To one man 
 the former view seems dangerous, intolerable, 
 impossible. To another the latter seems the giving 
 up of revelation altogether. It will be a(bnitted 
 by all that the trend of modern thought, the very 
 atmosphere of modern thinking, is favorable to the 
 freer view. Both views I presume nnist be 
 tolerated — are tolerated — within the Church. True 
 believers and good tliinkers may hold ditierent 
 views. Our Church does not define and demand 
 any particular view of inspiration. On one point 
 
iiinnKK CRITICISM. 20 
 
 only slie insists, .'in inspiration tluit will niaintain 
 the intc^'rity and ])ivine anllioi'ity of the Holy 
 Scriptures. The point to be carefully deterniined 
 is what a man must necessarily' hoM in oider 
 really to believe in an inspired, authoritative 
 revelation from (lod. 
 
 It may not be necessary bjr the minister to set 
 forth l)efore his pe()[)le various views of inspiration. 
 It seems to me that the wisest course to pursue is 
 to follow the lines of our article in the Confession 
 of Faith which expoinids no theory of inspii-ation, 
 but after declarin<^ that the Scriptures are " inspired 
 to be the rule of faith and life," proceeds to give 
 most cogent reasons for their authority. I conceive 
 our best service to the Bible will be rendered, not 
 in discussing theories of inspiration, but in setting 
 the Scriptures forward in their " incomparable 
 excellencies," so that they shall vindicate for them- 
 selves their inspiration and their Divine authorit}^ 
 
 The discussion is not completed. No definition 
 of inspiration has yet been given that relieves all 
 the dithculties of the case. The time for this is not 
 yet come, if it ever come. It is evident that it has 
 not pleased God to give us a canon of Scriptures so 
 defined and inspired that there shall be no difficulty 
 or dispute. Rather, it has pleased Him that from 
 time to time the Scriptures should be thrown into 
 the crucible of controversy that tliey may live more 
 fully in men's minds, and that the adhering dross 
 of human misconception may be purged away. The 
 
30 II Kill ER CUITICISM. 
 
 present brei'/es of ci'iticism will only blow awuy 
 the ehatt*, not the wheat. Let uh then keep hi'io-ht 
 jind clear hel'ore our peo[)le the pi'oofs of the divine 
 ori<^in of the Scriptures. Let us teach them as 
 revealing Godwin Christ Jesus. L(^t us so unfold 
 them that the manifest presence; of (Jod shall he 
 felt in them, and we shall havi; done our best both 
 to meet the wants of the in(iuirini»" doubters, and to 
 freshen the faith of believers who ha\e already 
 found in them s])irit, and light, and life. 
 
 (2) Theologv. 
 
 Modern criticism, as might be expected, is exert- 
 ing a considerable iniluence on the Theology of 
 to-day. We have no reason to fear that any 
 legitimate interpretation of tlie Bible will ever 
 seriously affect the great accepted doctrines of the 
 Church. 
 
 A change, however, is apparent. Dogmatic 
 Theology is being set in the background. Biblical 
 Theology is in the ascendant. It is receiving 
 attention from the highest minds. 
 
 Another fact of significance is that at present 
 the only recognized school of Theology in Germany 
 is the Ritschlian, which, while treating Scripture 
 from the critical standpoint, and looking especially 
 to the mind and teaching of Christ as the source 
 of doctrine, gives great prominence -to the Christian 
 consciousness, and professes to set aside all phi- 
 losophizing and scholasticism or systematizing in 
 theology. 
 
ilirniEIl CIIITKMSM. 3l 
 
 The o))jt'ction to tliis Tliool()<:;y may ho stated in 
 a siiifjflc s<'iitruc(\ By its priiieipK' of ostiiuatin;^^ 
 truth by the " vahie-jii<l«;iiic'nts " of Chi'istian con- 
 scionsiicHs, it <;ivt's play to a free and uiiecrtaiii 
 iiiterprt'tatioii of Scri))tur(', an interpretation tliat 
 fails to recot^nize the unifonnly acceptetl doctrines 
 of the Word as to the character of God, the nature 
 of sin, the divinity of Christ, the work of redemp- 
 tion ; and by attemptini;' to set aside all philoso- 
 phizino" it ioiiores a plain demand of human I'i'ason. 
 
 We hear nnich to-day of the decay of Do*^- 
 ma^ics. We are told that " Systematic Theolo<^y is 
 dead " Surely this is short-si^'hted. The great 
 sclent ia scicntiavum cannot die. In past forms 
 and in present forms it may have many defects. 
 Great truths are beinj*' thrown into the sun- 
 light. Changes of foi'm will take place. But 
 there is a grand time coming for the Systematic 
 Theologian. Criticism will have its day and cease 
 to reign. In the providence of God some great 
 theologic mind will be born in the Church who 
 will take a deeper, wider view than any heretofort:^ 
 who will relate the new to the old awiX harmonize 
 and revivify the whole. 
 
 (3) Comparative Reltgiox. 
 
 It is only in the briefest manner possible, and 
 therefore very imperfectly, that I can refer to 
 another important subject that I have indicated 
 as connected with my theme — the relation of 
 Modern Criticism to Comparative Religion. 
 
r 
 
 82 HIOFIEll CRITICISM. 
 
 '^rhe tendency here is to place the Christian 
 rcliprion on a Usvel with other relij^ions by tlie 
 a})plication of the principle of natural development. 
 The Bible must be placed on a level with other 
 sacred books. Christianity })ec()mes one of many 
 relisfions. The recent Parliament oi' llelijj^ions iias 
 done much to <;ive prominence to this subject. 
 No one will deny that great advantao;es must How 
 from the study of the religions of the world. It 
 tends to bring into pron\inence the universal 
 religious nature of man. It brings into clearer 
 light the world's need of the religion of Christ. 
 It helps us to a truer conception of what Chris- 
 tianity is. It brings us near to the lieart of hu- 
 manity in its great spiritual (juestionings, and stirs 
 up an intelligent missionary zeal. No theological 
 i , curriculum is complete that does not give promin- 
 
 I ence to this subject. But the Christian minister 
 
 i must exercise great judgment, must not be led 
 
 aside by illusions on this somev/hat fascinating 
 study, an(^ must see clearly the points at issue 
 when comparison * made between ethnic religions 
 and Christianit}, , between the Bible and other 
 sacred books. Christianity must not be asked to 
 take her seat as one of many religions. 
 
 We have had lectures in elegant terms setting 
 
 forth the praises of Hinduism. We have choice 
 
 i (quotations from the Eastern sacred books presented 
 
 to us with the query, Are not these as good as 
 
 your Bible ? I was once tempted by these quota- 
 
 in 
 
HlfJHER CUITICISM. 88 
 
 tionH to purchaae a sot of tho tranHlations of the 
 Sacred I^>()()ks of tiic East, Init was sorely disap- 
 pointed on finding tluit tlu^ <|UotationH made were 
 but a few <;rains of wheat out of lieaps of cludt' 
 and worse. One test then I would pi-o[)ose. Go 
 into a library and spend even two days Iookin<^ 
 throut;]r these Sacred J^ooks of the Kast, and 
 you will never aftei' think them worthy to be 
 named with the Bi])le — and their worst parts 
 are not translated. I believe in this comparative 
 study of relio^ions ; but I believe Cliristianity 
 is the on(i absolute, supreme, universal religion, 
 and my feebng is that the man who will con- 
 sent to put Christianity on a level with other 
 religions, even in thought, has dethroned and 
 degraded her. Christianity in its very spirit is 
 charity. But liere she must be intolerant. Christ 
 is not to sit side by side with Buddha or any other 
 religious reformer. For Him the place is supre- 
 macy. Is Jesus Christ Divine ^ Is He the only 
 bem)tten Son of God ? Is He the one Saviour of 
 the world ? Is the religion He founded the one 
 true religion ^ Or, is He one of many Saviours ? 
 and Christianity one of many tolerated religions ? 
 I ask this (question simply because it indicates, it 
 seems to me, where only We can stand as Chris- 
 tians, and warn us against a false liberalism. 
 
t\i nujuKU CRtTir'rs>f. 
 
 CONCLUDINCJ C()UNSEI.S. 
 
 In conclusion, I coiiio hjick U, •)ur r('sponsil)lo 
 ])oyition an Christian niinistcrs in relation to the 
 niod(!rn thou<^lit which I have indicated as 
 assurtMlly ])ernieatinf!j the coniuiunities ii\ the 
 midst of which we preach. 
 
 Permit nie to HU^^'est tlu; following" counsels: 
 
 1. 1'he Christian minister should be a watchman, 
 wide-awake to discern the thinkin^-s and (juestion- 
 in^s of tnose with whom he deals, lie may take it 
 for gi'anted that whatever is affecting the com- 
 munity in <i;;eneral is atfectini^ his own people, 
 whether it he discussions on the Bi])le or on Evolu- 
 tion, on Education or Socialism, on Christian 
 Science or Sinless Fei-fection. It would he a 
 revelation to most of us ministers if we knew 
 exactly what our people did think about such 
 things. Satan, at all events, is very wary, and 
 seeks to turn the thought that is agitating men's 
 minds to his own advantage. 
 
 From his watch-tower the minister looks forth 
 
 and warns against the coming enemy — not only 
 
 r warns, but organizes forcey to resist and overcome. 
 
 The enemies of religion to-day are not persecution, 
 oppression, fire, and sword, but the subtle enemies 
 of the brain that beguile and tempt the soul from 
 Christ and truth. The Christian minister cannot 
 sleep and dream. His mind must be alert, watch- 
 
liKUIEH CUITICISM. 83 
 
 fill, adaptive. If any cn-or arise lie must promptly, 
 wisely, M[)ply the antidote of spiritual truth. 
 
 Tin; truth as it is in Jesus has in liself all that is 
 needed I'oi* its dereiKH! a^'ainst erior; hut let this 
 truth l)C aimed straight at the tar^'ct. Its power is 
 laro'ely lost by indefinite, promiscuous, aindess 
 firincj^. 
 
 2. The Chi'istian minister should ^"ive to tho 
 relin-ious (|Uestions that are the li\ ini^', hurnin*^ 
 (piestions of the day as ftdr (ind honest invediga- 
 tioii as he can. In this way he will not he taken 
 unawares. He will not take sides ii^noraiitly, and 
 ho will he able to help puz/led in(piirers. 
 
 If the busy pastor should say, " I have no tim(5 
 to read up these subjects," we answer that it is too 
 true that the minister has not time to do all tlie 
 thiuf^s he would. But if on his study table, alon*;;;- 
 side of the Bible, there lies a ^ood solid book on 
 one of these living* (questions, and he take it up at 
 odd half-hours practically wasted on ephemeral 
 literature, he wnll be surprised how nuich he can 
 do, and yet not invade the time set apart for pulpit 
 or pastoral duty. 
 
 3. The Christian minister should be conservative 
 towavch old beliefs, hut tuithout prejudice towards 
 that which is new. 
 
 Let me define the kind of conservatism that 
 should be prized and cultivated. 
 
 The conservatism desiderated is a conservatism 
 born, not of ignorance, nor of obstinacy, not of 
 
36 HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Helf-interost, nor of ungrounded prejudice, but 
 born of profound reverence for tlie great truths 
 with wliich we detd ; a conservatism into which 
 many of us liave been trained in college, as students 
 of the oracles of God and of theology ; a conservat- 
 ism that gladly recognizes itself the honored and 
 grateful heir of all the knowledge of ages past ; a 
 conservatism that is almost the necessary attitude 
 of men who feel their responsibility to God and to 
 the Oil arch as teachers and defenders of sacred 
 truth ; a conservatism that, strong in its love for 
 and faith in the truth, will prove all things, and, 
 whilst holding fast that which is good, will coura- 
 geously cast the bad away ; a conservatism at once 
 eager for genuine progress, patient in research, 
 sound in judgment, firm in conviction, and unfalter- 
 ingly loyal to truth, wherever it may lead. 
 
 4. The Christian minister should exercise a wise 
 toleration in regard to questions where a difference 
 of view is possible among men equally learned and 
 good. The argument advanced in my lecture, in 
 reference to the two great views of inspiration held 
 by respected teachers within our Church, is a plea 
 for such toleration, and "Hustrates what I mean. 
 
 Let there be no mistake as to what we do mean 
 by toleration. There is a toleration to be execrated 
 as disloyalty to truth, and there is a toleration to be 
 extolled as the embodiment of " holding the truth 
 in love." Toleration is not an easy-going indiffer- 
 ence that refuses to go to an extreme on any point. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 37 
 
 Truth is not, as some seem to think, the golden 
 mean between two extremes. It may be one 
 extreme or the other. 
 
 Toleration is not a lack of firm an<l Formulated 
 conviction. Nay, I liold that the mind that is 
 honestly and independently convinced is the very 
 mind that will allow the possibility that other 
 minds may be honestly convinced in a different 
 view. 
 
 Furthermore, a true toleration will be wise 
 enough not to load down faith with unne'cessary 
 details, or to blend the essential and the unessential 
 in the same fate. 
 
 5. The Christian minister should cherish a faith 
 in Divine truth that is absolutely fearlesc Magna 
 est Veritas, et lyrevalebit. The faith that will not 
 face inquiry, yea, the faith that will not challenge 
 inquiry, is not true Protestant faith — not Presby- 
 terian, anyway. 
 
 These stiff' breezes of criticism that are blowing 
 over the Bible, over old and cherished theories and 
 interpretations, will not alarm true faith. Some 
 harm may come. Weak faith will be sorely tried, 
 but the end will be good. Chaff will be blown 
 away. The wheat will remain, all the brighter 
 and cleaner for the process. Therefore let these 
 breezes blow on until their work is done. 
 
 6. The Christian minister should seek to create 
 and maintain an atmosphere of public opinion in 
 which faith in Jesus Christ and in the Gospel veri- 
 
38 HIGHEU CRITICISM. 
 
 ties we preach will be easy. Atmospheres hostile 
 to faith are prevalent. The study of " psychologi- 
 cal climates " is an important one for the preacher. 
 I cannot stay to develop this thought, but if you 
 have ever preached in a sceptical neighborhood 
 you will understand what I mean. Your words 
 seem to strike a stone wall instead of human hearts. 
 Or you will understand it if you have ever preached 
 to a congregation whose minds were crammed with 
 prejudice, or twisted by some popular error so that 
 your words were misunderstood, tv/isted and dis- 
 torted by the perverse interpretations of your 
 hearers. Therefore it is our evident duty, by 
 means of the pulpit, the press, the platform, in our 
 homes, our schools, our colleges, everywhere and in 
 every way, to seek to maintain in the connnunity a 
 " psychological climate" in which faith will be easy. 
 
 7. The Christian minister, as far as ability and 
 circumstances will permit, should assume the part 
 of pronounced leadership in all moral and religious 
 matters. 
 
 If unbelief leads in science, it will lead science to 
 the support of unbelief. If faith leads, she will 
 lead science to the support of faith. The Christian 
 ministry should, therefore, be to the front — should 
 seek to guide all mental, moral, and spiritual move- 
 ments. 
 
 Moreover, if this leadership is watchful, it will 
 become increasingly aware of the vast extent of 
 the field, and will recognize the fact, so finely stated 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM. 39 
 
 by Balfour, tliat " many of the decisive battles of 
 theology are foiio-Jit beyond its frontiers." 
 
 Finally, let us never be cast down. We do not 
 go forth to " succor a distressed faith." Christianity 
 is not in a state of siege. Christianity is not re- 
 treating before the foe. Christianity is in the field 
 marching, armed, aggressive. 
 
 Let us rejoice in the mental activity into which 
 we are born, and let us rejoice, also, that in spite of 
 much doubt and unbelief, we have to-day a richer 
 Bible and a more pre-eminent Christ than any age 
 since the apostles' time.