The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1903. THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 59, 10 March 1903, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1903. THE HIGHER CRITICISM.

F«r the causa that lacks assistance Fer the wrong that needs resistance For the future in the distance And the good that we can do.

It is not often that Mr Balfour and

the German Emperor have occasion to agree publicly about anything; but, according to our cables, the British Prime Minister takes tip almost precisely the Kaiser's attitude towards what is generally called the Higher Criticism. The tendency nowadays is for those critics who lay stress upon archaeological and linguistic research to emphasize the divergence between the biblical and the scientific record. But there are many notable exceptions to this rule, and Mr A. J. Balfour can claim to have done mure than most English thinkers to defend the orthodox view of Christianity by adapting it to the exigencies of modern thought. His book on the "Foundations of Belief," Ihough it can hardly be termed a philosophic work of a high intellectual order, is yet an inspiring and forcible attempt to justify that faith in the J_upp_ natural on which all

religions are based. Few writers havo devoted more dialectical skill to the task of revealing the illogical and unscientific assumptions on which materialism is based. The lirst half of tlie "Foundations of Belief may be accepted as a valuable exposition of tlie utter wei.kncss and ineflicacy of tbe dogmatism of those scientists, who, with Professor .7. K. Cliflord, assert that "the world is made up of el her and atoms, and ther.. is no room for ghosts." But when, like Kant. Mr Balfour finds that in his search tor truth he must desert tlie intellectual for tin. moral faculties, and, when reason fails, fall back upon faith, it is possible that he may not so easily carry his

readers with him. These matters are, however, beyond tlie range of our present discussion ; and we wish only to call attention to n side of Mr Balfour's intelleclual activity which ought to be better known and appreciated. Most people arc aware of Mr Balfour's veligions convictions only through his rattier unfortunate connection with the KducaI ion Bill, and his iv willing alliance with extremists like Lord Hugh .CciT. But his N'oin-oiiforniis' critics have failed in this particular to do him jusi ice. There arc few books in the language so wide iii their conceptions of religion, or so "intellectually tolerant, as flic "Defence of Philosophic Doubt." and the '-Foundations of Belief." The Kaiser's share in theological controversy has no-1 taken so literary or so j philosophical form. \ few months ago lie caused great agitation among orthodox circles in Berlin by attending n lecture delivered by Professor l')elilz._i on I

Bible evidences. Professor l_.Hr_.eli is a well-known exponent of the "destructive'" views held by Tlavuack and other German nvcluioologi.ts; and his "Babel and Bible" lecture seems to have shocked Berlin orthodoxy to an unprecedented, degree. The lecturer deall chiefly with lhe imports'.nen of the study of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions as throwing light oi' tin- Old and Xew Testaments. Incidentally, he made a number of remarks calculated to rouse a certain amount of anxiety among those who attach import ance. to the theory of verbal inspiration. '•There is no greater mistake of the human mind.'' said the, lecturer, -than the belief that the Bible is a personal revelation of God. Tlie contents of the Bible really controvert this view. The Book of Job contains passages which verge on blasphemy. Tho Song of Solomon has lyne- which celebrate worldly delights. Scientific tlieol-oo-y long ago recognised and doimmstrat-

Ed thai by constant reconstruction nnd adaptation of entirely heterogeneous literary elcmenls lhe Biblo has become the canon of Scripture that we now possess." The whole lecture was. ... fact. :ui attempt io deal with (he Biblical record on a rationalistic basis. Professor Delitzeh drew a close parallel between the Hebrew and Babylonian civilisations, pointed to various elements common to both Assyrian and Biblical religious conceptions, and attributed the discrepancies in the Xew Testa-

ment narrative to tlie love of mystery. nnd of fanciful stories always t-haracter-istic of the Oriental mind- Whatever may be said for the lecture scientifically, it was certainly not orthodox, and the Kaiser soon found that his attendance had produced a very painful impression upon the "Positivist" church party which has hitherto regarded him as its natural head. Tn very characteristic fashion the Kaiser set himself to remove these suspicions last month, and in a letter to Admiral Holhnann, a distinguished Oriental scholar, he strongly deprecated the conclusions favoured by Delitzeh in his notorious lecture. The Kaiser emphatically declares for revelation, and predicts that archaeological research will only serve to confirm the fundamental truths of Scripture. That there may he no mistake about the Imperial views, copies of the Kaiser's statement have been sent to all the chaplains of the Royal Navy. It would be interesting to compare the processes by which two such strongly contrasted natur.es as those of the German Emperor and Mr Balfour arrive at something like the same eonelu-

sion. It is safe to assume that Mr Balfour, in his remarks, just cabled, refers rather to the spiritual, basis of orthodoxy, and the Kaiser to the more material question of Biblical evidence; but in the eyes of popular orthodoxy the results are much the same, and the names of Mr Balfour and the Kaiser may yet descend to posterity linked together as two twentieth century Defenders or tlie Faith.