Pee oo mo uo Oe ees g “ eee a hee ot - tet is ee RP tts cae Ne : ‘ ee ey pees = ae x .~ z a . Same ee ee : * : Sea pare ; : ; itary ate ea Leia “ Aa Aadog a 7 ; ; z - ie = Ae: i ites scat Cos % MO EER * PSP ne eS ae Mis R17 1927 B, S “OL oeigar sons Division \ es ra a f < ¥ ~ wn aa Section : \ J »} > 7 iW D cay PAN pe ni , ‘ 4g | Y ‘ Sie iene Mi ‘ é LG Pe utah! | en p, | eh) 7 ¥ a MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM J.R. P. SCLATER, D.D. hy has sen e ‘ ee are f Pa ve ry 4, iy et i Se ae My Digitized by the Internet i? if _https://archive. org/details/modernistfundame00 ee Stee Oe ee pad ‘oe fe! hs tas y) ‘ 4 , “se? hla vie MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM BY is ; a 0g a J. R. P.“SCLATER, D.D.\~. FEE T/ 19 < wo Lore aL gen NEW Y YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY COPYRIGHT, 1926, BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM he PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOREWORD ELE present quarrel, between so-called Fundamentalism and Modernism, is un- questionably doing damage to evangelical re- ligion. Why this hoary dispute should have reappeared with such youthful vigour is a little difficult to understand. We might have thought that the historical study of the Bible had established, for good and all, the idea of a progressive revelation. Doubtless some mod- ernists are responsible for the fear, which has become dominant in many devout minds, that the Ark of God is in danger; but it is distress- ing to discover that there are still those who think that a reverent study of the text, the authorship and the date of the Scriptural books, can ever undermine their religious au- thority. In point of fact, grave-minded crit- icism has retained the position of the Bible, as the Regulator of faith and practice, for an innumerable company of thinking people, for whom the theory of mechanical, verbal inspira- Vv vl FOREWORD tion had made the Bible to be almost meaning- less; and it has done the added service of en- throning, more manifestly, Jesus Christ as the Lord of the Book. A scientific study of scrip- ture, which produces results like these, is not the enemy, but the friend, of evangelic faith; and if they will only perceive that this is what, in fact, the research of scholars has accom- plished, many hesitating and anxious people will be delivered from their fears. The object of this little book is to reassure them that this is the case. The chapters, which compose the book, were originaliy—although in a different shape— delivered as evening sermons in Old St. An- drew’s Church, Toronto, and subsequently ap- peared as articles in The New Outlook, to whose editors I am indebted for permission to publish them in this form. Old St. Andrew’s Church, Toronto. 1926, CONTENTS PAGE FuNDAMENTALISM: Wuat Is Iv? . . . 11 MopernNism: WHat Is Ir? . 2 ww SC 88 PISG@HGH, CRITICISM Pu a ia lee lome tide 33 Tue Bipite as AUTHORITY . . .. . 43 Tue BIBLE As THE WRITTEN Curist . . 55 Tue Brisie as THE RvuLeE or FarirH AND ATT ORE Slr bg hi TL cmit ge leg crak eae kee Wee 79 Tee Use of orTrHe (BIBLE). 600 ee 4 92 Tue Finat Autuworiry .... . 104 a ie iy : rnky Tank : ae Ma a A , ‘? ty D ie ' ie wie i Bre ur ers MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM FUNDAMENTALISM: WHAT IS IT? T is singularly unfortunate that, at a time when the Church ought to be concentrating on its urgent and positive tasks, it should be agitated, and its forces dissipated, by the re- emergence of the strife between the Funda- mentalist and the Modernist—to use the popular, but misleading titles. We might have thought that this debate was over. It belongs properly to the closing quarter of the last century: and by this time Protestantism should have adjusted itself to what has been discovered to be true both in physical and Bib- lical enquiry; and should have known that the foundation is only thereby displayed as more abundantly secure. But it seems that we have reimported something of this venerable con- troversy from our neighbors to the south; al- 11 12 FUNDAMENTALISM: though we wish that they could have kept it for home consumption. And thus it becomes necessary to reassure our people that evangeli- calism is only strengthened when it is liberal: indeed, that it can continue to exist only when it is allied with that which is true. Christianity is the religion of redemption through Jesus Christ. Its two cardinal texts are, “God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life,’ and “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.” A “Modernism,” which denies that, is not Modernism, but ancient heresy; and no liberal evangelical, or serious- minded Higher Critic, departs from these ba- sic positions in the least degree. The cardinal doctrines of Christianity are the divinity of our Lord and the saving power of His Cross: and the “Modernism” which has a claim on the attention of serious men, holds with unhesi- tating hand to these fundamentals. At the same time, it is only reasonable to insist on the duty of a scholarly enquiry into the date and authorship of the Biblical books and to face the fact that, in many places, the text in the WHAT IS IT? 13 original tongue is all but incomprehensible and requires the aid of scholarship before we can know what it was that the author wrote: and a man is faithless to truth if he does not ac- cept the assured results of such enquiry. As a result, it has come to be realized that the rev- elation of God, given in Scripture, is progres- sive, culminating in Jesus Christ: that the Bible is the written religious authority, but — that it contains the political, economic and sci- entific ideas of the times in which its books were composed; that, starting from these ideas, patient men have been led by the Spirit of Truth into clearer ideas of God’s working and will in the physical and social realm. The modernist would say that the scientific ideas of the early Hebrew race are no more binding upon us than their views on polygamy; also, that we have advanced to an evolutionary con- ception of the world is no more perturbing than that we have advanced to a monogamous view of the state. And, further, he would maintain, and maintain with reason and with passion, that such views upon the Bible do not touch religion in the slightest, nor affect, ex- cept to glorify Him the more, the Church’s 14 FUNDAMENTALISM: one foundation, which is Jesus Christ our Lord. As against that position stands the Funda- mentalist, entrenched behind traditional au- thority. He is animated by a strong and dom- inating motive—the motive of fear: a fear which, as we shall see in a moment, is by no means altogether unworthy or unjustified. It expresses itself in different forms in different parts of the world. In the Roman Church it has been shown in the papal action directed against Abbé Loisy and Father Tyrrell and their confreres. In Anglicanism it is one of the main motives of the Anglo-Catholic move- ment. The anti-evolutionists of Tennessee and some, at least, of the Anglo-Catholics are intellectual brethren, however strenuously they might deny kinship: for both are en- trenching themselves in advanced positions against the oncoming of science and critical enquiry—a very imaginary enemy, for science never had nor can have anything to do with re- ligion, and critical enquiry, provided it is rev- erent and spiritual, is an unwavering ally. But, timorous for the ark of God, certain types of mind seem to need an external authority: WHAT IS IT? 15 and so one type set up, as a breastwork, an infallible Church, and another an infallible Book. It is with the latter that we are concerned, in the circles in which we move. Christianity needs for its defence, the Fundamentalists say, the universal authority of the Bible. That idea, it is to be observed, involves two subsid- lary conceptions—(1) that the Bible is equal- ly authoritative in any department of human knowledge with which it deals, and (2) that it is equally valuable for truth in all its parts. Neither of these positions can be assented to, because the former neglects the fact that it was through human history that God slowly unveiled Himself and that inspiration is not dictation, but the touch of God’s Spirit upon human minds, who think normally, using the thought-forms of their own time; and because the latter is derogatory to the supreme posi- tion, in the Bible itself, of Jesus Christ, who in the Sermon on the Mount opposed His own authority to the vindictiveness of the ancient law. “Ye have heard that it hath been said . . . but I say unto you.” It would be easy to give many illustrations 16 FUNDAMENTALISM: of the fact that the Bible develops in human knowledge and is not of equal “value” in all its parts. But one will suffice, taken from the supremely important department of ethics. Read again the closing verses of Psalm 137 or Psalm 109: and then begin at the seventh verse of the fourth chapter of the first Epistle of St. John and mark the difference. The two for- mer teach the importance and the duty of hate—unbridled, savage, implacable hate, ut- tering its malisons on the innocent children of our enemies. ‘Take them, smash them, brain them against the nearest stone and blessed art thou, cries the writer of Psalm 137. And in Psalm 109, the spirit of vengeance stands forth naked and unashamed. As for my enemy, let his wife be a widow and his children father- less and beggars for bread: and ghastly phrase —may his very prayer come before God as sin! No unrelenting curse could be blacker or more devastating. And then we turn to J ohn—“Beloved, let us love one another. He that loveth not, knoweth not God.” It is a sudden leap from darkness to light: and He who has brought us from the one to the other, is He who showed in His own life the loveli- WHAT IS IT? 17 ness of love, when He cried, “Father, for- give them!”; who, while we were yet sinners, died for us. Our friends, who stand for the equal authority of all parts of the Scripture library, must surely have forgotten how, there- by, they are belittling the wonderful difference that Jesus has made: how, in their very anxi- ety to defend Him, they are attacking His moral Lordship. If this, then, be the ground of debate, the battle is over before it is begun. There is development in the long Scripture story, even in our knowledge of what a man should think and be to please God. If the Fundamentalist stands on the equal authority of all parts of Scripture, he stands against the truth as de- clared by Scripture itself and by his own con- science. Krom the dim beginnings of aware- ness of God, seen in half-lights by childish eyes, we come to His full unveiling, when His glory shone in the face of Jesus Christ. If there is development here, in this supreme re- gion, the discovery that there is also develop- ment in scientific knowledge is of very small concern. ‘The truth is that the Bible leads up to the moral and spiritual authority of Jesus, 18 FUNDAMENTALISM: which needs no defence except itself; and the sane Modernist stands by the plain facts of the Bible’s development, because he knows that they do nothing but throw into more splendid relief the supremacy of the Bible’s Lord. But that contrast, stated alone, is hardly fair to the Fundamentalist’s position: for he would maintain, and truly maintain, that his one anx- iety is to secure his Lord’s rightful position in the thoughts of men. He is afraid that any apparent lessening of Biblical authority will end in easy thoughts of God and in the loss of the whole redemptive scheme of Christianity. For him, traditional views of the Bible are so inwrought with the Incarnation and _ the Atonement, that to depart from them will - bring the whole structure down in ruins. And the redemptive power of Christ is known by him to be true for the best of all reasons; he has tasted and seen how gracious the Lord is. He is aware directly of a transcendant, holy and separate God: he has felt, scorching him, the fiery flame of his own guilt and sin: alone, in the darkness, he has cried out for the living God to come and save him—and then, splen- WHAT IS IT? 19 didly, there has drawn nigh to him the tender, majestic figure of the Saviour, and in the as- tonishment of His mercy and His love, he has found a strange, new hope and a peace which the world cannot give nor take away. And he knows it is true after the manner of the man of old time, who declared, “Whereas I was blind, now I see.” This he will not give up while he has any being: and if he feels that the Modernist is attacking that dear knowl- edge or making it harder for others to sit where he sits, what wonder that he is up in arms? And Modernists have only themselves to thank that he does so think. In a following chapter, we shall concern ourselves with some of the careless, light-minded folly that stains some Modernist utterances. For the moment, let us be content with saying that if criticism really endangered the truth of the redemption of the world, let us consider it once and yet again: and if, finally, we must accept conclu- sions that take away our Redeemer, let us do so with the despair of men who know that hope is dead and that, the light quenched, it is homeless night without. Oh! but it is not true. Let not the timorous 20 FUNDAMENTALISM : be afraid. Search for truth will not damage the Truth. It is plain fact that of the men I have known who were living most securely in the faith of the Saviour, and who preached Him with the chiefest power, every one ac- knowledged the duty of scientific inquiry into the Scriptures and accepted its conclusions. A. whole page could be covered with their names. Let me mention just one. Of all evangelical ministries in Scotland in recent times, that of Dr. Whyte, “the last of the Puri- tans,” stands first. It was a heart-searching message they heard, week by week in Edin- burgh: and one note sounded all through it— the note of man’s desperate need of a Saviour and his need’s satisfaction in Jesus Christ. And yet Dr. Whyte was a “Modernist.” He defended Robertson Smith, a most challenging Higher Critic, when this same quarrel was forward in Scotland. “I will cast no stone at him,” cried he, ‘“‘no, nor will I hold the clothes of those who do.” His manse became a kind of committee-room for the defence of the ar- raigned professor; and in the Assembly he spoke passionately in his favor. Let us listen to Just one quotation: “Fathers and brethren, WHAT IS IT? 21 the world of mind does not stand still. And the theological mind will stand still at its peril . . - I find no disparity, no difficulty in carry- ing much of the best of our past with me in going out to meet and hail the new theological methods. Of all bodies of men on the earth, the Church of Christ should be the most .. . courageous.” We need not be afraid of being removed from the fundamentals if we stand beside that old preacher. God grant that his temper may pervade all our Church. MODERNISM: WHAT IS IT? HE attitude of mind which is known as ““Modernism”—a misleading title, for it is anything but modern—believes that it takes as its motto the Apostle’s advice to the Thessa- lonians: “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” ‘The Fundamentalists would doubtless say that the Modernists neglect the second part of the injunction, but the “Mod- ernism” that counts is alive to both pieces of advice, and maintains that the second is con- tingent upon the first. You cannot, they would say, know what the good is which you are to hold fast, until you have honestly exam- ined it: and that, therefore, before you can possess the true fundamentals, you must bring all things, including your religious authority itself, before the bar of reason. The Modern- ist, therefore, claims to be actuated by a love of truth, in its austere sense; and, if he can justify that claim, he at once ends the dispute in his favour. But implicit in his attitude there 22 MODERNISM: WHAT IS IT? 23 lurk both a source of intellectual error and a spiritual danger: for he seems to indicate that truth can be reached by intellectual, or ratio- cinative, processes alone, and thereby exposes himself to the assaults of that “pride of intel- lect” whose ravages have been so sombrely portrayed for us by Dante. Before, however, we examine these posi- tions, a short digression into history will do no harm. Can nobody stop the use of these ab- surd terms, Fundamentalism and Modernism? They do not represent the two sides in this dispute in the very least: for the Fundamen- talists are contending for things that are not fundamental and the Modernists are not mod- ern. ‘This use of labels is one of the most ef- fective ways of chloroforming the mind. They are only quick ways of settling a dispute with- out the trouble of thinking. And, in any case, they are most unseemly on Protestant lips: for the term “Modernist” is an invention of the Roman Church for describing the efforts of some of her own most distinguished sons to escape from the shackles of Roman scholastic theology. ‘Towards the close of last century a movement arosé within that Church to do 24 MODERNISM: three things—(1) to develop new philosophic and apologetic methods as distinguished from the methods derived from Aquinas, (2) to permit a candid study of the structure and meaning of the Scriptures, and (3) to make suitable to modern industrial conditions the traditional Roman attitude to the structure of society and the social question generally. There were noble names in that movement, such as those of Loisy and Tyrrell, but against their struggles for freedom the coercive might of the Roman authority acted as decisively as it usually does, and excommunication and the placing of their books on the Index Hwvpurga- torius ended their efforts at a new reforma- tion from within. And what in the world is Protestantism doing to borrow their nomen- clature? The Fundamentalists are in queer society, when they endeavour to stay the march of the human mind towards truth by the use of an epithet, and to a certain extent even of the methods, learned from the Vatican. We may wonder what Luther would think of them —Lwuther, the supreme challenger of author- ity and tradition, who would not accept even the New Testament as he found it, but turned WHAT IS IT? 25 away contemptuously from the Epistle of James. The reason for the use of the term is plain enough: it wounds by implying a sneer; as if the attitude of mind which insists on examining authority were a mushroom growth of yesterday, whereas it is as old as" human reason. We find it in full vigour in — the book of Job, when, after the dreary tradi- tionalist and zealot had done their worst to comfort, that impatient young thinker, Elihu —modernist among the modernists—rushed in to talk impertinently indeed, but a good deal more effectively than the “miserable comfort- ers” who had preceded him. Discoveries may be modern: but the attitude of mind, which in- sists on the right to make them, is as ancient as the use of our reasoning faculties for the purposes for which God gave them. If ever we use the name “Modernist,” let us under- stand that we do so under protest. What we mean by it is the belief that, in its own region, reason stands supreme: that external author- ity for religion is subject to the examination of reason: and that accepted beliefs must go, if they are clearly incompatible with what is 26 MODERNISM: otherwise known to be true. And these posi- tions, surely, appeal to all right-thinking men. The controversy, however, is by no means ended with that admission. For the Modernist is exposed to very real dangers, which unless guarded against, will lead him to error and spiritual confusion: and it is an appreciation of that fact that gives reality and depth to Fundamentalist anxiety. “Pride of Intellect” is the mother-sin, so some precep- tors tell us: “by that sin fell the angels”; and if a man is to claim supremacy for reason in its own sphere, he must be very clear as to what its limits are. Two extensions, in par- ticular, have to be avoided—(1) that intellect is self-sufficient for the discovery of truth, and (2) that intellect is self-sufficient for life: whereas, alas! a man does not live by mind alone: “it hath not pleased the Lord to save His people by dialectic.” As regards the former it is enough to say that the mind, before it begins to think, as- sumes truth. It has its own axioms which it does not bring before its own bar. It cannot work at all without assumptions. It needs its “laws of thought’—such as, that a thing WHAT IS IT? 27 cannot both be and not be in the same respect at the same time. Moreover, the reason tends to work by analysis: and some of the ideas which are most important for life are impos- sible to analyze; as, for instance, love. Be- fore its mystery, the intellect stands defeated, “dark with excess of light.” Immediately we are faced with the fact that we cannot develop knowledge unless we are prepared to accept— provisionally, if you will, but nevertheless ac- cept—the dicta of intuition and authority in the regions where reason is inadequate. As regards the latter, it is enough to say that we have to live while we are enquiring and making up our minds. The devil does not grant us an armistice until we have formulated our doctrine of God, or settled the date of St. John’s Gospel. While the scholar is sit- ting at his desk, the forces of evil are loose in his heart: and unless he can call on God then and at once, things are likely to go hard with him: for he is a child of wrath even as others. And it is here that the Fundamentalist makes his challenge. “I, at least,” says he, “am con- cerned with the things that make for life. I may be stupid and ignorant: but I know that 28 MODERNISM: I need a Saviour now. I cannot wait till all these questions are settled. I cannot endure the thought that you may be taking my Lord away from me and from my fellows. Prove to me that you put first things first: and that you, too, are concerned for the things that be- long unto salvation.” It is a challenge which the Modernist must take up gravely and mani- festly, or stand condemned. If the mass of men disconnect the Modernist with vital re- ligion, then, with an unerring instinct for value, they will turn elsewhere to find a draught of living water. Therefore, certain characteristics may rea- sonably be demanded of the Modernist. He must obviously be humble. ‘The smart epigrammatist—the clever who is “so rude to the good”—is a real public nuisance when he is dealing with religion. After all, “the dear Lord’s best interpreters are humble human hearts.” Indeed, the conceited intellectual juggler is not at heart a lover of truth at all, for no one has looked into the austere face of the real without gaining humility. “A child,” cries Newton of himself, “picking up pebbles on the shore of truth.” “Light, more light,” WHAT IS IT? 29 whispers Goethe with his dying breath. Only by humility can men range themselves in the company of the shining ones who seek truth. Moreover, he ought to develop in himself an instinctive conservatism, and only be willing to give up a traditional belief when he must. After all, the new is not necessarily the true: in fact, the chances are that it is not. “What friends thou hast and their adoption tried, grapple them to thy soul with loops of steel” is a good piece of advice in respect of ideas as well as of men. The critics who have done most to commend those ideas of the structure of Scripture, which have been so serviceable in making faith possible in view of modern sci- ence, were naturally conservatively-minded men. Slowness to accept a new idea until it has been properly examined and tested is mark of mental gravity: and unwillingness to part with beliefs cherished by our fathers is a sign of mental good manners. Such men, when they are compelled by facts to accept a new theory, have far more influence in advanc- ing truth than the intellectual fly-by-nights, who chase after every latest guess as if it were 30 MODERNISM: inspired, believing, apparently, that truth not only is born, but dies every day. Further, the Modernist must always think and speak reverently of those forms of ex- pression which have conveyed vital religious ideas in the past. Mental habits rapidly change and the garments with which thoughts were clothed in a former generation seem out- landish to the people of to-day: but if the thoughts were noble, the language which was allied to them is ennobled also. Take the strongest of all instances: take the instance which an older generation placed upon the Blood: There is a fountain filled with blood Drawn from Immanuel’s veins, And sinners plunged beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains. Not often, in modern churches, do we hear the familiar lines: and, indeed, the imagery ~ sounds crude and material to some ears. There is a physical literalness in it which is not na- tive to many minds. But I wonder if a youth who, with a contemptuous smile, makes sport of it, realizes the sheer pain he is giving to people who have used these phrases to express WHAT IS IT? 31 the undying reality that lies behind them. For these lines, and that conception, have set forth to men the self-giving Love of God in all its active passion to redeem. ‘They have re- minded the heavy-hearted of the source of all peace and hope—the Love that is known in the wounded heart of Christ. They have been associated with that final spiritual loveliness and majesty which is the Cross set in the heart of God for ever: and they are, therefore, them- selves set apart. If a Modernist is to com- mend the Gospel, he must be sensitive to asso- ciations so great and so noble. And, finally, the Modernist must be reli- gious and concerned for religion. For, after all, it is only the man who is himself seeking God, who has the necessary data for estimat- ing religious truth. It is the underlying sus- picion that Modernists are not evangelically in earnest that is at the root of mueh of our trouble: and for that suspicion some Modern- ists have only themselves to thank. I have known some conspicuously alert men intellec- tually, well-versed in critical problems, to whom I would never think of going if I were in trouble, for I gravely misdoubt whether they 32 MODERNISM: WHAT IS IT? either know or care much about the cure. Not that that is generally, or even widely, true. The most earnest evangelic forces I have known have all, without exception, accepted the modern point of view. But if a man at- tacks tradition, it is all the more necessary that he should make it quite clear that it is in the name of religion that he does so: and that his chief concern, for himself as for others, is to be able to say from experience “whereas I was blind, now I see.” HIGHER CRITICISM T is high time that we all unanimously said boo! to the bogey, which some folk have created, called “higher criticism.” For, as it is imagined by those who are afraid of it, it is as real as a scarecrow. 'To hear some people speak you would imagine that it was a dark rite practised only by atheists: whereas, in plain fact, it is the best friend of those who are anxious to accept the true authority of the Bible. Now, what is this thing that so alarms kindly minds? The answer is very simple: it is the study of the Bible to discover the age and au- thorship of its component books. The word “criticism” is singularly unfortunate in Eng- lish, for it seems to suggest study with a view to disparagement. As a matter of fact, it is the English equivalent of a Greek word which means discrimination or judgment and may equally suggest study with a view to display- ing excellence. Biblical scholarship is in that 33 34 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM sense “critical.” When it is a study of the words of themselves, in order to discover what the authors actually wrote, it is “lower or textual criticism.” “Higher criticism,” on the other hand, attempts to find out who wrote the words and when—a truly admirable and useful object of enquiry. But, it may be asked, why worry?) Why not simply accept the traditional views of author- ship and age, and save the brains and time of scholars for something practical? The an- swer is plain: the traditional views of date and authorship render the Bible unintelligible, and in defence of the credibility of the Bible, our scholars in our colleges must get busy. The existence and nature of the problems which higher criticism sets out to solve are doubtless familiar to all Biblical students. For instance, the traditional view of the au- thorship of the first five books of the Old Tes- tament is that they were written by Moses. But in Deut. 34 we find an account of Moses’ death and burial, and an estimate of the great prophet’s character and personality, which is not only clearly written from the viewpoint of a much later time, but singularly vainglori- HIGHER CRITICISM 35 ous if written by the prophet himself. Did Moses really write his own obituary notice: and had he such an immodest opinion of him- self? The Bible becomes magical and Moses a truly unpleasant person, if he did. Moreover, there are many double accounts, often differ- ent in important details, of the same event. It was a perception of the double account of the creation in the first two chapters of Genesis that led to the beginning of modern higher criticism in 1680. ‘The best instance of all, perhaps, is the triple account of the slaying of Goliath. In 1 Samuel 17 we read that David killed him: in 2 Samuel 21: 19 we read that Elhanan killed him: in 1 Chronicles 20:5 we read that Elhanan killed the brother of Goli- ath. (In the authorized version, it is true that in 2 Samuel 21: 19 we read that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath, but the words “the brother of” are in italics, to show that they do not occur in the Hebrew: and the revisers, very properly and honestly have omitted them.) Now, you will not deny that that creates a problem: and it is a blessing that we have the higher critics to explain to us the differing 36 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM sources from which the Scripture historians drew their divergent accounts. Still further, events separated by long stretches of time are spoken of as present facts in the same book, as for instance in the Book of Isaiah. Again, it is a blessing that higher critics have saved us from the incomprehen- sible by showing us that the writings of at least two great men of God are incorporated in the book of Isaiah, and have thereby added another to the noble galaxy of inspired wri- ters. And, finally, language-forms occur in books supposed traditionally to be written be- fore these language-forms existed. The prob- lem thus created is quite intolerable apart from the relief which the higher critics give. To take a crude illustration from our modern speech, supposing some one said that he had discovered a poem by Shakespeare, begin- ning with the lines: “E’en as a Ford goes on its glorious way, But stalls completely in the village street.” Would you admit the Shakespearian author- ship? Why, you would say that North Amer- ica itself was a dim kind of thing in the poet’s HIGHER CRITICISM 37 time: and that certainly Detroit had not swum into his ken, neither did he talk of “stalling” in that sense. And if your informant had given you a choice between acceptance of his view of the authorship and excommunication, either your mind or your soul would have been hurt. Similar, if not quite so vivid, prob- Jems exist in Scripture when traditional views on authorship are insisted on: and once again we may bless the higher critics for showing us a more excellent way. But, it may be said, these solutions of the problems destroy the inspiration of the Bible. If by inspiration we mean mechanical dictation, the charge is true: and a good thing, too, for, whatever the Bible is, it is neither mechanical nor dictated. But if by inspira- tion we mean that its writers were used and guided by God to record for us His own slow unfolding of Himself, the charge is as far from truth as well may be imagined. We must remember that no Scriptural historical writer claims inspiration for his material: it is in its selection, arrangement and use that he is Inspired. Canon Driver’s admirable words should be pondered: “Criticism in the hands 88 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM of Christian scholars does not banish or de- stroy the inspiration of the Old Testament. It presupposes it. It seeks only to determine the conditions under which it operates, and the literary forms through which it manifests it- self.” After all, however, this is a compara- tively small matter, for the “discriminating” view of the Old Testament is supported by the New Testament, and in the New ‘Testa- ment by the supreme authority of all, Jesus Christ. For He “discriminated” concerning the law: and of all parts of the Old Testa- ment the law might have been regarded as sacrosanct. Read again the second half of Matthew 25: note the sharp divergence of the recurring “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you,” and deny, if you can, that conclusions as to the varying authority of Scripture have His sanction. Nor are the apostles more bound than He to a rigid theory of verbal dictation. They sometimes quote from the Hebrew; sometimes from the Greek version of the He- brew, when the latter varies from the former; and sometimes they misquote. No higher critic is more free in practice from verbal in- HIGHER CRITICISM 39 spiration than they are. And, indeed, that venerably erroneous view as to the structure of Scripture cannot live for a moment when we remember the problems which lower or textual criticism has to solve. For the text of con- siderable passages, e.g., in the Psalms or in Hosea, is in confusion in our manuscripts. Our lovely and loved English translation is due, in part, to wonderful guesses at the orig- inal intention of the writer. Nor is it a mat- ter for astonishment that mistakes have been made in copying the ancient books. Hebrew is a difficult language to read with good eyes in a good light; and it is a worse to write. The old copyists must often have been aging men, working with dim illumination, when their eyes were beginning to fade in a world which had not yet produced spectacles. ‘They were bound to make copying errors; and so they did, until in some passages the original, as written, does not make sense. It is incredible that the mechanical theory of inspiration should have held the field as long as it has, in face of such plain facts. It is pitiable that it should be showing its burdensome features again at this time of day. There is no ques- 40 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM tion that it was the direct cause of the depart- ure of many of our best young minds from religious faith altogether. Sir G. A. Smith, in his Old Testament and Preaching (p. 27), has a passage which we should read and con- sider. He tells how, when he was going through the correspondence of Henry Drum- mond, he came upon countless letters from young men, who were being driven from faith because they could not accept the view of the Bible, which the Fundamentalists are trying to force on us again, and who were writing to Drummond to find some easement. Principal Smith describes the position as a “tragedy,” that men longing for Christ should be driven from Him because their minds refused assent to a view of Scripture which was untrue. I can add a little footnote to that passage. For a period I was responsible in Edinburgh for the work Drummond inaugurated among the students. Hundreds of questions were sent to me about religious difficulties, but never one (that I remember) about the verbal inspira- tion of the Bible. Young Scotland accepted the Word of God, without the fetters. Not a single student was driven from Christianity HIGHER CRITICISM 41 by Old Testament discrepancies: and the Bible was a more compelling authority than ever, because they all knew that its authority was spiritual. And who had made that won- derful difference? Who had made faith pos- sible for Scottish youth? None but the wise, patient, Christ-loving higher critics of our Church. Let us thank God for them. Where, then, do we stand? What is it that this reverent study of the Word has given us? Four gifts, at least. It has given us a Bible in which we see an unveiling of God in the development and his- tory of a chosen people. We mark in it a majestic movement from the tribal deity up to the God of the New Covenant. And He stands out all the clearer, because of the hu- man history through which He is known. It has given us a Bible, in which we get the record of the vision of God directly perceived by chosen souls—souls who could say “but we musicians know.” And we mark in it how these direct perceptions supplement one an- other, until mercy and truth kiss one another in God. It has given us a Bible, in which His right 42 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM glory and supremacy are given to Him who is the express image of the Father, even Jesus Christ. He has become Lord of the Book. And it has given us a Bible which shuts up the soul alone with God. Not with politics: not with science: but with God. Perhaps you~ will permit me one other word. There is one soul that is always unconsciously a critic, in the noble sense—and that is the devout soul. A Bible lies on my desk, which once lay near the hand of one very dear to me. If you close it and look at the edge of its pages, you will find that three parts of it are frayed from constant use—the Psalms, John’s Gospel and 1 Corinthians. One page is loose—the page on which Corinthians 1:13 is printed. Ah! there is bound to be “discrimination,” when people are in earnest, and come to the Bible to find God. In that spirit come to this great library, and He will not fail to meet you in His Word. THE BIBLE AS AUTHORITY O one can impartially read the Bible and fail to notice the accent of authority which rings through it. It seems all the time to be demanding not only the attention, but the allegiance, of its readers. It states rather than argues: proclaims rather than persuades. And the Church, very much alive to this spir- itual regality, has acknowledged the authori- tative position in faith and practice of this su- preme library. But the authority of books is inwrought with their truth: and this at once raises a question for some minds. “If you ac- cept the conclusions of the Higher Critics,” they ask, “how can you hold to the belief that the Bible is true? For the critics hold that, in some of its historical statements, the Bible dis- agrees with itself, and, in others, disagrees with that which has otherwise been discovered to be true. And if any one Scriptural state- ment is proved erroneous, confidence in all the rest is shaken.” | 43 44. MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM Involved in this, of course, is a conception of the mechanical unity of Scripture. It is true that, in a machine, the collapse even of an insignificant part of it throws the whole machine out of use. In an automobile there is, for instance, a mysterious something known as a commutator: if it goes wrong (as some of us by painful experience know), the wheels will shortly stop going round. ‘The little rift within the lute likewise, as the poet very justly observes, makes all the music mute. But of course, the Bible is not a machine: it is a national literature, extending over hundreds, or possibly thousands, of years. And some of us find it difficult to understand how the accuracy of a quotation from an ancient col- lection of hero-songs, about the sun standing still on Ajalon, affects the perception of a man who lived centuries later, and in the bright vision of his own heart saw the God of the New Covenant. A scientific mistake in Chau- cer does not make Browning less of a teacher in the strange ways of human nature. The fact is that, until we get rid, once and for all, of any mechanical conceptions of Scripture, We are not going to get on much farther. If THE BIBLE AS AUTHORITY 45 ever a collection of books was living and grow- ing, that collection is the Bible. Moreover, when we enquire into the “truth” of the Bible (or anything else), we are using one of the two or three terms which it is at once most necessary and most difficult to de- fine. A statement, a fantasy, a drama, a pic- ture, a promise and a man can all be “true” — and the adjective means something different in each connection. The logicians used to ad- vise us to have special regard to the “universe of discourse” in which, at any time, we might be mentally moving: for a statement may be true in one universe of discourse and false in another. For instance, we all know Steven- son’s grim allegory, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If any one asks us if we regard it as true, we must answer (if we would be accurate), Yes and No. In the universe of discourse of pure history it has no relation to truth whatever. No eminent doctor was ever able to alter com- pletely his body: no drug ever existed, which could turn a man of five feet six inches into one of six feet two inches, or could tip-tilt a Roman nose. It is all pure nonsense from the point of view of history. But in the universe 46 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM of discourse of things spiritual, it is horrible, ghastly truth. We all know our own Edward Hyde, that leering, snaky indweller of our own souls, who will leap out and become the thing we are, unless continually we lay hold on the cleansing power of God. Similarly, what is the use of asking if the Bible is “true”? It all depends on the mental sphere to which we hap- pen to be moving. We get all sorts of truth in the Bible: and if we insist on turning them all into one sort we are asking for trouble. The main point is that, in sundry manners, there is contained in it all that is necessary to guide us in the path that leads to God, who is our Home. The main difficulties, however, seem to arise when the Bible is, apparently, giving us plain, historic truth. A great deal of the records consists in the accounts of the development of the Hebrew people: and therein there would appear to be no movement in any universe of discourse except that of ordinary history. But the critics discover statements that clash with present knowledge. How, then, can the Bible be regarded as historically true? In answer to that, we point to the fact that history tells THE BIBLE AS AUTHORITY 47 us not only what happened in the past, but what men thought in the past: and that it is more important to know the latter than the former, for thereby we perceive how mental progress comes to be. Now, the Bible, if it is to tell us what men thought in the past, must contain error. Only that history which sets forth the mistaken ideas of the past is true history: and if the Bible contained nothing that was contradictory to our knowledge of to-day it would be false history. The fact that the Bible sets forth such ideas as true only indicates that it is writing from the point of view of that time. The men of that day be- lieved these things: and the fact that they be- lieved wrongly does not alter the fact that the Bible, in conveying their errors, is conveying historic truth. Now it is important to get this simple idea clear. ‘There is progress of every sort in the Bible, because there is, thank God, progress in humanity. The early, dim ideas are re- corded for us in order that we may see how the Divine Educator of men slowly and with infinite patience drew us from ignorance to knowledge, from darkness to light. If there 48 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM were no error in the ideas of the men of long ago—errors about the world and its structure and its begetting, about society, about duty, about God—there would be no need for God to discipline men and chastise them and exile them. Indeed, it is only when we perceive how mistaken men were long ago in their ideas that we begin to get a philosophy of history that has God in the heart of it. The long pain of the Hebrew people is explained to us when we realize out of what foolish thoughts of God they had to be drawn, before they knew the God that is: and it does not affect the truth of the Bible in the least that these foolish thoughts are recorded for us precisely as they appeared to the men who thought them —rather the reverse in fact, for it makes the record more living and more convincing. Let us take a concrete example. We all know the story of the frustrated sacrifice of Isaac by his father. As the records give it to us, God commanded Abraham to slay his son —which is precisely what Abraham thought He did. We know perfectly well, thanks to Jesus, that God, our Heavenly Father, never wanted human sacrifice. To our knowledge THE BIBLE AS AUTHORITY 49 of to-day, since the Light of the world has shined, such an idea would be an affront. Any man who proposed to take his own boy and smash the life out of him to please God, would be shut up at once in an asylum for the in- sane. And we know, too, that God does not change: He is the same yesterday, to-day and forever: the slaughter of innocents never gained His tender favour. Nor did the right- eous God ever tempt men to sin. But—and this is the point—men actually did think, at one time, that the only way to please Him was to immolate some fair human offering on His grim altar. They believed the voice of God called them so to do: and if the Bible had not indicated that they did so it would have been a false record. So it, accurately, and honestly, puts down the statement, so com- manding in men’s minds and conscience of long ago, that God ordered this thing. The Bible truly records these monstrously untrue thoughts—and so, ultimately, made more glo- rious the Person who, for good and all, sent the horrid brood of them shuddering back into the darkness whence they sprang. And, at the same time, the Bible in this story records 60 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM the upward leap of the human conscience, when in place of a man it substitutes a ram: but there was a long way to go before hu- manity was to reach the place of the true knowledge of God’s desires—a way marked by discipline and pain, and failure,—until at last men know that the sacrifices of God are a broken and a contrite heart. Thus, go to the Bible to find what men thought; and often you will find what they thought wrongly. But also you will find how God taught them and trained them to think right: you will find the great, continual, educational ministry of God set in relief: until at last they see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Further, while the Bible conveys much of its message through history, it is a spiritual message which it is concerned to convey: and it conveys it in different ways, suited to dif- ferent times. Very often it is the spiritual parallel, underlying apparent history, that we are to seek: and sometimes the history is only apparent—in reality it is allegory. We may occasionally permit ourselves to regret that the interpretation of the Bible, and the guardianship of Christianity, have been THE BIBLE AS AUTHORITY 51 so much left to that queer, competent, but de- cidedly limited mongrel, the Anglo-Saxon. Christianity and the book which enshrines its growth and teaching have mysticism at their heart: and the Anglo-Saxon is the last person on earth to understand some aspects of a re- ligion or a book like that. For he calls a spade a spade: and instinctively becomes suspicious in the presence of thoughts that transcend speech—particularly his speech: and he is not given to admitting that other methods of ex- pression than his own are reasonable. Decent, honest, downright, unimaginative soul—what a mess he has made of the Book of Jonah: how successfully he has “turned God’s poetry into prose.”’ Now, each Biblical writer, on the other hand, moved naturally in the region of image and of allegory. He expressed his deep- est aspirations in pictures: he gave us the Beloved Community in a four-square city, shaped like a cube. And if we are to get at the truth of his writings we must continu- ally be reaching back, through the thing said, to the thing signified. When we do, we fre- quently find that the apparently historical merges into the permanently spiritual, and 52 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM discover in that latter region the unassailable truth which the Bible is conveying. A man who has read Jonah, without seeing its uni- versal spiritual significance, has not begun to understand what that great book is. And in the New Testament some puzzling incidents need to be “spiritualized” to be understood. Take, for instance, the story of the miraculous draught in John, when the fishers took on board their craft “one hundred and fifty and three” fish from the sea after Christ came nigh them. In old days, as those strange amalgams of natural history and piety, the Bestiaries, tell us, men believed that there were one hun- dred and fifty-three kinds of fish in the sea. One of every sort was taken, once the Lord came nigh. And that at once hints the spiri- tual significance of the incident. The ship is the Church and the sea is the world. For long the Church labors fruitlessly, for the power of the presence of the Lord is lacking. And then He comes, in His risen power, and representa- tives of every nation and people are swung into His keeping and into the fellowship of His Church, Who first (as far as I know) preached on that incident in that way? Why, THE BIBLE AS AUTHORITY 53 Augustine—that great defender of the faith: and until men, like him, will seek for the spir- itual reality that is thus permanently taught us, they have no business to be calling the Bible either true or untrue: for they have not discerned its purpose. And then, finally, within the Bible there 1s, plain as a pikestaff, that which is true for each man as he reads it. He knows it is true: for the spirit within him responds to it. The In- dwelling Divine answers to the Word of God. And it will not do—it simply will not do—for us to hesitate or doubt about the authority of that which we know to be true, because else- where in so extensive a library there are state- ments which we hesitate to accept, or which are made in a manner foreign to our minds. The clear, unexpugnable demands and teach- ings of Jesus shine out in their authority, en- tirely untouched by the guesses at truth of men who only dimly foresaw His day. If we allow the floating axe or the Gadarene swine to blur for us the teachings of our Lord, we are simply not in earnest. We are not listening to the voice that speaks within. For here no qual- ifications, no explanations about universes of 54 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM discourse, are necessary. In a language ap- prehended alike of Anglo-Saxon and of He- brew, of Barbarian, Scythian, bond and free, the Lord tells us what we must do and what the God of the Redeeming Love has done, is doing and will do for ever. And because the Bible leads up to and enshrines Him, so long as men call Him Lord, no man need trouble about its authority. THE BIBLE AS THE WRITTEN CHRIST HE Bible, like the Christian religion, has Christ in the centre. The Old Testa- ment points to Him—unconsciously, it may be, but nevertheless points to Him. The Epistles meditate upon Him and unfold His consequences. The Gospels tell the story of His life. The significance of the Bible would fade, with Him away; for all its treasures are gathered into one, even in Him. It is largely to emphasize that so obvious, so illuminative and so Christian fact that this book is written. It is not necessary to develop the statement that He is the centre of our faith, and that no - man cometh to the Father but by Him. Chris- tianity is best defined in the words of Bishop Gore, as “faith in’ a certain Person, Jesus Christ.” In our theology, as in our religion, it is a case of Jesus in the midst, or both our theology and our religion—two different things by the way—will automatically cease BB 56 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM to be Christian. But we are not always so alive to the fact that Christ is in the centre of the history which the Biblical records relate. The two elect societies culminate and proceed, respectively, from Him. In Him the chosen people fulfil their destiny: from Him the Church of God takes its spring. It is hardly possible to imagine a more vivid and dramatic consummation of a national purpose than that which the Hebrew people afford when, after their amazing preservation and development, their achievements in prosperity and in dis- aster, they are blown by the winds of heaven and scattered to the ends of the earth at the coming of Christ. We read of them appear- ing out of nowhere—nomads amongst the peoples of the world; drinking the bitter wa- ters of slavery and yet preserving their na- tional quality; led by their wars of destiny through inconceivable dangers, until at last they dwell secure in their promised land: pre- served there, although it contained the plain of Esdraelon, that cockpit of the ancient world —that Belgium of the East; giving birth to the greatest sequence of religious geniuses the world has ever known, in their prophets; re- THE BIBLE AS THE WRITTEN CHRIST 57 taining their noble endowments amidst the bit- terness of exile, until they could flower again in the happy days of restoration; guarded as no people has been guarded, though menaced on either side by the jealousy of mighty em- pires: till the Babe of Bethlehem grown into a man, died on Calvary—and then, their pur- pose achieved, they disappear amongst the races of the earth, like a river that has at last found its sea. In their place, a new people arise, drawn from every tongue and kindred and nation, when the Church of Christ begins to spread in the world. And in the midst, be- tween the chosen nation and the chosen society out of every nation, stands the lone, majestic figure of Jesus Christ. Herein we discern the supreme value and vital importance of the Bible. It is the written Christ: it contains the only record of His life: it is the only source to which we can go to learn of the historical Jesus. Other historical ref- erences are slight and meagre: for our knowl- edge of the “years lived out beneath the Syr- ian blue” we are dependent on the Scriptures: and therefore, it is not possible to exaggerate their importance. But, if we put Him in the 58 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM central place, the varying value of the records becomes at once apparent. We learn of Him, indeed, in the Old Testament, through the diverse expectations of the Ideal King and the Suffering Servant, which were both so strange- ly fulfilled in Him. We learn of Him viv- idly, in the impressions left on the minds of His friends and in what they held to be im- plicit in Himself and in His teaching. But chiefly we learn of Him in the actual records of His life and sayings—especially in the first three Gospels, and above all, in Mark. It is a small thing to say that these three books form, by far, the most important historical documents in this world. They are of more significance than any other records in the pre- cise degree that Jesus is more significant than any other person who ever lived. Wherefore, let us touch them devoutly, as a man would lay a hesitating, reverent hand upon the garments of the Lord Himself. Now, the Synoptic Gospels purport to be, in the main, plain historic truth. While they contain teaching in the parabolic form, they make it clear what is parable and what is not. And, even if here and there an allegoric inter- THE BIBLE AS THE WRITTEN CHRIST 59 pretation can be supported (as certainly can be attempted in some passages in John), the manifest intent of Matthew, Mark and Luke is to relate the actual words that issued out of Jesus’ lips and the actual occurrences of His life. The fact that both Matthew and Luke were writing with particular objects in view, while it exalts the importance of Mark, who had no concern with Jewish or Gentile propa- ganda, does not alter the historical method which they both employed. Matthew, doubt- less, wanted to win his own race to Christian allegiance; while Luke was anxious to gather the Gentiles within the fold. But this only af- fects the selection and emphasis of their ma- terial. Both were equally in earnest to con- vey historical facts, in the sense in which we commonly use that term—in fact, Luke specif- ically says so in regard to his own work, in the opening verses of his first chapter. In these three Gospels, then, we are dealing with pu- tative history, in the ordinary sense of the word; and as history we must judge them. All of which is a great mercy, for it is of the first importance that the divine Jesus Christ should be a historical fact. There are, 60 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM indeed, some who say, and seem to think, other- wise. ‘To them Jesus is a veiled, nebulous figure—a prophet of whom we know very lit- tle, who was put to death for His apocalyptic views and from whom the Christ-idea sprang, somehow, out of the aspirations of mankind. There is, of course, a distinction which can be drawn between Jesus and the risen Christ, which it is well always to bear in mind. Fun- damentalist literature frequently neglects it. Jesus is the actual, physical being who walked this earth, made in fashion as a man and sub- ject, as Philippians tells us, to the limitations of humanity; while the risen Christ is the glori- ous object of our worship, eternal in the heart of God. It is the distinction between the divinity of Jesus and the deity of the risen Christ. But that is a very different thing from holding that the Christ is the personification of a human longing, sprung from the idealiza- tion of a vague, prophetic figure, whose his- tory is only legend. If we are to draw any dis- tinction, it must be between the Divine in hu- man form and the Divine beyond human form —a perfectly valid and orthodox distinction, as Origen would have told us. But we cannot THE BIBLE AS THE WRITTEN CHRIST 61 afford to give up the Divine in human form: we cannot get along without the statement that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself: for, if we do, we are retaining a Christianity with the bottom knocked out of it. Carlyle is reported to have said that he could believe in God, “if He would do some- thing’: and our only answer to that has been to point to Jesus Christ. But if God was not in Christ, then (as far as we know) God has done nothing. Hu- manity has done it all: and our Maker is some far-off aloofness, sitting in His chill chambers in the high and lofty place, blind to the tears of earth, deaf to the cries that echo from this “sad sister among the stars.” Far better that there be no God: far better that the crown should fall on humanity’s repugnant brow— for man at least can love! In a situation so serious and so momentous, we owe a debt past measurement to the grave students, whom men call critics; for they have authenticated the records for us, and we can be confident that in them we have a living portrait of Jesus. Things had gone pretty far, when modern students (many of them we 62 MODERNIST FUNDAMENTALISM may proudly remember, in our own Church) took the matter in hand. For a while there was a craze for putting the dates of the rec- ords late: the farther they could push them into the second century the happier a certain type of mind, noticeably those of Teutonic descent, seemed to be. Some, indeed, went farther still, if all tales be true, and hinted that the story of Jesus was an invention of priests, and that Jesus was a myth. Remarkable priests they must have been, to be such scamps and to be able to invent such loveliness: and still more remarkable people, who listened to such nonsense. Archbishop Whately put a satisfactory fool’s cap on them by writing a jeu desprit entitled “Historic Doubts Rela- tive to Napoleon Bonaparte,” in which he made out an excellent c o . & _) - ev e a A) Pal i. c = Ee e ”“ w ny a 2 ° e a= — Ss = ev pe) oc = a 1 wee ee +