I. The ‘Clergyman,’ then, holds that ‘the Christian percep-

tion which Christ’s teaching and example have enlightened, must be free to weed the records concerning Him».’ In other words, certain portions of the Gospel narrative, which approve them- selves to modern taste, are put forward as a reason for rejecting other and equally authenticated portions. Thus the Baptismal formula, St. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, is said to be ‘a passage too uncertain to be quoted in a controversial work without some attempt to vindicate its genuimeness from the very grave doubts which other portions of the New Testament compel vs to enter- tain¢e;’ and the ‘Clergyman’ ventures to add that ‘the words are not really His four Lord’s], although found in every known MS. and version of the First Gospel4” In the same spirit he objects to St. Mark xvi. 15, as belonging to ‘that concluding section which every scholar knows to be an extremely question- able fraction of the Second Gospel ®,’ although Dean Burgon’s work on ‘The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark’ (Oxford, Parker, 1871), contains facts and arguments which might, at the least, have counselled a less peremptory judgment. We are told that the application of Isaiah vii. 14 in St. Matt. i. 22, 23 is ‘in no respect decisivef’ Assuming a contradiction to exist between the Synoptists and St. John, the ‘Clergyman’ is ‘unavoidably conducted to an unfavourable appre- ciation of the Fourth Gospel’s historical fidelity, and is confirmed in the suspicion that the writer made many statements from a speculative and ideal, rather than from a properly historical point of views.’ ‘The Word’ is said to be ‘a speculative, nebulous title b, and the Last Discourse is at least possibly ‘a compilation of the Evangelist’s from loose and imperfect datai” Our Lord’s promise in St. John xiv. 26 is ‘an antici- patory explanation and apology for the production of matter so distinct from what the common oral tradition and the existing written memoirs embracedJ.’ Speaking of the Last Discourse, the ‘Clergyman’ anticipates a time when ‘ passages, from which it is next to impossible to elicit any clear consistent sense, will
® The Bible and Popular Theology, Pref. p. iv. note.
> Examination, p. 77, note, ¢ Ibid. p. 78. ἃ Thid. p. 243.
© Ibid. f Ibid. p. 63. ® Ibid. pp. 87, 88. b Tbid. p. 84. 1 Ibid. p. 214. J Ibid. p. 43.
552 Note 7. On Two Criticisms of this Work.
no longer be pronounced profoundly spiritual and full of beauty Κ.’ The Epistle to the Hebrews! is criticized with contemptuous severity. The ‘Clergyman’ finds that ‘ the writer of this Epistle did not think deeply, and knew too little of his theme to treat it consistently ™;’ that he made erroneous applications of the Old Testament 4, and that his ‘description of Melchizedek (Heb. vii. 3) is singularly fanciful and exaggerated ;’ although the ‘errors into which the writer of the Epistle has fallen’ ‘do not justify us in pronouncing him altogether speculative, visionary, and unreasonable®,’ The ‘Clergyman’ protests against the belief that ‘every sentence of the Bible is identical with the word of God,’ as a ‘hobbling crotchet P; he has learnt ‘to substitute an intelligent loyalty to his Great Master for an indiscriminating adhesion to every scrap of Evangelical testimony respecting Him4;’ he even avows that ‘the concurrence of all ancient MSS. would scarcely suffice’ to warrant a reading to which he objects on subjective grounds τ,
Dr. Vance Smith, with, as it appears, a stronger interest in the positive worth of the Bible, arrives at a practical estimate of it which does not much differ from that of the ‘ Clergyman.’ The Bampton Lecturer had referred to the unity of Scripture; and for a moment Dr. Vance Smith is attracted towards this truth as ‘an interesting and suggestive idea.’ But he presently gives a list of books of Holy Scripture between which, as he thinks, ‘the only relation existing is simply one of incompatibility, or of marked antagonism ; or else again there is no sort of describable relation at all, the one book simply standing apart in absolute independence, and ignoring the existence of the other’, If this be an accurate statement, it is natural to enquire on what defensible ground we continue to speak of this collection of books as ‘the Bible,’ or ‘ Holy Scripture,’ and whether such titles do «ποῦ suggest a unity of purpose and design, which, as we are now told, does not in fact exist? When Dr. Vance Smith says that, ‘in all probability the whole [of the Old Testament] was in great measure the growth or accumulation of successive ages, without much design on the part of any person con-
κ᾿ Examination, p. 44. .
1 Reference has already been made to Biesenthal’s recent T'rostschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Hebréer, Leipsig, 1878, Einl. iii. 7, for a powerful argument in favour of the Pauline authorship of this Epistle.
m Examination, Ρ. 115. n Ibid. p. 115. © Ibid. p. 116..
P Ibid. p. 199. 4« Ibid. p. 202. ¥ Ibid. p. 151.
3 The Bible and Popular Theology, pp. 8, 16, 17.
PRS Co
isdn
Note 7. On Two Criticisms of this Work. 553
cerned t,’ and that the Old Testament comes before us ‘simply as being the whole of the remaining literature of the nation, written in their ancient language 4,’ it is obvious that he differs fundamentally from the Apostolic judgments that ‘ whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope δ,’ and that ‘all Scripture,’ namely of the Old Testa- ment, ‘is given by inspiration of God,’ Indeed, his theories as to the dates and worth of the Old Testament books * seem to be, not seldom, as in the case of Daniel, inconsistent with belief in the inspired writer’s literary honesty; and, in the same way, he holds that ‘some of the minor Epistles of St. Paul are ex- tremely doubtful, or almost certainly not from the pen of the
great Apostle, according to the judgment of the most competent ~ and freeminded modern investigators ¥.’ He leaves it doubtful whether he fully accepts Baur’s estimate of the New Testament in detail and as a whole; but he holds that ‘the larger number of the New Testament writings may be said to be of doubtful or unknown authorship 2,’
It is, perhaps, in keeping with Dr. Vance Smith’s theory of the date and origin of St. John’s Gospel that he observes that ‘the peculiar conceptions of the Fourth Evangelist are alto- gether alien to the others®” Here he is naturally embarrassed by our Lord’s solemn words which are reported in St. Matt. xi. 27, St. Luke x. 22. ‘The verse,’ he says, ‘in both Evange- lists interrupts the strain of the Gospel, and looks strangely out of place, though it would have been perfectly suitable to John» ‘A singular verse,’ he exclaims, in a later passage, ‘ which looks as if by some chance it had been transferred from the Fourth Gospel*.’ Yet there it is, in the Synoptists; and, as we may observe, in those two Evangelists who describe our Lord’s mira- culous Conception and Birth of a Virgin Mother. But, according to Dr. Vance Smith, these portions of the Gospel narrative ‘ are most probably to be regarded as non-authentic additions to the original form of the two Gospels, although it is nevertheless
* The Bible and Popular Theology, p. 6. Ὁ Ibid. p. 6.
Y Rom, xv. 4. ¥ 2 Tim. iii. 16.
* The Bible and Popular Theology, pp. 2, 3. Dr. Vance Smith appears generally to follow Dr.S. Davidson. ¥ Ibid. p. 5.
* Ibid. pp. 4, 5. In saying that ‘nearly the whole of the N. T. belongs to the first century, with the exception of St. John,’ Dr. Vance Smith, of course, declines to accept the more advanced Tiibingen theory.
@ Ibid. p.178. > Ibid. p. 109, note, 9 Ibid. p. 178, note,
ων Ὁ
ON
554 Note Ll. On Two Criticisms of this Work.
true that they are found in all existing manuscripts and ver- sions of those Gospels 4.’
After this it is perhaps not surprising to find that our Lord was too ignorant, in the judgment of our critic, to be a safe guide as to the worth of the Old Testament Scriptures. ‘There can,’ he says, ‘be no good reason to think that the knowledge or the ignorance of Christ was not of the same character which belonged to his age and country, or that he did not participate in the prevailing ideas and feelings respecting the ancient Scrip- tures and the use that might be made of theme.’ Accordingly, Dr. Vance Smith proceeds to infer that Christ ‘ would accept the statements of the Old Testament in popular senses; would take passages as Messianic because such was their usual acceptation, and because as the son of devout parents, familiar with the sacred books of their people, he had been educated to do so. We may further understand how it was that he could apply passages usually considered Messianic to the incidents of his own career. So to do was in accordance with the common habit of the time, was justified by it, was its inevitable consequence. It was, we may believe, with Jesus Christ much as with a religious man of our own day and nation. Such a person, trained from childhood to believe the popular theology of the time, will necessarily ex- press himself on religious subjects in accordance with his belief, and quote the words of either Testament according to the mean- ing which he has been taught to put on them, and this he will do with perfect truthfulness and innocence ἦν
If our Divine Master was thus ignorant, both of the real worth and character of the Old Testament and of the use to be made of it, a similar or greater ignorance might naturally be expected in the case of the Apostles. Dr. Vance Smith there- fore devotes the fourth and two following chapters of his work to this subject, with the general result of rejecting, as uncritical, the estimate of the Old Testament which Christians are taught to entertain by the writers of the New 8.
4 The Bible and Popular Theology, pp. 102, 103.
© Ibid. p. 63. t Thid. p. 64.
& Dr. Vance Smith’s repeated reference to the ‘wise men’ as quoting the prophet Micah (p. 54), seems to the present writer a less serious kind of mistake than that which underlies such a passage as the following :— ‘The ‘ Blood” of ‘‘God” may have been a bearable expression to the Bishops and Fathers who assembled at Nicea. It is most probable that the nineteenth century will increasingly revolt from it, and come at last to see that even the authority of the two oldest manuscripts is insufficient
Note 7. On Two Criticisms of this Work. 555
It is no part of the Lecturer’s object to exhibit the opinions of his critics in an invidious light. In our day, assuredly, no writer loses caste by expressing his disbelief in the Divine authority of Holy Scripture. But enough has been said to shew that the Lecturer and his critics, in appealing to the Bible, do not appeal to a common premise: and that their criticism upon his Lectures, in effect, amounts to saying that he has made a mistake in the choice of a subject. In order to convince them, he ought to have discussed, not the Divinity of our Lord as taught in Holy Scripture, but the reasonableness and trust- worthiness of Holy Scripture itself;- and to do this at all adequately, as matters stand, would take not one but several sets of Bampton Lectures.