Qllfp Intttf raitg of ffllfuagn
rOTJNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER

Yale bMiVERS!
NOV 20 rJ2M
LIBRARY,

The Normative Use of Scripture by
Typical Theologians of Protestant
Orthodoxy in Great Britain
and America.

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OP THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN
CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OP DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY
(DEPARTMENT 01- SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY)

BY

CHARLES MANPORD SHARPE

MENASHA, -WIS.
THE COLLEGIATE PRESS
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING CO.

AUGUST CONVOCATION 1912

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
Anonymous Gift

Mif^ Bntuf raitg ai (Hljtragn
rOUNDKD BY JOHN D. BOOKEi'ELI.EIi

The Normative Use of Scripture by
Typical Theologians of Protestant
Orthodoxy in Great Britain
and America.

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN
CANDIDAOT FOE THE DEGEEE OF DOCTOE OF PHILOSOPHY
(DBPAKTMENT OV SYSTEMATIC THEOLOOY)

BY
CHARLES MANFORD SHARPS

MENASHA, -WIS.
THE COLLEGIATE PRESS
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING CO.

AUGUST OONVOOATION 1912

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I. Introduction  1
II. The Orthodox Doctrine of Holy Scripture .... 7
III. The Theological Use of Holy Scripture .... 29
IV. Summary and Forecast  70
Bibliography  76

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION
This inquiry 'will seek to ascertain yfhat part the Scriptures have
actually played in determining the form and content of the several
theological systems now current among the orthodox Protestant
communions of Great Britain and America. Although it will, of
course, be impossible to exhibit in detail the theological usage of
Scripture in the case of any large number of theologians, we shall
try to make our selections truly representative and of sufficient
breadth to guarantee an adequate induction.^
The claim is confidently made that the theology of the various
orthodox writers is faithfully constructed with reference to the
formal principle of Protestantism, namely, the sole authority of
Scripture. It purports to be simply the objective presentation of
the system of religious truth contained in the Bible and constituting
the Christian revelation. We desire to know whether this claim is
true to fact. If so, we 'wish to see how it is so. If not, we wish to
see why not.
Since the inquiry is purely historical and objective, it will be
well in the outset to sketch briefly the development which has set for
us our problem. In the beginning of Christian thought there was,
of course, no distinctively Christian literature to serve as an author
itative doctrinal standard. The early disciples used the Old Testa-
'The following names are Included for the reasons specified: Doctor
Charles Hodge was the most influential American theologian of the last half
century representing strict Calvinistic confessionalism. Professor 'Warfield
¦wdth greater awareness of critical and scientific developments still maintains
the same general positions. In his writings we may note how the theory of
Scripture held by this strict school re-acts toward the changed temperature of
biblical studies. Professors Orr and Denney represent a Presbyterian theol
ogy taking still further account of modern tendencies. Orr represents pre
dominantly- a philosophical interest, while Denney's approach is rather from
the side of religious experience. President A. H. Strong is of importance on
account of his standing among Baptist theologians, and because of his at
tempts to combine intense devotion to the orthodox tradition -vrith open-minded
hospitality to biblical, scientific and philosophical studies of the present day.
The latter reason applies also to the inclusion in our investigation of Pro
fessors C. M. Mead and Olin Curtis.

2 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTUEB
ment much as the Jewish teachers of the time used it. They re
garded it as of full divine authority, not only for Je-ws, but for
Christians as well ; and they sought to support their belief in Jesus
as Messiah by appeals to Old Testament Psalm and Prophecy.
Their difference from their Jewish opponents related not to the
authority of the Old Testament, but to its interpretation. Even
here the difference was not so much one of method as of viewpoint.
The early Christians having accepted Jesus as Messiah, used this
belief as a key to the meaning of Scripture, while the Scribes in
terpreted in the light of the oral tradition, and of their particular
brand of Messianism. In neither case was there any interest in
questions relating to the origin, character, and purpose of the sev
eral parts or books of Scripture. No questions were raised, or at
least no considerable ones, regarding the Canon. The whole body
of literature was received simply upon the authority of tradition,
and the necessity was felt of establishing from Scripture the validity
of belief and of practice. The principle of scriptural authority was
thus native to the primitive Christian community by reason of its
Jewish origin, even though it did not for some time possess an
authoritative literature of its 0"wn.
The church Fathers who were the first theologians of Christian
ity in that they regarded it as a perfect revelation of truth to be
commended as such by appropriate arguments to the wisdom-seek
ing Greek spirit, still further extended the dogmatic and apologetic
use of the Scriptures. Thus Justin Martyr identifies every self-
manifestation of God in the Old Testament with the Logos. All the
Fathers, in various degrees, ignore the historical and literal sense
of Scripture and emphasize its hidden or spiritual meaning. The
Allegorical method of interpretation, by which any desired sense
could be extracted from the words, reigned supreme from Clement
of Alexandria to Augustine, and the findings of the method were
dictated by the requirements of church dogmatic in the form of the
"rule of faith" (sometimes called "the rule of the truth"). The
dictum of Origen that "nothing is to be accepted as truth which
differs in any respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition
expressed the dominant exegetical attitude."
We may say, therefore, that the influence of Scripture upon the
form and content of Greek and Latin theology was comparatively

INTRODUCTION 3
unimportant, in the sense of objective authority. The occasion for
such a doctrine and usage of Scripture could not arise so long as
the complete truth of the traditional ecclesiastical doctrine was
assumed and the absolute teaching authority of the Church was
recognized. The Gnostic conflict, indeed, compelled the Church to
collect and appropriate such Christian documents as were held to
be of apostolic origin or authority, and to form them into a Christian
Canon. These books were further assumed to be in full accord with
the doctrinal tradition and were so expounded by the same methods
of interpretation as had been applied to the Old Testament. The
demand for a theological norm superior to the Church and the
Fathers became urgent and irrepressible only with the development
of the Protestant Reformation. Since they were antagonizing sharp
ly the authority of the infallible Church with regard to important
practices involving (though they knew it not) the whole scheme of
Church doctrine, the Reformers had need of another infallible
authority by which to support their position. This they found in
Holy Scripture. But, although the Reformation profited to a large
degree by the scholarly ideals of the Humanist movement, it was not
delivered from an essentially dogmatic and subjective attitude to
ward the Bible. Upon the one hand, Luther assumed the doctrine
of Justification by Faith as the doctrinal center of Scripture and
used it as a critical principle, while Calvin, upon the other hand,
expounded the Bible in the light of -the doctrine of Divine Sover
eignty. The attitude of Luther regarding the full doctrinal author
ity of the Bible was, upon the whole, wavering and undecided,
while Calvin, upon the contrary, was an uncompromising advocate
of Scripture infallibility.
As the controversy between Protestantism and Catholicism pro
gressed, and as polemic strife between the divisions of the former
waxed ever fiercer, the doctrine of Scripture was developed to con
clusions more and more extreme. The object of the theologians
who constructed the old Protestant doctrine of Scripture was to
secure its sole authority as "Word of God" over against the claims
of the Roman church for its tradition and its teaching function.
These latter were, by the Protestant theologians, described as
"Word of Man", and were denied any except a derived authority.

* THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
The sole and supreme authority of Scripture had to be validated
as against the Roman position in three particulars, namely, — (1)
that the Scripture is itself guaranteed by the Church; (2) that
Church tradition is an independent source of doctrine along with
Scripture; and, (3) that the Scriptures cannot be correctly inter
preted except in analogy vnth the Church doctrine. Furthermore,
aside from the anti-Roman polemic, there was need of erecting a
doctrine of Scripture against the fanatical Protestant sects who
claimed an "inner illumination", and against those who urged the
rights of natural reason in matters of faith and doctrine. Manifest
ly, nothing could meet the situation except a theory that should ex
clude the element of human activity absolutely from any share in the
formation of Scripture; and should constitute it in every part the
pure "Word of God." Such a theory was furnished by the post-
Reformation doctrine of Inspiration, by which the whole literature
of the Old and New Testament was referred directly to the super
natural agency of the Holy Spirit, and its character as a divine
revelation of truth was guaranteed. The Holy Spirit was affirmed
to impart to the biblical writers not only the substance of truth, but
also the very words, and the actual impulse to write. As against
the Roman claim that the Church guarantees the Scriptures in that
it collected the books and promulgated the canon, it was replied
that no such authentication would be sufficient, but that God Him
self must and does witness to His Word by and ydth the presence
of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers. In reply to the as
sertion that the Church doctrine supplements the teaching of
Scripture, the Protestant theologians affirmed the sufficiency of
Scripture for aU knowledge necessary to salvation. The need of
the Church dogma as a key to interpretation was denied in favor
of the perspicuity of Scripture, by which was meant primarily its
self -interpreting quality for religious and doctrinal purposes. This
doctrine, it was, which led to strong emphasis upon certain por
tions of Scripture, and certain proof -texts as the clear outlines of
doctrine and positive statements of truth in the light of which all
obscurer passages were to be understood.^
" For a good account of the various methods of interpretation employed in
the successive periods of Christianity see series of articles in the Biblical World
Vol. 38 by Case, Gilbert and Smith.

INTRODUCTION 5
The merits and demerits of this Inspiration doctrine ¦with the
theory of Scripture which it involves, do not claim consideration
here. Suffice it to say it has been shown to be psychologically im
possible, and out of all accord with the facts as they appear in the
biblical literature itself. It has, therefore, been gradually dis
solved, and the Scriptures have been reduced to the plane of histor
ical phenomena in which human activity has had a large part to
play, and in the understanding of which strict historical methods of
study must be employed. To this result the sciences of Textual
Criticism, Introduction, and Biblical Theology have mainly con
tributed. It has always been known that we have not the original
autographs of the Scripture documents, which, upon the hypothesis
of the defenders of inerrancy, would exhibit that perfection and in
fallibility claimed. Textual Criticism while making clear the dis
crepancies that exist among the Mss. we have, also shows that the
further back we press the less do we find conditions in the text that
answer to the demands of the theory.^ The science of Introduction
has shown how intimately the biblical books are related to the his
torical conditions of their origin, and has made impossible the sharp
separation of these documents from other historical sources of
knowledge. Biblical Theology has thrown into prominence the
variety of the doctrinal contents of Scripture, and has raised the
question of the nature and extent of that unity which has been
alleged or may be supposed to underlie the diversity. As a result
of these discoveries, Protestant theology resting as it has done upon
a view of the Scriptures now found to be untenable in the form it
has been held, finds itself in a condition of confusion and distress.
Yet, as we have said, the school of theologians under considera
tion, still maintains the normativity of Scripture in theological con
struction, and it is the purpose of this treatise to note the nature,
extent and results of such theory and practice.
Inasmuch as all Christian theology, orthodox or heretical, con
servative or radical must in some sense appeal to Scripture, it is
necessary to define more precisely the school of theological opinion
which is the subject of this investigation. The -writer is aware that
in his title he has adopted an arbitrary conception of Orthodoxy,
and one, indeed, to which he would be slow to yield assent. But
this is what he means. The orthodox theologian is one who holds
' Cf. Evans and Smith, Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration, pp. 37, 38.

6 THE NORMATJ-VE USE OF SCRIPTUEE
to the notion of Christianity as essentially and necessarily consist
ing in an objective system of truth delivered to the human mind by
special and supernatural revelation, and recorded or preserved in
the Bible. This system of divine truth thus given is regarded as
a fixed quantum, to be received, assimilated and applied to lite in
order to a full and characteristic Christian experience, and in order
to the complete results purpesed by God in giving it.
The order of treatment will be as follows : First, we vrill seek
to discover and define each theologian's doctrine of Scripture as he
consciously holds it. Under this head ynll fall to be considered such
notions as Revelation, Inspiration, and the Unity' of Scripture as a
whole. Second, we will point out in the case of our several authors
their religious, dogmatic, or speculative interests, and show how these
operate in the theological use of the Scriptures, particularly in in
terpretation and in emphasis placed upon definite portions of
Scripture. Third, we will tabulate the results that appear from
our whole survey. Fourfh, and finally, we will indicate in what
direction our results seem to point as regards the relation the
Scriptures may sustain toward present theological science in order
to impart to it that moral and spiritual power which has ever
characterized the Christian religion itself.

CHAPTER II.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
It is,_ as we have already stated, the fundamental postulate of
our school of theologians, that God has given a special and super
natural revelation of truth to the world upon the understanding and
acceptance of which true and adequate religion can alone rest. This
revelation is closely associated with the Bible, and only concerning
the exact nature and content of the revelation, and the exact rela
tion sustained to it by the Bible as a whole do we find varieties of
opinion. There is, first of all, the view which lies nearest the strict post-
Reformation doctrine, and which virtually identifies revelation and
Scripture. This position was represented by Doctor Charles Hodge
and has since been defended in all essential respects by the Prince
ton school. According to Doctor Hodge the Bible consists of a reve
lation of facts and truths, which, taken in their entirety, properly
related and interpreted, constitute one system of divine truth.^
In virtue of its character as the exhaustive expression of truth and
fact necessary to the complete exhibition of the Christian religion
the Bible becomes the exclusive source and norm of theology as a
science. But just as Nature does not contain a system of Astron
omy, or Chemistry but only the undigested facts which science must
arrange and relate ; so the Bible contains no system of Theology in
explicit form, but only the facts and truths which, when they are
properly apprehended and understood will be found to cohere in one
harmonious whole. This system of revealed truth in its organic
unity, it is the task of theology to discover, set forth and vindicate.^
In this connection, however, a little inconsistently, it would
seem, Doctor Hodge points out an advantage which the theologian
has over the student of Nature when he says,  "although
the Scriptures do not contain a system of theology as a whole, we
have in the Epistles of the New Testament, portions of that system
wrought out to our hand. These are our authority and guide. "^
^ Systematic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 1, 3, 13.
" Ibid, p. 3.
»0p. cit., p. 3.

O THE NORMATIVE USE OP SCRIPTUEE
In the view of this theologian so close is the relation between
revelation and Scripture that there is no revelation external to the
Bible that can materially concern theology. Upon the one hand,
the Bible contains aU the facts with which theology deals, and upon
the other hand theology must deal with all the facts the Bible con
tains. There must be a careful, comprehensive and, if possible, even
an exhaustive induction of Scripture facts. Then the complete
doctrine or system must be so framed as to " embrace all the facts
in their integrity."* "It is  unscientific for the
theologian to assume a theory as to the nature of virtue, of sin, of
liberty, of moral obligation, and then explain the facts of Scripture
in accordance with his theories"  "If the Scriptures
teach that sin is hereditary we must adopt a theory of sin suited to
that fact. "^
The final outcome of Doctor Hodge's view is that there is and
can be but one legitimate system of theology which is, according to
his conviction, the Augustinian system. "As the facts of Astronomy
arrange themselves in a certain order, and will admit of no other,
so it is with the facts of theology. Theology is, therefore, the ex
hibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation,
'with the principles or general truths involved in the facts them
selves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole. ' '®
Quite in accord with these statements of Doctor Hodge are the
views of the Princeton theologians of more recent times. Professor
Benjamin B. Warfield, for example, describes himself as "one who
has in all sincerity and heartiness set his hand to these (the
Westminster) Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught
in Holy scripture."' "It would be easy to show  how
strictly they (the Standards) are held in every definition to the
purity of biblical conceptions and enunciations of truth. ' "
The essence of Christianity is held to be constituted, not by
eventual facts but by "the dogmas, i. e. by the facts as understood
in one specific manner. " " There lies at the basis of Christianity not
" Ibid, p. 13.
"Ibid, pp. 13, 14.
• Ibid, p. 19.
' The Significance of the Westminster Standards, p. 1.
» Ibid, p. 35.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 9
only a series of great redemptive facts, but also an authoritative
interpretation of these facts. Amid the, perhaps, many interpre
tations possible to this series of facts, who will help us to that one
through which alone they can constitute Christianity?"" "The
Apostolic interpretation is an inseparable element in the fun
damental fact basis of Christianity  Call it metaphysical,
call it Greek if you 'will. But remember that it is of the essence of
Christianity."^" To the same general effect writes President A. H. Strong regard
ing the character of the Bible as a revelation of doctrinal truth and
as constituting the objective standard of appeal in theology,^^ al
though, as we shall see later, he tries to escape from mere biblicism
by means of his Christo-centric principle. "Theology," he says,
"is a summary and explanation of the content of God's self -revela
tions. These are, first, the revelation of God in Nature; secondly,
and supremely, the revelation of God in the Scriptures." "Reve
lation is an organic whole which begins in nature but finds its climax
and key in the historical Christ whom Scripture presents to us."
"The phrase, 'Word of God' does not primarily denote a record,
it is the spoken word, the doctrine, the vitalizing truth disclosed by
Christ. "1^
President Strong reproduces in almost identical terms the af
firmation already cited from Doctor Hodge with reference to parts
of the system of doctrine wrought out in the Epistles of the New
Testament, and constituting the center of the complete system of
divine truth which is implicit in the whole of Scripture.^^ Likewise
in agreement with Doctor Hodge, he urges upon Christians the obli
gation to receive the biblical doctrines as revealed facts whether they
can be demonstrated upon rational grounds or not, or whether or
no it be possible to see the connection between them.^*
Somewhat different is the emphasis of Professor James Orr.
More conscious than many of his orthodox colleagues of the critical
"The Right of Systematic Theology, pp. 38, 39.
" Ibid, pp. 61, 63. Vide quotation from Denney p. 67 of this treatise.
" Strong, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 37, 38.
" Ibid, pp. 25, 36, 37.
" Ibid, p. IS.
" Ibid, p. 36.

10 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCEIPTUEE
and scientific difficulties that attend the maintenance of the usual
Protestant doctrine of Holy Scripture, he seeks to ground its
authority in a religio-historical view of revelation, rather than in
what he calls a "doctrinaire view." In his EUiot Lectures, de
livered in 1897 Professor Orr said that "A doctrine of Scripture
adapted to the needs of the hour in harmonizing the demands at
once of Science and Faith, is, perhaps, the most clamant want at
present in theology. "^^
Such a doctrine he endeavors to state in his recent volume en
titled "Revelation and Inspiration" (Scriiners 1910) from which
we shall quote repeatedly in this discussion. Briefly stated his 'view
is as follows :
The Bible possesses in remarkable degree a structural unity
which is due to the presence in it and running through it of God's
progressive self-revelation. This revelation is what we speak of
as the Gospel, and this, criticism can never expunge from the Bible.
It forms a ' ' continuous, coherent, self -attesting discovery to man of
the mind of God regarding man himself, his sin, the guilt and ruin
into which sin has plunged him, and over against that the method of
a divine salvation, the outcome of a purpose of eternal love, wrought
out in ages of progressive revelation, and culminating in the mis
sion, life, death, atoning work, and resurrection of His Son Jesus
Christ, and in the gift of His Spirit to the Church and believers. ' '^*
This Gospel in the Bible will preserve the Bible which embodies it,
and will attest the Scriptures as what "they claim to be, the living
and inspired oracles of God. "" " The Christian believer is, there
fore, not anxious about the supposed destructive results of Criticism.
Its excesses will ever be blocked and checked by the presence of this
evangelical element which runs continuously throughout Scrip
ture." "Accepting a supernatural economy of grace as the central
fact of revelation, it (this view) 'will not be trammeled by the a
priori presumptions about miracle which are apt to vitiate purely
critical theories. For miracle is of the very essence of the economy.
It is able to take up flrmer ground on historicity, for it sees the
meaning and place of the great facts in the biblical history, as other
" The Progress of Dogma, p. 352.
"Revelation and Inspiration, p. 18.
"Revelation and Inspiration, p. 19.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTUEE 11
theories do not. It recognizes a line of divine revelation extending
through all time. It is, therefore, prepared to accept the fact of a
record of such special, continuous, supernatural revelation.""
This view Professor Orr describes as Evangelical-Positive, and
considers it to exhibit an advance in several points upon the older
positions. "Instead of revelation being regarded as consisting
simply or exclusively of the communication of truths or ideas
through internal suggestion, illumination, or intuition — the doc
trinaire view of revelation, as the late Professor A. B. Bruce called
it — its essence is seen to lie, primarily, in a series of divine acts;
God manifesting Himself in the history of the world in a super
natural maimer and for a special purpose."^®
"It is an important advance when, in accordance with the bib
lical conception itself, the stress is shifted back, even from pro
phetic and apostolic teaching to the divine acts which stand behind
both"2» But the principle advance in this way of treating the subject
Professor Orr regards as the more accurate discrimination of the
related ideas of Revelation and Inspiration. What he conceives this
gain to be, and what results flow from it we shall see later. At
present we are concerned to know just what the gain is in trans
ferring the conception of revelation from doctrine (teaching) to
act (history). Professor Orr has hardly made the distinction until
we find him busy bringing back under the head of an extension
of the idea of Revelation practically all that was included in
the older theory he considers to be transcended. He tells us
that "it is not simply the history of revelation on its divine
side which is of spiritual interest, but the human reception also
of that revelation, and the actings of the human spirit under
its influence, and in response to it, which are to be taken into
account. This also is a necessary part of the unfolding of the
meaming of revelation (italics mine)  a record of
revelation in the broad sense includes a great deal more than
the divine acts and communications, or even than the history
with which we began. It includes psalms, songs, wisdom teaching,
" Ibid, pp. 20, 31.
" Ibid, pp. 31, 22.
"Revelation and Inspiration, p. 33.

12 THE NORMATIVE USB OF SCRIPTURE
Epistles  sections that unfold the principles of reve
lation, apply and enforce them, turn them into subjects of praise,
deal with them reflectively as doctrine. All this is too, in a very
important sense, revelation"  "We have now found
that the line between revelation and its record is becoming very thin,
and that in another true sense, the record in the fulness of its
content, is for us itself the revelation  God's complete
word — for us"^^
It is difficult to see, upon this showing, wherein Professor Orr
has lightened the load theology had to bear upon the premises of the
older "doctrinaire" theory of revelation. Practically all the dif
ficulties that beset the latter are, in a slightly different form, trans
ferred to the historical field. Professor Orr must maintain the sub
stantial historicity of the whole biblical representation, in its parts
and in its ensemble. Furthermore, he must maintain, as he does,
that there is a doctrinal development in Scripture correctly and ad
equately interpreting the revelation essentially contained in the
divine acts and communications. "A like organic unity, combined
with progressive development, it might be shown, reveals itself in
doctrine. While thro'wing off, or suffering to fall into the back
ground what is accidental or temporary, each stage in the advance
of revelation takes up what is vital and permanent in the preceding
stage. No single grain of the word of God 'which liveth and abid-
eth' is allowed to perish in the process. "^^
Although he claims to have transcended the "doctrinaire theory"
of revelation Professor Orr would seem to hold to the essentially
doctrinal nature of Christianity almost as strongly as Professor
Warfield or Doctor Hodge. Replying to the statement that Chris
tianity is a "fact revelation — it has its center in a living Christ, and
not in a dogmatic creed," he writes, "The facts of revelation are
before the doctrines built on them. The gospel is no mere procla
mation of 'eternal truths', but the discovery of a saving purpose of
God for mankind, executed in Time. But the doctrines are the
interpretation of the facts. The facts do not stand blank and dumb
before us, but have a voice given to them, and a meaning put into
them" (italics mine). When Paul affirms, "Christ died for our
= Ibid, pp. 158, 159.
"Revelation and Inspiration, p. 17.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 13
sins according to the Scriptures, he is proclaiming a fact, but he
is at the same time giving an interpretation of it. "^'
Undoubtedly Professor Orr regards the Bible as containing an
organism of doctrinal truth no less intimate and vital to Christianity
than the coherent, continuous series of historical acts in which reve
lation is alleged primarily to consist. What this organism is he has
set forth exhaustively in his Kerr Lectures, under the title, "The
Christian View of God and the World" — a volume which 'will
claim our attention later.
The point that more particularly concerns us here is that our
theologian has bound up, practically the whole traditional theology
with the Redemption History, as he calls it, and has identified it
with the Gospel. Hence proceeds his resistance of Criticism at
every point involving historical reconstruction. In this respect Doc
tor Orr seems to have experienced a change of con-viction since the
deliverance of his Kerr Lectures in 1890-91. He then declared that
the critical re-dating of the Old Testament documents does not af
fect the argument for the revelation character of the Old Testa
ment religion. "The Biblical conception is separated from every
other by its monotheistic basis, its unique clearness, its organic
unity, its moral character and its theological aim. It does not mat
ter for this argument what dates we assign to the books of the Old
Testament in which these views are found  Date your
books when you ynll this religion is not explicable save on the
hypothesis of Revelation."^* But in 1910 he complains that upon
the critical basis the history undergoes complete transformation,
so that the order of events as gleaned from the Bible itself is re
versed. Upon this state of matters he remarks, "It need not oc
casion surprise if this critical view of Israel's history is felt by
many, by no means narrow-minded, to be well-nigh fatal to the pre
tensions of the Old Testament to be a record of a real divine revela
tion  It is not on such a basis that the present writer
can undertake to defend the reality of revelation and inspiration in
the Old Testament. "^^ (italics mine)
=' The Christian View of God and the World, pp. 35, 3S, So. Warfield, and
Denney, Studies in Theol,., pp. 106-107.
"CVGW, p. 17.
"^ Revelation and Inspiration, p. 71.

14 THE NORMATIVE USE OP SCRIPTURE
This seems clear and emphatic and yet elsewhere in the same
volume our author claims to regard it as one of the important gains
from the critical movement that application of the strictest his
torical and critical methods has only served to show the absolutely
unique and extraordinary character of the religion of Israel. ' ' The
further inquiry has gone, the tendency has increasingly been to
force from the lips of the critics themselves the word 'reve
lation.' "^«
It seems difficult to harmonize these two statements in the later
volume, or the first of them with that cited from the former. It
would seem to be safe to defend the reality of Old Testament revela
tion upon the basis of methods and results which are so beneficent
in the case of those who specially cultivate them. But the nature
and content of the revelation which Professor Orr understands some
critics to admit, does not accord with the nature and content of
that which he himself is set to defend.
The critical reconstruction of the history can hardly be opposed
successfully if the critical dating of the documents be allowed.
Hence Professor Orr has argued strongly upon critical and archae
ological grounds against the prevailing view, but as is clearly evi
dent in the volume so often cited, his main reliance is upon a religio-
dogmatic presupposition. In illustration of this the following
lengthy passage is worth quoting. "The general trustworthiness
of the history  is, apart from other reasons, believed
to be internally guaranteed by the depth and organic character —
the forward movement under the direction of a di'vine purpose — of
the ideas embodied in it. Here, on the surface of the record, is
something which it lies beyond the capacity of irresponsible editors
or collectors of legends, or even of late prophetically minded men,
to invent or introduce into the substance of a national folk-lore . .
. . . For any one taking this view of the history, it will be
found difficult to believe that the patriarchs are the wholly mythical
or legendary figures many would make them out to be, or that the
covenants and promises of that early age were unreal. It will be
found difficult to believe that Moses was not divinely raised up and
commissioned, and did not, by divine command lead the enslaved
Israelites out of Egypt and across the Red Sea, to form at Sinai a
=» Ibid, pp. 13, I*.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 15
religious covenant between them and Jehovah which pledged them
ever after to be His people. It will be found difficult to believe that
Moses did not then and after give to the people laws and ordin
ances — both civil and priestly in substance identical with those in
the books which record his legislation  and so ysdth
the remainder of the history. "^^
Professor Orr has used the cautious phrase, "it will be difficult",
but in his own case he has practically said it is impossible not to
accept substantially the whole traditional view of the biblical his
tory. But while he has ostensibly throyni the whole question into
the field of historical fact, it is manifest that he proposes to settle it,
in the last resort, by other than historical means. As the basis of
his whole contention he affirms the presence in and throughout the
Bible of what he calls ' ' a self-attesting, coherent scheme of redemp
tion" constituting divine revelation and guaranteeing the veridical
character of every historical matter purporting to be involved there
with. It is in line with this that Professor Orr is reluctant to admit
that the book of Jonah is a work of religious fiction, or that there
is any considerable amount of legendary material in the accounts of
the Patriarchal or Mosaic periods.
With some rather important qualifications, we may include,
along with Professor Orr's view, that of Professor James Denney.
He holds that the religious and moral power of the gospel within the
Scriptures attest their character as revelation documents prior to
and independent of any theory of inspiration. It is the presence of
this gospel certified byj the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart
of the believer, that assures him of God's voice in Holy Scripture,
and it is this gospel, thus certified, that determines for him what
view he is able, inclined or necessitated to take with reference to the
critical questions raised concerning the various distinctive parts of
the Bible.
' ' The Bible is, in the first instance, a means of grace : it is the
means too through which God communicates with man, making him
know what is in his heart towards him. It must be known and ex
perienced in this character before we can form a doctrine concern
ing it."^=
"Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 72, 73.
"^ Studies in Theology, p. 203.

16 THE NORMATI'VE USE OP SCRIPTUEE
"The expression 'Word of God' relates to the divine message
to man and is not to be construed as if it were a doctrine of the
text of Scripture, or as covering not only certain assumed qual
ities of Scripture as we have it, but also certain alleged qualities
of an original autograph of Scripture which no one knows anything
about.'"' The most important difference between the positions of Orr and
Denney relates to the content of the gospel which constitutes the
divine revelation, and which by its presence attests the Bible as its
authentic record. As we have seen, Orr includes the whole pro
gressive self -revelation of God in His redemptive plan and purpose
from the opening chapters of Genesis to the conclusion of the apos
tolic interpretation in the New Testament. Professor Denney, on the
other hand, has a more strictly experimental and Christo-centric
position. The limits -within which the Avitness of the Spirit to the
Scriptures is held to guarantee historical truth are by him reduced
to one point, viz., the revelation of God in Christ. Thus he is
able to view the findings of historical criticism with much less con
cern than Orr, and to admit the presence of myth and legend to
a degree the latter cannot. "We do not need to become historical
critics before we can believe in Christ and be saved by him. The
Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word of the evangelists
in our hearts, gives us, independent of any criticism, a full per
suasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority
of the revelation of God made in Him. And if any one still main
tains that this does forestall criticism, I should say that the very
meaning of the Incarnation, the truth on which all Christianity
depends, is precisely this, that there is a point, viz., the life of
The Son of God in our nature, at which the spiritual and the histor
ical coincide and at which, therefore, as the very purpose of revela-
tion requires, there can be a spiritual guarantee for historical
truth. The witness of the Spirit to the believer enables him to
take, not only de facto but de jure, the life of Christ recorded in
the gospels as a real historical life.'"" "The gospels have every
quality which they need, to put us in contact with the gospel ; they
do put us in contact 'with it, and the Spirit makes it sure to our
" Ibid, p. 305.
'" Studies in Theology, p. 207.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OP HOLY SCRIPTURE 17
faith ; why should we ask more from them. ' '" Secure in this posi
tion of faith 'with its sufficient implication of historical verity Pro
fessor Denney allows the largest freedom to Christian men in criti
cal details of the evangelistic record. "Though in any number of
cases of this kind the gospels should be proved in error, the gospel
is untouched. "^^
Having thus established himself in the gospel Professor Denney
proceeds to base the authority of all Scripture, the Old Testament
and the apostolic interpretation upon the authority of Jesus and
the Spirit's testimony in the heart of the believer. How far this
authenticates the Old Testament as a whole either in its doctrines
or in its historical accounts will appear from the following citations.
"Jesus used the Scriptures of the Old Testament 
as a means of fellowship with his Father in Heaven  we
can point to express words of Jesus in which the authority of the
Old Testament is recognized, and even used in argument 'with the
Jews  Sayings like these assure us that Jesus, at all
events, found in the Scriptures a true revelation of God ; as he read,
the Father spoke to him  If it is too much to say that
His coming and His work are clearly predicted in them, it is not
too much to say that they are clearly pre-figured  In
other words, the Old Testament is vitally and not only casually and
chronologically connected 'with the New  the early
Christians used it without embarrassment as a Christian book.
When they quote from it they always quote in a Christian sense. . .
. . . It is possible to err in detail, if we read the Old Testament
in this way; it may even be possible to err in every detail and yet
not err on the whole. For it is the same Word of God which be
came incarnate in Jesus that speaks to the heart in the ancient
Scriptures. "^^ (Italics mine)
This extensive quotation is given in order to bring out strongly
the contrast between the doctrine of Denney and that of Orr.
According to the latter the revelation of the Old Testament (and
the New as well) is contained primarily in the history, and to mis
understand or falsify the history is to miss the revelation. What
else can be understood from a passage like the following.
'^ Ibid, p. 208.
•=Ibid, p. 209.
« Ibid, pp. 209-211.

18 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
"It was really in the prophet's message to his own times tha,t the
essence of his prophecy lay. The prophet was, in the first instance,
a messenger to his own age and people; the message he brought
was one called forth by the needs of his age, and in form and sub
stance was adapted to those needs. It does not follow, because of
this, that it was a message only for his own time and did not embody
a revelation of God of universal import, fitted to take its place in the
general organism of revelation  The chief thing to be
observed at present is the intimate relation which prophecy always
sustains to the historical conditions out of which it springs. The
historical setting can never be ignored, if prophecy is to be under
stood." (italics mine)^* To be consistent with his whole position it
would seem that Professor Orr must maintain the necessity of the
prophet himself correctly apprehending the historical situation, and
also of the one who reads the prophetic message correctly grasp
ing its meaning in relation to the historical setting. Otherwise the
essence of the revelation will be missed.
Now, if, as Denney says, it is possible to err in every detail of the
historical understanding of the Old Testament while reading it in a
Christian sense, and yet not err on the whole, then that intimate
association of revelation with history, which Professor Orr main
tains, simply does not exist. It is not upon such a basis that the
latter could undertake to defend the reality of revelation and in
spiration in the Old Testament.
.The extent to which the authority of Jesus and the witness of the
Spirit authenticates the historicity of miraculous details in the Old
Testament Denney indicates as follows :
"The witness of the Spirit, by and -with the word in the soul,
does not guarantee the historicity of miraculous details, but it does
guarantee the presence of a supernatural element in the history re
corded. It bars out a criticism which denies the supernatural on
principle, and refuses to recognize a unique work of God as in
process along this line."^^
With this reservation our theologian allows to Criticism full
freedom and rejoices in its achievements, especially in the field of
prophecy. Indeed, he carefully refrains from defining the super-
" Revelation and Inspiration, p. 93.
™ Studies in Theology, p. 313.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 19
natural element whose presence in the Old Testament history he
alleges to be guaranteed by the witness of the Spirit. As regards the
narratives of the Old Testament also, he makes admissions that up
on Orr's theory must be considered extremely damaging. For ex
ample, he affirms that the stories of beginnings in the early chapters
of "Genesis are pure myths resting upon no basis of record or of
tradition.^^ Professor Orr, upon the contrary, maintains that these
stories while containing elements of poetry and symbolism never
theless rest upon a sound tradition of actual transactions, and are,
therefore, to be distinguished rigidly from "myth" which is a pure
creation of the imagination." It becomes apparent what a jealous
mistress Professor Orr's theory of historical revelation can be when
coupled with the traditional theological scheme.
As touching the authority of the apostolic doctrinal interpre
tation of the facts of Christ, Denney is, indeed, somewhat more
concerned. As a New Testament theologian he is zealous for the
value of the New Testament as a theological standard. He feels it
necessary, not so much in his later as in his earlier writings, to
maintain a strict doctrinal unity or harmony between (a) the
teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels and the interpretation of
the apostolic writings, and (b) the several interpretations of the
various New Testament books or groups of books. It has been
noted, and attention has been called to the fact that Professor Den
ney's theologizing in his earlier books, was largely in forgetfulness
of his doctrine of Scripture, laid down in the Ninth Lecture of his
Studies in Theology. How far this is true, and the difference that
appears in his later volumes we will have occasion to point out in
the succeeding chapter. Here it is sufficient to remark that Denney
employs the usual arguments to gain a certain a priori credit for the
apostolic theology. "The Holy Spirit was given to enable the
apostles to interpret the revelation contained in the life, death and
exaltation of Jesus. ' ' The apostles were conscious that their gospel,
"with the expiatory significance of the death of Christ, as its central
doctrine was not taught them by man. Such considerations are
urged in addition to the argument from the internal testimony of
the Spirit, as reasons why the apostolic form of thought should be
accorded special honor and authority.
'"Studies in Theology, p. 318.
^ Revelation and Inspiration, p. 166. So Hodge, and Curtis.

20 THE NORMATIVE USE OP SCRIPTURE
It is believed by the writer that the views of the five theologians
whose positions we have been expounding and comparing, repre
sent all the important aspects of orthodox opinion upon the subject
under consideration. Different shades and combinations of the
same views appear, but no significant additions. Professor Olin
Curtis, for example, presents a peculiar combination of the positions
of Orr and Denney. He grounds the authority of the Bible upon its
character as a moral dynamic, which eha,racter it has by virtue of its
relation to Jesus Christ, and the divine redemptive plan that cul
minates in Him and His work. This plan is intimately involved
with the whole course of the history recorded in the Old Testament,
and receives its complete interpretation at the hands of the apostles
from the point of view of a finished work — accomplished by Jesus in
his death. With Orr, therefore, Curtis feels the necessity of main
taining the historical and scientific character of whatever details
affect the redemptive plan, e. g., the Creation and Fall stories. He
speaks of the Bible as "a redemptional organism of fact and doc
trine." Manifestly in his doctrine of Scripture he is more nearly
allied with the position of Orr, but, as we shall see, he is theo
logically in much closer accord with Denney — a fact which is not
without significance in relation to our main inquiry.
We may now pass to the consideration of the various "yiews
of Inspiration that accompany the conception of Revelation and the
relation of Scripture thereto. Doctrines of Inspiration appear
historically to be, in part, reflexes of the prior and more funda
mental doctrine of supernatural revelation ; in part, instruments to
serve polemic need; and, in part, the pure results of traditional
theological obligation. The logical priority and superiority of the
doctrine of revelation, as also the secondary, formal character of
that of Inspiration is nowhere more forcefully stated than by the
late Professor C. M. Mead, who was himself so stanch and able a
defender of Orthodox positions in general. ' ' There would be no oc
casion for asserting and no ground for believing, that the biblical
writers were divinely inspired, unless there were antecedently an
assumption that it was a divine revelation which they were es
pecially commissioned to describe. The writers are believed to have
been inspired, because there is believed to have been an all im
portant revelation which needed to be carefully recorded. ' ' '' Ae-
" Supernatural Revelation, p. 381.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OP HOLT SCRIPTURE 21
cordingly, as is the revelation so must the inspiration be. But, a
doctrine of revelation may be the result of reflection upon religious
experience, or it may be determined by an objective study of the
historical phenomena as recorded in the literature of a given re
ligious movement. As we have pointed out, the post-Reformation
doctrine of Inspiration was developed under the stress of polemic
needs. The Protestant theologians were confronted by an ecclesi
astical institution possessing a system of doctrinal truth scholas-
tically formulated and defended, and claiming absolute authority
for its teaching function. This institution and its claims could be
opposed only by the erection of Scripture into an infallible
authority, and by the imputation to it of the same doctrinal reve
lation character as that of the church system. Since revelation was
scholastieally conceived, and since the Bible was identified with it,
every part of the Bible had to be guaranteed a place in the system.
To afford this guarantee was the function of the fully developed
verbal or plenary theories of Inspiration. Thus it will be seen that
this doctrine of Inspiration was attached to the Christian religion
in quite a superficial and adventitious way. It never obtained any
definite and emphatic expression in the greater Symbols of the
Church, and was, therefore destined to pass away with the arrival
of new conditions. The conditions that did develope are these:
(a) The battle between Protestantism and Catholicism wore itself
out, and Protestant theology ceased to be determined mainly or
directly by the exigencies of anti-Roman polemic, (b) The endless
controversies between the divided camps of Protestantism caused the
most honest and competent minds to question the validity of the doc
trine of Scripture acknowledged by all, seeing that, in fact, it did not
yield the result it was alleged to promise. It did not yield that one
clear and indisputable system of doctrinal truth that an assumed di
vine revelation recorded in a fully inspired Bible ought necessarily
to convey to the human mind. (3) The application of scientific, liter
ary, and historical method to the study of Scripture made it pos
sible and necessary, for the first time, to determine the doctrine of
Scripture, and therewith the doctrine of revelation, by an induction
of the objective facts of Scripture itself. This, it is, that most of
all dissolved the fictitious literary theory that was built up to
answer an apologetic need, with no scientific consciousness of the
actual phenomena of the literature upon which it was imposed.

22 THE NORMATIVE USE OP SCRIPTURE
Hence the need now felt of distinguishing between Revelation and
its record, and of finding a more modest function for Inspiration m
proportion to the altered conception of revelation itself. Manifestly,
in so far as any given theologian is consistent with himself, his theory
of inspiration may be graded with reference to the distance he has
traveled away from the scholastic theory of revelation under the de
mands of which the extreme high theory of inspiration was formed.
But, inasmuch as theologians are human, we will find them yielding
to other considerations than those of strict logical consistency. They
have a theological heritage, an ecclesiastical constituency, and there
are present day apologetic needs. We have seen how the
theologians of the school under consideration stand upon the
question of Revelation and the general doctrine of Scripture author
ity. We may now conclude this chapter with a brief conspectus of
their views upon the more special doctrine of Inspiration.
Doctor Charles Hodge, as a dogmatician standing frankly upon
the Westminster Confession, felt no obligation to ground the Chris
tian revelation upon considerations external to the authority of
Scripture itself as the fully inspired document of revelatiotQ.
According to his view it is their inspiration that constitutes the
Scriptures the "Word of God," and imparts to them their exclusive
and infallible authority as source and norm of theology. ^^ Never
theless he distinguishes between Revelation and Inspiration, places
the former logically before the latter and states succinctly the lines
upon which the revelation in the Bible might be proved independ
ently of the doctrine of inspiration. His suggestions at this point
are those that have since been developed in extenso by such ymters,
e. g., as Orr. (a) The organic unity of the Scriptures proves them
to be the product of one mind, which can be no other than the mind
of God. (b) The adaptation to our souls of the truths revealed in
the Bible, induces us to receive them and the Bible that contains
them, as true, hence as divine, and therefore a supernatural
revelation plenarily inspired, (c) Supremely we receive the
doctrine upon the authority of Jesus. "We believe the Scriptures
because Christ declares them to be the Word of God. " *" As
regards the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration Doctor
Hodge and his successors of the Princeton school are in close
»» Systematic Theol., Vol. I, p. 153.
"Ibid, pp. 166-168.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 23
agreement. Revelation and Inspiration differ both as to their
objects and effects. By the former, knowledge is communicated
to the human mind; by the latter infallibility in teaching is
secured.*^ Professors A. A. Hodge and Warfield, indeed, feel
the need of divorcing more decisively the religious and apologetic
interest in the reality of a divine revelation in Scripture,
and the theologico-dogmatie interest in the doctrine of inspiration.
They urge that the truth of Christianity does not depend upon any
theory of inspiration, and that revelation came, in large part, before
its record. Nevertheless they hold as firmly as Doctor Charles Hodge
to the theory of a plenarily inspired Bible as fundamental to inter
pretation and hence to the scientific theological use of Scripture.
"Very many religious and historical truths must be established
before we come to the question of inspiration ; as, for instance, the
being and moral government of God, the fallen condition of man,
the fact of a redemptive scheme, the general historical truth of the
Scriptures, and the validity and authority of the revelation of
God's will, which they contain — i. e., the general truth of Christian
ity and its doctrines. Hence it follows that while the inspiration of
the Scriptures is true, and being true is a principle fundamental to
the adequate interpretation of Scripture, it is, nevertheless, in the
first instance, not a principle fundamental to the truth of the
Christian religion. ' ' ^^
It is not to be supposed that our theologians would expect to
establish the "general truth of Christianity and its doctrines" with
out using the Scriptures. But, as such use, independent of the
doctrine of Inspiration could not include the adequate interpreta
tion of them, we are entitled to infer to a distinction between the
use of Scripture for apologetic purposes, and its use for theological
construction in the scientific sense. What this quality or value is,
which inspiration imparts to Scripture, for those who hold to inspi
ration is suggested in the following passage. Arguing against those
who restrict inspiration to the divine element in the revelation, and
who maintain that the sacred writers were left to their own human
resources in the thinking out, narration, exposition, and record
of the divine truth, these theologians say— "This view gives up the
" Ibid, pp. 155, 156. Cf. also Hodge and Warfield, Presb. Review, 1881,
p. 325 ff.
*• Presbyterian Review, April 1881, pp. 226, 227.

24 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
whole matter of the immediate divine authorship of the Bible as the
Word of God, and its infallibility and authority as a rule of faith
and practice. We have only the several versions of God s revela
tions, as rendered mentally and verbally more or less accurately and
adequately, yet always imperfectly by the different sacred writ
ers. ' '*^ Evidently these writers are laboring to secure for Scripture
an external authority which shall serve the purpose of dogmatics
in a way and to a degree that the authority based upon their purely
moral and religious appeal cannot do. They express the heart of
the matter when they say — "If the new views are untrue, they
threaten, not only to shake the confidence of men in the Scriptures,
but the very Scriptures themselves as an objective ground of
faith. ' ' ** We may pass over the curious dilemma suggested by this
language. It would have been embarrassing to say that true "views
would shake the confidence of men in the Scriptures, or the Scrip
tures themselves, nor does it seem complimentary either to men or
Scriptures to intimate that such results would follow from untrue
views. The meat of the matter lies in the expression — "the very
Scriptures themselves as an objective ground of faith." "It would
assuredly appear that as no organism can be stronger than its
weakest part, that if error be found in any one element or in any
class of statements, certainty as to any portion could rise no higher
than belongs to that exercise of human reason to which it will be left
to discriminate the infallible from the fallible. ' ' *^
In the theology of President A. H. Strong we may note important
abatements of the high theory of inspiration held by the Princeton
school and expressed by himself in earlier editions of his Systematic
Theology. "Inspiration," he now says, "is that infiuence of the
Spirit of God upon the minds of the Scripture writers which made
their writings the record of a progressive di'vine revelation sufficient
when taken together and interpreted by the same Spirit who in-
« Ibid, p. 232. Cf. also A. H. Strong, Syst. Theol., I, 41. In this passage
President Strong registers his dissent from the principle of modern Biblical
Theology upon precisely tlie grounds stated above.
" Ibid, pp. 241, 312. In the position here stated we find the ground of
Professor Warfield's criticism of Denney's "Atonement and the Modem Mind."
He charges Denney with Rationalism upon the ground that the latter does not
recognize the external or "bare" authority of Scripture. See Princeton Theol.
Review, Oct., 1904.
« Ibid, p. 343.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTEINE OF HOLT SCEIPTURE 25
spired them to lead every honest inquirer to Christ and to sal
vation. "**
Here, too, we see, as in the case of Hodge and Warfield, that the
doctrine of inspiration is conceived as the means of securing the
organic unity of the Scriptures as the one authoritative document of
revelation. At this point, however, so far as President Strong's
definition is concerned, the parallel ceases. Whereas the Princeton
theologians hold a doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of
Scripture as the rule of faith and practice. President Strong is con
tent 'with a doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture for the religious pur
pose of leading men to Christ and to salvation. ' ' Inspiration did not
guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to the main purpose of
Scripture."*' Nevertheless, he has a strong theological interest in
the doctrine of Inspiration. The Scriptures are sufficient, even for
their religious purpose, only when taken together. What this ' ' to
getherness" of Scripture is appears in the following: "Yet notwith
standing the ever present human element, the all pervading inspira
tion of the Scriptures constitutes these various writings an organic
whole. Since the Bible is in all its parts the work of God, each part
is to be judged not by itself alone, but in its connection with every
other part. The Scriptures are not to be interpreted as so many mere
ly human productions by different authors, but as also the work of
one di'vine mind. Seemingly trivial things are to be explained from
their connection with the whole. One history is to be built up from
the several accounts of the life of Christ. One doctrine must supple
ment another. ' ' *^ While, therefore, President Strong would not go
the full length of the "inerrancy theory" *^ he does regard the doc
trine of Inspiration as fundamental to theological procedure since it
guarantees the organic unity of Scripture. It is upon this basis
that he rejects modem Biblical Theology in its approach to the
literary units of the Bible without any presupposition of their
unity.^" He places the discussion of Inspiration in the forefront of
his Theology proper, and in stating the method of determining the
divine attributes he says, "Now that we have proved the Scriptures
« Syst. Theol., Vol. I, p. 196.
" Ibid, p. 315.
"Syst. Theol., I, 217.
" Ibid, pp. 218, 329.
« Ibid, 41.

26 THE NORMATIVE USB OP SCEIPTURE
to be a revelation from God, inspired in every part, we may proper
ly look to them as decisive authority with regard to God's at
tributes."" Professor Orr's treatment, while seeking to preserve a place for
inspiration, certainly diminishes materially its importance as a theo
logical presupposition. All his emphasis is placed upon Revelation
as the conception with material content. But while revelation in the
order of inquiry, precedes inspiration yet, "over a large area in the
fact itself (What the 'fact itself is, Orr does not clearly state)
revelation and inspiration are closely and inseparably united. In
ternal revelation, e. g., such as we have in prophecy, or in the
'revelation of Jesus Christ,' claimed for himself by Paul, is not
conceivable save as accompanied by an inspired state of soul. In
spiration is involved in the very reception of such a revelation ; is a
necessary condition of the revelation being apprehended, possessed,
and communicated to others. In the very acknowledgement, there
fore, of revelation as an element pervading the Bible and gi'ving
unity to its parts, there is implied an acknowledgement of inspi
ration. Just as, on the other side, there can be no degree of inspi
ration, however humble, which does not imply some measure of
revelation. " °^ In this passage Professor Orr seems to perform a
curious feat of legerdemain. From the "large area" over which he
says, revelation and inspiration are closely united, he passes like
lightning to the whole area of the biblical revelation. The "large
area" is constituted by what he calls internal revelation. Forgetting
this restriction he applies the idea of inspiration gained from it to
the whole extent of revelation "pervading the Bible and giving uni
ty to its parts" without taking account of that revelation which is
not internal. This is a non sequitur, and Doctor Orr builds upon
sandy foundations when he goes on to say that "Revelation and In
spiration thus go together, and conjointly give to the written word
a quality which distinguishes it from any product of ordinary hu
man wisdom."^' What this quality is which revelation and inspi
ration conjointly give to the written word, may be inferred from
Orr's interpretation of 2Tim. 3 :16, namely, that Inspiration confers
upon Scripture the property of being profitable for teaching etc.
¦" Ibid, 247.
"^ Revelation and Inspiration, 199, 200.
•^ Ibid, p. 200.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OP HOLT SCRIPTURE 27
etc.=* But it is difficult to see upon Professor Orr's presentation
of the doctrine of Revelation, what room there is for a doctrine of
Inspiration with such content as to affect the form or substance
of the record. "Inspiration cannot transcend the existing stage
of Revelation; it exists in different degrees according to the
nature or character of the person who is its subject; it cannot
go behind or supplement or correct its sources of information. "==
Accordingly, Professor Orr is unable to subscribe to the "in
errancy theory" as held by Hodge and Warfield. He does not
favor us with an explicit definition of the inspiration of Scrip
ture but leaves us to infer one from a statement of the result
in the following characteristic form. "The Bible, impartially
interpreted and judged, is free from demonstrable error in its
statements, and harmonious in its teachings, to a degree that
of itself creates an irresistible impression of a supernatural factor in
its origin. "=« We must conclude from Professor Orr's whole dis
cussion that the doctrine of inspiration is not one that can have any
appreciable effect upon his use of the Scriptures in theology. For
this his conception of Revelation is regulative, and revelation is
grounded upon the logical and teleological character of the ideas and
the history in their mutual involution. Logical consistency and teleo
logical reference are held to guarantee historical reality and sub
stantial accuracy, and the history is primarily the revelation.
With Professor Denney we reach the minimum of emphasis upon
the inspiration of Scripture as a theological doctrine. The inspi
ration of the Bible is held to be its power of moral and spiritual ap
peal. This power is again identified with the fundamental unity of
the Bible which is apprehended only in the light of the doctrine
constituting the focal point and religious substance of the whole
Christian revelation, namely, the doctrine of Atonement. Thus the
doctrine of Inspiration is merely the explanation of the exceptional
value which Christian experience flnds to attach to the central
Christian truth.^'
Clearly, nothing in Denney's theology depends upon the doc
trine of Inspiration. All the substantial realities and values are
"Ibid, p. 161.
== Ibid, pp. 175-181.
" Revelation and Inspiration, p. 215.
¦"Death of Christ, pp. 314-317.

28 THE NORMATI'VE USE OP SCRIPTURE
found by and through experience, and the lines of theological con
struction are determined prior to any verdict upon Scripture either
as an organic unity or as inspired. Indeed, the discovery of the
organic unity is a prerequisite to the verdict of inspiration.
Professor Olin Curtis who is so closely akin to Denney in his con
ception of the dogmatic center of the Bible, but who, on the other
hand agrees so strikingly with Orr in regarding revelation as
primarily a continuous, coherent historical redemptive process,
carefully distinguishes between the question of the authority of the
Bible and that of its inspiration. The former is grounded in the
cogency of its moral and spiritual appeal to men, while the latter is
simply the explanation of the power and peculiarity of the book
which actually is authority.^^
That in which all three of these theologians agree, is the fact
that any "view of inspiration is to be derived from the prior notion of
revelation itself self -attesting. The doctrine of inspiration is purely
formal and derivative. It can lay no claim to govern theological
procedure, and can contribute nothing to theological content. We
are reminded how far orthodox theology has traveled when we com
pare the positions of Orr, Curtis and Denney with that expressed by
Doctor Charles Hodge where he says, "The Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments are the Word of God, written under the inspi
ration of the Holy Spirit, and are, therefore, infallible, and of divine
authority in all things pertaining to faith and practice, and conse
quently free from all error whether of doctrine, fact, or precept. ' ' *"
"* Death of Christ, p. 314.
"The Christian Faith, pp. 171-176.
'" Systematic Theol., I, 153.

CHAPTER III
THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
We have seen in the preceding chapter that all the theologians
of our school maintain in some sort a unity of the Scripture whole.
To some this unity consists primarily in a system of truth revealed
as such by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To
others the unity is found primarily in a connected series of redemp
tive acts of God through a long historical process and in pursuance
of an eternal purpose.
In all periods it has been true that the theological use of the
Scriptures has been, determined by the views held respecting Scrip
ture itself. That is to say the doctrine of Scripture, has determined
the doctrine found in Scripture. The exegetical process has been
controlled by religious and theological presuppositions under which
the Scriptures have been approached.^ It is immediately evident
that this fact would not be one to lament, if only there could be ap
proximate certainty that the presuppositions were themselves in ac
cord with fact and truth. But if such is not the case, then interpre
tation and theological construction will be only exercises in error.
We are to inquire, in the present chapter, what influence their doc
trine of Scripture has had upon the interpretation and theological
architecture of our several theologians. We are to test the worth of
their doctrine by the character of the results we see flo-wing from its
application to the biblical material. In so doing we may follow, in
general, the same order of investigation as hitherto, in this treatise.
Beginning, then, with the theology of Doctor Charles Hodge, we
would first remark that one who proposes to make the Bible the ex
clusive source and norm of his theological system is under primary
obligation to derive his doctrine of Scripture from the Scriptures
themselves. If he dictates a doctrine of Scripture to the Bible and
then interprets it in accord with the doctrine, he is according to the
Bible no real authority, but is imposing upon it his own. Let us
note, then, to what extent Doctor Hodge's doctrine of Scripture is
Scriptural. First of all he begins with an analogy between nature
and the Bible as the repositories of the facts with which Science and
Theology respectively deal. Certainly there is nowhere in Scripture
^ Cf. Immer.^ — Hermeneutics, p. 11.

30 THE NORMATI'VE USE OF SCRIPTURE
any statement warranting such an analogy, while upon grounds or
fact and logic no such illustration can hold. In nature the facts are
such as can be repeatedly observed and experimentally verified m
a total context of unquestionable relationships. But in the Scrip
tures we have only a fragmentary collection of literary documents
diverse in character, reporting human experiences, and ideas under
particular local and temporary conditions that can never be re
stored. Here the method of observation and experiment is out of
the question. Only the theological presupposition that the Bible
is the document of a static, unchanging revelation of doctrinal
truth, permits the use of such an analogy. Moreover, to maintain
the analogy with any degree of strictness it would be necessary to
suppose in natural science an unchanging nucleus of scientific doc
trine so extensive and authoritative as to control the interpretation
of all the facts subsequently discovered. We know that Science
has in her history absolutely changed front, and to maintain his
analogy Doctor Hodge would have to admit the possibility of theol
ogy doing likewise, which of course he would not do. He has said
that, ' ' The Bible is no more a system of theology than nature is a
system of Chemistry or Mechanics. " ^ Is it not e"yident, upon the
contrary, that in giving us ' ' portions of a system, ' ' ^ sufficiently
clear and complete to serve as a guide and authority in further
construction, the Bible gives us the practical equivalent of a whole
system ?
We notice next the manner in which our theologian seeks to
ground the authority of Scripture in the teaching of Scripture
itself. The authority and infallibility of the Scriptures are in
volved in its character as the Word of God, and it has this charac
ter by virtue of its inspiration in such sense that what the biblical
writers say, God says.* The nature and extent of the inspiration
of Scripture he, indeed, asserts are to be learned from the didactic
statements and phenomena of the Scriptures themselves,* but,
whereas all these statements and phenomena have reference to par
ticular men speaking upon specific occasions, or to limited portions
of the Scripture whole, they are applied to the writing of the entire
" Syst. Theol., I, p. 1.
» Ibid, p. 3.
^Syst. Theol., I, pp. 153, 154.
"Ibid, p. 153.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLT SCRIPTURE 31
literature. This would be impossible were not the assumption of
unity contained in the phrase "Word of God" always present in the
theologian's mind. Manifestly the presupposition of any doctrine
of the inspiration of Scripture as a whole professed to be derived
from the statements and phenomena of Scripture, is always just the
conception of the Bible as an organic unity of revelation in such
sense as to constitute it "The Word of God." Without this pre
supposition no careful and unbiased examination of the actual facts
would yield such doctrine of inspiration of the Scripture whole.
In no passage of the Bible is the Bible as a whole designated in any
way. In no Old Testament passage is there a reference to the Old
Testament whole, since this whole did not exist even when its latest
documents were written. The New Testament, indeed, refers to the
whole Old Testament literature in various ways, e. g., the Scrip
tures, the Holy Scriptures, the Sacred Writings, but they are not
called the "Word of God" or any other title justifying the dogma
contained in that formula. Professor Orr is in error when he says
that "Paul names them (the Old Testament Writings) 'the oracles
of God. ' ' '" This phrase refers to the Law and not the entire body
of Old Testament writings. The question of the New Testament ca
non, without the determination of which our author's whole position
would be meaningless, does not once come within the purview of
Scripture. He is compelled to establish the authority of the Old
Testament canon by the utterances of the New, and then by a
process of inference to establish that of the New.' The argument
is plainly circular and invalid. It runs as follows : Jesus and His
apostles recognized the Je"wish canon and quoted from the Old
Testament writings as of full divine authority. But if the in
spiration and authority of the Old Testament are recognized, upon
the authority of Jesus and the apostles much more should those of
the New be recognized, since they were produced under the dis
pensation of the Spirit. Jesus promised the apostles the Holy
Spirit who should ' ' bring all things to their remembrance and ren
der them infallible in teaching. " This promise was fulfilled on the
day of Pentecost, from which time they ' ' were new men, with new
views, "with new spirit, and with new power and authority" 
Their Jeydsh prejudices had resisted all the instructions and in-
"Rom. 3:2.
'Cf. admission by Mead, Sup. Rev., p. 304.

32 THE NORMATIVE USB OP SCRIPTURE
fiuence of Christ for three years, but gave way in a moment when
the Spirit came upon them from on high.« After this the apostles
"claimed to be the infallible organs of God in all their teachings
 " Of all these statements and interpretations it is to be
said that if they were true to fact, still they would not reach to the
intended goal of the argument, for the simple reason that statements
made primarily -with reference to the oral proclamation of religious
messages, or to definite and limited written productions cannot be
applied to a whole literature or even to documents not embraced by
the immediate reference.®
It mq,y be added here that in accordance "with the criterion our
author applies to the determination of the New Testament canon,
we should have to eliminate several of the books now included there
in. The evidence for apostolic authorship or sanction would in
several cases be extra-biblical and quite inconclusive.^"
The foregoing remarks wiU apply to the maimer in which Profes
sors Hodge, Warfield, Orr and President Strong use the Scriptures
in building up their doctrine of Scripture, so that we need not
review them in severalty.
As for the manner in which these theologians adduce the testi
mony of Jesus to support the strict view of the unitary character
and indefectible authority of the Old Testament whereby it "is con
stituted in every passage and declaration the final arbiter of belief
and practice, ' ' ^^ one cannot feel that account has been taken of
all the facts. Even Professor Orr, in spite of many qualifications and
concessions can range Jesus upon the side of the strict Rabbinical
party as regards the nice questions concerning the canon, and the
mint, anise and cummin of scribal legalism.^^ Jesus' attitude
toward the Law is not nearly so easy to determine as these writers
assume. The case is much more justly stated by a sympathetic and
fair-minded Jewish scholar in a recent volume. "He (Jesus) had
»Syst. Theol., I, 160 f.
° This is illustrated in all the passages cited by Hodge, pp. 157-162. Lilre-
wise those used by Orr, Op. cit., pp. 193-194.
" The results that appear from a careful induction of Scripture claims re
garding its own inspiration are set forth by Professor G. B. Smith in the Bib.
World, Vol 36, pp. 160ff.
" Warfield, Diet, of Christ and the Gospels, Vol. ii, p. 586, Col. 2.
'^ Revelation and Insp., pp. 181, 184, 182.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLT SCRIPTURE 33
adopted a prophetic attitude toward the Law. The inward rather
than the outward ; love rather than sacrifice ; this was his position.
Whether he had formulated any more theoretic point of view may
well be doubted. Thus we find in the gospels exaggerations of both
kinds. 'Not one jot or tittle shall ever pass away till aU is fulfilled. '
On the other hand we find the conception that at least one Mosaic
ordinance was given to the Israelites because of the hardness of their
hearts. We find a theory announced that Jesus came to complete
the Law, not to destroy it, but this completion in regard to such an
important element of the Law as the dietary injunctions comes upon
occasion to something not remotely resembling abrogation. Here
in each case the question as to historical accuracy needs careful
weighing. Have the reporters exaggerated the hostility of Jesus to
the Law, have they exaggerated his esteem for it? Have they,
rather than he, formulated his theoretic attitude toward it ? " ^^
Professor Orr tries to surmount this apparent conflict between
Jesus' endorsement and his criticism of the Law by the theory of a
progressive revelation or germinal development. "He fulfilled, but
in fulfilling, necessarily superseded and abolished much in the legal
economy. The precepts of the law received a deeper and fuller
interpretation and expression, in agreement always, however, with
the law's own underlying principles. ' ' " But how are we to regard
the supersession and abolition of legal precepts as deeper and fuller
interpretations of them?^^
We come now to the examination of the doctrinal content of the
several systems under consideration. Here, of course, the limits of
this inquiry forbid exhaustive treatment. At best we can hope only
to present such instances of the theological use of Scripture as
shall be conclusive for the prevailing attitude of these theologians.
We shall select what seem to be dominant theological interests and
note how these are derived from^ or supported by the Scriptures,
if indeed, they are so derived and supported. Otherwise we should
be able to see their real sources and sanctions.
'''C. G. Montefiore, Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, p. xcii.
" Revelation and Inspiration, p. 184.
^ Cf. Mead, Supernatural Revelation, p. 344. "The Mosaic law was in some
particulars, not merely defective in the sense of being germinal or prophetic,
but defective in the sense of requiring amendment or abolition."

34 THE NORMATIVE USE OP SCRIPTURE
At the beginning of his treatment of the doctrine of God, Doctor
Charles Hodge places the famous Westminster definition as ex
pressing the ' ' Christian sense ' ' of the word God. " God is a Spirit,
infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holi
ness, justice and truth." The definition states the class of beings
to which God is to be referred, and by being is meant substance or
essence. God is, therefore, in his nature a substance, or essence
which is infinite, eternal, etc. Following his first rule of interpre-
tation^^' namely, that words are to be understood in their historical
sense, our author proposes to discover the usus loquendi of the
Hebrew and Greek words translated by the word "Spirit." Thus
we will learn, he thinks, what our Lord meant when he said ' ' God is
a Spirit." This rather large inquiry in biblical lexicography he
dismisses in three lines as follows — "Originally the words n-1"l ^^d
xvsu|Aa meant the moving air, especially the breath, as in the phrase
iiveu|xa ^lou; then any invisible power; then the human soul. In
saying, therefore, that God is a Spirit, our Lord authorizes us to
believe that whatever is essential to the idea of a Spirit, as learned
from our O'wn consciousness, is to be referred to God as determin
ing his nature." Accordingly, our theologian proceeds to set forth
the content of human self-consciousness in the introspective manner
of the psychology of his day. This content he then imports into the
idea of God and defines Him as a simple, immaterial essence, or
substance, personal and moral. He concludes with the naive re
mark, "It need hardly be said that the Scriptures everywhere
represent God as possessing aU the above attributes of a Spirit."^'
Note, now, what Doctor Hodge has actually done. (1) He has ig
nored the fact that the meaning of the words translated "Spirit"
has varied in different periods, and that as applied to both God and
man they have expressed varying shades of meaning. His first
rule of interpretation should have bound him to a careful exami
nation of the words in the usage of the great periods of biblical
history and literature. "The sacred writings being the words of
God to man, we are bound to take them in the sense in which those to
whom they were originally addressed must inevitably have taken
them. " ^'^ Under this principle our author was not at liberty to take
some special meaning of a biblical word and then to read that
"Op. cit., I, p. 187; also p. 377.
" Syst. Theol., I, 377.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLT SCRIPTURE 35
meaning into all instances of its use as applied to God. (2) Doctor
Hodge has availed himself of the presence of the indefinite article
(which of course is not in the original) to give John 4 :24 an indi
vidual, psychological turn which was not in the mind of the "writer.
The argument lies, in Doctor Hodge's mind as follows. Man is a Spi
rit, God is a Spirit. Hence a psychological analysis of an individual
human consciousness will yield a knowledge of the essential nature
of God. But this was not the circle of ideas in which the mind of the
writer of the Fourth Gospel moved. His thought is a composite of
Old Testament, or Hebraic ideas, and of Greek speculation.^^ But
neither his Old Testament ideas, nor his Greek speculative concepts
would admit the psychological content Doctor Hodge imports into
the word mtu[i.<x as used in this passage. Both God and man are said
to have a spirit, but there is no philosophical doctrine of the essential
being of God as Spirit, in the Old Testament, at least.^® According
ly, Doctor Hodge's use of this text involves a threefold perversity.
(a) He misses the writer's meaning, (b) He developes this inac
curate psychological interpretation into a metaphysical conception
and (c) he reads this metaphysical conception into the purely
ethical and practical theism of that most unmetaphysical literature
— the Old Testament. Summarizing what has been said, Doctor
Hodge in this particular case (a) has violated his whole doctrine of
Scripture as the sole source of the facts with which theology must
deal, by introducing materials from Eighteenth century psychology,
and Medieval philosophy; (b) he has been untrue to his inductive
method, and (c) has violated his first rule of interpretation. He has
done these things because he starts out with a certain philosophical
view of the nature of God which he is obligated to hold as the true
and Christian view ; and because he holds the Old Protestant view of
the Bible as the "Word of God," and, therefore as expressing an
organic unity of revelation. It must, in all its parts, present the
same conception of the divine nature.
The- foregoing illustrates Doctor Hodge's practice throughout,
and there is scarcely a division in his theology in which a similar
showing might not be made. When he has established his doctrine of
the nature of God by the psychological method, of course he must de-
^«Cf. E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, Its Purpose and Theology, p. 334.
"See A. B. Davidson, Hast. Bib. Diet., Vol. II, p. 197; Schultz, O. T.
Theology, Vol. II, p. 111.

36 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
termine His attributes by the same method, and this he actually does.
The breadth of his use of Scripture may be illustrated by the fact
that in the development of his Theism he cites eighty-four passages
in proof -text style from twenty-seven books — fifteen Old Testament
books and twelve New Testament books. Of the New Testament
quotations, thirty-two in all, twelve are from Pauline writings, and
a bare half dozen are from the gospels. Of those from the gospels,
four are from Matthew and two from John, as follows. Mat. 10 :30 ;
27 :43 ; 19 :26 ; 20 :15. Jno. 3 :16 ; 4 :24. The first of these, a poetic
expression in the midst of a teaching concerning trust, is used to
support the doctrine of divine omniscience. The second is used to
illustrate a use of the word "will" in the sense of complacency
(delighting in) with a view to maintaining that where the Scrip
ture speaks of willing all men to be saved it does not express pur
pose. The words are not from Jesus but from his persecutors. To
use the text as he does our author would seem to be obligated to
maintain the inspiration of the crucifiers of our Lord. The third
is used to support the doctrine of omnipotence — ' ' God can do what
ever he wills without means and without effort." Mat. 20:15 is
used to illustrate the Sovereignty of God in the Calvinistic sense,
whereas if the whole parable be expounded in its evident intention
it teaches quite the reverse conception of God. Jno. 3 :16 is cited as
proving that the great end of redemption was the manifestation of
God's love, for his own glory. No such meaning can be extracted
from it, unless first put into it.
One must wonder how Doctor Hodge could have regarded this as
a sufficient induction of Scripture facts. It results from his whole
procedure that practically nothing is drawn from the personal
revelation in the teaching and life of Jesus upon the very theme and
central religious reality of Christianity, namely the knowledge of-.
the Father. By his psychological method and in fulfillment of his
confessional obligations Doctor Hodge has displaced and nullified
the testimony of the supreme organ of God's self -disclosure.
It is proposed to examine Warfield's practice chiefly in connec
tion with his present lively interest in Christology. Though he is
an able defender of the Westminster theology as a whole, the final
issues of the theological battle seem to him to be drawn at the point
of the doctrine of Incarnation and specifically that view of the
doctrine represented by the Chalcedonian symbol. Of course he
comes to the defense of the Chalcedonian Christology from that

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLT SCRIPTURE 37
side of the question which, historically has ever been the dominant
concern of the Church, namely the Deity of Christ. A study of his
theological use of Scripture, may, then, be begun by noting the
spirit, method and result of his exegesis in his volume entitled
"The Lord of Glory" (New York 1907). He frankly states at the
outset the doctrinal interest in which he approaches his task.
"We are entering, then," he says, "in part upon an exposition,
in part upon an argument. We ysdsh to learn, so far as the designa
tions applied to our Lord in the New Testament are fitted to reveal
that to us, how the writers of the New Testament were accustomed to
think of Jesus ; we wish to show that they thought of Him above
everything else as a Divine Person  In prosecuting our ex
position we shall seek to run cursorily through the entire New Testa
ment ; in framing our argument we shall lay primary stress on the
Gospels, or rather on the Synoptic Gospels, and adduce the remain
ing books as chiefly corroborative and elucidative to what we shall
find in the evangelical narratives. Thus we hope to take at once a
wide or even complete view of the whole field, and to throw into
prominence the unitary presupposition by the entire New Testwment
of the deity of our Lord" (italics mine)^°
To most students it would seem a somewhat perilous under
taking to carry two such interests — that of the exegete and of the
apologete — in the close connection here indicated, and to require an
extraordinary measure of poise and self-control, not attained by
many, to prevent the apologetic interest from encroaching upon the
expository. Especially would it seem perilous in such a case as the
present one, where the expositor betrays so plainly as does Warfield
in the last sentence quoted, that his final result is in hand before
the process of exposition begins. Still one might prejudge his case
without frankly stating it, and Warfield may be perfectly unbiased
in his exegesis not-withstanding his preconception that the entire
New Testament presupposes the deity of our Lord. Whether he is
so or not will appear upon a critical examination of his procedure as
regards certain critical passages.
We note, first of all, his exposition of Mat. 11 :27==Luke 10 :22,
Mat. 28 :19, and Mk. 13 :32=Mat. 24 :36. Concerning the latter,
Warfield says (1) that Jesus here "asserts for himself not merely a
superhuman but even a superangelic rank in the scale of being",
» The Lord of Glory, pp. 2, 3.

38 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
(2) that "He separates himself from the angels in heaven (note the
enhancing definition of locality, carrying with it the sense of the
exaltation of these angels above all that is earthly) as belonging to
a different class from them, and that a superior class." (3) that
Jesus "the Son" stands as definitely and as incomparably above the
category of angels, the highest of God's creatures, as to the author
of the epistle of the Hebrews, whose argument may be taken as a
commentary upon this pasage (Heb. 1 :4-2:8). Concerning all this
it is to be said (1) that Warfield misses the point of the passage.
Nothing is said about "rank in the scale of being," the subject is
' ' degrees of knowledge. ' ' A difference in degree of knowledge does
not necessarily involve difference in grade of being. ^^ (2) If the
passage establishes the superangelic uncreated being of Jesus, it
also establishes his infra-deistic being. There is as strong an
element of subordination to the father as there is of elevation above
the angels. This however, Warfield would not wish to admit as it
would conflict 'with his Trinitarianism.
Of Mat. 28 :19 our author gives the following exposition. The
Son is "made openly a sharer with the Father (and "with the Holy
Spirit) in the single name of God, " " Jesus here asserts a place for
himself in the precincts of the ineffable Name. Here is a claim
not merely to a deity in some sense equivalent to and, as it were,
alongside of the deity of the Father, but to a deity in some high
sense, one with the deity of the Father" ^^ "The significant point
of this passage is the singular 'Name.' It does not read, 'Into the
Names' as of many but of one,^^ — 'Into the Name' of the Father,
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the
Spirit are therefore in some ineffable sense one, sharers in the
single name. Of course it is what we know as the Christian doctrine
of the Trinity which is suggested here. " ^* It would be impossible,
of course, for any theologian except one holding some such high
theory of verbal inspiration as Warfield does, to lay such emphasis
upon a single point as he places upon the use of the singular
TO ovojAa instead of the plural -za ovojAaTa. But aside from the theory
'^ Upon this text, Weiss. Bib. Theol. of the N. T., p. 39, Vol. I.
"^Op. cit, p. 83.
^•i This sounds like an echo of Gal. 3:16.
" Ibid, p. 95. Similar and even stronger expressions in allusion to this pas
sage may be found pp. 140, 166.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 39
and in the absence of dogmatic demands the text itself does not
yield any such interpretation. Meyer comments as foUo'ws : ' ' The
singular (to ovojxa) points to the specific names assigned in the text
to each of the three respectively, so that stt; to ovo;j.a is, of course,
to be understood both before tou uioiJ and tou «yiou t:vsu[;,«toi; . .
. . . We must beware of making any such dogmatic use of the
singular as to employ it as an argument either for or against the
orthodox doctrine of the Trinity." Jesus "was never kno'wn to
claim the name Osoi^ either for himself or for the Holy Spirit. ' '^^
Warfield's chief reliance, however, for the establishment of the
metaphysical sonship of Jesus, is upon the passages Matt. 11 :27
=Luke 10:22. Here, it is said, "our Lord asserts for himself a re
lation of practical equality with God," "not merely is the son the
exclusive revealer of God, but the mutual knowledge of Father
and Son is put on what seems very much a par. The Son can be
kno'wn only by the Father in all that he is, as if His being were
infinite and as such inscrutable to the finite intelligence; and his
knowledge alone — 'again as if He were infinite in His attributes — is
competent to compass the depths of the Father's being. "^^ In Luke
"it is said, not that the 'Father' and 'Son' know each other but
that each know what the other is, that is to say, all that each is.
It would be difficult to frame a statement which could more sharply
assert the essential deity of the Son. " ^^ " The assertion of the
reciprocal knowledge of the Father and the Son 
rises far above the merely mediatorial function of the Son . . .
. . ; it carries us back into the region of metaphysical re
alities. "^^ " Jesus ' mediatorial function is rooted in a metaphysical
relation in which is suggested no hint of subordination. ' '^^
Here again Warfield's dogmatic bias and his theory of Scripture,
lead him off into verbal and scholastic refinements that have no basis
in the passage considered in its logical sense. A little impartial at
tention will impress the foUoynng points. (1) The present tense
(lxiYiv(i><TX.si) upon which Warfield lays much stress is to be con-
^»Com. on Matthew, Eng. Tr., Vol. II, p. 30.
'«Op. cit., pp. 83, 83.
=" Ibid, p. 119.
^' Ibid, p. 93. To such statements regarding these passages Warfield fre
quently returns throughout his volume.
^»0p. cit., p. 94.

40 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
sidered relatively to the preceding aorist (napsSoOYi). It is only
after the delivering that the knowing is to be assumed. The fact
that all things had to be delivered would bear against the eternal
knowing of the Father by the Son. A distinct element of sub
ordination is present.^** (2) The knowledge of the Father by the
Son which the Son is said to have is such as can be revealed to
others, and cannot therefore be that metaphysical knowledge of the
Father 's essence to which Warfield refers. ' ' All that God is, ' ' with
in his meaning, would be essentially incommunicable to finite
creatures.'*^ (3) The "all things" (itavTa) which our author inter
prets to mean "all that God has," "all that is peculiar to himself"
(Hahn, endorsed by Warfield) is rather to be understood of the
messianic prerogatives of Jesus and of the ethical elements of his
historical disclosure of God — a revelation which was possible even
to finite intelligeneies.^^ Biblical study is rapidly tending toward a
view of these passages which denies their affinity yrith the high
Christology of the Fourth Gospel.^^
We may now refer to a more recent production of Warfield's
pen, namely his series of articles upon "The Two Natures and
Recent Christological Speculation," American Journal of The
ology, Vol. 15. He claims that, while the Suo ousiai may first appear
in extant writings in a fragment of Melito's of Sardis, the "thing"
goes back to the beginning.^* "The doctrine of the 'Two Natures'
is but another way of stating the doctrine of the Incarnation."
"No Two Natures, no Incarnation; no Incarnation, no Christianity
in any distinctive sense. "^^ "The Chalcedonian Christology is only
" Compare Denney, Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 338, 339.
" As Professor Warfield himself suggests, p. 83.
'" So B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 78, text
and footnote. With this interpretation Professor Denney (Jesus and the Gospels,
pp. 236-246) is in essential agreement. The difference between Professors War-
field and Denney may be summed up by means of a parallel. Warfield's
Christology includes the following points: Co-ordination (equality), Identifi
cation (deity). Metaphysical relation. Denny's are: Subordination, Correla
tion (uniqueness, making Jesus religiously determinative), Ethical, and Vital
relation (not denying the metaphysical relationship, but declining to assert it as|
essential or specially helpful.)
"Cf. E. F. Scott: Theology of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 189 ff. Schmiedel,
Das vierte Evangelium, 48 ff.
»" Vide p. 340.
" Ibid, p. 337.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLT SCRIPTURE 41
a very perfect synthesis of the biblical data  It takes
its starting point from the New Testament as a whole, thoroughly
trusted in all its declarations, and seeks to find a comprehensive
statement of the scriptural doctrine of Christ's person which will
do justice to all the elements of its representation."^" This Chalce
donian definition brings together and harmonizes all the biblical
data, proving thus to be the key that "unlocks the treasures of
biblical instruction on the person of Christ as none other can, and
enables the reader as he currently scans the sacred pages to take up
their declarations as they meet him, one after the other, into an in
telligently consistent conception of our Lord."^^
These affirmations Warfield proceeds to establish from Scripture.
And what is the nature and extent of his proof 1 The exact title of
his first article is "The Christology of the New Testament Writ
ings ' ' and we are entitled to expect a fair induction of the materials
of the whole New Testament literature. But as a matter of fact we
are treated to a highly doctrinaire exposition of three Pauline
texts, viz., Rom. 9 :5, Phil. 2 :6, Col 2 :9, and to a defense of the
theory that the designation nupio? applied to Jesus by Paul (and
the whole primitive Christian community) is equivalent in meaning
to Oso?. Only a single saying of Jesus is cited with reference to a
doctrine said to be the "hinge on which the Christian system
turns. ' '
It is neither necessary nor possible in this discussion to deal
in extenso with Warfield's exposition of the above-mentioned texts.
He simply assumes that controversy has terminated with reference
to these admittedly difficult passages, in favor of the use he wishes
to make of them — an assumption contrary to the facts. He lightly
dismisses the question of text-corruption in Romans 9 :5, as also that
of the doxological nature of the passage or of its proper punctuation.
In bringing Phil. 2:6 to the support of his interpretatfon
of Rom. 9:5, our exegete is singularly inattentive to the context
" Ibid, p. 341.
" Ibid, p. 343. Professor Denney speaiss of the Westminster statement of the
doctrine of the Two Natures as one that may once have seemed to help intelli
gence but which can now at the very utmost do no more than guard against
error — an arbitrary definition of God-manhood. He would class it along with
the technicalities foreign to the New Testament. Cf. Studies in Theology, pp.
69-70. One is curious to know how any statement which does not help in
telligence can possibly guard against error.

42 THE NORMATIVE USB OP SCRIPTURE
and gives his readers scarcely any intimation of the strength of an
opposing view maintained by many scholars of first rank.^ It is
by no means certain that Christ Jesus is here "asserted to be 'on an
equality with God' " nor is it certain that the representation of
Christ Jesus as sv \).opn 9sou uuapxwv is precisely to call him God.^»
Attention to the preceding context shows that the -writer is contem
plating a practical situation possible or actual in which there is
faction and vain glory, and in connection with which is always
found the effort to grasp at something not possessed but assumed
to be a privilege or prerogative rightfully belonging to the indi
vidual or party seeking it. It is with a view to the correcting of
this positive, active, pushing spirit that Paul adduces the example
of Jesus who, instead of aspiring to something above him though
he might, seeing he was in the sphere of the divine, have easily
considered the being on mi equality with God as a thing to which
he was entitled, yet, as a matter of fact gave up what he already
possessed (existence in the form of God) and accepted something
much lower, namely existence in the form of a servant, by entering
the conditions of human life; still further, in this lower form he
still manifested the same self-abnegating quality by becoming
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. The whole point
and force of the argument is seen in what Jesus Christ did actually
do in contrast with what he might have done. The other inter
pretation does not fit the practical purpose nearly so well.*"
With reference also to Warfield's trea,tment of Col. 2 :19, it must
be said that he does not weigh opposing interpretations. He applies
words spoken of the exalted, glorified, personal Redeemer, to the
preexistent Christ defined as the impersonal di'vine Logos. That
is to say, our author seems determined to make of the Hebrew-
Christian thinker, an Alexandrine philosopher.*^
As for the contention that the equation Kupios^mn'' (Oeo?) may
be legitimately "written, it is difficult to understand Professor War-
field's confidence in view of the careful studies of Case and Bacon."
"e. g. B. Weiss, Pfleiderer, Schmidt.
'" Ibid, p. 348.
" Cf. B. Weiss, Th. N. T., Vol. ii, pp. lOO-lOl.
" Cf. T. K. Abbott. Int. Crit. Com. in loc. Also B. Weiss, B. Th. of the N.
T., Vol. ii, 103-104.
"Shirley J. Case. Tlie Journal of Biblical Literature, 1907. pp. 151-161.
Tlie term kvqwi; is a title of relation and connotes the unique authority of the

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLT SCEIPTUEE 43
We can understand this procedure as that of a dogmatician and
apologete, but not as that of an exegete. Starting out, as he does, with
the assumption that the doctrine of the "Two Natures" is the key
to the interpretation of the whole biblical teaching concerning
Christ's person, it would be strange if he did not unlock all diffi
cult passages with it.*^ In two or three instances, indeed, in the
article mentioned, he frankly terminates the debate by the arbitrary
assertion that Paul held the doctrine, (e. g. pp. 347, footnote, 352,
353) which is, of course, the very question in debate.
In concluding our examination of Warfield's usage of the Scrip
tures, we may profitably glance into one of his recent polemic
articles. We have seen how much he can make of scripture passages
in support of a doctrine he "wishes to maintain. We shall now see
how little he can make of them when they are used to support a
practice distasteful to him and contrary to the custom of his
religious communion. In the Methodist Quarterly Review, Oct.
1911, he argues against the claim that the New Testament supports
any particular view as to the mode of Christian baptism.**
"No doubt all perplexity would be at an end if the New Testa
ment prescribed a mode of baptism. But so would be at an end that
evangelical freedom for which Christ has set us free. We should so
far be entangled again in a joke of bondage and who knows how
little leaven it would take to leaven the whole lump. ' '
"To say that the New Testament does not prescribe a mode of
baptism is much to understate the matter. It does not even suggest
one mode as preferable perhaps to another. It does not so describe
any instance of baptism as to show interest in how it was performed,
or tempt us to look upon it as an example having normative value

exalted Jesus over his people. It conveys no metaphysical meaning and is not
the equivalent of nn-iior ^eog. B. W. Bacon, Harvard Theological Review,
April 1, 1911.
¦" Concerning the logical and psychological difficulties involved in the doctrine
of the Two Natures — and Warfield admits that the mystery is very deep — (com
pare Am. Jml. of Theol., Oct. 1911, p. 564) it is not the place of this inquiry to
treat. A recent writer has maintained that upon Warfield's presentation it is
not merely a mystery but a contradiction. E. A. Cook, American J. of T., Apr.
1912, pp. 268-275.
** The entire Article embraces pp. 641-660 and should be read in connection
with this discussion.

44 THE NOEMATIVB USE OP SCEIPTURE
 and he who affirms of any particular way of baptizing that
it, and it alone, is valid baptism, has an immense burden of proof
resting on his shoulders. He can produce no justification of his
affirmation from the New Testament in the way of either express
assertion or authoritative example, or unambiguous implication.
And is it not a sound Protestant principle that only the Holy Spirit,
speaking in the Scriptures has the right authoritatively to order the
things of the house of God."
Now, if Warfield were arguing on behalf of some doctrine he
wished to defend, and the Scriptures permitted it, his first appeal
would be to lexicography. His confidence in the very words of
Scripture would lead him to press philological details. Not so in the
present instance. He talks of modes of baptism, of one mode as
preferable to another, ignoring the possibility that the very word
rendered baptism might have been so unambiguous as to have settled
the distinctive point of the action contemplated. It seems not to
occur to him that a description of "any instance of baptism" was,
perhaps, rendered superfluous by the very connotation of the term.
If there were m^des of baptism we might expect some indication of
the fact in the New Testament, but if baptism was a perfectly defi
nite action, we should expect just what we have, namely, no raising
of the question. When Warfield affirms that the New Testament
indicates no preference for one mode of baptism over another or
supports no claim for the exclusive validity of one mode as against
others he is perfectly correct. The New Testament is wholly silent
upon the whole burning question of the baptismal controversy, for
the reason that the fuel for it was not yet prepared or ignited. But
if he maintains that the New Testament affords no clear and decisive
indication as to what the action of baptism was in the primitive
Christian community, he takes issue with the vast majority of
New Testament scholars.
Before passing to his exegesis of the scripture texts usually held
to support immersion, we may advert to Warfield's anti-legalism.
Does he not betray his essential legalism in admitting that if the
New Testament prescribed a mode or gave clear and unambiguous
examples, we would, as Christians, be compelled to follow that mode ?
Are not those thinkers less legalistic who, while admitting that the
New Testament clearly indicates only immersion as the external act
of baptism, yet maintain that there are deeper principles clearly

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLT SCEIPTUEE 45
taught in the New Testament absolving us from slavish dependence
upon forms due to local and temporal conditions ?
At the very beginning, Warfield sets aside all the references to
baptism in the gospels, except that of Mat. 28:19-20, upon the
grounds that they refer to the baptism of John, or to Jewish lus
trations, or are used metaphorically. Even outside the gospels, his
exclusion leaves comparatively few references to Christian baptism.
In this exclusion our author betrays his fatal weakness as an exegete.
He proposes to ignore the bearing of the very history out of which
Christian practice arises, and he seems to overlook the fact that
metaphors might conceivably have very definite reference to Christ
ian baptism as, in some cases, most commentators would agree is the
fact. Warfield's treatment of Mat. 28:19-20 is very instructive for
our purpose. It will be remembered how exceedingly detailed, al
most to the point of Rabbinism, was his exposition of the text when
he was using it for the purposes of his Christology and Trinitar
ianism. Now notice how he minimizes it in relation to baptism,
something in which he has no dogmatic interest and against the im
portance of which he is arguing. ' ' There is but ^ne mention of the
Christian rite in the Gospels, namely Mat. 28 :19, in which the risen
Lord sends forth his followers to make disciples of all nations, inci
dentally adding that the disciples when made, were to be baptized
and instructed." (italics mine). But if ^axTii^oVTei; «,. t. X. was
added as a mere incidental to the command to make disciples, and
essentially to complete their making, then the words following and
depending upon PaxTt'l^ovTS? are also incidental, and the tremendous
baptismal formula with its singular to ovo[Aa upon which Professor
Warfield lays such emphasis appears as an afterthought. If Doctor
Warfield wishes to maintain the integrity of the text as it stands,
and if he is true to his theory of Inspiration in its bearing upon
interpretation, he cannot deal 'with it so capriciously as he does.*^
" Especially instructive in tiiis connection is Professor Warfield's statement
that "the inspiration of the Scripture is true and being true is fundamental to
the adequate interpretation of Scripture." Pres. Review, Apr. 1881, p. 227. In a
personal letter to the writer and replying to the question as to j ust how the doc
trine of inspiration is related to interpretation, Professor Warfield says that
"confidence in iiie details of the text before him necessarily affects the work of
the interpreter. An interpreter dealing with a text in which he has little confi
dence, will not press details, as will one who knows what he has before him to

46 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
Meyer, in whose exegesis Warfield seems to place great confidence,
i(see note below) comments upon the clause under consideration as
foUows— "PawTi!;ovTSS «,. t. X. in which the (JoaeviTsueiv is to be con
summated, not something that must be done after the [i.a9riTeuiTaTe.
Of course the present tendency of textual criticism is toward regard
ing the clause in question as incidental in a far more serious sense
than Warfield means, but it is not supposable that this has affected
his confidence in the text with reference to i^ocKxi^o^tec, any more
than it has with reference to to 6vo[i.a.
One more illustration of Warfield's exegesis must suffice. He
argues that in Rom. 6 :4 and Col. 2 :12 there is no allusion to the man
ner of baptism. "It is the spiritual experience of one who is in
Christ Jesus which is adverted to, and baptism is mentioned only as
the outward act by which the union of the soul in the Christ is
marked." (p. 649) "Paul is not appealing in it (Rom. 6:3-4) to
the symbolism of the external rite : so far from implying that the
symbolism of the external rite was burial and resurrection with
Christ, he clearly betrays that he knew of no such symbolism in it."
(p. 651) "It is only by formally establishing a connection be
tween baptism and the death of Christ, that Paul establishes a con
nection between baptism and burial "with Christ. This he even
labors to accomplish. Why should he make all this round about
argument to connect our baptism with Christ's burial, if baptism in
its very mode of administration was vocal with this connection."
(ibid). Here again Warfield is in conflict with the great weight of
exegetical authority. There is practical unanimity of opinion that
both in Romans and Colossians the figure does refer to the external
rite of baptism, and that its requirements would best be met by
immersion.*' Godet admits that it might be met by a partial sub
mersion — i. e. standing in water to the loins. Aside, however,
from exegetical authority, is there not something exceedingly
labored about the contention that Paul "labors to accomplish a
be safeguarded in its authority by divine influence  The minute
exegesis, say, of a Westcott, a Lightfoot, or a Meyer presupposes a doctrine of
verbal inspiration which requires the interpreter exactly to reproduce the
thought embodied in the language."
¦"' Com. on Matthew, Eng. Tr., ii, p. 301, 302.
"So Meyer, Abbott, Beet, Sanday, Headlam, Plummer.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 47
connection between baptism and burial 'with Christ," which he does
only by "first establishing a connection between baptism and the
death of Christ." Attention to the whole passage conveys anything
but an unusual effort on Paul's part. In vv. 2 and 3 we have two
questions addressed by Paul in characteristic manner to his readers,
both evidently presupposing negative answers. If he had been
seeking to establish something of which they were really ignorant,
he would not have asked if they were ignorant.*^ Immediately after
the question, the negative answer having been presupposed, the
apostle proceeds to the conclusion. Thus in two short verses we
have "with almost spontaneous ease, a result which our author says
Paul labored to secure. Furthermore, in the Colossian passage
there is no semblance of argument. If it was necessary to labor on
behalf of the Roman understanding, why was it unnecessary on be
half of the Colossians ? In interpreting Rom. 9 :5 and Phil. 2 :5
in the interest of his Christology we saw how Doctor Warfield
brought Col. 2 :19 to their support. Why did he not bring Col. 2 :12
totheaidof Rom. 6:3-4?
In conclusion we may record the fact that in his Christological
constructions, Warfield pays slight regard to the historical environ
ment in relation to which New Testament conceptions were de
veloped. One would scarcely know from his "writings, except in
quotations from those whom he opposes, that there was such a thing
as Jewish Messianism or an Apocalyptic literature. It is a con
stant practice of the theologians with whom we are dealing to
ignore the historical development between the two Testaments, so
far as it may be considered to register itself in the New Testament.*"
Of course the reason for this lies in the conception of Scripture as in
itself an organic unity of revelation and as such complete and self-
interpreting. "Cf. James Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 84. "The apostle was not
saying anything of startling originality, when he wrote in the beginning of Rom.
vi 'Know ye not that all we who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized
into his death?' Every Christian knew that in baptism what his mind was di
rected to, in connection vrith the blessing of forgiveness, was the death of
Christ." *> Professor Orr, for example, makes this strange remark, "Apocalypse in
Scripture is not to be explained out of current Jewish apocalyptic tendencies;
conversely, Jewish Apocalypse is to be explained from the Biblical models."
Revelation and Inspiration, footnote, p. 98.

48 THE NORMATIVE USE OP SCEIPTUEE
In his "Progress of Dogma" (1901), Professor James Orr de
clares "that while the scriptures are always to be considered the ulti
mate test of theological development, yet inasmuch as all systems
equally appeal to scripture, there is need of a tribunal to decide
upon this appeal. Such tribunal he finds in the history of dogmatic
development with its practically consentient body of doctrine m the
great church creeds." These creeds represent the "survival of the
fittest" in doctrine under the severest possible strain.^" It is, then,
under the guidance of this "verdict of history," that we are to
approach the Scripture. "It is easy to speak of appeal to the
Scriptures but it is to be remembered that this very application to
Scripture cannot be divorced from that growing insight into its
plan and purpose — into the organic unity and fundamental harmony
of its doctrinal content — which is the result, partly, indeed, of our
improved method of using it, but partly also of that very history of
dogma which we propose to test by it. We are more dependent on
the past than we think even in our interpretation of Scripture ; and
it would be as futile for any man to attempt to draw his system of
doctrine at first hand from Scripture, as it would be for a man of
science to draw his scientific knowledge direct from nature, unaided
by textbooks, or the laborious researches of the myriad workers in
the same field.""
In the light of these statements we can understand how Professor
Orr discovers the organic unity of the Scriptures — which is con
stituted by God's progressive self -revelation, which he equates "with
the gospel, and in which he includes the whole scheme of traditional
orthodox theology. (Supra p. 17) He discovers it in the creeds of
the church and need not pursue the laborious path of inductive re
search to discover from the materials of Scripture itself what man
ner of unity or of diversity it possesses. He forgets that the historic
dogmas, so far as they were professedly based upon the Scriptures,
were derived by a method of study and exegesis out of all accord
with that sanctioned by modern scholarship, and he overlooks the
" Op. cit., pp. 14, 18, 19.
=' Op. cit., p. 15. The position here taken by Professor Orr would seem to be
perilously near if not identical with tliat of Roman Catholicism. The Scriptures
are no longer sufficient for doctrine, and the right of private judgment i^
abrogated by appeal to the history of dogma as "a tribunal before which the
personal equation in the individual judgment is cancelled", (p. 17).

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLY SCRIPTUEE 49
even more important fact, that those dogmas were east in the
terminology and thought forms of a philosophy quite remote from
the genius of the Hebrew literature to the content of which they
were applied. To make these dogmatic formulations, therefore, the
instruments of interpretation is to perpetuate the ancient error,
and sin against our modern light.
But let us see how Orr's theory functions in the interpretation
of scripture. A good illustration of the manner in which his theory
of the continuity and coherence of the redemption history recorded
in Scripture works over into his theology is found in his identifi
cation of the "Angel of Yahwe" in the Old Testament theophanies^^
'with the second person of the Trinity. "This angel, in any case,
is not an ordinary angel, but stands in a peculiar nearness to
Jehovah, represents him, and, as far as words can do it, is identi
fied with him."^^ "The revelation through the Angel 
points to a real distinction in the nature of God such as is associated
in the New Testament with the idea of the Logos or Son." "The
objection naturally taken to this  interpretation is
that it seems to read back into the early stages of revelation the New
Testament doctrine of the Trini-ty. In reply it may be said that the
question is not so much one of doctrine as of the interpretation of
historical facts. We cannot, indeed, legitimately read back New
Testament ideas into these early narratives, as if the writers pos
sessed, or intended to convey, a developed doctrine of the Trinity.
But it is not inadmissible, in interpreting God's earlier revelation,
to use any light that comes to us from the later; and if later
revelation makes clear to us, as it does, a real self-distinction in God,
there exists no reason why we should not avail ourselves of the aid
of that truth here. Oehler seems to come very near the essence of the
matter when he sums up by saying, that the Malach was a self-
presentation of Jehovah entering into the sphere of the creature,
which is one in essence with Jehovah — and is yet again distinct
from him."'* Upon all this we remark— That the Old Testament
writers speak of this "Angel of Jehovah" as they do is not the only
^=Gen. 16:10-12; 18:13; 18:33; 33:11 ff.; Ex. 23:20, 21, etc.
"'Revelation and Inspiration, p. 84.
" Op. cit., pp. 86, 87. Cf. also "The Christian View of God and the World,"
p. 305. For a practicaUy identical argument in more extreme form on the
same matter, cf. Hodge, Syst. Theol., vol. i, p. 486.

50 THE NOEMATIVE USE OP SCEIPTUEE
pertinent historical fact our author is bound to consider and in
terpret. There is the fact of the predominant monotheism of the
Old Testament, and of its freedom' from any teaching about dis
tinctions in the divine essence. Before permitting himself to help out
the interpretation of the Old Testament by means of ideas drawn
from the New, it should be explained as far as possible out of its 0"sm
circle of ideas, and in relation to the total context of the history in
which it is vitally implicated. In appealing from the period to
which these narratives are assigned to the New Testament era and
to a different culture world for interpretative ideas our author
destroys the possibility of understanding the real history in which
God's revelation is contained. It is really more a question of doc
trine than of historic fact. Instead of the historical facts requiring
the explanation given, his theory of the unity of biblical revelation
requires him to explain the references to the "Angel of Jehovah"
by the Logos conception, or the Trinity.'^
The untenableness of the theory that the Scriptures are to be
interpreted by means of the verdict of history registered in the
evangelical creeds is seen in the fundamental oppositions that exist
between those creeds themselves. Under the guidance of different
dogmatic formulae, different arrangements of Scripture appear.
This fact is brought out very clearly by Orr himself "with ref
erence to a doctrine fundamental to the Augustinian system, namely,
that of Eternal Retribution. "What chiefly weighs with many in
creating dissatisfaction with the current church 'view is not so much
special texts of Scripture, as rather the general impression produced
upon the mind by the whole spirit and scope of the gospel revelation.
Starting 'with the character of God as Christ reveals it; 'with the
fact of the Incarnation ; with the reality and breadth of the atone
ment; with the glimpses given into the issues of Christ's work, the
feeling is produced in every thoughtful mind, that the sweep of
the gr'eat scheme of Incarnation and Redemption cannot be ex-
^ Cf. Liddon's Bampton Lectures, pp. 49, 52. "There are occult references
to this doctrine (the deity of Christ) which we are not likely to detect, unless
while seeking them, we are furnished with an exegetical principle such as was
that of the organic unity of Scripture as understood by the early church."
The above paragraph in the text is written not to prove Orr's practice in
consistent with his theory, but to illustrate tlie weakness of the theory. The
argument indicates how a pseudo-historical theory of Revelation makes im
possible the application of a genuine historical method of interpretation.

THE THEOLOGICAL USB OF HOLY SCRIPTUEE 51
hausted in the comparatively meager results which we see springing
from it here. ' '" But Calvinistic theologians approaching the Scrip
tures under the guidance of the Westminster Confession do not ob
tain any such general impression from the whole spirit and scope
of the gospel revelation. Hodge, for example, does not start with
the character of God as Christ reveals it. The fact of the Incarna
tion did not mean to him just what it does to Orr. The latter did
not derive his view of Incarnation with its results from the Scrip
tures by the help of any of the historic creeds. Doctor Hodge by
the help of the Westminster, Confession found in Scripture a scheme
of doctrine that required Eternal Retribution more decisively than
the general impression of which Orr speaks requires its exclusion.
It is to be noted that Orr here suggests a method of interpreta
tion very different from that which we have heretofore found illus
trated, namely, judging specific statements in the light of the
general tenor of the Scripture revelation. According to Hodge and
his school, the general tenor of Scripture, viz., our theology, raust be
so constructed as to make permanent place for all Scripture state
ments of doctrine. We must infer that Orr means something differ
ent, namely that the essential truth of the revelation of God given
in Scripture and culminating in Jesus' incarnation and work may
be disengaged from temporary and perhaps foreign accretions that
have become involved with the revelation. He is, however, very
timid in the application of the view he suggests. Even in con
nection with his discussion of the doctrine of retribution he makes
it plain that his working theory is not so free as his suggestion would
imply. He really holds in effect that the Bible teaches only what it
says in specific statements upon any given subject. The whole spirit
and scope of the gospel revelation is not to be urged with regard to
any matter upon which the Bible furnishes specific statements for
or against." In conclusion, attention is called to Orr's theological system in
which we obtain a general idea of the use of Scripture to which
he is committed. As set forth in his Kerr Lectures, Christianity in
volves a view of God and the world.''^ This view centers in the
" CVGW, p. 389.
" CVGW, pp. 390-397.
^ Although in form these lectures are Apologetic yet they are intended by
Orr to represent a positive construction of the entire system of Christian
doctrine. Cf. pp. 3, 4.

52 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTUEB
Incarnation which is the determining conception, illuminating an
transforming every other doctrine. It involves a definite view o
God, of Man, of Sin, Redemption, the purpose of God in Creation
and History, and a view of human destiny. Doctor Orr's whole view
of Christianity and therefore of the teaching of Scripture will de
pend upon his conception of the Incarnation. The supreme test
of the Scriptural character of his theology will lie in the nature and
derivation of his doctrine of the Incarnation. By the Incarnation he
understands that Jesus Christ "was not mere man, but the eternal
Son of God — a truly Di'vine Person— who in the fullness of time took
upon him our humanity and who, on the ground that in him as man
there dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily, is to be worshiped
and trusted even as God is. ' '^' The divine character of Jesus Christ
is understood by Orr in the strict sense required by the orthodox
doctrine of the Ontological Trinity. ""
Now, the Incarnation, so conceived is said by our author to be
the consentient doctrine of the whole New Testament. Let us see
how he deals with Scripture to establish this.
(a) In Lecture II he applies his principle, that the history of
dogma by showing us what "views have survived, establishes for us
a principle of Scripture interpretation. He claims to show that
lower views of Christ than that taken in the creeds of the church
have been untenable.
(b) With this verdict of history he comes to the interpretation
of the New Testament literature which he takes up in the following
order. First, he inquires what "view of Christ's person was held in
the apostolic age, as throwing light upon Christ's oym claims.
Second, he interrogates the Synoptic gospels to learn whether the
testimony of the apostles is corroborated by the self-consciousness
of Jesus. Needless to say he finds just what the verdict of history
led him to expect. The general regard in which Jesus was held from
the very first, on the ground of his resurrection and ascension is held
to imply that he was no mere man but a supernatural personage.
He overlooks the possible alternative that Jesus might have been re
garded as a "man approved of God" endowed by God with power
to perform wonderful works, raised from the dead and glorified at
God's right hand, without the supernatural preexistent character
" Op. cit., pp. 4, 5.
'" Ibid, pp. 38, 54.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLY SCEIPTURE 53
being applied to him. Though Orr admits the early chapters of Acts
to ' ' contain little or no dogmatic teaching on the origin or constitu
tion of Christ's person", yet he holds that these undogmatic repre
sentations furnish the data or premises from which all the positions
of the Christology of the Epistles can be deduced."^ He makes much
of the fact that Jesus is represented as being the Judge of the World.
This he thinks implies the supernatural dignity of his person and
even involves essentially divine attributes, e. g. Omniscience. A
little attention to current Messianic ideas in Apocalyptic literature
and even in the New Testament itself would have shown him that the
judging -function was thought of as a conferred prerogative and one
for the exercise of which corresponding powers must also be be
stowed.®^ He finds Paul and John to be in perfect accord in their
Christology; contemptuously rejects the "Heavenly Man" theory;
finds both Paul and the yyriter of the Hebrew letter assuming that
their Christology is that which is current among their readers ; and
gives the title Kupto? a meaning equivalent to essential deity.
Coming next to the Synoptic gospels he finds the claims of Christ,
his works and his character all to bear out the view contained in the
other New Testament literature and states the resultant doctrine of
the Incarnation which alone meets the New Testament facts to be
' ' the entrance of a Divine Person into the human nature. ' "*^
But we do not come to the marrow of Orr's -yiew of Incarnation
till we see what is involved in it for his theological thinking. It in
volves the fact that God and man are naturally akin, otherwise the
incarnation would have been impossible. The old dualism between
God and the world is overcome — the di'vine and the human are not
to be regarded as two opposed essences. "A union between God
and man is seen to be possible, to the intimacy of which no_ limits can
be set — ^which, indeed, only reaches its perfection when it becomes
personal. The Incarnation has not only this doctrine of man as its
presupposition, it is, besides, the highest proof of its truth. "«*
We would here point out that the author adopts a conception as
the corollary of his doctrine of incarnation that accords not at all
¦with the presupposition of the Chalcedonian creed. That symbol,
"Op. cit, p. 262.
"^Cf. Jno. 5:22, 27-30.
«» Op. cit., p. 279.
" Chr. V. of God and the World, p. 143.

54 THE NORMATIVE USB OP SCRIPTURE
whose Christology Warfield assures us is only "a very per
synthesis of the biblical data," rests upon "a philosophical view
of God which separates him from the world as a being of totally
different nature from man."«= Surely Warfield, or Orr must be un-
bibUcal concerning the Incarnation.
With this view of the nature of man and his relation to God
gained from the doctrine of the Incarnation Orr goes on to consider
such questions as the world, its creation and relation to man ; sin and
the disorder of the world (the connection between sin and death) ;
human immortality; the purpose of God in the creation and re
demption of man; the divine permission of sin. Since man is
essentially akin to God, being made in the di'vine image, he is the
highest being in nature. The world and all it contains are therefore
produced ex nihilo and with supreme reference to man. Sin is the
perversion by man of his true and normal being as a child of God
and the setting up of a false independence. Its effect is a sub
version of the true relation of the natural and spiritual, and a
frustration of the whole order of nature which through its solidarity
with man suffers on account of his sin. Redemption is to counteract
all these effects of sin including death. Immortality consists in the
everlasting life of man as a compound being of soul and body. Re
demption, therefore, is of the whole man, and necessitates the re
union of soul and body at the resurrection. All these positions Orr
claims to establish as against Naturalism by reason and Science, and
to commend to Christian faith from the Scriptures. In each in
stance he comes to Scripture with his exegetical result determined
beforehand. Strong's theology, according to his own claim, is described from
two foci. The first of these is the doctrine of Christ's revealing and
creative agency whereby he is in natural, organic relation -with
humanity and all Creation, and whereby his historical mission is
necessitated, justified and consummated.®^ The second is the doc
trine of Divine Perfection in which the Holiness of God is held
to be the preeminent, or fundamental attribute, and upon which is
grounded the nature and necessity of the Atonement. "'^ ' ' The decla
ration that ' Christ is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of
'^ Vide Warfield, Art. Cit. Am. J. Theol., V. 15.
« Systematic Theol., I, 109, 110.
»' Ibid, 296 ff.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 55
the world' implies the existence of a principle in the divine nature
which requires satisfaction, before God can enter upon the work of
redemption. That principle can be none other than holiness.""*
God's holiness, then, binds Him to punish sin, but on the other hand,
Christ, by reason of the fact that He created all things including
humanity, is in natural union "with man and must share in his
punishment. In these two doctrines, however, we do not yet have
the master key to the whole divine system of doctrine. That is found
in the dogma of the Trinity,"^ which he claims is a clearly revealed
doctrine of Scripture though inscrutable.
It is very difficult to locate the center of Strong's theological
system on account of his apparently diverse statements. In the
preface of his Systematic Theology he says, ' ' That Christ is the one
and only revealer of God, in nature, in humanity, in history, in
science, in Scripture, is in my judgment, the key to theology."™
But what Christ is it that he has in mind, in this statement?
Is it the Christ of the Synoptic Gospels, the Christ who taught the
Twelve, the Christ who founded the Kingdom of God 1 No, he has
in mind the Cosmic Christ, the second person of the Trinity. In
fact, "without the presupposition of the fully developed doctrine of
the Trinity, he would never have discovered the doctrine of Christ
which he regards as the key to theology. "The doctrine of the
Trinity is taken for granted, as well as the peculiar office of the
second person of the Trinity as the revealer of God 
Since Christ is the principle of revelation in God, we may say that
God never thought said or did anything except through Christ . .
. . . Creation is therefore the work of Christ. "^^ It is evident
that Strong in grounding his doctrine of Christ in the orthodox
doctrine of the Trinity, is not primarily appealing to the Scriptures
but is assuming the Scripturalness of that doctrine. The test of his
Christology will lie in the strength of the doctrine of the Trinity—
whether it is philosophically thinkable, and whether it has a basis in
Scripture. He has truly said that the "doctrine of the Trinity is
the key to all other doctrines," and if it is not contained in the
Scriptures, any interpretation of them in its light will result in a
theology which can by no stretch of logic be called biblical.
'' Ibid, 297, 298.
" Ibid, 304.
™ Ibid, p. vii.
"Ethical Monism, p. 1.

56 THE NORMATI'VE USE OP SCEIPTURE
What then is Strong's conception of the Trinity ? He informs us
in six statements. 1. In Scripture there are three who are recog
nized as God. 2. These three are so described in Scripture that we
are compelled to conceive of them as distinct persons. 3. This tri-
personality of the divine nature is not merely economic and tem
poral, but is immanent and eternal. 4. This tri-personality is not
tri-theism; for while there are three persons, there is but one
essence. 5. The three persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are
equal. 6. Inscrutable yet not self-contradictory, this doctrine fur
nishes the key to all other doctrines.'^ The doctrine, so conceived,
the author holds, was implicit in the thought of the apostles,, and is
involved in the N^ Testament declarations with regard to Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, though it was not formulated by the New
Testament writers. "The doctrine of the Trinity is not so much
heard, as overheard in the Scriptures."" We are here concerned to
see how Strong overhears. To examine all the texts by which he
claims to support this doctrine is, of course, out of the question, but
we may note some instances that will indicate his prevailing exegeti
cal attitude. (a) Old Testament descriptions of God are applied to Jesus by
New Testament writers. He is called "Lord" (xupio?) a title that
they could not have used as the designation of subordinate and
created being. ' ' James, the strongest of the Hebrews, uses the word
'Lord' freely and alternately of God the Father and of Christ the
Son. This would not have been possible had not James believed in
the community of essence between the Son and the Father. ' "* This
is, perhaps, Hellenizing the thought of the "strongest of the He
brews" somewhat unwarrantably.
(b) Christ possesses the attributes of God. " Self -existence :
John 5 :26 ' '—"have life in himself. ' ' But, the author fails to note
that the context says the Father "gave to the Son to have life in
himself."" (c) The works of God are ascribed to Christ, works that are
such in nature that they cannot be delegated, but are character
istic of Omnipotence, e. g. the judging of men and the raising of the
" Op. cit., p. 304.
'«Ibid, 305 (Quoted from Gore).
" Ibid, p. 309.
"Ibid, 309.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLY SCRIPTUEE 57
dead. In illustration of this statement the author cites John 5 :27-
29.''' overlooking the fact that in the context Jesus says that the
Father hath "given all judgment to the Son," that he gave him
' ' authority to execute judgment because he is a son of man. ' ' The
same is true concerning the raising of the dead in the same passage.
It is included in Jesus' statement, "I can of myself do nothing."
The whole passage contemplates a power which is delegated. It is
characteristic of Jesus whole attitude toward God that he disclaims
precisely what this theologian claims for him, power in himself, inde
pendent and underived from the Father.
(d) Creation, Heb. 3 :3-4. "He that built all things is God"=
' ' Christ, the builder of the house of Israel, is the God who made all
things."" (e) The name of Christ is associated 'with that of God upon a
footing of equality, e. g., in the baptismal formula, in the apostolic
benedictions etc. The texts cited do, indeed, show that the names
of Christ and the Father are associated but the "footing of equal
ity" is apparent in none of them.''^ This curious interpretation of
Rev. 22:16 is soberly suggested in support of Jesus' Deity, viz.,
"the root and the offspring of Da"yid"="both the Lord of David
and his son. ' '
(f ) Equality with God is expressly claimed. John 5 :18 — "Called
God his own Father, making himself equal "with God."^^ Strong
here, as usual, overlooks the exact circumstances and fails to attend
to the context. Jesus does not make the claim to be equal with
God, but it is imputed to him by the Jews. In the passage immedi
ately foUoydng Jesus seeks to correct the very misapprehension con
tained in the imputation.
(g) A good example of heroic harmonization is the following.
John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I." There is a sub
jection, as respects order of office and operation, which is yet con
sistent with equality of essence and oneness with God. 1 Cor. 15 :28
—"then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did sub
ject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." This must be
interpreted consistently with John 17:5— "glorify thou me "with
"Op. cit., 310.
" Ibid, 310.
" Ibid, 312.
™Ibid, 313.

58 THE NOEMATI'PE USE OF SCEIPTURE
thine own self with the glory which I had "with thee before the
world was. ' ' ^°
(h) The oneness of essence in which the three personal sub
sistences participate renders possible such an intercommunion be
tween them that the work of either may be ascribed to the others,
and the manifestation of the one may be recognized in the mani
festation of the others. Illustrations: Gen. 1:1— "God created.";
Cf. Heb. 1 :2 "through whom (the Son) he made the worlds." Our
author here means, that as a matter of fact, it was Christ that
created the worlds. God the Father was not the active agency in
creation. This intercommunion explains the occasional use of the
term "Father" for the whole Godhead, e. g., Eph. 4:6 — "one God
and Father of all, who is over all and through all (in Christ)," and
"in you all (by the Spirit) ". So the Lamb, in Rev. 5 :6, has "seven
horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth
into all the earth "^" the Holy Spirit, 'with his manifold powers, is
the Spirit of the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent
Christ."" (i) The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father
but also Son and Holy Spirit. Each of these titles designates the
personal distinction which forms the eternal basis for a particular
self -revelation. God's Fatherhood has no meaning except through
Christ. Even that natural sonship which men have to God in 'vir
tue of the fact that He is the Author and Provider of their natural
life as mediated through Christ; See 1 Cor. 8:6 — "One Lord
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."
This text is a little unfortunate for the writer's purpose since it is
in the immediate context that the most emphatic affirmation of
Godhood as pertaining peculiarly to the Father, is to be found.*^
(j) How much may be contained in a single text, according to
our theologian's system of interpretation is seen in the foUo-wing.
Rom. 11:36— "For of him, and through him and unto him, are all
things." "Here is an allusion to the Father as the source, the Son
as the medium, and the Spirit as the perfecting and completing
agent in God's operations.'"^
*'Ibid, 314.
»ilbid, 333.
«^Syst. Theol., I, 334.
»»Ibid, 337.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLY SCEIPTUEE 59
(k) "That the Sonship of Christ is eternal, is intimated in
Psalm 2:7. "This day have I begotten thee," is most naturally
interpreted as the declaration of an eternal fact in the divine
nature. "«*
But we desist from further illustration of President Strong's
' ' be-Scriptured theology. ' ' We have seen enough to be sure that he
has taken seriously his statement that ' ' seemingly trivial things are
to be explained from their connection with the whole. ' '
Reference has already been made to Professor James Denney's
alleged inconsistency in his use of Scripture in view of his doctrine
of its authority. Garvie, for example, says that Denney "appeals
to the language of Scripture as decisive in questions of theology,
whether or not that language finds a response and a confirmation in
the religious consciousness, or Christian experience." He points
out two instances to support his charge. "In dealing -with Jesus'
words about the glory which he had with the Father before the
world was, he dismisses what has been to many serious thinkers a
great difficulty thus briefly and boldly, No a priori assumptions
about the necessity of a purely human consciousness to which such
a reminiscence was inconceivable, and no exegetical bewilderments,
like those of Wendt, can be pleaded against words so plain."
(Studies in Theology, p. 62) "In expounding the doctrine of the
Atonement, great stress is laid on the fact that, according to Paul, it
was God 'Who made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin' (p 112) .
The very words of Scripture are used, as it were, to coerce human
thought and we therefore turn 'with great expectancy to the Ninth
lecture, on the Holy Scripture to see what proof of this absolute
authority can be offered. We are not a little surprised to find that
it is the much despised and derided subjectivity which is the basis
of the authority of the Bible. ' '^^ It is only fair to state, however, in
connection with this criticism, that as regards the Atonement, and
in the very definite form in which he presents it in his earlier
writings, Denney holds it to be itself the very heart of the New
Testament message and to be attested by the witness of the Spirit
in the hearts of believers. It is precisely here that we find the
difference between the Denney of today and the Denney of yester
day. In his earlier writings he identified the gospel with a very
« Ibid, 340.
»= Garvie, The Christian Certainty amid the Modern Perplexity, p. 342 f.

60 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTUEE
definite interpretation of the significance of the death of Christ
in relation to human sin and salvation. For that interpretation he
claimed the consentient testimony of all the New Testament writings
and sought to make good the claim by exegesis. "The death of
Christ is the one subject in relation to which, least of all is it
possible to urge the distinction between religion and theology.
There is a point at which they meet and are inextricably involved in
each other, and that point is the cross of Christ interpreted as the
New Testament interprets it."^' The center of the apostolic theology
which is also the apostolic gospel is in Denney's opinion, as main
tained in "Studies in Theology" and in "The Death of Christ," the
'-expiatory significance of the death of Christ."*'' It is this that
' ' as the focus of revelation is also the key to all that precedes . ,
. . . Scripture converges upon the doctrine of the Atonement ; it
has the unity of a consentient testimony to a love of God which bears
the sin of the world. How this is done we do not see clearly till we
come to Christ, or till he comes to us ; but once we get this insight
from Him, we get it for revelation as a whole. To Him bear all the
Scriptures 'witness ; and it is as a testimony to Him, the bearer of
sin, the Redeemer who gave his life a ransom for us, that we ac
knowledge them. This is the burden of the Bible, the one funda
mental omnipresent truth to which the Holy Spirit bears 'witness by
and with the word in our hearts. This, at bottom, is what we mean
when we say that Scripture is inspired."** In describing the
Atonement accomplished in the death of Christ Denney uses a great
variety of phrases such as "bearing sin," "submitting to the death
in which God's condemnation of sin is expressed," "Underlying the
responsibility and receiving the consequences of sin," Jesus "died
our death, ' ' etc. He does not say expressly that Christ took upon
him the guilt and penalty of our sins, but that he "took on him
the consequences of our sins." While there has been much differ
ence of opinion among students as to just what historical theory
of Atonement Professor Denney's view most nearly resembles, yet
the majority would probably agree that in its earlier presentations it
follows Anselmic lines. There is also a tendency among theologians,
since the appearance of his later volume, "Atonement and the
»> The Death of Christ, p. vii.
"Studies etc., pp. 222, 223.
^ Death of Christ, pp. 313, 314. Cf. Studies etc., pp. 107, 109.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE 61
Modern Mind," to assign him to a different school. Warfield thinks
his theory essentially that of Grotius, and says concerning it, ' ' Sub
stitution is taken in a notably lower sense. At the decisive point
men are their oym Saviours. This may be very gratifying to the
modern mind : it is intolerable to the Christian heart. ' '*" The late
Professor G. B. Stevens, comparing Denney's utterances in the two
earlier volumes with those of "Atonement and the Modern Mind"
says, "Had I not read these more recent utterances of Denney, I
should have classed him 'with the uncompromising advocates of the
post-Reformation dogma  In view of this recent dis
cussion, however, I must question his right to a place among the few
remaining representatives of the theory of vicarious punishment. ' '^
Mead, however, is at a loss how to take Denney's views, and says,
"Upon the whole, the author seems to incline to the Anselmic
theory, but shrinks from the logical consequences of it, and at
tempts to cover them up by the adoption of obscure phraseology. ' '°^
As regards Denney's exegesis, however, in his earlier volumes we
cannot fail to see that he is quite unduly controlled by the conviction
antecedently held that the whole New Testament contains the
Atonement theory in the form stated by Paul, or at least that all
statements relative to the death of Christ find their most natural
interpretation in that theory. Although in his "Studies" he em
phasizes the theological authority of the mind of Christ as it can be
apprehended in the gospels, yet when he comes to the construction
of the doctrine that is "the key to the whole New Testament
teaching" instead of beginning with a careful investigation of the
message of Jesus in its total content and proportions, his procedure
is as follows. First, he expounds Paul, since he is most explicit, then
Peter, and finally as a judicious addenda, he submits a few words
upon the bearing of the gospels on the subject. The very order in
which a theologian takes up the study of the New Testament ma
terials with reference to a given subject is quite significant for his
dogmatic interests. In the ' ' Death of Christ ' ' he passes the material
in review in the familiar order of modern New Testament Theology,
viz.. Synoptics, early chapters of Acts, Paul, Hebrews, John. But
it seems clear that the order of treatment is to make no difference in
*» Princeton Theological Review, Oct. 1904.
" The Doct. of Salv., p. 197.
" Irenic Theol., p. 309.

62 THE NOEMATIVE USE OP SCEIPTUEE
the result, since the study is to be one of texts, without reference
to the large sweep of Jesus revelation in his life, and in his teach
ing concerning the kingdom. All the passages which can be under
stood with reference to a specific meaning in the death of Jesus, are,
by ingenious exegesis brought into line yrith the Pauline teaching in
which our author showed himself to be satisfied and convinced, in
his previous studies. Let us attend, now, to some of his expositions.
(a) "The New Testament everywhere, in all its books and all
its authors, connects forgiveness with the death of Christ." From
Paul's statement 1 Cor. 15:3 ff. he deduces the conclusion that
' ' there was no gospel known in the primitive church, or in any part,
of it, which had not this for its foundation — that God forgives our
sins because Christ died for them. ' ' Our author here imports into
the simple statement, "Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, ' ' the further doctrine that God forgives our sins because
Christ died for them in a particular sense, and implies that this
was in Paul's mind and the minds of the other apostles in precisely
the same form. But an examination of the teaching of Jesus in the
Synoptic gospels, and a study of the primitive Christian preaching
in Acts, indicate that God forgives sin only when men repent and
turn to Him. The whole mission of Jesus and not specifically his
death is conceived as means by which actual deliverance of men
from their sins by repentance and abandonment, was accomplished.
Jesus did, indeed, die on behalf of, or for the benefit of the guilty
but this death is not described as expiatory in the literature just
named.'^ (b) 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18. are brought into line "with Paul with
the words, ' ' Our death to sin, our emancipation from it, our new
life, depend on this, that at the cross our sins were laid on the
sinless One. That any real meaning can be given to these words
except the meaning already explained (i. e. in connection -with
Paul's teaching) I cannot see  In what way, we
ask again, can the death of the righteous be an advantage to the
unrighteous, in virtue of its relation to their sins, unless the di'vine
condemnation of those sins, which kept them at a distance from God,
fall on the righteous and be exhausted there ?"^^ Needless to say,
these passages do by no means shut us up to the meaning that the
"^Cf. Burton and Smith, The Atonement, Ch. vii.
»" Studies etc., pp. 118, 119.

THE THEOLOGICAL USB OF HOLY SCRIPTUEB 63
author indicates. Both passages are holding up the sufferings of
Jesus as an example to believers, indicating that it is the principle
of Jesus ' life realized or illustrated supremely in his death that is of
importance, and not some exclusive and special work accomplished
in his death. Interpreted in the light of the total context these
verses lean decidedly toward the vital, moral theory, rather than
toward the penal, substitutionary view. No one, unless he were
already obsessed by the expiatory view, would find it here. Our
author, indeed, seems to feel the lack of conclusiveness in his inter
pretation and in connection with it he suggests an interesting
hermeneutical principle "A mere exegete is sometimes tempted to
read New Testament sentences as if they had no context but that
which stands before him in black and white ; they had from the very
beginning, and have still, another context in the mind of Christian
readers, which it is impossible to disregard."^* Properly qualified,
this remark, of course has truth. The principle, however, must not
be taken as exalting the context in the minds of Christian readers
over the context in black and white, as important in interpretation.
It is only when we have exhausted every reasonable means of under
standing an author out of the circle of his own expressed ideas in a
given document, are we justified in supplementing by an assumed
context in the minds of those to whom he yirrote. Even in documents
that are somewhat apologetic in tone we may easily fail to estimate
sufficiently the amount of positive instruction or affirmation that
may be contained. It is not good exegesis to appeal from the text of
^the Scriptures to the manner in which the people might have under
stood, over the head of the total context of the ysTiter from whom the
text is taken. Even though the people were Christian, they were
being instructed by a Christian who was further along in the
knowledge of the Faith than they were.
(c) Coming to the sayings of Jesus recorded in Mark. 10:45;
14:24., he says that these are at least congruous with the doctrine
of Jesus' death which he has been urging. The first, he says, pre
supposes that the "many lives are forfeit and that His (Christ's)
is not; so that the surrender of His means the liberation of theirs. "^'^
Thus the substitutionary idea is read into the passage. That is,
Denney presses the figure of "Ransom," in preference to seeking
»* Studies, p. 119.
» Ibid, p. 122.

64 THE NOEMATIVE USE OP SCEIPTUEE
the explanation of the saying in the context, since there Jesus death
is clearly brought into line with the principle of his life, namely,
service, whereas the author is concerned to maintain a special,
unique, objective work wrought with a Godward reference in the
death of Jesus, which is beyond the purpose of his life. For con
firmation of his view Denney refers to another saying of Jesus in
which he uses a term of kindred meaning but in a wholly different
context, namely the saying Mark 8 :34 ff . "It is clear from a pass
age like this that Jesus was familiar 'with the idea that the tpux*) or
life of man, in the higher or lower sense of the term, might be lost,
and that when it was lost there could be no compensation for it, as
there was no means of buying it back. ' '^' This looks very much like
learned trifling. What the passage really shows with reference to
the mind of Jesus is that he was tremendously impressed with the
value of the higher ethical and spiritual life, over the things the
temporal and material world could offer. It is pure gratuity to
imagine that he was in his thought pressing the flgure in the way
Denney intimates. But our author goes still farther afield to find a
circle of ideas that may serve to explain Jesus ' meaning in line with
the substitutionary theory. Psalm 49 :7 ff. illustrates, he thiiiks, the
world of thought in which the mind of Jesus moved. "What no
man could do for his brother, namely, give God a ransom for him .
.... this the Son of Man claims to do for many and to do so by
giving his life a ransom for them."^' Thus, the interpretation of
our author would represent Jesus, in a passage pointing to his own
life and deeds to illustrate a principle he is seeking to enforce upon
his disciples, as having in mind primarily an objective deed of
Atonement Godward in which they could not possibly imitate him
or have fellowship with him.°*
Thus Doctor Denney goes through the Synoptic gospels dealing
with the various passages in the way that has been indicated, and
which misses the mark of true interpretation for the following rea
sons. 1. His is a process of selection and treatment of texts from a dog-
»» Death etc., 42.
" Ibid, 44.
™ Cf. Stevens, Doct. Salv, 47-48, 51.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLY SCEIPTURE 65
matic motive, rather than the historical study of documents accord
ing to principles of scientific interpretation.''^
2. He passes over the great and outstanding characteristics of
Jesus' own conception of his work in relation to sin and righteous
ness. He tries to explain Jesus out of obscure and doubtful utter
ances about his death rather than these latter out of his clear
teaching concerning his great work in founding the kingdom.
3. He ignores, or overlooks the fact that in contemporary Jewish
thought sacrificial ideas had small place. The ritual system, indeed,
persisted as a part of statutory religion, but no philosophy of sacri
fice was developed. Against this statutory regime Jesus was in
revolt, and his sympathies were not directed toward a ritualistic
interpretation of religion. This accounts for his slight use of
sacrificial language, and it is not to be believed that what he did
use was intended to convey any deep theological import. It was
employed by way of figure.^""
In all that has been said regarding Denney's theology and his use
of Scripture we have left out of consideration his last important
volume, "Jesus and the Gospel." In this book, the present writer
considers that Doctor Denney has passed beyond and out of the
school of theological thought which is the subject of this investiga
tion. In his two earlier volumes to which so many references have
been made, he held that there is a definite doctrine at once constitut
ing a theology and a gospel, which is common to the New Testament
writings and which forms the key to biblical interpretation. That
doctrine was practically identified 'with Christian faith, and was
held to determine the correct standpoint from which to construct all
other doctrines, even that of the person of Christ. He finds much
fault with those theologians who make the Incarnation the ruling
and ordering concept in theology, intimating that the motives for
this are speculative rather than religious, in some cases, dogmatic in
other cases. But from whatever reason it is adopted Denney thinks
it leads to a minimizing of all that is said in the New Testament
»»For a truly historical and scientific exegesis of the passages in the
Synoptics, bearing on Jesus death. See Scott, The Kingdom and the Messiah,
pp. 230-244. ™Even conservative theologians have almost all abandoned the task of
conceiving the doctrine of Atonement predominantly after any of the partial
analogies suggested by Scripture passages. Cf. Mead, Irenic Theology, pp.
804-315. Terry, Biblical Dogmatics, 419 f. Both of these theologians fail to
support Denney.

66 THE NOEMATIVB USE OP SCEIPTUEE
about the death of Christ in relation to sin. "They (the passages)
are interpreted emotionally but not logically, as if the men who say
the strong things on this subject in the New Testament had said
them without thinking or would have been afraid of their o"wn
thoughts. "^"^ In the list of theologians who make the error mem-
tioned Denney names Westcott, and Wilson. It is manifest from
our preceding treatment that Doctor Orr and President Strongmight
perhaps have been included in his list. Among the reasons he urges
against such exaltation of the idea of Incarnation over the Atone
ment are these: (1) It shifts the center of gravity in the New
Testament. "The Incarnation may be the thought round which
everything gravitates in the Nicene Creed, and in the theology of the
ancient Catholic church  but that only shows how far
the first ecclesiastical apprehension of Christianity was from doing
justice to New Testament conceptions." "Not Bethlehem, but Cal
vary, is the focus of revelation, and any construction of Christianity
which ignores or denies this distorts Christianity by putting it out
of focus. "^"^ (2) The tendency to put the doctrine of Incarnation
into the primary place manifests a concern in metaphysical rather
than moral problems, and Scripture has only a secondary interest
in metaphysical questions. ' ' The incarnation, when it is not defined
by relation to these realities — ^in other words, when it is not con
ceived as the means to the Atonement, but as a part of a specula
tive theory of the world quite independent of man's actual moral
necessities — can never attain to a reality as 'vi'yid and prof ound. "^"^
These criticisms while not equally applicable to all the theologians
who make the Incarnation the determinative principle of their
theology, are nevertheless valid, from the point of "view of Denney,
against all since none of them regard the Atonement as the end to
which the Incarnation was nothing but means. They all give to the
Incarnation cosmic significance.^"*
"» The Death of Christ, p. 323.
"^ The Death of Christ, p. 324.
1™ Ibid, pp. 335, 326.
101 Professor Olin Curtis, who regards Professor Denney as "one who beyond
any writer of our day, has understood the apostle Paul, and garnered the very
life of the New Testament," is even more emphatic in condemning the Incarna
tion theology. "No Christian man should allow any touch of Hegelian philosophy
to place the incarnation in tlie divine ideal, in the normal life of God; for so
to place it gives it cosmic majesty at the expense of its intense redemptional
import." The Christian Faith, p. 237.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE 67
All this goes to show Denney's strong dogmatic interest in the
Atonement doctrine. Now notice the change of emphasis in his later
work, and the wholly undogmatic spirit in which he writes. It is
quite impossible to identify the man who wrote "The Death of
Christ" with the author of such statements as the following. "In
all the great types of Christianity represented in the New Testament
the relations of God and man are regarded as profoundly affected
by sin, and that the sense of a common debt to Christ is the sense
of what Christians owe Him in dealing with the situation which
sin has created. This may not involve either a formally identical
Christology, or a formally identical doctrine of Propitiation, in
every part of the New Testament. ""'' "We are bound to Him
(Christ), in that wonderful significance, that unique and incom
municable power which he has to determine all our relations to God
and man. To be true Christians, we are thus bound to Him; but
we are not bound to anything else  We are not bound
to any man's or any Church's rendering of what he is or has done.
We are not bound to any Christology or to any doctrine of the work
of Christ. /'^"^ "The thoughts of the apostles whose minds were
first powerfully stimulated by their faith in Christ, will always be a
help, and the supreme help, to Christian thought : in some sense they
will always be a standard for Christian thinking : but they help us
by inspiring in us an intellectual interest in the gospel answering
to their own, not by imposing their thought authoritatively upon us
as a law to our faith. "^°'' In such expressions as these the last
shred of recognition of an external authority of Scripture, and the
last claim for a definite quantum of delivered doctrine seem to have
disappeared. Even more positive expressions of the relative and
changing nature of doctrinal conceptions are found as, for example,
"The questions raised by the Christian attitude to Jesus, and the
Christian's sense of debt to Him, may have to be asked over and
over, taking always a wider range, penetrating always more deeply
into the wonder of what he is and does ; and with the widening and
deepening of the questions, the answers too must vary in form . .
. . . They are always subject to re"vision  If we
look to the Church of the New Testament age, we shall find that this
™ Jesus and The Gospels, p. 90.
^^ Ibid, p. 337.
"' Ibid, p. 360. Vide quotation from Warfield p. 9 of this treatise.

68 THE NOEMATIVB USE OP SCEIPTUEE
is essentially the situation in which it confronts us 
though there is one faith, there is not one Christology,""* He
might have said also, for it is involved in his position — 'though
there is one sense of obligation to Jesus Christ, there is not one
Soteriology '.
We may conclude this part of the discussion by referring to a
theologian who represents a somewhat peculiar and catholic attitude
toward all theology and to the use of Scripture therein. According
to the late Professor C. M. Mead the Scriptures possess a regulative
authority, indeed, but not one that is self -executing. The Christian
judgment must arbitrate between different and apparently opposing
representations of the various parts of Scripture, and various
writers. Interpretation should be harmonistic, not in the sense of
the older theology which by the use of the "analogy of faith"
tended to obscure or ignore the differences, but in the sense of
recognizing that apparently opposing views are simply different
sides or angles of one truth, or are complementary to each other in
the full comprehension of truth. He states as the purpose of his
"Irenic Theology" the "illustration of the fact that antithetic and
even apparently irreconcilable religious conceptions are often to be
regarded, not as mutually exclusive, but rather as needing to be
combined in order to express the fullness of the body of truth that is
to be found in the oracles of God and in the Christian life."""
He expresses doubt of the possibility of Systematic Theology in the
sense that Hodge, or Strong maintain. Accordingly, he calls atten
tion to the great historical theological antitheses, paralleling the
philosophic ones — shows how these all have their foundation in
Scripture representations, and seeks for more adequate statements
that shall live together on more friendly terms.
The significance of Mead for the purposes of this inquiry is
found in his claim that none of the great theological systems are in
themselves biblical since the Bible contains with equal clearness the
material contents of them all. But if he is asked why he feels
obligated to maintain the antitheses, his answer is two-fold, (a)
Revelation, of which the Bible is the authoritative record, is divine,
hence a unity and ultimately harmonious, (b) Meantime, ethical
and religious needs demand both sides equally.^^" In other words
"» Op. cit., p. 348. Cf. also for similar statements pp. 349, 350, 359.
^™ Irenic Theology, p. iii.
"° Op. cit., p. 136.

THE THEOLOGICAL USE OP HOLY SCEIPTUEE 69
theoretical reconcilement is ultimately possible but is indefinitely
deferred: moral and religious adjustment are, meantime, experi
mental fact.
The obvious objection to this attitude toward Scripture is that
it does not take into account its literary character as humanly con
ditioned. He places all Scripture upon the same plane, failing to
distinguish between the religious teaching which is the result of
positive Christian experience, and those other representations due
to apologetic necessities. This distinction is especially evident in
relation to the supposed antithesis between Divine Sovereignty and
Human Freedom in the teaching of Paul.

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND FORECAST
A brief summary is here given of the chief results which appear
from the foregoing survey. These should be of value in estimating
the method of the "writers considered, and should afford, both neg
atively and positively some guidance in determining a more ex
cellent way.
1. In every case some theory of the Unity of Scripture is held
in such wise as to exercise a dominant influence upon interpreta
tion. This in itself would not constitute ground for objection if
only the theory were derived from an adequate induction of cor
rectly apprehended varieties and distinctions, which the phenomena
of the Scriptures actually present. But, plainly this is not the case.
The Unity is regarded as in some sense given in advance of any
comprehensive induction of particulars, and is used as the organon
through which the diversity is expropriated from its rights. It has
been pointed out how the doctrine of Revelation has influenced the
formation of the doctrine of Scripture. If Revelation has been con
ceived as the supernatural communication of truth to the human
mind, it has carried with it the necessary implication of a doctrinal
unity and completeness, since the deliverances of the one divine
mind must be in accord with one another, and God could not be
conceived as stopping short of the communication of all it is need
ful man should know. If Revelation has been thought of as pri
marily consisting in a series of di'vine acts in history, a unity is
Jikewise given, since God could not be deemed to act inconsistently or
"without plan and purpose. Given the purpose and the plan it is
possible to articulate all the individual acts in one coherent and
continuous teleology. But, however Revelation is conceived, the
Unity of Scripture as the record of Revelation is practically con
stituted by some specific doctrinal conception which furnishes to
theology its architectonic principle, and serves as the key to inter
pretation. It is this that makes the traditional interpretation of
Scripture dogmatic and harmonistic.
In the case of Doctor Hodge and that of Professor Warfield the
ruling conception is that of the Sovereignty of God. With Presi
dent Strong it is the Trinity. Professor Orr finds it in the doctrine
of Incarnation. Professors Denney and Curtis found their the-

SUMMAEY AND FOEECAST 71
ology upon the Atonement as wrought in the death of Christ. But
the very fact that all these eminent theologians construct the Unity
of Scripture from different centers is in itself evidence either that
this conception was not determined by a scientific induction of
the Scripture phenomena, or that the Scriptures have no such unity
as the theory assumes.
2. Inasmuch as the Unity of Scripture is constructed from
different doctrinal foci, the systems of theology resulting from in
terpretation dominated by these different determinative principles
exhibit innumerable points of conflict and irreconcilable antagonism.
Notwithstanding the conflicts of the centuries, none of these view
points are overcome, and there is little progress toward a synthesis
of them. The burden of Professor Mead's "Irenic Theology" is the
impossibility of any reduction to logical consistency of these op
posing systems, and the necessity of maintaining both sides of the
various theological antitheses as complements of the full truth whose
logical consistency is not, in the present state of our knowledge,
to be apprehended. This suggestion, however, is the practical
abandonment of the theory of the Unity of Scripture presupposed
in their character as the record of a divine Revelation, and has met
'with little favor. Meantime, however, the obligation rests heavily
upon those who maintain the theory to support it. They have been
constant in their demand that the critical school of Bible students
exhibit agreement in their results, and, given sufficient time, the
demand is, "within reasonable limits, a just one. But there is even
more justice in the demand that the schools representing the older
vie"wpoint shall agree in their results. For, upon the view that the
Scriptures are a supernaturally constituted unity, for the express
purpose of mediating a supernatural revelation vitally related to
human salvation there is created a presumption of clearness and
consistency not created in an equal degree by any other pre
supposition. If the diverse results of the different traditional
schools of theology be taken as legitimately derived from the
Scriptures, as Mead allows, then the doctrinal unity which, by
hypothesis, exists, does not exist and a truly Biblical theology could
not possibly have logical consistency and unity as its ideal This
result moreover, is actually attained and acquiesced in by the
greatest masters of Biblical theology in our times. There is no
theology of the Old Testament, or of the New Testament. There is no

72 THE NOEMATIVB USE OP SCEIPTUEE
theology of the Bible as a whole. All the unity that exists either in
the two parts or in the whole is a practical religious unity not
reducible to logical expression.
3. Another important result springing from the preconception
of the doctrinal unity of the Scriptures as the record of a complete
revelation, is the constant ignoring, upon the part of those who
hold the view, of the larger historical relations under which the re
ligion of Israel, and, later on, Christianity developed. This is
especially seen in the all but total neglect of the influence of contem
porary Judaism upon the development of thought in the New Testa
ment. The explanation of such an attitude is not difficult. It arises
from the assumed close connection that exists between the Old
Testament and the New as the exclusive vehicles of revelation, into
which if any ideas were allowed to come from the intervening non-
biblical history, it would seem like an incursion from an alien realm.
In other words, the theory of biblical unity we have been consider
ing, assumes a hiatus between the revelation period covered by the
Old Testament literature and that covered by the New. These were
' ' the centuries of silence. ' ' But, in thus cutting off the literature
and life of the early Christian community from its living con
nections, the real and vital unity of history is sacrificed for one
unreal and abstract.
4. The result, however, which testifies most forcefully to the
religious inadequacy of the position under review is the unanimous
refusal of these theologians to make the dominant concepts of Jesus
controlling in their theological construction. Surely the ideas which
Jesus found most serviceable in expressing the heart of the revela
tion of which he was the mediator, ought to be kept in the central
place in all subsequent refiection upon that revelation. Otherwise
how is one to test subsequent reflection as Christian ? If an infer
ence were drawn from the practice of our group of theologians, as
regards this point, it would be that in their view the primary truths
of Christian instruction cannot be the primary or ruling truths in
theological construction. It would follow that Jesus was not the
first and most authoritative teacher of essential Christian truth. He
was not the preacher of a full gospel of salvation. To this position,
indeed, some of our theologians seem actually to come. In at least
two instances^ the words of Doctor Dale are quoted (rather inac-
^ Strong, Syst. Theol., II, 721. Denney, Studies in Theology, p. 120.

SUMMARY AND FORECAST 73
curately to be sure) to the effect that "Jesus came not to preach the
gospel but that there might be a gospel to preach. "^ And yet
Professor Denney has assured us that the "gospels have every qual
ity they need to put us in contact with the gospel."^ Professor Orr
in like vein has written "In Christ's doctrine of the Kingdom of
God are embodied all the great truths of His revelation. Here
most clearly is it seen that the truth he reveals is of a kind that, in
the nature of the case, can never become obsolete. ' '* Why, in view
of such expressions, are these great conceptions of Jesus passed over
for others that can be related to Jesus mind only by more or less
likely inferences? Evidently because of the traditional dogmatic
heritage. By means of Jesus' conceptions of God as Father and
the Kingdom of God as the reign of God in the hearts of men, the
Greek and Latin theology could not be read into the Scriptures. If
primary stress be laid upon these great principles of Jesus, the old
theology cannot live in its traditional forms. Professor G. B.
Stevens complains that the older theologies in their treatment of the
death of Jesus Christ have claimed in it a satisfaction to the ethical
nature of God "without deriving the conception of God's ethical
nature from the teaching of Jesus.''
5. Finally, do we not discern by comparing the positions of
our several theologians a steady drift in one certain direction, and
may we not even now forecast the probable relation Scripture will
have toward the theology of the future ? In the thought of Doctor
Hodge the Scriptures constitute a wholly objective and authoritative
standard by which theology is ruled absolutely. Reason and re
ligious experience are carefully excluded from any voice in matters
of f aith.« Yet, even Doctor Hodge has a place of attachment for the
subjective test of revelation, since he includes among the reasons
for believing in the Bible as a divine revelation the "adaptation of
its truths to our souls.'" A decisive step away from the external
authority of the Bible as a whole is seen in President Strong's
^Dale, The Atonement, p. 46. "The real truth is that while he came to
preach the gospel his chief object in coming was that there might be a gospel
to preach." •Supra, p. 17.
'' Revelation and Inspiration, p. 144 f.
' The Doctrine of Salvation, p. 413.
'Systematic Theol., I, p. H-
'Supra, p. 23.

74 THE NORMATIVE USE OF SCRIPTURE
change from a doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture to one of
their religious sufficiency.* A great gulf lies between the meanings
of the two words as he employs them. The one suggests the impo
sition of authority from without; the other the influence of truth
from within. Still another step in the same general direction is
Professor Orr's denial of the necessity of pro-ying the Bible to be
God's word, before he can speak of its gospel. "A book which con
tains such a gospel needs no external attestation that God speaks
through it with authority to men."^ Here the authority of the
Bible is based in its appeal to the soul with moral and spiritual
power. Though Professor Orr uses the word infallibility, it is not
with the old meaning. He subordinates it strictly to the practical
religious interest. The Bible is said to be " an infallible guide in the
great matters for which it was given," "viz., the knowledge of the
will of God for salvation in Christ Jesus, and instruction in the way
of holiness. His position is practically the same as that of Presi
dent Strong."
Finally, in the present positions of Professor Denney we have
seen how the formal doctrinal authority of the Scriptures disap
pears altogether, and how the teaching it contains, even the thought
of the apostles does not dominate us but rather helps us "by in
spiring intellectual interest in the gospel. "^^ " Once the mind has
come to know itself, there can be no such thing for it as blank
authority. It cannot believe things — the things by which it has to
live — simply on the word of Paul or John  Truth, in
short, is the only thing which has authority for the mind, and the
only way in which truth flnally evinces its authority is by taking
possession of the mind for itself. ' '^^
What, now, is the conclusion toward which aU these expressions
tend? Is it not that the authority of the Scriptures lie in their
value as grasped by religious experience? Inspired Scripture is
isimply valuable Scripture — a view that seems in remarkable accord
"with the classic text 2 Timothy 3 :16. Every Scripture inspired of
God (or God-breathing) is also profitable {a<fi'ki^oq, useful, ser-
« Supra, p. 26.
' Rev. and Insp., p. 20.
"Ibid, p. 217.
" Supra, p. 79.
"^Atonement and the Modern Mind, pp. 7, 8.

SUMMARY AND FORECAST 7,5
viceable). Scripture is simply the literary reflex of experience. It
proves its exceptional value, in so far as it has such, by the manner
in which it helps us to interpret our experience and so enriches it
for us. It proves its inspiration by inspiring. It exhibits its vi
tality by generating, or stimulating life outreaching the formal
expression of the life from which it arose. The function of the
Scriptures, therefore, in the theology of the future will be their
effectiveness in stimulating interest in the great religious verities
from which they themselves arose, and in thus maintaining that
moral and spiritual vitality necessary to the connection of our own
experience with those same verities. It is the universal testimony of
those who specially cultivate biblical studies according to the ideals
of modem Christian scholarship, that the Scriptures are thereby
tremendously enhanced in intellectual interest and in their power
of religious appeal. So far, therefore, from losing their value and
function in theology, they will for the first time really come to
exercise their rightful authority. Only, this authority will be vital
and functional, rather than formal. In truth, as we have seen, the
Scriptures as a whole have not had, nor can they have even a formal
authority. That formal authority which has been accorded to the
Bible has been a mere semblance. Philosophical, and political con
cepts derived from extra-biblical sources have been superimposed
upon the Bible and have been used to enucleate therefrom those
materials in seeming subservience to these concepts. Other ma
terials, far richer in religious content and more vital in Christian
experience were either overlooked, or were violently wrested from
their natural import to a fictitious agreement with those other
theologically normative ideas. Furthermore, it is now evident that
Scripture can not have formal authority for theology, because of
the large variety of its representations. But Scripture is pervaded
by one continuous and increasing ethical and spiritual life which
comes to full expression in Jesus Christ and through faith by the
Spirit dwells in Christian hearts. In giving to us the Christ, and
Life in Him, the Scriptures after all give to us the only norm
our theology needs or can have.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hodge, Doctor Charles.
Systematic Theology, 3 Volumes. New York, 1887.
Strong, President Augustus H.
Systematic Theology, 3 Volumes. Philadelphia, 1907-9.
Christ in Creation and Ethical Monism. Philadelphia, 1899.
Warfield, Professor Benjamin B.
The Right of Systematic Theology. Edinburgh, 1897.
The Significance of the Westminster Standards. New York, 1898.
The Lord of Glory. New York, 1907.
Orr, Professor James.
Revelation and Inspiration. New York, 1910.
The Christian View of God and the World. New York, 1893.
The Progress of Dogma. New York, 1901.
The Problem of the Old Testament. New York, 1906.
Denney, Professor James.
Studies in Theology. New York, 1895.
The Death of Christ. New York, 1902.
The Atonement and the Modern Mind. London, 1910.
Jesus and the Gospels. New York, 1909.
Curtis, Professor Olin.
The Christian Faith. New York, 1905.
Mead, Professor Charles M.
Irenic Theology. New York, 1905.
Supernatural Revelation. New York, 1889.
Ladd, George T.
The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, 2 Volumes. New York, 1883.
Burton, Ernest De Witt; Smith, John Merlin Powis and Smith, Gerald Birney.
Biblical Ideas of Atonement; their History and Significance. Chicago, 1909.
Smith, Gerald Birney.
The Test of Inspiration, Article Biblical World, Vol. 36, pp. 152 ff.
Gilbert, George Holley.
Interpretation of the Bible. New York, 1908.
Clarke, William Newton.
The Use of the Scriptures in Theology. New York, 1906.
Sixty Years with the Bible. New York, 1910.
Dods, Marcus.
The Bible; Its Origin and Nature. New York, 1905.
Weiss, Bernard.
The Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 2 Volumes. Edinburgh, 1888.
The Religion of the New Testament, Eng. Tr. New York, 1905.
Scott, Ernest F.
The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology. Edinburgh, 1906.
The Kingdom and the Messiah. Edinburgh, 1911.
The Apologetic of the New Testament. New York, 1907.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
Tennant, F.
The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin. Cambridge, 1903.
Wrede, Wilhelm.
tJ'ber Aufgabe und Methode der sogennanten Neutestamentlichen Theologie.
Gottingen, 1897.
Montefiore, Claude H.
The Religious Teaching of Jesus. London, 1910.
McFadyen, John Edgar.
Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church. New York, 1906.
Evans, Llewelyn J. and Smith, Henry P.
Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration. Cinn., 1891.
Immer, A.
Hermeneutics of the New Testament. Andover, 1890.
Schultz, Hermann.
Old Testament Theology, Eng. Tr., 2 volumes. Edinburgh, 1892, 1895.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 8288

' '"^'^^Rt ''^'^K '"¦'"TIP'*
'/jyfi , if Win

T '

ym -

'¦' ""ii. »
"i

MiUV^' ^"'

I

''A4 '^l,,