//,^0.2 2. Jrom tt|f Etbrarg of l^quf atl|f Ji by Ijtm ta tl|0 SItbrarg of Prtttrrtott ®Ijwl0gtraI g>^mtnarQ .DSZZ Copy ( WHAT IS INSPIRATION? A FRESH STUDY OF THE QUESTION WITH NE W AND DI SCRIM IN A TIVE REPLIES BY / JOHN DE WITT, D.D., LL.D., Litt. D. A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN OLD TESTAMENT REVISION COMPANY, AND FOR MANY YEARS PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL EXEGESIS IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. AUTHOR OF "THE PSALMS; A NEW TRANSLATION WITH NOTES," ETC. NEW YORK ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY (incorporated) 182 FIFTH AVENUE Copyright, 1893, by ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY, (incorporated). PRESS OF EDWARD O. JENKINS' SOU, NEW YORK. ?Debication. This volume is inscribed to the meifiory of one who was here when it was planned and large portiofis of it were written. It has received precious consecration from her deep interest in its purpose and progress, and her pleasure in anticipati?ig its publication. Yet she could not wait for the end, but is gone to the reward of her faith- ful, patient, loving, self-sacrificing, and gracious life. PKEFACE. This essay is a response to an imperative demand. ' Any questioning that bears upon the inspiration of the Bible is of like interest and vital importance to all Christians. The arraignment of two theological Professors for aeresy on the ground of their opinions upon this sub- ject, has created great anxiety, — yet not so much the fact of their arraignment, as the vindicatory statements in their defence, and the acceptance of these as satis- factory, if only by a large minority. Opposite decisions have been reached in the lower tribunals, and by many upon both sides the outcome is awaited with apprehen- sion. I am neither a partisan nor an opponent of plaintiff or defendants, and only refer to these proceed- ings as historic facts that involve principles and results of the deepest concern to us all. Whatever be the issue as respects the individuals impleaded, it has been claimed and is not denied, that Christian scholarship in this specialty is nearly unani- ^ mous in discrediting the verbal inspiration and iner- rancy of the Scriptures. It cannot be doubted that unprofessional intelligence will be greatly influenced by those who have studied the documents as experts, and in whose ability, attachment to the Bible, and unim- peachable Christian excellence it has absolute confi- dence. It is not at all strange that many are gi'eatly dis- tressed. They have never before had a doubt that (iii) iv PREFACE. every word of this treasured Book is divine and fault- less, and honestly think that the foundations of their faith are destroyed. " What is inspiration," they ask, " that leaves errors behind it ? " They demand some- thing positive, — some conception of the grace that has given us the Bible, that shall reassure them against this appalling negation. In fact, the question is pressed from all sides: " What definition of inspiration will you substitute for thai which scholarship has disparaged ? " It is vaguely claimed, some will say, by these adepts and their friends, that the Bible, released from the misconcep-j tions that have obscured it, is a grander book than be-j fore. But what proof have we of this, and on what in-j telligible ground can it be claimed that we shall gain'i more than we lose ? I An answer to these appeals must not be refused] For the opinion gains ground and is strongly expressed, that widespread injury will result from these trials and resultant discussions, unless clear, definite, and conclu-l sive statement shall very soon bring rehef to those they have disturbed. A prosecutor in the New York case indignantly exclaims: "Is our doctrine to be throwii' aside on the demand of a body of critics who have as yet found nothing to put in its place ? " * \ The same thought is expressed more fully by a writer ( in a religious journal f in connection with the case of \ Prof. Smith : " The least that can be demanded is the con- cession from the Professor and his class of scholars, that this is an unsettled question. The theory is yet in * Dr. Lampe's reply to Dr. Briggs. f The Interior, Chicago. PREFACE. V the raw. The doctrine has not been wrought out so that one holding it can identify the alleged human from the admittedly divine in Scripture Has he not run before his tidings were ready ? Has he not broken down before he was ready to rebuild ? It is undoubtedly true that the question is one of fact, which lies within the field of scientific research; and if it be found to be true, the church will be forced to recon- struct her theory of inspiration." In a different tone, but assertive of the same necessity, is an article in a leading New York daily journal on the ethics of the Briggs trial. The writer takes a hopeful view of the future. He refers to all that has recently been said and written on the subject — as " embraced in a campaign of education that will in a reasonably short time change the attitude of the whole Christian world toward the Bible," and he expresses his confidence that it will not end in the depreciation of its contents, nor the refusal to regard it as of divine authority. But he speaks emphatically of " the shock which millions of devout people are receiving, as they find that they have put an estimate upon the Bible that is altogether dif- ferent from what a knowledge of its character and claims will sustain, as greatly to be regretted The pressure of the heresy trials in the Presbyterian body has hastened the distress of these people, and done nothing to sup2:)ly the loss which has been caused by partially destroying their confidence in the Bible." Nothing can be clearer than the obligation of those' who have rejected the theory of verbal inspiration, as not in accordance with what they find by the most careful scrutiny of the contents of the Bible, to furnish with the least possible delay a definition that shall ro- vi PREFACE. place it as consistent with undeniable fact, and thus quiet the prevailing agitation. In preparing the following chapters it was impos- sible to conceal my deep interest in the recent discus- sions in their important practical bearings, and so I have occasionally referred to them. I have spent the larger portion of my active life in giving instruction in the Old and New Testaments, separately and in their connection. Every year, and month, and day, they have become more precious, and all labor in developing their glorious import, and their significance in connec- tion with every aspiration and hope of man, has be- come more absorbing. I have therefore felt consci- entiously impelled to render this further service, hoping that the thoughts presented, however doubtful or perplexing to some in their earlier impression, may prove helpful and restful in their conclusions. I rejoice that I am permitted to magnify the grace that has been shown me, in urging the claim of him who came down from heaven to show us the Father, to pre-eminence over all others as the Teacher of men. The principles that are observed in defining inspiration in the closing chapters, I pass over to younger men to test and develop. If they seek it, their heart and their lips shall be touched with fire from above, and they shall speak as was impossible for me. May the dear Lord help them ! Then shall our present apprehensions be completely quelled, and we shall find a charming significance for our present need in our Saviour's words of farewell: " Peace I leave with you. My peace I give unto you. Not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." CONTENTS. PAGE I. Preliminary, 1 n. Verbal or Plenary Inspiration, .... 9 m. Inspiration and the earlier Biblical Study, 16 rV. Two Theologies in Contrast, 23 V. The Higher Criticism, Destructive and Constructive, 31 VI. Minor Inaccuracies, 37 VII. Minor Inaccuracies — Historical, .... 45 Vin. Moral Incongruities, 58 IX. Turning Forward — General Considera- tions, 68 X. Inspiration defined by Revelation, ... 78 XI. The Human Coefficient in Revelation, . 86 Xn. Revelation keeping pace with Develop- ment, 97 Xin. The Revelation as addressed to Men, . 103 XIV, Hope long deferred, 115 XV. Hope long deferred — Continued, . . . 130 XVI. The Purpose of the Revelation, .... 139 XVn. The Glory of the Old Testament Rev- elation, 146 XVm. The Prophets — The Christ — The Apos- tles, 154 XIX. The Discriminative Definition in part, . 161 XX. The Definition Completed and the Final Test, 166 XXI. The Final Test— Continued, 174 WHAT IS INSPIRATION? I. PEELIMIKARY. A FEW months ago, at the close of a letter upon personal affairs to a highly gifted friend, a postscript was added containing only this question : " What is inspiration ? " He understood it, as was intended, to relate wholly to the Bible. His reply was as follows, — this also in postscript: "You ask, 'What is inspiration?' Would that the Lord would raise up and inspire some one of his servants to give a reasonably clear answer to your question. I have not found such an one, though I have been looking for him for some time." We all believe that God often gives such aid, en- abling those who receive it to use their faculties to better purpose than would otherwise be possible. A remarkable story is told in the annals of the Westminster Assembly concerning George Gillespie of Edinburgh, the youngest member of that body. It is the same George Gillespie of whom it is related that he was requested by the Moderator, in view of the difficulty that was found in framing for the Gate- 2 INSPIRATION. chism a suitable definition of God, to lead the Assem- bly in prayer for divine aid, and the first sentence of whose prayer was immediately and unanimously adopted as containing the answer sought. This fur- ther instance of a similar kind is on record: A day was appointed by the Assembly for considering the nature and constitution of the Christian Church. Great anxiety was felt by the Presbyterian divines, principally because the leader of the Erastian party, who would have subjected the Church to the State, was John Selden, the most learned man in England. He was especially strong in Eabbinic lore, from which, in connection with the constitution of the Jewish synagogue, his opinions on the subject were derived. His argument was masterly, and apparently unan- swerable. The representatives of Presbyterianism stood aghast and thought their cause lost. But some one who had observed that while Selden ^as speak- ing the young Scotchman Gillespie seemed to be diligently taking notes, earnestly beckoned to him to reply. He did so promptly, taking up Selden's argu- ment point by point, and tore it into shreds and tat- ters, to the entire discomfiture of Erastianism. After the debate was closed, one that sat near Gil- lespie managed to get hold of the paper on which he had been writing, expecting to find a full sketch of his effort, or at least, its principal points. But it con- tained only the simple words, ''Da lucem, Bomine! Da lucem, Domine ! " (Give hght, O Lord !) written again and again from the top to the bottom of the page. WHAT IS IT? 3 Tliere is no subject upon wliicli light from the source of all light is at present more needed than the inspiration of the Scriptures. Let all Christian hearts unite in imploring it. The most suitable expression of the scope, contents, and spirit of the following pages is interrogative. Is it possible to adjust our theory and definition of the ;| inspiring grace that has given us the Bible to the,i facts that have been ascertained by its critical andjj conscientious study during the last half century ? 1 The question relates to the theory of verbal inspira- tion in both its forms, the mechanical and the plenary, as not in accord with the observed phenomena of rev- elation. By this test every proposed definition, how- ever plausible and satisfactory a priori^ must stand or fall. There should be no conflict between our ideal and the actual. Whatever it has pleased God to give us as suited to our need should be gratefully accepted. Our ideal, if different, is a delusion. Hitherto, by common consent, the subject has been referred to the future. Definition has been held in abeyance, by the wisest and safest men, until the ground should be thoroughly explored. It is an un- authorized assumption, promulgated under circum- stances unfavorable to dispassionate inquiry, that henceforth the narrower view alone shall be toler- ated, and the broader stamped out by ecclesiastical ostracism and censure. There has been good reason for delay, but now. with better reason we grapple the problem hopefully. Yet our induction, as in all broad questions of fact, 4 INSPIEATION. requires the patient study of various conditions and a multitude of details. It must proceed slowly, reserv- ing its definitions to the last. It is said that several years before his death the late eminent and venerable ex-President Theodore Woolsey was solicited to prepare an article on in- spiration for a leading quarterly. He positively de- clined, alleging the difficulty of tlie subject, and avow- ing his personal incompetency. He added that the time for successful effort in that direction had not yet come. We cannot doubt that he expressed the feeling of many of those who are best qualified to deal with such mysteries. Yet, without the slightest misgi^nng, they have yielded their mind, heart, and will to the Scriptures as given by the inspiration of God. Such undoubting faith is not at all inconsistent with a con- fessed inability to explain the divine energy by which the result was produced. This has special reference to the phenomena of the earlier stages of revelation. We may feel painfully that no theory has been propounded that relieves all the difficulties of the ^ case, yet enjoy an unfaltering confidence that the Bi- j ble is the word of God. For our confidence does not de- pend upon human theories concerning its production, but upon many infallible proofs of the divine origin both of the Old Testament and of the I^ew, and these intrinsic, wrought into their substance, and filling ^them with light, and life, and power. Discussions have recently become rife in one of the largest and most influential bodies of Protestant WHAT IS IT? 6 Christendom about the inerrancy of Scripture. It is between those who maintain the jnpst Jiteral verbal inspiration, on the one side, and on the other, those who hold to an inspiration in the thought rather than in the words, that produces results that are infallible in all matters of faith and practice, but which does not preclude inaccuracies in matters not affecting the substance of religious truth. There is reason to believe that while the latter po- sition is earnestly opposed by an apparent majority in the church referred to, there are not a few, still num- bered with that majority, who have become convinced that the Bible contains some inaccuracies in connection with extra-religious and unimportant matters, but have not spoken out plainly. They cannot yet reconcile this view with their Confession of Faith, and utter the ad- mission reluctantly and scarcely above their breath. They consider such an admission premature and in- judicious, and heartily regret that entire silence upon the subject had not been maintained. They do not see their way to any statement of the doctrine of in- spiration that recognizes the least error in the Bible without a dangerous concession to those who deny its divine authority, and serious disturbance to the simple faith that receives every minutest item in the sacred Book as perfect and infallible. While they are under the pressure of such doubt, we can scarcely wonder that they are intensely disturbed. But it is too late for regrets. The issue has been raised and must be met without flinching. It impera- tively demands all reasonable effort to furnish such 6 INSPIRATION. defining and explanatory statements concerning the inspiration of prophets and apostles as shall fairly cover the facts that confront us in their writings. It must be confessed that the principle of verbal inspiration has been inflexibly maintained by many of our representative men, — intelligent, conscientious, and entitled to the highest respect for their gracious qualities, — and that they have been in the majority. It is painful to resist them. But a change is going on before our eyes, and it must surely prevail. It is not a caprice, originating in fondness for novelty and change, but a legitimate and necessary onward step in sacred learning. It is the result of more exhaust- ive study of the Scriptures by improved critical and exegetical methods, leading to a more correct apprehension of their ruling principle and con- tents. It should be noted, too, in this connection, that knowledge in all departments is characteristically progressive. This arises from the constitution of the human mind, and from the vastness of the fields to be explored on every side. The active intellect, having abundant material to work upon, must make con- tinual acquisitions. There is no such thing possible, except with fossils whose organic life is a thing of the by-gone ages, as settling down in contentment with the past, as if the utmost limit of attainment had been reached. Most of all, steady advance may be expected in divine knowledge, the partial ever be- coming more perfect, and with every ascent to higher truth, the horizon expanding illimitably, and inviting WHAT IS IT? 7 to fresh toil, in order that still loftier heights may be sjrmoiiiited. It may further be observed among these prefatory generalities, that an important step forward is seldom, if ever, simultaneous on the part of the great mass, as if moved by a common impulse. Usually an in- dividual explorer makes a discovery, and another here, and another there, all of like drift and bearing. At first a very few will grasp and accept the conclusion in which his alleged facts converge, perhaps with some necessary modifications, where the ardor of suc- cessful inquiry has carried the explorer too far. As the proof of its correctness becomes more convincing, others and still others will join in, until the new truth has become established as part of the sum of human knowledge. There is always, and it is well that there should be, in order that hasty generalizations and rash con- clusions may be avoided, a cautious conservative element, that clings fondly and tenaciously, — often too fondly and tenaciously, — to the old ; that resists vigor- ously, — often, but not always, wisely, — all abandon- ment of positions previously occupied. It is unquestionable that sometimes strong and cul- tivated minds tend toward ultra-conservatism. Con- servatism within bounds is wholesome, and serviceable to truth in restraining ardent and too credulous natures. As to extreme conservatism and extreme progressiveness, it is hard to say which is the more harmful. If we must have either, it is well that we should have its opposite as a necessary counterbalancing 8 INSPIRATION. force. Sound, sober, and unbiassed judgment will find the truth somewhere between them. This re- mark would not be entitled to a place here if it did not seem applicable to present theological differ- ences. II. VERBAL OR PLENARY INSPIRATION. The coDception of those who believe in the iner- ■ >''^i^^-*^ rancy of all the contents of the Bible, implies a divine - ^vM.^ energy that so completely absorbs and controls the - *^ human composer, as to ensure absolute truth in the most unimportant details, rendering the slightest inaccuracy impossible. If this assumption be war- ranted, a denial of the flawless perfection of these records, or of any part of them, is impugning the truthfulness of God. , ,-- . / The argument is a priori, and very simple and V o^w^^^^ intelligible. It is held to be so conclusive that any "^V^ attempt to test its soundness by critical examination is scarcely less than profane. Let the reasoning be approved, and the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures becomes virtually axiomatic. No evidence to the contrary is entitled to the slightest consideration. On this principle the actual must be forced into con- formity with the theoretical, and facts that present opposition have a prospect before them of torture and suffering. With respect to apparent inaccuracies, it is con- tended that the text may have been accidentally or intentionally corrupted, — or some other satisfactory (9) 10 VERBAL OR PLENARY INSPIRATION. explanation will be discovered, as often before in cases of alleged error, — and that at all hazards, without admitting the shadow of a doubt, the original text must be maintained, infallible and unexceptionable to the letter. " Let God be true and every man a liar." We are reminded of a fierce controversy that raged more than two centuries ago between mighty chieftains in Biblical philology, about the Greek of the New Testament. The contending parties were called respectively Purists and Hellenists. The former claimed that the language of this highest in- spiration must have been the most perfect of its kind — classic Greek of the purest type. How could the all-perfect God in communicating with men employ a medium so far below the highest standard as de- servedly to be branded as corrupted and impure ? The opponents of this a priori theory simply appealed to facts. They examined the words *and phrases of the JNew Testament, and exhibited their prevailing correspondence, not with Greek of the golden, classic age, but with Jewish contemporaries of the K^ew Testament writers, who borrowed their con- structions, idioms, and forms from their native Hebrew ; whose finest models are found in the Old Testament Scriptures. This Greek, as compared with the language of Homer, Herodotus, and Demosthenes, must be pronounced corrupt. It hardly needs to be mentioned which party had the best of it. Who cannot see now a wondrous providential wisdom by which a language was pre- VERBAL OR PLENARY INSPIRATION. 11 pared in which the divine thoughts of a new revela- tion, that depended on Hebrew pro})hets and bards for its germinal principles and its grandest conceptions of a God unknown to the sages of Greece, could be more adequately expressed than by the finest Greek that ever vibrated upon the human ear ? That splendid language in its earlier and purer form, with all the wealth of its vocabulary, could not give utter- ance to the thoughts that were now to enlighten the world. But as modernized, or even vulgarized and corrupted, in the mongrel Hellenistic Greek, it was more perfectly adapted to the gracious purposes of God and the needs of men. The illustration has a bearing upon our present line of thought which we need not more distinctly exhibit. An apparent majority in the recent discussionsj esteemjhe^riptures of the Old and New Testaments,/ all of them equally, to be the inspired and inerrant word of God for all the world and for all time, aa truly as if they had come immediately from God, word by word, without human intervention. Yet the idea of verbal inspiration in the more mechanical sense, regarding the writers as mere amanuenses, has been generally abandoned. It is now freely admitted that differences in style and in modes of expression that exhibit individuality, forbid the thought of their writing, as if from dictation, by the injection of words apart from any normal intellectual process of their own. The substituted conception is called by preference Plenary Inspiration. It is that the unerring divine 12 VERBAL OR PLENARY INSPIRATION. ^'^' ,' wisdom takes possession of the prophet and controls every activity of his mind and heart, and that its I expression of truth is human only in_fprm — nay, more, that its form is absolutely, though mediately, determined in every syllable and letter. For it is held that indirectly, through the medium of human facul- i ties, yet no less truly, the words are produced by the ! inspiring power. They are consequently of immuta- 1 ble significance and value, and infallible through all time as a directory for thought and conduct. If the a priori argument be valid this ideal perfect- ness, quite apart from any thought of the intrinsic im- portance of a given record, is unquestionable. All personal deficiency in the prophet must have been miraculously supplied. There can be no failure of memory or lack of information, philosophical or scientific, geographical or historical. There can occur neither solecism nor anachronism — no inapt quotation or illustration, no dialectic flaw, and scarcely a rhetor- ical infelicity. Must this beautiful conception, which anchors the soul fast to permanent and unchangeable truth, and ex- cludes every blemish from the Scriptures, be abandoned or even modified ? We answer, however reluctantly, that it must surely be put aside, unless it corresponds with the observed fact, and is confirmed by other than a priori reasoning. Yet the questioner has the right to ask, what new discoveries require the modification, and enable us to describe the inspiration of the Scriptures more intelligently ? It is the point toward which without solicitation we VERBAL OR PLENARY INSPIRATION. 13 are steadily pressing. But there can be no idealizing here. Our conclusion must be well considered, and founded upon a broad induction of facts. The ^ul<^Hr3rC^ problem to be solved requires imperatively the care- : ^[^"^^^J^ttX ful, dispassionate examination of the writings that ^J"^.^ »^^ have come to be accepted as having their origin in the , ^.::^-^ '^^ 7 mspiration of God. This can only be properly /^^^x~^^^ i^ accomplished by men of acute and honest minds, and ' c//^.:^^^ thoroughly trained for their work. It must, too, ^^ r^ have extended over suflScient time to admit of the revision of hasty judgment, and the abandonment of hypotheses not supported by adequate evidence. Yet the time need not be immeasurably protracted, |) inasmuch as a discovery of inaccuracies in any apprecia- [ ble degree must compel us to revise our theory of, inspiration, if it be one that requires absolute iner-,f rancy. Neither should we ignore whatever labor has been already expended in this investigation. Indee^, wedistinctly; claim that facts have already been dis- covered that discredit the exactnes s _ of statement so earnestly affirmed, and that enable those who scoff at ^ .j supernatural revelation to work with terrible effect in {^ 'cjx /.i^ gathering into their own camp those not thoroughly h^uC^ ^ THE EARLIER BIBLICAL STUDY. 21 more ingeniously adjusted, and more thoroughly fortified at every point where weakness was dis- covered. The principal improvement in later elaborations arises from the advance in exegetical science during the last fifty years. But the authors of many of the ablest theological text-books, which are still appealed to as great authorities, were not accomplished in exe- gesis. Their citations were often made without the slightest regard to their setting or connection in the Sacred Volume, as usually determining the thought in the writer's mind. A close examination on sound hermeneutical principles often exhibits a meaning quite different from that assumed by the dogmati- cian. Now and then they dash upon any form of words in the current version of the Bible that seems pertinent, and the student must find in the exegetical room a corrective for the errors of his system. But whatever improvement has been made in the method of imparting a comprehensive knowledge of the contents of Scripture, its ruling presupposition re- mains the same. The working hypothesis in System-| atic Theology is that of verbal inspiration, uniform in/| ^erfectness and value from beginning to end. This' is not only incorporated in its definitions, but exhib- ited in all its details. A disposition is now most mani- fest to cling to it with the utmost tenacity and exclu- siveness, as if the slightest weakness at this point were a fatal concession to the opponents of supernatural revelation. The question is, whether this hypothesis can stand before the freer and more exhaustive inves- 22 INSPIRATION. / tigation to which we have been constrained bj irie- / sistible forces from within and without. We shall presently give more thought to this branch of ministerial training. But we can already see very clearly in what connection the principal difficulty in securing general acceptance for any other view of in- spiration will probably be found. lY. TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. We are ready now for a postponed question. If the simple view of inspiration that anchors the soul fast to the inerrant, permanent, and unchangeable truth, must be exchanged for some other, wha t new discoverigS_xequire the exchange, and enable us to describe the inspiration of the Scriptures more intel- ligently ? The answer to this question is found in a more thorough acquaintance with the character and import of these Scriptures as exhibited in Biblical Theology, with the aid of the indispensable adjunc t, the H igher Criticism. We might ask, as a counter question to the above, [ whether the inqu irer is sure that divine communica-^ tions, through an inspired prophet, recorded in the Bible, always exhibit perfect, permanent, and un- changeable truth, and are never, as imperfect and unworthy to endure, modified and superseded in adaptation to improved conditions at a subsequent time. One would suppose that the ready unanimity with which we agree Jthat the Levitical worship has been thu s superseded, should prepare us for other changes ' ^^^^ /-. 24 TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. on the same principle. It is a hint for the future. Its ground will appear more distinctly as we advance. It is important to state here more fully what these sciences are, for the benefit of those who scarcely know them except as names, yet are deeply interested in discussions that relate to the inerrancy of Scripture and the nature of inspiration. It should be known that they are indeed sciences, and that their principles and contents are of great value in their bearing upon our present subject of thought. Until within the last twenty-five years Biblical Theology has been almost unknown except by those fully acquainted with the theological literature of Germany. Systematic, sometimes called Dogmatic or Didactic Theology, previously held an exclusive position in the orderly exhibition of divine truth. The title of neither indicates very sharply the dis- tinction between them, for either designation is in some degree descriptive of both methods, the System- atic and the Biblical. They agree in finding in the Scriptures a compre- hensive and reliable statement of the facts and princi- ples of God's moral administration in the earth — a '; spiritual religion, embracing all the material for the 1 education of our higher nature, and relatively perfect I in its wise adaptation to the condition and needs of men during their earthly existence. It follows that Systematic Theology is Biblical, as well as the so- called Biblical. The two Theologies also agree in recognizing a relation between the truths of the Bible, and that TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. 25 they can only be adequately apprehended in their j mutual bearings and interdependence ; and each meth- 1 od has its framework and principle of coherence. It | follows that Biblical Theology is systematic, as well as the so-called Systematic. But as already intimated the frameioorh of Sys- tematic Theology is artificial and scholastic, rather than Biblical. It distributes the contents of the Bible into general heads, and then by logical gradation descends from generals to particulars. It is pre- eminently scientific and symmetrical, but cold, meta- physical, abstract, and lifeless. It assumes that the whole truth is known upon every subject, and can be stated with such precision and accuracy in definitions, theses, and dialectic formulae, that it can be fully apprehended by faculties capable of mastering any other systems of science or philosophy. Systematic Theology is Biblical, but it treats the Bible as a heterogeneous mass of religious truth, its elements indiscriminately commingled, and requi?'ing severe and accomplished critical sagacity, — a purely intellectual process, — in order to bring its statements into some intelligible order and coherence under the most approved methods of classification. It gives scope to the finest and most subtle tact and ingenuity in lining up inferentially any chasms that may be discovered, in removing excrescences, or, at least, smoothing them down so that they shall not repul- sively obtrude, in reconciling apparent contradictions, and in furnishing shrewd replies to objections from whatever source they may emanate. 26 TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. The truth is thus introduced to the world in good form, that is, truth as estimated by the theologian and his circle. It commends itself to cultured intellect as worthy of all respect, and entitled to a distinguished place among the sciences into which the sum of human knowledge is distributed. Moreover, it has long stood approved as an indis- pensable part of the scholastic cultivation to which the minds of the professional conservators and ex- pounders of divine truth must be subjected before they are qualified for their office. Every minute point in theology is in its right place, and the system can be easily memorized, and always held ready for use upon suitable occasion. The young man who has fully mastered his system of Didactic and Polemic Theology has a complete outfit. If properly hus- banded, it may last him for a lifetime. As a warrior in the ranks of the church militant, he can never be put to shame before the adversary. The term JBihlical Theology was first used as the title of a book in 1792 by C. F. Ammon, a. rationalist. His view is without vitality or coherence, and based on no discriminating definition. It entirely disre- gards the suggestion of Gabler five years earlier, that it is the historic principle that distinguishes Biblical Theology from Dogmatic. Moreover, it is far less Biblical than the scholasticism against whose inexora- ble logic it rebels. Various theories, verging more and more toward a correct conception, were propounded during the next forty years by L. Baur, Kaiser, De Wette, and others. TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. 27 Tlie mythical hypothesis of Strauss in his " Life of Jesus," and the " tendency " theory of F. Baur, the father of the Tiibingen Theology, called forth the masterly replies of Neander in his "Planting and Training of the Christian Church " (1832), an im- portant step in advance. It is based on a sound historic criticism of the New Testament writings, the principle of which is easily carried over to the Old. It is that of a normal historical development of divine truth, in a series of successive revelations. The course and order of this development are ascertained by the careful examination of the inspired writings in the fundamental conception of each, and in their mutual relations as essential parts of a harmonious and con- Bistent whole. It is in the " Biblical Theology of the New Testa-'^ S *^'^. ment," by C F. Schmid (Tiibingen, 1853), and thej)pst:j^^^ humous " Theology of the Old Testament," by G. F. cM^Xr t Oehler (Tiibingen, 1873), that the subject first receives K*"^"^ ^ a definition and treatment that establish its claim to J^^^^^'^Q be recognized as a special and independent training. ^-^^ ^ They understand by Biblical Theology, the historico- ^ genetic presentation of revealed religion in the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments. They distinguish it from Systematic Theology by its historical character, while by its limitation to the canonicarwrltlngs of the Old and New Testaments, it is separated from Historical Theology, and character- ized as an integral part of Exegetical Theology. These discriminations by Schmid are of great im- portance. 28 TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. Biblical Theology has its beginning and source in patient and thorough exegetical training and labor. Its exegesis is historico-grammatical, but always with due regard to the unity, and living coherence and symmetry that distinguish a progressive revelation of divine wisdom, grace, and power in connection with sin and redemption. It is important to notice that it embraces, not only didactic utterances, abstract an- nouncements of truth, but persons, events, institutions, and the whole concrete substance of history in con- nection with the divine administration of human affairs. Biblical Theology, in pursuance of its historic principle, follows the order of revelation in the Sacred Books. It presents truth, not in preconceived logical combinations, but in accordance with the general development required for the education of man in the successive stages of his existence upon the earth. It begins with the rudiments of knowledge, and ad- vances step by step in successive disclosures, adapting itself to a growing capacity in men for the apprehen- sion of the highest truth, and ever tending toward the culmination of God's grace in a completed redemption. Revelation, as considered by this science, keeps pace with Providence and the course of human events as divinely directed, as well as with the intellectual and moral advancement of its subjects. Hence Biblical Theology takes careful note, as part of its material, not only of inspired communications, the words of God through the mouth of a prophet, but as TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. 29 above stated, of everything connected with the divine ordering of human affairs by which men might attain a fuller knowledge of God, and their purposes and conduct might be swayed in the right direction. It will thus be seen that Biblical Theology regards the matter of revelation, not abstractly, as made up of certain logical propositions to be proved and main- tained by the most conclusive dialectic methods, the substance and sinew of an inspired System of Theol- ogy, but concretely, as wrought by the divine Spirit into human existence, individual and social, and adapting itself to all varieties of character, condition, and circumstances that diversify the race. In Biblical Theology the truth, as embodied in the Sacred Books in facts and events more than in words, is a living organism that separates from everything extraneous to itself. It exhibits the Old Testament and the Kew, with all their coherences and contrasts, as parts of a great whole, and the relation between them as not accidental, nor arbitrary, nor mechanical, but natural, necessary, and vital. Its central idea and ruling principle, its inspiration, is the development of a gracious purpose of God per- taining to the salvation of the human race as a fact in the course of accomplishment. The science wliich treats the divine revelation in the Scriptures most philosophically and correctly, and with the clearest discernment of its grandeur, is that which follows the course and order of its expansion from a feeble begin- ning till its full glory is realized in the ultimate 30 TWO THEOLOGIES IN CONTRAST. triumph of the grace and righteousness of God over all evil in the ascension glorj of Christ. We have precious material in this whole description for our promised reconstruction. It must surely be remembered in our a posteriori definition, toward which by easy stages we are moving forward. h^o^xy^^J--^ f^^^\ /"i^'^*^ Mo^V)'' ^ A-^^ V. THE HIGHER CRITICISM, DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIYE. Biblical Theology is a growth. It is becoming more and more a strong, beautiful, and fruitful growth. It is mainly the product of two living forces, that have been vigorously at work for years. They are Biblical Exegesis and the Higher Criticism. The three are inseparable, and have matured co- ordinately. Their advance has been quickened and determined by the activity of opposing forces against which they have combined. It will be understood that it was for the assailants of revealed truth to choose their point of attack, to which its defenders must necessarily accommodate themselves. Wherever an onset is made, the repel- ling force must be rallied. Every thrust must be at once warded off by the quickly advanced shield and buckler. Every mine must be met by a counter- mine. Every sophism must be exposed, and an- nihilated by sound logic. Every misrepresentation must be nullified by correct statement. Those who read the Bible devoutly as part of their religious discipline, finding in it strength and salvation, but who can spare no time from their daily pursuits for (31) 32 THE HIGHER CRITICISM, its careful study, are not usually aware what fierce battles have been fought over every inch of the surface. To them it is all holy ground. They come to some rough places, to some things that are un- intelligible, to some early records that seem incon- sistent with the spirit and substance of the Gospel. But not willing to be perplexed, they do not dwell upon them anxiously. They find some relief in remembering that the statements in question are con- nected with long past conditions, and were not in- tended for their guidance. It is enough for them that they see throughout the whole mass of writings the footprints of the Almighty, and they are content to leave everything doubtful to be cleared up by the brighter light of the future. Taken as a whole, what they find here is sacred and delightful. The battle with the destructive school in its various branchings began with its adoption of a false exegesis. As a first and ruling principle it discredited all state- ments that involve the supernatural. There were the ' accommodation theory ' of Semler, the ' moral interpre- tation ' of Kant, the ' naturalistic view ' of Paulus, the ' mythical hypothesis' of Strauss, the tendency theory' of Baur, and the arbitrary assumptions of Schenkel and Kenan. All of these are rationalistic, and each urged its claim to reception as a satisfactory solution of the alleged monstrosities of the Bible. Their attacks were repelled by advancing against them sound exegetical principles. An important result of the contest was the discovery and adoption of right methods in interpreting Scripture. Every DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. 33 word and phrase must be carefully scrutinized, and its meaning determined in accordance with the linguistic use of its own time in the evolutionary development of language. More and more fully the histori co-grammatical system of exegesis in its application to the Scriptures, was exhibited and adopted. It held as a primary conception, that always, in endeavoring to understand the meaning of an author, due regard must be paid to the unity and living coherence of a progressive revelation. By this matured and impregnable exegetical science the great chasm that separates us from those who " spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " in very ancient times, is bridged over. In imagination we place ourselves among them. We learn to think as they thought, to speak as they spoke, to consider everything in their circumstances, history, and intellectual or moral culture, that would affect their modes of thought and speech. It is only when we have done this that we can fairly understand them. Here came in the Higher Criticism, known long before by another designation. It is imperative in Bibli- cal Theology that everything embraced in the writings that constitute its material should be assigned, as nearly as possible, to the right time and place. Until this is done the exegetical process, as above described, cannot be completed. The Higher Criticism has most to do with the human element in the Bible. It considers questions of age, authorship, genuineness, and canonical author- 34 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. itj. It traces the origin, preservation, and integrity of the various books, and exhibits their scope, con- tents, relations, and general character and value. Thus by the closest and most patient examination of these writings, on such scientific principles as are commonly applied to very ancient books, each several portion comes to be duly appreciated and fitted into its right place in relation to other revela- tion. The more general and older name of this science is Isagogics, or Biblical Introduction, It is called the Higher Criticism to distinguish it from Textual Criticism, which only seeks to ascertain the exact words of the original Scriptures. More recent investigations in the Higher Criticism have excited the strongest prejudice in many, as if new and graceless methods had been introduced by men in close sympathy with the destructive criticism of the Bible. They regard it as imperilling every- thing holy and precious in revealed religion, and fervently desire that it could be banished into oblivion. They surely are not aware how actively and craftily the enemies of their faith are using the Higher Criticism, and have long been using it, in undermining the fabric of revelation. The grandest efforts in this same Higher Criticism, followed by the most import- ant results in the establishment of correct principles, were compelled by the spurious conjectural criticism of Spinoza, a renegade Jew and Pantheist, who antic- ipated by nearly two centuries the teachings of the later rationalists, and the untenable theories of Eichard Simon, Clericus, and Semler. DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. 35 In reply to these Dii Pin, Witsius, Prideaux, Yitringa, and Calmet laid the foundations of legiti- mate historical inquiry into the origin, character, and value of the Sacred Writings. These were followed in the same field by the Abbe Fleury, Astruc, Bishop Lowth, and the poet Herder. The products of their labors in the accumulation of facts and the discovery of right principles, prepared the way for the comprehensive work of J. G. Eicli- horn in 1780, who has justly been styled the father of the Higher Criticism. Under the more general name Biblical Introduction, important contributions to the science have been made by the English and American scholars, T. H. Home, Moses Stuart, Ed- ward Robinson, S. H. Turner, Samuel Davidson, and others. In 1862 new interest in the subject was roused by the attack of Bishop Colenso on the historical char- acter of the Old Testament writings, and by the rationahsm of the authors of " Essays and Reviews." These called forth able and conclusive replies on both sides of the Atlantic. Since then the German Well- hausen and the Hollander Kuenen, in the spirit of Colenso, have compelled fresh efforts to maintain the credibility and authority of the Old Testament Scrip- tures against the assaults of rationalism. In_ Great Britain and America, th e constrpfitive Higher Criticism, iiow be comi ng reconstr uctiv e, seems to be dividing itself between the more" progressive, represented by Bishop Lightfoot, Drs. W. Robertson Smith, Briggs, Cheyne, Driver, Harper, Brown, and 36 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. others, and those less willing to accept advanced views, headed by Dr. "W. Henry Green, with a large following, especially in his own branch of Protestant- ism. Whatever may be the further outcome of their investigations and discussions, truth cannot suffer at their hands. It is too late to decry the Higher Criticism, or to deny that it is a field of research on which have been won the noblest triumphs in behalf of the supreme authority of the Scriptures as embodying a divine revelation, over the destructiveness of rationalism. YI. MINOR INACCURACIES. "We postpone for tlie present a further consideration of the result of tliese labors in a more complete and illuminative Biblical Theology. It will come in its place. We have now reached the most ungracious part of our task — that of mentioning i naccura cies injthe Bible / which make it nec essary to reconstruct the theory of I inspiration as generally accepted. It will be sufficient to adduce a f ew out of the j multitude j of instances in which human infirmity is app aren t. For the definition referred to as unten- able, claims absolute inerrancy and faultless perfection for the whole. "With respect to inerrancy, whether of the received or the original text, tjie Old Testament is far more ' questionable than the New. But even in the New I Testament inaccuracies occur^ to which the following ^ description of Professor Green, and which he vir- tually admits, will certainly apply : "They are in the minhna of Scripture, in trivialities that are of no account, and neither disparage the truthfulness of the narrative, nor in an}' way affect its doctrinal state- ments; and which are compared by Dr. Charles (37) 38 INSPIRATION. Hodge (' Systematic Theology,' vol. i., p. 170) to ' the specks of sandstone here and there in the mar- ble of the Parthenon.' " /ts<3 •^'^^J][2^70f this trivial character is the citation in Matt. "^iLpL^ xxvii. 9 of a passage from Zech. xi. 12, 13, giving |t'\t^ r^ Jeremiah as its author. A simple lapse of memory, '^' '^ utterly unimportant. . ^. , Such, too, is the discrej)ancy between Matt. xx. 29, ^' "^ 30, and Luke xviii. 35. In the former we have two ^/j . • blind men crying after Jesus as I^q went out from Jericho, in the latter of one blind man as he drew nigh to that city. ^-' . Similarly trivial is the difference between the Gos- "^ 2i-i^'P®^^ about the hour of the crucifixion, and scarcely more important, that between John and the Synopti- cal Gospels with regard to the time of the last Pass- over. If we can reconcile them, it is well ; but if not, we need not be disturbed. Even in the discourses of our Lord, where as a rule we find far more exact verbal agreement than in the narrative portion of the Gospels, there is sometimes a difference in language, where the forms of expression , they severally employ are not precisely equivalent, i^^" ^^^ a^slight difference in thought is conveyed. ■5-^ .Here, also, belong the linguistic inaccuracies III sketched in the following extract from the late Dr. Alexander McClelland's " Manual of Interpretation " (pp. 61-63). One who received from that distin- guished teacher more than fifty years ago his instruc- tion in the rudiments of Hebrew, and his earliest training in Criticism, Hermeneutics, and Exegesis, MINOR INACCURACIES. 39 may be excused if he finds pleasure in giving the quotation here : "Language is not the invention of metaphysicians or convocations of the wise and learned. It is the cc'Timon blessing of mankind, formed for their mut- ual advantage in their intercourse with each other. Its laws are popular, not philosophical, being founded on the laws of thought which govern the w^hole mass in the community Scarcely will we hear in a long and serious discourse between the best speakers a sentence which does not need some modification or hmitation, in order that we may not attribute to it more or less than was intended. Nor is the operation at all difficult. We make the correction instantly, . with so little cost of thought that we would be tempted to call it instinct, did we not know that many of our perceptions that seem to be intuitive, are the results of habit and education. It would be an exceedingly strange thing if the Bible, the most popular of all books, composed by men for the most part taken from the multitude, addressed to all, and on subjects interesting to all, were found written in language to be interpreted on different principles. But in point of fact it is not. Its style is eminently and to a remarkable degree that which we would expect to find in a volume designed by its author to be the peo- ple's book — abounding in all those kinds of inaccuracy f> which are sprinkled through ordinary discourses, hyper- boles, analogues, and loose catachrestical expressions, whose meaning no one mistakes, though their deviation from Xhe'plunib occasionally makes the small critic sad." J , *0^ 40 INSPIEATION. These are what Professor Green calls " the minima^ trivialities, that neither disparage the truthfulness of the narrative, nor in any way affect the statement of doctrine." But who does not see that the admission of error, however comparatively unimportant, is fatal to the hypothesis of absolute inerrancy ? They are unconscious mistakes, variations from the absolute truth, although as is claimed, they are no larger com- pared with the glorious substance of the revelation than the tiniest grains of sand in the marble of the Parthenon, as compared with the whole massive pile. But degrees of imperfection are not in question here. The mistakes are such as a human narrator might \ make most innocently. Bu^ivjua authorship i n the absolutely controlling sense that is asserted, must ex- clude even the least of them. In the matter of error, however harmless, the a priori theory admits of no maxima and minima. That the Books of the Old Testament are inspired is proved mainly by our Saviour's endorsement of the Jewish Canonical Books. He continually quotes from them as fulfilled in himself, as worthy of all confidence, as diligently to be searched for testimony to his coming and glory. We shall not examine the sentences in which absolute endorsement is thougEFto be expressed, in order to ascertain whether they bind us to a strictly verbal inspiration of all the Scriptures. It is more than doubtfuL ')i/irt^Ar-C ^ bal accuracy is practically treated as not of the slight- It only needs to be said for the present, that in our Lord's frequent reference to the Old Testament, yer- MINOR INACCURACIES. 41 est consequence. He refers constantly to translations in common use among the Jews, never hinting that their value is impaired by erroneous rendering ; al- though very often, and in important places, they go very far astray from what could be the meaning of the original. The Septuagint version is much nearer to the Scriptures endorsed by our Saviour and his apostles than the received Hebrew text ; for they gen- erally quote from the former, and only occasionally from the Hebrew, or from some Aramaic version which in the Gospels is translated into Greek. It cannot properly be inferred from this that the Greek translation was better than the Hebrew, and is to be substituted for it as the only inerrant Scripture. ^ It^simplymeans tha t truth .-as.inspired by God is of /^^^?22I^ I* such quality and nature that invariable verbal accu-| racy_isnot material. It may be expressed with great freedom and in various forms without impairing its / substantial value. It is the thought that is inspired. /*^ / - In turning to the Old Testanient we are confronted by the fact that those who have most dih'gently en- gaged in the research that is needed to decide the > .i-'U tN/^ question of inerrancy, the recognized speciahsts and 'y-/^^*^wl-y adepts, the class of scholars properly looked to as au- )C^ iJ*^' thorities in historic and literary criticism, — whose ^^'^''^^ competency, integrity, and absolute confidence in '■w^^' ^ Old Testament revelation are unquestionable, — re- ^ r~^ ' gard the insistance upon inerrancy in the inspired ^^ v^ Scriptures as false in principle and in fact. Apply- )f^^ ing the scientific tests to these writings that are ap- ^-^^ plied to other ancient literature, they find many inac- -^ ^ 42 INSPIRATION. curacies and conflicting statements. Questions arise in these investigations on which individual opinions are of little worth, even of men eminent in intellect, learning, and love of truth, unless they are approved workmen in the line of study which entitles them to a hearing on matters of the kind. The dogmatist, the metaphysician, the etymologist, the rhetorician may each be treated with great deference in all that relates to his own special science. But as an authority for final decision in a case of great difficulty and import- ance, he must be kept within his own limits. Let the circumstance be recalled from our prelimi- nary statements, in view of which we are most anx- ious in maintaining the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures. It is that we are surrounded by an incomputable mass of unbelief of every shade and de- gree. In part, it is bold, defiant, even malignant, ready to see every weak point, and to use unscrupu- lously every advantage in confirming latent sceptical tendencies, and in gaining over those whose early faith in the Christian religion is becoming unsettled by philosophic, materialistic, or agnostic unbelief. If it comes to be understood that it is the authori- tative doctrine of the Church that the inspiration of the Scriptures depends upon the absolute immaculate- ness of the whole ; and on the other hand, that a large proportion of those whose special scholarship qualifies them to speak decisively upon the subject admit that the Scriptures are not without error, and that they stand ready to prove it by many instances, we fear beyond measure the result. MINOR INACCURACIES. 43 In fact the claim of Scripture infallibility in all his- toric and scientific details, where errors are visible to every eye, is making infidels by thousands. Very clear and decisive upon this point is the lan- guage of the late Professor Evans : " You protest against the unsettling of faith. You do well. But they also do well who protest against keeping up needless bar- riers to faith. You condemn criticism which destroys belief in the Scriptures as the word of God. But be- ware of including in your condemnation the criticism which helps to make such belief in the Scriptures pos- sible. You may be sure that so long as you hang the infallible authority of Scripture as the rule of faith on the infallible accuracy of every particular word and clause in the Book, as long as you exalt the Bible to ^ \ Cqj^ the same pinnacle of authority in matters respecting i%(yj^ which God has given us fuller and more exact revela- ' '^^rS tions elsewhere, as in matters respectino* which the Bible is the only revelation, the irrepressible conflict ^ between faith and science will go on, and the Drapers /^^-^^g^ and Whites of each generation will have their new ^- ^ct^» chapters to add to the record. Every new discovery A^5t>j'^i^ in science or in archaeology that seems to contradict h^Uk^ t. some particular statement will produce a panic. •*^^ ^^^^ Every advance in criticism will tend to unsettle the Ao»-i^^ faith of somebody whom your teaching has led to ^^*^^*^ confound the form with the substance. ^^^o-u^ " This is a mistaken defence of Divine Revelation. ^ A^ eu^ Shipwrecks of faith without number have been caused>^^ by it. It is the very thing according to his own con- ^a ' *^ fessions that made an unbeliever of the most brilliant / , *^^*^ 44 INSPIRATION. scholar of France, perhaps of the world to-day, Ernest Eenan. It is the very thing that drove into infidelity the strongest champion of the popular infidelity of England, who died the other day in his unbelief, Charles Bradlaugh. So testifies his own brother, a believer. But for this the iridescent declamation of Eobert Ingersoll in his 'Mistakes of Moses,' would r collapse like a pricked balloon. The Christianity of i our day cannot afford to fight the battle of the Book ! on that line. It cannot ailord to silence the larger, profounder, more Scriptural restatements of revealed truth made imperative by improved methods of Bibli- cal research." YII. MINOR INACCURACIES— HISTORICAL. Two instances of variations from fact in the Old Testament have been recently adduced by an accomplished Assyriologist.* The iirst is chronolog- ical. It is one out of many such embarrassments that occur in the Books of Kings. It is in 2 Kings xxviii. 9, 10, where the chronolog- CfJP^* ]* ical statement implies that Ilezekiah began to reign u^JaA-* \^ 727 B.C. ; for we know from Assyrian records that v' v-^» ^ Samaria was taken in 722 b.c. tn*^J-y6 The diflSculty lies in adjusting this record to the "jC^vv statement in verse 13 : " Now in the fourteenth year ^ pj" * of Ilezekiah did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come V^ ^^ up against the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." sJ^-h"^! There is scarcely any Assyrian campaign about which we are better informed from Assyrian sources than this campaign of Sennacherib. He made but one, and that took place 701 b.c. We are thus faced by a dilemma. Either 701 b.c. was the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, in which case he could not have commenced to reign in 727, or else he began to reign * Professor Francis Brown, D.D. (45) 46 INSPIRATION. 727 B.C., in which case 701 was not his fourteenth year. Of this the writer says : " Scholars differ as to the choice they make under these circumstances Attempts to sliake the date of Sennacherib's cam- paign have failed. As far as the material at our command permits us to go, the error was in the original document, — ^. ^., is due to the responsible compiler of the Book of Kings, who wrote after the i^orthern Kingdom had for a hundred years or more ceased to exist, its people been deported or scattered, its records doubtless in large measure destroyed, and its territory largely given over to idolatry and semi-barbarism. I shall be grateful to any scholar who will give me light on this, as on other difficult questions of Biblical Chronology. " But I refuse to shut my eyes to the fact of an ap- parent error, and I decline as a Christian man to con- nect my faith in my Redeemer, and in the revelation of God's love in him, in any way, shape, or manner with the dates of ancient Hebrew kings." The second example given by the same writer is in the Book of Daniel. It relates to the statements in chap, v., with regard to affairs in Babylon after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. He refers to various matters of complexity and difficulty. " But the difficulty reaches a climax in the mention of Darius the Mede (v. 31), who appears in the narrative to have been the immediate successor of Belshazzar, to have organized the empire (chap, vi.), to have been * the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes ' MINOR INACCURACIES— HISTORICAL. 47 (ix. 1), and to have himself been succeeded by Cyrus the Persian (vi. 28). For this personage, cuneiform decipherment appears to have left no room. Per- fectly explicit contemporary records do not permit a student of history any longer to doubt that Media fell before Babylon did; that the conqueror of Babylon wa3 not a Mede, but a Persian ; that this conqueror was Cyrus, as the Old Testament elsewhere represents (e.g.^ Isa xliv. 28, xiv. 1 ff., cf. xlvi. 1; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23=Ezr. i. 1-8) ; that his reign over Babylon was reckoned as beginning immediately upon the conquest, and that therefore no reign intervened between that of Kabonidus, the last Shemitic king, and his own ; that the only royal Darius known to history in that century, was not a Mede, but a Persian, not the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), but his father, not the predecessor of Cyrus, but a successor of his, ac- cording to the statement of Ezra iv. 5 : 'All the days of Cyrus, King of Persia, even until the reign of Darius, King of Persia'; in short, that as little as there is any place for Darius the Mede before Cyrus, just as little is there any extra-Biblical evidence that there was a Darius the Mede to take such a place ; while there is strong evidence, such as historical students are bound to accept, and do accept, that there was not. The judgment expressed in the only com- mentary on the Book of Daniel, written in recent years by a scholar of com])etent equipment for the task — I refer to that of Meinhold, in the series of Strack and Zockler — is in accordance with the weight of evidence : ' No Median sovereignty over Babylonia 48 INSPIRATION. preceded the Persian, and Darius the Mede is not a historical figure.' *'I know that there is a great sensitiveness in some rehgious minds in regard to the Book of Daniel. I am sorrj to disturb such minds. But it is indispensa- ble that it should clearly be shown whither the ex- treme dogma that is claiming to be the sole orthodoxy is driving us. I am quite ready to grant that there are elements in the history of the third quarter of the sixth century e.g., which are not yet understood, and which may by some better understanding of them hereafter, enable us to see more distinctly the relations of various Bible statements : but from the point of view of historical scholarship, there is no reason to suppose that Darius the Mede will thereby be rehabilitated as an actual personage, any more than there is to expect the rehabihtation of the Sar- danapalus and Semiramis of Greek legend. Even if that should occur, however, it remains true that no one who fairly weighs the facts as they at present appear, can say that they are favorable to the tradi- tional opinion, and no one who loves the Bible can reflect without a shudder on the temerity of those who condition the fact and authority of divine revelation upon the slender possibility that the prevailing testi- mony of the credible witnesses to the facts may at some remote date be overthrown." The above extracts are given because they are the latest instances of error in Biblical history that have been prominently mentioned, and are connected with the writer's very extensive examination of cuneiform MINOR INACCURACIES-HISTORICAL. 49 tablets. Yarious explanations have been attempted of these, as of other apparent inaccuracies equally formidable, which, however, dispassionate and ac- complished scholarship pronounces strained and improbable. Some of these are of such a nature that it is scarcely supposable that they should have resulted from the carelessness of a copyist, or that any one could have an object in altering the text intentionally. It may be said that accidental or intentional altera- tion is in no case absolutely impossible. But as cases -f of extreme improbability multiply, the possibility that not one of the apparent errors were in the original text, becomes infinitesimal. Who must not regard with profound pity the anxious inquirer after saving truth, in its bearing upon his prospects for the life to come, who is informed that the truth of the Gospel as a revelation of divine mercy must be abandoned if the Old Testament or the New contains a single his- toric inaccuracy, however unimportant? The recent discussions upon this subject in a branch of the American Church that embraces a larger num- ber of devoted specialists in the Higher Criticism than any other, have raised an issue that can no longer be evaded. AVhatever may be the ultimate action of that conservative body, the distinguished representa- tive of conservatism who stands foremost, as entitled by his chosen line of study to speak as a specialist, stands nearly alone. It is impossible to estimate what harm may result unless the whole subject be considered afresh, and some ground intelligibly stated upon which the in- 50 INSPIRATION. spiration of the Bible can be firmlj and consistently maintained, without regard to occasional lapses of memory or defective information, which do not in the least affect the substance and gracious purpose of the revelation. We may well echo the exclamation of the writer last quoted against the temerity of sus- pending our faith in the Kedeemer, and our eternal hope, upon the minute historical accuracy of every incident recorded in the Book of Genesis, or the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. We here quote with satisfaction the language of an anonymous writer describing a common misapprehen- sion concerning the Higher Criticism in its purpose and results : '^ Many earnest and uncompromising Christians cannot see anything good in criticism. They arraign it as a foe to Christianity, and a would- be destroyer of the Bible. This is not at all strange ; for the average man, untrained in historic criticism, cannot appreciate the nice discriminations of the critic. He wants a plain categorical statement, a simple alternative, with no possible middle ground, and no question left in suspense. He does not recog- nize the force of probable evidence, which in all departments of thought is the very guide of life. And least of all can he understand how a man can give up some views of the Bible without giving up the Bible itself. It is all or nothing with him. If he believes in the Bible at all, he believes in it as an infallible oracle, free from all errors and misstate- ments. And when criticism, which in its first touch is always destructive, like the frost, rejects a text MINOR INACCURACIES— HISTORICAL. 51 here, gives a new meaning to a passage there, and throws over the whole vohime a novel and strange atmosphere of naturalness, he cries out in wrath that the critics are trying to destroy the Bible. " Such fear of criticism, however, does not belong to Christianity itself, but to its over-cautious defenders. As a matter of fact, the result thus far of Biblical Criticism has been to bring out more clearly the claims of the Bible to the regard of men. In innumerable ways the researches of the critics are confirming the veracity of the Bible, and investigation has left it in a much stronger, because more rational, position than it occupied before. Even the discrepancies and con- tradictions that criticism has discovered in it have / confirmed its honesty and veracity, strange as it may .^ y iT appear. For they are just such discrepancies and ', - — ^ contradictions as would be made by honest and truth- \f , **^^' seeking men in the circumstances under which they • -. .. wrote. For instance, there are two accounts given '^ of the origin of the name Beer-sheba. In the twenty- first chapter of Genesis, we are told that it was so named by Abraham because of a striking event that happened there. And in the twenty-sixth chapter of the same book it is said that Isaac gave the place its name about ninety years later for a wholly different reason. Of course the harmonizers have tried to smooth over this difficulty, but with no success. The true explanation of this and many other contradicti(ms • of a similar character is that the Biblical writers and editors incorporated into their narrative accounts from different documents, and did not always notice the 52 INSPIRATION. diflFerence between these documents. This does not impeacli the Bible as a record of God's deahngs with men ; but it does overthrow the theory that every word in it is infallibly inspired. " The real enemy of the Bible is not the man who would test its claims by rules of legitimate and candid criticism, but the man who, by refusing to allow such tests, gives color to the belief that he fears the result. Christians of serene faith, who have caught the finer spirit of the religion of Christ, welcome all investi- gations and all tests, however disturbing may be their temporary effect." Since the foregoing chapters were written we have examined with great interest an article by Professor "VY. Henry Green upon a difficult question of Old Testament Chronology.* It is a comment upon the genealogies in Gen. V. and xi. The former of these records gives the line of descent from Adam to Shem, the latter thence- forward to Abraham. The Professor proposes to remove the conflict between the Biblical chronology and the conclusions of science with respect to the age of the world. That the scientific claim is imperative is sufficiently evident from the willingness to concede it manifested by so conservative a scholar. We quote several leading sentences : " As mention is made of the age of each patriarch of the entire series at the birth of his son, it has been assumed that this supplies a basis for computing the length of time * n Bibliotheca Sacra," April, 1890. MINOR INACCURACIES -HISTORICAL. 53 covered by tbese genealogies, and that it would be only necessary to add together the numbers thus given in order to ascertain the interval from Creation to the Flood, and from the Flood to the birth of Abraham. Estimates thus made out have been commonly accepted as the Biblical chronology of this primeval period, and the age of the world thus determined has been set over against the results of scientific investi- gation." " I deny most emphatically," the writer goes on to say, " the antagonism, and the legitimacy of the as- sumption on which it rests. The author of these genealogies gives no intimation that they were con- structed for any such purpose. He never puts them to this use himself. He nowhere sums these numbers, nor suggests their summation. No chronological statement is deduced from them, either by him or by any inspired writer. There is no computation any- where in Scripture of the time that elapsed from the creation or from the deluge, as there is from the descent into Egypt to the Exodus (Ex. xii. 40), or from the Exodus to the building of the temple (1 Kings vi. 1). And if the numbers in these genealogies are for the sake of constructing a chronology, why are numbers introduced which have no possible relation to such a purpose ? Why are we told how long each patriarch lived after the birth of his son, and what was the entire length of his 'ife ? " The Professor makes room for the indefinite exten- sion of time within the limits mentioned in the record, by suggesting that the Hebrew word ^' id'^«^ " may 54 INSPIRATION. be used with equal propriety of an immediate or a remote descendant ; and he cites several instances in which genealogies are constructed with the omission of some names, yet with no change in the word that expresses the connection. This usage is unquestiona- ble. A notable instance is our Saviour's genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. But the proof from analogy unquestionably fails in there being no single genealogy on record which binds us fast at each successive step to an immediate descendant by mentioning the age of the father at the birth of the son. This mathematical precision forbids the supposition that in any instance the name given is not that of the progenitor's personal offspring, the nearest in descent, — that is, if historical accuracy is of the slightest importance. But this is not all. The Professor must further r assume that the genealogist has intentionally concealed his omission of one or more links in the chain, by substituting the name of the later descendant whom he chooses next to introduce, for that of the son actually born within the given limit of time. This involves a serious departure from historic fact. Suppose, for illustration, that two more generations had been dropped from chapter xi. — those next after Arphaxad ; omitting Shelah and Eber, and passing over to Peleg. If the text is altered to correspond in apparent exactness with the remainder of the chain, we must read by compression in verses 12-16 : " And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Peleg. And Arphaxad lived after he begat Peleg four hun- MINOR INACCURACIES— HISTORICAL. 55 dred and thirty years, and begat sons and daugh- ters." Now Peleg was at the nearest Arphaxad's great- grandson. If the genealogist has ah-eady omitted other generations at this point, the relationship must have been still more remote. But supposing the omission of only the two above mentioned names, Arphaxad muse have been stated to be thii*ty-five years old at the birth of his great-grandson, and to have lived four hundred and thirty years there- after. We thus exemplify that according to the proposed theory the genealogy must contain at every omission of an immediate lineal descendant ajpalpable misstate- ment in respect to names, or figures, or both ; and this by Moses, who is expressly mentioned in the article as undoubtedly the author. It involves the supposition that every error in figures has been adroitly covered up by a change in names, only to be discovered at this late period. The esteemed writer was greatly perplexed, as many others have been before him, by the discrep- ancy between this genealogical record, in the only significance that has ever before been thought of as possible, and the fact ascertained by scientific re- search. But his ingenious proposition is an attempt to wrest asunder an iron chain, every link of which is thoroughly tempered and forged. It shows what bold expedients the Higher Criticism, if not too scrupulous, may resort to in dealing with the prob- lems of the Bible. It is all in vain. The Hebrew m INSPIRATION. terms that express relationship bj descent are elastic. But there is no elasticity in mathematics. The genealogical inaccuracy in Genesis remains. This brave effort only accentuates it, and we cannot hope that others will be more successful. Tlie same respected authority concedes a historic inaccuracy in Gal. iii. 17. It is in connection withr Bishop Colenso's assertion of the impossibility of so large an Israelitish population as that given in Ex. xii. 40 having descended from the seventy souls who went down into Egypt 237 years before. This state- ment of time is based on the Septuagint rendering of Ex. xii. 40, which the negative critics assume to be correct. Professor Green says of it : ^' The gloss thus put upon this passage in Exodus, as it seemed to have the authority of an inspired apostle in its favor in Gal. iii. 17, and as the genealogy of Moses, Ex. vi. 16-20, appeared to preclude the supposition that 430 years were spent in Egypt, became the well-nigh uni- versal view of the case. It still has its advocates, though the leading Biblical scholars of Europe have abandoned itP On the passage in Galatians, Dr. Green says: "^"This language of the apostle, however, does not appear to us to be decisive of the point at issue. The interval of time is only incidentally mentioned. Precision of statement regarding it was of no conse- quence to his argument^ His opinion upon the chronology itself is very emphatic: " The evidence is, we think, conclusive that the abode iii Egypt lasted 430 years. This is the natural sense of Ex. xii. 40, MINOR INACCURACIES— HISTORICAL. 57 and none would ever think of extracting a different meaning from it, but for reasons outside of the verse itself." This nobly ilhistrates a recent deliverance from the same pen upon the untrammeled freedom that should be accorded to the Higher Criticism in discharging its appropriate functions. Even an inspired apostle niaj^be historically inaccurate, when his statement is merely^ i nciden tal, and precision is of no consequence to his_argument. One would suppose that the same pnnciple might apply to the incidental mention by our Saviour, in quoting from the Old Testament, of the name of any author with whose writings the passage adduced was connected by Jewish tradition and in common thought. In every such instance his purpose was to identif V it to his hearers as of recognized divine authority. The human authorship was secondary and insignificant, not in the least affecting the purport and power of the words that are cited, whether legal or prophetic. It is worthy of note that the author's distinguished scholarship would not permit him, in either of the above examples of historical inaccuracy, to refer to a difference in the autograph manuscript, as even possible. Any want of precision in the genealogies was evidently wrought into their original substance. In the Epistle to the Galatians a change in the original reading by a copyist or corrector is precluded by the >^ manifest fact that St. Paul, according to his estab- f liflhed custom, followed the Septuagint. YIII. MOEAL I^'CONGEUITIES. The scope of the recent discussions centering upon the alleged inerrancy of the Scriptures was not broad enough to include all that properly belongs to the subject. For this reason it was impossible that by any protraction it should reach a thoroughly satisfactory conclusion. The only errancy asserted or denied related to empirical matters, — history, science, and the like, — for which men ordinarily depend upon their own observation and the testimony of others. It seemed strange that no one should think of m,oral errancy in . the Bible, as existent, or even possible! Yet it has / long been recognized by Christian thought, that there is a contrast between the spirit and teachings of our Saviour, and those of the earlier revelation. The connection between minor inaccuracies iti historical'and scientific statement, and imperfect con- ceptions of right and wrong, as estimated by the liighest standard, does not seem to have been discerned. I They differ in their nature and kind, yet nothing can j be surer than that they are similar in origin, and in I the principle upon which their presence in an in- spired book must be explained. (58) MORAL INCONGRUiriES. 59 They alike indicate that the independent activity of a human agent in the revelation was not so absolutely under the repression and control of the inspiring Spirit as we, in our imperfect wisdom, are apt to think essential to the surest guidance. We must con- clude that the failure of the divine energy utterly to suppress the hiunan^ iiwi^i have had an all-sufficient reason in the import and purpose of the revelation, and this reason it may not be very difficult to find. The combination that we suggest here is important. For any considerations that will account for the greater and unquestionable errancy, will fully account for the less. Let us then face fairly these imperfections in the ethical ^here. Objections to the moral lessons of the Old Testament, sometimes as presenting repulsive conceptions of God, in what he seemed to approve or disapprove in the government and conduct of human life, are actively employed, even more than errors in science and history, as effective weapons in the most virulent assaults upon revealed religion. They are perplexing to many who in spite of them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all their heart. There are not a few who accept the Old Testament as containing a divine revelation, who are not able to ac- count for serious moral blemishes in a book like this, and reject many of its statements, considering them ab- solutely incredil)le under the rule of the God of truth and grace. Who will not say that this option is bet- ter than the rejection of the whole ? Such difficulties, pertaining to the substance of re- 60 MORAL INCONGRUITIES. ligious belief, — the very centre and heart of revelation, — are harder to deal with than those that relate to its shell and husk. The inspired books are more vulner- able here than at all other points. The boldest scoffer of our times in flaunting " The Mistakes of Moses " has declared that there are laws in the Mosaic code that would disgrace any modern statute-book, and his assertion cannot reasonably be disputed. He refers for example to punishments that our later civilization would cry out against as bloody, cruel, and shocking beyond conception. One example adduced is the stoning to death of those who perform labor on the Sabbath, — even of a boy gathering sticks for a fire (Ex. xxxi. 14, 15 ; Num. xv. 32-36) ; another, the fearful sentence to be executed upon any one who should en- tice another to idolatry : " If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, shall entice thee secretly, saying, ' Let us go and serve other gods,' etc., .... thou shalt surely kill him, thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the ha ad of the people ; thou shalt stone him with stones till he die " (Deut. xiii. 6-10). ^ Passing over from legal enactments we find simi- ^^^ /lar use made in the interests of infidelity of the utter extermination by divine command of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities by the Israelites under Joshua, involving the utter destruction of helpless infancy. For we read again and again with reference to indi- vidual cities : " He destroyed them, neither left he any therein to breathe," thus educating to the highest Mj^ ^ MORAL INCONGRUITIES. 61 intensity every fierce and savage impulse of whicli barbarians are capable (Josh, x., xi., xii.). In this con nectiou the black treachery of Jael comes /jx^^isj^. to mind, violating the sacred laws of hospitahty ; un- C/vwwAJ! der promise of protection and safety, alluring the dis- comfited Sisera to her tent, and in order to dissipate all apprehension, bringing him generous refreshment, and then foully murdering him in his sleep. This is the act that is presently celebrated by Deborah the prophetess, even emphasizing as praiseworthy the ly- ing arts by which she accomplished her purposes : '* He asked water, and she gave him milk; She brought forth butter in a lordly dish. She put her hand to the nail. And her right hand to the workman's hammer; And with the hammer she smote Sisera, She smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples." Of this woman, and with reference to this act, Deborah, a prophetess, and the judge of Israel, who had predicted, '' The Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman,'' sang a song of triumph (Jud. v. 24) : " Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Ke- nite be. Blessed above women in the tent." In this connection we only yet refer to untruthful-^ yj^ ^^" ness, endorsed, and even commanded by God, the un- o •^-i!^ truthfulness of his most eminent servants in the per- formance of their highest official acts. There is an instance of this in the history of Samuel, when sent 62 MORAL INCONGRUITIES. bj God to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem, to anoint David as king over Israel (1 Sam. xvi. 1-6). Sam- uel expostulating asks, '^'How can I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me.' And the Lokd said, Take a heifer, and say, ' I am come to sacrifice to the Lord,' and call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show thee what thou shalt do ; and thou shalt anoint him whom I name unto thee." It may be said that he offered the sacrifice, and therefore his words were true. But the man must be very dull of apprehension, or anx- ious at all hazards to maintain that Old Testament revelation embodies the highest ideal of truth and vir- tue, who can deny that the words were intended to deceive Saul with regard to the object of the prophet's journey. The action is boldly, but appropriately, de- scribed in the chapter-heading of the Authorized Ver- sion : " Samuel^ sent ly God, under pretence of a sac- rifice, anoints David.^'' A similar case may be found in the history of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings vi. 18-20). The king of Syria sent a large force to Dothan, where Elisha for the time abode, intending to capture, and probably to destroy him. In answer to his prayer the spies who came to the city to search for him were smitten with blindness. When they approached him " he said to them, ' This is not the way, neither is this the city ; follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek.' And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, ' Lord, open the eyes of these men that they may see.' And the Lord opened their eyes and they saw, and they were in Su- MORAL INCONGRUITIES. 63 n.aria." So his safety was secured by an artifice. We are not distinctly told that the falsehood uttered was in this instance directly suggested by the inspiring Spirit, but the divine power which was essential to its success, and which might as easily have saved him without the violation of truth, was invoked and granted for its confirmation. It must be confessed, however, that it is all, just as it stands, quite in keep- ing with the morality of the times, and if the false- hood had been avoided, a very artistic, realistic, and effective story would have been quite spoiled. Those who contend for the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, vindicating the Old Testament and the New on the same basis, as made up of precisely simi- lar material, and making every word as truly divine and immaculate as if suggested by the mechanical in- spiration they disclaim, are not aware how many there are that cannot hold to their theory in the face of such obstacles, how many outside their own safe camp are wandering in darkness, repelled from the glorious grace of the New Testament and a divine Saviour by the incomprehensible and discordant elements they find in the mass of writings through which they must grope, as the only legitimate entrance to the temple of truth. We are surely warranted in seek- ing to win them back, in correcting what we deem mistaken apprehensions of the revelation of God in the Scriptures. Let us now take our bearings, in order to ascertain precisely where we are, as the result of what we have supposed an advance movement. We are prepared 64 MOEAL INCONGRUITIES. to find that some will regard it as a retreat before the enemy. But we still claim that on general principles the abandonment of an untenable position is not nec- essarily a weakening of the defence. It may be most emphatically the opposite. Have we then, it may be asked, an uncertain Scripture? Can we be satisfied when we feel the ground trembling under our feet? What have we that we can rely upon w^ith implicit confidence in matters pertaining to the great God and ourselves, and to the eternal verities ? If we reply that there is an absolutely trustworthy element in the complex ma^s, which preponderates over the human and imperfect, it may reasonably be asked, how can the divine be distinguished from the human ? We hope to have a better answer by and by than we are yet prepared with, or rather, better than can be appreciated until some other things have been said. We are working our way toward results, but not too precipitately. It is usually assumed that where such questions arise, reason must decide. Those who ^'have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil " need not be often perplexed. But this is liable to be exclaimed against, as profanely exalting reason above Scripture. To say that we may go boldly through the Bible, and accept as divine and authorita- tive only what commends itself to our own individual \ judgment as worthy of God, will be pronounced no I better than the baldest rationalism. It must be / granted that it sounds somewhat so. But we shall MOKAL INCONGRUITIES. 65 see by and by. It may be that mitigating circum- stances will be discovered, that should modify the severity of the judgment, or even so change the quality of the act as utterly to absolve us from the charge of rationalism. And what if we shall assert that the divine so perme- ates the human, or ratlier, that in the purpose of the ins piring Spirit i t so includes it, that they cannot be mechanically separated without the mutilation of the system which it was the purpose of God to produce for the instruction and guidance of men, in the past, if not in the present. Do we not read in another \ department of divine administration of the growing of tares with the wheat, not to be separated till the i harvest? And do we not see something like it in the wondrous scheme of divine providence, evil commingled with the good, the evil suffered and the good directly originated by the divine will, and the evil so often overruled for good, and itself the means of greater good in the future? God will effect the separation in due time. Meanwhile if we, in the use of conscience and enlightened reason, distinguish be- tween them in moral decisions that relate to the regulation of our own lives, shall we be charged with rationalism ? With reference to error other than moral, we may surely claim with abundant warrant in Scripture that this revelation was of such excellent and enduring quality and nature, that its substance and spirit were not bound down to the letter, and could not be injured by great variation from the inspired statement, in- 66 MORAL INCONGRUITIES. volving even some inaccuracies in matters of fact. We have already referred to our Saviour's indorse- ment and free use of a translation which no textual critic would employ in restoring the original readings, except most cautiously and discriminatively ; a trans- lation which is often paraphrastic, and in prophecy as well as in history, widely astray from the inspired thought ; a translation which pushes forward a hundred years the age of each antediluvian patriarch at the birth of his eldest son, and by its plausible perversion of the Hebrew text in the instance we have mentioned at the close of Chapter YII., betrayed an apostle into chronological inaccuracy. The opinion of Prof. Green as there cited, justifying St. Paul's inaccuracy, is conclusive, and embodies a principle of immense value, as applicable to many similar cases : " Precision of statement was of no co7isequence to his arguntentP We do not, however, desire to ignore or treat with contempt the honest fear of those who are thinking of infidel attack and apologetic controversy, and that if we concede that the Old Testament is not in errant to the letter everything precious is sacrificed. They fear that all is lost if any one of the alleged " mis- takes of Moses " should be proven, or if it be con- ceded that any prophet, poet, or historian has used language which does not accord with the highest conception of God, or the most perfect results of his grace in the thoughts and lives of men. But can any one seriously contend that our confi- dence in the Bible as a genuine revelation must be abandoned, even should we be obliged to admit that MORAL INCONGRUITIES. 67 the memoir of Adam is a myth, the story of Jonah a drama, or the Book of Daniel the production of a later age than tradition has assigned to it ? Yet let it not be supposed that these interrogative and hypothetical concessions represent the personal opinion of the writer. They only express the strength of his conviction that no conclusions that may be reached with reference to matters so far from the centre of light and truth can shake the hold of these Scriptures upon his heart. IX. TURNING FOEWAED. — GENERAL CON- SIDEEATIOKS. Examples of imperfection in the Scriptures, of the kind indicated in the foregoing chapters, might be multiplied indefinitely. But enough doubtless have been given to arouse in many minds the most serious apprehension — enough to discredit the whole volume, unless a broader definition can be found for the inspiration that produced it than any that has yet been advanced. It may be questioned by some whether a reasonable and intelligible definition can ever be adjusted to pl:kenomena so contrary to pre- vailing conceptions of the possible contents of an inspired book. Especially shocking are its moral blemishes. God may 'permit evil to be done without launching his thunderbolts against it. But can \\^ do evil, or sug- gest it, or approve and reward it? And what cor- rective can be compounded for the injury that may result from such disclosures ? To devout readers of the Bible it has been an ideal of perfectness, in ac- cordance with whose rulings all human conduct must be judged, and api)roved or condemned. What shall they do, if their ideal is shattered before their eyes ? (68) TURNING FORWARD. 69 It were better, it may be said, not to have spoken so plainly, and even under sceptical pressure, not to admit so much, — better to have left men the comfort even of a delusion, — than to destroy their confidence in the consummate immaculateness of the Scriptures. There must indeed have been a shrinking from the task, it would probably have been declined as too painful, if relief from perplexities had not been visible in the distance — reasons why God should employ / fallible men as the medium of communication with their kind, and might suffer their work to contain such errors as in his judgment would not impair the ultimate moral purpose and value of the revelation, but might, on the contrary, greatly enhance its effect- iveness. It may not be the way that our poor human sagacity would have indicated, if we had been permitted to suggest the best method. But "the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." By profounder thought we may discover this, even in imperfections the mention of which is vehemently exclaimed against, as only evil and destructive. What is inspiration f It is a question of sur- passing interest,— one that can no longer be evaded. Even within the few days that have elapsed since the preceding chapters were written it has become evident that the investigations that are to determine the ecclesiastical standing of two distinguished Theo- logical Professors will turn principally upon their denial of the inerrancy of the Bible, as contrary to 70 INSPIRATION. the cardinal doctrine tauglit in the Scriptures and in the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, that " the Scriptures of the Old and N^ew Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice." Much as religious controversy is to be deplored, if even in the heat of controversy a definition might be forged that shall remove its cause, all will be well. Too often these ardent discussions open up new dif- ferences of opinion, excite acrimony, and separate rather than unite. Let our fervent supplications ascend that in this instance an issue so disastrous may be averted. I It was stated in the second chapter that the theory of the absolute inerrancy of Scripture is an a priori conclusion. That is, it does not result from observa- tion and thought directed to facts, but is derived inferentially from an antecedent. It is reasoning from cause to effect, determining from the former what we shall find in the latter. This is an excellent way of attaining some proba- bility, if not certainty, in the absence of known facts. But it is speculative and very fallacious. A conclu- sion reached by this process should never be affirmed positively unless the antecedent is axiomatic, nor unless furthermore it is sure that no contingency can possibly have occurred that might invalidate the inference. Those not accustomed to the technicalities of logic are not aware of the mental process by which their conviction upon this subject has been reached, if not by themselves, by those from whose teaching they have imbibed it. ^ TURNING FORWARD. 71 In this case the matter to be determined is the absolute perfeetness of the Scriptures in every part. The antecedent is inspiration by the Holy Spirit ; properly, the inspiration of the prophets or other n mediators of a divine revelation ; inferentially, of their "' J^"^^ writings. But the inference is not simple and direct. ;,^>.v/Cr, i There are tioo middle terms, either of which may modify j^ZZUC^ ] the effectiveness of the antecedent, and consequently the soundness of the conclusion. The Ji?'st is that the inspiring Spirit is possessed of perfect knowledge and cannot directly communicate any error. This is unquestionable. The second is an inference from the first, namely, that any person or writing inspired by the Spirit must be absolutely inerrant, whatsoever obstruction may intervene. It is included in a mere general proposition, tha t every divi ne activity must produce absolute perfection, without reference to any contingencies or intermediate conditions. This is most decidedly questionable — to be tested and verified. If any product of creative power can be discovered that was not, at the first moment of its existence, perfect as God is perfect, that despatches it. The a priori process, relied upon for proof of the in- errancy of Scripture, is vitiated hopelessly. The premises have failed and the conclusion is a nullity. We have proposed to reverse the process. The re- \- -i*' suits of inspiring energy are before us in a divine rev- ' ' elation. We all agree upon that. All theories and (>>^ ^^P^ hypotheses are to be tested by facts, if facts are within ^v^J\^Tr reach. The revelation, as expressed by human Ian- ^'j^J^-^^^ guage and thought in the Scriptures, exhibits the j)/ie- l\tu^ M-a 72 ^-^^"-^ inspiration: /t^v^^^j— -^,- .j^^^ riomena oi inspiration. 13y their careful Examination ki^'t^^ may get some glimpse of the noumena^ or divine jJ^J U conceptions in which they originate. In other words,