Our final inquiry in the province of criticism Will be as to the results of that which moue properly answers to the so frequently used phrase, “higher criticism."
Examination of Meaning, and Capacity Needed for It.
If Higher Criticism be understood according to a definition given, as “the critical examination of meaning with all its attendant references and connections," we find ourselves already informed of the basis upon which the judgment of higher criticism rests.
By such an examination the meaning, and the only meaning, of any human literature, must be sought.
“Attendant references and connections “having been corrected, the meaning and purpose of the writer will be interpreted accordingly.
The examination, having as the object of its criticism the man, his meaning and the circumstances of his writing, the interpretation of the meaning depends upon the judgment of human intelligence.
With respect to merely human literature, the competency of such a judgment is perfectly adequate; but natural human intelligence has no capacity for interpreting a divine meaning.
An intelligence in divine truth, not in human criticism, is needed. The capacity required is, not that of forming a human, judgment, but that of accepting judgment of self by that which is divine.
God's truth being the standard of truth, its meaning interpret itself on these principles. Even if the cobbler fails to see what is in the statue, still he may come to appreciate the work of art, provided he suffers the ignorance and pride of his cobbler's criticism to be judged by it as such.
The Question Prior to Examination of Meaning
In the matter of the interpretation of the of the Scriptures, the question, then, that first must be determined is whether the Scriptures are to be received as God's Word or man's evidence must determine.
If they convey a divine meaning, mail has been used as the instrument, his circumstances as the means of “fulfilling the purpose of a divine author. An examination of the details connected with the instrument may afford much that is interesting and even instructive, but for understanding the meaning of what is written a knowledge of the Author's mind, not of his instrument, is the essential thing. To assume as it premise that the meaning of Scripture is learned from a critical examination, is thus to deny at the foundation that the Scriptures are God's word, And this higher criticism does. For though its premises are perfectly" legitimate, if' properly guarded, and if its own position be definitely and plainly declared, it does not so define them; and by not doing so, it plainly leaves the inference to be drawn, that the meaning of Scripture is to be interpreted by a critical examination of it: The German nomenclature, in its choice of the term "higher criticism," has certainly found one which admirably expresses its character. Very little concern is ever shown for the solidity of the foundations of its elaborate buildings. They are probably too low for its consideration.
In considering the question as to whether God or man is to be received as the author of the Scriptures, no other principle is required than those which the critic himself declares he has taken as his “guides." The position of higher critics, as defined by “one of the first and most generally accepted of that school, may be taken as fairly representing it.
Professor Robertson Smith states that “the ordinary laws of evidence and good sense must be our guides. And these we must apply to the Bible just as we should do to any other ancient book." But it must be confessed that the good sense of the critic is frequently apparent only to himself or his party.
This enunciation of higher critics' principles calls for some examination. The words sound fair enough, and are meant to be so. But if Prof. Smith's article on the Bible in the Encyclopedia Britannica is to decide, his own principles have not been his guides. It is not the principles generally, speaking, to
which any exception has been taken, but the higher critic's imperfect and uncritical use of them.
The sphere of criticism and inquiry as to any other ancient literature is readily understood. From internal and comparative evidence, the claim found within the writings as to authorship and authenticity calls primarily for consideration, and must be Accepted or rejected according as the contents are found to agree or to conflict with the claim.
With any other ancient literature, the sphere of the inquiry is limited to the man, his writings and his circumstances. The contents do not raise any other question. But if' this is all with the Scriptures, any other ancient literature may be considered as equally inspired with the Scriptures, or the Scriptures equally uninspired with them.
The Consequence of the Claim to a Divine Authorship
But in contrast to any other ancient literature, the Scriptures as a whole make a definite claim to be God's Word, a claim which certainly is both recognized and authorized by the word of the Son of God,—which must assuredly either be owned or Christianity openly repudiated.
It is this claim for which the ordinary laws of evidence demand first consideration, —the authorship claimed within the body of a work being recognized by ordinary laws as having. the title to acceptance till proved false. If the writers and their circumstances be proved by the critic to be as real as those of any other ancient literature, the question of the divine authorship is in no wise settled by this. That question must be decided by the evidence the Scriptures give as a whole. The sum-total of that evidence will show whether these writings were only the product of the Aril" and genius of the writers themselves, or whether writers and circumstances have given writings which are the product of the grace and power of a divine author.
Harmony, Sequence and Completeness the Scripture
All that is necessary as convincing proof of the divine source and authorship of the Scriptures, is the evidence of a unity and harmony of subject and purpose throughout. None, certainly, would be found bold enough to state that the independent writers fulfilled purposely and consciously each his part in one great whole. Neither could one with any pretense to reason defend the proposition that it connected and perfect whole had sprung from chance,-an infinite variety of interests an& circumstances and purposes of independent writers accidentally resulting in a connected and perfect whole.
It is for the critic to explain how the writings of a. lawgiver at the head of a nomad people,—of a king in exile and then on his throne,—of a prophet-herdsman of Tekoa,—of one who saw Jehovah on the throne of His glory,—of one who himself passed through the woes and humiliation of the destruction of his city,—of fisherman, publican and Pharisee,—not only agree with each other, hut are each found to give truth supplementary to the rest so as give a complete whole. There is not a subject in Scripture that is not begun by one writer, taken up by another, and completed by another, each one being of different station and in diverse circumstances from the rest.
Moses the Prophet, Aaron the High Priest, Joshua the Captain, David the beloved King, Solomon the glorious King, in fact almost every prominent individual spoken of within the Old 'Testament, gives the proof of the failures they were in themselves in respect to the very character of perfection in which they, as types, point to Him who was to come.
The Evidence of Types.
One example only of the perfectness of the Scripture, and of its character may be noted.
Men stand out in its history with the most in dividual characters, essentially human, with their ways, failings and sins fully recorded; and yet so recorded, that in their most striking features, both in similarity and in contrast, they illustrate with much simplicity and plainness the life and death of Him Whose Person and work the New Testament Scriptures unfold. This fact clearly declares and proves these records to be essentially divine.
Neither are the types found confined to individual biographies. As with them, so with the vicissitudes and incidents of nomad and political life of a people, and so with the very laws and sacrifices and the people's history in connection with them; so too with the utterances of prophecy. Each taken by itself or compared merely with some other, may seem wholly meaningless and hopelessly confused and unintelligible. But the ” holy writings written aforetime," are not only intelligible but illustrate each in some particular, and together in almost every possible way, the one and perfect message of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ.
But if the evidence of milt), and harmony throughout Scripture is plain enough for a child to recognize it, it is also so powerful as to compel the critic to take notice of it, or else forfeit his name as such.
The Confession of the Critic
The testimony of the critic is sufficiently clear, while it may fairly be considered unbiassed evidence, and in this respect may be worth giving. Professor Jowett says, with reference to this unity and harmony:—"It may be compared to the effect of some natural scene, in which we suddenly perceive a harmony, or picture, or to the imperfect appearance of design which suggests itself in looking at the surface of the globe. That is to say there is nothing miraculous or artificial in the arrangement of the books of' Scripture; it is the result, not the design, which appears in them when hound in the same volume; or, if we like so to say, there is design, but it natural design which is revealed to after ages."
The critic himself thus places the evidence the Scriptures give to the unity and harmony perceived throughout their contents, on a level with that presented by a. landscape or picture. What is involved in this concession by one of the principal masters of the Higher Critic School is worthy of fuller consideration by those who follow in his steps. Men and their history have been made to fulfill,—and hence in their result witness to—the mind and purpose of a divine Author, as the works of nature attest the power and Will of a. Creator, or the picture a man's power and mind.
This is as full a concession as could possibly be desired that the glory and greatness of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will ought to be seen here, and that He has held history in His hand for the giving of His word to man.
Either, then, the religious critic must retire from his position and take his place among atheists, or he must advance and bow to the truth the Scripture has declared, because God has spoken it.
The Concessions of Critics Contrast Ed With Their Philosophies
Is it not remarkable that these philosophers themselves by their own concessions give away the very position they take? But in their study they at least have had sufficient occupation with facts to know they cannot deny them as facts. And thus they have to concede them, although giving their own theories. In this respect we make a difference between philosophers' philosophy and the popular conceptions of their theories. 'Their followers are enamored of their ideas, especially when these tend to give the reins practically to self-will and encourage the feeling of irresponsibility.
Mr. Spencer
Mr. Spencer states " our consciousness of the Absolute, indefinite though it is, is positive not negative." And " though the Absolute cannot in any manner or degree be known, in the strict sense of knowing, yet we find that its positive existence is a necessary datum of consciousness:" Again, " it is rigorously impossible to conceive that our knowledge is a knowledge of Appearances only without at the same time conceiving a Reality of which they are appearances, for appearance without reality is unthinkable." His followers quote his philosophy and accept him as their master' for teaching that appearances only are real.
Mr. Huxley.
Mr. Huxley writes: " Our one certainty is the existence of the mental world." Atheism he knew could not stand before scientific facts. His knowledge of these facts made him feel that the plain acknowledgment of not knowing Him to whom scientific facts testify, could only be evaded by seeking to clothe it with a better sounding title, as his Agnosticism. Not so with his professed followers, as was proved by a recent letter in a daily paper when the Writer gave it as his opinion that Mr. Huxley would have been more consistent with his own teaching if he had professed himself to be, as the writer signed himself, an " Atheist."