THE HIGHER CRITICISM 
 T HE NEW THEOLOG Y 
 
 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