NEW ENGLANDER

AND

YALE REVIEW.

No. CCXXVII.

FEBRUARY, 1889.

ARTICLE I. PROFESSOR SHEDD'S DOGMATIC

THEOLOGY.

Dogmatic Theology. By W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York. Two vols. Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, 1888. 8vo, pp. 546, 803.

THERE are two classes of inquiries which every work on Systematic Theology which appears in our time must meet. One relates to the Biblical, the other to the philosophical groundwork of the system. Biblical criticism will no longer pass unchallenged the use of proof-texts which do not legitimately establish the propositions maintained, nor will the philosophical spirit of our time accept the metaphysics of theology without close inquiry as to its rational grounds. We have before us the latest product of American Doctrinal Theology, in two portly volumes. The author is distinguished by his previous contributions to theological literature and by his long period of service

as Professor in two of our foremost theological institutions. He is well known as a leading representative of the type of theology of which Augustine and Calvin are the great historic exponents. He avows his adherence (Pref., pp. vi. vii.) to it as against the more modern modes of thought in theology, declaring his conviction that in former ages "there were some men who thought more deeply, and came nearer to the center of truth upon some subjects, than any modern minds."

Whatever may be thought of the opinions advocated, it will not be doubted that the author's labors are characterized by deep seriousness and intense conviction regarding the themes treated. The sense of the importance of the great problems of Christian Theology which pervades Dr. Shedd's volumes, entitles the spirit and purpose of his treatise to the respect of all who dissent from his opinions. The doctrinal position of the author makes it especially desirable to consider some of the Biblical and philosophical phases of his system. This it shall be our aim to do, trusting that the selection of points of special present interest here and there will not be taken as indicating what we might say of other parts of the work.

The chapter on "Bibliology" whose main topics are Revelation and Inspiration first enlists our attention. Revelation is distinguished as general or unwritten, and special or written. The former kind of revelation is fallible because of human depravity and limitations in appropriating it (p. 66). In the case of written revelation freedom from error is secured by inspiration. Those who are the organs of special revelation are also inspired to express and record the revelation infallibly (pp. 70, 71). One might ask why the distinction between unwritten and written should make all the difference between fallible and infallible revelation. If fallible and depraved men are in both cases made the organs of divine revelation, how is it that the imperfections of the media should in all cases of unwritten revelation so affect the result as to render it fallible and in no case so affect the written result in any manner or degree? Might not one, in conceivable and perhaps in actual cases, be as infallibly inspired to speak or to act as to write? In these assumed distinctions, of which it is almost too little to say that no proof is given, lie the germs of the author's whole theory of the Bible.

Inspiration and infallibility must be confined and limited to the Book. It must therefore be carefully denied at the outset that they can pertain to any person for any purpose except for that of writing a part of the Bible. All this is done by simple a priori dogmatic definition.

The author's view is that inspiration secures inerrancy. "All this Biblical history, chronology, and geography, differs from corresponding matter in uninspired literature, by being unmixed with error" (p. 69). Inspired men may obtain their information either by divine revelation or in ordinary ways, but "inspiration insures freedom from error in presenting the truth which has been obtained" (p. 70). In this connection it is said that "inspiration goes no further than this," i. e., no further than to guard from error, but on page 85 it is stated that inspiration differs from regeneration, "in that the aim (of inspiration) is not to impart holiness, but information." "This shows that inspiration is only intellectual illumination." 'They (the Biblical writers) had a perfect knowledge on the points respecting which they were inspired" (p. 85). Passing the point that to inspiration is assigned, in these two different connections, widely differing range and functions, the matter of chief interest is to see by what arguments the absolute freedom from error on the part of the Scripture writers, even extending to perfect chronology and geography, is supported.

After the Westminster Confession is cited in evidence, seven passages of Scripture are cited as "proofs of the infallibility of the Scriptures" (p. 73). They are: II Tim. iii. 16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Those who are skeptical as to Dr. Shedd's theory will make at least three abatements from the force of this passage for the author's purpose: (1) That the passage should be translated as in the R. V.: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching," etc., where the profitableness of scripture is the main quality affirmed and where no declaration of the scope of inspiration is necessarily found. (2) That, at most, the statement can in strictness refer only to the Old Testament. (3) That it predicates inspiration of the Scriptures and not infalli bility and hence has no bearing on the particular theory of inspiration required to be proved. The second "proof" is: Heb.

i. 1, 2, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last times spoken unto us by his Son." That this passage asserts that a revelation was made through certain Biblical writers (though the terms are not so specific as to be limited to those who wrote) may be maintained, but that it asserts, implies, or suggests the idea of the absolute infallibility of any, to say nothing of all Biblical authors, could never be imagined by anyone who was not under the spell of an a priori theory and under much stress for "proofs." The next is I Cor. ii. 13, "Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." The connection here must have escaped the author's attention. The chapter is a description of the method and spirit of Paul's preaching at Corinth when he founded the church there, and if his language implied any claim on Paul's part to infallible knowledge of religious truth so as to make it a cogent proof-text for establishing the infallibility of the apostle, it would establish that infallibility primarily for his preaching and would so far imperil rather than support Dr. Shedd's theory of exclusively infallible written revelation. The reader must judge of the force of the other four "proofs of infallibility, upon whose use for the definition in question I forbear to comment. They are: II Pet. i. 21, "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"; John v. 39, "Search the Scriptures" (which however should read: "Ye search the Scriptures, as the context shows and as the R. V. and most modern scholars render); Rom. iii. 2, "Unto them were committed the oracles of God"; Isa. viii. 22, "Look ye to the law and to the testimony."

The proof, and the whole proof of the theory in question is before the reader. There are quotations from theologians and affirmations by the author, but everything of the nature of argument is presented above (vid. p. 73). With the merits of the theory presented we are not here concerned. We do not hesitate to say, however, that the theory as maintained by Dr. Shedd is not deduced from the Scriptures, but is of a purely a priori character and is unsupported by any arguments which approach to the nature of cogent evidence. The theory is implicitly con

tained in the definitions and assumptions with which the discussion starts. There are three presuppositions (vid. pp. 74–77) which yield the theory in advance entirely independent of any question of evidence or fact. They are: (1.) The difficulty of distinguishing and assigning values higher and lower to what Dr. Shedd calls the "primary" and "secondary" elements of Scripture, i. e., of distinguishing between elements of human imperfection and the essential contents of divine truth. No such distinction, in Dr. Shedd's opinion, can be made or applied. "The primary and the secondary, the doctrinal and the historical elements of Scripture, stand or fall together" (p. 75). (2.) It is a priori improbable that God would permit any inaccuracy to cleave to his revelation. (3.) This is the easiest theory to maintain. It is certain that from an a priori standing-point this last consideration is the great attraction of the view taken. But what shall be said of the numberless conflicts with undeniable fact into which the theory brings us? It is easiest to maintain in mere definition and assertion, but not in the face of inductive investigation and historic fact. To make close and difficult discriminations, such as an inductive theory of inspiration is obliged to undertake, may not be a welcome task, but the making of difficult distinctions is not a necessity from which the conscientious student and investigator should think himself absolved. His method will have the great disadvantage of being difficult, and will, of course, be liable to error, but it has the advantage of helping on religious thought toward a theory which shall square with the phenomena of the Bible as determined by patient and prolonged historic research and criticism, as opposed to that purely rationalistic procedure which grounds its views of the Bible on the necessities of a speculative system of theology. It has the further advantage of commending itself to the scientific spirit of our age, of fostering respect for theological methods, and of commending the Bible, as it is, to those minds which, though not averse to evangelical religion, are weary of those claims of formal infallibility in record, chronology, and geography which all study of the Bible disproves.

A single additional example of the discussion of this subject should be adduced before we pass to another point. The author