The Unbelieving Tendency Of This Theory.

If the actual tendency of accepting the theory in question is toward unbelief in the Christian religion, this fact is the strongest possible vindication of such a work as the present. That the theory is at least dangerous in this respect, is acknowledged by one of its most able advocates, Prof. Andrew Harper, in the following words: "The debate concerning the critical views of the Old Testament has reached a stage at which it is no longer confined to professed teachers and students of the Old Testament. It has filtered down through magazines first, and then through newspapers, into the public mind, and opinions are becoming current concerning the results of criticism which are so partial and ill-informed that they can not but produce evil results of a formidable kind in the near future." Again, after stating his own conclusions with respect to Deuteronomy, he says: "They have been reached after a careful consideration of the evidence on both sides, and are stated here not altogether without regret. . . . For, as Robertson Smith has well said 'to the ordinary believer the Bible is precious as the practical rule of faith and love in which God still speaks directly to his heart. No criticism can be otherwise than hurtful to faith if it shakes the confidence with which the simple Christian turns to his Bible assured that he can receive every message which it brings to his soul as a message from God himself.'

Now, though it can be demonstrated that the view of Scripture which permits of such conclusions as those stated above is quite compatible with this believing confidence, there can be little doubt that Christian people will for a time find great difficulty in accepting this assurance. The transition from the old view of inspiration, so complete, comprehensible and effective as it is, to the newer and less definite doctrine, can not fail to be trying, and the introduction of it here can not but be a. disturbing influence which it would have been greatly preferable to avoid" (Com., 2, 34). Such utterances as these, so candid and yet so reluctantly made, imply the consciousness of a danger much greater than they express. The actual results have been even more serious than these thoughtful men apprehended. J. J. Lias, one of the ablest writers on this subject in Great Britain, says in his Principles of Biblical Criticism: "A statement has been widely circulated in the public press that the number of persons in Germany who this year (1893) declared themselves to be of no religion is fourteen times as great as in 1871. Is there no connection between this fact and the manner in which German criticism has treated the Bible?" (216, note).

This necessary tendency of the theory in question will receive further notice in the body of this work, when we come to speak of its hearing on the assertions of Jesus and his apostles. It is but just to say, however, before leaving the subject at present, that many scholars, especially in Great Britain and America, have accepted the analytical theory without accepting the sweeping denial of all miracles which is common among its originators. But this makes the evil tendency inherent in the theory itself all the more dangerous from the common habit among men of accepting injurious teaching from apparent friends of the truth much more readily than from avowed enemies. On this point Professor Green very justly says: "It is only recently that there has been an attempt at compromise on the part of certain believing scholars, who arc disposed to accept these critical theories and endeavor to harmonize them with the Christian faith. But the inherent vice in these systems can not be eradicated. The inevitable result has been to lower the Christian faith to the level of these perverted theories instead of lifting the latter up to the level of a Christian standard."