THE LIMITATIONS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

In the whilom days of theological controversy, biblical criticism was narrowed to a few simple questions, chiefly suggested by the text, or the history of the pending conflict; but in these days of wider grasp it includes many historical, literary, scientific, and even philosophic questions, subtly emerging from a closer and profounder study of the Bible. We now deal with such subordinate matters as authorship, date and circumstances of composition, and the historical inerrancy of the sacred books, as well as the superior themes of inspiration and interpretation. The range of inquiry is as broad as the book itself; and the right of investigation of its great subjects, though it be an entirely original research, or savors of independence of orthodox limitations, or even professes to unearth the orthodox basis, is as legitimate as the inquiry into the existence of any literature, or the reason for any religious faith. With an unlimited right judicially to examine whatever the Bible intimates or propounds, the Christian scholar should find ample opportunity for the exercise of his restless genius without claiming also the right to investigate, in connection with the Bible, what it does not even remotely hint or indicate. If restrained at all in investigation, therefore, he is restrained by the Bible itself, just as the psychologist is limited by mind, and the geologist by the facts of nature in the sphere of inquiry.

Unlimited and yet limited in the sphere of inquiry, the scholar must next ascertain if a certain mental attitude, or if any attitude at all, is required for the solution of the problems the book itself propounds. It would be anomalous indeed if a certain mental fitness or condition were not necessary to consider the biblical forms of truth.

If the atheistic mind is as well qualified to examine biblical truth monotheism, for example-as the theistic mind; if the infidel may understand the divine teaching quite as well as the believer; if the fullblooded rationalist may interpret Christianity with as much accuracy as the orthodox Christian; if deniers of the historical credibility of the facts of the Old Testament are as competent judges of the historical books as are advocates of their integrity, and if rejecters of the supernatural are as likely to detect its manifestations, and as able to estimate its relation to the natural as those who recognize it in providence, nature, history, and religion, it is time to know it, for no other truth, historical or scientific, can be safely investigated by minds entirely out of sympathy with it. It has come to pass, indeed, that faith is considered a disqualification for the comprehension of the thing believed, or for an analysis of the evidence by which it is supported, and doubt is exalted into an instrument of helpful influence for ascertaining what is true and what is false. The dictum of Hume, that doubt is the sum of knowledge," is in some Christian circles appropriated in lieu of faith as a guiding principle, and boldly announced as the only safety for faith itself. Hence the opposition among critical Christians to pure orthodoxy, or traditionalism, as it is sneeringly called, or Christianity as accepted in the Church.

Faith, as an instrument of progress, is disowned, and doubt is honored with ovations. This explains the popularity of the Christian doubter; or at least the notoriety that is achieved if he is bold enough to renounce some of the leading points of orthodoxy. If he will only deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, or deride the Messianic prophecies, or bisect Isaiah, or again “saw him asunder," or eliminate Daniel as a sacred writer, or do something that the Church has not approved, he is considered heroic, scholarly, and progressive. He may be just what the coterie of critics think he is, but he may also be entirely wrong, or a subverter of the faith, without knowing it, or without caring to know what evil he hath done.

In the investigation of a biblical problem there is a starting-point, a mental attitude, which may determine the direction of the investigation and largely influence the final result. The investigator may commence with a repudiation of all accepted views respecting the problem, or with an acceptance of what is supposed to be established, or he may assume that he is unbiased by any view and really holds no opinion at all. If he insists upon the last position, he is not a Christian believer, but an agnostic; if he thoughtfully reject all accepted views he is not a believer but an infidel; if he announce his predilection for the orthodox theory of the Bible, is it possible that he is more likely to fail in reaching right conclusions than the agnostic or infidel? Have the agnostic and infidel an advantage, by reason of their agnosticism, over the orthodoxist in the investigation of biblical problems? History does not answer this question in the affirmative, nor does reason give it any countenance. If the agnostic is the only competent critic of biblical questions, the sooner the orthodoxist becomes an agnostic the better; and this is the drift of things-to put a ban on orthodox and to encourage agnostic investigation.

To the contrary, we assume that an orthodox prepossession touching the settlement of a biblical problem is rather a stimulus to right investigation, and that faith is a more powerful auxiliary in the comprehension of the Bible than is doubt. It gives direction and authority to the inquiry; the inquirer, too, knows what he is trying to do, whereas the agnostic has no definite aim before him; the sincere inquirer also is ready to accept facts and change conclusions when the evidence is in hand; he works not with a theory before him, but with a belief, a system, a truth, which is all-powerful and all-stimulating; and he is afraid of nothing. What is it that he accepts in advance as guiding facts? What truths does he seek to establish?

In our controversy touching destructive "higher criticism," so-called, we have done little more than attack and expose the policy of a class of destructive critics, without clearly advancing our own views or advocating special positions and interpretations. Hence our critics have suspected that we were in league with abandoned conservatism, or old exploded views touching the great problems of the Bible, and that the Methodist Review represented a reaction in scholarship. Our positions, however,

have been unassailable, because they have not been announced, except that we have endeavored to make it clear that we are opposed to destructive criticism, or a criticism essentially rationalistic and subversive of faith in the Bible as it is received by the Christian Church. It is time, therefore, to state definitely the orthodox position touching the problems of higher criticism, adopting that position as our own; and this we do in the following order:

1. We believe in the right of investigation of the problems that the Bible itself makes, and that neither reverence, superstition, education, nor belief should impair this right when exercised within the named limitations.

2. We hold that some traditional views need modification, some proofs need emendation, and some facts need verification. Let archæology, philology, and history speak with the facts they can furnish, but not impose the theories of investigators upon our belief.

3. We hold that some biblical problems have been settled, and reject the view that the Bible, with all it contains, is an open question. The Bible has been too long in the world to turn out to be nothing more than an interrogation-point. We are not radical enough to deny every thing, or to unsettle the settled.

4. We approve of higher criticism so far as it aims at the development of biblical problems and the establishment of biblical facts and truths. If we were infidel or agnostic, we should believe in destructive criticism. If we were rationalistic, we should be opposed to the orthodox conception of the Bible; but, as a Christian believer, we must vindicate higher criticism up to, but not beyond, the limits of conservative faith in the integrity of the Bible as a supernatural book. The Earl of Shaftesbury says: "It would be easier for me to give up revelation altogether, and reject the whole Scriptures, than accept it on the terms, with the conditions, and the immediate and future limitations of it imposed by higher criticism." It is unquestionable that higher criticism must be under limitation if it be not subversive of a proper and rational faith.

5. Holding that higher criticism beyond a certain point is agnostic and rationalistic, we also hold that such criticism in this country has reached the danger-point, and is in spirit rationalistic. Dr. McCosh says we borrow our heresies from Germany, and, as some of our critics are thoroughly Germanized, we discover in them the heretical or rationalistic taint. There are many higher critics in the land who are as safe in their inquiries and as prudential in their utterances as the most conservative believer would require. Such we hail with congratulations, and shall move forward with them in the thorough investigation of the great book which courts a trial before the world. Individually, we assume to be a conservative higher critic, agreeing with Dr. James Strong, of Drew Theological Seminary; Professor Harman, of Dickinson College; Professor Green, of Princeton, and many others in the land, because conservative criticism builds up and confirms Protestant faith in the Bible.

6. We hold that the investigation thus far made in archæology, philol

ogy, and history destroys the rationalistic theory of the Bible, and supports the beliefs of the conservative critics. Professor Sayce, speaking of the newly discovered Assyrian library, says it overthrows the conjectures of historical criticism. This statement we accept. Professor Warring, in our last issue, shows that the Babylonian account of creation is contrary to that in Genesis, and, therefore, that the latter was not borrowed from the former, thus silencing the critics. This conclusion we accept. The expedition to Babylon from the University of Pennsylvania reports in favor of the biblical account of the tower of Babel, thus establishing, so far, the truthfulness of the Pentateuch, and once more confounding the critics. This result also we accept. The Society of Biblical Archæology reports that on one of the cylinders unearthed at Babylon much of Nebuchadnezzar's history, as written in the Book of Daniel, is confirmed. This fact we accept. M. Naville, an explorer in Egypt, has discovered monumental proof of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Ezekiel in reference to that country, which proof we accept. In short, the evidence thus far accumulated is against the destructive critics, which is one reason why we cannot agree with them; and, accepting the Bible as true, we are willing to wait until the evidence is all in before we change our view. The trouble with the destructive critics is, that they commenced with the foregone 'conclusion that conservative criticism was incorrect, and now that they are wrecked by the facts in the case it is not surprising that in humiliation some of them are undertaking to find a way back into the faith of the Church. We welcome them, but not their errors, with open arms.

The reader will observe that our statements, as given above, are general, but they may serve to relieve him of any suspicion of our attitude toward higher criticism, and will prepare him for a specific announcement of views respecting the questions involved in criticism, which we do in the following order:

1. We hold that there is a Pentateuch, and reject the theory of a Hexateuch. Is not this plain enough?

2. We hold that Moses was, not the compiler but the author, of the Pentateuch. He may or may not have used certain documents, transmitted from other generations, or written by contemporaneous writers, in the preparation of his books, but the use of such documents would not constitute him a compiler any more than the fact that because Gibbon used documents he was the compiler rather than the author of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. There are more documents quoted or used in a single volume of Neander's History of the Christian Church than in the entire Bible, but no one disputes his authorship or refers to him as a mere compiler! The complex "documentary hypothesis" of the higher critics and rationalists is a very different thing from the simple theory of "documents," as applied to the Pentateuch. The former implies a large number of writers as the authors of the several portions of the Pentateuch, which were brought together not by Moses, but by unknown hands at an unknown time and without

66

regard to unity of purpose or the claims of a supernaturalistic revelation. It does not even allow that Moses was the compiler, or that he had any thing to do with Genesis or any other book; so that the Pentateuch is reduced to a collection of miscellaneous documents, gathered from Babylon, Egypt, Arabia, and Moab, with no more authority than Homer's collection of songs or the legends of Assyria. Much of the Pentateuch is history. The account of the exodus and the wanderings of Israel is not post-historic, but written by one who journeyed with the people; hence, there is no need of outside documents at all. As to the account of creation, it is settled that it was not borrowed from Babylon. Why not accept it as a revelation from God? In this event there would be no need of documents. The critics will have to try again. We therefore reject the documentary hypothesis." The other theory of "documents" implies that Moses, like any other author, made use of data at hand in genealogical tables, historical parchments, and current traditions, but it does not rob him of authorship nor reduce him to a compiler. This theory is not fully established, but it may be, and is tentatively held for purposes of investigation as it does not compromise inspiration, infallibility, or any other doctrine current in Christian circles. We therefore pronounce Moses an author and not a compiler. Jesus said (John v, 45-47): "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings [not only his law or prophecy], how shall ye believe my words?" Moses was a writer, an author, and the Pentateuch is his product.

3. We hold that the Book of Isaiah was written by the prophet of that name, and that the Book of Daniel was written by the prophet Daniel. 4. We hold that the prophetical Scriptures are predictive of the Messiah, and that their highest value arises from the predictive element in them. The rationalist rejects this element, and reduces prophecy to a form of religious instruction. This we oppose as destructive of the inspirational character of prophecy.

5. We hold that the historical books of the Old and New Testaments are infallible. Such apparent exceptions as mistakes in dates, numbers, etc., in translations, are incidental to the main fact, and subject to correction as research shall justify. Slight errors, attributable to copyists and expunged as the facts shall be ascertained, do not invalidate the fundamental position of infallibility any more than slight errors in a book of arithmetic invalidate the science of arithmetic. Certainly by reason of such things, if they exist, we are not authorized to form a school or party whose chief programme is to declare against the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. Far better is it to work to eliminate the errors through the purification of the text-a work for "lower" critics-and establish infallibility, than to hurrah over the errors and pronounce against infallibility. Hence, we reject Renan's History of the People of Israel-because it reduces Old Testament history to a myth, and we reject higher