Jewish Protest Against the Higher Criticism.
—Dr S. H. Lehrman, writing in the “Jewish Chronicle Supplement,” condemns the Higher Criticism, and suggests a modern Jewish commentary on the Old Testament.
In saying that the Professors who teach Hebrew are often Higher Critics, he has undoubtedly stated the truth, but when he speaks of their “knowledge of the language” as “limited in scope and in outlook,” one can only faintly imagine with what contempt his estimate of these scholars will be received in higher critical circles. He quotes the Chief Rabbi as saying—”Their criticism is not criticism, but a barbarous vivisection of the Hebrew Bible.” While we would value the help of Jewish scholars in combating the Higher Criticism, we are afraid that any commentary produced by them on the Old Testament Scriptures would have one vital defect for Christians. Though they began at Moses and expounded the prophets, could their blind eyes see and their dumb tongues speak of Him concerning whom all prophets bear witness? It is strange Jewish scholars have not in these days of book production produced commentaries on the Old Testament and combated the higher critical findings. Probably this is due, as suggested by Mr Schor in “Immanuel’s Witness,” that the Jews have accepted the higher critical interpretation of the Messianic prophecies.
Primate at a Play.
—Such was the heading of a paragraph which appeared recently in the daily press. The Archbishop of Canterbury, it was stated, was among those who accepted invitations to be present at the first performance of “The Enemy,” at the Strand Theatre, London. In addition to the Archbishop, the audience was to include the Bishop of London, Dean Inge, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr J. Ramsay Macdonald, and Mr J. H. Thomas. The only comment we will make is that the Archbishop, with the other Churchmen present, and the Home Secretary, were in anything but a place and company where Christians should be. It is particularly sad to see the aged prelate in such a place, and all the more so when so near the end of his journey. This ought to open the eyes of those who, strange to say, are found even in the Highlands of Scotland, and were simpletons enough to join in the sentimental incense offered to the Archbishop in the recent defeat of his Romanising Church policy in the House of Commons.
The New Appointments in the Church of England.
—As Protestants who wish to see the Reformation doctrines flourish in these Islands we cannot help having a feeling of keen disappointment in the appointment of Dr Lang to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, Dr Temple to the Archbishopric of York, and Dr Warman to the see of Manchester rendered vacant by Dr Temple’s promotion. The appointments have awakened deep concern in Evangelical circles in the Church of England owing to the prominent part taken by the new prelates in advocating the rejected Prayer Book. The “Morning Post’s” special correspondent, commenting on the appointments, says:—”It is generally believed that no other interpretation can be put upon this succession of nominations than that an effort is being made to influence the conference of Bishops which is to meet in September to settle the details of the future policy of the Church in favour of a strong line being taken to bring the Deposited Book into general use. This view is held most strongly by those men of all parties who believe that the proper course to be followed was that put forward by the Bishops of Norwich and Exeter at the last meeting of the Convocations—namely, a reversion to the more correct procedure of Revision being carried out by the Convocations with Parliamentary sanction. It is now feared that a powerful stimulus will have been given to the Bishops in September to decide in favour of the proposal which has been openly mooted—that of obtaining “authorisation” for the Deposited Book in individual dioceses. The view is strongly held that the nomination to at least one of the important positions which are to be filled should have been a man who, if not in opposition to the Deposited Book, took no prominent part in its support. It is felt that these three nominations coming in rapid succession, are liable to be interpreted as an affront to Parliament. So great is the dissatisfaction in some quarters, in fact, that I understand that serious consideration is being given to the question of whether or not effective protest can be made.”