DR. SANDAY’S LECTURES ON "THE ORACLES OF GOD."

2. The Human Element in the Bible,

Dr. Sanday's text for his second lecture is 2 Cor. 4:7- "We have this treasure in earthen vessels."His application of it is not at all that which the apostle makes, but a sad perversion. As a specimen of unfair handling of Scripture, it deserves to be looked at; for in just this way is the Bible continually made to sanction principles which it disowns and condemns utterly.

For what purpose does a "professor of exegesis" use the apostle's words ? Clearly to advocate the possibility of mistake in the inspired writings. This is the first great effort of his whole book. Nor are we raising question of his motives at all in saying this. No doubt, he would tell us, that the mistakes being in Scripture, his desire is, to show how we may have faith in it nevertheless; nay, even, -strange and impossible as the thing may look,-how that faith may be cleared and strengthened by the recognition. But is this in the least what the apostle means ?

Is his subject "The Mistakes of Moses," or his own mistakes ? We have only to read the passage to find that he is speaking of very different things. I give it in another version somewhat more literal than the common one.

"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the sur-passingness of the power may be of God, and not of us:every way afflicted, but not straitened; seeing no apparent issue, but our way not entirely shut up; persecuted, but not abandoned ; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in our body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body:for we who live are alway delivered unto death on account of Jesus, that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh."

Here is the earthen vessel-a humanity capable of suffering, of inward trial and perplexity, of depression and fear; but unfailingly sustained by more than human strength. Death working upon the human frame made only more evident the divine life which had been enkindled, and which the hand of persecution could not touch. What has this to do with mistakes in Scripture ? Where does any inspired writer own such, apologize for them, or intimate indeed that it was a matter of thanksgiving that he had been left to write error for truth,-that the God of truth is better served by a certain mixture of falsehood than He would be by unerring truth itself ? Is not the whole doctrine of the Word the reverse of this ?

We have now, however, to consider the human element in the Bible, and in this shall follow Dr. Sanday’s point by point. By this means the real contention will be better seen, and the truth as a whole find more complete development. He says,-

" This we may start with, that there is a human element even in the Bible; and the tendency of the last fifty or a hundred years of investigation is, to make it appear that this human element is larger than had been supposed. The freedom of the human agent made use of in the Bible was less restricted than those who argued from an antecedent view of what was to be expected in a divine revelation would have imagined it to be. That is the first point."

This is all vague enough, even to the "fifty or" twice fifty "years of investigation;" and does not sufficiently accredit the well-known father of The " higher criticism," the infidel physician, Astruc, whose view was published in 1753. The child, a weakling at its birth, waited fifty years for adoption, which it received at length at the hands of the extreme rationalists of Germany. With them it grew rapidly, was taught by degrees a more Christian mode of speech, and now can figure as if of Christian parentage. But this is not the case ; and it is important to remember that it is not the case:for who can believe that God inspired an infidel to give the direction to Christian thought after this manner? Certainly no "investigation" of any believing kind had any thing to do with it, but the suggestion of an enemy, which the infatuation of restless minds too little under the control of the Word has admitted, to the dishonor of Christ and their own undoing.

The "human element" is indeed everywhere in Scripture ; true :nor is "the freedom of human agents'" in the least " restricted" by their being " moved by the Holy Ghost." If God uses His creatures for His blessed purposes, His delight is, to lead them freely, and in accordance with the nature He has bestowed on them. To enlighten their minds, to enkindle their hearts, to reveal to them His truth, is surely in no wise to take away from them any "freedom" which is worthy of the name; not even if this be carried so far as to make error on their part impossible in the communication of His mind to men. Is God less free because He cannot do evil or be in error ? and shall man be less free the more he is raised up to God ?

"That is the first point," continues Dr. Sanday; "but the second, which seems to me to be equally clear, is, that, in spite of the enlarged scope which is thus given to human thought and human action, the divine element which lies behind it is not less real and not less divine."

Why should it be ? The enlargement of man's faculties, the clearing of his spiritual sight,-all that which makes him the more joyfully subject to God, the more fully in communion with Him,-all this must needs imply the operation of God in it to be proportionately full and mighty. That is, if the freedom meant be what is rightly to be called freedom. "Freedom" to make mistakes and go astray,-the freedom of the blind to fall into the ditch,- we shall only call such when it is demonstrated for us.

" The third point is, that we make a mistake in attempting to draw a hard and fast line between the two elements. The part which comes from man and the part which comes from God ran into and blend with each other. We think of them best, not as acting separately, but as acting together. And this intimate and organic union only serves to bring home the message which God has condescended to bring home to man with greater force and greater reality."

All true, from the point of view which we have indicated, by which the "higher criticism," however, is entirely annulled and set aside. For suppose there be in what we receive as Scripture but one demonstrable error, can we think of the divine element being in "intimate and organic union" with the human in this case? Are we not bound, if there be error, "to draw a hard and fast line" here, and to say, the error is human merely ? But then, indeed, it is impossible to tell just where the line is to be drawn ; because it is impossible to say what is the extent of the error, and into what region it may not intrude. If history, chronology, cosmogony, authenticity of the books, etc., be all more or less open to it, why not the more important "things unseen"? Especially as the Saviour's own words must at the start be given up, and we must allow that Scripture can be broken, and many a "jot and tittle pass from the law" without fulfillment! The sting is in the tail, however, and very cautiously and darkly as the professor expresses himself, it is yet to be discerned in his final proposition :-

"Lastly, I think it will be seen that the application which we in turn make of that message may need to be somewhat modified. We may find our view of the motive forces in religion somewhat altered."

Just so; but let not any timid one get alarmed. Dr. Sanday is pretty sure there is no cause; and he, if not in this special line much of an authority, has access to the specialistic workroom where these surprises are manufactured for us, and he does-

-" not think for a moment that we should find them less powerful or less effectual than they have been."

Very comforting, no doubt ; and the age is accustoming us to have " motive forces " altered, and all for good ! Seriously, does our kindly teacher imagine that he can destroy our faith in what for us at least have been Christ's own teachings, and with a smile seat himself in the empty seat?

But the language is too dark for us to attempt to interpret without anticipating what is to be brought out afterward, or exposing one's self to the suspicion of mere false accusation. It is evident, however, that it is not the power of the " motive forces " that we need to be assured of merely,-" forces " we suppose will be effective,-but rather their quality,-that is, the line in which they will be found effective. Our "view" of them may be somewhat altered. All seems very doubtful, spite of the tone of assurance that is maintained. But there is no need for doubt. Must not the "application" be altered of a text which has once been proved so largely fallible, nay, deceptive ? Shall we not take leave to apply it, as we think reasonable? and where we think well, "apply" it to some idiosyncrasy of the writer-his little enlightenment, the manners of the age, and what not beside ? And of the "motive forces" it will be easily seen how many may work, indeed, and be effective, which another view of inspiration would entirely shut out. It would spoil much good reasoning to accept absolutely such assertions as that of the apostle, that " the things that I speak unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

In what follows, the history of the doctrine of inspiration is taken up, briefly enough, but in a way which seems really to prejudice the question rather than fairly meet it. What avails it to remind us that some have thought the Masoretic vowel points of the Hebrew text to be inspired ? or that " less instructed " Protestants have " pinned their faith " to their respective versions ? Nor is it right to mix up the question of the integrity of the text as transmitted to us with the much more important and very different one of original inspiration. Granting the last to be complete, the errors that have crept into manuscripts are comparatively trivial, mere motes and specks in the sunrays. Refusing its perfection is to bring in twilight obscurity at once.

Again, Dr. Sanday, after his manner, in a few easy words about the "conflict," as he is pleased to call it, between the Bible and Natural Science, awards the victory, as a thing of course, to the latter. While he joins together " Galileo, Newton, Darwin," as representing three stages of this successful conflict. But neither of the first two ever was, or intended to be, in opposition to Scripture, as the last was and meant to be. And evolution remains to-day, in spite of the wide adherence to it, a plausible guess, and nothing more. It was put forth to show how species might have originated without special creation. But specific creation according to plan, accounts for everything at least as well. The only necessary evolution is that of the plan in the Creator's mind. And Mr. Wallace, who at the same time with Mr. Darwin, originated the idea, still contends that as to man, evolution cannot account for him. Here what is most sufficient if is the simplest thought.

He returns to the internal evidence :-

" Neither, again, were the biblical writers exempted from some, at least, of the general characteristics of their contemporaries:they shared the literary peculiarities of men of their own nationality and station:they were not supernaturally raised above the level of knowledge to which their contemporaries had attained in matters of science. Even in the things of religion it is becoming every day clearer that there is a growth and progression running through the New Testament as well as the Old. No one generation reached the limits of truth all at once:there was a gradual withdrawing of the vail at different times and in different portions."

As to language and literary peculiarities, it is no defect to the Word of God that it should not speak with the tongue of the learned. As to science, I suppose the first chapter of Genesis is yet superior to its Assyrian representative, and may fairly challenge comparison with any other account of creation, perhaps not excepting Haeckel's. And as for the progressive character of revelation, that is fully declared in Revelation itself. While it makes only the more miraculous, for those that have eyes to see, the way in which even the history of those past generations shines in the light of the complete declaration with type and prophecy and manifold anticipation of that full-orbed glory which had not yet dawned. So that Genesis locks hands with the Apocalypse, and Scripture is rounded off into a luminous cycle, the orbit of truth obedient to the divine voice from which it came. Surely, for him who knows this, the inspiration of Scripture has a witness which no consent of all the graduates of all man's colleges could give it, and which can be affected by none of the demurrers of a science born but yesterday, and which has scarcely yet attained intelligible speech.

All this Dr. Sanday omits in his estimate of Scripture-inspiration. Can he be ignorant of it ? It is evidence of the complete permeation of the human element by the divine, of which we may say, adopting the words of the evangelist, that if it could be fully written out, we may well suppose that the world could not contain the books that should be written. F. W. G.

(To be continued.)