IV.

REV. CANON DRIVER.

AFTER the excellent and thoughtful papers of Professor Davison and Mr. Horton, I hardly know what I am able to contribute to the present discussion. Professor Davison has shown how all reasonable criticism of

the Old Testament leaves unimpaired the great religious and ethical truths which give to the literature of ancient Israel its distinctive character; Mr. Horton has pointed out in addition how the more historical view of that literature, which a moderate criticism teaches, is required, if God's method for the education of His people is to be properly apprehended. "By divers portions and in divers manners," says the Apostle, "God spake to the fathers through the prophets"; and the critical and historical study of the Old Testament enables us to realise, more fully than would otherwise be possible, the truth and significance of this declaration. Of course, whether this result actually follows depends upon the spirit in which the study is undertaken. Those who approach the Old Testament with the pre-conceived conviction that it is nothing but a natural product of unaided human genius, are not likely to see the Apostle's word verified in it; those, on the other hand, who approach it under the conviction, which the general character of its contents, supported by the testimony of antiquity, produces upon the unbiassed reader, that it is the record of a Divine revelation to man, will not find this conviction weakened, either by history or criticism: they may find, indeed, the impressions with which they started modified in details, and corrected; they will

not find the conviction itself weakened or its truth impaired. To be sure, Principal Cave, to judge from some of his remarks on p. 385 of the present Review, seems to allow the existence of no "higher criticism" except such as banishes altogether from the Old Testament the idea of inspiration, and reduces it to the level of a purely human work ;* but Professor

* Principal Cave does not mention names, and I have no right to assume that I am included by him among the "extremer critics" to whom he here alludes. At the same time, a reader who recollected that in the Contemporary Review, Dec. 1891, p. 893, he described my recently published volume as "really an introduction to the extremer views as to the composition and authorship of the books of the Old Testament," might very naturally draw such an inference. It may not be superfluous, therefore, for me to take this opportunity of repudiating expressly the "extremer theories" set forth in the second paragraph of p. 385 of this Review. Nor have I ever said that "solid historical knowledge of the religion of the Old Testament begins with the days of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah." It would have assisted, perhaps, to preclude some misunderstanding and confusion if Principal Cave had stated explicitly who the

critics were to whom he referred.

Davison and Mr. Horton have seen both more deeply and also more truly: they are aware that there is a "higher criticism," which not only does not seek or desire to do any such thing, but which is necessary for placing the writings of the Old Testament in their true historical perspective.

However difficult it may be to define inspiration, or to determine the mystery of its operation, those who use the term may be supposed probably to mean by it an influence which gave to those who received it a unique spiritual insight, enabling them thereby, without superseding or suppressing the human faculties, but rather using them as its instruments, to declare in different degrees, and in accordance with the needs or circumstances of particular ages, the mind and purpose of God. Variety in mode and degree is what the opening words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which have been referred to above, entitle us to expect in the inspiration of the Old Testament. And variety in mode and degree is what the study of the Old Testament in the light of history and criticism exhibits and exemplifies. Thus the historians set before us, from different points of view, the successive stages in the Divine education of the race. They show us how its natural tendencies to polytheism were gradually overcome, and how Israel was more and more separated from its neighbours, by special ordinances and restrictions, in order to be the effectual witness and keeper of Divine truth. The historians, however, do not only record their nation's history, they also interpret it: they show how a providential purpose underlies it, how it is subservient to God's aims, how the past leads on to better possibilities in the present, and the present points to still better possibilities in the future. These aspects of the history are of course more fully developed by the prophets, who were the representatives in ancient Israel of enlightenment, order, and progress, and whose constant labour it was to keep vividly before the eyes of men the great cardinal truths of ethics and religion. And when the writings of the prophets are studied historically in detail, it is seen that each holds an individual place in the economy of revelation: each has his own individual character and aim: each emphasises or develops some particular aspect (or aspects) of truth, in accordance with the needs of the age or situation in which he is placed. The poets of the Old Testament speak even in more manifoldly different strains. Here, for instance, we have the triumphal ode in which the nation renders thanks for its deliverance; there we have the dramatic poem, in which, under the form of dialogue, a great problem of human life is discussed, and the lesson which the poet desires to teach is

gradually unfolded to the reader; elsewhere we have gnomic poetry, in which the wise men of Israel stored up their observations on life and character for the instruction of future ages; while in the Psalter the devotional temper finds its most complete expression, and we hear the voices of many different men, belonging to many different periods of the national life, pouring forth their emotions in converse with God, and giving warm and manifold expression to the adoration of the heart.

Another department of the Old Testament in which God speaks is the Law. Here we can listen to His Voice, speaking through the human legislator, and accommodating itself, as it speaks, to the requirements of different ages and different stages of society. In one group of laws (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), introduced by the two Tables, which embody the fundamental principles of man's duty towards God and his neighbour, the needs of a simple, comparatively immature, agricultural society are held in view. In Deuteronomy, the requirements of a more advanced society are contemplated: not only do the laws here embrace more complicated relations of life, but great stress is laid on the moral and religious motives which should prompt the observance of them: the spiritual teaching is higher and more definite. And in that larger group of laws, which modern critics have termed the "Priests' Code," regula

Photographers]

stages through which, as critics believe, the law founded ultimately by Moses successively passed, it held up before the eyes of the Israelite an ideal of duty to be observed, of laws to be obeyed, of principles to be maintained: it taught him that human nature needed to be disciplined and restrained, and in an age in which Israel's distinctive character was threatened, it constituted a religious bond, which enabled the nation to resist successfully the influences tending to disintegrate it. ordinances of the Law, did

And thus, through the God "in many parts and in many modes" speak to His people, training it till it should be prepared to dispense with their aid, and be ready to assimilate the higher teaching of Christ and His apostles.

Such, stated very briefly and generally, is the manner in which critics of moderate views-and some also, at least, of those whom Principal Cave has described as the advocates of "extremer views "conceive inspiration to have influenced the great teachers and writers of Israel. They conceive the inspiration of these men to have illumined, in different degrees, their mental vision, conferring upon them a unique and exceptional spiritual insight, unlike that to be found within the limits of any other nation, and enabling them to perceive and express such aspects or elements of spiritual truth as were suited to the capacities and circumstances of each individual writer. A difference of degree must be recognised in inspiration: for the books of the Old Testament manifestly differ widely in character and scope, and, while all show marks of the guiding and sanctifying influence of the Spirit upon their authors, no reasonable person would affirm that they stand uniformly upon the same moral or religious plane, or that they are each in the same measure the expression of the Divine mind.

tions are laid down respecting the ceremonial institutions which as time advanced became more and more distinctly the formal expression of Israel's faith. The theological importance of these institutions is not (as has sometimes been done) to be depreciated or overlooked. They enforced and deepened the sense of sin. They declared the need of restoration and forgiveness. They exhibited, in a concrete form, the great principles which regulate man's converse with God, emphasizing, for instance, the significance of sacrifice under its various aspects, and thus establishing the principles which in due time were to receive their supreme and final application in the death of Christ. In all the

[Elliot and Fry.

At the same time, while the fact of inspiration is thus freely recognised, the conditions under which it operates, and the range of subjects which may be brought within its influence, are not, the same critics

would urge, legitimately fixed either by a priori considerations, or by traditions of uncertain origin and authority they must be determined by special investigation applied to each particular case. If, as the result of such an investigation, it should be found, for instance, that compilation, diversity of origin, variety of motive and standpoint, are the characteristics of many of the historical books of the Old Testament, the discovery will not surprise us: we have no sufficient reason for holding antecedently such characteristics to be inconsistent with the inspiration of their authors. Even in the case of the Synoptic Gospels, whatever solution be adopted of the remarkable combination of resemblances and differences which they present, it is manifest that similar characteristics are observable, and that some editorial modification and adjustment of the material has taken place in each. If, again, it should appear probable that in parts of the Old Testament we are dealing with traditions, shaped partly by oral transmission, partly by the hand of the narrator, rather than the immediate testimony of eye-witnesses, we shall not be disconcerted by the result of our inquiry: we do not know that it was part of God's Providence that every event in the history of Israel should be recorded immediately upon its occurrence: the historian of a later age may have used to the best the knowledge and opportunities which he possessed; he may have viewed the past in the light of his own present, and may have thus been enabled to draw out more forcibly and fully than could have been done by a contemporary the truths and lessons inherent in it. The inspiration of the historians is visible not necessarily, or exclusively, in their being accurate chroniclers, but in the spirit and point of view from which they treat or interpret the history, and in the lessons which they deduce from it. În the prophets and poetical writers we see the imagination-a faculty which has always been regarded, .except by extreme Puritans, as capable of being employed for instruction and edification-consecrated to the service of God. The prophets and poets of the Old Testament do not confine themselves to enunciating truths of morals or religion in a naked or abstract form: they clothe them in choice diction and splendid imagery: they present them under forms adapted to appeal to the emotions and impress the imaginations of their hearers: even their predictions, so far from being limited to matter-of-fact affirmations, contain frequently a large imaginative or ideal element, to which in the fulfilment nothing can be found to correspond. And so in a book like Job or the Song of Songs, the thought which the poet seeks to bring home to his readers is not stated with abstract brevity: it is illustrated and developed with a profusion of imaginative colouring, which makes it correspondingly more impressive to the reader. If, therefore, as we are assured on the high authority of Professor Sayce, it be the fact that the representations contained in the seemingly historical * See the Expository Times for December, 1891.

chapters of the Book of Daniel are inconsistent with the evidence supplied by contemporary Inscriptions, it will be in no way out of harmony with the provi dential office assigned to the imagination in other parts of the Old Testament Scriptures, to suppose these chapters to be the work of a later author, constructing, upon the basis of such materials as were supplied him by tradition, pictures designed to inculcate certain great truths of history and religion, which had a value and a significance for his contemporaries." Where nothing is defined as to the nature or the limits of the inspiring Spirit's work, it behoves us to beware of imposing upon it arbitrary limits of our own. Through the history of Israel as a nation, through the lives of its great representative men, and through the varied forms of its national literature, it has pleased God to reveal Himself to the world. But this revelation was not completed at a single moment: it was subjected externally to the conditions which govern human history: it advanced progressively : and it is not more than a natural corollary of its progressive character that it should be regulated by the opportunities, and adapted to the capabilities, of those to whom it was primarily addressed.†

Some of the lessons deducible from Daniel ii., treated from a critical standpoint, are suggestively drawn out in a paper in the Independent and Nonconformist for March 18th, 1892.

+ As Principal Cave has occupied a large part of his paper on the subject of this Conference with a polemic against myself, I may be permitted, at least in a note, to offer a few comments on what he has said. It is natural that he should seek to show

that in my article in the Contemporary Review of February last I had taken a subordinate point, and-to quote his own not very dignified metaphor-" trailed a red-herring across the scent." In this view of what I have done he is, however, mistaken. The point which I took was a primary and fundamental one, and one, moreover, on which he laid great stress, impugning, with no small confidence, the accuracy of my statements. I had thus a double ground for treating it with some fulness. It is true, the literary character of a writing does not of necessity close the question of its origin, but it is a most important element in bringing it to a settlement; and if Principal Cave's contention could be maintained that the books from Exodus to Joshua showed no traces of composition by different hands, the grounds for assigning its component parts to different periods of the history would be materially weakened. No doubt, I did not pursue my argument as far as I might have done: but an author is under no obligation to reply in detail to every criticism which his work may have called forth; and I was satisfied for the time with shewing that my foundations were secure. I am more surprised at the levity with which Principal Cave treats what I should have supposed to be the scholar's virtue of accuracy ("Such further diversions concerning my . . . failure to understand or represent what has been written by other critics, ... how amusing they are, and how irrelevant "). "Failure to understand" is, however, a somewhat serious defect in a critic; and "failure to represent," however innocent it may seem to be to Principal Cave, is dangerously near to "misrepresentation," which is by no means a matter of indifference to those who have the misfortune to be misrepresented. If a critic fails to represent correctly the views which he is ostensibly engaged in controverting, it surely is not "irrelevant" to point this out; while if he attaches no importance even to "understanding" what he essays to criticise, it is not apparent what value his criticisms can have, or what claim they possess to be treated as worthy of serious attention.

V.

REV. PROFESSOR JOS. AGAR BEET, D.D.

By the Inspiration of the Bible I understand a - special divine influence given to its writers and giving to their writings special authority, an influence not given to other writers, not even to those in whom dwells the Spirit of God as the Guide and Strength of their life. In this paper I shall discuss whether there be such Inspiration in the Writers of the Old Testament and in their writings, and what is its nature and effect.

The question thus propounded may be expressed in simpler form, viz., In what respects does the Old Testament differ from other contemporary literature? To this question I shall now endeavour, in a few words, to give an answer.

The best avenue of approach to the Old Testament is through the early records of that New Covenant in which the ancient and preparatory Covenant finds its explanation and consummation. For the two Covenants are most closely related; and our judgment about the earlier one will be influenced and in great part determined by our estimate of that for which it was designed to prepare the way. Moreover the New Testament is much nearer to us than the Old; and the evidence bearing upon it is much more abundant and is more reliable. And it is a good rule in all research to approach the less known through the better known. The later Scriptures are also of vastly greater importance to us than the earlier. Upon the Gospel of Christ, and therefore in great measure upon the documents in which it is embodied, rest Christian faith and hope. The Old Testament is of value chiefly as confirming and shedding light upon the later Scriptures.

On the other hand, although we shall do well to begin our research from the solid platform built for us in the New Testament, our final judgment about the Jewish Scriptures must be based on careful examination of these earlier documents. Before we judge we must, to as great an extent as possible, have the facts of the case before us. We will therefore glance for a moment at the New Testament and then in the light of it look at the Old Testament.

We must approach the New Testament through the Christianity of our own day and of eighteen Christian -centuries. In an age of progress we notice that there is no sustained progress, nor has there been for

long ages, outside the Christian nations The immense superiority of these nations we are compelled, in default of any other satisfactory explanation, to attribute to their Christianity; for this is the only element they have in common and as distinguished from other nations. And, if so, it must be attributed to Christ for to Him points every finger as the Source of whatever is good in Christianity. We therefore seek information about Christ. Who was He, and how came He to exert upon the world an influence so vast and so beneficent?

In the earliest Christian documents we find a picture of Christ and an exposition of His teaching, which at once secure our profound homage as not only supremely good, but as henceforth our pattern and law. Looking again at these documents, we find in them. various portraits of Christ and various expositions of His teaching, manifestly from different and in great part independent, hands. The complete fundamental harmony underlying these different types of New Testament thought reveals the truth of the pictures and the correctness of the expositions. In other words, the documents of the New Testament, examined and tested like any other documents on the principles of historical criticism, and read, as any other documents would be read, in the light of all facts bearing upon them, contain complete evidence of their own trustworthiness as a correct picture of Jesus of Narazeth, of His life and teaching and death and resurrection.

On this complete historical evidence, verified by their own spiritual life, rests as on an immovable foundation, the faith of the servants of Christ.

We are now able to answer one of our questions. The New Testament differs from all other books in the unique nearness of its writers to the Light of the World, enabling them to bear a witness about Him, which we have examined and have found to be trustworthy, and which is sufficiently extensive for all the spiritual needs of His servants in all ages. Other writers have been as truthful and as able: but they have not had the unique opportunities of intercourse with Christ or with His immediate followers enjoyed by the writers of the New Testament, opportunities which raise their writings in practical worth, far above all other literary monuments of the past.

We have now seen that the New Testament, by its reliable evidence about the historical Christ, supplies a deep spiritual need, one which could not otherwise