MANY of those men in Presbyterian Churches who have adopted in recent times the unbelieving theory of partial inspiration—that the Scriptures are partly inspired of God and partly not—have been exceedingly anxious to find some expression in the ancient documents of the Church, such as the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, that would afford apparent support to their view. Apparent, we say, for it is impossible to find in documents whose authors were, beyond contradiction, thorough believers in the verbal inspiration of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, anything that was really designed to uphold a contrary opinion. Misconstruction, however, is a weapon that unjust controversialists have made use of in all ages, and it has been freely employed by modern errorists in regard to one or two passages in the subordinate standards of faith and practice drawn up by the Westminster divines.
The case of misconstruction to be presently noticed has reference to the Shorter Catechism and God’s Word. The second Question and Answer of this well-known and highly-esteemed compendium of sound doctrine run as follows: “What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him? A. The word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” “Now,” say those who hold that the Bible is only partly inspired, “there is a distinction here recognised between the Scriptures and the word of God ‘contained’ therein. The word of God is in the Scriptures, but the whole Scriptures are not the word of God.” This is the unjustifiable inference they draw from the use of the expression; “contained in,” and they throw out their own misconstruction as if the framers of the Catechism held the view expressed in it, when nothing—as we shall see—can be farther from the truth in the matter.
In ascertaining the precise meaning of any particular sentence in a book or other document, it is always essential, first, to study the context in which the sentence occurs. A sentence, wrenched from its context, may be sometimes made to convey ideas entirely alien to the author’s meaning. It is, secondly, desirable to study other books or documents, if such there be, that are directly related to the work in question, and are capable of casting light upon its contents. In the present case both these rules may be used with advantage.
Let us, first, observe the context of the Question, consisting of the proof-text taken from Scripture on the point at issue, and found in Catechisms with proofs at the foot of the page. It is as follows: “2 Tim. iii. 16—All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” “All Scripture” is here declared to be given by divine inspiration. It is perfectly plain, therefore, from the proof-text that the writers of the Catechism did not use the words “contained in” in any sense that implied that any part of the Scriptures was not divinely inspired. They believed, upon infallible testimony, that all, from first to last, was the word of God.
Let us, secondly, notice the statements of the Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism, as relative documents composed by the same divines. These prove beyond doubt that they believed that the Scriptures are throughout the word of God, and that they consequently employed the expression, “the word of God which is contained in the Scriptures,” in a sense entirely harmonious with this belief. (1) The Confession of Faith. See first chapter, section 4, “The Holy Scripture . . . is the word of God”; section 5, “The Holy Scripture . . . doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God.” All the books of the Old and New Testaments, as we have them in our version, are included, and “the books commonly called Apocrypha” are expressly excluded. (2) The Larger Catechism, of which the Shorter Catechism is a brief summary. See Question 3, “What is the word of God? Answer, The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.” Nothing can be more explicit on the point than this. The word of God is not merely in the Scriptures; the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God. It stands to reason and common sense that the Shorter Catechism, which is a brief compendium of the larger work by the same hands, ought to be viewed in the light of the fuller and more explanatory document when any doubtful question is raised. The conclusion in the present case is unmistakable.
The question may now be asked as to why this particular phrase, “contained in,” capable of a double meaning, was used at all. To this it may be answered:—
(1) The expression was suitable in itself to set forth the fact
that “the word of God,” which had been communicated to the prophets and apostles, was embodied and comprehended in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments—and not also in the Church or councils, as Papists say.
(2) It is impossible for the wisest of men to foresee all the misconstructions that subsequent generations may put on their words. The Bible itself, given by infinite wisdom, is misinterpreted by thousands of people. It was very far, no doubt, from the minds of the Westminster divines to think that any would ever credit them here with the opinion that any part of Scripture was not “the word of God,” seeing they had given most definite expression in other collateral documents of their conviction that the whole Bible was the word of God.
(3) These divines, in the Confession of Faith, use the word “contained” in a case directly connected with that under notice, and one where it is impossible to suggest that there is something more “contained” than is actually mentioned. (See chapter i., section 2.) “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these”; and here follows a list of the books as they stand in our version. It is thus stated that these books are “contained,” or as it might be expressed, comprehended, “under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written,” but no one can possibly infer that some other books are also contained under these names. Such an inference would be in direct contradiction to what is explicitly affirmed. Still the inference, however absurd, might be made if the unwarrantable mode of reasoning inflicted on the Shorter Catechism were applied to this case. The use, therefore, of the expressions “contained in” or “under” does not necessarily imply that something else is also contained. It may mean absolutely nothing of the kind.
(4) In addition to all this we make bold to say that, although the expression in the Shorter Catechism—”the word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us,” etc.—should refer to a part and not the whole of the Scriptures, it does not necessarily follow that it implies that the remaining part is not, in the strict sense, “the word of God.” The only conceivable view under which the framers of the Shorter Catechism might, in this particular question, be referring only to certain parts of God’s Word, is that the question is not “What is the word of God?”—(Question 3 in Larger Catechism)—but “What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?” Now, it is admitted and held by all sound divines that, while the Holy Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, are the Word of God—an inspired and infallible account of all God has been pleased to put on record—yet that everything that has been recorded is not a positive rule as to how we may glorify and enjoy Him. The ceremonial law in all its details is certainly as much a part of “the Word of God
written” as the Sermon on the Mount, but it is not a “rule” for us now under the new dispensation. The sayings and doings of wicked men and devils form a part of the infallible record of God’s Word, but they are not a “rule” for us to follow. The present writer does not affirm that the Westminster divines had this point in view in the second Question of the Shorter Catechism, for it may be asserted, on the other hand, that the whole Bible, taken in the mutual connection of its parts, forms a rule for us how we may glorify and enjoy God—instructing and warning where it does not positively direct. All that he contends for is that, although the above should be proved to be the meaning of the expression, “the word of God contained in the Scriptures,” it by no means carries the inference of modern errorists that some parts of Scripture are not “the word of God,” and so are marked by mistakes and errors.
The Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism definitely settle this question as against the new theologians, and the whole discussion only shows how unscientifically, unscientifically, and unjust these men can be, notwithstanding their boast of superior learning and enlightenment, in the interpretation of historic documents, when it suits their own unworthy purposes.
Important Antiquarian Discoveries at Jerusalem.—Reuter’s Agency has received further details of the discoveries made in Jerusalem by the British expedition which has been working there for two seasons. Archaeological experts in Jerusalem consider them the most important ever made. During the whole period of operations Mount Ophel has been the objective, this being regarded as the site of ancient Zion. The object of the excavations was to discover the burial places of David and Solomon. The first season did not yield anything very important, but last season’s work was more fruitful. The expedition established its headquarters in a native house in the village of Siloam, near the site of the excavations, and the usual plan was for the British leaders to set off every morning accompanied by their English gangers and to work until sunset. Before the tunnels had been driven very far under the hill, the expedition discovered a number of natural caves, situated at a slightly higher level than the tunnel itself, and after a quantity of debris had been removed human bodies were found lying on natural shelves of rock. These were clearly the remains of the Jebusites who had been buried before Jerusalem was taken by King David, and were probably of the date of 3000 B.C. There were indications that the bodies had merely been laid on their rock slabs without any covering except a few stones. This was probably one of the earliest forms of burial discovered. In an adjoining cavern the excavators found Jebusite pottery of the same period, which gave evidence of a very high state of civilisation, quite equal to that of the Israelites of perhaps 2000 years later.