The Finality of the Higher Criticism

Or, The Theory of Evolultion and False Theology

W. B. Riley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429602641
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

First published in 1988, this volume was originally published, according to the authors, thanks to a 'conscious call'. They were 'fully persuaded that the honor of Christ and the very life of His church are alike endangered by the doubting spirit now brooding over the educational institutions of America.' The book contains chapters on the prominence of scepticism in schools; the theory of evolution and false theology; and the sacred scriptures.

CHAPTER V.

ARE THE SACRED SCRIPTURES UNSCIENTIFIC?

“Thy word is true from the beginning.” (Ps. 119:160.) This is an expression of the Psalmist that must be explained away before one can pit Science and the Sacred Scriptures against each other. Since the purpose of preaching is interpretation of the Word, rather than its annihilation, we shall not attempt either to dispute the veracity of this statement or to spiritualize it into some strange and unnatural explanation. Arthur Pierson thinks the Psalmist meant to say that from the first word the Sacred Scriptures are true.

But the modern method of study objects to any assumption. It insists that every theme and thing shall be subjected to whatever tests are essential in the establishment of its claims. To this, intelligent believers take no exception. If the Bible will not bear investigation; if scrutiny discloses shortcomings; if research disproves its assertions; if true Science discredits its clear claims, let it fall. We could forfeit it without a tear; join in digging its grave without regret, and return to the duties of life smitten by no serious bereavement.

True, it is serious business to discredit a book which has accomplished for the world what the Bible has wrought; but it would be more serious to believe a lie, or even to accept an irresponsible chart in making one’s way over the sea of life. True, the Bible “was not written to show how the heavens go;” but rather “how to go to heaven;” it is not a text book on science, but a guide-book for godly living. And yet, when it addresses itself at all to a subject of scientific concern, it should speak the truth, if it makes the claim of inspiration! When we study the words of men, however wise they may be, we expect to come upon mistake. When we read, and properly understand, what “God hath spoken” we anticipate no such results. “Let God be found true; but every man a liar.” “He that believeth not God hath made him a liar.”

“But,” we are told, “God has two books. One we call ‘Nature,’ the other ‘Revelation;’ that He is just as certainly the author of the former as of the latter; that one is the work of His hands and the other the fruit of His lips.” What Jesus, when once he stooped down and wrote in the sand, expressed, we do not know. But can any man imagine that His writings in the sand were out of harmony with His spoken addresses, and is it possible that an all-wise God has produced in Nature and in Revelation contradictory volumes?

We have no fear whatever that the Scriptures must be maintained at the expense of Science; and we are equally persuaded that true Science will never be established at the cost of Scripture. The thing- to be feared is, that the dust of false reasoning (of which the air is full today) will get into the eyes of men, and make it impossible for one to read from the Sacred Page, and for another to see the meaning of the open book of Nature; and so for either, to discern the perfect agreement between God’s Word and God’s Work.

First or all, then, let us give

THE DEFINITION OF THE TERMS INVOLVED.

What is Science? Can we improve upon the Standard Dictionary’s statement—”Knowledge gained and verified by exact observation and correct thinking; especially as methodically formulated and arranged in a rational system?” That definition takes you at once out of the realm of speculation. It disposes of such terms as “theory” and “hypothesis,” making them possible servants of Science, but never its synonym. It is everywhere admitted that almost every assertion made in the name of Science a hundred years since, is now out of date; and while this clearly demonstrates our progress, it also suggests that we are still in the hypothetical and theoretical stage. No one would dispute that Sir Isaac Newton was somewhat of a scientist, nor yet that Tyndall was equally worthy the name, and yet when they take exactly opposite positions concerning the refraction of light, both may be wrong, but both cannot be right. Huxley and Darwin are names that somehow sit easily together in the same sentence, and yet these men, working in almost the same realm, are not always in agreement. The explanation is easy—”the verification of knowledge by exact observation and correct thinking” is the highest accomplishment of which the human mind is capable, and not every man who cries “Eureka” has found it. This is not to inveigh against the sincerity of investigators, nor even to deride their conclusions, but only to call attention to the most patent fact of their experience! “Knowledge gained and verified by exact observation and correct thinking” will nevr be overthrown by mortal men, nor yet by God. God would dethrone Himself by such an endeavor!

What is Scripture? Paul defines “all Scripture” as that which is “God-breathed,” and the process of it is “that holy men of old spake as they were moved (or borne along) by the Holy Ghost!” Knowing himself to be of that company, Paul affirms, “We speak not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words.” If one runs through the Old Testament he will find God everywhere assuming the Authorship of the Sacred Scriptures. The phrases are like these: “The Lord spake unto Moses saying, etc.” “These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel.” “The Lord spake unto Joshua.” “The words of the commandment of the Lord.” Not scores, but hundreds of times, does God claim to be the Author both of thought and language in the Holy Book. David declares, “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” (2 Samuel 23:2.) To me it is the most remarkable evidence of the skepticism of the age that because there are some difficulties in the theory of Verbal Inspiration men are willing to throw it away, and adopt such notions as are now current, to the effect that God simply stimulated the thought, but did not determine the speech; that some parts of the Bible are literally true, and others are only allegory; that some are fact, others only fiction; that some are to be treated with credence and others with criticism; that all must come to the test of one’s “inner consciousness,” and at that court be either accepted or rejected.

The same men who so define “Inspiration” or “Illumination” or whatever it is, would go into court tomorrow to insist upon the settlement ot an estate, in which they were named as heirs, on a verbal basis. They would call the attention of attorneys and judge to what was “written,” and unless they had some unrighteous end to be conserved, they would permit no departure from the very words in which the testator had expressed himself. It is little wonder, therefore, that the New Testament writers, who may be conceded to have known what the Scriptures were, refer to the Old Testament more than eighty times, as that “which is written.” Never once did they abandon the literal interpretation of the same.

If the words of the Old Testament were “the words of God,” perhaps no believer, at least, will dispute that the New Testament stands upon the same level. And so the Bible does not “contain the Scriptures;” the Bible is the Scriptures,—God’s revealed Word, which can hardly have been given to men with less care than any intelligent, faithful father would show in framing the article that bequeathed his possessions to his children. If, in civil courts, the lightest word of the testator is the weightiest law, who will dare to treat with contempt, thought or phrase found in the Divine Will?

Mark you, there is a decided difference between the plain statement of the Sacred Scriptures and some absurd opinion. It may be, that in the centuries of the past an uninstructed Christian conceived the world as having a flat surface, the sky as a roof and the stars as holes through the same. Kepler, who was something of a scientist, once expressed the conviction that the world was a living animal. Is that assertion to be confounded with Science? Fanciful interpretations in the one realm are just as common as in the other; and they neither prove nor disprove anything. I do not have to harmonize the Scriptures with the absurd statements of every man who may speak in the name of Science; and I do not have to harmonize Science with the assertions of every man who may mistakenly appeal to Moses, or even to Christ. Science is God’s voice in Nature; the Scriptures are God’s voice in grace, and it does not fall to the lot of any mortal man to harmonize them; the harmony is in Him. He cannot contradict Himself!

To say the least, it is a strange procedure when a man proclaims as his theme “The Harmony between Science and Scripture” and then shows how that comes to pass by just quietly disposing of the latter; by saying, for instance, that the first chapter of Genesis is “the best that Moses knew,—the impression of that early age, but a mistake none the less.” Is that harmony ? Is it not rather, annihilation? It may let you out of your difficulty, but you escape at the expense of inspiration; and to the unspeakable loss of the people. There used to be an eccentric preacher in Kentucky well-known to the author. He did no great amount of study, and yet he commonly preached with unction. One day he found himself before an audience with no unction on hand; even thoughts refused to come. He floundered through a few ill-formed sentences, and then, squarely facing his audience, he said, “Brethren and sisters, you think 1 have gotten into the brush, and can’t get out, don’t you? Well, I’ll show you; we’ll just look to the Lord and be dismissed.” But let it be understood that when you dismiss the claims of the Sacred Book, and walk out of your difficulties, you have lost the divine message and left the hungry multitudes unsatisfied.

GENESIS IN SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.

It will scarcely be disputed that so far as men have seen any inharmony between the Sacred Scriptures and Science, the first chapter of Genesis has been made the storm center. On that account I invite your athtention to this part of the Word, and dare the assertion that its careful study, instead of demonstrating the inharmony between Science and Scripture, will reveal the most undreamed of agreement in these great books of God.

First of all, think of the argument from fifteen facts in order.

First fact, in order,—God created the heavens.

Second fact, in order—”and the earth;” third—water; fourth—light; fifth—firmament; sixth—grass; seventh—herb; eighth—tree; ninth—appearance of heavenly bodies; tenth—fish; eleventh—moving things; twelfth—fowls; thirteenth—creeping things; fourteenth—cattle; fifteenth—man.

Now, the latest science will consent to this order of creation. The heavens were certainly made first; the earth certainly came second; water certainly appeared third, light—fourth; firmament-next; grass thereafter; the manifestation of sun and moon—ninth; the appearance of fish—tenth; moving things—eleventh; fowls—twelfth; creeping things—thirteenth; cattle, etc., fourteenth, and last, man.

Other writers have called attention to the unspeakable significance of this order when considered before the law of permutation. The Standard Dictionary says, “The number of permutations of any given number of things, taken all at a time, is equal to the product of the natural numbers from one up to the number given, inclusive.”

Now if Moses only spake the science of his times, he knew practically nothing of the order of creation. Consequently he must guess at it. He must guess whether the heavens or the earth were first formed. In his day no man imagined that the heavenly bodies were bigger than the earth, and all men supposed that they moved about it. How then does it happen that Moses, when he came to guess which was first formed, the heavens or the earth, mentioned the heavens in the primary place ? You say, “Well it was an easy accident, since there was only one other alternative.” Did you ever hear the story of the Irishman who, meeting a neighbor said, “We have a fine baby at our house this marning; guiss whither it is a boy or a gurl ?” “A girl,” said the neighbor.” “No, Sir, guiss agin.” “Well, I say a boy!” “Well, neow, who tole you ?” To be sure Moses had one chance out of two on this arrangement. But he got it right!

Third fact—the appearance of water. Here Moses’ task was not so easy, for it was not one in three, but one in six, according to the law of permutation. It could have been, the heavens first, water second, earth third, but that was not true; it could have been, the earth first, water second, and the heavens third, but that was not true. It could have been water first, the earth second, and the heavens last, but that was not true. It could have been the earth first, the heavens second and water last, but that was not true. In other words there are six different arrangements of these relations, 1-2-3, 1-3-2; 2-1-3, 2-3-1; 3-2-1; 3-1-2. But Moses somehow struck the right one. A good guesser! Introduce light and you make twenty-four such relations. But Moses hit it again. One chance in twenty-four, but he was the lucky man.

When you get the fifth you have 120 possible orders. Strange to say Moses does not miss it!

When you get to the sixth, you have 720. In other words there are 719 chances against you. But Moses got it right!

When you get to the seventh, you have 5,040. In other words 5,039 chances against you. But Moses hit it!

When you get to the eighth you have 40,320. Not a glorious prospect of striking it straight, but still Moses accomplishes it!

When you get to the ninth you only have one chance in 362,880.

When you get to the tenth, you have only one chance in 3,628,800!

When you get to the eleventh, 39,916,800.

When you get to the fifteenth, one chance in 1,307,674,367,900. And yet, strange to say, in the whole arrangement, he never misses!

Go dig up Bob Ingersoll, and give the poor fellow a chance to apologize for ever having spoken of the “mistakes of Moses.” Bob should not come alone!

But this is not the end. We make bold to assert that from the beginning to the end of Genesis, 1 st Chapter, there is not a scientific niistakc. It is scientific that the heavens were created first, and the earth second. The very latest Science would tell you that the earth was “waste and void,” and the “darkness,” resulting from the nebulous state, “was upon the face of the deep.” For a long time Science spoke of the third verse as certainly involving a mistake, “And God said, Let there be light and there was light.” This, in advance of the appearance of the sun or moon. They supposed that the sun was the only source of light, but finally Laplace declared it to be a scientific certainty, that in the condensation of the originally formless chaos, there was such molecular and chemical action as must have emitted light. No wonder Boardman, in his “Creative Week,” says, “Why will the Academy vote Moses a blunderer for declaring that light existed before the sun appeared, and yet vote Laplace a scientist for affirming precisely the same thing?”

The next point of scientific attack was upon the fifth verse, “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.” It was boldly asserted that Moses supposed all this change from chaos to cosmos took place in twenty-four hours. But mark you, Moses does not refer to twenty-four hours at all! “From evening to morning” is only twelve hours. You will not have finished this chapter until it is made perfectly clear that Moses is not speaking of twenty-four hour days. He knew the law of herbs, yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit after their kind,” that these things were not accomplished in a day; that it took seasons to produce fruit, and even many years, to mature trees and make them reproductive. And yet that whole process he mentions as in the third day. What is God’s Day, according to the Bible? In the second chapter the entire creation, from start to finish, is mentioned as having occurred in a day. It could not, therefore, according to Moses, mean twenty-four hours. What is a “yom” with God? Peter tells us “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years.” (2 Pet. 3:8). Moses, himself, i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright
• Table of Contents
• I. The Higher Criticism According to Higher Critics.
• II. The Prominence of Skepticism in our Schools.
• III. The Prevalence of Skepticism in our Pulpits.
• IV. The Theory of Evolution and False Theology.
• V. The Sacred Scriptures—Are they Scientific?
• VI. Fosterism—Or the Finality of the Higher Criticism.
• VII. R. J. Campbell’s Definition of the New Theology.
• VIII. Skepticism—Is Satan Actually Back of It?
• IX. The True Scientific Spirit in Scripture Study.
• X. What will be the Religion of the Future?