LETTER BY REV. JOHN URQUHART.
IT has been known for some time that the poison of the infidel Higher Criticism had found its way to the Foreign Missions of the Free Church. And, indeed, how could it be otherwise? Has not this pernicious Criticism been a feature of the theological colleges of the Free Church for years, whence have come forth young men for the foreign as well as the home field? It may be regarded as an undoubted fact that very few, indeed, of these young men have refused to accept the teaching of their professors (since 1900 in the United Free Church), and have not imbibed the ruinous ideas of the Higher Criticism. It is very gratifying on the other hand to learn that “the educated and intelligent native Christians” in India hold by the old and sound views of the Bible.
The following letter of Mr. Urquhart’s bears upon the case of Indian Missions, and should contribute to open the eyes of a deceived public at home. Mr. Urquhart had spoken on this subject at a recent Free Church meeting at Inverness, and his letter (which appeared in the Scotsman) was evoked by a writer who in irate ignorance had taken exception to his remarks:—
U.F. MISSIONS IN INDIA.
Parkview, Cambuslang, September 21, 1904.
SIR,—I have just come to know of Mr. D. M. Traill’s letter, which criticised my statement at Inverness. He writes to protest as strongly as he can; but I need hardly remind your readers that, in order to be really strong, a protest must rest upon something better than mere assertion and unstinted personal abuse.
The real nature of the Indian missions has long been concealed from the contributing laity. They no more deserve the name of “missions” than English secondary schools. That is a fact which the country ought to know, and my statement of it cannot be successfully contested.
But, says Mr. Traill, the education is imparted from a Christian standpoint. Undoubtedly that was so formerly. Now the standpoint is largely, if not wholly, that of German rationalism. If Mr. Traill contests this, it can only be because he is not aware of the change that has come over the mission field. I referred in my Inverness speech to a paper by “Rev. J. M. MacPhail, M.D., U.F. Church of Scotland Mission,” published in “The East and the West” in January of the present year. Referring to the recent mission conference held in Calcutta, he says:—”A considerable number of European missionaries were present, but it was noticeable that the representatives of the extremely orthodox view were chiefly, if not entirely, confined to the educated native Christians, who were uncompromising in their opposition to the more modern theories of inspiration.” He then sets himself to explain how the modern missionary and the native convert find themselves in separate and opposing camps. He says:—
“For various reasons it is natural that the educated and intelligent native Christians should be biased in favour of the older views. The earlier missionaries as a rule were men who held intensely strong convictions on the doctrine of inspiration, and they earnestly impressed them upon their converts. No man has left a deeper impression upon the mind of Christian Young India than Alexander Duff, and the vehemence with which in his last days he opposed the views of the late Professor Robertson Smith was no less than that with which in earlier years he had thrown himself into the conflict with the errors of Hinduism. . . . It is but to be expected that those who looked upon him as their father in Christ, and whose opinions and characters were largely moulded under his magnetic influence, should hold tenaciously to his teaching.”
All this is, of course, thoroughly in keeping with the “discoveries” of the higher criticism. All the orthodox are traditionalists. Not a man of them ever had a mind of his own. There is this to be said for the higher critic, that the measure he metes out to us he has also meted out to himself. He has long since ceased to think, and has betaken himself to the most childlike imbibing of the opinions of “authorities.” It might, however, surprise Dr. MacPhail to know how much the convictions of these native Christians owed to their acquaintance with the Scriptures. The rest of the article in “The East and the West” is an attempt to show that the old position is now untenable.
When the appeal was made to send out missionaries to India, and pious donors dropped their contributions into the plate, did it ever occur to preacher or to people that what was needed for India was to send out a man, who could hold up his Lord as a discredited teacher? Is not that a kind of thing that every man of them would bring to an end if he could? And did I go beyond due bounds when I said that it would be a distinct gain to India if the whole of these men were bundled home?—I am, etc.,
JOHN URQUHART.