1890 110 In the April number of a popular periodical an article appears bearing the title of "The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture." It comes from the pen of one who is unquestionably a leader of men in the sphere of politics, no other than Mr. Gladstone, the glamour of whose name is sufficient to dazzle the minds of many, and to clothe his remarks with an air that would silence most objectors. As the subject of his paper is of the highest importance, and has relation to man's eternal interests, I do not think it unbecoming, or presumptuous, to offer a few words upon what so vitally concerns one.
This paper which purports to be the first of a series has for the faithful a pleasing and high-sounding title; but we have not to wait for the last to know that the promise is only to the ear and eye. The reality offered is rather "the sand," and utterly subversive of the truth of a revelation from God to man. For if imperfect comprehension, and imperfect expression characterised the "vehicle," i. e., the man who received the first communication from God, then we certainly have not God's word to man, but only man's word about God. Of the title "The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture" Mr. G. says "it sounds like a challenge." And the challenge is to accept the scriptures, on the moral and spiritual and historical ground of their characters in themselves. What all this means, or the latent thought wrapped up in it, comes out soon. The challenge is as high-sounding as the title, but, when stript of its wordy garment, it stands before us in its naked repulsiveness as a challenge to accept the Bible as a Divine Revelation, after the critic has deprived it of all its. real and peculiar authority and value.
Mr. G. would contend for the scriptures "as corresponding by their contents to the idea of a divine revelation to man." This idea is then outside and independent of the scripture. For to attempt to prove the correspondence between the scripture and an idea is valueless. It would seem that man has it through the "known divine operations in other spheres" (I suppose, the material creation, and providence). How does man know apart from the Bible that there are divine operations in other spheres? The ancient pagans saw these self-same operations, but looked at them as the operations of nature, and concluded that nature was eternal. If he admits — as he must — that these divine operations. in other spheres are only known through the scripture, his reasoning amounts to this, that by the Bible-we know that these operations in other spheres are divine; and then, by a change of front, these same operations are proof that the Bible is a divine revelation. Is this logic? Is ii not rather arguing in a circle? There must be a fixed point to begin with. That fixed point every believer has by faith in God's word (Heb. 11:1-2). All this illogical shuffle is because he says holy scripture is a divine revelation, in which nevertheless we see the imperfection and failing memory, etc., of man. But if he does not admit receiving this "idea" from the Bible, we can only ask where did he get it? Was it from the prehistoric documents of other religions, or from himself?
There is no need to notice more than one or two points; the aim and infidel character of this article (I grieve to say it of a professedly religious man), is patent. His point of departure is this, "And yet on the very threshold I embrace, in what I think a substantial sense, one of the great canons of modern criticism which teaches us that the scriptures are to be treated like any other book in the trial of their title." Mark it well: the Bible (he talks of venerating it) is brought down to the level of any other book! If he really believed it God's word, would he dare thus treat it? That one of the shameless and morally despicable Oxford Essayists so spoke is the fact: but does the Anglican Mr. G. accept that rationalism as the truth? The holy scripture reveals to us man's sin and ruin, God's judgment, grace and redemption through Christ. Is that to be treated like any other book? But Mr. G. has applied "modern criticism," the shallowest quack of a day shallow in faith, which sits in judgment upon God's word, and leaves us — NOTHING! God's word proclaims its own title, and admits of no trial. "Thus saith the Lord." Mr. G., in charging the book with imperfections, etc., virtually denies it to be the word of God.
This is Mr. G.'s "Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture." Is language only to be used to conceal thought and to deceive? This is intolerable enough in the House, or at the hustings: what is it when one takes the chain of divinity with God's word as the theme? It will charm freethinkers of every shade. "The many diversified [= contradictory] utterances it contains proceeded from man." Is this true or false? Is it so, a believer speaks of "holy scripture"? Man's copies, and translations is not the point; for "the question whether through supernatural guidance [i.e., whether they were inspired] they were for this purpose more than men is to be determined like other disputable questions by the evidence." So then it is a "disputable question" whether God has spoken through men or not! Is it harsh to call this paper infidel?
"Thus the accuracy of the text, the age, and authorship of the books open up a vast field of merely literary controversy." How he confounds "holy scripture" with human copies and translations and external or subordinate questions! He owns his ignorance of Hebrew. Therefore the "accuracy of the text" is for him the accuracy of the translation, so far as the Old Testament is concerned. But it is enough for him that the chronologies of the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch are variant, to doubt the accuracy of the text, that is "holy scripture." Who says that the versions of the Bible are inspired? "And such a question as whether the closing verses of St. Mark's Gospel have the authority of scripture must be determined by literary evidence, as much as the genuineness of the pretended preface to the Aeneid, or of a particular stanza in Catallus." How utterly absent from his mind is the thought that he is speaking of God's book! The pretended preface, the stanza, and the close of Mark's Gospel to him stand side by side. If the close of Mark's Gospel be not scripture, prove it if you can, but know that your canon of modern criticism is not sufficient. Can we wonder that infidelity so pervades the "masses," when the man who would pose as their champion, or advocate, can so write? The progress of infidelity is not more due to the lectures and writings of the avowed sceptic than to such as, professing Christianity, sap its foundation.
But there is more which cannot leave a doubt in any right mind, that the Bible as the word of God is denied." I will remind the reader that those who believe in divine revelation, as pervading or as contained in the scriptures, and especially who accept the doctrine of literalism as to the vehicle of that inspiration have to lay their account with the following (among other) considerations, which it is hard for them to repudiate as inadmissible. There may have been," and then follow the considerations, seven in number, which treat the text and the copies as the same, that effectually denies "inspiration," and if there is no inspiration there is no "holy scripture." But what are these weighty considerations? "(1) Imperfect comprehension of that which was communicated. (2) Imperfect expression of what had been comprehended." Now these two are essentially a denial of "holy scripture" as a revelation from God.
The remaining five points have their importance as regards copies and translations into different languages. But the accuracy of copies and translations is a small matter compared to the question in the first two considerations, which is — If God was pleased to give a revelation to man, could He not, nay, would He not, enable the man whom He chose as His "vehicle" to comprehend perfectly, and to express perfectly, what He in love was pleased to communicate? To attribute possible imperfect comprehension or imperfect expression to the "vehicle" is a denial of God's wisdom, His care and love; of His wisdom in using an imperfect instrument; of His care and love for a lost world in not (for the time) fitting the "vehicle" to give without possibility of error His own thoughts and words. The word of God gives explicit answers to both these "considerations." As to imperfect comprehension "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Does Mr. G. suppose the Holy Ghost was not able to make them comprehend? Then as to imperfect expression "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth," read 1 Cor. 2:13. In presence of these scriptures the two considerations above are nothing short of infidelity. But more: 2 Tim. 3:16 declares that "every scripture is inspired of God and profitable," or, if we take it as is possible, "every scripture, being inspired of God, is also profitable," it comes substantially to the like result of flatly contradicting on God's part this unholy canon. Scripture, observe, is the grand safeguard for the last days, for modern times. Would that Mr. G. and thousands like him laid it to heart! All holy writ is said or assumed to be inspired of God.
Mr. G. thinks it a legitimate question to discuss about the books of the Bible, differing so much "from the other documents of pre-historic religions, while they too [the other documents] are precious in various ways, as to make them witnesses and buttresses to the office of holy scripture rather than sharers in it, although in their degree they may be this also." What can this mean, but that admitting the "holy scripture" to be a divine revelation, these "other documents" may be such also in their degree. We shall soon have revelation stamped upon all the books of prehistoric religions ever known. "Prehistoric" is a convenient word for "modern criticism," which pretends to look back into the past, and surmise at least the existence of "other documents" independent of the Bible, and in their degree divine! What is the meaning of a measured divinity? The aim is clear: to lower the scriptures; to exalt ancient impostures.
We could smile at this, were not the theme so solemn. There is in the word of God a very serious "consideration" for those who make void the word of God by their traditional teaching; what about those who say that the Bible is in part a forgery? Mr. G. by the aid of "modern criticism" has come to that conclusion. "It has long been known, for example, that portions of the historical books of the Old Testament, such as the Books of Chronicles, were of a date very far later than most of the events which they record, and that a portion of the prophecies included in the Book of Isaiah were later than his time, etc." Well, the Books of the Chronicles go up to Adam no doubt and thus may be said to be very far later than the events! But it is false of the closing events recorded. Does the man expect a record of the events before the events themselves occur? Immediately, or even considerably after does not touch the truthfulness of the record. A child would know that the events must happen before they can be recorded. Is it a sly insinuation that the so-called record was invented? or that the events as given never occurred at all? This is worthy of a "specialist," of the most destructive critic.
There is no insinuation, but positive statement in what follows, "that a portion of the prophecies included in the Book of Isaiah were later than his time." So then we have quasi-prophecies handed down to us under a false name, endorsed by the Lord and His apostles as we see throughout the N.T.! "Modern criticism" knows better. Is this God's book? is it "holy scripture"? Is it an "impregnable rock"? For if the Book affirms such and such writings to be the prophecies of Isaiah when they are not, the character of the whole book from Genesis to Revelation is gone. It cannot be holy scripture when there is a lie in it. Think of a man passing as an advocate for the impregnability of the holy scripture, yet affirming that it contains falsehoods! Mr. G. must have drunk copiously from the pool of destructive criticism before he could calmly make such an assertion. He must be much of the same opinion as T. Carlyle — who said of the English people, "mostly fools" — if he thinks that his readers can accept him as an advocate for the "impregnable rock" of holy scripture which he charges with falsehood.
Thus Mr. G. and the "specialist" (a euphemism for an infidel) come into the "open field" of literary criticism, as it were arm in arm, to attack the text, … the age and the authorship of holy scripture; and what do they leave us? Can we respect forgeries?
Mr. G. reminds his readers "that those who believe in a divine revelation as pervading or as contained in the scriptures." So then scripture as a whole is not a divine revelation after all, but only contains it! i.e., you must take the divine revelation out of the scripture, as you take the jewel out of its casket; but he has not told us how, save by "modern criticism," which rejects jewel, and casket, and all.
He says that the form of the older books of the Old Testament does not correspond as a rule with their titles. We ask, Does the form of his paper correspond with its title? The true title of the Bible is found within itself, and we are sure that the form of the book, as a whole, and in all its parts, does correspond with that title. We know that the holy scripture is an impregnable rock; but this Mr. G. in complimentary terms labours to disprove and undermine.
Honest criticism (not of the modern kind) of what uninspired copyists have done is a helpful work to-maintain the purity of the sacred text. It has long been known that some German sceptics, followed by some credulous Englishmen, say that the prophecies under the name of Isaiah are not his, but the work of an impostor; if it were truly so, the book, however wonderful, is not the scripture of God. There is not the slightest need for "specialists" to waste time-and learning (!) upon a book that has long been known as an imposture. In the alleged case we may without fear let the true and the false Isaiah remain side by side within the same covers. How can these men explain that "the great unknown" rises if possible beyond the highest of prophets? (Yet set here and there in this paper are passages which lead one to think, yea to hope that the affections of the writer's heart are in conflict with the infidelity of his intellect. Incontestably there is nothing so sublime, nor such sustained sublimity, as Isa. 40 – 66. Is there no key to such perversity of modern criticism? A simple, sufficient, and sure one. They start from the sceptical premise that there is no such thing as true prophecy. They can allow more or less the early chapters to be Isaiah's, as the times were prehistoric. For them the historians must be heathen, or the Jewish of no real value, as writers long after the events. But as the grand strain of Isa. 40 – 66, if genuine, is indubitable prophecy, prophecy not merely of Babylon destroyed by Cyrus, but, what is far more serious, of Christ rejected by the Jews, "modern criticism" will not have it. It is not Isaiah, but a pseudo-Isaiah! Q.E.D. But it was certainly even in Greek version long before our Lord was born and rejected by the Jews. How came a pseudo-Isaiah to write Isa. 53? The "modern criticism" of Mr. G. is folly as well as infidelity, though he may stop short of its logical and necessary consequences. R. Beacon.