The Critical Review, published by T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh, and edited by Prof. S. D. F. Salmond, stands in the front rank of critical journals in Great Britain. It is devoted exclusively to reviews of books and magazine articles on criticism and philosophy. Its editor is associated with Professors Driver, Sanday, Briggs and others in getting out "The International Theological Library," of which a number of volumes have already been published. The October number of his Review contains an editorial notice of my little book, "Jesus and Jonah," which closes with the following statements:

      The book is a strong defense of the literal, historical character of the story of Jonah in all its parts. In attempting to make this good, however, the author takes it too easily to be the case that we have "the solemn assertion" of the Lord himself that "the leading incidents are real transactions."

      Similar notices have appeared in other journals on the "critical" side; notably, in the Interior, of Chicago. They are self-contradictory. The main theme of the book is to show that we have the solemn assertion of our Lord himself that the leading incidents in the story of [153] Jonah are real transactions; and if "it takes this too easily to be the case," it is a weak defense, instead of being a strong one, as they concede. I have been very solicitous that some one of them would undertake a refutation of my argument, and I took pains to challenge the eight scholars whose symposium is reviewed in the book to the undertaking. I also threw this challenge open to any other competent scholar who might see fit to accept it; but thus far not one has been found to take up the gauntlet. I gave this challenge, and I now repeat it, not for the purpose of boasting, but because I very well know that a man can never be sure how well an argument which he has made can stand the test of criticism until the test had been applied. While my confidence in the argument is solid, it is not overwhelming. I am willing to give it up if it can be proved fallacious; but so long as this is not done, or even attempted, I shall be incapable of accepting the "critical view," or, rather, any of the many "critical views," of our Lord's words on this subject.

      If the writers to whom I allude had taken the ground that the argument of the book is so weak as to be unworthy of their notice, I would have kept quiet; but as they have conceded its strength, they can not make this plea, and the cause of truth, I must insist, demands an attempt at refutation. I thought surely that if a scholar of Professor Salmond's well-known ability should see fit to notice the book at all, he would have refuted the main argument if he saw his way clear to do so.

      I especially refer, in these remarks, to one line of argument which I have emphasized as no other writer has within the range of my reading. It is the argument that Jesus, as a man of absolute truth, could not say that [154] a certain event took place unless he knew that it had. He could not, for instance, say that Jonah was in the bowels of the fish unless he knew that he was. He makes this solemn assertion and he makes it the basis of a prediction respecting himself: "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the bowels of the fish, so the Son of man shall be in the heart of the earth." He also says that the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah, and he could not have said this unless he knew it to be true.

      I hope that some one will yet, in the interest of truth, undertake to refute my argument.

[SEBC 153-155]