if pi I'i 
 
 ^ 
 
 '% 
 
 '^:i. 
 
 )^A 
 
 BS480 
 .174 
 
 J, Iverach 
 
 4 
 
 Inspiration and Criticism f 
 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 
^■y Of rmc^,^ 
 
 St. 
 
 iiO 
 
 BS480 
 
 .194 
 

 THEOLOCHCAL THOUGHT. 
 
 INSPIBATION AND CBITICISM. 
 
 By Eev. Prop. J. Iveeach, D.D. 
 
 The question of Inspiration and its relation to criticism is one beset with 
 difficulties, partly arising from the nature of the case, and partly from the 
 anxiety and fear which fill the minds of many people when the subject is 
 raised in any form. The anxiety is natural, and in no way to be blamed. 
 It is right that men should be anxious and troubled when a discussion is 
 raised which seems to involve the very highest interests, and to bring 
 into peril what they believe to be the foundations on which their faith and 
 liope are built. The Scriptures have found them ; the Scriptures have been 
 a source of guidance, of comfort, of strength ; they have been an adequate 
 rule of faith and manners ; they have spoken with a voice of authority ; and 
 it is not to be wondered at that men have been jealous and suspicious of any 
 tendency which might even seem to lessen the authority or diminish the 
 worth of Holy Scripture. Such an anxiety is deserving of the highest 
 respect. 
 
 There is also another thing which makes discussion difficult. It arises 
 partly from the feeling we have described, and partly from theoretical con- 
 siderations. Men seem to have unconsciously set to themselves a problem of 
 this sort. The Bible is a book which has certain uses for the individual and 
 for the Church. It is a book which speaks with authority ; it is the guide of 
 life, the source of consolation, and it has many other uses which need not be 
 enumerated at present. Theology has often proceeded as if it had set itself to 
 answer the question. What must be the marks, notes, characteristics of a book 
 which shall secure these ends and fulfil these purposes'? And often the 
 question has been answered ideally and theoretically by a deductive method, 
 not inductively. A book which professes to be a revelation from God must 
 have such and such qualities ; a book which is to be an adequate guide to 
 man in all the concerns of his religious and moral life must be so and so. 
 Theology has often proceeded on this method, and the opponents of religion 
 — especially those who deny revelation altogether — have been glad to accept 
 the issue on these terms, or they have added criteria of their own as to what 
 qualities a supposed revelation must have. Bishop Butler deals with this 
 matter in his own wise, cautious, and masterly way in the second part of his 
 Analogy. He enumerates some of the notions current in his time, among 
 those who attacked and among those who defended Christianity, as to what 
 revelation ought to be. " There are those who think it a strong object'ioif' - 
 against the authority of Scripture, that it is not composed by rules of art, 
 agreed upon by critics, for polite and correct writing. And the scorn is 
 inexpressible with which some of the prophetic parts of Scripture are 
 treated ; partly through the rashness of interpreters, but very much also on 
 
1 6 Theological Thono/it. 
 
 account of the hieroglyphical and figurative language in which they are left 
 us." Other supposed criteria of revelation laid down by the opponents of 
 Christianity were, that a revelation from God must be universal, not confined 
 to one people ; that it must not contain matters of offence, " which have led, 
 and, it must have been foreseen, would lead into strange enthusiasm and 
 superstition, and be made to serve the purposes of tyranny and wickedness" ; 
 that its meaning must be clear, and the interpretation of its meaning easy ; 
 and that its evidence must be convincing and satisfactory. The Bishop's 
 answer generally is, "that upon supposition of a revelation, it is highly 
 credible beforehand, we should be incompetent judges of it to a great degree : 
 and that it would contain many things appearing to us liable to great 
 objections, in case we judge of it otherwise than of the analogy of nature." 
 See the argument as unfolded in the third chapter of the second part of the 
 Analogy. 
 
 Now, it is obvious that the defenders of revelation and of the truth of 
 Christianity are put to a great disadvantage if they must argue on this 
 basis. Allow the one side or the other to lay down criteria of revelation, 
 or to state categorically what are the notes and marks of a real revelation, 
 and immediately the issue is changed. Inevitably we shall find ourselves 
 discussing the question. Are these marks of revelation to be found in the 
 Scriptures ? Is the meaning of the Scriptures clear and consistent ? Is 
 their literary form of that pure and perfect type which, it is agreed, a Divine 
 revelation ought to have ? Is every statement infallibly true, not merely with 
 respect to its substance, but in respect to its form ? Is the text without 
 flaw ; its grammar perfect ; its science correct ? If the defenders of revela- 
 tion are allowed to lay down criteria of revelation, clearly the same right 
 cannot be denied to its opponents ; and the controversy becomes one about 
 the possible criteria of a possible revelation, and it would inevitably result in 
 withdrawing attention from the actual revelation we have, and from its 
 claims to the allegiance of men. No satisfactory conclusion can be reached 
 by a discussion of an issue of this kind. 
 
 The history of science affords us many instances of the manner in which 
 progress was stopped, ignorance perpetuated, and a knowledge of the actual 
 facts and laws of nature delayed by assumptions of the same kind as have 
 been made with regard to Scripture. Science made but little progress until 
 it forsook its habit of affirming what must be, and humbly set itself to 
 inquire into what really is. Then men found that they were living in a rational 
 world, a world whose methods, laws, facts presented an order grander far 
 than they had ever dreamed of. Astronomers no longer said that the 
 heavenly bodies moved in circles, because their motion must be perfect, and 
 the circle is the most perfect curve. The habit of ascribing perfection to 
 nature was forgotten, and yet men came to see that the thought, reason, 
 plan which are manifested by nature in every part were something grander, 
 more perfect, more full of varied and harmonious order than were the limited 
 ideas of perfection to which, in their ignorance, they would have subjected 
 
Inspiration and Criticisrn. \*j 
 
 her. Science is also full of illustrations of the truth of what Leslie says — 
 " In the course of investigations I have found myself compelled to relinquish 
 some preconceived notions, but I have not abandoned them hastily, nor, till 
 after a warm and obstinate defence, I was driven from every post." (Quoted 
 by Stanley Jevons in The, Priiiciples of Science, vol. ii., p. 234.) 
 
 Many a student of the Bible must say the same thing. Our pre- 
 conceived notions are very precious to us. "We are unwilling to part with 
 them, and as a matter of fact we do not part with them until we are driven 
 from every post, A history of the doctrine of Inspiration for the last two 
 hundred years would lead us to some rather startling conclusions. It would 
 surprise some to find out how much is thought consistent with the doctrine 
 of Inspiration now, which was regarded as utterly inconsistent with it at 
 some former time, and that, too, by theologians as able, as honest, as 
 competent as any living at this hour. In truth, the only safe principle for us 
 to lay down in this question is, that Inspiration is consistent with all the 
 phenomena of Scripture. It is not for us to lay down in any absolute 
 manner what is and what is not consistent with Inspiration. We must set 
 aside preconceived notions, and, instead of laying down conditions, content 
 ourselves with learning humbly what the Scriptures have to teach us. 
 
 Inspiration, then, is consistent with a measure of uncertainty as to what 
 the text of Scripture really is. It is a commonplace to say that the true 
 text lies beyond our reach. Men may say, and say with truth, that the 
 active critical text we now have is indefinitely near to the text of Scripture as 
 originally given ; that the various readings are in themselves without much 
 importance, and do not affect the meaning of Scripture ; that we have a 
 larger apparatus for determining the text of Scripture than we have for the 
 text of any other book ; and many other observations of the same sort may 
 be made without any attempt on our part to gainsay or deny them. It is 
 true that these readings are comparatively unimportant. But it is also true 
 that while they remain, and while we cannot profess to be able to eliminate 
 all uncertainty, we cannot be said to have a text without error and infallibly 
 true. Students of the history of theology will remember how great was the 
 alarm, and how profound the anxiety of many when it was proved that there 
 were numerous various readings, and that it was scarcely possible to decide 
 between them. We have now got accustomed to this state of things, and 
 have come to see that it does not in the least interfere with any use of 
 Scripture needed by the individual or the Church. While we may rejoice in 
 the progress of textual criticism, and be glad that the principles of that 
 science have been elaborated so as in large measure to command assent, yet 
 those who read Westcott and^Hort's Introduction on the one hand, and 
 Dean Burgon on the other, can at 'once see that there are many essential 
 points not yet agreed on. Great are the names and manifold have been the 
 labours of those who have laid the foundations and built up the science of 
 textual criticism, yet even here a great deal remains to be done. Professor 
 Harris, in his learned and exact study of the Codex Bezse, has opened up 
 
 NO. I. VOL. I. THE THINKEK. B 
 
1 8 Theological Thought. 
 
 a new series of investigations which may go far to modify results widely 
 accepted, and may help us to obtain a purer text. 
 
 It does not help us to try to shelve this aspect of the question of 
 Inspiration by speaking of the Scripture " as originally given." For that 
 is an ideal document far beyond our reach, and of its merits and qualities we 
 cannot make any affirmation whatsoever. What must concern us is the 
 Scripture we actually have, and on which we depend for life and guidance, 
 for hope and consolation, for salvation and redemption. We are concerned 
 with these actual Scriptures by the use of which we are made wise unto 
 salvation, and they must have, in their present form, the property and the 
 quality of enabling us to know the mind of Christ and the will of God for 
 our salvation. As a matter of fact, the Scriptures do fulfil the purpose of 
 their being even in the present state of the text. They are profitable for 
 doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness, and 
 they produce all the effects on the lives of men, on heart and mind and 
 conscience, which are promised in the Scriptures themselves. 
 
 From another point of view, the uncertainty of the text, the number and 
 the history of the various readings, and the process by which they have 
 become what they are, have a positive advantage. They are one means by 
 which we are able to trace the documents of the New Testament back, and 
 to vindicate for them an early date. We are learning to use the history of text 
 variations for apolegetic purposes, and by-and-bye we shall be able to give a 
 triumphant answer to those who would make all our New Testament books 
 to be documents of the second century. There are indications not a few 
 which point in this direction ; but it would be irrelevant to introduce them 
 here. My aim is to show that it is scarcely possible for us to make the 
 affirmations about the infallibility of Scripture which are made until we have 
 got a perfect text, and that we are never likely to have. 
 
 The foregoing remarks refer mainly to the New Testament. Scholars 
 often wish that there was the same margin of uncertainty, and a like inner 
 circle of certainty, with regard to the text of the Old Testament. But the 
 truth is that we have no means of obtaining an Old Testament text as near 
 to probable truth as the text of the New Testament is. In many passages 
 the text seems to be corrupt, and every one knows how widely the Hebrew 
 text differs from the Septuagint. Time was when it was earnestly contended 
 that the vowel points was part of the Hebrew text, but no one thinks now 
 of making that assertion. Still, it was made, and alarming consequences 
 were predicted if the contrary was affirmed, and yet it was proven that the 
 introduction of the vowel points was comparatively late, and no serious 
 consequences have followed. But many able and pious people were anxious 
 and alarmed, and thought that the doctrine of Inspiration was seriously 
 endangered. 
 
 Another obvious reflection is that the doctrine of Inspiration is con- 
 sistent with a measure of uncertainty with regard to the interpretation of 
 the text of Scripture. For Scripture is variously interpreted. Precon- 
 
Inspiration and Criticism. 19 
 
 ceptions, presuppositions of all kinds are brought to the Scriptures, and the 
 result is the various schemes of doctrine, each of which is professedly based 
 on the Scriptures. Even when men go to the Scriptures to ascertain what 
 they really mean, and resolutely strive to take nothing with them to the 
 Scriptures, and to learn only what they teach, it is no easy task they under- 
 take. Every exegete knows how hard it is to get face to face with the 
 Scriptures. The greater our reverence for the Scriptures, and the more we 
 desire to understand them in their pure simplicity, the harder we feel our 
 task to be. A misinterpretation is a grave and serious offence against truth, 
 and against Him whose word the Scriptures is. When we have used every 
 endeavour, taken every precaution, there is still a margin of uncertainty, as 
 every scholar knows. So much is needed in order to understand the 
 Scriptures. "We need to know something of the conditions of life and 
 thought of the period of their production, something also of the stage of 
 growth or decay of the language in which they were written ; what words 
 really meant at that particular time, or what new meaning New Testament 
 writers poured into old words; something also of the mind, the character, the 
 habit of the particular writer whose works we study, we must leai-n. 
 Ignorance or a mistake in any of these matters, and in any of the other condi- 
 tions of interpretation which I have not mentioned, will leave us with a 
 margin of uncertainty as to the real meaning of Scripture ; and this margin 
 of uncertainty ought to make us modest when we seek to formulate our 
 doctrine of Inspiration, or to set forth what is implied in it. The history 
 of interpretation is very suggestive. It needs no wide learning to know that 
 there have been periods when the Allegorical method widely prevailed, when 
 the plain historical meaning of Scripture was buried under a load of so- 
 called spiritual lessons : scarcely any fact of Scripture was allowed to be left 
 in its historical simplicity ; vast systems of doctrine were based on numbers 
 supposed to have a spiritual meaning ; and generally what was professedly 
 brought out of Scripture was first read into it. It is only by slow degrees 
 that interpretation has become historical, exegetical, scientific. Nor are we 
 far removed from the time when men used the Scriptures as a book from 
 which some intimation of the future might be obtained by the simple process 
 of opening its pages at random, and taking the first sentence which met the 
 eye as an intimation of the Divine Will. No one will now affirm that this is 
 a legitimate use of Scripture. Yet, as is pointed out by Professor Harris, 
 there are sentences on the margin of " the S. Germain Codex of the Latin 
 Bible known to the New Testament students by the sign g^" which shows 
 that " the book has been used for purposes of divination, a custom which 
 seems to have widely prevailed in early times, both in civil and ecclesiastical 
 matters " {A Study of Codex Baza, chap. ii.). Practices of this kind, 
 whether in ancient or modern times, reveal a desire on the part of those 
 who used them to attain to greater certainty than the nature of the case 
 admitted. Such a desire may have a larger influence than we know in 
 shaping other conclusions both of a practical and of a theoretic kind. 
 
 B 2 
 
20 Theological Thought. 
 
 A due regard to historical and scientific exegesis reveal other phenomena 
 of Scripture which must be consistent with the doctrine of Inspiration. We 
 are familiar now with the science of Biblical theology. At this hour it is 
 surely not necessary to defend either the method of study or the results 
 which have been ascertained in the sphere of Biblical theology. But it is 
 comparatively a new science, and, though new, one of the most fruitful in 
 theology. "We have come to know that within the vast organism of the 
 Scriptures, as a whole, there are many smaller organisms, relatively 
 independent, and yet conspiring to form the great harmony of the united 
 system of the Word of God. How rich is the divers^ity of types of doctrine 
 and points of view within the New Testament ; and how much richer our 
 theology has become since we have been able in some measure to do justice 
 to the special features of each presentation of the truth ; and to recognize, 
 as in a measure we are able to do, how necessary this variety is, in order 
 that we may have some conception of the vastness, manifoldness, and 
 harmonious unity of the truth as it is in Jesus. This new achievement of 
 theology reminds us of the similar situation with regard to the sciences 
 which deal with the outward world. Each science has dealt with its own 
 subject, according to its own method ; and when the work of each was so far 
 done, it was found that the inter-relations between them keph pace with the 
 individual progress, until men were able to see that there was a circle or 
 organism of the sciences. Notwithstanding the diversity of one from 
 another, they were found to unite in a higher harmony; and some principles 
 — such as the Conservation of Energy — were really dominant, and all the 
 sciences together were subject to them. 
 
 A similar result unfolds itself to the student of the New Testament as 
 he follows his scientific guides through its various books. Each of the 
 Gospels has its own point of view, its own guiding principle, its own leading 
 thought. So much has been won, and may be said to be universally 
 acknowledged. We get from Matthew one way of setting forth Jesus Christ, 
 His person. His work. His place, power, and purpose. What it is we do not 
 at piesent determine. But we may take for granted that the results of 
 Biblical theology are so far sure as to enable us to say that the aims of the 
 Gospels are diverse. One view from Matthew, another from Mark, another 
 from Luke, and still another from John. There was a time when this rich 
 diversity of system was lost sight of, and was almost obliterated by attempts 
 at a harmony of the Gospels. Biblical science is wiser now, and it strains 
 itself in the effort to set forth the contents of each Gospel in its own dis- 
 tinctive attainment. When this has been done in an adequate manner, then 
 we shall see how they all fall together, and have their place in the grand 
 harmonious truth which concerns the mission, and the peace, and the power, 
 and the person of the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us. 
 
 What is true of the Gospels is true also of the other books of the New- 
 Testament. We are beginning to appreciate the vast variety which is 
 contained in the Epistles of Paul. We find that there is a growing fulness 
 
Inspiration and Criticism. 21 
 
 of revealed truth iu his Epistles. From his first extant Epistle — to the 
 Thessalonians — or through them all until we come to the Epistles to the 
 Ephesians and Colossians, we see that the inspired Apostle is led on from 
 truth to truth until he is able to attain to and to set forth the glory of his 
 Master. Christ is placed not only in relation to sinners of the human race, 
 but Christ is shown to be " the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all 
 creation. For in Him w^ere all things created, in the heavens and upon the 
 earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thi-ones or dominions, or 
 principalities or powers ; all things have been created through Him and unto 
 Him, and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." The 
 Apostle was a man that grew in the knowledge of Christ. Under the 
 pressure of many perplexing questions, troubled with many problems raised 
 day by day by some of the many Churches, the charge of which lay on him, 
 meditating much, and thinking deeply, the Apostle is led by the Spirit of 
 God to these statements of the doctrine of the Person of Christ which formed 
 the solution of all the problems which needed to be settled. 
 
 We find many other phenomena in the Epistles of Paul. Not to speak 
 of language, style, dialectic reasoning, and other things of that sort, we find 
 that as we pass from group to group of his Epistles, arranging them as 
 far as possible in groups near to each other as regards the time of their 
 having been written, that each group has its own characteristic expressions, 
 its leading conceptions, and its peculiar modes of thought and feeling ; and all 
 these varied results are under Inspiration. Thus Inspiration is consistent 
 not only with the characteristics, emotional, intellectual, volitional, of any 
 man, as distinct from another, but is consistent with marked changes in the 
 man himself. It is consistent with the fire, impetuosity, and elasticity of 
 youth ; it is also consistent with the wide and wary outlook of ripe experience, 
 and with the calm disciplined power which is the outcome of life-long 
 devotion and loyalty to truth and duty. Such conclusions necessarily follow 
 from a study of the life and writings of Paul. 
 
 This follows also from a study of the other writings of the New 
 Testament in their individual peculiarity. How singular in many respects is 
 the Epistle of James ! What originality in the Epistle to the Hebrews ! 
 When we study it under the guidance of such a man as Eiehm, or Westcott, 
 or Bruce, and follow the evolution of thought through all its ramifications, 
 what a difference do we find between its point of view and the point of view 
 of any other book of the New Testament. Why insist on these things ? 
 They are notorious to every student of the Bible. Well, our reason is to 
 show what service historical criticism and scientific exegesis has done for the 
 better understanding of the New Testament. Another aim we have in 
 view is to show that the doctrine of Inspiration must be stated in such a way 
 as to be consistent with all the facts we know. For in all our dealings with 
 the Scriptures, science has its rights, which can neither be gainsaid nor 
 ignored. The laws of grammar have their place in the interpretation of an 
 inspired document. For if an inspired book is to be understood, it must use 
 
22 Theological Thought. 
 
 intelligible language, and must submit itself to the ordinary laws of human 
 speech. This need scarcely be stated. Thus we have our grammars of the 
 New Testament, our lexicons, our references to classical usage, our investiga- 
 tions into the origin, character, and history of that form of Greek in which 
 most of the New Testament books are written. It is of importance too that 
 we should learn how far the writers of the New Testament have departed from 
 classical usage, how far they have introduced new words, how far they are 
 influenced by Hebrew idiom, because without some knowledge of this it is 
 hopeless to attain a true interpretation. Nor are we to be unmindful of the 
 peculiarities of the individual writer, nor of the conditions of thought and 
 life of the time in which he lived. 
 
 So far we have spoken of the New Testament, for, with respect to it, the 
 question of interpretation is comparatively simple. All the books contained in 
 it are the product of one century, and are produced under similar historical 
 conditions. They were all in existence within less than a hundred years after 
 the Ascension of our Lord. But with regard to the Old Testament, we have 
 a far more complex problem. Here we have a literature which ranges over 
 a thousand years, produced under all conditions of human society. It has 
 almost all the forms which literature assumes. It has ancient songs, like 
 the Song of Deborah, and the fragment preserved from the book of the 
 Wars of Jehovah. It has catalogues of names, like those in the books of 
 Chronicles ; moral laws, like the Decalogue ; laws which regulate rites and 
 ceremonies, such as we have in the Levitical legislation ; beautiful stories, 
 like that of Joseph ; forms of impassioned poetic speech in the Psalms and 
 the Prophets. It is addressed to a people at almost every stage of civilization, 
 and it traces the history of that people, and describes their character and 
 conduct, in the plainest possible terms. Laws are given to them which are 
 described by the highest possible authority as given to them for the hardness 
 of their hearts ; customs and ways of living are permitted, or not forbidden, 
 which are absolutely prohibited in the New Testament. There are many 
 other things which strike us in our reading of the literature of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 One obvious thing is the marvellous unity which runs through all the 
 diversity of the books. The books are different in form, different in style, 
 different in subject and matter, and yet there is one tone and spirit in them 
 all. There is growth in them, there is a gradual unfolding in them of the 
 great thoughts which come to perfect expression in the New Testament. In 
 reading them, any one of them, we never can get away from the presence of 
 the living God, nor can we read them without a deepening sense of human 
 sin and unworthiness. From first to last, amid all the perplexing questions 
 that arise, this sense of the Divine Presence in the Book is never absent, a 
 sense which grows ever more keen and vivid as that Presence discloses 
 itself more and more. 
 
 But the study of the Old Testament raises many questions. These are 
 not questions which have been raised in a wilful and arbitrary manner, nor 
 
Inspiration and Criticism. 23 
 
 by men who wish to discredit the teaching and destroy the authority of the 
 Old Testament. No doubt, much of what is known as the Higher Criticism 
 has been the work of men who do not beheve in a God Who has cared for 
 man, Who has spoken unto man, and can save man from his sins. It ig 
 unquestionably true that criticism has often been used by such men as a 
 means for the destruction of behef in the supernatural, and for the rejection 
 of everything which cannot be expressed in terms of the natural. The 
 way to deal with such criticism is not to deny whatsoever facts of Scripture 
 have been brought to light by their investigations, but to bring to the surface 
 their underlying assumptions and to deal with these on their merits. The 
 criticism of the New Testament, carried on with such vigour and acuteness 
 by the Tiibingen School, has resulted in a surer knowledge and a firmer 
 grasp of the historic truth of the New Testament. While the assumptions of 
 the school have been discredited, yet to that vigorous and prolonged con- 
 troversy we owe a large increase of knowledge and a surer grasp of principles. 
 Such is the state of the matter also with regard to criticism of the Old 
 Testament. A criticism of the Old Testament is possible which shall not 
 proceed on the assumptions of Kuenen and Wellhausen. When criticism is 
 reverent, when it does not assume that the supernatui'al ;is unhistorical, 
 when it does not ignore the possibility that God can reveal Himself to man, 
 and when it proceeds on the usual principles of historical investigation, it 
 does not appear why Christian men should object to it. At all events, it is 
 with us, and it does not appear likely to depart. What it is we may readily 
 see, for we can watch its processes and its results as these appear in the 
 hands of believing men. How very different the spirit and method of 
 criticism are in the hands of Dr. Driver and of Wellhausen, while in many 
 instances the results of their criticism are identical. 
 
 My purpose here is not to inquire into the methods of the Higher 
 Criticism, nor to enter into the merits of the controversy which is still going 
 on. Agreement has not by any means been attained as yet. There are 
 competent men like Professor Green and Principal Cave who still contend 
 for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. There are other men who 
 believe that the Pentateuch had not attained its present form until after 
 the Captivity. We are not to attempt to decide on so great an issue and 
 between combatants of such vigour and prowess. When we look back 
 on the history of the Higher Criticism, and observe the points on which 
 something like unanimity of opinion has been obtained ; when we observe the 
 increasing number of believing men — men who believe the Old Testament 
 to be a revelation from God — who believe also in Criticism, it is 
 obvious that it is not possible for us to act as if the Higher Criticism 
 were not in existence. It is obvious, too, that the Higher Criticism 
 has proceeded on a legitimate method, and has had regard to facts 
 and phenomena which are in the Scriptures themselves. It has pro- 
 ceeded in the way described by Bishop Butler, " by particular persons 
 attending to, comparing and pursuing intimations scattered up and down 
 
24 Theological Thought. 
 
 the Scriptures, which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality 
 of the world." There are things in the Old Testament Scriptures 
 which press for comparison with one another, and when these are compared 
 they lead to certain conclusions. There is the fact that there are different 
 names for God in different sections of the Book of Genesis. How can the 
 fact be explained ? "When men set themselves to follow out the hint 
 contained in this fact, it leads them on step by step until the conclusion 
 is reached that there are different documents in the Pentateuch. Each of 
 these supposed documents have notes and marks peculiar to itself which 
 distinguishes it broadly from all the others. There is a wonderful agreement 
 among critics as to the characteristics of these documents, as to their 
 extent, and as to their limits ; that there are the Deuteronomic document, 
 the prophetical nai'rative of the Hexateuch — for the Book of Joshua belongs 
 to the first five books of Scripture, and must be considered along with 
 it — and the priestly narrative of the Hexateuch. Critics, as has just been 
 said, are agreed as to these documents, and it is not likely that their 
 verdict will be reversed. They are not in agreement as to the date of these, 
 nor as to the relation which the prophetical has to the priestly narrative, 
 though there are signs that here, too, there is a growing approximation to 
 agreement. It may be remarked in passing that there are great difficulties 
 with regard to the view which make the books descriptive of ritual latest ; 
 for, as Professor Saussaye says, " The materials connected with ritual are 
 the most original among the elements of religious life, are more permanent. 
 Kitual customs last for centuries, are differently combined and joined with 
 other ideas, cease to be officially ritual and become popular, but remain, 
 for all that, the most stable elements of religion, carrying us back to the 
 most distant time " {Manual of Science of Beligion, p. 68). Thus criticism 
 of the Old Testament seems to lead to a position unlike that which 
 obtains in other religions. There are other difficulties also, but we are 
 not to argue the question. 
 
 For we are brought face to face with certain facts and arguments as to 
 the structure of the Old Testament. There is the fact of the documents of 
 which Principal Eainy has said, " I do not think that the evidence can be 
 resisted in favour of the use and incorporation in the Book of Genesis of in- 
 dependent documents, distinguished, among other peculiarities, by the names 
 
 they apply to the Divine Being I believe it to be quite true, and 
 
 capable of proof, that distinct and distinguishable documents look out upon us 
 from large portions of the text of Genesis" {The Bible and Criticism, p. 125). 
 But the evidence for distinct documents is as clear for the whole Hexa- 
 teuch as for the Book of Genesis. If the documentary hypotheses are once 
 admitted, we cannot say at once how far it may carry us. But this must be 
 said, that the question is one to be determined by evidence, and cannot be 
 foreclosed by any predilection of ours. What we have to ask is. Is there 
 anything in the Higher Criticism as it is wrought out by believing men 
 inconsistent with the Inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture ? Is it 
 
Inspiration and Criticistn. 25 
 
 less consistent with Inspiration than the otlier phenomena of Scripture 
 ah-eady enumerated ? It were somewhat hazardous to affirm this. One 
 thing is evident, that there are men who are botli critics and behevers in 
 the authority of Scripture. Dr. Driver, for instance, says, " Criticism in 
 the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the Inspiration 
 of the Old Testament ; it -presupposes it ; it seeks only to determine the 
 conditions under which it operates, and the literary forms through which 
 it manifests itself; and thus it helps us to frame truer conceptions of the 
 methods which it has pleased God to employ in revealing Himself to His 
 ancient people of Israel, and in preparing the way for the fuller manifesta- 
 tion of Himself in Christ Jesus" (Driver's Introduction, preface p. xix.). 
 One might refer also to the venerable name of Delitzsch, "clarum at 
 venerabile nomen," whose praise is in all the Churches, and whose services 
 have been so conspicuous. His changing attitude to this class of questions, 
 as it may be traced through the successive editings of the Commentary on 
 Genesis, is most instructive, and perhaps may be typical. Every reader of 
 his NeiD Commentary on Genesis knows how large were the concessions he 
 made, and how many of the conclusions of criticism he accepted. Not one 
 of these would he have made had he thought them inconsistent with the 
 Inspiration of the Old Testament. The Divine authority of the Old Testa- 
 ment was a fundamental belief of his, not to be hazarded or surrendered 
 on any terms. If men of the type of Driver and Delitzsch, so competent 
 in every way, so Christian, have been able to reconcile criticism and faith, 
 is there not a presumption that a reconciliation is possible ? 
 
 Suppose the results, or some of them, true — what is our attitude to be ? 
 Are we to declare them inconsistent with Inspiration, as perhaps is the 
 first impulse of some of us? Or are we to say that as we have found 
 Inspiration to be quite consistent with many phenomena, which in former 
 times seemed to be quite inconsistent with it, so we shall find in the present 
 instance? We may have thought, as the conclusions of the Higher 
 Criticism forced themselves on our view, accompanied as they were with 
 a hostile attitude to all that is precious to a Christian man, that such results 
 W'ere quite incompatible with any doctrine of Inspiration. But a calmer 
 reflection followed, and a closer examination of the facts ; and it was seen 
 that many things pointed out by the critics were indisputable facts of Scrip- 
 ture. What happened then was this, that we had to widen our conceptions 
 of the phenomena of Scripture ; that the great boon of Holy Scripture had 
 not come to man in the simple way we had supposed ; that the process of 
 the delivery and preservation of the oracles of God was much more com- 
 plex, and involved a much more lengthened process than we had conceived ; 
 but is there anything in the discovery of this fact — supposing it to be a 
 fact — which should interfere with the authority of Scripture ? Inspiration 
 is consistent with all the phenomena of Scripture, and is consistent with all 
 that the Higher Criticism can find to be true phenomena of Scripture. For 
 my own part, I have not been able to accept all the results, either of Dr. 
 
26 Theological Thought. 
 
 Driver or of Delitzsch, and on the whole question a great deal of work 
 remains to be done. But surely there is a modus vivendi possible which 
 shall leave men like them time to work out the whole subject, without 
 being suspected, or unduly interfered with. 
 
 Accepting, for the sake of argument, the result of the Higher Criticism as 
 set forth by Dr. Driver, in what position do we find .ourselves ? Are we con- 
 strained to surrender that view of Scripture which looks at the Scriptures as 
 the Word of God and the only adequate rule of life? Far from it. When 
 we have exhausted all that the Higher Criticism has had to say as to the 
 conditions under which the Old Testament Scriptures were given to men, 
 and the literary forms in which they are presented, we have untouched the 
 moral and spiritual qualities of the Old Testament itself. We have its view 
 of God, of man, and of the world, and the influence which these exert on the 
 heart and conscience of mankind. From our increasing knowledge of the 
 religions of the world, and of the forms which these have assumed in the 
 course of time, we are enabled to see that in the religion of Israel we ai'e 
 in the presence of a phenomena which is without parallel in ancient 
 literature. Let us grant that the Hexateuch had not reached its final form 
 until after the Exile, yet even then we are in the presence of phenomena 
 which demand an adequate historical explanation. Five centuries before the 
 beginning of our era, Israel was in possession of truths about God which no 
 other people were in possession of at that time ; truths which the most 
 thoughtful and cultured peoples of the world have found adequate to the 
 expression of their highest thought and of their deepest religious feeling. 
 Israel had reached that Ethical Monotheism, that conception of the unity 
 and omnipotence of God, of His creative power, of His providential govern- 
 ment, of His ethical character. His holiness, justice, goodness, and truth, 
 which has obtained such wonderful expression in the second part of the 
 Book of Isaiah. The attempt to apply that law of progress which some 
 students of the history of religions have thought they have found in other 
 religions, has failed in the case of Israel. From Animism and Fetishism, 
 through Polytheism to Theism, is the line of advance. We do not speak at 
 present of the difficulties which almost all religions place in the way of the 
 acceptance of this law as an adequate statement of the case. But, at all 
 events, it has failed in the case of Israel. There is an entire absence of those 
 intermediate steps by which the transition is supposed to be made from 
 Animism to Theism. Many of the causes which are supposed to lead to 
 Theism — such as political unity, increased geographical knowledge, a growing 
 sense of the unity of things, increased scientific knowledge, increased powers 
 of generalized statement, or a universal conception of the reign of law — have 
 no place in the history of Israel. But Israel had somehow attained to the 
 knowledge of God, and of His relation to man and to the world. There is a 
 great difference too, we might say the greatest possible contrast, between the 
 kind of Theism reached by Israel and that reached by any other people in 
 the history of the world. Plato could reach the abstract idea of Being, and 
 
Inspiration and Criticism-. I'j 
 
 describe it as the centre and source of all that is. Aristotle could reach 
 self-thinking thought, busied with itself, and removed from all else, incapable 
 or unwilling to come into contact with an actual world of men or things ; 
 and Cicero, generalizing from the features of Roman law, could think of gods 
 and men as a community living in relations defined by law. But these are the 
 highest efforts of the human mind outside of Israel. Here, then, is a people 
 with no wide dominion to raise them to wider views of the unity of things, 
 with no power of abstract thought to lead them to the abstract idea of 
 existence, with no wide grasp of the thought of law to lead them to the con- 
 ception of an ordered cosmos, who yet rose to a higher view than Greek or 
 Roman ever had. They came to think of a God who in the beginning made 
 the heavens and the earth, of a God not remote nor removed from the world, 
 but who indeed did dwell with men on the earth, of a God of holiness, truth, 
 and love, and they spoke of Him as the living God. How came Israel to 
 rise to so great a height ? The answer is obvious. God had revealed Him- 
 self to Israel, had dealt with them as He had dealt with no other nation, 
 and has recorded the story of His dealings with them in such a way as to 
 make the record live and move and breathe to this hour with the mighty 
 energy of His continual presence. Even when we grant the results, or all 
 the legitimate results of the critical movement, give to criticism all the rights 
 it can claim, we have still all the mighty resources of arguments of the kind 
 we have outlined, wherewith to vindicate the Divine authority and inspiration 
 of the Scriptures, and their claim to be the Word of God and to be the guide 
 and inspirer of men. But this is an argument which can scarcely be used 
 by men who tie us to the formal discussion of a theme which limits itself to 
 the question : Are there or are there not errors in the Scriptures ? 
 
 Another consideration which ought to give us some equanimity in the 
 present crisis is the fact that the Bible does not come to us as an untried 
 book, or one whose merits, worth, and claims have, for the first time, to 
 be sifted. The Bible comes to us to-day with the testimonies of many 
 generations of men as to its Divine truth, and as to its power to guide and 
 save men. It has been the means of making bad men good, of implanting 
 unselfish motives in the hearts of selfish men ; it has been productive of a 
 kind of life which, in the opinion of all people, is the highest kind of life 
 which the world has ever seen. It has, in many respects, made the world 
 new ; it has emancipated the slave, has purified personal and family life, 
 has entered into the social, national, and international life of the world; 
 has made itself to belong to the literature of every nation, and, more than 
 any purely national literature, has become the literature of every people. 
 
 While the Bible has thus incorporated itself with the life and literature 
 of the human race, there are many things in it which are at the present 
 moment unappropriated even by the highest Christian nation. The kind of 
 life it embodies and commands, and presents in concrete form, stands out 
 before us as an ideal not yet attained by any man or nation. The worth 
 and excellence of that life is not denied by any one. If the life contained in 
 
28 Theological Thought, 
 
 the Scriptures could be attained by a man or a nation, how speedily would 
 the woes and miseries of life disappear. Universal brotherhood, unselfish 
 work, love to all — these are the facts and precepts of Scripture, and they 
 are also the ideal of philosophers; and it is surprising how the outcome of 
 all social philosophies tends to approach to the ideal of personal, family, 
 political, and social life contained in the Scriptures. 
 
 Need we be anxious about a book which comes to us accredited in 
 60 many weighty ways ? Need we be disturbed when a book of such a 
 character, with such a history, with such claims, has attracted to itself 
 the attention of all kinds of men ? It has challenged their notice, provoked 
 the hostility of some, and quickened others to enthusiasm, and throughout 
 the centuries it has stood, and still stands, as the witness of God to man, 
 and as God's message of salvation to sinners. When we have so many 
 claims to make on behalf of the Word of God, claims which can neither be 
 weakened nor denied, why should we put in the forefront of the battle a 
 claim to errorless perfection, which can only be made good at the cost of 
 endless argumentation, often of the kind which is only special pleading at 
 the best ? 
 
 The Scriptures give us certainty as to the matters which it most concerns 
 us to know. When we read the history of the past, when we study the 
 methods of interpretation, and note how limited were the scientific resources 
 of the exegete, and how inadequate his methods, we are amazed to find 
 how often the scientific exegesis of the present has confirmed the conclusions 
 to which, in earlier days, the evangelical consciousness had come. But when 
 we reflect that the interpretation of Scripture depends on two factors, our 
 wonder becomes less. One factor is scientific exegesis, in the widest sense 
 of the term, but the other is the witness of the Holy Spirit. It has often 
 happened that, under the " testimonium Spiritus Saucti," men were led to the 
 knowledge of saving truth, and to loyal acceptance and obedience to it, when 
 the scientific element was very defective. It has also happened that science 
 has failed to reach the mark, and has wofully failed to reach the highest 
 spiritual truth. It is also the case that we have both factors conspiring to 
 the one great end, and then we reach, and can expect only thus to reach, the 
 highest spiritual end — that knowledge of God in Christ which is life eterna^. 
 But both for the giving of Scripture and the receiving of Scripture we need 
 the living action of the living Spirit of God. The mode of action and theaiii 
 of the Spirit has a larger scope in the one case than in the other, but in bol a 
 it is the essential element. Without the action of the Spirit of God movir-g 
 men, we could have had no Word of God ; and without the action of the Spir ., 
 we can have no adequate apprehension of the Word of God. But what e 
 the notes, marks, qualities of the Word of God is a question we i 
 determine only on an examination of the evidence proper and pertinei o 
 the subject. 
 
it 
 ii 
 
 ■IXi 
 
r-AMPHLET BINDER 
 
 I^IT Syracuse, N Y. 
 
 ;^^ Slocltfon, Calif. 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 ^t*fff^^^^ 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 ""''^'IMJII,. ^1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wk 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C.AVLORO 
 
 
 
 PRINTeO IN u • » 
 
 «- 
 
BS480.I94 
 
 Inspiration and criticism. 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00052 0868 
 
 liiipi 
 liii 
 
 I ill 
 
 11 
 
 iii 
 
 
 y