IT was matter of satisfaction to many who loved the truth in Scotland that as a result of the House of Lords’ decision in the Church case the professors of the United Free Church—representatives of a new and unsound theology—were compelled to vacate the New College, Edinburgh, at the end of October last. The hand of God was specially recognised in this remarkable turn of providence, in view of the fact that these teachers were among the vanguard of a Church which had betrayed the true faith of the gospel, that had been committed to her trust. The present Free Church as victor in the legal contest took possession of the College, and proceeded to organise a staff of professors or lecturers for the current session. The local Presbytery ordained Dr. W. M. Alexander as a regular professor of theology, while the Rev. Dr. Kerr of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Rev. Prof. Morton and Dr. Hay Fleming of the Original Secession Church, and Rev. John Urquhart of the Free Church were appointed lecturers, the first three, as members of other denominations, having kindly offered their services for a time.
Friends of truth had hoped that there was now a staff of teachers inaugurated in the New College to the theological views of none of whom could any exception be taken. It will appear from the sequel of this article that this pleasant expectation has been disappointed in the case of the leading member of the staff. Not long after Dr. Alexander was ordained, letters appeared in the newspapers calling attention to his theological opinions as embodied in a book entitled “Demonic Possession in the New Testament.” It was averred in these letters that his views were of the higher critical school, and were precisely similar to those of the United Free professors, which were condemned so much by the leaders of the Free Church. Quotations were given from the book in support of these assertions. At first we were not disposed to pay much attention to these newspaper effusions, seeing they emanated from prejudiced sources, and were inclined to regard them as unfair criticisms of Dr. Alexander’s work, but at length observing that no satisfactory reply was forthcoming from Dr. Alexander or the representatives of the Free Church, we procured a copy of the book and read it for ourselves. The result was the amazing and painful discovery that here was actually the work of a higher critic, and that Dr. Alexander’s views of the composition of the Holy Scriptures were very much the same as those of Professors Marcus Dods and George Adam Smith. We need hardly say that it is with no desire to gratify the enemies of the Free Church that we take up the pen on this subject, but rather with a view to give what seems to be a necessary exposure of error, and that in the hope that the case will be satisfactorily dealt with by the responsible parties more immediately concerned. Dr. Alexander’s book, which was published in February, 1902, shortly before he joined the Free Church, deals, as has already been indicated, with the subject of possession by demons or evil spirits as described in the New Testament, and professes to treat of “its relations historical, medical, and theological.” It will be seen from the following quotations that Dr. Alexander does not regard the Scriptures as expressing throughout “infallible truth,” but as embodying as their own many ancient superstitions of heathen races, and unreliable traditions in regard to events in the life of Christ Himself.
In Chapter II. he notices the “Demonology of the Old Testament.” Under the head of “Some shadow figures,” he says, “These are mostly the relics of ancient superstitions or imaginations,” and “in ethnic phraseology they may be called good or evil.” Some of these ancient superstitions relative to the shadow-figures of good demons he sets forth in the following paragraph, which the reader may study in detail for himself:—”The good.—By implication these are discoverable in the Fountain of Judgment at Kadesh (Gen. xiv. 7); in the dread sanctity of the oath by the Seven Wells (Gen. xxi. 31; Amos viii. 14); in the unchallenged use of the Teraphim (1 Sam. xiv. 13; Hos. iii. 4); in the animated rod of the diviner (Hos. iv. 12); in the fairy hosts and tree spirits (Can. ii. 7, iii. 5). These appear to belong to the dawn of history, and may be regarded as part of the heritage of primitive races.” The Jews are here put on a level with heathen races. It is also something new and startling to have “the roes and hinds of the field” spoken of in the Song of Solomon, described as “fairy hosts and tree spirits.” In the course of the same chapter, Dr. Alexander lets us understand that he has higher critical doubts about the unity of the prophecy of Isaiah, and evidently considers that the Old Testament may have been seriously tampered with. Thus he writes, “There are two passages in Isaiah which in their present form may be post exilic, but which are charged with ideas essentially primeval.” These are Isaiah xiii. 21, 22, and xxxiv. 14, 15—passages which the most advanced rationalistic critics describe as not the composition of Isaiah, but of some later writer.
In Chapters III. and IV. Dr. Alexander treats of the “Medical Aspects of Demonic Possession,” and the conclusion of his inquiry is that most cases of possession by evil spirits described in the New Testament are simply cases of mental disease and nothing more, and that the inspired writers merely employ “the language of the times” and give expression to the popular superstitious philosophy about evil spirits. The “data of the present inquiry,” he affirms, “are primarily the narratives of the New Testament. But the descriptions often savour of the terminology of the animistic philosophy. To the latter, demons and spirits are natural enough; but to modern psychological medicine these are unknown as causes of disease. They involve a theory which is alien to the principles of scientific pathology” (page 61). Again, he declares in dealing with the narrative of the man with the legion, “The three Evangelists represent a Triple Tradition; but supply data which lead to one congruous result regarding the derangement under consideration” (page 72). Further, in handling the case of the boy who had a dumb and deaf spirit, he states, “This outstanding case of possession deservedly receives a prominent place in the Triple Tradition” (page 83). Here he makes the astonishing declaration that the gospels represent a Triple Tradition. This evidently means that they are not all solid fact, but are stories handed down from one generation to another, whose truth cannot be relied upon. They are partly true, and partly not. It is left to the modern critic to decide what is to be believed. This view overturns any sound doctrine of inspiration by the Holy Spirit, and leaves us with merely human erring documents, less to be relied upon than many secular histories that are esteemed as genuine truth throughout. “The Triple Tradition” theory of the Gospel narratives is one belonging to the higher, or rather, as they ought to be called, the lower critics.
Some samples of the way in which Dr. Alexander views New Testament incidents are the following. He appears to object to the idea of people being possessed by many evil spirits. This is what he calls poly-demonistic philosophy. Thus he says in regard to the case of Mary Magdalene, “While insanity was doubtless present, it is not quite easy to assign a precise meaning to the ‘seven demons.'” “The best explanation is that which leads us to recognise here the operation of Babylonian influences. In the Magical Texts of Babylonia the ‘seven spirits’ are of frequent occurrence.” The idea is, not that Mary was actually possessed of seven, but that this is a Babylonian way of speaking or writing, and simply “attests the severity of Mary’s disorder.” Dr. Alexander also takes up the narrative in Acts xix., concerning the miracles wrought during Paul’s stay of two years in Ephesus, in which it is stated that “God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought forth unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” What comment has our author the boldness to make on this? It is the following, “The superstitions of the Ephesian Christians are thrust into unhappy prominence as well as their magical practices” (p. 100). Here the use of the handkerchiefs or aprons in healing is labelled superstitions and magical practices, while the wisdom of the inspired writer is challenged by the assertion that such things are “thrust into unhappy prominence.” Evidently, Dr. Alexander does not believe that Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote. The use of “the shadow of Peter” in connection with healing is also described as superstitious, and Dr. Alexander holds that “there is no evidence whatever to prove that either Peter or Paul encouraged these practices.” It may be answered that we have no proof whatever that the Apostles discouraged or disapproved of these practices. Could not the Most High use the very simplest means to accomplish His wonders of healing and deliverance? The whole tenor of the narrative suggests that the practices were quite approved by the Apostles. It is only a critic with a special idea to work out that would hint anything else. Dr. Alexander finishes up this paragraph of his discussion by asserting that “the grace of God is not of necessity bound to the correctness of a theory. Jesus responded to a genuine, though superstitious faith in the case of the sick woman (Matt. ix. 22).” By this kind of argument he tries to explain the fact that the people were cured, notwithstanding what he considers their superstitious methods, and instances the case of the woman with the issue of blood. His illustration, in our opinion, only exposes more and more the utter fallacy of his opinions. It is the first time we have heard that it was superstitious in the woman to touch the hem of Christ’s garment with the expectation of a cure. Christ did not call it superstition; virtue immediately flowed out of Him for her healing; and He dismissed her with words of assurance and consolation, “Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole.” Not a hint of any superstition in her faith. Dr. Alexander is surely not wiser than Christ Himself.
In Chapter IV. a footnote reveals the higher critic. Our author describes the mention of “evil spirits” in Luke vii. 21 as “an independent touch,” and adds the suggestive query “Is it the hand of a redactor?” Rationalistic critics believe that the originals of the Holy Scriptures passed through many hands—the hands of redactors or editors who took the unhallowed liberty of tampering with the sacred books and inserting at will their own ideas or expressions in them—a base opinion that is entirely subversive of the divine authorship of the Scriptures, and an unholy speculation that is utterly unwarranted by historical facts. It is lamentable to find that a professor in the present Free Church, who has only recently declared anew his unqualified adherence to the Confession of Faith, should be infected with the principles of the pernicious higher criticism.
This review will (D.V.) be concluded in next issue.