ONE of the gravest aspects of the Higher Criticism is its bearing on Foreign Missions. It has hitherto been the singular glory of Christianity that it sent forth its messengers into all the world with a Book for which they claimed absolute inerrancy, to whose Divine authority they ever made their last appeal, and whose pre-eminence they were able to establish “by many infallible proofs.” It would appear, however, that all this is now changed. The Bible is discredited at home—at least wherever the hypotheses of the Critics are accepted as facts; and men go across the seas to convey to the heathen the knowledge of a Book which is full of mistakes, which is defective even in its morality, not to speak of its history and its science, and in which the ruthless analysis of the Critic has left only a tiny residuum of truth. Can we wonder if missionary effort along these lines means failure? Can we wonder if the fervour and enthusiasm of other days are gone? What kind of reception can we expect for a Gospel whose light is so much darkness? No wonder that intelligent Mahomedans and Hindoos are rejoicing in what they regard as the overthrow of Christianity, and treating with scorn the pretensions of a religion whose sacred writings carry no greater authority than their own.
We have reason for thankfulness, however, that the Higher Criticism has not yet carried the mission field. There are still not a few, all honour to them, who are “faithful among the faithless.” They have held their ground against the current of modern religious thought, and abide fearlessly by the teaching of the Bible regarding itself. They have their own battles to fight, and their own reproach to bear, as the faithful have had in all generations; they bear the burden and heat of the day in more senses than one beneath those tropical suns; but those who are on the Lord’s side shall have the Lord of Hosts on their side; and the Cause for which they are contending shall yet triumph gloriously, however unpopular it may be to-day.
The following extracts are from letters of a young Presbyterian missionary in India. They throw a strong light on the condition of unsettlement and upheaval which prevails abroad, and are of interest and authority as expressing the views of a man who is face to face in actual practice with the situation created by the Higher Criticism.
22nd May, 1903.
“Things are coming to a crisis now about the Higher Criticism. Since the Calcutta Conference upon the subject, a month or two ago, things have been gradually boiling up. Mr. — has been the means of strengthening more than one in the traditional views of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, and the C.M.S. missionaries are, as far as we know at present, all sound, but unfortunately the L.M.S. and U.F. missionaries are not so. Mahomedans are rejoicing in the overthrow of the Bible, and the Hindoos claim the same inspiration for their Vedas as do the Critical School for our Scriptures, and this is from the admissions about the Bible made at that conference. Dr. Paton, when last I heard him speak in Edinburgh, said ‘how much it pained one to hear the professors of the Church proclaim as not the Word of God that which had been the means of salvation to the cannibals of the New Hebrides.’ How much does it also pain one to find those who are supposed to be spreading the Word of God among the heathen, and feeding the Church upon it, instead of doing so, telling the native Church and the heathen that the Bible is no longer an infallible guide, that its books were not written at the time when they are said to be written, and that the human authors were not the men who have come down to us as such. The Pentateuch was not written by Moses, the Psalms were not written by David (some of the critics say that some of them were), Esther is a legend, and Daniel a romance: Abraham and the patriarchs belong to the region of myths, and Isaiah never prophesied of the Messiah. Professor G. A. Smith in his book distinctly states this last as a fact, even the 53rd chapter he refers to one of the prophets; and last of all that the Lord Jesus was not divine! And yet these people say they have a message to proclaim from the Bible! Surely He is coming soon when it seems as if even the elect are being deceived. Shall He find faith in the earth when He cometh? We who are out here feel the effects of these critical views far more than they do at home. . . . . I know I have written strongly on this question; but it is only the truth; and one can hardly help doing so when one feels how much harm is being done by it out here. One is sorry for those who hold these views, and especially for those that began them, for they have already caused, and will yet cause, many of His little ones to offend; and ‘Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.’
20th October, 1903.
“The fight for the Truth will soon be at its height, and although the despised ‘traditionalists’ may be few in number, yet we know the Lord is on our side. Mr. — has written an article on the ‘Higher Criticism and Missions’ for East and West, an S.P.G. magazine. If you noticed the Christian of the 8th, you would have seen a notice of it. His article is followed by another, ‘The Higher Criticism an aid to Missions.’ We have all read this article through, and fail to see where the ‘aid’ comes in. But Mr. — clearly points out that a missionary who holds the Critical views has no Divine message to give, and logically should cease to be a missionary. . . . Of course the missionaries out here say, ‘We don’t go in for the views of the advanced Critics, but we hold to those, such as Professor G. A. Smith, who are believing Critics.’ But few, except those who have read his books, know how far Professor Smith has gone. He distinctly states that Isaiah liii. refers to Jeremiah, that the God of Israel was first a tribal God, who gradually evolved to be the God of the universe in the knowledge of the Israelites; that in the early history of Israel, up to the times of the kings, there is no real history, but only a collection of myths and legends which have probably grown up around a substratum of facts; and he distinctly states that he doesn’t wish anything more than this substratum of facts. Unfortunately, we are not so easily satisfied, and wish a good deal more. For if God’s revelation to us be one of truth, which is in the Bible, then let us accept it. But if the Bible is not a true revelation, then it is no use as a guide in this life or as a director for our eternal welfare. The advanced Critics, as they are styled, merely carry out to a logical conclusion the views which are held by the moderate school, and this logical conclusion will sooner or later force itself upon the minds of all those who now claim to be ‘moderate.’ For us who believe the Bible to be God’s Word, a belief upon which our Lord and His apostles set their seal, it is not a matter of ‘views’ but of fact. We believe—therefore have we spoken.
I don’t think I mentioned how, when I came out here first, I was in a terrible state of doubt and anxiety. For if the Critical views were correct, what message had I to give? I can recall now my earnest prayers for leading and guidance into the way of truth and light; and I feel thankful for the way in which I have gradually been led to see how false these Critical views are, and how firm is the foundation upon which our feet stand, even upon the ‘sure word of prophecy.'”
These words speak for themselves, and need no comment. They afford a remarkable confirmation of a statement which has not long ago been publicly made in this country, to the effect that it would be a good thing if a section of the missionaries of India were “bundled home.” Our heartiest good wishes are with those who, like the writer of these letters, believe, “and therefore have spoken.”
A. S.