W. Robertson Smith
Ansvjer
To the Form of Libel
ncv7 bpf*ore the
Free Church Presbytery of
Aberdeen.
BX 9070 .S52 187
Smith, William Robertson, b
1846.
Answer to the form of libel
•>«i 'soaa QboiAV©
INnOWOlOHd
FOURTH. EDITION
ANSWER
TO THE FORM OF LIBEL
NOW BEFORE THE
FREE CHURCH PRESBYTERY OF
ABERDEEN
BV
W. ROBERTSON SMITH
EDINBUHGH
DAVID DOUGLAS, 9 CASTLE STKEET
1878
PRICS: ONS SHILLENQ.
ANSWER TO THE FORM OF LIBEL
NOW BEFORE THE
FEEE CHUECH PEESBYTEEY
OF ABERDEEN
BY
W. ROBERTSON SMITH
EDINBURGH
DAYID DOUGLAS, 9 CASTLE STREET
1878
Laid before the Free CJntrch Preshutcry of Aberdeen, on
\'2th Fehruarij, 1878.
ANSWER TO THE FORM OF LIBEL,
In laying my defence before the Presbytery I might begin
by animadverting on the form of the libel, and strictly ex-
amining its structure in comparison with the ordinary forms
observed in such cases, and with the practice of criminal
justice in lay courts, after which the ecclesiastical procedure
appears to have been framed. Such an examination would
probably bring out many features open to grave objection, and
inconsistent with the obvious principle of justice, which re-
quires that an indictment be free from all ambiguity of mean-
ing, and that it lay every charge with such precision that the
party accused can have no difficulty in making out the pre-
cise point of the accusation.
}jut I hn\'e no wish to embarrass a case already overloaded
with technical difficulties. I desire to put .ay defence in such
a shape as to meet directly the points which appear to con-
stitute the real substance of the indictment ; and T will,
therefore, make no further remark on the form of the libel
than is necessary to give clearness to my own line of defence.
Every ecclesiastical libel is a syllogism in which the
major proposition states the offence against the laws of the
Church, in terms which by mere comparison with these laws
ought to be at once convincing ; while the minor enumerates
the facts which, by subsumption under these general laws,
ought to prove the offence. In the present libel, however,
there appear to be three steps. The major is in itself a syl-
logism, or at least involves a subsumption, for it contains a
4 CHARGES IN THE LIBEL.
general statement of the Confessional Doctrine of the inspir-
ation, infallibility, and autliority of Scripture, and at tlie same
time an enumeration of special facts, viz., of detailed opinions,
wliicli are not in themselves in verbal opposition to the doc-
trine of the Confession, by maintaining whicli I am alleged to
have contravened the general doctrine enunciated in the first
j)art of the major.
Thus, in the first part of the major, I am charged with
denying the infallibility and authority of Scripture ; in the
second part of the major, and under the first head, I am
charged with holding a particular view of tlie institution of the
Aaronic priesthood, which is said to infer denial of the in-
fallibility of Scripture ; and in the corresponding head of the
minor, I find the citations from my writings which are sup-
posed to prove that I hold the opinion in question. To fol-
low this division through all the particulars of so complex a
charge would render my defence extremely cumbrous, and
bury the main points at issue under the mass of details. I
shall, therefore, follow the ordinary precedent of first dis-
cussing the statement of tlie offences with which I am
charged ; and then taking together the allegations of fact in
the major and the corresponding quotations in the minor. I
shall thus follow the natural procedure known to all law,
considering, y?rs^, whether I am charged with a real offence
under the law of the Church ; and, then, whether the facts
alleged against me are sufficient to constitute that offence.
The offences charged against me are three in number —
1st — The publishing and promulgating of opinions which
contradict, or are opposed to, doctrines set forth in
the Scriptures and the Confession of Faith.
2nd — The publishing and promulgating of opinions which
are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling
tendency in their bearing on doctrines set forth in
Scripture and the Confession.
3rd — The publishing of writings concerning the books of
Scripture M'hich, by their neutrality of attitude in
PLAN OF THE DEFENCE. S
relation to doctrines set forth in the Scriptures and
the Confession, and by their rashness of statement
in regard to the critical construction of the Scrip-
tures, tend to disparage the Divine authority and
inspired character of these books.
There can be no question as to the general relevancy of
the first of these charges ; that is, I do not for a moment deny
that lam liable to the censure of the Church if I have ad-
vanced opinions contradictory to the teaching of our Standards.
And by this I do not mean that it is incumbent on the pro-
secution to shew that my statements are verbally contradic-
tory to the doctrine of the Church. I admit that it is quite
enough to infer Church censure that my statements should
be proved to be logically inconsistent with what is taught in
the Standards, by a chain of strict reasoning in which every
link is complete.
With regai'd to the other charges in the major I stand in
a different position, for I deny that these charges contain a
competent ground to proceed against me by the law of the
Church. I shall therefore, first of all, state the reasons for
which I think the second and third charges irregular and in-
competent. I shall then proceed to consider whether the
statement of my opinions contained in the libel is sufficient
to substantiate the graver charge of contradicting the con-
fessional doctrine. To this end I must first examine the real
meaning of the confessional doctrines under which I am
accused; for the words used in the major indicate these
doctrines without defining them, and the indications are not
free from ambiguity, especially as my accusers have not
thought fit to cite the passages of the Confession on which
their charges are based. Having exhibited the true confes-
sional doctrine, I will then show in general terms how it bears
on my critical position, and that it leaves room within the
Church for the prosecution of the critical enquiries and the
adoption of the critical conclusions for which I am challenged.
Finally, I shall go in detail through the particular
6 TJII-: CHAR(,E OF TENDENCY
Opinions enunieratud as contained in my articles, examining
whether the statements of the libc;! fairly represent my
opinions, and if so, whether the opinions stated are really
inconsistent with the confessional doctrine. I will not repeat
this complete examination with reference to the less grave
charges whose competency I entirely deny; but in dealing
with the main offence 1 sliall find occasion to point out Irom
time to time that the minor charges (supposing them, Ibr tlic
sake of argument, to indicate real offences against tlie law (jf
the Church) must yet fall to the ground along with the
graver charge.
COMPETENCY OF THE SECOND CHAKGE.
The position of this charge as an alternative to the graver
charge of contradicting the doctrine of the Church shews
that it only applies to opinions which are not inconsistent
with the Standards. Before seeking to fix on any opinion
drawn from my writings, the alternative charge of dangerous
and unsettling tendency, instead of the graver charge of " con-
tradicting, etc.," the prosecution must admit that there is
nothing in the opinion which cannot be held in logical consis-
tency with everything that is taught in the Confession.
Again, the charge is not one of undermining the confes-
sional doctrines by dishonest statements, by insinuating in a
disguised form opinions which, if I ventured to state them
nakedly, would plainly contradict the Standards. There is no
allegation that my opinions are not honestly held and honestly
expressed, and there is express admission on the ])art of the
prosecution, that so far as they fall under this alternative my
views neither verijally nor logically contradict the Standards.
This benig so, I find it very dillicult to understand what is
meant by dangerous and unsettling tendency, and still more
difficult to grasp the point of alleged criminality which the
prosecution desires to convey by using the phrase.
It lies with the prosecutors both to explain what the
charge means and to prove that it sets forth an offence under
rs UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 7
the laws of the Church. Unless they do this the charge falls
to the ground M'ithout any answer of mine ; I will, however,
do my best to state what I conjecture that it means or may
mean, and t o shew that it cannot mean anything which is a
competent ground of Church censure.
The charge then appears to mean that the habit of thought
which these opinions are likely to encourage will dispose
men's minds to adopt views not easily harmonized with the
views expressed in the Standards, or -with the views
commonly associated with the Standards in the popular
mind, or with views which have been sometimes
used to support or illustrate the doctrine of the
Standards. In short, the opinions libelled under this
alternative are held to increase the difficulty of believing, and
on that account it is proposed to suppress them by an act of
judicial censure, without enquiring whether they are true or
false. The difference between such an exercise of Church
power as is here contemplated and the usual action of Church
Courts in a case of unsound doctrine is manifest. When
an opinion is condemned as inconsistent with the teaching
of the Confession it is not only condemned but refuted, not
indeed from first principles, but on the premises of the Con-
fession, which the Church has agreed to accept as the common
basis of doctrinal argument. But iDefore taking up this charge
of tendency, the Court must find that my views cannot be
refuted from the Confession. Xor is it proposed to refute them
in any other way. They are simply to be censured and sup-
pressed for fear that they may increase the difficulties of belief.
Such a use of Church censures is plainly inconsistent with
the principle laid down in the Form of Process (cap. 1, § 4)
that " nothing ought to he admitted hy any Church judicature
as the ground of a iiroccss for censure, hut what hath hcen de-
clared censurahle hy the Word of God, or some act or universal
castoni oj this National Church agreeaUe thereto."* On this
* In Sir Henry Moncreiff's " Practice of the Free Church," where the Form
of Process is given in full, " act of universal custom " stands by » iij).«j>rint ic-
stead of "act or, &c."
8 THE CHARGE OF TENDENCY
principle Church censures cannot be called into action by the
simple will of a majority in order to put down opinions from
\vhich they apprehend some contingent danger to faith. An
opinion is not to be censured for mere 2)ossiMc consequences
or tendency, but only because in itself or in its ncccssnri/
consequences it has been condemned and declared censurable
by the Word of God, or by a legislative act of the Church, or
by precedents establishing a universal custom of the Church.
The charge cannot be sustained against me unless the pro-
secution bring it under this principle, by adducing a law of
God, or a law of the Church, or valid precedents in the
practice of the Church which rule the present case. No
such law or practice is adduced in the libel, and the very
fact that the criminality of my opinions is made to lie in
tlieir tendency appears to shew that the prosecution is not
able to libel them as offences on any distinct and legal ground.
The explicit language of the Form of Process is quite
sufficient to dispose of an assertion which has been made
more than once in the previous stages of this case, to the
effect that the Church, or, to speak precisely, the General
Assembly, has power to define and punish new offences with-
out any legislative act, and in the simple exercise of judicial
functions. I need not waste words in confuting a supposed
analogy drawn from a power which has sometimes been
claimed by the Justiciary court of our country, but which in
the very rare and now obsolete cases of its exercise, was
always opposed by constitutional lawyers, and which the
court itself no longer claims. The Assembly, unlike the
Justiciary court, is a legislative as well as a judicial body.
If it is necessary to protect the Church from a new kind of
offence, the obvious constitutional course is to pass an Act
defining the offence. If the Confession is not large enough
to condemn all views which the Church proposes to exchule,
an Act to add to it must be passed in regular form, and with
those precautions against" hasty legislation which the Barrier
Act provides. It is clearly illegitimate to avoid compliance
with tlie.se precautions by clothing an act essentially legis-
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNJUST. 9
lative in the disguise of a judicial process. And it is also
clear that no doctrine of an exceptional power belonging to
the Assembly, as the supreme judicial court of the Church,
can justify the Presbytery, as a subordinate court, in claiming
for itself a prerogative to overrule the Form of Process.
The incompetency of the charge of tendency under the
law of our Church, may be confirmed by observing that the
offence is charged against me especially as a Professor of
Divinity. Unless, therefore, the prosecution is prepared to
aver that every Church member is bound to submit his
opinions to the judgment of the Church upon their tendency,
even in cases wliere they are not inconsistent with the
Confession, it will be necessary to prove that the charge
brought against me is valid under the special doctrinal
obligations which I took upon myself on becoming a
professor. These obligations are very precise. They bind
me "firmly and constantly to adhere" to the doctrine of the
Confession, and to " assert, maintain, and defend " it to the
utmost of my power. But the only opinions which I am
forbidden to hold are, " doctrines, tenets, and opinions
eontrary to, and inconsistent toith, the Confession of Faith."
It is impossible to construe these expressions in a sense that
will justify the charge of tendency.
But if the charge is inconsistent with the constitution of
the Church, it is also utterly opposed to the ordinary
principles of justice. It is a charge which no reasonable
and equitable Church court could recognise, because it is
too vague and indeterminate to be brought to a clear issue.
It is a charge which can hardly be repelled, because different
men wiU attach different meanings to it. It falls under the
dangerous and invidious class of constructive offences which
have been banished from the law of constitutional countries
as necessarily involving grave injustice to the accused, and
placing the definition of what forms matter for charge not in
any clear and ascertained constitution, but in whiit may
happen to be the opinion or feeling of those wlio are called
at the time to be administrators of the law. Such a char"e
10 TiIFFICULrfES OF BELIEF,
is cliujgoi'ous to justice in any court, but it is doubly dangerous
in a court of popular constitution.
To admit befoi'e a popular court a cliarge which cannot be
referi'ed to fixed principles, which cannot be defined with pre-
cision, or made to mean the same tiling to every one con-
cerned, and which, therefore, must be ultimately measured by
the feeling of the judges, is to obliterate the distinction be-
tween justice and the will of the majority, between unpopular
opinions and offences. To allow such a charge to be brouglit
before the Courts of the Church would offer direct encourage-
ment to popular agitation as a means of controlling the course
of j"ustice, and place in the hands of any one who can gain the
popular ear a ready instrument for repressing discussion,
giving scope to injurious imputations, and practically work-
ing grave injustice. No Church which does not pretend to
infallibility could venture to embarrass the administration of
its judicial functions by admitting a charge which in principle
nullifies every legal precaution against the miscarriage of jus-
tice, and makes it possible for a majority to inflict judicial
censure on any fresh movement of Christian life in the
Church.
The force of these general arguments against a charge of
"dangerous and unsettling tendency" may easily be strength-
(Micd by a consideration of tlie special meaning of the charge
iu the present case. It is proposed to suppress certain
opinions on critical subjects without meeting them on the
merits, and without referring them to a fixed confessional
standard, if it shall appear to the majority of the Presbytery
or the Assembly that they tend to increase the difficulty
of believing. Now, the Church has always been aware of
the existence of real difficulties of belief, which can neither
be denied nor suppressed. It has hitherto been held that
these difficulties depend on the limitations of our nature, and
are permitted in the wisdom of God for purposes of discipline
and for the trial of faith. And the argument of the Church
lias always been that though the difticultics cannot be rc-
luuved, they do not amount to what is actually inconsistent
HOW MUST THEY BE MET? 11
with sound doctrine, and that tlie true way of de;iliiig with
them is simply to shew that the doctrine on which they seem
to bear has an evidence of its own sufficient to establish its
truth to the believer, on grounds which a mere appearance
of pnradox is not sufficient to invalidate. For example, it has
always been suggested as a difficulty in the doctrine of the
Trinity that it has a tendency to unsettle belief in the
Unity of God; to which the Church replies that it has
never been proved that Trinity of persons is logically incon-
sistent with Unity, and that the mere difficulty of the
doctrine is therefore not sufficient to shake the positive
evidence of revelation for its truth. Precisely similar
objections are brought against the most cherished and
distinctive doctrines of our ow^n Church. It is averred
by Arminians and others that the doctrine of unconditional
election and prevenient irresistible grace tends to subvert menV
belief in their moral responsibility. How does our Churcli
meet the charge ? Not by denying the existence of a real
difficulty, but by denying the logical inconsistency of the
two beliefs which it holds each on its own evidence. Is it
not the wisdom of the Church to apply the same line of
argument to the difficulties of belief which may arise 'from
historical and literary criticism of the books of Scripture ?
Let us refute the critics if we can, but do not let us say that
it is impossible for us to believe or to tolerate propositions
which we have not refuted by argument, and of which we
cannot assert that they are actually inconsistent with any-
thing that we know to be true. To argue that an opinion
is false, because a real difficulty of belief is connected with
its acceptance, is only possible to a rationalist who goes on
the assumption that supernatural revelation must contain
nothing which our limited reason is unable fully to
comprehend. This is the assumption which rationalism has
invariably used to undermine the system of positive
Christian doctrine, and it seems very shortsighted on the
part of the prosecution that it has not hesitated to borrow
this weapon of scepticism, and place it in the hand of the
Church.
12 ARGUMENTS OF TENDEXCY FALLACIOUS.
Tlic cliarge of tendency is Lad in law and dangerous to
the Clmrcli, even if it is certain that critical opinions
do add to the diflicultics of belief. Bnt it must be remem-
bered that Churches are like other bodies of men, very apt to
overrate the difficulties of opinions which are not familiar.
There was a time when the greatest difficulty was felt in
admitting the imperfection of Robert Stephen's text of the
New Testament, when the Newtonian astronomy appeared
to tend to atheism, and the science of geology to subvert all
revelation. In any one of these cases a libel for tendency
might have been quite sufficient to place the Church in open
antagonism to sound scholarship and legitimate science ; just
as in point of fact an argument of tendency once led the
Swiss Church to add to its Confession a statement as to the
age of the Hebrew vowel-points, which every one now knows
to be absolutely false. Great divines, like Owen and Tur-
retin, were misled ])y the argument of tendency then. Are
the members of our Church courts less liable to be misled
now, if they allow the prosecution to demand their vote as to
the tendency of opinions which scarcely any laymen, and
only a small proportion of ministers, have studied on the
merits ?
For my own part, I am firmly convinced that a cautious
and reverent use of criticism, combined with a right view of
the Reformation doctrine of Scripture, is so far from adding
to the difficulties of belief that no other way of dealing with
the Bible can effectually meet the difficulties of the present
age. The lirst duty of every scholar is his duty to truth, and
no consideration can justiiy the student of Scripture
in ignoring those difficulties which appear to careful
study, though they njay be overlooked by the ordinary
I'cader. But while criticism honestly takes note of these
difficulties, it has opened a way to their solution which, bold
as it may at iirst appear, is really far safer to faith, because
truer to the actual history of Cod's llevclation, than the
isolated and arbitrary attempts at reconciliation of contra-
dictory passages which were once current. No one will
"PIOUS OPINIONS." 13
rejoice more than myself if farther study shall offer a Letter
solution to the difficulties that are found in the Old Testa-
ment, and set in a still clearer light the truth and harmony of
the supernatural Eevelation which distinguished Israel from all
other nations, and makes the Old Testament still speak to us
with Divine authority. But no progress can be made in this
direction by the mere use of authority to suppress the state-
ment of difficulties, and to forbid scholarship from applying
its legitimate methods to the study of facts.
Before passing from the charge of tendency, I would ob-
serve, in conclusion, that the attempt to suppress opinions,
not because they have been proved to be untrue, but because
they may be supposed to offer difficulties to belief, is in prin-
ciple neither more nor less than an attempt to introduce into
our Protestant Church the Eomish notion about " pious
opinions." The Church of Eome has long been accustomed
to recommend certain opinions to the faith of her adherents,
not because they have been defined as articles of faith, or be-
cause their rejection involves the denial of articles of faith ;
but simply because their acceptance forecloses troublesome
questions and facilitates that indolent acquiescence in the
received doctrines of the Church, which in that communion
passes for an act of piety. Almost every corruption of the
Eomish Church passed current as a pious opinion before it
was accepted as a necessary dogma ; and history records a
long and fatal list of errors, ending with the doctrines of the
immaculate conception of the Virgin and the infallibility of
the Pope, which could never have been defined as articles
of faith unless adherents had been won by the semblance of
piety, and opponents silenced by the reproach of unsettling
belief.
COMPETENCY OF THE THIED CHAEGE.
The geneial objections already stated against a libel for
tendency apply to this charge, for it is not averred that my
writings actually disparage, or were meant to disparagt;
14 CHARGE OF NEUTRALITY,
• loctrines of the Churcli, but only that they tend to do so.
And here the necessary badness and unfairness of such a
charge is aggravated by the insufficiency and vagueness of
the two marks on which the allegation of tendency is made
to depend.
I. My writings are said to disparage certain doctrines by
the neutrality of their attitude towards them. It docs not
a])poar on the face of the libel whether this neutrality is ex-
hibited in stating opinions as my own, or in reporting
opinions of others, for which I do not accept personal re-
si)onsibility. But it seems likely that the former is what is
maiidy meant, since the charge is made to rest on the same
passages as are cited to prove that my published opinions
are unsound and dangerous.*
But this third alternative charge does not come before the
court until the other alternatives are rejected ; that is, until
it appears that my opinions are not inconsistent witli sound
views. In other words, the doctrine of the inspiration and
authority of Scripture cannot, on the hypothesis of this
alternative, be used to decide whether my opinions are true
or false. Surely, then, I was at liberty to state my views, and
to indicate the grounds on which I hold them, without disres-
sing into a doctrine which, ex hypotliesi, could not help the
argument. So far as this goes, my writhigs are neutral to the
doctrine of inspiration only in the innocent sense in which a
Hebrew Grammar is so. The doctrine is not mentioned be-
cause it does not bear on the sul)ject before me.
Or, on the other hand, is it meant that some of the
opinions which I report, without either condemning or ap-
proving them, ought to have been condemned as inconsistent
with the doctrine of the Church ? If this is the meanin<>'.
the charge should have been so specified, with enumeration
*The resumiitioii at page 3 H of the libel: "The writings containing these
o]iinions tlo exhibit neutrality, &c." makes the proof of neutrality lie wliolly in
tile ojiinions stated, i.e.. in the oiiinions which a few lines before were ileclared to
be nut ueutrul but ojiposed to sound doctrine. But I do not press this point, as
it seems clue to a slip in drawing the libel.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN! IS
of the opinions referred to ; for it is plain that the question,
\\ hether one is bound to refute a false opinion upon occasion
of having to mention it, must be answered with reference to
the special circumstances of each case — which, for the pur-
poses of the present charge, include the consideration that a
contributor to an Encyclopaedia writes under strict limitations
of space and plan, that he cannot develop his own views or
those of his Church at the length which would often be
needed to give any value to an expression of opinion on a
controverted point, and that his main object is not to state
his own views at all, but simply to give a resume oi the present
condition of learning and scientific opinion.
Perhaps, however, the charge of neutrality means only
that I have stated critical opinions, without adequately indi-
cating how I hold them to be consistent with belief in the
authority and inspiration of Scripture, and by so doing, have
given offence to the faith of persons who have been accustomed
to associate criticism with unbelief, and whose scruples I was
bound to treat with consideration. I amsincerelysorry if through
fault of mine my articles have given offence to belief or en-
couragement to doubt, and I am ready to receive, not only
with respect but with gratitude, any warning on this head
which their superior experience in dealing with various
classes of men enables the brethren of the Presbytery to
suggest. While I cannot surrender the right to speak what
I believe to be true, and to speak it within the Church so long
as it does not contradict the doctrine of the Church, I would
always desire to speak without giving unnecessary offence to
scruples which I am bound to respect. In writing the article
"Bible" I took it for granted that my position as an office-bearer
in the Free Church, pledged to support our evangelical
doctrine, my previous published utterances on the Supreme
and Divine authority of Scripture, and, at least in Aberdeen,
the known character of my public teaching, would obviate
the suspicion of indifference to doctrines whicli I had no
opportunity of asserting, when, by the plan of the Encyclo-
paedia Britannica and the arrangements formed by the editor
16 CHARGE OP RASHNESS.
I was limited to a survey of literary and historical questions.
It did not appear to me that I was precluded from handling
these questions because it had been determined that
such account of the doctrine of Scripture as fell to
be given in a work which excludes direct dogmatic
teaching should come under a separate heading. I
wrote the article not because it gave opportunity to say
everything about Scripture that I could wish to say, but
because it was planned to cover a field of legitimate
scientific enquiry, which the Church cannot forbid to her
members and office-bearers without surrendering it to un-
believers. I ought, perhaps, to have foreseen that this aspect
of the case would not spontaneously suggest itself to the
large section of the public which has never been accustomed
to look at Scripture from the literary and historical point of
view. Had I to write the article now I should be better
aware of this source of misunderstanding ; and while I still
could not hesitate to occupy the same ground of scientific
research, which I believe to be safe ground, and ground that
the Church dare not give up to scepticism, I should
endeavour, so far as is possible in an Encyclopaedia, to make it
plainer that my criticism does not imply indifference to the
Bible as the Divine rule of faith and life. The Presbytery
may still help me to make this clear, and to remove anxieties
which are largely due to misapprehension and consequent mis-
representation; but I submit, with all deference, that they
cannot reach this end by forcing a criminal complexion on
what was at most a miscalculation of the state of public
feeling and sentiment, and by sanctioning the principle that
a Free Church Professor may not express opinions and record
the present state of scientific enquiry in a Book of Pteference
which is on principle neutral in all questions of doctrine.
II. The second part of this charge is that my writings
exhibit rashness of statement in regard to the critical
construction of the Scriptures, and I presume, as there is
no indication to the contrary, that this accusation applies
to all the statements quoted in the minor. Now, rashness is
MEANING OF RASHNESS. 17
a thing which has various degrees, but what is here asserted
is such rashness as the Church must suppress by judicial
censures, a rashness which cannot be tolerated. How is this
rashness to be brought to proof ?
Does the accusation mean that my statements are rash
because they set forth opinions whicli the Church cannot
admit to be possibly true ? If this is the meaning the charge
is simply one of the two former alternatives in another guise.
If the Courts of the Church are entitled to say under the
third cliarge, " We forbid tliese statements as" rash because the
opinions they convey are dangerous and cannot be believed,"
they are equally entitled to drop the periphrasis and say at
once under the second charge, " We forbid the opinions be-
cause they are dangerous."
On the other hand, if there is a real difference between
tlie charge of rashness and the other alternatives, the proof
of the accusation involves a very large and intricate question
of fact. If the opinions stated are not in themselves
censurable, the rashness of the statements must be measured
by the grounds I had for making them, and it will be
necessary to examine in detail, not only every statement,
but the whole evidence on which each statement rests. This
will carry the case far beyond the limits of the Encyclopaedia
articles, for an Encyclopedia never professes to give the
evidence of its statements in full, and it will necessitate, on
my part, a line of defence so extended that I need not
attempt to include it in my written answer. But if the
Presbytery find that the charge of rashness forms a rele-
vant ground of prosecution, I must ask for an opportunity
to discuss the whole matter at large.
If things take this course it may appear to the Presbytery,
after a full examination of the evidence on which my state-
ments rest, that I have been wrong in my judgment. But
where is the law or precedent for finding that such an error
in judgment is an offence to be visited with punishment ?
If the two graver alternatives are dismissed, am I to be
punished because the majorit}^ of the Presbytery do not agree
18 DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE.
with my judgment as to the evidence of opinions wliich are
not in themselves censurable ?
It is the same thing if the " rashness" means that T have
spoken too soon, and have shocked the majority of the Church
by my want of caution. Does the libel claim for the Church
the right to determine, not only ivliat a man is to speak, but
wlien he shall be allowed to speak on things not contrary to
lier doctrine ; to limit the freedom of discussion among those
who are loyal to her Standards, and to do this by directing
her censures against any utterance which a majority in her
Courts think it would be wiser to keep back ? To censure me
on such grounds would be to affirm that opinions, which are
not wrong in themselves, are unfit to be mentioned to the
laity, and that enquiries, legitimate in an esoteric circle of
.scholars, must be kept back from the light of public discussion.
I cannot believe that the Church will entertain a view of her
functions which adopts the principle of the Index Expurga-
io/'ius. Even for the sake of unity in the Church, it is better
that men should speak out what they think. If the views of
fccholars are contrary to the faith of the Church, let them be
condemned ; if they are false, let them be refuted ; but unless
they are openly discussed, we can neither condemn them
justly nor refute them conclusively.
From these remarks on the general relevancy of the second
and third charges, I pass on to examine, in connection wath
the first charge, the doctrines of our Church which I am ac-
cused of impugning. They are — I. The Doctrine of Scrip-
ture. II. The Doctrine of Prophecy. III. The Doctrine of
Angels.
THE DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTUEE.
The points in the confessional doctrine of Holy Scrip-
ture, with regard to which my teaching is impugned, are three
in number. The first is imrnediate inspiration. The libel
seems to attach a special force to the phrase immediate, for it
is repeated under quinto, where mention is made of " the
INSPIRATION. 19
books which in ihe Confession of Faith are declared to have
been immediately inspired of God."* The Confession, how-
ever, does not use the expression to define the kind of inspir-
ation which belongs to the books of Scripture ; but only
speaks of the immediate inspiration of the original text as
distinguished from the versions (Cap. I. sec. 8). The word im-
mediate cannot, therefore, be used to fix on the Confession
any theory of the nature or degree of inspiration. On any
conceivable theory it is clear that inspirati^on belongs prim-
arily to the original text, and only mediately, or in a second-
ary sense to the versions. This distinction is employed in
order to prove against the Church of Eome that the original
Hebrew and Greek alone, and not any version is authentical
— i. e., is the authoritative document to which parties in
any controversy of religion must make their appeal.
In the present case there is no question of the relative
authority of the original text, and of translations made from
it. It is the inspiration of Scripture, not of one or other
edition or version of Scripture that is said to be assailed ; and,
accordingly, the expression immediate, as used in the Con-
fession, has no application in the controversy.
When the Confession, Cap. I. sec. 2, says that all the
books now contained under the name of Holy Scripture, or the
Word of God written, are given by inspiration of God to be
the rule of faith and life, it closely follows the language of
2 Tim. iii. 16, adding no explanation of its own to the state-
ment of that text. It is in accordance with the proof text,
and with the force of the original word eeowvevaro^, that neither
tlie Westminster Confession, nor any previous Confession of
the Eeformed Churches, so far as I am aware, speaks of the
inspiration of the writers of Scripture. It is Scripture itself,
according to the consensus of the Eeformed Churches, that is
inspired or " breathed of God" ; and in all the Confessions the
Bible is recognised as the inspired Word of God, not on the
ground of any theory as to the influence of the Holy Spirit
* It is, however, noteworthy that the phrase is departed from in the third charge.
20 DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION
upon the writers in adu scribcndl, but (1) because in the Scrip-
tures the revelation of God and of His will first preached
through the Spirit by the apostles and prophets is now re-
duced to writing ; and (2) because the witness of the Spirit
by and with the word in our hearts, assures us that in these
Scriptures (as it is expressed in the Second Helvetic Con-
fession) God still speaks to us*
These two arguments afford a sure ground of faith for
receiving the Bible as the very Word of God, without any
theory as to the way in which the Word was actually reduced
to that written form in which we have it, and which is still
accompanied by the testimony of the Spirit. Our Confession,
therefore, simply states that it pleased the Lord, having
revealed himself and declared his will to the Church, " after-
wards to commit the same wholly unto writing." The same
studious abstinence from all attempt to define the process by
which the Bible came to be what it is, appears no less con-
spicuously in the Confessions of the Calvinistic Churches of
the Continent. The ancient French Confession, Art. II., writes,
"This God manifests himself as such to men, first by his
works . . . . ; secondly, and more clearly, by his w^ord,
which, originally revealed by oracle, was thereafter reduced
to writing in the books which we call Holy Scriptures"
(Niemeyer, p. 314 ; Schaff, vol. iii., p. 860). And the Dutch
Confession, revised at the Synod of Dort, holds almost
the same language. " Secondl}', He manifests himself more
clearly and perfectly in His holy and Divine Word, to wit, as
far as is necessary for us in this life to His glory, and the
salvation of His own. This Word of God was not sent or
brought forth liy man's will; but holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost . . . Thereafter,
* These are the two points taken up by Calvm in his commentary on 2 Tim.
iii. 16. " This is the principle which distinguislics our religion from all others,
that we know that God hath spukai to us, and are assuredly persuaded that the
prophets spake not of their own sense, but as they were organs of the Holy
Spirit uttered only what was given to them from heaven . . . The same spirit
which assured Moses and the prophets of their vocation, now also beareth wit-
ness in our hearts that he used their ministry in order to teach us."
IN THE REFORMED CIIURCUES. 21
by a special care which He hath for us and our salvation,
God commauded his servants, the Prophets and Apostles, to
put his revealed Word in writing ; and He Himself wrote,
with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore,
we call such writings holy and Divine Scriptures " (Art. II.
Ill, Schaff, vol. iii., p. 384).
This unanimous doctrine of the Eeformed Churches is so
constructed as to make the authority of the Bible altoo-ether
independent of questions that may be raised as to the human
agencies by which the book came into its present form.
According to the Confessional doctrine it is not matter of
faith, when the books that record God's Word were written,
or by whom they v/ere written, or how often they were
re-edited, changed, or added to, before the record of reve-
lation was finally completed, or in what literary form they
are cast, or what modes of literary handling they display,
or what their literary merits and demerits may be judoed
to be. It is not even asserted by the Confessions that
the persons who gathered and arranged the material of
the Bible were under a special influence of God's Spirit,
but only that under God's singular care, lest any age of
His Church should be left without a full unmistakeable
declaration of His saving will, the record of His revealed
Word has been so framed and preserved, that He still speaks
in it as clearly as He spake by the Apostles and Prophets,
and that we, by the witness of the Spirit, still recognise it as
a word breathed forth by God Himself.
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 redeeming love of God, be-
cause in the Bible alone I find God drawing near to man in
Christ Jesus, and declaring to us, in Him, His wiU for our
salvation. And this record I 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,"
22 INFALLIBLE TRUTH
From this point we can at once pass on to enquire in
what sense we are to understand the other predicates of
Scripture adduced in the libel, viz., infallible truth and
divine authority.
According to the Confession, infallible truth and divine
authority go together. That which comes to us by the
authority of God is necessarily and infallibly true, because
God is truth itself (Cap. I., sec. 4). The two predicates are
inseparable, the one does not extend beyond the other, and
both are proved by one and the same evidence, viz., by
the witness of the Holy Spirit (Sec. 5).
The nature of this evidence makes it clear that in the
intention of the Confession the infallible truth and divine
authority of Scripture are distinct, not only in degree, but in
kind, from the general veracity of the Bible, as a credible
account of the historical origins of our religion. The latter
is to be proved by the ordinary methods of historical
evidence, and is not matter of divine faith depending on a
special action of the Spirit in our hearts, but may by a due
use of natural means be reached by any candid thinker.
But the Bible story contains something that rises above the
analogy of ordinary history, and so cannot be gauged or
tested by any historical evidence. In it we see God drawing
near to man, revealing to us His redeeming love, choosing a
people for Himself, and declaring to them His mind and
will. To apprehend this supernatural reality, to grasp it as a
thing real to us, which is to enter into our lives and change
our whole natures, we need a new spiritual gift. No
personal truth coming to us from without can be apprehended,
except by a power within, putting us into communion with
it ; but fallen man has no natural power of communion M'ith
God ; and so only the Spirit of God in the heart of the
believer, enables him to realise that in very truth it is God
and none else that is seen in the history, and speaks in the
Word, revealing Himself, and declaring His will. This is the
doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, as taught by Paul in
1 Cor. ii. 11, "What man knoweth the things of a man save
AND DI VINE A UTHORIT Y. 23
the spirit of man which is in him ? Even so the tilings of
God knoivcth no man, hut the Spirit of God!'
Within its proper sphere this witness, as the Confession
indicates, is absolutely conclusive. The things of God
knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. But conversely
the testimony of the Spirit only applies to the things of
God which "no man knoweth," or can know by the use
of his natural powers. What these things are the Con-
fession tells us in the paragraph on which its whole doctrine
of Scripture rests. They are "the knowledge of God and
of His will which is necessary to salvation." It is only to
this knowledge that the witness of the Spirit extends, and
therefore, the infallible truth and divine authority of
Scripture, of which according to the Confession we have
no other proof than the witness of the Spirit, means simply
infallible truth and divine authority as a record of God's
saving revelation of Himself and His will.
This conclusion is so important that I may be allowed to
add some additional considerations in support of the foregoing
argument : —
I. Every attentive reader of Chap. I. of our Confession
must observe that nothing is said of the Scriptures, except
in so far as they are the record of spiritual trutlis, of God's
revelation of Himself and of His will. It is as the record
in which this revelation is wholly committed to writing, and
which God still acknowledges by the witness of the Spirit,
that the Bible is called the Word of God. And so it is only
in this relation that the Confession can fairly be held to
declare the Bible to be of infallible truth and divine
authority, and not in relation to any expression that may
be found in Scripture, which touches neither faith nor life,
and does not affect the record of God and His revelation.
II. The argument of the Confession and of Protestant
theology in general runs tlms : —
Because God is truth itself. His word is infallible ; and
because He is sovereign, it is authoritative.
But Scripture is the Word of God.
24 REFORMATION DOCTRINE
Therefore Scripture is of infallible truth and Divine
authority.
Now, the sense to be put on this conclusion depends on
the force of the word is in the proposition, " Scripture is the
Word of God." One school of theologians presses the word as
strictly as Lutherans and Eomanists do in the famous contro-
versy on the words " This is my body." And they press it
with as little reason. For other orthodox Confessions of the
Eeformed Churches use a different expression, though all
these Churches teach the same doctrine.
I have already pointed out that the French and Dutch
Confessions distinguish between the Word of God, as it was
first spoken by Eevelation, and the Scriptures in which that
word was afterwards recorded.
In accordance with this distinction, the fifth article of the
French Confession speaks of the Word as contained in the
Bible. So, too, Calvin in the Genevan Catechism (Opera viii.
24, Niemeyer, p. 159) defines God's Word as " spiritual doc-
trine, the gate, as it were, whereby we enter into His heavenly
Idngdom," and adds, that " this word is to be sought in the
Holy Scriptures ivherein it is contained." Our own Shorter
Catechism (Ques. 2) uses similar language. In a case like
tliis, where a looser expression and one more precise are used
side by side by the same author, or by Churches of the same
Confession, we must, for purposes of exact argument, take the
less ambiguous phrase. And so the conclusion that Scripture
is of infallible truth and Divine authority, will be more cor-
rectly expressed by saying that Scripture records or conveys
to us the infallible and authoritative Word of God.*
III. liut now will it not be objected that this last ex-
pression is too little for faith to rest upon ? that it leaves an
* I use the exi)ression "Scripture records or conveys to us the Word of God,"
because some modci-n writjrs have twisted tlie old Calvinistic expression in a new
sense. People now say that Scripture contaitis God's word, when they mean that
part of the liiljle is tlie "Word of God, and another part is tlie word of man. That
is not the doctrine of our Cliurches, which hohl that the substance of all Scripture
is God's Word. Wliat is not part of the record of God's Word, is no part of Scrip-
ture. Only we must distinguisli between the record and the Divine comniunica-
catiun of Gotl's heart and will which the record conveys.
OF THE WORD OF GOD. 23
opening for doubt whether the Scripture is a correct and
adequate record ? By no means, replies the theology of the
Eeforniatiou, for the Holy Spirit accompanies the Word as
it is brought to us in Scripture, with exactly the same testi-
mony which he bare to the "Word in the hearts of its first
hearers, nay, even with the very same testimony whereby he
assured the prophets and apostles tliat the word which they
preached was God's Word, and not their own.^ The witness
of the Spirit does not attach itself to the outward characters
of the record (1 Cor. ii. 1-5) ; but testifies directly to the in-
fallible truth of the Divine Word, the spiritual doctrine, the
revelation of God Himself, which is the substance of the
record. Scripture is not the record of a word which was
once infallible, but may have been corrupted in transmission.
It is the record of a word which still speaks with infallible
truth and personal authority to us, in accordance, as Calvin
well observes, with the promise, Isa. lix. 21, " My Spirit that
is upon thee, and jNIy words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of
thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the
Lord, from henceforth and for ever."
IV. This argument is irrefragable, and a sure ground of
faith to any one who keeps clearly in view the fundamental
Eeformation position that the Word of God is nothing else
than the personal manifestation to us for salvation of God
and His will. God's Word is the declaration of what is in
God's heart with regard to us. And so its certainty lies in
its substance, not in the way in which it comes to us.
'■ The Word itself," says Calvin, " Jwwever it be 2>rcscnted to
us, is like a mirror in which faith beholds God " {Inst., Lib.
iii., cap. 2, sec. 6). So long as we go to Scripture, only to
find in it God and His redeeming love, mirrored before the
eye 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. But to the Eeformers this was
♦Calvin, Inst., Lib. I., Ch. vii. Sees. 4, 5. ; Id. on 2 Tim. iii : "To disciples as
to teachers Ood is manifested as author by revelation of the same S^iirit."
26 SCOPE AND LIMITS
the whole use of Scripture. " The whole Scriptures," says
the first Swiss Confession, " have no other end than to let
mankind know the favour and goodwill of God, and that He
has openly manifested and proved this goodwill, to all man-
kind, through Christ, His Son, but that it comes to us only
by faith, is received by faith alone, and nourished and proved
Ity love to our neighbour" (Art. V., Niemeyer, p. 106). Now,
since Scripture has no other end than to convey to us a
message, which, when accompanied by the inner witness of
the Spirit, manifests itself as the infallible Word of God, we
may for practical purposes say that Scripture is the infallible
Word of God. Scripture is, essentially, what it is its
business to convey. But we cannot invert the proposition
and say that the infallibility, which belongs to the divine
substance of the Word, extends to the outward form of the
record, or that the self-evidencing power of the Word as a
rule of faith and life extends to expressions in Scripture
which are indifferent to faith and life.
V. Tliat this is the true limit of the infallibility and
authority of the Word, as taught in our Confession, appears
farther from what is said in the latter at Ch. XIV., sec. 2, on
the subject of saving faith, " By this faith a Christian
believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for
the authority of God speaking therein ; and acteth differently
upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth ;
yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the
threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this
life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of
saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ
alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by
virtue of the covenant of grace." Here we have the very
same doctrine of the Word as in the extracts above given
from Calvin and the Swiss Confession. The Word consists
of God's commands, threatenings, and promises, addressed
to our faith, and above all of the gospel offer of Christ to us.
These and none other are the things \;\\\c\\ faith receives as
infallibly true, and the Confession nowhere recognises an
OF THE CONFESSIONAL DOCTRINE. 27
infallibility wliicli is apprehended otherwise than by faith.
It is, therefore, wholly illegitimate to refer to the Confession
as settling any question as to the human form of the Bible,
or as to possible human imperfections in the Scriptures in
matters that are not of faith.
The length at which I have drawn out these arguments
will not, I trust, appear disproportionate to the gravity of the
questions involved, and to their crucial importance in the
present process. The whole case against me rests on the
assumption that the doctrine of the infallibility and authority
of Scripture has another sense and a wider range than that
assigned to it in the preceding pages ; and that it is capable
of being pressed to preclude enquiry, by ordinary exegetical
and historical methods, into questions which have nothing to
do with faith and life, and which are not inaccessible to man's
natural powers of investigation. The questions which the
libel desires to foreclose are literary questions as to the origin,
history, literary form, and literary character of the Biblical
books. They are questions on which the Confession could
not give a direct utterance, because they had not emerged
when it was composed ; but it is held that the language of
our Standards is broad enough to cover these literary
questions, and to exclude them from the sphere of ordinary
literary discussion.
In articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica I have taken
an opposite view, and while I heartily adhere to the doctrine
of our Standards, in the sense and on the grounds which I
have briefly stated in the foregoing pages, I have held myself
at liberty to discuss all literary questions about the books of
Scripture on the usual principles of literary evidence, and to
adopt such conclusions as the evidence justifies, without
practising any such " sacrifice of the intellect " as the
Church of Eome demands from her theologians. These
conclusions in no way conflict with the supernatural truths
which Scripture presents for our faith on spiritual evidence ;
but they do conflict with inferences which are sometimes
drawn from the Confessional doctrine of Scripture, by
28 THE DOGTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY
pressing the mere words of the Standards beyond the limits
which the whole scope of the doctrine must fairly be held to
prescribe. In other words my views — deduced not from
theory but from the evidence of facts — are inconsistent with
the ascription to certain Biblical books of a formal infallibility,
extending to every word and letter, and some other supposed
perfections, which have nothing to do with the Divine
perfection of the Bible as a rule of faith and life, but are
measured by an arbitrary and merely human standard.
If we extend the principle of the infallible truth of Scrip-
ture beyond the limits within which, as I have endeavoured
to show, the whole Confessional doctrine moves, it is plain
tliat we cannot stop short of the assertion that the Bible, as
we now have it, contains no error or inaccuracy of even the
most trivial kind. That this is not true of the present text
of the Old and New Testaments is an undeniable fact, freely
admitted by sound theologians from Luther and Calvin down-
wards. It is not necessary to multi[)ly examples of what no
theologian questions. I will therefore confine myself to cit-
ing one or two cases in the very words of Calvin.
]\Iat. xxvii. 9. " How the name of Jeremiah came in I
confess that I do not know, and do not greatly care.
It is at least plain that the name of Jeremiah stands
by mistake for Zechariah."
Acts vii. 16. " It is plain that there is an error in the
name of Abraham."
Acts vii. 14. In this verse the number 75 is given ac-
cording to the LXX. of Gen. xlvi. 27, instead of 70.
Eecognising the number in Acts as due to an error
in the Septuagint, Calvin remarks that " the matter
was not so important as to oblige Luke to perplex the
Gentiles who were accustomed to the Greek readiuo-."
The origin of such errors is fretpiently assigned to copy-
ists, and it is supposed — in the teeth of all textual evidence —
tliat the mistakes did not occur in the originals. But this
supposition, which is merely an hypothesis devised to support
a certain theory of the inspiration of the writers, has no found-
MAY BE MISAPPLIED. 29
ation in the doctrine of the Confession, which gives no
theory about the writers of tlie Bible, and is only concerned
to maintain the infallible truth of the Scriptures as we have
them. It is of the Bible as it exists, and is in our hands, that
the Confession throughout speaks. To affirm that former
ages had a more perfect Bible than we possess, that our Bible
is in the smallest point less truly the Word of God than when
it was first written, is clearly to imperil a central interest of
our faith on behalf of a mere speculative theory. The writers
of the Confession were fully alive to this fact, and accordingly
they assert the present purity of the Hebrew and Greek
texts, the present authenticity of these texts as documents
from which there is no appeal ; and they assert this just as
broadly, and with precisely the same generality, as they assert
that Scripture is infallible and of Divine authority.
The Confession leaves room for only two views of Scrip-
ture. We may suppose that the infallible truth of the Bible
extends to every letter and point of the present Greek and
Hebrew texts. This is a view not inconsistent with the words
of the Confession ; but it is admittedly and notoriously incon-
sistent with facts. And this being so, we make the Confession
self-contradictory if we declare it to be matter of faith, and
indispensable to the character of the Bible as God's Word,
that it was originally written without the slightest human
imperfection, while we yet admit that the absence of errors
from the Bible, as we have it, is not matter of faith, and not
indispensable for the defence of its Divine character. If a
Bible containing some errors and imperfections would m)t
have been God's infallible Word when it came from the pen
of inspiration, then the Bible which, as we read it, does con-
tain errors, cannot be God's Word to us now.
We see then in this matter of verbal infallibility how
dangerous it is to assume that in giving us a Bible perfect
for his own Divine purpose, God must necessarily have be-
stowed on that Bible every other perfection which we with
our little insight into the Divine wisdom, our fallible judg-
ment, and our weak faith, may be disposed to think fitting.
30 THE STANDARDS LEA VE ROOM
God has not deemed it unworthy of His honour that in the
Bible which we read His infalHble and self-evidencing Word is
presented to us in a vehicle which contains some marks of
human imperfection, some verbal and historical errors. He
has not withheld from this imperfect letter the witness of His
Spirit in the lieart of the believer, commending it as His own
infallible declaration of redeeming love, as His own perfect
rule of faith and life. Who are we that we should be wiser
than God, and declare that we will not receiv(i His Word
upon His own witness to its truth, unless we are allowed to
ascribe a number of arbitrary perfections of our own imagin-
ing to the letter wliich He acknowledges in its present
admitted imperfection ?
It is plain that the only honest and reverent way of
dealing with the letter of Scripture is to allow it to speak
for itself. We have it as a fact that in laying His W^ord
before us as He does this day — for the Bible, as we have
it, is a gift direct from God to us, and not a mere inheritance
from the earlier Church — God has employed a series of
human agencies, and in the use of these agencies has not
excluded every human imperfection. If we are to have a
trustworthy revelation at all, it is necessary that the one
Ilecord 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 unvarying and infallible truth, not mingling God's
message with doctrines of man. So much is witnessed
in our hearts by God's own Spirit, and so much is
necessarily assumed in our Confession. Everything more
than this is a question of the letter, and not of the Spirit,
a question of the human agency employed, and not of the
Divine truth conveyed. We are all agreed that the agency
"was not merely mechanical, that the original organs of
revelation, and the subsequent writers of the record were
not mere machines, but exercised a certain human freedom
and spontaneity. They wrote each his own style, they argued
each after his own habit of thought, and so forth. How far
FOR CRITICAL QUESTIONS. 31
this freedom went, and what things in the Bible are to be
explained by it, cannot be determined by d priori arguments,
and by tlie irreverent and j-resumptuous cry that a Bible,
which is not according to our ideas of the fitness of things,
is not a Bible at all.
The Bible is a part of human literature as well as the
record of divine revelation. As such God has given it to us,
and so He has laid upon us the duty, and given us the right
to examine it as literature, and to determine all its human
and literary characteristics by the same methods of research
as are applied to the analysis of other ancient books. Apart
from objections of detail, which I shall take in a subsequent
part of my answer, to the way in which the libel represents
individual features of my teaching, I rest my general defence
on the contention that what I have written as to the origin,
composition, meaning, and transmission of the books of the
Bible does not go beyond the limits of this legitimate and
necessary research.
In support of this contention, I would ask the Presbytery
to consider—
(I.) That my opinions are not based on any principle
inconsistent with the orthodox Protestant doctrine
of Scripture.
(II.) That the points to which the libel takes objection
in the argument of my articles, are such as fall
strictly within the scope of ordinary historical
and literary investigation, and which must be so
investigated, unless we are to make to unbelievers
the fatal concession that our religion is not only
above reason, but inconsistent with it.
(III.) That the adoption of the critical conclusions in my
papers, does not diminish the historical value of
the Bible as the record of God's revelation of
Himself to His people of old, but rather sets the
history of revelation in a clearer and more con-
sistent lio'ht.
32 CRITICISM AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
(TV.) That these conclusions do not affect the perfection
of the Bihle as a rule of faith and life, and that
they cannot be touched by arguments of faith, or
reached by the witness of the Spirit.
(I.) My criticism does not assume as the basis of argu-
ment any principle inconsistent Avith the Protestant doctrine
of Scripture. On the contrary, the article " Bible" starts from
the position that the religion of the Bible is the religion of
revelation ; that it grew, not by the word of man, but by the
"Word of God given through His prophets ; and that it found
its evidence in the long providential history in which the
reality of Jehovah's kingship over Israel, of His redeeming
love, and of His moral government, were vindicated by the
most indisputable proofs. It will be observed that in these
statements I place in the forefront of my article two proposi-
tions which no rationalist can possibly admit, namely (1) That
the Old Testament History exhi])its a personal and super-
natural manifestation of the redeeming God to his chosen
people; and (2) That the Old Testament prophets were organs
of revelation, who spake not by their own wisdom, but by the
supernatural teaching of God. These statements amount to
an explicit enunciation of the first of the two fundamental
propositions on which the whole confessional doctrine of
Scripture is based, viz., that the Bible records how God, at
sundry times, and in divers manners, revealed Himself and
declared to His Church His will necessary for salvation. It
is true that my article does not enunciate the other funda-
mental proposition of the Confession — that by the witness of
the Spirit the Word contained in the Scriptures is still brought
home to our hearts as God's very message to us. But the
reason of tliis is not that I had anything to say inconsistent
with the Confessional doctrine ; but simply that I had no
occasion to use this principle in an article which, by the ex-
])ress limitation of its plan, was confined to the discussion of
literary questions, which, lying outside of the region of spiritual
evidence, can be exhausted by ordinary means of investiga-
LITERARY QUESTIONS. 83
tioii, and do not affect the place of tlie Bible in the proof of
tlie doctrine of the Church, or in the praxis of personal
religion.
(II.) The details of my articles strictly correspond with
this limitation of plan, and all the points to which the libel
takes objection can be discussed by ordinary methods of
literary research. Taken summarily, they reduce themselves
to the following principal heads : —
(I.) I point out that at an early period in the history of
the Hebrew text changes on what lay before them, re-
arrangements, and additions must have been introduced
by co])yists or editors. The proof of this lies in tlie
text itself, and can be fuily made out to any one
who has the necessary scholarship. If the scientific proof is
thrust aside as is done in the libel, by the simple assertion
that such a view is disparaging to Scripture, what becomes
of the reasonableness of our faith ? The condition and
history of every other ancient text are judged of by
scholars on well-known principles which no one dveams of
disputing ; but to apply these principles to the text of the
Old Testament is, according to the libel, an offence which,
for the glory of God and the edification of the Church, must
be visited with judicial sentence.
(2.) I endeavour to make out from the writings themselves
to what class of literary composition each book is to be
referred, and how the author meant it to be understood.
Is the book of Job a literal history or a poem based on old
tradition, in which the author has used the faculty of
invention to illustrate the problems of God's providence,
and man's probation ? Is the Song of Solomon an allegory
or a poem of natural love ? These are questions of interpre-
tation such as constantly occur in ordinary litei'ary criticism,
when no one hesitates to decide them by familiar criteria.
Yet the libel forbids me to ask these questions about Biblical
"books, and declares it equally illegitimate to take Job other-
wise than literally, and Canticles otherwise than allegorically,
although the use of poetical invention has the sanction of
S4 SPEECHES IN THE
our Lord in His parables, and the allegorical interpretation
of Canticles is the relic of a system of interpretation Avhieli,
before the Reformation, was applied to every Bible narrative
which seemed unedifying.
(3.) I endeavour to ascertain the literary principles by
which authors were guided. The libel seems to assume that
there is only one way in which honest literary work can he
gone about, namely, the way of modern Western literature.
But every student of antiquity knows that ancient, and
especially Eastern writers, have a different standard of
literary merit and propriety from ours. For example, all
ancient historians, whether in the East or in the West,
were accustomed to insert in their nai-rative speeches of
their own composition. This was so thoroiighlj- a I'cceivcd
part of the historian's art that no ancient reader would have
thought it a merit to do otherwise. Nay, it was just in sucli
speeches that an able historian displayed his power of
illustrating an historical situation, and applied the lesson
of the situation to his reader's mind.* But according to the
libel nothing like this can occur in the Bible history. It is
inconceivable, we are told, that the historians of the Old
Testament can have incorporated appropriate reflections
in their narrative, or used any literary freedom in expanding
and developing the words of actoi's in the history, as was
done by other historians without offence, and without mis-
understanding on the part of their readers. Is it unfair to
say that this is a matter that must be decided by the
evidence in each case, that if there really is such a difference
between the Bible and other ancient histories, it must appear
on the face of the narrative in the absence of those marks
* Modern historians have sometimes found it advantageous to adopt the same
literary figure. " I am far from wishing to introduce into history tlie i)ractico of
writing fictitious speeches as a mere variety upon the narrative, or an occasion
for disi)laying the eloquence of the historian. But wlien the iicculiar views of
any party or time require to be represented, it seems to me better to do tliis dra-
ynatically, by making one of the characters of the story express them in the first
person, than to state as a matter of fact that such and such views were enter-
tained."—ArnoUl's History of Home, II. p. 48, Note. See also Masson's Life of
Milton, III. 177.
OLD TESTAMENT. 35
of the historian's own thought and expression, which literary
criticism is admittedly competent to recognise in ordinary
books.
(4.) Carrying out the right of enquiry into the literary
construction and true meaning of Biblical books, I am
constrained to admit that some of the Pentateuchal laws are
not Mosaic, and the ascription of them to him cannot be
taken literally. It is obvious on the fece of it that the
Pentateuch is a case of literary construction on principles
which are extremely foreign to our habits of thought. To
our minds a history and a statute book are very distinct
things ; but in the Pentateuch, which is the statute book of
Israel, the laws are mixed up with the history, and some-
times so closely incorporated with the narrative, that it is
difficult to distinguish between permanent ordinances and
historical statements of v/hat was done on a single occasion.
But more than this, we find in different parts of the
Pentateuch several laws on the same subject, which are not
simply supplementary, one to the other, but differ in such a
way that those who affirm that all ai'e really of Mosaic date,
and designed to be in operation at one and the same time,
confess that it is often impossible to determine, otherwdse
than hypothetically, how the scattered details are to be re-
conciled, and what is the practice actually enjoined by the
law. We have here a problem which can only be solved by
recognising some peculiar principle in the composition of tht^
Pentateuch. Laws are meant to be obeyed, and to be
obeyed they must be understood. It was not enough for
the people to believe the lows to be consistent, unless they
could actually make them consistent, and find them unam-
biguous in practice. Either, then, we must suppose an oral
tradition descending from Moses as the real authority by
which the apparent contradictions in the laws were resoh^ed
in practice, or we must seek an historical explanation de-
pending on the way in which the Pentateuch was put
together. The former supposition places tradition above the
written Word, and so the Biblical student is perforce thrown
S6 THE PENTATEUCHAL
back on the latter. We cannot give up tlie Pentateuch as a
book which from its very origin was a hopeless riddle, and
therefore we must call in critical enquiry to help us to
understand why one law book contains precepts which not
only appear inconsistent to us, but which in many cases
must have been equally puzzling to the Hebrews themselves.
Now the critical solution starts from the hint afibrded by
the peculiarity that Israel's statute book is also a history.
Suppose the case that, after the original laws had long been
current in historical form, it became necessary to introduce,
under adequate prophetic authority, some new ordinance to
meet the changing conditions of political, social, and
religious life. It cannot be said that this is an im})ossible
case, or that legislation by prophets later than Moses is
inconsistent with the spirit of the Old Testament dispensation.
But how could such a law be added to a statute book which
had the peculiar shape of a history of Israel in the Wilder-
ness ? Apparently, says criticism, the only way to make the
new law an integral part of the old legislation was to throw it
into such a form as if it had been spoken by Moses, and so
incorporate it with the other laws. Of course, if this plan
was adopted the statute book ceased to be pure literal
history. The ascription of a law to Moses could no longer
be taken literally, but could only indicate that the law was
as much to be observed as if it came from Moses, and that
it was a legitimate addition to his legislation. Such a
method of publishing laws would not be free from incon-
venience ; but the actual unquestioned inconveniences of the
Pentateuch, when measured by our ideas of a law book, are
so great that this cannot prove the thing impossible. On
the other hand, there is no deceit implied in the use of an
artificial literary form proceeding on a principle well under-
stood, and so it is a pure question of literary and historical
evidence whether the Hebrews did at one time recognise
and use such a principle. There is one piece of direct
historical evidence which seems to shew that they did, for
in Ezra ix, 11, a law is quoted from Deut. vii., expressed in
LEGISLATION. 37
words that throw it back into the Wilderness period, and
yet the origin of this law is ascribed not to Moses bnt to the
Prophets.
Criticism endeavours to prove that the Pentateuch was
actually made up in some such way as I have indicated,
and it does so on various lines of evidence — especially by
shewing that different parts of the Pentateuch present con-
sistent differences of style, excluding the idea of unity of
authorship ; by proving that some of the.laws — such as the
law of Deuteronomy forbidding sacrifice except in one central
sanctuary — were never attended to even by prophets like
Samuel and Elijah, and cannot be supposed to have been
known to these holy men ; and, finally, by shewing that
in-econcilable contradictions arise if we suppose all the laws
to be of the same date, and to have been in force at one
time. If, for example, Numb, xviii. assigns the firstlings to
the priests, and Deut. xii. bids the people eat them them-
selves, and if both laws are perfectly clear and unambiguous
in the tenour of their words, it is vain to ask us to believe
that both laws were given by Moses to be observed together.
Now, whether the critics are right or wrong in the con-
clusions which they draw from these and other similar lines
of evidence, and whether or not they have found the true
solution of the admitted difficulties of the Pentateuch, it
ought to be plain that the line of enquiry on which they o-q
does not exceed the limits of fair literary and historical
investigation ; and if they are wrong, they can and must be
refuted by meeting their arguments, and not by relyino- on
the mere assertion that they proceed on rationalistic grounds.
If that is so, it must be proved by going over the steps of
the argument, and pointing out where the rationalistic as-
sumption comes in. I am convinced that in my criticism I
have used no rationalistic assumptions, and that I have come
to conclusions only on methods of which no one would dis-
pute the legitimacy if the question were about another book,
than the Bible. If the authors of the libel have an opposite
conviction, they ought to meet me in detail, and shew that
38 POSSIBLE ERRORS.
they have mastered the critical argument, and can Lxy their
finger on its weak point.
(5.) Lastly, I have written on the assumption tliat it
must be determined by observation of the facts, and not on
a priori considerations, whether a Biblical author has some-
times made a slip in matters of fact^whether, for example,
the Chronicler has misunderstood the phrase " ships of Tar-
shish," which he found in the book of Kings, and whether
he has sometimes taken it for granted, without evidence,
that a usage of his own time applies to an earlier ])eriod.
If such (][uestions cannot be settled on the merits, there is
no such thing as a science of history. And whichever way
they are settled, they do not in the least affect the adequacy
of the Bible as the perfect Divine rule of faith and life. It
will however be noted that on all such points I carefully
avoid hasty conclusions, and am unwilling to go be3'ond an
admission that in some cases the evidence points to a possible,
or at most a probable error.
I think that these five heads pretty nearly exhaust every-
thing in my enquiries which has been objected to. I ask
the court to consider that they correspond to competent lines
of literary investigation, which are applicable to all ancient
literature, and therefore cannot be inapplicable to the Bible
on its literary side. And here I hope that the Presbytery
will not allow me to be put to disadvantage by the circum-
stance that many of my judges cannot be supposed to be quite
ftxmiliar with the way in which scientific method is applied
by scholars to the study of ancient books. I hope that it
will be remembered that, while every intelligent and
thoughtful mind may appreciate such processes in a
general way, it is scarcely possible to teach a man the
full force and scope of a scientific or critical method
except by exercising him in it, and showing him, not by one
example but by many, how it is to be wielded. The ci-iti-
cism which I use, and the conclusions to which I arrive, are
in their main outlines — and these it is which are challenged —
common to me with almost every Hebrew scholar in Europe
HISTORICAL METHOD. 39
who lias directed his attention to the same questions. Under
these circumstances it is not reasonable that any one who is
not an expert should pronounce the method of enquiry in-
competent, merely because he does not clearly see how scholars
operate with it. When I say that I go to work only on re-
•cognised literary and scientific methods, I have the right
to be believed unless it can be sliown that I am mistaken.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and no man
is entitled to condemn me simply because he does not under-
stand how I can be right, unless he can go farther and say
tliat he does understand how I am wrong.
But while the vahie of the critical method can be
fully estiuiated only by scholars, every one should be able to
see that my conclusions may be adopted without impairing
the value and perspicuity of the Bible for the ends for wdiicli
it is given to the Church. We go to the Bible partly
because it is the source of historical information as to the
-origins of our religion and the history of God's revelation
in past time, and partly because in it God still speaks to us,
and lays down for our guidance an infallible rule of faith
and life. My third and fourth points are that criticism does
not interfere with this two-fold use of Scripture.
(III.) When we turn to the Bible to learn the history of
God's Revelation, we do not find one continuous and
systematic narrative, but a number of distinct documents or
separate books, which present the story of God's deahngs
with His people, and the inspired messages which He sent to
them at different times, in a somewhat broken and disjointed
manner. To iniderstand the history as a whole we must
piece the several documents together, and use the one to
elucidate the other. It is plain that in order to do this with
success we must determine as far as possible at what point
in the history each book comes in, and what purpose it was
designed to serve. This is what criticism undertakes to do,
and, therefore, every advance in ciiticism is an important
step gained towards the understanding of the plan and
progress of the Old Testament dispensation. We may
40 CRITICAL STUDY OF
suppose that the critic starts at first on the assumption that
all the traditional views about individual books are correct.
But as he goes on piecing this and that together, he finds
something that will not fit ; he finds that on the old views
some obvious incongruity arises. He started perhaps with the
idea that all speeches are reported word for word, but at
1 Kings xiii. 82, he finds Samaria mentioned in a speech made
long before that city was founded, and when the very word
Samaria did not exist. Wliat is his duty as a man anxious
to understand the Bible history thoroughly? Xot to slur
over the difficulty, but to say frankly that it is plain from
this example that we shall misread the history if we assume
that speeches are given word for word as they were spoken.
This is an example on a very small scale of what criticism
has often to do on a large scale. When it is found that the
old view about any part of Scripture leads to obvious
incongruities or irreconcilable contradictions, the ciitic
aro'ues that these contradictions must lie not in the history
but in his own standpoint. And if the difficulty cannot be
overcome by a more correct exegesis, he prepares himself to
ask whether there is not some mistake in what he has hitherto
taken for granted as to the manner, the purpose, or the date
of the book with which he is dealing. This way of dealing
with Scripture is the very opposite of that of infidelity.
The infidel delights in the difficulties and contradictions
that arise on the traditional view of Scripture, and uses
tliem to disparage the Bible history. The critic is sure that
the history is consistent, and is only anxious to reach a
standpoint from which the consistency shall become
manifest.
But are there not critics who, under form of an attempt
to get a consistent view of the Old Testament literature, and
of the history which it records, eliminate God's revealing
hand from tlie history altogether ? No doubt thei'c are ; but
they effect this, not by what lies in the critical method as I
have hitherto described it, but by assuming an additional
and wholly alien principle — by assxnning that everything
THE BIBLE HISTORY. 41
supernatural is necessarily unhistorical. This assumption is
so for from being part of my criticism, that I regard it as
making true criticism impossible. Eliminate the superna-
tui-al hand of a revealing God from the Old Testament, and
you destroy tlie whole consistency of the history ; you de-
stroy the very thing on which the possibility of a sound
criticism rests.
Now I do not affirm that believing criticism can carry
out its work without coming to the conclusion that an
author, like the Chronicler, has sometimes made a mistake ;
that there are some inconsiderable interpolations in the pre-
sent text of the historical books, and that some things, like
genealogies, statistics, and laws, are thrown into a form
which is misleading if taken literally. But my criticism
reaches these conclusions, not at the expense of the historical
truth of the Old Testament, but in the interests of the his-
tory, and on the evidence of the books themselves. And the
result, even in the case of Deuteronomy and Chronicles, with
regard to which I am most blamed, is not that these books are
fraudulent and historically worthless, but that it is possible
by fair enquiry to gain a view of their true method, and
meaning, which disposes of the objections that have been
brought against them, and enables us to draw from them
fresh instruction. Such criticism is no assault upon the
history of supernatural revelation ; it is only an honest at-
tempt to let the record speak for itself, and to use the lio-ht
which one part of it reflects upon another.
(IV.) The value of the Bible as a collection of historical re-
cords, adequate when properly used to give a consistent view
of the course of God's revelation to his ancient people, is not,
however, that which is most immediately practical to the
Christian. It may be left to scholars to vindicate by his-
torical arguments the truth of the supernatural story of the
Old Testament. To the ordinary believer the Bible is pre-
cious as the practical rule of faith and life in which God still
speaks directly to his heart. No criticism can be otherwise
than hurtful to faith if it shakes the confidence with which
42 PRACTICAL USE OF THE BIBLE.
the simple Christian turns to his Bible, tissured that he can
receive every message which it brings to his soul as a mes-
sa^'>e from God Himself. And, on the other hand, no criti-
cism is dangerous which leaves this use of Scrij^ture secure.
ISi o w my criticism undoubtedly implies that' tliere are some
things in Scripture which the unlearned reader is pretty sure
to take in another sense from that in which they are actually
meant. The ordinary reader never observes the difficulties
that lie in the common view of the Pentateuchal legislation,
and the critical theory that the Laws in Deuteronomy are
put dramatically into Moses' mouth to show, as by a parable,
that they are s})oken by the same prophetic spirit as wrought
through Moses, and are authoritative developments of his
legislation, will probably appear to him very far fetched.
But then, the value of the book for his faith does not depend
on the question whether these things are spoken by Moses
literally or in a parable. All that he needs to know is that
tliey are God's teaching to his people of old ; and that apart
from the ceremonial and political precepts annvdled in the
change of dispensation, they are still spoken by God to him.
This is the whole concern of faith. It is all tliat is covered
l)y the witness of the Spirit. That witness can assure me
that these words are spoken of God to me. But it cannot
tell me to what generation of His Church, and by what
prophetic agency God spoke them first. What is true in the
case of Deuteronomy applies d fortiori to other less startling
cases.
Criticism may change our views of the sequence and the
forms of Old Testament Revelation ; but its whole work lies
with the " sundry times and divers manners" of God's declar-
iition of His will, and it cannot touch the substance of that
living Word which shines with the same Divine truth at all
times and under every form of revelation.
Before passing from this doctrine, I wish to say a word
on the supposed tendency of critical views. It seems to be
thouoht that the habit of mind which rests with confidence
on the Divine Word has no sympathy with critical method,
THE REFORMERS. 43
and that it is hardly possible to exercise one's judgment on
critical problems without impairing the simplicity of faith.
This is a notion which can be best tested by confronting it
with facts. The leaders of the Reformation are the men who,
above all others in the history of the Church, were filled with
a deep sense of the Divine authority and infallible truth of
Scripture, who triumphantly asserted this principle in battle
with errors that had enslaved all Christendom, and who, under
God's providence, were able to make their principle clear
to whole nations, and teach the learned and the unlearned
alike to turn from vain traditions and put their faith in the
sure Word of God. How did these men, and especially
Luther and Zwingli, who stood in the forefront of the battle
for truth, deal with the Bible ? Not in the spirit of timidity,
which can admit nothing unfamiliar for fear of unseen con-
sequences, but with a holy boldness, knowing the sure gpund
of their faith. Both these Reformers expressed themselves
on critical questions with great freedom, and sometimes even
with rashness.
Luther says that Job did not so speak as is written in
his book, but that the author took his thoughts and put
them into words as is done in a stage play, or in the
Comedies of Terence. He says that the books of Kings are
a hundred miles ahead of the Chronicles, and are more to be
believed. He classes Esther with the Second Book of
Maccabees, and wishes it did not exist, because it Judaizes
too much and contains much heathen naughtiness. Zwingli
finds an interpolation in the last chapter of Jeremiah, inser-
ted by some one who wished to diminish the shame of the
Jewish nation, by reducing the number of captives. All the
leading reformers are at one in admitting the existence of
verbal errors in the Biblical text, and supposing that the
authors did not always write with scrupidous exactness, or
observe in their narratives the order of events. Some of
these opinions are quite as startling as anything I have said,
and the list might easily be added to. Yet no men have had
a simpler and firmer faith in the Divine Wc*-d, or are freer
44 DOCTRINE OF PROPHECY
from the suspicion of shaking the faith of others. Nay, the
men who said these startling things are the very men who
taught the Church to love and reverence the Bible as never
had been done before. How then can it be affirmed that
there is a repugnancy between critical tendencies and simple
laith ?
THE DOCTRINE OF PROPHECY.
What is the Doctrine of Prophecy as set forth in the
Confession of Faith ?
(a.) From the use of the language of Heb. i. 1, it is clear
that in Cap. I. sec. 1, the Confession has a special
eye to prophecy when it says, that it pleased the
Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to
reveal Himself, and to declare that His will [i.e..
His will, the knowledge of which is necessary unto
salvation] unto His Church.
(h.) In Cap. VII. sec. 5, we read that the covenant of grace
was administered under the law " by promises, jpro-
phecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb,
and other types and ordinances delivered to the
people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come,
which were for that time sufiiciont and efficacious
through the operation of the Spirit to instruct and
build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,
by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal
salvation."
(c.) Cap. VIII. sec. 1. The Lord Jesus is the Prophet of
His Chm-ch. This may be understood by the
Larger Catechism, Q. 43 : " Christ executeth the
office of a prophet in his revealing to the Church in
all ages by His Spirit and Word, in divers ways of
administration, the whole will of God in all things
concerning their edification and salvation."
IN THE CONFESSION. 4S
The Confession, therefore, has two thuigs to tell us about
prophecy. In the first place, we learn from what is inijjlied,
though not expressly stated in Chapters i. and viii., that
prophecy is God's revelation to the Church of His will tor
their edification and salvation. In the second place, we learn
from Cap. VII. that inasmuch as the salvation of the OldTes-
tament believers depended on the communication to them
of the benefits of a fatitre work of redemption (Comp. Cap.
VIII. 6), prophecy under the old dispensation pointed to the
future and foresignified Christ to come. This doctrine I
heartily accept, and have always taught. I will not go
back to an old Review article, written eight j'ears ago,
and published before I held office in this Church, but I ask
the Presbytery to look at what I have said in the article
" Bible," and observe how thoroughly it accords with the
Confession. I say that prophecy is given by revelation : —
" The characteristic of the prophet is a faculty of spiritual
intuition, not gained by Jiumaii reason, but coining to h'tno
as a ivord from God Himself (p. 634b). And again, " The
prophets generally spoke under the immediate influence of
the Spirit or ' hand of Jehovah' " (p. 639b). I say that this
word is given for the edification of the Church : The pro-
phet " apprehends religious truth in a new light as bearing in
a way not manifest to other men on the practical necessities,
the burning questions of the present" (p. 634b). I ascribe to
the prophets the whole growth of the religion of the old
covenant (Ibid). I say that they reproved sin, exhorted to
present duty, and gave " encouragement to the godly, and
threatening to the wicked" (p. 640a). Again, I clearly in-
dicate that the work of the Old Testament prophets, for the
edification of their own dispensation, was based on their in-
sight into the future purpose of God, and took the shape of
prediction of the things to be fulfilled in Christ. I say in a
passage, which the libel itself cites, that the encouragements
which prophecy offers to the godly, and its threatening to the
wicked, are based on the certainty of God's righteous
purpose, and that " in this connection prophecy is pre-
46 DOCTRINE OF PROPHECY.
dictive ;" that " it lays hold of the ideal elements of the
theocratic conception" [which include, as every one knows,
the complete reconciliation of the people to God, the
outpouring of His Spirit upon them, the writing of His
law in their hearts, and the perfect realisation of His king-
ship over them], " and cle})icts the way in which, by God's
grace, they shall be realized in a Messianic age." What does
this passage mean ? It means that prophec}" includes pre-
diction of the things fulfilled in Christ, in order that it may
base its encouragements and threatenings directed to the
Old Testament Church, on the certainty of the righteous
purpose of God. The righteous purpose of God ought not
to be an ambiguous term to any one who has studied the
Bible. I use it here because it is under the aspect of
righteousness that the Old Testament most constantly
depicts the purpose of redemption. When, therefore, I
teach that Hebrew prophecy predicted the things of Christ,
the good things of the Messianic age, in order that the
Divine Word to the Old Testament Church might rest on
the certainty of God's righteous redemptive purpose, I
teach the precise doctrine of the Confession, which says, that
by prophecy the elect were instructed and built up in faith
in a promised Messiah. Finally, lest it be said that in
speaking of "a Messianic age" I do not sufficiently recognise
a distinct foresignifying of the personal Messiah, I point to
a passage, at p. 642a, where I say that Jesus " read in the
Psalms and Prophets, which so vainly exercised the un-
sympathetic exegesis of the Scribes, the direct and unmis-
takeable image of his own experience and work as the
founder of the spiritual kingdom of God." The Presbytery
will judge whether these statements could have been
penned by one who was not in full accord with the doctrine
of the Confession.
But Avhcn I turn to the libel I am told that I
"disparage prophecy by representing its j)rc(lictions as
arising merely from so called s[)i ritual insight, based on
the certainty of God's righteous purpose." These are not
"SPIRITUAL INTUITION." 47
my expressions. I do not say that the predictions are based
on the certainty of God's purpose, but that the encourage-
ment and threatenings in connection wherewith prophecy
takes a predictive shape are so based. Prediction is the
link which connects the Prophet's exhortation to his own
time with its basis in the certainty of a future work of
redemption. And this, as I have shown, is the exact doctrine
of the Confession, which teaches that prophecy was given
on the ground of the righteous redemptive purpose of God,
and in order to communicate its benefits to the Old
Testament Church.
Again, the faculty by which the Prophet apprehends the
word of Revelation is not by me called spiritual insight,
much less " merely so-called .spiritual insight." But I do call
it " spiritual intuition " (p. 634b), and I call it so —
(1.) Because in the Old Testament the prophetic word as
a wliole, and not merely prophetic vision in the
narrow sense, is called a " seeing " or intuition
{Chazon, Isa. i. 1 ; Nahum i. 1, etc.)
(2.) Because this intuition, as its object is supernatural,
is necessarily spiritual, 1 Cor. ii. 11, "The things
of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God."
I am farther charged with excluding prediction in the
sense of direct supernatural revelation of events lono- pos-
terior to the prophet's own time. This charge is irrelevant,
for the Confession makes no distinction between direct and
indirect prediction, and does not speak of any predictions
save those foresignifying Christ, which I have amply acknow-
ledged, as has been shewn above. And as a matter of fact,
this charge has no foundation in my writings. The quota-
tions brought from my exposition of Psalm xvi. are totally
rrelevant ; for in treating this passage as indirectly Mes-
ianic (in which I follow the best orthodox interpreters from
Calvin to Delitzsch), I do not deny that other parts of the
Old Testament contain direct prediction. And though I say-
that the prophets spoke directly to their own time, not to
the future, I certainly hold that they spoke to their own
48 DOCTRINE OF ANGELS
time about the future Messianic time, and have said as much
in the article " Bible," as quoted in the libel.
I am unable to conjecture what objection is taken to the
passages quoted from the " British Quarterly Review," unless
tlie real difference between the authors of the libel and my-
self is that they think of prediction of future events as the
characteristic mark and central function of prophecy ; where-
as I follow the Confession in thinking of prophecy as pre-
dictive in so far as was necessary for the instruction uf
the Old Testament Church in the will of God for their edi-
tication and salvation. In this connection, it is worthy of
remark that the fulfilment of predictions is not even men-
tioned in Cap. I. sec. 5, of the Confession as one of the sub-
ordinate evidences that the Bible is the Word of God — an
omission which makes it very clear that the Westminster
divines were not of the school which values prophecy mainly
for the evidence of fulfilled prediction.
THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS.
The Confessional doctrine of angels contains the follow-
ing points : —
Cap. III., sec. 8. — Tlie predestination of angels.
Cap. v., sec. 4. — The relation of God's providence
to the sins of angels.
Cap. VIII, sec. 4., and Cap. XXXIII, sec. 1.— The
judgment of angels by Christ.
Cap. XXL, sec. 2. — Religious worship is not to be
given to angels, saints, or any other creature.
The libel accuses me of holding that " belief in the super-
human reality of the angelic beings of the Bible is matter of
assumption rather than of direct teaching." The passage on
which this is based occurs in a sketch of the Old Testament
teaching about angels. In this sketch I state that " a dis-
position to look away from the personsility of the angels and
concentrate attention on their ministry runs more or less
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 49
through the whole Old Testament angelology." And I
illustrate this fact by saying that though it is certain
that the Old Testament belief in angels is a " belief
in the existence of superhuman beings standing in a
peculiar relation of nearness to God " (p. 26b), the reality of
such beings " is matter of assumption rather than of direct
teaching." What I mean by saying that in the Old Testa-
ment the existence of angels is rather taken for granted than
directly taught, appears in the next sentence, "No-
where do we find a clear statement as to the creation
of the angels." The libel, thei-efore, ought to have ac-
cused me of holding that the Old Testament rather takes
the reality of angels for granted than makes it matter
of direct teaching. In this form the charge is
clearly irrelevant. My article gives a mere statement of
facts, which are not my facts but those of the Old Testament.
And the authors of the libel might have observed that in
the Confession itself the creation and reality of angels are
taken for granted, and do not form matter of direct
teaching. Again I am blamed because, continuing my
sketch of Old Testament angelology, I say : " That angels are
endowed with special goodness and insight, analogous to
human qualities, appears [viz., in the Old Testament,] as a
popular assumption, not as a doctrine of revelation." This-
again is a mere statement of fact. The allusions to an
analogy between the goodness and wisdom of men, and
those qualities as displayed in a special way by angels,.
occur in speeches of Achish the Philistine, the woman of
Tekoah, and Mephibosheth, not one of whom surely was a.
mouthpiece of revelation.
DETAILS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
SCRIPTURE.
I have still to take up seriathn the details which the
libel sets forth under six heads, to prove that I have uttered
censurable opinions about the Scriptures.
so THE AARONJC PRIESTIIOOD
Primo. I am cliarged with holding " tliat the Aaronic
priesthood, and at least a great part of the laws and ordin-
ances of the Levitical system, were not divinely instituted
in the time of Moses, and that those large parts of Exodus.
Le^dticus, and Numbers wdiich represent them as having
been then instituted by God, were inserted in the inspired
records long after the death of Moses."
There are here three distinct charges : (A) That certain
ordinances are not Mosaic ; (B) That the priesthood, &c.,
were not of Divine institution ; (C) That large parts of
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are of post-Mosaic date.
Under (A) I first make a correction of fact. I do not
doubt that Aaron was priest before the ark in the Wilder-
ness, and that in the Wilderness the tribe of Levi was con-
secrated to its special vocation. All that I assert in the
passage quoted in the libel is :
1st. That the law in Deuteronomy does not recognise the
distinction which assigns all proper priestly functions to the
House of Aaron, and confines other Levites to ministerial
service under the priest.
2nd. That Ezekiel writes in a way shewing that at his
time this distinction was not enforced by law, and that he
does not seem to know of a previous law to the effect,
because he enacts the distinction as a punishment for the
Levites' sins.
These statements rest on exegetical evidence, which I am
ready to produce if they are challenged. As results of exe-
gesis, they must be refuted before they are condemned.
What they amount to is that the details of the Levitical
system were not fixed and invariable from the time of Moses
downwards. They thus fall under the general position
which I lay down in the second passage cited in the libel,
viz., that under the Old Testament dispensation there was a
development of ritual as well as of doctrine.
This explanation brings me at once to (B). While I assert
that the ordinances of ritual were not innnutable, my state-
ments give no colour to the accusation that I deny them to
be part of God's teaching to Isiacl. It will be observed how
AND LEYITICAL SYSTEM. 81
closely I conjoin the development of ordinances with the
development of doctrine, repeatedly emphasizing the fact
that both took place through the ministry of the prophets.
Does not this clearly imply that God, in whose name the
i^rophets acted, tanght the people by His ordinances as well
as by His word ?
As to (C), I grant that I take parts of Exodus, Le^dticus,
and Numbers to have been written after the time of Moses,
but I fail to see that this view is inconsistent with our
Standards, which state nothing as to the authorship and
omposition of the Pentateuch.
If, on the other hand, the language of the libel is meant
to convey that I regard large parts of the Pentateuch as
interpolations which have no right to stand where they do,
I repudiate such a representation of my views. I believe
that the Pentateuch is essentially, and in its plan, a compo-
site work, made up of several histories and law books, com-
bined together and probably supplemented by one or more
editors. But I believe that the several elements of which it
is composed agree in possessing the characteristics which en-
title them to form part of the Old Testament Record. I ap-
prehend that the real difficulty which the authors of the
libel wished to bring out is somewhat different from that
which their words express, and that the point of their ac-
ovisation is concealed in the relative clause, which says that
the Pentateuch represents certain ordinances as instituted in
the time of Moses, whereas I am taken to hold that the
ordinances (and not merely the books in which they are
recorded) are of later date. That is, I am accused of holding
a view of the Pentateuchal legislation at variance with the
lano-uaofe of the Pentateuch itself I shall deal with this
charge under the next head, where it is brought out more
explicitly. Under the first head it is out of place, inas-
much as I believe that the Aaronic priesthood was instituted
in the Wilderness, and do not profess to decide the question
whether some ordinances of the Middle Books of the
P<mtateuch are later than those of Deuteronomy.
52 THE LEGISLATIOy
Sccundo. Under this licad the libel does me an injus-
tice, wliicli is no doubt unintentional, and which 1 am sure
that every member of Pi'esbytery will be glad to correct, in
interweaving with the statement of my opinion as to the
book of Deuteronomy remarks and inferences that are not
mine, but are designed to shew that my position is unten-
able. Thus I am made to say that " the book of inspired
Scripture, called Deuteronomy, wJdch is iJrofesseclly an liis-
torical record, does not possess that character." Now, I ex-
pressly state in my article, and 1 have since repeated on
various occasions, that there is no fraud in the book of
Deuterononi}", or in other words that the author did not give
his book out for an3'thing but what it is. Accordingly the
insertion of the clause, which I signalise by italics, exactly
reverses my view. My contention is, not that a book pro-
fessedly historical does not possess that character, but that a
book, or rather part of a book (for my remarks are, strictly
speaking, confined to the legislative part of Deuteronomy),
which at first sight may seem to be strictly historical, ap-
pears on closer consideration not to be so, and not to have
been so meant by the author. The injustice done by over-
looking this element in my view runs through the whole
statement under this head. So, in the next clause, I am ac-
cused of holding that the writer made his book to assume
a character which it did not possess, and did this in the
name of God. The supposition tliat Deuteronomy contains
a fraud put forth in the name of God, is as abhorrent to me
as it can possibly be to the authors of tlie libel. The whole
character of the book excludes such a hypothesis. But, on
the other hand, there are facts connected with the laws
it contains which to me and mau}^ others seem to exclude
the idea that it is simply the report of a speech by
Moses, containing no ordinance that he did not give to
the Israelites. The theory of Deuteronomy, which I have
adopted, attempts to do justice to both these sides of
the case. As a theory it is of course in a measure hypo-
thetical. I am not tied to the details, and am ready to re-
ceive fresh light, or adopt a more perfect theor}'. But I can-
jN BEVTEROyOMY. S3
not in conscience overlook the clear internal evidence that
all the laws of the Pentatench were not given by one law-
giver to be in force at one time, and that some of the laws
of JJenteronomy were not known, even to prophets, till a
much later date.
Critics generally distinguish between the "legislative
kernel" of Deuteronomy, containing the speech of Moses,
and the " setting" or framework which connects it with the
rest of the Pentateuch on one side, and the book of Joshua
on the other. It is not probable that the author of the
speech is also the author of all the historical chapters. I
have not expressed, nor am I prepared to express a definite
view about the latter. But about the legislative part I
hold—
1. That it is based upon the older law, especially on the
Book of the Covenant to which Moses bound the people at
Sinai (Exod. xxiv. 7). It is, therefore, essentially an expan-
sion of Mosaic ideas.
2. At the same time the book contains ordinances which
on the evidence of the history, and on comparison with
other parts of the Pentateuch, must be confessed to be later
than Moses.
3. The new matter is to be viewed as a development of
the old legislation under prophetic authority to meet the new
needs of a later age.
4. The laws, restated and developed in Deuteronomy, are
thrown into the form of a speech delivered by Moses in the
land of Moab. It is not improbable that in choosing this
form the author was guided by an historical tradition that
Moses did rehearse the law to the people before he went up
to Pisgah. But at any rate he knew that the people could
be better taught by picture and parable than by argument,
and instead of reasoning in an abstract manner that certain
new ordinances were the legitimate development of the
teaching of Moses, necessary to adapt it to new needs, he
taught this truth in a pictorial manner by putting in the
fovin of words uttered by Moses, what was strictly an appli-
cation of the S2)ii'it of Mosaic teaching.
S4 PARABOLIC FORM
5. This would be a fraud unworthy of Scripture if the
author wished to conceal the fact that his book included new
ordinances, and to lead his readers to think that the speech
now laid before them had literally been delivered and written
down by Moses himself But if no attempt was made to con-
ceal the fjict that the book was new at the time when it was
first published, centuries after the death of Moses, every one
would understand that it could not be meant as a piece of
literal historj^ It would be received for its own intrinsic
worth and spiritual evidence, and on the authority of the
prophetic circle from which it emanated. And everything
that we know about the feeling of Eastern antiquity in
literary matters forbids the idea that readers of that age
would have taken offence at the parabolic form of the book.
or seen in it anything unworthy of a prophet.
6. Critics of the school of Kuenen, with whom I ha^'e
no theological sympathies, though I respect his eminent
scholarship and acuteness, do regard the book as a fraud
palmed off upon Josiah by the priests. But apart from the
psychological violence of the hypothesis, that the author of
a book like Deuteronomy could be party to a vulgar fraud,
it appears to me that this view stands condemned on the
critical evidence itself, as I hope to shew at length on y
suitable occasion. For the present it is su^cient to observe
that Kuenen's theory is radically different from that which
I share with such critics as Evvald and Riehm. AVJiat is
common to the critics is the admission that Deuteronomy is
a prophetic legislation belonging to the })eriod of prophetic
activity in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. The notion
that tlie book was not really found b}' Ililkiah, and tiiat the
allef''cd finding was a fraudulent conspiracy, has nothing to
do Avith the proper ciitical argument. I believe that the
internal evidence goes to shew that the work is con-
siderably older than Kuenen supposes, and really had been
lost in the troubles under Manasseh. The judgment passed
on my views must not, therefore, be prejudiced by referring,
as has so often been done, to a view which I disclaim.
7. It is, however, siiid that no reasonable Bible reader
NOT FRAUDULENT. 83
cin doubt that the Book of Deuteronomy professes to be
history, that it is nowhere hinted that there is anything
figurative about it. I reply that this argument proves too
much. It would prove that all the symbolical actions
related in the Prophets were literally performed. It is well
known that the most orthodox writers take then)
figuratively, and yet they are all related just as if they
had actually happened. Again, the question is not how we
nat .irally look at a thing, but how the matter was viewed
when the book was written. Ancient writers habitually
developed their ideas in the form of speeches by historical
characters, and this custom was too well known to need
explanation in each case. Unless, as I have already
remarked, the book was expressly passed off as an old
book, its readers would at once understand to take it as not
strictly literal. But it will be said again that the author
goes out of his way to say that Moses wrote the law, and
gave it to the priests (Deut. xxxi. 9). Is that part of the
parabolic form ? Yes, a necessary part, for one of the most
important of the new ordinances of the Deuteronomist is
that the law be read publicly Q\e\y seven years. And this
law could not be combined with the rest except by this
extension of the parabolic form. But does not Deut. i. 1,
shew that the whole book claims to have been written on
the East side of the Jordan, before the people entered Canaan ?
On the English translation, yes ; but the translation is
wrong, and the verse really says, "These are the Avords
which Moses spake on the other side of Jordan." A final
objection remains. Does not the present place of Deuter-
onomy, in the Pentateuch, claim for it a strictly historical
sense ? What right ■ has parabolic teaching to be in-
corporated with an historical context ? Well, I have already
urged that on the face of it the Pentateuch is not a mere
history. It is primarily a law book in historical shape, and
this accounts for its tolerating the parabolical or fio-urative
element which was inevitable, if all the laws of different a^es
were to be incorporated in one corpus juris. It is probable that
the " kernel" of Deuteronomy was originally published alone.
B6 THE LITERARY CHARACTER
It may never be possible for criticism to trace clearly the
editorial process by which it became part of the larger work
which we call the Pentateuch. And as this process is
obscure, I will not deny that it is conceivable that the last
editor, who can hardly be placed much before the time of
Ezra, may already have lost the knowledge that the Deuter-
onomic law was not actually written by Moses. He perhaps
regarded all the laws as literally from Moses, and traces of
this o})inion may appear in his editorial work. But even
if this should prove to be the case, it cannot affect the
substance of the books. It is at most an error in name
and date, not touching any interest of faith ; not touching •
the fact that the whole legislation, of whatever date it be,
is the sum of God's teaching to His people through legal
ordinances. In one word, the critical theory of Deuter-
onomy is an attemjit to solve exegetical difficulties, and
remove apparent contradictions which have proved insuper-
al)le on the ordinary view. No one who has studied the
subject will make light of these difficulties, and I would ask
tlie Presbytery whether they can safely condemn me till
they have satisfied themselves by a course of study, not less
careful than has been followed by critics, that the attempt is
not necessary. And on the other hand to declare my view
theologically illegitimate, it must be maintained that
Revelation is tied to certain forms of literary expression,
that nothing can occur in Scripture which, though in-
telligible when first written, might afterwards be mis-
understood in a way not affecting faith, and that no
criticism is admissible which will not undertake to deny
that such a harmless misconception may possibly have been
shared by the last editor of the Pentateuch.
Tertio. I am here accused of making a number of state-
ments which lower the character of the ins[)ircd writings to
the level of vniinspired. The whole evidence of this charge
is drawn from my article on Chronicles. It would
have been fairer to limit the accusation accordingly, and not
to charge me with an attaclc on the inspired writings in
OF CHRONICLES. 67
general, on the ground of statements that apply to a single
book.
How then have I lowered the character of Chronicles ?
In the first place "by ignoring its divine authorship." N()\v
the main argument of my article is to shew that the book
is of real historical value, and that the author is not open
to the charge which has often been brouoht ao-ainst him of
inventing history for special ends. I could not conduct
this argument as to the disputed credibility of an historical
work without seeming to beg the que;^tion if I took express
account of the divine authorship. Does Keil or any other
orthodox writer take account of the divine authorship in dis-
cussing the literary value of Chronicles ? Or is it impious to
give literary and historical questions an impartial discussion ?
And will my accusers tell me what feature in Chronicles
has been overlooked or misunderstood by me through not
taking account of the divine authorship ? Again, I " re-
present the sacred writers as taking freedoms like other
authors." The expression "freedoms" is perhaps liable to
be misunderstood. I explain it, however, (as cited at
p. IOh,) to mean the " freedom of literary form Avhich was
always allowed to ancient historians, and need not perplex
any one who does not apply a false standard to the
narrative." My position is, that we must not be sur-
prised to find in a book of the Bible any literary peculi-
arity which was familiarly recognised in antiquity as
legitimate. And the special application of the principle is
that antiquity expected historians to bring in speeches of
their own composing, and that the Chronicler does so, and
had a right to do as he does. Again, I am said to charge
the Chronicler with " committing errors." That the perfec-
tion of the Bible as the rule of faith and life, and the record
of God's whole revealed will, does not rest on the absence of
every error in things which are not matters of faith, has been
argued above. Least of all, should an opposite view be
strained to apply to a book like this, where, if an error
occurs, we have the parallel history in the older books to
check it. Thus Turretiu admits that there may be errors
5S THE FOURTH HEAD
ill tlie text of Scripture wLicli are to be corrected by the col-
lation of parallel passages (Loc. II. Qu. v. sec. 10), though he
assvunes that such errors are due to scribes. But I state no
in(jre than that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the
Chronicler did make some errors, either by misunderstand-
ing the older books or by drawing mistaken inferences from
their statements. I put the matter in this cautious way,
and I do not thiidc that those who have studied the fiicts
will say that such language is too strong. The case of a
probable error, which I cite, is one admitted by Keil, who in
earlier v.ritings had done his best to explain it away.
I do not tliink that I need go in detail over the other charges
in this head. I point out that some of the statements of the
Chronicler are open to such serious difficulties that it is not
safe to take it for granted that he has never made a mistake,
and that other statements probably were not meant to be
taken literally. I put all these points rather hypotheti-
cally than categorically ; and with the object of shewing
that, even if the possible errors exist, they are confined
within limits Avhich do not destroy the value of the book.
Each statement which I make with reserve, and with limited
]-eference to points admittedly difficult, the libel transforms
into a broad general statement without any limitation, and
represents as a general attack on the Scriptures. It end.s
by affirming that I make the Chronicler write " under tlie
influence of party spirit, and for party purposes." This ac-
cusation goes against the whole tenour of mj^ article ; but I
suppose it is based on a single expi'ession when, after shew-
ing that the author writes as a Levite, who takes special in-
tei'est in Levitical matters, I add that he is " most partial to
the functions of the singers." Of course this means only
that he describes all that concerns these functions with })e-
culiar interest and aflfection, which surely is not to his dis-
})aragement if he was a temple singer himself
Quarto. In its present f)rm this head is irrelevant, be-
cause 110 conclusion against me is drawn from it in the minor.
T'he argument of the nrosecutiou is that the oninions forinu-
IS UNINTELLIGIBLE. C9
lated under the several heads are censurable (p. 3, F g), and
that, nevertheless (as the minor argues), I have ado])ted and
published them. But under Quarto I find no statement of
an opinion held by me, but merely something about the pre-
sentation of opinions, which is not taken up in the minor at
aU. This confusion of form is due to the introduction of a
clause which is in itself unintelligible, as may be best seen
by separating it out, and completing the sentence from
page 3. This gives the statement " That, the presentation
of opinions which discredit Scripture .... by stating dis-
crediting opinions of others, without any indication of dis-
sent therefrom, is an opinion which contradicts or is opposed
to the doctrine," &c. The Presbytery need no argument of
mine to lead them to reject from tlie libel wliat cannot be
expressed in grammatical form.
I will, therefore, for the sake of argument, drop this
clause, and amend the rest of the head by omitting the ir-
relevant words " presentdtion of." It thus appears that I
am charged with " discrediting the authenticity and canoni-
cal standing of books of Scripture by imputing to them a
fictitious character, and attributing to them what is dispa-
raging." Compared with the passages adduced in the minor,
the first branch of this charge reduces itself to a narrow
compass. I have stated that in the book of Job there is
poetical invention of incident, and that it is not inconceiv-
able that the same thing may occur in other books. Does
the libel maintain that it is matter of f\ith that every word
in Job is a literal record of what was said and done ? If the
use of poetical invention is discreditable, wliat becomes of
the parables of our Lord ?
The second pai't of the charge is that I attribute to books
of Scripture what is disparaging. Under tliis, I take it, is
included what I say as to the freedom used by readers and
copyists in modifying and re-arranging texts.
To this I rt'jily tliat I have simply stated a fact regarding
the readers and copyists, who were in providence peiinittcd
to do some things which are contrary to our notions of
an author's property in his literary work, if the vari-
60 THE SONG OF SOLOMON
ations between Psalm xiv. and Psalm liii. are not due to
copyists, how do the authors of the libel account for them ?
Or again, is it denied that some one composed Psalm cviii.
out of Psalms Ivii. and Ix. ? These things do not interfere
with the perfect adequacy of the Bible as a rule of faith and
life, and we have no more right to stumble at tliom than
at the errors of grammar, inconsecutive sentences, and
other human imperfections which Scripture contains with
all its divine perfection.
Under tliis head th(i libel seems also to object to me that
I sei)arate the book of Daniel from the ]n'o]j]ietic writings.
I explained in the answers formerly given in to the Presb}^tery,
and had indicated not obscurely in the article " Bible," that
in making this distinction I do not deny that there is true
prophecy in Daniel. My remarks were not meant in a dis-
])araging sense, but simply pointed out that the book is so
far peculiar that the problems atfecting it could not be
discussed in a general sketch of the prophetic literature.
In separating Daniel from tlie Prophets proper, I do no
more than is done in the Hebrew Canon, where it is placed
not among the Pro})hets, but in the Hagiographa. With
this it agrees that Daniel is not called a Prophet in the Old
Testament.
The last citation under this head is, I submit, irrelevant,
as in that passage I neither attribute anything disparaging to
books of the Bible, nor impute to them a fictitious character.
Qidnto. The libel represents me as holding that the
book of Canticles " only presents a high example of virtue in
a betrothed maiden, without any recognition of the Divine
law." This statement is not taken from my article, but fol-
lows a speech made against me at last Assembly, which, un-
fortunately, and no doubt unintentionally, misrepresented
my view of the book. I do not regard the Shulamite as be-
trothed to the she})herd ; but, on the contrary, agree with
Ewald {Dichter II. i. p. 385) that sucli a view is excluded
by the text. The clause " without any recognition of tlie
Divine law," is a connnent on my opinion which is intelligible
AS INTERPRETED LITERALLY. 61
only in connection with the argument of the speech ah-eady
referred to, depends on the assumption that the maiden was
betrothed, and has no pertinency when this misapprehension
is removed.
What remains as a charge against me is that on my view
the Song " is devoid of any spiritual significance." This is
the very argument which used to be employed before the
Reformation in fiivour of the allegorical interpretation of the
greater part of Scripture — a system of intei'pretation which
did more than anything else to bolster up tlie Romish theory,
that the Scripture could not be understood without the as-
sistance of ecclesiastical tradition, and that it was useless, or
even pernicious, to place in the hands of the laity a Bible
which, when taken in its obvious literal sense, was not
spiritually instructive, and in some parts (it was argued) was
even positively immoral or frivolous. Protestantism rejects
the whole theory ; admitting that there are passages in
Scripture which do not in themselves teach any spiritual
truth, but which, nevertheless, are valuable to us — partly
from the examples and warnings they contain, but still more
because the Bible is no mere system of spii'itual truths, but
essentially a narrative of the gradual process of revelation
and redemption, in which God's saving manifestation of
Himself is throughout interwoven with the history of His
chosen people. God has not chosen to teach us His will in
bare abstract sentences. He teaches us to know it as it
came home to the people of Israel and modified their life and
history. And so the record of revelation contains many
things about the Hebrews which, if taken by themselves,
would not convey spiritual truth ; but which Ave could ill
afford to lack because they enable us better to understand
the whole course of God's dealings with His people. Un-
der this point of view, the Song of Solomon, literally in-
terpreted, has a twofold value. It throws important light on
the history of the kingdom of Solomon, and the estrange-
ment of Northern Israel ; and it shews how the spiritual
morality of revelation had borne fruit in Israel, and given
birth to a state of feeling clearly pointing towards Chris-
62 CITATIONS NO WITNESS
tiau monogamy and the Christian conception of wedded
love.*
Sexto. I am accused of " contradicting or ignoring the
testimony given in the Old Testament, and also that of our
Lord and his Apostles in the New Testament, to the author-
ship of Old Testament Scriptures." Such a cliarge is
irrelevant, unless accompanied by express reference to the
texts of Scri])ture, whose witness I am held to reject. No
such texts are named by my accusers, or cited in the
passages quoted from my writings. The charge, therefore,
presents nothing that I can meet, for I am not conscious
that any of my statements are opposed to the witness of
Scripture. There are texts of the New Testament which
some people take as deciding points of authorship ; but in
every case known to me, in which the supposed evidence
would clash with my opinions, the legitimacy of tlie argu-
ment is doubted on exegetical grounds by men who have
not accepted critical views inconsistent with the admission
of the alleged testimony. Thus Dr. Rainy said at last
Assembly that while he believed in the unity of Isaiah he
could not take the references by Paul as conclusive against
an opposite view. The reason of this is obvious. We are no
more entitled to treat the citation of a book by its current
name as a testimony to the real authorship of the book,
than we are entitled to treat the Bible as a witness against
the Copernican astronomy, because it speaks of the sun as
daily moving through the heavens. Does any one but a
pedant think it necessar^^ whenever he cites a book, to
pause and point out that the name by which it is recognised
* As an illustration of tlic conseqxicnccs that flow from the idea that every-
thing in Sciiiituro has a " si)iritual significance," I subjoin an extract from
Jc.ronu's interpretation of the story of Abi.shag (1 Kings i.) •.—Nonne tibi videtur
isi occidcntcm scquaris Uteram vcl fi<nncntum cnnc dc mimo vd AteUanarumladicrat
Frvjidus scncx ohvolvitvr vcstimentis ct nisi complcxu adolesce ntiilae non tepescit. ,
. . Quae est igitur ista Sunamitis ttxor et virgo tamfervens ntfviijidum calefaceret
twin sancta ut calcntem ad lihidinem non prorocarct > Exponat sapientissimus
Salomon ixttris suidelicias Possi Je sapientiam, possidc intelligentiam.
■(Ad Nepotianum, Ep. 111.) The analogy with arguments still advanced in con-
nection with the Song of Solomon is obvious.
TO AUTHORSHIP. 63
is merely conventioiiiil ? I sri})pose, for example, that we all
speak and write of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians,
though we know that the name of Ephcsus does not stand
in the true text. It appears that the authors of the libel
differ from Dr. Rainy and myself in the construction they
put upon the use of language in the New Testament, or at
least in certain texts, and that they regard our construction
as an offence against sound doctrine. Beyond this every-
thing is vague. I have nothing but conjecture to tell me
which are the texts which I and my accusers interpret
differently. I thei'efore respectfully ask the Presb^'teiy
either to delete this head or to amend the libel by
making it specify the passages of Scripture to be
brought against me.
These are the remarks which, at this stage, I judge it
necessary to submit to the Presbytery in answer to the
details of the libel. But I cannot close without turnino- for
a moment to take a larger view of the question at issue. I
rest my defence of the critical opinions embodied in my
writings not merely on the technical ground that they do
not transgress the limits of doctrine defined in our Standards,
l)ut on the higher ground that they are conceived in the
spirit of true Protestantism, which, acknowledging with un-
divided loyalty the sovereign autliority of the Word as the
only rule of faith and life, allows no human authority to limit
the freedom of hermeneutical research, or to determine before-
hand what conclusions shall be drawn from study of the
sacred text. The Bible is spoken to us in the language of
men, and the key to its true meaning must be sought in no
ecclesiastical tradition or a priori theory, but solely in those
universal laws of interpretation, by which all the language
of men is understood.
The clearness and certainty of the Bible as a message from
God to us depends on its strict conformity with the laws of
human speech, on our right to assume that the ordinary
methods by which other ancient books are studied are not
misleading when applied to Scripture, and do not require to
04 PROTESTANT PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
be controlled by an authoritative tradition of interpretation.
It is on this principle that I have felt constrained to
depart from traditional views which appear to be incon-
sistent witli the confirmed results of grammatical and historical
exegesis. I have acted on the conviction that loyaltj'' to the
Bible, in a Protestant sense, is inseparable from loyalty to
the ajjproved laws of scholarly research ; for if they are ii'
applicable to the language of Scripture, God no longer speak
to us in words that we can understand. By these laws the
results of criticism must be tried ; and,, by these they must
be refuted before they can be justly condemned.
I have never concealed the fact .that many of the con-
structive ih.QOYiQs, of critics are merely tentative ; and even
those which have a probability approaching to moral cer-
tainty, may still I'equire much revision from renewed study of
the facts. But beneath all that is hypothetical and tentative
lies a great mass of facts, which I cannot but j udge to be whollj^
irreconcilable with the views which the libel proposes to
enforce as normative in the Church. It is not possible to
exhibit here the whole scholarly evidence for this judgment,
and I cannot prejudice my case by merely adducing indi-
vidual examples to illustrate an argument of cuinulative
force whose strength lies in its totalit}'.
I do not, therefore, ask the Presbytery to approve my
views, but only to i-ecognise their claim to toleration until
they are confirmed or refuted by scholarly arguments in the
continual progress of Biblical study. I trust that I have
made it clear that in ffrantimj; this claim the Court will do
no more than the constitution of our Church entitles me to
ask, and the interests of sound doctrine enable them to
concede. But if the Church by her Courts must needs give
an authoritative decision on the merits of the controversy,
the decision ought not to be given without full and public
discussion of every problem involved, and my condemnation
cannot be for the edification of the Church unless it proceed
on the ground that all the arguments I can advance have been
patiently heard and conclusively rebutted on the open
"■round of philological and historical research.
Date Due
FIRTTtff^^-
' J^mj fc. i^.g_.
-iff^aESa
rr'^
11
PRINTED
IN U. S. A.
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