July 1924
T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
413
thought expression of its own age, and altogether a dead and not a living thing? To which the answer given is that contained in the Creed and in the Scriptures themselves, that the Holy Spirit is, in the last analysis, the author of Holy Scripture, and also its Interpreter. To quote Bishop Pearson again, the law given to Moses was “ not a mortal word to die with him, but living oracles to be in force when he was dead, and oblige the people to a belief, when his rod had ceased to broach the rocks and divide the seas” (pp. 14, 15). When Stephen spoke of the “ living oracles” he was using an expression not applicable to secular history; and ac cording to the teaching of the Church of England the living and timeless nature of Scripture is due to its authorship by the Holy Spirit, Who is not a dead but a living Person, and is the Interpreter of His own book to every individual and every age of the Church. In the Homily on Holy Scrip ture it is taught that it is plentifully sufficient “ for all ages and for all degrees and sorts of men” ; and that for its un derstanding, as Chrysostom said, human and worldly wis dom and science are not required, “ but the revelation of the Holy Ghost, Who inspireth the true meaning unto them that with humility and diligence do search therefor.” Just as the. doctrine of the Atonement is'at once rendered inconsistent and nugatory if the Deity of Christ be left out of count, so it is essential to the Protestant view of Scripture, to bear in mind the work of the Divine Spirit. His office, as Pearson points out, is first general and ex-; ternal by the deliverance of the revelation in the inspired Scriptures, and then individual and internal by moving the heart to assent to that which is propounded in the Word of God. From this follows the Prayer Book doctrine that neither can Holy Scripture contradict itself, nor can it be contra dicted by any man or body of men who speak under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. II. Such being the teaching of the Church of Eng land, how can it be applied to the problems raised by modern criticism, and to the practical end of promoting be lief in Christ and holiness of life? For it should never be forgotten that God gave the Bible not to be the possession of scholars, but to be the lamp of life to common men; not to be a storehouse of arguments, but to be a rule of faith and conduct. It has ever been the glory of Evangelicals to urge men to put their trust for salvation not in themselves, nor in their human teachers, but in the plain promises and statements of God’s Word. And it is worth noting that its practical authority over the minds of men is directly proportionate to the confi dence which they place in its precepts. Those who speak depreciatingly of the Old Testament should reflect that where confidence is shaken, authority is diminished, and the souls of men are injured. There is not anything in the Church’s doctrine of the su premacy of Scripture to hinder a reasonable and reverent historical criticism; but on the contrary, modern criticism stands in urgent need of the evangelical faith in the Bible as the Word of God to make it not only more reverent but morg reasonable. But the real issue is raised by that view of the Old Testa ment which was propounded by the rationalists De Wette and Wellhausen, and adopted by a majority of modern theo logical professors, which turns the history of Israel upside down. The article upon Israel in Hastings’ one volume Bible Dictionary gives a moderate exposition of this theory. After dividing the sources of Old Testament history into the
three groups of narratives— (1) embodying tribal tradi tions, (2) reflecting the traditions of certain local shrines, and (3) a miscellany of legendary and mythical survivals, it proceeds to give an account of the history of Israel from which all miracle and divine intervention is eliminated, its occurrence being attributed to primitive ignorance, and to give a description of the origin and early development of Israel which differs toto caelo from that given in the Penta teuch. There is a two-fold difficulty in reconciling such a view of the Old Testament with faith in it as the Word of God. In the first place it does violence to Pearson’s statement that God is too wise to be deceived and too good to deceive us. The historical books unquestionably represent as real oc currences the plagues of Egypt, the institution of the Passover, and the giving of the Law from Sinai, and the plain man cannot easily bring himself to believe that God is the author of a book which, according to modern critic ism, not only misrepresents His actions, but even distorts His character. The second difficulty consists in the fact that our Lord and His Apostles by common consent accepted these narra tives as substantially true. It is hard to deny that Christ believed in a Jehovah who judged Sodom and GomQrrah for their sin by a physical visitation, and in one who saved believing Israelites when they lifted up their eyes to the brazen serpent. Therefore, when we are asked with moral indignation whether we can believe that the Law of Moses proceeded • from the inspiration of God, or whether He sanctioned the slaughter of the Amalekites, we are confronted by the fact that our Master believed in this Jehovah and taught His disciples to believe in Him, and we are loath to set up our standard of moral judgment as superior to His. (a) If the Graf-Wellhausen documentary theory and the closely connected non-miraculous character of Old Testa ment history rested upon the solid ground of external archaeological evidence, we should be ^compelled to re vise our view of the Old Testament as the Word of God, and our official position in the Church, but fortunately the exact contrary is the case, many eminent archaeologists be ing strongly opposed to the critical theories. But upon whichever side the truth may lie, the width of the gulf that separates the two sides cannot be denied. Those who accept the narratives of the Old Testament as substantially true, and as truly representing the actions and character of God, stand in this matter where our Lord and His Apostles stood, and where the Church of England by her formularies stands, and unhesitatingly affirm the Old Testament, its partial and dispensational character notwith standing, to be the Word of God. But it is not surprising that those who regard its narratives as historically impos sible, and its picture of Jehovah as cruel and immoral, should be unready to give it this title, and seek some relief from the acceptance of articles of religion with which they cannot reconcile their critical views (b) The question of the relation between the authority of the Bible and the Deity of our Lord is crucial. It is not a question, as so often stated, of the limitations of our Lord’s humanity. Those limitations are matter of uni versal acceptance. The question is of His truthfulness. Just as in the sphere of conduct we hold Him to be free from sin, whether or not He was liable to sin; so here the question is not whether He was liable to error but whether in His recorded teaching He fell into error. (Continued on page 464)
Made with FlippingBook HTML5