RELIGIOUS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1107, 19 May 1893, Page 19

RELIGIOUS.

y THE BIBLEANDHIGHER CRITICISM. THIRD ADDRESS BY MR STARR AT THE SKATING RINK, WELLINGTON, MAY 14, 1893. "To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear ? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken; Behold, the Word of the Lord is unto them a reproach, they have no delight in it." " How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us ? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribe is in vain. The wise men—have they been ashamed ? They are dismayed and taken; Lo, they have •rejeoted the Word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them?"—Jer. vi., 10 8-8, 9, mar. In the former addresses we have considered the Origin, Inspiration, Compilation, and Power of the Word of God. As to its origin, we have seen that Jehovah—God himself—is its.author, and is the inspiration of all its parts. God has spoken " through prophets in divers manners, in times past," and also " through His Son." " All scripture is given "by inspiration of God." The word inspiration is from the Greek word tlieapneuslos, a combination of two Greek words— theos (Oeos), God, and pneuma (Tveuma), breath—whioh, literally translated, would be: God breathed. All scripture is, therefore, Godbreathed. It was thus that the Heavens and Earth were made—" For by the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the hosts of them, by the breath of His mouth " and-the power of the Word is manifest in creation—past and present—and in redemption also. As to the call of the Bible writers to their work, we have found that it was in the most public manner, and toe credentials given them unmistakably of divine authority. The compilation also we saw was not left to man, as " The Word of God was settled in Heaven." The choosing of the Jewish people as depositories of the Old Testament scriptures was also' a publio matter, _ and their faithfulness as guardians is seen in the fact that we now possess that portion committed to them intact, although that very word contains the most solemn record of all their failure's and sins. The same is true of the New Testament committed to the Christian Church, while it condemns their apostesy, their falling away, they were not able to suppress a single word. We have it intact. God has preserved it from Papal wroth and, infidel flames, and of that Word the Psalmist says: 1 "Thou hast magnified Thy Word above, all Thy name."—Psalms xiii., 8,2. The name of God is hedged about by a commandment—" Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain "—but His Word is exalted above His name. In giving this Word to man God has nowhere called upon man to criticise it, but everywhere to believe it. "Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye. be established; believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper."— 11. Chron. xx., 20. ' \ Higher Criticism Begins at an' early date. The first record we have of it is in the Garden of Eden. There Satan calls in question the words of God to' i.tAdam and Eve: "Yea, hath God said, Ye 'shall not'eat of every tree in the Garden?" The woman replies, stating the Word of God, '• We may eat' of the fruit of the trees of the Garden, but of the tree which is in the midst of the Garden God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it lest, ye die." And the serpent said unto„the woman, Ye shall not surely-die." Here is the highest of higher critics at work, contradicting God, and from that day to the present the controversy has been between the words of God and the words of Satan. " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." And so will it be to any other man who believes God; and ■--•-• to'thbse 1 who doubt God's word it is accounted unrighteousness. No premium is put upon doubting. "The fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death." —Rev. xxi., 8. Satan, the Prince of Critics, had unmistakable qualifications as a critic, For it is written of him: " Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee. . . . Thou sealest up the sun, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." " Wiser than Daniel " and " full of wisdom" certainly are all that could be desired on the point of wisdom, and as to position, he possessed all that could be desired. "Thou art the annotated cherub that covereth ; and I have set thee so." His travels and observations also were equal to the best. "Thou hast been in Eden, the Garden of God. Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God. Thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."— Ezekielfxxviii., 3-19. But the wrong use mad&v'pf this wisdom, and personal beauty, and address, led to his fall, as it will to his final destruction. Ezekiel xxviii., 5. 15-19 ; Jsa. xiv., 12-15. In their work higher critics are 'entering a holy place—the sanctuary of God i 'where He held communion with patriarchs and prophets, where He has spoken to them, and through them to us; a place made holy by a thousand experiences, and where The Footprints of the Son of God are to be traced in all its parts, and where His voice can be heard by him who sits as a learner; and not as a critic. These critics rush ruthlessly into the presence of those men who were told of God, to " Take their shoes from off their feet," and we, who love that Word, feel it is our privilege, to call for their credentials. When were they appointed, and by whom? We who are told that we "must abandon " long cherished views at the diction of higher criticism; before abandoning, call for the evidences of the call of the men to this work, and their claim upon our respect. The Bible writers present very high credentials. Will the "higher critics" present higher ? Higher criticism is a large title. In order to be an ordinarially qualified critic a person should- be equally well with the

subject ttS its author. Anyone may find fault, but true criticism must point out defect. Mr. Webster defines critic as 1 follows: " One skilled in judging of the merits of literary works or productions of art, especially in the fine arts; a connoisseur; an expert; hence, one who passes judgment or criticises literary or artistic works, manners, morals, and the like. 2. One who passes a rigorous or severe judgment; one who censures or finds fault; a harsh examiner or judge ; a caviler ; a carper." Critic —From the Greek hrites, a judge. " A person who analyses the value of works of literature or art, with reference to established principles; points out deviations from taste and accuracy, or enforces merits by his acumen in discovering beauties of intention and execution, It is the rarest of all qualifications, seldom honestly exerted, and most frequently practised by those who have temerity and pretension rather than skill and judgment."—Encylopcedia. From these definations it is easy to be seen there is some danger in entering the list of critics, for, as the gift is rare, we may presume _ upon our supposed wisdom, and with temerity—rashness—rush into the examination and criticism of that which has been appainted to judge and criticise us. But to be a i , Higher Critic ' ■ calls for high qualifications. Will the_ higher critics make claim to be better qualified to judge of the writings of the Bible than were the writers themselves ? Oh yes; when men start out on the line of self-exaltation there is no logical stopping, place short of exalting themselves above God and all that is called God." In proof of this we quote from .the Conference address, by C. H. Garland, upon the "Bearing of Higher Criticism on Leading Evangelical Doctrines," delivered at the Wesleyan Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, March, 1893. This address was published, and is widely circulated, is for sale by all booksellers, and though claiming but a semiofficial character has not, to our knowledge, thus far received any official disapproval from either Conference officers or the official organ of the denomination. The lecturer's own statements in reference to the address, made before the Conference, areas follows : "But it maybe asked: Of what value is this lecture, seeing that the lecturer can surely not claim to possess the necessary qualifications of a critic, which are a perfect knowledge of the Hebrew, Greek, and German languages, and a familiarity with the literature of these, languages such as can belong to men not only of uncommon ability,, but who have devoted a large portion of their lives to scholarly researches in this one direction? If it have any value it lies not in the substance but in its semi-official character. It is not official, for the Conference commits not itself to any statement made to-night. Yet the subject and the lecturer are both of Conference selection ; the lecture is delivered during the session of the Conference, being appointed on the printed Conference plan, and under the presidency of the chief officer of our church. Whilst, therefore, taking but a personal responsibility for all that is advanced to-night, I speak as one summoned by the president to stand here by his chair and address the people called Methodists on a subject which the Conference deems should this year take the precedence of all other questions, theological and social. It is from this standpoint that I have prepared the address; hot for my brother ministers, who have long been familiarwith the subject in hand, nor presuming to enter the arena to share in the conflict which must be left to qualified combatants, but speaking to our people, the majority of whom have scarcely read a line on higher and are wondering whether it be friendly or hostile to the precious old Book, and are looking to us for guidance. As this is the first Conference utterance upon the subject, you must suffer me to begin at the very ABC." And so we say yet, no true Christian will to-day accept a statement of geology as true which contradicts the statements of Genesis, and while geologists themselves differ millions of years in their computations of the age of the world, we claim that they know nothing of the age of the world without the Bible to " guide them." Absurd interpretations are very innocent things compared with the tearing down of the authority of the very word by which the interpretation may always be tested, and leaving us with interpretation only. According to tnis statement, The Subject and Lecturer were both of Conference selection, and that by men acquainted with the positions held, and considered by them to be the subject which " should this year take the precedence of all other questions, theological and social," and as the ministers were already well informed upon the subject, having been "long familiar with it," he addresses himself to the people called Methodists, and he addresses them as one summoned by the President of the Conference to do so, and claims that the subject matter of the address "if it have any value it lies not in substance but in its semiofficial character." The fact, therefore, that the Conference summons the lecturer to speak —choosing his subject, knowing his positions —is to be received by the people as greater weight in favor of higher criticism than the subjrct matter itself. This is the writer's understanding of this statement. What then are the statements of this Conference document upon

The Subject of Higher Criticism.

" What is higher criticism? To criticism the Bible has always been subjected; to textual criticism or inquiry into the accuracy of the' text; exegetical or inquiry into the meaning of the text; and to canonical or inquiry into the genuineness and authenticity of its various books. Until recently the ordinary Bible student has been familiar with no other kind of criticism. By higher criticism is meant not so much another branch added to these as an entire change of method in the critical study of tha Bible. Hitherto (that is, for the last three centuries) the method has been dogmatic (that is, a small series of texts has been quoted, e.g., 2 Tim. hi., 16: " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"; and 2 Peter i., 21: "Men spake from God, being awed/by the Holy Ghost");

and upon these a theory or dogma has been constructed, into harmony with which every verse in the Bible has had to be brought. By higher criticism is meant the rejection of that method and the adoption of the inductive method, or a reasoning from particulars to generals—the deriving oi a general truth from particular facts. It approaches the Bible without any theory of its inspiration or authority—deals with it as an ordinary historical and literary production; critically examines its history, law, prophecies, and doctrines; estimates the intellectual tendencies and national feelings of the writers, and the current thoughts and expressions of the times; and instead of citing the Bible's testimony to its own inspiration and authority, induces them, if they be there, from the facts considered." Higher ciiticism then rejects all other methods, and " approaches the Bible without any theory of its inspiration or authority, deals with it as an ordinary historical and literary production," and refuses to listen to the "Bible's own testimony to its own inspiration and authority." " Thus saith the Lord," Goes for nought, and, more than this, when higher critics have reached their conclusions, those conclusions are not to be set aside by patriarch or prophet, or by the Son of God himself. If they speak contrary to the higher critics, then the critics at once endeavour to impeach their testimony upon the ground of ignorance. Of this we will offer full proof. And first, to use their own words, we inquire: " What is the bearing of higher criticism on the traditional and cherished belief in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures "; and the reply is: "We will consider first the construction of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch or Sexateuch, as it is now generally called, for the Book of Joshua is now included as part of, the work). Beyond a doubt we can no longer attribute the original composition of the story of the Creation and the antedeluvian history to Moses. The traditional idea that God revealed these facts to Moses, who, under the Divine inspiration, penned them for the first time, and penned them without error or defect, must be abandoned." This is The First Deduction, and well may the astonished reader inquire: Upon what grounds this conclusion is reached ? The answer is given: "It would be quite impossible in a public address of this kind to study the premises from which this conclusion is drawn, though the reading of the first two chapters of Genesis is sufficiently convincing that they are not the original product of one mind. All I can do here is to produce the names and conclusions of trustworthy men, or of men that we Methodists are prepared to trust. " In the reading of the first two chapters of Genesis the critic thinks he finds evidence of the working of two minds, therefore concludes that Moses is not the author. This conclusion, of course, pays no regard to the title of the book as " The First Book of Moses," and to the fact that in the original Hebrew the first five books are called, respectively, the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth books of Moses, as they are also called in many versions, of which the German, Scandinavian, and other editions are examples. But the names of the authors or compilers are no longer to be quoted as those whose opinions are of weight among Methodists, so the names of men are produced whom Methodists are prepared to trust. " The name of Dr. Ellicott is a guarantee that nothing hastily has been reached. Ellicott is an extreme conservative, and to higher critics gives up, inch by inch, only what he is no longer able to retain. ■ This, then, is Ellicott's conclusion: 'ln the traditional view in its unmodified form, Moses was regarded as the inspired , writer of the whole of the Pentateuch. -This was distinctly invalidated by the almost certain fact that two or more narratives, different in style and phraseology, must be recognised in Genesis, and may he recognised in the books that follow. The rectified view is that the Book of Genesis was compiled by Moses—in its earlier chapters from primeval documents which may have been brought by Abraham from Chaldea, and in its later chapters from family records of a distinctly contemporaneous origin.' 'Weby no means refuse to admit that careful research may prove that further rectification may be needed in other particulars.'" (To be continued.)