CHAPTER V.

THE DEBATE.

The question at issue is the doctrine of inspiration. This doctrine endeavors to explain the genesis of Scripture from the divine side. The formal principle of the Reformation, that the Bible is the norm of Christian belief, is asserted in all the Protestant Confessions. It is such a norm because God speaks through it to the believer. Faith apprehends the voice of God in Scripture without the mediation of Church or priest. Affirmations of this fact are frequent in the works of the Reformers. But in the century after the Reformation a great development of dogmatic and polemic theology took place. The doctrine of the Word of God written was carried to its utmost extreme. Logically of course it is easy to argue:

The whole Bible is the Word of God.

Therefore it can contain no error.

On this ground the theory of verbal dictation became a prominent theory with the dogmatic theologians. It is an attractive theory because it gives (in appearance) so firm a basis for revealed theology. Verbal inspiration, as it is called, is still the favorite with a few theologians. But it is so glaringly opposed by the facts that it is not held as confidently as it once was. On this theory it would be logically impossible to account for differences of style in the different books of the Bible. If the Holy Spirit suggested not only the truths but the words to be uttered, all alike should be in the one style of the Holy Spirit. The tendency of late

years therefore has been to modify the doctrine into plenary inspiration. This word has been claimed by some who limit inspiration to those matters which concern faith and morals. But it is with more propriety taken by those who, while allowing such differences of style as show themselves on the surface of Scripture, yet claim that entire truthfulness or accuracy is preserved in every assertion made by the authors of Scripture. The theory allows of some variety. It is by some reduced in parts of Scripture to a simple superintendence of the record. By others it is still held that whatever the Scripture contains was directly revealed to the authors even where it was already known to them by their own experience. The distinction, says a standard writer on this subject, "attempted to be drawn between what in Scripture was previously known to the writers of Scripture and those portions of its contents which previously were either unknown to them or undiscoverable by them has been very extensively accepted, and used freely to discriminate between what is a revelation and what is not, in the volume of the Bible." But he adds after a discussion: "A very slight consideration is sufficient to show that, so far as regards the sacred volume, and the question of its character as a supernatural communication from God, such distinctions have no real existence, and can not be applied except by an arbitrary and entirely hypothetical method of criticism, which would constitute each man's religious instincts the arbiter." Later he adds: "The divine authority and ability to write which were given them of God, cover every thing that they have recorded in Scripture, and cover it equally with the sanction of the Most High; and therefore constitute not particular passages, or a certain class of truths to the exclusion of others, a revelation, but constitute them a revelation all alike."* The arti* Bannerman on Inspiration, pp. 175, 176, 179.

ficial nature of such a hypothesis is seen at a glance, and its contradiction of the facts that lie on the surface of Scripture. For it is evident that the authors of the Bible often assert the activity of their own memories, relate events as eye-witnesses, or claim to have them on the testimony of others. Hence, the attempt to modify the theory so as to admit these facts while preserving entire historic truthfulness-an unique historical truthfulness-for every assertion of the Bible. In this form the doctrine has been asserted since the reunion of the Presbyterian churches by Professors Hodge and Warfield in an article in the Presbyterian Review. As stated in this article the doctrine is not concerned with the accuracy of our present Bible, but interests itself in affirming a perfection of the original autographs which has in some cases at least been lost in transmission. The reason for this shifting of ground is two-fold. First is the advance of textual criticism and the evidence of its progress in the Revised New Testament. It is now patent even to the English reader that the text of the Bible has not been preserved so absolutely pure as we are inclined to expect in so precious a document. In the second place, it is convenient to seek in possible textual corruption an explanation for those troublesome discrepancies and inaccuracies which are "every where apparent on the surface" of Scripture.

None the less does the new theory depart widely from the Confessional doctrine. That the Word of God as we now have it in Scripture is infallible for the purposes for which it is given--this is the affirmation of the Confession. Its interest is in the present Bible for present purposes, and those purposes are practical purposes. That an inerrant autograph once existed is a speculative assertion, interested in establishing a supposed perfection which no longer exists, and which may conceivably (and even probably) never be recovered.

This speculative assertion of original inerrancy is therefore a new doctrine though claiming to be the doctrine of the universal Church. That it is not affirmed in the Confession is implicitly affirmed by the Committee on Revision of the Confession. For this committee proposes to amend the Confession by inserting a clause which will affirm "the truthfulness of the history" contained in the Scriptures. This proposal is worthy of notice. It is to insert two clauses in the first chapter (Section V), making it read: "And the truthfulness of the history, the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle, the heavenliness of the matter and the entire perfection thereof are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God." The new words (which are here in italics) are designed to affirm the historic trustworthiness of Scripture, and the actual fulfillment of prophecy. As a matter of fact, they only affirm such historic trustworthiness as will evidence the Scriptures to be the Word of God. One who accepts them does not thereby affirm absolute inerrancy, unless he takes absolute inerrancy to be necessary to give such evidence. It is doubtful also whether such phrases can be made a part of the system of doctrine. The majesty of the style which is made another of those evidences could not be so enforced. The remarkable thing therefore is not so much that we have this confession on the part of an able and conservative committee-the confession that the doctrine of inerrancy is not in the present standards of the Church; but that they were willing to supply the lack by so mild an obiter dictum as the one proposed.

But we have no evidence that the new doctrine of inerrant autographs has ever been enforced as a test of doctrinal soundness. And this is significant in view of the attitude of former New School men. The leading theologian of that branch of the Church-Dr. Henry B. Smith-while himself

holding to a high doctrine of inspiration, nowhere intimates that such a doctrine is essential to the Evangelical faith or to the system of doctrine subscribed by our ministers. He is fully conscious of the difficulties in the theory of verbal inspiration. In an article in the American Presbyterian Review (April, 1864), he gives the following note: "Carson on Inspiration, p. 132, says in reference to the inscription on the cross differently given by each evangelist: If the four accounts are all substantially true and would not discredit any four uninspired men, they may, without any disparagement to God be all the language of the Holy Spirit.' But did not the Holy Spirit know exactly just how the words read?" The question of Dr. Smith, which I have italicized, gives the insuperable objection to the theory of verbal inspiration. And it is so forcibly put that it shows the author's perception of the difficulty. Toward the close of the article he says: "For the last fifty years or more, the effort has rather been to accommodate the theory of inspiration to what is called the human side, the individuality of the writers, the diversities of narratives, the critical difficulties disclosed by the processes of Biblical criticism. The divine authority and unity, the inspiring life of the Bible, have been comparatively neglected. There is at present little danger of the prevalence of any too strict view of inspiration: the tendency is rather to an increased laxity of thought and statement. The whole subject needs to be discussed anew and afresh." We see that the leading New School theologian craved a new discussion of the subject. In his familiarity with German theology he saw the tendency to too lax a view. He adds: “A profounder study of the subject may lead to the conclusion that the older theory has elements of simplicity, unity, and adaptation to man's permanent religious wants which are not found in most of the modern treatises." What he would have said