AS CONTAINED IN

DR. SUNDAY’S LECTURES ON "THE ORACLES OF GOD."*

*"The Oracles of God. Nine Lectures on the Nature and Extent of Biblical Inspiration, and on the Special Significance of the Old-Testament Scriptures at the Present Time. By Wm. SUNDAY, M.A., D.D., LL. Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis; Fellow of Exeter College; Oxford Preacher at Whitehall. Longan, Green & Co., London and New York-1891."*

I.- The Present Contention.

"I have more understanding than all my teachers," says the Psalmist; " for Thy testimonies are my meditation." (Ps. 119:99.) A bold thing to say for this anonymous writer, surely ! Who were his teachers ? Were the days dark then in Israel ? For our present purpose we need not to ask such questions. Assured that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," we may venture to take it for a word most seasonable at the present moment, and an apology for venturing to review a " Professor of Exegesis," from the stand-point of Scripture itself.

But are we correct in that last rendering ? The Revised Version, as is well known, prefers another, although it puts the old one* in the margin, as therefore at least allowable :if we prefer to have it, we still may. *Except that for " all" it has " every;" but even this change cannot be insisted on. Pas without the article, as here, is used for "all," as " all Jerusalem," "all flesh," "all the house of Israel," where you could not say "every." In the same way as here, the R. V. has given us, for" all the building,'' in Eph. 2:31, " each several building"!* It is a simple question as to where the verb (often omitted in the Greek as here) is to be put; and the sense is after all what must guide us. The fact of its being left thus far indefinite really makes it definite that the two renderings must be after all the same, otherwise there would have been some pains taken to show us which way we were to read it; would there not ? To make them so, we have only to put a comma into the R. V., and say, "Every scripture, inspired of God, is also profitable." Here the old statement and the new are really one.

But that is not the way some would have us understand it. They have decreed that it must mean that every scripture that is inspired of God is profitable, but that it does not apply to the whole Bible by any means ; and that is why they prefer "every" to "all." In the whole Bible, certain parts are inspired, and which, you must find out:hard work enough, as it has taken so many generations of learned men to discover what, and indeed they have not done it yet; while the unlearned are scarcely to be expected to find out at all.

By this means the whole attitude of soul toward Scripture is altered :we judge it, not are judged by it. What we cannot understand, or have no heart for, we can easily suspect to be not inspired :the Word of God is measured by our scanty bushel, and becomes as narrow as the shallowest human mind can make it.

Dr. SUNDAY is fully committed to this view of Scripture, which, as he rightly says, is not held now merely by those in the ranks of enemies of the truth. The "expressions of opinion" which have excited for some time "not a little disquietude and anxiety," and that "especially amongst good people,"- "have not had any thing of the nature of an attack. They have not come from the Extreme Left, or from the destructive party in ecclesiastical politics or theology, but they have come from men of known weight and sobriety of judgment, from men of strong Christian convictions, who it is felt would not lightly disturb the same convictions in others,-men, too, of learning, who do not speak without knowing what they say."

Among these, Dr. SUNDAY puts forth no claim to speak with "authority." Only specialists, who have devoted themselves to work on "some definite line "can rightly do this within their own particular limits. The labor of ascertaining how far Scripture is to be believed is so great that he himself, as to much of it, must be content to "look on from outside."

" At the same time, one who holds a responsible position must do his best to ascertain which way things are tending:he must not let any considerable change in theology come upon him unprepared:he must consider beforehand how it is likely to affect himself and to affect others, especially those who come under his charge."

Knowledge of the truth he dares not profess :he has an " opinion," and faith in the competence of those who are giving the trend to his theology. He says,-

"I shall abstain from expressing any opinion as to the extent to which the conclusions involved have been proved. In regard to this, there may be not a few here who will be as well able to form a judgment as I am. I, LIKE THEM, MUST BE CONTENT TO TAKE A GREAT DEAL UPON TRUST. The only advantage I can claim is perhaps a rather fuller acquaintance with foreign work as well as with English, and with the general balance of opinion abroad as well as at home. I have also the advantage that some of those engaged in these studies are personal friends of my own; and to their singleness of mind and earnest religious purpose, as well as to their thorough competence to deal with questions of so much importance, I must needs bear testimony."

But is there here any ground for divine faith at all?

There were others of old time whose "fear of God was taught by the precept of men," but they do not come well recommended to us. And as for the result, considering all that is or may be in question, we cannot help believing that they were a great deal better off to whom the apostle could say,-many, yea, most of them, very simple, unlettered people, we may be sure,-"Ye have an unction from the holy One, and ye know all things, and need not that any man teach you." How grand and ennobling a thing that, to be, under God's teaching, delivered from dependence upon these long examinations ! not to have to wait with fevered eyes, looking to our masters to see what they will permit us to believe at last ! Which method honors God most, also? a God with whom "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called ; but who has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"?

It is not a question of details-of this point or that point-but of the whole method. Dr. SUNDAY's, far as he is from wishing to attack Scripture, is wholly discordant with it. , .

"Scripture cannot be broken:" that was our Lord's own account of it ; "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Both these things are said precisely of what has most to bear the brunt of "higher criticism," the Old Testament. Here we have the verbal accuracy of the inspired Word maintained, if words mean any thing. Here is the need of the heart that longs for divine certainty fully met. God has spoken, and spoken not so imperfectly as to leave us in doubt after all as to what is His word, what merely man's. We have what we can depend upon; and, if taught of God, have about it a certainty no human guarantee can give,-thank God, which no "opposition of science, falsely so called," can take away.

But there are the facts, urges Dr. S. Bring them forward by all means, and let us see what their value is. Do not blame us, however, for our entire confidence beforehand that there are no facts that can Invalidate the Lord's words, or do what He challenges cannot be done. " SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN :" and He says this about the use of the word "gods " for "those to whom the word of God came,"-quite possibly some may conceive it a strained expression :all the less can one doubt the absolute claim which is here made of complete verbal perfection. Are we to wait until men know every "fact" that can be known before we set to our seal that God is true ? Dr. SUNDAY himself does not doubt, as we may see shortly, as to the meaning of what Christ says. He only thinks that he knows better. This is no surmise merely of mine :it is the literal truth.

Might we not as well stop here, then? Is it any use to prolong discussion ? Alas ! unbelief can take shape as the most enlightened faith, and deceive, not merely other?, but the man himself who is under its spell. This professor of exegesis is honestly anxious for his readers, that they should be able to hold still their faith in Christ, when faith in His word has been rendered impossible. Here too the Christian teacher goes beyond his Master, who can only assure us, " If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed;" "if a man love Me, he will keep My words; he that loveth Me not keepeth not My sayings; " and who adds, "And the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's which sent Me." (Jno. 8:31; 14:23, 24.)

But what about Dr. SUNDAY's facts ? One would expect that for his purpose he would take some one or more, put them in plain words, substantiate them with decisive proofs, and do manifestly what the Lord says cannot be done. Surely we might claim this from him. One plain fact would be better than a thousand doubtful ones; and he must surely, amid all that human research has raked together against the Word of God, have one fact at least capable of such treatment!

Nothing of the sort is attempted. We shall quote him fairly, and let him show us all he can. He says,-

"In many respects, the result of these discoveries has been to confirm the truth of the Old-Testament history,-in many, but not quite in all.

"An instructive example is supplied by the chronology. Both the Assyrian and the Babylonian chronologies rest on a very secure basis. They can be traced up to authorities which are either contemporary or nearly contemporary. And they are further confirmed by the mention of astronomical phenomena, such as eclipses, which have been verified by modem calculations. Now although these chronologies present a great deal of approximate agreement with the books of Kings, there are some not unimportant differences."
Little wonder need there be about that. It is not hard to suppose slips in an ancient and fragmentary record, even though it may be traced up to " nearly" contemporary authority, and confirmed here and there by astronomical calculations ! Why should Scripture go to the wall in these cases to glorify the heathen annals? Suppose we turn the argument round, and say, " Scripture, with its many infallible proofs, confirms generally the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies, but there are some not unimportant differences "? What then ?

In a note, it is added,-

"The Assyrian and the biblical data agree exactly in assigning the fall of Samaria to 722 B.C., but some correction is required of the statement in 2 Kings 18:10 that this event took place in the sixth year of King Hezekiah. Sennacherib's invasion, which is assigned to the fourteenth year of the same king, did not really take place till after the year 702. This point 1 believe is well made put."

That is all the proof as given here. No doubt Dr. S. did not want Jo weary us with all the pros and cons of a tedious argument, which, if our faith in Scripture depends on it, shows quite manifestly that the poor and unlearned are shut out. It may be possible for some to satisfy themselves with the author's faith in it. But Mr. Barks has examined it at large in his Commentary on Isaiah, and seems to have refuted it entirely, while showing its absolute inconsistency with the whole Scripture account; as, for instance, in making the capture by Sennacherib of forty-six fenced cities in Judah, and smaller towns without number, with the carrying off of two hundred thousand persons, take place in the midst of those fifteen years of " peace and truth" promised to Hezekiah after his recovery from his sickness !* *This view disfigures the modern histories, as Rawlins on's Five Great Monarchies:Geikie's Hours with the Bible; Sayce's Fresh Light, &100:It is enough to compare Geikie's account with Scripture to see the contradictions.*

Mr. Barks says,-

" The view adopted by Prof. Rawlins on and others, in deference to the supposed authority of the Assyrian canon, (which Dr. Hincks himself does not hesitate to call the work of a blunderer, disproved in some main particulars by weightier evidence,) distorts and reverses, in my opinion, that main feature in the history of Hezekiah's reign on which the whole structure of the book of Isaiah really depends. I think I have shown that it is opposed to plain laws of history, as well as to the text of Isaiah and the books of Kings and Chronicles. A different view, in full harmony with Scripture, agrees better, I believe, with the substantial testimony of the monuments themselves; and only requires us to admit such a partial disguise and falsification in Sennacherib's cylinders, as we may be quite certain … so terrible a reverse would occasion in ancient days."

This is surely enough wherewith to offset Dr. SUNDAY's faith in the conclusions of some modern scholars, which he has allowed to shake disastrously his faith in what he yet in some way owns to be inspired of God. May we not say, without undue disparagement to the witness of man, that "the witness of God is greater?" If with Dr. S. we must after all "take a great deal upon trust," which shall we trust? F. W. G.

(To be continued.")