THE HIGHER AND THE HIGHEST CRITICISM.
By C. B. Fitzgerald
IN almost all religious literature, we see of late a great deal about “the higher criticism.” This is stating the matter in the comparative degree; but it is desirable to express it in the superlative. The higher criticism may be the work of scholars and literary critics; but the highest criticism is the work of the Divine Commentator. If any regard the New Testament as in any degree the work of divine inspiration, such must admit that it is, to a great extent, an inspired commentary upon the Old. Therefore those comments which were made by holy men of God, who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, are the highest criticisms known under heaven among men. In these inspired commentaries the narratives of the Old Testament are regarded as veritable records of literal facts, not as allegorical fictions; and the characters as real personages, not as fictitious heroes of allegorical romance. To be able to trace his lineage back to Abraham was the pride of every Israelite. This was to him the proof of citizenship in the Jewish nation, and of his right to the blessings of the covenants. It is with this idea that Matthew and Luke trace the lineage of our Lord back, not only to Abraham, but in the latter to Adam. Now the name of Adam is here associated with the names of real persons, as the first of a line of literal progenitors, of which Joseph and Mary are the last. Then it follows that Adam and all the persons named as the literal progenitors of our Lord were just as real as were Joseph and Mary and their parents, and the facts of history connected with them are just as literal as the later facts of Jewish history. The narratives of the creation, of Eden, and of the antediluvian and patriarchal ages, are records of consecutive events leading to, and connected with, the literal history of Israel as a nation. Now it is certain that neither fictitious allegory nor the characters named therein could have any such connection and relation with the facts and characters of real history. And this is in perfect accord with the thought presented by Inspiration, and recorded by the writers of the New Testament. As recorded in John 5:46, 47, our Lord appealed to Moses and his writings in proof of His own Messiahship. But if Moses were not a real character, and were not the author of the writings ascribed to him, it is not possible that the power of divine inspiration, by which our Lord and His apostles were moved, could have failed to detect the fact. Nay, verily. The writings of Moses were quoted many times by the Lord Jesus and the inspired writers, as the voice of divine authority, accompanied with the declaration that “the Scripture can not be broken.” Therefore, to look with distrust upon the writings of Moses is to regard with the same distrust the testimony of Jesus. If all the New Testament testimony concerning the validity of the Old were distilled and condensed, it would all appear in Paul’s declaration in 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” And from this there is not the slightest dissent by any inspired writer. While we entertain profound respect for the scholars and the scholarship of this and all enlightened countries, we aver that the Word of God should be tested before a tribunal higher than that of human wisdom. Therefore let us accept the writings of Moses as viewed by the inspired commentators of the New Testament. There can be no higher criticism than this. C. B. FITZGERALD.