Page images
PDF
EPUB

And fur

the Fourth Gospel, of the so-called Mosaic books. ther, since minute historical infallibility is not affirmed of the Scriptures, but is rather refuted by the facts which have passed in review, and this without affecting the foundations of the argument for the Scriptures as here traced, place is also left by the argument for those further inquiries as to the historical credibility of the Old Testament which the labors of the biblical critics have forced upon our attention. Inasmuch as historic credibility does not enter into the argumentative process by which the authority of the Scriptures is proved, investigation in this sphere can be freely pursued without the paralyzing effect of a constant fear lest a certain decision upon some given point may throw the existence of our Bible into jeopardy. Of the authority of the Bible in its spiritual sphere the church has no doubt. The whole discussion of the present day may in this respect be likened to the trinitarian discussions of the fourth century. The whole church believed without exception that Christ was God, but they sought in different ways to show the consistency of this fact with the unity of God. Paul and Lucian, and even Arius, taught that Christ was God, for they had so elastic a conception of the meaning of that word that it was possible to apply it to the Logos, who was himself in the last analysis, in their mind, a creature. The final triumph of the Nicene doctrine was brought about by the fact that it alone, when tried in the agitations and conflicts of the times, finally proved to be sufficient to afford a firm basis for this universal and never relinquished doctrine of the Godhead of Christ. So now, in all

the discussions in the church over the Scriptures, their authority, and our dependence upon them for religious light and for our knowledge of the way of salvation and sanctification, are undisputed. The simple question is, What is essential to this main position? and when this is answered, finally and conclusively, then the doctrine of Inspiration will be settled.

Inasmuch, then, as the authority of the Scriptures does

not depend, in our argument, upon the historic infallibility of the Bible, investigation into the issues raised by the critics. may be freely pursued without anxiety as to the results. The truth will be consistent with all other truth, and with this of the authority of the Scriptures also.

Whatever may be the result of that investigation, the result of the present is to show the perfect divine authority and reliability of the Bible in its entirety as a source of information upon ethical and religious subjects, as a guide to salvation, and to growth in the knowledge of God. This point is deemed as clearly proved as the existence of God himself. The proof of the Scriptures and of the existence of God both take their rise in facts of certainty of equal rank with our own existence, in the certainty that the Christian has of the new birth as an experienced fact. Both of these doctrines are confirmed by subsequent proofs derived from both the religious and the philosophical sphere; but neither of them has pre-eminence over the other.

Professor Warfield, in his review of the views of Professor Henry Preserved Smith, says, in effect, that the position that the Bible is authoritative in the religious and ethical sphere, but not infallible in the historical sphere, destroys the authority of the Bible even in the religious sphere. We can test its infallibility in the sphere of science, thinks the Professor, but the religious sphere is that in which we have to depend upon authority alone. "How do we know that no error has entered into the description of the future state, for example; or into the definition of the relations of the persons of the Godhead to one another? This is a sphere in which authority must rule: and into which a stringent test by induction cannot enter -for the simple reason that we have no extra-biblical criterion of the facts." But is this so? Is it not rather true that the doctrine of the Trinity, because of its harmony with the rest of the Christian system, and with the ideas of creation and revelation, as well as of redemption, has a proof in

VOL. LII. NO. 206. 4

addition to that derived from the mere statements of Scripture, and which may in turn be used, as has been done in the section upon the authority of the Scriptures above, to prove the Scriptures themselves? Professor Warfield surely cannot mean to deny all the proof of the system and the Bible which is derived from the agreement of the different parts of the system with one another, with Christian experience, with philosophy, and with history, for the sake of staking all upon the infallibility of the Bible in every one, even the least, of its statements.

One word more, and that upon "errancy" and "inerrancy." Is the Bible "errant"? Every Christian will at once reply, "No! It will certainly lead every one who follows it to salvation and heaven." The objection to the application of the word "errant" to the Bible is simply this, that it will be understood as implying what the whole church must ever deny. But just so soon as the "inerrancy" of the Bible is employed to deny patent facts, such as this, that 400 and 430 are not the same numbers, then it is important to maintain that the Bible has not THAT "inerrancy."

ARTICLE III.

THE BOOK OF ACTS AND THE HISTORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION.

BY THE REV. JAMES BRAND, D.D.

WHEN Peter visited Cornelius at Cæsarea, a great step was taken in the historical development of Christian doctrine. The apostle himself received such an enlargement of his ideas of the character of God and the scope of Christianity as made him a different man for the rest of his life. Possibly he never had really thought God was a "respecter of persons," but it is one thing to know a truth theoretically and quite another to experience that truth in real life, or to apply it in a case where it conflicts with all our preconceived notions of society. Peter's mind was evidently tremendously impressed with his new view of the divine plan and the world-wide reach of the gospel. And that great discovery through the vision of the sheet, and the visit to Cæsarea, naturally put the apostle, and ought to put all men in every age, into an attitude of readiness to welcome new truth. He learned that the gospel, as applied to human life, is full of surprises; that we are constantly to expect hew developments of truth, new and larger and truer interpretations of truth, and new applications of truth to life, as the history of the world unrolls. Such scriptures, therefore, are a standing rebuke to the narrow idea that no new light is for us beyond that of our fathers. There is such a thing as the progress of doctrine. Not that the Bible changes, not that we read more, merely between the lines, not that we put into the Bible what was not there before; but, as taught by God's ever-new providential events, we dis

cover a larger meaning. The apostles themselves, from their first acquaintance with Jesus till the last one of them had suffered martyrdom, were constantly enlarging their views and modifying their interpretations of Scripture. It has been so with the church ever since, and will be to the end. While the great cardinal truths of revelation have remained clear and settled, the views of scholars and commentators have been changing and enlarging in regard to many principles and applications of Scripture. In other words, God interprets his own word by his providences. Therefore the historical method of interpretation is the only true one. We need to stand, as Peter did, with mind ever open, and expectant of new views and larger meanings of the Bible, as time goes on.

Now, in accordance with, and in illustration of, this historical development of truth, we may find some marked changes and enlargements of idea, in the treatment of revelation.

In the first place, Christian men in their interpretation of Scripture now appeal to reason, more than in former ages. We do not mean to imply that clear thinkers did not always use reason in their interpretation and defence of the Bible. But in past generations a statement found in the Bible was accepted literally, chiefly because it was in the Bible; whereas to-day the same doctrines are received more generally, because they commend themselves to enlightened reason and the moral sense of man. This does not mean that human reason is co-ordinate with Scripture as a source of religious truth, as Dr. Briggs at first seemed to imply. The Bible, when once established as a revelation from God, is the final and sufficient authority. But in the interpretation and application of it to society, and even in the defence of the fact of a supernatural revelation as against rationalism, reason has now, rightly, a larger place. Slavish literalism, which has so often been the bane of biblical interpretation, and the mere massing of texts, often of doubtful relevancy, is no longer a chief reliance. Texts and doctrines are alike subjected to criticism,

« PreviousContinue »