8MAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

! I.I

1.25

1^128

|5 ™^

" lis iio

2.5

1.8

1-4 iiijii.6

^^^

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

Coloured covers/
Couvertures de couleur

Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en cculour

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)

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

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Maps missing/

Des cartes g^ographiques m

Plates missing/

Des planches manquent

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 :

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY

AND

MODERN THOUGHT

Ibiober Ciiticism

REV. W. D. ARMSTRONG, M.A, Ph.D.

TORONTO :

VS^IIvLIAM BRIGOS

WESLF.:V liUII. DINGS.

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.

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.

]»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.

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

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.

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,

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

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.

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-

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.