CRITICAL FAILURES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 5805, 24 January 1906, Page 7

CRITICAL FAILURES.

(To tho Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir,—*niore nothing whatever in Die letteisi of “Unitanan,” **Tikn, M and 4 37ivis" to justify tho methods of DhI’iglier crtieiKTii, and nothing to Justify rejection by. Christians of the doctrine of the virgin birth. Hut (he cloven foot of rationalism can be seen peeping out beneath an assumed garb of higher criticism. The* wearers should know that many Christians are on the side of Huhigher critics and believe that the Hible has become more lo them than ever, and their contideuce greater. This will, perhaps, appear in a publication shortly expected to appear. The Dean of Westminster has frequently been quoted by opponents of tTie Bible, and was first introduced to us in the rationalistic essay of tho State School Defence League- Hie dictum, therefore. should have some weight with our opponents, when h" declares ’‘Bead afresn in the light nf modern study, it (tho Old Testament) is more wonderful than ever before.” Hut according to our critics (pardon tho flattery involved in the description I) the higher criticiKin its a veritable engine of destruction. This divergence may be explained by that our “critico" are unable to separate in their minds the higher erticism from tho higher rriticisin plus rationalism or Ireclhought. The Doan of Westminster shall t-lill illustrate ray statements and «t the same lime supply an answer to an olijertion which “Unitarian” repeats with the confidence of a Goliath. Tho Dean, in a tittle book ju=t published, show*'that tho acceptance of the higher criticism has not weakened his belief in (lie very doctrine which “Unitarian” thinks it ellectiuilly destroys. He writes:: “It has been suggested that jegends of partheno-genceU-s are found in heathen mythology; and the story of Buddha is given a r d an example of the grov. t h of Buch a legend. J»UI the wh.do rtmn-f phero of the Judaism of tho time appear* to me to bo unfavourable to the plnntation of neathen myth?. And it there is one characteristic of the fn>t Christian teaching, it is the* proclamation of truth. ,l He shadows of superstition are scattered: figments aro thrust aside on every hand; ‘children of light/ ‘children of day’—tiirx? art* tho epithets of now converts. U hero are we to find the dark comer*? in which thci-e new superstitions grew? And oven if they did grow in some obscure place, was St. Luke the wril-er who svns likely to be imposed upon by them/ 1 cannot accept a tissue of improbabilities as afiording a reasonable acrount o: tb' -e early narrative-. If I u-lt aWlnb !y ftieeluded from beli"Aing in tno j«>-sibilily of the Virgin-birth. ? choufd find my-eli faced by literary problem utierlv insoluble In* any intelligible* pio«esi. ( could not necount for the origin of t?ie«e narratixos. nor for the acceptance of the Vindn-binh by tin* early ('kristians,” Dr Cheyno appears n-vv Jo be the darling of our ‘‘critics."’ and I hoy think n presumption on my par? not to accept Slis view»s. 'rise remedy for tins will bo found in a perusa; of the ".‘liir.ate given tiy a f-eholariv r*>nt ribo?t>: »o the ”Kn(■vclo|uu*dia Brit,tunica.” who is in sympathy with the lugiter criticism. ■Writing on the “Mf-thoti* and result's of modern J'henlegy.” h>* hays; however, an attempt has been

| Ki' Dr ("h.*-. n.:> in • :k? 'FiK yHoi", :i-■ .ui iiii.'iti.'itou.. ,i lil.t: M ' i..• I I 4lkl '" Ii ■ ! i;• t I!.,- li i,0... 1.-Xt ot tilt I I |,.i i < -l.ilTii-111 bv ... 1.0. n .-■-•■Ill ol 14,11- | Jfl' lsll.u Kill l„,-.'li UJ.IHI v.!i:r. 1' iJi«•••;• 'it. .' (Itiwi a-.-ii;iij;tioii a» to tl,.- v. ill,!-- t :,ul -•• OL I tic I: istot y tl t in, 1L>•!;I .--.V I'. B: ..Ry, fits vii '.v j., 'h:.t | ; i,,- 11., i,H .. i (•.;!,■. 1., .Jo, l.o! 1 L’ ] i l.yy l-l at. . ./'."1.:. B.ifiviOU "o----i, fin: miii 0. 4111111 <,l,,o.';ire t:'ifi:-s No! Ifi Ajafiia; .<"1 In- lias aa.i'ii ;■ J I t.-xt O! til..' lii.l 'Doi.iiin'iit tfiiotiithI i;v|.i,th.'si>. No more 7.,-y.i ii-1 fi-f ; h,. 14 that ifi. .-o lions .lu mi; timl .-ui>port aiiionir-i Ulii T.olin;,. :.! fiolals at I.Myo; not "oiiM n. 1.1 «■ ~! th.- _H'suit,, of wfioli'-aU" "li in .afii'i' [il i'ls of bt-U.il 00].. 11. lily IV in,!! M.llll-i to -nopai't a go ■■.■un: <-i'. 0.l oi-..' Xml i» .my i'i,ii,n."ii: i. -itfis la-ii'." 811; [I-n- I a.lon! a tfioory ti.at tba 1.113-il.--U 11 (.-Ic* ~! Initially .Viaaris ami pimn' ! lo mm 11.1 Go- lioi uno n'' ’ liat fiavi l ionic Gov. 11 to im in omKt t . ;. t •my llii-ny, ooiiM 1 ri.'a-mi.itiiv i-xj-i m tin; ■ oi!:i."-n. i' lit any imin l i'"t t ia-vni* a.-m ifiua, ami is in tin. eyi > of our ‘'rntir.-'’ a K n-a! man. li K 111 rlO non- to put fair "cntii's ;n tli- ir pfiiras. "Fmtanan." viiio is ini hn- ... I tn rant, rapi-at- iiyni.'iil-, in tin- !. <' I ■ ; Hint intii' i'i.pi-(iti"!i "ill piovo tlnon j trilin He is’ .inininaUni fiy pr.ya-.iv. rii.i. Tilts is oiivions from Ills stoiy in a (iroat j 1 a .l n!t(■- 1 ". si'rm-il fiy 3H"O I'fi-i-ynicii. ) .’ 1 ■ I ,\ ill t 1110 ilui-trim. of tin’ Viiqin bii'li. ; Than' nav.-r was such a iiianiic.-tii. !!“ I oil.--! only tvo names out of tho alleyed \ 31.00. and onm Dr Wiilianis, is not lie- : .., r-la.i!, Williams an.l Nniyale are tnifii lisheis merit ioli.si fiy "T S," Rerlialis I :t Dr Naryate "'ill yet iqipear. lie ap,jl >: 1 s 1.. 1... ivnorani of the nieaninvr .'iiiJ I intention of T’rn! i>a anti-r , ami is so ; fi;o|!y infonne.l that fie .i 'lat'.o- it,;,l I lie I 'lmreh eleryy ami Rinvlii tei i.m ami We-Ji-yiin min -lets fiofil tin- Unman ilnctrine of ill" FinmaeniLite Gone.'ptinn, ' " Tika " vvoiiM eiirnii the enalie Clievne i am! patty amoiiys! the inariyrs. 'l'hev j ate " f. :>rl.'-s " —in Gi'dr iinm'.lesti d re--1 e.-ipt of stinmds that oilier men niiofit ; more, worthily enjoy. "Tika” ihe.- not ' .qq.eai' in !ie aide to yet find l .. " ■ ! ihe liitle T.atin ho call quote from an 1 diet imiirr, Yet he at t i’m 1 i [ as n rrilie. " Givis." the lasi of our . s. eond trio, vainly Gils at a theory of iiisnirafion of !iis own iinaeininc. He 1 ixat’qeratos hhs olijcetions and throws I eantion ns a prwent to the wimls. !f ivmiM lie fietier if onr ilisenrsive i'rilies nnnld take the Get man Kmperor's j advice and -lie], in their last. If they have anv originality, let them put aside their rat ion aIN ie text-hook, and show [ me where Dr Ware's statement, quoted j in my former letter, is wrony. Or let ; them endeavour, if they can, lo justify ' any oi' tin* nie'hodi; of the hiqher critics. 1 T. f ihein show, if they eon. Giat the t Rentateiieh is the word.' of writers J. 11, 1 D. R. and re.hntnr.s. and is not ihe work of Mo-e.s. Says Dr Green—“ Separate and ind e[>end eat documents meehanieaiiy pieced loyether eonld no inoie [irodnee sneli an appearance of imilv as reirtns lluoii"honl the Renlatemdi ilia 11 a fanlt-le-o statue eonhl fie forrned out of discord. int fiaqinenls of dissimilar materials." The higher critic is alwavo reaiiy witli an hypothesis to support his theories. am! supports TTypot hosts hy hypu th.-sip. and not the slighlccit externnl evidence. can fie found for- (fieoe h vpot hrscs. Dr Bouse hits the mark when he says:— | "The larp'e amount of asonmption whieli li.n at the ha-e of ho inneli of (he re a ton- I iny of Ihe modern eeliool the following as a "critical” recipe for the eet aid fish meat, of a theory t —(I) .Assume a theory: (3i Ao-nnie that what in aneieut literature is in favour of (ho theory is "ennine. ami true, and (hat what i« opiKis-ed to (lie theory is historically untrustworthy; (J) prove the theory.”— L mil, etc.. ABfSTOBCLCS. January 30th.