J7 A7 '^ 9.
"#
PRINCETON, N. J. *jf
^
4-^:=^
BT 201 '.MSaA 1901b
Macintosh, H.R., 1870-1936
Is Christ infallible and th(
Bible true
IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE
AND
THE BIBLE TRUE?
IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE
AND
THE BIBLE TRUE?
BY rHE
Rev. HUGH MTNTOSH, M.A.
AUTHOR OK
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GOSPKL " "THE TWO BANNERS
"THE NEW PROPHETS" ETC.
SECOND EDITION
EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1 90 1
PRINTED BY
lOKRISON AND GIBB LIMITED,
T. & T. CLARK, EDIXBl'RGH.
London: simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, kent, and co. limited.
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER's SONS.
Toronto: the publishers' syndicate limited.
PREFACE
This book is the outcome of a deep and growing conviction of
the supreme importance and increasing urgency of the great and
serious question, or class of questions, indicated by the title, " Is
Christ Infallible and the Bible True ? " It is, indeed, the two sides
of the one supreme question in theology and religion, and it is
the burning question of the day. It has always held a prominent
place, and evoked unique interest in the Christian Church,
While other theological questions have been raised and settled, —
had their day and ceased to be, — at least as subjects of serious
discussion or concern, — this subject is ever with us ; and never so
much or so seriously as now, — specially in its practical bearings
on Christian faith and life. It has now passed beyond the com-
paratively quiet region of ordinary theological discussion into the
wide arena of religious thought and life ; and has there caused
such controversies and aroused such concern as require every
Christian man, especially every minister of the Gospel, to face
afresh, and to examine anew, the Bible claim to be the Word of
God, — true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority. For with that
claim, the claims of Christ to be the Son of God, or a teacher
sent from God, or even a trustworthy or veracious teacher in
anything, are radically connected ; because He endorsed, sealed,
and declared this claim with awful absoluteness. Therefore,
with this first and fundamental claim of Scripture, the truth and
authority of Christ as a religious teacher stand or fall, as also
all objective authority in religion or ethics ; for if Christ is not
a supreme authority on these, no other can seriously pretend to
be. And when many calling themselves Christians, and pro-
fessedly Christian critics, are now presuming to write and speak
VI PREFACE
of the "ignorance and errors," " superstitions " and " exegetical
mistakes " of Jesus Christ ; and when others, occupying prominent
positions in Christian Churches, are, while professing to magnify the
teaching of Jesus, actually disowning and assailing much of His
deepest and most essential teaching, as given in His own very
words, in the most decisive and absolute way — it is surely high
time to face more seriously than has yet been done, the moment-
ous question, " Is Christ infallible " or authoritative as a teacher,
even on the root and basal question in religion and ethics ? And
if He is not, does He, or can He, possess independent and Divine
authority on any religious or ethical question, or can He be
13ivine ? For these are the vital and serious questions about our
Lord raised and forced upon us now by much of the teaching and
negation of our time ; — many who call Him " Lord " daring to
question and deny what He says. Many teachers and preachers
are now not only denying the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and
Divine authority of Holy Scripture, but also proclaiming with
keenest zest its indefinite and illimitable erroneousness and un-
reliability,— not merely in small, but in radical and essential
things, — yea, in every kind of thing, — specially in its moral and
religious teaching. Some fear not to condemn the Word of God
in its teaching in large parts and essential elements ; and throw
the whole records of our faith, and the sources of our knowledge
of Christ and salvation, into confusion and discredit. And when
all this is done with an air of superior wisdom, and a cant of
advanced thought, it has plainly become an imperative duty and
an urgent necessity to grapple more firmly with these pretentious
theories, in their present forms, than has yet been attempted ;
and to ask with a deeper concern than ever, for the sake of the
faith delivered once for all to the saints in the Written Word of
God, " Is the Bible true ? " And when not a few good and able
men in Evangelical Churches, in vain attempt to conciliate
scepticism at the cost of truth, make admissions, and adopt
principles, and pursue methods, which, if carried out to their
legitimate and only logical issues, really subvert the faith, and
destroy the very foundations of all our hopes ; and when other
honoured teachers of our religion, in their desire to magnify
Christ, place His teaching in antithesis and antagonism to the
teaching of His apostles, with the effect of disparaging and
discrediting the inspired writers and writings of the Bible, — which
PREFACE vii
are the very bases and only sources of our faith or of our know-
ledge of Christ and His teaching — it has surely become a
prime and imperative necessity to deal more thoroughly with
these theories and pretensions, and to expose more fully the
baselessness and presumption, erroneousness and absurdity of the
criticism or philosophy that can lead to such results ; — especi-
ally when, if it has any force at all, it is as fatal to the teaching
and authority of Christ as to that of His apostles, and is equally
destructive of the claims of both the AVritten and the Incarnate
Word of C;od.
This book was written with that view, with what success the
reader must judge. All that I ask is a careful examination of
the evidence, and the argument. I would call special attention
to the standpoint from which I approach the great subject, — even
Christ and His teaching — the Christologic standpoint — , unques-
tionably the highest and most decisive. This is the great cry
and ideal of our day, around which the best recent Biblical
study and religious thought centre and crystallise. The teaching
of Christ on Holy Scripture in Book I., and the teaching of
Christ along with His apostles given in the general and specific
proof of the Bible claim, in Book IV., I regard as of prime
importance on the whole subject. So far as I am aware it has
not been treated largely from the same standpoint, or in the
same inductive method, or with like completeness and thorough-
ness. Nor has the sceptic's apology for scepticism, on the prin-
ciples, methods, and results of much recent teaching on Scripture
and on Christ, been used in like manner, or to the same purpose
hitherto — to disprove all rationalistic and errorist theories, by
proving that they must abandon their theories or their Christianity.
The doctrinal position on which I take my stand as to
Scripture, and for the defence of the Christian faith against both
Rationalism and Scepticism, is that the Bible is the Word of
God, — true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority, and the Divine
rule of faith and life, — or the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and
Divine authority of all Scripture as originally given, when pro-
perly interpreted, in the sense God intended, within the reason-
able limits of language and literary usage. It is a middle
position between what has been called " absolute inerrancy " (a
most objectionable and misleading phrase), on the one hand,
and indefinite erroneousness, on the other. Were I to express
viu PREFACE
it, in contrast with these, in similarly concise form, I might best
do so by the " thorough truthfulness " of Holy Scripture ; or that
the Bible is true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority in all its
Teaching, when truly interpreted, and its real meaning ascer-
tained. I take this position chiefly because, as proved, the
Bible makes this claim for itself, and Christ endorses it with His
Divine authority. In regard to our Lord Himself, what I hold
and maintain here is that Christ is infallible and Divinely
authoritative in all He taught and uttered ; and His own majes-
tic words best express the simple and sublime fact as to every
word He ever spoke, " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
My words shall not pass away."
The critical position held is a via media between rationalism
on the one hand, and traditionalism on the other — substantially
the same in the main positions as that maintained with such
transcendent ability by my unique teacher. Dr. William Robert-
son Smith, the greatest all-round, and specially Old Testament
and Semitic scholar of the age. \\\\\\ his view, too, on the
supreme question — as to the infallible truth and the Divine
authority of the teaching of our Lord, and the danger and un-
tenableness of impugning these — I wholly agree, and firmly hold
it to be the only true and safe position. Indeed, the general
view as to both Scripture and the teaching of Christ held
throughout is well expressed generally in the quotations closing
this preface, and more fully later, in the words of this greatest
Old Testament scholar, and of the greatest living New Testament
scholar — Dr. Westcott, Bishop of Durham.
As to the manner in which the work is written, I have
sought to treat the subject with as much thoroughness as
possible, with the aid of the ablest works on the various ques-
tions,— using, when necessary or helpful in crucial cases, the
original languages ; but only in such a way as the English
reader, of ordinary intelligence, should be able to follow. I
have aimed at combining thoroughness with simplicity, and at
making it generally intelligible to the humblest disciple of
Christ. The frequent divisions made, and the headings used
throughout, form a special feature ; and will enable the reader
the more readily to grasp the leading points, and to follow the
order of the thought, as given also in the Contents.
The Introduction is not merely introductory, but also states.
PREFACE IX
and so far supports, the main position, seizes on the salient
points in each book, and gives in condensed form a general
outline of the argument.
I have used the same facts and arguments in various places,
in different connections, for diverse purposes ; not only because
I appreciate the force of Thomas Carlyle's principle, and Dr.
Thomas Chalmers' practice, that there is no figure of speech
worth using except repetition in various forms, but also because
they are the chief facts and the decisive considerations which
practically settle the main issues ; and because the overlooking
or insufificiently recognising of them has confused the issues,
perpetuated the errors, and continued the many misconceptions
and misrepresentations that have had to be exposed and corrected.
If, in doing so, it should seem that I have severely handled any
writers, it is only those who have roughly handled the Word of
Ood, and wrongly condemned the inspired writers, and have per-
sisted in repeating the oft-exposed misrepresentations ; and who
denounce every independent man that, after the example and
on the authority of Christ and of His inspired apostles, would dare
to uphold the Bible claim, or to differ from the false but oracular
assertions, or to refuse to accept the infallible ipse dixit, of those
presumptuous speculators who are vain enough to claim for
their own crude, ephemeral productions what they deny to the
Oracles of God, and to the very words of even the Son of God !
I have received much aid in various parts from many writers
in the vast mass of literature consulted, ancient and modern, —
British, Continental, and American, — which is acknowleged so
far as seems necessary or was possible, in the references and
Appendix. But I have approached the subject from my own
standpoint, treated it in my own way, thought the main ques-
tions through for myself, and often had to find my way through
the most serious issues and crucial parts entirely alone. I owe
most to my distinguished professor. Dr. William Robertson
Smith, and next to Dr. Westcott, Principal William Cunningham,
D.D., and Principal Rainy, D.D. I owe also something to
articles and discussions, notes and extracts, letters and reviews, in
such papers as The Critical Review, The Expositor, The Expository
Times, The British Weekly, The Christian /F^r/rt^— especially for
views opposed to my own, every scrap of which I carefully read
in order the better to test or tone my own, and to know every-
X TREFACE
thing that might be urged for opposing or diverse views. I owe
much to the training for several years of some able and distin-
guished students for the testing examinations of the Presbyterian
Church of England in the higher Biblical Instruction of youth.
The work has largely occupied every holiday and every spare
moment of many years of a busy ministerial life,— during which
two large churches have been built, and two important congrega-
tions formed, in Glasgow and London, with other large mission
and philanthropic enterprises, involving heavy toil and re-
sponsibility. This has given me such opportunities as mere
students have not, of observing the evil, unsettling effects of
much current teaching tending to discredit the truth and
authority of Scripture and of Christ, among the intelligent artisans
in that great city whose noble motto is " Let Glasgow flourish by
the preaching of the Word," as also in the hands of smart secular-
ists, and cleverish sceptics, among the religiously indifferent
working men of the Metropolis, — just as they have been so sadly
illustrated under the blighting influence of rationalism among
the manhood of Germany. This has also given me opportunities
of following closely the whole course of the discussion, in its ever-
increasingly more serious forms and phases. The book has been
adapted to the changing aspects of the questions up to the latest
and most serious of all, which, in connection with Scripture, asks
the solemn question, "Is Christ Infallible?" And as this is by
many now answered in the negative, and that, too, on the prime
and radical question in religion and morals, — the basis and the
postulate of all other doctrines, — many have, in the course of
this discussion, in these last times, not only passed from an
infallible pope, and discarded an infallible Bible, but have also
discredited an infallible Christ, — leaving no authority in religion
save an infallible self, with all its absurdity.
I have to own my obligations to many friends for valuable
suggestions and the use of much literature in the preparation of
this work. And I cannot adequately express my gratitude and
indebtedness for great aid in the revisal of the proof, many
valuable suggestions, and helpful criticisms, from different view-
points, from my good and learned friends, the Rev. Dr. Skinner,
Professor of Hebrew and Apologetics, Westminster College,
Cambridge ; Rev. J. Head Thomson, M.A., B.D., of Blackheath,
Clerk of the Presbytery of London South ; Rev. Hugh M.
TREFACE x:
Mackenzie, editor of the Babylonian and Oriental Record, and
the Rev. John Griffin, late minister of the Baptist Church. This
does not, of course, mean, or at all imply, that any of them is
anyway committed to my positions, or responsible for my state-
ments, or in any measure implicated in what or how I have
written ; although they have given me valuable help in the
revision as friends. I have personally received much benefit
from the study, found the careful searching of the Divine Book
a perennial fountain of fresh thought and holy inspiration, and
realised it to be, what Mr. Gladstone's library was to him, a
temple of peace amid the pressure and excitement of other
things. This book will have served its end, if it helps others to
similar blessings, by leading them to grasp more firmly, and
search more deeply, these Sacred Scriptures, in which He tells
us we have eternal life, — because they testify of, and bring us
near, to Him. And we shall have the true Divine antidote to
the errors and evils of our time, amid the aggressive Romanism,
on the one hand, and the abounding Rationalism, on the other,
if, as we enter the dawn of a new century, we grasp anew, study
afresh, and love fervently, the Grand Old Book as "the Word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever," — " whereunto we do well
that we take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place
until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in our hearts," — taking
it, amid the encircling gloom, as our guiding star, — sealed as it
is by the w^ords of Incarnate God, in the name of Godhead, — and
making the watchword of the Reformation ours now, "The Bible
is the Word of God, and the Divine rule of faith and life."
" If I thought that anything in my views impugned the truth
or authority of the teaching of our Lord, I should feel myself on
dangerous and untenable ground." — Dr. William Robertson
Smith.
" If our Lord's words are accurately recorded, or if even their
general tenor is expressed in one of the Gospels, the Bible is
indeed the Word of God in the fullest spiritual sense, — for no
scheme of accommodation can be accepted when it tends to
lead men astray as to the source of Divine help." " It preserves
xii PREFACE
absolute truthfulness with perfect humanity. The Letter becomes
as perfect as the Spirit." — Dr. Westcott.
" People now say that Scripture contains God's Word, when
they mean that part of the Bible is the Word of God, and
another part is the word of man. This is not the doctrine of
our Churches, which hold that the substance of all Scripture is
God's Word. What is not part of the record of God's Word is
no part of Scripture." — Dr. William Robertson Smith.
" Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost."— St. Peter.
"All Scripture is God-breathed (^eoTn/cuo-Tos). ^Vhich things
we speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth." — St. Paul.
" Thy Word is truth." "The Scripture cannot be broken."
— St. John.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the
Prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily
I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."—
Jesus Christ.
HUGH M'INTOSH.
The Manse, Brockley, London, S.E.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
In issuing so soon the second edition, I have to acknowledge most gratefully
the very favourable reception given to this work, the exceedingly good
reviews of it by leading papers, both secular and religious, and the highly
appreciative opinions of it, emphasising the urgent need of it now, expressed
l)y Biblical scholars and leading men. In this edition several corrections
have been made, some changes introduced, and important additions appended.
As the last pages of the first edition were passing through the press, there
appeared Dr. G. Adam Smith's Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the
Old Testament, treating partially but very unsatisfactorily of some of the
questions ; as, also, the second volume of the Encyclopadia Biblica, with
articles by Dr. Schmiedel and others, which have awakened earnest attention
and serious concern. With these I have here dealt specifically, though
briefly, but 1 hope effectively, from the standpoint and on the lines of my
book — the Divinity and Authority of Christ. I trust it may now prove in
the present crisis more helpful and effectual even than before in destroying
the destructive criticism, and confirming faith in the Word of God.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
PAGES
The Title and Standpoint. Christ Infallible ..... i
General Outline — Salient Points 6
Book I. Christ's Place in Theology. Christ and the Controversies . 6-7
Book II. Is Christ Infallible as a Teacher ?..... 7
Book III. The State of the Question {Status Qmrstioiiis) and Pre-
liminary Proof. Misconceptions and Misrepresentations . S-io
Book IV. The Bible Claim and Proof. The Truthfulness, Trust-
worthiness, and Divine Authority of the Bible . . . 10-15
Book V. The Opposing Views stated and contrasted Apologetically.
The Sceptic's Apology 15-29
Book VI. The Essential Rationalism of all Theories of the Indefinite
Erroneousness of the Bible ....... 29-32
Book VII. Difficulties and Objections. Additional Confirmations . 33
The Ultimate Issues — Reason or Revelation ? The New Bible
and the Old 34-9
For Christianity itself there is nothing to fear .... 40-2
BOOK I.
Christ's Place in Theology, and Christ and the
Controversies.
CHAPTER I.
The Prominence of Christ in Recent Theology.
The Abuses of this. Disparaging the Prophets and Apostles . . 47
Christ's special honouring of them ....... 47-50
Our whole knowledge of Christ and His teaching is from the
Scriptures. Christ seals disputed doctrines .... 49
xiii
XIV CONTENTS
CHAPTER II.
Christ's Place as a Religious Teacher — Unique.
TAGES
Christ's Place in the Development of Revelation .... 56-61
CHAPTER III.
Review of Recent Speculation ox the Teaching of Jesus
FROM the Standpoint of Christ's Supremacy.
Dr. John Watson's (Ian Maclaren) and Cognate \'ie\vs — '• The Mind
of the Master." Alleged antithesis and antagonism between
the teaching of Christ and of the Prophets and Apostles, with
refutation .......... 62-Si
Christ's Criticism of the Critics' Criticism ..... 8i-8(
CHAPTER l\.
The Sermon on the Mount. Its Place in Revelation and
in the Teaching of Jesus.
Elementarj' and Subordinate ........ S7-94
Estimate and Criticism of Dr. John Watson's new Ethical Creed . 94-7
CHAPTER V.
Princip.\l a. M. Fairbairn's Views and Coo.nate Views —
"The PL.A.CE OF Christ in Modern Theology.''
Dr. Fairbairn's improved Interpretation of the Mind of Ch
Religious Philosophy rather than a Revealed Theolog}-
Christ and His Apostles placed in Antithesis and Antagonism
Paul and his Teaching and Epistles criticised and disparaged
John and his teaching depreciated ....
Tames and his Epistle severely criticised and condemned .
Criticism of the Apostles' Critics
104
105
106
;-i8
CHAPTER VI.
Dr. F.a.irbairn's improved Restatement of the Mind
of Christ.
I. Theology. God. Wrong Root-Conception of the Fatherhood of
God, the opposite of Christ's 120-5
The Son of God. A Kenosis that practically evaporates His
Divinity 125
CONTENTS XV
PAGES
2. Anthropology. Man. Most meagre, a contrast to Christ's . 127
3. Soteriology, defective and erroneous. The Doctrines of Grace
have little place ......... 127-8
The Sacrifice of Christ not vicarious but reformatory. A moral
tonic not a real Atonement, a Medicine not a Redemption . 12S-35
4. Eschatology. The Future Life. Meagre. Vitiated by wrong
root-idea of God ......... 135
No Second Coming. Nor Judgment-Seat. Nor Eternal Punish-
ment, or punishment at all, in sinner or Saviour . . . 136
A deductive philosophy in theology. A contradiction of Christ's
chief teaching 138-41
CHAPTER VII.
The Ritschlians' and Similar Views.
RitschI, Kaftan, Herrmann, Schultz, Harnack, Wendt
Philosophy in Theology ........
The professed return to the historical Christ ....
Alleged antagonism between the teaching of Jesus and of His apostle
Their philosophy rules their theology, and their theology thei
criticism ........
Their Exegesis dominated by their Dogmatics .
Their antagonism to and criticism of Christ's teaching
Their denial of Christ's claims ......
The alleged errors in Jesus' teaching ....
I. As to God. 2. Man. 3. Angels and Devils .
4. As to Himself and His work. 5. The Future Life. 6.
Scripture ........
7. Alleged errors common to Jesus and Plis apostles
The substance and outcome of the Ritschlian teaching
The common Rationalistic Principle in all these theories .
Hoi
142
144-5
146-7
1 48
149
150
151-4
155-6
156
156-60
161-3
163-5
165-8
169
CHAPTER VIII.
Christ's Teaching on Holy Scritture.
I. Christ's Teaching in chief explicit Passages .
The Locus Classicus, Matt. 5I
"What it settles, attempted evasions and answer. Dr. l^'arrar anc
Dr. Briggs .........
The " I say unto you " passages. Answer to objections
2. Other explicit passages — ^John lo''^*'^^ Crucial passage
Rev. 22^8- " !■* 199 2i5 226. The Divine Seal to the Divine Book
Matt. 22^9, John 17", Rev. 2 and 3, "What the Spirit saith "
The " It is written " passages ......
The " That it might be fulfilled " passages ....
3. Christ's actions ruled by Scripture .....
173-9
79-81
182-5
185-7
88-90
1 90- 1
191-3
193-6
197
XVI CONTENTS
PACJES
4. Christ's teaching on Scripture the same after His Resurrection as
before. Luke 24^^- -^- ■*■*"■*' 197-200
5. The general names and titles given to Scripture as a whole . 200-3
6. Scripture is identified with God and personalised, and called the
Word of God and equivalents ...... 203-5
7. Christ's Use of Scripture and His habitual attitude to it . . 205-8
8. What is said of the O.T. holds a fortiori of the N.T. . . . 209-10
9. Christ's Promises to His apostles. The Holy Spirit the supreme
Author of Scripture ........ 21 1-5
10. Scripture finally sealed by Christ in the name of Godhead . . 215-6
BOOK II.
Is Christ Infallible as a Teacher?
CHAPTER I.
The Seriousness of the Question, and when it is raised.
The seriousness of the question. What it precisely is and raises . 217
Raised recently not directly, but as a side issue by Rationalistic critics,
because Christ stands by Scripture . . . . . 218
If not infallible, can He be Divine ? ...... 219
Does appeal avail to His own claims and words, miracles, and fulfilled
prophecies, or to His Incarnation, or even His Resurrection?. 219-22
Religious Evolutionists — Max Muller, Huxley, Matthew Arnold,
Tylor. Rationalistic Critics, and denial of the supernatural —
Kuenen, Wellhausen, Reuss ....... 221-2
Distinguish Christian critics from anti-supernaturalists. Extremes . 222-3
When and where is the serious question raised? Seldom, if ever,
with questions of authorship of Bible Books, or the dates, or
method of composition 224-6
Truthfulness and trustworthiness and Divine authority predicated
only of the original Scriptures, not of traditional interpretations 226
The precise point at which the supreme question arises . . . 226
Testimony of leading scholars and theologians as to the vital neces-
sity of holding Christ's infallibility and Divine authority —
Dr. Robertson Smith's words, Drs. Westcott, Liddon, Ellicott,
Dorner, etc. Advanced criticism falsely so called . . . 229
Cant of advanced thought. The serious issues .... 229-30
CHAPTER II.
The Errorists' alleged Grounds of Christ's Fallibility,
and their Manifest Untenableness.
I. Christ's Nescience, Mark 13^-, no basis for such inferences, but
the reverse 232-3
CONTENTS xvii
PAGES
2. Christ's mental and moral development ..... 233
His veritable humanity and human development a great and pre-
cious fact, much overlooked and lost ..... 234
The Christ of the Gospels and Epistles is intensely human while
truly Divine .......... 234-5
Its spiritual value and doctrinal importance ..... 235
3. The Kenosis. A Bible Revelation and profound fact. But no
ground for questioning His infallibility as a Teacher . . 238
No necessary connection between Nescience and fallibilit}-, or
erroneous teaching, in any man ...... 239
How much less in the teaching of the Perfect Man and the Son
of God, on the supreme question in religion and ethics ? . 240
If in this He is unreliable, or erroneous, or not infallible, how can
we rely on Him in anything ? ...... 241
If His Incarnation necessitated His fallibility, or error in teaching,
it defeats His mission, and its own end ..... 241
CHAPTER HI.
The Disproof of the Theory from Scripture, and the
Proof of His Infallibility.
But no necessary or natural connection between limitation in know-
ledge and fallibility or erroneousness in teaching — especially
in the supreme God-sent Teacher ...... 242
When—
First. He was the Sinless Man, free from the blinding influence
of sin 244
Second. He was the Perfect Man, who had perfected His Icnow -
ledge 245
Third. He received the special fulness of the Holy Spirit for His
teaching .......... 245
Fourth. He was God Incarnate, and His Words are declared to
be the Father's Words 248-9
Fifth. His own claims, words, miracles, and power . . . 250-1
CHAPTER IV.
The assumed Grounds in Reason for Christ's Errancy, and
Erroneousness, and the Momentousness of the Issues.
Grounds on which Christ's Nescience, fallibility, and error in teach-
ing have been based ........ 252
First assumed ground is groundless — His humanity .... 252
1. He was Man — humaniivi errare est. Untenable. The Kenotic
ground ........... 252
2. The Critical. Not His mission to declare the truth about Scrip-
ture. Unfounded assumption and false inference . . . 252-3
b
CONTENTS
Assumed that Christ expressed only the current beliefs as to
Scripture. Contrary to fact ....... 254-5
Confusion between imperfection and error in teaching . , . 255
Assumption false, and impugnes His character if, by accommoda-
tion, He taught error as truth, and misled men . . . 256
CHAPTER V.
The Logical Conclusions and Momentous Issues of
ALL Theories denying or questioning Christ's In-
fallibility.
The Truthfulness and Trustworthiness of Scripture and of Christ are
inseparable, and vary as each other 25S
If Christ's teaching on Scripture is disowned, each person must
become judge of what is false and true in the teaching of
Scripture, and of Christ, and becomes a standard to himself . 259-60
Therefore no fixed standard, authority, or finality in truth or re-
ligion ........... 260
If Christ has erred as to the truth and authority of Scripture— the
fundamental question in religion — how can we trust Him in
anything? 261
If He erred as to the Word of God, may He not have erred as to His
being the Son of God, and in all His teaching and claim ? . 262
If He has erred as to the Scriptures He came to fulfil, is not His
Mission a failure ? 263
If Christ is not infallible in teaching, who is? What is? . . . 263
The final issue. No seat of authority in religion or ethics. Absolute
scepticism. Absolute absurdity. Advanced thought I . . 264-6
BOOK III.
The State of the Question {Status Qu.^stionis).
The Bible Claim and Prelkminary PrOof.
CHAPTER I.
General Misconceptions ani:) ^Misrepresentations.
Opposite Extremes.
Prevalence of these, confusing the Issues, and the diverse Defenders . 268
Misleading Terms and prejudicial Epithets ..... 269
Inadmissible and invalid Arguments ...... 270
CONTENTS XIX
CHAPTER II.
IMlSCONCEPTIONS AND CONFUSIONS.
PAGER
1. Confusing Canonicity with the Truth and Divine Authority.
Opposite Extremes 272-3
2. Confusing of Translations with the Original Scriptures . . . 274
3. Mistaking the Scriptures in the Original Tongues with the
Original MSS 275
Discrepancies Vanishing Quantities ...... 277
Rationalistic Theories of the Gospels confirm the Bible claim . 279
The Apologetic and Practical Value of the distinction . . . 280-3
The Scriptures as we have them are substantially True . . 281
4. Confusing Authorship with the Truth and Divine Authority . . 283
5. Confusing Questions of Date, and Method of Composition of
Bible Books, with the P'undamental (Question . . . 285
6. Also Traditional Interpretation with the Word of God . . . 286-9
CHAPTER III.
7. Confusing Truthfulness with Scientific Accuracy
AND Absolute Perfection.
Confusing Imperfection with Erroneousness ..... 294-6
The Progressiveness of Revelation requires Trueness and Reliability
throughout the various stages ...... 294-8
Christ's fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, requires trustworthiness
in the prefigurations ........ 300-2
The Bible is a living Unity and spiritual Organism, that implies
Trueness and Reliability in the Complementary Parts.
Opposite Extremes. Fragmentation of Scripture . . . 302-3
Separating Books and Parts, ignoring Organic Unity . . . 304
The Bible a living Spiritual Organism ...... 306
Divine Truth can dwell perfectly only in the Divine Mind. Human
thought and language necessarily imperfect but not untrue . 308
CHAPTER IV.
Misrepresentations and Caricatures.
1. That the Bible was given by Dictation . . . . . 313
2. That the Human Element in Scripture is denied, — untrue. All
Human and all Divine 315
3. That all in Scripture is approved by God ..... 317-9
320
CONTENTS
Often the reverse, though truly recorded by inspiration for good
ends ...........
That the inspired Writers are held to be infallible in their personal
conduct and character. Notoriously false . ... . 321
That they must have had knowledge on all subjects in advance of
their times. Contrary to fact, and unnecessary . . , 322
While not revealing science, the Bible harmonises with it, in
striking contrast to all other ancient writings .... 325
Futile evasions of the proof of Supernatural Inspiration. Dr. Ladd 326
That it is merely a Theory of Inspiration. It is Fact and
Revelation .......... 328
CHAPTER V.
7. Indefinite Erroneousness alleged in Great and
Essential Things.
Error and false teaching alleged in every kind of thing. The O.T. . ^-^
The historical truth and reality of much of O.T. denied in great facts
and chief characters ........ 334
Fiction given as fact by fraud for selfish ends 334-7
Isaiah's prophecies "falsified by events." Dr. G. A. Smith . . 335
Prophecy only sagacious Forecast ! the products of pride and of
fanaticism. Inspiration simply natural conscience and sagacity ! 335
jNIiracles denied or minimised. Minimising the supernatural . , 337
Anti-supernaturalists fully justified on Errorists' principles. Religion
mere natural evolution 338
Erroneousness alleged specially in moral and religious teaching . 339
In the N.T. antagonism alleged between the writers, and contra-
dictions in the writings 339
Christ and the apostles placed in antagonism — Apostles in contra-
diction 341
The Critics' self-contradictions, and antagonism to Christ's teaching
— The Gospels 342-5
CHAPTER W.
How Easy and Necessary the Descent from all Theories of
Indefinite Erroneousness to Rationalism and Scepticism.
Dr. Ladd and Dr. Martineau arrive at Diametrically Opposite Results
from the common Rationalistic Principle .... 346
Impossible to settle controversies in religion, except by holding the
Bible claim to be the Word of God and the Divine Rule of
Faith and Life 34S-52
The Common Rationalistic Principle in every Theory of Indefinite
Erroneousness 352
CONTENTS xxi
PAGES
The implied Supremacy of Reason over Revelation makes certainty,
finality, and authority in religion impossible .... 353~7
Dr. Horton's denunciations of the Bible claim, and the delusion that
its truths are independent of criticism 357-6o
CHAPTER VII.
Thk Status Qu.estionis.
The Bible claim held by the Christian Church — The Creeds of
Christendom 362
Statement of the question by leading authorities. Dr. Hodge, Dr.
R. S. Candlish, Dr. Westcott 364-6
BOOK IV.
The Bible Claim and general Proof. The
Truthfulness, Trustworthiness, and Divine
Authority of Holy Scripture.
CHAPTER I.
Preliminary Considerations.
1. Plow such a claim would be made ...... 367
2. The co-ordinate authority of the Old and New Testaments . . 368-9
3. The Divine origin and credibility of the Bible assumed here . 370
4. The evidence and argument cumulative 371
5. The first and supreme place is duly given to Bible Passages
expressly treating of the question 371-2
CHAPTER II.
The Locus Classicus on the Question.
1. The special weight due to this passage, 2 Tim. 3^^ . . .
2. Any of the Translations teaches the same Divine inspiration and
authority of Scripture .....
It teaches the Divine origin and authority of all Scripti
No ground given for Degrees of Inspiration .
The meaning of deoirvevaros — God-breathed
What it teaches and necessarily includes — Its elements
(l) Divine Origin. (2) Divine Production
(3) Divine Responsibility for all Scripture
(4) Divine Truthfulness and Trustworthiness .
(5) Divine Authority, when truly interpreted .
•e equally
374
375-6
377
379
380
381
382
383
385
385-8
CONTENTS
CHAPTER III.
The General and Specific Scripture Proof.
PACES
I. The Old Testament claim ........ 3S9
Perennial Phrases : " Thus saith the Lord," and equivalents . 390-3
The Divine Definition of a Prophet 393-5
The Prophets did not fully understand their prophecies . . 395
Wicked men used to utter prophecies. Balaam, Caiaphas . . 396-7
The Character and Qualities attributed to Scripture " true," etc. 397
II. The New Testament Claim and Testimony 399
1. The Teaching of Paul and his Writings, i Tim. 3^'',
1 Thess. 213, I Cor. 14^', 2 Thess. 2^^, i Thess. 5-', Col. 4i«,
2 Cor. 1 3^ 2 Thess. 4--^ 3^'* 399-400
"The Oracles of God." Great truths proved by single words,
and special forms of words. The Words of the Spirit. The
Bible expression Spirit inspired. The Word of God the
Sword of the Spirit 401-3
The Scripture identified with God, and personalised . . 403-4
Paul's teaching on Scripture the same as Christ's shown in detail 405
2. The Teaching of Peter and his Epistles. The Holy Spirit
the Supreme Author of Scripture, 2 Pet. i^o-si^ Acts
2^- *, 2 Pet. 3"- ^2- 15- 1^. Prophets and Apostles' writings
put on a level as God's Word, i Pet. i^"-", Acts 2*.
Prophets sometimes did not fully understand the meaning
and scope of their own prophecies, hence the absolute
necessity of Supernatural Inspiration in the expression,
Acts 2i6- 18- 3s 321. 22 48 407
The Prophets and Apostles spokesmen of God . . . 407
The Power and spiritual Effects of the Word, I Pet. I--"-^
Peter's teaching is the same as Paul's, and both as Christ's . 40S
3. The teaching of John and his writings ..... 409
Christ's teaching in John's writings is the apostle's also, so of
all the Gospel writers 409
The sharpness and decisiveness of John's words, John lo^-'-^^
17!^ Rev. i9»22«-i8-i'' ....... 410
Christ's promises of the Spirit to His apostles, John 14-'' 15-®* "'',
Matt. lo-'^, Mk. 13", I John 5", John 3" 20-1 . . . 410-1
"What the Spirit saith unto the Churches," Rev. 2. 3 . . 412
Christ and the apostles by the same Spirit teach the same
truths with the same authority, John 8^', i John 4", John 7''^,
I John 4", John 20^^ 21-'*. The Scripture fulfilled in details
in Christ. The whole N.T. writings teach the same
doctrine . . . . . . . . . . 412
4. The teaching of James and his Epistle ..... 413-4
5. The teaching of Jude 415
CONTENTS xxiii
PAGES
The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews . . . . 415
God and the Holy Ghost the speakers in Scripture . . 416
Great truths and arguments based on single words . . . 417-8
Melchisedec and Christ 419-20
The Double Sense of Scripture ...... 420-I
Collective Quotations 421-2
The United Teaching of Christ and His apostles have one
identical doctrine of Holy Scripture 423
The closing notes of the universal Bible testimony closed and
sealed by Christ , . 424
The Proof closed and conclusive 427
CHAPTER IV.
Remarks on and Teaching of the Evidence.
1. The Vast Amount and Immense Mass of it 429
2. The Character of it — Direct and Positive. The quality as good
as the quantity is great ........ 430
3. The Unique Variety of it 431
4. The Pervasiveness of its claim for truthfulness, trustworthiness,
and Divine authority ........ 432
5. Its inevasibleness. There is no escape from it ... . 432
6. The Cumulative Force and Completeness of it . . . . 433
It is the basis of all its other claims and teaching . . . 434
7. The Divine Decisiveness of it and Finality of it centring and
culminating in Christ 436
CHAPTER V.
What this Evidence settles.
1. That this doctrine and claim of Scripture is not an a priori theory,
but a Fact and a Revelation ....... 439
2. It requires the Errorists to answer it, which they never attempt . 440
3. It precludes all theories of indefinite erroneousness . . . 441
The unwisdom of standing on absolute inerrancy for the defence if
the Christian faith ........ 442
The strength of the position of the truthfulness, trustworthiness,
and Divine authority of Scripture 444
The Errorists allege indefinite erroneousness of Scripture in all
kinds of things, specially in its moral and religious teaching . 445-8
Reason receives Supremacy over Revelation .... 448
The momentous Issues of the Errorists' theories .... 449-52
CONTENTS
BOOK V.
The Opposing Views stated and contrasted Apologetic-
ally. The Apologetic Positions and the Sceptic's
Apology and Reply.
CHAPTER I.
The Bible Claims to be True, Trustworthy, and of Divine
Authority. Christ Endorses that Claim.
PAGES
The Errorists disown this claim, and declare it makes Sceptics . . 454~5
Many Sceptics made by Errorists teaching the Bible's indefinite
Erroneousness 456-7
The Errorists have never faced or answered the evidence for the
Bible claim .......... 458
Every item of the positive evidence for the Bible claim is weightier
than all their objections to it from discrepancies . . . 459
The Errorists' arguments assail equally their own position . . 459
CHAPTER H.
The contrasted Apologetic Positions.
I. Indefinite Erroneousness and absolute Inerrancy compared
apologetically 461
The Inerrantists' position stated though not adopted . . . 461
1. Not verbal dictation 462
2. No theory of the Mode of inspiration or of the Method of
production of the Bible 462-3
3. No mechanical theory of inspiration ..... 463
4. Not equality in value of all Scripture, though all true . . 463
5. Not scientific accuracy or linguistic perfection . . . 464
6. Not absolute perfection. Confusion of imperfection and
erroneousness 465
7. Not necessarily of the received Canon, or translations, or
present MSS 465
8. Not traditional interpretation ...... 466
9. Not of Bible texts in isolation or manipulation . . . 467
The Comparison Apologetically ....... 468
(I.) The apparent strength but intrinsic weakness of the Errorists'
position .......... 468-9
The Errorist puts weapons and principles into the Sceptic's
hands by which he can overthrow the Christian faith . . 470-1
The Sceptic's Questions and Apology. First Stage . . . 471-3
CONTENTS
How can an indefinitely erroneous Bible be made an infallible
rule of faith and life, or bind the conscience with the
authority of God ? ........ 474-5
Is not Agnosticism reasonable and requisite ? . . . . 475
The independent authority of God's Word is nullified . . . 476
The climax of weakness is reached when erroneousness and un-
trustworthiness are asserted in religion and morals . . . 477
Impossible from such a Bible to make a trustworthy Religion or
an authoritative Ethic ........ 47S-9
The inherent apologetic weakness of all theories of indefinite
erroneousness. Individual opinion the ultimate issue . . 48 1-3
CHAPTER HI.
The Testimony of the Spirit, and the Sceptic's
Apology— Second and Third Stages.
The testimony of the Spirit, what ? Of no avail to Errorists . . 484
It is given to the believer through receiving the Bible as the Word
of God 485
It cannot be given for many cardinal truths of Revelation, which
must first be received by faith ...... 487
The Creeds of Christendom the result of receiving the Bible as the
Word of God 487
The Reformers and Romanists agreed that the Bible was the Word
of God 488
Romanism, aided by Errorists, as well as by Anglican Ritualists,
undermining the truth and authority of Scripture . , . 489
Sceptics can urge their Apology against Christianity from the
differences and contrariety among the Creeds . . . 490
Conflicts have arisen because of the insufficient recognition of the
Bible claim — The Prime Requisite ..... 492-4
The testimony of the Spirit valid chiefly for the Doctrines of Grace . 497
The Sceptic's Apology — Second Stage ..... 498-503
No escape for Errorists from Sceptic's conclusion save by
abandoning their position, or answering the whole evidence
for the Bible Claim
The Errorists' dilemma and difficulties
503-4
504-5
The tables completely turned upon the Errorists .... 506-7
The seriousness of the Errorists' position appears most solemnly in
face of Christ's teaching ....... 507-9
On Errorists' principles Sceptics can deny Christ's claims and
authority .......... 510-I
Sceptics can compel the Errorists to abandon their Christianity or
their theor}'. The Sceptic's Apology — Third Stage . . 511-S
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IV.
(II.) The Defence of Christianity from the Inerrantists'
Position.
PAGES
1. First line of defence, no indisputable error demonstrated.
Dr. Farrar, Dr. A. B. Davidson, Dr. D. Brown, Dr. Rainy,
Dr. Westcott, Dr. Ellicott, Dr. Meyer. Discrepancies
vanishing quantities. Corroborations by research . . 520-I
2. Second line of defence. It is only of the Scriptures as origin-
ally given, and when truly interpreted, inerrancy is predicated 522-4
Errorists' theories of Bible books account for discrepancies . 524-6
The Errorists must either give up their theories of the Gospels
or their theory of indefinite erroneousness .... 527
3. The third line of defence. Difficulties connected with all our
knowledge and experience — Butler ..... 528
Special reasons to account for Difficulties ..... 529-30
1. All the Scriptures are ancient — Transmission and transcription 530
2. Much uncertainty as to the origin, authorship, and composition
of some Bible books ........ 531
3. The Scriptures are Fragmentary. The Four Gospels are
complementary and confirmatory ..... 532
4. The Bible was given chiefly as a revelation of faith and life.
The Book of Judges 534-8
5.' The Bible is an Oriental Religious Book — Contrast to ours . 538-40
The Bible in the Exile 539
Conclusion. Compared even with absolute inerrancy, indefinite
erroneousness is apologetically weak and indefensible . . 541
CHAPTER V.
The contrasted Positions compared Apologetically. Indefinite
Erroneousness and thorough Truthfulness.
The unwisdom of taking our stand for the Christian faith on absolute
inerrancy .......... 544-5
The Apologetic Strength of the position of the Truthfulness, Trust-
worthiness, and Divine Authority of all Scripture . . . 546
1. It frees the defence from many plausible objections . . 547
2. It presents a much less exposed line for attack . . . 54S
3. It lays on the Sceptic the burden of disproving the Bible claim 548
4. It prevents rationalising but professed Christians from using
any arguments against the veracity and Divine character of
Scripture, which they with us must maintain . . . 549
5. It brings Rationalists and Sceptics face to face with the
decisive teaching and Divine authority of Christ . . . 550
6. It nullifies the stock and plausible argument against absolute
inerrancy — One error . . . . . . . 55'
7. It bases our position on the embodied substance of Scripture 551
CONTENTS xxvn
PAGES
The three Positions compared apologetically 552-3
Comparison apologetically of the two main and fully antagonistic
positions 554-7
CHAPTER VI.
The Defence of the Christian Faith from the Stand-
point OF Christ, and the Bible Claim.
The first Line of Defence 558
The second and sure line of Defence ...... 559
What the Sceptic has to face and answer 560
1. He has to prove the outer defence untenable .... 562
2. He has to disprove the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority of Scripture ........ 561
3. He has to answer the whole evidences of Christianity — Outline 562-75
BOOK VI.
The Essential Rationalism of all Theories of the
Indefinite Erroneousness of Scripture.
CHAPTER I.
The avowedly and practically Rationalistic Theories.
I. The avowedly Rationalistic Theories ..... 578
I. Modern Spiritualism. 2. Materialism. 3. Deism. 4. Anti-
supernatural Mysticism — Morell. 5. Socinianisui . . 578-9
n. The practically Rationalistic Theories ..... 579
I. Naturalism. 2. The Mythical Theory — Strauss. 3. Sweetness
and Light Theory — ^Matthew Arnold. 4. Quakerism. 5.
Coleridgeism. 6. Dr. G. A. Smith's Theory . . . 579-83
The supremacy of Reason over Revelation .... 5S3
CHAPTER H.
HL The partially and implicitly Rationalistic Theories.
1. The essential Substance of Scripture is generally true and authori-
tative 584
2. Degrees of Inspiration— Suggestion, Direction, Elevation, Super-
intendence. No Bible warrant 5S5
3. The Bible true and authoritative only in moral and religious
teaching, and only partially in these ..... 585-6
The false rationalistic assumptions on which the theory is based . 586-91
The rationalistic attitude and principle assumed, and the results . 591-2
A critic and judge of the Bible, instead of a humble believer . 593
xxvm CONTENTS
PAGES
A theory made out of difficulties and discrepancies .... 594-6
The Bible claims truth and trustworthiness for all Scripture equally . 596-7
The serious practical issues of the rationalistic principle, and the
Errorists' obligations ....... 599-6o3
CHAPTER III.
Varieties and Modifications of the Errorists' Theories.
1. The Bible is infallible in all that affects faith and life . . . 604
Nothing in Scripture that does not affect faith and life . . 605
The Errorists' difficulties, what affects faith and life ? . . . 606
Must become Critic and Judge of the Bible ..... 607-8
Errorists' contradictory conclusions as to what affects faith and life 608-9
2. The Bible infallible and authoritative in all essential to salvation . 609
What is essential to salvation ?
3. The Bible true and authoritative in all its teaching . . . 610-12
This is true when fully applied. All Scripture teaches . . 612
4. The Bible true and authoritative in thoughts but not in words.
Absurd. The thoughts are in the words, the expressions em-
body the substance, and through these alone can we know
the thoughts or substance — Telegram ..... 61 2-5
Summary and Conclusion — The analogy of Nature and Scripture-
No superfluities ......... 6 1 5-7
The Errorists' dilemma. Paralysis of Bible study. The Bible claim
an inspiration to Bible study 617-18
BOOK VII.
Difficulties and Objections, additional Confirmations,
Resume, Cumulative Argument.
Difficulties and Objections, their origin, causes, and character.
,, Examples . . . . . . . . . 621
,, Principles of Explanation — Illustrations, applications . 622
,, their history — Vanishing quantities, confirmations —
Kinds : Psychological, historical, scientific, critical,
moral, and spiritual ....... 623-40
Specific Objections — How to deal with them — Examples, principles . 641-9
,, their purposes, uses, and lessons — Prevalence in all
spheres of knowledge and life ..... 650
The far greater difficulties and objections to all Errorist and sceptical
views. General conclusion and specific explanation . . 652
The true doctrine of Holy Scripture. The Reformers, Dr. W. R.
Smith, Dr. Westcott 653
APPENDIX.
Quotations, Illustrations, Specific Applications, Confirmations from.
Science, Philosophy, History, Archceology, the Evidences in
Minutiae, and the Teaching of Jesus ..... 667-So
IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE?
INTRODUCTION.
THE TITLE AND STANDPOINT.
I HAVE entitled this book "Is Christ infalHble and the Bible
true " with some hesitation. I shrank from asking such a seri-
ous question in the title of a book, in the face of Christendom,
after it has worshipped Him as Divine for nearly two millen-
niums ; and as He is now generally regarded by most men as at
least its supreme teacher in religion and ethics. But after
weighing it long, I was constrained to ask it, because it has been
often asked of late, and answered, too, in the negative, and that
also by many called Christians, in recent discussions about Holy
Scripture and the Christian faith. And I have put it into the
title as a question, in order, by this serious and arrestive form,
the more sharply and solemnly to fix the attention of Christians
generally on the grave issues raised about the Son of God, and
the sources of our Christian faith, by much modern criticism of
the Word of God ; — questions and issues which not only Bible
critics and theologians, but also all intelligent Christians, and
even the lowliest disciples of Christ, are now being forced to face
nolejis volens.
I have also in the title asked, " Is the Bible true ? " And
this, too, is, in sharp and serious form, the question asked, and
answered also in the negative, in many recent theories and
discussions about the Bible, which everyone must face who
values and means to hold fast " the faith which was once for all
delivered unto the saints" (Jude ver. 3, R.V.).
But in doing so, I did not mean to indicate or imply that
2 INTRODUCTION
the two questions were distinct ; for they are inseparable. They
are not two questions, but one — really two sides of the one
supreme (juestion.
The Purport of the Book, and how the Supreme
Question is raised.
The object and burden of this book is to show that the Bible
is, and claims to be, true, trustworth)', and of Divine authority ;
and that Christ endorses and solemnly seals this claim with His
Divine authority, and declares most absolutely the inviolability,
solidarity, and organic unity of all Scripture. God, who in times
past spake unto the fathers through the prophets and "holy men
of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," in
the last days of Revelation spoke unto us by His Son, who
made this claim of the Divine Book most absolute, and finally
put the solemn seal of Godhead to it by the hand and lips of
Incarnate Deity. Since Christ thus stands by Scripture, and
much recent criticism and teaching have not only been denying
the inerrancy, but declaring the indefinite erroneousness and
illimitable untrustworthiness of it, immediately the question was
necessarily raised, "Is Christ infallible and trustworthy as a
Teacher, and is His teaching final and authoritative, — especially
on the root and fundamental religious question as to whether
the Bible is the Divine source and infallible standard of faith
and life ? "
Seeing that Christ thus blocked the way to the progress and
triumph of their criticism and the acceptance of their " critical
results," many critics answered this serious question in the
negative, as they were bound consistently to do ; for no honest
interpretation of Christ's teaching on. His use of, or attitude to
Scripture could deny or ignore His endorsation and redeclara-
tion of this Bible claim, or that these precluded their theories
of its indefinite erroneousness, or unlimited untrustworthiness,
— as many of them to their credit confess; and, therefore, con-
sistently disown the claim of Scripture, and the authority of
Christ as a teacher, on the prime, supreme question in religion
and ethics.
Nor could candid, clear-minded, and consistent critics do
otherwise. For as far as Scripture is erroneous and untrust-
CHANGE OF ATTITUDE TO SCRIPTURE 3
worthy, so far patently and precisely must also Christ be who
endorsed it. Since He signs, seals, and delivers it, His truthful-
ness and trustworthiness must vary as its does. And as its
erroneousness and unreliability are indefinite and illimitable, so
must His also be. With it, indeed, He stands or falls.
Recent Change of Attitude to the Claim of Scripture
AND OF Christ.
This was not always so. Even a few years ago it was vastly
different. Then it was held to be infallible and inviolable in all
its moral and religious teaching, and in everything affecting
doctrine and practice — " the only infallible rule of faith and
life." ^ It was also received as a thoroughly truthful and trust-
worthy Book — the Word of God, of infallible truth and Divine
authority. Discussions about its truth and authority were
usually limited to what Principal Rainy well called " despicable
trivialities" about apparent discrepancies, alleged inaccuracies,
or paltry errors, which may have crept into the fringe of Scripture.
Dr. W. Robertson Smith spoke of them as "grains of sand
gathering on the surface of the solid mass of pure gold " forming
the Bible.
Controversy was then about such small points and questions
as are generally discussed under the heading of "Absolute
inerrancy " ; and had the questions and discussions been kept
within such narrow limits, and about such trivial points, the
supreme questions and the serious issues arising from tampering
with, or questioning the infallibility and Divine authority of our
Lord, seemed far away, and could scarcely be said to be really
raised at all.
Many able and sober-minded men who are now deeply
concerned would have left such questions severely alone, to
exercise the mouse-eyed ingenuity of those half-idle, small-souled
critics who have a craze for keen discussions about such trivi-
alities.
But all this has vastly changed of recent years. The
questions are no longer restricted within such narrow limits, but
^ The Westminster Confession of Faith, in its great Article on Holy 1
Scripture, which even Dean Stanley said "was the most nearly perfect'
Article of Faith ever written." See Dr. Bannerman on Inspiration.
4 INTRODUCTION
traverse the whole range of Holy Writ, and gravely affect the
whole substance of Revelation, reach and shake the very
foundations of Divine truth, penetrate if not paralyse the heart
of God's Word ; directly and seriously raise, unsettle, and
missettle the prime questions of the infallibility and Divine
authority of our Lord as a teacher, on the supreme question in
religion and ethics ; and thus imperil Christianity by forging a
lever by which the unbelieving foe can move it from its founda-
tions and raze it to the ground.
For the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and independent Divine
authority of all Scripture is now questioned, or denied more or
less, not merely in trivial things, but in every kind of thing.
There is no kind of thing in which these are not doubted or
disowned by many professed believers in the Bible Revelation,
and even avowed teachers of the Christian faith.
The ethical and religious teaching is now usually first and
most strongly urged in proof and illustration of the erroneousness
and untrustworthiness of the Bible.
The indefinite erroneousness and unlimited unreliability and
illimitable unauthoritativeness of God's Word are freely taught
and boldly proclaimed. The whole of it is subjected to the
tests of human reason and critical opinion, and every part and
element of it is accepted or rejected as it agrees with or differs
from their diverse and changing dictates. In terms of unmea-
sured severity and contempt are those denounced who, with
the best Biblical scholarship of the world, and after the example
and on the authority of Christ, would dare to maintain the
Bible claim, or to question the infallibility of the ever-changing,
and often contradictory, " assured results " of modern omniscient
criticism ! as Dr. Dodds well calls it.
So that the supreme question of the infallibiUty and Divine
authority of Christ is thus directly and inevasibly raised in
connection with the denial of the basal claim of Scripture, which
He endorsed and sealed with His Divine majesty.
Many called Christians, and some sincerely so, explicitly deny
His infallibility, finality, and authority as a teacher on many
questions affecting the Scriptures He inspired and came to
fulfil ;— as all should consistently do who disown His endorsation
of the fundamental claim, and reject His most solemn declara-
tions of the truth and inviolability of the Word of God.
THE SUPREME QUESTION, "IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE?" 5
The Supreme Question is raised in each Book, and
THE Position taken up.
In each of the seven books of this volume this supreme
question, with its tremendous issues, is raised and reasoned, and
is indeed the centre and basis, standpoint and final issue of the
whole discussion. It is the subject and burden of this book,
especially in its practical bearings on Christian faith and spiritual
life. And the position taken up and maintained here on this
crucial, supreme question is substantially the position held by
my distinguished teacher. Professor W. Robertson Smith, D.D.
(whose teaching I had the rare privilege of enjoying for two
years), the most unique all round scholar of our age, and the
greatest Semitic scholar of this, or perhaps of any time.
That is expressed in reply to charges made against his
opinions on O.T. questions, as impugning the infallibility or
Divine authority of the teaching of Christ, in these weighty
words —
" If I thought that anything in my views, whether in them-
selves so far true or false, impugned the truth or authority of the
teaching of our Lord, I should feel myself on dangerous and
untenable ground ; but it is only a very strained exegesis that can
even appear to make this out."
In saying this I do not, of course, commit myself to all the
critical opinions he advanced — though in substantial agreement
with many of his main positions, and thinking them with him,
not necessarily inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of
Faith, or even with the strictest views of plenary inspiration, as
he maintained. But in regard to the greater and supreme
question as to the infallibility and Divine authority of the teach-
ing of our Lord on everything on which He clearly uttered His
mind, and especially on the prime root question of the truthful-
ness, trustworthiness, Divine origin, authority, and inviolability of
all Scripture as originally given, when properly interpreted, I
hold firmly that my great teacher took up the only true, safe,
and tenable position on which a Christian can take his stand.
This position, on the one hand, refuses to accept the authority
of mere traditional interpretation, and holds it to be the right
and duty of Bibhcal scholarship to investigate and interpret
6 INTRODUCTION
freely and fully, if reverently, all questions designed to ascertain
truly, and state accurately, the meaning and purport of Holy
Scripture; and, on the other hand, it steadfastly rejects and
precludes every theory or interpretation that questions or im-
pugns, far more that disowns or denies the infallibility and
Divine authority of the teaching of our Lord on anything He
ever taught, or any statement He ever made, or any word He
ever uttered ; for " thus saith the Lord," " Heaven and earth shall
pass away, but My words shall not pass away " (Matt. 24^=).
GENERAL OUTLINE AND SALIENT FOLNTS.
BOOK I. CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY, AND
CHRIST AND THE CONTROVERSIES.
Book I. is on " Christ and the Controversies, and Christ's
Place in Theology," and gives a brief outline of the teaching of
Jesus on leading doctrines of the Christian faith that have
been controverted ; and shows especially the decisiveness and
absoluteness of His teaching on the inviolable truth, thorough
trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all Scripture. It also
treats of Christ's place as a teacher in theology, in relation chiefly
to the teaching of the inspired prophets and apostles on which,
under the cry of " Back to Christ," much has been written
recently prejudicial to the claim of Scripture, and even contrary
to the express teaching of Christ, and therefore perilous to the
Christian faith ; — not only by such writers as Wendt, Harnack,
and the Ritschlians and other Germans generally, but also by
many British and American writers, such as Dr. John Watson
(Ian Maclaren) (whose views are specially dealt with). Dr.
Ladd, Dr. Briggs, Dr. Horton, Dr. Farrar, Principal Fairbairn
(whose chief work is carefully examined), and many of the
Kenotics. It also aims at giving the creed of Christ in His own
words, in contrast with other modern so-called ethical creeds.
It further lays stress upon the significant fact that it is just on
those great truths and facts most assailed, especially in our
times, that He speaks with most unquestionable decisiveness
. and awful emphasis, — such as His own Divinity, sin, free grace,
election, redemption, regeneration, justification by faith, resurrec-
tion, everlasting punishment, eternal life ; and most of all on the
CHRIST'S TLACE AND AUTHORITY /
inviolability, truthfulness, and Divine authority of God's Word.
As if foreseeing the assaults that would be made on these cardinal
verities. He had specially prepared His own words to settle
them by the weight of His own Divine authority ; and thus
shuts men up to the necessity of accepting them or rejecting
Him.
BOOK II. IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
Book H. considers and examines carefully the supreme and
momentous question that is directly and necessarily raised by the
conclusions of the first book and the discussions of our times,
viz., "Is Christ infallible as a teacher?" As the question is a
serious one, so is the treatment of it, especially in its momentous,
ultimate issues. It makes a full, strong statement on the
veritable and unqualified humanity of Christ — too strong and
unqualified, I imagine, for many devout souls living on traditional
and artificial conceptions of the Person of Christ — which may
lay me open to the suspicion of error, if not of heresy, on that
profound mystery. But I have made it as the result of many
years of earnest, independent study of that special vein of
Divine Revelation, induced and illumined by personal experience,
under the quickening, if sometimes trying, life-discipline of a
gracious Father, which opened up a heart inlet for personal
experience of the infinite sympathy of the Divine-human Brother-
God — "the man Christ Jesus."
Nor do I think there is anything in what I have said not
implied in Scripture, or that is not found unspeakably precious in
heart experience.
The realisation of His true human brotherhood, and ex-
perience in which " He was made in all things like unto His
brethren," gives the record of His life unique interest, significance,
and preciousness, and makes every item and fragment of the
Gospels teem with meaning, throb with sympathy, and breathe
with holy inspiration. But while this is eagerly urged, it proves
that this affords absolutely no ground for any inference implying
error or errancy in what He taught.
It makes a searching examination and a radical exposure of
the baselessness of the assumption, and fallaciousness of the
reasoning that His real humanity implies erroneousness or
6 INTRODUCTION
errancy in His teaching. It shows the untenableness of the
idea, and the absurdity of the delusion that Christ's confessed
non-knowledge as man of the day and hour of one far-off Divine
event warranted the inference that He erred in what He pro-
fessed to know, and which it was His special function and
mission to know and to make known, and proves that the only
rational inference from this is the very reverse. It shows
the falseness and the perilousness of every theory of Kenoticism
that would question or impinge upon the infallibility, finality,
or Divine authority of our Lord's teaching. It sets forth
the sure and solid grounds on which His infallibility and
Divine authority as a teacher are based. It exposes the shallow-
ness of the conception that, under the cant of advanced thought,
imagines that after the infallibiUty and authority of Christ
have been disowned or challenged any consistent thinker could
stop short of scepticism, or refuse rationally to approve and
adopt agnosticism as reasonable, requisite, and obligatory. And
it also holds up the absurdity of the fond imagination that
when Christ's authority is questioned and set aside, there can be
any seat of authority in religion at all — that having discarded an
infallible Bible and disowned an infallible Christ, any sound
mind could rely on a would-be infallible reason, or be vain and
absurd enough to place confidence in an infallible self, when
disowning an infallible Christ ; so that, therefore, the only
ultimate issue is absolute scepticism, which is absolute nonsense.
BOOK III. THE STATUS QUyESTIONIS. CONFUSIONS
AND MISCONCEPTIONS, MISREPRESENTATIONS
AND EXTREMES. THE SERIOUS ISSUES.
Book III. defines the true state of the question {siafies qucES-
tionis) in its completeness with precision.
In doing so, whole groups of confusions and misconceptions,
misrepresentations and caricatures, which have prejudiced the
truth, confused the issues, and prevented thorough discussion
of the real question, have been exposed and scorched. Opposite
extremes have been avoided and refuted, and the true Bible via
media has been sought, stated, and supported. The path has
thus been cleared for the correct statement and the true settle-
ment of the real issue.
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION 9
In exposing and refuting the misrepresentations of the real
question, many positive proofs and weighty arguments for the
Bible claim emerge, and support powerfully the position assailed ;
and give striking and impressive illustration of what Dr. Chalmers
said of the attacks of infidelity generally upon the Christian faith,
that they were not only refuted, but actually utilised to strengthen
the defences, by eliciting such replies and revealing such un-
noticed points of strength as furnished new positive evidence of
the truth of Christianity.
That old, and oft exploded, but recently revived as new, con-
fusion and futility which pretends to distinguish between the
human and the Divine in God's Word has been examined and
exposed ; and the truth has been unfolded and enforced — that
the Bible is all Divine and all hii??ian, — all inspired of God
(^eoVi/evo-Tos), yet all expressed through men, who were all chosen
organs of God for that end.
The whole conception, selection, arrangement, and expression
were all of God, and yet through and by man. And it is this
union and cooperation of the human and the Divine in its pro-
duction that constitutes the uniqueness and glory of the Bible
revelation, — that makes the Written Word the image of the Incar-
nate Word of God; and that enables every man through the
inspiring Spirit in every part of Holy Writ to hear the voice of God
speaking to his soul still as ever, — and thereby shedding into his
mind the very light of God, pulsing into his spirit the very life of
God, and breathing around his heart the very love of God.
Special, and severe, but richly deserved exposure is made of
the persistent misrepresentation that the religious value and
practical uses of Scripture are unaffected by the results of recent
criticism or theories of inspiration — the English Echo of German
unbelief as expressed by Strauss. Full proof is given that the
questions raised by prevalent theories of indefinite erroneous-
ness, and rationalistic criticism, are not about small or unim-
portant matters, but about vital and essential things, which
penetrate the substance, cut at the roots, and destroy the bases
of the Christian faith. By several outstanding examples is this
made patent in such cases as Kuenen and Wellhausen, Dr. Eadd
and Dr. Martineau, Dr. Samuel Davidson and Matthew Arnold,
Harnack, Wendt, and Dr. Horton. Against the arbitrary and
unreasonable way in which the Holy Scriptures are sometimes
lO INTRODUCTION
used by naturalistic and rationalising critics, protest is made by
the distinguished Hebraist Professor A. B. Davidson, Edin-
burgh, in these significant words, " Was ever a literature so
used ? "
Finally, the question is stated fully and precisely in substance
as follows : — If the Bible claims to be the Word of God, true,
trustworthy, and of Divine authority — as it certainly does, if it
teaches anything ; and if Christ endorses and seals this claim
— as He demonstrably does, if language, use, and habitual
attitude can prove anything : then, if it is alleged that this claim
is untenable and false, — as all theories of indefinite erroneous-
ness do, — and if this allegation is true, it proves that the primary
and fundamental claim of Scripture is false. It therefore cannot
be the Word of God in any sense — it can only be the false and
misleading word of deceived or deceiving men ; for the God of
truth cannot mislead or lie.
The teaching of Christ on the supreme root question of
religion and ethics must also be held to be untrue and mislead-
ing, and the claims of both Christ and Christianity are discredited
and destroyed. And if in this first and fundamental religious
question He has taught error for truth in the name of God and
misled men thereby, how can He be the Son of God, or a teacher
sent from God, or even a trustworthy man in anything ? Is not
our religion a delusion, His mission a failure, and our faith vain ?
These grave questions and tremendous issues the proper state-
ment of the question requires, and the disowners of the claim of
Scripture and of Christ must face and answer ; and that, too, in
full view of the whole massive weight and resistless force of the
Christian evidences, by which these claims of the Word of God
and of the Son of God are established and demonstrated.
BOOK I\'. THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF. THE
TRUTHFULNESS, TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND
DIVINE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
Book IV. gives the proof for the Bible claim. Here the
difficulty has not been in finding evidence, but in selecting it
from the enormous mass and diversified sources of Biblical and
collateral proof, which embarrass arrangement, make amassment
difficult, and baffle exhaustive array.
THE PROOF OF THE BIBLE CLAIM II
The first impression made upon one in facing the evidence is
the Fast Mass — immense amount of it, rising up and standing
out hke great mountain ranges. Indeed it is so great and super-
abundant that even classification is a serious problem, full state-
ment an impossibility, and summary outline, with emphasis
on chief passages and leading phenomena, all that is practicable.
The Character of the evidence, too, is of the highest kind.
The quality is as good as the quantity is great. For it is mainly
the direct and positive Bible proof of its own root doctrine — of
its primary basal claim — which to every believer in Revelation is
or should be the chief and decisive evidence — all other being
but secondary, and confirmatory at best.
The marvellous Variety and matiifold Diversity of it is also
very impressive the more it is examined. Every possible line
and kind of proof seems to present itself in such embarrassing
abundance that its very variety and riches are bewildering. The
Bible claim is assumed and asserted, postulated and proclaimed
in many great explicit passages, professedly treating of the
subject ; as well as in minute details and words ; in countless
indirect but unequivocal and inevasible statements, references,
and quotations ; in names, titles, attributes, and characteristics
ascribed to it ; and in the very words and invariable usage of
prophets, apostles, and supremely of our Lord Himself.
Further, the Persuasiveness of it strikes you everywhere. In
the historical parts and the poetical, the doctrinal and the
devotional, the philosophic and the apocalyptic, the practical
and the allegorical. A tone of authority, an air of certainty, a
breath of eternity, and a voice of God seems ever to pervade
the book ; and creeps around the reader's spirit like the speaking
silence of the lonely mountains ; and sinks down into the sym-
pathetic soul as the voice of the Eternal Father — like the deep
and solemn tone of the ever sounding sea.
Further still, the hievasibkncss of this evidence forces itself
upon you, especially as the words, usage, and attitude of Christ
Himself are faced and pondered. The resources of language
and thought seem exhausted to put the Bible claim beyond
dispute to all who believe in Revelation ; nor does it appear
conceivable how even God Himself could more unequivocally
or inevasibly have expressed its inviolable truth and divine
authority than He has done.
1 2 INTRODUCTION
The Unique Complete^iess and Cumulative Force of the evi-
dence need also to be duly weighed and owned.
For no other truth of Revelation can such an amount and
quality, variety and decisiveness of proof be produced ; and it is
only when it is all viewed together that its full weight, cumulative
force, and unique decisiveness are adequately realised. So that
it is vain to inquire what other truths the Bible teaches, if its
teaching on this — its first and fundamental doctrine — is not
received. It teaches this if it teaches anything. Therefore,
all who profess to accept its teaching must accept its teaching on
this, or abandon their own avowed position.
The Unique Relation, too, of its claim and teaching on its
own truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority, to all its
other truths and claims, must be faced and recognised. It
makes this the basis of all its other truths, and the ground of
its every claim on the faith and obedience of men. So that if we
accept its teaching on this, its prime and fundamental claim
and truth, we ought to receive its teaching on all other things.
And if we reject its teaching on this, we should deny its inde-
pendent, or divine authority on anything.
For if the Bible in the name of God teaches error for truth,
and makes a claim that is false the basis of all its other claims
and teaching, then, patently not only its truthfulness, but its
veracity is destroyed, and should be denied, and itself declared
to be, not the Word of God at all, but the false and misleading
word of deceiving or deceived men, — a patent reductio ad
absurdum, — which, however, cannot be evaded except by proving
that the Bible makes no such claim, and then overthrowing
all the evidence by which it is demonstrated.
Finally and supremely, the evidence has a Divine Decisiveness
and Finality; for it centres, culminates, and is crowned in Christ.
It is the Lord Himself, and none less than He, who, by His
own unique words, manner of using, and habitual attitude to
Scripture, teaches the truthfulness and trustworthiness of all
Scripture with the most inevasible decisiveness, declares its
inviolability and Divine authority with the most awful absolute-
ness, and endorses and seals with His own Divine authority its
first and basal claim, in His own most solemn and majestic
way.
With these Scriptures in His hands, and sealed by His
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SETTLES 1 3
Divine authority, He stands forth before the world through
all the ages as their author, burden, and fulfiller, and declares
them to be the Word of God that cannot lie or err, or fail or
pass away, though heaven and earth may pass away, till all be
fulfilled.
In His final message to mankind at Revelation's close. He
warns every man of the peril of impinging on the integrity or
impugning the authority of His Divine Book, in words which
may well make all men stand in awe.
" For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book : and if any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which
are written in this book" (Rev. 221^- !'■').
Here again we see as always He stands by Scripture. On
its truth and authority He stakes His own. With it, therefore.
His religion stands or falls. And on His infallible truth and
Divine authority we, with unlimited confidence, take our stand,
and calmly smile at all the assailants of it ; — feeling assured that
no weapon that is formed against it shall prosper ; but be, as ever
before, broken to pieces, for '" the Word of the Lord endureth
forever."
This evidence settles —
First. That the claim of Scripture to be true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority, is 7iot an a priori theory or a pre-
conceived opinion of inspiration, as has so persistently been
misstated. But it is a palpable revelation of God in Scripture
— simply the expression or embodiment of the foundation truth
and first claim of God's Word taught throughout the Bible,
underlying and giving value to all its teaching. It is gathered
from the widest and most careful induction of all Scripture.
It is a striking contrast to the vague, fragmentary, one-sided
caricature so pretentiously palmed off as a scientific induction
by the reckless advocates of indefinite erroneousness.
Second. The evidence requires the opponents of the Bible
claim to face, a?iswer, and refute it — to show that it is not proof
or even probability, if they own the authority of Scripture or of
Christ at all. Yet this is what the errorists never do, or attempt
14 INTRODUCTION
to do, or can be provoked to do, though asked, challenged, and
bound to do, as they are again by this restatement. This they
carefully, scrupulously, and prudently evade doing, because they
have a shrewd suspicion that they cannot do it. Therefore they
betake themselves to the old, and easy, but invalid resort of
making objections to the Bible claim, and building their theory
of indefinite erroneousness out of the difficulties of the opposite
view, — as if difficulties were valid objections to any truth
established by proper positive evidence, or as if objections to
the true view formed a sufficient or valid basis for the opposite
theory !
Third. The evidences preclude all theories of indefinite
erro?ieoi(sness. Many of the best scholars and ablest theologians
in all ages have held that the Bible claims for itself, as originally
given, when truly interpreted, entire freedom from error of any
kind, " absolute inerrancy " as some unwisely call it, or allow it
to be called.
And it must be owned that some of the evidence seems
really to favour that view, especially the words of our Lord ;
while the whole of it supports, requires, and demonstrates at
least the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of
Scripture, which is what we take our stand upon.
But we distinctly decline to commit ourselves to the extreme
position, and strongly disapprove of the title "absolute in-
errancy," which is a recent acute invention of the advocates
of "indefinite erroneousness," the opposite extreme; and by
which they have, through a misleading and inaccurate phrase,
prejudiced the true and demonstrable claim of the thorough
truthfulness and Divine authority of all Scripture, which is the
strongest and surest middle position.
And while we do not take up the inerrantist's position, but
own and show that much can be said for it from certain stand-
points, and assail throughout the errorist's opposite position, and
prove its utter untenableness and disastrous weakness in facing
scepticism ; yet we show and urge the unwisdom and the peril
of fighting the battle for the Christian faith against either
scepticism or rationalism on the narrow, negative, and at least
questionable ground of absolute inerrancy.
A signal tactical mistake is surely made when the truth of
Christianity is, as by some, staked on such a question, and our
THE APOLOGETIC POSITIONS I 5
religion is made to pay with its life if a single proved or prob-
able error or discrepancy, however paltry or despicable, seems
to be found in Scripture.
The weakness and folly of staking such a momentous issue
upon such a narrow point are shown all the more from — isf.
The fact that it is quite needless now, since the battle between
faith and unbelief is not about trivial, but radical and essential
things. 2;id. That all errorists now not only deny the absolute
inerrancy, but declare the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture,
and therefore of Christ on every kind of thing, and on the first
and fundamental thing in religion and ethics. 3?-^/. Because the
evidence does not so unquestionably prove absolute inerrancy
as the thorough truthfulness and Divine authority of all
Scripture. But whatever else the evidence may do or not do,
it at least demonstrates, as is manifest on inspection, that the
Bible claim and teaching preclude every theory of indefinite
erroneousness, especially such erroneousness and untrustworthi-
ness as it is now so freely charged with.
BOOK V. THE OPPOSING VIEWS STATED AND
CONTRASTED APOLOGETICALLY. THE APOLO-
GETIC POSITION. THE SCEPTIC'S APOLOGY, AND
THE REPLY.
Book V. gives the apologetic position, and the sceptic's
apology, in which the opposing views are stated and contrasted
apologetically.
It is in many ways the chief and crucial, as it is the largest,
book of all. In it the whole argument reaches its climax and
consummation ; and the whole elements of the controversy are
massed, and marshalled, and put into contrast for the final
struggle and the ultimate issue.
Inerrantist and errorist, sceptic and rationalist, Bible Chris-
tian and modern critic, prophet and apostle, and Jesus Christ
Himself, all appear upon the field, and enter into the conflict to
decide the momentous issues connected with the Bible on which
the hopes of mankind hang; till at length the great Lord Him-
self stands out peerlessly alone with the Divine Book in His
hand, declared and sealed, in the name of Godhead, to be the
Word of the Lord that liveth and abideth for ever.
In the previous books it has been proved that the Bible
1 6 INTRODUCTION
claims to be true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority ; and that
Christ endorses this claim, and seals it with His own inviolable
truth and Divine authority ; and that, therefore, this claim has
to be accepted by everyone who owns the teaching of Scrip-
ture or the authority of Christ, on the primary and fundamental
question of religion and ethics, — the question that underlies
and largely settles all other truths and questions. So soon,
however, as this is said and proved, the errorists raise a loud
and passionate cry that this position is untenable apologetic-
ally, that it foolishly imperils Christianity by exposing it to
the easy and fatal assault of unbelief, and that this claim, and
especially absolute inerrancy, is mainly and culpably responsible
for making many sceptics.
A sufficient general reply to this is found in the fact that —
\st. The attack of modern scepticism is not based upon the
difference between professed Christians, or upon absolute inerr-
ancy, but upon the radical and essential verities of the Christian
faith, and the denial of the supernatural. 2nd. That many
sceptics are notoriously made by their persistent proclamation of
the erroneousness and untrustworthiness of the Bible. But this
only paves the way for the comparison of the respective views
apologetically.
I. Indefinite Erroneousness and Absolute Inerrancy.
First, the extreme opposites of absolute inerrancy and indef-
inite erroneousness are compared apologetically — the inerrantists'
and the errorists' views, as for conciseness we call them.
As already stated, we do not adopt or in any way commit
ourselves to absolute inerrancy ; and although we do not attack
it in itself, yet we have emphatically pointed out the weakness and
unwisdom of fighting the battle for the Christian faith against the
sceptic on that narrow, negative, and at best disputable ground.
This unnecessarily exposes the whole line to attack at countless
points, and enables the sceptic with less difficulty to make out a
plausible case, or a doubtful issue against Christianity than
against our stronger and more guarded position of the truthful-
ness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of Scripture. Such a
plausible case at least as may excuse or warrant, if it does not
justify or require agnosticism and unbelief.
WEAKNESS OF ERRORISTS' POSITION 1 7
Nevertheless, we hold it only just and right to state what can
be urged for it, when compared with the errorists' view ; especi-
ally as this is also useful as an outwork, and is, indeed, our first
line in defence of the less exposed and more guarded position in
which we take our stand for the defence of Christianity against
sceptic, rationalist, and errorist of every kind. The inerrantists'
position is first defined, and what it is they have to defend is
precisely stated, by clearing away many misrepresentations and
confusions which have prejudiced the truth, obscured the true
position, and confused the real issue. Then it is carefully com-
pared and contrasted apologetically with the errorists' position.
THE INTRINSIC WEAKNESS OF THE ERRORISTS POSITION IN
FACING THE SCEPTIC.
The weakness and utter indefensibleness of the errorists'
position is proved at length by many fatal facts and cogent
arguments. Here the sceptic comes in and does signal, if
cavalier, service in exposing the fatality to the Christian faith of
the theory of the erroneousness of Scripture. With the remorse-
less logic of unbelief he shuts the errorists up to the necessity of
abandoning their theory or disowning their Christianity. At
four different stages, and in four different forms, the sceptic,
seizing on the assertions, applying the alleged results, and
reasoning on the principles of the errorists, so presses his apology
for his scepticism, and so urges his argument against Christianity,
that it is left defenceless and demolished ; and agnosticism proved
to be right and reasonable, and the only wise or possible position
for any clear and honest mind. In fact, on the prevalent
theories of the erroneousness and untrustworthiness of Scripture,
and on the common principle of its advocates, he without diffi-
culty demonstrates that there is no valid defence possible for the
Christian faith, and nothing Christian, — nothing certainly dis-
tinctive of Christianity, to defend. For it is plainly impossible
out of a Bible so erroneous and untrustworthy as it is now so
often proclaimed to be, to make a certain and trustworthy
Christianity, or a practical and authoritative morality.
Besides, it would be not only impossible but wrong to make a
rule of faith and life binding on men's consciences from a book
which, on the errorists' and rationalistic principles, has no
1 8 INTRODUCTION
independent or Divine authority ; but only such authority as
each oft varying mind may choose to give it. Among many
others, two things in particular powerfully support the sceptic in
his drastic and disastrous, if legitimate conclusion —
First. The massive array of evidence that proves the Bible
claim, in some parts of it does seem to support inerrancy. The
whole of it proves beyond dispute that Scripture claims and
teaches its own thorough truthfulness and Divine authority.
And all of it inevitably precludes indefinite erroneousness or
untrustworthiness. This the sceptic sees, seizes, and sets in full
and direct opposition to the errorists' theory, and patently makes
out a direct and complete contradiction of the Bible's first and
fundamental claim and doctrine — the basis of all its other
claims and doctrines ; and then, accepting the errorists' theory,
he directly shows that, on their principles, the root doctrine and
base claim of the Bible is false and misleading ; and thus, at one
fell stroke, he easily destroys the credibility of Scripture, of
Christianity, and of Christ.
Second. So long as one item of the evidence for what seems
the Bible claim remains unanswered, or even probable, so far,
on the theory of its erroneousness, the truth of the Bible and
its religion appears disproved or improbable, — which for practical
life is equivalent. The errorists are more bound to answer every
item of the evidence for the Bible claim than the inerrantists, as
alleged, are bound to answer their supposed evidence of a single
error or discrepancy ; because the one is direct and positive proof,
the other is only indirect, negative, and at most not proper evi-
dence at all. One item of direct evidence is of more weight than
many apparent errors or discrepancies. Therefore, their asser-
tion of real error in the Bible, while even one item of positive
evidence for inerrancy, truthfulness, or trustworthiness remains,
more imperils Christianity than the inerrantists' view. And one
such item is much more valid against their view than countless
discrepancies, or apparent errors against the true Bible claim.
How much more when, as now, the errors alleged are innumer-
able and the erroneousness indefinite and indefinable, and the
untrustworthiness unlimited and illimitable? Thus the tables
are completely turned in what was the stock argument against,
and supposed to be the most decisive objection to, inerrancy ;
and it is proved to hold with immeasurably greater weight and
IN FACE OF CHRIST'S TEACHING 19
force against the errorist's own theory. Why, here is a mar-
vellous thing that just precisely at that very point where the
inerrancy view was thought to be weakest and adherence to it
most fatal to Christianity, there, precisely there, the theory of
Bible erroneousness is itself immeasurably weaker, and its own
inherent perilousness more palpably fatal still. How much
more when contrasted, not with inerrancy, but with our carefully
guarded, thoroughly proved, and eternally defensible position of
simple truthfulness, trustworthiness, and divine authority ? The
force of this crucial point is shown fully below.
THE ERRORISTS' THEORY IN FACE OF CHRIST'S TEACHING.
The untenableness and seriousness of the errorists' position
apologetically appears most sharply and solemnly in face of our
Lord's most explicit and emphatic teaching on this specific
question. Some of them, to save themselves from the legitimate
consequences of their theories, fall back from the teaching of
Scripture in general to the teaching of Christ. But it is a vain
resort — a futile appeal. P'or — apart from the fact which they
all ignore (though it is fatal to much they advance), that we
know nothing of Christ and His teaching except through Scrip-
ture— so that so far as Scripture is erroneous and untrustworthy
(which on this theory is indefinitely and inimitably), so far is our
knowledge of Him and of His teaching, as also of His religion —
His very words, backed by His practice and attitude, are the
most explicit and decisive in Holy Writ against this theory ; and
they are the most absolute and inevasible in declaring the
inviolable truth and Divine authority of all Scripture. Therefore
the sceptic has only to seize and wield the weapons thus
foolishly forged by the professedly Christian teachers of Bible
erroneousness, and by placing this theory in opposition to the
prime, basal claim of Scripture, so expressly taught and so
solemnly sealed by Christ, to demohsh the bulwarks and explode
the foundations of the Christian faith, to falsify the claims of
both Scripture and Christ, and to destroy by one fatal blow the
source, centre, and substance of God's revelation.
Thus the vaunted apologetic strength of the errorists'
position is found to be a delusion, is shown to be not only
untenable but self-destructive, and is proved to be without
20 INTRODUCTION
anything definite and Christian to defend, or any possible means
of defence. There may be weakness and unwisdom apologetic-
ally in facing scepticism in the position of absolute inerrancy, but
the position of indefinite erroneousness is demonstrated weakness
and manifest folly ; and were there no more valid defence for
the Christian faith than this theory affords, it would be wise for
Christian apology to own defeat, and frankly to confess that
Christianity is indefensible and false; and should now, like all
other pretended revelations, take its place among the exploded
and expiring superstitions that have been palmed off upon a
credulous humanity in the name of God for the purposes of
priestly aggrandisement, as leading rationalistic and religious
evolutionists maintain.^
THE DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AVAILABLE EVEN
FROM THE INERRANTISTS' POSITION.
But though the teachers of the erroneousness of Scripture
offer no valid defence of Christianity from their position, it is
shown that Christianity is by no means without a defence against
either Rationalism or scepticism. From the true Bible position,
not only a valid, but an invulnerable defence is supplied, fully,
finally, and for ever. And even the extremest position of absolute
^ See Wellhausen's History of Israel, Kuenen's, and others of that
rationahstic school. Dr. W. Robertson Smith, a higher authority and a
greater scholar, specially in Semitic literature, than any of them, repudiates
this idea in these significant words: "There can be no question that if
the book [Deuteronomy] is a fraud designed to deceive the reader, it cannot
be a part of inspired Scripture. The theory assumes that priests and
prophets were in the trick, which imposed on the whole piety of the nation,
including its inspired leaders. Such a theory is utterly incredible to any-
one who believes in the reality of God's supernatural dealings with Ilis
people in the old dispensation, and I entirely repudiate all sympathy with it,
not only because it involves a rationalistic view of the O.T. histoiy, and
because it is impossible that a book of the profound spirituality of Deuter-
onomy could have originated in a fraud, but because I believe that there
are, apart from theological considerations, conclusive historical reasons for
assuming that the Deuteronomic code was in existence at least a generation
earlier, and had actually been lost in the days of Manasseh." " Apart from
the psychological violence of the hypothesis that the author of a book like
Deuteronomy would be a party to a vulgar fraud, it appears to me that this
view stands condemned on the critical evidence itself, as I hope to show at
length on a suitable occasion."
THE INERRANTISTS' DEFENCE 21
inerrancy is not destitute of an apology, and may offer a valid
and apparently irrefutable defence, as is fully shown. Indeed,
like Wellington at Torres Vedras, they can present a threefold
line of defence, each stronger than the former.
First Line of Defe?ice.
First. They can maintain what even Dr. Farrar, a keen oppo-
nent of their views, declares, that all the malignant ingenuity of
scepticism has been baffled to make out one demonstrable error.
What he says specially of the N.T., Dr. A. B. Davidson says
of the O.T. Similarly, Bishop Westcott, Bishop Ellicott, Bishop
Ryle, Principal David Brown, Principal Patrick Fairbairn, and
Principal Rainy (while not committing himself to inerrancy, and
objecting to its being made an article of faith) do not admit that
inerrancy has been disproved, and still hold that were all known,
it would probably be found that all the difficulties would vanish,
as so many have done, in the progress of Biblical study and
archaeological research. Besides, many of the ablest inerrantists,
like the late Principal William Cunningham, D.D., New College,
Edinburgh, and Principal Paton, D.D,, of Princeton, distinctly
deny, and show that it is not the true state of the question to
aver that the inerrantist's view makes Christianity pay with its
life for a single error ; but is only a difficulty to it ;— and no one
was ever such a master of the status qucestionis as William
Cunningham. Even in this first line, then, the inerrantists can
hold their own as they have done so tenaciously for nineteen
centuries ; and it will take more learning and better logic than
their opponents have yet shown to dislodge them from their
first position, and to prove it untenable.
Second Line of Defence.
Their second line is that it is only of the Scriptures as origin-
ally given, and when properly interpreted, that they predicate
inerrancy; and since the originals are not now extant, it is
impossible to prove that the alleged discrepancies or errors were
in them ; and, therefore, it is manifestly impossible to disprove
inerrancy. Nor is this a mere logical device to baffle disproof,
or an argument from ignorance or mere possibility ; for there
seems positive teaching and evidence for inerrancy, while there
is none for the theory of erroneousness ; and further, and this
22 INTRODUCTION
specially, the alleged errors and discrepancies have notoriously
largely vanished, and have mostly been proved to have been
errors made by those who charged the Bible with their own
mistakes. Nay, more, the countless cases in which alleged errors
have been disproved not only show that in these cases the errors
existed only in the erroneous imaginations of those who alleged
them, but they also establish the principle of a vanishi?ig guafitity
for the supposed errors or discrepancies that may remain un-
solved ; and they, further, positively prove the possibility and
the probability that, with fuller knowledge and greater research,
they would all vanish, or become so " despicable " as to be
beneath the notice of reasonable men. And here as elsewhere
probability must be the guide of life. Besides, all this is greatly
strengthened by the immense mass of simply marvellous confir-
mations, by hard, unquestionable facts, not only of the truthful-
ness and trustworthiness, but of the minute and even literal
accuracy of Scripture which historical, archaeological, as well as
Biblical research have recently discovered and produced with
a singular opportuneness. These every day increase, to the
explosion of many fine-spun but baseless theories, and to the
confusion of much recent criticism. In this second line, there-
fore, the inerrantist's position seems not only strong, but ap-
parently irrefutable ; and it at least seems impossible to demon-
strate its untenableness, or to drive him from it, or to disprove
his main contention, or to deny that the probabilities are strongly
on his side.
The Third Line of Defence.
The third line of defence is that there are difficulties con-
nected with all our knowledge and experience and action in
this life — difficulties arising from the limitations of human know-
ledge, and the greatness or the infinitude of the objects of
human thought. No region of knowledge, or sphere of action,
or experience of life, is entirely free of difficulties. Almost
every fact in nature, every event in providence, every act of
life, every truth of science, philosophy, and Revelation, is more
or less connected with difficulty, or open to objection ; some
of the best established facts of science, such as the law of uni-
versal gravitation, having never been entirely freed of difficulties.
If, therefore, the doctrine or apologetic position of inerrancy
EXPLANATION OF DISCREPANCIES 23
has difficulties or is open to objection, it is only what from
analogy should be expected ; and, as Butler has incontrovertibly
reasoned, so far from these constituting a valid ground for dis-
belief or rejection of what is supported by proper positive evi-
dence, they, on the contrary, confirm its truth or probability.
In fact, the absence of such would form a real difficulty, as being
out of harmony with what is met in all other spheres of know-
ledge and experience in God's vast kingdom.. Men of science,
philosophy, and common sense accept and act on facts and
truths established on their own proper evidence, notwithstanding
any difficulties or objections that may be connected with them.
They leave these to be solved in the progress of discovery or
research, or to remain unsolved, if need be. But they have rightly
and firmly refused to allow these to hinder their belief of, or
action on, what they have adequate positive evidence for, and
have thus led on to all the progress of the ages. Therefore,
should the inerrantist wish or deem it wise to take his final
stand in this third line of defence, he would only be doing what
every defender of truth, in every sphere of knowledge, action,
and investigation does, and is by sound reason fully justified in
doing, to baffle unreasonable Rationalism, and to defy pre-
judiced unbelief; and there he may defend himself, his doctrine,
and his Christianity against all assailants effectively for ever.
In the first line his position is tenable, in the second irrefutable,
and in the third impregnable.
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS OF APPARENT DISCREPANCIES.
And were anything further to be desired in explanation of
these discrepancies and difficulties, it is superabundantly supplied
by the special and unique reasons to account for them in Scrip-
ture, as fully shown. The Scriptures are all Very A7idenf, the
earliest over three thousand years at least — utilising others older
still, among the earliest literature of the world— and the latest
nearly two thousand years. All scholars know how easily and
inevitably discrepancies creep into such writings in the vicissi-
tudes of ages and the methods of transmission, creating in secular
writings a science of emendations. And though "by a singular
care and providence" the Scriptures were preserved beyond
other ancient writings, yet through transcription, translation,
24 INTRODUCTION
transposition, interpolation, corruption, manner of using, mar-
ginal notes, and cognate processes, discrepancies would neces-
sarily find their way into them.
Besides, the Scriptures are at best but Fragmentary — frag-
mentary as a history, though complete as a Revelation. This, as
Bishop Westcott has shown, ^ goes far to account for many seeming
errors and discrepancies. Just as the having of four Gospels
instead of one— John's Gospel as well as the Synoptics, and the
Acts of the Aposdes along with the Episdes of Paul — explains
much that would be otherwise perplexing and apparently dis-
crepant ; so the fragmentariness of the Scriptures as a whole,
which John emphasises as to the life of Christ (John 2i20),
accounts for much of this that still remains. This, on a principle
illustrated in Scripture, and familiar in human life, gives a good
and solid reason for believing that if we had fuller information,
specially if we knew all, what now remains would in all probability
also be removed.
Further, the Bible was given chiefly as a Revelation for faith
and conduct ; and everything in it is subordinated to the dominant
idea, which explains much that might otherwise be perplex-
ing. This is well illustrated in the Book of Judges, where the
literary and historical aspects are made subservient to the
religious and moral ends. This incurs the displeasure and
disparaging criticism of certain critics who regard it only or
chiefly from literary and historical standpoints, but disregard its
main design, and lose sight of the chief end of both Scripture
and Revelation ; and thus greatly " err, not knowing the Scrip-
tures," nor the purposes of God therein.
Further still, the Bible is an Oriental religious book, with so
vastly different ideas, characteristics, and literary - methods and
usages from ours. There could not be a greater mistake or
injustice than to test and interpret the Bible by our Western and
modern conceptions and literary methods ; and it is because this
has been so largely done that many seeming errors and faults
have been supposed to be in Scripture, which existed only in the
minds and by the mistakes of those who allege them. Here not
only the Rationalists, but the traditionalists, have greatly erred ;
and have, by overlooking this distinction, identified their own
^ The Ititroduction to the Gospels, The Gospel of the Resurrection, The
Revelation of the Risen Lord.
THE VALUE OF BELIEVING CRITICISM 25
mistaken interpretations with the truth, and have thereby injured
the Word of God by their traditions, and made errors appear to
be in the Bible that were not really there. They have failed to
avail themselves of the powerful aid of believing criticism, which,
by grasping and applying this fact, has freed the Bible of many
difficulties and apparent errors, as is well shown, among others,
in Dr. Robertson Smith's O.T. in ike Jewish Church.
Similarly and finally, many of the discrepancies and other
seeming, and in some cases apparently serious, errors are satis-
factorily accounted for and removed by apprehending the true
Origin and Method of Conipositioti of large and important parts
of Scripture. This is well illustrated in the O.T. in the Mosaic
books — the Hexateuch ; and especially in recent discussions
about Deutoronomy, in which Dr. Robertson Smith, with his
unique scholarship and ability, played such a large part. He
has shown with remarkable lucidity and force that by availing
ourselves of some important findings of believing Higher
Criticism, — such as the composite character of some of the
books, and the development and adaptation of Mosaic principles
to the needs of subsequent ages, and the editing and re-editing
by later authorised prophet or chronicler, and later additions
and redactions of the earlier writings or substance, and cognate
means, — many staggering statements and conflicting accounts in
these early Bible books are explained and reconciled by certain
leading facts and findings of true and reverent Biblical scholar-
ship which otherwise appeared insoluble, and were seemingly
contradictory ; and that not merely in details and trivial things,
but in large and substantial matters, and in important statements
and representations. 1 Here again the excessive and unreason-
able prejudice against Criticism, specially Higher Criticism, of
many advocates of inerrancy, and of able defenders of the truth
and Divine authority of Scripture, has prevented them accepting,
even considering, and utilising some of the true and valuable
results of it for the removal of somewhat serious discrepancies
and difficulties that force themselves on many earnest and believ-
ing students of the O.T. All this would come under the proper
interpretation of Scripture.
In the N.T. this is exemplified aptly in the Gospels and
discussions thereon. The origin, sources, and method of com-
1 See Dr. W. Robertson Smith's The O. T. in the Jewish Church.
26 INTRODUCTION
position, as well as the fragmentary character of the Gospels,
afford vast and valuable means of accounting for the seeming
errors and discrepancies, though they were largely increased.
The theories of many of the Rationalists of the origin and com-
position of the Gospels, make them not only not the original
Gospels, nor even copies of them, but second or third hand
compilations from a book of discourses (Adyta) like Matthew's,
and a book of narratives like Mark's, and now, according to
Wendt, a third book of discourses (Xdyta) like John's, together
with the writer's own conceptions, mingled with current opinions
of their times. The upholders of inerrancy, or of the truthful-
ness of Scripture, need not, as they do not, adopt any or all of
these uncertain and ever changing theories. But they can argue
resistlessly, that if there is any truth in these theories, it is surely
more than sufficient to account for all the alleged errors and
difficulties in the Gospels as we have them, though they were
multiplied a thousandfold ; and it renders any other explanation
of them superfluous. The amazing thing is that those holding any
such theories of the origin and composition of the Gospels, or
any who regard them as in measure true, should imagine that
there were any errors in the original Scriptures, when this alone
would so superabundantly account for them. Certainly to all
sensible men it is evident that they must abandon either their
theory of the erroneousness of Scripture, or their theories of the
origin and composition of the Gospels. In these and other
ways the inerrantist may surely far more than account for all the
alleged errors and difficulties of Scripture.
ERRORISTS' AND INERRANTISTS' APOLOGETIC POSITIONS COMPARED.
In view of all this it appears that the extremest position of
absolute inerrancy is a tenable, defensible, and ultimately an
immovable position apologetically ; and when .compared with
the position of indefinite erroneousness, it is strength itself as
against demonstrated weakness and utter indefensibility. The
one has proved a tenable and irrefutable position against all
assailants for nearly two millenniums, and what has been held so
long may well seem to be tenable for ever.
The other, by its own very principles and practices, renders
a valid defence impossible against scepticism ; and is ultimately
THE STRONG ArOLOGETIC POSITION 27
subversive of the Christian faith, and destructive of all authority
or finality in religion or ethics.
II. The Position of Indefinite Erroneousness compared
APOLOGETICALLY WITH OUR POSITION OF THE TRUTHFUL-
NESS, Trustworthiness, and Divine Authority of
Scripture.
When compared with the second, and more guarded, and less
exposed position on which we take our stand, viz. the truthful-
ness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of Scripture, the
position of indefinite erroneousness is then, of course, simply
nowhere.
all for the first position holds a fortiori for this.
For besides its own inherent strength, and all the great
elements of strength peculiar to itself, partly set forth in our out-
line of the Christian evidences, all that has been said in defence
of the most extreme position of absolute inerrancy holds, a
fortiori, with immensely increased force and unquestionable
cogency of this second, stronger, and less assailable posi-
tion. Like Wellington, while he " maintained the position " at
Quatre Bras, and there " completely defeated all the enemy's
attempts," ^ yet he retired, and took his final stand for the peace
and liberty of Europe at the stronger and pre-chosen position of
Waterloo. So while the Christian faith might be defended from
the position of inerrancy, yet we decline, and deem it unwise, to
take our stand for the defence of it there, but have deliberately
taken it at the stronger and less assailable second position.
Nevertheless, all that has been or can be adduced for the first
position holds much more forcefully and less questionably for the
second.
peculiar advantages of this position.
It deprives the opponents of many of the advantages they
have against inerrancy, such as the power to seize on small
points to discredit the whole, and then ride roughshod through
all. It evades many side issues and doubtful disputations. It
1 Wellington's Despatches.
28 INTRODUCTION
avoids perplexing definitions and confusion of terms. It pre-
vents having to fight the great battle of the faith on a narrow
point, and to appear to have to prove a negative. It takes
advantage of the full weight of the argument from the claim of
Scripture. For the evidence does not so demonstrably prove
inerrancy as truthfulness, the great mass and weight of the evi-
dence is directly and fully valid only for the latter. It frees the
defence of many of the most plausible objections, which consist
of despicable trivialities ; and, therefore, have no validity or
relevancy here. It presents a much less exposed line, and
incomparably fewer points of attack. It inevitably lays on the
sceptic the burden of disproviog the truthfulness, trustworthiness,
and Divine authority of Scripture, which he can never make even
plausible in the face of the proof and the facts. It prevents
rationalising but professedly Christian critics from using any
argument against our position that impugns the veracity or
Divine origin and character of Scripture ; because they equally
with us are bound to maintain these. It brings sceptics and
Rationalists directly into conflict with the decisive words and
Divine authority of Christ, backed by the whole evidence estab-
Hshing Christianity. It nullifies the stock and plausible, but
not solid or conclusive, argument as to the supposed fatality of
a single seeming error in Scripture ; for it has simply no validity
here, and is totally irrelevant. It rests and bases the defence
on the embodied substance of Scripture — not on the grains of
sand that may have become attached to the solid mass, but
upon "the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture."^ It meets
fairly and squarely the prevalent attacks on Scripture, which are
directed now chiefly, not against the small, but the substantial
things — not against the trifles, but the essentials of the Christian
faith. And it brings the whole force of the argument, and the
full weight of the evidence for the truth and Divine origin of the
Christian faith, undiverted by side issues and undiminished by
doubtful disputations about minor questions, to support and
establish the substance of the Written Word, endorsed and sealed
by the Incarnate Word of God, to confront in all its massive
strength, scepticism and Rationalism and every form of errorism,
with calm confidence, fearless fortitude, and Divine assurance ;
" for the Lord Most High Himself shall establish it."
^ CSladstonc's The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.
THE RATIONALISM OF ALL ERRORISTS 29
THE THREE POSITIONS COMPARED APOLOGETICALLY, AND OUT-
LINE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES FROM OUR POSITION.
The three positions — of indefinite erroneousness, the extreme
left ; absolute inerrancy, the extreme right ; and thorough truth-
fulness and trustworthiness, with Divine authority of all Scripture,
the sure and strong middle — having thus been compared and
contrasted apologeticall)', and the second having been proved
stronger than the first, and the third stronger than the second, and
incomparably stronger than the first ; the first and third, the two
main antagonistic positions now, are compared along some lead-
ing lines of Christian evidence, and the same superiority appears
all along ; and the importance and value of the truth, reliability,
and accuracy, even in minute points, things, and words, are shown
in convincing detail, specially in Appendix to Books V. and VI.
And, finally, a brief but massive outline of the Christian
evidences is given from our position, to which I invite the serious
attention of the sceptic, which I venture to think he will not
really grapple with, and which I fear not to say he can never
overthrow.
BOOK VI. THE ESSENTIAL RATIONALISM OF ALL
THEORIES OF THE INDEFINITE ERRONEOUSNESS
OF SCRIPTURE.
Book VI. shows the essential Rationalism of all theories of
the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture. There is, indeed, no
possible logical middle between holding the Bible to be true,
trustworthy, and of Divine authority, and rejecting its inde-
pendent and Divine authority altogether. As has been said,
there is no resting-place between the Christian conception of
God and Atheism ; so there is no rational standing ground
between faith in Scripture as the AVord of God and agnosticism.
The Supremacy of Reason over Revelation.
All theories of indefinite erroneousness legitimately tend to,
and naturally end in. Rationalism, or the supremacy of Reason
over Revelation. This is openly avowed by the teachers of many
of them. It is practically exemplified by others less pronounced
30 INTRODUCTION
ill their Rationalism. It is implicitly inherent in many others
who would resent the name, and are believers in Revelation,
and even evangelical in their faith. Even the least rationalistic
of them more or less possess the spirit, imply the principle, and
act on the assumptions of Rationalism. However much they
may differ in their faith, design, and results, they all assume and
proceed on the same principle, tend in the same direction, and
logically end at the same termination, — their variation being
limited to the applications of the common principle. If the
more believing do not arrive at the same results, or issue in the
same effects, it is because they are less consistent and thorough-
going in their applications, or because they are kept back from
the legitimate conclusion by other prepossessions or considera-
tions. The error and fallacy lying at the root of them all is
settling by a priori ideas and reasonings what Revelation would
be, rather than by inquiring what Scripture teaches it is. They are
all based upon a limited class of the phenomena of Scripture, —
the difficulties, discrepancies, or seeming errors (although all suffi-
ciently accounted for), — and their own unwarrantable inferences
therefrom ; instead of upon what must ever be the supreme and
decisive elements in setding all doctrines or questions of Scripture
— its direct and explicit teaching. And they also ignore the great
mass of the chief phenomena.
Thev all ignore the Bible Clalm.
They all ignore or minimise the claim the Bible makes for
itself. They seldom or never face, far less attempt to answer,
the overwhelming mass of evidence by which that claim is estab-
lished. And they persist in their theory in face of express Bible
teaching. They make their theory out of the difficulties of, and
the objections to, the true doctrine and the Bible claim, — as if
difficulties or objections to any truth were disproof of it, or any
valid reason for non-acceptance of it, much less a sufficient basis,
or any basis at all, for the opposite theory. All the while they
ignore the infinitely greater difficulties of their own. They
assume that the otily design of Scripture is to give a revelation
of moral and religious truth, which is not true. It is the chief but
not the only end, neither is that the only purpose it serves. From
this they infer that it is errant and erroneous in all other things.
RATIONALISTIC THEORIES 3 1
Yea, most of them now deny its truth or reliabiHty even in much
of these. In any case their inference is as unwarrantable as their
assumption is untrue. They assume that an indefinitely erroneous
Bible would be as effective for faith and life as a thoroughly
true and reliable Bible. This is a big but baseless assumption ;
because we could not be sure of what was true and what
erroneous. In the very attempt to separate them, we should
need to become the judge of Clod's Word ; and, therefore, lose
or weaken its effect.
Besides, it would be deprived of all independent and Divine
authority, and would therefore largely lose its power. Some of
them to evade this say that they hold it true and authoritative in
all that affects faith and life, but not otherwise. But they do
not and cannot specifically tell what does and what does not
affect faith and life, nor how we can infallibly ascertain that ;
and they imply that there are some, yea, many things in Scripture
that do not affect faith or Hfe, — which is a direct contradiction
of God's Word in its great classical passage on the subject, as
of many others (2 Tim. 3^'^). The whole Bible affects faith
and life. In every part is heard the voice of God.
Others say that it is infallible and authoritative in all that is
essential to salvation, but not in anything else. But who can
tell what is essential to salvation ? and how can we settle or find
out that ? Very little may be essential to salvation. Some of
the heathen are in hope and charity supposed to have known
enough to save them, though they never saw or read the Bible
or heard the gospel. If, therefore, the Bible is infallible and
trustworthy only in what is essential to salvation, then it may not
be needful at all, and Revelation seems unnecessary, if not a
superfluity, is it not at least a non-necessity ?
Others say the Bible is infallible and of Divine authority in
all its teaching; and yet they reject its most explicit teaching
on its first and fundamental truth and claim, which underlies
and gives authority to all its other teaching ; and they forget that
the ivhole Bible teaches, as Christian experience verifies.
And others still hold that the Bible is true, trustworthy, in-
fallible, and of Divine authority in its substance but not in its
expression, in its truths but not in its words. But they have not
told us how its truths can be known except through the words.
The truths are in the words, — the words are the embodiment of
32 INTRODUCTION
the ideas. We can know nothing of the substance except through
the expression. If, and so far as, the one is not true, so also is
the other. If the great words — election, redemption, propitiation,
atonement, justification by faith, regeneration, repentance, eternal
life, resurrection, judgment, heaven, hell, are not true and
reliable, then, and in so far as these are untrue or unreliable,
so far the realities are so also. Besides, it is the Written Word
that is said to be God-breathed (OiOTrveva-TO's), and therefore
" profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3^*^).
And if it is alleged that some of the words or expressions
are true, reliable, and authoritative, but not others, as is said,
then the old unanswerable questions and insoluble difficulties
arise — ^which are true and which false? and how can they be
infaUibly separated or ascertained? Thus through all the per-
mutations and combinations, and through all the multifarious
phases of indefinite erroneousness, we are ever inevitably driven
to the old and fatal issues of the common rationalistic principle,
namely, that every varying man must become a judge and an
authoritative standard himself. Having got rid of an infallible
Bible and an infallible Christ, he must reach that supreme
absurdity — an infallible Self, " Lord of himself that heritage of
woe," as Byron says.
So that in abandoning the old, true, God-breathed Bible,
vainly imagining they were exchanging a worse standard for a
better, it is found that there is no real standard left at all, but
only ever changeable personal opinion. And earnest souls
crying for the light amid the encircling gloom, and a benighted
humanity sighing for some guiding star through life to immor-
tality, are cast adrift upon a shoreless sea of chaotic speculation
without chart or compass, since its only certain guide— the
old and trusted, because thought-to-be trustworthy Bible — is
declared to be true or trustworthy no more ; and even t?ie
solemn sanction and seal of it by the Son of God is said to be
insufficient to give it Divine authority, or even to certify its root
and foundation claim ! So that a bereaved race might well raise
a wailing deeper than Cassandra's for the credulity that might
save it from despair.
DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 33
BOOK VII. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS.
ADDITIONAL CONFIRMATIONS.
Book Vn. gives a concise outline of the leading difficulties
connected with the Bible claim. In explanation and diminution
of them it makes full and cogent use of the notorious and far-
reaching fact that there are ditTiculties connected with truths and
facts in every sphere of thought and action, and every phase of
experience and hfe. It shows that they often arise from mis-
conceptions of the urgers of them, and through the mistakes of
those who charge the Bible with them, and then father their own
errors upon the Word of God. It states the principles on which
difficulties are and should be dealt with in all cases ; and sets
forth the methods by which they may be largely explained. It
applies these principles and methods to the difficulties of Scrip-
ture in particular, and illustrates in specific cases how they may
be accounted for or removed, or at least reasonably left un-
solved, and wrong inferences from them prevented. It shows
the great lessons they are designed to teach, and the valuable
moral ends they are fitted to serve to dependent creatures,
amid the limitations of time. It urges the evidence that diffi-
culties supply of the vastness, and the unity of the Divine
operations, in every sphere of this activity and self-revelation ;
and thus avoids the creation of the greatest of all difficulties —
the difficulty of being without difficulty — the calamity of having
no mystery.
It also takes notice of some chief objections, and shows how
often they arise from misapprehensions of the real state of the
question, and are the fruit of mistaken prejudice, or the imaginary
creations of the objectors. It discloses how insubstantial they
often are, how easily many of them can be explained, how feeble
at best they mostly are, and how frivolous and despicable they
sometimes become. It indicates how much more serious and
insuperable are the objections inherently connected with all the
theories of erroneousness, with the essential principles of every
form of Rationalism, and with the prime postulates of all phases
of scepticism. Therefore, there is no creduhty so great as the
credulity of unbelief. Thus the path of true faith is the path of
right reason also. Reason justifies faith as a prime pioneer, and
faith confides in reason as a helpful companion.
3
34 INTRODUCTION
In discussing these difficulties and objections it further brings
out additional confirmations of the main position ; and adduces
important independent facts and considerations that make it
altogether, especially in the light of the expressed faith of the
Church Catholic, as fully established a truth as any truth in
religion, philosophy, or experience. It finally gives a brief resume
of the whole course of the thought and discussion, and aims at
stating as precisely as possible the true doctrine of Holy Scrip-
ture, which is undoubtedly the great desideratum of our time,
about which many have much difficulty.
The Appendix contains elucidations, corroborations, and
illustrations of important points ; and gives suggestions and
quotations from the immense mass of literature on the questions,
both ancient and modern. It also gives concise criticism of the
most recent books and utterances on the subject, especially of
those that have presumed to criticise and disparage the Word
of God, or who have dared to disown or question the Divine
authority of the Son of God on the supreme question of religion
and ethics.
The Ultimate Issues — Reason or Revelation? The
New Bible and the Old.
I had at first entitled this volume " The New Bible and the
Old," and I had done so purposely ; for the more I have studied
recent theories and controversies as to the Word, character, and
government of God, the more have I been satisfied that were
these theories to be formally adopted by the Church, or even to
become widely prevalent, as they now are, among the Christian
public, we should have really a new Bible — a Bible differing
essentially from the old — a Bible from which God's Word would
not, indeed, be altogether excluded, but in which it would be
subordinate and unauthoritative ; and in which man's reason
would be the supreme and only final standard of truth or duty.
It would be a Bible in which Divine Revelation would be ulti-
mately subjected to the test of human reason, and valued, or
deferred to, only when and in so far as it accorded therewith ;
and, therefore, entirely deprived of intrinsic, independent, or
Divine authority.
REASON OR REVELATION? 35
Various Theories the same in Root Principle.
Reason Supreme over Revelation.
This might be illustrated at length from a review of most
of the speculations and controversies, theories and systems of
our times. In some cases this is expressly and emphatically
avowed by the modern idolaters of reason ; whether it be in
Spiritualism, which denies the possibility of a Revelation ; or
Rationalism, which denies its existence ; or Deism, which denies
its necessity ; or Naturalism, which denies that there is anything
supernatural in it; or a Romanism that denies its sufificiency, and
supplements it by tradition and infallible Papal interpretation ;
or a loose Lower Criticism, which limits its range by largely dis-
crediting its text, and by denying or disputing the canonicity or
authenticity of many of its books, because they do not come up
to its ever-varying standard ; or a Rationalistic Higher Criticism,
which logically and practically invalidates the whole by inde-
finitely invalidating parts of it, — because they do not favour its
unproved assumptions, agree with its self-made principles, con-
form to its often arbitrary methods, accord with its oft imaginary
results, or harmonise with its problematical hypotheses. All
these combine, critic and Romanist, naturalist and deist, infidel
and Christian, in avowedly casting down Revelation from its
position of Divine supremacy, and in placing, though under
different names and with vastly different aims, a bold but often
blinded reason on the throne of the God of Revelation.
More frequently this is quietly assumed and acted on by
many without its being openly professed, or even consciously
present perhaps to their own minds ; as in those often crude
speculations denying the real efficacy of prayer — virtually dis-
crediting the doctrine of a particular Providence, and logically
ending in as complete a dethroning of God from the government
of His universe as is made by the Pantheist, who denies the
existence of a personal God — a God transcendent over, as well
as immanent in all creation ; or the atheist, who, because a fool,
says there is no God ; or the materialist, who recognises no
Supreme Being, but matter and its laws, and says of them,
" These laws be your gods, O children of men ! " Also in those
widely prevalent views of the character of God, and of His rela-
tion to men, which so treat of His love as to ignore His holiness.
36 INTRODUCTION
SO dwell upon His goodness as to obliterate His justice, so ex-
patiate upon His mercy as to evacuate His righteousness ; and
consequently dispense with the necessity of an atonement in
order to the forgiveness of sin ; assert God's universal fatherhood
by creation making Him the father equally of all — saints and
sinners, men and devils, thus denying the necessity of regenera-
tion or the reality of adoption ; proclaim the abrogation or non-
existence of penal suffering, either in man or man's Redeemer ;
and fitly and consistently crown the whole with a denial of ever-
lasting punishment — yea, virtually of any punishment at all
properly so called^^^«a/ suffering here or hereafter; and thus
annihilate hell, abolish the law of righteousness, and blot out of
existence, or at least of thought, a God of holiness, justice, and
truth.
Sometimes, without it being avowed or assumed, this is
necessarily implied in the statements, theories, and principles of
many who are not only unconscious of opposing or undermining
the truth or authority of God's Word, but who sincerely believe
in them, earnestly wish to uphold them, and most confidently
maintain that they themselves are the best and wisest defenders
of them. Examples of this may be found in all these recent
speculations about Revelation which make it merely or mainly
the placing of men with much spiritual insight and deep
sympathy with God, in such circumstances as to see God working
in providence, enabling them to penetrate into the moral and
spiritual significance of what they see, so that they can shrewdly
" forecast " the future, and then record these impressions for their
own times and the benefit of future ages.
They may also be found in all theories of partial inspiration,
whether it be of those who deny and often ridicule what has been
called "verbal inspiration," or those who, rejecting "plenary
inspiration," contend for various kinds and degrees of inspiration,
such as the inspiration of superintendence, elevation, and sugges-
tion ; or those who maintain that Scripture is infallible in all its
teaching, properly so called, or in teaching on moral and spiritual
truth, or in all matters of faith and life, or at least in all essential
to man's salvation, — but not infallible except in these — the
writers of Scripture being, like other men, fallible in all other
things, and having in their writings actually erred ; or the " Gospel-
lers," who magnify the Synoptic Gospels to the disparagement of
PHASES OF RATIONALISM 37
all else in the N.T ; or all those, who place Christ's teaching
above, and in antithesis or antagonism to His Spirit's teaching
through the apostles, Whom He Himself promised, in order to
their receiving and communicating His highest and final Revela-
tions. These make their own selections from the Gospels, or
Christ's elementary teaching in the Sermon on the Mount the
sum, test, and crown of all Revelation — as expressed in their new
and vaunted ethical creeds.
All these opponents of plenary inspiration may be demon-
strated to have put reason above Revelation, as really, though not
avowedly or intentionally, as the mystic, who gives supremacy to
his own imaginary impressions of the meaning of Scripture from
its alleged correspondence with his own feelings ; or the per-
fectionist, who attempts to give authority to his own often absurd
interpretation by denominating it the teaching of the Spirit ; or
the Quaker, who gives supremacy to the light within ; or the
Rationalist, who follows Scripture so far as it agrees with his own
consciousness, or his views of the teaching of nature ; or the
Socinian, who, like Priestley and many moderns, asserts that the
Scripture writers were merely credible witnesses, recording like
good, ordinary historians their observations and impressions, but
without any infallible or special guidance ; or the apostles of
" sweetness and light," who, like Matthew Arnold, maintain that
Scripture abounds in error of every description, but contains
some latent truth — the "secret of Jesus" — which, however, only
a few experts such as they have been able in any proper measure
to discover ; or the sceptics, who, like Strauss, assert that Scrip-
ture is merely a collection of legendary myths ; or, like Baur
and the Tubingen " tendency " school, with its modern revivers,
Pfleiderer, etc., who place the writers of Scripture in antagonistic
schools, to discredit or confuse the whole ; or the Ritschlians,
who, taking the Gospels, or sometimes only the Synoptic Gospels,
as their sources, and their arbitrary selections of the teaching of
Jesus there as their test of Christian faith, discredit the other
N.T. writings, disown or ignore the apostolic interpretation of
Christ and His teaching to substitute their own presumed
superior interpretation of His consciousness, — which presents only
a truncated Christianity, without root in pre-existent Godhead or
fruit in resurrection glory, and in which the whole miraculous
elements are eliminated, the supernatural denied, and the
38 INTRODUCTION
weightiest of His utterances and the highest claims of Christ in
these very Gospels are set aside ; or the naturalists, who deny
any inspiration whatever, except the natural effect of special
providential circumstances raising some to a higher degree of
religious consciousness than ordinary men ; or the lowest infidels,
like Tom Paine, who not only refuse to admit any superiority
to Scripture, but impugn its veracity, attack its morality, and
coarsely ridicule the whole system of truth it reveals.
No Rational Resting-Place between the Truthfulness
OF Scripture and the Supremacy of Reason over
Revelation.
I know that many who hold the less pronounced views of the
erroneousness of Scripture will strongly object to be, in this
respect, classified with avowed RationaUsts and infidels ; and will
strenuously maintain that their views do not amount, or approach,
or tend to placing reason above Revelation. And I cordially
admit that they do not intend this ; that they design the very
opposite ; that they are fully convinced they are taking up
the best and only tenable position for maintaining the Divine
supremacy of Revelation or the truth of Christianity. And I
gladly own that some of them have indeed constructed from
other standpoints and in other ways some valuable defences of
the Christian faith. Nevertheless, it is shown that however
much they may differ from these in many important matters,
and though they hold with us the core of the Christian faith, yet
in this vital and radical matter, which underlies all the other
matters, there is no essential difference ; that they are all
radically the same in their Rationalistic principle; and that there
is no possible resting-place for any clear and thoroughgoing mind
between holding the thorough truthfulness, entire trustworthiness,
and Divine authority of all Scripture, and holding explicitly or
implicitly the supremacy of reason over Revelation ; and, there-
fore, rejecting altogether the independent Divine authority, and
even the veracity, of the Word of God, and consequently of the
Son of God.
To this disastrous conclusion we are driven by the fact that
the Bible claims, and is proved to claim, this for itself; and
makes this the basis of all its other claims, the ground of all its
THE SCEPTIC'S Al'OLOGY 39
other revelations. Therefore the rejection of that claim made
by Scripture and endorsed by Christ is tantamount to a rejec-
tion of the religious authority of both, leaves us without any real
authority or standard at all, and makes unbelief reasonable and
agnosticism a logical necessity.
In showing this, and in the manner of urging it, I am not
insensible to the danger of seeming to put weapons into the
hands of the foes of our faith. For at various stages I, as stated,
reason as I conceive a sceptic, from the errorists' views and
principles, would be entitled to reason, and follow out the argument
to its legitimate issues. For this the upholders of an unscrip-
tural and unscientific theory, and the apologists of an untenable
and subversive position, must be held responsible. For they
have wittingly or unwittingly raised in their false theories of
Scripture the whole question of the reality of revelation and the
truth of Christianity. There is no peril to our faith if men will
only take up and stand by the position set forth in Scripture. But
when Christian apologists, either from a false expediency, seeking
to conciliate sceptics at the cost of truth, or from a fancied
improvement of the position of defence, make admissions not
necessary to be made, and abandon positions all important to be
held ; and in doing so construct theories, adopt principles, and
follow methods which, if thoroughly prosecuted and powerfully
urged, would destroy the Written Word, and discredit the Incar-
nate Word of God, and undermine the Christian faith, it is well,
even at the risk of seeming to aid the foe by, in his name, press-
ing the advantages so unwisely given him, to show how he can
thus make an open way into the very citadel of the faith, lay the
powerful lever forged for him by Christian theorists beneath the
very foundations of our religion, and easily lay in ruins the whole
glorious structure so long thought to be impregnable ; and
deprive a seeking and sorrowing humanity of its one sure rest
and refuge, in which it found its Saviour and its Father-God.
If yielding apologists and rationalising theorists can thus be
convinced of the danger of their tactics and the indefensibleness
of their positions, real service may be ultimately rendered to the
cause of truth and the Kingdom of God, even though tempor-
arily the common foe may seem to profit by the differences of
its friends.
40 INTRODUCTION
For Christianity itself there is nothing to fear.
For Christianity itself there is nothing to fear ; for it is true,
and the God of truth is on its side. Its foes may rage with all the
fierce malignity and assail with all the perverse ingenuity that
have ever characterised them. Its friends may differ and con-
tend, and sometimes seem more zealous against each other than
against the common foe. Ever and anon in the course of their
contests, and through the manifold infirmities even of great and
God-fearing men, important though temporary advantages may,
through the temerity of some and the flexibility of others, be
given to the ever-watchful foes of the faith. And sometimes
through the enmity and skill and prowess of these Philistines,
those advantages so needlessly and foolishly given may be so
earnestly seized and so vigorously pressed that they may seem to
be cutting, even with Christian-forged instruments, a clear way
up to the very walls of Zion, and into the very citadel of our
salvation, threatening to lay the ancient strongholds of Chris-
tianity, venerable with the glory of age and strong in the
victories and conquests of centuries, prostrate in the dust. Thus
for a time the truth may be obscured, maligned, and seemingly
crushed ; and round the hoary battlements of Christendom the
dark and lurid clouds of impending destruction may ominously
appear to be gathering for its final overthrow.
But it is ojily for a time. Magna est Veritas et prevalebit—
" Great is truth, and it shall prevail." Christianity has nothing
to dread from her adversaries, nor can even the controversies or
errors of her upholders permanently injure her. In spite of
friend and foe she must ultimately prevail on earth, and have her
claims and honour owned by all mankind.
From true reason she apprehends no evil, but confidently
anticipates much aid; for right reason and Divine Revelation,
both the offspring and servants of God, and having respectively
a sphere and work of their own in God's vast kingdom, can
never really conflict with each other, or for any length of time
even appear to do so ; but must ultimately, each working in its
own proper province and after its own peculiar way, ever stand
side by side as valuable and complementary companions ; and,
labouring together in blissful harmony, do noble service in the
advancement of the same vast kingdom and for the honour of
FOR CHRISTIANITY NO FEAR 4I
the same great Lord. From investigation she has nothing evil to
fear, but everything good to expect ; for the more thoroughly she
has been examined in the clear strong light of day, and the more
fully and searchingly she has been scrutinised in the fierce, cross
lights of science and philosophy, history and experience, the
more have the vastness of her resources and the riches of her
treasures been discovered, the more have the strength of her
bulwarks and the immovableness of her foundations been dis-
closed, and the more have the righteousness of her claims and
the glory of her greatness been set forth. From controversy she
need not shrink, nor at the prospect of it be dismayed ; for hitherto
she has come out of it not only unscathed but triumphant, and
has gathered new strength and reaped fresh glory in the many
battles she has fought and the many victories she has won in the
many contests of many generations.^
She has nothing to fear, nothing to hide ; for weakness she is
free of, and secrets she has none ; and, therefore, calm in the
confidence of her own Divine stability, and fearless in the
plenitude of her own untold resources, frank in the conscious-
ness of her own inherent righteousness, and buoyant in the
prospect of her own final triumph, she, unabashed, can meet her
enemies in the gate, invite the broadest light of day to search
through all her mysteries, and boldly challenge all her foes.
Though her followers and her forms, and all the outward,
magnificent evidences of her existence and monuments of her
greatness were in one wild blaze to be consumed to-morrow, she
would, pho3nix-like, rise from her ashes on the following day a
nobler and diviner bird than ever. And though for a little truth
might be driven to the wall and error appear to prevail, and
infidelity, ever eager to proclaim its fancied triumph, were
beginning vainly to raise its haughty head to revel o'er the
grave of an extinct Christianity, and to sing a mocking requiem
for her eternal repose, the mirth would be premature and the
triumph be but short. For, like her Lord, in spite of earth and
hell, rising from the dead on the third day, she would rise again
from her grave in greater power and grander glory than ever ; or
like the granite mountain that unmoved has stood for ages
among the raging waves, when buried for a little beneath the
foam of furious tempests, it soon raises its majestic head
^ See Dr. Chalmers' Astronomical Discourses.
42 INTRODUCTION
amid the billows, and when the storms are past and the winds are
hushed to rest, only stands out more calmly and grandly than
before. Hers are the naked majesty of truth, and the trans-
parency and nobility of conscious rectitude and greatness. To
her belong all the weight and the glory of age, without any of
its unloveliness or infirmities. And whether she has to contend
with the powers of the world or the prejudices of the Church,
with the arrogance of science or the pride of philosophy, with
the haughtiness of criticism or the boastfulness of Rationalism,
the malignity of scepticism, — yea, with all the principalities and
powers and the rulers of the darkness of this world, she does so
in the native vigour of her own Divine strength, and with the
spiritual power of her own heaven-forged weapons, despising
all the artifices of carnal wisdom or cowardly expediency, and
spurning all the props and expedients of imbecility away from
her; for
"God in the midst of her doth dwell,
Nothing shall her remove ;
The Lord to her an helper will,
And that right early prove."
BOOK I.
CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY, AND CHRIST
AND THE CONTROVERSIES.
CHAPTER I.
THE PROMINENCE OF CHRIST IN RECENT
THEOIOGY.
This book is in some parts and aspects preliminary to the main
subject of this volume. In others it is primary and fundamental
in itself and in relation to all the questions considered here, yea,
in connection with the leading religious questions of our age.
The chief and specific subject of this volume is whether the
Bible is the Word of God, of infallible truth and Divine authority ;
and what is Christ's relation thereto, and Jesus' teaching thereon ?
Where is the seat of authority in religion, and what is Christ's
position as a religious teacher? These supreme and radical
questions, or rather various aspects and relations of the one
prime root question, form the main portion of this book. But it
also treats of other leading truths of the Christian faith, and of
Christ's teaching on them. These are, however, all-important in
themselves, and of special importance in our time, when almost
every vital principle and cardinal doctrine of our religion is being
denied, or depreciated, or ignored by many calling themselves
Christian. So that Clirist's teaching on them is of the highest
moment and most timely now, especially as to those most
controverted. Besides, all these are radically connected with
this fundamental question. It underlies them all, and arises
with each of them.
44 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
The Standpoint. Christ's Infallibility as a Teacher.
This book also raises the supreme, prime question — on which
all other questions in theology and religion, and even in ethics,
depend — in the most serious and arrestive manner, approaches
it by the best avenue, and presents it for decision in the aspect
most likely to be conclusive and to bring finality to all who own
the Divinity of Christ or the authority of Jesus' teaching. The
teaching of Jesus is, in fact, the great cry of our day ; and that,
too, by many who openly impugn, violently assail, and some-
times scornfully reject what is really His teaching, — though
under other names. But since they appeal to Caesar, — to Christ,
not only as against uninspired teachers, but as against His sent
and Spirit - filled Prophets and Apostles, whose teaching He
inspired and endorsed, — to Caesar they shall go, and we shall
joyfully go with them.
Christ's Place in Modern Thought and Religious Life.
Nothing is more remarkable or precious in recent religious
thought and life than the central and unique position given to
Christ Himself. Never, perhaps, since the primitive Christian
times, when the personal Jesus was all in all, has the conscious-
ness of a living Christ so much pervaded and dominated religious
thought, life, and literature as now. As He was the Alpha in the
first ages, so He is fast becoming the Omega in these last times.
The tide and passion of our time flow strongly Christward.
Round Himself, rather than any lesser centre, recent theological
ideas gather and crystallise. From Him, rather than from any
abstract truth or principle, leaders of Christian thought and
activity draw their inspiration and derive their power. Doubt-
less in every age Christ has been more or less directly the heart
and motive power of Christianity ; and the burning, creative souls
who have made and moulded new eras, and pulsed fresh life and
influence adown all after ages, have derived their fire and force
from fellowship with Him.
But when we leave the fulness and vitality infused into and
permeating the primitive ages by the conscious nearness of a
risen, living Lord ; when Christianity, like a river in full flood
issuing from its fountain, breathed and teemed with a unique
CHANGES OF THEOLOGICAL CENTRE 45
realisation of the presence and spirit of a personal Christ, — the
fragrance of which has lingered through the ages, and refreshes
the Church to day, — we find that doctrine about Christ, rather
than Christ Himself, more and more takes the pre-eminence.
The controversies with the early heretics and sceptics uncon-
sciously tended to this. The first great controversy as to the
Person and Divinity of Christ, though unavoidable, and in its
ultimate results invaluable, nevertheless somewhat diverted men's
thoughts and affections from our Lord Himself to words and
phrases, discussions and creeds about Him. During the Augus-
tinian age religious thought, through the Pelagian and cognate
controversies, was turned largely away from theology proper to
anthropology ; and though great and lasting service was done for
truth and the Church thereby, a personal, ever-present Jesus,
with the glory of His unique personality and the preciousness of
His ever-living presence with His people, became less and less
realised. Through the Middle Ages He was largely lost sight of,
and thought of Him was replaced by the cultivation and
development of formalism and sacerdotalism, by the creation of
purgatory, and the establishment of the Papacy. Even at the
Reformation, inestimable and enduring though its achievements
for truth and liberty were, it was more the work of Christ, and
that, too, in its bearing mainly on man's justification — one section
of soteriology — than the living Christ Himself that stood forth
with greatest prominence. In the seventeenth century, when the
Dutch and Puritan divines laid the Church under everlasting
obligations for the unparalleled services rendered to Scripture
exposition and experimental religion, it was not so much a per-
sonal Christ as the covenant of grace — not so much the living
Jesus as the eternal purpose, that formed the centre and burden
of their thought and teaching.
And it is only in recent times, and largely within the present
generation, — mainly within the last decade of the nineteenth
century, that Christ Himself — the Divine Man Christ Jesus —
has resumed, or begun to resume, something of His primitive
pre-eminence and central position in religious thought, Christian
life, and theological literature.
46 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
The Advantages of this Christ-centred Theology.
At this every Christian heart should rejoice. By this much
has been gained in every way. It places at the centre and heart
of the whole scheme of salvation, instead of any abstract doctrine
or system of truth, Him to whom as " The Truth " that position
truly belongs, and who alone can properly occupy it ; and makes
Him, what by the Father's appointment and the fitness of
things He is, both the foundation and the chief corner-stone, —
both the centre and the heart of the whole scheme of God's sal-
vation. It gives unity and life to the entire revelations of grace ;
and makes every part and particle of it pulsate with Divine
vitality, and breathe with the vivifying Personality of our Brother
God and Redeeming Saviour. It imparts that perennial newness
and everlasting freshness to religious truth which issues from Him
as our Divine-human Redeemer and ever-living Lord, and is
infused into everything of which He is the head, and heart, and
centre, and glory. It prevents that fatal tendency and life-
evaporating habit which ever endanger the mere scientific
treatment of abstract doctrine ; and which has often turned the
sacred science of systematic theology — the scientia scientiarum —
into unhallowed and profitless contention about the dry bones of
theological dogma.
It gives Him the unique position which is His, and was pre-
destined for Him in nature, providence, and grace. In nature,
as the whole progress of creation and development of life on our
globe pointed to, prepared for, aspired after, and is at length ter-
minated and consummated in Him, as the end and crown, and
Lord and glory of all creation. In providence, as all the events
of history and the evolutions of ages march ever forward towards
Him, and conspire to make Him manifest as the Father of the
ages, and the fulness of Him that filleth all in all. In grace, as
Revelation, from its earliest dawn to its full meridian, pointed to
Him as its goal, and sum, and glory ; and the Church, from its
first germ to its final perfection, has had, as its main function
and chief end, to reveal His grace and magnify His name as God
manifest in the flesh, of whom, and to whom, and through
whom are all things, " that in all things He might have the pre-
eminence." And it helps, further, to realise the purpose of the
ages— that mankind may see, receive, trust, and love its Saviour
GAINS OF CIIRLSTO-CENTRIC THEOLOGY 47
and its Lord ; and thus, through the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, may know and live
the life eternal, and realise, in a deeper sense than ever poet
dreamed of, that " one increasing purpose through the ages
runs "; and take their place and act their part in hastening on that
" one far-off Divine event to which the whole creation moves."
This significant fact may well rejoice the heart of Christendom
to-day, as it is of itself sufficient to immortalise our age. Like
the coming of a new spring, it breathes fresh life and joyous
expectation into all our Christian thought, activity, and literature
after all the vicissitudes and controversies of many centuries ;
and promises to the Church and the world a revival of primitive
Christianity, and a rejuvenescence of mankind. It is, indeed, a
true dayspring from on high that hath visited us as we near the
dawn of another century ; which may well halo the coming age
with glory to the eye of faith, enable the ear of love to hear the
songs of Paradise echoing over a renovated world, make the heart
of the daughter of Zion shout for gladness, and fill each Christian
soul with joy unspeakable and full of glory.
The Abuses of this. Disparaging the Prophets and
Apostles, and discrediting Scripture.
Nevertheless, even this most precious pre-eminence of a per-
sonal living Christ, which is the most distinguishing characteristic
and crowning glory of our age, and will remain its best memorial
and service to mankind, has been abused to the prejudice of the
truth as it is in Jesus ; and that, too, by those who claim to glory
supremely in the fact, and have assumed most ostentatiously this
attitude. They have cried — " Away with dogma, and let us have
Jesus. Be done with creed, and give us Christ. Make less of
the Scriptures and more of the Saviour. We would get past the
Bible and see Jesus." As if we could know anything of Jesus
without the Bible ! As if our whole knowledge of Him was not
drawn from the Scriptures ; and, therefore, by how much soever
we impinge on their integrity or weaken their authority, by so
much precisely we mutilate our conception, lessen our faith, and
render impossible our sure knowledge of Him. They forget that
it was He Himself who said, " Search the Scriptures ; for in them
ye think ye have eternal life : and they are they which testify of
48 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Me " (John s^'-*) ; and showed His disciples, after His resurrec-
tion, "in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself"
(Luke 24-'^). They appear to be unblissfuUy ignorant of the
fact that when worthy of the name, " creed " is simply the orderly
statement of the system of truth revealed about Him for our sal-
vation ; and " dogma " the accurate doctrinal embodiment of the
truth as it is in Jesus.
The Appeal to Christ fatal to the Disparagers of
Scripture and its Writers.
But those who deride creed and despise dogma are the last
that should make much of Jesus or His teaching. For of all
the dogmatists that ever taught, He was the most dogmatic ; and
of all the teachers or preachers that ever opened their lips. He
was the most decisive, authoritative, and emphatic, especially on
the Divine supremacy of the Bible, and in His unqualified belief
of all therein when truly interpreted. He was, too, supremely
majestic and most solemnly absolute on the inviolable truthful-
ness and Divine authority of all Scripture — every part and
element "jot and tittle" thereof (Matt. 5^^- i^). Herein is a
marvellous thing, that Jesus was Himself the most decided,
emphatic, and inevasible teacher that ever lived and taught ; and
spoke with such unique authority and absolute dogmatism as no
one, inspired or uninspired, has ever approached to. And what
is still more remarkable is that it is just on the doctrines that
have been most controverted, specially those most assailed in our
time, that He has spoken with greatest decisiveness, unquestion-
able inevasibleness, and majestic solemnity ; — as if, foreseeing the
controversies of the coming ages. He had purposely prepared His
own Divine words to meet and settle them ; and cast the weight of
His own Divine authority into the breaches that He knew would be
attempted to be made on these doctrines ; so as to shut up all
who owned Him to believe them ; and thus to put before all men
the solemn alternative of receiving them or rejecting Him.
This fact, which can be demonstrated from His very words,
habitual usage and attitude, and which every careful student of
Scripture must have been impressed with, and which even the
most cursory reader could scarcely fail to note, looks hard,
crushingly hard, upon all those who seem to make much of
CHRIST ENDORSES SCRIPTURE AND ITS DOCTRINES 49
Christ to disparage Scripture, who magnify Jesus to denounce
dogma, who profess to honour Him that they may the better dis-
honour His Word, and disparage the prophets and apostles whom
He sent, and inspired to reveal His will and write His Word.
It may well make them and all pause and ponder to read His
awful and majestic words, " Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye
think ye have eternal life : and they are they which testify of Me "
(John 5^^^). "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5^^).
" He that heareth you, heareth Me ; and he that despiseth you,
despiseth Me" (Luke 10^^). "Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but My words shall not pass away " (Matt. 24^^). " He
that receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him : the
word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
last day" (John 12"*^).
Christ endorses with his Divine Authority all the lead-
ing Doctrines assailed, specially Holy Scripture.
But it will be asked on what controverted doctrines has
Christ spoken with such decision, solemnity, and authority?
Looking back on the whole history of controversy during these
eighteen centuries, the answer might generally in substance be —
on all the main doctrines controverted since the dawn of the
Christian era, and supremely on the inviolable truthfulness,
absolute trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all Scripture.
This might be well illustrated by following the order in which
the controversies as to the leading doctrines have arisen in the
history of the Church ; especially as the historical order largely
coincides with the natural and scientific order. For it is a
remarkable and suggestive fact that the usual, because the natural,
is the scientific order of treatment of doctrine in systems of
theology. In its great divisions and chief subjects it is substan-
tially the same as the historical order of discussion as given in
histories of doctrine. First, Theology (proper)— God. Second,
Anthropology— Man. Third, Soteriology — Salvation. Fourth,
Eschatology — The Future Life. The history of discussion is thus
the order of science. And as the Church followed this order
unintentionally, just as the controversies arose, it appears that, all
unconsciously to herself, God has led her historically through a
4
50 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
regular course of systematic theology, taking the subjects in their
proper scientific order.^ So that the Church ought to be complet-
ing her theological education in these last times ; and leaving to
these noisy neophytes, who have neither studied Scripture nor
mastered theology, that recent plethora and noxious growth of
crude jejunities and crass aberrations which they innocently name
"recent rediscoveries" of Christ, though mostly only new forms
of old exploded errors, or sheer absurdities.
^ Hugh Miller, in his famous work, The Testimony of the Rocks, has an
interesting parallel in science to this in theology. He shows " the wonderful
parallelism which exists between the Divine and the human systems of classi-
fication, when the Divine idea embodied by the Creator of all in geologic
history, and the human idea embodied by the zoologists and botanists in their
respective systems" are compared; and which is all the more "marvellous
that the geologists who have discovered the one had no hand in assisting the
naturalists and phytologists who framed the other." He draws the inference
' ' that we have a new argument for an identity in constitution and quality of
the Divine and the human minds, the result of that creative act by which God
formed man in His own image." He also urges the further inference in fa\our
of the action therein of z. personal, as against the pantheist's fiction of an i/n-
personal God in the original arrangement, "seeing that only persons (like Cuvier)
could have ever wrought out for themselves the real arrangement of the scheme."
Both these inferences from the old creation are confirmed by the not less
wonderful parallelism in the new creation between the course of scientific
arrangement in systems of theology naturally formed, and the course of
doctrinal discussion actually followed in the history of the Church as
exhibited in histories of doctrine : — especially as both courses originated and
progressed independently, and yet both followed a marvellously similar
course, and the same scientific because natural order.
This, too, surely warrants the further inferences, and supplies fresh
evidence of the following truths : —
First. That by a gracious providence God has been leading the Church
in its advancing historj' into the knowledge and experience of the truths of
Revelation in a scientific because the natural order; — a providence the
graciousness of which is all the more manifest in the light of" the fact that it
is by this experimental knowledge and consequent appreciation of the truth
that the spiritual life and fruitfulness of the Church are best promoted.
Second. That in the progress of both the physical and the spiritual creation
God in His providence, which aims specially at the good of His people, ever
acts and advances all along the lines of the laws of thought implanted in them
when He created them in His own likeness ; and that, therefore, the path to
true future progress in the knowledge of the truth and the development of the
Christian life is, as in the progress of science, not, like some, by absurdly
destroying or discrediting what God has graciously led His Church into the
knowledge and experience of, but by more truly and fully realising and
utilising that, and making it the root and starting-point, under the same
Divine guidance, of further progress more and more unto the perfect day.
CHAPTER II.
CHRIST S PLACE AS A RELIGIOUS TEACHER.
Before giving Christ's teaching on the other leading truths,
it is well to consider an important preliminary question which is
at the basis of all, and which has recently come into unique
prominence, viz. :— What is Christ's place as a teacher in religion
and ethics? By this is meant not so much His place as
compared with the great teachers of the other leading religions
of the world ; for here He is unquestionably supreme, and
confessedly stands out peerlessly alone as at least the greatest
religious genius of the race : and whether we think of Mahomet
or Gautama, Confucius or Laoutsze, Socrates or Plato, — the
Light of Asia, or the Light of Europe, or any other light, — He
shines out a lonely splendour as the Light of the world. Giving
all of them their highest place, it still remains beyond dispute, as
the poet sings —
"They are but broken lights of Thee;
And Thou, O Lord ! art more than they."
But it is His place as coippared with other inspired teachers —
the prophets, apostles, and evangelists — that has recently assumed
an unprecedented prominence in religious thought and literature ;
and on which some valuable, and much unwise and erroneous
teaching has been issued.
Four distinct stages are recognisable in the Church's study of
her Lord. In the early Christian ages the Person of Christ was
the great subject of thought and controversy ; till, in the fourth
century, its doctrine of His Divine-human Personality was
formulated, which remains unchanged until this day. At the
Reformation the work of Christ — specially His redemptive
work, as the ground of the justification of all who believe —
formed the theme of profound thought and keen discussion
between the Reformers and the Romanists : and the doctrine of
52 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
justification by faith, then so thoroughly formed and so power-
fully enforced, continues, unaltered, to be the teaching of
evangelical Christianity until this hour. In the larger part of
this century the special subject of study has been the life and
character of Christ, embodied in a vast and rich literature.
With unprecedented means of study and thoroughness of
research, every scene and circumstance of His life has been so
seized and realised; and through unexampled exhaustiveness
of investigation by the best scholarship, every element and
fragment of the gospel history has been so appreciated that,
with a vividness and reality never attained since apostolic days,
the Man Christ Jesus has been made to live again before our
eyes ; so that men have felt, as in the days of old, the Divine
fascination of His unique Personality, and have had their hearts
drawn to Him by a resistless spell as they beheld His glory, and
saw in Him ''the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ."
It is in the close of this century, and specially in its last
decade, that the teaching of Jesus has so intensely engaged
special study, and become so fascinating and fruitful. This has
given it all the benefits of the thoroughness, exhaustiveness,
individuaHsation, and vividness characteristic of specialism. It
has also exposed it to the tendencies and perils of speciahsation,
— one-sided ness, exaggeration, isolation, and erroneous inference
from limited induction. Both these have in this case become
apparent, and demand attention.
The Theological Significance and Religious Value of
THIS special Study of Christ's Teaching.
This special study of the teaching of Christ has unquestion-
ably given us a more definite and vivid view of it than when
mixed up, as in theological systems, with the specific teaching of
the apostles, and taken as a part of the general N.T. Revela-
tion,— although it is in full harmony with the one, and is a vital
part of the other. It also gives us a clearer and more complete
conception of the gospel as preached by Christ Himself, who is
both its subject and its end. Its very individuaHsation makes
it stand out with a completeness and a sharpness that is very
impressive and memorable, Uke the vivid outline of a clear,
VALUE OF SPECIAL STUDY OF CHRIST'S TEACHING 53
majestic mountain against the radiant western sky at sunset.
One seems to hear the very voice of the Master, and to see the
benign radiance of His face, the love-filled look of His eyes, and
the very motion of His holy lips, as "the gracious words
proceeded out of His mouth," which made the people wonder,
and exclaim, " Never man. spake like this man." We both hear
and see Jesus, and learn from Himself what the gospel truly is ;
and how the Divine Father really feels to His prodigal children,
as revealed by Him who is at once the brightness of His Father's
glory, and our true Brother Saviour.
It enables us to see what profound depths of spiritual mean-
ing, and far-reaching horizons of Divine Revelation were treasured
up in those radiant previsions of the coming Christ, embodied in
the ancient Scriptures, as patriarchs hoped, and prophets spake,
and psalmists sang from age to age, as light more clearly shone,
and hope more hopeful grew. It shows what a Divine signifi-
cance lay hid, half revealed but half concealed, in all those rites
and symbols, events and ordinances that God appointed in Israel ;
by which they saw as through a glass darkly enough to find salva-
tion ; but which He, as the Sun of Righteousness, so illumined
and transfused by His unique irradiations, that they became Hke
these vast masses of trailing, nimbus clouds which have long
hovered o'er the heavens, till the westering sun so irradiates and
transfuses them with his effulgent beams that they transform the
heavens into such a scene of glowing splendour, and wrap the
earth in such brilliancy of reflected glory as is overpowering in
its grandeur, and make one wonder how the new heavens and
the new earth can excel it in glory. And, to vary the figure, it so
fills and floods each part and fragment of that ancient Revelation
with such untold spiritual significance that it is like the fulness
of a great ocean tide, filling and flooding each bay and creek,
each cavern and tidal river, with the vivifying fulness of its flow,
as it rushes grandly from the fountains of the great deep.
The significant Progress in Christ's Teaching. His
GROWING Knowledge through personal Experience
OF the Truth.
What immensely increases the profound meaning and re-
ligious value of all this to us is that what He thus taught was
54 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
not merely the expression of unique knowledge, but also the
outcome of prayerful study and personal experience of the truth
in these Scriptures of which He was the burden and the goal,
the author and the fulfiller. This we, too, may still have
through the use of the same means, and by the illumination of
the same Spirit, who inspired them and Him to know and to
unfold them, and is ready to inspire us also to understand and
appreciate both them and Him more and more unto the perfect
day. For it is only as we experimentally know Him, and the truth
as it is in Him (which we do only gradually, line by line, truth
after truth), that we really know the truth or Him, as He meant
us to know it, or realise their full and purposed saving power.
It further helps us to ascertain and realise the progress in the
knowledge and experience of the truth in His own soul. For
there can be little doubt that as from the beginning so to the
close His human mind grew in wisdom, and in the experimental
knowledge of the truth, as He studied and utilised the Father's
Word, pondered the deep things of God, and experienced the
Divine discipline of providence for the perfectation of His
knowledge as well as the development of His character, and the
cultivation of His powers to their full maturity. It has been
usual to note progressiveness in the revelation of Scripture as a
whole, and recently progress has been noted in the individual
inspired writers and writings, as in Paul. But it is still more
significant to mark and ponder progress both in the teaching and
experience of the God-Man — the supreme Teacher, — the advanc-
ing teaching being rooted in and springing from the growing
religious experience of the Man Christ Jesus ; so that what we
get from Jesus is experimental teaching — the outward expression
of His growing inward spiritual experience, like a stream flowing
spontaneously from a deep and ever-deepening fountain.
A distinct advance in His teaching is clearly traceable in the
Gospels, from the more elementary teaching of the earlier stages
of His earthly life, as seen, for example, in the more rudimentary
ethical teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, to the higher
spiritual teaching of the later stages, as specially exemplified in
the Gospel of John. And there is a very marked advance in
His teaching, and in the revelations made to His disciples after
His resurrection. It is the blessed fruit to Him as well as to
them of that profound and pregnant experience of death and
THE PROGRESS IN CHRIST'S TEACHING 55
resurrection, — awful and surpriseful, but uniquely fruitful and
divinely significant to Himself as well as to us. The Captain
of our salvation was made perfect through suffering ; and as the
most awful part of the process of His perfectation was from the
garden of sorrow to the grave of Joseph, so it was also to Him
the most profoundly significant, richest in revelation, supremely
deepening in spiritual experience, most enriching in personal
character, and pre-eminently fruitful in deep, rich, and tender
teaching. " Though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience
by the things that He suffered " ; and as the deepest depths of
these sufferings were the seasons and spheres as well as the
means of His highest learnings and most unique enrichments ;
so they were also the fountains of His profoundest and most
precious teachings, the roofings of His richest and most Divine
revelations. So also should our Gethsemane and Calvary be.
So indeed they will be if we learn of Him. So indeed they have
been so far as we have done so, and in them and through them
the more deeply entered into His and Him, — into the fellow-
ship of His sufferings, and the significance of His teachings
rooted there ; and into likeness of experience, yielding oneness
of life, sympathy, and teaching.
Doubtless the advance in teaching after the resurrection was
due partly to the fact that His disciples were not earlier able to
receive His teaching as to His death and resurrection, with the
infinite depths and heights of revelation there ; partly to the fact
that He Himself was prevented by the very nature of these
events from unfolding their full Divine significance until they
had actually taken place ; and partly also because, like a wise
Master builder. He would begin His teaching at the foundation,
and proceed in a steadily advancing course, — though in the
Gospels the successive steps are not as in scientific treatises
boldly bodied forth, but like nature beautifully clothed, and
largely concealed from the cursory reader, by the engaging
variety and colour, and by the individualising interest and rich
suggestiveness of each part when taken by itself. Yet they
gradually disclose themselves in the most engaging and instruct-
ive way to the careful student, who has grasped this root idea,
and follows it along its fruitful and fascinating course.
Nevertheless, this advance in thought and revelation in our
Lord's teaching is, doubtless, also owing to the ever-growing
56 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
knowledge and experience in His human soul of the whole truth
and counsel of God, under the unction of the Holy Ghost and
the discipline of His gracious Father. So that the teaching of
Christ is, when thus apprehended, a threefold revelation to us :—
first, of the specific truths He taught in His own unique way ;
second, of His own growth in knowledge and experience of the
truth as exhibited in His advancing teaching ; third, in the
guidance and inspiration thus given to us to follow in the same
way, and thus to grow up to the stature of men in Christ through
the experimental knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.
Christ's Place in the Development of Revelation.
Further still, it aids us to ascertain and realise Christ's
position in the development of Revelation. Clearly He stands
at the climax and close, as He is Himself the crown, and end,
and glory of all the revelations of God. As at His coming, life
in its ever-ascending march took a new leap upward to its highest
pinnacle, and in Him who was the Life it touched and em-
braced its author ; and as history, ever advancing to Him who
was its guide and goal, then entered on a new departure and
higher plane, to be ever after advancing on distinctively Christian
lines ; and as providence, ever reaching forward in its marvellous
marchings under Him who was the Father of the ages, then
reached the realisation of the purpose of the ages — even that
in all things He might have the pre-eminence. So Revelation
then took a great bound forward, made a unique leap upward,
attained its zenith, reached its cUmax, and assumed its crown, in
Him who was the Head and ideal of the creation of God, the
centre and goal of the providence of God, and the burden and
glory of the Revelation of God.
In Him not only were the previsions of patriarchs realised,
and the prefigurations of the Law fulfilled, and the predictions
of the prophets accomplished, and the presages of psalmists
embodied and glorified ; but Revelation entered on a new stage,
leaped to its highest elevation, reached its perfect embodiment,
and put on its ideal diadem, when the Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us, and men beheld His glory — "the glory as of
the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Not
only was a new and effulgent light shed upon the ancient Revela-
CHRIST'S PLACE IN THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION 57
tion, and a fresh and far-reaching fuhiess of life and meaning
poured into the previous manifestations of Himself made by God
to His people, but new and unique revelations of the most
important nature were given by Him — as to the Fatherhood of
God, and the brotherhood of man ; of Trinity in the unity of the
Godhead, and the incarnation of the Eternal Son as the Messiah ;
of the redemption in Christ, and the Person and work of the
Holy Ghost ; of the sin of man, and the grace of God ; of the
regeneration and justification of sinners ; of the sonship of
believers, and perfection in Christ ; of the kingdom of God, and
the millennial glory ; of death and resurrection ; of judgment to
come, and the final destinies — eternal life and eternal death ; of
the Devil and his angels, and the children of the wicked one ; of
the heavenly glory, and the eternal home of the children of God.
These and other cognate truths are either in themselves new
revelations, or were so uniquely taught by Christ as to be felt
and recognised as both new and marvellous.
Christ holds a supreme and unique Place as a Teacher,
AND IN the Progress of Revelation.
So that compared with, and in relation to all the previous
inspired teachers, whether patriarchs or prophets, lawgivers or
psalmists, righteous men or wise men, Christ undoubtedly stands
out far above all peerlessly alone, and holds a place and has
played a part in the development of Revelation that is unique,
and is by right as in fact His own. Scripture everywhere teaches
and assumes this; for though " the law was given by Moses, grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ." Wise though Solomon was, a
wiser as well as a greater than Solomon was He who in O.T.
and in N.T. is called " the wisdom of God," in whom are hid
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And God, who in
times past spake unto the fathers by the prophets, is said, by
way of supremacy and finality, in these last days to have spoken
unto us by His Son ; and so spake through Him as to constrain
men in all ages to say with those who heard Him, " Never man
spake like this man." And the Church is said to be " built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Him-
self being the ^/?/>/ corner-stone " (Eph. 220),— that is, on the
teaching of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
58 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
being the great Chief Teacher, as well as the Rock on which
God builds His Church. As He is " the Prince of the kings of
the earth," " King of kings, and Lord of lords," and the " Great
High Priest," to whom all other priests are inferior and sub-
ordinate, so, as in kinghood and priesthood, in His prophethood
He is the Supreme Prophet — the Teacher sent from God —
" that in all things He might have the pre-eminence."
And what is in these and many passages clearly taught or
implied in relation to the prophets and other writers of the O.T.,
is in these and countless places implied and assumed of Him in
relation to the apostles and the other inspired writers of the
N.T., — the Lord of the apostles, as well as the God of the
prophets : — Within, however, the limits necessarily implied in His
position, and the limitations voluntarily assumed in the circum-
stances of His life and the interests of His work, and expressly
declared by Himself, as stated below.
This pre-eminence and supremacy our Lord is manifestly con-
scious of, implies it in many utterances, and assumes it through-
out His teaching. He claims the right to interpret the O.T.
Scriptures in His own unique way, and to declare authoritatively
what they were intended to teach ; and exposes the errors of
traditional interpretation with an assurance and authority all His
own, as His hearers were impressed with. He also exercised as
His unquestionable right His authority to add to, alter, and
even to abolish some of the things previously taught and prac-
tised, in order to give place to the higher things they prefigured,
and by which they were fulfilled. He developed the principles,
deepened the spirituality, broadened the application, and
put new and unthought of meanings into parts of the ancient
Scriptures — though never contrary to or condemnatory of the
inspired Scriptures ; and He put His own teaching in contrast
as on a higher moral and spiritual plane than other ancient
teaching. In short, He claimed the right to interpret, revise,
use, and reset the O.T. in His own unique way. This may be
seen in the " I say unto you " passages in the Sermon on the
Mount. He shows the defects and imperfections, the temporary
nature and merely permissive character of some of the old legis-
lation and usage, which were necessitated or permitted because of
the hardness of their heart, and the low religious state and crude
moral ideas and practices of those times of ignorance ; claiming
CHRIST'S CLAIMS TO A UNIQUE PLACE 59
even to be as the Son of Man Lord of the Sabbath day, in reply
to the Pharisaical critics. And He did all this with such an air
of independent right, and such a tone of absolute authority as
struck all, but no one ever dared to imitate, and few presumed
to dispute.
As with the prophets of the O.T., so with the apostles of the
N.T. He was their Master, they were His servants. He was
their Lord, they were His disciples. He was their Teacher,
they were His scholars — often dull and slow learners indeed.
From first to last this was His and their attitude and relation-
ship, as exhibited throughout the Gospels. His teaching was
ever to them supreme and unique, and became their fountain
and their rule of life. His words were often on their lips, ever in
their memories, treasured in their hearts, and followed in their
lives ; and found, therefore, large record in the Gospels and
tender reminiscence otherwise. He Himself emphasised the
importance of His words, not merely as His own words, but as
the words of the Father who sent Him. To His disciples He
made them the test of discipleship — " Why call ye Me, Lord,
Lord, and do not the things that I say?" the means to know-
ledge and freedom — " If ye continue in My words, ye shall know
the truth : and the truth shall make you free " ; the path to power
in prayer — " If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye
shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you " ; the
source of inspiration and life — "The words that I speak unto you
they are spirit, and they are life." And He told them that one
chief thing the Holy Spirit would do for them when He came
was, " He shall bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever
I have said unto you."
So that His words and teaching contained the germs or
substance of much, or most that they ever after taught or did.
To men generally, too. He made much of His words. Who has
not been impressed with that weighty and significant refrain, so
often on His lips, with which He closes His parables and His
Epistles to the Seven Churches — " He that hath an ear to hear,
let him hear"? In His most solemn and majestic close of the
Sermon on the Mount, under the figures of the builders on the
rock and the sand. He makes men's eternal destiny depend
upon their doing or not doing of His words (Matt. 7). Yea,
He makes them the standard and test of men's state and destiny
6o CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
at the judgment day — "The words that I have spoken shall judge
him in the last day." And fitly crowning all He says in sublime
majesty, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall
not pass away" (Matt. 24-''^).
His disciples also ever magnify His words and teaching,
" To whom can we go, but unto Thee ? Thou hast the words of
eternal life." " Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly."
"Whoso keepeth His word, in him is the love of God perfected."
They speak of Him as " a prophet mighty in deed and word," of
His word as more sure and steadfast than " the word spoken by
angels " ; as "Him that speaketh from heaven," in contrast with
all others speaking upon earth. And they climax all by naming
Him "The Word of God" — the best and perfect expression of
the mind and heart and will of God. Hence the Eternal Father
on the mount of transfiguration placed Him as a teacher in
contrast, though not in conflict but in harmony with and in
supremacy over, Moses the representative of the law, and Elijah
the representative of the prophets ; and actually opens heaven to
say, " This is My beloved Son ; hear ye Him." It thus appears
that compared with and in relation to the prophets of the O.T.
and the apostles of the N.T., and all other teachers whatsoever,
He is not only the Supreme Teacher, so far as He expressed
His mind, but He occupies a unique place, and stands alone
on a higher plane, in a position that is all His own — a lonely
splendour.
The Reasons of Christ's Supremacy.
For obvious reasons this is so. For ; First, He is the only
Perfect One. As revelation is always necessarily coloured and
conditioned by its organ or medium, and as He is the only
perfect organ. His was the only perfect revelation of God. And
that not merely, or perhaps mainly, in His actual teaching, but
in His character, spirit, and life, and in His death, resurrection,
and glory ; for they were all media of the revelation of God ; and
it was through and in them that the full and perfect revelation
was made. They all teach, and He teaches through them all.
Second, because He had a special and unique anointing of
the Holy Ghost at every stage and in every moment of His life ;
for from His birth the Holy Ghost rested on Him in a unique
REASONS OF CHRIST'S SUPREMACY 6l
way, and from His baptism abode on Him without measure,
specially fitting Him for His peculiar public work. And as all
Revelation is by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost — "What the
Spirit saith unto the churches," — "What the Holy Ghost saith,"
— therefore. His perfect anointing secured the most perfect
teaching.
Third, and supremely, because He was the Son of God, yea
very God of very God, and the God of truth ; and, therefore,
knew the truth as no other did, or could — fully, perfectly,
directly; and, therefore, calls Himself "The Truth," as He is
also called "The Word ('O Aoyos) of God." He, therefore, could
and did teach the truth, and reveal the Father in His incarna-
tion, as the Son of Man, as no other could or did ; for " The
Word was made flesh " for this purpose, and " The only-begotten
Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him."
Therefore, no theory of Kenosis that would frustrate or mar
this supreme purpose of thelTrciirnation, and defeat His mission,
can be admitted for a moment. His perfect manhood^ His
measureless unction by the Holy Ghost specifically for this end,
and His perfect Godhood, and the very purpose of the in-
carnation— to perfectly reveal the Father in word and deed, in
character and Personality — all secure His supremacy and in-
fallibility as a teacher on everything on which He has expressed
His mind, and preclude every theory of His Person or His
teaching that denies, ignores, or questions this.
Note. — " No one who holds that God speaks to us through the Scriptures
will question that the voice of God is peculiarly audible, intelligible, and
compelling in Christ. When He speaks to us, God speaks to us." — Dr.
Denney's Studies in T/wo/ogy, p. 206.
CHAPTER III.
FROM THIS STANDPOINT WE CAN BEST RE VIE W
RECENT SPECULATION ON THE TEACHING
OF JESUS AND HIS PLACE IN THEOLOGY.
From this clear and settled standpoint we can best examine
some recent and not over-modest speculation on the teaching of
Jesus and His place in theology, which will the better exhibit
the truth on the subject by contrast, and will enable us to see
more definitely Christ's place and function in the development of
Revelation.
I. DR. JOHN WATSON'S VIEW AND COGNATE VIEWS.
Perhaps the best known author in this country on the subject
is the charming fiction writer, Ian Maclaren, in his storm-raising
book, The Mind of the Master. A well-written book, with many
good, some fresh, and not a few striking things ; occasionally
brilliant flashes, and glimpses of far off horizons with enchanting
vistas ; intensely practical, eminently ethical, its zenith reached
on "Character"; always interesting, anon eloquent, at times
moving on high altitudes of thought and feeling; and all per-
vaded by a fine spirit, a lofty tone, and a passion for Jesus. It
is, however, often incorrect, generally one-sided, and pervasively
exaggerated, lacking balance ; fragmentary, too, and superficial,
inconsistent and often contradictory, escaping grave error only
by glaring self-contradiction; a tendency to smartness rather than
trueness ; straining at effect more than reality ; given to clever
yet feeble caricature rather than solid argument ; and vitiated
throughout with false, because over-strained antitheses,— the
style for fiction rather than theology, science, or serious
literature.
62
DR. JOHN WATSON'S AND COGNATE VIEWS 63
Christ is put in Antithesis and Antagonism in
Teaching to the Prophets and Apostles.
In his searching criticism Dr. Denney has well said that of the
many false antitheses in the book, the worst is the antithesis
created between Christ and His apostles. But the antithesis is
by no means limited to that. It extends to all the writers and
writings of Scripture, — the supposed teaching of Jesus in the
Gospels, or rather in the narrow ground of the Sermon on the
Mount, being often put not only in contrast with, but more or
less in antagonism to the teaching of all the writers of Scripture.
For he not only puts Christ in antithesis to the apostles, but
also the Gospels in disparaging contrast to the Epistles ; and he
so speaks of the teaching of Jesus in contrast with all the other
teaching of Scripture as to do anything but raise the Bible or its
writers in the estimation of its readers. His references to the
O.T. in particular, and specially his most recent utterances ^
about the whole sacrificial system of God's Word and of God's
ordination, are so depreciatory and even condemnatory that it is
difficult to see how he can regard it, or that great Divine inter-
pretation of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the Word of God
at all ; and present a marked antagonism to Christ's manner of
regarding and treating them. And his patronising and criticising
handling of the great Apostle of the Gentiles,^ and of his
Divinely-inspired writings, which form much the greater part of
the N.T. Revelation, savour of anything but reverence or
modesty — a somewhat startling and staggering effect of this novel
supreme regard for the teaching of Jesus ; — the last thing I con-
ceive, unless the Gospels belie Him, that would be learned
of Christ as to any writer or portion of the Word of God, —
especially such a large and vital portion of the N.T. Revelation,
and such a devoted and distinguished servant of Christ ; and the
farthest thing possible, I imagine, from The Mind of the Master.
Criticism of these antithetical and disparaging
Theories of Scripture.
But Dr. Watson is only one of many recent writers and
teachers who put Christ in such antithesis to His prophets, who
1 The Christian World. " The Mind of the Master, pp. 37, 38.
64 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
spake and wrote "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," and
to His apostles, to whom He promised His Spirit to lead them
into all truth, and to bring to their remembrance, and enable
them to express, " whatsoever He had said unto them." So that
in doing this it would, as He said, not be they that spoke, but
the Spirit of their Father that spoke in them ; and, therefore, the
words they spoke or wrote under this power would not be their
words only, but the Spirit's words and Christ's words and the
Father's words — the words of the Godhead — " not the word of
man, but, as it is in truth, the Word of God." Therefore we
shall deal with all these disparagers of the Divine writings and
Divinely-inspired writers together.
I. THE ASSUMED ANTITHESIS AND ANTAGONISM IS A BASELESS
IMAGINATION.
In regard to all those antithetical theories it must be said —
First. That their assumed antagonism between Christ and His
apostles and prophets is a sheer mistake — a baseless imagina-
tion, without a shadow of a foundation in Scripture ; but con-
trary to its whole tone, trend, and explicit teaching, and in full
contradiction of the standard and most classical passages on the
subject, which declare that " all Scripture (without distinction of
parts or writers) is given by inspiration of God " — God breathed
(^eoTTveuo-Tos), because "holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." Hence what they thus said or wrote
is frequently prefaced or closed by, " Thus saith the Lord,"
"What the Spirit saith"; — what God said through them — "as
the Spirit gave them utterance," — or the like ; and, therefore, it
is all equally in truth — " The Word of God " — which cannot
contradict itself, or be really antagonistic in its teaching ; as in
fact Christ and His inspired messengers never even appear to do
in their messages, except to mistaken imaginations, but always
and everywhere manifest their unity and harmony.
2. IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE EXPLICIT TEACHING OF
CHRIST.
Second. It is in direct contradiction to the explicit teaching
of Christ, which they specially profess to honour. They must,
CHRIST EXCLUDES ANTITHETICAL THEORIES 65
therefore, either abandon their special homage to Christ's teach-
ing, or cease to disparage the teaching of His inspired servants.
For He is the last who would receive honour to Himself at the
cost of dishonour to or disparagement of His most honoured and
devoted servants ; and He would be the first to condemn magnify-
ing His teaching to the discredit or prejudice of the teaching of
the prophets, whose writings He endorsed and came to fulfil ; or
to the prejudice of the teaching of His apostles, whom He sent
and inspired to be the organs of His Revelation and the founders
of His church. On the contrary. He, as if to meet by anticipa-
tion this pernicious error, takes pains to magnify their office and
their teaching ; and expressly, with special reference to their
teaching, says, " He that receiveth you, receiveth Me ; and he
that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me" (Matt. 10'°,
John 13^°). "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that
despiseth you, despiseth Me ; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth
Him that sent Me" (Luke lo^*^).
Further, He repeatedly promised to send and fill them with
the Holy Spirit, to lead them into all truth, and to bring all things
to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them (John
14-'') ; and to enable them so to teach the same, that what they
taught might be the Spirit's teaching, for " it is not ye that
speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you " (Matt,
lo-*^). He thus promised them the same Spirit and the same
power in their teaching as He Himself possessed and preached
by (Luke 4^^) ; thereby making their teaching and His of the
same origin, character, and authority. After His resurrection,
giving them their commission to proclaim His gospel and to
extend His kingdom, He said, " As the Father sent Me, so send I
you" (John 20-^).
This promise He fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when
"they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake as the
Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2*), so that their teaching
was as truly the Spirit's teaching as Christ's was; and must,
therefore, not be antagonistic, but harmonious. Hence He gives
the most solemn sanction to their teaching, — not only inspired it
by His Spirit, but endorsed it with His authority, sealed it with
His blessing, recognised it as His own and His Father's Word, and
made men's eternity depend upon their reception or rejection of
it. " And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words.
66 CHRIST'S TLACE IN THEOLOGY
. . . Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land
of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that
city" (Matt. to^\ Mark 6^\ John i248 i3--'0^ Luke lo'". Matt. lo-").
And even of that most questioned and assailed portion of His
servants' teaching — the O.T. — He identifies Himself with it,
determines His own life by it, — as seen in that whole class of
passages in which He says that He does and suffers many
things " that the Scripture might be fulfilled " ; and declares
most absolutely that He came not to destroy the Law or the
Prophets, but to fulfil (Matt, s^'- 1^).
What room does Christ leave in these and many similar
words for any antagonism between His own and the teaching of
His apostles and prophets? Do they not preclude every idea of
antagonism, antithesis, difference or disparaging contrast ? How
could He have more inevasibly excluded any such imagination
or more decisively declared the unity and harmony between their
teaching and His? In short, the very idea of such things is
utterly alien and opposed to the words and mind of the Master,
and is absolutely precluded by His whole tone, attitude, teaching,
and action. And it is because those teachers who claim to be
experts in and to give special honour to the teaching of Christ,
have overlooked, or ignored, or disowned His teaching on this
particular subject, as they do in other cases of their erroneous
teaching, that this unfounded and perverting theory has been
entertained.
3. THE WHOLE CONCEPTION IS RATIONALISTIC, AND IGNORES
THE DIVINE AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Third. Their whole conception is of a rationalistic nature,
and is based upon a radical error as to the origin, character,
and authority of the Bible. It springs from and illustrates the
perversive influence of the rationalistic principle, which regards
the writers of Scripture as so many different authors of an
ordinary literature, instead of so many different and diversified
organs and agents of a Divine revelation, of which God the Holy
Ghost is the real prime Author, Agent, and Cause, by His Divine
inspiration ; and the various human agents are the divinely-chosen
IGNORING THE SPIRIT'S AUTHORSHIP OF SCRIPTURE 6"]
and inspired organs, who each fulfil their function and supply
their part through the Spirit's operation in them, according to
their gifts and fitness, in the completion of the one unique Divine
Book — the God - breathed Word of the Lord, that liveth and
abideth for ever ; and which becomes the word of our salvation
when received as the Word of God. Their root conception and
method of treatment of the Bible and its writers practically
ignore its Divine authorship, which is the only rational account
of its origin. They therefore handle its writers and writings
like the diverse and often antagonistic authors and books of any
ordinary literature ; and in so doing " greatly err," and fall into
many grave errors ; and lose the only key to its true understand-
ing or appreciation.
They utterly fail to account for its real unity of doctrine,
purpose, and spirit, which has impressed itself upon every
earnest reader as upon every reverent student, notwithstanding
all its diversity of thought, style, literary form, and immediate
objects, and its variety of writers, — of diverse gifts, acquirements,
and experience, — writing in different lands, circumstances, and
ages, over fifteen hundred years : and which demands a Divine
mind and a supernatural inspiration to account for this pervasive
unity, this unique fact in the literature of the world. They, in
fact, ignore the Holy Ghost as the real prime Author of Holy
Writ, and often write as those who had never heard of the Holy
Ghost ; and are thus " in wandering mazes lost " ; and not only
lose themselves, but also lead others astray among the sparks
of their own kindling. They thus not only overlook the real
Divine origin of Scripture, but also fail to realise its Divine
character as the veritable Word of God — the teaching of the
Holy Ghost ; which, though taught through men, was neverthe-
less the teaching of the Spirit, and taught "not in words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ;
'fitting spiritual words to spiritual things'"^ (i Cor. 2^^), — the
form of it as well as the substance, the expression of it as truly
as what was expressed, being thus equally the work of the Spirit
of God. So that the Holy Scriptures, both thoughts and words,
spirit and embodiment, are in truth and equally the Word of
God written. And though, as in other parts of God's works,
there may be and there is variety in value, they are equally
^ Alford's N. T. , and Faussct.
68 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Divine in origin and character. Hence the error, irreverence,
and presumption of men daring to disparage any writing or writer
of God's Word ; and still more, of putting one agent or organ of
the one Divine Teacher, who teaches through them all, and is
Himself the real Teacher in all, in antagonism with or antithesis
to another.
But, further, in so doing, they not only overlook the Divine
origin and ignore the Divine character of all Scripture, they also
disown, or fail to recognise, the Divine authority of it, and the
Divine Person who is the centre and seat of that authority, who
is none else than "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures," as
the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Articles of the
Presbyterian Church of England well express it. All through
Scripture the Holy Spirit is represented as its Supreme Author
and the all-pervading Teacher, and all other teachers or writers
are represented as His agents or organs, — Jesus Christ Himself
being no exception, but the best and supreme example of this,
as He was also its most emphatic Teacher.
This has been already shown in a variety of ways and
passages, and it can be seen pervading O.T. and N.T. by any
careful reader. Let it, therefore, further suffice to refer to a
few passages, and to advert specially to the words of our Lord.
For the O.T. take the following : 2 Pet. i-^-'-i "Prophecy of
old time came not by the will of man ; but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " ; where both
the revelation and the expression of it are attributed to the
Holy Spirit, i Pet. i^^- ^^ " Of which salvation the prophets
have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the
grace that should come unto you : searching what, or what
manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did
signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and
the glory that should follow." Here the Spirit is both the
communicator of the truth to the mind of the prophet and the
giver of the prophecy as expressed for the salvation of men ; and
where the prophets themselves did not fully understand their
own prophecies, but required to search diligently for their precise
signification ; and therefore the Spirit had to give literally the
form of the prophecy, as also to become its interpreter even to
the prophets. Heb. i^ " God ... in times past spake unto the
fathers by the prophets"; and "all Scripture is God-breathed"
I
CHRIST'S TEACHING THE SPIRIT'S TEACHING 69
(6'eo'TfeDo-ros), by the breathing or inspiration of God the Holy
Ghost (2 Tim. 3^*') ; — so that He is the Speaker, and all Scripture
is His utterance ; and He is the Teacher of all its teaching, and
the source and seal of its Divine authority. For the N.T. let
the following suffice : " It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit
of your Father that speaketh in you " (Matt. lo^o). The promise
of Christ was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when the
apostles "spake as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2^''^) :
"Which things we speak, not in words of man's wisdom, but
in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth " (i Cor. 2^*); so
that "it is in truth the Word of God" (i Thess. 2^2) — of God
the Holy Spirit. That holds a fortiori of what they wrote.
Christ Himself attributed all Bis Teaching and Work to the same
Holy Spirit as inspired the Teaching of His Apostles.
And in regard to Christ, He Himself said at the beginning of
His public ministry as covering it all : " The Spirit of the Lord
is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel
to the poor," etc. (Luke 4^^) ; all His work as prophet, priest, and
king being here in fulfilment of ancient prophecy (Isa. 61^) at
the outset expressly ascribed to the unction of the Holy Spirit.
" For He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God :
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him " (John 3''''*).
Christ's speaking the words of God is here attributed to His
having the Spirit without measure given unto Him. " If I cast
out devils by the Spirit of God, then," etc. (Matt. 1228). This,
too, was by the Spirit's power. Again in fulfilment of prophecy,
Christ's teaching, "showing judgment to the Gentiles," is
explained by "I will put my Spirit upon Him" (Matt. 12'^^).
Perhaps most remarkable of all are His Epistles to the Seven
Churches of Asia Minor after His ascension (Rev. 2. 3), which are
represented as literally spoken from heaven by Himself to His
servant John, "who bare record of the Word of God, and of the
testimony of Jesus." Yet though the very words appear as if
actually spoken by the risen Lord, they are, nevertheless, said to
be the words of the Spirit : " He that hath an ear to hear, let him
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches," being the solemn
refrain that closes each epistle. And whether we regard these
words as spoken by Christ Himself, or as spoken to and through
70 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
John by the Spirit, they are still represented as the words of Jesus,
and " what the Spirit saith " ; the Spirit speaking through Christ
personally in the one case, and speaking Christ's words through
John in the other ; but in either case the Spirit's words. So that
in literal fact everything spoken through prophet or apostle,
or Christ Himself is the Spirit's teaching and words, — God the
Holy Ghost speaking through Christ and all His inspired
servants "in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."
This, which is the only true view of Scripture, is fatal to
all representations of antagonism, or antithesis, or disparaging
contrast between Christ and His inspired servants, and patently
precludes all such superficial and pernicious imaginations. For
they are tantamount to a charge of antagonism and error in the
teaching of the Spirit of truth, and are a virtual denial of the
Divine authority of God the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, of Christ
who sent Him, and of the Father whose words He spoke.
4. OUR WHOLE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST AND HIS TEACHING
IS DERIVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES WRITTEN BY THESE
DISPARAGED AND DISCREDITED DISCIPLES.
Fourth. The advocates of this theory, which, as seen, ignores
the claim of Scripture, contradicts the teaching of Christ, and
disowns the Divine authorship of God's Word, also strangely
overlook the simple, and to their view fatal fact, that our whole
knowledge of Christ and His teaching is derived from the
Scriptures, written by these discredited or disparaged apostles
and evangelists. We know absolutely nothing about His teach-
ing except from the Bible, and therefore we are entirely
dependent on its writers for everything we know about it and
Him. Consequently, if, and so far as, they were mistaken or
defective in their conceptions or representations, so far neces-
sarily and precisely we are as to His teaching and Himself.
Since we get all we know of what He taught, or did, or was, only
through them, we cannot get one step or know one iota on
reliable ground beyond their conceptions and statements about
His teaching. If they misunderstood or misrepresent His
teaching in any way or measure, then to that extent exactly
and self-evidently our conceptions of it and Him are wrong or
defective, and never were or can be made right or perfect.
KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST'S TEACHING FROM APOSTLES 7 1
Right or wrong, we a.re and ever have been strictly hmited
within their thoughts and statements of it for anything reliable
about it ; and for better or for worse, we are therefore absolutely
shut up to what they give and teach us of it. We must accept
their representation of Christ's teaching or nothing. We cannot
help ourselves ; for the means or materials of testing the truth or
correctness of their statements of it are not, and never were,
in our possession. Every item we ever knew, or could know
about it, came through them.
And yet in face of this great prime fact, ignoring it or not
perceiving its significance, these theorists have gone on writing
and speculating about the teaching of Jesus, and talking largely
about the " rediscovery of Christ," as if they had just discovered
a lost edition of the actual writings of Jesus Christ published at
Jerusalem, which so contrasted with the representations of Him
and His teaching given by the Bible writers that they felt quite
warranted in riding rough-shod over the writings of the apostles
and prophets, — some pouring sweeping condemnation on them,
others making not less offensive patronising references to or
criticism of them, and generally putting Christ's teaching in such
antagonism and antithesis to theirs as at once to disparage and
discredit theirs and them. Yet all the time they had not one
line or letter of Christ's own writing, and were entirely dependent
for every syllable known of His teaching upon the Bible writings
and representations of these disparaged disciples. And not one
iota of all their writings on the teaching of Jesus was of any
value or interest to mankind except so far as it was. derived
from, and agreed with, the apostles' teachings on the mind of
their Master.
Hence the amazing inconsistency and the manifest absurdity
of making much of, or saying anything about, the teaching of
Jesus when discrediting or disparaging, or in any way seeking
to lessen the reliability or authority of the teaching and repre-
sentations of the Bible writers, through whom alone we get
all our knowledge of it or Him. It is simply suicidal. It
is destructive of the sources, bases, and materials of all.
Undermining men's own foundations, making holes in the
bottom of their own ship, or cutting the ladder on which
they stand would be innocent operations compared with
this.
72 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
5. CHRIST SHUTS US UP TO THE TEACHING OF HIS APOSTLES
FOR ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE OF HUM AND HIS TEACHING.
THE LOCUS CLASS/CUS {]OnN l6^--^^ M"'')-
F(f//i. A further oversight is their failure to observe that
Christ Himself most absolutely shuts us up to the teaching of
His apostles, filled with His inspiring Spirit, for our whole
knowledge of Him and of His teaching. Hence the significant
fact that He appears never to have written anything Himself to
form part of God's AVord. But He uttered, and caused, with
cognate utterances, to be recorded, as the basis of their authority
as teachers, and the secret of their power as preachers, these
memorable and suggestive words, " I have yet many things to say
unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He,
the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth "
(John i6i'--i2). "He shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you "
(John 14-''). Here there are many deep and far-reaching
truths and revelations of the mind of the Master ; but we limit
ourselves at present to the following : — •
F/rsf. That Christ was unable because of the unspiritual
state of their minds to teach His apostles during His earthly
life many things that He meant to reveal and teach them, and
which were necessary to complete and crow^n God's revelation.
Second. That He was to send the Holy Spirit, and that when
He came He would lead them into all truth, — to enable them to
understand better what they already knew, and to give new
revelations of what they did not know, which would complete
and perfect the full revelation of God. Third. That when the
Spirit came He was to aid their memories, as well, as enlighten
their understandings, so as to bring to their remembrance,
and to bring home to their minds and hearts, whatsoever
He had said unto them ; so that they would be able to teach
them to others in His name, and with His authority, as His
Word.
Among other things, this clearly states and proves that the
only way, according to the teaching of Christ, in which men
could truly understand His teaching, and fully know His mind,
was through the teaching of His disciples as enlightened by His
Spirit. This is not an inference from Christ's words, it is the
CHRIST LIMITS TO THE APOSTLES' TEACHINCx 73
simple and unquestionable meaning of them. This is the
clearest teaching of Christ, the most explicit declaration of the
mind of the Master on the special question under consideration.
To all who own Christ's authority as a teacher His own words
put the question beyond question. It is no longer a matter for
discussion. It is settled, and settled clearly and finally by the
very words of the Master Himself. And it makes all the theoris-
ing of those who put Christ's teaching in antagonism or antithesis
to the teaching of His aposdes and prophets, while yet avowing
special regard for His teaching, appear sufficiently strange, and
far astray.
For this is His special teaching on the special question, and
it is that He shuts men up to the teaching of His servants in
the Scriptures for all our knowledge of Himself, His teaching
and His religion, — unless, indeed, they are prepared to add to the
presumption of claiming knowledge of the mind of the Master
better than His apostles the further audacity of assuming to
know it better than Himself! And what makes this teaching of
our Lord all the more weighty and impressive is that it is given,
not as mere teaching, but as a gracious, far-reaching, and oft-
repeated promise to them, in prospect of their great and
unparalleled work and responsibility. This promise was given
them on the eve of His death, out of the fulness of His heart, of
what lay deepest in His mind, as what would best assure them
of comfort and equipment for the unique work he had chosen
them to do, as the recipients and organs of His Revelation, and
the channels and agents of God's salvation to all mankind. A
promise that taught them, as it should teach us, entire depend-
ence on the Holy Spirit — the real Author and Supreme
Authority of all Scripture — for power to receive, understand, and
teach the mind of Christ. A promise that assured them that
the Spirit of truth would bring all Christ's teaching to their
remembrance, and enable them to understand it as they had
never done before ; and would give them many new revelations
of His mind and His Father's grace, which He had not before
been able to teach them Himself, because of their inability to
receive it ; and would, indeed, lead them into all truth — into the
full knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus ; and enable them so
to teach the same that what they taught would truly and fully
express the mind of Christ " in words which the Spirit teacheth."
74 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
This promise He fulfilled at Pentecost, when "they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake as the Spirit gave them
utterance." This at length received permanent embodiment in
j/'the N.T.; so that it is, therefore, along with the O.T., the one
Divine God-breathed book, and is thus "in truth the Word of
God," because written through the Spirit of God.
This precludes all Disparagetnenl of the Apostles and their
Spirit-given J J li tings.
How strange and untenable in the light of this and much
similar, from the very words of Christ and Scripture, is the recent
magnifying of Christ's teaching to the disparagement and dis-
crediting of the teaching of His apostles ! For He not only
shuts men up by His own teaching and action to the teaching of
the apostles for all knowledge of His teaching, but He also
tells His disciples that their own understanding of what He had
taught them, and even their remembrance of what He had said
unto them (so far as it was to be remembered), as well as what
was yet to be given them to complete their knowledge of His
mind and of God's Revelation, were all dependent on the prom-
ised illumination they were to receive when the Holy Spirit
came upon them to lead them into all truth. So that everything
they were to know or to convey of Christ's mind was to be
taught them and conveyed through them by the Spirit as the
Word of God ; and all that they spoke or wrote in His name
was to be the Spirit's teaching in the Spirit's words.
The Apostles zvere not mere ^^ Reporters" of Christ's Teaching, but
Divitiely-inspired Organs of God's Revelation.
What a contrast and contradiction all this, and much like
teaching of Christ, to the crude root-ideas of those would-be
discoverers and magnifiers of Christ and His teaching, who, by
not knowing or ignoring the Scriptures and His teaching, have
so greatly erred as to imagine and proclaim that there was or
could be any antagonism, or antithesis, or discrepancy between
the teaching of Christ and of His aposdes. They have assumed
that the N.T. writers were simply "reporters" of the words of
Christ, and that, while they might be taken as on the whole fairly
THE APOSTLES THE ORGANS OF THE SPIRIT 75
good reporters of His words, theu own teaching had no such
character or authority ; and might, therefore, be as freely criticised
as any other literature, and put in antithesis and opposition
to His. But they have failed to discover what Christ most
clearly taught, that they were not reporters in the ordinary sense
at all, but the divinely-chosen and inspired organs of God's ^
Revelation ; and that their teaching was of the same origin,
character, and authority as Christ's, because the same Holy
Spirit inspired both, and made them both equally the Spirit's
teaching in the Spirit's words — the Word of God ; and that
every word they wrote of His was brought to their remem-
brance, and made luminous to their minds by the Spirit ; and
was expressed in the Scriptures in words of the Spirit's teach-
ing. For as "prophecy came of old not by the will of man;
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost" (2 Pet. i-i), so the Revelation of the N.T. was not
given or written at the will of man, nor in the words of man's
wisdom, but chosen teachers of God wrote as they were inspired
by the Holy Ghost in the words that the Spirit taught, — the
Spirit creating the purpose to write, imparting the power to write,
giving the revelation to be written, and directing the writers in
the selection, arrangement, and expression of what was written.
The Apostles' remembi-ance, ufidersfatjding, and expression of
Chrisfs Teaching were through the Spirit.
As to the teaching of Christ, in particular, the Spirit brought to
their remembrance those words of Christ that were to be written
(for, as John 21-^ tells us, many of them were not written, but
only such as Divine wisdom thought best for the permanent ends
of Revelation). The Spirit led them into the full understanding
of these words, and enabled them to express them in the form
and setting best fitted to express the mind of Christ in each case.
For the same substance is differently expressed in different
connections. So that Christ's teaching as assimilated is part of
the respective writers' teaching also, — according to the standpoint,
purpose,- and characteristics of each as guided by the Spirit.
Strictly speaking, what we get of Christ's teaching in the Gospels
is that teaching as assimilated and utilised by the writers after
receiving the promised illumination of the Spirit. It is not
jG CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Christ's teaching simply as given by Him during His earthly life;
but that teaching brought home to their memories and hearts,
illumined and transformed by the Spirit's light, according to the
capacity, standpoint, and function of each in the expression of
the Divine Revelation as embodied in the Gospels. This may
explain many of the differences in the record of the same things,
which have perplexed some and led others to charge errors
where none existed, because they knew not the reason of such
differences. But all this shows how far astray from the facts, and
the teaching of Scripture and of Christ, is the modern idea of
" reporters " or mere recorders ; which has misled many to
imagine antithesis and antagonism in teaching between Christ
and His apostles. Properly viewed, it amounts to a charge : —
first, of conflict between the disciples and the Master ; second,
of contradiction in the teaching of the Spirit of truth, who is the
one supreme, pervasive teacher; third, of self-contradiction in
the inspired writers. A threefold contradiction this which it
demands amazing credulity to believe that God would permit in
giving the revelation of His grace.
The Presumption of the Apostles' Critics.
They also assume and imagine that they can isolate and
separate the teaching of Christ from the baser apostolic material
in which it is embedded in the Gospels, setting it by itself, free
from its prejudicial environment, and improve upon the work of
the Holy Ghost ! But it is a vain delusion. As soon expect
flowers or aromatic plants to retain their beauty and give forth
their fragrance away from their rooting and their atmosphere.
For while the words of Jesus have a wonderful vitality and power
in themselves and in any connection, they never are themselves,
or exhibit their full beauty, or emit their sweetest fragrance, or
exert their divinest virtue, except in their Divine setting, Spirit-
given habitat, and native air. And they vainly dream that they
can fragment and vivisect the Spirit's embodiment and environ-
ment of Christ's teaching as given in Scripture, by cutting it to
pieces at will, and then by their superior skill so combine their
excerpted parts as to make such a monograph of His teaching and
life as will be a far truer and better presentation of it and Him !
Sooner would they restore in more than pristine perfection a
THE PRESUMPTION OF THE APOSTLES' CRITICS JJ
peerless sculptor's masterpiece in statuary, after they had broken
it into atoms ; or reanimate in more than its first exquisiteness
the living body and person of your best and greatest friend, after
cutting him to pieces, and having him dissolved into dust and
ashes. They entirely ignore, or are unblissfully ignorant of the
prime truth of the Divine unity and inviolable solidarity of the
teaching of Scripture and of Christ ; and they seem never to have
grasped the profound and far-reaching fact of the living organic
oneness of both, which makes them one unique Spirit-vivified
organic whole — the living Word of the living God.
What strikes one most, however, in such conceptions is not
merely the error and crudeness, but the amazing presumption, to
say nothing of the absurdity, of such suppositions. That they
should imagine they could at the distance of almost two
millenniums know " the Mind of the Master " better than the
disciples whom He first taught personally, and then taught more
fully by His Spirit, or better even than the Master Himself — yea,
even than the Holy Spirit, who inspired the teaching of both
them and Him, and embodied it through them in the Scriptures,
— is a signal illustration of how vain men can become in their
imaginations, when they walk in the light of their own eyes, in
the sparks of their own kindling, amid the blaze of the noonday
sun. A comparison of their improved editions of the teaching
of Jesus with the Divine edition, as given through the Spirit by
these disparaged disciples, will suffice, on simple inspection, to
impress on all the folly of their pretensions ; w^iile the fact that
they owe to these very disciples every item of reliable material
out of which to make their improved editions sufficiently exhibits
their absurdity. And a comparison of these God-breathed
writings with the writings on the same subjects of even the
writers of the same time, the Apostolic Fathers, who were in
fullest sympathy with the themes, and the companions as well as
the disciples of the apostles, and breathing the first fresh air of
Christianity's early dawn as it breathed and thrilled from the
very soul and presence of the Divine Master, will impress every
candid reader with the amazing contrast, as it has impressed
students from the first, bringing home the conviction that the
Bible writings are unique {sui generis), occupy another plane, and
are, in fact, different in kind from any other writings ; and demand
a 1 )ivine, supernatural cause as their only adequate explanation.
yS CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
6. THE RADICAL ERROR OF LUIITING CHRIST's TEACHING TO HIS
EARTHLY LIFE. THE APOSTLES' TEACHING WAS CHRIST's
TEACHING THROUGH THEM BY HIS SPIRIT.
Si'xfA. These theorists make the mistake of limiting the teach-
ing of Christ to His earthly life. They overlook the fact that
Christ continued His teaching after His resurrection and ascen-
sion— that He then taught His apostles by His Spirit the " many
things" He had to say unto them which they could not bear
before, but which He promised to teach them when the Spirit of
truth came ; and that, in fact, the whole teaching of the apostles
given in Scripture was the teaching of Christ by His Spirit.
Hence in His great promise He says : " I have many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now"; but " when He, the
Spirit of truth, is come. He will guide you into all truth " — that
is, Christ would then say to them the " many things " they could
not bear before ; and " bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you " ; that is, enable them to
remember and understand His previous teaching, as well as give
them many further revelations He could not teach them, because
they could not learn them earlier.
But through and in all — old and new — He was their teacher.
Hence the writer of the Acts of the Apostles significantly says :
"The former treatise have I (Luke) made of all that Jesus
/>ega?i both to do and teach, until the day in which He was
taken up" (Acts i^) — the writer plainly implying that what He
had taught up to that time was only the beginning of His teach-
ing, and that this teaching was to be continued and completed
through His Spirit. Hence, too, in the Apocalypse, in the
Epistles to the Seven Churches, it is " what the Spirit saith unto
the Churches," although Christ Himself appears throughout as
the actual speaker; because what the Spirit says Christ says,
and vice versa. Hence, also, when closing the Book of Revela-
tion, Christ Himself, though apparently conveying it through
the Spirit to John, and through John to all, again appears as
uttering the very words by which He at once, as seen below,
solemnly closes the volume of Revelation, and seals in the name of
Godhead the inviolable truth and Divine authority of Holy Writ.
Thus the whole Epistles of Paul, which form much the
larger part of the N.T., are the teaching of Christ; and are
THE APOSTLES' TEACHINCi CHRIST'S TEACHING 79
declared to be the revelation which he received, not of men but
of Jesus Christ, direct from the Lord Himself by the Spirit.
Yet not one word or thought of it was given by Christ to Paul
during His earthly ministry, but from heaven, and through the
Spirit. And his Epistles are said to be given " not in words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth" (i Cor. i^^) ; and they are, therefore, declared to be
and to be received as " not the word of man, but as it is in truth
the Word of God" (i Thess. 2^^). Yea, he says, "though we
have known Jesus Christ after the flesh, yet now know we Him
no more" in that way.
As with the Epistles of Paul, so also with the Epistles and
Apocalypse of John, the Epistles of Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews,
—in fact, all the other N.T. writings, — they were all inspired,
and given after Christ's ascent and the Spirit's descent, and
were the fruit and product of the Spirit's inspiration, and were
the teaching of Christ to and through His disciples, so that they
could all say in truth with Paul in every one of them, " we have
the mind of Christ " ; and they all expressed that mind as the
Spirit taught them in the Spirit's words.
Even in the Gospels what we have is also Christ's teaching
by the Spirit, — some of the latest and highest teachings of Christ
through the Spirit being there. They are, in fact, all Christ's
teaching to and through His disciples by His Spirit. Even the
words of our Lord in the Gospels are not His words merely as
uttered during His earthly life, but these words as brought home
to their remembrance and hearts by the Spirit, as illumined and
transformed in their minds, and through His inspiration em-
bodied as they are in the Gospels. So that although they may be
spoken and thought of, and written about as different parts of
God's Revelation, and profitably too, if wisely under the Spirit's
guidance (which should ever be duly recognised and relied on,
and not mere unspiritual scholarship, — for ihe natural man, how-
ever learned, "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,
neither can he know them, because they are spiriiually discerned "
(2 Cor. 2^^)), — yet we can never really or rightly separate them,
far less put them in antagonism or antithesis.
For the teaching of the apostles properly understood is the
teaching of Christ through them by His Spirit, and Christ's
teaching is their teaching as assimilated, and utilised, and
8o CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
in some parts apparently somewhat idealised or generalised
(especially in John), according to the measure and function of
each for the specific purposes of Revelation ; and both teachings,
or the one teaching of both, is the Spirit's teaching, who taught
through both them and Him ; so that they are one unique.
Divinely-inspired, harmonious whole — a lonely Divine splendour
in the religious literature of the world — the Word of God.
Proceeding on the false assumption that the teaching of our
Lord ended with His earthly life, these theorists have thus
again greatly erred, not knowing the Scriptures in their Divine
authorship, nor the mind of the Master as expressed in the
Spirit-inspired words of His disciples, and ignoring the express
teaching of Christ on this special question. As He is king for
ever, and His kingdom an everlasting kingdom, and a Priest
for ever on His throne, so, as in His kingship and Priesthood, in
His Prophethood also. He continueth ever the eternal Prophet
who by His Spirit gave to His apostles the full and final revela-
tion of His mind, and still continues to teach us through them
by His words and Spirit the will of God for our salvation.
7. THE ERROR OF SUPPOSING THAT CHRISt's TEACHING DURING
HIS LIFE WAS THE HIGHEST OR FINAL TEACHING OF REVELA-
TION OR OF CHRIST.
Seventh. Only one further and final oversight and error of
these critics of Scripture, and disparagers of its inspired writers,
shall we now advert to ; and that is so palpably contrary to the
express teaching of Christ Himself, and the simple facts of the
case, that it only requires statement to be self-evident ; especially
as it has been frequently referred to in other connections above.
It is that the teaching of Christ, during His earthly life, given in
the Gospels, and especially in the Sermon on the Mount, — which
Dr. Watson and many others make supreme, and the norm and
test of all Scripture, — is the highest and final teaching, and the
supreme standard and authority by which all religious and
ethical teaching, and all the teaching of prophets and apostles
in all the rest of Scripture, are to be judged ; and that the teach-
ing of the apostles, and prophets in particular, as tested by this
has been found wanting, and even wrong in various parts and
ways ; and is altogether on a lower plane, and of an inferior kind.
CHRIST'S TEACHING AND THE APOSTLES' CRITICS 8 1
This Sermon on the Mount Dr. Watson and others propose
to make the basis, substance, and form of the new ethical creed,
as it is called; which has been foimulated to supersede all the
creeds of Christendom ; and is in itself so simple, reasonable,
and free of difficulty ^ that it may and would be agreed to by all
mankind, — Jew and Gentile, Hindoo and Mahomedan, Christian
and heathen, — and become the basis of a new faith and brother-
hood of man, which would ring out the strife of creeds and
religions, and ring in a millennium of faith and morals, and usher
in the jubilee of the world,— some hailing this new ethical creed
as a new revelation from heaven, and the dawn of a new era in
religion and ethics ! One is grieved, by this persistent disparag-
ing of the inspired writers, and this vicious placing of them in
antithesis and antagonism to Christ, to be forced even to appear
to qualify what was stated above as to the uniqueness and pre-
eminence of the personal teaching of our Lord. But the evils
of this modern method of treating the Bible are so great and
prevalent, and are all the more insidious because seeming to
honour Christ, that the other side must be clearly stated, — not,
indeed, to modify anything we have said as to His supremacy
and unique position as a teacher, nor to say anything but what
He Himself has said ; on the contrary, it is regard for His teach-
ing that supremely constrains the statement.
(I.) Christ's Criticism of the Critics' Criticism generally.
As to the views taken as a whole, let the following suffice
along with what has been said above.
I. IT IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO CHRIST's TEACHING TO PUT HIS
TEACHING IN ANTITHESIS OR ANTAGONISM TO HIS DISCIPLES'
TEACHING.
First. It contradicts the express teaching of Christ on this
question, while professing to give Him special honour. It is in
full and direct contradiction to those all-important and often
^ Yet there are few parts of Scripture with so many serious difficulties.
Witness Tolstoi's doctrine of non-resistance based on it ; and its apparent
impracticabihty, declared by agnostics to be " Altruism,"— not fit for this
world, — making Jesus seem a Visionary.
6
82 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
adduced decisive passages, which embody a leading part of
His teaching on this specific subject (John i6^'-- ^^ 14"*^). Here
and elsewhere, in language so plain that "a wayfaring man though
a fool cannot err therein," our Lord emphasises the fact that
He was precluded, by their inability to receive it, from teaching
them many things ; that He was thus limited then to the more
elementary truths ; and that His disciples, after the descent on
them of the Spirit of truth, would receive, in order to teach,
many new and higher revelations, which would complete their
knowledge and teaching, and be the highest and final Revelation
of the Mind of their Master and the Father's will.
Thus Christ settles the question finally on His Divine
authority that not His own personal teaching during His earthly
life, but His disciples' teaching after the coming of the Spirit,
was the highest teaching and the final Revelation ; or that
Christ's teaching after His ascension, through His apostles,
specially inspired by the Spirit, embodied in the N.T., is the
highest, fullest, and final Revelation, — the disciples' teaching
completing the Master's — the Masters teaching from heaven by
His Spirit, through the apostles, completing and perfecting His
personal teaching on earth. So that to disparage the apostles'
teaching is to depreciate the highest, crowning, and final teaching
of Christ ; and the only w^ay to know and honour His highest
and latest teaching is to know and honour theirs. Here the
refutation of this error might end ; for the proof of its erroneous-
ness is closed, and conclusive by the words and authority of the
Master, But it is so prevalent and pernicious, and the root of so
large and misleading a literature, that it is well to look at it briefly
in other bearings.
2. IT OVERLOOKS THAT CHRISt's POSITION PREVENTED HIM
TE4CHING MUCH THAT HE TAUGHT TO AND THROUGH HIS
APOSTLES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION.
Second. It overlooks the fact that Christ was prevented by
His own position, as well as by the mental state of His disciples,
from teaching them many things during His earthly ministry that
He afterwards taught them by His Spirit. How, for example,
could He have so spoken about His death and resurrection, with
the infinitudes of grace and truth rooted and centred there, until
THE LIMITATIONS OF CHRIST'S TEACHING 83
they had actually taken place, as He could and did afterwards ?
Yet these are the two chief roots from which the Christian
Revelation springs — the two light centres from which the Light
of the World radiates His healing beams. From the very nature
of the case He could not have spoken of these, with all their
Divine depths and limitless issues, publicly, as His disciples did
afterwards, without anticipating His death unwarrantably, and
arresting His life - work before it was finished ; and thereby
violating the condition and frustrating the end of His incarna-
tion, defeating His Divine mission, and depriving us of His
invaluable experience as the Son of Man, which has been such a
precious fountain of sympathy and inspiration to mankind.
Neither could He have taught His disciples the Divine
significance and infinite riches of grace treasured there till the
profound Divine events themselves burst upon their opening
minds with a flood of light unspeakable and full of glory, and
the cross and the grave became radiant with a blaze of glory
that through them illumined the race and fills the world. Hence
He spoke little of these, and that little in a way that was never
understood or really believed by them, — the natural love of their
hearts combining with the spiritual dulness of their minds in
shutting out the unwelcome thought of the coming event that
casts its dread shadow before.
To these two radical facts and fruitful roots of the Christian
faith a third may be added — the incarnation and the profound
mystery of it, and the facts connected with it — the annunciation,
the salutation of Elisabeth, the supernatural conception, the
birth, the flight into Egypt, the presentation in the temple.
There is no proof that His disciples knew these facts till after
the resurrection ; and they seem never to have been spoken of
by Christ to His disciples, as from the nature of the case they
would not and could not well be.
And yet the incarnation, along with the death and the
resurrection, is the tap-root of the Christian faith ; and these
three, which Christ was, by the very nature and the neces-
sities of the case, precluded from teaching or speaking of per-
sonally during His earthly life, are the three root facts and prime
factors, light centres, and chief revelations of the Christian faith.
So also the unpreparedness of the people, the hateful opposi-
tion of the Pharisees, the murderous jealousy and conspiracies
84 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
of those in power, the sleepless malice and vigilance of the
prince of darkness, the antagonism of the prevalent anticipations
of the Messiah to what the true Messiah was to be, the necessity
of His being a moral test and discipline for Israel and mankind,
on the recognised principles of God's moral government, and
the claims and limitations of His position and circumstances as
the real Son of Man and the reputed Son of Joseph, while yet
the true Son of God, in countless ways lim.ited His action and
restricted His teaching. Therefore, although so far as He was
free to express His mind, and did express it. His teaching was,
as shown above, supreme and unique, yet in " many things " He
tells us He was not free, and did not express it personally during
His earthly ministry, but gave it afterwards by His Spirit, through
His inspired disciples, — whose teaching is, therefore, the com-
pletion and crown of His — the full and final Revelation of God.
But all this, and much more cognate, is unknown or ignored in
this modern theory.
3. IT IGNORES THAT CHRIST's TEACHING AS GIVEN IN THE
GOSPELS IS ONLY THE DISCIPLES' CONCEPTIONS OF IT AS
GIVEN THEM BY THE SAME SPIRIT WHO GAVE THEM
THEIR OWN, AND IS THEIR TEACHING ALSO.
Third. It also ignores the fact that the teaching of Christ as
given in the Gospels is not merely Christ's teaching as uttered
during His earthly life, but that teaching selected by each
evangeUst as each apprehended, assimilatedj and expressed it
transformed and so far idealised by the illumination and in-
spiration of the Spirit, as each supplied His appointed part in
the one Divine God-breathed book. Hence it is given in the
respective Gospels in different forms and connections, which
give different yet complementary aspects and elements of the
one Divine Revelation. So that the teaching of Christ as given
by each is as truly their individual teaching also as it is His ;
and, therefore, they share with Him in whatever excellence and
supremacy belongs to it. How unfounded and misleading, then,
is disparagement of their teaching alongside of His, for His as
known to us is theirs, as theirs as given in the Gospels is His.
Nay, more, and this is the chief and crucial thing, it is their
conceptions of His teaching that we have in the Gospels, and
ONLY APOSTLES' CONCEPTIONS OF CHRIST'S TEACHING 85
beyond these we cannot rise or know one iota. It is not merely
that all our knowledge of what He taught comes through them,
but that their conceptions of His teaching as given them by the
Spirit, and these alone, are what is given us of His teaching in the
Gospels. Therefore, their conceptions of His teaching, as given
in the Gospels, must limit, rule, and compose ours, as they are the
only source and sole materials of our knowledge or conception
of it, so far as the Gospels are concerned. Yet it is from their
conceptions of the teaching of their Master as embodied in the
Gospels that the recent critics of their teaching profess to derive
all they know of His teaching by which they disparage their
teaching. A sufficiently odd and awkward result this surely for
these critics and their teaching for it is discrediting their own
sources and authorities, and destroying the bases and materials
of their own structure. How suicidal, then, to impugn the
apostles' teaching while magnifying His, for we have only their
conceptions of His ; and if they have misconceived and misre-
presented Him and His religion in their other teaching, what
confidence can we place in their conceptions and representations
of what they give us of His teaching ? And what value, then,
can any scheme of the teaching of Jesus have ? — to say nothing
of the absurdity that we can know the mind of the Master better
than His disciples, when our knowledge of it is derived solely
from their ideas and embodiments of it.
4. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE UNQUESTIONABLE FACTS.
Fourth. It is contrary to the palpable facts of the case.
For Christ not only promised to send His Spirit to lead them
into all truth, and to teach other and higher truths than He had
been able to teach them ; but He also as a matter of certain
fact fulfilled that promise at Pentecost ; and that, along with
the, to them, new facts of His death and resurrection, not only
cast a wondrous light on what He had said to them before, but
also gave them fresh and vital facts and truths, and new and
higher revelations, which completed, perfected, and crowned
their knowledge of the mind of Christ and the Revelation of
God. Besides, Christ appeared to them during the forty days
after His resurrection, and not only reminded them of leading
things He had said to them, which His death and resurrection
86 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
had fulfilled, and illumined the O.T. with such a glory as simply
transformed it, and made it a new revelation to their minds, but
He also gave distinctively new and crowning revelations to com-
plete and perfect His own previous teaching. Each fresh
appearance was a new revelation, and all of them together
form a great gospel, or precious parts of the one complete and
perfect Gospel — as may be seen in such works as Dr. Westcott's
The Gospel of the Resurrection and The Revelatioji of the Risen
Lord. And, further. He, appeared after His ascension to His
apostles, and gave personally, and by His Spirit, such visions
and revelations of Himself, of His mind, and of His Father's
grace, as are contained in the Apocalypse, the Hebrews, the
Epistles of Peter, John, and Paul, and the Gospel of John — -
which form nine-tenths of the N.T. Revelation, and contain
such large and vital portions of the Gospel as we know it and
live by it ; and by which He gave the full and final revelation of
God's will for man's salvation. So that this unfounded theory
practically ignores the whole work and revelations of the Holy
Ghost, the whole teaching and prophetic work of Christ after the
resurrection, and implies either that Christ's promise of the
Spirit was not fulfilled, — which the surest facts preclude, or that
its purpose was frustrated, — which Christian faith repudiates.
CHAPTER IV.
(II.) THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. ITS
PLACE IN REVELATION AND IN CHRIST'S
TEACHING.
Let what follows suffice as to the recent extraordinary magni-
fying of the Sermon on the Mount, as the one or only perfect
revelation, the test and norm of all other revelations, — the
supreme and only authoritative standard of faith and life, — the
sum and substance of the teaching of Christ, — the Mount
Hermon that looks down with Divine supremacy upon all the
lower heights of Revelation — Dr. Watson saying, " The Book
of Judgment is the Sermon on the Mount."
r. It has not a supreme but a subordinate, though
A UNIQUE Place in Divine Revelation,
Eirsi. Although the Sermon on the Mount has a place of
its own in Scripture, and in the teaching of Christ near the
beginning of His ministry, laying down some of the first
principles of His Kingdom ; and while it gives an invaluable
declaration of the Divine origin, truth, and authority of the
O.T., with His Divine interpretation and development of it ; and
reaches up to some of the highest pinnacles of ethical elevation, —
yet it occupies by no means a supreme place either religiously
or ethically, in God's Word, and has only a minor place in the
teaching of Christ, and is the veriest fragment, and not at all
the most important but a very subordinate fragment, of His
teaching. Why, then, should such a small and preparatory
fragment be lifted up into such pre-eminence and supremacy ?
There is not a syllable in His teaching to show that He meant it
to occupy any such place. There is not a little to the contrary.
87
88 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
He never afterwards appears to have referred to it, or to reteach
it, as He does in other cases. In Luke there is only a brief
fragment of it, and in somewhat different form. To Mark and
John it does not appear to be of sufficient importance to be
given at all ; whereas many other things and sayings are given
in three, and even in the four Gospels. We find few, if any,
references to it in the other N.T. writing, although we do to
other sayings of Christ, and to other great facts in His life, by
all of which He teaches. Compare, for example, the full and
detailed accounts of His sufferings, death, and resurrection given
in the four Gospels at such length, and His many pregnant
utterances and references connected therewith, forming altogether
such a large part of the Gospels, and the burden and substance,
core and glory of all the rest of the N.T. as well as the Old.
Then the Sermon on the Mount, given in any fulness only in one
Gospel and never after referred to, dwindles into a small and
subordinate place indeed. And if prominence in Scripture and
place in the mind of Christ are to be taken as any indication of
the importance of the subject, — as they surely are, — then, verily,
the Sermon on the Mount must take a very lowly and obscure
position when compared with the glory that excelleth.
2. It is Christ's Elementary and Preparatory Teaching,
NOT so High as His Parabolic or Passion Teaching,
OR THE Epistles, though Primary in its own Place.
Second. It is really Christ's elementary teaching, preliminary
to and preparatory for His after higher and fuller teaching — ever
advancing during His earthly ministry ; and leading on to His
highest and final teaching by His Spirit through His apostles,
after His resurrection and ascension. It has only to be looked
at to see that this is its real character. It treats chiefly of
elementary truth — the first principles of the Kingdom of God,
and the practice of the ordinary moral and religious duties, and
that, too, from the standpoint, on the basis, and largely in the
very language of the O.T. No doubt He treats of them, as of
everything else on which He ever opened His divinely-anointed
lips, with a freshness, profundity, and power all His own ; and
discloses with a unique penetration and impressiveness the
Divine depths and soul-searching spirituality of the ancient
CHRIST'S ELEMENTARY TEACHING 89
Scriptures ; and he lifts all, as He does every subject He
touched, into the presence of God, and vivifies them with the
atmosphere of eternity and the love of the heavenly Father.
But the things themselves are on the lower planes of rudimentary
truth and ethical practice; what in another connection, and
as to other things on a lower plane, the writer of Hebrews calls
" the first principles of the oracles of God," which he complained
of having to reteach to those Christians who should have known
better, and who seemed disposed to remain as babes, needing to
be fed with milk, instead of men relishing strong meat.
Who that knows anything of spiritual truth, or the higher
life in Christ, would think of comparing, from the view-point of
advancedness, or the higher Christian revelation, Christ's ethical
teaching in the Sermon on the Mount with His higher parabolic
and spiritual teaching ; or with His sublime teaching on " the
last things " ; or with much of His profound spiritual teaching in
John's Gospel, which has earned it the name of "the Divine
Gospel " ; or least of all with His teaching about His death,
resurrection, and coming glory, with all the infinitudes of grace
and truth and destiny rooted and radiating there ; or even with,
say, Paul's profound Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians,
Philippians, and Romans, or the unique 13th and 15th of
I Corinthians ; or with that great book, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which is yielding such treasures to Christian experi-
ence and to recent scholarship ; or with John's Divine first
Epistle, or his sublime Apocalypse, including our Lord's seven
epistles, and His last words of Revelation, for its name is
" The Revelation of Jesus Christ " ?
The Sermon on the Mount moves on far lower planes, and
deals with things much less high and mysterious. And since, as
we have seen, Christ taught that His highest and final teaching
could not be given till He was glorified, and He through the
Spirit gave it to and through His apostles ; and since the Sermon
on the Mount holds only a small and elementary place in Christ's
earthly teaching, — all this recent magnifying of the Sermon on
the Mount, to the disparagement of the rest of Scripture, and to
the depreciation of the mass of even Christ's chief teaching ; and
this making of that rudimentary sermon the supreme and final
revelation, and proposing to make it the test and standard of all
other revelations, and the basis of the new ethical creed, which
90 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
is to replace all other creeds and unify the faith of mankind,
and usher in the millennium of Christian belief, — is truly astound-
ing simplicity and amazing" credulity ; while to call it, as
Dr. Watson does, " The Book of Judgment," is surely the acme
of extravagance.
Its preliminary and elementary character is perhaps more
shown by what it does not teach, rather than by what it does.
To say nothing of no Trinity, no Holy Ghost, no free grace,
there is in it almost nothing directly about Christ Himself, who is
the theme and substance of Revelation, and the heart and glory of
the Gospel. There is no incarnation, though it is the root and
origin of the Gospel ; no redemption, though it is the basis,
soul, and burden of the Gospel : no resurrection, though it is the
goal, hope, and power of the Gospel. We find little of the
life to come, though it is the crown and issue of the Gospel.
Nor have we the great truths and facts that are presupposed,
rooted, and perfected in these ; which form the substance of
the Gospel, and the main teaching of Scripture and of Christ,
and are the things in which, as Christians, we live, and move,
and have our being. So that it might, indeed, be said that
there is more of the essence of the full-orbed Gospel in one
sentence of Christ (John iii. i6) than in the whole Sermon: as
there certainly is a fuller and tenderer Gospel and a clearer and
weightier revelation of both the mind and heart of the Master in
the sacred words of the Divine institution that commemorates
His love to us, and our redemption by His blood.
IT IS PRIMARY IN TEACHING THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF
ETHICS, AND OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
It must not, however, be supposed from this that we
depreciate the Sermon on the Mount, or refuse it the place that
belongs to it, and that Christ has given it. On the contrary, in
its own place, for its own purpose, and on its own subjects we
prize it immensely, and hold it to be unique ; and on no portion
of God's Word have we more thought, and taught with more
profit and delight. Nor is that place unimportant but primary
in its own way. It is preliminary, but a necessary preliminary
to the other teaching of Christ and His apostles. It is pre-
paratory, but an indispensable preparation for the full and
THE PLACE OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 9 1
effectual proclamation of the gospel. It is elementary, ethical,
and religious teaching ; but essential elements, without which the
teaching of the other and higher elements was impracticable —
the Euclid though not the Differential Calculus of ethical and
religious mathematics. It is the great and glorious portal lead-
ing into and forming a prime part of the Divine temple of the
N.T. Revelation ; without which, and the entering into which,
men cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
It was the formal beginning of our Lord's public teaching ;
and it behoved Him to begin at the beginning. Necessity was
laid upon Him to commence low, to start with the first principles
of His Kingdom, and from that to go forward gradually into
higher things as men could receive them, till that which was perfect
was reached at length. This He, as a wise Master, would have
done in any case. There was a special necessity for Him doing
so in this case, because of the low and even wrong moral and
religious conceptions that prevailed. As at the close of His
public ministry He had, because of their inability then to receive
these, to refrain from saying to His chosen disciples many
things He had yet to teach them by His Spirit : so much more
among His hearers generally at the beginning. He had to start
with the rudiments, and to begin with the first principles of
religion and ethics, else He could have never taught them at all ;
especially as these had become so misconceived by current
ideas, and so perverted by prevalent teaching.
As we have heard Dr. Alexander Duff, the prince of Indian
missionaries, say in his lectures on Evangelistic Theology, that
he had to begin his missionary work, not by preaching the
gospel as usually given, but by teaching the first elements of
morality and religion ; because of the low state and wrong con-
ceptions on these prevalent among the Hindoos, — quoting the
example of Christ in this Sermon as his authority ; so our Lord
had to begin His great world-wide mission by clearing away, as
He does in this Sermon, the many prevalent errors, rabbinical
encrustations, and Jewish perversions of the truth; and then
going on to proclaim the first principles of the kingdom of God,
more and more, unto the fulness of the perfect Revelation.
Thus the elementary character of the Sermon on the Mount
was a mental and moral necessity, and an essential preliminary to
the full preaching of the kingdom, and is a solemn inauguration
92 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
of that Kingdom. In this sense it may be called "the Manifesto
of the King," but by no means the full gospel of the Kingdom.
And it is because many recent teachers have overlooked this
prime fact, and the place that Christ Himself has given it in His
mission and teaching, and partly because of their own leaning
being more ethical than evangelical, that they have spoken so
extravagantly of the Sermon on the Mount, and misplaced the
emphasis of the gospel by placing it on the Sermon on the
Mount, instead of, like Christ and His apostles, ever placing
it on the redemption of the cross and the gospel of the
resurrection.
3. It is based upon and largely taken from the O.T.
and in it christ solemnly declares the inviolable
Truth and Divine Authority of the O.T.
Third. They fail to perceive that the Sermon on the Mount
is largely taken from the O.T., both in form and substance ; and
that in it our Lord with awful majesty declares its Divine origin,
authority, and inviolability ; and solemnly seals it, both Law and
Prophets — the O.T. in its integrity, with His Divine authority as
the Word of God, which He came not to destroy, or disparage, or
discredit, as the would-be magnifiers of His Sermon do, but, on
the contrary, to fulfil, declaring most absolutely that heaven and
earth would pass away, but that one jot or tittle should in no
wise pass from the law — the most decried and criticised part of
it — till all should be fulfilled. They vociferate, "The Teaching
of Christ and the Sermon on the Mount is supreme." And yet
when they get that teaching, even from that very Sermon in His
own majestic words, declaring most absolutely the inviolability
and Divine authority of the O.T. in its integrity, they refuse to
submit to it, disown, deny, and repudiate it ; and go on assailing,
depreciating, and condemning it and all Scripture at their own
free will. And yet they profess specially to honour Him and His
teaching ! Well might He say with righteous rebuke, "Why call
ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not [or believe not] the things that
I say?"
Most precious facts these for those who receive the O.T.
as the Word of God — true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority ;
and for this with other reasons hold the Sermon on the Mount in
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND THE O.T. 93
its own place and for its own purposes to be of prime importance
and unique value. But most awkward facts surely these for
those who, while avowedly magnifying the teaching of Christ in
this Sermon, disparage the O.T. as a whole which He held in
such honour, discredit it in fundamental parts while He said He
came to fulfil it, and denounce it in essential elements while He
taught it was sacred and inviolable in every jot and tittle.
This is largely simply the English echo of German Rationalism.
Yet surely the last thing such teachers should magnify is the
Sermon on the Mount, and the teaching of Jesus there ! But
precious or awkward, facts they are which no one can gainsay.
The beatitudes, so rich and beautiful, and so deservedly admired,
are every one of them found in the O.T. in largely the same or /
similar words, though combined in His own unique way. The
ethical teaching in it, which rises to such Divine altitudes, is
all founded on the law of the Lord in the O.T., of which the
psalmists and prophets speak and sing with such love and
rapture. Nor does He in one single instance depreciate, far less
condemn that law, as these teachers erroneously alleged. Yet
He develops it, perfects it, spiritualises it, and glorifies it all,
by overarching it as with a rainbow of grace and glory, and
atmosphering it as with the very air of the homeland, with a
heavenly Father's love. He also elsewhere teaches that love is
Revelation's as it is Nature's final law ; for " On these two com-
mandments " (love to God and love to man, which are one in
love), "hang all the law and the prophets."
The only things He ever criticised and condemned were the
rabbinical encrustations and the popular perversions of it. The
religious duties taught in it are those frequently enforced in the
O.T., though urged in His own peerless way, — unique emphasis
being laid on the inward motive in contrast to the prevalent
outwardism — all to be done in the sight of God and not of men.
Even the trust in our heavenly Father's care, taught with such
inimitable simplicity and sublimity, is the burden of many a
beautiful and comforting passage in the ancient Oracles of God,
though clothed and warmed as only He could do by ever spread-
ing over us the wings of a loving Father for our trust and comfort, ^y^
Nay, more, the very figures used in it are redolent of O.T.
imagery, so steeped was Jesus in His Father's Word ; and yet so
fresh in His unfoldings, and striking in His use and applications
94 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
of it. And the great classical passage we have already adduced
solemnly seals by the hand of incarnate Deity the O.T. as the
Word of the Lord that liveth and- abideth for ever. All this
looks hard upon the disparagers of the O.T. and the criticisers of
any portion of it ; and shows how ill-chosen is their magnifying
of the Sermon on the Mount, and how suicidal their glorification
of the teaching of Jesus there ; and it reveals why those who
regard, honour, and use the O.T., as Christ did, as the very Word
of God, should not depreciate but prize that Sermon, which gives
His Divine endorsation and glorification of it.
IT IS THE CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN THE O.T. AND THE N.T.
THE SEAL OF THE ONE AND THE BASIS OF THE OTHER.
Placed as it is near the entrance of the N.T. and in close
touch with the O.T., it is indeed like the Divine clasp that
fastens and unites them together, and makes them a complete
and perfect whole ; or like the glowing moulded metal that con-
nects related parts of a complex mechanism, and welds them
into one ; or like the living bond that by a rare feat of nature
joins two living beings together, and makes them one living
organic whole, which cannot be severed or weakened without
serious injury to both. It is such an important and vital place
and function, then, we give to the Sermon on the Mount.
Nevertheless, we cannot give it what Christ does not give it, the
place of supremacy over all the rest of Scripture, or make its
teaching the test or judge of all the other teaching of Scripture
and of Christ. It is only those who ignore the great fact of the
progressiveness of Revelation and of Christ, and would arrest its
progress just as it is entering on its highest stage who can do so.
And it is only those who in face of His express teaching presume
to deny to our Lord the wisdom of every wise teacher, who
proceeds from the elements to the higher teaching, as His pupils
are able to bear and receive it, who could imagine such a thing.
DR. JOHN WATSON's NEW ETHICAL CREED FROM THE SERMON
ON THE MOUNT.
III. As to the new ethical creed propounded by Dr. Watson,
and applauded by others as a new revelation and I he proposed
THE NEW ETHICAL CREED 95
panacea for conflict of creeds, unity of faith and peace on
earth, it is useful chiefly as exhibiting some of the characteristic
tendencies of our times, — how readily some minds leap at and
swallow any novel thing, however jejune, provided only it
conflicts with received truth ; and how easily even clever men
are imposed upon by hasty imaginations. One is somewhat
surprised at seeing any new creed proposed by a writer who is so
sweeping in his condemnation and so reckless in caricature of
every creed of Christendom — including his own ; and who seems
to have so entirely forgotten the origin, misconceived the nature,
and mistaken the purpose of creeds in the progress of the Church.
This is not, as implied, merely to express religious sentiments,
or to write good resolutions, or to make pious vows, but to give
in contrast with error an orderly and correct statement of de-
finite, vital, and vitalising religious truths, — to confess faith in
specific Divine revelations, and to express great spiritual realities
and convictions, in order to the acknowledgment of the truth as
it is in Jesus, and the development and manifestation of the
Christian life and character through sanctification of the Spirit
and belief of the truth.
BASIS TOO NARROW, MATERIALS INSUFFICIENT FOR A FULL
CHRISTIAN CREED. DEPENDENCE OF CONDUCT ON CREED.
Further, it is anything but a promising conception to build a
creed on such a narrow and inadequate basis, a creed out of a
sermon, or rather out of a few of Christ's sayings, — out of the
veriest fragments of His teaching, out of what does not contain
the materials of a creed, out of what lacks the main facts and
substance of the Christian Revelation, and which has almost no
Christ or Christology ; out of what was never meant to be a
creed, but only an introduction to a creed fully given afterwards
in the words of Christ and His a.postles through the Spirit.
But most significant of all, as a sign of the times, and a
prevalent but pernicious idea, is the tendency to make little of
definite truth, though Christ made everything of it (John 8'^-) ; and
the false and superficial assumption that there can be practice
without belief, good conduct without sound doctrine, Christian
life without Christian faith, character without creed. It is a vain
and puerile delusion, fruits without roots, streams without
g6 CHRIST'S place in theology
fountains, effects without causes. It is an outstanding distinction
of the Christian faith, and the secret of its effectiveness, that
every element of Christian duty has a corresponding element of
Christian doctrine that produces and supports it ; that every
Christian virtue is rooted in a related truth that gives it pith and
vitality ; that Christian character is ever rooted in Christian faith,
and Christian conduct springs from Christian belief. What a
man believes, that a man does : and what a man does, that he
becomes. Believing, doing, being, that is the law and the order
of nature. Scripture, and God. First faith (belief), next practice :
if faith, then practice ; as faith, so practice ; no faith, no practice,
is true philosophy, clear Revelation, and proved experience. He
calls Himself " the Truth" ; He names His people "the children
of the truth." He says: "Ye shall know the truth; and the
truth shall make you free." He prays : "Sanctify them through
Thy truth ; Thy word is truth." And to attempt to sever Christian
conduct from Christian faith, or to minimise the vital and
essential relation to and dependence on Christian belief of
Christian duty and character, is to cut off Christianity at its
roots, and destroy it at its sources.
ESTIMATE AND CRITICISM OF THE NEW ETHICAL CREED.
As to the new ethical creed itself, it is a small group of pious
sentiments, well expressed, more religious than ethical ; some
simple and good in themselves, but often including each other,
though so few, such as : "I believe in the beatitudes " ; "I
believe in the clean heart"; "I believe in the words of Jesus,"
— three of the six statements of belief in it. Others make
promises or vows that require much belief, such as : "I promise
to follow Jesus " ; for how should or could we follow Him unless
we know and believe what He is, and what He has done — what
the creeds state under the Person and work of Christ, but of
which this new creed teaches nothing. And there is one
confession, " I believe in the words of Jesus," which covers all the
articles of all the creeds, and much that is not in any of them,
as will be seen below ; but of which in this creed there is not one
item stated, nor where or how we can surely find them, or what
authority they possess ; since the erring men who heard them are
dead, and the Book that contains their imperfect and misleading
THE NEW ETHICAL CREED 97
conceptions of them is largely untrue and indefinitely untrust-
worthy ; and, therefore, the words of Jesus are put in antithesis
to the words of the prophets and apostles, as that by which they
are to be judged ; ^ although Christ in His words and weightiest
teaching endorses the one, and promises His Spirit to enable the
others in all their teaching to express not their own thoughts or
words, but His (Matt. lo-^). It is a mixture of a few pious
sentiments, with promises and confessions of things different in
kind, — a conglomerate of creed, covenant, resolution, and vow,
all aiming at goodness. But they are most vague, indefinite,
incoherent, and narrow — based, without one single doctrine
distinctive of the Christian faith specifically stated — neither
Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost ; neither sin nor redemption, grace
nor glory, repentance nor salvation, resurrection nor judgment,
heaven nor hell, nor life to come.- So that it is absolutely worth-
less as a creed, and never could be a confession of faith for any
Christian Church, or religious community, or consistent mind.
1 The Mind of the Master, p. 14, etc. '
"Ibid. pp. 21, 2,2,, 35, 44, 103-5, 119-123-
i
CHAPTER V.
II.— PRINCIPAL A. M. FAIRBAIRN'S VIEWS AND
COGNATE VIEWS. THE PLACE OF CHRIST
IN MODERN THEOLOGY.
When we pass from Dr. Watson to Principal Fairbairn, we pass
from a theological free lance to a religious philosopher — a phil-
osopher more than a theologian. When we leave the light but
clever, audacious but un veracious religious fiction of The Mind
of the Master for the weighty and well-weighed magnum opus of
the Oxford professor — The Place of Christ in Modern Theology
— we enter on serious thinking, and are face to face with a
religious philosophy. I say advisedly religious philosophy, and
not scientific theology, — a distinction and a contrast with
which I was much struck when restudying, at the same time as
I first read Dr. Fairbairn's book, a new edition of one of the
master-works of that great and unique teacher, Dr. W. Robertson
Smith, who combined with the keenest critical power and vast
knowledge a thorough grasp of scientific theology with its bear-
ing on questions of Biblical criticism, and a rare capacity of
stating questions with scientific precision and masterful cogency
— a combination so rarely met with now. Unquestionably Dr.
Fairbairn's book, although professedly aiming at a reconstruction
and restatement of Christian theology on new and different lines
from those by which the Christian Church has lived and laboured,
suffered and conquered, from the days of Jesus Christ even
until now, is predominantly a philosophy of religion, rather
than a purely scientific statement of the doctrines of the Christian
Revelation.
THE NEW INTERPRETATION OF CHRIST 99
Dr. Fairbairn's improved Interpretation of the Mind
OF Christ ; a Religious Philosophy rather than a
Revealed Theology.
It is a religious philosophy in which human reason plays,
perhaps unconsciously, a larger part than Divine Revelation, and
the philosophy of man holds quite as influential a place as the
Revelation of Jesus Christ. This is to be deeply regretted, and
constitutes the weakness of this attempt at a restatement of
Christian theology in the new light from a Christo-centric
standpoint, and will permanently lessen its value as a con-
tribution to Christian theology. More than one-half of the
whole book is taken up with giving a history of German
Rationalistic opinion, but omitting two of its most powerful
currents — the Rationalistic criticism of the O.T. and the
Ritschlian theology of the N.T. This is not wholly reliable,
because fragmentary and much too antithetical, as may be seen
by comparison with the works of Hagenbach, Lichtenberger,
Dorner, and even Harnack, without wading through the dull,
often dreary, muddy continents of German speculative theology.
These theologies were the resultant of philosophical theories
combined with isolated, assimilable elements of Christian Revela-
tion ; but in them the philosophy was ever the dominant and
formative force. They have come and gone like wintry
clouds across wintry skies, with the ever-changing and vanishing
phases of human, and specially of German speculation, — leaving
little behind them of interest or value to mankind, save the
wrecks of their little systems that had their day and ceased to
be, to exercise the brains of a few philosophic archaeologists.
They thus proclaim again with ever-increasing emphasis that
" the world by wisdom knew not God," and show the folly of
men attempting to walk in the sparks of their own kindhng, amid
the blaze of the noonday sun of Divine Revelation.
Dr. Fairbairn then comes to the Divine Oracles to recon-
struct and restate Christian theology from the sources. But, alas !
following the German vice and vitiating practice, he comes not
simply to inquire "What saith the Lord "in the God-breathed
and God-sealed book, in order to interpret its words and to
express in best form its statements and revelations, — which is the
only way to ascertain the mind of God or of His Christ, — but
lOO CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
with a philosophy. No doubt it is a rehgious philosophy, and
better, perhaps, than most of the German philosophies and Chris-
tologies described, being ballasted by the Common Sense of
Scottish Realism, the saving contrast of German Idealism, but
still with a philosophy, — ay, and with a preconceived theology,
too, largely permeated and moulded by that philosophy ; and
that philosophy and philosophised theology largely dominate and
predetermine his interpretation and restatement of the theology
and Christology, not only of Revelation generally but of Christ
specially. And it must be confessed that the result is dis-
appointing, as many competent theologians have felt and said ;
and in some vital respects it is seriously unsatisfactory, where
new truths, principles, and standpoints are supposed to be given.
Dr. Watson has no doubt said and pressed some startling,
audacious, and utterly untenable things ; and made some state-
ments which, if taken by themselves, involve grave errors on vital
subjects. But then he contradicts himself, and often unsays later
what he said earlier, the net result being nil\ Many of the
objectionable things were apparently said to startle, with a view
to change, as he imagined for the better, the emphasis and
standpoint of certain truths, so that they can scarcely be taken
seriously, especially as he is given to exaggeration and caricature,
and they are in such desultory papers as compose his book.
Further, the most serious error, in which he seemed painfully
consistent, namely, his apparent denial of the vicarious sacrifice
of Christ, — the core of the gospel and the ground of our redemp-
tion,— he has, to his credit and the relief of many, publicly
corrected and disowned, saying truly that to deny or ignore that
would be to overlook the deepest meaning of some of our
Lord's most solemn utterances. Besides, notwithstanding all his
theological vagaries he has been so rooted, grounded, and
nourished on the scriptural theology of the Westminster Shorter
Catechism that, when he would go astray in frenzy flights, it
holds and ballasts and brings him back to himself again. And
certainly he is not much weighted or misled by the influence of
philosophy, as so many have been to the prejudice, and often to
the perversion, of their theology.
It is otherwise with Dr. Fairbairn. His is a large and
important book, treating seriously, and in an orderly and com-
prehensive manner, of the profound problems of religion and
<
DR. WATSON AND DR. FAIRBAIRN lOI
philosophy, and is a serious effort to grapple in a worthy' way
with a great subject by an able and learned religious philosopher.
It is, in fact, a brave, arduous, and somewhat pioneer attempt to
reconstruct theology on new lines, and to restate the Christian
faith in the new light. So that what is stated is deliberate and
well weighed; and, therefore, deserves and requires the more
serious consideration ; and comes with all the greater weight and
consequences for good or evil, according to its character or
tendency. And from this point of view I am constrained to
confess that I apprehend much more real evil, so far as it is
erroneous in teaching and tendency, to the Bible theology from
Dr. Fairbairn's serious and elaborate treatise than from Dr.
Watson's brilliant but unguarded and somewhat erratic book.
Dr. Fairbairn's book not only deals more seriously with the
subjects, but cuts more deeply into the substance, bases, and
sources of our faith. It is able, learned, and in some parts
profound. It is well written, generally interesting, full of weighty
matter, with apt phrases and well cut epithets, and takes compre-
hensive views of things. It is pervaded throughout with a deeply
religious spirit, aims earnestly at magnifying Christ, contains
many good, some striking, and not a few weighty and far-reach-
ing utterances, with wide horizons and vast vistas ; and rises
at times to sublime heights of thought and feeling, especially
in the Divine Christology of John. But with all this it is
often too general and abstract, over metaphysical and vague.
It is sometimes one-sided and misleading, incorrect, and lacking
in proof and thoroughness. Occasionally it is confused and
misty, and assumes too much. At times it misconceives and
misrepresents disfavoured views — specially John Calvin's and Dr.
Robert Candlish's, — " the forensic theology," and the theology
of the Reformation generally, — a striking contrast to that greatest
master of it. Principal William Cunningham. It is pervaded
almost throughout by one vice of style, arising from the philo-
sophic love of the general and abstract, — the continual habit of
stating things antithetically, — making and straining antitheses
which are often only half true, and sometimes wholly false, thus
preventing due qualification, and rendering scientific and accurate
theology impossible.
I02 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Its fundamental Error is creating strong Antithesis and
Antagonism between the Teaching of Christ and
His Apostles. Criticism and Condemnation of the
Apostles.
Its fundamental fallacy is the strong antithesis and marked
antagonism it creates between the teaching and the position of
Christ and of His apostles, not only to the disparagement of the
apostles and their writings, but to their criticism and condemna-
tion in various ways ; and to the consequent discrediting of their
Divine authority as inspired teachers. They are, in fact, by
Dr. Fairbairn, and many others more sweepingly than by him,
charged with "failing" to interpret, with misinterpreting and
misrepresenting the mind of Christ and God's Revelation. So
that they so far have not only failed to understand, but have,
therefore, so far misrepresented and corrupted the faith and
religion of Christ. Consequently a new and better interpretation
of the mind of Christ must be sought and stated than His
chosen and inspired disciples have made and given. This is
what is now being largely attempted, almost two millenniums
after those to whom we entirely owe every iota of our knowledge
of it and Him have gone. The teaching of those dull and erring
disciples must be judged and corrected by the real teaching
of Christ as discovered by our modern interpreters ! Their
failures and errors, defects and misrepresentations, degeneracies
and perversions of the mind of the Master, must be all put right
by the new, fuller, better, and truer interpretation of these
omniscient nineteenth century rediscoverers of Christ. And
this amazing feat is to be performed from the discredited
writings of those discredited disciples !
We have already shown the baselessness and untenableness
of this whole theory and attitude, so utterly contrary to the
clearest and weightiest teaching of Christ on the subject (which
they specially profess to honour), and which are so demon-
strably false, as shown by the simple facts of the case. But
before further exposing its presumption, absurdity, and serious-
ness, it will be well to give some of Dr. Fairbairn's specific
statements on the question. Take the following as specimens
of much similar : " One thing is made to stand out with a
perfectly new distinctness, viz. the degree in which the mind
CHRIST AND APOSTLES PUT IN ANTITHESIS IO3
of the Master transcends the mind of the disciples ; not how they
develop His teaching, but how they fail to do it ; the elements
they miss or ignore, forget, or do not see" (p. 293). "This
return to Christ [in contrast with the apostles' teaching] had
made evident to us the true historical method of criticism. It
must proceed from the fountain downwards." " Above in the
fountain is purity, but below in the river impurities gather "
(p. 296). With the above, examples are given — but without
any attempt at proof, only simply named — of their failures, mis-
conceptions, degeneracies, and misrepresentations of Christ and
His teaching, in such subjects as "their 'conception of God';
' human brotherhood which expresses the Divine Sonship ' ; ' the
kingdom, the social form in which it may be reaUsed in time
(p. 293). Yet our whole knowledge of these is received from
their conceptions and representations, and it was the Holy Spirit
who gave them these according to Christ's teaching and promise.
So that Christ and the Spirit are supremely responsible for these,
and come in for the same condemnation, for these are their
teachings through the apostles. "Their conduct is more mixed,
their tempers more troubled." "They so live as to show more
of the infirmities of men," — as if these had anything to do with
the question or with their Spirit-inspired teaching. What a con-
fusion of things different in kind, and on different planes !
Then the apostles and their writings are criticised, de-
preciated, misunderstood, and thus misrepresented. Statements
are made and representations given which make strange and
startling revelations, and show that Dr. Fairbairn's whole con-
ception of God's Word is radically defective ; that he " has
failed " to grasp the first root-principle of Divine Revelation, and
that he ignores or rejects the prime basal teaching of Christ and
of all Scripture, viz. that "all Scripture is given by inspiration
of God" — God-breathed (^coTri/ewTos) (2 Tim. ■^'^)\ that "Holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Though given in divers portions and in various manners
(Heb. i^), it was the one same Divine Spirit who inspired, and is
the real Author and Teacher in and through all ; and it was
He who chose, fitted, and enabled each writer, as His organ, to
supply his appointed and complementary part in the one Divine
God-breathed Book. Having fallen into such errors and failures
himself, it is no wonder that he charges the apostles with these.
I04 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Paul and His Epistles and Teaching criticised and de-
preciated BECAUSE THE CrITIC HAS " MiSSED " THE
First Principle of Divine Revelation.
Paul comes in first for criticism, disparagement, and con-
demnation. " Where Paul is greatest is where he is most
directly under the influence of Jesus." [How can he know?]
" evolving the content of what he had received from Him "
(p. 293). As if it were merely the influence of Jesus instead
of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and Paul's evolution rather
than the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul is " the schoolman "
and "pharasaic," though he was notoriously the reverse, and was
therefore persistently persecuted by the Pharisees. " Hebrews
is the corrective of Paul's view, who left the whole sacerdotal
side of Judaism untouched and unexplained. The writer of
Hebrews has discovered elements in Christianity Paul had
missed" (p. 322). What error and misconception! Hebrews
in no way corrects Paul's view, but is in full and perfect harmony
with it. Paul does treat of the law and its evangelical significance,
using it to good purpose in many places, including the sacer-
dotal and ceremonial. But though he had said nothing of it, why
should that be made a ground of charge against Paul of either
error or ignorance ? — except it be upon the baseless and absurd
assumption that every inspired writer must write upon every
part and aspect of Revelation ; and that, too, when writing
special letters to churches in special circumstances ; — especially
when God has distinctly stated, and the facts clearly prove, that
this has not been God's chosen method of Revelation. On the
contrary, as in other spheres of His operation, God has in
Revelation also acted on the principle of division of labour, and
has given His Word in divers portions and various manners,
by choosing and inspiring different men to give the various
complementary parts which form the diversified but harmonious
God-breathed whole — the one Divine Inspirer securing unity
in diversity.
Further, he says, "we cannot accept Luther's dictum, that
justification by faith is the article of a standing or falling Church,"
because " it is more Paul's than Christ's " (p. 450). As if there
were any antagonism or antithesis between Paul's teaching and
Christ's on the great fundamental doctrine of justification by
CRITICISM OF PAUL AND JOHN 105
faith, — as if Christ had not taught it as distinctly and emphatically
as ever Paul did (John 3i-'-i8- so fi e^^-io.ii fs 324^ Matt, ii^s);
and as if the teaching of Paul were not the teaching and " the
Revelation of Jesus Christ."
John also depreciated.
As of Paul, so of John he says : "What in him is permanent
and persuasive is of Christ ; what is local and trivial is of him-
self" (p. 293). As if what was local could not be universal in
its principle and application. On this principle almost the
whole of Revelation might be discredited and disposed of, for it
is rooted in and revealed through the local and the temporal ;
but the local becomes in the Spirit's light the symbol of the
universal, and the temporal the type of the eternal, as the
visible is the revelation of the invisible. Why the world itself
is only local on the high scale of immensity — a tiny corner
of God's boundless universe ; and yet it has been chosen as the
theatre of the grand moral drama of the universe, and become
the centre of universal and eternal interest. The Holy Land
was a small obscure nook of the earth, but there God became
incarnate, and made it the religious light-centre of all the count-
less moral beings that people the regions of immensity. And
Christ Himself was a branch out of the stem of Jesse, who lived
and died within the narrow confines of Palestine; but He became
the Revealer of God, Lord of heaven and earth. Head of
all being, and Unifier of the universe. Trivial ! there is nothing
trivial in John — in the Spirit's utterances through John. To
God, and in His hands, nothing is trivial —
" In little words and little deeds
Great principles come grandly out,"
had we but eyes to see them as the Spirit-illumined apostle
had. And as for the unfounded implication that there was
anything in what the Holy Ghost wrote through John that was
not permanent but evanescent, it is to presume to be wiser
than God, and to deny that "the Word of the Lord endureth
for ever,"
I06 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
James and his Epistle severely criticised and con-
demned, BECAUSE THE CrITIC MISCONCEIVES THE MeTHOD
OF Revelation.
But it is James and his Divinely-inspired Epistle that comes
in for the most severe criticism, castigation, and contempt.
"James," he says, "has more of the spirit and attitude of the
liberal synagogue than of the persuaded Christian, and possibly
his book is in the canon to show how large and tolerant the
early church was, and all churches ought to be"!! (p. 328).
What an amazing conception of the formation of the Canon !
One of the most valuable, practical, and spiritually-searching
books of God's Word said to be there merely by a great stretch
of Christian charity; and the writer, a Christ-chosen and Divinely-
inspired apostle, scarcely entitled to be called a Christian !
" Its most remarkable feature is not the opposition to Pauline
doctrine" [which the merest tyro in theology knows to be a
fable] "which so offended Luther" [but Luther got the wisdom
to see and recant his error], " but the poverty of its Christology
and the paucity of its references to the historical Christ" (p.
328). On this principle the Sermon on the Mount, and much
of Christ's teaching, would come in for condemnation, as well as
much of God's Word as a whole. " Because the writer has so
little sense of the one that he feels no need of the other"!
Both are errors and vain imaginations. " He is the apostolic
representative of the historical continuity, that in its devotion
to form and letter forgets substance and spirit " ! (p. 3 2 8). Mere
fancy and misrepresentation — the fruit of easy but unfounded
generalisation, and of forced and misleading antithesis. "The
position given him on account of relationship he never deserved
nor earned, but only enabled him to use in government aims
and abilities that hardly qualified him for service"!! (p. 329).
Baseless assertion and contemptuous caricature of a Divinely-
inspired and justly honoured apostle, from one from whom
better things might have been expected. Attention to the high
and holy ethical teaching of the Divine Spirit through James
would and should have taught the evil of this, and prevented it ;
and so long as such evil speaking and caricature of good and great
men are so gratuitously indulged in, there is clear proof of the
value and necessity of James' Epistle and of its Divine inspira-
THE CONDEMNATION OF JAMES lOJ
tion. " His address at the Apostolic Council, and his behaviour
to Paul, were quite in keeping with his Epistle" (p. 329). His
behaviour to Paul was what every servant of Christ's should be
to another, — most courteous and brotherly, and certainly a
striking contrast to this, — for which Paul praises and honours him.
And James' address in the Council was wise and good, and
inspired by the Holy Ghost, and led to the prudent and peace-
making decision that is expressly declared to be what " seemed
good unto the Holy Ghost" (Acts 15).
Criticis.m of the Apostles' Critics.
I have already, in quoting, briefly indicated in each case
some of the errors and confusions, misconceptions and mis-
representations, in this criticism of the inspired apostles and their
Divine writings ; and have referred to some of the false assump-
tions, misleading prejudices, unscientific methods, and literary
vices that have led to the making of such charges against the
apostles, and which are the creation of the critics' own mistakes.
I. THE BASELESSNESS AND ERRONEOUSNESS OF THEIR CRITICISM.
But in looking at them together, what strikes one first is the
baselessness and erroneousness of the whole. There is no posi-
tive evidence given from Scripture that there is any antagonism
or antithesis between the teaching of Christ and of His apostles ;
whereas, as shown above, there is abundant evidence to the
contrary from the very teaching of Christ Himself ; who promised
to send them His Spirit to lead them into all truth, to enable
them so to know and express His mind that " it is not ye that
speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." He
declared that their teaching would thus be so truly His teaching
that those who received them and it would receive Him and
His ; and that whosoever refused to do so, it would be more toler-
able for Sodom and Gomorrah at the day of judgment than for
them, — thus putting their words on a level with His own in truth
and authority, and in settling men's eternal destiny (Matt. 10^*
and John 1 2'*®). There is no specific evidence adduced to show
any declension or degeneracy — " falling off" — from His teaching;
while proof has been given from the facts, and the very words of
I08 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Christ that they are a unity in diversity ; and that instead of
being lower or degenerate teaching Christ expressly taught and
promised that in some important elements of His gospel and
expressions of His mind they would, when the Spirit came, be
newer, fuller, and higher — the complement, completion, and crown
of His own. This w^as actually fulfilled after His resurrection
and the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, when " they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake as the Spirit gave them
utterance " ; and not only was such a new light cast upon His
previous teaching as made it to them a new Revelation, but facts
and new truths were given and made luminous to them that
form vital and vitalising parts of the Revelation of God and the
mind of Christ.
JVo Proof of the Apostles' alleged Failures or E7-rors.
There is no attempt at detailed proof of their errors or failures,
misconceptions or misrepresentations of the mind of Christ, by
which the apostles are supposed to have so far " missed " and
misinterpreted, lost and corrupted the Christianity of Christ I
For the express purpose of preventing these, and to give a true,
complete, and final revelation of His mind, Christ promised and
sent the Spirit ; and if that has not been done, then Christ's
promise has not been fulfilled, or the Spirit's power has failed,
and the Father's purpose to reveal His will truly through them
has been frustrated. But the deeper, fuller, and more scientific
study of the whole facts establishes more and more that not one
of these has failed ; and that the apostles, as Paul said and
Christ promised, had "the mind of Christ," and interpreted
and expressed it not less truly and more fully, as He taught,
than Himself; as it was the one same Spirit who was on all,
in all, and through all. It also proves, as in the exploded
Tubingen theories of the antagonism between the apostles, the
baselessness of the modern theories of antagonism or antithesis
between Christ and His apostles ; and shows that both have
greatly erred, because they heeded not Christ's most explicit
teaching on the question, and ignored the Holy Ghost, who
by His inspiration secured the unity of teaching amid the
diversity of teachers.
ArOLOGY FOR THE APOSTLES IO9
Defence of the Apostles — Paul, John, James.
It is the same when we pass from the apostles as a whole to
the criticism and disparagement of them individually — there is no
truth in them, and no foundation for them. There is absolutely
no proof, but mere assertion given that Paul was at one time
more under the influence of Jesus than at another \ but Paul said,
" For me to live is Christ" (Phil, i'-^^, Gal. 2^^), and he gave all
his teaching in the Spirit's inspiration and words. Paul did not
" evolve the content " of what he received from Christ, but he
" delivered " what he had "received of the Lord" as the Spirit gave
him utterance, even "in other tongues" (i Cor. ii-^, Acts 2*).
Hebrews was not a "corrective of Paul," nor did its writer
"discover" anything in the gospel that Paul "did not see"; for
there is nothing in it about sacerdotalism, or the humanity or
priesthood of Christ, that he does not know and refer to — though,
of course, he did not presume to write of these as another had
done, because God had not inspired him but another to do that ;
and even as to that other it was not his "discovery," but God's
Revelation from of old. And to say of the doctrine of justifica-
tion by faith, which through Luther under God created the
Reformation and revolutionised the world, and is the great
central doctrine of the gospel, by which men are saved — " It is
more Paul's than Christ's," and, therefore, we need not accept
it, is an astounding assertion, — as if Christ did not teach it as
emphatically as ever Paul did. "It may be true, but it still
remains what it was at first — a deduction by a disciple, not a
principle enunciated by the Master " (p. 450). This simply shows
how prejudice can pervert criticism, and blind even good men to
the disastrous issues of their theories, and to the clearest and most
prevalent teaching of Christ, even when claiming specially to
honour Him, and to know it better than His apostles.
This and many Hke statements would shut us up exclusively
to what can be proved to be the words of Christ, and would
then ignore some of the chief of these. For surely every reader
of the Gospels knows that if there was one doctrine more than
another Christ urged and eternally insisted on, it was the neces-
sity and the efficacy of faith in Him as a redeeming Saviour
in order to justification and salvation (John 3^'*- ^^- ^<5- ^^- ^^ 5^*
5:^5-47 y38 s'24^_ '\\\\% great truth, which is the burden and
no CHRIST'S PLACE IX THEOLOGY
central message of all Revelation to us as sinners, and the main
and first thing that it concerns us to know and do as guilty men,
is actually declared at this late date to be "not a principle
enunciated by the Master, but a deduction by a disciple," which
may or may not be true, and which we may or may not accept
as we choose, because a mere human deduction ; instead of, as it
is, a chief Divine Revelation, not only of Paul, but of Christ
and of all Scripture. I confess that when I read this I could
scarcely believe my eyes. If this is a fair sample of the improved
interpretation of the mind of Christ, the less of it the better for
the salvation of men. There is no opposition between Paul and
James on this great truth, but a glorious complex harmony, as the
merest novice in theology can show ; and the harmony is all the
more marked that the complementary sides of the great truth are
supplied by minds so different, and the Divine wisdom is revealed
in the Divine unity thus secured by complementary revelations
being given by the Spirit through diverse men in diverse portions.
The contemptuous statement as to the poverty of James'
Christology shows how entirely this root and elementary con-
ception of Divine Revelation has been "missed," and what a
fertile source of imaginary defects and errors such mistakes
become. How much of Scripture and of Christ's teaching would
on this erroneous principle be disparaged and condemned, be-
cause the critic " failed to see " the precise place and purpose of
the diverse but complementary portions of the one Divine book !
While the amazing statements about the wondrous tolerance that
gave James' Epistle a place in the Canon, — as if that had been the
principle and method of the formation of the Canon ; and the
alleged incapacity for Christian service of one of the wisest and
weightiest leaders the Church ever had ; and his fabled mis-
treatment of Paul — the reverse of the fact ; and the attributing
to him of using relationship to Christ for personal aims and the
ambition to rule ; and the daubing him more a Jew than a
Christian who was a pillar of the Church, and one of the chief
of the apostles ; and the contemptuousness of the whole refer-
ences to him and- his Divinely-inspired Epistle,— all show on
what baseless delusions imposing structures may be reared, and
how far astray false theories, and easy generalisations, and forced
antitheses may carry religious philosophers. They certainly beget
anything but hope that those who could so roughly handle the
THE CRITICS CRITICISED III
inspired Word, and the most honoured servants of God, ■would
give a better interpretation of the mind of the Master than the
Spirit-filled apostles. This is not theology, nor science, nor
philosophy, nor fact ; but fiction, and error, and caricature, and
wrong to God-breathed writings and God-honoured men, who
" spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2. THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CRITICS CLAIMING TO INTERPRET
THE MIND OF CHRIST BETTER THAN HIS DISCIPLP:S.
Next to the baselessness, what strikes one most is the
presumption underlying and ever appearing in these theories
and statements. Not so much the presumption of so roughly
using the inspired writers, as is often done by such critics, though
that is bold enough. Nor even of so irreverently handUng the
Divine writings, as so many of them do. But the presumption
of supposing and implying that they can interpret the mind of
the Master better than His inspired disciples. Were it not
so largely insisted on and practically exemplified in so many
rough criticisms of them and their writings, and the ever-increas-
ing flood of attempted improved interpretations of their Master's j_
mind, sober minds could scarcely believe that sensible men
would be so far left to themselves as to dream of such a thing ;
or that any men who had regard for modesty and sobriety could
seriously mean to make such pretensions, or hope if they did to
escape being the object of amazement or amusement to reason-
able men. But to present-day presumption, and the omnisci-
ence of some modern criticism, nothing is deemed impossible ;
and there is a wild fascination to a certain class of minds to
make a plunge into unknown w^aters for some new thing, even
should it be, as here, into the abysses of a chaotic sea, without
shore or sounding, without length or breadth or depth ; and
where light, and rest, and hope are lost.
Hence we have to gaze on the pathetic spectacle of Christian
philosophers and rationalistic Bible critics, both in this country
and on the Continent, actually presuming in their unbounded
self-confidence and conceit, not only to criticise, correct, and
largely condemn, and even contemn, the inspired writers and
Divine writings of the N.T., but also to be vain enough to
imagine that they have " rediscovered Christ," and can interpret
112 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
the mind of the Master, or "the consciousness of Jesus," better
than His Divinely-inspired apostles. They publish improved inter-
pretations thereof like snow-flakes ; — all unconscious evidently of
either the humour or the seriousness of the delusion, — as if wisdom
about Him had been born at the close of the nineteenth century !
They reach the climax of credulity in imagining that sensible men
will believe them or their incredible hypotheses.
What would be thought of the men, or their philosophy, who
at this time of day would pretend to have a truer knowledge and
to give a better interpretation of Socrates and his teaching than
Plato and his disciples ? What would be said of the persons
and their criticism who could dream and presume to say now that
they knew and could interpret the law and the mind of the God
of Israel better than Moses, to whom He gave it and revealed
Himself, and to whom God spake face to face, as a man does
with his friend? And what, a fortiori, can be thought or said of
the presumption and folly of those who can imagine and
proclaim that now, nearly two thousand years after He has gone,
they know and can interpret the mind of Christ better than the
disciples taught by Himself, supernaturally illuminated by His
Spirit on express purpose to know and to express His mind, and
sent forth by Him as His witnesses (Acts i^), as thoroughly equipped
by the Holy Spirit for their work as the Father had sent Him
(John 20^^), and Divinely-commissioned and empowered to pro-
claim His gospel, and to plant His Church throughout the world,
and to teach all things He had taught them and that His Spirit
would teach them and enable them to teach others ; and in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to declare and com-
municate, truly and fully, the mind and will of God for men's
salvation ? Such pretensions need no refutation — the statement
of them is their refutation, and the amazement is that men could
become so vain in their imaginations as to make them, and credul-
ous enough to dream that reasonable beings could believe them.
3. THE ABSURDITY OF RELYING ON THE APOSTLES REPRE-
SENTATIONS OF Christ's teaching while disparaging and
DISCREDITING THEM IN THEIR OWN.
But perhaps the most remarkable thing in these theories is
what can only be called their simple absurdity. The very
THE CRITICS' CREDULITY II3
thought of their giving a better interpretation of the mind of
Christ than His inspired disciples, two millenniums after He has
gone, is surely, on the face of it, not only a presumptuous, but an
amazing and even ludicrous idea. But when to this is added the
owned and unquestionable fact that our whole knowledge of Christ
and His teaching is given and received through them as embodied
in their writings in the N.T., and that it is solely out of the very
writings of these disparaged and discredited disciples, who have
so far "missed," mistaken, corrupted, and misrepresented the
teaching of Christ, that our modern interpreters profess to make
their improved interpretations of His mind, and to perform the
marvellous feat of giving us a truer and better version and repre-
sentation of it than His apostles have given, the folly of the
pretension is simply astounding.
The improved Interpretation is formed solely out of the
Materials of the disparaged Disciples.
The absurdity of this is still more manifested, when it is out
of the materials these degenerate and largely discredited disciples
have supplied, and without professing to have any other materials
to amend them, that they form and issue their improved inter-
pretations of "the consciousness of Jesus," and their superior
statements of His teaching, with such assured confidence. For
they imply that their discoveries and representations have at
last given to the world the true Christ, and the real mind of the
Master, while at the same time their interpretations conflict with
and often contradict each other ; and all of them are more or
less out of harmony with, and often antagonistic to, the teaching
both of the apostles and their Master, as expressed and embodied,
through the Holy Ghost, in the Divine Book, from which alone
we or they know, or can know, anything of it or Him.
Since, as implied, the apostolic writings were so unsatis-
factory, and so far "miss," "fall off" from, and misrepresent
the teaching and the mind of Christ as to warrant and require
these discoverers of the true mind of Christ to give a new,
better, and largely corrected version of His consciousness and
teaching so as to remove and undo the evil of the defective,
degenerate, and misleading misrepresentations of them given by
the apostles, one would have thought that the last thing they
S
114 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
would have done would be to rely on these apostles' writings, or
to have or express any confidence in any interpretations of His
mind or restatements of His teaching they could reconstruct out
of such unsatisfactory and misleading materials. But instead of
this, we find unbounded confidence in their own interpretations,
and in their superiority to the apostolic interpretation, although
avowedly made up of the apostolic materials, and conflicting
with the Spirit-given apostolic representations of Christ's teach-
ing, and often contradicting each other.
But the climax of this absurdity is reached when it is
imagined — and this is what is done — that the apostles are entirely
trustworthy in their representations of Christ's teaching, but not
in their own; thoroughly reliable "reporters" of what He said,
but not as interpreters of His mind, or exponents of His teach-
ing— although the infallible moderns are ! They can even bring
pure streams out of impure fountains, and raise solid structures
out of mixed and mutually destructive materials, and upon
imaginary, self-destroyed foundations. A fourfold absurdity this,
not easily equalled in theological aberrations. The apostles
were not, as we have seen, mere "reporters," nor even merely
favoured and uniquely-placed interpreters, but Divinely-inspired
revealers of the mind of Christ in the Spirit's words.
Christ and the Critics of the Apostles in Antagofiis/n
ajid Contradiction.
The modern prophets have no word of the Lord to warrant
their basal but baseless assumption that the apostles were reliable
in some of their representations, while defective and misleading
in others, but only their own vain imaginations, contrary to Divine
revelations. Christ promised to send His Spirit to lead His dis-
ciples into all truth, so that by speech and writing they might
teach truly and fully His mind and will to all mankind. These
critics say that His disciples have not taught His mind either
truly or fully, but have " missed " much, misconceived more, mis-
represented some, and lowered all ; so that Christ's promise has
failed, and His purpose been so far frustrated. Christ taught
His disciples that "it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your
Father that speaketh in you " ;. so that what they spoke and
wrote in His name was what His Spirit taught through them.
CHRIST'S ENDORSATION OF APOSTLES' TEACHING II5
These critics aver that some of what they said by the Spirit of
truth is not true, but defective and degenerate, erroneous and
misleading ; so that the Spirit has so far failed to interpret, and
has through them misrepresented, the mind of Christ ; and
instead of leading them into all truth, has misled them and
others through them : and, therefore, Christ's own teaching, as
expressed through them, cannot be received as the truth. Christ
said that whosoever did not receive their words which He by His
Spirit spake through them, it would be more tolerable for Sodom
in the day of judgment than for them i thus putting their words
as spoken through His Spirit on a level with the words spoken
through the same Spirit by Himself — making the eternal destiny
of men depend on them ; so that the teaching of the apostles
and of the Spirit of Truth, and of Christ Himself, who is " the
Truth," is not in this to be received as true ! And yet these
are the critics who profess specially to honour the teaching of
Christ, while directly contradicting and disowning it on the very
question at issue !
Christ identifies His Apostles' Teaching with and as
His 02V/1.
It thus appears that our Lord identifies the truth and author-
ity of their teaching through His Spirit with the truth and
authority of His own teaching, and that we cannot disown
theirs without disowning His ; that in so far as theirs is im-
pinged upon or not received, so far precisely is His. In fact.
His teaching and theirs stand or fall together ; for Christ endorses
theirs, identifies it with His own, and so declares its inviolable
truth and Divine authority, — sending them His Spirit to secure
this — that theirs cannot be disowned or impinged upon without
His also being so ipso facto. It is beyond question that this is
His teaching as given in His own words in the Gospels. There-
fore if, on the one hand. His teaching is to be held decisive and
supreme, then that settles that theirs must be held as true and
Divinely authoritative also, as the true and full, authoritative and
final expression of His mind and will ; for that is His teaching,
and nothing less than that, as expressed in His own recorded
words. If, on the other hand. His teaching declaring the truth,
Divine authority, and finality of their teaching, as the Spirit-
Il6 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
given expression of His mind, is not accepted, but disowned and
rejected, it is idle, misleading, and self-contradictory to profess
to hold the supremacy of Christ's teaching. If Christ's teaching
is true, then theirs is so also, for that is His teaching. If theirs is
not, then neither can His be. If their representations of His mind,
as given in His own words, are reliable and authoritative, theirs
are so also, for His words declare that. How vain, then, to pro-
fess to honour His teaching when disowning His declaration that
they are the authoritative. Divinely-inspired interpreters and
revealers of His mind and will, and that their teaching is the
Divine, God-breathed embodiment of it ! How contrary to fact
to aver that their record of His teaching is received as true, or
His teaching itself as authoritative, so long as, in contradiction of
it, theirs is not !
And how supremely absurd and self-contradictory to trust,
or to profess to rely on, their record of His teaching, while not
accepting but criticising, disparaging, and even condemning
largely their own teaching ; — especially when, first, Christ puts
their representations of both His teaching and their own on a
level as to truth, reliability, and Divine authority — attributing
both equally to the Spirit's inspiration ! (Luke 4^^, John 142^^
Matt. lo^o); second, when He identifies their teaching with His
own, and regards it as His own, — the completion and embodi-
ment of His own, — given to them and through them by His Spirit
(Matt. lo^*- 15- 20^ Luke lo^^ John 13^^); and, third, when what they
give of His teaching in these very Gospels are His very words
declaring their teaching to be true, authoritative, and the inspired
expression of His mind. Directly in the face of what the apostles
give as Christ's teaching, in His w^ords, these critics criticise, dis-
parage, condemn, and even in measure contemn the disciples'
teaching, and ipso facto their Master's also ; and yet profess to
specially honour His teaching, and their representations of it,
while giving large practical illustration of the reverse.
These Critics ignore and stultify the work of the Holy
Spirit in Scripture.
Further, they not only practically disown the teaching of
Christ, as given by His disciples, while professing specially to
honour it, but they also ignore and stultify the work of the Holy
HOLY SCRIPTURE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT II 7
Spirit. The very idea of the N.T. writers being simply " re-
porters," as Dr. Fairbairn and others call them, of Christ's words,
implicitly ignores the Spirit ; although, as shown, these critics
refuse even to rely on them as reporters, or to believe their report
of Christ's teaching, when they state that Christ taught the truth,
and Divine authority of their teaching, as the expression of His
mind. This ignoring of the Spirit is more manifest in the pro-
fession to accept what the apostles give as Christ's teaching, but
not their own. For, as Christ said, it was the same Spirit who
was to lead them into all truth who was to bring to their remem-
brance what He had said to them Himself. Therefore it was
the same Divine Spirit who gave truth, reliability, and authority
to their representations of Christ's teaching that led them into
the knowledge and expression of all their own teaching of His
mind ; so that the one has precisely the same reliability and
authority as the other — the same Spirit equally inspiring both.
The Spirit brought to their remembrance what Christ had said
to them, opened their minds to enable them to understand it,
and inspired them to express it in His words. So that it is only
their conceptions of Christ's teaching, as given them by the
Spirit, that we have, or can have, or ever had. And it is pre-
cisely the same teaching of the Spirit that is expressed in their
own teaching ; so that they have both equally the same Divine
origin, reliability, and authority. This plainly precludes all
antithesis or antagonism between the one and the other, and all
attempts to make or hold the one reliable when the other is not,
and shows that the ignoring of the Holy Ghost lies at the root
of all such ideas and theories.
They also stultify the Spirit's work by such ideas. For if the
Spirit only enabled them to give Christ's teaching truly, while
leaving them to misinterpret and misrepresent the mind of Christ
in their own teaching, then this could only lead to confusion and
error — the latter undoing the former ; and thus the Spirit would
practically defeat His own work, and Christ would largely frus-
trate Hir, purpose and promise in sending the Spirit. It
makes the aposdes and the Spirit of Truth conflict with each
other, and contradict themselves ; and leaves Christ in conflict
with both, and in self-contradiction. How then could we pos-
sibly trust them, or Him, or the Holy Spirit, in their representa-
tions in other things when they have misled, or allowed us to
Il8 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
err and misunderstand, in this fundamental thing ? If we do not
accept their representations in their own teaching, how can we
trust their representations in giving His ? If the Spirit of truth
has failed to lead them into and to convey the truth Christ in-
tended to teach to them and through them by the Spirit, how
can we rely with full confidence on what He brought to their
minds of Christ's teaching, or be sure that He has not there also
misled them, or failed to bring Christ's teaching properly to their
minds ? And if Christ Himself has failed to fulfil His promise
to His disciples, and taught error on this first and fundamental
question as to what He said the Spirit would do for them, how
can we be sure that He has not failed, and erred, and misled
them in other things? and how vain in that case to put con-
fidence in His other teachings? If He has failed and misled in
this primary and fundamental matter, how can we reasonably be
asked to trust His teaching or Himself in anything ?
They thus destroy the very sources and bases of their own
theories. They do infinitely worse — they would virtually destroy
the bases and the sources of the Christian faith ; and they make
it the easiest thing possible, as shown below, to explode Chris-
tianity from its foundations, and, by a consistent application of
their principles, to annihilate our faith. But the whole pre-
tentious theory, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leaves not
one wrack behind, and leaves a struggling humanity without one
inch of solid Divine rock on which to rest the sole of its foot amid
the shifting sands of human opinion and the froth of aberrant
speculation. And Dr. Horton, one of the loudest proclaimers
of this would-be " rediscovery of Christ," though only a feeble
English echo of a vanishing phase of German Rationalism, to the
amazement of all sensible men, puts the appropriate topstone on
the pretentious but baseless superstructure, by virtually claiming
for himself and others inspiration the sarne in kind and purpose
as the prophets and apostles ; though we have not heard that
the Christian Church has yet proposed to annex any of the crude
productions of this inspiration, as improved interpretations of
the mind of Christ, to the Canon of Holy Scripture, which he
has presumed so irreverently to denounce ! A single glimpse at
Dr. Horton's best, alongside of a page of Isaiah's or Paul's least,
settles that vain idea at once and for ever to every sound mind.
CHAPTER VI.
DR. FAIRBAIRN'S IMPROVED RESTATEMENT
OF THE MIND OF CHRIST
Christ and the Controversies.
Perhaps the best practical commentary on the untenableness
and emptiness of these theories is to be found in noting some of
the results of Dr. Fairbairn's supreme effort to give an improved
interpretation of the mind of Christ. We shall only indicate, not
fully refute, these here, leaving that for the sequel, so far as
thought necessary ; but in doing so we shall put the teaching of
Christ and His apostles in contrast, and thus so far give the
teaching of Christ on some of the leading doctrines controverted
in antithesis to and refutation of many prevalent errors. He says,
"This age knows Christ as no other age has ever done" (p. 20).
"We have been invited to know Him as He knew Himself, to
understand His mission as it was in His mind, and before it had
been touched by the spirit of Paul" (p. 292). As if Paul's spirit
had spoiled Christ's conception ! whereas Paul's representation of
Christ was what he received from Christ Himself by revelation,
and is expressly called "the revelation of the Lord"; and as if
Paul's spirit, through which the revelation was given, had been
simply the workings of his own speculative spirit, instead of, as it
was, the Holy Ghost in him — the same Spirit as Christ had and
taught by ! (Luke 4^^ i Cor. 2^^). Besides, as shown, it is a
delusion to imagine that we have anything of Christ's teaching
or mind except the conceptions of it given to and through the
disciples by the same Holy Spirit as gave it to Paul. And
when we come to the improved interpretation of the mind or con-
sciousness of Christ, and a better restatement of the theology
of Christ, so far as it differs from the apostolic interpretation as
generally received by the Church, it is grievously disappointing.
I20 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Like Milton's critics comparing Paradise Eegaitied witli Paradise
Lost, so we must say, " ^^'llat a mighty fall was there I "
I. Theology. God. The Father. The Root-Conxeption
OF God ignores and precludes Christ's Revelation
of God.
The conception of God, supposed to be derived from "the
consciousness of Christ," is anything but improved, is far
removed from Christ's conception, and is largely in direct
antagonism to it. For He is not a God of justice or of judgment ;
and the idea of God being a righteous judge, who punishes sin,
hates evil or evil workers (Matt. 7-^'^^ Luke 13-^"^"), and
condemns the guilty ; or whose wrath abideth on the unbelieving
and the wicked (John 3^**), and sends away "the cursed" to
everlasting punishment (Matt. 25'^'') ; who renders to everyone
according to his works (Rev. 22I'-), and "who can destroy body
and soul in hell " (Matt. 10-^), "where their worm dieth not, and
their fire is not quenched " (Mark 9*3-50), — all this is expHcidy
denied and utterly precluded by his whole conception of God.
And yet this is a true, if awful, side of God's character, as given
in the very words of Christ, who so loved sinners as to die to
redeem them and live to save them, and declared God's love to
them in a unique way (John 3^"^). So that by his root and basal
conception of God he not only ignores and denies, but repudiates
and precludes Christ's conception. He so expatiates on God's
love as to exclude His justice ; so confines his view to God's
mercy as to evacuate His righteousness ; and goes off at a
tangent with a single one-sided idea, like a wandering star,
into such abysses of speculation as strand him with such a
view of God as not only conflicts with, but contradicts and
excludes Christ's view ; and allows himself such wild utterances
as these which express the character of this whole theology :
" Quantitatively there is no more of the love of God in heaven than
in hell" ! (p. 424). "Were He (God) to hate even the devil, He
would, while the feeling endured, have in Him an element alien
to the Divine, and so would be less than God" (p. 424). "To
say, 'God is love,' means He must be the Saviour" (p. 465).
" To abandon souls He loved, even though they had abandoned
Him, would be to punish man's faithlessness by ceasing to be
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD 121
faithful to Himself" (p. 465). Another jejune statement may be
added here, as showing the absurdities to which a false philo-
sophy may carry even sensible men, " What we call matter or
nature has no real being to God" ! (p. 419). What He created
and made does not exist ! ! The philosophy that denied the
existence of matter was tame in its absurdity compared with
this; for it still held to "a permanent possibility of sensation,"
as John Stuart Mill put it.
HIS VI?:W OF THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD EXCLUDES CHRIST's.
Similarly his conception of the Fatherhood of God, which is
a natural outcome of the other, and which he makes the root,
starting-point, and the formative and normative idea of his
theology, is opposed to Scripture generally, and comes into the
sharpest conflict with the teaching of Christ, His idea of the
Divine Fatherhood is that of God's universal Fatherhood, by
creation, of all creatures ; and that this was " necessary " ; — con-
sequently that all men, yea, all moral creatures, men and devils,
are by nature, and by the necessities of the Divine nature, sons of
God, no matter how they may fall or sin, and must for ever
remain sons, for "relation stands," as Milton puts it. "The
essential love out of which creation issued determined the stand-
ing of the created before the Creator, and the relation is filial "
(p. 445). "If the motives and ends of God in creation were
paternal, then man's filial relation follows, and it stands, however
unworthy a son he may prove himself to be " (p. 446). " Son-
ship is of the essence of humanity" (p. 369). He finds great
fault with Athanasius (p. 392) for not affirming that all men are
by nature and by creation sons of God, — Athanasius, like Christ
and all Scripture, making the real sonship by grace, the new
birth, and adoption. But Athanasius was too good a theologian,
and too clear a thinker, and too reverent a student of Scripture
and of the teaching of Christ, to imagine such a confused fiction,
or to override Christ's teaching and all Revelation by a false
philosophy. It is scarcely necessary to show how contrary this
is to the teaching of Scripture and of Christ. Speaking to the
religious leaders of the time, He said, " Ye are of your father the
devil, and the works of your father ye will do" (John 8**).
" If God were your Father, ye would love Me " (John 8^-). " Ye
122 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
are not of My sheep, as I said unto you " (John lo^^). So i John 3^,
" He that committeth sin is of the devil " — having a sinful
parentage, in contrast with those who had a Divine parentage.
" In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of
the devil" (i John t}^). And so Christ again says, "The tares
are the children of the wicked one " (Matt. 13^^). " Ye serpents,
ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
hell?" (Matt. 2333 37, John f^y
Consistently with this doctrine of the natural sonship of God
of all men,. he has no doctrine of regeneration or being "born
again," " born of God," so prominent in the teaching of Christ
and His apostles (John 1I2. i3 ^1-7^ ^[^ ^s). Nor is there from
the nature of the case any room for a new birth or adoption
into the Divine family by grace, because all men are the children
of God by nature in the first birth ; so that there is no necessity
or possibility of a second birth, or "being born again." Yet
Christ taught this with absolute repeated emphasis, climaxed
with, " Marvel not that I said unto you. Ye must be born again "
(John 3"). Yet this was said to a man of good moral character,
— a sincere Pharisee, of high religious profession, blameless, yea
noble, life, and large Biblical knowledge, — " a teacher in Israel "
in deep soul concern. If all men are by nature the children of
God, then obviously all the teaching of Christ and His apostles
about the necessity of being " born again " in order to enter into
or to see the kingdom of God, the need of repentance in order to
eternal life, and the indispensableness of faith in order -to be
saved, are imaginations ; and yet there are no facts in history
or science better established than the new birth, conversion,
salvation by faith, adoption by grace into God's family of those
who were before children of wrath (John 3^^, Eph. 2^)j as attested
by Christian experience in all ages.
IT DEPRIVES BELIEVERS OF THEIR PRECIOUS SONSHIP IN CHRIST,
AND DELUDES UNBELIEVERS WITH A SONSHIP IN COMMON
WITH DEVILS.
He seems not to have grasped the radical distinction between
an actual and a potential or an ideal sonship — of a relation by
nature to God, in virtue of creation by God, in likeness to God,
^ Dr. Candlish on i Joh)i.
THE SONSHIP OF BELIEVERS 1 23
and providential care of God, which had "the promise and
potency " (using the language of science as to life), of real and
everlasting sonship of God, by being " born again " of God, and
consequent union with Christ by faith (John ji^-is) and adoption
in Him into the sonship of believers. A sonship this which is
not that shared with debauchees and devils, which we care not to
have, and which is consistent with eternal damnation ; but a
sonship that makes us, in veritable spiritual reality, living, blessed
children of God, through a new birth by the Holy Ghost and
union to Christ by a living faith, and adoption into the Divine
family by free grace. A sonship that is Divine in its origin,
spiritual in its nature, saving in its effects, and everlasting in its
duration. A sonship in union with Christ the same in its nature
and character, duration and glory, as the sonship of the Eternal
Son, — His, however, being necessary and eternal, ours being of
grace in time, by regeneration, adoption, and union with Him by
faith. A sonship that enables us as believers with John to say,
" Now are we the sons of God ; and it doth not yet appear what
we shall be : but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be
like Him ; for we shall see Him as He is " ; and which enables us
to look forward to, and long for, the manifestation of the sons of
God, when we shall be with Him where He is, and behold His
glory, and share it with Him, as we sit with Him on His throne,
share with Him in His and our Father's love, and reign with Him
for ever and ever (John 17, i John 3^ Rev. i. 7. 22).
All this glorious sonship of believers in Christ, the peculiar
privilege only of believers, which forms such a vital part of
the finest and divinest N.T. Revelation, and of the teaching of
Christ, and is gloriously set forth like a new revelation in the
writings of Dr. Candlish,i seems a terra incognita to those who
dwell so largely and so vaguely on what is called the universal
Fatherhood of God. But the apostles, like Christ, are full of it ;
and it is the distinctively new revelation of the New Testament
on the subject. The other general fatherhood by creation, of
which they make so much, is not, as they imagine and proclaim, a
doctrine distinctive of the N.T., or the revelation of Christ, as
they teach, for it is found in heathen religions and poetry — the
Greeks and Romans even sang of Zeus and Jupiter as " father of
^ See The FatherJiood of God, The Sonship of Believers, and his unique
I Joh7i, which many have felt to be hke a new revelation to them.
124 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
gods and men." They would thus deprive the regenerate and
the believing of their real sonship in Christ by a new birth,
adoption by grace, and personal faith uniting us to Christ — the
same in origin, nature, duration, and glory as Jesus' Sonship ;
and they would delude the unconverted and unbelieving to their
perdition with the idea of a sonship without a new birth, adoption,
or faith, — without which Christ said no man could enter the
kingdom of God or be saved (John 3"), — a sonship by creation
common with devils and all creatures, and consistent with de-
struction. As Sir William Hamilton woulcf say in philosophy, so
here, the more the extension, the less the intension ; the wider its
scope, the less its value.
FREE AND SOVEREIGN GRACE PRECLUDED OR EVACUATED.
As with the true character and the real fatherhood of God, so
with the free and sovereign grace of God, it is disowned or mis-
represented. He urges " the necessary grace of all God's acts."
Hence "the salvation of the sinner is a moral necessity of God"
(p. 472). "The Creator had no choice but to become a
Saviour when sin entered" (pp. 318, 476). Of this let it suffice
here to say. First, that free grace, properly so called, is excluded ;
freedom and necessity, grace and obligation are mutually
exclusive. Second, that, on these principles, it plainly becomes
the duty of the Creator to save all creatures without exception,
men and devils. But we have never yet heard that God has
moved to save devils — the reverse is clearly implied or taught by
Christ and His apostles (Matt. 25, Rev. 20, Jude*^). And he
would be a bold man, indeed, who would presum.e to say that all
fallen beings will and must be saved, in face of the awful teach-
ing to the contrary of both the disciples, and supremely of their
INIaster. Further, "Through Adam sin came, through Christ
righteousness. If either was to be, both must be" (p. 461).
Here, again, grace becomes no more grace, and the salvation
in Christ is not of God's free grace but of Divine obligation !
What a direct reversal of free and sovereign grace, which con-
stitutes such a large and fundamental part of God's Word,
specially of the teaching of Christ and Paul. Besides, it is an
explicit contradiction of the very passage (Rom. 5^""^^) drawing
the parallel between Adam and Christ, in which the free gift or
THE GOD-MAN I 25
the gift by grace is stressed in every corresponding part of the
advancing parallel, sometimes twice, seven times in all. Here,
too, it is said in contradiction of the express words and the
essential necessity of the parallel : — We get " death " through
Adam, but " not guilt " (p. 460) Yet how we should get death,
" the wages of sin," without guilt, is never faced or explained.
Further, were this true, the parallel requires we should receive
no righteousness or merit of Christ imputed to us ! Besides,
the law of heredity in nature illustrates the principle, as also all
life. We also inherit a sinful nature— the penalty of original sin.
And it is the principle of the second commandment, "visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children." So that this view-
is contrary to Scripture, history, science, fact. Again, " if God
did act, the way He took was the only way possible to Him "
(p. 446). What is man that he should thus presume to limit the
Most High, or pretend to know the possibilities of the Infinite ?
THE SON, CHRIST. A KENOSIS THAT PRACTICALLY EVACUATES
HIS DIVINITY.
When he gives his improved interpretation of the Person of
Christ, we get a Kenosis that practically evacuates His Divinity,
and nullifies it in His personal life and relations, limits it to His
official work, and excludes it from the greater part of His life.
He so presses His "normal" humanity as to virtually deprive
Him of His Divinity and its attributes in His life-work, — not
merely in His self-imposed limitations of their exercise, but in
their possession, he so represents and contrasts the human and
the Divine, the natural and the supernatural, in the God-man,
and so contrasts and separates the personal life and the official
work of Christ as to give unreality to both, and also to the
Incarnation, and to imply a duality of persons in Christ. Not
merely two natures, two knowledges, or even two wills ; but what
virtually means two persons, two lives, and two beings, having
practically separate existences ; — instead of the one unique Divine-
human personality, living the one unique Divine-human life,
— Revelation's great mystery of godliness — " God manifest in
the flesh." Into this profound mystery, the infinite depths of
which angels desire 'to look into, both Lutheran and Anglican
Kenotics have let down their little lines. I will not say to no
126 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
purpose, or without effect, for they have served to fix thought on
the veritable brotherhood of Christ; but they have certainly
tended to give vagueness if not vacuity to His Godhood, and
unreality or nebulosity to the Incarnation.
As Dr, A. B. Bruce well says in his valuable work, The
Humiliation of Christ, we shall be concerned chiefly to exercise
our faculties in preventing these dubious speculations from
depriving us of either His real humanity or true Divinity, or
lessening our sense of the reality of the Incarnation. Dr.
Fairbairn cannot be said to have made the great mystery less
mysterious, or the confusion caused by Kenotic speculations less
confounded by what Canon Gore rightly calls his own theory of
Kenosis ; and he has certainly in his attempted philosophy of the
Incarnation made some astounding statements, which dissolve it
in nebulous unreality, and divide His life and nature into such
artificial parts and functions by this improved interpretation, as
largely to rob us of the real Son of Man, and the true Son of
God of the Gospels. It shows anew the necessity of refusing to
go a hair's-breadth beyond the facts and statements of Scripture
on this deep mystery, if our Divine-human Saviour, "of two
distinct natures and one person for ever," is not to be improved
away by their philosophies.
THE HOLY GHOST HAS A SMALL PLACE IN THIS THEOLOGY.
The Holy Ghost has little place in the new theology ; and
His whole work in connection with the creation, the incarnation,
the personal development and the official work of Christ from the
cradle to the Cross, where, " He through the Eternal Spirit offered
Himself without spot unto God " ; the salvation of rnan — in con-
viction and conversion, vivification and regeneration, faith and
union to Christ, sonship and sanctification ; Divine fellowship and
filial service (all of which are expressly ascribed by Christ and
His apostles to the Holy Ghost) is mostly " missed," and often
implicitly precluded. His work in the inspiration of the apostles
and all the "holy men of God who spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost," — which, by their speaking and writing " as the
Spirit gave them utterance," secured that all Scripture was God-
breathed, and God's ^Vord — is, as we have seen, largely ignored
or practically denied; though the whole of this is writ large on the
MAN'S STATE AND GOD'S SALVATION 12/
face of Scripture, and occupies such a great place in the teaching
of Christ and His apostles, and in the history of the Church.
II. Anthropology. Man. A most meagre Doctrine of
Man, and a Contrast to Christ's.
The anthropology is most meagre and unsatisfactory. There
is no Fall; and, therefore, no proper ground for Redemption.
No guilt from Adam to his race ; therefore, no merit from Christ,
though the parallel requires both (Rom. 5^-'^^). No corruption
of man's whole nature ; and, therefore, no necessity for a new
birth, a truth so strongly urged by Christ. No condemnation by
a righteous judge for unbelief, or transgression of a righteous law ;
and, therefore, no justification by faith by a righteous God, on
the ground of Christ's propitiation and obedience unto death, by
His righteousness being imputed unto us. No wrath for sinners to
escape, since all are under God's love only ; therefore, no need to
flee to the refuge in the Rock of Ages cleft for us,- — though Christ
and all Scripture proclaim the reverse. No spiritual inability ; and,
therefore, no need for passing from death unto life by spiritual
quickening or Divine empowerment, — though this bulks largely
in the Bible and Christ's teaching. No need for adoption into
the family of God by faith and a new birth ; for all men are by
nature children of God, and " relation stands, however unworthy
a son he may prove himself to be." Yet every one of these dis-
owned and ignored truths is taught in the most explicit manner
in the Word of God, and most emphatically of all by Christ.
III. The Soteriology is very defective, and has serious
Error. The Doctrines of Grace have little place.
As already largely indicated in other connections, the Soterio-
logy is far from satisfactory. It is a grievous "falling of " from,
and in antithesis to, the teaching of Christ, — the reverse of a better
interpretation of His mind than the disciples give. As shown, the
doctrines of grace as a whole have a small place in this restate-
ment of theology ; though they have such a large and vital place
in the teaching of Christ and His apostles, and are the truths in
which as Christians we live, and move, and have our being. Free
and sovereign grace is virtually excluded by " the Creator having
128 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
no choice but to become a Saviour." Election to salvation of
God's free grace, as taught so strongly by Christ and His apostles,
is precluded or explained away. Effectual calling, the cardinal
work of God's Spirit in man's salvation, in which the teaching of
Christ and His apostles is so steeped, is painfully wanting. Pass-
ing from death unto life by the quickening and renewing of the
Holy Ghost, making us " new creatures in Christ," and uniting
us to Him by faith (the gift of God (Eph. 2^)) and regeneration
(John i^"--!'), making us "partakers of the Divine nature," and of
His life and fulness, — all this is sadly lacking, though forming
such a vital part of the gospel, as taught by Christ and His apostles.
Justification by faith, as shown, "is more Paul's than Christ's" !
" which may be true as a deduction of the disciple but not as a
principle enunciated by the Master " ! ! though a chief doctrine of
His and His apostles' teaching, essential to salvation. Sanctifica-
tion by faith, growth in grace, the perseverance of the saints, are
all ignored or unknown in the new theology, though taught by
Christ, and precious in the experience of His people. The
sonship of believers in Christ, through union to Him by regenera-
tion and faith, is precluded by the theory of God's universal and
necessary Fatherhood of all His intelligent creatures, — making
Him equally the Father of men, angels, and devils, and these all
equally sons of God by nature ; — a Fatherhood that is a fable,
a sonship that is a farce, and at an infinite distance from the
Fatherhood of God and sonship of believers in Christ, with all
the infinitudes of grace and glory thereof, as taught by Him and
known by them. He says, " It is the emptiest nominalism to
speak of the adoption of a man who was never a Son " (p. 446).
We answer, it is the sheerest nonsense to speak of the adoption of
a man who is your son ; for, as Milton says, " relation stands," —
as Dr. Fairbairn says, " Man's filial relation follows " from " the
ends of God in creation, and it stands, however unworthy a son
he may prove himself to be " (p. 446).
THE TEACHING ON THE ATONEMENT IS GRAVELY WRONG. NO
ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE AND TAUGHT BY
CHRIST.
But it is in his teaching on the atonement — the redemptive
work of Christ, the basis, root, and core of our salvation—
A TONIC NOT AN ATONEMENT 1 29
that this soteriology most fatally fails. There is really no
atonement at all in the Bible sense in this new theology,
although it is the very heart blood of our redemption, and the
burden of the Bible and the Gospel. The vicarious sacrifice of
Christ is most carefully and studiously precluded throughout.
The soul and substance are wholly excluded of what Christ
and the inspired writers meant by the great crucial words and
thoughts ; — Redemption, God in love sending Him to be the
propitiation for our sins ; Atonement, by the substitution of
Christ for us ; Expiation of our sins, by the blood of Christ ;
Reconciliation to God, by the death of His Son ; Sacrifice of
Himself, to take away our sin ; Ransom, by giving His life for
us : as well as the essence of what is expressed in the great
classical phrases and passages about Christ "suffering for sins,
the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God " ;
" bearing our sins in His own body on the tree " ; " redeeming
us from the curse of the law by being made a curse for us " ;
God " making Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in Him " ; " the Lord
laying on Him the iniquity of us all," and " making His soul an
offering for sin " ; His " offering Himself up as a sacrifice without
spot unto God"; appearing as "the Lamb of God, that taketh
away the sin of the world"; "giving His life a ransom for
many"; "to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"; and
the profound words by which He instituted the Lord's Supper,
" This is My body, broken for you. This is My blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins," for " without shedding of blood is no remission." Let the
following suffice to indicate his view : " The Atonement works in
the universe as the manifest and embodied judgment of God
against sin, but of this judgment as chastening and regenerating
rather than judicial and penal" (p. 482). "The Atonement
has satisfied the righteousness of God by vanquishing sin
in the sinner, and vindicating the authority of the eternal will "
(p. 486), not by punishing our sin in Him who was made sin
for us.
I "^0 CHRIST S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
A TONIC NOT AN ATONEMENT : A MEDICINE NOT A
REDEMPTION.
" The ends of God in the atonement are those of the regal
paternity" (p. 487) ; that is, it is the act of a loving Father, not
of a righteous judge ; — not the punishment of sin in the
substitute of sinners, by the laying our iniquity on Christ
and punishing Him for us ; so that His sufferings are a
propitiation for our sins ; — not penal suffering, properly so
called, of Christ in our room and stead as "the just for the
unjust," but paternal correction, reformation, and discipline of
men. Hence " the atonement is designed to produce in man all
the effects of corrective and remedial sufferings, to do the work
of restorative and reformatory penalties" (p. 482). But how
can that satisfy the righteousness of God or vanquish sin in the
sinner, unless Christ's sufferings are the punishment of our
sin in the Substitute of sinners? As usual in such theories,
the words "penal" and "substitutionary" are used, but in an
entirely different sense from the Bible revelations, the distinctive
and essential ideas of these words being eliminated. Every
idea of substitution, or punishment, or propitiation, or reconcilia-
tion of God and sinners by the vicarious suffering of Christ is
studiously shut out. It is only chastisement, correction, and
reformation of us, by our thought about His sufferings, and by the
supposed moral effects on our minds of the. sufferings of Christ,
giving to the sinner the sense of the evil of sin. But these
moral effects cannot be produced, as we shall see, on this theory
of Christ's sufferings, but only on the Bible view that Christ's
suffering was a vicarious sacrifice of Himself, bearing, as our
substitute, the righteous punishment due to us for sin, inflicted
on Him by a righteous and sin-avenging God ; and thereby
making real propitiation for our sins, actually expiating our guilt,
and reconciling God and sinners, on the ground of a real,
righteous, and complete atonement, by the grace of God,
through the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
And when it is said, God "made Him," in this sense, "to be
sin for us," though He "knew no sin," it was not, as Dr. Fairbairn
says, that thereby God has made us to know sin (though that
will follow if it is, and we regard it as, a real propitiation by His
vicarious sacrifice for our sins, but not otherwise), but as Paul says.
NO VICARIOUS SACRIFICE 13I
" that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him " ; —
that is, the purpose and the effect of Christ's being made sin for
us are, that, on account of what He suffered in our stead when
"He was made sin for us" (the strongest way possible of
expressing this truth), — "we might be made the righteousness
of God in Him " ; that is, legally righteous before God in Christ
— ^justified in His righteousness. In short, the Bible view of the
Atonement — the view of it given by Christ and His apostles, and
pervading all Scripture (for their view is absolutely one on this
cardinal revelation) — is essentially different in kind from the other
view — not only differs toto ccelo, but is radically antagonistic to it.
The one is an objective atonement, made by the vicarious suffer-
ings of Christ for us, in which the Lord laid on Him our sin, and
He made propitiation for it by bearing its full righteous punish-
ment, and reconciling us to God. The other is a subjective
atonement, in an impression supposed to be made upon our
own minds by the spectacle of the sufferings of Christ. The
one is a Divine objective fact, reconciling God and sinners by
Christ's propitiatory vicarious sufferings. The other is a human
subjective feeling, giving us an impression of the evil of sin. It
is indeed a medicine for us, not a redemption by Christ of us, —
merely a moral tonic, not a Divine atonement. . Appropriately,
this improved restatement of the Atonement is closed by this
wild statement, " The work of Christ has modified for the better
the state even of the losf^ (p. 487). If Christ and Scripture
teach anything, it is that His work when rejected increases the
guilt and deepens the doom of the Christ-rejectors (John 3^^ 522,
Matt. ii'^o-2^).
THE VICARIOUS SACRIFICE IS PRECLUDED, AND THE OLD
EXPLODED GOVERNMENTAL THEORY RESTATED.
What we get, then, in this restatement is in substance, though
in varied form, the old shallow and ten thousand times refuted
Governmental theory of the Atonement, which evaporates its
essence, cuts out its very heart, and makes the sacrifice of the
Cross a mere spectacular display, to make an impression on men's
minds, in the supposed interests of moral government.^ But not
^ But here, too, he makes a notoriously untrue statement : " We have
argued that a sense of sin is a creation of Christianity " (p. 48). Fancy that
132 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
a vicarious sacrifice to atone for sin, — in which the Lord laid on
Him our iniquity ; nor a propitiation through the shedding of
Christ's blood, by which God and sinners are reconciled ; nor the
penal suffering of the sinner's Substitute bearing the righteous
punishment of our sins in His own body on the tree ; — -not, in
short, " a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice and to reconcile us
unto God." All these cardinal and crucial truths and representa-
tions, which form the burden of the Bible and the core of the
revelation of Divine grace in Christ, are expressly, and by
necessity of their first principles, precluded and scrupulously
excluded. Therefore, the sufferings of Christ, — the most real
and deepest thing in the universe, — if they were not vicarious,
nor the righteous punishment of sin, nor required by Divine
justice, nor necessary to reconcile God and sinners, but a mere
spectacular display, are dissolved in infinite unreality, and become,
involve, indeed. Divine deception. Since God was the chief
inflictor of these untold, but, on this view, non-obligatory suffer-
ings of the sinless One, it amounts to a charge against the God
of righteousness and love of perpetrating the most awful injury,
by laying such unspeakable sufferings on Christ, when not as
the punishment of our or of any sins, and of inflicting this
supreme moral wrong upon His beloved Son !
NO REAL ATONEMENT FOR SIN, NOR PROPER MORAL
IMPRESSION ON MAN.
And so far from the Cross making on this theory an impres-
sion favourable to righteousness on moral beings, it could only
shock the moral sense of every righteous being, and set a
supreme example of unrighteousness and wrong before the moral
universe by its Author. No doubt the Cross was meant and
fitted to make a profound moral impression " making for
righteousness " upon the minds of all moral beings. Its chief
end was to reveal the love of God. Its specific and immediate
object was to make atonement for sin by the vicarious suffering
of the Just One for the unjust, and thus to make reconciliation
between God and men. Its moral design manward was to
in the light of the penitential Psahns — the 6th and 53rd of Isaiah ! The
Prayers of Moses, David, Josiah, Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra, and the whole
O.T.
THE MORAL POWER OF THE ATONEMENT I 33
reveal the righteousness and love of God in order to show men
the evil of sin, and to wean them from it.
But it could not do any of these things on the principles of
this theory. It could, and does do all of them on the evangel-
ical or Bible view of Christ's sufferings. It could not make
atonement or propitiation except by the Saviour taking the
place of the sinner, and suffering as " the Just for the unjust "
the punishment due to us for sin, and thus satisfying the
righteous demands of law and justice. It could not make an
impression favourable to righteousness unless it were itself a
manifestation of righteousness ; instead of being, as this theory
would make it, a supreme example of unrighteousness, if the
innocent One suffered, at the hands of God, what was not the
punishment of our or of anyone's sin.
the cross makes its proper moral impression only when
Christ's sufferings are viewed as vicarious.
But if the suffering of Christ, as Jesus and all Scripture
teach, was a vicarious sacrifice, in which He bore the punish-
ment of our sin — then, verily, sin was righteously and fully
atoned for; and God can be both "just, and the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus." Then, too, the Cross is a most
impressive revelation of the righteousness of God, and of the
awful evil of sin, when a God of justice and of judgment rises in
His wrath to deal with it. For it shows that sin was such a
terrible evil that nothing less than the death of God's Son, ay,
even the accursed death of the Cross, was sufficient to atone
for it. It gives an alarming revelation of the righteousness of
God, that when our sin was laid on Him, the very least punish-
ment a God of righteousness and of love could inflict, even
when on the head of His beloved Son, was the agony of the
garden and the anguish of the Cross, with the ijifinitudes of
wrath and sorrow there. It declares with an alarming emphasis
what a fearful thing it is to fall with sin into the hands of the
living God, who is a consuming fire. And it also gives an
amazing manifestation of the love of God in Christ, that when
there was no other way in which a righteous God could save a
guilty and rebellious race, except by the vicarious sacrifice of
Christ, " God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up
134 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
for us all " (Rom. 8'^-). Herein is love, not that we loved God,
but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for
our sins " ( t John 4^°). When we were enemies we were
reconciled to God by the death of His Son (Rom. 5^0). Being
justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
Him (Rom. 5^- ^). It is because this death on the Cross was a
propitiation for our sins, that it manifests in a unique way the
love of God to us. Hence it is because God so loved the world
that He gave His only-begotten Son to make this propitiation,
that the Cross becomes the supreme revelation and symbol of
the love of God to sinful men.
Had it been morally possible for God to save men without
the vicarious sacrifice of His beloved Son, — which it was not
unless sin was to pass unpunished under the moral government
of a righteous God, we should not have had such a wondrous
manifestation of God's love ; and it is just because His suffering
unto the accursed death of the Cross was a moral necessity of
our redemption, laid upon God by the very perfection of His
nature and the requirements of righteousness, that the Cross
becomes the supreme manifestation and symbol of Divine love,
and is radiant with the glory of God. Ay ! it is this, too, that
best explains and transfuses with glory the great mystery of
suffering, against which men so bitterly complain and rebel. For
it shows that God Himself is a fellow-sufferer with us in the
great struggle that leads through suffering to glory; and that
He takes upon Himself, in its most extreme forms, everything
in suffering that tempts men to deny or question God's love,
and uses it as the supreme means of manifesting His wondrous
love in a way that, without this awful suffering, could have never
been so amazingly revealed to us. And thus the propitiatory
character of the sufferings of the Cross is not only the necessary
means of our redemption, but also casts a flood of light and
comfort on the great mystery of suffering, and wraps the Cross in
a blaze of glory that irradiates the universe, and shines across
the dark, sad sea of suffering with a glory all its own, and draws
men and angels to God as nothing else approaches to, and leads
them to ponder it in love responsive, and to see through the
light of the redeeming Cross, as nowhere else, the length and the
breadth, and the height and the depth of the love of God which
passeth knowledge.
THE LAST THINGS I 35
Thus the Atonement by the vicarious sacrifice of Christ was
the revelation of the Law and the Prophets, the Gospels and the
Epistles, and the inspired teachers of the O.T. and the New.
It is the keystone of our redemption, and the only and all-
sufificient ground of our salvation. It is the foundation of all our
peace and hope as sinners before a righteous God. It is the only
thing that can satisfy the conscience of an awakened soul, or meet
the demands of Divine justice, or make it possible for a holy God
to be at once a just God and a Saviour — "That He might be
just, and the justifier of Him that believeth in Jesus" (Rom. f^).
It has thrilled the hearts and saved the souls of millions in every
age, and has inspired our deepest and grandest hymnology in all
lands and times. It has brought ease to the alarmed conscience,
rest to the sin-laden heart, peace to the dying sinner on the
verge of eternity, and nerved the martyr midst the flames.
" II takts its terror from the grave
And gilds the bed of death with light ;
The bahn of life, the cure of woe,
The measure and the pledge of love,
The sinner's refuge here below,
The angel's theme in heaven above."
It awakes the songs and evokes the jubilations of heaven as the
multitude whom no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds,
and people, and tongues, join to the praise of " Him who loved
us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood," in the high
song which eternity will never let fall, as with a voice loud as of
numbers without number, and sweet as blessed voices uttering
joy, they raise and swell the grand hallelujah of the universe,
when heaven rings jubilee, and glad hosannas fill the everlasting
regions as with one voice they cry : " Worthy is the Lamb that
was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,
and honour, and glory, and blessing" (Rev. 5^-).
IV. The Eschatologv. The Future Life. The New
Theology is very meagre here, and vitiated by
the false Root-Conception of God.
The Eschatology of this improved restatement of theology,
which presumed to give a better interpretation of the mind of
Christ than His apostles, is so meagre, one-sided, and so
136 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
dominated and vitiated by one false and defective root-idea of
the fatheriiood of God, that it may be indicated and disposed of
very briefly ; though it holds such a large, impressive, and signi-
ficant place in the crowning teaching of Christ and His apostles ;
— shining out in vivid and awful grandeur in the firmament
of Revelation on the sublime and solemnising background of
eternity and infinitude. The reference to it here will be useful
mainly as revealing, in contrast with the teaching of Christ and
His apostles, the defectiveness and the falseness of the prime
conception and root principle of the new nebulous theology of
" regal paternity."
There is nothing of the resurrection of the dead, for the
false root-conception of the theory would preclude all such ideas
as are expressed in the solemn and majestic words of our Lord,
John 528.29. "The hour cometh in which all that are in the
graves shall hear His voice, and come forth ; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation " ; because such a dreadful
idea as this last, though in Christ's very words, is quite out of
keeping with their idea of God's Fatherhood.
There is a distinct and implicit denial of the solemn N.T.
Revelation that destiny is fixed at death, because " the Father
is one who loved too deeply to surrender the lost" (p. 457).
Yet Christ expressly says of the rich man who, on his death,
" in hell lifted up his eyes, being in torment," " Between us and
you there is a great gulf fixed''^ (Luke 16). In closing Revelation,
too. He deduces the doctrine of the fixity of destiny through the
permanency of character : " He that is unjust, let him be unjust
still ; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still " (Rev.
2 2^*^). See much more to the like effect below.
NO PLACE FOR THE SECOND ADVENT, THE JUDGMENT-SEAT OF
CHRIST, THE " DAY OF VENGEANCE " OR " WRATH OF THE
LAMB."
There is nothing of the Second Coming, or of the Lord
Jesus being " revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking
vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the
Gospel" (2 Thess. i'^-^). Neither is there anything of judgment
to come, or the great white throne, or the judgment-seat of
WRONG ROOT CONCEPTION OF GOD 1 37
Christ, or of Christ being Judge and "rewarding every one
according to his works " ; or of " the wrath of the Lamb " on
"tliat great day," when He shall say, "Come, ye blessed of
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world " ; and, " Depart, ye cursed, into ever-
lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels " ; or of
declaring the final destinies : " And these shall go away into
everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life eternal "
(Matt. 25); or of God destroying soul and body in hell
(Matt. 12), "where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not
quenched" (Mark 9). For all such representations are a part of
that judicial "forensic theology" which is rejected, and is
abhorrent to their quasi " paternal " view of God, supposed to
be derived from this better interpretation of the consciousness of
Christ. Yet these representations are the very words of Christ.
WILD CONCLUSIONS FROISI WRONG ROOT-IDEA OF GOD.
Following out the same vitiating root principle we find, with
much to the same effect, such wild statements as are referred to
before, which sufficiently indicate the extravagant character and
radical erroneousness of this theology — about there being " no
more of the love of God in heaven than in hell" ; that God could
not hate even the devil ; else " He would be less than God " ;
and "the promise that the Good is ever bound to make to Him-
self never to surrender to evil those who are held by evil "
(pp. 424, 425). Wild, delusive statements these, no doubt,
carrying in their very face their own refutation, putting the
appropriate fool's cap on this fanciful and fabulous conception
of God. But they are the closing and consistent conclusions of
the false root principle that vitiates the whole "sugar theology"
— the natural and necessary outcome of the radically wrong con-
ceptions of the Divine Fatherhood, which though professing to
be derived from Christ, and avowedly deduced from Him, and
presuming to be a better interpretation of His mind than the
Apostolic, directly contradict, and thoroughly reverse the most
solemn and decisive utterances and revelations of our Lord
upon these subjects ; and are utterly opposed to, and entirely
preclude and disown, the whole Eschatology of Christ, and of
all God's Word.
138 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
THE IIVIPROVED RESTATEMENT OF CHRIST'S MIND IS CONTRA-
DICTED BY SCRIPTURE, FACT, HISTORY, CONSCIENCE, REASON,
EXPERIENCE^ AND CHRIST'S TEACHING.
This theology has thus utterly broken down and shown itself
to be a "failure" in every distinctive leading division, especially
in the last. It has not only " missed " much of the teaching of
Christ, and "failed to see" or interpret the chief revelations
of His mind ; but it has completely reversed His teaching on
these essential and fundamental truths, and in the leading and
crucial things is diametrically opposed to it. It is indeed
" another Gospel," which, indeed, is not another, but a perversion
of the Gospel of the grace of God ; and is, in fact, no Divine
Gospel at all, but a human delusion— a fanciful religious specula-
tion, which is contrary to the Revelation of God in Scripture,
contradicts the most solemn and decisive teaching of Christ, is
proved untrue in Christian experience, and found quite unsatis-
fying to consciences thoroughly awakened to the alarming
criminaUty of their guilt, and the awfulness of the wrath of God
against men for sin, as revealed supremely in the agony of the
bloody sweat in the garden, and the anguish of the broken heart
on the Cross— the hell of a dying and atoning Redeemer.
This strong delusion might ere now have been dispelled by the
stern facts of life, the burnings of conscience, and the anguish
of remorse ; which so relentlessly, because so righteously, pursue,
as avenging furies, the workers of iniquity with something of the
pains of hell, and give alarming premonitions of " the worm that
dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched." Also by the awful
facts of history, red with the wrath of a righteous and sin-aveng-
ing God, as in the footsteps of judgment He comes forth against
the obdurately wicked ; as revealed by the fierce and lurid light
of God's burning holiness, in such dread and destructive events
as the terrible judgment of the Deluge, because the wickedness
of man had become so great upon the earth that even a merciful
and long-suffering God could do nothing with men but drown
them in perdition. In the destruction by fire of Sodom and
Gomorrah as, in answer to the cry of their sin, the kindling
wrath of a righteous God sent them up in one wild blaze to an
angry heaven, and rolled the waters of the Dead Sea over them
as a dread and everlasting monument of God's displeasure with
THE NEW A RETROGRADE THEOLOGY 1 39
the workers of iniquity. In the destruction, for their cruelty and
obduracy, of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, when Pharaoh and
his chariots sank Hke lead in the mighty waters, and their
carcasses were rolled up by the avenging waves like seaweed
on the strand. In the wicked rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram against the Lord in His anointed high priest, typical
of the priesthood of our Redeemer, when the earth opened
her mouth and they went down alive into the pit. In the
fearful destruction of the much-privileged but long-impenitent
Jerusalem by the Romans, in answer to the criminal cry, " His
blood be on us and on our children " ; when in the righteous
judgment of a long-suffering God the fierce vengeance of Roman
soldiers, infuriated by their obstinacy, crucified, butchered, or
burned a million Jews within its walls ; and the blaze of the
burning city was so terrific as to chase darkness from the mid-
night sky through the long night, and make the surrounding hills
like day, as the nationality of Israel was extinguished in ashes
and drowned in blood, — all giving a never-to-be-forgotten reve-
lation of the terrible judgment that in the righteousness of a
long-suffering God at length overtakes the despiser of the day
of grace, and the awful doom that overwhelms at last the
Christ-rejector.
And yet in the face of these and countless such dreadful
facts, writ large in letters of blood on the arena of human life
and history— every one of which was, and was declared to be
not reformatory, or remedial, as to those who experienced them,
but punitive and destructive, — as even fools might see, — men go
on dreaming, as if the new theology had removed out of the
universe a God of justice, or of judgment to whom vengeance
belongeth ; and as if there were no moral government of
righteousness or of wrath either in earth or hell. A delusion
from which, if the Eschatology of Christ and of all Scripture is
true, a rude awaking cometh, when "the great day of the wrath
of the Lamb has come" (Rev. 6), and "the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, taking
vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel :
who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the pres-
ence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2 Thess. i"-^) ;
and He that sitteth upon the great white throne shall say, " Depart
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil
I40 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
and his angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punish-
ment, and the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25).
THIS RESTATEMENT IS NOT AN IMPROVED, BUT A DEGENERATE
THEOLOGY, THE DEDUCTIONS OF A FALSE PHILOSOPHY CON-
TRARY TO SCRIPTURE AND THE TEACHING OF CHRIST.
This would-be improved restatement of theology has thus
been weighed alongside of the teaching of Christ, and found
wanting. And as Dr. Fairbairn says of Baur and the Tubingen
school, so we must say of this : " It failed because it was a
philosophy brought to bear on a religion." In this case it is
patently not an inductive, but a deductive philosophy, which
takes us back to the perversive method of the Middle Ages ;
instead of the great inductive method, which Bacon taught, and
Newton practised, and which has yielded all the magnificent
results of modern science. Starting from a false or defective
conception of the fatherhood of God, he deduces first a God from
whom justice and wrath against evil workers are eliminated; who
only loves, in whom " righteousness is in a sense the executrix
of love " (p. 443), and that only ; and who is shorn of free and
sovereign grace. From this is deduced the creation of moral
beings, to all of whom — men, angels, or devils — God of neces-
sity stands in the relationship of Father ; and each of whom is
by creation and of necessity a son of God ; and, therefore,
cannot become a son of God by grace, through regeneration,
adoption, and union to Christ by faith. Believers are thus
robbed of their sonship in Christ, and unbelievers are deluded
to their perdition. From this is deduced a Divine government,
from which Divine justice is excluded, in which only love reigns ;
and under which no judicial punishment, strictly so called, is
ever inflicted on the sinner or his Saviour, but only corrective
and reformatory discipline. From this is deduced an Atonement
which is no atonement ; in which there is no vicarious sacrifice
of Christ for us, but only disciplinary impressions made upon
our own minds by Christ's sufferings, which were not the punish-
ment of our or any sins.
From this it is deduced that there is no imputation of Christ's
righteousness to us, and no justification of us by faith, on account
of His merits ; even as there was no imputation of guilt from
FALSE DEDUCTIONS FROM ROOT ERROR 14I
Adam, though we do receive death — ^the wages of sin — from him,
— the punishment without the guilt ! From this view of God's
character is finally deduced that God's love to the saved is only a
different kind of love from His love to the damned ; that
"quantitatively," though not "qualitatively," "there is as much
love in hell as in heaven," and that God does not and " cannot
surrender" the obdurately wicked to evil, or "hate even the
devil," and be God ! To have consistently completed the
deductions on that conception, it should have also been said
that there is no hell, no devils, and no evil ; for surely such
things were not possible under the reign of a God whose whole
attributes and acts were summed up in love, if He really existed,
and was the Supreme Being.
But all these untrue and outre deductions simply serve to
show the error in the root-idea, — the fallaciousness of the reason-
ing, and the vitiativeness of the deductive method in the system
of theology that could lead to such false and absurd results.
Dr. Fairbairn, beginning with a defective and erroneous concep-
tion of the character and the fatherhood of God, proceeds in this
vitiating process of deduction with a sublime obliviousness of the
teaching of Christ and of His apostles on the particular doctrines
on which, in his false and fallacious deductions from his wrong
root principle, he comes to conclusions directly and glaringly
contradictory to the most solemn and decisive teaching of Christ,
as given in His own very words.
Instead of inquiring in each case and at every stage, "What
saith the Lord," he proceeds ignoring and contradicting Christ's
most explicit and impressive utterances on the subjects, as we
have seen ; and then gives out these errors, and even absurdities,
as a better interpretation of the mind of Christ than His dis-
ciples, and an improved restatement of theology ! and seems to
have credulity enough to imagine that men will believe them, on his
ipse dixit, in the face of the directly opposite teaching of Christ.
The teaching of Principal Fairbairn and of others like him may
be right, and the teaching of Jesus Christ and His aposdes may
be wrong, but they cannot both be true ; for they directly con-
tradict each other along the whole line and on all the leading
truths of Revelation ; so that if the one is true, the other must
be false, and " there's an end on't."
CHAPTER VII.
III. THE RITSCHLIANS' AND SIMILAR VIEWS.
Perhaps the best — the worst illustration of this perversive
practice of placing the teaching of Christ and of His apostles
in antithesis and antagonism, and of the absurd presumption
of present-day critics affecting to give better interpretations of
the mind of Christ than the N.T. writers, is furnished by the
Ritschlians and their followers. Ritschl, the founder of the
school, was one of the disciples of Baur, the head of the once
famous but long ago exploded Tubingen "tendency" school; —
which, by an extravagant and perverse criticism, placed the N.T.
writers and writings in strongest antagonistic tendency, to the
apparent discrediting of the inspired N.T. writings. Ritschl left
it early, declaring such criticism to be unworthy of the name of
historical, and set up in a bold and impressive form the school
which professes to make the historical Christ the basis and only
source of Christian doctrine ; and is characterised by an intense
aversion to philosophy, or, as it was called, " Metaphysics " in
theology. In so doing, it met the historical spirit of the age,
which had, through the barrenness and withering effects of the
Old Rationalism, come to have a profound distrust of reason in
religious speculation. Ritschl was a man of genius and ability,
and by this along with his noble character, composed manner,
and the boldness and apparent reasonableness of his standpoint
and root principles, made a great impression. And, though his
mind was in a continual state of flux, which often led him to
abandon views he had held, he was, on the whole, as usual, more
conservative than many of the school that bears his name, and
gave a much greater place than his followers to the teaching of
the apostles, specially of Paul.
Ritschlianism is a leading and dominant school of German
142
RITSCHLIANISM GENERALLY 1 43
theology of widespread influence, with many able and some
original minds, such as Ritschl (the founder). Kaftan,
Herrmann, Schultz, Harnack, Wendt, Bender. It really
originated in a revulsion against the reign of philosophy in
religion, which had so long dominated and perverted German
theology. Its avowed object is to get rid of the old and un-
fruitful antagonism between Rationalism and Supernaturalism.^
It aims at securing an independent sphere for religious con-
sciousness, apart from dependence on philosophy, natural
science, or historical criticism. It claims connection with and
descent from Kant (hence Neo-Kantian), Schleiermacher, and
even Luther. Yet it practically discards Kant's categorical
moral imperative. It lacks the religious fervour and far-reaching
horizons of Schleiermacher ; but while he bases religion on the
consciousness of the believing individual, the Ritschlians place
it in the consciousness of the primitive spiritual community
nearest Jesus, as deposited in the N.T. And while in some things
and aspects they may claim kinship with Luther in emphasising
the value of Christian experience, yet their system as a whole
diverges widely from the evangelical faith which he restored, and
is indeed radically different from it in principle, basis, and
substance. It is, however, a truly religious movement which
has engaged the thought and moulded the teaching of many
able and influential men. It has done good service in pro-
testing against the vitiating dominancy of speculative philosophy
in Christian theology; in insisting on the religious value of
the Christian consciousness and the testimony of believers'
experience ; in urging the power of spiritual faith in giving
victory over the world, and supremacy over the vicissitudes of
time ; and in rightly placing what is of religious value and moral
help — "judgments of worth" (using their terms) — above mere
" theoretic knowledge."
The Ritschlians have also rendered some valuable service in
restoring the N.T. writings to their proper place in the apostolic
age ; ^ in avowedly returning to the historical Christ as the chief
1 See Lichtenberger's History of German Theology in the Nineteenth
Century.
- Harnack in his latest work puts them practically in that age — the latest
dale for an^-N.T. book being no, and most much earlier, towards the middle
of the first century.
144 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
source of religion and the perfect Revelation of God ; in pro-
fessedly basing their theology on Holy Scripture, especially on
the N.T. — the Gospels chiefly ; and in giving Jesus and His
teaching a unique place and authority in religion and ethics.
Philosophy in Theology.
But, with all this, Ritschlianism is a radically defective system
of theology, vvhich eliminates or ignores the essential and radical
truths and facts of the Christian faith, and ultimately subverts
it; and attempts to replace it by "another gospel," "which is
not another," for it has really no Saviour to meet the needs of
guilty men.
With all its protests against philosophy in religion, it is itself
a fresh evidence and exemplification of the perverting influence
of German philosophy on theology. By phflosophic reasoning
on its own metaphysical principles, and in its own speculative
method, it makes its protest against the reign of philosophy in
theology. Through its peculiar metaphysics it settles the basis,
principles, and method of its own Scripture criticism and
religious system. On the presuppositions of its own philosophy,
it proceeds to the examination and interpretation of Holy Writ,
and bends it to suit the vague system. By means of its own
critical method and its preconceived religious ideas, it forms
its so-called Christian theology by selecting certain seemingly
assimilable elements of Revelation, which by dexterous manipula-
tion are misused to support its own system, and excludes the
chief facts and essential truths of the Christian faith ; so that in
reality phflosophy and metaphysics of their own dominate and
determine the Ritschlians' theology. As Ritschl, in contradiction
of the first watchword of his school, truly says, it is "not whether
but what philosophy " is to be used in theology ; which as Frank,
a critic, justly remarks, draws back all the philosophy into
theology. In fact they must philosophise to show that theo-
logy should have no philosophy, and to distinguish between
theoretic and religious knowledge, and so through all their
theorising.
Further, the system is not only rooted in metaphysics and
dominated by philosophy, but the metaphysics are bad, and the
philosophy is worse. The fundamental principle of the school is
SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND RF:AS0N 1 45
that "theoretic knowledge" and religious thought must be kept
sacredly apart as belonging to totally separate spheres. Yet
what is their theology but simply their own theoretic knowledge
mingled with slight elements of perverted Revelation to give it
a Christian flavour? The ethical is also held to be similarly
separate from the religious, and to have no connection with it, —
Ritschl ironically declaring that the supposed ethical connection
between justification and sanctification is "apocryphal"! But
this attempted separation of the intellectual, moral, and religious
parts of man's complex but united spiritual being is as philo-
sophically false and artificial as it is pyschologically impossible
and inconceivable. Religion and reason cannot thus be
divorced so long as man is man ; for they are constituent and
complementary elements of our one united interpenetrated
nature and personality, which are so united and inter-dependent
that the one cannot act without the other sharing with it. The
various elements of man's one complex spiritual being are so
correlated and mutually dependent, and so thoroughly one indis-
cerptible whole, that such separation and segmentation are from
the nature of the case a patent psychological impossibility, and a
simple philosophical absurdity, which no school of philosophy
since the dawn of human thought could entertain till the
exigencies of Ritschlian theology produced the abortion ; and
which both reason and Revelation reject as an incredible
hypothesis, and repudiate as a palpable violation of the first
principles of both. Besides, in seeking to shut out natural
science and human history from theology, and to cut off religion
from nature and providence, it not only precludes natural
theology with all its sure preliminary truths confirmatory of
Revelation, and contradicts Scripture, which distinctly recognises
its place ; but it hands over nature to science, Divine providence
to secular history, truth to philosophy, and leaves religion
only feeling, imagination, and illusion. And the religious inter-
pretation of history, which is its true philosophy, and was
ever a chief function and method of Divine Revelation, is
abandoned to the unspiritual. How readily in this way
does the religious seem to be the unreal, and the theological
the untrue ! And how easily, then, can science look on theo-
logy with contempt, and unbelief glory over religion with
triumph !
146 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
The professed Return to the Historical Christ.
Its avowed and vociferated return to the historical Christ as
the perfect revelation of God, and the prime source of Christian
theology, was right, and good, and greatly needed after the long
and barren reign of speculation in religion, and stagnation in
dogmatic theology. In this it has struck the true keynote, and
emphasised the proper standpoint for Christian theology and
religious life ; and from this centre and along this line the truly
progressive theology and Christian life of the future must advance.
But they have not adhered to that position. On the contrary,
notwithstanding all their loud insistence on it, and their avowed
devotion to it as their chosen basis and distinctive standpoint,
they have largely departed from it, and often flagrantly violated
it, — as may be seen, among others, from the writings of Wendt,
perhaps the best known representative here of the school, and
whose views, therefore, we shall chiefly give in our brief summary
and criticism. 1 By their preconceived system they exclude much
of the chief portions of the history altogether. The whole
history of His resurrection and of His appearances after it, with
all the teaching and revelations of the risen Lord, are excluded,
disowned, and summarily discarded as illusion or metaphysics ;
although they are the best established facts in the history of the
world, and form the chief facts and most potent factors in the
history and teaching of our Lord, and in the creation and propa-
gation of the Christian faith. Similarly, on the same false
principles, the whole history as to our Lord's birth, with its
Divine preparations, as recorded in the Gospels, on to His
baptism, is ignored and unhesitatingly dismissed, because not
consistent with their preposterous presuppositions, although they
are the root facts and Divine origins of Christ's life and revela-
tion of God. The prime and creative facts and factors — His
incarnation and resurrection, with their infinite antecedents and
consequents — having been thus of necessity precluded by their
false postulates and preconceptions, they then so misread and
misrepresent the records of His life and teaching during the brief
period of His public ministry, and ignore or disown so much of
these — selecting only what suits their own theories — that what
is presented as the outcome of their improved interpretation of
' See Wendt's Teaching of Jesus.
VIOLATION BY THE RITSCHLIANS I47
Jesus is such a travesty of His life, conceptions, and teaching
as Uterature can scarcely parallel of any historical personage ;
and such a misrepresentation of the consciousness and character,
work and words of the historical Christ of the N.T. as is no
more like its representation than night is like day, and would, if
generally received, wreck Christianity ; for the base and crown,
the root and fruit, the core and the soul and the Hfe would be
taken away from it. By disowning, as metaphysics, through
their own false philosophy His pre-existence and incarnation,
they cut Christ off from His Divine rootings ; and by denying
His resurrection and ascension, with all involved therein, they
cut off from Him the infinite fruits of His person and work.
Consequently, like a man beginning the study of a science in the
middle, and stopping short as it nears its results, they misunder-
stand, mutilate, and misrepresent all that lies between ; so that
while they hold Jesus to be the one perfect revelation of God,
they, by their preconceived ideas and a priori principles, pre-
clude or ignore with amazing inconsistency the chief facts and
His weightiest teaching by which the revelation is made, in direct
subversion of their own avowed position.
How THE RiTSCHLIANS VIOLATE THIS.
The methods by which, and the principles on which, all this
is done are very significant, and in their issues are not only
destructive, but self-destructive.
They distinctly deny the root doctrine of the Reformation,
that the Bible is the rule of faith, — Wendt saying that the true
view, viz. that Jesus' teaching is the perfect revelation of God,
has been " cramped " by Protestantism in holding the " norma-
tive authority of Holy Scripture for Christian doctrine," ^ though
this, as seen, was Jesus' first and fundamental teaching. They
also declare the serious erroneousness and untrustworthiness of
Scripture in general, and proceed on this false assumption to
assail and destroy it largely at will ; though this is directly in the
face of Christ's most decisive teaching, invariable practice, and
unchanging attitude.
^ Wendt's Teaching of /esus, p. 2.
148 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Alleged Antagonism between Christ's and Apostles
Teaching.
In full contradiction of His most explicit and emphatic
teaching and promise, they assume and emphasise the errone-
ousness, untmstworthiness, and unauthoritativeness of the
inspired writers of the N.T., — charging them with largely mis-
understanding and seriously misrepresenting the teaching of Jesus,
and corrupting the Christianity of Christ. Hence Herrmann holds
that " what is important is not that we should have the thoughts
of the apostles about Christ, but that we should have thoughts
of our own." ^ Harnack imagines that " it was the first step in the
down grade of the religion of Jesus when the Church through the
apostles was misled by its faith in His resurrection to concentrate
its thoughts on the Person of Christ Himself." '^ And Wendt dares
to upbraid the apostles, even after the descent of the Spirit, for
their " stupidity " in misinterpreting and misrepresenting the
teaching, claims, and work of Christ, and thereby misleading the
Church ; and, therefore, roundly declares that the views of the
inspired writers of the N.T. are not binding on any man,^ Yet, as
seen, Christ promised and sent the Spirit on express purpose to
lead them into all truth that they might teach it, and holds their
teaching to be His own by this Spirit through them. He expressly
declares, " It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
that speaketh in you"; "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and
he that despiseth you, despiseth Me" ; and "whosoever shall not
receive you, nor hear your words ; verily I say unto you. It shall
be more tolerable for Sodom ... in the day of judgment, than for
that city." They put the teaching of the apostles in antagonism and
often in contradiction to the teaching of Christ ; though, as shown,
there is no foundation for the one, or proof of the other ; and both
are directly opposed to the teaching, promise, and purpose of Christ.
The Ritschlians' capricious Criticism.
On this false assumption they proceed to examine the Gospel
records in order to separate by their critical analysis the words
^ See Dr. Denney's Studies in Theology, p. 224.
- Ibid. p. 224, and Harnack's History of Dogma.
2 Wendt's Teaching of Jesus. See also Dr. Denney, p. 224.
RITSCHLIAN THEOLOGY AND CRITICISM 149
of Jesus from the words of the evangeUsts, so as to eUminate
His truth from their erroneousness. And here, if ever, criticism
becomes caprice, and constrains contempt. Not even do Dr.
Martineau or Matthew Arnold more arbitrarily play fast and loose
with Holy Writ, and violate every principle of true scientific
criticism, than do the Ritschlians. Nor was ever criticism more
oracular, though so variable, diverse, and often contradictory, — ■
for no two of them agree in their results ; as Kaftan says truly,
" The differences among us are very great." ^ Yet they are all so
sure of their conclusions, though so conflictory ; and the one
thing they are all absolutely certain of is, that they are incomparably
better interpreters of the mind of Jesus than the apostles whom
He specially inspired on purpose to reveal Him and His mind
truly, finally, and authoritatively ! But the amazing and amusing
thing is that after thus discrediting and abusing the inspired
writers and their writings, — the sole sources of all our knowledge
of Jesus or His teaching, — they could then rely on them at all ;
and actually attempt to construct from such misleading materials
any statement of the teaching of Jesus. They fitly crown the
absurdity by issuing their oracular but contradictory and ever-
changing theories of the teaching of Jesus as far superior inter-
pretations of His mind to that given by the Holy Spirit through
the apostles, and in their innocence imagine that men of sense
will believe them !
1'heir Philosophy rules their Theology, and their
Theology determines 'jheir Criticism.
As their philosophy rules their theology, so their theology
determines their criticism. Frequently their perversions of just
Biblical criticism are patently the product of their preconceived
theological system. There is no eschatology in Ritschl or his
school ; — although it holds such a large place and forms such an
impressive part of Christ's sublimest teaching — which shines out
with awful grandeur in the firmament of Revelation, and lightens
up the deep darkness of futurity with its fierce lightning gleams.
All this eschatological teaching of our Lord, which has ever made
such a profound impression on the minds of men, and awakened
the deepest emotions of the human soul, has been ignored and
^ Kaftan in Zcitschrift, 1896, p. 378. See Dr. Orr, Ritschlian Theology, p. 27.
ISO CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
set aside by them avowedly on the ground, as Harnack ^ says,
that in this it is impossible to separate the words of Jesus from
the words wrongly put into His lips by His superstitious disciples,
though there is absolutely no ground for such an idea, and no
words of Jesus more surely authenticate themselves than these.-
The real reason, however, of this perversion of true criticism is
to be found in the radical antagonism of their system to such
Divine revelations. In any case their system and method would
make our conceptions of the teaching of Jesus vary as the oft-
conflicting, ever-changing, and never certain results, as to what are
Christ's words, of their capricious criticism, which is always pre-
judiced by their false philosophy. So that if their metaphysics is
bad, and their philosophy worse, their criticism is worse still, — for
the longer the evil current runs the worse its effects become.
Their Exegesis dominated by their Dogmatics.
But their exegesis is in many respects worst of all. Wendt
ventures, without any proof, to censure the apostles for teaching
what the Holy Spirit taught them — that when Christ said to the
Jews, " Destroy ye this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
again," He meant nothing about His own resurrection ; but
meant that when the Jewish worship was abolished He would
set up another and better worship in its stead,^ — which is not
exegesis but absurdity, excluded by the words, falsified by the
facts, and begotten of antipathy to His prediction of the great
Divine event on which the whole creation and redemption hang.
BUnded by prejudice, he also asserts that our Loid had no
reference whatever in the words of the Last Supper to men's
redemption by His vicarious death, — although, as shown below,
it would be difficult to express in language that cardinal creative
truth with more clearness and decision. To that profound and
precious fact, with a true. Spirit-given intuition, fully verified in
Christian experience, the Church has ever clung with intensest
delight ; and in it she has gloried with a unique joy voiced in her
divinest hymnology, as the very core and essence of her faith, and
the very life-blood of our salvation. And the whole Ritschlian
^ History of Dogma, p. 66.
" See Matt. 24. 25. 26, Mark 9, Luke 16.
2 Wendt's Teaching of Jesus, p. 323.
THE RITSCHLIANS AND CHRIST'S TEACHING 151
interpretation of the revelation of grace by the redemption that
is in Christ Jesus by the propitiation through faith in His blood,
which Jesus stated was the burden, soul, and glory of all Scrip-
ture, is such a palpable perversion of the real meaning of the
clearest language, and such a patent evacuation of the most de-
cisive teaching of God's Word, especially of Christ's words, as
only the most blinding prejudice could produce, and the most
perversive antipathy can explain. As Dr. Denney truly says,
" There is hardly a word about the death of Christ in the N.T.
that would have been written as it stands, — there is hardly a word
that does not need to be tortured in defiance of exegesis — to fall
into any appearance of consistency with the views of their school."^
Every principle of true exegesis, and every canon of literary
criticism, has to be flagrantly violated to give any semblance of
plausibility to the forced interpretations of the N.T. imposed upon
it by the false root principles of their system. As Dr. A. B.
Davidson has well said of the methods and results of rationalistic
critics of the O.T., we are constrained to say of much of the
Ritschlian handling of the N.T., in its chief parts and most
vital elements "Was ever a literature so treated?"
The Erroneousness of Ritschlians most manifest in
THEIR Treatment of Jesus and his Teaching.
It is when the Ritschlians treat directly of Jesus and His
teaching that the radical erroneousness of their system and the
gravity of their departure from the Christian faith fully appear,
and most seriously arrest attention. Despite all their avowed
honour of Him and of His teaching, they really honour neither it
nor Him, but deeply dishonour both. While recognising that
He may have for believers " the religious value of God," as
Ritschl said, and that He is the one perfect revelation of God,
they obviously disown His Deity. How then can He have the
religious value of God if He is not God ? They distinctly
disown His eternal Sonship. They explicitly assert that He had
no existence, except perhaps ideal, before His birth on earth.
They teach that His life began at the cradle, and His work ended
at the Cross. They maintain that there was nothing supernatural
about Him or His work. His miracles, on which He laid such
' Dr. Denney's Studies in Theology, p. 144.
152 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
stress, as evidences of His Divine claims, and seals of His
mission, they disown or ignore as at best " entirely dubious,"
and of no importance, as Harnack says,^ or preclude them by
the universal and unbroken reign of natural law, as Ritschl and
Wendt. His resurrection from the dead they deny or disown as
incapable of proof, or hold it as a matter of indifference, and
exclude it from their theology of the historical Christ ; although
it is the supreme and crowning fact in His history, and the
greatest and best established fact in the history of the world ;
although He repeatedly foretold it, made so much of it in private
and public before friends and foes, and ultimately rested the final
proof of His whole Divine claims upon it ; although Paul through
the Spirit staked Christianity upon it ; although all the N.T.
inspired writers and preachers made it the burden and supreme
fact of all their testimony and teaching ; and although the Holy
Spirit made the preaching of it on the day of Pentecost the
means of creating the Christian Church in living visibility ; and
God the Father sealed the proclamation of it throughout the
world as the wdsdom and the power of God unto men's salvation,
and gave it as His final testimony to mankind of the truth of
His Son's Divine claims to be the Son of God, the Redeemer of
men, and the Judge of all, " whereof He hath given assurance
unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead"
(Acts 17^^). His appearances and teaching after the resurrection
(which He Himself foretold and promised for the comfort of His
disciples), which is His highest earthly teaching, and made
luminous His previous teaching, and which some of the greatest
scholars and profoundest thinkers have found to be His richest
and most significant revelations,^ which many others have felt to
be His most real and precious manifestations of Himself for the
comfort of His people amid life's disappointments and death's
desolations, — all these the Ritschlians, with similar audacity and
violence to every principle of historical criticism, set aside as not
history but illusion, though there is no part of Scripture more
manifestly historical ; and some have felt that there is scarcely
anything in the Gospels at once so real and precious, or more
stamped with vivid reality and self-evidencing truth. To the
^ Harnack's History of Dogma, p. 65. - I Cor. 15.
^ See Westcott's Kevelation of the Risen Lord: "The Gospel of the
Resurrection."
THE RITSCHLIANS AND CHRIST 1 53
Ritschlians, Jesus is simply the man who alone has realised the
ideal of God in the creation of man, made the one perfect
revelation of God, identified Himself with God and His "world
end," and became the founder of the Kingdom of God, and the
concrete embodiment of its life and principle. He was a Son
of God only in a higher degree than other men, by the absolute
surrender of Himself to the will and purpose of God,^ who
attained supremacy over the world by faith, and taught others
how to do the same through union with Him. He was simply,
as Nitzsch, a Ritschlian, puts it, primus inter pares, but with
nothing supernatural either in His person or work. Not God,
nor the eternal Son, nor the Creator, nor the Ruler of nature
or providence, nor miracle-worker, nor Lord of men and angels,
nor Redeemer of sinful men, nor the resurrection and the life,
nor the risen Christ, nor the living, ever-present Head of His
Church — Immanuel, nor the Word of God (6 Aoyos), nor the
coming Judge of all. All this, which forms the burden, the
substance, the core and the essence of the N.T. revelation, is dis-
owned, ignored, or declared to be "metaphysics," of no moment
to faith. And yet they profess to specially honour Christ, while
robbing Him of all His essential attributes as God and Son of
God, depriving Him of everything absolutely necessary to His
being the Saviour of sinful men, disowning all His greatest
works, as Creator, Redeemer, and Lord of all, and denying or
ignoring most of what He did, and said, and claimed to be. In
short, their whole conception of Christ and His work is based
upon a false and pervertive subjectivity which practically sets
aside the objective Christ of Scripture, and gives us a Christ of
their own imagination. A Christ formed not from the N.T., but
of their own preconceptions of what His consciousness was, as
derived from their own ideas, and their arbitrary selections from
the supposed consciousness of the Christian community. And
their conceptions of His redemptive work are such that His
vicarious sacrifice by which He made propitiation for our sins —
which is the core and essence of our religion — is denied, or
evaporated. For they make His death simply a proof of His
fidelity to conscience ; and a warrant for our confidence in
God. Yet, if His death was not vicarious, there is nothing so
destructive of confidence in God as the sufferings of the Cross.
^ Professor Orr's Ni/schlian Tluology, p. 82.
154 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
The Ritschlian Criticism of Christ's Teaching.
It is when the RitschUans give specifically their views of the
teaching and consciousness of Christ that we best see how
sharply their conceptions conflict with His, how largely they
disown His deepest convictions, and how oracularly they reject
much of His weightiest teaching, while yet professing to
supremely honour it and Him. True, they in words give Him
and His teaching a unique place, — not only a supreme, but
apparently the sole place in our religion, — not only the one
perfect revelation of God, but the only source and test of the
Christian faith. ^ In fact, they give His teaching a place that He
disclaims, and which is contrary to His teaching. For they not
only speak of it as the sole source of Christian doctrine, but
they make it the touchstone by which the teaching of prophets
and apostles is tested, and by which both are found wanting and
largely condemned ; and their teaching is received only when
RitschUans think it agrees with His, and rejected when it differs
from their ideas of His teaching. But with all this vociferated
magnifying of Jesus and His teaching as the sole and perfect
revelation of God, they by no means own the infallibility or
Divine authority of His teaching and conceptions. On the
contrary, they distinctly disown and reject as error or illusion
much of what He believed and taught. They scruple not to
avow this, and to set forth in large and specific detail His errors,
misconceptions, and exegetical mistakes. They fear not even
to charge Him with ignorance and error, but in effect with
superstition and sin ; for they charge Him with cherishing the
Jewish pride and selfishness of the prevalent worldly ideas as
to the Messiah, as appears from Wendt,
General Denial of His Divine Claims.
As seen, they utterly disown His Deity, eternal Sonship,
and Creatorship, which He unquestionably claimed, and all
Scripture teaches. They distinctly deny the incarnation and
His real pre-existence, although He ever taught both, and
expressly said, " Before Abraham was, I am " (John S"*^'- ^^) ;
and on the eve of His death prayed, " O Father, glorify
iSee Dr. Orr, T/ie Ritschliati Theology, pp. 49-51.
RITSCHLIAN DENIAL OF CHRIST'S CLAIMS I 55
Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with
Thee before the world was (John 1 7^- -^). The N.T. every-
where proclaims the same. So that it is not merely, as Dr. Orr
says/ the old question as to Homoousian and Homoiousian ;
for even the Arians admitted His pre-existence, and some of
them went far towards even the eternal Sonship, though holding
that there was a time when He was not. But the Ritschlians
deny His pre-existence altogether, and date His being from His
human birth, like any ordinary man, and exclude everything
supernatural even from that. They also negative or ignore any-
thing supernatural in His life. His miracles, on which He
laid such stress as evidences of His Divine character and
mission, and to which He so often appealed as His Father's
seal to His Divine claims, which left the Jews without excuse,
are openly rejected, the supernatural character of His mighty
works is utterly denied, and their evidential value for His Divine
claims repudiated. Ritschl and others reject the very idea of
miracle as precluded by the inexorable reign of physical law.
Wendt explains Jesus' convictions and declarations that He
wrought miracles by the power of God, or, as he puts it, " that
these striking events were produced by the supernatural power
of an invisible being " ^ — by His adopting as true the current
delusions and superstitions of His benighted age and race,
because He knew not of the universal reign of natural laws, —
though He was their maker and upholder. And though they
thus disown His most explicit teaching, repudiate His strongest
claims, treat His deepest convictions as delusions, and reject in
toto His proved miracles, which form so much of His whole
recorded history ; yet they profess to honour Him and His
teaching supremely, and to make His recorded consciousness
the sole source of their theology and of our knowledge of God ;
and avow as the basis of the whole system a return to the
historical Christ !— when His history is largely treated as fiction.
His deepest consciousness as delusion, His chief claims as empty
"metaphysics," and His weightiest teaching as error! His
resurrection, which the N.T. makes the foundation-stone of the
Christian faith, and Christ ever spoke of as the crowning proof of
His Divine claims, they deny as illusion, or ignore as incapable
^ Dr. Orr, The Ritschliaii Theology.
^Wendt's Teaching of Jesus, p. 168.
156 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
of proof, or regard as a matter of indifference ; although Christ
staked the truth of His religion upon it, and God gave it as His
supreme seal to Christ's claims, and history holds it as its most
surely established fact.
The alleged specific Errors of Jesus' Teaching.
When he comes to the specific criticism, Wendt, at the outset,
avows that his setting-up the ideal of Jesus' teaching does not
" prejudge the question whether the teaching of Jesus does not
comprise some heterogeneous and mutually contradictory
elements." ^ It is thus frankly declared that though Jesus'
teaching is ideal, and the only source of our knowledge of God,
and the one perfect revelation of Him, it may be self-contradic-
tory. At first it appears as if this were an open question ; but
it is soon seen to be closed, and that, too, in the wrong way —
against the truth and authority of most of His weightiest teaching
and deepest convictions. Much of what He taught and believed
is precluded by the first but false principles of their system.
Hence Wendt owns that he has "left out of account certain
sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels " - (he might have said
most of them), obviously because they do not accord with his
false presuppositions. Thus the vitiating rationalistic principle
of the system is avowed at the outset, notwithstanding all the
professed aversion to philosophy in theology, and the avowed
antagonism to Rationalism. No wonder that the results are
sufficiently antichristian. According to Wendt and the
Ritschlians generally, Jesus erred in His teaching and beliefs
all along the line.
I. AS TO GOD.
He erred as to God. True, they proclaim as their keynote
that Jesus was the one perfect revelation of God. But then they
aver that He erred and taught error as to God's character, work,
and relations to nature and man. They imply that in various
stages and aspects He did not truly know God; though He said,
"As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father"
(John 10^''). But how He could be or give a perfect revelation
of God with such ignorance and error they have never tried to
^ Wendt's Teaching of Jesus, p. 20. -P. 7.
RITSCHLIAN CRITICISM OF CHRIST'S TEACHING 1 57
explain ! As seen, Wendt teaches that Christ erred in supposing
that His miracles were wrought through God's power, or that
they were miracles at all. The very idea that they were super-
natural, or wrought by God's interposition, was one of the
superstitious delusions of the times which Jesus held and taught,
and never rose above. As with God's power and providence,
so with God's love. Jesus is said not only to have erred and
taught error, but to have contradicted Himself; because He, as
Wendt avers, in His earlier teaching, limited God's love, by the
word "neighbour," to the Jews, whereas in His later teaching
He extended it to all ! ^ But this is a palpable perversion of the
very text adduced, and a culpable contradiction of the manifest
facts of the case. For never was the universality of God's love
so grandly proclaimed as in His own divinest words, " God so
loved the world that He gave His only-begotten .Son," which He
uttered near the beginning of His ministry, long before the
words on which the charge is by perversion founded. Besides,
it was at the very entrance on His ministry that the Baptist said,
with His approval, " Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away
the sin of the world." And to say nothing else, it was in His
inaugural public teaching in the great Sermon on the Mount,
which lays down the universal and eternal principles of the king-
dom of God, that He taught men to rise to that Divine moral
altitude of love to our enemies, and to render good for evil ; in
order that we may, by being perfect in love, be children of our
Father in heaven, who " maketh His sun to rise upon the evil
and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust " ;
and surely these are world-wide and universal. So that the error
and contradiction are not in Jesus' teaching, but in the critics of it,
who at the same time pretend to be the supreme upholders of it.
Similarly, by their absurd principle that nature and history
give no revelation of God — which contradicts all Scripture,
philosophy, and reason — Jesus' sublime allusions to these as
manifestations of God, with which His teaching teems, come in
thus for condemnation. For to Him the birds of the air and
the flowers of the field, the fall of a sparrow and the shedding
of a hair of our head — all the objects of nature and all the
events of life — were radiant and resonant with thoughts and
revelations of our heavenly Father, and found expression by Him,
^ Wendt's Teaching of Jesus, pp. 297, 331.
158 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
as the perfect interpreter of both, in figures and language that
have ever since charmed, and taught, and thrilled mankind ; and
thrown a wondrous light and halo round all nature and history —
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God by the revelation of
Jesus Christ. To Him and through Him the visions and raptures
of ancient psalmody become luminous and vocal as never before,
that " the heavens declare the glory of God," and that " the whole
earth is full of His glory " ; and to Him modern poetry owes its
visions that —
" Earlh is crammed with heaven,"
and
"Every common bush aglow with God,"
and that
" The meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears."
2. AS TO MAN AND GOD's REVELATION TO MEN.
The Ritschlians also presumptuously preclude God from
all direct access to and communion with the human soul, and
thereby shut out all supernatural revelation.^ Therefore Christ's
teaching, which is permeated with this Divine fact, so preciously
verified in Christian experience, is set aside as untrue, because,
forsooth ! it does not accord with their preposterous preconcep-
tions. As if the Creator could be excluded from access to the
minds of His creatures ; or as if it were impossible for God to
reveal Himself to the intelligent beings He created, and to whom
He imparts the power for every mental act. Nay more, they by
this absurd assumption destroy their own root principle. For
Jesus was a man — they say a mere man — and, therefore, if God
has no direct access to man's mind, then He had none to
Christ's ; and how then could He know or reveal God, far less
make a perfect revelation of God and His mind ? — which is the
prime postulate of their false and self-contradictory system. In
fact, on their first root principles, neither Christ nor any other
human being can either manifest or know God, nor can God
manifest Himself to man, since in nature and providence there
is no revelation of God, and He has no direct access to the
human soul. The Creator and His creatures are thus separated
and paralysed by this absurd philosophy.
^ Dr. Orr, 71ie Hiischliaii Theology, pp. 85-89.
CHRIST'S TEACHING ON MAN AND ANGELS 1 59
3. AS TO ANGELS AND DEVILS.
Again, as Christ has erred in His teaching as to God and man,
and the relation between them, so He has erred in His behef
in and teaching about the existence and mediation of angels.
Jesus, like the Jews of His time, i?nagified a series of inter-
mediary beings between God and the world, who were the media
of God's will, working in the world and men ; but this was only
a popular delusion, so that the whole history and teaching both
of Scripture and of Christ as to angels are error, not reality — not
fact, but fiction.
He also held and taught the prevalent superstition of later
Judaism, not only as to spirits good, but as to spirits evil who
tempted men, and were even supposed to possess and torment
them. Jesus was so much deluded by this vulgar superstition as
to imagine and believe that He Himself was tempted of the
devil, and actually went about deluding Himself and others with
the fable that He was casting out devils ! Whereas evil spirits
never existed except in His own and others' superstitious fears
and fancies ! What men in their gross darkness called evil spirits
were only their own evil passions ; and what Christ thought
were to Himself temptations of the devil, were only oppositions
from the words and acts of men ! ^ So that the whole con-
victions, teaching, and action of our Lord about devils, — which
form such a large part of the Gospel records, on which they
profess to base their system, were delusions ; and His conscious-
ness, which they avow to be the one source of their theology,
was in this, as in so many other things, a deception ! And yet
they pretend to specially honour Jesus, and to make His
teaching the test of Christian doctrine, and His consciousness
the sole source and norm of our knowledge of God and true
religion.
4. AS TO HIMSELF AND HIS WORK.
As on God and man, angels and devils, Jesus erred and
taught error, so also in regard to Himself and His work. As
seen, they charge Him with error in thinking and teaching that
He was the eternal Son of God, or that He existed, as He said,
" before the world was," or " before Abraham," or really at all
1 Wendt, pp. 16 1- 163.
l60 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
before His earthly life. And even then He was not the Son of
God in any distinctive sense, but merely " the first and supreme
realisation of the ideal relationship between God and man fore-
told in Scripture as characteristic of the Messianic time " ; ^ nor
did He know that the title " Son of God " was to be His till His
baptism ; - nor was it His till then, — although His first recorded
utterance at twelve years of age reveals His consciousness of being
the Son of God (Luke 2"^^) ; and in His last great prayer on the
eve of His death He claimed the glory which He had with the
Father as His eternal Son " before the foundation of the world"
(John 17-^). Also, as seen. He erred in supposing that He
wrought miracles, or cast out devils by the power of God, or
was Himself tempted of the devil — all that was vulgar super-
stition, which He never escaped from.
Similarly Jesus, they say, did not know He was to be the
Messiah till the eve of His public work. He only thought of
being a member of the kingdom of God, not the King, and was
preparing Himself for it like others by repentance when He was
suddenly called to the Messiahship — like Paul by sudden con-
version to apostleship.^ His views of the kingdom, too, changed
after He began His public work."^ He thought God would
speedily bring in the Messianic kingdom, and expected His
work would find speedy success,^ till the stern facts undeceived
Him, revealed His delusion, brought home the conviction of the
failure of His mission, and created the idea of a future kingdom.^
His conceptions of the kingdom were simply the current, carnal,
Jewish idea of a great earthly prince who was to conquer the
world, exalt Israel over all nations, and usher in an age of
material prosperity and glory — the product of Jewish pride and
national selfishness — which Jesus cherished just like His carnal
and ambitious countrymen until near the end ! '' So that He is
by implication charged not only with ignorance and error and
contradiction in teaching, but with sharing in the prevalent
Jewish pride, selfishness, and sin.
He erred also in supposing that His death was vicarious,
when it was simply suffering for righteousness' sake, and for
being a faithful witness for God and the truth. He was wrong,
too, in imagining and foretelling that He would rise from
1 Wendt, p. 100. - P. 99. ^ Pp. 97, 379. •* P. 379.
^P. 397- «P. 379- ^Pp. 380, 391.
THE FUTURE LIFE l6l
the dead, which He never did, nor could, because natural
law made that impossible ! Ritschlian omniscience has, indeed,
discovered that it was psychologically impossible for Jesus
to have foreseen the external failure of His preaching, and of
the necessity of His sufferings and death,i especially in the
earlier stages. Yea, Jesus held and taught not only erroneous,
but even contradictory views of Himself and His work at
different stages ; and even His command to love our enemies
is held to contradict an earlier opposite command, — though
there is no proof of the one, and no truth in the other ; but
the reverse is demonstrable in both cases.
5. AS TO THE FUTURE LIFE.
His whole teaching about the future life also, especially
about the judgment-day, was a delusive dream.- He thought,
and taught, and proceeded on the assumption that it was near,
and that His disciples then living would see it, and imagined
that He would be living on the earth then, and as the Messiah
effect the transition from the Church's earthly to its heavenly
state.^ But all this was mere illusion and error, which the stern
facts at length convinced Him of against His wish and hope, if
not His will, — though there is not a shadow of evidence given
for this, but there is abundance to the contrary.
As to the resurrection and eternal life of the individual, Jesus
took decidedly the part of later Judaism as represented by the
Pharisees, in opposition to the older prophets,^ — than which there
was never a greater perversion of the patent facts. His whole
teaching about the resurrection of the dead was a delusive dream,
because physical laws made that an impossibility. His vision of
His second coming was a vain illusion derived from apocryphal
fantastic imaginations. His sublime revelations and awful pre-
visions of the judgment-day, with Himself as Judge to render
unto every man according to his works, were either not His
own, or, like the unsubstantial fabric of a dream, could never
become realities, because "retribution" had no existence in
Divine government.^ His views of heaven were an "imagin-
ative luxury " '^ — a Utopia not to be seriously entertained ; and
1 Wendt, p. 379. 2 p_ 3g7_ 3 p_ .^^^
* Pp. 31, 223. 5 Ritschl. 6 Wendt, p. 16:'.
102 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
of hell, an old-world superstition, precluded by the very idea of
God, whose only attribute is love !
6. AS TO HOLY SCRIPTURE.
They have even the audacity to declare that He did not
know that the O.T. was fulfilled in Himself; and yet that was
His most expUcit and absolute teaching, and the burden of His
message from first to last (Matt, s^'^^^ Luke 2425-27 44-47)_i
This leads into the Ritschlians' alleged erroneousness of His
teaching on Scripture. They generally admit and urge that
Jesus held and taught the permanent value and authority of the
O.T., and that He took the view held by the Jews and by the
plain Christian man — that the Bible is the veritable Word of
God ; '- and Wendt maintains that the Gospels are the same in
substance. It is well and significant to have such statements
made by such opponents of the Bible claim, for it confirms the
fact urged above that no honest interpretation of Christ's
teaching on, use of, and attitude to Scripture could come to any
other conclusion. But then they aver that He erred in this also.
They distinctly deny what He held and taught, that the Bible is
in any sense a rule of faith, and declare that Protestantism has
as really hindered true religion and the knowledge of God by
making the Bible the norm of faith and life as Romanism has
by holding the infallibility of the pope.^ They allege that Jesus
held the current Jewish views of Messiah until He saw the
impious principles on which they were based,* so that He for a
time was guilty of cherishing the impiety. They say that He
believed in the reality of such persons as Abel and Abraham,
and referred to such events as the Fall, the Flood, and the
destruction of Sodom as unquestionable facts.^ But in these
He was simply teaching the crude traditional imaginations ; for
the persons were only ideal, and the events fables ! Jesus said
that John the Baptist was Elias ; but this was not borne out by
the original Scripture ! therefore, here as elsewhere He made
exegetical mistakes.^ So that He misunderstood, misinterpreted,
and misrepresented Scripture ; whilst His endorsing and using it
1 Wendt, p. 96. - p. 263. •" p. 2.
^ Rilschl. See Dr. Orr, pp. 97-99. ' Wendt, p. 102, etc.
« P. 67.
A THEOLOGY WITHOUT THE HOLY GHOST 1 63
as He did misled men, and has perpetuated these traditional
misconceptions, till the omniscient Ritschlians arose to put
them and Him right !
7. ERRORS COMMON TO CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES —
A THEOLOGY WITHOUT THE HOLY GHOST.
As the Master erred, so did the disciples on such questions,
and even more seriously. Like Jesus, Paul erred in teaching
that there was any connection between sin and death, or any
such things as wrath, and curse, and retribution, — all such being
inconsistent with the love of God, which is universal and
eternal. Paul, too, erred in his teaching about the law, and
that the men under it were saved by works, not by grace, — the
direct opposite of his teaching. The discourses in John also,
we must not interpret as the writer does, for that is erroneous ;
and the whole doctrine of the Logos must be frankly abandoned
in the interest of faith itself.^ And all the apostolic writers of
the N.T. have erred in their interpretations of the consciousness
of Jesus, and have largely misrepresented Him and His teaching.
Both Christ and His apostles, the Ritschlians aver, have greatly
erred in their teaching on the Holy Ghost. For Ritschlians
ignore the Holy Spirit, and imply that no such Being as the
third Person of the Godhead ever existed ; and they teach that
the Holy Spirit is no more than the common spirit of the
Christian community- — an impersonal abstraction. A so-called
Christian theology without the Holy Ghost ! — a body without a
soul; a spiritual impossibility. And all such ideas as "holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " ;
"It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that
speaketh in you " ; and our Lord's repeated promises to send
the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth ; and the apostles
being filled with the Holy Ghost, and speaking as the Spirit
gave them utterance ; and Christ's attributing all He said, and
did, and accomplished to the Spirit of the Lord (Luke 4'^, Matt.
12'^*) ; and that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God " the
Holy Ghost, — which so pervade and dominate the teaching of
^ Kaftan, The Relation of the Evangelical Faith to the Logos Doctrine.
See Dr. Orr, p. 1 10.
- See Dr. Denney's Studies on Theology, p. 156.
164 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Christ and His apostles,- — -are ignored, disowned, or explained
away. No wonder that, ignoring God the Holy Ghost, and being
strangers to His power, and denying His very existence. His
product — the Holy Scriptures, and the teaching of our Lord and
His apostles should be so misunderstood and perverted.
For "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God ; for they are fooHshness unto him : neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (2 Cor. 2 ^4).
The Ritschlian Abandonment of Christ's Te.^ching
AND Religion.
Well does Dr. Denney say, " In ignoring the Resurrection,
in ignoring the gift and the teaching of the Holy Spirit, which so
interpret the life and death of Christ as to make them the
foundation of the Christian religion, Ritschl seems to me to
abandon the N.T. altogether." ^
When to this is added that, as seen above, the Ritschlians
not only deny the resurrection, but also the incarnation of Christ,
reject the atonement and Divinity of our Lord, and disown the
miracles and the chief teaching of our God and Saviour, because
these will not assimilate with their false philosophy, it seems a
misuse of language to call their theology Christian, or their
religious philosophy real Christianity. They reject His teaching
in all the leading doctrines along the whole line. They charge
Him with grave error and false teaching as to God and man,
angels and devils, Himself and His work ; the Holy Ghost and
the word of God, the fall of man and the redemption in Christ,
the way of salvation and the resurrection of the dead ; the
second advent, the final judgment, and the everlasting destinies ;
the interpretation of the past, the revelation of the future,
and the Divine moral government of past, present, and future —
in all the chief truths distinctive of the Christian faith. And
they fear not to aver that the Son of God and the Revealer of
the Father, the Saviour of men and the Judge of all, began and
long prosecuted His work in error and delusion as to His
mission and His message. His Kingdom and Himself, teaching
superstition for truth, and cherishing Jewish ambition unto
personal sin. The Ritschlian school first place the teaching
^ Dr. Denney, p. 142.
THE RITSCHLIAN THEOLOGY 1 65
of Christ and of His apostles in antithesis and antagonism, in
order to discredit the apostles and the authority of their
writings, although they know nothing of Christ or His teaching
except through them, — even as the expired Tubingen school put
the apostles in opposition to each other in order to destroy the
trustworthiness of the N.T. Scriptures.
They next, despite all their professed honour of Christ and
of His teaching, assail that teaching in all the main truths along
the whole line of the Christian revelation, in order to clear the
• way for their own poor philosophy. And what emerges from
their self-created chaos, as the true system of Christian doctrine,
is not the Christianity of the apostles, or the religion of Christ,
but a meagre and a miserable religious mongrel, a false and a
bastard Ritschlian theology, on which no soul could ever live,
and on which no man would dare to die.
The Substance and Outcome of the Ritschlian System.
And what is the outcome and substance of this pretentious
system which claims to give a better interpretation of the con-
sciousness of Christ than His apostles, and proposes to replace
the faith once for all delivered unto the saints by holy men of
God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and
which has been held fast by the Church of Christ through the
Spirit's grace from the beginning ? A poor and soulless rehgious
philosophy, falsely so called, which utterly fails to meet the
deepest needs of sinful men, eliminates almost everything dis-
tinctive of the Christian faith, would rob Christ of all that, as
the God-man, fits Him to be a Saviour, and leave a struggling
humanity with an empty man-made husk instead of a God-given
Gospel for a religion.
For when it is asked of the Ritschlians, "What is God?"
a bewildering variety, yea contrariety of answers is given, all of
which are wrong, or seriously defective. God and His love
become little more than " an abstraction of the purpose of the
universe," and is to be thought of more as a " help-conception "
than a reality. Indeed, " it may be left an open question whether
there is a God or not." ^ Yea, "as far as maintaining the impulse
to religious faith is concerned, it does not matter whether our
^ Dr. Orr's The Ritschlian Theology, p. 256 ; Dr. Denney, p. 8.
1 66 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
conception of the world is theistic, pantheistic, or materiaUstic." ^
God is not ruled by a nature, but is only " absolute will," ^ and
has no immediate access to, nor works directly on or in the
human soul ; and there is no revelation of God in nature or
providence ! Religion, indeed, is not a primary relation of the
soul to God, but man's relation to the world ! and, " ration-
ally, there is no means of showing that religion is not a pure
illusion."^ If at times God is spoken of as a Person, He is
only love, and the Father of all by creation ; thus all intelligent
creatures, men and devils, are His children ; and there is, there-
fore, no perdition, or "wrath," or "retribution" for any moral
being, nor any moral government of men by reward or punish-
ment here or hereafter ! * And this is the new ideal figment of a
God — the crude creation of vain dreamers by which they delude
themselves and others, and propose to replace the real living
God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is
ever revealed by Him and in Scripture, in nature and in
providence, as a God of righteousness as well as of love, of
justice as of mercy.
And what is the Son of God in this new theology that pre-
tends so specially to honour Him ? A mere man, — though the
best and the highest man, and the perfect revelation of God, —
yet not God in any sense, only a man with no pre-existence, or
Divine incarnation, or supernatural origin or powers, who never
wrought miracles, or rose from the dead, or redeemed men by
His vicarious death, or reconciled God and sinners by His
atoning blood ; who taught many errors on all religious subjects,
indulged many delusions which stern facts dispelled, believed
many superstitions current in His time, and cherished Jewish
ambitions with their worldly Messiah, selfishness, and sin ; who
never ascended to heaven, nor acts as our High Priest, nor will
ever return again, nor be our Judge or Lord of all. He was,
in short, nothing of what He was, and claimed, and proved
Himself to be.
^ Hermann and Ritschl. See Dr. Orr's The Chy-istian View of God and
the World, p. 45 ; and Dr. Denney's Studies in Theology, p. 8.
2 See Lichtenberger, p. 581. ^ Hermann, ibid. p. 585.
* Ritschl at first held punishment for sin strictly, but afterwards rejected
" retribution " and "wrath" entirely as inconsistent with a God whose one
attribute is love.
A CONGLOMERATE OF PIIILOSOrHY AND RELIGION 1 6/
And what place has the Holy Ghost in this improved
theology ? Absolutely none ! No such being ever existed ;
and consequently never inspired prophet, or apostle, or Scrip-
ture ; so there is no such thing as supernatural revelation. He
never anointed Christ, or descended on apostles at Pentecost, or
convinces men of sin, or converts sinners unto God, or quickens
souls into spiritual life, or unites believers to Christ, or makes
them new creatures in Him : nor is there, therefore, any such
spiritual reality as the new birth, or the spirit of adoption, or
sanctification, or the power from on high, or the Divine unction,
witness, or sealing, through the Holy Ghost, — though these are
the surest facts of Christian experience from the beginning until
now, as certainly established facts as any in science, history,
or life.
In short, in this crude and incoherent conglomerate of
religion and philosophy, which is as false in philosophy as it is
anti-scriptural in theology, and which never could be practical
as a religion for any Christian Church or spiritual man, there is
neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost ; nor angel, nor devil, nor
man created in God's image ; nor Fall in Adam, or redemption
in Christ by His atoning sacrifice ; nor original sin, or imputed
righteousness ; nor death by sin, or life in Christ ; nor regenera-
tion by the Holy Ghost, or adoption by grace ; nor justification
by faith, or sanctification by the Spirit ; nor union to Christ, or
Sonship in Jesus in the Bible sense ; nor blessed death, or
glorious resurrection ; nor second advent, or final judgment ; nor
heaven, or hell ; nor eternal life, or eternal death ; nor any of all
the Christian verities centred and rooted in these, which form
the substance, burden, and distinctive elements of the Christian
faith. So that it is a palpable perversion of facts, and a manifest
misnomer, to call this mongrel system Christian. It would be
nearer the truth to call it antichristian ; for it not only
eliminates or evaporates the distinctive truths and elements of
the Christian religion, but it openly disowns most of them, and
teaches the opposite.
With all its avowed antagonism to rationalism and meta-
physics in theology, it is itself a real rationalism in another form,
without the clearness and the honesty of the older rationalism.
For it attempts to father its rationalism on Christ, and to force
its system on Scripture ; whereas, while professing to honour
1 68 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Him and His teaching, it really rejects almost everything He
taught and claimed ; and while emphasising Scripture, it disowns
so much of it, and so perverts the rest, that, as Stahlin says of
Ritschl, it "sinks down into the merest illusion." ^ Under
avowed aversion to " metaphysics " (in which it includes all the
Divine revelations about the Trinity, the two natures in Christ,
original sin, and the resurrection and the future life, etc.), it
seeks to conceal its antagonism to everything supernatural, or
what does not accord with its own erroneous presuppositions ;
and specially, as Dr. Denney well says, covers its "positive dis-
belief of everything that gives Christ's Godhead an objective
character," 2 In connection with the keystone of the N.T.
revelation — the redemption and atonement of Christ — which
the Ritschlians find so difficult to evade, the N.T. authority is
distinctly disowned, and the baldest rationalism is boldly avowed
that one man's thoughts can have no binding authority for
another ! This sheer rationalism involves the rejection of the
authority not only of the apostolic writers, but also of their
Lord and God, as well as of God the Holy Spirit who inspired
both, and of God the Father who sent them and Him, and whose
words, in His name, and by His authority, both they and He
spoke.
It is a vague, one-sided, fragmentary, and narrow-based
system ; dominated and vitiated by a philosophy whose funda-
mental postulate is false. With all its oracular assurance, it
is full of errors and inconsistencies, conflicts, and contradic-
tions ; most arbitrary in its methods, and capricious in its
criticism, ever-changing in its vaunted results — begetting a painful
uncertainty on what it concerns men most surely to know ;
evincing and developing a dangerous subjectivity,^ which tends
to resolve religion into illusion ; leads each errant and erring
mind to become an authority to itself above Scripture and Christ,
and implies the supremacy of Reason over Revelation ; logically
ends in utter rationaUsm, and ultimately requires or warrants
agnosticism and unbelief: given, also, to ignoble compromise in
advising abandonment of Bible truths to avoid conflict with the
modern naturalistic spirit; and withal so vague, confused, and
1 See Dr. Orr's The Ritschlian Theology, p. III.
" Studies ill Theology, p. 14 ; ibid. p. 279.
•''See Dr. Orr's The Ritschlian Theology, p. 51.
RATIONALISM THE ULTIMATE ISSUE 1 69
equivocal often ' as to make one who has tried to plod his weary
way through the dreary wanderings of their misty philosophis-
ings to the clear and radiant pages of the Divine Word, feel that
it is like passing from darkness into light, from the foggy and
soporific mazes of Ritschlian speculation into the radiancy and
exhilaration of Christian Revelation, from the blinding fogs and
stifling air of a city underground railway to the brilliant light and
exhilarating breezes of a heath-clad hill robed in its autumn glory.
No wonder that, as Dr. Orr says,'-^ Ritschlianism, the more it
is known, is on its decline in the land of its birth and the
universities of its growth ; and will in due course add another
layer to the fossilised remains of the ephemeral phases of German
religious speculation, which have had their day and ceased to
be, while the word of the Lord, which they so roughly handled,
liveth and abideth for ever.
THE COMMON RATIONALISTIC PRINCIPLE AND
CONCLUSION.
It has been shown above, by illustrations from three out-
standing, typical schools or phases of recent speculation on
Scripture, that all theories which invade or impair the integrity
or solidarity of God's word, or which place the teaching of
Christ in antagonism or antithesis to the teaching of the prophets
or apostles, or other Scripture writers, are without foundation,
arise from and produce error, and are fraught with peril to the
Christian faith. The evils and the errors might be further shown
through all the numerous forms and applications of the perni-
cious principle from which all such dissections and disintegra-
tions of Scripture spring. For some select for supreme honour
and authority the O.T. and others the N.T. In the O.T. some
take the Law, others the Prophets. In the N.T. some take the
Gospels, and others the Epistles. In the Gospels many choose
the Synoptics, and others John. Of the Synoptics many select
Mark, others Luke, and others still Matthew. In the Gospels
^ Lichtenberger says : " Ritschl's theology is essentially lacking in clear-
ness and simplicity, and cannot be wholly vindicated of taking pleasure in
equivocation, — nor in the exposition of Biblical ideas has he been able to
escape the accusation of seeking to throw dust in the eyes of his readers."
- The Ritschlian Theology, p. 270.
I/O CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
many moderns make the isolated words of Jesus alone supreme,
and the test of all else in Scripture ; while others prefer the
words of the apostles as fuller and final. Others give the
supreme authority to the words of Christ in the Sermon on the
Mount, and make them the touchstone of all other words. Some
make the Epistles of Paul the standard, and others the Epistles
and Gospel of John as the highest and last revelations. Some
take their own arbitrary selections from all Scripture, others their
own selected fragments of the words of Jesus, severed from the
imagined encrustations and perversions of the Gospel writers ;
and others still boldly set aside all the words of both Christ
and His apostles save what they capriciously think best, or suits
their preconceived theories and principles. And so this selective
and pervertive process of unwarrantable fragmentation and disin-
tegration of God's one Divine Word has gone on and may go
on ad hifinitiun ; till at length, on the common root principle,
there is and can be logically left no standard or authority at all,
save that every errant and variable person becomes, and must
become, a standard and authority to himself, and takes just as
much or as little of God's word as he thinks fit, or none at all,
should he think best ; and what he may select has then no
intrinsic, or independent, far less Divine authority, but only
such as every erring individual mind may at any time choose to
give it, — which is a manifest but inevitable rediictw ad absurdum.
It will be fully shown below, what may be obvious now, how
easily the sceptic can thus make havoc of and pulverise Chris-
tianity by seizing and urging the common root principle, and
setting the conflictory resultant theories and applications against
each other to the overthrow of all, and the destruction of the
Christian faith. Meantime let it suffice to have indicated this.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHRIST S TEACHING ON HOLY SCRIPTURE.
Christ's teaching on leading doctrines controverted has been
given partially above in antithesis to various types and phases of
prevalent error. A completer though concise summary of it,
arranged in order, will be found in the Appendix. But in
closing this book, we give here a brief outline of His teaching
on Holy Scripture, as that is the chief subject of this work, and
He makes it the basis of His teaching on all other subjects,
and by it He declares the Divine authority of all. Since our
whole knowledge of Him and of His teaching is derived from
the Scriptures, His teaching on them necessarily underlies all
His teaching, and tells us what authority belongs to His own
and the inspired writers' words on everything. It is of supreme
importance now, because it is the burning question of our time,
the authoritative settlement of which is devoutly to be desired,
and will largely carry with it the settlement of most other
religious questions. Only a brief summary can be given here, —
chiefly His own words on, use of, and attitude to Scripture,
with emphasis on leading passages, main facts, and outstanding
phenomena, — especially as His words speak for themselves with
unique decisiveness. Fuller statement and use of this will be
made when giving general proof of the Bible claim and doctrine
in Book IV. and the general Appendix. The complete proof
cannot, indeed, be even outlined; because it is so vast and
varied that it would involve transcription and application of most
of His whole recorded teaching, as the Bible claim is expressed
or implied almost everywhere. Nor is it necessary to enlarge,
as it is generally admitted now that Christ stands by Scripture,
and regards it as the common Christian and the Church of
Christ have ever done — even as the Word of God, as shown in
the creeds of Christendom ; and they have done so supremely
172 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
because His own words and usage are so absolute and decisive
as to preclude any opposing view, and to shut up all honest and
reasonable interpretation to this as final, — at least to all to whom
Christ's teaching and authority are final. Hence the abler and
more candid opponents of this Bible claim (which is endorsed
and declared with such Divine decisiveness and inevasible
absoluteness by Christ) — such as the Ritschlians, Rationalists,
with some Kenotics, and all anti-supernaturalists, as well as
many others, and some avowedly evangelical, but more or less
in sympathy with these in their principles or results — frankly
own that honest interpretation of Christ's teaching requires this
to be openly acknowledged. Quite consistently, and of neces-
sity, they disown the finality or authority and deny the truth
and trustworthiness of His teaching on this first and fundamental
religious question, and they explicitly assert the erroneousness
and unreliability of His teaching thereon, — though it underlies
His teaching on all other subjects, and is the necessary basis of
every Christian doctrine. But as there are those who in the
face of the clearest evidence and of His most decisive words
and usage aver that Christ does not endorse but condemn
the Bible claim, and as Jesus' teaching on this primary root-
question is made so much of now and is in itself so important,
we shall give here a condensed summary of the evidence. We,
of course, assume here the general credibility and substantial
truthfulness of those parts of Scripture which embody Jesus'
teaching ; for this at least is beyond question, and is admitted by
all those whose views we are now opposing, and it has to be
postulated by all desiring to ascertain what His teaching is, for it
is solely out of the materials there supplied that we can gather
or form any conception or system of His teaching. So that we
of necessity assume here the general trustworthiness of those
Scriptures which contain His teaching, as all must at the outset,
if we are to ascertain what His teaching was at all, as all well
may in the light of the facts, backed up with the whole weight
of the Christian evidences and the tests those Scriptures have
stood so well so long in the fiercest fires and the most searching
criticism that ever a literature has been subjected to, and as
none can, at this stage, refuse to do without unreasonableness
and absurdity, as Butler well reasons.^ These Scriptures are
' See Dr. Lee, The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 93, etc.
I
CHRIST'S TEACHING ON SCRIPTURE 1 73
the Gospels, the Acts, and the Apocalypse, with fragments in the
Epistles ; and from these, in this view, we quote indiscriminately.
From these it will be evident, if His language, usage, action,
and attitude can prove anything, that our Lord held and taught
in the clearest and most decisive way the truthfulness, trust-
worthiness, and Divine authority and inviolability of Holy
Scripture in its integrity, and that the Bible is the word of
God, and the Divine rule of faith and life. And as our
Lord is God, His words, declaring the Bible to be the Word
of God, of infallible truth and Divine authority, are the Word of
God, and should decide the question finally for all who own
Him Lord. The Incarnate Word of God declares the Written
Word of God to be the word of God,— true, trustworthy, and
Divinely authoritative ; and His words teaching this are the
word of God. Therefore, in giving the teaching of Christ as
to vScripture, we give His explicit words the first place.
I. Christ's Teaching in explicit Passages.
(i) The Locus Classicus, Matt. 5^"-^^.
Here Matt. 5^"'^^ might be called the locus classicus,
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets :
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Several things
conspire to give this passage a unique importance.
First. Its place in Christ's teaching. It is at the beginning of
Christ's public teaching, in His great Sermon on the Mount, which
was the solemn and formal inauguration of His ministry, in which
He laid down once for all the first principles and fundamental laws
of His kingdom — the manifesto of the King. It therefore has
and carries all the peculiar weight that belongs to such a declara-
tion made for such purposes and given in such circumstances.
Second. Its position in Holy Scripture. It connects the O.T.
with the New. It is the vital and vitalising organ uniting them
into a living organic whole, to which the ever-living Lord
Himself gave life and virtue. It is rooted in the one and is
the root of the other. It is the full fruitage of the Old and the
vivifying seed of the New Revelation. It therefore voices in
the very words of very God the mind of God as to the word
1/4 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
of God from first to last, and should therefore lead all who
fear the Lord to receive it as the word of the Lord that liveth
and abideth for ever.
Third. Its scope. It is the Lord's declaration as to all
Scripture given by inspiration of God ; for the titles the Law and
the Prophets/ or the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms - (the
Hagiographa), or occasionally the Law alone,^ as used by our
Lord, were the familiar designations of the whole O.T. writings,
so well known to Jesus and the Jews as the word of the Lord,
because recognised to be the word of the Lord, because given
by the Spirit of the Lord. Whatever, therefore, the passage pre-
dicates, it predicates of all Divinely-inspired Scripture (iracra
ypa(f>r] OeoTTveva-TO'i), and of all equally — of the O.T. directly and
explicitly, of the N.T. indirectly and by necessary implication a
fortiori, for no Christian claims more for the O.T. than the New,
especially as both are given by the one inspiring Spirit — God the
Holy Ghost.
Fourth. Its character. It is a direct decisive deliverance on
the doctrine of Holy Scripture given by the Lord Himself, when
professedly treating of the subject at the entrance on His public
ministry, and when expressly laying down the foundations, laws,
and first principles of His kingdom for all who were and would
be His disciples. So that it possesses all the Divine weight and
authority of a formal Divine deliverance given by Incarnate God
at the supreme moment of the solemn public inauguration of His
kingdom.
Fifth. The manner of its declaration. It is given in His
most august, impressive style. In it He uses, for the ^/-j-/ time.
His solemn and majestic " Verily I say unto you "' ; which He
never uses except before the most important utterances, which
assumes the tone of supreme legislative authority, and which
implies the highest Divine claims, since the making and giving
of laws for the people of God was the prerogative of God alone,
for the Lord was their Lawgiver. It is therefore the solemn
deliverance of the Divine Lawgiver.
Sixth. Its nature. The Divine absoluteness and sublime
majesty of this declaration is awe-inspiring, and constrains every
reverent soul to say, " I'll hear what God the Lord will say,"
1 Matt. 5", Luke i63i 24^. - Luke 24^.
3 John \Q^- 35, Ps. 82« 3519 69^ etc.
THE LOCUS CLASSICUS I 75
" Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," arrests and awes, and
leaves a profound impression of the sacredness, perpetuity, and
inviolability, even of minutest points, in every "jot and tittle" of
Holy Writ ; and when this majestic utterance is crowned and
sealed with His sublime "heaven and earth shall pass away, but
My words (about Holy Scripture as about everything else) shall
not pass away," one feels that language has reached the limit of
preciseness and majesty, absoluteness and finality.
Seventh. The relation of this Divine utterance to the Divine
Speaker. "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" the law and
the prophets, declares the Divine unity, solidarity, and inde-
structibility of Scripture in the most expressive and decisive
way. For what could so decisively and significantly declare
and require the trueness, reliability, and Divine authority and
inviolability of God's Written Word as to say that the Incarnate
Word of God came to fulfil it? and that one jot or one tittle
shall in nowise pass from it till all be fulfilled (ews av Travra yivr\-
Ttti) ? or, as in Luke, " It is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail " (Treo-eti/). For surely it was
impossible for Christ to fulfil what was false, or wrong, or a
mixture of false and true, right and wrong, as the opponents of
the Bible claim, and the teachers of its erroneousness imply.
He could only fulfil what was true, and right, and good, and
God-given. And the fact that, as He says. He came down from
heaven not to destroy, but to fulfil it, and thereby to do His
Father's will by fulfilling His word, declares and requires that Scrip-
ture should be so, and that it is and must be true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority. The further fact that He solemnly
declares that one jot or one tittle of it shall not pass away while
heaven and earth remain or till all is fulfilled, and that it is
easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one tittle of it to
fail or become void,^ is surely the most absolute and decisive
way in which language or God Himself could express and de-
clare its thorough truthfulness, entire trustworthiness. Divine
origin and authority, literal sacredness, absolute inviolability, and
eternal indestructibility even in the minutest points. For the
jot {iMTa., English iota) is not only a single letter, but the
smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet C"), and the tjttle
1 Robinson's Lexicon of the N. T.
1/6 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
(/cEpat'a) are the little turns or strokes completing and distinguish-
ing the letters (such as 3 (K) and 3 (B), n and n).^ To make
this declaration of the minute truthfulness, entire trustworthiness,
and literal inviolability of Scripture, even the O.T., the more
absolute and emphatic, our Lord says, that not one of these
tiniest turns or points, the veriest fragments of letters, can pass
(become void) till heaven and earth pass away, — the " one "
(fxia) being repeated with each, and the "not one" advisedly
used signifying "not even one."-
Observe, too, that most expressive and decisive " no wise "
(ov /Ji-q),^ a double negative, in order to be all the more emphatic
and absolute ; for it is both an objective and a subjective
negative, ov being a direct negative as a matter of fact, and fjurj
being a conditional or supposed negative, denying not only as a
fact, but as a conception or possibility ; and both together
making the strongest and most absolute negative possible, and
becoming thus the most certain and decisive positive assertion
of the truth and inviolability of Scripture in its literal
precisian entirety. The same expression is used by Christ of
the moral certainty that whosoever giveth even a cup of cold
water in the name of a disciple shall in no wise lose his reward
(Matt, lo"*-); of the spiritual necessity of being converted and
becoming as a little child in order to enter into the kingdom of
God (Luke i8^") ; of the Divine assurance that "him that
cometh unto Me shall in no wise be cast out " (John 6^") ; and of
the absolute certainty, because of its moral impossibility, that
there shall in no wise enter into heaven anything that defileth
(Rev. 2 1^''). All this enduring stability of God's Word is
strengthened by the use of that strong and majestic utterance
that heaven and earth shall pass away before one iota or point of
it can pass or fail till all (Travra) be fulfilled. And the reason
introducing this sublime declaration by, " verily I say unto you,
for," that Christ gives for men not thinking that He came to
destroy the O.T., but to fulfil, is its eternal certainty, absolute
indestructibility, and Divine origin, authority, and inviolability.
The words to " fulfil " {TrXrjpwa-ai) and " fulfilled " (yevT^rat) are most
significant and decisive here. The first denotes to complete to
full development, to expand and perfect, to fill out or up to the
^ IQra iv ?) fiia Kepaia ov /iir] wapiXdr] dvo tov vbixov, ecos 'dv -rravTa yivriTai..
^ See Winer's Grammar, p. 216. "^ Ibid, on 01' p.r\, p. 216.
\
THE LOCUS CLASSICUS 1 77
full.^ And whether it be to fill out like the moon to full moon,
or to fill up like the outlined picture to its finished form, or to
develop to perfection like the immature members of a child to
the maturity of full manhood, in every case it requires and
postulates trueness and reliability in what has to be completed,
expanded, and filled out to perfection by development. For it
is surely patently impossible to develop the true out of the
erroneous, the trustworthy out of the unreliable, the right out of
the wrong. The very fact that He said He came to fulfil the
Law and the Prophets, was the strongest way of saying that the
O.T. was true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority ; for He
thereby connects and identifies Himself and His lifework with it.
The second " till all be fulfilled " makes this if possible still
more absolute and expressive ; for it denotes what is done,
accomplished, and has eventuated in perfected form. So that the
whole O.T. by being thus fulfilled in Him has been realised,
actualised, and embodied in Him and His lifework in its perfect
and ideal form, and in Him it lives anew, transformed and
glorified. Thus His whole life was guided and determined by
it, rooted and sustained in it, and in Him and His whole life-
work it had its highest realisation and living embodiment. All
this demonstrates from the meaning of His own very words that
the Bible is true, trustworthy, and of Divine origin and authority
— the Word of God, the Incarnate Word becoming the living form
of the written Word of God. So that if He is true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority, then it is so also, and vice versa.
Therefore, if it is not so. He was mistaken and misled as to His
life and mission. His life becomes an error and a delusion, and
His work a failure and a hallucination. And where, then, are
we ? and what is He ? — for both we and He thought it was He
who should have redeemed Israel, saved man, and glorified God
by fulfilling Scripture !
Mark, too, how surely and inevasibly He declares all this ; He
says it negatively, " Think not that I am come to destroy the
Law or the Prophets." He says it positively, " I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfil," — both negative and positive. He says
it comparatively, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than
one tittle of the law to fail," — more stable than the most stable
things in nature. He says it specifically, by example, " Whoso-
^ See Meyer, Alford, Brown, Bengel, etc., /;/ loco.
12
178 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
ever shall break one of these least commandments, etc., the same
shall be called the least, etc. ; whosoever shall do and teach
one of them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven,"- — thus making men's position depend upon their con-
duct as to the least points of Holy Writ. He says it absolutely
of all Scripture, " 0?ie jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass, etc.,
till all be fulfilled." He says it relatively in relation to Himself
and His mission and His lifework, " I am come not to destroy, but
to fulfir' the Law and the Prophets, — identifying Himself and
His whole Hfe-purpose and action with the fulfilling thereof. He
says it advisedly to meet the circumstances and the anticipations
of the time and audience, but for all time and all peoples ; — to
discourage the religious revolutionists who were looking to Him
as a probable leader of a new religious and social revolution ; to
undeceive the pharisaical traditionalists, who either wished for
His sanction of their Rabbinical encrustations and perversions of
it, or watched for any suspected attacks or disparagements of it
for which they might accuse and arrest Him ; to encourage the
devout Bible lovers, who trembled at and for the Word of the
Lord lest Christ might in anyway depreciate it. To all these,
and such like. He gives one clear, decisive deliverance, which
settles all, to all, for ever, " Think not that I am come to destroy
the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
He says it Royally, as the King at the solemn public inaugura-
tion of the Kingdom of God, when issuing the manifesto of the
Messianic King. And He says it authoritatively, with all the
Divine authority that is His as the Prophet of the Lord and the
Son of God — one with the Father as God, " Verily I say utito
you," — the tone and claim of supreme legislative authority, as
the Divine Lawgiver. He says it imperatively, implying that
there was an imperative Divine necessity requiring Him not to
destroy (KaraACo-at) (dissolve or abrogate),^ but to fulfil. First,
because He came from heaven on express purpose to fulfil them ;
and to destroy would therefore be to defeat the very purpose
of His coming — to frustrate the Divine mission for which His
Father sent Him. Second, because the eternal certainty and
Divine indestructibility of God's Word, more sure and abiding
than heaven and earth in every jot and tittle, required Him as
the Messiah to fulfil it, as. He says, by His first sublimely
^ Meyer and Bengel, in loco.
WHAT THIS PASSAGE SETTLES 1 79
solemn " verily I say unto you," prefaced by the " For," which
gives this as the reason for His coming to fulfil it. There then,
in every conceivable form of decisive and inevasible absolute-
ness is the teaching in His very words, of very God upon the
Word of God, declaring it to be " the Word of the Lord which
liveth and abideth for ever " ; and solemnly laying it down as the
basis of His Kingdom at its public inauguration by Himself as
its King. And he would, therefore, be a bold man indeed who
would dare to question the truth or authority of it or of Him ; for
thus saith the Lord, " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my
words shall not pass away."
What this Passage settles : attempted Evasions.
This great classical passage, then, settles finally and un-
questionably that Christ holds and declares the Bible to be true,
trustworthy, and of Divine origin, authority, and inviolability in
its integrity. If Christ had purposely set Himself to exhaust
the powers of language in putting that for ever beyond question,
it appears impossible for even God Himself to have made it
more decisive and absolute than He has done in this cardinal
Divine deliverance. This has been recognised in all ages both
by the acceptors and the rejectors of the Bible claim, many
even of those openly disowning His Divine claims and authority
as a Teacher frankly confessing that no honest interpretation of
His teaching here can conclude otherwise.
Most significant of the truth of this has been the feebleness
of the attempted evasions of it by those who disown or ignore
the Bible claim, which only confirm its inevasibleness. Two out-
standing examples may suffice for all. Dr. Farrar says : " That
our Lord's words had no such meaning is clear, since He set
aside as null and void the greater part, if not the whole, of the
Levitic legislation, criticising it even in an essential particular as
a concession to human imperfection " ; — " partly supplemented
and partly reversed." ^ Similarly, Dr. Briggs says : " Our
Saviour's own discussions show such an interpretation to be
impossible. He Himself changed the law of divorce. The
greater part of the legislation was superseded once for all by
Jesus." - Others say explicitly, without attempting to prove,
^ Inspiration : A Clerical Sy/iiposinin, p. 225.
- See Dr. Briggs, The Bible, the CJiurck, and the Reason, p. 2S9.
l8o CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
what is implied in these, that the " I say unto you " passages
immediately following Matt. 5^""^^ show that our Lord did not
mean what His words unquestionably say ! ^ Most irrelevant,
untrue, and amazing statements these.
Let the following notes sutifice : — First, that none of them
even venture to assert that Christ's words, taken by themselves,
do not plainly and indisputably declare this, that this is not indeed
the only true or just exegesis of the passage, the obvious and
only meaning of the words. On the contrary, this is owned and
stated. Dr. Briggs says : " Our Saviour here teaches that He
and His Gospel are not in conflict with the O.T. Scripture,
but rather their complete and entire fulfilment. The jot and the
tittle doubtless indicate the most minute details." - Dr. Farrar,
writing of the Acts, says : " I have elsewhere tried to show that
in every instance, and in the minutest particulars, the accuracy
and trustworthiness of the narrator can be triumphantly vindi-
cated."^ Therefore, themselves being witnesses, that is not only
the meaning of His words, but the evidence of the facts. And
yet —
Second, by fallacious inferences from other supposed facts or
phenomena, they reject this claim of Scripture and of Christ ;
and by so doing they, first, contradict themselves ; next, mis-
conceive and confuse the issues ; and, third, overlook and
violate the first principles of Biblical exegesis and of all true
scientific interpretation, by making their own inferences from
other things — the alleged phenomena — decide questions of
doctrine, instead of, and in the face of, the obvious and only
meaning of the explicit passages treating expressly thereof,
which are the only proper and direct evidence, all others being
at best but secondary and confirmatory. Their criticism over-
rides and vitiates their exegesis.
Third, what are these supposed phenomena by their infer-
ences from which they seek to set aside, contradict, and nullify
the solemn and decisive words of the Lord our God ? This, —
that Christ superseded as null and void the greater part of the
Levitic legislation ! As if that had anything to do with the
question, or in anyway affected the truth of His words. He
^ See, among many others, Dr. Clifford in discussion in British
Weekly.
-Ibid. p. 2S9. "'Ibid. p. 231.
WHAT THIS PASSAGE SETTLES l8l
did, indeed, supersede and terminate much of the old Law, — but
how? Not by saying it was false and wrong, but by declaring
it was true and right, and typical of Him and His work ; for the
type must have been true if the Antitype was. Not by destroy-
ing, but by fulfilling it in every jot and tittle ; and thereby
declaring and proving it to be true and good, for He could fulfil
only what was so. He superseded it in fulfilling it, by complet-
ing, developing, perfecting it, and by accomplishing it in His
own life and work. He finished it by fulfilling it in its entirety,
through embodying it in Himself; and thereby realised and
eternalised it in Himself and His Gospel. It vanished only
when it had served its purpose in prefiguring and preparing for
Him, — only in being transformed and transcended in Him and
His full and perfect revelation ; only when the perfect had come
was the imperfect that prefigured it done away ; but in order to
do this it had to be true, reliable, so far as it went, else the pre-
figuration would have been false and the fulfilment fictitious or
impossible. It passed away as passes the child into the man,
the bud into the full-blown rose, the crescent into the full-orbed
moon. It faded as fades the morning star into the light of the
perfect day, as the Sun of Righteousness arises with healing in
His beams. It died to live anew in Him for ever, in perfect
form, in His final revelation. So that though heaven and earth
may pass away, it shall never pass away. He thus most signifi-
cantly declares and establishes its Divine origin, truth, authority,
and durability in the most indisputable way. And one is
amazed how anyone could think anything else. So far from
contradicting His explicit words, these phenomena only confirm
them in the most decisive manner ; so that if the phenomena are
facts, their inferences are fallacies and confusions.
Fourth, and what are the other alleged facts which are
supposed to imply that Christ's words do not mean what they
explicitly say, but the opposite, and by which He is assumed
to have so far discredited and reversed the teaching of the
Scriptures He came to fulfil, and His own teaching in this
foundation passage? Dr. Farrar and Dr. Briggs mention only
the law of divorce, the one saying He criticised it, the other that
He changed it. As this, however, will come in among the " I
say unto you " passages, which are all supposed to do likewise,
we shall examine them together.
1 82 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
The " I SAY UNTO you " Passages.
1. Who can seriously or reasonably imagine that our Lord could
say anything contrary or derogatory to the O.T. immediately
after such a solemn and decisive deliverance as to its Divine
origin, truth, and perpetuity, and the place and glory it was to
have in the N.T. economy by its being fulfilled, perfected, and
embodied in Himself and His Gospel ? The very idea of His
giving such a glaring contradiction of His own very words,
uttered to the same people at the same time, almost in the same
breath, is an incredible hypothesis, and demands such astounding
credulity as makes any difficulties of the Bible claim sink into
nothingness.
2. His words here are directed, not against the O.T. or the
Law at all, but against the perversions, corruptions, and tradi-
tional misinterpretations and encrustations of it which unspiritual
rabbinical expounders had attached to it, and secularised it by.
So the great body of the best commentators hold, as is well
expressed by Dr. David Brown : " It seems as clear as possible
that our Lord's one object is to contrast the traditional per-
versions of the Law with the true sense of it as expounded by
Himself." 1
3. As a matter of fact the quotations are mostly not from
Scripture, but from traditional teaching ; and even when like
Scripture, what He condemns is not the Scriptures He gave and
came to fulfil, — which would be self-condemnation, — but the
Pharisaic perversions and misapplications of them.
4. What Christ in most cases does, is not to correct, far' less
condemn, but to unfold, develop, complete, and confirm ; but
never to reverse or discredit the O.T. teaching, as is manifest on
inspection in five out of the six cases dealt with.
5. The one case of which the opponents of the Bible claim
make most is "an eye for aneye,"etc. — the law of retaliation (Z?A:/rt//-
ofiis), as it is called. But this, which is substantially as in the O.T.,
is not really condemned by Christ. He only refers to it to teach
His higher doctrine of the non-resistance of evil for His disciples, —
a doctrine which, as is well known, unbelief has turned against
the truth of the Christian faith and the authority of Christ's
^ Critical and Explanatory CoDuiicntary. See also Meyer, Alford,
Bengel, Tholuck, Calvin, etc.
THE "I SAY UNTO YOU" PASSAGES 1 83
teaching. It has been declared to be an impracticable ethic, a
Utopia, and the teacher of it a visionary, — a doctrine which, as
applied by Tolstoi and others, seems unreasonable and unwork-
able. But our Lord never meant it to be so used in absolute
Uterality, as His own action on His trial and otherwise shows
(John i8"- "^).. What is, however, implicitly condemned here is the
traditional perversions and misuse of it to justify personal
revenge, private retaliation, — taking into our own hands the
application of a law — a righteous law — of public justice, which
should be administered only by pubhc judicial authority. It
was also probably meant to lead Christians to eschew resorting
to the tribunals of public justice for reparation of injuries, but
rather to bear them meekly as He did, and not return the same, —
though this is by no means in every case precluded. And
certainly as a principle of public justice it is not wrong but right ;
yea, it is the law of God from the beginning ; best exhibited
perhaps in the law, " He that sheddeth man's blood, by man
shall His blood be shed " ; which is the law and practice of the
nations of Christendom till this hour.
6. The law of divorce, brought in under the seventh com-
mandment, which is the only one mentioned by Dr. Farrar and
Dr. Briggs, is not a correction, or criticism, or change, far less a
reversal of the marriage law, as given in the O.T. ; but a
reassertion and re-enforcement of it from its original constitution
at man's creation, as recorded in Genesis. That law was held
so sacred and inviolable that any violations of it by adultery
warranted divorce. Our Lord here, while emphasising the
binding sacredness of the marriage tie as originally given, as
explicitly as Moses sanctions divorce for conjugal infidelity ; and
this is the only ideal held up in the Holy Scriptures (Deut. 24^).
Whatever other traditions, as to what Moses may, because of the
hardness of their hearts, have temporarily permitted in extreme
cases, had become current, and whatever misinterpretation of
the Mosaic law of divorce were attempted to be forced upon it
as given in Scripture, it still remains true that the above was the
only ideal of the marriage tie designed by God or held up as the
standard in the O.T. And if there were other causes for which
Moses may, in exceptional cases, to prevent greater evils, have
temporarily permitted divorce, it would be not as revealer of the
will or ideal of God, but only as judge or ruler in a civil case ; as
1 84 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
many of the civil laws of Israel were only temporary and imper-
fect, as the times and the O.T. economy were. But no such
relaxation of the marriage tie is given as the ideal. And what
our Lord here condemns is again the Jewish traditional perver-
sions of the original marriage law ; because divorce had become
so common for the most arbitrary reasons, and on the most
frivolous pretexts, — one influential rabbinical school (Hillel) per-
mitting it for other and trivial causes, which led to great laxity in
the marriage tie, and serious social evil. Our Lord thus makes
the marriage law, as He also makes the sixth, seventh, third, and
ninth commandments, more stringent and searching, and gives
them a deeper spirituality, a vaster scope, and a more abiding
obligatoriness than was prevalent, or known before. See Appendix.
7. The last case mentioned by Christ shows clearly that it
was the perversions and misapplications of the O.T. law He
condemned when setting forth His higher ideals for His disciples.
For He also quotes as said to them of old time, " Thou shalt
love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy ^' where the last clause
is a perverse addition to the Bible law of love to our neii^hbour
(Lev. 19^^), which vitiates the whole; — as the Jews practically
did by Umiting the first part to Israel, and applying the last to
the Gentiles. So far is this, as quoted here, from being the
teaching of the Mosaic law, it is directly contrary to it (Lev. ig^^)
and to the whole O.T., as Christ, who should know best, declares
when He sums it all up in the golden rule, " Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is the
law and the prophets" (Matt. 7^-). Even as elsewhere He sums
and embodies it all in the one Divine law of love — love to God and
love to man — , significantly and authoritatively declaring, " On
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets "
(Matt. 22*"); and thus giving a new and decisive reason why
heaven and earth may pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall
in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled ; for love, like
God, is eternal (i John iv. 8).
It is thus made evident that in not one case is there any real
ground for questioning or modifying the full force and finality of
the plain and necessary meaning of our Lord's weighty words in
this great decisive deliverance declaring the truth, trustworthi-
ness, and Divine origin and authority of Holy Scripture. On
the contrary, when properly interpreted, they all support and
OTHER EXPLICIT PASSAGES I 85
establish that deliverance. So that it stands out in all its solemn
majesty and Divine absoluteness declaring and endorsing the
Bible claim to be, in its entirety, the Word of the Lord which
liveth and abideth for ever. Here, then, the statement of
Christ's teaching might end ; for the proof is closed and con-
clusive for the Bible claim, and should be final and authoritative
to all who own His Divine authority as a Teacher. But this is
after all the merest fragment of the evidence, which is all of a
similar character, and to the same effect. As we have, however,
given this cardinal passage in such fulness, and shown its
decisiveness, a concise summary of the rest round this centre will
suffice.
Other Explicit Passages — John io^^-ss^
John lo'^^-^^, "The Scripture cannot be broken." ^ Follow-
ing the lead, and confirming the testimony, and exemplifying the
principle of the great classical passage above, note, next, this
specific, crucial passage, which gives a striking, practical illus-
tration of the truth of the Bible claim, declared with a sharpness
and decisiveness difficult to equal, and impossible to excel. It
carries peculiar force and weight from its intrinsic character and
special circumstances. It is free from all uncertainty or ambi-
guity. There is no question about the genuineness of the text, or
dubiety as to its meaning or application. It exhibits, with a
singular pointedness and perspicuity, our Lord's conception and
doctrine of Holy Scripture by a specific, decisive example ; and
there is nothing that so surely indicates and expresses a teacher's
real view and belief as precise examples, — especially coming as it
does after such a clear, didactic declaration of His general doctrine
as is given above. Besides, the circumstances that evoked the
deliverance and the purpose of its utterance increase its weight
and assurance. And the nature of the statement itself, and the
manner in which it was brought in, impart a peculiar precision and
finality to it. Our Lord was advancing His Divine claims. The
Jews, recognising this, charged Him with blasphemy, " because
that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." To justify His
claim to be the Son of God, He quotes from Ps. 82^, where
judges or magistrates as official representatives and commis-
sioned agents of God are called gods, and says, " Is it not
^ Kat 01) buvarai Xvdrjvat i] ypa<f>-q.
1 86 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
written in your law, I said ye are gods ? " " If He called them
gods to whom the Word of God came, — (if those earthly repre-
sentatives receive this sacred and Divine name) — say ye of Him, —
(the heavenly Messenger), — whom the Father hath sanctified and
sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the
Son of God ? " And it is just in the heart of this great statement,
urging this Divine claim, that He makes this direct and decisive
deliverance about Scripture — " And the Scripture cannot be
broken (XvO^vat) " (loosed), — which is so full of far-reaching
significance. It is an explicit passage directly declaring the
indissoluble authority of Scripture. It possesses this inde-
structible character, because it is the God-breathed embodiment
of God's Revelation for man's salvation. As Olshausen has well
said, "The Scripture as the expressed will of the unchangeable
God is itself unchangeable." And this inherent indissolubleness,
this Divine indestructibility, is here by Christ predicated of all
Scripture — of the God-breathed Book as such. For it is because
Scripture as such cannot be broken that this particular passage —
this single word of it (Oeioi) ^ — cannot be broken ; and, there-
fore, its truthfulness and Divine authority endure, as the Word
of the Lord, which liveth and abideth for ever. To Him it must be
true, since it is in the Bible. It is because to Christ all Scripture
was the Word of God, of Divine origin, truth, and authority, that
He defends His Divine claim by it with such assured confidence,
and here actually upholds His claim to be the Son of God even
upon a single word of it. The manner in which this statement
is introduced, too, gives it a peculiar weight. It is a clear and
direct declaration, by the lips of Incarnate Deity, of the Divine
truth and indissoluble authority of Scripture as such. But it is
also brought in parenthetically (as most hold), or at least as an
auxiliary and unquestionable truth, to uphold the chief doctrine
of the whole passage,^ not as the main, but as a conclusive,
indisputable support to it ; for the argument for this is founded
on it. It is, in fact, brought in by the way as a postulate, like
an unquestioned and unquestionable axiom in a demonstration,
which finally proves the proposition, and ends controversy, by
completing the demonstration. So that it has all the peculiar
force of a direct passage, introduced by the way as a recognised
postulate, — the meaning of which is clear, the truth of which is cer-
^ Heb. d'hSk. 2 ggg Meyer, Godet, Ewald, etc. , in loco.
OTHER EXPLICIT PASSAGES 1 87
tain, and the authoritativeness of which is owned by all concerned ;
for the Jews as well as Jesus held the finality of Scripture on all
religious questions. The Divine decisiveness of this passage is
crowned by duly appreciating the significant expressions used.
Our Lord by quoting this passage from the Psalms as " written in
your Law," shows that the title " Law " was applicable to all
Scripture, and that it all had the character of law as the
written expression and embodiment of God's will.^ And it is as
such that He declares of it that the Scripture cannot be broken
(XvOrjvai) — cannot be loosed, dissolved, abrogated, or violated.^
So that by the specific words purposely used He declares not
only the truthfulness and Divine authority, but also the unity
and solidarity, with the consequent indissolubleness and in-
violability of Scripture. It is one. Divine, inviolable whole — the
God-breathed Word, and will, and law of God \ which cannot,
therefore, be broken, impinged upon, or violated in one part, or
word, or particle, without it being broken as a whole, — like a law
broken in one point becoming a broken or violated law (as in St.
James 2IO), or like a vase broken in the tiniest fragment
becoming a broken vase. And, finally, this validity, indissoluble-
ness, and inviolability of Scripture in truth and authority, is
necessary and Divine. That '•'• catniot (Swarat) be broken"
expresses a moral and Divine impossibility. It is impossible for
Scripture to be broken, dissolved, or rendered void, because it
declares the will, and embodies the purpose of God ; and because
it is inseparably connected with, and prefigurative of the character
and work of the Incarnate Word ; — Who, therefore, in the fulness
of time, came not to destroy but to fulfil it ; and placed it on a
level in truth, authority, and perpetuity with His own words, by
declaring of both equally that heaven and earth should pass away
before one item of either should pass away or fail.^ This passage
is thus of great value and Divine decisiveness ; especially because
it shows that Christ held the language as well as the thought to
be true and of Divine authority ; and, therefore, founds a great
argument, establishing His own Divine claims upon a single word
of it.
^ See Meyer, Olshausen, Bishop R)'le in Fairbaini's Bible Dictionary,
Introduction.
- See Robinson's Lexicon and Winer's Grann/iar.
2 Matt. 5^'^ 24=^5.
1 88 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Revelation 22'^^-'^^.
Rev. 2 2^^- ^^, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the
words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto
these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written
in this book : and if any man shall take away from the words of
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of
the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book." These are the words of Jesus'
last message to men, as given by Himself at Revelation's close.
iVnd although they refer immediately to this particular book, they
are applicable equally to Scripture generally. For none of our
present opponents will deny that whatever is here predicated of
the Apocalypse is at least equally predicable of the other books
of the Bible—specially of the N.T. ; because no one can reasonably
contend that it holds a higher place as to truthfulness or authority
than the others ; especially as is well known, it is one of the books
whose canonicity was for some time disputed, that its text is
perhaps the least satisfactory in Scripture, and that it is in its
substance the most mysterious.^ And besides, it joins itself with
the O.T. writings and writers as simply co-ordinate authorities,
and it only uses similar words of itself to those used by other
Bible books about themselves and Scripture generally. Never-
theless, these words by which God's last message to men is so
solemnly closed, are remarkably impressive and decisive. As
Revelation opened in the Pentateuch amid the grand and awful
solemnities of Sinai, with the vision of God and the sound of the
trumpet loud and long, summoning Israel to hear the words of
the Lord their God, and as Moses was ordered to write the words
in a book and to place them beside the Ark of the Covenant for a
testimony of blessing to the obedient, and of cursing to the
disobedient ; — so Revelation closed in the Apocalypse by similar
solemnities and directions in the vision of a glorified Redeemer,
and the sounding of the trumpets amid the overpowering glories
and revelations of Patmos, as the Risen Christ appeared to His
servant John, and directed him to write His words and visions in
a book, opening with a promise of blessing for those who read
and keep the words, and closing with the threat of an awful curse
upon any man who will dare to add to, or take away from " the
^ See Westcott on T/ie Canon of the N. T.
OTHER EXPLICIT PASSAGES 1 89
words of the book of this prophecy." Words so solemn and
sanctions so awful surely these as may well make all men tremble
at the Word of the Lord, and lead the boldest to pause and
ponder before daring at their peril to deny the truth, or dispute
the authority, or assail the inviolability of the words of that
Divine, God-breathed Book so absolutely authenticated, and so
solemnly sealed from its opening in Genesis to its close in the
Apocalypse, by the very words and the most awful sanctions of
Incarnate God in the name of the Eternal Godhead. For the
whole Book is given as the Revelation of God, as this closing part
of it is called "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" (i^), and as
Paul's part of it is also called and declared to be "as it is in
truth the Word of God ? " (i Thess. a^^). And the words of the
Apocalypse, like the Pentateuch and other inspired writings, are
repeatedly said to be written by the express command of the
Lord because they are true, " Write : for these words are true, and
faithful " (2 1 5), and Divine ; " Write : for these are the true sayings
of God " (19^). And the whole Scriptures, O.T. and New, are, by
the express authority of the Lord, placed and bound together as
of co-ordinate truth and authority, as the Word of God, by these
significant words, "These sayings are faithful and true, and the
Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show unto
His servants " these things (22''). And the Divine inviolability of
all is declared most absolutely and most awfully in the solemn
and majestic words quoted above, which so impressively close
and Divinely seal at once the Apocalypse and the whole written
Revelation of God (221^- 1^). These last utterances of our Lord are
so decisive in themselves, and so impressive from their position,
and so supremely authoritative in their Divine Deliverer, that it
seems impossible to conceive how language could more explicitly
express, or God Himself more solemnly declare, than He has there
done, the thorough truthfulness, Divine authority, and absolute
inviolability of Holy Writ, — the words by which every man should
rule his faith and life. They are, in fact, the solemn attesta-
tion and Divine sealing of God's Book by Incarnate Deity in the
name of Godhead. For they are given as the very words of
Christ, and are also by Him declared to be: "What the Spirit
saith unto the Churches," and the whole book is called the
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (the Father) gave Him,
and He delivered, " even as I received of My Father " (Rev. 1^ 2-").
I90 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
And finally what gives peculiar weight and finality to these
great and decisive passages is that the first is given at the be-
ginning of His public ministry in formally laying down the laws
of His Kingdom at its solemn public inauguration ; the second, in
the midst of His active teaching, when His Divine claims were
denounced as blasphemy by the religious teachers, and He
founded His defence and proof of them with absolute confidence
upon a single word of Scripture ; and the third, with all the
connected passages in Revelation, after the close of His earthly life
when He had ascended to glory, and knew everything as perfectly
as man and God could ever know, and yet taught precisely the
same strict doctrine of Scripture as during His earthly life ; so
that if He ever was, or is, or shall be, infallible and authoritative
in His teaching, the Bible is in its integrity true, trustworthy, and
of Divine authority — the very and the veritable " word of the
Lord, which liveth and abideth for ever " — the words of which
shall judge every man at the last day.
Here the evidence for Christ's teaching might end, for its
endorsation and declaration of the Bible claim is established
beyond dispute by proof conclusive to every reasonable mind,
and found final by all honest interpretation. And were it
possible to give any additional emphasis and solemnity to these,
it is given in that sublime, majestic utterance, the grandest ever
uttered by man or God, and that by which His words on this and
every other subject are based, and crowned, and sealed, " Heaven
and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away."
It seems superfluous, if not irreverent, to add anything to these
words of Christ to show or prove that He held and taught as abso-
lutely unquestionable the Divine origin, truth, and authority of
all Scripture. But for the sake of showing how His life practice
and habitual attitude accorded with His teaching, and how His
way of regarding and treating Scripture contrasts with the spirit,
usage, and attitude of many moderns, we summarise the follow-
ing further proof.
Matthew 22"^, John 17^".
In Matt. 2 2-9, vvhen replying to the captious sceptical
question of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the
dead. He said, " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures," in
which He ascribes their error to their ignorance of them, and thus
THE "IT IS WRITTEN" PASSAGES 191
most significantly teaches their truth. For surely what, if known,
would keep from error, must itself be true. Here, too, he founds
the truth of the resurrection of the dead on a particular form of
the name of God, ay, on the present instead of the past tense of
the verb. " Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you
by God, saying, I atn the God of Abraham (eyw et/x,i, 6 ^eos
'AfBpadix). God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
A great and unexpected truth is here brought out of the special
form of expression used, in which the slightest variation would
have destroyed the basis of Christ's argument. And as the
original writer probably did not know this, and could not have
known it without supernatural aid, there is here the clearest proof
of supernatural inspiration in the words he wrote ; and there is no
reasonable explanation of our Lord's founding such a great truth
except upon what was the infallible Word of God, Hence He
says it was "spoken unto you by God," though written by the author
of Exodus. Hence again He makes Scripture — God speaking in
it — the supreme, final, because Divine judge of controversies.
So also in His last great prayer on the eve of His death
He uttered these pregnant words, " Sanctify them through Thy
truth. Thy tvord is truth.'" ^ The word here is unquestionably the
Written Word ; and thus in the most solemn circumstances, in the
supreme crisis of our Lord's life, when alone with God, and on
the verge of eternity, He teaches : first, that Scripture is the
Word of God; second, that it is true, or more expressly truth
{aXi]Qi.i(x) — not co7itams truth, as many say, but is (eo-rt) truth —
not partly true and partly untrue, not a mixture of truth and error,
as so many now proclaim who call Him Lord, and yet believe not
what He says, not even what He prays ; third, that since it is
truth and the Word of God, it possesses Divine authority.
What was specially said of the Apocalypse above, " These are
the true sayings of God," is here said roundly of Scripture as a
whole— "Thy Word is truth."
The " IT IS WRITTEN " Passages.
The passages in which the phrase "It is written,"- or its
equivalents, is used by Christ are many, and show the absolute
' 6 X670S 6 (10% a\ri6ei6. eVrt (John 17^^).
- Matt. iv. , Mark i. , Luke iv.
192 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
confidence with which He ever holds and speaks of Scripture as the
unquestionable standard of truth, and the infallible rule of faith
and life. In the Temptation He uses the expression three times
in quoting from Scripture to answer Satan. The Temptation was
the first conflict of Christ immediately after consecration to His
public work, and He entered it with the sword of the Spirit, and
overcame every assault of the tempter with the Word of God.
And when Satan barbed his second temptation by a garbled,
perverted text, Christ replied by simply quoting another which
exposed the perversion ; and by a third, which rebuked the
tempter, and hurled him vanquished from the conflict, smitten
by the Spirit's sword. What a unique honour Christ thus puts on
Scripture by His own implicit submission to it as a man, by
giving it alone the supreme place of authority in the controversy
between Satan and Himself, and by making appeal to it final in
the conflict. He practically illustrates its Divine truth, authority,
and power. He declares the Divinity of it in every word as
proceeding from the mouth of God, though really written by man.
And a single text of it is to Him of more value and weight than
all the kingdoms of the world, constituting a supreme and final
reason for faith and obedience, and resistance of temptation,
simply because it is found in Scripture, which is to Him the
Word of God.
As with Satan so with the Sadducees, as seen. He appealed to
the Scriptures as the final and authoritative settlement of the
controversy as to the resurrection of the dead (Matt. 22). So
also with the Pharisees as to marriage and divorce (Matt. 19^"^),
Scripture ends discussion, — the words in Genesis (i^" 2--') being
held as equally true and authoritative with His own words,
because of both being the Word of God. Similarly He silences
them by a single sentence from Scripture (Ps. 1.1 o), proving
therefrom His own Divine-human personality — the profound
but all-important mystery of godliness — God manifest in the flesh
— Immanuel ; a mystery not likely known, at most not clearly
known to the Psalmist, and therefore requiring Divine aid to
express it in such terms as to form the sure foundation of
such momentous truths. Further, He justifies His own and His
disciples' ideas and practices as to the Sabbath by an appeal to
Scripture as unquestionable authority (Matt. 1 2). He also explains
their rejection of Him, as the stone which the builders despised, by
THE "THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED" PASSAGES 193
Scripture as the Divine Key to all such action ; and by one grand
stroke declares the truth and Divine authority of three Bible
books and prophecies, and shows the harmony, Divine unity, 1
and wisdom of all Scripture (Matt. 21*2, Ps. ii8-'--23, Isa. 8^^- 1^
Dan. 2^*- ^^). He silences their censure of the children praising
Him in the temple with a quotation from Scripture (Ps. 8-),
in which the writer could not have foreseen that such a use
would be made of it, and, therefore, the utterance must have
been given by God (Matt. 21^5. i6^_ jjg justifies His own stern
action in cleansing the temple of its profaners and profanations
by an appeal to the supreme authority of Scripture. " It is
written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of
prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Matt. 2 1^3,
Mark 11^"); and thereby proclaims the Divine authority of two
of the greatest prophetical books (Isa. 56'' and Jer. 7II). He
answers a lawyer, asking the way to eternal life : " What is
written in the law, how readest thou ? ", and then and thereby
declares it to be man's God-given guide to life and immortality.
Finally, to the Jews, as seen, He defends His own Divine claims
upon a single word of Scripture (John lo^*-^^), postulating its
finality, and declaring its inviolability, which He could do only
because, as He said, it was the Word of God, true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority, both in its substance and its form, in its
language as well as in its thought.
The " THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED " PASSAGES.
The passages in which " fulfil," " that it might be fulfilled," and
the like, occur, where our Lord speaks of Himself and others
fulfilling the O.T. prophecies, are numerous ; and supply, with the
previous, a vast array of conclusive evidence for the Divine origin,
truth, and authority of Scripture. And if to them are added
those quoted or referred to by His apostles after His example,
and by the inspiration of His Spirit, there is an immense mass of
diversified and decisive evidence for the Bible claim, which is
simply overwhelming in amount, and of the weightiest character.
The opponents have never seriously attempted to answer this ;
for it is absolutely unanswerable. It at least demonstrates the truth
and Divine authority of Scripture, and the falseness and perilous-
^ See Birks, Tlie Bible and Modern lliought, p. 214.
194 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
ness of all teaching that questions these, unless Christ and His
apostles were radically wrong in the burden, substance, and design
of their teaching. Who could fail to be struck by the unquestion-
ing confidence and Divine assurance with which our Lord ever
ly speaks of Scripture, and of everything therein as unquestionably
true and authoritative, simply because it is in the Word of
God? Let a small selection suffice for illustration. Luke 4^1.
At the beginning of His public ministry in the synagogue
of Capernaum He says, quoting from Isa. 61, "This day
is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." Here He not only
recognises real prediction in ancient prophecy, and the Divine
origin, truth, and authority of this prophecy, and implicitly of
all prophecy ; but He finds in it His whole official work as
Messiah — prophet, priest, and king — in prophetic outline. And
how could He more decisively attest the truth and divinity of
it, and of the Book of which it forms a part? Matt, ii^-i-*.
Speaking of His forerunner He says, " What went ye out for
to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a
prophet. For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send
My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way before
Thee. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
This is Elias, which was for to come." Here He teaches that the
two last prophecies of Malachi, the latest of the O.T. prophets,
are fulfilled in John the Baptist's coming ; next, that all the
prophets were God's messengers, John being greatest because
of his nearness and special relation to Christ ; and, further, that
the whole O.T., under the title of the Law and the Prophets,
was prophetic of Christ, even as He said elsewhere, " Search
the Scriptures : for they are they that testify of Me " (John 5^^).
If, then, the testimony of John, and the whole of the O.T. writers
from Moses to Malachi, on to John, in an ever progressive
revelation, testified of Christ and had Him as their burden, end,
and substance, the Book which is the God-breathed embodiment
of this must be true, trustworthy, and Divinely authoritative if
He is. Luke 18^1. On the way to Jerusalem to die. He said:
" Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written
by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be ac-
complished," etc. So in Luke 2 23", specially emphasising, "He
was numbered among the transgressors (Isa. 53I-) ; for the things
concerning Me have fulfilment" (re'Aos €;(€t). Here the Scrip-
THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED 1 95
tures determine His life course even unto death ; the Divine
programme must be fulfilled, even though requiring His death
among malefactors, "according as in the volume of the Book it is
written " of Him : for " I delight to do Thy will, O My God "
(Ps. 40^). But surely the Book containing such a Divine
obligation must itself be true, just, and Divine. Luke 21-'-^,
in His own prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the
judgment at the end of the age. He gives the Bible utterances
as the explanation, " For these be the days of vengeance, that all
things which are written may be fulfilled," — Scripture thus
supplying the true key to the interpretation of history. On the
eve of the Passion His references to Scripture and its fulfil-
ment are peculiarly frequent and pathetic, as if in the supreme
crisis and deepest experiences of His life He could speak
only in His Father's Word, or breathe save with His Father's
name upon His lips. John 131^. Speaking of Judas the traitor,
He says, on the night of His betrayal, " That the Scripture may
be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with Me hath lifted up his heel
against Me." Again, Mark 14^1, "The Son of Man goeth, as
it is written of Him ; but woe unto that man by whom He is
betrayed." John 17^^'. Again, speaking to His Father as within
the vail in His last great prayer. He says, " None of them is lost
but the son of perdition ; that the Scripture might be fulfilled."
Here the treason of Judas is said, in three different connections,
to be the fulfilment of Scripture, though the crime of man ; — even
as of the Jews' rejection of Him He said, John 15-^, "But this
Cometh to pass that the word might be fulfilled which is
written in their law. They hated me without a cause." And
the Scriptures here said to be fulfilled are not direct, specific
prophecies, but indirect, and, as some would doubtless say, far-
fetched references or applications. So that Christ in such cases
implies that the character of the Divine Word is such that not
only direct, but also indirect, and even dim and distant
hints or suggestions in it are valid, and capable of diversified
application. But what book save God's Word could with
truth be so used? Matt. 26'^'5. In rebuke of Peter's rashness
in the garden in using a sword for his Master's defence, Christ
said as to available deliverance by angels : " But how then shall
the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Here the
predictions of Scripture as to His death are recognised by Him as
196 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
constituting a moral necessity for His non-resistance, or not
seeking deliverance either by sword or angelic power • because
His Father's Word expressed to Him His Father's will, and led
Him in submission to that, to say, "The cup that My Father
hath given Me, shall I not drink it? " (John iS^i). And although
He protested against the wrong the Jews did Him, as in Mark
i^4s. 49^ "Are 5'e come out as against a thief with swords to take
.Me?", yet recognising the authority of Scripture, because the
Will of God, He quietly submitted, saying, " But the Scriptures
must be fulfilled." Was there ever such absolute surrender of a
will to the Written Word of God? And yet it was made by
Him who was, though real man, " True God of True God, Light
of Light Eternal," and it was made simply because Scripture was
recognised by Him to be the Word and Will of God. And
when, after His seizure by the soldiers. He freely delivered Him-
self up to the predicted death for us all, and then, " All His
disciples forsook Him and fled," His own prediction of that
night, and Zechariah's given centuries before, were at once
fulfilled; as He said, "All ye shall be offended because of
Me this night ; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and
the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad" (Mark 14^").
Their desertion of Him, and their own dispersion, were thus a
literal fulfilment of the words of the Divine Book.
So that the Baptist's testimony and His own preaching,
( Judas' treason and Peter's rashness, the Jews' rejection and the
\ disciples' desertion. His path in life and His experience in death,
jwere all in fact, as they were in purpose, that "it might be
/fulfilled, as it is written " in the volume of the Book. And when
■ Matthew sums up the whole history of the Passion in these apt
words, " All this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets
might be fulfilled," he only does in general what Christ did in
detail — only follows strictly the example of the Master ; and did
so by His authority and by the supernatural power of His
promised Spirit. Consequently, if He was right and authoritative
in thus quoting and interpreting and ever ascribing truth and
supremacy to Scripture, so are the disciples ; and if they are not,
neither is He, for they did simply what He did and taught, and
by His Spirit enabled them to do.
CHRIST'S ACTIONS RULED BY SCRIPTURE 1 97
Christ's Actions as well as His Utterances ruled by
Scripture.
His actions, too, as well as His utterances, show how
thoroughly Scripture ruled, guided, and sustained His whole
life and work. Hence His teaching by parables is, both by Him
and His disciples, explained by Scripture prediction, " that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet" (Matt.
J 213-15. 3 1.35^ John 1 22S.39^_ j^ig miracles of healing, also, are ascribed
to the necessity of fulfilling Scripture (Matt. S^*^- 1"), — an applica-
tion and extension of meaning being given to Isaiah's words,
" Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows "
(Isa. 53*), which were not known to or anticipated by the prophet ;
and, therefore, required supernatural inspiration to secure the
proper expression of the prophecy. His withdrawing from the
multitudes, and His frequent charging of the healed not to make
His miracles known, are explained by the predictions of Scripture
(Matt. i2i^--i). His, on the other hand, triumphal entry into
Jerusalem is attributed to the requirement of ancient prophecy.
(John 1 214-16). Sq that what He did and what He abstained from
doing are attributed to Scripture requirement. Many of the
pathetic details of His sufferings on and near the Cross are shown
in most striking precision to be the fulfilment of Scripture, such
as the crowning with thorns, the scourging, the piercing of His
hands, feet, side ; the vinegar giving, the mocking at the Cross,
a bone of Him not broken, the parting of His raiment, the break
ing of His heart, the burial in a rich man's grave. The very words
He used on the Cross were largely the words of Scripture, and
the fulfilment of them — specially " Eloi," " I thirst," " It is
finished," and the last. All these, and many others, show in
most minute and affecting detail how thoroughly all His life and
death was rooted in and ruled by Scripture, and how thoroughly
and precisely it was fulfilled by Him in countless points and
minutiae, which all demanded and demonstrated a minutely true,
entirely trustworthy, and Divinely-produced Bible.
Christ's Teaching on Scripture the same after His
Resurrection as before.
The crowning and most decisive declarations of our Lord as
to the Divine origin, truth, and authority of Scripture are those I
198 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
given after His resurrection. They are of precisely the same
nature and purport as before, as we have seen in adducing
references from the Apocalypse ; so that from first to last He has
only one doctrine of Scripture. And the opponents of His
teaching on it are thus precluded from the usual subterfuge of
being able to put the later against the earlier teaching, — a fact that
is fatal to all theorising about His humanity that would disown or
question the authority or finality of His teaching on Scripture,
and consequently of anything taught therein ; for it denies one
inch of foothold for any such idea. But the fact that He lays
such remarkable emphasis upon the Scriptures as giving the
true key to His sufferings, death, and resurrection, after He had
risen, and when, if ever. He would surely be absolutely in-
fallible, and unquestionably authoritative as a teacher, gives a
unique weight and decisiveness to His utterances. Besides, they
were then made after the events had fulfilled the predictions and
prefigurations of the O.T. ; and His great illuminative words then
uttered as He came fresh from the triumph and radiant with the
glory of the resurrection, shed such a flood of marvellous light
upon the ancient Scriptures as made them new and wondrous
revelations ; and filled His disciples' death-gloomed minds and
sorrow-stricken hearts with joy unspeakable and full of glory ; and
suddenly transformed them from perplexed and dejected men
into such assured and radiant witnesses of the resurrection as
revolutionised the world. The first of the great and decisive
utterances was given on the way to Emmaus on the resurrection
day, when, in answer to the bewildered and depressed disciples.
He burst forth into the grieved rebuke, " O fools, and slow of
heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken ! ought not
the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His
glory ? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets. He
expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
Himself" (Luke 242^- -^), Here He declares : First, that all the
prophets have predictions about Himself and His sufferings, and
that this was the chief function and mark of the prophets.
Second, that it was the darkness of their minds, and dulness
of their hearts, that prevented them seeing and believing this.
Third, that these prophecies created a moral necessity that He,
as the Messiah, should suffer the very things He had suffered,
because Scripture had foretold them ; so that the truth, authority.
CHRIST'S TEACHING AFTER THE RESURRECTION 1 99
and necessary fulfilment of it are made the moral basis of
redemption. Fourth, that there is no path to glory for the Son
of Man nor even to the Messiah, save through suffering. Fifth,
that Christ, a suffering, and thereby a glorified Saviour, is fore-
shadowed, not only in the prophets, but also in the Law (Moses),
and in all the Scriptures (Trao-ais). Sixth, that we should believe
a// that the prophets and all the Scriptures have said ; and that only
thus, and then, shall we fully know all that Christ is meant to be
to us. And those who do not see or own this are still open to
the rebuke of the Wisdom of God, "O fools," but with less
excuse for their folly now ! Thus the truth and fulfilment of
Scripture is the necessary ground and condition of our redemp-
tion, and it is only as we believe all that is in all the Scriptures
that we fully know Christ, enter into the experience of all that
God has in Him for us, and grow up into the stature of perfect
men in Christ. Was it possible even for God Himself to have
given more decisive attestation of the Divine origin and authority,
truth and inviolability, of all in all the Scriptures than this ?
The second and supreme utterance on that ever memorable
resurrection day was, " These are the words which I spake unto
you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled
which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets,
and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their
understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and
said. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the third day : and that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in His name among all
nations, beginning at Jerusalem " (Luke 24'*'*"'*''). In this, which
was uttered before the whole assembled disciples, our Lord I
teaches : First, that in all the well-known divisions of the O.T.
there were predictions of His sufferings, death, and resurrection. '
Second, that there was a moral necessity for " the Christ to
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day," even that detail,
because "all things must be fulfilled which were written" in the
Scriptures of Him. Third, that the gospel should be preached
among all nations ; and that the whole gospel dispensation is
based upon an imperative necessity arising from the faithfulness
of God, that the Scriptures must be fulfilled. Fourth, that Christ
opened His disciples' minds that they might understand the
Scriptures in this light ; and that all who are taught of Him come
200 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
to understand this. And surely this is the most decisive and
absolute way in which our Lord could declare that the Bible
is true, trustworthy, and of Divine origin and authority — the very
Word of the Lord which liveth and abideth for ever. And
when to these are added Christ's words about it as spoken from
heaven after His ascension, in the Apocalypse quoted above, we
have as complete a demonstration that to Christ in His
resurrection glory and perfection of knowledge, all Scripture was
as truly the Word of God as though it had been uttered by the
voice of the Eternal from the heavens, or graven by the finger of
God on the sides of the everlasting hills.
The general Names and Titles given to the Bible.
This, which is proved by the explicit passages above, is
confirmed by the general names or titles given to the O.T. as a
whole, which supply evidence directly applicable to all parts of
it. Some of the passages adduced above apply directly and in
the first place only to particular portions of it ; and although
from the manner in which they are quoted and used, as well as
from their forming an integral part of the one unique collection
of sacred writings recognised as sui generis, they are applicable
by necessary implication to all,— yet it strengthens the conclusion
to find passages with names and expressions directly and
indisputably used of all the sacred writings. First. The most
common name for the O.T. in the New is "Scripture" or
" Scriptures," with the equivalents or implications, " It is written,"
"Have ye never read of it?" How readest thou?" This
title is used over fifty times in the N.T. of the Old, and with
equivalents many more ; and in every case, with one
significant exception, it denotes the O.T. The exception is
where Peter puts the Epistles of Paul on a level as Scripture with
" the other Scriptures " — a name reserved otherwise for the O.T.
writings : — thus by inspired authority are the N.T. writings
placed as " Scripture " on a level with the Old, as equally the
Word of God, because inspired by the same Holy Spirit. The
title is often used by our Lord, and always in this strictly restricted
sense by which the sacred writings are distinguished from all
other writings as different in kind, and placed in a category by
themselves as the Word of the Lord. Many examples of the use
GENERAL NAMES AND TITLES 20I
of this title for the O.T. as a whole are given above ; and given
when quoting or referring to particular passages it is as part of a
well-known Divine, because God-breathed, whole ; and whatever
in any case is predicted of it in one part or passage is applicable
to all. And in every case the Scriptures are spoken of and used
as the infallible and Divinely-authoritative standard of faith and
life, which cannot be broken or violated in a single word (John
io"5), or pass away in one titde (Matt. 5^^), or be altered in one
iota without judgment (Rev. 22^9); which in every part has
eternal life (John 5^^^), because full of Christ and His redemption,
and must therefore be fulfilled as it is written (Luke 22, etc.) ; and
which should, therefore, be earnestly searched by all who wish
eternal life by the knowledge of God in Christ (John 5^"^^).
Second. The tides "The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,"
or " The Law and the Prophets," and sometimes "The Law"
alone, are given to the O.T. as a whole, specially by our Lord,
as seen above. These designations and divisions cover the
whole O.T. as known to the Jews ; and whatever is predicated
or predicable as to their truth and authority under any of these
designations, holds equally of all ; for they are used inter-
changeably, and they all denote the same well-known collection
of sacred writings. And they are ever treated and regarded as
complementary portions of the one Divine Book, which embodies
the will, expresses the love, and reveals the light of the know-
ledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; which
therefore, like God, is true, and just, and good, and everlasting —
the Word of the Lord, which endureth for ever. Hence, in
addition to all said above, our Lord in the Sermon on the
Mount, when stating the golden rule, " All things whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," — gave
as the supreme reason, " For this is the Law and the Prophets "
(Matt. 7I-). And in answer to the lawyer who asked Him which
was the first and great commandment. He said, "Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God ; and the second is like unto it : Love thy
neighbour as thyself" (Mark 12-^-31); for on these two command-
ments hang all the " Law and the Prophets." Here, in brief,
Christ declares that the ethical burden and substance of the
whole O.T. is love — love to God and love to man. And since
this is so, it must be true and good, authoritative and enduring,
for love, like God, is eternal.
202 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
In this connection there are several utterances of Christ of
special significance and weight. In Luke 16^1 our Lord represents
Abraham as saying in reply to the request of the rich man in hell,
" If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be
persuaded though one rose from the dead." Here the truth. Divine
authority, and persuasive power of the O.T. are put in the strongest
possible way, as being God's surest and most convincing testimony,
— God's last and most powerful argument for faith and repentance,
— the Written Word being declared to be surer and stronger
testimony than would be the spoken testimony of one rising from
the dead. Even as Peter says of it when alluding to the very voice
of God speaking from heaven at the Transfiguration, "We have
a more sure (/SefSatoTepov) word of prophecy ; whereunto ye do well
that ye take heed, as unto a light that shinetli in a dark place, until
the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts " (2 Pet. i^^), —
implying that God Himself can give no more sure and convincing
testimony to the truth and reality of eternal things, till the realities
themselves burst upon men amid the verifying light of the
eternal day. Jesus says, " Had ye believed Moses, ye would have
believed Me : for he wrote of Me." Here under the name of
Moses our Lord puts the O.T. on a level, as true, trustworthy,
and Divinely authoritative, with His own words, yea, if possible,
as even more credible or more unquestionably accredited.
" But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My
words ? " where the contrast lies between Moses' ivritings and
Christ's words, the Written Word being thus by God Himself
placed, as it were, above the spoken Word of God ; for it was the
same God who spake unto the fathers by the prophets who
in the last days of Revelation spoke unto us by His Son
(Heb. i^). Hence our Lord often supports His own utterances
by Scripture, as if they gave additional weight to them, as if He
spoke under their authority, and as if they possessed in some
sense a peculiar and unique authority. In Matt. 22 He says,
quoting from the iioth Psalm as one of the divisions of the O.T.
for the whole thereof, " How then doth David in the Spirit
call Him Lord ? " Here not only is His own Divine human
personality and the great mystery of the incarnation founded
upon Scripture, but this utterance, and by implication all
Scripture, is said to be uttered "in the spirit," — a most significant
utterance. It reveals that to Christ the Holy Spirit is the real
SCRIPTURE IDENTIFIED WITH GOD 203
author of Scripture, and that the root reason why He ever
speaks with such profound reverence and absolute confidence of
the truth, authority, and finaUty of Scripture, is because it is
the veritable product of God the Holy Ghost. Similarly
what John writes in Revelation is often declared to be "what
the Spirit saith unto the Churches." So Paul says, "Which
things we speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, combining spiritual words
with spiritual things" (i Cor. 2'^^). Hence, as the Westminster
Confession of Faith truly says, the supreme Authority and
Judge of controversies in religion "can be no other but the
Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." In Rev, 2^^ what John
writes is said to be, "Thus saith the Son of God," "These are
the true sayings of God." So that there is Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost speaking the Words of God. Also in John 7"^.
Scripture is identified with God, and called "the
Word of God" by Christ.
Speaking of the spiritual blessings that believers would
receive and communicate, he uses this significant expression,
" As the Scripture hath said," where Scripture is personalised, and
identified with God, who is the speaker in the references. Just
as in other cases, as Rom. 9, " The Scripture saith unto
Pharaoh," where the actual speaker was God through Moses ;
and in Gal. 3, "the Scripture foreseeing," and saying, "In thee
shall all nations be blessed," — where it was God Himself who
spoke this promise to Abraham. Thus our Lord identifies
Scripture with God, and the names are interchangeable. Is it
possible to conceive how God Himself could by any means have
more decisively and variously taught the truth, trustworthiness.
Divine authority, and inviolability of all Scripture ? Appropriately,
therefore, our Lord gives it a Divine character, and crowns it by
calling it the Word of God ! For those passages mean that,
and necessarily imply it ; nor is it possible adequately to express
their content with any title less than that. Besides, it is impossible
to account for our Lord's sublime utterances about it, profound
reverence for it, or the Divine authority and absolute finality He
ever ascribes to it, as well as His whole manner of using,
regarding, and alluding to it, except upon the supposition that.
204 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
as Paul by the Spirit saith, "it is in truth the Word of God"
(i Thess. 2i-^). And, further, Christ expressly calls it by this
name. In John lo*'', "If he called them gods to whom the
Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken " ;
where the name " Word of God " taken by itself is clearly given to
the Written Word, and where the expressions "Word of God"
and " Scripture " are manifestly and necessarily simply two
names for the same Divine Book. Also John ly^'', "Sanctify
them through Thy truth, Thy Word is truth," where "Thy Word "
is patently the Written Word, the O.T. which they had ever by
them, and His own words and revelations to them, which were
brought to their remembrance and understanding by the Holy
Spirit, and embodied in the N.T. Again, in John 5^^, "Ye
have not His Word abiding in you : for whom He hath sent, Him
ye believe not," where the " His Word " is obviously only the
O.T., as the Jews to whom this was said had no other Word of
God ; and to them this could patently have had no other mean-
ing ; for to them, as to Him, Scripture was the Word of the Lord.
Besides, He here teaches that He as the Messiah is the burden of
the Bible, and that therefore it must, like Him who fulfilled it, be
true and Divine. And, further, He implies that had they truly
believed that Word of God, they would have believed Himself,
— identifying its truth and Divine character with His own. Hence
in the next word He says, " Search the Scriptures ; for in them
ye think ye have eternal life : and they are they which testify of
Me " (v.3'^). And in Mark 7^^ He said in condemning the
Pharisees for putting aside the commandment of God by their
tradition, " Making the Word of God of none effect by your
tradition." In which, first, the contrast He makes is between
the traditions of men and the Scriptures as the Word of God.
Second, He calls the O.T. (two of the commandments of which
they were violating in the case dealt with) " the Word of God."
Third, what "Moses said" is twice called "the commandment
of God," and "the Word of God." So that what His servants
say by His Spirit is said to be what God said. Siniilarly in
Matt. 4 He says in reply to Satan, " Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God " ; where what was written by man, and was a Mosaic
utterance (Deut. 8), is said to have been uttered by God. Thus
God not only inspires and makes Himself responsible for what is
CHRIST'S USE OF SCRIPTURE 205
spoken in His name, but also regards it as His own, and actually
calls it His Word, and "the true sayings of God." God identifies
Himself with it, and calls it His Word. Besides, He endorses
the Book that the prophets called "the Word of the Lord";
and uses many equivalent expressions. So that in O.T. and
New the words of the writers of Scripture are regarded and
spoken of as God's words ; and Christ attests and ratifies this for
the O.T. and sets the prime example for it in the N.T., and for
calling Scripture as a whole the Word of God.
Christ's Use of Scripture and His habitual
Attitude to it.
Not less decisive than His teaching in explicit and implicit
passages, or than the titles or designations He gives the Bible, are
His manner of using it, and His habitual attitude towards it.
He quotes from or refers to all parts of it, without distinction,
as equally true and authoritative, — alluding directly or indirectly
to almost every book, and to every element and kind of
thing therein indiscriminately as God's Word ; nor is there
proof of His quoting any apocryphal book. Sometimes the
references are made with the names of the writers, sometimes
without ; at times when writers' names are given the words
are afterwards ascribed to God, or the Spirit ; often it is
only "Scripture" or "it is written"; but in every case
the Bible is held to be the standard of truth, and the Divinely-
authoritative rule of faith and life. Its utterances, even its un-
obvious hints and dimly suggestive words, are ever held to be
decisive of controversy. Appeal to it is to Him always final, and
carries Divine authority. " It is written " settles every question :
and " Have ye not read ? " is the rebuke to all error, ignorance, or
unbelief. And even when rebuking the Pharisees for making
everything of the smaller and even trivial points to the neglect
of the weightier matters of the law — judgment, mercy, and faith —
He says, "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the
other ufidojie " — great and small being to Him God's law,
because in God's Word. He always uses it as God's Word, often
appeals to it to settle controversy, reasons from it to establish
His own claims, proves disputed doctrines by it, founds great
truths upon single facts and words of it, and ever refers to it
206 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
with profoundest reverence. His whole teaching is rooted in
it, steeped with it, ruled by it, supported from it, coloured
through it, redolent of it, illustrated by it, and largely expressed
in its language and imagery. No disciple of Browning or
Tennyson, Milton or Shakespeare, Goethe or Dante, Virgil or
Homer, was ever so saturated with their master's thought,
or so steeped in their spirit, as Jesus was in Scripture. He
found unexpected truths in it, discovered Divine depths in
it, disclosed hidden meanings in it, and made unthought of
applications of it, — unforeseen sometimes by the writers, and
unperceived often by the readers ; which revealed in it a Divine
significance and scope extending far beyond mere human con-
ception. This demanded not only Divine origin, but also such a
Divine guidance and plenary inspiration as would secure that
both in substance and in form it would truly express the
mind of God as He wished. He ever assumes its unques-
tionable truth, postulates its thorough trustworthiness, declares
its Divine authority, and proclaims its absolute inviolability.
He freely, indiscriminately, and without distinction of parts,
uses Scripture and all kinds of facts, things, and words therein
as all equally and unquestionably the Word of God ; and so
speaks of it, uses it, and regards it as all undoubtedly true,
trustworthy, and of Divine authority, as to present a striking
contrast to many modern critics and criticisers of it, who never
seem to weary of exposing its supposed erroneousness and un-
trustworthiness, by their superficial, often flippant, and some-
times patronising references, and prevalent tone in regard to it.
Without hesitation and with full assurance He refers, among
other things, to the Fall, which some so-called Christian evolu-
tionists deny, or evaporate as legend, as their principles require
them to do : to the Flood, of which others question the truth, or
regard as vindictive, and unworthy representations of God, though
He sees in it the approved principles of God's moral government
and of the future judgment : to the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, which some would-be Christian teachers regard as the
superstitious beliefs of times of darkness, — though He sees in it
the revelation of the righteousness of God against the workers of
iniquity, which all history red with the footsteps of wrath on
obdurate transgressors so awfully confirms : to Lot's wife being in
judgment turned into a pillar of salt, — which many, calling them-
THE 151BLE CHRIST'S LIFE GUIDE 20/
selves Christians, smile at as the crude conception of credulous
ages, but which He refers to as true, to enforce the most urgent
Christian duty in the prospect of His second coming : to the
serpent in the wilderness lifted up to heal the wounded at God's
gracious command, which rationalistic critics, and their flippant
followers class among old wives' fables, — while He uses it to set
forth the great truth of our redemption by His being lifted up for
us upon the Cross — the supreme revelation of the love of God :
and above all to that big bogle, Jonah in the whale's belly, which
has evoked the ridicule of scoffing sceptics, and created some-
thing akin to consternation in some weak-kneed professing
Christians; but which He who calls Himself "the Truth," and
God calls "the Faithful and true Witness," three times referred
to with the utmost unquestioning confidence, to set forth and
enforce the great root facts of His own burial and resurrection,
on which our Christianity is founded, and from which our salvation
springs.
He also takes it as His own life guide, and makes it the guide
for others. He often declares that His own life course is deter-
mined by it, — especially at the great turning points, and in leading
life crises, and even in smaller matters, and minute details. As
the evangelists tell us the place of His birth and upbringing, and
the main scene of His ministry, — Galilee, as well as the coming,
mission, and end of His forerunner, were foretold and settled by
Scripture, — so He tells us that His own preaching in Nazareth,
going up to Jerusalem to die, teaching by parables, working of
miracles, the betrayal by Judas, denial by Peter, forsaking of Him
by all, the seizure of Him by the Jews, condemnation by Jews
and Gentiles, being put to death and rising from the dead — with
many of the details of His whole life, work, and sufferings —
were foretold and predetermined by Scripture, He Himself
found these in it ; and thereby learned what His life, work, and
experience were to be ; and, therefore, guided, did, and suffered
all accordingly, because that Word expressed to Him His Father's
will.
Further, by it, as the Son of Man, He sustained His own
soul's life, nourished His spiritual nature, developed His
human character, cultivated His mental powers, increased in
all knowledge, grew in Divine wisdom, and perfected His whole
moral and spiritual being up to the full stature of the perfect man
208 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
in Christ Jesus. He performed His life-work under its inspiration,
fulfilled His life-mission by its staying power, defended His life-
conduct by its examples, interpreted His life-experiences by its
principles, resisted His life-temptations by its strength, nerved
Himself in His life-crises by its watchwords, sustained Himself in
life's most trying hours by its comforting anticipations, and passed
at last peacefully into eternity, even through the anguish of the
Cross, with its soothing words upon His dying lips. By it He
lived, laboured, suffered, conquered, died, finished His work, and
entered into His glory.
In short. His life. His work, His mission. Himself are so
related to it and identified with it, and He and it are so indis-
solubly united that they stand or fall together — that if He is
" the faithful and true Witness," it must also, as He says, be the
" true and faithful Word," — " the true sayings of God," — that if
He is Divine and Divinely authoritative, so must it be. He is not
only the antitypical fulfilment of it, but He is the ideal realisa-
tion of it, the perfect development of it, the living embodiment
of it. The Written and the Incarnate Word are one; and Scrip-
ture is summed, perfected, personalised, and eternalised in Christ,
and lives in Him in perfect human form for evermore.
What is said of the O.T. holds a fortiori of the N.T.
All this holds, in the first place, and directly of the O.T. ;
but it holds also as truly -though indirectly of the N.T. For the
two are one^ — ^one united, organic whole ; the one the growing
root, the other the full fruit ; the one the opening bud, the other
the full-blown flower. Whatever truth or authority, therefore,
the one has, that at least the other has. No one here contended
with denies, or reasonably can deny, that the N.T. is at least as
trustworthy and authoritative as the O.T. And every Christian
holds, and must hold, that whatever truth or authority belongs
to the O.T., that at least a fortiori belongs to the New. As a
matter of fact, all who admit the proof for the O.T. admit it for
the New. Therefore, after the demonstration given above, from
the teaching of Christ, of the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and
Divine authority of the O.T., we shall here give only the briefest
outline of the argument for the N.T. claim, — mainly the state-
ments and promises of Christ to His apostles, which also strongly
THE N.T. CO-ORDINATE WITH O.T. 209
confirm all, with His solemn attestation of all Revelation at its
close. Some draw an argument in favour of the co-ordinate
truth and authority of the N.T. and the Old from their similarity
of structure — the symmetry of Scripture, — there being in each a
similar threefold division in a like order and proportion, namely,
in both, first the historical, next the didactic and experimental,
and lastly the prophetical. This may give some a priori support
to the view that the Bible in its two great sections is really one
book with one common, supreme Author — God ; especially as
the books were written and issued separately by many different
authors, living in different ages, lands, and circumstances ; and
yet, when brought together, disclose this striking symmetry in
structure, — which points to a common Divine authorship and
authority. Others, with more force, reason from the organic
unity of the Bible ; and here undoubtedly there lies a cogent
argument ; for it is unreasonable to suppose that supernatural
inspiration would be given for the production of the one and
not of the other ; especially for the completing and crowning
portion. As the Revealer is one, and the Revelation one, so
the inspiration must be one in truth and authority. A powerful
argument may also be made from the great fact of the pro-
gressiveness of Revelation. For it is quite inadmissible to
suppose that God would give special aid in the earlier part,
and withhold it in the later, and higher, and consummating
part. Sooner expect a great artist to expend his skill and pains
upon the preparatory outline, or subordinate adjuncts of his
master work, and leave uncared for the chief and crowning part
— the centre and the glory of the subject. It would be caring
for the means and neglecting the end, and thereby frustrating all.
A forceful reason may also be adduced from the peculiar and
supreme place of the apostles' work in the religion of Christ.
They are never in the N.T. put on a lower plane than the pro-
phets of the O.T. ; they are often put on a higher; and they are
first when mentioned together, even though reversing the historical
order. And they had very special work to do. They had to be
the writers of His Hfe, the ideal, perfect life — the most wonderful
and difficult to portray that ever was. Yet on the true and
proper portraiture of it man's salvation depended. And when it
is remembered that every event and action in that life was a
revelation, quite as much as, often more than. His words, — for
14
2IO CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
the Sermon on the Mount, and the discourse in the upper room,
and the divinest utterances that ever came from the Ups of Him
who spake as never man spake, must give place in revelation
power to the blood drops of Gethsemane and the broken heart
of Calvary, — it will be evident how essential it was to a true
revelation of Christ and of the Father through Him, and of our
salvation thereby, that supernatural aid should be given to secure
this. Next, they were to be His witnesses, and the teachers of
His religion ; and how vital then it was that they should teach
all, and only what, God wished, and as He wished to declare His
mind, and to reveal Himself. And in whatsoever measure they
failed or erred in doing this, to that extent precisely our know-
ledge of Him would be defective or wrong, and our experience
of His salvation would thus be marred or vitiated. Further,
they were to be the founders and administrators of His kingdom
among all nations. Therefore, if the world was to receive the
full benefits of this, it was necessary that they should be super-
naturally guided at the outset, to order it and establish it in
wisdom and righteousness from thenceforth even for ever. And
as the functions and responsibilities of the apostles were un-
doubtedly higher and greater than those of the prophets, and as
the new dispensation was much greater and far-reaching in design
and issues, it follows necessarily that, if the O.T. writers were
and required to be supernaturally aided to secure God's design,
how much more a fortiori the N.T. writers ? No doubt this is
so far a priori but resistless reasoning from the less to the greater.
But we have also our Lord's explicit teaching that John the
Baptist was greater than any of the O.T. prophets ; and yet that
he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he ;
which, whatever else it meant, teaches that the N.T. is superior
to the O.T. dispensation, and therefore also its chief agents; and
implies that, if John Avas greater than the O.T. prophets, much
more were the apostles of the N.T., the prime ministers of His
kingdom.
The Holy Spirit is the supreme Author of Scripture.
It is when we come to the supreme Divine Author of both
O.T. and New that we are on still stronger ground, and have
clearer and more direct evidence of this at least co-ordinate
THE SPIRIT THE SUPREME AUTHOR OF SCRIPTURE 211
Divine authority. Tiie O.T., while named in innumerable places
" the Word of the Lord," and its equivalents, is throughout, and
often in express terms, attributed to the Holy Spirit ; as, for
example, David says, " The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and
His word w^as in my tongue," 2 Sam. 23^ ; and Zechariah near
the close of O.T., speaking for the prophets as a whole, says,
" The words which the Lord of Hosts sent by His Spirit by the
former prophets" (Zech. 7^^ ; see also 2 Pet. i-^). So the N.T.
writers make precisely the same claim, and speak in identical or
Hke terms of their words and writings being the words and the
same work of the Holy Spirit as shown above. As Peter on the
day of Pentecost urged when " they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and spake as the Spirit gave them utterance " (Acts 2"*),
John often writes, " What the Spirit saith unto the Churches "
(Rev. 1-3, etc.). And Paul is specially precise and emphatic,
" Which things we speak not in words which man's wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth " (2 Cor. 2^3) ;
therefore, " The things I write unto you are the commandments
of the Lord " (i Thess. 4^) ; and, therefore, " Stand fast, and hold
the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our
Epistle " (2 Thess. 2^^) ; therefore, " Ye received it not as the word
of man, but as it is in truth the Word of God " (i Thess. 2'^^) ; and
therefore, " He that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who
hath given unto us His Holy Spirit " (i Thess. 4"- ^) ; and generally
"all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3^^). The apostles
used these and like words because they were constrained to do
so by the Spirit — these utterances were the Spirit's utterances
through them. They were also conscious that these words were
true. They were even able to speak in other tongues, and the
hearers from many nations understood them. And the Spirit
sealed the truth of them by many miraculous gifts and works,
and by the spiritual revolutions and moral transformations they
made in the characters and lives of men — facts as sure as ever
history or science recorded. And since the N.T. time was
notoriously the dispensation of the Spirit by pre-eminence, and
in altogether a unique way, if the O.T. writers required and
received this supernatural power, how much more the N.T.
writers, for that which was their highest and most permanent
work ! — the Divinest work that was ever given to men.
212 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
Christ Himself gives the crowning Argument for all
Scripture — Promises to the Apostles.
This brings us to the chief, crowning, and final argument for
the, at least, coequal truth, trustworthiness, and authority of the
N.T. with the O.T., as also for the Divine origin, truth, and
authority of all Scriptures. It is climaxed, crowned, and con-
clusively closed for every Christian by Christ. Here, as every-
where else, all ultimately centres round Himself, and is finally
settled by Jehovah-Jesus in the name of Godhead. It is the Lord
Himself, and none less than He, who supremely declares and
Divinely seals for ever the N.T. as well as the O.T. — the whole
Bible — as the Word of the Lord that Hveth and abideth for ever.
This great and significant fact, to which we have before referred,
that Christ Himself ever comes in as the chief and supreme, as
well as the " Faithful and True Witness " at every crucial turn
and vital point in the history of His Church, and the truths of
Revelation, to give the unique weight of His own authority, —
stands out with singular clearness and Divine decisiveness here,
and gives a solemn pause, and constrains an eager silence as we
ask, "What saith the Lord?" As much of what He says has
been used in other connections before, the less is needed here.
But we note this here, as well as all above, not merely to prove
the co-ordinate authority of the N.T. with the O.T. writings and
writers, but also as an important part of the proof of the main
position — the Bible claim for both O.T. and New — ; for as what is
said of the O.T. holds a fortiori of the N.T., so what is said of
the N.T. here and elsewhere, holds also of the O.T. as two parts
of one organic God-breathed whole. First. Mark the significant
position He holds in regard to both. He on earth attests and
seals in the most solemn and absolute way with His own per-
sonal Divine authority the O.T., after it is closed, and near the
beginning of His ministry (Matt, s^''- 1^), as well as often after-
wards. And when the N.T. is closing, He from heaven speaks
in its last book, and in its final words, and in a still more solemn
and awful manner attests and seals the N.T. and the O.T. — the
whole Divine Book (Rev. 22^^- 1^). A most significant fact, as if
to indicate in the most impressive way that this work of final
attestation was too momentous for anyone to do but God. It
is the King's seal affixed by His own word and deed to the
CHRIST THE CROWNING PROOF OF SCRIPTURE 21 3
Divine book in the name of Godliead. And this fact is all the
more significant in the light of the further fact that the other
leading divisions are similarly closed with special emphasis ; — the
law in its closing book and the opening of the next (Josh, i'^) ;
the prophets in its last book and chapter (Mai. 4) ; the Gospels
with John's closing words (John 212^); the Epistles of Paul
with his last (2 Tim. 3^*'), of Peter (2 Pet. i^i 315)^ of John
(3 John 1-). So, finally and most solemnly of all, by the Lord
Himself in the last words of Scripture (Rev. 22^^. i9^_
Second. His unique relation to both, as the connecting bond
and substance of O.T. and New. He is the burden of the
one, and the all in all of the other ; and unites them together
in a living Divine-human whole, like Himself, who fulfils and
embodies them in a perfect personal form — one progressive
Revelation of co-ordinate truth and Divine authority.
Third. He Himself, with what He was, did, and suffered, is
the Divine-human personality that gives life and light and glory to
the whole, — shining through the veil of rite and symbol, typical
person and prophetic prefigurations in the O.T. more and more
unto the perfect day. And He it is who shines forth in all the
radiant glory of the Sun of Righteousness in noonday splendour
in the N.T., filling and flooding it all with one blaze of heavenly
light — the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ. Therefore, both have the same character and
purpose, and all is true and Divine, like Him of which it is the
shadow and the written embodiment.
Fourth. His promises to His apostles, recorded by all the
evangelists, are as clear, varied, and decisive as it is possible
to conceive they could be, as is patent even on inspection. In
comforting His apostles, as He sent them forth in prospect of
being brought before rulers for His sake and the gospel's, He
promises, " I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your
adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist" (Luke 21^');
" For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which
speaketh in you " (Matt. 10-'^) ; " It is not ye that speak, but the
Holy Ghost" (Mark 13^^). These words speak for themselves,
and when taken along with Christ's general promise in sending
them forth as His witnesses, " As My Father hath sent Me, so
send I you " (John 2021), they promise the apostles the same
equipment of the Holy Spirit to fit them for their work a"^
214 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
had for His. And as He spake His Father's words (" for the
words that ye hear are not Mine, but His that sent Me "), so
they spoke His words and the Father's by the Spirit of their
Father speaking in them — through them — " what the Holy Ghost
saith." And since this was promised and given them for
speaking in their own defence, which was largely personal and
temporal, how much more a fortiori for what they by His Spirit
wrote for His Church for all time ; — especially as like the prophets
they wrote only " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," — and
as what is written has always in Scripture and to Christ (John 5'*'')
a higher place and greater weight than what is spoken. Hence
Moses at the beginning of Revelation, and John at its close,
were often specially directed to write, and so more or less all
through.
In prospect of His departure, to cheer His apostles with the
assurance of " another Comforter," who would fully fit them for
all their work, and specially enable them to receive and convey a
full revelation of His Gospel, He said, " I have many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when
He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all
truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He
shall hear, that shall He speak : and He will show you things to
come. He shall glorify Me : for He shall receive of Mine, and
shall show it unto you" (John iG^'-"^^). "But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My
name. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you " (John 14-'^).
" But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth . . . He shall testify
of Me ; and ye also shall bear witness " (John 15'-''- -'). Here is,
first, that Christ had many things to say unto them which they
could not bear then because of their incapacity, or because they
could not be understood rightly till certain great events happened
which would give the proper standpoints, — specially His death
and resurrection. Second, that Christ was to send them from the
Father the Holy Spirit, who when He came would guide them into
all truth. Hence He is twice named " The Spirit of Truth," and,
therefore, whatever He will teach them and enable them to teach,
must be the truth, and nothing but the truth. Third, He will
not speak from Himself merely, but whatsoever He hears from
CHRIST'S PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT 21 5
the Father and the Son, that shall He speak ; and, therefore,
what He teaches them, that they may teach all nations and ages
(Matt. 2 819- -0), will be the Word of God of infallible truth and
Divine authority. Fourth, He will bring all things to their
remembrance that Christ had taught them while He was with
them, and He would enable them to understand them in the
new light as they had never done before, — they would indeed
as they did in fact, after the resurrection and the descent
of the Spirit, become new revelations of Divine truth. Fifth,
that He would teach them things to come — give them, like the
O.T. prophets, the gift of prophetic illumination, so that they
would not only have a new light cast upon His old teaching
which would make it a new revelation to them, and have many
new truths taught them that they never knew before, but they
would have revelations of future things made to them. And
all these would be true, and of Divine authority, because from
the Spirit of Truth, who only speaks what He hears from the
Father and the Son. Sixth, all this, through the supernatural
aid of the Holy Ghost, they were to have as permanent quali-
fications for the great and responsible work they were entrusted
with as teachers, founders, and organisers of the Christian
Church throughout the world ; — and specially for that supreme
part of their work — giving a written Revelation for all men in all
ages. For, as to give this supernatural power to the prophets and
not to the apostles, so to give it for their spoken words and de-
fence, which was more or less temporary and personal, and not for
their written words, which were to be a permanent and universal
Revelation of God for man's salvation, would be contrary to all
God's previous method of giving His Revelation, spoil and
abandon all when the climax and crown were being reached, for
which all the past had been preparing, and frustrate the very
purpose and the grace of God in giving a Revelation.
Christ's Promises fulfilled and Scripture finally
SEALED BY HiiM.
Fifth. And all this is what was actually realised, as shown
above, on and after the day of Pentecost, " when they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake as the Spirit gave them
utterance," and went forward under His Divine inspiration
2l6 CHRIST'S PLACE IN THEOLOGY
preaching and teaching the gospel, planting and organising
Churches, and writing book after book, — Gospel and Epistle,
History and Apocalypse, — until the last word of the Divine Book
was written by man, and sealed by God as the Word of the
Lord that liveth and abideth for ever, and has ever since been
re-sealed by the Spirit of God in the souls of men as it quickened
them into eternal life, and made them children of God.
Sixth. To give His apostles' words the greater weight and
finality. He put them on a level with His own words in truth and
authority; and identifies them with Himself as His own in these
solemn and majestic utterances, " He that receiveth you, receiveth
Me ; and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me. He
that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a
prophet's reward" (Matt. io^°), — putting the apostles on a level
with the O.T. prophets, as in Rev. 22'' and 2 Pet. 3-. " He that
heareth you, heareth Me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth
Me ; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me "
(Luke 10"''^). "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear
your words . . . verily I say unto you. It shall be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for" these
(Matt, lo^^- ^^). Seventh. And He puts the keystone into and the
final Divine seal on the whole in these most solemn and awful
words, with which He closes the Book of God, whose words will
judge every man at the last day. Rev. 22^^-20, "For I testify
unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this
book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book : and if any
man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of
the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
He that testifieth these things saith. Surely I come quickly."
Such then is the teaching of Christ on Holy Scripture, — the
clearest, fullest, sharpest, and most decisive ever given. And
surely it demonstrates, if language, usage, and attitude can prove
anything, at least that all Scripture is the Word of God— true,
trustworthy, and of Divine authority. The truth and authority of
His teaching on this radical religious question may be and is
denied now ; but it is unquestionable that this is His teaching,
and with this prime Bible claim He and His religion, and all
authority in religion, stand or fall, as next Book shows.
BOOK II
IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
CHAPTER I.
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE QUESTION, AND
WHEN IT IS RAISED.
Ay, that is the question ! That is the serious and almost
alarming question which is inevitably and avowedly raised in
recent controversies concerning Scripture in these last times.
Who would have thought that such a question could have ever
been seriously raised in the Christian Church? Who would
have believed that the Divine authority, and infallible truthful-
ness of her Divine and adored Lord could have been called in
question in this late age of the Christian era, by those professing
to call Him I^ord and Saviour? Who would have imagined,
even a few years ago, that such a question could have now been
discussed, or asked, by any in anyway calling themselves by
His name and worshipping Him as their God ? Time was, and
that but recently, when the very raising of such a question would
throughout Christendom have aroused a storm of holy indig-
nation, and would have been regarded as blasphemy.
What the Question precisely is and raises.
For be it observed that the question is not whether Christ is
God ; for many who, while claiming the name of Christian, have
answered that question in the negative, — such as the Unitarians
and Arians, while denying His Divinity, they have yet owned
217
21 8 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
His supreme authority and maintained His inerrancy as a
teacher. Nor is it whether Clirist is our Redeemer ; for many
of various names who have denied this have nevertheless acknow-
ledged the supremacy and infallibility of His teaching. But the
question raised now is the deeper and more fundamental one :
whether Christ, God or not, Redeemer or not, is to be regarded
and deferred to as an infallible teacher in religious things — a
teacher from whose decision there is no appeal ; — whether His
words, when truly ascertained and rightly understood, do not
settle all controversies on the religious subjects on which He
has spoken ? And, further, if He is not the source and seat of
authority in religion, then who is ? what is ? Is there, how can
there be, any inerrant or real authority at all ? These are the
serious issues and vital questions raised in recent controversies
which urgently press for a satisfactory solution.
How THE Question has been raised.
It is also most significant to observe how they have arisen.
They have been raised not directly, but indirectly. They have
not arisen from a direct study of these questions in the light of
Scripture teaching ; for long ago Scripture was supposed to be
so clear and decisive on them that they were held to have been
for ever settled on the authority of God speaking in His Word.
But as this seemed plainly to oppose the theories of certain
speculators on religious subjects, and the conclusions of a certain
class of Bible critics, and as Jesus unquestionably appeared to
stand most decisively by the Scripture against such critics and
speculators. He seemed to block the way to the triumph of their
views. Therefore He must be removed, and His absolute
authority as a religious teacher questioned, and, if need be, set
aside or qualified on such subjects. The truthfulness and in-
errancy of His teaching, too, must be abandoned or modified, so
as to accord with the supposed results of criticism, science, and
philosophy. Thus this crucial question, which underlies and
largely settles all other questions, is raised, not as a direct, but
as a side issue, and is the natural result of men's supposed dis-
coveries on other collateral subjects. Thus the Divine authority
and infallible truthfulness of Him who is " the Truth " comes
to be sacrificed to the supposed infallibility of the unproved
RAISING THE SERIOUS QUESTION 219
assumptions, oft-changing, contradictory results, and ever-varying
exigencies of rationalistic criticism and speculative philosophy.
If not Infallible, can He i-.e Divine?
But directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally,
this most momentous question, on which all other questions
depend, and by which they are largely settled, has been raised ;
and having been raised, rightly or wrongly, it must be faced
seriously and followed honestly, lead us where it may. We
must therefore ask, " Is it not possible that the Church may
have been mistaken in supposing her Lord to have been in-
fallible in His teaching and Divine in His person?" for the
denial of the one seems inevitably in the ultimate issue to carry
with it the denial of the other, although the denial of the last has
not always been followed by the denial of the first.
Does appeal to His own Words avail?
And should appeal be made to His own words and claim, is
this of much avail ? For is it not part of the teaching of many of
those with whom we are at issue that it is difficult, if not impos-
sible, to determine with certainty what His words and claims were,
on account of the uncertainty as to the origin, authorship, date, or
authority of the Gospel records thereof? and because of the un-
reliability and alleged indefinite erroneousness of the Scriptures ?
Are we not, indeed, by the very theory deprived of the materials
and conditions for the determination of this all-important ques-
tion, or, indeed, of any important Bible doctrine whatever?
Even if we should be able to gather from the general trend or
substance of Christ's words, as recorded in Scriptures, what His
teaching and claims were, and that He did claim for Himself
Divinity and infallibility, may it not now be asked, without
blasphemy or presumption, whether He Himself was not mis-
taken in His claims as to the infallibility of His teaching and
the Divinity of His Person ? After all, is it not possible that
both the Church and the Church's Lord have been mistaken in
this matter as in others ; and is not our faith, therefore, vain ?
220 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
Is APPEAL TO His Miracles valid ?
And should it be attempted to avoid such a paralysing con-
clusion by adducing His miracles in support of His claims, is
this line of defence to much purpose, or indeed available justly
at all, to those from whose principles and contentions these
tremendous consequences seem to follow ? For is it not usually
a prominent part of their teaching that the argument from His
miracles in proof of the truth of His claims is behind the age
and untenable, or at least inadequate, and of little weight and
no real validity in the light of modern science and philosophy ?
Nay, on the contrary, does not the notorious fact that Christ
so often appealed to His miracles, and laid so much stress on
them in proof of His Divine mission and claims, serve to con-
firm the presumption that He was mistaken ; since, according to
these critics, this line of evidence and His way of laying stress
on it, though perhaps impressive in a superstitious age, has in
our enlightened time been discredited and become untenable ?
andj because never really valid, has at length vanished like a
dream of the night before the infallible criticism and unique
light of the nineteenth century !
Or to Fulfilment of Prophecy?
It is of equally little avail, even were it legitimate, for them to
have recourse to the evidence for His claims from the literal ful-
filment of prophecy. For is it not usually another part of their
critical attitude and teaching, that prophecy, properly so called,
and the prediction by supernatural inspiration of future events,
was never uttered, but only sagacious "forecasts," sage prognos-
tications from general principles and keen penetration ? There-
fore, there never could have been real fulfilment ; while as for
literal fulfilments of prophecy, why, according to them, such
things never existed, nor ever could have existed, except in the
vain imaginations of excitable men in an uncritical age, and
were the pure products of ignorance, imagination, or superstition.
The very possibility of literal fulfilment of prophecy is, on their
theory of an indefinitely erroneous Bible, excluded ; because
that necessarily requires entire rehability and literal precision in
the corresponding parts — like a mosaic or dovetailing. And
UNAVAILING RESORTS 221
since the apostles, and even Christ Himself, speak and reason
at length on many fulfilments of prophecy in Christ, and give
numerous examples of literal fulfilments in the inspired writings
of the N.T., it therefore, of course, follows that in these, which
together form a large part of the teaching of Christ and His
apostles, both they and He were mistaken ; and must not our
faith in them and in Him be again vain ?
Or to His Incarnation and Resurrection?
Even were they, to avoid the consequences, to retreat, as
some of them would, to what has been called the very root and
citadel of the Christian faith, — the incarnation and resurrection
of Christ, — is it not for them, on their views, a futile retreat ? For
these are miracles, and according to them miracles have become
discredited as evidences of Christianity. Besides, they have to
be proved to be true. But how, on their principles and con-
tentions, can the miracle of the incarnation be proved — say, in
answer to Professor Max Miiller, Tyler, and other religious
evolutionists, who would relegate it to the category of legends
common to the origin of all religions ? As for the miracle of
the resurrection, why, on their theory of an indefinitely erroneous
record, — a Scripture unreliable and untrue in an indefinite num-
ber of things, — the proof of it seems impossible, or at least the
alleged discrepancies and contradictions in the narratives of it,
which their theory of Scripture requires them to admit, would
seem to justify the refusal to receive the resurrection as a fact.
Indeed, it is on this ground that many do reject it, and with it
Christianity ; as, for example. Professor Huxley, who, while
declaring that he could not as scientist and agnostic reject it
on the ground that miracles are impossible, yet says he could not
receive it as true on the evidence — the alleged discrepancies and
contradictions in the narratives bearing a most important part in
the supposed unsatisfactoriness of the evidence on which Huxley
rejects it. While as for Matthew Arnold, this he thinks warrants
him to speak of " the fable of the resurrection forming on the
Gospel page."
If, then, Christ is not risen, or if the proof of His resurrection
is insufficient, once more is not our faith vain or unwarrantable ?
And since the apostles and writers of the N.T. founded and
222 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
propagated Christianity .on the fact and faith of the resurrection,
then in this were they not dupes or deceivers ; and, through
this mistake or unwarrantable assumption of theirs, did they not
mislead the world — the countless multitudes who in every age
have lived and died in the faith of Christ ? And since Christ
Himself also believed in, and often foretold, His resurrection,
and also told His enemies — the Pharisees — that when this event
had, after their lifting up of Him, taken place, they would
know that He was the Messiah and the Son of God ; — then, if He
did not rise, or if the proof of His resurrection was not sufficient
to warrant belief in it, — as the theory of an indefinitely erroneous
Scripture would permit and enable opponents to show, — then,
once more, is not our faith vain, and Christianity untrustworthy,
unwarrantable, and unreasonable : and agnosticism, or the re-
jection of the Christian faith, right, reasonable, and requisite.
Distinguish Christian Critics from Anti-
supernaturalists.
Before stating or urging these consequences further, it is just
and necessary to distinguish between the positive beliefs and
standpoints of those who, from different reasons and even
opposite motives, agree in results which, because all denying
more or less the truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture,
raise the fundamental question of Christ's infallibility and author-
ity, with such tremendous issues therefrom as have been indicated.
Some religious evolutionists, like Professor Max Miiller, Tylor,
and others, boldly and avowedly profess to explain all religions,
the Hebrew and Christian included, by mere natural evolution,
and attribute the origin and development of all religious ideas to
purely natural causes, and exclude supernatural intervention or
Divine Revelation in their production altogether — in their case
the question of the truthfulness of Scripture, or the infallibility
of Christ's teaching in connection therewith, scarcely calls for
serious consideration ; for these are ignored and excluded by
their fundamental position, distinctive principles, and speculative
methods.
The rationalistic critics also, like Reuss, Wellhausen, Kuenen,
etc., on literary and critical grounds exclude the supernatural,
properly so called, and attribute the alleged misplacement of the
BELIEVING AND UNBELIEVING CRITICS 223
Law and the Prophets, and consequent misrepresentations there-
from arising, to the pious fraud of the priestly compilers, with
a view to priestly aggrandisement. Were this a mere literary
problem as to the transposition of the Law and the Prophets, it
would be a legitimate question for Biblical criticism, which might
be discussed within certain limits, and found to possess a large
element of truth, quite consistent with the truthfulness of Scrip-
ture and the behef in the infallibility of Christ's teaching. But
when the writers of Scripture are, as in this case, charged with
deliberate imposture with a view to personal worldly ends,
there is an end to all legitimate criticism of Holy Writ. Its
truthfulness and trustworthiness and Divine authority are ipso
facto denied, the moral and spiritual value of the Bible is
evacuated, its claim to be the Word of God in any real sense is
falsified, and Christ's testimony to it as such is set at nought as
ignorance or imposture — either of which is equally fatal to His
infallibility and authority as a teacher. It is quite in accordance
with this for such critics to call the legislative parts of the
Pentateuch priestly imposture, and much of the historical part,
with Reuss, " bare fiction " ; or to say, with Wellhausen, " There
is not a word of truth in it," and generally, with Kuenen,
to allege that the history of Israel, which is the root and
type of the religion of Christ, was simply the highest form of
ancient religion evolved naturally by man from his own con-
sciousness and environment, without any special supernatural aid.
From all these, however, we must carefully distinguish those
Christian critics who, while accepting many of the results of
modern criticism, entirely repudiate such unbelief, maintain the
supernatural in our religion, and stand firmly by what are called
the great verities of the Christian faith. They give a unique
place to the Bible in religious literature as containing a Divine
Revelation, and hesitate to challenge directly the final authority
of Christ as a Divine and infalhble teacher. Later on it will be
shown that even these, if they deny the truthfulness of Scripture,
or assert or assume its indefinite erroneousness, as many do, are
in the ultimate issue logically and irresistibly driven to deny the
infallibility of Jesus as a teacher, as also His true Divinity as a
person, and even His plenary inspiration as a man, with all the
disastrous issues. But meantime it is but just to recognise the
radical difference between them and all those who in any way
224 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
exclude the supernatural and practically reject the religion of
the Bible.
When and where is the serious Question raised?
It is important also to discriminate precisely where this
serious question is necessarily raised, and where it is not ; for
unquestionably mistakes have been made, and extreme untenable
positions taken up, by opposing parties in this controversy. The
Anti-orthodox have erred in raising it only when it was too late,
after they had settled their critical conclusions without any
regard to it, and then only as a side issue arising out of these
conclusions, and not as a separate, independent, and primary
question on its own proper evidence. On the other hand, the
ultra-orthodox have often raised the question much too early,
and on minor matters where it was not necessary to raise it at all ;
and have sounded the false alarm in such a way that when the
place of real ground for alarm was reached, it became difficult
for those most deeply interested to distinguish between the real
and the false.
• Seldom on Questions of Authorship.
Let it then be distinctly understood that, in our opinion, this
serious question does not ordinarily arise in connection with
the human authorship of the books or parts of the books of
Scripture ; for obviously one inspired writer might be used for it
as well as another, and only in cases where the authorship is
unequivocally declared could this question arise. Even then we
must not forget that a book may still bear an author's name,
though materially altered by subsequent editing and adapting to
later conditions — the book being in substance his, though it may
not be in the form in which it would have come originally from
his hand. A famous case of this kind arose in the discussion in
the Free Church of Scotland in connection with Dr. W. Robert-
son Smith's views as to the authorship of Deuteronomy, in which
the extreme views on opposite sides were exposed, and the now
current and generally accepted view maintained, that while in
spirit and essence, in substance or principles, the book is Mosaic,
yet as we have it is not in the form it would have come
WHERE SERIOUS QUESTION RAISED 225
from Moses — especially in the legislative parts ; but Mosaic
principles were developed, adapted, and added to by later in-
spired writers or writer to meet later needs and conditions, and
different documents used in its composition, which plainly reveal
themselves in our present Deuteronomy.
Nor should we, as is so often done, overlook the fact that the
literary methods of these early times and Eastern peoples were
exceedingly different in many respects from ours ; and, conse-
quently, what would be thought unpardonable among us was not
unknown among them — such as connecting the names of dis-
tinguished men with books which might not be their actual
productions, but only substantial expressions of their principles
and spirit. There could, for example, not be a greater mistake
than to judge of and measure the writings of the ancient Hebrew
Scriptures by our English literary ideas and methods in the nine-
teenth century. Consequently, it is only in cases where a clear
and unquestionable authorship is established and declared in a
particular instance by Christ or some inspired writer, that the
question of the truthfulness of Scripture or the infallibility of
Christ can arise.
Or on the Dates or Method of Composition
OF Books.
The case is similar as to the dates of Bible books. There
is often much uncertainty about these, and though the original
may be much earlier than the date given to the writing in the
form in which it has come down to us, it does not follow that
the truth of Scripture is impugned by ascribing the latest form
of it to the latest date.
So also with the method of composition. The truthfulness
of Scripture, or the authority of Christ, is not at all affected by
the assertion that Moses, or any other inspired writer, used
various materials, found in sundry ancient documents, embody-
ing primitive traditions, in the composition of a Biblical book ;
for this is only what we should expect — what seems as a matter
of fact to have been done, and is, in substance, what Luke de-
clares he did in the composition of his Gospel. But as the use,
expression, and embodiment of that material were inspired by
the Holy Spirit, to set forth the Divine Revelation according to
15
226 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
the mind of God, — as God would have it, — the truthfulness and
authority of Scripture are in no way compromised thereby.
Nor can it be too strongly emphasised that it is only of the
original Scriptures, properly interpreted, that infallible truth and
Divine authority are predicated. Nothing but untold confusion
and perverting prejudice have been created by the crude and
absurd idea that this is affirmed of any version or translation.
It is of the Scripture as originally given by inspiration of God,
and of that alone, that any intelligent advocate predicates un-
erring truthfulness and Divine authority ; and the frequent de-
claration of this fact ought to have long ago put an end to
persistent misrepresentations, of which the perpetuators might
well be ashamed.
Not on traditional Interpretations, only on the
ORIGINAL Scriptures.
Still greater misconception has arisen, and much needless
alarm aroused, by confounding the truthfulness of Scripture with
traditional interpretations of it. Hence, when these have been
assailed and abandoned, many have imagined that it was the
Bible truth itself which was being attacked and destroyed ;
whereas it was not the Word of God at all, but only the tradi-
tions of men that were being exploded and swept away — a pro-
cess that must be continually going on if the Word of God is to be
kept pure and entire. There is a continual tendency to conceal,
overcrust, and thereby pervert the truth of God by the traditions
of men ; and there is no more imperative necessity for those who
would reach the Eternal Rock — the Living Word — to drink there-
from the pure water of life freely, than remorselessly, but wisely,
to clear away all these traditions and traditional interpretations of
men, so far as they hide the truth, or hinder us hearing the very
voice, and feeling the very heart of God, breathing and beating
through His inspired Word.
The precise Point at which the supreme
Question arises.
It is only of the original Word, then, freed from all errors of
transcription, translation, and interpolation, and that Word so
THE TRUE POSITION 22/
truly interpreted that we have ascertained its real meaning and
realised the very voice and mind of God therein, that infallible
truthfulness and Divine authority are predicable or predicated.
p]ut when we have ascertained these, what we have is the truth
and nothing but the truth of God. It is here, precisely here,
that we come to the parting of the ways between God's truth
and man's error. Just at this very point we arrive at the ridge
of the range of investigation, on the one side of which is the very
truth of God, and nothing else than truth ; and on the other side
of which is mere human speculation, and the ever varying, never
certain, and always errant opinion of men. Truth and error, it
has been well said, come sometimes as near to each other as the
opposite sides of a razor. Perhaps no case in the history of
theological discussion so well illustrates this as the present ; and
in nothing, perhaps, is it so patently and solemnly evident as in
connection with our Lord's teaching as to Scripture.
Testimony of leading Scholars and Theologians
as to the true position.
One large class of critics, among whom may be reckoned
many of the foremost Biblical scholars and highest authorities in
critical questions of to-day, claim, and rightly claim, full liberty
for criticism on all questions connected with Scripture and
religion ; and yet hold with strongest conviction and deepest
reverence that on any matter connected therewith on which our
Lord has expressed His mind, there is, and ought to be, an end
of controversy. They maintain that His words, when we have
really found them, and properly interpreted them, — so as to
have truly arrived at what He meant by them, — settle, and
should settle, the questions for every Christian and every
reverent student of Scripture. This, too, is said, not merely
when referring to moral and religious questions, properly so
called— for example, afl matters of faith and duty ; but also on
all Biblical and other questions on which He has clearly given
His mind, if He has done so ; in fact, that He spake the truth,
and nothing but the truth, on every matter of every kind on
which He ever spake ; and that when we truly know and ascer-
tain the meaning of His words, on any matter whatever, religious,
moral. Biblical, historical, or any kind of subject, there is nothing
228 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
but infallible truth in every statement that He ever made, every
reference or allusion He ever introduced, and every word He ever
spake. Consequently, there is an authoritative settlement of every
controversy, question, matter, or fact on which He has clearly
expressed His mind, if he has really expressed His own mind.
Some of these critics, too, are among the most learned and
advanced on Biblical questions of our age, and have made some
of the ablest and most valuable contributions to Biblical criticism,
theological literature, and apologetic defence in this or any land.
Let me mention only Professor Dr. Robertson Smith, whose
scholarship and ability no one will question, and whom few,
certainly none of those whose errors we oppose, will charge with
claiming, or exercising, too little liberty in Biblical criticism, or
in arriving at insufficiently advanced results. In his own defence
on the questions Connected with Deuteronomy he stated, as
already referred to : — " If I thought that anything in my views,
whether in themselves so far true or false, impugned the truth or
authority of the teaching of our Lord, I should feel myself on
dangerous and untenable ground ; but it is only a very strained
exegesis that can even appear to make this out." He also
stated : " I am willing to have my views tested even by the
strictest views of plenary inspiration." He also condemns the
now prevalent view that the Bible only confains the Word of God
along with an indefinite number of other things not God's Word.
" People now say that Scripture contains God's Word, when they
mean that part of the Bible is the Word of God and another
part is the word of man. That is not the doctrine of "our
Churches, which hold that the substance of al/ Scripture is God's
Word. What is not part of the record of God's Word is no
part of Scripture." And he repudiates the idea of questioning,
far more of "rejecting the supreme authority of our Lord."
These words indicate the true and reverent position for every
earnest student of the Divine Word to take up. And surely the
lengths to which he has, nevertheless, felt himself free to go in
Bible criticism, in various directions, ought to satisfy every
reverent student of the Word of God that the maintaining of the
truthfulness of Scripture, and the infallibility of Christ as a
teacher, may be quite consistent with the fullest freedom of
Biblical criticism, and might for ever silence the vain cant of a
vaunting, would-be advanced criticism.
FALSE ADVANCED CRITICISM 229
Advanced Criticism falsely so called.
Advanced criticism ! Why, the criticism that assails the truth-
fulness of Scripture, or impugns the infallibility of Christ, is not
advanced but retrograde, — not only destructive but self-destruc-
tive ; and, in the final issue, a stultification and annihilation of
all criticism whatever ; — inasmuch as it discredits the materials
and destroys the basis on which it rests, and which alone gives
value to it, or its results, or any sense to criticism. To this con-
clusion all the second class of critics must come at last, however
they may in other things differ from each other. Nor can the
least rationalistic of them easily or logically stop short of this, —
with all the tremendous issues involved therein, indicated above.
All who from any cause or on any ground deny that the Bible —
the whole Bible (" all Scripture ") — is true, trustworthy, and of
Divine authority ; and consequently assert its indefinite erroneous-
ness and unauthoritativeness, — which is simply the converse, —
may without any inconsistency, and must, by sheer logical
necessity, deny its infallibility or Divine authority in everything.
Because the Bible claims this for itself, for all Scripture, as can
be demonstrated ; and makes this the basis of all its other claims,
and the ground of the belief of all its particular truths.
Therefore, if this, its fundamental claim, is proved to be
false, its whole veracity and authority are of necessity destroyed
and gone. It cannot, therefore, be the Word of God at all, in
any sense ; for it is surely a first and necessary postulate of all
religion and ethics, that the God of truth cannot lie. It can only
be the false and fabricated word of erring, or unveracious, or
audacious men. The only possible way to escape from this
conclusion is to show that the Bible does not make this claim
for itself, and to overthrow all the overwhelming mass of evidence
which proves that it does. But this our opponents have never
yet done, — never even attempted to do, and never can do. The
very attempt to do so would be the most effectual way to convince
them of its impossibility. And since our Lord endorses this
claim of Scripture, and, by words that cannot be evaded, declares
its truthfulness and Divine authority in the most explicit and
emphatic manner, — in words that are as if "written with the
point of a diamond, and with lead in the rock for ever," — yea,
postulates it, and in His own invariable practice proceeds upon
230 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
the assumption of its truth as beyond question ; it follows as a
simple and irresistible logical necessity that all who deny or
question this claim must deny or question Christ's infallibility
and Divine authority as a teacher, and assert the erroneousness
and falsity of His teaching. No wonder that Dr. W. Robertson
Smith, recognising this, and realising the seriousness of it, should
have used the solemn and weighty words already referred to, as
to the dangerousness and untenableness of the ground of those
that would dare to impugn or question the truth or authority of
the teaching of our Lord. To the same effect others of the fore-
most biblical scholars and greatest theologians write on this
crucial question — such as Dr. Liddon, Dr. Dorner, Dr. Westcott,
Dr. EUicott. See Appendix.
Note. — " A sincere and intelligent belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ
obliges us to believe that Jesus Christ, as a Teacher, is infallible. To charge
Him with error is to deny that He is God . . . ; unless God can Himself
succumb to error, or can consent to deceive His reasonable creatures. The
man who sincerely believes that Jesus Christ is God will not doubt that
His every word standeth sure, and that whatever has been sanctioned and
sealed by His supreme authority is independent of, and unassailable by, the
fallible judgment of His creatures respecting it." — Dr. Liddon, Our Lori{ s
\ Divinity, pp. 453, 472.
CHAPTER II.
THE ALLEGED GROUNDS LN SCRIPTURE OF
CHRIST'S FALLIBILITY, AND THEIR MANI-
FEST ERRONEOUSNESS.
The only possible way to avoid this tremendous conclusion,
with all the fearful consequences thereof to a world whose
supreme need is an infallible teacher, is to prove that Christ
does not sanction that Bible claim ; and, therefore, of necessity
to explain away all the evidence and argument by which it is
estabUshed that He did. The very attempt to do this would
best convince them of its force and unanswerableness. So
strongly has this been felt that candid Rationalistic critics have
been constrained to admit the truth of it, and have frankly
owned that the plain meaning of Christ's words and Christ's
way of regarding and using Scripture was inconsistent with their
critical conclusions ; and that, in fact, Jesus regarded and used
the Bible as the believing plain man does. Nevertheless,
adhering to these conclusions they have, though reluctantly, and
at first with hesitation and not a little delicacy, at length
deliberately taken up the position that Christ was not infallible
as a teacher, and have avowedly proceeded to prove and
explain it.
Whatever may be thought of the proof and the explanations,
it is all-important to note the admission that Christ did stand by
the Bible as such, and did recognise its truthfulness and Divine
authority. With it, therefore. He stands or falls. Accordingly,
some of these critics, desiring to uphold His Divinity, and to
preserve His authority as a teacher in many respects, have
endeavoured to explain how^, consistently with errors or mistakes
in some of His teaching and utterances. His Divinity might
still be maintained, and His teaching in other respects received
23^ IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
as authoritative. To their credit be it said, some of them have
done their best to do so, and have evinced an earnest and
commendable desire to speak of Him, and of everything directly
connected with Him, with a reverence that reveals the depth of
the impression He has made on the minds of all earnest men ;
and the seriousness, if not the perilousness, of even appearing to
question or to qualify His infaUibility or authority. Others, it
must be said, have evinced no such reverence, carefulness, or
realisation of the momentousness of the issues at stake, but with
a reckless, almost contemptuous, audacity have rushed on to
the full and fatal termination. But whether with reverence or
irreverence, carefulness or rashness, to this conclusion they have
come, this avowal they have made, and this position they have
sought to establish, explain, and defend as best they could.
I. Christ's Nescience (Mark 13^-) no Ground for
INFERENCE OF ErRANCV OR ErROR IN TEACHING.
The more cautious and reverent have sought Scripture
support for their theories, and have even quoted a single
sentence from Christ Himself that seemed to favour their con-
tention : "Of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not
the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"
(Mark 13^-). But surely it is not only "a very strained," but a
very strange and significant exegesis that could draw support
from such an utterance for such a doctrine, — especially when it is
against the whole tone, tenor, and expHcit teaching of Scripture
on the subject. Taking these words even as they stand, they
are surely sufficiently explained by saying either that Christ, as a
teacher, had received no message to deliver from the Father as
to the precise date of the judgment day ; or that, as a man, this
had not been revealed to His human consciousness.
But how from this such a doctrine could be deduced as that
Christ was not infallible, but erroneous in His teaching, or how
it could be supposed to favour the idea that He might and did
err in any statement that He made on any question, is amazing.
It can be explained only by the exegetical crudeness and loose-
ness of thinking of such critics, or by the perverting influence of
critical prejudice, the wis^hjbeing father to the thought. Why,
these words teach, or imply, absolutely nothing in favour of such
CHRIST'S NESCIENCE 233
a view ; and give not a shadow of a foundation for such a
doctrine.
THE TEXT IMPLIES HIS INFALLIBILITY IN HIS TEACHING.
On the contrary, if they teach anything on the subject of
Christ's infaUibiUty, they seem to teach, as near as may be, just
the opposite. For if when any such thing was not at any time
within the range of Christ's human consciousness, or not given
to Him, as a teacher, to dehver as a message from His Father,
He took care to say nothing on the subject, but frankly and
expressly declared this, — then, surely this implies — first, that
He never spake except what was given Him by His Father, as
He elsewhere explicitly states ; and, therefore, only what was
both truthful and of Divine authority ; seco?id, that when He did
make a pronouncement or utterance on any subject whatever, it
was both true and authoritative ; and should, therefore, be
decisive and final on the subject, as the Divine utterance of the
Father through the Son. He Himself said so to the Jews and
His disciples that the words that He spake to them were not His,
but the Father's that sent Him — what He heard from the Father
(John 7!" 8-« i2'*9 1410- 2J 1 78). Thus their own chief and only
direct text, when properly interpreted, instead of a proof,
is a refutation of their doctrine, and a confirmation of the
opposite — even Christ's infallibility and Divine authority as a
teacher.
2. Christ's Mental and Moral Development. No
Reason to infer his Fallibility or Error as a
Teacher.
Equally futile is it to seek support for their view from those
texts that teach the mental and moral development of the Man
Christ Jesus, such as : " He grew in wisdom and in stature, and
in favour with God and man" (Luke 2^-). "To make the
Captain of our salvation perfect through suffering" (Heb. 2^*^).
"Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the
things which He suffered," etc. (Heb. ^^).
234 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
HIS REAL HUMANITY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT A GREAT AND
PRECIOUS FACT, MUCH LOST AND UNREALISED.
Doubtless the mental development and the moral growth of
Christ taught in these and other passages are an important and
precious part of Divine Revelation, the value of which has been
all too little, and far too slowly recognised. Indeed, by the
Church generally it has hitherto been largely unrealised, and,
if not ignored, it has been practically, though not formally,
denied, and not really believed or practically entered into and
acted on as if fact. Yea, so much has this been the mental
attitude and habit of the Church generally, that were some, who
would by many be regarded as unduly tenacious of the things
most surely believed among us, to proclaim all that they believe,
have thought, and felt, and which they have learned from
Scripture and found infinitely precious in their own spiritual
experience, in regard to the real humanity of Christ, the
probability is that they would by most Christians be regarded as
unsound in the faith, if not prosecuted for heresy. The Church
being above all things concerned to maintain the Divinity of our
Lord, and having become, through long-standing controversy,
almost morbidly sensitive as to anything that might seem to
encroach upon this doctrine, has been unconsciously inclined to
the opposite extreme ; and has largely ignored, or left unexplored,
and practically not realised, the real and veritable humanity of
Christ — with all the blessed infinitudes of grace and truth, of
light and comfort implied therein.
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS AND EPISTLES INTENSELY HUMAN
WHILE TRULY DIVINE.
Anxious supremely to preserve Christ's Divinity, she has
largely lost, or lost sight of. His humanity ; and replaced the
true, tender, most sympathetic, and intensely human Son of
Man of the Gospels by the Divine but distant, the unrealisable
and somewhat artificial Son of God of a cold dogmatic theology.
Thus men have not only lost much of the blessed personal
fascination of the Man Christ Jesus, but also failed to appreciate,
or realise fully, or utiUse adequately the fulness of Godhead
treasured up in Him for us ; because not approached through
CHRIST'S REAL HUMANITY 235
the avenue and appropriated through the instrumentahty of His
true humanity. How few truly believe that Jesus grew in wisdom
as He grew in stature, — that He increased in knowledge just as
we do, — that His human mind developed from infancy to boy-
hood, and from boyhood to manhood, in precisely the same
way, and by the use of the same means as ours ! How few
realise that He learjied anything, least of all that He learned
obedience — that the habit of active obedience to the will of God
was formed, and confirmed into an active life principle by Him,
by the common process of obeying and suffering, just as with us !
To how many is it actual fact that He was made perfect, really
perfected in moral character, — disciplined by suffering as we are ?
and that not merely ofScially as our High Priest, but personally
perfected as a man — His personal perfectation being the basis
and means of His ofificial perfection ? How many really take in
the truth and fulness of true humanity in that deep and un-
qualified declaration that in all things it behoved Him to be
made like unto His brethren ? He was in all points tempted
like as we are (Heb. 2^" 4^^). Yet the perfection of His priest-
hood is expressly based upon this identity of nature and
similarity of experience with ours, " that He might be a merciful
and faithful High Priest" (Heb. 2^"). How few practically
believe that Christ really had all our infirmities, and passed
through all our trials, — though Scripture explicidy states that
" Himself took our infirmities," that " He was touched with a
feeling of our infirmities, and bore our sickness," and " that He
was in all things tempted like as we are " !
ITS SPIRITUAL VALUE IN CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE.
The whole Gospel history is largely an illustration of this
fact — yea, the real use of the record of Christ's temptation, and
the meaning and value of His example to us, depend upon His
being essentially the same as we are, both in nature and experi-
ence. Indeed, without this His humanity is to us largely an
empty unreality, His incarnation a phantasy. His example of
little significance, His resistance of temptation a semblance, His
human sympathy an untouching shadow; and all the infinite
preciousness of Jesus as a sympathising Saviour, because a
veritable brother-Man, which alone heals the wounds of a bleed-
236 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
ing humanity, vanishes as a dream. Would it not be to many a
surprise, if not like a heresy, to be told that Jesus, as a man,
was as truly dependent as we are on the providence of God and
His own diligence for the supply of His own bodily wants ; and
dependent on the Holy Spirit, and the diligent use of all the
means of grace — prayer, the study of Scripture, meditation
attendance on church and religious ordinances — for the com-
fort, cultivation, and nourishment of His own soul, and the
sustaining and developing of His own spiritual life? And yet
this seems to be the true teaching of Scripture, and the real
meaning of His habits of prayer, study of Scripture, meditation,
and use of ordinances. They were a moral and spiritual
necessity to the man Christ Jesus as they are of every man that
would become like Him. It is what seems necessarily involved
in His real humanity, what is plainly and repeatedly expressed in
Scripture reference, and what to us imparts a profound signi-
ficance, and infinite preciousness to His whole life as we, like
Him, " fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold upon the
eternal life."
In fact, it appears that Jesus did all that He did as Man and
Saviour, attained all that He attained in character and service,
overcame all that He overcame in trial and temptation, and
accomplished all that He accomplished for God and man, — not
because of His Divinity only (though that is implied), but simply
by the use of the same spiritual means, and under the power of
the same Holy Spirit, that we may receive in the same way as
He did in answer to prayer. By the power of the Spirit and the
use of the means of grace. He knew and taught the truth, re-
sisted temptation, overcame Satan, wrought miracles, cast out
devils, did His entire work as Prophet, Priest,, and King
(Luke 4^^), developed His own spiritual life, perfected His own
character, Hved His whole life, and finished all His work. From
His first conscious act and recorded utterance onwards to His
first public discourse, — when He Himself attributed all the work
He had come to do, in fulfilment of prophecy, to the Spirit, —
right on through His whole life till the last crowning act, when
He, "through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to
God" — all, all was accomplished, by the power of the same
Spirit, and by the use of the same means, as we may have in the
same way.
ITS DOCTRINAL AND SPIRITUAL VALUE 237
This gives a vast scope and significance to that pregnant
Divine utterance — " In all things it behoved Him to be made
like unto His brethren." It makes Jesus intensely real and
infinitely precious. It brings Him very near to us, into living
contact with us, makes Him truly one of ourselves — our verit-
able Brother-man while our true eternal God. It makes His
whole life instinct with meaning and full of inspiration to us as
men ; and gives every fragment and fibre of the Gospel narra-
tives an inestimable value. It is no heresy, but a priceless,
though much neglected, portion of Divine Revelation, which has
been found unspeakably precious in Christian experience, enab-
ling us to get into Hving touch with Jesus in everything ; and
thereby to realise and appropriate the fulness of Godhead
dwelling for us in Him.
ITS DOCTRINAL IMPORTANCE.
It is the true security against both Unitarian and Human-
itarian heresy, and the best means of recalling the Church from
the practical heresy of ignoring the real humanity of Christ.
For to deny, ignore, or minimise His real humanity, is as really
heresy as to deny, ignore, or minimise His true Divinity. And
the most effectual antidote to every form of Unitarian, Humani-
tarian, or Anti-Trinitarian error, and to the influence which a
fuller, and often charming, exhibition of Christ's humanity has
unquestionably given them, is to bring forth and cherish, in all
its scriptural fulness, the real humanity of Christ ; and to pre-
sent His unique Divine-human personality from that side of it
which lies nearest to ourselves, and is most appreciable by us.
Nor should it ever be lost sight of that He has revealed Himself
to us as God manifest in the flesh.
It will thus appear that we accept in full, and with the most
grateful cordiality, the Bible Revelation of the mental and moral
development of Jesus, — that we are prepared to go beyond most
in glorying in the real humanity of Christ, and that we hold with
unqualified delight, that our Lord was, as a man, made subject
to all the limiting conditions of our humanity. In fact, we set
no limit to the entireness of His humanity, or the absoluteness
of the statement that He was " made in all things like unto His
brethren " — save that limitation which is necessary to preclude
238 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
the fatal error and prime heresy that He is nothing more than
man ; and to negative every form of teaching that would deny or
evacuate His Divinity, or invalidate His Divine authority as a
Teacher.
3. The Kenosis gives no Ground for questioning His
Infallibility as a Teacher.
The Kenosis is a Bible Revelation, a profound, precious fact,
a wondrous manifestation of the grace of God and the love
of Christ, as set forth in the classical passage Phil. 2^-^, and is
indicated in leading elements above and elsewhere.^ But it is
here, just here, that we part company with all who in any way
would weaken the authority or qualify the infallibility of Jesus as
a teacher. While holding as fully as any, and more fully than
most, the veritable humanity, and the mental and moral develop-
ment of Christ, and the reality of the Kenosis as revealed in
Scripture, we utterly repudiate the dangerous and anti-scriptural
inferences drawn therefrom, limitative, and ultimately subversive
of the Divine authority and infallibility of His teaching : and
thus claim to be essentially differentiated from those who pre-
sume to make them. Nay more, one is curious to know the
process of reasoning, and longs to look at the logical syllogism
by which the errancy of Jesus as a teacher is deduced from the
fact of His mental or moral development as a man. One is
constrained to wonder by what logical feat or method of reason-
ing a7iy inference can be drawn in favour of the fallibility of
Christ from any teaching of Scripture as to His increase in
knowledge or growth in wisdom, the development of His faculties
or perfectation of His character.
no necessary connection between nescience and error or
errancy in teaching in any man.
It does not surely require much logical acumen to see that
even in any man there is no necessary connection between
^ See Appendix. " The Logos realised in Jesus, in the form of a human
existence subject to the law of time and progress, that relation to God of
perfect dependence and filial communion which He realised before His in-
carnation in the permanent form of Divine life" (Godet onjo/m, vol. i. p. 40).
NESCIENCE AND INERRANCY 239
mental growth and didactic error, — between limitation of know-
ledge and erroneousness of teaching, — between increase in
wisdom or development in character and error or errancy as a
teacher. It is surely a very marvellous and peculiar process of
ratiocination which infers that because Jesus grew in wisdom He
erred in teaching, — that since He developed in character He
made mistakes in statement, — that since He might be for the
moment not consciously instructed or informed in some things,
He therefore fell into error in other things, — that since He might
not, or did not, at once know everything as a man, He therefore
must err, or did err, in anything He taught or said, and even in
what He claimed and professed to know. How strange the
reasoning that Jesus actually taught as true what was false,
because there was one far off event at the end of time, the pre-
cise day and hour of which was not present to His human con-
sciousness, and of which He will not, therefore, teach anything,
and that, too, in what it was His special function and subject to
know and to teach ! For it must be firmly grasped and em-
phasised that it is what He taught about the Word of God,
which He came to expound and fulfil, that His infallibility and
authority are asserted. It is surely the first and fundamental
question in religion and in all truth, to learn and to be assured
of what is the standard and source of the truth. It is immeasur-
ably more important than the knowledge or assurance of any
particular truth ; and is a self-evident necessity to the knowledge
or assurance of any individual truth.
Is not their conclusion, then, a most manifest 7ion sequitur'>
Because a theologian, or a moral philosopher, is not an expert in
— say chemistry, does it therefore follow that he will teach error
in theology or ethics ? Because a mathematician is not a mental
philosopher, does that prove his errancy in mathematics, even if
he were the worst reasoner on other subjects, — as Sir William
Hamilton said the best mathematician in Britain in his time
was? Surely they need not err if, like wise men, they limit
themselves to their own subjects, and teach only what they know.
" We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen • and
ye receive not our witness," said Jesus ; and He never did any-
thing else, and therefore all He said was and must be true.
Even if they sometimes make references beyond their own
special province, they need not necessarily make mistakes, or
240 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
teach error ; unless they fail to avail themselves of the teaching
of those who know. It thus appears that even in the case of
any man there is no necessary connection between limitation
of knowledge and erroneousness, or even errancy in teaching.
Therefore mental or moral development, with any limitation of
knowledge involved therein, does not imply error and fallibility
as a teacher in anything, certainly not at all in what it was His
special subject and function to know and to teach.
HOW MUCH LESS IN THE PERFECT MAN AND THE SON OF GOD
ON THE SUPREME QUESTION IN RELIGION AND ETHICS.
How much less in the perfect Man, the specially Spirit-filled
teacher, the sent of God — yea, the Son of God, and very God
Himself? For, let it be specially observed, that what we claim
Christ's authority for at present is not any question of science, or
philosophy, or criticism (though on these, should He express
His mind, we should feel bound to believe Him, or launch
upon a shoreless sea of doubts and difficulties without helm
or compass), but a distinctively religious question, — yea, the
supremely important and fundamental question in religion, the
question that lies at the basis of and is essential to the Settlement
of all other religious questions, — viz. the truthfulness, trust-
worthiness, and authority of the Word of God. Is the Bible
true, trustworthy, and authoritative? Should men receive "all"
Scripture, as the locus classicus puts it (2 Tim. '^^), as the
Word of God, of infallible truth and Divine authority; and
take it with full confidence as their guide through life to im-
mortality ? This is the religious question which it concerns men
most to know, which it was Christ's special function as the
supreme religious teacher sent from God to know and teach ;
and which, as we have seen. He has in the most unequivocal and
emphatic way declared and settled.
IF HIS INCARNATION NECESSITATED HIS FALLIBILITY AND
ERRONEOUSNESS IN TEACHING, IT DEFEATS HIS MISSION
AND ITS END.
Therefore, if in this He has erred, in what can we trust Him,
and to whom shall we go for lic^ht in this most vital matter ? If
CHRIST'S INERRANCY 241
in this, which it was His special function to know and to teach,
He has erred and led men astray, and taught, not only what was
not true, but the opposite of the truth, — how is it possible for
men to trust or believe Him in anything? And if the mental
and moral development of Jesus is held to imply this, and to
warrant the inference that the limitation of His knowledge or
nescience, as they euphemistically call it, involved this, then
did it not manifestly unfit Him for His work ? Did not His
very nature render Him incapable of fulfilling His prime
vocation, — being a reliable teacher on w^hat men most needed
to know? Did not the conditions of His human existence
necessitate the defeat of the very end of His existence, and the
incarnation ensure the failure of the primary purpose of His
mission and its own end? — even to reveal the truth, and the
Divine source and supreme standard of the truth, in order that
He might thereby enlighten and save. In fact, was not the
incarnation on this theory a failure and a mistake, and salvation
through the incarnate Son an impossibility? Consequences
these surely sufficiently startUng and serious to make the
advocates of such a theory pause and think, showing the unten-
ableness of the theory, and the absurdity of drawing such an
inference from such a ground !
Note. — "To deny out Lord's infallibility on the ground of a single
known limitation of knowledge in His human intellect, is not merely an
inconsequence, it is inconsistent with any serious belief in His real Divinity.
. . . No such limitation, we may be sure, can interfere with the completeness
of His redemptive office. It cannot be supposed to involve any of that which
the Teacher and Saviour of mankind should know." — Dr. Liddon, Our Lord's
Divinity, pp. 472, 464.
CHAPTER III.
THE DISPROOF FROM SCRIPTURE, AND THE
PROOF OF CHRIST'S INFAIIIBILITY.
As we have seen, there is no necessary, or even natural,
connection between limitation of knowledge and fallibility of
teaching, even in the case of any man, — especially when he
keeps to what he knows. Nescience and inerrancy are quite
compatible in any man, while limitation of knowledge and truth-
fulness of teaching are usual in all wise teachers, — even when
making references beyond their own proper province, if they
exercise the common prudence of referring to authorities on the
subjects referred to. If this is so in the case of the teaching of
ordinary fallen men, how much more in the case of the perfect
man — the supreme Teacher sent from God, when teaching on His
own proper subject, and professedly carrying out His Divine
mission ? Let us take the very lowest ground — ground so low
that we shrink from taking it in regard to our adorable Lord, and
could not have taken it at all, save to explode the assumptions
and demonstrate the absurdity of the theories of those who
would drag down the high theme of our Lord's unique teaching
to this low level.
No NECESSARY CONNECTION BETWEEN LIMITATION OF KNOW-
LEDGE AND Error or Errancy in Teaching, especi-
ally IN Christ.
Are we to suppose that because His human mind developed
like ours, that our Lord, who is "the wisdom of God," did not
possess the wisdom common to ordinary men in teaching.? If
not, there was no inevitable need for Him to make any mistakes
in teaching, even if He spoke on matters not strictly religious or
PROOF OF CHRIST'S INFALLIBILITY 243
not belonging to His special mission, though all that is recorded
of His teaching belongs to that. If the teaching of experts,
when limiting themselves to what they know, is reliable, and
received as true, are we to imagine that the teaching of Him who
is " the Truth " is erroneous when professedly declaring, as a
religious teacher, in the name of God and in the most solemn
and emphatic manner, what was avowedly the mind of God in
regard to the fundamental question of all religion, — even as to
what is the supreme standard and fountain of truth, and the
inviolable truthfulness and Divine authority it possesses ? If
not, then the teaching of Jesus must be held as decisive and
final on this question ; and no inference from His human de-
velopment can give a shadow of a shade of a foundation for the
theory of the errancy of Jesus in this or any such question, — nay,
this is by the very supposition precluded, and is therefore
totally irrelevant. All this is true were He mere man, under
all the limiting conditions of a fallen humanity. All through,
indeed, the advocates of this theory have proceeded on the
assumption that Christ was a mere imperfect man, or that He
was, because of being man, under all the liability to error of
fallen men. Yea, some of them have arrogantly, and with un-
limited confidence and presumption, spoken as if it were self-
evident, and requiring no proof, that Christ must be fallible and
erroneous as a teacher, since He was man, and since it is, as
they say, human to err. What know we of perfect men ? We
have no reason or authority to make any such statement about
them as to this. But having come to this indubitable conclu-
sion by this short and easy method, they have in no mincing,
though sufificiently absurd terms declared it to be heresy to
question the theory of the fallibility and erroneousness of Christ
as a teacher, since He was man, as if that were tantamount to a
denial of His humanity. We have shown that even were the
assumption true, the inference is by no means necessary, and
would, as a rule, be false. But this arrogant, though baseless
assertion, as well as the statements and theories of the others
refuted above, afford fair specimens of the crudeness of exe-
gesis, looseness of reasoning, and shallowness of thought, so
characteristic of many of these infallible assailants of Christ's
infallibihty !
244 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
I. HE WAS FIRST THE SINLESS MAX.
How strange that it seems never to have occurred to them to
consider whether it was at all necessary to make any distinction
between fallen and imperfect human nature as it is exhibited
among us, and sinless and perfect human nature as it existed in
Jesus ! Their identity is quietly assumed, and far-reaching in-
ferences are drawn from the one to the other, as if there were no
difference between them. But this is surely a vast and astound-
ing assumption. Before any inference at all can be drawn in
favour of the fallibility and erroneousness of the teaching of
Jesus from the fact of His real humanity, they have first to prove
that there is no difference as to knowledge and errancy between
a fallen and a perfect, a sinful and a sinless, human being, and
that the one is as liable to error as the other. With wonted
looseness and audacity, however, they assume this instead of
proving it — in fact, these speculators are not in the habit
of proving anything, but asserting everything. Why, the very
attempt to prove it would at once disclose its untenableness
and unreasonableness. The influence of sin in blinding the
mind, perverting the judgment, and thus leading to error, is
notorious, and forms the burden of many a powerful passage
in the teaching of philosophy and the declarations of Scripture
(Rom. I, etc.). Yea, the Bible expressly states that one of the
elements of the Divine image in which man was created was
" Knowledge," — like his Creator. Therefore, to assume that a
sinless human nature, of which one of the essential elements
was knowledge after the image of God, was as liable to error
and to teach error as a sinful human nature; and from that
baseless assumption to infer the fallibility and erroneousness
of Christ as a teacher is such an obvious petitio pri7tcipii and
manifest 7ion sequitur, that one is amazed how any man could
be capable of it ; and it illustrates well the blinding power of
prejudice in a fallen humanity in a most significant way. It is
not only a pure assumption that a sinless human nature was as
liable to mistake or to err in statement or teaching as a sinful
one, but an assumption impossible to prove, yea, contrary to
probability, and fact, and reason. They, thus, base their whole
astounding superstructure upon an unprovable and improbable,
yea, palpably false, assumption and assertion.
CHRIST PERFECT MAN 245
HE WAS THE PERFECT MAN.
Further, Christ had not only a sinless but a perfect human
nature when He became a teacher, and gave those utterances
as to the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of
Scripture on which we take our stand. He had a human
nature, perfected in knowledge and wisdom by the study of
Scripture, the experience of life, the diligent use of all the means
of perfectation, and by the full and lifelong use of that grace of
God which Scripture says was on Him from the beginning, —
yea. He made such a use of all these as no son of man ever
approached to. Yet men, so erring themselves, will reason most
confidently, though most unreasonably, from their own errancy
and erroneousness to His.
3. HE WAS SPECIALLY ANOINTED BY THE HOLY GHOST FOR
HIS TEACHING AND WHOLE WORK.
Nay more. Scripture expressly teaches that at the beginning
of His public work, and in order perfectly to fit Him for it,
the Divine Spirit came and abode on Him without measure
(Luke 4^^, John 3^^). Therefore had He been as deficient in
knowledge and wisdom, and as liable to err as sinful and
perverted men, are we on this account to imagine that He was
not perfectly fitted by the Spirit's Divine fulness for the work
which the Father had given Him to do ? — a chief and prime part
of which was to declare through the Spirit of all truth what was
the source and standard of truth, and what the character and
authority of that book which God has given to guide men
through life, which He called the Word of God, and said of it,
even to God Himself, "Thy Word is truth" (John 17^"). Or
are we for one moment to entertain the blasphemous thought
that the Infinite Spirit of God was not able to fit Him for this
work, and to render Him infallible in all His teaching? Does
He not attribute all He said and did to the power of the Holy
Ghost in Him ? (Luke- 4^^ etc.). Does He not, therefore,
Himself expressly and most decisively say that what He spoke
was not His own, but what the Father gave Him to speak ?
(John 86-26 io24 i2« 178). Can God err? And are not His
last sublime and solemn words from glory to the Churches re-
246 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
corded in the Apocalypse declared to be literally "what the
Spirit saith unto the Churches " ? so that what He says is what
the Spirit says. Can the Spirit of Truth mislead in teaching?
Are not the words of the Son thus explicitly and inseparably
identified with the words of the Father and the Spirit, because
He spake as the Spirit gave Him utterance, what the Father
gave Him to speak?
Must not all that He said be, therefore, the Word of God, of
infallible truth and Divine authority ? And since Christ said all
He did about the Scriptures after He had the full anointing of
the Spirit, and spoke of them in the same way after His re-
surrection and ascension, it follows that if He did not know
then He never knew, and throughout taught error on this
supreme question. In short, this w^hole attempt to draw any
inference from the mental development of Jesus is based upon
three unphilosophical and anti-scriptural assumptions ; — first, that
infallibility or truthfulness in teaching is impossible without
infinitude of knowledge, which is an absurdity, contrary to fact
and reason ; second, that the infinite Spirit of God could not so
operate on the finite spirit of man as to render even the Son of
Man, who is also the Son of God, infallible as a teacher, which is
daring presumption ; and third, that the words of the Three
Persons of the Godhead may be untrue, and have actually
taught error, which is blasphemy.
He promised and enabled even His Disciples to utter
TRULY God's Word by the Spirit.
Nor is this all ; not nearly all. For Christ promised to send
the Holy Spirit to His disciples to guide them, into all truth, and
to enable them to speak with Divine truthfulness, wisdom, and
power in all they said for Him, and even in their own defence
in His service, and that because "it is not ye that speak, but the
Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you" (Matt. lo-^ Mark
13"). In fulfilment of that promise, it is expressly said
that on the Day of Pentecost they "spake as the Spirit gave
them utterance." And they wrote the N.T. Scriptures under the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, like the prophets, " as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." " Not in words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth," fitting
THE APOSTLES' INFALLIBILITY 247
spiritual words to spiritual things. ^ So that what they said or
wrote is described as "what the Spirit saith," and the ^\'ord
they thus spoke or wrote under this inspiration is therefore
declared to be not the word of man, " but as it is in truth, the
Word of God" (i Thess. 2^^). They also under the same power,
and in fulfilment of this and other promises, were led to the
remembrance and into the meaning of "all things whatsoever
He hath said unto them." Thus, too, after the resurrection He
"opened their understandings to understand the Scriptures,"
"showing them frpm all the Scriptures the things concerning
Himself" (Luke 24); and also enabled and authorised them
truly and authoritatively to interpret them, as the Spirit's inspired
interpretation of God's Word. And on this ground we receive,
and rightly receive, their own writings and their interpretations
of the O.T. writings as true, reliable, and Divinely authoritative.
Are we then to ascribe less infallibility and authority to the
Lord Himself than to His apostles ? Has the Holy Spirit done
less for the Master than the disciple ? Is the authority of the
servant as a teacher higher than the authority of his Lord ?
This is the desperate and self-stultifying position that the
assertors of the errancy and erroneousness of Jesus, because of
their absurd inferences from His humanity, are irresistibly
driven to; and the very statement of it is the refutation and
demonstration of the falseness of their theory and the unten-
ableness of their position. Yet this is the position that those
take up who seek to prove His fallibility as a teacher from
His alleged "human ignorance of natural science, historical
ignorance, and the like," ^ and the reality of His human
"limitation, as well in knowledge as in moral energy" (mark
that!), as also from His actual "exegetical mistakes," as they
call them, so daringly, so groundlessly, and so blasphemously
alleged. Why, if Christ erred not only in His own spon-
taneous utterances as to the Scripture, but also in His
interpretation of the Scripture, which He Himself was to
fulfil, and on which He was supposed and claimed to throw
such wondrous Divine light and to interpret with Divine
authority, then, verily, the teaching of Christ is less truthful
than the teaching of His disciples, and the authority of the
^ See Alford and Fawcett, tii loco.
' Bishop Ellicott's Christus Comprobator.
248 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
servant is greater than the authority of his Lord. For it is
patent on the page of Scripture, and beyond dispute from the
very words of Christ, that He did promise to give them — as they
therefore afterwards claimed to possess — the Spirit to lead them
into all truth, — and to render them infallible in all their inter-
pretations of the Scripture, as well as of His own words which
the Spirit would bring to their remembrance, and in all they
taught or uttered in His name ; for "it is not ye that speak, but
the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." Nor is there
any possibility, therefore, of evading this astounding and
stultifying conclusion except by denying or disowning the
infallibility and authority of Christ as a teacher in anything, even
in that in which He was most deliberate and emphatic, and
what is most essential. This implies in the ultimate issue, as
will appear below, that He misunderstood and misinterpreted
the Scripture, misled His disciples by this and by unfulfilled
promises ; and therefore mistook, or was unfit for, His mission !
These are some of the inevitable and tremendous, but pre-
posterous, results of this crude and audacious theory.
He was God Incarnate, and His Words are declared
TO be the Father's Words.
Nor is even this all, not nearly all. For the real effect and
ultimate result of this erroneous doctrine of Christ's humanity,
which implies Christ's errancy* and error in teaching, is to
evacuate and practically to nullify His Divinity. It leaves no
room for His Divinity here at all. It is really shut out from
any place, function, or efificiency in His unique Divine-human
personality — in that prime and fundamental part of His work
where, if anywhere, it seems natural, vital, and necessary for it
to be effectual.
If it remain in words, it is only in words — in name, not in
reality; it is of no use or efificacy. It has no substance or
potency ; and to all practical intents it is ignored, nullified, and
might as well not be. In fact, many reason and speak about
His ignorance, fallibility, and error in teaching, in the same way
as if He were a mere man ; as if His Divinity had no place at
all in this primary, essential, and supremely important part of
His work as the Messiah and the Teacher sent from God. As
CHRIST'S GODHEAD AND INFALLIBILITV 249
if it were irrelevant to take that into account in anyway to
qualify or limit their speculations as to the errancy and
erroneousness of His teaching?
They talk largely, vaguely, and frequently enough about the
limits and limitations, infirmities and ignorance of our Lord as
a man, with all His liability to error, and actual mistakes arising
therefrom. But the great sublime fact of His Godhead seems
so little realised or appreciated as not to have impressed upon
them any due sense of their own littleness and limitations in
speculating upon "the great mystery of godliness, God manifest
in the flesh." Nor has it prevented them from exhibiting their
own ignorance and irreverence in reasoning as if His Divinity
were of no account in His teaching, nor even restrained some
from daring to declare that "the right of criticism must be
maintained, even as against the Lord Himself,"^ and they
actually fear not to charge the God of truth with "exegetical
mistakes " and false teaching.
But surely the greatest of all exegetical and theological
mistakes is to imagine that, though Christ is man as well as
God, He is therefore not one but two ; to imply that, though we
may speak of His humanity apart from His divinity, the two
natures really exist apart, which is, in fact, to deny the incarnation.
His Godhead as well as His humanity is responsible for
whatever He as the God-man says or does, for every word He
utters, as well as for everything He does ; because it is He, the
one unique Person, who utters and does it. Therefore, whatever
the man Christ Jesus said God also said, whatever His humanity
uttered was the utterance of His Godhead also ; and for every
part and particle of it His Godhead was therefore also responsible
— yea. His Godhead supremely. For after all. His Divinity, not
His humanity, was the supreme factor in His Divine-human
personality. It was '''■GOD manifest in the flesh" "the Word
made flesh," that uttered all ; and therefore before every utter-
ance He ever made might be written, "Thus saith the Word of
God." The words of Christ are expressly called the words of
God. And lest by looking at Him and listening to Him as a
man any should think His words merely a man's words, and lest
they should in any way question their Divinity, truth, reliability,
or authority ; and in order that men might be shut up to
' Christ us Coinprobator.
250 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
receive His words as God's words, He said, "The word that
ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me" (John
1424.10 ^16 826 12^9 175).
And surely it is the greatest of all errors to suppose, assert,
or imply that the " Word of God " can teach error, that God can
mislead, that the God of Truth, who expressly calls Himself
"the faithful and true witness" (Rev. i) and "//z^ T?-uth" can
teach error or utter anything that is untrue. Whatever mysteries
there may be — (and they are many and profound) — in the union
of the Divine with the human in the person of Christ, the
relation between them, and the communication from the one to
the other, whatever else this involved, implied at least that the
God-man shall speak the truth, and nothing but the truth. It
secures at least truthfulness in utterance, and surely requires
freedom from error in teaching and statement, — especially as to
such primary and essential questions as the truthfulness, trust-
worthiness, and authority of that book which is called the Word
of God, and which God has given us to be man's guide through
life to immortality. A Divinity that fails in this is a practical
nonentity to us, as far as this prime, supreme, religious question
and need of mankind are concerned. A God that can err and
utter untruths as true, give errors of the age as eternal facts,
delusions of ignorant times as unquestionable verities, is a God
that is worthless as an authority in truth or guide in religion,
and shocks our first and fundamental ideas of a God. What
intelligent or honest man could believe or trust such as a
Saviour, far less worship Him as God? Thus the theory of
Christ's humanity, that implies His errancy and asserts that He
actually erred, really evacuates and nullifies His Divinity, and
virtually disowns and denies it.
The whole Question of the Divine-Human Person alike
IS THUS re-raised ON A SiDE IsSUE.
In this way the whole question as to the Divine-human
personality of Christ, which was supposed to have been settled
thoroughly and for ever, is re-raised in this controversy ; and
that, too, as a side issue — as a consequence of the critical
necessities of the opponents of the truthfulness and Divine
authority of Scripture. Nor have they merely re-raised it ; but
GROUNDS OF CHRIST'S INFALLIBILITY 25 1
they have, forsooth ! resettled it in a way contrary to the teaching
of all Scripture and the faith of the whole Christian Church
from the beginning. They have done so, too, not, as they
should, by an investigation of the proper scriptural and other
evidence, by which His true Divinity, and consequent infallibility,
and Divine authority are established, but by inference, wrong
inference too, from other supposed conclusions. And what is
most significant is that this inference is required by the
exigencies of their theory, for without it the whole theory,
with its fatal applications and destructive ramifications, vanishes
like the baseless fabric of a vision before the luminous beams
of Christ's true Divinity. Thus the errancy of Christ is pre-
vented and His inerrancy secured hy, first, the perfection of His
human nature ; second, by His full anointing of the Holy Ghost ;
and third, by His true and proper Divinity ; a threefold cord,
surely this, not thus easily broken. To these a fourth may be
added in Christ's own claim and words, backed by the Christian
evidences. Nor is it possible to evade this conclusion, except
by a supposition that only reveals more clearly than before the
radical erroneousness of the whole contention.
Note. — "The common sense of faith assures ns that if Christ is really
Divine, His infallibility follows as a thing of course. It is certain from
Scripture that our Lord was constantly giving proofs during His earthly life
of an altogether superhuman knowledge. To maintain on the one hand that
Jesus Christ is God, and on the other that He is a teacher and propagator,
not of trivial and unimportant, but of far-reaching and substantial errors : —
this would have appeared to ancient Christendom a paradox so singular as
to be absolutely incredible." — Dr. Liddon, Our Lord's Divinity, pp. 472,
464, 454. See also Bishop Ellicott's Cliristiis Coiuprobator.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ASSUMED GROUNDS IN REASON CONTRAR Y
TO REASON, FOR CHRIST S FALIIBIIITY AND
ERRONEOUSNESS AS A TEACHER.
On three different grounds have the opponents of Christ's
infallibility usually based their reasoning in support of their
theory of the fallibility and erroneousness of His teaching.
The Kenotic and Critical Grounds.
Fi/st. On the ground that He was man. But it has been
shown that this does not warrant their inference, inasmuch as
it does not necessarily involve fallibiUty far less actual error;
while both are precluded by the perfection of His humanity, by
the measureless inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and by the fact
that He was God as well as man. This is, therefore, proved to
be untenable ground.
The second ground taken is that it was not Christ's mission
to declare the truth about Scripture questions. If by this is
meant merely that it was not Christ's special work to declare
the truth as to many literary questions connected with Scripture,
or to settle some of the questions of Biblical criticism that have
arisen, we at least raise no objection to this general position, so
long as conclusions are not drawn from it contrary to Scripture
fact or teaching. We believe that very often great injury has
been done to Divine Revelation and Bible study by uncalled
for and unwarrantable attempts to bring in Christ's authority to
settle many such questions, inasmuch as it will generally be
found exceedingly difficult to prove that He has given any
indubitable utterance upon them. This is specially true in
regard to questions as to the date, authorship, and method of
ALLEGED GROUNDS OF CHRIST'S FALLIBILITY 253
composition of the books of Scripture and such hke. For,
while it is true that, if any clear and indisputable cases of this
kind can be produced, in which He has expressed His mind,
we must regard His settlement of them as final to every Chris-
tian, and to all who own His infallibility or Divine authority as
a teacher ; yet it is, we believe, very rarely and sometimes only
by very strained exegesis that this can be done. Signal dis-
service has been done to the cause of truth and the authority of
Scripture by weak and unsuccessful attempts to bring in the
authority of our Lord to settle such questions. No greater
confusion could be brought into this question, and no greater
injury done to the truth and authority of God's Word, than to
confuse, as has been often so unwisely done, even by good and
able men, such questions with the great fundamental question
of the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of
Holy Writ ; and to attempt to bring in the authority of Christ
equally for both, as if they were one and identical. The questions
are essentially different in kind ; and while we may be unable
to bring in Christ's authority fairly or successfully in such matters,
and seldom, if ever, with such clearness and decisiveness as to
put it beyond dispute, we can demonstrate, if the Word of God
can prove anything, that we can appeal to His authority, with
all the decisive and inevasible finality that belongs thereto, for
the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authoritativeness of
all Scripture.
Untrue Allegations and false Inferences.
But while this is true, if, by asserting that it was not Christ's
work to settle questions about Scripture, it is meant that it
was not part of His work to tell us what is the supreme standard
of truth, and to teach us what is the character and authority of
the book that God has given men to guide them from grace to
glory, then this is simply contrary to fact. For this was a chief
part of His work as a Teacher sent from God ; what it was His
special function to do as the Incarnate Word, who came not to
destroy the written Word, but to expound and to fulfil it, and,
by fulfilling it, to accomplish our salvation. It is what, as a
matter of fact. He mainly did in all His teaching, working, and
suffering (John 13^); and, therefore, what He most solemnly,
254 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
emphatically, and repeatedly did, declaring Holy Scripture to be
true, Divine, and eternally inviolable in every jot and tittle
(Matt. 5^^). Therefore, any argument based on this view of
His mission in favour of His fallibility is simply fallacy founded
on mistake ! Nay more, one is amazed how any inference at all
could be drawn in favour of such an assumption from such a basis.
Why, though it were as true as it is contrary to the truth,
that it was not a part of Christ's work to tell us the truth as to
the truthfulness and authority of the Word of God, the inference
that He must therefore be liable to error in what He taught,
is as unwarrantable and absurd as the assertion is untrue and
anti-scriptural. There is, in fact, no necessary or natural, nor
any connection whatever between the two things ; nor a shadow
of a shade of a foundation for the assumption — that if it were
not part of Christ's work to teach the truth about Scripture, He
must, or may, or did, therefore, err in what He taught about it.
And the only way in which even the faintest show of plausibility
could be put upon the supposition would be by postulating all
the assumptions which have been exploded under the first ground
as above. While the obvious fact that His whole work must
have been vitiated, and rendered impossible, had He either
taught error or not taught or known anything at all about the
truthfulness and authority of the Word of God, shows the pre-
posterousness of this whole theory.
Assumed that Christ expressed only current Opinions
ABOUT Scripture.
The thii-d and last ground on which the errancy and error
in Christ's teaching is averred is that He expressed simply the
, current belief of His times, and of the various persons or classes
I with whom He was dealing. If by this is meant merely that
He often reasoned with men and sects on their own principles,
and without sanctioning their errors or favouring their views in
any way, then this appears to us not only not objectionable but
true ; for He, in cases not a few, seems evidently to have done
this. In every particular case in which this is alleged, however,
it must be shown, not merely assumed or asserted, that this is
what Scripture represents Him as doing ; for it is clearly un-
warrantable to infer that because He did so in some cases He
CONFUSION OF IMPERFECTION AND ERROR 255
did so in every case of alleged error to which He refers. In
each case, therefore, this must be shown, not assumed, else it
would lead to endless confusion, and prevent us knowing when
He was uttering His own convictions and when the opinion of
others. In many cases of discussion with others it can be
shown that He was uttering, not merely their opinions, but His
own too. In cases where He did simply reason with men on
their own premises and principles, nothing is proved affecting
His infallibility ; but only that He used a common and legitimate
mode of argiimentum ad hoininem usual among all teachers and
defenders of truth. It is, in fact, tantamount to saying that while,
when reasoning with opponents. He assumed without approving of
their opinions, so far as they were erroneous, yet in His own spon-
taneous teaching He taught no error, which is what we maintain.
Or if by this is meant that Christ's teaching took more or
less the form and colour of the thought and language of His
time and environment, then this, doubtless, is largely true, and
was natural and even necessary if He was to use the best means
of reaching the minds and hearts of those immediately taught.
But this is, of course, quite compatible with His infallibility ;
unless, indeed, it is assumed that He imbibed and gave as His
own anything erroneous therein, which is what has to be proved,
and which is precluded by all that has been adduced above. Or
if, further still, by this is meant that He adapted His teaching
to the needs and capacities of His hearers, then this also is
unquestionably true. Indeed this was a signal and glorious
characteristic of His teaching, by which He graciously taught
them as they were able to bear and appreciate it. But surely
it need scarcely be said that this is not inconsistent with perfect
truthfulness and infallibility ; for while the teaching might not
thus be given in its entirety, in its fullest developments, in its
highest aspects or most perfect form, it manifestly might be all
true so far as it went. Nay more, it was necessary it should be
free from error if the full and perfect truth was afterwards to be
based on it, or to grow out of it.
Confusion between Imperfection and Error in Teaching.
Some, making great pretence of culture and advanced thought,
seem incapable of distinguishing between imperfection or im-
256 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
maturity and error, or of perceiving the perfect consistency
between entire truthfulness and relative imperfection in state-
ment. They have, therefore, in their own immaturity curiously
imagined that adaptation or limitation necessarily implied error
in teaching. But those capable of such crudity and obtuseness
are the last who should cant about culture ; while, as for
advanced thought, one wonders that it was never suggested to
themselves to ask themselves whether they were ever born to
be thinkers at all. But if by this is meant, as is usually meant,
that Christ, though knowing the beliefs and opinions of these
times to be erroneous, yet used them on a principle of accommoda-
tion as if they were true, and actually so far compromised and
misrepresented the truth as to speak of and teach them as true
when He knew them to be false ; then we have only to reply
that such a representation of Christ is simply revolting to every
Christian mind, and if accepted would render faith in Him as a
Teacher or a Saviour a moral impossibility. For it is a direct
attack on the moral character of Christ, and amounts to a grave
charge of deliberate misrepresentation against the God of truth ;
which, if true, stultifies further inquiry as to His teaching on
any question of morality or religion, deprives it of any right to
respect, far less authority, and renders it worthless because, on
this theory, the teacher deliberately teaching error for truth in the
name of God, would prove Himself destitute of the first principles
of all religion and morality.
To attempt to justify or paUiate this by pleading circum-
stances, or the serving of high spiritual ends, is to charge Him,
whom even devils called " the Holy One of God," with acting
on the damnable principle of doing evil that good might come ;
and to make the talk of high spiritual ends, reached by such
means, an abomination in the sight of God and of all righteous
men. And yet these are the men who talk largely about
intellectual honesty, and prate presumptuously about moral
integrity. Away with the daring blasphemy ! It is an insult
to the intellect of man. It is a libel on the character of God.
It is an offence against the Majesty of the Most High. And
with the men who dare to make it, further controversy would be
degradation, folly, and sin.
CHAPTER V.
THE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS AND MOMENTOUS
ISSUES OE DENYING OR QUESTIONING
CHRIST'S INFALLIBILITY.
But in closing this crucial Book it is well to review the course
of this discussion up to this point, in order to realise precisely
the position at which we have arrived, and to fearlessly follow
out this unscriptural theory to its legitimate conclusion. We
have seen, then, that our Lord stands by the truthfulness,
trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all Scripture ; and that
His very words support many of the commonly received doctrines
which have been assailed, — especially the Divine origin, truthful-
ness, and authority of Holy Scripture. This has immediately
raised the fundamental question whether Christ is infallible as
a teacher, specially in regard to the Word of God. Some
anti-supernaturalists have answered this directly and assuredly in
the negative, — on the avowed ground that Christianity, like all
other religions, is merely a natural evolution of the religious
instincts of men; and Christ Himself a mere product thereof,
around whom, as the highest type, has gathered a mass of
legendary ideality embodied in the N.T. writings. Others,
Rationalistic critics, have with equal assurance assumed, though
not avowed, the negative, and proceeded ruthlessly to their con-
clusion that Scripture was in large and fundamental parts a
mixture of myth and legend, literary fiction and pious fraud,
pieced together for priestly gain and aggrandisement, utterly
disregardful of what Christ said about it, as if He had no right
to be heard on the question at all.
While a third class of critics of various shades, not openly
or consciously unbeUeving critics, but professedly Christian and
in many respects believing critics, have, from diverse reasons
17
258 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
and on various grounds, answered this cardinal question in the
negative also. Differing greatly and radically from the others
in many things, they agree in denying Christ's infallibility as a
Teacher. True, in contrast to the first class, they assert His
supernatural origin and character, and even declare belief in
His true Divinity ; and unHke the second class, they do not
ignore His teaching or deny Him any right to authority as a
teacher. On the contrary, they readily ascribe highest honour
and unique authority to Him as a religious teacher, speaking
generally. Nay more, they would acknowledge the truthfulness,
finality, and even the infallibility of His teaching in some things,
yea, in many things perhaps, so long as He agrees with their
ever-varying opinions. But they deny that in everything He
was infallible as a teacher. They disown the finality of His
teaching in various matters ; and they explicitly declare and
earnestly contend that He has actually erred and taught error
in some things, — yea, declared as true what is contrary to the
truth in some matters of a religious character, — even on the all-
important and fundamental religious question as to the standard,
source, and seat of authority in religion — the Word of God.
Therefore, however much they may differ in many things from
the others, they are at one with them generally in denying the
infallibility and asserting the erroneousness of Christ as a
teacher even in religious things, in the root and basal question
of all religion and ethics.
The Truthfulness and Trustworthiness of Scripture
AND OF Christ are Inseparable, and vary as each
OTHER.
Nor can they and their followers stop here. For they have
not told definitely nor specifically in what things Christ is
allowed to be infallible, nor how we can find these with certainty ;
nor by what infallible rule we can distinguish between the true
and the false in Christ's teaching. They have not set forth in
detail the errors of Him who is "The Truth," nor stated on
what principle we can separate the wheat from the chaff in our
Lord's teaching ; nor have they produced any Scripture proof
or authority for making any such distinction in the utterances
of Him who declared so solemnly " Heaven and earth shall pass
CHRIST AND SCRIPTURE INSEPARABLE 259
away, but My words shall not pass away." They have simply
asserted without proof, and in the face of most explicit state-
ments of God's Word, and of an overwhelming array of evidence
both from Scripture and reason to the contrary, the indefinite
erroneousness of Christ's teaching; just as they assert the indefinite
erroneousness of Scripture.
To this conclusion, indeed, they had to come ; for since Christ
stands by the truthfulness and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture
in its integrity, the erroneousness of His teaching must on their
theory obviously vary as the erroneousness of Scripture. By
how much soever they deny the truthfulness, or damage the
trustworthiness of Scripture, by so much they declare the un-
truthfulness, and proclaim the untrustworthiness of Christ as a
teacher. And since the one is indefinite, so, therefore, is the
other. So that the dogma they teach is the indefinite erroneous-
ness and illimitable unreliability both of Scripture and of Christ.
The doctrine we teach is the truthfulness and trustworthiness of
both. They teach the indefinite erroneousness of both ; for
no one of them has ever given a detailed statement of the errors
of either Scripture or Christ, and no two of them agree as to the
errors they allege. On the contrary, they display an indefinite
diversity, a diverting contrariety, and an ever-changing variety of
opinion. They also teach an illimitable unreliability ; for Hmit
of truth or error has never been given by any of them, nor any
definite principle of limitation, nor any infallible means of
limiting the unreliabiHty of Scripture or the untrustworthiness
of Christ. In both the error and untrustworthiness are indefinite
and indeterminate quantities, nor is it possible on these prin-
ciples to limit them.
Each Man becomes Judge of the Teaching of Scripture
AND OF Christ, and becomes a Standard to Himself.
Therefore, every one is left to himself to find out, without
any sure principle or reliable guide, what in the teaching of
Scripture and of Christ is false and untrustworthy, and what is
true and reliable. Every man will therefore, and by a mental
and moral necessity must, accept just as much or as little of the
teaching of Christ and of Scripture as suits him, or none at all
should he think fit. Since even they themselves are liable to
260 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
change, and often changing in their opinions and mental attitude,
disbeUeving at one time what they believed at another, their
idea of the true and trustworthy in the teaching of Christ and
of Scripture at one stage might be thought false and misleading
at anotlier, and it would of necessity vary with every variable
man.
Nor could men on this principle ever be sure that they had
infallibly arrived at what was the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, — unless, indeed, men had become insane
enough to imagine that when they had disowned an infallible
Bible, and rejected an infallible Christ, they could put absolute
confidence in an infallible self! It would evidently be impos-
sible on this basis to construct any general system of truth.
For on the fundamental postulate of this theory men of various
and variable minds could not, from the very nature of the case,
agree, except on those deep, universal, and ineradicable instincts
and intuitions common to mankind which existed independently
of and prior to Christ and God's revelation. It would, of course,
be irrational and absurd to attempt to convince anyone of
error on the teaching of Christ ; because, according to the first
principles of this theory, there is either no infallible standard of
truth, or no unerring way of ascertaining when His teaching is
infallible. And even any teaching of Christ which might be
thought true would have no intrinsic or independent authority
because of coming from Him, but only such authority as each
mind might choose to attribute to it for the time ; that is, no real
authoritativeness at all on this supposition.
In short, every man becomes a standard and authority to
himself, and Christ is excluded from any authority as a religious
teacher whatever : — first, because it is often doubtful whether
Christ is speaking with authority, or only accommodating Himself
to those with whom He speaks ; and, second, because on their
doctrine of the indefinite erroneousness of His teaching we
cannot be sure whether, when He speaks with authoritativeness,
His teaching is true or false. This bold, blasphemous, but
irrational rationalism is the simple but inevitable result of this
theory of the indefinite erroneousness of Christ's teaching.
CHRIST AND SCRirTURE OR RATIONALISM 261
If Christ's Teaching the Truth and Divine Authority
OF Scripture is Disowned, it is vain to avow Trust
IN Him or it in other things.
But this is not all, by any means. For apart from the
impossibility of being sure on this view as to whether what we
have in any particular case is the true or the false in Christ's
teaching, other more serious questions immediately arise, and other
simply fatal and utterly destructive results inevitably follow. If
Christ, speaking in the name of God, has taught us error on one
or more subjects, how can we with absolute confidence trust His
teaching on anything ? If He erred in believing and declaring
that the Scriptures are true, and that they cannot be broken or
violated even in a single word (John lo^*), and that heaven and
earth shall pass away before one jot or tittle can pass from them
or fail to be fulfilled {Matt. 5^^), then may He not have erred
and taught error on every other subject ? If He has misled us in
some things, why may He not have misled us in everything ? and
how, at least, is it possible for us to disown His teaching in
some things and trust it implicitly in others? Are we not
warranted in distrusting Him in all He teaches, if in some things
He has taught us error for truth with such assurance? Ought
we not to disown altogether His infallibiUty and authority as a
teacher when He has led us astray in anything, especially in
such vital things? How can we be reasonably expected to
believe Him in some things if He has deluded us in others ?
On what rational principle can we be asked to accept Him as a
teacher at all if He has taught us error in such an authoritative
manner on such a fundamental question? If, on such a dis-
tinctively religious and all-important subject as the sources of
Divine help and the standard of Divine truth, He has so solemnly
and emphatically declared as true what is the opposite of the
truth, how can we rationally believe His teaching on anything, or
put any confidence in His statements on any religious subject?
If on this, which it was peculiarly and pre-eminently His duty
and function, as the Light of the World ' and the Teacher sent
from God, to know and to teach. He has erred and led men
trusting in Him into error, how can earnest or reasonable men
trust Him on any other question, or pay any regard to His
teaching at all ? Is not His authority and trustworthiness as a
262 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
teacher ipso facto destroyed? Is not confidence in His teaching
necessarily annihilated ? And is not faith in anything He says
rendered impossible ?
Nor is it of much moment in the present question how or
why He led us into error, if we have been led into it. If He
misled us by deception, like the false prophet teaching in the
name of God as true what He knew to be false, — though it makes
one shudder even to suppose this of the faithful and true
Witness, "The Truth," — then His veracity is annihilated, and it
is worse than idle to inquire what He teaches on anything.
If He misled us through ignorance. His authority and credibility
as a teacher are equally destroyed. And may it not be reason-
ably urged that if He has erred in matters of Biblical criticism, —
as some say, may He not also have erred in matters of history, — as
others assert, and questions of science and philosophy, — as others
declare, and on questions of morals, — as not a few with more
plausibiUty maintain, and in religious subjects, — as some have
been bold enough to contend, — in short, on every kind of thing ?
There is, in fact, no rational resting-place short of this if once
Christ's truthfulness, trustworthiness, and authority are impinged
upon or violated in any way.
If He has erred as to the Word of God, can He be
THE Son of God?
If He erred as to the character of the Word of God, may
He not have also erred as to His claims to be the Son of God ?
For clear and decisive as His teaching as to His Divinity is, it is
not so explicit, emphatic, and inevasible as His teaching of the
truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God. If He
has taught error in regard to Scripture itself, how can we believe
that He has not taught error also as to salvation, redemption,
God, man, life, death, resurrection, judgment, heaven, hell,
time, eternity, everything contained in Scripture, everything
most surely believed among us, mainly on His word ? " If the
foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do ? " If
Christ is not absolutely trustworthy as a teacher, who is ? what
is ? and where are we ?
If making "exegetical mistakes," as some scruple not to
assert, maintaining and pressing the right of criticism "even
CHRIST AND SCRIPTURE OR AGNOSTICISM 263
against the Lord Himself," as they phrase it, He has erred in
the interpretation of the Scriptures He came to fulfil, because
misreading them, misunderstanding them, and misapplying them,
then how was it possible for Him to have fulfilled them ? Yet
He expressly declared that His whole life, teaching, death, and
resurrection were on purpose to fulfil them. If in His "exeget-
ical mistakes " and erroneous teaching He has gone astray and
led us astray, is not Scripture still unfulfilled. His life-purpose
therefore defeated, our redemption unaccomplished, and our
faith vain? If, then, the written Word of God which He
endorsed and sealed with His authority is not in its integrity
true and trustworthy but indefinitely erroneous as alleged, and
if the Incarnate Word of God is inimitably untrustworthy as a
teacher and indefinitely erroneous in His teaching on the first
and fundamental questions of all religion, — the source and
standard of religious truth and the character and meaning of
it, — then, verily, the foundations of all our faith and hope therein
are destroyed, the sources of Divine help are vanished, and
we are yet in our sins ; and well might a benighted, be-
fooled, and broken-hearted humanity raise a wailing deeper
than Cassandra's for the credulity that might save us from
despair.
If Christ is not Infallible in Teaching, who is?
WHAT IS ?
For if Scripture, the Word of God, is not truthful and
trustworthy, notwithstanding its explicit claim to be so, and if
Christ the Son of God has so solemnly endorsed this false and
misleading claim, then, it is almost needless to say, we cannot
rationally trust Him as a teacher in anything, much less rely
on any teacher; while to put confidence in our own erring
findings surely would be the climax of folly and irrationality.
Having abandoned our infallible Bible and discredited an
infallible Christ, it would be patent absurdity to rely on ever-
errant human opinion, and the climax of folly to trust to an
infallible self. On these suppositions the rejection of Christi-
anity and Christ altogether is natural, necessary, and obligatory,
and the adoption of agnosticism and unbelief right, reasonable,
and requisite. And in the ultimate issue, the legitimate and
264 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
inevitable conclusion in religion from these premises is absolute
scepticism, which is absolute nonsense, and makes the whole
nature and history of mankind a delusion or a lie.
The Final Issue — no Seat of Authority in Religion or
Ethics, Agnosticism.
This, then, is the ultimate logical and inevitable conclusion
to which every honest and consistent mind must come from the
baseless but disastrous theory that Christ erred when He
endorsed and emphasised the claim to truthfulness, trustworthi-
ness, and Divine authority made by the Bible for itself. And yet
those who advocate this theory are those who, with the air of
superior knowledge and under the cant of advanced thought,
imply, in their apparent incapacity of logical, consecutive think-
ing, and innocently imagine that men can still honour Christ
as a religious teacher after they believe that He has taught them
error on the fundamental religious questions of Scripture and of
all religion. They can even fancy in their simplicity that
honest and intelligent men will adopt their hybrid theory, and
stop short of carrying it out to its only legitimate termination
from their allegations and principles,— which is to reject Christ as
a teacher altogether, and regard Him as a deceiver or deceived,
either of which is equally fatal to His claim to be a teacher on
such things at all.
Ay ! they are actually capable in their vanity, credulity, and
absurdity of presenting this bastard imbecility to the adoption of
the advanced intelligence of our thoughtful and sceptical young
men near the close of this enlightened nineteenth century !
Had the century been in its dotage, as some think it is, when so
many crudities and absurdities seem so readily conceived and
credited rather than the truth, one could the better understand
this temerity and credulity. But that it should seriously and
confidently be propounded in the name of advanced thought,
superior intelligence, and rational religion, is only another illus-
tration that there is nothing too untenable and absurd for the
modern vaunters of breadth and freedom to father and to swear
by. Superior intelligence, advanced thought, rational religion,
bfeadth, and freedom, — why, these things have been too long the
boast of mere pretenders to the names. Superior intelligence !
CHRIST OR NO AUTHORITY IN RELIGION 265
'Why, what is the intellect of that young man worth who has not
courage or brains enough to carry out these principles to their
legitimate conclusion — the rejection of Christianity, and the
adoption of Agnosticism, or absolute Scepticism ?
Advanced thought ! Why, the man that believes that Christ,
coming in the name of God, and claiming to speak only the
Word of God, and to be veritably the Son of God and the equal
of God, taught error for truth on such primary and fundamental
religious questions, and that would not, therefore, feel himself ,
mentally and morally constrained to advance a little farther, and
to reject Christ as an authoritative religious teacher altogether,
and to regard Him as a deceiver or deceived, might surely ask
himself whether he was born to think at all.
Rational religion ! Why, the person who rejects the authori-
tative teaching of Him who called Himself The Truth and the
Word of God on the inviolability of the Scriptures which He
came to expound and fulfil, and who charges the supreme
religious Teacher of the world with teaching untruth in declaring
the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of the
source and standard of truth, and yet does not despair of
finding finality, and see the absurdity of certainty in any rehgious
question, could scarcely do a more rational thing than to
question his own rationality. It has long been evident to
minds that think things through that it must be Christ or
none, Christ infallible and trustworthy in everything or in
nothing.
And as for this tall talk about breadth of thought and
freedom of faith, why, it is not breadth but narrowness, not
freedom but bondage, not thought but cant. For whenever we
leave the Divine breadth of the Word of God and limit the
infinite horizons of the Son of God, we inevitably become
environed by the narrowness and shallowness of the thoughts
and vagaries of puny man, and enthral ourselves amid the
conflicting and belittling asseverations of human opinion.
Having abandoned the Sun of Righteousness, we walk in
the sparks of our own kindling till, " in wand'ring mazes
lost," we find that we have lost both our freedom and our
faith, and might well lose our reason too, as contemplating
the confusions and conflictions of human philosophies and
religions, and, like Milton's angel peering out to ascertain
266 IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE AS A TEACHER?
"the secrets of the hoary deep" amid the babbhng sounds,
we see
"A dark
Illimitable ocean, without bound,
Without dimension, where length, breadth, and height,
And time and place are lost ; where Eldest Night
And Chaos, ancestors of Nature, hold
Eternal anarchy amid the noise
Of endless wars, and by confusion stand.'^
Note. — On the union of the Divine and the human in the Person of our
Lord, and its relation to His teaching and action. Principal Rainy makes the
following careful and suggestive statement : " There is evidence enough that
our Lord's human speech and action proceeded from One who was never less
or other than the Eternal Son of God. But there is no evidence that His
human speech and action proceeded from any immediate principle other than
a human consciousness — that is, from human faculties or capacities ; the human
nature being participant of all knowledge of His own and His Father's being
hat befitted His Person and work, — yet participant always in a manner proper
to human nature." — Critical Review, April 1892, p. 120.
BOOK Ilil.
THE STATUS QUESTIONIS. THE BIBLE CLAIM
AND PRELIMINARY PROOF.
CHAPTER L
GENERAL MISCONCEPTIONS AND MISREPRE-
SENTATIONS. OPPOSITE EXTREMES. THE
ULTIMATE ISSUES.
We have listened to the voice of the Lord, declaring the truthful-
ness and inviolability of the Word of the Lord, in its fulness and
integrity. We have shown that His decision must be received as
authoritative and final, else authority and finality in religion is an
irrationality and an impossibility, and agnosticism or unbelief an
obligation and a necessity. We have now, before adducing the
full proof from all Scripture and corroborative evidence of the
main position, to set forth definitely and precisely what that
position is. For in this as in most questions the proper
statement of the question is the virtual settlement of it, or at
least a long advance towards settlement, and is an essential
preliminary to even an approach to settlement.
Prevalence of Misconception and Misrepresentation
confusing the issues and the diverse defenders.
I question if in the whole history of theological controversy
any subject has ever been so often mistaken, so strangely
misconceived, or so greatly misrepresented. Therefore, count-
less confusions, innumerable irrelevancies, and interminable
268 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
controversies and side issues have been introduced, which have
obscured the real issue, and prevented thorough discussion of the
fundamental question. Earnest but unwise defenders of the
truthfuhiess of Scripture have taken up extreme and untenable
positions, and have sought support for these from arguments and
principles themselves invalid or vulnerable ; so that when these
have been refuted, and the positions proved untenable, it has
appeared as if the truth itself were overthrown or imperilled.
Signal disservice has thus been done to the Word of God and
the cause of truth by those who have mistaken extremeness for
strength of position.
On the other hand, eager assertors of the erroneousness of
Scripture have manifested a marvellous obtuseness in recognis-
ing the question at issue. They have disclosed amazing mis-
conceptions of the true issue. They have displayed a wondrous
ingenuity in evading a straight, serious discussion of the real
question. They have evinced a provoking fertility in raising side
issues, as if really afraid to face the main issue. They have
betrayed a significant unwillingness to come to the point and to
state the question, as if dreading a thorough discussion thereof
from suspected weakness of their own position. They have
persistently avoided grappling with the proofs of the true
position, as if conscious of their inability to answer them.
Hence, frequently all the defenders of the infallible truth and
Divine authority of Scripture, from the extremest and weakest to
the wisest and strongest, have been classed together, as if there
were no difference between them. Arguments that might have
some validity against extreme and untenable positions, but which
have absolutely no force or bearing on the positions of the wiser
defenders, have been recklessly, irrelevantly, and unfairly hurled
against the whole as if they were equally valid against them all.
Thus they have sought to heap ridicule upon the true and
scriptural position by unjustly mixing all together and associat-
ing with it foolish fancies excluded by it. Numberless repeatedly
repudiated absurdities — such as that old bogle of the alleged
inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points — have been attributed to
them, as if the writers did not know that such views do not exist,
and were never held by the real upholders of the Bible claim.
Most jejune and ludicrous misconceptions have been ascribed to
them which never existed except in the crude imaginations of
MISLEADING EXPRESSIONS 269
those who had the folly to conceive them and the perversity to
repeat them, and which in lack of better arguments served the
purposes of popular ridicule.
Misleading Terms and prejudicial Epithets.
The defenders of the truth have often been superciliously
spoken of as if they knew nothing, by those by no means them-
selves overburdened with either learning or logic, insight or depth,
though pretentious enough to imply that wisdom was born and
was likely to die with them ! Prejudice against the truth has often
been created by representing the defenders of the claim of Scripture
as narrow or behind the age ; because, forsooth ! they refused to
be drawn down from the Divine breadth and eternal advancedness
of God's Word to the narrow, fragmentary phases of ephemeral
human opinion, — the authors not knowing that the best Biblical
scholarship of the world in this as in every age is against them,
and in favour of the Scripture claim to infallible truth and
Divine authority.
Finding it easier to ridicule or caricature than to refute the
truth, unscrupulous caricatures, easily exploded, have been
fabricated, which have been palmed off as refutations of our
views upon the ignorant and unwary ; and which sometimes even
the assailants themselves seem to have been innocent enough
to imagine were demonstrations. Instead of honest, serious
argument against the formidable array of Scripture proof
adduced, patent misrepresentations of the Bible claim have,
after repeated exposure and protest, been tenaciously persisted in.
These have prevented thorough discussion of the real question
in the light of the proper evidence, and have largely hindered a
satisfactory settlement of it on the proper grounds. Vague
phrases, misleading terms, stereotyped expressions — such as
verbal inspiration, plenary inspiration, mechanical inspiration,
dynamical inspiration, inerrancy, literal infallibility — have con-
tinued to be used and abused to the detriment of the truth.
They have often no definite meaning, because different persons
use them in different senses. As they often substitute a vague
phrase for a definite idea, by this means they only gloss over
crucial questions and evade the real issues.
Many of these, along with such other weak but abusive
270 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
epithets as "cast-iron theory," ^ "metallic traditionalism," etc.
etc., have, for want of better arguments, been contemptuously
hurled against the true Bible position in order to discredit its
defenders — on the noble principle of giving a dog a bad name
in order to get rid of him. Through confusions, or under
hallucinations, ten thousand times refuted objections have been
readduced as if they had never been exploded ; while the solid
mass of positive Scripture proof they have never yet seriously
faced, and the massive array of unanswered, because unanswerable,
argument produced in support of it has been prudently but most
cravenly passed by —
"For when they did behold the same,
They wondering would not stay ;
But being troubled at the sight,
They thence did haste away."
Inadmissible and invalid Arguiments used.
Arguments have been used against our position which, if they
had any validity at all, were equally valid against their own position ;
and were, therefore, illegitimately used by them against ours,
while they had no validity at all against our distinctive position.
They were therefore not only illegitimate as used by them, but
were also irrelevant altogether to the real issue ; and were simply
self-stultifying and self-destructive in our controversy with them.
Yet they seem incapable of seeing this, or lack courage to confess
it. It is vital, therefore, if we are ever to reach the real decisive
discussion, and to weigh the full and proper evidence on the
question, to clear away the prevalent confusions and mis-
conceptions, caricatures and misrepresentations, assumptions and
assertions ; and then to put the real status qucestionis, then to
produce the proper and complete evidence, and finally to consider
the ultimate issues. The very doing of this will be valuable, and
is much needed in itself, and will be a further refutation of the
Rationalistic theories and a positive confirmation of the Bible
claim, — a real preliminary proof.
' Dr. Horton.
CHAPTER II.
MISCONCEPTIONS AND CONFUSIONS.
I. Confusing Questions of Canonicity with the Truth
AND Divine Authority of Scripture. Opposite
Extremes.
One of the first and most misleading misconceptions on this
subject has been confounding the Canon, and questions about
the Canon, with the true doctrine of Scripture, as if identical
with, or vital to, the inspiration or infallibility of the Bible. The
importance of the question of the Canon to the question of
inspiration has been exaggerated and misconceived by two
opposing parties, who represent the opposite extremes on the
main question. Some of the ultra-Conservatives have foolishly
maintained that it was essential to the infallible truth and
Divine authority of the Bible to hold that every book in the
received Canon, with every item and iota thereof, should be
regarded as the infallible Word of God ; and that the slightest
impingement on the absolute infallibility and Divine authority
of any book, or part thereof, is tantamount to a denial of the
Divine inspiration and authority, truthfulness and trustworthi-
ness of Holy Writ. On. the other hand. Rationalists who deny
its truthfulness and trustworthiness greatly exaggerate the
dependence of the question of inspiration on the question of
the Canon, and assert that it is impossible to settle the true
doctrine of the one until we have first definitely settled the
other.
refutation of the orthodox extreme.
Both are wrong, because both extreme. In refutation of the
first it is sufificient to adduce the fact that nowhere in Scripture
271
2/2 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
itself have we a catalogue or statement of the writings that
compose the Canon. Therefore it is impossible to claim
Divine authority for the inclusion of every separate book now
generally received as part of Holy Scripture. However
clearly it can be shown from the Bible itself that for every
Scripture inspired of God infallible truth and Divine authority
are claimed, yet you cannot from the Bible itself authoritatively
determine precisely what these writings are. This is largely a
question of criticism and of Christian testimony, and at most
only carries the weight that belongs to the evidence for canonicity
in each case. And though it were to be shown that the balance
of evidence was rather against than in favour of including some
books — say, Esther or Ecclesiastes from the O.T., or James and
2 Peter from the N.T., — though we by no means imply this in
quoting them,— yet this would not and should not in the least
affect our doctrine of the infallibility and Divine authority of all
the Scriptures that are inspired.
Nor can anything be more prejudicial or disastrous to the real
Bible claim, or more suicidal to the interests of the truth of the
religion of the Bible, than to stake the whole cause of its truth-
fulness and Divine authority upon the question of the canonicity
of a particular book ; or even so to connect the one with the
other as to imply that the questions were identical or vitally
connected.
The questions are, in fact, essentially different in kind. The one
is founded on or adduced from the explicit teaching and pervasive
claim of the Word of God. The other is at best, in some cases
at least, a matter of human opinion, upon which even believing
men may honestly differ. And in any case, the truthfulness and
Divine authority of Scripture as a whole would not be affected
one iota by any decision, however adverse, as to the canonicity
of such books, or of any particular book ; because the same
claim would be found in its integrity in the others.
EXPOSURE OF RATIONALISTIC EXTREME.
This, too, is in substance the answer to the Rationalists of the
opposite extreme. They, in order the better to discredit the
testimony of Scripture to its own supernatural inspiration, — with
consequent infallibility and Divine authority, — magnify and
CANONICITY AND DIVINE AUTHORITY 273
exaggerate the dependence of these questions on the question
of the canonicity of the separate books. They then seek to
minimise the number of undoubtedly canonical books ; next,
attempt to isolate each separate book as much as if they never
had any connection ; and, finally, interrogate each book for its
individual testimony on these questions.
But it is a vain device. For, first, the books refuse to be
thus isolated. Scripture distinctly declines to be so fragmented.
It is a unique Divine unity, articulated, interpenetrated, and so
pervaded by one homogeneous system of truth, permeated by
one superhuman life, and breathing one Divine spirit, that it
cannot be thus partitioned and emasculated without violating the
first principles of scientific interpretation, and traversing every
sound canon of literary criticism.^ The general testimony of the
whole must therefore be received for its various parts ; for it is
one living, growing, God-created organism, in which each part is so
related to the others, and develops out of and grows with all the
others, as to form one complete living whole, in which every part
performing its special function strengthens and supports the rest.
That testimony is unequivocally given for the truthfulness and
Divine authority of all the writings in the category of Holy
Scripture, until it is proved that any do not belong to it.
Second. Even though the canonical books were limited to
those books that the most Rationalistic criticism would limit
them to, it would make no substantial difference as to the claim
of Holy Scripture to be the Word of God, of infallible truth and
Divine authority. For the doctrine taught in them on this is the
same as in the others.
Third. Many of the separate books whose claim to canon-
icity is most beyond dispute, teach most explicitly this doctrine
of the truthfulness and authoritativeness of Scripture, Yea, it
may be all in substance found in single fragments of the Divine
Book. For every part and particle of it being God-breathed,
testifies of God, some in the most explicit and emphatic way.
As a single fragment of a bone could so speak to the mind of the
great naturalist Owen that he could tell the body of which it was
part, and even construct it in its integrity ; so every part and
fragment of the Divine Word so spoke to the spiritual mind, and
so breathed with God, that it was not often difficult to feel assured
^ Bishop Westcott.
18
274 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND BRELIMINARY PROOF
that it belonged to the God-breathed body of the Divine Word.
Therefore it is vain to try to stifle the testimony of Scripture to
its own inspiration by attempting the disintegration of Scripture.
The very attempt to do so, as well as the magnifying of the
importance of the canonicity of the separate books, in relation to
the truth and Divine authority of Scripture as a whole, manifests
a strange confusion of thought, and of things radically distinct,
— ill-befitting pretenders to superior illumination and logical
acumen, and displays such a misconception of the real nature of
the cardinal question as only the obtuseness and perversity of
prejudice seem sufficient to explain.
2. Confusion of Translations with the Original
Scriptures.
A second and even a silly misconception (for there is nothing
too absurd to have been stated or imagined on this question) is
that infaUibility and Divine authority are predicated of the various
translations of God's Word by those who maintain its truth and
authority. But surely this absurdity might sleep now in the face
of the notorious fact that no two versions are identically the same,
and that some of them vary considerably in details, as seen even
in the differences between the English Authorised and Revised
Versions, not to speak of more decided differences, as between
the Protestant and Romish, or between some ancient and modern
versions. The reckless and dogmatic assertors of the erroneous-
ness of Scripture might have passed by this puerility, and not
have so exposed their poverty of arguments by attempting to
father this absurdity upon the intelligent defenders of God's Word.
It is of the Scriptures in the original languages, and of these
alone, that they have ever predicated infallible truth or Divine
authority. Any contrary assertions or implications are the result
of amazing ignorance of the first principles and tritest elementary
facts of the question, or are wilful perversions of them. Yet no
tender or doubting one that cannot read the original languages,
need be troubled by this fact, as though the Bible in their
mother tongue were untrustworthy. Quite the reverse is the
truth. They are all substantially correct ; and for all practical
purposes any recognised version is in substance sufficiently
correct and reliable. But since many of the alleged discrepancies
CONFUSIONS AND MISTAKES 275
on which the assailants of the truthfulness of Scripture have
based their opposition to its trustworthiness vanish by a more
correct rendering of the original, it is necessary, though humiliat-
ing amid the vaunted intelligence of our day, to emphasise the
fact that it is only of the Scriptures in the original languages
of which infallible truth and Divine authority are predicated
or predicable.
3. Mistaking the Scriptures in the Original Tongues
FOR THE Original Manuscripts.
Another cognate, and much more common and most mis-
leading misconception, is that it is of the original Scriptures as
we have them that infallibility and authoritativeness are asserted.
Many critics, bent upon assailing the inerrancy and establishing
the erroneousness of Scripture, have hastened to show and assert
that the Scriptures as in the original languages are erroneous,
and are therefore so far untrustworthy ; and contend that the
doctrine of their truthfulness and trustworthiness is thus dis-
proved by the original Scriptures in our possession. But in doing
this they exhibit various strange confusions and inconsistencies.
First. They confound the Scriptures in the original languages
with the Scriptures as originally given. We have the Scriptures
in the original tongues, but we do not have them as originally
given. The distinction is vital, and accounts for much. The
Bible writings, like all other ancient writings, are subject to the
vicissitudes of time, and the liabilities to corruption through
successive transcriptions during many ages, in many lands, by
many copyists. True, by the vast multiplication of manuscripts,
and the numerous early versions, and, above all, by the intense
interest and vital concern in the matters of salvation of which
the Bible is the sole repository, the margin of errancy was
reduced to a minimum, and the securities for accuracy in copying
reached such a degree of certainty as no other ancient writings
approach to. Nevertheless, there still remained a liability to
err ; and as a matter of fact errors have crept into the fringe of
Scripture. Nor could it be otherwise save by perpetual miracle.
And though God has guarded His word "by a singular care and
providence,"^ He has nowhere promised to preserve its absolute
^ Westminster Confession of Faith.
276 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
integrity by supernatural means, nor has He in actual fact done
so. The large number of various readings settles this. And there-
fore it is only of the Scriptures as originally given, as they came
from the inspired writers, that any intelligent advocate maintains
infallibility or Divine authority. This fact, though frequently
pointed out, has been persistently ignored by the advocates
of the erroneousness of Scripture ; nor has its importance been
sufficiently realised and insisted on by the defenders of its truth-
fulness. And yet the distinction made is all-important in this
controversy, and accounts for much that is otherwise difficult,
if not impossible to explain.
VALUABLE RESULTS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
INDEFINITE ERRONEOUSNESS NULLIFIES BOTH.
For, in the Second place, these Rationalistic critics have under-
valued, and failed to give due weight to the results and principles
of Textual Criticism. No wonder, for on their principles of an
indefinitely erroneous, and therefore of an indefinitely uninspired
Scripture, neither the original text nor the correct exegesis of
it are of any great importance. For, if even the very original
text were arrived at, and though the true meaning of it were
ascertained, it would still be, on their main principles, in-
definitely untrustworthy and untruthful. So that on this view,
in Textual Criticism and Exegesis, Othello's occupation is gone,
or of little moment. For, surely, it is not of much consequence
either to search for or to expound what is in its very nature and
substance indefinitely erroneous and untrustworthy.
But neither Exegesis nor Textual Criticism, which have
engaged the life of the best Biblical and theological scholarship
of the world in all ages, will consent to be thus unceremoniously
set aside to meet the exigencies and suit the assumptions of an
irrational rationalism, — especially as it pretends to base its conten-
tion upon the Scriptures as we have them. For, unquestionably,
in the course of ages the original text has been more or less
altered through processes of mistranscription, interpolation,
corruption, and transposition. And although it might be said
with Bendey that no important doctrine or fact has been really
affected thereby, so that no humble believer of the Bible need be
afraid of the overthrow of his faith thereby, yet the various
DISCREPANCIES VANISHING QUANTITIES 277
readings were many years ago reckoned at 30,000, and now
number at least 100,000 or more.
DISCREPANCIES VANISHING QUANTITIES.
And what Textual Criticism in its long, learned labours has
done is to eliminate many errors, and to limit much the area
of uncertainty as to the original text, and has thus largely
removed many of the apparent discrepancies by which the
opponents of the truthfulness of Scripture have sought to give
plausibility to their theories. In fact, many alleged errors that
were seemingly inexplicable before, as the result of wider collation
of MSS., thorough study of the text, and otherwise, have vanished.
Still more, they have given us the principle of a vanishing
quantity which has been largely strengthened and confirmed
from other cognate or collateral studies ; so that we may reason-
ably hold that wdth longer study, and fuller research, and larger
knowledge, they might probably all vanish, or only such trifling
discrepancies and difficulties remain as are incident to all subjects
of human knowledge. The tendency and result have beyond
question been to reduce their number and to lessen their im-
portance, and thus to warrant the behef and justify the conviction
that if we only knew all they would probably all disappear.^
And certainly the established results have been such as to render
it irrational and impossible, logically, for Rationalism, in the face
of them, to assert that they would not, or could not, all vanish.
That is, it ought logically to silence, if not to convince them ;
and thus rationally leave the full weight of the positive evidence
from the whole trend, the pervading tone, the explicit teaching,
and the entire mass of corroborative facts and phenomena, to
prove, as they have ever done, to the satisfaction of every section
of the Christian Church until this hour, that, as the Bible itself
claims, all or every Scripture being God-breathed is true, trust-
worthy, and of Divine authority ; and is therefore " profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous-
ness " (2 Tim. 3^''). And it is just because Rationalism in all its
forms and phases has, through bigoted prejudice, failed to
recognise and own this, and stubbornly shut its eyes to the
proved results of Biblical and other scholarship in these direc-
^ See below.
278 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
tions, that it has violated the first principles of the inductive
philosophy and the prime canons of literary criticism, and
deserves the repudiation and contempt of every scientific
student of Scripture, and of every candid and consistent mind.
For it ^exhibits in its worst forms that crude dogmatism and
traditionalism against which it belches forth such blustering but
self-destructive rasre.
THE IMPREGNABLE POSITION OF THE UPHOLDERS OF THE
BIBLE CLAIM.
For, in the Third place, through failing to recognise the im-
portant distinction between the Scriptures in the original
languages and the Scriptures as originally written, and by shut-
ting their eyes to the true results of Textual or other Criticism,
making many of the alleged discrepancies and difficulties by
which they bolstered their untenable contention disappear as
baseless imaginations, these irrational Rationalists have failed to
realise that the defenders of the truthfulness and trustworthiness
of Scripture as originally given, have, by the results of Textual
Criticism and other cognate and corroborative research, been
placed in practically an impregnable position. Since the original
manuscripts of Holy Scripture are not now in our possession, and
since the result of approaching nearer to them by various learned
research, along with cognate study, has been to dispel many
discrepancies, remove many difificulties, and pulverise many of
the supposed most formidable objections to the infallible truth
and Divine authority of Scripture, and to strongly confirm its
truth and even its minute accuracy,^ it follows inevitably —
First. It is impossible to prove that the alleged errors, on
which they avowedly but unwarrantably found their theory of the
erroneousness of Scripture, were in the original ; therefore it is
impossible to disprove the Bible claim to truth and reliability.
Therefore the position of those who maintain this claim is
practically impregnable, and they may well sit calmly amid the
rage of furious onsets and smile at all their foes.-
Second. It not only demonstrates the impossibility of dis-
^ See any of the countless books on this subject, and specially the Evidence
of the Moymmejits. See Appendix.
- See Book V.
THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES 279
proving the Bible claim, but it establishes the probability of it,
in the light of the difficulties removed by research ; and as
Butler has well taught, " Probability is the guide of life"; and
it creates for those willing to learn a moral obligation to belief
and action as real and decisive as actual certainty.
Third. Therefore it is much more rational and scientific to
affirm than to deny the truthfulness and authority of Scripture
as originally given.
RATIONALISTIC THEORIES OF THE GOSPELS CONFIRM THE
BIBLE CLAIM.
Fourth. Rationalism itself, by its own explicit but incon-
sistent teaching, gives additional confirmation to the position.
For it teaches two significant things : — First., that we not only
have not the original Scriptures, but that we have not anything
that can by any literary licence be properly called copies of
them. That, for example, in the Gospels, specially St. John,
we are not only without the original writings, but what we have
are not strictly even second or third hand copies of them, and
are at best second or third hand compilations or compositions
made by the aid of them, along with other misleading materials,
mingled with the reigning philosophic and religious ideas of the
times or of the writers, — some saying not earlier than the second
century, or well through it ; ^ and even the Ritschlians, though
mostly placing the N.T. writings practically in the first century,
yet hold that the apostolic materials are mixed with other mis-
leading matter, and misarranged.^ And all the possible per-
mutations and combinations as to theories of their origin and
composition have, with bewildering and astounding, if not
amusing rapidity, passed in succession across the firmament
of Rationalistic criticism like wintry clouds across stormy skies,
departing, not, alas ! never to return, but only to reappear in
some other form, or modification, or combination, as the whirligig
of restless criticism rushes on in its ceaseless and uncertain
cyclations to the amazement and amusement of all sensible men.
Seco7id. That, nevertheless, the Gospels are substantially, or
^ See Weiss, Introduction to N. T. ; Dr. Martineau's Scat of Authority in
Religion ; Pfleiderer, and others like.
■^ Harnack, Wendt, etc.
28o THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
in general drift and main substance, true and reliable. While
we do not commit ourselves to any of these diverse and diverting
theories, we accept them meantime as their own statements of
their positions, in order to show how they, in their contrast,
contrariety, and inconsistency, support the true position. If,
as they allege, the Gospels as we have them are substantially
true, or give the general trend and main substance of the teaching
of Christ and His apostles ; then, in these substantially true
Gospels, we undertake to demonstrate that they teach our doctrine
of the truthfulness and authoritativeness of Scripture, from their
whole trend and tone, their explicit statements, and their
diversified phenomena. And if the Gospels we have are so
far removed and different from the original Gospels, then, that
is surely more than sufficient to account for the creeping in of
those alleged discrepancies of which they make so much. Thus,
if their own first position be true, they should make nothing of
these discrepancies, since they are only what we should on their
view expect, and what must of necessity arise in Gospels originally
infallible. So that their own fundamental critical positions are
only confirmation of our doctrine, and the most thorough
refutation of their own.
THE APOLOGETIC AND PRACTICAL VALUE OF DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE PRESENT SCRIPTURES.
But it may be answered, what is the use of a theory about
original documents no longer in our possession, when the
Scriptures we have are full of discrepancies and difficulties ? Is
it not a dead doctrine about lost documents, and idle discussion
as to perished parchments ? We reply : — First, that these have
been, to say the least, immensely exaggerated, even in the
Scriptures as we have them. Many of them appear to have
been created where they do not exist. Others are all too
evidently the product of fertile imaginations, where the wish
was father to the thought. Some alleged are so ludicrous as
to make reasonable men smile, and wonder by what mental
idiosyncrasy any man could have imagined they were discre-
pancies at all. Of those remaining most of them admit of a
probable, and all of them of a possible, explanation ; — and a
possible explanation is all that is logically required to silence any
I
THE ORIGINAL AND PRESENT SCRIPTURES 281
objection arising from them. There are few, if any, that may
not be sufficiently accounted for by the peculiar circumstances,
only such as might be expected from, the nature of the case.
But, Second, the Scriptures we have, our only guide to salva-
tion, have come from them ; and therefore nothing affecting
them can be idle or indifferent to us because it affects the title-
deeds of our redemption and salvation.
THE SCRIPTURES AS WE HAVE THEM ARE SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE
AND TRUSTWORTHY.
And, Thirdly and mainly, the Scriptures we have are at least,
even on the testimony of opponents, in main substance and
effect a trustworthy record of the original, or are these in sub-
stance ; and from those we learn that they claim to be the Word
of God, of infallible truth and Divine authority. Therefore it is
vital to maintain that claim ; because on the truth of that claim
is based the truthfulness and trustworthiness of all the things
belonging to our eternal salvation. If that claim is false, our
faith is vain ; and everything most surely believed among us
perishes, and with them all our hopes for eternity and all our
consolations in time.
If anything invalidates or weakens that foundation, the whole
superstructure of our faith is thereby weakened and endangered,
discredited, if not destroyed. Anything that appears to impinge
on that position is, therefore, rightly regarded with suspicion
and concern. It is just because the apparent discrepancies of
the Scriptures, as we have them, have been misused to assail, and
if possible to destroy, the fundamental position, that it becomes
not only relevant but vital to distinguish between the Scriptures
as they are now and as they were originally given, and to
emphasise that it is only for these last that infallible truth and
Divine authority are claimed. It is therefore not of little but
of eternal moment to maintain that claim, because they make
that claim, and base on it all their other claims on the faith and
obedience of men. And since the apparent discrepancies that
may have crept into the Scriptures, as we have them, are only
such as might be expected to arise from errors of transcription,
the nature of the writings, and the vicissitudes of time, they only
serve to confirm the claim of the original writings.
282 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
We thus maintain the claim of Scripture in its integrity as to
the original writings, and we make all reasonable allowance and
explanation for discrepancies arising. We thus meet all the
requirements of both faith and criticism ; while by upholding
and establishing the substantial truth and trustworthiness of our
present Scriptures, we conserve all the sacred interests of practical
piety. One is, therefore, amazed to find any believer in Revela-
tion ignoring or undervaluing a distinction that serves to reconcile
the claims of faith and science. The difference is immense from
every point of view between Scriptures originally erroneous, and
Scriptures originally true and trustworthy, but becoming more or
less discrepant by transmission from various causes subsequently.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DISTINCTION TO THE SCIENTIFIC
STUDY OF SCRIPTURE AND OF PRACTICAL RELIGION.
From the standpoint of scientific study it makes all the
difference between paralysis and inspiration. For in studying
the Scriptures, believing them to have been originally true,
because Divinely inspired, the earnest student is under the
strongest stimulus and highest motives to search for the original
as through the inspiring Spirit it came pure and living from the
mouth of the Lord. But who would care to inquire or sacrifice
much to ascertain an original believed to have been originally
erroneous ? In the one case the search is for the Word of God
through which we have eternal life, like silver seven times
purified, more precious than the gold of Ophir. In the other
case it is largely only for the errant words of erring men — at
best a dubious search for doubtful and comparatively worthless
things. In the one it is a hopeful search for the very truth of
God, most precious and most pure. In the other it is a
heartless quest for, at best, a mixture of truth and error, without
the possibility of certain separation. So that, by the one
Biblical study is placed under the most potent stimulation, by
the other it is laid under the most hopeless paralysis.
From the viewpoint of practical religion, too, a Bible believed
to be originally true, because inspired of God, is received with
deepest reverence as the Word of God, even if discrepancies may
have subsequently crept into the margin of it ; and all the moral
and spiritual benefits of it will in that attitude and spirit be
VALUE OF THE DISTINCTION 283
likely to be realised. But a Bible believed to have been
originally an undistinguishable compound of error and truth,
with no certain means of thorough separation, will place the
reader of it in the attitude of a sceptical critic instead of a
sympathetic and reverential believer; and he will, therefore, of
necessity lose its best spiritual effects. From the standpoint of
faith the one will naturally lead to confidence and assurance, and
to that personal experience of the truth as it is in Scripture
which no unbeUef can disturb. The other will easily lead to
scepticism, as it logically lands in agnosticism. And from the
position of Apologetics, as will appear fully below, the one is
strong and impregnable, and has proved itself good against all
the assaults of unbelief for nineteen hundred years. The other
is demonstrably weak and indefensible, and would not avail a
single day, on their principles, against the well-directed attack
of intelligent scepticism seizing dexterously the positions so
unwisely given them, and using powerfully the weapons foolishly
placed in their hands by the errorists.
4. Confusion between Questions of Authorship and
THE Truth and Divine Authority of Scripture.
Another misconception that has led to much confusion,
bitter controversy, and needless alarm is identifying or connect-
ing questions of authorship of books with the prime question of
the truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture. Now these
questions are different in kind. They do not lie in the same
plane. The last is the first and supreme question, and lies at the
basis of all our faith. The others are subordinate, and belong to
a lower category. In the one there can be no confusion or
uncertainty, else all is shaken or undermined. In the others,
conflicting and even contradictory views may be held without
sensibly, if at all, affecting the foundations. The one is, from
its very nature, clearly a vital matter of faith, in which the most
momentous interests of all believers are at stake. The others
are evidently matters of literary criticism, in which no vital
interests are generally concerned.
No doubt there may be cases in which, when truly inter-
preted, the authorship of a Bible book, or part of it, is so
unequivocally and inevasibly declared in Scripture as to involve.
284 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
in the denial of it, the question of the truth, rehability, and
authority of the Word of God. But that is rarely, if ever, de-
monstrable ; and there is always, or almost always, a possible
explanation, which might be held to evade the raising of that
cardinal question. Generally it cannot be seriously raised at all
in connection with questions of authorship. While on all such
matters we are bound not to accept the supposed results of
criticism except upon sufficient evidence in each case, and it is
often miserably weak and changeful, such as no sensible man
would act on in practical life ; and while we should scrupulously
examine and warily entertain anything that seems to question
the truth or infallibility of God's Word : yet the questions are
themselves essentially different in kind.
There could not be a greater mistake apologetically than to
identify them. Nor could there be any more signal disservice
done to God's Word, and to the faith of God's elect, than to
confuse them, or to appear to place them on the same level, — as
has, alas ! too often been done by unwise defenders of the faith,
— sometimes by those of whom wdser things might have been
expected. Into all such literary questions criticism has un-
doubtedly a right fearlessly, if reverently, to inquire ; and faith
never appears so strong and brave, nor the truth so assured and
Divine, as when she frankly owns and encourages this ; and boldly
challenges all her foes to search her every record, and examine all
her credentials.
All the more is this so that in many cases there may be,
and there doubtless are, original and later authorships of sub-
stantially the same book. The original author may give the
main substance, or the chief materials, or the first principles or
germs. The later author or authors, whether editor, chronicler,
compiler, or recaster, developing, adding to, utilising, or recasting
the materials, principles, or germs, may give them in ways that
make the final forms very different from the original, and yet
be essentially the same in substance, principles, or ideas, so
that it might still retain, according to ancient literary usage, the
original name. This, which is reasonable in itself, and apparently
accordant with the facts of the literary history of some of the
Bible books, takes the force out of much of the hostile criticism
which has assailed the Word of God. There are few things
more important to the defenders of it than to recognise and
AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORITY 285
utilise it in the defence of tlie faith. And those good and
earnest souls who have trembled for the Word of the Lord when
some traditional, and perhaps true or substantially sound views
of the authorship of Bible books, or portions of them, have been
assailed or unsettled by criticism should — First, carefully dis-
tinguish between beUeving and unbelieving critics — between
avowed Rationalists who deny Revelation and the supernatural,
and therefore attack Scripture on purely^ rationalistic principles ;
and those Christian critics who, while agreeing with them in
many Hterary questions and some critical results, hold the super-
natural, and believe the Bible to be a Divine Revelation — the
Word of God. Second. They should be calm in the confidence
that a better and truly higher, because more scientific and
profound criticism will in due time correct the other criticism so
far as its results are untrue ; as has so often been done, as was
so effectually done by our greatest N.T. scholars in the thorough
overthrow of the false unbelieving criticism of the Gospels and
the N.T. generally ; and as is now being done as to many of the
supposed results of rationalistic criticism of the O.T., both by
archceological research, and truer, juster, more thorough Biblical
study. Third. They ought eagerly to grasp and vigorously to
press this fact of earlier and later forms of essentially the same
substance or principles developed and adapted to later times, to
preserve the chief things, to conserve the fundamental position ;
and to leave the subordinate questions of origin, authorship,
mode of composition to the usual course of critical discussion, —
so long as they do not invade and destroy the truthfulness,
trustworthiness, and Divine authority of God's Word. In short,
those true and saving results of criticism should be utilised for
the destroying of destructive criticism.
5. Questions of Date and Method of Composition
confounded with the fundamental question.
Questions of date and methods of composition of Bible
books have been similarly confused with the fundamental ques-
tion. Now, while it is doubtless true that some of the writings of
Scripture might be brought down so late as to discredit their
truthfulness, and even destroy their trustworthiness, as has been
done by some RationaUsts ; yet questions of date are questions
286 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
of criticism, and they do not, as a rule, raise the foundation
question, or really affect it, — especially as, in th^ case of author-
ship, there is the earlier and the later, and the final forms at
different dates. So that although a late date were assigned to
the final form, that would not necessarily involve the question of
its truthfulness ; since its substance, or the nucleus of it, might
have been in the earlier forms. It is also true that theories of
the method of composition might be, and in some cases have
been, propounded that would be inconsistent with its truth and
honesty. So that as a matter of fact it is not true, as Mr. Glad-
stone says, in his many ways valuable treatise, "The Impregnable
Rock of Holy Scripture," that criticism affects only the form
but not the substance of Scripture. For some criticism, by its
theories, principles, and supposed results, not only affects the
substance, but cuts into the heart of it, and in effect pulverises
and destroys it. Yet the methods of composition are the
legitimate subjects of criticism ; and, when conducted within
proper limits and on sound principles, are not necessarily incon-
sistent with the strictest views of the infallible truth and Divine
authority of Scripture.^ Yea, many of the ablest and most
believing critics have investigated such questions without destroy-
ing or disturbing these. And to connect such questions, or to
seem to put them on a level, as if identical or like in kind, is
only to make confusion worse confounded, and to play into the
hands of the common foe.
6. Confounding Traditional Interpretation with the
veritable word of god,
Another fertile source of misconception and acrimony
has been confusing traditional interpretations of Scripture with
the veritable Word of God. It is remarkable how readily and
unconsciously certain interpretations of Scripture have become
associated and even identified with certain passages ; and then
the proverbial persistency and perversity of traditionalism per-
petuates the confusion. This evil was prevalent, deeply seated,
and of long standing among the religious teachers of our Lord's
time, and aroused widespread and persistent antagonism to His
moral and spiritual teaching ; and it evoked His keenest and
^ See Dr. W. Robertson Smith, quoted above (p. 164).
TRADITION AND INTERPRETATION 28/
most scathing exposures (Matt. i5'', Mark 7^). Scarcely less
acrimonious and tenacious has been the fight in our day for
traditional interpretations by many whom it would be an outrage
to class with the scribes and Pharisees — hypocrites; for many
of them are unquestionably the salt of the earth, possessing an
intense, if somewhat narrow or defective, form of piety ; because
lacking the breadth and many-sidedness of the full Divine Word.
For not a little of this antagonism and irritation, the insolence,
recklessness, and even irreverence of the opponents of traditional
views are largely to blame. For in advancing what in some
cases and aspects might be truer and juster interpretations, they,
in striking contrast to the Master, who taught as His disciples
could bear it, have not been careful to avoid unnecessarily
arousing the conscientious scruples, even if the pious prejudices,
of earnest if insufficiently informed Christian men, but have
rather gloried in shocking them.
And some rabid and reckless anti-traditionalists, as they
haughtily style themselves, but who might be better designated
revolutionary novelists, from the boasted novelty of their views,
have, in their frenzy for novelty, almost gone the length of
proclaiming that everything old is false, and everything called
new, though often not new truth, but old, oft-exploded error, is
true. They seem to deem it quite a sufficient refutation of any
view to say it is old, and a valid proof of the truth of any new-
fangled notion to say that it is new — " advanced " ; forgetting
that the wise man has said, "There is nothing new under the
sun," and that opinions are like fashions, what is new to-day
will be old to-morrow. Yea, from the very necessities and
limitations of human thought, what is old now will soon be new
again.
The truth is, that so far is it from being true that any inter-
pretation reaching us through tradition is, on that account, to be
regarded as presumptively untrue, the presumption is all the
other way, — especially if the tradition is ancient, widespread, and
has survived successive assaults. The tradition itself, and the
persistency of it, are facts in favour of its truth, requiring to be
adequately accounted for by its rejectors. And for these often
crude and groundless novelties, these anti-dogmatists manifest
frequently such contemptuous and contemptible dogmatism
and intolerance as make the traditional dogmatist liberal and
288 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
open - minded in comparison, and show that the would - be
anti-dogmatists are after all the most intolerant and intolerable
dogmatists, — only on much more slender and untenable
grounds.
Nevertheless, there have been many untrue traditional inter-
pretations of Scripture to which men have clung, and for which
they have contended with a tenacity and intensity that would
have been justifiable and commendable only for the very Word
of God ; and which are explicable only on the supposition that
they regarded them as such, instead of what they really were, the
untenable traditions and wrong interpretations of men. So that
there is nothing more necessary and imperative for the upholders
of the truthfulness and Divine authority of Scripture than to
sweep all such interpretations remorselessly away, to make patent
and emphatic the essential distinction between God's Word
and man's interpretations of it ; and to declare with a clearness
and a force that none can mistake that it is of Scripture as
originally given, and when properly interpreted, and of that alone,
of which infallible truth and Divine authority are predicated or
predicable.
This involves and demands the best Textual Criticism,
thorough Exegesis, Biblical and Systematic Theology, and all the
cognate knowledge and studies helpful to the ascertaining of the
true meaning of Scripture. It requires also very specially
realising the standpoint of the writers ; the purpose of the
writings ; the peculiarities of the human authors ; the literary
usages of the times ; the necessary limitations under which the
books were written, either from the limited knowledge of the
writers, or the imperfect state or limited capacity of those to
whom they were immediately written ; the inevitable colouring
of the writing from the mind and the age of the writer ; and all
cognate or connected things.
But when, as the result of all these, we have ascertained the
true meaning of the Word, the real mind of the Spirit in it, and
what was really intended by God to be expressed through it, we
have then got the truth, the whole truth, so far as God meant to
give it, and nothing but the truth. And however hard it may
sometimes be to part with traditional interpretations, especially
where men have received spiritual good from them, because the
interpretations contained a truth, though not the truth in the
RATIONALISM AND TRADITIONALISM 289
passage ; yet every true lover of the Divine Word should for such
a result be ready and rejoice to do it ; that the Word of
God should not be endangered by identifying or confounding
it with human interpretations; and that our faith and hope
might stand, not on the traditions of men, but on the Word
of God.
Note. — Striking illustrations of the valuable results of believing criticism
in removing critical difficulties in the Bible, as we have it, in our English
Bibles, and even in the Hebrew, are given by Dr. Robertson Smith in his
The O. T. in the Jewish Church, in Lectures IV. and V. These examples,
which are largely increased in the second edition, remove many difficulties
that have been stumbling-blocks to careful readers. They are not trivialities,
but many of them large and important matters ; — relating to such things as the
difficulties of the accounts of David's appearance at Saul's court, and not being
known later, the place of meeting between David and Jonathan, the death of
Ishbosheth, Ahithophel's counsel to Absalom, additional clauses to Jeremiah,
the inscriptions to some of the Psalms, etc. By the aid of the better Text, in
these cases, in the Greek translation (Septuagint) from older Hebrew MSS.,
many of these are removed, and explanation is given of how these interpola-
tions, etc., crept into the original Hebrew MSS. This shows the value of
true criticism, and the folly of disowning its true results, from adhering to
traditional interpretations in the face of such. It also shows the unwisdom
of objecting to urging that it is only for the Scriptures as originally given,
when truly interpreted, that the Bible claims truthfulness and Divine authority;
— as if we could not know the character and claim substantially of what the
original was, from what we have, by study, as in other ancient books, — or
what anon or a temple was originally though now fallen or ruined.
CHAPTER III.
MISCONCEPTIONS FROM OVERLOOKING THE
PROGRESSIVENESS AND ORGANIC UNITY
OF REVELATION, TRUTHFULNESS, AND IM-
PERFECTION CONSISTENT
7. Confusion of the Truthfulness of Scripture with
Scientific Accuracy and Absolute Perfection.
The remaining misconceptions and confusions to be noted
here may be grouped under confounding the truthfulness and
trustworthiness of Scripture with scientific correctness and abso-
lute perfection. How often have the errancy and untruthful-
ness of Scripture been supposed to be proved by showing that
it did not give the exact numbers, or precise date, or perfectly
correct details in every case,— when it never professed to do any
such thing, but spoke roundly in popular language, as men are
wont to speak and write to-day. How frequently have errors,
and even contradictions, been imagined to be made out when
differences appeared between various accounts ; or other forms
of representation were given of substantially the same things ; or
the whole facts were not mentioned ; or one passage seemed to
conflict with another. As if omissions were errors ; differences,
discrepancies ; defects, mistakes ; and variations, contradictions.
Why, the Bible nowhere undertakes to give full information
on everything we might wish ; and its statements are often
evidently fragmentary, and manifest a sublime indifference to the
niceties that precisians would demand, when not serving its pur-
pose. For by the very differences in its separate accounts it shows
its independence and establishes its truthfulness ; and it seems pur-
posely not to reconcile seeming conflicts that we may have some-
thing to do, and to leave difficulties to exercise our faith and
train our moral character, as Butler has so powerfully reasoned.
2ao
THE BIBLE A POPULAR BOOK 291
THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC, BUT A POPULAR BOOK.
How eagerly have scientific antagonists laboured in vain to
demonstrate its contradictions to science, by trying to prove —
say in the account of Creation — that in some small points it does
not agree in its expressions with the alleged findings and views
of some nineteenth century science, which often changes and
contradicts itself ; and while ignoring the great things and lead-
ing lines on which the Biblical and geological records agree, as
shown by the greatest scientists, such science overlooks alto-
gether the fact that the Bible never professes to give a scientific
account of creation. It would have been utterly unintelligible
for ages if it had. If it had been given in the terms of
nineteenth century science, it would have been before the age
for millenniums, and behind the age in the twentieth century, and
so on ad iiifinituin. It ignores the fact that it was written, as is
patent on the face of it, in popular language; because written
for all mankind, and not for a small section called scientists. It
was written from a particular standpoint, as things appear
phenomenally in relation to earth and man ; and so written as
best to make the purposed impression upon us, — even the
presence, and action of God in nature and Providence, in order
to serve the great ends of the moral and spiritual education of
the race.
But the amazing thing is, that while thus straining to make
out contradictions, they have failed to note the great outstanding
agreements and the striking harmonies in all the main outlines.^
This fact is a striking contrast to other religious books, and is
not found in any ancient book or cosmogony ; for they all con-
tain ridiculous things.- It is quite unique and inexplicable,
except upon the supposition of Divine inspiration. How mar-
vellous is the fact, when all other ancient books and cosmogonies
show ludicrous absurdities, that a Book written thousands of
years ago should give such an account of creation as men in all
ages have been able to understand, appreciate, and receive much
^ This has been shown at length in the great works of the greatest
geologists and scientists from the dawn of geological science until now.
See such works as Agassiz, Hugh Miller, Sir Roderick Murchison, Guyot,
Dana, Sir W. Dawson, Virchow, and countless others.
- See examples in Gaussen, On Inspii-ation ; Dr. Storr, The Divine
Orioin of Christianity.
292 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
light and good from ; and in which, in the fierce hght of
nineteenth century science, the uttermost prejudice and hostihty
have been baffled to make out a single demonstrable error, while
true science is ever revealing increasing agreements in all the
leading outlines, as the highest scientific authorities maintain.
The only scientific explanation of this is that it is a Divine
revelation ; and that God's Spirit so guided the inspired writers,
as, while not revealing science, yet not to contradict fact or be
inconsistent with the truth when discovered. The effect of this
fierce criticism has, however, only been to bring the leading men
of science to prove that, not contradiction, but harmony, exists
between them, when both records are correctly interpreted from
their respective standpoints. And the lesson to be learned, both
by scientists and by scholars, as well as by believers in Revela-
tion generally, is that nothing should be judged before the time ;
that alleged errors and contradictions in Scripture often arise
from misinterpretations of it ; and that much of the imagined
erroneousness is the fruit of the strange misconception that the
truthfulness or trustworthiness of Scripture means or implies
scientific preciseness, when such an idea is precluded by the
whole character and purpose of the Bible.
Who does not know that a thing may be perfectly true, and
entirely reliable, though not stated in scientific language or with
pedantic precision ? The peasant's testimony to a fact may be
wholly truthful and trustworthy, though incomplete or unprecise
in itself, and couched in rustic language. And it is only by an
entire misconception of what is meant by truthfulness and trust-
worthiness that they have been identified with or held to imply
scientific or precisian exactness.
MISCONCEPTION FROM CONFUSING TRUTHFULNESS WITH
PERFECTION.
Similar misconceptions have arisen from confusing these with
absolute perfection in various forms. Some have imagined that
the Bible was erroneous because the languages in which it was
written were not the purest or most perfect, because its literary
style was by no means perfect, and because the grammar and
composition fell short of the best. But surely these are paltry
puerilities and most jejune ideas. Grammar, style, language.
TRUTHFULNESS AND PERFECTION 293
— what are these ? Not matters of truth, or fact, or principle at
all ; but of usage, taste, habit, at best of more or less imperfec-
tion ; for the best are but imperfect media, and means of
expressing thought, especially the thoughts of God.
And although it may -be and has been maintained that the
Hebrew and Greek were peculiarly fitted to be the vehicles of
Divine Revelation at its different stages ; and although it is not
difficult to see the Providence of God, yea, a very obvious Divine
design, in the selection of the Greek language to express the
last and highest revelation of God, — since it was the most nearly
perfect, and, when the best and last revelation was given, the
prevalent language of literature throughout the civilised world ;
yet this was not at all essential, or even of much moment, to the
truth, reliability, or authority of the Word of God. In fact, this
does not affect these at all. Why, the rustic or the barbarian,
who had no language but his native Doric, and broke every rule
of grammar, and violated every principle of style, might never-
theless be more truthful and trustworthy in his statements than
the most cultured modern Athenian. And certainly the most
pronounced opponents of these cardinal things, while, on the
one hand, adducing such irrelevant trifles against the Bible
claim, on the other hand press the importance, and even the
necessity of the Bible languages to the Divine Revelation to an
extreme and ridiculous extent. Professor Ladd,^ for example,
goes even the absurd length of urging that only the Hellenistic
Greek could have truly conveyed the N.T. Revelation. Surely
this is the acme of extravagance !
In the light of the unique translatability of Scripture into
every language of mankind, which has reasonably been urged as
an evidence of its Divine origin and its universal design, it is a
very jejune imagination that would thus drive to absurdity the
interesting and suggestive phenomena of Biblical language. It
may be reasonably shown that the languages of Scripture were
the best suited for the purposes of Revelation. But it is in any
case only a very crude misconception of things essentially
different in kind which could create the imagination that any
argument against the truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scrip-
ture could be made from any imperfection of style, grammar, or
language.
^ The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture.
294 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
CONFUSING IMPERFECTION WITH ERRONEOUSNESS.
Another more prevalent and misleading, but not less strange
misconception has been confusing the imperfect with the erroneous,
— as if relative imperfection and actual error were identical, when
they are really radically different. It is amazing with what cool
assurance many writers have imagined that if they can point out any
imperfection in any part of Scripture, they have thereby demolished
its inerrancy and demonstrated its erroneousness, as if all uncon-
scious of the baselessness of the assumption. Not only rash,
audacious waiters, in their loose and exaggerated utterances, but
sober, better informed though inconsistent authors, like Professor
Ladd in his immense compilations on the question,^ and even
others more thorough and able, have quietly assumed this, as if
it had never occurred to them that: there was, or could be, any
distinction between relative imperfection and absolute error in
the teaching of Scripture. They have, indeed, proceeded on it as
unquestionable, that if they could discover anything rudimentary
or imperfect in any part of Scripture, they thereby disproved its
infalHbility and proved its erroneousness. Hence they have
hastened to expose by exaggerating the " crude moralities " of
the O.T., as if rudimentariness were equivalent to error, whereas
a thing may be rough and rudimentary, yet entirely true so far as
it goes.
THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF REVELATION DOES NOT IMPLY
ERRONEOUSNESS, BUT POSTULATES TRUENESS AND
RELIABILITY.
They have also insisted ad nauseam on the trite fact of the
progressiveness of Revelation ; as if that rendered self-evident
the unreliability and erroneousness of the earlier portions of
Scripture. And they have even eagerly asseverated that our Lord
Himself, who so magnified the O.T. and emphasised with such
majesty its truth and inviolability, had actually abrogated, and
even condemned not a little of its distinctive teaching. But
they seem never to have thought it necessary to reconcile their
ideas of Christ's teaching about the O.T. with His own most
explicit and majestic declarations of its truthfulness and inviol-
^ The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture.
THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF REVELATION 295
ability, or with His own habitual use of all parts of it, as equally
and unquestionably the Word of God, of infallible truth and
Divine authority.
Nor have they reconciled their views with His profound
far-reaching summation of its whole teaching as embodied in
the two great commandments — Love to God and love to man.
" On these hvo commafidments hang all the law and the pro-
phets." Consequently, according to His infallible interpretation
of it, there was nothing in the O.T. that was not contained in
substance in the Divine law of love. Therefore, there could not
be anything in it that was inconsistent with love ; and, therefore,
nothing that He could denounce as wrong, or abrogate as
erroneous. Love like God is eternal. Thus the Word of God,
— the expression of Him in every part and fibre of it, is like God
Himself — love.
CHRIST S TEACHING IN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT DOES NOT
CORRECT, BUT ENDORSE AND DEVELOP THE TEACHING OF
THE O.T.
Those Utterances of our Lord, — mainly those in the Sermon
on the Mount opening with " Ye have heard that it hath been
said by them of old time," on which they have sought to found
their unwarrantable assertions — are directed, not against the
teaching of Scripture, which would have been a Divine contradic-
tion of Himself. For it was God who in times past spoke unto
the fathers by the prophets " ; and it was the same God who " in
these last times hath spoken unto us by His Son." It was the
Son who Himself declared, as if to answer by anticipation this
very objection, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law
or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil " ;
and added with such solemn and majestic emphasis what
might have for ever silenced all such asseverations and insinua-
tions, "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till
all be fulfilled" (Matt, s^^- is, Luke i6i7). With this He pre-
faced all His utterances about the teaching of the ancients. So
that He could not have directed them against the Scriptures,
which were His own Word, but against those misapprehensions,
perversions, and misapplications of it with which an un-
296 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELLMIXARY PROOF
spiritual religiosity and soulless literalism had associated and
overcrusted it.^
So far as they did bear upon the inspired law, it was only to
develop, deepen, perfect, and add to it ; and to reveal the
Divine breadths and depths of heart - searching spirituality
and soul-stirring truth lying unperceived or unappreciated
therein.
VITAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN IMPERFECTION AND ERROR.
They all served to disclose the radical distinction between
what was merely imperfect and what was untrue, between what
was only undeveloped and what was erroneous ; and to expose
the strange obtuseness that could confuse such obviously
different things, or the crude misconception that could in any-
way associate and confound imperfection with error. Error is
what is contrary to the truth. Imperfection is what is true so
far as it goes, but not the full-orbed truth. Error is stating as
true what is false. Imperfection is stating what is true, nothing
but the truth, only it is not the whole or the perfect truth.
Imperfection is truth in germ, outline, or immaturity. So that
imperfection and error are as distinct as truth and falsehood.
And ye't many of the opponents of the Bible claim use them
as if they were equivalent, or interchangeable, or at least terms
so nearly related, and so much of the same kind that the
one is used carelessly for the other. No wonder that so
misusing words and so confusing things that differ they should
come to strange conclusions. Has it come to this that these
would-be advanced thinkers have, in this late age, to be taught
the difference between a defect and an error, between imper-
fection and untruth, between what is not the whole truth and
what is the opposite of the truth ? Surely truth in germ or
rudimentary form is as truly truth as truth in a mature and
perfected form ; since perfection in the full development requires
trueness in the earlier elementary stages and germ forms.
Error can never develop into truth. Perfection can be evolved
only from true germs, erroneousness and wrongness in rude
primitive stages can never develop into truth and righteous-
ness. The laws of evolution preclude falseness and immorality
^ See Dr. David Brown and Dr. Meyer's Commentaries and Appendix.
IMPERFECTION AND ERROR 297
in earlier stages of what emerges into perfection and holiness,
and require trueness and rightness in the origins and pro-
gressive stages. No Christian writer, certainly no upholder of
the Bible claim, ever doubted progress from elementary and
imperfect revelations and stages of moral ideals or culture, to
fulness, maturity, and perfection, or ever questioned that the
N.T. was an advance upon the O.T. Nor is it conceivable
how any believer in the Bible as a Divine Revelation could, with
it in his hand, believe anything else. And what is all the tall
talk about the progressiveness of Revelation, of which some
loose thinkers of our time make so much, as if it were a
marvellous discovery or revelation of their own at the close of
the nineteenth century ? Why, it is as old as the hills, — older
than Christianity, old as Revelation itself. It is the veriest
commonplace in theology from the beginning; as well taught
and illustrated in old-fashioned Matthew Henry as in any other.
Without question the Revelation and teaching of the N.T. is
fuller, higher, and more advanced than the O.T., as some parts
both of the O.T. and the N.T. are than others. So that there
is a relative imperfection and a comparative inferiority in some
parts of Scripture when placed alongside of others.
So also some parts of Scripture, O.T. and N.T., are more
valuable and practically useful than others. These are by no
means specially in the N.T. ; yea, they are perhaps quite as
abundant in the O.T. as in the New. In this, in many respects,
the O.T. will bear favourable comparison with the N.T. It
would not be easy, if it is possible, to find any book in the N.T.
at once more thrilling and evangelical than Isaiah. Is there
any book of Scripture so infinitely diversified and so practically
helpful to pious devotion and spiritual experience as the Psalms ?
And the Book of Job stands peerlessly alone in all literature,
sacred and profane, in- grappling, with such profundity, pathos,
and power, with the great mystery of suffering ; so that it
well deserves Carlyle's appraisement — " The greatest work in
literature."
These things are mentioned here because it is another of
those strange hallucinations on which the opponents of the
truth, reliability, and Divine authority of Scripture base their
error, that the holding of these means maintaining the equality
in value and perfection of all parts of Scripture. But what
298 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
possible support can these things give their contention for the
faUibiUty and erroneousness of Scripture ? Absolutely none.
THOUGH ALL SCRIPTURE IS NOT OF EQUAL VALUE, ALL
IS TRUE IN SENSE INTENDED.
Though all parts of Scripture are not equally valuable, does
that prove that they are not all equally true, or that any of them
are untrue, when God says, " All Scripture is God breathed, and
is profitable " ? For, surely, if it is all profitable because all
inspired, it must be all true ; unless it can be shown that error
instead of truth is profitable for such high moral and spiritual
ends ! As reasonably say that some parts of the earth
and the heavens, which were all created by God, " by the
breath of His mouth," were not God's work ; because, forsooth,
they are not all equally valuable. Yet of a desert as of a paradise
it is true —
" Nothing useless is or low,
Each thing in its place is best,
And what seems but idle show
Strengthens and supports the rest."
PROGRESS IN REVELATION PRECLUDES ERRONEOUSNESS, AND
REQUIRES RELIABILITY IN EARLIER STAGES.
Though Revelation has been progressive, does that prove that
in the earlier stages it was erroneous, or give a shadow of
support to the imagination that any part of it contained error ?
A strange progress verily, that is founded on error, rooted in
untruth, and developed from falsehood ! If some portions of
Scripture are less perfect, less developed than others, how can
that even appear to imply that they are untrustworthy or un-
truthful? except upon the absurd assumption that imperfection
and error are equivalent, or necessarily connected, when they
have really no connection whatever. Because some parts of
Scripture are higher or more advanced than others, does that
demonstrate or afford a particle of evidence that the lower or less
advanced parts are therefore unreliable or erroneous? As
rationally assert that, because the propositions in the 6th or nth
book of Euclid are higher and more advanced than those in the
PROGRESS REQUIRES RELIABILITY 299
I St or 2nd, therefore the propositions in the ist and 2nd are
not true or trustworthy ! Every mathematician from the days
of Euclid until now would gaze at such a novel demonstration,
and wonder where such a reasoner got his brains, and think his
peculiar mental construction a prodigy deserving investigation !
Why, so far is it from being true that imperfection, inferiority,
progress, and advancedness in Scripture prove or imply error
or unreliability, on the contrary they prove the very opposite,
and imply and require truthfulness and trustworthiness. Our
last illustration best demonstrates this. For the higher and
more advanced propositions of the later books of Euclid are
based upon and must postulate the truth and reliability of the
propositions in the earlier. Nor is it possible to advance a
single step, or ever reach the higher and more complex, except
upon the assured basis of the truth and reliabiUty of the lower
and the more elementary. Every step in the progress has to
be built upon the proved or implied truth and demonstrated
reliability of the earlier steps.
So progress in Revelation necessarily implies and requires
the truth and trustworthiness of the earlier Revelation. Every
advance in the unfolding of Divine truth has to postulate and
build upon the trueness and reliability of what has been
previously revealed. And the only possible way to reach the
higher and fuller developments of Revelation is to assume and
proceed upon the trustworthiness of the lower and less developed
records of it. The superstructure can never be steadfast unless
the foundation is sure. The low^er and later streams cannot be
unpolluted and life-giving unless the higher head-w^aters are kept
pure and living. The branches can never be strong or fruitful
if the trunk is hollow or the root rotten. And the principle of
a progressive Revelation can be received as true and depended
on as trustworthy only upon the basis of the trueness and
trustworthiness of the earlier and more elementary revelations.
So that the progressiveness of Revelation is the most fatal fact
of all to the theory of the errorists or contradictionists, as Mr.
Gladstone would call them, who pretend to make most of it,
and yet violate, destroy, or deny the necessary presuppositions
of trueness and trustworthiness on which it is founded, and
without which progress in Revelation is a misnomer and an
impossibility.
300 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
Further, all those passages in which Christ so speaks of the
O.T. as to imply a relative imperfection, also imply, predicate,
and postulate the trueness and reliability of the O.T. Scriptures
so far as they go. For they are treated as the germs, roots, and
bases of the new and fuller revelations which He gives. But
germs must be sound and not unsound, if they are to become
true developments or valuable specimens. Roots must be
healthy, not rotten and partially poisonous, if they are to grow
into fertile trees and bear the best fruits. And bases must be
rock not sand, trustworthy not unstable ; iron, not mixtures
partly iron and partly clay ; rock, not partially rock and partially
sand, if they are to be the foundations of reliable structures.
Mixtures of iron and clay, rock and sand, are worse and less
reliable than foundations wholly sand or clay. And mixtures of
truth and error are of all things least satisfactory as foundations
of faith and conduct, — especially when it is impossible to separate
with certainty the truth from the error. They are utterly useless
as the germs of higher developments of truth, or starting-points
of new and fuller revelations.
From the very nature of things they render progress based
on them an impossibility, and advances made on things so
incoherent and antagonistic in their elements a manifest
absurdity. So that progressiveness in Revelation is necessarily
precluded by their very supposition,- — that the records of the
earlier and germinal revelations were erroneous and unreliable, or
inseparable mixtures of truth and error. All possible progress in
Revelation presupposes the trueness and trustworthiness of the
primitive and progressive, though relatively imperfect revelations,
from which and through which progress proceeded to the highest
developments and the most perfect revelations.
CHRIST S FULFILLING OF THE LAW IMPLIED TRUSTWORTHINESS
IN THE PREFIGURATIONS, EVEN IN MINUTI/E.
Hence the very figures and expressions used by Christ in this
connection imply and presuppose this, " I came," He says, " not
to destroy, but to fulfil " the law and the prophets. And whether
the word " fulfil " be taken to fill in, as filling in an outline to its
full completion : or to fill out, like the waxing moon — waxing
from its first graceful curve on the face of the evening sky to the
CHRIST FULFILLING SCRIPTURE 30I
last stage of curvature that perfects the full-orbed moon ; or to
fill up, like a tree from the soft and facile sapling, shaking in the
mountain breeze, to the full-grown cedar, defying the blasts of
ages with its majestic boughs, and covering the mountains with
its shade ; or like the imperfect child or the immature youth,
growing up into the fully developed and perfectly matured man, —
in every case it presupposes and requires trueness and reliability
in what are the germ, basis, and earlier stages, which through
development become at length the perfected and the ideal. As
the poet, with true poetic intuition as well as scientific truth and
insight, says, "The child's the father of the man."
And although the parts are only in embryo or immaturity, and
therefore relatively imperfect, they are all sound and perfect up
to the stage of their growth. The. sapling is the cedar in its
initial stage, and is as true and real up to the measure of its
growth as the full-grown monarch of the mountains. The
moon's first graceful horn is in measure as true and reliable
a representation of the moon as any subsequent phase onwards
to full moon. The outline of a picture or a landscape is in
degree as genuine and true as any after-completed or full-
visioned view. Nor is it possible to fill in, or fill out, or fill up
anything of the kind unless by presupposing the germinal and
imperfectly developed forms to be true and reliable. In every
case there is imperfection and immaturity ; but there is also the
promise, and the potency, and the primitive forth-puttings of
maturity and perfection.
And if "to fulfil" is taken in the ordinary sense, as Christ is
usually supposed to have fulfilled the O.T., by realising in
Himself as Antitype what was prefigured in its types, predicted
in its prophecies, and foreshadowed in its ideal representations ;
then, again, the same entire and even precise trueness and
reliability are implied and necessitated. For it would have been
impossible for Christ to have fulfilled them in that exactness of
detail, precision, and literality with which the N.T. inspired
writers, after His example, so frequently, and so remarkably prove
and emphasise He did, unless the things that He tJuts fulfilled
had been entirely true, yea, minutely accurate and thoroughly
reliable, even in small details. While in other things this
preciseness was not necessary nor designed, yet in these the
minuti^ were of the essence of the fulfilment, the whole point
302 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
and proof lying in the exactness and even literality of the
correspondence of the predictions and prefigufations with the
fulfiUing facts.
Here we see a reason why our Lord insisted with such
absoluteness and majesty upon the truth and inviolability and
necessity of fulfilment of every jot and tittle of the law and the
prophets. All this sets forth, in the most explicit and emphatic
manner possible, Christ's view of the trueness and trustworthi-
ness of the Word of God. If our Lord had wished to declare in
the most absolute and inevasible manner the inviolable truth
and unquestionable trustworthiness of all Scripture, it seems
impossible to conceive how human language could more
explicitly express, or practical action more indubitably endorse
these than in the language He has employed, and the manner of
using the O.T. He habitually followed. Thus the truthfulness
and trustworthiness of Scripture are not only not inconsistent
with the great pregnant fact of the progressiveness of Revelation,
but it implies and requires them, and is based upon and rooted
in them, yea, is impossible without them. They also accord
with it. On the other hand, the progressiveness of Revelation
and the necessary immaturity, or relative imperfection of earlier
revelations, preclude and are inconsistent with erroneousness
and unreliability in the record or expression of progressive
revelation. So that the fact which the errorists thought
disproved the truth and reliability of the Word of God when
properly understood and reasoned, actually supports these and
excludes their opposite theory.
THE BIBLE IS A LIVING UNITY AND SPIRITUAL ORGANISM THAT
IMPLIES TRUENESS AND RELIABILITY IN THE COMPLEMENT-
ARY PARTS.
In the same line it must be said that the Bible has, both by
the defenders and opponents of its truth and inviolability, been
too much treated as if it were a number of separate books, or
isolated fragments with little or no connection, instead of what
it is, a unique whole and living unity. It is a unique, con-
nected, and articulated moral and spiritual organism, breathing
with the Spirit, pulsing with the life, shining with the light
and glowing with the love of God. The unity of Scripture has
THE BIBLE AN ORGANIC UNITY 303
often been urged as a powerful argument for its Divine origin
and inspiration. But it has not been used as it ought in support
of the truth and reliability of Scripture. And it has rarely, if at
all adequately, been realised as a Divine living organism, whose
very nature requires the trueness and reliability of the different
complementary parts.
OPPOSITE EXTREMES — FRAGMENTING SCRIPTURE,
Some unwise upholders of its infallibility have so fragmented
it, and then regarded and spoken of its separate fragments as if
equally valuable, and in themselves in their isolation as absolutely
true and universally applicable, without any consideration of
their connection with other parts, and of their place and function
in the living, organic, God-breathed whole. They have thus
taken up an extreme and untenable position, and made wrong,
unwarrantable, and improper use of isolated texts ; and thus
played into the hands of the opponents of its truth and Divine
authority. The texts have often been treated as if they were
each by itself an independent and abstract embodiment of
truth universally applicable in all circumstances and connec-
tions ; they have thus been frequently misconstrued and mis-
applied, according to the opinions, prejudices, or idiosyncrasies
of the individual. Consequently the veriest puerilities, the most
jejune imaginations, and even the greatest absurdities have
sometimes been advanced, with oracular assurance as the Word
of God and the teaching of the Spirit. Any questioning of their
truth, or doubt as to their Divine authority, has been solemnly
denounced as unbelief or rejection of the Word of God. Those
so thinking and acting doubtless very earnestly mean to declare
and maintain the infallibility and Divine authority of God's
Word, and without doubt consider themselves the most thorough
upholders and faithful defenders thereof. But they commit a
serious mistake. They are really, though unconsciously, in some
aspects the worst foes of the true doctrine of the truthfulness
and trustworthiness of Scripture. They burden its defence, and
create many obstacles to its reception and unnecessary prejudice
to its prevalence. They have mistaken extremeness for strength
of position, and thereby have played most effectually into the
hands of its avowed opponents.
304 THE BIBLE CEAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
Under the appearance, and doubtless with the intention of
honouring the Word of God, what they really do is to honour
their own unwarrantable opinions and unscriptural theories ; and
thus injure and discredit the Word of God by their traditions.
What they actually do in tearing particular texts away from
their connections, breaking them into so many separate and in-
dependent fragments, and using them according to their own
fads and fancies, is to misinterpret and pervert Scripture, and to
designate their own wrong interpretations the Word of God.^
In fact, it is another kind of Rationalism, which, on the principle
that extremes meet, joins hands with avowed Rationalism in
undermining and discrediting the truth and Divine authority of
the real Word of God. Let it therefore be clearly understood
that, in maintaining the trueness and reliabiUty of Scripture, we do
not maintain that each passage in itself, and set apart from its con-
nections with the other related parts, is absolutely true, entirely
independent, and universally applicable. But that each part and
passage as originally given, when truly interpreted in the light of
all the rest, and properly applied according to God's intention,
is true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority — the Word of the
Lord.
SEPARATING BOOKS AND PARTS IGNORING ORGANIC UNITY.
On the other hand, many assailants of its truth and authority
also so separate its books and parts, as if they had no organic unity
or vital oneness. They have so spoken of it, and treated it as if
they knew not or wished not to recognise that the Bible is not
a conglomerate, a mass of many disconnected books, but one
unique, Divine, God-breathed product, composed of many
diversified but complementary parts ; yet nevertheless a sublime,
homogeneous whole — the written Word of God. Hence they
speak of it as not a book but a library ; and in that one word
manifest their misconception of its real character, and reveal
how little they have entered into the heart or scope of the
Divine ^^^ord, or grasped the essential spirit of organic revela-
tion. They also treat the different books as such by themselves,
^ Examples of this vicious and perverting habit may be seen in many
Plymouth Brethren writings, as also in some narro\\-, ill-informed Church-
men's writings, and those of other faddy societies and viewy persons.
FRAGMENTATION OF SCRirTURE 305
as though there were no others of the same kind, or on a kindred
subject, in existence ; and draw their conclusion from each isolated
fragment, irrespective of what might be learned on the same
subject from the other cognate books that might contribute to
the better interpretation of each.
No wonder that their conclusions have been often fragment-
ary, meagre, and unsatisfactory enough. For they violate all the
principles of rational and scientific study of any subject, making
inferences from the narrowest inductions, shutting out the light
derivable from cognate and complementary sources, and dis-
owning altogether the invaluable aid, in the proper interpretation
of any particular part of a subject, derivable from the general
principles and estabUshed conclusions ascertained from other
parts of the same. As well might an amateur geologist con-
struct a science of geology from examining the different strata
independently, ignoring their connection with each other, the
general facts common to all, and the established results of
previous investigations from a comprehensive survey of the
whole. But he should not wonder if scientific geologists gave
little weight to his disconnected conclusions, or smiled at his
geology. The last thing he should expect from them would be
that his fragmentary explorations should be regarded as science.
Yet some of those who have thus most flagrantly violated every
principle of rational interpretation, and most openly travestied
every canon of scientific induction, have, with amusing innocence
and pretension, dignified their travesty with the name of the
Inductive Method.
Some have carried out this unscientific and misleading method
of isolation and disintegration so far as to limit any measure of
truth, reliability, and Divine authority which they might allow to
Scripture to those individual passages and details of which these
things are especially predicated. But this is to treat the Bible
as the books of no other religion can be studied with any hope
of true interpretation. It is to close the mind to the general
tone and pervading trend of Scripture, which imply its claims of
infallible truth and Divine authority. It is to disregard the ex-
plicit and inevasible passages that predicate these things of all
the Scriptures, and which assume their unity and Divine origin.
It is to set at nought the testimony of each to all, and of all to
each of the unique collection of sacred books. It is to violate
306 THE JJIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
all the sound principles of Biblical criticism, and of the fair or
reasonable criticism of any literature ; so that we might well ask,
as a distinguished professor of Hebrew literature asks in another
connection of the methods of some of the higher critics of the
O.T., "Was ever a literature so treated?"^ It is based upon
the absurd assumption that in every case in which this claim of
Scripture is not explicitly made in detail the opposite is implied ;
and that, too, in the face of the many direct and indirect ways
and passages in which this is unequivocally claimed for all. And
it proceeds upon the false conception and perverting idea that
the Bible books are to be treated as if they were entirely in-
dependent,— a library of separate human productions instead of
a unique Divine-human Revelation ; and as if the deep and vital
unity of Holy Scripture, of which every student worthy of the
name has been deeply conscious, were a fable or a delusion,
instead of being, as it is, a patent and indisputable fact, a pregnant
and most significant reality.
THE BIBLE AS A LIVING SPIRITUAL ORGANISM REQUIRES
SOUNDNESS AND SY.MPATHY IN ALL ITS RELATED PARTS.
Both of these opposing extremes — the avowed Rationalism
and the virtual Rationalism — ignore or fail to recognise that the
Bible is a living spiritual organism ; not only a unity, but a living
unity ; not only a homogeneous religious whole, but a living,
organic, God-breathed whole, shining with the light, pulsing with
the life, and throbbing with the love of God. It reveals one
consistent, harmonious, though richly diversified, complementary
system of moral and spiritual truth. It was germinal, ruder, and
more elementary at first ; fuller and more developed, but still
imperfect, as it grew from age to age, as historian wrote, prophet
spoke, and psalmist sang ; till at length in the fulness of time the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, as the full and per-
fect revelation of God, which found its most perfect, final literary
expression in the inspired writings of the N.T. But all through
the revelation was of the same nature, and really the same in
substance. Its various parts though very diversified, are essentially
consistent and harmonious, truly complementary and interde-
pendent ; possessing certain unmistakable marks and charac-
1 Dr. A. B. Davidson.
THE BIBLE A LIVING ORGANISM 307
teristics that distinguish them from all other writings, as a unique,
harmonious, God-given whole — all breathing one Divine spirit,
evolving one heaven-born life, and giving one homogeneous and
glorious revelation of Divine grace.
This suggestive but insufficiently realised fact— that the Bible
is not only a unity, but a living, spiritual organism, for the ex-
pression of the thought, life, and love of God — is simply fatal to
the theory of indefinite erroneousness, and requires, as the con-
dition of fulfilling its Divine function, that its various related
parts be true and reliable. For haw could there be a real unity
of Scripture, if some parts of it are true and others false, some
passages reUable and others untrustworthy ; — especially when these
incoherent, antagonistic elements are, on the theory, indefinite
and indeterminable ; and when it is impossible from the very
nature of things to separate infallibly the true from the false, or
to determine with certainty which things are true and trustworthy,
and which are not. Whatever such incohesive conglomerations
of truth and error as this theory of indefinite erroneousness im-
plies may be, they certainly cannot form a real unity ; for unity
demands, as an essential requisite, homogeneity in materials,
cohesiveness of substance, and reliability throughout the various
related and interdependent parts. Still less can they form a
living spiritual organism for the true and trustworthy expression
of the mind, heart, and life of God — a pure and reliable medium
embodying the life-giving revelation of grace.
For obviously a living organism that is to express and embody
living and life-giving truth must itself be living and sound in all
its related and mutually dependent parts, and must be through-
out a true and trustworthy expression and embodiment of it.
Untrueness and unreliability in the parts would of necessity
render a living, organic whole impossible; while an indefinite
and inseparable mixture of truth and error makes it a misnomer,
and any such idea an absurdity and an evident contradiction
in terms. And yet that the Bible is a living spiritual whole
is a fact beyond dispute, recognised from the earliest ages — a
fact that the progress of Revelation only evidenced and empha-
sised more and more from age to age as the corresponding
parts of the spiritual organism developed and approached com-
pletion.
Therefore the Errorists must either deny the undeniable facts
308 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
that the Bible is a Uving, organic, spiritual whole, and a pro-
gressive revelation ; or else admit that its various related and
interdependent parts are true and trustworthy. In the one
alternative they deny unquestionable facts. In the other they
abandon their own theory. And in either case they must sup-
port our contention for the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and the
Divine origin and authority of Holy Scripture.
DIVINE TRUTH CAN DWELL PERFECTLY ONLY IN THE DIVINE
MIND. HUMAN THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE IMPERFECT.
The shortest and completest answer, however, to all the
objections to the truth and Divine authority of Scripture, from
its alleged defects and imperfections in some parts, is that Divine
truth cannot dwell perfectly except in the Divine mind ; and that
Revelation coming to us, as it does, from the infinite and all-
perfect Fountain of Truth, through the limited and more or less
defective medium of human agency and expression, must of
necessity partake of the limitations and imperfections of human
thought and language, — limitations and imperfections that will
vary in each case according to the state and characteristics of
each mind, age, and experience through which the revelation
comes. This prime fact, which lies in the very nature of things,
has been ignored or overlooked by the two extreme and both
narrow-visioned parties to this controversy.
THIS IGNORED AND VIOLATED BY OPPOSITE EXTREIME VIEWS.
The hyper-perfectionists overlook it when they talk of Holy
Scripture as being in every part and particle of it, in itself,
absolutely free from imperfection, as perfect as God. They for-
get that at best man's mind can receive only partial conceptions,
and human language give only imperfect expression of Divine
truth. They see not that though both in conception and ex-
pression it is God-breathed, and therefore true, trustworthy, and
of Divine authority ; yet of this as of other things that come to
us through human channels, it is true, as the poet sings —
" They are but tiroken lights of Thee,
And Thou, O Lord, art more than they."
It is not in the ^Vritten but in the Incarnate Word alone that we
TRUTH AND PERFECTION 309
get the perfect revelation of God ; and in Him only can we say
with absolute truth that we have "the brightness of the Father's
glory, and the express image of His person."
It is equally and less excusably forgotten or ignored by the
hyper-imperfectionists, who vaunt so much of breadth and depth
of view, but evince in this a notable narrowness and shallowness
of thought and view. For while exaggerating the defects and
imperfections of Scripture, the very idea of attempting to fasten
erroneousness and unreliability on Scripture from defects or im-
perfections is not only a strange confusion between imperfection
and error, but is based upon the shallow delusion and baseless
assumption that any revelation coming through imperfect men
could be absolutely perfect. Therefore, if there cannot be a
true and trustworthy revelation of Divine truth unless there is
freedom from any defect or imperfection, and if Scripture cannot
possess infallibility and Divine authority without absolute per-
fection, then Scripture is not only indefinitely erroneous, it is
entirely so ; for it is all imperfect. It is not then merely a
mixture of truth and error, it is all error together ; for there is
none of it absolutely perfect ; and on this superficial assumption
that to be true and reliable it must be perfect, revelation is an
absolute impossibility, which is an absolute absurdity.
Therefore, when we affirm the truthfulness and trustworthi-
ness of Scripture, we do not declare its absolute perfection, as
many have so strangely misconceived. On the contrary, we
maintain that it was of necessity partially limited and relatively
imperfect, from the necessary limitations and imperfections of
human thought, language, and experience. Nay more, since
God adapted His revelations to the state, the attainments, and
needs of the agents and the age to which and through which
they were immediately given ; and since in giving them the
inspiring Spirit did not violate or crush, but conserve and utihse
the free operation of the mental faculties of the recipients and
communicators of Revelation, — the Scriptures expressing and
embodying them were necessarily limited by the knowledge,
attainments, characteristics, and experience, with all attendant
defects and imperfections of the persons through whom and the
people to whom they were first given.
They are not free from, but expressed in, the thought,
language, literary style, methods, and other peculiarities and
3IO THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
idiosyncrasies of the inspired writers, and the times in which
they were written ; and, in short, take their colour from, and
reflect the mind of, the human author, and the age in which he
wrote. But this does not destroy, lessen, or affect the truthful-
ness, trustworthiness, or Divine authority of any part or passage
of Scripture. For it is an essential part of the true doctrine of
Inspiration, that in inspiring the human authors to write the
Scriptures the Holy Spirit so acted on their minds as, on the
one hand, to preserve them from error in expressing His mind,
and, on the other hand, left them entirely free in the exercise
of their mental faculties, according to their respective char-
acteristics and peculiarities, acquirements and experience. Yea,
He so utilised and selected these as to make them the means
and channels for the better, fuller, and more diversified expres-
sion of the Divine fulness of His truth and grace. The Infinite
Spirit of God so acted on the finite spirit of man as to preserve
from erroneousness in expressing His Word, and therefore it was
truly supernatural ; yet so thoroughly natural that the writers
wrote or spoke as freely as though there had been on them no
action of the Holy Spirit.
Consequently we must, in order to ascertain that Word of
God of which we predicate infallible truth and Divine authority,
be careful to make a thorough use of all the means, textual
criticism, exegesis, systematic and Biblical theology, Biblical
criticism, comparative religion, and all other means and methods
by which we may throw ourselves into the views, circumstances,
light, and literary methods of the Bible writers. Thus we may
realise their standpoint, grasp their purpose, ascertain their
meaning, and catch their spirit, which opens up a vast field of
research ; and only when we have done so can we be said to
have fully reached the Word of the Lord. For sometimes the
apparent may not be the real meaning. Here as elsewhere
"things are not as they seem." But when we have done so,
and ascertained what the Scriptures veritably meant — what God
designed to express in them — that is, the Scripture as originally
given by the Spirit of God, properly interpreted through the
same Spirit, — then we have got the truth, the whole truth God
intended thereby to give, and nothing but the truth.
This clearing of the way is not only a removal of some
leading misconceptions that have confused the issue, but an
THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 3 II
exposure of many sophistical fallacies that have prejudiced the
truth, and a real refutation of not a few of the most plausible
objections by which the proper evidence from Scripture has been
prevented from receiving due weight or even consideration. It
has also enabled us to give part of the positive proof and pre-
liminary arguments for the Bible claim.
Note. — Confirming the position stated above, Dr. Robert Candlish says :
" I suppose that truth absokitely pure and perfect can dwell only in the
Divine mind. To lodge it in the mind of a creature, exactly as it is in the
mind of the Creator, may very probably be an impossibility. The truth as it
is in Jesus, even when communicated directly and immediately, was not to the
inspired Apostles absolutely and perfectly what it was to God." — Reason and
Reijelation, p. 69.
Note. — As to the Bible being both Divine and human in its authorship.
Principal Cunningham well says : "In one sense, the Scripture is wholly the
word of God ; in another, though just as truly and really, it is wholly the word
of man. ... As the Spirit had resolved to employ the agency of man, and
of men in the exercise of their natural powers and faculties. He, of course,
must be supposed to have in some measure adapted or accommodated Himself
and His operations to these powers or faculties. We are not entitled to say
that this adaptation may not have gone on so far, without affecting the reality
of His thorough and pervading agency, as to have left room for whatever
diversity in their narratives was consistent with their veracity and accuracy,
as estimated by the principles by which these things are ordinarily judged
among men." — Lectures, pp. 352, 383, 3S4. See also Carson's Theories
of Inspiration Reviewed.
CHAPTER IV.
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND CARICATURES.
We must now look at and expose some of the misrepresentations
and caricatures by which the opponents of the truthfulness and
Divine authority of the Word of God have prejudiced the truth,
and prevented a fair consideration of the Scripture proof by
which it is established. They have found it a much easier thing
first to misrepresent and then to caricature the position of the
real defenders of the claim of Scripture than honestly to face
their proof, and seriously to attempt to answer the arguments by
which they have demonstrated that the Bible claims to be the
Word of God, of infallible truth, thorough trustworthiness, and
Divine authority. Hence they have eagerly rushed off into
endless side issues instead of coming to and grappling with the
real issue. They have expended immense ingenuity in mis-
representing, and almost exhausted language in abusing, the
imagined views of the defenders of the true position, instead of
facing their real position and attempting to refute their un-
answerable arguments. And this has been done with such
manifest unfairness and with such perverse persistency, in face
of reiterated protest, by some boastful pretenders to intellectual
honesty, that it requires much patience to bear it with equanimit}',
and great charity not to regard it as intellectual pusillanimity or
wilful misrepresentation. Nor, indeed, is it possible for anyone
that has studied the subject, and is at all well versed in the
literature of the question, to regard it otherwise, except upon
the supposition of culpable ignorance or intellectual density.
But wilfully or unconsciously, from ignorance or obtuseness,
misrepresentations of the most culpable and discreditable
kind have been persisted in. This method of misstatement
and abuse must be exposed, if it were only to make men
MISREPRESENTATIONS 313
abandon such tactics, and to prevent others being perverted by
such travesties.
I. That the Bible was given by Dictation.
One of the oldest and still most common of these, already
referred to, is, that the upholders of the Bible claim and maintain
that the Scriptures were given by dictation ; as if they had been
taken down by an amanuensis from the lips of the inspiring
Spirit, or printed in Paradise and, Hke the Sibylline books, let
down from heaven — all perfect, complete, bound in calf, with
vowel-points inserted ! But surely this kind of burlesque might,
at this time of day, have been allowed to rest in its grave
till another resurrection ; and surely the assailants of the claim
of Scripture must be ill off for arguments when they so eagerly
persist in resurrecting this long vanished spectre. Some unwise
believers in the infallibility of Scripture may have used unguarded
expressions open to such construction, — though it would be
difficult to find those who would own this as a fair representation
of all they have said. But surely it is only a weak cause that
could use such against intelligent defenders, who repudiate all
this as a contemptible caricature. Why, the merest novice has
only to open the pages of Scripture to see the almost infinite
diversity of style, subject, and method of treatment, to realise
how utterly alien to the patent facts is every theory of mere
dictation. Everything is perfectly natural, unstereotyped, and
as different from dictation as could well be conceived ; and it
is manifest that, whatever the Spirit of inspiration does. He does
not interfere with the individuality and the perfect naturalness
of the human author, but leaves each as free to follow his own
style, method, and bent as though there were no inspiration
at all.
allegation that slavish literalism is held by the
upholders of the bible claim.
Akin to this is the misrepresentation that the upholders of
the Bible claim adopt a slavish literalism ; and rash writers
like Dr. Horton, more apt at inept epithet than cogent
argument, upbraid them as maintainers of a "Cast-iron theory,"
314 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
though what he precisely means by a phrase so nonsensical in
such a connection, it would doubtless be more amusing than
instructive to learn. Others, from whom better things might
have been expected, parade the differences between O.T. quota-
tions in the N.T. and the Hebrew or the Septuagint, and
imagine they have thus made out a strong case against the
truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture,— the defaulter in
this being not, however, the O.T. but the New. Strange
hallucination this ! As if the same truth could not be expressed
in somewhat different words ; as if God could not alter or add
to, modify or use a part of, give fresh application to or light on.
His own earlier Word to illustrate or enforce a new and fuller
revelation ! Why, even human authors are wont so to use their
own and others' writings to suit the purposes of their later
writings. And is God, the Holy Ghost, the Divine and real
Author of Scripture, to be precluded from doing so, through
inspired agents, for His gracious purposes, by the puerile fancies
of puny and presumptuous men ?
No intelligent defender of the truth of Scripture has ever
advocated such a slavish literalism. There is a literalism which
is not slavish but reverent, not forced but scientific : — even that
which leads to scrupulous carefulness to ascertain, by correct
exegesis, the precise meaning of the words of God, — especially
in crucial cases in which vital truths and the salvation of men
are concerned. It is the literalism of correct interpretation of
the mind of God speaking in His AVord : and for this literalism
we can plead abundantly the example and authority of our
Lord and His apostles, and the best Biblical scholarship of all
ages. Yea, all students of Scripture profess to seek its real
meaning, and by a kind of natural necessity act on the assump-
tion of its importance and reliability except when it crosses their
own theories. And even then they seek to justify their non-
acceptance of its real meaning by denying its authenticity or
evaporating its teaching, and by postulating the truth and re-
liability of some other part. In fact, every real student of
Scripture does and must so act, and assume more or less, in
order to really study at all. Nor will any feeble cynicism of
self-sufficient lights, who seek licence to follow their own fancies
or walk in the light of their own eyes, move us for a moment
or a hair's-breath from following such example, or owning such
THE BIBLE DIVINE AND HUMAN 315
authority. But that is not the kind of hteralism in question,
and disowned here. And however much such criticism may
affect any eccentric individual favouring such a slavish literalism,
it has absolutely no bearing whatever upon or weight against
the position of intelligent defenders of the Bible claim. It is
nothing else than reckless and culpable misrepresentation, and
a discreditable caricature of that position.
2. That the Human Element in Scripture is denied.
All Human and all Divine : of God through Men
inspired.
Another more general and, at first sight, more plausible mis-
representation of the true position is that those maintaining
the Bible claim of infallibility and Divine authority deny the
human element in Scripture as it is phrased ; that they so
magnify the Divine as to ignore the human, and that we ought
to find out where the Divine ends and the human begins, and
then we might be able to distinguish between the infallible and
the erroneous. What wondrous wisdom there ! A Daniel come
to judgment ! As soon find out where in man the soul ends
and the body begins. As soon might Shylock find his pound
of flesh without the blood, as separate the human from the
Divine in Holy Scripture. As soon discover where the human
ends and the Divine begins in the Incarnate Word as in the
Written Word of God. It is all human and all Divine. It is
all God-breathed, and yet all man-conceived and man-written.
Every part, particle, and passage of it is perfectly human, and
yet truly Divine. As perfectly human as if Divine agency were
not in it at all, and as truly Divine as though human agency had
nothing to do with it.
That, at least, is our doctrine ; and that, it can be shown, is
the doctrine of Scripture. So far is it, therefore, from being true,
that we make less of the human in Scripture than our opponents,
it is as near as may be the opposite of the truth. To us it is
all human ; to them it is only partially so. With them the
human ends where the Divine begins ; with us it has no end
and no beginning except where Scripture itself begins and ends.
As they make less of the human, they make less, too, of the
Divine. To us, as to Christ and to Paul, it is all Divine
3t6 the bible claim and preliminary proof
(Matt. 5^"-^^, John lo^^, 2 Tim. 3^'^'). To them it is only
partially Divine, because with them the Divine ends where the
human begins. To us both the Divine and the human have
neither beginning nor end, they are both coextensive with
Scripture. So that we make more of both the human and of the
Divine.
Some, to escape from accepting or facing this simple yet
profound scriptural teaching, have said the substance is Divine
but the form human ; and, therefore, while the substance may
be true and trustworthy, the form is erroneous and unreliable.
But this is a superficial and nonsensical view. For how can
we know the substance except through the form ? The substance
is in the form. The form is the expression and embodiment of
the substance. We know nothing of the substance save through
the form. To us form and substance are one, as inseparable
as body and soul ; and our whole knowledge of the one is
precisely what we learn through the other ; and all that we get
through the form makes our idea of the substance. Therefore,
by how much soever the form or expression is erroneous, by
that much precisely our knowledge of the substance is so also.
And the only possible way to be kept from erroneous ideas of
the substance is to have the form true and reliable. Trueness
in the expression is, therefore, a necessity of trueness in our
conception of what was meant to be expressed.
Besides, as has been often urged, it is the Writteji \\'ord
that the Bible declares to be God-breathed. Divine Inspiration
is specially predicated of the Scriptures, — not so much of the
truth as conceived in the mind of the writer, but as expressed
in the writing, — not, as Dr. Chalmers puts it, of the process of
manufacture, but of the product manufactured. Therefore the
expression is as really Divine as the substance, the form as
truly God-breathed as the matter. The revelation of the sub-
stance, so far as it was revealed, was given by Divine inspiration.
The selection, arrangement, and distribution of the material
were also through supernatural inspiration. And the Bible
explicitly states that the expression of the truth, whether spoken
or written, was God-breathed ; and this is specially and pre-
eminently said of the \Vord as written — the Scriptures.
So that, according to the Bible teaching and claim, all the
parts and operations entering into the composition of the Bible
THE WRITTEN AND THE INCARNATE WORD 317
are Divine. But they arc also all human. The selection, dis-
tribution, and expression of the materials of the Scriptures are
all of man as well as of God. Inspired men, thinking, speaking,
and writing as freely and naturally, according to their gifts,
tendencies, acquirements, and experience, as though there had
been no Divine inspiration at all. So that, although Scripture
is all Divine, it is also all human. The form is as Divine as
the substance — the letter is in its way as perfect as the spirit.
So that we seem to have here the image of the Incarnate \Vord,
in whom the Divine and the human are found in the most
perfect union. And the work of the Divine Spirit is, as in the
case of the Incarnate Word, so to combine the Divine with the
human as that both are fully, perfectly, and inseparably joined
in one unique and wondrous whole. ^ It is therefore a mis-
representation or a misconception — a misrepresentation from a
misconception — that the defenders of the Bible claim, deny, or
lessen the human in the Scriptures. On the contrary, they affirm
and magnify both.
3. That all in Scripture is approved by God, though
often expressly condemned.
A third and, if possible, still more glaring misrepresenta-
tion and caricature of the Bible claim is, that all which is
recorded in Scripture is approved by God. Long passages are
adduced about the sins of leading historical characters, such
as the drunkenness of Noah, the incest of Lot, the lying of
Abraham, the deceitfulness of Jacob, the murder and adultery
1 As Bishop Westcott so truly and suggestively says of God's inspiration
of Scripture, "It comljines harmoniously the two terms in that relation of
the finite to the infinite which is involved in the very idea of Revelation. It
preserves absolute truthfulness with perfect humanity, so that the nature of
man is not neutralised ... by the divine agency, and the truth of God is not
impaired but exactly expressed in one of its several aspects by the individual
mind, each element performs its perfect work ; and in religion as well as
in philosophy a glorious reality is based upon a true antithesis. The Letter
l)ecomes as perfect as the Spirit ; and it may well seem that the image of the
Incarnation is reflected in the Christian Scriptures, which, as I believe,
exhibit the human and divine in the highest form and in the most perfect
union." Tnfyodiiction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 16. So, similarly,
Origen long ago. The words of a telegram arc the message. They embody
and constitute it.
3l8 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
of David, the dissoluteness of Solomon, and all the evil-doings
in the times of the Judges, the kings of Israel and Judah, down
to the close of the O.T. ; as also not a few kinds of things in
the N.T. "There," it is said with something akin to scorn and
ironical triumph, — " there are your famous saints ! — there is your
trustworthy, infaUible, and Divinely-inspired and authoritative
Bible ! " Of all such perverse raving and reviling one scarcely
knows what to think or say. It is such a crude medley of gross
darkness, foolish raillery, and nonsensical caricature, that one
feels it a humiliation to refer to it or expose it now. Had it
been left to the coarse, glib tongues of infidels, palming off on
ignorant hearers in obscure halls such claptrap in lack of
real arguments, we should not have condescended to notice it.
But when this wornout abuse and caricature, which has been
exposed and repudiated ad nauseam, — and which never had
any foundation save in the benighted imagination of those who
could conceive it, — is taken up and reiterated in books and
speeches by men supposed to be religious teachers, claiming to
be fresh theologians, and posing as advanced thinkers — yea,
men of light and leading in such matters, it makes one pause
in amazement, and wonder if it be possible to penetrate such
obtuseness or perversity ; and makes one almost despair of
ever fixing in such minds the most elementary ideas of this
question.
And to assert or imply that any hitelligent defender of the
truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture was fool enough to
hold that because these things are recorded in Scripture they are,
therefore, approved or sanctioned by God, is not only a caricature
and a misrepresentation, but an insult to the intelligence and an
outrage on the moral sense, which would require for their incep-
tion a density or obliquity akin to that which could imagine it.
There may have been some utterances made on particular points
by over-eager advocates of traditional interpretations which might
give some colour to such a conception. An unwarrantable
mental attitude may, through wrong traditional ideas, have been
given to some minds leading to untenable defences of some things
in Scripture which were never meant to be approved or defended.
And in the progress of Biblical study the Church will doubtless
find it necessary to modify or abandon some views long held as
to some things recorded in Scripture which she felt herself called
THINGS RECORDED NOT APPROVED 319
on to defend, but which were really indefensible, and were never
meant to be defended. When properly understood they will be
found not to have been put there as being in themselves sanc-
tioned by God, but nevertheless recorded there by God's approval
and inspiration to serve some other good end of Revelation. But
that some of those things recorded, which are manifestly wrong,
and sometimes outrageous, are to be regarded as being sanctioned,
or approved, or connived at by God, is a monstrous idea, which
no man morally sane ever seriously believed. Why, even the
words and actions of the Devil are recorded in the Bible, and
recorded, too, by Divine Inspiration.
But it is notorious, as every Christian child knows, that
things are recorded, not for approval, but for condemnation ; as
the whole tone, environment, and often the express teaching of
the passages show. And where they are not explicitly con-
demned, it is because it is assumed that this is unnecessary —
that the very record of them is itself their condemnation.^ It
would only weaken its severity to condemn them in express
terms — just as in narrating some moral outrage it would shock
and amaze men to expressly say, "This is wrong." Does
Shakespeare thus in express terms condemn the vice or recom-
mend the virtue of his characters? Nay; he chooses usually
a more excellent way. And cannot God, or an inspired writer,
do the same without being open to the suspicion that it is
not condemned, but even approved ? Why, you do not often
need to teach a child so in a good story-book — the story itself
is to the child the condemnation or commendation. God
assumes that we have consciences and common sense, and
that we shall not abandon them when we come to read and
interpret His Word, as we are supposed not to do with any other
book.
No doubt, however, some men are so full of their own teach-
ing powers that they could improve upon God's way ; as some
have imagined, like the ancient king, that the Almighty would
have done well to have taken advice before He created the
world ; and, among others, John Stuart Mill thought he could
have made a better one I If there are some cases in which it is
^ Dr. Horton in the Christian M'or/d asks, as to some things in Judges,
why they are not more severely condemned. The answer is, that God
assumes men have conscience and common sense !
320 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
not easy to ascertain whether it is approved or condemned, —
and it may be neither, but recorded for other ends, — we must, as
with other books, be patient and painstaking, and interpret each
particular passage in the light of the context and the whole
teaching of Scripture. Doing so in dependence on the Spirit's
help, we shall not be often left in doubt where God intended us
to know.
Yea, there may in some cases be an apparent where there
is no real approval, if properly interpreted. Sometimes, indeed,
the speaker or actor in the passage may seem to praise a deed
or course ; but it by no means necessarily follows from this that
God approves. And when even the writer may in rare cases
appear to favour, commend, or sympathise with the thing, you
must ever interpret carefully, and accept of nothing as sanctioned
by God until you have made sure that God intended to sanction
it when He secured its insertion by inspiration. Everything in
the Bible is there by Divine sanction, yea, by Divine inspiration ;
but that by no means implies His approval in themselves of all
the things recorded there. For the truth that everything in the
Bible is there by Divine sanction differs toto ccelo from the error
that everything there is in itself Divinely sanctioned.
THE VERY RECORD OY WRONG THINGS IS THEIR CONDEMNATION
EVEN OF GOOD MEN's SINS.
So far is it from being true that everything inserted in Scrip-
ture by Divine direction receives from that Divine sanction ; it
is very often the reverse, and becomes one of the best evidences
of the truth and rehability of the Word of God. The very
record of them is the most emphatic condemnation of them.
And the severe, the unvarnished truthfulness with which the
sins and backslidings of good and great men are recorded in the
sacred page, without any palliation or excuse ; and the fearful
judgments that are seen to pursue the transgressors, even when
good and honoured men, are proofs decisive of the scrupulous
truth and holiness that characterise its narratives, and reveals
that a supreme and unique regard for truth and righteousness
inspired its production. What other history or biography por-
trays the sins, failings, and infirmities of its saints and heroes in
such faithfulness, and exposes them in such a fierce light of
BIBLE WRITERS NOT INFALLIBLE IN CONDUCT 32 1
burning holiness ? In this the Bible stands out peerlessly alone,
a unique and lonely splendour among the literatures of the
world. Thereby it shows that truth and holiness were its
supreme purpose and formative principle. It establishes its
claim to truthfulness and trustworthiness, evidences its Divine
inspiration and authority, and excludes every theory of indefinite
erroneousness.
Further, the raisers of this objection have overlooked the
profound and far-reaching fact that the sins and aberrations of
men, and even devils, are recorded by Divine inspiration in all
their deformity and hideousness, in order to expose the vile
nature and terrible evil of sin, and the sinfulness of the human
heart — a most important revelation. It is thus an essential and
all-important part of revelation — a revelation of the exceeding
sinfulness of sin and of man, which forms the dark and lurid
background of the glorious revelation of grace. So that in this
again, as in many other cases, the objections brought by mis-
conception and misrepresentation against the trueness and re-
liability of Scripture from such things being recorded there, are
not only rebuked, but have actually called forth in their refuta-
tion new and weighty corroborations of the Bible claim.
4. That the inspired Writers are held to be infallible
AND perfect in THEIR PERSONAL CONDUCT AND CHARACTER.
Another misrepresentation and delusion is, that the upholders
of the Bible claim hold, or should hold, that the inspired writers
were infallible in all their actions and utterances, if they were
infallible in their teaching and writings. And on this assumption
ridicule has been heaped on the defenders of the true position
by parading and misrepresenting the inconsistency of Peter at
Antioch, for which Paul had to withstand him to the face ; the
difference between Paul and Barnabas, in which a good deal
might be said for both ; the alleged contradiction between
Paul and James on Justification ; and the questionable, if not
mistaken, character of some of Paul's own utterances. Then,
again, there are the strange actions of some of the prophets, —
one, a lying prophet, however, causing the death of another,
and another cursing the wicked children for their mockery of
God's message and messenger ; — though these are not beyond
21
322 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY BROOF
explanation on other grounds, — even Archdeacon Farrar lending
his peculiar oratory to the caricature of such things.
In regard to these utterances, suffice it here to say that none
of them really touch, or in the least invalidate, the Bible claim.
James never contradicts Paul when the interpretations are cor-
rect and the different standpoints realised, as has been shown
for centuries. Paul never contradicts himself, or sound reason,
when properly understood ; and when he leaves us free to differ
from him in some of his utterances, he declares he is not then
speaking with Divine authority in the name of the Lord, — it is
in those things in which he expressly intimates that he is giving
only his own opinion, and not the commandments of the Lord.
If, therefore, any of these expressly excepted utterances were
found not to be the wisest, or applicable now, this would not at
all affect the truthfulness or authority of all the other utterances,
in which no such exception is m.ade, for which Divine authority
is, by the very mention of these exceptions, implicitly claimed.
As to their actions, their differences, and their inconsistencies
in conduct, it is simply not true that the defenders of the Bible
claim maintain that inspiration secured immunity from mistakes
in conduct, or errors in private judgment, — nay, not even in
every case of individual, ecclesiastical action, — witness the back-
sliding of Peter at Antioch, or the baptism of Simon the Sorcerer.
It only secured truthfulness in writing by Divine inspiration, or
speaking the Word of God in their official capacity — ex cathedra.
Divine inspiration was a special gift for a particular purpose,
namely, the communication of God's Word for all time ; and
beyond this it is not held to have secured infallibility, or to
carry Divine authority.
5. That the inspired Writers must have had Knowledge
IN advance of their Times on all Subjects in order
to be authoritative in their Writings.
A similar superficial but misleading statement of the position
has been, that it implies and assumes that the inspired writers
must have had knowledge in advance of their times, in all other
things to which they directly or indirectly refer, besides those
forming the message of Revelation ; else, as alleged, their writ-
ings could not be all true and entirely trustworthy. As a matter
NOT GENERAL KNOWLEDGE AHEAD OF THEIR AGE 323
of fact, however, this is precisely the opposite of what the
defenders of the Bible claim have taught. As a question of
reasoning it is a mere assertion, begging the whole question — a
pctitio principii — , and is based upon the bold and baseless assump-
tion that the Spirit of God could not keep the inspired writers
from error in such references without giving them supernatural
knowledge upon everything to which He might lead them to
make even the most distant reference. It is a presumptuous
limitation of the Holy One of Israel, a daring dictation to the
Holy Ghost ; as if the Spirit of Almighty God were to be con-
lined to the narrow grooves of the shallow and unspiritual
metaphysic of a small-souled, though pretentious, Rationalism.
True, some discoveries of science have been suggested by
Scripture references, and discoverers have sought and found
wonderful confirmations there. And in the progress of science
and discovery new meanings and depths have been found in
passages that were never supposed to contain them, till the light
of science disclosed the far-reaching fulness and unknown riches
of Revelation. The two hghts harmonising and coalescing were
found to be, not two opposing or contrasting, but harmonious
and complementary lights, proceeding from one eternal light,
of which God, Who is light, and in whom is no darkness at all,
is the Divine source and essence. And thus it may and should
be said with perfect truth that the inspiring Spirit so guided the
inspired writers that, while their writings did not anticipate these
discoveries, — which was no part of their purpose, — they so wrote
as, when properly interpreted in the light of their standpoint and
purpose, not to contradict the established results of future dis-
covery, but to harmonise with them in a most marvellous manner.
Many illustrations of this might be given ; but it will sufifice
here to refer to the wonderful corroborations of the accurate
historical truth and trustworthiness of Scripture that recent
archceological research in Assyriology and Egyptology have
brought to light ; and to the no less amazing correspondence
between Genesis and the geological accounts of creation ; and to
the striking and suggestive passages in Job, Psalms, etc., that con-
firm and suggested Astronomical and Geological discoveries. ^
Every year, almost every other day, yea, as Professor Sayce
^ Countless books on Scripture and Science give illustrations of these.
See Appendix.
324 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY BROOF
puts it, every other turn of the spade, is digging up some fresh
confirmation of the exact truthfulness of the Bible record, both in
its agreement and even in its contrasts with the Babylonian and
other records. Nor is it an insignificant, but a suggestive fact,
that the same spade of research which is thus digging up fresh
evidence of the trueness and reliability of Scripture, is at the
same time, and by the same means, — by the unanswerable logic
of hard, undeniable facts, — digging holes in and disproving many
of the false but fine - spun philological fancies that German
Rationalism has been trying to palm off as facts upon docile
English followers, but which have taken little real hold upon
our practical Anglo-Saxon intellect, which gives more for a
single hard fact than for a thousand flimsy specious theories
of ever-changing speculators, who have little to do, but must
propound something new or outre, however untrue, to attract
attention, gain reputation, and secure students !
Nor is the force of this affected by any differences in certain
small points between the Mosaic and the geological record
of creation, which some anti-scriptural scientists like Professor
Huxley have striven to make out and to magnify, with a bitter-
ness and a bias that speak of anything save scientific calmness
or intellectual fairness ; but which savour of a bad cause, and
exemplify well a philosopher in a fury when being beaten in a
controversy, one half of which he does not understand. For,
besides the fact that these apparent discrepancies have been
repeatedly disposed of, and never would have appeared had the
assailants only taken pains to ascertain the character and pur-
pose of the writings, or the aim and standpoint of the writer,
it is notorious that other scientific experts, and these by far
the larger number and higher authorities in that particular de-
partment of science, have accepted, and successfully upheld the
truthfulness and even accuracy of the Bible record.
W^HILE NOT REVEALING SCIENCE, THE BIBLE HARMONISES WITH
IT, IN STRIKING CONTRAST WITH ALL OTHER WRITINGS.
Nay more, they have demonstrated in various ways and from
different standpoints, not only the reconcilableness, but the real
harmony and thorough agreement in all the leading outlines
and important points between Scripture and science, though, of
SCIENCE NOT REVEALED BUT ACCORDS 325
course, each presents them in its own distinctive way. And I
have been amazed that, when discussing the apparent differences
or seeming discrepancies in a few trivial things, the fact was over-
looked that they harmonised and agreed in the great outstanding
things ; the points about which there could be any discussion
being as nothing compared with them — a few molehills beside
mountain ranges. It is these wonderful agreements that the
opponents of the Bible claim to truthfulness have to explain.
Nor is it possible rationally to explain them except upon the
supposition that the Divine Spirit, who knew the truth, guided
the human writers so to write as to secure this. Let any un-
biassed student only look at the sober, reasonable, and at the
same time sublime representations of creation and its relation
to the Creator given in Genesis and other parts of the Bible ; —
representations so simple and yet so sublime ; so self-consistent
and yet so truthful ; so satisfying to the highest religious in-
tuitions,— presenting the Creator in His true relation to creation
as a God immanent in, and yet transcendent over, all nature and
history ; and at the same time in such deep accord with the
profoundest philosophy of our day as to be justly regarded as
largely its producer, and in such substantial, yea, unique agree-
ment with the findings of science up to date, that the highest
authorities prove its thorough harmony therewith.
Let him then look at the absurd, grotesque, and ludicrously
erroneous cosmogonies of all the ancients, whether contemporary
with or subsequent to the Bible writers ; — so ridiculous and ex-
aggerated that we read them now only for amusement or pathetic
reflection upon their darkness and error, — and he will thus
receive such an impression of the amazing contrast as nothing
else can give, and will have brought home to him with irresistible
force the conviction that the truth and infinite superiority
of Scripture are inexplicable except upon the supposition of
supernatural guidance and inspiration given to the Bible writers.^
For it should never be forgotten that the writers of these ancient,
uninspired cosmogonies were in many cases men of genius and
high intelligence, fully versed in all the knowledge of their age,
the leaders of thought in their day; and some of them, specially
the Greeks and Romans, in measure leaders of thought still
' See Gaussen, On Inspiration ; Dr. Storr, 7'//t' Divine Origin of
Christianity ; and Appendix.
326 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
in ethics and philosophy ; — men of greater intellect and learning
than the writers of Scripture generally, and mostly much better
informed in all the knowledge of their times, with the possible
exception of Paul. Yet, while the one class has produced cos-
mogonies that only provoke the laughter of mankind now, the
others have so written as to have evoked the wonder of every age.
Although writing, some of them, thousands of years ago, they
have so written that the science of the nineteenth century, speak-
ing by its highest authorities, declares it to be in fullest harmony
with its latest results. Here, then, is an unquestionable effect,
and on the first principles of sound reason and the inductive
philosophy, it requires and demands an adequate cause.
So strongly has the force of this been felt, even by the
opponents of the Bible claim, that futile attempts have been
made at explanation, in order to avoid frankly accepting the
conclusion to which it plainly and inevitably points, viz. that the
Bible writers received such supernatural aid in all they wrote
for God — in all Scripture — that they wrote only what was true,
or at least not necessarily inconsistent with the truth.
EVASIONS OF THE PROOF OF THE SUPERNATURAL INSPIRATION
OF SCRIPTURE.
Very amusing have been some of the evasions ; one of the
latest by Professor Ladd, himself one of the ablest and best-
informed advocates of the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture,
will serve as an illustration.^ He is capable of imagining, and
apparently believing, as he certainly maintains, that the natural
effect and tendency of revealed truth upon any materials used in
the composition of Scripture was to eliminate error from them ; as
if the revelation of moral and spiritual truth to the mind of the
writers could of itself, by a mere natural process, correct errors of
measurement, fact, history, reasoning, cosmogony ; or prevent the
geological, astronomical, or other mistakes or misconceptions of
the time entering appreciably into the expression of revelation.
This is surely a most incredible hypothesis ! requiring, verily, far
greater credulity than the extremest suppositions of the opposite
views. I have not found such faith, or need of faith, no, not
in the absurdest literalism. How infinitely more rational and
^ The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture.
EVASIONS OF BIBLE CLAIM 327
credible is the Scripture view, that the Spirit of God by inspiration
enabled them to write -a truthful and trustworthy Bible !
But if there is any truth in this most credulous but incredible
theory, why not carry it out consistently, and assert that the
influence of revealed moral and spiritual truth was such as to
preserve from error and secure truthfulness throughout. If so,
then that would come practically to the same result as ours, only
from a different and less credible cause. If it was able to
prevent error and secure truth in some things, why not in all ?
On what reasonable principle can it be maintained that revealed
truth kept away error in such things as Ladd refers to — things as
different from moral and spiritual truth as well could be — , and yet
stopped short in other things not farther removed ? The whole
theory is, indeed, a miserable makeshift, without a particle of
Scripture support, demanding a marvellous credulity, and in-
volving difficulties compared with which the difficulties of the
true view are as nothing. And that those who reject the Bible
claim, because of its incomparably smaller difficulties, should
nevertheless be capable of accepting or conceiving this instead,
is like straining at a gnat to swallow a camel.
But, after all, what would it come to? Simply to this, that
freedom from error or truthfulness would be secured through the
indirect instead of through the direct influence of Divine inspira-
tion. For the advocates of this theory simply hold that the
moral and spiritual truths, which are supposed by mere natural
effect to secure truth and eliminate error from Scripture, are
given by Divine inspiration. Therefore, whatever freedom from
error or truthfulising effect is attributed to the truths revealed
is after all the effect of Divine inspiration, and only in the first
remove. In our view it is the direct effect of the Holy Spirit's
operation which secures the truthfulness and trustworthiness. In
theirs it is the indirect effect. But in both cases it is the result,
more or less direct, of inspiration ; and this conclusion they
then must come to at last.
Such, then, is the futility of all such desperate expedients
to evade the force of these otherwise inexplicable facts that
corroborate substantially the Bible claim. How much better
then, instead of such evasive and incredible theories, which
accord neither with the Word of God nor the reason of man, to
accept the Scripture declaration in its plain and inevasible
328 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
integrity, that " all or every Scripture," or as our Lord puts it,
every "jot and tittle" of the Divine Word, is given by inspiration
of God — God-breathed ; and that the Divine Spirit, who inspired
it all, as thus expressly stated, by that and in that very inspiration
of it secured its truth, inviolability, and Divine authority !
Notwithstanding this, it should never be overlooked that this
is an entirely different thing from saying that, besides matters of
revelation, the inspired writers received knowledge in advance of
their times in matters of science, philosophy, or other things
to which they allude, — that, in short, they revealed science or
philosophy. It is not the fact. They never professed to do so.
No recognised defender of the Bible claim has maintained this.
It is not at all implied in the true statement of the question.
And, after all, what is said about it can only be regarded as a
misrepresentation resorted to by those who wish to prejudice the
true position, because they cannot answer the solid mass of
Scripture and other evidence by which it is established.
6. That it is merely a Theory of Inspiration. It is
Fact, and a Revelation.
After this it is scarcely necessary to expose the preju-
dicial and persistently-repeated misstatement that the upholders
of the Bible claim are merely contending for a priori theories
of inspiration instead of the facts, truths, and teaching of
Scripture itself. These our opponents pretend pre-eminently
to deal honestly with, and to disregard theories. Theories !
Facts ! Truths ! Why, it would be nearer the truth to say
that they have little else but theories, — theories almost ad
infinitum, and sufficiently ridiculous, as we have seen ; and no
two of them exactly the same. We repudiate any mere theory.
We profess only to express in concise form what is explicitly
taught throughout the Word of God, and in its strongest, sharpest
forms, in its very words, especially of our Lord Himself. What
we hold and undertake to prove is expressly stated and neces-
sarily implied in the very words, facts, and phenomena of Scrip-
ture ; and is taught most emphatically and inevasibly of all in the
very words and usage of Christ Himself. If the idea of theories
is to come in at all, we claim to show that the difference between
us is simply the difference between bad theories and good.
BIBLE CLAIM A FACT AND REVELATION 329
Facts! why it is just on these, the whole of these, we take
our stand, and include in them the whole express teaching and
actual phenomena of Scripture. Our greatest complaint against
them is that they refuse to recognise the facts, the whole facts,
and ignore altogether the main facts, which are the express
teachings of Scripture on the question. They look only at a
few of the phenomena of Scripture, to the exclusion of the great
majority and most important of them ; and misrepresenting or
misunderstanding and misapplying these, come therefore to
conclusions in direct contradiction to the main mass of the
phenomena, and to the whole of the explicit teachings of God's
Word when treating professedly of the question. And as for the
truths of Scripture, it is just these we seek to defend against
them, and are therefore so concerned to maintain this root-truth
— the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God's Word, which that
Word itself lays at the basis of all its other truths, and makes the
ground of all its revelations for men's acceptance and salvation.
CHAPTER V.
ERRONEOUSNESS ALLEGED IN GREAT AND
ESSENTIAL THINGS.
7. That it is only of small things of which Erroneous-
NESS IS PREDICATED. ThE REVERSE OF THE TrUTH.
The last, and probably practically the most serious, misstate-
ment that we shall here notice is that the matters to which the
deniers of the truth of Scripture attribute erroneousness are
small, trifling, and unimportant. They call them spots on the
sun, grains of sand in the golden ore, microscopic details, things
of no moment, merely matters of form, or words which leave the
substance intact, and which do not at all affect any practical
religious interest ! Now there may be some who restrict the
margin of errancy and error to such things, and there are, doubt-
less, others who assert that they do not theoretically go beyond
this. Had we only such to deal with the controversy might be
short, as it certainly would be much less serious. Yet even then
those who positively assert the erroneousness and untrustworthi-
ness of Scripture in such things, without specifically stating the
limit, or how it may be definitely fixed with certitude, finality,
and authority, have to face and to meet the difficulty, if not the
impossibility, of reconciling their doctrine with all those numerous
explicit passages, expressions, and facts — the many indubitable
facts — , and the trend and tone of Scripture, which seem plainly,
if language, usage, and tone can teach anything, to teach that
"all " Scripture is true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority.
When they have once seriously faced these difficulties, and
attempted to give as satisfactory explanations of them as they
insist on being given of their own puny, and in many cases
despicable trifles, they will then be better able to appreciate the
real state of the question, and to realise what we have so often
SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES OF ERRORISTS 33 1
tried to penetrate and impress them with, that the difficulties
connected with maintaining the plenary truth and trustworthi-
ness of Scripture are as nothing compared with the difficulties of
their own position when positively stated and erroneousness is
alleged without specific limitation. The one view has only at
most to offer a possible explanation of trifling, apparent dis-
crepancies ; nor is even this logically requisite, for there are
difficulties of some kind connected with every truth known to
man. The true view is supported by the whole weight of the
mighty mass of positive evidence ; — from the most explicit and
emphatic teaching of Scripture ; the pervasive claim made
therein ; the salient outstanding facts and features thereof, as
well as countless details and significant minutiae ; the uniform
tone of authority, the invariable air of truth, and the palpable
trend of reliability that everywhere pervade, characterise, and
permeate it.
The other view has to answer and satisfactorily explain all
this seemingly insuperable mass of objections to the doctrine of
the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture, while it is absolutely
destitute of one particle of positive Scripture proof in its support,
and has never attempted to produce one single text or item of
such proof, but has based its whole theory and contention upon
difficulties of the true view. These arise from apparent dis-
crepancies, which might be very naturally anticipated in such
writings in the vicissitudes of many ages, which are not generally
difficult to explain, in no case preclude a possible explanation,
and are therefore of no validity against such a formidable array
of positive Scripture evidence.
The difficulties of the one are as grains of sand, of the other
as mountain ranges in comparison. And the amazing thing to
the upholders of the Bible claim is that the opponents — yea,
even the most cautious of them — never once seem to realise
that there are any difficulties connected with their opposing
theories, or that they have anything whatever to do with answering
these ; and this, too, though their whole opposition to the right
view is based on, and wholly composed of difficulties supposed
to be connected with it. Their own theory bristles with countless
formidable and insuperable difficulties, which, in fact, make it
all difficulties together. Yet they in their marvellous simplicity
seem to imagine that if they appear to make out one apparent
332 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
difificulty or discrepancy in Scripture, they, by that one magic
stroke, both refute the Bible doctrine and estabhsh their own
opposite theories ! Was there ever such straining at gnats while
swallowing camels ? Therefore those who maintain the truth
and trustworthiness of Scripture in a general way, but deny these
of Scripture as a whole, have all this to face and answer. They
have also to tell us precisely what they mean thereby, and show
specifically what parts and items of Scripture are true and trust-
worthy, and what false and unreliable, as well as how we can
be infallibly certain about these.
ERRONEOUSNESS NOW ASSERTED OF IMPORTANT AND
ESSENTIAL THINGS.
But though that is so, yet there could not be a greater
mistake or delusion than to imagine that this is the real state of
the question now. It is not now a question about trifles at all,
but about substantial and fundamental matters, which not only
enter into the substance of the Christian faith, but pertain to its
essence, and underlie the whole revelation of the Bible. Were it
merely a question about unimportant details, many of the ablest
and best informed men, who are deeply impressed with the con-
viction that we have reached a crisis in the history of Christianity,
at the end of the nineteenth century, in connection with God's
Word, would not think what Principal Rainy called such "des-
picable trivialities " worthy of much or serious discussion. For
although, as will be more evident later on, the vicious principle,
which tends to undermine and destroy the truth and authority of
Scripture, might be shown to be contained in the meekest and
least pronounced form of the doctrine of indefinite erroneous-
ness ; yet were the applications and exemplifications of it limited
strictly to petty apparent discrepancies many would leave the
controversy severely alone, to exercise the mouse-eyed ingenuity
of half-idle microscopic critics who revel in such trivialities.
But we are far past that stage now. Ten or twelve years ago
that might in some quarters have been said to be the character
of the questions. Writing on these subjects then, I reasoned
that the question would not, could not, and should not rest
there ; but must, on the principles implied, logically and
irresistibly go on, till we should be deprived of an authoritative
INDEFINITE ERRONEOUSNESS IN ALL THINGS 333
and reliable Bible altogether ; and left stranded on the rocks of
bald Rationalism, without any real and reliable standard or
source of truth, with nothing left us except the errant reason of
erring men. But I little imagined that a single decade would
all too amply fulfil and exemplify the truth of this. In many
cases they have gone far beyond anything I had dared to
forecast. It is not now small inaccuracies, trivial inconsistencies,
or unimportant discrepancies that the Bible is charged with.
Giving here only a summary outline of what is prevalent in much
current teaching, and abounds in rationalistic and naturalistic
literature, it is not merely inaccuracy of dates, or numbers, or
such like easily explicable things.
ERRORS ALLEGED IN EVERY KIND OF THING. THE O.T.
But it is errors of words and expression, when these embody
great truths ; errors of fact, when the facts are made the hinges
of great arguments, and the bases of all important revelations ;
errors of chronology, when vital doctrines hang on its truth ;
errors of reasoning are freely charged, and that, too, when the
reasonings are revelations, proofs, and confirmations of the
foundations of faith.^ Innumerable false statements on all
manner of subjects are alleged — contradictions of science,
philosophy, sociology, and ethics, and self-contradictions. Bad,
and in some cases monstrous morality, is said to be not
only recorded but sanctioned and taught. What are called
outrages, cruelties, and revolting crimes are declared to be not
only permitted and connived at, but "commended and even
commanded " by God.
The Bible is charged with containing much crude, erroneous,
and delusive teaching on matters of a religious character ; and
even not a httle of its distinctively religious teaching, given as the
Word of the Lord, is said to be false, misleading, and wrong —
yea, even "superstitious and degrading."- Great parts of what
it gives as notable history and fact are pronounced to be " mere
fiction," 3 and fables, myth, and legend, "romance and idealisa-
tion.""* Many of the most outstanding and revered early
^ See Appendix, and Books \'. and VI. ; and Lichtenberger's History of
German Theology in the Nineteenth Century.
- Baur. ^ Reuss. •* Professor Bennett, Faith ami Criticism,
334 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
characters of the O.T., often referred to as such in the N.T. by
Christ and His apostles, are said to be purely "imaginary"
personages who never really existed, "eponymous" heroes,^ such
as the patriarchs before and after the Flood and some of the
Judges. The accounts of the Creation, the origin of man, the
Fall, the Flood, the call of Abraham, the history of Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the Exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea,
the giving of the Law, the appearances of Jehovah at Horeb and
Sinai to Moses and Israel, the wanderings in the wilderness,
with the pillar of cloud and fire, the crossing of Jordan, the
conquest of Canaan under Joshua, the histories of Joshua, the
Judges, and much later, with all the miracles, are now by many
critics said to be largely " legendary," and "romance,"- and full
of errors ; by others to have the merest threads of historic truth,
amid the mass of mythical and fictitious story ; and by others still
to be " bare fiction " ^ in important parts, and " not a word of
truth" in them."* The whole writings of the Pentateuch and
Joshua (the Hexateuch) are by some of the ablest and most
famous Rationalistic critics — the teachers of the others — held
to be, and treated as, untrustworthy and misleading writings,
forged many centuries after by designing priests for personal
aggrandisement, and imposed by fraud upon a credulous and
superstitious people as the Word of God.^
So that a large, and that the fundamental portion of the
Word of God is between all these various assailants pro-
nounced to be not only not true in little things, but erroneous
in an indefinite number of things, and untrustworthy, yea,
fictitious and actually misleading, and even morally wrong in
many of its salient features, leading representations, and most
important statements and narratives, — ay, in large, fundamental
parts of its distinctive ethical and religious teaching.
As with the legal and historical books, so also with the
prophetical and other writings, they are not only charged with
innumerable errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations, but
^ See Dr. Parker's exposure in None Like it ; Professor Adeney in
Christian World ; Dr. Horton, Inspiration and the Bible.
2 In the Christian World one calls the Book of Joshua a romance ; and
another in the same copy denounces the conquest as immoral ; while a third
holds up the battle of Omdurman and conquest of the Soudan to admiration !
^ Reuss. ^ Wellhausen.
^ See among others Wellhausen's History of Israel.
ERRORS ALLEGED IN ESSENTIAL THINGS 335
also the prophets themselves are charged with false prognosti-
cations, ambitious ideals, and even immoral motives. Some
of the most important prophecies, on the truthfulness of which
great issues hang, have been declared to be "prophecies after
the event." Some, too, of the finest prophecies of the latter-
day glory (e.g. Isa. chap, ii.), which are referred to in the
N.T. by Christ and His apostles, and form a precious element
in O. and N.T. revelation, are declared to be the product of
Jewish "pride," national presumption, fanaticism, and selfishness,
many of which were "falsified by the events," and never realised
in the way prophets expected and foretold.^ Some critics have
^ Dr. G. Adam Smith among others, and following other Rationalistic critics,
even to the figures of speech, says in his work on Isaiah, among countless
other such things, of prophecies of Isaiah given by him as " the Word of the
Lord," that they were falsified by events. " Isaiah's forecast of Judah's fate
was therefore falsified by events," and "discredited by contemporary history "
(vol. i. pp. 140, 141). The prophet himself, though speaking in the name of
the Lord, is called a "visionary," presenting in one of the finest prophecies of
the latter-day glory (Isa. 2^'^) repeated and radiant in O. and N.T. a" Utopia"
(p. 25), " the imperfectly idealised reflection of an age of material prosperity,"
the product of youthful pride, mistaken enthusiasm, and " prophetic apprentice-
ship," in which there is " much national arrogance, pride, and false optimism "
(p. 34), "simply a less gross form of" Uzziah's and Israel's "religious
presumption" (p. 61), Further, he asserts as "a fact that the more spiritual
our notions are of the saving work of Jesus, the less inclined shall we be to
claim the prophecies of Isaiah in proof of His deity" (p. 138), and "feel the
tiselessness of looking for them to prophecies that manifestly describe purely
earthly and civil functions'^ (p. 140, italics ours),- — all directly in the face
of the teaching, usage, and authority of the inspired writers of the N.T.,
including our Lord and His apostles. This is fitly crowned when he gives
his deliberate and concluding statement as to the inspiration of Isaiah and the
whole O.T. prophets — which explains and expresses this whole spirit,
principles, and attitude — •" Isaiah prophesied and predicted all he did from
loyalty to two simple truths, which he tells us he received from God
Himself: that sin must be punished, and that the people of God must be
saved. This simple faith, acting along with a wonderful knowledge of human
nature and ceaseless vigilance of affairs, constituted inspiration for Isaiah "
(P- 373) ; which is nothing more nor less than the possession of those moral
and religious convictions that we all possess by nature and the ordinary
illumination of the Spirit. Hence he says : "By a faith differing in degree
Sut not in kind ixom ours, these men became prophets of God" (p. 372).
And he consistently illustrates the thoroughly naturalistic character of the
whole thing by comparing the prophetic inspiration to what " men of science
have," by "their knowledge of the laws and principles of nature," or the
general has by " taking for granted" that the sun will rise, and that the laws
336 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
boldly gone the length of denying miracle and prediction
entirely. Others minimise them, and declare them to be
hindrances rather than helps to faith, and behind our age. Yet
our Lord laid such stress on them, and made the rejection of Him
in the light of them the crowning sign and proof of their sin and
obstinacy. "The same works that I do, bear witness of Me,
that the Father hath sent Me " (John 5^6) ; " The works that I
do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me " (John lo^^) ;
"Though ye believe not Me, believe the works" (John lo^^);
" Or else believe Me for the very works' sake " (John 14II) ; " If
I had not done among them the works which none other man
did, they had not had sin ; but now have they both seen and
hated both Me and My Father" (John 1524-22). These show
something of the great stress Christ laid on His works. Therefore
our Lord in making so much of His miracles erred, and was not
so wise as our modern would-be apologists ! And His apostles,
who spake as God's " Spirit gave them utterance," also erred in
making so much of the miracles, and specially of the resurrection
on which they base all, the preaching of which by the Spirit's
power created Christianity in an organised form. And God also
must have erred in giving such power and in effecting such
miracles. So that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are on this
theory less wise than our modern omniscient apologists ! Others
fitly crown their unbelief by an avowed or implicit denial of the
supernatural altogether; holding that the religion of Jesus is
simply one of the principal religions of the world, the pure
product of natural evolution from the religious nature of man.
Others, apparently evading or disavowing this, but holding
largely the same principles, pursuing mainly the same methods,
of nature will hold (p. 214); and what Mazzini the Italian patriot — whom
with Isaiah he classes among " prophets" — had when describing his career, —
being "the same divine movement upon different natures" (pp. 85-86). All
this nullifies direct prediction, revelation, and inspiration, properly so called,
virtually evaporates revelation and the supernatural in O.T. prophecy, and
practically reduces Scripture to the level of uninspired religious literature,
and not differing in I'ind from other literature. Fuller refutation of such
naturalistic theories, and evaporation of both inspiration and revelation, are
given in Book VI. and Appendix. See also Dr. W. Robertson Smith,
TAe Prophets of Israel, in which he uses of such representations of Isaiah
and his prophecy (ch. a-'") the strong words of our Lord, "we should
oreaily err if we imagined " such delusions.
MINIMISING THE SUPERNATURAL 337
and arriving generally at similar results, have so sought to
naturalise and minimise the predictive and miraculous elements
of prophecy as to betray their inward sympathy with the
naturalistic criticism, — as if they were ashamed of, and had thus
to apologise for appearing to recognise the supernatural. Hence
the usual term for prediction is not prophecy properly so called,
but " forecast." Yea, even when appearing to recognise pre-
diction of the future, not only is the term habitually used to
express this "forecast" or "anticipation," but these and cognate
terms are used in many cases so as to imply that such
prognostications were not a supernatural revelation given by
inspiration of God, or anything entitled to that designation, but
only such "forecasts" as any sensible man, in sympathy with
God, with strong moral sense and natural sagacity, cognisant of
the facts and realising the situation, might naturally presage and
predict, without any supernatural revelation whatever.^ So that
large parts of the O.T. essential elements — yea, the main
substance, which is there given as true, trustworthy, and the very
Word of God, on which the N.T. is based, in which it is rooted,
and without which it is inexplicable, unreliable, misleading, and
delusive, is declared to be, and treated as, fiction and fable
imposed as fact, by means of fraud or literary licence, on a
credulous people !
And yet these are the men who have been supposed to have
been chosen and inspired of God to be the best moral and
religious teachers of the world, designed to raise the race to the
highest moral and spiritual elevation ; and whom men have been
wont to regard as the Divinely-selected and Divinely-inspired
media of a Divine revelation from a God of truth and hofiness !
Sufficiently strange and startling results surely these, raising
moral problems obviously perplexing enough ; and forcing us to
face difficulties and contradictions in ethics and religion, compared
with which the difficulties of even the most extreme traditional-
ism are as nothing. But stranger and more staggering still are
the facts, proved on the large scale of nations and ages, that
the writings of these very men, received as true, have been the
1 Isaiah, for example, is a good sagacious statesman, with strong moral
convictions and deep religious sympathies and vivid realisations of God, —
like say, Mr. Gladstone, — but simply that, with no direct revelations and
predictions from God. See Appendix, and Dr. G. A. Smith's Isaiah.
338 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
most potent moral levers in the elevation of mankind, the
most powerful spiritual forces in the renovation of the race, and
the mightiest elevatory factors in the history of the world.
Wherever they have come, and just in proportion as they have
been received, believed, and obeyed as the very \\'ord of God,
before the brightness of their shining darkness— moral, intellect-
ual, and spiritual — has fled away, new moral life and spiritual
fruitfulness have arisen, like flowers and fruits under summer's
sunlight ; and men and nations have invariably risen to a higher
intellectual, moral, and spiritual level, as if by spontaneous
outcome and natural law. The' men who can rise over such
ethical difficulties, believe such moral contradictions, and swallow
such impossible miracles in the spiritual world, and who from
sheer logical necessity have to accept such palpable absurdities,
may be scholars and advanced critics, but they must be credulous
indeed if they can imagine that sensible men can believe them to
be theologians, or philosophers, or consistent thinkers, or men of
common sense. And certainly the last thing they should do is to
charge others with credulity ; for such credulity I have not found,
no, not in absolute inerrancy or the most absurd traditionalism !
■ THE ANTI-SUPERNATURALISTS ARE JUSTIFIED ON THE
ERRORISTS' PRINCIPLES.
The consistent and only logical position is with the leading
avowed Rationalists and anti-supernaturalists,^ such as Kuenen,
Wellhausen, and Reuss, who have been largely the teachers of the
others, and are by far the ablest of these destructive critics. They
wholly deny the supernatural, and reject the O.T. as the Word of
God, — only, however, to find themselves confronted with the
hard facts of history and the demonstration of centuries that this
by them dishonoured and dethroned Bible is, and has proved
itself to be, the wisdom and the power of God to men's salvation,
the world's regenerator and moral elevator. This will be more
fully shown when dealing with the facts apologetically. Mean-
while, in stating the question, they disclose how delusive is the
idea that the controversy is about trivialities, or that it is merely,
or mainly, a question about what has been called the absolute
inerrancy of Scripture, whatever that may mean.
' M tiller, Tvlor, Renan, Baur, etc.
ERRONEOUSNESS IN ETHICS AND RELIGION 339
ERRONEOUSNESS SPECIALLY ALLEGED OF ITS MORAL AND
RELIGIOUS TEACHING — FIRST ADDUCED.
From the mere enumeration and synopsis of things assailed,
and the elements eliminated by these various Rationalistic
theories and averments, it is evident, as far as the O.T. is con-
cerned, that the real question is not at all about things trivial,
but about things essential — yea, in fact, about everything most
surely held by the Christian Church from the beginning. The
doctrine of the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture pervades
them all. The principles of the Rationalistic theory are implied
in the least pronounced of them. And the denial of the super-
natural in the religion of Israel is common to the ablest, most
advanced, and most thoroughgoing of them. So that if we
accept the so-called results of many of the ablest and most
advanced critics, we shall have to deny the truthfulness, trust-
worthiness, and Divine authority of Scripture in everything
peculiar to and characteristic of O.T. Revelation. We must
hold that its representations are largely misrepresentations, the
impressions made on reading it are mostly false, if not designedly
misleading ; and that the alleged facts and narratives are pious
frauds, fabricated for selfish ends. And when these results are
received, we are forced to the conclusion that the pervasive
and fundamental claim of the O.T. to be the Word of God, of
Divine origin, truth, and authority, is untenable and false ; and
that, therefore, the whole teaching of Christ and His apostles
in endorsing this claim is erroneous, misleading, and wrong.
So similarly of the N.T.
IN THE N.T. ANTAGONISM ALLEGED BETWEEN THE WRITERS
AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE WRITINGS.
It is not merely difficulties in harmonies or discrepancies in
details with which the N.T. is charged, but errors and con-
tradictions in an indefinite and indefinable number of things and
kinds of things. It is usual for those who deny the truthfulness
truth and Divine authority of Scripture to support their con-
tention by charging James with a strong prejudice for Judaism,
Peter with a bias towards traditionalism, John with a love for
Gnostic Transcendentalism, and Paul with one-sided and mis-
340 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
leading idealism, and narrow and false traditionalism, and semi-
fanatic enthusiasm. Our Lord and His apostles are charged
with taking their teaching largely from the traditional teaching
of the times, without examination, and with an uncritical, if
not culpable, traditionalism, and with borrowing much of the
outstanding theology of the N.T. from the often erroneous
Apocryphal Books, — especially from the highly-coloured and
misleading so-called Book of Enoch.
Many of the narratives of the same events in various Gospels
are said to be discrepant and contradictory, displaced in time,
and giving often misleading and irreconcilable impressions.
Many of the root-facts and foundation-histories — such as the
narratives of the miraculous birth of our Lord and His genea-
logies, the temptation, the existence and casting out of devils,
the representations of the second coming, the resurrection of
the dead and the final judgment, and with some the whole
miraculous elements of the N.T. — are declared to be legendary,
non-historical or unreal, — fiction imposed as fact upon a credulous
age. Even the accounts of the crucial and cardinal facts of the
incarnation, the death and the resurrection of our Lord, which
are the very citadel, basis, and roots of all our faith and hope,
are declared to be irreconcilable and self-contradictory. Thus
the essential facts on which our whole faith hangs are, through
the alleged discrepancies and contradictions and the unreliability
of the record, by some thrown into discredit, by others wrapped
in hopeless uncertainty, — warranting agnosticism, by others still
pronounced to be " fables manifestly forming on the Gospel
page," ^ and by others are ignored, denied, and held to be not
facts but fables, not history but metaphysics to be summarily
dismissed.- Were these assumptions and assertions, which
imply the erroneousness and unreliabiUty of the sources of our
faith, admitted, all would have room and reason to hold that
after all Christianity was based upon imposture or delusion.
Then the teaching of Paul is said to be antagonistic to the
teaching of the Twelve, specially of Peter and James. John is
alleged to have an entirely different and utterly irreconcilable
view of the life, work, character, and teaching of Christ from the
Synoptists. By many modern critics, even those comparatively
^ Matthew Arnold, Literature mid Dogma.
'^ The Ritschlians and others.
ANTAGONISM BETWEEN CHRIST AND APOSTLES 341
conservative, the Synoptic Gospels we have are held not to be
the original Gospels at all, nor even more or less perfect copies of
them ; but mere compilations made by we know not whom, and
seemingly without supernatural inspiration, simply according to
the ordinary judgment, special aim, and natural idiosyncrasy of
each writer, and made from a groundwork of discourses some-
what like Matthew's, and a book of narratives like Mark's, but in
no real sense the veritable works of Matthew, Mark, or Luke ;
and in no true or unique sense the inspired Word of God.
AVhile the Fourth Gospel and the other Johannine writings are by
critics of note alleged to be not the writings of the Apostle John,
but of some Neo-Platonic philosopher, who attempted to present
an idealistic compound of certain elements of Christian truth
with Alexandrian Gnosticism. In order to give it the greater
weight and currency, he issued it as the genuine writings of the
Apostle John, although he never wrote a syllable of it ; and put
the whole discourses, of which it is so largely made up, into the
lips of Christ, although He had never uttered a word of them.
Further, there was also the exploded tendency school,^ which
place the N.T. writers in two antagonistic camps, each pressing
their own peculiar views in opposition to the others ; so that the
different parts of the N.T. are contradictory in teaching and
tendency, and consequently exclude and annihilate each other.
THE GOSPELLERS AND ANTI-PAULITES WHO PUT CHRIST IN
ANTITHESIS AND ANTAGONISM TO THE APOSTLES.
There is, too, a large and increasing number of recent critics,
some of them otherwise generally orthodox theologians, who
disparage the other writers and writings of the N.T. when com-
I)ared with the Gospels, especially the Synoptics. They regard
the others as not only not infallible and unauthoritative, but
narrow, one-sided, and often erroneous, and misleading in their
statements, standpoints, reasonings, and distinctive teaching.
Some supposed to be generally Calvinistic in their theology seem
never to weary of proclaiming the injury they have suffered from
Paul, and through having derived their first conceptions and
convictions of the Gospel from his writings instead of from the
Gospels. Now, notwithstanding all the vaunted breadth and
^ Attempted to be revived in new form by Pfleiderer, etc.
342 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
freshness of this view, these " Gospellers," as they glory in calling
themselves, advance really a narrow, one-sided, and unscientific
theory, rooted in a false principle. It has otherwise in various
forms repeatedly appeared in the history of the Church, and
found its extreme exemplification in the Gospel of Marcion the
heretic.
Besides that it raises many fatal difficulties, it is inconsistent
with several cherished principles and favourite positions of the
schools of critics that advocates it. If believed, it is in itself, and
still more in its applications and presuppositions, most damaging
to, if not destructive of, the trustworthiness of the N.T., and
indirectly of the authority of Christ. First. It denies the pro-
gressiveness of Revelation, which is a sure and pregnant fact,
and a favourite view of these critics up to the Gospels. They
then, however, act most unnaturally; for by their unscientific
and reactionary theory they suddenly arrest and abruptly end
progress, just as the great and growing tree of Revelation was
its completion, crown, and full fruition.
Second. It ignores the fact that the Gospels are at best but
fragmentary, and largely lacking in consecutive doctrinal teach-
ing, as they consist mainly of facts about, and utterances of, our
Lord freely given, which the other N.T. writings were designed
to complete, interpret, and combine into a coherent and magni-
ficent scheme of spiritual thought — of God-given Revelation.
Third. It implies that they themselves, uninspired and not
overwise men, are better able to interpret and apply aright the
facts and truths of the Gospels than do the authoritative inter-
pretations graciously given us through men inspired of God for
the specific purpose. For Christ specially promised the Spirit to
lead these into all truth, in order that they might deliver a full,
final, trustworthy, and Divinely-authoritative Revelation. This
theory in effect disowns their Divine inspiration, and practically
discredits their writings and the authority of their teaching, — not
only in little things, but in essential things and virtually in every-
thing. The whole assumption of these critics is that they have
been able, by a fresh and independent study of the Gospels, free
from the errors and misconceptions which misled the apostles, to
correct by their superior interpretations the many mistakes, mis-
conceptions, and misleading teachings of the Divinely-inspired
apostles, — and that, too, from these very apostles' discredited
CONTRADICTED BY CHRIST AND APOSTLES 343
writings! Yet these writings are declared to be "not the word
of man," but "in truth the Word of God"; because, as Jesus
promised them, " It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of
your Father that speaketh in you." The daring but ridiculous
presumption that pervades and underlies this tone of superior
knowledge, and assumption of truer interpretation of the mind of
Christ than His very apostles chosen and inspired for the express
purpose, by cock-sure critics two millenniums away from Him,
and dependent wholly for all they know of Him or His teaching
upon these very apostolic writings that they presume to correct
and discredit, which is so prevalent in much of our recent
criticism and literature, — is one of the most notable but most
ludicrous illustrations of what has, with well-deserved irony, been
called " the omniscience of nineteenth century criticism," — an om-
niscience which, however, puts on its own fool's-cap in the con-
flicts and contradictions and aberrations of its vaunted " assured
results." One is not surprised at this or anything the avowed
Rationalists, the Ritschlians, and other unspiritual errorists may
presume to assert and do ; but one is grieved and amazed to see
some spiritual and otherwise sensible men. lending themselves to
such delusion and absurdity.
Fourth. It goes directly, as shown above, in the teeth of the
teaching and implication of the Gospels themselves, which plainly
point to and promise a fuller and more perfect Revelation. And
it actually contradicts the expUcit and reiterated words of Christ
Himself as given in these very Gospels. For in the very words
of these Gospels our Lord is represented as repeatedly in various
forms distinctly declaring that He has many things to say unto
them which they could not bear until He had left them, and the
Spirit of truth had come upon them in the plenitude of His
power, to enable them to receive them and to understand His
own words. Therefore, if we are to receive as true, or even in
substance as trustworthy, the words of our Lord as given in these
Gospels, which they profess to magnify, in order to discredit or
minimise the truth and importance of the other N.T. writings,
they expressly and emphatically teach that, under the fulness of
the Spirit's power, they would be able to receive, know, and
utter fuller, higher, and richer revelations of truth and grace than
those contained in any words that their spiritual state while He
was with them permitted Him to utter or them to understand.
344 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
So that if we are to accept the words and promises, the facts
and implications of these Gospels, which these theorists credit
themselves with pre-eminently magnifying, and on which they
avowedly base all their teaching and theorising, we must believe
that since the Gospels are almost wholly composed of records of
the words and works of Jesus, the revelations in the other N.T,
Scriptures, expressed "as the Spirit gave them utterance," were
the highest and fullest, the most perfect and the final revelations
of the mind of Christ and of the grace of God. And we must,
therefore, reject the narrow and reactionary theory of these
" Gospellers " as contrary not only to Scripture generally, but to
these Gospels specially, and to the most explicit and decisive
words of Christ.
Fifth. Nor is this all. It conflicts with another pet and
prime theory of these same critics. For the first principle or
presupposition of all their criticism is, as indicated above, that
we have not the original Gospels, nor copies of them; that, in
fact, as many of them aver, there never existed four original
Gospels ; but that the Gospels we have are simply compilations
made by unknown and seemingly uninspired writers, along with
other sources more or less truthful : — a groundwork of a book of
discourses (logia) akin to the discourses of Matthew, a book of
narratives similar to Mark's, and now recently a third source, a
book of discourses hke John's; none of these being, however,
the veritable writings of Matthew, Mark, or John.^ I cannot
here stay to refute all the errors, false principles, and untenable
presuppositions in and under these theories. And it is too late
now even to ridicule the manner in which every new-spun theory
of the order and origin of the Gospels has, to the amusement
and contempt of all sensible men, passed through all the possible
permutations and combinations, each replacing the other, and
passing into oblivion as rapidly as flying clouds across wintry
skies.- Suffice it to say that this has been rendered unneces-
sary, because they have generally refuted and devoured each
other, while the best scholarship of the world has exploded and
pulverised most of them as they arose ; and the four Gospels
remain in substantially the same regard as ever as the Word of
God given through inspired apostles and evangelists.
^ Wendt's Teaching of Jesus.
■' See Bernard Weiss' Iniroiiiclion fo Ihc N. T.
DISCREDITING THE RECORDS 345
Any shadows of these theories that may still remain are at
most unproved hypotheses, which men of sense cannot be
expected to disturb themselves much about, or reasonably be
expected to believe or act upon. But if these theories of the
origin of the Gospels are true, or if there is any measure of truth
in them, then these Gospels which tliey magnify, especially the
Synoptics, as incomparably the best and most reliable part of the
N.T., and the most perfect part of Revelation, are thrown into
helpless uncertainty as to their authorship and inspiration, their
authority and trustworthiness. On what reasonable grounds,
then, can men be asked to receive books so composed as in any
real sense the Word of God, or what rational right have they to
any unique place in men's religious regard ?
The undisputed Epistles of the inspired Apostle PauV to
mention no other N.T. writings, have surely on this supposition
a far higher claim to reverence and regard as the Word of God,
and as true and trustworthy records of the Christian religion ;
as certainly they are on such a view entitled to a much higher
value in the evidence for Christianity. The fact that even the
extremest RationaHsm has been constrained to admit their
Pauline authorship, has properly been regarded by every wise
and able apologete as of immense and unique evidential value in
answering unbelief. Nor has scepticism even itself refused to
admit its weight and force. But if this theory of the origin of the
Synoptics is correct, not only is their own trustworthiness and
authority invalidated, but with the other theory of the incom-
parable superiority and reliability of these Gospels, the authority
and reliability of the other N.T. writings are, a fortio7-i, dis-
credited if not destroyed. So that the Divine authority and
actual trustworthiness of the whole of the N.T. writings are thus
invalidated if not annihilated. How idle and deluding, then, is
all this talk about the question being merely a matter of little
things, trifles, immaterial details ! It is obviously a question
about everything most precious to the Christian heart and the
ground of hope for man — the very sources, bases, and truth of our
Christian faith.
^ Romans, Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians.
CHAPTER VI.
HOW EASY AND NECESSARY THE DESCENT
FROM ALL THEORIES OF INDEFINITE
ERRONEOUSNESS TO RATIONALISM AND
SCEPTICISM !
How easy is the transition from such theorising to the most
avowed and extreme Rationalism and unbelief ! How easily can
Dr. Martineau, for example, from the results, principles, and
presuppositions of these theories, justify and deduce his
Unitarianism, Rationalism, and utterly destructive criticism of
the N.T. as a whole, and of the Gospels in particular, and of all
that is essential and peculiar to the Christian faith therein.
They all deny the truthfulness and Divine authority, and assert,
or assume, and imply the indefinite erroneousness and illimitable
unreliability of Scripture. They all discredit it, and undermine
the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the writings and writers
that constitute the sources and bases of our faith.
Dr. Ladd and Dr. Martineau arrive at diametrically
OPPOSITE Results from the common Rationalistic
Principle.
Professor Ladd, for example, in his two immense volumes on
The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, finds, as the result of adopting
and applying the Rationalistic principle, which assumes the right
and function of reason to sit in judgment on Scripture to
ascertain^ what in it is true, that the only reliable elements
therein, besides the ethical principles common more or less
to it with other religions and philosophies, are the Messianic
elements connected with Redemption. But he, as usual,
leaves us in blissful ignorance as to what these specifically are,
346
DESCENT FROM ERRORISM TO RATIONALISM 347
and where explicitly they are recorded, and how we can
inerrantly find them amid the mass of erroneous and unreliable
materials with which they are surrounded, and amid which they
are embedded, like veins or grains of golden ore in vast fields of
worthless material. The Lord by the Psalmist says His Word
is like " silver seven times purified."
Assuming and applying the same Rationalistic principle of
the supremacy of Reason over Revelation as over everything else,
and counting it " treason " ^ to do anything else, Dr. Martineau
finds that the elements which above all others are to be rejected
as false and pernicious, are just those Messianic and Redemptive
elements that Dr. Ladd holds to be true and of Divine authority. ^
Dr. Martineau, without a moment's hesitation, or an attempt at
proof, declares these, on his own infallible intuition and indubit-
able authority, to be the mere creations of the ecstatic imagina-
tion of devoted, but deluded disciples — the encrustations of
ignorant, superstitious, and enthusiastic minds working on the
legends and traditions of credulous ages ! In these supersti-
tious and pernicious elements he includes all the Messianic
teaching and references of the O.T. and the New ; and along
with them, and as part and fruits of them, the Incarnation and
Divinity of our Lord, His death for man's redemption, — the very
idea of an atonement for the sin of men by a sinless Saviour and
a vicarious sacrifice being to him impossible, immoral, and a
blot on the character of God ; as also justification by faith, His
resurrection from the dead. His ascension to glory. His second
coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment with its
eternal issues.^
Like Dr. Ladd, he accepts as agreeable to reason much of
the ethical teaching of the N.T., and expresses it with peculiar
beauty and power. He, however, regards this teaching as not
peculiar to Christianity, but a common product of man's moral
and religious nature, expressed more or less fully and truly,
though not so well as in the Bible, in the theologies and
philosophies of other religions and races. So that in this two-
fold way everything distinctive of Christianity is eliminated and
rejected as non-Christian.^ The remarkable thing, however, is
1 Ur. Martineau's The Seat of Authority in Religion.
-Dr. Ladd's Doctrine of Sacred Scripture.
^ Ibid. p. 650.
348 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
that, on the very same Rationalistic principle, he arrives at
directly opposite results. His reason, sitting in judgment on
Scripture, especially on the N.T., rejects as superstitious, per-
nicious, and intolerable what Dr. Ladd's reason in the same
attitude and on the same principle receives as true, trustworthy,
and authoritative. It must be owned, too, that Dr. Martineau
rejects with as much plausibility and perversity those elements
that Dr. Ladd accepts, as Dr. Ladd rejects the other parts and
elements of Scripture. But the point and force of their direct
contradiction are that the Unitarian Doctor arrives at his
diametrically opposite results on substantially the same principles
and with the same presupposition as the Christian Doctor, even
the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture on the one hand, and,
on the other, the right and power of reason to judge and deter-
mine what in the volume of Revelation is true and what
false.
It is impossible to settle the fundamental Questions in
Dispute between them with the common Rationalistic
Principle.
So that it seems impossible on these principles to prove
that the Unitarian is wrong or that the Christian is right in their
contradictory conclusions drawn from similar premises. From
the very nature of the case, on these principles, the controversy
cannot be conclusively settled. Nor is it possible to determine
definitely, or to ascertain infallibly, or to declare authoritatively,
what is true and trustworthy and what false and misleading in
Scripture. Finality, or even practical certainty, far less Divine
authority, as to the will of God for our salvation, is thus evidently
impossible on any theory of the indefinite erroneousness of
Scripture, with its inevitable consequent of the supremacy of
human reason over Divine Revelation, from the simple fact that
man's errant and erring reason becomes the only standard, the
supreme judge, and the ultimate authority in all such things.
And as one man's mind may be as good as another's or better,
and as one class of reasons will weigh with one class of mind
and another with another, it is manifest that a final and
authoritative settlement of such matters is from the nature of
things an impossibility, without an independent and authoritative
THE BIBLE CLAIM AND RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES 349
external standard — even the authority of God expressed in His
Word. Every man must believe just as he likes ; all may believe
what is false; and certainly no man's belief can be authorita-
tive over others, or binding upon the conscience of any other.
Every man becomes an authority to himself in religious belief;
and this, taken along with the fact, proved throughout all ages,
races, and religions, that "the world by wisdom knew not God,"
would show that, on the theory of indefinite erroneousness,
Revelation was a failure, God's purpose in giving His Word has
been defeated, and mankind is in darkness even until now as to
the things most vital for us to know, and benighted humanity
is now as of old left like
" An infant crying in the night,
An infant crying for the light,
And with no language but a cry."
The only way to settle Controversies in Religion is by
HOLDING the BiBLE ClAIM TO BE THE WORD OF GOD,
AND THE Divine Rule of Faith, and Judge of
Controversies.
The only way in which effectually to refute this disastrous and
absurd conclusion is by maintaining, in opposition to both classes
of Rationalists, the claim of Scripture to be the Word of God,
of Divine origin, truth, and authority. True, Dr. Ladd, as
representative of a whole school, partially evangelical, would say
that he accepts some parts, or rather elements, in Scripture- as
true and authoritative. But Dr. Martineau would say that he,
too, holds the same about other elements in it ; only that he
differs entirely, and contradicts Dr. Ladd directly, as to what
these elements are, — Dr. Martineau rejecting just those very
elements which Dr. Ladd accepts and vice versa. The only
elements on which they would both generally agree are those
ethical elements, common to Christianity with other religions
and philosophies, — even those primitive and essential moral
principles that are inherent elements in the constitution of man's
moral nature, and not distinctive of Christianity at all. But
when we press the question closer, and ask whether Dr. Mar-
tineau or Dr. Ladd is right as to the elements to be regarded as
infallible and of Divine authority, immediately we are faced with
3 so THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
an interminable controversy, the final, authoritative, and inerrant
settlement of which is, because of their common first principle,
self-evidently an impossibility. And whatever else may be said
or thought of the Bible claim to be true, trustworthy, and of
Divine authority, it manifestly has this decisive advantage over
the others, that it supplies us with the means of a conclusive and
authoritative settlement at least of all important questions on
which men's salvation and eternity depend, and includes every-
thing clearly taught in Scripture.
That this is the doctrine taught by the claim made by
Scripture for itself is demonstrated above and below, if anything
can be proved from the Bible. The difficulties supposed to be
connected with it are not more, but less, than those connected
with any of the essential doctrines of our faith, such as the
Divinity of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith, the
resurrection of the dead; and they are as nothing compared
with the insuperable difficulties and inextricable confusions
introduced by these or any other Rationalistic theories. Besides
this, all these doctrines are based on this one ; and, therefore,
they are all discredited and undermined so far as it is invalidated
or impinged upon.
I know that Dr. Ladd, Dr. Farrar, and others holding
similar views of Scripture, would try to escape from the dilemma
in which they are thus placed, along with able and avowed
Rationalists like Dr. Martineau, by saying that they admit and
maintain the infallible truth and Divine authority of Christ's
teaching. But Dr. Martineau and his followers would not and
do not deny this. On the contrary, they are much more guarded
and reverential in their statements about His teaching than
many who profess to hold His Divinity, but deny or question
the infallibility of His teaching. But where Dr. Martineau and
such like join issue with them is as to what was the teaching of
Jesus. He maintains that most of what the Gospels give as the
teaching and words of Christ are not His teaching at a\\,^ but
mainly the personal opinions of the writers. These opinions, he
avers, were mostly the product of the current views and tradi-
tional ideas of the times, evincing no doubt more or less the
new spirit Jesus had infused into rehgion, and containing amid
'And here he is supported largely by Pfleiderer, the Ritschlians, and
many other Rationalistic writers.
ANTAGONISTIC RATIONALISTS 35 I
the mass of apostolic or post-apostolic ideas some genuine
elements of His teaching. These elements he seeks by spiritual
intuition and critical acumen to discover with these sufificiently
startling results — First, that all the Messianic and Redemptive
elements in Scripture are utterly and vehemently rejected as
non-Christian and even immoral in the vital and crucial N.T.
teaching on Redemption by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the
heart and burden of all Scripture. Second, that all which the
Christian Church has from the beginning believed and taught in
the creeds as the substance and essence of Christianity is a
caricature of it — ■ the worthless excrescences or pernicious
accretions of it, with the solitary exception of repentance.
Third, that almost the only things which constitute the
Christian religion and belong to the teaching of Christ, are
certain primary, ethical, religious truths and principles, which
are not distinctive of Christianity or of the teaching of Christ,
but which are more or less common to almost all religions and
philosophies, — though Jesus gave them a new clearness, emphasis,
significance, and potency, and infused into them a fresh life and
creative spirit.
It may be said that criticism which leads to such results is so
extreme and perverse as to require no refutation, and that, as
Dr. Sanday says, anyone who so treats the evangelists excludes
himself from the pale of reasonable criticism or just interpreta-
tion. This is doubtless largely true. But it must be admitted,
on the other hand, that the author is most thoroughly sincere ;
that he has the strongest conviction of the truth of his results ;
that his is a mind of conspicuous ability and penetration, with
an unsurpassed power of lucid and forceful expression ; and that
he manifestly means to be thorough in his investigations. Nor
can it be denied that he can adduce in support of his conclusion,
among others, — such things as the philosophic and seemingly
idealised and Gnostic character of the Fourth Gospel, — so unlike
what we should expect from Jesus, or a fisherman of Galilee ; the
apparent discrepancies of the Synoptics, which might be expected
on his theory ; the marked contrast, if not seemingly irreconcil-
able differences in facts, representations, and teaching between
John's Gospel and the Synoptics, which his view might account
for. He can also take advantage of and utilise many of the
allegations and admissions of Trinitarian, and even in many
352 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMIXARY PROOF
ways reputedly orthodox critics, who now without any Scripture
warrant, and in face of Scripture teaching and the explicit words
of Christ, never weary of emphasising and proclaiming the
inferiority, degeneracy, and erroneousness of the apostles and
evangelists when compared with the teaching of Jesus.
This Dr. Martineau can urge all the more that such critics
press these views directly in the face of Christ's explicit promise
of the Spirit to lead them into all truth ; and notwithstanding our
entire dependence for everything we know about Him and His
teaching upon these evangelists, whose unreliability and errone-
ousness have, ex hypothesi, been by them so zealously and
ultroneously proclaimed. He can also adduce what they now
with almost one accord, and often without limit or scruple, allege
—the literary usage of these earlier times in explanation of the
writers of the Gospels putting their own opinions and words into
the lips of Jesus and giving them as His, though frequently a
misconception or perversion of what He really taught. Though
how this last can be ascertained, when we have only these un-
trustworthy and erroneous Gospels to inform us, is a puzzle to
the careful, clear-thinking mind. Altogether, on such principles
and presuppositions. Dr. Martineau has by their help, by deft
manipulation and dexterous special pleading, made out a plaus-
ible, if a revolutionary and preposterous case.
The Common Rationalistic Principle implied in every
Theory of Indefinite Erroneousness precludes fin-
ality AND authority ON ANY QUESTION OF RELIGION.
Most certainly the principle and presupposition by which he
reached his results are identical with those of Dr. Ladd and
others like him ; even the presupposition of the indefinite errone-
ousness of Scripture and the Rationalistic principle of the com-
petency, right, and obligation of reason to determine what is
true and what false in Revelation. And the remarkable and
decisive thing is that on this very principle of rational selection
adopted by both, Dr. Martineau arrives at results that are irra-
tional and directly the reverse of Dr. Ladd's. The Messianic and
Redemptive elements connected with Christ, to which alone Dr.
Ladd would admit anything like infallibility and Divine authority,
are just the very elements which, on the same principle^ and by
SUPREMACY OF REASON OVER RliVELATION 353
similar processes and assumptions, Dr. Martineau rejects with
vehemence as false, pernicious, and contrary to the spirit as
well as to the teaching of Christ. It is vain to reply that Dr.
Martineau is wrong in his results ; for he assumes nothing but
what the others assume, even the errancy and erroneousness of
Scripture, with perhaps the possible exception of the words of
Christ, if we can surely find them. The representations of these,
however, on their common theory, are erroneous and unreliable,
and therefore each erring and varying man must determine for
himself, according to his own conception of what they probably
would be. And he adopts only the same principle, even the
right, duty, and power of reason, to distinguish the true from the
false ; human reason thus becoming to both the final seat of
authority and the ultimate standard of truth. By this process,
on similar methods and considerations, all Scripture is tested by
errant human reason presuming vainly to separate truth from
error — the wheat from the chaff, in the Word of God !
If he regards as error what others regard as truth, and calls
chaff what others call wheat, this matters not. The prificiple is
the same in both. The principle gives the determinative power
in such matters to human reason, each mind being of necessity
the light and standard to itself. Therefore, whether right or
wrong, it is authoritative to each. On the common principle it
ought to be authoritative. It should and must be authoritative,
though contradictory, to all who adopt or admit their common
but self-stultifying principle. And should there be, as there are
and must be, conflict and contradiction between the utterances
of the authority in different minds, still, on the common prin-
ciple, each is and ought to be, from the nature of the case, an
authority to himself. Nor would it be right or reasonable to
dispute the authority in any case, no matter how contradictory
or absurd the deliverance or results might be, so long as the
common principle is held.
The implied Supremacy of Reason over Revelation
MAKES Certainty and Authority in Religion im-
possible.
Nay more, it is from the very nature of things impossible to
question the deliverance in a single case, however preposterous
23
354 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
it may be, if deliberately made, without impinging upon and
violating the root-principle itself, and abandoning their whole
position and contention. Yea, it is impossible, on this principle
of the supreme authority of reason, to determine questions of
religion and ethics, to settle conclusively any question in religion
or morality, except the essential primary principles that lie
embedded in the constitution of the human soul, and are its
native elementary possession. For the ultimate authority, ac-
cording to the principle itself, is in each the individual mind ;
which varies with each individual, and often in the same in-
dividual at different times. What may be truth to one is error
to another, and what was true at one time is false at another to
the same person. So that on this principle certainty in religion
is a manifest impossibility, and the effort to attain it is a palpable
absurdity — a wild-goose chase !
These are surely sufficiently startling results ; but they are all
the natural and necessary consequence of the same false and
subversive principle. Dr. Martineau and others holding his and
other beliefs come to Scripture with a philosophy and a theology.
Postulating the fallibility and indefinite erroneousness of Scrip-
ture, and acting on the undoubted or admitted principle that
man's own mind has to separate the truth from the error in
Scripture, and to determine, not by simple interpretation of its
meaning as true and trustworthy because God-breathed, but by
a process of intuitional selection and critical elimination what
is and is not to be believed therein, he easily arrives at results
accordant with his preconceptions ; and by a free and ingenious
grouping of cognate elements has no difficulty in finding con-
firmation of these from Scripture. So another with a different
theology and philosophy, by a similar use of other elements and
with similar plausibility, comes to opposite or different con-
clusions, and so on ad infinitum. This is precisely the way and
principle on which so many of the German and other Rationalists
arrive at and propound their antagonistic, ever-changing, and
evanescent theories — by simply selecting those things and ele-
ments that suit their own preconceptions, and ignoring others.
Nor is it possible to prevent such pernicious playing with
and pulverising of the Word of God, and such perverse abuse of
so-called Bible criticism, except by maintaining the Bible claim
of truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority; and by
THE WRITTEN WORD THE SURE STANDARD 355
denying the right, power, or rationaUty of reason to reject its
teaching or to question the truth of its statements, when their
real meaning has been ascertained. Let, for example, the truth-
fulness of the Gospels be upheld, as it may well be, yea, has
been for centuries in spite of the most searching criticism and
the utmost perverse ingenuity of hostile scepticism ; let it
further be maintained, as it may be and has been triumphantly,
in the light of the facts of Christ's explicit teaching, in which
His trustworthiness, guaranteeing theirs, must be held decisive, —
that the teaching of the Divinely-inspired apostles was as true and
trustworthy as His, since, as He said, " It is not ye that speak,
but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you " : then an
effectual arrest can be put upon this solemn trifling with Scrip-
ture, and all handling of the Word of God deceitfully ; and
upon all that destructive criticism and pervertive speculation
which pretend to discriminate the elements of truth in Christ's
words from the masses of erroneous encrustation and degenerate
teaching in the inspired writings of the apostles. For they can
then be tied to the Written Word; and when that is properly
interpreted, and its real meaning ascertained, that, then, is the
very Word of God, of Divine origin, truth, and authority,
which men must receive as such, and can reject only at their
peril.
The difference between a Bible that, when truly interpreted
and its intended meaning ascertained, is true, trustworthy, and
divinely authoritative ; and a Bible that, when its intended mean-
ing is found, is still more or less untrue, untrustworthy, and un-
authoritative— a mixture of truth and error, which errant and
erring human reason, each man's variable mind must find as
best it may — is in character simply essential, in thought radical,
and in effect practically immeasurable. In the one all that is
needed is simply interpretation. In the other, there must be
after interpretation, the separation of the truth from the error
with which it is inextricably mixed, and without any unerring
standard or reliable means of separation ; so that it is impos-
sible to be sure of what is truth or error. In the one case the
range of possible difference is limited to the simple ascertaining
of the meaning, usually a limit not difficult to determine. In
the other it is unlimited, and, from the very nature of the case,
illimitable, the materials of determination or the means of certain
356 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
settlement being both awanting. The truth and the error are
both indefinite and indeterminable quantities, and the contro-
versy about them is therefore of necessity an interminable con-
troversy. Nor is it possible, since there is no final and authori-
tative standard, to constrain the belief or require the faith of
anyone.
Rationalism would violate its essential Principle if
IT claimed Finality, Certainty, or Authority in
Religion.
Yea, the very attempt to do so is an infringement, if not a
violation, of the root-principle of the theory. So that Rational-
ism, to be true to its principle, must abandon reason in despair,
forsake its own standard, and reject its own principles ; and
leave its votaries, except in the most elementary things, to the
lightless, abyssmal negations of a hopeless Agnosticism — its
natural result, its only rational termination. And in any case
the results of it as shown above have, as a matter of fact, been
diametrically opposite and mutually annihilative, as expressed
in the directly contradictory conclusions of Dr. Ladd and
Dr. Martineau, and many mutually devouring rationalistic and
rationalising schools.
All the above has been adduced mainly to show how false
and delusive is the idea that it is merely a question of unim-
portant trifles, not affecting any important truth or religious
interest, which these various Rationalistic theories about Scrip-
ture raise. Whatever else it may have done or failed to do, it
has at least demonstrated the falseness and absurdity of that
deluding assertion. Taking two outstanding examples from
different and in many ways antagonistic schools of Rationalists,
it has been shown that on the same common principle — the
principle common more or less to every theory of the errancy or
erroneousness of Scripture — they come to directly opposite con-
clusions as to what is true and false in Scripture ; and that
between these conflicting conclusions almost everything peculiar
to Revelation and distinctive of Christianity would be rejected
and destroyed.
THE COMMON RATIONALISTIC PRINCirLE 357
All Theories of indefinite Erroneousness contain
THE SAME Rationalistic Principle.
The same might be shown in detail through all the permuta-
tions and combinations in all the other advocates of the indefinite
erroneousness of Scripture, from the least Rationalistic to the
most extreme and avowedly sceptical theorists, like, say Matthew
Arnold. He distinctly rejects Christianity, and repudiates every-
thing distinctive of the Christian faith ; yet he professes to have
found by literary intuition a something in Scripture that is true,
which he calls " the Secret of Jesus," but which had eluded the
discovery of all the theologians and Churches until now, when
he by a unique literary and moral intuition — the product of
assumed familiarity with the literature of the world — has been
able to discover it, as a vein of golden ore among the crude
and misleading masses of Jewish superstition and apostolic de-
lusion. But when we inquire what this wonderful secret is, it
simply amounts to that veriest platitude of natural theology, the
merest elementary dictate of conscience, that there is a power out-
side ourselves that makes for righteousness. And this is all that
he finds true in Scripture or Christ's teaching, which, of course,
every student of philosophy knows to be not peculiar to Christ or
Scripture, but existed long before, yea, since the creation of man
in the image of God. He arrives at this conclusion on the same
assumption — the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture — and by
the adoption of essentially the same principle, the right and
power of reason to separate the truth from the error in the
teaching of God's Word ; and he proceeds by a similar process,
only more arbitrarily applied, as Dr. Martineau and Dr. Ladd.
Dr. Horton's Denunciations of the Bible Claim, and
HIS Delusion that its Truths are independent of
Criticism.
But perhaps the best and most significant illustration of the
points above is to be found in the writings of one of the most
recent, prolific, and oracular assailants of the truthfulness, trust-
worthiness, and Divine authority of Holy Scripture, Dr. Horton.
No man has more frequently or vehemently asseverated that the
truths of Revelation are independent of criticism, — a mere
358 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
repetition of Baur, of exploded Tiibingenism, — and unaffected by
its results. He evidently does not know that the criticism of
the ablest Rationalistic critics not only affects Revelation, pro-
perly so called, but annihilates it, destroys the foundation of
every distinctive truth of it ; and many of them deny both
Revelation and the supernatural altogether, both in the religion
of Israel and of Christ.^ No recent author has written so con-
temptuously of the maintainers of the truthfulness, trustworthi-
ness, and Divine authority of God's Word. Yet he is scrupu-
lously careful to avoid grappling with their arguments or facing
their real position, preferring prudently the easier but less
noble method of giving assertion for argument, vain fancy for
sure fact, and caricature for refutation. It would be difficult
to find a single writer on the questions so full of errors and
contradictions, exaggerations and vagaries, or at once so superficial
and one-sided, loose and illogical in treatment of any single
point of the controversy. • Nor have I read any author on the
subjects that exhibits such unguardedness of statement, such inno-
cence of the first elements and conditions of the controversy,
along with such oracular assurance and assumed supereminence,
or one so unfitted, by lack of logical consistency and of thorough-
ness of investigation, of handling such questions, or more wanting
in that reverence for the Word of the Lord, without which they
should never be handled at all. With a pretentiousness equalled
only by the unthoroughness, no one has so presumptuously dared
to sit in judgment on the Divine book ; and, because lacking
the knowledge or spiritual discernment to understand the same,
to pronounce the condemnation in many parts, large sections,
and vital elements of the "Oracles of God,"^ which in their
integrity the Son of God received with such reverence, used with
such confidence, sealed with His Divine authority, and declared
the inviolability of in His most majestic utterance, that heaven
and earth should pass away, but that one jot or one tittle thereof
should in no wise pass away till all should be fulfilled.
' Such as Kuenen, Wellhausen, Strauss, Renan, Baur, Pfleiderer, the
author of Stipeniatiiral Religion, Dr. Samuel Davidson, the Ritschlians
generally, and many of the Germans and their followers, some of whom have
been or are leaders of Criticism and the teachers of other critics.
2 See his Inspiration and the Bible, Revelation and the Bible, and other
writings in the Christian World, etc.
RATIONALISTIC TOPSTONE AND PRESUMPTION 359
And yet Dr. Horton has the audacity and delusion to
assert, and by the assertion to mislead the ignorant and unwary,
that nothing of any importance is being lost, when the very chart
of men's salvation is slipping from their grasp, and the title-deeds
of their Redemption are being torn to tatters before their eyes,
with no criterion to tell them what fragments should be saved
from the wreck, except the ipse dixit of reckless latter-day
oracles. Appropriately in his latest deliverance,^ consistent at
last, he utters beyond the seas what was looming out at home, the
crowning oracle that there was nothing really supernatural in the
inspiration of the apostles and prophets — nothing but what any
man may attain, what some men of recent times have attained
(whose names and experience he mentions, though they would
have been the first to deny it), what every spiritual man in
measure possesses, and evidently nothing really different in kind
from what implicitly he has himself attained, and doubtless
implies he has expressed in his recent oracular writings. Com-
paring these with the writings of Isaiah or Paul, any man may
see by simple inspection that this latest and boldest champion
of Rationalism and assailant of the Bible claim, has at length
put the natural crown and appropriate topstone upon his own
and others' Rationalistic theories.
By thus attempting to bring down the inspiration of the
apostles and prophets from the supernatural elevation, which
God by His Spirit and Christ by His special promise placed it
on, to the level of ordinary spiritual illumination, with nothing in
it different in kind, purpose, and effect from what any man may
attain, and some recent men have attained, though it is a strange
delusion, both inspiration and Revelation are disowned and evapo-
rated in any proper sense, violating both reason and Revelation,
and proving beyond a doubt, notwithstanding all the vaunted
light and advancement, the indefinite erroneousness of such
oracles as these. They thus serve themselves heirs to the deluded
and visionary votaries of fanaticism and superstition, which have
appeared from time to time as beacon lights on the horizon of
Church history, — such as the Montanists of the early ages, the
Anabaptists of the German Reformation, the Latter-day Saints,
and the New Prophets and Spiritualists of our own day, — with-
out having even the literary intuition of the apostles of sweetness
^ Verhiim Dei.
360 THE EIDLE CLAIM AND PRELLMINARY PROOF
and light. How true is it that extremes meet, and that scepticism
ends in credulity ! How significant the spectacle of Rationalism
joining hands with superstition, naturalism uniting with fanati-
cism ! How suggestive to behold the spirits of expired supersti-
tions and pernicious delusions rising again from the dead, and
becoming once more embodied in the oracles and publications
of such latter-day prophets, in order to deny to the oracles of
God what is claimed for their own vain imaginations !
Conclusion. All Declarations that the Errorists'
Theories and Criticism affect only small things
ARE A Delusion and a Snare.
And yet in the face of all this, we are assured that it is all a
question about trifles, and that, forsooth, nothing of any moment
is concerned in criticism, or theories of inspiration, or doctrines
of Revelation, or views on Holy Scripture ; when in reality it is
questions about everything most surely held among believers in
Revelation, when everything on which men's eternity depends
is imperilled by such theories and speculations, and when, in
fact, if such views prevail, all is lost with the loss of a sure basis
and reliable source of faith. All this talk and protestation, that
it is only trivialities which are concerned in this controversy, is
an utter delusion, a mischievous deception that hides the real
issues. What would these Rationalistic critics care merely to
have liberty to criticise and make corrections in details ? They
give prominence to this aspect merely to allay suspicion and
disarm opposition, in order that having got this freedom they
may ride roughshod with full rein over the whole range and
substance of Revelation. This is what, as a matter of fact, they
are now doing on every hand, without let or hindrance, till the
whole Word of God is fragmented, discredited, and pulverised
between them. They deny the right of anyone, even of Christ
Himself, to restrict or hinder them ; for " the rights of criticism,"
they declare, " must be pressed," as they phrase it, " even against
the Master Himself." And here again, as often before, heaves
in view, through the mists of lesser controversies, the inevitable
issues and awful end of them — the ever momentous, funda-
mental, and supreme religious question, " Is Christ infallible as
a teacher ? "
CHAPTER VII.
THE STATUS QU^:STIONIS.
Having thus cleared the way and simplified the issues, we shall
now, in closing this book, briefly state the question, and then
proceed to the proof and argument. What, then, is the real
state of the question ? It is all-important to state clearly and
to grasp firmly what the real state of the question is {status
qucestio7tis). For the proper statement of it is in this case, as in
many others, largely the virtual settlement of it to all who
tremble at the ^^'ord of the Lord, and to all who in any sense
regard the Bible as the Word of God. The state of the question
then is this. If the Bible claims to be true, trustworthy, of
Divine origin and authority, — the Word of God, — it necessarily
follows either that the Scriptures, as originally written, were so
and cannot be indefinitely erroneous and untrustworthy, or that
the Bible is untrue in its root doctrine, and that its fundamental
claim is false. It cannot be the Word of God, but must be
merely the word of not only fallible, but untruthful or incredible
men. This being so, it is self-evident that any theory that
asserts or implies the indefinite erroneousness and illimitable
unreliability of Scripture, as the prevalent theories do, would
not only logically land in utter Rationalism, but would necessarily
confuse and overthrow the whole truth and authority of Scripture.
For, as will appear more fully soon, its claim is expressly placed
at the basis of the truthfulness of all its teaching, is postulated as
the ground of all its statements, and is necessarily implied in
that Divine authority with which it speaks in the name of ihe
Lord.
In various conceivable circumstances, indeed, we should not
be shut up to such a conclusion. If, for example, we had merely
a historical Christianity — a Bible simply recording the facts of
362 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
Christ's life, written by fallible but credible men, like any
ordinary good biography, we should not be driven to this. Or
if we had a religion supernaturally revealed, recorded by not
infallible but fairly trustworthy writers ; or if we had even a faith,
Divinely revealed, recorded in a perfectly Divinely-inspired
book, but without any afifirmation, claim, teaching, or impli-
cation in that book in regard to its own Divine inspiration, or
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority, we should not
in the same manifest and unquestionable way be shut up to this
conclusion. Yea, earnest seekers might even on the lowest of
these suppositions have sufficient light to lead to Christ and find
salvation. For, as Dr. Bannerman says,^ we would have (rather
" might have had ") an historical Christianity not greatly differ-
ing in its facts and doctrines from an inspired Christianity. But
this is clearly not the state of things. On the contrary, all
admit that the Bible has something to say in regard to its own
origination, inspiration, truthfulness, and Divine authority. It
indeed has a very great deal to say upon this subject ; and it
founds all its teaching and statements on all other subjects on
its teaching and pervasive claim on this subject. It makes this
its preliminary and fundamental teaching, and postulates this
throughout all its other teaching and statements. What this
teaching is must be determined by a careful, thorough, and
extensive examination and combination of all that Scripture,
either directly or indirectly, teaches thereon.
The Doctrine of Holy Scripture as held by the Christian
Church and set forth in the Creeds of Christendom.
The teaching of the Church, as expressed in the creeds of
Christendom and in the works of its greatest representative
teachers, is in effect that the Bible has been so written that it is
in the highest sense of the expression " the Word of God " — the
book of which God is the author and for which He is responsible,
since all Scripture is God-breathed (^eoVvero-Tos), and is there-
fore true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority. It is therefore
all "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in-
struction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3^^). Though it was written
through the instrumentality of fallible and imperfect men, yet
^ Dr. Bannerman on The Inspiration of Scripture.
THE CHURCH DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 363
such an infallible Divine influence was imparted to them, and
such an unerring and pervasive control was exercised over them
by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that it secured that all they
wrote for God was true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority.
So that all they recorded or uttered under this Divine guidance
and through this Spirit's inspiration was as truly written and
spoken by God through them as though their instrumentality
had not been used at all. And although it was written by means
of men of different ages, lands, and conditions, of diverse tastes,
temperaments, talents, and attainments ; and though each wrote
according to his own mental characteristics, literary acquirements,
and personal experience and idiosyncrasies, in all various styles
and in every form of literary composition, yet the Divine Spirit
so penetrated the minds and filled the hearts of the writers as
that all they said or wrote under this inspiration is the very
Word of God, in a sense not less real than if the eternal God
had uttered it in a voice of thunder from the heavens, or graven
it with His own finger on the sides of the everlasting hills. This
has, in effect, been the teaching of the Church ; and if this is also
the teaching of Scripture, the question must be held as settled by
all who own the authority of God's Word.
All Theories of indefinite Erroneousness preclude the
Bible Claim to be the Word of God and the Divine
Rule of Faith and Life.
All who deny this by asserting or implying its indefinite
erroneousness and untrustworthiness disown its Divine authority
and assert its untruthfulness. For if the Bible claims in the
name of God to speak the truth, and if it, as alleged, is erroneous
or unreliable, then manifestly its root claim is false. It cannot
therefore be inspired by God. It is not a Divine Revelation.
It cannot be the Word of God or possess any Divine authority.
It must be the untruthful word of incredible men making a false
claim. It cannot be the product of Divine inspiration ; for
every idea of inspiration would be violated by the supposition
that men writing under the power of the Holy Ghost should
make a false claim. It cannot be a Divine Revelation ; for it is
blasphemous to suppose that the God of truth would reveal as
true what on this supposition He must have known to be false,
364 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
especially when that Revelation lies at the foundation of all the
other revelations. The Bible cannot be the Word of God ; for
God's Word must be true, and could not claim to be so unless
it were so. It cannot possess any Divine authority ; for that
could not be given to a false claim, — especially if this claim is
made the ground of its Divine authority in all its other teaching.
It is not merely the word of man, but of men stating what is
untrue ; not only stating what is contrary to truth, but making
a claim that is wholly false ; not merely making a false claim,
but giving that as the foundation on which they base the
authoritativeness of all their teaching. Consequently, since on
this supposition this fundamental claim is false, and since all
the other teaching is based on this, we cannot therefore trust
their teaching on anything, or regard it as possessing any intrinsic
independent authority, and we cannot receive their testimony as
credible.
For whether this claim was false by design or by mistake, the
result in either case would be the same. If this false claim was
made by design, then the Scripture writers would be destitute of
that honesty which is the prime condition of credibility. If by
error, then they would be wanting in that intelligence which is a
second essential element of credible testimony. Thus, if they
have advanced this claim, if this is made their first and
fundamental claim, — the claim upon which all the other claims
are based, — a disproof of this is destructive of the reliability of
their independent testimony in anything, and a denial of this is
inconsistent with a belief of their intrinsic credibility. For it is
absurdity and self-contradiction to pretend to receive them as
credible men, giving a credible testimony, while at the same
time we reject their fundamental claim, and thereby assert
that all based thereon is false or destitute of independent
credibility.
Authorities stating the Question. Dr. Hodge,
Dr. R. S. Candlish, Dr. Westcott.
In confu-mation of the fact that this is the real state of the
question, I shall here quote the testimony of some of the most
eminent authorities on the subject. Dr. Charles Hodge, of
Princeton, says : " If the sacred writers assert that they are the
LEADING TESTIMONIES 365
organs of God, that what they taught He taught through them,
that they spake so that what they said the Holy Spirit said ;
then, if we believe their Divine mission, we must believe what
they teach as to the nature of the influence under which they
spoke and wrote." ^ Dr. Robert S. Candlish, Principal of New
College, Edinburgh, and one of the acutest minds and pro-
foundest original thinkers of the century, says : " It was admitted
that whatever it can be fairly proved the Bible claimed to be, in
respect of its Inspiration, that, it was admitted, it must be allowed
and believed to be; that the whole force of its own Divine
authority and of the Divine attestations on which it leans are
transferred to that volume ; and whatever it tells us concerning
itself we now implicitly receive as true." - Dr. Westcott, Bishop
of Durham, one of the greatest N.T. scholars of the century, and
the greatest living N.T. scholar, after giving the proof that the
Scriptures claim to be the Word of God of Divine origin, truth,
and authority, says : " From these passages it will be seen that
we must either accept the doctrine of a plenary inspiration, as
we have explained it, or deny the veracity of the evangelists. If
our Lord's words are accurately recorded, or if even their general
tenor is expressed in one of the Gospels, the Bible is indeed the
Word of God in the fullest spiritual sense, for no scheme of
accommodation can be accepted when it tends to lead men
astray as to the sources of Divine help."^ That what he means
by plenary inspiration is at least equivalent to our highest ideas
of it, is shown by his definition or description of it: " It preserves
absolute truthfulness with perfect humanity. The lette?- becomes
as perfect as the spirit; and it may very well seem that the
image of the incarnation is reflected in the Christian Scriptures,
which, as I believe, exhibit the human and the Divine in the
highest form and in the most perfect union." ^ That the
Scriptures do claim and possess this I now proceed to prove.
In doing so I fully realise that the force of the conclusions
drawn from it depends entirely on the strength of the proof of
this fundamental position. On the other hand, the opponents
thereof have manifesdy no other possible way of avoiding or
^ Dr. Hodge's Systematic Theology, vol. i. p. 166.
-Dr. Candlish's Reason and Revelation, pp. 12, 13.
* Bishop Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels, p. 410.
^Ibid. p. 16.
366 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PRELIMINARY PROOF
evading these conclusions except by overthrowing, invalidating,
and destroying the proof. That is, they require to show that the
proof adduced is not proof, and that the Scriptures do not make
this claim, and that the evidence for it does not amount even to
probability ; for in this, as in other things, the great Butler has
established that probability is and must be the guide of life.
To the law and to the testimony, then, if they or we speak not
according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them or
us (Isa. 820).i
^ The teaching of the Christian Church is well given in the opening
chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the latest and the best
Confession of the Reformed Churches ; and even Dean Stanley pronounced
its Article on Holy Scripture the best and most nearly perfect article of faith
that was ever written, — of which let the following suffice, as an expression of
the faith of the Christian Church from the beginning: "Under the name of
Holy Scripture or the Word of God written are now contained all the books
of the Old and New Testaments : — All which are given by inspiration of God
to be the rule of faith and life.
"The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and
obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly
upon God, (Who is truth itself,) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be
received, because it is the Word of God.
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an
high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture ; and the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all
the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full
discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incom-
parable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby
it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God ; yet notwithstanding
our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and Divine authority
thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and
with the word in our hearts."'
BOOK IV.
THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF. THE TRUTH-
FULNESS, TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND DIVINE
AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIM IN A R V CONSIDERA TIONS.
Here we have to consider, first, whether the Bible does make
this claim for itself; and second, what is the relation of this claim
to all its other claims. In doing so, it will appear that the
Bible does claim thorough truthfulness, entire trustworthiness,
and Divine origin and authority. On this, too, it bases its claim
on the faith and obedience of men in all its other teaching.
Consequently, if this claim is denied or disowned, because
untenable, the Divine authority and supernatural origin of
Scripture must be abandoned, its veracity is destroyed, and
its teaching on all matters deprived of any intrinsic or inde-
pendent authority. Before proceeding to show that it makes
this claim, it is of some importance to consider how we should
expect such a claim to be made.
I. How SUCH A Claim would be made.
We should not expect many express declarations and emphatic
assertions of its Divine authorship and authority. When the
position and the circumstances of the Scripture writers are con-
sidered, the truth and reasonableness of this remark will become
manifest. The acknowledged writers of the books of Scripture
368 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
were generally well-known ambassadors of God — prophets of
Jehovah, or apostles of Christ, whose Divine inspiration and
authority to teach in the name of the Lord were universally
acknowledged ; and whose messages and position, as Divinely-
commissioned teachers, were accredited by miracles, or verified
by fulfilments of predictions, or attested by the testimony of the
Spirit in the consciousness of the Church. What Israelite, for
example, would have thought of questioning the Divine mission
of Moses, or the Divine authority of his writings, after witnessing
the miracles in Egypt ; or the Divine manifestations at Sinai,
where they saw him evidently invested with authority from God
and Divinely commissioned as mediator between Jehovah and
Israel, going up, amid such awful scenes, before their eyes to hold
communion face to face with God, and coming forth with his
countenance radiant by the Divine glory, carrying in his hands
the tables of the law, written by the finger of God ; and writing
all that was shown him on the mount in a book, at the express
direction and by the Divine inspiration of Jehovah. Or what
Christian would have dreamt of denying the Apostolic commis-
sion of Peter, John, James, or Paul, or the Divine authority of
their teaching, whether by word or writing, after the Day of
Pentecost, and the miracles, services, fruits of their labours, and
other Divine attestations by which these were accredited. It was
only when these were in any case questioned, through the
perverting influence of evil men creeping into any Church
unawares, that they felt called upon to give emphatic assertions
thereof, — as Paul to the Corinthians. This is stated here, not
because it is felt that there is any lack either of explicitness or
fulness of proof, but because the justness of the observation lies
in the very nature of the case ; and the recognition of it at the
outset will enable us to anticipate more truly the kind and
amount of the evidence to be looked for, and to appreciate the
more fully the proofs adduced, since these are so much beyond
what, on the proper apprehension of the circumstances, we
should expect.
2. The co-ordinate Authority of the N.T. with the O.T.
Another preliminary remark is, that in adducing proof we
proceed at present on the assumption, admitted by those with
CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY OF O. AND N.T. 369
whom we are specially dealing, of the coequality or co-ordinate
authority of the N.T. with the Old in such matters. For no
party to this controversy puts the N.T. on a lower level than the
Old on this or any doctrinal question ; but many, on the con-
trary, reason that whatever infallibility and authority the O.T.
may have, that at least a fortiori must the N.T. possess. On
the other hand, no person who has carefully studied and weighed
the manner in which our Lord and His aposdes quote from and
refer to the O.T. in the New could fail to be impressed with the
unique position, absolute inviolability, and Divine authority
ascribed to the O.T. And the organic unity of the Bible proves
it to be really one Divine, God-breathed Book.
We content ourselves at present with stating this, and
with noting simply one but decisive passage, teaching in the
clearest manner this coequality and co-ordinate authority as the
word of the Lord of the O. and N.T., 2 Pet. 3I6 : "As Paul
also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things : in
which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
scriptures, unto their own destruction." This passage is usually
adduced to prove the equality of the N.T. with the Old ; because
at least Paul's Epistles are here placed in that position, and con-
sequently all the rest virtually. But the passage is equally
applicable and decisive to prove, to all who admit the Divine
authority of Peter's explicit statement, the equality or co-ordinate
authority as God's word of the O.T. with the New. By cognate
and co-ordinate authority I mean that they both equally speak
in the name of the Lord ; though in some respects the later,
because the fuller, higher, and final revelation of the N.T. has,
of course, a unique and in some respects the decisive place.
Yet it is not such as to deprive the O.T. of its Divine authority,
or to lessen its weight as the word of the Lord. Both are
equally God's Word. Especially it is of the O.T. as the word
of the Lord, and of its truth, inviolability, and Divine authority,
that the N.T. mostly speaks, — above all our Lord Himself, who
so speaks of it and uses it as to give it virtually a second time I
Divine authority in the N.T, ^
24
370 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
3. The Divine Origin and Credibility of Scripture
IS assumed here. The Canon not discussed.
The question of the canonicity of certain books of Scripture
is not discussed here, as it does not affect the doctrine of
Inspiration taught in the books whose canonicity is unques-
tioned by the main parties to this controversy, and because it
has been ably discussed by various writers on its own merits, and
proper evidence.^ No claim for Scripture will be advanced here
that is not with equal plainness taught in books the canonicity
of which is admitted. Quotations will, therefore, be made from
all parts of Scripture without reserve, these connected questions
being, for the present at least, deferred.
In proceeding to proof, the general veracity, as also the
supernatural origin and Divine authority of Scripture in general
are assumed ; for it is only the views of those who admit and
maintain these that are at present under examination. All who
uphold them are, therefore, by the necessities of their own
position, precluded from using or admitting the validity of any
argument against Scripture which, if logically carried out, would
tend to deny, discredit, or question them. That would be
simply assailing or invalidating their own position, which is the
last thing those should do who profess to have constructed their
own theory, and to have rejected the true view in order the
better to defend these, and to make the defence of them
impregnable. And yet the kinds of arguments commonly urged
by them or held to be valid against the Bible claim are just
those that are equally valid, if they have any validity at all,
against the Divine authority, supernatural origin, and general
veracity of Scripture. These, however, we assume, as they
manifestly ought to be assumed by all the parties at this stage ;
and the thorough belief and honest application of them through-
out will go far to settle the questions in dispute.
4. The Evidence and Argument cumulative.
It should also be observed and remembered that the argu-
ment is cumulative. Therefore, it is only when all the lines and
^ Professor Ryle for O.T., Bishop Westcott for N.T., Gaussen and others
for both.
EXPLICIT PASSAGES HAVE CHIEF PLACE 37 1
items of the evidence are considered together that the massive
force and full weight of the proof is realised. Some are more
impressed by one kind of evidence, and others by another;
but those who resist the whole would seem beyond conviction
on anything affecting their favourite theories. They would have
difficulty in producing a similar amount and quality of proof for
any doctrine of the Bible.
5. The first and chief Place is duly given to Passages
OF Scripture expressly treating of the Question.
This place should, of course, be assigned to the general and
explicit statements on -the question. We give these the first
place, because, according to the recognised principles of all
proper Scripture interpretation, the supreme position in teaching
of truth, or the decision of controversy, should always belong to
those passages that expressly and didactically treat of the subject
under consideration. So just and unquestionable has this prin-
ciple been held to be, that with most sound theologians one
clear and explicit passage, — especially if in harmony with the
analogy of faith — the general system of Divine truth, — has been
regarded as sufficient to teach a doctrine or decide a controversy.
Those passages professedly dealing with the subject have always
been recognised as entitled to greater weight than isolated state-
ments, indirect texts, or inferences from phenomena. We state
this now, not because there is any deficiency of these in this
case — the very reverse is true. Indeed, one of the most con-
clusive parts of the proof is taken from the remarkable and
superabundant phenomena which require us to maintain the
truth and Divine authority of all Scripture, and which are irrecon-
cilable v/ith any other view.
But we state this principle here because this is the proper
order of proof, and indicates the relative weight due to the
various kinds of evidence. The statement and recognition of
this at the outset is also the answer by anticipation to the vicious
methods of certain modern critics in handling the question, who
ignore or make light of the direct, positive proof supplied by the
texts and passages that fairly interpreted teach our doctrine, by
parading and pressing certain seemingly conflicting phenomena
in the face of clear Scripture teaching. As if their inferences from
372 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
such phenomena were of equal, or superior weight in the deter-
mination of a doctrinal question to the passages didactically,
professedly, and explicitly treating of it. As if difficulties con-
nected with these phenomena should be regarded as decisive
evidence against the positive, direct, and explicit teaching of
Scripture on the subject. Why, were such a principle to be
admitted, there is no Bible doctrine against which some plausible
presumption might not be raised by our inferences from pheno-
mena. Nor is there any truth in almost any sphere of know-
ledge, which might not plausibly be objected to if difficulties
supposed to arise from other things, were to be held as valid
and decisive evidence against positive proof. Now for the proof.
Note. — A few years before the discovery of the planet Neptune, when
astronomers were unable to explain the aberrations in Uranus, the French
astronomer Le Verrier laid down this principle for science : " It does not become
a scientific man to give up a principle because of difiiculties that could not be
explained. We cannot explain the aberrations of Uranus now ; but we may
be sure that the Newtonian system will prove to be right sooner or later.
Something may be discovered one day which will prove that these aberrations
may be accounted for, and yet the Newtonian system, for which we have
otherwise superabundant evidence, remain true and unshaken." Soon after
Neptune was discovered, which explained the aberrations of Uranus, and
confirmed Newton's doctrine. So we should act as to Bible difficulties.
Note. — Principal Cunningham, ably laying down the principles and the
character of the proper proof of the Bible claim, says that the opponents of it
" do not profess to produce any declaration of Scripture which directly or by
implication denies it ; and their only arguments consist of certain reasonings
or inferences of their own, based partly upon some general features which
attach to the Scriptures, and partly upon certain notions they have devised of
what is necessar}', fitting, and expedient. . . . But they do not stand upon
the same footing as passages of Scripture which seem to teach different and
opposite doctrine, they come merely under the head of difficulties. . . .
They are mere difficulties, and are neither refutations of the positive proofs,
nor proofs of a negative, upon the great general question. It is utterly
inconsistent with the principles recognised and acted upon in regard to everj'
other branch of knowledge that mere difficulties should prevent the submission
of the understanding to proof which cannot be overturned, even though it only
preponderated over that which could." — Lectures, pp. 363, 307, 308.
CHAPTER II.
THE LOCUS CLASSICUS ON THE QUESTION.
Here we adduce first what has been truly called the loncs
classicus or great, leading, and decisive passage upon the
subject, 2 Tim. 3^^'^" — specially v.^^, of which the Greek is
7ra(ra ypacjir] ^eoTrveuCTTOS Kal w^eAi/Aos Trpos StSaaKaXiav, etc. This
passage is well entitled to the important position usually assigned
to it in the determination of this question. E/rsf. Because it
treats directly and professedly of the subject ; as is manifest on
the very face of it. Amidst abounding evil and ungodliness
Paul exhorts Timothy to abide steadfast in the things in which
he has been instructed, and of which he has been assured —
first, because he has learned them from Paul himself, as an
inspired teacher; and, secondly, because that from a child he
had known the Holy Scriptures (to, Upa ypa/x/iara), " which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation."
In v.i^ the reason of this is given in an explicit and
direct statement, setting forth the origin, character, object, and
use of these Scriptures. " All Scripture (every Scripture, Traaa
ypaip-^) is given by inspiration of God," or "is 'God-breathed'" ;
and is, therefore, "able to make wise unto salvation," and "is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness." Here not only are the uses of the Scripture
based upon, and explained by their being inspired of God ; but
there is a distinct and explict declaration of their supernatural
origin and Divine character, "All Scripture is God-breathed."
This is the main and fundamental statement of the whole passage,
which, as such, gives the reason and ground of the other state-
ments. It thus, when professedly dealing with the subject,
explicitly declares both the Divine origin and the Divine char-
acter of the Scriptures. And it does so in the most unquestion-
374 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
able and matter of course way, as a thing well known, and
acknowledged — about which there was and could not be any
question.
I. The special Weight due to this Passage.
This direct and unmistakable declaration is brought in natur-
ally and incidentally, and as a matter of course, in urging Timothy
to steadfastness amid prevailing corruption and apostasy. So
that this statement has all the authority and decisiveness of a
clear and direct passage, treating professedly of the subject, along
with all the peculiar weight due to an explicit declaration,
brought in incidentally as an undoubted postulate in this natural,
unhesitating, and matter of course manner.
A second thing that gives great weight and importance to the
passage is that its evidence for the supernatural origin, plenary
inspiration, and Divine character of Scripture is not affected by
any variety of reading, or difference of rendering. There is
a various reading found in only one MS. and a few ancient
versions, in which the Kal of the textus receptus is omitted. But
not only is the overwhelming weight of MSS. authority in favour
of the received text retaining the Ko.i and decisive against its
exclusion, on the acknowledged principles of Textual Criticism ;
but even the adoption of this various reading, although it would
alter the rendering slightly, would not affect the general sense of
the passage, nor lessen the weight of its testimony, when taken
along with the context, in support of the Divine truth, trust-
worthiness, and authority of all Scripture.
This will appear fully when we consider the various renderings
of the textus receptus. Three different renderings have been given.
First. The rendering of the Authorised Version, " All
Scripture (or every Scripture) is given by Inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc-
tion in righteousness " ; and with this agree the great majority of
translators and the alternative rendering in the Revised Version,
" Every Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable," etc.
Second. " Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable,"
This is the received rendering of the Revised Version, and of
most of the opponents of plenary inspiration, and of some of its
upholders.
THE LOCUS CLASSICUS TRANSLATIONS 375
Third. " Every Scripture being inspired of God, is also
profitable," etc. As a question of translation it is obvious that
the difference of meaning is not very material ; especially when
taken in connection with the context, which defines what the
Scriptures immediately referred to are, namely, the to, UpaypdfXfxaTa
of v.^^ — the Scriptures so well known to Timothy, and to all by
that familiar name. The difference between the last and the
first is simply that the Divine inspiration of Scripture is in the
one case assumed, Oeoirveva-TO'; being taken as an attribute of the
subject, while, in the other case, it is expressly asserted, ^coTn/evo-ros
being regarded as part of the predicate along with w^eAi/^os, the
substantive verb being in the one case understood after ^eoTrvevo-ros
and in the other before it. The Kat in the one introduces the
principal and only direct assertion — the predicate proper (w^e'Ai-
/xos) ; the Kttt in the other simply connects the two parts of the
predicate ^eoVi/euo-Tos and wc^cAt/xos as co-ordinate predications.
2. Any of the Translations teaches the same Divine
Inspiration and Authority of Scripture.
Now, whichever of these translations is preferable, it is
manifest that they teach the Divine inspiration of all Scripture,
— the first by express declaration, the others by postulated
assumption. The -rraa-a ypa<^7^ according to the teaching of
both parties, by the uniform use of the expression, and by the
context, especially the to. Upa ypafifxaTa, is appropriated to Holy
Scripture.
The second rendering gives a somewhat different meaning.
It makes the predicate the same as the third rendering ; but in
the subject it does not, like the first and third, either expressly
or implicitly assert that all or every Scripture is inspired of God.
It only asserts that every Scripture that is inspired is also useful
— simply declares that the usefulness of Scripture is coextensive
with its Divine inspiration, leaving it to be determined other-
wise what Scripture is inspired. But inasmuch as the recognised
use of Trao-a ypa(j)yj and the context settle that the Scriptures
directly referred to were the Scriptures well known to Timothy
from childhood, and to all as the sacred writings, — as those
adopting this translation with whom we are now dealing admit and
maintain, — the evidence afforded by this passage for the Divine
3/6 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
inspiration with the consequent doctrinal and practical usefulness
of all these Scriptures, without distinction of parts or particles,
jot or tittle, is still clearly taught, and indisputably set forth.
That the rendering of the Authorised Version, and of the
great majority of the ablest critics, is the true and most natural,
we, after considering all that is advanced for the others, are
thoroughly convinced. The other translations making the "also"
or "even," with the substantive verb understood immediately
before it, are, to say the least, awkward and harsh, as Ellicott
and Alford admit ; and it renders the xat useless or redundant ;
for the meaning is the same without it as with it on this render-
ing. It is also unnatural and forced, contrary to usage, and
attended with considerable difficulties, — the natural and obvious
construction being to supply the substantive verb with 6e6Trvev(rTo<s
as a predicate, coupled with w0eXi/xos the other predicate — as
Bishop Middleton in his work on the Greek article says.
But what seems most decisive of all against this, and in
favour of the received rendering, is that the latter declares
positively that all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable,
therefore, for doctrine, etc. ; and thus gives a reason why it was
able to make wise unto salvation. But the former conveys little
or no information, makes the apostle assert what to Timothy
would be a truism, and deprives the words of that fulness of
meaning and aptitude of use so apparent in the other. Who
does not feel that to tell Timothy, accustomed from his youth to
receive the Holy Scriptures with such reverence, and to look
upon all that Jehovah did as of supreme importance, that every
Scripture inspired of God is useful — would be a trite and
insignificant statement, of little use to Timothy, and not fitted to
secure the object of Paul. Thus the original text, the gramma-
tical construction, and the natural meaning are opposed to this,
and support the received translation. And since no good reason
has been shown for departing from it, but much to the contrary,
it is manifestly better to abide by it.
But while we prefer the received rendering, the vital thing to
observe is that on any of the proposed translations the evidence
furnished by this passage for the Divine inspiration of all regarded
as Scripture is clear and decisive, and is the same in effect in all,
whichever is adopted. The received rendering teaches it directly,
and by express declaration in the very words of the passage itself
DIVINE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY 377
(v.i'^). The others teach it indirectly by necessary imphcation,
or indisputable reference from the text taken along with the con-
text. And it is specially important to note that this Divine
inspiration is on any of these translations taught of all Scripture,
or of every Scripture. Whatever this passage teaches as to in-
spiration, it teaches of all Scripture, and of all equally. It makes
no distinction between books, or various portions of books, or
different contents of books.
3. It teaches the Divine Origin and Authority
OF ALL Scripture.
It does not restrict the inspiration, Divine origin, or Divine
authority to some kinds of things, or to certain classes of truths
or facts to the exclusion of others, but extends it equally to all.
It knows absolutely nothing of limitation or qualification in the
matter; but explicitly asserts the universality of Scripture's
Divine inspiration — God-breathedness, and consequent profit-
ableness. It predicates this of Scripture as a whole — of the
Bible as a book, without distinction of books or contents, parts
or particles, jots or tittles. It declares in the most direct and
explicit manner that the written documents composing the Bible,
with all the things contained therein and all the parts thereof,
are inspired of God. Many writers holding different views on
inspiration prefer to render Tracra ypa(j)r], " every writing " ; and
these lay stress upon this as furnishing the strongest testimony
to the Divine inspiration of " each and every one of the writings "
comprised under the well-known title ra lepa ypdfxfjiaTa, the
apostle declaring distributively the inspiration of all the writings
to which he had previously referred collectively. Certainly this
rendering, which is in itself unquestionably correct, does empha-
sise the inspiration, the Divine inspiration, of every one of the
sacred writings, of all parts and contents thereof. And surely
it ought to be conclusive proof to all who adopt it, and specially
to those who press it, of the Divine inspiration not only of every
book of Scripture, but of every passage as written therein ; for
it is manifestly absurd and self-contradictory to maintain the
inspiration of the books, while denying or questioning the inspir-
ation of the passages forming them. These constitute and are
the books ; and if the books are inspired, as is admitted and
378 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
maintained, then the Bible passages composing them must be
inspired also. It is they that are declared to be God-breathed
and embody the revelation. Yet, strange to say, this is what
some who contend for the rendering hesitate to affirm, and others
deny. They do so because, from their other views and theories,
they fail to carry out consistently and honestly their own inter-
pretation of this emphatic and decisive passage. What makes
this all the more wonderful and unreasonable is that the inter-
pretation of " every writing " as equivalent to every book is by
no means obvious or necessary either from the words themselves,
the context, or the usage of Scripture. On the contrary, good
authority can be produced, both from Scripture itself and the
writings of the early Fathers, for interpreting -n-aa-a ypa^>/, " every
passage of Scripture." ^ Now, while it might be pushed beyond
what these and similar examples might warrant to insist on this
as absolutely the only and necessary meaning, yet these are
sufficient to prove it admissible, while it also seems not unnatural.
They should also make it both natural and acceptable to those
who insist on " every writing " ; for it only carries out that render-
ing literally and in detail. Certainly they cannot, in the face of
these examples and of their own rendering, seriously object to
this without contradicting and stultifying themselves.
It thus appears that whether TrSo-a ypa(f>r] is translated "all
Scripture " or " every Scripture," the effect and meaning are the
same — "all Scripture" predicating Divine inspiration of the
Bible as a whole — " every Scripture " the Divine inspiration of
each book, passage, and part thereof ; and, therefore, necessarily
of the book as a whole. For if it is absurd and self-contradictory
to predicate the inspiration of the Bible as a whole, while denying
or questioning the inspiration of any of its parts, it is, if possible,
more manifestly so to assert the inspiration of every book and
passage thereof, and yet to refuse or hesitate to attribute Divine
inspiration to the whole book. If whatever is predicated of the
whole book is predicable of the parts, a fortiori whatever is
predicable of each part of the book must be predicable of the
whole. Thus the very distributive rendering, which the oppo-
nents of plenary inspiration insist upon, is the most fatal to their
own rationalistic and anti-scriptural limitations and distinctions.
The very rendering that they prefer and urge ascribes Divine
' See Carson on Inspiration for quotations.
DEGREES OF INSPIRATION 379
inspiration to every part and passage of Scripture ; and, therefore,
of necessity precludes any limitation of that inspiration, and
forbids any distinction between various parts of Scripture as to
the fact of their inspiration. If every Scripture is inspired of
God, obviously there cannot be any Scripture that is not in-
spired ; for to say that every Scripture is inspired, and to say that
this or that or the other Scripture is not inspired, is a self-evident
and logical contradiction. It would be so with the "all" instead
of the "every Scripture," but the " every" makes the contradic-
tion more direct and pointed. And this holds whether Oeo-rrvevcr-
Tos be taken as predicate or subject, and whether the Scripture
said to be inspired is determined by the text itself, the context,
or both ; for, as shown above, the Scriptures are in any case the
well-known sacred writings.
Thus on every interpretation of this passage the Divine
inspiration of all and every part of Scripture is taught; and,
however the various parts of Scripture may differ in other
respects, there is and should be, according to all interpretations
of this passage, absolutely no difference as to their being all
alike inspired — God-breathed.
4. No Hint given of Degrees of Inspiration,
BUT implicitly PRECLUDED.
Nor is there a single hint or suggestion here about kinds or
degrees of inspiration. On the contrary, the very generality of
the language, and the absoluteness of the statement that all or
every Scripture is inspired of God, seem manifestly and pur-
posely to exclude every such idea. It declares without any
Umitation, qualification, or hesitation that all or every Scripture
— that the Scriptures as a whole — is inspired of God. Therefore,
there is no Scripture that is not inspired, and none more and
none less than inspired of God. This gives no countenance to,
and leaves no room for, the baseless idea that Divine inspiration
meant one thing in some parts and another in others. But
while the theory of kinds and degrees of inspiration is destitute
of support from this or any explicit passage of Scripture, and is
opposed to the natural teaching of this and many passages ; and
while its advocates avowedly base it upon certain suppositions
of their own imagination, as to what it would be necessary for
38o THE BIBLE CLAIM AND BROOF
God to do in producing His word, it is nevertheless important
to observe that the earlier supporters of this theory admit that
every Scripture is inspired by God, and that the Divine inspira-
tion in every case secures complete truthfulness and excludes
erroneousness, as may be seen from the works of Dr. Pye Smith
and Dr. Henderson on Inspiration. Thus their very least degree
of inspiration secured reliability in everything written in God's
word, and made erroneousness or error inconsistent with their
ideas of inspiration. By this they are radically distinguished
from all those who assert the erroneousness or errancy of
Scripture.
By this passage, and others, these last are irresistibly driven
into one or other of these untenable and anti-scriptural positions.
First, that all or every Scripture is not inspired of God, —
which is a full and direct contradiction of the teaching of Scrip-
ture in this and other passages ; and is therefore a denial of the
truth and independent authority of Scripture on this or any sub-
ject ; and logically requires all who hold this to abandon and deny
the supernatural origin, Divine authority, and real veracity of Holy
Scripture even in fundamental religious questions. Or, second,
that the Divine inspiration of every part and passage of Scripture
is quite consistent with an indefinite number of errors, misrepre-
sentations, and false teachings, and provides no security against
them, — which is a manifest contradiction of the general tenor of
Scripture teaching, and is in full and direct opposition to the
explicit statement of this passage, and the obvious meaning
of the specific word here used to express Divine inspiration,
^eoTTvcuo-Tos. This leads to consideration of its meaning.
5. The Meaning of ^eoVfevo-ros.
The word means literally God-hrcathed, or Divinely-breathed,
being a compound of ©cos, God, Tn/euo-rds, breathed — the verbal
adjective from Trvew, to breathe. It has been said that the verbal
might be taken actively as well as passively, meaning "God-
breathing " — denoting that the Scriptures are filled with God and
breathing of Him, the Written Word manifesting God as the
Incarnate Word did the Father, or, as the poet of the seasons
conceives Nature is pervaded by God, and all its varying seasons
but various manifestations of Him.
DIVINE ORIGIN AND PRODUCTION 38 1
"These as they change, Ahiiighty Father! these,
Are but the varied God.
The rolling year is full of Thee."
Now while this is true of Scripture it is not the truth taught
here, and is not the meaning of the word. Winer says, " That
the word is to be taken in a passive sense here can admit of no
doubt." ^ It is also supported by the analogy of such compound
words. It only properly suits the context. It alone truly
answers the apostle's object in making the statement. Scripture
is able to make wise unto salvation, and is useful because it is
God-breathed. It is God-breathing because it is God-breathed.
It breathes ivith God because it was breathed hy God. This is
the etymological, literal, and accepted meaning of the word,
and no other has been seriously contended for as the proper
meaning here. But what precisely does this mean and imply ?
This may be difficult fully and definitely to determine, or
adequately to express ; because it brings us into that mysterious
region where the Divine and the human, the infinite and the
finite, the Spirit of God and the spirit of man co-operate. But
these truths seem clearly and necessarily included in the very
pregnant, remarkably explicit expression God-breathed.
6. (l) IT IMPLIES DIVINE ORIGIN.
First. That the Scriptures are of Divine origin, that they
owe their existence to God's breathing, sprang from the inspira-
tion of God's Spirit. That this is implied in the expression is
admitted by all who recognise that ^eoTrvcua-ros is here predicated
of the Holy Scripture either expressly or by implication.
(2) DIVINE PRODUCTION.
Secofid. That the Scriptures are of Divine production, and
were produced by God's breathing through human instruments,
as really as man's words are produced by him through his organs
of expression ; and the Scriptures are as truly the product of
God's Spirit as man's books are his product. That the means
or instruments of production are different does not alter the
fact that they are equally the product of their authors. God-
^ Winer's Gratnniar of N.T. Greek.
382 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
breathed cannot mean less than Divinely produced. This is
not an inference from the expression, it is the manifest mean-
ing of the expression itself, and what is necessarily imphed
therein.
That this is implied in it is also confirmed by the use of
equivalent, we might say identical, expressions in other parts of
Scripture. In Ps 33'^ it is said, "By the word of God were
the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of
His mouth'''' (tw Trvev/xart rov (rr6\xa.T0<i, Sept.; Heb. H^"!?), — this
last expression being equivalent to of like import with OeoTrvevcr-
Tos. And as Creation is the product of God's breathing, so
must Scripture be when the same or an equivalent expression is
used of it. No theist questions that Creation is produced by
God; and since cognate or equivalent expressions are used of
Scripture, it must also be regarded as a Divine product. Indeed,
if anything, the advantage in the form of the expression is with
Scripture. For of Creation it is simply said that it is by the
breath or breathing of His mouth, as the instrument or agent.
Whereas of Scripture it is said to be God-breathed, as the effect
or product. In the case of Creation this God-breathing is put
forward as the vieans of production. In the case of Scripture
God-breathed is given as the character of the product, as an
attribute of the object — both the agent and the product being
represented as Divine. So that if Creation is from this regarded
as a Divine product, Scripture a fortiori must be so also. In
Gen. 2^ it is said, " God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath (i^P^'^, Heb.; ttt/o?/,
Sept.) of life, and man became a living soul." Here the creation
of man, especially the creation of his soul, is attributed to God :
so that man is wholly the creation of God. What is peculiarly
important here is that the creation of man's spirit, and the com-
munication of life to man, which constituted him a living soul,
are ascribed to God's breathing — Divine inspiration. That by
which he was made, or constituted a living being, was God's
breathing ; and that which was communicated by God in the
production of man is called the breath of life. Thus man like
Scripture is God-breathed, — the very thing breathed by which
man was constituted — the breath of life — being in the Septuagint
expressed by the noun from the verb used in the N.T. to express
DIVINE RESPONSIBILITY 383
the inspiration of Scripture.^ Therefore if man, especially man's
life and spiritual being, is the product of God because God-
breathed, as all admit, Scripture must be so also.
Yea, the Scriptures are thus set forth more directly and
expressly ; inasmuch as they themselves are said to be God-
breathed, while of man's body it is only said that God formed it
of the dust of the ground, and of man's spirit that God breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and consequently man became
a living soul. In the one case the product is declared to be God-
breathed, in the other the production is said to be of God. The
one emphasises the effect of being God-breathed ; the other em-
phasises the cause as God's breathing. Similarly Job 33* and 23^,
" There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty
giveth them understanding. The Spirit of God hath made me,
and the breath (inspiration, ttvoi)) of the Almighty hath given me
life." Here the creation of man, the production of his under-
standing, life and being, are expressly and repeatedly ascribed to
God ; and that, too, in the Septuagint, by the very word used to
express the Divine inspiration of Scripture — the advantage in
explicitness in these cases, as in the other, still lying with Scrip-
ture. Therefore, if it is believed that man is a Divine product,
so a fortiori it must be held that Scripture is also. This appears
all the more manifest when it is remembered that irvo-q is predi-
cated, as has been often emphasised, not of the writers but of the
writings — not of the human instruments, but of the written docu-
ments— not of the process of production, but of the resultant
product — not of the state of mind of the persons employed to
write, but of the character of the writings themselves.
(3) DIVINE RESPONSIBILTY FOR ALL SCRIPTURE.
A third idea contained in ^eoTrvevo-ros is Divine responsibility
for all the contents of Scripture. All or every Scripture having
been inspired by God, and it being all declared to be as written
God-breathed, it necessarily follows that God is responsible for
all that is written, even as a man is responsible for what by his
breathing he utters — for all that is expressed by him. And this
manifestly holds to all absolutely. Not merely to some kinds of
^ Cf. Jos. c. Ap. i. 2 [at '^pa.<paX\ tuv (ppo^-qrwu Kara tt)v ewiirvoLav tt]v
dwo Tov Qeov ixaObvTiov.
384 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
things, but to everything ; not simply to the substance of Scrip-
ture, but also to the expression ; not only to the ideas alone, but
to their embodiment ; not only to the moral and religious teach-
ing, but to the whole teaching of Scripture. For OeoTrveva-ros is
predicated of the writings as a whole, of each individually, of
what is written and as it is written. It is the writings as written
documents, — the words conveying the thoughts, the expression
embodying the substance, — that are said to be God-breathed.
Consequently, for every part and particle, for every word and item,
for every jot and tittle of it, God is responsible, as an author is
for everything in his writings. Besides, as we have often shown,
it is manifestly absurd to speak of the thoughts or substance as
inspired but not the words or expression, because the thoughts
are embodied in the words ^the expression conveys the truth ; and
we know nothing of the one except through the other, and as set
forth by the other. Consequently, if the words or expression are
not inspired, the thoughts or substance cannot be. If the one is
not trustworthy, neither can the other be. But what this passage
declares is that the writings — the ideas as expressed in the words —
are God-breathed, and therefore necessarily true, obviously Divine,
— God being responsible for every thing and expression therein.
Nor is this at all affected by the fact that He employed the
instrumentality of men in producing the Scriptures ; because He
Himself chose His agents, — doubtless those best fitted to write
as He wished ; and these Divinely-selected men spake and wrote
as they were moved — borne along {(ftepofxevoi) ^ by the Holy
Ghost. So that what they said He is represented as saying ;
and what they wrote under this influence is said to be God-
breathed. All this surely declares that, whatever part or place
man or man's agency had in the production of Scripture, the
Infinite Spirit of God so operated on the finite spirit of man as
to secure that the product in the written book should be in
simple fact, as it is expressly called the Word of God, — as really
as the word of man is his word, — for every part and particle of
which God is as responsible as man is for his, because God-
breathed. Human agency does not, therefore, alter or affect
the three great facts necessarily implied, or included in this
^eoVi'cuo-Tos — God-breathed — which is predicated of all Scrip-
ture -.—firsts Divine origin ; second. Divine production ; third,
1 2 Pet. 1 19. -JO.
DIVINE TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUSTWORTHINESS 385
Divine responsibility. This makes God the author, producer,
and sponsor of every Scripture and of everything therein.
(4) DIVINE TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUSTWORTHINESS.
Having shown this, it need scarcely be said that Oeowveva-To?
includes and predicates the Divine truthfulness and trustworthi-
ness of Scripture, for that is practically equivalent to saying the
same things in another way, or expressing in a definite form
the practical result and main design of the others. Indeed the
pregnant expression ^eoVi/eucrTOi appears on the very face of it, and
in its very nature necessarily to imply this. What is God-breathed
must be Divine, and what is Divine must be true and trustworthy.
So manifest and necessary has this been felt to be that the usual
way of limiting the truth and reliability of Scripture has been to
limit the inspiration, not by denying that what was inspired was
true and trustworthy, but by restricting the inspiration to certain
parts and things in Scripture and excluding it from others. We
have already shown that Divine inspiration is predicated of all
Scripture ; and, therefore, these must be predicated of it also,
even on the principle admitted by those who seek to limit it.
In confirmation of the felt and manifest truth of the position
that all that is thus inspired is trustworthy, it is important to note
that even those who first invented the figment of degrees of
inspiration teach that all Scripture is truthful, because all
inspired. Even their least degree of inspiration was held to
secure this, so strong and universal is the conviction of the
coextensiveness of Divine inspiration with truthfulness. And
when this, which is evidently implied on the very face of the
expression ^eoTn/eroro?, is combined with the other facts also
included in it, — viz. that the Scriptures were, as God-breathed, of
Divine origin, and a Divine product for which He was respon-
sible,— the Divine truthfulness and trustworthiness of all Scripture
stands out with clearness and decisiveness from this prime
passage in this unique expression.
(5) DIVINE AUTHORITY.
Besides infallible truth, Divine authority is implied in Oeuir-
veva-TO';. It does surely seem obvious that what is given by
25
386 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
Divine inspiration and is a Divine production, for all of which
God is responsible, should possess and carry Divine authority.
The Divine fulness of this pregnant expression is not adequately
set forth or exhausted without this idea also, so that Divine
authority appears a necessary constituent element of it as well as
truthfulness ; for surely what God breathes and produces by His
breathing and embodies by His Spirit's inspiration must not only
be truth, but also carry and possess Divine authority. Besides,
God's purpose in giving Scripture by inspiration was that it
might convey a true, trustworthy, and authoritative revelation
of His will in the form in which He wished it to be expressed.
And since this was the supreme end of the Divine inspiration of
the Bible, the ^eoTrvei^o-ros must imply and include Divine author-
ity. Therefore the expression "All Scripture is given by in-
spiration of God," is equivalent to "All Scripture is the Word
of God, — true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority."
But in maintaining this it is necessary not to mistake or
exaggerate what is meant by Divine authority when predicated
of Holy Scripture. It is important to set forth as precisely as
may be what specifically is included therein. And it is vital to
a thorough defence of the true position, and a proper settlement
of the question, to distinguish between what is essential and
what is not, in the matter, — to discriminate between what is
necessary to be maintained and what, though perhaps true or
probable or admissible, is not indispensable to the complete
defence of the main position. On no part of this question have
the opponents of the Bible claim manifested greater confusion
of thought than here. From no point of attack has greater
prejudice been created among the uninstructed against the
reception or even consideration of the truth, than- by the mis-
understanding or misrepresentation of the Divine authority
claimed for Scripture. How frequently have objections to its
Divine authority been raised by such confused and absurd
interrogations as the following !
Were the words of Satan to Eve in Eden, or to Christ in the
wilderness, inspired ? Were the utterances of his friends to Job
right, or the injunction of Abraham to Sarah to say she was
his sister ? Were the words and acts of Jacob to deceive Isaac,
or the directions of David to secure the death of Uriah, author-
ised of God? Or were the Ues of the false prophets who
DIVINE AUTHORITY 387
opposed Jeremiah, and misled Ahab to his ruin given or
approved of God? Were the blasphemies of evil men, such
as Sennacherib, or the rebukes and denials of Peter, or the
fabrications of the Pharisees, or the cries of the Jews against
Christ, given by inspiration of God, or do they carry Divine
authority? It is astounding to have such questions asked by
sane and would-be superior men. Most certainly not one of
these was right, and therefore not one of them or any such can
be approved by God ; and, consequently, not one of them
possesses Divine authority in the sense of Divine sanction, as
Scripture itself in the particular places, or by its pervading tone
abundantly shows. But most certainly the record of every one
of them was inspired by God. They are all in Scripture by
God's authority, through His inspiration, though the actions
themselves were not sanctioned but condemned by Him, and
were recorded as they are in order to be condemned. They
also all in some way or other reveal the Divine will, expose sin,
and aid in man's salvation, else they would not be there. And
so far as, and in the way in which they do so, they all carry
Divine sanction ; and are therefore in His Word by His authority,
and are recorded there through His inspiration in the way He
wished, so as best to secure His gracious purpose. They thus
form an important part of His Revelation, and have all been
recorded in His Word as He wished, by His authority and
through His inspiration. Therefore, all the Scriptures and all
such things in Scripture, are Divinely inspired ; and are, therefore,
truly profitable, and carry Divine authority as originally given,
when properly interpreted in the sense in which God intended,
and for the purpose that He contemplated. They are, therefore,
"all profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc-
tion in righteousness."
So that Divine origin, Divine truthfulness. Divine trustworthi-
ness, and Divine authority and responsibility are all clearly and
necessarily taught and predicated of all Scripture as the simple
and inevitable meaning of the words with connections in this
great, classical, and decisive passage and revelation of God's
Word, which explicitly and professedly treats of and declares
God's mind on this primary and fundamental religious question,
and is the root, basis, and necessary postulate of all the other
teaching, statements, and revelations of Holy Writ. This is
388 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
and should be decisive and final to all who recognise the
authority of God, and of the teaching of God's Spirit speaking in
God's Word, and the Divine mission of Paul, and of God's Son.
For He, as seen, not only Himself ever spoke of, and used God's
Word in this way, but by a special revelation of Himself called
Paul to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and specially fitted him
for his Divine w^ork by that supernatural inspiration of the Holy
Ghost which He promised to give to His apostles to lead them
into all truth, and to enable them to declare in speech and
writing His mind and will as He wished. So that what they
said or wrote in His name He said and wrote by the Spirit of
their Father speaking in and through them, thus making, in the
most real, strictest sense, all Scripture God's Word. This state-
ment thus, because an express Divine utterance and revelation
on this root doctrine, is and should be decisive, and a final settle-
ment of the question. Therefore we have treated this great
cardinal passage fully, and in the light of it the other proof will
be the better understood and the more thoroughly appreciated
though more briefly given ; and in the light of the other its
significance and force will be the more felt and appreciated.
Note. — Of this great passage Principal Cunningham says : " It was the
Scripture, and not the contents or substance of it, not the truths or senti-
ments conveyed by it, or the facts narrated, but the Scripture that was
divinely inspired ; and what distinct meaning can we attach to this statement,
unless we admit that the Scripture, as it stands, composed wholly of words,
the words which make it up, is to be traced to the agency or operation of
the Holy Spirit ? . . . The natural, obvious, and unstrained meaning of the
apostle's assertion then is, that the Scripture, as it has been given to men,
composed wholly of words, was communicated by God, and is to be traced
to Him as its author ; and as it has been communicated to us through the
instrumentality of men who committed it to writing, the inference seems, and
unless some strong positive arguments can be adduced on the other side, is,
irresistible, that He guided them in the composition of it, and was the real
cause and author of what they wrote, and of what has been transmitted to us
under their names. It is not an inference from this position, it is the very
position itself expressed in different words." — Lectures, pp. 361, 362. Of
course, there are other passages teaching that the Spirit gave the si,ibstance or
the revelations also in the spoken as well as the written Word (2 Pet. i-o- -i
etc. ). But what is here specifically predicated is, not of the writers, but of the
writings, as written.
CHAPTER III.
THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC SCRIPTURE
PROOF.
After this great, classical, standard passage, which more
directly, explicitly, and completely than any other single passage
treats of Scripture as a whole, and declares most clearly, fully,
and professedly the Bible doctrine of Holy Scripture — the teach-
ing of God's Word as to itself, — the teaching of our Lord Himself
upon it would have now been naturally adduced in the general
proof of the Bible claim. But as this has already been given in
Book I. with considerable fulness, it must, to save repetition,
be understood to be taken in here. And as the claim and
testimony of both the apostles and prophets were there also
partially introduced, the less is needed now. Further references
to His teaching on it will be made chiefly at the close, to give
His Divine support and seal to the claim made for Scripture by
the prophets of the O.T. and the apostles of the N.T, ; so that
our faith may be " built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone," that
in all things, and specially in this fundamental truth. He may
have the pre-eminence ; so that our faith and hope may stand,
not on the wisdom of man but on the wisdom and the Word
of God.
I. The Old Testament Claim.
In summarising and completing the general proof of the
Bible claim, the O.T. claim and proof naturally come first.
As, however, these are best shown from the N.T. standpoint,
and have been given largely before, in our Lord's teaching and
otherwise, let the following summary outline suffice. The O.T.
writers and writings claim that the Bible is the Word of God, —
390 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
true, trustworthy, and of Divine origin and authority. They
preface their messages with the specific and significant "Thus
saith the Lord," and its equivalents, which proclaims on its face
that it is not their own but God's words they utter, — the form
as well as the substance, being declared to be God's by the
" Thus saith the Lord." The O.T. books and writers speak in
the name of the Lord ; and all are pervaded by a tone of
Divine authority, breathe with an air of eternity, and speak
to the soul with a voice of God that make such a profound
impression of the Divine presence, as no other book approaches
to, and leave on earnest minds an abiding conviction that God
is its author.
PERENNIAL PHRASES: "THUS SAITH THE LORD,"
AND EQUIVALENTS.
The frequent phrases, " the word of the Lord came to," " the
mouth of the Lord hath spoken it," "the hand of the Lord was
upon me," " Hear the word of the Lord," and the like, with
which the prophets open and close their writings, and frequently
their separate prophecies, are the most decisive conceivable ways
in which they could express and emphasise the truth that what
they spoke and wrote in His name, at His command, and by
His inspiration, were not their words but His; and they seem to
be purposely put so frequently and so variously to preclude the
possibility of any other idea. To show the truth and Divine
persistency of God's words given through the prophets, God said
to Jeremiah (36^''), "Take thee again another roll, and write in
it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim
hath burned."
To emphasise the fact stated by Peter that prophecy came
not of old time by the will of man, but "holy men of God spake
as they were moved (^cpo/xevoi, borne along as a ship before the
wind) by the Holy Ghost (i Pet. i^o), the prophets often refer
to the Divine pressure under which they were irresistibly
constrained to utter their prophecies ; as, for example. Am. 3",
"the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?"; Jer.
2o^-^, "His words were in mine heart as a burning fire shut \x\)
in my bones, and I could not stay." " The Lord hath spoken,
who can but hear?" So Paul, "Woe's me if I preach not the
HUMAN AND DIVINE TESTIMONY COMBINED 391
Gospel," I Cor. 9I''. So Christ, " Immediately the spirit driveth
— (impelleth) Him (as by a mighty constraining impulse), into the
wilderness " to be tempted of the devil ; where by the words of
Scripture, the sword of the Spirit, He vanquished Satan.
The testimony comes both from the side of the prophets and
of their God. Jeremiah says (30*), " These are the words which
the Lord spake concerning Israel and Judah." Isaiah, in his
opening words giving " the vision that he saw," exclaims, afire
with Divine inspiration, "Hear, O heavens, for the Lord hath
spoken." Ezekiel says, " The word of the Lord came expressly
to Ezekiel" (1=^). The Lord handing him a roll, said, "Eat this
roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel with My words "
(Ezek. 3^-^), these teaching by most expressive figure that the teach-
ing both written and spoken was God's and man's — God-given,
man assimilated and expressed. David says, " The Spirit of the
Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue. The God
of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me" (2 Sam. 232-3).
A most expressive and decisive passage this ; in which these " last
words of David" — three times said to be his words in v.^ are
in V.2 twice said to be what " the Spirit of the Lord spake by
me, and His word was in (upon, R.V.) my tongue " — a most vivid
and express way of identifying David's words with the Spirit's
words ; and in v.^ they are twice said to be what God said. So
the other O.T. writers often speak. And they all, as above,
present their words as Divine utterances, and attribute them to
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Jeremiah, "The Spirit of
the Lord fell on me, and said to me " ; just as the N.T. writers
represent what the O.T. says as "What the Holy Ghost said" ; —
even when in the O.T. the words are given as the human author's,
and vice versa^ — the names of the Divine and the human authors
being frequently interchanged, because they co-operate and are
identified in the expression of God's Word.
As the inspired writers give the testimony from the human
side, so God gives it from the Divine side. To Moses the Lord
said, " I shall be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt
say " (Ex. 4^-). To Jeremiah, " The Lord put forth His hand and
touched my mouth, and said unto me. Behold I have put My
words in thy mouth " (Jer. i^). " Behold, I will make My words
in thy mouth fire, and this people wood" (Jer. ^^^). To Isaiah
1 Sec l)cln\v.
392 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
He says, " My words which I have put in thy mouth shall not
depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, saith
the Lord, from henceforth and for ever" (Isa. 59-^). Stating the
general rule of Divine procedure in Revelation, God says, " If
there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will speak to him "
(Num. 1 2"). And of the prophets as a whole, God says, " I have
also spoken by the prophets" (Hos. 1210)^ — just as in Heb. i^
" God, who in times past spoke unto the fathers by the prophets,
hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son " ; — God as
truly and to the same effect speaking through them as by Him.
The command to write and preserve sacredly in order to
keep inviolable the words of God for the instruction of all Israel,
and the frequent solemn charges given to the leaders and kings,
rulers and judges, priests and people, to read, teach, and meditate
on them, for the prosperity and salvation of themselves and their
children, show how Divinely true, sacred, and authoritative were
all the words that God had given through His inspired servants.
To Moses the Lord gave a most solemn charge, "Write thou
these words," — a command oft repeated as the successive portions
were given, and as Revelation entered on a new, higher, more
important and permanent stage (Ex. 34-"). When the king
ascended the throne, "he shall write him a copy of this law in a
book out of that which is before the priests" (Deut. 17^*). To
Joshua the Lord said at his entrance on leadership, " This book
shall not depart out of thy mouth ... for then shalt thou make
thy way prosperous" (Josh. i^). So at the close of his life
"Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God," thus
adding a new portion to the portion of God's Word already
written. So Samuel "told the people the manner of the kingdom,
and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord "
(i Sam. io25). And so on, more or less, through all the
prophets and O.T. writers. To Isaiah the Lord said, " Now go,
write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it
may be for the time to come for ever and ever" (Isa. 30^,
Hab. 2-). To Jeremiah, "Take thee a roll and write therein
all the words that I have spoken to thee" (Jer. 36^ 30'-).
Jeremiah said to Baruch, " Go thou, and read in the roll which
thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the Lord, in the
ears of the people " (Jer. 36'^), — the written words of Jeremiah
being the words of the Lord, because the prophet is the mouth
THE DIVINE DEFINITION OF A TROPHET 393
of the Lord. And to show that the written word of God is the
same in character with the spoken word, though assimilated by
man, and becomes thus both the Word of God and of man,
Ezekiel is caused "to eat this roll that I give thee," and to
go "speak with My words" to Israel. By these books Daniel
seems to have learned the approaching end of the Captivity (Dan.
92), Accordingly Zechariah at the close of O.T. prophecy says,
"The words which the Lord of Hosts sent by the former
prophets " (Zech. 7^^^ ; by which the books and words of all the
prophets are, as it were, resealed, and declared to be the Word
of the Lord. So that the Divine and the human testimony are
one m this.
THE DIVINE DEFINITION OF A PROPHET.
Perhaps the most explicit, comprehensive, and decisive proof
that the prophets' words are God's words, is God's definition
of a prophet. As has been often urged, the prevalent concep-
tion of prophets or cognate agents, even in heathenism, was that
they were the organs of the god, and were in fact so possessed
by the god that their own consciousness and individuality were
supposed to be suppressed or suspended in the divine phrenzy
that gave birth to the oracles.^ And although this latter idea
is precluded from the prophets of the Lord, and is a significant
contrast to their vivified mental state and spiritual exaltation in
prophesying, in which all their faculties were in full and highest
spiritual exercise, yet the main root-idea is the same in both, —
that the fruits of Divine inspiration are the oracles of the God,
and that the words of the utterances are the words of the God.
Certainly at least the prophets of Israel are the organs of
God, and their God-given words are "the oracles of God."
Most clearly and unquestionably has God declared this in His
definition, as given to Moses, "And thou shalt speak unto
Aaron, and put words in his mouth : and I will be with thy
mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall
say. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people : and we
1 The Greeks designated these 0eo(p6pos (those who bore the God within
them) ; and luOeos (those in whom the God dwelt). In the Septuagint the
word TrvevfiaTO(f>opos is used in this sense. See Dr. Hodge, Systematic
Theology, p. 158.
394 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him
instead of, God " (Ex. 4^^- ^'"'). " i\.nd the Lord said unto
Moses, See, I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh ; and Aaron
thy brother shall be thy prophet" (Ex. 7^). It is impossible to
conceive of words more explicit and decisive than these to prove
the Divine origin, truth, and authority of the O.T., — or at least
of all written by prophets — which is the great bulk of it ; for
Moses, David, and other writers of Scripture were prophets, and
psalmists were often prophets, and uttered glorious, far-reaching
prophecies. In short, prophets were the organs or mouthpieces
of God, and they wrote the Scriptures.
And what is said of all written by the prophets is true equally
of the Law and the other O.T. writings. For Christ Himself
tells us that " all the Law and the Prophets (the familiar title
for the whole O.^^ prophesied until John" (Matt, n^^), as they
certainly did, for they all prefigured or testified of Him (John
5"'*^) ; so that according to Christ the whole O.T. was God's
Word. Besides the Law, the other great division of the O.T.,
was not only given by Moses, who was a prophet, the first and
the greatest of the prophets, the type of the Divine prophet
(Deut. 34^'' 18^^), but it held a primary and fundamental place
in Revelation as the root and foundation of both O.T. and
New. It ever held a unique place, and pre-eminently and
specifically expressed the will of God. Besides, it was largely
given directly by God Himself, and was specially ordered to be
written, — the fundamental part of it — the ten commandments —
being written by God's own finger. It was also guarded with
special sacredness, and the most awful curse was threatened
on all that dared to add to, or take from, or alter it in any
part or point (Deut. 4. 12^-). And Christ, as we have seen,
declared that heaven and earth would pass away ere one jot or
one tittle of it should pass away, or fail, till all should be fulfilled
(Matt. 5I8).
Further still, large parts of the O.T., as of the New, are given
as the words actually spoken by the Lord Himself, very much
larger portions than are usually thought, as may be seen by
going over the Bible with this view. Nor is there a single hint
in Scripture to suggest that the other parts are not of equal
truth and authority ; as indeed there could not be without
contradiction of other and the fundamental parts of God's very
PROPHETS PONDERING THEIR PROPHECIES 395
words, — which would be self-contradiction, and would necessarily
discredit and destroy all.
THE PROPHETS DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THEIR
PROPHECIES.
If anything could give additional confirmation of the Bible
claim to be the Word of God, — true, trustworthy, and of Divine
authority, — it is supplied by the fact stated in O.T. and New that
the writers of Scripture often did not understand the meaning or
full scope of what they said or wrote by God's direction and
inspiration. Peter expressly states the recognised fact, " Of
which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched dili-
gently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you :
searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ
which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" (i Pet. i^"- ^^).
This clearly declares that there was much in what the prophets
said and wrote that they did not understand ; and, therefore,
they had to inquire and search diligently to try to ascertain the
meaning and scope of their own words : — than which there could
be nothing more decisive as to the necessity of supernatural
inspiration, and of Divine guidance even in the very words and
figures used. The fact from which this cogent truth follows is
well established and illustrated, among others, by the case of
Daniel in the O.T. and Peter in the N.T. In the last chapter
of Daniel (12'^) the time of the predicted events is dimly
indicated, " It shall be for a time, times, and a half." On this
the prophet says, "And I heard, but I understood not"; and
when he asked the date, the Lord answered, " Go thy way,
Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of
the end." This shows that he did not fully understand his own
prophecy, and that God had purposely concealed part of its
meaning ; and that the prophets " searched diligently " to pene-
trate the mysteries of their own prophecies. And Peter, before
he was able to apprehend the full meaning and scope of the words
uttered by Him through the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost,
namely, " The promise is unto you and to your children, afid to
all that are afar off^^ etc., had to receive a fresh revelation from
God (Acts 1 1) before he realised the full Divine intent of his own
396 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
Spirit-given words, — even the mystery that had been hid for ages,
and was only at last revealed to the apostles, — " That the Gentiles
should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of
his promise in Christ " (Eph. 3^). So that supernatural inspira-
tion was thus an absolute necessity in both substance and words,
if they were truly to reveal God's gracious purposes ; which,
again, in a most conclusive way shows that Scripture is supremely
the Word of God, and the prophets the organs of God.
WICKED MEN UTTERED PROPHECIES.
More decisive still, if possible, is the fact that even bad men
were used by God at times to give great and glorious revelations.
The prophecies of Balaam in the O.T. and Caiaphas in the New
well illustrate this, and prove in a unique way that a prophet's
words were God's words. Balaam uttered several of the grandest
prophecies of the Messiah, which were gloriously fulfilled in
Christ and the history of Israel. He expressly calls ^ the Lord
his "God"; and says, "he heard the words of God," "and saw
the vision of the Almighty " ; that the Lord repeatedly met him,
spoke to him, "put a word in his mouth," and charged him
twice, " Only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that shalt
thou speak." Twice he says, " If Balak would give me his house
full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord
my God, to do less or more ; and I cannot go beyond the
commandment of the Lord to do either good or bad of mine
own mind ; but what the Lord saith, that will I speak." And in
all he seven times insists and declares that he was to utter only
God's words, and felt himself under an imperative necessity,
amounting to a mental impossibility, not to do anything else, even
though he wished to say what Balak desired, in order that he
might get his reward. Such is the law of prophecy for Jehovah,
even in the case of wicked Balaam, " who reaped the wages of
unrighteousness." A Divine pressure was laid upon him which
he could not resist, even when he would ; and which held him
fast in God's hand, and constrained him to say nothing but
what the Lord said to him, and put in his mouth. So that he
was in literal fact the mouthpiece of God, and was even against
his will three times constrained to bless instead of to curse Israel.
^ Num. 22-24.
PROPHECIES BY UNRIGHTEOUS MEN 397
Similarly Caiaphas, the wicked high priest, whose garments are
for ever crimsoned with the crime of betraying and murdering
the Lord of glory, prophesied in his official capacity as high
priest "that it was expedient that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not" (John ii^'*
1 8^4). The evangelist gives the principle ruling in all prophecy
when he adds, "This spake he not of himself, but being high
priest that year he prophesied " ; and thus was by the Spirit
constrained to utter prophetically the great truth of our redemp-
tion by vicarious sacrifice. Nothing could prove more decisively
than these that prophets were the organs of God, and uttered
truly His words ; and that, therefore, the O.T., which, as we have
seen, Christ said had all a prophetic character (Matt, n^^,
John 5^9), was, and of necessity must be, the Word of God. For
those are said to utter these great prophecies, the full mean-
ing and issue of which they did not comprehend, and they
would not have uttered them save under a Divine pressure and
constraint that they could not resist : and which, from the very
nature of the case, required Divine inspiration of the very words
of their prophecies. Even of the perfect and Divine Prophet
promised by God through Moses the Lord says, " I will raise
them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,
and ivill put my ivords hi His moiith ; and He shall speak unto
them all that I shall command Him" (Deut. iS^^); as we know,
He Himself claimed, when He came, to speak the words given
Him by the Father, and that "the words which ye hear are not
Mine, but the Father's that sent Me" (John 14"'* Z-^). And this
speaking of the God-given words, of the Divine Prophet, is true of
all the prophets, and was the essential function of every propliet
speaking in the name of the Lord.
THE CHARACTER AND QUALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO SCRIPTURE.
The character and qualities, too, attributed to the Bible
imply and presuppose that it is true, trustworthy, and of Divine
authority. It is said to be "true," "perfect," "sure" and
"steadfast," "pure" and "holy," "right" and "faithful," "good"
and "enduring for ever," "quick and powerful," "sharper than
any two-edged sword," "a hammer," "a fire," etc. ; — all of which
are ascribed to the Written Word ; and connote and postulate
398 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
the trueness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of Scripture.
And when to this is added the Divine, saving effects of this
Word of the Lord in enhghtening the mind, convicting the con-
science, converting the soul, making wise the simple, breaking,
healing, rejoicing the heart, renewing and ruling the will, quicken-
ing and inspiring the spirit, purifying and transforming the whole
man, and elevating and ennobling the whole life (Ps. 19, etc.) ; —
which have been verified in the history of the race, and been so
potent in the experience of the Church, — we have the strongest ex-
perimental proof of its Divine origin, truth, and authority. Hence
the Psalmist well says, "Thy word is true from the beginning"
(Ps. 1191*5'^), or with equal force and greater completeness, as in
R.V., "The sum of Thy Word is truth," — just as our Lord says,
"Thy Word is truth" (John 17^"). So in Daniel the same Lord
says, " I will show thee that which is noted (R.V, inscribed) in
the Scripture of truth" (Dan. lo-^). Appropriately crowning
and including the whole, Isaiah appeals to God's Word as the
supreme and authoritative standard of faith and life, in the
weighty and decisive words, " To the Law and to the Testimony,
if they speak not according to this Word, there is no truth in .
them " (Isa. 8-"). Surely what God makes the standard of truth
and duty must itself be true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority,
— the Word of God. And crowning all, the Psalmist says, " Thou
hast magnified Thy word above all Thy name" (Ps. 138-).
This then is the testimony of all the prophets, and the claim
made by the O.T. for itself. A testimony that it is impossible
to deny is theirs in the light of even the very summary outline
given above. A claim that is unquestionably made ; and which
is confirmed : — First, by the remarkable fulfilment of their pro-
phecies ; second, by the beneficent moral and spiritual effects
of the Scriptures in the history of men and nations creating a
new world ; third, by the manifest and indissoluble relationship
between their prophetical and symbolical religion and the facts
and truths of the religion of Christ, — demonstrating a Divine
pre- adjustment of the type to the antitype, — of the prophecy to
the history of Christ and His Church — a Divine Revelation of
Grace. And this, as seen, is the testimony and claim that the
Lord Himself endorsed in His teaching, embodied in Himself,
and realised in His Redemption.
THE TEACHING OF PAUL 399
IT. The New Testament Claim and Testimony.
It now remains only to complete the apostolic proof, and close
with Christ's Divine Sealing of all. We shall do so by giving
the apostles' teaching separately, and then comparing and com-
bining them ; from which it will strikingly appear that they all
bear one testimony, and teach one doctrine of Holy Scripture,
though from different standpoints, in various ways, and in diverse
connections — even that the Bible is the Word of God — true,
trustworthy, and of Divine authority : — the same doctrine as is
taught by the O.T. and endorsed by Christ.
I. the teaching of PAUL AND HIS WRITINGS.
We take Paul's teaching first, as the fullest, and the com-
pletion of what he has given in his great locus classicus above ;
and his writings form the great bulk of the N.T. As that was
his last testimony, i Thess. 2^^ is his first; and as they both
teach the same doctrine, and as all between them accords with
these, it appears that from first to last, though in a great diversity
of ways, he ever teaches one identical doctrine of Scripture :
" When ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us, ye
received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the
Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe "
(i Thess. 2}^). This refers directly to the word spoken; but it
necessarily holds equally and a fortiori, as seen, of the Word
Written ; for besides the fact that the spoken word became the
Written Word, it is a patent absurdity to imagine that the word
spoken should be called the Word of God, while denying this to
the Word Written ; — especially when so much is ever made in
Scripture of what is written compared with what is merely spoken.
Whatever is predicated of the spoken word is, of course, pre-
dicable a fortiori of the word when written. And all attempts
thus to evade the force of this, or any such passages, is obvious
captiousness, lacking intellectual fairness, disclosing a bigoted
prejudice against the truth, and exhibiting an unenviable capacity
of shutting the eyes to fact and reason, ill befitting those who
vaunt supreme regard for truth, fact, and candour. This is,
however, a vain device with Paul. For he writes in i Cor. 14"'',
"The things that I zvritc unto you are the co/innandinents of the
400 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
Lord.'''' And in 2 Thess. 2^^ he writes, " Tiierefore, brethren,
stand fast in the traditions which ye have been taught, whether
by word, or our Epistle,^' — thus giving at least an equal truth
and authority to his written as to his spoken words. Hence in
I Thess. 5-'' and Col. 4^^ he gives charge that his Epistles be
read in the Churches. In 2 Cor. 13^ he says, "Being absent
now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all
other, that if I come again I will not spare ; since ye seek a
proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak,
but is mighty in you." Here he claims that Christ speaks in
him ; that when he speaks for Christ, it is Christ that speaks
through Him ; and this claim is to be proved by the works of
judgment which by Christ's power he will, if need be, perform
on persistent transgressors. So in 2 Thess. 4^- ^ he writes, " Ye '
know what commandments we gave you by the Lord. He
therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath
also given unto us His Holy Spirit " ; — ^just Uke Christ's words
(Luke lo^*^). Hence in 2 Thess. 3^^ he says, "If any man obey
not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no
company with him " : — evidently because he was disobeying
what was a Divine message.
There is thus no getting away from the Divine truth and
authority of Paul and his writings. " All Scripture " he, by the
Spirit, declares to be God's Word (^eoVveuo-ros) ; his own words,
whether written or spoken, are "in truth the Word of God," and
"the commandments of the Lord," — "Christ speaking in and
through him." This claim is proved by the miracles of mercy
and of judgment God wrought by him in attestation of his
Divine mission and teaching ; and by the no less miraculous
moral and spiritual effects of the effectual working of his
(because God's) words in the hearts, characters, and lives of men,
through the power of the Spirit's sealing.
The Oracles of God. Great Truths proved by si?igle Words.
The Words of the Spirit.
Like Stephen, too, he calls the Scriptures "the oracles of
God " ; — a most expressive and significant title, which, according
to both Jewish and Gentile usage and idea meant that they were
the utterances of God, — the human agents through whom they
THE BIBLE EXPRESSION SBIRIT-GIVEN 401
were given being simply the organs of the Divine communica-
tions. And lest it should be supposed that, contrary to all
Hebrew and heathen meaning of oracles, this meant merely some
vague sort of general spiritual influence exerted on the m.inds of
the human agents by which a certain Divine element was imparted
to their writings, which readers must find for themselves amid
the mass of other things, by some peculiar spiritual intuition and
some mysterious process of personal elimination — as so many
moderns evaporate Divine inspiration by — he expressly attributes
both the substance and the expression, the words as well as the
thought, to the Holy Spirit. Speaking of " the things that are
freely given to us of God " — " the things of the Spirit given
to him by revelation " — he says, " Which things we speak, not
in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy
Ghost teacheth ; combining spiritual words with spiritual things "
(i Cor. 2i-'-i'^):i — the things revealed and the words by which
they are expressed and embodied being equally ascribed to the
Spirit. Just as in Acts and Hebrews we read "what the Holy
saith" ; and in Rev. 2. 3 our Lord says His words are "what the
Spirit saith." This leaves us free, and bound to use all means to
find out as correctly as may be what they were, and to ascertain
precisely what they mean, by the aid of the same Spirit that
inspired them, enabling us to know and understand them. But
it does not leave us free — nay, it forbids us — to alter them, or
correct them or to select some and reject others, or to force
our own interpretations upon them ; — and it is at our peril if we
dare to do so in a single iota (Rev. 22!^- ^^, Gal. i^).
So clear and decisive is Paul on this that, like our Lord
proving a great truth (His own Divinity) by a single word of
Scripture, because of its absolute inviolability (John 10^^), he
proves the Messiahship of Christ by the difference between the
singular and the plural forms of one word : — " He saith not, And
to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
Christ " (Gal. 3!'^). This specific application of these words to
Christ, as well as the fact that this was designed by God in the
use of the singular instead of the plural, "seed," and not
"seeds," was, doubtless, unknown to the O.T. writer; and,
therefore, Divine inspiration must have secured the selection
of the specific form of the word, which is the point and basis of
^ TTvev/xaTiKoi? TTvevjxaTLKo, avyKplvovTes. — Afford, Fawcett, etc.
26
402 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
Paul's reasoning ; and only of what was God's Word could Paul
make such use or have such confidence. Hence he says of the
Gospel of which he was writing, to them " If any man preach
any other gospel than that ye have received (' my gospel '),
let him be accursed" (Gal. i^-^): — words which could not have
been used save of the Word of God. So he says, " I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation
of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i^^^^ j^ Eph. s^-^ he claims that Christ
made known to him the mystery, not made known before, that
the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, "as it is now revealed unto
His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit " ; where again
revelation and Scripture are God-given by the Spirit through
His inspired organs.
As he attributes his own writings to the Holy Spirit, so he
does the O.T. : "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah" (Acts
28-'') ; and teaches that his own gospel is the same as in the
O.T., — "the Scriptures of the prophets" (Rom. i- i625- 26^ Eph.
2"*') ; and thereby teaches the unity of all Scripture. Like
Christ he declares that the whole Law is summed up in one
word, " Thou shalt love," etc. (Gal. 5^^) ; and thus, with Christ,
proclaims its divinity and perpetuity — love being eternal and
Divine — " God t's love." He also was in the habit (Acts 17-- ^
18"^) of proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ;
and thus taught the truth and Divine authority of Scripture;
and showed that to him, as to Christ, Scripture was the rule of
faith and judge of controversies. In Rom. 15^, as in 2 Tim. 3^'',
he proclaims the perennial fruitfulness and perpetuity of the
O.T. : " Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written
for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the
Scriptures might have hope." Further, he puts the N.T. on a
level as God's Word with the O.T. : " For the Scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And
the labourer is worthy of his hire" (i Tim. 5^^), — putting a text
from Luke (10") on a level as Scripture with one from Deut.
(25^). Hence he says that the Church is "built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Him-
self being the chief corner-stone " (Eph. 2-0). Here he teaches,
firsf, that the teaching of the prophets and apostles, and of their
Lord, is one and the same, — confuting many modern errors ;
second^ that the O. and N.T. are the Divine standard of faith
SCRIPTURE IDENTIFIED WITH GOD 403
and life, and that, therefore, they must be true, trustworthy, and
of Divine authority.
He also enlarges upon the powers and effects of the Word of
God. It is "the word of truth" (Eph. i^^, 2 Tim. 2^^), of life
(Phil. 2i<5), of salvation (Acts ly'^); the "faithful Word" (Tit.
i^), which "worketh effectually" in believers (i Thess. 2^^),
and "bringeth forth fruit" (Col. i^- ^) ; and by which men are
quickened and renewed, justified and sanctified, purified and
perfected, strengthened and comforted, guided and succoured,
illuminated and transformed, and grow and develop into the
statues of perfect men in Christ ;— all which powers and effects
prove its truth and Divine authority.
T/ie Word of God the Sword of the Spirit.
And he calls it the Sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6I") ; a figure
which implies sharpness and trueness, reliability and solidarity,
irrefragableness and inviolability ; and which requires, as its very
idea, to be free of flaw and blemish, and of everything that would
mar its point, or impair its edge ; and to possess everything that
would make it a sharp, keen, piercing, and unyielding weapon in
the Spirit's hand ; — even as in Hebrews " the word of God is
said to be quick and powerful, and sharper than a two-edged
sword piercing even to the dividing asunder- of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intent of the heart." These penetrative words
and striking figure utterly preclude every theory of indefinite
erroneousness, and demand as their essential idea the trueness
and trustworthiness, irrefragableness and Divine authority of
Holy Writ with the utmost sharpness and precision.
Paul, liJ^e Christ, identifies Scripture and God.
Yea, so absolute is Paul on this that, like Christ, the Scrip-
ture is by him personalised and identified with God. "The
Scripture saith unto Pharaoh " (Rom. 9^^), while in Genesis it is
the Lord that actually utters the words. So also in Rom. 4^
lo^i with Isa. 281*5. And in Gal. 3^ he says, "The Scripture
foreseeing." Thus personal powers and actions are ascribed to
Scripture ; because God and His Word are identified. Human
404 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
language could not surpass this in expressing the fact that the
Bible is the Word of God, true, trustworthy, and of Divine
authority. In short, from the above, and much more that might
be adduced, it is evident that to Paul all Scripture was what it
was to Christ — the Word of God : and to almost every form and
means by which our Lord has expressed this, a parallel might be
found in this chief of the apostles ; because in both cases it was
God's message they delivered by the inspiration of the same Holy
Spirit. Both often quote from it simply as Scripture, without any
name of human writer, because to both it is Divine. To both all
Scripture is the Word of God, its words are God's words, " what
the Spirit saith." "It is written" or "fulfilled" is final to them
in all questions. " Have ye not read ? " " Wot ye not what
the Scripture saith ? " is their decisive rebuke to every captious
questioner, and the end to all controversy. They both found
great truths on single words and the forms of words ; and even
dim and distant hints are made the germs and bases of vital
revelations. God and the writers of Scripture are often inter-
changed in utterances recorded ; and the Scripture and God are
identified in what is said. What Paul writes are "the com-
mandments of the Lord," just as what Christ says are the Father's
words and commandments. As the Father speaks in and
through Christ, so Christ speaks in and by Paul ; and in both it
is the Spirit of the Father speaking in them. Sometimes they
speak of all Scripture as God's Word ; sometimes of particular
parts or words of it ; but in all cases what is said in any case is
applicable to all. As Christ often says that the messages He
delivers, He received of the Father ; so Paul says that it is what
he received of Christ he delivered unto men, and that the Gospel
he preached was received not of man, but by the revelation
of Jesus Christ. As Jesus threatened judgment on any who
would dare to alter the words of Scripture, so Paul denounced a
curse on any who would dare to preach any other Gospel. As
Christ urged His disciples to continue in His words, so Paul
charged Timothy to "hold fast the form of sound words which
thou hast heard of me " (2 Tim. i^^), and calls them "wholesome
words, even the words of the Lord Jesus," and condemns any
that "think otherwise" (i Tim. 6^). As Christ charged the
Pharisees with perverting and destroying the Word of God by
their traditions, so Paul warned all against "handling it deceit-
THE TEACHING OF PETER 405
fully " or daring to " corrupt " it. I'hey attribute similar qualities
and powers to the Word, and both personalise it and personally
live by it. As Christ appeals to His miracles in proof of the truth
and Divine authority of His message, and the Divine origin and
authority of His mission, so does Paul (2 Cor. 12^-); and, like
Christ, he showed that the death and resurrection of Christ were
the fulfilment of Scripture (i Cor. is^-^, Acts it,'^). In these
and many other parallel things, the Divine Master and the
greatest of His apostles treated and regarded Scripture in pre-
cisely the same way, because inspired by the same Spirit ; and by
explicit and implicit teaching, as well as by habitual attitude and
manner of using, showed that to them the Bible was beyond
question the Divine rule of faith and life, because the Word of
God, true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority.^
2. THE TEACHING OF PETER AND HIS EPISTLES. THE HOLY GHOST
THE SUPREME AUTHOR OF SCRIPTURE.
As with Paul so with Peter, in 2 Pet. i-'^--^ he, by the
Spirit, lays down the law and first principle of prophetic inter-
pretation, origination, and inspiration, " Knowing this first, that
no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no
prophecy ever came by the will of man : but (holy) men spake
from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost" (R.V.). This is
Peter's, as it might be called the prophetic locus classiciis. It
teaches first, that every prophecy is of Divine, not of human,
origination : for although eViA-vVis (solution) does not directly
mean origin, it implies disclosure, and therefore origination by
God. Hence, second, it is said, " No prophecy ever came by the
will of man," or as Alford puts it, " springs not out of human
interpretation " or prognostication. The words of the prophecies
were not merely the words of the prophets' own choosing, but
God's words ; hence they did not sometimes understand the
meaning, or the full meaning, of their own prophecies, but, like
others, had to search diligently to find that out (i Pet. i^^), and
were dependent upon the illumination of the Spirit for it. The
interpretation of prophecy, and of Scripture generally, therefore,
^ To show that the same doctrine is taught more or less in each of his
Epistles, to the above add :— Col. i^. 10. a. 26 3IG ^w j-hii. jH. i:7 2i« 4'-',
Tit. ii- 3- 9- 13 2i- 15 38, Philem. 6.
406 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
is, like the origination, not of the private human powers, either
of the writers or the readers, but by the illumination of the
Spirit. As Gerhard well says, " The Author of Scripture is its
supreme interpreter." All this is made more emphatic by the
order of the clauses in the Greek, "Not by the will of man,"
opening the first clause, and " but by the Holy Ghost " the
second, making the contrast most striking. Hence, third, and
this is the crucial clause, "But (holy) men spake from God,
being moved by the Holy Ghost," there the well-known prophetic
phrase " Thus saith the Lord " finds its echo and equivalent in
" spake from God." And how this is done is most forcibly and
significantly expressed by " being moved (^e/so/xevos) by the Holy
Ghost " ; where the Greek is most expressive, signifying " borne
along " as a ship by a mighty wind : the same Greek as Acts 2^
"a rushing mighty wind," — in which they were rapt and carried,
as it w^ere, out of themselves, — passive in the Spirit's power, and
yet intensely conscious, and fully responsive to the Spirit's in-
spiration, and their whole powers and sensibilities raised to the
highest state of mental and spiritual exaltation. So that, like the
apostles at Pentecost, when they gave their prophecies " they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake as the Spirit gave
them utterance"; and what they said and wrote was, therefore,
" what the Holy Ghost said " — the Word of God. With this agrees
2 Pet. 3^- 2, " This second Epistle I now write unto you — : that
ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the
holy prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the
Lord." Here again the words of the writers of the O. and N.T.
are shown to be the words of the Spirit ; and the words spoken
and written by the prophets and apostles are put on a level in
truth and authority as the word of the Lord, and the rule of faith
and life.
Similarly in 2 Pet. 3^^- ^'^, " Even as our beloved brother Paul
also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto
you : as also in all his Epistles ; in which are some things hard
to be understood, which . . . the unstable wrest, as they do also the
other Scriptures. " Here what is said of the Scripture generally
above, is said specifically of Paul's Epistles — they are put on
a level with the O.T. Scriptures. Besides that they form a
large part of the N.T , this by implication places the other
N.T. writings on a level with the O.T. ; for whatever plane
PROPHETS AND APOSTLES SPOKESMEN OF GOD 407
or category they are placed in, the other inspired writings can
claim.
Showing the necessity of the words being the Spirit-given
words, he says in i Pet. i^^-i^ "Of which salvation the prophets
have inquired and searched diligently : searching what or what
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,
when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory
that should follow." For surely nothing could more clearly show
the absolute necessity of the words being inspired than the fact
here stated, that the prophets did not sometimes understand the
meaning or scope of their own prophecies, and, therefore, had to
inquire and search for it ; and consequently had the Spirit not
given them or guided them in the language, it was patently
impossible for them to have expressed truly his mind and
message in the prophecies. This is strongly confirmed by the
text before quoted, " They were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them
utterance " {aTvo^Oeyyea-Oai, dabat eloqui, Vulgate) (Acts 2'^). Not
only do the closing words declare as clearly as can be that their
utterances were Spirit-given (IlveS/xa eSiSoi;), but that they were
given because they were all filled with the Holy Ghost; and,
therefore, were also able even "to speak with other tongues."
Surely their speaking, on the Spirit's descent, in tongues they
never knew, demonstrates the imperative necessity of the very
words being given them by the Spirit ; and proves that their
messages were Divine, and their words God's words. Accord-
ingly, we find that all Peter's utterances at that time are expressly
attributed to his being filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 4^).
And Peter, by the Spirit, explains all these amazing phenomena
at Pentecost as the fulfilment of the promise of the Spirit given
by God through the prophets, and by Christ (Acts 2^^- 1^- ^•^).
He also specifically ascribes prophesying to the Spirit, " I will
pour out of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy" (Acts 2^^). He
uses, too, the O.T. figure and phraseology, representing the
prophets as the spokesmen of God " which He hath spoken by
the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began "
(Acts 3^1 ). He also declares the Divine authority of the
prophets' messages by reference to the supreme Prophet, foretold
by Moses, the type of all the prophets, " Him shall ye hear in all
things whatsoever He shall say unto you " (Acts 3--). And led
408 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
by him and John, the assembled believers " lifted up their voice to
God with one accord, and said, Lord, Thou art God, who by the
mottth of Thy servant David hast said " (Acts 4-^) ; just as David
in his last words said, " The God of Israel spake by me, His
word was in my tongue" (2 Sam. 23-).
The Power and spiritual Effects of the JVord.
Like Paul, too, Peter speaks of the power and saving effects
of God's Word, "Seeing ye have purified your souls by obeying
the truth — ; being born again, not of corruptible seed, but
incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth, and abideth for
ever — : the Word of the Lord endureth for ever" (i Pet. i^^--^).
Here, he teaches that the Word of God is living, quickening,
and regenerating ; purifying too, because it is the " word of
truth " ; abiding also and enduring for ever like Him whose
Word it is. And, like Christ, he teaches that " the seed (of the
Kingdom) is the Word of God " (Luke S^i) ; and that seed not
corruptible but incorruptible ; — not partly truth and pardy error
(which the very figure precludes), as many now say, but pure,
and therefore purifying, — living, and therefore life-giving, — true,
and therefore enduring for ever. So that here we have taught
the truth and purity, the vitality and power, the perpetuity and
divinity of God's Word. Like Paul and Christ and all the N.T.
writers, Peter also quotes the O.T. as "fulfilled," "This Scrip-
ture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by
the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas" (Acts i^^).
The prophet is here again the mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost ;
and only what was true could be fulfilled ; only what was Divine
and of Divine authority could the Holy Ghost speak.
And, finally, Peter refers to the Divine sealing, origin, and
authority of their mission and teaching, by the miraculous works
done through them by the Spirit, in attestation of the truth of
their Divine claims saying, "As I began to speak, the Holy
Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remem-
bered I the word of the Lord, how that He said — ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii^*'). Just as John says,
" When He was risen from the dead. His disciples remembered
how He had said this unto them ; and they believed the Scrip-
tures and the AVord which Jesus had said" (John 2^''--- u^^). A
THE TEACHING OF JOHN 409
charmingly simple and suggestive revelation of how the apostles
were led by the Spirit, as Christ promised, to remember His
words and to understand the Scriptures ; and showing the
necessity of the events that fulfilled His words concurring with
the Spirit's illumination to enable them to understand the words
both of Scripture and of Christ. Hence Peter said before the
Jewish council, witnessing for the resurrection, " We are the
witnesses of these things ; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom
God hath given to them that obey Him " (Acts 5^^). The Holy
Ghost, as Jesus promised (John 1$"^'"''), witnessing, first, by the
miracle of tongues and prophecy ; second, by the miracles of
healing; and third, by the not less but even more decisive
miracles in the moral and spiritual world, of the revolutionised
and divinified character and lives of men and nations as they
receive and obey the Gospel.
3. THE TEACHING OF JOHN AND HIS WRITINGS. CHRIST S
WORDS THE apostle's WORDS.
As with Paul and Peter so with John. But as we have given
his most important words on Scripture largely already in the
teaching of Jesus and otherwise, the less is needed here. It
should be noted, however, that all that is given from John and
the other Gospels as Jesus' teaching is also the teaching of the
Gospel writers. It expresses their mind as well as His ; for they
wrote it, as they have done, because they believed it and wished
to teach it. Therefore, the unity that pervades Christ's teaching,
though gathered from all the writers of the Gospels, proves, first
the unity and harmony of all the evangelists and their Gospels ; —
they have one doctrine — one Gospel — though their books are four,
and their standpoints different, and their writings diverse, — their
teaching and their testimony are one. Second, it shows that
Christ and His apostles and evangelists who write the Gospels
are one in faith, and hope, and charity. They are not only in
harmony with each other, but also with their Lord, — a patent,
significant, and potent fact ; for it refutes many prevalent errors,
proves the inspiration of the one common Holy Spirit in all, and
shows that the real Supreme Teacher in and through all that
Jesus and His inspired servants taught by lip and pen, was God
the Holy Ghost ; for there is no other such rational explanation
41 0 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
of the unique fact as this which Scripture gives. Third, it is a
hard and decisive fact, which scepticism and rationaUsm must
face, and cannot be reasonably accounted for except upon the
supposition of a supernatural revelation and inspiration, — a proof
of the Divine origin, truth, and authority of the Bible and its
relisfion.
The Sharp?iess afid Decisiveness of John's JVords.
It should also be said that John's teaching on Scripture is,
perhaps, the clearest, sharpest, strongest, and most decisive in
God's Word. The larger part of all his writings, specially in his
Gospel and the Apocalypse, are given as the actual words of
Christ ; — than which how could he more decisively show that
the Bible is the Word of God — true, trustworthy, and of Divine
authority ? — and especially when in these parts there are, as shown
above, the most unquestionable declarations and implications by
Christ to that effect. It would be difficult, if possible, to get
any utterance or fact more sharp and decisive than "the Scrip-
ture cannot be broken," not even in a single word (John lo^^) ;
or more direct and unquestionable than " Sanctify them through
Thy truth. Thy Word is truth " (ly^''),— especially when joined
with the words earlier in the same last great prayer, " For I have
given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me" (John 17^
14^°). No words could be more absolute and awful than "these
are the true sayings of God " (Rev. 19^) ; " these words are faithful
and true" (Rev. 22^) ; and " I testify unto every man that heareth
the words of the prophecy of this book, that if any man shall add
to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written
in this book : and if any man shall take away from the words of
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of
the book of life," etc. (Rev. 22^^-'^^); — words which, as shown,
apply to all Scripture, and are its solemn close and Divine seal
by the words of incarnate God. Could anything be more satis-
fying and convincing in explanation of this than the varied and
explicit promises of the Spirit of their Father to lead them into
all truth, etc., and to speak in and through them, given by Christ
to His disciples adduced above? (John 14-^ 1^26.27 j612-h Matt,
lo-"^, Mark 13"); — promises which became facts and potencies
from Pentecost onward in all they spoke and wrote for Him.
WHAT THE SPIRIT SAITH 4II
U^iaf the Spirit saith 21/ifo the Chiurhes.
Hence the whole revelations of the Apocalypse are prefaced
and explained by " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day " ; and
large parts of what forms it are by Christ expressly declared to
be, " What the Spirit saith unto the Churches " (Rev. 2. 3, etc.).
Could anything be more explicit or decisive as to the truth and
Divine authority of Scripture than that what they wrote and
spoke is said to be " what the Spirit saith." All this is strength-
ened by the facts emphasised in this connection that the Spirit is
expressly called " the Spirit of Truth " ; and that He and the
apostles are put on a level in testifying of Christ, " I will send
unto you from the Father the Spirit of Truth, — He shall testify
of Me : and ye also shall bear witness " (John 1526. 27)^ jt jg the
Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth (i John 5**).
The Spirit bearing witness by the gift of prophecy and of tongues
to the apostles, to enable them to bear true testimony, by the
miracles of healing wrought in attestation of their Divine mission
and message, and by the supernatural moral and spiritual effects
of their words upon the souls, characters, and lives of men the
world over. And the apostles bearing witness by the words of
truth and power they spoke and wrote, through the inspiration of
the Spirit, of what they knew and had revealed to them about
Christ. Hence as Christ said of Himself, " He whom God hath
sent speaketh the words of God " (John 3^^), so the apostles could
say ; for they were as truly sent by Christ as Christ was sent by
the Father (John 20-^) ; and they were as thoroughly equipped,
by the same Spirit of the Father speaking in them and through
them (Matt. lo-^), for their work as apostles as He, the Apostle
of our profession, was for His, — the same Holy Spirit as truly
inspiring both (Luke 4^^). Therefore, as Christ said, " If I say
the truth, why do ye not believe Me ? He that is of God heareth
God's words " (John 8^''), so John wrote, " He that knoweth God
heareth us " (i John 4*^) ; even as Christ said before Pilate, " Every
one that is of the truth heareth My voice" (John 18^"). And as
Christ said, "Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of
God " (John 7*"), so John writes, " He that is not of God heareth
not us" (i John 4*^). Accordingly, John sums it all in the
round statement, " Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the
spirit of error," making Scripture the standard of faith and life.
412 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND TROOF
Further, in i John 2-^ and 5^*^ he speaks of the beUever
having "an unction from the Holy One," and "a witness in
himself," by which, through the testimony of the Spirit, he knows,
verifies, and tests all things. Hence John says that he "bare
record of the Word of God" (Rev. i-) ; and in the first close of
his Gospel, " These are written that ye might believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have
life through His name" (John 20^^); and in the final close of
his Gospel, " This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things : and we know that his testini07iy is true "
(John 21-'*). And of one part of it he says, "And he that saw it
bare record, and his record is true : and he knoweth that he saith
true, that ye might believe" (John 19^^, 3 John^-). Here, like
Christ and all the other apostles, he brings in two remarkable
examples of Scripture fulfilment, " For these things were done
that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him shall not be
broken "(John 19^*^ with Ex. 12^'^, Num. 9^-, Ps. 34-°), — three
Scriptures being thus fulfilled by one true event truly recorded.
And again another Scripture saith, " They shall look on Him
whom they have pierced" (John 19^''' with Zech. 12^*^ and Ps.
2 2^*^-^'), where two other Scriptures are fulfilled by the same
event. So that the one recorded event fulfils five Scriptures,
contained in four different books, in the three familiar divisions
of the O.T., the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Conse-
quently because the apostle's writings are God's Word, " He that
believeth not God hath made Him a liar ; because he believeth
not the record that God gave of His Son " ( [ John 5^°). Surely
never was language more varied, or utterances more awful, or
connections more conclusive, than these to show the truth and
Divine authority of the Word of God.
In further and final confirmation he sets forth the blessed
effects and consequences of God's Word, and of believing it,
" Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this
prophecy ; and keep those things which are written therein "
(Rev. i^) ; "Because thou hast kept My Word, I also will keep
thee" (Rev. 3^-^°); "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth
not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
But whoso keepeth His Word, in him verily is the love of God
perfected " (i John 2^- ^) ; " Blessed are they that do His command-
ments, that they may have right to the tree of life" (Rev. 22^'*).
THE TEACHING OF JAMES 413
These words not only reiterate the truth and Divine authority of
Scripture, but teach that it produces such effects, and brings such
blessings as only God's Word could secure, — blessedness in and
for the keeping of His Word. Thus all the leading lines and
elements of proof of the Bible claim, and our main position and
doctrine of Scripture are found in John, as in Peter, and Paul,
and their Lord. And their teachings and writings cover, and
include almost the whole N.T. For Christ's teaching covers
directly the Gospels and the Acts, and indirectly all the rest by
His promises to the apostles, and by His utterances and solemn
endorsation at the close. Further, Mark's Gospel was written,
according to well authenticated tradition from apostolic times,
under the eye of Peter, of which the book itself gives evidence.
Similarly Luke's Gospel and the Acts were under Paul's eye,
while Peter and Paul's words largely compose the Acts and
cover it all. So that we have practically the whole N.T. teach-
ing the one same doctrine in every conceivable way, with awful
and inevasible absoluteness, and making the claim, with an
amazing unanimity, reiteration, and emphasis, that the Bible is
in the truest, most real sense the Word of God, and the rule of
faith and life — true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority.
4. THE TEACHING OF JAMES AND HIS EPISTLE.
And even the smaller books not directly included under
these apostles' testimony bear their own testimony to the same
effect, and blend their tones with the unanimous voice and grand
harmony of the apostolic chorus.
James in his short Epistle has several distinct and suggestive
utterances confirming this Bible claim. "Of his own will begat
He us with (He brought us forth by, R.V.) the Word of truth "
(i^^), teaching both the truth and the regenerative power of the
Word of God. In i^i he says, "Receive with meekness the
ingrafted (implanted, inborn, R.V.) (e/^^vrov) Word, which is able
to save your souls " ; which refers to the inward vivifying and
transforming effect of God's Word ingrafted by the Holy Spirit in
the believing heart, so as to be incorporated in him in its living
and life-giving power, as the living fruitful shoot is with the wild
natural stock in which it is ingrafted, and by which its life is
saved to bring forth good fruit; — provided the recipient is not
414 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
a mere hearer but a doer of the Word, who lookcth into the
perfect law of liberty (as into a glass) and continueth therein
(i---^). As in i^^ he calls God's Word "the perfect law of
liberty," teaching its authority and perfection, righteousness and
freedom ; and as in 2^^ he says, " So speak ye, and so do, as
they that shall be judged by the law of liberty," making it the
standard and judge of faith and life ; — so in 2^ he says, " If indeed
ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well." Here he teaches that the
supreme law in Scripture is love. It is called the royal law,
since it is the sum and essence of all the law and of all Scripture,
and because God the King is love, and His law and Word are,
like Himself, love ; and, therefore as the royal law — the law of
God Himself — the law of love, like God, rules supreme and
eternal. Accordingly, as in this, he teaches the supremacy,
perpetuity, and Divine origin of the law, and of Scripture, of
which it is the first and fundamental part, — the basis and root of
all ; in 2^0 i-,g declares its solidarity and inviolability, " For who-
soever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend (stumble, R.V.)
(Trrai'o-ei) in one point, he is (become) guilty of all." It is a
most important and significant statement, the same idea as our
Lord has expressed so sharply and majestically of the whole O.T.
in John lo^^. Matt, s^'^-^^ — the oneness and solidarity, and con-
sequent inviolability of God's Word ; so that to break it in one
part or point is to break the whole. As one discordant note
spoils the harmony, or one small rent in a seamless robe rends
it, or the tiniest fragment of a vase broken makes it a broken
vase, so the breaking of one point in the law is the breaking of
the whole, and makes it a broken law, and the breaker becomes
a transgressor. In this case respect of persons was the particular
breach of the law of love as expressed in one text of Scripture
(Lev. 19'^) ; but the breaking of it in that point was the breaking
of the whole law and Scripture of which it formed a part.
Nothing could more sharply and strongly teach the solidarity
and inviolability of God's Word than this. James also, like the
rest, says, "Scripture was fulfilled" (2^^, Acts 151^-18) with all
the proof of the Bible claim in that, as shown before. Also what
the Council at Jerusalem on James' motion resolved to write to
the Gentile Churches is said to be "what seemed good to f/ie
Holy Ghost, and to us " (Acts 15-^). In 4^ Scripture is, by James,
THE TEACHING OF JUDE 415
like the others, personalised, and held as the rule of faith and
conduct, " Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain ? "
5. THE TEACHING OF JUDE.
Jude similarly writes, "While I was giving all diligence to
write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to
write unto you exhorting you to contend for the faith which was
once for all delivered unto the saints " (v.'^ R.V.). " Remember
ye the words which have been spoken before by the apostles ; —
how they said to you. In the last times there shall be mockers,"
etc. (vv.^"- ^^), referring evidently to 2 Pet. 2^ y and 2 Tim. 3^"^ 4^.
Here we find, first, that Jude, as an inspired apostle, with all the
Divine authority that belongs to him as such, is carefully writing
to them of the common salvation. Second, that while he is
doing so, he is constrained by the Holy Spirit to urge them to
contend earnestly for the faith delivered once for all to the
saints. Third, that it was delivered once for all in the Scriptures,
in what had been spoken and written by the apostles ; — the
" once for all " applying specially to what was written, for that
only could remain for all saints ; just as Peter writes to put them
"in remembrance," to "remember the words spoken before by
the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord through
the apostles" (2 Pet. 3^-^); — where what was written was what
was specially meant. So that Jude also makes Scripture the rule
of faith and life, giving it Divine authority and finality. He also
makes it the means to holiness, " Building yourselves up in
your most holy faith " (v.-"). And, further, he says, " Enoch
prophesied of these ungodly sinners" and mockers, — and thus
implies all the evidence for the Bible claim involved in prophecy
and its fulfilment. So that here again we have the same leading
elements of proof for our doctrine and position.
6. THE TEACHING OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
The Epistle to the Hebrews might be regarded as included in
the Epistles of Paul ; especially as its Pauline authorship has
been the prevalent view almost since it was written until now ;
and at least Origen's statement that the thoughts were Paul's has
much to say for it, which would warrant its being held Pauline,
41 6 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
if not literally Paul's. But as this has been and is disputed, I
have not used it in my statement of Paul's teaching, — though
references have been made to it. As it has some peculiar and
most decisive contributions to the Bible claim, we note a few
of them now.
God and the Holy Ghost the Speakers in Scripture.
Its opening words form a very explicit and suggestive state-
ment that the Bible is the Word of God. " God who by divers
portions and in divers manners spake in times past unto the
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by
His Son" (i^- -). Here we have, first, that God was the speaker
in the O.T., and that the prophets were His organs; second,
that He spake by diverse portions and in diverse manners — a
progressive and complementary written revelation, given by
divers but complementary portions, at different times, in various
ways, through successive ages ; so that they together form a
many-sided, many-voiced, but harmonious revelation, in which
each book and writer supplied His part by the Holy Spirit in the
one God-given revelation. Third, that it is the same God who,
through the same Spirit, spake unto us the same message by
His Son, in the fulness of time, so that it is God who speaks in
and through all Scripture ; and therefore it must be all true,
trustworthy, and of Divine authority.
With peculiar frequency and emphasis, therefore, we find
the Holy Ghost represented as the speaker, when often in the
O.T. the speaker is the human writer.^ Indeed the Divine
and the human authorship is often interchanged, and used
indiscriminately, for the obvious reason that they are held to
be one — the human being the organs or agents of the supreme
Divine author. Sometimes it is the human writer that in
the O.T. is expressing the statement which in Hebrews is
attributed to God,'' sometimes to the Holy Ghost. ^ Some-
times what the Lord says in the O.T. the Holy Ghost says in
Hebrews.-* All showing that the Holy Ghost is the Supreme
1 See Heb. 2^ Ps. 95", Heb. 10", Jer. 31^1-=^, Heb. 4'^, etc.
2 Heb. i'', Ps. 104* 18 45«- ' i^" 102-^ 4^ Gen. 2= 4^, Ps. 95^.
). 3^ Ps. ()S' 9^ Ex. 30"', Lev. 16.
XICU. 1 , IS. IU4 1
3 Heb. 3^ Ps. 95^ <f,
* Heb. io>5, Jer. 31=- ■
THE TEACHING OF HEBREWS 417
and real Author of Scripture ; that God is the Speaker through-
out,— the human writers being His agents inspired by His Spirit ;
and that, therefore, the Bible is in the truest sense the Word
of God. Hence, too, the three divisions of Scripture are quoted
from indiscriminately, and all as of equal truth and Divine
authority with unquestionable confidence. The words of the
Law are often quoted; and, as in Heb. 9^, it is said "the Holy
Ghost this signifying," — which teaches the Divine origin, truth,
and authority, not only of the particular part, but of the whole
ceremonial system as prefigurative of Christ and His work, and
in effect of the whole law. In fact the Hebrews is based upon
this postulate ; and all the great evangelical truths taught in it,
which constitute the core, essence, and burden of the gospel of
our salvation, presuppose this. In 10^^-'^'^ the writings of Jeremiah
(31^1-'^) are quoted with this preface, "The Holy Ghost also is a
witness to us," — declaring Jeremiah's words to be the words of
the Holy Ghost, as he also says they were the words of God (Jer.
i^ etc.).
Greaf Truths and Arginiients based o?i single Words.
In Heb. 3^^^^ and 4^"^^, great arguments for momentous truths
and solemn appeals are based upon Ps. 95" along with Gen. 2-,
Ex. 20^^ etc., for this significant reason, " Wherefore, even as
the Holy Ghost saith. To-day, if ye will hear His voice, harden
not your hearts." And all this is done on the ground assumed
and avowed that Scripture is the Word of God, expressed by the
Spirit of God, through the chosen organs of God ; and, therefore,
it can be absolutely relied upon and confidently reasoned on :
and even single words of it, like in this case the word " To-day "
or " rest " (used nine times), may be rightly made the foundations
of great truths, and the hinges of weighty arguments, and the
ground of solemn appeals, on which men's salvation and eternity
depend, — none of which it could or should be were it not
the Word of God.^ In 8"- 1" he hinges his argument for the
^ "In this remarkable Epistle God, or the Holy Ghost, is continually
named as the Speaker in the passages quoted from the O.T. In this the
view of the author clearly expresses itself as to the O.T. and its writers. He
regarded God as the Principle (Person) that lived and wrought and spoke in
them all by His Holy Spirit, and accordingly Holy Sciipture was to him a
pure work of God, although announced to the world by man." — Olshausen.
27
41 8 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
superiority of the Gospel to the Jewish dispensation, and the
consequent evanishment of the latter, on the word "new" in
the prophecy of Jeremiah (31^^"'^^) ; in which the Lord promises,
" I will put My law into their minds, and write them in their
hearts," etc., — " In that He saith, A 7ieiv covenant. He hath
made the first old. Now that which waxeth old is ready to
vanish away " ; and by the same he proves " the more excellent
ministry " and " better covenant," " established upon better
promises," of which Christ is the Mediator (v.").
Similarly in chaps. 9 and 10 he proves the superiority and
the perpetuity of Christ's priesthood by the words "once" and
"one." "Into the second (tabernacle) went the high priest
alone once every year, not without blood : the Holy Ghost thus
signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made
manifest. But Christ, by His own blood, entered in once into
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Not
that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth
into the holy place every year with blood of others ; but now
once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away
sin by the sacrifices of Himself. Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many (chap, g"- ^- ^~- -'^- "^). After He had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever. He sat down on the right hand
of God. " For by one offering He hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified" (loi-i--^^), "whereof the Holy Ghost
also is a witness to us " (v.^^) ; then he quotes Jeremiah's
prophecy again as to the netv covenant. Here we have, first,
the insufficiency and consequent transitoriness of the priests
and sacrifices and other ceremonials of the Mosaic dispensa-
tion proved by their multiplicity and continual renewal. Second,
the perfection and perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ and
His sacrifice is shown by His offering of Himself once for
all, and then being a priest for ever upon His throne. And
these great truths and fundamental facts are based upon single
words and minute details of the ceremonial ; which neither
the prophet, nor the lawgiver, nor the original writer foresaw,
or could have fully conceived, but which God intended in the
record and the Spirit interpreted as in it ; and which, therefore,
required supernatural inspiration both to express and to explain.
In i22*^--^ with Hag. 2^-'^ etc., the words "once" and "yet
once more " are made the N.T. basis of the dissolution and the
MELCHISEDEC AND CHRIST 419
restitution of all things, and the ground of a solemn Divine
exhortation. " And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the
removing of these things that are shaken, as of things that are
made, that these things which cannot be shaken may remain " ;
wherefore "see that ye refuse not Him that speaketh from
heaven." But surely such revelations and exhortations could
never be made except upon words that were God's, seeing they
involved such momentous issues as the salvation of men and the
character of God. In Heb. 10^"^° the words of the Psalmist,
40^ etc., " Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire. Then
said I, Lo, I come : in the volume of the book it is written of
me, I delight to do Thy will, O my God," are also quoted as
typical of the priestly work of Christ in making atonement for
sin. " He taketh away the first that He may establish the second.
By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all." Here the personal feeling
and experience of the Psalmist are interpreted as typical and
representative of Christ, and made the basis of the cardinal
and distinctive Christian revelations of His incarnation and
atonement. This shows how far beyond the conception of the
writers prophecy often went ; and therefore demanded Divine
inspiration in the original expression.
Melchisedec and Christ.
The long and significant parallel drawn between Melchisedec
and Christ in Hebrews (chaps. 5-7) is another remarkable ex-
ample of the same kind. The unique King-Priestly character of
Christ is typified as to both His Person and work by Melchisedec,
the King of righteousness and peace, and the priest of the Most
High God, to whom even Abraham, and in him the Levitical
priesthood, paid tithes. Not only is it said of Christ, " Thou art
a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," — quoting Ps.
110*, and thereby bringing in Solomon by the way as also a type,
— but also in many striking details ^ the parallel is carried out ;
and in which the argument for the Son abiding a priest for ever is
partly dependent on what has been well called the inspired silence
of Scripture — on what the Bible did not say; — the very mysterious-
ness of Melchisedec's origin, action, and end arising from this
^ See Dr. Bannerman on Inspiration, pp. 33S-341.
420 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND BROOF
silence, making him the better type of the great mystery of
godUness — " God manifests in the flesh." But surely the order-
ing of these events, so far apart in the history of the world, so
as to fit into and answer to each other as they do, and all
pointing Christwards, required Divine control of both the persons
and the events ; and certainly the expression of these in the
Scriptures, so as to make it suitable to all concerned in the
parallel, demanded Divine inspiration ; — especially as what
was the full meaning and scope of the passages was, from
the nature of the case, far beyond the utmost horizons of the
The Double Sctise of Scripture.
In Heb. 2^- ^ we have a striking example of the infinite scope
of some O.T. passage far transcending the thought of the writer,
"Thou hast put all things under his (man's) feet" (Ps. 8^), the
Psalmist little thinking, probably, that this was by God meant to
teach the universal dominion of Jesus. In Heb. 2^- etc., the
words of the experience of the typical sufferer of the 22nd Psalm
are applied to Christ as by suffering, bringing Himself and others
unto glory.
We thus see in the Hebrews, as in the teaching of Christ
and His apostles before, large and striking illustration of what
has been called the double sense of Scripture — the deeper, fuller,
and wider meanings and applicabilities of Scripture than appear
on the surface, or was even known or intended by the writers ;
but which God intended in it, and secured by the form of the
expression, and by the providential ordering of events, and
selecting and shaping of the typical characters, rites, and figures,
so as to make them correspond and fit in to each other with
precision and completeness, and yet have all their faces turned
to Christ. The narratives were a true history of the events of the
time, and yet history embracing the transcendent fulfilments of
the future. All this presupposes a Divine providence in the
^ " It required the Spirit of the same God whose providence could shape
kings and prophets in other days into unconscious representatives of the
coming Saviour, to guide by His Spirit the historical delineation or the
descriptive language applicable to them so as to accurately declare a greater
than David or Isaiah." — Ibid. p. 336.
COLLECTIVE QUOTATIONS 42 1
events, and demands a Divine inspiration of the Scriptures
expressing and embodying all ; — an inspiration that extends not
only to the chief elements but to all, to the expression as well
as to the substance, — to the details, words, figures, and
minutest points and turns in the expression, aye, even to the
omission and silence of Scripture. With the recognition and
adoption of this unique fact and first principle of Bible inter-
pretation the Divine depths, and vast scope, spiritual significance,
and diversified, far-reaching applications of God's Word are
opened up in their infinite fulness before our ever-growing
Christian experience, and invite our eager search and progress
in the knowledge of the unsearchable riches of Christ, that we
may be filled with all the fulness of God. Without the recog-
nition, and still more by the rejection, of this, the Hebrews, and
much of the N.T. Revelation, as well as of the Old, are unin-
telligible or misleading; and the teaching and authority of
Christ and His apostles as religious teachers are set at nought,
and with these the religion of Revelation and of Christ; be-
cause the source and basis of it in Scripture are discredited or
destroyed ; — the rejectors, however, only finding themselves faced
and confounded by the facts and fulfilments which prove the
Bible true and Christ infallible, and leave the rejectors refuted
by both reason and Revelation — and disowned by Biblical
science and honest interpretation.
In any case, it is beyond dispute that Christ, and His apostles
from His example and inspiration, did thus by the Spirit regard
and interpret Scripture ; and this demonstrates, if they are right,
the necessity of supernatural inspiration to produce a Bible
thus proved to be true, trustworthy, and of Divine origin and
authority even in minutis, — an inspiration that secured the
selection and arrangement of the material, and the conception
and expression of the whole as God wished.
Collective Quotations.
Hebrews also furnishes many striking examples of what is
called Collective quotation, in which several passages are gathered
together from various parts of Scripture to prove some import-
ant Christian doctrine. Cases of this have been given above,
others are found in chap, i-^-^'' to prove the exaltation of Christ
422 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
over angels and all things/ and in chap. 2^-^- 1-- ^^ to show His
real humanity ; ^ in the first of which there are five quotations
and the second three ; and a third is found in Rom. 3^'''^^ where
six texts are combined to prove man's sinfulness.^ But such a
method of quotation necessarily presupposed that to the apostles,
as to Christ, each passage of Scripture was an integral part of
one Divine God-breathed whole : and it required the truth,
trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all, otherwise the proof
would fail. And we cannot reject the writer's applications of
the O.T, applications of passages, from all the leading divisions
of the O.T. indiscriminately, to Christ, or disown his interpreta-
tion of the ceremonial system, or his use of the prophets, or his
applications of the historical parts, or the spiritual and ethical
significance that he attributes to all parts of Scripture, or the
Divine origin, truth, and authority which is assumed throughout
even in minutiae, without denying that he received a Divine
revelation, and disowning his credibility as a religious teacher,
and his veracity as a man ; for he gives all in the name of God
as true and of Divine authority.
In 4'^ we read, " But the Word preached did not profit, not
being mixed with faith in them that heard it " ; which implied
that it was true, and in its nature profitable, if received by faith,
which only Divine truth should be.
In 4^2 the nature, power, and effects of God's Word are
expressed with striking force and sharpness. " The Word of
God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," —
which only the Word of God could do. Paul also calls it " the
Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God " (Eph. 6^"), which,
as seen, implies trueness and reliability, precision, sharpness, and
irrefragable flawlessness, and which by the very nature of the
figure, excludes all theories of indefinite erroneousness. And
in 2* we have the Divine sealing of the Word by God Himself,
" God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with
divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost " ; — which included
miracles of healing, gifts of tongues and prophecy, etc., and the
^ Ps. 2', 2 Sam. 7^-', Ps. 97^ 45"- '^ io2--'*--'.
2 Ps. S-*-" 22-- 1 8-.
3 Ps. 14. 53. 140'' 10", Isa. 59'- ^ 36'.
TEACHING OF CHRIST AND APOSTLES 423
power of the Word in quickening and transforming men's hearts
and lives, and making them new creatures in Christ : and all of
which were Divine attestations of the Divine origin of their mission,
and of the Divine truth and authority of their message. Thus
Hebrews gives the same testimony as the other N.T. writings,
and contains all the leading elements and facts in proof of the
Bible claim found in them, supplies some peculiar to itself, and
expresses all with unique sharpness and marked decisiveness.
7. THE UNITED TEACHING OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES.
This, then, covers the whole Bible, and includes every writer
and writing in the N.T., and here the proof might close, for it is
conclusive ; although it is only mere fragments of the proof that
might be given — simply selected samples of the exhaustless stock,
practically infinite resources of the evidence ; for only the whole
Bible in all its limidess fulness, aspects, and atmosphere, with
all the possibilities of standpoint, arrangement, combination, and
application formed into one great cumulative argument, would be
the full proof. The O.T. gives its own testimony and makes its
own claim ; and with this agrees the N.T., which by every writer,
and supremely by Christ, Lord of prophets and apostles, endorses
this claim, and seals this testimony with final Divine authority.
Paul gives the same testimony, and makes as an apostle of the
N.T. a claim at least equal to the prophets of the O.T. ; and
Peter confirms that claim, and puts Paul's Epistles on a level as
Scripture with the O.T. Scriptures. Peter teaches the same
doctrine, and advances the same claim ; and Jude confirms the
canonical character of Peter's Epistles and reconfirms Paul's.
John, and James, and Jude bear the same witness, and claim the
same Divine authority ; and Christ attests and seals all with His
Divine authority, by His promise to His apostles at the beginning,
and by His solemn endorsement of all Revelation at its close.
Paul by placing a quotation from Luke on a level as " Scripture "
with one from the Law, and by his companionship and super-
vision of Luke, attests the canonical authority of the Gospel
of Luke, and, therefore, the Acts of the Aposdes and all covered
by 2 Tim. 3^0; while both Peter and Paul by their very words
largely recorded in the Acts give it Divine character and apostolic
authority. And should the Pauline authorship of Hebrews be
424 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
questioned, Peter by references appears to attest it separately ; ^
besides that, like all the rest, it bears its Divine stamp upon its face,
and its Divine seal in its effect upon men's hearts and characters
from the first until now, through the testimony of the Spirit.
Every Epistle of Paul has the witness in itself that it is the Word
of God, besides that all are ratified as above by independent
apostolic authority. And every Gospel makes its own iden-
tical but independent claim with evidence ; while, as Luke is
attested by Paul, so Mark, according to sure tradition, is by
Peter, and both Matthew and Mark seem to be by Luke, and
therefore indirectly by Paul, and all the Synoptics by John, — both
by agreements and differences, additions and omissions, refer-
ences and complements, while Matthew and John are themselves
apostles : and in all of them, by the very words of Christ recorded
in them, and largely quoted above, there is abundant Divine
evidence and declaration of their Divine origin, character and
authority. So that every writer of the N.T., which also carries
with it the O.T., bears the identical but independent testimony,
and every separate book of it makes the same claim confirmed
by the others, and all is endorsed by Christ — even that Holy
Scripture is the Word of God, true, trustworthy, and of Divine
authority, and the Divine rule of faith and life. If it is true, it
must be Divine, for it claims that ; and if it is Divine, it must
be true, for it declares that.
The closing N'otes of the universal Testimony crowned and
sealed by Christ.
With four closing notes, then, pealing grandly in with the uni-
versal chorus let us close the claim, bind the testimony, and seal the
Divine Book. The first comes from the hills of Judea as Zacharias,
the first herald of the Gospel dawn, who like the twin co-heralds,
Ehsabeth and Mary, " filled with the Holy Spirit," sang of His
"remembrance of His mercy, as He spake to our fathers, by
the prophets" (Luke i^i- 55^^ — "filled with the Holy Ghost pro-
phesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath
visited and redeemed His people : as He spake by the mouth of His
holy prophets, which have been since the world began" (Luke i^'-es);
1 See Birks, The Bible and Modern Thought, p. 239, etc. ; 2 Bet. s'^. 16
THE CLOSING NOTES OF REVELATION 425
where, after the silence of centuries the true prophetic note peals
out grandly as of old, claiming that it was God who spake by the
mouth of the prophets, by their being filled with His Spirit.
The second comes from the wilderness of Judea, loud, weird,
and startling, from John the Baptist, when, in fulfilment of his
father's and Isaiah's prophecy, " the Word of God came unto
John," and he came, in the spirit and power of Elias, "preaching
in the wilderness of Judea, crying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand," and with all the fervour of the great evan-
gelical prophet, saying, " The voice of one crying in the wilder-
ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord " (Matt. 3^-^, Luke 3^"'^),
" make straight in the desert a highway for our God " (Isa. 40^), —
where again the old, significant, prophetic phrase declares the words
of the prophet to be the Word of God. The third comes from
the lonely island of Patmos, where " for the Word of God and
the testimony of Jesus " John the beloved apostle lay a prisoner,
and received, when "in the Spirit on the Lord's day," from the
very lips of his risen Lord, " the Revelation of Jesus Christ " ;
and near its close received from the mouth of a glorified prophet
this significant message, " I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy
brethren the prophets that have the testimony of Jesus, and of
them that keep the saying of this Book : for the testimony of Jesus
is the spit'it of prophecy'" (Rev. 19^'' 22^); where Jesus with His
salvation is declared to be the spirit, burden, and the theme of song
of all prophecy, whether in earth or heaven, in Scripture or in
glory. And, therefore, since He is the soul and body of all
Revelation, the Scriptures that embody this must, like Him who is
its sum and substance, be true. Divine, and ever enduring. And
as John is the last writer of Scripture, and as his writings have a
chief and final place in each of the three divisions of the N.T. —
the historical, epistolary, and prophetical — ; and as he specially
emphasises at the end of his writing closing each division that his
testimony is true (John 21-^, 3 John ^'-, Rev. 22"^), — the testimony
of Jesus at the close of all (22!^- 1^) being John's testimony too — ;
and as John was like Moses at the beginning of Revelation, ten
or twelve times commanded by Christ, at its close, to write the
testimony in a book, which he finally declares to be "faithful
and true," and " the true sayings of God," — his writings thus
bind all parts of Scripture together, and by them with Jesus'
final attestation at the end, God seals the whole Book as the
426 THE BIBLE CLAIAr AND PROOF
Word of the Lord that liveth and abideth for ever. The
fourth note comes from the Lord Himself, a fourfold chord, in
which all the parts combine in one grand and solemn Divine
harmony, proclaiming finally and for ever, with the authority of
God in the name of Godhead, that the Bible is the Word of
God, and the Divine rule of faith and life. The first note is
given on a mountain top in Galilee before the representatives
of His rising Church in His memorable commission to His
apostles, " Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, —
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you"
(Matt. 28^^- -^) : where what they are to teach the nations is what
He taught them ; which is what they did by His Spirit, as Paul
expressly says, " The things that I write unto you are the com-
mandments of the Lord" (i Cor. 14^"). The second note is in
the judgment-hall of Pilate, where before the representatives of
the world's supreme power, He witnessed this good confession,
" To this end I am come into the world, that I should dear ivit-
ness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth My
voice" (John iS^*"); and surely, then. His testimony is true as to
the prime, basal truth — the standard of truth — that, as He says,
"the Scripture" is "the Word of God," and therefore "cannot
be broken," or fail, or pass away, in jot or titde, till all be ful-
filled. The third note comes from within the vail in the presence
of God in His last great prayer on the eve of death and the
verge of eternity, " I have given unto them the words which
Thou gavest Me, and they have received them " ; and He prays
" for them also who shall believe on Me through their word " (John
1^8. 20^ Most significant utterances ; — their words, through which
He prays men may believe on Him, are His words, and His words
are the Father's words, and surely these are and must be true
and Divine; and He calls all "Thy Word" (v.^-*), and prays
"sanctify them through Thy Word, Thy Word is truth" (v.^").
Well, therefore, may he say, " Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but My words shall not pass away." The fourth and final note
comes from the glorified Lord in heaven in Christ's last word in
closing Revelation, and speaks to all the world in the hearing
of a listening universe, when finally sealing the Book of God, in
these solemn and majestic words, which may well awe all, " I
testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall
THE TROOF CLOSED AND CONCLUSIVE 427
add unto him the plagues that are written in this book : and if
any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in
this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come
quickly."
The Proof closed afid conclusive.
Here then the proof is closed, and the position maintained
proved to a demonstration. These are the leading passages and
phenomena. And though they are only a small portion of what
might be given to the same effect — only samples of the practi-
cally infinite resources similar, yet the testimony of the passages
is for all, and it is absurd to try to limit, as many now do, to those
particular passages in which it occurs, and exclude all others.
For apart from the fact that many of the principal passages and
other proofs apply directly to all Scripture equally, they are in
Scripture and by us given simply as specimens of the whole ; and
wherever they are tried, they give the same or a similar testimony,
■ — -wherever the plummet is dropped, or the soundings taken, the
witness is the same and the findings agree. As soon assert that
the law of universal gravitation or any other truth of science
is not proved, because the universe has not been ransacked and
the proof brought from every place, point, and case through-
out creation ! and in Scripture, as seen, is seen frequent assertion
as to itself was not to be expected. It is only captious per-
versity, unwilling to face the proof and admit the demonstration
that could invent such absurdity. And those given are the
chief and decisive passages, facts, and phenomena ; for the explicit
passages treating directly and professedly of the subject are
phenomena as well as decisive didactic statements expressing
the true doctrine of Holy Scripture. They are, indeed, the chief
and the most decisive phenomena; and, along with the other
important phenomena and facts adduced, conclusively decide the
issue, and put the paltry phenomena solely relied upon by the
errorists simply out of comparison. And they are far more
than sufficient to demonstrate that the Bible claims to be the
Word of God — true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority — and
the Divine rule of faith and life. It is an induction of the
strictest and most extensive character from all Scripture in n
428 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
large number of typical and unquestionable cases, many classes
of examples, and lines of evidence, which all combine, with mar-
vellous harmony and complementariness, to utter with amazing
unanimity, one loud, clear testimony, and to establish this claim
beyond dispute, with a weight of cumulative evidence that is simply
overwhelming. Beginning with Paul's great locus classicus, that
"all Scripture is God-breathed" (O^oTrveva-Toi), the claim is found,
more or less in every writer and every writing of the N.T. both as
to the O.T. and the New. The same claim is proved to have been
made with similar unanimity and absoluteness by the O.T. for
itself, and by the various writers of it endorsing and confirming
each other, as is shown in the N.T. also. Then at the close the
writings of John are brought in uniting, completing, and closing
all with a wondrous diversity, an inevasible sharpness, and an
awful solemnity as in the very presence of God. And then to
crown, complete, and seal all, and for ever silence question, the
whole weight of Godhead comes down in the whole teaching and
usage of our Lord Himself, as with unique decisiveness and
Divine absoluteness He by the Holy Ghost utters in His own
words the Father's words, and in the name of eternal Godhead
declares, on earth and from heaven. Holy Scripture to be the
Word of God, and the Divine rule of faith and life.
CHAPTER IV.
REMARKS ON AND TEACHING OF THE
EVIDENCE.
I. The vast Amount and immense Mass of it.
The clearness and decisiveness of the Bible claim to thorough
truthfulness, entire trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all
Scripture is the first impression made on every candid mind, on
looking at this evidence and the vast amount of it — the immense
mass, the impressive array of it ; reminding one in its wide scope
and massive strength of great mountain ranges, or vast, solid,
imposing lines of impregnable fortifications. Even the most
cursory view of it must impress this on every open mind; yet it is
the merest outline, the veriest fragment of what might be pro-
duced to the same effect — the fulness of it being such as to make
selection a serious difficulty, full statement an impossibility, and
complete amassment of it would involve the transcription of a
large part of Scripture ; and the more closely it is examined, the
longer it is pondered, the more its validity, decisiveness, weight,
and invulnerableness will appear. It certainly cannot be ignored
or passed by lightly by anyone that wishes to know the truth ;
while to anyone that bows to the authority of Scripture teaching
it will be of supreme importance, and appear decisive of the
first and fundamental question.
2. The Character of it — direct; positive. The Quality
as good as the quantity is great.
For, in the second place, the evidence is not only great and
overpowering in amount, but it is also the best and highest in
character. The quality, as well as the quantity, of the proof
430 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
should give it the supreme place in the decision of the issue. It
is the teaching of the Word of God itself on its own inspiration,
truthfulness, and authority, as to its first fundamental truth, — the
basis of all its other truths, the ground of its own authority in
faith and duty. It is, in fact, the only direct evidence. It is the
proper because the positive proof. It alone is truly authoritative
to all who believe in Revelation, or own that God speaks in His
^^'ord. The other evidence is at best secondary and collateral,
to be valued, and received only as confirmatory. The proper
evidence for any revealed truth, or controverted religious question,
is Scripture evidence ; and when that is fully adduced, the
doctrine is proved, and the controversy settled, for everyone that
owns God's authority in Revelation. Nor must it ever be for-
gotten that, as shown above, even within Scripture itself, the
supreme and decisive weight must be always given to the direct,
explicit passages dealing professedly with the subject; and not
to any inferences from phenomena, or deductions from apparent
facts, — least of all from difificulties arising from other things, or
connected with the doctrine taught in the explicit passages.
For there are difficulties connected with every truth of Revela-
tion, science, or life ; so that men must ever follow the proper
positive evidence notwithstanding difficulties, or believe nothing.
Besides, we are much more liable to error in our inferences from
phenomena or facts, than in our interpretation of the meaning of
explicit passages treating expressly of the doctrine. And further,
these explicit passages are the direct evidence and express
revelation on the subject.
3. The unique Variety of it.
A third thing remarkable in the evidence of Scripture is its
marvellous variety. Almost every possible kind of proof is found
in simply embarrassing abundance. We have it in many explicit
passages, in the very words of our Lord Himself, and of His
prophets and apostles, when treating directly and avowedly of
the subject. We have it in countless indirect, but also very clear
and inevasible references and quotations ; and in the general
usage of Christ and His apostles, — in which the inviolable truth-
fulness and Divine authority of Scripture are assumed as un-
questionable postulates, and made the indisputable bases of great
REMARKS ON THE EVIDENCE 43 1
arguments, conveying vital and all-important revelations. We
have it in the names and titles, epithets and characterisations of
Holy Writ ; as well as in the attributes and qualities ascribed to
it, and the unique character and position given to it. We have
it set forth or expressed in texts and phrases, in principal state-
ments and parenthetic clauses ; implied or presupposed in great
principles and fundamental facts ; as well as in the smallest
circumstances and most minute details. We find it asserted and
declared, assumed and postulated. We find it explicitly claimed
and implicitly taught, emphatically proclaimed and tacitly
presupposed. We find it expressed in the quietest narrative and
the most impassioned orations, in the most general abstract
statements and in the most specific concrete examples.
4. The Pervasiveness of its Claim for Truthfulness,
Trustworthiness, and Divine Authority.
Akin to this, covered by it or implied in it, is the next
remarkable thing in this evidence, viz. the pervasiveness of this
claim to truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority. By
this is not meant that it is expressly stated, or directly made in
every book or part of a book. For in a book or collection of
books whose essential unity is so well marked, forcibly felt, and
universally recognised, this was not to be expected ; — especially as
what is predicated and claimed in the various parts belongs to
all therein. Hence the obvious absurdity of the puerile notion
of some that it is only for each particular case where this is
expressly stated that the claim is made ; as if there were no
general statements bearing on, or no Divine sanction to them as
a whole. Nevertheless, we find this claim pervading the his-
torical and the poetical, the doctrinal and the devotional, the
philosophic and the apocalyptic, the practical and the allegorical
books. We find it also pervading the prophets and the apostles,
the historians and the psalmists, the seers and the sages, the
servants and the Lord, — more or less all the writers, and all the
writings of O.T. and N.T. This is not less in the pervasive tone
of authority, and air of certainty, sense of reality, and spirit of
transparent truthfulness manifest throughout Scripture, con-
sciously felt in reading it, than in the explicit statements,
emphatic utterances, and solemn declarations. Nor is it ever
432 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
suggested or implied that what is thus claimed and predicated
generally and pervasively, is restricted to particular parts or things
therein. What is said is said of all without distinction, — all
parts and kinds of things indiscriminately being referred to and
used as equally and unquestionably true and trustworthy. The
modern distinction between what is true and what is false, in the
Word of God, is unknown to writers of Scripture, and would
have shocked the apostles and prophets, and most of all the Son
of God Himself, who set His solemn seal to every jot and tittle
of it.
And the ancient Jewish theory of degrees of inspiration is
now being resurrected again in the close of this century, as in
the end of the last (for centuries like individuals and nations, get
into their dotage), and that, too, by the would-be advanced
writers on this question. ^ This theory has absolutely no place
in Holy Writ, though it is rampant in Jewish jargon and Rabbi-
nical lore, naturalistic theology, and modern Rationalism. What-
ever plausible reason may be given for this theory, and whatever
elements of truth may be intended to be expressed by it, there is
no authority for it in Scripture. On the contrary, so far as it is
invented or intended to invade or lessen the inviolable truth and
Divine authority of God's Word, — as now for the first time it
seemed revived to do, — it is directly in the teeth of the pervasive
tone and prevailing claim of Scripture ; and should be set aside
as an unauthorised Rabbinical relic, raised from the dead, and
presented as advanced thought by the abettors of Rationalism, in
the close of the nineteenth century !
5. Its Inevasibleness.
A further thing that strikes one, in weighing this vast and
varied positive evidence for the Scripture claim, is its inevasible-
ness. It seems almost incredible that any man believing in
God's Word at all can seriously face it and yet remain unbeliev-
ing. It appears impossible to conceive how he can evade or
withstand it. Certainly it requires very dexterous power of
shutting the eyes to the plainest facts, and an unenviable facility
of resisting evidence ; as it unquestionably demands an amazing
measure of perverse ingenuity to neutralise it ; while to refute or
^ See Dr. Ladd, Dr. Cave, Dr. Sanday.
THE CUMULATIVE FORCE OF THE EVIDENCE 433
disprove it will require infinitely greater courage and acumen
than its opponents have ever yet shown in connection with it.
By apparently every possible device that thought or language
was capable of, it is explicitly and inevasibly taught and declared,
so that men might find it hard to evade it, and be without excuse
if they rejected it. It is difficult to conceive how, if God had
intended to express and declare the truth, reliability, and Divine
authority of His Word, He could more unequivocally and
inevasibly have done so than He has done. It stands out in its
impressive and impregnable strength, like massive granite walls,
that cannot be passed or penetrated by anyone that fairly faces
it. Nor is it conceivable how God could have taught this with
greater clearness and decisiveness, than in the majestic words of
our Lord Himself, "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till
all be fulfilled" (Matt. v. 18). It matters not what any other
says, " Let God be true, and every man a liar." The resources
of language, thought, and usage appear to have been exhausted
in putting this beyond question, and in rendering unbelief
inexcusable, — so far at least as the teaching of Scripture is
concerned, and the authority of God speaking in His Word is to
be held decisive on the question ; and every believer in revelation
is bound to say, " To the law and to the testimony ; if they speak
not according to this word it is because there is no light in them "
(Isa. viii. 20).
6. The cumulative Force and Completeness of it.
Another thing that strikes one in considering this evidence is
the uniqueness and the cumulative force of it. It will be exceed-
ingly difficult to find any truth of revelation for which an equal
amount and variety of Biblical evidence can be produced — not
even for the doctrines of the Incarnation and Divinity of our
Lord. For while the evidence of the one pervades Scripture,
the proper proof of the other is limited to the N.T., and is there
expressed explicitly and emphatically only in some parts thereof.
Nor are there wanting some statements and phenomena that
give an appearance of foothold and plausibility to Arianism and
Unitarianism. Hence these heresies have lived adown the ages,
and are living still — yea, are reviving now in various forms and
28
434 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
modifications among the preachers and teachers of Churches
professedly Trinitarian. Nay more, they will live and grow, and
are warranted in doing so if the error of the indefinite erroneous-
ness of Scripture prevails, and men, on the ground of it, are free
and bound to pick and choose, by the criterion of mere human
reason, what they will receive and what reject in the Word of
God. Nor is it possible to arrest or refute this or any error, or
authoritatively to ascertain any truth of revelation except upon
the basis of a true and trustworthy Scripture. So that in pro-
ducing and maintaining the Bible claim to trustworthiness and
Divine authority, we are supporting and defending every truth
of Revelation, and laying the basis on which alone a theology can
be built from Holy Writ. The evidence for this fundamental
doctrine is, as seen, not only clear and strong, but decisive and
overwhelming, yea unique, more abundant, varied, and inevasible
than for any other truth of God's Word. It is found everywhere
pervading O.T. and New ; in tone, in spirit, in didactic state-
ment, in apologetic argument, in names, in titles, in attributes,
in characterisations, in explicit teaching, in allegory, in inference,
in quotation and reference, in facts and phenomena, in words
and phrases, in assertions, declarations, postulates, and assump-
tions, claims, and endorsations ; by prophets, priests, apostles,
evangelists, angels, and God — ad i7ifinitum. And it is only when
we look at it altogether, and in its connections and mutually
corroborative character that we can feel its full and resistless
cumulative force. In vain shall we seek for evidence of any
doctrine in Scripture, or try to ascertain any truth from Revelation,
or profess to believe anything on the authority of God speaking
in His Word, if we reject or refuse to own, or ignore the evi-
dence for this doctrine — the demonstration of this truth. No
other doctrine approaches to it in the quantity and quality and
conclusiveness of the evidence.
ITS FUNDAMENTAL RELATION TO ALL THE OTHER TRUTHS
AND CLAIMS OF SCRIPTURE.
And as the evidence for it is unique, so also is the position it
occupies in relation to all the other truths of Revelation, as has
been often indicated. It lies at the foundation of them all. It
is made the basis of every other doctrine. It is the avowed
THE BIBLE CLAIM THE BASIS OF ALL ITS TRUTHS 435
ground on which every particular truth and statement of Revela-
tion is presented for our belief. The teaching of Scripture on
its own truthfulness and authority is of necessity the foundation-
stone of its teaching on all other subjects. It is because it
claims to speak the truth, and nothing but the truth, in the name
of God, and for that reason alone, that it claims our faith and
obedience in anything ; and on that ground alone can we be
under obligation to beUeve and obey it as the Word of Him that
cannot lie or err. No doubt our conviction and assurance that
it is the Word of God may come from many sources and causes
— specially the testimony of the Spirit with the truth in our con-
sciousness, of which the Reformers made so much.^ But it is
simply and solely because it is and claims to be the Word of
God — true, trustworthy, and authoritative — that any or all of
its other truths and statements, though they too may appeal to
our spirits, possess Divine sanction and authority, and lay us
under obligation to belief and obedience.
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-ACCEPTANCE OF IT.
It therefore follows— i^W/, That, if the evidence is not accepted
for this best established truth, there is no sufficient reason for
accepting any truth of Revelation. Second, If we do not receive
this doctrine, which is thus laid at the basis of all the others, and
is made the express ground of their reception, we do not receive
any of them on the authority of God speaking in His Word.
Scripture is ipso facto deprived of any intrinsic and independent
authority ; and it receives no regard and carries no weight
simply as the Word of God. If we receive its testimony in any-
thing, we do this not because God gives it in His Word as true,
but simply because it appeals to our consciousness, which a pure
rationalist may do. Third, If we deny this, the first and funda-
mental claim to truthfulness and Divine authority so expressly
and inevasibly made, then we virtually disown not merely the
reliability and authority, but the veracity and credibility of
God's AV^ord ; and that not only in this one thing but in every-
thing. For if the Bible claims, in the name of God, to speak the
1 See IVestniiiister Confession of Faith ; Principal Wm. Cunningham's
Lectures, and The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation ; Dr.
Robertson Smith's 0. T. in the Jewish Church.
436 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
truth, and nothing but the truth, and puts this claim as the foun-
dation of all its teaching, and makes this the ground of the
reception of all its doctrines, then, if you say that in this it has
stated what is not true, you self-evidently deny not only its infalli-
bility, but disown its veracity, and declare that it has made a
false claim in God's name; and you thus utterly destroy its
credibility, and absolutely annihilate its Divine authority in any-
thing. You ipso facto assert that the Bible is not the Word of
God at all, but only the false and incredible word of deceived or
deceiving men. So that the denial, directly or indirectly, of this
its primary and foundation claim to teach the truth, and nothing
but the truth, with God's authority, is a denial of the Divine
• authority and independent truthfulness of anything based thereon,
of everything stated therein. It is a contradiction of the first
claim of Scripture and a declaration, explicitly or practically, of
the unreliability and falseness of the basis of all its statements.
Yea, it is in effect a repudiation of the Divine origin, veracity,
and credibility of Holy Scripture as a whole. Nor is it possible
to evade these tremendous conclusions except by proving that
Scripture does not make this claim for itself, and that the
evidence adduced which demonstrates this is not proof nor
amounts to even probability; for, as Butler shows, even prob-
ability in such things is, and ought to be, sufficient ground for
both faith and action — "Probability is the guide of life." This,
I make bold to say, is an impossibility, as the attempt to do so
will convince anyone that fairly faces it and seriously grapples
with it.
7. Its Divine Decisiveness and Finality culminating
IN Christ.
Nor is this all, for the last and most remarkable thing in this
evidence is that it centres and culminates in Christ. He is, in
fact, the beginning, middle, and end of it. It is His clear and
inevasible words that we put in the front of it. It is His
solemn and majestic utterances that we most frequently appeal
to. And it is on His infallible truthfulness and Divine authority
that we ultimately, and with unlimited confidence, take our
stand. It is the Lord Himself, and none less than He, who
endorses the claim, sanctions the statements, and by His very
THE DIVINE DECISIVENESS AND FINALITY 437
words declares the inviolability of even the O.T., the most
assailed and assailable part of Scripture. And it is He who, in
anticipation, promises the Holy Ghost, as the Spirit of truth, to
the writers of the N.T., to lead them into all truth, and to
ensure that what they said or taught in His name would be
thus not their words only, but the very Word of God, since it
was not they but the Spirit of their Father that spoke in and
through them. It is He who, more than any other, in O.T. or
New, uses and appeals to all kinds of things, passages, facts, and
words in Scripture indiscriminately as unquestionably true and
Divinely authoritative ; and makes them the axioms of great
arguments, the germs of highest truths, and the roots of new
revelations. It is He who, from His heavenly glory, by the
awful words and solemn sanctions with which He closes the
volume of Revelation (Rev. xxii. 18, 19), puts His Divine seal
and imprimatur on it as the Word of God, warning men against
tampering with even its words on their peril. It is He who,
by the utterances He gives about it, the epithets He applies to
it, the names and qualities He ascribes to it, and the use He
makes of it, most decisively settles, and most absolutely declares
it to be in all its parts and contents, without distinction, the
AVord of the Lord that liveth and abideth for ever.
Therefore, here again everything that has been said about
the tremendous consequences of denying the truthfulness and
Divine authority claimed for Scripture by itself applies with
infinitely augmented force and momentousness to Christ Him-
self. For that claim in its integrity He endorses with an awful
absoluteness. By these Scriptures He stands with a tremendous
decisiveness. With them, in fact, as their Author, Fulfiller, and
End, He identifies Himself. With them in His hands,''and sealed
by His authority, He stands out before the world, through all
the ages, and declares them to be the Word of God, that cannot
lie or err, be violated, or pass away ; and with most awful
sanctions He warns every man of the peril of daring to impinge
on their integrity or impugn their authority. So that with them
He with His rehgion stands or falls. Men cannot deny or reject
them or their claim without denying or rejecting Him and His.
Therefore, if men will reject their first and fundamental claim,
they must reject the truthfulness of Him who is the Truth, and
deny the Divine authority, even in religious things — in the prime
438 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
and supreme religious question — of the Son of God. By how
much soever men directly or indirectly impugn their truthfulness,
weaken their trustworthiness, or impinge on their authority, by
so much they assail His and Him. And since He ever gives
His Words as not His words only but the Father's — " the words
of Him that sent Me," — and since they were all uttered, as He
said, through the power of the Spirit of God, and since Holy
Scripture is actually identified with God, the denial of the root
and basal claim of Scripture is virtually tantamount to a denial
of the authority and testimony of Godhead.
CHAPTER V.
WHAT THIS EVIDENCE SETTLES.
I. That ours is not an A priori Theory, but a Fact
AND A Revf:lation.
This evidence settles — First, that the doctrine of the truthful-
ness and Divine authority of Scripture is no mere a priori dogma
of theology or preconceived theory of inspiration, as has so often,
so falsely, and so persistently been averred by the opponents of
the Bible doctrine, who are more given to misrepresentation and
abuse of the real views than to refutation of the arguments, to
reckless assertion rather than answering the evidence. What-
ever it is, it is self-evidently not a preconceived theory, but pro-
fessedly and patently the clearest teaching of Scripture. It is a
doctrine of Revelation, as to its written embodiment in Scripture,
gathered from the widest and most careful induction of all Scrip-
ture. It is a striking contrast to the fragmentary, one-sided carica-
ture so pretentiously palmed off as an induction by the assertors
of the Bible's erroneousness. It is simply the doctrine expressly
taught about itself and claimed for itself by the explicit passages
of God's Word on the subject. It is not an inference from the
passages, but the simple meaning of them, — the explicit teaching
of them,— the real and only reasonable interpretation of them.
The advocates of the opposite doctrine do not even attempt
to produce a single passage teaching expressly or implicitly their
error. They cannot, therefore, pretend to have for it a single
element of what alone is proper positive proof for any doctrine.
When our view is taught or confirmed by the implications of
other less direct passages, the doctrine is unequivocally implied ;
whereas, here again there is for the opposite view no such neces-
sary implications. So far as our doctrine is inferred from
440 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
Scripture facts and phenomena, the inference is necessary, and
they are the main and most prevalent facts. The phenomena
from which the opposite view is deduced are only the compara-
tively rare and exceptional, — the conclusion is not conclusive, and
the phenomena are generally misunderstood or misapplied, or
admit of other explanations. And so far as the opposite doctrine
is composed of and based upon ditificulties connected with the
Bible claim, — as it almost wholly is, — there is no valid ground
or legitimate proof at all, nor any real disproof or invalidation
of the Bible doctrine. Every truth has some difficulties, some
of the best established have most serious, and hitherto insoluble
difficulties. Besides, the difficulties of their own theory are
infinitely greater than those of the Bible truth, which are often
trivial, ludicrous, mostly vanished or vanishing ; they all admit
of a possible explanation (which is the utmost that is logically
required), and have superabundance of reasons to account for
them. So that our doctrine is not an a priori theory of inspira-
tion, nor a theory at all, but simply the clearest teaching of
Scripture, only the expression and embodiment of the foundation
claim of God's Word. Theirs is a theory made of difficulties, —
an absurd foundation for any theory ; and is based upon what
will in all probability be found to be nothing.
2. It requires the Errorists to answer it,
WHICH they never ATTEMPT.
This evidence lays on the opponents of the Bible claim the
obligation to face, answer, or explain it, if they profess to believe
in the authority of Scripture or of Christ at all. And yet this is
just what they will not do, — what they have never once seriously
attempted to do, what they all with one accord systematically
and persistently eschew doing ; and that, too, although they have
been repeatedly called on to do it, and by this restatement are
again asked, challenged, and required to do it, or be justly held
as denying Revelation altogether, and setting aside the teaching
and authority of God's Word and of God's Son on this first and
radical religious question, which lies at the basis of all religious
questions, and is the prime condition of the authoritative settle-
ment of any of them. Instead, however, of facing and weighing
the evidence, far less meeting the force of the argument it
INDEFINITE ERRONEOUSNESS PRECLUDED 441
supplies and constitutes for the truth and Divine authority of
Scripture, they usually ignore it altogether, as if it did not exist
or had never been adduced. Generally they set it aside practi-
cally, and proceed with their criticism and speculations as though
it were unknown or irrelevant, or of no importance, or without
authority. Sometimes they affect to despise it, and speak with
contempt of quoting texts to prove doctrines, as if their ipse dixit
were of infinitely higher authority than the declarations of God's
Word, — and as if Bible passages treating professedly of the question
were not the best and decisive evidence — the only proper proof
of a Bible doctrine, — when one clear, explicit, certain passage is
and should be as decisive as a million to all who own the
authority of God speaking in His Word. Frequently they
caricature the statements and misrepresent the real position of
defenders of the truth, finding abuse easier than argument, and
misrepresentation more hopeful than refutation. But the one
thing they will never venture to do, — that even defiance will not
provoke them to attempt, that with a significant scrupulosity they
ever evade doing, — is to meet the evidence or seriously attempt
to answer or grapple with the argument. The reason is not far
to seek — they cannot. They have a shrewd suspicion that they
cannot. It is known and felt to be unanswerable. Therefore,
rather than attempt and fail to answer, it is judged better and
more politic to leave it prudently unanswered, unattempted !
3. It precludes all Theories of Indefinite
Erroneousness.
This evidence precludes and is decisive against all theories
of the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture. What the leading
theories are, and how they are each equally precluded, and that
they are all essentially Rationalistic as well as otherwise anti-
scriptural, untenable, and evil, will be shown in detail below. ^
But meantime, looking at them generally, this conclusion the
evidence above inevitably necessitates. Many of the greatest
scholars and ablest theologians of our century and of the previous
centuries, as well as the Churches generally, have held that the
Scripture teaching requires, and the Bible claim involves, the
infallible truth, entire trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all
1 Book VI.
442 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND BROOF
Scripture, and that the Bible in its integrity is in truth the very
Word of God ; while some hold that it is entirely free from
untrue statement of any kind, as it was originally given, — God-
breathed through the inspired writers, — and when it is properly
interpreted — when its true intent, its real, God-intended mean-
ing is ascertained. And unquestionably there is much in
the evidence, especially in the words and usage of our Lord
Himself, that seems to favour this as its full, or admissible
significance; while the whole appears to point to this as its
legitimate, conjoint effect. Nor can it be denied that whatever
exaggerated utterances may have been made, or extreme positions
taken by injudicious individuals on the outskirts of this definite
general position, the arguments for it have never yet been
grappled with, far less answered by the errorists. Nay more,
we feel satisfied that when they really and seriously join issue
with the upholders of this strictest, if you will, extremest position
on the ground of " What saith the Lord," they will not be triumph-
ant, in the argument, if not almost forced either to abandon
their own position, or the independent authority of Scripture.
So far as we have watched recent skirmishes on this point, even
under that most extreme and unwarrantable, if not unintelligible,
title "The absolute inerrancy" of Scripture,^ we have only been
confirmed in this conviction, and been impressed with the
crudeness of the thinking, and the weakness of the reasoning
of the boldest champions of the errancy and erroneousness of
Scripture ; even when the defenders of " absolute inerrancy " —
whatever that may mean — were by no means generally either the
ablest or the wisest. What must the issue be when the real
tug-of-war has come? And after all that has been recently
adduced, it may still be said and held as truly as when Dr.
Farrar wrote many years ago, that all the perverse ingenuity of
scepticism has not been able to make out one demonstrable
error in Scripture when properly interpreted.
THE UNWISDOM OF TAKING A STAND ON THE GROUND OF
ABSOLUTE INERRANCY.
Nevertheless, there could scarcely be a greater tactical mis-
take than to fight now the great battle on which such tremendous
^ See recent discussion in The British Weekly.
THE APOLOGETIC STRENGTH OF THE BIBLE CLAIM 443
issues ultimately hang as the truth of our religion and the author-
ity of our Lord, upon such a narrow ground, in such a negative
form, and in such a merely defensive attitude. It is usually
considered unwise in warfare to act only on the defensive.
Generally the advantages lie with assuming the aggressive. This
is true pre-eminently in theological warfare. How often has
scepticism been vanquished when Christian Apology has forced
it to declare positively its own position, or produce its substitute
for Christianity. Then, instead of merely defending Christianity,
it has assailed infidelity, won an easy victory, and demonstrated
that the Christian's faith was much more reasonable than the
sceptic's unbelief. How much more easy and effectual is it to
refute all forms and shades of RationaHsm, by attacking their
position, theories, and methods, than by merely defending our
own ? And yet it is the latter, as we have been grieved to note,
that of recent years has been almost exclusively followed by the
upholders of the Bible claim. This has given the greatest
advantage to the opponents, and placed the maintenance of the
truth at most serious disadvantage. How much wiser and
stronger to assume the aggressive, carry the war into the enemy's
camp, compel them to declare positively their own position, and
then assail that, and show the untenableness of their theories !
Instead of merely standing on the defensive, and laying the
position defended open to attack at any of the countless points
along the whole line, how much better to expose and attack the
errorists' position ! Then present the evidence for the Scripture
claim, and compel them to answer that evidence, or to abandon
assaiUng the truthfulness and Divine authority of Scripture as
illegitimate and irrelevant for all who are not prepared to deny
its veracity and credibility. For as it is, so far as this attack
has any validity, they assail not our distinctive position, but a
position which they as much as we require to maintain against
the common unbelieving foe.
THE STRENGTH OF THE POSITION OF TRUTHFULNESS,
TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND DIVINE AUTHORITY.
In place of defending a negative form of the doctrine of
Scripture, and that, too, under the designation coined by the
opponents, with a view the more effectually to assail the truth,
444 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
namely, " Inerrancy or absolute inerrancy," — a phrase most un-
defined and objectionable in itself, used in different senses by
different persons, itself requiring and difficult of definition, and
frequently so used as to beg the whole question, — how much
stronger to maintain the doctrine of Scripture in the positive
form of its truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority ;
which can be established by direct and superabundant evidence,
and which has been triumphantly maintained through the count-
less controversies of centuries, and which no believer in Revela-
tion can assail without undermining his own position and
exposing himself to a resistless assault from the sceptic on the
one side, and the Bible claim upon the other. For, in fact, it
requires the errorist to maintain in turn two apparently contra-
dictory positions — namely, the trustworthiness and authoritative-
ness of Scripture on the one hand, and its indefinite errone-
ousness and illimitable untrustworthiness on the other — which
is more untenable than unstable equilibrium. And instead of
fighting this great battle, on which such momentous issues hang,
on the narrow, negative, and in some respects despicable point
of absolute inerrancy, which is misleading, indefinable precisely,
which is strictly speaking indefensible (because absolute inerrancy
is predicable properly only of God, and Divine truth cannot dwell
perfectly or absolutely save in the Divine mind, and cannot be
conceived or expressed with absolute perfection through human
thought and language, as we have seen), and most disadvantage-
ous, how much wiser, and more satisfactory, to bring the ques-
tion to an issue on the broad and general grounds in which the
opposing parties confront and conflict with each other, along the
whole line, like two parallel antagonistic positions ! These are
the thorough truthfulness, entire trustworthiness, and Divine
authority of Scripture on the one side ; and the indefinite
erroneousness, illimitable untrustworthiness, and unlimited un-
authoritativeness on the other. For these are really the opposite
positions now. What the opponents of the Bible claim mean is
not merely that the Bible is not inerrant, but that it is erroneous.
Doubtless to give themselves the greater advantage in the attack,
to make their position seem less objectionable, and to make the
upholders of the Bible claim appear as if required to prove a
negative, they have deftly contrived to get the controversy put in
this form, and many unwary and unwise defenders of the truth
ERRONEOUSNESS ALLEGED IN ALL BIBLE ELEMENTS 445
have foolishly accepted these terms, and entered the conflict on
this narrow ground, under the greatest disadvantages. They
thus place themselves and the truth in a false, weak, if not
perilous position. But what the opponents really mean — as
their practice, examples, and other teaching show, and as every
wise defender of the truth should make manifest — is that Scrip-
ture is erroneous — mdefinitely erroneous. For as a matter of
fact they do not, as from the nature of the case they cannot, tell
or specify precisely what is true and what is false in Scripture,
or even give any sure principle or infallible means by which we
could ascertain this definitely and inerrantly for ourselves. Nor
is it, as shown above, merely indefinitely erroneous in small and
trifling things, and kinds of things, whatever they may some-
times allege, or the more guarded may at times appear to restrict
the erroneousness to.
THE ERRORISTS ALLEGE INDEFINITE ERRONEOUSNESS IN
EVERY KIND OF THING IN SCRIPTURE.
But it is a denial of inerrancy, and an assertion of erroneous-
ness in an indefinite number of kinds of things, — in fact in every
kind of thing, — no kind of thing being excepted from errancy.
For errancy and erroneousness, as a matter of fact, is alleged — as
may be seen ad nauseum in the current literature on the subject,
in the least rationalistic — not only in words and expressions, in
dates and numbers, but in facts and references, in quotations,
interpretations, and reasoning ; in leading representations and
salient features, as well as in individual details ; in principles, and
dominating ideas, as in special applications and particular in-
ferences; ay, in moral and religious teaching as much as in
everything else. Innumerable errors, mistakes and false state-
ments, and wrong teaching are alleged in chronology and
genealogy, history and prophecy, science and philosophy, exe-
gesis and methods of reasoning, ethics and theology, religion
and morals — in short, in every kind of thing. This is shown ad
libitian by the examples given, by the various kinds of errors
alleged, by the criticism of and liberties taken with all parts and
elements of Scripture, and in the supposed critical results, —
which are often quite inconsistent with the truthfulness and
trustworthiness thereof, subversive of its veracity and credi-
446 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
bility, and practically and patently destructive of its Divine
authority.
THEIR EXPLANATION OF ITS ORIGIN.
Nor do the opponents of the Bible claim merely thus illus-
trate their real meaning and the practical results of their theories ;
they also are not slow to inform us of the causes and reasons of
this indefinite erroneousness. They attribute it to the ignorance
of the times in which the Scriptures were written, and the false
conceptions and perverting prejudices of the writers ; to the in-
fluence of the low and wrong moral ideas and practices, and the
narrow and false religious conceptions prevalent in the current
thought and life of those dark ages, — in which the writers of
Scripture shared, and from which their writings are not exempt.
They speak of the local and limited horizons, and the national
and religious exclusiveness of the Jews, who have given us the
Bible ; which they allege are expressed in the exaggeration, intoler-
ance, and " Jewish presumption," if not fanaticism, of the pro-
phets ; and in the one-sidedness and traditionalism of the self-
seeking priestly writers of the O.T., and in the credulity and
imaginativeness of the Apostolic writers of the N.T. They urge
the blinding effects of tradition, superstition, and the uncritical
methods of credulous times ; which are found in the legendary
beliefs, fallacious reasonings, and numerous misinterpretations
of the earher by the later writers of Scripture. These are sup-
posed to explain the alleged "exegetical mistakes" and other
erroneous teachings of Christ Himself, or at least of the state-
ments and records of them given by His inspired apostles !
Whatever may be thought of these remarkable assertions and
explanations, and of the principles that underlie them, as well as
the issues flowing from them, which are serious enough, — they
are held more or less by all the opponents of the Bible claim ;
and the principle of all of them is in the least rationalistic of
them. However much they may differ as to some of them and
other things, they all, by disowning this claim, equally deny the
inerrancy and assert the erroneousness of the first and funda-
mental teaching of God's Word. These assertions and explana-
tions at least demonstrate that what our opponents really mean
when they deny the inerrancy of Scripture is not merely that it
ERRONEOUSNESS IN MORAL TEACHING 447
is not inerrant in everything, but that there is not any kind of
thing in which it is inerrant, and that it has actually erred in
every kind of thing — in its religious and moral teaching as well
as in everything else — in that specially. The erroneous and
wrong teaching in these is now usually given as the first, and
throughout the most prominent exemplifications of their common
principle.
THIS INDEFINITE ERRONEOUSNESS ALLEGED AND URGED SPECI-
ALLY OF THE BIBLE IN RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING.
Further, this alleged erroneousness is indefinite. There is
no precise or definite limit given, or possible, on their common
rationahstic principle. As matter of fact they, firstly, generally
deny the inerrancy of Scripture, which, when explained and put
positively, — as every theory of Scripture should be if the truth or
falsehood of it is to be ascertained, — is equivalent to an assertion
of the erroneousness of Scripture. Secofidly, when you inquire
more closely, you find that the errancy and erroneousness are
indefinite, without any specific limitation, with no sound prin-
ciple, or sure means of making them definite. Thirdly, when
you examine as to what kind of things this erroneousness is
alleged of, you find from the examples given, and the results and
methods of the application of their principle to Scripture, that it
is asserted of every kind of thing, and that there is no kind of
thing — not even the most ethical, religious, or spiritual ex-
empted from this category — to which this principle is not
applied. And, fourthly, when you investigate more thoroughly
still, you perceive that Scripture is held to be indefinitely errone-
ous in every kind of thing. Not only is there no kind of element
excepted from the category of erroneousness, — not even the
purely ethical, or the strictly religious, and supremely spiritual, —
but the very erroneousness itself is in each and all of them held
to be indefinite, unlimited — ay, on their principle, illimitable.
When put positively this is the theory our opponents hold,
plainly teach, and practically exemplify in the application and
illustration of their principle. The examples or illustrations of
this indefinite erroneousness which they usually most eagerly
and confidently produce, are taken from the distinctively moral
and religious elements of Scripture.
44o THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
Further, from the very nature of their principles, the alleged
erroneousness in even those ethical and spiritual elements which
they all hold to be the special purpose of Scripture to reveal, and
in which Scripture has generally been held to be, if in anything,
truthful, trustworthy, and of Divine authority — the erroneousness
is not only indefinite, but also of necessity illimitable. P^or if
errancy and erroneousness is alleged in every kind of thing to an
indefinite extent, then obviously it is impossible to limit the
erroneousness ; and it is an apparent departure from their prin-
ciples to attempt to do so. And if it were attempted to assert
that although Scripture is erroneous in some ethical and religious
things, it is inerrant and authoritative in others, or in some
specific religious truth, — say the divinity of Christ, or the atone-
ment, or justification by faith, or the resurrection of the dead, —
yet it is clearly impossible on their theory of indefinite erroneous-
ness to ascertain inerrantly and authoritatively what these things
are, or how we can be infallibly certain of the truth and Divine
authority of any one doctrine in religion or ethics. Nor is it
possible or legitimate to attempt doing so without practically
abandoning their own theory and violating their own prin-
ciple. Because there is not a shadow of a ground in God's
Word for any such distinction between some religious and moral
elements in Scripture and others ; nor has any such Biblical
ground been ever produced, or even pretended. Besides, their
very assertion of indefinite erroneousness, and still more the
principle on which the assertion is based — even that man's own
reason may and must judge as to what in the moral and religious
teaching is right and what wrong — manifestly for them set aside
the independent authority of God's Word, deny the Bible claim,
and deprive it of any intrinsic, far less Divine authority in re-
ligion or morals ; as alleged, it has taught serious error on these.
REASON RECEIVES SUPREMACY OVER REVELATION.
Therefore, third, every individual and varying mind must for
itself, according to its own inward light, dispositions, and pre-
possessions, determine what to receive and what to reject of the
moral and religious teaching of Scripture ; and become to itself
the sole and supreme standard in ethics and religion, even in the
Word of God. And since different minds will and do have
THE SERIOUS ISSUES OF ERRORISTS' VIEWS 449
different ideas, and come to different, often opposite conclusions,
as to what is true and what false in Scripture, — witness Dr. Ladd
and Dr. Martineau ; yea, the same man not infrequently coming
to different conclusions at different times, — it follows, as a matter
of sheer and simple mental necessity, that an infallible authorita-
tive limit of erroneousness is on this principle patently impossible,
and that the erroneousness is, therefore, not only indefinite and
unlimited, but from the very nature of the case iUimitable.
THE MOMENTOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE ERRORISTS' THEORIES.
From this certain very momentous results follow, which it is
well to set forth in order with distinctness. First. The Bible
on this theory is not an inerrant standard in anything — as little
in ethics or religion as in anything else. For in these pre-
eminently and most seriously it, as alleged, has erred, and taught
as true and right what is false and wrong. It can, therefore, be
no longer regarded as the infallible rule of faith and life, nor
even as the standard of religion or morals at all. Second. It
possesses no intrinsic, far less Divine authority in anything — no
more in religion or morality than in other things ; as not in
matters of science, philosophy, or history, so not in matters
distinctively of religion, even when given by revelation ; though
it professedly deals with these, was expressly given for them,
and emphatically claims Divine authority on them. For it is
averred to have erred indefinitely in its teaching in such things.
Third. The sole and supreme standard in religion and ethics,
as in everything else, is the errant and erring reason of erring
and varying men, which is bald Rationalism, which is simple
absurdity. In short, the ultimate result of setting aside the
Bible as the standard and authority of truth and duty is not to
give us a better standard for a worse, but to deprive us of a
standard altogether.
IT IS VAIN TO APPEAL TO THE TEACHING OF CHRIST TO AVOID
THESE ISSUES.
It is vain to seek to avoid this conclusion, or to escape from
this position by talking largely about the teaching and the
authority of Christ. For His teaching and authority have been
29
450 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
antecedently disowned in asserting the indefinite and illimitable
erroneousness of the Word of God, which in its integrity He
endorsed and sealed with His Divine authority. Christ is the
last who will accept honour to Himself at the cost of dishonour
to His servants, the apostles and prophets, and of degradation to
these sacred Scriptures, which He inspired them to write as the
true and inviolable Word of God. Besides, His teaching and
authority are specifically set at nought by the theory that Scrip-
ture is not truthful, but indefinitely erroneous in every kind of
thing, — signally in religion and morals. For if Christ's words
mean anything, they declare that Holy Scripture is true, inviol-
able, and of Divine authority, at least in these things. And the
theory that denies this and asserts the opposite, implicitly denies
the truth and authority of the teaching of Christ in religion and
morals ; and implies that even in these, which are distinctly
within His peculiar sphere, He is not as a teacher infallible,
but erroneous and unreliable, and that, too, on the source and
standard of religion and ethics. In fact, on this theory His
teaching is of necessity just as indefinitely erroneous and
unauthoritative as the Scriptures, — His varying in all as theirs.
He by sanctioning and endorsing, as well as inspiring and
coming to fulfil the Sacred Oracles, identifies Himself with them,
and binds indissolubly His truth and authority with theirs.
Further, we get our whole knowledge of the teaching of Jesus
through these alleged to be indefinitely erroneous writings, and
cannot get it otherwise. Therefore, so far as they are erroneous
or wrong, so far precisely is His teaching, — the two vary as each
other. Whatever may have been the teaching of Jesus, we get
all that we know or can know of it exclusively through the con-
ceptions and writings of men alleged to be indefinitely erroneous
in both ; so that His teaching to us is just as erroneous or
inerrant as the writings of the evangelists, neither more nor less.
Therefore, bringing in the teaching and authority of Christ to
make up for and replace the discredited truthfulness and
authority of the inspired writers, and God-breathed writings of
Scripture, is evidently a vain device and a foolish delusion,
which can impose only on the ignorant and unthinking, and
leave those who know the issues precisely as they were. First.
Because so far as the words of Christ known to us teach
anything, they teach that Christ stands by and endorses the
THE INERRANTISTS' APOLOGETIC POSITION 451
Scriptures. Second. Because our whole knowledge of His
teaching is derived solely from these Scriptures. But though
the teaching and authority of Christ do not thus give one iota
of relief from the difificulties and absurdities of the position of
the teachers of the indefinite erroneousness of God's Word, they
do bring them with their daring theories into the fierce light
of that Awful Presence where they least like to have them
searched, and before which yet the heavens and the earth, and all
the bold but baseless things therein, shall flee away, and no place
be found for them.
There, meantime, we leave them, feeling assured that to all
who in any way, and in anything, regard the authority of God,
speaking in His Word, this statement of what is meant by and
involved in all theories of indefinite erroneousness is their
refutation.
Nor is it possible to evade these tremendous issues except by
showing that neither the Scriptures nor Christ speaking in them
claim to utter the truth without untruth, with Divine authority,
even in such distinctively Biblical things as religion and morals ;
and then by overthrowing all the evidence adduced and
adducible by which it is demonstrated that they do. When
they do this they will be free and bound to assert that the Bible
teaches nothing, but is really an unintelligible riddle, meaning
the opposite of what it states — a solemn mockery of serious men
in the gravest things, and that it has failed in the very purpose
for which God inspired it.
THE FOLLY OF STANDING ON ABSOLUTE INERRANCY.
When this, then, is the real meaning and ultimate issue of all
these anti-scriptural theories, how foolish and perilous to fight the
great battle on the narrow, negative ground of absolute inerrancy,
where one is by the terms of the controversy compelled to be
only and ever on the defensive, exposing your whole line at
countless points to the united assault of the foe, and staking
Christianity, or making Christianity pay with its life on the issue
— even the apparent issue — of one successful, or even seemingly
successful assault at one point ! How infinitely better and
stronger to show, as above, that the now opposing theories not
merely deny absolute inerrancy, but assert indefinite and
452 THE BIBLE CLAIM AND PROOF
illimitable erroneousness, and necessarily issue in a denial of the
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of both
Scripture and of Christ, even in religion and ethics, — which are
the peculiar purpose and sphere of Revelation, and the special
function of Christ to teach : and, then, on this broad general
ground, to assail their most assailable position along the whole
line ; and laying the main weight of the attack upon its weakest
part, where it asserts the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture and
of Christ, even in ethics and religion, — easily overthrow the whole
opposing position ; and leave the whole weight of the argument
for the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of
Scripture unassailed and unassailable by any who own the truth
and authority of Scripture, or of Christ in their teaching on
religion and morality. For, whatever may be said in answer to
the contention that the Bible claims absolute inerrancy in every
kind of thing, statement, item, and detail, the evidence adduced
at least demonstrates that the theory of indefinite erroneousness
is directly contrary to the whole tone, trend, substance, and
explicit teaching of Scripture and of Christ, as is manifest by the
slightest inspection of it ; and it is decisive against every theory
that approaches to denying the truthfulness, trustworthiness, or
Divine authority of Scripture or of Christ.
BOOK V.
THE OPPOSING VIEWS STATED AND CONTRASTED
APOLOGETICALLY. THE APOLOGETIC POSL
TIONS AND THE SCEPTICS' APOLOGY. THE
REPLY.
CHAPTER I.
THE BIBLE CLAIMS TO BE TRUE, TRUST-
WORTHY, AND OF DIVINE AUTHORITY.
CHRIST ENDORSES THAT CLAIM, AND DE-
CLARES THE INVIOLABILITY OF ALL SCRIP-
TURE.
In the previous chapters we have adduced the evidence of the
Bible claim to truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority,
—evidence so vast and varied, so decisive and inevasible, that if
the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that ; and further, that
Christ decisively endorses that claim, and most solemnly declares
the inviolability of all Scripture. It has also been shown that,
if the claim of Scripture itself is to be regarded, and the
authority of Christ to be held decisive, this evidence demon-
strates the falseness and vmtenableness of every theory of in-
definite erroneousness ; and it requires everyone who accepts
the claim of Scripture and the authority of Christ, on this
first and fundamental religious question, — which underlies
and largely settles every other religious question, — to recog-
nise at least the truth, reliability, and Divine authority of
all Scripture.
454 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
The Errorists deny this Claim, and declare the Position
untenable apologetically.
So soon, however, as this is averred, and by the strongest
evidence proved to be the claim of Scripture, endorsed and em-
phasised by Christ, we are met with a vast and vociferous array of
assertions and asseverations that this is not true, though " the
Truth " declared it ; that it cannot be maintained in the light of
the facts, though the alleged facts have yet to be produced and
proved. So far as they have been presented they have mostly
vanished, like dreams of the night before the beams of rising
day, and revealed chiefly the mental opacity or strange mis-
conceptions of those adducing them. And though most of
these asseverations manifest an amazing innocence of the first
elements of the question, we have received oracular assurance
ad nauseam that to maintain what the Bible claims, and Christ
declares, is vainly to take up an untenable position, fooHshly to
expose the truth to an easy assault with a speedy overthrow, and
culpably to multiply sceptics and imperil Christianity, by main-
taining a false and indefensible apologetic position. By a loud
and prolonged chorus of such assertions has the Bible claim
been assailed and sought to be set aside ; and in no measured
terms have the upholders of it been denounced as the worst
foes of the faith, and the makers of infidels. Now despite all
such oracular declarations of these would-be wise apologists,
and in face of this assumed superiority of their position and
methods of defence, we distinctly decline to have the truth of
the Bible claim settled either by the assertions of sceptics or
the assumptions of its rejectors.
The Allegation that it makes Sceptics — an Evasion
AND Delusion.
Doubtless many of them would aver that it is not the Bible
claim they reject, far less the authority of Christ ; and they
declare that it is the teaching of the inerrancy, or even the
truthfulness, of Scripture that is mainly responsible for the
scepticism of our day. But this is really an evasion, and actually
a delusion. An evasion : for if the Bible does make any such
claim, Christ endorses it ; and they rejecting this, must reject
MAKING SCEPTICS 455
both it and Him. Nor can they evade or escape from these
momentous issues, except by proving that Scripture makes no
such claim, or that Christ does not sanction it ; they are thus
under obhgation to disprove or nulHfy all the evidence by
which both have been established. A delusion : for, as a
matter of fact, the unbelief of our day is not based upon the
difference between those holding stricter or laxer views on
Inspiration, but is directed against those great fundamental
Christian verities common to both, which all believers in
Revelation are equally bound to maintain. It is notorious that
the Christian faith is assailed, and rejected to-day, by those who
do reject it, not on slight or trivial grounds, but because of those
things which constitute its essence and are its roots and bases :
— the existence and knowableness of God ; the supernatural,
miracle ; the incarnation, resurrection, atonement of our Lord ;
the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the existence and operation
of the Holy Spirit ; the personality and power of the devil ; the
future life, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment ; the
doctrines of grace, — ay, the ethical and religious teaching of
Scripture, with its Divine authenticity and authority — in short,
everything distinctive of Revelation, with Revelation itself; and
the person who is not aware of this knows Httle either of the
literature, men, or opinion of our time. What the prevalent
unbelief of our day rebels against and rejects is not merely, or
at all specifically, the infaUibility or truth of Scripture in every-
thing, but its infallible or Divine authority in anything. Indeed
it denies infallibility and authority as such anywhere ; and boldly
declares that the seat of authority in religion, as in everything
else, is not in any book or Person outside of man, but in man
himself; not in Scripture or in Christ, but in reason and
conscience ; not in revelation or in God, but in intuition and
consciousness, in observation and experiment, in science and
philosophy. How delusive, therefore, is the idea that prevalent
scepticism is to any appreciable extent the product of any
doctrine of Inspiration !
Nay more, the teachers of the indefinite erroneousness of
Scripture, who profess, nevertheless, in some sense to hold (though
what precisely and on what grounds, they never definitely tell)
the veracity and authenticity of Scripture, do not themselves
generally found their opposition to the Bible claim upon trivial
456 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
or unimportant things, but on large and substantial things that
enter into the substance and are of the very essence of Revela-
tion. Besides, errors in its moral and religious teaching are
usually the first adduced, and most relied upon by the opponents
of the Bible claim to support their theory of indefinite erroneous-
ness, as proved above. Hence it is not only a delusion, but a
deception to aver that it is the difference between themselves
and the maintainers of a stricter doctrine of Inspiration, as to the
smaller and less important matters of Scripture, that makes the
latter responsible for creating sceptics. For the difference
between them is in vital and fundamental things, extends
to every kind of thing, even the most strictly moral and
religious teaching, and enters into everything distinctive of
Revelation.
Many Sceptics iniade by the Errorists teaching the
Bible's Erroneousness.
Yea, we may go further, and show that so far as sceptics are
created by any views of Scripture apart from the prevalent
grounds of unbelief mentioned above, they are largely and
logically the outcome and effect of this very theory of indefinite
erroneousness which our opponents contend for, and by which
they innocently imagine they could most effectually arrest un-
belief and defend Scripture. For, as has been proved above,
and as will be enforced more fully below, their theory of
indefinite erroneousness, by setting reason above Revelation and
making man's own individual consciousness the standard and
judge in the ultimate issue of what is true and what is false in
Holy Writ, warrants every man in accepting or rejecting just as
much or as Uttle of it as he thinks fit, or none at all should he
think best. It provides a principle for every man that permits
and, if accepted, requires him to become a law and a revelation
unto himself. Since various men of various races, in various
ages, in different lands, conditions, and experiences, will, and do,
and must differ in regard to such things, — yea, the same man
often changing at divers times, in different circumstances, — it
will follow as a simple logical necessity ultimately that this theory,
which has deprived us of a truthful and Divinely authoritative
Bible, has robbed us also of any standard at all, and left us each
ERRORISTS TRODUCING SCEPTICS 457
to grope our way as best we may, bewildered by the sparks of
our own kindling, and left us remorselessly at the mercy of a
heartless and hopeless agnosticism. As a matter of simple and
notorious fact, best known to those who are preaching the Word
with a view to men's salvation, and who come most closely and
largely into contact with earnest souls, the lowered views of Scrip-
ture and of its truthfulness, reliability, and Divine authority that
have become prevalent, are undermining the faith of many, multi-
plying sceptics every day, and rendering appeals to Scripture as
the Word of the Lord less powerful and quickening than they were
wont to be. The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,
has in fact, by this vague, indefinite denying of its truth and
Divine authority, been for many blunted and broken, instead of
being, as it was wont to be, "quick and powerful, and sharper
than any two-edged sword." Consequently the price of a
lowered and unsettling view of Scripture has been, and is being,
paid for by the eternal loss of countless souls. A result this
that may well make all earnest men, who wish the religious well-
being and the eternal salvation of our generation, pause and
ponder whether this proclamation of indefinite erroneousness,
and this incessant arraignment of the truthfulness and Divine
authority of God's Word, has not been carried much too far,
and even to ruinous issues. Instead of forming our doctrine
of Scripture from the supposed but mistaken necessities of
Christian Apologetics, or conforming our conception of the
teaching of Christ to the pretentious scrupulosities of those
hovering self-complacently on the verge of incipient unbelief, or
surrendering the claim of Scripture and the authority of Christ
to the haughty demand of avowed infidelity, one would have
thought that the first question to consider is whether this is the
claim of Scripture, and the teaching of Christ ; and if so, then it
would be evident that it is not a theory of inspiration that is
questioned and denied by the rejectors thereof, but the veracity
and Divine origin of Scripture, and the authority and Divinity of
Christ. These, by the prime necessities of their own position,
every Christian and every believer in Revelation is precluded
from impugning, but is bound to support and defend as much as
the advocate of even absolute inerrancy.
458 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
The Errorists have never faced or answered the
Evidence for the Bible Claim.
Further, if they deny that this claim to truthfuhiess and Divine
authority is made by Scripture for itself and endorsed by Christ,
then, it is incumbent on them, in the face of the evidence
adduced and the challenge given, to prove this, and to answer all
the evidence by which this has been established. This they
have never done, nor ever really attempted to do, because they
knew they cottld not. But if this were attempted, it would be
found and felt that they are at least as much bound in reason
to answer every argument, and to explain every item of evidence
adduced in support and proof of this, as they hold us bound to
answer their objections and explain their difficulties as to our
view of the Bible claim. Yea, they are much more bound to
do so, for ours is simply the embodiment of a vast array of
direct, positive evidence from Scripture itself, supported by
proper, weighty, and unanswerable collateral evidence from other
sources, and strengthened by general considerations and other
cogent arguments of the most sound and decisive character.
Theirs is at the utmost only indirect, inferential, and largely
irrelevant, — consisting almost wholly of alleged discrepancies,
unwarrantable inferences from fragmentary and often perverted
phenomena, — outside objections, and frequently imaginary
difficulties, easily explained and largely vanished. Such objec-
tions and difficulties are common more or less to all truths
established in every sphere of knowledge, and might be especially
expected in a Divine Revelation, communicated and transmitted
as it has been to us in Holy Scripture. But they are not, and
never should be, held as valid ground for rejecting or weakening
the proper, positive evidence, far less as proof or evidence of the
opposite.
Every Item of the positive Evidence for the Bible
Claim weightier than all their Objections to it.
In any case, every item of the evidence and the argument
for the Bible claim to truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority, constitutes a difficulty and an objection to their
antagonistic theory. And since they insist on the upholders of
ERRORISTS' POSITION SELF-DESTRUCTIVE 459
the Bible claim answering all their difficulties and objections
before allowing the right to proclaim it as true, they, besides
having to answer all the difficulties and objections peculiar to
their theory, are, on their own principles, consistently bound to
answer, which they never can, every objection, and remove every
difficulty arising from the whole and ever-increasing evidence in
support thereof, before they are entitled to say it is not true ; for
ours is all proper, positive evidence, ivhile theirs is not.
Therefore, so long as a single item remains unanswered or
unexplained, they are logically prohibited, on their own principle,
from pronouncing it untrue or untenable. Nor are they con-
sistendy entitled to aver or imply that their own is true, or has
any truth in it ; nor even has it any right to have a word said in
support of it, till our evidence is totally destroyed. While they
have thus to answer every item of our biblical proof ; yet, since
they produce no explicit, positive Scripture proof for their theory,
we are not required to answer any of their indirect difficulties or
outside objections at all ; seeing they profess to receive the Bible
as a Revelation, and Christ as Divine, and as an authoritative
Teacher.
The Errorists' Arguments assail equally their own
Position and Faith.
Besides, it might naturally have suggested itself to the dis-
owners of the Bible claim, that a primary question was to
ascertain and state precisely what the Scripture position really is ;
and how it could be defended,— whether the reasons for rejecting
it were not mainly, as they are, misconceptions of it, — whether
the arguments against it are not, as they are, mostly arguments
not really against it distinctively at all, but against Scripture and
Revelation altogether, or against its veracity, authenticity, and
Divine origin, or similar things, which require to be maintained
by all believers in Revelation in any true sense ; and whether the
things alleged against the true claim of Scripture could not be
explained, removed, or answered, as they almost, if not altogether
can.
Surely, too, it should have occurred to them what weakness
and vulnerability their own theory of indefinite erroneousness
introduces into the whole defence of Christianity, and of Revela-
460 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
tion in particular. Then it might probably have dawned upon
them that in unwisely and unnecessarily giving up the true and
impregnable position of truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority claimed in Scripture and endorsed by Christ, which
has for centuries been so successfully defended against every
assault, they were not abandoning a weaker position to assume a
stronger, but abandoning a strong and safe position for one quite
indefensible, or for none at all. For, as will appear more fully
below, this is what it really comes to, on the principles, grounds,
and admissions on which the Scripture position has been aban-
doned by those modern apologists, who claim to be the
supremely wise and the only judicious defenders of the faith
delivered once for all to the Saints.
CHAPTER II
THE CONTRASTED APOLOGETIC POSITIONS.
I. Indefinite Erroneousness and absolute Inerrancy
COMPARED APOLOGETICALLY.
I HAVE put these two in comparison first, not because I commit
myself to the latter view, nor even profess to understand it
precisely, but because— ;;;fr^/, it will serve some useful purposes
to consider how this most advanced position, which has been so
much villified by the assailants of the Bible claim, compares
from an apologetic standpoint with their theory of indefinite
erroneousness ; second, because if this the most extreme posi-
tion compares favourably as a position of defence with the other,
when face to face with the foes of our faith, how much more a
fortiori the less absolute and more guarded position of the
Bible's thorough truthfulness, entire trustworthiness, and Divine
authority.
The Inerrantists' Position stated though not adopted.
Now all that the advocate of absolute inerrancy has logically
to maintain is that every statement, fact, or reference in Scripture
is true and inerrant, as originally given, and when properly
interpreted in the sense intended, within the legitimate limits of
the use of language and literary methods, in the light of ancient
Oriental usage. Now in maintaining this position it is requisite,
and only just, however much we may dislike it, or hesitate to
accept it in all the absoluteness with which it is sometimes
advocated, to apprehend precisely what it is ; and not to mis-
represent or caricature it ; and thus to appear to give an easy
refutation of it, — when, in truth, we have not really answered or
462 THE OrrOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
pondered it at all, but exposed only a caricature of our own
imagination, as has been usually done by its rejectors.
I. NOT VERBAL DICTATION.
After the exposure of misrepresentations and caricatures given
in Book III., it will suffice here to emphasise that the advocates
of absolute inerrancy or perfect infallibility do not generally, as
they certainly do not necessarily, require to hold what has been
called the theory of verbal dictation. Although it has been
regularly repudiated, and forms no part necessarily of their view,
nevertheless most persistently but most unfairly has the theory
been attributed to them, and most contemptuously have it and
they been pilloried, by those who above all things seem anxious
to evade meeting the real position, and to avoid facing the diffi-
culties of their own theory.
2. NO THEORY OF THE MODE OF INSPIRATION OR THE METHOD
OF PRODUCTION OF THE BIBLE.
The upholders of inerrancy do not and need not hold any
particular view as to the mode of inspiration, or the method of
producing the Bible. They would generally say that the first is
irreverent — an unwarrantable and unprofitable attempt to fathom
and comprehend that great mystery how the Infinite Spirit of
God acts upon the free but finite spirit of man, so as to secure
the Divinely-intended result — an absolutely infallible Bible.
The second, as to the method of production, or the mode of
composition, they are free to hold as a legitimate and inviting
subject of inquiry on the human side, provided the Divine
agency or the theopneustia is not ignored or minimised, but duly
recognised. Yet in the light of the ceaseless conflict of criticism
and the perennial variations and vagaries of critics, — whose
assurance is often equalled only by their contradictoriness or
inconclusiveness, — they would regard much of the so-called
critical results as exceedingly uncertain, and at best largely
unproved if not improbable hypotheses, and often based upon
untenable assumptions. All that it is needful for them to hold
is that whoever the human authors were, and whatever may have
been the method of production, or however the inspiring Spirit
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF INERRANTISTS' POSITION 463
may have wrought upon the human agents in producing Scripture,
He did so work as to secure an infaUible result, an inerrant
Bible ; and that He was so concerned Himself in the process, as
to be and to make Himself responsible for the production in its
entirety.
3. NO MECHANICAL THEORY OF INSPIRATION.
Nor would they need to maintain what has been contemptu-
ously called the mechanical, as distinguished from the dynamical
theory of Inspiration, — though what mechanical or dynamical
can precisely mean in such matters, or how they are to be
definitely distinguished, the users of these misleading phrases
have never yet attempted to make plain. Certainly " mechanical "
is quite inapplicable to those who, while maintaining the absolute
inerrancy, also hold the perfect naturalness and harmony of all
Scripture ; and recognise as fully as their opponents the diversity
of style, distinctness of thought, variety of expression, freedom
of hterary composition, and spontaneity in the inspired writers ;
and who believe they have found in the fulness of their Divine
inspiration the secret both of their freedom and infallibility.
4. NOT EQUALITY IN VALUE OF ALL SCRIPTURE, THOUGH ALL
TRUE.
Nor does the advocacy of inerrancy require or imply holding
the equaUty in value of all parts of Holy Writ, as has so often
falsely been averred. It does, indeed, require them to hold as
true what the Bible declares, that all Scripture, being God-
breathed, is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness," but not that all parts of it are
of equal value. In actual fact and in habitual conception, they
hold them to be equally true and inerrant, but not equally
important; and in this way only are they regarded by any
intelligent upholder of inerrancy. Indeed, every simple-minded
earnest Christian practically shows, by his use of some portions
more than others, that while all is regarded as true, all is not
regarded as of the same value or use in Christian life. On the
contrary, they regard the Scriptures, and the Church has ever
regarded them, as of almost infinitely diversified value, — just as
464 THE OPrOSING VIEWS ArOLOGETICALLY
Creation is, though every part and particle of it is nevertheless
the product of God. Yea, it is because they hold it to be all
inspired of God, and therefore all inerrant, that they hold all to
be of real though not of equal value ; which the others do not
and cannot. They therefore, as taught by Christ, continue to
search the Scriptures in all its parts ; and find them in every
diverse part to be in their experience, in ever-widening scope,
and ever - deepening conviction, of ever-growing spiritual pro-
fitableness. This, they who hold its indefinite erroneous-
ness do not and cannot hold without practically abandoning
their own destructive, study-limiting, and experience-arresting
theory.
5. NOT SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY OR LINGUISTIC PERFECTION.
Further, when they maintain its absolute inerrancy, they do
not assert its scientific correctness, precision, accuracy, gram-
matical faultlessness, or linguistic perfection, as its opponents
with amazing confusedness seem strangely to imagine and often
allege. For such things as these some have found fault with
Scripture, and others have fiercely assailed the upholders of its
inerrancy. But it is a puerile and a fruitless triumph ; for these
things its upholders never claimed, nor is its inerrancy in state-
ments of fact or truth at all affected by such jejune puerilities,
and despicable trivialities. For, as a book designed for all men
in all ages, it is written in a simple, popular style, from earthly
and human standpoints, for specific purposes, in a natural,
phenomenal manner, as things would appear to the ordinary man.
Therefore, scientific correctness it never professes, nor was
designed to give. Precisian accuracy it never appears to aim
at. Punctilious niceties it seems generally to disregard. And
linguistic superiority or dialectic perfection it mostly purposely
avoids ; and in doing so, its truthfulness, trustworthiness, and
even inerrancy may remain intact. For things and facts may
be as truly stated in popular as in scientific language. Practical
and actual trueness may be as really attained without precisian
accuracy as with it. While as for grammatical faultlessness, and
linguistic excellence, they are merely matters of usage, taste, or
opinion, which are of no importance, and have no bearing
whatever on the truth or error of what is written.
CONFUSION OF IMPERFECTION WITH ERROR 465
6. NOR ABSOLUTE PERFECTION.
And when they maintain absolute inerrancy, they do not
thereby claim absolute perfection, as has so persistently been
alleged by their opponents. For a statement may be absolutely
true without being absolutely perfect. It may be free from error
without being free from imperfection. As shown above, imper-
fection and truthfulness are quite compatible. Nor is there any
necessary or natural inconsistency between inerrancy and com-
parative imperfectness ; as there is no contradiction between
maturity and immaturity, fragmentariness and trueness, imper-
fectness and progressiveness ; as there is no incompatibility but
perfect harmony between the opening bud and the full-blown
rose, the new moon and the full moon, the undeveloped infant,
and the full-grown man.
Confusion of Imperfection with Erroneousness. Progressiveness
postulates Imperfection but Triteness in earlier Stages.
The amazing confusion of relative imperfection with erroneous-
ness has been a most fertile source of misconception and error
in the whole question. So far is it from being true that imper-
fection and absolute inerrancy are inconsistent, that, on the con-
trary, the very reverse is the case. Paul says, " Not as though I
had attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after." Pro-
gressiveness postulates imperfection, and development demands
trueness and reliability in the elementary and progressive stages
of life or revelation. Therefore, absolute inerrancy is in full and
natural accord with relative imperfection. In fact, absolute
perfectness does not and cannot exist either in life or Revelation
— not in the creature, but only in the Creator. Divine truth
can dwell perfectly only in the Divine mind ; and must suffer
more or less in coming into and through the at best imperfect
media of human thought and language. Therefore, if we cannot
have truth while there is imperfection, we cannot have truth at
all. Scripture may therefore be entirely inerrant without being
absolutely perfect, or while being largely imperfect.
7. NOT NECESSARILY OF THE RECEIVED CANON, OR
TRANSLATIONS, OR VERSIONS, OR PRESENT MSS.
When its advocates predicate absolute inerrancy of Holy
Scripture they do this not necessarily, as shown already, of all
466 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
the received Canonical Books, or of translations of any particular
MSS., or of the original MSS. as we have them now, or of the
best text made from the best MSS. It is predicated only of the
Scripture as originally given, through the inspired writers, in the
immediately inspired writings ; and of those only when properly
interpreted, and when the meaning intended by the inspiring
Spirit has been truly ascertained from the true text, in the light
of ancient Oriental usage, and within the reasonable limits of the
use of language. So that the advocates of inerrancy are entirely
freed of responsibility for many of those prejudicial things that
have been wrongly attached to them. They are not even obliged
to hold by all the books in the received Canon should one or
more be shown by evidence to have no right to a place in Holy
Scripture ; or be proved to contain demonstrable errors, contrary
to the trend, tone, and claim made by the Bible itself.
8. NOT TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION.
Further, they do not require to hold traditional interpretation,
or to claim approval for many things in Scripture not intended
to be approved by God, though recorded by Divine inspira-
tion for gracious purposes. If anyone thinks the account of
Adam and Eve in Paradise legendary and not historical, or the
book of Job simply allegorical, and not historical or literally true
history, but expressive of inspired and authoritative teaching as
to the origin of man, evil, and the mystery of suffering, and thinks
he can prove this to be the proper interpretation, — then, we may
not agree with it, and may show that it is wrong or defective, and
disregards the reasonable limits and natural meaning of language.
But we are not, therefore, required or warranted to regard him
as denying the truthfulness, trustworthiness, or Divine authority
of Scripture, although we may think and show that his interpreta-
tion is forced and false. In some cases the evidence of this may
be so clear and strong that we may be justified in saying that
the natural meaning and reasonable limits of language preclude
his interpretation ; and that to so denaturalise Scripture, whether
by rationalising or spiritualising — as has often been done from
the time of Origen until now — is to play with Scripture, and
make it mean anything, according to the idiosyncrasy or precon-
ception of the interpreter. It, too, lays the Bible open to the
TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION, TEXT ISOLATION 467
charge of misleading, if such interpretation were to be regarded
as the true and intended sense. It would be nearly allied to its
being untrue and untrustworthy, and therefore not possessing
Divine authority. Nevertheless, this attitude and position is in
itself to be essentially distinguished from the theory and attitude
of those who deny the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority of Scripture, and who teach or imply its , indefinite
erroneousness. It is necessary to say this much here, because
the words true and historical have often been confounded as if
identical; and frequently when men say that Scripture in some
parts is untrue, they simply mean it is unhistorical, — which might
be, and yet it might be perfectly true in the sense intended.
All that has to be maintained is that every statement, reference,
or allusion made in the Scriptures, as originally given, when
properly interpreted, is true, and free from error in the sense
intended. I say true and inerrant in the sense intended. I do
not say necessarily historical. Frequently it is not historical.
It often is allegorical, figurative, or symbolical, or it may
be some other literary device, but yet true in the sense
intended.
9. NOT IN TEXT MANIPULATION OR ISOLATION.
Nor are they required to hold that every separate part, text,
or expression of Scripture is in itself, in isolation, apart from its
context, and from the other parts of Scripture to be regarded as
absolutely inerrant. Proper interpretation repudiates such dis-
integration of Scripture, and requires Scripture to be regarded as a
living organic whole — a true, complex spiritual unity. It requires
also that texts should not thus be severed from their context, —
that every particular passage should be studied in its environment
and purpose in the whole. Every part must be considered and
understood in its place and connections ; and individual passages
interpreted in the light of the whole, especially the earlier parts
in the light of the later, higher, and more perfect Revelations.
The position of the inerrantist is that all Scripture and every part
and particle of it, as originally given, when truly ascertained and
properly interpreted, in the sense intended, is absolutely inerrant.
And the question now to be discussed is whether that position is
weaker or stronger, wiser or unwiser apologetically — more capable
468 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
of defence and more powerful in attack, in facing the sceptic, than
the position of indefinite erroneousness.
The Comparison apologetically.
Now in comparing the two positions apologetically, to dis-
cover their comparative apologetic strength or weakness, what
strikes onejirst is the unwisdom, if not the unwarrantableness, of
attempting to settle the question of the truth or error of the
opposing^ theories in this way, instead of determining the question
by its proper evidence — -the teaching and the claim of Scripture
itself. For to every one who believes that God speaks in the
Bible that must ever be the direct, proper, and decisive evidence.
And to every one who recognises that what is true is strongest
apologetically, it will certainly be the best apologetic. Besides,
what is weak or strong in apologetics changes often, so that what
appears strong and decisive in one case or time seems incon-
clusive, unsafe, and less strong in another.
(I.) The apparent Strength but intrinsic Weakness of
THE ErRORISTS' POSITION.
But as we have here to deal not with the truth, but with
the comparative defensive strength of the contending theories,
and as this has an indirect bearing on the previous question,
and is corroborative of the true view and our main position,
the second thing that is forced upon us, as we examine the
question closely, is that the assumed but vaunted strength apolo-
getically of the opposing theory is more apparent than real,
even when compared with the extremest view. The longer and
more deeply we have pondered and penetrated the question, the
more impressed have we been with the comparative weakness
and intrinsic indefensibleness of that theory. At first sight it
seems plausible, and has doubtless impressed many who have
not thought the question through, and led others to hesitate who
have not weighed the difficulties of the errorists' view. To say,
as the opponents of inerrancy do, that it exposes Christianity to
an assault along the whole line, and allows the foe to enter the
citadel, or to penetrate to the centre at countless vulnerable points,
makes a plausible impression on many. For, as alleged, the
assailant of the Christian faith has only to make out one demon-
APOLOGETIC WEAKNESS OF ERRORISTS' POSITION 469
strable error in Scripture, in order to overthrow the Christian
faith. It is urged as surely perilous in the extreme to stake
Christianity on such a narrow point, and to make it pay with its
life, if a single error is proved. Yea, to reduce it to its lowest
point, it makes the truth of the Christian religion dependent
upon whether the foes of the faith can make out one probable error
in the Bible. For according to the probability of the one is the
improbability of the other. Now, however much there may be
in some aspects of this to make extremists ponder, and whatever
may lie in this line that all upholders of the truth and authority of
Scripture should face, meet, and answer, it is but fair, and, in
passing to examine the opposing theory, sufficient, at present, to
say^^rj-/, that some of the ablest defenders of inerrancy distinctly
decline to stake the truth of the Christian faith upon this question ;
second, they emphatically deny, and definitely undertake to prove,
that this is not the real state of the question.
The Prima Facie Weakness of the Errorists' Position.
But in proceeding to examine the opposing view — indefinite
erroneousness — which vaunts with a supreme if not contemp-
tuous self-complacency its superiority in apologetic defence to
the position of inerrancy — one is at once struck, not with the
strength, but with the weakness, vulnerableness, and indefensible-
ness of such a position. Why, the very idea that a theory which
teaches the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture is a strong posi-
tion from which to defend the religion of the Bible from the
assault of the sceptic, appears, at the outset and on the face of
it, a startling and a very peculiar conception ! What an amazing
idea to suppose that to maintain, or admit and proclaim, that the
Bible is indefinitely erroneous would commend it to its rejector,
or prevent him from successfully assailing it ! Why, its supposed
erroneousness is the very reason of his rejection of it, and the
ground of his assault on it. And that the admission or asser-
tion of this by its defenders — i.e. agreement with him in this
— could induce him to believe it, or strengthen any defence of
it against his attacks on it, seems a strange imagination. To
admit and still more to teach the indefinite erroneousness of
Scripture, is to give the sceptic what he wishes, and to confirm
him in his unbelief. To suppose that this would either silence
470 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
or convince him, or strengthen the defence of the Christian faith
against him, is a hallucination so amazing as to be explicable
only by supposing that the teachers of it never clearly set before
themselves what their theory really and necessarily involves.
They have been so impressed by the supposed weakness of
the inerrantists' position, as to have scarcely considered the weak-
ness of their own. They have been so concerned about con-
straining the upholders of infallibility to abandon their position,
as to have shown little concern, and have arrived at no conclusion,
as to what they could put in its stead. They have been so
occupied in decrying the danger of inerrancy, and declaring its
apologetic untenableness, as to have considered Uttle the danger
of thereby proclaiming the opposite, and of disclosing the obvious
untenableness of the position of indefinite erroneousness, when
face to face with the sceptic. They have thus not reflected how
easily and resistlessly he could from that position assail and
destroy the whole structure and basis of the Christian faith.
Indeed, they have been so used to contend in this matter only
against their stricter brethren, and so wont to take up simply a
negative position in assailing inerrancy, as to have never appar-
ently thought of how the sceptic would, on their own principles,
storm them from their own position, and pulverise them by their
own weapons, — by simply translating their negative into its corre-
sponding positive, and then applying their destructive doctrine by
a remorseless logic to the unsettlement and overthrow of every-
thing distinctive of the Christian faith. For to deny the inerrancy
of Scripture as they deny it, is to declare its erroneousness ; and
to proclaim as they do its innumerable errors in all kinds of
things, is to teach obtrusively its indefinite erroneousness and its
illimitable unreliability. And when that is taught, it requires
but little sceptical acumen to show that a book indefinitely
erroneous and inimitably unreliable, cannot be a seat of Divine
authority in religion, or a rule of faith and duty, or a trustworthy
source of supernatural revelation.
It puts Weapons and Principles into the Sceptic's Hands
with which he may assail and overthrow the chris-
TIAN Faith.
I presume there are few intelligent Christian apologists
who, if they thought of it, would feel particularly comfortable in
THE SCEPTIC'S ArOLOGY. FIRST STAGE 47 1
entering into controversy with an astute sceptic, on the truth and
Divine origin of the Christian religion, by declaring at the outset,
as part of their teaching, that there were errors, innumerable and
illimitable, in the Bible. Who would feel specially strengthened
for their defence of the faith by such a declaration? On the
contrary, I imagine that most capable apologists would feel not
helped but handicapped by such a preliminary proclamation, and
would prefer not to make it unless required. Many would feel it
to be at least a rather awkward start of the debate, which they
would suspect might lead to further disadvantages. Some of the
shrewdest would probably have serious misgivings as to whither
this might lead, and where it might end in the hands of an able
antagonist. And not a few of the ablest and wisest would feel
uneasy as to whether the skilful, and not over-scrupulous foe,
might not through such a paraded opening, make his way much
farther than was anticipated, if not into the citadel, and even
destroy the foundations of Christianity, or at least appear to
make out such a plausible case as would throw the whole question
of Scripture — the only source of the Christian faith — into such
confusion or uncertainty as to excuse or justify agnosticism.
The Sceptic's Questions and Apology. First Stage.
For even at this stage the clever sceptic can ask such awk-
ward questions, and press such difficult points, and urge such
cogent reasons as these : — " If, as you allege, there are errors in
the Bible in some things, why not in others — why not in all ?
If it has erred in an indefinite number of things, why should I
believe it in others, or be asked to receive it as true in anything ?
And even were I disposed to believe it true and right in some
things, how am I to distinguish between the false and the true ?
On what principle and by what means can I separate the wheat
from the chaff in the Bible ? Then how can I be si^re that I am
right in my selection ? On what valid ground can I base my
distinction ? By what infallible test can I ascertain what I am
to believe ? How can I infallibly eliminate the truth from the
error, so as to be inerrantly certain that I have found the truth —
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Further, has not
the Church all along understood the Bible to be true and right ?
Has it not been supposed by every section of the Christian
472 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
Church to be infaUible and of Divine authority — the Word of
God ? Do not the creeds of Christendom teach this ? Has the
Spirit promised by Christ to the Church to lead them into all
truth, then, misled it in this primary and vital question as to the
character of the records of its faith — in regard to the source and
basis of Christianity ?
"Besides, is not this the impression the Bible itself naturally
makes on every simple, earnest reader ? Does it not seem to
claim to speak the truth, and nothing but the truth, and that,
too, in the name of God ? Are not many of these very passages
in which you allege there are errors, neither few nor small, pre-
faced by a ' Thus saith the Lord ' ? and does not this tone or
claim more or less pervade the whole ? And if it leaves a false
impression, and thereby misleads, — as it certainly has misled, —
in this first and radical matter, the plain man, who earnestly and
with open mind comes to it for light and life, how can it be a
Divine Revelation, or of Divine origin ? Can God lie or mislead
the earnest seeker after truth, the sincere and anxious soul?
How can straight and earnest men believe it and rely on it in
anything, if, indeed, it has misled them in this ?
" Further still, does the Bible itself give any clear warrant for
any such distinction as that it is true and right in some parts
and things, while false and wrong in others? And if it does
not, as it surely does not, what right have you to make it?
On what ground do you make it ? By what principle do you
make it ? Is it not on the principle of Rationalism, — individual
selection by each mind, — which at bottom, and in its ultimate
issue, is antagonistic to Revelation, and destructive of it ? Nay,
more, is not this whole theory about Scripture an afterthought
necessitated by the exigencies of the controversy, and a testi-
mony to the force of the infidel attack ? Is this not an evidence
of the inherent weakness of what you consider the strongest
Christian apologetic? Does it not imply the indefensibleness
of the Christian Revelation from that standpoint, on that your
best basis, when it has to resort to a Rationalistic principle which
is essentially antagonistic to the supremacy of Revelation, and
implies the supremacy of Reason in the ultimate issue ?
"In any case, is not the whole question thus thrown into
confusion and uncertainty ? Are not the views taken from the
Bible on this principle so diverse, and often so contradictory, as
INDEFINITE AND ILLIMITABLE ERRONEOUSNESS 473
to warrant men in not troubling themselves much about its
supposed revelation ? Is not scepticism justified in rejecting it,
or at least in regarding the truth or falsehood of it as a matter
of doubtful disputation ? Surely agnosticism, at least, in this as
in so many other matters, is neither unreasonable nor unwise ?
Yea, is it not right, inevitable, and obligatory in every man of
intellectual honesty and moral integrity ? "
These, and suchlike, are the questions that not only the
sceptic, but the plain man and the perplexed truth-seeker natur-
ally put and are constrained to put, to the errorists.
These are the kinds of questions that their assertion of
Scripture errancy and erroneousness necessarily raise, and of
which perplexed men have a right to demand a thorough solu-
tion. And these, precisely these, are the questions that these
theorists have not answered, nor seriously attempted to answer ;
although they are both logically and morally bound to do so,
when unsettling the faith of the truth-seeker, and boasting of a
superior apologetic position.
The Force of the Sceptic's Apology is immensely in-
creased BY THE InDEFINITENESS AND IlLIMITABLENESS OF
THE Erroneousness as urged.
All this is immensely increased when not only the existence,
but the prevalence of errors in Scripture is proclaimed, — when
not merely is inerrancy denied, but indefinite erroneousness
and inimitable untrustworthiness is asserted, as is now generally
done, by the opponents of the Bible claim. That this is now
generally done by them any reader of current theological and
religious literature knows and can see, and has doubtless been
often struck with, if not pained by. It can be found ad fiauseiim
in many of our current reviews, both theological and general j
in periodicals, both religious and secular; in articles, letters,
reports, or scraps of sermons in religious weeklies ; and even
in leading secular newspapers, and in many of the recent
books and reviews of them bearing on or referring to the
question.
True, the expression "indefinite erroneousness" may not
literally occur often, but what it accurately and positively conveys
does occur superabundantly in general assertions, sweeping
474 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
statements, specific examples given at random, and pervading
assumptions and implications.^
Besides this, the denials of inerrancy — which, put positively,
are simply assertions of erroneousness — are so made with such
generality and indefiniteness, without limitation or specification,
as, from the very nature of the case, to exclude any sure prin-
ciple of infallible limitation of error, and to preclude the
possibility of inerrant specification of any things or kinds of
things distinctive of Revelation, in which Scripture can, with
absolute certainty, be regarded as infallibly true and of Divine
authority. So that the denial of inerrancy being so indefinite,
unlimited, and illimitable, the erroneousness is so also.
Therefore, all that is urged above to show the apologetic
weakness of the position that there are some errors in Scripture,
without specification or how they can be certainly ascertained,
presses with much greater force against the theory of indefinite
and illimitable erroneousness.
The sceptic can urge with vastly augmented cogency the
unanswered and unanswerable questions above, which threaten
so seriously, if not render untenable and practically powerless,
the apologetic position of those who allege errors in Scripture, —
especially as no two of them agree, or can agree, or state what
precisely those errors are. He can also easily press the idea
and principle of indefinite and illimitable erroneousness so power-
fully as to render the Bible practically useless and unauthoritative
as a standard of faith or rule of life. And he can from that
basis argue irresistibly against its being, with the authority of
God, binding on the conscience of any man, — if not demonstrate
that on this view unbelief is no sin, and agnosticism the position
of reason, wisdom, and duty.
How CAN AN INDEFINITELY ERRONEOUS BlBLE BE MADE A RULE
OF Faith and Life, or be bound upon the Conscience
WITH THE Authority of God?
For of what real practical use can any religious book be that
is believed to be indefinitely erroneous ? Is it to be wondered
1 See among many, Ladd's Doc/riue of Saord Scripture, Farrar's Iii/er-
pretatioii of Scripture, Horton's Inspiration and the Bible, Warrington's
The Inspiration of Scripture.
THE AGNOSTIC'S INTERROGATIONS 475
at if men have little regard for, and pay little or no heed to, a
book so regarded ? How can it be of much use to a man if he
is told it is, and he believes it to be, indefinitely erroneous, and
is left without any sure and authoritative means of ascertaining
what in it is false and what true, or of being certain of anything
peculiar to it being true and of Divine authority ? How can it
reasonably be regarded as a standard of faith or a rule of life ?
Does not the very idea of a standard postulate truth and trust-
worthiness, and preclude indefinite erroneousness ? And when
it is a standard in matters of religious faith, are not truth and
reliability obviously prime and urgent necessities ? Is not the
very conception of a rule of life quite inconsistent with indefinite
erroneousness in what is made the rule ? How can it be
reasonable or possible to believe or be ruled by a book that is
held, or believed to be indefinitely erroneous? Is it not a
manifest necessity of believing it, or believing anything in it, to
ascertain and to be sure in what precisely it is and is not inerrant
and trustworthy ? Is it not self-evident that beUef of the Bible
or of any book, or of anything therein, is necessarily inconsistent
with any theory of indefinite and illimitable erroneousness?
How can it be right or possible to bind on the conscience, in
the name of God, what is held to be indefinitely erroneous and
wrong, or even matter of doubtful disputation? Is it not as
manifestly wrong to attempt to do it as it is morally and
mentally impossible to do it?
Is NOT Agnosticism reasonable and requisite?
Why should disbelief of such a book and rejection of its
religion, its Christ, and its God, be a sin? Does not the very
indefiniteness of its erroneousness and the illimitableness of its
untrustworthiness excuse, warrant, and necessitate this ? Nay,
more, is not agnosticism in such a case justified by reason and
required by prudence ? Or at least, surely there is little ground
for fault in outsiders not regarding it as of Divine origin or
authority, or giving any weight or heed to it, until the upholders
of it have, on unquestionable grounds, definitely ascertained and
specifically set forth in what things and kinds of things, peculiar
to it, men can be sure it is inerrant ? But in the very doing of
this the stultifying and untenable position of indefinite errone-
4/6 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
ousness is, and must be abandoned. Were it merely in some
specific and trivial things and kinds of things that absolute
inerrancy was denied, and errancy and error asserted ; and were
the Bible doctrine of its truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority declared in its scriptural generality, — a tenable and even
a strong, although I do not think the strongest, position might
be found ; and some fairly satisfactory, or not entirely unsatis-
factory, or at least possible if not probable explanation of these
exceptional trivialities might be forthcoming.
But when indefinite erroneousness is alleged, implied, and
proclaimed, and becomes the principle assumed and proceeded
on, the whole position is exposed and becomes assailable at
innumerable vulnerable points, and the very citadel is left de-
fenceless, at the mercy of the skilful foe.
Each individual varying Consciousness becomes Judge
AND Standard, and the independent Authority of
God's Word is nullified.
Every individual must at best or worst discover for himself
what in Scripture is supposed to be inerrant, reliable, and of
Divine authority, — if on such a theory anything can be properly
supposed to be so. Then after he has found it, as he fancies,
he finds, if he examine the matter closely and probe it to its
roots, that on this essentially rationalistic principle he really has
no higher authority for it than his own consciousness. Even
in that he may be mistaken, as men often are, — to say nothing
of the mystery as to how this consciousness has come to him,
and what authority or reliability belongs to it. But scarcely has
he made this discovery till he finds that another's consciousness
does not agree with or differs materially from his — or even con-
tradicts it. And since one man's consciousness cannot be an
authority to another, and since on this principle there can be
no independent outside Divine authority in the Bible, it thus
becomes impossible to settle authoritatively what is infallibly
true, or absolutely trustworthy, or of Divine authority in Scrip-
ture. In the ultimate issue it is found that the only things on
which, on this principle, men come generally to agree, are those
simple and primitive intuitions and convictions of an ethical and
religious character which are no distinctive element of Christi-
ERRONEOUSNESS IN RELIGIOUS TEACHING 477
anity or Revelation at all, but the common moral and religious
possession and inheritance of mankind — essential elements in
the constitution of the human soul. So that the theory of in-
definite and illimitable erroneousness, which its advocates fancied
would afford such a superior apologetic position for the defence
of Christianity, is really proved to deprive us of any defensible
position at all, and logically lands us outside the Bible, Christi-
anity, and Revelation altogether.
The Climax of Weakness is reached when Erroneous-
ness IS alleged of things religious and ethical.
All this follows simply from the indefinite denial of inerrancy,
and the assertion of indefinite erroneousness, without positively
and explicitly asserting error in every kind of thing in Scripture.
But the climax of manifest untenableness in this hne is reached
when not only is inerrancy unlimitedly denied, and indefinite
erroneousness inimitably taught, but when errancy and actual
error are positively asserted and explicitly exemplified in every
kind of thing. It is not only said or implied that the Bible is
not inerrant but erroneous indefinitely without limitation, but
also expressly alleged, implied, and proclaimed that it is not
inerrant in any kind of thing, but specifically erroneous, and has
actually erred in every kind of thing. It avers that there is
nothing, or no kind of thing peculiar to it, in which it is inerrant,
or can be declared to be infallible, true, trustworthy, and of
Divine authority. This, in the ways indicated above, is what
is now most generally done, sometimes in express and even
offensive terms, more frequently in the unquestioning, implied
assumptions, postulated presuppositions ; and most patently and
decisively of all in the specific examples adduced, and the
necessary implications of the whole tone, method, manner, and
trend of handling and regarding the Word of God. This is
equivalent to a distinct and definite declaration of the indefinite
untruthfulness, and unlimited, yea illimitable untrustworthiness,
and unauthoritativeness of Scripture in any kind of thing.
It is asserting not merely the errancy and erroneousness, but
also the unlimited and illimitable erroneousness and untrust-
worthiness of Scripture in every kind of thing. For as a matter
of fact no limit is specifically given, nor any distinct indication
478 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
that any precise limit exists, or if so, how it can be ascertained ;
and from the nature of the case any definite authoritative
Hmitation is, on this thoroughly Rationalistic principle, manifestly
impossible. Since the Bible is not in itself, and independently
infallible, or free from error in any kind of thing, it follows
necessarily that no Scripture limit is available or authoritative ;
and since there is no outside authority except the human
consciousness, which as shown above is not, and cannot be
infallible and authoritative, — it follows again that there is no kind
of thing in Scripture of which, on this principle, infalUble truth
and Divine authority can be predicated with certainty; and,
therefore, Scripture is not only indefinitely, but also inimitably
erroneous, untrustworthy, and unauthoritative in every kind of
thing. There is, therefore, no kind of thing peculiar to Scripture
in which it is infallibly trustworthy, or of Divine authority. Since
this is so it seems scarcely worth consideration whether this
theory supplies a strong position for the defence of the Christian
faith ; for it provides no position at all, and, in fact, leaves
nothing Christian to defend — nothing worth defending.
Impossible from such a Bible to make a trustworthy
Religion or an authoritative Ethic.
Not to repeat the processes of reasoning available to the
sceptic, by which the less open previous positions in this line
have been shown to be hopelessly untenable and practically
useless, and all of which hold with immeasurably increased force
against this theory, and simply explode and pulverise it, — what
on the principle of this theory is Christianity definitely and
distinctively ; and how can anything that might be supposed to
be it, be defended ? How is it possible from a Bible that is not
inerrant, or infallible in any kind of thing, and, therefore, fallible
and erroneous in every kind of thing, — and that, too, without limit,
or the possibility of limitation, — to educe a definite, inerrant, and
Divinely-authoritative Christianity ? Is it not plainly impossible
to construct out of such unlimitedly and inimitably erroneous
and untrustworthy materials as the Holy Scriptures are alleged to
be, a definitely true and Divinely-authoritative religion ? Does
not reliability and Divine authority in the product demand,
require, and postulate the same in the materials from which it is
NO RELIABLE RELIGION 479
produced, of which it is composed? As the materials, so the
structure, is surely a self-evident axiom of all things, specially of
things religious and ethical. Therefore, on this theory, it is
patently impossible to construct or conceive, far- less to believe
or practise, a definite, reliable, or authoritative Christianity.
The Conditions in which such Results would not
FOLLOW.
Had the theory been, as it was to many a few years ago,
that the Bible, though not absolutely infallible in everything, is
inerrant and of Divine authority in all its teaching ; then, though
this is not free of difficulty, we might have drawn and formulated
a Christianity, both definite in its nature and Divine in its
authority, from a correct and complete interpretation and
induction of all Scripture. Then its teaching, thus truly
ascertained from the Scripture as originally given, or as near as
we can get to that, when properly interpreted, would be the
Christianity of the Bible. And since it teaches, if it teaches
anything, its own truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority, as its first and fundamental truth — as the truth which
underlies, and on which it bases all its other truths — the Bible's
teaching as to itself would be held as true, and of Divine
authority by all who owned the truth and authority of its
teaching ; and this would end the controversy, so far as they are
concerned. Or had it been, as was wont to be until recently,
that the Bible is infallible and of Divine authority in all matters
of faith and life, then, though difficulties might arise as to what
were matters of faith and Hfe, — still, with such limitation
distinctly expressed, we might come to an approximately true
conception and expression of the Christian faith. Yea, it might
without much difficulty be shown that every part of Scripture
teaches something as to faith and duty ; and, therefore, all
avowing this belief would be bound to accept what it teaches in all
things, which is what is maintained. Or had it been, as was a
general belief a few years ago, that the Bible is infallible, and
Divinely authoritative in all matters affecting faith and life^, and,
therefore, every holder of this would have to believe, and receive
its teaching throughout, — for all of it affects faith or life in some
way, — then, again, the evils of RationaUsm could be avoided. For
48o THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
if a man holds and avows that the Bible is infallible in ethics and
religion, and in what affects these, then this limits, at least in
avowal, errancy, or error to what is outside these, and to what in
no way affects them ; and is a denial in expUcit terms at least of
indefinite erroneousness. And on that basis it can be shown as
above,^ that what the Bible itself claims and teaches (2 Tim. iii.
15, 16) is that all in it has some relation to faith and life, and
directly or indirectly affects these ; and that there is nothing in it
that does not in some way or other affect these, — that, in fact, it is
because all and everything therein does so in some way or other,
and has some bearing on the ethical and religious end for which
the Bible was inspired of God, that it has received a place
therein. Thus, from this basis one can strongly, if not irresist-
ibly, reason for the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority of all Scripture as originally given, when truly inter-
preted, as God intended it. Certainly at least indefinite
erroneousness, and encroachment can be conclusively arrested
and precluded.
Indefinite Erroneousness now generally avowed. No
DEFINITE Christianity ascertainable or defensible.
But what is now generally averred and vociferously pro-
claimed by the opponents of the Bible claim, is that the Bible is
not infallible but indefinitely erroneous and inimitably unreliable
in its teaching, — that there is no kind of thing in which it is
inerrant and Divinely authoritative, — that it is more or less
erroneous and untrustworthy in every kind of thing, — that it is
not inerrant, but erroneous in matters of faith and life as well as
in other matters — these being generally singled out and most
emphasised as the strongest evidence of erroneousness, — that it is
as little an infallible standard or carries Divine authority in its
ethical and religious teaching as in anything else, — that in these
kinds of things it is as indefinitely and inimitably erroneous, mis-
leading, and wrong as in other things. Then it is obviously
impossible, from the very nature of the case, to construct or
formulate from these uncertain and unreliable materials a definite,
reliable, and inerrant conception of the Christian faith which
would be infallibly true and of Divine authority. From a source
so unreliable, even in the kinds of things it was specially designed
^ See also Book VI.
NEBULOUS CHRISTIANITY 481
to teach, and on a basis so erroneous in what it was its purpose to
reveal, and out of materials so inimitably misleading and wrong
in the very things they were given for, it is evidently not possible
to arrive at a definitely true, really reliable, and Divinely-
authoritative Christianity. So that on this theory we cannot
know or ascertain what is the Christianity proposed to be
defended. We are destitute of the very materials and indispens-
able conditions of ascertaining it. In short, we have no definite
or truly ascertainable Christianity to defend. Therefore, to
prate about strength of apologetic position in connection with
such a theory seems little short of absurdity.
And even if something might be extracted by individuals,
according to their respective idiosyncrasies and predispositions,
from these untrustworthy and unauthoritative Scriptures which
might be denominated Christianity, what would it be, and how
could it be defended ? It could only be the findings, and
the formulation of the individual mind, made according to
the character, preconceptions, and prejudices of every various,
ever varying, and never inerrant man. It could have no
authority over any other mind ; even as the Bible from which he
supposes he received some of his conceptions, or the germs of
them that gave birth to his idea of Christianity, was, ex hypothesi,
itself without any intrinsic, independent, or Divine authority. It
must be destitute of any authority at all, except what each
individual mind may chose to give to it. Scepticism scarcely
requires to attack such a position, or to expose its apologetic
weakness and practical worthlessness. It of itself discredits
the sources, and destroys the foundation of the Christian faith.
What is evolved, or educed from it is, on this theory, simply an
individual Christianity, which on this principle will and must
vary with every varying person, and can never be inerrant or
authoritative to any one. The sceptic can make short work of
such a theory and its fancied apologetic strength ; for he has
only to show the countless diverse and contradictory conceptions
of Christianity in which such a theory logically ends, and to which
such a principle must and does lead, as is well illustrated in the
contrariety and contradictions between — say, Dr. Ladd and Dr.
Martineau, Dr. Samuel Davidson and Dr. Horton, and all the
vagaries of German and English Rationalism,^ all based upon and
^ See Hagenbach's History of German Rationalistn, etc.
31
482 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
naturally flowing from the same common Rationalistic principle.
A Christianity so fantastic and contradictory needs no refutation
— it refutes itself. And for all the innumerable conflicting
forms of the Christianity thus evolved from the consciousness
of each, working on the erroneous and unreliable materials
of Scripture, there is no higher authority than the individual
consciousness, which is no authority at all. In each case they
are really its creation, and have no better foundation than
individual opinion. In fact, the principle of this theory is pure
and simple rationalism. Scepticism has no need to refute it ; for
it is itself scepticism, and the root of all scepticism. Thus on
this theory there is no definite or authoritative Christianity to
defend, and no rational ground of defending what any individual
might conceive to be it. So that to say or imagine that there is
great, or any apologetic strength in such a position, reveals an
amazing innocence, and requires an astounding credulity.
The intrinsic Weakness in all Theories of indefinite
Erroneousness — Individual Opinion — the ultimate
Issue.
Along this line there is also this formidable, if not fatal
objection, from an apologetic point of view, to all theories of
indefinite erroneousness, — even the least pronounced and most
restricted of them, — that they have to maintain at once the two-
fold and naturally antagonistic, if not mutually exclusive and
contradictory, positions of indefinite erroneousness and illimitable
unreliableness of Scripture on the one hand, and of infallible
truthfulness and Divine authoritativeness somewhere on the
other. At a glimpse it can be seen that this is not a very hopeful
undertaking, in the face of an acute and skilful scepticism. It is
evidently, at the very best, anything but a strong position. The
more closely it is examined, the more its weakness and indefens-
ibleness appear. It should not require a very powerful infidel
attack to expose its pregnability and untenableness. A skilful
scepticism might without much difficulty argue, if not prove
unanswerably, that the two positions and principles were really
inconsistent and contradictory, yea, naturally destructive of each
other, when thoroughly and practically carried out, and applied
specifically in detail. For since all the forms and phases given
ERRORISTS' DILEMMA 483
above amount ultimately, more or less, to indefinite erroneous-
ness, the sceptic might, with much plausibility and force, ask and
argue. How can indefinite erroneousness consist and coexist in
the one book with infallible truthfulness, unlimited unreliability
with definite trustworthiness, illimitable unauthoritativeness with
Divine authority ? In the ultimate analysis the inevitable result
of all these theories of indefinite erroneousness seems to be,
that how much of the Bible shall be held as true or false, reliable
or untrustworthy, becomes a matter of individual opinion,
infinitely and indefinitely diversified and variable, from the simple
want of any independent and infallible objective standard. The
only authority that can on this principle attach to any part of
Scripture, is simply the authority of the individual consciousness,
which is no authority. Every man thus becomes when away
from the authority of God speaking in His Word, in faith as in
life, " Lord of himself that heritage of woe."
Note. — Dr. Westcott well says: "Much of the criticism of the present
day seems to assume that there is some resting-place between the perfect
truthfulness of Inspiration and the uncertainty of ordinary writing. ... A
subjective standard is erected, which, if once admitted, will be used as much
to measure the doctrines as the facts of Scripture ; and while many speculators
boldly avow this, others are contented to admit the premises from which
the conclusion necessarily follows."- — Elements of the Gospel Harmony, t^-^.
Ill and MI.
CHAPTER III.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT, AND THE
SCEPTICS APOIOGY— SECOND AND THIRD
STAGES.
Appeal to the Testimony of the Spirit of no avail
ON Errorists' Theory.
It is of no real avail to bring in here, as many able and earnest
Christian writers do, what has been well called the testimony of
the Holy Spirit, — a phrase that holds a large place, and a truth
that played an important part among the Reformers, and in the
theology of the Reformation. ^ The testimony of the Spirit is a
great fact. It is a veritable and verifiable reality, which those
sceptics and agnostics who profess a supreme regard for fact and
consciousness have to face, unless they are to ignore their own
avowed principles. It was the recognition at length by the once
sceptical scientist Mr. Romanes, of Oxford, that the facts of
Christian experience, realised by the testimony of the Spirit, and
attested by millions of the best and ablest men in the world in
all ages, were as real and verifiable in the moral and spiritual
sphere as any facts in the physical sphere,— which led him^ as a
scientist, and on the most strictly scientific grounds, to embrace,
confess, and die in the Christian faith." Were other scientists
^ See Principal William Cunningham's Lectures, and The Reforinas and
the Theology of the Reformation, and Dr. William Robertson Smith's The
0. T. in thejeivish Church.
- Romanes, Thoughts on Religion. It is deeply interesting and pro-
foundly significant to read this convinced scientist's and spirit-enlightened
sceptic's refutation of the unsoundness of his own previous reasoning and
sceptical writings against the Christian faith, and even against theism, when,
in proof of the Bible revelation that the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually dis-
484
THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPH-lIT 485
and sceptics only to face the same sure facts of Christian
experience, estabhshed by the best and strongest evidence, their
scepticism also would surely vanish and be replaced by faith.
The " reasonableness of Christianity " would appear to them, as
to Locke, Romanes, and similar students of philosophy and of
science in every age. The Westminster Assembly of divines
has wisely expressed, in its Confession of Faith, the general
view and matured opinion of Puritan and Reformed theology, on
the testimony of the Spirit to the Bible as the Word of God, in
these weighty words —
" We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an
high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenhness of the
matter, the eflicacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of
all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the
full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other
incomparable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments by
which it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God ; yet, not-
zuithstandiiig our full perstiasion and assurance of the infallible truth and
Divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit,
bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.''''
The Testimony of the Spirit is given to the Believer
through the bible being received as the word of
God.
Nevertheless it is in vain that the assertors of the indefinite
erroneousness of Scripture appeal to the testimony of the Spirit,
to extricate themselves from the weak and untenable position in
which, by the necessities of their unscriptural theory, they have
placed themselves. Besides all that has been already said in
various ways from different standpoints, it must not be over-
looked, but emphasised, that this testimony of the Spirit along
with the Word, which gives to the believer the strongest persua-
sion of its Divine origin and truth, has been realised, not on the
cerned, he, in his spiritual blindness, and therefore unreasonable unbelief, not
only reasoned against them, but most unscientifically denied their existence.
But it reflects much credit on his intellectual honesty and moral sincerity,
when he, having Ijy the Spirit's illumination received the power of spiritual
\ision, acknowledged this profound change, and most scientifically recog-
nised the llicts of the Christian life and experience to be as real and as
thoroughly accredited as any facts in material science, and drew therefrom the
true and only scientific Christian conclusion.
486 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
view of its indefinite erroneousness, but on the supposition of its
being true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority. Indeed, it is
difficult to see how the testimony of the Spirit, giving the full
assurance of the Divine origin and truth of Scripture, could be
realised on a presupposition of its indefinite erroneousness. It is
not the man who reads it as a critic, sitting in judgment on what
in it is true and what false, — which every one must do who holds
indefinite erroneousness, — but the humble believer that receives
it as the Word of the Lord, who has that testimony of the Spirit
which gives him personal conviction and assurance of its truth
and Divine origin, as Dr. Robertson Smith well shows,^ and all
observant men see. No doubt there is a certain self-evident,
convincing power in the Bible over the minds of unspiritual, and
even unbelieving and antagonistic men, convincing them ofttimes
against their will ; for the word of the Lord is quick and powerful,
and sharper than any two-edged sword. But by the testimony
of the Spirit is meant the impression of its divinity and truth
made by the Holy Ghost through the Written Word on the m-ind
and heart of the believer. This impression is made on them
when receiving it as the Word of the Lord, and not when
regarding it as an uncertain and unreliable conglomerate of error
and truth which everyone must as a critic sift for himself, and
receive as true only, as Coleridge and the moderns would say,
" What in it finds him." That, strictly speaking, is not what
the Reformers and Puritans meant by the testimony of the Spirit
with the Word in the believer's heart, but simply, in another
form, that Rationalistic and untenable theory of a Bible varying
in its truth and authority as the varying opinion of every variable
and never inerrant man. The falseness, worthlessness, and
indefensibleness of this theory has been shown from many
different standpoints, so that this resort to the testimony of
the Spirit to bolster up this unscriptural theory is a vain device,
and does just nothing to cover its intrinsic weakness or remove
its fatal defects. For on its essential principle, the testimony of
the Spirit in a true sense — which is a testimony to the believing
soul through the Bible received as the A\'ord of God— is, from the
very nature of the case, impossible.
^ The O.T. ill tJieJeivish Chuicli, and pamphlets.
THE SPIRIT'S TESTIMONY WITH THE WORD OF GOD 487
The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be given for many
essential primary truths of revelation which must
FIRST BE RECEIVED BY FaITH.
Further, the testimony of the Spirit cannot be adduced
decisively and indisputably to establish or demonstrate the truth
or reality of many of the truths and revelations distinctive of
Christianity. Even if the faith or consciousness of the Church,
as expressed, say, in the creeds of Christendom, is appealed to,
that consciousness is at most only a Church consciousness,
which cannot be said to be authoritative or decisive over those
not sharing in that consciousness, or to be convincing or
sufificient evidence to the sceptics, who disown that conscious-
ness, and adduce plausible explanations of its origin through
delusion in the passionate and enthusiastic imagination of the
early Christian disciples working upon and idealising the materials
and mysteries connected with Christ. Above all, that conscious-
ness or faith itself was arrived at or produced by the Scriptures
being received as true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority, as
is proved by the whole chain of Christian creeds, and the
consensus of ancient Christian writers.
The Testimony of the Spirit and the Creeds of
Christendom the Result of receiving the Bible as
the Word of God.
For, as a matter of historical fact, all the creeds of Christen-
dom were produced on the supposition that the Bible was the
Word of God, and were based on that belief; and the ancient
Christian writings, both of the Fathers and the Churches, declare,
with no uncertain voice, that all the Churches of Christ received
the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God and the infallible rule
of faith and life. Receiving them as of that character, and
studying them in that aspect, the Church therefore assumed
the attitude of faith as to all they taught, and regarded its
own function as that of a simple interpreter of its meaning, and
not a critic of its truth, or a judge of its authority, — the Church
of Rome even, as well as the Reformed Churches, denominating,
and regarding Holy Scripture as, the Word of God, as may be
seen even in the decrees of the Council of Trent.
488 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
The Romish and the Reformed Churches agree as to
THE Truth and Authority of Scripture.
Nor is this at all affected by the fact that the Romish and
the Reformed Churches did not agree in all points as to the books
that compose the sacred Canon,- — the Romanists including the
Apocrypha, while the Reformers excluded them ; nor because the
Romanists placed tradition along with Scripture as a rule of faith
and duty ; nor because the Church of Rome by the Pope
claimed to be the infallible interpreter of both Scripture and
tradition. For though the Church of Rome accepted the
Apocryphal books as Scripture, she did not, on that account,
impugn the infallible truth or Divine authority of the properly
canonical books. On the contrary, it was because they were
regarded as Holy Scripture that they were received as true and
authoritative. It was because they were held to be inspired of
God that they were received into the Canon. And although
papists put tradition alongside of Scripture as a standard of
faith and morals, they did not, therefore, dispute or disparage the
truth and authority of Scripture. On the contrary, it was in
order to give tradition a similar authority that they put it along-
side of Scripture. In the ultimate resort, if either tradition or
the Apocrypha appeared to contradict, or conflict with, or differ
from the acknowledged canonical Scriptures, even Rome herself
gave Scripture a unique place in matters of faith and morals.
And though Rome claimed to be, through the Pope, the only
infallible interpreter of both Scripture and tradition, yet her inter-
pretation was supposed to be simply the true interpretation ; and
the voice of the Pope was held to be infallible and authoritative
because it was supposed to be the voice of God speaking in His
Word through the supposed infallible interpretation. Therefore,
by Rome as by Geneva, Holy Scripture was held to be the
Word of God, of infallible truth and Divine authority, and the
authoritative standard of faith and duty.
Yea, as a matter of simple fact, whatever individuals in the
Churches may have done, every Church of Christ till now, as
witnessed by the confessions of faith, has received and regarded
Scripture as the Word of God ; and no Church up to this hour
has accepted as its faith the theory of indefinite erroneousness.
Nay, every creed of Christendom precludes it. It is, in fact, a
SUPREMACY OF SCRIPTURE AT REFORMATION 489
theory of recent creation, really beginning about a century ago,
and reaching its present boldness and portentousness in this
country, in the last decade of a century hastening in its decay to
its death. Therefore, whatever else the Churches of Christendom
differed in, they agreed in this, that Scripture was the Word of
God, and the infallible rule of faith and life.
Here I must correct an error prevalent in many books and
writings on this question in recent times. It has been often
asserted and assumed by those who depreciate Scripture, and
by others who think we should not give quite the same place to
Scripture as the Reformers did, that the reason why the Reformers
gave such supremacy to Scripture was that they were confronted
by the Church of Rome with the authority of the Pope ; and
that, therefore, they had to put in opposition to that, the authority
of the Bible, — implying that the Pope and the Church of Rome
deny the authority of Scripture. Many, of whom more might
have been expected, have gone the length of saying that the
expression, " the Word of God," as applied to Scripture, dates
from the Reformation ! In regard to this last, it need only be
said that it is an entire mistake. This expression or title, and its
equivalents, is found in Scripture itself,^ and can also be traced
in unbroken succession in almost every leading Christian writer
from Clemens Romanus to John Knox ; — as anyone may satisfy
himself, without plodding through the vast volumes of patristic
literature, by reading such old and easily accessible works as
Lardner's Credibility, or Goode's Divine Rule of Faith and
Practice ; and it is found even in the very decrees of the Council
of Trent itself.
The Power of the Pope and the Progress of Ro.aianism
is aided by the rationalisers undermining the
Truth and Supremacy of Scripture.
As to the other it must be said — First, that if there was good
reason at the Reformation for giving a supreme place to the
Bible, as against the Pope, there is as much need now as ever;
for never have the pretensions of Rome or the Pope been so
high, nor the propaganda of Rome so active and successful as
to-day ; — especially in England and through the clergy of the
' See .Appendix and ]]ooks I. and I\'.
490 THE OPrOSING VIEWS ArOLOGETICALLY
Church of England.^ Nay, more, is it not largely because the
Bible of Protestantism is being discredited and destroyed by
avowedly Protestant critics and preachers, that Rome is making
such startling progress ; since many Protestants are thus losing
faith in the truth and Divine authority of the Bible ; and little or
nothing definite and authoritative is placed against the claim of
Rome, and the pretensions of the Pope. For infallible authority
in religion and morals souls zvill have somewhere : and if they
are told they cannot find it, — as they cannot on the theory of
indefinite erroneousness — in the Bible, then they will seek it else-
where, in the Pope himself, as Newman did, and countless
others are doing now. For the last thing that observant and
logical minds will do is to seek to find it in the only other
source left — mere human Reason ; which reason itself, as well as
all history and philosophy, demonstrates the folly of following
as a sure guide, or submitting to as a trustworthy authority in
religion.
But, Second — as a matter of fact, the Church of Rome, when
claiming infallibility and supreme authority in religion and ethics,
and the Pope when claiming them for himself, never denied the
infallibility and authority of Scripture, but, on the contrary,
asserted these. What he denied was that the Bible was the only
authority — tradition being, according to Rome, also an authority.
And what he claimed for himself as the earthly Head of the
Church was and is, that he is the only infallible interpreter of
the infallible book, — a book which, however, is regarded as
infallibly true and Divinely authoritative, because it is the Word
of God ; and which, because it is so, gives him, as its assumed
interpreter, his supreme authority in faith and morals.
^ A very large and ever-increasing number of them are avowed Romanisers,
and openly conduct Romish services in the Protestant Established Churches,
although they vowed and are paid to do the opposite. They denounce and
deplore the glorious Reformation — the source of our civil and religious
liberties and privileges — as the greatest curse that ever came on Christendom.
In violation of their ordination vows they repudiate the truths which the
Protestant Church of England, whose bread they eat, was established to
uphold, and propagate the errors it was endowed, and they were ordained
and are paid, to oppose. A dishonest Romanism, which boldly defies all
power of Church or State to interfere. A state of things which involves our
nation with it in guilt and peril ; and which demands that every Christian
patriot and honest man should strive to terminate it forthwith, in the interests
of true religion, public morals, Christian liberty, and national well-being.
SCEPTICISM AND CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE CHURCH 49I
Therefore, this testimony of the Spirit, to which the deprecia-
tors of an infaUible Bible resort, to extricate them from the
insuperable difficulties of their theory of indefinite erroneousness,
and which is supposed to be given in the consciousness of the
Church, cannot, on their principle, be experienced ; and has, as a
matter of fact, been received, so far as that consciousness has
been expressed in the creeds of Christendom, on the opposite
theory — through receiving the Bible as the Word of God, and
the infallible standard of faith and duty.
Scepticism can urge its Apology against the alleged
Consciousness of the Church from the Conflicts
AND Contradictions between the Churches and the
Creeds of Christendom.
But even if that consciousness could have been received, on
their theory, it would only at best be a Church consciousness,
which could not constrain the faith or silence the objections of
scepticism ; were it only because that consciousness is not uniform
but often the reverse — yea, by no means beyond dispute in many
things distinctive of the Christian faith. On the contrary, the
sceptic knows — and can, through his knowledge, powerfully press
his argument against this alleged testimony of the Spirit in the
consciousness of the Church, which is brought to the rescue of
this theory in its extremity — that there is not only not uniformity
but much diversity, yea, not a little contrariety, in this vaunted
consciousness, as seen in the differences and even oppositions
among the creeds of various Churches and various opposing
schools of Christian criticism and theology. But, on this prin-
ciple of indefinite erroneousness, there is no possibility of deter-
mining inerrantly and authoritatively which is the true ; for by
the hypothesis all Scripture is not true, trustworthy, and of
Divine authority ; but indefinitely untrue, untrustworthy, and
unauthoritative. Therefore, it cannot be even appealed to in
order to settle infallibly and authoritatively which is true and
which false. So that this adduced consciousness of the Church
is, in some things, not only not a universal or uniform conscious-
ness, but an uncertain and even contradictory consciousness ;
with no means or possibility, on this theory, of ascertaining and
deciding which consciousness is true, by the Bible itself, or in
492 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
any other reliable and authoritative way. And surely the sceptic
may say that agnosticism in the light of this is not only blameless
and reasonable, but right and requisite. If the Bible is held to
be infallibly true and Divinely authoritative, then the differences
can be limited to the interpretation of Scripture ; and that can
usually be reduced to narrow limits and to unimportant matters,
with the reserve power and means of settling even these, by
discussion, or discovery, or both.
The Conflicts have arisen chieflv from not sufficiently
RECOGNISING THE BiBLE ClaI.M.
Hence, as a matter of fact, in the history of theological dis-
cussion, the heresies, errors, and differences in creeds that have
appeared in the history of the Church are traceable more or less
to departures from the standard of Scripture ; and from failing
to recognise fully, and to apply thoroughly, the infallible truth
and Divine authority of the Bible — the teachers of error avowedly
or unconsciously disowning it, or not thoroughly applying it in
the determination of doctrinal questions. The deviations from
the truth in creeds is traceable to this, or to violations of, or
defections from, the proper principles and methods of Biblical
interpretation. Hence, the early heretics either disowned the
final authority of Holy Scripture or used mutilated Scriptures
like Marcion's, or only parts of Scripture, or deferred to it only
in some things or kind of things. This is precisely what many
teachers of error of our day are doing ; — such as the presumptuous
preachers who use the N.T. to discredit the Old, though Christ
endorsed the one and inspired the other; the Rationalistic
critics, who exalt the prophetical books to discredit the historical,
and to destroy the legislative and the Levitical ; the Gospellers,
who magnify the Gospels to disparage the Epistles, though the
last are the highest and most perfected revelation. All these
errorists, too, who profess to exalt the teaching of Jesus in order
to depreciate the teaching of the inspired apostles ; — of whose
teaching Jesus Himself said it was not their teaching but the
teaching of the Holy Spirit, whom He was to send to lead them
into all truth, and to bring all things to their remembrance that
He had uttered, and to enable them to understand, and to teach
what He had not been able to teach, because of the hardness of
CONTROVERSIES IN THEOLOGY AND BIBLE CLAIM 493
their hearts, and because they were not able to bear it. Their
teaching, therefore, given as the Spirit gave them utterance, is,
according to Christ, the last and final teaching of the Spirit of
truth — the complement and perfection of His own. Besides
this, in the Gospels we get only the records and conceptions of
Jesus' teaching, which His disciples give us. Also the Perfec-
tionists, who not only disown the O.T., but also the New up to
Rom. vii. 29;! because it seems to them that the earlier part
of that chapter and of the previous writings, appears to contradict
their pet but antiscriptural theory of perfection, which is con-
tradicted by unanimous history and universal fact; and which
the subsequent writings of the N.T. as thoroughly repudiate as
the previous Scriptures. All these and many others are the
result of narrow, partial, one-sided, and so far false, erroneous,
and fragmentary views of Scripture, — violations the same in
kind, though varying in measure, motive, and effect. All dis-
own, more or less, the infallible truth and Divine authority of
God's Word, and violate the principles of proper interpretation.
Further, the many errors of the Church of Rome are directly
traceable to her avowed assertion of the authority of tradition,
and of the Church and Pope, and her denial of the sole
supremacy of Scripture — and of the Reformation doctrine that
the Bible is the only infallible and supreme rule of faith and
life.
Then the Socinian, the Unitarian, the Humanitarian, and
Arminian, the Sacramentarian and Tractarian, the Rationalist
and the Ritschlian heresies and errors, are all more or less due
to the same cause, — many of the errorists distinctly repudiating
the authority of Holy Scripture, and maintaining the supremacy
of Reason over Revelation ; while some, like those of old,
destroy or set aside the Commandments and the Word of God
by their traditions.
Even the minor doctrinal differences between the Calvinists
and Arminians, Lutherans and Reformed Churches, and other
minor divisions and controversies, as to government and worship,
among parties in the same or various Churches, are largely trace-
able to the more or less strict adherence to the Scriptures as the
standard of truth in all doctrinal or practical differences. So
similarly, many of the prevalent errors of our times are accounted
for by an avowed or unconscious but real disowning or not fully
494 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
recognising of the truth and authority of Scripture. In its place,
and in opposition to its teaching, especially in direct antagonism
to the most explicit and emphatic teaching of Christ as set forth
therein, many largely put, consciously or unconsciously, their own
feelings, imaginations, reasonings, and philosophies; and even
when using Scripture pervert and modify or misuse it by their
own prejudices and philosophies. This, which is simply the
practical assertion of the supremacy of reason over the teaching
of Scripture and of Christ, may be seen superabundantly in
much false but prevalent teaching and preaching, referred to
in Book I. All this arises from foolishly forsaking or not
faithfully following the Word of the Lord, and then, walking
in the light of their own eyes, losing themselves in wandering
mazes.
The prime Requisite and only effectual Means for the
Unity of the Faith is to uphold the Truthfulness
AND Divine Authority of Scripture properly inter-
preted BY THE Aid of the inspiring Spirit.
And the only thorough way to refute these errors, and to arrest
these aberrations and tendencies, is to maintain and establish
the infallible truth and Divine authority of Holy Scripture as
the supreme rule of faith, and judge of controversies. Hence
the deep, direct, and primary importance of the proof and
establishment of the doctrine of Holy Scripture in itself and in
its relation to all other questions in religion and ethics. The
first essential thing for all and in all is the standard ; and
when it is once thoroughly settled, established, and recognised
that the Bible is the standard; and when that standard is
strictly adhered to, and its authority promptly owned and
implicitly followed, — the limits of controversy as to its mean-
ing, or the proper interpretation of that standard, are made
narrow and confined to very minor matters. For there, too,
the means of settlement are available, and the controversies
terminable ; whereas, on the opposite theory, the matters
are both important and illimitable, and the controversies inter-
minable.
DOCTRINES AND CHRISTIAN CONSCIOUSNESS 495
The Testimony of the Spirit in the Christian Conscious-
ness DOES NOT AVAIL DIRECTLY FOR SOME LEADING BiBLE
Truths.
Even in regard to leading vital doctrines of the Christian
faith, the testimony of consciousness does not avail ; as is proved
from the very nature of some of these doctrines, and from the
antagonisms and controversies of Christians in regard to them.
Who does not know what long and bitter controversies there
have been over the first great and fundamental section of Theo-
logy proper — the doctrine as to God and the Trinity ? How
long and deeply was the early Church agitated and distracted
over the questions connected with the Persons of the Godhead,
especially over the Divinity — the Divine-human Personality of
Christ, — the true and Church doctrine of which many calling
themselves Christians deny and reject even until now (Uni-
tarians), as many have done all along (Arians, Semi-Arians, and
Socinians), the vital difference being expressed by the difference
of a single letter — " homoiousion " and " homoousion." Is not
Christendom till this hour rent into the Western and Eastern
Churches over the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the procession of
the Spirit, — the difference that rent Christianity in twain being set
forth in a single word {filioque) ? From the very nature of all
the doctrines in that high and mysterious region, must they
not be, as they undoubtedly are, matters of pure revelation, to
be received by faith, simply and solely on the testimony of God
speaking in His Word? Here the testimony of the Spirit in
the consciousness of beUevers has little or no place ; except,
indeed, that when we receive them simply as given in Scripture,
and believe them solely on its authority, we may in course receive
some impression and realisation of their truth and adaptation
to our nature.
How numerous and prolonged have been the controversies
in Anthropology, — the second great section of Theology, — con-
tentions as to the original and fallen state of man, as to original
sin, total depravity, imputation of guilt to Adam's posterity,
free will, man's responsibility, moral inability, and spiritual
death, and all connected therewith ! These differences have
not only led to the designation and the expulsion of heretics,
many and diversified ; but they have also created and per-
496 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
petuated divisions, and even antagonistic denominations in
Christendom.
Coming to the third section, — Soteriology, — what oppositions
and controversies have existed, and do exist, as to the grace of
God and the work of Christ ! — controversies gathering around
such well-known terms as predestination, free grace, the cove-
nants, election, redemption, the atonement, substitution, vicarious
sacrifice, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, imputation,
effectual calling, regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification,
the fatherhood of God, adoption, good works, perseverance in
grace, perfection in holiness, sacerdotalism, and sacramentarian-
ism, the Church and its otScers, powers, and destiny. Around
every one of these great controversies have raged, from which
different sects and sections have sprung ; and about which the
keenest discussions and most persistent antagonisms gather and
promise to perpetuate themselves.
And when we enter on the last section— Eschatology — we
are met on every hand with differences and contrarieties as to
death and its issues, the state of the soul after death, future
retribution, purgatory, probation hereafter, restoration, annihila-
tion, eternal hope or everlasting destruction, the second advent,
the final judgment, heaven, hell, and the everlasting destinies.
About these what countless conflicts have raged for ages, and
still rage ?
Thus the whole first section of theology, and largely the last,
are beyond the region of consciousness, or the testimony of the
Spirit in Christian consciousness. In the two remaining sections
there are marked differences, and even contradictions, which are
largely due to the conscious, or unconscious adoption more or
less of the Rationalistic principle. In the light of all this, which
traverses evety section, and almost every leading doctrine in
theology, it is futile to talk about the harmony, or uniformity of
the testimony of the Spirit in the consciousness of the Church,
as being capable of putting a really effectual arrest upon the
abuse of the theory of indefinite erroneousness as applied to Holy
Scripture. Therefore, this resort utterly fails to extricate the
holders of it from the insuperable difficulties, interminable con-
fusions, and innumerable absurdities, in which their theory lands
them.
BIBLE SUPREMACY THE PRIME REQUISITE 497
It is valid chiefly for the Doctrines of Grace and the
Assurance that the Bible is the Word of God.
In fact, the testimony of the Spirit in Christian consciousness,
in corroboration of the truth of the pecuUar doctrines of Revela-
tion, is practically limited to the experimental part of what are
called the doctrines of grace, and to the full assurance and
strongest persuasion that the Bible is the Word of God, which is
given to the consciousness of the beUever by the Holy Spirit,
through the knowledge of the truth of Scripture, and by its
being received as the Word of God.' In fact, on the rationalistic
principle of the holders of the indefinite erroneousness of Scrip-
ture, it is impossible either to escape from the natural conse-
quences of their theory, when facing the sceptic, or to have any
testimony of the Spirit properly so called with which to make
even a forlorn attempt to do so. Most of the doctrinal errors
and antagonisms have largely arisen from, and been continued
by, failing to adhere strictly to the Bible standard, and following
the Rationalistic principle.
The Acceptance of Scripture as the true and authori-
tative Standard is the Prime Condition and only
Means of settling all Questions in Religion and
Ethics.
If, however, the Bible is thoroughly received, and implicitly
followed as the authoritative because Divine standard, then the
heresies and errors can be definitely ascertained, and authorita-
tively declared ; and the controversies may be reduced to the
narrowest limits. The means, too, exist and are available, in the
infallible and authoritative standard, for the practical settlement
of even these minor differences, or at least of an approachment
thereunto. Instead of as in the opposing view, which raises such
questions as, what in Scripture, distinctive of it, shall be received as
true and authoritative, and how can this be infallibly ascertained
and made authoritative on others, and what gives them any truth
or authority, — with all the infinitude of insuperable difficulties,
and interminable controversies, and disastrous issues arising
therefrom, — the only question remaining on this view would
be simply what is the meaning and proper interpretation of the
32
498 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
infallible and authoritative standard. Hence, as a matter of fact,
the sections of the Christian Church that most strictly adhere,
and most implicit submit to the Bible as the standard are just
those sections whose doctrinal standards most closely agree and
most nearly harmonise, such as the Confessions of the Reformed
Churches, and the writings of the Reformers and Puritans. These
manifest a practical agreement on almost every leading doctrine,
and show in fact a substantial oneness and harmony, — even the
slight differences being traceable to misinterpretations of, or
deviations from, the standard of Scripture.
ResumA and the Sceptic's Apology — Second Stage.
Already in many various ways, and by strong and cogent
reasons, which no devices can evade or resist the force of, have
the weakness and untenableness apologetically of the theory of
indefinite erroneousness been shown. But it is only when that
theory is brought face to face with the claim of Scripture and the
teaching of Christ, that its apologetic indefensibleness and tactical
folly and practical fatality to the Christian faith become fully and
directly manifest. For it is in direct and pointed contradiction
to both. It has been shown above (Chap. IV.) by an amount
and a quality of evidence unique and unparalleled, that the
Bible, if it teaches anything, claims to be true, trustworthy, and
of Divine authority. It is also matter of patent and unquestion-
able fact, that the Bible makes this claim the foundation of all
its other claims, and puts this as the basis on which it rests every
other truth; and la5^s this claim of speaking the truth, and nothing
but the truth, in the name and with the authority of God, as the
ground on which it demands, and is entitled to demand and
expect, the faith and obedience of men.
This being so, it is easy and inevitable for the sceptic to show
that, on the theory of the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture,
Christianity is indefensible, and the religion of the Bible false.
For he has only to produce the evidence that the Bible does
make this claim ; and then to put opposite to that the theory of
those professed acceptors of the Christian faith who declare that
the Bible is indefinitely erroneous and unlimitedly untrustworthy,
in order to make out a full and direct contradiction ; and thus to
demonstrate that the fundamental claim of Scripture, with all built
THE SCEPTIC'S APOLOGY— SECOND STAGE 499
thereon, is false ; and the religion of which it is the source, there-
fore, a delusion or a fraud. Yea, if the evidence only amounts
to, or looks like a probability that this is the claim of Scripture, —
as every Christian Church, and every earnest, unsophisticated
reader has felt and recognised from the impression naturally
made by the simple reading of it, — then, if the theory of indefinite
erroneousness and untrustworthiness is true, there is, in this
direct and radical contradiction, valid and sufficient reason for
the denial of the truth, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of
Scripture in everything peculiar to it. It is deprived of intrinsic,
independent, or Divine authority in anything. Therefore, there is
clear and decisive ground to justify the rejection of the faith of
which it is the source and basis ; or at least to warrant, if not to
require, agnosticism. For the sceptic who does not, and does not
wish to, believe the Bible, and who is only too ready to avail
himself of any presentable reason, or plausible pretext for reject-
ing it and its religion, has only to turn to these theorists using
their own principles and results to give them a crushing overthrow.
The Sceptic's Apology — Second Stage.
" You profess to believe the Christian faith ; and yet you tell
me that the book from which you take it, and which is its
source and basis, is indefinitely erroneous and untrustworthy, and
cannot, therefore, be the Word of God, or carry Divine authority.
For it is surely a first postulate of all religion and ethics, that
God, the object of faith and worship, cannot deceive or lie,
give error for truth, or present as trustworthy what is unreliable.
Now, apart altogether from the difficulty, yea the impossibility,
of inerrantly eliminating the truth from the error in such a con-
glomerate, and of educing with certitude an infallibly true and
Divinely-authoritative standard of religion or morality from such
a iiiixture of opposite elements, and apart also from the impossi-
bility of forming a definite and infallible creed or ethic from an
indefinitely erroneous and untrustworthy book, — while you say
that the Bible is indefinitely erroneous and unlimitedly unre-
liable, I find others professing the Christian faith teaching that
the Bible claims to be the Word of God, infallibly true, and
carrying Divine authority. These, too, form by far the larger
number, yea include every section of the Church from the
500 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
beginning, as expressed in every creed of Christendom, — the
Westminister Confession of Faith, one of the latest and best,
expressing well the common faith of the Christian Church in
every age, in these clear and decisive words : ' All which (the
canonical books) are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of
faith and life,' and form the 'Word of God written,' 'of infallible
truth and Divine authority.' So that if you are right they are
wrong ; and the Bible that misled them must be wrong also, or
at least a misleading book. The Holy Spirit, too, which, accord-
ing to it, Christ promised to His Church to lead it into all truth,
has misled the apostles in the apprehension or expression of it,
and the Church in the understanding and the interpretation of
it, — or Christ's promise has been falsified by the events. And
surely a book that has thus misled men in this radical matter of
its own truth, trustworthiness, and authority, on which every
other truth in it is based, cannot be in any sense or part the
Word of God. Certainly, at least, a sceptic should be free from
blame, if not deserving of commendation, for disbelieving and
disregarding an indefinitely erroneous book, which, if you are
right, has misled men in its first and fundamental claim.
" Further, I find that the plain man has taken the same im-
pression from the earnest and prayerful reading of the Bible as
the Church, and that he, too, has been misled by its apparent
tone and pervading claim to speak the truth, and that, too, in
the name and with the authority of God. Surely a book that on
your theory so misleads the earnest and prayerful seeker after
truth is quite unfit to be an authority or guide in religion or
morals ; and it should be sternly set aside by every man who
does not wish to be misled in what it concerns him most to
know. Surely, at least, the sceptic who does so should be re-
garded as pre-eminently the prudent and consistent man.
" Still more, when I read the book for myself, as a piece of
literary curiosity, simply with a view to ascertain its claim, I am
bound to say that the impression made upon me is substantially
the same as has been made on the plain man, and on the Church
in all lands and ages. It does seem to claim, if anything can
be learned from it, to be true, trustworthy, and to speak with
God's authority, without reservation or distinction of parts. Its
pervading tone assumes this. Its whole trend implies this. Its
express teaching declares this. Its very words in countless cases
THE SCEPTIC'S APOLOGY — SECOND STAGE 501
proclaim this. The use made of it, too, and the manner of
reference to it, by its most outstanding teachers and writers,
seem unquestionably to require this. And nothing less than this
appears to come up to the claim of the Bible, or to meet the
requirements of honest interpretation.
" But since, as you say, and as your theory of indefinite erron-
eousness requires, this claim is contradicted by the facts, and
cannot in the light of recent criticism be maintained, the funda-
mental and root doctrine of the Bible and of the Christian
religion is false, if you are right ; and everything founded thereon,
which is everything peculiar to the so-called revelation, vanishes
like the dreams and superstitions of so many other religions. The
Bible is built on sand ; and what has hitherto been supposed,
as we sceptics always said, to be what Mr. Gladstone called
' The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture,' is, on your view and
principles, impregnable no more. Its very foundations have
been destroyed, and its every doctrine founded thereon has been
undermined and found baseless. Weighed in the balances of
right reason, and tested by the sure tests of modern criticism, it
has been found wanting, as we always held. And we sceptics
who reject both the book and its religion, are at length by your-
selves amply vindicated in our contention, fully justified in our
unbelief, and certainly more than warranted in our Agnosticism.
But surely the only logical and consistent course for you is to
follow our example and become sceptics too. Most of all when
I examine the mass, the variety, and the character of the
evidence in support of what appears to ordinary readers to be the
claim of the Bible, adduced by those who maintain that claim, I
am compelled to confess that, if the Bible can be said to teach
anything, it seems to teach that. Beyond all question, this
evidence looks as like a demonstration as anything of the kind
can be — that the Bible does claim for itself truthfulness, trust-
worthiness, and Divine authority ; and its whole tone, trend,
explicit teaching, and pervading attitude are utterly inconsistent
with indefinite erroneousness, preclude the very idea of untrust-
worthiness, and are simply inexplicable, except on the supposition
that it claims to be the Word of God. In fact, in the light of
the evidence it is safe to say that, if it does not claim and teach
this, it is useless to inquire what it teaches, for nothing could be
clearer, stronger, or more inevasible. It teaches nothing else so
502 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
plainly, decisively, and pervasively ; and it seems a strange
inconsistency, and a patent absurdity, to seek to ascertain what
it teaches on other things, when shutting the eyes to and dis-
owning this claim, on which it bases all its teaching, and on
which it grounds its right to teach at all.
" But since I don't believe in the Bible, or revelation, or the
supernatural, and since you assure me, by your theory of in-
definite erroneousness, that this first and fundamental claim of
the Bible is untenable, and contradicted by facts, and has been
exploded by the claimed results of the ablest rationalistic critics,
who on that account consistently repudiate revelation, and deny
in toto the supernatural in the religion of the Bible or in the
history of the world ; and since the innumerable errors and
contradictions, false teachings, hoary superstitions, revolting
cruelties, and outrageous immoralities, which are not only
recorded, but seemingly approved by God, and even apparently
commended and commanded in the Bible, which you refer to in
support of your theory, seem to make out a plausible case for
it ; — I, who am disposed on other grounds to reject the Bible,
and to deny the supernatural altogether, feel relieved by your
assurance, encouraged by your contention ; and perhaps I should
express my gratitude to you and your authoritative critics for so
effectually confirming my scepticism, justifying my unbelief,
knocking the bottom out of the Bible by exposing the falsehood
of its fundamental claim ; and warranting fully my rejection
in toto of a Book which, according to you, is full of error, teems
with superstition, is disfigured by immorality, is based upon
imposture, and lies or misleads in its pervading tone, funda-
mental doctrine, and prime claim.
" I know, of course, that the errors and immoralities that you
allege against it are largely the same as and similar to those
charged against it in all ages by sceptics like myself, and that
beyond some of the recent results of the rationalistic criticism
there is very little indeed that may not be found more tartly
expressed in the writings and speeches of such men as Celsus
and Porphyry, Voltaire and Tom Paine, Holyoake and Brad-
laugh, Huxley, IngersoU, and Foote. But as these were the
avowed opponents of Christianity their attacks were not held as of
such weight, since they were supposed to be prejudiced assailants.
But when you, the professed friends of the religion of the Bible,
THE ERRORISTS' DILEMMA 503
with the powerful support of the rationahstic critics, who were
the pioneers of the Higher Criticism, and the teachers of its
ablest authorities, endorse and supplement their charges, we
sceptics may surely take our ease and leave the work of destruc-
tion to its professed friends. Ay, we may revel in our unbelief,
and see in imagination that fearless race of hated and pilloried
infidels, who died amid the execrations of a benighted Christen-
dom, rising from their dishonoured graves to sing a mocking
requiem over the burial of an extinct Christianity, which was
palmed off upon a credulous people by the imposture of an
inspired Book, and the fiction of a Divine Revelation, and the
delusion of an incarnate God, and the fable of a Risen Christ."
No Escape for Errorists from Sceptic's Conclusions save
by abandoning their position or answering the whole
Evidence for the Bible Claim.
Nor can these errorists escape from these tremendous, but
legitimate, and only logical issues of their theory, when its
principles are powerfully pressed by a skilful sceptic to their
ultimate conclusions, except by showing — what they have never
even attempted to do — that the whole massive array of over-
whelming evidence which, together with the impression made on
every candid mind and upon the Church in all ages by the simple
and careful reading of it, amounts to a demonstration that the
Bible does claim to be the Word of God — true, trustworthy,
and Divinely authoritative — is not a proof thereof, and does not
amount even to a probability. For even if the whole made out
only a bare probability that the Bible did claim this, it is fatal
to their dream — that their theory gives them a strong, or even a
tenable apologetic position. So far as it appears probable that this
is the Bible claim, so far, if their theory of indefinite erroneous-
ness is true, it is necessarily improbable that the Bible is true,
so far it appears probable that the Bible is untrue, and therefore
probable that the religion of the Bible is false. They have to
overthrow, and to show that it is no evidence, every item and
particle of proof that has been, or can be, adduced proving or
making probable that this is the Bible claim. One single item
not satisfactorily answered, favouring or rendering even probable
that this is the claim of Scripture, is, with their theory, as fatal
504 THE OrrOSING VIEWS ArOLOGETICALLY
to the defence of Christianity, and as destructive of its truth, as
they allege one single error proved in Scripture is to the theory
of the inerrantists, or to the defence of Christianity from that
standpoint. For, since they teach the indefinite erroneousness of
Scripture, if one item of evidence, making even probable that
the Bible claims to be true, trustworthy, and Divinely authorita-
tive, remains unsatisfactorily disposed of, it is either destructive
of Christianity or of their theory of Scripture.
The defence of Christianity is thus rendered not only not
strong, but untenable, and even impossible from their standpoint.
If in one particular item the evidence remains, or appears to
make out even a probability, that is either a refutation of their
theory, or, if it is true, it overthrows Christianity by destroying its
fundamental claim, so long as one particle of probability in
favour of that claim remains unanswered. For the contradiction
in that case would be direct and full, and is, therefore, logically
as conclusive as a million.
The Errorists are more bound to answer every Item of
THE Evidence for the Bible Claim than the In-
errantists TO answer their alleged Errors.
So that if their theory is not to destroy the foundation of the
Christian faith, they are as much bound to answer every item of
the evidence in favour of the infallibility and Divine authority of
Scripture, and to show that it is not in favour thereof, as they
allege the upholders of inerrancy are bound, in order to evade
a similar result, to refute or account for even an alleged or
apparent error in Scripture. Their contention is that the in-
errantists expose the defences of Christianity to an easy assault
and speedy overthrow by making Christianity pay with its life
for a single apparent error or discrepancy found in Scripture ;
and they allege that all the unbelieving foe has to do, on that
view, in order to destroy the Christian faith, is to produce one
case of this. The wiser inerrantists do not admit that this is the
real state of the question, and the ablest of them distinctly
repudiate this definite staking of Christianity on this doctrine,
and at the utmost would only admit that such apparent errors or
discrepancies only constitute an objection or difficulty to their
doctrine which they do not think it impossible or even difficult to
ERRORISTS IMPERIL CHRISTIANITY 505
answer or account for ; and the errorists have yet to prove that
theirs is the true statement of the case. No theologian ever
was more able to see or state the question {status qucestionis)^
on this or any theological subject, with more clearness and
force than Dr. William Cunningham, and he distinctly refuses to
accept that as the true state of the question ; so also does Dr.
Paton of Princeton.
Errorists' Allegation of one Error in Scripture, while
ONE Item of Evidence for Inerrancy remains, more
IMPERILS Christianity than Inerrantists' View.
But even were it true, as they assert, their own theory puts
them in a similar, yea, even a worse position, apologetically.
For so long as a single item of evidence favouring inerrancy
remains unanswered or undisposed of, or even the more guarded
position of definite truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority, their assertion that the Scripture is indefinitely errone-
ous is at least equally fatal to what appears to be, by that
evidence, the fundamental claim of Scripture, and is therefore
equally destructive of the truth and basis of the Christian
faith. Yea, even the allegation of a single error in Scripture, so
long as a single particle of evidence remains unanswered that
appears to favour inerrancy, is at least as destructive of the
fundamental claim of the source and basis of the Christian faith
as the assertion of inerrancy, in face of an apparent error, can
be, because one item of evidence favouring inerrancy is surely
at least equal to one apparent error in support of errancy ! It
is really of much more weight than many apparent errors or
discrepancies, for it is direct and positive, — the only proper
evidence, — while the other is not proper evidence at all, but only
such difficulties and objections against the proper positive evidence
as is often connected with the best established truths in almost
every region of thought and discovery, — and in this case they are
less difficult of explanation. So that without saying- anything
further about the inerrantist's claim, even on the extremest view,
and on this narrowest point, and even granting the errorists the
advantage of denied and untenable suppositions, the balance of
the argument lies clearly and decisively on the side of the
inerrantists as against the errorists at this crucial point.
5o6 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
The Tables completely turned.
Further, if, as the errorists allege, the inerrancy view leaves
the Christian faith indefensible and prostrate at the feet of the
sceptic, to pay with its life the penalty of its temerity, much
more a fortiori their theory or assertion of error even in one
point does so, so long as one item of evidence for inerrancy
remains unanswered ; and how much more when it is innumerable
errors and indefinite and illimitable erroneousness that is alleged
or implied ? Therefore, so far as apologetic tenableness is con-
cerned, the whole weight of the argument is demonstrably on
the side of inerrancy. And when it is considered that this was
the point which the errorists have always regarded and urged as
their strongest argument against inerrancy, and the most vulner-
able point in that view, on which they have most assuredly
vaunted over the supposed apologetic weakness of that position,
it does seem strange \k\?Xjust there, when thoroughly examined,
their own position is immeasurably weaker and more defenceless
far, when facing the infidel foe. Why herein is a marvellous
thing, that just that very kind of argument, which was supposed
to be fatal from an apologetic standpoint to inerrancy, is just the
very kind of argument that is demonstrably more fatal, from the
same view point, to their own theory. Just at that precise point
where the one was proclaimed to be most vulnerable, and
perilous apologetically, precisely there the other is patently still
more vulnerable, and much more dangerous to the Christian
faith.
The reason why the urgers of this objection have failed to
perceive this is, that they have quietly ignored the whole Scripture
evidence adduced in support of the Bible claim, as if the teaching
of Scripture itself, on this its fundamental doctrine, were of no
importance, or not evidence at all, or at least nothing requiring
attention, while it is in fact the decisive, and the only direct or
proper evidence on the question. Second, because they have per-
sistently refused to face, far less to answer, the Bible evidence in
favour of inerrancy, as if it were unworthy of consideration.
Yet every item of it is of much more weight against the opposite
theory than any number of alleged discrepancies or errors are
as objections against itself. So long as one single item of that
apparent evidence remains undisposed of satisfactorily, it can be
ERRORISTS' POSITION AND CHRIST'S TEACHING 507
used much more effectively by the sceptic against the truth of
the Christian rehgion, on the errorists' theory, than any apparent
errors or discrepancies he can point out can be, even on the
extremest theory of inerrancy. Since this is so, even as against
this view of Scripture, where will this theory be when compared
apologetically with the more cautious and carefully guarded view
which we have proved to be the lowest limit of the Bible claim ?
It will be simply nowhere.
How MUCH !\IORE WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS SO GREAT?
Further, as this is the state of the case with even one item
of Scripture evidence in favour of inerrancy, what will it be when
they have faced the whole massive array of overwhelming
Scripture evidence adduced, which they have to answer and
satisfactorily dispose of in every particular before they can get a
footing for any apologetic position at all? It must simply be
abandoned in despair by every reasonable man, and the whole
position be felt, found, and owned to be hopelessly indefensible.
And when this is so, even on the theory of errancy positively
taught, what must it be on the theory of indefinite erroneousness
and of unlimited and illimitable unreliability — the theory now in
vogue against the Bible claim ? It will obviously be recognised
as a self-evident necessity to adopt one or other of the views
pronounced to be so untenable and perilous by the assailants of
inerrancy ; which seems to show that there is no defence of the
Christian faith possible at all, nor anything to defend peculiar to
Christianity from their position. And that because the sure
Book, which is the source and basis of it, is, by this theory,
alleged to be false and misleading in its foundation claim.
The Untenableness and Seriousness of the Errorists'
Position apologetically appears most sharply and
solemnly in face of Christ's most emphatic Teach-
ing. It enables the Sceptic to invade the Divinity
OF EIis Person and Mission.
In closing this line of argument, one thing further must be
said, and that is, that the untenableness and seriousness, from an
apologetic point of view, of the theory of indefinite erroneous-
5o8 THE OPrOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
ness, appear most sharply, inevasibly, and momentously in
connection with Our Lord Himself and His most emphatic
teaching on this specific question. It enables the sceptic to
invade the Divinity of His Person and mission. I have already
referred to the remarkable and most significant fact that Our
Lord has evidently taken special pains to cast in the whole
weight of His own most decisive teaching, and Divine authority,
just at those very points and doctrines which He foresaw would
be assailed and controverted. He has thus, in striking contrast
to some of our recent teachers, shut men up to the alternatives
of receiving them or rejecting Him. He thereby leaves and
requires men to choose between accepting the truths He taught,
believing the statements He made, or disowning His authority as
a Teacher and rejecting Him as their Lord. He exposes the
hypocrisy and inconsistency of calling Him " Lord ! Lord ! " and
yet not doing or believing the things He says. It has also been
shown that, if the Gospels and other N.T. writings give even
the substance or purport of what He said. His teaching, on
the thorough truthfulness, complete trustworthiness, and Divine
authority of all Scripture, is the most explicit, decisive, and
impressive in all Scripture. Therefore the most serious issues
are raised by any approach to the virtual denial of this, and still
more by the loud and persistent proclamation of the indefinite
erroneousness, and unlimited untrustworthiness, and illimitable
unauthoritativeness of that Divine, God-breathed Book, which
He endorsed, and His Spirit inspired, and every jot and tittle
of which He declared to be true, inviolable, and of Divine
authority.
This brings us at once face to face with such momentous
questions as, " Is Christ infallible, and authoritative as a religious
teacher ? " and if not, how can He possibly be God, or Saviour,
or even a good, if not a deluded man ; or how can we rationally
seek elsewhere for an infallible standard, or seat of authority
in religion? It necessarily forces the assertors of indefinite
erroneousness to take up what Dr. Robertson Smith calls the
dangerous and untenable position, — to assert precisely the same
of Christ as a teacher as they assert of Scripture, that His
teaching is misleading, false, and the reverse of God's will, —
which is blasphemy ; — and this, too, on this the first and funda-
mental question of all religion ; for with it He, with His religion.
CHRIST'S AUTHORITY AND DIVINITY INVOLVED 509
Stands or falls. It has before been sufficiently shown how easily
and unanswerably the sceptic can destroy the source of the
Christian faith, when, in direct contradiction of the Bible claim,
its professed defenders allege its indefinite erroneousness.
But when they pass, and appeal from Scripture generally to
Christ Himself, — as they sometimes vainly do in their exigencies,
so as to appear to leave some infaUible seat of authority in
religion after discarding the Bible — they find that apologetically it
is only going from bad to worse. For apart from the fact that
we know nothing of Christ or His teaching except through
Scripture ; so that as far as Scripture is erroneous and un-
trustworthy, which on this theory is indefinitely and inimitably,
so far is our knowledge of Him and of His teaching and of His
religion ; — it turns out on looking at His words that they are the
most solemn, decisive, and inevasible in Holy Writ against their
theory ; and that He, above all others, is the most awful, and
absolute declarer of the inviolable truthfulness and Divine
authority of all Scripture.
Therefore the sceptic, who wishes to assail and overthrow
the bulwarks of the Christian faith, and to raze it to its founda-
tions, has only vigorously to seize, and remorselessly to use, the
weapons forged by professedly Christian hands, or would-be
superior Christian apologists. By placing their theory in direct
and strongest contradiction to the first and fundamental claim
of Scripture, — most emphatically endorsed by Christ, — as well
as to the most expHcit words and most absolute declarations
and most assured presuppositions of Christ Himself, — the
sceptic can in the most direct and unanswerable way, on their
theory and principles, demolish and utterly explode, from the very
foundations, the whole structure and substance of the Christian
faith, falsify at once both the claim of Scripture and of Christ
as the Son of God, or even as a teacher sent from God, and
annihilate by one fell stroke both the source and centre of the
rehgion of Revelation.
Sceptics and Rationalists consistently deny His Divine
Claims and Authority as a Teacher.
Hence, as a matter of fact, many, acting honestly and
thoroughly on this theory, have explicitly denied and disowned
5IO THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
the authority and infallibiUty of Christ ; and have consistently
abandoned Christianity, and rejected supernatural religion.
Others, while still caUing Him "Lord," have declared that "the
rights of criticism must be pressed, even against the Master
Himself" ; because, so long as His authority was acknowledged
He appeared most awkwardly and inevitably to block the way'
of the advance of their rationalistic criticism, and the acceptance
of their supposed critical results. Others yet bolder have not
refrained from pointing out His supposed " exegetical mistakes "
in the interpretation of His own Word, — presuming to aver that
He misunderstood the Scripture which Himself inspired, endorsed,
and came to fulfil. Others have even ventured to explain the
causes and sources of His errors and misconceptions, by attribut-
ing them to the literature that He read — especially the Book of
Enoch — and the influence on His mind, as on every other mind,
of the errors, superstitions, and the narrowing and misleading
effects of the opinions and misconceptions of the times in which,
and the people among whom. He lived. His specially susceptible
religious mind made Him, as supposed, peculiarly open to such
influences, — as if He were merely or mainly a creature of His age
and environment; instead of being the Creator of a new age,
the Father of all the ages, and the Maker of all things new, as all
subsequent history has demonstrated. Others still have dared
to go the length of declaring that to deny the errancy and actual
erroneousness, or to assert the Divine infallibility, reliability, and
authority of His words and teaching, is to deny the reality of His
humanity, since, as alleged, it is human to err ; an oracular but
here false and fallacious dictum of those who dare to deny
infallibility to the most solemn utterances of the Son of God,
while virtually claiming infallibility for themselves and their own
crude imaginations. This is equivalent to saying that the
incarnation of God was an impossibility, without the God-man
being in this respect, as in all others, like sinful men ; which is
presumption and blasphemy. And some others, — -the Kenotics
and Rationalising Critics, — from some of whom better things
might have been expected, — because they saw how awkwardly
Christ and His decisive teaching about the inviolability and
Divine authority of Scripture stood in the way of their theories
and fancied results, have sought to get over their serious
difficulties by talking in Greek euphemism of the Kenosis. By
THE SCEPTIC'S APOLOGY— THIRD STAGE 511
this in plain English is meant, in this connection, that He
became incarnate not only under the necessary limitations of
human nature, but also under the ignorance, errancy, and
indefinite erroneousness of fallen and sinful humanity. For it
is to account for the actual errors He is alleged to have fallen
into, and taught on Scripture, that the Kenotic theory has
recently been introduced here ; as if an infallible and perfect
human nature, and a special anointing of the Holy Ghost for
His unique work, and above all His Divine nature, in which His
Personality distinctly lies and centres, made no real difference
between Him and other men in knowledge and teaching.^
They overlook, too, that limitation of knowledge and errancy
or erroneousness in teaching have no necessary connection, truth
and nescience are quite compatible with each other, even in
ordinary men. How much more in men specially inspired of
God to give His Word; as abundantly illustrated in the God-
breathed utterances of every Spirit-inspired prophet and apostle.
And how most of all in Him who is both the perfect Man and
the perfect Word of God ; and who was uniquely inspired by the
Spirit of God, both in His person and His speech, for the express
purpose of expressing and embodying the glory of God, and de-
claring the mind of God on this supreme, prime question — this
root, basal doctrine of all religion and Revelation.
The Sceptics can compel the Errorists to abandon
THEIR Christianity or their Theory. The Sceptic's
Apology — Third Stage.
The sceptic has only to place the averments and implications
of their theory of indefinite erroneousness in opposition to
Christ's explicit teaching, habitual usage, and specific words, in
order to make out such direct and manifold contradictions
between them as to demonstrate that if the one is true the other
must be false ; and thus to require them either to abandon their
theory or disown their Christianity, to discard their rationalistic
principle or to reject Christ and the authority of His teaching.
For he can reason thus: "You say that the Bible is not
inerrant, and by that you mean that there are errors in it.
I'hough the negative form is preferred by you to the positive,
1 See Book II.
512 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
because of the controverial advantages it gives you, other Chris-
tians who oppose your theory hold that your denial of the inerrancy
is really an assertion of the erroneousness of Scripture, in which
they surely are right; and the erroneousness you allege is
indefinite. You not only aver that there are errors in the Bible,
but also that there is an indefinite number of errors. You make
no specific limit to the erroneousness, nor give any certain
principle by which the error can be eliminated from the truth.
On the contrary, you imply that there is no certain and
indisputable limit, and no inerrant means, or sure principle of
infallibly distinguishing the true from the false in Scripture ;
and, therefore, that both the errancy and the erroneousness are
unlimited and illimitable, indefinite and indeterminable.
" Nor are the things and kinds of things of which erroneous-
ness and error are predicated of a trivial or unimportant nature,
as was sometimes said ; nor are even the ethical or religious
elements of the Bible now exempted from error or held to be
infallible by you, as until recently was wont to be maintained by
Christian apologists. On the contrary, of no kind of thing in
Scripture do you assert by infalUbility. Of every kind of thing
distinctive of the Bible you deny inerrancy and assert erroneous-
ness,— in matters of religion and morals as well as in everything
else. Yea, it is from the distinctively ethical and religious
elements that you now most readily and confidently adduce
examples and proofs of the errancy and erroneousness of
Scripture ; and by these you most plausibly and cogently support
your theory. So that errancy and erroneousness, rather than
infallibility and truthfulness, are what you attribute to Scripture.
In fact, what you allege and imply, and your whole methods and
assumptions in handling and regarding Scripture reveal and go
to favour, is that erroneousness is predicated of every part and
element of Scripture ; and that infallibility or truthfulness is not
predicable of any part, or element, or kind of thing therein.
" As a sceptic I appreciate all that you with rationalistic criti-
cism have done tending to show this, and to disparage and destroy
the credibility of the Bible, demolishing its fancied infallibility,
showing its untruthfulness and untrustworthiness, and exploding
its claimed Divine authority and supposed supernatural origin.
But I wonder when you did so much that you did not do more, —
that when you went so far you did not go farther. Surely when
THE SCEPTIC'S APOLOGY— THIRD STAGE 513
you had discredited the Book, and denied its fundamental claim,
it was natural and requisite to have rejected the religion of which
it is the record, source, and standard, and to have denied the
faith of which it is the root, basis, and written embodiment.
Certainly, since by Scripture Christ stands, when you show and
proclaim its untruthfulness and untrustworthiness, you proclaim
His also ; when you deny its authority, you ought surely to deny
His authority too. When you disown its first and fundamental
claim, you are bound logically to disown His claim also, and to
reject Him and His religion. For there can be nothing so well
established even from the Bible, if it can be said to establish
anything, as that with it He stands or falls. Its truthfulness He
vouches for. Its trustworthiness He proclaims. Its super-
natural origin He declares. Its Divine authority He seals. Its
claim to speak the truth in the name of God He endorses with
the utmost absoluteness. Its infallibility He ever assumes,
asserts, and postulates. By its absolute inviolability He swears
in language the most solemn and majestic. Nothing can be
clearer or more decisively proved than this.
" So that your theory and His teaching about the Bible come
into direct, full, and strongest contradiction. Your statements
about it, and His, are so manifestly and manifoldly opposed, that
if the one is true the other must be false. And your whole
manner of regarding, and method of treating it, are so entirely
different from and so diametrically opposite to His as to
disclose and demonstrate that if your conceptions and ways of
using it are right. His are wrong. What He declared about it
you deny. What He assumes you disown. What He postulates
you repudiate. What He claims for it you reject. His way of
using it, quoting it, and referring to it, you denounce. His
method of regarding and handling it, you and your methods
condemn. His habitual deference to it, even in the most per-
plexing and objectionable things, you have no sympathy with.
His unquestioning confidence in it, absolute reliance on it as
inviolable, even in the minutest points and trivial details, yea
in most questionable and staggering things, you and others
deprecate and despise. His manner of speaking of it in such
exalted terms, of appealing to it as decisive of all controversy, of
characterising it as in its integrity inspired of God, and of using
it and relying on it in its literality even in minutite, is utterly
33
514 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
opposed to your whole ideas, principles, and usages. And the
very name He gives it as a whole — The Word of God — you
repudiate. In fact, His whole attitude to it differs toto ccelo from
yours, proving that your ideas and beliefs about it and His are
at utter variance and in diametrical opposition. Beyond a doubt,
were He among us speaking of it and using it as He was wont to
do in Galilee and Judaea, you would disown His views and state-
ments about it, — He would be behind the age, because ignorant
of the results of modern criticism, and would class Him among
the belated upholders of an obsolete theory which arose among
a credulous people, but which must be set aside by the enlighten-
ment of the nineteenth century.
" Let a few specific examples suffice to illustrate the remark-
able contrast. The O.T. — Christ's Bible — you have largely
discredited, and never weary of proclaiming and parading its
untrustworthiness, and denying or discrediting its historic truth-
fulness in large and radical portions. Nor do you fail to disclose
your unmeasured contempt for those benighted beings, who
now in the light of the fancied results of rationalistic criticism
would dare to maintain, as He did, its inviolable truthfulness,
unquestionable trustworthiness, and Divine authority. But
of that same O.T. Christ said, it was easier for heaven and
earth to pass than for one jot or one tittle of it to fail or pass
away till all should be fulfilled. You seem to glory in exposing
its erroneousness, and showing its unreliability. He ever
delighted in proclaiming its inviolable truth, emphasising its
absolute trustworthiness, and in declaring its Divine authority.
You disparage and discredit the literal fulfilment of prophecy,
and disfavour the whole idea of specific prediction of future
events and labour to show in the cases alleged that they have been
' falsified by the events ' ; and you decry attempts at proving
Uteral and remarkable fulfilments in specific and significant
cases as forced and untenable literalism, — the relics of a credulous
age. But He declares in the most emphatic and majestic words
that He came to fulfil Scripture predictions and prefigurations,
even to the minutest points, yea to the jots and tittles ; and
He and His apostles, after His example, and by the inspiration
of the Holy Ghost in a vast variety of specific cases, show,
reason on, and emphasise this ; and make use of it to prove
His Divinity, Messiahship, and resurrection, and the super-
THE SCEPTIC'S APOLOGY— THIRD STAGE 515
natural origin, inviolable truth, and Divine authority of Holy
Scripture.
"He also habitually so uses Scripture, sustains, rules, and
inspires His life by it, and is so guided, governed, fortified, and
atmosphered by it, and so directed, determined, and even
necessitated by it at turning points, and crucial times, even in
minute particulars,^ that the Bible was manifestly to Him His
meat and drink. His chart and sword. His light and rule, His
comfort and His native air. Nor did one single whisper ever
escape His lips to imply that any part or particle of it was to Him
anything else than the Word of the Lord that liveth and abideth
for ever. Nay, His every recorded utterance or reference,
declares or implies it was ever so to Him. You are wont to
declaim against verbal inspiration (as you vaguely and without
definition or specific meaning call it) as a vicious. Rabbinical
tradition, or dark-age creation, or post-Reformation dogma,
and in the intolerant dogmatism and omniscience of modern
rationalistic criticism rave out irate contempt against every
cautious critic, careful scholar, reverent student, and independent
theologian who hesitates to accept or presumes to question your
vague, absurd, and often self-stultifying ipse dixits (for how can
the ideas or substance be known except through and in the
words ?) by saying anything in favour of the words of Scripture in
which alone the thoughts are expressed, embodied, or ascertain-
able, as if they were the upholders of an expired or expiring
superstition. But Christ not only called the whole O.T. as
composed of zvords, the Word of God, but endorsed its pervasive
' Thus saith the Lord,' by which its writers claim that what they
write is not merely their words but the words of God ; yea, ' the
oracles of God,' as the whole O.T. is in the New called.
"Christ also promised to His apostles, the writers of the
N.T., to give them His Spirit to lead them into all truth, and to
enable them so to express it that what they said or wrote would
be what He said through them by His Spirit (Matt. 10-''). In
virtue of this, they are said to speak ' as the Spirit gave them
utterance' (Acts 2^), and what they said is declared to be
' not the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God '
(i Thess. 2^^). So that if there is any truth in this or Christ's
promise. He thus, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by antici-
1 See Book I.
5l6 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
pation, endorses the words both of the O.T. and the New, as the
God-breathed expression and embodiment of God's Revelation.
"You are wont to question or deny the historical truthful-
ness of much that is recorded in Scripture, and to discredit or
disown the veritable reality of many of the persons and events,
and to feel not only free, but predisposed to raise at every turn,
or in any place, the question of the truthfulness and trustworthi-
ness of whatever is stated therein, and not to accept as true any-
thing simply because it is in God's Word, but only what ' finds '
you (as Coleridge would say), or what, after examination, satisfies
your reason on independent and intrinsic grounds. But in
striking contrast to your critical, if not sceptical attitude. He
everywhere, on all occasions and in all references, unhesitatingly
accepts the statements and representations of the Bible as un-
questionably true and trustworthy, without doubt, reservation,
or even qualification ; and that simply because it is to Him the
Word of God, that cannot err, mislead, or fail in jot or tittle.
The very idea or possibility of error or unreliability is utterly
foreign and opposed to His whole attitude and references to it,
as also to His entire conception and use of it. He habitually
and indiscriminately makes use of all parts, things, and kinds of
things, expressions, and words in Scripture, and in such an
authoritative and unquestioning way as to put it beyond
question that to Him all things, representations, and items in
Scripture are true, trustworthy, and God -inspired. And this
truthfulness and reliability of all Scripture, because it is the
Word of God, is to Him a postulate and first principle of all true
Biblical interpretation. It is thus superabundantly evident that
Christ and your critics differ greatly and radically — yea, toto ca'Io —
in their whole conceptions of Scripture, in their attitude towards
it, way of handling it, in the character and authority they ascribe to
it, in their whole manner of using it, method of interpreting it,
and way of regarding it. So that if yours is right. His is wrong ; if
yours is true, His is false ; if yours is reliable. His is misleading.
If He is at all right, you must 'greatly err,' and vice versa.
"And since your critical view of Scripture, as opposed to
Christ's view, appears to be becoming more and more received,
and its results accepted, as you say, by the consensus of critical
opinion, it is evident that criticism — by exposing the erroneous-
ness and untrustworthiness of the Scriptures He endorsed,
THE SCEPTIC'S APOLOGY— THIRD STAGE 517
received, and declared to be in their totality the inviolable Word
of God — has thus, if true, invalidated and destroyed the
reliability, authority, and veracity of Christ as a religious teacher,
and, by necessary consequence, discredited and exploded the
religion that He taught and originated, and is the sum and
substance of. For it is surely a self-evident irrationality to take
as an object of faith, or an authority in religion, far less as the
object of Divine worship, One who teaches error for truth, and
declares to be true what is proved to be false ; or to receive as
true a religion whose source, basis, and standard are a book that
He inspired, endorsed, and declared to be the inviolable Word
of God, and is Himself the burden and substance of, and which
He says He came to fulfil; but which criticism has, if its
conclusions are true, or your theory or principles are adopted,
discredited, and exposed the erroneousness, untrustworthiness,
and unveraciousness of. So that criticism has thus discredited
Christ, and thereby relegated Christianity, like all the other
pretended revelations from heaven, to its place among the
exploded and expiring superstitions that human phantasy has
created and sought to impose upon a credulous humanity for
its faith and homage. Thus criticism has at length justified
unbelief, and agnosticism ought to be the creed of Christendom
and the religion of mankind. And surely, in view of the conflict
and contradiction between Christ's view of Scripture and yours,
sceptics are amply warranted in their scepticism, agnosticism
justified in its unbelief, and the sceptic's apology proved to be
valid and unanswerable."
It thus appears that the vaunted apologetic superiority of the
errorists' position is a fable, — leaving nothing certain to defend,
and no means of defence. There may be weakness and un-
wisdom apologetically in facing scepticism in the position of
absolute inerrancy, but the position of indefinite erroneousness
is demonstrated feebleness and palpable folly. And were there
no better position of defence for the Christian faith than this
theory affords, it would be far better for Christian Apology
frankly to own defeat, and acknowledge that no defence is
possible, as on the Errorists' views and on the rationalistic
principles the sceptic has shown ; for if the claim of Scripture is
false, and the teaching of Christ wrong, Christianity is a proved
delusion, an exploded fiction.
CHAPTER IV.
(II.) THE POSITIVE DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
FROM THE INERRANTISTS' POSITION
This demonstration of the untenableness and futility of the
attempted defence of the Christian faith from the standpoint and
on the principles of the advocates of indefinite erroneousness
and illimitable untrustworthiness, does not, however, prove that
the opposing positions are any stronger apologetically. On the
contrary, it might be said that they are in no better, but a
worse position for defence ; and that it yet remains to be seen
whether there is for Christianity any really defensible posi-
tion. In any case, before the opposing positions can be fully
compared apologetically, it is necessary to consider, further,
whether any defence is possible from the other positions,
what that defence is or can be made, and how the opposing
theories compare along the leading well-tried lines of Christian
evidence.
This is all the more necessary because the common and
vociferous cry of those errorists — who, notwithstanding all the
vaunted superiority of their apologetic position, have been
shown to have no tenable position at all — has. been that the
inerrantists take up a weak and indefensible position, which
imperils Christianity by staking its life upon the finding of a
single error in the Bible. Were this really so, it would, at first
sight, seem a plausible objection to the assertion of absolute
inerrancy, and a serious reason for the inerrantists reconsidering
the prudence of their position and the truth of their doctrine.
And it certainly does appear to show the unwisdom of even
seeming to stake Christianity on such a small and narrow issue,
— especially when the question of our time as to Scripture is
by no means limited to such a narrow point, whether as against
518
THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENCE 519
the sceptics, who reject both the Bible and Christianity, or as
against the rationahstic errorists, who profess the Christian feith
but proclaim the indefinite erroneousness of the Book in which
it is embodied and from which alone our knowledge of it is
derived. For both of these parties traverse the whole Book,
and deny, as we have seen, infallibility or Divine authority to
any book, or part, or kind of thing therein.
Nevertheless the inerrantist is by no means destitute of a
defence of his position. He cannot have less than the errorist ;
for, as shown above, he has none, and on his theory and
principles can have no valid defence. But the defender of
even absolute inerrancy has not a little to say in answer to both
the sceptic and the rationalist. Even admitting, for the present,
for the sake of exhibiting the argument of the latter, what the
ablest inerrantists deny and disprove, that all the sceptic has to
do in order to overthrow Christianity, on their theory, is to make
out one error in the Bible ; they have much that is cogent to say
in defence of their position apologetically.
I. First Line of Defence, no indisputable Error has been
DEMONSTRATED. Dr. FaRRAR, Dr. A. B. DAVIDSON,
Principal D. Brown, D.D., Principal Rainy, D.D.,
Dr. Westcott, Dr. Meyer, Dr. Ellicott.
I St. They hold, and undertake to show that no indubitable
error has yet, after the controversies and attempts of nineteen
centuries, been demonstrated even in the Scriptures as we have
them — of course in the original documents. In support of this
they can, specially for the N.T., quote, among others. Arch-
deacon Farrar, who, while disowning the view of Scripture that
would exclude " the possibility of mistake " by the Bible writers,
is constrained to say, " That they did so err, I am not so
irreverent as to assert, nor has the widest learning and acutest
ingenuity of Scepticism ever pointed to one complete and
demonstrable error of fact or doctrine in the O. or N.T." And
Professor A. B. Davidson, D.D., the greatest living British 0.'l\
scholar, has been reported to have said that he did not know of
a single one of the so-called errors found in our EngUsh Bibles,
of which he could say with certainty that it was in the original
520 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
document.! They can point with confidence to the contests of
centuries to prove that the alleged errors have, in the great
majority of cases, been triumphantly disproved, and probably
never existed save in the imaginations, or by the mistakes, of
those who alleged them, or through the misunderstanding or
unwisdom of inaccurate or unskilful defenders.
Alleged Errors and Dlscrepancies are vanishing
Quantities.
They can show by countless cases that these alleged errors
or discrepancies are a vanishing quantity. They thus establish
a probability that, with fuller knowledge and larger research, all
will yet vanish. They can, with the distinguished and venerable
Biblical critic and commentator, Principal David Brown, D.D.,
prove that the great mass of these alleged errors are the same as
were adduced by infidels seventy years ago. And yet in full
knowledge of them, he, with the others, was not convinced that
there was a single error proved in Scripture, but believed that, if
they knew all, every discrepancy would disappear. So, similarly,
the great German commentator, Meyer, whose commentaries
hold such a high place in every scholar's estimation, recently
said. They are, in fact, mostly those to be found in the
irreverent writings of Celsus and Porphyry, early in the Christian
era, to which the great Christian Fathers so efTectively replied ; or
in the coarsest productions and caricatures of Tom Paine, last
century, as well as of vulgar, uneducated, infidel leaders of recent
times, — all of whom have been refuted ad nausetim, the Church
still holding to the infallibility of Scripture in view of all. They
can, with the learned and liberal-minded Principal Rainy, D.D.,
the ablest living theologian, and with Dr. Westcott, bishop of
DwxhdiXn, facile princeps the greatest living N.T. scholar, and the
best Biblical scholars of the world in all ages, — still believe and
proclaim, in the face and full knowledge of all that has been
advanced to the contrary, that, if we knew all, we should prob;ibly
find that they would all be explained or disappear.
They can, with signal and reassuring effect, refer to the
examples of errors that have been alleged, and show that most
^ See pamplilet by Rev. Robert Howie, D. D., p. i8.
ARCH/EOLOGICAL CORROBORATIONS 521
of them, even Christians of ordinary intelligence, as Dr. Brown
said, can well afford to smile at, while Biblical scholars can only
wonder that such things should have ever been thought errors or
discrepancies at all. The vast majority of them can be easily
explained, and are mainly the product of misinterpretations of
the Bible, or misconceptions of its purpose, or misapprehensions
of its character. These are often due to strangely assuming that
it is, what it never professes to be, a scientific instead of a
popular book, or that it gives with exact precision what is often
given only in a round and general way. Almost all of them can
be explained without difficulty by the exercise of common sense,
the acquirement of available information, and a proper apprehen-
sion of what is intended and how it is presented. None of them
precludes a probable or possible explanation ; and a possible
explanation is all that, from the nature of the case, can fairly be
expected or logically asked in such a case, since it would be
impossible to prove that the possible may not be the actual
explanation. This, at least, is sufficient to silence the objector,
if not to remove the objection, which is all that can be reasonably
required in an apology in answer to an objection, especially as it
is made against what is established on its own proper evidence.
Historical and Arch^ological Research corroborates
THE Truthfulness of Scripture.
They can also triumphantly show that the progress of
historical, scientific, and archaeological research is more and
more tending to establish the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and
even exact correctness and precise accuracy of Scripture in
minute points and trivial things. This may be seen at length in
such writings as Paley's and Blunt's undesigned coincidences ;
Rawlinson's, Maclear's, and Ramsay's historical illustrations ;
Layard's and Smith's, Sayce's and Boscawen's, Plumptre's
and Petrie's, Delitzsch's and Hommell's writings, and The
Palestine and other Explorations Societies' publications on
archaeological researches. Every stroke of the spade, as Pro-
fessor Sayce puts it, gives fresh confirmation of the historicity,
truth, trustworthiness, and even minute accuracy of the Bible
statements and representations, and so explodes many fine-sj)un
522 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
but baseless critical theories, assertions, or assumptions. For
whatever minor exceptions or reservations may appear, it is
beyond question and matter of established fact that the whole
trend, drift, and effect of these discoveries is to corroborate and
establish the truth and even minute accuracy of Scripture, the
Bible and the Babylonian and other Oriental Records showing
a marvellous harmony. In the light of all this, and much
more that could be said and can be seen in detail in these and
many archaeological and apologetic works, the inerrantists may
be calm and confident, feeling assured that what can still be so
well maintained after nineteen centuries of the most keen
searching, and often virulent attack, is surely a fairly safe,
tenable, and defensible apologetic position. Certainly it is, at
least, not to be despised by those who have been shown to be
destitute of any tenable position whatever.
2. It is only of the Scriptures as originally given that
inerrancy is predicated, and only when properly
interpreted.
2nd. But this is only the first line of fortifications. This line
of apologetic defence is not the only one on which the in-
errantists can take their stand against the assaults of scepticism
or rationalism. They declare, and emphasise, in view of the
well-known obtuseness and prevalent misrepresentations, that it
is not of the Scriptures as we have them, but of the Scriptures as
originally given by the inspiration of God, and when properly
interpreted by the illumination of the inspiring Spirit, by the
aid of true research, and the proper application of the sound
principles of Biblical interpretation, — that they assert absolute
inerrancy. And here they can adduce an amount of evidence
that will make their position not only tenable, but comparatively
strong, — especially when supported by the massive array of
positive evidence for the Christian faith. For they can reason
cogently —
First. — That a book, or rather a literature, written by so
many different human authors, in so many different ages and
lands, — extending from first to last over some fifteen or sixteen
centuries ; composed, as some of the books of Scripture were.
THE SCRIPTURES AS ORIGINALLY GIVEN 523
from diverse documents, and transmitted through so many
centuries, the first — speaking roundly — through well-nigh four
thousand years, the last almost through two thousand, — should
show some of the marks of all ancient literature, and bear
evidence of the vicissitudes of time, and disclose some apparent
errors and discrepancies that would have easily crept into it in
its passage adown this long and often chequered course, — is only
what we should expect, unless, indeed, a perpetual miracle was to
be wrought in preserving it inviolable and absolutely intact
through all these changes and during millenniums, — which no in-
telligent defender of inerrancy maintains. This one consideration
goes far to account for the alleged errors and discrepancies in the
Scriptures, as we have them ; and might reasonably warrant the
conclusion that, if we had the Scriptures as originally given, these
apparent errors would not likely be found in them. In any case,
since we do not possess the originals, and never can, it is impos-
sible to prove that these apparent discrepancies were in them ;
and, therefore, it is impossible to demonstrate the untenableness
of the inerrantist's position. For anything we can tell, it may be
the simple truth. And since it may be so, the inerrantist, even
if he admitted, as he does not, errors in the Scriptures as we have
them, can maintain with much cogency, in view of the Bible
claim, that the Scriptures, as originally given, were free from
error. At least he can certainly from this standpoint be calm in
face of every attack of either sceptic or rationalist, fearlessly
challenge all Errorists to prove the alleged errors, which they
cannot, since they have not the originals, and can, therefore,
reasonably hold that his Christianity is not only tenable, but
practically irrefutable from his position — it cannot be disproved.
Second. — Recent Confirmations. Parallel of
Ancient Literature.
Besides, he finds further positive and independent evidence
supporting his position from the notorious facts, that with the
progress of textual criticism, archreological and historical re-
search, and reverent Biblical criticism, apparent errors and dis-
crepancies have often vanished, and are vanishing ; and fresh
confirmations of the truth and even minute accuracy of Scripture
524 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
are ever being brought to light. So that the progress of discovery
and the increase of knowledge go more and more to strengthen
his evidence and to establish his position.
Further, he can adduce the well-known parallel of other
ancient and classical writings, in which countless corruptions have
crept into the text, creating a science of suggested emendations,
and from that derive strong corroboration of the truth and
reasonableness of his view as to the original sacred writings.
The Bible truly interpreted.
Besides all this, it is not only of the Scriptures as originally
given, but of these as, and only when, properly interpreted, in the
sense intended by the Divine Inspirer ; and with a true appre-
hension of the purpose for which each part and passage were
given by God, that he would predicate inerrancy. "With this all-
important limitation, so often overlooked, whole hosts of the
supposed errors of Scripture disappear ; for in numberless cases
those alleged are not errors of Scripture, but errors of interpreta-
tion, or misconception, or misapplication, which have been
fathered upon the Bible, and transmitted by tradition, as if they
were the very AVord of God, when they are only the traditions of
men. When all the alleged errors thus arising have been
eliminated, those remaining will not cause earnest and reasonable
men serious concern.
Third. — The Theories of Bible Composition of Errorists
ACCOUNT FOR DISCREPANCIES. ThE GoSPELS.
Were anything further required to account for the alleged
errors and apparent discrepancies in Scripture, it may be found
more than sufficiently in the theories of the composition of
Scripture prevalent, which the errorists and rationalistic critics
generally accept. This is well illustrated from the theories of
the Gospels current among them, though it might be similarly
shown from the other Scriptures. The Gospels as we have them
are by many said to be not the original, nor more or less correct
copies, but second or third or even fourth hand compilations,
made from a book of discourses (Aoyta) like those of Matthew ;
and of a book of narratives like Mark's, and now a third source —
ERRORIST THEORIES OF BIBLE COMPOSITION 525
a series of discourses (logia) like those in John. These sources
were not themselves the originals, but more or less near to what
were approximately like the original narratives and discourses
spoken by Christ, and written by the apostles or their com-
panions. But compilations so made, Gospels so composed, that
along with large and free use of materials from these sources, were
mingled and combined other objectionable materials, as also the
writers' own conceptions of the Christian faith from their special
standpoints, and always coloured with the ideas and errors of
their times. ^
Now, while by no means committing ourselves to approval
of any of these ever-changing theories of the Gospels, let us
meantime accept them in' a general way, as expressing roundly
the drift of what the opponents of inerrancy hold, and see how it
bears upon the present question. Obviously, if these views of
the composition of Bible books be true, or if there is any
considerable measure of truth in them, the cry out made about
the alleged errors of Scripture by those holding such views is a
marvel. For it must surely be evident on the very face of it that
any such theory of the composition of Scripture is more than
sufficient to account for the apparent alleged errors in the Scrip-
tures as we have them, even though they were multiplied a
hundredfold, while the Scriptures as originally given might well
have been free from them. Indeed, such theories render any
other explanation of the supposed errors and discrepancies quite
superfluous ; for they more than amply account for all, and leave
an indefinitely large margin to account for any number of similar
discrepancies, that the mouse-eyed ingenuity of captious or critical
errorists may discover or create. But what amazes one is
that any holding such views of Scripture composition should
have ever talked about Bible errors, or have argued or
imagined therefrom that there were any in the original Scrip-
tures ; or could have supposed that any number of even
demonstrable errors in the Scriptures as we have them, if so
composed, would make it at all probable that there were any,
therefore, in the original. In short, their own theories of Bible
composition, as illustrated by their theories of the Gospels, supply
superabundantly the means of their own refutation, when alleging
errors in Scripture as evidence against its inerrancy. Were they
^ See Wendt's. Tdac/i?'//^'- 0/ /esus.
526 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
all as valid as they are unconvincing they would, on such
theories, simply prove nothing on the question ; for they are all
more than adequately accounted for by them ; and one wonders
that anyone could imagine that they did.
The inerrantist maintains that his doctrine of inerrancy is
found and taught in the explicit statements, express teaching, and
primary claim of Scripture ; that it is implied in its whole tone,
trend, and air of Divine authority ; and that it forms much of its
substance, and pervades it. He finds his main source and citadel
for this in the very words and usage of Christ Himself, which is
just what would be expected if the original were inerrant. And
the errorists have yet to answer the argument, and destroy the
evidence, by which he supports his view. He then accounts for
all the alleged errors by their own theory as to the composition
of our present Scriptures. For such errors as they allege are
such as we should expect, if the Scriptures had been composed
as they say. They thus themselves supply a complete answer to
all their allegations, and make their own theories refute their
own objections to his doctrine. So that if there was any lack
before of explanation of these alleged errors and discrepancies,
and any deficiency of apologetic strength in the inerrantist's
position arising therefrom, it is abundantly supplied by the
theories of Scripture composition of their opponents ; and the
position of the upholders of inerrancy, if not unassailable before,
is thus rendered so by the other critical theories of its very
assailants, — at least against them. This awkward result may
surprise and provoke them, but it is inevitable ; and they cannot
escape from it except by either abandoning their critical theories
as to the composition of Scripture, and thus admitting that the
Scriptures we have are practically the originals, and substantially
true, — with all the formidable array of evidence for inerrancy
supplied thereby. For if the Scriptures as we have them are
admitted to be true, substantially or in main drift, the inerrantist
can from even the substance, tone, and trend of them, get all the
evidence in support of his doctrine he requires ; while he can
make his position strong, if not practically impregnable against them
at least. Or if they hold to their theories, they can escape only
by renouncing the untenable and for them absurd contention that
the adducing of alleged errors in the Scriptures, as we have them,
is proof or probabifity that any error existed in them originally.
THE ERRORISTS' DILEMMA 527
The Errorists must either give up their Theories of
THE Gospels or their Assertion of indefinite
Erroneousness.
They thus leave intact the whole evidence for inerrancy, and
admit by implication that the inerrantist's position is not only
tenable but unassailable by anyone holding their prevalent
theories as to the composition of Scripture. If they choose the
one, the inerrantist's doctrine is well established, and his
apologetic position is practically secure. If they choose the
other, he is left undisturbed in possession of the field. So that
in either case the doctrine of inerrancy appears safe, and the
inerrantist's apologetic position seems not only tenable but
strong, for it is only of the Scriptures as originally given that he
predicates inerrancy ; and the Rationalist can never prove that
they were not inerrant. Certainly, at least, the most avowed
opponents of inerrancy are clearly precluded by their other
theories from assailing it ; and if not convinced they are thereby
clearly silenced, and dare not lift one voice against it without
condemning themselves, and discrediting their other pet and
prevalent theories.
The Sceptic also answered here.
All that has been advanced above holds with almost equal
force and validity against the attacks made by the sceptic upon
the Christian faith through the inerrantist's position. For here
they usually follow similar lines, and seek to overthrow Christianity
by discrediting the Scriptures, by means of the alleged errors, and
largely by the use of materials provided by the professedly
Christian opponents of inerrancy. So long as the inerrantist
can present such a valid and diversified defence of the Scriptures
as originally given, as has been indicated, — yea, such even as the
theories of the opponents of it themselves supply, — his apologetic
position is both safe and tenable, and amply sufficient to remove
concern, and to give calmness and confidence as to the safety of
Christianity from even his position. For surely a position that
has been so well maintained through the many searching
controversies of so many centuries — some of our opponents
themselves being witness that not one demonstrable error has
528 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
yet been proved, even in the Scriptures as we have them — may,
with good reason and without fear, be regarded as defensible for
ever, when it is only of the Scriptures, as originally given, that
inerrancy is predicated ; especially when so many of the alleged
errors and discrepancies have already vanished, and are daily
vanishing in the progress of Biblical, historical, and archaeological
research, and when all of them can be more than sufficiently
accounted for, even by the very theories of the opponents them-
selves. In the light of all this, and much more that might be
said, the inerrantist may be calm as to his apologetic position,
every Christian confident in the safety of his religion, and every
defender of the faith smile with sublime assurance in the face of
all his foes.
3. The Third Line of Defenxe is that there are
Difficulties connected with all our Knowledge
AND Experience. Butler's Argument.
But even this is only the second line of defensive fortifications,
in which the inerrantists can take their stand. In the first they
might, as we have seen, make a good and long defence ; and
might, indeed, prolong the struggle indefinitely — as has been done
for nearly two millenniums — a sufficiently long and trying test
surely for any position ! dwarfing the British defence of Gibraltar.
Or if retiring from the first into the second — the inerrancy of Scrip-
ture as originally given and when properly interpreted — they might
take their stand, and make a very powerful, and really irrefutable
defence; especially as they are being continually reinforced by
the growing knowledge of the Bible, and the progress of research.
Here, then, the inerrantist might stand with confidence and defy
for ever all his foes. But there is a third line of defence, to which
in case of difficulty or uncertainty he could as a last and sure
resort, if he thought fit, retire, and make his position and his
Christianity absolutely impregnable for ever. That is the well-
known and recognisedly valid defence that there are difficulties
connected with all our knowledge and experience in our present
limited condition. There is no sphere of action or region of investi-
gation entirely free from difficulties and objections. Almost every
truth of Revelation and fact in nature is more or less connected
with difficulty or open to objection — some of the best established
truths of science not being excepted. Therefore, if the doctrine
EXPLANATIONS OF DIFFICULTIES 529
of Scripture and the apologetic position of the inerrantist should
have difficulties, and be open to some plausible objections, it is
only what from analogy we should expect, — only what is found in
every region of truth, connected with the best established facts in
nature, and surrounding many of the unquestionable events in
our mysterious life, and largely illustrated in the transmission of
all ancient literature. But as in these cases so in this, it should
rationally occasion no serious concern, nor awaken any lack of
confidence as to the truths or facts themselves, when proved by
positive evidence and established on their own proper grounds.
Sensible and scientific men have in all ages accepted and acted
on the truths and facts when established on their own proper
evidence, notwithstanding any objections, difficulties, or seeming
contradictions that might be alleged against them or connected
with them ; and they have as reasonable men left these to be
removed in the progress of discovery and investigation, or to
remain unsolved and unanswered to be dealt with in the usual
way, if need be. But they have firmly refused, and rightly,
reasonably refused, to abandon what has been established on
positive evidence because of any such things, and have
thus led on to all our increase of knowledge, advance in
science, and experience in life. For difficulty and uncertainty,
as Butler in his immortal A?ialogy has incontrovertibly
reasoned, are the lot of man on earth, in every region of know-
ledge, in every sphere of action, and are the means of moral dis-
cipline— so that probability is and must be the guide of life.
Therefore, should the inerrantist, for any reason, find it necessary,
or prudent, or useful, to retire into this third line of defence, he
only does what every defender of truth in every region of
knowledge, action, or investigation does, and is by reason
justified and fully warranted in doing, to baffle and defy
unreasonable unbelief. He thus finds himself not only in a
position defensible, but impossible to prove untenable, in which
he can defend himself, his doctrine, and his Christianity against
all assailants, finally, fearlessly, and for ever.
Special Reasons to account for Difficulties.
In this case, too, there are very special reasons not only to
account for the existence of difficulties and the appearance of
34
530 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
errors in Scripture, but also to explain why we should expect
them, and be astonished and even staggered if they did not
appear ; and, indeed, have greater difficulties created by their
absence than by their presence in such writings. Their very
appearance so far from discrediting the Bible or warranting the
unreasonable inference that these discrepancies existed in the
original, is an additional evidence of Bible truthfulness and
reliability when the true circumstances of the case are realised.
Some of these have been indicated above, and the addition of the
others, not previously adduced, will further establish the validity
of the inerrantist's defence and strengthen the whole position.
I. ALL THE SCRIPTURES ARE ANCIENT. THE VICISSITUDES
OF TIME. TRANSMISSION AND TRANSCRIPTION.
The Scriptures are all of them ancient, some parts of them
among the most ancient literature of the world ; and anyone at
all versed in such literature knows how invariably and inevitably
errors and discrepancies creep into such writings in the vicissitudes
of time, and in the transmission through so many hands and
peoples, languages, and ages. And although it is true, as the
Westminster Confession states, that the Scriptures were " by a
singular care and providence" preserved as no other ancient
writings approach to, yet they were of necessity more or less
subject to the effects and influences of such vicissitudes. Through
transmission and transcription, transposition and translation,
interpolation and corruption, marginal additions and cognate
processes, errors and discrepancies would naturally find their way
into the fringes, or even into the texture of Scripture, unless,
indeed, a perpetual miracle was wrought for its perfect pre-
servation. But these scholarship and research might largely, if
not entirely, remove, as in this case has so much been done.
2. MUCH UNCERTAINTY AS TO ORIGIN, AUTHORSHIP, AND
COMPOSITION OF BIBLE BOOKS.
The origin, authorship, method of composition, mode of
reproduction, means of transmission, and manner of use of some
— yea, many of the sacred writings, are often wrapt in so much
uncertainty that it not only precludes the dogmatism of critics,
UNCERTAINTY AS TO LITERARY HISTORY 53 1
higher or lower, conservative or revolutionary ; but makes it
appear rather rash speculation, requiring omniscience, than ripe
scholarship or reverent criticism. This opens up a variety of
avenues through which the apparent discrepancies that perplex
us now might find their way into the Bible though the original
had been free of them. And when one thinks of the possible
differences between the spoken and recorded utterances of
prophets and apostles, and of the diverse and contrasted docu-
ments that may have been used in the composition of some of
them — as, for example, the books of the Hexateuch or the
Gospels ; and of some of them that may have been of composite
authorship, — like Isaiah or Zechariah, — or by the same author
at widely separated periods of his life and experience, as the
Apocalypse and the Gospel of John, — and of some books, though
substantially of one authorship, yet added to, or altered, or
adapted by editing and re-editing by other hands to the needs
and conditions of later times, as the essentially Mosaic book of
Deuteronomy seems to have been ; of the freedom with the
originals that later writers might have felt themselves free to take
with the books, or materials that they were reproducing in
somewhat modified form ; and of the marginal notes, marks, and
additions for reading, or public service, and liturgical use in
synagogue and church, with all the possibilities of these finding
their way into the text itself; and of the misconceptions and
mistakes that might easily arise and be repeated, as the Scriptures
passed from copyist to copyist, people to people, language to
language, from age to age, — with all the probabilities of mis-
transcription and mistranslation, transposition and interpolation,
and other corruptions of the original text arising therefrom : —
one can readily understand how easily errors and discrepancies
might creep into the fringe and surface of the sacred writings
in the vicissitudes of millenniums. The marvel is that although
there are many various readings the seeming errors occasioning
serious difficulty are comparatively so few ; which reveals, indeed,
a singular care and providence. But the most amazing thing is,
that, in the face of all this, any scholar or careful reasoner should
think it at all necessary or reasonable to suppose there were
errors in the original Scriptures ; when these things super-
abundantly explain them all, and would suffice to account for
them though they were multiplied a thousandfold.
532 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
3. THE SCRIPTURES ARE FRAGMENTARY, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR
MUCH THAT WOULD PROBABLY VANISH IF WE KNEW ALL.
The writings of the Bible are at best only fragmentary ; and
being so occasion difficulties that would not arise if they were
complete and full in their accounts and treatment of what they
refer to. Because of this very fragmentariness and incomplete-
ness, seeming errors and discrepancies appear, that would vanish
if we only had parts awanting or knew the whole. The principle
and importance of this observation are familiar to sensible men
in daily life. How often intelligent men are startled and staggered
and faced with apparent contradictions, by the representations
made about people and things that when we get more information
and fuller knowledge put the matters in an entirely different
light, and lead us sometimes to commend what before we
condemned, and to understand and appreciate what before was
a mystery and a contradiction to us. And so it is with Scripture.
Every careful reader of Scripture has observed references to
books now lost, from which materials have been taken for
fuller information on the matters alluded to — such as the books
of Jashar, the Wars of Jehovah, the Chronicles of the Kings of
Israel — probably the royal archives. As the materials taken
from them were often fragmentary and elliptical, seeming errors
and discrepancies might easily arise and appear. Hence, perhaps,
the explanation partly of that most decried and least relied on
book in the O.T. — Second Chronicles — which to critics has more
of such difficulties than any Bible book.
The Four Gospels complementary and co?ifirmatory.
Then, as is well known,^ the Gospels are after all only
fragmentary — at most only selections from the words and works
of Christ — as John writing near the end of his life, evidently with
a knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels, at the close of his own
supplementary Gospel expressly says, in terms so round and
large, as to leave on us the impression, from him who most
fully realised it, how fragmentary and incomplete at best are the
Gospel records of the life and teaching of Our Lord. And so of
the other parts of Scripture. If this one fact — the fragmentari-
^ See Dr. Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels.
GOSPELS FRAGMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY 533
ness of the writings — receives full consideration and due weight,
it will go far to explain the apparent errors, seeming conflicts,
and perplexing difficulties in the Bible.
The force of this may be the better realised if it is considered
how these would be multiplied and magnified. How much
more numerous and formidable these would be, for example, if
we had only one Gospel instead of four ! How much more
fragmentary and incomplete the Christian revelation would be,
and how much we should lose if we had the Synoptics without
the Fourth Gospel ! How much explanatory and confirmatory
material we should miss, and truth evidencing detail we should
lack, if we had the Epistles of Paul without the Acts of the
Aposdes, — the undesigned coincidences between which have
given us one of our best lines of Christian evidence, and one of
the most satisfactory means of establishing, even in minute
details, the truthfulness of Scripture ! Facts, particulars, stand-
points, and connections are given us in one Gospel that are
omitted in another written from a different standpoint, but
presenting substantially the same thing in a different aspect and
for another purpose. When the fresh particulars and new light
are thus obtained from the different complementary represen-
tations of other Gospels, statements and representations that
before were perplexing and seemed even contradictory, are
made plain and harmonious. From these, of which there are
many striking examples, we find a principle in operation that
fully warrants the conclusion that, if we only had more of this
information, and possessed even further additions Uke those
given in John's Gospel, still more if we were conversant with
those other things that Jesus said and did, which John knew and
refers to, but does not from sheer superabundance attempt to
write — especially if we knew the whole — those difficulties,
discrepancies, and apparent errors that may now perplex or
stagger us, and lead some, rashly and unwarrantably, to come to
wrong conclusions, would probably all vanish, or at least be so
diminished and modified as to occasion little or no difficulty.
If the possession of the four Gospels, with the fuller knowledge
and diversified light they supply on the life and teaching of Our
Lord, has removed so much and explained more that would
have remained discrepant if we had only one Gospel, or two
instead of four, or the Synoptics without the Fourth Gospel — is it
534 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
not reasonable to infer that if we only had more, if we only knew
the whole, that all would probably be made plain and harmonious,
or at least as far as could be reasonably expected in such a
record of such a life ?
The very fulness and infinitude of it made the narrative of it
overleap the narrow bounds of ordinary biography, and refuse to
be restricted within the contracted limits of current literature, or
ruled by the conventional canons of literary criticism. This
fragmentary character of the sacred writings, then, supplies a
further and far-reaching principle and means of explaining many
apparent discrepancies or difficulties in the Bible ; and supplies
another practically insurmountable fortress for the complete
defence of our already impregnable position. But although
they are fragmentary as a history, they are complete as a
revelation ; though defective as a biography, they are sufficient
as a Gospel.^
4. THE BIBLE GIVEN CHIEFLY AS A REVELATION FOR FAITH
AND LIFE. EVERYTHING SUBORDINATED TO THIS.
This brings in view a fourth source of explanation, and of
additional confirmatory defence. The Scriptures, though largely
historical and actually true, are really, so far as they are history,
a Revelation ; and the historical form is often taken as that by
which Divine Wisdom thought best to give the Revelation. The
chief end of Scripture is to reveal the will of God for our salva-
tion. This is its real design, its avowed purpose, and its distinct
object. This lies on its very face, and is recognised as beyond
dispute by all believing students of it. This being so, everything
is subordinated to this ruling purpose, and every other interest —
historical, literary, or aesthetic — is of necessity made subservient to
this chief end. The whole selection, arrangement, and expression
of the materials are moulded and dominated by this conception ;
and all the parts and items are affected and determined by this
aim, and made to bend and contribute to the attainment of this
ideal.
It is easy, therefore, to see how seemingly conflicting state-
ments might appear in some parts of Scripture, to the critic who
reads it simply as history. Nor is it to be wondered at that he,
' See Dr. Westcott's The Revelation of the Risen Christ.
THE BIBLE A GUIDE TO FAITH AND LIFE 535
studying it simply as history, and estimating it by the ordinary
canons of historical criticism, should be staggered at the indiffer-
ence to these, and the freedoms taken with the details of the
narrative, and the apparent disregard of the merely historical
aspects, and that, viewing it from a purely historical or literary
standpoint, he should put no high value on it as a historical
source, or even disparage it in this respect, or in some other
merely literary aspect. But all this arises from a misconception
of the very purpose of Scripture, and from faiUng to recognise
sufficiently the real and avowed design of the Bible. In every
part of it, and very specially in its historical parts, of which it is
so largely composed, it is essentially, distinctively, and professedly
a Revelation — God's written message to mankind. And if this,
its express purpose, is only recognised and realised, this sub-
ordination of the history to the Revelation, and of the historical
and the literary to the ethical and the spiritual, is precisely what
we should expect, and what is fact.
This comparative indifference to other aspects is the natural
effect of supreme and intense regard for the chief end of
Revelation — the moral and religious education of men. Every-
thing else is properly and spontaneously subordinated to this
dominating idea and chief end. History, and every other thing,
is made subservient to this regnant design ; and the facts of
history, like all other things, are utilised with a view to, and just
in so far as they serve, this purpose ; and they are drawn in and
dealt with irrespective of other aspects in the way Divine wisdom
and the inspiring Spirit deemed the best to reveal God's will for
our salvation. This is surely as it should be, and it explains
many of the apparent difficulties and discrepancies which have
been supposed to exist in parts of Scripture. It is the overlooking
or failing adequately to recognise this that has led some rashly to
charge Scripture with errors, to make a round general charge of
erroneousness, and to proclaim the false doctrine of the indefinite
erroneousness of Scripture. Others have been led to pronounce
harsh and unwarrantable judgments on some parts of it.
This explains and answers recent criticism on the Book of fudges.
The Book of Judges furnishes a good example of this. With
the exception of Second Chronicles, no book of Scripture has
536 THE OrrOSING views ArOLOGETICALLY
been more disparaged fron^ a historical view-point by certain
literary critics than this. Nor have some scrupled to depreciate
its value as history, and even to pronounce it untrustworthy. In
support and justification of this disparagement, they charge the
writer with overriding the history, and, disregarding the literary
interests, to rush on to teach morality and religion, specially the
evil of forsaking the Lord, and the value of returning to and
obeying Him^making the history simply his tool — and bending
the facts to enforce that. Now, while the abler and wiser
upholders of inerrancy would not admit that the facts of the
history have been so handled as to warrant a general charge of
erroneousness, or even that any real disregard of truth has
been proved in Judges, or that the history has been actually
misrepresented, yet it would not be denied that the history is
freely handled, that the historical interests are subordinated to
the religious truth, that the facts are so used, and bent, and
adapted as to best serve the expression of the intended revela-
tion—the actual being made subservient to the ethical and the
spiritual — the merely historical aspects being little regarded, in
regard for the moral and religious uses they so readily and
forcibly lend themselves to, when seized, selected, and utihsed
by the Spirit of inspiration. But so far from these things
discrediting the truthfulness, lessening the trustworthiness, or
falsifying the claimed inspiration of the book or of the
Scriptures, they, on the contrary, when properly regarded, do the
very reverse.
The period of the Judges was a long and an eventful period
in the history of Israel, which formed a necessary and in some
respects an important part in the training of the chosen race for
their high vocation and destiny among the nations. It taught
them, and was fitted and intended to teach them, their entire
dependence on Jehovah, the evil of disobedience to Him, the
folly of forsaking the Lord to serve other gods, God's mercy in
forgiving them, and His mightiness in delivering them, when in
their distress — the fruit of their sin — they turned to Him in
penitence, and sought the Lord with all their hearts. But it
contributed less perhaps than any other period to the develop-
ment of Revelation, or the progress of mankind, or even of Israel
itself. And the Book of Judges shows its Divine inspiration by
ignoring much of the history of this lengthened but largely
I
HISTORICAL SUBORDINATED TO THE RELIGIOUS 537
unproductive and unprogressive period of darkness and of blood,
by recording all that was worth recording of it in the Eternal
Book in a comparatively short writing, and by selecting for its
record mainly outstanding events in the lives of some of those
noble men of God whose faith and heroism illumined that long,
dark night of backsliding and bloodshed, and by their heroic
deeds done in Jehovah's name redeemed it from barrenness and
oblivion. It takes no notice of much of the history at all,
because it would have served little or no purpose in unfolding the
Revelation of God, or in disclosing the workings of Divine grace.
It selects only those salient points that best serve to enforce
the moral and religious lessons God was teaching men by terrible
things in righteousness, when they were backsliding into sin ; and
the marvels of His mercy when they repented of their sins and
turned to the Lord their God. And, while it cannot be fairly
proved to misrepresent the history, or to pervert the facts, yet it
purposely evidently does pay little regard to merely historical
aspects or niceties, and thus offends the merely historical sense,
and so selects, manipulates, and distributes the facts as best to
set forth the principles of God's moral government among
men and nations, and the religious and ethical significance
of history.^ These are the only aspects worthy of a place
in the Eternal Book, or fitted to exhibit the progress of
Revelation.
But surely this is the acknowledged design of Scripture — the
very end of Revelation, as all concerned in this discussion admit —
even to reveal the will of God for our salvation. The method
above indicated of handling history is obviously in full harmony
with this — just what we should expect — , and indeed seems the
only thing that would be in full accord therewith. So that this
mode of treating history which pays little regard to it merely as
history, and utilises it chiefly to reveal its moral and religious
significance — to give a Revelation through the history — i7i the
history — which has offended some and staggered others when
studying it merely as literature and history — is so far from
warranting such disparagement as Judges and some other
historical books have suffered from certain critics, that it rather
evidences their Divine origin and inspiration, and shows their
' Some of our greatest philosophic historians follow this method. See
Carlyle's French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell, and Heroes and Hero- Worship.
538 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
adaptation to the chief end of Scripture. It also naturally
accounts for supposed discrepancies and historical defects, by
showing how they arise and appear. It is tlic overlooking of
this, or the inadequate recognition of il practically, by some
studying Scripture for other purposes, that has prevented them
perceiving the origin and explanation of these difficulties
and apparent discrepancies, which, by their looking at it merely
as history, have perplexed and offended them, and led them to
disparage some parts of Scripture, and thus the way has been
opened up for discrediting the whole. Therefore, when the
Scriptures are steadily regarded in their true light as a revelation
of the will of God for our salvation, we find another and far-
reaching means of explaining the apparent difficulties and
discrepancies.
5. THE BIBLE IS AN ORIENTAL BOOK. ORIENTAL MIND AND
LITERARY METHODS GREATLY DIFFERENT FROM OURS.
The fifth and last means of explanation of alleged errors and
apparent discrepancies that we shall mention now is that the
Bible is both an Oriental and an ancient book. This fact has
received far too little consideration in many recent discussions.
We are so familiar with the Bible, and so many editions of it in
every form have been issued, that we are apt unconsciously to
think of it as a modern book, published in Paternoster Row,
printed in some famous University Press, and which we can read
as we would read the daily newspaper or the latest primer;
forgetting, or not sufficiently realising, that it is a very ancient
book, the latest part of which was published about eighteen-
hundred years ago, and the earliest probably thirty-five centuries
ago — using materials much older still. We fail to recognise that
it was written among, by, and for an exceedingly different people,
in a very different part of the globe, in entirely different condi-
tions— religious, moral, and social — with vastly different religious
conceptions, moral ideals, and literary methods. There could,
therefore, be no greater literary error, and no more signal critical
injustice, than to measure and judge the sacred Uterature of the
O. and N.T. by the standard and tests of our modern and
Western secular literature.
I
THE BIBLE IN THE EXILE 539
The Bible in the Exile.
And yet this is what is most frequently done by the teachers
of Scripture erroneousness, who never seem to weary of pro-
claiming its errors, and are ever most eager to discover what to
them seems evidence of erroneousness. And yet in most cases
their apparent errors are simply their own creations, the fruit of
their ow^n misconceptions and prepossessions, and the direct
result of their violation or neglect of the first principles of sound
and just interpretation. No wonder that some of the greatest
masters of Hebrew literature should protest against the unscientific
and perverse methods in which the O.T. Scriptures have been
handled by some critics, in order to relegate them mostly to the
Exile and the Maccabaean age. Indeed the chief end and highest
ambition of some modern O.T. critics seems to be to banish the
Bible to the Exile, to bring it down to the Captivity, or beyond,
and so to break, and bruise, and abuse God's Word in that
foreign and spiritually strange land, as did the Babylonians God's
people. So that the O.T. in the Exile, the Bible in Captivity,
would aptly define the standpoint and describe the result of their
Rationalistic criticism. But the God of the Bible lives, and He
will wither their exiling and destructive criticism, restore His Word
as He did His people to its own land, true place, and Divine
supremacy. He that sits in heaven shall laugh at them. The
Most High Himself shall establish it.
In order to understand, interpret, or deal justly by any litera-
ture, we must study it from the standpoint of its writers, master
their literary methods, realise the situation in which its various
parts were written, ascertain and enter into their peculiar
conceptions, and above all things recognise and utilise their
distinctive characteristics. These are the prime requisites of any
just, rational, or trustworthy criticism. They are of special
importance and imperative necessity in Biblical criticism. They
must be maintained and insisted on as much against the irrational
rationalists, who disown or traverse them, to deduce their own
favourite results, in harmony with their own prejudice and unten-
able presuppositions, as against the traditional dogmatists, who
may pervert and fragment Divine oracles by misapplying isolated
texts, torn from their context, to buttress or confirm their
doctrinal systems — systems which, however true in themselves, or
540 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
sustained by other Scriptures, cannot legitimately claim these to
support them. For the Scriptures are not only ancient and
Oriental, with all the distinctive characteristics of the Oriental
mind, and with all the peculiarities of Eastern literary methods,
but so vastly different from the Western, and in such striking
contrast to our modern methods as to need care in handling.
Contrast between Oriental religious Writings
AND OURS.
Further, they are also ancient and Oriental religious writings,
in which these contrasts reach a climax, and are even more
remarkable than in other kinds of writings. We are prosaic,
they are poetical. We are logical, they are intuitive. We are
historical, they are imaginative. They naturally express their
religious conceptions largely in poetical forms or sententious
sayings, in which there is often little regard to logical order or
consecutive thought. We mostly express them in didactic form
and discussive manner ; in which orderly statement and connected
thought largely obtain, and even scientific correctness is more
and more sought after. They revel in figurative expressions and
mystical conceptions on religious things. We are sparing in our
use of figures of speech, and generally prefer the simpler and less
idealistic style. In fact all nature, life, and visible things were to
them incomparably more full of God, teeming with spiritual idea
and suggestion, than to us less mystic and more factual Westerns.
To them far more than to us it was true that the seen is but the
shadow of the unseen, the material the embodiment of the
spiritual, and the temporal the symbol of the eternal. The earth
to them was " crammed with heaven, and every common bush
aglow with God." They adopt as by a native genius, and without
hesitation, literary devices — such as putting the sentiments of a
later writer into the lips of some ancient prophet or legislator,
whose principles they expressed as if they were his own words —
which, with our conceptions and literary habits, we should not
dare to use ; though some ancient Westerns did so in measure
— witness the speeches in Livy's Histoij of Rome and Chaucer's
Faerie Queeti. It is because these great differences are ignored
or unrecognised that they are by Westerns often misunderstood
and misjudged ; and the Bible writers are declared to have
THE APOLOGETIC POSITIONS COMPARED 541
written innumerable errors, when the mistakes are really made
by those who thus misinterpret them, or judge them by their own
literary ideals, and measure them by our modern literary usage,
in violation of the first principles of all just and scientific
Biblical criticism. No wonder that they should thus make out
countless errors in Scripture, but they are errors of their own
creation !
Conclusion. Compared even with absolute Inerrancy,
INDEFINITE ErRONEOUSNESS IS APOLOGETICALLY WEAK
AND INDEFENSIBLE.
It thus appears that the most extreme position taken up
by the defenders of Bible inerrancy is, when thus supported by
these most reasonable and weighty considerations, not only
tenable, but seems practically irrefutable apologetically ; and
when compared with the theory of indefinite erroneousness, it
is strength itself, as against demonstrated weakness and utter
indefensibility. In comparing the two positions apologetically
then, as against the avowed opponents of the Christian faith, the
sum and conclusion of the whole discussion is this, that, while
the absolute inerrantist's position is thoroughly defensible and
ultimately impregnable, the position of those who proclaim the
indefinite and illimitable erroneousness of Scripture is utterly
untenable and ultimately subversive of the Christian faith. In
comparison, therefore, with even the extremest position of the
upholders of Scripture truthfulness and trustworthiness, and the
position of those who indefinitely deny or discredit these, it must be
said there is really no comparison apologetically. The one has a
valid and long upheld defence, the other has really no defence
at all to present against skilful scepticism. Their own very
principles and practices render a valid defence impossible to
them.
Note. — Even Dr. Farrar says as to the Acts: "Taking one by one all
the objections which have been advanced agaipst the credibility of the Acts,
I should prove — as I have elsewhere tried to do — that in every itislance, and
in the minutest particulars, the accuracy and trustworthiness of the narrator
can be triumphantly vindicated" {Symposium, p. 231). With this, and his
statement that no demonstrable error has been proved, it is strange that Divine
inspiration is not owned as the only rational explanation of the unique fact.
CHAPTER V.
THE CONTRASTED POSITIONS COMPARED
A POL O GE TIC ALL Y. INDEFINITE ERR ONE-
O US NESS AND THOROUGH TRUTHFULNESS.
In comparison, therefore, with the apologetic position of those
who do not take up the extreme position of absolute inerrancy,
but who take their stand on the more guarded but less exposed
position,- — simply on the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine
authority of all Scripture as originally given, and when truly
interpreted, — the errorist's position is really nowhere ; for all
that has been adduced above in support of the extremest position
holds a fortiori with immensely increased force and cogency
of this more guarded and less assailable position. In saying this
last, however, I do not mean to withdraw or weaken anything
that has been or may be adduced for the absolute inerrantist's
position, or for its incomparable superiority apologetically to the
errorist's position.
But, as indicated above, that is not the position I take up ;
though it is shown how tenable, and practically irrefutable that
position may be made, whether as against the sceptical unbeliever,
or the rationalistic Christian. While it has been urged that there
is an apparent Scripture warrant for the inerrantist's contention,
especially in the words, usage, and attitude of Our Lord towards
all Scripture ; and while that position has without any serious
difficulty been maintained for ages against all the assaults of
antichristian scepticism, on the one hand, or of professedly
Christian but really rationalistic criticism on the other ; and while
the repeated attacks made upon it through all the ages have
been specifically met and sufficiently answered, with at most
only small cases where the issue might be thought doubtful
in paltry points, but in all of which they have at least signally
failed to prove the untenableness of the inerrantist's position ; yet
THE APOLOGETIC POSITIONS COMPARED 543
we distinctly decline to take our stand for the defence of the Chris-
tian faith on this narrow ground, in this unwisely exposed position.
Defence of the Christian Faith from the Position of
THE Truthfulness, Trustworthiness, and Divine
Authority of Scripture.
In his despatch from Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington
wrote of the battle at Quatre Bras, "We maintained our posi-
tion, and completely defeated and repulsed all the enemy's
attempts to get possession of it."^ And although he might,
with his brave army and military genius, have maintained
that position long enough to serve the end in view, yet he
deliberately withdrew from that more exposed and less strong
position, and advisedly took his stand in the final struggle upon
the previously chosen and stronger position of Waterloo ; and
there he not only repulsed and defeated all the attempts of the
audacious foe, but from that position " delivered the blow "
that completely crushed the bold usurper, and restored the
freedom and established the peace of Europe. So it is in the
defence of the Christian faith. We should not expose ourselves
unnecessarily to the plausible charge of mistaking extremeness
for strength of position. We do not gain anything, but risk the
loss of much, by taking our stand for the defence of Christianity
on the ground of absolute inerrancy. In such serious issues to
contend for what is not necessary is not wise. It is not necessary
in the controversy against either the sceptics or the rationalists.
Ration ALis!M and Scepticism attack Christianity not
so MUCH ON Position of Bible Inerrancy, as on its
Truthfulness, Trustworthiness, and Divine Origin
and Authority.
It is not merely in paltry trivialities, with which absolute
inerrancy mostly deals, that they assert errancy and erroneousness
in Scripture, but in large and important things — in fact, as seen
in every kind of thing, — specially in the vital matters of its moral
and religious teaching. The trivialities are seized upon, because
they can the more plausibly without alarm be adduced, simply to
^ Wellington's Despatches.
544 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
get, through them, a pretext for riding roughshod over all
Scripture — giving full scope to their destructive criticism ; and
for accepting as true only such parts and elements of Scripture
as suits or " finds " them.
The Unwisdom of taking our Stand on absolute
Inerrancy.
It is most unwise therefore, as it is unnecessary, in answering
them to take up the extreme position of absolute inerrancy. It
is not directed specifically against what is their real contention
and chief aim. It fails to meet them fully and squarely on what
is their avowedly distinctive ground. It is not against absolute
inerrancy that they really or chiefly contend, but against the
definite truthfulness, thorough trustworthiness, and Divine
authority of Scripture. Their real object is to declare its
indefinite erroneousness, in order that they may be free to
choose or reject as much or as little of Scripture as their own
reason or consciousness may deem best. It is better, therefore,
to meet them on their own real ground, than on a narrow and
unnecessarily exacting position, against which objections may be
more easily and plausibly urged.
Further, it is obviously a less guarded and more exposed
position. For the opponent of absolute inerrancy can make his
attack along the whole line, and over every part and point in
Scripture ; and if he can only seem to make out one demonstrable
error in the most trivial thing, he seems to have gained his end,
and apparently rendered the Bible claim untenable, or at least
may the more plausibly make it appear that he has done so,
with all the disastrous issues deducible therefrom. Yea, if he
even makes out one apparent error or discrepancy, and seems to
show that this was in the original, he may apparently establish
a probability against absolute inerrancy, and thereby against the
claim of Scripture ; and ultimately against the Christian faith,
provided it is staked upon the absolute inerrancy of Scripture.
He may thus the more easily impose on many — especially on
those who have not thought the question through. It is surely,
therefore, most unwise thus unnecessarily to expose or imperil the
whole position ; especially when it is not required to answer them.
Besides, by taking our stand in our less exposed and more
AD\'ANTAGES OF THE TRUE POSITION 545
guarded position, we avoid many of the side issues, doubtful
questions, and perplexing definitions that arise in connection
with the position of absolute inerrancy. For, as indicated
above, many questions of a very doubtful and seemingly
insoluble kind arise about it. What is " absolute " in such
matters ? Is such a word strictly usable at all in such con-
nections? Can anything of the kind be properly called
absolute ? Is not even the Revelation itself relatively imperfect,
and not absolutely perfect ; since Divine truth cannot dwell
perfectly except in the Divine mind ? And is it not necessarily
so by the limitations of human thought and language, by the
revelation coming through the at best relatively imperfect media
of human powers and expression ? So that, strictly speaking,
the use of the word "absolute" is not warrantable as to the
Revelation itself; and, therefore, still less to the written
expression of it. Then what does " inerrancy " precisely mean ?
To some it means one thing, to others another. So that there is
risk of interminable misunderstanding. What would be inerrant,
too, from one standard would be erroneous from another ; what
would be errorless from a popular standard and standpoint, would
be errant or inaccurate from a scientific. So that the whole
question of the standard, and the use of language, and definitions
— which are always difficult — with all connected therewith —
immediately arise. Then does not the very word " inerrancy," an
invention of the errorists, assume that the Bible is a scientific
and precisian book ? — which is not true, which is in itself an error,
and a fertile source of error, misconception, and misrepresentation.
Does not the very use of it, begun by our opponents, place the
defenders of the Scripture claim in a narrow, disadvantageous,
and even false position, which forces them to maintain and
prove a negative, which they are entitled logically to decline
to do? How much more difficult is it to maintain and prove
that the Bible is inerrant, — which is not fairly required or
obligatory, — than to prove that it is true, trustworthy, and
authoritative, — which is all that can be reasonably asked ! And
how much more difficult for the errorists to prove that the Bible
is untrue, and untrustworthy, than to prove that is not absolutely
inerrant ! All these, and similar side issues, misconceptions,
and uncertainties, are avoided by taking our stand against
sceptics and rationalists on the position of the thorough truth-
35
546 THE OFPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
fulness, entire trustworthiness, and Divine authority of Scripture
as such, and not on absolute inerrancy.
Further still, by taking our stand there, instead of on this
extreme, exposed, and disputable position, we get the full weight
of the evidence for the argument from the claim of Scripture
and the authority of Christ, backed by all the Christian evidences,
to support the truth and authority of Scripture, and to defend
the Christian faith against all assailants. And although some
parts of the Scripture evidence appear to claim absolute inerrancy,
or something like it, or what it may be supposed to mean, yet
it does not so unquestionably as for the other prove that to
be the claim made by Scripture for itself. It at least does
not so demonstrably put that beyond all possible question, or
plausible reason for reservation. It might with more show of
reason or plausibility be made to appear that the evidence does
not so inevasibly preclude every view short of absolute inerrancy,
or does not so absolutely require and demand that as the other.
It could with more appearance of reason than in the other,
be held that the evidence does not so demonstrably and
indisputably amount to a claim for absolute inerrancy as for
the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all
Scripture ; or at least that it is not so unreasonable to deny
or question the one as the other, in the light of the whole mass
of the proof by which the latter is established.
The comparative apologetic Strength of the Position
OF THE Truthfulness, Trustworthiness, and Divine
Authority of Scripture.
All the evidence favourable to the first is a fortiori at least
equally, yea, more strongly and less questionably valid and
cogent for the second. If it should not, or might be made to
appear not, to come quite up to the one, it must at least come up
to the other, and cannot mean less than, or be satisfied with any
thing short of, that ; nor can it reasonably, or even plausibly, be
made to appear so. Besides, there is a great mass of the
evidence that does not seem to support or prove the one, that
directly, fully, unequivocally, and indisputably supports and
establishes the other. Indeed, by far the larger and weightier
part of the evidence is of that character and to that effect. So
ArOLOGETIC STRENGTH OF THE BIBLE CLAIM 547
that the more guarded and less exposed position has many
unique and decisive advantages, is by far the stronger position
apologetically, and is, in fact, simply and demonstrably impreg-
nable for ever. Its terminology, definition, and meaning are
less questionable or uncertain. It is much less open to attack
through misconception, misrepresentation, and caricature, by
presenting a much less exposed line, and less sharply pointed or
protruded front for the shafts of the foe. It gets free of many of
the most common but trivial objections to Scripture, which are
generally directed against the view of absolute inerrancy, and
may be made plausible as against that, but have no weight
or validity against itself. It has the whole mighty mass and
solid weight of the vast and varied evidence of Scripture, endorsed
by the Divine authority of Christ, confirmed by the whole array
of the Christian evidences to support it in the defence of the
Christian faith against all assailants.
And if the Christian faith is, as has been proved at length
above, defensible, and has been well defended, and never proved
untenable, even from the extremest position, how much more
can it be shown to be so from this more guarded, less exposed,
and much stronger position ! — when all the arguments adduced
for the one hold with immensely increased weight and cogency
for the other ; and when there are many independent and
powerful arguments and grounds peculiar or specially favourable
to itself; and when it is not open to many of the objections,
uncertainties, and attacks to which the other is exposed ! The
apologetic value and strength of this position will appear the
more clearly and forcibly when we look at the advantages in
detail, and as directed in defence against the sceptical, or
rationahstic assailants.
I. IT FREES THE DEFENCE FROM MANY PLAUSIBLE OBJECTIONS.
As already indicated, it plainly frees us from many of the most
common and plausible objections to Scripture. Many of these
objections are of the most paltry and contemptible character —
" despicable " trivialities, as Dr. Rainy calls them — things that
whatever be the precise fact as to them, do not in the least
affect the truthfulness or trustworthiness of Scripture. Such
trivialities, as whether it was ten thousand or nine thousand nine
548 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
hundred and ninety-nine that fell in a battle, or whether it was
precisely the sixth or nearer the seventh hour that a certain event
happened, whether when "all Judea" went out to hear John the
Baptist it was literally every individual, man, woman, and child ; or
simply a round expression for the great mass of the people. Such
questions as these are really contemptible, and are solemn trifling
with the Holy Oracles. Whatever bearing such despicable
trivialities might have on a theory of Uteral and absolute inerrancy,
they do not in the least affect the truthfulness or trustworthiness
of Scripture ; and they are based upon perversions of its obvious
meaning, and a fundamentally false conception of its character
and purpose, for the Bible is not a precisian but a popular book,
which does not concern itself about, or profess to furnish, such
paltry literalities. All objections of this nature are therefore
irrelevant as against our position. They simply do not touch it ;
nor can any perverse ingenuity plausibly make them even appear
to do so.
2. IT PRESENTS A MUCH LESS EXPOSED LINE FOR ATTACK.
Then, our position has a much shorter and less exposed line
for the assaults of opponents, and presents fewer points of attack.
In fact it is only in an indirect way that many of the supposed
objections can, with any apparent plausibility, be brought against
our position at all. They may have some apparent validity
against a theory of precisian literalism, but, as against ours, little
or none. For by its very roundness it presents few if any points
of attack for many of the common shafts of unbelief. Almost all
those small points that belong to the category of discrepancies,
inaccuracies, apparent inconsistency, or seeming trivial conflict,
but which are often so deftly and unscrupulously manipulated or
glided into alleged errors, are rendered pointless and innocuous
against our more guarded and less pointed position, and are mere ^
irrelevancies as against it.
3. IT LAYS ON THE SCEPTIC THE BURDEN OF DISPROVING THE
TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUSTWORTHINESS OF SCRIPTURE.
Besides, it logically lays upon the sceptic the obligation to
disprove the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of
THE DIFFICULTIES OF SCEPTICS AND ERRORISTS 549
Scripture — a difficult, if not impossible thing to make even
plausibly apparent, in face of all the overwhelming array of
positive evidence adducible, which goes to establish and
demonstrate that, — and in view of the ever increasing mass of
confirmations thereof which historical and archaeological research,
the latest discovery, and the highest scholarship are bringing
to light. These of late have immensely multiplied, much to
the confusion and explosion of many pretentious theories
and vaunted results of would-be oracular detractors from the
truthfulness and trustworthiness of God's Word, who, while
vehemently denying the infallibility of the Oracles of God, never
weary of proclaiming or implying the infallibility of their own
oracles.
4. IT PREVENTS RATIONALISING BUT PROFESSED CHRISTIANS
FROM USING ANY ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE VERACITY AND
DIVINE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE, WHICH THEY EQUALLY
WITH US MUST MAINTAIN.
Further, it clearly precludes and nullifies all those objections
brought against Scripture by rationalistic but professedly Christian
critics, which, if they have any validity or weight at all, are
objections not to its infallibility and inviolability as such, but
against its Divine origin, veracity, and authority, which they with
us are equally bound to uphold, if Revelation in any definite and
intelligible sense is to be maintained at all. All objections of
this nature are, from them at least, inadmissible, whatever they
may be from avowed rejectors of supernatural Revelation. For they
are, if anything, objections or arguments equally against them-
selves, and as really destructive of their own position. If they
hold Revelation in any true or definite sense, they are ipso facto
precluded from adducing against our position any objections or
arguments of such a character as when carried to their ultimate
issues stultify the objectors and overthrow their own position.
Yet this is what unconsciously most of the errorists' objections
do ; so that the objectors are by the very guardedness and
strength of our position silenced or driven into scepticism,
where they can be met on other grounds, and reasoned into
absurdity.
550 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
5. IT BRINGS RATIONALISTS AND SCEPTICS DIRECTLY INTO CON-
FLICT WITH THE DECISIVE WORDS AND DIVINE AUTHORITY
OF CHRIST, BACKED BY THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF THE
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
Nay, more, it brings both rationalists and sceptics face to face
with the decisive and inevasible teaching of Christ, and into
direct and emphatic conflict with Him and His Divine authority,
— with all the massive weight and unanswerable force of the
evidences by which His claims are established, and His authority
and supremacy as a religious teacher are demonstrated. For by
no ingenious device or perverse interpretation is it possible to
make it even appear as if Christ did not hold, teach, and
emphasise the truthfulness, trustworthiness, inviolableness, and
the Divine origin and authority of all Scripture, as proved
above indisputably from His whole tone, attitude, usage, and
very words. Whatever may be said about literal and absolute
inerrancy, there is no possibility of making it appear that Christ
did not teach at least the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and the
Divine character and authority of Scripture. Therefore, if they
are to overthrow our position, they must first destroy His
authority, and disprove His claims, and answer the whole
massive and triumphant array of the Christian evidences, which
have calmly defied the onsets of centuries, and against which all
the successive and virulent attacks of scepticism have for ages
dashed in vain. We are not so necessarily and demonstrably
required by Scripture or by Christ to maintain literal, absolute
inerrancy in every trivial thing and possible aspect. But we are,
in the light of the evidence from Scripture, and specially of the
teaching, usage, and attitude of Christ, required to hold and
maintain the truthfulness, trustworthiness. Divine authority, and
inviolability of the Oracles of God. The one may seem vulnerable
or questionable, and, as against our common foes and their chief
attack and purpose, it is not necessary to maintain it. The other is
necessary, sufficient, invulnerable, and demonstrably established.
Nothing less can possibly satisfy or come up to what is expressed
in Christ's explicit words, most solemn teaching, and habitual
usage ; or account for His whole tone, treatment of, and attitude
to Scripture as the Word of God. Any method of reconciling
these with any theory of indefinite erroneousness or assertion of
THE IMrkEGNABLE ROCK 55 I
untrustworthiness is so patently impracticable, and such a palpable
perversion of them, that no one has seriously attempted to do it.
6. IT NULLIFIES THE STOCK AND ]\IOST PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT
AGAINST ABSOLUTE INERRANCY.
Further still, by taking our stand on this position we are able
to foil, nullify, and make patent the irrelevancy of the stock, and
plausible objection against the truth of Christianity from the
existence of a single apparent discrepancy or error — proved or
probable — by saying and being enabled to say that the evidence
may not unquestionably quite amount to, or inevitably require
us to hold, or demonstrate the absolute necessity of holding, that
the Bible claims literal absolute inerrancy and precisian infalli-
bility in every aspect of every despicable triviality. This of itself
frees us from the necessity of maintaining that extremest position,
or of even exposing the assertions and fallacies about the proof
and effect of a single seeming error or discrepancy ; for they are
totally irrelevant as against our position.
7. IT RESTS OUR POSITION ON THE EMBODIED SUBSTANCE OF
SCRIPTURE, AND MEETS PREVALENT ATTACKS DIRECTLY
And, finally, it puts us in the absolutely impregnable position,
based upon the essential substance of the impregnable rock of
Holy Scripture, endorsed and sealed with all the authority and
Divinity of Christ, backed by all the evidences of Christianity
free to be adduced in all their solid weight and resistless force,
without doubt or diminution, and free from any question or
hesitation as to what they really support and prove. It also
enables us to make use of every kind of thing — even the minutife,
without committing us dogmatically to Uteral and absolute
inerrancy. It enables us to show the truth and reliability of
Scripture in small points, and thus has the same practical effect
and use as the theory of absolute inerrancy, without any of its
disadvantages or questionableness ; especially when we do not
assail or deny absolute inerrancy, or assert that it is untenable,
or admit that a single error has been proved beyond dispute or
question. This position, too, enables us to meet fairly and
squarely- — yea, is both fitted and intended to do so — the current
552 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
attacks on the integrity, authority, and credibiUty of Scripture,
which are mainly directed now, not against trivial points, but
against the substance and often the essential parts and elements,
in their own real nature and distinct purpose — even the ethical
and religious substance and elements, — not even these or any
single kind of thing being now exempted from fallibility or error.
That this is in fact their real position and purpose is proved by their
practical exemplifications and applications, even when adducing
trivial discrepancies and apparent errors in minutiae. It is not
merely or mainly to make out that the Bible has erred in these
trifles in order to disprove absolute literal inerrancy that they
would contend much for, nor should we care to contend with
them were that the real question. The real aim is through these
to discredit Scripture, by breaking down the barrier, in order to
get a free hand and open course to traverse, sift, and sit in judg-
ment on all Scripture, — specially its moral and religious teaching.
But taking our stand on our guarded, proved, and Christ-
endorsed position, we foil all this, and avoid numerous, endless
side isssues, and erect our Christian apologetic on clear, strong,
and truly unassailable ground, divinely and eternally estabUshed.
Yea, the Lord Most High Himself hath here established it for
ever.
The three Positions compared apologetically.
The three theories and positions that have thus far been com-
pared apologetically are : — First. Absolute and literal inerrancy
in everything, point, word, and aspect of Holy Scripture, as origin-
ally given, and when properly interpreted. This is the extreme
right. Secotid. The indefinite erroneousness of Holy Scripture,
in all parts, elements, and kinds of things ; but yet a book or
literature that contains somewhere or other, somehow or other,
some kind of Revelation or another, which everyone must find
out in some way or another for himself ! This is the extreme left.
Third. The thorough truthfulness, entire trustworthiness, and
Divine authority of all Scripture, as originally given, when truly
interpreted in the sense intended, within the reasonable limits
of the use of language. This is the sure and strong middle.
The first and third have much in common, and are not in
anything necessarily opposed to each other, and mutually
THE APOLOGETIC POSITIONS COMPARED 553
strengthen and support each other. The third claims for itself
all that can validly be advanced in favour of the first, and has
some strong arguments and weighty considerations peculiar to
itself. They both go in the same direction, towards the upholding
of Scripture in its integrity, as the Word of God and the only
infallible rule of faith and life ; only that the third does not go
quite so far, or attempt to prove quite so much as the first — it
being thought not wise or best to advance the position of final
defence of the Christian faith quite so far, lest it should seem
extreme, or appear to prove too much ; and thus unwisely expose
the whole defence to a more plausible and diversified attack ; —
especially when that is not required either to meet the assailants
of Scripture in their main position and real contention, or to
come up to what is so demonstrably necessitated by the claim of
Scripture, so indisputably endorsed by the authority of Christ.
But the third does not assert or imply that the first, though
not deemed the wisest, strongest, or best position for the final
defence of the Christian faith, is wrong or untenable. On the
contrary, it holds the reverse, and declares it to be incomparably
stronger than the second, as against the sceptic, and actually uses
it as a good and defensible support or first line for itself; and
utilises everything that can be validly advanced from that position
as a cover^ defence, and support of its own. And, so far as it
avails, the first is warranted in doing the same with the third.
Therefore, these two, though they may be placed in comparison
and contrast, should never be put in antagonism to each other,
but both should be opposed, each from its own standpoint and
in its own way, to the positions of their common foes.
The first and second come, not into contrast merely, but into
full and direct contradiction to each other. The first says that
Scripture is absolutely inerrant in everything and in every kind
of thing. The second says it is not inerrant in any kind of thing,
if in anything ; that it actually errs in every kind of thing — religion
and morals not excepted, but specially emphasised ; and that in
no kind of thing is it inerrant, not even in those most distinctive
of Revelation. In comparing these two apologetically, and
testing the strength of their respective positions for defence of the
Christian faith against the assaults of unbelief, — which avowedly
denies Revelation in Scripture, and the supernatural origin of the
Bible and the Christian religion, — we found above, that there was
554 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
really no comparison when thoroughly examined ; and that, while
the first had a tenable, and ultimately defensible position, in
which they could defend themselves and their faith for ever, as
they have done for centuries against all the assaults of Rationalism
and scepticism, — at least so as to render it impossible for their
opponents to demonstrate the untenableness of their position or
to disi)rove it. The second has really no vahd defence at all, nor
anything definite to defend; and on their principles, and from their
position, with their own weapons, the sceptic can speedily pulverise
them, and leave them not one inch of foothold, for defence of the
faith they profess to hold, and of which they vainly fancied they
were the only wise defenders, till on their own principles, and with
their own weapons, the sceptic gives them this rude awakening.
If, compared with the first, the second is so hopelessly weak
and worthless, then, in comparison with the third — the stronger
and more guarded position — the second is, of course, as seen
already, of sheer logical necessity, simply nowhere. In what
remains of this chapter it is with these two mainly we shall deal ;
only giving further a summary at the end of what, from the third
and best position, may be said finally to the sceptic in defence of
the Christian faith. True, the second combines with the first
and the third as against the sceptic, who denies Revelation and
the supernatural, and rejects Scripture and Christianity altogether,
while they all profess to hold Revelation and the Christian faith
in some way. The supporters of the second would not choose to
oppose and assail the absolute inerrancy merely to expose the
apparent discrepancies or errors in trivial things, but they do so
simply because it paves the way for holding and acting on the
principle of indefinite erroneousness, and applying it throughout
Scripture in every kind of thing. And the supporters of the
third, although they might not admit the other, would not care to
contend against the second, were their denial of inerrancy limited
to trivialities.
II. Comparison apologetically of the two main antaG'^
ONisTic Positions — Indefinite Erroneousness ani
thorough Trui'hfulness.
So that the two main opposing views meet and conflict in full
antagonism and direct contradiction on the main and momentous.
THE TWO CHIEF POSITIONS APOLOGETICALLY 555
issues, whether all Scripture, as such, is true, trustworthy, and
Divinely authoritative, or whether it is errant and erroneous in every
kind of thing. The one holds mainly the former, the other teaches
and implies the latter. The one takes the affirmative, and the
other the negative, on this vital and supreme issue ; and that, too,
in such a way that, if the one is true, the other must be false.
The one maintains that the Bible as such is true, trustworthy, and
of Divine authority in every kind of thing. The other teaches
that it is errant, and has erred in every kind of thing. The one
holds that there is no kind of thing in which Scripture is not
trustworthy ; the other holds that there is no kind of thing in
which it is not more or less errant and untrustworthy. The one
declares its truthfulness and reliability in every kind of thing ; the
other declares its erroneousness and unrehability in any kind of
thing. I say "every" or "any" kind of thing, and I do so
advisedly ; because the errorists admit and teach that there are
some individual things in which the Bible is or may be true and
reliable, without, however, telling us precisely what these are, or
how they are to be surely ascertained. But when they are pressed
to specify in detail what the things or kinds of things are in which
the Bible is so, it appears that there is no specific kind of thing
in which they are prepared to declare or admit that it is universally
true, trustworthy, and authoritative, not even in its moral or
religious teaching, or in anything distinctive of Revelation.
Some of them may admit and teach that it is true and inerrant
in some particular items or things belonging to the category of
the ethical or religious ; but they do not admit but deny that it is
true, reliable, and authoritative in all those kinds of things — in
everything belonging to the category of the moral and religious.
In fact, they usually produce examples from these first, and most
urgently, as the evidence that it is not truthful and trustworthy.^
So that there is no kitid of thing, although there may be particular
items, of which, as a class, truthfulness, trustworthiness, or Divine
authority is predicated or predicable. In full and direct contra-
diction of this, the upholders of the Bible claim maintain, not
only that there are some kinds of things in which Scripture
is true and trustworthy, but that it is so in every kind of thing,
and that there is no kind of thing in which it is not so. And
although they may not care to contend, like the supporters of
^ See Dr. Horton, Dr. Ladd, Dr. Farrar.
556 THE oprosiNG views apologetically
absolute inerrancy, that in every trivial item, in every kind of
thing which may not affect the substance of Scripture, that it
is absolutely and perfectly correct and literally accurate or
scientifically precise, — which, as a popular book, the Bible does
not profess to be ; and although they distinctly decline to take
their stand for the defence of the Christian faith against scepticism
on that precisian, narrow, and negative ground ; yet they do not
admit that the errorists have so demonstrated even one single
certain error as to put it beyond the possibility of doubt or
question, — that in asserting they have proved one error they may
not have erred themselves, or that their allegation is absolutely
and unquestionably infallible. In short, they leave that meagre,
miserable margin of despicable triviality open to discussion.
Hitherto the errorists, even in that outer fringe, have not yet
demonstrated anything requiring serious consideration, or proved
beyond dispute one demonstrable error in Scripture as originally
given. Even in the Scriptures, as we have them, the question is
still a matter of doubtful disputation, or at least possibly open
to question, and not so demonstrated as to preclude further
discussion, possible discovery, explanation, or investigation.
So many things that were supposed to have been proved
errors, have especially, by recent discovery, been disproved,
and shown to be mistakes of the allegers of the errors —
that it is not utterly unreasonable, if not probable, to suppose
or hope that all others may also vanish, or be reduced to prac-
tical nullity, in the progress of research and the possibilities of
discovery.
As with the truth and trustworthiness, so with the Divine
authority of the Bible, the two theories come into sharp and
striking conflict. The one upholds the thorough truthfulness
and Divine authority of all Scripture as originally given, when
truly interpreted in the sense God intended. The other teaches
its indefinite erroneousness, and denies that all Scripture is of
Divine authority, — as it is impossible a God of truth and right-
eousness could give His sanction to error or wrong. Nor on this
principle can Divine authority be given with certainty to any
specific thing or kind of thing ; for it is only what " finds " men
that is held to have any authority; and as that varies in each,
nothing distinctively Christian can with absolute assurance be
said to have Divine authority ; and whatever authority anything
THE orrosiNG views on divine autiioritv 557
might get, it would only be what the individual mind may choose
to give it. So that the objective Word of God would be deprived
of all independent or Divine authority. Therefore, the one
attributes Divine authority to all ; the other does not and cannot
ascribe it to any Scripture.^
1 In the Appendix there is a brief outhne of the apologetic value of the
truthfulness in small points, and even the minute accuracy of Scripture, along
some leading lines of Christian evidence.
Note. — Dr. Westcott, in explaining difficulties, says: "Even in those
passages which present the greatest difficulties, there are traces of unrecorded
facts which, if known fully, would probably explain the whole. And
besides all this there are so many tokens of unrecorded facts in the brief
summaries which are preserved, that no argument can be based upon
apparent discrepancies sufficient to prove the existence of absolute error "
{Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 380, 400).
CHAPTER VI.
THE DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CHRIST.
It now remains only to give a brief outline of the defence of the
Christian faith that may be made from our strong middle
position.
The First Line of Defence.
The first line has been given above, in showing the defence
that can be made even from the extreme position of absolute
inerrancy. Though we have emphatically declined, and think it
unwise, to take our stand for the defence of our faith in that
position, it has, as shown, been well maintained for ages ; and
scepticism has till this hour been baffled to demonstrate its
untenableness. But the very fact that such a claim for the Bible
could be made and so long upheld, in face of the most bitter and
searching criticism, is itself a strong positive argument for the
faith, and constitutes weighty evidence for the truth and Divine
origin of Christianity, which should persuade every open mind,
and impress even a candid sceptic. For of no other ancient
book or religious literature could such a claim for one moment
be seriously pretended, as is notorious and patent on inspection
of the cosmogonies, theologies, and other conceptions of heathen
religious writings, or of the books even of related religious writers
on the same subjects ; — as the writings of Josephus and Philo com-
pared with the O.T., or of the Apostolic Fathers with the N.T. ;
— or of that best theological work of classic antiquity, Cicero's
De natura Deorufn, with the theology of the N.T., or his De
Officiis with its ethics, to say nothing of the grotesque absurdities
of Oriental religious literature.^ These well-known facts, in which
^ See Appendix.
558
THE FIRST LINE OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 559
the Bible truth and reasonableness stand out in such striking
contrast to all other ancient literature, every candid sceptic
should face ; and they demand a cause adetjuate to explain them.
The Christian gives supernatural inspiration as his explanation ;
and thereby accords with the claim of Scripture, and satisfies the
principles of philosophy ; and is thus justified by both reason and
Revelation. And since scepticism and rationalism have utterly
failed to give any other adequate cause, the Christian view holds
the field on the strictest principles of the inductive philosophy.
Further, this implies that the Bible is a supernatural Revela-
tion. For the nature of many of the truths revealed is such as
were never discovered or discoverable by mere human reason.
Such truths as the Bible conception of God, the Trinity, the
fatherhood of God, the origin of the universe and the creation of
the world, and God's relation to it, as a God immanent in all,
yet transcendent over all ; the origin and fall of man, free grace,
election, redemption by Christ, regeneration by the Holy Spirit ;
justification, adoption, and sanctification by faith ; the resurrection
of the dead, the future life, and judgment to come — are mani-
festly such as to be known must be revealed, as they express the
gracious will of God ; — though they may when revealed be
verifiable in Christian experience. And since these are revealed
in Scripture and have been largely verified in Christian life, this
proves the truth and Divine origin of the Bible and the Christian
faith.
The second and sure Line of Defence.
All this gains immensely increased force and unanswerable-
ness when we take our stand, not in the position of absolute
inerrancy, but of the simple truthfulness, trustworthiness, and
Divine authority of Scripture ; — freed as it is of all the doubtful
disputations and plausible objections that may be made in small
points ; and when the main weight of the argument is laid, by
wise apologists, not upon minutite, though these, too, have their
place and value, but upon the great verities and substance which
of themselves are conclusive proof of the truth and Divine origin
of the religion of the Bible. For if, on the extremest outposts of
the Christian defence, Scepticism has for ages been baffled to
prove the position untenable, what hope is there of its ever reach-
56o THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
ing and overthrowing the main position, or capturing the citadel ?
If, indeed, the general truthfulness of the Bible is credible, or its
trustworthiness even in its main substance is maintainable, then,
its supernatural origin, and the truth of the Christian faith, are
proved. And what candid mind can deny this in the light of the
established facts, and the ever-growing corroborations from
research ; and above all, from the ever-deepening and extending
verifications of Christian experience ; — which even such a scientist
as Romanes^ was convinced by, and confessed to be as well
established facts in spiritual life as any in physical life ; and
proved, too, on the testimony of the most intelligent and upright
people in the most enlightened nations of the world in all
ages. This led him, simply as a scientist, opening his mind to
decisive evidence, to abandon his scepticism, and to refute his
own sceptical writings ; and he then found the great Christian
verities true in his own experience, and died in the faith which
he had, in his unscientific unbelief, sought to destroy. All
scientific sceptics would do well to ponder this, and to face these
facts ; and if they would only test the great Christian verities by
personal experience, they, too, would find that they can remain
true scientists best by becoming real Christians, and that Bible
Christianity is the truest science, and the profoundest philosophy.
What the Sceptic has to Face and Answer.
And when it is asked what are some of the chief facts the
sceptic has to face, and some of the main things he has to
prove and disprove, and some of the leading lines of evidence and
argument he has to answer, he may well — like Messina, when he
faced the three famous hnes of Torras Vedras formed by the
genius of Wellington, and defended by the heroes of a hundred
batdes — be excused for abandoning the attack in the hopeless-
ness of despair.
I. he has to prove the outer defence untenable.
He has to prove the first line of defence, as given above,
untenable, and to answer all the evidence by which it has been
maintained for ages, which Scepticism has failed to do after
nearly two thousand years of virulent and persistent attempt.
' Romanes, Thoiarhts on Kelision.
THE SCEPTIC'S DIFFICULTIES 561
II. HE HAS TO D/S/'ROrE THE TRUTHFULNESS, TRUSTWORTHI-
NESS, AND DIVINE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE.
He has to disprove the truthfuhiess, trustworthiness, and
Divine authority of Scripture, and to answer all the evidence by
which it is established. When he has been baffled to prove
untenable even the outer line of inerrancy, how hopeless is it to
overthrow this second and far stronger line. For truth and Divinity
are stamped on every page, disclosed in every portion, and
radiated in every revelation ; evidenced in its unity and harmony
though written by forty different authors in many lands, during
sixteen hundred years ; confirmed by its harmony with the laws
of nature, the principles of providence, and the facts of history ;
corroborated by its increasingly established accordance with the
discoveries of science and the findings of research, ^ — the agree-
ments vastly exceeding in number and importance any apparent
dilTerences ; established by its concord with the surest con-
clusions of right reason, and the profoundest principles of sound
philosophy ; proved by its self-evidencing power in the human
mind; certified by its tested adaptation to the nature and the
needs of man ; demonstrated by its salutary effects in the life and
character of men and nations ; verified beyond dispute in the
deepest and truest ethical and spiritual experience of the race ;
settled as a moral certainty and unquestionable fact by the
testimony of the Spirit in the consciousness of the believer and
the Church in every land and age ; and is finally climaxed,
crowned, and eternally assured by the life and character, teaching
and resurrection of the Son of God, as in the name of Godhead
He endorsed the Bible with His most solemn sanction, and
sealed it with His Divine authority.
The Bible is, indeed, itself the best evidence of its Divine
origin, truth, and authority. The impression that the simple
reading of it makes upon every candid mind is strong evidence
of its truth, trustworthiness, and Divine authority. Who that
has read the Bible with any care has not been impressed with its
tone of truth, its ring of reality, its air of veracity, its note of
reliability, and the voice of Divine authority pervading all?
There is, as in the presence of an honest and intelligent man,
a tone of sincerity, a frank transparency, a felt uprightness
^ See Appendix.
36
562 THE orrosiNG views apologetically
that beget confidence, carry conviction, and make you feel
that you are with a truthful and trustworthy guide. It is also
pervaded by an atmosphere of eternity, a voice of God, a vasl-
ness of vision, a grandeur of conception, an elevation of ideal, a
tone of righteousness, a spirit of holiness, a sublimity of thought,
a majesty of style, a simplicity of expression, a penetrative power,
a quickening vitality, a searching potency, a transforming force,
an upholding strength, an inspiring energy, an ennobling spirit, a
cheering efficacy and healing virtue, a most tender mercy and
a Divine love, — which makes the earnest reader feel in the very
presence of God, as if listening to the voice of the Eternal,
making the very awe of the Almighty creep over the sensitive
spirit, and the love of the Everlasting Father sink down into
the responsive heart, constraining worship, love, and praise. It
possesses, too, a perennial freshness, everlasting interest, infinite
suggestiveness, and marvellous fascination to the spiritual mind,
which only the Word of the Eternal God could have \ while it
alone provides the perfect ethical and religious standard for the
race ; and more vital still, it alone supplies the motive power
and spiritual force sufficient to attain that standard, by rooting
every element of moral life and duty in some corresponding
element of Christian doctrine, and bringing every believer into
vivifying union in Christ with the Divine source of moral life
and spiritual power.
III. HE HAS TO ANSWER AND ANNIHILATE THE WHOLE
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
All this is deepened, and becomes an assured conviction as
it is carefully studied and seen how one part blends with and
completes the other, — forming together a wondrous, God-given,
man-written whole, declared to be the Word of God, and proved
to be true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority along each lead-
ing line of Christian evidence.
I. There is the evidence from the undesigned coincidences^
of Scripture, in which the statements and allusions of inde-
pendent writers, without any collusion, so harmonise and fit into
each other, often even in minutice, as to prove the truth and
reliability of both, — as between the Acts of the Apostles and
' See Paley and Blunt, and Appendix.
OUTLINE OF THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES 563
the Epistles of Paul : the complementary and confirmatory
character of various parts of the Bible, — as in the diverse and
independent records of Christ's life in the Gospels, in which it is
forcibly felt that though there are four biographies, there is but
one unique life and harmonious character. ^
2. The comparative historical evidence, seen in the agree-
ments between the sacred and secular histories, as between the
Gospels or the Acts and the histories of Tacitus and Suetonius.-
3. The evidence from Archaeology, which gives such striking
and ever-growing corroborations of the truth, and even minute
accuracy, of the Bible : and which has come so opportunely to
disprove by hard, indisputable facts, the imagined results of false
criticism, which tended to discredit Scripture.^
4. The evidence from the harmony between Scripture and
Science and Philosophy in large parts and leading lines,— the
agreements in the chief facts and elements far outweighing
any paltry differences.
5. The argument from the organic Unity, in diversity, of the
Bible ; though written by so many different writers, during many
ages, in many lands, in divers portions and manners, yet forming
one unique organic whole, requiring one Divine, while showing a
diversified human, authorship.
6. The evidence from Miracles, which attested the Divine
mission and message of those who in the name and by the
power of God wrought them ; and proved the Divine origin and
character of their religion, — especially the supreme miracle of
the resurrection, the best estabhshed fact in history.
7. The evidence from Prophecy, which shows that the
prophets were the organs of God in all they said and wrote ;
as was proved by the fulfilments of their prophecies, sometimes
to precise details, — as seen in the history of Israel and the
prophecies about Christ — the burden of the Bible, — where the
most marvellous and literal fulfilments are established beyond
dispute, as every Bible reader knows, and even sceptics have
been constrained to own.
8. The moral evidence from the proved adaptation of the
^ See Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels.
- See Rawlinson and Maclear.
" See Sayce and countless writers on the Evidence from the Monuiiients,
Appendix.
564 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
Bible and the Gospel to the nature and the needs of man, —
enlightening and enlarging the mind, quickening and pacifying
the conscience, satisfying and entendering the heart, ruling and
strengthening the will, inspiring and empowering the spirit,
arousing and developing the entire mental and moral energies
and activities, ennobling and transforming the whole man ; and
meeting his needs as a creature, by fellowship with a faithful
Creator; as a sinner, by reveahng an all-sufficient Saviour, as an
heir of immortality, by giving a hope that is full of glory ; — a
religion that has shown its adaptability to all peoples, conditions,
and ages, — the only religion proved fit to be universal and
adaptive, progressive and everlasting.^
9. The historical evidence, which shows that wherever the
Bible and the Gospel have gone and been received, the Chris-
tianity of Christ has proved itself the wisdom and the power of
God unto men's salvation. By it men and nations have risen
and grown intellectually, morally, spiritually, nationally — every
way. The moral reformer of men, the elevator of woman, the
guardian of children, the life of home, the raiser of society,
the foe of slavery, the friend of freedom, the backbone of
righteousness, the heart of love, the bond of brotherhood, the
soul of philanthropy, and the spring of progress, — it has ever
been. In virtue of its Divine power, it made rapid and resist-
less progress without arms, or wealth, or influence, but in face
of them, and in spite of persecution widespread, severe, and
prolonged for ages.
10. The collateral evidence from confirmatory truths in
other religions so far as true, though in imperfect fragments ; and
analogous truths in science and philosophy, though only broken
lights of the Sun of Righteousness arising with healing in His
wings ; — even evolution itself supplying many analogies in the
development of natural life, to the progress in Revelation, growth
in grace of the godly man, and the origin, development, and
far-reaching promise and potency of the spiritual life in the
believer in Him who is the life and the light of men."
11. The experimental evidence shown in the power of God's
Word and the truth of the Gospel over men's minds ; and
^ See Dr. Chalmers' Evidences and Bridgewater Treatise.
- See Butler's Analogy ; Mr. Gladstone, Subsidiary Studies ; Professor
Henry Drummond's Natural Law in tlie Spirittial World, etc.
CHRIST THE SUPREME EVIDENCE 565
specially in the testimony of the Spirit by and with the truth in
the consciousness of believers, and in the ever-growing ex-
perience of the living Christian, — facts as sure and unquestionable
in spiritual life as any in physical life, and which the Christian
can no more question than he can his own existence, and which
being certified on personal verification by multitudes of the
most intelligent and upright men in all lands and ages, cannot
be denied without denying the veracity of consciousness, which
means absolute Scepticism, which is absolute absurdity.^ Even
the unbelief of Scepticism itself confirms the truth of Scripture ;
for it declares, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (i Cor. 2^"*) ;
— a statement as true to fact as it is profound in philosophy, for
it requires a Spirit-opened organ of spiritual vision to see spiritual
things.
The Supreme Evidence for Christianity is Christ.
12. The supreme evidence of Christianity is from the character
and life, teaching and work, influence and Personality of Jesus
Christ, a character that stands out peerlessly alone among all
the sons of men, — a lonely moral splendour in the history of the
race, as even Scepticism has been constrained to own. A life that
even in the brief records of it in the Gospels has evoked the
homage of the world, and thrilled humanity with the ideals and
possibilities it may attain in Him its typical head, and a life that
never could have been written unless it had been lived ; for even
unbelief has owned that it required a Christ to conceive a
Christ. A teaching that, in the fragments of it we possess, so
far transcends all other teaching n originality and profundity,
graciousness and power, that men of every age and race have
exclaimed, " Never man spake like this man," even cold
unbelief owning Him as facile princeps the religious genius of
the race. A work that makes the work of all others dwindle
into insignificance, — which unites God with man, heaven with
earth, time with eternity, the creature with the Creator, and
binds the whole moral and material universe — all beings, things,
^ See Principal William Cunningham's Tlie Reformers and the Theology of
the Reformatio7t ; Dr. W. Robertson Smith's O. T. in the Jewish Church.
566 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
events — into a unity in Himself and all to God ; and thus
fulfils the purpose of the ages by which round the whole
world " is bound by gold chains about the feet of God," and
looks forward to that " far-off Divine event to which the whole
creation moves." An influence that is confessedly unique, and
ever increases with the growing years, and proves Him to be in
veritable fact the Father (Creator) of the ages, the moral magnet of
mankind, the regenerator of the race, the elevator and transformer
of all, — the light of the world, the Sun of Righteousness arising
with healing in His wings. A personality that possesses simply a
Divine fascination to those who have seen His glory — the light
of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
The Revealer of God, making God known as the Father as
never known before, thus bringing men into such a new climate
of love as men had never breathed till then. The Redeemer of
men — the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,
thus meeting the first and deepest needs of sinful men, and
fructifying them in all good. The Prince of Life, and therefore
able to satisfy the deepest longings of the human soul by making us
partakers of the life eternal in Him its fountain. The Light of
men, and, therefore, fit to guide their feet into the way of hfe, and
to secure that " he that foUoweth Me shall not walk in darkness, but
have the light of life." The Prince of Peace, whose principles and
spirit, so far as they have entered into the life of men and nations,
have tended to peace on earth, goodwill among men, as shown
of old in " God's truce," which for two centuries brought peace
to Christendom, and is exhibited in recent times in courts of arbi-
tration, peace societies, and European concerts of peace that have
yielded blessed fruits of peace on earth, and herald the dawn of
a new era of peace and brotherhood ; and which as His spirit is
more fully imbibed, and His principles of love and helpfulness
are applied, will yet yield infinitely greater, richer fruits, till wars
shall cease, and Peace shall over all the world her Christ-born
blessings bring. The Man of Sorrows, who can, therefore, enter in
life's supreme crises the home shadowed with death or stricken with
sorrow, when medical skill leaves it in despair, and science silent
brings no light, and even love itself can only wait and weep, —
and there as the Man of Sorrows and the Prince of comforters
ministers consolation unspeakable to the heart and sheds amid
the shadows of death the light full of glory, breathing into the
CHRIST AND THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING 567
departing spirit ; and with a radiance all its own, casts light
unique upon the mystery of suffering by showing in His own
experience that suffering is the means to perfection, the path to
glory, and the medium through which He has, by taking on
Himself, for our sins, suffering in body and soul in its most awful
forms and measure, so manifested the love of God to sinful men,
by giving His Son to die for us, as without suffering, even God
could not otherwise have done ; so that the sufferings of the Cross
for our salvation have become the means of the most wondrous
revelation of the love of God the universe has ever witnessed.
The Resurrection and the Life, who, by His victory as the Son
of Man over death and grave, became the pledge, first-fruits, and
type of the victory and glory of them that sleep, and thus
" He takes its terrors from the grave,
And gilds the bed of death with Hght."
The Son of Man and the Son of God, uniting in His unique
Personality a perfect human with a perfect Divine nature, He
thus, as the God-man, in the great mystery of Godliness — God
manifest in the flesh, unites man and God, matter and spirit, the
creature and the Creator, and binds the universe of Being into a
wondrous unity in Himself; and as the supreme uniting link in
Being's endless chain — its centre, end, and glory — represents God
to man and man to God, the Creator to the creature and the
creature to the Creator. He thus fulfils the prophecies of
Revelation in its ever-growing brightness, the promises of
Life in its ever-advancing anticipations^ and the purpose of the
ages in creation, providence, and redemption, in its forward
marchings, and thereby supplies the key for the solution of the
profoundest problems of life and destiny, and alone leads us
into the secret of the mysteries of the universe, — showing the
profound philosophy as well as the true piety and exquisite
poetry of the words —
"And so the Word had breath, and wrought
With human hands the creed of creeds
In loveliness of perfect deeds.
More strong than all poetic thought,
Which he may read that binds the sheaf,
Or builds the house, or digs the grave :
Or those wild eyes that watch the wave
In roarings round the coral reef"
568 THE orposiNc; views ai'OLogeticallv
Christ by the Bible is the Light of the World.
Round Christ all the truths of Revelation cluster, as do the
planets round the sun. On Him all the hopes and promises
hang, as do the branches, leaves, and fruit upon the tree. To
Him all the types and rites, histories and precepts, point, as
does the needle to the pole. For Him the patriarchs hoped, of
Him the prophets spake, to Him the psalmists sang, from age to
age, as light more clearly shone, and hope more hopeful grew.
He is the author and giver as well as the theme of Revelation,
thus He is the light of Scripture, and by Scripture how largely is
He the " light of the world " ! What were the world without the
light that has come from the Bible, and the books and thoughts,
the movements and achievements that have sprung from it, or
been aided by its light ? Take Revelation with all the light it
has for millenniums diffused in the minds and shed upon the lives
of men, and what have you left ? an awful void — a midnight
darkness — a world's despair ! By it science has been aided in
its forward march to all the wondrous discoveries it has made.
From it philosophy has derived its profoundest principles, surest
guidance, and best results. Poetry has in it sought its grandest
themes. Painting has from it taken its sublimest subjects. Art
has therein obtained its highest ideals. Music has through it
received its divinest inspirations. Literature has in it found its
greatest thoughts, through it been prompted to its highest
efforts, and by it made its sublimest achievements. Through its
light, civilization has marched on apace. By its impulse the
cultivation of the globe makes rapid progress. From its love
philanthropy goes forth on angel wing, with pitying heart and
tender hand, to ease the pains of suffering, to relieve the wants
of poverty, and to dry the tears of sorrow. Through its spirit,
woman has been raised from her long, lasting degradation to her
proper place as the companion of man and the child of God.
By its influence slavery has been chased from the abodes
of civilized men, and forced to hide its head beneath the decks
of pirate ships, or skulk away amid untraversed wilds, where
Bible light has never shone, or Christian power has not yet
come. And even war itself, that dark and fiend-like game, has
had its glory turned to shame, its triumphs tarnished by the
blood that was shed, not to vanquish, but to save, and its very
CHRIST BY SCRIPTURE THE LICIIT OF THE WORLD 569
sinews silently paralysed by the diffusion of the spirit of Him who
returned good for evil, blessing for cursing, and who will yet
by the love His light will infuse into them, lead men all the world
over to beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears
into pruning-hooks. Thus Christ is by Scripture " The light of
the world " ; and, therefore, those who reject the Bible, or despise
the Christ, would banish man's greatest friend, extinguish earth's
brightest luminary, and leave us in the darkness that has no dawn.
Christ by the Cross thp: Saviour of the World.
Christ's power by the Cross is proved by the unquestionable
facts of history, and in the experience of countless myriads dur-
ing all the ages. For as soon as Christ crucified was lifted up on
Calvary Cross, a dying thief saw His glory, and found salvation
through His blood ; a Roman centurion felt its power, and owned
His Deity. Crowds coming out from Jerusalem smote their
breasts in penitence, and returned to pray. The earth shook to
express its redemption. The rocks rent to shout their joy.
The graves opened to herald His triumph. Darkness fied, its
reign abolished. Hell trembled, its doom sealed. Heaven rang
Jubilee, its grace triumphant.
The moral wonders were greater than the physical.
No sooner was the bleeding banner unfurled in Pentecostal
power in long impenitent Jerusalem than it pierced the heart of
thousands, and created the Christian Church. Borne in the
trembling hands of fleeing saints, it attracted by its resistless
spell multitudes over all Judea ; nor could even old Samaria, so
long implacable and superstitious, resist its mysterious power, or
refuse to swell its triumph. It marched northward through
Decapolis to Damascus, scattering the darkness of Galilee of the
nations, and captivating thousands of the children of Israel and
the sons of Syria in its onward course. It moved westward next,
and exerting its all drawing potency over Gentiles in the house of
Cornelius, settled itself in Csesarea, bringing many in the famous
city that bore great Caesar's name to own its power. Pushing
northward, westward still, it put forth its magnetic efficacy in the
ancient empire of Phoenicia, bringing Tyre and Sidon, the seat of
so many idolatries, under its salutary sway. It hastened east-
ward soon to the great Syrian cities, and from Antioch as a
570 THE OrrOSIXG views ArOLOnETICALLV
centre, swept rapidly onward through the ancient seats of the
great Oriental empires of Assyria, Persia, and Babylonia, till it
penetrated the depths of India and climbed the walls of China,
gathering countless trophies of its benign attractive force over all
the hoary regions of antiquity. It marched southward next,
through Egypt, Ethiopia, and the darker depths of Africa,
attracting the swarthy tribes of the desert and the long cursed
children of Ham, as well as the descendants of Shem, to its
all-conquering standard. It pressed westward then to the islands
of the ocean and the great cities of Asia Minor, till, answering
the cry from Macedonia, it reached Athens, the seat of the
world's philosophy, and Rome, the centre of the world's power,
gathering multitudes under its magnetic banner. Sweeping west-
ward, northward still, it planted itself in Spain, France, Germany,
and was at length unfurled to the Atlantic breeze on the shores
of the British Isles — proving itself to be wherever it was pro-
claimed the wisdom and the power of God unto salvation.
When, three centuries after its manifestation, Christianity
stood face to face with heathenism in mortal conflict on the field
of battle, Constantine, in a dream of the night, saw erected in the
sky a cross with the words, " By this conquer," inscribed beneath
it ; and interpreting the sign aright, he on the following morning
pulled down the Roman eagle, and unfurled the banner of
the Cross, and ere the evening of that memorable day had
closed, the Christian soldiers of Constantine under it had van-
quished heathenism upon the field of battle and placed a Christian
emperor upon the throne of the Ccesars. When a century and
a half later the ancient empire of Rome was by the overpowering
rush of the Northern Gothic nations broken into pieces, the
power of the Gospel conquered the conquerers, saved the nations
from mutual destruction, and raised up that wondrous con-
federation of Christian nations during the Middle Ages which, by
the wars of the Crusades, and other much wiser things, broke
the power of the relentless Turk, and has made the crescent ever
since wane before the ascendant power of the Cross. When at
the Reformation it was, after being crusted over by Romish
superstitions for centuries, once more brought clearly forth, its
old, reviving, salutary power was manifested anew o'er many
lands, in million hearts, calling the nations to penitence, the
Church to songs, and the world to light, liberty, and brotherhood.
CHRIST EY THE CROSS THE SAVIOUR OF MEN 57 1
Nor have its conquests ceased during the centuries since. For
it crossed the Atlantic in the May Floiuer with the Puritans of
England, and founded there the mighty empire of the New
World. It rallied the Covenanters of Scotland age after age in
their great struggle for Christ's crown and kingdom ; so that by
such sacrifices, and by the influences of such mighty movements
in our day as have sprung from these, the Church of Christ the
world over should soon be'set free from the thraldom of the State,
and ushered into the glorious liberty of the children of God. A
century ago it originated, by its heart-moving power, modern
missions to the heathen, which, under the standard of the Cross,
are going forth over all the climes of the earth, making those
places of our globe which were the habitations of horrid cruelty
jubilant with light and gladness. And from these facts of the
past, as well as Bible prophecies of the future, the events of the
present, and the nature of the thing, we can confidently predict
that its power will never cease, and its conquests never end, and
its glory never wane, till round this healing standard all the
ransomed nations gather, and a jubilant Church shall sing.
Nor is this power of the Gospel like the power of other
religions, limited to one place — ^Hinduism to India, Con-
fucianism to China, Mahometanism to the countries over which
the sword of its founder at first gave it sway. These have never
gone forth beyond the confines of their original localities.
Christianity with the Gospel has, from the narrow confines of
Palestine, gone round the world, has proved itself adapted to all
mankind, and is the only religion making progress on the earth
to-day. The power of the Gospel is not confined to one kind of
mind, Oriental or Western, educated or unsophisticated, active
or contemplative, but is mighty over all. It is not limited to one
class of society, rich or poor, urban or rustic, military or civilian,
but extends to each. It is applicable to and has exerted its
power over all relations of life, husbands and wives, parents and
children, masters and servants. It is adapted for and has shown its
power over young and old, male and female, bond and free, in all
times and circumstances, and amid all the changes and upheavals
of men and nations. It retained its power and adjusted its
agencies with little effort to that strange condition of things that
followed the downfall of the Roman Empire, adapting itself to
the state of the nations that arose out of it, and has found itself
572 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOOETICALLY
ever able to meet the varying exigencies and revolutions of the
Empires that have been formed since. In every advance of
civilisation, every change of the political state of the world, every
stage of progress in learning or discovery ; in every advance of
thought, every increase in knowledge, every march in life, it has
ever been able to meet the change, lead the way, and utilise all.
Nor did it make its achievements by the help or favour
of the wealth, arms, or philosophy of the nations of antiquity,
but in spite of their opposition, and in face of the fiercest per-
secutions. Nor did it pander to the opinions or minister to the
passions of mankind ; but, on the contrary, restrained and con-
demned them, though a proud and demoralised world was
ill-prepared to bear it. Nor did it merely convert them to its
doctrine, but raised them to its high and holy morality. It made
the cruel, kind ; the intemperate, sober ; the licentious, pure ;
the implacable, forgiving ; the unjust, upright ; the mean, noble ;
the avaricious, liberal ; the lying, truthful ; the deceitful, trust-
worthy ; the bad, good ; the carnal, spiritual ; the sinner, a
saint.
Nor did it leave the nations as it found them. It raised
long-degraded, much-abused woman to a level with man as a
child of God, and an heir of heaven. It broke the neck of
slavery by teaching that man was made in the image of God,
and every Christian a freeman whom the Son made free. It
even cut the sinews of war by declaring it a violation of the law
of love, and branding it as human nature's darkest, bloodiest
blot, which the Gospel will yet banish from the world as the
work of fiends, and which the crucified Christ will terminate at
length when He comes to reign as king of righteousness and
peace over a redeemed humanity, as they hang the trumpet in the
hall and study war no more. And it infused new life-blood into
the heart of a dying world, and led men forward in that
march of progress which shall yet usher in the new heavens and
the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Christ in Christianity the Hope of the World.
The vast and brilliant array of evidence for the Divine origin
and authority of the Bible and the Christian faith, of which the
above and all before is but the merest outline, should be more
CHRIST IN CHRISTIANITY THE IIOFE OF EARTH 573
than sufficient to satisfy every unprejudiced mind. The testimony
is not only satisfying but triumphant : — whether we look at the
unique character and work, teaching and influence of its Founder,
or at the sublime religion and unique morality that it teaches ; at
the miracles by which at its origin it was attested, or the fulfilled
prophecies by which it was subsequently confirmed ; at the
internal marks of credibility it possesses, and the undesigned
coincidences between various parts, or the stamp of truthfulness
and the tone of reality that ever pervade it ; at the agreement of
the Bible with secular historians, or the corroborations of it by
archaeology and research ; at the outstanding harmony between
its statements and the findings of science and philosophy, or the
analogy between its great doctrines and truths from other sources
of knowledge ; at the organic unity and symmetry of Scripture,
or the oneness of its whole system of doctrine.
It is the same when we pass from a theoretic to a practical
view : — At the beneficent nature and salutary design of the
Gospel, or the simplicity and effectiveness of the means by which
it comes into operation ; at the world-wide character of its bene-
ficial effects, or the great variety of the subjects of its power ;
at the unparalleled supremacy it has held through all the ages,
or its infinite power of adaptation to the ever-changing con-
ditions of men and nations ; at the felt accordance between what
the Bible declares we are and what we find ourselves to be, or
the realised correspondence between what the Gospel offers and
we feel ourselves to need ; at the convincing power of the truth
naturally on the minds of men generally, or the special effective-
ness of it in the consciousness of believers by the testimony of
the Spirit.
These truths must have come from God that have been the
means of bringing peace to the conscience, joy to the heart,
renewal to the will, and satisfaction to the mind ; of imparting
courage to the faint, hope to the despairing, consolation to the
afflicted, and comfort to the dying ; of making the proud
humble, the revengeful forgiving, and the savage docile as a child ;
of changing the publican into the preacher, the harlot into the
holy woman, and the prodigal into the noble son ; of converting
the prejudiced man into the firm believer, the scoffer into the
strenuous supporter, and the persecutor into the seraphic apostle.
That religion must have been Divine that originated among a
574 THE OPPOSING VIEWS APOLOGETICALLY
despised, abominated race ; that was humbling to human pride,
and laid galling restraint upon human passion ; that went
directly in the teeth of the philosophy and the spirit of the times,
and which itself was to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the
Greek foolishness ; that demanded the unconditional surrender of
every other religion in the world, — divinely instituted Judaism as
well as the scarcely less venerable systems of paganism ; that
professed to aim at absolute and universal dominion over the
hearts and lives of men, tolerating no rival ; and that, notwith-
standing all these disadvantages of the meanness of the place of
its origin, the humbling nature of its doctrines, the apparent
haughtiness of its claims, and the intolerance of its aims, should,
in less than a century after its complete inauguration, have
pushed its way into and settled itself in the great centres of the
world's power, philosophy, and refinement, — not only without
arms, learning, or wealth, but against them ; and should, in about
three centuries, in spite of a persecution universal, severe, and
protracted, have taken possession of the temples of the ejected
deities, and the throne of the mistress of the world. And when
we add to these the undeniable historical fact that nations and
races have risen higher intellectually, morally, and politically in
proportion as a pure and a living Christianity was prevalent
among them, we can comprehend the full significance of our
beloved Queen's words, who is reported to have said to the
African prince, on presenting him with a Bible, "This is the
secret of Britain's greatness." Surely then we can confidently
affirm that no religion could do these things the Gospel has done
unless it came from God.
Compared with the extent and the grandeur of these moral
triumphs, the victories of the philosophy and arms of antiquity sink
into insignificance. The standard of the Cross has been un-
furled in many regions where the wings of the Roman eagle never
flew, and where the fame of the sons of Greece was never heard.
Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, where are they ? where their
venerable systems of wisdom and the glory of their greatness ?
Gone, all gone for ever. The dust of ages sleeps upon their ruins,
and Ichabod might have been written upon one and all of them
centuries ago. But in the days of these kings the God of
Heaven set up a Kingdom that can never be destroyed, which
already has broken in pieces and consumed all these kingdoms
CHRIST'S FINAL TRIUMni AND GLORY 575
by the power of its truth, so that with the prophet we may
fearlessly say, " It shall stand for ever." For surrounded with all
the venerableness of antiquity, but with none of the infirmities of
age, it has come down to us as the light and the life of the
world, ever exhibiting fresh vigour, and ever gaining new victories
as the ages roll. Greece, in her fabulous legends, could boast of
an Orpheus, at the charming strains of whose lyre the cruel
deities of hell were moved to pity, the savage beasts of the
forest forgat their wildness and lay down charmed at his feet, the
rapid rivers rushed backwards in their course at his enchanting
strains, the trees of the forests bowed to do him homage, and the
very mountains themselves moved to listen to his song. But
Christianity can tell of "scenes surpassing fable and yet true,
scenes of accomplished bliss," as she points to the wild son of the
forest, whose heart and whose home were among the rangers of
the wood, sitting along with the mightiest intellects of the species
at the feet of the Saviour, and points with the finger of Faith to
that bright period in the future when such a reformation will
have taken place, through the power of her Gospel, in the hearts
and lives of the various races of mankind, as that in the visions
of ancient prophecy " the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the
leopard shall lie down with the kid ; and the calf and the young
lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them " ;
and
"One song employs all nations, and all cry,
'Worthy the Lamb, for He was slain for us.'
The dwellers in the vales and on the rocks
Shout to each other, and mountain tops
From distant mountains catch the flying joy,
Till nation after nation taught the strain,
Earth rolls the rapturous hosanna round."
VI.
THE ESSENTIAL RATIONALISM OF ALL THEORIES
OF THE INDEFINITE ERRONEOUSNESS OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE. REASON OR REVELATION?
CHAPTER I.
THE A VO IVEDL Y AND PRACTICALL V RATIONAL-
ISTIC THEORIES.
The object of this Book is to show that all theories of partial
inspiration, however they may differ from each other, are ulti-
mately founded on, or spring from, one common root principle
of the supremacy of reason over Revelation, practically tend to
lessen our regard for, or to deprive us of, our old Bible of Divine
Revelation, and logically result in supplanting it by a new Bible,
whose ultimate principle and supreme authority is human
reason, — a Bible, therefore, varying of necessity according to the
ever-varying minds of various men. This new Bible has seem-
ingly very obvious advantages. It is portable, for every man is
his own Bible ; and it can, therefore, be his constant companion.
It is also very accommodating, for by habit, training, and dexter-
ous management, it can be made to promise a perennial peace,
and to give loose rein according to each man's dispositions,
circumstances, or exigencies. And it is certainly very flexible,
because to be true to itself it must change as the man changes.
Thus in the course of the gradual or revolutionary changes of
opinion and practice common to changeable man, it will at one
time condemn what at another time it approves ! A somewhat
peculiar standard — a rather startling result !
It has, however, some real disadvantages. The peace is at
THE NEW BHJLE AND THE OLD 577
times disturbed by secret misgivings and monitions from within,
whispering that after all there may be another Bible. Occa-
sionally, too, in life's vicissitudes, the old, now rejected, though
once prized Bible, supposed to be buried under the lore and
logic of a false philosophy or a misleading criticism, consciously
rises again from the dead, and fleeting, spectre-like, across the
vision, and uttering its old solemn tones, haunts the devoted
idolaters of reason with strange misgivings, and compels their
unwilling ears to listen to its voice. And it has at least this very
manifest disadvantage, that it deprives men of any real or authori-
tative standard of truth ; for various and variable men will have,
do have, and must have different, and even contradictory ideas of
what is true and right ; yea, frequently the same men have oppo-
site views at different times : so that in attempting to replace the
old Bible of Divine Revelation by human reason, dreaming thereby
to get a better standard for a worse, it is actually found that they
have exchanged a true, authoritative standard for none at all. I
state this now, however, that all the opponents of the Bible claim
may face the tendency, logical result, and inevitable end of their
common root principle, and that even the most pronounced
antagonist of Scripture supremacy may weigh well the conse-
quences of rejecting the authority of the old Bible ; and specially
that those who believe they recognise its authority while deny-
ing its claim, may be led, in the light of such serious issues, to
consider carefully the arguments that prove their theories to
be essentially rationalistic, and to leave no logical resting-
place short of standing with the most avowed advocates of the
supremacy of reason over Revelation, with all the disastrous
results.
The erroneous theories advanced as to Scripture are too
numerous to be separately stated, far less refuted here, and for
our present purpose this is unnecessary. For if it can be shown
that they are all in principle ultimately reducible to one — ration-
alism ; and if this common root can then be proved to be unre-
Uable, false, and pernicious, the desired work may be more
concisely as well as more eff"ectively done than by a detailed
refutation of each, or by advancing all that might be said against
the various classes. For our purpose it will be sufficient to
arrange the more outstanding of them under the following
classes : —
37
5/8 REASON OR REVELATION?
I. The avowedly Rationalistic Theories.
Under this may be included — First. Modern Spiritualism as
taught by Francis Newman and his followers, who maintain that
a revelation of moral and spirtual truth by God to man is impos-
sible ; although the disciples' reception of this from their master
shows that what they had declared to be impossible for God,
they deemed possible for man !
Second. Materialism, the offspring of a peculiar form of mate-
rialistic philosophy fast hastening to its grave. It holds the
mechanical theory of creation, banishes God from His universe
after He has created matter and mind, endowed them with their
respective properties and attributes, and placed them under the
reign of fixed, inexorable laws that operate with all the unrelaxing
unchangeableness of resistless fate. This practically atheistic
theory renders impossible not only Revelation, but also Miracles,
Prophecy, and Providence ; and consequently requires the Bible
to be a purely human production, which had no Divine influ-
ence exerted in its composition, and is destitute of any Divine
authority in its teaching.
Third. Deism, as maintained by those who ostensibly admit
a God and a providence, and do not explicitly deny the possi-
bility of a revelation, but assert that the universe is governed by
general changeless laws that preclude Divine interposition ; and,
therefore, contend that the only revelation possible is what may
be produced by providential circumstances raising some men to
a higher degree of religious knowledge and emotion than others.
Foiirth. Anti-supernatural Mysticism, as represented in the
theory of Morell and others. These maintain that the Christian
revelation is merely the natural result of the special providential
dispensation connected with the life of Christ ; w^hich, penetrating
itself into the religious consciousness of that age, and specially
of His followers, raised them to a higher religious life and spiritual
elevation than was ever attained before or since; thus giving
them intuitions of eternal verities, clearer, fuller, and higher than
others. These truths were gradually, through the working of
this new life, formulated or expressed in didactic form by the
ordinary exercise of the reflective and logical faculties ; and were
ultimately embodied in our Scriptures, merely by the use of their
natural gifts and acquirements, without any supernatural aid.
I
TTIE AVOWEDLY RATIONALISTIC THEORIES 579
So far as Inspiration is concerned this class is substantially the
same as the last. For while they might admit a kind of revela-
tion, it could not be in any real sense supernatural; but only
the natural result of proximity to Christ and participation in
the new life He infused into humanity. And as to the origin and
composition of the Scriptures, — the record of Revelation, with
which Inspiration has distinctively to do, they assert that they
were entirely a human product, neither requiring nor admitting
of any supernatural influence whatever.
Fifth. Socinianism, as set forth by Priestley and others who
on this question maintain that the Scripture writers were simply
honest men, and competent witnesses, recording, Uke ordinary
historians, facts and opinions, with all the usual liability to error
in both. In regard to all these it is needless to argue that their
Bible is reason, for they avow it ; and Inspiration, in any proper
sense, is altogether excluded by their express statements, as also
by their whole principles and methods of treating religious sub-
jects. Even if in any sense a revelation should be admitted by
the least anti-Christian of these, it is a revelation without any
supernatural power being exerted on the minds of the writers,
and by which no supernatural truth is directly communicated ; —
a revelation purely the result of the natural influence of Christ's
life on His followers' minds, — a revelation receiving all its author-
ity, not from Divine origin or inspiration, but solely from its felt
accordance with man's own consciousness ; — a revelation which,
as far as the record of it is concerned, was written without any
supernatural aid, and possesses no Divine authority.
II. The practically Rationalistic Theories.
First. The theory of those who make both revelation and
inspiration merely the natural effect of placing men with keen
spiritual insight and deep sympathy with God in circumstances
peculiarly favourable for observing God working in providence ;
and then being impelled, through the impressions thus received,
to record their observations and convictions they have, simply
by the exercise of their own natural gifts and attainments, pro-
duced the writings which being collected form our Bible. This
is manifestly neither inspiration nor revelation in any recognised
or scriptural sense, but something essentially different from both.
5 So REASON OR REVELATION?
It is not revelation, for it precludes entirely what is the essential
thing therein, even the direct and supernatural communication of
truth to the mind of man by God. As to Inspiration, which is
specially for the expression of Divine truth, there is nothing of
this in it ; but the whole theory is manifestly constructed in order
to teach a doctrine directly the reverse. It is a most glaring and
misleading abuse of language to apply the terms Revelation or
Inspiration to such things at all. In saying this it is not denied
that the receivers and deliverers of Revelation were generally,
though not always — witness Balaam and Caiaphas — in sympathy
with God and the truth they delivered ; nor that the receivers
of Revelation and the WTiters of Scripture were in most cases
placed in circumstances naturally fitted to impress them, or even
to impel them to write their impressions of Divine manifestations.
On the contrary, we admit and maintain that God, who usually
works through instruments naturally fitted for His purpose, gener-
ally used such men so situated to be the communicators of His
truth and will. But what we contend for is that it was not their
being in possession of these spiritual sympathies and perceptions,
nor their being placed in these special providential circumstances,
nor their being through these naturally impelled to express their
impressions in writing, that constituted them the inspired re-
vealers of the Divine mind ; but simply and solely that, being
chosen by God for that purpose, they were supernaturally filled
with the Spirit, received a direct supernatural revelation of the
Divine truth and message, were divinely directed to express that
revelation for general instruction, and were divinely guided in
the conception, selection, arrangement, and expression thereof,
as it is in Scripture. We maintain this because, as shown, it is
the only theory that accords with the statements and phenomena
of Scripture, or with the facts of the case. The holders of the
above views not only abuse language, but eliminate entirely the
supernatural from the writings of the Bible, and make every
man's own reason the sole judge of its truth and authority.
Second. The mythical theory of Strauss and his followers,
which asserts that the Bible is chiefly a collection of ancient
myths. This theory, which has expired, and is disowned and
ridiculed in the land and university of its birth, is noticed simply
to show that, like most of the rationalistic theories, it sets aside
the authority and authenticity of Scripture altogether, and both in
THE PRACTICALLY RATIONALISTIC THEORIES 581
its principles and results proceeds upon the assumption that
reason alone is the standard of truth and the rule of life.
Third. The theory of the apostles of " sweetness and light,"
as represented by Matthew Arnold, who hold that the Bible is
largely made up of myths, and who speak even of that greatest and
best established fact in human history — the resurrection of Christ
— as the fable forming on the Gospel page. Yet they believe
that there is a substratum of latent truth under the whole, —
particularly under the teaching of Christ as distinguished from
the teaching of His apostles, — some elements and principles of
important, original, and salutary truth, which they designate the
" secret of Jesus." ^ This secret, however, they aver is exceedingly
difficult to discover, has been long overlooked or misunderstood,
and has by the Church and theologians generally been either
entirely misapprehended or perverted, and can be discerned only
by those who are largely destitute of the logical, theological, and
philosophical faculties, with (as they say) their usual perverting
and cumbrous appendages of prejudice, acquirements (grammar,
lexicon, exegesis, system), and dogma ; but who by nature have
keen intuitive perceptions, and by such an acquaintance with all
the literature and religions of the world as few ever had, have
acquired such a literary taste, tact, and perception, that they can
intuitively apprehend and appreciate, as none others can, this
" secret," separating it from the abounding error with which even
in the Gospels it is overladen ; and presuming to sit in judgment
on Christ's discourses with this view, they have pretended to be
able by their wondrous intuition to ascertain what verses and
parts of verses in them were His, and what were the erroneous,
and often superstitious additions of His apostles. In some
cases they insinuate that even Jesus Himself had not wholly
escaped the perverting influence of the prejudice, tradition, and
philosophy of His times ; and that the one and almost only true
thing in the Bible or elsewhere is, that " there is a power outside
of us, not ourselves, that makes for righteousness," — marvellous
discovery surely ! It is needless to expose here in all its
absurdity this strange and amusing compound of ignorance and
arrogance, of pretension and presumption, which, little to the
credit of the intelligence of the age, became so popular among a
class of unthinking, half-educated readers of light literature.
^ See Literature and Domna.
582 REASON OR REVELATION?
Sufifice it to say that while it contains in its dictum in germ
simply one of the oldest elementary truths of natural theology,
yet it does so in a defective and even erroneous form ; inasmuch
as, in opposition to the testimony of man's consciousness and
God's Word, it denies, yea ridicules, the idea that this " power "
is moral and intelligent, — a Personal God, — the moral and
intelligent Creator and Governor of His moral and intelligent
creation. In so far as this theory has any bearing on the
question before us — Reason or Revelation — it not only assumes
the supremacy of reason, placing it as censor over Revelation, to
sift the truth from the error assumed to be in it : but in acting
on this groundless assumption it finds only some latent germs of
truth amid abounding error, and in the most arbitrary manner
proceeds to separate them. It leads, however, to results
equalled in absurdity only by the presumption.
Fourth. The theory of the Quakers and others like Dr.
Arnold of Rugby, Archdeacon Hare, and Maurice, who main-
tain that the writers of Scripture possessed only in a pre-eminent
degree that gracious spiritual illumination common to all be-
lievers. Maurice expressly states this, without as usual any
attempt at proof, purely because of what he thinks the reason
of men will require. This theory takes out of Inspiration its
essential and distinctive thing, making it only synonymous with
illumination ; and while admitting that the Bible writers had this
in a pre-eminent measure it denies to them any thmg different in
kmd from ordinary spiritual men, — thus depriving us of our
Divine Book, and leaving us exposed to all the aberrations
which even spiritual men have fallen into, without having any
sure authoritative standard by which to correct these. Here
again, as in all the other theories, reason, under the name of
spiritual illumination, is made the supreme test of truth, and
the rule of faith and life. For all practical purposes. Revelation
is superseded by man's own reason under grace.
Fifth. The view of those who, like Coleridge, limit inspira-
tion to certain parts of Scripture ; some to the law and the
prophets exclusive of the rest of Scripture ; some to the N.T. to
the exclusion of the Old ; some to Christ's teaching as distin-
guished from His apostles'. These distinctions and limitations
are not only unwarrantable and unscriptural, but arbitrary and
unreasonable ; and are founded upon the essentially rationalistic
THE SUPRE^rACY OF REASON OVER REVELATION 583
principle that reason has the right and power to make such
distinctions, not only without Scripture warrant, but in direct
opposition to express Scripture statement. Thus again reason
is placed above Revelation, and Scripture held to be true only
because, and in so far as, it accords with reason, and finds
response in man's own mind, or " finds " us as Coleridge puts it.
It is thus deprived of intrinsic and independent, because Divine,
authority ; and is recognised to be true only as far as, and simply
because it awakens response in the human heart.
Sixth. The latest, and, as coming from a professed believer
in supernatural Revelation, perhaps the least satisfactory, is
that given in Dr. G. A. Smith's Isaiah, as his theory of
the inspiration of Isaiah, and of all O.T. prophecy, as noted
(P- 335) :—
" Isaiah prophesied and predicted all he did from loyalty to two simple
truths, which he tells us he received from God Himself: that sin must be
punished, and that the people of God must be saved. This simple faith,
acting along with a wonderful knowledge of human nature and ceaseless vigi-
lance of affairs, constituted inspiration for Isaiah^'' (Italics ours) (p. 373).
" By a faith differing in degree, bnt not IN Ki^nfrom ours, these men became
prophets of God" (p. 372). Consistently he illustrates the thoroughly
naturalistic character of the whole theory by comparing prophetic inspiration
to what " men of Science have," by " their knowledge of the laws and prin-
ciples of nature," or the General has by "taking for granted" that the sun
will rise " (p. 214) ; and what Mazzini, the Italian patriot — whom with Isaiah
he classes among "prophets" — had when describing his career — being "the
same divine viovetnent on different natures " (p. 856). This is a most
distinct denial that the inspiration of the prophets differed iit kind from ours,
and implies that it was not properly supernatural. For surely no sound
thinker can imagine that the difference between the natural and the super-
natural is merely a difference of degree, or that any increase of the natural,
however much, can ever become the supernatural, or bridge the great gulf
between them. It is preposterous to call that Revelation or supernatural
inspiration which is only ordinary, what every Christian has by the illumina-
tion of the Spirit, what every religious man has in his religious nature, what
every human being has in essence in his moral constitution, what is a common-
place of natural theology, what even a sceptic, like Matthew Arnold,
expresses in substance in his maxim, " a Power outside, not ourselves, that
makes for righteousness," — which is the simple equivalent, in practically
identical terms, by a sceptic who denied a personal God. So that theory would
nullify Divine Inspiration, evaporate supernatural Revelation, and exclude
Divine prediction supernaturally and directly given by God. As Dr. Norman
Walker well said, "He explains everything in such a naturalistic way that it
is difficult to sec where there is any place left for supernatural inspirati(jn.''
CHAPTER II.
THE PARTIALLY AND lAIPLLCITLY
RA TIONALISTLC THE DRIES.
I. The Essential Substance of Scripture is generally
True and Authoritative.
The view of those who maintain that, although the main sub-
stance of what the Bible writers wrote was true, they erred in
many things — indefinite erroneousness. They are supposed to
have misunderstood, and, therefore, to have misquoted from the
earlier Scriptures, and to have supported their own teaching by
misapplying them. They erred, too, in their reasonings upon these,
and have drawn many false conclusions therefrom, — consequently
their whole writings abound with mistakes, misapplications, and
wrong teaching ; and in cases in which the teaching itself may be
in essence right or contain some elements of truth, many of the
things connected with it are untrue, and the reasonings by which
it is supported are fallacious.
It is scarcely necessary to show that here again reason is
made supreme ; for not only is Revelation brought to the bar of
reason ; but it is by reason declared to be convicted of errors
many and great ; and whatever truth it contains is received as
truth simply because Reason, in the unquestioning exercise of its
own assumed power and authority, judges it to be true.
2. Degrees of Insliration unscriptural.
Others teach different kinds and degrees of Inspiration —
some parts of Scripture being supposed to need and possess
higher degrees of Inspiration than others. Hence such varieties
and degrees as inspiration of suggestion, direction, elevation, and
superintendence have been specified and applied to the various
THE IMPLICITLY RATIONALISTIC THEORIES 585
parts of Scripture according to what the inventors thought the
writers would require for their respective work. All such dis-
tinctions are pure assumptions, without any foundation in Scrip-
ture, and contradicted by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching ;
which represents the whole Bible as equally the Word of God,
which expressly says all Scripture is God-breathed and is there-
fore profitable — making no distinction of books or parts — , and
excluding, by the very generality and unqualifiedness of the
statement, every theory of different kinds or degrees of Inspira-
tion. This theory arose from a confusion of Inspiration with
Revelation, and from overlooking the fact that Inspiration as set
forth in Scripture expresses, not specifically the mode of the
Spirit's operation on the minds of the writers, but the result of
that operation in the character of the writings, rendering them
true, authoritative, and Divine in all parts and elements ; and
thus making the whole Bible equally God's Word, because all
equally God-breathed. The principle of this theory is rationalistic
both in its conception and application. It proceeds on the
assumption that the true theory of Inspiration is to be formed
not from Scripture itself, but from reason excogitating a priori,
and thus determining what was necessary, probable, and true.
In applying this principle to God's Word they make distinctions
as to various kinds and degrees of Inspiration in the various
parts of it that are not only not warranted by anything therein,
but contradicted by its whole tenor and express statements, and
they adhere to their own distinctions, in face of Scripture ; and
maintain that theirs is the only theory that can secure for it the
approbation of the reason of man, — thus making man's reason
the test of Divine Revelation.
3. The Bible True and Authoritative only in Moral
AND Religious Teaching, and only partially in
these.
There is the theory of those who hold that the sacred writers
were generally reliable in the substance of their moral and
religious teaching, but that vague generality is all. They aver
that the Bible writers were as liable to err as others, and actually
did err in many things ; — errors in matters of science and philo-
sophy, history and geography, nature and life, in facts and dates.
586 REASON OR REVELATION?
references and reasonings, as well as in some of its moral and
religious teaching, self-contradictions, etc. Some holding this
general theory allege that while the religious and ethical teach-
ing was in substance generally true and trustworthy, yet since
it bears the impress, and takes the colour of the opinion and
beliefs of the times, and of the people among whom it was
written, therefore, so far as these were erroneous, the Bible is
erroneous also. And many now charge it with errors many and
grave in religion and morals. In support of this theory, — for it
is really one under various modifications, — it is pleaded that the
Bible was given only to reveal the will of God for our salvation ;
and is, therefore, true and trustworthy only so far as was neces-
sary to secure this.
For this theory it is not attempted to produce express Scrip-
ture warrant, while, on the other hand, it directly contradicts
plain Scripture statements ; and the only Scripture support it
professes to have is from the alleged discrepancies therein, —
discrepancies which have largely disappeared in the progress of
Biblical study and historical research, and would probably all
disappear if we knew all, — which in no case amount to a demon-
strable contradiction or error, and which probably in every case
arise from our ignorance ; therefore, it is a theory founded not
upon knowledge but upon ignorance, — a strange and insufficient
basis surely for such a self-confident theory. But the real foun-
dation or source of it is, as in all the others, not Scripture but
reason ; for it is based upon men's own conceptions of what the
Scriptures should be, rather than on what they declare they are.
THE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH THIS THEORY IS BASED.
First. It is founded also upon the assumption that the only
purpose for which God gave His Word was to reveal His will
for our salvation. Now while this was doubtless its chief design,
this was not the only purpose served by it. The Bible contains
the oldest and the only authentic record of the early history of
the world ; and as such, is invaluable to the historian. It
presents us with the only account we have of the creation of the
earth, the production of the order of nature, and the preparation
of the world for man. It gives us the best and oldest digest of
the rise and development of nations, and of the peopling of the
FALSE ASSUMPTION OF ERRORISTS' THEORIES 587
globe ; so that no ethnologist can afford to despise the ethno-
graphical and genealogical table in Gen. x., but usually makes it
his prime source. From incidental hints and references in it,
valuable discoveries have been made and confirmed ; and
from the agreement of its statements with discoveries made in
various sciences, high authorities in these have sought and found
corroboration. The earlier portion of Revelation supplies philo-
logists with almost the whole literature they have of one of the
oldest and most valuable languages of mankind, — the language
around which has moved the main moral and religious history
of the race. The Bible shows more varieties of thought, style,
and literary form than any single book that has ever been
written ; and is thus valuable for all the high ends of literature.
Therefore, the Bible, besides ]-evealing the way of life, is of much
value to the students of history, ethnology, philology, litera-
ture, and of nature and science. And when we think of how
much good these have brought to mankind, can we reasonably
assume it to be altogether unlikely, — so much a moral certainty
that we can take the opposite for granted, and base a whole
superstructure of serious inferences upon it — , that the God of our
salvation, who takes such a deep interest in all that concerns us,
and in counT:less ways manifests His love, and care — even in the
minutest things — would not, in revealing His salvation, pay any
regard to these other subordinate but important ends, not even
to the extent of preventing serious errors and contradictions,
which would mislead in these good ends and mar the chief end ?
— especially when it was as easy for God to give His Word as
free of false teaching in everything as in anything. And in direct
proportion to the probability of this is the improbability of the
rationalistic assumption. It thus appears that the foundation of
this theory is at once rationalistic and irrational ; — rationalistic,
because a pure creation of reason, made not only without Scrip-
ture warrant, but on the principle tacitly and unhesitatingly
assumed, that such warrant is superfluous : — irrational, because
of the inherent improbability of its prime postulate.
The second rationalistic and untenable assumption is that
since the Bible was written only to reveal salvation, therefore it
is true and authoritative only in this. Granting now, for the
sake of argument, what has been shown to be an improbable
assumption, that Scripture was written exclusively to reveal
588 REASON OR REVELATION?
salvation, does their inference — that Scripture is erroneous in
all else — necessarily or naturally follow ? Certainly not. Even
admitting the assertion, we combat the inference. For suppose
that God in giving His Word had supreme regard for and care
of the chief end, does it follow that He would produce it with
all the errors and contradictions otherwise common to errant
and erring man? Is this like God? Is this the manner in
which God acts in any field of His operations, in any part of His
works ? Is this the way He works in nature ? The wide realm
of nature is one vast whole whose great chief end is to manifest
its Creator's glory. But within this chief end there are many
subordinate ends in nature which the God of nature does not
consider it beneath Him to think of, and carefully provide for ;
thereby showing that in the book of nature He acts more God-
like than the upholders of this theory would give Him credit for
doing in the Book of Revelation. Further, throughout every
region and kingdom of nature, and in every being and thing in
the universe, — from the greatest to the minutest — from the giant
mountain to the grain of sand — from the cedar of Lebanon to
the hyssop on the wall — from the mightiest archangel that basks
in the light of the eternal throne to the tiniest insect that dances
in the sunbeam, — He finds scope for the exercise of His attributes,
and acts in a way worthy of His character as God of all. Nay
more, in all these He shows that He is careful of all the means
He uses as well as in all the ends He contemplates ; and
throughout every sphere and in every object of nature, whether
ends or means, proves that His work like Himself is perfect.
And could we scan the realm of Providence as closely, we
should, as we may legitimately infer from those parts of it that
have come under our observation, find in that mysterious sphere
His ways and works are marked everywhere and always by
the same characteristics. Thus both Nature and Providence
prove what Scripture declares, that the work of the Rock is
perfect. And are we to suppose that since it is so in the lower
books of Nature and Providence, it will not be so in the highest
Book of Revelation? Can we believe that though God is scrupu-
lously careful both of subordinate ends and of all the means
towards ends, principal or subordinate, in all other spheres of His
working, He will be regardless of these in the divinest region,
which He designs more than all others to reveal His 2:lorv ?
REASONING ON UNTENABLE ASSUMPTIONS 589
Nature and Providence answer No. And with them corresponds
the voice of Scripture itself, which declares that the word of the
Lord is pure and perfect, true and right, sure and enduring for
ever, like silver seven times purified. Yea, even the voice of
respectable literature itself agrees ; for it expects and requires in
all work that will receive its favour, that the authors shall seek
to avoid errors and contradictions in the form and the execution
of the work ; and would unsparingly condemn any author who
would by carelessness, or of design, permit such freely to mar
his work, — even though they should not teach error on the main
subject of the book. Why, any author worthy of the name
would blush to confess that he had purposely permitted blunders
to appear in anything that came from his pen. And on the
upholders of this pretentious theory lies, by this assumption, the
burden of gainsaying the testimony of Nature, Providence, and
Scripture, which with one voice proclaim that the work of the
Rock in all parts of his operation is perfect, and of gratuitously
charging the unerring God with doing or permitting in the
production of His eternal Word what would discredit any literary
man in issuing an ephemeral production on the trifles of a day.
This is simply a priori reasoning in answer to an a priori
rationalistic assumption and argument. The question of fact is
proved otherwise above and below ; and is specially corroborated
by the unquestionably and admittedly greater correctness of the
Bible in its statements on many things, e.g. its cosmogony, com-
pared with all other ancient literature ; which proves that God
did exercise control over the Bible writers. Thus the untenable-
ness of the second assumption lying at the root of this theory is
evident. But whatever opinion may be held as to its untenable-
ness, there cannot be any doubt as to its nature ; for it is purely
the product of human reason, not only without Scripture
authority, but contrary to what seems to be plain and pervading
Scripture teaching.
But this appears more manifestly still in the third assump-
tion of this theory. It proceeds upon the supposition that the
revelation of God's will for man's salvation would be as satis-
factorily made were Scripture true and reliable simply in salva-
tion, and erroneous as the writings of uninspired men in all else.
Now we do not deny that if the Bible had been written thus it
might have been possible for men to find the way of life. Nay
590 REASON OR REVELATION?
more, though it had been written wholly by credible but un-
inspired and, therefore, fallible men, even then the great out-
standing facts of our religion might have been made known to
us very much as we have them, and a real, Divine, historical
Christ, not differing essentially from the Christ we know, might
stand out before earnest men as "the Lamb of God which
taketh away the sin of the world." But though even on this
lowest supposition earnest souls might through the Spirit's
guidance find their way to eternal life in Christ, yet who does
not easily perceive the immense difference that would instantly
be felt between salvation revealed in a volume so composed, and
salvation revealed as it has been in the inspired Word ; and how
immensely the Bible would fall in the estimation of all, from the
position it has hitherto occupied, because it would cease to be
regarded as the Word of God, but merely as the word of man ? ^
We might have all the main facts of Scripture, but without any
certainty that these facts had not been altered or modified or
misunderstood through the mistaken judgment of errant men.
We might have many statements of doctrine given as to the
teaching of Christ or His apostles, but without proper security
that the teaching was not misapprehended, or misrepresented, or
insufficiently expressed, — while it would be sure to be partially
mixed with error and superstition. In short, we might, perhaps,
have had from the pen of men entirely uninspired Scriptures not
differing in substance from our own. And yet, from the simple
fact that they were not inspired, the truth would not only be
mixed with all the errors and superstitions common to all merely
human writings ; but, further — and this is the essential thing — •
they would be entirely destitute of Divine authority. And they
would be rightly destitute thereof; because, being uninspired,
though writings on Divine things, they were not Divine writings.
Consequently they would carry no Divine authority, nor com-
mand that reverence or fear of the Lord with which men spon-
taneously receive the Word of God ; and receive it to their
eternal salvation just because they receive it as the Word of the
Lord. They would give a real cause of stumbling to the many
^ The above is given mainly, not as positive proof, but as refutation of the
a priori assertions and assumptions of Rationalism, by showing their im-
probability and irrationality. A strong presumption from reason in support
of Scripture teaching.
THE RATIONALISTIC ATTITUDE AND PRINCII'LE 59I
who, even with the Bible as we have it, too readily stumble at
the Word. While earnest souls, sincerely seeking after the
truth, and desiring with all the pathetic earnestness of men all
alive to their eternal interests, a sure foundation for their ever-
lasting hopes, and an infallible guide in their perplexed way,
would in many cases abandon the pursuit in the hopelessness of
despair, or, being paralysed by uncertainty, settle down in the
darkness of scepticism.
Unbelieving critics ever eager to seize every means of
minimising the supernatural in Scripture, and always ambitious
to display their perverse ingenuity in discrediting its authority,
would feel that they had loose rein to ride rough shod over all
the truths and foundations of our faith, and could easily lay the
last bulwark of Revelation prostrate with the ground. And well
might a benighted humanity, crying for the light that only
Scripture clearly gives, sighing for the sure hope that God's
Word alone imparts, and, like the dove of old, gazing wistfully
abroad across the watery waste of human literature and opinion,
unstable, uncertain, ever-changing as the restless sea, and finding
there no place for the sole of its foot — raise a wailing deeper
than Cassandra's for the credulity that would save it from
despair.
THE RATIONALISTIC ATTITUDE ASSUMED, AND THE RESULTS.
But the essential rationalism of this whole theory appears
most manifestly in the rationalistic attitude its acceptors must
assume, the rationalistic principle on which they must proceed,
and the rationalistic results they must logically produce in
dealing with the Word of God. He that takes up the Bible as
the Word of the Lord that liveth and abideth for ever, and reads
it, believing it to embody in all its parts and statements God's
truth, is thereby placed in the position of an earnest, reverent
student thereof, and only requires to ascertain its meaning to
believe its teaching. But he that enters on its study, believing
it, while containing precious truth, to contain an indefinite
amount of error and untruth, is, at the very outset, made a critic
and a judge of its contents. He, by that very fact, ceases to be
a simple, believing recipient, and becomes a wary, if not a semi-
sceptical critic, having at every step, and in every part, to
592 REASON OR REVELATION?
eliminate the error from the truth in God's Word. The deeper
his sense of the importance of the interests involved in finding
the truth in the Bible, the greater will be his sense of obligation
to assume this attitude, and to scrutinise it all. Thus by the
very position this theory requires the upholders of it to assume,
reason is placed above Revelation by being constituted, not only
the interpreter of its meaning, but the critic of its contents and
the judge of its truth.
Still more does the thorough rationalism appear when we
consider the application of this principle, and the method on
which it proceeds. Coming to the study of the Bible with the
belief that untruths are in it such as occur in ordinary writ-
ings, we must proceed to eliminate them by the best means
available. These are either our own judgment or the judgment
of others. But in both cases mere human judgment, — always
liable to err, ever certain to vary, and never sure of the result.
Thus mere human Reason is not only placed above Revelation,
but is held to be entitled, yea, required to traverse it all, to
separate the wheat from the chaff, to settle what is true and what
false in God's Word ; only to find that the sole authority men
have for receiving this purged Bible as true is merely man's erring
Reason ! Now, apart altogether from the utter unsatisfactoriness
of such a result, — giving us a Bible that would vary with every
varying man ; and apart from the unreliability of such a ground
for faith in the truth of Scripture, the bald rationalism of such a
method, and of the principle on which it is founded and pro-
ceeds, is self-evident, and cannot be distinguished in kbid from
most avowed Rationahsm.
Nor is this all, for in proceeding on this principle through
Scripture, its advocates are confronted, in every part and at
almost every step, with statements and expressions that seem
manifestly to teach that the whole Bible, without distinction of
parts, is the Word of God, of Divine origin, truth, and authority.
This theory is, therefore, essentially rationalistic, not only in the
attitude it assumes, and glaringly so in the principle on which it
proceeds, and the spirit by which it is pervaded ; but also in the
fact that it is not only destitute of Scripture proof for its own
view, but is directly opposed to explicit and emphatic Scripture
teaching. Yet such is the strength of this rationahstic spirit
that they take no cognizance of this, as if the primary claim of
NATURAL RESULTS OF WRONC; I'RINCTI'LES 593
God's AVord were of no moment on this the fundamental cjues-
tion of its own authority ! — the question that is the basis of all
its teaching, and on which its whole value as a guide to man
depends.
No wonder that all those who so treat God's Word should arrive
at results sufficiently rationalistic and anti-scriptural. Doubtless
those results will be sufficiently diverse, — even as those professing
to hold this general theory differ greatly from each other in the
sense in which, and the grounds on which they hold it. But
there is essentially the same rationalistic principle in all, and the
main result arrived at is identically the same in all — even the
supremacy of Reason over Revelation. For however much they
may vary in spirit, faith, and design, their variations are limited
to the applications of their common principle, which do not
affect the principle itself. And even in these things in which
some of them might admit the truth and authority in some
Scripture things, they do so, not because they are contained in
God's Word, nor from an examination of its teaching, but
because they have judged them to be matters of doctrine or
duty, in which some would in a vague way hold the Bible
authoritative : — thus making reason doubly supreme ; first, in
settling simply by it, in what kinds of things God's Word may
be authoritative ; and, second, what items should be included
therein.
In short, they, first, assert positively that the Bible is infallible
only in matters of faith and duty. Second, they generally declare
that it has erred more or less in these, and usually urge them
most to show its erroneousness. Third, they do not and cannot
specify with certainty in which of the things even of that kind the
Bible is infallible and Divinely authoritative. And for none of
these positions can they produce Bible proof; by all of them they
contradict manifold Bible teaching ; and by every one of them
they exhibit the common rationalistic principle ; for even what
they receive is not on Scripture grounds, but on the general
reasonings of the false root-principle. A Bible held to be
vaguely true in matters of faith and life, but without specifica-
tion of what these are, or any sure rule to ascertain them, could
never be an authoritative standard at all ; but men would be
driven out of Scripture altogether, on to the quicksands of mere
human opinion along with avowed rationalists.
594 REASON OR REVELATION?
A THEORY MADE OUT OF DIFFICULTIES AND DISCREPANCIES.
Some, conscious of the impossibility of finding positive Scrip-
ture proof for their theory, and being desirous to conciliate, if
not to convince, those holding the supremacy of Bible teaching,
have sought to find something in God's Word to accord with
and to corroborate their view ; and have appealed, with con-
fidence, from its explicit teaching and general tenor to what
they designate its phenomena.
Now, while no scientific theologian would overlook or
depreciate these, it is a canon of all sound Scripture interpre-
tation that its explicit statements, especially when supported by
its general tenor, are the proper and supreme data for the
decision of any doctrinal question. When any discrepancy
appears between these and the phenomena, the first must decide
the question ; for this obvious, among other reasons, that we are
much more liable to err in drawing inferences from the general
phenomena, than in interpreting its explicit statements, or appre-
hending its general tenor.
Further, when we come to inquire what the phenomena are
from which this theory seeks Bible support, we find it is not the
whole phenomena, but only a very limited and the least import-
ant portion of them : even the old, threadbare phenomena of
Scripture difficulties ; difficulties of harmony arising from seeming
discrepancies in the Bible itself, and difficulties of reconciliation
with teaching from other sources of knowledge. How strange to
see Christian men, in upholding untenable theories, resorting for
arguments where the most bitter and unscrupulous foes of the
faith have sought to find materials to vent their enmity in virulent
attacks upon the Word of God ! How humiliating to see pro-
fessedly Christian apologists, in their mistaken zeal for un-
scriptural theories, and misconceiving where the strength of the
Christian apology lies, taking common ground in this with
avowed Rationalists and Sceptics ! and eagerly seizing the same
weapons against the truth as have been ten thousand times used,
but only to their refutation, by such foes as Celsus and Porphyry,
Voltaire and Paine, Holyoake and Bradlaugh, IngersoU and
Foote ! How amazing to find Christian writers so losing them-
selves as to imagine that when they have refurbished some of
the old, oft-refuted arguments from difficulties and discrepancies.
ERRORISTS' THEORIES BASED ON DIFFICULTIES 595
they have overthrown all the solid mass of positive evidence for
the truth and authority of the Bible, which has stood the test of
ages, and commanded the faith of every section of the Christian
Church till now ! And how absurd to dream that they have
established their own unfounded theories by urging the
difficulties of others, as if the raising of difficulties and the
urging of objections against the Bible doctrine were equivalent
to the disproof of it, and the proof of the opposite theory !
Why, the producing of serious difficulties, or even the estabhsh-
ing of seemingly valid objections, is surely no disproof, else every
truth might be disproved.
How strangely illogical, then, is this when the difficulties are
not serious, and the objections weak ! If this is a fair specimen
of the new logic of the new apologetic, I prefer the old, for the
old is better. Difficulties ! Discrepancies ! Objections ! Why,
if these are to be held as sufficient to disprove doctrines, estab-
lished by explicit, positive evidence, then there is not a single
doctrine of Scripture that would not be overthrown ; for there is
not one of them against which some plausible objection might
not be raised ; all of them are attended with some difficulty, and
some essential to hold with serious difficulties — serious, not
merely as arguments in the dexterous hands of subtle foes, but
serious in the inward heart-thoughts and life-struggles of earnest
friends.
But if the question is to be settled by difficulties, then the
truth and Divine authority of the Bible in faith and life must go
with its indefinite erroneousness in other things. For far more
serious difficulties and objections can be brought against its
teaching on religion and morals than against its harmony with
itself, or with established truths in other spheres of knowledge.
On this principle, indeed, it would be impossible to establish
any truth in any sphere of knowledge, or to follow any course of
action in any path of life. For there is not a single truth in
science — not even the law of gravitation — nor one act in life
against which some objection could not be brought ; so that, if
logically carried out to its ultimate issues, this principle would
land the Errorists in absolute scepticism, and drive them out of
the universe.
Meantime it is sufficient and significant to observe that those
adopting it take the same ground, and use the same means to
596 REASON OR REVELATION?
discredit God's Word, and to justify their adhesion to this
irrational RationaUsm, as the most avowed foes of our faith.
When infideUty had rashly imagined that it had convicted
the Bible of error and false teaching, it was content with inferring
that Christianity was untrue, and, therefore, to be rejected. It
was left for the logic of the new apologetic to infer that the Bible
was the more likely to be infallible in some things, because it
had been convicted of error in others !
A theory made out of and founded upon the alleged difficulties
of other theories, if not something new under the sun, is — especi-
ally when asserted with such confidence, as if the true theory
were thereby proved false and the false true — certainly some-
what amusing and amazing, as coming from those making great
pretensions to superior knowledge and logical acumen.
THE BIBLE CLAIMS TRUTH AND TRUSTWORTHINESS FOR
ALL EQUALLY.
It is vain to attempt to limit the Bible claim to particular parts
or things in it. For whatever it claims in truth and authority it
claims for all, and for all equally ; and all seems purposely so
stated as to preclude any other view. The many explicit passages
teach, if language can teach anything, that the Bible, " all Scrip-
ture" is the Word of God, true, trustworthy, and of Divine
authority. This and this only the Church, under the teaching
of the Spirit, has ever understood them to teach. Nor can they
teach anything else, as shown above ; for this is the plain and
only legitimate meaning of the most direct and decisive passages
(as even opponents have felt and been constrained to admit),
when taken by themselves, and apart from the illegitimate con-
siderations by which these have sought to narrow their meaning
and to limit their scope. But they are so explicit and absolute
that they cannot by honest exegesis be limited to anything less
than '■''all Scripture"; and the chief phenomena strongly con-
firm them, as seen ; nor has the most perverse ingenuity been
able to show anything else, far less to favour or leave room for
the direct opposite. I say the direct opposite — the logical con-
tradictory. For when the propositions are "all Scripture is true
and trustworthy," and " Scripture is untrue and untrustworthy in
an indefinite number of things," then the opposition is direct,
THE BIBLE CLAIM IS FOR ALL SCRIPTURE 597
the propositions are contradictory ; and, therefore, according to
the inexorable logic of the square of opposition, if the one is
true, the other must be false.
In fact, while we produce many explicit, unquestionable
passages, and vast masses of the main phenomena and many
other confirmatory passages, with much other corroborative
proof, they have not produced one direct, explicit, and indis-
putable passage, distinctly or professedly dealing with the
question, to establish their theory ; and though challenged, they
cannot. Indeed, it would be a direct self-contradiction by the
Word of God of its root-doctrine and the fundamental postulate
of all its doctrines, which would prove it to be not the Word of
God at all.
The testimony of all the direct, and explicit passages is in
favour of our doctrine or of none, certainly not of the doctrine
that is the direct opposite (contradictory) of them, for it is their
logical contradictory.
The truth is, the reasons that led to the adoption of this
theory were not originally derived from Scripture at all. They
do not even profess to found it on direct, explicit passages.
They were first used by the foes of the Christian faith — by the
Rationalists and infidels — who, in their hostility to Christianity,
seized eagerly upon the difficulties and discrepancies of Scripture ;
and by striving to show from these that it abounded in errors
and contradictions, sought thus to throw discredit on the whole ;
and concluded that as they had discredited the record of our
religion, they had proved its falsity, and destroyed itself. Our
new apologists, not seeing their way to meet these objections,
and thinking, by mistake, that if they maintained the truthful-
ness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of Scripture, they
were logically bound to solve all these difficulties ; and fancying
that they could, without loss and with much advantage, yield
this ground to the enemy, and, while admitting these alleged
errors and contradictions, maintain its real and Divine authority,
of the Bible revelation, — yea, they even thought to place the
defence of Christianity in a stronger position — therefore they
abandoned the true Bible claim, and surrendered to the foe the
position that had for centuries been held so well. Then uniting
with the enemy in this, they attacked those who still maintained
the true well-tried position — the Bible claim — and eagerly seized
598 REASON OR REVELATION?
with the foes upon the difficulties of Scripture to support the
attack. This, indeed, is the simple history and real origin of
these theories. And whatever else it shows, it confirms the view
that they were not derived from Scripture at all, but from the
arguments of its opponents, and are thus the outcome of an
unnecessary surrender or compromise with the foe, references to
either the statements or the phenomena of Scripture being an
afterthought.
And certainly if there is any weight in arguments from diffi-
culties, they bear with equal and even greater force against the
Bible teaching on doctrine and duty. For this is its first and
best established doctrine, and is the basis of all its other doctrines
and claims. So that the adducing of difficulties and objections
to the Bible claim does just nothing, or less than nothing, to
support its infallibihty or authority in matters of religion and
morals, but the reverse. If they have any weight at all it is
against the Bible infallibility and authority in anything — specially
in these things. Whatever evidence or argument can be adduced
in favour of the infallibility and Divine authority of Scripture in
doctrine and duty supports this, its primary and foundation
doctrine, — which is and must be postulated in all its other teach-
ing ; — so that the producing or parading of these difficulties and
objections does simply nothing either to disprove our doctrine,
which is the Bible claim, or to prove their own — the opposite.
Had they only taken and stated their own position, leaving
others to do the same, although the rationalism might remain,
and the apologetic weakness still exist, yet they might have been
let alone to construct whatever apology they could from their
standpoint. But when, not content with this, they present their
theory in a form so directly antagonistic to the Bible claim, and
seek to drive all others from the true and tried into their own
new and untenable position ; and when, still further, they do so
by the use of the same materials as, and by the adoption of prin-
ciples similar to, unbelievers, they must be met in a similar way,
and shown not only the unwarrantableness of their attacks on
God's Word, but also the indefensibleness of their own position.
Had they simply taken up the position, — as is often in other cases
done with sceptics for argument's sake, — then they might have
been left to meet the enemy as best they could from their stand-
point. But when, instead of this, they, in stating and maintaining
SERIOUS ISSUES OF THE RATIONALISTIC TRINCIPLE 599
their own theory, impugn the truthfuhiess of Scripture, and
strive, by means like the foe, to make it appear that it has erred
in many, and is untrustworthy in an indefinite number of things,
they not only assail, and assail from behind, a position that has
been long well maintained, but also place weapons in the hand
of the foe, by which, if properly used, their own position is
rendered indefensible, and the whole defences of the faith are
exposed to a general, if not resistless, assault.
THE SERIOUS PRACTICAL ISSUES OF THE PRINCIPLE. THE
SERIOUS QUESTIONS RAISED, BUT NOT ANSWERED.
This appears when this principle is applied practically to
Scripture, and carried out to its legitimate issues.
Going to the study of God's Word with the theory that it is
infallible only in a vague general way in some matters of faith
and life, the student is confronted at once with these practical
difficulties and pressing questions — What therein is matter of
faith or life ? How am I to know how much of Scripture is to
be included in this category ? and how can I make sure what in
this class even is infallible, since all in it even is now but in-
definitely erroneous ? By what standard am I to test what is
true and what is false in the Word of God ? How can I make
these fixed and not variable quantities ? How am I to find them
with certainty? And by what principle, on what grounds, and
with what results are all this to be authoritatively made sure ?
When the Bible is the chart of man's salvation, on the know-
ledge and belief of which our eternity depends, I realise that
these are not idle or trifling, much less curious or captious
questions, but questions of the highest moment, and of most
urgent concern ; and the more seriously I am alive to my ever-
lasting interests, the more deeply I feel the necessity and
urgency of having these questions satisfactorily answered and
surely settled.
And as this theory forces this upon me, the advocates of it
are, therefore, bound both logically and morally to answer these
questions, and to solve these difficulties ; since by their theory
they deprive me of a true and Divinely-authoritative Bible, and
replace it by an indefinitely erroneous and unauthoritative
book. Logically bound, because their whole theory, as shown,
600 REASON OR REVELATION ?
is founded on and composed of difificulties, real or supposed, in
connection with the Bible view and claim, and not from positive
evidence for their own. And if difficulties connected with a
doctrine of Scripture, established by proper, positive Bible proof,
confirmed by other strong evidence, be, as implied, fatal to that
view, and sufficient reason for its rejection and for the creation
and proof of the opposite, then, clearly, on the same principle,
difficulties, — specially such difficulties as these necessary ques-
tions raise, should be fatal to such a theory, and more than
sufficient ground for the rejection of it; — especially as it is
destitute of independent, positive evidence. And surely a
theory thus made out of the difficulties of others should itself
be freed of difficulties, and of difficulties far more serious than
any attaching to the other view. Certainly those who make so
much of the difficulties of the contrary view are, on their own
grounds, logically, manifestly bound to explain and remove the
difficulties of their own.
But they are also morally bound to do so. The pro-
pounders of any theory, so constructed and affecting practically
the lives and beliefs of men, are justly expected and bound to
explain their theory, to apply it, to show the method of its
application, and to rid it of such serious, practical difficulties.
They are under the strongest obligation to do so when, as here,
their theory affects the highest interests of mankind, and pro-
poses even to revolutionise men's way of regarding and handling
their only sure light for time and eternity. It is always a serious
thing to unsettle men's minds on important practical religious
matters, and should never be done without the strongest reasons,
on sure grounds, and with the greatest possible care to show
that the sacred interests are not sacrificed but conserved. It is
ruinous to shake men's confidence in, or bewilder men's minds
about, the sources of Divine help; and those who do so, or
whose theories tend to do so, lay themselves under the most
solemn obligation to use all means to prevent such consequences,
to make evident even to the humblest understanding how these
theories may be held and applied consistently with the safety of
their eternal interests and absolute confidence in the Bible.^
And yet are not these the very evils this theory has done ?
Are not these the very consequences it naturally and necessarily
^ See Dr. Westcolt, above ; Dr. Stalker in British H'cekiy.
THE ERRORISTS' OBLIGATIONS 6oi
tends to produce? By impugning the reliability of the Bible,
has it not unsettled men's minds in what concerns their highest
interests ? Has it not, by disowning the truth, trustworthiness,
and Divine authority of Scripture, lessened, so far as believed,
men's faith in what they had, with implicit confidence, taken as
their guide through life to immortality? And has it not, by
asserting the errancy and indefinite erroneousness of God's
Word, destroyed or weakened men's faith in the Divine source
of light and life ? or driven them, by the very indefiniteness as
to the matters in which Scripture cannot be relied upon, into
painful perplexity as to what it can be relied upon, if not
into a hopeless uncertainty as to whether it can be implicitly
relied upon in anything ? How could it be otherwise ? Touch
the authority and authenticity of God's Word, and you of
necessity touch the foundations of Christian faith, tamper with
the title-deeds of man's salvation, injure the springs of religious
life, and confuse the sources of Divine help. Teach those
who have been wont as a first and unquestionable principle
of their thought and action to regard the Bible — the whole
Bible — without distinction of parts, as the Word of God, that
it is not all true or trustworthy, but partially untrue and
untrustworthy, without specifying definitely where it is the one
or the other, or showing how men may ascertain this, — and if
they believe this, you instantly and irresistibly shake men's con-
fidence in the Bible seriously. Or, if they still cling to it with
an eager tenacity as the only source of all their dearest hopes,
they set their anxious spirits aworking on the hard, dubious task
of groping after the truth if haply they may find it, with only
this certain, that, from the nature of the case, unless they are
foolish enough to rely implicitly upon their own errant reason,
they can never be sure of having found the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, or have full confidence that
their faith is, in every or in any case, well founded.
Proclaim that the Bible is errant, that in an indefinite number
of things it has actually erred, and that it cannot be relied upon
more than other books except in some things, — ^leaving these
things unspecified and indefinite, or without showing how they
can be certainly found, — so that it becomes practically impossible
to separate them with certainty from the erroneous things with
which they are indefinitely intermingled,— and you irresistibly
602 REASON OR RF.VELATIOX ?
lead all who accept this, to distrust and suspect the Bible, or to
abandon in despair the hopeless task of arriving at certitude
where men most need and cry for it, — certitude in anything
could only equal their confidence in their own inerrancy, which
only paralyses and maddens the earnest soul.
This then is what this theory leads to. It would take away
that Word of the Lord on which earnest believing men from the
days of Moses until now have, amid the watery waste of human
opinion, placed their faith as on an everlasting rock, and looking
around from that Divine and everlasting foundation upon the
transitoriness and uncertainty of all human thought and things, in
calm confidence, and in the subHme language of ancient prophecy,
have said, "All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the
flower of the grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof
falleth away ; but the word of the Lord endureth for ever " : and
in the teeth of Him who in Divine majesty declared that heaven
and earth should pass away, but one jot or tittle of it should in
nowise pass away, — they dare to assert that this eternal Rock is
largely sand ; and that, therefore, men had better place their feet
on it less confidently, lest they should find themselves on sand
imagining it was rock ; — while, at the same time, as if to make
confusion more confounded, they with tantalising vagueness fail
to tell them which is rock and which sand ; but leave them to
find it for themselves, as best they may, with the help of a mere
vague generality about faith and life, which only tantalises instead
of enlightens, and lets them sink or stand as caprice or chance
may fix. And surely those who take this serious responsibility
on themselves are at least bound to state precisely what their
substitute is, and to show clearly how it can be universally and
with full assurance used. But this, which they are both logically
and morally bound to do, they have never done; they have
never even seriously attempted to do. They have not shown
what portions or passages, statements or facts, of God's Word
are true and what false, nor by what sure standard they can be
separated. They have not specified what parts or things are of
Divine authority and what are not, or how this can be surely
known ; nor have they explained how, in the face of Scripture
teaching declaring the truth and Divine authority of all Scriptures,
this can be predicated of some while denied to others. They
have not shown on grounds of Scripture, or even reason, the
THE ULTIMATE ISSUES OF FALSE PRINCIPLE 603
principle on wliich their distinction is based, nor how it can be
applied so as to eliminate inerrantly the erroneous from the true,
nor explained how it is consistent with the supremacy of Scripture
at all. They have not stated nor justified the grounds upon
which they make such distinctions, nor how they can reasonably
receive as of Divine authority even what they profess to believe,
or ascribe this to anything in God's Word ; nor by what sufficient
reasons they can bind these things on the conscience of men,
with God's authority, when they reject it in others. And above
all, they have failed to show how, on their theory, earnest
souls could assuredly use the Bible as the guide of their life
through time, or the foundation of their hope for eternity ; — nor
how, by it, the Church of God, as the pillar and ground of the
truth, could give a clear and unwavering testimony to groping
men, — which can never be done except by holding forth the sure
word of life like as a steady light shining in a dark place, till the
day dawn and the day-star arise in their hearts. Nor have they
shown how by it scepticism could be silenced, or convinced, or
successfully resisted, or even prevented from overthrowing every
bulwark of the faith, on these very principles, and by the use of
the very weapons which a new but unwise apologetic has put
into its hands.
CHAPTER III.
MODIFICATIONS OF THE THEORIES OF
INDEFINITE EFRONEOUSNESS.
I. The Bible Infallible in all that affects Faith
AND Life.
Some have said that the Bible is infallible in all that affects
faith and life. Now, if by this was meant that the whole Bible,
as God's Word, was true and authoritative, we should not care
to raise objection, however defective we might consider their
manner of statement. But since it is designed to deny this, and
to limit it to some unspecified things therein, and impHes that
there is in it an indefinite number of things destitute of this, we
have to say : — First. That this implied distinction between what
does and what does not affect faith and life in God's Word is
without Scripture warrant, has never had Scripture proof adduced
in its support ; it is, therefore, founded upon a rationalistic
assumption involving all the evils and objectionableness exposed
above.
NOTHING IN scripture THAT DOES NOT AFFECT FAITH
AND LIFE.
It is based on the unwarrantable assumption that there are
some things in Scripture which do not affect faith or life, or that
there are only some which do. Now this is the very thing they
require to prove ; and the assuming of it without proof, or even
attempt at proof, is simply a petitio principii. They have not only
not proved this, but proof of such a position is from the nature
of the case a practical impossibility. They may guess, imagine,
reason, render plausible, but prove — never. How can any man
ALL SCRIPTURE AFFECTS FAITH AND LIFE 605
know, or with reason assert, far less prove, that any thing or class
of things in Scripture cannot in any way or measure affect faith
or life ? He may declare that it does not affect his oivn ; — but
even then others might fairly ask what, and of what value, his
system of doctrine and duty was ; and relevantly raise the ques-
tion how much it was unconsciously affected by his theory, if
not the natural result of it. But it is simply impossible for him
to know that the faith and conduct of others could not be
affected, were it only for this, that he cannot know what the
faith and life of others are, have been, or may be ; and con-
sequently cannot tell how they may be affected by anything in
Scripture. How unreasonable then is it to assert, imply, or
assume that faith and life can be affected only by some things
in Scripture, when it is impossible to prove or know that they
may not be affected by anything or everything therein.
But we go further. We have gone beyond what in strict logic
was required, for the onus probatidi lies on those who assumed
this as the basis of their theory. But, further, this is not only an
unproved and unprovable, it is also a false assumption. It might
even be shown that everything found in a book that you took
as your standard in religion and morals, and your guide through
life to immortality, would naturally affect your faith and action in
some though perhaps imperceptible way or measure ; — especially
when anything untrue or unreliable is supposed to be found in
such a book. But it is not necessary to show this in order to
prove that this assumption is untrue. For the assumption is that
in the Bible there are not one, but many things ; and not merely
one class, but many classes of things that do not affect faith or life,
— that, indeed, there are only some things that do, and that all the
rest are either indifferent or errant. Taking up the Bible with
this view, I am instandy made to feel that my faith and life are
seriously affected thereby. P'or having been wont to regard the
whole Bible as my standard and guide in these, and having
believed that "all" Scripture was, in order to this, true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority, because God-breathed, — not only has
my belief in this to me cardinal doctrine — the foundation and
indispensable postulate of all the other doctrines-^to be aban-
doned, but my faith in the infallible truth and Divine authority
of the Bible as a whole receives a serious shock ; and all the
truths and views that on this basis I had derived therefrom,
6o6 REASON OR REVELATION?
receive a corresponding shock. I am forthwith required to re-
consider, modify, and reconstruct if I can, by a new standard
and on another basis, my whole moral and religious beliefs. Thus
my faith and life are not only affected, but unsettled, and revolu-
tionised by the false assumption at the basis of this theory.
But this is not all by any means. So far as my beliefs and
ideas were formed from or influenced by those parts of Scripture
that, on this theory, do not form part of doctrine or duty, it is
manifest that to that extent they are not only affected but
destroyed. My faith in the truth and Divine authority of all
Scripture is, of necessity, annihilated. I am, therefore, disposed
and required, by a mental and moral necessity, to assume the
attitude, not of a humble believer, but of a critical judge of what
in the Bible is true and authoritative, and what is not.
WHAT IN SCRIPTURE AFFECTS FAITH AND LIFE.''
I now ask my new instructors to tell me what are the things
in Scripture that do affect faith and life, — to specify definitely,
not in vague generality — and to set forth in completeness and
with unerring certitude, not partially or dubiously, — what in
Scripture is infallible and of Divine authority, and what is not.
But I find they cannot or do not tell me, nor do they show me
how I can surely ascertain this for myself; — and thus my whole
faith becomes unsettled. I neither know what I am to believe,
nor what I am to take as the infallible ground of my belief, nor
how I can certainly determine either the one or the other.
Sometimes I may be told the Bible is infallible and authoritative
in all that affects faith and life; and when I ask what affects
faith and life, I am answered that in which it is infallible ; and
I thus feel that my intellect is insulted, and my soul trifled with
by a vicious logic and an impotent evasiveness. At other
times certain leading religious and ethical principles are set
forth as unquestionably matters of faith and life. But when I
inquire how and on what principle these were separated from
the rest, and on what ground I am to receive them as such, and
Scripture teaching on them as infallible and authoritative, I get
either no answer or an unsatisfactory one, — either the questions
are evaded, or I am told that by general consent they are
received, because men's consciousness witnesses to their truth.
THE ERRORISTS' DIFFICULTIES 607
By this the painful and perplexing fact is forced upon me that
even for these no Divine or Scriptural, but only a human founda-
tion is given ; — that these are regarded as authoritative, not
because they are revealed in the Word of God, but because they
accord with the consciousness of man. The Bible is even in these
to be held infallible, not because they are revealed in God's
Word, but because they are responded to in man's heart and
conscience. Thus even for the first principles of rehgion and
morality, a foundation has to be found outside the Bible, away
from Divine authority, in fallen human nature, and in the fallible,
varying, contradictory, and frequently erroneous opinions of
men. There cannot, of course, be anything distinctive of Revela-
tion or of Christianity in these general findings, but only some
primary ethical and religious principles common to all religious
and inherent essential elements in man's moral constitution.
And when I still press further, and ask what portions or
statements of Scripture teach these cardinal truths, and whether
these few are all in which the Bible is infallible (I cannot say
authoritative also, for, as we have seen. Divine authority they
on these principles cannot have) ; and how I can reasonably
and authoritatively even in these require the faith and obedience
of those who deny and reject some or all of them : — for a universal,
uniform creed, which this whole system tacitly assumes, has never
yet been found, not even when limited to one truth, — I am
again refused an explicit reply, or told frankly that they cannot
tell, or that it is very difficult to know or to state the truth on
the question, or to give any definite information, or reliable rule,
or sure guidance at all, — or that the whole question is involved
in much uncertainty, and in a transition state ; so that each
person must find out these things for himself as best he may.
Thus, like a mariner driven to sea, to find, without chart or
compass, a haven of rest, I am cast adrift to find my faith and
guide my life as best I can amid the mists of human opinion,
and launched upon a shoreless sea of chaotic speculation, or left
stranded upon the dark and fatal rocks of Rationalism or unbelief.
MUST liKCOME CRITIC AND JUDGE OF THE BIBLE.
Proceeding then on this view to investigate Scripture, I am
strongly impressed with the momentous consequences of the fact
6o8 REASON OR REVELATION?
that my faith in its independent truth and authority has been
annihilated ; and that I have nothing now to guide me as to what
affects faith and Hfe, or is infallible in the Bible, but the perceived
accordance between its statements and my own consciousness.
I feel that I am, by a mental and moral necessity, forced to take
up the precarious, responsible, and presumptuous position of a
judge of what is false and what is true in God's Word. I am com-
pelled to abandon the attitude of a humble believer that trembles
at the Word of the Lord, and to assume the attitude of a critic
of its truth and authority. Being so placed, I feel, at the out-
set, that anything like full confidence in my conclusions is
virtually destroyed. As I proceed, however, I am met and
confronted everywhere with statements, expressions, and a tone
of Divine authority, and an air of certainty that pervade
the book, and convince me that if the Bible teaches anything
it teaches its own truth and Divine authority, and claims this
for itself as the foundation of all its other teaching — as the
ground upon which it bases, and claims reception of, all it states.
I am, therefore, shut up to the conclusion that if the uniform
and emphatic teaching, and the authoritative claim of Scripture
on this cardinal doctrine, are not to be accepted, it is vain or
worse to inquire what is its teaching on other subjects ; for on
no other truth does its teaching seem to be so full, emphatic,
and uniform ; and for no other doctrine is its testimony more
decisive or final. Particularly, I find it looks as if it had been
purposely made to give a full and direct contradiction to the
view that there are some things in Scripture that do not affect
faith and life, and only some that do ; — especially as it ex-
pressly, when professedly treating of the subject, declares that
'■'■All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine,
. . . and for instruction in righteousness."
After rejecting such testimony, it seems folly to inquire
further what is its teaching on anything.
CONTRADICTORY CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHAT AFFECTS
FAITH AND LIFE.
But to complete the contradictions and to crown the con-
fusion, I find when I have finished my examination that the
results do not agree with the findings of others, — that the creed
THE BIBLE TRUE IN ALL ESSENTIALS 609
which by the test of consciousness I have deduced from the
Bible differs from the creed of others, — that the critics greatly
differ from each other, — that no two students agree in everything,
that some deny almost all that others affirm ; and it is possible,
that all may in various ways be wrong. And as no one, or class,
can authoritatively state which is right, should any be,— for no
man's consciousness is authoritative over others, — it follows by
a simple but resistless necessity that all must ultimately land in
agnosticism, or each erring, varying man must become a Bible
and a standard to himself; — a result which, whatever else it does,
at least not only affects, but annihilates the teaching of the
Bible as a rule of faith and life, and all our faith founded thereon.
As far as argument against this form of the theory is con-
cerned we might here end ; for the proof is closed, and conclusive
to every logical mind ; and it is largely because men have not
thoroughly pondered the effects of their view, and have not
carried out their theories to their legitimate, ultimate conse-
quences, that some have advocated, and others adopted this
theory.
It now remains simply to apply the principles and results
already set forth in proving the essential rationalism and un-
tenableness of this theory in general, to some special phases,
and expressions of it that have been adopted with a view seem-
ingly to evade the objections brought against it in its usual
form.
2. The Bible Infallible and Authoritative in
all essential to salvation.
Some, to place Christianity, as they imagine, in a stronger
position, and to secure for their theory the support of those that
refuse to accept the Bible as an infallible standard in all matters
of faith and life, assert that it is infallible in all that is essential
to salvation, but only in this. Much of what has been advanced
above is conclusive against this also ; and, indeed, applies to it
with greater force. For it immediately raises, without settling,
such questions as. What is salvation ? What is essential to salva-
tion ? By what means, and on what grounds, are we to deter-
mine these questions with certainty ? The very parties whom
this theory was designed to conciliate differ toto ckIo from many
39
6lO REASON OR REVELATION?
who adopt this theory as to what salvation is, and as to what is
essential thereunto ; even as they differ greatly among themselves.
It not only raises without settling such questions, but it does so
after having deprived us of the only reliable means towards a
settlement thereof — a true and authoritative Bible ; and leaves us
in all the confusion and self-contradiction of Rationalism.
Besides, who can tell what is essential to salvation? Scrip-
ture has nowhere set forth how much of Divine truth must be
believed in order to salvation ; or how little is essential, or
might be sufficient to save the soul. Poor Tom, half idiot as he
w^as, knew only that there were " three in one, and one in three,
and the Middle One has died for me " ; and yet that belief might
and probably did save him. Yet I presume few if any of the
supporters of this theory would be prepared to assert that this
was all in which Scripture is infallible. And certainly there is
much in it that is most firmly believed, and that all parties in this
controversy would maintain to be its infallible teaching, which no
wise man would assert to be esseiitial to salvation. This theory
is, therefore, manifestly untenable and unsatisfactory.
3. The Bible True and Authoritative in its
Teaching.
Others say that the Bible is infallible in its TeacJiing. With
this we agree, and to this statement of the Bible claim we have,
generally, no objection. If by this were meant that the Bible
is true and of Divine authority in all its teaching, then this is our
doctrine. For to those who believe that the tvhole Bible teaches,
and that every part and thing in it teaches something, this
is equivalent to teaching the truth, value, and Divine authority
of all Scripture. Or if by this were meant that there are
some things and sayings recorded in Scripture that do not
express God's will or carry Divine authority — such as the
sins of His people, or the sayings of the Devil, or the mere
opinions of men — then, this also is true. It is also important
to emphasise the fact ; because many have manifested such
almost incredible ignorance on this as to imagine that when the
Divine inspiration, truth, and authority of Scripture were upheld,
it was thereby contended that everything narrated, or referred to
in Scripture — even crimes and lies — was true and right, and had
THE BIBLE TRUE IN ITS TEACHING 6ll
God's approval, — not knowing that what Inspiration secured in
such cases was simply a true record, but not at all necessarily
implying God's approval, frequently the reverse. They were
often recorded on purpose to express God's displeasure with
them, to manifest the evil of sin, to warn others ; and thus
to teach important truths, and to serve the highest moral ends.
This they did, not because they carried Divine authority, but
because they incurred Divine condemnation. These ends were
all the more effectually secured through their being truly re-
corded by the Spirit. Or if by this were meant that it is only
when, and in so far as, the statements of Scripture are truly
interpreted that they are trustworthy and of Divine authority,
then again we cordially assent ; nor can the importance of proper
interpretation be overestimated. We accept, then, the state-
ment that the Bible is true in all its teaching, and that it carries
Divine authority, only when truly interpreted and expressing the
Divine will.
WHAT INFALLIBILITY IN TEACHING MEANS.
But if this theory is designed, as it usually is, to deny that
all Scripture is true and trustworthy, then all the arguments
advanced above are equally valid and decisive against it ; and
some of them with even greater directness and force ; while it
is simply annihilated by some arguments peculiar or specially
applicable to itself. We are at once confronted with the old, in-
superable difficulties and fatal objections. How can w^e know
the teaching of Scripture when the truth of its statements is
denied? How are we to ascertain with certainty where the
Bible is teaching, when, on this view, only some of its state-
ments are reliable, without specifying which, or giving any rule
by which we can surely find them ? How can we be sure
that we have found its teaching, its whole teaching, and nothing
but its teaching, when we have been by this theory deprived of
an authoritative standard ? All this is patently impossible. Thus
the very theory that declares the Bible infallible in its teaching,
by denying its root teaching, that all Scripture is true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority, because God-breathed, contradicts
itself, and makes it impossible for us to determine what that
teaching is. The theory thus destroys itself.
6l2 REASON OR REVELATION?
Besides, if the theory means what it says, that the Bible is
infallible in its teaching, then the upholders of it can, on their
own view, be forced to receive our doctrine, and to abandon their
own ; for all that we ask is that they receive the teaching of
Scripture declaring that it is true and authoritative — that they
accept this teaching of the Bible ; and if they do, as their own
distinctive principle requires them to do, then they must abandon
their own position and adopt ours. They are bound to con-
fess that we are right when we teach that the Bible is true
and trustworthy, and that they are wrong and self-contradictory
when they affirm the infallibility of its teaching, and yet deny
the truth and authority of its teaching on this its first and funda-
mental doctrine. For this is the teaching which lies at the basis
of all its other teaching, and on which it expressly founds its
claim over the faith and obedience of men in anything. For it
can be demonstrated, as above,^ that if the Bible teaches any-
thing, it teaches, with a unique fulness and emphasis, its own
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority — the Word of
the Lord, which liveth and abideth for ever. There is such an
amount, variety, and explicitness of proof for this truth as can
scarcely be produced for any other. Therefore, if the Bible is
to be held as infallible in its teaching, it must be received as
infallible when it teaches this basal doctrine. Therefore the
upholders of this theory must, from their own view, receive our
doctrine, or abandon their own theory. If we do not accept its
teaching on this, we cannot accept it on anything; and if we
disown its truth and authority on this, its primary root-doctrine
and claim, it is vain, contradictory, and misleading to speak of
the infallibility of its teaching at all. Therefore the upholders
of this theory must, on their own principle, receive our doctrine,
or stultify their own contention.
4. The Bible Infallible and Authoritative in Thoughts
BUT NOT IN Words.
The last, and perhaps most plausible, of the theories of partial
inspiration is that which, while not explicitly denying the infalli-
bility of Scripture in its statements or substance, asserts its
errancy and erroneousness in its words. While not denying the
1 Books I. and IV.
THE BIBLE TRUE IN THOUGHTS AND WORDS 613
inspiration of the thoughts, they deny that it extends to the
words, and often ridicule what has been called "verbal inspira-
tion." Some, holding this general theory, maintain that, while
the writers of Scripture were inspired as to the matter of Revela-
tion, they were left entirely to themselves in the expression of it.
Admitting plenary inspiration as to the substance, they exclude
inspiration of the words, and deny that the Holy Ghost gave or
guided the expression of the substance.
Now, if the various forms of this theory were simply a protest
against, and a rejection of, what has been called literal dictation,
in which the writers are supposed to be mere amanuenses, writing
the words dictated to them, we should not object to their purport
and aim, while not approving of their expression. Or if they
were designed as a denial of what has been called " mechanical
inspiration" — though those using the expression have never yet
defined precisely what they meant thereby, and would find great
difficulty in doing so were they to make the attempt, — still, if
by this was meant that the Bible writers were mere machines —
the pens rather than the penmen of the Spirit — we should
endorse the repudiation ; — for, with the exception of a few
passages, such as the ten commandments, written by God on the
tables of stone, and rewritten by Moses by His express direction,
and a few others, the Bible nowhere warrants or exemplifies this
idea. On the contrary, its teaching and phenomena preclude
this generally, and show that, while all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and as such is true, reliable, and authori-
tative, the writers were not machines, mere amanuenses, but
intelligent men, moral agents, using in the writing of Scripture all
their natural powers, characteristics, literary acquirements, and
idiosyncrasies, as freely and fully as though they were not under
Divine inspiration at all : while, at the same time, the Holy Spirit
so guided the writers, and so acted upon their minds, without
coercing them or hindering their spontaneity, that they should
write only what He wished and as He wished ; and thus it is,
while truly man's, really God's Word.
CONTRADICTION OF I5IBLE TEACHING AND CLAIM.
But this is not what is meant by these theories ; on the con-
trary, the meaning or effect of their theory is to deny the
6l4 REASON OR REVELATION?
plenary inspiration and entire trustworthiness of Scripture by
denying the truth or Divine authority of the Bible words, although
they are the God-breathed words, expression, and embodiment of
His mind, given in the words which the Spirit teacheth" (i Cor. 2^^).
These theorists, therefore, directly contradict the most explicit and
pervasive teaching of God's Word, which declares and assumes
throughout that the words of the Bible are the words of God, as
given by the Spirit of God, as demonstrated above. ^ They thus con-
demn the most absolute teaching and invariable usage of Christ
and His apostles ; who frequently found great truths and argu-
ments upon single words, and postulate and proclaim the inviol-
ability of all Scripture even in jot and tittle (Matt. 5^^). Besides,
they err as to the chief object of inspiration, which is not so much
the revelation of truth to the mind of the writer, though this is often
implied also, as the expression and communication of the truth to
others in what is written, and as it is written. Divine inspiration
and consequent Divine truth and authority are predicated chiefly
not so much of the truth as conveyed in the mind of the writer,
but as specifically expressed in the written embodiment of the
revelation. Further, it is simple absurdity to speak of the truth
or authority of the thoughts, while denying this of the words — of
the substance, while disowning it of the expression of Scripture.
For the thoughts are in the words, and the substance can never
be known except through the expression. The words express
the thoughts, and are the embodiment of the spiritual substance.
Therefore, if the words are erroneous or unreliable, so also must
the ideas and the substance be. Thus the truth and Divine
authority of all Scripture would by this theory be nullified.
Nor is this merely a self-evident proposition and a demon-
stration of the untenableness of this theory ; but it is also vital
to Christian faith and life. For if the words Godhead, election,
redemption, imputation, regeneration, propitiation, sacrifice,
atonement, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification, adop-
tion, resurrection, heaven, hell, etc., were not inspired and in-
fallible, and do not express veritable facts and Divine realities,
then everything essential to Christian faith and life may be only
old wives' fables. Without certainty and Divine authority in the
words of Scripture, it is patently impossible to believe in the
things, or even to know the will of God, for our salvation. Thus
1 See Books I. and IV.
THE ANALOGY OF NATURE AND SCRIPTURE 615
by the very vagueness and uncertainty this theory would bring
into " the Word of Life," we should be driven out, without chart
or compass, to seek for rest upon the restless, dismal waters of
Rationalism and unbelief.
Hence by denying the truth and reliability, or asserting the
indefinite erroneousness of the words of Scripture, men can be
irresistibly driven into a position in which it is impossible
legitimately to require, constrain, or warrant the belief of any-
• thing in God's Word ; or to convince of error those who utterly
reject it : and it becomes short and easy work for Scepticism
to overthrow Christianity, and to plunge humanity into the
bottomless and shoreless abyss of Rationalism and Agnosticism.
So that from even the most plausible of these theories, there is a
plain and inevitable path to Scepticism.
I have thus proved what was stated at the outset, that there
is no logical resting-place between receiving all Scripture as true,
trustworthy, and of Divine authority — as " in truth the Word of
God" — and being driven out of Scripture altogether, into the
hopeless chimeras of unbelief.
Summary and Conclusion : Nature and Scripture.
Finally, this whole theory in all its forms is self-contradictory.
The first principle of all these theories is that the design of
. Scripture is to give men a rule of faith and life. Now, if this is
so, and we do not question, but believe it, why should it be
taken for granted, — for the contrary has been shown above, — that
there would be some — yea, many things, and kinds of things
therein that do not affect these ? Is this what we should expect
in a book, written for such an end, under Divine direction, and
by Divine inspiration ? Is it like God to put, or to permit in His
Word what would not in any way contribute to His design in
giving it ? Does it agree with the revealed character and work
of God, either in Scripture or Nature, to make anything in vain,
or to allow superfluities to burden or mar His work ?
We know that Scripture everywhere represents God, in all
His ways and works, in a character the reverse of this, and even
declares that "the work of the Rock is perfect." We know
that so far from permitting superfluities, Scripture is scrupulously
careful in the selection of its contents, purposely sparing in its
6l6 REASON OR REVELATION?
materials, and evidently excludes much that would have been
interesting and valuable in itself, and that we should have
eagerly desired to know, — for the manifest reason that it was not
necessary to its great design.
As for Nature, we know that if it abhors a vacuum, it still
more abhors a superfluity, — that everywhere and in everything
" the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament
sheweth His handiwork." The more extensively it is explored,
and the more thoroughly it is investigated in all its realms and
contents, the more it is found to be one great unity, — the more
each separate part and particle, each world and atom is seen to
contribute to its one great design, even its Creator's glory, — and
the more fully it is demonstrated that He has made nothing in
vain. The law of parsimony, as scientists call it, holds and rules
,both in Nature and Scripture. Are we then to suppose that He
would make or permit superfluities in His Word, or that any-
thing would be put there that had no bearing whatever on its
great design ?
Still more, can we believe that, when it was as easy for Him
to prevent it as not, He would permit such faults and errors to
form part of it, as could not, as we have seen, fail to mar that
design, and largely, if not utterly, defeat it? Therefore, the
upholders of this theory are. shut up to taking either of these
contradictory positions, — namely, either it is not the design of
the Bible to be a rule of faith and life, or there is not any-
thing in it that does not affect, or that injuriously affects, faith
and life. For if there is anything that does not affect faith or
life, that design is marred by superfluity ; and if there is any-
thing that affects it injuriously, that design is so far frustrated.
And since, on this theory, it is not one thing but many things
that do so, and these not specified nor defined, but indefinite
and unascertainable, — therefore, this design is unrealisable, and
really subverted. If, then, they take the first, they abandon
their own position. If they take the second, they adopt ours.
If, according to their own first principle, they maintain that the
design of the Bible is to be a rule of faith and life ; and if they
maintain, as they do, that this design was realised, then they
thereby overthrow their own primary assumption, which is the
very basis of their theory. They thus prove that their inference
from their own first principle was not only not true but contrary
THE ERRORISTS' DILEMMA 617
thereto. They also show that their other assumption and
inference — that there are only some things in which Scripture
is true and authoritative, it being in all others indefinitely
erroneous, while neither the one nor the other is specified or
determinable— is not only unwarrantable and false, but con-
tradictory to their root-principle. They thus by their own
principles not only annihilate their own theory, but establish
ours, — so far at least as inferences from first principles and
general reasonings can establish it.
And if they maintain their own first principle, while still
striving to defend these false inferences from it, which are
contrary to it, and also to imply that there are superfluities in
Scripture, things in no way affecting its great design, and errors
many and indefinite, things injurious to this great design, then,
in addition to all above, we shall leave them with the steady and
harmonious voice of Nature to rebuke them, the explicit teach-
ing of Scripture to contradict them, the first principles of the
inductive philosophy to repudiate them, the progress of Biblical
scholarship to refute them, the inexorable laws of logic to
annihilate them, and the testimony of Christian experience to
disown them for ever. The voice of universal Nature rebukes
them, as it everywhere, and always with one majestic voice
proclaims, "The hand that made it is Divine," and made
nothing in vain ! The teaching of Scripture contradicts them, as
it ever teaches, the Bible is the Word of God, and expressly
says, " The work of the Rock is perfect." The words of Christ
condemn them, as He solemnly declares, " Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law till all be fulfilled." The principles of the induc-
tive philosophy repudiate them, as they refuse even to listen to
unproved and unprovable assumptions to support a baseless
theory. The progress of Biblical scholarship refutes them, as
it shows difficulties to be vanishing quantities, and supposed
superfluities proved to be significant and valuable parts of God's
Word. The laws of inexorable logic annihilate them, as has
been demonstrated above. And the testimony of Christian
experience disowns them ; as it proves from ever growing
experimental knowledge of all parts and particles that "All
Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the
6l8 REASON OR REVELATION?
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works." The conduct of these theorists strongly resembles that
of those superficial naturalists who, when they could not easily
perceive the use and design of certain organs in creatures and
objects in nature, rashly pronounced them useless. A deeper
and more scientific science waited, and investigated, and proved
them in many cases not only useful but highly valuable ; and
showed the superficiality and perniciousness of the principle so
unscientifically adopted ; which would presume to make our
knowledge the measure of reality and possibility, and our
ignorance the proof of non-existence of universal design in
nature. Such a principle would have paralysed science in the
investigation of God's works, and this similar theory would
paralyse progress in the study of God's Word. And the whole
proves that, on this principle, these theorists make reason
supreme over Revelation, and in so doing violate both reason
and Revelation.^
^ In the Appendix there is a brief outline of the apologetic value of the
truthfulness in small points, and even the minute accuracy of Scripture, along
some leading lines of Christian evidence.
BOOK VII.
DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS : WITH FURTHER
CONFIRMATIONS OF THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE.
RESUME.
We have now reached the closing Book of this work. A brief
treatment of the subject will suffice, as the questions usually dis-
cussed under the head of difficulties and objections have been
largely dealt with in the previous books. A re-glimpse over the
course of the discussion will make this evident and the sequel
the better appreciated. In Book I. Christ's place in theology,
and His teaching on the chief truths of the Christian faith,
specially on those controverted, and supremely on Holy Scrip-
ture, are set forth ; and by this much recent teaching and re-
ligious speculation have been tested, sifted, and found false or
wanting ;— especially prevalent depreciations and perversions of
the Word of God. In Book II. the supreme question under-
lying and raised by these discussions, viz. " Is Christ Infallible
as a Teacher," is considered, and the claims of Christ and of
Scripture to be the supreme Authority in religion and ethics are
upheld, and many opposing errors and unsettling theories are
exposed and refuted ; — it being cogently urged that there is no
stable or rational resting-place between the supremacy of Christ
speaking in the Scriptures and the dismal abysses of agnosticism
and unbelief. In Book III. many current misconceptions and
misrepresentations are corrected and exposed ; and the roots and
bases of leading objections to the Bible claim endorsed by
Christ, are thereby destroyed, as well as many common diffi-
culties removed. The way has thus been cleared for the true
statement of the question ; and much cogent preliminary proof
620 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
is given along the course of the discussion. The great, final
issue ever heaves in view through the mists of lesser controversies,
that the Bible claim, sealed and urged by Christ, must be re-
ceived, cannot be rejected, else the credibility and veracity of
Scripture must be denied, and the truth and authority of Christ as
a teacher, on the supreme and fundamental question in religion
and morals, must be set at nought, and mankind deprived of
any standard of faith or duty, or seat of authority in religion.
In Book IV. the general Bible proof is given in leading outline,
with emphasis on the principal passages, and with special appli-
cations to the present state of the question, and its bearing on
Christian faith and life. In Book V. the opposing views are
brought into contrast and comparison apologetically, and their
comparative strength tested face to face with scepticism by the
sceptic's apology. The result of this is that even the theory of
" absolute inerrancy " is proved to be stronger from an apologetic
standpoint than indefinite erroneousness ; while the position of
simple truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority is
shown to be stronger and safer than either; as well as more
fully established by evidence. The reply to the sceptic's apology
is given in the amassed array of the Christian evidences, outlined
from the standpoint of Christ, in our strong and impregnable
middle position. In Book VI. the various theories of indefinite
erroneousness are classified and examined, and shown to be all
more or less essentially rationalistic in their common root prin-
ciple and actual tendency. It is proved that they all necessarily
end in the virtual and practical supremacy of reason over
Revelation ; and the consequent deprivation of men of any sure
rule of faith or life, and of any reliable guide through life to
immortality — that in fact there is no possible middle between
accepting the Bible claim to be the Word of God, — true, trust-
worthy, and of Divine authority — and ending in irrational
rationalism, or absolute scepticism, — with all the disastrous con-
sequences to Biblical study, Christian faith, and religious life.
The Orii;in, Causes, Character, and History of
Difficulties and Objections.
In further dealing with difficulties and objections to the Bible
claim and doctrine here, it is not possible or necessary to give
THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DIFFICULTIES 62 1
more than a general outline and summary of leading facts and
principles, indicating their origin, causes, character, and history ;
stating the principles on which they may be explained, the pur-
poses they serve, the lessons they teach, and showing how
reasonably any cases unsolved may, if need be, remain so with-
out at all affecting the Bible claim, or the positive proof of it : —
especially as this has been so largely done already — specially in
Books II., III., and V., — and as it has been often done in many
works treating specifically of the question. These may be
classified under two general heads : — those appearing in the
Bible itself; and those coming from other spheres or sources of
knowledge : — the psychological, historical, and scientific, and the
critical, moral, and spiritual. Many objections and difficulties
have been urged from atheistic and antisupernatural standpoints ;
which, of course, do not need to be dealt with here, as we are
now treating of the views of those who believe in God, and the
supernatural, and Revelation. These have been thoroughly met
and answered in many able works on natural and revealed religion,
and the Christian evidences ; and have been sufficiently dealt
with in our reply to the sceptic's apology in the summary of the
Christian evidences in the closing chapter of Book V., as well as
in Book VI., and further answers will be found in the Appendix.
The vast majority of the difficulties and objections arise from
erroneous preconceptions and false presuppositions, untenable
assumptions and unfounded assertions, strange misconceptions and
persistent misrepresentations, by mistakes and mis-statements of
the question, and actual creations of them where they had not a
shadow of foundation, — with all the fallacious inferences there-
from, by those who urged them, — as shown largely before,
specially in Book III. Often they spring from overlooking or
insufficiently recognising the organic unity of Scripture, the pro-
gressiveness of Revelation, and the pervasiveness of the human
and the Divine in the Bible. They frequently originate from
magnifying apparent differences, while ignoring the far greater
agreements between the Bible and other sources of knowledge ;
and from overlooking its popular character, fragmentary nature,
literary characteristics, peculiar origin, unique composition, and
remarkable history. They arise, too, largely from confusing
things that differ ; — the translations and present MSS. with the
originals, traditional interpretations with the true meanings of
622 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
God's Word, the true record with the approved teaching, the
writers' character and conduct with the written inspired teach-
ing, imperfection with error, and discrepancy with disproof of
the Bible claim, and imagining it was proof of the opposite, —
while ignoring the whole positive, proper proof, and all the
probable or possible explanations of seeming inconsistencies.
They are the product, also, of inaccurate use of language, mis-
use of epithet, misleading terms and maxims, disintegration and
separation of Scripture, — as if they had no unity or Divine origin ;
wrong principles of interpretation, unscientific methods of criti-
cism, misleading specialism, lack of carefulness in statement and
thoroughness of thought, applying Western and modern standards
to ancient and Oriental books, love of vagueness, — confusing the
issues, aversion to definiteness or finality of truth, idolatry of doubt.
Some arise from failure to carry out principles and theories to their
logical conclusions, fear to face the ultimate issues, prevalence
of pervertive prejudice, want of honest interpretation and con-
sistent application. Some of them come from our ignorance, the
limitations of our faculties, the nature of the subjects,— reaching
out to infinity, eternity, and Divinity; while others still arise from
not sufficiently recognising the great purpose of the Bible, and
the valuable uses and lessons even of difficulties in the Bible as
in everything else. All this and much more has been shown
and urged above ; and they are sufficient to account for almost
all the difficulties, and to answer all the objections of any con-
sequence ; and they supply or suggest the means and methods
of reasonably silencing all objectors, if not of answering all
objections and solving all difficulties.
Classification, Illustration, and Answers to
Difficulties and Objections.
Before off'ering further explanations, a few more illustrations
and answers may be useful from the classes mentioned.
I. Of the Psychological difficulties and objections, one urged
is that the Bible claim involves the co-operation of God and
man in the production of Scripture. Of course it does. That
is the grand mystery, Divine secret, and real explanation of
it. But surely that is no valid objection to it, but a strong con-
firmation of its truth, in harmony with all that we know and
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES 623
believe, on the surest grounds, of the relation between God and
man, and of the co-operation between the Creator and the
creature in the works of creation, the events of providence, the
operations of God's grace in men's hearts, and all the experience
of life. And such a jejune idea could be conceived only on the
vicious principles of that absurd philosophy and expired super-
stition, sought to be revived again in Ritschlianism, that would
separate the creature from the Creator, deny relationship between
the natural and the supernatural, exclude God from direct access
to the mind of man, and preclude the possibility of the infinite
Spirit of God acting on the finite spirit of man, even for the
gracious purpose of giving a revelation of God's grace for man's
salvation. A similar presumptuous and inane objection is, that
such a control or influence over men's minds as would secure the
truth and Divine authority of the Bible is inconsistent with the
mental freedom of man ; — as if God the Holy Ghost could not so
act on the human mind as to ensure this without violating its
free action, and must be confined within the narrow grooves of
the oracular dictates of such audacious but unveracious specula-
tion. Another like invalid objection is against the argument
for the truth and Divine authority of Scripture from the testi-
mony of the Spirit in the Christian consciousness, — to the effect
that our consciousness may deceive us ; which is nothing to the
purpose, and no reason whatever against the validity of this
evidence, — except upon the absurd assumption of a general
denial of the veracity of consciousness, which means absolute
scepticism, and is as destructive of the foundation of this objec-
tion as of all other human thought and reasoning.
2. Of Historical difficulties and objections to the Bible claim,
arising from differences and seeming conflicts between the Bible
and other records, in addition to all urged in the previous books,
let it suffice to say further — First, that the whole weight and
trend of recent historical investigation and archceological re-
search are beyond question to corroborate and establish not
only the historicity and credibility, but the truthfulness and trust-
worthiness, and even the minute accuracy in many cases, of the
Bible record; as shown by a vast and ever-increasing mass of
valuable literature by the foremost experts and highest authorities
in collateral, historical, and archaeological research, — specially, as
stated before, in the hard facts and silent but unanswerable
624 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
testimony of the monuments, tablets, resurrected cities, mounds,
libraries, etc., of ancient Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria, Syria,
Palestine, and Sinai ; — as well as corroborative, written, and
other evidence from Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, etc., from the
literature, lands, peoples and usages of the East in touch and
contemporary with the people of Israel and the literature of the
Bible. Second, that any differences or conflicts between these
records are trivial and as nothing compared with the great
outstanding agreements — are only such as might be expected in
the circumstances, — especially as only the Bible was written by
Divine inspiration ; and even here, too, differences are disappear-
ing with fuller knowledge and advancing research. Third, so
far, therefore, has this whole line of historical and cognate in-
vestigation been from discrediting Scripture, it has weightily
tended the opposite way, and from independent sources strongly
confirmed the Bible claim. It has exploded many would-be
critical assertions, shown the baselessness of bold assumptions
on which vast and ominous superstructures and theories were
built, caused confusion among oracular rationalistic critics, dis-
credited many of their finespun philological speculations, and
created a profound and wholesome distrust of all their methods,
results, and theorisings. And it has removed many once formid-
able objections and difficulties, illustrated again the principle
of difficulties being vanishing quantities, and established the
probability or at least the possibility of all vanishing with fuller
knowledge and greater research, — which is the utmost needed to
silence reasonable objection. Even that is not strictly required
to maintain the Bible claim ; for there are difficulties and
objections to the best established truths and facts in every
region of knowledge, life, and experience. And in our more
guarded position taken for the defence of the Christian faith,
or the unquestionable Bible claim, of simple truthfulness, in-
stead of absolute inerrancy, the cases to which, on these sure
and scientific principles, these difficulties would be reduced,
would be so despicable or doubtful as to be unworthy of
serious consideration, and utterly weak and wholly irrelevant as
against our position. So that the whole strength of the positive
evidence by which the thorough truthfulness of the Bible is
demonstrated, would remain untouched and untouchable, backed
by the whole weight of the Christian evidences.
I
SCIENTIFIC DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 625
3. Scientific Difficulties and Objections.
3. Of the Scientific difficulties and objections substantially
the same may be said, as shown before in various connections,
and it is shown more fully in the Appendix. They not only do
not invalidate or discredit the Bible claim, but they largely con-
firm it. The alleged discords and contradictions have arisen
largely from overlooking that the Bible is not a scientific
but a popular book, describing things as they would appear
phenomenally, and from the standpoint of earth and man, and in
their relation to God. It is written in the style and language of
common life, — and not in the form of the science of any particular
age, which would be superseded and held erroneous or defective
in subsequent ages, but in the manner of the people, and for
all time. Hence they never assume scientific form, nor do
they generally profess to give precise accuracy. Nor, had
they done so, would they have served their Divine purpose,
which is to reveal God's will for man's salvation. And it is
because these patent facts and first principles have been over-
looked that most of the difficulties and objections have appeared.
Many, too, have sprung from misinterpreting the statements of
Scripture, or mistaking the facts or laws of nature, — thus creating
apparent conflicts where they did not exist. Nor is there any-
thing more imperative in the interests of truth and harmony
than rigorously to exclude these conflict-making oversights and
errors. But the remarkable thing is that, notwithstanding this,
the agreements both in number and importance vastly exceed
the paltry differences. They agree in the great leading facts,
and differ only in comparatively trivial points ; and even these
have largely vanished through fuller knowledge and truer inter-
pretation ; as many that once seemed serious vanished long ago,
— establishing a probability, or, at least, a possibility, that all will
vanish yet, if they have not already gone. Certainly those re-
maining— at most only dubious — are so trivial as not to affect
the Bible truthfulness, or the proof of it. Indeed, many of the
highest authorities in science maintain the full harmony between
it and Scripture ; — even in that most disputed part — the Mosaic
and the Geologic records of creation, — as may be seen, among
others, in the vast mass of literature on it, in the works of
Professor Dana, or of Sir William Dawson, twice President of the
40
626 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
British Association of Science. The remarkable fact is that the
Bible, while not revealing science, or the writers knowing it, has
yet been so written through them, that in the fierce light of the
latest science its truthfulness has stood the test of the most
searching investigation by the keenest antagonists, — the highest
scientific authorities themselves being witness. And this fact,
taken along with the other notorious fact, of the striking con-
trast in this respect presented by the erroneous, absurd, and
even grotesque cosmogonies and theologies of all other ancient
literature, is the strongest confirmation of the Bible claim, and
demands God's supernatural guidance in the writings of the
Bible as the only rational explanation. But the most amazing
thing is that those who magnify any trivial apparent differences
between Science and Scripture, should ignore the great out-
standing agreements in the chief things; or imagine that any
paltry trivialities constituted any valid objection to the Bible
claim, so thoroughly established on its own proper evidence ; or
fail to see and own that in the great agreements between them,
Science, so far from discrediting the truthfulness or Divine origin
and inspiration of the Bible, only strongly corroborates them.
4. Critical Difficulties and Objections.
Of Critical difficulties and objections arising from the facts
and phenomena of the Bible itself, showing apparent discrep-
ancies and seeming contradictions, — much has been said in
the previous books, especially in Books III., V., and VI., and
the most important of these have been there dealt with; and the
principles have been indicated on which they may be all, or
almost all, accounted for, or at least reasonably. left unsolved,
and objections silenced. It may further be said generally that
what is true in these facts and phenomena has not been proved
to destroy or discredit the Bible claim to be true, trustworthy, and
of Divine authority ; and those that would necessarily do so have
not been demonstrated to be true, and have often been proved
to be not facts but fables — mistakes, indeed, but of those who
charged the Bible with them.
(i) Misconceptions. — Many of these, as seen, have arisen from
misconceptions of the Bible claim and doctrine ; and the objec-
tions made had no foundation save in the imaginations of those
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 627
who made them. Much perverting prejudice has been created
by such misconceptions as the following : — First. That truth-
fulness meant absolute perfection, and that imperfection was
equivalent to error or untruth ; — when Divine truth cannot dwell
perfectly save in the Divine mind, and when truthfulness is quite
consistent with imperfection, else there could be no truth re-
vealed by God to man at all. All the earlier stages of revelation
are more or less imperfect, but they are all true so far as they
go. The very idea or possibility of a progressive revelation
requires this ; but has also to postulate trueness and reliability
in each progressive stage in order to the one fitting into the
other, or to there being any progress in Revelation at all. As
well reason or assert that the early stages of the development
of life were false and wrong because they were imperfect, as
that the earlier stages of Revelation were untrue and wrong
because they were imperfect. For sooner will forms of life, good
and perfect, develop from germs bad and false, than truth de-
velop from error, or right evolve from wrong. In fact, such
confusions would preclude progress either in life or Revelation.
And so far from imperfection in the one or the other involving
error, it excludes untrueness in both, and progress requires re-
liability from first to last. Second. Similarly many confuse
incompleteness with untruth, although the one is quite com-
patible with the other. There may surely be truth without the
whole truth. Otherwise, our Lord's teaching in the N.T. would
be untruth ; for He tells us that He had much to say to His
disciples which He could not teach them then, because they
were not able to receive it, and would only be so when the
Spirit of truth came on them in the fulness of His power. The
reveahng God was, from the very nature of things, Himself under
limitations and restraint in giving Revelation ; because of the
necessity of adapting it to the people and the age to which it
was given. And those who raise this objection overlook also
the patent fact of the fragmentariness of Scripture — fragmentary
always as a history, but finally complete as a Revelation. Third.
Another prevalent misconception, on which objection to the Bible
claim has been based, is that it is supposed to imply that all
parts of Scripture are equally valuable. But this is a pure
imagination of the objectors. It is in all parts true, but in-
finitely diversified in value, as Nature is, yet all equally the
628 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
work of God. Fourth. A further misconception is that the
Bible claim means rigid accuracy, — than which there could
scarcely be a greater mistake. For nothing is plainer on the
face of the Bible than that it rises sublimely above such punc-
tilious rigidity; and moves with perfect ease, Divine freedom,
and charming naturalness. And the inspired authors write with
all the greater freedom, naturalness, and confidence, just because
they are under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and feel the
fuller confidence in taking the greater liberties because they
know they are under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth.
(2) Preconceptions. — First. Here some outstanding preconcep-
tions may be adverted to — such as the individuality of the writers
and the diversity of the writings, so manifest in Scripture, on which
many have foolishly founded objections to the Bible claim. But
such objections are obviously based upon the absurd idea that
the individuality of the Bible writers is necessarily inconsistent
with its truthfulness, and that only rigid identity is so, — which is
a baseless imagination. This also implies the presumptuous
conception that the Spirit of Truth could not use the diverse
gifts and acquirements of the creatures He has made, for giving
His revelation without teaching untruth, — which is not only an
unproved but an incredible idea, and an audacious presumption
against the Most High. Why, it is just this unique unity in
diversity which is one of the strongest proofs of the Divine origin
and truth of the Bible ; and the fact of its truthfulness, along with
the individuality of the writers and the diversity of the writers,
not only demands the supernatural origin of the Revelation, but
demonstrates the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Second.
A similarly unreasonable objection raised is, that if God had so
much to do with the production of the Bible we should expect
it to be very different from what it is — if it were the Word of
God, it would not be so like the work of man — if Divine, it
would not be so human ! A vague and vain generality, long ago
silenced by Butler's crushing stroke — that if God were to give a
revelation of His will we are not fit judges of how He might be
pleased to give it. And the idea that because it is so human,
therefore^ it could not be so Divine, is not only one of those base-
less imaginations that such objectors are wont to create against the
truth of God's Word, but it is also in itself so inherently improb-
able that the opposite is the probability, as we know it is the fact,
ERRONEOUS PRECONCEPTIONS 629
both in the A\'ritten and in the Incarnate Word. For both Scrip-
ture and Christ are so Divine just because they are so human :
perfectly human and perfectly Divine in the first root article of
the Christianity of Christ. Another unfounded preconception on
which objections have been based is that in the historical parts of
Scripture, and in all those cases in which the writers knew the
substance of what they wrote, there was no need for special
Divine inspiration : and that, therefore, it would not be given,
as in the Gospels, referring to Luke's preface. That is, their
own ideas of what was necessary, and not the teaching of God's
Word, are made the basis of this theory, and of objection to
the Bible claim. This theory, that would throw the whole
historical portions of Scripture, which are its chief substance,
into uncertainty as to whether it expressed God's will, would
make us dependent in this vital matter upon the mere judgment
of men instead of the wisdom of God; and overlooks the
great truth that essential parts of inspiration were the selection,
arrangement, and expression in permanent form of what God
wished to be in His Word. Similarly it is objected that some
of the histories, as the Gospels, are not written in a strictly
chronological order ; — as if that were the only way in which true
history could be written ; and as if much higher and richer
revelations of God in Christ had not been given us by the
complementary character of the Gospels, and by each Evangelist
writing from his own God-given standpoint, and in his own Spirit-
inspired way. Again, it is objected that the Bible writers often
utilise materials from outside and uninspired sources, books,
decrees, letters, speeches, etc. — even of heathen and other people,
and that for these, and all in them. Divine inspiration and
approval could not be claimed. As if God's Spirit could not
in anyway make use of such materials for the purposes of Divine
revelation, or as if the use of these at all imphed approval of
all therein ; — when they are often quoted only for condemnation,
at other times for only partial approval, when sometimes they
are neither approved nor disapproved, but used for some other
specific purpose. But they are always put in God's Word by
His authority and inspiration to serve some good purpose of His
grace, which they best do by being truly recorded, and properly
interpreted by His Spirit's aid. A further objection is that such
inspiration must be dictation. This makes men machines, and is
630 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
shown to be false by the variety of style, and the difference in
the ways of recording the same substance ; and is an irreverent
dictation to God, — as if the same substance could not be given
with perfect truthfulness in different ways by men, or God, or both
combined. It is also an inexcusable representation culpably per-
sisted in by opponents of the Bible claim, though often repudiated
and exposed by every intelligent defender of that claim.
(3) Assu?nptions. — Many objections and difficulties to the
Bible claim have been made by the false assumption that the
Bible is not a unity of many related and complementary parts,
but a library or a literature of diverse and independent books.
On this delusion objectors have proceeded, in the face of the
plainest facts, to treat the individual writings in isolation ; — as if
there were no others of the same kind, or as if they had little
or no connection with each other, or were in antithesis and
antagonism. Countless objections have thus been raised against
the truth of Scripture, and by this perverse process of Bible
disintegration the whole sources and bases of our faith have been
brought to confusion and discredit. But it is only by shutting
the eyes to the surest facts, recognised from the beginning, and
patent on the very face of the Bible ; and by violating the
primary canons of literary criticism, all the rules of Biblical
interpretation, and the first principles of the inductive philosophy.
As soon expect to properly interpret nature, and advance science,
by studying its various parts and elements in isolation, and with
no regard to the related parts, or to the whole of which each forms
an integral part, or to the Creator Who is the Author and Uniter
of all. No wonder that these should lead to indefinitely diverse
and erroneous, but absurd results, from such pervertive methods,
and land in all the evils of a narrow and perverse specialism. But
the answer is that the vicious method is false and wrong from
the foundation. True Bible science repudiates it as unscientific,
because shutting the eyes to the most palpable facts, and ignor-
ing the Divine authorship of God's Word ; and it ever interprets
Scripture on the sound principle of the analogy of the faith,
comparing part with part, on the sure bases of the unity of
Scripture, on which the Christian Church has ever built its faith
and life. Another fertile source of objection has been assuming
that limitation of Knowledge necessarily involves error ; whereas,
as proved in Book II., they have no necessary or natural con-
FALSE ASSUMPTIONS 63 I
nection ; and in this case the reverse is necessarily implied, both
in the Incarnate and in the Written Word of God ; because both
are perfectly human and truly Divine. A further objection is
that as the Bible is indefinitely erroneous now, it was so
from the beginning ; and that it was of no use giving the
Scripture pme and entire at first, if it has not been kept so
since. In reply, first, it is not admitted, but denied, that Scrip-
ture is indefinitely erroneous now ; and all objectors have been
bafiled to prove even one demonstrable error. Second, even had
the basal assertion been as true as it is untrue, the unproved
inference would be false. As reasonably argue that since man
is sinful now, therefore, he must have been sinful at his creation !
which is both error and blasphemy. And, third, though the
Bible were erroneous now, the inference that it served no pur-
pose to make it true at first is wrong. For, as it was of great
consequence that man was not sinful at his creation, though
he is sinful now — so it is with God's Word, — as proved before.
The difference is radical between a Bible believed to have been
at first erroneous and wrong, and a Bible originally right and
faultless, but becoming more or less affected by transmission, etc.
In the one case, the attitude assumed is that of an earnest student
and a humble learner, — with all the spiritual blessing it ever yields
to such. In the other it is that of a critic and a judge, — with all
the religious loss involved therein, for it never yields its richest
treasures to the critical spirit. In the one, there is the strongest
stimulus to Bible study, in order to get nearer to the original
and purest fountains of the life eternal there. In the other, it
paralyses study; for who would care much to search deeply or
sympathetically a book claiming to be the Word of God, and yet
indefinitely erroneous and originally wrong? — and without that
reverent sympathy which this theory precludes, the results would
be comparatively meagre, and never absolutely sure or Divinely
authoritative.
(4) Irrelevancies. — Many objections to the Bible claim are
irrelevant, and inadmissible from those who make them. One
main, root objection to the Bible claim is God's use of human
agency in the giving of His Word. But such an objection is not
valid or admissible from those who hold the Bible to be inspired
in any sense. If it has any validity, it would hold against every
doctrine of inspiration equally. It is, therefore, totally irrelevant,
632 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
except from those who have audacity and creduUty enough to
deny revelation and inspiration altogether, or the co-operation of
God with man in anything ; which is as contradictory to fact
and sound philosophy as to Scripture and theology. And yet
elements of it unconsciously underlie some of the objections
to the Bible claim, made by professed believers in Revelation.
Akin to this is the objection made from the personal
peculiarities of the writers manifest in the Bible. But this
pervades the whole of it ; and therefore, unless inspiration is
to be denied altogether, this objection is quite irrelevant.
Similarly many object to attributing what the Bible claims to
the expression or the language of Scripture, and limit it to the
substance; and others still deny this to both the words and
substance, and limit it to the spirit of the Bible, — as, in rhapsody
over this vague, elusive, fancied discovery, they revel in calling
it, — just because it is vague and vapoury ; — a kind of dim and
misty thing, in which Coleridge revelled, when, because of his love
of vagueness and mystery, instead of definite truth, he made his
futile and unfair attack upon the upholders of the Bible claim,
in his " Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit," long ago exploded,
though repeated still. But it is a vain delusion, and an irrelevant
and self-refuting objection. For the personal element pervades
all Scripture, the spirit as well as the substance, and the
substance as much as the expression. And if the personal or
human element excludes or mars the Divine, or makes the
product a mixture of good and evil, — then all is so, — the spirit as
much as the substance, and the substance as the language.
And who, then, can separate inerrantly the one from the
other — the false from the true — in words, substance, or spirit ?
Or how is it possible to know the substance except through
the expression, or to feel the spirit save through the substance,
by the words ? And if the human can coexist with the Divine
in the spirit of Scripture and not impair its truth or authority,
why not in its substance and expression? As Dr. Westcott
says, " The Letter becomes as perfect as the Spirit " (or, keeping
to our preferred term, as " true "), because " all Scripture is God-
breathed (^coTTvevcTTos)." Hcncc, as Dr. W. Robertson Smith
says, " the substance of all Scripture /V" (not merely '' contahis,'"
which he repudiates) " God's Word." That substance is expressed,
as its spirit is embodied and made known, only and truly in its
IRRELEVANCIES AND DISCREPANCIES 633
whole language ; hence, as Paul by the Spirit says, " Which
things we teach, not in words, which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth." And as all Scripture is God's
Word, because God-breathed — expressing His mind, as man's
words uttered by his breathing expresses his mind, therefore,
every part and passage of Scripture expresses and embodies
God's mind. So Dr. W. Robertson Smith says again, "What is
no part of the record (expression or embodiment) of God's
Word is no part of Scripture." And certainly no one who does
not deny the Divine inspiration of any of the words of Scripture,
or who does not disown that the Holy Spirit's inspiration did
something special to secure the expression of God's Word in the
language in which it is expressed (which would be to deny
inspiration in the Bible sense altogether, and to disown the whole
teaching of Scripture and of Christ upon the specific subject)
can relevantly use any argument that directly or indirecdy assails
the Divine inspiration of the language of Scripture ; for they
simply refute themselves, and assail their own position. Nor
can anyone who holds that God gave the substance of Scripture
by inspiration relevantly urge any arguments against the Bible
claim, or its upholders, that would at all affect its substance ; for
that is inadmissible from them, whatever it might be to others,
and would be self-refutation. And, further, none who believe
in Revelation can consistently use any arguments against the
Bible claim that in anyway tend to question that; for this
would be to stultify themselves, and to assail the position
which they are, equally with us, bound to maintain. And yet
these are the very things that unconsciously have been largely
done by professed believers in Revelation. But they are wholly
irrelevant, and totally inadmissible, from them, whatever they
may be to rationalists and sceptics.
(5) Discrepancies. — Countless alleged discrepancies and seem-
ing contradictions have been charged against Scripture. But it
would be impossible to deal with them all here, or even in
volumes. This has been more or less done in many books.
And they have been largely dealt with above ; and the principles
on which they can be all accounted for and dealt with have
been fully stated, especially in Books HI., V., and VI.; and
others of them are referred to in the Appendix to confirm the
Bible claim. They are mostly trivial, and therefore need not
634 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
occasion concern, because they are only such as might be
expected from the nature and the history of the writings. They
are mostly easily accounted for ; in many cases probable, and in
almost all cases possible, explanations can be offered. In no
case is the possibility of explanation precluded ; — and a possible
explanation is all that is logically needed, — nor, strictly speak-
ing, is even this required, because there are difficulties in every
sphere of knowledge, thought, and life. Besides, when they are
trivial, as they generally are, they are of no weight against
our position of thorough truthfulness, whatever they may be
against absolute inerrancy. Further, as shown, many of the
greatest scholars in all times, on opposite sides of the inerrancy
question, have denied that one demonstrable error has been
made out. And though there were, even inerrantists deny that
Christianity is at stake on the issue ; and only admit that such
would constitute a difficulty to their own doctrine, — to which
all doctrines are open. Besides, they have largely vanished
as knowledge has grown and investigation advanced, which
establishes a probability that all may vanish. And though
others have appeared, it is beyond question that the whole
trend of discovery is to lessen and disperse them ; — as, among
many, Professor Sayce, speaking for archaeology, has said and
proved. And what Professor Ramsay says of historical research,
in the region of his recent investigations, as to the life of
St. Paul in the Acts, might be said generally of the confirma-
tions from history, that while " our information has hitherto been
too scanty to justify us in asserting the absolute and perfect
verisimilitude of the story, yet it is equally certain that no error
has yet deett proved to exist" {The Expositor, vol. ii. 4th series,
p. 2). This testimony is all the more valuable that he went
expecting to find the opposite, till the sheer force' of evidence
constrained this conclusion. So that the whole weight and drift
of historical and archaeological research tend to confirm the
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and even, in many cases, the
minute accuracy of Scripture.
The only other specific class of cases I can refer to here are
connected with the death and resurrection of our Lord, and the
quotations of the O.T. in the N.T. In regard to the latter,
besides what is said before, I shall only say, that the very
adducing these as objections to the Bible claim chiefly reveals
DISCREPANCIES AND EXPLANATIONS 635
the misconceptions of those who urge them. They are based
upon the absurd assumption that quotations must be made
literally; — as if God could not, and must not do, what man can
do and does with his writings — use, adapt, alter, or add to, or
give new meanings and applications to His own earlier Word !
It is a preposterous idea ; — all the more that, as seen, the N.T.
expressly teaches, — and it is one of the strongest proofs of
Divine inspiration, — that often the O.T. writers did not know
the full meaning or scope of their prophecies. The Divine
intent and content often transcended far the human conception ;
as the Divine Giver and Inspirer Himself supremely showed
as "God manifest in the flesh." So that the fact which is the
basis of the objection becomes, when properly grasped, a
confirmation of the Bible claim. Besides, an examination in
detail of the quotations only gives stronger confirmation, as is
well shown, among others, by Dr. Patrick Fairbairn in his
" Herm. Manual." As to the former — of which the inscriptions
on the Cross and the accounts of the resurrection are the chief
— it is sufficient to say : First, although the inscriptions are not
all literally the same, they are all true and identical in meaning ;
and there is no contradiction or even discrepancy, though some
are fuller than others, as is manifest on simple inspection ; and
only wrong preconceptions could have suggested the strange
idea that they touched the Bible claim. Second, as to the
conflicting accounts of the resurrection, it is enough to say that
they have been often shown to be reconcilable in various ways ;
while the differences arising from their fragmentary character
prove their independence, and confirm their truth ; and thus
corroborate the Bible claim. Third, as to both these, and all
connected with the death and resurrection of Christ, every
Christian must believe in the truth and trustworthiness of the
Bible records, and the consequent reconcilability of the various
statements ; because they are radically related to the foundation
and centre of the Christian faith. And the admission of
irreconcilability, and still more the urging of contradictions,
would weaken the evidence and cast doubt upon the reality
of the resurrection, the foundation fact of our faith. Hence,
among others, Huxley avowedly disbelieved the resurrection,
not because of its intrinsic incredibility, but because of the
unsatisfactoriness of the evidence, largely arising from the alleged
636 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
discrepancies. Hence, too, tlie Ritschlians and others hold it
to be non - historical, and gave it no place in their system.
This is more fully shown in the Appendix in minutiae. Let
this further suffice here. To be of any weight, every alleged
discrepancy must — First, be proved to have been in the original
Scripture. Second, that the interpretation given is the only one
true or possible. Third, that the other statements from Scripture
itself, or history, science, philosophy, or other sources, are
proved, and inerrantly interpreted. Fourth, the irreconcilability
must be demonstrated, not only not reconcilable with our present
knowledge, but necessarily and essentially irreconcilable. When
these true conditions are fulfilled, it will be seen how quickly
the discrepancies vanish, how despicable any remaining become,
and how reasonably they can be left unsolved, in the light of the
overwhelming mass and force of the positive evidence.
(6) Misinterpretations.
Many objections to the Bible claim have arisen from wrong
interpretations of Scripture. Some have so misread the Bible as
to bring objections against it from the statements of Job's
friends. But surely this is an obvious creation of objections
where no grounds for any exist. For it is patent on the face of
the book, and its allegorical character, and from the express
words of God at the close, that God did not approve of all they
said to Job, but condemned them for not speaking of God " the
thing that was right " as Job had. Yet the true embodiment of
them by Divine inspiration was useful. Others raise objection
from the Epicurean statements in Ecclesiastes. But, like the case
above, the inspired record of them implies no approval of them,
and is only, by a well-known literary device, for the proper ex-
pression of current Epicurean ideas and ideals, in order to expose
them in contrast with the Divine teaching and ideals summed
up in the grand conclusion of the whole, " Fear God, and keep
His commandments : for this is the whole duty of man." Objec-
tions have been made against the truth that all Scripture is
God's Word, because God-breathed, from the recurrence in
Paul's writings of such phrases as " I speak as a man." In these
he does not mean that what he says is not inspired of God ; but
that he uses men's ways of speaking and reasoning, etc., in order
MISINTERPRETATIONS 6^7
the better to reach and save men ; but all is said and recorded
through the Spirit in the best way to serve the Divine ends.
Similarly, " I speak this by permission, not of commandment "
(i Cor. vii. 6). Here Paul teaches that marriage was always
lawful, but not always, in exceptional circumstances, expedient.
But all this was written through Divine inspiration, and none the
less that it is thus guarded. He does not mean that he was
permitted, but not commanded, to state this, but that what he
said was given to them, not as a commandment, but as a
permission, or better a concession (Kara avyyv wfxrjv), as "by
way of permission " (R. V.). Nor is the distinction between a
counsel from Paul and a command from Christ, but between giving
a commandment and giving a permission or concession as to
marrying or not, in the then trying state of things. Nor was it
distinguishing between what was said by inspiration and what
was not; for both the deliverance on the question, and the
expression of it in Scripture were given by the Spirit. It was
God who granted the permission as a concession, to marry or
not as they judged best ; and by the Spirit Paul wrote this as it
is written, as the Divine settlement of the question. And when
in verses lo, 12 he says, "Unto the married I command, yet not
I but the Lord, — let not the wife depart from her husband. But
to the rest speak I, not the Lord " — he does not mean (as many
have imagined and drawn vast inferences from it opposed to the
Bible claim) that what the Lord said was God's Word of Divine
authority, and that what Paul said alone was merely his own
uninspired opinion. But that, in the one case, our Lord had
given during His earthly ministry an explicit deliverance, and in
the other He had not ; — so that Paul could in the one, but not in
the other, appeal to an express decision of Christ upon the
question. But what Christ had not done, Paul now does in His
name and stead, with full apostolic authority ; and places his
deliverance given by the Holy Spirit on a level with Christ's as to
truth and authority. And when, although he had "no com-
mandment of the Lord," he gives his judgment as one faithful
(ver. 25), that a virgin would be " happier " if she remained un-
married in the existing distress ; and adds, " I think also that I
have the Spirit of God " (ver. 40), he does mean, as has been often
urged as the basis of inferences against the Bible claim, that he
had doubt as to whether he had the Holy Spirit's inspiration in
638 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
giving this judgment. For it would be an alarming revelation,
unsettling the whole foundations of our faith, if the Bible writers
were uncertain as to whether what they wrote was by Divine
inspiration or merely their own opinion. But he means that,
although he had no command from Christ upon this, he gave his
judgment as an inspired apostle, and that he by the Spirit expressed
the mind of Christ. For the " I think" (SokC)) is simply a polite
Greek way of saying " I have," as all authorities teach, and the
usage proves, and it is often used in cases where firm persuasion
and assurance^ are expressed (Gal. 2^, i Cor. 12-^). So that
those passages which have been made so much of against the
Bible claim are simply plain misinterpretations, which leave the
Bible claim untouched, with all the massive proof from positive
evidence.
5. Moral and Spiritual Difficulties and Objections.
Much has been said on these before, and the general prin-
ciples of explaining or dealing with them have been indicated ;
so that the less need be said now. Besides, many of the modes
of removing the difficulties and answering the objections given
above, in the other classes of cases, are applicable here also.
Further, many able works have dealt with ihese,^aa7e princeps
Butler's Analogy ; — which with transcendent ability and unanswer-
able conclusiveness shows, by a comparison of Scripture with
nature and providence, that similar difficulties appear in God's
works to those in God's Word ; and that the truths of Revelation
are confirmed by analogous truths of nature and facts of provi-
dence. So that the manifest and manifold analogies between
the moral and religious teaching of Scripture, and the course and
constitution of nature, serve to show the Word and the works of
God to be related parts of one whole scheme of Divine govern-
ment and revelation, prove the truth, or at least show the
probability — which is the guide of life — of the main truths
objected to in Scripture ; and thus render these objections
invalid, and indeed irrelevant, as directed specially against the
Bible, by any who believe in the existence and moral government
of God. Similarly Dr. Chalmers has shown with his massive
^ See Fawcett, Hodge, Calvin, Whitby, etc., in loco, and specially a
masterly statement by Principal Cunningham, Lectures, pp. 389-400.
MORAL AND SPIRITUAL DIFFICULTIES 639
weight and overpowering eloquence, in his Christian Evidences
and Asffonomical Discourses, etc., that no difficulty has emerged
in theology that had not previously emerged in philosophy, and
how baseless and unscientific many of these objections are ; and
that, in fact, these attacks on the Christian faith had not only
been triumphantly refuted, but that the replies evoked had
disclosed new and unexpected confirmations of the truth of
Scripture, and produced fresh and strong defences of Christianity.
Here again, too, as so often before, we have illustration of the
confusion of thought and looseness of reasoning prevalent in the
objections raised. Many of them are sheer irrelevancies as
against Scripture specially ; for they are, if of any validity,
objections against all equally. Those professed Christians
who urge them against the Bible claim and our position are as
much bound as we are to answer them ; for they hold, if at all,
equally against their own position, and have no special bearing
against our distinctive position in upholding the Bible claim.
Many of the objections to matters mentioned in the Bible are
related to and often rooted in the great mystery of suffering, the
perplexing events of providence, the sufferings of the righteous,
the prosperity of the wicked, the might of wrong, the struggle for
existence, the reign of death, the prevalence of pain and misery,
the continuance of evil, as
" Nature red in tooth and claw
With ravine shriek'd against the creed
That Love is nature's final law."
But surely these are not difficulties peculiar to the Christian
faith, and objections arising from them, or connected with them,
have no special bearing whatever against the Bible claim ! They
are the stern and mysterious facts that surround equally all
theology, philosophy, science, and life ; and which the rationalist,
the sceptic, and even the atheist have equally to face, explain,
and offer a solution of. And the Christian is confessedly the
only solution that even approaches to anything like an adequate
explanation, or that in any satisfying way casts any true or
helpful light upon the profound mystery, or in any really com-
forting measure alleviates the darkness, or irradiates the gloom
Yea, in the Person of the Son of God and the Son of Man
become the Captain of our salvation. He, as the head of a
640 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
renewed humanity, made perfect through suffering, has actually,
by means of suffering, as our Brother-Saviour, made such a
revelation of the righteousness and specially of the love of God
as, without suffering, could never have been made, — aye, sheds
such a blaze of light upon it, by His own unique suffering, as not
only alleviates its gloom and comforts us amid its anguish, by his
Divine-human sympathy, but helps us to endure its pressure,
educe its good, utilise its virtues, and even to transmute its
severest ordeals into enriched character, perfected life, and
eternal glory. And since the Bible does so, it gives us the true
key to the solution, proves its own truth and Divine origin, and
sheds the only satisfying light upon these great mysteries. But
that anyone, and specially anyone believing in Revelation,
should imagine that because these things are found in the Bible
as everywhere else, therefore, the Bible, or the upholders of its
claim, are specially bound to answer any objections, or to remove
any difficulties connected with them, or that they have any
special validity or force as against Scripture, or any particular
view of it, is a strange hallucination. They are, in fact, totally
irrelevant as objections against the Bible claim specially. — Nay
more, so far from these difficulties constituting any objection
peculiar to the Bible claim to truth and Divine origin, they, on
the contrary, are, as Butler has unanswerably reasoned, a proof
or confirmation of these. For since there are difficulties con-
nected with the works of God in nature and providence, the
existence of difficulties also in the Word of God, in our present
limitations, — specially in those things that reach out into infinity
and eternity, and the mysterious region of the interaction of the
human and the Divine will — serves to show that they are akin,
and bear the marks of infinitude and mystery common to all the
revelations of the Creator to the creature. And since to finite
minds they are in all the works of God, the absence of them in
Scripture would raise real difficulties and objections to its being
the Word of God, and constitute the greatest of all difficulties —
the difficulty of having no difficulties, the mystery of having no
mysteries in what came from the Infinite to the finite.
SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 64I
6. Specific Kinds and Examples of Difficulties and
Objections.
Some specific examples of various kinds will suffice to disclose
their origin, and to indicate the principles of their explanation.
One whole class of objections arises from the oveisight of the crude-
ness of the moral ideas and conditions of the times and peoples
to which the earlier revelations were given ; and the consequent
imperfection of these necessitated in the circumstances. If the
revelations were to be truly helpful they must be adapted to the
existing conditions in the successive ages, on the sound principle
necessarily adopted by all wise teachers, emphasised by our Lord
in teaching men as they were able to bear it, — thus leading them
gradually up to higher moral ideals and religious life. The
character of the Revelation was necessarily conditioned by the
moral state and religious conceptions of the age and the people
they came to. So that there was Divine wisdom, even Divine
necessity, in God giving a progressive revelation according as
men were able to bear and to profit by it. This explains the
imperfection of the earlier stages of Revelation, and accounts for
our being staggered at some things in the earlier Scriptures when
looked at from our higher levels. The Hmitations of men's mind
imposed limitations on the revelations of God's will. The over-
looking of this obvious fact and principle explains the rise and
answers many of the objections unreasonably brought against the
Bible ; and the recognition of it removes many of the difficulties.
Similarly \^xong preco?iceptions as to the relation of God to many
of the things recorded in Scripture, accounts for whole classes of
objections urged against the Bible claim : — such as the faults and
sins of its best characters, the crimes and abominations narrated,
and God's using of very faulty, and sometimes even wicked, men
for the highest functions, and the most distinguished services —
such as Abraham and Jacob, David and Peter, Balaam and
Caiaphas, being made organs of Revelation, and channels of bless-
ing. But the sins of the good men are not approved but con-
demned, and dealt with more severely than the sins of others,
just because they are His people. Their secret sins are set in the
light of His face ; and, in striking contrast with other biography,
they are held up with awful truthfulness in the fierce light of
God's burning holiness ; revealing that the Dord is a most holy
41
642 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
God, as well as a gracious Father, who cannot tolerate evil in His
nearest friends or greatest servants. That is the unique glory of
the Revelation and religion of the Bible ; which, so far from dis-
crediting the Bible claim, establishes its truth, and demonstrates
its Divine origin. And the using of faulty, and of even wicked
men, as organs of Revelation, in the one case, makes them the
better fit to be channels of salvation to sinners, and, in the other
case, makes even enemies witnesses to the truth and Divine
origin of God's Word. Besides, bad men have sometimes been
our best teachers, by the burning expressions of their own
experiences — witness Byron, and Napoleon's St. Helena utter-
ances. And, further, were God not to use imperfect and sinful
men, He could not use men at all.
Akin to this are the objections arising from misconceptio7is as
to the interpretation of Scripture ; — it being erroneously imagined
by many that all, and all in, the writings of the Bible are approved
by God, and held up as the standard of moral and religious life.
But this, as seen already, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the
wrong teaching of Job's " miserable comforters," is manifest
misinterpretation. The same may, perhaps, in measure, be
said of what has been misnamed the " Vindictive Psalms."
There are no Psalms deserving such a name, when truly inter-
preted. But while much that has been said against these Psalms
is utterly false, and the baseless errors of those who object to
them, — inasmuch as, to say nothing else, personal revenge cannot
be proved in any of them ; and although what has been urged
against them might, perhaps, be all explained, or at least silenced
as valid objections,- — because those on whom punishment seems
invoked are regarded as the enemies of God and His people, and
express mainly the deep sense of moral wrong perpetrated by
those who shed their righteous blood like water,— as they com-
mitted their cause to Him to whom alone vengeance belongs ; —
yet the Bible claim does not necessarily commit the upholders of
it to every word or sentiment in these Psalms, or other inspired
writings, as right, or sanctioned by God, or a standard for us now
under the climate of the Cross, and the prayer of the Crucified
for His enemies, — though He, too, protested against wrongs done
Him, and said God would avenge His elect (Luke 18^; Rev.
510. ii^_ The Bible, like every book, must be truly interpreted
in every part to find its real meaning ; and that, too, in the light
MISLEADING MISCONCEPTIONS 643
of all its other teaching, before we can be sure that any part ex-
presses the will of God, or is intended as an ideal for us ; and
only when it is so can it be held to be sanctioned by God, or the
Bible claim be open to any objection at all ; yet it is all part of
God's Word, and there by His authority, and through His inspira-
tion, to serve some high or useful moral and spiritual end. It is
often uncertain whether parts of it are in themselves approved or
not, or only quoted, or recorded for some other end of Revelation.
Therefore, true and reverent criticism will in such cases hold
judgment in suspense until the true meaning has been surely
ascertained ; and it is only prejudiced and unjust criticism, bent
on making difficulties, that could in such cases raise objections.
And yet many of those brought against the Bible claim are of
this nature, and are, therefore, no valid objections at all.
Other objections arise from ignorance and presumption, such
as the clamant cry raised against children suffering from the sins
of their ancestors ! And yet this is the principle, on its punitive
side, written by the very finger of God on the tables of stone in
the second commandment. It is the law of nature, made by
nature's God, and lying of necessity in the very constitution of
things among related beings ; so well known to science and ex-
perience as the law of heredity, patent and persistent every day
in every relationship of life ; which only fools shut their eyes to,
and knock their heads against, and, when they have done so, have
the imbecility to charge as an objection special to the Bible, —
v/hich, had it no other, has at least this proof of its truth. This
kind of objection, which, of course, has no validity or even re-
levancy as against the Bible claim in particular, would shut out
the operation of that great beneficent law of being by which the
greatest blessings of providence and grace come to mankind.
For " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of
them that hate Me," is only the obverse side, — the evil con-
sequences— of violation of the great and gracious law of God's
moral government, called by science "heredity" and by theo-
logy " imputation." In virtue of it God, in providence, is ever
" showing mercy unto a thousand generations " (R.V. margin, and
Deut. 7^) "of them that love Me and keep My commandments."
Through it, in grace, "we are justified freely by His grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus " ; and by it " God is in
Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing unto
644 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
men their trespasses" ; for "Justification is an act of God's free
grace, wherein He freely pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth
us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ
imputed to us, and received by faith alone." So that the objec-
tion, if it had any validity, would preclude the principle which
lies at the basis of the world's redemption by a gracious God ! as
also all the blessings of life which come through the principle of
representation ; — though sometimes evil may come through men's
abuse and violation of it, — yet that is not its Divine purpose,
which is wholly good and ever gracious.
Objections to Divine Judgments.
Other whole classes of objections arise from the vai/i imaguia-
tion as to Divhie judgments being morally wrong. On this
baseless basis such events as Samuel hewing Agag the king of
the Amalekites to pieces before the Lord, as he had made many
mothers childless by his wickedness and cruelty : and as his
people had invoked the curse of God upon them by their
enormities and abominations ; and had most wickedly sought
the destruction of God's people, making their harmless way
through the wilderness under the visible leadership of Jehovah
to the land of their fathers, — where they were to be trained to
be the medium of salvation to the world ; and had ever since
sought their destruction by an implacable hatred, — thus wickedly
persisting in seeking to thwart the gracious purposes of Almighty
God. Also Elijah slaying the prophets of Baal who had seduced
Israel into idolatry; and bringing fire from heaven to kill the
soldiers who were sent to drag him to death for his faithfulness
to Jehovah, — though he spared those who begged him to go with
them, and could have destroyed none of them had God not sent
the judgment. Elisha smiting the cruel and marauding Syrians
with blindness when they sought his life as a prophet of God, —
though when he had humbled them he feasted them. Paul's
smiting Elymas with blindness, — though he was "full of all
subtlety and mischief, a child of the devil and the enemy of all
righteousness," who persisted in "perverting the right way of the
Lord," and by his sorcery seduced men to their perdition, and was
caught in the very act of attempting wickedly to turn away the
Roman deputy from the faith, — and though Paul did it " full of
OBJECTIONS TO DIVINE JUDGMENTS 645
the Holy Ghost ! " Peter declaring unto Ananias and Sapphira
that they had lied not unto men merely but unto God, so that
they fell down dead. Our Lord casting the evil spirits out of the
demoniac, and permitting them to go into the swine, though in
mercy to the man, and in judgment on the people for their sin,
designed to lead them to repentance ending in salvation ; and
His cursing the fruitless fig-tree, as a warning to the grace-abusing
Jews. Also such events as the judgment of the Flood, because
the iniquity of mankind was so great that " it repented the Lord that
He had made man"; the destruction of the cities of the plain by fire,
because their sin had come up crying for judgment to heaven ;
the drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts in the Red Sea, when
after long hardening his heart, he pursued God's people to destroy
them ; and the awful destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold with
breaking heart by Jesus, after its long day of grace had ended,
and its sin culminated in the crime of crimes in Christ's rejection
and murder. In regard to these and all such things in Scripture,
suffice it to say, besides what may be said for each of them, as
indicated above, — First, that objections to these and such like
are not peculiar to the O.T., but common to N.T. and Old ; not
only to the prophets and apostles, but also to the Lord Himself.
For He did one of the most objected to, foretold the most terrible
of them, and as the God of providence foreordained and effected
all. And though He delights in mercy, and judgment is His
strange work, and He died to save, and waits to be gracious. He
will yet, when the long day of grace has closed at last and " the
great day of His wrath has come," give a still more awful mani-
festation " of the righteousness of God against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men," when " The Lord Jesus shall be re-
vealed from heaven in flaming fire taking vengeance on all them
that know not God, and obey not the gospel, who shall be
punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord, and the glory of His power, when He shall come to be
glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe."
" And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the
righteous unto life eternal." The revelations of that great judg-
ment day will crown and seal the truth and righteousness of the
past judgments, with the Book that records them ; and the facts
of these support the prospect and show the moral necessity of
that great final judgment. Second, these objections have no
646 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
special bearing against the Bible whatever. For they are facts of
history, and the experience of life, as well as the revelations of
Scripture. If they have any validity at all, the historian, and the
sceptic, and every man is just as much bound to answer them as
the Christian. But the Bible is the only book that sets them in
the proper light in relation to sin and God, and alone reveals the
Divine way of escaping or utilising them. Third, the idea that
the upholders of the Bible claim have any special obligation to
answer the objections based on such a delusion is, therefore, an
obvious absurdity. For, if they have any point at all, it is against
not the Word of God, but against the moral government, and the
very existence of God ; and were these and the Bible gone, the
stern facts remain for all equally, without one beam to cheer the
eternal night.
Expulsion of the Canaanites.
Akin to this, another great outstanding objection, which has
been the big gun, not only of sceptics and rationalists, but of
some evangelical opponents of the Bible claim, is the command
of God to drive out the Canaanites from the promised land. But
what does it amount to after all ? but simply another illustration
of the righteous judgment of God upon tribes whose cup of in-
iquity flowed over, calling loud for judgment upon their crimes and
abominations ; in order to replace them by the people to whom
the God of all the earth had given the land in promise, and in
fact centuries before ; in order that He might train them there to
be the people through whom all the families of the earth should
be blessed, — the people who, through their Bible and their
Christ, have been the hinge, spring, and source of the world's
salvation, and of the moral and religious progress of the race.
That God did command this, and by His power and personal
presence ultimately accomplish this, whatever faults of men may
have mingled with it, are the clearest pervasive testimony of
God's Word, and the surest facts of history. To deny this is
to deny the truth and trustworthiness of the foundation facts of
the whole Bible history, and in which its whole revelations have
their source and substance. The proper conclusion from which
would be to deny the truth and trustworthiness of all history and
all Revelation ; for no other history is better established, and the
EXrULSION OF THE CANAANITES 647
Revelation is in and through the history — the history embodies
and constitutes the Revelation. To admit the truth and re-
liability of the history, or of this first root fact of it, and to say
that what was done was morally wrong, is to say that God com-
manded, and by His power accomplished, what was wrong ! It
means that the whole conception and execution of the primary
and basal movement in the history of Israel and of the world —
from the deliverance out of Egypt till the settlement in Canaan,
with all that followed from it in Bible history down to the coming
of Christ, and the close of the Apocalypse — (for it is all rooted and
involved in the first great movement) — was morally wrong, — which
is a preposterous and blasphemous imagination. If, on the one
hand, the truth of the history and God's relation to it are dis-
credited, then the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible
history are destroyed at its foundations ; and it would be idle
then to inquire what its teaching or revelation is; and the proper
conclusion from that would be to disbelieve all history ! If, on
the other hand, the history is held to be true, or in this root fact
in substance trustworthy, but that what was commanded by God,
and carried out through His power by Israel, was morally wrong
in its first and fundamental movement, of which all the rest was
simply the intended outcome, — then, the history of Israel was
rooted in wrong, and the religion of Israel founded in unrighteous-
ness, and the God of Israel impossible as an object of worship.
" And there's an end on't." But if the history is true, as true it
is, if ever history was ; and if the whole Divine movement from
the call of Abraham, and the deliverance from Egypt, to the
settlement in Canaan, and the coming of Christ to be the Saviour
of the world, was a movement of Divine grace by a God of love
and holiness, through a people chosen and fitted for such a great
and gracious end, — as it surely was, if ever such a movement was
on earth, — then the settlement of the chosen people in the chosen
land for this grand moral experiment, and the better fulfilling of
this gracious spiritual function for mankind, by clearing out the
idolatrous races whose abominations had polluted the land, when
the cup of their iniquities was more than full, — so far as that was
necessary to these high ends, — was not only a righteous, but a
gracious movement for the highest good of all people. It was
love marching through righteousness and mercy to salvation.
And even the judgment that overtook the tribes replaced was
648 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
only the righteous punishment demanded by their sins and
abominations, on the principles of God's moral government, as
exhibited in the judgments ever overtaking men and nations that
persist in wickedness and despise grace. It is writ large in human
history in letters of blood and fire in such dread destructions as
the Flood, Sodom, Egypt and the Red Sea, Nineveh and Babylon,
Tyre and Sidon, Chorazin and Capernaum, Jerusalem ; and will
yet be more awfully manifested in the final judgment of the great
and terrible day of the Lord, when " the wicked shall be turned
into hell, and all the nations that forget God." Of all these
the Saviour of the world Himself spoke with such awfulness
in tears, as the inevitable doom of all who persist in sin and
despise mercy. So that it is with Him finally all objectors have
to deal about these facts of history, which are the righteous
judgments of God. Even Ingersoll admits that the God of the
O.T. is like the God of nature now.
But it is a curious inconsistency in Sceptics to object to
these things being recorded in the Bible without feeling bound
to explain them in history, or to account for them in life; —
especially as they are the outcome of the laws of nature, and
are the principles that unquestionably govern the world to-day.
It is a strange delusion that any rationalist who believes in
God and a moral government should imagine that any believer
in Revelation was more bound to answer any objections made to
such facts than he is himself, for they apply equally, if at all, to
his own view. It is a remarkable confusion that any Christian
should condemn the conquest of Canaan while approving, as
many rightly did, the conquest of the Soudan at enormous sacri-
fice of life, and many other conquests by Christian nations in
our day ; for the sins and crimes of the Canaanites were immeasur-
ably worse than those of the Madhi and his followers — bad
though they were ; — and the benefits of British rule in the
Soudan, great though they will doubtless be, are not to be
compared with the blessings, temporal and eternal to the world,
that came through the settlement of Israel in Canaan. And it
is an amazing absurdity that any evangelical errorist should dream
that the upholders of the Bible claim are specially bound to
answer objections to the expulsion of the Canaanites, when they
as well as we are equally bound to answer any such objections ;
for they apply to the root, basis, and substance of all Scrip-
TEMPTATION AND OBJECTIONS 649
tures and Revelation, and when they are really not valid objections
at all, either to Scripture or history, nature or providence !
Only one other class of objections will we refer to here — those
arising from confusions and assumptions as to temptation ; in such
cases as God being said to tempt Abraham, etc., an evil spirit
from the Lord coming on Saul, lying prophets deceiving ungodly
kings, etc., to their ruin, the hardening of men's hearts, the tempta-
tion of Adam and of Christ, and even the existence of temptation
at all. Some of these are only distantly related to the defence of
the Bible claim, and none of them apply specially to our position,
but apply, if at all, equally to all who believe in the Bible or
God. Let it suffice to say — First. That God never tempts to evil,
but seeks to test, to exercise our moral nature, and to perfect
thereby. Second. When evil spirits are said to come from God,
or lying prophets of their own to ungodly and disobedient men, it
is in judgment for sin and misuse of grace ; and usually means
permission given to evil spirits, lying prophets, or their own evil
passions to deceive and afflict them. They are left to themselves,
and their own evil hearts, and all evil influences and powers, in
judgment. So similarly when God is said to harden men's
hearts, like Pharaoh ; — the words used about him being most
significant, the emphasis, in the early stages, being laid on
Pharaoh's self-hardening, and in the later stages, when mercy's
strivings have passed into judgment, it is laid on God's part in the
hardening — that is, in withdrawing His grace, — and leaving him
alone to the obdurating effects and tendencies of his own evil
heart, and long, wilful resistance of the mercy and grace of
God, — together with all other hardening influences and powers,
till at length he was hardened to destruction. Third. Tempta-
tion was not an evil but a good, as designed by God, and when
properly used by man. It may become a curse by our yielding
to it, but it was meant to be a blessing ; and when we resist and
overcome it, our moral nature is developed, and our character
perfected, by it ; and we rise to ever ascending moral levels, till at
length we, by temptation, are made perfect. Hence the history
of sinless but imperfect man began in temptation in Eden, with a
view to, and as the means of his perfectation. And the public
history of the Son of Man began in a desert with a devil ; and by
that struggle, in which He overcame, He, too, was developed
morally and spiritually. So through all His life of trial and
650 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
suffering, which was all temptation, He was being perfected, till
at length, by His agony in the Garden, and His anguish on the
Cross — which were His severest temptations and His crowning
perfectations — He, as the Son, our Brother, " learned obedience
by the things that He suffered," and as the " Captain of our
Salvation, was made perfect through suffering." And, having
been "tempted in all things like as we are, yet without sin,"
He, because He overcame temptation, became the Author of
eternal salvation to all them that obey Him, and follow Him
in utilising temptation for perfectation, and transmitting suffering
into glory. So that temptation is a gift of God, and a means of
grace, — a ladder by which we, utilising it for its Divine intent, may
rise from imperfection to perfection, through suffering to glory.
And all objections to it are, therefore, based on error as to the
purpose and value of temptation.
General Conclusion.
This book has thus dealt with all the chief kinds and classes
of difficulties and objections to the Bible claim, as well as with
the leading specific objections ; and others are dealt with in the
Appendix. It proves how largely they arise from the misconcep-
tions and preconceptions, mistakes and confusions of those who
charge the Bible with their own errors. It shows how baseless
they often are, how largely they vanish before proper interpreta-
tion, how easily hosts of them can be explained, how trivial they
mostly are, and how despicable they often become. It states the
way in which they can be accounted for, the principles on which
they may be explained, the methods by which they may mostly
be removed, and the grounds on which they may be answered,
or reasonably left unsolved. As seen, there are difficulties con-
nected with, and plausible objections to, the truths and facts in
every sphere of knowledge, action, and experience, arising from
our means of knowledge, the limitations of our powers, and
the greatness and often mysteriousness of the subjects to finite
minds. And since these are found everywhere, in nature and
providence, in science and philosophy, in all life and experience,
if they are also found in Scripture it is only what we should
expect, if it is the Word of God. Yea, we should wonder were
there no difficulties or mysteries in anything coming from infinite
PREVALENCE AND USES OF DIFFICULTIES 651
God to finite man, and be disposed to question its Divine origin
were it not in this like His other works. Its very difficulties
show its Divinity, and the absence of difficulties would be a real
difficulty, and the ground of more plausible objection than those
made from its difficulties. Many of the difficulties and objections
raised have only brought additional confirmations. And what-
ever may be the explanation of any remaining difficulties, besides
those in the very nature of the subjects, they leave untouched
and untouchable the whole positive evidence, which is the only
proper evidence. In Scripture, as in every other region of
knowledge, we must go by this, and refuse to be deterred from
believing and acting on truths proved by their own proper
evidence,^ — leaving any difficulties to be solved by fuller know-
ledge, or reasonably left unsolved if need be, till fuller light
comes. If we were not to believe anything till it was entirely
free of difficulty, or plausible objection, then we should believe
nothing. The prime truth of Science — universal gravitation — is
not yet free of difficulty. And the first truth in religion — God is
love — is by no means free of difficulty ; and plausible objections
have been urged against it from terrible and staggering things in
nature, providence, and life. So, also, in almost every truth in
both. But reasonable men are not by these kept from believing
in gravitation, or in God ; and why, then, should they in believing
the Bible claim when, like these, it is established on its own
proper evidence ? No ! difficulties must be there, from the
nature of the case. Difficulties are there by the purpose of
God. For they serve high ends for the good of men. They
show us our ignorance, and reveal our limitations. They teach
us humility, and train us in patience. They stimulate us to
study, and lead us to new truths. They give fuller knowledge of
God in Christ, and deeper experience of eternal life. They try
our faith, and trying strengthen it. They test our character, by
God giving sufficient light for all that is necessary to salvation
and guidance in life, and growth in grace, if only we will walk
in it ; but they leave sufficient darkness to stumble over, if we
will stumble, and refuse to follow the hght; so that they thus
prove a moral test by which we may rise to higher moral levels,
and greater spiritual attainments. They discipline our life, and
lead us to a more entire dependence upon God, in Bible study
as in everything else ; and they keep us waiting on the Lord
652 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
" till the day dawn and the day star arise in our hearts." Thus
the Bible difficulties are blessings in disguise.
But if our opponents will magnify difticulties and multiply
objections, then, how strange and self-contradictory that they
entirely overlook the infinitely greater difficulties of their own
systems and theories ; and that they never seem to imagine that
they have anything to do with removing the insuperable difficulties
of their own theories. In fact they are all difficulties and objections
together ; and therefore, on their own principles, these difficulties
should be incomparably more fatal to their owai views. Let the
sceptic only face the overwhelming difficulties and unanswerable
objections to scepticism in the light of the whole evidences of
Christianity, even as outlined above, and he may well see how
hopeless is the task he has, on his own principle of making so
much of difficulties ; as he is bound satisfactorily to answer every
one of them, for each of them constitutes a difficulty to his unbelief,
nor can he answer or remove any one of them. — Let the ration-
alist similarly face and answer all the difficulties and objections
to his rationalism, which every line and particle of the whole
massive evidence for Divine Revelation constitute to his irra-
tional system ; and he, too, may well abandon the attempt in
despair, for he is simply buried under overwhelming difficulties.
And, finally, especially let the errorists, who teach the indefinite
erroneousness of Scripture, only face all the vast array and sterling
character of all the evidence and argument even in this work, and
he also may be pardoned if the very thought of it paralyses him,
and arrests his attempt ; for every item of the evidence, as proved
before, constitutes an incomparably greater difficulty to his vague
and vapoury theories, than any number of alleged discrepancies
does to the Bible claim ; because every item of it is proper positive
evidence ; but his alleged discrepancies are no proper evidence at
all, and form no real difficulty or valid objection to the Bible
claim, — especially as against our guarded and impregnable middle
position.
Concluding Explanations.
In closing this book, I am wishful by a final statement to
avoid misconception as to the precise position held, and to state
carefully what seems to be the true doctrine of Holy Scripture
as taught by Christ and His apostles and prophets, through the
CONCLUDING EXPLANATIONS 653
Holy Spirit. I have repeatedly emphasised above that I do not
commit myself to what has been called "absolute inerrancy,"
and have urged strongly the unwisdom of staking the Christian
faith upon that theory. Yet I have also, specially in Book V.,
referred to what seems to favour it, and shown what it can say
for itself and the defence of Christianity against Scepticism ;
and how much stronger it is apologetically than the theory of
" indefinite erroneousness." This two-sided treatment of it may
seem to some inconsistent, or unwise, and others may think I
should either adopt or reject it. But in reply and explanation,
it may be said — First. That no one is required logically to either
adopt or reject it ; we may reasonably decline to do either, from
lack of evidence, or hesitation as to its absolute decisiveness, or
from feeling the unwisdom of staking such momentous issues
upon theories about which there was any possibility of question.
Second. With the vast majority of the best Biblical scholarship
of the world in all ages, as seen, I am not satisfied it has been
disproved, when it is held of the original Scriptures, truly inter-
preted ; — ^even leading writers on opposite sides of the question
of Bible infallibility maintaining that no " demonstrable error "
has yet been proved beyond dispute, or possibiUty of removal by
fuller knowledge. And, with many of the first scholars of the
day, in full view of all the alleged errors and objections urged, I
still think that the balance of probability is against the errorists,
and lies with those who, like Bishop Westcott and Principal
Rainy, etc., still retain the view that, if we knew all, the remaining
difficulties and discrepancies would probably vanish, as so many
have done. Third. Yet there may be room for doubt whether
any evidence seeming to favour " absolute inerrancy " so proves
it to be the Bible claim as to preclude every other view less
absolute than that ; and, in any case, since it may be and is a
matter of doubtful disputation, it is most unwise to stake the
Christian faith upon it, or to make it an essential matter of faith.
Fourth. But if the evidence may not indisputably prove
"absolute inerrancy," it does demonstrate at least that the
Bible claims to be the Word of God — true, trustworthy, and
of Divine authority. Therefore, we take our stand on this as
the unquestionable teaching of Scripture as to itself; and as the
sure, and immovable ground for the defence of Christianity
against all unbelief Fifth. It is but just and right that,
654 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
when declining to adopt, or to be committed to, "absolute
inerrancy," whatever may be said for it should be fully and
fairly recognised. Sixth. We do not deem it unwise to have
urged for it what has been urged apologetically, as compared
with "indefinite erroneousness," in defence of the Christian
faith, from that position ; for if it has been able to defend itself
so long, and if such a defence as has been outlined can be made
from even that outmost position, it tends to show how strong
and impregnable our more guarded and less advanced position
is ; so that it thus becomes a valuable outpost.
Similarly, if it should seem that any of the evidence adduced
supports or seems to favour inerrancy or infallibility, then, I have
no objection, so long as it is the true interpretation of Scripture,
or cannot be shown to be forced ; for if it seems to prove more
than I choose to claim, and to go farther than the position I
take my stand upon, then, this only strengthens mine the more,
and proves that this at least is sure. If it supports the outpost,
how much more the citadel ?
The true Bible Doctrine of Holy Scripture.
This leads to the statement of the doctrine of Holy Scripture.
This has been often stated in various forms ; and the evidence
itself is the best statement, as well as the proof, of it ; and it is
only when the full evidence and the whole facts connected with
it are seen and duly appreciated that the complete statement is
given and realised. We have usually expressed it concisely that
the Bible is the Word of God — true, trustworthy, and of Divine
authority, and the Divine rule of faith and life, as originally
given and when truly interpreted ; or that the Bible is the Word
of God, of infallible truth and Divine authority in all its teaching,
and the Divine rule of faith and life. It is so in all its teach-
ing, and not merely in its teaching on faith and life, — though,
as the Westminster Shorter Catechism truly states, this is what
"the ^cx'v^Xmx&s principally teach." We say it is true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority in all it teaches — whether principal or
subordinate, when it, as originally given, is truly interpreted,
and surely ascertained. All of it, too, more or less, in some way
or other, affects, and may affect, faith and life ; because, as the
Holy Spirit, its Divine Author, says, through Paul, as also through
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 655
Christ and all the apostles and prophets, " all Scripture is God-
breathed (OeoTTveva-Tos), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This was the
purpose for which it was given by God, and every part of it
contributes, or may contribute, in some way and measure to this
end ; and no part of it mars or fails to serve this end. It is all
profitable, and no part of it is useless, or superfluous ; as itself
teaches, and Bible Scholarship and Christian experience are
proving more and more, unto the perfect day. Every element,
item, and expression here used has been proved fully by the
evidence from the Bible itself, and corroborated by other evi-
dence. As seen, the expression "the Word of God," with its
equivalents in many diverse forms, is used in Scripture, both of
the spoken and the Written Word ; and it is also used, with its
equivalents, by the Christian Church from the beginning ; and
is found freely in the writings of the Christian Fathers, and the
Creeds of Christendom from the days of the apostles until now.
All the qualities attributed to it are also proved ; as well as the
Divine purpose for which it was all given — even to be the sure
and sufficient rule of faith and life.
Views of the Reformers and Dr. W. Robertson Smith.
In various forms, essentially the same doctrine has been
taught. Calvin says : " The Word itself, however it is prese7ited
to us, is like a mirror in which faith beholds God " {hist. in.
ii. 6) ; where the word " presented " implies that the Bible is
God's Word, for it is only when it is " presented " that we know
it, or that it becomes His Word to us : and the figure of a mirror
used shows it is true and trustworthy, unsoiled and unbroken,
clear and transparent — a true, God-made mirror, of Himself and
His love to us. Dr. W. Robertson Smith often called the
Bible the Word of God, and attributed infallible truth and
Divine authority to it; and said that it was the infallible and
authoritative rule of faith and life. The name, purpose, and the
attributes are frequently used in his writings, as they were in
his teaching and speeches. He, also, said the Scripture records
or "conveys" the Word of God, and is the "record" of God's
Word or will, and the " declaration of what was in God's heart " in
regard to us. "Since Scripture has no other end than to convey
656 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
to us a message, which when accompanied by the inner witness of
the Spirit, manifests itself as the infalUble Word of God, we may
for practical purposes say that Scripture is the infallible Word of
God." And that " message " is expressed in the words of Scrip-
ture as it is written, just as the words of a telegraphic message
" present," " convey," or, as we have saidj express and embody,
yea form, and, to us constitute and are the message. So that
when he used these words he meant in effect the same as in the
other forms. He repudiated, as shown, the modern Broad
Church error, that the Bible merely " contains " the Word of
God — " that one part of the Bible is the Word of God, and
another part is the word of man" — that besides the Word of
God, it contains an indefinite number of other things not God's
Word : and he maintained, on the contrary, that "the substance
of a// Scripture is God's Word. What is not part of the record
of God's Word is no part of Scripture." And by the " substance "
he meant the whole substance, as it is expressed in Scripture.
By the " record " he meant the whole record ; and that it was all
true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority. " So long as we go
to Scripture, only to find in it God and His redeeming love
mirrored before the eyes of faith, we may rest assured that we
shall find living, self-evidencing, infallible truth in every part of
it, and that we shall find nothing else." So John uses the word
" record." " He that believeth not God hath made Him a liar ;
because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son "
(i John 5^*^), — which is the strongest possible way of stating its
Divine truth and authority. He was also wont to say that the
voice of God drawing near to us as a gracious Father could
be heard in every part of Scripture ; and that directly or in-
directly every part of it affected faith and life, and had some
bearing on our salvation, — its chief end. " If I am' asked why I
receive Scripture as the Word of God, and as the only perfect
rule of faith and life, I answer with all the Fathers of the Protestant
Church, Because the Bible is the only record of the redeetning love
of God, because in the Bible alone I find God drawing near to
man in Jesus Christ, and declaring to us in Him His will for our
salvation. And this record I knoiv to be true by the witness of His
Spirit ill my heart, whereby I am assured that none other than
God Himself is able to speak such words to my soul" Like all
Scripture teachers, too, he attributes all this to the inspiration
ALL SCRIPTURE GOD'S WORD 657
of the Holy Spirit, quoting with approval Calvin's Commentary
on 2 Tim. 3^^', " This is the principle which distinguishes our
religion from all others, that we know God has spoken to us,
and are assuredly persuaded that the prophets spake not their
own sense, but as they ^vere organs of the Holy Spirit, uttered
only ivhat ivas give?i them from heaven J^ ^
We have emphasised Dr. W. Robertson Smith's teaching on
Scripture, because of his unique Biblical scholarship — speci-
ally in O.T. and Semitic literature ; and because it supports and
helps to state the doctrine of Scripture sought to be set forth
here, and contains all the elements and essential points of it ;
specially from the side of the Bible as the revelation of God's
will for our salvation, and of the writers as the organs of the
Holy Spirit. We have throughout laid special emphasis on this
in proof that the Bible is the Word of God ; and in refutation
of all views tending to put the Bible writers, and the teaching of
Christ, in antithesis or antagonism, — urging often that this was pre-
cluded by the fact that the Holy Spirit was the One Supreme
Teacher, who by His supernatural inspiration spake and taught
in and through them all in everything they spoke or wrote for
God ; and that only this can account for the unity, amid the
diversity, and the independence of Scripture, and the progress-
iveness of Revelation. I have, however, emphasised not only
Revelation and the inspiration of the writers, but also, and
specifically, the inspiration of the writings, as the Bible does
(2 Tim. 315- 16) • hence it becomes "The Word of God written,"
as the Westminster Confession well puts it. That the Bible
"presents," or "conveys," the Revelation of God's will for our
salvation, and was inspired to do so with infallible truth and
Divine authority, and does so " in every part," we have also urged ;
and have no objection to this form of expression properly under-
stood. But we have mostly chosen to say that Scripture expresses,
embodies, and, to us, fo7-ms this Revelation ; and that the whole
1 Dr. W. Robertson Smith's doctrine of Scripture may be more fully seen
in his published writings— specially the O. T. in the fewish Church ; his
Answers ; his Speeches— specially in General Assembly, 1878 (Blue Book) ;
his What History teaches Jis to seek in the Bible. Also in Dr. Lindsay's
article in the Expositor, Dec. 1S94, and in the Note Books of the students
who were so fortunate as to enjoy his rare teaching, and wise enough to
record it.
42
658 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
Bible does so, and that God speaks to us the message of His
grace, and makes this revelation of Himself, with truth and
authority, in and through everj' part and passage of it. It is the
Revelation or Word of God to us only when it is expressed,
whether it be by speech, or Scripture, sign, or symbol. Until it
is expressed or embodied, it is like a soul without a body — an
unembodied spirit, to us unknowable and practically non-existent.
All Scripture is the Word of God, and the Word of
Man. The Thoughts and the \V^ords are God-
breathed, through inspired Men.
Hence the Bible is the expression or embodiment of God's
will, or self-revelation. As the Incarnate Word is " the brightness
of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person," so
the Written Word is in less perfect form and measure. And as
man's words, where uttered or written, express or embody his
mind and will, so the Bible does God's will. God's will becomes
God's Word to us whefi it is expressed. The Bible is thus the
Word of God, true, trustworthy and of Divine authority ; it is so
in all parts and things, small and great, in all it teaches, and as it
is expressed. We disown the expression " verbal inspiration,"
because it has been abused, and is used in different senses, and
to many means dictation, which we have utterly repudiated;
and this was never taught in its usual sense by any intelligent
upholder of the Bible claim. But while we disown this, we hold
that the words of Scripture are not merely the words of man,
but also the words of God — the Spirit's inspired words, as well as
the writer's spontaneous words. The Holy Spirit had much to
do with the expression of the Revelation as well as with the
communication of it, with the words as with the thoughts ; — as
Paul expressly says, " which things we teach not in words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,
combining spiritual words with spiritual things." In fact, as
shown, we must believe this, or reject the whole claim and
teaching of Scripture, and of Christ and His apostles, upon this
prime root-question ; for they not only claim to speak and write
the word of the Lord — the words of God, as the Spirit gave them
utterance — but they found great truths and arguments on single
words of it; and Christ most absolutely declares that "Scripture
GOD'S HEART IN THE BIBLE WORDS 659
cannot be broken," and that till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle of it shall in nowise pass or fail till all be fulfilled.
Besides, there is a natural and necessary connection between in-
spired thoughts and inspired words ; and it is impossible to separate
them widiout destroying both. By the very nature of our mental
being, thoughts are united to words as soul to body. We think
in words, and they are as needful to the conception as to the
communication of our ideas. There is indeed by the laws of
our thinking, a natural adaptation of words to thoughts, and
ideas spontaneously seek embodiment in fitting words. And in
spiritual things revealed by the Spirit there is both a natural
and a supernatural clothing and combining of spiritual thoughts
with spiritual words, by the inspiration of the same Spirit Who
revealed them, as Paul says. In the revelation of God to man,
the language of man becomes part of the revelation of God.
The human words become the Spirit-inspired vehicle and em-
bodiment of the Divine thoughts.
Words and Details best reveal God's Heart.
Dr. Westcott and the Reformers.
Further, the peculiarities of the individual writers become
part of the Divine message — the Spirit-breathed expression of
the portion of God's Revelation which each was by nature fitted,
and by grace chosen, to convey and embody. As Dr. Westcott
well says, " It would be easy tp prove that there is no singularity
in expression or detail, no trait of individual feeling or concep-
tion in the Gospels which does not in some one place greatly
affect our notion of Christ's teaching," ^ — aye, I should say, and
of Christ Himself. As Origen said long ago, " Every word of
it, if only it be rightly viewed, effects a special purpose ; for
Revelation is not a vain thing for us ; it is our life." Similarly
Dr. Thomas Lindsay, giving the views of the Reformers, specially
of Luther, says, "The simplest Bible stories, and even geo-
graphical and architectural descriptions, may and do give us
the sidelights necessary to complete the manifestation of God to
His people." " No detail of individual or national life is useless.
Everything helps to fill in the picture of fellowship between God
and His people, and which can come true in our experience if
^ Iiitroduclion to the Gospels, p. 24.
660 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
we have the same faith which these holy men of God had. The
value of the whole Bible lies in the fact that directly or indirectly
every part serves to convey to us an infallible declaration of the
saving will of God."^ The Reformers gloried in the truth that
the Bible brought God near to us as a redeeming God, speaking
to us through it in love. Calvin delighted in the idea that Scrip-
ture was a clear mirror in which faith beholds God drawing near
to us in grace, to lead us into fellowship with Himself; and
said that " we can no more separate faith from Scripture than the
rays of light from the sun." And Luther revelled in the fact
that the words of Scripture are the best means of revealing the
heart of God to us ; and that in them we hear the speech, and
feel the love-throbs of our gracious Father's heart. And if they
are to do this truly and adequately, they must themselves be
true, spiritual, and Divine words, properly expressing God's heart,
through the Spirit's inspiration. So that in this sense, as Dr.
Westcott says, " The letter becomes as perfect as the spirit," or
at least the inspired words become as true, suitable, and necessary
for the expression of the spirit and the substance as for the con-
ception of the Divine message. All the more is this so, that
the words, as often said above, are the embodiment of the spirit,
the language the expression of the thought, and the words alone
reveal, convey, embody the substance, and make it known to us.
We know nothing of the spirit, the substance, or the message
except in and through the words. If the words are untrue,
or unreliable, or inadequate, so, then, of necessity must our
knowledge be of what was meant to be made known ; — to
us it exists only when it is expressed, and ivholly as it is ex-
pressed. As in a telegraphic message, so in the Divine Message,
the words form, embody, constitute, and are the message to us.
We are, therefore, absolutely shut up to the words of Scripture
for our whole knowledge and conceptions of the message and
the salvation of God. It is, therefore, a patent impossiblity to
separate the inspired thoughts from the inspired words ; and it
is a palpable delusion to imagine that we can know anything
truly of the Divine message, except through, and as it is expressed,
embodied, and exists in, the Divinely-inspired words.
^ Expositor, Octoljer 1894, pp. 247, 252, 260.
THE DIVINE MESSAGE IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE 66l
The Divine Message is the inspired Expression of
INSPIRED Human Experience and Conception.
Nay more, the Divine message itself is largely the expression
of God-given human experience, in which God through it led the
inspired person into such a knowledge of Himself and of His
will, truth, and grace as was fitted and designed to become, and
was meant to be, a permanent part of the substance of the Divine
message to men. The inspired writers not only received Divine
revelations, but they were Divinely led into spiritual experience
by which they received, appropriated, and lived by the revelation
themselves, and by which they were taught and intended to com-
municate it to others. And the Holy Spirit, Who through this
experience gave them this revelation, by His inspiration also
moved and inspired them to express and embody it in Scripture,
as it is expressed, to be His gracious message to men. This is
true specially of the Psalms and the Prophets, the Gospels and
the Epistles, and much else of O.T. and N.T. It is the personal
experience of the men of God in God's manifestation of Himself
to them, in their fellowship with Him, by which they came to
know Him and His will for our salvation. It is a part taken
out of the life and spiritual experience of holy men of God in
their intercourse with God, by which they learned these revela-
tions experimentally through their life experience of Him ; and
who not only spake but learned as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost; and taught them in speech and writing, "not in
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth," expressing spiritual things in spiritual words. Such
experience naturally sought embodiment in language akin, and
tends to create fitting expression for itself. But in these cases
the natural was supplemented by the supernatural inspiration of
the Spirit, both to enable them to get a proper apprehension of
the revelation meant to be given them through the experience,
and to express the same in the Divine message as God wished it.
So that in these chief portions of Scripture we have a revelation
not only of the heart of God, but also of the heart of men in their
intercourse with God. It is embodied as it is by the co-opera-
tion of God and man through the Spirit, in order that we may
through similar experience, by the teaching of the same Spirit,
come to a similar knowledge of God in Christ, and experimentally
662 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
know the great salvation, and enter into the Divine fulness of the
life eternal more and more unto the perfect day.
The Final Statement. The Bible is the combined
Product of God and Man through the Holy Spirit.
And the whole of Scripture comes to us as it was conceived
by man, as revealed by God, — the Divine thoughts being con-
veyed to us through the human conceptions, and both the
conception and the expression being the product of the co-
operation of God and man through the Spirit. So that it is
all Divine, and all human ; so perfectly human because so truly
Divine, so really Divine because so truly human. For here God
and man are akin, and in combination ; — God's manifestation
combining with man's experience through the Spirit's inspiration,
in producing the Bible ; and making it in veritable fact, the true
word of man, and the real Word of God. As in the Incarnate
Word, which is the highest and most perfect form of the union
of the Divine and the human, so in the Written Word, the Divine
and the human are so combined in one unique Spirit-made
unity that it is impossible to separate them, as it is irreverent
to attempt it. It combines true Divinity with perfect humanity,
thorough truthfulness with Divine authority ; and every part and
word of it is both human and Divine in one indissoluble union.
It is instinct with the life and love of God and man that we by
it may live and love as son of God and brother of man. And
throughout every portion and expression of it, we may hear the
voice and heart of our Father— God speaking through the voice
and heart of our brother-man the gracious message of a Father's
love. Its inspiration is, like the incarnation, the work of the
Holy Ghost : and it is the image and prefiguration of Christ, as
He is its substance and fulfilment. It is in every part and fibre
the message of love Divine and life eternal ; because it reveals
Him Who is "the true God and eternal life." Hence how
sacred the obligation to keep it inviolate and inviolable, in every
part and point, as the Word of the Lord that liveth and abideth
for ever, against all assailants and disintegrators of it ; as He did
when He declared, as its Author, End, and FulfiUer, with such
majestic absoluteness, that heaven and earth should pass away,
but one jot or one tittle of it shall in nowise pass or fail till all
THE BIBLE THE BRODUCT OF GOD AND MAN 66t,
shall be fulfilled. And hence what new emphasis, significance,
and obligation are given to His significant and gracious com-
mand about it, " Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye
have eternal life : and they are they that testify of Me." It is as
Origen and Origen's Lord and ours profoundly said, "// is our
life " ; because it brings us into the full knowledge and personal
experience of Him " Whom to know is life eternal."
As in the Incarnate Word there dwelleth all the fulness of
Godhead bodily, so that every believing soul may by faith,
through the Spirit, in Him know, participate in, and possess that
Divine fulness more and more to the supply of all our spiritual
needs, and the full development of our spiritual being, till we
" grow up in Him through the knowledge of the Son of God
into a perfect man, into the measure of the stature of the fulness
of Christ, and are filled with all the fulness of God." So in the
Written Word there dwelleth for us the revelation of the infinite
fulness of the light and love, of the grace and truth of God in
Jesus Christ, — the unsearchable riches of Christ ; which by faith
and the teaching of the same Spirit Who inspired it, and filled
Him, we may know God in Christ, and enter into the Divine ful-
ness of grace and truth which it pleased the Father should dwell
in Him for us, and experience the life more and more abundantly
unto the perfect day. For it is through the Written Word alone
that we can know the Incarnate Word, or the will and grace of
God for our salvation. What the eye is to the man, — disclosing
all the glories of the visible world, and what the telescope and
microscope are to the Scientist — revealing all the marvels of matter
and life in the unseen universe — , the Bible is to the spiritual man
revealing all the infinitudes of life, and truth, and love in the
spiritual universe, of which Godhead is the fountain, and the
Incarnate Word is the Divine-human centre as our Brother-
God. Like Christ, who is its Author, theme, and end, the Bible,
because filled with Him, has exhaustless fulness, perennial fresh-
ness, everlasting newness. Every true believer finds something
in it that no other found. Every living Christian is daily dis-
covering new treasures of grace and truth in it. Every new age
finds treasures in it for itself suited to its peculiar needs, con-
ditions, and problems, which no other found, — the varying ex-
periences of the advancing ages disclosing its undiscovered riches
and Divine fulness. Newborn nations arising have found
664 DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS
meanings and applications in it unknown till their experience
unfolded them. Arising with its healing light on long benighted
races and peoples, they have discovered in its unsearched riches
what no others did, according to their peculiar mental character
and experience. And so on will progress in the knowledge and
experience of its infinite depths of grace and truth go, as, through
the night of doubt and sorrow, the Church of the living God is
led by the providence of God, and the teaching of the Spirit of
God, into the meaning of the Word of God, till the day dawn,
and the day-star arise in our hearts amid the full blaze of the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ in all the glory of His appearing. Then, but not till then,
will the Written Word vanish in the light of the Eternal Word,
as fades the morning star into the glory of the noonday sun.
This, then, is what we hold to be the true Bible doctrine of
Holy Scripture. And it is because the Bible is all this and
infinitely more, that we have in this book been constrained to
defend and uphold it against the countless, ceaseless attempts
being made in our time by sceptics, rationalists, Broad Church-
men, and even Evangelical Christian errorists, whose bold theories
and false speculations tend to discredit, disintegrate, and destroy
the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of both
the Written and the Incarnate Word of God ; for, as proved,
they stand or fall together. Our answer, then, to the great and
grave questions asked by the title, " Is Christ Infallible and the
Bible True ? " is that the Bible is true, because Christ is in-
faUible; and He who is "The Truth" and the faithful and true
Witness declares it to be true. The Bible, then, is the Word
of God — true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority, and the
Divine rule of faith and life ; or the Bible is the Word of God,
of infallible truth and Divine authority, iti all it teaches, and the
Divine rule of faith and life. It claims that "All Scripture is
God-breathed " (^eoTrj/cvo-Tos), and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every
good work." And Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, attests
and seals that claim in the name of Godhead in His own solemn
and majestic words : " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
My words shall not pass away."
APPENDIX
A 1^ P E N D I X
NOTES, ILLUSTRATIONS, AND CONFIRMATIONS.
BOOK I.
Note i. — Many modern writers and schools, referred to in this and
the other books, in their admirable enthusiasm for the teaching of
Jesus, teach and insist that it is the supreme and only infallible and
Divinely-authoritative standard of faith and life ; and that by it must
be tested and judged the teaching of all the prophets and apostles.
The upholders of the Bible claim need not, should not, and do not
cjualify but glory in magnifying His teaching, so far as He magnifies
it, as we have urged ; for it is on Him and His teaching we have
supremely taken our stand for the Bible claim. But those who speak
of Christ's teaching, as above, make several false assumptions, and
misleading oversights. First, they assume antithesis and antagonism
between His teaching and that of the inspired Bible writers, which,
as shown, is untrue, and the opposite of what He taught. Second,
that His teaching is the complete, highest, and final teaching of
Revelation ; while He taught that not His own but theirs, by the
Spirit after Pentecost, would be so, as proved. Third, that the teach-
ing of the Bible writers is indefinitely erroneous and untrustworthy ;
which is an error, contradicting Christ's teaching. They also over-
look. First, that Christ teaches that all Scripture is the Word of God,
of infallible truth and Divine authority, — declaring even the O.T. to
be so, and inviolable in every jot and tittle. Second, that in order to
find His Divinely true and authoritative teaching, we must hold and
postulate the same of their conceptions and record of it in the
Scriptures ; for it is through these alone we can know it. In the very
act of asserting the infallible truth and Divine authority of His
teaching, we of necessity presuppose the same of the Scriptures
through which solely we get it. Third, that if the Apostolic writings
are not true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority, neither can His
teaching, as known to us, be ; so far as they are not so, so far
must His teaching to us be, — and then all would be uncertain.
And if they are true, it could only be by the Divine Spirit enabling
them so to understand and express His teaching, with infallible
truth and Divine authority, as He promised. Fourth, that, as
shown, it was the same Divine Spirit who inspired Him to teach
667
668 APPENDIX
with infallible truth and Divine authority, who inspired them to do
the same, in all their teaching, both by word and writing, as He
taught. So that, if His teaching, as known to us, is true, trustworthy,
and of Divine authority, so must theirs and Scripture also be ; for
that is His teaching. But strange to say many that profess special
homage to His teaching do not receive it when He teaches tliat
because it contradicts their own ! ! He places the teaching of His
inspired apostles and prophets on a level with His own in truth and
authority as God's Word, because it was not theirs merely, but His
own, and His Father's, by the Holy Spirit teaching in and through
them the Word of the Lord.
Note 2. — Confirming the above, and our interpretation, Dr.
Westcotton John 14-*^ i6^^-i* says : "This section marks the position
of the apostles with regard to Revelation as unique ; and so also by
implication the office of the Apostolic writings, as a record of their
teaching."
Note 3. — While it is true that Christ's teaching must ever occupy
a unique place, so far as He taught, or was free to teach the will of
God for our salvation, yet there is a sense in which a saved sinner
could, by the Spirit's inspiration, teach the Gospel to fellow-sinners
that even a sinless Saviour could not. A sinner saved by grace and
inspired by the Holy Ghost could teach it experimentally, as he knew
it in his own experience as a sinner under grace. Jesus as the per-
fect Son of God, and perfect Son of Man, and, therefore a perfect
organ of the Holy Spirit, who could and did receive a full anointing
of the Spirit, could and did teach the Gospel with a fulness, perfec-
tion, and power all His own. But He never knew what it was to be
born again, to become a child of God, to repent of sin, and to be
forgiven, to be delivered from the dominion of Satan, and purified
from evil. And therefore a David and a Peter, a Paul and a John,
could from personal experience tell sinful fellow-men something
about repentance and forgiveness, reconciliation to God and purifi-
cation from sin, faith in Christ and peace with God, which only
sinners who had personally experienced these could do, and could
bring it home to the hearts of fellow-sinners by the Spirit with a
sympathy, personality, and power all their own.
BOOK II.
Note i. — Our Lord's words declaring the Bible to be the Word of
God, — of infallible truth. Divine authority, and eternal inviolability, —
are the words of God. "He whom God hath sent speaketh the
words of God." And if His teaching, is, as alleged and implied,
not to be held as decisive and final on this supreme and fundamental
religious question because He was also man, then that means,
and involves :— first, that an infallible and Divinely-authoritative
Revelation from God to man is an impossibility, which is a vain
imagination ; second, that there is no seat of authority in religion
at all, which is a baseless and ruinous negation ; third, that our
Lord is not an infallible and Divinely-authoritative teacher in any-
APPENDIX 669
thing — that, in fact, He is not God because He is man, which is
blasphemy.
Note 2.— Dr. W. Robertson Smith says : "God dealt with Israel
in the way of special revelation. . . . The whole growth of the true
religion up to its perfect fulness is set before us in the record of
God's dealings with Israel, culminating in the manifestation of Jesus
Christ. There can be no question that Jesus Himself held this
view, and we cannot depart from it without making Him an imper-
fect teacher and an imperfect Saviour" {Prophets of Israel, ^. 10).
Here again is declared the Divine authority of the teaching of
Christ, and of the Scripture He endorsed and fulfilled.
Note 3. — Canon Gore says : " It is surely beyond question that
our Lord is represented in the Gospels as an infallible no less than
as a sinless teacher. Whenever He teaches it is in the tone which
could only be morally justifiable in the case of one who taught
infallibly ' the Word of God.' Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate,
was and is, at every moment and in every act, both God and man,
personally God made man" . . . {The Incarnation, p. 153; Dis-
sertations, pp. 80, 94, 95). When He says, " Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away," He claims
infallible truth. Divine authority, and eternal endurance for every
word He ever spoke, as the Word of the Lord that liveth and
abideth for ever. And this claim was either sublime truth or
supreme presumption.
Note 4. — Tholuck well says: "The Redeemer cannot be
convicted either of rabbinical artificiality or hermeneutical error."
Note 5. — Dr. Sanday in The Oracles 0/ God, p. no, says that the
errors of statement of our Lord would belong in some way to the
humanity, and not to the Divinity. He gives two examples of these
supposed errors :— First, Christ's saying that He as the Son of Man
kenw not then of the precise day and hour of the far off judgment day ;
which we have sufficiently explained ; and which was not an error but
a fact, if our Lord spoke the truth then ; and which only shows the
writer's own error of confusing non-knowledge with error or untruth !
The second is amazing and amusing. Because Christ said, "He
maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good" ; which again is
no error save of him who charges it upon the Son of God, but sure,
simple, and sublime fact ; for surely it is God the Father who
maketh His sun to rise on them, as He "maketh His rain to fall
upon the just and the unjust." And sunrise is so spoken of amid all
the light of modern science, and in the strictest scientific manuals
and university text-books ; and is literally true both phenomenally
and actually as spoken by our Lord. It would be interesting to see
the form in which Dr. Sanday would improve upon this sublime
utterance of our Lord, so as to be at once in accord with science
now, and suited for Palestinian peasants in our Lord's time, and all
the ages since ! It would also be of moment to know how Christ
could teach error in His humanity without His Divinity being
responsible for it, when He is the God-man in one unique Person-
670 APPENDIX
ality ! Such are the errors and abysses into which erring men fall,
when they presume to charge Him with error who is the CjocI of Truth.
BOOK III.
Note.— Of the supernatural Revelation of the Bible, Dr. W.
Robertson Smith says : "God dealt with Israel in the way of special
revelation. The revelation of the O. and N.T. may fairly claim to be
revelation of God to men in a special and absolute sense ' ( The
Prophets of Israel, fT^. 10, 14).
" The characteristic of the prophet is a faculty of spiritual intuition,
not gained by human reason, but coming to him as a word from God
Himself The prophets spoke under the immediate influence of
the Spirit or hand of Jehovah" (article " Bible," p. 634). Of Divine
prediction he says : " The work of the O.T. prophets was based on
their insight into the future purpose of God, and took the shape of
prediction of the things to be fulfilled in Christ." Of Scripture
he says : " If we are to have a trustworthy revelation at all, it is
necessary that the one Record of revelation, which God has given
us, be such that we can feel sure that it tells us all we need to
know of God and His will, and that it tells us this with tatvaryhig
and infallible truth, twt ini7igling God's message with dociriftes of
men" {Answer, pp. 30, 45). Hence of Christ and Scripture he says,
emphasising " a distinct foresignifying of a personal Messiah," "Jesus
read in the Psalms and the Prophets the direct and unmistakable
image of His own experience and work as the founder of the spiritual
kingdom of God" (" Bible," p. 642).
Of Plenary Inspiration he says : " I am willing to have my views
of Deuteronomy tested even by the strictest views of plenary
inspiration, and I am confident they are able to stand the test"
(Ansruer, p. 3). What a contrast all this by the greatest O.T. and
Semitic scholar of the age to all those rationalistic critics and crude
theorists, referred to above, who explicitly or implicity deny the
supernatural working of God in the history and religion of Israel,
evaporate supernatural Revelation, disown Divine prediction pro-
perly so called, either in the history of Israel, or the coming of the
Messiah, or the Person, work, and experience of Jesus Christ as the
fulfiller of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms ; as also to those
whose naturalistic theories and interpretations preclude or minimise
miracle, virtually evaporate immediate inspiration by the Holy Spirit
of the Bible writers, bring down prophecy to the level practically of
ordinary spiritual illumination, or natural conscience and sagacity,
and not diliering in kind from ours, sometimes ascribe it to pride,
presumption, and national vanity, and make the prophets visionaries
and Utopians ; and in effect reduce the inspired Scripture to a char-
acter not different iti kindirom other literature, with similar liability
to err and mislead.
BOOK IV.
Note i. — Writing on i Cor. 14^', to show how Christ seals the
apostolic teaching and stands by Scripture, Dr. Meyer says : " Paul
APPENDIX 671
here stamps the seal oi apostolic authority, and upon this seal Christ
must stand."
Similarly on Matt. 10^^ -'\ when Q\\x\'i,\ first sent out the apostles to
preach, and declared that what they spake was what the Spirit spake,
and declared the awful doom of those who would not receive their
words, Meyer says : "The theopneustic relation by means of which
His disciples shall become -nviv^xaTiKois iTviV[iariKa avyKplvovTfs
(i Cor. 2^^) is construed by Jesus decisively and in no half-way
fashion." And so as Christ says of His words, "The words that
I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life," so also were the
apostle's words, for both came from the Spirit.
Note 2. — In confirmation of what we have often urged as to the
absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit's inspiration, as alone being suf-
ficient, to explain the apostles' conception and expression of Christ's
teaching, Person, and work, so as to make the one complete and
harmonious representation they have given in the complementary
parts and aspects each was chosen, fitted, and inspired to receive
and express — Dr. Westcott says: " However far one Evangelist might
have been led by the laws of his own mind, it can only be by the
introduction of a higher power that four unconsciously combine to
rear from different sides a harmonious and perfect fabric of Christian
truth" {Introduction to tJie Gospels^ p. 26). Nothing but pervasive
Divine inspiration could secure such spiritual unity with such striking
diversity, such patent independence with such thorough truthfulness
and harmony, such perfect humanity with such true divinity in the
Scripture histories.
Note 3. — Among many others teaching the indefinite erroneous-
ness of Scripture in every kind of thing — including the moral and
spiritual contents — Dr. Ladd may suffice. He says, after giving the
classes of contents forming Scripture, "We cannot affirm infallibility
in a7iy one of these classes of contents under which we have considered
the subject-matter of the Bible, or of any 07ie of those separate or
larger divisions of the contents" (vol. i, pp. 754-6). Also he specific-
ally charges the N.T. writers with large numbers of " Hermeneutical
mistakes" in interpreting and applying the O.T., — even in showing
them to be fulfilled in Christ as the Messiah, in the great facts and
truths that form the roots and the foundations of the Christian faith
(p. 445). So that the N.T. writers have misread and misused the
O.T. revelations about the Christ, and misled mankind thereby ! —
although it is only from the N.T. inspired writers we get the real and
only Divine and authoritative interpretation of the O.T., as Dr. W.
Robertson Smith, Dr. Westcott, and all the leading teachers, and the
Christian Church have ever taught. And Dr. Ladd does so because,
forsooth ! he thinks they do not give the literal interpretation of the
words of the O.T. as in the minds of the prophets ! — as if the literal
were the only true meaning, and as if Christ did not teach and set
His apostles the example of giving a fuller and a deeper meaning to
the O.T. than was known in some cases to the O.T. writers ! Verily,
as Dr. Westcott well says, the objectors to the literal fulfilment of
prophecy, in cases specified by Christ and His apostles, are the real
and unreasonable literalists. Well does Dr. Saphir say, that while
6/2 APPENDIX
they say they bcHeve that the Bible contains a revelation, they do not
believe what it contains, — not even in the essential things.
But as Dr. Ladd seems to hold the inerrancy and Divine authority
of Christ's teaching, he thus refutes all his other errors, and supplies
in that the true antidote to them ; for, as proved, if Christ teaches
anything, He is the most absolute teacher of the truth, inviolability,
and Divine authority of Scripture even to jot and tittle. He also
admits that the Hebrew Scriptures give "conceptions of the order of
creation and of nature, in her relations to God and man, which are far
beyond the age of their origin, and correspond in a wonderful degree
to those which modern science has only recently attained " (p. 284).
But he fails to give the only rational explanation of this unique fact,
in contrast with all heathen conceptions, in the supernatural inspira-
tion of the Spirit of God in giving both the conceptions and the
expression of them as written in the Scriptures.
BOOK V.
As to the agreements of Science and philosophy with Scripture,
let it suffice to say here that, with a few exceptions, the greatest
scientists have been Christian men, and even defenders of the Christian
faith. The matters and points in which Science and Scripture agree
exceed immeasurably those in which they even appear to differ.
This first decisive fact has been too often overlooked to the great
loss of both Scripture and science.
1. They agree as to the existence of God, a personal, self-existent
Supreme IBeing, the all-wise and almighty Creator, a righteous and
a gracious moral Governor. Science and philosophy confirm Scrip-
ture in declaring by their greatest teachers, with Lord Kelvin, that
the only rational explanation of Creation is to be found in the will
of an intelligent and almighty Creator.
2. In striking contrast with all ancient heathen religion and
philosophy, they agree in distinguishing between the Creator and the
Creation ; and in their latest doctrine of a God immanent in, and yet
transcendent over all nature, they simply express in philosophic form
the ancient and distinctive revelation of Scripture, as to God and
His relation to Creation.
3. They agree as to man's place in creation ; and put him in the
recent and last stage, and in the highest position, as the head, goal,
crown, and purposed Lord of creation.
4. They agree as to the original home of mankind in the high-
lands of Central Asia ; which Scripture teaches, history confirms,
and Science supports.
5. They agree as to man's original state, as made in the image
of God. This Scripture reveals, the reminiscences, aspirations,
and anticipations of mankind, the tradition legend and philology
seem to require ; and it is confirmed by Science in the fact noted
and urged by famous scientists, that the classifications made by
naturalists and geologists independently of each other, and both
independently of Scripture, as to the order and progress of Creation,
are substantially the same ; — the mind of the Creator being expressed
as written in the rocky pages of the great stone book, as found by
APPENDIX 673
geologists, — and the mind of man as expressed in the classifications
of naturalists showing that intellectually, as well as morally, man was
made in the image of God.
6. They confirm each other as to the fall of man. For traditions
of the Fall have been found among all races of men ; which strongly
corroborate Bible representations. The profoundest philosophy
of our day accords, too, with Scripture in tracing man's fall and
degeneracy to the abuse, through temptation, of man's free will—
tliat high but awful prerogative of moral being.
7. The truest Science, and the profoundest philosophy, corro-
borate Revelation as to the present condition of man— as a state
of sin, guilt, and depravity. They further confirm it in teaching
that man still retains elements of his original likeness to God, —
lingering rays of his lost glory ; which imply the potency, and the
promise of restoration ; and mark him out as the proper subject
of salvation ; and thus supply a basis for the Bible revelation of
grace and redemption.
8. They agree as to the fact of the Deluge— traditions of it being
found all the world over : but here, as elsewhere, the Bible form,
because of Divine inspiration, is patently the best, and the most God-
honouring.
9. Then the great central Bible revelation of redemption by
Sacrifice, which is the Inn-den, substance, root and fruit of Reve-
lation, is abundantly corroborated by the universal prevalence of
propitiatory sacrifice among all races from the earliest time. For
on the far off horizon of the dim and distant ages, as far back as
not only history and tradition, but also legend, custom, rites, and
ceremonies, silent significant stones, and religious origins can carry
us, we see the smoke of sacrifice rising from ancient temple,
stone circle, deep forest, or rude altar, to propitiate Deity, and
ease conscience ; — as distinctly as Noah's sacrifice rose from the
summit of Mount Ararat, in the pure air of a world renewed, after the
wreck of the Deluge. Behind that, though often in crude, cruel,
and confused form, lay the whole idea and substance of the Bible
revelation, of the need, the hope, and the fact of redemption. And
they are strong confirmations of its truth and significance, from the
universal race-old practice, and the deepest, most essential elements
of man's moral and spiritual nature. It is also confirmed by the
analogous fact, so clearly perceived, and strongly emphasised in our
recent science and philosophy, that sacrifice, in some form or other,
is the condition, means, and law of progress in all life and history.
10. The Bible doctrine, that God made of one blood all nations,
is confirmed by the highest authorities in ethnology. Physiological
scientists, too, of the greatest weight have all along taught that there
is no such difference among the various races of mankind as, on the
supposition that they all sprang from a single pair, may not be
accounted for by the modifying and transforming effects of change
of climate, environment, experience, and other influences, which,
through long ages and vicissitudes, gradually affect, and account
for the variations and transformations. And what ethnology and
physiology maintain, philology confirms into a practical certainty by
its great fundamental stocks" of languages, and their radical connec-
tions with each other.
43
6/4 APPENDIX
11. Science and philosophy most powerfully support Revelation
as to the world being under a moral government. They not only
declare by their truest, deepest, and most assured teachings, and
through their weightiest teachers, that the facts and phenomena
of nature and history, as well as the first principles of science and
philosophy, imply and require a supreme Being, both rational and
moral, as the Creator and Ruler of this world, and the universe ; but
also that His government over men is moral : and that the Christian
view of God and not the naturalistic, or even the merely theistic
view, best explains and ag'rees with the constitution of nature, and the
course of Providence, and best meets the ethical needs, harmonises
with the religious instincts, and accords with the surest intuitions
of mankind. The illustration and enforcement of the argument for
the moral government of God may be seen in the leading ethical
and theological philosophic writers from the beginning. It will
suffice here to refer to the unanswered, because unanswei-able,
reasoning of Butler, in his immortal Analogy^ which has baffled all
the attempts of scepticism to invalidate, far less to refute. The
profound thinking and unanswerable logic of Butler, enforced by the
massive weight and overpowering eloquence of Chalmers, and
defended by the wide learning and rebutive acumen of Gladstone,
present an impassable barrier to unbelief ; and constitute a positive
argument in support of Scripture, which, after the assaults of several
generations, still remains in all its massive strength unmoved and
immovable.
12. Even Evolution itself, which scared so many as first pro-
pounded, and which sceptics imagined was fatal to the Christian
faith, has yielded some valuable confirmations of the Bible, by
supplying many analogies, in such points as the analogy between
progress in life, and the progressiveness of Revelation and the de-
velopment of spiritual life ; natural selection and gracious election ;
survival of the fittest, and eternal life in Christ ; heredity and im-
putation ; biogenesis and regeneration ; adaptation to en\ironment
and faith in God through Christ ; conformity to type, and trans-
formation by predestination, "to be conformed to the image of His
Son"; the struggle for existence leading to higher development,
and perfectation through suffering ; degeneration, and eternal death
through the law of evil habit making character permanently evil ;
persistency of type, and the perseverance of the saints ; the reign of
law, and the irresistibility of God's will ; progress in life by imper-
ceptible gradations — with leaps at leading stages by the special
impulse of the Creator, as at man's creation, — and the Divine impulse
given at regeneration, and successive stages in the spiritual life ; the
potency and promise of higher developments of life, and the hope
of resurrection to a higher life in a Risen Christ : — these and other
points of analogy between evolution and revelation are corroborative
and suggestive. Amongst others, see Drummond's Natural Law in
the Spiritual World, and Peyton's Memorabilia of Jesus — one of thq
freshest and most oniginal books of this age.
APPENDIX 675
BOOK VI.
Argument from the Christian Evidences and
Bible Minuti^\
We take our Christianity from the Bible. All our knowledge of it
is derived therefrom. Whatever else we may know of it from
heathen or Christian writings or from the usages, and institutions
of nations where it spread, is simply illustrative, or confirmative of
what we find in Scripture. Our only authority for our knowledge of
it is the Bible. If, therefore, it is untrustworthy, or indefinitely
erroneous, our knowledge of it is so also. In whatever degree
Scripture is untrue or doubtful, so precisely is our conception of it
wrong or uncertain. As is the book, so in this case must the
religion be. Thus the opposing theories as to Scripture will
naturally produce different conceptions of Christianity. Hence
rationalists have practically abandoned the Christian faith ; while
those that with them disown the Bible claim who continue Christian
do so from other reasons, or inconsistency. And in any case the
religion derived from a thoroughly trustful, and from, an indefinitely
erroneous Bible, will greatly differ. Our conceptions of the religion
must vary as our ideas of the Record.
This holds specially of the Christian faith, because the Bible is
so largely made up of facts and details ; and since the truths are
expressed largely through these, the reliability of these in the Record
is obviously essential to the revelation of the religion. The
facts convey and constitute the Revelation. The doctrines are the
facts in the abstract, the facts are the doctrines in the concrete.
As the opposing views of the IJible affect our conceptions of
Christianity, so they do the evidences of it, even in minutite.
1. One of the best lines of Christian evidences is what Paley so
well calls and illustrates, — the argument from " undesigned coinci-
dence" ; which is valid, and effectual for all times, in every phase of
the conflicts between faith and unbelief; for it establishes the
credibility of the Bible, which is essential to the proof and defence
of the faith, and proves it true, and makes its defence impregnable.
But the theory of indefinite erroneousness makes the construction
and application of such an argument impracticable. For the
argument is made from details, composed of minute points of
correspondence, all which are, by this theory, held to be unreliable.
So that this theory would invalidate one of the best lines of Christian
evidence.
2. So the argument from Prophecy would by this theory be
greatly weakened, and in some important cases nullified. The
weight of the evidence from prophecy lies, in many cases, in the
completeness of the fulfilment of the prophecy by the subsequent
event ; and in the exactness with which the one answers to the
other. The more numerous the details fitting into each other, the more
minute the points of correspondence between them, and the more
fully and precisely they dovetail into each other, the stronger is the
proof of the truth of the prediction ; and the weightier is the evidence
from prophecy for the faith. In many well-known cases reckoned
GyG APPENDIX
among the most important proofs from prophecy, — Ijccause con-
nected with the Person, and work of Christ, — the whole force of
the argument — yea the very fulfihnent itself, depends upon exact
agreement in little things, and consists in precise correspondence in
minutia;.
It is the habit of Christ and His apostles in showing the fulfil-
ment of O.T. prophecies by N.T. events to use indiscriminately facts,
details, and even words, so as to plainly imply that they held all and
each as equally true and authoritative. This fact alone should settle
to all who own their Divine mission and authority that the Bible is true
and authoritative, — especially as our Lord Himself is the most decisive
of all in this. Further, many of the cases in which this is implied are
those proving the Messiahship of Christ. The revelation depends
upon the truthfulness of the details, consists in the preciseness of
the correspondence in minute points, and postulates the truth and
authority of the words — sometimes of a single word. And in several
cases, where some items are difficult to reconcile, we require to hold
to their truthfulness and reconcilability ; otherwise the proof fails,
and the inspired writer's attempt to prove the Messiahship of Christ
is a failure ; and therefore they cannot be trusted when professedly
teaching even the most fundamental truths !
3. Similarly the evidence from miracles would by this theory be
impaired or lost ; especially in the great fundamental miracle of
Our Lord's resurrection ; the root and strength of all other miracles,
and the very citadel of the Christian faith. For the proof of it
depends upon the truthfulness of the narrative ; and postulates the
reconcilability of seeming discrepancies in the accounts of it.
Hence those that do not believe it, and, therefore, consistently
reject Christianity, always urge the seemingly conflicting statements
about it in the Gospels as a ground for disbelief of it. And while
no wise Apologist would admit that discrepancies in the narratives
would justify rejection of the fact, since all truth has difficulties, and
this has special reasons to explain them, yet every able apologist
thinks it wise to prevent them being magnified, to reduce them, and
to offer at least a possible solution of them.
4. So the Moral Evidence of Christianity, one of the strongest
lines, depends upon the truthfulness and authority of Scripture, even
in minutia\ It is from the Bible we know the moral character of
Christianity. Therefore, so far as one is untrue or uncertain, so far
our knowledge and estimate of the other are false or doubtful ; and
so far, therefore, the moral evidence would be unknown, unfelt, or
invalidated.
The main weight of the moral argument for the Christian faith is
the moral character of Christ. Therefore, so far as the Record is
untrue, or uncertain, so far the weight of this evidence is diminished.
The finer and higher the character is, the more readily is a defect or
blemish seen, and the more injuriously is the cause supported by it
affected ; so that, if the Book giving Christ's character is indefinitely
erroneous, or unreliable, the evidential value is lessened. Besides,
character often reveals itself most in little things —
" In little words and little deeds
Great principles come grandly out."
APPENDIX Gyy
The iiner traits manifest themselves in the lesser things, and touches
of exquisite moral beauty appear in minute points. But if these are
not true and sure all this is lost ; and, all the peculiar charm,
apologetic value, and moral effect of such things are also lost.
Our Lord's character is set forth largely in charming simplicity
and interesting minuteness, with graphic details, and exquisite
touches. These must, then, be truly given, else the moral evidence
for the Christian faith from His unique character will be weakened
or lost. And when the alleged errors are indefinite, our conceptions
of what His character really was became unceilain or erroneous, and
the evidential value of it weakened and confused. So that the moral
evidence from Christ's character depends largely upon the truthful-
ness and Divine authority of Scripture, even in minutia\
5. So also with the evidence from the beneficial effects of
Christianity upon the character and history of men and nations — a
most powerful argument for the Christian faith. But it is by the
Scripture being regarded as the Word of God, of infallible truth,
and Divine authority, that the great and blessed moral effects of
Christianity have been produced. Nor could they Ije produced upon
the theory of indefinite erroneousness ; for moral effect requires
moral certainty in the cause ; which, as shown, this theory can never
give, either as to Scripture teaching or Christ's character.
6. In like manner the experimental evidence for the truth of
Christianity depends for its force upon the thorough truthfulness
and Divine authority of Scripture. This is the argument for the
Christian faith from the felt accordance between what the Bible
declares I am, and what I find myself to be ; and between \\hat I
feel I as a sinner need, and what the Gospel provides ; — one of the
weightest arguments for the faith. For unless these declarations
come with certainty and Divine authority, the correspondence cannot
be discovered, nor the moral consciousness awakened. Unless I
believe them to be true, and of Divine authority, 1 would not and
could not feel their force, or experience their power ; and, there-
fore, should not realise their truth, or recognise their adaptation to
my spiritual state.
The belief of the truth necessarily precedes the experience of its
saving power. And as it is from a personal experience of its saving-
power that the deepest conviction and strongest evidence of its
Divine origin comes, the main weight of the experimental evidence
would, on the errorists' theory, Ijc largely lost.
The same general line of argument holds as to the minuti;c
generally. For if these are not held as true and authoritative, not
only is the self-evidencing power of Divine truth much weakened by
the uncertainty, and the critical attitude necessarily assumed ; but
all Scripture is, as shown, more or less thrown into doubt, and
confusion. Therefore, that experimental proof of the truth, arising
from the impressions made upon the mind, when Scripture is
received as true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority, is largely
gone ; especially as some of the most importants facts and truths
depend, as seen, upon minutia".
Besides, many things that at one time did not "find" us, have
found us later ; and little things that once had no meaning or
power to us, were afterwards found precious and suggestive. As
6/8 APPENDIX
each new stage of Christian growth, every fresh experience of Divine
providence, or each reopening of the spiritual vision leads us, under
the inspiring Spirit, into pastures and revelations new, in the untold
treasures of the eternal Word, and into a personal experience of its
illuminative and transforming power,^ — there burst upon us with new
delight the unimagined Divine significance, and soul fascinating
exhilaration, of that profound, far-reaching oracle. " All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable." There grows upon
us, as the inspiring prospect opens up before our wondering gaze, the
deepening conviction and delight, that every region and avenue of
Revelation, and every part and passage of God's Word, will yield to
us, as they were designed to do, rich treasures of unknown truth,
new visions of Divine revelation, fascinating fields of unexplored
study, fresh springs of spiritual life.
Thus the self-evidencing power of the truth, when led by the Spirit,
extends to the little as well as to the large things of Scripture. And
gradually the experimental evidence for the truth stretches out to the
whole contents of Scripture, and to every part and kind of thing
therein.
The more fully our experience extends to all Scripture, the
stronger and more complete is the experimental evidence of its
truth and Divinity. How unwise and suicidal then, for the sake of
the experimental evidence, to exclude, as all errorists do, larger
or smaller portions of Scripture from this evidence ; especially when
much that is thus excluded has been found true and precious in
the growing experience of God's people ?
It would simply put an arrest upon the fullest, and completest
experimental confirmation of the truth, and Divine origin of Scrip-
ture, render it impossible ever to make our Christian experience
coextensive with God's Word ; and thereby precludes us from ever
attaining the strongest possible proof from experience of its Divine
origin, truth, and authority. It has been shown how much the ex-
perimental evidence for Christianity depends upon the recognised
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of all Scripture,
— even in minutiae. It has also been shown how almost every
separate line of Christian evidence depends upon this, and how
materially each would be weakened, if not all invalidated, by the
opposite theories, and how seriously, therefore, our whole faith and
life are affected by our doctrine of Holy Scripture. How supremely
important, therefore, for the sake of the Christian faith, and the growth
of the spiritual life, it is to maintain with Scripture and with Christ, the
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of the Word of
God in its integrity, solidarity, and inviolability, as He so solemnly
and absolutely declared.
BOOK VII.
Note. — In giving the teaching of Christ on Scripture, it was
shown that all attempts to find anything in His teaching to contradict
or limit the Bible claim had utterly failed ; the references made by
many with such unthinking confidence to the " I say unto you," and
kindred passages, being shown not to oppose or qualify the Bible
APPENDIX 679
claim and Christ s most absolute and decisive declaration of its truth
and inviolability, Divine authority, and perpetuity, immediately
before, but to confirm these when truly interpreted. IJut the amaz-
ing thing" is that when they seem to have found some paltry thing in
the Bible, as we have it, that may appear to conflict with the Bible
claim and Christ's teaching, they at once conclude that the Bible
claim, sealed by Christ, is false, the teachers of it discredited, and
their own opposite theory proved by this paltry difficulty ! They
never seem to realise the seriousness of the issues they thus raise,
and the infinitely greater difficulties to their own theories by the
vast mass and decisive character of the direct evidence and positive
proof for the Bible claim ; every item of which, as pro\ed, forms an
incomparably greater difficulty to their own opposite theory than
any number of the paltry, and mostly if not wholly irrelevant, seeming
discrepancies on which they base and build their erroneous theories.
For, if such despicable trifles, as they mostly are (and are, therefore,
irrelevant as against the true Bible claim), justify the rejection of it,
how much more, a fort/or/, shou\d the insuperable and overwhelming
difficulties to their own unproved theories made by the whole massive
weight of the evidence, backed by the whole Christian evidences, and
the Divine weight of Christ, rec[uire them to abandon their own
theories, which have no explicit, positive teaching to support them.
And yet they never seem to think of all this, or attempt to meet the
countless and serious difficulties of their own theories, which on
their own principles as applied to the Bible claim, ought to be free
of difficulties, or rejected. They make one paltry difficulty a suffi-
cient reason for rejecting the pervading l>ible claim, yet a thousand
and one serious, and unanswerable difficulties, created by their
rejection of the first and fundamental claim of the Bible, endorsed
by Christ, seem insufficient to lead them even to think of abandon-
ing their own ;— though on their own principle, one such serious
difficulty should be more than sufficient to do so. In short, the
teachers of the Bible claim go by the rule, — the main, pervading
and explicit teaching of Scripture and of Christ. The opponents
of it go by the exception — the paltry seeming discrepancy ; which as
an exception would only prove the rule, but which when truly under-
stood is not really an exception generally, and certainly is no valid
objection to or reason for rejecting the Bible claim.
The references of Dr. Farrar and Dr. Briggs, etc., to the " I say unto
you " passages, and to divorce, will suffice to illustrate the fallacy and
unreasonableness of this pervertive principle and habit. As to the
" I say unto you " passages, as shown, not one of them opposed or
qualified the absoluteness of Christ's declaration to Scripture (Matt.
^1719^ etc.), made immediately before, nor could they without con-
tradicting Himself. And as to divorce, Christ never condemned
what was taught by Moses in Scripture as the will or ideal of God,
but on the contrary based His teaching on the Mosaic book of
Genesis and the original Divine ideal of marriage as given there ; —
the laxer ideas being merely tolerated or permitted "in exceptional
cases to prevent greater evils, by Moses in a civil capacity as a ruler,
as is done in Christendom to-day, but Moses ever held up the Divine
ideal as written in God's Word in Genesis, etc. But in tolerating for
a time this and many other like things — such as polygamy among his
680 APPENDIX
most honoured servants, God did only what was a necessary adaptation
of His revelations to the condition and the people of the times, in
the imperfect state of things under the O.T. economy. Yet the
higher Divine ideals were ever held up in Scripture, and were more
and more realised in the life of His people, under His providential
discipline and by His progressive revelations. Yet Dr. Farrar, etc.,
never seem to think it necessary to reconcile their false inference
from their misinterpretation of this case with the explicit and decisive
teaching of Christ given immediately before, as well as in all His
teaching on Scripture, declaring most absolutely the infallible truth,
Divine authority, and eternal inviolability of Scripture in even every
jot and tittle (Matt. S"'"^'*)- Their inference from this case against
the Bible claim, in fact, contradicts the most absolute and decisive
teaching of Christ on Scripture given there and everywhere, and
makes Him contradict Himself. They thus raise all the tremendous
difficulties and momentous issues as to the authority of His teaching",
the source of our faith, and the truth of our religion, often urged
above. And yet they never face these most serious difficulties ;
which are simply fatal to their false inferences and vague theories,
while rejecting the primary, basal, and most pervasive teaching of
both Scripture and Christ for a paltry self-created difficulty, which
is really no difficulty at all except in their own imaginations.
Dr. Briggs urges that "there is not a word of Holy Scripture
that teaches directly or indirectly the fulfilment of the details of
predictive prophecy"! This is an astounding statement for any
r)ible student to make in view of the countless examples of literal
fulfilments shown by Christ and His apostles, specially about His
Mcssiahship, death, and resurrection. There are cases in which they
were never meant to be fulfilled in literality, and are only figurative
and ideal ; but that does not affect the notorious fact that many
were fufilled literally, even to the minutest points. — But Dr. Briggs
refutes himself by admitting that "the jots and tittles doubtless
indicate the most minute details." The majestic and decisive words
of the Lord Himself will, therefore, best close, as they opened, this
book : "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Pro-
phets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For, Verily I say
unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt, s^''- ^**).
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH
APPENDIX TO SFXOND EDITION.
Sooner than I had expected a Second Edition is required ; ^ and it
suppHes the opportunity of dealing with certain books and articles
that appeared just as this book was about to be issued. Of these I
shall deal here chiefly with two classes, the one treating of O.T.
and the other of N.T. criticism : — Dr. G. Adam Smith's book,
Modern Criticism and i he Preachifig of the Old Testament ; and the
articles of Prof. Schmiedel and others in the second volume of the
Ettcyclopcvdia Biblica. They both superabundantly confirm what is
urged above as to the rationalistic character, and destructive tend-
ency of much recent criticism, — which more and more tends to dis-
credit the Bible, and to destroy the sources and foundations of the
Christian faith. Dr. Schmiedel's article, in contrast with Dr. Smith
in this, expressly excludes the supernatural and the Divine both in the
Word of God, and in the Son of God, roundly denies the credibility
of the Gospels, and openly disowns the fundamental facts and
essential verities of the Christian religion.
We have already answered by anticipation almost all the ration-
alistic errors in these writings, and given the grounds, principles, and
lines on which the whole may be refuted ; so that the less need be said
now. Yet the specific exemplifications will give fresh point to the
fuller refutation, as the renewed conflict between Christian faith and
rationalistic criticism, become again acute, gives intensified interest.
Dr. G. Adam Smith's Modern Criticism and the
Preaching of the O.T.
Before showing the serious errors, radical defects, naturalistic
character, and unsettling tendency of this book, — which is a distinct
advance in rationalistic direction upon his "Isaiah," — we gladly re-
cognise the literary excellence and religious tone of the work, and
gratefully own the frank confession of the root facts and vital truths
of the evangelical faith, as also the note of conviction and spirit of
reverence that pervade it. We truly admire, too, the spiritual genius
with which he seizes the principles of the O.T. religion and applies
them to the social and national conditions of our day ;— though this
has been at least as well done by those holding the views of Scrip-
ture he condemns — witness the Reformers and specially the Puritans,
1 The First Edition was published in March 1901.
682 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
and many in our age (Dr. Chalmers, Mr. Gladstone, and Dr. West-
cott) holding what has been the historic faith of the Christian Church
as to the Word of God from the first, as seen in the creeds of
Christendom : so that the application of the Scriptures to social and
political life is no peculiar product of recent Christianity, and has
no special connection with modern criticism. And we sincerely
sympathise with the intensity of his desire, and the pathos of his
appeal, to meet the difficulties, and to relieve the doubts of those
perplexed in faith amid prevailing unbelief. But we are amazed to
find that in this deep sympathy and concern for eclectic doubters, he
has failed to realise the doubt-creating tendency and disastrous
effects of the kind of criticism represented by himself for the O.T.,
and Dr. Schmiedel for the N.T., — as seen in the blasted religion of
the manhood of Protestant Germany — from which both came ; as
also in the growing irreligion of the working and the middle classes
of this country, so far as such criticism prevails, and because of its
tendency. This is best known to those grappling practically with the
irreligion of our day, who are finding that such criticism, making
its way into the public mind, is making sceptics rapidly, produc-
ing unbelief and religious indifference, and making it increasingly
more difficult to preach the gospel and to evangelise the people, — as
wrote an able young minister of his own Church after reading his
book.^ And one is grieved to note that with such pathetic concern
for the peculiar scruples of this class, he shows so little considera-
tion for an incomparably larger class, whom such criticism has made
unbelievers, and for the still more important class who form the
backbone heart, and working agency of our Churches, whom such
criticism, by discrediting the Word is hindering in the work of God,
and to whom were it believed, faith in Christ, either as a teacher
sent from God, or a trustworthy Saviour, would be impossible.
Nay, one would be surprised if such criticism as is represented
by Dr. Smith and Dr. Schmiedel should fail to produce such
deplorable effects ; — although in placing them side by side we by no
means imply that they are identical in character, or allied in aim.
Yet they appeared- almost simultaneously — the one in a serious book,
the other in a new Bible dictionary ; and they both speak pro-
fessedly in the name of modern criticism, the one for the O.T.
criticism, the other for the New ; and together they profess to give
the latest results of modern criticism to the Bible students of the
new century. We are, therefore, entitled and required to look at
them as appearing together, to consider the tendency of their con-
joint teaching on that Great Book which men have recei\ed as the
Word of God, and made the source of their faith, and the foundation
of their hope for time and eternity. And if these alleged results of
modern criticism are as implicitly received as they are confidently
proclaimed, and carried to their legitimate issues, they would cer-
tainly create ten thousand sceptics for one that even the most
extreme traditionalism ever produced. In the case of the N.T.
criticism as represented by Dr. Schmiedel's articles this is evident,
and needs no proof, as we shall see ; for it would bury an expired
1 " Such works, I feel certain, are simply destro^'ing the faith of the masses in
the Bible, and rendering the effectual work of the Christian ministry increasingly
difficult, almost to the point of impossibility."
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 683
Christianity with an incredible Bible beside a dead Christ in a
hopeless grave from which there is no resurrection ; and bury along
with them the only consolation of a sorrowful humanity amid the
desolations of death and the darkness of futurity, without one ray of
hope to alleviate the eternal gloom ; and would turn mankind's
hopes and God's Revelation backward millenniums, and convert the
dawn of a new century into a midnight darkness and a world's despair.
In the O.T. criticism, as represented by Dr. Smith's book, this is
not said or meant, but, on the contrary, the evangelical faith is
assumed and professed generally ; and the avowed purpose of it is
to show how much of the O.T. will remain, after being tested and
sifted by modern criticism, as the true and trustworthy basis for the
preaching of evangelical religion : — nor would anyone, perhaps, be
more surprised or grieved than the author at the thought of his
criticism leading to such disastrous results. But with all this, for
which many will be sincerely thankful, it is deeply to be regretted
that there is so much in the book tending in that direction or open
to that construction ; and, therefore, staggering to believers, creative
of doubters, and usable lay sceptics, along with Dr. Schmiedel's,
against the Christian faith, as the combined voice of the latest
criticism of the Bible. In principles, methods, tendencies, and even
results, there is much in common or of like character, as is painfully
evident at almost every turn. And since it is the more influentially
injurious just because it is the work of a teacher recognised as
evangelical, and a professed believer in Divine Revelation, it, there-
fore, all the more requires to be exposed.
I. The First and Fundamental Position is False and
Baseless. 1
All the superstructure built on it and inferences drawn from
it are, therefore, wrong. The prime, basal postulate is that
"Christ was" the "first critic" of the O.T. By this is meant that
He not only came to interpret and fulfil, " but to judge the Law,"
and " He strictly condemned parts," and "rejected some parts of it
equally with the traditions " ; showed " sovereign indifference to
many parts," and "high superiority" by "neglect of them and
positive transgression," and taught others to do the same ; and that
Christ (and His apostles) not only "bequeath to the Church the
liberty, but along many lines the need and the obligation of
criticism" ; and He thus "justifies what is so large a part of modern
criticism," and shows "how clamant is the need of it in every
department which the modern Church has developed," — in short
justifies, requires, exemplifies, and sanctions all that modern criticism
has done to Scripture ! An astounding concatenation and conse-
quence surely this, which may well give pause to every reader, and
make men wonder how they have so long so thoroughly misread
their Bible, and Christ so strangely misrepresented Himself, till
modern oracular criticism corrected both us and Him. But there
is not a word of truth in it, it is a simple and baseless imagination,
palpably contradicted by the surest facts, and by the whole trend,
tone, explicit teaching, invariable usage, and habitual attitude of
' Pp. 11-14, 20-2.-^.
684 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
Christ to Holy Scripture as proved fully in Chapter VIII. Book I.,
and specially in pp. 171-208. By a strange coincidence— so striking
that it looks as if I had actually got the use of the proof sheets of
Dr. Smith's chapter on this in the preparation of mine — in the
above chapter every item in his chapter on it is answered by anti-
cipation ; and it is proved, in direct opposition to his basal postulate,
that in not one case did our Lord ever condemn the O.T. or its teach-
ing ; but on the contrary declared most absolutely that He came
not to destroy the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil, and that till
heaven and earth passed one jot or one tittle of it, even of the Law,
should in nowise pass or fail till all should be fulfilled. The un-
ciuestionableness of this explicit and absolute declaration even Dr.
Smith himself admits, as others like him do, as also all critics and
cornmentators worthy of the name ; and this is the supreme and
decisive Divine utterance on the question when professedly treating
of it. As proved the only things He ever condemned were the tradi-
tional Jewish perversions of it.
As shown above (pp. 179-184), very significant and amazing are
the attempts made to evade the force and finality of Christ's decisive
words in this great foundation passage, in which Christ declares the
truth, trustworthiness. Divine authority, and inviolability of Scrip-
ture in its integrity, with the most majestic absoluteness. These
attempts in their feebleness and failure simply confirm the only
meaning that these words by honest interpretation can bear. By
restating these. Dr. Smith seeks in vain to give a semblance of
truth to the prime error on which he founds his book — that modern
criticism "takes its charter from Christ"! (p. 28)— and thus pre-
sumes to make Him responsible for all that recent criticism has
done tending- to discredit and destroy His Holy Word ! Christ,
he says, " left no commands about sacrifice, the temple worship, or
circumcision, but by the institution of the new covenant He abrogated
for ever the sacrament of the old" (p. 14) — as MtJiat had anything to
do with the question, or in the least affected the decisiveness of His
testimony to the truth and Divine authority of Scripture in its integrity.
Of course, He did not re-enact the old Levitical Law but superseded
it, not by condemning or rejecting it as false or wrong, but by fulfil-
ling it as right and true, and typical of Himself and His work, thus
realising and eternalising it in Himself; and surely that was the
most efifectual way of proving it was true and right, good and
gracious, for He could fulfil only what was so. He says, that Christ
and His apostles "often emphasised that in O.T. laws, institutions,
and ideals there is very much which was rudimentary, and therefore
of transient worth and obligation" (p. 20), and that "He ascribed
the character of transitoriness to the whole of the O.T." (p. 13),
which, though true, would prove nothing for his root contention ;
because what was rudimentary was not wrong but right and true so
far as it went, and what was of transient worth was not bad but
good so long as it lasted ; and in the O.T. what was rudimentary
became perfect, and what was transitory became eternal in Christ,
in His fulfilment of it. He says that Christ "by neglect and positive
transgression" showed "sovereign indifference and high superiority"
"to many observances of the Law" or renounced by silence (pp.
12-14). I5ut it is notorious that He was scrupulously attentive to
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 685
many of them — yea to all binding on Him (Matt. 3'''' and often), as
also taught others the same (Matt. 23-" 8' "* 17-^-'). 15ut the only ones
he mentions are ceremonial, — which passed away in Him by fulfilment,
and "the literal observance of the .Sabbath Law" (p. 14), — in which
it was only the pharisaical perversions and traditions that He set
aside, in order to illustrate and enforce the true, beneficent law of
the Sabbath as originally ordained by God. While so far from our
Lord either neglecting, or positively transgressing the Law, or by
silence renouncing it — as alleged, witJunit one pa}-ticle of proof —
teaching others to do so. He, on the contrary, most emphatically
declares the very reverse (Matt. 5^-*). He says Christ "took special
precepts of the Law and enforced a fulfilment of them far beyond
their literal meaning" (p. 12). Quite so. He deepened, broadened,
added to, developed, spiritualised, and perfected them, and showed
what fulness of meaning and application was in them in the original
Divine intent; but He never judged, condemned, or rejected them,
but only the Jewish perversions of them. And in thus giving fuller
meanings and new applications to them. He only did what Himself
and His apostles did in their general use of the O.T. in the N.T. ; —
which such critics usually condemn, but here commend, because
erroneously imagining it serves their critical ends, or favours the
baseless assumptions on which such criticism is founded.
He says Christ " re-enforced the essence of its law " ; but Christ
said He came to' fulfil it even in every jot and tittle,— even Dr. Briggs
admitting that " the jot and the tittle indicate the most minute details "
(p. 180). He says that Christ "extracted the ideal or essential part
of the Law and defined it as the whole," quoting the golden rule
(Matt. 7^-), closing "for this is the Law and the Prophets," and
" on these two commandments (love to God and man) hang all the
Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22'*"). But these are not merely the
ideal or essential, but the whole sum and substance, every part and
particle of it being, according to Christ, when properly understood,
the expression and embodiment of either side of the one great law
of love ; and, therefore, like love, and God its Author, eternal, either
in itself or in Him who, therefore, came to fulfil it, in "so complete
a fulfilment," as Professor Ryle puts it. He says that " Christ's
attitude to the Law reminds us that opposition exists within the
O.T. itself, between the ethical teaching of the prophets, and the
Priestly conceptions of religion" (p. 21) — a rationalistic imagination,
for there is no real opposition, but only contrasted, complementary
parts of the one great organic Revelation given through Spirit-
inspired man. The ethical teaching of the Law, too, is often as high
as of the Prophets (see, for example, the Ten Commandments, Ex.
34'', and the whole ceremonial system as interpreted by Hebrews,
and countless more). And this idea of "conflicting tendencies" in
the O.T. is just akin to that long ago exploded "tendency" school
of N.T. criticism, which soon expired, and is now despised in the
land of its birth.
Of the " I say unto you " passages he seizes on the only one
which could with any face even seem to favour his basal error, — a7i
eye for an eye, etc. (Matt. S^^*''), and says Christ " reversed" this ; but
gives no proof; whereas, as fully proved above (pp. 182-3), Christ did
not condemn or reverse this as a law of public justice, for as such it
686 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
is right, the same in substance as God's original law for the pre-
servation of human life — ^"He that sheddeth man's blood by man
shall his blood be shed," — the law and practice of Christian nations
until now. But what He implicitly disapproved of was the traditional
perversion and misuse of it for personal revenge, private retaliation ;
and He makes use of it to teach His disciples His higher doctrine
of non-resistance and rendering good for evil. He also takes that
vicious perversion of God's O.T. law of love to our neighbour, Thou
Shalt love thy neighbour, and HATE THINE ENEMY (Matt.
5"*^), and actually presumes to charge the O.T. with it, although
admitting " // is 7wt found in the 0. 7".," but is a wicked perversion,'—
the words " and hate thine enemy" being a perverse Jewish addition,
directly contrary to the O.T. law (Lev. 19'**), and to the whole O.T.,
as our Lord, who should know best, declares when He sums it all
up in the one golden rule of love (Matt. 7I"). I had taken this last
of the "I say unto you'' passages, which Christ uses as the dark
background of teaching His highest law of love to our enemies, as
the crowning proof that it was the traditional perversions and mis-
applications of the O.T. which Christ in these passages condemned
in setting forth His higher ethical ideals for His disciples, as it
certainly is (see p. 184). But I little imagined that any critic would
presume to make a palpably and wickedly perverted law of Divine
love the baseless ground of a serious moral charge against the
ethical teaching of the Word of God when directly the opposite of
it ; and least of all that any professedly evangelical teacher could
dare to charge the Son of God with doing or sanctioning this, in the
face of all His most absolute teaching to the contrary, and directly in
the very teeth of His most explicit teaching on the specific question
in this very connection. This would make Him contradict Himself
on this highest ethical question, directly reverse His profound cognate
declaration in which He sums up and embodies the whole O.T. in
the one Divine law of love to God and love to man (Matt. 22^^) ;
and nullify His whole teaching on Holy Scripture given in Book I.
Chapter VIII. etc. How unscientific, worthless, and desperate must
such criticism be when, to find a basis for its destructive operations,
it must, in utter lack of other valid ground, 7nanu/aitu?-e ^{o\\r\ddii\on
out of a manifest perversion and fabrication of Jewish traditionalism !
The only other item quoted to claim Christ's example for the
basis of this book and such criticism, is His teaching on divorce ;
which, as shown above (pp. 183-4, 679), affords not an inch of
foothold or one iota of foundation for any such claim. For so far
is Christ from condemning the teaching God gave through Moses
on the obligation of the marriage bond, that He founds His own
upon the first Mosaic book, and what He again condemns is the
Jewish perversions and abuses of it. And while He gives stringency
to the law. He sanctions divorce for conjugal unfaithfulness, while
ever holding up the Divine ideal and design of mariage, as Moses
did. And if Moses permitted divorce for other serious causes in
desperate cases, as a civil ruler, it was as Christ said, because of the
hardness of their hearts, and as a temporary part of that preparatory
O.T. economy which, because of the rude times, was all imperfect,
but not in itself morally wrong, though beneath the Divine ideal, —
yet the Pharisees, as quoted, mutilated even what Moses may have
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 687
tolerated.^ But that a critic holding that the Pentateuch or its
legislation was not even in substance, essence, or leading elements
the work of Moses, but of men nearly a thousand years later, should,
in lack of better evidence, seize on this paltry and uncertain thing,
and by misinterpretation, seek to make of it a basis for a book and
a criticism tending to discredit and to destroy the truth, trustworthi-
ness, and Divine authority of God's Word, and to claim Christ's
example for it, is surely an astounding revelation.
We have thus examined every item of evidence given for the
baseless assumption which is made the foundation of this book, and
of the kind of criticism it represents, and found it in every case
groundless, and the whole attempt an utter failure, destitute of one
single particle of proof for the prime postulate on which the whole
portentous superstructure is based. In not one case has even a
probability been shown for the very foundation of their system.
And though there had been not one but many such things seeming
to favour their basal position, what would such be but as nothing
compared with the whole massive weight of sound and decisive
evidence proving the opposite, demonstrating that to Him all Scrip-
ture was the veritable Word of God, and the Divine rule of faith and
life. And though every one of these items should seem to be as
valid as they have been proved to be invalid, what would they be
at most, but paltry exceptions to the whole trend, tone, explicit
words, and most absolute teaching of our Lord, — indirect exceptions
which would only prove the rule, and leave the whole mass of proper,
positive proof untouched and immovable, and which only the most
unscientific criticism could dream of building anything on.
II. The Apostles' Use and Interpretation of Scripture
CRITICISED AND CONDEMNED, AND MADE THE "CLAMANT"
GROUND FOR MODERN CRITICISM.
As shown, he has utterly failed to find one iota of real foundation
for the kind of criticism he advocates from either the teaching or
example of Christ ; and the very opposite has been fully proved
from the explicit teaching, invariable usage, habitual attitude, and
pervasi\e tone of our Lord as to the O.T. But when he comes to
the apostles he fancies he finds ample ground. He avers that their
" strict belief in the inspiration of the O.T. text — not only is it God's
Spirit who, according to them, speaks by the mouth of prophets and
psalmists, but every word which they quote is in their belief a word
of God" (p. 16), and their being "unable to free themselves from
the strict views of inspiration" (p. 21), and their consequently im-
proper "practical use of the O.T.," and their wrong "interpretation
of it," — "not only bequeaths the liberty of criticism, but along many
lines" makes "clamant the need and obligation of criticism," and
the wrong "meanings which [their] often false fashions of exegesis
put upon their [O.T. writers] words" "are a direct challenge to our
sense of truth " ! That is frank, valuable, and sufficiently serious.
Valuable, for it distinctly admits and declares that the N.T. writers
believed and taught the plenary inspiration of Scripture, even in
1 Matt. 531 igS. See Brown, Meyer, Bengel, etc., in loco, and Dr. P. Fair-
bairn's Bible Dictionary on " Divorce,'
688 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
words — which is another testimony added to the many given even
by rationaUsts to the truth that honest interpretation requires us to
hold that the N.T. writers beheved and taught that all Scripture is
the Word of God, which is just what we have proved above, and
made the basis and burden of this book. It is frank, for it avowedly
grounds the urgent need and obligation of criticism upon the alleged
falseness and untrustworthiness of the belief, teaching, and basal claim
of the N.T. inspired writers. It is thus sufficiently serious, for it is
a definite denial of the independent truth or Divine authority of
Scripture in this prime root question, or in anything. It is a bold
assertion not only of the supremacy of reason over Revelation, but
of the subjection of God's Word to the tender mercies, uncertain
findings, and everchanging vagaries of an oracular, but unscientific
and unreasonable rationalistic criticism. And it is a virtual disown-
ing of the fundamental claim and the Divine authority of both
Scripture and of Christ. I say of Christ, who, as proved, endorses
and declares what this and many rationalistic critics admit to be the
teaching of the N.T. writers. And I do so purposely, because here
this critic is not so frank and consistent as some. Like them he
holds that the N.T. writers held all Scripture to be the Word of
God. Like them he disowns and condemns this basal teaching and
claim. But, unlike them, he limits this to the apostles, or does not
bring Christ in ; — as he could not without self-contradiction ; because
he claims Christ as giving the " charter" for this criticism, and makes
this its prime basis, — a sheer mistake and delusion, as proved. But
while he wrongly makes Christ's example the prime basis of the
false system, he makes the apostles' alleged erroneousness on this, a
secondary ground for it, — an equally baseless ground, as seen. And
thus we are met again with the old and oft-exploded error of the
alleged antithesis and antagonism between the teaching of Christ and
of His apostles fully refuted above (Book I. Chapters III. V. VII.).
But it is a vain device here, because Christ taught precisely the
same doctrine of Scripture as His apostles, as shown (pp. 62 f , 423 f ) ;
— in fact He taught them His own doctrine, and they simply follow
what they learned of Him. For, as seen (Book I. Chapter VIII.), no
one was so absolute as Christ in teaching that all Scripture was the
veritable and inviolable Word of God (Matt. 5^'"'", John 10"'^ ly'^, Rev.
22IS. 19) . o,- niore given to quoting freely from the O.T., and giving
fuller meanings and new applications to it ; or more wont to base great
truths on single words of it, or to draw momentous and far-reaching
revelations from even dim suggestions of it (Matt. 22-", John 10^^).
Besides, as shown (pp. 65, 66), He placed His apostles' words on a
level with His own in truth and authority ; which He could not have
done if they were so to contradict each other on this fundamental
doctrine as that while the truthfulness of His teaching and example
could be made the charter and basis of modern criticism, the erron-
eousness of theirs could be made the ground of the urgent need and
obligation for it. Further, He promised His Spirit to lead them into
all truth ; but if this charge is true, the Spirit of Truth had led them
into error as to the inspiration, truth, and authority of God's Word,
and falsified Christ's promise, and defeated His own and Christ's
mission. But if the apostles' erroneousness is so great that it makes
the necessity for criticism " clamant," how can their representations
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 689
(for that is all we have) of Christ's teaching or example be relied on
as to what Christ taught and did on this or anything, or reasonably
be made the basis of this criticism, which is grounded on their un-
trustworthiness. And this criticism, therefore, presumes to challenge,
reject, and correct the inspired interpretation of God's Word of both
the apostles and their Lord as to the Scriptures He gave and came
to fulfil. In short, as shown, the whole root ideas are delusions, and
involve manifold self-contradictions. For Christ and His apostles
have one and the same doctrine and practice as to Scripture, and
hold and treat it all as the Word of God, as proved. And, there-
fore, this criticism which discredits and disowns the truth and
authority of their teaching really discredits and disowns His also ;
for He identifies His with theirs, and they must stand or fall
together. Therefore, if His teaching and practice are right and
true, theirs must be so too, for He teaches that ; and if theirs is not
so, neither can His be. And in any case the grounds of this criticism
are necessarily destroyed.
The fiimsiness and untenableness of the other reasons given
for such criticism only show how unscientific and unreasonable
their methods are, and how easily, when it suits their theories, they
accept and use as proof, even for their basal positions, what no sensible
man would accept or act on in common life. He refers to, without
proving, the apostles' alleged use of non-canonical writings ; but
they might surely do that without thereby denying the supernatural
inspiration of the canonical books (the same as our own, as he
admits), or implying their co-ordinate authority, — even as Paul made
use of a heathen poet's writings, as any preacher does to-day, for
there is usable truth in all. He emphasises their use of the Septua-
gint version of the O.T.;— as if God's Spirit could not lead them to
make a true use of that, even if it differed from the Hebrew, and when
it is often a truer rendering and an older text of the original than our
Hebrew, — the use of which by true criticism has removed many
difficulties to the truth of Scripture, as shown by Dr. W. Robertson
Smith (p. 289). He urges their giving fuller and different meanings
and applications to O.T. text and words than the O.T. writers
thought of; — as if Christ had not done the same, setting them the
example, — and as if God's Spirit could not so use, interpret, and
even add to or alter the meaning and application of His own Word
for good ends, as men do every day with their own writings ; and
when both in O.T. and N.T. it is expressly said that the O.T. writers
did not sometimes fully comprehend the meaning and scope of their
own Spirit-inspired writings. Why, so far from favouring such
criticism, it does just the reverse, and shows the truth, divinity, and
supernatural inspiration of all Scripture, as shown (pp. 395, 407).
He urges that "general indifference is shown about the exact words
of the citations, they are quoted loosely as from memory" (p. 18) ; —
which is precisely what we should expect, if they were conscious of
being under the Spirit's supernatural inspiration, as Dr. R. Candlish
well shows. But when they wish to press special truths they are
often most exact even in words, and found great truths on single
words, as seen ; — showing, in the one case, their consciousness of the
Spirit's power in the expression of their message ; in the other, their
absolute confidence in the Spirit-given words. The recognition of
44
690 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
the Spirit as the Supreme Author of Scripture makes all this plain,
while the ignoring of the Holy Ghost in this Divine work explains
the confusions and contradictions of such criticism. The only two
cases in which he mentions, without proof, that the N.T. writers
give an "opposite sense'' from the O.T. writers, are such palpable
failures that one wonders any writer would so expose himself and
the weakness of such criticism by quoting them, and they show how
ill off for proof these critics must be. For in the one there is no
opposition but deep and real harmony, as may be seen by inspection
(Hos. 13'*, I Cor. 15^^); besides that it is not given as a quotation at
all! In the second (i Cor. 9'' with Deut. 25*) he makes Paul call
" the literal meaning of the O.T. passage impossible," which Paul
does not. Paul, as Winer says, looking solely at the spiritual side
of the Law, plainly means that as God cares for the ox that treadeth
out the corn, He surely "by all means" specially cares for man, the
head and ultimate aim of the lower creation. On the principle of
God's care for all His creatures, which is the essence of the Law,
He in it had man, the ultimate object of it, specially m view ; and,
therefore, the spiritual labourer for man's highest good is worthy of
his hire, — as is seen even from the RV. rendering (margin), and
Paul's use of it in i Tim. 5^"^, as also common sense teaches ; for it
is incredible that Paul who sympathised so deeply with all God's
creatures and wrote Rom. S'^''^ etc., should represent God as not
caring for the animal creation. He denounces, when it suits, the
literal acceptance of the Bible, but here and elsewhere he presses
adhering strictly to the literal meaning only ; and he blames Paul
for giving spiritual meanings, as also all the apostles for giving, by
the Spirit, after Christ's example, fuller meanings and new applica-
tions to the O.T., — which proves such critics to be the real and the
unreasonable literalists, as Dr. Westcott well says. He confuses the
issues by using vague phrases, and mixing things that differ, such as
"temporary" and "defective" with "erroneous," ignoring the radical
distinction between what is temporary and defective, which may be
true, and what is erroneous, which is ever false ; and condemning
those who hold the "equal and lasting divinity" (a frequent phrase
yet undefined and misleading) of all Scripture,— not noting that all
Scripture may be " Divine" because "God-breathed" and therefore
God's Word ; and yet, as in God's works, not all of equal value,
weight, or doctrinal authority (say Romans and Philemon) ; and it
must be either Divine or not Divine, — degrees of divinity or of last-
ingness of divinity are odd ideas ! He says " the strict views of in-
spiration " of the apostles " seem to preclude all liberty of criticism " ;
and yet they are identical with Christ's, whose example he says
criticism takes its "charter" from! and yet it was no less a
critic than Dr. W. Robertson Smith, who surely used sufficient
critical liberty, who wrote and proved to the majority of a Church
great in theological scholarship, and strong in evangelical faith:
" I am willing to have my views on Deuteronomy tested even by the
strictest views of plenary inspiration, and I am confident they are
able to stand the test " (Answers, p. 3) ;— to say nothing of Drs.
Westcott, Lightfoot, Hort, Rainy, A. B. Davidson, Patrick Fairbairn,
Delitzsch, Godet, Dorner, and countless others ; and the Puritans, the
Reformers, and all the great Biblical scholars in the Christian Church
I
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 69I
from the first, who have not found the " strict views of inspiration ' of
the Divinely-inspired N.T. writers to prechide them from true and
reverent Biblical criticism, but to stimulate them in it ; and without
which as a foundation, and still more with such views of the Bible's
untrustworthiness as this critic and Dr. Schmiedel represent as the
latest results of modern criticism, would scarcely have thought it
worth while to prosecute it at all. He implies that those who hold
such strict views of plenary inspiration as the apostles, exclude
textual criticism, and discussions of the Canon ; but no intelligent
holder of them has ever done so ; and, on the contrary, some of them
have been among the most eminent in these studies, — witness Dr.
Hort and Westcott's Gi-cek N.T., and the latter's Cano/i of the N.T.,
and even Gaussen's book on the Canon of the whole liible. He
presumes to say that these apostolic " strict views of inspiration " — •
"the equal and lasting divinity" of the O.T. "held from the first
generation of the Church to the last but one, has paralysed the in-
tellects of those who have adopted them,"— as witness those named
above I and such as Chalmers, Candlish, Cunningham, Gladstone,
the whole Princeton School, Butler, Jonathan Edwards, Owen,
Calvin, Augustine, Origen ; also Paul, Isaiah, David, Moses, and all
the apostles and prophets ! I with their Lord ! ! ! And, finally, he
charges these views with making sceptics. Extreme views do and
tend to make sceptics — extreme traditionalism, and the extreme of
Rationalism far more ; — the latter by their first principles, methods,
and results, and by such misrepresentations as appear even in
this critic's book — such as that those holding plenary inspiration
urge the "literal acceptance" of all parts of the O.T. as our life rule,
and teach the old, oft-exposed perversion that God sanctions all the
evil "tempers," cruelties, and abominations recorded in the O.T., —
which are culpable caricatures, and the very opposite of what they
hold, as seen. Such are the paltry trivialities, persistent misrepre-
sentations, and simple delusions by which, in lack of better argu-
ments, such critics base and build their pretentious anti-scriptural
criticism ; and if the latest results of it are such as this book, and
Dr. Schmiedel's articles represent, it must multiply sceptics abund-
antly, if men are fools enough to believe it ; but this would require
such credulity as is not found even in the extremest traditionalism,
or the absurdest literalism.
III. The Results. Discrediting the Historicity, ignoring
iTfE Miraculous, and destroying the Trustworthiness
OF THE Scriptures.
The basis given for this criticism, in the alleged example of
Christ, and the erroneousness of His apostles in their use of the
O.T., have been found baseless. The results, methods, and principles
of it are startling and significant, and they prove to the full what is
urged above (pp. 330-360), that the erroneousness and untrustworthi-
ness of Scripture are alleged not only in small but in great and
essential things, and in large and root parts. They are in brief as
follows : — I. That the whole writings of the O.T. down to the pro-
phets of the eighth century (Isaiah, etc.), which are rnosdy given as
692 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
history, are not history, but almost wholly works of fiction ; and the
whole of the patriarchs, even down to Joseph, are not real personages
but myths, "personifications of the genius and temper of the tribes
of which they are represented as the ancestors " (p. 76). " We have
in the stories of the Hebrew Patriarchs just what their late date would
lead us to expect : — efforts to account for the geographical distribu-
tion of neighbouring nations, for their affinities, contrasts, and
mutual antipathies, and in particular for the composite character of
Israel" (pp. 102-104). That for example "Noah, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob" and their "sons" were not real persons, but racial, tribal,
and geographical names, and the events and transactions recorded
the "transactions between tribes": Jacob's marriage of Laban's
daughters, and then the separation were simply " two peoples " not
persons ! and Jacob's blessing his sons was not fact nor prophecy
(for this criticism precludes si/c7i), nor personal events (for the per-
sons never existed), but simply a piece of literary fiction given as
real history, and true prophecy, "describing the geographical dis-
positions" and the "experience" of the tribes, written after the
events, and ages "after their settlement in Palestine" (p. 105) ; "the
characters of Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, were [simply] the characters of
the historical tribes," as was Reuben's unchastity, and Judah's of the
"irregular marriages with the Canaanites" (pp. 102-104). As the
avowed bases of this criticism have been proved baseless, let it suffice
to say as to these applications and results : —
First, That there is almost nothing worthy of the name of evi-
dence adduced for these theories and allegations. — They are generally
mere assertions, guesses, or speculations, of little or no weight
against the inherent truthlikeness of these narratives, their radical
connection with the unquestionably historical parts of Scripture, and
the wondrous corroborations from archaeology. The late dates given
to the writings as we have them, which is made so much of, really
proves nothing against the reality of the persons, or the trustworthi-
ness of the writings, except on principles that would discredit all
history ; for surely though they were as late as is said, in the present
form, that does not preclude earlier forms in substance or nuclei
similar, or traditions like and reliable, and early documents, which
Scripture shows, and critics urge, and which all history has, and
historians rightly use as trustworthy, though often very ancient, —
witness even Hallam's History of tJic Middle Ages. Besides, re-
ligious books and traditions have always been preserved with special
sacredness, pre-eminently by the Hebrews, who believed they had a
Divine trust of the Oracles of God for all mankind, and preserved
them, amid all their defections and sufferings, with a unique sacred-
ness and tenacity.
Second, It is patently impossible to make many parts of the
narratives and events, traits and details, of the individual histories
to correspond with the characteristics and experiences of tribes ; as
even he admits later, without seeing that it nullifies his main con-
tention.
Third, Only by the most forced and overstrained means can
anything beyond a general correspondence be shown between the
characters of the persons and the tribes. But so far from this
proving that the patriarchs were not real personages, it only con-
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 693
firms the opposite ; for it is notorious that families and tribes bear
physically, mentally, and morally a likeness to the ancient ancestor,
the head or f;ither of it. It is, indeed, a well-known law of nature,
called by science the law of heredity. So that any general character
in a tribe or nation requires an ancient head to give it that character,
and postulates the reality of that personage. And so far from a
person, a tribe, or a country having the same name, proving the
unreality of the personage, as he avers, it does just the reverse ; for in
all times and lands only great persons, like Noah, Abraham, and
David, have begun great movements, — showing the truth in Carlyle's
maxim — the history of the world is the history of its great men — , and
been the hinges of history, but they have also given their names to
their tribes and countries.
Fourt/i, While Scripture may use ti^adition, legend, myth, or
allegory, or any other form of literary composition, in expressing
God's revelation, and may and does seem to use legend and tradition
current among other peoples — specially of the Babylonian cradle of
the race — and by supernatural inspiration purify and elevate them
to convey Divine truths, — yet such wholesale fiction as this, making
of such large and radical parts of Scripture, which are given as
real history, simply literary fictions, which have misled and could not
fail to mislead men, seems inconsistent with and destructive of the
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and Divine authority of God's Word,
if not with the character of God, and the honesty of the writers. And
certainly this would destroy its historicity, which has ever been
regarded as its distinctive character and glory, and is the basis, con-
dition, and means of its conveying a true and reliable historical
revelation through, by, and in the history. It is not that God could
not give a revelation, through myth, legend, allegory, or parable, for
in the abstract that is both possible and actual ; but that since it
professes to be and is a historical revelation, and the Scripture is
professedly the true and authoritative record and embodiment of it,
the denial and destruction of its historicity is the virtual denial and
destruction of the truth and Divine authority of the revelation ; —
especially when it is also alleged to be so largely erroneous and
morally wrong.
Fifth, No conceivable motive is given or purpose was served by
God giving or men writing God's Word in this way, and giving fiction
as fact, romance for history. For if it is fiction, and as such, as
urged, serves its ethical ends as well as though it were history, what
end could be served by giving it as history? or what purpose can it
serve now since it is discovered ? Why did God and the inspired
writers conspire to give fiction for fact, legendary myths as historical
characters, to serve no end, when it was surely as easy to give this
in the one form as the other ? and when the discovery of it could lead
only to unsettlement and unbelief? And why were men by this so
long misled, as the writings did and could not fail to do, and kept in
darkness on it by God and the inspired writers till the omniscience of
modern criticism at last found out both Him and them, and exposed
the whole delusion or deception ! ! as Wellhausen, the great leader of
this school, says— fiction imposed by fraud as fact upon a credulous
people by designing priests for personal aggrandisement? Abase-
less imagination, as shown (p. 20).
694 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
S/.i-//i, But the prophets, as he admits, refer to and held these
O.T. characters as real personages and the events as facts — teach
that these Scriptures which such critics make fictions, were veritable
histories — the Word of God, as proved. But, as usual with such
critics, that is explained and disowned by the prophets holding the
beliefs of their times on this, as on all the miracles of Israel's history !
(p. 276, etc.). So this is set aside, because it does not suit the
oracular results of this criticism. So that when the prophets seem
to serve their purposes they make them authorities ; when they don't,
they are disowned unceremoniously, and the N.T. writers similarly,
and they become supreme authorities to themselves. ^
SevcntJi, At last they must face the Lord of prophets and apostles ;
for he that heareth you heareth Me, and he that heareth Me heareth
Him that sent Me ; and here again heaves in view through the dust
of lesser controversies, the supreme and ever inevitable issue, " Is
Christ infallible" or Divine? And with that and Him we leave the
cjuestion, for the Word of the Lord endureth for ever.
Here it is enough to say, as proved, that our Lord ever upheld
and declared the truth, and Divine authority of the O.T., as it is given,
and often quoted and used as true and historical those very books
which such critics make fiction or fraud of, and find error, wrong, or
superstition in ; and He never questioned but ever asserted and
assumed the reality of those personages, and the historicity of those
narratives that these critics allege to be myths in fiction. As shown
in Book I, Chapter VIII. — specially pp. 205-208, He quotes or refers
to these books often as historical, and always as true and authori-
tative. He refers frequently to events in the narratives as facts — the
creation, the fall, the flood, the destruction of Sodom, etc., the manna,
and to much in the Law both ceremonial and moral as Divine and
authoritative, and to the Law and the Prophets including all, as true
and historical. He mentions, as real persons, many of its leading
characters in these books — Adam and Eve (Mark 10*'), Abel, Noah,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot and his wife, Moses, David, Solomon,
Queen of Sheba, Elijah, Elisha, etc., and holds what is said about
them as true. With His special reference to three of the Patriarchs
we close His testimony to the reality of these personages, the
historicity of these books, and to the truth of many of their most
marvellous miracles. Replying to the Sadducees who denied the
resurrection of the dead. He said, "As touching the resurrection
of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you
by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob ; God is not the God of the dead but of the
living" (Matt. 22''^- ^-). This was said from the midst of the bush
that burned and yet was not consumed ; and here Christ teaches,
First, that this most marvellous miracle in the O.T. was fact.
Second, that God said these words to Israel through Moses — the
prophet being, as He taught, the mouthpiece of God. Third, that
the dead shall be raised. Fourth, that these Patriarchs, though
their bodies were dead, are alive with God, — which is three times
significantly emphasised, — the personal relation of God to each
being shown by the repetition of "God" with each, with the "and"
emphatic. How was it possible even for God to make in human
1 See Prof. Dr. Stanley Leathes' The Law in the Prophets.
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 695
language the historicity of these narratives, the reahty, identity, and
actual existence of these persons, more decisive? On the truth of
these statements are staked the authority of our Lord as a teacher,
His reality as a Saviour, the validity of His claims to be God, and
the truth of His religion. And yet, according to such critics, these
characters are myths, and these writings fiction, with only such a
possible "substratum of actual personal history" as any fiction may
have, — though even that, if really admitted, would nullify their whole
theories and contention. And to these critics, as to the Sadducees,
His word is apt, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither
the power of God." ^ Christ thus destroys both the bases and the
results of their criticism.
2. Much of what is admitted to be partially historical is said to be
not true, or genuine as given, but largely erroneous and misleading.
Though Moses is owned to be a real person, yet much of what is said
about him, and his writings and legislation, is said to be unhistorical,
untrue, and in parts morally wrong ; while his brother Aaron is ignored
and seems a myth ; for "the High Priest first appears in Hebrew his-
tory with the return from the Exile" \ {t;). 172). Therefore, either
Aaron, whose history is given at length along with Moses', as Xh&Jirst
high priest, is a myth and never existed, or the history is fictitious or
untrue ; and if Aaron is not a real person how can Moses be ? or if
the writings are untrustworthy in the one case, how can we reason-
ably rely on them in the other? Similarly Joshua was a myth and his
book a romance ; but he seems lately to have fought his way to life
again, and to have taught the critics, as he did the Canaanites, that
he was not quite a ghost, nor his book wholly a fable ! The Book of
Judges is largely legendary and wrong, hut with some authentic
parts in a few chapters, though these critics differ on this also !
"The books of Samuel and Kings are composed of narratives of
various worth " ; but some parts " are of an age long subsequent to
the events they describe," and by implication untrustworthy ; while
for the " more nearly contemporary " parts, readers are referred to
the varying rationalistic critics ! .Samuel was a real person of great
influence in Israel ; only what are given as the facts about him conflict
with Scripture, — Samuel's "genius," not God, "selecting" Saul and
"launching" him on his career. David is a real personage ; but the
representations of his history and character are said to be contra-
dictory. Instead of, like Dr. Robertson Smith, with true scientific
criticism, meeting the difficulty in the different accounts of David's
early appearances before Saul, by reference to the truer and older
text in the Septuagint (p. 289 above), he simply advises preachers to
say, "These are two different traditions of the same event, and con-
1 In the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of England, Mr. Samuel Smith,
M.P. , an able well-known writer on Christian and Protestant defence, on this
said, ' ' Christ says, ' Before Abraham was, I am.' Again He argues for the future
life of the saints by the words ' I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
God is not the God of the dead but of the living." They were alive with God.
Again, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was
glad.' If Abraham never lived, or was only a tribal name, what becomes of our
Lord's veracity, or of His knowledge? He either consciously deceived men or
was under an illusion." It will take the best of these critics to answer this. On
such a vital religious question no Christian can take either alternative, whatever
sceptics may do, and they can be answered on their own grounds.
6g6 ArrENDix to second edition
fine himself to the moral issues of the one or the other." It seems
of no moment which is the true, or the original, though said to be
" irreconcilable " ; but only draw some moral lessons from either ;
a third of anyone's imagining might serve the same purposes. And
this, which does nothing but perplex the more, and play with God's
Word and people, is with great pretensions called criticism and
science ! when it is a poor abandonment of both.
Elijah and Elisha are said to be real characters ; but the truth
and trustworthiness of the narratives are by no means owned, but
the reverse largely implied. Of Elijah's story only "the essential
historical value " is owned, and that only inferred from other than
historical grounds. We are sure only of " the reality of Elisha and
of his service to Israel," and all seems the effect of merely natural
causes. But in both the miraculous is ig^nored, distrusted, or
naturalised, Elijah's feeling "all the physical wonder and force of
the deity" "was common to all the Semitic religions." And "it
would be impossible to prove the historical reality of the series of
curious marvels (mark that 1) attributed to Elisha from outside the
annals of the kings of Israel." But these "are of no importance to
the Christian preacher" ! And yet the miracles are the backbone,
framework, and substance of their whole histories, and constitute the
basis, soul, and body of all their life and teaching. They form and
are the history. Without them the whole dissolves in unreality, and
the narratives cease to be ; and whatever shreds of the writings
might remain would be utterly untrustworthy. From the time of
the great prophets of the eighth century, "the students of Scripture
traverse ground still more certain." They would need to ! for there
has been almost nothing certain yet. But even here there is much
mixture of truth and error, patchwork and uncertainty ; and what
is held sure is so not because of its intrinsic independent truth and
authority, but because it is confirmed by outside sources : and the
miraculous here also is ignored or naturalised.
3. This leads to his treatment of the miraculous. It is generally
ignored, plainly disfavoured, usually naturalised, often obviously the
real reason underlying the rejection of the historicity of large parts of
Scripture, sometimes clearly regarded as incredible, always looked
askance at, and no opportunity lost of depreciating it, or disparaging
those who use it as given ;— altogether it is evidently felt to be an
awkward element desirable to get rid of, and a hindrance rather than a
help to faith. The whole early history of Israel, though originated, per-
vaded, and atmosphered by miracle, is put aside at the outset without
recognition as miraculous, and seems even questioned by his " whether
what we call miraculous or not" (p. 74) ; and is never returned to ;
nor is it owned in any of the earlier history, or in the revelation
made to the patriarchs or prophets. Moses' mission began by a
great miracle, and was carried out through miracles at every stage.
But not one of them is noted : nor any of the miracles of the con-
quest, or of the Judges. And in the times of the prophets, Elijah,
Elisha, etc., they are merely felt as "physical wonders," common
to the Semites, or "curious marvels" not properly provable, and
ignored as untrue or unhistorical. While in the prophets of the
eighth and seventh centuries, he urges, contrary to the facts, that
there is absence of, or of appeal to miracles, and depreciation of
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 697
them,— although they often occur in their writings ; and " the pro-
phets shared," as he says, " in the faith of their times in the pos-
sibihty and in the stories of miracles" in Israel's history! He
thinks that in "the prophets their absence is a stronger seal than
their presence would have been of the Divine origin of prophecy"
(p. 276), and thinks Christ was averse to them. Yet Christ not only
wrought them, but appealed to them in proof of His Divine claims
and mission, and made them the supreme evidence of the Jews'
obduracy.
IV. Minimising the Supernatural, Evaporating Divine
Revelation, and Naturalising Bible Inspiration.
We rejoice at the frank avowal of belief in a Divine Revelation
in Israel, culminating in Christ. We appreciate the earnestness and
ingenuity of the eiitbrt made to establish it, as is thought, on stronger
grounds than usual. And we value some of the good and fresh
things said about it. But we deeply regret that he undoes much
of what is said, by other things, vitiates it by rationalistic principles,
evaporates both Divine Revelation and supernatural inspiration pro-
perly so called, and thus renders the attempted proof a practical
failure. The proof, in brief, is that Israel alone of all the Semite
peoples attained a proper idea of God, realised a true monotheism ;
and that this was reached through Jahweh making an impression of
His character and will upon them through the events of their national
history — " every fresh moral ideal is confessed by the people as the
impression of His character and will" (p. 141). So far good and
true. But, First, of what avail to us that a revelation was given to
Israel, if the Book that contains it, and is the only record of it, is so
untrue and untrustworthy, so misleading and morally wrong, as he
says it is ? It is only and precisely so far as we hold the record to
be true and trustworthy that the Revelation can be of any use to us :
and so far as it is not so, it is worse than useless ; for it spoils what
may be true, makes it impossible to be sure of what is false and
wrong, and what true and good ; and in the very attempt to separate
them, it places man's erring reason above Divine Revelation as
judge ; besides, these critics greatly differ and are ever changing in
their opinions as to this. So that the purpose of giving a Revelation,
if such was given, is thus defeated or largely nullified ; because God
has failed to give or preserve it properly I .SV^;^;/^/, the impression
of His character and will was made upon them through the events of
their history, chiefly by those miracles in which He manifested
Himself and His will, and which these critics disown or ignore.
Israel's history from first to last was and professed to be character-
istically a miraculous history wrought by God, in contrast with the
impotence of the heathen gods, as Israel's leaders and peoples ever
declared ; and what the Lord had in His grace done for them by His
" mighty hand and outstretched arm " was the burden of many a
message and the theme of many a song by leader, prophet, and
psalmist, and was, in fact, the spring and keynote of all their unique
and marvellous history. By miracles it was created, sustained, and
perfected throughout, and was at last closed and crowned in the
miracles of the incarnation and resurrection, with all the attendant
698 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
miracles of the N.T. By these supremely the revelations were made
and not merely attested ; the revelations came through the miracles,
as Professor Harper well shows, they were the revelations : and
through them God manifested Himself and made the impression
of His mind and will upon His people. For they were not
merely or mainly works of power ; but of power and wisdom,
righteousness and mercy, faithfulness and love, by which the Holy
One of Israel as a Redeeming God manifested Himself to His re-
deemed. But, since these are by such critics ignored, disowned, and
treated as if they were unhistorical or incredible, the impression
would not be made, and what comes then of the Divine Revelation
(or the proof of them) of which they were the medium and embodiment .?
They simply cease to be. Nay more, every word the prophets and
O.T. waiters spoke or wrote for God were by supernatural inspiration
—miracle, as they with one great voice declare, as seen ; and the
divine words of the prophets largely made and moulded the history.
So that we owe the whole Revelation of God to miracle, and without
that it would have never been. Third, he says that " among modern
critics there is virtual unanimity in carrying back the origin of Israel's
ethical distinction to the time of Moses, and in regarding him as the
instrument " (p. 136). But he also says that the religion of Israel
"remained before the age of the great prophets, not only similar to,
but in all respects above mentioned [namely, that the Lord was merely
a "tribal God," whose power and worship were limited to their own
land and "invalid beyond it," that the reality of other gods was not
denied but believed in— even the Second Commandment agreeing
with this!! ^'ic?^ identical \\\\X\ the general Semitic religion, which
was not a monotheism but a polytheism, with an opportunity for
monotheism at the heart of it, each tribe being attached to one God "
(pp. 128-130) ; and that not till after Isaiah, and in Jeremiah's time
was the " nothingness " of heathen gods believed or expressed, even
by God's prophets ! Astounding assertions and hallucinations these,
contradicted by the prime facts, and especially by the clear testimony
of these very prophets who ever declare that in calling Israel to faith
in the One God who is the Creator and Ruler of all, they are only
recalling them to the religion God revealed to their fathers through
the Patriarchs and earlier Prophets ; as Dr. A. B. Davidson well says,
that when Isaiah points to God as the one Creator and Governor of
the world he "teaches nothing new or unknown : he recalls what is
known, reburnishing the consciousness of it, in order to sustain the
faith and hope of the people." But if Israel's religion was a poly-
theism five or six centuries after Moses, and identical practically with
Semitic idolatry, it is absurdity and self-contradiction to speak of
Moses as the originator of its ethical distinction. This is in sub-
stance the view of the antisupernaturalist Kuenen, who claimed these
prophets as "the creators of monotheism" ; yet, as this critic says,
"admits that though Jahweh of Israel and Chemosh of Moab were
'sons of the same house,' there must have been in the Jahweh re-
ligion from the very beginning the germs" of its after "development."
But he denied there was anything supernatural in it— simply one of the
larger "world religions," the product of mere natural evolution from the
moral and religious nature of man ; as he could and all such critics
should consistently do ; for in man as made in the image of God, there
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 699
is, though fallen, the promise and the potency of a true knowledge
of God — "an opportunity for monotheism in the heart of it," which
is pure antisupernaturalism. By the religion of Israel here is meant,
of course, its religion as revealed by God through its prophets and
leaders from Moses to Isaiah.
It would evidently be less absurd to judge the religion of Christ
by the practice of Christendom, instead of the N.T., than to judge the
religion of Israel by the practice of the people, instead of by the
teaching of its prophets. But if it be true, as he says, from all we
know of "the genuine records "of its history up to the eighth century,
that it began with Moses, " the covenanting Deity from the first re-
vealing His moral attributes," then, it is scarcely less unreasonable
to suppose that the high. Divine monotheism ascribed to Moses by
all Scripture and tradition could have been so ineffectual, even with
God and His Spirit behind it and in the heart of it, seeking men's
salvation, as that after the labour of Moses and all the prophets from
his time to Jeremiah's, it should remain practically the same Semitic
polytheism as at first : — especially in the light of the facts that
Christianity in our day has in a few years changed the most in-
veterate heathenism and the most debased idolaters and savages
into earnest and intelligent Christians, and that in the apostolic age
the heathen world in its worst forms received the Gospel so readily
and so fully as to be able to grasp and glory in the profound and
sublime revelations of the N.T. ; and most of all, that the eighth
century prophets should have been able, as alleged, to raise them so
quickly from Semitic polytheism to the Divine monotheism of the
O.T. ! For Moses was a prophet and the greatest of them, and the
type for all, yea of Him who said, "Moses wrote of Me," and
that was surely the vision of the Highest. Besides, Moses' teaching^
was as pure and high monotheism as was ever taught by Jeremiah
or any other. For, taking as his only the least that the greatest
critics hold as his — the Book of the Covenant, including the Ten
Commandments, and what even Dr. Cheyne holds as among the very
oldest — Ex. 34*"'— where can higher conceptions ofa Redeeming God
be found ? — even John 3^'' needs all its grace and glory to be placed
beside Ex. 34'"'. And Christ said that the first commandment of the
Law of Moses was, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ;
and thou shalt lo\e the Lord thy God, and thy neighbour as thyself"
— summing it all up in love to God and man ; and that is surely the
highest ethical monotheism. Further, if, and since it is true that
our Written Revelation began with Moses, with its Divine revela-
tions of God's character and will, great things further follow far
beyond Moses, and travel back for centuries along the ascending
course of the river Revelation, far up to its Divine mystic fountains
in Ur of the Chaldees, where the gracious God of salvation called
Abraham to a knowledge of Himself, as the One Living and True
God, from among his polytheistic Semitic kindred, and as a Re-
deeming God entered into a covenant of grace with him to be a God
unto him and to his seed, with a purpose and a promise that in him
and his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. And
there, and not short of that at least, is the fountainhead of that
revelation, promise, and covenant of God that culminated in Christ
and the world's redemption. This God declared to Moses when He
700 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
called him to his mission and office (Ex. 4), reveahng to him the
Divine riches of His eternal name " I am," — as Moses repeated when
he visited Israel in their bondage (Ex. 4), and to their oppressor
when he demanded their freedom in Jehovah's name. This God wrote
and Moses after Him, on the tables of stone at Sinai in the preface
to the Ten Commandments, — when as their Redeeming God He had
set them free, and anew, on that ground, entered into covenant with
the seed of Abraham. This the whole subsequent prophets and writers
of O.T. and New with one grand voice proclaim till Revelation's
close. This the whole Church of God with its greatest scholars has
held till now. And this the Incarnate Redeeming God Himself, the
fulfiller of all the Law and the Prophets, declared in Uivinest ma-
jesty—" Before Abraham was, I am ; I a>n the God of Abraham," etc.
This then is the great root fact, covenant, and promise on which
our religion is based, and from which the whole tree of grace and
Revelation grew in its ever progressive stages, till it was crowned and
culminated in Christ and the N.T. Nor can this be torn or evapor-
ated out of Scripture without destroying it, body, soul, and spirit.
The criticism that has not grasped this radical, central fact is
unworthy of the name of Biblical criticism or historical science.
And whatever may be said by such critics implying that Abraham,
etc., was a myth or nonentity, the promise a fable, and the covenant
an imagination,— though if ever history was real and truthlike this is,
and is corroborated by archaeology, which has exposed such criticism;
that Moses gave only the "germs" or "origins "of Israel's mono-
theism,—when all Scripture declares he was the supreme agent of its
establishment and embodiment ; that the covenant renewed by God
through Moses " was not the ethical factor which told in early Israel's
ethical development" (p. 140), — though itself was pre-eminently
ethical, and the basis and substance of all subsequent ethics, and a
unique revelation of the righteousness, mercy, and goodness of God ;
that the prophets of the eighth century were practically "the creators"
of its monotheism, — when these prophets themselves proclaim the
opposite, and that theirs was the old religion which the God of their
fathers had given to and through the patriarchs and prophets, and
which with all the passion of their prophetic inspiration they sought
to realise in Israel ; that there was antagonism between the principles
and spirit of the Law and of the Prophets whose "conflicting ten-
dencies" largely vitiated Israel's Bible and religion, — though a mere
fiction of rationalistic criticism, contradicted by the fulfilment of
both in Christ, as complementary parts of one Divine Revelation of
grace, standing out in full harmony in O.T. and New : — Yet thus
saith the Lord, " Abraham rejoiced to see my day," " Ye shall see
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of God," therefore not
myths. " Did not Moses give you the Law?" and that Law is "love"
as "God is love" — the highest ethical monotheism surely. Abraham
said, " If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they
believe though one rise from the dead," where Abraham is as real as
Moses and the Prophets. And yet Christ is charged with giving
the "charter," and the "example" for such criticism, which virtually
disowns all this, and His authority along with it, which treats all in
such a naturalistic way as seems to leave little if any room for God
or the Holy Ghost in it, makes fiction and error of much of the most
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 70I
patently historical and truthlike books ever written (while their own
criticism is mainly Jiction-niaking), ignores or disowns the miracul-
ous, minimises or eliminates the supernatural by natural evolution so
largely ruling in it, virtually evaporates Divine Revelation and pro-
phetic prediction properly so-called by making these merely sagacious
"forecasts" from natural moral principles and observation of events,
and disowns supernatural inspiration by describing prophetic inspira-
tion as " a faith differing in degree but not iti kind from ours," mere
" moral inspiration " (pp. 277-78, and his Isaiah, p. 372), see above (pp.
335, 583), — although supernatural inspiration was all the more needed,
and is nowhere more manifest than in making what, if not history,
is myth and legend, the means of conveying such high and elevating
ethical teaching, and in weaving and fusing the various documents
forming parts of the O.T. into those marvellous religious composi-
tions that make these sacred Scriptures unique {sui generis), shining
out peerlessly alone as moral renovators and lonely spiritual splen-
dours in the literature of the world, and require supernatural
inspiration as their only rational explanation. And how sad to see
professed believers in Revelation adopting- these rationalistic prin-
ciples, methods, and results, whose natural tendency and legitimate
issue is the elimination of the supernatural from the religion of Israel
and of Christ ; and giving this, with its natural issue in Scepticism
and religious indifference, as the assured results of the latest criticism
of God's Word at the dawn of a new century. But it is, in fact, a
narrow, one-sided, and unscientific dogmatism, oracular though con-
tradictory and everchanging, rooted in false assumptions, pervaded by
pervertive principles, vitiated by wrong methods, violating the first
principles of historical criticism and inductive science, and repudi-
ated, in its main issues, by the ablest criticism and best scholarship
in Christendom ; as will appear more baldly in what Dr. Schmiedel
gives as the latest N.T. criticism.
Articles in Encvclop.edia Biblica by Professor Schmiedel
and others on n.t. criticism, etc.
After the references above not much is needed here ; — especially
as this criticism is so antichristian and unscientific as not to require
or warrant much refutation, — although it has created a panic among
many and is serious enough in itself. As Dr. Robertson Smith said
of a similar N.T. criticism, but by much greater men, some twenty
years ago, and Principal Salmond says of this now, it is criticism in
a " craze." " Give them rope enough and they will hang themselves,"
has seldom been more signally illustrated than in this. Paley said,
in dealing with a class of pretentious infidels in his day, that the best
way of handling them was by looking at their results, and if these
were found wrong, it was not needful to show where the process
erred. Here the results are gravely wrong, and the process is of
easy exposure.
I . What are the Results ?
I. That Jesus was a mere man born of earthly parents ; though
who His father was is uncertain ; and that "in the person of Jesus
we have to do with a completely human being" (§ 139), not sinless,
702 AITENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
or perfect, though well meaning, who made a powerful impression
on His disciples.
2. That there was no incarnation of God in Him, that He never
claimed to be God ; and that all of that nature in Scripture was mere
myth and legend, the creation of the love and reverence of His
disciples, or the reflection of later conceptions.
3. That He wrought no miracles, nor ever pretended to ; though
He seems to have effected some remarkable cures ; but we can re-
ceive as true only those "which even physicians in the present day
are able to effect " : and that all narratives of a miraculous character
are incredible and unhistorical — "either never happened at all, or (at
least) if historical, they are not miraculous" (§ 140).
4. That He never rose from the dead, nor spoke of doing so,
except, perhaps, the resurrection of His spirit. It was only an illusion
of the excited imagination of His disciples. And the idea of His
bodily resurrection is the reflection of later ideas expressed by the
prevalent mythopoeic faculty.
5. That He never really appeared after the resurrection, or at most
only His spirit influenced them through vision or dream, as Paul ;
but all this was illusion or frenzy, and the records thereof unhistorical
and untrustworthy.
6. That He was not, and never claimed to be, the Messiah ; but
it was only the later ideas of His disciples, influenced by pro-
phecy, that clothed Him with Messianic aureole, amid prevalent
expectations ; and, therefore, the " christologic framework must
be classed among the untrustworthy elements in the Gospels"
(§ 140).
7. That He never professed to fulfil Scripture, or foretold His
death and resurrection and consequent glory, and never spoke the
words attributed to Him after the resurrection ; but it was only the
disciples who afterwards tried to fit the later beliefs of the Church
to the O.T. prophecies, and to gather them round Him as their
fulfiller.
8. That the Gospels are almost wholly unhistorical, and so un-
reliable and incredible in their main fabrics, contents, and repre-
sentations as to be practically worthless as history, and can only
mislead if read and believed, as they are ; and that from them
we can know almost nothing certain of what Jesus said, or did, or
experienced.
9. That the only things "to recognise as true" and "absolutely
trustworthy in the Gospels" are that "Jesus had compassion on the
multitude, and that He preached with power, not as the scribes " ;
and in the sayings of Jesus there are five "credible" with four others
that seem in the same line : ^ and these are all obviously and arbi-
trarily " sought out," as admitted, because supposed to show that He
was a mere man, and not sinless, if not "beside Himself," and never
wrought a miracle, and are simply quoted " as proofs of the human
as against the divine character of Jesus" (§ 139) ; though how they
or the mere quoting of them, which is all he does, could be thought
"proofs" of any such thing, except to the perverted imaginations of
those to whom the wish was father to the thought, and whose eyes
1 These are Mark lo'^, Matt. 12=1, Mark 381 13:12, Mark is^-* ; Mark 8I- 6= 8^*,
Matt. ii5, Luke 722.
ArPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 703
were blinded and judgments warped by dogmatic prejudice and
antichristian bigotry, is a mystery and a marvel, — unless, indeed,
upon the absurd assumption that because He was man, therefore, He
could not be God I which is another vain imagination.
But, meantime, come here ye oracles who have been assuring the
uninstructed that nothing Christian is affected by recent criticism,
and look at these nine poor fragments, which like the sorrow-soaked
garments torn from His bleeding back by His crucifiers, to play a
game of chance with before His dying eyes, are the all left to us of
Him we loved, and trusted as our Brother-God, and Redeeming
Saviour, and which are dear to us still because they were His, till
some other crew of such critics come to take even these away, — as the
" indemnity " to the executioners — and tell us whether out of these
poor remains you can make a Saviour or a religion on which men
can live or die ! — while they hold Him dead and buried and His re-
ligion with Him, under the great stone which their final judgment
has laid on it and Him, and their critical watch and seal will make
"as sure as they can," while He that sits in heaven laughs at them.
And come ye masters of science, history, and criticism, whose hon-
oured names have been invoked and profaned by such travesty and
caricature of all, by those pretenders to the names, as proved ; and
come along with them ye trembling Christians who have been
troubled or alarmed by the approach and pretensions of these
modern philistines, and gather round the grave, not of a dead
Christ, or of an extinct Christianity, but of a self-suspended, self-
annihilated rationalistic criticism, over which no human heart will
ever shed a tear, or wish a resurrection for, but over whose eternal
repose mankind would say a loud and deep "Amen." For were its
results as true as they are false, and supremely ridiculous, tJiis criticism
does nothing but deprive men of the faith and hopes, joys and com-
forts, inspiration and transformation — yea, the intellectual, moral, and
spiritual elevation, by which men and nations have been raised and
blessed, and the world renewed, transformed, and entered on a new
era of progress and prosperity, — and leave them instead with nothing
but blank negation and utter despair. For surely it were ten thousand
times better to live and die with such potent and precious delusions
than be left with nothing worth knowing. But how such unquestion-
ably great and good effects should be produced by such delusive
causes, it has yet to show. Certainly at least this criticism must
perish, and if believed, its occupation cease ; for it has destroyed its
own materials, and left the world and the Church with nothing about
Jesus or His religion they would care to know, or that would be of
any value to them. For if these poor fragments were all we can
surely know of Him from Scripture, and these, too, interpreted as
Schmiedel means them to be "as proofs" that Jesus was not Divine,
or "good," but "beside Himself," — then of what avail or value would
He or they be to sinful men, whose supreme need is a Saviour ;
especially as the words of such a person would have no authority,
even if they were true. Therefore, this criticism, by destroying the
trustworthiness of Scripture, has destroyed itself, by destroying its
own materials, and necessary basis : and its assured results, if be-
lieved, would have some other assured results. The Church of Christ
would cease ; for it would have no Christ or Gospel, and Christianity
704 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
with its untold blessings to mankind would be no more. The study
of Scripture would cease ; for who would be so foolish as to waste
time, or brain, or money in studying such untrustworthy and worthless
writings? And Bible Dictionaries and articles in Biblical Encyclo-
paedias would cease ; for what reasonable being would write, or buy,
or read, or waste anything on such untrustworthy and worthless
materials ?
Thus, this criticism stultifies, annihilates, and openly hangs itself
with its own rope, upon its own gibbet, to the delight of all serious
and sensible men.
2. As its Results are wrong and preposterous, though self-destructive
of this Criticism, its Methods are unscientific and contemptible.
I. Its grounds are not critical at all, but some other outside and
"independent"' of criticism, as Schimedel says — "It cannot but
seem unfortunate that the decision of the credibility of the Gospel
narratives should be made to depend upon the determination of
the problem, so difficult and perhaps insoluble as the synoptical is " ;
and then he seeks for other and " independent " grounds. It is,
therefore, after critical grounds have been avowedly abandoned as
hopeless that he seeks for other grounds— " some means independent
of this," to destroy the credibility of the Gospels. Mark this well,
because this is given at the close and as the outcome of the criticism
of the Gospels ; and it proves, first, that, according to him,
criticism is played out, has ended in a fiasco, since its first and funda-
mental problem — " the synoptical" — is hopelessly "insoluble " ; and
second, as the question of the credibility of the Gospels is "made to
depend upon" this insoluble problem, the question of the credibility
of the Gospels is by this criticism avowedly abandoned in despair,
and therefore, "some means independent of this" are sought to
settle the question on other than critical grounds. So that what has
been given above as the results of this latest criticism is patently
and confessedly not really the results of criticism at all, but of
something else "independent" of it. Consequently he says, "The
relative priority [of the Gospels] becomes a matter of indifference,
because the absolute priority — that is, the origin in real tradition — is
certain" (§ 139). And the five, or, at most, nine passages given as
" credible " in the Gospels are selected and isolated from all else not
on critical grounds, as possessing any better MSS. or other critical
authority, but on some other ground,— on really his own independent
opinions— his materialistic dogmatic assumptions and antichristian
prejudices. And the two "great facts" that he starts with "as
true" as the grounds of the "so great reverence for himself,"
Jesus called forth that He "had compassion on the multitude,
and preached with power," are not e\-en alleged to have any better
critical evidence than the rest, but simply and arbitrarily selected on
his own authority, because thought to agree with his own dogmatic
prepossessions on other subjects. In fact upon Schmiedel's ipse dixit,
Christendom is to abandon its faith in its Christ and its Bible ; for
he does not even attempt to prove his false presuppositions true, but
assumes them to be so ; and he expects mankind to receive it as
true when he declares the Word of God incredible, and the idea
ArrENDIX TO SECOND EDITION yo$
of Jesus being the Son of God a delusion ! It should therefore
be distinctly recognised that these alleged latest results of N.T.
criticism are really not the results of criticism properly so-called
at all, but of false materialistic prepossessions misapplied to destroy
the Word of God.
2. The assumptions and prejudices that lead to the results are
false and perverting, and are rooted in anti-supernaturalism, and
based upon materialism. This materialism forced itself into great
prominence in the last generation, disowned and showed itself
incapable of recognising the spiritual and the unseen, — which is after
all the most real and the everlasting universe, — and presumed most
unscientifically to rule all things in heaven and earth by the laws of
matter. But its reign has ended ; a newer, truer, and profounder
science and philosophy, along with Christian apology, have shown
its narrowness and shallowness, and proved in the most scientific
way that there is more in heaven and earth than was dreamt of
in materialism ; and the spiritual and unseen are now held to be
the real and the eternal, and reign supreme. But Schmiedel and
others like, have not yet escaped from the benighting influence
of that obsolete delusion, called by Carlyle with characteristic force
the " dirt philosophy " ; and consequently in this new century they
seek to darken the new dawn with its dismal spectres, by absurdly
bringing its exploded assumption to settle questions of Biblical
criticism, after openly abandoning criticism ! Hence, because he
disbelieves the supernatural, he assumes without any proof that Jesus
is a mere man, and that the Incarnation is a fable, with all about it ;
and, therefore, seeks out his nine sayings of Jesus in the Gospels as
all he finds " credible," although there is no reason whatever, except
his naturalistic assumption, for choosing these, and, simply on his
ipse dixit, leaving all the rest as incredible. Yet there is not in one
or all of them, properly interpreted, anything- to warrant his assump-
tion, but not a little the reverse ; for though some of them teach,
what we glory in, that He was a true brother-man, yet most if not
all of them imply He was more than man — yea God ; and not one
of them implies He is not. Besides, there is in them Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. Further, the two "great facts" which he makes
the bases and roots of these, and the ground of the " so great rever-
ence " Jesus evoked, amounting to the worship of Him as super-
human and Divine, are founded on His miracles — the miraculous
feeding of the people (Matt, i^^^'''"', John e^'^ Mark 6"^»''' 8^^f-,
Luke 9^^--), and casting out of devils (Mark i'---'', Luke 4^^^). Had
he noted this, these facts would have been the last passages he
would have made " the foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of
Jesus " (§ 139) : for they are founded on His miracles and Divinity,
yet he unfortunately chose them on purpose to show the opposite ;
so that his " foundation pillars " are really based on the very things
he chose them to exclude.
So also, because of his opposition to the supernatural, all miracles
are "incredible." Very ludicrous are his logical feats to get rid of
them. Philo used " extravagant language about Isaac's birth," " how
much more" therefore would the apostle do so "about Him who
was regarded as the Word Himself" ! (p. 1778)— thus the Incarna-
tion is dismissed. His eighth "absolutely trustworthy" passage
45
706 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
"beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod" (Mark iS^^^)
is given to prove that the feeding of the four and five thousand were
not miracles nor facts, but a " parable " — that Jesus' teaching fed not
their bodies, but their souls ; and that the disciples who gave the
loaves and fishes to the people and gathered up the fragments were
mistaken in thinking they had done so ! It was only Jesus' teaching
that had fed them ; and the multiplied fragments simply teach
that truth when communicated multiplies in men's minds 1 Yet on
that view, the disciples supplied Jesus with His teaching, gathered up
somehow what He had not used of it, and the disciples gave to
the people their own thoughts not Christ's ; and the people had been
hearing His teaching all day, in one case on three days, and it was
only after this that on the disciples proposing to send them away to
buy bread. He wrought the miracle of the loaves and fishes to
prevent them starving. Every line of the stories is so patently real
that they would be literary miracles to write them as describing reali-
ties if they were not so. Then because Matthew adds, "besides women
and children " to the other accounts, this is contradictory, and all is
incredible, — as if additions were contradictions I and ignoring the
patent fact that the Gospels are designedly complementary. Such
vicious reasoning would make all history incredible.
Similarly the ninth saying (Mark ii^) is given to show that when
Jesus is said to heal the blind, etc., it was only the spiritually blind
who were meant ; and that simply because the last clause is " to
the poor the Gospel is preached." So other miracle narratives are
set aside, because He is said to have "healed all," and therefore " He
was followed only by sick persons " ! When it is often stated they
brought the sick, etc., to Him. Such are samples of puerile absurdi-
ties creeping over this ridiculous criticism, which is given with
great pretence as "science," when it is the sheerest travesty of
criticism, science, and common sense.
Then the resurrection of Lazarus is a fable, since he fancies it was
misunderstood " metaphor," and that because Jesus had said else-
where, " Let the dead bury their dead I " and because the Fathers
reasoned so, it might be the "possible influence of symbolism." So
the raising of the widow's son and Jairus' daughter are fables; — as
if his " possible " were of more weight than such evidence, or of any
weight at all.
A writer who could play such " fantastic tricks " with fact, reason,
and history in the name of science in handling Christ's miracles, as
above, is not likely to be troubled with scruples of conscience or
logical consistency, in coming to the supreme and fundamental
miracle— the Resurrection of Christ ;^which of itself gives validity
and reality to all the Gospel miracles. Schmiedel treats it just as we
should expect. That best established fact in history, is established
not merely on the surest critical and historical grounds, but on the
strongest experimental grounds, it being the means of the creation
and continuance of the Christian Church, and verified as surest fact in
universal Christian experience in their spiritual resurrection to a new
life through the power of His resurrection ; — and the denial of which
would mean the denial of the truth or credibility of all history and ex-
perience. On his naturalistic assumption, he, of course, holds it to be
incredible, with all said of it, because miracles are " incredible." He
APrENDIX TO SECOND EDITION JOJ
does not say " impossible," because Huxley even would rebuke him
there, but he plainly means that ; and all he says about it is based on
and springs from that materialistic assumption, though to veil that, he
plays with credibility. But it is poor play, feebler, if possible, than
even the above : and simply reveals again how immovable that
foundation laid by the Lord in Zion is, how vain all the assaults of
scepticism upon that citadel are, and how utterly every new attack
or theory to remove it, has been broken to pieces like waves against
the everlasting hills, — serving only to manifest its stability and reveal
its glory. Schmiedel, like Dr. Abbott, etc., at first seems to admit
a "real but spiritual converse held with the disciples by the Risen
Lord"; — not seeing that if what is recorded as said and done by
Him after the resurrection is real and true, then, this converse was
as really supernatural as any bodily resurrection, appearance, and
converse. For what is the resurrection of the body but the assertion
of the power of the spiritual over the material, of the supremacy of
the spirit over the body, and of the subordination of matter and its
laws to the power and laws of the spiritual body : which was exactly
what Christ showed at and after the resurrection. And what diffi-
culty should there be, then, about the bodily resurrection ? It is
only what in essence and fact is implied and exhibited in the
spiritual converse, if real. That is as really supernatural as the
other. It is the manifestation of the power of the spiritual over the
material, of the spirit over the body, and over matter and its laws ;
and that is what the resurrection of the body at bottom, in essence
and fact, is, as seen in Christ's after-resurrection appearances. But
it soon appears that this is not what he really means. For this
spiritual converse so-called is merely a device to get rid of the real
resurrection under the idea of a spiritual resurrection, — that is, of His
spirit. But to talk of the 7'csii}-rection of a spirit is either the sheerest
absurdity — for how can a spirit be resurrected, unless, indeed, it was
buried ? or it is the grossest materialism — as if the spirit were matter
and body ! And so soon as he by veil got rid of Christ's real
resurrection, he also gets rid of the real converse, spiritual or other-
wise. For all those manifestations and utterances at and after the
resurrection are, amid vague verbiage, placed among the untrue,
unreal, and incredible elements in the Gospels : and " we must
accept none of them as necessarily representing the actual words of
Christ Himself" (p. 1787). And "all statements" as to the empty
sepulchre are "-inventions of a later time" (p. 1876) : so also is that
they had " handled " Christ's " body," — the idea that they " were made
one with" Him "being literalised in later narratives may have given
rise to this" that He had given them His "body to handle" (p.
1785). So that the supposed real but spiritual converse vanishes in
nebulous unreality, and Christ ceases to be as a real power or living
Person in actual connection with men. It has no place among the
nine "credible" things. And all is done not on critical, or historical,
or scientific grounds, but because it is miraculous, and on Schmiedel's
absurd ipse dixit..
Here a vicious method of reasoning must be exposed. His
article abounds with his "may be," "might be," "possible." Several
of these have been noted before, with each case of Christ's raising
of the dead there is one or more. But there is a group here worth
708 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
marking. He gives his conclusions of all these thus — (i) "Words
received as having been uttered by Jesus may have been heard in the
course of a vision. (2) Words heard in a vision may have been heard
in a trance. (3) The alleged occasions of utterance may really have
beeti confusions of two or more occasions. (4) Some of the words
may not have proceeded from Jesus directly, but indirectly through
an inspired speaker." Every conceivable possibility is with him
sufficient as proof against positive evidence. And so on with his
may he's — his simple and absurd imaginations used as arguments,
facts, and given as proofs, are assumed to be quite sufficient to dis-
prove the most real, truthlike, and best-tested histories ever written,
and the best-established fact in human history, and on which the
world's salvation hangs. By his fertile but vain imagination we get
fancies for facts, assumptions for arguments, and delusions for
demonstrations. If such hallucinations and ratiocinations were to
be tolerated, then, anything may bi\ and verily the world may rest
on an elephant, the elephant on a tortoise, the tortoise on nothing :
as Schmiedel /;; vacuum certainly does, — an unmasked sceptic, the
victim of an obsolete materialism, thus self-suspended by a vicious
logic on the gibbet he erected for the Gospels and the Christian faith.
And this illogical logomachy of German rationalistic " fanaticism "
is pretentiously presented in a new Bible Encyclopaedia to sensible
people and Anglo-Saxon scholars as " science," and the latest results
of the newest criticism ! to form the new creed for the new century !
— though it is only a palpable caricature of all — giving a creed
of sheer despair, and violates every fact and principle of science,
history, criticism, and common sense ; if not jokes or imbecilities,
they are insults to men's intelligence, solemn trifling with sacred
things, and anything but a credit to the intellect or the heart of those
concerned. Beginning with a. petitio principii in the false assump-
tion of materialistic naturalism, he excludes the supernatural, both
in Christ and Scripture, treats everything miraculous as incredible,
denies the Divinity, incarnation, resurrection, and Messiahship of
Christ, attributing these not on critical or historical, but on naturalis-
tic grounds, on his own oracular authority, to the perverting influence
of O.T. prophecy assumed to be false, the illusion and credulity of
the first disciples, or the fanaticism and myth-making tendency
of later times. Yet if ever true history was written it is in the
Gospels as every earnest reader feels, and every open-mmded scholar
owns. If ever men were incredulous about the resurrection and
would not believe till " by many infallible proofs " they were forced
to do it against all their own ideas, it was the apostles — witness
all, but specially Thomas — that apostolic sceptic " who doubted
that we might not doubt," as all candid students confess. If ever
people were scrupulously searching in testing the apostolic origin
and authenticity of everything that found a place in God's Word,
and careful in preserving that, it was the early Christian Churches,
as every scholar knows. And if ever facts proved anything true, it is
the fulfilment of O.T. prophecy in Christ, as all not blinded by pre-
judice confess. And only literary and historical miracles, quite
as supernatural as any in them, could have produced these N.T.
writings, or O.T. fulfilments, if they were not true, as students of
literature and history have ever felt.
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 709
He on the same obsolete assumption, and without any show of
reason, attributes these miraculous elements, which form the Gospels,
to the misleading influence of "reverence and worship" in the
writers : — not seeing, in his prejudice, that this reverence was just the
very thing that qualified them to write such things at all, " for the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they
are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned" ; — and it is this critic's lack of these that
unfits him for knowing or writing of them at all. Besides, he forgets
that he himself, unfortunately for his assumption and his whole
writings, actually makes the prime " foundation pillars of a true
scientific life of Jesus" two "great facts" which, as shown, are
themselves founded on and rooted in iiis Divinity and miracles !
Further, without belief in these, and the reverence that sprang from
them, the writers could not and would not have written them ; for
these form the sulistance and burden of them ; and the poor frag-
ments he selects, were they without these, as they are not, but imply
them, would not have been worth writing or reading. Still more,
the "so great reverence" and worship Jesus evoked must be ac-
counted for ; which cannot be except upon the supposition that He
was and did what they say and believed ; for every effect must
have an adequate cause, and the history and experience of men in
the ages since prove that they were right.
Still persisting in his naturalistic assumption in the face of facts
and reason, he assumes of purpose that the Gospels are to be treated
as if they were entirely separate and independent histories, — while
knowing they have much in common, and yet not in collusion' ; and he,
therefore, by forced and often absurd manipulation, strives to put the
one against the other to discredit all, — even using the Gospel he holds
least trustworthy against the others, when he thinks it helps him to
destroy the supernatural. Hence he often makes omissions in one,
the "rejection" and "negative" of the others, additions in any "con-
tradiction " and " correction " of the rest ; arguments from " silence "
bulk large though they are misleading. But these are vain and obvious
devices, only showing the viciousness of the methods, and the
pervertiveness of the prejudice. For the best scholarship of the
world till now has proved the substantial harmony and oneness of
the Gospels, in the presentation of the one great Divine-human Per-
sonality that stands forth from the fourfold Gospel page with divine
fascination as a lonely moral splendour for the love and worship
of men — Son of God and Son of Man, Saviour of sinners and Lord
of all — four unique, because spirit - inspired biographies, but one
history of one glorious Person, our Brother - God, and Divine
Redeemer. Even Wendt's latest shows that the Synoptics and John
are the same in substance, and says, " The idea that the severely
critical consideration of the Gospels would render problematical
the historical figure of Jesus, we must at this day pronounce simply
obsolete " (p. 400). But this, too, is a vain resort for naturalism,
because we have the other N.T. writings to refute them there. For we
have Paul's undisputed Epistles, etc., within a generation of Christ's
death, which prove the existence of Christian Churches all over the
Roman Empire before a.d. 63, — their origin dating from the resurrec-
tion, with multitudes living who had seen and heard Christ, and
yiO APrENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
witnessed His miracles, many after His resurrection. And these
Epistles, etc., have one same Gospel, with the same facts and
miracles as their basis and substance. And these Christians were
familiar with the oral Gospels as preached by the apostles from the
first, besides those written copies and digests of them freely in use
everywhere. Nay more, it was these miracles and the preaching of the
resurrection that made them Christians, the apostles preachers with
power, and created these churches ; and revolutionised the world, by
God's blessing resting on their preaching of it, God's Spirit descending
on them with supernatural gifts because of it, and God's power
working many similar miracles through the apostles in attestation
of it. They were, indeed, themselves living proofs of it in their own
spiritual resurrection into newness of life through its power. As Dr.
Bruce says, " Christianity could not have entered on its victorious
career unless the followers of the Crucified had believed that He not
only died but rose again." It is a strange mind that confuses
additions with contradictions, and omissions with rejections. The
omissions are indeed proofs of the existence of the other Gospels,
as seen in John's Gospel compared with the Synoptics. He ignores
the fact that the Gospels are purposely fragmentary, but, as seen
in John, complementary ; for this is their glory ; and makes their com-
bined sufficiency as a history and completeness as a (jospel,— by each
from his own standpoint, and according to his characteristics and
acquirements, supplying his part, under the One Inspiring Spirit, in
the portraiture of the Divine-human Redeemer. And it is this ignor-
ing of the Holy Ghost, the Supreme Divine Author of all Scripture,
which confuses such critics, and unfits them for handling them
rightly or scientifically ; while the due recognition of His Divine
inspiration explains and makes precious the unity in diversity, and
the uniqueness of the writings, — which requires and proves a super-
natural inspiration.
The same naturalistic assumption leads to the post-dating, in
order to allow the more time for myth-making of the Gospels,
long after the dates which Christian scholarship had, after the
most thorough investigation, settled within narrow limits ; even the
Ritschlians urge this. Further still, what Schmiedel holds to be the
oldest and most original and reliable Gospel--Mark, which Dr.
Bruce says " is the main source of the narrative parts, in many
sections the style is suggestive of an eye-witness, so as to make the
reader feel that he is in contact with the ultimate source of the
evangelic tradition, the oral narratives of the companions of Jesus"
(p. 2435) — is fullest of these miraculous elements. So that he only
plunges the more deeply into the supernatural as he gets nearer the
fountain, — as the triple tradition lying behind the Gospels also prove.
But in the face of all this, and much more like, he is so fixed in
his predetermination not to believe in the supernatural, and so
resolved to adhere to his obsolete, materialistic superstition, that he
at last boldly declares, "The credibility of the Gospel history cannot
be established by an earlier dating of the Gospel I " (§ 154). No,
nothing will make it credible to one who assumed what has tobe proved
— that the miraculous is incredible. And that is "science" I Verily,
there are none so blind as those who will not see. Ay, he is so
fanatic in this prejudice that he actually fears not to imply that the
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 71I
apostles were not only duped themselves, but also duped others,
" the evangelists have seoi to it that the miracles mentioned have
taken place" (§ 140). He reasons as if the writers had no regard for
truth or common sense. That is, they were both fools and rogues,
at one time misled by the O.T., at another perverting it. Yet
these are the men whose labours and writings have, by God's power,
revolutionised the world, and raised mankind to such a moral and
spiritual elevation as was never before approached. These form
moral difficulties to this criticism compared with which the difficul-
ties of faith are as nothing.
He fitly crowns these feats, on this assumption, by what is
perhaps the most ludicrous of all— that these critics are able two
millenniums away to know and tell what Jesus was, said, and did,
better than the men who lived with Him, and died for Him, and
were specially chosen and inspired of God for the express purpose
of giving to the world for its salvation God's record of His Son and
revelation of Himself; and that, too, from these assumed to be
'' utterly untrustworthy " writings that owe their origin to them, and
to God the Holy Ghost ! Such critics seem also to imply that
if they only knew what Jesus' teaching' was, they would accept that.
But when that is given on quite as good grounds as His words they
select, they reject on their rationalistic principles all that formed
the main substance of His teaching— His Divine claims, Messianic
mission, and redeeming work, liesides, why should they have any
special regard for the teaching of Christ ? for their whole conceptions
of Him are derived from these utterly untrustworthy writings ;
and, therefore, their ideas of Him and His teaching are just as
untrustworthy as these : so that it is folly, and self-contradiction, or
pretence to seem to imply this while discrediting the writings by
which alone we can know anything of it or Him. Here, too, is the
irony on those who cry "back to Christ" when distrusting the
writings through which solely we can get back to Him. Besides,
all this ignores and disowns the Holy Ghost, Who is the supreme
author of Scripture and of all the teaching in it, including His.
3. The Principles which it postulates, and on which it proceeds,
are wrong and misleading.
Many of these have been exposed above, others will only
emphasise the worthlcssness of such criticism. His criticism, as
seen, has been perverted by false materialistic philosophy, and
any show of criticism is only a thin veiling of this. He urges
that everywhere miracles as " signs " are false ; because, forsooth !
Jesus in one case refused the particular kind of signs opposers
wished ; whereas He often appeals to His miracles in proof of
His claims, as seen ; but because he imagines this one utterance
favours his disbelief of miracles, it is " absolutely trustworthy," and
all else is "utterly untrustworthy I" On the same perverse principle
he urges that the sources which have fewest miracles or least of
" reverence " are the most reliable ; but thus Mark, which he
makes his main source, becomes least reliable because it has most
miracles. He says the O.T. is almost the sole source of the whole idea
of miracles, which shows that he assumes the falseness of the O.T.
712 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
He also finds the origin of miracles in figures of speech ; but the
examples given simply show how absurd the exegesis for this often
is ; and the exegetical error often destroys the critical conclusion.
Another false principle, productive of many errors, is that he pre-
sumes, without any proof, to settle what was possible to man or
God^such as that it was not necessary or possible for Christ to give
directions to His disciples about persecution, and that the darkness
at Christ's death was impossible; and yet one of his "absolutely
trustworthy " utterances of Jesus was given in the midst of it, — one
part of the very same passage is true and the other false, simply
because he has imagined it was impossible !
Another is that " the context of Jesus' sayings must never be taken
as a guide to the meaning of what the original may have been,"—
excluding utterly intelligence or honesty from the writers, and the
Holy Spirit from the writings. Another is that we must not hold as
true in the Gospels what cannot be proved false, and it is a "grave
error" to think it true when we trace a passage to a source, — pre-
supposing their untrustworthiness. How readily and easily he
accepts as proof when it seems to support his error, and which
reasonable men would not think of acting on in life ; and yet how
persistently he shuts his eyes to evidence that seems impossible to
resist. The only thing sure is that Christ did and was not what the
Gospels say and prove He was. He will believe anything rather
than believe the truth that Jesus was the Christ, and " declared to be
the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead." And no absurdity
seerns too great if it seems to show that miracles and the Gospels
are incredible. Starting with his naturalistic assumption, he asserts
Christ is mere man, miracles are incredible ; and sweeping over-
board, on his own oracular authority, the proved results of scholar-
ship for centuries, declares the Gospels untrustworthy and misleading,
reaches his drastic results in the few fragments that seem to suit his
basal naturalistic assunijjtion, though they don't, gives that poor
morsel to the world to live and die by, instead of the Jesus of the
Gospels and of history ; and seems credulous enough to think sane
men will believe him. Well does Principal Salmond say "his
method is simplicity itself" ; but " imagine the Annals of Tacitus, etc.,
being subjected to this kind of treatment. Would the man who
attempted that have much chance of being recognised as a scientific
critic by those with any title to judge ?" {Critical Review, pp. 163-5).
On such principles anything could be written of any history. It is
dogmatism of the worst kind, on the most baseless grounds. Seldom
have we witnessed a clearer proof of the blinding effect of prejudice.
Never, perhaps, in so many words have there been so many errors,
fallacies, absurdities, and credulities. And but for the fact that they
have appeared in such a book, and been given with such assurance
as the latest results of Biblical science, and the false impressions of
triumph to sceptics and alarm to Christians they have made, they
might have been left to the contempt they constra'in. The exposure
of their worthlessness will show how premature was the triumph, and
how groundless was the alarm. And certainly the discussion does
show the unwisdom and the peril of much recent one-sided teaching
and apology, magnifying the Gospels above the other N.T. writings,
and putting Christ in antithesis or antagonism to the apostles and
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION /1 3
prophets, who were inspired for their teaching by the same Spirit
as inspired Him for His. For here the irony appears, that the
opponents of the faith gather on that narrow l^attle-ground, and seek,
by use of our unwise watchwords and one-sided weapons, to discredit
the Gospels, and thereby to remove the Christ from history ; and
thus to destroy the faith of the Church and the hope of the world.
The strength and safety lie in having our faith as broad-based as the
Word of God, and centred in the Son of God, with all His apostles
and prophets round about Him as the Captain of our Salvation.
4. The general and specific positive Evidence in reply to sceptical
Criticism.
As we are dealing not with a Christian but a sceptical criticism, we
close with a brief application of some lines of Christian evidence to it.
1. We refer, first, to the outline of the evidences given in Book V.
Chap. VI., where what this sceptic says is answered by anticipation.
2. But we emphasise specifically the stamp of truthfulness, the
tone of trustworthiness, the air of Divine authority, and the marks of
intense and vivid reality that everywhere characterise and pervade
it, — specially in the Gospels. Every earnest reader has felt this ; and
the more one studies it, and the more carefully one examines the
graphic details, and notes the finer shades of meaning, the more one
is impressed with this, as Westcott says.
3. Although the Gospels are four, patently independent, marked
by individuality, and distinguished by striking differences, yet there
is a substantial unity and often a minute agreement, and their story
is one — each supplying its respective but complementary part in one
unique God-breathed whole.
4. The peerless Figure of Christ in the unique portraiture of Jesus
that rises up with infinite fascination from the Gospels, as true and
faultless in its Divine as in its human delineation, and in the harmony
of both, which has won the heart and commanded the reverence of the
race, and even the admiration of candid sceptics, was inconceivable,
especially by its writers, unless He was real, and both human and
Divine. Nor could they have written it, even though He was real,
and they knew Him personally as friends, unless a superhuman
power was given them in portraying Him in deeds and words.
Even unbelief has owned it required a Christ to conceive a Christ ;
and it needed a Divine Spirit to portray Him, as has been done, after
the conception was given, and the Person lived. That is, apart
altogether from any questions about the history of the Gospels,
simply taking them as we have them, Christ must have been a real,
human-Divine person, who lived and died among men ; and super-
natural inspiration, as well as personal knowledge, was needed to
give us the picture of Him we have in the Gospels. Hence how poor
are all lives of Christ compared with these peerless Gospels. All
attempts of unbelief have signally failed to explain the Jesus of the
Gospels otherwise. Many sceptics have frankly owned the unique-
ness of His Person and words. Even such a sceptic and philosopher
as John Stuart Mill says, "Who among the disciples of Jesus or any
of their proselytes was capable of inventing these sayings ascribed
to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the
714 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
Gospels ! Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee ; as certainly not St.
Paul." (See p. 365 f. above.) So that Schmiedel and all such critics
may write as they like about documents and sources, and display
their absurd results, baseless assumptions, false principles, vicious
reasoning, and blinding prejudice, but they can never deprive us of
these unique histories and peerless Person ; and having these we are
independent of their fantastic feats, and know that He is true and
real Son of Man and Son of God.
5. His words, like Himself, are unique, peerlessly alone in the
literature of the world, as even sceptics own ; and all men have been
constrained to confess, as of old, "' Never man spake like this man,"
— witness only the Parables, and the many sayings of His that have
become the world's mottoes and ideals, to say nothing of His unique
discourses. And wherever they are found they have a power
supreme of authenticating themselves as His. No words of Tenny-
son, Carlyle, Macaulay, or Shakespeare approach in this power of
self-authentication to the words of Jesus. So that Schmiedel, with his
nine fragments, stands here condemned, not only by criticism,
science, and common sense, but by literary intuition. Christian con-
sciousness, and even by candid scepticism. And since we have
these self-authenticating words of Jesus, and can never be deprived of
them — yea though the (jospels were lost to-morrow, they could be pro-
duced almost in their entirety from the pages of Christian writers from
the time of Christ till now — we are in this independent of such criticism
and its results ; for we know on the surest grounds these words are
His, and that they are both true and Divine. In the Gospels, then,
we are assured we have both Him and His words, whatever such
criticism may do or dream. On solid grounds we are independent of
it and its results ; they are verifiable to-day by these Gospels in ways
their criticism cannot touch. So that in this way also, it is true, as He
said, " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My zuords shall not
pass away."
6. P'urther, taking not only the Gospels but all the Scriptures, we
have this perhaps deepest and most decisive of all evidence for their
Divine origin, truth, and authority — the verification of these in
Christian consciousness, by the testimony of the Spirit, as shown
(Book V. Chap. III. and p. 565 f.). This is a kind of evidence that the
Bible is the Word of God which no criticism can now destroy or
touch. For it is based upon the surest Christian experience in all
ages, is deep as the very being of the spiritual man, is established on
the soundest principles of the inductive philosophy, and cannot be
denied without denying the veracity of consciousness, and ending in
the insanity of absolute scepticism. Nor would the denial of it at all
affect the fact ; for the facts of the spiritual life and Christian ex-
perience are at least as sure as the best established facts in physical
science,— as Romanes after his spiritual enlightenment said, and in
the same strictly scientific way, as the greatest scientists and scholars
of all ages, and never more than now, declare. There is a self-
evidencing and convincing power in Scripture that even the natural
man feels, as many have owned, which has constrained some, like
Carlyle, to say, " There never was a book like it before, and there
never will be one like it again." But to the spiritual man it comes
home, through the testimony of the Spirit in his consciousness, with
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION /I 5
a sureness which is unique and irresistible that it is, indeed, the Word
of God ; and which he could no more doubt than his own existence.
Sooner convince men that the sun does not exist when they are
gazing- at it, or that the food they eat is not food when they are
living and growing upon it, than convince spiritual men, taught by
the Spirit, that Jesus the Sun of Righteousness is not a real Person,
when they have, through the Scriptures, by the Spirit, seen Jesus,
and beheld His glory— the glory as of the Only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth ; or that the truth, as it is in Jesus, is
not a reality, when they are living on and growing by it as the \-ery
life and strength of their souls. And there is something very
ridiculous in men who know nothing of these things, — and who lack
the spiritual sense by which alone they can be known, trying to deny
them (i Cor. 2'-*). It is like the blind denying colour, or the deaf
harmony. And let such or any criticism say what it may about this
Divine Book, it can simply do nothing to remove or weaken this
conviction derived from direct personal experience of the truth as it
is in Jesus ; — which only grows deeper every day as by the Spirit's
teaching, and the discipline of a gracious Father, his experience
deepens and broadens out to all Scripture, as he grows in grace and
in the experimental knowledge of his Lord and Saviour, and more
and more realises that his Father speaks to him in every part of it.
" We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen." So
said the greatest Biblical critic of our age, Dr. W. Robertson Smith
— " Only of this I am sure at the outset, that the Bible does speak to
the heart of man in words that can only come from God — that no
historical research can deprive me of this conviction, or make less
precious the divine utterances that speak straight to the heart. For
the language of these words is so clear that no readjustment of their
historical setting can conceivably change the substance of them.
These are the things which must abide with us, and prove them-
selves mighty from age to age apart from all scientific study " {O.T. in
the Jewish Church, p. 29). Yet " it is the glory of the Bible that it
invites and satisfies such study ^ — that its manifold contents con-
stitute an inexhaustible mine, with each new discovery coming closer
to a full understanding of the supreme wisdom and love of Him
Who speaks in all Sc7'ipturc" (p. 23).
7. Further, even though the apostolic authorship or origin of the
Gospels were denied, and the denial made probable — though we
don't think this possible — , and even Schmiedel admits even of the
Fourth Gospel that the holding of it to be not John's, in the form we
have it, is not inconsistent with it being originated by John, — as
Dr. Bruce says, if not John's, it is at least Johannine — this would not
destroy or really weaken the force of what has been said. For here
they are, as they are, however they came, or whoever wrote them ;
and, by the Spirit's power, they produce this conviction, and create
this experience by which their truth and Divine origin are verified.
Therefore, again, such criticism cannot affect that. Indeed, as Dr.
Robertson Smith says again, it is not to us of much practical moment
who wrote them, provided they were written by inspired men, — and
that what is said about the authorship does not make the writings
untrue. For the human authorship of some is unknown, and others
are doubtful, some composite, while others show earlier and later
yi6 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
forms. Nay more, since the Gospels produce these convictions and
experience, the more uncertain and unapostolic they are made, the
more, from this standpoint, the supreme Divine Authorship by the
Holy Ghost is seen and proved. So that the less the apostolic origin
of the Gospels is questioned by those who deny their Divine origin,
the better for their theory, because that only makes them the more
supernatural. The farther the human authorship recedes from view
the more the Divine authorship becomes manifest. And in any case
criticism cannot touch the conviction or alter the experience pro-
duced by the Spirit's testimony through the Word in the Christian
consciousness.
8. Again, scepticism gains little or nothing, from this standpoint,
by post-dating the Gospels, — although the production of them and
all the N.T. writings practically within the apostolic age may be
held as settled, — even the leading rationalists, like Harnack, urging
this. But though it were otherwise, it only the more requires and
magnifies their supernatural origin ; since, as we have them, they
create these convictions and experiences, which prove them to be the
Word of God. Yor as Dr. Robertson Smith again says, "The 15ible
is the only record of the redeeming love of God. And this record /
know to be true, by the witness of His Spirit in my heart, whereby
I am assured that none other than God Himself is able to speak such
words to my soul " (p. 656).
The farther, therefore, the writings are removed from the apostolic
age, the more the need and enhancement of the Divine inspiration
appear ; since they produce these convictions and effects. So that,
in any case, this criticism cannot touch these assured convictions and
verified results.
9. Still more, if, as alleged, these Gospels, and the other Scrip-
tures, are not continuous narratives, but largely patchwork of un-
related incoherent materials, so that, as Schmiedel avers, we cannot
rely at all upon the context of Jesus' sayings for the meaning of the
original, — which is simply one of the countless unproved and base-
less assertions he makes,- — then, how marvellous and supernatural
must the ftisive po%ver of the Holy Spirit upon these incoherent
materials have been, and how Divine the flow of life infused into
them, which has made them a palpable living unity, and has
produced such wondrous coherency and vitality as captivates and
carries along every sympathetic reader on the full and flowing stream
of its thrilling life and interest as with a Divine spell, without feeling
the incoherency, and realising that it is a living and vitalising whole.
.As Principal Rainy finely says, "The man who hides from himself
what Christianity and the Christian revelation are takes the parts of
it to pieces, and persuades himself that without Divine interposition
he can account for all the pieces. But when your operation is done
the living whole draws itself together again, looks you in the face,
refuses to be conceived in that manner, reclaims its scattered mem-
bers from the other centuries back to the first, and reasserts itself to
be a great burst of coherent life and light, centring in Christ. Just
so you might take to pieces a living tissue and say there is here only
so much nitrogen, carbon, lime, and so forth ; but the energetic
peculiarities of life going on before your eyes would rebuke you by
the palpable presence of a mystery unaccounted for."
APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 717
Thus every device of scepticism and rationalism to discredit or
evade its truth or Divine authority is baffled, broken, and shivered on
the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture, as sealed by the testimony
of the Spirit in the consciousness and experience of Christians in
all ages : and every Christian has in himself in these the means of
proving, on the most scientific grounds, that this sceptical criticism
is false, and the Bible true, trustworthy, and of Divine authority. So
that, as a distinguished Biblical scholar and apologete said, " The
ultimate decision of these questions lies with the plain Christian
man."
10. Finally, in the same way, all the attacks on miracles — and
supremely the bed-rock miracle — the Resurrection of Christ — may
be met and demolished. For the Divine revelation which the
Christian consciousness verifies, was made through miracles : and
the whole teaching of Christ is inseparably bound up with miracles,
rooted in them, and largely given through them ; and the unique
self-evidencing power of His teaching in the Christian consciousness
verifies the reality and truth of the miracles through which it was so
largely conveyed, and in which it was all rooted and atmosphered.
And the moral and spiritual miracles wrought in men through the
Word by the Spirit is real demonstration of the truth and Divine
origin of the physical miracles through which the Revelation came :
and all the objections to them based as they really are upon the
a priori conception that miracles are impossible, — which is a pre-
sumptuous and unscientific assumption,^ — have no better ground than
the objectors' imagination ; whereas the evidence of their reality and
truth is founded on the deepest and surest moral and spiritual ex-
perience of mankind, as well as proved by the best and strongest
historical evidence. As Dr. Robertson Smith, after proving the
supernatural true, and historical from the contents and intrinsic
character of Revelation as a whole, says, "Miracles must be re-
garded as the inseparable accompaniment of what bears the historical
stamp of reality." This holds supremely of the supreme and radical
miracle of the Resurrection of Christ, on which scepticism has broken
its teeth for centuries in vain, and most have abandoned in despair.
Yox^ firsts it is established on at least as strong historical evidence
as for any fact in history, as has been shown ten thousand times, — the
existence and career of Napoleon being much more open to doubt,
on the principles of reasoning pursued by sceptics, than the reality
of the Person, history, and resurrection of Christ, — as Whately
showed in his " Napoleonic doubts." The caricature of historical
science that would deny the credibility of this would destroy all
history, as was, perhaps, never more manifest than in Schmiedel's
critical farce. Bishop Lightfoot says ironically of such criticism,
" It may be the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen centuries is
larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of men in our
late half century."
Second, all attempts to explain the belief of the Resurrection,
apart from its reality, have been confessedly signal failures, — many
sceptics themselves being ashamed of them ; and conscious of this
some of them, like Baur, did not attempt it ; — besides that they are
totally irrelevant and inadmissible so long as a single item of the
historical evidence remains unanswered.
71 8 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION
Thirds millions of the most upright and intelligent people ever
since the Resurrection have had the surest experimental proof that
"the Lord is risen indeed" in the fact, deep as their being, that they
have been cjuickened from spiritual death into spiritual life through
the power of His Resurrection, applied by the Holy Ghost : and they
Hve anew in Him, and have as certain daily experience of the real
presence and fellowship of their Risen Lord as they have of the
nearest earthly friend, through the Word, by the vSpirit. A living
Christ verified in the Christian consciousness, and living Christians
quickened through the faith and power of His resurrection into new-
ness of life, are the surest proofs that He who was dead is alive again
and lives for evermore, and reigns in the power of an endless life
over all, for, in, and with His people. So that Hume's — the ablest
argument against miracles, from experience — is answered not only
by the proved experience of those who saw, heard, and handled
Him after the resurrection, but also by the deepest and surest ex-
perience of Christians ever since.
Fourth, the Christian Church is the creation of the Resurrection.
Through the preaching of it she was born by God's Spirit. In the
atmosphere of it she was cradled. By the power of it in every age
she has been continued through multiplied spiritual resurrectiotis.
And on the faith of it she lived, laboured, wrought miracles, wit-
nessed, suffered, conquered, and revolutionised the world ; and is
now going on over all the earth, conquering and to conquer, till the
kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, as scepticism and rationalism sink into eternal
silence in a self-dug grave, from which there is no resurrection, and
" He shall reign for ever and ever," "for the mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it, and the Word of the Lord endureth for ever."
And the scepticism or criticism that could believe that the best
and greatest movement in history, which sprang from and was en-
souled by Christ's resurrection, and swept across a dying race like
the breath of a new spring, was founded on delusion and triumphed
through unveracity, and is credulous enough to believe all the in-
credibilities of such intellectual absurdity and moral impossibility, is
surely the last that should speak about the incredibility of miracles,
for any difficulties in the Gospel miracles are as nothing compared
with these ; and the proper issue of such credulity should be to deny
the moral government or existence of God.
Such, then, is this criticism, which pretends to express the results
of the latest criticism for the new century. But the best and ablest
critics repudiate it ; and it is really a worthless caricature of criticism,
history, and science. It is destructive of the basis and materials of
all when it disowns the truth, trustworthiness, and Divine authority
of Scripture. It practically eliminates the supernatural and the
miraculous from the religion of Israel and of Christ. And while it
can only tend to produce scepticism and religious indifference when-
ever it is in ignorance received, the Christian Church has no reason
to fear, but rather to be thankful.
First, because it has so clearly revealed itself either as unveiled
infidelity, or irrational rationalism, and is proved to be so thoroughly
unscientific, worthless, and even ridiculous.
Second, because it shows anew how strong and indestructible
ArrENDIX TO SECOND EDITION 719
the Word of Ciod is, when these palpable failures form all the per-
verse ingenuity of destructive criticism can do, and is shown to
have so thoroughly destroyed itself on the eternal rock of Holy
Scripture.
Third, because it confirms the faith of the Church, in that while
both this O.T. and N.T. criticism agree in disowning the truth and
trustworthiness of God's Word, and in implying that if we read the
Bible, like our fathers, "as the sacred text describes" (Smith, p. 74),
we shall simply be misled ! — yet it admits that the Bible does teach
what the Church has believed. So that the issue is very clear — that
we have simply to choose between the authority of Christ and the
oracles of God backed by the Christian evidences and the ablest
criticism, and the aberrations of these latter-day oracles I
Fourth, because it has given the opportunity of showing anew
that the teaching of the Bible is verified by the testimony of the
Spirit in Christian consciousness ; and that every humble Christian
has in himself with his Bible in his hand, and the Holy Spirit its
supreme author teaching him its meaning, and giving him the im-
pression of its truth, trustworthiness, and Divine origin and authority
(as He has ever given to the earnest and spiritual reader), the
means, in his own experience, of being independent of and refuting
all such criticism, and of being assured, on the surest and most
scientific grounds, and according to the greatest scientific critics,
that the Bible is " the word of God, which liveth and abideth for
ever."
PKliNTED 1!Y MORRIb^ON AND GIBB LIMITED, El
^
" This book is a thorough, competent, up-to-date vindication of the
position which it affirms."— Criticai, Review,
Just published, 680 pages, price 9s; 6s. 9d. net.
Second Edition now ready. (First Edition issued in MARCH 1901.)
With SPECIAL CHAPTERS on Recent Articles in "Encyclopaedia
Biblica" by Dr. Sclimiedel and otiiers; and Dr. G. Adam Smith's
"Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament."
NEW AND IIYIPORTANT BOOK,
IS CHRIST INFALLIBLE
AND
THE BIBLE TRUE?
(Giving the Teaching of Jesus on Holy Scripture, and other
Burning Questions in Theology and Religious Life.)
By the Rev. HUGH M'INTOSH, M.A.
(Of BROCKLEY, LONDON),
AUTHOR OF
"THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GOSPEL," "THE TWO BANNERS," ETC.
' ' The first remark we make on this important book is that on every page of
it the author impresses us with the inestimable value of the Word of God and
the absolute authority of Christ in all matters pertaining to faith and morals.
A great service has thus been rendered to true biblical criticism. Some people
look askance on the higher criticism, but our author is a higher critic in the
truest and best sense. As a pupil and follower of the late Professor Robertson
Smith, he rejects the view that parts of Scripture are the Word of God and
others not. In many an argument it is made clear that the substance of all
Scripture is God's Word. ... In the last chapter it is convincingly shown
how, through personal experience, the holy men of old came to know God's
will, and were constrained to record it for our instruction and comfort.
Part of the book deals with the sceptic's apology. Here the sceptic is dealt
with on his own grounds, and the facts and reasoning are such as ought to
prove a veritable armoury to all who would contend earnestly for the faith.
In these days when so much is written, both doubtful and obscure, by certain
critics, it is well to have the true doctrine of the Church put clearly, as it is
here, and not only stated, but argued out with a precision and force which
show wide reaching and real mental grasp of the issues involved. It is
gratifying to all who love the truth that one who ranges himself on the side
of the late Professor Robertson Smith, Dr. Westcott, the Bishop of Durham,
and Dr. A. B. Davidson, men in the front rank of biblical scholars, should
produce a work like this, so stimulating and instructive. In and through it
all it must come home to every heart that the Bible is the direct personal
message of God's love to us, and that our strength is at the fountain-head,
Jesus Christ." — Monthly Messenger.
"The author is master of a popular style, and treats his subject in a most
comprehensive and thorough fashion. The book is a careful and laborious
examination of one of the most important questions that a Christian apologist
has in these days to face. He notes how the controversy has changed from
discussions about despicable trivialities to deliberate questioning of the infalli-
bility and divine authority of Christ as a teacher, and the reliability of Scripture
as a record of the divine revelation. It is with this great question he deals.
It is one of the excellent features of the work that the author knows exactly
what he is to insist upon, and does not encumber himself by advancing un-
tenable claims, or by surrendering essential positions. It is not criticism, but
criticism run mad that he objects to. He takes his place modestly but without
misgiving among the critics. Dr. Robertson Smith and Dr. Westcott are the
two great teachers in whose school he has grown up. His book is a thorough,
competent, up-to-date vindication of the position which it affirms." — Critical
Review.
"Able, learned, laborious; the author is in deadly earnest in his con-
tendings, he is not afraid of great names, and he speaks out of the fulness of
a deep conviction. The question is argued with great lucidity, with cogent
argument, and with much ability." — Daily Free Press.
" It is quite refreshing to have so trenchant a defence of the true inspiration
of the Sacred Oracles froiu the Presbyterian Church. It is a genuine and
valuable service that Mr. M'Intosh has done to all religious students and
teachers, in pointing out the lamentable consequences of recent Bible criticism,
and proving how it, at last, steals from the sacred volume all that makes it
worthy the name of a divine revelation. Perhaps one of the most valuable
sections is that in which we are shown how sceptics have used the latest
criticism to justify their objections to the Word of God. But we can only
refer our readers to the volume itself, and advise a careful study of this
masterly and serious attempt to restore to us once again an Infallible Christ
and a True Bible. We give the book the heartiest of welcomes, and wish for
it a very wide circulation, that it may antidote much of the popular sophistry
and the fleshly wisdom that, under various guises, — religious, sentimental, and
theological, — assails the true faith of the Church of Christ." — S-word and
Trowel,
" Its main theme is the defence of the divine authority and trustworthiness
of Scripture, based chiefly upon the claims of the Bible itself, and especially
upon the testimony of Jesus Christ. Dealing as it does with a vital present-
day question on lines which have not hitherto been adequately followed out,
this work should receive a cordial welcome as a timely contribution to the
apologetics of evangelical Christianity. Adopting in its chief outlines the
critical position of Dr. W. Robertson Smith, he attacks vigorously from that
standpoint all theories which imply the indefinite erroneousness of Scripture.
The work is of great value as an impressive presentation of a grave and often
unsuspected issue involved in modern critical theories — the tendency to sub-
stitute a variable subjective standard in place of a definitive and authoritative
revelation of divine truth. This book may be specially commended to those
who are perplexed by current biblical questions." — United Free Church
Monthly.
"Such a title is calculated to arrest attention and awaken interest. Nor
will any one who reads the book find his attention allowed to flag or his interest
to wane ; for the points discussed are in themselves most attractive and
important, whilst the method of treatment is both vigorous and vivid. The
work is all the more interesting and important, in view of Professor G. Adam
Smith's new book on ' Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testa-
ment,' for this is the utterance of an experienced teacher on the same general
theme, but to a widely different effect. Besides, Mr. M'Intosh is a thoroughly
evangelical minister, who defended Dr. Robertson Smith in his day, and now
indicates on many a page of this volume a most sympathetic attitude towards
judicious criticism. Of the many subjects referred to in his book, the ' testi-
mony and attitude of Christ to the Old Testament Scriptures ' strikes one as a
great theme treated with an industry, thoroughness, and acumen worthy of
highest praise. The resulting effect is a deep impression of the profound
reverence in which Christ held these Scriptures, and the supreme authority
which He attached to them. Professor G. A. Smith's phrase, ' Christ the first
critic' (Smith, p. ii), may be smart, but in the light of this chapter appears
shallow and unscientific. The Church has reason to be gratified that one of
its busy ministers can thus enter the lists with the critics, and produce a work
which puts them on their defence, as few recent works have done, and indeed
challenges — one had almost said defies — them to show they are loyal to Christ
tlie King. It deserves a place in every minister's — indeed, in every thoughtful
Christian's — library." — Presbyterian.
"This volume presents an earnest and Timely Protest against a prevailing
tendency. Mr M'Intosh has no quarrel with the criticism which means a
thorough examination into the literary character of the books of the Bible. He
was a pupil of the late Prof. Robertson Smith. But he considers that the
criticism which began with laudable investigation has become dangerous to the
very foundations of the Christian faith. We thoroughly agree witli him as to
the existence of the dangers in question, and are glad that they should be
pointed out. The vindication of the authority of Christ, the mischief of dis-
paraging the apostles under pretext of lauding the JMaster, the exposure of the
tendencies of Ritschlianism and of various forms of rationalism — for these and
similar features of the book we are most thankful and wish it all success." —
Methodist Recorder.
" The question burns in present-day theology ; and Mr. M'Intosh surveys a
vast and varied field of theological speculation, saying his say, with good
order, upon the divine authority of Scripture, and the views that have been
expressed thereon by recent scholars. The book is both thoughtful and
instructive in its own branch of learning, and may prove suggestive and
stimulating to Churchmen militant." — Scotsman.
" From Professor W. Robertson Smith Mr. M'Intosh received his doctrine
of Scripture. He believes that only by means of the higher criticism can
some of the most difficult places of Scripture be made true. But he takes his
stand firmly against the theories of later advocates of that. His words are
stout against Professor G, Adam Smith. And he shows with startling clear-
ness how great is the gulf fixed between the views of those two men on the in-
spiration and authority of Scripture. " — Expository Times.
' ' This volume is marked by argumentative force as well as by earnestness.
Mr. M'Intosh, looking for ' a vin media between rationalism on the one hand
and traditionalism on the other,' declines to take his stand on 'the absolute
inerrancy of Scripture,' and is content to maintain ' its thorough truthfulness
and trustworthiness with divine authority," as the sure and strong middle
ground. The writer's reasoning will be welcomed as cogent by many."—
Glasgow Herald.
"The Rev. Hugh M'Intosh, M.A., is a bold man. He throws down a
challenge to all kinds of rationalising critics, whether inside or outside the
Church. He declares that there is no logical resting-place between receiving
the Bible as true, trustworthy, and of divine authority, and being driven ' on
to the hopeless chimera of unbelief.' All kinds of rationalising critics are
dealt with. He has no difficulty in showing the absurd positions held by
them." — Edinburgh Evening Netvs.
" We note the splendid Celtic ' elan ' with which Mr. M'Intosh bears down
upon the foe, the enthusiasm with which he defends his positions, and the
spirit of zeal and thoroughness with which he has carried through his formid-
able task. His earnestness and ability cannot fail to evoke general admiration. "
— Weekly Free Press.
" The author maintains what he believes was his teacher's (Professor Dr. W.
Robertson Smith's) position. Three positions are explained and canvassed—
that of absolute inerrancy, that of indefinite erroneousness, and that of the
truth, trustworthiness, and divine authority of Scripture. The weak points in
the first two positions areexposed, and the third one is adopted and advocated.
The second one especially is declared to be essentially rationalistic. Every-
thing that can be said for and against these three attitudes is said most
vigorously. The author's position, which he defends so ably, is undoubtedly
the right one, most faithful to the facts, and most defensible and useful apolo-
getically. Preachers will get much help from the work in their apologetic
teaching. ' ' — Methodist Times.
The writer is already known as a learned writer on Christian apologetics.
And just now, when professing Christians and ministers of the Church and of
high rank discuss openly such questions as the ' Lux Mundi ' school have
familiarised us with, it is high time that we should be brought face to face with
the momentous questions raised, ' Is Christ Infallible? Is the Bible True?' . . .
what one may fairly call the one supreme question in theology and religion, as
well as the burning question of the day. Mr. M'Intosh has done well to
approach his subject from the Christolog'ic standpoint — Christ and His teach-
ing. The work is wonderfully thorough, comprehensive, and scholarly. His
facts and his arguments are marshalled in the most conclusive fashion. It is
emphatically a work that must prove of the highest value to every reader who
will set himself to the serious study of its pages, and is a valuable contribution
to the literature of its all-important subject. "—i?«-,*.
"A volume massive and trenchant. It is meant to set up a strong and even
impregnable position for the believer in the Bible. Mr. M'Intosh is fearless
as a critic, his book may prove a very armoury of argument." — Dundee
Advertiser.
"It is impossible not to sympathise with Mr. M'Intosh in his aim, and
doubtless many on both sides of the Atlantic will be impressed by his method."
— London Daily News.
" The preface makes a statement which has been in substance repeated by
Dr. Nicoll, that the higher criticism is no longer a matter of dates and author-
ships ; it now attacks the foundations of the faith— the supernatural in Christ
as much as in Scripture. He shows clearly that the theory of indefinite
erroneousness gives away the whole position to the sceptic. He also shows
easily and indicates convincingly that such opinions lead to rationalism, tend-
ing to eliminate from Christianity the supernatural element altogether. This
is abundantly justified by some contributions to the ' EncyclopLedia Biblica'
(Prof. Schmiedel's, etc.)." — Belfast Witness.
" It is a great theme to which Mr. M'Intosh has addressed himself, one
demanding calmest judgment and the ripest scholarship. There is no attempt
in this volume to shirk any question ; and much close thinking has been
expended on the theses that the Bible is True and Christ Infallible. A great
deal of this volume will be invaluable to the defenders of the faith. We thank
Mr. M'Intosh for his contribution to the great discussion, and agree with his
principles. "—Orw/'/rt;/ Leader.
"We are glad to see that a second edition of this book has been called for
so soon ; an edition whose value is greatly enhanced by a new appendix, in
which the writer deals in a trenchant manner with (i) Dr. G. A. Smith's
' Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament' ; (2) articles in
the 'Encyclopaedia Biblica,' by Schmiedel .and others, on New Testament
criticism. This new appendix proves to be one of the most timely and valuable
portions of the book. His criticism is powerful and valuable, convincing and
conclusive ; and undoubtedly the very ablest and probably the most valuable
part of Mr. M'Intosh's whole book is the last sub-section, in which he sets forth
' the general and specific evidence in reply to sceptical criticism,' showing how
the plain, intelligent. Christian reader, with the main facts before him, may be
assured of the truth of Christianity and the trustworthiness and divine authority
of Holy Scripture, in face of all destructive criticism."— TAe Presbyterian.
EDINBURGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON :
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LTD.
To /'(■ had of all Booksellers.
TWO MEW VOLUMES now ready, „..„., sm,t„ „„,.»„. samobu
Dr. C. H. TOY on PROVERBS.
i II. :
ISce/as-e 3.
Inttniatbnal Critical Commcntarg
on tijc Join Smi^htns oi i\n #ltr anb
iBetn Testaments.
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
The Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D.,
Regius Professor 0/ Hebrezv, Oxford;
The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,
Master of University College, Durham ;
The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.,
Eihvard Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology,
_ Union Theological Seminary, New York.
The time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise,
when it is practicable to cotnbine British and American scholars in the
production of a critical, comprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of
modern biblical scholarship, and in a measure lead its van. The Com-
mentaries will be international and inter-confessional, a?id will be free
from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They zvill be based upon a thorough
critical study of the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods
of interpretation.
Nine Volumes of the Series are now ready. — See following pages.
'The publication of this series marks an epoch in English exegesis.' — British Weekly.
'We can sincerely congratulate the authors and the publishers upon producing one of the
most epoch-making theological series of the day.' — Church Bells.
'"The International Critical Commentary" promises to be one of the most successful
enterprises of an enterprising age. ... So far as it has gone it satisfies the highest expecta-
tions and requirements.' — Bookman.
' This series seems likely to surpass all previous enterprises of the kind in Great Britain
and America.' — Methodist Times.
'"The International Critical Commentary" has vindicated Its claim to stand in the
front rank of modern P^nglish exegesis. Every volume that has hitherto appeared has
ranked with the foremost on the book expounded.' — Methodist Recorder.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
London Agents:
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LTD.
To be had from all Booksellers. [p. 'i.e.
The International Critical Commentary
In post 8vo, Second Edition (pp. 530), price 12s.,
DEUTERONOMY
BY THE
Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D.,
KEGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, AND CANON OK CHRIST CHURCH,
OXFORD.
Professor G. A. Smith (in the Critical Rez'ieiv) says: 'The series could have had
no better introduction than this volume from its Old Testament editor. . . . Dr.
Driver has achieved a commentary of rare learning and still more rare candour and
sobriety of judgment. . . . It is everywhere based on an independent study of the text
and history ... it has a large number of new details : its treatment of the religious
valueof the book is beyond praise. We find, in short, all those virtues which are con-
spicuous in the author's previous works, with a warmer and more interesting style of
expression.'
' There is plenty of room for such a comprehensive commentary' as that which we are
now promised, and if the subsequent volumes of the series come up to the standard of
excellence set in the work that now lies before us, the series will supply a real want in
our literature. . . . The Introduction is a masterly piece of work, and here the Oxford
Professor of Hebrew is at his best. It gives by far the best and fairest discussion that we
have ever seen of the critical problems connected with the book.' — Guardian.
' We have said enough, we hope, to send the student to this commentary. ... To
the diligent miner there is a wealth of gold and precious stones awaiting his toil and
industry.'— C/zT^rc/i! Bells.
' The commentarj' on the text of Deuteronomy is characterised by the higliest
learning and fulness of research, and will be of great value, not only to the ordinary
student, but to the mature scholar.' — Record.
' The work will be not less a treasure to the English student than a credit to
English scholarship.' — Christian World.
In post 3vo, Second Edition (pp. 526), price 12s.,
JUDGES
BY THE
Rev. GEORGE F. MOORE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF HEBREW IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, MASS.
Professor H. E. Ryle, D.D., says : ' I think it may safely be averred that so full
and scientific a commentary upon the text and subject-matter of the Book of Judges has
never been produced in the English language.'
' Dr. Moore's " Judges " will com« as a deep surprise to many in this country. It is
not in any respect, so far as we have been able to judge, of lighter weight than the two
great volumes of the series which appeared before it.' — Expository Times.
' It is unquestionably the best commentary that has hitherto been published on the
Book of Judges.' — London Quarterly Review.
' Professor Moore of Andover follows up Canon Driver's volume on Deuteronomy
with a commentary on Judges, marked by as great learning — It could not be greater
— and perhaps by somewhat more freedom of expression. . . . He has examined every
word, every letter, of the original text under the mlcroxo^s.'— Academy.
EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
The International Critical Commentary
Just published, in post 8vo (pp. 460), price 12s.,
THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
HENRY P. SMITH, D.D.,
PROFKSSOR OF BIBLICAL HISTORY AND INTERl'RETATION- IN A.MHERST COLLEGE.
' The commentary is the most complete and minute hitherto published by
an English-speaking scholar.' — Literature.
' This latest volume of "The International Critical Commentary " is in nowise
behind its predecessors in thoroughness and scholarship. We have only to
compare it with any earlier English commentary on the same books to see
how much our knowledge in every department of biblical scholarship has
advanced during the past few years . . . The new light gained from Semitic
folk-lore and the comparative study of Eastern customs and traditions is very
welcome, and has been employed to illustrate the history, as also that coming
from our modern geographical and archaeological research.' — Church Bells.
Just published, in post 8vo (pp. 590), price 12s.,
•T" TT TIT
BOOK OF PROVERBS
BY
C. H. TOY, D.D.,
I'KOFESSOR OF HEUKEW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
' The commentary is full, though scholarly and business-like, and must at
once take its place as the authority on " Proverbs." ' — Bookman.
' It is difficult to speak too highly of this volume. . . . The result is a first-
rate book. It is rich in learning.' — Jewish Chrouiele.
In post 8vo (pp. 375), price los. 6d.,
ST. MARK'S GOSPEL
BY THE
Rev. EZRA P. GOULD, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE,
DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA.
'This commentary is written with ability and judgment ; it contains much
valuable material, and it carries the reader satisfactorily through the Gospel.
Great care has been spent upon the text. ' — Expositor.
' Everything relating to the department of criticism on these points is more
thoroughly explained and illustrated here than has ever been done before in an
English commentary.' — .Methodist Times.
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
The International Critical Commentary
In post 8vo, Third Edition (pp. 678), price 12s.,
ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL
BY THE
Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,
MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM,
FORiMEKLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COI.LECiE, OXFORD.
'It is distinguished throughout by learning, sobriety of judgment, and sound
exegesis. It is a weighty contribution to the interpretation of the Third Gospel, and
will take an honourable place in the series of which it forms a part.' — Critical Rnneiv.
' The best commentary on St. Luke yet published. Dr. Plummer's gifts for the
work were already well known and appreciated, and he has not disappointed us in this
his latest work.' — Church Bells.
' Marked by great learning and extreme common sense. . . . Altogether the book
is far and away the best commentary on Luke we yet have in English.' — Biblical IVorld.
' We feel heartily that the book will bring credit to English scholarship, and that
in its carefidness, its sobriety of tone, its thoughtfulness, its reverence, it will contribute
to a stronger faith in the essential trustworthiness of the gospel record.' — Guardian.
In post 8vo, Fourth Edition (pp. 562), price 12s.,
ROMANS
BY THE
Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D.,
LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND
CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD;
AND THE
Rev. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, B.D.,
FELLOW OF ALL SOULS' COLLEGE, OXFORD.
Principal F. H. Chase, D.D., Cambridge, says: 'We welcome it as an epoch-
making contribution to the studj' of St. Paul.'
' This is an excellent commentary, scholarly, clear, doctrinal, reverent, and learned.
. . . It is a volume which will bring credit to English scholarship, and while it is the
crown of much good work on the part of the elder editor, it gives promise of equally good
work in the future from both.' — Guardian.
'A most valuable gift to the student of Romans. ... It is the fullest and freshest
in learning, the most patient, the most willing to be intelligible, and to make the
Apostle so ; and it need not be added, in anv work of Dr. Sanday, that in textual criticism
it will be a standard authority.' — British IVeekly.
'Will at once take its place in the front rank of similar works. Its rich fulness of
learning, its careful and dispassionate statement of difficulties, and its candour, which
will not affect an undue positiveness, call upon us to give it a very hearty welcome.' —
Record.
' It stands easily at the head of English commentaries. It has qualities, especially
in what concerns the text, in which it is superior to the best works of Continental
scholars. ' — Critical Rcviezv.
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
The International Critical Commentary
In post 8vo (pp. 368), price 10s. 6d.,
EPHESIANS AND
COLOSSIANS
Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, D.Lit.,
PkOFKSSOR OK HEIiREW, FORMERLY OF BIBLICAL GREEK, TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.
' For long to come this summary of the results of moflern criticism applied
to these two Pauline letters is, for the use of scholarly students, not likely
to be superseded.' — Academy.
' There is no work in all the " International" series that is more faithful
or more felicitous.' — Expository Thnes.
'AH is done in a clear and easy style, and with a point and precision which
will make his commentary one that the student will consult with satisfaction.
. . . A strong book, with a certain marked individuality.' — Critical Kevieiv.
In post Bvo (pp. 240), price 8s. 6d.,
PHILIPPIANS AND
PHILEMON
BY THE
Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.,
PROFESSOK OF SACRED LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
NEW YORK.
' It is in all respects such a commentary as is needed for the profitable
study and right understanding of these two Epistles. . . . i)r. Vincent
has produced a book which may be considered as summing up all that has
been previously done for the elucidation of this Epistle of Paul and the
shorter one which seems to have been written about the same time. . . .
It is, in short, in every way worthy of the series which was so well
commenced [in the New Testament] with Dr. Sanday's and Mr.
Headlam's admirable commentary on the Romans.' — Scotsman.
'He has given us an edition of " Philippians " that takes its place
beside its fellows in the very front rank of modern theological literature.'
— Expository Times,
' Business-like, full, and competent.' — British Weekly.
N.B. — For List of other Volumes in preparation, see page 8 of this
Prospectus.
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, %% GEORGE STREET.
SPECIMEN PAGE
320 DEUTERONOMY
XXIX.-XXX. Moses Third Discourse. Israel
formally called ttpon to enter into the Deutero-
no?mc Covenant.
The Deuteronomic Code ends with c. 28. C. 29-30 is of
the nature of a supplement, insisting- afresh upon the funda-
mental principle of the Code, viz. devotion to Jehovah, and
calling- upon Israel to yield loyal allegiance to it. The
discourse falls naturally into three parts. In the first,
Moses, after referring to what Jehovah has done for Israel
(29^-8(2-9)), reminds them that the purpose for which they are
now assembled together is that they may enter solemnly into
covenant with Him, and warns them afresh of the disastrous
consequences, including national ruin and exile, which a lapse
into idolatry will inevitably entail (299-28(10-29)^. in the second,
imagining the threatened exile to have taken place, he promises
that even then, if Israel sincerely repents, Jehovah .will again
receive it into His favour, and restore it to the land of promise
(301-10) ; in the third, he sums up, in brief but forcible words,
the two alternatives placed before Israel, life and happiness
on the one side, death and misfortune on the other, and
adjures the nation to choose wisely between them (3011-20).
In these chapters, the connection is sometimes imperfect, esp. between
30^-^*' and 30^^-''^ (see on 30^^) ; several words and phrases occur, not other-
wise found in Dt. (Dillm. notes Vd:;'.! 29^1^', rhu oath, imprecation, 29^^- "•^*-
19.20(12.14.19.20.2:) 2o7, idol-blocks 2inA detestations 2916(1"), c" j3 29" fi^)^ rinniy
stubbornness 2^^^ (^^\ f|X ycfn and n'?D 20,'^^ '••°\ nuih unto evil 2Cjr''i-'^\ acihnn sick-
nesses 29^ I--', forsake the covetiant 29-^ (^), en: pluck up 29^^ (-^', nnn drive
a-siay 301-*; and the phrases 29* (")''• i' (i^)''- ^^ f^)'') ; and the points of contact
with Jeremiah are more numerous than usual. A question thus arises,
whether the text is throughout in its original order, and whether it is
entirely by the same hand as the body of Dt. : see the Introduction, § 4.
XXIX. 1-8 (2-9). Moses reminds the Israelites of all that
Jehovah has wrought for them, from the time of their deliver-
ance from Egypt, founding upon it a renewed exhortation to
obey the words of the covenant. — The paragraph is a recapitu-
lation of the substance of earlier parts of Dt., stated largely
in the same phraseology. — 1 (2). And Moses called tcnto all
Israel (ii), and said unto them\ exactly as 5I. — Ye (emph.) have
SPECIMEN PAGE
238 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 54, 55.
This laying hold of her hand and the raised voice (icfiwrrjo-ev) are
consonant with waking one out of sleep, and the two may be
regarded as the means of the miracle. Comp. and contrast through-
out Acts ix. 36-42.
'H T7aTs, eyeipe. " Arise, get up," not " awake." Mt. omits
the command ; Mk. gives the exact words, Talitha curni. For the
nom. with the art. as voc. see on x. 21, xviii. 11, 13. For e<})(iJi'T]o-ev
comp. ver. 8, xvi. 24.
55. eTreaTpeij/ev to irt'eufjia auTY)s. There can be no doubt that
the Evangelist uses the phrase of the spirit returning to a dead
body, which is the accurate use of the phrase. Only the beloved
physician makes this statement. In LXX it is twice used of a
living man's strength reviving; of the fainting Samson (Judg.
XV. 19), and of the starving Egyptian (i Sam. xxx. 12). Note that
Lk. has his favourite irapaxpyJiJ^a, where Mk. has his favourite
evdv'5 ; and comp. ver. 44, v. 25, xviii. 43, xxii. 60.
Sie'ralec aurj] SoGrjmi (fjayerc. This care of Jesus in command-
ing food after the child's long exhaustion would be of special
interest to Lk. In their joy and excitement the parents might
have forgotten it. The charge is somewhat parallel to eSwKcv avrov
rrj fxr]Tpl avrov (vii. 1 5) of the widow's son at Nain. In each case
He intimates that nature is to resume its usual course : the old ties
and the old responsibilities are to begin again.
56. iraprJYYeiXei/ auTois jxr^Sei'i elivew to yeyot'os. The command
has been rejected as an unintelligible addition to the narrative.
No such command was given at Nain or at Bethany. The object
of it cannot have been to keep the miracle a secret. Many were
outside expecting the funeral, and they would have to be told why
no funeral was to take place. It can hardly have been Christ's
intention in this way to prevent the multitude from making a bad
use of the miracle. This command to the parents would not have
attained such an object. It was given more probably for the
parents' sake, to keep them from letting the effect of this great
blessing evaporate in vainglorious gossip. To thank God for it at
home would be far more profitable than talking about it abroad.
IX. 1-50. To the Departure for Jerusalem.
This is the last of the four sections into which the Ministry in
Galilee (iv. 14-ix. 50) was divided. It contains the Mission of the
Twelve (1-9), the Feeding of the Five Thousand (10-17), the
Transfiguration (28-36), the Healing of the Demoniac Boy (37-43),
and two Predictions of the Passion (18-27, 43-50).
1-9. The Mission of the Twelve and the Fears of Herod. Mt.
X. 1-15; Mk. vi. 7-1 1. Mt. is the most full. Lk. gives no note
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
NINE VOLUMES NOW ViEADY .—See preccdhuj 'pacjcs.
The following other Volumes are in course of preparation
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Joshua.
Kings.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Minor Prophets.
Psalms.
Job.
Daniel.
Ezra and Nehemiah.
Chronicles.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
T. K. C'HEYNE, D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture, Oxford, and Canon of Rochester.
A. K. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.
J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham Collefte, Oxford ; and the late
Rev. H. A. White, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford.
G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, Mansfield College,
Oxford.
George Adam Smith, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free Church
College, Glasgow.
Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free Church
College, Edinburgh.
A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge.
W. R. Harper, Ph.D., President of Chicago University.
C. A. Briogs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford.
Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity
School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New
York City.
Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School,
Philadelphia.
Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New
Haven, Conn.
Synopsis of the
Four Gospels.
Matthew.
Acts.
Corinthians.
Galatians.
The Pastoral Epistles.
Hebrews.
James.
Peter and Jude.
The Johannine
Epistles.
Bevelation.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
W. Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford;
and Rev. W. C. Allen, M.A., Exeter College, Oxford.
Rev. WiLLouGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Chaplain, Fellow, and Lecturer in
Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.
Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Christ's College, Cambridge.
Arch. Robert.son, D.D., Principal of King's College, London.
Rev. Ernest P. Burton, A.B., Professor of New Testament Literature,
University of Chicago.
Walter Lock, D.D., Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
Rev. A. Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King's College, London.
Rev. James H. Ropes, A.B., Instructor in New Testament Criticism in
Harvard University.
Charles Bigg, D.D., Rector of Fenny Comjjton, Leamington ; Bampton
Lecturer, 1886.
S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal, and Professor of Systematic Theology,
United Free Church College, Aberdeen.
Robert H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek in the University
of Dublin.
Other engagements will be announced shortly.
EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LIMITED.
■ , Date Due
1 1
1
1
i
,
-
■ 1
f
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11