The Higher criticism and the new theology : unscientific, unscriptural, and unwholesome

THE HIGHER CRITICISM
THE NEW THEOLOGY

EDlfED BT

m.RATORREir

DEC 29 1920

Divislou ^^500

Section

The Higher Cricicism

AND

The New Theology

UNSCIENTIFIC, UNSCRIPTURAL, AND
UNWHOLESOME

Edited by
DR. R. A.^TORREY

>NiiW YOK.X :

GOSrKL I'UBUSHING HOUSE,
D. T. Bam. Mgi. I^ESTERSHiaB, N. Y.

Copyright, 1911, by
R. A. TORREY

Thb Higher Cairicisai

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. The Moral Glory of Jesus Christ a Proof

OF Inspiration • .... 7

II. The History of the Higher Criticism . 29

III. Fall.\cies of the Higher Criticism . . 69

IV. Christ and Criticism c)4

V. The Testimony of the Monuments to the

Truth of the Scriptures . . .113
VI. The Recent Testimony of Archaeology to

THE Scriptures 138

VII. The Inspiration of the Bible — Definition,

Extent and Proof 159

VIII. The Virgin Birth of Christ . . .198
IX. The Certainty and Importance of the
Real and Bodily Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the Dead . . 214
X. The Deity of Oi'r Lord and Saviour,

Jesus Christ 241

XI. The Deity of Christ 249

Xll. The Bible Teaching Regarding Future

Punishment 258

XIII. Tributes to Christ and the Bible by

Brainy Men Not Known as Active
Christians 275

XIV. A Personal Testimony . . . .281

INTRODUCTION

The words "The Higher Criticism" used in the title of this
book are not altogether satisfactory, for "The Higher Criti-
cism" taken in its original and strict sense, as denoting liter-
ary criticism as distinguished from "the lower" or textual
criticism, is not necessarily unscientific, nor unscriptural, nor
unwholesome. There is a legitimate "higher" criticism of
this kind. In actual usage, however, and in the common
understanding to-day, the words "Higher Criticism" denote a
certain type of literary criticism that follows unscientific and
even absurd methods and has reached unwarranted and false
results, and that is utterly mischievous. When the words "The
Higher Criticism" are used to-day almost everyone under-
stands them to apply to this type of criticism, and so we
have used it in the title of the present book. The words "The
New Theology" are not altogether satisfactory. This phrase
came into quite common use something over thirty years ago
to denote a certain type of theology that was not at all new
even in those days, but was new in supposedly orthodox
churches. A few years ago these words were taken up again
as a battle cry in England by a school of erratic thinkers. We
use these words in the title of the book because to the common
mind they denote a certain type of theological thought that
has proved fascinating to many ministers of the Gospel and to
many laymen, and that has wrought terrible havoc in the
life and work of our churches. It would be difficult to ex-
actly define "the new theology," but it stands in a general way

5

Introduction

for the denial or questioning of the authority of the Bible as
the Inerrant Word of God ; for the denial or questioning of
the real Deity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ ; for the
denial or questioning* of the virgin birth of our Lord and of
His literal, bodily, resurrection from the dead ; for the denial
or questioning of the vicarious atonement; and for the denial
or questioning of the eternal, conscious sufifering of those who
die impenitent. This book aims to put into succinct and read-
ily usable form the proof that both ''the Higher Criticism"
and **the New Theology" are unscientific, unscriptural and
unwholesome.

Many of the chapters in this book are taken by permission
from a series of volumes called "Fundamentals" which are
being published at the expense of two Christian laymen and
sent without cost to ministers of the Gospel and some other
Christian workers throughout the world. Other chapters and
topics, which have not as yet been fully treated in **Funda-
mentals" are added by the compiler.

6

The Higher Criticism and
The New Theology

CHAPTER I

THE MORAL GLORY OF JESUS CHRIST A PROOF
OF INSPIRATION

BY DR. WM. G. MOOREHEAD, PRESIDENT OF XENIA THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY, XENIA, OHIO, U. S. A.

The glories of the Lord Jesus Qirist are threefold : Es-
sential, official and moral. His essential glory is that which
pertains to Him as the Son of God, the equal of the Father.
His official glory is that which belongs to Him as the ]\Iedia-
tor. It is the reward conferred on Him, the august promotion
He received when He had brought His great work to a final
and triumphant conclusion. His moral glory consists of the
perfections which marked His earthly life and ministry; per-
fections which attached to every relation He sustained, and
to every circumstance in which He was found. His essen-
tial and official glories were commonly veiled during His
earthly sojourn. His moral glory could not be hid ; He could
not be less than perfect in everything; it belonged to Him;
it was Himself. This moral glory now illumines every page
of the four Gospels, as once it did every path He trod.

7

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

The thesis which we undertake to illustrate and establish
is this : That the moral glory of Jesus Christ as set forth in
the four Gospels cannot be the product of the unaided human
intellect, that only the Spirit of God is competent to execute
this matchless portrait of the Son of Man. The discussion of
the theme falls into two parts : I. A brief survey of Christ's
moral glory as exhibited in the Gospels. II. The application
of the argument.

L CHRIST'S MORAL GLORY

THE HUMANITY OF JESUS

I. The moral glory of Jesus appears in His development
as Son of Man. The nature which He assumed was our na-
ture, sin and sinful propensities only excepted. His was a
real and a true humanity, one which must pass through the
various stages of growth like any other member of the race.
From infancy to youth, from youth to manhood, there was
steady increase both of His bodily powers and mental facul-
ties; but the progress was orderly. "No unhealthy precocity
marked the holiest of infancies." He was first a child, and
afterwards a man, not a man in child's years.

As Son of Man He was compassed about with all the
sinless infirmities that belong to our nature. He has needs
common to all ; need of food, of rest, of human sympathy and
of divine assistance. He is subject to Joseph and Mary, He
is a worshiper in the synagogue and the Temple; He weeps
over the guilty and hardened city, and at the grave of a loved
one ; He expresses His dependence on God by prayer.

Nothing is more certain than that the Gospel narratives
present the Lord Jesus as a true man, a veritable member of

The Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus

our race. But we no sooner recognize this truth than we arc
confronted by another which sets these records alone and
unapproachable in the field of literature. This second fact
is this: At every stage of His development, in every relation
of life, in every part of His service He is absolutely perfect.
To no part of His life does a mistake attach, over no part of
it does a cloud rest, nowhere is there defect. Nothing is more
striking, more unexampled, than the profound contrast be-
tween Jesus and the conflict and discord around Him, than
between Him and those who stood nearest Him, the disciples,
John Baptist, and the mother, Mary. All fall immeasurably
below Him.

THE PATTERN MAN

2. The Gospels exalt our Lord infinitely above all other
men as the representative, the ideal, the pattern man. Noth-
ing in the judgment of historians stands out so sharply dis-
tinct as race, national character — nothing is more ineffaceable.
The very greatest men are unable to free themselves from the
influences amid which they have been born and educated.
Peculiarities of race and the spirit of the age leave in their
characters traces that are imperishable. To the last fiber of
his being Luther was German, Calvin was French, Knox was
Scotch; Augustine bears the unmistakable impress of the
Roman, and Chrysostom is as certainly Greek. Paul, with all
his large heartedness and sympathies is a Jew, always a Jew.
Jesus Christ is the only One who is justly entitled to be called
the Catholic Man. Nothing local, transient, individualizing,
national, or sectarian dwarfs the proportions of His won-
drous character. "He rises above the parentage, the blood,
the narrow horizon which bounded, as it seemed, His life;
for He is the archetypal man in whose presence distinctions

9

Th$ Higher Criticism and The New Theology

of race, intervals of ages, types of civilization and degrees of
mental culture are as nothing" (Liddon). He belongs to all
ages, He is related to all men, whether they shiver amid the
snows of the arctic circle, or pant beneath the burning heat of
the equator; for He is the Son of Man, the Son of mankind,
the genuine offspring of the race.

UNSELFISHNESS AND DIGNITY

3. The Lord's moral glory appears in His unselfishness
and personal dignity. The entire absence of selfishness in any
form from the character of the Lord Jesus is another remark-
able feature of the Gospels. He had frequent and fair oppor-
tunities of gratifying ambition had His nature been tainted
with that passion. But ''even Christ pleased not himself;" He
"sought not his own glory;" He came not "to do his ov/n will."
His body and His soul with all the faculties and activities of
each v/ere devoted to the supreme aims of His mission. His
self-sacrifice included the whole range of His human thought
and affection and action ; it lasted throughout His life ; its
highest expression was His ignominious death on the cross of
Calvary.

The strange beauty of His unselfishness as it is displayed
in the Gospel narratives appears in this, that it never seeks to
draw attention to itself, it deprecates publicity. In His humil-
ity He seems as one naturally contented with obscurity; as
wanting the restless desire for eminence which is common to
really great men ; as eager and careful that even His miracles
should not add to His reputation. But amid all His self-
sacrificing humility He never loses His personal dignity nor
the self-respect that becomes Him. He receives ministry from
the lowly and the lofty; He is sometimes hungry, yet feeds

10

The Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus

the mnUitudes in desert places; He has no money, yet He
never bc^s, and He provides the coin for tribute to the gov-
ernment from a fish's mouth. He may ask for a cup of water
at the well, ])ut it is that He may save a soul. He never flies
from enemies ; He quietly withdraws or passes by unseen.
Hostility neither excites nor exasperates Him. He is always
calm, serene. He seems to care little for Himself, for His
own ease or comfort or safety, but everything for the honor
and the glory of the Father. H multitudes, eager and expect-
ant, press upon Him, shouting, "Hosanna to the son of Da-
vid," He is not elated; if all fall away, stunned by His words
of power, He is not cast dov»n. He sought not a place among
nien, He was calmly content to be the Lord's Servant, the
obedient and the humble One. It was invariably true of Him
that "He pleased not Himself."

And yet through all His amazing self-renunciation, there
glances ever and anon something of the infinite majesty and
supreme dignity which belong to Him because He is the Son
of God. The words of Van Oosterzee are as true as they are
beautiful and significant : "It is the same King's Son who
to-day dwells in the palace of His Father, and to-morrow, out
of love to His rebellious subjects in a remote corner of the
Kingdom, renouncing His princely glory, comes to dwell
amongst them in the form of a servant * * * and is
known only by the dignity of His look, and the star of royalty
on His breast, when the mean cloak is opened for a moment,
apparently by accident."

SUPERIORITY TO HUMAN JUBGMENT AND INTERCESSION

4. The Gospels exhibit the Lord Jesus as superior to the
judgment and the intercession of men. When challenged by

II

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

the disciples and by enemies, as He often was, Jesus never
apologizes, never excuses Himself, never confesses to a mis-
take. When the disciples, terrified by the storm on the lake,
awoke Him saying-, "Master, carest thou not that we perish?"
He did not vindicate His sleep, nor defend His apparent indif-
ference to their fears. Martha and Mary, each in turn, with
profound grief, say, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother
had not died." There is not a minister of the gospel the
world over who would not in similar circumstances explain or
try to explain why he could not at once repair to the house of
mourning when summoned thither. But Jesus does not ex-
cuse His not being there, nor His delay of two days in the
place where He was when the urgent message of the sisters
reached Him. In the consciousness of the perfect rectitude of
His ways, He only replies, "Thy brother shall rise again."
Peter once tried to admonish Him, saying, "This be far from
thee. Lord; this shall not be unto thee." But Peter had to
learn that it was Satan that prompted the admonition. Nor
does He. recall a word when the Jews rightly inferred from
His language that He "being man made Himself God" (John
10:30-36). He pointed out the application of the name Elo-
him (God) to judges under the theocracy; and yet He irre-
sistibly implies that His title to Divinity is higher than, and
distinct in kind from, that of the Jewish magistrates. He
thus arrives a second time at the assertion which had given
so great offense, by announcing His identity with the Father,
which involves His own proper Deity. The Jews understood
Him. He did not retract what they accounted blasphemy, and
they again sought His life. He is never mistaken, and never
retracts.

So likewise He is superior to human intercession. He
never asks even His disciples nor His nearest friends, and

12

The Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus

certainly never His mother Mary, to pray for Him. In Ccth-
scmane He asked tlic tliree to watch witli Him, He did not
ask them to pray for Him. He bade them pray that they might
not enter into temptation, but He did not ask them to pray
that He should not, nor that He should be delivered out of it.
Paul wrote a^^ain and ap^ain, "Brethren, pray for us" — "pray
for me." But such was not the language of Jesus. It is
worthy of note that the Lord does not place His own people
on a level with Himself in His prayers. He maintains the
distance of His own personal dignity and supremacy between
Himself and them. In His intercession He never uses plural
personal pronouns in His petitions. He always says, "I" and
"me," "these" and "them that thou hast given me ;" never
"we" and "us," as we speak and should speak in our prayers.

THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS

5. The sinlessness of the Saviour witnesses to His moral
glory. The Gospels present us with one solitary and unique
fact of human history — an absolutely sinless Man ! In His
birth immaculate, in His childhood, youth and manhood, in
public and private, in death and in life, He was faultless. Hear
some witnesses. There is the testimony of His enemies. For
three long years the Pharisees were watching their victim. As
another writes, "There was the Pharisee mingling in every
crowd, hiding behind every tree. They examined His disci-
ples, they cross-questioned all around Him. They looked into
His ministerial life, into His domestic privacy, into His hours
of retirement. They came forward with the sole accusation
they could muster — that He had shown disrespect to Caesar.
The Roman judge who ought to know, pronounced it void."
There was another spv — Jndas. Had tlicre bacn one failure in

13

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

the Redeemer's career, in his awful agony Judas wSuld have
remembered it for his comfort; but the bitterness of his de-
spair, that which made his hfe intolerable, was, *'I have be-
trayed the innocent blood."

There is the testimony of His friends. His disciples affirm
that during their intercourse with Him His life was unsullied.
Had there been a single blemish they would have detected
it, and, honest historians as they were, they would have re-
corded it, just as they did their own shortcomings and blun-
ders. The purest and most austere man that lived in that day,
John the Baptist, shrank from baptizing the Holy One, and in
conscious unworthiness he said, 'T have need to be baptized of
thee, and comest thou to me?" Nor is His own testimony
to be overlooked. Jesus never once confesses sin. He never
once asks for pardon. Yet is it not He w-ho so sharply re-
bukes the self-righteousness of the Pharisees? Does He not,
in His teaching, seem to ignore all human piety that is not
based upon a broken heart? But yet He never lets fall a
hint. He never breathes a prayer which implies the slightest
trace of blameworthiness. He paints the doom of incorrigible
and unrepentant sinners in the most dreadful colors found in
the entire Bible, but He Himself feels no apprehension. He
expresses no dread of the penal future; His peace of mind,
His fellowship with Almighty God, is never disturbed nor
interrupted. If He urge sorrow upon others and tears of
penitence, it is for their sins; if He groan in agony, it is not
for sins of His own, it is for others'. He challenges His bit-
terest enemies to convict Him of Sin (John 8:46). Nor is
this all. "The soul," it has been said, "like the body has its
pores," and the pores are always open. "Instinctively, uncon-
sciously, and whether a man will or not, the insignificance or
the greatness of the inner life always reveals itself." From its

14

The Moral Glory of the Lord Je^us

very center and essence tlie moral nature is ever throwing^ out
about itself circles of influence, encompasses itself with an
atmosphere of self-disclosure. In Jesus Christ this self-reve-
lation was not involuntary, nor accidental, nor forced : it was
in the highest degree deliberate. There is about Him an air of
superior holiness, of aloofness from the world and its ways, a
separation from evil in every form and of every grade, such
as no other that has ever lived has displayed. Although de-
scended from an impure ancestry, lie brought no taint of sin
into the world with Him; and though He mingled with sinful
men and was assailed by fierce temptations, He contracted no
guilt, He was touched by no stain. He was not merely unde-
filed, but He was undefilable. He was like a ray of light which
parting from the fountain of light can pass through the foulest
medium and still be unstained and untouched. He came down
into all the circumstances of actual humanity in its sin and
miser}% and yet He kept the infinite purity of heaven with
Him. In the annals of our race there is none next to or like
Him.

ASSEMBLAGE AXD CORRELATION OF VIRTUES

6. The exquisite assemblage and correlation of virtues
and excellencies in the Lord Jef^us form another remarkable
feature of the Gospel narratives. There have been those who
have displayed distinguished traits of character ; those who by
reason of extraordinary gifts have risen to heights which are
Inaccessible to the great mass of men. But who among the
mightiest of men has shown himself to be evenly balanced and
rightly poised in all his faculties and powers? In the very
greatest and best, inequality and disproportion arc encoun-
tered. Generally, the failings and vices of men are in the
inverse ratio of their virtues and their powers. "The tallest

1'.

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

bodies cast the longest shadows/* In Jesus Christ there is no
unevenness. In Him there is no preponderance of the imagin-
ation over the feeling, of the intellect over the imagination, of
the v^ill over the intellect. There is in Him an uninterrupted
harmony of all the powers of body and soul, in which that
serves which should serve, and that rules which ought to
rule, and all works together to one adorable end. In Him
every grace is in its perfectness, none in excess, none out
of place, and none wanting. His justice and His mercy. His
peerless love and His truth, His holiness and His freest par-
don never clash; one never clouds the other. His firmness
never degenerates into obstinacy, or His calmness into in-
difference. His gentleness never becomes weakness, nor His
elevation of eoul forgetfulness of others. In His best ser-
vants virtues and graces are uneven and often clash. Paul
had hours of weakness and even of petulance. He seems to
have regretted that he called himself a Pharisee in the Jew-
ish Sanhedrin and appealed to that party for help, for in his
address before the proconsul Felix he said, "Or let these
same here say, if they found any evil doing in me, while I
stood before the Council, except it be for this one voice, that I
cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the
dead I am called in question by you this day." John the
Apostle of love even wished to call down fire from heaven to
consume the inhospitable Samaritans. And the Virgin mother
must learn that even she cannot dictate to Him as to what He
shall do or not do. In Jesus there is the most perfect balance,
the most amazing equipoise of every faculty and grace and
duty and power. In His whole life one day's walk never con-
tradicts another, one hour's service never clashes with an-
other. While He sliows He is master of nature's tremendous
forces, and the Lord of the unseen world. He turns asic^^ and

i6

The Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus

lays His glory by to take little children in His arms and to
bless them. While He must walk amid the snares His foes
have privily spread for His feet, He is equal to every occasion,
is in harmony with the rc(|uirements of every moment. "He
never speaks where it would be better to keep silence, He
never keeps silence where it would be better to speak ; and He
always leaves the arena of controversy a victor." His unaf-
fected majesty, so wonderfully depicted in the Gospels, runs
through His whole life, and is as manifest in the midst of
poverty and scorn, at Gethsemane and Calvary, as on the
Mount of Transfiguration and in the resurrection from the
grave.

OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE

7. The evangelists do not shrink from ascribing to the
Lord Jesus divine attributes, particularly Omnipotence and
Omniscience. They do so as a mere matter of fact, as what
might and should be expected from so exalted a personage as
the Lord Jesus was. How amazing the power is which He
wields when it pleases Him to do so! It extends to the forces
of nature. At His word the storm is hushed into a calm,
and the raging of the sea ceases. At His pleasure He walks
on the water as on dry land. It extends to the world of evil
spirits. At His presence demons cry out in fear and quit
th.eir hold on their victims. His power extends into the
realm of disease. Every form of sickness departs at His
command, and He cures the sick both when He is beside them
and at a distance from them. Death likewise, that inexorable
tyrant that wealth has never bribed, nor tears softened, nor
human power arrested, yielded instantly his prey when the
voice of the Son of God bade him.

But Jesus equally as certainly and as fully possessed a

17

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

superhuman range of knowledge as well as a superhuman
power. He knew men; knew them as God knows them.
Thus He saw into the depths of Nathaniel's heart when he
was under the fig tree ; He saw Into the depths of the sea,
and the exact coin in the mouth of a particular fish ; He read
the whole past life of the woman at the well, although He
had never before met with her. John tells us that "He needed
not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was
in man" (John ii:25). He knew the world of evil spirits.
He was perfectly acquainted with the movements of Satan
and of demons. He said to Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold,
Satan asked to have you that he might sift you as wheat: I
made supplication for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii :
31, 32). He often spoke directly to the evil spirits that had
control of people, ordering them to hold their peace, to come
out and to enter no more into their victims. He knew the
Father as no mere creature could possibly know Him. "All
things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man
knoweth the Son, save the Father ; neither doth any know the
Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth
to reveal Him" (Matt. xi:27).

A difficulty will be felt when we attempt to reconcile this
infinite knowledge of men, of the unseen world, and of God
Himself, which the Son of God possessed, with the state-
ment in ]\Iark that He did not know the day nor the hour of
His Second Advent. But the difficulty is no greater than
that other in John, where we are told that His face was wet
with human tears while the almighty voice was crying, "Laz-
arus, come forth." In both cases the divine and the human
are seen intermingling, and yet they are perfectly distinct.

Such are some of the beams of Christ's moral glories as
they shine everywhere on the pages of the Four Gospels. A

18

The Mora! Glory of the Lord Jesus

very few of them nrc here gathered together. Nevertheless,
what a stupendous j icturc do they form! In the annals of
our race there is no.hing hkc it. Here is One presented to
us who is a true an 1 genuine man, and yet He is the ideal,
the representative, tlic pattern man, claiming kindred in the
catholicity of His manhood with all men; sinless, yet full of
tenderness and pity; higher than the highest, yet stooping to
the lowest and to the most needy ; perfect in all His words
and ways, in His life and in His death !

Who taught th.e evangelists to draw this matchless por-
trait? The pen which traced these glories of Jesus — could it
have been other than an inspired pen? This question leads
us to the second part of our task, which can soon be dis-
posed of.

H. THE APPLICATION OF THE ARGUMENT

Nothing is more obvious tlian the very commonplace
axiom, that every efect requires an adequate cause. Given a
piece of machinery, complex, delicate, exact in all its move-
ments, we know tl.at it must be the product of a competent
mechanic. Given a work of consummate art, we know it
must be the product of a consummate artist. None but a
sculptor with the genius of an Angelo could carve the "Moses."
None but a painter with the hand, the eye, and the brain of a
Raphael could paint tlie "Transfiguration." None but a poet
with the gifts of a ?vIilton could write "Paradise Lost."

Here are four brief records of our Lord's earthly life.
They deal almost exclusively with His public ministry; they
do not profess even to relate all that He did in His official
work (cf. John xKi:25). The authors of these memorials
were men whose names are as household words the world

I?

The Higher Criticism and The Neiu Theology

over ; but beyond their names we know little more. The first
was tax collector under the Roman government; the sec-
ond was, it is generally believed, that John Mark who for
a time served as an attendant on Paul and Barnabas, and who
afterward became the companion and fellow-laborer of Peter ;
the third was a physician and the devoted friend and co-
worker of Paul; and the fourth was a fisherman. Two of
them, Matthew and John, were disciples of Jesus; whether
the others, Mark and Luke, ever saw Him during His earthly
sojourn cannot be determined.

These four men, unpracticed in the art of writing, unac-
quainted with the ideals of antiquity, write the memorials of
Jesus' life. Three of them traverse substantially the same
ground, record the same incidents, discourses and miracles.
While they are penetrated with the profoundest admiration
for their Master, they never once dilate on His great qualities.
All that they do is to record His actions and His discourses
with scarcely a remark. One of them indeed, John, inter-
mingles reflective commentary with the narrative; but in
doing this John carefully abstains from eulogy and paneg}Tic.
He pauses in His narrative only to explain some reference, to
open some deep saying of the Lord, or to press some vital
truth. Yet, despite this absence of the smallest attempt to
delineate a character, these four men have accomplished what
no others have done or can do — they have presented the world
with the portrait of a Divine Man, a Glorious Saviour. Mat-
thew describes Him as the promised IMessiah, the glory of
Israel, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham; the One in
whom the covenants and the promises find their ample ful-
filment; the One who accomplishes all righteousness. I\Iark
exhibits Him as the mighty Servant of Jehovah who does
man's neglected duty, and meets the need of all around. Luke

20

The Mural Glory of the Lord Jesus

depicts Him as the Friend of man, whose love is so intense
and comprehensive, whose pity is so divine, that His saving
power goes forth to Jew and Gentile, to the lowliest and the
loftiest, to the publican, the Samaritan, the ragged prodigal,
the harlot, the thief, as well as to the cultivated, the moral,
, the great. John presents Him as the Son of God, the Word
made flesh ; as Light for a dark world, as Dread for a starving
world, as Life for a dead world. Matthew writes fur the Jew,
Mark for the Roman, Luke for the Greek, and John for the
Christian ; and all of them write for every kindred, and tribe,
and tongue and people of the entire globe, and for all time !
What the philosopher, the poet, the scholar, the artist could
not do ; what men of the greatest mind, the most stupendous
genius have failed to do, these four unpracticed men have
done — they have presented to the world the Son of Man and
the Son of God in all His perfections and glories.

A FACT TO BE EXPL-MNED

How comes it to pass that these unlearned and ignorant
men (Acts iv : 13) have so thoroughly accomplished so great
a task? Let us hold fast our commonplace axiom, every
effect must have an adequate cause. What explanation shall
we give of this marvellous effect? Shall we ascribe their
work to genius? But multitudes of men both before and since
their day have possessed genius of the very highest order;
and these gifted men have labored in fields akin to this of
our four evangelists. The mightiest minds of the race — men
of Chaldea, of Egypt, of India, of China, and of Greece — have
tried to draw a perfect character, have expended all their
might to paint a god-like man. And with what result ? Either
he is invested with the passions and the brutalities of fallcr

21

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

men, or he is a pitiless and impassive spectator of the world's
sorrows and woes. In either case, the character is one which
may command the fear but not the love and confidence of
men.

Again, we ask, How did the evangelists solve this mighty
problem of humanity with such perfect originality and pre-
cision? Only two answers are rationally possible: i. They
had before them the personal and historical Christ. Men
could no more invent the God-man of the Gospels than they
could create a world. , The almost irreverent words of Theo-
dore Parker are grounded in absolute truth : "It would have
taken a Jesus to forge a Jesus." 2. They wrote by inspiration
of the Spirit of God. It cannot be otherwise. It is not enough
to say that the Divine Model was before them : they must
have had something more, else they never could have suc-
ceeded.

Let it be assumed that these four men, Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, were personally attendant on the ministry of
Jesus — that they saw Him, heard Him, accompanied with Him
for three years. Yet on their own showing they did not un-
derstand Him. They testify that the disciples, the Apostles
among the number, got but the slenderect conceptions of His
person and His mission from His very explicit teachings.
They tell us of a wonderful incapacity and weakness in all
their apprehensions of Him. The Sun of righteousness was
shining on them and around them, and they could see only
the less ! He told them repeatedly of His approaching death,
and of His resurrection, but they did not understand Him;
they even questioned among themselves what the rising from
th« dead should mean (Mark ixrio) — poor men! And yet
these men, once so blind and ignorant, write four little pieces
about the person and the work of the Lord Jesus which the .

22

TJic Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus

study and the research of Christendom for eighteen hundred
years have not exhausted, and which the keenest and most
hostile criticism has utterly failed to discredit.

But this is not all. Others have tried their hand at com-
posing the Life and Deeds of Jesus. Compare some of these
with our Four Gospels.

SPURIOUS GOSPELS

The Gospel narrative observes an almost unbroken silence
as to the long abode of Jesus at Nazareth. Of the void thus
left the church became early impatient. During the first four
centuries many attempts were made to fill it up. Some of
these apocryphal gospels are still extant, notably that which
deals with the infancy and youth of the Redeemer; and it is
instructive to notice how those succeeded who tried to lift
the veil which covers the earlier years of Christ. Let another
state the contrast between the New Testament records and the
spurious gospels: "The case stands thus: our Gospels present
us with a glorious picture of a mighty Saviour, the mythic gos-
pels with that of a contemptible one. In our Gospels He ex-
hibits a superhuman wisdom; in the mythic ones a nearly
equal superhuman absurdity. In our Gospels He is arrayed in
all the beauty of holiness ; in the mythic ones this aspect of
character is entirely wanting. In our Gospels not one stain
of sinfulness defiles His character ; in the mythic ones the Boy
Jesus is both pettish and malicious. Our Gospels exhibit to
us a sublime morality ; not one ray of it shines in those of the
mythologists. The miracles of the one and of the other stand
contrasted on every point." (Row.)

These spurious gospels were written by men who lived
not long after the apostolic age; by Christians who wished

23

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

to honor the Saviour in all they said about Him ; by men who
had the portraiture of Him before them which the Gospels
supply. And yet these men, many of them better taught than
the Apostles, with the advantage of two or three centuries of
Christian thought and study, could not produce a fancy sketch
of the Child Jesus without violating our sense of propriety, and
shocking our moral sense. The distance between the Gos-
pels of the New Testament and the pseudo-gospels is meas-
ured by the distance between the product of the Spirit of God,
and that of the fallen human mind.

UNINSPIRED "lives OF CHRIST"

Let us take another illustration. The nineteenth century
has been very fruitful in the production of what are commonly
called "Lives of Christ." Contrast with the Gospels four
such "Lives," perhaps the completest and the best, taken alto-
gether, of those written by English-speaking people — An-
drews', Geikie's, Hanna's and Edersheim's. The authors of
our Gospels had no models on which to frame their work.
The path they trod had never before been pressed by human
feet. The authors of the "Lives" have not only these incom-
parable narratives as their pattern and the chief source of
all their material, but numberless other such "Lives" sug-
gestive as to form and construction, and the culture and the
research of eighteen centuries lying behind them. But would
any one venture for a moment to set forth these "Lives" as
rivals of our Gospels? Much information and helpfulness are
to be derived from the labors of these Christian scholars, and
others who have toiled in the same field ; but how far they all
fall below the New Testament record it is needless to show.

24

The Moral Glory of the Lord Jtrsus

Indeed, all such writings are largely antiquated and scarcely
read, though they are quite young in years, so soon does man's
work decay and die.

Let the contrast be noted as to size or bulk. Andrews*
book contains 615 pages; Geikie's over 1,200; Hanna's over
2.100; Edersheim's, 1,500 pages. The four combined have nr)
less than 5,490 pages, enough in these busy days to require
months of reading to go but once through their contents.
Bagster prints the Four Gospels in 82 pages ; the Oxford, in
104; Amer. Rev., 120. In the Bagster, Matthew has but 2^;
Mark, 13; Luke, 25; and John, 21. Less than one hundred
pages of the Four Gospels against more than five thousand
four hundred of the four "Lives."

Countless volumes, great and small, in the form of com-
mentary, exposition, notes, harmony and history are written
on these brief records. How happens it that such stores of
wisdom and knowledge lie garnered in these short pieces?
Who taught the evangelists this superhuman power of ex-
pansion and contraction, of combination and separation, of
revelation in the words and more revelation below the w'ords ?
Who taught them so to describe the person and work of the
Lord Jesus as that the description satisfies the most ilHterate
and the most learned, is adapted to minds of the most limited
capacity, and to those of the widest grasp? Whence did they
derive the infinite skill they display in grouping together
events, discourses, and actions in such fashion that vividly
before us is the deathless beauty of a perfect Life? There is
but one answer to these questions, there can be no other. The
Spirit of the living God filled their minds with His unerring
wisdom and controlled their human speech. To that creative
Spirit who has peopled the world with living organisms so

2^

I'Jie Higher Criticism and The New Theology

minute that only the microscope can reveal their presence,
it is not hard to give us in so brief a compass the sublime
portrait of the Son of Man. To men it is impossible.

INSPIRATION EXTENDS THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE

Now if it be conceded that the Four Gospels are inspired,
we are compelled by every rule of right reason to concede
the inspiration of the rest of the New Testament. For all the
later communications contained in the Acts, the Epistles, and
the Revelation, are already in germ form in the Gospels, just
as the Pentateuch holds in germ the rest of the Old Testament.
If the Holy Spirit is the author of the Four Gospels He is
none the less the author of the entire New Testament. If He
creates the germ, it is He also that must unfold it into mature
fruit. If He makes the seed He must likewise give the in-
crease. To this fundamental truth the writers of the later
communications bear the most explicit testimony. Paul, John,
James, Peter and Jude severally intimate that what they have
to impart is from Christ by His Spirit.

Furthermore, if we admit the inspiration of the New
Testament we must also admit that of the Old. For, if any
one thing has been established by the devout and profound
study and research of evangelical scholarship it is this, that
the Scriptures of the Old Testament hold in germ the revela-
tion contained in the New. The Latin Father spoke as pro-
foundly as truly when he said, 'The New Testament lies hid
in the Old, and the Old stands revealed in the New." An-
cient Judaism had one supreme voice for the chosen people,
and its voice was prophetic. Its voice was the significant word,
Went. As if it kept reminding Israel that the IMosaic Institu-
tions were only temporary and typical, that something infi-

26

The Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus

nitely better and holier was to take their place; and so it :>aid,
Wait. Wait, and the true Priest will come, the I'riest greater
than Aaron, greater than Melchizedck — the Priest of whom
these w^ere but thin shadows, dim pictures. Wait, and the true
Prophet, like unto Moses, greater than Moses, will appear.
Wait, and the real sacrifice, that of which all other offerings
were but feeble images, will be made and sin be put away. If
any man deny the inspiration of the Old Testament, sooner or
later he will deny that of the New. For the two are insepara-
bly bound up together. If the one fall, so will the other.
Already the disastrous consequences of such a course of pro-
cedure are apparent in Christendom. For years the conflict
has raged about the trustworthiness, the integrity and the
authority of the Old Testament. Not long since one who is
identified with the attacking party arrayed against that Scrip-
ture announced that the victory is won, and nothing now re-
mains save to determine the amount of the indemnity. It is
very noteworthy that the struggle has indeed measurably sub-
» sided as to the Old Testament, although there are no signs
of weakening faith in it on the part of God's faithful chil-
dren, and the fight now turns with increasing vigor on the
New Testament, and pre-eminently about the Person of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Men who are Christians at least in name,
who occupy influential seats in great Universities and even
Theological Schools, do not shrink from impeaching the New
Testament record touching the Virgin Birth of the Lord
Jesus, His resurrection from the dead, and His promise of one
day returning to this earth in majesty and power. One can-
not renounce the Scriptures of the Old Testament without
relaxing his hold, sooner or later, on the New.

Christ is the center of all Scripture, as He is the center of
all God's purposes and counsels. The four evangelists take up

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

the life and the moral glory of the Son of Man, and they place
it alongside of the picture of the Messiah as sketched by the
prophets, the historical by the side of the prophetic, and they
show how exactly the two match. So long as the Four Gos-
pels remain unmutilated and trusted by the people of God,
so long is the doctrine of the Bible's supreme authority as-
sured.

God spoke to the fathers in the prophets : He now speaks
to us in His Son whom He hath made Heir of all things. In
either case, whether by the prophets or by the Son, the Speaker
is God.

2%

CHAPTER II
THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM

BY CANON DYSON HAGUE, M. A.,
RECTOR OF THE MEMORIAL CHURCH, LONDON, ONTARIO
LECTURER IN LITURGICS AND ECCLESIOLOGY, WYCLIFFE COL-
LEGE, TORONTO, CANADA
EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF HURON.

IVJtat is the meaning of the Higher Criticism f Why is
it called highcrf Higher than what?

At the outset it must be explained that the word "Higher"
is an academic term, used in this connection in a purely special
or technical sense. It is not used in the popular sense of the
word at all, and may convey a wrong impression to the ordi-
nary man. Nor is it meant to convey the idea of superiority.
It is simply a term of contrast. It is used in contrast to the
phrase, ''Lower Criticism."

One of the most important branches of theology is called
the science of Biblical criticism, which has for its object the
study of the histor}' and contents, and origins and purposes,
of the various books of the Bible. In the early stages of the
science Biblical criticism was devoted to two great branches,
the Lower, and the Higher. The Lower Criticism was em-
ployed to designate the study of the text of the Scripture, and
included the investigation of the manuscripts, and the dif-
ferent readings in the various versions and codices and man-
uscripts in order that we may be sure we have the orig^inal

20

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

words as they were written by the Divinely inspired writers.
(See Briggs, Hex., page i.) The term generally used now-a-
days is Textual Criticism. If the phrase were used in the
twentieth century sense, Beza, Erasmus, Bengel, Griesbach,
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorff, Scrivener, Westcott, and
Hort would be called Lower Critics. But the term is not now-
a-days used as a rule. The Higher Criticism, on the con-
trary, was employed to designate the study of the historic
origins, the dates, and authorship of the various books of the
Bible, and that great branch of study which in the technical
language of modern theology is known as Introduction. It
is a very valuable branch of Biblical science, and is of the
highest importance as an auxiliary in the interpretation of
the Word of God. By its researches floods of light may be
thrown on the Scriptures.

The term Higher Criticism, then, means nothing more
than the study of the literary structure of the various books
of the Bible, and more especially of the Old Testament. Now
this in itself is most laudable. It is indispensable. It is just
such work as every minister or Sunday Scnool teacher does
when he takes up his Peloubet's Notes, or his Stalker's St.
Paul, or Geikie's Hours with the Bible, to find out all he can
with regard to the portion of the Bible he is studying; the
author, the date, the circumstances, and purpose of its writing.

WHY IS HIGHER CRITICISM IDENTIFIED WITH UNBELIEF?

How is it, then, that the Higher Criticism has become
identified in the popular mind with attacks u^pon the Bible
and the supernatural character of the Holy Scripturesf

The reason is this. No study perhaps requires so devout
a spirit and so exalted a faith in the supernatural as the pur-

30

The History of the Higher Criticism

suit of the IIii;hcr Criticism. It demands at once the ability
of the scholar, and the simplicity of the believini:;- child of Ck)d.
For without faith no one can explain the Holy Scriptures,
and without scholarship no one can investigate historic orij^ins.
There is a Higher Criticism that is at once reverent in
tone and scholarly in work. Hengstenberg-, the German, and
Home, the Englishman, may be taken as examples. Perhaps
the greatest work in English on the Higher Criticism is
Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of
the Holy Scripture. It is a work that is simply massive in
its scholarship, and invaluable in its vast reach of information
for the study of the Holy Scriptures. But Home's Introduc-
tion is too large a work. It is too cumbrous for use in this
hurrying age. (Carter's edition in two volumes contains 1,149
pages, and in ordinary book form would contain over 4,000
pages, i. e., about ten volumes of 400 pages each.) Latterly,
however, it has been edited by Dr. Samuel Davidson, who
practically adopted the views of Hupfield and Halle and inter-
polated not a few of the modern German theories. But
Home's work from first to last is the work of a Christian
believer; constructive, not destructive; fortifying faith in the
Bible, not rationalistic. But the work of the Higher Critic
has not always been pursued in a reverent spirit nor in the
spirit of scientific and Christian scholarship.

SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS

In the first place, the critics who were the leaders, the
men who have given name and force to the whole movement,
have been men who have based their theories largely upon
tlieir own subjective conclusions. They have based their con-
clusions largely upon the very dubious basis of the author's

31

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

style and supposed literary qualifications. Everybody knows
that style is a very unsafe basis for the determination of a
literary product. The greater the writer the more versatile
his power of expression; and anybody can understand that
the Bible is the last book in the world to be studied as a mere
classic by mere human scholarship without any regard to the
spirit of sympathy and reverence on the part of the student.
The Bible, as has been said, has no revelation to make to un-
Biblical minds. It does not even follow that because a man
is a philological expert he is able to understand the integrity
or credibility of a passage of Holy Scripture any more than
the beauty and spirit of it.

The qualification for the perception of Biblical truth is
neither philosophic nor philological knowledge, but spiritual
insight. The primary qualification of the musician is that he
be musical ; of the artist, that he have the spirit of art. So
the merely technical and mechanical and scientific mind is
disquahfied for the recognition of the spiritual and infinite.
Any thoughtful man must honestly admit that the Bible is to
be treated as unique in literature, and, therefore, that the
ordinary rules of critical interpretation must fail to interpret
it aright.

GERMAN FANCIES

In the second place, some of the most powerful exponents
of the modern Higher Critical theories have been Germans,
and it is notorious to what length the German fancy can go in
the direction of the subjective and of the conjectural. For
hypothesis-weaving and speculation, the German theological
professor is unsurpassed. One of the foremost thinkers used
to lay it down as a fundamental truth in philosophical and

32

The History of the Higher Criticism

scientrlic enquiries that no regard whatever should be paid
to the conjectures or hypotheses of thinkers, and quoted as an
axiom the great Newton himself and his famous words, "Non
fingo hypotheses" : I do not frame hypotheses. It is notorious
that some of the most learned German thinkers are men who
lack in a singular degree the faculty of common sense and
knowledge of human nature. Like many physical scientists,
they are so preoccupied with a theory that their conclusions
seem to the average mind curiously warped. In fact, a learned
man in a letter to Descartes once made an observation which,
with slight verbal alteration, might be applied to some of the
German critics: "When men sitting in their closet and, con-
sulting only their books, attempt disquisitions into the Bible,
they may indeed tell how they would have made the. Book
if God had given them that commission. That is, they may
describe chimeras which correspond to the fatuity of their own
minds, but without an understanding truly Divine they can
never form such an idea to themselves as the Deity had in
creating it." "If," says Matthew Arnold, "you shut a num-
ber of men up to make study and learning the business of
their lives, how many of them, from want of some discipline
or other, seem to lose all balance of judgment, all common
sense."

The learned professor of Assyriology at Oxford said that
the investigation cf the literary source of history has been a
peculiarly German pastime. It deals with the writers and
readers of the ancient Orient as if they were modern German
professors, and the attempt to transform the ancient Israelites
into somewhat inferior German compilers, proves a strange
want of familiarity with Oriental modes of thought. (Sayce,
"Early History of the Hebre'«v?," pages 108-112.)

The, Higher Criticism and The New Theology

ANTI-SUPERNATURALISTS

In the third place, the dominant men of the movement
were men with a strong bias against the supernatural. This
is not an ex-parte statement at all. It is simply a matter of
fact, as we shall presently show. Some of the men who have
been most distinguished as the leaders of the Higher Critical
movement in Germany and Holland have been men who have
no faith in the God of the Bible, and no faith in either the
necessity or the possibility of a personal supernatural revela-
tion. The men who have been the voices of the movement,
of whom the great majority, less widely known and less influ-
ential, have been mere echoes ; the men who manufactured the
articles the others distributed, have been notoriously opposed
to the miraculous.

We must not be misunderstood. We distinctly repudiate
the idea that all the Higher Critics were or are anti-super-
naturalists. Not so. The British-American School embraces
within its ranks many earnest believers. What we do say, as
we will presently show, is that the dominant minds which
have led and swayed the movement, who made the theories
that the others circulated, were strongly unbelieving.

Then the higher critical movement has not followed its
true and original purposes in investigating the Scriptures for
the purposes of confirming faith and of helping believers to
understand the beauties, and appreciate the circumstances of
the origin of the various books, and so understand more com-
pletely the Bible?

No. It has not; unquestionably it has not. It has been
deflected from that, largely owing to ll:e character of the men
whose ability and forcefulness have given predominance to
their views. It has fcecome identified with a system of criti-

34

The History of the Higher Criticism

cism which is based on hypotheses and suppositions which
have for their object the repudiation of the traditional theory,
and has investigated the origins and forms and styles and
contents, apparently not to confirm the authenticity and credi-
bility and reliability of the Scriptures, but to discredit in most
cases their genuineness, to discover discrepancies, and throw
doubt upon their authority.

^ THE ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT

Who, then, were the men whose views have moulded the
views of the leading teachers and zvritcrs of the Higher Crit-
ical school of 1 0-day f

We will answer this as briefly as possible.

It is not easy to say who is the first so-called Higher
Critic, or when the movement began. But it is not modern by
any means. Broadly speaking, it has passed through three
great stages:

1. The French-Dutch.

2. The German.

3. The British-American.

In its origin it was Franco-Dutch, and speculative, if not
skeptical. The views which are now accepted as axiomatic
by the Continental and British-American schools of Higher
Criticism seem to have been first hinted at by Carlstadt in
1 52 1 in his work on the Canon of Scripture, and by Andreas
Masiu^, a Belgian scholar, who published a commentary on
Joshua in 1574, and a Roman Catholic priest, called Peyrere
or Pererius, in his Systematic Theology, 1660. (LIV. Cap. i.)

But it may really be said to have originated with Spinoza,
the rationalist Dutch philosopher. In his Tractatus Theologi-
co-Politicus (Cap. vii-viii), 1670, Sginoza came out boldly

35

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to
Ezra or to some other late compiler.

Spinoza was really the fountain-head of the movement,
and his line was taken in England by the British philosopher
Hobbes. He went deeper than Spinoza, as an outspoken an-
tagonist of the necessity and possibility of a personal revela-
tion, and also denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
A few years later a French priest, called Richard Simon of
Dieppe, pointed out the supposed varieties of style as indica-
tions of various authors in his Historical Criticism of the
Old Testament, "an epoch-making work." Then another
Dutchman, named Clericus (or Le Clerk), In 1685, advocated
still more radical views, suggesting an Exilian and priestly
authorship for the Pentateuch, and that the Pentateuch was
composed by the priest sent from Babylon {2 Kings, 17),
about 678, B. C, and also a kind of later editor or redactor
theory. Clericus is said to have been the first critic who set
forth the theory that Christ and his Apostles did not come
into the world to teach the Jews criticism, and that it is only
to be expected that their language would be in accordance
with the views of the day.

In 1753 a Frenchman named Astruc, a medical man, and
reputedly a free-thinker of profligate life, propounded for the
first time the Jehovistic and Elohistic divisive hypothesis, and
opened a new era. (Briggs' Higher Criticisn^ of the Penta-
teuch, page 46.) Astruc said that the use of the two names,
Jehovah and Elohim, shewed the book was composed of
different documents. (The idea of the Holy Ghost employing
two w^ords, or one here and another there,, or both together
as He wills, never seems to enter the thought of the Higher
Critic! ) His work was called "Conjectures Regarding the

.^6

The History of the High$r Criticism

Original Memoirs in the Book of Genesis/' and was published
in Brussels.

Astruc may be called the father of the documentary the-
ories. He asserted there are traces of no less than ten or
twelve different memoirs in the book of Genesis. He denied
its Divine authority, and considered the book to be disfigured
by useless repetitions, disorder, and contradiction. (Hirsch-
f elder, page 66.) For fifty years Astruc's theory was unno-
ticed. The rationalism of Germany was as yet undeveloped,
so that the body was not yet prepared to receive the germ, or
the soil the weed.

THE GERMAN CRITICS

The next stage was largely German. Eichhorn is the
greatest name in this period, the eminent Oriental professor at
Gottingen who published his work on the Old Testament in-
troduction in 1780. He put into different shape the docu-
mentary hypothesis of the Frenchman, and did his work so
ably that his views were generally adopted by the most dis-
tinguished scholars. Eichhorn's formative influence has been
incalculably great. Few scholars refused to do honor to the
new sun. It is through him that the name Higher Criticism
has become identified with the movement. He w^as followed
by Vater and later by Hartmann with their fragment theory
which practically undermined the Mosaic authorship, made
the Pentateuch a heap of fragments, carelessly joined by one
editor, and paved the way for the most radical of all divisive
hypotheses.

In 1806 De Wette, Professor of Philosophy and Theology
at Heidelberg, published a work which ran through six edi-
tions in four decades. His contribution to the introduction of
the Old Testament instilled the same general principles as

37

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

Eichhorn, and in the supplemental hypotheses assumed that
Deuteronomy was composed in the age of Josiah (2 Kings
22:8). Not long after, Vatke and Leopold George (both
Hegelians) unreservedly declared the post-Mosaic and post-
prophetic origin of the first four books of the Bible. Then
came Bleek, who advocated the idea of the Grundschift or
original document and the redactor theory; and then Ewald,
the father of the Crystallization theory; and then Hupfield
(1853), who held that the original document was an inde-
pendent compilation; and Graf, who wrote a book on the
historical books of the Old Testament in 1866 and advocated
the theory that the Jehovistic and Elohistic documents were
written hundreds of years after Moses' time. Graf was a
pupil of Reuss, the redactor of the Ezra hypothesis of Spinoza.

Then came a most influential writer, Professor Kuenen of
Leyden in Holland, whose work on the Hexateuch was edited
by Colenso in 1865, and his "Religion of Israel and Prophecy
in Israel," published in England in 1874- 1877. Kuenen was
one of the most advanced exponents of the rationalistic school.
Last, but not least, of the continental Higher Critics is Julius
Wellhausen, who at one time was a theological professor in
Germany, who published in 1878 the first volume of his his-
tory of Israel, and won by his scholarship the attention if not
the allegiance of a number of leading theologians. (See
Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, Green, pages 59-88.)

It will be observed that nearly all these authors were
Germans, and most of them professors of philosophy or the-
ology.

THE BRITISH-AMERICAN CRITICS

The third stage of the movement is the British-American.
The best known name is that of Dr. Samuel Davidson,

2>^

The History of the Higher Crilicisui

whose "Introduction to the Old Testament," published in 1862,
was largely based on the fallacies of the German rationalists.
The supplementary hypothesis passed over into England
through him and with strange incongruity, he borrowed fre-
quently from Baur. Dr. Robertson Smith, the Scotchman,
recast the German theories in an English form in his works on
the Pentateuch, the Prophets of Israel, and the Old Testa-
ment in the Jewish Church, first published in 1881, and fol-
lowed the German school, according to Briggs, with great
boldness and thoroughness. A man of deep piety and high
spirituality, he combined with a sincere regard for the Word
of God a critical radicalism that was strangely inconsistent, as
did also his namesake, George Adam Smith, the most influ-
ential of the present-day leaders, a man of great insight and
scriptural acumen, who in his works on Isaiah, and the twelve
prophets, adopted seme of the most radical and least demon-
strable of the German theories, and in his later work, ''Mod-
ern Criticism and the Teaching of the Old Testament," has
gone still farther in the rationalistic direction.

Another well-known Higher Critic is Dr. S. R. Driver, the
Regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford, who, in his "Intro-
duction to the Literr.ture of the Old Testament," published ten
years later, and his work on the Book of Genesis, has elabo-
rated with remarkable skill and great detail of analysis the
theories and viev/s of the continental school. Driver's work
is able, very able, 1 ut it lacks originality and English inde-
pendence. The hari is the hand of Driver, but the voice is
the voice of Kuenen or Wellhausen.

The third well-'<nown name is that of Dr. C. A. Briggs,
for some time Processor of Biblical Theology in the Union
Theological Seminar of New York. An equally earnest ad-
vocate of the GermLn theories, he published in 1883 his "Bib-

39

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

lical Study"; in 1886, his ''Messianic Prophecy," and a lirtle
later his "Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch." Briggs
studied the Pentateuch, as he confesses, under the guidance
chiefly of Ewald. (Hexateuch, page 63.)

Of course, this hst is a very partial one, but it gives most
of the names that have become famous- in connection with
the movement, and the reader who desires more will find a
complete summary of the literature of the Higher Criticism
in Professor Bissell's work on the Pentateuch (Scribner's,
1892). Briggs, in his "Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch"
(Scribner's, 1897), gives an historical summary also.

We must now investigate another question, and that is
the religious views of the men most influential in this move-
ment. In making the statement that we are about to make,
we desire to deprecate entirely the idea of there being any-
thing uncharitable, unfair, or unkind in stating what is simply
a matter of fact.

^ THE VIEWS OF THE CONTINENTAL CRITICS

Regarding the views of the Continental Critics, three
things can be confidently asserted of nearly all, if not all, of
the real leaders.

1. They were men who denied the validity of miracle,
and the validity of any miraculous narrative. What Chris-
tians consider to be miraculous they considered legendary or
mythical ; ''legendary exaggeration of events that are entirely
explicable from natural causes."

2. They were men who denied the reality of prophecy
and the validity of any prophetical statement. What Chris-
tians have been accustomed to consider prophetical, they called
dexterous conjectures, coincidences, fiction, or imposture.

40

The History of the Higher Criticism

3. They were men who denied the reahty of revelation,
in the sense in which it has ever been h.eld by the universal
Christian Church. They were avowed unbelievers of the
supernatural. Their theories were excogitated on pure
grounds of human reasoning. Their hypotheses were con-
structed on the assumption of the falsity of Scripture. As to
tl:e inspiration of the Bible, as to the Holy Scriptures from
Genesis to Revelation being the Word of God, they had no
such belief. We may take them one by one. Spinoza repu-
diated absolutely a supernatural revelation. And Spinoza
was one of their greatest. Eichhorn discarded the miraculous,
and considered that the so-called supernatural element was an
Oriental exaggeration; and Eichhorn has been called the
father of Higher Criticism, and was the first man to use the
term. De Wette's views as to inspiration were entirely in-
fidel. Vatke and Leopold George were Hegelian rationalists,
and regarded the first four books of the Old Testament as
entirely mythical. Kuenen, says Professor Sanday, wrote
in the interests of an almost avowed Naturalism. That is, he
was a free-thinker, an agnostic; a man who did not believe
in the Revelation of the one true and living God. (Grampton
Lectures, 1893, page 117.) He wrote from an avowedly
naturalistic standpoint, says Driver (page 205). According
to Wellhausen, the religion of Israel was a naturalistic evo-
lution from heathendom, an emanation from an imperfectly
monotheistic kind of semi-pagan idolatry. It was simply a
human religion.

THE LEADERS WERE RATIONALISTS

In one word, the formative forces of the Higher Critical
movement were rationalistic forces, and the men who were its

41

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

chief authors and expositors, who "on account of purely philo-
logical criticism have acquired an appalling authority," were
men who had discarded belief in God and Jesus Christ Whom
He had sent. The Bible, in their view, was a mere human
product. It was a stage in the literary evolution of a reUgious
people. If it was not the resultant of a fortuitous concourse
of Oriental myths and legendary accretions, and its Jahveh
or Jahweh, the excogitation of a Sinaitic clan, it certainly
was not given by the inspiration of God, and is not the Word
of the living God. "Holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost," said Peter. "God, who at sundry
times and in diverse manners spake by the prophets," said
Paul. Not so, said Kuenen; the prophets were not moved to
speak by God. Their utterances were all their own. (San-
day, page 117.)

These then were their views and these were the views that
have so dominated modern Christianity and permeated modern
ministerial thought in the two great languages of the modern
world. We cannot say that they were men whose rationalism
was the result of their conclusions in the study of the Bible.
Nor can we say their conclusions with regard to the Bible
were wholly the result of their rationalism. But we can say,
on the one hand, that inasmuch as they refused to recognize
the Bible as a direct revelation from God, they were free to
form hypotheses ad libitum. And, on the other hand, as they
denied the supernatural, the animus that animated them in
the construction of the hypotheses was the desire to construct
a theory that would explain away the supernatural. JLJnbe-
lief was the antecedent, not the consequent of their criticism.

Now there is nothing unkind in this. There is nothing
that is uncharitable, or unfair. It is simply a statement of fact
which modern authorities most freely admit.

42

The History of the Higher Criticism

THE SCHOOL OF COMPROMISE

When we come to the English-writing Higher Critics, we
approach a much more difficult subject. The British- American
Higher Critics represent a school of compromise. On the
one hand they practically accept the premises of the Conti-
nental school with regard to the antiquity, authorship, authen-
ticity, and origins of the Old Testament books. On the other
hand, they refuse to go with the German rationalists in alto-
gether denying their inspiration. They still claim to accept
the Scriptures as containing a Revelation from God. But
may they not hold their own peculiar views with regard to
the origin and date and literary structure of the Bible with-
out endangering either their own faith or the faith of Chris-
tians? This is the very heart of the question, and, in order
that the reader may see the seriousness of the adoption of the
conclusions of the critics, as brief a resume as possible of
the matter will be given.

THE POINT IN A NUTSHELL

According to the faith of the universal church, the Penta-
teuch, that is, the first five books of the Bible, is one con-
sistent, coherent, authentic and genuine composition, inspired
by God, and, according to the testimony of the Jews, the state-
ments of the books themselves, the reiterated corroborations of
the rest of the Old Testament, and the explicit statement of
the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:44, John 5:46-47) was written by
Moses (with the exception, of course, of Deut. 34, possibly
written by Joshua, as the Talmud states, or probably by Ezra)
at a period of about fourteen centuries before the advent of
Christ, and 800 years or so before Jeremiah. It is, moreover,

43

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

a portion of the Bible that is of paramount importance, for it
is the basic substratum of the whole revelation of God, and
of paramount value, not because it is merely the literature of
an ancient nation, but because it is the introductory section
of the Word of God, bearing His authority and given by
inspiration through His servant Moses. That is the faith of
the Church.

THE critics' theory

But according to the Higher Critics :

1. The Pentateuch consists of four completely diverse
documents. These completely different documents vi^ere the pri-
mary sources of the composition which they call the Hexa-
teuch : (a) The Yahwist or Jahwist, (b) the Elohist, (c) the
Deuteronomist, and (d) the Priestly Code, the Grundschift,
the work of the first Elohist (Sayce Hist. Heb., 103), now
generally known as J. E. D. P., and for convenience desig-
nated by these symbols.

2. These different works were composed at various peri-
ods of time, not in the fifteenth century, B. C, but in the
ninth, seventh, sixth and fifth centuries; J. and E. being
referred approximately to about 800 to 700 B. C. ; D to about
650 to 625 B. C, and P. to about 525 to 425 B. C. According
to the Graf theory, accepted by Kuenen, the Elohist docu-
ments were post-exilion, that is, they were written only five
centuries or so before Christ. Genesis and Exodus as well as
the Priestly Code, that is, Leviticus and part of Exodus and
Numbers were also post-exilic.

3. These different works, moreover, represent different
traditions of the national life of the Hebrews, and are at
variance in most important particulars.

4. And, further. They conjecture that these four sup-

44

The History of the Higher Criticism-

positive documents were not compiled and written by Mo3e5,
but were probably constructed somewhat after this fashion :
For some reason, and at some time, and in some way, some
one, no one knows who, or why. or when, or where, wrote J.
Then someone else, no one knows who, or why, or when, or
where, wrote another docum.ent, which is now called E. And
then at a later time, the critics only know who, cr why, or
when, or where, an anonymous personage, whom v;e may call
Redactor I, took in hand the reconstruction of these docu-
ments, introduced new material, harmonized the real and
apparent discrepancies, and divided the inconsistent accounts
of one event into two separate transactions. Then some time
after this, perhaps one hundred years or m.ore, no one knows
who, or why, or when, or where, some anonymous personage
wrote another document, which tliey style D. And after a
while another anonymous author, no one knows who, or
why, or when, or where, whom we will call Redactor II, took
this in hand, com.pared it with J. E., revised J. E.. with con-
siderable freedom, and in addition introduced quite a body
of new miaterial. Then someone else, no one knov\-s who, or
why, or when, or where, probably, however, about 525, or
perhaps 425, wrote P. ; and then another anonymous Hebrew,
whom we may call Redactor III, undertook to incorporate
this with the triplicated composite J. E. D., with what they
call redactional additions and insertions. (Green, page 88,
cf. Sayce. Early History of the Hebrews, pages 100-105.)

It may be well to state at this point that this is not an
exaggerated statement of the Higher Critical position. On the
contrary, we have given here what has been described as a
position "established by proofs, valid and cumulative" and
"representing the most sober scholarship." The more ad-
vanced continental Higher Critics, Green says, distinguish the

The Higher Criticism and The Nezu Theology

writers of the primary sources according to the supposed ele-
ments as Ji and J2, Ei and E2, Pi, P2 and P3, and Di and
D2, nine different originals in all. The different Redactors,
technically described by the symbol R., are Rj., who com-
bined J. and E. ; Rd., who added D. to J. E., and Rh., who
completed the Hexateuch by combining P. with J. E. D. (H.
C. of the Pentateuch, page 88.)

A DISCREDITED PENTATEUCH

5. These four suppositive documents are, moreover, al-
leged to be internally inconsistent and undoubtedly incom-
plete. How far they are incomplete they do not agree. How
much is missing and when, where, how and by whom it was
removed; whether it was some thief who stole, or copyist
who tampered, or editor who falsified, they do not declare.

6. In this redactory process no limit apparently is as-
signed by the critic to the work of the redactors. With an utter
irresponsibility of freedom it is declared that they inserted
misleading statements with the purpose of reconciling incom-
patible traditions; that they amalgamated what should have
been distinguished, and sundered that which should have
amalgamated. In one word, it is an axiomatic principle of
the divisive hypothesizers that the redactors "have not only
misapprehended, but misrepresented the originals" (Green,
page 170). They were animated by "egotistical motives."
They confused varying accounts, and erroneously ascribed
them to different occasions. They not only gave false and col-
ored impressions; they destroyed valuable elements of the
suppositive documents and tampered with the dismantled rem-
nant.

7. And worst of all. The Higher Critics are unanimous

46

The History of the Higher Criticism

in the conclusion that these documents contain three species of
material :

(a) The probably true.

(b) The certainly doubtful.

(c) The positively spurious.

*The narratives of the Pentateuch are usually trustworthy,
though partly mythical and legendary. The miracles recorded
were the exaggerations of a later age." (Davidson, Introduc-
tion, page 131.) The framework of the first eleven ch-APteri
of Genesis, says George Adam Smith in his ''Modern Criti*
cism and the Preaching of the Old Testament," is wcrcn from
the raw material of myth and legend. He deques their
historical character, and says that he can find no proof in
archaeology for the personal existence of characters of the
Patriarchs themselves. Later on, however, in a fit of apolo-
getic repentance, he makes the condescending admission that
it is extremely probable that the stories of the Patriarchs
have at the heart of them historical elements. (Pages 90-
106.)

Such is the view of the Pentateuch that is accepted as
conclusive by "the sober scholarship" of a number of the lead-
ing theological writers and professors of the day. It is to
this the Higher Criticism reduces what the Lord Jesus called
the writings of Moses.

A DISCREDITED OLD TESTAMENT

As to the rest of the Old Testament, it may be briefly said
that they have dealt with it with an equally confusing hand.
The time-honored traditions of the Catholic Church are set at
naught, and its thesis of the relation of inspiration and genu-
ineness and authenticity derided. As to the Psalms, the harp

47

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

that was once believed to be the harp of David was not
handled by the sweet Psalmist of Israel, but generally by some
anonymous post-exilist ; and Psalms that are ascribed to David
by the omniscient Lord Himself are daringly attributed to some
anonymous Maccabean. Ecclesiastes, written, nobody knows
when, where, and by whom, possesses just a possible grade
of inspiration, though one of the critics "of cautious and well-
balanced judgment" denies that it contains any at all. "Of
course," says another, "it is not really the work of Solomon."
(Driver, Introduction, page 470.) The Song of Songs is an
idyl of human love, and nothing more. There is no inspira-
tion in it; it contributes nothing to the sum of revelation.
(Sanday, page 211.) Esther, too, adds nothing to the sum of
revelation, and is not historical (page 213). Isaiah was, of
course, written by a number of authors. The first part,
chapters i to 40, by Isaiah ; the second by a Deutero-Isaiah
and a number of anonymous authors. As to Daniel, it was
a purely pseudonymous work, written probably in the second
century B. C.

With regard to the New Testament: The English writ-
ing school have hitherto confined themselves mainly to the
Old Testament, but if Professor Sanday, who passes as a
most conservative and moderate representative of the critical
school, can be taken as a sample, the historical books are "yet
in the first instance strictly histories, put together by ordi-
nary historical methods, or, in so far as the methods on
which they are composed, are not ordinary, due rather to the
peculiar circumstances of the case, and not to influences, which
need be specially described a3 supernatural" (page 399). The
Second Epistle of Peter is pseudonymous, its name counter-
feit, and, therefore, a forgery, just as large parts of Isaiah,
Zachariah and Jonah, and Proverbs were suppositious and

The Hist or y of the Higher Criticism

quasi-fraudulent dcciiments. This is a straightforward state-
ment of the position taken by what is called the moderate
school of Higher Criticism. It is their own admitted posi-
tion, according to their own writings.

The difficulty, therefore, that presents itself to the average
man of today is this : How can these critics still claim to
believe in the Bible as the Christian Church has ever be-
lieved it?

A DISCREDITED BIBLE

There can be no doubt that Christ and His Apostles ac-
cepted the whole of the Old Testament as inspired in every
portion of every part ; from the first chapter of Genesis to
the last chapter of ^.lalachi, all was implicitly believed to be
the very Word of God Himself. And ever since their day the
view of the Universal Christian Church has been that the
Bible is the Word of God; as the twentieth article of the
Anglican Church terms it, it is God's Word written. The
Bible as a whole is inspired. "All that is written is God-in-
spired.''' That is, the Bible does not merely contain the Word
of God; it is the V/ord of God. It contains a revelation.
"All is not revealed, but all is inspired." This is the con-
servative and, up to the present day, the almost universal
view of the question. There are, it is well known, many the-
ories of inspiration. But whatever view or theory of inspira-
tion men may hold, plenary, verbal, dynamical, mechanical,
superintendent, or governmental, they refer either to the inspi-
ration of the men who wrote, or to the inspiration of what
is written. In one word, they imply throughout the work of
God the Holy Ghost, and are bound up v;ith the concomitant
ideas of authority, veracity, reliability, and truth divine. (The
two strongest wcn:s on the subject from this standpoint arc

49

The Higher Criticism and The Nczv Theology

by Gaussen and Lee. Gaussen on the Theopneustia is pub-
lished in an American edition by Hitchcock & Walden, of
Cincinnati; and Lee on the Inspiration of Lloly Scripture is
pubhshed by Rivingtons. Bishop Wordsworth, on the ''In-
spiration of the Bible," is also very scholarly and strong.
Rivingtons, 1875.)

The Bible can no longer, according to the critics, be viewed
in this light. It is not the Word in the old sense of that term.
It is not the Word of God in the sense that all of it is given
by the inspiration of God. It simply contains the Word of
God. In many of its parts it is just as uncertain as any
other human book. It is not even reliable history. Its rec-
ords of what it does narrate as ordinary history are full of
falsifications and blunders. The origin of Deuteronomy, e. g.,
was "a consciously refined falsification." (See Moller, page
207.)

THE REAL DIFFICULTY

But do they still claim to believe that the Bible is inspired ?
Yes. That is, in a measure. As Dr. Driver says in his
preface, "Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not
banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament; it
pre-supposes it." That is perfectly true. Criticism in the
hands of Christian scholars is safe. But the preponderating
scholarship in Old Testament criticism has admittedly noi
been in the hands of men who could be described as Chris-
tian scholars. It has been in the hands of men who disavow
belief in God and Jesus Christ W^hom He sent. Criticism in
the hands of Home and Hengstenberg does not banish of
destroy the inspiration of the Old Testrment. But, in the
hands of Spinoza, and Graf, and Wellhausen, and Kuenen,
inspiration is neither pre-supposed nor possible. Dr. Brigg^

5^

The History of the Higher Criticism

and Dr. Smith may avow earnest avowals of belief in the
Divine character of the Bible, and Dr. Driver may assert that
critical conclusions do not touch either the authority or the
inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but from
first to last, they treat God's Word with an indifference almost
equal to that of the Germans. They certainly handle the Old
Testament as if it were ordinary literature. And in all their
theories they seem like plastic wax in the hands of the
rationalistic moulders. But they still claim to believe in Bib-
lical inspiration.

A REVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Their theory of inspiration must be, then, a very different
one from that held by the average Christian.

In the Bampton Lectures for 1903, Professor Sanday of
Oxford, as the exponent of the later and more conservative
school of Higher Criticism, came out with a theory which he
termed the inductive theory. It is not easy to describe what
is fully meant by this, but it appears to mean the presence of
what they call *'a divine element" in certain parts of the Bible.
What that really is he does not accurately declare. The lan-
guage always vapours off into the vague and indefinite, when-
ever he speaks of it. In what books it is he does not say. *Tt
is present in different books and parts of books in different
degrees." "In some the Divine element is at the maximum;
in others at the minimum." He is not always sure. He is sure
it is not in Esther, in Ecclesiastes, in Daniel. If it is in the
historical books, it is there as conveying a religious lesson
rather than as a guarantee of historic veracity, rather as inter-
preting than as narrating. At the same time, \i the histories
as far as textual construction was concerned we-c "natural

SI

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

processes carried out naturally," it is difficult to see where the
Divine or supernatural element comes in. It is an inspiration
which seems to have been devised as a hypothesis of compro-
mise. In fact, it is a tenuous, equivocal, and indeterminate
something, the amount of which is as indefinite as its quality.
(Sanday, pages 100-398; cf. Driver, Preface, ix.)

But its most serious feature is this : It is a theory of
inspiration that completely overturns the old-fashioned ideas
of the Bible and its unquestioned standard of authority and
truth. For whatever this so-called Divine element is, it ap-
pears to be quite consistent wnth defective argument, incorrect
interpretation, if not v/hat the average man would call forgery
or falsification.

It is, in fact, revolutionary. To accept it the Christian will
have to completely readjust his ideas of honor and honesty,
of falsehood and misrepresentation. Men used to think that
forgery was a crime, and falsification a sin. Pusey, in his
great work on Daniel, said that "to write a book under the
name of another and to give it out to be his is in any case a
forgery, dishonest in itself and destructive of all trustworthi-
ness." (Pusey, Lectures on Daniel, page i.) But according
to the Higher Critical position, all sorts of pseudonymous ma-
terial, and not a little of it believed to be true by the Lord
Jesus Christ Himself, is to be found in the Bible, and no ante-
cedent objection ought to be taken to it.

Men used to think that inaccuracy would affect reliability
and that proven inconsistencies would imperil credibility. But
now it appears that there may not only be mistakes and
errors on the part of copyists, but forgeries, intentional omis-
sions, and misinterpretations on the part of authors, and yet,
marvelous to say, faith is not to be destroyed, but to be placed
on a firmer foundation, (Sanday, page 122.) They have,

5^

The History of tJic Higher Criticism

according to Briggs, entlironccl the Bible in a liighcr position
than ever before. (Briggs, 'The Bible, Church and Reason,"
page 149.) Sanday admits that there is an element in the
Pentateuch derived from Moses himself. An element! But
he adds, ''However much we may believe that there is a gen-
uine Mosaic foundation in the Pentateuch, it is difficult to
lay the finger upon it, and to say with confidence, here Moses
himself is speaking." "The strictly Llosaic elemicnt in the
Pentateuch must be indeterminate." "We ought not, per-
haps, to use them (the visions of Ex. 3 and 33) without
reserve for IMoses himself" (pages 172-174-176). The ordi-
nary Christian, however, wall say : Surely if we deny the
Mosaic authorship and the unity of the Pentateuch we must
undermine its credibility. The Pentateuch claims to be
Mosaic. It was the universal tradition of the Jews. It is ex-
pressly stated in nearly all the subsequent books of the Old
Testament. The Lord Jesus said so most explicitly. (John
546-47.)

IF NOT MOSES^ WHO?

For this thought must surely follow to the thoughtful
man: If Moses did not write the Books of Moses, who did?

If there were three or four, or six, or nine authorized orig-
inal winters, why not fourteen, or sixteen, or nineteen? And
then another and more serious thought must follow that. Who
w^ere these original writers, and who originated them? If
there were manifest evidences of alterations, manipulations,
inconsistencies and omissions by an indeterminate number
of unknown and unknowable and undateable redactors, then
the question arises, who were these redactors, and how far
had they authority to redact, and who gave them this author-
ity? If the redactor was the writer, was he an inspired writer,

5Z

The Higher Criticisju and The New Theology

and if he was inspired, what was the degree of his inspira-
tion; was it partial, plenary, inductive or indeterminate? This
is a question of questions : What is the guarantee of the in-
spiration of the redactor, and who is its guarantor. Moses
we know, and Samuel we know, and Daniel we know, but
ye anonymous and pseudonymous, who are ye? The Penta-
teuch, with Mosaic authorship, as Scriptural, divinely ac-
credited, is upheld by Catholic tradition and scholarship, and
appeals to reason. But a mutilated cento or scrap-book of
anonymous compilations, with its pre- and post-exilic redac-
tors and redactions, is confusion worse confounded.

At least that is the way it appears to the average Qiris-
tian. He may not be an expert in philosophy or theology, but
his common sense must surely be allowed its rights. And
that is the way it appears, too, to such an illustrious scholar
and critic aG Dr. Emil Reich. (Contemporary Review, April,

1905, page 5150

It is not possible then to accept the Kuenen-Wellhausen
theory of the structure of the Old Testament and the Sanday-
Driver theory of its inspiration without undermining faith in
the Bible as the Word of God. For the Bible is either the
Word of God, or it is not. The children of Israel were the
children of the Only Living and True God, or they were not.
If their Jehovah was a mere tribal deity, and their religion a
human evolution; if their sacred literature was natural with
mythical and pseudonymous admixtures; then the Bible is
dethroned from its throne as the exclusive, authoritative, Di-
vinely inspired Word of God. It simply ranks as one of the
sacred books of the ancients with similar claims of inspiration
and revelation. Its inspiration is an indeterminate quantity,
and any man has a right to subject it to the judgment of his
own critical insight, and to receive just as much cf it as

54

The History of the Higlicr Criticism

inspired as he or some otlicr person believes to be inspired.
When the contents have passed through the sieve of his
judgment the inspired residuum may be large, or the inspired
residuum may be small. If he is a conserv^.tive critic it may
be fairly large, a mr.ximim; if he is a more advanced critic it
may be fairly small, a minimum. It is simply the ancient lit-
erature of a religious people containing somewhere the Word
of God; *'a revelation of no one knows what, made no one
knows how, and lying no one knows where, except that it is
to be somewhere between Genesis and Revelation, but probably
to the exclusion of both." (Pusey, Daniel, xxviii.)

NO FINAL AUTHORITY.

Another serious consequence of the Higher Critical move-
ment is that it threatens the Christian system of doctrine and
the w'hole fabric of systematic theology. For up to the pres-
ent time any text from any part of the Bible was accepted as
a proof-text for the establishment of any truth of Christian
teaching, and a statement from the Bible was considered an
end of controversy. The doctrinal systems of the Anglican,
the Presbyterian, the ]\Iethodist and other Churches are all
based upon the view that the Bible contains the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (See 39 Articles
Church of England, vi, ix, xx, etc.) They accept as an axiom
that the Old and New Testaments in part, and as a whole,
have been given and sealed by God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost. All the doctrines of the Church of
Christ, from the greatest to the least, are based on this. All
the proofs of the doctrines are based also on this. No text
was questioned; no book was doubted; all Scripture was re-
ceived by the great builders of our theological systems witT'

55

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

that unassailable belief in the inspiration of its texts, which
was the position of Qirist and His apostles.

But now the Higher Critics think they have changed all
that.

They claim that the science of criticism has dispossessed
the science of systematic theology. Canon Henson tells us
that the day has gone by for proof-texts and harmonies. It is
not enough now for a theologian to turn to a book in the
Bible, and bring out a text in order to establish a doctrine.
It might be in a book, or in a portion of the Book that the
German critics have proved to be a forgery, or an anachronism.
It might be in Deuteronomy, or in Jonah, or in Daniel, and in
that case, of course, it would be out of the question to accept
it. The Christian system, therefore, will have to be re-adjusted
if not revolutionized, every text and chapter and book will
have to be inspected and analyzed in the light of its date, and
origin, and circumstances, and authorship, and so on, and only
after it has passed the examining board of the modern Franco-
Dutch-German criticism will it be allowed to stand as a proof-
text for the establishment of any Christian doctrine.

But the most serious consequence cf this theory of the
structure and inspiration of the Old Ter.tament is that it over-
turns the juridic authority of our Lord Jesus Christ.

w^HAT OF Christ's authority?

The attitude of Christ to the Old Testament Scriptures
must determine ours. He is God. He is truth. His is the
final voice. He is the Supreme Judge. There is no appeal
from that court. Christ Jesus the Lord beheved and affirmed
the historic veracity of the whole of the Old Testament

i6

The History of the Higher Criticism

writings implicitly (Luke 24:44). And the Canon, or collec-
tion of Books of the Old Testament, was precisely the same
in Christ's time as it is today. And further. Christ Jesus
our Lord believed and emphatically affirmed the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch (Matt. 5:17-18; Mark 12:26-36;
Luke 16:31; John 5:46-47). That is true, the critics say.
But, then, neither Christ nor His Apostles were critical schol-
ars ! Perhaps not in the twentieth century sense of the term.
But, as a German scholar said, if they were not critici doc-
tores, they were doctores veritatis who did not come into the
world to fortify popular errors by their authority. But then
they say, Christ's knowledge as man was limited. He grew in
knowledge (Luke 2:52). Surely that implies His ignorance.
And if His ignorance, why not His ignorance with regard to
the science of historical criticism? (Gore, Lux Mundi, page
360; Briggs, H. C. of Hexateuch, page 28.) Or even if He
did know more than His age. He probably spoke as He did
in accommodation with the ideas of His contemporaries!
(Briggs, page 29.)

In fact, what they mean is practically that Jesus did know
perfectly well that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but
allowed His disciples to believe that Moses did, and taught
His disciples that Moses did, simply because He did not want
to upset their simple faith in the whole of the Old Testament
as the actual and authoritative and Divinely revealed Word
of God. (See Driver, page 12.) Or else, that Jesus imagined,
like any other Jew of His day, that Moses wrote the books
that bear his nam.e, and believed, with the childlike Jewish be-
lief of His day, the literal inspiration, Divine authority and his-
toric veracity of the Old Testament, and yet was completely
mistaken, ignorant of the simplest facts, and wholly in error.

57

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

In other words, He could not tell a forgery from an original,
or a pious fiction from a genuine document. (The analogy of
Jesus speaking of the sun rising as an instance of the theory
of accommodation is a very different thing.)

This, then, is their position : Christ knew the views He
taught were false, and yet taught them as truth. Or else,
Christ didn't know they were false and believed them to be
true when they were not true. In either case the Blessed One
is dethroned as True God and True Man. If He did not know
the books to be spurious when they were spurious and th^
fables and myths to be mythical and fabulous ; if He accepted
legendary tales as trustworthy facts, then He was not and is
not omniscient. He was not only intellectually fallible, He was
morally fallible; for He was not true enough "to miss the
ring of truth" in Deuteronomy and Daniel.

And further. If Jesus did know certain of the books to
be lacking in genuineness, if not spurious and pseudonymous ;
if He did know the stories of the Fall and Lot and Abraham
and Jonah and Daniel to be allegorical and imaginary, if not
unverifiable and mythical, then He was neither trustworthy nor
good. "If it were not so, I would have told you." We
feel, those of us who love and trust Him, that if these
stories were not true, if these books were a mass of historical
unveracities, if Abraham was an eponymous hero, if Joseph
was an astral myth, that He would have told us so. It is a
matter that concerned His honor as a Teacher as well as His
knowledge as our God. As Canon Liddon has conclusively
pointed out, if our Lord was unreliable in these historic and
documentary matters of inferior value, how can He be fol-
lowed as the teacher of doctrinal truth and the revealer of
God? (John 3:12.) (Liddon, Divinity of Our Lord, pages
475-480.)

5S

The History of the Higher Criticism

AFTER THE KENOSIS

Men say in this connection that part of the humiliation of
Christ was His being touched with the infirmities of our
human ignorance and fallibilities. They dwell upon the so-
called doctrine of the Kenosis, or the emptying, as explaining
satisfactorily His limitations. But Christ spoke of the Old
Testament Scriptures after His resurrection. He affirmed
after His glorious resurrection that ''all things must be ful-
filled v.hich were written in the law of Closes, and in the
prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me" (Luke 24:44).
This was not a statement made during the time of the Kenosis,
when Girist was a mere boy, or a youth, or a m.ere Jew after
the flesh (i Cor. 13 :ii). It is the statement of Him Who has
been declared the Son of God with power. It is the Voice
that is final and overwhelming. The limitations of the Kenosis
are all abandoned now, and yet the Risen Lord not only does
not give a shadow of a hint that any statement in the Old
Testament is inaccurate or that any portion thereof needed
revision or correction, not only most solemnly declared that
those books which we receive as the product of Moses were
indeed the books of Moses, but authorized with His Divine
imprimatur the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures from
beginning to end.

There are, however, two or three questions that must be
raised, as they will have to be faced by every student of
present day problems. The first is this : Is not refusal of
the higher critical conclusions mere opposition to light and
progress and the position of ignorant alarmists and obscur-
antists ?

59

The Higher Criticism and The Ne'oJ Theology

NOT OBSCURANTISTS

It is very necessary to have our minds made perfectly
clear on this point, and to remove not a little dust of misun-
derstanding.

The desire to receive all the light that the most fearless
search for truth by the highest scholarship can yield is the
desire of every true believer in the Bible. No really healthy
Christian mind can advocate obscurantism. The obscurant
who opposes the investigation of scholarship, and would throt-
tle the investigators, has not the spirit of Christ. In heart
and attitude he is a Medisevalist. To use Bushnell's famous
apologue, he w^ould try to stop the dawning of the day by
wringing the neck of the crowing cock. No one wants to put
the Bible in a glass case. But it is the duty of every Christian
who belongs to the noble army of truth-lovers to test all
things and to hold fast that which is good. He also has rights
even though he is, technically speaking, unlearned, and to
accept any view that contradicts his spiritual judgment simply
because it is that of a so-called scholar, is to abdicate his
franchise as a Christian and his birthright as a man. (See
that excellent little work by Professor Kennedy, *'01d Testa-
ment Criticism and the Rights of the Unlearned," F. H. Re-
vell.) And in his right of private judgment he is aware that
while the privilege of investigation is conceded to all, the con-
clusions of an avowedly prejudiced scholarship must be sub-
jected to a peculiarly searching analysis. The most ordinary
Bible reader is learned enough to know that the investigation
of the Book that claims to be supernatural by those who
are avowed enemies of all that is supernatural, and the study
of subjects that can be understood only by men of humble
and contrite heart by men who are admittedly irreverent in

60

The History of the Higher Criticism

spirit, must certainly be received with caution. (See Parker's
striking work, "None Like It," F. H. Revell, and his last
address.)

THE SCHOLARSHIP ARGUMENT,

I-

The second question is also serious : Are we not bound
to receive these views when they are advanced, not by ration-
alists, but by Christians, and not by ordinary Christians, but
by men of superior and unchallengeable scholarship?

There is a widespread idea among younger men that the
so-called Higher Critics must be followed because their schol-
arship settles the questions. This is a great mistake. No
expert scholarship can settle questions that require a humble
heart, a believing mind and a reverent spirit, as well as a
knowledge of Hebrew and philology ; and no scholarship can
be relied upon as expert which is manifestly characterized by
a biased judgment, a curious lack of knowledge of human
nature, and a still more curious deference to the views of men
with a prejudice against the supernatural. No one can read
such a suggestive and sometimes even such an inspiring writer
as George Adam Smith without a feeling of sorrow that he
has allowed this German bias of mind to lead him into such
an assumption of infallibility in many of his positions and
statements. It is the same with Driver. With a kind of sic
volo sic jubeo airy ease he introduces assertions and proposi-
tions that would really require chapter after chapter, if not
even volume after volume, to substantiate. On page after
page his "must be," and "could not possibly be," and "could
certainly not," extort from the average reader the natural ex-
clamation: "But why?" "Why not?" "Wherefore?" "On
what grounds?" "For what reason?" "Where are the
proofs?" But of proofs or reason there is not a trace. The

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

reader must be content with the writer's assertions. It re-
minds one, in fact, of the "we may well suppose," and **per-
haps" of the Darwinian who offers as the sole proof of the
origination of a different species his random supposition !
("Modern Ideas of Evolution," Dawson, pages 53-55.)

A GREAT MISTAKE

There is a widespread idea also among the younger stu-
dents that because Graf and Wellhausen and Driver and
Cheyne are experts in Hebrew that, therefore, their deduc-
tions as experts in language must be received. This, too, is a
mistake. There is no such difference in the Hebrew of the
so-called original sources of the Hexateuch as some suppose.
The argument from language, says Professor Bissell ("Intro-
duction to Genesis in Colors," page vii), requires extreme
care for obvious reasons. There is no visible cleavage line
among the supposed sources. Any man of ordinary intelli-
gence can see at once the vast difference between the English
of Tennyson and Shakespeare, and Chaucer and Sir John de
Mandeville. But no scholar in the world ever has or ever
will be able to tell the dates of each and every book in the
Bible by the style of the Hebrew. (See Sayce, "Early His-
tory of the Hebrews," page 109.) The unchanging Orient
knows nothing of the swift lingual variations of the Occi-
dent. Pusey, with his masterly scholarship, has shown how
even the Book of Daniel, from the standpoint of philology,
cannot possibly be a product of the time of the Maccabees.
("On Daniel," pages 23-59.) The late Professor of Hebrew
in the University of Toronto, Professor Hirschfelder, in his
very learned work on Genesis, says: "We would search in
vain for any peculiarity either in the language or the sense

62

The History of the Higher Criticism

that would indicate a two-fold authorship." As far as the
language of the original goes, "the most fastidious critic could
not possibly detect the slightest peculiarity that would indi-
cate it to be derived from two sources" (page y2). Dr. Emil
Reich also, in his "Bankruptcy of the Higher Criticism," in
the Contemporary Review, April, 1905, says the same thing.

NOT ALL ON ONE SIDE

A third objection remains, a most serious one. It is that
all the scholarship is on one side. The old-fashioned conserva-
tive views are no longer maintained by men with pretension to
scholarship. The only people who oppose the Higher Critical
views are the ignorant, the prejudiced, and the illiterate.
(Briggs' ''Bible, Church and Reason," pages 240-247.)

This, too, is a matter that needs a little clearing up. In
the first place it is not fair to assert that the upholders of
what are called the old-fashioned or traditional views of the
Bible are opposed to the pursuit of scientific Biblical investi-
gation. It is equally unfair to imagine that their opposition
to the views of the Continental school is based upon ignorance
and prejudice.

What the Conservative school oppose is not Biblical criti-
cism, but Biblical criticism by rationalists. They do not op-
pose the conclusions of Wellhausen and Kuenen because they
are experts and scholars; they oppose them because the Bib-
lical criticism of rationalists and unbelievers can be neither
expert nor scientific. A criticism that is characterized by the
most arbitrary conclusions from the most spurious assump-
tions has no right to the word scientific. And further. Their
adhesion to the traditional views is not only conscientious
but intelligent. They believe that the old-fashioned views are

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

as scholarly as they are Scriptural. It is the fashion in some
quarters to cite the imposing list of scholars on the side of
the German school, and to sneeringly assert that there is not
a scholar to stand up for the old views of the Bible.

This is not the case. Ilengstenberg of Basle and Berlin,
was as profound a scholar as Eichhorn, Vater or De Wette;
and Keil or Kurtz, and Zahn and Rupprecht were competent
to compete with Reuss and Kuenen. Wilhelm Moller, wdio
confesses that he was once ''immovably convinced of the irre-
futable correctness of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis," has
revised his former radical conclusions on the ground of
reason and deeper research as a Higher Critic ; and Profes-
sor Winckler, who has of late overturned the assured and
settled results of the Higher Critics from the foundations, is,
according to Orr, the leading Orientalist in Germany, and a
man of enormous learning.

Sayce, the Professor of Assyriolog}^ at Oxford, has a
right to rank as an expert and scholar with Cheyne, the Oriel
Professor of Scripture Interpretation. Margoliouth, the
Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, as far as learning is
concerned, is in the same rank with Driver, the Regius Pro-
fessor of Hebrew, and the conclusion of this great scholar
with regard to one of the widely vaunted theories of the
radical school, is almost amusing in its terseness.

"Is there then nothing in the splitting theories," he says
in summarizing a long line of defense of the unity of the book
of Isaiah; "is there then nothing in the splitting theories?
To my mind, nothing at all!" ("Lines of Defense," page

136.)

Green and Bissell are as able, if not abler, scholars than
Robertson Smith and Professor Briggs, and both of these
men, as a result of the widest and deepest research, have come

(>4

The History of the Higher Crllicism

to the conclusion that the theories of the Germans are unsci-
entific, unhistorical, and unscholarly. The last words of Pro-
fessor Green in his very able work on the ''Higher Criticism
of the Pentateuch" are most suggestive. ''Would it not be
wiser for them to revise their own ill-judged alliance with
the enemies of evangelical truth, and inquire whether Christ's
view of the Old Testament may not, after all, be the true
view ?"

Yes. That, after all, is the great and final question. We
trust we are not ignorant. We feel sure we are not malignant.
We desire to treat no m.an unfairly, or set down aught in
malice.

But we desire to stand with Christ and His Church. If
we have any prejudice, we would rather be prejudiced against
rationalism. If we have any bias, it must be against a teach-
ing which unsteadies heart and unsettles faith. Even at the
expense of being thought behind the times, we prefer to
stand with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in receiving the
Scriptures as the Word of God, without objection and with-
out a doubt. A little learning, and a little listening to ration-
alistic theorizers and sympathizers may incline us to uncer-
tainty ; but deeper study and deeper research will incline us
as it inclined Hengstenberg and Moller, to the profoundest
conviction of the authority and authenticity of the Holy
Scriptures, and to cry, "Thy word is very pure; therefore,
Thy servant loveth it."

APPENDIX

It may not be out of place to add here a small list of
reading matter that will help the reader who wants to
strengthen his position as a simple believer in tke Bible. As I

6;

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

said before, a large list would be altogether too cumbersome.
I would only put down those that I have personally found
most valuable and suggestive. If one can afford only one
or two, I would suggest Green and Kennedy ; or Munhall and
Parker; or Saphir and Anderson; or Orr and Urquhart.

The most massive and scholarly are Home's Introduction,
and Pusey on Daniel, but they are deep, heavy and suitable
only for the more cultured and trained readers.

GREEN.
GREEN.

GREEN.

ORR.
ORR.

BISSELL.
BISSELL.

MUNHALL.
MOLLER.

"The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch."
(Scribner's.)

"General Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment," in two volumes; the Text and the
Canon. (Scribner's.)
"Unity of Genesis." (Scribner's.)
The foregoing are very good. Green was
a great scholar, the Princeton Professor
of Oriental and Old Testament Literature,
a man who deeply loved the Bible and
the Lord Jesus. He is perhaps the strong-
est of the scholarly opponents of the ra-
tionalistic Higher Critics.
"The Bible under Trial." (Armstrong &
Son, New York.)

"The Problem of the Old Testament."
(Nesbit & Co.)

Dr. Orr is one of the ablest and most
scholarly writers in the English-speaking
world today.

"The Pentateuch. Its Origin and Struc-
ture." (Scribner's.)

"Introduction to Genesis." Printed in col-
ors.

Bissell is a careful scholar, and writes from
the conservative side. Able, but not so
firm as Green.

"The Highest Critic vs. the Higher Crit-
ics." (Revell.)

By an evangelist, and therefore from the
earnest rather than the expert standpoint.
More to the level of the average reader
than Green or Bissell.
"Are the Critics Right?" (Revell.)
By a former follower of Graf-Wellhausen
and most interesting to the scholarly.
Hardiv suitable for the average reader, as

' 6c

The History of the Higher Criticism

MARGOLIOUTH.

ANDERSON.

PARKER.

SAYCE.

WALLER.
KENNEBY.

SHERATON.

it assumes familiarity with the technicali-
ties of the German critical school.
"Lines of Defence of the Biblical Revela-
tion." (Hodder & Stoughton.) Academic
and technical; intensely interesting. His
reasoning is not equally powerful through-
out, however.

"The Bible and Modern Criticism." (Re-
vell.)

The work of a layman, vigorous and earn-
est. He gives no uncertain sound.
"None Like It." A plea for the old sword.
(Revell.)

Vigorous and slashing, too, but grand in
the eloquence of its pleadings. Every min-
ister should read it. Brimming with sancti-
fied common sense.

"The Early History of the Hebrews."
(Rivington's.)

The chapter on the composition of the
Pentateuch is very strong.
"Moses and the Prophets." (Nisbet.)
A vigorous and unanswerable criticism of
Driver's treatment of the Pentateuch.
"Old Testament Criticism and the Rights
of the Unlearned." (Revell.)
A small and cheap book, but well worth
study.

"The Higher Criticism." (The Tract So-
ciety, Toronto.)

A most valuable little work. Thoroughly
up-to-date.

The following works also, although they are not exactly
along the line of the Higher Criticism, are most valuable and
suggestive :

SAPHIR.

SAPHIR.

PIERSON.

"Christ and the Scriptures." (Montrose
Christian Literature Society.)
A little book, but a multum in parvo. To
my mind for its size the best thing every
written on the subject.
"The Divine Unity of Scripture." (Mont-
rose Christian Literature Society.)
A great book full of well cooked meat.
Most scholarly, deeply spiritual, always
suggestive.

"Many Infallible Proofs." (Revell.)
Earnest, full, illustrative; most helpful.

67

The Higlier Criticism and The New Theology

URQUHART. "The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy

Scriptures." (Gospel Publishing House, New

York.)

Excellent and scholarly.
GIBSON. *The Ages before Moses." (Oliphant's,

Edinburgh.)

A most valuable and suggestive work.

Especially useful to young ministers.
GIBSON. "The Mosaic Era." (Randolph, New York.)

Spiritual and suggestive also.

A scholarly friend suggests also the following:

Rev. Thos. Whitelaw, M. A., D. D., LL. D., on "The Old
Testament Problem."

James W. Thurtle, LL. D., D. D., on "Old Testament Prob-
lems."

C. H. Rouse. M. A., LL. B., D. D., on "Old Testament Criti-
cism in New Testament Light."

Rev. Hugh MTntosh, M. A., on "Is Christ Infallible and The
Bible True?"

68

CHAPTER III
FALLACIES PF THE HIGHER CRITICISM

BY FRANK.UN JOJJNSON, D. D., LL. D.

The errors of the higlier criticism of which I shall write
pertain to its very substance. Those of a secondary character
the limits of my space forbid me to consider. My discussion
might be greatly expanded by additional masses of illustra-
tive material, and hence I close it with a list of books which
I recommend to persons who may wish to pursue the subject
further.

DEFINITION OF ''XHE HIGHER CRITICISM '*

As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the
higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism is, and
then what the higher critics tells us they have achieved.

The name ''the higher criticism" was coined by Eichhorn,
who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos,* after careful con-
sideration, adopts the definition of the name given by its
author: "The discovery and verification of the facts regard-
ing the origin, form and value of literary productions upon
the basis of their internal characters." The higher critics are
not blind to some other sources of argument. They refer to
history where they can gain any polemic advantage by doing
so. The background of the entire picture which they bring

*"The Elements of the Higher Criticism."

69

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

to us is the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution is
true. But after all their chief appeal is to the supposed evi-
dence of the documents themselves.

Other names for the movement have been sought. It has
been called the "historic view," on the assumption that it rep-
resents the real history of the Hebrew people as it must have
unfolded itself by the orderly processes of human evolutioa
But, as the higher critics contradict the testimony of all the
Hebrew historic documents which profess to be early, their
theory might better be called the "unhistoric view." The
higher criticism has sometimes been called the "documentary
hypothesis." But as all schools of criticism and all doctrines of
inspiration are equally hospitable to the supposition that the
biblical writers may have consulted documents, and may have
quoted them, the higher criticism has no special right to this
title. We must fall back, therefore, upon the name "the
higher criticism" as the very best at our disposal, and upon
the definition of it as chiefly an inspection of literary pro-
ductions in order to ascertain their dates, their authors, and
their value, as they themselves, interpreted in the light of the
hypothesis of evolution, may yield the evidence.

''assured results" of the higher criticism

I turn now to ask what the higher critics profess to have
found out by this method of study. The "assured results" on
which they congratulate themselves are stated variously. In
this country and England they commonly assume a form less
radical than that given them in Germany, though sufficiently
startling and destructive to arouse vigorous protest and a vig-
orous demand for the evidences, which, as we shall see, have
not been produced and cannot be produced. The less startling

70

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism-

form of the "assured results" usually announced in England
and America may be owing to the brighter light of Christian-
ity in these countries. Yet it should be noticed that there are
higher critics in this country and England who go beyond the
principal German representatives of the school in their zeal
for the dethronement of the Old Testament and the New, in
so far as these holy books are presented to the world as the
very Word of God, as a special revelation from heaven.

The following statement from Zenos may serve to intro-
duce us to the more moderate form of the ''assured results"
reached by the higher critics. It is concerning the analysis of
the Pentateuch, or rather of the Hexateuch, the Book of
Joshua being included in the survey. ''The Hexateuch is a
composite work whose origin and history may be traced in four
distinct stages: (i) A writer designated as J. Jahvist, or Je-
hovist, or Judean prophetic historian, composed a history of
the people of Israel about 800 B. C. (2) A writer designated
as E. Elohist, or Ephraemite prophetic historian, wrote a simi-
lar work some fifty years later, or about 750 B. C. These two
were used separately for a time, but were fused together into
JE by a redactor [an editor], at the end of the seventh cen-
tury. (3) A writer of different character wrote a book consti-
tuting the main portion of our present Deuteronomy during
the reign of Josiah, or a short time before 621 B. C. This
writer is designated as D. To his work were added an intro-
duction and an appendix, and with these accretions it was
united with JE by a second redactor, constituting JED. (4)
Contemporaneously with Ezekiel the ritual law began to be
reduced to writing. It first appeared in three parallel forms.
These were codified by Ezra not very much earlier than 444
B. C., and between that date and 280 B. C. it was joined with
JED by a final redactor. Thus no less than nine or ten men

71

The Higher Criiicism and The New Theology

were engaged in the production of the Hexateiich in its pres-
ent form, and each one can be distinguished from the rest by
his vocabulary and st3de and his reUgious point of view."

Such is the analysis of the Pentateuch as usually stated in
this country. But in Germany and Holland its chief represen-
tatives carry the division of labor much further. Wellhausen
distributes the total task among twenty-two writers, and
Kuenen among eighteen. Many others resolve each individual
writer into a school of writers, and thus multiply the numbers
enormously. There is no agreement among the higher critics
concerning this analysis, and therefore the cautious learner
may wtW wait till those who represent the theory tell him just
what it is they desire him to learn.

While some of the "assured results" are thus in doubt,
certain things are matters of general agreement. Moses wrote
little or nothing, if he ever existed. A large part of the
Hexateuch consists of unhistorical legends. We may grant
that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael and Esau existed, or we
may deny this. In either case, what is recorded of them is
chiefly myth. These denials of the truth of the written records
follow as matters of course from the late dating of the books,
and the assumption that the writers could set down only the
national tradition. They may have worked in part as collec-
tors of written stories to be found here and there; but, if so,
these written stories were not ancient, and they were diluted
by stories transmitted orally. These fragments, whether writ-
ten or oral, must have followed the general law of national
traditions, and have presented a mixture of legendary chaff,
with here and there a grain of historic truth to be sifted out
by careful winnowing.

Thus far of the Hexateuch.

The Psalms are so full of references to the Hexateuch

72

The Fallacies of iJie Higher Criticism

that they must have been written after it, and hence after the
captivity, perhaps beginning about 400 B. C. David may pos-
sibly have written one or two of them, but probably he v.Tote
none, and the strong conviction of the Hebrew people that he
was their greatest hymn-writer was a total mistake.

These revolutionary processes are carried into the New
Testament, and that also is found to be largely untrustworthy
as history, as doctrine, and as ethics, though a very good book,
since it gives expression to high ideals, and thus ministers to
the spiritual life. It may well have influence, but it can have
no divine authority. The Christian reader should consider
carefully this invasion of the New Testament by the higher
criticism. So long as the movement was confined to the Old
Testament many good men looked on with indifference, not
reflecting that the Bible, though containing "many parts" by
many writers, and though recording a progressive revelation,
is, after all, one book. But the limits of the Old Testament
have long since been overpassed by the higher critics, and it is
demanded of us that we abandon the immemorial teaching of
the church concerning the entire volume. The picture of
Christ which the New Testament sets before us is in many
respects mistaken. The doctrines of primitive Christianity
which it states and defends were well enough for the time,
but have no value for us today except as they commend
themselves to our independent judgment. Its moral precepts
are fallible, and w^e should accept them or reject them freely,
in accordance w^th the greater light of the twentieth century.
Even Christ could err concerning ethical questions, and neither
His commandments nor His example need constrain us.

The foregoing may serve as an introductory sketch, all too
brief, of the higher criticism, and as a basis of the discussion
of its fallacies, n©w immediately to follow.

72>

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

FIRST FALLACY : THE ANALYSIS OF THE PENTATEUCH

T. The first fallacy that I shall bring forward is its analy-
sis of the Pentateuch.

I. We cannot fail to observe that these various docu-
ments and their various authors and editors are only imagined.
As Green"^ has said, "There is no evidence of the existence of
these documents and redactors, and no pretense of any, apart
from the critical tests which have determined the analysis. All
tradition and all historical testimony as to the origin of the
Pentateuch are against them. The burden of proof is wholly
upon the critics. And this proof should be clear and convinc-
ing in proportion to the gravity and the revolutionary char-
acter of the consequences which it is proposed to base upon it."

2. Moreover, we know what can be done, or rather what
cannot be done, in the analysis of composite literary produc-
tions. Some of the plays of Shakespeare are called his "mixed
plays," because it is known that he collaborated with another
author in their production. The very keenest critics have
sought to separate his part in these plays from the rest, but
they confess that the result is uncertainty and dissatisfaction.
Coleridge professed to distinguish the passages contributed by
Shakespeare by a process of feeling, but Macaulay pronounced
this claim to be nonsense, and the entire effort, whether made
by the analysis of phraseology ar -^ style, or by esthetic percep-
tions, is an admitted failure. And this in spite of the fact
that the style of Shakespeare is one of the most peculiar and
inimitable. The Anglican Prayer Book is another composite
production which the higher critics have often been invited to

♦"Moses and His Recent Critics," pages 104, 105.

74

The Fallacies of I he Higher Criticism

analyze and distribute to its various sources. Some of the
authors of these sources hved centuries apart. They are now
well known from the studies of historians. But the Prayer
Book itself does not reveal one of them, though its various
vocabularies and styles have been carefully interrogated. Now
if the analysis of the Pentateuch can lead to such certainties,
why should not the analysis of Shakespeare and the Prayer
Book do as much? How can men accomplish in a foreign lan-
guage what they cannot accomplish in their own? How can
they accomplish in a dead language what they cannot accom-
plish in a living language? How can they distinguish ten or
eighteen or twenty-two collaborators in a small literary pro-
duction, when they cannot distinguish two? These ques-
tions have been asked many times, but the higher critics have
given no answer whatever, preferring the safety of a learned
silence :

"The oracles are dumb."

3. Much has been made of differences of vocabulary in
the Pentateuch, and elaborate lists of words have been assigned
to each of the supposed authors. But these distinctions fade
away when subjected to careful scrutiny, and Driver admits
that "the phraseological criteria '"^ " * are slight." Orr,*
who quotes this testimony, adds, "They are slight, in fact, to
a degree of tenuity that often makes the recital of them appear
like trifling."

=*"The Problem of the Old Testament," page 230.

75

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

SECOND FALLACY : THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION APPLIED TO
LITERATURE AND RELIGION.

II. A second fundamental fallacy of the higher criticism
is its dependence on the theory of evolution as the explana-
tion of the history of literature and of religion. The progress
of the higher criticism towards its present state has been rapid
and assured since Vatke^ discovered in the Hegelian philos-
ophy of evolution a means of biblical criticism. The Spen-
cerian philosophy of evolution, aided and reinforced by Dar-
winism, has added greatly to the confidence of the higher
critics. As Vatke, one of the earlier members of the school,
made the hypothesis of evolution the guiding presupposition
of his critical work, so today does Professor Jordan,' the very
latest representative of the higher criticism. "The nineteenth
century," he declares, "has applied to the history of the docu-
ments of the Hebrew people its own magic word, evolution.
'Tlie thought represented by that popular word has been found
to have a real meaning in our investigations regarding the
religious life and the theological beliefs of Israel." Thus,
were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no
higher criticism. The "assured results'' of the higher criticism
have been gained, after all, not by an inductive study of the
biblical books to ascertain if they present a great variety of
styles and vocabularies and religious points of view. They
have been attained by assuming that the hypothesis of evo-
lution is true, and that the religion of Israel must have un-

"'Die Biblische Theologie Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt."
'"Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought," T. and T. Clark,
1909.

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

folded itself by a process of natural evolution. They have
been attained by an interested cross-examination of the biblical
books to constrain them to admit the hypothesis of evolution.
The imagination has played a large part in the process, and
the so-called evidences upon which the "assured results" rest
are largely imaginary.

But the hypothesis of evolution, when applied to the his-
tory of literature, is a fallacy, leaving us utterly unable to
account for Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare, the greatest
poets of the world, yet all of them writing in the dawn of the
great literatures of the world. It is a fallacy when applied to
the history of religion, leaving us utterly unable to account for
Abraham and Moses and Christ, and requiring us to deny that
they could have been such men as the Bible declares them to
have been. The hypothesis is a fallacy when applied to the
history of the human race in general. Our race has made
progress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but
progress under the influence of supernatural revelation is one
thing, and evolution is another. Buckle* undertook to account
for history by a thorough-going application of the hypothesis
of evolution to its problems; but no historian today believes
that he succeeded in his effort, and his work is universally re-
garded as a brilliant curiosity. The types of evolution advo-
cated by different higher critics are widely different from one
another, varying from the pure naturalism of Wellhauscn to
the recognition of some feeble rays of supernatural revelation ;
but the hypothesis of evolution in any form, when applied to
human history, blinds us and renders us incapable of beholding
the glory of God in its more signal manifestations.

♦"History of Civilization in England."

77

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

THIRD FALLACY I THE BIBLE A NATURAL BOOK

III, A third fallacy of the higher critics is the doctrine
concerning the Scriptures which they teach. If a consistent
hypothesis of evolution is made the basis of our religious
thinking, the Bible will be regarded as only a product of
human nature working in the field of religious literature. It
will be merely a natural book. If there are higher critics who
recoil from this application of the hypothesis of evolution and
who seek to modify it by recognizing some special evidences
of the divine in the Bible, the inspiration of which they speak
rises but little higher than the providential guidance of the
writers. The church doctrine of the full inspiration of the
Bible is almost never held by the higher critics of any class,
even of the more believing. Here and there we may dis-
cover one and another who try to save some fragments of
the church doctrine, but they are few and far between, and
the salvage to which they cling is so small and poor that it
is scarcely worth while. Throughout their ranks the storm
of opposition to the supernatural in all its forms is so fierce
as to leave little place for the faith of the church that the
Bible is the very Word of God to man. But the fallacy of
this denial is evident to every believer who reads the Bible
with an open mind. He knows by an immediate conscious-
ness that it is the product of the Holy Spirit. As the sheep
know the voice of the shepherd, so the mature Christian
knows that the Bible speaks with a divine voice. On this
ground every Christian can test the value of the higher
criticism for himself. The Bible manifests itself to the spirit-
ual perception of the Christian as in the fullest sense human,
and in the fullest sense divine. This is true of the Old Testa-
ment, as well as of the New.

78

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

FOURTH FALLACY : THE MIRACLES DENIED

IV. Yet another fallacy of the higher critics is found
in their teachings concerning the biblical miracles. If the hy-
pothesis of evolution is applied to the Scriptures consistently,
it will lead us to deny all the miracles which they record. But
if applied timidly and waveringly, as it is by some of the Eng-
lish and American higher critics, it will lead us to deny a
large part of the miracles, and to inject as much of the nat-
ural as is any way possible into the rest. We shall strain
out as much of the gnat of the supernatural as we can, and
swallow as much of the camel of evolution as we can. We
shall probably reject all the miracles of the Old Testament,
explaining some of them as popular legends, and others as
coincidences. In the New Testament we shall pick and
choose, and no two of us will agree concerning those to be
rejected and those to be accepted. If the higher criticism
shall be adopted as the doctrine of the church, believers will
be left in a distressing state of doubt and uncertainty con-
cerning the narratives of the four Gospels, and unbelievers
will scoff and mock. A theory which leads to such wander-
ings of thought regarding the supernatural in the Scriptures
must be fallacious. God is not a God of confusion.

Among the higher critics who accept some of the miracles
there is a notable desire to discredit the virgin birth of our
Lord, and their treatment of this event presents a good exam-
ple of the fallacies of reasoning by m.ans of which they
would abolish many of the other miracles. One feature of
their argument may suffice as an exhibition of all. It is the
search fer parallels in the pagan mythologies. There are
many instances in the pagan stories of the birth of men from
human mothers and divine fathers, and the higher critics

79

The HigJicr Criticism and The Nezv Theology

would create the impression that the writers who record the
birth of Christ were influenced by these fables to emulate
them, and thus to secure for Him the honor of a celestial
paternity. It turns out, however, that these pagan fables do
not in any case present to us a virgin mother; the child is
always the product of commerce with a god who assumes a
human form for the purpose. The despair of the higher
critics in this hunt for events of the same kind is well illus-
trated by Cheyne,* who cites the record of the Babylonian
king Sargon, about 3800 B. C. This monarch represents
himself as having ''been born of a poor mother in secret, and
as not knowing his father." There have been many millions
of such instances, but we do not think of the mothers as
virgins. Nor does the Babylonian story affirm that the mother
of Sargon was a virgin, or even that his father was a god. It
is plain that Sargon did not intend to claim a supernatural
origin, for, after saying that he "did not know his father," he
adds that "the brother of his father lived in the mountains."
It was a case like multitudes of others in which children, early
orphaned, have not known their fathers, but have known the
relations of their fathers. This statement of Sargon I quote
from a translation of it made by Cheyne himself in the "En-
cyclopedia Biblica." He continues, "There is reason to sus-
pect that something similar was originally said by the Israel-
ites of Moses." To substantiate this he adds, "See Encyclo-
pedia Biblica, 'Moses,' section 3 with note 4." On turning to
this reference the reader finds that the article was written
by Cheyne himself, and that it contains no evidence whatever.

*"Bible Problems/' page 86.

80

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

FIFTH fallacy: THE TESTIMONY OF ARCHAEOLOGY DENIED

V. The limitation of the field of research as far as
possible to the biblical books as literary productions has ren-
dered many of the higher critics reluctant to admit the new
light derived from archaeology. This is granted by Cheyne.*
'T have no wish to deny," he says, "that the so-called 'higher
critics' in the past were as a rule suspicious of Assyriology as
a young, and, as they thought, too self-assertive science, and
that many of those who now recognize its contributions to
knowledge are somewhat too mechanical in the use of it, and
too skeptical as to the influence of Babylonian culture in re-
latively early times in Syria, Palestine and even Arabia." This
grudging recognition of the testimony of archaeology may
be observed in several details.

I. It was said that the Hexateuch must have been
formed chiefly by the gathering up of oral traditions, because
it is not to be supposed that the early Hebrews possessed
the art of writing and of keeping records. But the entire
progress of archaeological study refutes this. In particular
the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets has shown that
writing in cuneiform characters and in the Assyrio-Babylon-
ian language was common to the entire biblical world long
before the exodus. The discovery was made by Egyptian
peasants in 1887. There are more than three hundred tablets,
which came from various lands, including Babylonia and
Palestine. Other finds have added their testimony to the fact
that writing and the preservation of records were the peculiar
passions of the ancient civilized world. Under the constraint
of th** overwhelming evidences, Professor Jordan writes as

*"Bible Problems," page 142.

8;

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

follows : "The question as to the age of writing never played
a great part in the discussion." He falls back on the suppo-
sition that the nomadic life of the early Hebrews would
prevent them from acquiring the art of writing. He treats
us to such reasoning as the following: "If the fact that
writing is Very old is such a powerful argument when taken
alone, it might enable you to prove that Alfred the Great
wrote Shakespeare's plays."

2. It was easy to treat Abraham as a mythical figure
when the early records of Babylonia were but little known.
The entire coloring of those chapters of Genesis which refer
to Mesopotamia could be regarded as the product of the im-
agination. This is no longer the case. Thus Clay/ writing
of Genesis 14, says : "The theory of the late origin of all the
Hebrew Scriptures prompted the critics to declare this nar-
rative to be a pure invention of a later Hebrew writer. * * *
The patriarchs were relegated to the region of myth and
legend. Abraham was made a fictitious father of the Hebrews.
* * * Even the political situation was declared to be incon-
sistent with fact. * * * Weighing carefully the position
taken by the critics in the light of what has been revealed
through the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, we
find that the very foundations upon which their theories rest,
with reference to the points that could be tested, totally dis-
appear. The truth is, that wherever any light has been
thrown upon the subject through excavations, their hypotheses
have invariably been found wanting." But the higher critics
are still reluctant to admit this new light. Thus Kent^ says,

^ "Light on the Old Testament from Babel." 1907. Clay is
Assistant Professor and Assistant Curator of the Babylonian
Section, Department of Archaeology, in the University of Pennsyl-
vania.

'Biblical World, Dec, 1906.

S2

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

"The primary value of these stories is didactic and religious,
rather than historical."

3. The hooks of Joshua and Judges have been re-
garded by the higher critics as unhistorical on the ground
that their portraiture of the political, religious, and social
condition of Palestine in the thirteenth century B. C. is in-
credible. This cannot be said any longer, for the recent
excavations in Palestine have shown us a land exactly like
that of these books. The portraiture is so precise, and is
drawn out in so many minute lineaments, that it cannot be
the product of oral tradition floating down through a thou-
sand years. In what details the accuracy of the biblical pic-
ture of early Palestine is exhibited may be seen perhaps best
in the excavations by Macalister^ at Gezer. Here again there
are absolutely no discrepancies between the Land and the
Book, for the Land lifts up a thousand voices to testify that
the Book is history and not legend.

4. It was held by the higher critics that the legislation
which we call ^^losaic could not have been produced by Moses,
since his age was too early for such codes. This reasoning
was completely negatived by the discovery of the code of
Hammurabi, the Amraphel' of Genesis 14. This code is very
different from that of Moses; it is more systematic; and it
is at least seven hundred years earlier than the Mosaic legis-
lation.

In short, from the origin of the higher criticism till this
present time the discoveries in the field of archaeology have
given it a succession of serious blows. The higher critics
were shocked when the passion of the ancient world for writ-

^ "Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer."
' On this matter see any dictionary of the Bible, art. "Am-
raphel"

83

The Higher Criticism and The New Theelegy

ing and the preservation of documents was discovered. They
were shocked when primitive Babylonia appeared as the land
of Abraham. They were shocked when early Palestine ap-
peared as the land of Joshua and the Judges. They were
shocked when Amraphel came back from the grave as a
real historical character, bearing his code of laws. They
were shocked when the stele of the Pharaoh of the exodus
was read, and it was proved that he knew a people called
Israel, that they had no settled place of abode, that they were
"without grain" for food, and that in these particulars they
were quite as they are represented by the Scriptures to have
been when they had fled from Egypt into the wilderness.*
The embarrassment created by these discoveries is manifest
in many of the recent writings of the higher critics, in which,
however, they still cling heroically to their analysis and their
late dating of the Pentateuch and their confidence in the hypo-
thesis of evolution as the key of all history.

SIXTH FALLACY : THE PSALMS WRITTEN AFTER THE EXILE

VI. The Psalms are usually dated by the higher critics
after the exile. The great majority of the higher critics are
agreed here, and tell us that these varied and touching and
magnificent lyrics of religious experience all come to us from

*The higher critics usually slur over this remarkable inscrip-
tion, and give us neither an accurate translation nor a natural
interpretation of it. I have, therefore, special pleasure in quoting
the following from Driver, "Authority and Archaeology," page 6i :
"Whereas the other places named in the inscription all have
the determinative for 'country,' Ysiraal has the determinative for
*men': it follows that the reference is not to the land of Israel, but
to Israel as a tribe or people, whether migratory, or on the
march." Thus this distinguished higher critic sanctions the view
of the record which I have adopted. He represents Maspero
and Naville as doing the same.

84

The Fallacies of ilw Higher Crilicism

a period later than 450 B. C. A few of the critics admit an
earlier origin of three or four of them, but they do this wav-
eringly, grudgingly, and against the general consensus of
opinion among their fellows. In the Bible a very large num-
ber of the Psalms are ascribed to David, and these, with a few
insignificant and doubtful exceptions, are denied to him and
brought down, like the rest, to the age of the second temple.
This leads me to the following observations :

1. Who wrote the Psalms? Here the higher critics have
no answer. Of the period from 400 to 175 B. C. we are in
almost total ignorance. Josephus knows almost nothing about
it, nor has any other writer told us more. Yet, according to
the theory, it was precisely in these centuries of silence, when
the Jews had no great writers, that they produced this mag-
nificent outburst of sacred song.

2. This is the more remarkable when we consider the
well known men to whom the theory denies the authorship of
any of the Psalms. The list includes such names as Moses,
David, Samuel, Nathan, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the
long Hst of preexilic prophets. We are asked to believe that
these men composed no Psalms, and that the entire collection
was contributed by men so obscure that they have left no
single name by which we can identify them with their work.

3. This will appear still more extraordinary if we con-
sider the times in which, it is said, no Psalms were produced,
and contrast them with the times in which all of them were
produced. The times in which none were produced were the
great times, the times of growth, of mental ferment, of con-
quest, of imperial expansion, of disaster, and of recovery.
The times in which none were produced were the times •i
the splendid temple of Solomon, with its splendid worship.
The timos in which nwie were produced were the heroic timr^

85

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

of Elijah and Elisha, when the people of Jehovah struggled
for their existence against the abominations of the pagan
gods. On the other hand, the times which actually produced
them were the times of growing legalism, of obscurity, and
of inferior abilities. All this is incredible. We could be-
lieve it only if we first came to believe that the Psalms are
vi^orks of slight literary and religious value. This is actually
done by Wellhausen, who says,* "They certainly are to the
smallest extent original, and are for the most part imitations
which illustrate the saying about much writing." The Psalms
are not all of an equally high degree of excellence, and there
are a few of them which might give some faint color of
justice to this depreciation of the entire collection. But as a
whole they are exactly the reverse of this picture. Further-
more, they contain absolutely no legalism, but are as free
from it as are the Sermon on the Mount and the Pauline
epistles. Yet further, the writers stand out as personalities,
and they must have left a deep impress'on upon their fellows.
Finally, they were full of the fire of genius kindled by the
Holy Spirit. It is impossible for us to attribute the Psalms
to the unknown mediocrities of the period which followed
the restoration.

4. Very many of the Psalms plainly appear to be ancient.
They sing of early events, and have no trace of allusion to
the age which is said to have produced them.

5. The large number of Psalms attributed to David have
attracted the special attention of the higher critics. They are
denied to him on various grounds. He was a wicked man,
and hence incapable of waiting these praises to the God of
righteousness. He was an iron warrior and statesman, and

♦Quoted by Orr, "The Problem of the Old Testament." page

26

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

hence not gifted with the emotions found in these productions.
He was so busy with the cares of conquest and administra-
tion that he had no leisure for Hterary work. Finally, his
conception of God was utterly different from that which
moved the psalmists.

The larger part of this catalogue of inabilities is mani-
festly erroneous. David, with some glaring faults, and with
a single enormous crime, for which he was profoundly peni-
tent, was one of the noblest of men. He was indeed an iron
warrior and statesman, but also one of the most emotional of
all great historic characters. He was busy, but busy men not
seldom find relief in literary occupations, as Washington, dur-
ing the Revolutionary War, poured forth a continual tide of
letters, and as Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, and Gladstone, while
burdened with the cares of empire, composed immortal books.
The conception of God with which David began his career
was indeed narrow (I. Sam. 26: 19). But did he learn noth-
ing in all his later experiences, and his associations with holy
priests and prophets? He was certainly teachable: did God
fail to make use of him in further revealing Himself to His
people? To deny these Psalms to David on the ground of his
limited views of God in his early life, is this not to deny that
God made successive revelations of Himself wherever He
found suitable channels ? If, further, we consider the unques-
tioned skill of David in the music of his nation and his age
(i Sam. 16:14-25), this will constitute a presupposition in
favor of his interest in sacred song. If, finally, we consider
his personal career of danger and deliverance, this will ap-
pear as the natural means of awakening in him the spirit of
varied religious poetry. His times were much like the Eliza-
bethan period, which ministered unexampled stimulus to the
English mind.

87

The Higher Criticism and The Nezu Theology

From all this \\c may turn to the singular verdict of Pro-
fessor Jordan : "If a man says he cannot see why David could
not have written Psalms 51 and 139, you are compelled to
reply as politely as possible that if he did write them then any
man can write anything." So also we may say, "as politely
as possible/' that if Shakespeare, with his "small Latin and
less Greek," did write his incomparable dramas, "then any
man can write anything"; that if Dickens, with his mere ele-
mentary education, did write his great novels, "then any man
can write anything"; and that if Lincoln, who had no early
schooling, did write his Gettysburg address, "then any man
can write anything."

SEVENTH fallacy: DEUTERONOMY NOT WRITTEN BY MOSES

VIL One of the fixed points of the higher criticism is
its theory of the origin of Deuteronomy. In i Kings 22 we
have the history of the finding of the book of the law in the
temple, which was being repaired. Now the higher critics
present this finding, not as the discovery of an ancient docu-
ment, but as the finding of an entirely new document, which
had been concealed in the temple in order that it might be
found, might be accepted as the production of Moses, and
might produce an effect by its assumed authorship. It is not
supposed for a moment that the writer innocently chose the
fictitious dress of Mosaic authorship for merely literary pur-
poses. On the contrary, it is steadfastly maintained that he
intended to deceive, and that others were with him in the
plot to deceive. This statement of the case leads me to the
following reflections :

I. According to the theory, this was an instance ol
pious fraud. And the; fi^ud must have been prepared de<

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

liberately. The manuscript must have heen soiled and frayed
by special care, for it was at once admitted to be ancient.
This supposition of deceit must always repel the Christian
believer.

2. Our Lord draws from the Book of Deuteronomy all
the three texts with which He foils the tempter, Matt. 4: i-ii,
Luke 4: 1-14. It must always shock the devout student that
his Saviour should select His weapons from an armory
founded on deceit.

3. This may be called an appeal to ignorant piety, rather
than to scholarly criticism. But surely the moral argument
should have some weight in scholarly criticism. In the
sphere of religion moral impossibilities are as insuperable as
physical and mental.

4. If we turn to consideration of a literary kind, it is
to be observed that the higher criticism runs counter here to
the statement of the book itself that ]\Ioses was its author.

5. It runs counter to the narrative of the finding of the
book, and turns the finding of an ancient book into the for-
gery of a new book.

6. It runs counter to the judgment of all the intelligent
men of the time who learned of the discovery. They judged
the book to have come down from the Mosaic age, and to be
from the pen of Closes. We hear of no dissent whatever.

7. It seeks support in a variety of reasons, such as style,
historical discrepancies, and legal contradictions, all of which
prove of little substance when examined fairly.

EIGHTH fallacy: THE PRIESTLY LFX.ISLATION NOT ENACTED
UNTIL THE EXILE

VIII. Another case of forgery is found in the origin
of the priestly legislation, it we are to believe the higher

89

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

critics. This legislation is contained in a large number of
passages scattered through Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
It has to do chiefly with the tabernacle and its worship, with
the duties of the priests and Levites, and with the relations
of the people to the institutions of religion. It is attributed
to Moses in scores of places. It has a strong coloring of
the Mosaic age and of the wilderness life. It affirms the
existence of the tabernacle, with an orderly administration
of the ritual services. But this is all imagined, for the legis-
lation is a late production. Before the exile there were temple
services and a priesthood, with certain regulations concern-
ing them, either oral or written, and use was made of this
tradition; but as a whole the legislation was enacted by such
men as Ezekiel and Ezra during and immediately after the
exile, or about 444 B. C. The name of Moses, the fiction
of a tabernacle, and the general coloring of the Mosaic age,
were given it in order to render it authoritative and to secure
the ready obedience of the nation. But now:

1. The moral objection here is insuperable. The suppo-
sition of forgery, and of forgery so cunning, so elaborate, and
so minute, is abhorrent. If the forgery had been invented
and executed by wicked men to promote some scheme of
selfishness, it would have been less odious. But when it is
presented to us as the expedient of holy men, for the advance-
ment of the religion of the God of righteousness, which after-
wards blossomed out into Christianity, we must revolt.

2. The theory gives us a portraiture of such men as
Ezekiel and Ezra which is utterly alien from all that we know
of them. The expedient might be worthy of the prophets
of Baal or of Chemosh; it was certainly not worthy of the
prophets of Jehovah, and we dishonor them when we attribute
it to them and place them upon a low plane of craft and cun-

90

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

ning of which the records concerning them are utterly ig-
norant.

3. The people who returned from the exile were among
the most intelligent and enterprising of the nation, else they
would not have returned, and they would not have been
deceived by the sudden appearance of Mosaic laws forged for
the occasion and never before heard of.

4. Many of the regulations of this legislation are dras-
tic. It subjected the priests and Levites to a rule which must
have been irksome in the extreme, and it would not have
been lightly accepted. We may be certain that if it had been
a new thing fraudulently ascribed to Moses, these men would
have detected the deceit, and would have refused to be bound
by it. But we do not hear of any revolt, or even of any
criticism.

Such are some of the fundamental fallacies of the higher
criticism. They constitute an array of impossibilities. I have
stated them in their more moderate forms, that they may be
seen and weighed without the remarkable extravagances which
some of their advocates indulge. In the very mildest interpre-
tation which can be given them, they are repugnant to the
Christian faith.

NO MIDDLE GROUND

But might we not accept a part of this system of thought
without going to any hurtful extreme? Many today are
seeking to do this. They present to us two diverse results.

I. Some, who stand at the beginning of the tide, find
themselves in a position of doubt. If they are laymen, they
know not what to believe. If they are ministers, they know
not what to believe or to teach. In either case, they have

91

The Higher Criticism and The Nczv Theology

no firm footing, and no Gospel, except a few platitudes which
do little harm and little good.

2. The majority of those who struggle to stand here
find it impossible to do so, and give themselves up to the
current. There is intellectual consistency in the lofty church
doctrine of inspiration. There may be intellectual consistency
in the doctrine that all things have had a natural origin and
history, under the general providence of God, as distinguished
from His supernatural revelation of Himself through holy
men, and especially through His co-equal Son, so that the
Bible is as little supernatural as the ''Imitation of Christ" or
the ''Pilgrim's Progress." But there is no position of intellec-
tual consistency between these two, and the great mass of
those who try to pause at various points along the descent are
swept down with the current. The natural view of the Scrip-
tures is a sea which has been rising higher for three-quarters
of a century. Many Christians bid it welcome to pour lightly
over the walls which the faith of the church has always set
up against it, in the expectation that it will prove a healthful
and helpful stream. It is already a cataract, uprooting, de-
stroying, and slaying.

APPENDIX

Those who wish to study these fallacies further are ad-
vised to read the following books :

ORR. "The Problem of the Old Testament,"

and "The Bible Under Fire."

M5LLER. "Are the Critics Right?"

SCHMAUK. "The Negative Criticism and the Old

Testament."

CROSLEGH. "The Bible in the Light of Today."

92

The Fallacies sf the Higher Criticism

VARIOUS AUTHORS.
GREEN.

CHAMBERS.
BLOMFIELD.

RAVEN.
SAYCE.

"Lex Mosaica."

"The Higher Criticism of the Penta-
teuch."
"Moses and His Recent Critics."
"The Old Testament and the New

Criticism."
"Old Testament Introduction."
'The Early History of the Hebrev/s."

93

CHAPTER IV
CHRIST AND CRITICISM

BY SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, K. C. B., LL. D.

AUTHOR OF "the BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM," ETC., FTC,

LONDON, ENGLAND

In his "Founders of Old Testament Criticism" Professor
Cheyne of Oxford gives the foremost place to Eichhorn. He
hails him, in fact, as the founder of the cult. And according
to this same authority, what led Eichhorn to enter on his task
was "his hope to contribute to the winning back of the edu-
cated classes to religion." The rationalism of Germany at
the close of the eighteenth century would accept the Bible
only on the terms of bringing it down to the level of a human
book, and the problem which had to be solved was to get rid
of the element of miracle which pervades it. Working on the
labors of his predecessors, Eichhorn achieved this to his own
satisfaction by appealing to the oriental habit of thought, which
seizes upon ultimate causes and ignores intermediate proc-
esses. This commended itself on two grounds. It had an
undoubted element of truth, and it was consistent with rever-
ence for Holy Scripture. For of the founder of the "Higher
Criticism" it was said, what cannot be said of any of his
successors that "faith in that which is holy, even in the mir-
acles of the Bible, was never shattered by Eichhorn in any
youthful mind."

94

Christ and Criticism

In the view of his successors, however, Eichhorn's hypo-
thesis was open to the fatal objection that it was altogether
inadequate. So the next generation of critics adopted the
more drastic theory that the Mosaic books were "mosaic" in
the sense that they were literary forgeries of a late date,
composed of materials supplied by ancient documents and
the myths and legends of the Hebrew race. And though this
theory has been modified from time to time during the last
century, it remains substantially the "critical" view of the
Pentateuch. But it is open to two main objections, either of
which would be fatal. It is inconsistent with the evidence.
And it directly challenges the authority of the Lord Jesus
Christ as a teacher; for one of the few undisputed facts in
this controversy is that our Lord accredited the books of Moses
as having divine authority.

THE TRUE AND THE COUNTERFEIT

It may -be well to deal first with the least important of
these objections. And here we must distinguish between the
true Higher Criticism and its counterfeit. The rationalistic
"Higher Criticism," when putting the Pentateuch upon its
trial, began with the verdict and then cast about to find the
evidence ; whereas, true criticism enters upon its inquiries with
an open mind and pursues them without prejudice. The dif-
ference may be aptly illustrated by the position assumed by
a typical French judge and by an ideal English judge in a
criminal trial. The one aims at convicting the accused, the
other at elucidating the truth. "The proper function of the
Higher Criticism is to determine the origin, date, and liter-
ary structure of an ancient writing." This is Professor
Driver's description of true criticism. But the aim of the

95

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

counterfeit is to disprove the genuineness of the ancient writ-
ings. The justice of this statement is established by the fact
that Hebraists and theologians of the highest eminence, whose
investigation of the Pentateuch problem has convinced tliem
of the genuineness of the books, are not recognized at all.

In Britain, at least — and I am not competent to speak of
Germany or America — no theologian of the first rank has
adopted their ''assured results.*' But the judgment of such
men as Pusey, Lightfoot and Salmon, not to speak of men
who are still with us, they contemptuously ignore; for the
rationalistic Pligher Critic is not one who investigates the
evidence, but one who accepts the verdict.

THE PHILOLOGICAL INQUIRY

If, as its apostles sometimes urge, the Higher Criticism is
a purely philological inquiry, two obvious conclusions follow.
The first is that its verdict must be in favor of the Mosaic
books ; for each of the books contains peculiar words suited to
the time and circumstances to which it is traditionally assigned.
This is admitted, and the critics attribute the presence of
such words to the Jesuitical skill of the priestly forgers. But
this only lends weight to the further conclusion that Higher
Criticism is wholly incompetent to deal with the main issue on
which it claims to adjudicate. For the genuineness of the
Pentateuch must be decided on the same principles on which
the genuineness of ancient documents is dealt with in our
courts of justice. And the language of the documents is only
one part of the needed evidence, and not the most important
part. And fitness for dealing with evidence depends upon
qualities to which Hebraists, as such, have no special claim.
Indeed, their writings afford si.q-nal proofs of their unfitness

96

Christ and Criticism

for inquiries which they insist on regarding as their special
preserve.

Take, for example, Professor Driver's grave assertion
that the presence of two Greek words in Daniel (they are
the names of musical instruments) demand a date for the
book subsequent to the Greek conquest. It has been estab-
lished by Professor Sayce and others that the intercourse be-
tween Babylon and Greece in, and before, the days of Nebu-
chadnezzar would amply account for the presence in the Chal-
dean capital of musical instruments with Greek names. And
Colonel Conder, moreover, — a very high authority — considers
the words to be Akkadian, and not Greek at all! But apart
from all this, we can imagine the reception that would be
given to such a statement by any competent tribunal. The
story bears repeating — it is a record of facts — that at a church
bazaar in Lincoln some years ago, the alarm was raised
that pickpockets were at work, and two ladies had lost their
purses. The empty purses were afterwards found in the
pocket of the Bishop of the Diocese ! On the evidence of the
two purses the Bishop should be convicted as a thief, and
on the evidence of the two words the book of Daniel should
be convicted as a forgery !

HISTORICAL BLUNDER

Here is another typical item in the Critics' indictment of
Daniel. The book opens by recording Nebuchadnezzar's siege
of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, a statement the
correctness of which is confirmed by history, sacred and
secular. Berosus, the Chaldean historian, tells us that during
this expedition Nebuchadnezzar received tidings of his
father's death, and that, committing to others the care of his

97

The I Uglier Criticism and The New Theology

army and of his Jewish and other prisoners, "he himself
hastened home across the desert." But the German skeptics,
having decided that Daniel was a forgery, had to find evi-
dence to support their verdict. And so they made the bril-
liant discovery that Berosus was here referring to the expe-
dition of the following year, when Nebuchadnezzar won the
battle of Carchemish against the army of the king of Egypt,
and that he had not at that time invaded Judea at all. But
Carchemish is on the Euphrates, and the idea of "hastening
home" from there to Babylon across the desert is worthy of a
schoolboy's essay ! That he crossed the desert is proof that
he set out from Judea; and his Jewish captives were, of
course, Daniel and his companion princes. His invasion of
Judea took place before his accession, in Jehoiakam's third
year, whereas the battle of Carchemish was fought after his
accession, in the king of Judah's fourth year, as the biblical
books record. But this grotesque blunder of Bertholdt's
"Book of Daniel" in the beginning of the nineteenth century
is gravely reproduced in Professor Driver's "Book of Dan-
iel" at the beginning of the twentieth century.

CRITICAL PROFANITY

But to return to Moses. According to "the critical hy-
pothesis," the books of the Pentateuch are literary forgeries
of the Exilic Era, the work of the Jerusalem priests of those
evil days. From the Book of Jeremiah we know that those
men were profane apostates; and if "the critical hypothesis"
be true, they were infinitely worse than even the prophet's
inspired denunciations of them indicate. For no eighteenth
century atheist ever sank to a lower depth of profanity than
is displayed by their use of the Sacred Name. In the preface

98

Christ and Criticism

to his "Darkness and Dawn/' Dean Farrar claims that he
"never touches the early preachers of Christianity with the
finger of fiction." When his story makes Apostles speak, he
has "confined their words to the words of a revelation." But
ex. hyp., the authors of the Pentateuch "touched with the
finger of fiction" not only the holy men of the ancient days,
but their Jehovah God. "Jehovah spake unto Moses, say-
ing." This and kindred formulas are repeated times with-
out number in the Mosaic books. If this be romance, a
lower type of profanity is inconceivable, unless it be that
of the man v.'ho fails to be shocked and revolted by it.

But no; facts prove that this judgment is unjust. For
men of unfeigned piety and deep reverence for divine things
can be so blinded by the superstitions of "religion" that the
imprimatur of the church enables them to regard these dis-
credited books as Holy Scripture. As critics they brand the
Pentateuch as a tissue of myth and legend and fraud, but as
religionists they assure us that this "implies no denial of its
inspiration or disparagement of its contents."*

ERRORS REFUTED BY FACTS

In controversy it is of the greatest importance to allow
opponents to state their position in their own words; and
here is Professor Driver's statement of the case against the
Books of Moses:

"We can only argfue on grounds of probability derived
from our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of
literary composition, or of the rise and growth of the pro-
phetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at

*"The Higher Criticism: Three Papers," by Professors
Drirer and Kirkpatrick.

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

which the traditions contained in the narratives might have
taken shape, or of the probability that they would have been
written down before the impetus given to culture by the
monarchy had taken effect, and similar considerations, for
estimating most of which, though plausible arguments on one
side or the other may be advanced, a standard on which we
can confidently rely scarcely admits of being fixed/* ("Intro-
duction," 6th ed., page 123.)

This modest reference to "literary composition" and "the
art of writing" is characteristic. It is intended to gloss over
the abandonment of one of the chief points in the original
attack. Had "Driver's Introduction" appeared twenty years
earlier, the assumption that such a literature as the Penta-
teuch could belong to the age of Moses would doubtless have
been branded as an anachronism. For one of the main
grounds on which the books were assigned to the later days
of the monarchy was that the Hebrews of six centuries earlier
were an illiterate people. And after that error had been
refuted by archaeological discoveries, it was still maintained
that a code of laws so advanced, and so elaborate, as that
of Moses could not have originated in such an age. This
figment, however, was in its turn exploded, when the spade
of the explorer brought to light the now famous Code of
Khammurabi, the Amraphel of Genesis, who was king of
Babylon in the time of Abraham.

Instead, however, of donning the white sheet when con-
fronted by this new witness, the critics, with great effrontery,
pointed to the newly-found Code as the original of the laws of
Sinai. Such a conclusion is natural on the part of men who
treat the Pentateuch as merely human. But the critics can-
not have it both ways. The Moses who copied Khammurabi
m«st have been the real Moses of the Exodus, and not the

T0<1

Christ and Criticism '

mythical ivloscs of the Exile, who wrote long centuries after
Khammurabi had been forgotten 1

AN INCREDIBLE THEORY

The evidence of the Khammurabi Code refutes an im-
portant count in the critics' indictment of the Pentateuch;
but we can call another witness whose testimony demolishes
their whole case. The Pentateuch, as we all know, and the
Pentateuch alone, constitutes the Bible of the Samaritans.
Who, then, were the Samaritans? And how and when did
they obtain the Pentateuch? Here again the critics shall
speak for themselves. Among the distinguished men who
have championed their crusade in Britain there has been none
more esteemed, none more scholarly, than the late Professor
Robertson Smith; and here is an extract from his "Samari-
tans" article in the ''Encyclopedia Britannica":

"They (the Samaritans) regard themselves as Israelites,
descendants of the ten tribes, and claim to possess the ortho-
dox religion of Moses * * * The priestly law, which is
throughout based on the practice of the priests in Jerusalem
before the Captivity, was reduced to form after the Exile, and
was published by Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple cf
Zion. The Samaritans must, therefore, have derived their
Pentateuch from the Jew^s after Ezra's reforms." And in
the same paragraph he says that, according to the contention
of the Samaritans, "not only the temple of Zion, but the
earlier temple of Shiloh and the priesthood of Eli, were schis-
matical." And yet, as he goes on to say, "the Samaritan
religion w^as built on the Pentateuch alone."

Now mark what this implies. We know something of
racial bitterness. We know more, unfortunately, of the fierce

lOI

The Higher Criticism and The Nevj Theology

bitterness of religious strife. And both these elements com-
bined to alienate the Samaritans from the Jews. But more
than this, in the post-exilic period distrust and dislike were
turned to intense hatred — "abhorrence" is Robertson Smith's
word — by the sternness and contempt with which the Jews
spurned their proffered help in the work of reconstruction at
Jerusalem, and refused to acknowledge them in any way.
And yet we are asked to believe that, at this very time and in
these very circumstances, the Samaritans, while hating the
Jews much as Orangemen hate the Jesuits, and denouncing
the whole Jewish cult as schismatical, not only accepted these
Jewish books relating to that cult as the "service books" of
their own ritual, but adopted them as their "Bible," to the
exclusion even of the writings of their own Israelite prophets,
and the venerated and sacred books which record the history
of their kings. In the whole range of controversy, religious
or secular, was there ever propounded a theory more utterly
incredible and preposterous!

ANOTHER PREPOSTEROUS POSITION

No less preposterous are the grounds on which this con-
clusion is commended to us. Here is a statement of them,
quoted from the standard text-book of the cult, Hasting's
*'Bible Dictionary":

"There is at least one valid ground for the conclusion
that the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after
the Exile. Why was their request to be allowed to take
part in the building of the second temple refused by the heads
of the Jerusalem community? Very probably because the
Jews were aware that the Samaritans did not as yet possess
the Law-Book. It is hard to suppose that otherwise they

102

Christ and Criticism

would have met with this refusal. Further, anyone who,
like the present writer, regards the modern criticism of the
Pentateuch as essentially correct, has a second decisive reason
for adopting the above view." (Professor Konig's article,
''Samaritan Pentateuch," page 68.)

Here are two "decisive reasons" for holding that "the
Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the
Exile." First, because "very probably" it was because they
had not those forged books that the Jews spurned their help;
and so they went heme and adopted the forged books as their
Bible! And, secondly, because criticism has proved that the
books were not in existence till then. To characterize the
writings of these scholars as they deserve is not a grateful
task, but the time has come to throw off reserve, when such
drivel as this is gravely put forward to induce us to tear
from our Bible the Holy Scriptures on which our Divine
Lord based His claims to Messiahship.

THE IDEA OF SACRIFICE A REVELATION

The refutation of the Higher Criticism does not prove
that the Pentateuch is inspired of God. The writer who
would set himself to establish such a thesis as that within the
limits of a Review Article might well be admired for his
enthusiasm and dr.rir g, but certainly not for his modesty or
discretion. Neither ( oes it decide questions which lie within
the legitimate province of the true Higher Criticism, as
ex. gr., the authors '.ip of Genesis. It is incredible that for
the thousands of ye::r3 that elapsed before the days of Moses,
God left His people o i earth without a revelation. It is plain,
moreover, that mar / of the ordinances divinely entrusted to
Moses were but a /enewal of an earlier revelation. The

103

The Higher Criticism and The Niw Theology

religion of Babylon is clear evidence of such a primeval revel-
ation. How else can the universality of sacrifice be accounted
for? Could such a practice have originated in a human
brain ?

If some demented creature conceived the idea that killing
a beast before his enemy's door would propitiate him, his
neighbors would no doubt have suppressed him. And if he
evolved the belief that his god would be appeased by such an
offensive practice, he must have supposed his god to be as
mad as himself. The fact that sacrifice prevailed among all
races can be explained only by a primeval revelation. And
the Bible student will recognize that God thus sought to
impress on men that death was the penalty of sin, and to
lead them to look forward to a great blood shedding that
would bring life and blessing to mankind. But Babylon was
to the ancient world what Rome has been to Christendom.
It corrupted every divine ordinance and truth, and perpetu-
ated them as thus corrupted. And in the Pentateuch we
have the divine re-issue of the true cult. The figment that
the debased and corrupt version was the original may satisfy
some professors of Hebrew, but no one who has any prac-
tical knowledge of human nature would entertain it.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

At this Stage, however, what concerns us is not the
divine authority of the books, but the human error and folly
of the critical attack upon them. The only historical basis
of that attack is the fact that in the revival under Josiah, "the
book of the law'' was found in the temple by Hilkiah, the high
priest, to whom the young king entrusted the duty of cleans-
ing and renovating the long neglected shrine. A most natural

104

Christ and Criticism

discovery it was, seeing that Moses had in express terms
commanded that it should be kept there (2 Kings 22: 8; Deut.
31 : 26). But according to the critics, the whole business was
a detestable trick of the priests. For they it was who forged
the books and invented the command, and then hid the product
of their infamous work where they knew it would be found.
And apart from this, the only foundation for "the assured
results of modern criticism," as they themselves acknowledge,
consists of "grounds of probability" and "plausible argu-
ments"! In no civilized country would an habitual criminal
be convicted of petty larceny on such evidence as this; and
yet it is on these grounds that we are called upon to give
up the sacred books which our Divine Lord accredited as "the
Word of God" and made the basis of His doctrinal teaching,

CHRIST OR CRITICISM?

And this brings us to the second, and incomparably the
graver, objection to "the assured results of modern criticism."
That the Lord Jesus Christ identified Himself with the He-
brew Scriptures, and in a very special way with the Books of
Moses, no one disputes. And this being so, we must make
choice between Christ and Criticism. For if "the critical hy-
pothesis" of the Pentateuch be sustained, the conclusion is
seemingly inevitable, either that He was not divine, or that
the records of His teaching are untrustworthy.

Which alternative shall we adopt? If the second, then
every claim to inspiration must be abandoned, and agnosticism
must supplant faith in the case of every fearless thinker. In-
spiration is far too great a question for incidental treatment
here; but two remarks with respect to it may not be inoppor-
tune. Behind the frauds of Spiritualism there lies the fact,

105

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

attested by men of high character, some of whom are emi-
nent as scientists and scholars, that definite communications
are received in precise words from the world of spirits.* And
this being so, to deny that the Spirit of God could thus com-
municate truth to men, or, in other words, to reject verbal
inspiration on a priori grounds, betrays the stupidity of sys-
tematized unbelief. And, secondly, it is amazing that any
one who regards the coming of Christ as God's supreme revel-
ation of Himself can imagine that (to put it on no higher
ground than "Providence") the Divine Spirit could fail to
ensure that mankind should have a trustworthy and true
record of His mission and His teaching.

A MORE HOPELESS DILEMMA

But if the Gospel narrative be authentic, we are driven
back upon the alternative that He of whom they speak could
not be divine. "Not so," the critics protest, "for did He not
Himself confess His ignorance? And is not this explained
by the Apostle's statement that in His humiliation He emptied
Himself of His Deity?" And the inference drawn from this
(to quote the standard text-book of the cult) is that the Lord
of Glory "held the current Jewish notions respecting the
divine authority and revelation of the Old Testament." But
even if this conclusion — as portentous as it is profane — could
be established, instead of aflfording an escape from the di-
lemma in which the Higher Criticism involves its votaries, it
would only serve to make that dilemma more hopeless and
more terrible. For what chiefly concerns us is not that, ex.
hyp., the Lord's doctrinal teaching was false, but that in

♦The fact that, as the Christian believes, these spirits are
demons who personate the dead, does not affect the argument.

Io6

Christ and Criticism

unequivocal terms, and with extreme solemnity, He declared
again and again that His teaching was not His own but His
Father's, and that the very words in which He conveyed it
were God-given.

A few years ago the devout were distressed by the pro-
ceedings of a certain Chicago "prophet," who claimed divine
authority for his lucubrations. Kindly disposed people, re-
jecting a severer estimate of the man and his platform utter-
ances, regarded him merely as a profane fool. Shall the
critics betray us into forming a similarly indulgent estimate
Qi _ My pen refuses to complete the sentence !

And will it be believed that the only scriptural basis
offered us for this astounding position is a verse in one of the
Gospels and a word in one of the Epistles ! Passing strange
it is that men who handle Holy Scripture with such freedom
when it conflicts with their "assured results" should attach
such enormous importance to an isolated verse or a single
word, when it can be misused to support them. The verse is
Mark 13:32, where the Lord says, with reference to His
coming again: "Of that day and hour knoweth no one; no,
not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father." But this follows immediately upon the words :
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall
not pass away."

THE WORDS OF GOD

The Lord's words were not "inspired"; they were the
words of God in a still higher sense. "The people were
astonished at His teaching," we are told, "for He taught
them as one having exoiisia," The word occurs again in Acts
1 : 7, where He says that times and seasons "the Father hath
put in His own ^xousia." And this is explained by Phil.

107

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

2: 6, 7: "He counted it not a prize (or a thing to be grasped)
to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself" — tlie
word on which the kenosis theory of the critics depends.
And He not only stripped Himself of His glory as God ; He
gave up His liberty as a man. For He never spoke His own
words, but only the words which the Father gave Him to
speak. And this was the limitation of His "authority"; so
that, beyond what the Father gave Him to speak, He knew
nothing and was silent.

But when He spoke, "He taught tLem as one who had
authority, and not as their scribes." From their scribes they
were used to receive definite teaching, but it was teaching
based on "the law and the prophets." But here was One who
stood apart and taught them from a wholly different plane.
"For," He declared, "I spake not from Myself ; but the Father
which sent Me, He hath given Me a commandment what I
should say and what I should speak. * * * The things,
therefore, which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto
Me, so I speak" (John 12:49, 50, R. V.).

And let us not forget that it was not merely the sub-
stance of His teaching that was divine, but the very language
in which it was conveyed. So that in His prayer on the night
of the betrayal He could say, not only "I have given them
Thy word,'' but "I have given them the words which Thou
gavest Me."* His words, therefore, about Moses and the
Hebrew Scriptures were not, as the critics, with such daring
and seeming profanity, maintain, the lucubrations of a super-
stitious and ignorant Jew; they were the words of God, and
conveyed truth that was divine and eternal.

When in the dark days of the Exile, God needed a

♦Both the Aoyos and the prj/xara John 17: 8, 14; as again in Chap.
4: 10, 24,

108

Chmt and Criticisjn

prophet who would speak only as He gave him words, He
struck Ezekiel dumb. Two judgments already rested on that
people — the seventy years' Servitude to Babylon, and then
the Captivity — and they were warned that continued impeni-
tence would bring on them the still more terrible judgment
of the seventy years' desolations. And till that last judg-
ment fell, Ezekiel remained dumb (Ezek. 3:26; 24:27; 33:
22). But the Lord Jesus Christ needed no such discipline.
He came to do the Father's will, and no words ever passed
His lips save the words given Him to speak.

In this connection, moreover, two facts which are
strangely overlooked claim prominent notice. The first is
that in Mark 13 the antithesis is not at all between man and
God, but between the Son of God and the Father. And the
second is that He had been re-invested with all that, accord-
ing to Phil. 2, He laid aside in coming into the world. "All
things have been delivered unto Me of My Father," He de-
clared; and this at a time when the proofs that "He was
despised and rejected of men" were pressing on Him. His
reassuming the glory awaited His return to heaven, but here
on earth the all things were already His (Matt. 11 127).

AFTER THE KENOSIS

The foregoing is surely an adequate reply to the kenosis
figment of the critics; but if any should still doubt or cavil,
there is another answer which is complete and crushing.
Whatever may have been the limitations under which He
rested during His ministry on earth, He was released from
them when He rose from the dead. And it was in His post-
resurrection teaching that He gave the fullest and clearest
testimony to the Hebrew Scriptures. Then it was that, "be-

109

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

ginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto
them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."
And again, confirming all His previous teaching about those
Scriptures, "He said unto them, These are the words which I
spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must
be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in
the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me."

And the record adds : "Then opened He their mind that
they might understand the Scriptures/' And the rest of the
New Testament is the fruit of that ministry, enlarged and
unfolded by the Holy Spirit given to lead them into all truth.
And in every part of the New Testament the Divine author-
ity of the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially of the Books of
Moses, is either taught or assumed.

THE VITAL ISSUE

Certain it is, then, that the vital issue in this controversy
is not the value of the Pentateuch, but the Deity of Christ.
And yet the present article does not pretend to deal with the
truth of the Deity. Its humble aim is not even to establish
the authority of the Scriptures, but merely to discredit the
critical attack upon them by exposing its real character and
its utter feebleness. The writer's method, therefore, has been
mainly destructive criticism, the critics' favorite weapon being
thus turned against themselves.

A DEMAND FOR CORRECT STATEMENT

One cannot but feel distress at having to accord such
treatment to certain distinguished men whose reverence for
divine things is beyond reproach. A like distress is felt at

no

Christ and Criticism

times by those who have experience in deaHng with sedition,
or in suppressing riots. But when men who are entitled to
consideration and respect thrust themselves into "the line of
fire," they must take the consequences. These distinguished
men will not fail to receive to the full the deference to which
they are entitled, if only they will dissociate themselves from
the dishonest claptrap of this crusade ("the assured results of
modern criticism"; "all scholars are with us"; and so on —
bluster and falsehood by which the weak and ignorant are
browbeaten or deceived) and acknowledge that their "assured
results" are mere hypotheses, repudiated by Hebraists and
theologians as competent and eminent as themselves.

THINGS TO FEAR

The effects of this "Higher Criticism" are extremely
grave. For it has dethroned the Bible in the home, and the
good, old practice of "family worship" is rapidly dying out.
And great national interests also are involved. For who can
doubt that the prosperity and power of the Protestant nations
of the world are due to the influence of the Bible upon char-
acter and conduct? Races of men who for generations have
been taught to think for themselves in matters of the highest
moment will naturally excel in every sphere of effort or of
enterprise. And more than this, no one who is trained in the
fear of God will fail in his duty to his neighbor, but will
prove himself a good citizen. But the dethronement of the
Bible leads practically to the dethronement of God; and in
Germany and America, and now in England, the effects of this
are declaring themselves in ways, and to an extent, well fitted
to cause anxiety for the future.

Ill

Christ and Criticism

CHRIST SUPREME

If a personal word may be pardoned in conclusion, the
writer would appeal to every book he has written in proof
that he is no champion of a rigid, traditional "orthodoxy."
With a single limitation, he would advocate full and free criti-
cism of Holy Scripture. And that one limitation is that the
words of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be deemed a bar to criti-
cism and "an end of controversy" on every subject expressly
dealt with in His teaching. "The Son of God is come"; and
by Him came both grace and TRUTH. And from His hand
it is that we have received the Scriptures of the Old Testa-
ment.

112

CHAPTER V

THE TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS TO THE
TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES

BY PROF. GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, D. D., LL» D.,
OBERLIN COLLEGE

All history is fragmentary. Each particular fact is the
center of an infinite complex of circumstances. No man has
intelligence enough to insert a suppositious fact into circum-
stances not belonging to it and make it exactly fit. This only
infinite intelligence could do. A successful forgery, there-
fore, is impossible if only we have a sufficient number of the
original circumstances with which to compare it. It is this
principle which gives such importance to the cross-examination
of witnesses. If the witness is truthful, the more he is ques-
tioned the more perfectly will his testimony be seen to accord
with the framework of circumstances into which it is fitted.
If false, the more will his falsehood become apparent.

Remarkable opportunities for cross-examining the Old
Testament Scriptures have been afforded by the recent un-
covering of long-buried monuments in Bible lands and by
deciphering the inscriptions upon them. It is the object of
this essay to give the results of a sufficient portion of this
cross-examination to afford a reasonable test of the com-
petence and honesty of the historians of the Old Testament,
and of the faithfulness with which their record has been

11^

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

transmitted to us. But the prescribed limits will not permit
the half to be told ; while room is left for an entire essay on
the discoveries of the last five years to be treated by another
hand, specially competent for the task.

Passing by the monumental evidence which has removed
objections to the historical statements of the New Testament,
as less needing support, attention will be given first to one of
the Old Testament narratives, which is nearest to us in time,
and against which the harshest judgments of modern critics
have been hurled. We refer to the statements in the Book of
Daniel concerning the personality and fate of Belshazzar.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF BELSHAZZAR

In the fifth chapter of Daniel Belshazzar is called the
"son of Nebuchadnezzar," and is said to have been "king" of
Babylon and to have been slain on the night in which the
city was taken. But according to the other historians he
was the son of Nabonidus, who was then king, and who is
known to have been out of the city when it was captured, and
to have lived some time afterwards.

Here, certainly, there is about as glaring an apparent dis-
crepancy as could be imagined. Indeed, there would seem to
be a flat contradiction between profane and sacred historians.
But in 1854 Sir Henry Rawlinson foun I, while excavating
in the ruins of Mugheir (identified as the site of the city of
Ur, from which Abraham emigrated), inscriptions which
stated that when Nabonidus was near the end of his reign
he associated with him on the throne his eldest son, Bil-
shar-uzzur, and allowed him the royal title, thus making it
perfectly credible that Belshazzar shoul 1 have been in Baby*

JJ4

'riie Testimony of the Monuments

Ion, as he is said to have been in the Bible, and that he
should have been called king, and that he should have per-
ished in the city while Nabonidus survived outside. That he
should have been called king while his father was still living
is no more strange than that Jehoram should have been ap-
pointed by his father, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, seven years
before his father's death (see 2 Kings 1:17 and 8:16), or
that Jotham should have been made king before his father,
Uzziah, died of leprosy, though Uzziah is still called king in
some of the references to him.

That Belshazzar should have been called son of Nebuchad-
nezzar is readily accounted for on the supposition that he was
his grandson, and there are many things to indicate that
Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, while there
is nothing known to the contrary. But if this theory is re-
jected, there is the natural supposition that in the loose use
of terms of relationship common among Oriental people **son"
might be applied to one who was simply a successor. In the
inscriptions on the monuments of Shalmaneser II., referred
to below, Jehu, the extirpator of the house of Omri, is called
the **son of Omri."

The status of Belshazzar implied in this explanation is
confirmed incidentally by the fact that Daniel is promised in
verse 6 the "third" place in the kingdom, and in verse 29 is
given that place, all of which implies that Belshazzar was
second only.

Thus, what was formerly thought to be an insuperable
objection to the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel
proves to be, in all reasonable probability, a mark of accuracy.
The coincidences are all the more remarkable for being so
evidently undesigned.

"5

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

THE BLACK OBELISK OF SHALMANESER

From various inscriptions in widely separated places we
are now able to trace the movements of Shalmaneser II.
through nearly all of his career. In B. C. 842 he crossed the
Euphrates for the sixteenth timx and carried his conquests to
the shores of the Mediterranean. Being opposed by Hazael
of Damascus, he overthrew the Syrian army, and pursued it
to the royal city and shut it up there, while he devastated the
territory surrounding. But while there is no mention of his
fighting with the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Israelites, he is said
to have received tribute from them and "from Jehu, the son
of Omri.'* This inscription occurs on the celebrated Black
Obelisk discovered many years ago by Sir Henry Rawlinson
in the ruins of Nimroud. On it are represented strings of
captives with evident Jewish features, in the act of bringing
their tribute to the Assyrian king. Now, though there is no
mention in the sacred records of any defeat of Jehu by the
Assyrians, nor of the paying of tribute by him, it is most
natural that tribute should have been paid under the circum-
stances ; for in the period subsequent to the battle of Karkar,
Damascus had turned against Israel, so that Israel's most
likely method of getting even with Hazael would have been
to make terms with his enemy, and pay tribute, as she is said
to have done, to Shalmaneser.

THE MOABITE STONE

One of the most important discoveries, giving reality to
Old Testament history, is that of the Moabite Stone, discov-
ered at Dibon, east of the Jordan, in 1868, which was set
up by King Mesha (about 850 B. C.) to signalize his deliv-

116

The Testimony of the Monuments

crance from the yoke of Omri, king of Israel. The inscrip-
tion is valuable, among other things, for its witness to the
civilized condition of the Moabites at that time and to the
close similarity of their language to that of the Hebrews.
From this inscription we learn that Omri, king of Israel, was
compelled by the rebellion of Mesha to resubjugate Moab;
and that after doing so, he and his son occupied the cities
of iMoab for a period of forty years, but that, after a series
of battles, it was restored to Moab in the days of Mesha.
Whereupon the cities and fortresses retaken were strength-
ened, and the country repopulated, while the methods of war-
fare were similar to those practiced by Israel. On comparing
this with 2 Kings 3 : 4-27, we find a parallel account which
dovetails in with this in a most remarkable manner, though
naturally the biblical narrative treats lightly of the recon-
quest by Mesha, simply stating that, on account of the horror
created by the idolatrous sacrifice of his eldest son upon the
walls before them, the Israelites departed from the land and
returned to their own country.

TKE EXPEDITION OF SHISHAK

In the fourteenth chapter of i Kings we have a brief
account of an expedition of Shishak, king of Egypt, against
Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam. To the humiliation
of Judah, it is told that Shishak succeeded in taking away the
treasures of the house of Jehovah and of the king's house,
among them the shields of gold which Solomon had made;
so that Rehoboam made shields of brass in their stead. To
this simple, unadorned account there is given a wonderful air
of reality as one gazes o« the southern wall of the court of
the temple of Amen at Karnak and beholds the great expanse

"7

Thr Higher Criticism and The New Theology

of sculptures and hieroglyphics which are there inscribed to
represent this campaign of Shishak. One hundred and fifty-
six places are enumerated among those which were captured,
the northernmost being Megiddo. Among the places are
Gaza, Adullam, Beth-Horon, Aijalon, Gibeon, and Juda-
Malech, in which Dr. Birch is probably correct in recognizing
the sacred city of Jerusalem, — Malech being the word for
royalty.

ISRAEL IN EGYPT

The city of Tahpanhes, in Egypt, mentioned by Jeremiah
as the place to which the refugees fled to escape from Nebu-
chadnezzar, was discovered in 1886 in the mound known as
Tel Defenneh, in the northeastern portion of the delta, where
Mr. Flinders Petrie found not only evidences of the destruc-
tion of the palace caused by Nebuchadnezzar, but apparently
the very "brick work or pavement" spoken of in Jer. 43 : 8 :
"Then came the word of the Lx>rd unto Jeremiah in Tah-
panhes, saying. Take great stones in thine hand, and hide
them in mortar in the brickwork, which is at the entry of
Pharaoh's house in Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of
Judah," adding that Nebuchadnezzar would "set his throne
upon these stones," and "spread his royal pavilion over
them."

A brick platform in partial ruins, corresponding to this
description, was found by Mr. Petrie adjoining the fort "upon
the northwest." In every respect the arrangement corre-
sponded to that indicated in the Book of Jeremiah.

Farther to the north, not a great way from Tahpanhes,
on the Tanitic branch of the Nile, at the modern village of
San, excavations revealed the ancient Egyptian capital Tanis,
which went under the earlier name of Zoan, where the

118

The Tcstbuony of the Monuments

Pharaoh of the oppression frequently made his headquarters.
According to the Psalmist, it was in the field of "Zoan" that
Closes and Aaron wrought their wonders before Pharaoh;
and, according to the Book of Numbers, "Hebron" was built
only seven years before Zoan. As Hebron was a place of
importance before Abraham's time, it is a matter of much
significance that Zoan appears to have been an ancient city
which was a favorite dwelling-place of the Hyksos, or Shep-
herd Kings, who preceded the period of the Exodus, and
were likely to be friendly to the Hebrews, thus giving greater
credibility to the precise statements made in Numbers, and to
the whole narrative of the reception of the patriarchs in
Egypt.

The Pharaoh of the Oppression, 'Svho knew not Joseph,"
is generally supposed to be Rameses H., the third king of
the nineteenth dynasty, known among the Greeks as Sesostris,
one of the greatest of the Egyptian monarchs. Among his
most important expeditions was one directed against the
tribes of Palestine and Syria, where, at the battle of Kadesh,
east of the Lebanon Mountains, he encountered the Hittites.
The encounter ended practically in a drawn battle, after
which a treaty of peace was made. But the whole state of
things revealed by this campaign and subsequent events shows
that Palestine was in substantially the same condition of af-
fairs which was found by the children of Israel when they
occupied it shortly after, thus confirming the Scripture account.

This Rameses during his reign of sixty-seven years was
among the greatest builders of the Egyptian monarchs. It is
estimated that nearly half of the extant temples were built in
his reign, among which are those at Karnak, Luxor, Abydos,
Memphis, and Bubastis. The great Ramesseum at Thebes is
also his work, and his name is found carved on almost eveij

119

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

monument in Egypt. His oppression of the children of Israel
was but an incident in his remarkable career. While en-
gaged in his Asiatic campaigns he naturally made his head-
quarters at Bubastis, in the land of Goshen, near where the
old canal and the present railroad turn off from the delta
toward the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez. Here the
ruins of the temple referred to are of immense extent and
include the fragments of innumerable statues and monuments
which bear the impress of the great oppressor. At length,
also, his mummy has been identified; so that now we have a
photograph of it which illustrates in all its lineaments the
strong features of his character.

THE STORE CITIES OF PITHOM AND RAAMSES

But most interesting of all, in 1883, there were uncovered,
a short distance east of Bubastis, the remains of vast vaults,
which had evidently served as receptacles for storing grain
preparatory to supplying military and other expeditions setting
out for Palestine and the far East. Unwittingly, the en-
gineers of the railroad had named the station Rameses. But
from the inscriptions that were found it is seen that its orig-
inal name was Pithom, and its founder was none other than
Rameses H., and it proves to be the very place where it is
said in the Bible that the children of Israel "built for Pharaoh
store-cities, Pithom and Raamses" (Ex. i:ii), when the
Egyptians "made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in
mortar and in brick." It was in connection with the build-
ing of these cities that the oppression of the children of
Israel reached its climax, when they were compelled (after
the straw with which the brick were held together failed) to
gather for themselves stubble which should serve the purpose

120

The Testimony of the Monuments

of straw, and finally, when even the stubble failed, to make
brick without straw (Ex. 5).

Now, as these store pits at Pithom were uncovered by
Mr. Petrie, they were found (unlike anything else in Egypt)
to be built with mortar. Moreover, the lower layers were
built of brick which contained straw, while the middle layers
were made of brick in which stubble, instead of straw, had
been used in their formation, and the upper layers were of
brick made without straw. A more perfect circumstantial
confirmation of the Bible account could not be imagined.
Every point in the confirmation consists of unexpected dis-
coveries. The use of mortar is elsewhere unknown in An-
cient Egypt, as is the peculiar succession in the quality of the
brick used in the construction of the walls.

Thus have all Egyptian explorations shown that the
writer of the Pentateuch had such familiarity with the country,
the civilization, and the history of Egypt as could have been
obtained only by intimate, personal experience. The leaf
which is here given is in its right place. It could not have
been inserted except by a participant in the events, or by
direct Divine revelation.

THE HITTITES

In Joshua i : 4, the country between Lebanon and the
Euphrates is called the land of the Hittites. In 2 Sam. 24:6,
according to the reading of the Septuagint, the limit of Joab's
conquests was that of "the Hittites of Kadesh," which is in
Coele Syria, some distance north of the present Baalbeck.
Solomon is also said to have imported horses from "the kings
of the Hittites"; and when the Syrians were besieging Sam-
aria, according to 2 Kings 7 : 6, they were alarmed from

121

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

fear that the king of Israel had hired against them **the kings
of the Hittites." These references imply the existence of a
strong nation widely spread over the northern part of Syria
and the regions beyond. At the same time frequent mention
is made of Hittite families in Palestine itself. It was of a
Hittite (Gen. 23: 10) that Abraham bought his burying-place
at Hebron. Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, had been
the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and Esau had two Hittite wives.
Hittites are also mentioned as dwelling with the Jebusites and
Amorites in the mountain region of Canaan.

Until the decipherment of the inscriptions on the monu-
ments of Egypt and Assyria, the numerous references in the
Bible to this mysterious people were unconfirmed by any other
historical authorities, so that many regarded the biblical state-
ments as mythical, and an indication of the general untrust-
worthiness of biblical history. A prominent English biblical
critic declared not many years ago that an alliance between
Egypt and the Hittites was as improbable as would be one at
the present time between England and the Choctaws. But,
alas for the over-confident critic, recent investigations have
shown, not only that such an alliance was natural, but that it
actually occurred.

From the monuments of Egypt we learn that Thothmes
ni. of the eighteenth dynasty, in 1470 B. C, marched to the
banks of the Euphrates and received tribute from "the
Greater Hittites" to the amount of 3,200 pounds of silver and
a "great piece of crystal." Seven years later tribute was
again sent from "the king of the Greater Hittite land." Later,
Amenophis III. and IV. are said, in the Tel el-Amarna tab-
lets, to have been constantly called upon to aid in repelling
the attacks of the Hittite king, who came down from the
north and intrigued with the disaffected Canaanitish tribes

122

The Testimony of the Monuments

in Palestine; while in B. C. 1343, Rameses the Great at-
tempted to capture the Hittite capital at Kadesh, but was un-
successful, and came near losing his life in the attempt, extri-
cating himself from an ambuscade only by most heroic deeds
of valor. Four years later a treaty of peace was signed
between the Hittites and the Eg}^ptians, and a daughter of the
Hittite king was given in marriage to Rameses.

The Assyrian monuments also bear abundant testimony
to the prominence of the Hittites north and west of the Eu-
phrates, of which the most prominent state was that with its
capital at Carchemish, in the time of Tiglath-pileser I., about
1 100 B. C. In 854 B. C Shalmaneser H. included the kings
of Israel, of Ammon, and of the Arabs, among the "Hittite"
princes whom he had subdued, thus bearing most emphatic
testimony to the prominence which they assumed in his esti-
mation.

The cuneiform inscriptions of Armenia also speak of
numerous wars with the Hittites, and describe *'the land of
the Hittites" as extending far westward from the banks of
the Euphrates.

Hittite sculptures and inscriptions are now traced in
abundance from Kadesh, in Coele Syria, westward to Lydia,
in Asia Minor, and northward to the Black Sea beyond Mar-
sovan. Indeed, the extensive ruins of Boghaz-Keui, seventy-
five miles southwest of Marsovan, seem to mark the principal
capital of the Hittites. Here partial excavations have al-
ready revealed sculptures of high artistic order, representing
deities, warriors and amazons, together with many hieroglyphs
which have not yet been translated. The inscriptions are
written in both directions, from left to right, and then below
back from right to left. Similar inscriptions are found in
numerous other places. No clue to their meaning has yet

123

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

been found, and even the class of languages to which they
belong has not been discovered. But enough is known to
show that the Hittites exerted considerable influence upon
the later civilization which sprung up in Greece and on the
western coasts of Asia Minor. It was through them that the
emblem of the winged horse made its way into Europe. The
mural crown carved upon the head of some of the goddesses
at Boghaz-Keui also passed into Grecian sculpture ; while the
remarkable lions sculptured over the gate at Mycenae are
thought to represent Hittite, rather than Babylonian art.

It is impossible to overestimate the value of this testi-
mony in confirmation of the correctness of biblical history. It
shows conclusively that the silence of profane historians re-
garding facts stated by the biblical writers is of small ac-
count, in face of direct statements made by the biblical his-
torians. All the doubts entertained in former times con-
cerning the accuracy of the numerous biblical statements con-
cerning the Hittites is now seen to be due to our ignorance.
It w^as pure ignorance, not superior knowledge, which led so
many to discredit these representations. When shall we learn
the inconclusiveness of negative testimony?

THE TEL EL-AMARXA TABLETS.

In 1887 some Arabs discovered a wonderful collection of
tablets at Tel el-Amarna, an obscure settlement on the east
bank of the Nile, about two hundred miles above Cairo and
about as far below Thebes. These tablets were of clay, which
had been written over with cuneiform inscriptions, such as are
found in Babylonia, and then burnt, so as to be indestructible.
When at length the inscriptions were deciphered, it appeared
that they were a collection of official letters, which had been

124

The TcstiiuGuy of the Monuments

sent shortly before 1300 B. C. to the last kings of the
eighteenth dynasty.

There were in all about three hundred letters, most of
which were from officers of the Eg}ptian army scattered over
Palestine to maintain the Egyptian rule which had been estab-
lished by the preceding kings, most prominent of whom was
Tahutimes III., who flourished about one hundred years ear-
lier. But many of the letters were from the kings and princes
of Babylonia. What surprised the world most, however, was
that this correspondence was carried on, not in the hiero-
glyphic script of Egypt, but in the cuneiform script of Baby-
lonia.

All this was partly explained when more became known
about the character of the Eg}'ptian king to whom the letters
were addressed. His original title was Amenhotep IV., in-
dicating that he was a priest of the sun god who is worshiped
at Thebes. But in his anxiety to introduce a religious reform
he changed his name to Aken-Aten, — Aten being the name of
the deity worshiped at Heliopolis, near Cairo, where Joseph
got his wife. The efforts of Aken-Aten to transform the re-
ligious worship of Egypt were prodigious. The more perfectly
to accomplish it, he removed his capital from Thebes to Tel el-
Amarna, and there collected literary men and artists and archi-
tects in great numbers and erected temples and palaces, v/hich,
after being buried in the sand with all their treasures for more
than three thousand years, were discovered by some wander-
ing Arabs twenty-two years ago.

A number of the longest and most interesting of the let-
ters are those which passed between the courts of Egypt and
those of Babylonia. It appears that not only did Aken-Aten
marry a daughter of the Babylonian king, but his mother and
grandmother were members of the royal family in Babylonia,

125

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

and also that one of the daughters of the king of Egypt had
been sent to Babylonia to become the wife of the king. All
this comes out in the letters that passed back and forth relat-
ing to the dowry to be bestowed upon these daughters and
relating to their health and welfare.

From these letters we learn that, although the king of
Babylon had sent his sister to be the wife of the king of Egypt,
that was not sufficient. The king of Egypt requested also
the daughter of the king of Babylon. This led the king of
Babylon to say that he did not know how his sister was treated ;
in fact, he did not know whether she was alive, for he could
not tell whether or not to believe the evidence which came
to him. In response, the king of Egypt wrote: "Why don't
you send some one who knows your sister, and whom you can
trust?" Whereupon the royal correspondents break off into
discussions concerning the gifts which are to pass between the
two in consideration of their friendship and intimate relations.

Syria and Palestine were at this time also, as at the pres-
ent day, infested by robbers, and the messengers passing be-
tween these royal houses were occasionally waylaid. Where-
upon the one who suffered loss would claim damages from the
other if it was in his territory, because he had not properly pro-
tected the road. An interesting thing in connection with one
of these robberies is that it took place at "Hannathon," one of
the border towns mentioned in Josh. 19:14, but of which noth-
ing else was ever known until it appeared in this unexpected
manner.

Most of the Tel el-Amarna letters, however, consist of
those which were addressed to the king of Egypt (Amenhotep
IV.) by his officers who were attempting to hold the Egyptian
fortresses in Syria and Palestine against various enemies who
:were pressing hard upon them. Among these were the Hit-

J26

The Testimony of the Monuments

tites, of whom we hear so much in later times, and who, com-
ing down from the far north, were gradually extending their
colonies into Palestine and usurping control over the northern
part of the country.

About sixty of the letters are from an officer named Rib-
addi, who is most profuse in his expressions of humility and
loyalty, addressing the king as *1iis lord" and "sun," and call-
ing himself the "footstool of the king's feet," and saying that
he "prostrates himself seven times seven times at his feet." He
complains, however, that he is not properly supported in his
efforts to defend the provinces of the king, and is constantly
wanting more soldiers, more cavalry, more money, more pro-
visions, more everything. So frequent are his importunities
that the king finally tells him that if he will write less and fight
more he would be better pleased, and that there would be more
hopes of his maintaining his power. But Rib-addi says that
he is being betrayed by the "curs" that are surrounding him,
who represent the other countries that pretend to be friendly
to Egypt, but are not.

From this correspondence, and from letters from the south
of Palestine, it is made plain that the Egyptian power was
fast losing its hold of the country, thus preparing the way for
the condition of things which prevailed a century or two later,
v.l:en Joshua took possession of the promised land, and found
no resistance except from a number of disorganized tribes then
in possession.

In this varied correspondence a large number of places are
mentioned with which we are familiar in Bible history, among
them Damascus, Sidon, Lachish, Ashkelon, Gaza, Joppa, and
Jerusalem. Indeed, several of the letters are written from Je-
rusalem by one Abd-hiba, who complains that some one is slan-
dering him to the king, charging that he was in revolt against

127

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

his lord. This, he says, the king ought to know is absurd,
from the fact that ''neither my father nor my mother appointed
me to this place. The strong arm of the king inaugurated
me in my father's territory. Why should I commit an offense
against my lord, the king?" The argument being that, as his
office is not hereditary, but one which is held by the king's
favor and appointment, his loyalty should be above question.

A single one of these Jerusalem letters may suffice for an
illustration :

"To My Lx)rd the King : — Abd-hiba, your servant. At the
feet of my lord the king, seven and seven times I fall. Behold
the deed which Milki-il and Suardata have done against the
land of my lord the king — they have hired the soldiers of Gazri,
of Gimti and of Kilti, and have taken the territory of Rubuti.
The territory of the king is lost to Habiri. And now, indeed,
a city of the territory of Jerusalem, called Bit-Ninib, one of
the cities of the king, has been lost to the people of Kilti. Let
the king listen to Abd-hiba, his servant, and send troops that
I may bring back the king's land to the king. For if there are
no troops, the land of the kin^^- will be lost to the Habiri. This
is the deed of Suardata and Milki-il * * * [defective],
and let the king take care of his land."

The discovery of these Tel el-Amarna letters came like a
flash of lightning upon the scholarly world. In this case the
overturning of a few spadefuls of earth let in a flood of light
upon the darkest portion of ancient history, and in every way
confirmed the Bible story.

As an official letter-writer, Rib-addi has had few equals,
and he wrote on material which the more it was burned the
longer it lasted. Those who think that a history of Israel
could not have been written in Moses' time, and that, if writ-
ten, it could not have been preserved, are reasoning without

128

The Testimony of ike Mouiniients

due knowledge of the facts. Considering the habits of the
time, it would have been well nigh a miracle if Moses and his
band of associates coming out of Egypt had not left upon im-
perishable clay tablets a record of the striking events through
which they passed.

ACCURACY OF GEOGRAPHICAL DETAILS

Many persons doubtless wonder w^iy it is that the Bible
so abounds in "uninteresting" Hsts of names both of persons
and places which seem to have no relation to modern times or
current events. Such, however, will cease to wonder when
they come to see the relation which these lists sustain to our
confidence in the trustworthiness of the records containing
them. They are like the water-marks in paper, which bear in-
delible evidence of the time and place of manufacture. If,
furthermore, one should contemplate personal explorations in
Egypt, Canaan, or Babylonia, he would find that for his pur-
poses the most interesting and important portions of the Bible
would be these very lists of the names of persons and places
which seemed to encumber the historical books of the Old Tes-
tament.

One of the most striking peculiarities of the Bible is the
"long look" toward the permanent wants of mankind which is
everywhere manifested in its preparation ; so that it circulates
best in its entirety. No man knows enough to abridge the
Bible without impairing its usefulness. The parts which the
reviser would cut out as superfluous are sure, very soon, to be
found to be "the more necessary." If we find that we have
not any use for any portion of the Bible, the reason doubtless
is that we have not lived long enough, or have not had suffi-
ciently wide experience to test its merits in all particulars.

129

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

Gezer was an important place in Joshua's time, but it after-
ward became a heap of ruins, and its location was unknown
until 1870, when M. Germont-Ganneau discovered the site in
Tel Jezer, and, on excavating it, found three inscriptions,
which on interpretation read "Boundary of Gezer."

Among the places conquered by Joshua one of the most
important and difficult to capture was Lachish (Josh. 10.31).
This has but recently been identified in Tel el-Hesy, about
eighteen miles northeast of Gaza. Extensive excavations, first
in 1890 by Dr. Flinders Petrie, and finally by Dr. Bliss, found
a succession of ruins, one below the other, the lower founda-
tions of which extended back to about 1700 B. C., some time
before the period of conquest, showing at that time a walled
city of great strength. In the debris somewhat higher than
this there was found a tablet with cuneiform inscriptions cor-
responding to the Tel el-Amarna tablets, which are known to
have been sent to Egypt from this region about 1400 B. C. At
a later period, in the time of Sennacherib, Lachish was as-
saulted and taken by the Assyrian army, and the account of
the siege forms one of the most conspicuous scenes on the
walls of Sennacherib's palace in Nineveh. These sculptures
are now in the British Museum.

Among the places mentioned in the Tel el-Amarna corre-
spondence from which letters were sent to Egypt about 1400
B. C, are Gebal, Beirut, Tyre, Accho (Acre), Hazor, Joppha,
Ashkelon, Makkadah, Lachish, Gezer, Jerusalem; while men-
tion is also made of Rabbah, Sarepta, Ashtaroth, Gaza, Gath,
Bethshemesh, all of which are familiar names, showing that the
Palestine of Joshua is the Palestine known to Egypt in the
preceding century. Two hundred years before this (about
1600 B. C.) also, Thothmes'in. conquered Palestine, and gives
in an inscription the names of more than fifty towns which

130

The Testimony of the Monuments

can be confidently identified with those in the Book
of Joshua.

Finally, the forty-two stations named in Num. 33 as camp-
ing places for the children of Israel on their way to Palestine,
while they cannot all of them be identified, can be determined
in sufiicient numbers to show that it is not a fictitious list, nor
a mere pilgrim's diary, since the scenes of greatest interest,
like the region immediately about Mount Sinai, are specially
adapted to the great transactions which are recorded as taking
place. Besides, it is incredible that a writer of fiction should
have encumbered his pages with such a barren catalogue of
places. But as part of the great historical movement they are
perfectly appropriate.

This conformity of newly discovered facts to the narra-
tive of Sacred Scripture confirms our confidence in the main
testimony; just as the consistency of a witness in a cross-
examination upon minor and incidental points establishes con-
fidence in his general testimony. The late Sir Walter Besant,
in addition to his other literary and philanthropic labors, was
for many years secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund.
In reply to the inquiry whether the work of the survey under
his direction sustained the historical character of the Old Tes-
tament, he says : "To my mind, absolute truth in local details,
a thing which cannot possibly be invented, when it is spread
over a history covering many centuries, is proof almost ab-
solute as to the truth of the things related." Such proof we
have for every part of the Bible.

THE FOURTEENTH OF GENESIS

The fourteenth chapter of Genesis relates that "In the
days of Amraphcl, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar,

131

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goiim (na-
tions), they made war with Bera, king of Sodom, and with
Bersha, king of Gomorrah, and Shinab, king of Admah, and
Shemeber, king of Zeboim, and the king of Bela (the same is
Zoar)." The Babylonian kings were successful and the region
about the Dead Sea was subject to them for twelve years, when
a rebellion was instigated and in the following year Chedor-
laomer and the kings that were with him appeared on the scene
and, after capturing numerous surrounding cities, joined battle
with the rebellious allies in the vale of Siddim, which was full
of slime pits. The victory of Chedorlaomer was complete, and
after capturing Lot and his goods in Sodom he started home-
ward by way of Damascus, near which place Abraham over-
took him, and by a successful stratagem scattered his forces by
night and recovered Lot and his goods. This story, told with
so many details that its refutation would be easy if it were not
true to the facts and if there were contemporary records with
which to compare it, has been a special butt for the ridicule of
the Higher Critics of the Wellhausen school, Professor Nol-
deke confidently declaring as late as 1869 that criticism had
forever disproved its claim to be historical. But here again
the inscriptions on the monuments of Babylonia have come
to the rescue of the sacred historian, if, indeed, he were in
need of rescue. (For where general ignorance was so pro-
found as it was respecting that period forty years ago, true
modesty should have suggested caution in the expression of
positive opinions in contradiction to such a detailed historical
statement as this is.)

FrorH the inscriptions already discovered and deciphered
in the Valley of the Euphrates, it is now shown beyond rea-
sonable doubt that the four kings mentioned in the Bible as
joining in this expedition are not, as was freely seid, "etymo-

13^

The Testimony of the Monuuients

logical inventions," but real historical persons. Amraphel is
identified as the Hammurabi whose marvelous code of laws
was so recently discovered by De Morj^^an at Susa. The **H"
in the latter word simply expresses the rough breathing so
well known in Hebrew, The "p" in the biblical name has
taken the place of "b" by a well-recognized law of phonetic
change. *'Amrap'' is equivalent to "Hamrab." The addition
of "il" in the biblical name is probably the suffix of the di-
vine name, like "el" in Israel.

Hammurabi is now known to have had his capital at
Babylon at the time of Abraham. Until recently this chro-
nology was disputed, so that the editors and contributors of the
New Schafif-Horzog Cyclopedia dogmatically asserted that as
Abraham lived nearly 300 years later than Hammurabi, the
biblical story must be unhistorical. Hardly had these state-
ments been printed, however, when Dr. King of the British
Museum discovered indisputable evidence that two of the
dynasties which formerly had been reckoned as consecutive
were, in fact, contemporaneous, thus making it easy to bring
Hammurabi's time down exactly to that of Abraham.

Chedorlaomer is pretty certainly identified as Kudur-
Lagamar (servant of Lagamar, one of the principal Elamite
gods). Kudur-Lagamar was king of Elam, and was either
the father or the brother of Kudur-Mabug, whose son, Eri-
Aku (Arioch), reigned over Larsa and Ur, and other cities of
southern Babylonia. He speaks of Kudur-Mabug ''as the
father of the land of the Amorites," i. e., of Palestine and
Syria.

Tidal, "king of nations," was supposed by Dr. Pinches to
be referred to on a late tablet in connection with Chedor-
laomer and Arioch under the name Tudghula, who are said,
together, to have "attacked and spoiled Babylon."

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

However much doubt there may be about the identifica-
tion of some of these names, the main points are established,
revealing a condition of things just such as is implied by the
biblical narrative. Ariocli styles himself king of Shumer
and Accad, which embraced Babylon, where Amraphel (Ham-
murabi) was in his early years subject to him. This furnishes
a reason for the association of Chedorlaomer and Amraphel
in a campaign against the rebellious subjects in Palestine.
Again, Kudur-Mabug, the father of Arioch, styles himself
"Prince of the land of Amurru," i. e., of Palestine and Syria.
Moreover, for a long period before, kings from Babylonia
had claimed possession of the whole eastern shore of the
Mediterranean, including the Sinaitic Peninsula.

In light of these well-attested facts, one reads with aston-
ishment the following words of Wellhausen, written no longer
ago than 1889: 'That four kings from the Persian Gulf
should, 'in the time of Abraham,' have made an incursion into
the Sinaitic Peninsula, that they should on this occasion have
attacked five kinglets on the Dead Sea Littoral and have car-
ried them off prisoners, and finally that Abraham should have
set out in pursuit of the retreating victors, accompanied by
318 men servants, and have forced them to disgorge their
prey, — all these incidents are sheer impossibilities which gain
nothing in credibility from the fact that they are placed in a
world which had passed away.''

And we can have little respect for the logic of a later
scholar (George Adam Smith), who can write the following:
"We must admit that while archaeology has richly illustrated
the possibility of the main outlines of the Book of Genesis
from Abraham to Joseph, it has not one whit of proof to
offer for the personal existence or the characters of the patri-
archs themselves. This is the whole change archaeology has

134

The Testimony of the Monuinents

wrought ; it has given us a background and an atmosphere for
the stories of Genesis; it is unable to recall or certify their
heroes."

But the name Abraham does appear in tablets of the age
of Hammurabi. (See Professor George Barton in Journal of
Biblical Literature, Vol. 28, 1909, page 153.) It is true that
this evidently is not the Abraham of the Bible, but that of a
small farmer who had rented land of a well-to-do land owner.
The preservation of his name is due to the fact that the most
of the tablets preserved contain contracts relating to the
business of the times. There is little reason to expect that we
should find a definite reference to the Abraham who, in early
life, migrated from his native land. But it is of a good deal of
significance that his nam.e appears to have been a common one
in the time and place of his nativity.

In considering the arguments in the case, it is important
to keep in mind that where so few facts are known, and gen-
eral ignorance is so great, negative evidence is of small ac-
count, while every scrap of positive evidence has great weight.
The burden of proof in such cases falls upon those who dis-
pute the positive evidence. For example, in the article above
referred to, Professor Barton argues that it is not ''quite cer-
tain" that Arioch (Eri-Agu) was a real Babylonian king. But
he admits that our ignorance is such that we must admit its
"possibility." Dr. Barton further argues that ''we have as
yet no evidence from the inscriptions that Arad-Sin, even if
he were called Iri-Agu, ever had anything to do with Ham-
murabi." But, he adds, "Of course, it is possible that he may
have had, as their reigns must have overlapped, but that re-
mains to be proved."

All such reasoning (and there is any amount of it in the
critics of the prevalent school) reveals a lamentable lack in

135

Tlie Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

their logical training. When we have a reputable document
containing positive historical statements which are shown by
circumstantial evidence to be possible, that is all we need to
accept them as true. When, further, we find a great amount
of circumstantial evidence positively showing that the state-
ments conform to the conditions of time and place, so far as
we know them, this adds immensely to the weight of the tes-
timony. We never can fill in all the background of any his-
torical fact. But if the statement of it fits into the background
so far as we can fill it in, we should accept the fact until posi-
tive contrary evidence is produced. No supposition can be
more extravagant than that which Professor Barton seems to
accept (which is that of the German critic, Meyer) that a Jew,
more than i,ooo years after the event, obtained in Babylon the
amount of exact information concerning the conditions in
Babylonia in Abraham's time, found in the fourteenth chapter
of Genesis, and interpolated the story of Chedorlaomer's ex-
pedition into the background thus furnished. To entertain
such a supposition discredits the prevalent critical scholarship,
rather than the Sacred Scriptures.

But present space forbids further enumeration of particu-
lars. It is suflficient to say that while many more positive con-
firmations of the seemingly improbable statements of the sa-
cred historians can be adduced, there have been no discoveries
which necessarily contravene their statements. The cases al-
ready here enumerated relate to such widely separated times
and places, and furnish explanations so unexpected, yet natu-
ral, to difficulties that have been thought insuperable, that their
testimony cannot be ignored or rejected. That this history
should be confirmed in so many cases and in such a remark-
able manner by monum.ents uncovered 3,000 years after their
erection, can be nothing else than providential. Surely, God

136

The Tcsfiiiiony of the Monuments

has seen to it that the faiUng faith of these later days should
not be left to grope in darkness. When the faith of many
was waning and many heralds of truth were tempted to speak
with uncertain sound, the very stones have cried out with a
voice that only the deaf could fail to hear. Both in the writ-
ing and in the preservation of the Bible we behold the handi-
work of God.

n?

CHAPTER VI

THE RECENT TESTIMONY OF ARCHEOLOGY TO
THE SCRIPTURES

BY M. G. KYLE, D. D., LL. D.,

EGYPTOLOGIST

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY, XENIA THEOLOGICAL

SEMINARY

CONSULTING EDITOR OF THE RECORDS OF THE PAST, '.VASH-
INGTON, D. C.

(The numbers in parentheses throughout this article refer
to the notes at the end of the article.)

INTRODUCTION

"Recent" is a dangerously capacious word to intrust to an
archaeologist. Anything this side of the Day of Pentecost is
"recent" in biblical archaeology. For this review, however,
anything since 1904 is accepted to be, in a general way, the
meaning of the word "recent."

"Recent testimony of archaeology" may be either the testi-
mony of recent discoveries or recent testimony of former dis-
coveries. A new interpretation, if it be established to be a
true interpretation, is a discovery. For to uncover is not al-
way to discover; indeed, the real value of a discovery is not
its emergence, but its significance, and the discovery of its
real significance is the real discovery.

The most important testimony to the Scriptures of this
five-year archaeological period admits of some classification:

138

The Recent Testimony of Archaeology

I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PATRIARCHAL RECEPTION

IN EGYPT

The reception in Egypt accorded to Abraham and to Jacob
and his sons^^ and the elevation of Joseph there^'^ per-
emptorily demand either the acknowledgment of a mythical
element in the stories, or the belief in a suitable historical set-
ting therefor. Obscure, insignificant, private citizens are not
accorded such recognition at a foreign and unfriendly court.
While some have been conceding a mythical element in the
stories^^ archaeology has uncovered to view such appropriate
historical setting that the patriarchs are seen not to have
been obscure, insignificant, private citizens, nor Zoan a foreign
and unfriendly court.

The presence of the Semitic tongue in Hyksos' territory
has long been known^*^ ; from still earlier than patriarchal
times until much later, the Phoenicians, first cousins of the He-
brews, did the foreign business of the Egyptians^^\ as the
English, the Germans, and the French do the foreign business
of the Chinese of today; and some familiarity, even sympa-
thy, with Semitic religion has been strongly suspected from
the interview of the Hyksos kings with the patriarchs^"^ ;
but the discovery in igo6^''\ by Petrie, of the great fortified
camp at Tel-el-Yehudiyeh set at rest, in the main, the biblical
question of the relation between the patriarchs and the Hyksos.
The abundance of Hyksos scarabs and the almost total ab-
sence of all others mark the camp as certainly a Hyksos
camp^^ ; the original character of the fortifications, before
the Hyksos learned the builders' craft from the Egyptians,
shows them to have depended upon the bow for defense^;
and, finally, the name Hyksos, in the Eg>'ptian Haq Shashu^*^
"Bedouin princes," brings out, sharp and clear, the harmoni-

139

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

ous picture of which we have had glimpses for a long time, of
the Hyksos as wandering tribes of the desert, of "Upper and
Lower Ruthen"^'^ ; i. e,, Syria and Palestine, northern and
western Arabia, "Bow people"^"^ as the Egyptians called
them, their traditional enemies as far back as pyramid
times(">.

Why, then, should not the patriarchs have had a royal re-
ception in Egypt? They were themselves also the heads of
wandering tribes of "Upper and Lower Ruthen," in the
tongue of the Egyptians, Haq Shashu, "Bedouin princes" ; and
among princes, a prince is a prince, however small his princi-
pality. So Abraham, the Bedouin prince, was accorded
princely consideration at the Bedouin court in Egypt ; Joseph,
the Bedouin slave, became again the Bedouin prince when the
wisdom of God with him and his rank by birth became known.
And Jacob and his other sons w^ere welcome, with all their fol-
lowers and their wealth, as a valuable acquisition to the court
party, always harassed by the restive and rebellious native
Egyptians. This does not prove racial identity between the
Hyksos and the patriarchs, but very close tribal relationship.
And thus every suspicion of a mythical element in the nar-
rative of the reception accorded the patriarchs in Egypt dis-
appears when archaeology has testified to the true historical
setting.

II. THE HITTITE VINDICATION

A second recent testimony of archceology gives ns the
great Hittite vindication. The Hittites have been, in one re-
spect, the Trojans of Bible history; indeed, the inhabitants of
old Troy were scarcely more in need of a Schliemann to vin-
dicate their claim to reality than the Hittites of a Winckler.

In 1904 one of the foremost archaeologists of Europe said

140

The Recent Testimony of Archa^ology

to me : *'I do not believe there ever were such people as the
Hittites, and I do not believe 'Kheta' in the Egyptian inscrip-
tions was meant for the name Hittites." We will allow that
archaeologist to be nameless now. But the ruins of Troy vin-
dicated the right of her people to a place in real history, and
the ruins of Boghatz-Koi bid fair to afford a more striking
vindication of the Bible representation of the Hittites.

Only the preliminary announcement of Winckler's great
treasury of documents from Boghatz-Koi has yet been
made^*\ The complete unfolding of a long-eclipsed great
national history is still awaited impatiently. But enough has
been published to redeem this people completely from their
half-mythical plight, and give them a firm place in sober his-
tory greater than imagination had ever fancied for them under
the stimulus of any hint contained in the Bible.

There has been brought to light a Hittitc empire^^' in
Asia Minor, with central power and vassal dependencies round
about and with treaty rights on equal terms with the greatest
nations of antiquity, thus making the Hittite power a third
great power with Babylonia and Egypt, as was, indeed, fore-
shadowed in the great treaty of the Hittites with Rameses H.,
inscribed on the projecting wing of the south wall of the
Temple of Amon at Karnak^^^ though Rameses tried so hard
to obscure the fact. The ruins at the village of Boghatz-Koi
are shown also to mark the location of the Hittite capital^"^
and the unknown language on the cuneiform tablets recovered
there to be the Hittite tongue^^*\ while the cuneiform method
of writing, as already upon the Amarna tablets^"*\ so still
more clearly here, is seen to have been the diplomatic script,
and in good measure the Babylonian to have been the diplo-
matic language of the Orient in that age^^^ And the large
admixture of Bab^^'lonian words and forms in these Hittite in-

141

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

scriptions opens the way for the real decipherment of the
Hittite language^"^ and imagination can scarcely promise too
much to our hopes for the light which such a decipherment
will throw upon the historical and cultural background of the
Bible.

Only one important point remains to be cleared up, the
relation between the Hittite language of these cuneiform tab-
lets and the language of the Hittite hieroglyphic inscrip-
tion^"^ That these were identical is probable; that the hiero-
glyphic inscriptions represent an older form of the language,
a kind of ''Hieratic/' is possible; that it was essentially dif-
ferent from the language of these tablets is improbable. There
has been the Hittite vindication; the complete illumination of
Hittite history is not likely to be long delayed.

III. THE PALESTINIAN CIVILIZATION

Other recent tesHlnony of archccology brings before us
the Palestinian civilisation of the conquest period. Palestinian
explorations within the last few years have yielded a star-
thng array of "finds" illustratingtliings mentioned in the Bible,
finds of the same things, finds of like things, and finds in har-
mony with things^'"^ Individual mention of them all is here
neither possible nor desirable. Of incomparably greater im-
portance than these individually interesting relics of Canaan-
ite antiquity is the answer afforded by recent research to
two questions:

I. First in order, Does the Canaanite culture as revealed
by the excavations accord with the story of Israel at the con-
quest as related in the Bible ? How much of a break in culture
is required by the Bible account, and how much is revealed by
the excavations? For answer, we must find a standpoint

142

The Recent Testimony of Archceology

somewhere between that of the dilettante traveler in the land
of the microscopist scientist thousands of miles away. The
careful excavator in the field occupies that sane and safe
middle point of view. Petrie^"\ Bliss^\ Macalister^''>, Schu-
macker^*'^ and Sellin^"*^ — these are the men with whom to
stand. And for light on the early civilization of Palestine, the
great work of Macalister at Gezer stands easily first.

HISTORICAL VALUE OF POTTERY

In determining this question of culture, too much impor-
tance has been allowed to that estimate of time and chrono-
logical order which is gained exclusively from the study of
pottery. The pottery remains are not to be undervalued, and
neither are they to be overvalued. Time is only one thing
that shows itself in similarity or dissimilarity in pottery. Dif-
ferent stages of civilization at different places at the same
time, and adaptation to an end either at the same time or at
widely different times, show themselves in potter}', and render
very uncertain any chronological deduction. And, still more,
available material may result in the production of similar pot-
tery in two very different civilizations arising one thousand
years or more apart. This civilization of pots, as a deciding
criterion, is not quite adequate, and is safe as a criterion at
all only when carefully compared with the testimony of loca-
tion, intertribal relations, governmental domination, and liter-
ary attainments.

These are the things, in addition to the pots, which help
to determine — indeed, which do determine — how much of a
break in culture is required by the Bible account of the Con-
quest, and how much is shown by excavations. Since the
Israelites occupied the cities and towns and vineyards and

113

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

olive orchards of the Canaanites, and their "houses full of all
good thiiigs"^'^\ had the same materials and in the main
the same purposes for pottery and would adopt methods of
cooking suited to the country, spoke the "language of Ca-
naan"^^ and were of the same race as many of the people
of Canaan, intermarried, though against their law^'^\ with
the people of the land, and were continually chided for lapses
into the idolatry and superstitious practices of the Canaan-
ites^"\ and, in short, were greatly different from them only in
religion, it is evident that the only marked, immediate change
to be expected at the Conquest is a change in religion, and
that any other break in culture occasioned by the devastation
of war will be only a break in continuance of the same kind
of culture, evidence of demolition, spoliation, and reconstruc-
tion. Exactly such change in religion and interruption in
culture as the Conquest period excavations shov/.

RELIGION AND CULTURE

(a) The rubbish at Gezer shows history in distinct lay-
ers, and the layers themselves are in distinct groups^*'^ At the
bottom are layers Canaanite, not Semitic ; above these, layers
Semitic, Amorite giving place to Jewish ; and higher still, lay-
ers of Jewish culture of the monarchy and later times.

(b) The closing up of the great tunnel to the spring
within the fortifications at Gezer is placed by the layers of his-
tory in the rubbish heaps at the period of the Conquest^"^
But when a great fortification is so ruined and the power it
represents so destroyed that it loses sight of its water-supply,
surely the culture of the time has had an interruption, though
it be not much changed.. Then this tunnel, as a great engineer-
ing feat, is remarkable testimony to the advanced state of

144

The Recent Testimony of Arcliccology

civilization at the time of its construction ; but the more re-
markable the civilization it represents, the more terrible must
have been the disturbance of the culture which caused it to
be lost and forgotten^'^^

(c) Again, there is apparent an enlargement of the
populated area of the city of Gezer by encroaching upon the
Temple area at the period of the Conquest^"'^, showing at once
the crowding into the city of the Israelites without the de-
struction of the Canaanites, as stated in the Bible, and a cor-
responding decline in reverence for the sacred inclosure of the
High Place. While, at a time corresponding to the early
period of the JMonarchy^''^^ there is a sudden decrease of the
populated area corresponding to the destruction of the Ca-
naanites in the city by the father of Solomon's Egyptian
wife(''>.

(d) Of startling significance, the hypothetical Musri
Egypt in North Arabia, concerning which it has been said^*"*
the patriarchs descended thereto, the Israelites escaped there-
from, and a princess thereof Solomon married, has been finally
and definitely discredited. For Gezer was a marriage dower
of that princess whom Solomon married^*''^ a portion of her
father's dominion, and so a part of the supposed Musri, if it
ever existed, and if so, at Gezer, then, we should find some
evidence of this people and their civilization. Of such there
is not a trace. But, instead, we find from very early times,
but especially at this time, Egyptian remains in great
abundance^"^

(e) Indeed, even Egyptian refinement and luxuries were
not incongruous in the Palestine of the Conquest period. The
great rock-hewn, and rock-built cisterns at Taannek^**\ the
remarkable engineering on the tunnel at Gezer<'''\ the great
forty-foot city wall in an Egyptian picture of Canaanitt-

'45

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

war^**^ the list of richest Canaanite booty given by Thothmes
III/*^\ the fine ceramic and bronze utensils and weapons re-
covered from nearly every Palestinian excavation^"^, and the
literary revelations of the Amarna tablets^*^^ together with
the reign of law seen by a comparison of the scriptural ac-
count with the Code of Hammurabi, show^**^ Canaanite civil-
ization of that period to be fully equal to that of Egypt.

(f) Then the Bible glimpses of Canaanite practices and
the products of Canaanite religion now uncovered exactly
agree. The mystery of the High Place of the Bible narrative,
with its sacred caves, lies bare at Gezer and Taannek. The
sacrifice of infants, probably first-born, and the foundation
and other sacrifices of children, either infant or partly grown,
appear in all their ghastliness in various places at Gezer and
"practically all over the hill" at Taannek^*'^

(g) But the most remarkable testimony of archaeology
of this period is to the Scripture representations of the spirit-
ual monotheism of Israel in its conflict with the horrible idola-
trous polytheism of the Canaanites, the final overthrow of the
latter and the ultimate triumph of the former. The history
of that conflict is as plainly written at Gezer in the gradual
decline of the High Place and giving way of the revolting sac-
rifice of children to the bowl and lamp deposit as it is in the
inspired account of Joshua, Judges and Samuel. And the line
that marks oflf the territory of divine revelation in religion
from the impinging heathenism round about is as distinct as
that line ofif the coast of Newfoundland where the cold waters
of the North beat against the warm, life-giving flow of the
Gulf Stream. The revelation of the spade in Palestine is
making to stand out every day more clearly the revelation that
God made. There is no evidence of a purer religion growing

146

The Recent Testimony of Archccology

up out of that vile culture^ but rather of a purer religion com-
ing down and overwhelming it.

2. Another and still more important question concerning
Palestine civilization is, What was the source and course of the
dominant civilization and especially the religious culture re-
flected in the Bible account of the millennium preceding and the
millennium succeeding the birth of Abraham? Was it from
without toward Canaan or from Canaan outward? Did Pal-
estine in her civilization and culture of those days, in much
or in all, but reflect Babylonia, or was she a luminary?

PALESTINE AND BABYLONIA

The revision of views concerning Palestinian civilization
forced by recent excavations at once puts a bold interrogation
point to the opinion long accepted by many of the source and
course of religious influence during this formative period of
patriarchal history, and the time of the working out of the
principles of Israel's religion into the practices of Israel's
life. If the Palestinian civilization during this period was
equal to that of Egypt, and so certainly not inferior to that
of Babylonia, then the opinion that the flow of religious influ-
ence w-as then from Babylonia to Palestine must stand for its
defense. Here arises the new^est problem of biblical archae-
ology.

And one of the most expert cuneiform scholars of the
day, Albert T. Clay^''"^ has essayed this problem and announces
a revolutionary solution of it by a new interpretation of well-
known material as well as the interpretation of newly acquired
material. The solution is nothing less, indeed, than that in-
stead of the source of religious influence being Babylonia, and
its early course from Babylonia into Palestine, exactly the

H7

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

reverse is true. "That the Semitic Babylonian religion is an
importation from Syria and Palestine (Amurru), that the crea-
tion, deluge, ante-diluvian patriarchs, etc., of the Babylonian
came from Amurru, instead of the Hebraic stories having
come from Babylonia, as held by nearly all Semitic scholars."
This is startling and far reaching in its consequences.
Clay's work must be put to the test ; and so it v^ill be, before
it can be finally accepted. It has, however, this initial ad-
vantage, that it is in accord with the apparent self-conscious-
ness of the Scripture writers and, as we have seen, exactly in
the direction in which recent discoveries in Palestinian civiliza-
tion point.

IV. PALESTINE AND EGYPT.

Again archcsology has of late furnished illumination of
certain special questions of both Old and New Testament
criticism.

I. "Light from Babylonia," by L. W. King("> of the
British Museum on the chronology of the first three dynasties
helps to determine the date of Hammurabi, and so of Abra-
ham's call and of the Exodus, and, indeed, has introduced a
corrective element into the chronology of all subsequent his-
tory down to the time of David and exerts a far-reaching
influence upon many critical questions in which the chrono-
losfical element is vital.

'is-

SACRIFICE IN EGYPT

2. The entire absence from the offerings of old Egyptian
religion of any of the great Pentateuchal ideas of sacrifice,
substitution, atonement, dedication, fellowship, and, indeed, of
almost every essential idea of real sacrifice, as clearly estab-

J48

The Recent Testimony of ArcJiccology

lished by recent very exhaustive examination of the offering
scenes^"\ makes for the element of revelation in the Mosaic
system by delimiting the field of rationalistic speculation on the
Egyptian side. Egypt gave nothing to that system, for she
had nothing to give.

THE FUTURE LIFE IN THE PENTATEUCH

3. Then the grossly materialistic character of the Egyp-
tian conception of the other world and of the future life, and
the fact, every day becoming clearer, that the so-called and
so-much-talked-about resurrection in the belief of the Egyp-
tians was not a resurrection at all, but a resuscitation to the
same old life on **oxen, geese, bread, wine, beer, and all good
things," is furnishing a most complete solution of the prob-
lem of the obscurity of the idea of the resurrection in the
Pentateuchal documents. For, whether they came from j\Ioses
when he had just come from Egypt or are by some later author
attributed to Moses, when he had just come from Egypt, the
problem is the same : Why is the idea of the resurrection so
obscure in the Pentateuch? Now to have put forth in revela-
tion the idea of the resurrection at that time, before the
growth of spiritual ideas of God and of worship here, of the
other world and the future life there, and before the people
under the influence of these new ideas had outgrown their
Egyptian training, would have carried over into Israel's re-
ligious thinking all the low, degrading materialism of Egyp-
tian belief on this subject. The Mosaic system made no use
of Egy^ptian belief concerning the future life because it was not
by it usable, and it kept away from open presentation of the
subject altogether, because that was the only way to get thr
people away from Egypt's conception of the subject.

149

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

WELLHAUSEX'S MISTAKE

4. The discovery of the Aramaic papyri at Syene^"^
made possible a new chapter in Old Testament criticism, raised
to a high pitch hopes for contemporary testimony on Old
Testament history which hitherto hardly dared raise their
heads, and contributed positive evidence on a number of im-
portant points. Tolerable, though not perfect, identifications
are made out for Bagoas, Governor of the Jews ; of Josephus
and Diodorus; Sanballat, of Nehemiah and Josephus; and
Jochanan, of Nehemiah and Josephus. But more important
than all these identifications is the information that the Jews
had, at that period, built a temple and offered sacrifice far
from Jerusalem. Wellhausen^"*^ lays down the first stone
of the foundation of his Pentateuchal criticism in these words :
"The returning exiles were thoroughly imbued with the ideas
of Josiah's reformation and had no thought of worshiping
except in Jerusalem. It cost them no sacrifice of their feel-
ings to leave the ruined High Places unbuilt. From this date,
all Jews understood, as a matter of course, that the one God
had only one sanctuary." So much Wellhausen. But here
is this petition of the Jews at Syene in the year 407 B. C. after
Nehemiah's return declaring that they had built a temple there
r.nd established a system of worship and of sacrifices, and evi-
dencing also that they expected the approval of the Jews at
Jerusalem in rebuilding that temple and re-establishing that
sacrificial worship, and, what is more, received from the gov-
ernor of the Jews permission so to do, a thing which, had it
been opposed by the Jews at Jerusalem was utterly incon-
sistent with the Jewish policy of the Persian Empire in the
days of Nehemiah,

150

The Recent Testimony of Archaeology

NEW TESTAMENT GREEK

5. Then the redating of the Hermetic wrltings^^ where-
by they are thrown back from the Christian era to 500-300
B. C. opens up a completely new source of critical material for
tracing the rise and progress of theological terms in the
Alexandrian Greek of the New Testament. In a recent letter
from Petrie, who has written a little book on the subject, he
sums up the whole case, as he sees it, in these words : "My
position simply is that the current religious phrases and ideas
of the B. C. age must be grasped in order to understand
the usages of religious language in which the New Testament
is written. And we can never know the real motive of New
Testament writings until we know how much is new thought
and how much is current theology in terms of which the
Eu-angelos is expressed." Whether or not all the new dates
for the writings shall be permitted to stand, and Petrie's point
of view be justified, a discussion of the dates and a criti-
cal examination of the Hermetic writings from the stand-
point of their corrected dates alone can determine; but it is
certain that the products of the examination cannot but be
far reaching in their influence and in the illumination of
the teachings of Christ and tne Aposiles.

V. IDENTIFICATIONS

Last and more generally, of recent testimony from archae-
ology to Scripture we must consider the identification of
places, peoples, and events of the Bible narrative.

For many years archaeologists looked up helplessly at the
pinholes in the pediment of the Parthenon, vainly speculating

151

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

about what might liave been the important announcement in
bronze once fastened at those pinholes. At last an ingenious
young American student carefully copied the pinholes, and
from a study of the collocation divined at last the whole im-
perial Roman decree once fastened there. So, isolated identi-
fication of people, places, and events in the Bible may not
mean so much ; however startling their character, they may be,
after all, only pinholes in the mosaic of Bible history, but the
collocation of these identifications, when many of them have
been found, indicates at last the whole pattern of the mosaic.

Now the progress of important identifications has of late
been very rapid. It will sufl^ice only to mention those which
we have already studied for their intrinsic importance together
with the long list of others wnthin recent years. In 1874,
Clermont-Ganneau discovered one of the boundary stones of
Gezer^'^ at which place now for six years Mr. R. A. Stew-
art Macalister has been uncovering the treasures of history of
that Levitical city^"^ ; in 1906, Winckler discovered the Hit-
tites at their capital city; in 1904-5, Schumacker explored
Megiddo; in 1900-02, Sellin, Taannek; Jericho has now been
accurately located by Sellin and the foundations of her walls
laid bare; the Edomites, long denied existence in patriarchal
times, have been given historical place in the time of Meremp-
tah by the papyrus Anastasia^^^ ; Moab, for some time past
in dispute, I identified beyond further controversy at Luxor in
1908, in an inscription of Rameses II., before the time of the
Exodus^"") ; while Hilprecht at Nippur<~^ Glaser in Arabia<"^
Petrie at Maghereh and along the route of the Exodus^^ and
Reisner at Samaria have been adding a multitude of geo-
graphical, ethnographical and historical identifications.

The completion of tly^ whole list of identifications is rap*

^52

The Recent Testimony of Archccology

idly approaching, and the collocation of these identifications
has given us anew, from entirely independent testimony of
archaeology, the whole outline of the biblical narrative and its
surroundings, at once the necessary material for the his-
torical imagination and the surest foundation of apologetics.
Fancy for a moment that the peoples, places and events of the
wanderings of Ulysses should be identified : all the strange
route of travel followed ; the remarkable lands visited and de-
scribed, the curious creatures, half human and half monstrous,
and even unmistakable traces of strange events, found, all just
as the poet imagined, what a transformation in our views of
Homer's great epic must take place ! Henceforth that romance
would be history. Let us reverse the process and fancy that
the peoples, places, and events of the Bible story were as lit-
tle known from independent sources as the wanderings of
Ulysses ; the intellectual temper of this age would unhesitat-
ingly put the Bible story in the same mythical category in
which have always been the romances of Homer. If it were
possible to blot out biblical geography, biblical ethnology, and
biblical history from the realm of exact knowledge, so would
we put out the eyes of faith, henceforth our religion would be
blind, stone blind.

Thus the value of the rapid progress of identifications
appears. It is the identifications w^hich differentiate history
from myth, geography from the ''land of nowhere," the rec-
ord of events from tales of "never was," Scripture from folk-
lore, and the Gospel of the Saviour of the world from the de-
lusions of hope. Every identification limits by so much the
field of historical criticism. When the progress of identifica-
tion shall reach completion, the work of historical criticism
will be finished.

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology
CONCLUSION

The present status of the testimony from archaeology to
Scripture, as these latest discoveries make it to be, may be
Dointed out in a few words.

NOT EVOLUTION

1. The history of civilization as everywhere illuminated
is found to be only partially that of the evolutionary theory
of early Israelite history, but very exactly that of the biblical
narrative ; that is to say, this history, like all history, sacred or
profane, shows at times, for even a century or two, steady
progress, but the regular, orderly progress from the most
primitive state of society toward the highest degree of civiliza-
tion, which the evolutionary theory imperatively demands, if
it fulfill its intended mission, fails utterly. The best ancient
work at Taannek is the earliest. From the cave dwellers to
the city builders at Gezer is no long, gentle evolution ; the
early Amorite civilization leaps with rapid strides to the great
engineering feats on the defenses and the water-works.
Wherever it has been possible to institute comparison between
Palestine and Egypt, the Canaanite civilization in handicraft,
art, engineering, architecture, and education has been found
to suffer only by that which climate, materials and location
impose ; in genius and in practical execution it is equal to that
of Egypt, and only eclipsed, before Graeco-Roman times, by
the brief glory of the Solomonic period.

HARMONY WITH SCRIPTURE

2. When we come to look more narrowly at the details
of archaeological testimony, the historical setting thus afforded

154

Tlie Recent Testimony of Archceology

for the events of the Bible narrative is seen to be exactly in
harmony with the narrative. This is very significant of the
final outcome of research in early Bible history. Because
views of Scripture must finally square with the results of
archaeology, that is to say, with contemporaneous history ; and
tlie archaeological testimony of these past five years well in-
dicates the present trend toward the final conclusion. The
Bible narrative plainly interpreted at its face value is every-
where being sustained, while, of the great critical theories pro-
posing to take Scripture recording events of that age at other
than the face value, as the illiteracy of early Western Semitic
people, the rude nomadic barbarity of Palestine and the Desert
in the patriarchal age, the patriarchs not individuals but per-
sonifications, the Desert "Egypt," the gradual invasion of Pal-
estine, the naturalistic origin of Israel's religion, the incon-
sequence of Moses as a law-giver, the late authorship of the
Pentateuch, and a dozen others, not a single one is being defi-
nitely supported by the results of archaeological research. In-
deed, reconstructing criticism hardly finds it worth while, for
the most part, to look to archaeology for support.

The recent testimony of archaeology to Scripture, like all
such testimony that has gone before, is definitely and uni-
formly favorable to the Scriptures at their face value, and not
to the Scriptures as reconstructed by criticism.

AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO ABOVE

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REFERENCES

O. L. Z.^Orientalistischen Litteratur-Zeitung.
Q. S.=Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration So-
ciety.

155

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

REFERENCES

(i) Gen. 12:10-20; 13:1 ; 47:1-12.

(2) Gen. 41 :i4-46.

(3) Orr, "The Problem of the Old Testament," pp. 57-58,

quoting Schulz, Wellhausen, Kuenen, W. R. Smith,
G. B. Gray, H. P. Smith, F. H. Woods.

(4) Brugsch, "Egypt under the Pharaohs," Broderick edi-

tion, Qiap. VI.

(5) Ibid.

(6) Gen. 41 :25-39.

(7) Petrie, "Hyksos and Israelite Cities."

(8) Ibid, pp. 3 and 10, Plate IX.

(9) Ibid, pp. 5-9. Plates II, III, IV.

(10) Budge, "History of Egypt," Vcl. Ill, pp. 137-138.

(11) Kyle, Recueil de Travaux, \d. XXX, ^'Geographic

and Ethnic Lists of Rameses II.''

(12) Miiller, "Asien und Europa," 2*" Kapitel.

(13) Ibid.

(14) Winckler, O. L. Z., December 15, 1906.

(15) Ibid.

(16) Bouriant, Recueil de Travaux, Vol. XIII, pp. 15 ff.;

Budge, "History of Egypt," Vol. V, pp. 48 ff. ; Good-
win, "Records of the Past," ist Series, Vol. IV, pp.

25 ff.

(17) Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesselschaft : 1902,

p. 5. Miiller, Recueil de Travaux, Vol. VIII, 126 ff.
Budge, "History of Egypt," V, 30 ff.

(18) Winckler, O. L. Z., December 15, 1906. (Sonderabzug,

P- 15.)

(19) Ibid. (Sonderabzug, p. 22.)

156

The Recent Testimony of ArchcBology

(20) Conder. "Tel Amarna Tablets." Budge, "History of

Egypt," Vol. IV, pp. 184-241.

(21) Winckler, O. L. Z., December 15, 1906. Sonderabzug.

(22) Messersmidt, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Ges-

selschaft; Corpus, Unscrip. Het. — 1902.

(23) Vincent, "Canaan."

(24) Petrie, "Lachish."

(25) Bliss, "A Mound of Many Cities."

(26) Macalister, "Bible Side Lights from the Mound of

Gezer."
(2y) Schumacker, "Excavations at IMegiddo."

(28) Sellin, Tel-Taannek, "Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen

Akademie in Wien."

(29) Deut. 6:10-11; Josh. 24:13; Neh. 9:25.

(30) Isa. 19:18.

(31) Ezek. 16:44-46; Deut. y:^.

(32) Judges 2:11-15; 37; 8:33-35; 18:30-31.

(33) I^Iacalister, Q. S., 1903, pp. 8-9, 49.

(34) Macalister, Q. S., 1908, p. 17.

(35) Vincent, in Q. S., 1908, p. 228.

(36) Macalister, Q. S., 1903, p. 49.

(37) Ibid.

(38) I Kings 9:16.

(39) Winckler, Orientalistische Forschungen, Series I, pp.

24-41.

'(40) I. Kings 9:16.

(41) Macalister, O. S., 1903, p. 309.

(42) Sellin, "Tel-Taannek," p. 92.

(43) Macalister, Q. S., 1908, Jan.-Apr.

(44) Petrie, "Deshasha," Plate IV.

(45) Birch, "Records of the Past," ist Series, Vol. II, pp.

33-52, "Battle of Megiddo." Also Lepsius, "Penk-

'57

The Higher Criticism and The Nezu Theology

maler." Abth. III. Bl. 32, 31st, 30th, 30B, "Aus-
wahl," XII, L. 42-45.

(46) Macalister- Vincent, Q. S., 1898-1908.

(47) Budge, "History of Egypt," Vol. IV, pp. 184-241.

(48) Gen. 21-38. King, "Code of Hammurabi."

(49) Macalister, Q. S., 1903, ff., and "Bible Side Lights,"

Chap. III. Also Sellin, "Tel-Taannek," pp. 96-97.

(50) Clay, "Amurru, The Home of the Northern Semites."

(51) King, "Chronology of the First Three Babylonian Dy-

nasties."

(52) Kyle, Recueil de Travaux. "Egyptian Sacrifices." Vol.

XXVII, "Further Observations," Vol. XXXI. Bib-
liotheca Sacra, Apr., 1905, pp. 323-336.

(53) Margoliouth, "Expository Times," December, 1907. Jo-

sephus, "Antiquities," 11:7; Deodorus Sicinus, Sec.
3; 17-35 J Neh. 11:28:12-22. Esdras 5:14.

(54) Wellhausen, Ency. Brit., Vol. 18, p. 509.

(55) Petric, "Personal Religion in Egypt before Chris-

tianity."

(56) Qermont-Ganneau, in "Bible Side Lights," p. 22.

(57) Macalister, "Bible Side Lights." Also Q. S., 1902-

09.

(58) Miiller, "Asien und Europa."

(59) Kyle, Recueil de Travaux, Vol. XXX. "Ethnic and

Geographical Lists of Rameses II."

(60) Hilprecht, "Explorations in Babylonia."

(61) Weber, Forschungsreisen — Edouard Glaser. Also
"Studien zur Siidarabischen Altertumskunde,"

Weber.

(62) Petrie, "Researches in Sinai."

J^S

CHAPTER VII

THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE— DEFINITION,
EXTENT AND PROOF

BY DR. JAMES M. GRAY,
DEAN OF MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, CHICAGO, ILL.

In this paper the authenticity and credibiHty of the Bible
are assumed, by which is meant ( i ) , that its books were writ-
ten by the authors to whom they are ascribed, and that their
contents are in all material points as when they came from
their hands; and (2), that those contents are worthy of entire
acceptance as to their statements of fact. Were there need
to prove these assumptions, the evidence is abundant, and
abler pens have dealt with it.

Let it not be supposed, however, that because these things
are assumed their relative importance is undervalued. On
the contrary, they underlie inspiration, and, as President Pat-
ton says, come in on the ground floor. They have to do with
the historicity of the Bible, which for us just now is the
basis of its authority. Nothing can be settled until this is
settled, but admitting its settlement which, all things con-
sidered, we now may be permitted to do, what can be of
deeper interest than the question as to how far that authority
extends?

This is the inspiration question, and while so many have
taken in hand to discuss the ethers, may not one be at liberty

159

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

to discuss this? It is an old question, so old, indeed, as again
in the usual recurrence of thought to become new. Our
fathers discussed it, it was the great question once upon a
time, it was sifted to the bottom, and a great storehouse
of fact, and argument, and illustration has been left for us to
draw upon in a day of need.

For a long while the enemy's attack has directed our ener-
gies to another part of the field, but victory there will drive
us back here again. The other questions are outside of the
Bible itself, this is inside. They lead men away from the con-
tents of the book to consider how they came, this brings us
back to consider what they are. Happy the day when the in-
quiry returns here, and happy the generation which has not
forgotten how to meet it.

I. DEFINITION OF INSPIRATION

1. Inspiration is not revelation. As Dr. Charles Hodge
expressed it, revelation is the art of communicating divine
knowledge to the mind, but inspiration is the act of the same
Spirit controlling those who make that knowledge known to
others. In Chalmer's happy phrase, the one is the influx, the
other the efflux. Abraham received the influx, he was granted
a revelation ; but Moses was endued with the efflux, being in-
spired to record it for our learning. In the one case there was
a flowing in and in the other a flowing out. Sometimes both
of these experiences met in the same person, indeed Moses
himself is an illustration of it, having received a revelation at
another time and also the inspiration to make it known, but it
is of importance to distinguish between the two.

2. Inspiration is not illumination. Every regenerated

The Ifispiration of ilic Bible

Christian is illuminated in the simple fact that he is indwelt
by the Holy Spirit, but every such an one is not also inspired,
but only the writers of the Old and New Testaments. Spir-
itual illumination is subject to degrees, some Christians pos-
sessing more of it than others, but, as we understand it, inspi-
ration is not subject to degrees, being in every case the breath
of God, expressing itself through a human personality.

3. Inspiration is not human genius. The latter is simply
a natural qualification, however exalted it may be in some
cases, but inspiration in the sense now spoken of is super-
natural throughout. It is an enduement coming upon the
writers of the Old and New Testaments directing and ena-
bling them to write those books, and on no other men, and at
no other time, and for no other purpose. No human genius
of whom we ever heard introduced his writings with the
formula, "Thus saith the Lord," or words to that effect, and
yet such is the common utterance of the Bible authors. No
human genius ever yet agreed with any other human genius
as to the things it most concerns men to know, and, there-
fore, however exalted his equipment, it differs not merely in
degree but in kind from the inspiration of the Scriptures.

In its mode the divine agency is inscrutable, though its
effects are knowable. We do not undertake to say just how
the Holy Spirit operated on the minds of these authors to pro-
duce these books any more than we undertake to say how He
operates on the human heart to produce conversion, but we
accept the one as we do the other on the testimony that
appeals to faith.

4. When we speak of the Holy Spirit coming upon the
men in order to the composition of the books, it should be
further understood that the object is not the inspiration of

161

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

the men hut the books — not the writers but the writings. It
terminates upon the record, in other words, and not upon the
human instrument who made it.

To illustrate : Moses, David, Paul, John, were not always
and everywhere inspired, for then always and everywhere
they would have been infallible and inerrant, which was not
the case. They sometimes made mistakes in thought and
erred in conduct. But however fallible and errant they may
have been as men compassed with infirmity Hke ourselves,
such fallibility or errancy was never under any circumstances
communicated to their sacred writings.

Ecclesiastes is a case in point, which on the supposition of
its Solomonic authorship, is giving us a history of his search
for happiness "under the sun." Some statements in that
book are only partially true, while others are altogether false,
therefore it cannot mean that Solomon was inspired as he
tried this or that experiment to find what no man has been
able to find outside of God. But it means that his language
is inspired as he records the various feelings and opinions
which possessed him in the pursuit.

This disposes of a large class of objections sometimes
brought against the doctrine of inspiration — those, for exam-
ple, associated with the question as to whether the Bible is
the Word of God or only contains that Word. If by the
former be meant that God spake every word in the Bible,
and hence that every word is true, the answer must be no;
but if it be meant that God caused every word in the Bible,
true or false, to be recorded, the answer should be yes. There
are words of Satan in the Bible, words of false prophets,
words of the enemies of Christ, and yet they are God's words,
not in the sense that He uttered them, but that He caused

102

The Inspiration of the Bible

them to be recorded, infallibly and inerrantly recorded, for our
profit. In this sense the Bible does not merely contain the
Word of God, it is the Word of God.

Of any merely human author it is the same. This paper
is the writer's word throughout, and yet he may quote what
other people say to commend them or dispute them. What
they say he records, and in doing so he makes the record his
in the sense that he is responsible for its accuracy.

5. Let it be stated further in this definitional connec-
tion, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the
original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses,
David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be,
and not any particular translation or translations of them
whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error,
nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copy-
ists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle
to secure it.

But does this make nugatory our contention? Some
would say it does, and they would argue speciously that to
insist on the inerrancy of a parchment no living being has
ever seen is an academic question merely, and without value.
But do they not fail to see that the character and perfection
of the God-head are involved in that inerrancy?

Some years ago a "liberal" theologian, deprecating this
discussion as not worth while, remarked that it was a matter
of small consequence whether a pair of trousers was origin-
ally perfect if they were now rent. To which the valiant
and witty David James Burrell replied, that it might be a
matter of small consequence to the wearer of the trousers,
but the tailor who made them would prefer to have it under-
stood that they did not leave his shop that way. And then

163

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

he added, that if the Most High must train among knights
of the shears He might at least be regarded as the best of
the guild, and One who drops no stitches and sends out no
imperfect work.

Is it not with the written Word as with the incarnate
Word? Is Jesus Christ to be regarded as imperfect because
His character has never been perfectly reproduced before
us? Can He be the incarnate Word unless He were abso-
lutely without sin? And by the same token, can the scrip-
tures be the written Word unless they were inerrant?

But if this question be so purely speculative and value-
less, what becomes of the science of Biblical criticism by
which properly we set such store to-day? Do builders drive
piles into the soft earth if they never expect to touch bot-
tom? Do scholars dispute about the scripture text and
minutely examine the history and m.eaning of single words,
"the delicate coloring of mood, tense and accent," if at the
end there is no approximation to an absolute ? As Dr. George
H. Bishop says, does not our concordance, every time we
take it up, speak loudly to us of a once inerrant parchment?
Why do we not possess concordances for the very words of
other books?

Nor is that original parchment so remote a thing as some
suppose. Do not the number and variety of manuscripts and
versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a
knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship
to-day affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in
999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that
original text? Let candid consideration be given to these
things and it will be seen that we are not pursuing a phan-
tom in contending for an inspired autograph of the
Bible.

164

The Inspiraiion of the Bible

II. EXTENT OF INSPIIL\TION

I. The inspiration of scripture includes the whole and
every part of it. There are some who deny this and limit it
to only the prophetic portions, the words of Jesus Christ,
and, say, the profounder spiritual teachings of the epistles.
The historical books in their judgment, and as an example, do
not require inspiration because their data were obtainable
from natural sources.

The Bible itself, however, knows of no limitations, as
we shall see: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."
The historical data, most of it at least, might have been ob-
tained from natural sources, but what about the supernatural
guidance required in their selection and narration? Com-
pare, for answer, the records of creation, the fall, the deluge,
etc., found in Genesis with those recently discovered by ex-
cavations in Bible lands. Do not the results of the pick-axe
and the spade point to the same original as the Bible, and yet
do not their childishness and grotesqueness often bear evi-
dence of the human and sinful mould through which they
ran? Do they not show the need of some power other than
man himself to lead him out of the labyrinth of error into the
open ground of truth?

Furthermore, are not the historical books in some re-
spects the most important in the Bible? Are they not the
bases of its doctrine? Does not the doctrine of sin need for
its starting point the record of the fall? Could we so satis-
factorily understand justification did we not have the story
of God's dealings with Abraham? And what of the priest-
hood of Christ? Dismiss Leviticus and what can be made
of Hebrews? Is not the Acts of the Apostles historical, but
can we afford to lose its inspiration?

I6S,

The Higher Criticism anS The New Theology

And then, too, the historical books are, in many cases,
prophetical as well as historical. Do not the types and sym-
bols in them show forth the Saviour in all the varying aspects
of His grace? Has not the story of Israel the closest rela-
tion as type and anti-type to our spiritual redemption? Does
not Paul teach this in i Cor., io:6-ii? And if these things
were thus written for our learning, does not this imply their
inspiration?

Indeed, the historical books have the strongest testimony
borne to their importance in other parts of the Bible. This
will appear more particularly as we proceed, but take, in
passing, Christ's use of Deuteronomy in His conflict with the
tempter. Thrice does He overcome him by a citation from
that historical book without note or comment. Is it not diffi-
cult to believe that neither He nor Satan considered it in-
spired ?

Thus without going further, we may say, with Dr. De-
Witt of Princeton, that it is impossible to secure the religions
infallibility of the Bible — which is all the objector regards as
necessary — if we exclude Bible history from the sphere of its
inspiration. But if we include Bible history at all, we must
include the whole of it, for who is competent to separate its
parts?

2. The inspiration includes not only all the books of the
Bible in general but in detail, the form as well as the sub-
stance, the word as well as the thought. This is sometimes
called the verbal theory of inspiration and is vehemently spoken
against in some quarters. It is too mechanical, it degrades
the writers to the level of machines, it has a tendency to make
skeptics, and all that.

This last remark, however, is not so alarming as it
^unds. The doctrine of the eternal retribution of the wicked

i66

The I Its pi ration of the Bible

13 said to make skeptics, and also that of a vicarious atone-
ment, not to mention other revelations of Holy Writ. The
natural mind takes to none of these things. But if we are
not prepared to yield the point in one case for such a reason,
why should we be asked to do it in another?

And as to degrading the writers to the level of machines,
even if it were true, as it is not, why should fault be found
when one considers the result? Which is the more impor-
tant, the free agency of a score or two of mortals, or the
divinity of their message? The whole argument is just a
spark from the anvil on which the race is ever trying to
hammer out the deiiication of itself.

But we are insisting upon no theory — not even the verbal
theory — if it altogether excludes the human element in the
transmission of the sacred word. As Dr. Henry B. Smith
says, "God speaks through the personality as well as the lips
of His messengers," and we may pour into that word "per-
sonality" everything that goes to make it — the age in which
the person lived, his environment, his degree of culture, his
temperament, and all the rest. As Wayland Hoyt expressed
it, "Inspiration is no; a mechanical, crass, bald compulsion of
the sacred writers, bi t rather a dynamic, divine influence over
their freely-acting fa:ulties" in order that the latter in rela-
tion to the subject-!n itter then in hand may be kept inerrant,
i. e., without mistake or fault. It is limiting the Holy One
of Israel to say that He is unable to do this without turning
a human being into an automaton. Has He who created
man as a free agent jeft Himself no opportunity to mould his
thoughts into form^ of speech inerrantly expressive of His
will, without destroying that which He has made?

And, indeed, wh Tein resides man's free agency? In his
mind or in his mouth? Shall we say ^ he is free while God

167

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

controls his thought, but that he becomes a mere machine
when that control extends to the expression of his thought ?

But returning to the argument, if the divine influence
upon the writers did not extend to the form as well as the
substance of their WTitings ; if, in other words, God gave
them only the thought, permitting them to express it in their
own words, what guarantee have we that they have done
so?

An illustration the writer has frequently used will help
to make this clear. A stenographer in a mercantile house
was asked by his employer to write as follows :

^'Gentlemen : We misunderstood your letter and will now
fill your order."

Imagine the employer's surprise, however, when a little
later this was set before him for his signature:

"Gentlemen : We misunderstood your letter and will not
fill your order."

The mistake was only of a single letter, but it was en-
tirely subversive of his meaning. And yet the thought was
given clearly to the stenographer, and the words, too, for that
matter. Moreover, the latter was capable and faithful, but
he was human, and it is human to err. Had not his employer
controlled his expression down to the very letter, the thought
intended to be conveyed would have failed of utterance.

In the same way the human authors of the Bible were
men of like passions with , ourselves. Their motives were
pure, their intentions good, but even if their subject-matter
were the commonplaces of men, to say nothing of the mys-
terious and transcendent revelation of a holy God, how could
it be an absolute transcript of the mind from which it came
in the absence of miraculous control?

In the last analysis, it is the Bible itself, of course, which

i68

The Inspiration of the Bible

must settle the question of its inspiration and the extent of
it, and to this we come in the consideration of the proof, but
we may be allowed a final question. Can even God Himself
give a thought to man without the words that clothe it? Are
not the two inseparable, as much so "as a sum and its figures,
or a tune and its notes" ? Has any case been known in human
history where a healthy mind has been able to create ideas
without expressing them to its own perception? In other
words, as Dr. A. J. Gordon once observed : "To deny that the
Holy Spirit speaks in scripture is an intelligible proposition,
but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know what
He says except as we have His Words."

III. PROOF OF INSPIRATION

1. The inspiration of the Bible is proven by the philos-
ophy, or zvhat may be called the nature of the case.

The proposition may be stated thus : The Bible is the
history of the redemption of the race, or from the side of the
individual, a supernatural revelation of the will of God to
men for their salvation. But it was given to certain men of
one age to be conveyed in writing to other men in different
ages. Now all men experience difficulty in giving faithful
reflections of their thoughts to others because of sin, ignor-
ance, defective memory and the inaccuracy always incident to
the use of language.

Therefore it may be easily deduced that if the revelation
is to be communicated precisely as originally received, the
same supernatural power is required in the one case as in the
other. This has been sufficiently elaborated in the foregoing
and need not be dwelt upon again.

2. It may be proven by the history and character of the

169

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

Bible, i. e., by all that has been assumed as to its authenticity
and credibility. All that goes to prove these things goes to
prove its inspiration.

To borrow in part, the language of the Westminster Con-
fession, "the heavenliness of its matter, the efficacy of its doc-
trine, the unity of its various parts, the majesty of its style
and the scope and completeness of its design" all indicate the
divinity of its origin.

The more we think upon it the more we must be con-
vinced that men unaided by the Spirit of God could neither
have conceived, nor put together, nor preserved in its integrity
that precious deposit known as the Sacred Oracles.

3. But the strongest proof is the declarations of the
Bible itself and the inferences to be drawn from them. Nor
is this reasoning in a circle as some might think. In the case
of a man as to whose veracity there is no doubt, no hesitancy
is felt in accepting what he says about himself; and since the
Bible is demonstrated to be true in its statements of fact by
unassailable evidence, may we not accept its witness in its
own behalf?

Take the argument from Jesus Christ as an illustration.
He was content to be tested by the prophecies that went
before on Him, and fhe result of that ordeal was the estab-
lishment of His claims to be the Messiah beyond a perad-
venture. That complex system of prophecies, rendering col-
lusion or counterfeit impossible, is the incontestable proof
that He was what He claimed to be. But of course, He in
whose birth, and life, and death, and resurrection such mar-
velous prophecies met their fulfilment, became, from the hour
in which His claims were established, a witness to the divine
authority and infallible truth of the sacred records in which

170

The Inspiration of the Bible

these prophecies are found.— (The New Apologetic, by Pro-
fessor Robert Watts, D. D.)

It is so with the Bible. The character of its contents, the
unity of its parts, the fulfilment of its prophecies, the miracles
wrought in its attestation, the effects it has accomplished in
the lives of nations and of men, all these go to show that it
is divine, and if so, that it may be believed in what it says
about itself.

A. ARGUMENT FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT

To begin with the Old Testament, (a) consider hbw the
writers speak of the origin of their messages. Dr. James H.
Brookes is authority for saying that the phrase, "Thus saith
the Lord" or its equivalent is used by them 2,000 times. Sup-
pose we eliminate this phrase and its necessary context from
the Old Testament in every instance, one wonders how much
of the Old Testament would remain.

{h) Consider how the utterances of the Old Testament
writers are introduced into the New. Take Matthew i : 22 as
an illustration, "Now all this was done that it might be ful-
filled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet."
It was not the prophet who spake, but the Lord who spake
through the prophet.

(c) Consider how Christ and His apostles regard the
Old Testament. He came "not to destroy but to fulfill the
law and the prophets." Matt. 5:17. "The Scripture cannot
be broken." John 10 : 35. He sometimes used single words
as the bases of important doctrines, twice in Matthew 22 at
verses 31, 32 and 42-45. The apostles do the same. Sec
Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 2:8, 11 and 12:26, 2y,

171

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

(d) Consider what the apostles directly teach upon the
subject. Peter tells us that "No prophecy ever came by the
will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the
Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21, R. V.). "Prophecy" here ap-
plies to the word written as is indicated in the preceding
verse, and means not merely the foretelling of events, but the
utterances of any word of God without reference as to time
past, present or to come. As a matter of fact, what Peter
declares is that the will of man had nothing to do with any
part of the Old Testament, but that the whole of it, from
Genesis to Malachi, was inspired by God.

Of course Paul says the same, in language even plainer,
in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable." The phrase "inspiration of God"
means literally God-breathed. The whole of the Old Testa-
ment is God-breathed, for it is to that part of the Bible the
language particularly refers, since the New Testament as
such was not then generally known.

As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Re-
vised Version we dwell vipon it a moment longer. It there
reads, "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,"
and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scrip-
ture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the
profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter.

But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty
of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first,
that the King James rendering of the passage is not only
the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek.
Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this,
including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote
for the change. And secondly, even the revisers place it in
the margin as of practically equal authority with their pre-

172

The Inspiration of the Bible

f erred translation, and to be chosen by the reader if desired.
There are not a few devout Christians, however, who would
be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as
being stronger than the King James, and who would inter-
polate a w^ord in applying it to make it mean, "Every scrip-
ture (because) inspired of God is also profitable." Wc be-
lieve that both Gaussen and Wordsworth take this view, two
as staunch defenders of plenary inspiration as could be
named.

B. ARGUMENT FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT

We are sometimes reminded that, however strong and
convincing the argument for the inspiration of the Old Testa-
ment, that for the New Testament is only indirect. "Not
one of the evangelists tells us that he is inspired," says a cer-
tain theological professor, "and not one writer of an epistle,
except Paul."

We shall be prepared to dispute this statement a little
further on, but in the meantime let us reflect that the inspira-
tion of the Old Testament being assured as it is, why should
similar evidence be required for the New? Whoever is com-
petent to speak as a Bible authority knows that the unity of
the Old and New Testaments is the strongest demonstration
of their common source. They are seen to be not two books,
but only two parts of one book.

To take then the analogy of the Old Testament. The
foregoing argument proves its inspiration as a whole, al-
though there were long periods separating the different
writers, Moses and David let us say, or David and Daniel, the
Pentateuch and the Psalms, or the Psalms and the Prophets.
As long, or longer, than between Malachi and Matthew, or
Ezra and the Gospels. If then to carry conviction for the

^7Z

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

plenary inspiration of the Old Testament as a whole, it is
not necessary to prove it for every book, v^rhy, to carry con-
viction for the plenary inspiration of the Bible as a whole is
it necessary to do the same?

We quote here a paragraph or two from Dr. Nathaniel
West. He is referring to 2 Timothy 3 : 16, which he renders,
**Every scripture is inspired of God," and adds:

*The distributive word 'Every' is used not only to par-
ticularize each individual scripture of the Canon that Timothy
had studied from his youth, but also to include, along with
the Old Testament the New Testament scriptures extant in
Paul's day, and any others, such as those that John wrote after
him.

"The Apostle Peter tells us that he was in possession,
not merely of some of Paul's Epistles, but 'all his Epistles,*
and places them, canonically, in the same rank with what he
calls 'the other scriptures,' i. e., of equal inspiration and
authority with the 'words spoken before by the Holy Prophets,
and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour, through the
Apostles.' 2 Peter 3:2, 16.

"Paul teaches the same co-ordination of the Old and
New Testaments. Having referred to the Old as a unit, in
his phrase 'Holy Scriptures,' which the revisers translate 'Sa-
cred Writings,' he proceeds to particularize. He tells Tim-
othy that 'every scripture,' whether of Old or New Testament
production, 'is inspired of God.' Let it be in the Pentateuch,
the Psalms, the Prophets, the Historical Books, let it be a
chapter or a verse ; let it be in the Gospels, the Acts, his own
or Peter's Epistles, or even John's writings, yet to be, still
each part of the Sacred Collection is God-given and because
of that possesses divine authority as part of the Book of
God."

174

The Inspiration of the Bible

We read this from Dr. West twenty years ago, and re-
jected it as his dictum. We read it to-day, with deeper and
fuller knowledge of the subject, and we believe it to be true.

It is somewhat as follows that Dr. Gaussen in his exhaus-
tive "Theopneustia" gives the argument for the inspiration
of the New Testament.

(a) The New Testament is the later, and for that
reason the more important revelation of the two, and hence
if the former were inspired, it certainly must be true of the
latter. The opening verses of the first and second chapters
of Hebrews plainly suggest this : "God, who at sundry times
and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by
the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His
Son * * * Therefore, we ought to give the more earnest
heed to the things which we have heard."

And this inference is rendered still more conclusive by
the circumstance that the New Testament sometimes explains,
sometimes proves, and sometimes even repeals ordinances of
the Old Testament. See Matthew i : 22, 23 for an illustra-
tion of the first, Acts 13 :i9 to 39 for the second, and Galatians
5:6 for the third. Assuredly these things would not be true
if the New Testament were not of equal, and in a certain
sense, even greater authority than the Old.

{h) The writers of the New Testament were of an
equal or higher rank than those of the Old. That they were
prophets is evident from such allusions as Romans 16 : 25-27,
and Ephesians 3:4, 5. But that they were more than proph-
ets is indicated in the fact that wherever in the New Testa-
ment prophets and apostles are both mentioned, the last-
named is always mentioned first (see i Cor. 12:28, Ephesians
2:20, Ephesians 4:11). It is also true that the writers of
the New Testament had a his/her mission than those of the

K'S

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

Old, since they were sent forth by Christ, as he had been
sent forth by the Father (John 20:21). They were to go,
not to a single nation only (as Israel), but into all the world
(Matthew 28: 19). They received the keys of the kingdom
of heaven (IMatthew 16:19). And they are to be pre-emi-
nently rewarded in the regeneration (Matthew 19:28). Such
considerations and comparisons as these are not to be over-
looked in estimating the authority by which they wrote.

(c) The writers of the New Testament were especially
qualified for their work, as we see in Matthew 10 : 19, 20,
Mark 13:11, Luke 12:2, John 14:26 and John 16:13, 14*
These passages will be dwelt on more at length in a later
division of our subject, but just now it may be noticed that
in some of the instance^:;, inspiration of the most absolute
character was promised as to what they should speak — the
inference being warranted that none the less would they be
guided in what they wrote. Their spoken words were limited
and temporary in their sphere, but their written utterances
covered the whole range of revelation and were to last for-
ever. If in the one case they were inspired, how much more
in the other?

(d) The writers of the New Testament directly claim
divine inspiration. See Acts 15:23-29, where, especially at
verse 28, James is recorded as saying, "for it seemed good to
the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden
than these necessary things." Here it is affirmed very clearly
that the Holy Ghost is the real writer of the letter in ques-
tion and simply using the human instruments for his pur-
pose. Add to this i Corinthians 2:13, where Paul says:
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, com-
paring spiritual things with spiritual," or as the margin of the

176

The Inspiration of the Bible

Revised Version puts it, "imparting spiritual things to spirit-
ual men." In i Thessalonians 2:13 the same writer says:
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because
when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye
received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the
w^ord of God." In 2 Peter 3 : 2 the apostle places his own
words on a level with those of the prophets of the Old Testa-
ment, and in verses 15 and 16 of the same chapter he does
the same with the writings of Paul, classifying them "with
the other scriptures." Finally, in Revelation 2 : 7, although
it is the Apostle John who is writing, he is authorized to
exclaim: "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches," and so on throughout the epistles to
the seven churches.

C. ARGUMENT FOR THE WORDS

The evidence that the inspiration includes the form as
well as the substance of the Holy Scriptures, the word as well
as the thought, may be gathered in this way.

I. There were certainly some occasiots when the words
were given to the human agents. Take the instance of Balaam
(Numbers 22:38, 23:12, 16). It is clear that this self-
seeking prophet thought, i. e., desired to speak differently
from what he did, but was obliged to speak the word that
God put in his mouth. There are two incontrovertible wit-
nesses to this, one being Balaam himself and the other God.

Take Saul (i Samuel 10: 10), or at a later time, his mes-
sengers (19:20-24). No one will claim that there was not
an inspiration of the words here. And Caiaphas also (John
II : 49-52), of whom it is expressly said that when he prophe-
sied that one man should die for the people, "this spake he

The Higher Criticism and The Nczu Theology

not of himself." Who believes that Caiaphas meant or reall>'
knew the significance of what he said?

And how entirely this harmonizes with Christ's promise
to His disciples in Matthew lo: 19, 20 and elsewhere. ''When
they deliver you up take no thought (be not anxious) how or
what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour
what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak but the
Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Mark is even
more emphatic: "Neither do ye premeditate, but whatsoever
shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye
that speak, but the Holy Ghost."

Take the circumstance of the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:
4-I1), when the disciples ''began to speak with other tongues
as the Spirit gave them utterance." Parthians, Medes, Elam-
ites, the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea, Cappadocia,
Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, in the parts of
Libya about Cyrene, the strangers of Rome, Cretes and Ara-
bians all testified, "we do hear them spcc.k in our tongues
the wonderful works of God!" Did not this inspiration in-
clude the words? Did it not indeed exclude the thought?
What clearer example could be desired?

To the same purport consider Paul's teaching in i Corin-
thians 14 about the gift of tongues. He that speaketh in an
unknown tongue, in the Spirit speaketh mysteries, but no man
understandeth him, therefore he is to pray that he may inter-
pret. Under some circumstances, if no interpreter be pres-
ent, he is to keep silence in the church and speak only to
himself and to God.

But better still, consider the utterance of i Peter i : 10,
II, where he speaks of them who pro^^hesied of the grace
that should come, as "searching what, or what manner oj
time, the Spirit of Christ which vras in them did signify whe^

178

The Inspiration of the Bible

He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory
that should follow, to whom it was revealed," etc.

"Should we see a student who, having taken down the
lecture of a profound philosopher, was now studying dili-
gently to comprehend the sense of the discourse which he
had written, we should understand simply that he was a
pupil and not a master; that he had nothing to do with
originating either the thoughts or the words of the lecture,
but was rather a disciple whose province it was to under-
stand what he had transcribed, and so be able to communicate
it to others.

*'And who can deny that this is the exact picture of what
we have in this passage from Peter? Here were inspired
writers studying the meaning of what they themselves had
written. With all possible allowance for the human peculi-
arities of the writers, they must have been reporters of what
they heard, rather than formulators of that which they had
been made to understand." — A. J. Gordon in "The Ministry
of the Spirit," pp. 173, 174.

2. The Bible plainly teaches that inspiration extends to
its words. We spoke of Balaam as uttering that which God
put in his mouth, but the same expression is used by God
Himself with reference to His prophets. When Moses would
excuse himself from service because he was not eloquent. He
who made man's mouth said, "Now therefore go, and I will
be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say" (Exo-
dus 4: 10-12). And Dr. James H. Brookes' comment is very
pertinent. "God did not say I will be with thy mind, and
teach thee what thou shalt think ; but I will be with thy mouth
and teach thee what thou shalt say. This explains why, forty
years afterwards, Moses said to Israel, 'Ye shall not add unto
the word I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought

179

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

from it/ (Deut. 4:2.)" Seven times Moses tells us that the
tables of stone containing the commandments were the work
of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven
upon the tables (Exodus 31 : 16).

Passing from the Pentateuch to the poetical books we
find David saying, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and
His word was in my tongue" (2 Samuel 23: i, 2). He, too,
does not say, God thought by me, but spake by me.

Coming to the prophets, Jeremiah confesses that, like
Moses, he recoiled from the mission on which he was sent
and for the same reason. He was a child and could not
speak. "Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my
mouth. And the Lord said unto me. Behold I have put My
word in thy mouth" (Jeremiah 1:6-9).

All of which substantiates the declaration of Peter quoted
earlier, that "no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but
man spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
Surely, if the will of man had nothing to go with the prophecy,
he could not have been at liberty in the selection of the
words.

So much for the Old Testament, but when we reach the
New, we have the same unerring and verbal accuracy guar-
anteed to the apostles by the Son of God, as we have seen.
And we have the apostles making claim of it, as when Paul in
I Corinthians 2:12, 13 distinguishes between the "things"
or the thoughts which God gave him and the words in which
he expressed them, and insisting on the divinity of both;
"Which things also we speak," he says, "not in the words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth." In Galatians 3: 16, following the example of His
divine Master, he employs not merely a single word, but a
single letter of a word as the basis of an argument for a

180

The Inspiraiion of the Bible

great doctrine. The blessing of justification which Abraham
received has become that of the behever in Jesus Christ. **Now
to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy
seed, which is Christ."

The wTiter of the epistle to the Hebrews bases a similar
argument on the word "all" in chapter i : 8, on the word
"one" in i:ii, and on the phrase "yet once more" in 12 :
26, 2y.

To recur to Paul's argument in Galatians, Archdeacon
Farrar in one of his writings denies that by any possibility
such a Hebraist as he, and such a master of Greek usage could
have argued in this way. He says Paul must have known
that the plural of the Hebrew and Greek terms for "seed" is
never used by Hebrew or Greek writers to designate human
offspring. It means, he says, various kinds of grain.

His artlessness is amusing. We accept his estimate of
Paul's knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, says Professor
Watts ; he was certainly a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and as
to his Greek, he could not only write it but speak it as wc
know, and quote what suited his purpose from the Greek
poets. But on this supposition we feel justified in asking Dr.
Farrar whether a lexicographer in searching Greek authors
for the meanings they attached to spermata, the Greek for
"seeds," would not be inclined to add "human offspring" on
so good an authority as Paul?

Nor indeed would they be limited to his authority, since
Sophocles uses it in the same w^ay, and Aeschylus. "I was
driven away from my country by my own offspring" (j/>^r-
rtiata) — Hterally by my ov.n seeds, is what the former makes
one of his characters say.

Dr. Farrar's rendering of spermata in Galatians 3: 16 on,
181

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

the other hand wonid make nonsense if not sacrilege. "He
saith not unto various kinds of grain as of many, but as of
one, and to thy grain, which is Christ."

"Granting then, what we thank no man for granting,
that spermata means human offspring, it is evident that des-
pite all opinions to the contrary, this passage sustains the
teaching of an inspiration of Holy Writ extending to its very
words."

3. But the most unique argument for the inspiration of
the words of scripture is the relation which Jesus Christ hears
to them. In the first place. He Himself was inspired as to
His words. In the earliest reference to His prophetic office
(Deut. 18:18), Jehovah says, "I will put My words in His
mouth, and He shall speak * * * all that I shall command
Him." A limitation on His utterance which Jesus every-
where recognizes. "As My Father hath taught Me, I speak
these things;" "the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a
commandment what I should say, and w^hat I should speak;"
"whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto
Me, so I speak;" "I have given unto them the words which
Thou gavest Me;" "the words that I speak unto you, they
are spirit and they are life." (John 6:63; 8:26, 28, 40; 12:

49. 50-)

The thought is still more impressive as we read of the
relation of the Holy Spirit to the God-man. "The Spirit of
the Lord is upon Me because He hath anointed Me to preach
the gospel to the poor;" "He through the Holy Ghost had
given commandments unto the apostles;" "the revelation of
Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him;" "these things saith
He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand ;" "He that
hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches" (Luke 4:18; Acts 1:2; Rev. 1:1; 2:1, 11.) If

\Z2

The Inspiration of the Bible

the incarnate Word needcJ the unction of the Holy Ghost
to give to men the revelation He received from the Father in
Whose bosom He dwells ; and if the agency of the same
Spirit extended to the words He spake in preaching the gos-
pel to the meek or dictating an epistle, how much more must
these things be so in the case of ordinary men when en-
gaged in the same service? With what show of reason can
one contend that any Old or New Testament writer stood, so
far as his words were concerned, i'^ need of no such agency."
— The New Apologetic, pp. 67, 68, ''-

In the second place He used the scriptures as though they
were inspired as to their words. In Matthew 22:31, 32, He
substantiates the doctrine of the resurrection against the skep-
ticism of the Sadducees by emphasizing the present tense of
the verb "to be," i. e., the word **am" in the language of
Jehovah to ]\Ioses at the burning bush. In verses 42-45 of
the same chapter He does the same for His own Deity by
alluding to the second use of the word *'Lord" in Psalm CX.
'The LORD said unto my Lord * * * if David then call
him Lord, how is he his son?" In John 10:34-36, He vindi-
cates Himself from the charge of blasphemy by saying, *Ts it
not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called
them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scrip-
ture cannot be broken ; say ye of him, whom the Father hath
sanctified, and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest; be-
cause I said, I am the Son of God?"

We have already seen Him (in Matthew 4) overcoming
the tempter in the wilderness by three quotations from Deuter-
onomy without note or comment except, "It is zvritten." Re-
ferring to which Adolphe Monod says, 'T know of nothing in
the whole history of humanity, nor even in the field of divine
revelation, that proves more clearly than this the inspiratiof

183

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

of the scriptures. What! Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven
and earth, caUing to his aid in that solemn moment Moses
liis servant? He who speaks from heaven fortifying him-
self against the temptations of hell by the word of him who
spake from earth? How can we explain that spiritual mys-
tery, that wonderful reversing of the order of things, if for
Jesus the words of Moses were not the words of God rather
than those of men? How shall we explain it if Jesus were
not fully aware that holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost?

"I do not forget the objections which have been raised
against the inspiration of the scriptures, nor the real obscurity
with which that inspiration is surrounded; if they sometimes
trouble your hearts, they have troubled mine also. But at
such times, in order to revive my faith, I have only to glance
at Jesus glorifying the scriptures in the wilderness; and I
have seen that for all who rely upon Him, the most embarrass-
ing of problems is transformed into a historical fact, palpable
and clear. Jesus no doubt was aware of the difficulties con-
nected with the inspiration of the scriptures, but did this pre-
vent Him from appealing to their testimony with unreserved
confidence? Let that which was sufficient for Him suffice for
you. Fear not that the rock which sustained the Lord in the
hour of His temptation and distress will give way because
you lean too heavily upon it."

In the third place, Christ teaches that the scriptures are
inspired as to their words. In the Sermon on the Mount He
said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily
I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Here is testimony confirmed by an oath, for "verily" on

184

The Inspiration of the Bible

the lips of the Son of 2^Ian carries such force. He affirms the
indestructibihty of the law, not its substance merely but its
form, not the thought but the word.

"One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law."
The "jot" means the yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew
alphabet, while the "tittle" means the horn, a short projection
in certain letters extending the base line beyond the upright
one which rests upon it. A reader unaccustomed to the He-
brew needs a strong eye to see the tittle, but Qirist guaran-
tees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle nor the
yod shall perish.

The elder Lightfoot, the Hebraist and rabbinical scholar
of the Westminster Assembly time, has called attention to an
interesting story of a certain letter yod found in the text of
Deut. 32: 18. It is in the word teshi, to forsake, translated in
the King James as "unmindful." Originally it seems to
have been written smaller even than usual, i. e., undersized,
and yet notwithstanding the almost infinite number of times
in which copies have been made, that little yod stands there
to-day just as it ever did. Lightfoot spoke of it in the middle
of the seventeenth century, and although two more centuries
and a half have passed since then with all their additional
copies of the book, yet it still retains its place in the sacred
text. Its diminutive size is referred to in the margin, "but no
hand has dared to add a hair's breadth to its length," so that
we can still employ his words, and say that it is likely to re-
main there forever.

The same scholar speaks of the eflfect a slight change in
the form of a Hebrew letter might produce in the substance
of the thought for which it stands. He takes as an example
two words, "Chalal" and "Halal," which differ from each
other simply in their first radicals. The "Ch" in Hebrew is

i8s

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

expressed by one letter the same as "H," the only distinction
being a slight break or opening in the left limb of the latter.
It seems too trifling to notice, but let that line be broken
where it should be continuous, and *Thou shalt not profane
the Name of thy God" in Leviticus 18:21, becomes "Thou
shalt not praise the Name of thy God." Through that aper-
ture, however small, tne entire thought of the Divine mind
oozes out, so to speak, and becomes quite antagonistic to what
was designed.

This shows how truly the thought and the word express-
ing it are bound together, and that whatever affects the one
imperils the other. As another says, "The bottles are not the
wine, but if the bottles perish, the wine is sure to be spilled."
It may seem like narrow-mindedness to contend for this, and
an evidence of enlightenment of liberal scholarship to treat it
with indifference, but we should be prepared to take our stand
with Jesus Christ in the premises, and if necessary, go out-
side the camp bearing our reproach.

IV. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS

That there are difficulties in the way of accepting a view
of inspiration like this goes without saying. But to the finite
mind there must always be difficulties connected with a revela-
tion from the Infinite, and it can not be otherwise. This has
been mentioned before. Men of faith, and it is such we are
addressing, and not men of the world, do not wait to under-
stand or resolve all the difficulties associated with other mys-
teries of the Bible before accepting them as divine, and why
should they do so in this case?

Moreover, Archbishop Whately's dictum is generally ac-
cepted, that we are not obliged to clear away every difficulty

186

The Inspiration of the Bible

about a doctrine in order to believe it, always provided tHat
the facts on which it rests are true. And particularly is this
the case where the rejection of such a doctrine involves
greater difficulties than its belief, as it does here.

For if this view of inspiration be rejected, what have its
opponents to give in its place? Do they realize that any ob-
jections to it are slight in comparison with those to any other
view that can be named? And do they realize that this is
true because this view has the immeasurable advantage of
agreeing with the plain declarations of Scripture on the sub-
ject? In other words, as Dr. Burrell says, those who assert
the inerrancy of the scripture autographs do so on the author-
ity of God Himself, and to deny it is of a piece with the denial
that they teach the forgiveness of sins or the resurrection
from the dead. No amount of exegetical turning and twist-
ing can explain away the assertions already quoted in these
pages, to say nothing of the constant undertone of evidence
we find in the Bible everywhere to their truth. ^

And speaking of this further, are we not justified in re-
quiring of the objector two things? First, on any fair basis
of scientific investigation, is he not obliged to dispose of the
evidence here presented before he impugns the doctrine it
substantiates? And second, after having disposed of it, is he
not equally obligated to present the scriptural proof of what-
ever other view of inspiration he would have us accept ? Has
he ever done this, and if not, are we not further justified in
saying that it can not be done? But let us consider some of
the difficulties.

I. There are the so-called discrepancies or contradictions
between certain statements of the Bible and the facts of his-
tory or natural science. The best way to meet these is to
treat them separately as they are presented, but when you

187

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

ask for them you are not infrequently met with silence. They
are hard to produce, and when produced, who is able to say
that they belong to the original parchments? As we are not
contending for an inerrant translation, does not the burden
of proof rest with the objector?

But some of these "discrepancies'* are easily explained.
They do not exist between statements of the Bible and facts
of science, but between erroneous interpretations of the Bible
and immature conclusions of science. The old story of Gali-
leo is in point, who did not contradict the Bible in affirming
that the earth moved round the sun but only the false theo-
logical assumptions about it. In this way advancing light has
removed many of these discrepancies, and it is fair to presume
with Dr. Charles Hodge that further light would remove all.

2. There are the differences in the narratives themselves.
In the first place, the New Testament writers sometimes
change important words in quoting from the Old Testament,
which it is assumed could not be the case if in both instances
the writers were inspired. But it is forgotten that in the
scriptures we are dealing not so much with different human
authors as with one Divine Author. It is a principle in or-
dinary literature that an author may quote himself as he
pleases, and give a different turn to an expression here and
there as a changed condition of affairs renders it necessary or
desirable. Shall we deny this privilege to the Holy Spirit?
May we not find, indeed, that some of these supposed mis-
quotations show such progress of truth, such evident appli-
cation of the teaching of an earlier dispensation to the cir-
cumstances of a later one, as to afford a confirmation of their
divine origin rather than an argument against it?

We offered illustrations of this earlier, but to those would
now add Isaiah 59 : 20 quoted in Romans 1 1 : 26, and Amos

188

The Inspiration of the Bible

9:11 quoted in Acts 15: 16. And to any desiring to further
examine the subject we would recommend the valuable work
of Professor Franklin Johnson, of Chicago University, en-
titled "The Quotations in the New Testament from the Old,"

Another class of differences, however, is where the same
event is sometimes given differently by different writers. Take
that most frequently used by the objectors, the inscription on
the cross, recorded by all the evangelists and yet differently
by each. How can such records be inspired, it is asked.

It is to be remembered in reply, that the inscription w^as
written in three languages calling for a different arrange-
ment of the words in each case, and that one evangelist may
have translated the Hebrew, and another the Latin, while a
third recorded the Greek. It is not said that any one gave the
full inscription, nor can we affirm that there was any obliga-
tion upon them to do so. Moreover, no one contradicts any
other, and no one says what is untrue.

Recalling what was said about our having to deal not
with different human authors but with one Divine Author,
may not the Holy Spirit here have chosen to emphasize some
one particular fact, or phase of a fact of the inscription for a
specific and important end? Examine the records to deter-
mine what this fact may have been. Observe that whatever
else is omitted, all the narratives record the momentous cir-
cumstances that the Sufferer on the cross was THE KING
OF THE JEWS.

Could there have been a cause for this? What was the
charge preferred against Jesus by His accusers? Was He
not rejected and crucified because He said He was the King
of the Jews? Was not this the central idea Pilate was provi-
dentially guided to express in the inscription? And if so,
was it not that to which the evangelists should bear witness?

189

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

And should not that witness have been borne in a way to dis-
pel the thought of collusion in the premises? And did not
this involve a variety of narrative which should at the same
time be in harmony with truth and fact? And do we not
have this very thing in the four gospels?

These accounts supplement, but do not contradict each
other. We place them before the eye in the order in which
they are recorded.

This is Jesus THE KING OF THE JEWS

THE KING OF THE JEWS

This is THE KING OF THE JEWS

Jesus of Nazareth THE KING OF THE JEWS

The entire inscription evidently was "This is Jesus of
Nazareth the King of the Jews," but we submit that the fore-
going presents a reasonable argument for the differences in
the records.

3. There is the variety in style. Some think that if all
the writers were alike inspired and the inspiration extended
to their words, they must all possess the same style — as if
the Holy Spirit had but one style!

Literary style is a method of selecting words and putting
sentences together which stamps an author's work with the
influence of his habits, his condition in society, his education,
his reasoning, his experience, his imagination and his genius.
These give his mental and moral physiognomy and make up
his style.

But is not God free to act with or without these fixed
laws? There are no circumstances which tinge His views or
reasonings, and He has no idiosyncrasies of speech, and no
mother tongue through which He expresses His character, or
leaves the finger mark of genius upon His literary fabrics.

It is a great fallacy then, as Dr. Thomas Armitage once

190

The Inspiration of the Bible

said, to suppose that uniformity of verbal style must have
marked God's authorship in the Bible, had He selected its
words. As the author of all styles, rather does He use them
all at His pleasure. He bestows all the powers of mental in-
dividuality upon His instruments, for using the scriptures,
and then uses their powers as He will to express His mind
by them.

Indeed, the variety of style is a necessary proof of the
freedom of the human writers, and it is this which among
other things convinces us that, however controlled by the
Holy Spirit, they were not mere machines in what they wrote.
Consider God's method in nature. In any department of
vegetable life there may be but one genus, while its members
are classified into a thousand species. From the bulbous root
come the tulip, the hyacinth, the crocus, and the lily in every
shape and shade, without any cause either of natural chem-
istry or culture. It is exclusively attributable to the variety
of styles which the mind of God devises. And so in the
sacred writings. His mind is seen in the infinite variety of
expression which dictates the wording of every book. To
quote Armitage again, *'I cannot tell how the Holy Spirit
suggested the words to the writers any more than some other
man can tell how He suggested the thoughts to them. But
if diversity of expression proves that He did not choose the
words, the diversity of ideas proves that He did not dictate
tlie thoughts, for the one is as varied as the other."

William Cullen Bryant was a newspaper man but a poet ;
Edmund Clarence Stedman was a Wall Street broker and
also a poet. What a difference in style there was between
their editorials and commercial letters on the one hand, and
their poetry on the other! Is God more limited than a man?
4. There are certain declarations of scripture itself.
191

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

Does not Paul say in one or two places "I speak as a man/'
or ''After the manner of man"? Assuredly, but is he not
using the arguments common among men for the sake of
elucidating a point? And may he not as truly be led of the
Spirit to do that, and to record it, as to do or say anything
else? Of course, what he quotes from men is not of the
same essential value as what he receives directly from God,
but the record of the quotation is as truly inspired.

There are two or three other utterances of his of this
character in the 7th chapter of i Corinthians, where he is
treating of marriage. At verse 6 he says, "I speak this by
permission, not of commandment," and what he means has
no reference to the source of his message but the subject of
it. In contradiction to the false teaching of some, he says
Christians are permitted to marry, but not commanded to do
so. At verse 10 he says, "Unto the married I command, yet
not I, but the Lord," while at verse 12 there follows, "but to
the rest speak I, not the Lord." Does he declare himself in-
spired in the first instance, and not in the second? By no
means, but in the first he is alluding to what the Lord spake
on the subject while here in the flesh, and in the second to
what he, Paul, is adding thereto on the authority of the Holy
Spirit speaking through him. In other words, putting his
own utterances on equality with those of our Lord, he simply
confirms their inspiration.

At verse 40 he uses a puzzling expression, "I think also
that I have the Spirit of God." As we are contending only
for an inspired record, it would seem easy to say that there
he records a doubt as to whether he was inspired, and hence
everywhere else in the absence of such record of doubt the
inspiration is to be assumed. But this would be begging the

192

The Inspiration of the Bible

question, and we prefer the solution of others that the answer
is found in the condition of the Corinthian church at that
time. His enemies had sought to counteract his teachings,
claiming that they had the Spirit of God. Referring to the
claim, he says with justifiable irony, "I think also that I have
the Spirit of God" (R. V.). '1 think" in the mouth of one
having apostolic authority, says Professor Watts, may be
taken as carrying the strongest assertion of the judgment in
question. The passage is something akin to another in the
same epistle at the 14th chapter, verse 37, where he says, "If
any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the com-
mandments of the Lord."

Time forbids further amplification on the difficulties and
objections, nor is it necessary, since there is not one that
has not been met satisfactorily to the man of God and the
child of faith again and again.

But there is an obstacle to which we would call atten-
tion before concluding — not a difficulty or objection, but a
real obstacle, especially to the young and insufficiently in-
structed. It is the illusion that this view of inspiration is
held only by the unlearned. An illusion growing out of
still another as to who constitute the learned.

There is a popular impression that in the sphere of the-
ology and religion these latter are limited for the most part
to the higher critics and their relatives, and the more rational-
istic and iconoclastic the critic the more learned he is esteemed
to be. But the fallacy of this is seen in that the qualities
which make for a philologist, an expert in human languages,
or which give one a wide acquaintance with literature of any
kind, in other words the qualities of the higher critic, depend

193

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

more on memory than judgment, and do not give the slightest
guarantee that their possessors can draw a sound conclusion
from what they know.

As the author of "Faith and Inspiration" puts it, the
work of such a scholar is often like that of a quarryman to
an architect. Its entire achievement, though immensely valu-
able in its place, is just a mass of raw and formless material
until a mind gifted in a different direction, and possessing
the necessary taste and balance, shall reduce or put it into
shape for use. The perplexities of astronomers touching Hal-
ley's comet is in point. They knew facts that common folks
did not know, but when they came to generalize upon them,
the man on the street knew that he should have looked in the
west for the phenomenon when they bade him look in the
east.

Much is said, for example, about an acquaintance with
Hebrew and Greek, and no sensible man will underrate them
for the theologian or the Bible scholar, but they are entirely
unnecessary to an understanding of the doctrine of inspira-
tion or any other doctrine of Holy Writ. The intelligent
reader of the Bible in the English tongue, especially when
illuminated by the Holy Spirit, is abundantly able to decide
upon these questions for himself. He cannot determine how
the Holy Spirit operated on the minds of the sacred penmen
because that is not revealed, but he can determine on the
results secured because that is revealed. He can determine
whether the inspiration covers all the books, and whether it
includes not only the substance but the form, not only the
thoughts but the words.

We have spoken of scholars and of the learned. Let us
come to names. We suppose Dr. Sanday, of Oxford, is a
scholar, and the Archbishop of Durham, and Dean Burgon,

194

The Inspiration of the Bible

and Professor Orr, of Glasgow, and Principal Forsyth, of
Hackney College, and Sir Robert Anderson, and Dr. Kuyper,
of Holland, and President Patton, of Princeton, and Howard
Osgood, of the Old Testament Revision Committee, and Mat-
thew B. Riddle of the New, and G. Frederick Wright and
Albert T. Clay, the archaeologists, and Presidents Moorehead
and Mullins, and C. I. Scofield, and Luther T. Townsend, for
twenty-five years professor in the Theological School of Bos-
ton University, and Arthur T. Pierson, of the Missionary Re-
view of the World, and a host of other living witnesses —
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists,
Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed Dutch.

We had thought John Calvin a scholar, and the dis-
tinguished Bengel, and Canon Faussett, and Tregelles, and
Auberlen, and Van Oosterzee, and Charles Hodge and Henry
B. Smith, and so many more that it were foolishness to recall
them. These men may not stand for every statement in
these pages, they maight not care to be quoted as holding
technically the verbal theory of inspiration for reasons already
named, but they will affirm the heart of the contention and
testify to their belief in an inspiration of the Sacred Oracles
which includes the words.

Once when the writer was challenged by the editor of a
secular daily to name a single living scholar who thus be-
lieved, he presented that of a chancellor of a great university,
and was told that he was not the kind of scholar that was
meant ! The kind of scholar not infrequently meant by such
opposers is the one who is seeking to destroy faith in the
Bible as the Word of God, and to substitute in its place a
Bible of his own making.

The Outlook had an editorial recently, entitled ''Whom
Shall We Believe?" in which the writer reaffirmed the plati-

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

tude that living is a vital much more than an intellectual
process, and that truth of the deeper kind is distilled out of
experience rather th^n logical processes. This is the reason,
he said, why many things arc hidden from the so-called wise,
who follow formal methods of exact observation, and are
revealed to babes and sucklings who know nothing of these
methods, but are deep in the process of living. No spectator
ever yet understood a great contemporary human movement
into which he did not enter.

Does this explain why the cloistered scholar is unable
to accept the supernatural inspiration of the scriptures while
the men on the firing line of the Lord's army believe in it even
to the very words ? Does it explain the faith of our mission-
aries in foreign lands? Is this what led J. Hudson Taylor
to Inland China, and Dr. Guinness to establish the work upon
the Congo, and George Miieller and William Quarrier to
support the orphans at Bristol and Bridge of Weir? Is
this — the belief in the plenary inspiration of the Bible — the
secret of the evangelistic power of D. L. Moody, and Chap-
man, and Torrey, and Gipsy Smith, and practically every
evangelist in the field, for to the extent of our acquaintance
there are none of these who doubt it? Does this tell why
"the best sellers on the market," at least among Christian
people, have been the devotional and expository books of An-
drew Murray, and Miller and Meyer, and writers of that
stamp? Is this why the plain people have loved to listen to
preachers like Spurgeon, and McLaren, and Campbell Mor-
gan, and Len Broughton and A. C. Dixon and have passed
by men of the other kind ? It is, in a word, safe to challenge
the whole Christian world for the name of a man who stands
oui as a winner of souls who does not believe in the in-

196

The Inspiration of the Bible

splration of the Bible as it has been sought to be explained in
these pages.

But we conclude with a kind of concrete testimony — that
of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Amer-
ica, and of a date as recent as 1893. The writer is not a
Presbyterian, and therefore with the better grace can ask
his readers to consider the character and intellect represented
in such an AssemWy. Here are some of our greatest mer-
chants, our greatest jurists, our greatest educators, our great-
est statesmen, as well as our greatest missionaries, evangelists
and theologians. There may be seen as able and august a
gathering of representatives of Christianity in other places
and on other occasions, but few that can surpass it. For
sobriety of thought, for depth as well as breadth of learning,
for wealth of spiritual experience, for honesty of utterance,
and virility of conviction, the General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church in America must command attention and
respect throughout the w^orld. And this is w^hat it said on
the subject we are now considering at its gathering in the
city of Washington, the capital of the nation, at the date
named :

'THE BIBLE AS WE NOW HAVE IT, IN ITS
VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS AND REVISIONS, WHEN
FREED FROM ALL ERRORS AND MISTAKES OF
TRANSLATORS, COPYISTS AND PRINTERS, (IS)
THE VERY WORD OF GOD, AND CONSEQUENTLY
WHOLLY WITHOUT ERROR."

197

CHAPTER VIII
THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST

BY PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D. D.,
UNITED FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND

It is well known that the last ten or twenty years have
been marked by a determined assault upon the truth of the
Virgin birth of Christ. In the year 1892 a great controversy
broke out in Germany, owing to the refusal of a pastor named
Schrempf to use the Apostles' Creed in baptism because of
disbelief in this and other articles. Schrempf was deposed,
and an agitation commenced against the doctrine of the Virgin
birth which has grown in volume ever since. Other tenden-
cies, especially the rise of an extremely radical school of his-
torical criticism, added force to the negative movement. The
attack is not confined, indeed, to the article of the Virgin
birth. It affects the whole supernatural estimate of Christ —
His life. His claims. His sinlessness. His miracles. His resur-
rection from the dead. But the Virgin birth is assailed with
special vehemence, because it is supposed that the evidence
for this miracle is more easily got rid of than the evidence
for public facts, such as the resurrection. The result is that
in very many quarters the Virgin birth of Christ is openly
treated as a fable. Belief in it is scouted as unworthy of the
twentieth century intelligence. The methods of the oldest
opponents of Christianity are revived, and it is likened to the

198

The Virgin Birth of Christ

Greek and Roman stories, coarse and vile, of heroes who had
gods for their fathers. A special point is made of the silence
of Paul, and of the other writers of the New Testament, on
this alleged wonder.

THE UNHAPPIEST FEATURE

It is not only, however, in the circles of unbelief that
the Virgin birth is discredited ; in the church itself the habit
is spreading of casting doubt upon the fact, or at least of
regarding it as no essential part of Christian faith. This is
the unhappiest feature in this unhappy controversy. Till re-
cently no one dreamed of denying that, in the sincere pro-
fession of Christianity, this article, which has stood from the
beginning in the forefront of all the great creeds of Christen-
dom, was included. Now it is different. The truth and value
of the article of the Virgin birth are challenged. The article,
it is affirmed, did not belong to the earliest Christian tradition,
and the evidence for it is not strong. Therefore, let it drop.

THE COMPANY IT KEEPS

From the side of criticism, science, mythology, history
and comparative religion, assault is thus made on the article
long so dear to the hearts of Christians and rightly deemed
by them so vital to their faith. For loud as is the voice of
denial, one fact must strike every careful observer of the
conflict. Among those who reject the Virgin birth of the
Lord few will be found — I do not know any — who take in
other respects an adequate view of the Person and work of
the Saviour. It is surprising how clearly the line of division
here reveals itself. My statement publicly made and printed

The Higher Criticisiu and The Kczu Theology

h^s never been confuted, that those who accept a full doctrine
of the incarnation — that is, of a true entrance of the eternal
Son of God into our nature for the purposes of man's sal-
vation— with hardly an exception accept with it the doctrine
of the Virgin birth of Christ, while those who repudiate or
deny this article of faith either hold a lowered view of Christ's
Person, or, more commonly, reject His supernatural claims
altogether. It v/ill not be questioned, at any rate, that the
great bulk of the opponents of the Virgin birth — those who
are conspicuous by writing against it — are in the latter class.

A CAVIL ANSWERED

This really is an answer to the cavil often heard that,
whether true or not, the Virgin birth is not of essential im-
portance. It is not essential, it is urged, to Christ's sinless-
ness, for that w^ould have been secured equally though Christ
had been bom of two parents. And it is not essential to the
incarnation. A hazardous thing, surely, for erring mortals
to judge of what was and was not essential in so stupendous
an event as the bringing in of the "first-begotten" into the
world ! But the Christian instinct has ever penetrated deeper.
Rejection of the Virgin birth seldom, if ever, goes by itself.
As the late Prof. A. B. Bruce said, with denial of the Virgin
birth is apt to go denial of the virgin life. The incarnation
is felt by those who think seriously to involve a miracle in
Christ's earthly origin. This will become clearer as we ad-
vance.

THE CASE STATED

It is the object of this paper to show that those who take
the lines of denial 9a the Virgin birth just sketched do great

209

The Virgin Birth of Christ

injustice to the evidence and importance of the doctrine they
reject. The evidence, if not of the same pubHc kind as that
for the resurrection, is far stronger than the objector allows,
and the fact denied enters far more vitally into the essence of
the Christian faith than he supposes. Placed in its right set-
ting among the other truths of the Christian religion, it is
not only no stumbling-block to faith, but is felt to fit in with
self-evidencing power into the connection of these other
truths, and to furnish the very explanation that is needed of
Christ's holy and supernatural Person. The ordinary Chris-
tian is a witness here. In reading the Gospels, he feels no
incongruity in passing from the narratives of the Virgin birth
to the wonderful story of Christ's life in the chapters that
follow, then from these to the pictures of Christ's divine dig-
nity given in John and Paul. The whole is of one piece : the
Virgin birth is as natural at the beginning of the life of such
an One — the divine Son — as the resurrection is at the end.
And the more closely the matter is considered, the stronger
does this impression grow. It is only when the scriptural
conception of Christ is parted with that various difficulties
and doubts come in.

A SUPERFICIAL VIEW

It is, in truth, a very superficial way of speaking or think-
ing of the Virgin birth to say that nothing depends on this
belief for our estimate of Christ. Who that reflects on the
subject carefully can fail to see that if Christ was virgin
born — if He was truly "conceived," as the creed says, "by
the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary" — there must of
necessity enter a supernatural element into His Person ; while,
if Christ was sinless, much more if He was the very Word

201

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

of God incarnate, there must have been a miracle — the most
stupendous miracle in the universe — in His origin? If Christ
was, as John and Paul affirm and His church has ever be-
lieved, the Son of God made flesh, the second Adam, the new
redeeming Head of the race, a miracle was to be expected
in. His earthly origin ; without a miracle such a Person could
never have been. Why then cavil at the narratives which
declare the fact of such a miracle? Who does not see that
the Gospel history would have been incomplete without them ?
Inspiration here only gives to faith what faith on its own
grounds imperatively demands for its perfect satisfaction.

THE HISTORICAL SETTING

It is time now to come to the Scripture itself, and to look
at the fact of the Virgin birth in its historical setting, and its
relation with other truths of the Gospe). As preceding the
examination of the historical evidence, a little may be said,
first, on the Old Testament preparation. Was there any such
preparation? Some would say there was not, but this is not
God's way, and we may look with confidence for at least some
indications which point in the direction of the New Testament
event.

THE FIRST PROMISE

One's mind turns to that oldest of all evangelical prom-
ises, that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the
serpent. "I will put enmity," says Jehovah to the serpent-
tempter, "between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed ; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel" (Genesis 3:15. R. V.)- It is a forceless weaken-
ing of this first word of Gospel in the Bible to explain it of a

202

The J'^irgin Birth of Christ

lasting feud between the race of men and the brood of ser-
pents. The serpent, as even Dr. Driver attests, is "the repre-
sentative of the power of evil" — in later Scripture, *'he that
is called the Devil and Satan" (Rev. 12:9) — and the defeat
he sustains from the woman's seed is a moral and spiritual
victory. The "seed" who should destroy him is described em-
phatically as the woman's seed. It was the woman through
whom sin had entered the race; by the seed of the woman
would salvation come. The early church writers often pressed
this analogy between Eve and the Virgin Mary. We may re-
ject any element of over-exaltation of Alary they connected
with it, but it remains significant that this peculiar phrase
should be chosen to designate the future deliverer. I cannot
believe the choice to be of accident. The promise to Abraham
was that in his seed the families of the earth would be blessed;
there the male is emphasized, but here it is the zvoman — the
woman distinctively. There is, perhaps, as good scholars have
thought, an allusion to this promise in i Timothy 2:15, where,
with allusion to Adam and Eve, it is said, "But she shall be
saved through her (or the) child-bearing" (R. V.).

THE IM MANUEL PROPHECY .

The idea of the Messiah, gradually gathering to itself the
attributes of a divine King, reaches one of its clearest ex-
pressions in the great Immanuel prophecy, extending from
Isaiah 7 to 9 7, and centering in the declaration : "The Lord
Himself will give you [the unbelieving Ahaz] a sign; behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14; Cf. 8:8, 10). This is none other than
the child of wonder extolled in chapter 9 :6, 7 : "For unto us
a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government

203

The Higher Criticism and The Nczv Theology

shall be upon his slioulder; and his name shall be called Won-
derful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,
[Father of Eternity], The Prince of Peace. Of the increase
of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the
throne of David, and upon his kingdom," etc. This is the
prophecy quoted as fulfilled in Christ's birth in Matt, i 123,
and it seems also alluded to in the glowing promises to Mary
in Luke 1 132, 33. It is pointed out in objection that the term
rendered "virgin" in Isaiah does not necessarily bear this
meaning ; it denotes properly only a young unmarried woman.
The context, however, seems clearly to lay an emphasis on
the unmarried state, and the translators of the Greek version
of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) plainly so understood
it when they rendered it by parthenos, a word which does
mean "virgin." The tendency in many quarters now is to ad-
mit this (Dr. Cheyne, etc.), and even to seek an explanation
of it in alleged Babylonian beliefs in a virgin-birth. This last,
however, is quite illusory\ It is, on the other hand, singular
that the Jews themselves do not seem to have applied this
prophecy at any time to the Messiah — a fact which disproves
the theory that it was this text which suggested the story of a
Virgin birth to the early disciples.

ECHOES IN OTHER SCRIPTURES

It w^as, indeed, when one thinks of it, only on the supposi-
tion that there was to be something exceptional and extraor-
dinary in the birth of this child called Immanuel that it could
have afforded to Ahaz a sign of the perpetuity of the throne
of David on the scale of magnitude proposed ("Ask it either

* For the evidence, see my volume on "The Virgin Birth,'
Lecture VII.

204

The Virgin Birth of Christ

in the depth, or in the height above." Vp". io). We look,
therefore, with interest to see if there are any echoes or sug-
gestions of the idea of this passage in other prophetic scrip-
tures. They are naturally not many, but they do not seem to
be altogether wanting. There is, first, the remarkable Beth-
lehem prophecy in i\Jicah 5 :2, 3 — also quoted as fulfilled in
the nativity (Matt. 2:5, 6) — connected with the saying:
"Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she who
travaileth hath brought forth'' ("The King from Bethlehem,"
says Delitzsch, "who has a nameless one as mother, and of
whose father there is no mention"). Micah was Isaiah's con-
temporary, and when the close relation between the two is con-
sidered (Cf. Isa. 2:2-4, with ^licah 4:1-3), it is difficult not
to recognize in his oracle an expansion of Isaiah's. In the
same line would seem to lie the enigmatic utterance in Jer.
31:22: "For Jehovah hath created a new thing in the earth:
a woman shall encompass a man" (thus Delitzsch, etc.).

TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL

The germs now indicated in prophetic scriptures had ap-
parently borne no fruit in Jewish expectations of the Messiah,
w-hen the event took place which to Christian minds made them
luminous with predictive import. In Bethlehem of Judea, as
Micah had foretold, was born of a virgin mother He whose
"goings forth" were "from of old, from everlasting" (Micah
5:2; Matt. 2:6). Matthew, who quotes the first part of the
verse, can hardly have been ignorant of the hint of pre-exist-
ence it contained. This brings us to the testimony to the
miraculous birth of Christ in our first and third Gospels — the
only Gospels which record the circumstances of Christ's birth
at all. By general consent the narratives in Matthew (chap-

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

ters I, 2) and in Luke (chapters i, 2) are independent — that
is, they are not derived one from the other — yet they both
affirm, in detailed story, that Jesus, conceived by the power
of the Holy Spirit, was born of a pure virgin, ]\Iary of Naz-
areth, espoused to Joseph, whose wife she afterwards became.
The birth took place at Bethlehem, whither Joseph and }^Iary
had gone for enrollment in a census that was being taken. The
announcement was made to !^Iary beforehand by an angel, and
the birth was preceded, attended, and followed by remarkable
events that are narrated (birth of the Baptist, with annuncia-
tions, angelic vision to the shepherds, visit of wise men from
the east, etc.). The narratives should be carefully read at
length to understand the comments that follow.

THE TESTIMONY TESTED

There is no doubt, therefore, about the testimony to the
\'irgin birth, and the question which now arises is — What is
the value of these parts of the Gospels as evidence? Are they
genuine parts of the Gospels? Or are they late and untrust-
worthy additions ? From what sources may they be presumed
to be derived? It is on the truth of the narratives that our
belief in the Virgin birth depends. Can they be trusted ? Or
are they mere fables, inventions, legends, to which no credit
can be attached ?

The answer to several of these questions can be given in
vcr}' brief fprm. The narratives of the nativity in Matthew
and Luke are undoubtedly genuine parts of their respective
Gospels. They have been there since ever the Gospels them-
selves had an existence. The proof of this is convincing.
The chapters in question are found in every manuscript and
version of tlie Gospels known to exist. There are hundreds

206

The Virgin Birth of Christ

of manuscripts, some of them very old, belonging- to different
parts of the world, and many versions in different languages
(Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, etc.), but these narratives of the
Virgin birth are found in all. We know, indeed, that a section
of the early Jewish Christians — the Ebionites, as they are
commonly called — possessed a Gospel based on IMatthew from
which the chapters on the nativity were absent. But this was
not the real Gospel of jMatthew : It was at best a mutilated and
corrupted form of it. The genuine Gospel, as the manuscripts
attest, always had these chapters.

Next, as to the Gospels themselves, they were not of late
and non-apostolic origin; but were written by apostolic men,
and were from the first accepted and circulated in the church
as trustworthy embodiments of sound apostolic tradition.
Luke's Gospel was from Luke's own pen — its genuineness has
recently received a powerful vindication from Prof. Harnack,
of Berlin — and Matthew's Gospel, while some dubiety still
rests on its original language (Aramaic or Greek), passed
without challenge in the early church as the genuine Gospel
of the Apostle I\Iatthew. Criticism has more recently raised
the question whether it is only the "groundwork" of the dis-
courses (the "Logia") that comes directly from Matthew.
However this may be settled, it is certain that the Gospel in
its Greek form always passed as Matthew's. It must, there-
fore, if not written by him, have had his immediate authority.
The narratives come to us, accordingly, with high apostolic
sanction.

SOURCES OF THE NARRATIVES

As to the sources of the narratives, not a little can be
gleaned from the study of their internal character. Here two
facts reveal themselves. The first is that the narrative of Luke

207

The Higher Criticism and The Nczv Theology

is based on some old, archaic, highly original Aramaic writing.
Its Aramaic character gleams through its every part. In
style, tone, conception, it is highly primitive — emanates, appar-
ently, from that circle of devout people in Jerusalem to whom
its own pages introduce us (Luke 2:25, 36-38). It has, there-
fore, the highest claim to credit. The second fact is even
more important. A perusal of the narratives shows clearly —
what might have been expected — that the information they
convey was derived from no lower source than Joseph and
Mary themselves. This is a marked feature of contrast in the
narratives — that Matthew's narrative is all told from Joseph's
point of view, and Luke's is all told from Mary's. The signs
of this are unmistakable. IMatthew tells about Joseph's diffi-
culties and action, and says little or nothing about Mary's
thoughts and feelings. Luke tells much about Mary — even
her inmost thoughts — but says next to nothing directly about
Joseph. The narratives, in short, are not, as some would have
it, contradictory, but are independent and complementary. The
one supplements and completes the other. Both together are
needed to give the whole story. They bear in themselves the
stamp of truth, honesty, and purity, and are worthy of all
acceptation, as they were evidently held to be in the early
church.

UNFOUNDED OBJECTIONS

Against the acceptance of these early, well-attested narra-
tives, what, now, have the objectors to alkge? I pass by the
attempts to show, by critical elimination (expurging Luke
1 :35, and some other clauses), that Luke'r\ narrative was not
a narrative of a Virgin birth at all. This is a vain attempt in
face of the testimony of manuscript authorities. Neither
need I dwell on the alleged "discrepan-cies" in the genealogie?

208

TJic Virgin Birth of Christ

and narratives. These are not serious, when the independence
and different standpoints of the narratives are acknowledged.
The genealogies, tracing the descent of Christ from David
along different lines, present problems which exercise the
minds of scholars, but they do not touch the central fact of the
belief of both Evangelists in the birth of Jesus from a vir-
gin. Even in a Syriac manuscript which contains the certainly
wrong reading, ^'J^s^ph begat Jesus," the narrative goes on,
as usual, to recount the Virgin birth. It is not a contradiction,
if Matthew is silent on the earlier residence in Nazareth- 'vhich
Luke's object led him fully to describe.

SILENCE OF MARK AND JOHN

The objection on which most stress is laid (apart from
what is called the evidently ''mythical" character of the narra-
tives) is the silence on the Virgin birth in the remaining Gos-
pels, and other parts of the New Testament. This, it is held,
conclusively proves that the Virgin birth was not known in
the earliest Christian circles, and was a legend of later origin.
As respects the Gospels — Mark and John — the objection would
only apply if it was the design of these Gospels to narrate, as
the others do, the circumstances of the nativity. But this was
evidently not their design. Both Mark and John knew that
Jesus had a human birth — an infancy and early life — and that
His mother was called Mary, but of deliberate purpose they
tell us nothing about it. Mark begins his Gospel with Christ's
entrance on His public ministry, and says nothing of the period
before, especially of how Jesus came to be called "the Son of
God" (Mark i:i). John traces the divine descent of Jesus,
and tells us that the "Word became flesh" (John 1 114) ; but
bow this miracle of becoming flesh was wrought he does not

209

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

say. It did not lie within his plan. He knew the church tradi-
tion on the subject: he had the Gospels narrating the birth of
Jesus from the Virgin in his hands: and he takes the knowl-
edge of their teaching for granted. To speak of contradiction
in a case like this is out of the question.

SILENCE OF PAUL

How far Paul was acquainted with the facts of Christ's
earthly origin it is not easy to say. To a certain extent these
facts would always be regarded as among the privacies of the
innermost Christian circles — so long at least as Mary lived —
and the details may not have been fully known till the Gospels
were published. Paul admittedly did not base his preaching
of his Gospel on these private, interior matters, but on the
broad, public facts of Christ's ministry, death, and resurrec-
tion. It would be going too far, however, to infer from this
that Paul had no knowledge of the miracle of Christ's birth.
Luke was Paul's companion, and doubtless shared with Paul
all the knowledge which he himself had gathered on this and
other subjects. One thing certain is, that Paul could not have
believed in the divine dignity, the pre-existence, the sinless
perfection, and redeeming headship, of Jesus as he did, and
not have been convinced that His entrance into humanity was
no ordinary event of nature, but implied an unparalleled
miracle of some kind. This Son of God, who "emptied" Him-
self, who was "born of a woman, born under the law," who
"knew no sin" (Phil. 2:7, 8; Gal. 4:4; 2 Cor. 5:21), was not,
and could not be, a simple product of nature. God must have
wrought creatively in His human origin. The Virgin birth
would be to Paul the most reasonable and credible of events.

210

The Virgin Birth of Christ

So also to John, who held the same high view of Christ's
dignity and holiness.

Christ's sinlessness a proof

It is sometimes argued that a Virgin birth is no aid to the
explanation of Christ's sinlessness. Mary being herself sinful
in nature, it is held the taint of corruption would be conveyed
by one parent as really as by two. It is overlooked that the
whole fact is not expressed by saying that Jesus was born
of a virgin mother. There is the other factor — "conceived
by the Holy Ghost." What happened was a divine, creative
miracle wrought in the production of this new humanity which
secured, from its earliest germinal beginnings, freedom from
the slightest taint of sin. Paternal generation in such an origin
is superfluous. The birth of Jesus was not, as in ordinary
births, the creation of a new personality. It was a divine Per-
son— already existing — entering on this new mode of exist-
ence. Miracle could alone eft'ect such a wonder. Because His
human nature had this miraculous origin Christ was the "holy"
One from the commencement (Luke 1:35). Sinless He was,
as His whole life demonstrated; but when, in all time, did
natural generation give birth to a sinless personality?

THE EARLY CHURCH A WITNESS

The history of the early church is occasionally appealed to
in witness that the doctrine of the Virgin birth was not primi-
tive. No assertion could be more futile. The early church, so
far as we can trace it back, in all its branches, held this doc-
trine. No Christian sect is known that denied it, save the Jcw-

211

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

ish Ebionites formerly alluded to. The general body of the
Jewish Christians — the Nazarenes as they are called — accepted
it. Even the greater Gnostic sects in their own way admitted
it. Those Gnostics who denied it were repelled with all the
force of the church's greatest teachers. The Apostle John is
related to have vehemently opposed Cerinthus, the earliest
teacher with whom this denial is connected.

DISCREDITED VAGARIES

What more remains to be said? It would be waste of
space to follow the objectors into their various theories of a
mythical origin of this belief. One by one the speculations
advanced have broken down, and given place to others — all
equally baseless. The newest of the theories seeks an origin
of the belief in ancient Babylonia, and supposes the Jews to
have possessed the notion in pre-Christian times. This is
not only opposed to all real evidence, but is the giving up of
the contention that the idea had its origin in late Christian
circles, and was unknown to earlier apostles.

THE REAL CHRIST

Doctrinally, it must be repeated that the belief in the Vir-
gin birth of Christ is of the highest value for the right appre-
hension of Christ's unique and sinless personality. Here is
One, as Paul brings out in Romans 5:12 ff, who, free from sin
Himself, and not involved in the Adamic liabilities of the race,
reverses the curse of sin and death brought in by the first
Adam, and establishes the reign of righteousness and life.
Had Christ been naturally born, not one of these things could
be affirmed of Him. As one of Adam's race, not an entrant

212

The Virgin Birth of Christ

from a higher sphere, He would have shared in Adam's cor-
ruption and doom — would Himself have required to be re-
deemed. Through God's infinite mercy, He came from above,
inherited no guilt, needed no regeneration or sanctification,
but became Himself the Redeemer, Regenerator, Sanctifier,
for all who receive Him. '^Thanks be unto God for His un-
speakable gift" (2 Cor. 9:15).

a:ii

CHAPTER IX

THE CERTAINTY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE REAL

AND BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS

CHRIST FROM THE DEAD

BY DR. R. A. TORREY

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the
corner stone of Christian doctrine. It is mentioned directly
one hundred and four (or more) times in the New Testa-
ment. It was the most prominent and cardinal point in the
apostolic testimony. When the apostolic company, after the
apostasy of Judas Iscariot, felt it necessary to complete their
number again by the addition of one to take the place of
Judas Iscariot, it was in order that he might "Be a witness
with us of His resurrection." (Acts i :2i, 22.) The resur-
rection of Jesus Christ was the one point that Peter empha-
sized in his great sermon on the Day of Pentecost. His whole
sermon centered in that fact. Its keynote was *This Jesus
hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses" (Acts 2 132
of. vs. 24-31). When the Apostles were filled again with the
Holy Spirit some days later, the one central result was that
with "great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrec-
tion of the Lord Jesus." The central doctrine that the Apostle
Paul preached to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers on
Mars Hill was Jesus and the resurrection. (Acts 17:18 of.
Acts 23:6; I Cor. 15:15.) The resurrection of Jesus Christ
is one of the two fundamental truths of the Gospel, the other
being His atoning death. Paul says in i Cor. 15:1, 3, 4,
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I
preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein

214

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

ye stand. For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I
also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day, according to the Scriptures." This was the
glad tidings; first, that Christ died for our sins and made
atonement, and second, that He rose again. The crucifixion
loses its meaning without the resurrection. Without the resur-
rection, the death of Christ was only the heroic death of a
noble martyr. With the resurrection, it is the atoning death
of the Son of God. It shows that death to be of sufficient
value to cover all our sins, for it was the sacrifice of the Son
of God. In it we have an all-sufficient ground for knowing
that the blackest sin is atoned for. Disprove the resurrection
of Jesus Christ and Christian faith is vain. *Tf Christ be not
risen," cries Paul, ''then is our preaching vain, and your
faith is also vain" (i Cor. 15:14). And later he adds: 'Tf
Christ be not risen, your faith is vain. You are yet in your
sins." Paul, as the context clearly shows, is talking about
the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ is the one doctrine that has
power to save any one who believes it with the heart. As
we read in Rom. 10:9: 'Tf thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
raised Him from the dead, thou shalt he saved." To know
the power of Christ's resurrection is one of the highest ambi-
tions of the intelligent believer, to attain which he sacrifices
all things and counts them but refuse (Phil. 3:8-10. R. V.).
While the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is
the corner stone of Christian doctrine, it is also the Gibraltar
of Christian evidence and the Waterloo of Infidelity and Ra-
tionalism. If the Scriptural assertions of Christ's resurrection
can be established as historic certainties, the claims and doc-

215

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

trines of Christianity rest upon an impregnable foundation.
On the other hand, if the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead cannot be estabHshed, Christianity must go. It was
a true instinct that led a leading and brilliant agnostic in Eng-
land to say, that there is no use wasting time discussing the
other miracles, the essential question is, Did Jesus Christ
rise from the dead ? adding that if He did, it was easy enough
to believe the other miracles ; but if He did not, the other mir-
acles must go.

Are the statements contained in the four Gospels, regard-
ing the resurrection of Jesus Christ, statements of fact, or are
they fiction, fables, myths? There are three separate lines of
proof that the statements contained in the four Gospels, re-
garding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, are exact statements
of historic fact.

I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHENTICITY AND

TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES

This is an altogether satisfactory argument. The ex-
ternal proofs of the authenticity and truthfulness of the
Gospel narratives are overwhelming, but the argument is long
and intricate, and it would take a volume to discuss it satis-
factorily. The other arguments are so completely sufficient
and overwhelming and convincing to a candid mind that we
can do without this, good as it is in its place.

II. THE INTERNAL PROOFS OF THE TRUTHFULNESS OF TH9

GOSPEL RECORDS

This argument is thoroughly conclusive, and we shall
state it briefly in the pao;es which follow. We shall no|

?i6

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

assume anything whatever. We shall not assume that the
four Gospel records are true history. We shall not assume
that the four Gospels were written by the men whose names
they bear, though it could be easily proven that they were.
We shall not even assume that they were written in the century
in which Jesus is alleged to have lived and died and risen
again, nor in the next century, nor in the next. We will
assume absolutely nothing whatever. We will start out
with a fact which we all know to be a fact, namely, that we
have the four Gospels to-day, whoever wrote them and when-
ever they were written. We shall place these four Gospels
side by side and see if we can discern in them the marks of
truth or of fiction.

I. The first thing that strikes us, as we compare these
Gospels one with another, is that they are four separate and
independent accounts. This appears plainly from the apparent
discrepancies in the four different accounts. These apparent
discrepancies are marked and many. It would have been im-
possible for these four accounts to have been made up in
collusion with one another, or to have been derived from one
another, and so many and so marked discrepancies to be found
in them. There is harmony between the four accounts, but
the harmony does not lie upon the surface; it comes out
only by protracted and thorough study. It is precisely such
a harmony as would exist between accounts written or related
by several different persons, each looking at the events re-
corded from his own standpoint. It is precisely such a har-
mony as would not exist in four accounts manufactured in
collusion or derived one from the other. In four accounts
manufactured in collusion, whatever of harmony there might
be would appear on the surface : whatever discrepancy there
might be would only come out by minute and careful study.

317

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

But with the four Gospels the case is just the opposite. The
harmony comes out by minute and careful study, and the
apparent discrepancy lies upon the surface. Whether true or
false, these four accounts are separate and independent from
one another. The four accounts supplement one another, the
third account sometimes reconciling apparent discrepancies
between two.

These accounts must be either a record of facts that ac-
tually occurred, or else fictions. If fictions, they must have
been fabricated in one of two ways. Either independently of
one another or in collusion with one another. They cannot
have been fabricated independently of one another; the agree-
ments are too marked and too many. It is absolutely incredible
that four persons, sitting down to write an account of what
never occurred, independently of one another, should have
made their stories agree to the extent that these do. On the
other hand, they cannot have been made up, as we have al-
ready seen, in collusion with one another; the apparent dis-
crepancies are too numerous and too noticeable. It is proven
they were not made up independently of one another; it is
proven they were not made up in collusion with one another.
So we are driven to the conclusion that they were not made
up at all ; that they are a true relation of facts as they actually
occurred. We might rest the argument here and reasonably
call the case settled, but we will go on still further.

2. The next thing that we notice is that each of these
accounts bears striking indications of having been derived
from eye witnesses.

The account of an eye witness Is readily distinguishable
from the account of one who is merely retailing what others
have told him. Any one who is accustomed to weigh evidence
in court or In historical study soon learns how to distinguish

218

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

the report of an eye witness from mere hearsay evidence. Any
careful student of the Gospel records of the resurrection will
readily detect many marks of the eye witness. Some years
ago, when lecturing at an American University, a gentleman
was introduced to me as being a skeptic. I asked him : "What
line of study are you pursuing?" He replied that he was pur-
suing a post-graduate course in history, with a view to a pro-
fessorship in history. I said: "Then you know that the ac-
count of an eye witness differs in marked respects from the
account of one who is simply telling what he has heard from
others?" "Yes," he replied. I next asked: "Have you care-
fully read the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection of
Christ?" He replied: "I have." "Tell me, have you noticed
clear indications that they were derived from eye w^itnesses?"
"Yes," he replied; "I have been greatly struck by this in
reading the accounts." Any one who carefully and intelli-
gently reads them will be struck w'ith the same fact.

3. The third thing that we notice about these Gospel
narratives is their naturalness, straightforwardness, artlessness
and simplicity. The accounts, it is true, have to do with the
supernatural, but the accounts themselves are most natural.
There is a remarkable absence of all attempt at coloring and
effect. There is nothing but the simple, straightforward tell-
ing of facts as they actually occurred. It frequently happens
when a witness is on the witness stand, that the story he tells
is so artless, so straightforward, so natural, there is such an
entire absence of any attempt at coloring or effect that his tes-
timony bears weight independently of anything we may know
of the character or previous history of the witness. As w-e
listen to his story we say to ourselves : "This man is telling
the truth." The weight of this kind of evidence is greatly
increased and reaches practical certainty when we have scv-

219

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

eral independent witnesses of this sort, all bearing testimony
to the same essential facts, but with varieties of detail, one
omitting what another tells, and the third unconsciously recon-
ciling apparent discrepancies between the two. This is the
precise case with the four Gospel narratives of the resurrec-
tion of Christ. The Gospel writers do not seem to have re-
flected at all upon the meaning or bearing of many of the
facts which they relate. They simply tell right out what they
saw, in all simplicity and straightforwardness, leaving the
philosophizing to others. Dr. William Furness, the great Uni-
tarian scholar and critic, who certainly was not over-much dis-
posed in favor of the supernatural, says : ''Nothing can exceed,
in artlessness and simplicity, the four accounts of the first
appearance of Jesus after His crucifixion. If these qualities
are not discernible here, we must despair of ever being able to
discern them anywhere."

Suppose we should find four accounts of the battle of
Monmouth. Suppose, furthermore, that nothing decisive was
known as to the authorship of these four accounts, but when
we laid them side by side we found that they were manifestly
independent accounts. We found, furthermore, striking indi-
cations that they were from eye witnesses. We found them
all marked by that artlessness, straightforwardness and sim-
plicity that always carries conviction; we found that, while
apparently disagreeing in minor details, they agreed substan-
tially in their account of the battle — even though we had no
knowledge of the authorship or date of these accounts, would
we not, in the absence of any other accounts, say : "Here is a
true account of the battle of Monmouth"? Now this is ex-
actly the case with the four Gospel narratives. Manifestly
separate and independent from one another, bearing the clear
marks of having been derived from eye witnesses, character-

22Q

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

ized by an unparalleled artlessness, simplicity and straight-
forwardness, apparently disagreeing in minor details, but in
perfect agreement as to the great central facts related. If
we are fair and honest, if we follow the canons of evidence
followed in court, if we follow any sound and sane law of
literary and historical criticism, are we not logically driven to
say: "Here is a true account of the resurrection of Jesus"?
Here, again, we might rest our case and call the Resurrec-
tion of Jesus from the Dead proven, but we go on still further.

4. The next thing we notice is the unintentional evi-
dence of words, phrases, and accidental details.

It oftentimes happens that when a witness is on the stand,
the unintentional evidence that he bears by words and phrases,
which he uses, and by accidental details, which he introduces,
is more convincing than his direct testimony, because it is not
the testimony of the witness, but the testimony of the truth
to itself. The Gospel accounts abound in evidence of this sort.

Take, as the first instance, the fact that in all the Gospel
records of the resurrection, we are given to understand that
Jesus was not at first recognized by His disciples when He
appeared to them after His resurrection {e. g. Luke 24:16;
John 21:4.) We are not told v/hy this was so, but if we will
think a while over it, we will soon discover why it was so.
But the Gospel narratives simply record the fact without
attempting to explain it. If the stories were fictitious, they
certainly would never have been made up in this way, for the
writer would have seen at once the objection that would arise
in the minds of those who did not wish to believe in His resur-
rection, that is, that it was not really Jesus whom the disciples
saw. Why, then, is the story told in this way? For the self-
evident reason that the evangelists were not making up a
story for effect, but simply recording events precisely as they

221

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

occurred. This is the way in which it occurred, therefore this
is the way in which they told it. It is not a fabrication of
imaginary incidents, but an exact record of facts carefully ob-
served and accurately recorded. '

Take a second instance : In all the Gospel records of the
appearances of Jesus after His resurrection, there is not a
single recorded appearance to an enemy or opponent of Christ.
All His appearances were to those who were already believ-
ers. Why this was so we can easily see by a little thought;
but nowhere in the Gospels are we told why it was so. If the
stories had been fabricated, they certainly would never have
been made up in this way. If the Gospels were, as some
would have us believe, fabrications constructed one hundred,
two hundred or three hundred years after the alleged events
recorded, when all the actors were dead and gone and no one
could gainsay any lies told, Jesus would have been represented
as appearing to Caiaphas and Annas and Pilate and Herod,
and confounding them by His reappearance from the dead.
But there is no suggestion even of anything of this kind in the
Gospel stories. Every appearance is to one who is already
a believer. Why is this so? For the self-evident reason that
this was the way that things occurred, and the Gospel narra-
tives are not concerned with producing a story for effect, but
simply with recording events precisely as they occurred and as
they were observed.

We find still another instance in the fact that the re-
corded appearances of Jesus after His resurrection were only
occasional. He would appear in the midst of His disciples and
disappear and not be seen again, perhaps, for several days.
Why this was so, we can easily think out for ourselves : He
was evidently seeking to wean His disciples from their old-
time communion with Him in the body and to prepare them

^2^

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

for the communion with Himself in the Spirit that was to
follow in the days that were to come. We are not, however,
told this in the Gospel narratives. We are left to discover
it for ourselves, and this is all the more significant for that
reason. It is doubtful if the disciples themselves realized the
meaning of the facts. If they had been making up the story
to produce effect, they would have represented Jesus as being
with them constantly, as living with them, eating and drinking
with them day after day. Why, then, is the story told as re-
corded in the four Gospels ? Because this is the way in which
it had all occurred. The Gospel writers are simply con-
cerned with giving the exact representation of the facts as
witnessed by themselves and others.

We find another very striking instance in what is re-
corded concerning the words of Jesus to Mary at their first
meeting (John 20:17). Jesus is recorded as saying to Mary:
'Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father."
We are not told why Jesus said this to Mary. We are left
to discover the reason for it if we can, and the commentators
have had a great deal of trouble in discovering it. Their ex-
planations vary widely one from another. I have a reason of
my own, which I have never seen in any commentary, but
which, I am persuaded, is the true reason ; but it would prob-
ably be difficult to persuade others that it was the true reason.
Why, then, is this little utterance of Jesus put in the Gospel
record without a word of explanation, and which it has taken
eighteen centuries to explain, and which is not altogether sat-
isfactorily explained yet? Certainly a writer making up a
story would not put in a little detail like that without appar-
ent meaning and without an attempt at an explanation of it.
Stories that are made up are made up for a purpose; details
that are inserted are inserted for a purpose — a purpose more

223

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

or lees evident — but eighteen centuries of study have not
been able to find out the purpose v^hy this was inserted. Why,
then, do we find it here? Because this is exactly what hap-
pened. This is what Jesus said; this is what Mary heard
Jesus say ; this is what Mary told, and, therefore, this is what
John recorded. We cannot have a fiction here, but an ac-
curate record of words spoken by Jesus after His resurrec-
tion.

We find still another instance in John 20 :4-6. "So they
ran both together : and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and
came first to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down and look-
ing in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then
cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepul-
chre, and seeth the linen clothes lie." This is all in striking
keeping with what we know of the men from other sources.
Mary, returning hurriedly from the tomb, bursts in upon the
two disciples and cries : ''They have taken away the Lord out
of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him."
John and Peter sprang to their feet and ran at the top of
their speed to the tomb. John, the younger of the two disciples
(it is all the more striking that the narrative does not tell
us here that he was the younger of the two disciples), was
fleeter of foot, and outran Peter and reached the tomb first,
but, man of retiring and reverent disposition that he was
(we are not told this here, but we know it from a study of his
personality as revealed elsewhere), he did not enter the tomb
but simply stooped down and looked in. Impetuous, but older,
Peter comes lumbering on behind as fast as he can ; but when
once he reaches the tomb, he never waits a moment outside
but plunges headlong in. Is this made up, or is it Hfe? He
was indeed a literary artist of consummate ability, who had
the skill to make this up, if it did not occur just so. There is,

224

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

incidentally a touch of local coloring in the report. When
one visits today the tomb which scholars now accept as the
real burial place of Jesus, he will find himself unconsciously
obliged to stoop down to look in.

Still another instance is found in John 21:7: "Therefore
that disciple, whom Jesus loved, saith to Peter, It is the
Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord,
he girt his fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked) and
did cast himself into the sea." Here, again, we have the
unmistakable marks of truth and life. The Apostles had gone,
at Jesus' commandment, into Galilee to meet Him there, but
Jesus does not at once appear. Simon Peter, with the fisher's
passion still stirring in his bosom, says : *T go a-fishing." The
others replied: "We also go with thee." They fished all night
and with characteristic fishermen's luck, caught nothing. In
the early dawn Jesus stands upon the shore, but the disciples
did not recognize Him in the dim light. Jesus calls to them :
"Children, have ye any meat ?'' And they answer : "No." He
bids them cast the net on the right side of the ship and they
would find. W^hen the cast was made, they were not able to
draw it for the multitude of fishes. In an instant, John, the
man of quick spiritual perception, says : "It is the Lord." No
sooner does Peter, the rnan of impulsive action, hear it than
he grasps his fisher's coat, casts it about his naked form and
throws himself overboard and strikes out for shore to reach
his Lord. Is this made up, or is it life? This is not fiction.
If some unknown author of the fourth Gospel made this up, he
is the master literary artist of the ages, and we should take
down every other name from our literary pantheon and place
his above them all

We find a still more touching instance in John 20:15:
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom

^25

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saitH
unto Him, "Sir, if thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where
Thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away." Here is
surely a touch that surpasses the art of any man of that
day or any other day. Mary had gone into the city and noti-
fied John and Peter that she had found the sepulchre empty.
They start on a run for the sepulchre. As IMary has already
made the journey twice, they easily far outstrip her, but with
heavy heart and slow and weary feet, she makes her way back
to the tomb. Peter and John have been long gone when she
reaches it, broken-hearted, thinking that not only has her be-
loved Lord been slain, but that His tomb has been desecrated.
She stands without, weeping. There are two angels sitting
in the tomb, one at the head and the other at the feet where
the body of Jesus had lain. But the grief-stricken woman has
no eye for angels. Tliey say unto her : '*\Voman, why weepest
thou?" She replies: "Because they have taken away my
Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." A rustle
in the leaves at her back and she turns around to see who
is coming. She sees Jesus standing there, but blinded by tears
and despair she does not recognize her Lord. Jesus also says
to her: "Why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" She,
supposing it to be the gardener who is talking to her says :
"Sir, if Thou hast borne Plim hence, tell me where Thou
hast laid Him and I will take Him away." Now, remember,
who it is that makes the offer, and whit she offers to do —
a weak woman offers to carry a full-grown man away. Of
course, she could not do it, but how true to a woman's love
that always forgets its weakness and never stops at impossi-
bilities. There is something to be done and she says : "I v/ill
do it! Tell me where Thou hast laid Him, and I will take

226

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Him away." Is this made up? Never! This is Hfe; this is
reality; this is truth.

We find another instance in Mark 16:7: "But go your
way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you
into Galilee : there shall ye see Him, as He said unto you." ,
What I would have you notice here arc the two words "and
Peter." Why ''and Peter"' "^ Was not Peter one of the dis-
ciples? Surely he was, the very head of the Apostolic com-
pany. Why, then, "and Peter"? No explanation is given
in the text, but reflection shows it was the utterance of love
toward the despondent, despairing disciple, who had thrice de-
nied his Lord. If the message had been simply to "the dis-
ciples" Peter would have said : "Yes, I was once a disciple, but
I can no longer be counted such. I thrice denied my Lord
on that awful night with oaths and cursings. It does not
mean me." But our tender, compassionate Lord, through His
angelic messenger, sends the message : "Go, tell His disciples,
and whoever you tell, be sure you tell poor, weak, faltering,
backslidden, broken-hearted Peter." Is this made up, or is this
a real picture of our Lord? I pity the man who is so dull
that he can imagine this is fiction. Incidentally, let it be noted
that this is recorded only in the Gospel of Mark, which, as is
well known, is Peter's Gospel. As Peter dictated to Mark one
day w^hat he should record, with tearful eyes and grateful heart
he would turn to him and say: "Mark, be sure you put that
in, 'Tell His disciples and Peter,"*

Take, still, another instance in John 20:27-29: "Then
saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold My
hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into i\Iy side ;
and be not faithless but believing. And Thomas answered
and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus said unto

227

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast beUeved :
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have beUeved."
Note here two things : The action of Thomas and the rebuke
of Jesus. Each is too characteristic to be attributed to the art
of some master of fiction. Thomas had not been with the
disciples at the first appearance of our Lord. A week had
passed by. Another Lord's Day had come. This time Thomas
makes sure of being present; if the Lord is to appear, he will
be there. If he had been like some of our modem doubters,
he would have taken pains to be away; but doubter though
he wa?, he was an honest doubter, and wanted to know. Sud-
denly Jesus stands in the midst. He says to Thomas : "Reach
hither thy finger, and behold My hands, and reach hither thy
hand, and thrust it into ^ly side : and be not faithless but be-
lieving." At last Thomas's eyes are opened. His faith long
dammed back bursts every barrier and. sweeping outward,
carries Thomas to a higher height than r.ny other disciple had
as yet reached — exultingly and adoringly, he cries, as he looks
up into the face of Jesus: ''My Lord and my God!" Then
Jesus, tenderly, but oh, how searchingly, rebukes him.
"Thomas," He says, "because thou hast seen Me, thou hast
believed. Blessed are they [who are so eager to find and so
quick to see, and so ready to accept the truth that they do
not w^ait for actual visible demonstration, but are ready to
take truth on sufficient testimony] that have not seen and
yet have believed." Is this made up. or is this life? Is it a rec-
ord of facts as they occurred or a fictitious production of some
master artist?

Take still another instance. In John 21:15-17 we read:
"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these? He saith
unto Him. Yea, Lord ; Thou knowest that I Jove Thee. He

228

The Rcsiirrcclion of Jesus Christ

salth unto him, Feed My lambs. He saith unto him again
the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? He
saith unto Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowcst that I love Thee.
He saith unto him. Feed My sheep. He saith unto him the
third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Peter was
grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou
Me? And he said unto Him, 'Lord, Thou knowest all things;
Thou knowest that I love Thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed
My sheep." Note especially here the words : 'Teter was
grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou
Me." Why did Jesus ask Peter three times "Lovest thou
Me?" And why was Peter grieved because Jesus did ask
him three times ? We are not told in the text, but if we read it
in the light of Peter's thrice repeated denial of his Lord, we
will understand it. As Peter had denied his Lord thrice, Jesus
three times gave Peter an opportunity to reassert his love.
But this, tender as it was, brings back to Peter that awful
night when, in the courtyard of Annas and Caiaphas, he thrice
denied his Lord, and "Peter was grieved because He said
unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me." Is this made up ?
Did the writer make it up with this fact in view? If he
did, he surely would have mentioned it. It cannot have been
made up. It is not fiction. It is simply reporting what actually
occurred. The accurate truthfulness of the record comes out
even more strikingly in the Greek than in the English ver-
sion. Two different words are used for "love." Jesus, in
asking Peter "Lovest thou Me" uses a strong word, denoting
the higher form of love. Peter, replying: "Lord, Thou know-
est that I love thee," uses a weaker word, but one denoting
a more tender form of love. Jesus, the second time uses the
stronger word, and the second time, in his reply, Peter uses
the weaker word. In His third question, Jesus comes down

229

The Higher Criticism drfd The Kezv Theology

to Peter's level and uses the weaker word that Peter had used
from the beginning. Then Peter replies : "Lord, Thou know-
est all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee," using the same
weaker word. This cannot be fiction. It is accurately re-
ported fact.

Take still another instance. In John 20 :i6 we read : "Jesus
saith unto her, IVIary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him,
Rabboni ; which is to say, Master." What a delicate touch of
nature we have here. Mary is standing outside the tomb
overcome with grief. She has not recognized her Lord,
though He has spoken to her. She has mistaken Him for
the gardener. She has said, "Sir, if Thou hast borne Him
hence, tell me where Thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him
away." Then Jesus utters just one word, He says, "Mary."
As that name came trembling on the morning air, uttered with
the old familiar tone, spoken as no one else had ever spoken it
but He, in an instant, her eyes were opened. She falls at His
feet and tries to clasp them, and looks up into His face, and
cries: "Rabboni, My IMaster." Is this made up? Impossible!
This is life ! This is Jesus, and this is the woman who loved
Him. No unknown author of the second, third or fourth
century could have produced such a masterpiece as this. We
stand here, unquestionably face to face with reality, with life,
wuth Jesus and Mary as they actually were.

One more important illustration. In John 20:7 we read:
"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the
linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." How
strange that such a little detail as this should be added to the
story with absolutely no attempt at explaining why. But how
deeply significant this little unexplained detail is. Recall the
circumstances. Jesus is dead. For three days and three
nights, from Wednesday evening at sunset until Saturday

230

The Rssurrcction of Jesus Christ

evening at sunset (the evidence for Christ being crucified on
Wednesday and not on Friday seems to be overwhelming, but
it does not matter for the purpose of our present argument),
His body is laying cold and silent in the sepulchre, as truly
dead as any body was ever dead; but at last the appointed
hour has come, the breath of God sweeps through the sleep-
ing and silent clay, and in that supreme moment of His own
earthly life, that supreme moment of human history when
Jesus rises triumphant over death and grave and Satan, there
is no excitement rpon His part, but that same majestic
self-composure and serenity that marked His whole career,
that same Divine calm that He displayed upon storm- tossed
Galilee when His affrighted disciples shook Him from His
slumbers, and said: ''Lord, carest Thou not that we perish?"
and He arose serenely on the deck of the tossing vessel and
said to the wild, tempestuous waves and winds: "Be still/'
and there was a great calm. So now, again, in this sublime,
this awful moment, He does not excitedly tear the napkin from
His face and fling it aside, but absolutely without human haste
or flurry, or disorder, He unties it calmly from His head, rolls
it up and lays it avv-ay in an orderly manner in a place by
itself. Was that mrde up? Never! We do not behold here
an exquisite masterpiece of the romancer's art — we read here
the simple narrative of a matchless detail in a unique life
that was actually lived here upon earth, a life so beautiful
that one cannot read it with an honest and open mind with-
out feeling the tears coming into his eyes.

But some one will say, all these are little things. True,
and it is from that ^ cry fact that they gain much of their sig-
nificance. It is jus: in such little things that fiction would
disclose itself. Fie ion displays its difiference from fact in
the minute; in the great outstanding outlines you can make

231

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

fiction look like truth, but when you come to examine it mi-
nutely and microscopically, you will soon detect that it is not
reality, but fabrication. But the more microscopically we ex-
amine the Gospel narratives, the more we become impressed
with their truthfulness. There is an artlessness and natural-
ness and self-evident truthfulness in the narratives, down to
the minutest detail, that surpasses all the possibilities of art.

III. The third line of proof that the statements con-
tained in the four Gospels regarding the resurrection of Jesus
Christ are exact statements of historic fact, is the Circum-
stantial Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ. There
are certain proven and admitted facts that demand the resur-
rection of Christ to account for them.

I. Beyond a question, the foundation truth preached
In the early years of the church's history was the resurrec-
tion. This was the one doctrine upon which the apostles were
ever ringing the changes. Whether Jesus did actually rise
from the dead or not, it is certain that the one thing that the
apostles constantly proclaimed was that He had risen. Why
should the apostles use this as the very corner stone of their
creed if not well attested and firmly believed. But this is not
all: they laid down their lives for this doctrine. Men never
lay down their lives for a doctrine which they do not firmly
believe. They stated that they had seen Jesus after His resur-
rection, and rather than give up their statement, they laid
down their lives for it. Of course, men may die for error,
and often have, but it was for error that they firmly believed.
In this case they would have known whether they had seen
Jesus or not, and they would not merely have been dying f«r
error but dying for a statement which they knew to be false.
This is not only incredible but impossible. Furthermore, if
the apostles really firmly believed, as is admitted, that Jesus

232

The Rcsurrcctiun of Jesus Christ

rose from the dead, they had some facts upon which they
founded their belief. These would have been the facts that
they would have related in recounting the story. They cer-
tainly would not have made up a story out of imaginary inci-
dents when they had real facts upon which they founded their
belief. But if the facts were, as recounted in the Gospels,
there is no possible escaping the conclusion that Jesus actually
arose. Still further, if Jesus had not arisen there would have
been evidence that He had not. His enemies would have
sought and found this evidence ; but the apostles went up and
down the very city where He had been crucified and pro-
claimed, right to the faces of His slayers, that He had been
raised and no one could produce evidence to the contrary. The
very best they could do was to say the guards went to sleep
and the disciples stole the body while the guards slept. Men
who bear evidence of what happens while they are asleep are
not usually regarded as credible witnesses. Further still,
if the apostles had stolen the body they would have known
it themselves and would not have been ready to die for what
they knew to be a fraud.

2. Another known fact is the change in the day of rest.
The early church came from among the Jews. From time
immemorial the Jews had celebrated the seventh day of the
week as their day of rest and worship, but we find the early
Christians, in the Acts of the Apostles and also in early Chris-
tian writings, assembling on the first day of the week. Noth-
ing is more difficult of accomplishment than the change in a
holy day that has been celebrated for centuries and is one
of the most cherished customs of the people. What is espe-
cially significant about the change is that it was changed by no
express decree, but by general consent. Something tremen-
dous must have occurred that led to this change. The apostles

233

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

asserted that what had occurred on that day was the resur-
rection of Christ from the dead, and that is the most rational
explanation. In fact, it is the only reasonable explanation
of the change.

3. But the most significant fact of all is the change in
the disciples themselves, the moral transformation. At the
time of the crucifixion of Christ, we find the whole apostolic
company filled with blank and utter despair. We see Peter,
the leader of the apostolic company, denying his Lord three
times with oaths and cursings, but a few days later we see this
same man filled with a courage that nothing could shake.
We see him standing before the council that had condemned
Jesus to death and saying to them: "Be it known unto you
all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus
Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified. Whom God raised
from the dead, even by Him doth this Man stand before you
whole." (Acts 4:10.) A little further Oxi, when commanded
by the council not to speak at all nor teach in the name of
Jesus we hear Peter and John answering: "Whether it be
right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than
unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things
which we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19, 20.) A little
later still, after arrest and imprisonment, in peril of death,
when sternly arraigned by the council, we hear Peter and
the apostles answering their demand that they should be silent
regarding Jesus, with the words : "We ought to obey God
rather than man. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus
Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted
with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give
repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are His
witnesses of these things." (Acts 5 :29-32.) Something tre-
mendous must have happened to account for such a radical and

234

The Resurrection of Jesus CHrlsi

astounding moral transiormatioH as this. Nothing short of
the fact of the resurrection and of their having seen the risen
Lord will explain it.

These unquestionable facts are so impressive and so con-
clusive that even infidel and Jewish scholars now admit that
the apostles believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Even
Ferdinand Baur, father of the Tiibigen School, admitted this.
Even David Strauss, who wrote the most masterly "Life of
Jesus" from the rationalistic standpoint that was ever writ-
ten, said: "Only this much need be acknowledged that the
apostles firmly believed that Jesus had arisen." Strauss evi-
dently did not wish to admit any more than he had to, but
he felt compelled to admit this much. Schenkel went even fur-
ther and said : "It is an indisputable fact that in the early morn-
ing of the first day of the week following the crucifixion, the
grave of Jesus was found empty. It is a second fact that the
disciples and other members of the apostolic communion
were convinced that Jesus was seen after the crucifixion."
These admissions are fatal to the rationalists who make them.
The question at once arises : "Whence these convictions and
belief?" Renan attempted an answer by saying that "the pas-
sion of a hallucinated woman (Mary) gives to the world a
resurrected God." (Kenan's "Life of Jesus," page 357.) By
this Renan means that Mary was in love with Jesus; that
after His crucifixion, brooding over it, in the passion of her
love, she dreamed herself into a condition where she had a hal-
lucination that she had seen Jesus risen from the dead. She
reported her dream as a fact, and thus the passion of a hal-
lucinated woman gave to the world a resurrected God. But
the reply to all this is self-evident, viz., the passion of a hal-
lucinated woman was not competent to this task. Remember the
make-up of the apostolic company; in the apostolic company

235

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

were a Matthew and a Thomas to be convinced, outside was a
Saul of Tarsus to be converted. The passion of a halluci-
nated woman will not convince a stubborn unbeliever like
Thomas, nor a Jewish tax-gatherer like Matthew. Whoever
heard of a tax-gatherer, and, most of all, of a Jewish tax-
gatherer, who could be imposed upon by the passion of a
'hallucinated woman? Neither will the passion of a halluci-
nated woman convince a fierce and conscientious enemy like
Saul of Tarsus. We must look for some saner explanation
than this. Strauss tried to account for it by inquiring whether
the appearances might not have been visionary. Strauss has
had, and still has, many followers in this theory. But to this
we reply, first of all, there was no subjective starting point
for such visions. The apostles, so far from expecting to see
the Lord, would scarcely believe their own eyes when they
did see Him. Furthermore, whoever heard of eleven men
having the same vision at the same time, to say nothing of
five hundred men (I Cor. 15:6) having the same vision at the
same time. Strauss demands of us that we give up one rea-
sonable miracle and substitute five hundred impossible miracles
in its place. Nothing can surpass the credulity of unbelief.

The third attempt at an explanation is that Jesus was not
really dead when they took Him from the cross, that His
friends worked over Him and brought Him back to life, and
what was supposed to be the appearance of the risen Lord
was the appearance of one who never had been really dead
and was now merely resuscitated. This theory of Paulus has
been brought forward and revamped by various rationalistic
writers in our own time and seems to be a favorite theory
of those who, today, would deny the reality of our Lord's
resurrection. To sustain this view, appeal has been made
.0 the short time Jesus hung upon the cross and to the fact

236

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

that history tells us of one, in the time of Josephus, taken down
from the cross and nursed back to life. But to this we an-
swer: (i) Remember the events preceding the crucifixion;
the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane; the awful ordeal of
the four trials ; the scourging and the consequent physical con-
dition in which all this left Jesus. Remember, too, the water and
the blood that poured from His pierced side. (2) In the sec-
ond place, we reply, His enemies would take, and did take,
all necessary precautions against such a thing as this happen-
ing. (John 19:34.) (3) We reply, in the third place, If
Jesus had been merely resuscitated, He would have been so
weak, such an utter physical wreck, that His reappearance
would have been measured at its real value, and the moral
transformation in the disciples, for which we are trying to
account, would still remain unaccounted for. The officer in the
time of Josephus, who is cited in proof, though brought back
to life, was an utter physical wreck. (4) We reply, in the
fourth place, If brought back to life, the apostles and friends
of Jesus, who are the ones who are supposed to have brought
Him back to life, would have known how they brought Him
back to life, and that it was not a case of resurrection but of
resuscitation, and the main fact to be accounted for, namely,
the change in themselves, would remain unaccounted for. The
attempted explanation is an explanation that does not explain.
(5) In the fifth place, we reply, that the moral difficulty is
the greatest of all, for if it was merely a case of resuscitation,
then Jesus tried to palm Himself off as one risen from the
dead when, in reality. He was nothing of the sort. In that
case He would be an arch-impostor and the whole Christian
system rests on a fraud as its ultimate foundation. Is it pos-
sible to believe that such a system of religion as that of Jesus
Christ, embodying such exalted principles and precepts of

237

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

truth, purity and love "originated in a deliberately planned
fraud?" No one whose own heart is not cankered by fraud
and trickery can believe Jesus to have been an impostor and
His religion to have been founded upon fraud. A leader of
the rationalistic forces in England has recently tried to prove
the theory that Jesus was only apparently dead by appealing
to the fact that when the side of Jesus was pierced blood
came forth, and asks: "Can a dead man bleed?" To this the
sufficient reply is that when a man dies of, what is called in
popular language, a broken heart, the blood escapes into the
pericardium and after standing there for a short time it
separates into serum (the water) and clot (the red corpuscles,
blood), and thus, if a man were dead, if his side were pierced
by a spear, and the point of the spear entered the pericardium,
"blood and water" would flow out just as the record states it
did ; and what is brought forth as a proof that Jesus was not
really dead, is, in reality, a proof that He was, and an illus-
tration of the minute accuracy of the story. It could not have
been made up in this way if it were not actual fact.

We have eliminated all other possible suppositions. We
have but one left: namely, Jesus really was raised from the
dead the third day, as recorded in the four Gospels. The des-
perate straits to which those who attempt to deny it are driven
are themselves proof of the fact.

We have, then, several independent lines of argument
pointing decisively and conclusively to the resurrection of
Christ from the dead. Some of them taken separately prove
the fact, but taken together they constitute an argument that
makes doubt of the resurrection of Christ impossible to the
candid mind. Of course, if one is determined not to believe,
no amount of proof will convince him. Such a man must
be left to his own deliberate choice of error and falsehood,

238

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

but any man who really desires to know the truth and is will-
ing to obey it at any cost, must accept the resurrection of
Christ as an historically proven fact.

A brilliant lawyer in New York City some time ago
spoke to a prominent minister of that city asking him if he
really believed that Christ rose from the dead. The minister
replied that he did, and asked the privilege of presenting the
proof to the lawyer. The lawyer took the material offered
in proof away and studied it. He returned to the minister
and said : *T am convinced that Jesus really did rise from
the dead But," he then added, *T am no nearer being a Chris-
tian than I was before. I thought that the difficulty was with
my head. I find that it is really with my heart."

There is really but one weighty objection to the doctrine
that Jesus arose from the dead, and that is, "There is no con-
clusive evidence that any other ever arose." To this a suffi-
cient answer would be, even if it v/ere certain that no other
ever arose, it would not at all prove that Jesus did not arise,
for the life of Jesus was unique. His nature was unique. His
character was unique. His mission was unique. His history
was unique, and it is not to be wondered at, but rather to
be expected, that the issue of such a life should also be
unique. However, all this objection is simply David Hume's
exploded argument against the possibility of the miraculous
revamped. According to this argument, no amount of evi-
dence can prove a miracle, because miracles are contrary to
all experience. But are miracles contrary to all experience?
To start out by saying that they are is to beg the very question
at issue. They may be outside of your experience and mine,
they may be outside the experience of this entire generation,
but your experience and mine and the experience of this en-
tire generation is not "all experience." Every student of ge-

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

olog^ and astronomy knows that things have occurred in the
past which are entirely outside of the experience of the present
generation. Things have occurred within the last ten years
that are entirely outside of the experience of the fifty years
preceding it. True science does not start with an a priori
hypothesis that certain things are impossible, but simply
examines the evidence to find out what has actually occurred.
It does not twist its observed facts to make them accord
with a priori theories, but seeks to make its theories accord
with the facts as observed. To say that miracles are impos-
sible, and that no amount of evidence can prove a miracle,
is to be supremely unscientific. Within the past few years,
in the domain of chemistry, for example, discoveries have been
made regarding radium, which seemed to run counter to all
previous observations regarding chemical elements and to
well-established chemical theories. But the scientist has not,
therefore, said that these discoveries about radium cannot
be true; he has, rather, gone to work to find out where the
trouble was in his previous theories. The observed and re-
corded facts in the case before us prove, to a demonstration,
that Jesus rose from the dead, and true science must accept
this conclusion and conform its theories to this observed fact.
The fact of the actual and literal resurrection of Jesus Christ
from the dead cannot be denied by any man who will study
the evidence in the case with a candid desire to find what the
fact is, and not merely to support an a priori theory.

240

CHAPTER X

THE DEITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR, JESUS

CHRIST

BY DR. R. A. TORREY

I well remember that when I was examined for license to
preach, one of the questions put to me was, "What are the
proof texts for the Divinity of Christ?" And in answering
the question I racked my brain for a few proof texts, but
when I came to study the Bible in a thorough way, I dis-
covered, to my surprise, that there were not merely a few
proof texts, but that the doctrine of the Deity of Christ was
found everywhere. There are at least six distinct lines of
proof in the Bible that Jesus Christ is not merely divine, but
that He is God^ God manifest in the flesh.

I. The first line of proof is that sixteen names clearly
implying Deity are used of Christ in the Bible, some of them
over and over again, the total number of passages reaching far
into the hundreds. These names are :

1. "The Son of God.'' That this was a distinctly divine
name appears from John 5:18, where we are told, "Therefore
the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He had not
only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His
Father, making Himself equal with God."

2. "The only begotten Son." This occurs five times. It
is evident that the statement that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God only in the same sense that all men are the sons of

241

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

God is not true. In Mark 12:6, Jesus says: ''Having yet
therefore One Son, His well-beloved, He sent Him also last
unto them, saying, They will reverence IMy Son." Here Jesus
Himself, having spoken of all the prophets as servants of
God, speaks of Himself as "One," a "beloved Son."

3. ''The First and the Last." Rev. 11 117. That this is a
distinctly divine name is evident from Is. 41 14, and Is. 44 :6,
where it is used of Jehovah.

4. "The Alpha and Omega."

5. "The Beginning and the Ending." These two last
names are used of Jesus Christ in Rev. 22:12, 13, 16, and in
Rev. 1 :8, it is the Lord God Who is called "The Alpha and
Omega."

6. "The Holy One." Acts 3:14. In Hos. 11:9, and
many other passages, it is God, who is "The Holy One."

7. "The Lord." This name or title is used of Jesus
several hundred times. The name translated "Lord" is used
in the New Testament in speaking of men nine times, but not
at all in the way it is used of Christ. When used of men
the definite article is omitted. Jesus is spoken of as "The
Lord," just as God is. In Acts 4:26, God, the Father, is
spoken of as "The Lord," and eight verses further on Jesus is
called "The Lord." If any one doubts the attitude of the
apostles of Jesus toward Him as Divine, tbey would do well to
read one after another the passages which speak of Him as
Lord.

8. "Lord of all," Acts 10 136.

9. "The Lord of Glory," i Cor. 2:8. In Ps. 24:8-10,
"The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory."

10. "Wonderful," Is. 9:6; cf. with this Judges 13:18;
R. v., where it is the Angel of Jehovah, who says His nam4
is Wonderful. And it would be easy to prove, from 01(jl

24^

The Deity of Our Lord and Saviour

Testament Scripture, that the Angel of Jehovah was a Divine
Person, namely, Christ, before His incarnation.

11. "Mighty God," Is. 9:6.

12. "Father of Eternity," Is. 9:6; R. V. Margin.

13. "God." In Heb. i :8 Jesus is called "God" in so
many words, "But Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."
In John 20 :28 when Thomas fell at the feet of our Lord and
cried to Him: "My Lord and my God,"" Jesus accepted the
ascription of Deity to Himself and gently rebuked Thomas
for not believing it before.

14. "God with us," Matt. 1 123.

15. "Our Great God," Titus 2:13, R. V.

16. "God blessed forever," Rom. 9:5.

11. The second line of proof of the Deity of our Lord is
that five or more distinctively divine attributes are ascribed
to Jesus Christ and all the fullness of the Godhead is said to
dwell in Him.

I. In Heb. 1 13 and Eph. i :2o Omnipotence is ascribed
to Jesus Christ. In many passages we are taught that He
had power over disease, that it was subject to His Word; He
had power over death, that it was subject to His Word; that
He had power over the winds and the sea, that they were
subject to His Word; that He had power over demons, that
they were subject to His Word. 2. In John 21 117 and 16,
30, Omniscience is ascribed to Jesus Christ. In many
passages we are taught that He knew the secret thoughts of
men ; that He knew all m©n ; that He knew what was in man.
Whereas, in Jer. 17:9, 10, we are taught that Jehovah only
knows the hearts of men. We are also taught in the New
Testament that Jesus knew, from the beginning, man's present
thoughts and their future choices; that He knew what they
wtere doing at a distance; that He knew the future, not onl^

548

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

regarding God's acts, but regarding the minute specific acts
of men, and even regarding the fishes of the sea. And in
Col. 2 :3, we are taught that in Him "are hid all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge."

3. In J\Iatt. 18:20 and 28:30 and John 3:13; 14:20; 2
Cor. 13:5; Eph. 1:23, Omnipresence is ascribed to Jesus
Christ. 4. In John 1:1; Micah 5 :2; Col. i :i7; Is. 9:6; John
17 :5 ; John 8 :55 ; i John i :i ; Heb. 13 :8; Eternity is ascribed
to Jesus Christ. 5. In Heb. 13:8; 1:12, Immutability is
ascribed to Jesus Christ. 6. In Phil. 2:6, we are taught
that Jesus Christ, before His incarnation, was in the form
OF God. The Greek word translated ''form" means "the
form by which a person or thing strikes the vision, the exter-
nal appearance." (Thayer's Greek-Eng. Lexicon of the N.
T.). Summing it all up under this head, Paul declares in
Col. 2 :9, that "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily."

III. The third line of proof of the Deity of our Lord is
that seven distinctively divine oifices are predicated of Jesus
Christ. I. In Heb. 1:10; John 1:3; Col. 1:16, Creation is
ascribed to Jesus Christ. 2. In Heb. i :3, the preservation
OF the whole material universe is ascribed to Jesus
Christ. 3. In Mark 2:5-10; Luke 7:48, and many other
passages, the forgiveness of sins is ascribed to Jesus
Christ. In this connection it is worthy of note that in Luke
7 :40-47, Jesus says that sins are against Himself. He speaks
of both Simon and the woman as sinners, being debtors to
Himsalf. But sin can only be committed against God. We
can wrong others, but not sin against them in the strict
sense of the word (cf. Ps. 5i,:4). 4. In John 6:39-44, the
raising of the dead is ascribed to Jesus Christ. 5. In Phil.
3:21, R. v., TPiE tr.\nsformation of our earthly bodies

244

The Deity of Our Lord and Saviour

INTO THE CELESTIAL BODY IS ASCRIBED TO JeSUS ChRIST. 6. In
2 Tim. 4:1, R. v., THE JUDGMENT OF THE LIVING AND THE

DE-\D IS ASCRIBED TO Jesus Christ. Jcsus Himself empha-
sized the divine character of these offices in John 5 :22, 23. He
says, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son : That all men should honor the Son,
even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son
honoreth not the Father, which hath sent Him/' 7. In John

10:28; 17:2, the bestowal of eternal life is ASCRIBED TO

Jesus Christ.

IV. The fourth line of proof of the Deity of our
Lord Jesus is that statements zvhich, in the Old Testament,
are made distinctly of Jehovah, God, are taken in the New
Testament to refer to Jesus Christ. That is, in New Testa-
ment thought and doctrine^ Jesus Christ occupies the

PLACE THAT JeHOVAH OCCUPIES IN OlD TeSTAMENT THOUGHT

AND DOCTRINE. For example, in Heb. i :io-i2, we read these
words, "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of Thy
hands ; they shall perish, but Thou remainest ; and they shall
all wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt Thou
fold them up, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the
same, and Thy years shall not fail." This is a quotation of a
statement made about God in Ps. 102:24-27. In Luke
1 :68, 69, 76, we read : "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ;
for He hath visited and redeemed His people, and hath
raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of

His servant David And Thou, Child, shalt be

called the prophet of the Highest; for Thou shalt go before
the face of the Lord to prepare His ways." Here, it is evident,
that Jesus is the Lord before whose face the messenger goes
to prepare His way before Him, but in Is. 40:3, 4 (see Amer.

245

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

R. V.)» it is Jehovah whose way the messenger is to prepare
before Him. In Rev. 2 123, we read, "And I will kill her
children with death ; and all the churches shall know that
I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts : and I will give
unto every one of you according to your works." Here it is
Jesus who searcheth the reins and hearts, but in the Old
Testament, in Jer. 11:20; 17:10, Jehovah is represented as
saying that He is the One who tries the reins and heart.
In Luke 2 :32, we read of Jesus, "A light to lighten the Gen-
tiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel"; but in Is. 60:19, we
read (Am. R. V.), "Jehovah will be unto thee an everlasting
light and thy God thy glory." In Is. 6:1, 3, 10, we read cer-
tain words that Isaiah spoke when He sazv the glory of Je-
hovah of hosts, but in John 12:37-41, John says it was when
Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ that he said this. Of
course, the inference is plain. There are many other passages
of a similar character where statements which, in the Old
Testament, are made unmistakably of Jehovah God are taken
in the New Testament to refer to Jesus Christ. "Lord" in the
Old Testament always refers to God, except where the context
clearly indicates otherwise. "Lord" in the New Testament
always refers to Jesus Christ, except where the context clearly
indicates otherwise.

V. The fifth line of proof of the Deity of our Lord
Jesus is that the name of Jesus Christ -is coupled with
THAT OF God, the Father, in numerous passages in a way
that it would be impossible to couple the name of any
finite being. Illustrations of this can be found in 2 Cor.
13:14; Matt. 28:19; I Thess. 3:11 ; i Cor. 12:4:6; Tit, 3 :4, 5 ;
Rom. 1:7; Jas. 1:1; especially John 14:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; cf.
R. v.; Col. 2:2 (see R. V.) ; John 17:3; John 14:1; cf. Jer.
17:5-7; Rev. 7:10; 5:13

^46

The Deity of Our Lord and Saziour

VI. The last, and, if possible, the most decisive proof
of the Deity of onr Lord Jesus is that we are taught in
Scripture that Jesus, the Son of God, is to be wor-
shipped AS God by axcels and men. Passages in point are
Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:52; Matt. 14:33 cf. Acts 10:25, 26;
Rev. 22 :8, 9 ; I\Ialt. 4 \g, 10. In these passages we see that
Jesus Christ accepted, without hesitation, the worship which
men and angels declined with fear and horror. It is often
said that the verb translated ''worship" in these passages
is sometimes used cf reverence paid to men in high position.
We are so told in the margin of the American R. V. The
statement is true, but it is misleading. The word is used
of reverence paid to men in high position, but it is not used in
this way by worshippers of Jehovah, as is seen by the way
in which both Peter and the angel drew back when such wor-
ship was offered to them. In Heb. i :6 we read, "And again,
when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he
saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him." There
can be no possible mistaking of the meaning of this passage.
And in Phil. 2:10, 11, we read, "That at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God,
the Father." And from all these passages it is evident that
Jesus Christ is a Person to be worshipped by angels and men,
even as God, the Father, is worshipped.

To sum it all up, by the use of numerous Divine names,
by the ascription of all the distinctively Divine attributes, by
the predication of several Divine offices, by referring state-
ments which, in tl.e Old Testament, distinctly name Jehovah
God as their subject to Jesus Christ in the New Testament, by
coupling the name of Jesus Christ with that of God, thr

247

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

Father, in a way in which it would be impossible to couple that
of any finite being with that of the Deity and by the clear
teaching that Jesus Christ should be worshipped even as God,
the Father, is worshipped — in all these unmistakable ways
God, in His Word, distinctly proclaims that Jesus Christ is a
Divine Being— is GOD.

248

CHAPTER XI
THE DEITY OF CHRIST

BY PROF. BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, D. D., LU D.,
PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

A recent writer has remarked that our assured conviction
of the Deity of Christ rests, not upon "proof-texts or passages,
nor upon old arguments drawn from these, but upon the gen-
eral fact of the whole manifestation of Jesus Christ, and of
the whole impression left by Him upon the world.'* The an-
tithesis is too absolute, and possibly betrays an unwarranted
distrust of the evidence of Scripture. To make it just, we
should read the statement rather thus: Our conviction of the
Deity of Christ rests not alone on the Scriptural passages
which assert it, but also on His entire impression on the world ;
or perhaps thus : Our conviction rests not more on the Scrip-
tural assertions than upon His entire manifestation. Both
lines of evidence are valid; and when twisted together form
an unbreakable cord. The proof-texts and passages do prove
that Jesus was esteemed divine by those who companied
with Him; that He esteemed Himself divine; that He was
recognized as divine by those who were taught by the Spirit;
that, in fine. He was divine. But over and above this Biblical
evidence the impression Jesus has left upon the world bears
independent testimony to His Deity, and it may well be that
to many minds this will seem the most conclusive of all its
evidences. It certainly is very cogent and impressive,

249

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

EXPERIENCE AS PROOF

The justification which the author we have just quoted
gives of his neglecting the scriptural evidence in favor of that
borne by Jesus' impression on the world is also open to criti-
cism. "J^sus Christ," he tells us, ''is one of those essential
truths which are too great to be proved, like God, or freedom,
or immortality." Such things rest, it seems, not on proofs
but on experience. We need not stop to point out that this
experience is itself a proof. We wish rather to point out that
some confusion seems to have been fallen into here between
our ability to marshal the proof by which we are convinced
and our accessibility to its force. It is quite true that "the
most essential conclusions of the human mind are much wider
and stronger than the arguments by which they are sup-
ported"; that the proofs *'are always changing but the beliefs
persist." But this is not because the conclusions in question
rest on no sound proofs ; but because we have not had the skill
to adduce, in our argumentative presentations of them, the
really fundamental proofs on which they rest.

UNCONSCIOUS RATIONALITY

A man recognizes on sight the face of his friend, or his
own handwriting. Ask him how he knows this face to be that
of his friend, or this handwriting to be his own, and he is
dmmb, or, seeking to reply, babbles nonsense^ Yet his recog-
nition rests on solid grounds, though he lacks analytical skill
to isolate and state these solid grounds. We believe in God
and freedom and immortality on good grounds, though we
may not be able satisfactorily to analyze these grounds. No
true conviction exists without adequate rational grounding in

250

The Deity of CJjrist

evidence. So, if we are solidly assured of the deity of Christ,
it will be on adequate grounds, appealing to the reason. But
it may well be on grounds not analyzed, perhaps not analyz-
able, by us, so as to exhibit themselves in the forms of formal
logic.

We do not need to wait to analyze the grounds of our
convictions before they operate to produce convictions, any
more than we need to wait to analyze our food before it nour-
ishes us; and we can soundly believe on evidence much mixed
with error, just as we can thrive on food far from pure. The
alchemy of the mind, as of the digestive tract, knows how to
separate out from the mass what it requires for its support;
and as we may live without any knowledge of chemistry, so
we may possess earnest convictions, solidly founded in right
reason, without the slightest knowledge of logic. The Chris-
tian's conviction of the deity of his Lord does not depend for
its soundness on the Christian's ability convincingly to state
the grounds of his conviction. The evidence he offers for it
may be wholly inadequate, while the evidence on which it
rests may be absolutely compelling.

TESTIMONY IN SOLUTION

The very abundance and persuasiveness of the evidence of
the deity of Christ greatly increases the difficulty of adequately
stating it. This is true even of the scriptural evidence, as pre-
cise and definite as much of it is. For it is a true remark of
Dr. Dale's that the particular texts in which it is definitely
asserted are far from the whole, or even the most impressive,
proofs which the Scriptures supply of our Lord's deity. He
compares these texts to the salt-crystals which appear on the
sand of the sea-beach after the tide has receded. "These

251

The Higher Criticism and The Neiv Theology

are not," he remarks, "the strongest, though they may be
the most apparent, proofs that the sea is salt; the salt is
present in solution in every bucket of sea-water." The deity
of Christ is in solution in every page of the New Testament.
Every word that is spoken of Him, every word which He is
reported to have spoken of Himself, is spoken on the assump-
tion that He is God. And that is the reason why the "criti-
cism" which addresses itself to eliminating the testimony of
the New Testament to the deity of our Lord has set itself a
hopeless task. The New Testament itself would have to be
eliminated. Nor can we get behind this testimony. Because
the deity of Christ is the presupposition of every word of the
New Testament, it is impossible to select words out of the
New Testament from which to construct earlier documents in
which the deity of Christ shall not be assumed. The assured
conviction of the deity of Christ is coeval with Christianity it-
self. There never was a Christianity, neither in the times of
the Apostles nor since, of which this was not a prime tenet.

A SATURATED GOSPEL

Let us observe in an example or two how thoroughly
saturated the Gospel narrative is with the assumption of the
deity of Christ, so that it crops out in the most unexpected
ways and places.

In three passages of Matthew, reporting words of Jesus,
He is represented as speaking familiarly and in the most
natural manner in the world, of "His angels" (13:41; 16:27;
24:31). In all three He designates Himself as the "Son of
man" ; and in all three there are additional suggestions of His
majesty. "The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and
they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that cause

252

The Deify of Christ

stumbling and those that do iniquity, and shall cast them into
the furnace of fire/'

Who is this Son of Man who has angels, by whose instru-
mentality the final judgment is executed at His command?
"The Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with
His angels ; and then shall He reward every man according to
his deeds." Who is this Son of man surrounded by His an-
gels, in whose hands are the issues of life? The Son of man
*'shall send forth His angels with a great sound of a trumpet,
and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds,
from one end of heaven to the other." Who is this Son of
man at whose behest His angels winnow men ? A scrutiny of
the passages will show that it is not a peculiar body of angels
which is meant by the Son of man's angels, but just the angels
as a body, who are His to serve Him as He commands.
In a word, Jesus Christ is above angels (Mark 13:32) — as is
argued at explicit length at the beginning of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. "To which of the angels said he at any time,
Sit thou on my right hand, etc." (Heb. 1:13.)

HEAVEN COME TO EARTH

There are three parables recorded in the fifteenth chapter
of Luke as spoken by our Lord in His defence against the
murmurs of the Pharisees at His receiving sinners and eating
with them. The essence of the defence which our Lord offers
for Himself is, that there is joy in heaven over repentant sin-
ners ! Why "in heaven," "before the throne of God" ? Is He
merely setting the judgment of heaven over against that of
earth, or pointing forward to His future vindication? By no
means. He is representing His action in receiving sinners, in
seeking the lost, as His proper action, because it is the normal

253

The Higher CrMisni and The New Theology

conduct of heaven, manifested in Him. He is heaven come
to earth. His defence is thus simply the unveiHng of what the
real nature of the transaction is. The lost when they come to
Him are received because this is heaven's way; and He can-
not act otherwise than in heaven's way. He tacitly assumes
the good Shepherd's part as His own.

THE UNIQUE POSITION

All the great designations are not so much asserted as as-
sumed by Him for Himself. He does not call Himself a
prophet, though He accepts this designation from others : He
places Himself above all the prophets, even above John, the
greatest of the prophets, as Him to whom all the prophets
look forward. If He calls Himself Messiah, He fills that
term, by doing so, with a deeper significance, dwelling ever on
the unique relation of Messiah to God as His representative
and His Son. Nor is He satisfied to represent himself merely
as standing in a unique relation to God : He proclaims Him-
self to be the recipient of the divine fullness, the sharer in all
that God has (Matt. 11:28). He speaks freely of Himself
indeed as God's Other, the manifestation of God on earth,
whom to have seen was to have seen the Father also, and who
does the work of God on earth. He openly claims divine
prerogatives— the reading of the heart of man, the forgive-
ness of sins, the exercise of all authority in heaven and earth.
Indeed, all that God has and is He asserts Himself to have
and be; omnipotence, omniscience, perfection belong as to the
one so to the other. Not only does He perform all divine
acts ; His self-consciousness coalesces with the divine con-
sciousness. If His followers lagged in recognizing His deity,
this was not because He was not God or did not sufficiently

The Deity of Christ

manifest His deity. It was because they were foolish and slow
of heart to believe what lay patently before their eyes.

THE GREAT PROOF

The Scriptures give us evidence enough, then, that Christ
is God. But the Scriptures are far from giving us all the
evidence we have. There is, for example, the revolution which
Christ has wrought in the world. If, indeed, it were asked
wliat the most convincing proof of the deity of Christ is, per-
haps the best answer would be, just Christianity. The new
life He has brought into the world; the new creation which
He has produced by His life and work in the world; here are
at least His most palpable credentials.

Take it objectively. Read such a book as Harnack's "The
Expansion of Christianity," or such an one as Von Dob-
schiitz's "Christian Life in the Primitive Church" — neither
of v.hich allows the deity of Christ — and then ask. Could these
things have been wrought by power less than divine? And
tl^.en remember that these things were not only wrought in that
heathen world two thousand years ago, but have been wrought
over again every generation since; for Christianity has re-
conquered the world to itself each generation. Think of how
the Christian proclamation spread, eating its way over the
world like fire in the grass of a prairie. Think how, as it
spread, it transformed lives. The thing, whether in its objec-
tive or in its subjective aspect, were incredible, had it not
actually occurred. "Should a voyager," says Charles Darwin,
"chance to be on the point of shipwreck on some unknown
coast, he will most devoutly pray that the lesson of the mis-
sionary may have reached thus far. The lesson of the mis-
sionary is the enchanter's wand." Could this transforming- in-

255

The Higher Criticism arid The New Theology

fluence, undiminished after two millenniums, have proceeded
from a mere man? It is historically impossible that the great
movement which we call Christianity, which remains unspent
after all these years, could have originated in a merely human
impulse; or could represent today the working of a merely
human force.

THE PROOF V^ITHIN

Or take it subjectively. Every Christian has within him-
self the proof of the transforming power of Christ, and c^n
repeat the blind man's syllogism : Why herein is the marvel
that ye know not whence He is, and yet He opened my eyes.
"Spirits are not touched to fine issues who are not finely
touched.'* "Shall we trust," demands an eloquent reasoner,
"the touch of our fingers, the sight of our eyes, the hearing
of our ears, and not trust our deepest consciousness of our
higher nature — the answer of conscience, the flower of spirit-
ual gladness, the glow of spiritual love ? To deny that spiritual
experience is as real as physical experience is to slander the
noblest faculties of our nature. It is to say that one half of
our nature tells the truth, and the other half utters lies. The
proposition that facts in the spiritual region are less real than
facts in the physical realm contradicts all philosophy." The
transformed hearts of Christians, registering themselves "in
gentle terms, in noble motives, in lives visibly lived under
the empire of great aspirations" — these are the ever-present
proofs of the divinity of the Person from whom their inspira-
tion is drawn.

The supreme proof to every Christian of the deity of his
Lord is then his own inner experience of the transforming
power of his Lord upon the heart and life. Not more surely
docs he who feels the present warmth of the sun know that the

2^6

The Deity of Christ

sun exists, than he who has experienced the re-creative power
of the Lord know Him to be his Lord and his God. Here
is, perhaps we may say the proper, certainly we must say the
most convincing, proof to every Christian of the deity of
Christ ; a proof which he cannot escape, and to which, whether
he is capable of analyzing it or drawing it out in logical state-
ment or not, he cannot fail to yield his sincere and unassailable
conviction. Whatever else he may or may not be assured of
he knows that his Redeemer lives. Because He lives, we shall
live also — that was the Lord's own assurance. Because we
live. He lives also — that is the ineradicable conviction of every
Christian heart.

55r

CHAPTER XII

THE BIBLE TEACHING REGARDING FUTURE PUN-
ISHMENT

BY DR. R. A. TORREY

There is no doctrine of the faith of our fathers which
is more widely questioned at the present day than that con-
cerning the future destiny of those who reject Jesus Christ
in the life that now is. Even in circles that have little sym-
pathy with the destructive criticism, or with the denial of the
Virgin birth of our Lord and His bodily resurrection from
the dead and other phases of thought which are characteristic
of "the new theology/* there is widespread denial, or at least
doubt, of the endless, conscious suffering of the persistently
impenitent. Where there is no denial or doubt regarding this
doctrine, there is at least silence concerning it. Very grave evils
have arisen from the general questioning regarding the reality
and awfulness of a future hell. A firm belief that there is a hell
and that men would receive, in a future life, punishment for
the sins that went unpunished in the life that now is, exerted
a mighty restraining influence over the lives of men. With
the weakening of that belief there has been an appalling
increase in suicide, social impurity, unfaithfulness of husbands
to wives and wives to husbands, divorce, and all kinds of
lewdness, lavv-lessness and anarchy. There has also been an
appalling decrease in the churches of separation from th«
world and of concern and prayer for the salvation of the lost,

2S8

Future Punishment

at home and abroad. A strong belief in a stern doctrine,
regarding the future punishment of the impenitent, drives
Christians to prayer and to effort for the salvation of the lost
as almost nothing else does.

The only really important question regarding future pun-
ishment is, What does the Bible teach ? Human speculations on
such a subject as this have no value whatever. All we know
about it is what God has been pleased to reveal. Of ourselves
we know nothing of the life beyond the grave. God knows all
about it. God has been pleased to reveal to us much that
He knows, and on a subject like this, one ounce of God's reve-
lation is worth ten tons of man's speculation. Most of the
false theories regarding future punishment are built upon the
proposition that God is love. To this fact they constantly ap-
peal to give force to their arguments. But how do we know
that God is love? Only from the Bible. Human reason can-
not prove that God is love if we discard the Bible. The phy-
sical universe and human history teach that there is a God
who is a wise and beneficent being, but they do not teach
that God is love. We learn this entirely from that revelation
of Himself which God has made in the Bible. Discredit the
Bible and we have no satisfactory proof that God is love.
Now the teaching of the Bible is true, or else it is not true.
Now if the teaching of the Bible is true, then we must accept
all that it teaches, and we must accept what it teaches about
future punishment. It is utterly illogical to take out of
the Bible the things that we like and reject the things wc do
not like. To take a statement out of the Bible and to draw
from it inferences that contradict other plain teachings of
the Bible is to be utterly illogical. On the other hand, if the
Bible is not true, we have no proof that God is love, and all
the arguments built upon that fundamental proposition fall to

^59

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

the ground, and consequently all the loose theories of future
punishment, which start out with the love of God as their
premise, collapse. We may take whichever horn of the dilemma
that wx please — that the teaching of the Bible is true, or that
the teaching of the Bible is not true — and in either case, the
doctrine of the ultimate salvation of all men can be shown
to be untrue.

Many seek to discredit the Bible in order to get relief
from this stern doctrine regarding future retribution, but no
relief can be obtained by discrediting the Bible. There are
two absolutely certain facts of experience and observation.
The first fact is that whoever sins must suffer, and suffer
more or less for every sin which he commits. We all know
that to be true. The second certain fact of experience and
observation is that the longer one sins, the more deeply he
einks down into sin and into the moral bondage and blindness
and misery and shame and agony and despair which are the
consequence of sin. Now put these two facts together, that
whoever sins must suffer, and the longer he sins the deeper
he sinks down into the moral bondage, blindness, misery,
shame, agony and despair which are the consequence of sin,
and when the possible day of repentance has passed (and it
must be passed some time), what have we left but an ever-
lasting hell. The only change that the Bible introduces into
the problem is that it points out the way of escape and salva-
tion from sin and its consequences, and those who seek to do
away with the doctrine of an awful and eternal hell by dis-
crediting the Bible are guilty of the incredible folly of trying
to shut up hell by closing the only door of escape. Loose
doctrines, regarding future punishment, do not come from
consulting reason but consulting our prejudices and our un-
sanctified wishes.

260

Future Punishment

BUT WHAT DOES THE EIBLE TELACII REGARDING FUTURE PUNISH-
MENT ?

I. That there is a Hell. In Matt. 5:29, R. V., Jesus
says, "And if thy ri^ht eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it
out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be
cast into hell." These words certainly teach that there is a
hell. If there is no hell, these words of Christ's are without
meaning, and the One who uttered them is a fool, so whoever
denies that there is a hell makes Jesus out to have been a fool.
Again our Lord Jesus says, in Matt. 25 41, "Then shall he say
also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels."
And in the forty-sixth verse of the same chapter, "And
these shall go awry into everlasting punishment : but the
righteous into life eternal." These words also certainly
teach that there is a hell. The Apostle Paul says, in 2 Thess.
I 7-9, R. v., "And to you that are afflicted rest with us, at
the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels
of His power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them
that know not God, rnd to them that obey not the Gospel of
our Lord Jesus: vho shall sufiFer punishment, even eternal
destruction from tl.e face of the Lord and from the glory
of His might." Whm we come to see later what destruc-
tion means in tlic Bible we will see that these verses
also plainly teach that there is a hell. The Apostle Peter
says, in 2 Pet. 2 '.4. 9, "For if God spared not the angels
that sinned, but ci^ t them down to hell, and delivered
them into chains ^f darkness, to be reserved unto
judgment . . . The Lord knoweth how to deliver the
godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the

261

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

day of judgment to be punished." These words certainly
teach that there is a hell. The Apostle John says, in Rev.
20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the lake of fire." These words teach that
there is a hell. Our Lord Jesus says once more, in Rev. 21 :8,
after He Himself has died and gone down into the abode of the
dead and come up therefrom and risen and ascended to the
right hand of the Father — He certainly knows now what
He is talking about — ''But the fearful, and unbelieving, and
the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in
the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone : which is the
second death." These words certainly teach that there is a
heii. All these passages, taken in their context, point unmis-
takably to a hell, and to a hell that is not merely a condition,
but a place, and a place of awful and prolonged conscious
suffering.

n. In the second place, the Bible teaches that hell is
A PLACE OF EXTREME BODILY SUFFERING. That is plain from
many passages in the New Testament. But a few illustra-
tions will serve our present purpose. The commonest words
used in the Bible to express the doom of the impenitent are
''death" and "destruction." They constantly recur. Now what
do "death" and "destruction" mean? God always takes pains
to define His terms and He has defined these terms. We will
find God's definition of destruction by a comparison of Rev.
17:8 with Rev. 19:20 and Rev. 20:10. In Rev. 17:8 wc are
told that the beast shall "go into perdition." The word here
translated "perdition" is the same word which is elsewhere
translated "destruction," and ought to be so translated here,
or else it ought to be translated differently in the other
passages. Now if we can find where the beast goes, we will

262

Future Punishment

have God's own definition of "perdition" or "destruction." In
Rev. 19:20 we are told tliat the beast "was cast ahve into the
lake of fire burning with brimstone" (R. V.). Now if we turn
to Rev. 20:10 we are told that a thousand years after the beast
was cast into the "lake of fire burning with brimstone" that
the Devil is cast into the same "lalce of fire burning with
brimstone" where the beast and false prophet still "are" (that
is, they are there still after a thousand years) and "shall be
tormented day and night forever and ever." By God's own
definition "perdition" or "destruction" is a portion in a place
defined as a "lake of fire burning with brimstone," whose in-
habitants are tormented consciously forever and ever.

We will find God's definition of "death" in Rev. 21 :8,
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters,
and all liars, shall have their part in the lake, which burneth
wdth fire and brimstone : ivhich is the second death." God's
definition of death, therefore, is a portion in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone, just the same as His defini-
tion of "perdition." It may be said that these statements
are highly figurative. Very well, let it go at that, but we must
remember that God's figures always stand for facts, and God
is no liar and God's figures never overstate the facts, and if
these words be figures, they mean at least this much, bodily
sufifering, and that of the intensest kind. We should remem-
ber, furthermore, that in the next life we do not exist as dis-
embodied spirits. All this theory, so common today of the
immortality of the soul independent of the body, where we
float about as disembodied spirits, is ethnic philosophy, and not
New Testament teaching. According to the Bible, in the world
to come the redeemed spirit is clothed upon with a body,
not this same body, it is true, a radically dififerent body, but

263

The Higher Criticism and The New Tiveology

still a body, perfect counterpart of the redeemed spirit that
inhabits it and partaker with it in all its blessedness. On the
other hand, according to the Bible, there is a resurrection of
the unjust as well as of the just (John 5 :28, 29), and the lost
spirit is clothed upon with a body, not the same body with
which it is clothed in the present life, but a body, perfect coun-
terpart of the lost spirit that inhabits it and partaker with it
in all its misery.

II. The Bible teaches that HELL IS A PLACE OF
MEMORY AND REMORSE. Our Lord Jesus has given
ws a picture in Luke 16:19-31 (there is no indication in
the narrative that it is merely a parable) of the condi-
tion of a lu^l man after death. It is true that this pic-
ture has to do with the intermediate state, that is, the
condition of the lost before the final judgment of the
great White Throne, but it clearly indicates what will be
the condition after that also. In the picture which Christ
has given us of the rich man in Hades, Abraham said to the
rich man "Remember." The rich man had not taken much
that he had on earth with him into Hades, but he had taken
one thing; he had taken his memory. And men and women
today who go on in sin and therefore are doomed to spend
eternity in hell, will not take much with them that they
have in their present life, but they will take one thing, they
will take their memories. Men will remember the women
whose lives they have blasted and ruined, and women will
remember the lives they have squandered in fashion and fri-
volity and foolishness that they ought to have lived for God.
Ever>'one will remember the Christ they have rejected and
the opportunities for salvation which they have despised.
There is no torment known to man like the torment of an
accusing memory. I have seen, in my office in Chicago, strong

264

Future Punuhment

men weeping like children. What was the matter? Memory!
I have seen one of the brainiest, nerviest, strongest men I
ever knew throw himself upon the floor of my office and roll
and sob and groan and wail. What was the matter? Mem-
ory ! I have had men and women hurry up to me at the close
of a service with pale cheeks, with drawn lips, with haunted
eyes and beg a private conversation. What was the matter?
Memory! And the memory and the conscience that are not
set at peace in the life that now is by the atoning blood of
Christ and the pardoning grace of God, never will be. Hell
is a place where men remember and suffer.

III. The Bible teaches that HELL IS A PLACE OF
INSATIABLE AND TORMENTING DESIRE. Jesus
tells us that the rich man in Hades, cried, "Send Laza-
rus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water that
he may cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this
flame." (R. V.) These are dreadful words, appalling
words, but they are the words of Jesus. Hell is evidently
a place where desire and passion exist in their highest
potency and where there is nothing to gratify them. The men
and the women who, in this present life, are living in sin, or
living in worldliness, are developing into ruling power pas-
sions and desires for which there is no gratification in that
world toward which they are hastening on, and where they
must spend eternity. Happy is that man or woman who, by
setting their affection on things above in the life which now
is, cultivates into ruling power desires and aspirations for which
there is abundant satisfaction in the eternal world to which
we are all going. Wretched, indeed, is that man or woman,
who, by living for sin or living for the world, cultivates into
ruling power passions and desires for which there is no grati-
fication in that eternal world toward which they arc hastening

265

Th^ Higher Criticism and The New TJicology

on. What could more accurately represent their condition
than the picture of a man in a scorching flame with parched
tongue longing for one drop of water to cool his tongue, but
no water to be had.

V. The Bible teaches that Hell is a place of sliame and
contempt. We read in Daniel 12:2, "And many of them that
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlast-
ing life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." How
heart breaking is the agony of shame. How many it drives to
despair, insanity and suicide. Hell is a place of universal
shame where every inhabitant is dishonored, disgraced and
exposed to everlasting contempt and abhorrence.

VI. The Bible teaches that Hell is a place of vile com-
panionships. Jesus Christ Himself has given us a picture
of the society of hell in Rev. 21 :8, "But the fearful, and un-
believing, and the abominable and murderers, and whore-
mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."
That is the society of hell. It may be said that some men and
women of brilliant gifts and attractive character reject Qirist,
and, therefore, according to the teaching of the Bible, must
spend eternity in hell. This is true, but how long will it take
the most gifted man or woman to sink in such a world as
that beneath the level of the vilest moral leper that now walks
our streets. I can go to the lowest dives in Chicago and pick
you out men who were once physicians, lawyers, congressmen,
college professors, leading business men, and even ministers
of the Gospel, but who are now living with thugs, drunkards,
whoremongers and everything that is vile and bad. How did
they get there? They began to sink. And in such society as
that of hell, the best man or woman that ever enters there will

266

Future Punishment

soon sink beneath the XextX of the vilesf that we know here
upon earth.

\ll. The Bible teaches that HELL IS A WORLD
WITHOUT HOPE. There are those that contend that there
is hope even in hell, and that men and women who die im-
penitent will have another chance to repent and be saved. For
many years men have been seeking to prove this from the Bible.
I do not wonder that men try to prove it. I would to God that
they could prove it. If any one could give me one good proof
(i. e. Bible proof, for no other proof on this subject is of any
value) that there is hope, even in hell, and that those that die
impenitent will have another chance, and that all will ulti-
mately repent and accept Christ, it would be the happiest day
of my life. If any one could show me one single passage of
Scripture that, properly interpreted in its context taught that, it
would bring unspeakable gladness to my heart, but they can-
not do it. I have carefully examined every passage on this
subject that has ever been produced to prove that proposition.
I once thought that I had discovered one that really taught
this, and I taught it, but the time came when I found that the
passage would not bear the burden that I put upon it and, with
great reluctance, I gave up my doctrine of eternal hope and
that all men w^ould ultimately be saved. I have read and pond-
ered the best literature on this subject in English and in Ger-
man with the hope that I might find proof that was really
satisfying, that even after death men might repent and be
saved, but at last I had to give up the hope. It is said by
those who would have us believe that there is hope even in
hell, that the word Aionios, translated "everlasting," does not
necessarily mean never-ending. It is true that it does not
necessarily mean never-ending. This is its natural meaning

267

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

and its usual meaning, but there are places where it is used
without the full significance of never-ending. What it does
mean, therefore, in any given instance, must be determined
by the context. In Matt. 25 146, we read, "These shall go away
into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eter-
nal." The word which is translated "everlasting" in the first
part of the verse is the same as the word translated "eternal"
in the latter part of the passage, and what it means in the last
half of the verse, it must also mean in the first part of the
verse. But no one doubts that in the last part of the verse
it means absolutely endless ; therefore, it must mean that in
the first part of the verse. We must admit that our Lord was
at least an honest man and He was too honest to use a word
with one meaning in one half of a verse and with another
meaning in the other half of the verse. Our Lord Jesus then
teaches the absolute endlessness of the future punishment of
sin.

But this is not the worst of it. There is another expres-
sion, Eis tous aionas ton aionon (or as it is sometimes found,
Eis aionas aionon). This expression is used twelve times in
one book, the last book in the Bible. Eight times it is used
of the existence of God and the duration of His reign ; once
of the duration of the blessedness of the righteous; and in
every remaining instance of the punishment of the beast, the
false prophet and the impenitent. It cannot be doubted, then,
that it means absolute endlessness. It is the strongest known
expression for absolute endlessness. It represents not merely
years tumbling upon years, or centuries tumbling upon centu-
ries, but ages tumbling upon ages in endless procession. I
have hunted my Bible through again and again and again for
one ray of hope for men that died impenitent — just one ray
of hope that can be called such when the passage is properly

268

Future Punishment

interpreted by the right laws of exegesis and I have failed
after years of search to find one. The Bible does not hold
out one ray of hope for men and women who died without
Christ. Any one who dares to do so dares to do what God
has not done, and takes a fearful responsibility upon himself.
VIII. The Bible teaches that THE ETERNAL FU-
TURE DESTINY OF MEN IS SETTLED IN THE
LIFE THAT NOW IS. Jesus says in John 8:21, "Ye shall
die in your sins : Whither I go, ye cannot come." Thus
settling it that a man who dies in sin, dies unsaved,
cannot go where He does. In Heb. 9:27, we read, *Tt
is appointed unto men once to die, and after this [that is, after
d^ath, without an opportunity of further repentance] the
judgment." We read in 2 Cor. 5:10, that *'We must all ap-
pear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one m.ay
receive the things done in his body, according to that which
he has done whether it be good or bad." That is to say, '*the
things done in the body," the things done this side of the grave ;
the things done before we shuffle off this mortal coil, are the
basis of eternal judgment. The same truth is clearly implied
in the words of our Lord in John 9 4, "I must work the works
of Him that sent Me while it is day; the night cometh when
no man can work." The clear implication of these words,
taken in their context, is that the time when a man must
work is this side the grave. We read in Rev. 20:12, "And
I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the
books were opened : and another book was opened, which is
the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things
which were wTitten in the books, accordinsr to their w^orks."
The clear teaching of this passage is that the eternal judgment
of the Great White Throne is decided by what one has been
and done in the life that now is. The Bible does not con-

2?9

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

tain one hint of another chance. The only passage that
might seem to imply the possibility of another chance is I Pet.
3 :i8, 19, 'Tor Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just
for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to
death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit : by which also
He went and preached unto the spirits in prison." This has
been taken to mean that Christ, after His crucifixion and His
death, went in His spirit into that part of Hades where lost
spirits dwell and there preached the Gospel to them, and it is
thought by some to imply that there was a chance of their re-
pentance. I formerly so interpreted the passage, but, on fur-
ther study, I found out that it did not so teach. In the first
place, "the spirits in prison" are, presumably, the fallen angels
who sinned in the days of Noah (See Gen. 6:1, 2 cf. Jude
6, 7). The word "spirits" is not used of men anywhere in
the Bible in this way. However, this does not greatly mat-
ter, for, in the second place, there are two w^ords translated
"preach" in the New Testament. One means to herald, as, for
example, to herald the kingdom, and the other means to
preach the Gospel. The word used in this passage is not the
word that means to preach the Gospel, but the word which
means to herald, and the utmost that the passage can teach
is that Jesus went to the abode of the lost dead and heralded
there the triumph of the kingdom. It was not a Gospel proc-
lamation, neither is there the slightest indication that any one,
either angel or man, repented and was saved.

Some one may ask, may not those who have never heard
of Christ in this world have another opportunity. To this
we must answer, that there is not a line of Scripture upon
which to build such a hope. All men have sufficient light to
condemn them if they do not obey it. We read in Rom. 2:12,
16, "For as many as have sinned witliout law shall also perish

270

Future Punishment

without law : and as many as have sinned in the law shall be
judged by the law. ... in the day when God shall judge
the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel."
It is sometimes strangely imagined that this passage was given
to show how men are saved by the light of nature. Any one
who will study the context will discover that it was given
to show not how man was saved by the light of nature, but
how the Gentile is under condemnation by the lav/ written in
his heart, just as the Jew is under condemnation by the
law of Moses. The conclusion of the whole matter is found
in Rom. 3 119, 20, 21, 22, 23, "Now we know that what things
soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law :
tluit every mouth may he stopped, and all the world become
guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law there
shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the
knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without
the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets ; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of
Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them tJmt believe; for there
is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God."

The conclusion of the whole matter is that the future
state of those who reject the redemption offered to them in
Jesus Christ is plainly declared to be a state of conscious, un-
utterable, endless torment and anguish. This conception is
an awful and appalling one. It is, however, the Scrip-
tural conception and also the reasonable one, when we
come to see the appalling nature of sin and especially the
appalling nature of the sin of trampling under foot God's
mercy toward sinners and rejecting God's glorious Son Whom
His love has provided as a Saviour. Shallow views of sin and
of God's holiness and of the infinite glory of Jesus Christ

271

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

and of His claims upon us lie at the bottom of weak theories
of the doom of the impenitent. When we see sin in all its
hideousness and enormity, the holiness of God in all its per-
fection, and the majesty and glory of Jesus Christ in all its
infinity, nothing but a doctrine that those who persist in the
choice of sin, who love darkness rather than light and who
persist in the rejection of the Son of God, shall endure ever-
lasting anguish, will satisfy the demands of our own moral
intuitions. Nothing but the fact that we dread suffering
more than we loathe sin and more than we love the glory
of Jesus Christ makes us repudiate the thought that beings
who eternally choose sin shall eternally suffer, or that men
who despise God's mercy and spurn His Son shall be given
over to endless anguish.

But some one will ask, What about our impenitent friends
and loved ones? To these we would answer, it is better to
recognize facts, no matter how unwelcome they may be and
to try to save those friends from the doom to which they are
certainly hurrying on, than to quarrel with facts and seek
to remove them by shutting our eyes to them. Furthermore,
if we love Christ supremely, as we should love Him, and
realized His infinite glory and His suprem.e claims upon man,
as we should realize them, then will we say, if even the dearest
friend we have on earth persists in trampling this infinitely
glorious Christ under foot, he ought to- be banished from
the presence of God and to suflFer forever and ever. If some
one you greatly love should commit some hideous wrong
against one whom you loved still more and persist eternally
in that wrong, would you not consent to his eternal separa-
tion from the one whom he seeks to wrong and to his eternal
suffering? If, after men have sinned against God and God
still offers them mercy and makes the tremendous sacrifice of

273

Fuiitre Punishment

His Son to save them, if they still despise that mercy and
trample God's Son under foot, if then they are consigned to
everlasting torment, all right-minded people, all persons who
are in sympathy with God and His righteous government,
must exclaim, "Amen! Hallelujah! True and righteous are
Thy judgments, O Lord!"

At all events, the doctrine of the conscious, endless suf-
fering of persistently impenitent man is clearly revealed in
the Word of God, and whether we can defend it on philo-
sophical grounds or not, it is our business to believe it and
to proclaim it and to leave it to the clear light of eternity to
explain what we cannot now understand, realizing that an
infinitely wise God may have many infinitely wise reasons for
doing things for which we, in our ignorance, can see no
sufficient reason at all. It is the most unpardonable conceit
for beings, so limited in knowledge, and so foolish, as the
wisest of men are, to attempt to dogmatize how a God of
infinite wisdom must act. All we know about how God will
act is what God has been pleased to reveal to us.

Two things are certain. First, the more closely men
walk with God and the more devoted they become to His ser-
vice, the more likely are they to believe this doctrine. There
are many who tell us that they love their fellowmen too much
to believe this doctrine, but the men who show their love in
more practical ways than sentimental protestations about it,
the men who show their love for their fellowmen as Jesus
Christ showed His love, by laying down their lives for them,
they believe the doctrine. And what is more to the point,
Jesus Christ Himself believed it and taught it, and surely no
one of us would think of comparing our love to our fellow-
men with His love to man. As professed Christians become
worldly and easy-going they grow loose in their doctrint

•f3

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

concerning the doom of the impenitent. The fact that loose
doctrines regarding future punishment are spreading so rap-
idly and so widely in the church in our day is nothing in their
favor. It is rather against them, .. for who can deny that
worldliness is also spreading in the church. (See i Tim. 4:1 ;
2 Tim. 3:1; 4:2, 3.) Increasing laxity of life and increas-
ing laxity of doctrine go arm in arm. The church that
dances and frequents theatres and plays cards and lives in all
manner of self-indulgence during the week, enjoys a doctrine
on the Lord's Day that makes the punishment of the wicked
not so awful after all.

The second thing that is certain is that those who accept
a loose doctrine regarding the ultimate penalty of sin (whether
it be restorationism, or universalism or annihilation, or mil-
lennial dawnism, or whatever it may be) lose their power for
God. They often are very clever at argument and zealous in
proselyting, but they are always poor at soul-saving. They
are seldom found beseeching men to be reconciled to God.
They are far more likely to be found trying to upset the faith
of those already won by the efforts of others than trying to
win men who have no faith at all. If you really believe the
doctrine of the endless, conscious suffering of the persist-
ently impenitent, and the doctrine really gets hold of you,
you will work as you never worked before for the salvation
of the lost. If you, in any wise abate the doctrine, it will
abate your zeal. Time and time again, the writer of these
pages has come up to this appalling doctrine and tried to find
some way to escape from it, but when he has failed to find
such a way of escape (as he always has in the final outcome
when he was honest with the Bible and with himself) he has
returned to his work with an increased burden for souls and
an intensified determination to spend and be spent for their
salvation.

^4

CHAPTER XIII

TRIBUTES TO CHRIST AND THE BIBLE BY BRAINY
MEN NOT KNOWN AS ACTIVE CHRISTIANS

''Their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies them-
selves being judges." — Deut. 32:^1.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

"Young man, my advice to you is that you cultivate an
acquaintance with and firm belief in the Holy Scriptures, for
this is your certain interest. I think Christ's system of morals
and religion, as He left them with us, the best the world ever
saw or is likely to see."

THOMAS JEFFERSON

'T have said and always will say that the studious perusal
of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers,
and better husbands."

DANIEL WEBSTER

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our
country will go on prospering and to prosper ; but, if we and
our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can
tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all

275

The Higher Criticism and TJie Xcz^i Theology

our glory in profound obscurity. The Bible is the book of all
others for lawyers as well as divines, and I pity the man who
cannot find in it a rich supply of thought and rule of conduct.
I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. The miracles
which He wrought establish, in my mind, His personal au-
thority and render it proper for me to believe what He as-
serts."

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

'T know men, and I tell you Jesus Christ was not a man.
Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the
founders of empires and the gods of other religions. That
resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and
other religions the distance of infinity. Alexander, Csesar,
Charlemagne and myself founded empires. But on what did
we rest the creations of our genius? Upon sheer force. Jesus
Christ alone founded His empire upon love; and at this hour
millions of men will die for Him. In every other existence but
that of Christ how many imperfections ! From the first day
to the last He is the same; majestic and simple; infinitely firm
and infinitely gentle. He proposes to our faith a series of mys-
teries and commands with authority that we should believe
them, giving no other reason than those tremendous words,
T am God.^

'The Bible contains a complete series of acts and of his-
torical men to explain time and eternity, such as no other re-
ligion has to offer. If it is not true religion, one is very
excusable in being deceived ; for everything in it is grand and
worthy of God. The more I consider the Gospel, the more
I am assured that there is nothing there v/hich is not beyond
the march of events and above the human mind. Even the
impious themselves have never dared to deny the sublimity of

2;6

Tributes to Christ and the Bible

the Gospel, which inspires them with a sort of compulsory
veneration. What happiness that Book procures for those
who believe it !"

GOETHE

'*It is a belief in the Bible which has served me as the
guide of my moral and literary life. No criticism will be able
to perplex the confidence which we have entertained of a
writing whose contents have stirred up and given life to our
vital energy by its own. The farther the ages advance in
civilization the more will the Bible be used."

THOMAS CARLYLE

"Jesus is our divinest symbol. Higher has the human
thought not yet reached. A symbol of quite perennial, infinite
character : whose significance will ever demand to be anew in-
quired into and anew made manifest."

JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE

*'The most perfect being who has ever trod the soil of this
planet was called the Man of Sorrows."

CHARLES DICKENS IN HIS WILL

"I commit my soul to the mercy of God, through our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, and exhort my dear children humbly
to try to guide themselves by the teachings of the New Testar
ment"

277

The Higher Criticism and The Nezv Theology

SHAKESPEARE IN HIS WILL

"I commend my soul into the hands of God, my Creator,
hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of
Jesus Christ, my Saviour, to be made partaker of life ever-
lasting."

LORD BYRON

"If ever man was God, or God man, Jesus Christ was
both."

MATTHEW ARNOLD

"To the Bible men will return because they cannot do
without it. The true God is and must be pre-eminently the
God of the Bible, the eternal who makes for righteousness,
from whom Jesus came forth, and whose spirit governs the
course of humanity."

DIDEROT

"No better lessons can I teach my child than those of the
Bible."

PROFESSOR HUXLEY

"I have always been strongly in favor of secular educatioi.
without theology, but I must confess that I have been no less
seriously perplexed to know by what practical measures the
religious feeling, which is the essential basis of moral conduct,
is to be kept up in the present utterly chaotic state of opinion
on these matters without the use of the Bible."

278

Tributes to Christ and the Bible

JOHN STUART MILL

*'Who among His disciples, or among their proselytes,
was capable of inventing the sayings of Jesus, or imagining the
life and character ascribed to Him? Certainly not the fisher-
men of Galilee; as certainly not Saint Paul, whose character
and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; and still
less the early Qiristian writers. When this pre-eminent
genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest
moral reformer and martyr to His mission who ever existed
upon earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice
in pitching on this man as the ideal representative and guide
of humanity; nor even now would it be easy, even for an
unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue
from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to
live that Christ would approve his life."

ROUSSEAU

"Can it be possible that the sacred personage whose his-
tory the Scriptures contain should be a mere man? Where is
the man, where the philosopher, who could so live and so
die Vv'ithout weakness and without ostentation? When Plato
describes his imaginary righteous man, loaded with all the
punishments of guilt, yet meriting the highest rewards of vir-
tue, he exactly describes the character of Jesus Christ. What
an infinite disproportion between the son of Sophroniscus and
the Son of Mary. Socrates dies with honor, surrounded by his
disciples listening to the most tender words — the easiest death
that one could wish to die. Jesus dies in pain, dishonor, mock-
ery, the object of universal cursing — the most horrible death

279

The Higfier CriticisfH and The New Theology

that one could fear. At the receipt of the cup of poison,
Socrates blesses him who could not give it to him without
tears ; Jesus, while suffering the sharpest pains, prays for His
most bitter enemies. If Socrates lived and died like a phi-
losopher, Jesus lived and died like a god.

"Peruse the books of philosophers with all their pomp of
diction. How meager, how contemptible are they when com-
pared with the Scriptures? The majesty of the Scriptures
strikes me with admiration.'*

PECAUT

"Christ's moral character rose beyond comparison above
that of any other great man of antiquity. No one was ever so
gentle, so humble, so kind as He. In His spirit He lived in the
house of His heavenly Father. His moral life is wholly pene-
trated by God. He was the master of all, because He was
really their brother."

ERNEST RENAN

"All history is incomprehensible without Him. He cre-
ated the object and fixed the starting point of the future faith
of humanity. He is the incomparable man to whom the uni-
versal conscience has decreed the title of Son of God, and
that with justice.

fSo

CHAPTER XIV
A PERSONAL TESTIMONY

BY HOWARD A. KELLY, M. D.

(To those who have believed that faith in the Bible and
the God of the Bible does not harmonize with the modem
scientific spirit the following testimony from a distinguished
physician and surgeon should be of great value.

The Editor of Appleton's Magazine says of Dr. Kelly :

''Dr. Howard Kelly, of Baltimore, holds a position almost
tmiqiie in his profession. With academic, professional, and
honorary degrees from the Universities of Pennsylvania,
Washington and Lee, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, his rank as
a scholar is clearly recognised. For some twenty years Pro-
fessor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, his place as a worker and teacher in the applied science of
his profession has been beyond question the highest in Amer-
ica and Europe. At least a dozen learned societies in England,
Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Austria, France and the
United States have welcomed him to membership as a master
in his specialty in surgery. Finally, his published works have
caused him to be reckoned the most eminent of all authorities
in his own field.")

I have, within the past twenty years of my life, come out
of uncertainty and doubt into a faith which is an absolute
dominating conviction of the truth and about which I have

281

The Higher Criticism and The New Theology

not a shadow of doubt. I have been intimately associated with
eminent scientific workers; have heard them discuss the pro-
foundest questions ; have myself engaged in scientific work,
and so know the value of such opinions. I was once pro-
foundly disturbed in the traditional faith in which I have been
brought up — that of a Protestant Episcopalian — by inroads
which were made upon the book of Genesis by the higher
critics. I could not then gainsay them, not knowing Hebrew
nor archaeology well, and to me, as to many, to pull out one
great prop was to make the whole foundation imcertain.

So I floundered on for some years trying, as some of my
higher critical friends are trying today, to continue to use the
Bible as the Word of Gk)d and at the same time holding it
of composite authorship, a curious and disastrous piece of
mental gymnastics — a bridge over the chasm separating an
older Bible-loving generation from a newer Bible-emancipated
race. I saw in the book a great light and glow of heat, yet
shivered out in the cold.

One day it occurred to xne to see what the book had to
say about itself. As a short, but perhaps not the best method,
I took a concordance and looked out "Word," when I found
that the Bible claimed from one end to the other to be the
authoritative Word of God to man. I then tried the natural
plan of taking it as my text-book of religion, as I would use
a text-book in any science, testing it by submitting to its con-
ditions. I found that Christ Himself invites men (John 7:17)
to do this.

I now believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God,
inspired in a sense utterly different from that of any merely
human book.

I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, without
282

A Personal Testimony

human father, conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Vir-
gin Mary. That all men without exception are by nature
sinners, alienated from God, and when thus utterly lost in sin
the Son of God Himself came down to earth, and by shedding
His blood upon the cross paid the infinite penalty of the guilt
of the whole world. I believe he who thus receives Jesus
Christ as his Saviour is born again spiritually as definitely as
in his first birth, and, so born spiritually, has new privileges,
appetites and affections; that he is one body with Christ the
Head and will live with Him forever. I believe no man can
save himself by good works, or what is commonly known
as a "moral life," such works being but the necessary fruits
and evidence of the faith within.

Satan I believe to be the cause of man's fall and sin, and
his rebellion against God as rightful governor. Satan is the
Prince of all the kingdoms of this world, yet will in the end be
cast into the pit and made harmless. Christ will come again
in glory to earth to reign even as He went away from the
earth, and I look for His return day by day.

I believe the Bible to be God's Word, because, as I use it
day by day as spiritual food, I discover in my own life as well
as in the lives of those who likewise use it a transformation
correcting evil tendencies, purifying affections, giving pure de-
sires, and teaching that concerning the righteousness of God
which those who do not so use it can know nothing of. It is
as really food for the spirit as bread is for the body.

Perhaps one of my strongest reasons for believing the
Bible is that it reveals to me, as no other book in the world
could do, that which appeals to me as a physician, a diagnosis
of my spiritual condition. It shows me clearly what T am by
nature — one lost in sin and alienated from the life thai is in

283

The Higher Criticism and The Nczv Theology

God. I find in it a consistent and wonderful revelation, from
Genesis to Revelation, of the character of God, a God far re-
moved from any of my natural imaginings.

It also reveals a tenderness and nearness of God in Christ
which satisfies the heart's longings, and shows me that the
infinite God, Creator of the world, took our very nature upon
Him that He might in infinite love be one with His people to
redeem them. I believe in it because it reveals a religion
adapted to all classes and races, and it is intellectual suicide
knowing it, not to believe it.

What it means to me is as intimate and difficult a question
to answer as to be required to give reasons for love of father
and mother, wife and children. But this reasonable faith gives
me a different relation to family and friends ; greater tender-
ness to these and deeper interest in all men. It takes away
the fear of death and creates a bond with those gone before.
It shows me God as a Father who perfectly understands, who
can give control of appetites and affections, and rouse one to
fight with self instead of being self-contented.

And if faith so reveals God to me I go without question,
wherever He may lead me. I can put His assertions and
commands above every seeming probability in life, dismissing
cherished convictions and looking upon the wisdom and ratio-
cinations of men as folly if opposed to Him. I place no limits
to faith when once vested in God, the sum of all wisdom and
knowledge, and can trust Him though I should have to stand
alone before the world in declaring Him to be tru«.

Date Due

f

'^•> -

Snv-^i

.J\

Al^

-W«JM""*

__ ^, . iir-«

^

BS500 .T&9

The Higher criticism and the new