LETTER BY PROFESSOR JAMES DICK, REFORMED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BELFAST.*
To the Editor of “The Witness.”
SIR,—Now that the demands on your space through the pressure of election news are likely to be diminishing, I venture to ask room for a few criticisms of opinions propounded by Professor David Smith recently, in his special correspondence column of the British Weekly, on the subject of Inspiration. The subject is certainly most important. Doubtless the proper place for an answer to Professor Smith would be the British Weekly, in which his article appeared. But it is extremely unlikely that the Editor of that paper would admit any criticism of the oracular column entitled, “The Correspondence of Rev. Professor David Smith, D.D.”—nearly as unlikely, in fact, as that he should admit any criticism of his own hand-and-glove relationship with the Radical-Socialist-Nationalist Party in their programme of Home Rule for Ireland and the destruction of the House of Lords. Grave as are the issues involved in the present political movements, and utterly callous as are the Nonconformists of England and the Radical Presbyterians of Scotland with regard to the feelings and rights and liberties of the Protestants of Ireland, it is a far graver matter still that a theological professor, to whom is entrusted the training of students for the ministry of the Word, should in a few sentences publicly set aside the evangelical doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures that is taught in the Confession of Faith which he has signed, and that has been held by the most scholarly and godly men in all generations.
Political excitement and troubles “have their day and cease to be;” but as “the Word of the Lord endureth for ever,” so any teaching that is fitted to shake faith in that Word that CLAIMS absolute and unquestioning faith, as a Word that can be wholly trusted as Divine, will assuredly, unless graciously counteracted by the Living Spirit of God, have disastrous issues in time and when time is no more.
The occasion of the teaching to which I now refer was an application made by “A Scotch Elder” to Professor Smith in his capacity as the solver of all sorts of theological, practical, and experimental problems—an office that was filled previously for some years by the Rev. R. J. Campbell, of City Temple fame.
* We have pleasure in publishing this letter by Professor Dick, at the request of a friend. It was originally sent to the Belfast Witness, a newspaper, partly religious, but being then declined, it was published in The Covenanter, the Reformed Presbyterian organ in Ireland.—ED.
This elder writes to Professor Smith that he is “perturbed about the reliability of the Scriptures.” He “was brought up to believe in their verbal inspiration. But,” he says, “of late years the published results of critical investigations have had a cumulative effect in undermining my confidence in the Bible as a Divine revelation,” &c. And, accordingly, he looks to Professor Smith for light. Now an obvious method of relieving the mind of this apparently honest enquirer, would have been for Professor Smith to tell him at once that the so-called “results of critical investigations” are not results of investigation at all, but foregone conclusions from a hypothesis that begins by excluding God, and that pursues its malignant way through the most bare-faced contortions of the history and legislation in the Scriptures, still leaving God out, and finally—if there is to be any finality short of the judgment of God Himself sweeping the audacious hypothesis into the abyss—the Bible is presented to us in such a shape that it must be regarded as a peculiarly monstrous fraud palmed off upon the world successfully for thousands of years. The wholly outrageous “criticism” that has reached such “results” as these, is, however, at the present time being criticised itself by scholars some of whom were temporarily led away by its pretentious methods, and the “results” of this criticism of the “critics” are such as to discredit them along the whole line, and to leave the Word of God “as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, purified seven times”—(R.V.). But Professor Smith does not tell the enquirer this. He does not inform him of the “bankruptcy of the Higher Criticism,” concerning which Dr. Emil Reich, who died the other day, wrote so unanswerably a few years ago. What Professor Smith did tell the enquirer was, “The source of all your trouble is that unfortunate old theory of verbal inspiration.” And, then, as if in demonstration of the “unfortunate” nature of this “old theory,” Professor Smith informs the Elder that Renan—the celebrated French infidel—”had been taught that in a Divine book everything must be true. . . . It has only to be wrong once for all the theory as to its inspiration to be reduced to nothing.” Of course, Professor Smith, in quoting this belief of Renan, thinks that at least some things in this alleged Divine book—possibly a good many things—are untrue and wrong, and, therefore, if Renan was not justified in turning to infidelity, at least the theory of verbal inspiration was the “unfortunate” occasion of his doing so. Professor Smith further informs us gravely that “the fact is—though it may surprise you—that this is a late theory. It was not held by the great Reformers.” The only proof he deigns to furnish of this astounding assertion is that Calvin, commenting on the passage in Matthew (xxvii. 9) in which the name of Jeremiah occurs where the prophecy seems to be that of Zechariah (xi. 12, 13), says the fact that the name of Jeremiah “crept in” does not trouble him; that it “has certainly been put by an error for Zechariah the fact shows.” What is the inference Professor Smith wishes us to draw from his statement of Calvin? This, that Calvin did not believe in “the unfortunate old theory of verbal inspiration.” But Calvin’s words do not even remotely suggest such an inference. The error, he says, “crept in.” But that is a very different thing from saying that Matthew, writing as he was “moved by the Holy Ghost,” made a mistake. If it be an error, it may be the error of some one who transcribed the manuscript. In fact, a number of manuscripts and versions have not the name of the prophet at all. But even on the supposition that Matthew actually wrote the name Jeremiah, is the fact that WE MIGHT THINK that a mistake, or that we think there are many similar mistakes, to rule out of court the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures? Our outlook is very limited. What is there impossible or even improbable in the supposition that Jeremiah may have uttered the word cited in some unrecorded address of his, precisely as Jesus Christ is quoted by Paul as uttering words that are nowhere else recorded—“It is more blessed to give than to receive”? And as “Enoch, the seventh from Adam” is quoted by Jude as uttering a prophecy of which there is no trace elsewhere in Scripture? This would surely be easier of belief than the grotesque insanity of most of the “critical results” which Professor Smith appears to have allowed to put his “theory” of inspiration quite out of harmony with Scripture itself. Moreover, he is a very heedless reader of Calvin’s Institutes, or of his Commentaries, who would suppose that Calvin did not believe in the inspiration of the very words of the Scriptures.
In the following sentences of Professor Smith we have an instance of confusion of thought that is at least remarkable in a public teacher:—“The Reformers did not believe the Bible because it was inspired, and therefore inerrant. They believed it because its truth was ratified to their souls by the Testimony of the Holy Spirit.” The question which was before him, and with which he was ostensibly dealing in disposing of the “unfortunate old theory” was this, Is the Bible inspired, and therefore inerrant? That is, the question really is, What is the Bible in itself as a written record? Nothing is gained in the way of clear reasoning or fair dealing with the Reformers by mixing up that question with another and very different and altogether distinct question, How do we come to have an infallible persuasion of the truths of the Bible?
Now the Reformers, including Calvin, beyond all question believed the Bible to be “inspired and therefore inerrant.” And if they regarded the influence of the Holy Spirit as necessary in order to the spiritual experience of the power of the Word, and strenuously taught to that effect, as all evangelical theologians believing in verbal inspiration have ever done, that teaching of theirs confirmed rather than discredited the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration. The Holy Spirit teaches on this point as a matter of religious experience precisely what He teaches both expressly and by clear implication in the Word—that and no more. He has revealed and recorded in the Scriptures the things of Christ, and in His further work in regeneration and sanctification He takes these things and shows them to men. Apart from the logical confusion in which Professor Smith involves himself and the unfortunate enquirer whom he was oracularly instructing on this point, it seems a very curious method of honouring the Holy Spirit to suggest that His perfect work in applying the Scriptures for the salvation of souls is fitted to render “futile” and “irrelevant” the discussion of His equally perfect work in inspiring and giving the Scriptures, as a perfect instrument for the accomplishment of the gracious purpose of salvation. Yet Professor Smith confidently says to the enquirer:—”Then you will realise”—that is, when the Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows them to you—”how futile, how irrelevant, is all this talk about inerrancy.” The teaching of Professor Smith then is to this effect—It is futile and irrelevant for a man with the Bible in his hand to ask, Is this Book the infallible Word of God or is it not? He must not expect an infallible record! And if the record has mistakes or errors in it, he cannot expect to find it any more trustworthy than it is! No matter, “the use of the Gospels is to bring us into contact with Jesus”! Farther on Professor Smith says, “the supreme evidence of Christianity is Christ and He is self-attesting.” Now all this talk about “contact with Jesus” and about His being the “supreme evidence,” &c., looks even pious and impressive; but it has the fatal defect of being vague and indefinite, and that at a time when clearness and precision were eminently necessary. To say to a man, Get into contact with Jesus, and then it will not matter to you whether Scripture is infallible or not! or to say, Christ is the “supreme evidence,” and He is “self-attesting” though there are mistakes in Scripture!—to say either of these things is to say what is wholly inconsistent with any intelligent or reverent contact with Jesus. Again, Christ is the “supreme evidence”—evidence of what? Of the futility and irrelevancy of regarding the Bible as infallible? Or of the theory that it does not matter whether the Bible is infallible or not? This seems to be Professor Smith’s theory. Whether it be not an “unfortunate old theory” let him and your readers judge in the light of the uniform teaching and practice of Christ. The peculiarly sad mistake in the whole circumstances of the case before him was that he did not take the inquirer humbly with him to inquire of the Lord Himself—for He deals with the question of inspiration in the Bible itself. Christ may in this inquiry be more properly called the SUPREME WITNESS than the “supreme evidence.” And never once in the course of His life of testimony to the truth did He directly or indirectly teach or hint that any word of the record was written in error. He invariably and most emphatically taught that the Scripture was the final authority for the life of men and that it could “not be broken.” But Professor Smith did not teach the inquirer according to the teaching of Christ, nor did he send him to Christ’s Word—to the law, to the prophets, and to the Psalms to find out what Christ says in these about the inspiration by which they were produced. Let us hope that in his professorial capacity he will not throw contempt on Christ’s teaching about the inerrancy of Scripture by a pretence of respect for Christ as the “supreme evidence.”
One other thing I must notice: Professor Smith makes the definite assertion, “Not the Bible, but the writers of it were inspired.” This assertion might pass for a kind of inspired statement itself with the ignorant or the unthinking. But with the Bible in our hands we know that the assertion is grossly erroneous. The Bible teaches precisely the opposite doctrine in express terms as to what is inspired. PASA GRAPHE THEOPNEUSTOS —All Scripture is inspired of God—(2 Tim. iii. 16). I do not wait to discuss the variations of rendering in the Revised Version —”Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” &c., which is a forced and unnatural rendering, and obviously adopted by way of concession to those revisers who did not like the assertion of verbal inspiration. But, in any case, the passage serves to pulverise Professor Smith’s dictum—”Not the Bible, but the writers of it were inspired.” It is, even with the rendering of the Revised Version, THE SCRIPTURE THAT IS INSPIRED, NOT “the writers of it.” The Bible nowhere speaks of “inspired men;” nor is the Scripture a collection, less or more, of the best thoughts of inspired men, and subject to the ordinary imperfections of men even at their best. On the showing of Scripture itself it is the Word of God; and according to the absolutely clear teaching of Christ Himself what was WRITTEN was the infallible Word of God. Most, if not all, of the so-called “theories” of inspiration have arisen out of an altogether vain effort to determine the question, How can the Scripture be the Word of God throughout, and yet written by human hands? That the Holy Spirit INSPIRED the record and that it was made by human hands we know, for He has told us. Of the MANNER of His influence on the writers we know absolutely nothing; and it is not only in vain, it is also profane to speculate, and to talk about “dictation” or “superintendence” or “suggestion,” or to sneer at the Scripture teaching on verbal inspiration as “mechanical.” The mode of the Spirit’s operation is an inscrutable mystery. We have the fact declared and ample evidence to constrain belief; but we cannot discuss the mode: it lies quite outside the range of human thought. Similarly we believe that the Son of God became Man, and yet was God still, and that He is now exalted as both God and Man in two distinct natures and One Person. That there are two natures in One Person is revealed; the mode of their mutual subsistence is concealed. In dealing with the great things of God’s Word, it were obviously well for Professor Smith and all of us to remember that if Jesus Christ teaches one thing, and man teaches quite another thing on the same subject the man, though perhaps full of self-confidence, is certainly wrong—I am, faithfully yours,
JAMES DICK.
EASTON LODGE,
CLIFTONVILLE, BELFAST,
14th December, 1910.