^ 
 
 
 TW^ 
 
 o\d 
 
 
 
 tV^^ 
 
 
 V/WVxs 
 
 3. ^eeaWe-r 
 
S. r.'oi 
 
 ■^^^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 ^t iSst ^¥aiHm ^ 
 
 ^^. 
 
 fit. 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 */5 
 
 '4f 
 
 Division 
 Section ..y 
 
 1 
 
 copy] 
 
* MAY « 1903 
 
 The Old Tradition 
 
 and 
 
 The New 
 
 By Prof. Willis J. Beecher. Auburn Seminary 
 
The substance of this treatise 
 appeared as an article in The 
 CoNGREGATiONALiST of March 7. 
 It is republished in response to re- 
 quests. A considerable portion 
 which was omitted for lack of 
 space when the article was first 
 printed is now restored, making the 
 argument complete, as it came from 
 the writer. 
 
THE OLD TRADITION AND THE NEW 
 
 In a publication of the year 1902 may be 
 found the four paragraphs, defining the issues 
 at stake between the older orthodoxy and the 
 type of Higher Criticism now currently de- 
 nominated the Modern View. I do not name 
 the author because I prefer to treat the publi- 
 cation as representative rather than personal. 
 The ability displayed in it entitles it to be so 
 treated. Many statements of like character 
 have appeared ; this is one of particular excel- 
 lence, chosen from among the many. 
 
 "And what are these two methods? That 
 of the Higher Criticism is — that the Bible shall 
 be interpreted by a devout study of its various 
 parts with all the light that can be thrown upon 
 it from all sources. Its concrete purpose is to 
 ascertain its full and exact history. It has no 
 theory of inspiration ; it simply investigates, 
 and reports what it finds. 
 
 "The method of the other side is based on an 
 unquestioning assent to the Bible as a miracu- 
 lously inspired book, every word literally true, 
 every event historical, without myth or legend 
 — infallible — the whole being the product of the 
 direct inspiration of God and therefore equally 
 authoritative in all its parts. Such and so un- 
 like are the two methods." 
 5 
 
"The two methods cannot be mingled ; each 
 excludes the other by its definition of itself. If 
 either side crosses the dividing line in order 
 to make exceptions, the issue between them 
 dies out and debate ceases for lack of a ques- 
 tion." 
 
 "It should be enough to dispel all doubts and 
 fears over this subject that almost the whole 
 body of educated teachers in our colleges and 
 theological seminaries, as well as those in 
 Great Britain, accept the Higher Criticism in 
 its main points. . . . If this vast body of men 
 are regarded as self-deceived and mistaken in 
 conclusions which they have reached through 
 close and conscientious scrutiny, the question 
 may well be raised whether those who doubt 
 them are sane." 
 
 The first of these four paragraphs, as here 
 arranged, defines the position of the Higher 
 Criticism ; the second defines the position of 
 the old orthodoxy; the third affirms that we 
 must all necessarily take one or the other of 
 these two positions; the fourth gives a reason, 
 affirmed to be sufficient, why we should prefer 
 the position of the Higher Criticism. 
 
 I. The definition of the Higher Criticism 
 here given is a definition of an ideal. No well 
 read man would say that it is true of all higher 
 critics now living. There are higher critics 
 and higher critics. 
 
 The cited passage says that the higher crit- 
 ics practice "a devout study" of the Scriptures. 
 6 
 
Their opponents take pleasure in testifying 
 that there are devout higher critics among the 
 advocates of the Modern View. Many of them 
 are devout in a strictly theistic sense. Others 
 are devout in the sense in which an atheist may 
 be devout. Still others are distinctly and avow- 
 edly not devout. It is not probable that those 
 who are Oiristianly devout would for a moment 
 think of claiming that they constitute a ma- 
 jority. 
 
 Again, the cited passage says that the High- 
 er Criticism studies the Bible "with all the 
 light that can be thrown upon it from all 
 sources." The one principal objection made 
 to the prevalent Higher Criticism by its op- 
 ponents is that it refuses to do just this thing. 
 Their objection is not that it refuses to ac- 
 cept their theory of inspiration, but that it re- 
 fuses to use "all the light . . from all sources." 
 Their view is that to an irrational degree it 
 rejects testimony, particularly the testimony of 
 the Bible itself, and that in the same irration- 
 al manner it accepts mere conjecture in the 
 place of evidence. 
 
 The passage asserts that the Higher Criti- 
 cism "has no theory of inspiration." This 
 may be true of the Higher Criticism, but it 
 7 
 
certainly is not true of the higher critics. 
 Some of them are silent on the subject; but 
 a good many seek to reassure their opponents 
 by affirming that the Bible has an inspiration 
 that renders it unique; while others, probably 
 the majority, treat the Biblical claims to 
 unique inspiration as mere fable, and make 
 this presupposition basal in their investigations. 
 The theory that the Scriptures are false in 
 claiming to be inspired is just as really a the- 
 ory of inspiration as is the theory that they 
 are inspired. As a matter of fact the pub- 
 lished works of the scholars of the Modern 
 View are as much afifected by the opinions 
 their authors hold concerning inspiration as 
 are the published works of the older orthodoxy. 
 Once more, the cited passage says that the 
 Higher Criticism "simply investigates, and re- 
 ports what it finds." It does not confine its 
 report, however, to matters of fact as distin- 
 guished from philosophy or doctrine. Higher 
 critics of reputation report that they find the 
 doctrines, heretofore held by Christians to be 
 either groundless or positively false in such 
 matters as the incarnation, the birth of Jesus, 
 his miracles, his resurrection, liis atonement, 
 his mediatorial character, many of his specific 
 8 
 
teachings, a large part of his biography, the 
 personal Holy Spirit, the individual interest 
 taken by God in his creatures. If any one 
 thinks that this is too sweeping a statement 
 of the case, let him take a full course of read- 
 ing in the Encylopcdia Bihlica, or in other 
 works of that stripe. After that, let him ask 
 himself: Provided these men are correct, can 
 we be sure that even the peerless humanity of 
 Jesus is anything more than a figment of the 
 imagination? Provided they are correct, is 
 the fatherhood of God anything else than a 
 figure of speech? 
 
 Some one will reply that it is not fair to 
 charge higher critics indiscriminately with the 
 teaching of such doctrines as these. Of course 
 it is not ; that is the point I wish to make. 
 And it is equally unfair to credit them in- 
 discriminately with a fine devotedness to evan- 
 gelical doctrine. If the higher critics who love 
 the gospel will persist in ranging themselves 
 with those who deny every teaching of the 
 gospel, they can hardly blame others for fol- 
 lowing the same classification. The higher 
 critics who reject virtually the entire range of 
 distinctive Christian teaching are neither few 
 nor inconspicuous nor reticent. They claim 
 9 
 
that this rejection is the logical result of the 
 principles of Higher Criticism accepted in the 
 Modern View. In making this claim they are 
 immensely in the majority; for in this point 
 all the Christian opponents of the Modern 
 View agree with them, and the avowed ene- 
 mies of Christianity agree with them. In 
 denying that these conclusions properly result 
 from the premises with which they start, the 
 gospel-loving higher critics are a relatively 
 small minority. This is the case as it stands : 
 An influential portion of the scholars of the 
 Modern View repudiate most of the great 
 truths of Christianity, as these have hitherto 
 been understood ; the present trend of the 
 Modern View is strongly in this direction ; and 
 nowhere among the scholars of the Modern 
 View is there an expression of any but the 
 mildest opposition to it. 
 
 II. In the passage cited it is affirmed that "the 
 method of the other side is based on an un- 
 questioning assent to the Bible as a miraculous- 
 ly inspired book." "Unquestioning assent" "has 
 come to be an ambiguous term. It is one thing 
 to demand unquestioning assent before inves- 
 tigation, and quite another to demand it as a 
 result of investigation. The term may be 
 
 10 
 
applied, though not felicitously, to the attitude 
 of one who unhesitatingly clings to the con- 
 victions he has reached through investigation. 
 It is only in this sense that it truthfully de- 
 scribes the Protestant orthodox doctrine con- 
 cerning the Scriptures. At least the common 
 doctrine of American Protestant scholars has 
 not been that we are to believe the Scriptures 
 unquestioningly without investigating their 
 claims, but that we are first to investigate, 
 and then, if we find them to be the Word of 
 God, accord to them the credence to which that 
 fact entitles them. 
 
 Again, the cited passage says that the older 
 view of the Bible counts "every word literally 
 true, every event historical." Here again is 
 an ambiguity of terms. If by "literally true" 
 one means thoroughly true in their own proper 
 meaning, then certainly the older tradition 
 counts all parts of the Bible as literally true; 
 but it has never taught that they were literally 
 true in the sense of wholly excluding figure of 
 speech or fiction. Doubtless it has been too 
 restricted in its recognition of fiction, but in its 
 most rigid construction it has recognized at 
 least the parables of Jesus and the fables of 
 Jotham and Jehoash, with other instances that 
 II 
 
were at least open. It is even true that the 
 most glaring excrescences of the older tradi- 
 tion, namely, its allegorical interpretations and 
 some of its spiritualizing interpretations, have 
 been along the line of an undue recognition of 
 fictional elements. 
 
 It is doubtless true that the older tradition 
 has been narrow and inadequate in its literary 
 theory of the Scriptures. It has been too much 
 dominated by the idea that the supernatural is 
 the unnatural, too ready to interpret marvels 
 into the Scriptures, too open to the suggestion 
 that faith deserves credit for giving credence 
 to the incredible. And if this is true of the 
 old tradition itself, it is also true that among 
 its thousands of advocates some have been in- 
 cluded who were not well balanced, and from 
 whose writings a collection of absurdities 
 might be gathered. There is a wide range of 
 difference of opinion among the advocates of 
 the older tradition as among the advocates of 
 the Modern View; but no merely mechanical 
 doctrine of inerrancy has ever been the prevail- 
 ing doctrine. 
 
 There are a great many of us, opposed to 
 the so-called Modern View, who experience 
 no sensation as of one looking into a mirror, 
 
 12 
 
when we read such a passage as the one that 
 has been cited. Indeed, we are so presumptuous 
 as to claim that we are trying to interpret 
 the Bible "by a devout study of its various 
 parts with all the light that can be thrown up- 
 on it from all sources;" and that our "concrete 
 purpose is to ascertain its full and exact his- 
 tory." At the outset of an investigation we 
 do not assume it to be a fact that the Bible is 
 uniquely inspired; but we equally avoid the 
 assumption that it is not so inspired. We do 
 not assume it to be a fact that the statements 
 of the Bible are all thoroughly truthful, but we 
 also avoid assuming that they are untruthful. 
 We are ready to recognize elements of fiction 
 in the Bible to any extent to which the evidence 
 actually shows that they are there. We are 
 aware that fiction, whether in the form of 
 parable, fable, allegory, poem, myth or legend, 
 may be as truthful in its own proper meaning 
 as fact can be, and may teach tlie same spirit- 
 ual lessons which it would teach if it were fact. 
 But we insist that questions of this kind shall 
 be decided upon evidence and not according 
 to the exigencies of some preconceived theory. 
 And in dealing with the evidence we insist that 
 the testimony of the Bible on any point shall 
 be examined before it is rejected. 
 
We are ready to accept evolution as a fact 
 to the extent to which it is proven to be a 
 fact. Beyond that, we are wilHng to accept it 
 as a working hypothesis up to the point where 
 it comes into conflict with facts. Our behef 
 that the supreme energy of the universe is a 
 personal God does not preclude our accepting 
 evolution as a method in which the personal 
 God ordinarily works. But we do not believe 
 that Jehovah is the slave of evolution any more 
 than that Jupiter is the slave of the fates. 
 
 We try to deal with the miraculous ele- 
 ments in the Bible on the basis of the fair 
 weighing of evidence. Past generations have 
 shown a disposition to interpret marvels into 
 the Scriptures. We are willing to part with 
 all supposed miraculous elements that can fair- 
 ly be eliminated by just interpretation or ex- 
 planation or any other process consistent with 
 the evidence in the case. But we insist that some 
 one's notion that God never works a miracle 
 is not by itself a sufficient reason for declaring 
 accredited testimony to be false. 
 
 In fine, the question of method that separates 
 us from tlie higher critics of the Modern View 
 is the question as to how testimony is to be re- 
 garded. We affirm that in the beginnings of 
 14 ; 
 
an investigation statements of fact are to be 
 provisionally received as true, except as there 
 exist reasons for not so receiving them; and 
 that, as the investigation proceeds, these pro- 
 visional results are to be finally accepted save 
 in so far as reasons may appear for rejecting 
 or modifying them, or for holding them open. 
 This differs from the rule sometimes attributed 
 to us, namely, that Biblical statements of fact 
 are to be accepted unless they are positively 
 disproved. At the outset we make no differ- 
 ence between Biblical statements of fact and 
 other statements of fact. 
 
 I do not know to what extent the higher crit- 
 ics of the Modern View would dispute the 
 rule for testimony, as I have stated it. It is 
 not easy to see how any one can dispute it. 
 But if they accept the rule, their procedure 
 under it is very different from ours. They 
 have among them an established tradition of 
 some hundreds or thousands of instances of 
 false statements in the Old and New Testa- 
 ments. It seems to us that they accept these 
 instances without due scrutiny. The accepting 
 of them creates in the mind the impression that 
 other statements of fact from the same sources 
 are likely to be untrustworthy; and so their d:s- 
 15 
 
regard of the Biblical testimony grows as they 
 proceed in their investigations. We, on the 
 contrary, examine each of the alleged instances 
 before rejecting it, with the result that most of 
 the instances at once disappear, and our confi- 
 dence in the Bible testimony grows as we pro- 
 ceed. As our courses diverge, we are compelled 
 to regard theirs as unscientific and misleading 
 and disastrous. As for us, we reach at length 
 a position where we are able to affirm with 
 conviction the propositions which we waived 
 at the outset, namely the thorough truthfulness 
 and the unique divine inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures, and therefore the authoritative character 
 of their teachings. 
 
 Our differences with the men of the Modern 
 View are not merely or rhainly over their de- 
 structive criticism. " If they closed their la- 
 bors with the completion of the destructive 
 work, they and we might still agree concerning 
 the contents of the Biblical narrative as it 
 has been handed down to us. We might un- 
 derstand the story alike, and learn from it the 
 same spiritual lessons, though they would af- 
 firm that much of it is not fact, and that we 
 have no means of knowing what the actual 
 facts were. But they are not content to leave 
 l6 
 
the matter thus. Having completed their work 
 of destruction, they must needs reconstruct the 
 history. Rejecting half the facts as affirmed in 
 the testimony, both those that outline the "his- 
 tory and those that concern its details, they 
 are compelled to substitute slenderly drawn 
 inferences and analogies, or mere conjectures, 
 thus building up a new account, utterly ir- 
 reconcilable with the old, of the origin and 
 progress of the religion of Jehovah. This 
 new account — or rather, these new accounts, 
 for each critic has his own view of the recon- 
 structed history — are confessedly without any 
 adequate basis of facts. Really, each of them 
 is a work of fiction, presenting its author's 
 idea of the way in which certain things pre- 
 sumably evohed themselves. For my own 
 part, if I agreed witfi these writers in thinking 
 that the Biblical version of the history is 
 untrue to fact, I should still immensely prefer 
 the ancient fiction in the case to any of the 
 modern fictions. And when these recent works 
 of fiction, with their confessed lack of founda- 
 tion in fact, claim to be received as historical, 
 * to the superseding of the history as given in 
 the Old and New Testaments, this seems to 
 many of us more objectionable than even the 
 destructive criticism that preceded. 
 
III. The passages that have been cited affirm 
 that ''the two methods camiot be mingled," 
 that "if either side crosses the dividing Hne . . , 
 the issue between them dies out and debate 
 ceases for lack of a question." Whatever this 
 may mean, it is uncritical. The proper ques- 
 tion to ask is not, "Which side is true?" but, 
 "What is the truth in the case?" The ceasing 
 of debate is not a calamity, provided the de- 
 bate ceases because the question is solved. 
 
 In its context this statement that the two 
 methods cannot be mingled seems to be given 
 as a reason why we should not flinch even 
 when the conclusions of the Higher Criticism 
 become startling and shocking. The reasoning 
 seems to be that there are* just these two po- 
 sitions to take and no others, so that the only 
 thing to do is to choose one of the two paths 
 and then follow it, no matter where it leads. 
 
 Instead of this, I should like to advocate a 
 different alignment of the issues involved. The 
 problem is not one of those in which a simple 
 affirmative and a simple negative constitute 
 an exhaustive list of possible mental attitudes. 
 As a matter of fact, it is possible to choose 
 among many different positions. 
 
 I am afraid that the four paragraphs I have 
 i8 
 
cited are not entirely mistaken in the descrip- 
 tion they give of the existing attitude of cer- 
 tain Christian scholars. I am afraid that the 
 division into parties is partly along the lines 
 there indicated. But I believe that attitude to 
 be a forced and unnatural one. I believe that the 
 present party division on these issues is one that 
 separates men who ought to be together, and 
 brings into alliance men whose real views are 
 antagonistic. To be more specific, Christendom 
 is to-day full of thinking men who reject the 
 older teachings concerning the Scriptures, but 
 who are not ready to take an agnostic position 
 concerning written revelation and miracle and 
 prayer and the personal Holy Spirit and the 
 person of Jesus. In using this term I recognize 
 the truth that an agnostic position is the only 
 true position in regard to things that we really 
 cannot know. If one is indeed convinced of 
 the unreality of revelation from God, and of 
 miracle, and of communication with God in 
 prayer, and of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit 
 as Christianity has hitherto presented these, 
 then he ought to be an agnostic on these points, 
 and ought to deem the name an honor, and 
 not a reproach. What I am saying is that many 
 who are not agnostic in their convictions 
 19 
 
are at present allowing themselves to be lined 
 up with the agnostics in the attack upon old- 
 fashioned orthodoxy. Their influence is on 
 the side of agnosticism, while really their dif- 
 ferences with agnosticism, are far more inpor- 
 tant than their differences with orthodoxy. 
 The attitude is an abnormal one, and they 
 ought not to consent to remain in it. 
 
 Here is a higher critic who is also a man of 
 earnest convictions as a Christian. He be- 
 lieves in a heavenly Father who is personal in 
 such a sense that a praying soul can have real 
 communication with him. He believes in a 
 divine Holy Spirit everywhere influencing men 
 for holiness. All his hope centers in the per- 
 son of Jesus. Perhaps he is a Trinitarian, ac- 
 cepting the doctrine that Jesus Christ is at 
 once very God and very man. At all events, 
 he honors and loves Christ as supreme Lord. 
 He counts Jesus as peerless among men. He 
 regards the teachings of Jesus as both intel- 
 lectually and morally worthy of the highest 
 reverence. He regards the Scriptures as in 
 some genuine sense the inspired word of God, 
 containing a revelation of certain divine re- 
 demptive movements, in the centuries before 
 Jesus and in the time wlien Jesus lived. And 
 
 20 
 
he believes these truths to be so important that 
 the great duty of Christendom is to learn them 
 and live them and teach them to all the na- 
 tions. But this same higher critic finds him- 
 self in line with others in the midst of a great 
 conflict that is going on. He is convinced that 
 certain older forms of teaching these doctrines 
 that he loves are crude and mistaken. In 
 particular, he objects to certain views concern- 
 ing the Scriptures as the record of these doc- 
 trines. On the side opposed to him, therefore, 
 he sees the men who represent the older or- 
 thodoxy. Side by side with him, as allies in 
 this battle, he finds men of all shades of opin- 
 ion concerning these religious truths which he 
 regards as so real and so precious. Among 
 them are very many leaders who despise the 
 things that seem to him to be religious truths, 
 deeming them to be illusions, and commiserat- 
 ing him as a man half emancipated; and the 
 trend is strongly to the following of these 
 leaders. What ought this higher critic to do in 
 the circumstances? Is it sufficient for him 
 mildly to remark that personally he thinks 
 these leaders a little extreme in the positions 
 they take? Does he regard the overthrow of 
 the old-fashioned views of the Scriptures as 
 
 21 
 
so supremely important that he is willing, for 
 that end, to bind himself to the silence that 
 gives consent, while his allies flout the religious 
 ideas that seem to him the most true and 
 precious? 
 
 When King Ahaz, contrary to the advice of 
 the prophet, formed an alliance with Assyria 
 against his brethren of the northern kingdom, 
 he made the supreme mistake of Judaite politi- 
 cal history. His policy led to the utter sub- 
 jugation of Judah. Now, as then, it is perilous 
 for any of the tribes of Israel to be in alliance 
 with the Assyrians. 
 
 The difference of method, our difference with 
 this class of higher critics, is important. But 
 it is insignificant compared with that wiiich 
 separates the higher critic who accepts the 
 Jesus of the Gospels as supreme Lord from 
 the other higher critic who regards Jesus as a 
 rather remarkable man, born no one knows 
 where, who somehow became the focus of the 
 imagination of the generations that followed 
 him, thus giving rise to that mass of legendary 
 narrative, half of it incredible and the other 
 half but partly true, now known as the four 
 Gospels. Is it too much to ask that the first of 
 these two higher critics shall be outspoken in 
 
 22 
 
the matters in which he differs with the second? 
 This matter in which he agrees essentially with 
 the men of the older tradition is far more im- 
 portant than the matters in which he disagrees 
 with them. Is he loyal to his convictions 
 if he without protest simply stands by his ag- 
 nostic ally? Surely there ought to be here a 
 new alignment of forces. 
 
 The men who are opposed to unreasonable 
 agnosticism should present a united front. 
 Much of the current Higher Criticism is bale- 
 fully agnostic. Protests against it should be 
 met with welcome and cooperation by reason- 
 able higher critics. Reasonable higher critics 
 should not say : We must stand by our allies ; 
 we cannot cross the line to make exceptions. 
 
 The task thus assigned to the reasonable 
 higher critics has its difficulties. It puts upon 
 them the burden of refuting the claim that the 
 agnostic conclusions follow necessarily from 
 principles which they themselves accept — the 
 burden of so defining their principles of Higher 
 Criticism as to exclude the agnostic conclu- 
 sions. Of course, I think the task an impos- 
 sible one. But the attempt would be in many 
 ways salutary. And in any case the higher 
 critic who refuses to become an agnostic is 
 bound to justify his course. 
 
It is easy to say that the personality of Jesus 
 is the great thing in the New Testament and 
 that it is therefore of no particular importance 
 if the men of the New Testament were 
 mistaken in many of their opinions and in many 
 of their statements of fact. I do not now care 
 to discuss this further than to say that if their 
 errors are sufficiently extensive to vitiate their 
 testimony concerning the personality of Jesus, 
 then the matter becomes of the utmost impor- 
 tance. Independent of the New Testament we 
 have no adequate knowledge of the personality 
 of Jesus. Distinguished higher critics affirm 
 that the accounts of the virgin birth, the rising 
 from the dead, the ascension are fables ; that 
 either the account of the death of Jesus or 
 else the several accounts of his interviews with 
 men after his death are untrue; that the pas- 
 sages in Matthew and Luke in which he is rep- 
 resented as speaking in detail of the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem were written after that event, 
 thus proving the late date of these gospels, 
 and proving also that they are mistaken in 
 attributing these sayings to Jesus ; that the 
 account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and 
 all accounts which imply that there was at that 
 time a city called Nazareth are untrue to fact; 
 24 
 
that the account of the sermon on the mount 
 is a make-up, tlie so-called sermon being a 
 piecing together of some one's recollection of 
 various teachings uttered at various times ; 
 that the accounts of the temptation and the 
 various accounts of the miracles of Jesus are 
 colored by the imagination of later generations. 
 
 I suppose that not less than half tlie state- 
 ments made in the four Gospels concerning 
 Jesus are thus discredited, and this of course 
 implies the diminishing of the credit of all the 
 statements that remain. This is done by lead- 
 ers among the higher critics and there is no 
 clear, emphatic repudiation of it by the remain- 
 ing higher critics. But if one to this ex- 
 tent discredits the gospels, can we afterward 
 depend upon their presentation of the person- 
 ality of Jesus as being true to fact? I have 
 no doubt that the personality of Jesus is a 
 living reality to some who hold these views ; 
 but it is so as the product of their religious 
 insight, and at the cost of their intellectual in- 
 consistency. 
 
 Further, it is easy to say that Jesus him- 
 self affirms that there are limitations to his 
 knowledge, and therefore that our high estimate 
 of him need not suffer even if he honestly 
 25 
 
affirmed some things that we now know to be 
 contrary to fact. Here, as in the preceding in- 
 stance, I do not care to discuss the general 
 proposition. The question is not concerning 
 some supposable limitations of the inerrancy 
 either of the Scriptures or of Jesus ; it is con- 
 cerning the limitations that are actuallj'^ at- 
 tributed to them. Distinguished writers affirm 
 that Jesus taught wrong views concerning the 
 history of his nation, concerning Moses and 
 the institutions of Israel, concerning Moses as 
 a writer, concerning David and the Psalms, 
 concerning his own descent from David, con- 
 cerning the powers of healing he exercised, 
 concerning prediction by the ancient prophets, 
 concerning his second coming, concerning his 
 resurrection, concerning the supernatural au- 
 thority of Scripture, concerning many other 
 matters, in fine, that a large percentage of his 
 most important teachings are contrary to the 
 truth. They claim that it is the part of true 
 friendship for Jesus to admit that he was thus 
 mistaken in a large part of the range of his 
 teaching, saying that he could not be expect- 
 ed to be so far in advance of his age as to 
 avoid these mistakes. Now when a man tells 
 me that he thus discounts the statements of 
 26 
 
Jesus, say thirty per cent., and in the same 
 breath tells me that he bows in reverence be- 
 fore the intellectual and moral peerlessness of 
 Jesus, I do not doubt his sincerity, but I 
 think he is more likely than Jesus to be the 
 mistaken man. For most men the peerlessness 
 of Jesus is gone if they get to thinking that he 
 was either so weak-minded or so careless as 
 to be a good deal in the habit of making asser- 
 tions that he did not know to be true. 
 
 If the men who believe in the reality of 
 Jesus as he is accepted in Christian experience 
 would be outspoken in their opposition to 
 those who teach the contrary, and would so 
 define their critical attitude as to justify their 
 belief, there would be a tremendous realign- 
 ment of the forces now engaged in the battles 
 of criticism. 
 
 IV. The reason given in the passages cited 
 for having no "doubts and fears" concerning 
 the Higher Criticism is that it is accepted "in 
 its main points" in the United States and 
 Great Britain by "almost the whole body of 
 educated teachers in our colleges and theologi- 
 cal seminaries." This is an overstatement, 
 though it is nearer to the truth than I wish it 
 were. Those of us wTio do not accept the 
 27 
 
Modern View are not so utterly lonesome as 
 many seem to imagine. 
 
 So far forth as this consensus among men 
 who occupy educational positions is a fact, the 
 fact is largely to be accounted for by the 
 splendid skill with which the men of the Mod- 
 ern View have managed their propaganda, and 
 largely by the phenomenal blundering of their 
 opponents. 
 
 The nature of tbe consensus is not precisely 
 that which one might at first imagine. What 
 are these "main points" on which all tliese 
 scholars agree? Answer this question specifi- 
 cally and you will greatly diminish the signifi- 
 cance of the agreement. Further, there is no 
 point in which the existing consensus is more 
 uniform than in this: that the opinions held 
 ten years hence will probably be very different 
 from those now held. A consensus in regard 
 to matters that are known to be fluctuating 
 differs from a final consensus. 
 
 But even if the consensus were less tentative 
 in its character, and if there were not these 
 ways of accounting for a part of it, and if it 
 were more nearly unanimous than it is, we 
 of the opposition could not consent to be so 
 uncritical as to accept it as conclusive. The 
 28 
 
knowledge of truth depends upon evidence, and 
 not upon majority votes. The opinion of re- 
 spected men has its own proper value as evi- 
 dence, and no more. The consensus in the 
 American and British colleges and seminaries 
 was more complete fifty years ago than it is 
 now. That consensus does not prove that the 
 views then held were true ; and this consensus 
 does not prove that the very different views 
 now held are true. 
 
 On the whole, we may venture to disre- 
 gard this consensus in points in which the 
 evidence seems to us to be against it. 
 
 But if we do this, says the cited passage, 
 "the question may well be raised whether" we 
 "are sane." That is really frightful. Of 
 course one would prefer not to be considered 
 insane. But we do hold that conclusions 
 should be based on evidence rather than on a 
 current fashion of opinion. If this is a mark 
 of insanity we shall have to plead guilty. We 
 take comfort in contemplating certain earlier 
 instances of alleged insanity of this type, the 
 cases of Jeremiah and of Jesus, for example. 
 And inasmuch as the specific delusion charged 
 upon us consists in our being confident that 
 the Scriptures are truthful and inspired, we 
 29 
 
take comfort in reflecting that we share that 
 delusion with nearly all the men who have 
 heretofore made the religion of the Scriptures 
 the greatest blessing the world ever had. On 
 the basis of the rule, "By their fruits ye shall 
 know them," we can afford to compare our 
 views with the views of our opponents. 
 
 Fully conscious that the theories of the past 
 need improvement; acknowledging that the 
 present revolution is in part a revolt against 
 wrong ideas and methods; appreciating the 
 great light from exploration, and the greater 
 light from linguistic studies which have arisen 
 within the past sixty years; recognizing the 
 good work which literary criticism has done at 
 many points ; holding our minds open to every 
 tested discovery of truth from every source; 
 we are yet certain that there will be no final 
 settlement of Biblical questions on the basis of 
 the higher criticism that is now commonly 
 called by that name. Many specific teachings 
 of the system will doubtless abide. But so far 
 forth as it goes upon the assumption that 
 statements of fact in the Scriptures are pretty 
 generally false, so far forth it is incapable of 
 establishing genuinely perrhanent results. 
 
 30 
 
Date Due 
 
 Tj^m^*^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^