[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The amiable Bishop of
Plymouth is surely himself the
head and front of the offending parties who are responsible for the decay in reading the Bible. In his interesting contri-
bution to The Spectator of last week why does he repeat the outworn parrot-cries of out-of-date Cambridge Higher
Criticism—which Professor Sayce labelled " bankrupt "— about a " composite " Pentateuch and " late " Prophets and Psalms and the gradual " evolution "—blessed word without a meaning—of a Bible which no longer speaks to us " directly " as the Word of God but as " the voice of the Church of the
first century " ? . Roman Catholicism shut up the Bible to the layman. Protestant scholasticism undermines it from behind. But what are the facts of modern science on the Miracles of the Old Testament ? The new scientific slogans are " reaction toward Tradition " (Harnack) and " the historical accuracy of the Old Testament " (Maspero, Pinches, Yahuda, Langdon, Garstang). Yahuda has shown that Exodus was written in the times of Moses ; Cheyne that both parts of Isaiah were probably written at the time of Isaiah ; and the International Critical Commentary inclines to the possibility of Dougherty's proofs that Daniel was written at the time of Daniel. and certainly could not have been written in the Maceabean age claimed for it by all the churches. " The Bible and the Bible only," exclaimed Chillingworth, " is the religion of Pro- testants ! " It is not less the religion of true Science, and has in consequence drawn a new line of cleavage between the clergy and the laity.—I am, Sir, &e., A. H. T. CLARKE. The Rectory, Devizes.
Previous page
