BUT, while we rejoice in the great doctrine of a complete, plenary, and
infallible inspiration, we should be wanting in Christian candour if we
were to ignore the existence of certain difficulties connected with the
subject. There are difficulties we freely acknowledge, some of which
have been felt, not merely by sceptical, but by devout and Christian
minds; and these difficulties I now propose to consider.
1. The first of these has been already met. It arises from the variety
of mind and character in the inspired writers. This is thought to be
inconsistent with the divine inspiration of the whole book by one
inspiring Spirit; and it would be a difficulty if we believed, according
to the mechanical theory, that the writers were merely pens, machines, or
copyists. But on the principle that there is a perfect manhood combined
with a perfect Godhead, instead of remaining a difficulty, it becomes one
of the chief beauties of the book, and is the very thing that renders it
so pre-eminently suited to the wants of the human heart.
2. A second difficulty arises from the idea that the language of
Scripture is opposed to modern science. The principle of this difficulty
is contained in the words, ‘Any true doctrine of inspiration must conform
to all well-ascertained facts of history or of science.’ {45}
Now, in the first place, we enter our solemn protest against the
Scripture being regarded as a scientific treatise. Its object was no
more to teach us science than to teach us medicine. It is therefore
utterly unfair to bring its language to the test of scientific
experiments. If the allusions of Scripture to surrounding nature were
not altogether in harmony with the discoveries of modern science, it
would not in the least affect my own idea of inspiration; for in making
use of men to convey His own divine message, I could not expect anything
but that our Heavenly Father should make use of such language as men
understood at the time the book was written; and it seems utterly
unreasonable to suppose that He should render His revelation
unintelligible to those to whom it was given, by going out of His way to
anticipate discoveries which were about to be made some thousands of
years afterwards. But, though the Scriptures are not given to teach
science, and no one has a right to doubt their inspiration because he
does not find scientific accuracy in their language, we are still
prepared to meet the scientific man on his own ground, and fearlessly to
affirm that there is nothing in Scripture opposed to the well-ascertained
discoveries of science.
For mark well. There is nothing in a miracle opposed to the laws of
science. Science refers to those laws of nature which are within reach
of our investigation; but if, at any time, the Creator should displace
them, either by the action of higher laws unknown to us, or by the simple
power of His will, science knows nothing of that displacement. It is the
office of science to investigate existing laws; but science knows nothing
of any interruptions of those laws by the sovereign will of Him who
founded them. Such interruptions lie altogether beyond its province.
All, for example, that science can say is, that we know of no law which
could cause the sun to stand still on Gibeon. But does Scripture ever
assert that it was done by any law within our knowledge? Is it not
represented as the act of God’s omnipotence suspending known laws? And
is not that suspending power altogether beyond the reach of scientific
inquiry? The miracle therefore, lies beyond the reach of science, and
cannot be opposed to it.
But as for the well-ascertained laws of nature and well-established
scientific facts, we fearlessly assert that there is nothing in Scripture
opposed to them.
Let us consider for a moment the two cases most commonly quoted as
involving contradiction: the description of the sun standing still on
Gibeon, and the Mosaic account of the creation.
With reference to the former there are two objections urged. The first
is that of the infidel who denies the possibility of the miracle, but
with that I have nothing to do, as I have already shown that miracles are
not within the range of science. The second is founded on the language
of the narrative, which is thought to imply an ignorance of the earth’s
rotation on its axis. But really this is so childish that it is scarcely
worth our notice. Is there any one in his senses who would have expected
Joshua to say, ‘Earth, suspend your rotation round your axis;’ or to have
framed his language in any other way so as to describe that rotation?
And if Joshua ought to have so expressed himself, why do not astronomers
and other learned men alter their own language now according to their own
science? Or are we to suppose that after all they know nothing about
astronomy, because they speak like ignorant men, and say, like the rest
of us, ‘the sun rises and the sun sets?’
The other case, however, is more important, for it is the object of the
first chapter of the Book of Genesis to give an account of creation, and
it is perfectly reasonable therefore to expect to find it in harmony with
geological facts. But mark. There is a great difference between being
in harmony with geological _facts_, and in harmony with every geological
_theory_ that is started. We must confine the argument to what is known,
and we have nothing to do with what people think. True science is a
rigid thing, and relates to facts, not opinions. When, _e.g._, people
tell us that there could not be light before the sun, they are thoroughly
unscientific in so saying, for they know nothing of the kind. There is a
vast amount of light at this present time quite independent of the sun,
and the idea that there could be none before it is nothing more than an
unscientific conjecture. No! we must keep rigidly to facts, to facts
really established by trustworthy evidence; and, keeping stedfastly to
such facts, I have not the least shadow of anxiety respecting geological
discovery. On the contrary, I believe that the first chapter of Genesis
will furnish us, and is even already furnishing us, with one of the
grandest arguments ever yet produced for the divine inspiration of the
book of Scripture. I cannot but think that that first chapter is placed
in the forefront of the book in order to present us, at the outset of the
whole, with an unanswerable evidence of the divinity of its origin.
For what is the present position of geology? In the first place, it is a
very young science, one of scarcely more than fifty years’ growth. The
most profound geologists are most convinced how much there is still to be
learned, and they are learning more every day. No really wise man
therefore would give up the inspiration of Scripture in deference to
these present conclusions, even if those conclusions should at first
sight seem to be opposed to the inspired word.
But they are not opposed to it. There may be a difference of opinion
among Christian men as to which is the right principle of harmony, but
there is no difficulty in harmonizing all geological facts with the
plain, literal, straightforward, honest interpretation of every sentence
of the sacred record. Nay more! There is one remarkable point of
harmony clearly established, viz., this, that in its great outlines the
order of events recorded in the book of Scripture is the same as the
order as exhibited in the record of the rocks. Moses describes a certain
order in creation. Three thousand years after Moses, learned men began
to investigate the earth’s crust, and in the rocks which form that crust,
they have discovered the outlines of a certain order. They have come to
the conclusion that certain great events must have succeeded each other
in the creation of the world. Here therefore you have two records, one
from the rocks, and one from Moses: one only just now discovered, and one
given more than three thousand years ago. But place them side by side.
Do not be afraid of comparing them, for truth is never afraid of
investigation. But in comparing them what do we find? That the order in
the rocks in all its broad features corresponds step by step with the
order in the Mosaic record; and though there are still some minor
difficulties, still in the great, grand, broad facts there is a
magnificent harmony. But whence did Moses learn that order? The events
must have taken place millions and millions of years before ever man trod
this earth. There were no geologists in his day to teach him. How then
could he have known the order of events which took place ages before
man’s being? There is only one answer to be given, and that is, that he
must have been taught it by God Himself. Thus we may thank our modern
geologists, as many of them delight in believing, for having in these
days of infidelity dug out from the bowels of the earth a fresh and noble
proof, which had lain buried there for centuries, that the first chapter
of the Book of Genesis was given to Moses by inspiration of God.
But we may go further still with reference to science, and remark that
there are many expressions in Scripture remarkably in harmony with it,
and which almost appear to indicate a mind far in advance of the
knowledge of the day. Take, _e.g._, the distinction drawn by Moses
between rain and dew in Deut. xxxii. 2, ‘My doctrine shall drop as the
rain, and my speech shall distil as the dew.’ Or the language of Job
respecting the weight of the atmosphere, a scientific truth unknown till
the days of Galileo: ‘To make the weight for the winds.’ (Job, xxviii.
25.) Many similar passages might be quoted, but these are sufficient to
show that, although it was not the purpose of the book to teach science,
there lay hidden within the book the germs of the truest science, waiting
there unobserved till scientific men should discover the facts, and so by
their science bring to light a fresh evidence of the divine inspiration
of the book.
3. It is alleged that the sacred writers differed in some instances from
secular historians. The favourite instances adduced are the date of the
governments of Cyrenius in Syria, and that of Lysanius at Abylene. The
one is placed by Josephus about eleven years after the birth of our Lord,
and the other about the same distance of time before the commencement of
John the Baptist’s ministry. It is a real pleasure to find men fixing on
such minute points, and to see them obliged to leave unassailed the vast
amount of accumulated evidence to the accurate fidelity of the sacred
records. I confess that the simple fact of their fastening on such
points proves very clearly to my own mind that they have nothing very
substantial on which to fasten. Suggestions have been thrown out, which,
if true, may meet the difficulty; but with our limited information, after
an interval of one thousand eight hundred years, it is impossible to be
sure that they are correct. But suppose there is a difference. Suppose
the chronology of Josephus is at variance with that of St. Luke. Suppose
that one or the other is in error. Is it impossible, I ask, that
Josephus may be wrong? Is he infallible? Are his writings guaranteed
from error? And why should the Christian tamely surrender the point, and
quietly submit to the conclusion that St. Luke is wrong and Josephus
right? I protest against such a surrender, and, till there is clearer
evidence than we have obtained at present, I shall venture to believe
that Josephus is mistaken if in anything he really differs from the
inspired word.
4. But I have left to the last that which to many minds is the greatest
difficulty. I mean the variations, or as some would call them, the
apparent discrepancies, between the sacred writers themselves.
Now I have no wish to deny the existence of such variations, though I
dislike the term ‘discrepancies,’ for I do not believe there is
discrepancy. And in dealing with this difficulty, there are, I conceive,
three principles to be kept clearly in mind.
1. The narratives are very short and fragmentary in their character.
They never attempt to record the whole. Hence one gives one fragment,
and another a second, and these fragments are often like the fossil bones
of a skeleton. Ignorant men, which we all are, cannot fit them together;
but we must not on that account assert them to be contradictory; for when
the structure of the whole is once discovered, they will all fit into
their proper places, and all the scattered fragments be combined in
perfect symmetry.
2. There is the widest possible distinction between variation and
contradiction. If two writers give an account of the same event, they
will each regard it from their own point of view, and describe it as it
impressed themselves. Hence one will bring into prominence certain facts
which are altogether omitted by another. But such a variation is totally
different from contradiction. An excellent illustration of this is found
in the case of the inscription over the cross, a case which Dean Alford
considers decisive against verbal inspiration. Now I am quite ready to
admit that, if there were contradiction, it would be decisive. But I
deny that there is any contradiction whatever. There is variation, but
nothing more. All agree in the emphatic point—’The king of the Jews,’
and the only difference is that some give in addition a few more words
than others. But these added words are not at variance with each other.
On the contrary, they all combine in one sentence, which probably formed
the real inscription. That sentence is Οὔτός ἐστιν Ἰησους ὄ Ναζαραίος ὄ
Βασιλεὺς των Ἰουδαίων. ‘This is Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.’
Now, supposing that to have been the real sentence, so that each of the
evangelists omitted some of the explanatory words, while all preserved,
‘The king of the Jews,’ which was the real point of the inscription,
there was no discrepancy or contradiction in such omissions, nor anything
to affect our full and complete reliance in the verbal accuracy of all
the four evangelists.
3. It is also most important for us to remember that such variations are
essential to the value of a fourfold testimony. If God had seen fit to
impart His truth by direct communication only, then I freely grant that I
should have expected a _verbatim_ agreement in the narratives. But in
that case there would have been no employment of the human element. Nay
more; if the life of our Lord had been so reported, the evidence would
have become single, instead of fourfold. Even, as it is, it has been
argued that the resemblance is so accurate as to show that the
evangelists copied from one common tradition, and must not be regarded as
independent witnesses. The variation therefore becomes almost as
important to us as the agreement, and, instead of shaking our
convictions, confirms them. That blessed Redeemer is the corner-stone of
our hopes, and therefore, instead of two witnesses, which under the law
were sufficient, He has given us two pair of witnesses. And in the
inspiration of their words He has given so much scope to the human
element that there are all the variations inseparable from independent
testimony; while, on the other hand, He has so guided, directed, and
controlled the whole, that, notwithstanding all the cavils of sceptics,
there is no real contradiction in their statements. There is variation
enough to prove the independence of their evidence, while there is such a
depth in their complete agreement, as can only be explained by the fact
that they were taught by God’s Spirit to convey to us infallible truth.
Other objections have, I know, been urged; but all, I firmly believe, may
be fully and fairly met by the principle that it has pleased God in His
own wisdom to combine in the one book the divine and human element. In
some cases the mind of the man may be more conspicuous than the mind of
the Spirit, while in others the mind of the Spirit seems completely to
overrule the mind of the author who wrote the words. In some passages
the thoughts are so far within man’s compass that no inspiration appears
to be necessary, while in others they dive so deep into hidden mysteries
that they far outstep the utmost range of the human intellect. Thus God
has given us a record of what man has felt, as well as a statement of His
own hidden will. He has given it through the medium of minds of the same
nature as our own; but by His own mysterious power He has given their
writings such a divine authority that they claim our unwavering trust; so
that, notwithstanding the cavils of infidels, and the sneers of those who
despise us as bibliolaters, we heartily thank God for our Bibles, and
receive as divine all that God has taught in them, believing without
reserve the statement of St. Peter, that ‘Holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost.’
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
LONDON:
Printed by JOHN STRANGEWAYS, Castle St. Leicester Sq.
* * * * *