THOSE who are more or less familiar with what is known as "the higher criticism," have noted two salient facts respecting it, namely, that of late years it has steadily grown more daring and destructive, more ready to question what have been regarded as the vital teachings of Christianity, and that not infrequently it has found the strength of its argument against theological teaching in the premises and positions of that teaching. This is illustrated in the use which the materialists have made of the theologians' concession to the reality of matter and of evil, a concession from which the philosophically inclined have built up an altogether logical and consistent argument in support of a concept of the universe and its government which practically rules out God altogether, or else gives Him a character which it is impossible either to love or respect.
A further illustration of the way theological positions are bombarded with munition which theology has furnished, is presented in the ground taken by some of the higher critics with respect to miracles. It is a theological contention that the wondrous events attending the birth and ministry of our Lord were of the nature of extraordinary signs, in the appearing of which the natural order was overruled or set aside, and that these out-of-the-ordinary doings of Christ Jesus were specially required in proof of his divine authority and of the truth of his teaching. This doctrine of a limited epoch of miracles, designed to serve a unique purpose, has constantly been preached, and that miracles legitimately disappeared when they were no longer needed in attestation of Christian revelation, since constant repetitions of a confirmatory sign tend to lessen rather than increase its impressiveness and dignity.
In a critical review of this theological contention a recent writer (Prof. Frank Hugh Foster, American Journal of Theology, July, 1908) argues that the necessity of such attestation by miraculous interference with the order of nature is not sustained by the Scripture narrative, and among many other facts in support of this position he cites this, that when Jesus began his ministry in Judea he was commended to the people by the testimony of John the Baptist alone, and that neither here nor in Galilee did the marvelous phenomena attending his birth seem to serve in any way favorably to introduce him to the public; and that, according to the Gospel writers, so far as authentication is concerned, all the events pertaining to his infancy might never have occurred. We are further reminded by the critic that Jesus sometimes tried to get those who were healed to say nothing to others respecting the matter, as though he did not wish his works to be regarded simply as commendations of his personality and ministry. The critic therefore claims that the argument that miracles were instituted and performed for the sole purpose of attesting Jesus' unique office and ministry, as the Messiah, and that this having been accomplished they have no further place in the divine plan or manifestation, finds no support in the gospels. The attitude of modern religious apologists, he declares, is not in harmony with but rather in marked contrast to that of the New Testament writers.
