8
2
8
download/literature/watchtower/1902-14.pdf
watchtower/1902/14/1902-14-2
JULY
15.
1902
ZION)S
WATCH
TOWER
(211
-213)
dangel
to
the
peace
and
prosperity
of
the
church
arising
di
Iectly
from
the
intrusion
of
this
cntical
controversy
in
its
present
form,
the
A~sembly
appoint
a
large
and
representa
tive
Committee
to
take
account
of
the
whole
situation
with
a
view
to
arriving
at
such
conclusions
as
shall
dispel
anxiety
and
clear
the
te~timony
of
the
church
before
the
world.
Dr.
John
McEwan,
E<hnhurgh,
seconded.
Dr.
'Wells
moved
t~at
the
Assembly
resolve
to
appoint
a
Committee
to
confer
wIth
Dr.
Geor<Te
Adam
Smith
in
the
hope
that
the
perplexities
be
removcd.
b
Lord
Overtoun
seconded.
Considerable
discussion
followed.
Profes;;or
George
Adam
Smith
addressed
the
House,
complaining
that
he
had
been
misrepresented.
Amid
loud
ap
plause
hp
dedared-"From
the
bottom
of
my
heart
I
beli~ve
in
the
Bible
as
the
revelation
of
God
to
sinful
man-a
thmg
which
found
me
long
before
I
found
it."
On
a
division,
Dr.
Smith's
amendment
was
defeated
by
that
of
Dr.
Wells;
and
on
a
fUl
ther
division,
the
report
of
the
College
Committee
was
approved
by
1)34
to
263
given
for
Dr.
We.lls'
am.endme~t.
This
decision,
together
with
the
whole
attItude
m
whICh
the
churches
stand
towards
the
Higher
Criticism
in
view
of
their
CI
ecd~
and
standards,
such
as
the
"Confession
of
Faith,"
has
been
exten~ively
commented
upon
by
the
press
of
the
coun
try.
There
have,
of
course.
been
various
opinions
expressed;
but
the
following
extracts
will
be
found
as
instructive
and
~ugge~tive
of
the
real
state
of
matters
in
Scotland
as
they
are
undoubtedly
plain
and
incisive
in
terms.
They
are
both
from
the
Edinburgh
Evening
News,
an
ably
edited
and
influential
daily
of
the
Scottish
capital.
The
first
extract,
a
leading
ar
ticle,
deals
with
the
general
question:-
Some
of
the
influential
among
the
clergy
are
getting
alarmed
about
the
Higher
Criticism.
This
feeling
found
ex
pI
ession
yesterday
in
the
Established
Church
Assembly.
Speakmg
on
the
indifl'erence
of
the
masses,
Dr
Mair
attributed
it
largely
to
the
Higher
Crihcism.
His
words
are
worth
re·
production:
"The
lapsing
class
cared
nothing
at
all
about
creeds,
but
they
did
care
about
their
squabbling.
They
said,
'When
you
have
made
up
your
own
minds
then
we
may
hear
you.'
The
prime
cause
was
the
change
in
the
way
of
reo
garding
Scripture
that
had
arisen
largely
from
scientific
nat
uralism
and
from
the
Higher
Criticism
acting
upon
an
age
whIch
worshiped
progress
and
seemed
to
think
that
the
new
est
was
always
best.
He
condemned
reckless
unscientific
criticism,
"hich
only
and
always
did
mischief,
and
it
was
re
markable
that
these
thing'!
percolated
down
into
the
lowest
classes
evcn.
Harl
the
churches
changed
in
their
way
of
re
garding
the
Word
of
God?"
Dr.
Mair
has
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
Why
should
the
working
classes
attend
church?
In
the
days
of
orthodoxy,
when
the
Diblc
was
believed
to
be
an
au·
thoritative
revelation,
preacher
and
hearpr
held
definite
rela
tions
to
each
other.
Sheltpre<l
hchmd
a
"Thus
saith
the
Lord,"
tl1l'
preacher
could
unfold
before
his
hearers,
after
the
style
of
Jonathan
Ed\\ar<h,
a
scheme
of
Redemption,
which
in
es
sence
was
a
philosophy
of
history.
Man's
creation,
his
fall,
the
progressive
upward
movements
under
supernatural
guid
ance,
as
exhibiterj
in
the
call
of
Abraham,
the
selec.tion
of
the
chIldren
of
Israel,
the
wilderness
legislation,
sacrificial
and
ritualistic,
typical
of
the
New
Testament
revelation-these
things
formed
the
staple
of
orthodox
preaching,
and
gave
to
hUlEctli
life
un
organic
unity.
To
thc
anxious
inquirer,
with
hi~,
"What
must
I
do
to
be
saved?"
the
old
divines
had
a
rE'ady
and
intelligent
answer.
They
could
point
him
to
the
rross
upon
which
the
serond
person
in
the
trinity
died
as
an
expiation
for
human
guilt.
If
questioned
as
to
the
authority
for
all
this,
the
ortho<lox
divine
could
appeal
to
the
Bible
as
an
inspired
and
infallible
record.
He
could
show
the
organic
unity
bctwE'en
the
Old
and
New
Testaments,
and
without
dif
ficulty
could
provE'
from
the
wilderness
legislation
and
pro
phetic
predictions
the
transcendent
greatness
of
Christ
and
the
sacrificial
nature
of
his
death.
"nat
has
the
higher
critic
to
say
to
the
anxiou~
inquirer
with
his
cry,
"'Vhat
must
I
do
to
be
saved?"
The
higher
critic
can
no
longer
point
to
Christ,
the
serond
person
in
the
trinity,
as
the
Savior
of
sinners.
Ac
cording
to
the
"Encyclopedia
Biblica,"
there
was
nothing
spe
cially
supernatural
about
Christ.
The
miraculous
birth
is
explained
away
or
ignored,
the
miracles
are
attributed
tc
mis
understandmgs
or
exaggerations,
the
supernatural,
in
short,
is
reduced
to
a
minimum.
Then
Professor
George
Adam
Smith
has
torn
to
tatter'l
the
old
Redemption
drama,
which
l'harmed
the
heart
of
.Tohn
Calvin,
Jonathan
Edwards,
John
Knox,
LuthE'r,
and
our
own
Candlish
and
Cunningham.
Ac
cording
to
thf'
higher
critics,
there
was
no
fall,
no
call
of
Abraham.
no
special
legislation
in
the
wilderness,
no
sacri
fil'lal
symbol'l
of
the
great
'larrifice
on
Calvary,
no
predictions
of
Chri~t.
In
a
word,
the
Bible
is
a
collection
of
mvthical
stories,
from
whil'h
a
preachl'r
may
extract
a
few
grains
of
ethical
teaching
just
as
a
skilled
moralist
may
extract
a
few
grains
of
ethical
teachmg
from
"JEsop's
Fables."
The
work
ing
classes
are
not
fools.
They
will
not
attend
church
to
lis
tp.n
to
men
who
thcmselves
are
living
in
a
mental
fog,
men
who,
if
they
were
honest.
would
prefer
breaking
stones
on
the
highway
to
saturating
their
souls
with
hypocnsy
for
the
sake
of
the
loaves
and
fishes.
[We
are
quoting
the
above
not
endorsing
it
all.
The
editor
would
bE'
very
interested
in
seeing
BiblE'
proofs
about
the
trin
ity.
He
is
sure
that
neither
the
thought
nor
thE'
word
tnmty
is
Scriptural.
It
is
such
can-less
usl'
of
the
Bible
that
has
given
higher
crities
the
foothold
they
have
obtained.]
The
second-also
a
leading
article-appeared
On
the
day
following
the
decii"ion
in
the
Professor
Smith
case:-
There
is
no
use
mincing
matters.
The
Protestant
church
is
an
organized
hypocrisy,
and
its
leaders
arrant
humbugs.
It
is
actually
come
to
this
that
if
the
author
of
the
"Age
of
Reason"
were
alive
today
he
would
not
be
spoken
of
derisively
as
Tom
Paine,
the
infidel,
but
the
Rev.
Thomas
Paine,
D.
D.,
Professor
of
Hebrew
and
Old
Testament
Exegesis,
U.
F.
Col
lege,
Glasgow.
lIe
would
have
no
difficulty
in
preaching
fro~
a
Protestant
pulpit.
That
means
that
while
professing
to
pm
its
faith
on
the
Bible
as
an
authoritative,
supernatural
reve
lation
the
Prote"tant
church
is
now
willing
to
tolerate
in
its
pulpits
and
its
professorial
chairs
men
who
hold
the
views
of
the
famous
Paine.
What
were
the
conclusions
reached
by
Paine?
Pretty
much
the
conclusions
reached
by
the
higher
critics
who
today
fill
the
highest
positions
in
Protestant
churches.
In
order
to
justify
this
assertion
it
will
b~
neces
sary
to
examine
the
views
of
the
higher
critics
in
detaIl.
Let
us
begin
with
the
first
book
in
the
Bible,
Genesis.
What
do
the
hIgher
critics
say
about
that
book?
For
answer
let
us
turn
to
the
article
on
Genesis
by
Professor
G.
F.
Moore
in
the
second
volume
of
the
"Encyclopedia
Biblica."
Aecording
to
Professor
Moore,
Genesis
was
written
about
the
eighth
century
B.
C.
Consequently,
Moses
could
not
be
the
author.
As
to
iti:!
historical
value,
the
Professor
shows
what
he
thinks
of
it
by
talking
of
"the
legends
of
Abraham,
and
especially
of
Isaac."
In
a
similar
strain
writes
Professor
Adam
SmIth,
whose
case
was
before
the
U.
F.
Assembly
yesterday.
Paine
in
his
book
gives
ground
also
for
believing
that
Genesis
could
not
be
the
work
of
Moses,
and
that
it
was
a
collection
of
traditions,
stories
and
fables.
Thus
both
the
theological
professors
and
Paine
reach
substantially
the
same
conclusion.
The
close
agreement
between
the
higher
critics
of
today
and
Paine
is
still
further
SE'en
m
the
article
on
Historical
Literature.
abo
by
Professor
Moore,
who
remarks
that
"the
stories
of
the
pa
triarchs
Abraham,
Isaac,
Israel,
and
his
sons,
are
told
with
a
wealth
of
circumstance
and
a
vividness
of
color
which
show
that
we
have
entered
the
realm
of
pure
legend."
Let
us
turn
to
the
article
"Elijah."
and
what
do
we
find?
At
the
opening
of
the
article
we
find
the
author.
the
Rev.
W.
E.
Addis,
Man
chester,
writing
as
follows:
"We
shall
be
better
able
to
ap
preciate
his
(Elijah's)
position
when
we
have
examine<j
the
legendary
narratives
in
which
his
history
is
enshrined."
It
is
the
same
with
Elisha.
Mr.
Addis
here
also
complains
of
the
difficulty
of
reaching
historic
fact
on
account
of
the
legendary
nature
of
the
Biblical
account.
This
is
very
much
the
posi
tion
of
Professor
Smith.
Here,
too,
is
substantial
agreement
with
Paine,
"ho,
instead
of
u'ling
the
word
"legendary."
uses
the
word
"romancing."
Take
a
crucial
instance,
the
famous
prediction
in
Isaiah
about
the
Messiah.
Here
is
what
Profes
sor
Smith
says:
"Isaiah
meant
no
more
than
that
some
one
should
be
born
whose
character
and
hopes
should
be
proof
that
God
was
with
his
people.
Whether
the
plOmised
unborn
was
an
individual
or
a
future
generation
of
Israel
it
is
diffi
cult
to
make
out;
but
probably
the
lattcr
is
what
Isaiah
in
tends."
Professor
Smith
further
knocks
the
feet
from
the
fa·
mous
prediotion
by
stating
that
the
word
"virgin"
should
be
really
translated
"marriageahle
woman."
That
is
rather
a
se
vere
blow
at
the
incarnation
as
detailed
bv
Matthew.
The
nota
ble
feature
is
that
this
is
precisely
tIll'
th'eory
of
Painl'.
who.
if
alive
today,
instead
of
being
pprsecuted
as
a
base
infidel,
would
be
drawing
a
handsome
salary
as
a
professor
of
theol
ogy
in
the
U.
F.
church.
Dr.
Rainy
jmtifips
this
kind
of
tom
foolpry
on
the
plea
that
the
question
about
the
authenticity
of
thl'
Bible
is
undl'r
g-ravp
discussion,
and
that
we
had
better
wait
for
light.
That
is
to
say,
the
church
is
no
longer
the
witness
of
GOll
upon
earth,
but
a
huge
debating
society,
in
which
large
salaries
are
paid
to
those
who
8et
themselves
to
clestroy
the
cre-ed
to
which
they
have
suhscribed.
The
pro
cpedings
of
yesterday
confirm
us
in
our
old
opinion,
that
the
church
has
become
a
colossal
sham,
and
the
clergy
a
band
of
~leek-faccd
Jesuitical
trimmers,
who8e
moral
obliquity
is
only
equa
led
by
thpir
intl'llectual
dishonesty.
[
3041]
JuLy 15, 1902 dange: to the peace and prosperity of the church arising directly from the intrusion of this critical controversy in its present form, the Assembly appoint a large and representative Committee to take account of the whole situation with a view to arriving at such conclusions as shall dispel anxiety and clear the testimony of the church before the world. Dr. John McEwan, Edinburgh, seconded. Dr. Wells moved that the Assembly resolve to appoint a Committee to confer with Dr. George Adam Smith in the hope that the perplexities be removed. Lord Overtoun seconded. Considerable discussion followed. Professor George Adam Smith addressed the House, complaining that he had been misrepresented. Amid loud applause he declared—“From the bottom of my heart I believe in the Bible as the revelation of God to sinful man—a thing which found me long before I found it.” On a division, Dr. Smith’s amendment was defeated by that of Dr. Wells; and on a further division, the report of the College Committee was approved by 534 to 263 given for Dr, Wells’ amendment. This decision, together with the whole attitude in which the churches stand towards the Higher Criticism in view of their creeds and standards, such as the “Confession of Faith,” has been extensively commented upon by the press of the country. There have, of course. been various opinions expressed ; but the following extracts will be found as instructive and suggestive of the real state of matters in Scotland as they are undoubtedly plain and incisive in terms. They are both from the Edinburgh Evening News, an ably edited and influential daily of the Scottish capital. The first extract, a leading article, deals with the genera] question:— Some of the influential among the clergy are getting alarmed about the Higher Criticism. This feeling found expression yesterday in the Established Church Assembly. Speaking on the indifference of the masses, Dr Mair attributed it largely to the Higher Criticism. His words are worth reproduction: “The lapsing class cared nothing at all about creeds, but they did care about their squabbling. They said, ‘When you have made up your own minds then we may hear you.’ The prime cause was the change in the way of regarding Scripture that had arisen largely from scientific naturalism and from the Higher Criticism acting upon an age which worshiped progress and seemed to think that the newest was always best. He condemned reckless unscientific eriticism, which only and always did mischief, and it was remarkable that these things percolated down into the lowest classes even. Had the churches changed in their way of regarding the Word of God’” Dr. Mair has hit the nail on the head. Why should the working classes attend church? In the days of orthodoxy, when the Bible was believed to be an authoritative revelation, preacher and hearer held definite relations to each other. Sheltered behind a “Thus saith the Lord,” the preacher could unfold before his hearers, after the style of Jonathan Edwards, a scheme of Redemption, which in essence was a philosophy of history. Man’s creation, his fall, the progressive upward movements under supernatural guidance, as exhibited in the call of Abraham, the selection of the children of Israel, the wilderness legislation, sacrificial and ritualistic, typical of the New Testament revelation—these things formed the staple of orthodox preaching, and gave to human life an organie unity. To the anxious inquirer, with his, “What must I do to be saved?” the old divines had a ready and intelligent answer. They could point him to the cross upon which the second person in the trinity died as an expiation for human guilt. If questioned as to the authority for all this, the orthodox divine could appeal to the Bible as an inspired and infallible record. He could show the organic unity between the Old and New Testaments, and without difficulty could prove from the wilderness legislation and prophetic predictions the transcendent greatness of Christ and the sacrificlal nature of his death. What has the higher critic to say to the anxious inquirer with his ery, “What must I do to be saved?” The higher critic can no longer point to Christ, the second person in the trinity, as the Savior of sinners. According to the “Encyclopedia Biblica,’ there was nothing specially supernatural about Christ. The miraculous birth is explained away or ignored, the miracles are attributed tc misunderstandings or exaggerations, the supernatural, in short, is reduced to a minimum. Then Professor George Adam Smith has torn to tatters the old Redemption drama, which charmed the heart of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Knox, Luther, and our own Candlish and Cunningham. According to the higher critics, there was no fall, no call of Abrahain, no special legislation in the wilderness, no sacrificial symbols of the great sacrifice on Calvary, no predictions of Christ. In a word, the Bible is a collection of mythical stories, from which a preacher may extract a few grains of ZION’S WATCH TOWER (211 -213) ethica] teaching just as a skilled moralist may extract a few grains of ethical teaching from “Ausop’s Fables.” The working classes are not fools. They will not attend church to listen to men who themselves are living in a mental fog, men who, if they were honest, would prefer breaking stones on the highway to saturating their souls with hypocrisy for the sake of the loaves and fishes. {We are quoting the above not endorsing it all. The editor would be very interested in seeing Bible proofs about the trinity. He is sure that neither the thought nor the word trinity is Scriptural. It is such careless use of the Bible that has given higher critics the foothold they have obtained.) The second—also a leading article—appeared on the day following the decision in the Professor Smith case:— There is no use mincing matters. The Protestant church is an organized hypocrisy, and its leaders arrant humbugs. It is actually come to this that if the author of the “Age of Reason” were alive today he would not be spoken of derisively as Tom Paine, the infidel, but the Rev. Thomas Paine, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, U. F. College, Glasgow. He would have no difficultv in preaching from a Protestant pulpit. That means that while professing to pin its faith on the Bible as an authoritative, supernatural revelation, the Protestant church is now willing to tolerate in its pulpits and its professorial chairs men who hold the views of the famous Paine. What were the conclusions reached by Paine? Pretty much the conclusions reached by the higher eritics who today fill the highest positions in Protestant churches. In order to justify this assertion it will be_necessary to examine the views of the higher critics in detail. Let us begin with the first book in the Bible, Genesis. What do the higher critics say about that book? For answer let us turn to the article on Genesis by Professor G. F. Moore in the second volume of the “Encyclopedia Biblica.” Aecording to Professor Moore, Genesis was written about the eighth century B. C. Consequently, Moses could not be the author. As to its historical value, the Professor shows what he thinks of it by talking of “the legends of Abraham, and especially of Isaac.” In a similar strain writes Professor Adam Smith, whose case was before the U. F. Assembly yesterday. Paine in his book gives ground also for believing that Genesis could not be the work of Moses, and that it was a collection of traditions, stories and fables. Thus both the theological professors and Paine reach substantially the same conclusion. The close agreement between the higher critics of today and Paine is still further seen in the article on Historica] Literature, also by Professor Moore, who remarks that “the stories of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and his sons, are told with a wealth of circumstance and a vividness of color which show that we have entered the realm of pure legend.” Let us turn to the article “Elijah,” and what do we find? At the opening of the article we find the author. the Rev. W. E. Addis, Manchester, writing as follows: “We shall be better able to appreciate his (Elijah’s) position when we have examined the legendary narratives in which his history is enshrined.” It is the same with Elisha. Mr. Addis here also complains of the difficulty of reaching historic fact on account of the legendary nature of the Biblical account. This is very much the position of Professor Smith. Here, too, is substantial agreement with Paine, who, instead of using the word “legendary.” uses the word “romancing.” Take a crucial instance, the famous prediction in Isaiah about the Messiah. Here is what Professor Smith says: “Isaiah meant no more than that some one should be born whose character and hopes should be proof that God was with his people. Whether the promised unborn was an individual or a future generation of Israel it is difficult to make out; but probably the latter is what Isaiah intends.” Professor Smith further knocks the feet from the famous prediction by stating that the word “virgin” should be really translated “marriageable woman.” That is rather a severe blow at the incarnation as detailed by Matthew. The notable feature is that this is precisely the theory of Paine, who, if alive today, instead of being persecuted as a base infidel, would be drawing a handsome salary as a professor of theology in the U. F. church. Dr. Rainy justifies this kind of tomfoolery on the plea that the question about the authenticity of the Bible is under grave discussion, and that we had better wait for light. That is to say, the church is no longer the witness of God upon earth, but a huge debating society, in which large salaries are paid to those who set themselves to destroy the creed to which they have subscribed. The proceedings of yesterday confirm us in our old opinion, that the church has become a colossal sham, and the clergy a band of sleek-faced Jesuitical trimmers, whose moral] obliquity is only equaled by their intellectual dishonesty. [3041]
To enhance your experience on our website, we use cookies and similar technologies. Some cookies are essential for the core functionality of our site and cannot be declined. You can choose to accept or decline additional cookies. We want to assure you that none of this data will be sold or used for marketing purposes. You can adjust your preferences at any time by accessing the Privacy Settings from the footer of the page. For more information, please refer to our
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
.
