THE BIBLIOTHECA SACRA. ARTICLE I. AN IRENICON. BY PROFESSOR G. FREDERICK WRIGHT. IN current discussions concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture it is evident that many of the disputants are proceeding at cross-purposes. Not only do they see different sides of the same shield; but much of the language employed by them is understood by each in a sense different from that intended by the other. We are confident that more careful attention to the meaning of the terms employed on both sides will largely remove the main grounds of dispute between the mass of those who really revere the sacred word. On the one hand, many who object to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture do not fully take into account the qualifications introduced, and the explanation of terms given, by its advocates, nor do they make due allowance for the limitations to the doctrine afforded by the processes of interpretation which all employ to some extent and admit to be lawful. On the other hand, the advocates of inerrancy do not all of them see how nearly their liberal principles of interpretation bring their statement of the doctrine down to the level of that of the moderate members of the opposing party. Neither do all of the so-called liberal party seem to be aware VOL. LII. NO. 205. I that, in magnifying the discrepancies of Scripture, as they do, they fall into the same error of extreme literalism which they charge upon the so-called conservatives. To put it concisely: The conservatives are inclined to be too literal in their interpretation of the texts which teach inerrancy, and liberal in their interpretation of the passages containing apparent errors and discrepancies; while the liberals tend towards too great rigidity in their interpretation of the apparent discrepancies, and too great freedom in their treatment of the claims of the Bible to inspiration and infallibility. For example: Dr. Charles Hodge's full statement of the doctrine of plenary inspiration is by no means so rigid as many seem to suppose it to be. Thus, in his most formal statement of the doctrine he says: "They [the sacred writers] As to all matters were not imbued with plenary knowledge. of science, philosophy, and history, they stood on the same level with their contemporaries. They were infallible only as teachers, and when acting as spokesmen of God. Their inspiration no more made them astronomers than it made them agriculturists. Isaiah was infallible in his predictions, although he shared with his countrymen the views then prevalent as to the mechanism of the universe." (The italics here, and later, are ours to call attention to significant qualifying clauses.) Again, in his treatment of alleged discrepancies and errors, we find him saying, that "the great majority of them are only apparent, and yield to careful examination. . . . The marvel and the miracle is that there are so few of any real importance. . . . The errors in matters of fact which sceptics search out bear no proportion to the whole. . . . No sane man would deny that the Parthenon was built of marble, even if here and there a speck of sandstone should be detected in the structure. . . . Admitting that the Scriptures do contain, in a few instances, discrepancies which, with our present means of knowledge, we are unable satisfactorily to 1 Systematic Theology, Vol. i. p. 165. explain, they furnish no rational ground for denying their infallibility."1 Dr. A. A. Hodge, also, when insisting that the Bible is "wholly the word of God," inserts a qualifying clause which has more significance than would be suspected by the casual reader. The books of Scripture, he says, are "wholly the Word of God, conveying, with absolute accuracy and divine authority, all that God meant them to convey."2 Again, in the joint article upon the subject by Drs. A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, it is said, that "all the affirmations of Scripture . . . are without any error when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense.” Taking President J. H. Fairchild as a representative of the evangelical wing of the liberal party, it appears that, while he characterizes the theory of plenary inspiration as "that of absolute inspiration," he describes his own theory as "that of essential inspiration," and maintains "that there is marvellous accuracy even in the geographical and historical statements [of the Bible], and marvellous wisdom in reference to all matters of science—such wisdom as seems to imply divine guidance; securing the use of popular expressions such as are always appropriate, and the avoidance of all technical terms which imply a scientific theory." It should be gratifying to those who insist upon the formal doctrine of plenary inspiration, to see that one who professedly rejects their statement of it still maintains the same high reverence for the Bible, and the same confidence in its details, which is cherished by them. With equal distinctness, also, do both parties reject the mechanical theory of inspiration. According to Dr. Hodge, 1 Systematic Theology, Vol. i. pp. 169, 170. 2 Commentary on the Confession of Faith, p. 55. The Church has never held what has been stigmatized as the mechanical theory of inspiration. The sacred writers were not machines. . . . It lies in the very nature of inspiration that God spake in the language of men; that He uses men as his organs, each according to his peculiar gifts and endowments. When He ordains praise out of the mouth of babes, they must speak as babes, or the whole power and beauty of the tribute will be lost. . . . The sacred writers were not made unconscious or irrational. The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. They were not like calculating machines which grind out logarithms with infallible correctness." Upon this point President Fairchild's language is strikingly in accord with that of Dr. Hodge, even to that of the principal illustration: "The result then seems to be," he says, "that, in our use and application of Scriptures, whatever theory of inspiration we adopt, we are not saved from the necessity of the exercise of our own judgment, and from the uncertainty thereby involved. The Scriptures are not given us to be used in a mechanical way, like an algebraic formula, or a carpenter's rule; and even absolute inspiration could not secure to us such a use of the Scriptures. The two theories practically bring us to the same result, by somewhat different routes." A careful examination of these and other representative statements of prominent writers upon both sides of the question readily reveals the basis of much present misunderstanding. When Dr. A. A. Hodge says, that the Scriptures convey "with absolute accuracy . . . all that God meant them to convey," the qualifying clause throws the whole field open for criticism to determine just what information God did mean to convey. Likewise, when Drs. Warfield and A. A. Hodge say, that "all affirmations of Scripture are without error," the sweep of their qualifying clauses should be carefully noted. 1 Systematic Theology, Vol. i. pp. 157, 156. 2 Elements of Theology, p. 85. The affirmations are to be "interpreted in their natural and intended sense." Here, too, the whole field of criticism is thrown open. The definition is not closed. It remains to determine what is the natural and intended sense. The difficulty of agreeing upon what is the natural and intended sense has a striking illustration in the recent controversy between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Huxley over the first chapter of Genesis, in which the scientific man inferred the intention of the document from a narrow literal interpretation of the terms employed, such as would be legitimate only in dealing with a scientific treatise, while the statesman, from his larger familiarity with men and the literature of the world, interpreted the language more liberally. Evidently, the whole contention was largely over the definition of terms, upon which the distinguished writers from the different spheres of action and thought in which they had habitually moved, found it difficult, and we might say impossible, to come to an agree ment. The interests both of truth and Christian fellowship will be promoted if we note more carefully the significance of these limitations to the bald statements of doctrine concerning the inerrancy of Scripture. Ist. The Doctrine is to be limited to the Autographs.— In limiting their assertion of inerrancy to the original text, the conservatives have freed themselves from the acknowledgment of one kind of error by the frank acknowledgment of another kind of error in the Bible as we have had it for eighteen centuries, as we have it now, and as we are likely to have it to the end of time, for we are not likely ever to be able to reproduce the original text perfectly in all its particulars. All that the most enthusiastic textual critics can hope to do, is to reduce the textual uncertainty to an inconsiderable quantity, so that it may be disregarded without serious loss. It is important, also, for the liberal party to note in this connection that the most prominent leaders in the work of correct |