IN the Scotsman and Glasgow Herald of February 23rd there appeared from the pen of Professor Alexander, The New College, Edinburgh, a reply to those who have criticised his book on “Demonic Possession in the New Testament.” In our opinion the reply is a most unsatisfactory one, and reflects little credit on the Professor. It is as follows:—
“Sir,—As the present situation of the Free Church is not unlikely to necessitate a summer session for our students, it may not be possible for me to issue a new edition of my book on “Demonic Possession” in the immediate future, as I had hoped to do. I need hardly point out here that my book was published precisely three years ago to-day—20th February, 1902—and that before I had joined the Free Church in that year. My article in the Expository Times on “St. Paul’s Infirmary” was written before that date, having been in the hands of the editor almost three years. Both writings have undergone two series of reviews—the first on the whole quite fair, and apart from the present Church question; the second violently prejudiced mainly as a sequel to the existing crisis in the United Free Church. Though the first series of reviews included articles by the British Weekly, the Bookman, the Missionary Record of the United Free Church, and the Critical Review, in not a single instance was I called a “Higher Critic.” That is the discovery or invention of the second series of reviewers; and the fact is in itself highly significant.
My aim in writing upon the subject of demonic possession is greatly misunderstood by some and grossly misrepresented by others. My intention was the very opposite of that of the “Higher Critics.” They have scoffed at the mere idea of “possession,” and assert that our Lord was as ignorant and as superstitious as His contemporaries. What, then, of His authority in religion? Or they declare that He accommodated Himself to the ignorance and superstition of His age. What, then, of His integrity? In repelling these charges of the “Higher Critics” I have furnished new, emphatic, and positive proof of the utter superiority of Christ to all superstition, of the existence of genuine demonic possession in His age, of the reality and uniqueness of His healing ministry, and of the divine spotlessness of His integrity. In meeting the “Higher Critics” on their own ground and in turning their weapons against themselves I find that I have quite unwittingly left one or two references somewhat unguarded. These have been seized upon for controversial purposes, and riven from their context as single sentences, or as catch phrases, and given a construction which they were never intended to bear, and which I heartily repudiate. I have never advocated those theories, which postulate the importation of heathenism from Babylonia or elsewhere into the pure religion of Israel, or a deuterio-Isaiah, or other mutilation of the Scriptures, or alleged discrepancies as annulling the historicity of the Bible narratives.
In regard to my views on “Demonic Possession” and “St Paul’s Infirmary,” I was careful to make it clear in the introduction to these writings that my conclusions were not regarded by me as final, but as simply tentative in part. None of my censors have had the fairness to note that fact. To the category of the purely tentative belong more specially the attempted separation of the demoniacs into two classes—”cases truly supernatural,” “cases simply natural,” as also the observations on the destruction of the swine at Gadara. These were put forward as feasible conjectures or suggestions to meet certain difficulties, not out of any deference to the “Higher Critics,” but in the most decided opposition to their rank scepticism on these points. Time has shown me that my views in these respects were unnecessary and immature speculations. As such I have no hesitation in discarding them in their entirety. Their aim was purely apologetic; and nothing could be further from my thought than any dishonour to the Bible as the Word of God. At my ordination as Professor of Divinity in the Free Church I had much pleasure in renewing my adhesion to the Confessional doctrine of “the infallible truth and Divine authority” of the Bible in the words of the formula—”Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approved of by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be founded upon the Word of God, and do you acknowledge the same as the Confession of your Faith, and will you firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain, and defend the same and the purity of worship at presently practised in the Church?” I have no sympathy and never had any, with that agnostic mood which is so largely prevalent in the adjacent Church. I still say to the “Higher Critic” what I have always said—”Take away from us the inspiration and Divine authority of the Scripture, and you take our all. Discredit our Lord as truly the Son of God and the All-sufficient Revealer of the Father, and you remove our very hope of salvation.”
The present attempt to make me appear as one of the basest, or one of the highest, of the Higher Critics has only made me more determined than ever to combat their arrogant and soul-destroying Rationalism, which threatens to subvert the very foundations of our common Christianity.—I am, etc., W. M. ALEXANDER.
REMARKS.
It is only a few weeks since that it was publicly intimated that Dr. Alexander purposed to issue a new edition of his book. Now he declares his intention not to do so in the immediate future. The reason given is the prospective work of a summer session. But there is too plainly another reason, which he fails to mention, namely, that his critics have succeeded in showing that his book is so radically and extensively out of harmony with the creed of his Church that no mere emendations will meet the case. His unsound views have been effectually exposed, and, considering his peculiar position, one might reasonably expect in his letter the breath of humility, but instead of this it is the breath of indignation throughout. We shall attempt to judge nothing before the time, but it is our decided conviction that if the Free Church leaders thoroughly investigate this case, as they ought to do, it will be found that Dr. Alexander is a man who should never have come to occupy his present position. From all that is credibly reported of his ecclesiastical career, we are forced to the conclusion that he deserves very little sympathy in his present predicament.
But to notice some particulars of this remarkable letter. He states that the first series of reviews of his writings was “on the whole quite fair,” but that the second series now appearing is “violently prejudiced.” It is admitted that this may be the case with some of his critics, but not so with others, not so indeed with those who have dealt most thoroughly and effectively with his book. Any criticisms from Free Presbyterian sources have been quite unprejudiced, nor is there anything to show that the writer in the “Reformed Presbyterian Witness” for February has any unfair bias in the matter. The main question, however, to consider is—”Has the truth been told?” If it has, it is vain for Dr. Alexander to take refuge behind an argument of this nature. It is not surprising that the first reviews by the British Weekly, the U.F. Missionary Record, and other such like papers, should not have described him as a higher critic. These reviewers were no doubt, as they still are, in sympathy with his critical opinions, and they are not accustomed to apply the name higher critic to those who agree with themselves, because it has become a term of reproach. Moreover, it is not so much the erroneous character of his views that they presently strike at, but his inconsistency in occupying the responsible position of professor in a Church that is understood to condemn out and out the Higher Criticism. He would fain make out that his now being called a higher critic is the invention of his reviewers.
But it is no invention; it is certainly a discovery, so far as some of us are concerned, and that a very amazing one indeed. And why, if it is an invention, does he withdraw that part of his book where his higher critical ideas appear most conspicuously?
Dr. Alexander also tries to divert attention from the main point at issue in the present case. It is not so much the question of “demons or no demons,” though that has an important relation to the point, but it is that of the way in which he regards the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, in some respects a side issue so far as the professed object of his book is concerned, but all the same a matter of the most fundamental importance. If a man is wrong here, it matters very little where he is right. Dr. Alexander in his book no doubt sets himself against the extreme kind of higher critics—pure, unmitigated Rationalists. He endeavours (as we point out in our opening article) to free Christ from the charge of superstition. But what of all this when he sets the Redeemer and the inspired writers at variance with one another? He lays the blame of the superstition upon the latter, and that indeed by admitting and describing things as superstitious which he had no warrant to do. His opinion is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke represent a Triple Tradition which embodies a variety of superstitions about demons. What, then, becomes of the fundamental doctrine that the writers of the Gospels and other books of Holy Scripture were inspired of the Holy Ghost in all that they wrote? Further, it is positively untrue for Dr. Alexander to say that he has “never advocated those theories which postulate the importation of heathenism from Babylonia or elsewhere into the pure religion of Israel.” Does he not say at page 11, in connection with the Belzebub controversy, “The appeal to ‘the prince of demons’ introduces us to Bel-Ea of the Babylonians. The Scribes and Pharisees were immersed in the pseudo-science of their times; the Nine were crippled by the same?” He holds that the nine disciples who tried to cure the boy with the dumb and deaf spirit were crippled by the false science of their times, which they had in common with the Babylonians. Had the nine nothing of the pure religion of Israel? Again, on page 14, he deals with “Creatures haunting the waters,” as spoken of in the Old Testament, and declares: “These recall the Creation Legend of Cutha and the Babylonian myths of Berossus. Their importation from the East is possible.” He uses the words “possible” and “may have been” in this connection all in the way of advocating the idea of importation from heathendom. Is it not equally serious for him to suggest that they had a place in the pure religion of the New Testament? Further proof is found at page 202, where he maintains that the possession of animals by demons is an ethnic or pagan idea, as also “the transference of demons from human beings to objects animate and inanimate.” This is no doubt in the chapter on the destruction of the swine at Gadara, which he now withdraws, but his statement that he never advocated such opinions is distinctly misleading. In like manner in regard to mutilations of the Scriptures and discrepancies Dr. Alexander writes in his book after the manner of the higher critics. He suggests “a redactor,” and as quoted in our opening article he writes in Appendix J not of “alleged discrepancies,” but of discrepancies such as cannot be reconciled. We take the word “historicity” to mean “historical accuracy.” He affirms that concerning the gospel narratives at page 148, and yet he denies it elsewhere. The real original is in the first gospel, not in Mark or Luke (p. 271). What coms then of the historicity of the latter two Evangelists? It cannot be relied upon. Surely then Dr. Alexander has held that the alleged discrepancies annul the historicity of some of the Bible narratives. That is also his present opinion, for he has not withdrawn Appendix J.
Dr. Alexander now discards his observations on the demoniacs as divided into classes natural and supernatural and on the destruction of the swine at Gadara. But in what terms does he discard these? As “unnecessary and immature speculations.” That is not an adequate withdrawal. A man may have unnecessary and immature speculations which in nowise contradict the Scriptures or overthrow any fundamental doctrine thereof. Dr. Alexander does not admit the radical erroneousness of his opinions. This is in line with his repudiation of the name higher critic. Again, he declares that “his aim was purely apologetic, and that nothing could be further from” his “thought than any dishonour to the Bible as the Word of God.” Thus speak all the higher critics who are within the bounds of the Christian Church. They profess to be defenders of the truth, and say that they believe in the Bible as the Word of God, though at the same time they affirm that it is full of traditions, errors, and inaccuracies. Dr. Dods and Dr. G. A. Smith, we believe, would have no difficulty in expressing their faith under these terms of Dr. Alexander.
We note Dr. Alexander’s assertion, which may be too readily regarded by some as sufficient to cover all his errors, that at his ordination as Professor of Divinity in the Free Church he “had much pleasure in renewing” his “adhesion to the Confessional doctrine of ‘the infallible truth and Divine authority’ of the Bible in the words of the formula.” This is so far good; but can it be regarded as sincere from a man who has described the first three Gospels as a Triple Tradition, who has followed the path of the higher critics in his method of dealing with the Scriptures, and yet who only admits that he was indulging in immature speculations, and has only withdrawn a part of his book, other portions equally erroneous being left undiscarded? We think not.
Literary Notices.
The Doctrine of Inspiration in the Confession of Faith.
By the late Rev. John Kennedy, D.D., Dingwall.
This useful tract by Dr. Kennedy has been recently republished, and is deserving of a wide circulation at the present time, when the inspiration of the Bible is being called so much in question. Errorists in Presbyterian churches have tried to make out that the Confession of Faith does not commit them to the inerrancy of the Holy Scripture, but this is only an attempt to evade the plain meaning of words. The Confession declares explicitly that the Holy Scripture, consisting of all the books as they presently stand, has “God who is truth itself” for its author, and “is to be received because it is the word of God” (chap. 1 sec. 4). Again, the Confession speaks of “the entire perfection thereof,” and “the infallible truth and divine authority thereof.” These statements clearly imply verbal inspiration. Dr. Kennedy handles this and other points in his usual able manner, and we trust our readers will do their utmost to circulate this valuable tract for the times. It is to be had from Miss Mackay, 3 Buccleuch Street, Glasgow, price one penny, or 1 ½d post free; 12 copies for 1od post free.
The Scottish Ecclesiastical Crisis and Righteous Retribution.
By W. Lancelot Holland, M.A. London: W. Wileman, 35 Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, C.E. Edinburgh: Stevenson & Co., 9 North Bank Street.
Mr. Holland, once well known in Edinburgh as incumbent of St. Thomas’s Episcopal Church, is now resident in London. He still takes notice of events in Scotland, and has written a tract on the recent judgment of the House of Lords in the Church case. Though having somewhat peculiar views on prophecy and other matters, Mr. Holland has always continued a loyal believer in the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, and he very properly recognises in the blow that has fallen upon the United Free Church the just retribution of God for the way in which her teachers have treated His Word. He gives quotations from Professor G. A. Smith’s work on “Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament.” Mr. Holland also handles in a very vigorous manner the message which the United Free Church, at the Convocation on 15th November in Edinburgh, issued to her people. He says: “All the corruption and festering rottenness which is eating away the very vitals of the truth was skilfully hidden under a cloud of fair words.” Again: “If the United Free Church meant what it said and carried it out, the very first thing they would do would be to repent of the unutterable abominations they have sanctioned and have every intention to sanction to the end.” It would be well if this pamphlet were read and pondered by many. The price is 2 ½d post free.